You are on page 1of 922

(Jorufll Ulaui i>rl|nol Sibraty

Digitized

by Microsoft

KD
V.

feniel)

3 1924 02r"^'Smmm

Digitized

by Microsoft

This

book was

digitized

by Microsoft Corporation

in

cooperation

witli

Cornell University Library, 2008.


limited quantity

You may use and print this copy in


for

your personal purposes, but


it

may not distribute

or

provide access to
for

(or modified or partial versions of it)

revenue-generating or other commercial purposes.

Digitized

by Microsoft

A DIGEST OF ENGLISH
VOL.
I.

CIVIL LA\^

Digitized

by Microsoft

Digitized

by Microsoft

A DIGEST

ENGLISH CIVIL LAW


EDWARD JENKS,
;

M.A., B.C.L.

OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE PRIhTClPAL AND DIRECTOR OF LEGAL STUDIES OF THE LAW society; FORMERLY FELLOW OF KING'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
((Biritnr)

W. M. GELD ART, M.A.,


C.B.E.

B.C.L.,

R.

W. LEE, M. A.,

B.C.L.,

K.C. (Quebec)
of gray's inn; professor of romanDUTCH LAW IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD READER IN JURISPRUDENCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
",

OF Lincoln's inn; vinerian professor of ENGLISH law; FELLOW OF ALL SOULS COLLEGE, OXFORD

W.

S.

HOLDSWORTH,
D.C.L., K.C.

?^\^*'' ,. *V.\V.\ -^^ Kf \


J-

^"""''-

OF LINCOLN'S INN; ALL SOULS READER IN ENGLISH law; FELLOW AND ASSISTANT TUTOR OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, OXFORD;, FOREIGN ASSOCIATE OF THE ROYAL BELGIAN ACADEMY

^'

IVliLiCiO, IVl.A,,

iS.CLi.

OF THE INNER TEMPLE; FELLOW AND TUTOR OF MERTON COLLEGE, OXFORD; LATE SOLICITOR TO THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR; KNIGHT BACHELOR

^arrtatera at %aia

SECOND EDITION
VOL.
I.

BOOK BOOK BOOK

General
Obligations

II

III

Property

LONDON

BUTTEEWORTH &
SYDNEY
:

CO.,

Bell Yaed, Temple Bar.


& & & &
CO. (auSTEAUA), LTD.
CO. (iNDIA), LTD. CO. (CANADA), LTD. CO. (AUSTBALIA), LTD.

CALCUTTA

WINNIPEG

WELLINGTON

(n.Z.)":

BUTTEBWOBTH BUTTEBWOBTH BUTTEBWOBTH BUTTEBWOBTH


1921.

Digitized

by Microsoft

THE WBITEPKIAES PKBSS, LTD. lONDON AND TONBRlDaE.

Digitized

by Microsoft

PREFACE TO THE CONSOLIDATED EDITION


(By the Editor)
This work, which, has appeared
during the past sixteen years,
solidated form.
is

in eleven instalments

now

republished in con-

The
and

text has been revised


entirely

down

to date

new Tables

of Statutes

and brought and

new and comprehensive Index, have replaced the former fragmentary lists. The favour with
Cases, as well as a

which the instalments, despite their obvious inconveniences, have been received, encourages the authors to hope that,
in its greatly irtiproved form, the consolidated edition

may

meet with

still

greater approval.
it

Digest differs from a Code, mainly in that

professes

merely to state the rules which are covered by existing

at when the work of purely private authorsno other respect than that which
authority.
It

claims

least,

it

is

is

derived from a belief that

it

represents

an honest,

intelligent,

and industrious attempt

to reduce the chaos


order.

of existing materials to simplicity

and

But no one

who

is

at all acquainted with the condition in

materials of English

Law have
if

been

left

which thfe by the course of

history will doubt that,

such an attempt has been, in

regard to

it,

even to a moderate extent successful, that

attempt

will

have rendered, both to no small

scientific enquirers

and to busy

practitioners,

service.

The extent

of

Digitized

by Microsoft

iv

PREFACE TO THE CONSOLIDATED EDITION


by
and

the materials which have been brought under review


the authors of this Digest
at the thousand or
judicial reports

may

be inferred from a glance


of English statutes

more volumes

to be found in

any well-equipped law


to pick

library

but the difficulty of handling them

to those

whose painful task

it is

known only their daily way


is

through them.

The chief intellectual effort demanded of the authors of the work has been to extract, by appropriate treatment, from this formless heap of statutes and judicial decisions, the rules which such authorities enunciate and expound, and to arrange those rules in the most convenient and As a basis, the authors have followed accessible form. what is now the generally accepted plan of the European
Civil

Codes

for such a basis obviously facilitates the use

of the

work by Continental

readers,

and

will, it is

hoped,

do something to further the important study of ComparaBut no British or American reader tive Jurisprudence.
need fear that English legal rules have, in
distorted to
fit

this

work, been

foreign analogues, or even disguised in

foreign phraseology.

Free scope has been given to the

radical peculiarities of English

Law

and no attempt has


into foreign moulds.

been made

to

fit

Enghsh materials

Thus, for example, the comparative poverty of English

Family

Law

stands revealed in the brevity of

Book IV.

while the compensating richness of the English

Law

of

Trusts appears in the


tion

many

details

of

Book

III.,

Sec-

XVII.

It

may

be that a study of the latter will

enable the Continental lawyer to grasp the significance of


the saying attributed, many years ago, to a distinguished " I cannot understand your English German jurist
:

Trust."

Digitized

by Microsoft

PREFACE TO THE CONSOLIDATED EDITION


Naturally, in a

work avowedly based on But the

authority,

authority has been quoted for substantially every rule


stated in the text of the work.
restricting the size of the

necessity of
limits

work within moderate

has compelled a rigid selection


decisions

among

the countless judicial


justify

which might be quoted to


rules in the text
;

many

of the

more important

and

this necessity will,

perhaps, result in some criticism by the reader.

The

authors can only plegd that, in exercising their choice,

they have striven to mention the leading authorities, while

by no means neglecting

to

make

use of others.

study of

the cases mentioned in these pages, or a reference to larger

works, such as Lord Halsbury's Laws of England, which

aim at analyzing

all

the authorities, will soon put the

reader on thcxtrack of fuller illustrations. the Table of Cases contained in this

But a glance at work may suggest by no means

that, even with these restrictions, the authors' research

into the materials of the reports has been

perfunctory.

This work

is

not an exposition of legal history, but a


Yet,
is
it,

statement of existing law.

to

those

who know

anything of English Law,


without some knowledge
therefore,

it

a commonplace, that no
in

one can really understand

many
history.

of its branches,
It
is

of

its

hoped,

that

the historical

notes

which have

been

sparingly interspersed with the text,


their usefulness,

may

not be without

even to the practitioner, while to the

student they may, possibly, seem not the least useful part
of the work.
It

remains to point out that this Digest

is

co-operative
of each

in a double sense.

Not only has the preparation


specialist hands,

part of

it

been entrusted to

but the work

Digitized

by Microsoft

VI

PREFACE TO THE CONSOLIDATED EDITION


each author has. received the thorough,
it,

of

might almost

be said, the merciless, criticism of his colleagues.

Every

statement in the

first

four Books was subjected to dis-

cussion at two meetings of the authors, held at intervals


of not less

than three months'

and, though this exacting

process was partially interrupted

the contents of

Book V. were

discussed in detail
It
is,

by the war, yet even by the


doubtless, mainly

editor as well as the draftsman.

due to

this

co-operative process, th^t the actual errors


"

in the text of the original

volumes have, to judge by


critics,

the testimony of independent


few.
It

been surprisingly

must, however, be understood, that the process of


'

revision

for

the present consolidated edition has

been

perforce entrusted to the sole responsibility pf the editor,

though

his colleagues

have been good enough to

rendefi

him

such voluntary assistance as lay in their power.

Those who

know anything

of the present

overwhelming claims on the


will

time of university teachers

readily understand the

reasons which have led to this division of labour, in itself


regrettable.
rise to a

Should, however, the success of the work give


for yet another edition, the editor hopes,

demand

with good reason, that his responsibilities in connection with it may be lightened, and the readers of the work
.

benefited,

by the renewed co-operation

of those colleagues

to

whose labours

in the past the value of the

work

is

mainly
chief;

due,

and whose sympathy and help have been the


his long

compensation which he has enjoyed in


task.

and laborious

The editor and his colleagues are indebted, for the consolidated Tables of Statutes and Cases, which, add so greatly to the usefulness of the edition, to Mr. A. D. Bowers,

Digitized

by Microsoft

PREFACE TO THE CONSOLIDATED EDITION


whose assistance

vu

in the countless details of co-ordination


of

and arrangement necessitated by the scope


as the present, has,
valiie.

such a work

from

its

inception, been o* the highest

London,
December, 1920.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Digitized

by Microsoft

SCHEME OF THE WORK


Book Book
I.

General

....
.
.

Edward Jenks

II.
I.

Obligations
Obligations arising from Con-

Part

tract (General)

R.

W.

Lee

Part

II.

Obligations arising from Par-

ticular Contracts

....
arising

R.

W. Lee

Part

III. Obligations

from
J. C. Miles
.

Quasi-Contract and Torts

Book Book

III.

Things (Property Law)

Edward Jenks

IV.

Family

Law
W.

W. M.
S.

Geldart

Book

V.

Succession

Holdsworth

Digitized

by Microsoft

Digitized

by Microsoft

'!'i

.![

,,:

CONTENTS
CONTENTS OF BOOK
(General)
Section I. PERSONS
,

./
'

11 /

PAGE

Title Title
Section

I.

Natural Persons
Artificial Persons

'

.;'

II.

II.THINGS

At

IS

Section III.LEGAL

ACTS
20
32

Title
Title

I.

II.

Legal Capacity Declaration of Intention


Conditions

Title

III.

....
.

47
52

Title IV.

Agency and Representation

Section IV.TIME Section


Section

67

V.LIMITATION OF ACTIONS VI. SELF HELP

....
II,

72 82

CONTENTS OF BOOK
(Obligations.
Section I. FORMATION
,

Part

Contract (General))
i.i
i
'

OF CONTRACT
.

Title
Title

I.

II.

Offer and Acceptance Form and Consideration


.

8S

92
103

Section
Section

TO A CONTRACT III. PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT


II.PARTIES
I.

Title Title

Duty of Performance
Consequences of Non-Performance Impossibility of Performance

105^

II.

120 129

Title

III.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Xll

CONTENTS
OF CONTRACT continued.
.
.

Section III. PERFORMANCE Title IV. Title


V.

Reciprocal Promises

Earnest and Penalties

.134 .136
.

CONTRACT Section V.DISCHARGE OF CONTRACT. Section VI.DISCHARGE OF RIGHTS OF ACTION ARISING FROM CONTRACT
SectionIV.ASSIGNMENT OF,
. . .

141

144

....
.

150
153

Section VII. CO-DEBTOkS

AND CO-CREDITORS
II,

CONTENTS OF BOOK
(Obligations.
Section I. SALE

Part

II

Contracts (Particular))
161

Title Title
Section

I.

Sale of Goods
Sale of Land

II.

II.HIRE

....
.

184
195

Section III.LOAN

Title Title
Section

I.

II.

Loan of Goods Loan of Money

198
201

IV.DEPOSIT

203

Section

V.EMPLOYMENT
I.

Title

Title

II.

Title HI. Title IV. Title


Section Section
StecTioN

Master and Servant Master and Apprentice Work and Labour

207

216
221 225

Wages

V.

Principal and Agent

228

VI. INNKEEPER
VII. CARRIAGE
-

AND GUEST
.
.

244 249
262

VIII.PARTNERSHIP

Section Section Section

IX.GUARANTEE

290
.

X.INSURANCE XL GAMING AND WAGERING

303

309

Digitized

by Microsoft

CONTENTS

xiii

CONTENTS OF BOOK
(Obligations.
A. B.

Part III Quasi-Contract and Torts)


II,

PAGE

QUASI-CONTRACT

315

TORTS
Section I. GENERAL

Title
Title

I.

Preliminary
Capacity
in

.....
.
.

326 339 346


350
358

II.

Exemptions from Liability for Torts Respect of Torts Liability for the Torts of Others

Title Title

III.

Title IV.
V.

Liability for the Acts of Animals

Title VI.

Extinction and Transfer of Rights


362

AND Liabilities in Tort Title VII. Remedies for Torts


Section II.TORTS IN

....
.
.

369

RESPECT OF LAND

Title Title
Title

I.

Trespass
Dispossession

II.-

III.

Nuisance

..... ..... .....


RespEct of Land
. .
. .

380
388
391

Title IV.

Other Torts

in

405

Section III.TORTS IN

RESPECT OF CHATTELS

PERSONAL
Title
Title
I.

Trespass to Goods

II.

Conversion

.....
and Battery
.

407

414
422

Title

III.

Title IV.

Detinue Other Torts

Personal
Section

.......
in

Respect of Chattels
426

IV.TORTS IN RESPECT OF THE PERSON


I.

Title

Trespass to the Person


^Assault

Sub-Title A.

Sue-Title B.

False

431

Imprisonment
in

439

Title

II.

Other Injuries

Person
Title
III.

.......
.
.

Respect of the
445

S'tatutory Compensation for Acci4S5

dents AND Industrial Diseases

Digitized

by Microsoft

xiv

CONTENTS
PAGE
continued.

B.

TORTS
Section

V.TORTS IN R.ESPECT OF DOMESTIC


I.

AND CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS


Title
Title

Seduction

II.

Loss

.....
.
.

464 470

of Consortium

Title

III.

Deprivation of Services

474
479
481

Title IV.

Procuring Breach of Contract, and Interfering with Business

Section

VI. CONSPIRACY
IN

.....
.
.

Section VII.TORTS

RESPECT OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE,


I.

THE

Title Title

^Malicious Prosecution

Civil Process
II.

......
.
.

and Abuse of
487

Maintenance and Champerty

496

IN RESPECT OF THE REPUTATION (DEFAMATION) .501 IX.TORTS IN RESPECT OF PUBLIC Section


Section VIII.TORTS
.
.
;

,,

RIGHTS, EXECUTION,
Section

AND DISTRESS
! ,

529

].

X.DECEIT
'

53^

NOTE ON THE TREATMENT OF NEGLIGENCE IN


THIS

WORK.

545

CONTENTS OF BOOK
(Propertx)
a;

III

CONTENTS
A.

XV
PAGE

lAND continued.
Section I. INTERESTS IN

LANDcontinued.
Heredita669

Title

IX.

(Purely) Incorporeal

ments
Title
Title
X.
XI.

.......
.

Customary Rights over Land


Equitable Interests
in

744
748

Title XII.

Land ^Tenancies at Sufferance and Ad.

verse Possession
Section II.RIGHTS

.....
. .

762

AND LIABILITIES OF OCCUPIERS OF LAND


I.

Title
Title Title

II.

III.

As Regards the Public As Regards Neighbours As Regards Persons having Future


. .

769
777

Interests
Section

.......
'

785

III.RESTRICTIONS
Conditions

ON USER AND
793

ALIENATION OF LAND
Title Title
I.

.....
.

II.

Covenants running with the Land

802

Section IV.VOLUNTARY ALIENATION

OF LAND
.

Title

I.

Title Title Title


Section

II.

III.

Title IV.
V.

Absolute Conveyance Inter Vivos Conveyance by Way of Mortgage Charges on Land Adverse Possession Prescription and Custom
. . .

808
811;

....
.

837 842

849

V. INVOLUNTARY

ALIENATION

OF
859

LAND
Section VI.OVER-RIDING POWERS AFFECTING

LAND
Title

I.-^Powers of Appointment
II.

866
878

Title

Statutory Powers of Limited Owners

Section VII.INCAPACITY

TO HOLD AND ALIEN-

ATE LAND
Title
I.
,

^Minors

Title

II.

Married Women

.....

898

904

Digitized

by Microsoft

xvi

CONTENTS
PAGE
continued.

A.

LAND

Section VII. INCAPACITY

TO HOLD AND. ALIEN-

ATE
Title Title
B.

'LP>NT) continued.

III.

Corporations

Title IV.
V.

Charitable Trusts

Miscellaneous

.....913 ....
. .

909

917

CHATTELS CORPOREAL
Section VIII. POSSESSION

OF CHATTELS COR920

POREAL
Title
Title
Section
I.

Acquisition and Loss of Possession

II.

Rights and Liabilities of Possessors

926

IX.OWNERSHIP OF CHATTELS CORPOREAL


I.

Title Title
Section

II.

General Special Kinds of Ownership

......
.
.

927 932

X.ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP OF CHATTELS CORPOREAL


I.

Title Title
Section

II.

Absolute Acquisition ^Acquisition by Way of Security


.

936
949

XLINVOLUNTARY

ALIENATION OF
.
.

C.

CHATTELS CORPOREAL .969 XII.INCAPACITY TO* HOLD AND ALIENATE CHATTELS CORPOREAL .974 CHOSES IN ACTION Section XIILNATURE AND DEFINITIOI^ OF CHOSES IN ACTION
.

Section

Title Title

I.

II.

General Debts

..... ......
.
. .

979
985
991 1000
1015

Title III.Annuities and Pensions, Title Title


IV.

Shares^ Stocks, and Debentures

Title VI.

Patents and Designs Trade Marks, Trade Names, and Goodwill


V.
.

Title VII.

Copyright

.....<. .....
by Microsoft

1024
1032

Digitized

CONTENTS
C.

XVIJ

PAGE

CHOSES IN ACn01>icontinued. Section XIV.ALIENATION OF ACTION


'

'IT

CHOSES
./-I
.

IN

Title Title
Section

I.

II.

Voluntary Alienation Involuntary Alienation

w,

1047
1053

XV.
Title Title Title

INEFFECTUAL
I.

ALIENATIONS

OF
1058

PROPERTY
II.

Under the Act of 1571 Under the Bankruptcy Act and the
. . . .

Companies Act
III.

1066
[1

yNDER

petuities

Title IV.
tion

Under the Rules against Accumula1080

....... .......
the

Rule

against

Per-

1073

Section

XVI. CO-OWNERSHIP
Title Title
I.

II.

Title

III.

General Joint Ownership Ownership in Common


. .

....
/'
. . . . . . .

1083

1088
1093 1095

Title IV.
Section

Co-parcenary

XVII. FIDUCIARY OWNERSHIP (TRUSTS)


Title Title
I.

General

Appointment and Removal of t'l' 1106 Trustees Title III. Duties of Trustees ,^11112 .1126 Powers of Trustees Title IV.
II.
. . . .

.......
. . . .

.....

1097

Title
Title

V.
VI.

Rights, of Trustees

.,1138
1141

Title VII.
Title VIII.

Remedies for Breach of Trust Transfer of the Trust Estate Beneficial the Transfer of

1148

Interest

.......
IV
. .

1152

CONTENTS OF BOOK
(Family Law)
Section I.MARRIAGE

Title Title

I.

II.

Celebration of Marriagevj Invalid and Voidable Marriages

.1155
.

1169

Digitized

by Microsoft

XVIH

CONTENTS

Section I.MARRIAGEfowtmw^*^.

Title III. Jactitation of Marriase

178

Title IV.
Title V.
tion

Marriage

Section

II.RELATIONS

AND GUARDIANS
Title Title Title
I.

....... .......- ......


Rights

and

Duties

Arising

out

of
1179

Nullity, Divorce, and Judicial Separa1186

OF CHILDREN, PARENTS,
1205

Legitimacy

II.

Duties of Maintenance and Education

1210
1215

III.

Custody and Guardiansiiip of Minors

Title IV.

Powers of Parents and Guardians

in

Relation to the Property of Minors

1231

CONTENTS OF BOOK V
(Succession)
Section

LTESTAMENTARY
I.

SUCCESSION
of

Title

The

Codicils

Title
'

II.

^The

publication of Testaments and Codicils.

'

'

'

Title

III.

Capacity to Make or Attest a Testament


Devises,
'

OR Codicil
Title IV.

........ ..;....
Making
Testaments

and

1237

Revocation, Alteration, and Re124s

I2SS

Legacies,

and

Donationes
1

Mortis Causa

261

Section II. INTESTATE

SUCCESSION

Title Title Title

I.

General

......
.

129s

II.

Inheritance of Real Estate


Succession to Personal Estate Succession

1297
1305

III.

Title IV.

Wife
Title V.
OF Kin

Succession on Failure of Heirs and next


1326

........ ........
between

Husband

and
1313

Digitized

by Microsoft

CONTENTS
Section. III.ADMINISTRATION

xix
PAGE

OF ASSETS
. .

Title Title

I.

II.

The Personal Representative The Title and Interest of the Personal

1329

Representative
Title
Title Title
III.

......
.
. .

1346

Rights and Liabilities Passing to the


1352

Personal Representative
IV.

....
. . . .

Assets

.1369
1375
1391

V.

Title VI.
Title VII.
Title VIII.

The Order in which Debts are Payable The Order of Resort to Assets Duties and Powers of the Personal

Representative

......
.
. .
.

1402

Personal Rights and Liabilities of .1415 THE Representative

hz

Digitized

by Microsoft

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF STATUTES
PAGE
9 Hen. TIL (Magna Carta, 1225) t. 16
c.
c. c.

18

34
35

701 1377 691 688


.

20 Hen.

III. (Statute of
c.

4
9

c.

51

Hen.

....
. . .

Merton, 1235)

,.
1

III., St. I. (Assize of


III., St. I.

52 Hen.

Bread and Ale, 1266) (Statute of Marlbridge, 126 ')-

689 20 J 688
532 697 625

c. 4, s. 5 c. c.

15

23

Edw.

I.

(Statute of Westminster
c.
c.

....
I.,
. . . .

1275)

13

Edw.

I.,

31 St. I. (Statute of Westminster II.,


c.
<j.

700 692

285).
.

56"

19

c.
c.

23
.

18

Edw.

I.

34 c. 39 c. 46 {Quia Emptores, 1290)


.

1364 1362 380, 391, 422, 1323 686

t. I
c.

c. 3

....
1300 ) {Aniculi super Cartas, 1300),
.

555, 558, 1327

28 Edw.
33 17

I.,

St. I. (Reliefs,
St. III.

1327 1327 550

c.

481, 497

Edw. I., St. II. (Statute of Champerty, 1305) Edw. II. {De Prarogativd Regis, 1324), c. 17 18 Edw. II. (Statute for View of Frankpledge, 1325) 1 Edw. III., St. II. (Champerty, 1326), c. 14 2 Edw. III. (Hundreds and Wapentakes, 1328), c. 4 Edw. III. (Administration of Estates, 1330), c. 7 14 Edw, III. (Sheriffs, Bailiffs, etc., 1340), c. 9 23 Edw. III. (statute of Labourers, 1349), c. 2 25 Edw. III., St. I. (Statute of Labourers, 1350), c. 7 St. III. (Statute for the Clergy,' 1350)
.

497
687

678, 727
.

497
685

362, 1362
.

685 475 475

c-7
V. (Executors of Executors, 1350), cSt. VI. (Statute of Provisors, 1350) 31 Edw. III. (Administration in Intestacies, 1357), c. 34 Edw. III. (Statute of Labourers, 1360), c. 10 50 Edw. III. (Fraudulent Assurances, 1376), c. 6 I Ric. II. (Maintenance, 1377), c. 4 5 Ric. II., St. I. (Statute of Forcible Entry, 1381)
St.
.

730
731

362, 1362

730
475 748 497
383 82

1315. 1329, 133

c-7
c.

Digitized

by Microsoft

xxu
7 Ric.

TABLE OF STATUTES
497 748
383 82 82 687 692 692, 748 748 748 1410

II. (Maintenance and Champerty, 1383), c. 15 15 Ric. II. (Statute of Mortmain, 1391), c. 5 8 Hen. VI. (Statute of Forcible Entry, 14^9), c. 9
.

s. s.

7
1477),
.

Edw. IV. (Franchises, 1468), c. 8 17 Edw. IV. (Court of Piepowders,


I

c.

2
.

Ric. III. (Uses, 1483),

CI.
. .

' 4 Hen. VII. (Wardships, 1488), u. 17 19 Hen. VIJ. (Uses, 1503), c. 15 21 Hen. VIII. (Execution, 1529), c. 4 21 Hen. VIII. (Probate and Administration, 1529),

s. s-

2
3

...
15
.

5
13291 1403

21 Hen. VIII. (Recoveries, 1529), 25 Hen. VIII. (Exoneration from


ss. 2, 3,
s-

c.

1337 608

Roman

Exactions

1533),

4
c.

9 27 Hen. VIII. (Statute of Uses, 1535),


ss. 4, 5

1158 1159
10
553, 589, fi8, 609, 649, 664, 748, 867, 933, 1074, 1088, 1097

fj Hen. VIII. (Franchises, 1535), c. 24 28 Hen, VIII. (Succession to the Crown, 1536)^ c. 7, ss. 7, 11 28 Hen. VIII. (Release of Licenses and Dispensations from Rome, 1536): c. 16, s. 2 31 Hen. VIII. (Partition Act, 1539), c. 1
. .

1323 686 1 172


172 1085
1

'

32 Hen. VIII. (Statute of Wills, 1540), 32 Hen. VIII. Quries, 1540),


s-

c.

664, 684,

867
c.

3
.

497 640
1085
628, 629
1

32 32 32 32

Hen. Hen. Hen. Hen. 33 Hen. 34 & 35

1 540), c. 32 (Covenants Act, 1540), c. 34, ss. 1-2 (Administration of Estates, 1540), c. 37 (Marriage Contracts and Consanguinity, 1540), (Crown Debts, 1541), c. 39, s. 37 Hen. VIII. (Fines and Recoveries, 1542), t. 20, ss. 5 & 6 Edw. VI. (Sale of Offices Act, 1551), c. 16 I Eliz. (Act of Supremacy, 1558), c. i, s. 3 13 Eliz. (Fraudulent Conveyances, 1571), c. 5
'

VIII. VIII. VIII. VIII. VIII.

(Partition Act,

38

549 172 864 564 742 1 172


1

42, 1062, io68,

1138
1058, 1059

2
5 13 Eliz. (Ministers (Ordination), etc., 1571), c. 27 Eliz. (Revocable Conveyances, 1584), c. 4
. ss. 2, 4, 5, 6 Eliz. (Juries, 1584), c. 6, s. i 31 Eliz. (Common Informers, 1588),

s.

1065 1059

730
1059, 1062

27

l. 5, s. 5

814 640 989


865

31 Eliz. (Simony, 1588), c. 6, s. 4 . 31 Eliz. (Market Overt, 1588), c. 12 43 Eliz. (Poor Relief Act, 1601), c. 2 s. 6
s._7

.... ....
c.

946
.

1212

I2I0, I2II

43 Ehz. (Chanties, 1601),

916

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF STATUTES
43 Eliz. (fraudulent Administration of Intestates' Estates, 1601), 3 Jac. I. (Popish Recusants, 1605), c. 5 . 21 Jac. I. (Statute of Monopolies, 1623), c. 3, ss. 1-6
.

XXUl

.......
c.

c. 8, s.

1343
1015

729,730
.

21 Jac.

I.

(Statute of Limitations, 1623),


s-

16

72^ 73, 74, 77, 80, 591, 667,

789, 842, 1064, 1320, 1344, 1383, 1384, 1385

2 s-3
s. 5
s.

523
72, 73, 74, 81, 1348

12 Car. II.

7 (Abolition of Feudal Tenures, 1660),


s. s.

9 10

....
I, s. C.
I

:,

18

22

& &

19 Car. II. {Cestui Que Vie Act, 1666), c. 23 Car. II. (Statute of Distribution, 1670^
s. s. s.

387 77 550, 589 i2I7,'i2t8, 1225, 1234 1231, 1234 I2I8 582

to

4
5

.... .... ....

1286, 1305, 1309,

3 10,

1317, 1325 1307, 1310

'307. "308
.

22 & 23 Car. II. (Game Preservation, 1670), 29 Car. II. (Statute of Frauds, 1677), c. 3
s. a. S. s.
s.
I

c.

2
3

4
7
8
10

1312 1296 682, 687 25 609, 816, 1383 641, 764, 808 808 808, 809 86, 98, 184, 216, 222, 304, 841,. 1418 866, 948, 1 100 1100
.

5.9
s. s.

1051, 1153

752, I37I

25
1677),
c. c.
,

i3'5

29 Car. 30 Car.
I

II.

(Sunday Observance Act,


(Executors de son
5.

s.

69

II.

tort,

Jac. II. (Statute of Distribution, 1685),

....
.

1678),

c. 7, s

17

1345 i35

1308

I
1

W. & M., St. II. (Bill of Rights, 1689), t. 2, & 2 W. & M., St. I. (Ecclesiastical Patronage, W. & M., St. I. (Distress, 1690), t. 5
pr.
S3. 2, 3,

5"
729
83 411

1689),

c.

26, ss.

...
,

534, 535, 973

4 W.
4

&

& 5 11 692), c. & 5 7 & 8 W. III. (Mortmain, 1695), t. 37 7 & 8 W. III. (Wills, 1695), c. 38 8 & 9 Will. III. (Prevention of Frivolous and Vexatious 10 & II Will. m. (Child e oere, 1698), c. 22 2 & 3 Anne (Wills, 1703), c. 5 16 4 & 5 Anpe (Amendment of Law, 1705), c.
4
ss. 9,
s. s.

M. (Mortgages, 1692), c. 16, s. 3 W. & M. fWills, 1692), c. 2 W. & M. (Expiring Laws Continuance,

815,817
.

1184

24,

S.

Suits, 1696),

c.

1345 865, 99 1 184 i,s. 8 988 26 1184


.
.

10
50,

13

a. .

14 17

652 118,988 50

27

74 319

Digitized

by Microsoft

XXIV

TABLE OF STATUTES
PAGE
c.

Anne {Cestui Que Vie Act, i/o/), 7 Anne (Diplomatic Privileges Act, g Anne (Landlord and Tenant Act,
6

75, ss. 1-4 1708), c. i?, s. 3

583 341

1709),

c.

18

13
13
5

Anne (Simony Act, Anne (Presentation


I.

1713), c. 11 of Benefices Act, 1713),

c.

13
1718),
:.

972 672 728 729

Geo.

(Poor Relief (Deserted Wives and Children) Act,

8,

1181,
II

ran
1184 628

Geo

I.

4 Geo,

II.
I

London, 1724), t. 18, ss. 17, 18 (Landlord- and Tenant Act, 1730), c. 28

(Custom
s. I

of

634, 764

s.

83 737, 739) 973, 993


.

II
II

Geo Geo

II.

(Church Patronage. Act, 1737),

c. c.

.,

II. (Distress for


s. I
S.

Rent Act,

1737),

17 19

627 729
83, 973

s. S.
,s.

2 10
II

973 645 652

15

s.
,{,()^.

16
18

s. s. s.

997 633 634


384, 532, 533

19

20
1738), 1739),
c.

384
28
19
c.

12 Geo. II. . 13 Geo. II.


1

(Gaming Act, (Gaming Act,


s. s.

c.

7 Geo, II. (Poor Relief Act," 1743),


3

....
.

3" 3"
1378
384, 533 3JI
c. c.

38

8 Geo.. II.
.

(Gaming Act,

24 Geo. 24 Geo,

II.
II.

1744), c. 34 (Calendar (New Style) Act, 1750), (Constables Protection Act, 1750), s. 6

....
.

23,

s.

71

44
343 74 688 31 80

31 Geo. II. (Weight and Price of Bread, 1758), 9 Geo. III. (Crofrn Suits Act, 1769), t. 16
s.

,29

ss. 3,

14 Geo. III. (Life Assurance Act, 1774),


s.
I

c.

48
304, 38

304
14 Geo. III. (Fires. Prevention (Metropolis) Act, 1774),
s.
s.

c.

78
192, 306,
1 1

83

20
68

86

406

33 Geo. III. (Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act, 1793), c, 13 35 GeOi III. (Heji'Apparent's Establishment, Act, 1795), c. 125, 9 38 Geo. III. (Administration of Estates Act, 1798), c. 87, s. 6 75" 39 & 40 Geo. III. (Accumulations Act, 1800), c. 98
s.
[
. . .

74
1331 1081, 1082 1080, 1081 1082

51 Geo. III.

55 Geo. III.

57 Geo. III. 59 Geo. III.

2 (Marriage of Lunatics Act, 181 1), c. 37 (Wills Act, 18 1 5), c. 192 (Deserted Tenements Act, 1817), c. 52 (Poor Relief Act, 1819), c. 12, ss. 24, 25
8.

1171

587 633 634

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF STATUTES
4 deo. IV. (Marriage Act,
s.

xxv

1823),

c.

76

ss. 3,

s. S.

9 10

XXVI

TABLE OF STATUTES
IV. (Prescription Act, 1832),
c.

&

3 Will.

71

TABLE OF STATUTES
3

xxvu

&

4 Will. IV. (Fines' and Recoveries Act, 1833),


8.

c.

74 (contd.)

33 35
36, 37

567
569 567
571

8-34
s-

564, 565

83 s. 8.

38 39 41
42,

553, 569, 570

897

88.
8.
9.

44

568

45

907
568 571 589
589, 752

46 47 88. 50-52
ss.
t>.

53

54

8.

60 77

589 569 904


t.

&

4 Will. IV. (Civil Procedure Act, 1833), 8.3


s. 8.

94

4
5

72,73 77
75

3 3 3

&4 &4 &

Will. IV. (Bank of England Act, 1833), c. 98, 3. 6 108 Will. IV. (Administration ot Estates Act, 1833), c. 104 752, 1297, 1326, 1327, 1369, 1370, 1372, 1373, 1401 . 4 Will. IV. (Dower Act, 1833), t. 105 752, 1 184, 1319, 1324 8. 2 1319

..

3.3
s.

4
5

8. 5.
=,.

1319,

6 7

9
ss
8.
,

10, II

12

&

14 4 Will. IV. (Inheritance Act, 1833),


8.
s.
I

c.

106
554:

587, 1299, 1297, 1298,

3
8. 8.

1095, 1096, 650,


555, 561,

4
5

ss
a.

,6-8
.

& 4

4 4

& & &


& & & &

SS II, 12 Will. IV. (1833), No. 27 (Thellusson's Will) 5 Will. IV. (Apportionment Act, 1834), c. 22 5 Will. IV. (Friendly Societies Act, 1834), c. 40,

1318 1321 1324 1321 1321 1324 1322 1325 1266 1318 1301 1299 1299 1300 13 1302 1301 1302 1304 1081

997
=.

12

378

5 Will.

IV. (Poor
s. 8.

Law Amendment
. . . .

Act, 1834),
.

c.

76^1210 1213
313 443
1

57
71

5 5 5

(Gaming Act, 1835), c. 41, ss. 1-2 6 Will. IV. fHighway Act, 1835), c. 50, s. 79 6 Will. IV. (Marriage Act, 1835), '^- 54i 3- 2. 7 Will. IV. (Durham (County Palatine) Act, 1836),
6 Will. IV.

172

c.

19

686

Digitized

by Microsoft

XXVlll

TABLE OF STATUTES

TABLE OF STATUTES
I I I

XXIX
PAGE

& & &

2 Vict. (Tithe Act, 1838), c. 64, ss. i, 3, 4 2 Vict. (Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838), 2 Vict. (Judgments Act, 1838), c. no
3.
s. 8.

735

c.

74,

s. i

634

II

725, 752 863, 1059, 1152 971, 1055, 1056 863, 1 1 52 1056, 1 1 52

12
13
. .

9.

14
17

=15
s.

1056 117

&
& & &

2
z
3

(Metropolitan PoKce Act, 1839), c. 478. 14 s. 63 3 Vict, (Tithe Act, 1839), "- ^^i '^- > 7 3 Vict. (Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1839), 4 Vict, (Parliamentary Papers Act. 1840), c. 9 88. I, 2
3 Vict.
.

634 443
^-

s-

39

735 533
5'3 514 1 166 1056

& & 3 & 3 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 6 &


3

4
4

4 4 4
5

6 7

8-3. Vict. (Marriage Act, 1840), c. 72, ss. 1,2 Vict. (Judgments Act, 1840), c. 82 Vict. (Metropolitan Pohce Courts Act, 1840), c. 84, Vict. (Infant Felons Act, 1840), t. 90, . i Vict. (Loan Societies Act, 1840), c. no, a. i Vict. (School Sites Act, 1841), c. 38, 3. 5 Vict. (Copyright Act, 1842), c. 45, s. 15 Vict. (Limitation of Actions Act, 1 843), u. 54, s. 3 Vict. (Libel Act, 1843), t. 96
.

s.

13

633 1222
341 1233
1

426
79

s.

7 7

& &

2 8 Vict. (Poor
s.

Law Amendment
,

8 Vict.

(Duchy
8.

Act, 1844), c. loi, s. 25 of Cornwall (Limitation of Time) Act,


.

522 520 121Z


1844).
I5:

7
8

&
&

71 8 Vict. (Joint Stock Companies Act, 1844), '^- "> ^- ^ 9 Vict. (Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845), c. 16
ss.

848
lOOI
II, 15, 1000.

6-g
15

....

1003, 1004, 1005, IC08,

ion, 1070
16,

lOOI

ss. 14,
8. 9. s. 8.
s,

16

29 38 45
61
<^-

1004 1005 1006 1008


1071 1003
'^ 366, 917

&

9 Vict. (Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845), 88. 7, 8, i8


s.

69
'

&

71, 72 76 88. 95-97 9 Vict. (Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845), s- 77


ss.
s.
.

......
,
. .

1233 1361 1233

1362 590
c,

"

78.79 -97
ss.

8
8

& &

9 Vict. (Libe! Act, 1845), c. 75, s. 2 9 Vict. (Real Property Act, 1845), c. 106
8. 3

....
Digitized

782 782 963, 966 520 589, 654 808, 898


188,
.

s-4

635

by Microsoft

XXX
&

TABLE OF STATUTES
c.

9 Vict. (Real Property Act, 1845),


ss. s. s. s-

106 (contd.)

104, 629, 802, 812

6
7 8
.

652, 796
.
.

...
. .

94, 95

9
.

663 627
39:
ss. i

8 8
8

& & & & & &

(Gaming Act, 1845), t. 109, s. 18 9 Vict. (Satisfied. Terms Act, 1845), <^- "2, 9 Vict. (Inclosure Act, 1845), c. 1 18
9 Vict.
.

3"
638 68g

9 9

s. Ill 9 Vict. (Small Debts Act, 1845), c. 127, s. 8 10 Vict. (Tithe Act, 1846), c. 73 10 Vict. (Fatal Accidents Act, 1846), c. 93 s. 2

634
971 735 363, 371 448 363

....
. .

s. 5

9 & 10 Vict. (Public Money Drainage Act, 1846), c. loi 10 & II Vict. (Public Money Drainage Act, 1847), c. 11 10 & II Vict. (Markets and Fairs Clauses Act, 1847), c. 14 10 & II Vict. (Waterworks Clauses Consolidation Act, 1847), 10 10
11

897 897
t.

17,
c.

s.

6gs 188

& & & &

II Vict.

Marriages (Quakers and Jews) Validity Act, 1847),


s.

58

"55.
1156 1159 342 890 8go

II Vict. (Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Act, 1847), c. 98,

12

12 Vict, (justices Protection Atct, 1848), 13 Vict. (Leases Act, 1849), c. 26


.

e.

44

ss. 2, 4,

7
ss. g,
i

& 13 & 13 & 13 & 13 & 13 & 13 & 14 & 14 &


12
15 15

13 Vict. (Poor Law Amendment Act, 1849), u. 103, 14 Vict. (Leases Act, 1850), c. 17, ss. 2, 3 14 Vict. (Landlord and Tenant Act, 1851), c. 25, s. 14 Vict, (sheriff of Westmoreland Act, 1850), c. 30

73

8go
i

575: 624, 646 685^ 686

& &

14 Vict. (Trustee Appointment Act, 1850), c. 60 14 Vict. (County Court Act, 1850), c. 61, s. 11 14 Vict. (Liberties Act, 1850), c. 105 15 Vict. (Prevention of Offences Act, 1851), c. ig, s. 15 Vict. (Landlord and Tenant Act, 1851), c. 25 s. 2 16 Vict. (Wills Act Amendment Act, 1852), c. 24 16 Vict. (Common Law Procedure Act, 1852), i,. 76

422 686
443 788
971 1238

......
. .
. . .

15

17

& &
& &

49 s. 210 s. 212 16 Vict. (Chancery Procedure Act, 1852), c. 86, 18 Vict. (Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854),

s-

......

422 415 797 797


137

s.

45
31

c.

ss. 1,

256
257, 258

17 17 17 17

18 Vict (Usury Laws Repeal Act, 1854), c. go. 18 Vict. (Literary and Scientific Institutions Act, 1854),
s-

116 6
1233 1396 388

& &

18 Vict, (Real Estates Charges Act, 1854), c. 113 18 Vict (Common Law Procedure Act, 1854), c. 125
s. s.

78 189

iS 18

& &

ss. 214, 218 19 Vict. (Judgments Act, 1855), c. 15 ig Vict. (Infants Settlement Aci, 1855),
ss. I, 2,

.....
c.

43

379 389 388 992 24, 1322 900

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF STATUTES
i8

XXXI

&
& & &

19 Vict. (Bills of Lading Act, 1855),


e.
I

....
. . .

c.

iii

...
.

944, 983

s. 3

19 ig 19

20 Vict. (Public Money Drainage Act, 1856), c. 9 20 Vict. (Administration of Intestates' Estates Act, 1856), 20 Vict. (Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856), c. 97 3.3

944 897
>305

c.

94

loi, 291,

5.9
,.
=

13

ig

&

'4 2

296 74 75, 989 75,76,1384


1

20 Vict. (Marriage and Registration Act,


s.

1856),

9
"59.
1:60,
161,
1

164

s.
.

4
5

1 1

60

8.6
s. s.
s.

9 17
19

1161 1159, 1161 1161


1171
.

163
161

ScHed. Schcd.
ig

A
B

it6o
1

160,

20

& &

20 Vict. (Settled Estates Act, 1856), c. 120, . 23 21 Vict. (Court of Probate Act, 1857), c. 77
s.

1360

4
70, 71
;.K.

1329
1

SS.
s-

341

73
77, 78

'

1339 1340, 1341

ss.
s.

'35"

20

&

79 21 Vict. (Matrimonial Causes Act, 1837), s. 6


s. s. o. S. S.

c.

85

1335 1187 1 186


1

7
16
17 21

"93, ",94
1

193,

197 1201

29,

1199, 1316

22 S. 25 S. 26 5.27
SS.
s.

"94
2g, iig7, 1316
1

28, 30

31

32 s-33 s-35
s.

197 188 iigo 1188, 1191 1200


1 1

29,

187,
.

47
122:

45
59

1202
1

57
s.

196

464, 470

21

& & & & &

22 Vict. (Chancery
s.

Amendment

Act, 1858),
.

>..

27

1016
373, 558

2
c.

21 21

22 Vict. (Jews Relief Act, 1858), c. 49 22 Vict. (Stipendiary Magistrates' Act, 1858),
s. s.
I

730
73
633, 634

21 21

2 . 22 Vict. (Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858), 22 Vict. (Court of Probate Act, 1858), c. 95 s. 16
s.
.

634
c.

93, ss.

i, 6,

1209
1333 1341 1347

18

s.

19

Digitized

by Microsoft

xxxii

TABLE OF STATUTES
PAGE
i;.

21

&

22 Vict. (Matrimonial Causes Act, 1858), s. 6


s.

108^

....
'

....
c. 31;
.
.

"99
1197,1199

ss.

8-10

"99
^34 740,1409, 1410

22 Vict. (Defence Act, 1859), c. 12, s. 5 22 & 23 Vict. (Law of Property Amendment Act, 18 59)j
.

ss. I,
s. s. . s. s. =. s.

~.

12

.........
.

-795
629 869 1409 1127 1409 838 1410 1299 1367 1390 1115
1221

14
15

838, II27, . 83S,

16
17 18 19
27, 28
. . .
. .

838,
838, 1409, S54i i95)
. . .

s.

ss.
s. s.

29
31

22

&

23 Vict. (Matrimonial Causes Act, 1859),


s. s.

4
5

23 23 23

& & &

......... ........ ..........


.

"

c.

61

24 Vict. (Marriage (Society of Friends) Act, i860), c. 18, s. i 24 Vict. (Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdicrion Act, i860), c. 32, 24 Vict. (Law of Property Amendment Act, i860), c. 38 s-3 ' ='6

11 55, 11

1202 56

ss. 2,

442
1375

794

. s.

7
13
I
. .

23 23 23 23 23

&

..-.

665 72

24 24 24 24 24

Vict.
Vict.

(Duchy
s.

of Cornwall (Limitation of

Time) Act,

i860),

& & & &


& &

Vict.
Vict.

(Game Licences Act, i860), c. 90, ss. 6-8 (Crown Debts and Judgments Act, i860),

.....848
115,
s.

c.

53,

c.

2
2

(Common Law Procedure


s.

Vict. (Matrimonial Causes Act, i860),

..........
.
.

Act, i860), i.. 126, c. 144

ss. i,

690 992 797

24

3.7 25 Vict. (Crown Suits Act,


s.
.

861),

c.

62

....
.

1202

1186, 1191,

"92
31

80,
t.

ss. 2, 3

848 848
5

24

25 Vict. (Larceny Act, 1861), s. 68 . s. 100


. .

..........
. .
. .

96

420
443 443 443 775 438

24 24 24

& & &

s. 103 25 Vict. (Malicious Damage Act, 1861), t. 97, s. 61 25 Vict. (Coinage Offences Act, 1861), c. 99, s. 31 25 ^^ct. (Offences against the Person Act, 1861), t. 100 s- 42 s- 43

.8-45
24 &
25 Vict. (Wills Act, 1861),
ss1

438,1197 439, 472


'

c.

114

2
67,
ss.
i,

s-3
25

&

26 Vict. (Declaration of Title Act, 1862),

c.

48

1255 1242 1243 1241, 1245 . 651


.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF STATUTES
j6

XXXlll
PAGE

&
& &

27 Vict. (Innkeepers' Liability Act, 1863),


88.
1,

c.

41

.rnf

8-3 z6 26
27 Vict. ^Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863), c. 87, 27 Vict. (Companies Clauses Act, 1863), c. 118.
s. 8.
s.

246 247
'4
1009,

13

22 23
ss. 25.
s.

1378 1012 1002 1008 1012


lOII

26.

27 27 27 27 27 27 27 28 28 28

& & & & & & & & & &

28 28 Vict. (Naval Prizes Act, 1864), c. 25 28 Vict. (Army Prize (Shares of Deceased) Act, 1864), c, 2S Vict. (Matrimonial Causes Act, 1864), c. 44, s. i 28 Vict. (Admiralty Lands and Works Act, 1864), c. 57. 28 Vict. (Fatal Accidents Act, 1864), c. 95 28 Vict. (Judgments Act, 1S64), c. 112, s. 4
28 Vict. (Improvement of

lOIO

937
36:
1 1
s.

341 199

634 363 863


897,
73,
ss. 4,
1 1 17 1244

Land Act, 1864), c. 114 29 Vict. (Navy and Marines (Wills) Act, 1865), c. 72 29 Vict. (Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act, 18^5), 29 Vict. (Mortgage Debenture Act, 1865), c. 78
88s-

27, 33
.

37 Sched.

28 28

& &
&

.III

999 1012 lOIO 1012 1012


253
342

29

29 Vict. (Carriers Act Amendment Act, 1865), c. 94, s. 1 lii, 29 Vict. (Navy and Marines (Property of Deceased) Act, 865), s. 6 30 Vict. (Matrimonial Causes Act, 1866), c. 32 tv:, .fjiV
1

Hil

1200
186, 1191

s-3

30&3I 30 &3I 30 & 31


30
31 31

Land by Auction Act, 1867), c. 48, Vict. (Real Estate Charges Act, 1867), c. 69, s. i Vict. (Railway Companies Act, 1867), c. 127, s. 4
Vict. (Sale of
.

& & &


& & & & & & &

31 Vict. (Policies of Assurance Act, 1867), c. 144 32 Vict. (Sales of Reversions Act, 1867), c. 4 32 Vict. (Partition Act, 1868), c. 40
ss.
s.

3-S

,li.t-!!,-

8
1868),
..

31 31 31

31 31

32 32 32 32 32

Vict.

(Judgments Extension Act,

54
;/

Vict. (Divorce Vict.


Vict.

Vict.

32
32

33 Vict.

Act, 1868), c. 77, s. 4 (Policies of Assurance Act, 1868), c. 86 (Larceny Act, 1868), c. 116, s. i (Poor Law Amendment Act, 1868), c. 122, s 33 (Administration of Estates Act, 1869), c. 46
.

Amendment

192 397 971 305 36 587 1086 1360 323 1 196 305
5

1181, 1182 989, 990, 1377, 1401, 1419

33 Vict. (Debtors Act, 1869),

8.4
s. 5

.... ....
c.

62

'

367
1

144, 1421, 1422

1422

32

&

24-28 33 Vict. (Bankruptcy Act, 1869),


88.
' .

986
c.

71

953
108
31
1009, lOIO
.

33 Vict. (Coinage Act, 1870), c. 10, ss. 4-1 33 & 34 Vict. (NaturjJization Act, 1870), c. H, 33 & 34 Vict. (Mortgage Debenture (Amendment) Act, 1870),
' .

s.

4
I

33

&

....
c.

lOIO

34 Vict. (Forfeiture Act, 1870),


s.

23

692, 918
.

1256

Digitized

by Microsoft

kkxiv
'

TABLE OF STATUTES
PAGE
Act,' 1870), c.

33
':

&

34 Vict. (Forfeiture
ss. 6,
s. S.
fe.

23

{contd.)

9 10
12

Ss.

I3-18

^25
.
.

33
33

& &

s. 30 34 Vict. (Wages Attachment Abolition Act, 1870)^ t. 30, . 34 Vict. (ApportionmiSnt Act, 1870), c, 35
.

s. s. s.

2
3

... ... ...


.

......
s.
.

20,918 977
21

21; 918,

97^
at
977'

9l8j 97?

.
.

....
.
'

>

226 645)997 116)215,741,997 741.997


^
. ; .

.'

1355

ss. 6,

'

'997
.

33

& & & &

33

34 34

34 Vict. (National Debt Act, 18701)^ c. 71^ ^. Si 22 s. 23 34 Vict. (Elementary Education Act, 1870), c. 75, 35 Vict. (Bank Holidays Act, 1871), c. 17, ss. i, 2 35 Vict. (Trade Union Act, 1871), c. 31 s. 4
. .
.

s.

'

1004 1408 1213 68 6


6
5

S.

12

34 34 34
35 35 35

& & & & & &


&

....
5

35 Vict. (Incumbents Resignation Act, 1871), c. 44, s. 10 35 Vict. (Lodgeirs'Gbods Protection Act, 1871), c. 79, s. 7 35 Vict. (Prfeventi6n Of Crimes Act, 1871), c. 112, s. 7 36 Vict. (Marriage (Society of Friends) Act, 1872), c. 10, s. i 36 Vict. (Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872), c. 65, ss. 4, 36 Vict; (Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, 1872), c. 77

999
83

444 "55, "56


1213

"

s.g
s.

.'

38
c.

35

36 Vict. (Pawnbrokers Act, 1872), ss. 10, 14- 1.9 s. 22


.
. .

93

s.

s.

24 34

'

35 36

36
36

36

& & & & &

36 Vict. (Licensing Act, 1872), c. 94, s. 12 37 Vict. (Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1873), c. 9, s. 5 37 Vict. (Custody of Infants Act, 1873), c. 12, s. 2 37 Vict. (Matrimonial Causes Act, 1873), c. 31, s. i 37 Vict. (Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873), c, 66

226 452 958 958 959 958 444 444


1213 1217 1186
376, 378, 388, 786, 1 1 49

s-3
s.

"87, 1347

16

'329

36
37

& & &

592) "49 s. 48, 375* 553, 558. 563, 576, 626, 842, 935, 1023, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1093, 1146 37 Vict. (Salmon Fishery Act, 1873), c. 71, s. 38 444 38 Vict. (Powers of Appointment Act, 1874), c. 37 875
s.

24 25

37

ss. ij 2 . 38 Vict. (Building Societies Act, 1874),


s. s.

874
c.

42
5

7
9

rKi

lOOI

37

&

. 8. 29 38 Vict. (Real Property Limitation Act, 1874),

s. I

.......
c.

57

72, 766,

1342 1384

73, 842, 843

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF STATUTES
37

xxxv
PAGE
(contd.)

&

38 Vict. (Real Property Limitation Act, 1874),

c.

57

'* "3 s-4 '5 8-^ '7 '8 =9

72,77.78 77,844 844 77,844 78,569 75,76,846


842, 846

72, 73, 75, 986, 996, 1386 81, 1273, 1386

'
c.

37

& & & &

8- 34 38 Vict. (Infants Relief Act, 1874), 8-1

37

8-2 38 Vict. (Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874),


'
'

....

62 78

75
2I>

24
c.

38 38 38 38

2 39 Vict. fPublic Health Act, 1875), t. 55, s. 256 39 Vict. (Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875),
3.

........
.
. .

1^2,
.

193 129

534

c.

77,

10

&
&

367, 1377, 1387, 1388, 1389


.

39 Vict. (Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875),

c.

86

.8-3
39 Vict. (Land Transfer Act, 1875), s. 22
8.

483 485

c.

87
816 819 818 819 818 450 1028
587 1086
1338 1338 6
13

3. s.

23 25

26

.........
1875), 1875),
c. c.

38 38

39
39

& & & &

40 39 Vict. (Employers and Workmen Act, 39 Vict. (Trade Marks Registratiori Act, 40 Vict. (Partition Act, 1876), c. 17
s.

90,

a.

10
.

91

7 40 Vict. (Treasury Solicitor Act, 1876),

8.

c.

18

8-2
8.

9
.

39 39 39

& 40 Vict. & 40 Vict. & 40 Vict.

(Trade Union (Amendment) Act, 1876), c. 22 (Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1876), c. 45, s. 17 (Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876),
. .
.

c.
s. s.

61

18

39

&

24 40 Vict. (Elementary Education Act, 1876),


8. s. s.

4
II

48 34 46

40

& & &


& &

41 Vict. (Settled Estates Act, 1877),


s. 8.

....
.

......... ......... .........


c.

1212 1213
'213

79

c i8
.

....
. .

1214 1213

884, 897, 902, 1233 1361 896,897, 1314, 1321


.
. .

40 40
41 41

41 Vict. (Contingent Remainders Act, 1877), c. 33 41 Vict. (Real Estate Charges Act, 1877), c. 34
.

653, 657, 658, 663, 1075


.

8.

42 Vict. (Matrimonial Causes Act, 1878), 42 Vict. (Bills of Sale Act, 1878), c. 31 8-4
8.

c.
.

1396 1397 1202 19, s. 3 939, 940, 941, 942, 949, 950, 1052 941, 942, 950, 95> 1052 941, 951
. . . .

...

Digitized

by Microsoft

XXXVl
&

TABLE OF STATUTES
(Bills
3s. 9,
s. s.

41

42 Vict.

of Sale Act, 1878),


.
. . .

c.

31

{contd.)

10

16

941 951

20

41 41 41

42 43 43

& 42 Vict. & 42 Vict. & 42 Vict. & 43 Vict. & 44 Vict. & 44 Vict.

(Innkeepers Act, 1878), c. 38, s. i (Tithe Act, 1878), c. 42, ss. i, 3, 4, 5 (Debtors Act, 1878), c. 54, s. i (Civil Procedure Acts Repeal Act, 1879), c. 59 (Statutes (Definition of Time) Act, 1880), c. g (Employers' Liability Act, 1880), c. 42
.
:

952 248 736 II44 692 67


364, 36s

3. I

448
448, 450

2 s-3
s.
s. .

4
s

6,7
s.

43

44

& &

44

Vict.

45 Vict.

(Ground Game Act, 1880), c. 47 (Conveyancing and Law oi Property Act,


s. .
s.

4S' 453 452 453 45 722


1881),
c,

41

739. 800,
1

816,

129,

130

2
3
5

6go, 821
193, 194 822, 994

8.6
ss. 7, a. 10
a. 9.

II

12 14 16 17 18 19
50:

s.

ss. 15,
s. s. s. s.
S. S.

20
21

s. S. s. s. s. s.
s-

22 23

24
25 30

36
38

39

690 189 621, 628, 629 628, 629 629 549; 6^71 797, 798, 801 835 832, 833 755, 821, 826, 834 821, 822, 823, 826 825 822, 825, 1403 190 . 826 823,825 827, 829 1 106, 1 148, 1352, 1403 1 132 1136 931, 1185
18, 677, 678,
.

s. s. s.

40
41
903,
1
1

24
884, 902
30, II 34,

42 =43 8.44
8.4s 8. 47 s. 50 3.51 8. 52 3. 56 a. 59

1233

"35
993
60,

83, 739, 838, 973, 9921,

741, 839

242 905 555, 556, 562, 580 871, 906, 976 1114,1131
.
.

1371

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF STATUTES
44

XXXVll

&

45 Vict. (Conveyancing and


s.
s.

61

........
Law
c.

of Property Act, 1881),

t.

41
.

{conld.)

190, 1091

65 58-

639, 904, 97
.

44

&

s. 66 45 Vict. (Army Act, 1881),

129

88.
8. 8.
8. 8.

41, 45 141

156 158 170

442 999 444 442 74

45 45

& &

46 Vict. (Inferior Courts Judgments Extension Act, 1882), c. 31 323 46 Vict. (Settled Land Act, 1882), t. 38 755. 897. i232> 1233 8. z 878, 88z, 883, 884, 892, 896 8-3 605, 871, 878, 1085 8.6 879 608, 879 s. 10 890 8. IZ ss. 13, 14 879 880 s. 18
.

8. . s. 8.

ZI

zz
Z3 Z5

893, 894, 89s 893, 1361

894
880, 896 888, 896

s.
8.

a.
8.

26 28 29 3
31

879, 896

8.

8-35 s-37
=..38
s. s.

896 897 890 879, 888 878, 889 89Z


.

40
45 50
51

190
891, 893

8.47
s.

880
44, 887

883, 886

S3.

52
.

-53 . 54
88. 56,
s. 8. s. s. 8. s.

887

57

58 59 60
61

881 887 878; 882, 884, 886, 897, 1314 878, 884
.

878, 902 878, 886

62
63
I

878, 887 882, 886, 895


88z),
c-

45

&

46

Vict.

(Conveyancing Act,
s.

39

6 9
10
II

ss. 8,
s. s. 8.

758, 871 871, 872, 906, 976 60, 243

667, 1273 639, 1076

12

83s

45

&

46 Vict.

(Bills of Sale

Act (1878) Amendment Act,

1882),

c.

43

949, 950,

952, 953, 1052


s.

2
3

-950

s.

950, 952

Digitized

by Microsoft

XXXVlll

TABLE OF STATUTES
PAGE
(Bills of Sale
a.

45

&

46 Vict.

Act (1878) Amendment Act, 1882),

c.

43

'(contd.)

4
6 7
8

ss. ;,
s. s. s. s. s.

95 951

410, 954 95. 951

9 12 13

ss. 14, I
s.
s.

950 952 954 952


951

16

45

&

17 Sched. Vict. (BiUs of Exchange Act, 1882), 46


ss.

951, 1052

950
c,

61

416, 980
.

9
13

=
s. s. s.

14 23 38

69 118 69 68
63

420
.

s.
s-

s.

57 59 62 63

118 145 145 145 149 63, 118

=
s.

64
c.

45

&

46 Vict. (Married Women's Property Act, 1882),


s.

I
.

ss. 2, 5
S.
S. .

585, 844, 75 855, 934, 1087, 1 102, 1 1 84 29, 348, 904, 975, 1072, 1256, 1323 94, 1315, 1316, 1323

II

12
13

s.
s. s. S.

14
19
.

58,
'.

37 349 348 1317 348


1182

20
21
.

1212, 1213
.

s.
s.

23

24
c.

1317 1106

46 46 46

& & & &

47 Vict. (Payment of Wages in Public Houses Prohibition Act, 1883),

3^
47,

8.

226

47 Vict. (Provident Nominations and Small Intestacies Act, 1883),


c. s.

7 Revision and Civil Procedure Act, 1883),


c.

47 Vict. (Statute 5-3


iS.

Law

49

1342

377,389
377, 389
c.

46

47

Vict.

(Bankruptcy Act, 1883),


s.

52
1

20 30

367 919
146

s. s. s. s.
s.

44 47 49
54 56
125 146

919,952
860 953 919 919 139
97?

. s.

s.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF STATUTES
46

XXXljt
PAGE

&

47 Vict. (Bankruptcy Act, 1883),


8.

t.

52

{contd.)

mf,(ii)ioi

149 Sched. I Sched. II.

47

&

48 Vict. (Settled Land Act, 1884),


8. 5

8.7
s.

47 47

& &

.... .... ....


... ... ... ... ...

...

c.

18

952 829 829 882


891

882 884
lOOI
1

48 Vict. (Chartered Companies Act, 1884), c. 56 48 Vict. (Matrimonial Causes Act, 1884), c. 68 i. z
8.
8.

180, I20I
.

180

4
6
3

I20I

8. 5 3.

"88,
t.

193 I22I

47

&

48 Vict. (Intestates' Estates Act, 1884),


8.

71
1

674, 753
72, 80 103, 1326

8.4
48

1338

&
& &

49 Vict. (Criminal
8.

Law Amendment

Act, 1885),

t.

69

189, 1222
.

12

49 49

50 Vict. (Marriage Act, 1886), c. 14, s. i 50 Vict. (Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886), 8. 2
8.
>

s.

4
6

s. 5 =.

8.7
49

&

50 Viot. (Extraordinary Tithe Redemption Act, i886),


ss. 3,
s. 5

.... .... .... ....


. .
. .

c.

27

1223 1 167 1219 I162, 1215, I22I, 1228 1162, I217, 1219, 1234 I162, I217, 1234 44". 1217 1 162, 1221 7 1222
.
.

c.

54
734 736 734 1342 225
625 1327
531

50 50 50
50 50

& & &

51 Vict. (Savings Banks Act, 1887), c. 40, s. 3 51 Vict. (Truck Act, 1887), c. 46, ss. 2, 10 51 Vict. (Allotments and Cottage Gardens (Compensation for Crops)
. Act, 1887), c. 26 Vict. (Escheat (Procedure) Act, 1887), Vict. (Sheriffs Act, 1887), c. 55

& 51 & 51

c.

53,

s.

8.

16
19

8.
8.
8,

28 29

8-34
50

68s 532 530 686

& & & & & & &

51 Vict. (Coal
8. s,
I I

Mines Regulation Act, 1887),

c.

58

50 50
51
51

70 51 Vict. (Superannuation Act, 1887), c, 67, 51 Vict. (Copyhold Act, 1887), c. 73, s. 4 32 Vict. (Glebe Lands Act, i888), c. 20
s.

226 452
s.

.....
.

1342 603 912


83,

52 Vict.

(Law
8.

of Distress

Amendment

Act, 188

51 51

52 Vict. (Marriage Validation Act, 1888), c. 28 52 Viet. (Local Government Act, 1888), c. 41

912 973 972 1170 686

Digitized

by Microsoft

xl

TABLE OF STATUTES
PAGE

51

&

52 Vict. (Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act,


s.
s. s. s. s.

888),

c.

42

751

2
3

4
5

10
13

8.

51

&

52 Vict. (County Courts Act,

'

s. 5 s.
s.

... ... ... ...


.

10, 865, 909,

910

99 865, 910
914, 91 s

914 909 916


c.

43

686, 691

35 50

....
.
.

=51 s- 52 s. 56
s.
=>

'

63

... ...
'

s.
.

147 148
151
.

s.

1375 53 530 530 53 478 323 97i> 972. 105s 1056 323, 864

51 51

51 51

& & & &


& & & &

52 52 52 52
'

"

c. 51, s. 5 864 Vict. (Trustee Act, 1888), c. 59, s. 8 . . 74, 76, 77, 1145, 1146, 1421 Vict. (Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Act, 1888), c. 62. 1377, 1388 Victi (Law of Libel Amendrftent Actj 1888), c. 64

Vict.

(Land Charges RegisCrati^n and Searches Act, 1888),

s.
s.

4
6

........
'

516 523

52

53 Vict. (Board of Agriculture Act, 1889), s. 2


' :

c.

30

Sched.
52 52 52
I

I
.

S3 Vict. (Factors Act, 1889), c. 45, s. 3 53 Vict. (Regulation of Raflways Act, 1889), 53 Vict. (Interpretation Act, 1889),
s. s.

c.

57,

s.

732 732 944 444

c.

63

19

17,69 556
68 1376

s.

36 38

53

&

<'.>.

53

&

54 Vict. (Lunacy Act, 1890), c. 5s. 108 s. 116 ss. 120, 124 ss. 125, 126 54,Vict. (Intestates' Estates Act, 1890), ss. 1-3
.

567 1917 917


591
t.

29
1318
1318, 1325
.

"'

53

&

ss. S, 6 54 Vict. (Partnership Act, 1890),


.

c.

39

1318 1090

8. s.

236, 262 263, 264, 265

S-3
S.

4
55,
.

8.5 8.6
8S. 7,
s.
8.
!

266 262 268 268 269

9 10

269, 1368 270, 356 270, 357

SS. II,

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF STATUTES
53

xli

&

54 Vict. (Partnership Act, 1890),

c.

39

{contd.)

xlii

TABLE OF STATUTES
55 Vict. (Stamp Act, 189 1),

54

&

54 54

& &

100 s. 103 55 Vict. (Slander of


s.
;

.....
c.

39

{contd.)

304
109

Act, 1891), c. 51 55 Vict. (Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act,

Women

504
89 0.
<:

73
909,

751

s-3

s. s.

5 6 7 9
1892),
c. 9, s.
i

s.

ss. 8,

55 55

& &

56 Vict. 56 Vict.

(Gaming Act,
s. s.
I

914 915 916 915; 916 915 312


13..^
.

(Conveyancing and
2

Law

of Property Act, 1892),

50,

800 800 799

s-3
s.

5. 631 5! 798, 50, 801

55*56 55 & 56 55 & 56 55&56 56&57 56&S7

Law Revision Act, 1892), c. i Vict. (Foreign Marriage Act, 1892), c. 23, ss Vict. (clergy Discipline Act, 1892), c. 32
Vict. (Statute Vict. (Accumulations Act, 1892),
I
,

1-22

Debts Act, 1893), c. 5, s. Vict. (Voluntary Conveyances Act, 1893), c,


Vict. (Regimental
.

.....
c.

58

i35 1168 730 751: 1082 1082 1378 1059

^^- ^'

56 \& 57 Vict. (Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893), s. 21


.

....
II
.

814
c.

39-

56 56

&

25-27 57 Vict. (Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Act, 1893),
ss.
.
'

1342

c.

42,

s.

1214
c.

&

57 Vict. (Trustee Act^ 1893),


s. s. sI

53
,

-893,1115

2
3

893, 1115, 1116 893, 1 1 16


.

4
893,

s. 5
s.

1 1

893 17

6
893)
.

'893

=.7
s. s.

"i5> "16
1117, iii8
.

9 10
II

1118
1

892, 892,

107,

108,*

mo,
s. S.
s.

109,

12
13

892,
. .

s. s. =. s. s. s. S. S. s. s.

14
15

17 18 19

1 1

14,

1119,
1

124,
190,

20
21

"33.
872,
1

22 23

136,

1137 1 136 1149 112S 1128 1129 1132 1131 1 127 1 132 1411 1414

24

242, 1 1 18 1115, 1138, 1422

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF STATUTES
56

xliii

&

57 Vict. (Trustee Act, 1893),

c.

53

{conti.)

8.25

xliv

TABLE OF STATUTES
57 Vict. (Sale of Goods Act,

56

&

TABLE OF STATUTES
58 58

xlv
PAGE

& &

59 Vict. fMortgagees' Legal Costs Act, 1895), c. 2$ 59 Vict. (Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895),
.
.

.1125
39
.

c.

1189

s-

1181, 1198
1181, 1198, 1199, 1316
1
'

8-5 3-6
59

198

&

7 60 Vict. (Friendly Societies Act, 1896), * 33


a-

>

1198,1199
304 1378
5

u.

25

=35 88. 47-50


88-

56. 57

ss.
8.

62-67 84

..........
.

....

59

&

134^ 308 308

60 Vict. (Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies Act, 1896), c. 26


8.

3
c.

304, 308

59

&

15 60 Vict. (Judicial Trustees Act, i8g6),


8-

5-6
35

59 59 60

60

& & & &

60 Vict. 60 Vict.
61 Vict. 61 Vict.

1137 3-1 11", 1123, 1125, 1137, 1142 8. 3 1146 (Truck Act, 1896), c. 44, 88. 1-4 225 (Stannaries Court (Abolition) Act, 1896), t. 45, s. i 266 (Navy and Marines (Wills) Act, 1897), c. 15 1244 (Land Transfer Act, 1897), c. 65 578, 751, 867, 1338, 1370,

..........
. . . .
.

8.

s. s.
8. 3.
s.

2
3

1371, 1372, 1373. 1380, 1385, 1386, 1392) "409. '4" 190, 554, 571, 579, 753, 804, H27, 1 148, 1261, 1303, 1349, 1352, 1362, 1385, 1406 554, 838, 1327, 1337, 1338, 1343, 1361, 1370,
'371. 1373, 1398, 1407 1268, 1269, 1270, 1296, 1303, 1363, 1371, 1384

816

9 16

20
I

61

&

62 Vict. (Benefices Act, 1898),


s.

8-5 8-7
8.

12
I

61
61

&

62 Vict. (Universities and College Estates Act, 1898),


8.

......... .........
. . . . . .

816, 821, 822, 823, 825, 826


. .
.

t.

48

gio 809 725, 727, 865 725, 726, 728


.

731

c.

55

.911

730 724
911

&

62 Vict. (Marriage Act, 1898),


.

u.

58

11 57

8-5 6
8. 8.

"S6
.

14
15
I

62 62 62 62 63

&
& & & &

63 Vict. (Bodies Corporate (Joint Tenancy) Act, 1899),


s.

63 Vict. (Commons Act, 1899), c. 30 63 Vict. (Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899), c. 32', s. II . 63 Vict. (Improvement of Land Act, 1899), c. 46 64 Vict. (Land Charges Act, 1900), c. 26 s. 2
. . .

......... ..........
.
.

1156,1158,1171 I156
.

II7I
lo, 14

c.

20

910 689
.

1214 897

864
'376

s.

Digitized

by Microsoft

xlvi

TABLE OF STATUTES
64 Vict. (Money Lenders Act, 1900),
s.
I

63
I

&

Edw. Edw. 2 Edw. 2 Edw.


1

.....
c.
.
.

51

VII. VII. VII. VII.


VII. VII. VII. VII. VII.

(Larceny Act, 1901), c. 10 (Factory and Workshop Act, 1901), 136 (Cremation Act, 1902), c. 8 (Musical (Summary Proceedings) Copyright Act, 1902),
.
.

c.

5'

s-

3
c.

Edw. Edw. 4 Edw. 5 Edw. 5 Edw.


2
3

(Licensing Act, 1902),

28,

s.

(Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1903),

c.

39,
c.

(Pre-ention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904), (Railway Fires Act, 1905), c. 11 (Trade Marks Act, 1905), c. 15

15,

s.

12 28

s-3

TABLE OF STATUTES
6

xlvil
PAGE

Edw. VII.

(Public Trustee Act, 1906),


'

c.

55
. .
. .

1106 133^
.

8-2
8- S

.1111
1

'

109,

1 1

10

'^
8> s.

"10,1332,1336,1338
. .

13
'

125 ,123
1

Edw. Vlt. (Workmen's Compensation Act,


"

1906),

c.

58

58,

473

452,455459 460 461, 462 459 458,460 455,456,457,459


463
:

^2 "3 8-5 ^6

"7
'8

9
'3.

7 idw. VII. (Matrimonial Causes Act, 1907), t. 12, s. i 7 Edw. VII. (Married Women's Property Act, 1907), c.
s.
I

,,,!:

364,365,457,458,461,462
. . . .

8.3.

7 Edw. VII. (Limited Partnerships Act, 1907), t. 24, 7 Edw. VII. (Patents and Designs Act, 1907), c. 29
ss.
s. s.

1-4
5

ss.
8.

7-13
14 17 25

s.
a.

9.
s.

8.
s.

26 27 28
33 34 36

0.

s. s.

37
38

S. 49 8-53 8-54 3.

55

ss. 56,
8.

57

s.
8. s.

59 60
61

93

8. 97 7 Edw. VII. (Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907), 7 Edw. VII. (Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act, 1907), c. 47

....... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........ ......... ......... ......... ........ ........ ......... ...... ......... ..... ... ......... ........ .........
18
a.

1200
1

29, go6, 975,


. .

106

29,907
1368

927, 1020
.

1016

1015, 1016

1015, 1016
.

1016 1015 1015, 1019 1018, 1019 1019 1019


.

1020 1016

426

427, IO16

1085 1018 I020, I02I I02I


.

c.

1023 1020 1021 1020 1022 1023 1015, 1020 IO16 1214 43, s. 14
. .

8.
a. 5.
-s-

2
3
5

..........
.

.1173
1

1173,

188

174

174,
.

188, 1196

"73
1907),
c.

Edw. VII. (Companies Act,

50,

8.

16

1014

Digitized

by Microsoft

xlviii

TABLE OF STATUTES
c. 7, s. 1

8 8
8 8

Edw. VII. (Fatal Accidents (Damages) Act, 1908), Edw. VII. (Naval Marriages Act, 1908), c. 26, s. i Edw. VII. (Married Women's Property Act, 1908),
s.
I

Edw. VII.

......
c.

c.

27

(Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908),


ss.
s. s.
3.

28

1-9 10
II

371 1158 1184 1212 619, 788, 908 625 360, 625 625
620, 625, 755

12
15

,
I

ss. 13,
:

S.
s.

20
21

..

'

(j;j.
',
,

s.
s.

i.;

;-

s. a.
s.

22 26 28 29 3p
33

625 896 788 619 790


81

s.
s.
.

46

8
8

Edw. Edw.

Sched. II. Sched.,IV, VII. (Old Age Pensions Act, 1908), c. 40, 3. 6 VII. (Local Authorities (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Act,
1908),
c.

97? 533 908 575, 624 625 620


999 516
I281

43,

3.

8 8

Edw. VII. (Lunacy Act, 1908), c. 47, s. i Edw. VII. (Law of Distress Amendment Act.
3. I S.
!

1908),

c.

53
533j 972,

83

11K'.

"49
1

3.4

...
c.
(,-f

Edw. VII.

(Children Act, 1908), s. 21


s.
s. s.

58 75 134
c.

8 Edw. VII. (Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908),

69

149 952 1223 1223, 1224 1214 . 1214 436 11,13,15,266,


.

972,

325, 981, 1000, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1009, lOIO, IOI3, 1070, I07I, 1072
s. I
s. s.

5,

266

s. s. s. s.

22 23 25

15, looi, 1004,

27
28

29 s-33 s-37
s.

41

s.
3. S.

59
81

1408 1004 1001 1006 1004 1367 1004 1002, 1004 1003 1008 1002
. .

84
93
,103

=
s. 3. S.

951,

325, 544 loio, 1071 98I) 1013


.

105 121

1013 lOOI

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF STATUTES
8

xlix

Edw. VII. (Companies


s. s. 3.

(Consolidation) Act, 1908),

c.

69 (contd.

123 IZ9

s.
8. 8. B.

8. 8.
8.

139 172 183 185 205 209 210

88.
8.

212 268-273 285


I.
.

Sched.

9 Edw. VII, (Workmen's Compensation (Anglo-French Convention) Act,


1909),
c.

16 Planning, &c.. Act, 1909),


c.

9 Edw, VII. (Housing,


8.
s.

Town

44-

14
IS
c.

9 Edw. VII. (Assurance Companies Act, 1909), I & 2 Geo. V. (Conveyancing Act, 1911), c. 37
2 s-3
8.

49,

s.

36

8.4
8.

8.6 8.7 8.8 =9


IS.

10
12

S.

14
I

I I

& 2 Geo. & 2 Geo. & 2 Geo.

V. (Moneylenders Act, 191 1), c. 38 V. (Lunacy Act, 1911), c. 40, s. i V. (Copyright Act, 191 1), c. 46
8

TABLE OF STATUTES
I

&

2 Geo. V. (Copyright Act, 19 1


s.

1), c,

46 {contd.}

Ti^

25

LIO!
,','
'

s. s.

26 28
29, 30 31
.

ss.
. s.

& & 4 & 4 &


1

2 Geo.
3 Geo. 5 Geo.
5

Geo.

35 Sched. I. . V. (Finance Act, 1911), c. 48, s. 17 V. (Trade .Union Act, 1913), c.'30 V. (Affiliation Orders Act, 1914), c. 6, ss, i, 3 V. (British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act,
5.

1043 1043 1044 1043 427, 1034, 1046 1032, 1034, 1043 1636 1004 6 1213
914),
17:

17

974
c.

&

Geo. V. (Bankruptcy Act, 1914),


s.
I

59
't.o'J

1389
1066,

.
s.

7
18

s. s.

rfrt
s.

28 30
31
'Jf

860 859,909,1053 149) 301, 468, 478


49, 3oi> 367, 1388, 1389
.
. . .

239

s-33
s.

227, 1388, 1415

-!
1

.!!(

.S

34 S.3S s. 36 s-37 s. 38 s. 40 s. 42 s. 44 s. 45 s. 47
s. s.

219
; . .

860, 969,
859, 860, 969, 970, 982, 990, 1053, 1066,
1

106,

149,

971. 81, 1068, 1069,


.

239, 860;

81 1185 1066 1 52 1 iS4 1070 1067 1066 28

SI

999

52
53
<p+
5'5

idf

46, 1185

s-

S-.S4
s. .

28, 969, 1053 628, 861, 862, 970, 1054

977

s.
s.

125 129
130'

29,46, 1072, 1184 . 861


1387, 139,

HI 5

151 7

7 7
7

& & &

8 Geo. V. (Wol-'kmen's

Compensation (War Addition) Act, 1917),

c.

1377, 42.

&^

8 Geo. V. (Fiiiahce Act, 1917), c. 31, s. 35 8 Geo. V. (Corri Production Act," 1917), c. 46, s. 9' Geo. V.' (Wills (Soldiers and Sailors) Act, 1918),'
s. 1
.
.

c.

'"'
8

S.3
s.

9 Geo. V. (Education Act, 1918), c. 39, s. 8 8 9 G60. V.' (Affiliation Orders Act; iqiS), c. 49, 9 &' 10 Geo. V. (Trade Marks Act, 1919), c. 79 ss. 1-4
"
.

& &

.......
s. i
.

10 Geo. V. (Patents and Designs Act, 1919),

c.

80

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF STATUTES
9

li

&

10 Geo. V. (Patents and Designs Act, 1919), a. 2


9. 5

ss. 6,
8. s.

8 lo

S8.

14-16

&

Sched. 10 Geo. V. (Workmen's Compensation Act, 1919), c. 83

.......... .......... .......... .........


. .
. . . . . . . . . .
.

c.

80

(contd.)

PAGE

1018 1016 . 1015 1017 379, 4z6, 1016, 1085 1020 1016, loig

(War Addition) Amendment


463

iz

Digitized

by Microsoft

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
PAGi:

A. V. A. (1885) 19 Ir. R. Ch. 403 1177 A. . B. (1868) L. R. I P. & M. 559 17 W. R. 14 1177 A. and B., Re [1897] i Ch. 786 66 L. J. Ch. 592 C. A 1217 Abbiss V. Burney (1880) 17 Ch. D. 211 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 348 44 L. T. 267 29 W. R. 449 C. A 751, 752, 1074, 1075 Abbot, Re [1893] i Ch. 54 62 L. J. Ch. 46 ; 67 L. T. 794 41 W. R. 154 R- 7^ 1073 3 Abbot II. Weekly (1665) i Lev. 176 743, 746 Abbott 0. Macfie (1863) 2 H. & C. 744; 33 L. J.,Ex. 177 ; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 682 12 W. R. 315 403 Abbott V. Parfitt (1871) L. R. 6 Q. B. 346 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 1 15 ; 24 L. T. 469 ; 19 W. R. 718 1363 Abercromby v. Fermoy Commissioners [1900] i Ir. R. 302 C. A. 746 Abraham v. Bubb (1680) 2 Freem. Ch. 53 792 Abrahams, Re [1908] 2 Ch. 69 77 L. J. Ch. 578 ; 99 L. T. 240 1276 Abrahams, Re [191 1] i Ch. 108 80 L. J. Ch. 83 ; 103 L. T. 532 54 Sol. Jo- 874 "35 Abrahams o. Deakin [1891] i Q. B. 516 60 L. J. Q. B. 238 63 L. T. 690 // 39 W. R. 183 ; 55 J. P. 212 C. A Abrath v. N. E. Ry. (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 440 C. A. ; affirmed, (1886) L. R. 1 1 App. Ca. 247 346, 55 L. J. Q. B. 457 ; 55 L. T. 63 ; 50 J. P. 659
; ; ; ;

......
;

.....
. . ; ;

.353
.

i P. & D. 636 ; Ackland v. Lutley (1839) 9 A. & E. 879 Ackroyd o. Smith (1850) 10 C. B. 164 19 L. J. C. P. 315 ; 14 Jur. 1047. ..670, 677 1102, 1358 Ackroyd v. Smithson (1780) t Bro. C. C. 502 3 P. W. 22 n. Acraman v. Cooper (1842) 10 M. & W. 585 419
; ; ; . .

487, 490, 492, 494 8 L. J. Q. B. 164. 615

62 L. J. Ch. 266 ; 68 L. T. 376 ; 41 W. R. 329 ; [1893] 1 Ch. 329 R. 222 Adams and Kensington Vestry, Re (1884) 27 Ch. D. 394 54 L. J. Ch. 87 51 L. T. 382; 32 W. R. 883 C. A Adams v. Adams [1892] i Ch. 369 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 237 ; 66 L. T. 98 ; 40 W. R.

Adams, Re
3

135

1354

991 Cheverel (1606) Cro. Jac. 113 1363 6 Bing. 656 ; 4 M. & P. 491 ; 8 L. J. (O. S ) C. P. v. Gibney (1830) 635 242 31 R. R. 514 506 Adams c. Kelly (1824) Ry. & Moo. 157 Adams v. Lanes. & Yorks. Ry. Co. (1869) L. R. 4 C. P. 739 ; 38 L. J. C P. 277; 20L. T. 850; 17W. R. 884 90 Adams v. Lindsell (;i8i8) i B. & Aid. 681 ; 19 R. R. 415 Adams v. Newbigging (1888) 13 App. Ca, 308 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 1066 ; 59 L. T 35 267 ; 37 W. R. 97 686 Adams 1). OsbaMeston (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 489 . . 1330 Adamson, In the Goods 0/(1875) L. R. 3 P. & M. 253 Adamson. Re [1913] W. N. 18 108 L. T. 179 ; 29 T. L. R. 233 ; 57 Sol. Jo. ^^246 j' affirmed W. N. 188 (218) 109 L. T. 25 29 T. L. R. 594 ; 57 Sol. . Jo. 610 C. A. Adamson v. Jarvis (1827) 4 Bing. 66 12 Moore C. P. 241 ; 5 L. J. (O. S.) 210, 237, 337 C. P. 68 ; 29 R. R. 503 Addams v. Ferick (1859) 26 Beav. 384 28 L. J. Ch. 594 ; 5 Jur. (N. S.) W 1395 S88

261C. A
0.

Adams Adams

-329
.

-99"

Digitized

by Microsoft

Kv
Adderly 607 Addison
v.

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
Dixon (1824) 2
. .

L. J. (O. S.) Ch. 103


.

24 R. R. 254

Sim.

&

S.

125
.

Overend (17^) 6 T. R. 766 Agjinoor's Trusts, Re (1895) 64 L. J. Ch. 521 Agard v. King (1600) Cro. Eliz. 775
0.

349 1306 13 R. 677 618, 645 Agar-Ellis, Re (1878) 10 Ch. D. 49 ; 48 L. J. Ch. i 27 W. R. 39 L. T. 380 1228,1229 117 C. A Agar-ElIis, Re (1883) 24 Ch. D. 317; 53 L. J. Ch. 10; 50 L. T. 161 32 ^ W. R. I C. A. 441, 1215, 1218, 1220, 1225, 1226 Agius o. G. W. Colliery Co. [1899] i Q. B. 413 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 312 ; 80 L. T. 122 140 47 W. R. 403 C. A Agnew V. Belfast Banking Co. [1896] 2 Ir. R. 204 C. A. 1290 Agiiew 0. Jobson (1877) i'3 Cox C. C. 625 432 Ailesbury (Earl) . Pattison (1778) I Dougl. 28 687 Ainsworth 11. Wildii^ [1905] i Ch. 435 74 L. J. Ch. 256 ; 92 L. T. 679 ; 53 820 W. R. 28T Akerman, Re [1891] 3 Ch. 212; 61 L. J. Ch. 34; 65 L. T. 194; 40 1276 W. R. 12 Alabaster v. Harness [1895] i Q. B. 339 64 L. J. Q. B. 76 71 L. T. 740 ; 43 W. R. 196 14 R. 54 496, 498 706 Albany". Brounsall (ji 609) Yelv. 163 AllTeinarle (Earl) o. Rogers (1796) 7 Bro. P. C. 522 728 L. R. 3 Q. B. Aldous . Cornwell (1868) 9 B. & S. 607 37 L. J. Q. B. 201 149 573 ; 16 W. R. 1045 Aldred's Estate, Re (1882) 21 Ch. D. 228 46 L. T. 379 51 L. J. Ch. 942 840 30 W. R. 777 Aldrich v. Cooper (1803) 8 Ves. 382 7 R. R. 86 836, 1399 Alexander v. Alexander (1755) 2 Ves. Sr. 640 876, 877 Alexander v. Jenkins [1892] i Q. B. 797 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 377 ; 66 L. T. 391 ; 40 W. R. 202 9 Manson, 13. Alexander o. Mills (1870) L. R. 6 Ch. App. 124 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 73 24 L. T. 206; 19W. R. 310 873 ;. 11 Jur. Alexander o. N. E. Rv. Co. (i 865) 6 B. & S. 340 34 L. J. Q. B. 1 52 (N. S.)6i9; 13 W. R. 651 Sii Alexander v. Southey (1821) 5 B. & Aid. 247 24 R. R. 348 419 Alison. Re (1879) ii Ch. D. 284 40 L. T. 234 27 W. R. 537 Allan, ii (1881) 17 Ch. D. 807 50 L. J. Ch. 778 ; 44 L. T. 168 29 W. R. 1214 859 Allan . Gomme (1840) :i A. & E. 759 ; 3 Per. & Dav. 581 9 L. J. Q. B. 258 708 Allan V. Gott (1872) L. R. 7 Ch. App. 439 41 L. J. Ch. 571 ; 26 L. T. 412 20 W. R. 427 1394, 1397 Allan V. Overseers of Liverpool (1874) L. R. 9 Q. B. 191 43 L. J. M. C. 69 ; 30 L. T. 93 22 W. R. 33b 382 AUcard . Skinner (1887) L. R. 36 Ch. D. 145 56 L. J. Ch. 1052 57 L. T. 61 36 W. R. 257 34 Allen, i?e [1905] 2 Ch. 400 74 L. J. Ch. 593 9J L. T. 597 ; 54 W. R. 91 21 T. L. R. 662 1099 Aliens. Bewsey (1877) 7 Ch. D. 453; 37 L. T. 688 C. A. 590,598 Allen V. Cameron (1833) i Cr. & M. 832 ; 3 Tyr. 907 ; 2 L. J. Ex. 263 124 Flood [1898] A. C, i .'Ulen V. 67 L. J. Q. B. 119 77 L. T. 717 ; 46 W. R. 258 62 J. P. 595^H. L. (E.) 335,470,479,480,484 Allen . Hill (1590) Cro. Eliz. 238 762 Allen o. Jackson (1875) L. R. i Ch. D. 399 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 310 33 L. T. 713 ; 24 W. R. 306 42
; ; ; ;
. . .

...... .....
. .
.
'

.....
. . .

.504

........
; .
.

.815

...
;

..........
; ; . .
.

'

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
AUen
Allen Allen Allen
ti.

Iv

L.

612;
V.
V.

& S. W. IjLy. (1870) L. igW. R. 127; n Cox

.y^

R. 6 Q. B. 65
C. C. 621

40 L.

J.

Q. B. 55
.

23L.T.
.

1 H. L. C. 191 ; 11 Jur. 785 (1858) 11 Moo. P. C. 427 ; 6 W. R. 825. V. Wood (1893) 68 L. T. 143 ; 4 R. ^49 Allgood V. Gibson (1876) 34 L. T. 883 ; 25 W. R. 60 . Allsop, Re [1914] I Ch. i ; 83 L. Ch. 42 ; 109 L. T. 641 ;

McPherson (1847)

Haddock

353 1258 1239 388 745


1

58 Sol. Jo. 9 C. A Allsop V. Allsop (i860) 5 H. & N. 534 2 L. T. 290 ; 8 W. R. 449

J.

30 T. L. R. 18
1

146,
;

147

29 L.
745
;

J.

Ex.
~L.

31556

Jur. (N. S.) 433

Allwood

V.

Heyivood (1863)
;

H.

&

C.

32

J,

Ex. 153

472, 523 7 L- T. 640


;

9 Jur. (N. S.) 108

II

W.

R. 291
[1917] 2 Ch. 441
.
,

574

Alperton Rubber Co.


L. T. 499

v.

Manning

86 L. J. Ch. 377; 116

33 T. L. R. 205 ; Alsop V. Bowtrell (16 19) Cro. Jac. 541 I2o8 Alton . Midland Ry. Co. (i86!|) J9 C. B. N. S. 213 34 L. J. C. P. 292; Jur. (N. S.) 672 ; 12 L.T. 703 ; 13 W. R. 918 472) 477 Alton Woods Case (1600) i Rep. 40 b 641 Amalgamated Society . Osborne [1910] A. C. 87 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 87 loi 6 L. T. 787; 54L. J. 215; 26T. L. R. 177 H. L. (E.) (i86c) 8 C. B. N. S. 597 Amann 0. 29 L. J. C. P. 313 ; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 505, 527 47 2 L. T. 322 ; 8 W. R. 47P Ambergate Ry. Co. v. Midland Ry. Co. (1853) 2 El. & HI. 793 ; 2 C. L. R. B. 17 18 Jur. 243 261 ; 23 L. J. Q. 84 Ambler, Re [1905] i Ch. 697 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 367 92 L. T. 716 ; 53 W. R. 584 ; 21 T. L. R. 376 C. A. 1381, 1389 ,ij'' Ambler o. Gordon [1905] i K. B. 417 74 L. J. K. B. 185 ; 92 L. T. 96 ; 53 W. R. 300 ; 21 T. L. R. 205 711 ^. 1182 Ambrose v. Kerrison (1851) 10 C. B. 776 ; 20 L. J. C. P. 135 Amherst . Dawling (1700) 2 Vern. 401 755 Amis V. Witt (1863) 33 Beav. 619 1292 Amott V. Holden ('852) 18 Q. B. 593 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 14 17 Jur. 318 996 ^Amphlett 0. Parke (1831) 2 Russ. &M. 221 1358 Ancaster (Duke) v. Mayer (1785) i Bro. C. C. 454 819, 987 Anderson's (Lord) Case (1597) 7, Rep. 21 a 863 Anderson, Re [1905] 2 Ch. 70 74 L. J. Ch. 433 92 L. T. 725 53 W. R.
.

-427

Damm

...
;

;
,

.......
. . .

....
;

510 Anderson

8io, 1279
v.

Anderson (1872) L. R. 13 Eq. 381


R. 313
;

41 L. J. Ch. 247
. ., .

i2;2oW.

Anderson v. Calvert (1908) 24 T. L. R. 399 C. A. 370, 521 Anderson v. CoUinson [1901] 2 K. B. 107 70 L. J. K. B. 320 ; 84 L. T. 465 ; 49 W. R. 623 Anderson o. Gorrie [1895] i Q. B. 668 ; 14 R. 79 ; 71 L. T. 382 Ci A. 342 ./^derson 0. Martindale (l8oi) I East, 497 ; 6 R. R. 334 Anderson v. M. Ry. Co. (1861) 3 E. & E. 614 ; 30 L. J. Q. B. 94 ; 3 L. T. 809 ; 641,645 7jur. (N. S.)4ii Anderson v. Pignet (1872) L. R. 8 Ch. App. 180 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 310 ; 27 L. T. 638,828 740; 21 W. R. 150 Anderson v. Radcliffe (1858) E. B. & E. 806 29 L. J. Q. B. 128 ; 6 Jur. . . 8 W. R. 283Ex. Ch. I L. T. 487 (N. S.) 578 384 Anderson v. Vicary [1900] 2 Q. B. 287 69 L. J. Q. B. 713 ; 83 L. T. 15 ; 48
.

26 L. X1259,1260

.468

.157

'

W. R. 593 ; 16 T. L. R. 421C. A. 7^3 Anderton's and Milner's Contract (1890) 45 Ch. D. 476 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 765 ; 63 L. T. 332 ; 39 W. R. 44 633 Andrew v. Bridgman [1908] i K. B. 596 ; 77 L. J. K. B. 272 ; 98 L. T. 656.. .630, 631
:

Digitized

by Microsoft

lyi

TABLP OF CASES
'

PAGE Andrews. Ramsay [1903] a K.B. 635; 72


. . ;

T. L. R. 620 52 W. R. 126 Andrew's Case (1591) Cro. Eliz. 214 Andrewes v. Andrewes [1908] 2 K. B. 567 77 L. J. K. B. 974 99 L. T. 214 24T. L. R. 709 Andrews, Re. (1873) L. R. 8 Q. B. 153 21 W. R. 480 ; 28 L. T. 353 sub nom. . Edwards, Re, 42 L. J. Q. B. 99 441, Andrews, iSe [1902] 2 Ch. 394 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 676 87 L. T. 20 50 W. R. 569 ; 18 T. L. R. 646 1292, Andrews' Trust, Re [1905] 2 Ch. 48 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 462 ; 92 L. T. 766 21 T. L. R. 512; 53W. R. 585 . : Andrews . Askey (1837) 8 C. & P. 7 Andrews o. ClifFord (1920) Times Newspaper, December 20 Andrews v. HaWley (1857) 26 L. J. Exch. 323 Andrews v. Harris (1841) i Q. B. 3 7 D. P. C. 712 Aridirews 0. Mockford [1896] i Q. B. 372 65 L. J. Q. B. 302 ; 73 L. T. 726 . Andrews p. Nott-Bower [1895] i Q. E. 888 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 536 ; 72 L. T. 530 ; '. . . 43 W. R. 582 14 R. 404 59 J. P. 420 Andrews v. Partington (1790) 2 Cox Eq. 223 3 Bro. C. C. 60 .
. . ; ; ;
.

.......
; ;
; . . . . ; ; ; . . . .

L. J.

K. B. 865

19 231, 232, 235, 236, 1125

89 L. T. 450

356
461 1225 1293

1103

... ......

....
. .
. .

469 74 319 343


539

.5^7
.

1214

Andrews Andrews
Andrews

v.

v.

Partington (1791) 3 Bro. C. C. 401'. Salt (1873) L. R. 8 Ch. App. 622 28 L. T. 686
. ;

928, 1286, 1287

21

W.

0. Wait [1907] 2 Ch. 500 76 L. J. Ch. 6.76 97 L. T. 428 Angerstein o. Martin (1823) Turn. & Russ. 232; 2 L. J. (O. S.) Ch. 88 j 24 R. R. 32 1270 Anglesey (Marquis of), i?i![i903] 2 Ch. 727 72 L. J. Ch. 782 19 T. L. R. 719.. .1057 Anglo-Egyptian N^viga|tion Co. v. Rennie (1875) 44 L. J. C. P. 130 L. R. 10 C. P. 27T . 32 L. T. 467 23 W. R. 626 ., 132,(46 Anglo-Italian Bank v. Dayies (1878) 9 Ch. D. 275 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 833 ; 39 ." L. T. 244; 27W. R. 3 C. A.. ,961 Aiigus o. Dalton (1881) L. R. 6 App. Ca. 740 50 L. J. Q. B. 689 ; 44 L. T. 844 ; 30 W. R. 191 ; 46 J. P. 132H. L. (E.) 327 Angus V. ClifFord [1891] 2 Ch. 449 60 L. J. Ch. 443 65 L. T. 274 ; 39 W. R.
.

R. 431.. .1216, 1228^ 1229 711


.
. .

498

Angus Angus
31

V. V.

London Tilbury & Southend Co. McLachlan (1883) 23 Ch. D. 330


0.

...
.

(1906) 22 T. L. R. 222 C. A. 52 L. J. Ch. 587 ; 48 L. T. 863 ;


,

538, 539
.

335

641 Anichini (1839) 2 Curt. 210 Ankerson v. Connelly [1907] i Ch. 678 76 L. J. Ch. 402 T. L. R. 486 Anon. (n. d.) i Brownl. 43 .

W.R.

247,961,967,968
1194
;

Anichini

96 L. T. 681
.
.

23
.

Anon, Anon. Anon. Anon. Anon. Anon. Anon, Anon. Anoni Anon, Anon. Anon. Anon. Anon.

(n; <1.) 3 Salk. (n. d.) i

46 Brownl. 30
1;

[temp.

Edw.

Ill) Keilw. 151

YY. Y. Y. (1489) Y.
(1331) (1336) (1440) (i486)

(1494) (i 502)
(1505)

(1534) (1536) Dyer, 19

B. Ass; pi. 9 B. 10 Edw. Ill, Hil.pl. II B. 19 Hen. VI, Mich. pi. 59 B. I Heh. VII, Pasch. pi. 17 B. 5 Hen. VII, Mich. pi. 22 Keilw. 92 . Keilw. 47 a . . . Keilw. 65 Y. B. 26 Hen. VIII, 'Tr. pi. 15
.'
.

......... ...... ........


.
.

712 647

434
763 675

686, 697

'"''.

.
. .

675,676 . 434
718
697, 718

(1537) Dyer, 30 b

......... a.........
. . . . . . .

436 762
645 675 502 703

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES

Ivii

PAG
Anon. fi537l Dyer, 33 a 650 Anon. (1560) Moo. 19 037 Anon. 11564) Moo. 62 785, 791 Anon. (1576) Dyer, 303 b 655 Anon. (1571) Owen, 35 762,763 Anon. 1572) 4 Leon. 33 641 Anon. 1573) 4 Leon. 35 764 Anon. 1 584) Moore, 1 59 616 Anon. 1588) Oi Owen, 37 715 Anon. fi6ii) I Bulstr., at p. 177 614 Anon. 1618) 12 Rep. loi 699 Anon. 1618) Hobart, 235 677 Anon. 622) 2 Rolle Rep. 255 780 Anon. ('1641) March, i8!i-9 i: 937 Anon. (1674) I Vent. 264 429 Anon. (1704) 6 Mod. 27 324 Anon. (1706) II Mod. 99 500 Anon. (temp. Cowper) quoted in Arnot v. Biscoe (1748) i Ves. Sen. 96 761 Anon. (1751) 2 Ves. Sen. 374 1218 Anon. (1773) Lofft. 275 6.5 Anslow V. Cannock Chase [1909] A. C. 435 ; 78 L. J. K. B. 679 100 L. T. 786; 53 Sol. Jo. 519; 25 T.L.R. 570 463 Anthony, Re [1893] 3 Ch. 498 62 L. J. Ch. 1004 ; 69 L. T. 300 41 W. R. 667 ; 3 R. 671 1396 Anthony v. Haney (1832) 8 Bing. 186 i M. & Scott, 300 i L. J. C. P. 81 82 Anthony v. Haneys (1832) 8 Bing. 186 i M. & S. 306 ; i L. J. C. P. 81 . 386 Antrobus . Davidson (18 17) 3 Mer. 578 ; 17 R. R. 130 . 295 Applebee, Re [1891] 3 Ch. 422 60 L. J. Ch. 793 65 L. T. 406 ; 40 W. R. 90 . . 1276 Appleby, Re [1903] i Ch. 565 ; 51 W. R. 153 C. A. 1079, 1104 Appleby v. Franklin (1885) 17 Q. B. D. 93 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 129 54 L. T. 135 ; 50 J- P- 359 34 W. R. 231 338, 477 Appleby v. Meyers (1867) L. R. 2 C. P. 651 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 331 ; 16 L. T. ~ . 669; reversing itf.W.'R.S^i 130,132,224 Appleton, Re (1885) 29 Ch. D. 893 54 L. J. Ch. 954 ; 52 L. T. 906 49 " 1285 J. P.708. Appleton I). Binks (1804) 5 East, 418 ; i Smith, 361 ; 7 R. R. 672 61 Appleton II. Rowley (1869) L. R. 8 Eq. 139 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 689 ; 2 L. T. 600 1314 Archbold w. Scully (1861) 9 H. L. C. 360 . . . 763,765,843,847 Archer's Case (1597) I Rep. 63 b, 66 b 654,660,801 Arden o. Arden (1885) 29 Ch. D. 702 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 655 ; 52 L. T. 610 ; 33 W. R. 593 1057 Ardern, In the Goods of, [1898] P. 147 67 L. J. P. 70 ; 78 L. T. 536 1337 Ardesoife v. Bennett (1772) 2 Dick. 463 906 Ards 0. Watkins (1597) Cro. Eliz. 637 740 Argos, cargo ex (1873). L. R. 5 P. C. 155 28 L. T. 745 ; 21 W. R. 707 41 Arkwright v. Cell (1839) 5 M. & W. 203 ; 2 H. & H. 17 8 L. J. Ex. 201 . 706 Arkwright v. Newbold (1881) 17 Ch. D. 301 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 372 ; 44 L. T. 393 ; 29 W. R. 455 C. A 541,543 Arlett V. AUis (1827) 7 B. & C. 346 ; 9 D. & R. 897 ; 9 B. & C. 671 ; 5 L. J. R. 214-321 (O. S.) K. B. 391 ; 31 R. 398 . Armorieo. Ddamirie (1722) t Stra. 505 . 411, 417, 424, 921, 936 Armstrong v. Jackson [1917] 2 K. B. 822 ; 86 L. J. K. B. 1375 ; 1 17 L. T. 479 61 Sol. Jo. 631 ; 33 T. L. R. 444 39 Armstrong v. Milbum (1886) 54 L. T. 247, 723 C. A 76
,

........

.........
; ; ; ; ; . ; . . . ; ; .

...
; . .

.......
. . ;
.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Iviii

TABL^ OF CASES
tAGE
b.

Stokes (1872) L. R. 7 Q. B. 605 ; 41 L. J. Q. B. 253 ; 26 L. T. 872 ; 21 W. R. 52 Armstrong, Whitworth & Co. . Redford [192b] A. C. 757 ; 89 L. J. K. B. . . 495; 64S0I. Jo. 388; 36T. L. R. 451H. L. (E.) Armytage v. Armytage [1898] P. 178 ; 67 L. J. P. D. A. 90 ; 78 L. T. 689 ; 14 T. L. R. 480 Arnold v. Cheque Bank (1876) i C. P. D. 579 ; 45 L. J. C. P. 562 ; 34 L. T. . 729 ; 24 W. R. 759 Arnold v. Poole (Mayor) (1842) 4 Man. & Gr. 860 ; 5 Scott (N. R.) 741 ; 2 . D. (N. S.) 574 ; I? L. J. C. P. 97 ; 7 J"r. 653 . . .A.rnot o. Biscoe (1748) T Ves. Sen. 95 . . . . . .

Armstrong

63

..........
.

.456
1204

416
S3 761 991

>

Arnot V. TyrreU (1855) 21 Beav. 49 Arthington v. Coverly (1733) 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 518 Arthur Average Association, Re (1876) 34 L. T. 942 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 346 L. R. 3 Ch. D. 522; 24 W. R. 514 Arthur o. Barton (1840) ,6 M. &W. 138; 9 L. J. Ex. 187 . Arthur . Wynne (1880) 49 L. J. Ch. 556 14 Ch. D. 603 ; 43 L. T. 46 ; 28 ./ W. R. 972 Artizans Land and Mortgage Corporation, Re [1904] i Ch. 796 73 L. J. Ch. 12 Mans. 98 581 52 W. R. 330 Arundel (Countess) v. Steere (1605) Cro. Jac. 25
. .
.

......
.

899
54 56
130

...
. ;

Ash

Pouppeville (1867) L. R. 3 Q. B. 86 ; 37 L. J. Q. B. 55 8 B. & S. 825; 16 W. R. 191 151 Ashburner v. Macguire (1786) 2 Bro. C. C. 336 1264 Aahburton (Lord) v. Nocton [191 5] i Ch. 274 84 L. J. (ih. 193 iii L. T. 864 59 Sol. Jo. 145 ; 31 T. L. R. 122 C. A 89s Ashbury Carriage Co. . Riche (1875) L. R. 7 H. L. C. 693 ; 44 L. J. Ex. 185 ; 24W. R. 794 10 33 L. T. 451 Ashby o. Ashby (1827) 7 B. & C. 444 6 L. J. (0. S.) K. B. 41 i Man. & R. 180 31 R. R. 242 1368 Ashby 0. White (1703) 2 Ld. Raymond, 938'; 3 id. 320; i Smith L. C. (loth ed.) 231 ; 14 Howell St. Tr. 695 Salk. 19 ; 6 Mod. 45 ; Holt, 524 327, 529 Ashcroft V. Ashcroft [1902] P. 270 71 L. J. P. 125 87 L. T. 229 ; 51 W. R. 292; i8 T. L. R. 821 C. A. 1200 Asher c. Whitlock (1865) L. R. i Q. B. i 35 L. J. Q. B. 17 ; 11 Jur. (N. S.) 13 L. T. 254 14 W. R. 26 925 389, 390, 557, 765, 767, ^42 Ashforth, Re [1905] i Ch. 535 74 L. J. Ch. 361 ; 92 L. T. 534 ; 5^ W. R. 328 21 T. L. R. 329 662, 1075 Ashley v. Ashlev (1833) 6 Sim. 358 ; 3 L. J. Ch. 61 . 657 .'Vshlin V. Lee (1875) 44 L. 32 L. T. 348 23 W. R. 458 J. Ch. 376 76 Ashmole . Wainwright (1842) 2 G. & D. 217 ; 2 Q. B. 837 11 L. J. Q. B. 79 6 Jur. 729 321 Ashton, Re [1897] 2 Ch. 574 66 L. J. Ch. 731 46 W. R. 77 L. T. 49
V.

....
; ;

987 722

.....

138

1102, 17.82
. .
.

Stock (1877) 6 Ch. D. 719 ; 25 W. R. 862. 766, 767, 772 Ashwell, iie (1859) Johns. 112 . 096 Ashworth v. Lord (1887) 36 Ch. D. 545 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 230 58 L. T. 18 36 R. 446 W. 820 Ashworth v. Stanwix (1861) 3 E. & E. 701 30 L. J. Q. B. 183 ; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 467;4L.T. 85 4^g Asiatic Banking Coi^., Ex pane (1867) 36 L. L. R. 2 Ch. 391 ; J. Ch. 222 16L. T. 162; 15 W. R. 414 91,103 Aspinall v. Pickford (1800) 3 B. & P. 44 n. (a) 260 AspinaP v. Leigh (1690) 2 Vern. 217 668

Ashton

V.

'

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Astbury
Astley Astley
V. v.

lix

Astbury [1898] 2 Ch.

in
;

67 L.

.w. R.536
v.

J. Ch. 471

78 L. T. 494; 46

1383,1385
321 138
786, 787

Str. 915 2 Barn. K. B. 40 (1801) 2 Bos. & P. 346 ; 5 R. R. 618 Aston V. Aston (1749) i Ves. Sen. 264 . Astrey v. Ballard (1676) Freem. K. B.

Reynolds (1731) 2

Weldon

Atherton, In the Goods oj, 66 L. T. 267 J. P. 134 Athill, Re (1880) 16 Ch. D. 211 50 L. J. Ch. 123 ; 43 L. T. 581 i 29 W. R, 309 Atkin . Acton (1830) 4 C. & P. 208 Atkins V. Perrin (1862) 3 F. & F. 179 Atkins V. Temple (1625) i Rep. in Ch. 14 Atkinson, Re (1886) 31 Ch. D. 577 ; 55 L. 54 L. T. 403 34 W. R, J. Ch. 49
; ;

445 61 L. [1892] P. 104

79
1339

836 213 428 790

445C. 884 Atkinson, Re [1908] 2 Ch. 307 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 766 99 L. T. 174 C. A. 1371, 1372 Atkinson, i?e (191 1) 80 L. J. Ch. 370 103 L. T. 860 C. A. 1099,1100 Atkinson v. Baker (1791) 4 T. R. 229 2 R. R. 366 579 Atkinson v. Bradford Building Society (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 377 59 L. J. Q. B. 360 62 L. T. 857 38 W. R. 630 C. A 1386 Atkinson o. Denby (i86o) H. & N. 778 31 L. J. Ex. 362 8 Jur. (N. S.) 104 10 W. R. 389 7 L. T. 93 43 Atkinson's & Horsell's Contract [1912] 2 Ch. i ; 81 L. J. Ch. 588 106 L. T. Sol. Jo. 324 C. A. 548 ; 56 842 Atkinson v. Morris [1897] P. 40 66 L. J. P. 17 75 L. T. 440 ; 45 W. R. 293C. A 1252 Atkinson v. Newcastle Waterworks (1877) 2 Ex. D. 441 46 I,. J. Ex. 775 36 L. T. 761 25 W. R. 794 C. A. 328 Atkyns v. Clare (1671) i Ventr. 407 676, 685, 686 Atkyns v. Pearce (1857) 2 C. B. N. S. 763 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 252 3 Jur.
; ;

.... ....
;

(N. S.)ii8o Attack V. Bramwell (1863). 3 B. & S. 520 892 7 L. T. 740 II W. R. 309 Attenborough v. Solomon [1913] A. C. 76
; ;

57
;

32 L.J. Q. B. 146 82 L. J. Ch. 178


. .
. . j

9 Jur. (N. S.)

532
;
.

107 L. T. 833
.
.

29 T. L. R. 79 ; 57 Sol. Jo. 76 954, 957, 1406, 1407 v. Stephens (1808) i Taunt. 190 382 9 R. R. 731 A.-G. V. Ailesbury (Marquis) (1887) L. R. 12 App. Cas. 672 57 L. J. Q. B. 1360 58 L. T. 192 ; 36 W. R. 737 83 21 T. L. R. .\.-G. V. Antrobus [1905] 2 Ch. 188 69 J. P. 141 ; 92 L. T. 790 746 471 3 L. G. R. 1071 .A.-G. o. Brereton (1751) 2 Ves. Sr. 426 724 2 Ch. 598 L. J. Ch. 743 88 L. T. 858 A.-G. V. British Museum [1903] 72 682, 683, 697 51 W. R. 582 19 T. L. R. 5S5 6 A.-G. V. Brunning (i860) 8 H. L. C. 243 ; 30 L. J. Ex. 379 3 L. T. 36 Jur. (N. S.) 1083 ; 8 W. R. 362 1357, 1370 870 A.-G. II. Burdet (1717) 2 Vern. 755 A.-G. V. Cambridge Consumers Gas Co. (1868) L. R. 4 Ch. App. 81 38 L. J. Ch. 94; 19L. T. 508; 17W. R. 145 374,375 18 Jur. 779 23 L> J. Ch. 662 A.-G. V. Chambers (1859) 4 De G. & J. 206 2 W. R. 636 779 A.-G. 0. Christ's Hospital (1831) 9 L. J. (O. S.) Ch. 186 ; 1 Russ. & M. 626
Attersoll
.

....
;

Tarn. 393 ; 3 Bro. C. C. 165 A.-G. V. Conduit Colliery Co. [1895] i Q. B. 312 ; 64 h. J. Q, B. 207 ; 15 R. 267 ; 71 L. T. 777 i 43 W. R. 366 ; 59 J. P. 70 A.-G. V. Copeland [1901] 2 K. B. loi ; 70 L. J. K. B. 512 : 65 J. P. 581 ; 84 L. T. 562 ; 49 W. R. 489 ; 17 T. L. R. 422

992
402
705

Digitized

by

l\/licrosoft<^

Ix

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
V. c. V.
V.

A.-G. A.-G. A.-G. A.-G.


A.-G.

Downing (Lady)

(1767) Wilmot, 21
/
'

Downshire (Marquis) (18 18) 5 Price, 269 Eardley (1820) 8 Price, 39. Emerson [1891] A. C. 649 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 79
709
Hos,f)ital (1853) 17

866 683 848


701

65 L. T. 564
;

55

J. P.
K.

Ewelme

Beav. 366

22 L. J. Ch. 846

W.

R.

18,690,724 523 A.-G. V. Forbes (1836) 2 Myl. & Cr. 123 374 A.-G. V. Forster (1804) 10 Ves. 335 755 10 A.-G. V. G. E. Ry. Co. (1880) 5 App. Ca. 473 A.-G. V. Gj N. Ry. Co. [1909] i Ch. 775 ; 78 L. J. Cli. 577 73 J. P. 41 C. A.. 851 A.-G. o. Horner (1884) 14 Q. B. D. 245 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 227 49 J. P. 326 33 W. R. 93C. A.-G. V. Horner [1912] W. N. 199 28 T. L. R. 522 ; 10 107 L. T. 547 .' L. G. R. 812. 851 A.-G. V. Hubbuck (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 275 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 146 ; 50 L. T. . 374C. A. 1355 A.-G. V. Jacobs-Smith [1895] 2 Q. B. 341 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 605 ; 14 R. 531 ; 72 L. T. 714 ; 43 W. R. 657 59 J. P. 468 C. A. A.-G. V. Jeffreys [1908] A. C. 411 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 685 24 52 Sol. Jo. 660 T. L. R. 793 1328 A.-G. . Kerr (1840) 2 Beav. 420 ; 9 L. J. Ch. 190; 4 Jur. 406 . 553 A.-G. V. Lewin (1837) ^ Sim. 366 ; C. P. Cooper, 51 i Jur. 6 L. J. Ch. 204
; ;

.684

.104
.

'

10, 590 134 A.-G. V. Manchester Corporation [1893] 2 Ch. 87, 91 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 459 ; 3 R. . 427 : 68 L. T. 608 41 W. R. 459 57 J. P. 343 374, 401 A.-G. V. Mathieson [1907] 2 Ch. 383 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 682 23 97 L. T. 450 T. L. R. 7S4 C. 1099 A.-G. 0. Maxwell (18 14) 8 Price, 76 n 848 A.-G. V. Murray [1904] i K. B. 165 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 66 ; 89 L. T. 710 52 W. R. 258 ; 68 J.. P. 8g 20 T. L. R. 137 304 A.-G. V. New York Breweries Co. [1898] i Q. B. 205 67 L. J. Q. B. 86 L. T. 61 62 J. P. 132 ; 46 W. R. 193 ; 14 T. L. R. 119 C. A. 78 68 L. J. Q. B. 135 ; 79 L. T. 568 affirmed [1899] A. C. 62 63 J. P. 179 48 W. R. 32 ; 15 T. L. R. 93 1343 A.-G. V. Nottingham Corp. [1904] i Ch. 673 ; 68 J. P. 125 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 512 ; 52 W. R. 281 90 L. T. 308 20 T. L. R. 257 374, 401 A.-G. B. Pamther (1792) 3 Bro. C. C. 441 1257 A.-G. 0. Parsons (1832) 2 Cr. & J. 279 2 Tyr. 223 i L. 703 J. Ex. 103 A.-G. 0. Reynolds [1911] 2 K. B. 888 80 L. J. K. B. 1073 ; 104 L. T. 852 721 A.-G. V. Richmond (Duke of) (No. 2) [1907] 2 K. B. 940 76 L. J. K. B. 1049 22 T. L. R. 742 564 A.-G. V. Sandover [1904] i K. B. '689 73 L. J. K. B. 478 ; 90 L. T. 480 ; 52 W. R. 573 ; 20 T. L. R. 351 595 A.-G. V. Sheffield Gas Consumers Co. (1853) 3 De G. M. & G. 320 22 L. J. Ch. 811; 17 Jur. ,677; I W.R. 185. 374,375 A.-G. V. Thames Conservators (1862) i H. & M. i i N. R. 121 8 Jur. (N. S.) 1203 ; 8 L. T. 9 ; II W. R. 163 773 A.-G. 0. Tod-Heatley [1897] i Ch. 560 66 L. J. Ch. 275 76 L. T. 174 ; 45
; ;

..

'

.... ......
;
.

.....
; ; ; ;

W. R. 394 C.
o.

401
5
;

A.-G.
A.-G. A.-G. A.-G.

W.
V.

V.
II.

Ch. D. 750 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 654 ; 36 L. T. 684 R. 802 ; (1880) 15 Ch. D. 150 ; 43 L. T. 486 C. A. . . Tomline (1886) 14 Ch. D. 58 ; 43 W. R. 486^C. A. . . Vigor (1803) 8 Ves. 256
'.

Tomline (1877)

25
. .

Wemyss

(i888)lL. R. 13

App. Cas, 192

594 773 135^ 773

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
A.-G.
V.

Ixi

Wright [1897] a Q. B. 318


R.

W.

85C. A &

66 L. J. Q. B. 834 ; J77 L. T. 295

46
679 539 59S

Attwood V. Small (1838) 6 CI. Auncelme V. Auncelme (1603)

F. 23? Cro. Jac. 31

AuBten V. Bennet (1693) i S^. 356 551 Austerberry v. Oldham Corporation (1885) 29 Ch. D. 7^0 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 633 ; . . 803, 804 53 L. T. 543 49 J. P. 532 ; 33 W. R. 807-C. A. Austin, Re (1865) 34 L. J. Ch. 499 ; 12 L. T. 440 ir Jur. (N. S.) 536 13 W. R. 761 1228
. i ; ;

Chambers (1838) 6 CI. & F. 1 233 Dowling (1870) L. R. 5 C. P. 534 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 260 ; 22 L. T. 721 18 W. R. 1003 440, 488 Austin V. Mills (1S53) 9 Exch. 28S ; 2 C. L. R. 411 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 40 18 Jur,
Austin Austin
V.
V.
;

16; 2 W. R. 107 Austin V. Newham [1906] 2 K. B. 167 75 L. J. K. B. 563 ; 95 L. T. 490 Australian Auxiliary Co. v. Mounsey (1858) 4 K. & J. 733; 27 L. J. Ch, 729 ; 4 Jur. (N. S.) 1224 ; 6 W. R. 734 Australian Newspaper Co. v. Bennett [1894] A. C. 284 (P. C.) ; 6 R. 484 63 L. J. P. C. 105 70 L. T. 597 ; 58 J. P. 604 Aveling o. Knipe (1815) 19 Ves. 441 5 13 R. R. 240 Averill, Re [1898] i Ch. 523 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 233 ; 78 L. T. 320 ; 46 W. R. 460
; ;

323 573
1008

....

508 1091
7SI.

"35
Avery v. (1855) 26 L. J. Q. B. 3 ; 6 El. & Bl. 953 ; 3 Jur. (N. S. 238 ; S W. R. 45 Axford (Charles), Re (i860) i Sw. & Tr. 540 ; 2 L. T. 86 ; 8 W. R. 340. Ayerst v. Jenkins (1873) L. R. j6 Eq. 275 42 L. J. Ch. 690 ; 29 L. T. 126 21 W. R. 878 Aylesford (E.) v. Morris (1873) 8 Ch. App. 484 Aylesford Peerage Case (1885) 11 App. Cas. i Ayre v. Craven (1834) 2 A. & E. 2 ; 4 Nev. & M. 220 ; 4 L. J. K. B. 35. Ayres v. Falkland (1697) Ld. Raym. 326 Ayrey v. Hill (1824) 2 Add. 206

Bowden

147 1258

"OS
36 1207
52s 560 J2S7

. B. V. M. (1852) 2 Rob. Ecc. 580 Bacon's Will, Re (l886) 31 Ch. D. 460 55 L. J. Ch. 368 ; S4L. T. ijo; 34 W. R. 319 Bacon o. Jones (1839) 4 My. & Cr. 436 ; 3 Jur. 994 Bacon v. Smith (1841) i Q. B. 345 Bacon v. Waller (1616) 3 Bulstr. 204 Baddeley v. E. Granville (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 423 56 L. J. Q, B.501; 57L.T, 268 ; 36 W. R. 63 ; 51 J. P. 822 Badeley v. Consolidated Bank (1886) 34 Ch. D. 536 ; 55 L. T. 63 j ; 3SW.
; . . ; .

...

....

1(77
1328

374 405 615

446 294

136

Badenach,
27s
;

/a

the

Goods 0/(1864) 3 Sw.


3 B.

10 Jur. (N. S.) 521

Aid. 153 Badham, Re (1893) 10 Morr. 252 ; 69 L. T. 356 ; 5 R. 521 Badische Anilin Fabrik v. Isler [1906] i Ch. 605 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 411; 94L. T. 367 ; 22 T. L. R. 326 ; 23 R. P. C. 173 Badkin v. Powell (1776) 2 Cowp. 476 L. T. 769 ; 8 Com, Bagel V. Miller [1903] 2 K. B. 212 72 L, J. K. B. 495 ;

Badger

Ford (1819)

&

....
& Tr.
.

465

33 L.

P. 179; II L. T,

1334 $86 1066

927 412 269 458


1267

Cas. 218

Bagnall v. Levinstein {1907] i K. B. 531 ; 76 L. J. K. B. 234 ; 96 L. T. 184 23 T. L. R. 165 Bagot, Re [1893] 3 Ch. 348 62 L. J. Ch. 1006 ; 69 L. T. 399C. A,
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

Ixii

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
I
.

Bagot, iie [1894] W. R. 17Q

Ch,

1.77
.

63 L. J. Ch. 515
. ;

70 L. T. 229

8 R. 41

42

754 Bagot (1863) 32 Beav. 509 33 L. J. Ch. 116:9 J-ur. (N. S.) 1022 9L. T. 217; 12W. R. 35 787,790 Bagot Pneum. Tyre, Co. v. Clipper Pneum. Tyre Co. [1902] i Ch. 146 71 18 L. J. Ch. 158; 85 L. T. 652; 50 W. R. 177 Bagshaw v. Buxton Board of Health (1875) i Ch. D. 224 45 L. J. Ch. 260 400 34 L. T. 112 ; 24 W. R. 231

Bagot

V.

Baghaw

0. o.

Spencer (1748)

Ves. Sen. 142.

B.agshawe

(1604) Cro. Jac. 147 Bailey, In the Goods of (1861) 2 Sw. & Tr. 156 (N. S.) 712 ; 4 L. T. 477

Goward

...... ......
; ;

560 699
1256 863

31 L. J. P. 178

7 Jur.
.

Bailey's Trusts,

Bailey

v.

(1869) 38 L. J. Ch. 237 ; 20 L. T. 168 ; 17 W. R. 393 Barnes [1894] i Ch. 25 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 73 ; 69 L. T. 542 ; 7 R. 9

Re

W. R. 66C. A. 757 Bailey v. Stephens (1862) 12 C. B. N. S. 91 ; 31 L. J. C. P. 226 ; 8 Jur. (N. S.) 6 L. T. 356 .10 W. R. 868 1063 677, 679 Bailey v. Sweeting (1861) 9 C. B. N. S. 843 ; 30 L. J. C. P. 150 ; 9; W. R. . loi, 102 273 Baillie v., Kell (1838) 4 Bing. N. C. 638 6 Sc. 379 7 L. J. C. P. 249 Baily's Case (1868) 37 L. J. Ch. 670 ; L. R. ^ Ch. 592 ; 19 L. T. 58 16 .' 88 W. R. 1093 Baily v. de Crespigpy (1869) 38 L. J. Q. B. 98 ; L. R. 4 Q. B. 180 ; 19 L. T. 120 681 j 17 W. ,R. 494 Bain . Cooper (1842) 9,M. &.W. 701 ; i D. (N. S.) 11 iiL. J. Ex. 325 158 Bain v. FothergiU (1874) 43 L. J. Ex. 243 ; L. R. 7 H. L. 158 ; 31 L. f. 387 121 23 W. R. 261 Bain V. Sadler (1871) L. R. 12 Eq. 570 40 L. J. Ch. 791 ; 25 L. T. 202 1374 19 W. R. 1077 Bainbridge o. Postmaster-General [1906] i K. B. 178 ; 75 L. J. K. B. 366 54 W. R. 221 ; 94 L. T. 120 ; 22 T. L. R. 70-C. A 340 Bainbrigge v. Brown (i88j) L. R. 18 Ch. D. 188 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 522 ; 44 L. T. 705; 29 W. R. 782 , 34 Baines o, Blackbourne (1755) Shyers, 216 V 990 Baird's Case (1870) L. R. 5 Gbj. App. 725 ; 23 L. T. 424 18 W. R. 1094 1367 Baird V. Wells (1890) 44 Ch. D. 661 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 673 63 L. T. 312 ; 39 W. R. 61 127, 374 Baird V. Williamson, (1863) 15 C. B. N. S. 376 33 L. J. C. P. loi ; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 152; 9L. T. 412; 12 W. R. 150 783 Baker, Re (1890) 44 Ch. D. 262 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 661 62 L. T. 817 ; 38 W. R.
42
. ; ; ; . . .
. .

...

.214

..........
;

...
.

; ;

"

1374,1380,1387 Baker . Bolton (1808) I Campb.' 493 473,477 Baker o.Carrick [1894] i Q. B. 838 9 R. 283 63 L. J. Q. B. 399 70 L. T. 366 ; 42 W. R. 338 ; 58 J, P. 669 518,523 Baker i'. Newton (1839) 2 Beav, 112 ; 8 L. J. Ch. 306 3 Jur. 649 44 Baker p. Parson (1872) 42 L. J. Ch. 228 659 Baker . Sebright (1879) 13 Ch. D. 179 49 L. J. Ch. 65 51 L. T. 614 ; 28 W. R. 177 786, 792 Baker v. Snell [1908] 2 K. B. 825 77 L. J. K. B. 1090 99 L. T. 753 26 Cox C. C. 716 ; 24 T. L. R, 811 C. A 361, 457 Baker 0. White (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 166 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 651 33 L. T. 347 ; 23 W. R. 670 jgg^ 66^ Bakin v. Hughes (1886) 31 Ch. D. 390 55 L. J. Ch. 472 ; 54 L. T. 188 34
; ; ; ;
. .

417-C.A.

......
; ; ;

"

W.

Baldwin

R. 311 w. Elphinstpn (1775) 2

W.

Bl.

1037

-V

'.

1139 505

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Baldwino. London, Chatham
Balfe
Ball, Ball,
V.

Ixiii

PAGE

& Dover Ry.

West

338 <iie Goois 0/ [1902] W. N. 226 1327 Cullimore (1835) 2 C. M. & R. 120 i Gale, 96 619, 643 5 Tyr. 753 ; Ballard v. Bond (1837) i Jur. 7 435 Ballard . Byson (1808) i Taunt. 279 707, Ballard v. Marsden (1880) 14 Ch. D. 374 42 L. T. 763 49 L. J. Ch. 614 28 W. R. 914 1276 Ballard v. Tomlinson (1885) 29 Ch. D. 115 26 Ch. D. 194 403 Balls, Re [1909] i Ch. 791 ; 78 L. 100 L. T. 780 1386, 1398 J. Ch. 341 Balme v. Hiitton (1833) 9 Bing. 478 3 Moo. & Sc. i i Car. i M. 262 2 . Tyr. 620; 2L. J. Ex. 116 531 Bahne v. Hulton (1833) 9 Bing. 471 2 Y. & J. loi 3 M. & Scott, i i Car. & M. 262; 2 Tyr. 620; 2 L. J. Ex. 116 417 Bamfleld v. Popham (1702) i P. Wms. 54 666

Ex
/

(1853) 13 C. B. 466 ; parte (1879), 10 Ch. D. 674

Co. (1882)90. B.D. 582 22 L. J. C. P. 175 ; i W. R. 335

250 228

Ball

V.

.......
; . ; ; ;

..
. .

; .

Bamford o. Bamford (1845) 5 Ha. 203 Bamford v. Hayley (see Roe d.). Bamfordo. Turnley (1862) 3 B. & S. 62,
377
;

31 L. J. Q. B. 286 83 9 Jur. (N. S.) 803 394, 395 Banbury Peerage Case (1811) I S. & S. 153 1207 Bandy v. Cartwright (1853) 8 Exch. 913 22 L. J. Ex. 285 635 Banister v. Thompson [1908] P. 362 24 T. L. R. 841 1173 Baukart v. Bowers (1866) L. R. i C. P. 484 106 Banker's Case, The (1695) Skinner, 601 gii Bankes v. Small (1887) 36 Ch. 13. 716 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 832 57 L. T. 292 35 W. R. 765 Bank of Australasia v, Breillast (1847) 6 Moo. P. C. 201 12 Jur. 189 43 Bank of Brazil, Ex pane [1893] 2 Ch. 438 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 578 69 L. T. 14 3R. 518; 41W. R. 521. 123 Bank of Ireland v. McManamy [1916] 2 K. B. (Ir.) i6i 38
; ;

10

W. R.

....... ...... .. ... .......


.

1320

.571
.

Bank
Banks

of
o.

New

108 38 W. R. 465P. C ; Crossland (1874) L. R. 10 Q. B. 97; 44 L. J. M. C. 8 ; 32 L. T. 208 226 ; 23 W. R. 414 Banks 0. Goodfellow (1870) L. R. 5 Q. B. 549 39 L. J. Q. B. 237 22 L. T. 813. ..1257 Bannatyne v. Maclver [(906] i K. B. 103 75 L. J. K. B. 12c 54 W. R. 317 293; 94 L. T. 150 C. A 116 Banner w. Lowe (1806) 13 Ves. 135. Barber, Re (1881) 18 Ch. D. 624 579, 581 Barber o. Dennis (1703) 6 Mod. 69 Salk. 68 474 Barbers). Lesiter (1859) 7 C. B. N. S. 175 29 L. J. C. P. 161 6 Jur. (N. S.) 654. .481 Barber v. Meyerstein (see Meyerstein v. Barber). Barber v. Penley [1893] 2 Ch. 447 62 L. J. Ch. 623 3 R. 489 ; 68 L. T. 662 402 1014 Barday's Case (1859) 26 Beav. 177 Barclay, Re [1899] i Ch. 674 68 L. J. Ch. 383 ; 80 L. T. 702 119, 1122 Barclay o. Messenger (i 874) 43 L. J. Ch. 449 30 L. T. 350 22 W. R. 522 . 113 Barclay v. Pearson [1893] 2 Ch. 154 3 R. 388 ; 68 L. T. 709 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 321 636 ; 42 W. R. 74 Barclay v. Raine (1823) i Sim. & S. 449 24 R. R. 206 804 Barden's and Withington's Case (1587) 2 Leon. 54 646
P. C. 82
; ; ;

South Wales 60 L. T. 467

v.

O'Connor (1889) 14 App. Cas. 273

58 L. J.

.......
; ; ;
; .

.....
. ;

Barfoot

953 Barham . Hayman (1559) Dyer, 173a Baring . Abingdon [1892] 2 Ch. 374; 62 L. . . . . W, R. 22
.

v.

Reynolds (1729)

Sir.

434 642
J. Ch. 105
.

67 L. T. 6

41

607, 675, 678

Digitized

by Microsoft

Ixiv

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
v.

Nash (1813) i V. & B. 551 Barker, 7<4Gooii 0/(1837) I Curt. 592 Barker, Re (1881) 17 Ch. D. 241 Jo L. J. Ch. 334
Baring
;

1083, loSj

'338
;

44 L. T. 33

29

W. R.

1360 873 Barker v. Brown (1856) i C. B. N. S. 121, 150 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 41 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 18 i 5 W. R. 79 ig, 39 Barker v. Furlong [1891] 2 Ch. 179 181 ; 64 L. T. 411 ; 39 W. R. 621 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 386 410, 415 Barker v. Hodgson (1814) 3 M. & S. 267 ; 15 R. R. 485 . Barker v. Keat (1677) Mod. 249 608, 609 Barker v. Richardson (1821) 4 B. & Aid. $79 ; 23 R. R. 400 . . 851 Barker v. St. Quintin (1844) 12 M. & W. 441 ; i D. & L. 542 ; 13 L. J. Ex.
,

.......
.

.129

144

150

Barkworth
5

Young
156

(1856) 4 Drew,

26 L. J. Ch. 153

3 Jur, (N. S.) 34

W. R.
v.

Haggis (1863) 14 C. B. N. S. 45 ; 32 L. J. C. P. 189 ; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 1325 ; 8 L. T. 320 25 Barnard v. Pumfrett (1841) 5 My. & Cr. 63 ; 10 L. J. Ch. 124 . 1418, 1419 Bamardo v. McHugh [1891] A. C. 388 '65 L. T. 423 ; 55 J. P. 628 ; 40 W. R. 97 1216 Barnes v. Glenton [1899] i Q. B. 885 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 502 ; 80 L. T. 606 ; 47 W. R.435 73 Barnes v. London &c. Insurance Co. [1892] i Q. B. 864 308 Barnes v. Hucile, Ltd. (1907) 96 L. T. 680 ; 23 T. L. R. 389 . 359, 453 Barnes v. Rowley (1797) 3 Ves. 305 995 Barnes v. Ward (1850) 9 C. B. 392 ; 2 Car. & K. 661 ; 19 L. J. C. P. 195
. ;

Barnard

.......
. . ;

....

14 Jur. 334 403 Bamett's Trusts, Re [1902] i Ch. 847 71 L. J. Ch. 408 ; 86 L. T. 346 ; 50 W. R. 681 ; 18 T. L. R. 454 1306 Barnett v. Earl of Guildford (1855) 11 Exch. 19 ; 24 L. J. Ex. 281 ; i Jur. (N. S.) 1142; 3W. R. 406 . 384,612 Barnett v. Sheffield (1852) i De G. M. & G. 371 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 692 16 Jur, 942 "43 Barnett v. Weston (1806) 12 Ves. 130 ; 8 R.~R. 319 761 Barney, Re [1892] 2 Ch. 265 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 585 ; 67 L. T. 23 ; 40 W. R. 637 1107 Barney, Re [1894] 3 Ch. 562 63 L. J. Ch. 676 ; 71 L. T. 180 43 W. R. 105 8R-459 1 120 Batnfather 0. Jordan (1780) 2 Burr. 452 632 Barrack v. McCulloch (1856) 3 K. & J. no; 26 L. J. Ch. loj ; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 180 ; 5 W. R. 38 I184 Barratt v. Keams [1905] i K. B. 504 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 318 ; 92 L. T. 2S5 ; 53 W. R. 356 ; 21 T. L. R. 212 512 Barrell,^arte(i875)L. R. loCh. 512; 33L.T.115; 23W.R. S46 136 Barret v. Beckford (1750) i Ves. Sen. 519 I281 Barret 0. Glubb (1776) 2 W. BL 1052 755 Barrett, Re (1889) 43 Ch. D. 70 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 218 ; 38 W. R. 59 1379 Barrett o. Barrett (1627) Hetley, 34 . 787 Barretto v. Young [1900] 2 Ch. 339 ; 69 L. 1241 J. Ch. 605 ; 83 L. T, 154 Barrington v. Turner (1681) 3 Lev. 28 361 Barron 0. Willis [1899] 2 Ch. 578 ; 69 L. J. Ch. J32 ; 82 L. T. 729 48 W. R, ; [igoo] 2 Ch. 121 C. A. 579 ; 34,36 Barrow . Barrow (1858) 4 K. & J. 409 go6 Barrow c. Isaacs [1891] i Q. B. 417 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 179 ; 64 L. T. 686 ; 55 J. P. 517 ; 39 W. R. 338 627 Barro-frs. Lewellin (i6i6)Hob. 62 502
;

....

'.

....
...

.... ....

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
. . '

Ixv
PAGE
.
.

Barrow-in-Furness Corporation and Rawlmson's Contract, Re [1903] i Ch 339 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 233 ; 87 L. T. 724 ; 51 W. R. 248 1410 Barry v. Arnaud (1839) 10 A. & E. 646 2 Per. & DaV. 633 9 L. 1:20 ; J. Q. B. 226 Barry v. Butlin (1838) 2 Moo. P. C. 480 ilZ Barry v. Croskey (1861) 2 J. & H. i 539 540 Barry o. Longmore (1840) 12 A. & E. 639; 4P. & D. 344 965 Barsht v. Tagg [1900J i Ch. 231 69 L. 48 W. R. J. Ch. 91 ; 81 L. T. 777 "o ,g Bartlett v. Downes (1825) 3 B. & C. 616 5 D. & R. 326 ; i C. & P. 522 ; 3 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 90 27 R. R. 436 585, 742 Bartlett v. Holmes (1853) 13 C. B. 630 ; i C. L. R. 159 22 L. J. C. P. 182 I W. R. 334 17 Jur. 858 ,24 Barton o. Cooke (1800) 5 Ves. 461 1266 Barton v. Robins (1769) 1 Phill. 455 n 1258 Bartonshill Coal Co. v. Reid (1856) 3 Macq. H. L. C. 266 4 Jur. (N. S.) 767 ; 6 W. R. 664 448 Barwick's Case (1597) j Rep. 93 a, 94 b 610, 614, 656 Barwick . English Joint Stock Bank (1867) L. R. 2 Exch. 259 ; 36 L. J. Ex. 147; 16L. T. 461; 15W. R. 877 55,346 Baseb^ v. Matthews (1867) L. R. 2 C. P. 684 36 L. J. M. C. 93 ; i6 L. T. 417 15W. R. 839 490 Baseley v. Clarkson (1680) 3 Lev. 37 329, 380, 387 Baskerville, Re [1910] 2 Ch. 329 79 L. J. Ch. 687 ; 103 L. T. 90 ; 26 T. L. R. 584 790 Bass V. Bass [1915] P. 17 84 L. J. P. 53 112 L. T. 70 ; 31 T. L. R. 49 C. A. 1200 Bass V. Hendon U. D. C. (1912) 28 T. L. R. 317 C. A. reversing 76 J. P.
;
.

'

f'3 449 Basset v. Maynard (i6oi) Cro. Eliz. 819 722 Bastard v. Smith (1837) ^ Moo. & R. 129 858 Bat^rd 0. Hawes (1853) 2 El. & Bl. 287 3 Car. & K. 277 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 443; 17 Jur. 1154; I W.R. 387 156,297 Batchelor v. Fortescue (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 474 ; 49 L. T. 644 C. A. 332 Batchelor e. Middleton (1847) 6 Ha. 75 828 Bateman v. Hotchkin (1847) ' Beav. 426 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 514 11 Jun 809 1082 Bateman v. Hunt [1904] 2 K. B. 530 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 782 j 91 L. T. 331 ; 52 W. R. 609 20 T. L. R. 628C. A 1047 Baten's Case (1610) 9 Co. Rep. 53 b, 55 a 391, 398, 404 Bater V. Bater [1906] P. 209 75 L. J. P. 60 94 L. T. 835 ; 22 T. L. R. 408 C. A. 1204 Bates, Re [1907] i Ch. 22 76 L. J. Ch. 29 95 L. T. 753 ; 23 T. L. R. 15 II2I, II22 Bath's (Bishop of) Case (1605) 6 Rep. 34 a, 35 b 608, 614, 641 Batson v. Donovan (1820) 4 B. & Aid. 21 ; 22 R. R. 599 196, 249, 250 Batten v. Kennedy [1907] i Ch. 256 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 162 . 781 Reed (1856) 18 C. B. 696, 714 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 290 ; 4 W. R. 603 BattishiU v. 391 Baudains o. Richardson [1906] A. C. i6g ; 75 L. J. P. C. 57 ; 94 L. ,T. 290 ; 22 T. L. R. 333 1258 Bawden, Re [1894] i Ch. 693 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 412 70 L. T. 526 42 W. R. 1392, 1398 235 ; 8 R. 76 Baxter, Re (191 1) 104 L. T. 710 27 T. L. R. 425 C. A. 992 218 Baxter v. Burfield (1747) 2 Stra. 1266 ; 1 Bott's P. L. pi. 696 Bing. (N. C.) 288 ; 7 Scott, 233 ; i Arn. 519 8 Baxter . Hosier (1839) 5 1084 L. J. C. P. 169 1288 Baxters. Losh (1851) i4Beav. 612; 21 L. J. Ch. 55
;

.......

;
.

'..........
; ; ; ;
. .

...
. . .

....
e

'

C.L.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Ixvi

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
ii.
; ;

Baxter

Nurse (1844) 6 M. & G. 935 7 Scott (N. R.) 801 i Car. & K. 10 13 L. J. C. P. 82; 8 Jur. 273 Baxter v. Taylor (1832) 4 B. & Ad. 72 i N. & M. 14 ; 2 L. J. K. B. 65
;

211
.

382,

Bayley Bayley Bayley Bayley

o.

v.
ii.

Bishop (i 803) 9 Ves. 6 Bradley (1848) 5 C. B. 396


.

Homan

12 L. J. C. P. 206 (1837) 3 Bing. (N. C.) 915 ; 6 L. J. C. P. 309


; .
.
,

....995
.

396, 405

763

Hodges,

5 Scott, 94 151 Manchester Ry. Co. (1873) L. R. 8 C. P. 148 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 78 28 L. T. 366 58, 350 Bayley v. Wilkins (1849) 7 C. B. 886 . 229 Baylis V. Tyssen-Amherst (1877) 6 Ch. D. 500 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 718 ; 37 L. T. 7'7 493 Baynes . Brewster (1841) 2 Q. B. 375 i G. & D. 669 11 L. J. M. C. 5 ; 6 Jur. 392 437 Baynes . Lloyd [1895] i Q. B. 820 635 Bayntun v. Cattle (1833) i M. & Rob. 265 234 Bays V. Bird (1726) 2 P. Wms. 397 684, 685, 687 Bazeley B. Forder (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 559 57 Beach' . Hancock (1853) 27 New Hamp. 223 432 Beadon .Capital Ssmdicate (1912) 56 Sol. Jo. 536 ; 28 T. L. R. 427 C. A. 336 Beak's Estate, Re (1872) L. R. 13 Eq. 489 41 L. J. Ch. 470 26 L. T. 281 1293 Beal V. South Devon Ry. Co. (1864) 3 H. &'C. 339 ; 11 L. T. 184 ; 12 W. R. iiij . . . . . . . 204, 230 B.ealey o. Shaw (1805) 6 East, 208 710 Beamish v. Beamish (1861) 9 H. L. C. 274 11 Ir. C. L. R. 514 5 h. T. 97 8 Jur. (N. S.) 770 1157 Bean v. Bloom (1773) 2 W. BI. 926 715 Beard, Re [1908] i Ch. 383 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 265 ; 98 L. T. 315 24 T. L. R. 225 577 Beard v. Westcott (1822) 5 B. & Aid. 801 ; 5 Taunt. 394 1073 Beardraan v. Wilson (1868) L. R. 4 C. P. 57 38 L. J. C. P. 91 ; 19 L. T. 282 17 W. R. 54 Bearpark 11. Hutchinson (1830) 7 Bing. 178 4 Moo. & P. 848 9 L. J. (0. S.) C. P. I '. 672 Beattie v. Lord Ebury (1872) L, R. 7 Ch. App. 777 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 804 ; 27 L. T. . 20 W. R. 994 ; 398 538 Beauchamp o. Pouley (1831.) r Moo. & Rob. 38 259 Beauchamp (Earl) v. Winn (1873) L. R. 6 H. L. C. 223 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 556 21 L..T. 253; 22W. R. 193 37,703 Beauclerk o.: Be^uclerk [1895] P. 220 ; 64 L. J. P. 102 j 43 W. R. 655 11 R-654 1188 Beaufort . Benty (172 1) I P. Wms. 703 1235 Beaufort (Duke) v. Patrick (1853) 17 Beav. 60 22 L. J. Ch. 489 7 Tur. 682 ; I W. R. 280 . 840 Beaumont, Re [1893] 3 Ch. 490 Beaumont, R^ [1902] i Ch. 889 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 478 86 L. T. 410 ; 50 W.' r". 389 983, 1291, 1292, 1293 Beaumont v. Qreathead (1846) 3 D. & L. 631 ; 2 C. B. 494 ; 15 L. C. P.

184;

v.

....... ...... ......


:

....
;
.

.632

...... ........
;
. .

-i

'

J.

130

"154

Beaumontj/. Reeve(i846) 3Q. B. 483; isL. J. Q. B. 141 ; 18 Jur. 284 43 Beavan,i?e[i9i3]2Ch. 595; 109L.T. 538; sSSoLJo. 31. 1380,1381 Bechervaise v. Lewis (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 372 ; 41 L. C, P. 161 ; 26 L. T. J. 848 ; 20 W. R. 726 295)^96 Bechuanaland Co. v. London Trading Bank [1898] 2 Q. B. 658 67 L. J. Q. B. 986 79 L. T. 270 14 T. L. R. 587 ; 3 Com. Cas. 285 1012
. . . ; ; ;
. .'

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Beck
Pierce (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 321 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 516 ; 61 L. T. 448 W. R. 29 ; 54 J. P. 198C. Beckett v. Addyman (1882) 9 Q. B. D. 783 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 597 . Beckett 11. Buckley (1874) L. R. 17 Eq. 435 ; 22 W. R. 294 . . Beckett v. Leeds Corporation (1871) L. R. 7 Ch. App. 421 ; 26 L. T. 375
V.

Ixvii
PAGE

; '

38
58,
.

356 300

.828
;

20

W. R. 454 Beckett o. Midland Ry. Co. (1867) L. R. i C. P. 241 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 163 I Har. & Ruth. 189 12 Jur. (N. S.) 231 ; 13 L. T. 672 14 W. R.
;
;

778

(1749) i Ves. Sen. 300 1272 (1847) 2 H. L. C. 579 ; 11 M. & W. 315 ;, 12 L. J. Ex. 486 ; 366 13 Jur. 921 ; 7 Jur. 204 Beckwith o. Filby (1827) 6 B. & C. 635 442 Bective (Countess) 1). Hodgson (1864) 10 H. L. C. 656 ; 10 L. T. 202 ; 10 Jur. (N- S.) 375 ; I2-W. R. 625 1271, 1358 Beddall v. Maitland (1881) 17 Ch. D. 174 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 401 ; 44 L. T. 248 ; 29
v.

393 BeckfOrd

Tobm

773

Beckham v. Drake

.........
..... ...... ..... ...... ...... ......
; . .
.

R. 484 383 Constable (1669) Vaugh. 177 901, 1217, 1336 Bede Steamship Co. 0. Wear Commrs. [1907] i K. B. 310 76 L. J. K. B. 332 434 96 L. T. 370 10 Asp. M. C. 379 C. A. Bedell . Constable (1669) Vaugh. 177 1235 Bedford (Duke) v. Alcock (1749) i Wils. 248 687 Bedford v. Backhouse (1730) 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 615 817 Bedford (Duke) v. British Museum (1882) 2 My. & K. 552; 2 L. J. Ch, 806 129 Bedford v. Johnson (1659) 2 Sid. 153 641, 642 Bedinfield n. Canterbury (Archbishop) (1570) 3 Dyer, 292 b 730 Bedingfield i>. Onslow (1685) Lev. 209 . 667 Bedminster Manor Case (1571) 3 Dyer, 300 a 727 Bedson's Trusts, Re (1884) 25 Ch. D. 458 577 Beech, Re [1920] i Ch. 40 89 L. J. Ch. 9 ; 122 L. T. 117; 63 Sol. Jo. 801 1 121 0/" (1851) 2 Rob. Eccl. Beer, / Ae Gooij 1335 349 Beeston v. CoUyer (1827) 4 Bing. 309 ; 2 Car. & P. 607 ; 12 Moore, 552 2ir 29 R. R. 576 5 L. J. (O. S.) C. P. i8o 2 Jur. (N. S.) Beeston v. Weate (1856) 5 E. & B. 986 25 L. J. Q. B. 115 710 546 4 W. R. 325 Behn 0. Bumess (1863) 3 B. & S. 751 32 L. J. Q. B. 204; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 620; 8 L. T. 207; II W. R. 496 Behn v. Kemble (1859) 7 C. B. N. s. 260 536 21 Behrens o. Richards [1905] 2 Ch. 614 74 L. J. Ch. 615 ; 69 J. P. 381 T. L. R. 705 377 Belding v. Read (1865) 3 H. & C. 955 34 L. J. Ex. 212 13 L. T. 66 11 Jur. (N. S.)547; 13 W. R. 867 1051 Belham, Re [1901] 2 Ch. 52 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 474 ; 84 L. T. 440 ; 49 W. R. 498 C. A 1372, 1381 Bell V. Banks (1841) 3 M. & G. 258 3 Scott (N. R.) 497 149, 298 Bell V. M. Ry. Co. (1861) 10 C. B. N. S. 287 ; 30 L. J. C. P. 273 ; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 1200 ; 4 L. T. 293 ; 9 W. R. 612 370 12 Jur. (N. S.) Bell V. Wilson (1866) L. R. i Ch. App. 303 35 L. J. Ch. 337 . . 782 263; 14L.T. 115; 14W. R.493 22 W. R. Bellairs 11. Bellairs (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 510 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 669 42 942 Bellamy, Re (1883) 25 Ch. D. 620 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 174 49 L. T. 708 ; 32 W. R.
Bedell
v.
J ; . .
.

W.

.135

358 Bellamy!). Burch (1847) 16 M.

&W.

nn

590

504

Digitized

by Microsoft

Ixviii

TABLE OF CASES
fag
v.

Bellamy

Debenham
,

[1891]

Ch, 412

60 L.

J.

Ch. 166

64 L. T. 478
;

39W. R. 257 187 Bellamy . Metropolitan Board of Works (1883) 24 Ch. D. 387 52 L. J. Ch. .1132 870; 48. L. T. 801 47 J. P. 550; 31 W. R. 900C. A. Bellamy v. Wells (1891) 39 W. R. 158 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 156 ; 63 L. T. 635 . 402
;

Bellasis

v.

Burbriche (1696)
[1906]
i

Ld.

Raym. 170
;

Bellasis o.

Uthwatt (1737) West,


Ch. 216
;

Jem/).

Hardwicke 273

Benett,
C.

Re

...... ....
94 L. T. 72
;

613 1284

1106, 1380 C. (1862) 4 De G. F. & J. 259 1415 -Benjamin o. Storr (1874) L. R. 9 C. P. 400 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 162 ; 30 L. T. 362 ; 22 W. R. 631 328, 392. 403, 773 Bennet, Re [1903] 2 Ch. 136 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 524 ; 88 I.. T. 683 . . . 883 Bennet o. Easedale (:626) Cro. Car. 55 . . . 743 Bennett o. Allcott (1787) 2 T. R. 166 467 Bennett v. Mellor (1793) 5 T. R. 273 ; 2 R. R. 593 245 Bennett 0. Peninsular and Oriental Steamboat Co. (1848) 6 C. B. 775 . . 249

A
!).

75 L. J. Ch. 122

54

W.

R. 337

Benett
.

Wyndham

.....
; .
'

...

v. Powell (1855) 3 Drew. App. 326 24 L. J. Ch. 3 Eq. Rep. 1023 736; I Jur.(N. S.) 7195,3 W.R. 618 1152 Bennett v. Reeve (1740) Willes, 227 717 Bennett v. Stone [1903] i Ch. 509 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 240 88 L. T. 35 51 W. R. 338 . . Bennett 0. Turner (1840) 10 L. J. Ex-. 213 646 Bennett 0. Turner'(i84i) 7 M. & W. 226 762 Benson v. Chester (1799) 8 T. R. 396 717 Benson o. Maude (182 1) 6 Madd. 15 1270,1271 Bent . Bent (1861) 2 Sw. & Tr. 392 30 L. J. P. M. & A. 189 ; ; L. T. 120 ; 10 W. R. 448 I2O0 Eentinck, Re [1897] i Ch. 673 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 359 ; 76 L. T. 284 ; 45 W. R.

Bennett

....... ...... ....... ......


;
. . .

397

Bentley's (Dr.) Case (1726) 2 Str. 913 Benyon v. Nettlefold (1850) 3 Mac. & G. 94 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 186 ; 15 Jur. 209 Bereblocko. Read (1590) 4 Rep. 59 b Beresford v. White (1914) 58 Sol. 607 ; 30 T. L. R. 591Jo.
C.

....... .......
.

1377 7 33 1376

A
i6e

Bergman, /m
I

(1842) 2 Notes of Cases, 22 Berkeley!). Elderkin (1853) i E. & B. 805 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 281


q/'

G00&

....
;

5,2 1350

17 Jur. 1153
_.

;,

W.

R. 305
5

Berkeley v. Hardy (1826) K. B. 184


.

B.
.

&

C. 351;
.

8 D.

&

.323
53 ii6

R. 102

4 L. J. (O. S.)

'.

DeBernaleso. Fuller (1810) i4East, 590, p. ; zCamp. 426 ; 11R.R.755 . Bernina, The (1887) L. R. 13 App. C'as. 16 : L. R. 12 P. D. 58 56 L. J. Adjn. 65; 56 L. T. 450; 35 W. R. 214; 6 Asp. M. C. 112; 55 L. T.
;

Bernstein [1893] P. 292 ; 63 L. J. P. 3 ; 69 L. T. 513 ; 6 R. . . . . . 609 C. A. . . . . Berringer o. G. E. Ry. (1879) 4 C. P. D. 163 ; 48 L. J. C. P. 40c; 27 W. R. 681 . , , ,

781 Bernstein

333, 334
v.

Berry v. Heard (1622) Cro. Car. 242 Berthon v. Cartwright (1796) 2 Esp. 480 Berwick & Co. v. Price [19c 5] i Ch. 632 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 249 ; 92 L. T. no . Besant, Re (1879) 11 Ch. D. 508 48 L. J. Ch. 497 ; 40 L. T. 469 ; 27 W. R.
;

........

UQo
477 ^gg
^7,

759
I220
395 508

741

Beswickw. Cunden (1593) Cro. Eliz. 402. Beswick v. Smith (1907) 24 T. L. R. 169C.

......

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Bethune
Betteley
v.
; .

Ixix

v.

PAGE Bethune [1891] P. 205 ; 60 L. J. P. 18 63 L. T. 259 .1189 Read (1843) 4 Q. B. 517 3 G. & D. 561 ; 12 L. J. Q. B. 172
;

7 Jur- 507 Betterbeeti. Davis (1811) 3 Camp. 70 ; 13 R. R. 755 Bettesworth & Richer, Re (1883) 37 Ch. D. 535 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 749 ; 58 L. T. 796 ; 36 W. R. 544 ; 52 J. B. 740 Bettini v. Gye (1876) 45 L. J. Q. B. 209 ; l Q. B. D. 183 ; 34 L. T. 246 ; 24

'42s
ro8 186
148

W.
Betts Bette Betts
V. V.

R. 551
Gallais (1870) L. R. 10 Eq. 392 ; 22 L. T. 841 ; 18 W. R. 945 Gibbins (1834) 2 A. E. 57 ; 4 N. & M. 64 ; 4 L. J. K. B. i
.

378

237 Pickford [1906J 2 Ch. 87 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 483 ; 54 W. R..476 94 L. T. 363; 22T. L. R. 315 381 Betty, Re [1899] i Ch. 821 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 435 80 L. T. 675 752, 1 19, 1395 Bevanj). Habgood(i86o) I J. & H. 222; 8 W. R. 703 36 Sevan v. Webb [1905] i Ch. 620 74 L. J. Ch. 30c 53 W. R. r.51 ; 93 L. T. 1 125 298 Beverley's Case (1603) 4 Rep. 126 b 2 Inst. 14 123 b, 917, 977 Beverley, Re [1901] i Ch. 681 70 L. J. Ch. 295 84 L. T. 296 49 W. R. 1412 343 ; 17 T. L. R. 228 Bewick v. Whitfield (1734) 3 P. Wms. 268 577 Bewley . Atkinson (1879) 13 Ch. D. 283 49 L. J. Ch. 153 41 L. T. 603 28 W. R. 638C. A. 854, 856, 857 Bexwell . Christie (1776) Cowp. 395 230 Beyfus v. Lawley [1903] A. C. 411 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 781 89 L. T. 309 1393 Beynon, In the Goods o/[igoi] P. 141 84 L. T. 271 70 L. J. P. 31 65 4,1337 J. P. 246; I7,T. L. R. 324 Bickett 0. Morris (1866) L. R. i H. L. (Sc.) 47 778 L. T. 287 W. R. 445 C. A. Bidder v. Bridges (1887) 26 Ch. D. i 32 50 151 affirming 53 L. J. Ch. 4.7^ Bidder o. North Staffordshire Ry. Co. (1878) 4 Q. B. D. 412 40 L. T. 801 48 L. J. Q. B. 248 ; 27 W. R. 540 C. A. 707 11 Jur. (N. S.) 425 Biddle o. Bond (1865) 6 B. & S. 225 34 L. J. Q. B. 137 12 L. T. 178 ; J3 W. R. 561 204,233,425 Biddulph V. Ather (1755) 2 Wils. 23 414, 932 Biggs V. Hoddinott [1898] 2 Ch. 307 67 L. J Ch. 540; 79 L. T. 201 47 W. R. 84 14 T. L. R. 504C. A. 49, 83, 832 Bignellf. Buzzard (1858) 3 H. &N. 217; 27L. J. Ex. 355 Bigwood . Bigwood (1888) 13 P. D. 89 57 L. J. P. 80 58 L. T. 62 ^6 1188 W. R. 928 102 Bills. Bament (1841) 9M. & W. 36; II L. J. Ex. 81 36 BiUagc V. Southee (1852) 9 Ha. 534 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 472 16 Jur. 188 Bingham . Woodgate (1829) i Russ. & M. 32 ; Tam. 183 8 L. J. (O. S.) 606 Ch. 46 Binks V. S. Y. Ry. Co. (1862) 3 B. & S. 244 32 L. J. Q. B. 26 7 L. T. 350 1 1 W. R. 66 774 205 Binsteadc. Buck (1777) 2 Wm. Bl. 1117 Birch c. Birch [1902] P. 130 71 L. J. P. 58 ; 86 L. T. 364 ; 50 W. R. 437 ; 1350 18 T. L. R. 485 C. A 98 Birch o. Liverpool (1829) 9 B. & C. 392 i R. R. 228 642, 646, 763 Birch e. Wright (1786) i T. R. 378 A. 60 L. T. 369 37 W. R. 387 Birchall, Re (1889)^40 Ch. D. 436 Birch-Wolfe v. Birch (1870) L. R. 9 Eq. 683 39 L. J. Ch. 345 ; 23 L. T. 216 ;
.

&

0.

..........
.

...... .......
; ; ; ;
.

-525

....
. .

.812

18 W. R. 594 Bird, Re [1892] I Ch. 279

576, 7^7
;

6i

L. J. Ch.

288

66 L. T. 274

40

W. R.
'357

359

Digitized

by Microsoft

Ixx

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
V.

Bird

Holbrook (i8z8) + Bing. 628


;

M.

&

P. 607

146 ; 29 R. R. 657 Bird V. Jones (1845) 7 Q. B. 742 15 L. J. Q. B. 82 ; Bird o. Lord Greville (1884) Cab. & E. 317 636 i W. Bl. 373, 387 Bird . Randall (lyfiz) 3 Burr. 1345 155,209,474 Birds. Smith (1848) 12 Q. B. 786; 17 L. J. Q. B. 309 12 Jur. 916 105 Birkbeck c.'Paget (1862) 31 Beav. 403 724 Birkett v. Bifkett (1908) 98 L. T. 540 24 T. L. R, 284 ; 52 Sol. Jo. 241 1184 Birkmyr o. Darnell (1705) i Salk. 27 2 Ld. Raym. 1085 98, 290 Birks . Trippett (166Q I Wms. Saund. 32 Birmingham Corporation v. Allen (1877} 6 Ch. D. 284 46 L, J. Ch. 673 37 L. T. 207; 25 W. R. 810 781 Birmingham, etc.. Land Co. o. L. & N. W. Ry. (1886) 34 Ch. D. 272, 275 56 L. J. Ch. 956 35 W. R. 173 C. A 55 L. T. 699 324 Birtwhistle v. Vardill (1835) ^ C). & F. 571 6 Bing. (1840) 7 Cli & F. 895 N. C. 385 9 Bligh (N. S.) 32 Westj 500 4 Jur. 1076 ; 2 Scott (N. R.) 828 1265, I206 Biscoe V. Jackson (1887) 35 Ch. D. 460 56 L. J. Ch. 540 56 L. T. 753 ; 35 W. R. 554 C. A. U12 Bishop, Ex parte (1880) 15 Ch. D. 400 50 L. J. Ch. 18 ; 43 L. T. 165 29 W. R. 144 294 Bishop V. Balkis Co. (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 77, 512 59 L. J. Q. B. 565 ; 39 W. R. 2 Meg. 292 541 99 Bishop o. Howard (1823) 2 B. & C. 100 3 D. & R. 293 i L. J. (0. S.) K. B. . 619 243 26 R. R. 291 Biss, Re [1903] 2 Ch. 40 72 L. J. Ch. 473 88 L. T. 403 1 125 51 W. R. 504 C. A. Bist o. L. & S. W. Rv. [1907] A. C. ioq ; 76 L. J. K. B. 703 96 L. T. 750 ^ 23 T. L. R. 47t 455 Blachford, Re (1884) 27 Ch. D. 676 1273 54 L. J. Ch. 215 33 W. R. 11 Blachford v. Dod (1831) 3 B. & Ad. 179 ; 9 L. J. (0. S.) K. B. 196 492, 493 Black V. Smith (1791) Peake, 88 3 R. R. 66r 109 Blackboirn v. Edgley (1719) i P. Wms. 600 991 Blackborough v. Davis (1701) i P. Wms. 41 ; i Salk. 38 ; Ld. Raym. 684 Com. 96 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 242 1308, 1309 ^ Blackburn . Graves (1673) i Mod. 102 751 Haslam (1888) 21 Q. B. D. 144 57 L. J. Q. B. 479 36 W. R. Blackburn v. 6 Asp. M. C. 326 855 64 Blackburn Bobbin Co. u. Allenby & Sons [1918] 2 K. B. 467 87 L. J. K. B. 119 L. T. 215 1085 23 Com. Cas. 471 34 T. L. R. 508 C. A. 133 Blackburn Building Society v. Cunliffe, Brooks & Co. (1882) 22 Ch. D. 61 52 L. J. Ch. 92 48 L. T. 33 31 W. R. 98 C. A. 317 Blackhamc.Pugh (1846) 2C. B. 611 15 L. J. C. P. 290 Blackman v. Fysh [1892] 3 Ch. 209 60 L. J. Ch. 666 67 L. T. 802 ; 39 W. R. 520 2 R. I 44, 577, 658 'Blackmore v. White [1899] i Q. B. 293 68 L. J. Q. B. 180 ; 80 L. T. 79 47 W. R. 448 40s. 592 Blackwell, In the Gbods of (1877) 2 P. D. 72 46 L. J. P. 29 36 L. T. 413 25W. R. 305 1331 Blades v. Free (1829) 9 B. c& C. 167 4 M. & Ry. 282 7 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 211 59, 60, 238 Blades . Higgs (1861) 10 C. B.N. S. 713 30 L. J. C. P. 347 ; 7 Jur. (N. S.)
. . ;

6 L. J. (O. S.) C. P. 332, 445, 775 439 9 Jur. 870


;
. .

... .......
; . . .
.

.115

...........
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; . . . .
.

..... ...... ......


; . .
. .

: '

.518

1289; 4LT.551 Blades II. Higgs (1865) 286 12 L. T. 615


;

82,436

II
;

H. L.

C. 621

20

C. B.
;

N.

II Jur. (N. S.) 701

13

W.

214 R. 927
S.

34 L. J. C. P.
.

^-

412, 417, 704,

769,770,93^

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Blake Blake Blake Blake Blake
,

Ixxi
PAGE

V.

Bayne

v.

W. R. 555 C.
II.

[1908] A. C. 371 ; 77 L. J. P. C. 97 ; 99 L. T. 35 . Gale (1886) 32 Ch. D. 571 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 559 ; 55 L. T. 234

1312

3+ ,367 817
4.74

Hungerford (1701) Pre. Ch. 158

v. v.

Lanyon (1795) 6 T. R. 221 Luxton (1795) 6 T. R. 289 G. Coop. 178


; ;

3 P.

Wms.

10

14 R. R.
,

235
;

.580

Blake v. Midland Ry. Co. (1852) 18 Q. B. 93 21 L. 16 Jur. 562 363 J. Q. B. 233 Blake o. Nicholson (18 14) 3 M. & S. 167' 224 Blake v. Peters (1863) i De G. J. & S. 345 ; i N. R. 503 9 Jur. (N. S.) 836 32 L. J. Ch. 200 ; 9 L. T. 247 ; II W. R. 409 557, 668 Blakemore v. Bristol & Exeter Ry. Co. (1858) 8 El. & Bl. 1035 . . 198, 199,
; .
.

331, 332

Blakeney

Hardie (1874) I. R. 8 Eq. 390 Blaker v. Herts & Essex Waterworks Co. (1889) 41 Ch. D. 399 3 Meg. 217 497 ; 60 L. T. 776 ; .37 W. R. 601 Blaker v. Wells (1873) 28 L. T. 21
.
;

....
;

189

58 L. J. Ch.

ion
591

Blaksley's Trusts,

Re

Blamford

v.

Blamford (1615)

(1883) 23 Ch. D. 549 3 Bulat. 100

48 L. T. 776
;

...
;

982
641

Blanchard,

Le

(i86i) 3 De G.F. & J. 131 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 516 505 ; 4 L. T. 426 ; 9 W. R. 647 Blanche v. L. & N. W. Ry. Co. (1876) 45 L. J. C. P. 521 ; 34 L. T. 667 ; 24 W. R. 808 C.

Re

7 Jur. (N. S.) 1108


i

C. P. D.

286
R.

123

Bland
9

v.

Bland (1866) L. R.

P.

& M.
&

237

35 L. J. P.
;

& M.
;

104

15

W.

1189
v.
;

Bland
Blane

Lipscombe (1854) 4 E.

B. 713 u.

3 C. L.

R. 261

24 L.

J.

Q. B.

I Jur. (N. S.) 707 745 Francis [1917] i K. B. 252 ; 86 L. J. K. B. 364 ; 115 L. T. 850 C. A. 629 Blaney . Hendricks (1771) 2 W. Bl. 761 ; 3 Wils. 205 . . . Blaymire v. Haiey (1840) 6 M. & W. 55 ; 9 L. J. Ex. 147 ; 4 Jur. 107 466 Bleckley, Injhe Goods 0/(1883) 8 P. D. 169 ; 52 L. J. P. 102 ; 47 J. P. 663 ; 31 W. R. 171 1251 Blenkinsopp v. Blenkinsopp (1850) 12 Beav. 568 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 425 ; 14 Jur. 1062, 1063 777 ; affirmed i De G. M. & G. 495 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 401 ; 16 Jur. 787 Blewett V. Tregonning (1835) 3 A. & E. 554 ; 5 Nev. & M. (K. B.) 308 ; i H. & W. 432 ; 4 L. J. K. B. 234 718 Blewitt, In the Goods o/' (i 880) 5 P. D. 1 1 6 ; 49 L. J. P. 3 1 ; 42 L. T. 329 ; 44 P. 768 i 28 W. R. 520 1238 J. Blight V. Hartnoll (1881) 19 Ch. D. 294 ; 51 L. T. Ch. 162 ; 45 L. T. 524 ; 30 ". . . W. R. S13C. A. 992 Blight V. Hartnoll (1883) 23 Ch. D. 218 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 672 ; 48 L. T. 543 ; 31

155

v.

.118

W. R. 535C.

A.

N. C. 183, 186 ; 5 Arn. 19 ; 7 L. J. C. P. 122 2 Jur. no Blissett V. Daniel (1853) 10 Ha. 193 ; i Eq. Rep. 484 ; 18 Jur. 122 ; 529 Bloodworth v. Gray (1844) 7 Man. & G. 334 ; 8 Scott (N. R.) 9 Bloss o. Holman (1586) Owen, 52 Blount V. Burrowf (1792) 4 Bro. C. C. 71 ; i Ves. J. 546 Blount V. Layard (1888) [1891] 2 Ch. 681 n. C. A 109 L. T. 913 Blow, Re [1914] I Ch. 233 83 L. J. Ch. 185 58 136; 30T. L. R. 117 C. A Blower o. Ellis (1886) 50 J. P. 326
;

Bliss V. Collins (1822) 5 B. Bliss V. Hall (1838) 4 Bing.

& Aid.

876

D.

&

R. 291 ; 24 R. R. 601 Scott, 500 ; 6 D. P. C. 442


.

1267 622

394
i

W.
.

R. 39
504; 524

....'.... ....
. ; ;

408 1294 778


.,,,.

Sol. Jo.

1421

770

Digitized

by Microsoft

Ixxii

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
v.

Blower

G.

W. Ry.

Co. (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 655

41 L. J. C. P. 368
; ;

26'

Bloxam

L. T. 883; 20.W. R. 776 v. Favre (1883) 8 P. D. loi ; L. J. P. 42 ; 47 J. P. 377 610 ; affirmed on appeal (1884) 9 P. D. 130 ; 53 L, J. P. 26

250
31

R. 50 L. T.
1243
'

W.

32 W. R. 673 C. Blundell, ^e,[i9o6] 2 Ch. 222

766

A
;

75 L. J. Ch. 561
;

94 L. T. 818
;

& T. L. R.
.

570

'^^''

Blunden
Blunt Blunt
o. .

v.

Baugh

(1633) Cro. Car. 302

W.

Jones, 315

Littleton, 372

640,

641, 647, 898


. Bpaumont (1835) 2 C. M. & R. 412 ; 4 Dowl. 219 ; 5 Tyr. iioo 434 Clark (1657) 2 Sid. 61 . Boaler v. Mayor (1865) 19 C. B. N. S. 76 34 L. J. C. P. 230 ; ii Jur. (N. S.) 565 12 L. T. 457 ; 13 W. R. 775 299 Boards, Re [1895] i Ch. 499; 64 L. J. Ch. 305 ; 72 L. T. 220 ; 43 W. R. 472 ; 13 R' 378 1397 Boast V. Firth (1868) 38 L. J. C. P. i ; L. R. 4 C. P. i ; 19 L. T. 264; 17 W. R. 29 130 Boatwright v. Boatwright (i?73) L. R. 17 Eq. 71 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 12 ; 29 L. T. , 1386 603 ; 22 W. R. 147 Bock V, Gorrissen (i860) 2 De G. F. & J. 434 30 L. J. Ch. 39 3 L. T. 424 238,962,963 9 W. R. 209 7 Jur. (N. S.) 81 Boddington o. Abernethy (1826) 5 B. & C. 776 ; 8 D. & R. 626 4 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 181 665 Boddington 11. Robinson (1875) L. R. 10 Exch. 270 44 L. J. Ex. 223 33 L. T. 364 ; 23 W. R. 925 573 Bbden, Re [19O7] i Ch. 132 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 101 ; 95 L. T. 741 C. A. 994 Boden v. Roscoe [1894] i Q. B. 608 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 767 ; 70 L. T. 450; 42 W. R. 445 58 J. P. 368 84 Bolch V. Smith (18^2) 7 H. & N. 736 31 L. J. Ex. 201 ; 8 Jur. (N. S.) 197 10 W. R. 387 6 L. T. 158 332 Boles and British Land Co. [1902] i Ch. 244 71 L. J. Ch. 130 50 W. R. L. T. 607 185 ; 85 I12S Bolton V. Maddan (1873) 43 L. J. Q. B. 35 ; L. R. 9 Q. B. 55 ; 29 L. T. 505 ; 22 W. R. 207 94 Bolton o. Salmon {1891] 2 Ch. 48 ; 64 L. T. 222 ; 39 W. R. 589 . 299 Re No. 9j Bomore Road(i9o6] i Ch. 359 75 L. J. Ch. 157 94 L. T. 403 54W. R. 312; 13 Man. 68 14 Bbnd, iJe (1846) 16 L. J. Ch. 147; 11 Jur. 114 1232 Bpnd^iJ* [1901] I Ch. 15 70 L. J. Ch. 12 ; 82 L. T. 6i2 ; 49 W. R. 126 674 B'ond'o. Faikney (1737) 2Ca. m^. Lee, 371 133^ -^ Bond V. Isaac (1757) i Burr. 339 . . 441 Bone 0. Ekless (18,60), 5 H. & N. 925 ; 29 L. J. Ex. 43^ 234 Bonnard v. Ferryman [1891] 2 Ch.' 269 60 L. J. Ch.'6i7 65 L. T. 506 ; 39 W. R. 435-C. 376, 50^ Bonner v. Tottenham and Edmonton Society [1899] ^ Q- B. 161 68 L. J. Q: B. 114; 79 L. T. 611 ; 47 W. R. 161 C. A317 Bonomi v. Backhouse (.1858) E. B. & E. 622 . . . 402, 781
'

.751

'

.....
; . . . ;

....
...
.

'

Backhouse (1861) 9 H. L. BoDsey v. Ward (1865) 3 H. & C. 484 13 W. R. 317; II L. T. 639


.

Bonomi

C. 503 34 L. J. ;

......
. .

523

Ex. 65

11 Jur. (N. S.) 181

Booth, Re [1900] I Ch. 768 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 474 ; 48 W. R. 566 Booth V. Alcock (1873) L. R. 8 Ch. App. 663 ; 29 L. T. 231 21 W. R. 743 Booth o. Arnold [1895] i Q. B. 571 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 443 ; 72 L. T. 310 ; 43 W. R. 360 14 R. 326 .
. . ;
,

368 666

.671

.504

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Booth Booth Booth
V.

Lxxiii

V.

Boo th (1838) r Beav. 125 8 L. J. Ch. 39 2 Tur. 0^8 Couh ^.on (1870) L. R. 5 Ch. App. 684 39 L. J. Ch 622
;
; ;

PAGE
,a-,.
;

18

W.

R.

V. Smith (1884) 14 Q. B. D. 318 742' 54 L. J. Q.'b. 119 ; ei L C. 33 W. R. 14 Bootle V. BlundeU" (1815) 1 Mer. 193 ; 19 Ves. 517 15 R. R. q,' Bootonz). Rochester (Bishop) (161 8) Hutt. 24 Boots V. Grundy (i, 100) 82 L. T. 769 48 W. R. 638 Bbreham, i?e(i8s3)' 22L- J. Q. B. 116 Boreham v. Boreham (1866) L. R. i P. & M. 77 ; 35 L. 14 J. P. & M. 49

I A

f
'

..'.'.'
.
. ' ' '
:

):>
'

718
.11.

'

iy4

^q,
1228

Borland's Trustee o. Steel Bros. [1901] i Ch. 279 70 L. T Ch ci 40 R '\' ^\ 120; 17T. L. R.45; : Borries v. Imperial Ottoi nan Bk. (1873) L. R, g C. P t,% r P -iV, T J ** J' -3. ' 29 L. T. 689 ; 22 W. R. 92 : Borwick's Settlement, Re ['igiej 2 Ch. 304 85 L. J. Ch. 7-!2 iie L f 187 60 Sol. Jo. 567; 32 T. L.R. 583 ^' Bostock . Smith (1864) 34 .Beav. 57 Boston Deep Sea Co. o.Ansell (lS!88) 39 Ch.D. 339; 59 L.T. 345. Bosvile B. A.-G. (1887) 12 P. DV 177 ; 56 L. J. P. 97 57 L. T. 88 36'w. R.
. .

'

t
'

,000

......
; ; ;

..'.'/;
33 L. T. 150;
L.
.

,^,^
ii-,a

2it

Bothamley

v.

Sherson (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 304;


i

23

W.
'

R.
''''

Bottomlevc. Brougham [1908]

K.
.

B. 584;
.

'77
.

T.

K.
.

b'^i^i'-'
'
.

ii.;24T.L.R.262
Boughton
562
V.

qo\'t^'
^^.
'

.^^
J2i;6

Knight (1873) L. R. 3 P.

& M.

64

42 L.
.

J. P.

25

28 L.
'

T
'

Boulcott, ii (iQii) 104 L. T. 205; 55 Sol. Jo. 313 Boulter, Re [1918] 2 Ch. 40 ; 87 L Ch. 385 ; 1 18 L. T. 783 ! J. Boulter . Clarke (1747) Buller's Niai Prius 16. Boulting V. Boulting (1864) 3 Sw. & Tr. 329 ; 33 L. J. P. M. & A.\j /' . 779 ; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 182 12 W. R. 389 .
. . ; .

.q.

'.

^6
.^g

.^,
; '

L T
^,

Boultone. Jones (1857) 2 6 W. R. 107

H.&N.

564; 27L.
.

J. E.t. 117
.

3 Jur. (N. S.) 1156


.

(N.?.)202; 13W.R.497 421 Bourne 0. Gatliff (1844) II CI. & F. 45; 8 Scott (N. R.) 604 .251 Bourne v. Swan & Edgar, Ltd. [1903] i Ch. 2ii ; 72 L. J. Ch. 168 87 L T 589 ; 51 W. R. 213 ; 19 T. L. R. 59 ; 20 R. P. C. 105 1029 Bourne . Taylor (1808) 10 East, 189 ; 10 R. R. 267 594 Bovey c. Smith (1682) I Vern. 84; 2 Ch. Ca. 124 871 Bovill V. Endle [1896] i Ch. 648 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 542 ; 44 W. R. 523 818, 819, 829 ' Bowden o. Henderson (1854) 2 Sm. & G. 360 Bowditch V. Balchin (1850) 5 Exch. 378 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 337 .og Bowen, Re [1893] 2 Ch. 491 62 L. J. Ch. 68i ; 61 L. T. 789 41 W. R. 535 ;
.'
.

L. T. 34 ; 38 W. R.- 167 Bourne, iJe [1906] 2 Ch. 427; 75 L. J. Ch. 779 ; 95 L. T. 131 ; 54W. . . . . C. A. . Bourne v. Fosbrooke (1865) 18 C. B. N. S. 515 ; 34 L. J. C. P 164
;
. . . . .

Bourden c. Alloway (1708) II Mod. 180 Bourke v. Davis (1889) 44 Ch. D. 1 10 62

_
'. '.

.f'

744
J,-,

R.'ssg
_

n
.

Tur

....
' '
. .

.'

.'

R- 529
;

Bowen o. Edwards (1660) I Cha. Rep. 117 Bowen 0. Hall (1881) 6 Q. B. D. 333 50 L. J. W. R. 367 4S J- P- 373 Bowen v. Phillips [1897] i Ch. 174 66 L. J. W. R. 286
;
;

....
;

.'

1077
g^i

Q. B. 305
Ch. 165
, ;

44 L. T. 75

39
:

479
,332

75 L. T. 628
. .
.

45
.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Ixxiv

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
. . . i

11 L. J. Ch. 287 ; 6 Jur. 681 Cooper (1842) 2 Ha. 408 o. Peate (1876) i Q. B. D. 321 ; 45 L. J. Q. ,B. 446 35 L. T. 321 Bowes' (Sir Thomas). Case (1670) Vin.Ab. X, 400 . Bowes V. East London Waterworks (1818) 3 Madd. 375 23 R. R. 84 Bowes, Re (1887) 37 Ch. D. 128 57 L. J. Ch. 455 ; 58 L. T. 309 ; 36 W. R.
o.
; .
.

Bower Bower

186

354 642
1127 1366

393

Bowker
33

o.

Evans (1885)
R.

15 Q. B. D. 565

54 L.

W.

695C. A
;

J.

Q. B. 421 53
.

5-3

L. T. 801

362
73 L. J. Ch. 810
;

Bowlby, Re [1904] 2 Ch. 685

W.

R. 270J 91 L. T.
.

573 C. A. 1135,1136 Bowles' (Lewis) Case (161 5) II Rep. 79 b, 80 a .651,659,786,787 . 661 Bowles, Re [1902] 2 Ch. 650 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 822 ; 51 W. R. 124 Bowles, Re [1905] i Ch. 371 1077 74 L. J. Ch. 338 92 L. T. 556 Bowlston V. Hardy (1597) Cro. Eliz. 547. 360, 690, 703 Bowser v. Maclean (i860) 2 De G. F. & J. 415 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 273 ; 6 Jur. (N. S.) 1220; 3 L. T. 456; 9 W. R. 112 594,780 Boxall V. BoxaU (1884) 27 Ch. D. 220 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 838 ; 51 L. T. 771 32 W. R. 896 1351 Boxsius V. Goblet Freres [1894] i Q. B. 842 63 L. J. Q. B. 401 70 L. T. 368 42 W. R. 392 58 J. P. 670 505, 517 Boyce v. Paddington Council [1903] i Ch. 109, 114 ; 2 Ch. 557 ; 72 L. J. Ch. T. L. R. 648 ; 19 89 'L. T. 383 SI W. R. 109 67 J. P. 23 695 . . . 328, 392 affirmed [1906] A. C. i 102 Boydell . Drummond (1809) 11 East, 142 ; 2 Camp. 157 ; 10 R. R. 540 Boydell v. Jones (1838) 4 M. & W. 446 7 Dowl. 210 i H. & H. 408 524 Boyle, In the Goods 0/(1864) 3 Sw. & Tr. 426 ; 33 L. J. P. 109 ; 10 L. T. 541 1334 Boyle o. Tamlyn (1827) 6 B. & C. 329 ; 9 Dow. & Ry. (K. B.) 430 ; 5 L. J. - . (O. S.) K. B. 134 30 R. R. 343 714, 783 Boyntun 0. Boyntun (1784) I Cox Eq. ,106 1400 Boyse v. Rossborough (1857) 6 H. L. C. i 26 L. J. Ch. 256 ; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 1259 373 ; 5 W. R. 414 Brabant & Co. v. King [1895] A. C. 632 11 R. 517 ; 64 L. J. P. C. 161 72L. T. 785; 44W. R. 157 203 Brabant v. Wilson (1865) L. R. i Q. B. 44 ; 6 B. & S. 979 35 L. J. Q. B. 49 ; 12 Jur. (N. S.)24; 13L. T. 319; 14W. R. 28 606 Brace v. Calder [1895] 2 Q. B. 253 64 L. J. Q. B. 582 ; 14 R. 473 ; 72 L. T.
. . ;

.....
; ; .
. .

....
. ;

......
; ;

214.215 Marlborough (Duchess of) (17^8) 2 P. Wms. 491 759 Bracegirdleo. Heald (1818) I B. & Aid. 722 208 19 R. R. 442 Bradburn v. G. W. Ry. (1874) L. R. 10 Ex. i 44 L. J. Ex. 9 31 L. T. 464'; . . 23 W. R. 48 Bradburnei). Botfield(i845) 14M. &W. 559 ; 14L. J. Ex. 330 156 Bradford v. Brownjohn (1868) L. R. 3 Ch. App. 711 38 L. J. Ch. 10 ; 18 L. T. 388; 16 W. R. 1178 ,. . 596 Bradford Corporation v. Ferrand [1902] 2 Ch. 655 71 L. J. Ch. ,859 87 L. T. 388; 67 J. P. 21 51 W. R. 122; 18T. L. R. 830 Bradford Corporation v. Myers [1916] i A. C. 242 ; 85 L. J. K. B. 146 114 80 J. P. 121 L. T. 83 60 Sol. Jo. 74 ; 32 T. L. R. 14 L. G. R. 130
Brace
v.
; . .
.

829r59J-P-%3

....
; . . . . . . ; . .

.371
.

.403

74 Bradford (Mayor of) o. Pickles [1895] A. C. 587 64 L. J. Ch. 759 ; 11 R. 286 ; 73 L. t. 353 ; 44 W. R. 190 ; 60 J. P. 3-H. L. (E.) . 335, 393 Bradlaugh v. Newdegate (1883) 11 Q. B. D. i 52 L. J. Q. B. 454 ; 31 W. R. 79' 496) 497) 498 Bradley v. Carntt [1903] A. C. 253 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 471 ; 88 L. T. 633 51 T. L. R. 466 W. R. 636 19 831,959
; . ; ; ;

ii3-H.L.(E.)

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Bradky
Bradley
v. 0.

Ixxv
PAGE
.

Copley (1845) 1 C. B. 685 Peixoto (1797) 3 Ves. 324

Bradshaw Bradshaw Bradshaw Bradshaw

0. Beard (1862) 12 C. B. N. 458; 8 Jur. (N.S.) 1228.


ti.

o.
v.

Bradshaw (1826) i Russ. 528 Eyr (1597) Cro. Eliz. 570


L.

Y. Ry. Co. (1875) L. R. 10 C. P. 189 44 L. J. C. P. 148 ; 23 W. R. 310 336 Bradshaw ._Lawson (1791) 4 T. R. 443 584,605,691 Brady c. Giles (1835) i Moo. & Rob. 494 351 Brady . Todd (1861) 9 C. B. N. S. 592 ; 30 L. J. C. P. 223 7 Jur. (N. S.) 827; 4L. T. 212; 9 W. R. 483 59 Brady o. Warren [1900] 2 Ir. Rep. (Q. B. D.) 632 35S, 360 Brail, Re [1893] 2 Q. B. 381 62 L. J. Q. B. 457 69 L. T. 323 ; 41 W. R. 623 ; 10 Moirrell, i66 ; 5 R. 440 1070 Bramhall . Hall (1764) 2 Ed. 219 870 Brandao J). Barnett (1846) 12CI. & F. 787 3 C. B. 519 205,962 Brandon o. Brandon (1862) 31 L.J. Ch. 47; 5 L.T. 339 9 W. R. 825 751 Brandon v. Nesbitt (1794) 6 T. R. 23 ; 3 R. R. 109 31A Brandon v. Robinson (i8ii) 18 Ves. 429 i Rose, 197 44 Brandts v. Dunlop [1905] A. C. 454 74 L. J. K. B. 898 93 L. T. 495 21 T. L. R. 710 II Com. Cas. i 1051 Brass v. Maitland (1856) 6 E. & B. 471 26 L. J. Q. B. 49 2 Jur. (N. S.) 710 4 W. R. 647 , Brassey o. Chalmers (1852) 16 Beav. 223 4 De G. M. & G. 528 872 Brecon (Mayor) v. Edwards (1862) i H. & C. 51 ; 31 L. J. Ex. 368 8 Jur. 6 L. T. 293 (N. S.) 461 . Bremer v. Freeman (1857) 10 Moo. P. C. 306 1245 Brcnchley v. Higgins (1901) 70 L. J. Ch. 788 83 L. T. 751 36 Brentwood Brick Co., Re (1876) 4 Ch. D. 562 46 L. J. Ch. 554 36 L. T. 840 343 ; 25 W. R. 481 C. A Brett o. Cumberland (1617) Cro. Jac. 521 1365 i D. & L. 383 12 L. J. Ex. 448 ; Brewer 0. Dew (1843) 1 1 M. & W. 625 366, 413 7 Jur- 953 Brice v. Bannister (1878) 3 Q. B. D. 569 47 L. J. Q. B. 722 ; 38 L. T. 739 ; 26 W. R. 670 C. A 1050 Briceo. Wilson (1834) 3 L. J. K. B. (N. S.)93; 3 N. &M. 512. 318 C. Ch. Ca. 181 Bridge o. Brown (1843) 2 Yo. & 1402 Bridger, In jbe Goods 0/(1878) 4 P. D. 77; 47 L. J. P. 46; 39 L. T.
;

&

31 L. T. 847

....... ....... .... ......


;

14 L. J. C. P. 222 4 R. R. 7

....
;

9 Jur. 599
;

410

43,931

S.

344
;

-!i

L. J. C. P. 273
.

6 L. T.

318,1182
.

25 R. R. 127.

1224 673

....

.......
; .

....
;
.

.259
.

.695

..
;

......
;
.
.

123 1335 Bridger o. Savage (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 363 54 L. J. Q. B. 464 53 L. T. 129 ; 312 33 W. R. 891 49 J. P. 725 Bridges v. Hawksworth (1851) 21 L. J. Q. B. 75 411, 417, 15 Jur. 1079. 424, 77h 9^1) 936 616 Bridges . Hitchcock (171 5) 5 Bro. P. C. 6 L. J. Ex. 246 Bridgland v. Shapter (1839) 5 M. & W. 375 8 1264 Bridle, Re (1879) 4 C. P. D. 336 15 L. T. 643 ; 15 Bridport Old Brewery Co., Re (1867) L. R. 2 Ch. 191 W. R. 291 9 .1115 Brier, Re (1882) 26 Ch. D. 238 ; 51 L. T. 133 33 W. R. 20 C. A. 408,412 Brierly 0. Kendall (1852) 17 Q. B. 937 ;> 21 L. J. Q. B. 161 1382 Briers v. Goddard (1617) Hob. 250 22 L. T. 212 761 Briggs V. Jones (1870) L. R. 10 Eq. 92 14 Briggs V. Oliver (1866) 4 H. & C. 403 35 L. J. Ex. 163 5 14 L. T. 412 33 W. R. 658
; ; ; ; . ; . .

-695

....
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

Ixxvi

TABLE OF CASES
.

. . Briggs o. Sutlers (1920) Tmei newspapet, December 7th . 313 Briggs V. Wilson (1853) 5 De M. & G. 12 ; 17 Beav. 330 ; 2 Eq. R. 153 . 1383 Bright V. Walker (1834) i C. M. & R. 211 ; 4 Tyr. 502 ; 3 L. J. Ex. 250 . 850 Brigstock v. Brigstock (1878) 8 Ch. D. 357 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 817 ; 38 L. T. 760 ; 26 W. R. .761 574 Bringloe 71. Morrice (1687) i Mod. 210 200 Brinsmead B..,Brinsm6ad (Ltd.) (1896) 13 T. L. R. 3 C. A. ; . . 1029 Brinsmead v. Brinsmead (1913) S7 Sol. Jo. 716 ; 29 T. L. R. 706 C. A. 1029 Brinsmead v. Harrison (1871) L. R. 6 C. P. 584 ; L. R. 7 C. P. 547 ; 41 L. J. C. P. 190 ; 27 L. T. 99 ; 20 W. R. 784 336, 421, 425 Brintons 1). Turvey [1905] Ai C. 230 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 610 ; 93 L. T. 357 ; 53 W. R. 612 ; 21 T. L. R. 490 456 Bristol Aerated Bread Co. o. Maggs (1890) 59 L. J. Ch. 472 ; 44 Ch. D. 616 ; 62 L. T. 416 ; 38 W. R. 393 . 89 Bristol Bank v. M.Hy. Co. [1891] 2 Q. B. 653, 663, 664 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 115 ; . 65 L. T. 234 ; 40 W. R. 148 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 69 C. A. 417, 419, 425 Bristol Cash Co. v. Lamson [1908] i K. B. 1006 ; 77 L. J. K. B. 649 ; 98 L. T. 875 . . 498 Bristol QVIarquis) ?). Beck (igo6) 96 L. T. 55 529 Bristow . Cormican (1878) L. R. 3 App. Cas. 641 702 Bristow V. Skirrow (1859) 27 Beav. 585 867 Bristow V. Warde (1794) 2 Ves. Jr. 336 ; 2 R. R. 235 . 867, 876, 1279 Britain v. Rossiter (1882) 48 L. J. Ex. 362 ; 11 Q. B. D. 123 ; 40 L. T. 240 ; 27 W. R. 482-C. 99, 100 British Goldfields bf W. Africa, In re [1899] 2 Ch. 7 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 412 ; 80 L. T. 638 ; 47 W. R. 552 ; 6 Manson, 334r-C. A 367 British India Steam Navigation Co. 0. Inland Reveniie (1881) 7 Q. B. D. 165 ; L. J. Q. B. 517; 44L. T. 378; 29 W. R. 610 50 1007 British Motor Syndicate o. Taylor & Sons [1901] i Ch. 122 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 21 ; 83 L. T. 419 ; 49 W. R. 183 ; 17 T. L.-R. 17 ; 17 R. P. C. 723 C. A. . 1017 British Mutual Investment Co. v. Smart (1875) L. R. 10 Ch. App. 567 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 695 ; 32 L. T. 849 ; 23 W. R. 800 1372 British S. Africa Co. o. De Beers [1910] 2 Ch. 502 ; 103 L. T. 4 54 Sol. Jo. 1013 679 ; 26 T. L. R. 59 1 C. A, British Union, &c. v. Rawson [1916] 2 Ch. 476 ; 85 L. J. Ch. 769 ; 115 L. T. 331 ; 60 Sol. Jo. 679 ; 32 T. L. R. 665 C. A 141 British Waggon Co. v. Lea (1879) 49 L. J. Q. B. 321 ; 5 Q. B. D. 149 ; 42 L. T. 437 ; 28 W. R. 349 ; 44 J. P. 440 . . . . 1 10 Britten o. G. N. Ry. Co. [1899] i Q. B. 243 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 75 ; 79 L. T.
.

....
'

......
.

....

640

Broad Broad

(1839) 5 Bing. (N. C.) 722 ; 8 Scott, 40 ; 8 L. J. C. P. 357 . -o, Thomas (1830) 7 Bing. 99 ; 4 M. & P. 732 ; 4 Car. & P. 338 59 L. J. (0. S. ) C. P. 32
v. o.
v.

Ham

...

256 491 236 349


771 566

Broadbent Broadbent
290

Wilks (1742) Wils. 360 Broadwood v. Granara (1854) 10 Exch. 417 ; 24 L. J. Ex. i 3 W. R. 25 ; 3 C. L. R. 177 19 Brockbank v. Whitehaven Junction Ry. (J862) 7 H. & N. 834
o.
; i

Broadbent

............ .......
Ramsbotham
;

Ledward (1839)

E. 2og (1856) 11 Exch. 602


II

A.

&

.....
;

25 L. J. Ex. 115

W. R.

Jur. (N. S.)

247
;

31 L. J.

Ex. 472

349 Brocklebank

Thompson

[1903] 2 Ch. 344

72 L. J. Ch. 626
;

19 T. L. R. 285

Broder 0. Saillard (1876) L. R. 2 Ch. D. 692, 701

89 L. T. 209 ; 327, 391, 403, 746, 858 45 L. J. Ch, 414 24 W. R.


; ;

4561'"

3945401

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES

Ixxvii
PAGE

Broderick v. L. C. C. [1908] z K. B. 807 77 L. ; J. K. B. 1 127 ; 99 L. T. 569 24 T. L. R. 822 456 Brodie v. Brodie [1917] P. 271 86 L. J. P. 140 117 L. T. 542 62 Sol. Jo. 71 33 T. L. R. 525 1179 Brogden, Re (1888) 38 Ch. D. 546 59 L. T. 650 37 W. R. 84 C. A.. 1404, 1419 Brogden o. Metro. Ry. Co. (1877) 2 App. Cas. 666 H. L. (E.) . .90, 91 Bromage o. Prosser (1825) 4 B. & C. 247 6 D. & R. 296 i Car. & P. 475 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 203 28 R. R. 241 3 335, 507 Bromfield v. Smith (1805) 6 East, 530 619 Bromfield v. Williamson (1654) Styles. 407 763 Bromley . Bromley (1793) 2 Add. 158 n 1193 Bromley v. Holland (1802) 7 Ves. 3 Coop. 9 240 Brook V. Brook (1861) 9 H. L. C. 193 4 L. T. 93 7 Jur. (N. S.) 422 ; 9 W. R. 461 i affirming 3.Sm. & G. 481 27 L. J. Ch. 401 1173 Brook V. Bulkeley (1752) 2 Ves. Sen. 498 616 Brook V. Copeland (1794) i Esp. 203 446 Brook V. Willet (1793) 2 H. Bl. 224 717, 718 Brooke v. Brooke (1858) 25 Beav. 342 27 L. J. Ch. 639 4 Jur. (N. S.) 472 1184 Brooke v. Brooke [1912] P. 136 ; 81 L. J. P. 75 106 L. T. 766 28 T. L. R. 1191,1192 314; 56 Sol. Jo. 382 Brooke v. Kent (1840) 3 Moo. P. C. 334 1249 Brooke v. Lewis (1822) 6 Madd. 358 23 R. R. 246 1268, 1270 Brookes, Re [1914] i Ch. 558 83 L. J. Ch. 424 ; no L. T. 691 58 Sol. Jo. 286 1412 Brooks bie's Case (1590) Cro. Eliz. 173 . . 727, 980 Broom !). Hall (1859) 7C. B. N. S. 503 302 Brotherton, Re (1908) 77 L. J. Ch. 58 97 L. T. 880 679 Broughten's Case (1482) Y. B. 22 Edw. II., Pasch. pi. 15 . 647 Broughton v. Jackson (1852) 18 Q. B. 378 ; 21 L. J. Q. B. 265 16 Jur. 886 442 Broun v. Kennedy (1863) 33 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 71, 342 36 Brown's Case (1581) 4 Rep. 22 a 653, 1314, 1371 Brown, Re (1886) 32 Ch. D. 597 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 556 ; 54 L. T. 789 867 Brown v. Anderson [1894] I Q. B. 164 10 R. 47 ; 42 W. R. 236 58 J, P. . 213 397 Brown v. Andrew (1849) 18 L. J. Q. B. 153 13 Jur. 938 229 Annaudale (1842) 8 CI. & F. 437 Brown v. 1015 . Brown . Boorman (1844) II CI. & F. 44 ; 3 Q. B. 511 Brown v. Brine (1875) 1 Ex. D. 5 ; 45 L. J. Ex. 129 ; 33 L. T. 703 ; 24 W. R.
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
.

'

....... ....
; ; ; . .
.

....
; . . ; .

....
.

.331

177

42

D. 46 ; 35 L. J. P. M. & A. 13 13 L. T. 645 ; 1188 1 1 Jur. (N. S.) 1027 ; 14 W. R. 149 440 Brown . Chapman (1848) 17 L. J. C. P. 329 6 C. B. 365 ; 12 Jur. 799 828 Brown v. Cole (1845) 14 Sim. 427 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 167 Brown v. Collins (1883) 25 Ch. D. 56 53 L. J. Ch. 368 ; 49 L. T. 329 1230 Brown V. Dunstable Corporation [1899] 2 Ch. 378 68 L. J. Ch. 498 ; 80 L. T. ~ 710, 850 650 ; 63 J. P. 519 ; 47 W. R. 538 15 T. L. R. 386 .1312 Brown v. Farndell (1690) Carth. 51 Brown v. Gellatly (1867) L. R. 2 Ch. App. 751 ; 17 L. T. 131 ; 15 W. R. 1188 1121, 1122 Brown v. Hawkes [1891] 2 Q. B. 718 ; 65 L. T. 108 ; 55 J. P. 823 ; 60

Brown

o.

Brown

(1865)

P.

&

L.J.Q.B. 332
JSrown
V.

Hedges (1708)

Brown Brown Brown

.
v.
v.

Higgs (1803) 8 Ves. 561

.... ....
i

490, 493

Salk. 290

Johnson (1842) 10 M.

& W.

331

Car.

& M.

440

iiL.

J.

Ex. 373

Naime

(1839) 9 C.

&

P. 204

349 1263 68 222

Digitized

by Microsoft

Ixxviii

TABLE OF CASES
Raindle (1796) 3 Ves. 256

'

Brown Brqwn Brown Brown Brown Brown

v.

Royal

Ins. Co. (1859)


,

El.

110,130,132 7 W. R. 479 ; Savage (1859) 4 Drew. 635 5 Jur. (N. S.) 1020 ; 7 W. R. 571 1153 v. Shore (1689) i Show. 25 1312 v. Skirrow [1902] P. 3 18 T. L. R. 59 71 L. J. P. 19 ; 85 L. T. 645 1238 v. Smi|h (1853) .13 C. B. 596 i C. L. R. 4 22 L. J. C. P. 151 17 I W. ^. 288 Jur. 807 504 Brown 0. Tighe (1834) 2 CI. & F. 396 617 Browne 0. Brundt [1902] i K. B.' 696 71 L. J. K. B. 367 86 L. T. 625 50 W. R. 654 244 Browne o. Dawson (1840) 12 A. &E. 624 ; 4P. &D. 355 ; 10 L. J. Q. B. 7. .383, 390 Browne o. Dunn (1893) 6 R. 67 517 Browne i>. Flower [191 1] i Ch. 219; 80 L. J. Ch. 181 103 L. T. 557 55 " " 635,711,712 Sol. Jo. 108 Browne v. Groombridge (1819) 4 Madd. 495 20 R. R. 326 1391 Browne 0. Stoughton (1846) 14 Sim. 369. 1076 Browning 0. Beston (1556) Plowd. 131 48 Browning v. Browning [1911] P. 161 80 L. J. P. 74; 104 L. T. 750 sub om. B. o. B., 55 Sol. Jo. 462 1188 . Browning o. Provincial Ins. Co. (1875) L. R. 5 P. C. 263 ; 28 L. T. 853 21 W. R. 587 . 64 Brownlie o. iCampbell,(i88o) L. R. 5 App. Ca. 925 1 . 543 Brownrigg v. Pike (1882) 7 P. D. 61 ; 51 L. J. P. 29 46 L. T. 821 46 J. P. 360 ; 30 W. R. 567 1329 Bruce, Re [1905] 2 Ch. 372 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 578 ; 93. L. T. 119,; 54 W. R. 60 8go Bruce, Re [1908] 2 Ch. 682 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 56 ; 99 L. T. 704 C. A. 1276 Bruce 0. Hunter (18 1 3) 3 Camp. 467 . 116 Brudnel's Case (1592) 5 Rep. 9 573 Bruen . Roe (1667) Sid. 264 415 Bruerton o. Rainsford (1583) Cro. Eliz. 15 6io
(N. S.) 1255
v.
; .
.

.."....
&
El. 853
; .
.

.......
28 L. J. Q. B. 275
;

PAGE
1092

5 Jur.

".

........ ...... .......


, ; ; . . .
.

Brummel

Prothero (1796) 3 Ves. no Brun (or Bell) v. Hutchinson (1844) ^3 L.


B.
.

... ........ .....


-.
.

1392

J.

Q. B. 244

4 Dow.

&

L. 43

Jur- 895
; .

-53
.

Bruner 0. Moore [1904] i Ch. 305 73 L. J. Ch. 377 ; 89 L. T. 738 ; 52 W. R. 295; 20T. L.R. 125 Brunning, Re [1909] i Ch. 276 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 75 99 L. T. 918 . Brunsden 0. Humphrey (1884) 14 Q. B. D. 141 53 L. J. Q. B. 476 ; 51 L. T. 529; 32 W. R. 944; 49 J. P. 4 C. A. Brunswick (Duke) v. Harmer (1849) 14 Q. B. 185 19 L. J. Q. B. 20 14
;
.

69.

995

.373

505, 506 Hall (1841) i Q. B. 792 10 L. J. Q. B. 258 i Gal. & Dav. 207 ; 6 Jur. 340 708 Bryan, In the Esme o/[i9o7] P. 125,; 76 L. J. P. 30 ; 96 L. T. 584 1247 Bryant 0. Busk (1827) 4 Russ. i 28 R. R. i 189 Bryant o. Flight (1839) 5 M. & W. 114 ; 2 H. & H. 84 8 L. J. Ex. 189 3 Jur. 6^1 Bryant v. Herbert (1878) 3 C. P. D. 3,89 47 L. J. C. P. 670 ; 39 L. T. 17 26 W. R. 898 C. A Bryant v. Lefever (1879) 4 C. P. D. 172 ; 48 L. J. C, P. 380 40 L. T. 579 ; 27 W. R. 592 C. A 711; 850 Brydges v. Brydges (1796) 3 Ves. 125 753 Metropolitan Co. (1858) 3 De G. & J. 123 Bryon v. lOpS* Buccleuch (Duke of) 0. Metropolitan Board of Works (1871) L. R. j H. L. 418; 41 L.J. Ex. 137; 27 L.t. I 773
-

Jur-

"o

Brunton

0.

.208
:

.422

.......
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Bucdeuch (Duke
of) v.

Ixxix
PAGE

Wakefield (1870) L. R. 4 H. L. 377


;

39 L. J. Ch.

441 ; 23 L. T. 102 Buchan's Case (1879) L. R. 4 App. Cas. 549 L- R- 512 Buckell V. Blenkhorn (1845) 5 Ha. 131 Buckeridge 0. Ingram (1795) 2 Ves. Jun. 652

782
6 Rettie (H. L.) 44;
16 Sc.

Buckland v. Johnson (1854) 15 C. B. 145 204 i8 Jur. 775 2 W. R. 565 Buckler . Harvey (i 594) Cro. Eliz. 450
; ; ;

Buckley, Re (1883) 22 Ch. D. 583 52 L. J. Ch. 439 48 L. T. 109 ; 31 W. R. 376 Buckley v. Gross (1863) 3 B. & S. 566 32 L. J. Q. B. 129 9 Jur. (N. S.) 986; 7L. T. 743; II W. R. 465
; ;

...... .......
.

1367 870

15,1319
421

2 C. L. R. 704;

23 L. J. C. P.

656
1271

Buckley

(1808) 10 East, 139 Buckworth v. Thirkell (1785) 3 Bos. & P. 652 n. ; 10 Moore, 235 u. ; 4 Dougl. 323 ; 28 R. R. 674 Budd-Scott V. Daniell [1902] 2 K. B. 351 ; 71 L. J. K. B. 706 ; 87 L. T. 392 ; 18 T. L. R. 675 Bufec. Turner (1815) 6 Taunt. 338 Bullen B. Denning (1826) 5 B. & C. 842 ; 8 Dow. & Ry. (K. B.) 657 ; 4 L. J. (O. S.)K. B. 314; 29 R. R. 431 BuUer v. Harrison (1777) 2 Cowp. 565 Bulli Coal Co. v. Osborne [1899] A. C. 351 ; 68 L. J. P. C. 49 ; 80 L. T. 430 ; 47W. R. 545; 15T. L. R. 257 Bullock, Re [1915] i Ch. 493 ; 84 L. J. Ch. 463 ; 112 L. T. 1119 ; 59 Sol. Jo.
v.

Kenyon

.......
;
."

418
621

1313

635 39 813 234

.......

441

Bullock's Settled Estates, Re (1904) 91 L. T. 651 Bullock V. Downes (i860) 9 H. L. C. i ; 3 L. T. 194; affirming 25 Beav. 4 Bund c. Green (1879) 12 Ch. D. 819; 28 W. R. 275 Bunn V. Channen (1813) 5 Taunt. 243 Bunn 0. Markham (1816) 2 Marsh. 532 ; 7 Taunt. 224 ; Holt, 352 ; 17 R. R.
.

............
;

76
661

659 1286 1312 679

497

939> 1291

Burchall v. Wilde [1900] i Ch. 551 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 314; 82 L. T. 576; 48 W. R. 491 ; 16 T. L. R. 257C. A Burdick v. Garrick (1870) L. R. 5 Ch. App. 233 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 369 18 W. R. 387 Surge V. Ashley [1900] i Q. B. 744 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 538 ; 82 L. T. 518 ; 48 W. R. 438 Surges V. Lamb (1809) 16 Ves. 174 Burgess v. Booth [1908] 2 Ch. 648 78 L. J. Ch. 32 j 99 L. T. 677 C. A. Burgess v. Burgess (1853)3 De G. M. & G. 896; 22 L. J. Ch. 675;
17 Jur. 292
v.
.

1030

1386

1029 Clements (1815) 4 M. & S. 306 ; Holt, 211 u. ; i Stark. 251 n. 16 R. R. 473 24s Burgess v. Thompson (1836) 5 A. & E. 532 585 1103,1326 Burgess 0. Wheate (1757) I Ed. 177 ; i W. Bl. 123 . . in6 Burke, Re [1908] 2 Ch. 248 77 L. J. Ch. 597 ; 99 L. T. 86 Burke v. Green (1814) 2 Ball & B. 517 498 . Burling v. Read (1850) 11 Q. B. 904 ; 19 L. J. Q. B. 291 383 61 58 L. J. Ch. 664 Burnaby's Settled Estates, Re (1889) 42 Ch. D. 621 L. T. 22 7S4 Burnaby b. Baillie (1889) 42 Ch. D. 282 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 842 ; 61 L. T.634; 38 . 1207, 1208 W. R. 125 Burnand . Rodocanachi (1882) L. R. 7 App. Cas. 333 ; 51 L. J, Q. B. 548 ; . 307, 318 4 Asp. M. C. 576 47 L. T. 277 31 W. R. 65-H. L. (E.)

..........
; .

310 786
1360

Burgess

....
. . . ;

Digitized

by Microsoft

Ixxx

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
C. B.

Burnard v. Haggis (1863) 14


1325; 8L. T. 320; II

W.
;

N. S. 45 R. 644

32 L. J. C. P. 189
;

9 Jur. (N. S.)

196)347
122 L. T. 224
;

Burne

o.

Burne [1920] P. 17

89 L. J. P. 18

132

Burnet o. Mann (1748) I Ves. Sen. 156 Burnett o. Lynch (1826) 5 B. & C. 589 ; 8 D. & R. 368 4 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. '. 274 Burns v. Bryan or Martin (1887) L. R. iz App. Cas. 184 H. L. (Sc.) Buron v. Denman (1848) 2 Exch. 167 Burr V. Smith [1909] 2 K. B. 306 78 L. J. K. B. 889 ; loi L. T. 194 16 Manson, 210 53 Sol. Jo. 502 25 T. L. R. 542
;
. . .

.......
. .

64

Sol. Jo.

f23 1309
632'

...
.
.

Burrell Burrell

v. o.

Dodd

(1803) 3 Bos. & P. 378 Egremont (Earl) (1844) 7 Beav. 205


v.

....
; ;

154 340 512


1

606, 607
;

13 L. J. Ch. 309
;

7 Jur.
.

587 Burroughes

830

Bayne

(i860)

H.

&

N. 301

29 L. J. Ex. 185

2 L. T. 16

407,

415 Burroughs-Fowler, Re [1916] 2 Ch. 251 ; 85 L. J. Ch. 550; 114 L. T. . 1204 60 Sol. Jo. 1538 H. B. R. 108 32 T. L. R. 493 577 Burrows v. Lang [1901] 2 Ch. 502 70 I.. J. Ch. 607 84 L. T. 623 49 W. R. 710,850 564; 17T. L. R. 514 Burrows v. Rhodes [1899] i Q. B. 816 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 545 80 L. T. 591 48 W. R. 13 ; 63 J. P. 532 324, S42 Burt o. Moore (1793) 5 T. R. 329 2 R. R. 61 1 716 6urton . Henson (1842) 10 M. & W. 105 II L.J. Ex. 348 435
; ; ;
.

Burton v. Hughes (1824) 2 Bing. 173 417 Burton . Knowlton (1796) 3 Ves. 106 1392 ^ . . . Burton v. Le Gros (1864) 34 L. J. Q. B. gi . . . 530 Bushell C.Miller (1718) I Stra. 128. 407 Busher o. Thompson (1846) 4 C. B. 48 ; i Lutw. Reg. Cas. 551 ; 16 L. J. C. P. . . . . . 557,606,765 57; II Jur. 45 ' . Bussey v. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants & Bell (1908) 24 T. L. R. 437 . 344 Butchero. Butcher (1827) 7 B.&C. 399; I Bos. &P. (N. R.) 1113 ; i V. & B. Ves. 382 ; 12 R. R. 193 ; 14 Beav. 222 ; i M, & Ry. 220 ; 6 L. J. 79 ; 9 (O. S.) K. B. 51 ; 31 R. R. 237 383, 388 Bute (Marquis) v. Thompson {see " Marquis ").
'f

Baker's Case (1591) 2 Ro. Ab. 410 b, p. 3 Butler's 3 Co. 25 ; Moore, 254 ; 3 Leon. 271 Butler, Re [1894] 3 Cb. 250 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 662 ; 43
Butler,

&

And. 348

Poph. 87

97,812,939

W.
;

In

the /Soods o/[i898] P. 9

67 L. J. P. 15

R. 190 ; 8 R. 504 77 L. T. 376 ; 46 W. R.


.

1395
1 1

445
Butler .3utler (1890) 63 L. T. 256 Butler V. Knight (1867) L. R. 2 Ex. 109
>

34 J 194

36 L. J. Ex. 66 ; 15 L. T. 621 i ; 407 Butler V. Rice [igio] 2 Ch. 277 79 L. J. Ch. 652 103 L. T. 94 Butler o. Swan Electric Engraving Co. (1906) 22 T. L. R. 275 Butler o. Wearing (1885) 17 Q. B. D; 182 ; 3 Morr. 5 Butlero. Woolcott_(i'8o5)2Bos. &P. (N, R.)64 Butterknowle v. Bishop Auckland [1906] A. C. 305 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 541 ; 94 L. T. 795 ; 70 J. P. 361 22 T. L. R. 516 Butters, Ex parte (1880) 14 Ch. D. 265 43 L. T. 2'; 28 W. R. 876 C. A. Butterworth v. Butterworth [1920] P. 126 ; 89 L. J. P. 151 ; 122 L. T. 804 36 T. L. R. 265 Button, Re [1905] i K. B. 602 74 L. J. K. B. 403 92 L. T. 250 ; 53 W. 437; 12 Mans. Ill
;

W.

R,.

230
553 203 1055 260

....
.
. . .

782 1062

829

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Button, Re [1907] 2 K. B. 180 76 L. 23 T. L. J. K. B. 833 ; 97 L. T. 71 422 ; 14 Manson, 180 C. A Buxton V. Baughan (1834) 6 C. & P. 674 Buxton 11. Lister (1746) 3 Atk. 383 Buxton V. Rust (1872) 41 L. J. Ex." i L. R. 7 Ex. i ; 26 L. T. 502 20 W. 100 affirmed 41 L. J. Ex. 173 L. R. 7 Ex. 279 27 L. T. 210 W. R. 1014 , Byne II. Moore (1813) 5 Taunt. 187; I Marshall, 13

Ixxxf
PAGE

R.
367^ ^2j 964^ 965

125,127
R.
20
loi
'

488
; .

Byng V. Byng (1862) 10 H. L. C. 171, 7L. T. i; 10 W. R. 633 .: Bynoe v. Bank of England [1902] 1 K.
;

31 L. J. Ch. 470

8 Jur. (N. S.) 1135

562

B. 467
;

140

50

W.

71 L. J. K. B. 208

86 L, T.

R. 359

490

Byrne Byrne Byrne

v.

W.
v.

Boadle (1863) 2 H. R. 279


Statist Co. [1914]
i

&

C. 722

33 L. J. Ex. 13
;

9 L. T. 450

12

330
58 Sol. Jo. 340 ; 30 T. L, R. 254 . C. P. 316 ; 5 C. P. D. 344 ; 42 L. T.

K. B. 622 v. Van Tienhoven (1880) 49 L. J. . 371 44 J- P- 667


;
.

1038

89
pi.
.

case of Hundred of (1497) Y. B. 12 Hen. VII., Pasch. Cabell . Vaughan (1669) 7 Wms. Saund. 461 . .

C,

675, 687

.157

Cable 0. Bryant [1908] I Ch. 259 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 78 ; 98 L. T. 98 Cadbury.B. Smith (1869) L. R. 9 Eq. 37 24 L. T. 52 18 W. R. 105 1419, Cadee's and Oliver's Case (1587) 3 Leon. 153 Cadell V. Palmer (1833) i CI. & F. 372 lo Bing. 140 7 Bligh (N. S.) 292 662, 1073, 3 M. & Sc. 57 Cadell V. Wilcocks [1898] P. 21 67 L. J. (P.) 8 ; 78 L. T. 83 46 W. R. 394 14 T. L. R. 100 1247, Cadge, In the Goods of (1868) L. R. 1 P. M. 543 37 L. J. (P.) 15 ; 17 L. T. . 484; 16 W. R. 406 Cadogan v. Lyric Theatre [1894] 3 Ch. 338 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 775 ; 71 L. T. 8 ; 7 R- 594 C. A Cadoval v. Collins (1836) 4 A. & E. 858 Cahill o. Cahill (1883) L. R. 8 App. Cas. 420 49 L. T. 605 ; 31 W. R. 861 Cain V. Moon [1896] 2 Q. B. 283 65 L. J. Q. B. 587 74 L. T. 728 939,
. ; ;
. .

.7"
;

1420 641 1074


1250
1

.........
; ;

...
; .

...
; . .

153

1057
39

976

Caine 0. Chapman (1826) 5 A. & E. 647 Caird v. Sime (1887) L. R. 12 App. Cas. 3?6 57 L. J. P, C. 2 36 W. R. 199 H. L. (Sc.) Caldecotto. Smythies (1837) 7 C. & P. 808 Calder v. Dobell (1871) L. R. 6 C. P. 486 40 L. J. C. P. 224 19 W. R. 978 Calderc. Halket (1839) 3 Moo. P. C. 28 Caldwell v. Fellowes (1870) L. R. 9 Eq. 410 39 L. J. Ch. 618 18 W. R. 486 Caledonian Ry. Co. 0. Sprot (1856) 2 Macq. 499 ; 2 Jur. (N. S.)
. ; ; . ; :
'

...

984, 1290, 1291

993

57 L. T. 634

....
25 L. T. 129
.
.

.625
;
.

427

62
342

22 L. T. 225

1092

623

W.
-

R.

659
Callisher
v.

713

BischoflEsheim (1879) 39 L- J. Q- B. 181

L. R. 5 Q. B.

449

18
.

R. 1127 Brouncker (1831) 4 C. & P. 518 Calton V. Bragg (1812) 15 East, 223 ; 13 R. R. 451
Callo
V.
.

W.

94
213

.
.

116, 118

i R. R. u8 . Calverley o. Williams (1798) I Ves. jr. 210 Calye's Case (1584) 8 Co. Rep. 32 Camberwell and South London Building Society v. Holloway (1879). 1 3 Ch. 754 49 L. J. Ch. 361 ; 41 L. T, 752 ; 28 W. R. 222 .... Cambridge o, Rous (1802) 8 Ves. 22 6 Rj. R. ?76 ,
. . . . . .
.

37

^
.

244,245
193

1^67

Digitized

by Microsoft

Ixxxii

TABLE OF CASES

Cameroiio. Reynolds (1^76) Cowp. 403 Cameron & Wells, Re (1887) 37 Ch. D. 32 57 L. J. Ch. 69 36 W. R. 5 Camofs o. Scurr (1840) 9 C. & P. 383 Campanari v. Woodburn (1854) 15 C. B. 400 3 C. L. R. 14
; ;

.......
;

530
104 200

57 L. T. 645

240^ 241 62 L. J. Ch. 594; 68 L. T. 851 3 R. 331 1396 Campbell o. French- (1797) 3 Ves. 321 4R. R.. 5 1250 Campbello. Paddington Borough Council [191 l]i K. B. 869 80 L. J. K. B. 712 739 i4 L- T. 394 75 J- P- ^77 27 T. L. R. 232 9 L. G. R. 387 Campbell v. Sandys (1803) i ScH. & Lef. 281 9 R. R. 33. 571, 580, 581 Campbell v. Spottiswoode (1863) 3 B. & S. 769 32 L. J. Q. B. 185 9 Jur. (N. S.) 1069 i' 8 L. T. 201 II W. R. 569 3 F. & F. 421 509, 526 Campbell Davys v. Lloyd [1901] 2 Ch. 518 '70 L. J. Ch. 714 49 W. R. 710 '' 85 L. T. 59; 17T. L. R. 678 C. A. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. v. Parke [1899] A. C. 549 (P. C.) 345 Cannon v. Smalley (1885) L. R. 10 P. D. 96 27 Cannon Brewery 0. Nash (1898) 77 L. T. 648 617 .-' Cant .'Gregory (1894)- 10 T. L. R. 584 .. 1291 Canterbury (Corporation) 0. Cooper (1908) 99 L. T. 6iz 552 Capell B. Powell (i8'S4):i7 C. B. N. S. 743 11 L. T. 34 L. J. C. P. 168 421 ; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 1255 13 W. R. 159. 356, 1196 Capital & Counties Bank 0. Henty (1882) L. R. 7 App. Cas. 741 52 L. J. Q. B. 232; 47L. T:662; 31 W. R. 157; 47J. P. 214 501,508,510Capital & Counties Bank v. Rhodes [1903] i Ch. 631 88 72 L. J. Ch. 336 ". L. T. 255 51 W. R. 470; 19T. L. R. 280 553,809 Cappe?VCase(i868) L. R. 3 Ch. App. 458; 16 W. R. 1002 Cardrosa' Settlement, Re (1878) 7 Ch. D. 728 47 L. J. Ch. 327 38 L. T. 778; 26W. R. 389 899,975 Carlill ti. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [i892]'2 Q. B. 484'; 61 L. J. Q. B. 696 ;
13
;

Jur. (N. S.) 17

W. R.^9
; ;

Campbell, Re [1893] 2 Ch. 206

.....
; ;
.
'

24 L.

J. C. P.

.400
.

.
'.

...
. . . . .

.981

91,03,309,312 56J. P.-665. Carhsh o. Salt [1906] i Ch. 335 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 175 94 L. T. 58 54 W. R. 186 244 ''.-'* '.'!. Carlisle (Mayor) v. Graham (1869) L. R. 4- Ex. 361 21 38 L. J. Ex. 226
.
.

...
; ; ;

. -L. T. 133; 18W. R. 318 702,720 Carlton Co. v. Castle Mail Co. [1S98] A. C. 486 67 L. J. Q. B. 795 78 L. T. 66i 112 47 W. R. 65H. L. (E.) Carlyon v. Lovering (1857) i H. & N. 784 ; 26 I.. J. Ex. 251 710 5 W. R. 347 Carmichael, Ex parte [1896] 2 Ch. 643 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 902 240 75 L. T. 45 Carnarvon (Earl) v. Villebois (i844) I3 M. & W. 313 14 L. J. Ex. 233 672 Carpenter v. BuUer (1841) 8 M. & W. 209 10 L. J. Ex. 393 810 Carpenter v. Colins (1605) Yelv. 73 647 Carpenter v. Wall (1840) 11 A. & E. 803 3 Per. & Dav. 457 ; 9 L. J. Q. B 217; 4 Jif; 964 469 Carr v. Fracis Times & Co. [1902] A. C. 176 71 L. J. K. B. 361 50 W. R, 257 339 Carratt v. Motley (I841) i Q. B. 18 I G. & D. 275 10 L. J. Q. B. 259 6 Jur. 259 343 Carrett s. Smallpage (1808) 9 East, 330 686 Carrington . Taylor (1809) II East, 571 2 Camp. 258 480 Carrodus . Sharp (1855) 20 Beav. 56 189 Carrol . Bird (1800) 3 Esp. 201 6 R. R. 824. 209 Carron Iron Co. . Maclaren (1855) 5 H. L. C. 436 8 Carruthers o. Holies (1838) 8A. & ."113 3 N. & P. 246 i W. W. & H. 264 84 Carslake v. Mapledoram (178S) 2 T. R. 473 504, 524
. ;

......
; ; ; ' " ;
.
,

...... ....
; . ;

....

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Carter, i? parte (1773) 2 Amb. 733 Carter's and Kenderdin^'s Contract [1897] i Ch. 776 L. T. 476 ; 45 W. R. 484 : 4 Manson, 34 C. A.

Ixxxiii
PAGE
834

1070 Carter (1857) 3 K. & J. 617 810 v. Crawley (1683) T. Raym. 496 ; Freem. (K. B.) 296 1307, 1308 v. Murcot (1768) 4 Burr. 2162 700 v. Sebright (1859) 26 "eav. 374 28 L. J. Ch. 411; 5 Jur. (N. S.) 259 7 W. R. 225 Carter?/. Wake (1877) 4 Ch. D. 605; 46 L. J. Ch. 841 Cartright's Case (1678) i Freem. (K. B.) 258 1341 Cartwright, Re (1889) 41 Ch. D. 532 ; 58 L. 60 L. T. 891 37 J. Ch. 590 W. R. 612 576, 626 Cartwright v. Cartwright (1793) i Phill. 90 1257 Cartwright v. Green (1803) 8 Ves. 406 921 Caruthers v. Caruthers (1794) 4 Bro. C. C. 500. 1322 Carver . Richards (1859) 27 Beav. 488 i L. T. 257 ; 5 29 L. J. Ch. 169 Jur. (N. S.) 1412; 8 W. R. 157 870 Cary & Lott's Contract, Re [1901] 2 Ch. 463 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 653 84 L. T. 859 17 T. L. R. 598 49 W. R. 581 1269,1372 Cary . Holt (1746) 2 Stra. 1238 11 East, 70 n. 381 Casborne v. Scarfe (1738) i Atk. 603 2 Eq. Co. Ab. 728 818, 827, 1313 ^ Case of Libels (1606) 5 Rep. 125 500, 502 Case of Swans (1592) 7 Rep. 15 b 937 Casey's Patents, Re [1892! i Ch. 104 1020 Cashill V. Wright (1856) 6'E. & B. 891 2 Jur. (N. S.) 1072 4 W. R. 709 245 Cassils V. Holden (1914) 84 L. J. K. B. 834 ; 112 L. T. 373 C. A. 963 Castellain v. Preston (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 380 52 L. J. Q. B. 366 ; 49 L. T.
. . . .

66 L. J. Ch. 408

76

Carter Carter Carter Carter

ir.

....
;

'.

.596 .955

..... ....... .....


; . ;
;

..... ........ .....


; . . . . .
.

29 ; 31 W. R. 559 Castellain v. Thompson (1862) 13 C. B. N. S. 105


' .

44; II W. R. 147 Castle (Henry) & Sons, Re (1906) 94 L. T. 396. Castle V. Sworder (1861) 6 H. & N. 828 ; 30 L. J. Ex. 310 ; 4 L. T. 865 8 Jur. (N. S.) 233 ; 9 W. R. 697 Castle Bytham, Ex parte [1895] i Ch. 348 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 116 ; 71 L. T. 606

......... .....
;

307
961 800

32 L. J. C. P. 79

7 L. T.

922
;

556 Castleden (1861) 9 H. L. C. 186 31 L. J. P. M. & A. 103 5 L. T. 164; 4 Macq. H. L. 159 1177 Catesby's Case (1606) 6 Rep. 61 b 70, 730 Catherwood v. Caslon (1844) 13 M. & W. 261 13 L. J. Ex. 334; 8 Jur. 1167 1076; Car. &M. 431 Cato. Thompson (1882) 9 Q. B. D. 616; 47 L. T. 491 187 Caton V. Caton (1865) L. R. i Ch. App. 137 35 L. J. Ch. 292 14 L. T. 34 ; 12 Jur. 171 (1867) L.^R. 2 H. L. 127 99, loi, 125 .1183 Caton V. Rideout (1849'! i Mac. & G. 599 2 H. & Tw. 33 21 L. T. 188 ; 17 L. R. 4 Ch. 655 Catt c.-Tourle (1869) 38 L. J. Ch. 665 128 W. R. 939 186 Cattel V. Corrall (1840) 4 Y. & Coll. 228 1080 . Cattell, Re [1913] i Ch. 177 ; no L. T. 137 58 Sol. Jo. 67 C. A. Cavalier v. Pope [1905] 2 K. B. 752 74. L. J. K. B. 857 54 W. R. 68 ; 93 L. T. 475 ; 21 T. L. R. 747C. A. [1906] A. C. 428 75 L. J. K. B. Castleden
v.
; ; .
. .

43W.

R. 156; 13 R. 24."

.... ....
;
.

22 T. L. R. 648 H. L 95 L. T. 65 Cawthorn v. Mee (1833) 4 B. & Ad. 617 Central R. C. of Venezuela v. Kisch (1867) L. R. 2 H. L. 849 16 L. T. 500 15 W. R. 321 Chadbom B. Green (1839) 9 A. & E. 658 . 609
; ; ; ;
.

329, 397

584
C,

99

36 L.

J.

Ch.

39

617

/2

Digitized

by Microsoft

Ixxxiv

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
v.

Chadwick
Chaffers
v.

Trower (1839) ^ Si"g- N. C. Goldsmid [1894] i Q. B. 189

782
529

L. T. 24; 42

W.

R. 239; 587 J. P. 212

Chalchman o. Wright (1603) Noy, 118 Chalinder and Herington, Re [1907] i Ch. 58

.......
; ; ; .
.

10 R. 19

63 L.'J. Q. B. 59

70

990
1

76 L. J. Ch. 71 96 L. T. 196 23 T. L. R. 71 Challoner v. Murhall (1795) 2 Ves. Jun. 524 3 R. R. i Chamberlain v. Boyd (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 407 52 L. J. Q. B. 277 ; 48 L. T.' 328; 31 W.R. 572; 47 J- P- 372 Chamberlain v. Hazlewood (1839) 5 ^- & W. 515 3 Jur. 1079 Chamberlayne v. Dummer (1792)^ 3 Bro. C. C. 549 Chambers . Donaldson (1809) 11 East, 65 10 R. R. 435 Champion, Re [1893] i Ch. loi 62 L. J. Ch. 372 67 L. T. 694 2 R. 162 C. A. Champion v. Rigby (1830) i Russ. & M. 539 Tam. 421 9 L. J. (0. S.) Ch. 211 ; 31 R. R. 107. Chancellor, Re (1894) 26 Ch. D. 42 51 L. T. 33 ; 32 53 L. J. Ch. 443 W. R. 465C. Chancellors. Poole (1781) 2 Burr. 764
; . ; .
. . ;

124

606
55'

...
.

465 789 384

Chandelor . Lopus (1603) Cro. Jac. 4 Chandler v. Doulton (1865) 3 H. & C. 553 34 L. J. Ex. 8g ; 11 Jur. (N. S.) z86; II L.T. 639 494,532 Chandler v. Webster [1904] i K. B. 493 73 L. J. K. B. 401 90 L. T. 217 52 W. R. 290 20 T. L. R. 222 C. A 132, 146 Chaplin v. Hicks [191 1] 2 K. B. 786 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 1292 ; 105 L. T. 285 55 Sol. Jo. 580 27 T. L. R. 458 C. A 125 Chaplin & Co., Ltd. v. Westminster Corporation [1901] 2 Ch. 329 ; 70 Ch. 679 L. T. 88 P. 661 ; 49 W. R. 586 L. J. 85 17 T. L. R. 65 J.
;
;

......... ....... .......


; ;
;

1254

232
1405 632 537

576

'
;

-773
1403

Chapman, Re
67

[1896] 2 Ch. 763


.
. .

65
.

JL.

J.

C. A.
?>.

Chapman Allen (1632) Cro. Car. 271 Chapman 0. Franklin (1905) 21 T. L. R. 515 Chapman v. Gibson (1791) 3 Bro. C. C. 230 Chapman o. Hart (1749) I Ves. Sen. 273 Chapman v- Turner (1738-9) 9 Mod. 268 Chapman v. Walton (1833) 10 Bing. 63 3 M. & Scott, 389 2 Chapman 0. Westerby (1914) 58 Sol. Jo. 50 Chappie o. Cooper (1844) 13 M. & W.-252 13 L. J. Ex. 286
; ; ;
;

Charles !). Andrews (1725) 9 Mod. 151 1322 Charlesworth 0. Mills [1892] A. C. 231 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 830 66 L. T. 690 ; 56 J. P. 628 i 41 W. R. 129 920,921,924,941 Charlton o. Durham (Earl) (1869) L. R. 4 Ch. App. 433 ; 20 L. T. 46'? ; 17 W. R. 995 ; ffl^rming 38 L. J. Ch. 183 . . . 1340 Charriere, Re [1896] i Ch. 912 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 460 ; 74 L. T. 650 44 W. R. ;
. . .

....... ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ... .......


;
.

Ch. 892
.

75 L. T. 196
.
. .

45

W. R. .1116,

964 94 870 1264


1382
331 128 21

L. J. C. P. 213
.

539 Charsley

1318, 1325
.

Chase

v.

Westmore
v.

JoneSi(i889) 53 J. P. 280 (1816) 5 M. & S. 180

636
;

2 Marsh. 346

17 R. R. 301

224^

964, 965 Richards (1859) 7 H. L. C. 349 29 L. J. Ex. 81 5 Jur. (N. S.) 873 ; 7 W. R. 685 393, ^03 Chatard, Re [1899] i Ch. 712 68 L. J. Ch. 350 80 L. T. 645 47 W. R. 515 1234 Chatterton v. Sec. of State for India [1895] 2 Q. B. 189 64 L. J. Q. B. 676 72.L. T. 858; 59 J..P. 596; 14-R. 504 513 Chaytor, Re [1905] i Ch. 233 74 L. J. Ch. 106 ; 92 L. T. 29a; 53 W. R. 251 11-21

Chasemore

'

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
.

Ixxxv
PAGE

Chedington's (Rector of) Case (1598) I Rep. 152 b . Cheese 11. Lovejoy (1877) 2 P. D. 251 46 L. J. P. 66; 37 L. T. 294: 25 W. R. 853 C. A ; 1248 Cheeseman v. Exall ^1851) 6 Exch. 341 20 L. J. Ex. 209 957 Cheesman v. Hardman fi8i8) i B. & Aid. 706 19 R. R. 432 Cheatham o. Hampson (1791) 4 T. R. 318 2 R. R. 397 ^ 397, 404 Chenbweth, Re [1902] 2 Ch. 488 71 L. J. Ch. 739 ; 86 L. T. 890 50 W. R. 663; 18T.L. R. 702 1298,1302 Cherry v. Boultbee (1839) 4 My. & Cr. 442 9 L. J. Ch. 118 3 Jur. 1116 affirming 2 Keen, 319 1276 ehesham (Lord), Re (1886) 31 Ch. D. 466 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 401 54 L. T. 154 34 W. R. 321 1279 Chesham's (Lord) Settlement, Re [1909] 2 Ch. 329 78 L. J. Ch. 692 ; loi L. T. 9 25 T. L. R. 657 C. A. 928 Cheshire v. Bailey [1905] i K. B. 237 74 L. J. K. B. 176 53 W. R. 322 3';3 92 L. T. 142: T. L. R. 130 C. A Chesterfield (Earl), Re (1883) 24 Ch. D. 643 52 L. J. Ch. 958 49 L. T, 261 1121 32 W. R. 361 Chesterfield (Lord) o. Harris [1908] 2 Ch. 397 77 L. J. Ch. 688 99 L. T. 558 24 T. L. R. 763 52 Sol. Jo. 639 C. A 677, 716 Chesworth v. Hunt (i88o) 5 C. P. D. 266 ; 49 L. J. C. P. 507 42 L. T. 774 44 J. P. 605; 28 W. R. 815 959 Chetwode o. Crew (1746) Willes, 614 691 Chetwynd's Settlement, Re [1902] i Ch. 692 71 L. J. Ch. 352 86 L. T. 216 18 T. L. R. 348 50 W. R. 361 1109 Chichester 11. Coventry (1867) L. R. 2 H. L. 71 36 L. J. Ch. 673 17 L. T. 1284 35; 15 W. R. 849 Chichly's Case (1658) Hardr. 117 717 Child. Affleck (1829) 9 B.&C. 403; 4Man. & Ry. 338 7 L. J. (0. S.) K. B. 272 527 Child V. Hearn (1874) L. R. 9 Ex. 176 783 Child . Hudson's Bay Co. (1723) 2 P. Wms. 207 12 Childers v. Wooler (i860) 2 E. & E. 287 6 Jur. (N. S.) 29 L. J. Q. B. 129 531 444 2 L. T. 49 8 W. R. 321 Chilton V. London Corporation (1878) 7 Ch. D. 735 47 L. J. Ch. 433 ; 38 L. T. 498 ; 26 W. R. 474 715,717 Chinery o. Viall (i860) 5 H. & N. 288 29 L. J. Ex. 180 2 L. T. 466 8 W. R. 629 336, 414 Chinnock v. Marchioness of Ely (1865) 4 De G. J. & S. 638 6 N. R. i ; 12 L. T. 251 II Jur. (N. S. ) 329 13 W. R. 597 91 Chisholm, iic [1901] 2 Ch. 82 70 L. J. Ch. 533 871,906 Chivers v. Savage (1856) 5 E. & B. 697 25 L. J. Q. B. 85 2 Jur. (N. S.) 137 ; 4W. R. 117 439,440 Cholmeley's School tf. Sewell [1894] 2 Q. B. 906 63 L. J. Q. B. 820 71 L. T. 10 R. 368 88 58 J. P. 531 799 662 Cholmley's Case (1597) 2 Rep. 51b Christ Church (Dean of) o. Duke of Buckingham (1864) 17 C. B. N. S. 391 ; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 749 10 L. T. 575 12 W. R. 986 585 33 L. J. C. P. 322 11 L. J. Ch. 97 828 Christian 0. Field (1842) 2 Hare, 177 5 Jur. 1130 Christie v. Barker (1884) 53 L. J. Q. B. 537 C. A. 6 Jur. Christie o. Borelly (i860) 7 C. B. N. S. 561 29 L. J. C. P. 153 8 W. R. 542 (N. S.) 324 134 62 L. J. Ch. 385 Christie v. Taunton [1893] 2 Ch. 175 3 R. 404 ; 68 L. T. "43 638 41 W. R. 475 17 L. J. Q. B. 109 ; 12 Jur. 374 Christopherson v. Bare (1848) ii Q. B. 473 432
. ;
. . .

.613
.

-675

.....
; ;
. . .

....
.

,~

.738

Digitized

by Microsoft

Ixxxvi

TABLE OF CASES

Christ's Hospital . Grainger (1848)

i Mac. & G. 460 ; - H. & Tw. 533 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 33 ; 14 Jur. 339 Chudleigh's Case (1589) i Rep. 113 b . . Church o. Cudmore (1691) 2 Lutw. 1181 Churchill, Re (1888) 39 Ch. D. 174 ; 59 L. T. 597 ; 36 W. R. 805 1377, Churchill, Re [1909] 2 Ch. 431 ; loi L. T. 380 ; 53 Sol. Jo. 697 . . Churchill v. I^nt (1819) 2 B. & Aid. 685 ; i Chit. 480 . . . . Churchill o. Siggers (1854) 3 E. & B. 929 ; 2 C. L. R. 1509 23 L. J. Q. B. 308 ;
.

......
. . . . . ;

1077 657 1218 1389 1135 525

773; 2W. R. 551 Churchward o. Ford (1857) 2 H.


18 Jur.

494 N. 446 ; 26 L. J. Ex. 354 5 W. R. 831 319 Churchward o. .Studdy (181 1) 14 East, 249 iz R. R. 513 932 Churton v. Douglas (1859) Johns. 174 28 L. J. Ch.,841 5 Jur. (N. S.) 887 289, 1029, 1031 7 W. R. 365 Cinque Ports v. R. (1831) 2 Hagg. Adip. 438 702 Citizen's Life Ass. Co. o. Brown [1904] A. Q. 423 90 L. T. 73 L. J. P. C. 102 .11, 346, 494, 520, 521 739 ; 53 W. R. 176 20 T. L. R. 497 City Discount Co. v. M'Lean (1874) 43 L. J. C. P. 344 L. R. 9 C. P. 692 ; 30

&

.....
;

L. T. 883 City of London City of London

B.

GrejTne (1607) Cro. Jac. 182

v. Vanacre (1699) 12 Mod. 271 Clache's Case (1572) Dyer, 330 b Clack V. Carlon (1861) 30 L. J. Ch. 639 ; 4 L. T. 361

.... .... .......


; ; ; ;

.114
655

785,790
683, 684
.

7 Jur. (N. S.) 441

R. 568 1 124 HoUarid (1854) ig Beav. 262; 24 L. J. Ch. 13 18 Jur. 1007 2 .' W. R. 402 1403 Claridge v. Mackenzie (1842) 4 M. & Gr^ 142; 4 Scott (N. R.) 796; 11 2D. (N. S.) 898 6 Scott (N. R.) 171 5 Man. & G. 251 L. J. C. P. 72 12 L. J. C. P. 131 390 7 Jur. 329 Clark's (Bridget) Case (1588) 2 Leon. 30 938 Clark V. Chambers (1878) 3 Q. B. D. 327 47 L. J. Q. B. 427 38 L. T. 454 R. 613 26 W. 327, 334, 445 Clark V. Clark (1885) 10 P. D. 188 54 L. J. P. 57 ^2 L. T. 234 ; 49 J. P. ' 1179 516; 33 W. R. 405 Clarke. Danvers (1679) i Ca. Ch. 310 597 Clark V. Hougham (1823) 2 B. & C. 149 : L. 3 D. & R. J. (0. S.) K. B. 249 322 1363 Clark 0. L. G. O. Co. [1906] 2 K. B. 648 75 L. J. K. B. 907 95 L. T. 435 477 Clark V. Molyneux (1877) 3 Q. B. D. 237 ; 47 L. J. Q. B. 230 37 L. T. 694 ; 2^W. R. 104; 14 Cox, C. C. 10 519 Clark V. Newsam (1847) i Exch. 140 16 L. J. Ex. 296 5 Railw.' Cas. 69 336 Clark B. Sewell (1744) 3 Atk. 96 1272 Clark V. Woods (1848) 2 Exch. .395 3 New Sess. Cas. 253 17 L. J. M. C. L. J. Ex. i8g 189; 17 343 Clarke's Settlement, Re[igi6] i Ch. 467 85 L. J. Ch. 592 114 L. T. 501 66i Clarke v. Army & Navy Stores [1903] i K. B. 155 72 L. J. K. B. 153 88 L. T. I ; 19 T. L. R. 80 e. A. Clarke B. Eirley (1889) 41 Ch. D. 422 58 L. J. Ch. 616 60 L. T. 048 ; 37 -. W. R. 746 2gg Clarke 0. Bradlaugh (1881) 8 Q. B. D. 63 51 L. J. Q. B. i 30 W. R. 53 67 Clarke o. Earnshaw (i8i8) Gow, 30 222 Clarke 0. Franklin (1858) 4 K. & J. 257 27 L. J. Ch. 567 6 W. R. 836 1359 Clarke v. Hart (1858) 6 H. L. C. 633 27 L. J. Ch. 615 126 5 Jur. (N. S.) 447 Clarke v. Palmer (1882) 21 Ch. D. 124; 51 L. J. Ch. 634; 48 L. T. 857 761 ' Clarke D. Pennifather (1584) 4 Rep. 23 b 585,586,901 Clarke v. Ramuz [1891] 2 Q. B. 456 60 L. J. Q. B. 679 56 J. P. 5 igg
.

W.

Clack

.......
; ; .
. .

'.

.........
.

'.

-331
.

.......
. ; ; ; ; .
. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Clarke v. Shee (1774) 1 Cowp. 197 2 Doug. 698 n Clarke v. Sinaridge (1845) 7 Q- ^- 957 Clarke v. Tipping (1846) 9 Beav. 284 Clavering v. Clavering (1726) 2 P. Wras. 38S Claxton V. Claxton (i6go) 2 Vern. \SiZ Clay and Tetley, Re (1880) 16 Ch. D. 3 50 L. J. Ch. 164
; . .
.

Ixxxvii
PAGE
617, 619

790 668
;

W. R.
Clay
V.

5 C. A

43

40Z; 29
1410

Yates (1856) i H. & N. 73 25 L. J. Ex. 237 2 Jur. (N. S.) 908 4 W. R. 557 Clayards v. Dethick (1848) 12 Q. B. 439 Clayton's Case f J 585) 5 Rep. I ''-'.' If' Clayton's Case (1816) i Mer. 572 15 R. R. i6i 113, II Clayton and Barclay's Contract [1895] i Ch. 214 Clayton 0. Corby (1842) 2 Q. B. 813 2 Gale & Dav. 174 Clayton v. Corby (1843) 5 Q. B. 415 14 L. J. Q. B. 364 ; Dav. & Mer. 449 8 Jur. 212 Clayton v. Le Roy [191 1] 2 K. B. 1031 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 49 104 L. T. 419 75 J. P. 229 27 T. L. R. 206 Clayton v. Williams (1843) 11 M. & W. 803 Cleary v. Booth [1893] 1" Q. B. 465 62 L. J. M. C. 87 68 L. T. 349 ; 41 W. R. 391 51 J. P. 37S 5 R. 263 17 Cox, C. C. 611 437, Cleaver v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association [1892] i Q. B. 147; 61 L. J. Q. B. 128 ; 66 L. T. 220 56 J. P. 180 40 W. R. 230 C: A. Clegg V. Earby Gas Co. [1896] i Q. B. 592 65 L. J. Q. B. 339 ; 44 W. R. 606 Clegg V. Rowland (1866; L. R. 2 Eq.. 160 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 396 14 L. T. 217 14 W. R. 530 Cleland v. Cleland (1913) 109 L. T. 744 30 T. L. R. 20 58 Sol. Jo. 221 Clement v. Cheesman (1884) 27 Ch. D. 631 54 L. J. Ch. 158 ; 33 W. R. 40 Clement o. Chivis (1829) 9 B. & C. 172 4 Man. & Ry. 127; 7 L. J. (O. .S.) K. B. i8q 501 Clements, In the Goods of [1892] P. 254 61 L. J. P. 130 67 L. T. 356 Clements, Re [1894] i Ch. 665 63 L. J. Ch. 326 70 L. T. 682 42 W. R.
; ; ;

321

334 614
1

143

28
855

.......
; ; . ; ; ; ; ;
;

718 947 584


1225

...

1277 328

79
1191

1292
525 1240

374 Clements Clements


Clench
i;.

"35
v.
;

Flight (1846) 16 M. & W. 42 ; 4 D. & L. 261 i6 L. J. Ex. i j. . 0. L. & N. W. Ry. Co. [1894] 2 Q. B. 482 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 837 ; 70 L. T. 896; 42 W.R. 338; 58 J. P. 816

422

(1599) 6 Rep. 17 b Clergy (Corporation of) v. Swainson (1747) i Ves. Sen. 75. Cleveland's Settled Estates, Re [1893] 3 Ch. 244 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 955 ; 69 L. T. 735 ; *3 R- 23s n- C'.>K Clifden (Lord), Re [1900] i Ch. 774 Clifford, Re [1912] i Ch. 29 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 220 ; 106 L. T. 14 ; 28 T. L. R.
Clere's (Sir

Cudmore (1694) Edward) Case

3 Lev. 395

....... ......
;

1231

866
1419

1357 80

1262 56 Sol. Jo. 91 Watts (1871) 40 L. J. C. P. 36 L. R. 5 C. P. 577 : 22 L. T. 717 18 W. R. 925 95, 129 Clifton 1). Chancellor (i6oo) Moo. 624 947 8 Jur. 958 Clifton V. Hooper (1844) 6 Q. B. 468 14 L. J. Q. B. i 529, 531 102 L. T. 520 ; 79 L. J. K. B. 635 Clissold V. Cratchley [1910] 2 K. B. 244 26 T. L. R. 409 C. 494 8 R. R. 524 n. 963 Close V. Waterhouse (1801) 6 East, 523 n. 1422 Clough V. Bond (1838) 3 My. & Cr. 490 8 L. J. Ch. 51:2 Jur. 958 Clouston V. Corry [1906] A. C. 122 ; 71; L. J. P. C. 20 93 L. T. 706 ; 54 213 W. R. 382 867, 871 103 L. T. 617 Cloutte V. Storey [1911] i Ch. 18 80 L. J. Ch. 193 57
;

Clifford v.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Ixxxviii

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
Waterworks Co. (1872)
;

Clowes

Staffordshire
;

L. R. 8 Ch.

App. 143

42
375 621

L. J. Ch. 107

27 L. T. 521

21

W.

R. 32
.

Qun's (William) Case (1613) 10 Rep. 128 a


Clutterbuck
v.

Clutterbuck [1913]
t).

W. N.

132

108 L. T.'573

29 T. L. R.

480; 57,Sol. Jo. 463 Clydebank Engineering Co. 91 L. T..666;.2i T. L.


.

1180 Castaneda [1905] A. C. 6 74 L. J. P. C. i R,. 58 H. L. (Sc.) 138 Coakeri). Willcocks [1911] i K. B. 649 27T. L. R. 137 : 55 103 L. T. 806 1: Sol. Jo. 155; affitmed [igii]zK.'B. 12^; 80 L. J. K. B. 1026 104 L.T. 769 27 f. L. R. 357 714, 783 Coaks V. Boswell (1886) 11 App. Cas. 232 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 761 55 L. T. 32 191
; ; ; ; ; ;

Coates' Case, iquoted in Hills

Mills (1691) i Salk. 36 Coatsworth a. Johnson (1886) 54 L. T. 520 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 220 Cobb 0. Cobb [1900] P. 294:5 69 L. J. P. 125 ; 83 L. T. 716 Cobb . (Stpkes' (18)07) 8 East, 358
.

'

Cobbett V. Brock (1855) 20 Beav. 524 34 Cobbetts. Grey (1850) ig L. J. Ex. 137 4 Exch. 729 431 Cochrane's Case (1840) 8 Dowl. 630 4 Jur. 534 471 Cochrane v. Moore (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 57 59 L. J. Q. B. 377 63 L. T. 153 54 J. P. 804; 38 W.R. 588 939 Cochrane v. Willis (1865) L. R. i Ch. App. 58 13 L. T. 35 L. J. Ch. 36 339; 14W. R. 19 37 .' Cock D. Burrish (1686)1 Vern. 425. 1088 Cockcroft 11. Smith (1705) 2 Salk. 642 6 Mod. 230 Holt, 699 434 Cockerel! v. Cholmeley (1830) i Russ. & M. 419 870 Cocksedge s.. Fanshawe (1779) i Doug. 119 3 Bro. P. C. 703 680, 704 Codrington v. Lindsay (1872) L. R. 8 Ch. App. 578 28 42 L. J. Ch. 526
; ; ; ; ; .
. .

.....

341 643 1201 619


1

R. 182 Coe o. Clay (1829) 5 Bing. 440 3 M. & P. 57 7 L. J. CO. S.) C P. 162 ; 30 R. R. 699 Coffin V. Coffin (1821) Jac. 70 Cogan V. Stephens (1835) i Beav. 482 n. 5 L. J. Ch. 17 Coggs 0. Bernard (1703) 2 Ld. Raym. 909 ; Comb. 133 ; Salk. 26 Holt, 13 ;
L. T. 177
;

21

W.

1278
611

.....
;
'

792 1358

Sm. L.
:

C.

(nth
,

ed.), p.
.

173

.ft

CoghilLo. Freelove (1691) 3 Mod. 325 1365 Cohen's Executors, Re [1902] i Ch. 187 71 L. J. Ch. 164 . . :332 Cohen v. Bayley-Worthington [1908] A. C. 97 ; 77 L. J. Ch 363 ; 98 L. T. 461 ; 52 Sol. Jo. 238: 568 Cohens'. Huskisson (1837) 2 M. & W. 477 ; Murph. & H. 150 ; 6 L. J. M. C. . 133 437 Cohen v. Mitchell (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 262 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 409 ; 63 L. T. 206 ; 38W. R. 551 ; 7Morrell, 207C. A. 28,365 Cohen o. Seabrook (1908) 25 T. L. R. 176 452 Colburn . Simms (1843) 2 Ha. 543 ; 12 L. J. Ch. 388 ; 7 Jur. 1104 . . 378 Colchester (Mayor of) v. Brooke (1845) 7 Q. B. 339 ; 15 L. J. Q. B. 173 ; 10
. ;
:

.......
.
.'

196,199,204,221,249,259, 336, 956, 957

'

......
V.

Jur. 610 ; 9 Jur. 1090 Colchester (Mayor, etc., of)

v.

Coldman

v.

Hill [1919]

Sol. Jo. 166; 35 T. L. R. 146 C. A Cole C.Booker (1913) 29 T. L. R. 295 40,499 Cole e.Levingston (1672) I Vent. 224 655 Cole B.iManoing (1877) 2 Q. B. D. 611 ; 46 L. J. M. C. 175 ; 35 L. T. 941 . 1213 Cole 0.. Miles. (1852) 10 Hare, 179 . . . 1349,1407 Cole Bl'Muddle (1854) loHare, 186 ; 22 L.J. Ch. 401 ; 16 Jur. 853 1143
. . . . . .

K. B. 443

......... ...... .......


Lowten (1813)
;

400
911

B. 246 ; 12 R. R. 216. 88 L. J. K. B. 491 ; 120 L. T. 412 ; 63


i

&

.203

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Cole Cole Cole Cole
V.

Ixxxix

N.

W. Bank

(1875) L. R. 10 C. P. 354

733
V. V.

Peyson (1636)
Scott (1849)
I

Rep. in Ch. 1036 Mac. & G. 518 19 L.


i
;

....
Ch. 63
; ;

44

L. J. C. P. 233

32 L. T,

943 79
;

& Tw.
V.

J.

14 Jur. 25
6
Ir.

Hall

477

Sewell (1843) 4 Dr. & W. i ; 2 Con. & L. 344 affirmed 2 H. L. Cas. 186 ; 12 Jur. 927 Cole V. Turner (1704) 6 Mod. 149 ; Holt, 108 Colebourn's and Mixtone's Case (1588) i Leon. 129
. .

.....
....
.
.

1262
657 432 613 687 1289
T.

Eq. R. 66

Colebrook . Elliott (1766) 3 Burr. 1859 Coleman, Re ([18^6) 4 Ch. D. 165 46 L. J. Ch. 33 Coleman v. Birmingham (1881) 6 Q. B. D. 615 ; 50 L. J. M. C. 92 578; 45 J- P- 521; 29W. R. 715 Coleman v. Bucks, etc.. Bank [1897] 2 Ch. 243 66 L. J. Ch. 564 684; 45W. R. 6i6
. ; . ;

44 L.

76 L. T.
.

142 761 139 35

Coleman

v.

London and County Bank


. .

[1916] 2 Ch. 353

85 L. J. Ch. 652

115 L. T, 152 Coles V. Sims (1854) i Kay, 56 ; affirmed 6 De G. M. & G. i ; 2 Eq. R. 957 23 L. J. Ch. 258; 18 Jur. 683; 2 W. R. 151 Coles V. Trecothick (1804) 9 Ves. 234 ; i Smith, 233 ; 7 R. R. 167 CoUard o. Marshall [1892] i Ch. 571 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 268 ; 66 L. T. 248 ; 40

....
;

W.
Collen
V.

R. 473
;

Wright ^1857) 8 El. & Bl. 647 27 L. J. Q. B. 215 4 Jur. (N. S 61 357; 6 W. R. 123 Colleton V. Garth (1833) 6 Sim. 19 2 L. J. Ch. 75 1264 CoUett V. Curling (1847) 10 Q. B. 785 16 L. J. Q. B. 390 ; 11 Jur. 890 622 CoUingwood . Pace (1661) i Levinz, 59 31 Collins, Re (1886) 32 Ch. D. 229 55 L. J. Ch. 672 55 L. T. 21 ; 50 J. P, 821 34 W. R. 650 "35 Collins V. Benison (1754) Sayer, 138 436 i Sm. L. C. (nth ed.) 369. Collins o. Blantern (1767)2 Wils. 341 4', 95) 96. '39 Collins V. Collins(i833) 2 My. & K. 703 1121 Collins V. Cooper (1893) 17 Cox, C. C. 647 693 Collins V. Evans (1844) 5 Q. B. 820 324 Collinson 0. Lister (1855) 20 Beav. 356 1405 Ch. 484 ; 90 Colls V. Home and Colonial Stores [1904] A. C. 179 ; 73 L. J. 20 t. R. 475-H. L. L. T. 687 327, 375, 393, 403, 53 W. R. 30
;
.

711,712
CoUyer
v.

Isaacs (1881) 19 Ch. D. 342

51 L. J. Ch. 14
:

45 L. T. 567

30

W. R. 70

940

60 L. J. Ch. 131 ; 63 Colonial Bank v. Cady (1890) L. R. 15 App. Cas. 267 1005 L. T. 27; 39 W. R. 17 Colonial Bank v. Whinney (1886) L. R. 11 App. Cas. 426 56 L. J. Ch. 43 ; 982, 983 5; L. T. 362 ; 34 W. R. 705 ; 3 Morrell, 207 Colthirst V. Byushin (1550) i Plowd. 21 . 654 Colwell 0. St. Pancras [1904] i Ch. 707 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 271; ; 68 J P. 286 ; 52 401 W. R. 523 ; 90 L. T. 153 ; 20 T. L. R. 236 412 Colwill o. Reeves (i8ii) 2 Campb. 575 1410 Colyer v. Finch (1856) 5 H. L. C. 905 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 65 ; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 25

...
.
. .

Combe's Case (1614) 9 Co. Rep. 77 b

Pitt (1763) 3 Burr. 1423 Comber's Case (1721) i P. Wms. 766 Comber o. Anderson (1808) i Camp. 523.
v.

Combe

....
.

230 99

1346, 1347

230
;

Comfort

Betts [1891] i Q. B. 737 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 656 P. 630 39 W. R. 595-C. A. J.


V.
. ;

64

L.

T. 68s

55

1047

Digitized

by Microsoft

xc

TABLE OF CASES
Bowring-Hanhury. [1905] A. C. 84 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 263 ; 92 L. T. . . . . 53 W. R. 402 i 21 T. L. R. 252 20 Eq. 11 ; 32 L. T. 420 ; 0. Scott (1875)44 L. J. Ch. 563 ; L. R.
v.
. .

Comiskey
241 23
;

1099
loi

Commins
Commrs.
268

W.
of

R. 498

.,

.'

Stamps
. .

v.

Hope
:

[1891] A. C. 476
.
'

60 L. J. P. C. 44

65 L. T.

-152
230

Commonwealth Portland Cement


66 27
; ;

Co.

v.

Weber, Lohmann
;

74 L. J. P. C. 25
21 T. L. R. 149

91 L. T. 813
v.

53

W.

Co. [1905] A. C. R. 337 ; lo Asp. M. C.

&

Cdmpanhia de Mozambique

British South, Africa Co. [1892] 2 Q. B. 358 ; [1893] A. C. 602 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 70 ; 6 R. I ; 69 L. T. 664H- L. (E.). Compania Naviera v. Churchill [1906] i K. B. 237 ; 75 L. J. K. B. 94 ; 94 L. T. 59 ; 54 W. R. 406 ; 22 T. L. R. 85 ; 11 Com. Cas, 49 ; 10 Asp.
:

339

M. L.
1094
;

C.

177
L.:

944
z

Compania Sansinena
103

o.

Houlder Bros. [1910]

T. 333

K. B. 54

79 L.

J.

K. B.
337
A.
.

C. A.
;

Compton, i?e(i885) 3oCh. D. 15

54L.

J.

Ch. 904; 53 L. T. 410


.

C.

1380,

1381,1382

Compton Compton

. . . Ch. 313 . 49 o. Bloxham (1845) 2 Coll. 201 ; 14 L. . 1285 J. Ch. 380 ; 9 Jur. 935 Conolly, i?e [1910] i Ch. 219 . . . . . . 1099 Conron o. Conron (1858) 7 H. L. C. 168 1265 Consolidated Co. v. Curtis [1892] i Q. B. 495 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 325 ; 40 W. R. u 426 ; 56 J. P. 565 62,415,417,419 Constable's Case (1601) 5 Rep. 106 . .684,699,700,702 Constable 0. Nicholson (1863) 14 C. B. N. S. 230 ; 32 L. J. C. P. 240 11

V.

Bagley [1892]

..:.... ...
. .
'.

718, 849 Constantinidi v. Constantinidi [1903] P. 246 ; 72 L. J. P. 82 ; 89 L. T. 340 ; 52W. R. 190; 19T. L. R. 699 1191 Continental Oxygen Co., Re [1897] i Ch. 511 : 66 L. J. Ch. 273 ; 76 L. T. . . loii 229; 45 W. R. 313 Conway 0. Wade [1909] A. C. 506 ; 78 L. J. K. B. 1025 ; loi L. T. 248 j 53 Sol. Jo. 754 ; 25 T. L. R. 779 478, 479, 480, 485 . Cook V. Arundel (Earl) (1646) Hardres, 87 . . . . 804 o. Dan vers (1806) 7 East, 299 Cook 607 Cook V. Duckenfield (1743) I Atk. 562 874 Cook V. Gregson (1856) 3 Drew. 547 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 706 ; 2 Jur (N. S.) 510 R. 581 1370, 1371 Cook V. Martyn (1737) 2 Atk. 2 1419 Cook V. Ward (1830) 6 Bing. 409 ; 4 Moo. & P. 99 ; 8 L. J. (O. S.) C. P. 126 01, 525 Cook V. Wright (1861) i B. & S. 559 ; 30 L. J. Q. B. 321 ; 4 L. T. 704 94 Cooke's Case (i'^8i) Moo. 178 79 Cooke, iJ [1913] 2 Ch. 661 ; 58 Sol. Jo, 67 1412 Cooke B. Birt (1814) 5 Taunt. 764 ; i Marsh. 333 ; 15 R. R. 652 385, 971 Cooke , BxogdeM (1885) I T. L. Ri 497 370 Cooke V. Chilcott (1876) 3 Ch. D. 694 ; 34 L. T. 207 803 Cooke V. Collingridge (1823) Jac. 607 ; i L. J. (0. S.) Ch. 74 ; 23 R. R. 155 1411 Cooke 11. Cooke (1863) 3 Sw. & Tr. 246 "95 Cooke t'. Eshelby (1887) 12 App. Ca. 271 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 505 ; 56 L. T. 673
".

W.

R. 698

....

......

4W.

'.

'

...
;
;

35

W.

Cooke Cooke Cooke

V.
o.
;

76

11.

R. 629 Forbes (1867) L. R. 5 Eq. 172 37 L. M. &c. Ry. of Ireland [1909] A. C. 229 100 L. ,T. 626 25 T. L. Ri 375 Oxley (1790) 3 T. R. 653
; ;
.

65
J. Ch. 178
;

Tr.

17 L. T. 371 R. 499 78 L. J. P.

374
C,

334
92

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Cooke
I

XCl

V. Wildes (1855) 5 E. & B. 328 Jur. (N. S.) 610 ; 3 W. R. 458


:

i C.

L. R. looo

24.

L.

T.

Q. B. 167

Re [1920] 2 Ch. 536 64 Sol. Jo. 739 Coomber v. Howard (1845) i C. B. 440
Coole,

36 T. L.

736

519 1278 622

Coope V. Cresswell (1866) L. R. 2 Ch. App. 112 36 L. J. Ch. 114; 15 L. T. 42; 15 W. R. 242 "384, 1385 Cooper V. Barton (1810) 3 Camp. 5 n. 13 R. R. 736 n. ig6 Cooper V. Bocket (1843) 3 Curt. 648 ; (1846) 4 Moo. P C. 419 10 Jur.
; ; ;

931

1238, 12.13

Burr. 20, 31 ; i W. Bl. 65 409,414,415 Cooper (1870) I,. R. 6 Ch. App. 15 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 5 ; 23 L. T. 488 ; 19 W. R. 85 ; (1874) L. R. 7 H. L. 53 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 6 30 L. T. 409 ; 22 W. R. 713 . 1278, 1296, 1312 Cooper V. Cooper (1873) L. R. 8 Ch. App. 813 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 158; 29 L. T. 321 1284 Cooper V. Crane [1891] P. 369 ; 40 W. R. 127 1 175 Cooper V. France (1850) 19 L. J. Ch. 313 ; 14 Jur. 214 1096 Cooper V. Jarman (i860) L. R. 3 Eq. 98 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 85 2 Jur. (N. S.; 956; 15 W. R. 142 1395 Cooper V. Macdonald (1873) L. R. 16 Eq. 258 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 533 ; 28 L. T. 693 1283 Cooper t>. Macdonald (1877) 7 Ch. D. 288 47 L. J. Ch. 373 38 L. T. 191 26 W. R. 377 C. 4, 1315 Cooper V. Marshall (1757) i Burr. 259 ; 2 Ken. 1 ; 2 Wills 398 Cooper 11. Phibbs (1867) L. R. 2 H. L. C. 149; 16 L. T.'678; 15 W. R, i49 37
V.

Cooper Cooper

Chitty (1756)

V.

Cooper Cooper Cooper

V.
V. V.

(i 831) 4 C. & P. 581 . Reilly (1829) 2 Sim. 560 ; i Russ, & M. 560 Shepherd (1846) 3 C. B. 266 ; 4 D. & L. 214

Phillips

208
;

10 Jur. 758

....
; ;

5 L. J. C. P.

237
421 1233

Cooper V. Thornton (1790) 3 Bro. C. C. 96 Cooper V. Willomatt (1845) i C. B. 672 14 L J. C. P. 219 9 Jur. 598 Cooper V. Woolfitt (1857) 2 H. & N. 122 26 L. jrEx. 310 3jur.(N.S.)S .Ex.310; 3 Ju'r."(N. S.) 870 5 W. R. 790 Coote V. Lighworth (1596) F. Moore 457 Coote V. Whittington (1873) L. R. 16 Eq. 534 42 L. J. Ch. 846 29 L. T 206 21 W. R. 837 Cope V. Burt (1809) i Hagg. Con. 434 Cope V. Sharpe [1912] 1 K. B. 496 81 L. J. K. B. 346 186 L. T. 56; 56
; ; ;

420
1356
343

..

1344 1 170

Sol. Jo.

187

28 T. L. R.
2
.

Copeland,
121
;

Fx parte (1852) W. R. 9
I

157 C. A. De G. M. & G. 914


;

386, 723
;

22 L.

J.

Bky. 17

17 Jur..,,
.

1003

77 L. J. Ch. 610 99 L. T. 371 24 T. L. R. 628 52 Sol. Jo. 516 C. A. 606, 752 Copis V. Middleton (1818) 2 Madd. 410 1064 17 R. R. 226 1284 Copley V. Copley (171 1) i P. Wms. 147 614 Copper Mining Co. v. Beach (1823) 13 Beav. 478 1 190 Copsey V. Copsey [1905] P. 94 74 L. J. P. 40 Corbet's (Sir Miles) Case (1585) 7 Rep. 5 a ^; Corbet's Case (1599) i Rep. 84, 87 560, 564 Corbet b. Corbet (1824) i Sim. & St. 612 2 L, J. (0. S.) Ch. 108 affirmed, 1322 7 L. J. (O. S.) Ch. 9 5 Russ. 254 654 Corbet v. Stone (1653) Ld. Raym. 151 i Corbett . Brown (1831) 8 Bing. 35 ; i Moo. & Sc. 85 ; 5 C. & P. 363 Mood. & R. 108; I L. J. C. P. 13 541
v.
; I

Copestake

Hoper
;

[1908] 2 Ch. 10

Digitized

by Microsoft

xcu
Corbett
Corbett 32

TABLE OF CASES
v.

Corbett (1889) 14 P. D. 7

114 C.
v.

58 L. J. P. 17
;

60 L. T. 74
:
'

37

W. R.
43*558,931
;

Plowden (1884) 25 Ch. D. 678


R. 667

54 L. J. Ch. 109
J. C.

50 L. T. 740
. .

W.

-754
S.)

Corby

11.

Hill (1858)

C. B.

N.

S.

221

27 L.
;

P. 318

4 Jur. (N.
;

512; 6
826
Corelli 0.

W.
.

R. 575

332 44 L.
J.

Cordwell's Estate,

Re

(1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 644

Ch. 746

23

W.

R.
1311
500.

Wall (1906) 22 T. L. R. 532 Cork 1). Baker (1716) i Stra. 34 Cork & Bandon Ry. Co. v. Goode (1853) 13 C. B. 826 22 L. J. C. P. 198 17 Jur. 555 V I W. R. 410 Cornfoot v. Fowke (1840) 6 M. & W. 358 9 L. J. Ex. 297 ; 4 Jur. 919
; . . . . . . . ;

........
. .

98

989

543 Carlton Bank [1900] i Q. B. 22 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 1020 ; 81 L. T. 11, 346, 494 415 ; 16 T. L. R. 12 C. A. Cornish v. Caway (1648) Aleyn, 75 614 Cornish v. Clark (1872) L. R. 14 Eq. 184; 42 L. J. Ch. 14; 26 L. T. 494; 1061 20 W. R. 897 Cornwall (Solicitor to Duchy of) v. Canning (1880) 5 P. D. 1 14 ; 41 L. T. 737 ;

Cornford

v.

....... ..........

28W.
Cornwall

R. 278

1338

v.

Henson

[1900] 2 Ch. 298


.

69 L. J. Ch. 581

82 L. T. 735
;

49 W. R. 42 C. A. Cornwell v. Metropolitan Commissioners (1855) 10 Exch. 771 3 C. L. R. 417 774 Corpe i>. Overton (1833) 10 Bing. 252 3 M. & Sc. 738 3 L. J. C. P. 24 .23, 267 Corsellis, Re (1887) 34 Ch. D. 675 56 L. J. Ch. 294 56 L. T. 411 51 J. P. 1 124 597 35 W. R. 309 C. A Cort V. Birkbeck (1779) i Doug. 218 747 Corveu's Case (n. d.) 12 Rep. 105 934 Coryton v. Lithebye (1670) 2 Wms. Saund. (ed. 1845) "7 349 Costara's and Wingfield's Case (1588) 2 Leon. 44 849 Costigan o. Hastier (1804) 2 Sch. & Lef. 165 188 Cotgrave, Re [1903] 2 Ch. 705 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 777 ; 89 L. T. 433 52 W. R. . 411; 10 Mass. 377 577 6'27 Cottee V. Richardson (1851) 7 Exch. 143 ; 21 L. J. Ex. 52 . Cotter 0. Layer (1731) 2 P. Wms. 623 870 Cotterell v. Jones (i8;i) 11 C. B. 713 21 L. J. C. P. 2 16 Jur. 88 495 Couch . Stratton (1799) 4 Ves. 391 1325 Coughlin 0. Gillison [1899] i Q. B. 145 68 L. J. Q. B. 147 79 L. J. 627 ; 47 W. R. 113 C. A. 198,35s Couldery v. Bartrum (1881) 19 Ch. D. 394 51 L. J. Ch. 265 45 L. T. 689 30 W. R. 141 -C. A 1388 Coulson o. Davidson (1907) 96 L. T. 20 71 J. P. 17 5 L. G. R. 56 121 Coulson's Trusts, iifi (1908) 97 L. T. 754 1079,1104 Coulter's Case (1599) 5 Rep. 30 b 1345, 1379 Coulthart v. Clementson (1879) 5 Q. B. D. 42 ; 49 L. J. Q. B. 204 41 L. T. 300 798 28 W. R. 355 Court V. Buckland (1876) i Ch. D. 605 1358 Courtenay v. Williams (1844) 3 Ha. 539; 13 L. J. Ch. 461 affirmed 15 1276 ^ L. J. Ch. 204 ; 8 Jur. 844 Courtier, Re (1886)34 Ch. D. 136 56 L. J. Ch. 350 ; 55 L. T. 574 ; 51 J. P. IU9 117; 35 W. R. 85C. A Couturier D. Hastie (1852) 8 Exch. 40 22 L. J. Ex. 97 (1856) 5 H. L. C.
; ; ; ; ; ; .

.126

... ........ .... ...... ....... .......


.

.....
;
.

........
; ; ; "

673
Covell,

-37,236
;

In

the

Goods of (liSg) 15 P. D. 8

59 L. J. P. 7

61 L. T. 620

38

W.

R. 79

1350

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Laming (1808) i Carapb. 497 Cowan's Estate, Re (1880) 14 Ch. D. 638
Covell
V.

xciii

.......
;

PAGE
407
1055

49 L.
;

28W.
Cowan
Coward
V.
;

J.

Ch. 402

42 L. T. 866
;

R. 827
57 L. J. Q. B. 401
;

O'Connor (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 640


36

58 L. T.
9,

857

W.

R. 895

Baddeley (1859) 4 H. & N. 478 ; 28 L. J. Ex. 260 5 Jur. (N. S.) 414 7 W. R. 466 432 Cowell . Simpson (1809) 16 yes. 275 961,962,968 Cowen V. Simpson (1795) i Esp. 290 539 Cowes V. Southampton, &c. [1905] z K. B.'287 74 L. J. K. B. 665 92 L. T. 658; 69 J. P. 298; 53 W. R. 602; 21 T. L. R. 506; 3 L. G. R. 807 695, 696 Cowley V. Newmarket Local Board [1892! A. C. ^45 i R. 45 62 L. J. Q. B. L. (Ei) 67 L. T. 486 56 J. P. 805 65 404 Cowley V. Wellesley (1866) L. R. Eq. 656 35 Beav. 635 ; 14 L. T. 425 14 W. R. 528 596, 790 Cowling . Higginson (1838) 4 M. & W. 245 707
v.
;

..... .......
; ; ; ; ;

Cowper V. Laidler [1903] 2 Ch. 337 72 L. J. Ch. 578 Cowper o. Scott (1731) 3 P. Wms. 119 Cox V. Burbidge (1863) 13 C. B. N. S. 430 32 L. J. C.
; ;

970;

II

W.

R. 435
;

Cox V. Cooper (1863) 9 L. T. 329 Cox V. Cox (1826) % Add. 276 Cox V. Cox & Wardc [1906] P. 267
557

...... ....... ........


;

51

W.
;

R. 539.

373, 378

1310

P. 89
.

9 Jur. (N. S.) 359. 36. 361, 774


.
. .

12

W.

R. 75

508 1201
1203

75 L. J. P. 75
;

95 L. T. 546
J. P. C.

22 T. L. R.

Cox Cox Cox Cox Cox Cox

V.

English, etc.

Bank

[1905] A. C. 168

74 L.

62

92 L. T.

371, (i860) 8 H. L. C. 268 ; 9 C. B. N. S. 47 ; 30 L. J. C. P. 125 ; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 105 ; 8 W. R. 754 V. Higford (1710) 2 Vern. 664 592, 21 L.T. 178 . 0. Lee (1869) L. R. 4 Ex. 284; 38 L. . J. Ex. 219; V. Mathews (1861) 2 F. & F. 397 V. Middleton (1854) 2 Drew. 209 ; 2 Eq. R. 631 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 618 ; 2 W. R. 284

483-P- C V. Hickman

487
262
594 525 219
187
.

....... .......
'

Cox V. Muncey (1859) 6 C. B. N. S. 375 Cox and Neve, Re [1891] 2 Ch. 109 64 L. T. 733 39 W. R. 412 Cox Moore v. Peruvian Corporation [1908] i Ch. 604 77 L. J. Ch. 387
.

L. T. 611 ; 15 Mans. 191 . Crace, In re [1902] i Ch. 733 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 358 ; 86 L. T. 144 . Cracknell v. Janson (1879) i"i Ch. D. i ; 48 L. J. Ch. 168 ; 40 L. T. 640 ; 27 W. R.-85I Cradock v. Piper (1850) i Mac. & G. 664 ; i Hall & Tw. 617 ; 19 L. J. Ch.
.

........
;
;

476 759
1009

98

293

959
1

107; 14 Jur. 97
Craig Craig
V.

Dowding

B.

C. A. . (1908) q8 L. T. 231 ; 24 T. L. R. 248 Hasell (1843) 4 Q. B. 481 ; 3 Gal. & D. 299 ; 12 L. J. Q. B. 181
. . . .

125

427 494 428

7 Jur. 368

Cramptono. Swete(i888) 58 L. T. 516 Crane v. London Dock Co. (1864) 5 B. &


372
;

S.

313

; .

33 L. J. Q, B. 224

10 L. T.
.

Cranky

v.

10 Jur. (N. S.) 984 ; 12 W. R. 745 Hilldary (1813) 2 M. & S. 120.

946
105

Cranston,

Re

Crawford v. W. R. 484C.
Crawley,

. (1892) 9 Morr. 160 Forshaw [1891] 2 Ch. 261

1064
;

60 L. J. Ch. 683
;

65L.T. 32;
;

39
.

A
;

1136

(1885) 28 Ch. D. 431 598; 33W. R. 611

Re

54 L. J. Ch. 652

52 L. T. 460

49

J. P.
.

II20

Digitized

by Microsoft

xciv

TABLE OF CASES
w.

(1S20) 4 B. & Aid. 52 Creaton v. Creaton (185.6) 26 L. J. Ch. 266 ; 3 Sm. & G. 386 ; z Jur. (N. 1223 ; 5 W. R. 123 Creen v. Wright (1876) 1 C. P. D. 591 ; 35 L. T. 339 . . Cresswell, Re (1881) 45 L. T. 468 ; 30 W. R. 244 Cresswell v. Cresssypll (1869) L. R. 6'Eq. 69 37 L. J. Ch. 521 ; 18 L. 392 ; 16 W. R. 699 Cresswell o. Hawkins (1857) 3 Jur. (N. S.) 407. . Cribb V. Kynoch, Ltd. (No. 2) [1908] 2 K. B. 558 ; 77 L. J. K. B. looi ; L. T. 216; 24T. L. R. 736 Crichtoji 0. .Crichton [1895] 2 Ch. 853 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 13 73 L. T. 556 ; 13 R. 77Q J. P. 792 ; 44 W. R. 203 Crickett . Dolby (1795) 3 Ves. 10

Crawshay

Homfray

......
S.)
.
. . .

PAGE
962 659 212 1234
1259

T.

...
;

581,589
99

452
59
.

Crickmore

Freeston (1870) 40 L. J. Ch. 137 C. A 959 Re [1906] i Ch. 523 75 L. J. Ch. 307 94 L. T. 471 1012 54W. R. 298; 13 Mans. 181 Crippen, In the Estate of [191 1] P. 108 80 L: J. P. 47 104 L. T. 224 27 T. L. R. 258 ; 55 Sol. Jo. 273 . 1277 Crisp V. Thomas (1890) d-i, L. T. 756 C. A. 330 55 J. P. 261 Crocker v. Waine (1854) 5 B. & S. 697 33 L. J. Q. B. 316 ; 10 L. T. 600 " 12 W. R. 905 571 Croft 1). Blay [1919] 2 Ch. 343 ; 85 L. J. Ch. 545 ; 121 L. T. 18 ; 63 Sol. Jo. 607 ; 35 T. L. R. 556 C. \ 619 Croft li. Stevens (1862) 7 H. & N. 570 10 31 L. J. Ex. 143 5 LrT. 683 W. R. 272 528 Crompton v. Jarratt (1885) 30 Ch. D. 298 54 L. J. Ch. 1019 53 L. T. 603 ' 33 W. R. 913 725 Crompton v. 'Lea. (1874) L. R. 19 Eq. 115 44 L. J. Ch. 69 31 L. T. 469 ; 23 W. R. S3 783 Cronmire, In re [1898] 2 Q. B. 383 67 L. J. Q. B. 620 78 L. T. 483 ; 46 W. R. 679 ; 5 Manson, 30 310 Crooke B. Watt (1690) 2 Vern. 124. 1309 Cropp . Tilney (1693) 3 Salk. 225 Holt, 422. Crosby v. Wadsworth (1805) 6 East, 602 ; 2 Smith, 559 8 R. R. 556 381, 715 Cross, Re (1882) 'za Ch. D. 109 51 L. J. Ch. 645 ; 45 L. T. 777 ; 30 W. R. 376 C. A 84s Cross V. Gardner (1689) Carth. 90 i Show. 68 3 Mod. 261 ; Comb. 142 ;
v.

1282 1271

Crigglestone Coal Co.,

:
'

.......
; ; . . . .
. .

.501

Holt, 5. . . Cross V. Lloyd-Graeme (1910) io2 t. T. 163 . . . 152


. . . .

537
;
.

26 T. L. R. 171
.

;
.

54
.

Sol. Jo.
. .

1112

Crosskey

0.

Mills (1834)

C.

M. & R. 298

3 L. J.

Crossley Bros. v. Lee [1908] i K. B. 86 ; 77 L. J. 97 L. T. 850 ; ; 24 T. L. R. 35 972 Crossley v. Elworthy (1871) L. R. 12 Eq. 158 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 480 ; 24 L. T. 1063 607 ; 19 W. R. 842 Crossley v. Lightowler (1867) L. R. 2 Ch. App. 478 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 584 ; 16 L. T. 438 ; 15 W. R. 801 . . . . 848, 852 Crouch V. .Credit Foncier (1873) 42 L. J. Q. B. 183 ; L. R. 8 Q. B. 374 ; 29 L. T. 259 ; 21 W. R. 946 142 Crouch o. G. W. Ry. Co. (1858) 3 H. & N. 183 251 Crouch V. L. & N. W. Ry. Co. (1854) 14 C. B. 255 ; 2 C. L. R. 188 ; 23 L. J. C. P. 73; 18 Jur. 148; 2 W. R. 166 260 Crouch 0. Martin (1707) 2 Vern. 595 141, 985
. . .

Ex. 297 K. B. 199

.421

Crowder Crowder

......
.
. . .

o. v.

Oldfield (1706) i Salk. 170 Tinkler (1816) 19 Ves. 617

605

13 R. R.

267

374, 401, 402

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Crowhurst
v.

xcv
PAGE
48 L.

Amersham

Burial Board (1878) 4 Ex. D.


.

.' ' .* .' ^' 39L.T.355;27W.R.95 Crowhurstw. Laverack(i852)gEx. 2oSi 22L. J. Ex. <;7; I W. R. 56. Crowther, Re [1895] 2 Ch. 56 64 L. J. Ch. 537 72 L. T. 762 43 W. R. 571 ; 13 R. 496 Croxon, Re [1904] i Ch. 252 73 L. J. Ch. 170 89 L. T. 733 52 W. R.
.
. .

"
5
;

I.

Ex. loq
.

406
95

,405

343
Cruise
0.
. . . .

48
; ;

Burke [1919] 2 Ir. R. (K. B.) 182 ,. .491 Crumble v. Wallsend Local Board [1891] i Q. B. 503 60 L. J. Q. B. 392 64 L. T. 490 ; 55 J. P. 421 C. A 373 Crump, / iiie Gooiii 0/(1820) 3 Phill. 497 1331 Crump V. Lambert (1867) L. R. 3 Eq. 413 15 L. T. 600 15 W. R. 417
; ;

17 L133 394 Crurape v. Crumpe [1900] A. C. 127 69 L. J. P. C. 7 82 L. T. 130 556 Cruse V. Paine (1868) L. R. 6 Eq. 641 37 L. J. Ch. 711 19 L. T. 127 ; 17 W. R. 44 Crutchley, i?e[i9i2] 2Ch. 335 81 L. J. Ch. 644; 107L. T. 194. 559 Cruttwell t'. Lye (1810) 17 Ves. 335 1630,1031 Cubitt V. Porter (1828) 8 B. & C. 257 2 Man. & Ry. 267 6 L. J. O. S. K. B. 306 780 Cuckson V. Stones (1859) ' ^1. & El. 248 28 L. J. Q. B. 25 5 Jur. (N. S.) 337; 7 W. R. 134 213 Cuenod v. Leslie [1909] i K. B. 880 78 L. J. K. B. 695 100 L. T. 675 25 T. I,. R. 374 53 Sol. Jo. 340 C. A 58, 1 197 Cuffe, Re [1908] 2 Ch. 500 77 L. J. Ch. 776 99 L. T. 267 52 Sol. Jo. 661 24T. L. R. 781 1317 Cullen v. Knowles [1898] 2 Q. B. 380 67 L. J. Q. B. 821 157 Culley V. Charman (1881) 7 Q. B. D. 89 50 L. J. M. C. iii 45 L. T. 28; 1 181 45 J. P. 768 ; 29 W. R. 803 Cumber o. Ep. Chichester (1608) Cro. Jac. 216. 731 Cumber o. Wane (1718) I Str. 426 151 Cuming . Hill (1819) 3 B. & Aid. 59 217 Cummins v. Fletcher (1879) 14 Ch. D. 699 49 L. J. Ch. 563 42 L. T. 859 28 W. R. 772 Cundiff V. Fitz-simmons [1911] : K. B. 513 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 422 ; 103 L. T. 811 738 Cundy n. Lindsay (1878) L. R. 3 App. Ca. 459 ; 47 L. J. Q. B. 481 38 L. T. 573 ; 26 W. R. 406 37 Cunningham v. Dunn (1878) 48 L. J. C. P. 62 ; 3 C. P. D. 443 38 L. T. 631C. A. 129 M'Cle. 495 Cupitc. Jackson (1824) 13 Price, 721 28 R. R. 735 739,837 Curl Bros. v. Webster [1904] i Ch..685 90 L. T. 479 73 L. J. Ch. 540 52 W. R. 413 289, 1031 ^ Currie zi. Misa (1875) L. R. 10 Ex. 153 93 Curteis v. Wormald (1878) 10 Ch. D. 172 : 40 L. T. 108 i3<;8, 1359 27 W. R. 419 Curtis' Case (1868) L. R. 6 Eq. 455 ; 37' L. J. Ch. 629 981 100 L. T. 977 , Curtis V. Black & Co. [1909] 2 K. B. 529 78 L. J. K. B. 1022 458 53 Sol. Jo. 576 25 T. L. R. 621 1410 Curtis v. Fulbrook (1849) 8 Ha. 25, 278 19 L. J. Ch. 65 13 Jur. 1044 1218 Curtis o. Rippon (1819) 4 Madd. 462 Curwen v. Salkeld (1803) 3 East, 538 683, 692, 693 1212 Custodes o. Ginkes (1651) Style, 283 1405 Cutbush V. Cutbush (1839) ' Beav. 184 8 L. J. Ch. 175 3 Jur. 142. 132) 214 Cutter o. Powell (1795) 6 T. R. 320; 3 R. R. 185 1252 Cutto V. Gilbert (1854) 9 Moo. P. C. 131
; ;
.

T.

......
; ; ; ; ; ;

.295

...
.
.

..... .......
; ; ; ; .
. .

.833
.

'.

....
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

xcvi

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE

Da

Costaj

Re

240

[1912] i Ch. 337 28 T. L. R. 189

81 L. J. Ch. 293

106 L. T. 458
.

56 Sol. Jo.
.

Costa v. Davis (1798) i Bos. & P. 242 4 R. R. 795 Dacre, Re [1916] i Ch. 344; 85 L. J. Ch. 274; 114 L. T. 387; 60

Da

795, 1075 . 131

Sol. Jo.

1311 Patrickson (i860) i Dr. & Sm. 182 29 L. J. Ch. 846 ; 6 Jur. (N. S.) i394 863;8W. R. 597 Dadswell v. Jacobs (i887),34 Ch. D. 278 56 L. J. Ch. 233 55 L. T. 857 " 233 35 W. R. 261 Dagenham Dock Co., Re (1873) L. R. 8 Ch. App. 1022 43 L. J. Ch. 261 21 W. R. 898 50 Daimler Co. v. Continental Co. [1916] 2 A. C. 307 85 L. J. K. B. 1333 114 31B L. T. 1049 60 Sol. Jo. 602 32 T. L. R. 624H. L. (E.) 8, Daintree v. Butcher (1888) 13 P. D. 102 57 L. J. P. 76 58 L. T.-661 C. A. 1238 Affirming 52 J. P. 87 Dakhyl v. Labouchere [1908] 2 K. B. 325 n. 77 L. J. K. B. 728 96 L. T. 508, 509, 526 399 23 T. L. R. 364 Dakin & Co. v. Lee [1916] i K. B. 566 84 L. J. K. B. 2031 113 L. T. 903 105 59 Sol. Jo. 650 C. A Dalby v. India & London Life Assurance Co. (1854) 15 C. B. 365 3 C. L. R. 61 24 L. J; C. P. 2 18 Jur. 1024 3 W. R. 116 304, 306 Dale -0. Hamilton (1846) 5 Hare, 369; 16 L. J. Ch. 126; 11 Jur. 163; 2 Ph. 266 99, 267 Dale o. SoUet (1767) 4 Burr. 2133 234 Dallas, Re [1904] 2 Ch. 385 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 365 90 L. T, 177 52 W. R. 567

305 C. A
v.

Dacre

........
; ; ; ; ;
.

C. A

Dalrymple . Dalrymple (1811) 2 Hagg. Con. 54 Dalton o. Angus (1877) 3 Q- B. D. 85 (1878) 4 Q. B. D. 162 6 App. Ca. 740 50 L. J. Q. B. 689 44 L. T. 844 ; 46
:

.....
.

1052,1153
1167

W.

R. 191
.

(1881) L. R. J. P. 132 ; 30 354, 43, 4^91 7i3. 782? 850, 851


.

Dalton V. Barnard (1618) Cro. Jac. 520 699 D'Alton. D'Alton (i878)4P. D. 87; 47L. J. P. 59 1228 Dalton 0. Fitzgerald [1897] 2 Ch. 86 66 L. J. Ch. 604 76 L. T. 700 45 W. R. 685 C. A 810 Damerell . Prothero (1847) 10 Q. B. 20 ; 16 L. J. Q. B. 170 ; 11 Jur. 331 551 Danby. Tuckir (1883) 31 W. R. 578 939 Dancer o. Crabb (1873) L. R. 3 P. & M. 98 42 L. J. P. 53 28 L. J. 914 1250 Dand v. Kingscote (1840) 9 L. J. Ex. 279 6 M. & W.'i74 706, 708 Dand v. Sexton (1789) 3 T. R. 37' 407 D'Angibau, Re (1880) 15 Ch. D. 228 49 L. J. Ch. 756 43 L. T. 35 ; 28 W. R. 930 C. A. 866,899,975 Daniel, Re [1917J 2 Ch. 405; 117 L. T. 472: 61 Sol. Jo. 646 33 T. L. R.
. . . ; ; ; . . ; ;
. :

....
.
.

........
; ; ; ;

_53

Daniel 0. Ferguson [1891] 2 Ch. 27 Daniel 0. Hanslip (1672) 2 Lev. 67 Daniels v. Fielding (1846) 16 M. &

153; 10 Jur. 1061

Dann

v.

Spurrier (1803) 3 B.
i?c (1895) 13

&

P. 399

119

Danson,

R. 633 Darby v. Harris (1841) i Q. B. 895 i G. & D. 234 Darcy (Lord) v. Askwith (1618) Hobart, 234 D'Arcyo. Blake (1805) 2 Sch. &Lef. 387 Darell v. Bridge (1749) i W. Bl. 46 Darell u. Wybarne.(i56o) 2 Dyer, 207 b
;
.

....... ........
39

W.

R. 599

121

C. A.

376, 401

678

W.

200

4 Dow.

&

L. 329

16 L. J. Ex.

492
620 1082 972
650 684 690

7 R. R. 797

7 Ves. 231

6 R. R,

.....
;

Jur. 988

785, 790

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Darke, In the Goods 0/(1859) 8 y/. R. 273
'

xcvii
PAGE

Sw.

&

Tr. 516

29 L. J. P. 71

2 L. T. 24

1332 v. Bowditch (1846) 8 Q. B. 973 633 Darley o. Tennant (1885) 53 L. T. 257 84.3,996 Darley Main Colliery Co. v. Mitchell (1886) L. R. 11 App. Ca. 127; 55 L. J. Q. B. 529; 54L. T. 882; 51 J. P. 148; 32W. R. 947 C. A. 327, 367, 373 Darnley, Re [1907] i Ch. 159 76 L. J. Ch. 58 95 L. T. 706 23 T. L. R.

Darke

93

Dashwood Dashwood
C.

0.

v.

A
W.

Blythway (1729) I Eq. Ca. Ab. 317 Magniac [1891] 3 Ch. 306 60 L. J. Ch. 809
;

Daubeny 0. Cockburn (1816) I Mer. 626 Dauncey v. HoUoway [1901] 2 K. B. 441


49

..... ......
;

"21
82P

65 L. T. 811

787,789
871
;

70 L. J. K. B. 695

84 L. T. 649
:

R. 546 504 12 v. Bishop (1846) i Ph. 698 affirming 2 Y. & C. C. C. 451 iioi L. J. Ch. 492 ; 7 Jur. 1077 Davenport v. Coltman (1842) 12 Sim. 610 ; 6 Jur. 404 1359 Daveron, Re [1893] 3 Ch. 421 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 54 69 L. T. 752 42 W. R. 24 ; 1079, 1 104 3 R. 685 David 0. Britannic Coal Co. [1909] 2 K. B. 146 78 L. J. K. B. 659 100 L. T. 678 53 Sol. Jo. 398 25 T. L. R. 431 affirmed (H. L.) 54 Sol. Jo. iji ; 26 T. L. R. 164 . 445, 449 Davidson v. Cooper (1844) 13 M. & W. 343 12 L. J. Ex. 467 688 . Davidson . Moscrop (1801) 2 East, 56 6 R. R. 373 Davidson & Co. v. Officer [1918] A. C. 304 87 L. J. P. C. 58 118 L. T. 451 ; 456 W. C. & I. Rep. 136 62 Sol. Jo. 347 34 T. L. R. 213 H. L. (Sc.) 698 Davies' Case (1598) Cro. Eliz. 611 61 L. J. Ch. 595 869 Davies, Re [1892] 3 Ch. 63 67 L. T. 1548 41 W. R. 13 832 Davies v. Chamberlain (1909) 26 T. L. R. 138 C. A 207 Davies v. Davies (1839) 9 C. & P. 87 Davies v. Davies (1887) 36 Ch. D. 359; 56 L. J. 962; 58 L. T. 209; 36 42 W. R. 86C. A Davies v. Davies (1888) 38 Ch. D. 499 57 L. J. Ch. 1093 ; 58 L. T. 514 36 626 W. R. 399

Davenport

.149
.

. England (1864) 33 L. J. Q. B. 321 10 Jur. (N. S.) 1235 445 Humphreys, (1840) 6 M. & W. 153 9 L. J. Ex. 263 4 Jur. 250.. .295, 297 102 L. T. Davies' and Kent's Contract [i^io] 2 Ch. 35 79 L. J. Ch. 689

Davies Davies

v.

v.

622C. A
Davies
Davies
11.

877, 1077

Jii
v.
;

London Marine Insurance Co. 38L. T. 478; 26 W. R. 794

(1878) 8 Ch. D. 469


;

47 L.

J. Ch.

293.
;

Nicholson (1858) 2 De G. & J. 693 27 L. J. Ch. 719 5 Jur. (N. S.) 1367 49 6 W. R. 790 Davies v. Parry [1899] i Ch. 602; 68 L. J. Ch. 346; 47 W. R. 429 15 1372, 1379, 1380 T. L. R. 186 Davies v. Penton (1827) 6 B. & C. 216 9 D. & R. 369 5 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 137 H2; 30R. R. 298 Davies v. Solomon (1871) L. R. 7 Q. B. 112 41 L. J. Q. B. 10 25 I.. T. 473, 523 799 20 W. R. 167 Davies v. Thomas [1920J 2 Ch. 189 89 L. J. Ch. 338 64 Sol. Jo. 529 36 483 T. L. R. 571 C. A 11 Jur. 750 16 L. J. Q. B. 369 465, 466 Davies v. WiUiams (1847) lo Q. B. 725 4 Davies . Williams (1851) 16 Q. B. 546 1334, '345 Davis, In the Goods of (i860) 4 Sw. & Tr. 21 3 ; 29 L. J. P. 72 1050 Davis, Re (1888) 22 Q. B. D. 193 37 W. R. 203 C. A
; ; ;
;

C.L.

Digitized

by Microsoft

XCVUl

TABLE OF CASES
; ;

Re; Hannen v. Hillyer [igtfz] i Ch. 876 71 L. J. Ch. 459 86 L. T. 292; 50 W. R. 37S Davis, Re ; Davis v. Davis [1902] 2 Ch. 314 71 L. J. Ch. 539 86 L. T. 523 51 W. R. 8 Davis, iJe; Griffith 0. Davis (1902) 86 L. T. 889 Davis, 7n <iesto(e o/[i9o6] P. 330 75 L. J. P. 94 Davis . Bowsher (1794) 5 T. R. 488 Davis o. Danks (1849) 3 Exch. 435 18 L. J. Ex. 213 Davis V. Davis [1918] P. 85 87 L. J. P. 53 118 L. T. 649 62 Sol. Jo. 384 Davis V. Duncan (1874) L. R. 9.C. P. 396 43 L. J. C. P. 185 30 L. t. 464
Davis,
.
.

1 1

12

'

1124

.... ....
: ; _ ' . .
. . . .

984 1340 962 408


1

179

Davis Davis Davis Davis

R. 575 ; 526 Freethy (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 519 59 L. J. Q. B. 318 41 V. Gardiner (1593) 4 Rep. 16 Poph. 36 2 Bulst. 89, go 505 1 113 V. Hutehihgs [1907] i Ch. 356 76 L. J. Ch. 272 96 L. T. '293 V. Marrable [1913] 2 Ch. 421 82 L. J. Ch. 510 109 L. T. 33 57 Sol. Jo. 702 712 29 T. L. R. 617 211 Davis B. Marshall (1861) 4 L. T. 216 9 W. R. 520 Davis . Mayor of Bromley (1908) i K. B. 170 24 T. L. R. 1 1 71 J. P. 513 ; 328 5 L. G. R. 1229 C. A. Davis V. Morgan (1852) 4 B. & C. 9 ; 6 Dow. & Ry. (K. B.) 42 28 R. R. 193 671 Davison, i?c (1888) 58 L. T. 304 15 Davison v. Gent (1857) i H. & N. 744 26 L. J. Ex. 122 3 Jur. (N. S.) 342 5 W. R. 229 389, 390 Davy, Re [1908] 1 Ch. 61 77 L. J. Ch. 67 97 L. T. 654-^C. A. 1123, 1271 Boucher (1839) 3 Y. & Coll. Exch. 357; 3 Jur. 674 ^'^^ Davys e. Dawkins 0. Lord Paulet (1869) L. R. Q. B. 94 39 L. J. Q. B. 53 21 L. T. l8 \V. R. 336 584 9 B. & S. 768 489, 513 Dawkins v. Lord Penrhyn (1878) L. R. 4 App. Ca. 51 48 L. J. Ch. 304 ; 39 .' L. T. 583; 27W. R. 173 564 Dawkins v. Lord Rokeby (1866) 4 F. & F. 806 442, 489 Dawkins v. Lord Rokeby (1873) L. R. 8 Q. B. 255 42 L. J. Q. B. 63 28 L. T. 134 21 W. R. 544 affirmed (1875) L. R, 7 H. L. 744 45 L. J. Q. B. 8 ; 23 W. R. 931 33 L, T. 196 342,489,512 Dawson v. Bank of Whitehaven (1877) 6 Ch. D. 218 46 L. J. Ch. 884 37 L. T. 64 26 W. R. 34 ^323, 1324 Dawson v. Bingley U. C. [1911! 2 K. B. 149 80 L. J. K. B. 842 104 L. T. 659 i 75 J- P- 289 9 L. G. R. 502 55 SoL Jo. 346 ; 27 T. L. R. 308 C. A. ^28 Dawson 11. G. N. & City Ry. Co, [1904] i K. B. 277 73 L. J. K. B. 174 ; 68 90 L. T. 20 20 T. L. R. 87 [1901;] I K. B. 260 74 L. J. J. P.214 K. B. 190 69 J. P. 29 92 L. T. 137 21 T. L. R. 114 C. A. 365, 366 i Kay, 280 2 Eq. R. 230 Dawson v. Lawes (1854) 23 L. J. Ch. 434 2 W. R. 213 299 Day, Re [1898] 2 Ch. 510 67 L. J. Ch. 619 77 L. T. 436 47 W. R. 238 1395 Day . Austin (1595) Owen, 70 412 Day V. Sream (1837) 2 Moo. & Rob. 54 505 Day V. Brownrigg (1878) 10 Ch. D. 294 48 L. J. Ch. 173 39 L. T. 553 27 W. R. 217 C. A. 375 Day V. Day (1854) Kay, 703 573 Day 0. Luhke(i8'68) L. R. 5 Eq. 336; 37L. J. Ch. 330 49 Day V. McLea (1889) 58 L. J. Q. B. 293 22 Q. B. D. 610 60 L. T. 947 37 W. R. 483 ;U- P- 532C. a: 151 Dayrell v. Champness (1700) i Eq. Cas. Ab. 400 668 Deacon v. S. E. Ry. Co. (1889) 61 L. T. 377 706, 707 Dean, iJe(i889)4i Ch. D. 552; 58 L. J. Ch. 693; 66 L. T. 813 1098 22
. .

W.

V.

....
.

i;

....
'

'.

'

........... ........ ......... ... ....... .....


; ;
.

'

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Dean Dean
v.
v.

xcix
PAGE

Dean [1891] 3 Ch. 155 Hogg (1834) 10 Bing.

P. 54 Dean o. Keate (i8ii) 3 Camp. 4 ; 13 R. R. 735 196 Deane v. Clayton (1817) 7 Taunt. 489 ; 2 Marshall, 577 ; i Moore, 203 . 446, 775 Dearie v. Hall (1823) 3 Ru88. i ; 2 L. J. (O. S.) Ch. 62 ; 27 R. R. i . 760, 1 153 De Beauvoir v. Owen (1850) 5 Exch. 166 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 177 77 De Beers v. British South Africa Co. [1910] i Ch. 354 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 345 ; 102 L. T. 95 ; 26 T. L. R. 285 ; 54 Sol. Jo. 289 ; 17 Mans. 190 ; affirmed [1910] 2 Ch. 502 ; 103 L. T. 4 ; 26 T. L. R. 591 ; 54 Sol. Jo. 679 C. A. ; reversed [1912] A. C. 52 81 L. J. Ch. 137 ; 105 L. T. 683 ; 28 T. L. R. 830, 832, 840, 1009, ion, 1013 114; 56 Sol. Jo. 175 Debenham v. Mellon (1880) L. R. 6 App. Ca. 24; 50 L. J. Q. B. 155 ; 43 L. T. 673 ; 29 W. R. 141 ; 45 J. P. 252 56, 57 De Bussche v. Alt (1877) 8 Ch. D. 286 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 381 ; 38 L. T. 370 . 230, 231 De Cordova v. De Cordova (1879) L. R. 4 App. Ca. 692 ; 41 L. T. 43 ii^ii Dee Estates, Re [191 1] 2 Ch. 85 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 461 ; 104 L. T. 903 55'Sol. Jo. 962 424; 18 Mans. 247 C. A. 1268 Decks V. Strutt (1794) 5 T. R. 690 Deeley v. Lloyds' Bank [1912] A. C. 756 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 697 ; 107 L. T. 465 ; 29 T. L. R. I 56 Sol. Jo. 734 1143 Deering 0. Lord Winchelsea (1787) i Cox, 318 ; 2 Bos. & P. 270 ; i R. R. 41 297

Car.

&

60 L. J. Ch. 553 ; 65 L. T. 65 ; 39 W. R. 568 351 ; 4 M. c& Scott, i88 ; 3 L. J. C. P. 113 ; 6


;

'

44

......382
...

....

....
;

Deeze, Ar^ae (1748) I Atk. 228 De Francesco v. Barnum (1890) 45 Ch. D. 430 438 39 W. R. 5 Defries v. Milne [1913] i Ch. 98 82 L. J. Ch. i
i ;

962

60 L.
;

J.

Ch. 63

63 L. T.

27C. A

[1914] P. 53 ; 83 L. J. . . . P. 40 ; no L. T. 121 ; 30 T. L. R. 329 ; 58 Sol. Jo. 341 Degg V. Midland Ry. Co. (1857) i H. & N. 773 ; 26 L. J. Ex. 171 ; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 395 ; 5 W. R. 364 Deichman, / rie Goorfs 0/(1842) 3 Curt. 123 Delacherois v. Delacherois (1864) H. L. C. 62 ; 4 N. R. 501 ; 10 Jur.

Deg V. Deg (1727) 2 P. Wms. 412 De Gasc^uet James v. Mecklenburg-Schwerin (Duke)

........
;

107 L. T. 593

215, 474, 476 57 Sol. Jo. 365

1374 1204
58 1330

De De

10 L. T. 884 ; 13 W. R. 24 584, 691 la Saussaye, In the Goods of (1873) L. R. 3 P. & M. 42 ; 42 L. J. P. 47 ; 1240, 1247 28 L. T. 368 i 21 W. R. 549 la Warr (Eari) v. Miles (1880) 17 Ch. D. 535 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 754 ; 44 L. T."
(N. S.) 886
;

715 29 W. R. 809 8 C. & P. 444 Highley (1837) 3 Bing. N. C. 950 5 Scott, 154 49' 3 Hodges, 158 ; 6 L. J. 0. P. 337 3' Dehnar, Ex parte (1890) 38 W. R. 752 De Mattos v. Benjamin (1894) 63 L. J. Q. B. 248 ; 70 L. T. 560 42 W. R. 312 284; 10 R. 103 De Medina v. Grove (1846) 10 Q. B. 1 52 ; 15 L. J. Q. B. 284 10 Jur. 426 494 De Moleyns' and Harris' Contract [1908] i Ch. no; 77 L. J. Ch. 9; 97 888, 917 L. T. 650 ; 51 Sol. Jo. 824 De Montaigu v. De Montaigu [i 9 13] P. 154 109 L. T. 79 29 T. L. R. 654 1204 57 Sol. Jo. 703 Denaby v. Yorkshire Miners [1906] A. C. 384 75 L. J. K. B. 961 95 L. T. 479 561 ; 22 T. L. R. 543 Denby, Re (1861) 3 De G. F. & J. 35 5 3i L. J. Ch. 184 ; 5 L. T. 514 10 1285 W. R. ns 472 Dengate v. Gardiner (1838) 4 M. & W. 5 ; 7 L. J. Ex. 201 5 Jur. 470 617,619 Denn p. Cartwright (i8o3)4East, 31

487

Delegal

o.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES

Denn v. Fearnside (1747) i Wils. 176 Denn v. Spray (1786) i T. R. 466 , Denne v. Light (1857) 8 De G. M. & G. 774
627 Dennett
;

.......
;

PAGE
641 1^97

26 L.

J.

Ch. 459
;

3 Jur. (N. S.)

187 Pass (1834) i Bing. N. C. 388 ; i Scott, 218 4 L. J. C. P. 70.. .680, 740 Denney v. Conklin [1913] 3 K.. B. 177 ; 82 L. J. K. B. 953 109 L. T. 444 1048 29 T. L. R. 598 61 Denning o. Sec. of State (1920) 37 T. L. R. 138 Dennis, / Ae Gooiii o/fi 891] P. 326 1253 68 L. J. P. 67 Dennis, In the Goods of\i%<)^ P. 191 , 1336 Dent V. Dent (1867) L. R. i P. & D. 366 ; 36 L. J. M. 61 15 L. T. 635 ; 15 W. R. 591 999 Dent 0. Turpin (1861) 2 J. & H. 139 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 495 7 Jur. (N. S.) 673 ; L. T. 637 9 W. R. 548 4 349, 1085 De Pereda 0. De Mancha (1881) 19 Ch. D. 451 51 L. J. Ch. 204 30 W. R. 226 1230, ( . D'Epineuil, iif (1882) 2oCh. D. 758: 47L. T. 157; 30 W. R. 702 1052 Dering v. Winchelsea (Earl) (1787) 1 Cox, Eq. Cas. 318 2 Bos. & P. 270 1422 Derisley . Custance (1790) 4 T. R. 75 1364 Derry v. Handley (1867) 16 L. T. 263 507 61 L. T. Derry v. Peek (1889) L. R. 14 App. Ca. 337 58 L. J. Ch. 864 265 ; 38 W. R. 33 ; I Meg. 292; 39, 536, 538, 539, 540 Derry 11. Sanders [1919] i K. B. 223 ; 88 L. J. K. B. 410 ; 120 L. T. 194; 63 Sol. Jo. 115 35 T. L. R. 105 C. A 605,854 Deschamps v. Miller [1908] i Ch. 856 77 L. J. Ch. 416 ; 98 L. T. 564. 1 105 Sommery, .Re [1912] 2 Ch. 622 82 L. J. Ch. 17 De 107 L. T. 253 57 Sol. Jo. 78 877 De Teissier, Re [1893] i Ch. 153 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 552 ; 68 L. T. 275 ; 41 W. R. 1130 184; 3 R. 103 Detmold . Detmold (1889) 40 Ch. D. 585 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 495 ; 61 L. T. 21 ; 37 W. R. 442 44 Devereux 0. Barclay (1819) 2 B. & Aid. 702 2i R. R. 45 416 Deverges 11. Sandeman [1902] i Ch. 579 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 328 86 L. T. 269 18 T. L. R. 375 C. A 50 W. R. 404 955 De Vitre v. Betts (1873) L. R. 6 H. L. 319 42 L. J. Ch. 841 21 W. R. 705 378 Devonald v. Rosser & Sons (1905) 93 L. T. 274 ; 21 T. L. R. 595 ; affirmed 22 T. L. R. [1906] 2 K. B. 728 75 L. J. K. B. 688 ; 95 L. T. 232 ^82C. A 208, 222 Dew V. Clark (1826) 3 Add. 79 1257 Dewar . Tasker & Sons (1907) 23 T. L. R. 259 C. A. 351 Dewell'o. Sanders (1618) Cro. Jac. 490 358, 361 Dewey v. Bayntun (1805) 6 East, 257 ; 8 R. R. 475. 1062 Dewey o. White (1827) Moo. & Malk. 56 386 Dewhurst o. Mather [1908] 2 K. B. 754 77 L. J. K. B. 1077 99 L. T. 568 ; 24 T. L. R. 819 458 Dey V. Mayo [1920] 2 K. B. 346 ; 89 L. J. K. B. 241 122 L. T. 742 ; 64 Sol. Jo. 240 36 T. L. R. 217C. A 313 D'Huart v. Harkness (1865) 34 Beav. 324 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 31 1 11 Jur. (N. S.) 633; i.^ W. R. 513; 5N. R. 440 1241 Diamond Co. v. Mining Co. (1915) 60 Sol. Jo. 42 32 T. L. R. 47 43^6 Dibble 0. Bowater (1853) 2 E. & B. 564 22 L. J. Q. B. 396 ; 17 Jur. 1054 ; I W. R. 435 622 Dibdin v. Skirrow {1908] i Ch. 41 77 L. J. Ch. 107 97 L. T. 658 71 T. L. R. 70 6 L. G. R. io8 696 J. P. 555 ; 24
5
v.

W.

R. 430

..... .......
. . . ; ; ; ; .

....... .......
; .

....
; ;

.... ...... ....

. ; ; ; ;
.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Dibdin v. Swan (1793) i Esp. 28 Dickenson v. Teesdale (1862) i De G. (N. S.)237; 7L. T. 655 Dickin . Edwards (1844) 4 Ha. 272

ci

Dickins v. Hampstead (1729) Fitz. 87 Dickinson . Capper (1616) I Rolle Rep. Dickinson v. Dickinson [1913] P. 198 (otherwise P.), 29 T. L. R. 765 58 Dickinson v. Dodds (1876) 2 Ch. D. 463 W. R. 594 Dickman v. Allen (1690) 2 Ventr. 138 Dickson, Re (1883) 29 Ch. D. 331 54 L.
;
;

....... ....... ...


.

526
r,

J.

&

S.

52

32 L. J. Ch. 37

9 Jur.

76,866
^

1398 849

215 109 L. T. 408 ; sub nom. D. v. D. Sol. Jo. 32 34 L. T. 607 24 45 L. J. Ch. 777
;

955
1

177

'
.

718
Ch. 510
;

511 C.
Dickson
v.

J.

52 L. T. 707

33

W.
;

R.

G. N. Ry. Co. (1886) 18 Q. B. D. 176 56 L. J. Q. B. in 55 L.T. 868; 35 W. R. 202; 51 J. P. 388 249,256,257 Dickson v. Renter's Telegraph Co. (1877) 3 C. P. D. i 329, 336 Digby V. Financial News [1907] i K. B. 502 76 L. J. K. B. 321 96 L. T. 172; 23T. L. R. 117 509,510,511 Diggle V. Higgs (1877) 2 Ex. D. 422 46 L. J. Ex. 721 37 L. T. 27 ; 25 W. R. 777 311 Dighton V. Greenvil (n. d.) 2 Vent. 321 648 DiUon, Re (1890) 44 Ch. D. 76 62 L. T. 614 ; 38 W. R. 59 L. J. Ch. 420 983, 1291, 1292 369 C. A. Dillon o. Dillon (1842) 3 Curt. 86 1195 Dimes v. Pettey (1850) 15 Q. B. D. 276 19 L. J. Q. B. 449 14 Jur. 1132. 400 1 122 Dimes v. Scott (1827) 4 Russ. 195 28 R. R. 46 Dimsdale v. Isles (1672) 3 Keb. 166 644 Diplock V. Blackburn (1811) 3 Camp. 43 13 R. R. 744 235 Diplock V. Hammond (1854) 5 De G. M.' & G. 320 23 L. J. Ch. 550 2 W. R. 1051 500 1268. 1422 Dix o. Burford (1854) 19 Beav. 409 Dixon, i?e(i889)42Ch. D. 306; 61 L. T. 718; 38 W. R. 91 1087 Dixon, Re [1900] 2 Ch. 561'; 69 L. J. Ch. 689 83 L. T. 129 48 W. R. 665 C. 1183 88 L. T. 862 Dixon, Re [1903] 2 Ch. 458 72 L. J. Ch. 642 51 W. R.
;
. . . ;

....
;
; .

"35

........... .......
; ;
'

............
; ;

....
;
.

652

Dixon V. Bell (1816) 5 M. & S. 198 i Stark. 287 17 R. R. 308 Dixon V. Clarke (1848) 5 C. B. 365 5 D. & L. 155 16 L. J. C. P. 237. Dixon V. Dixon (1878) 9 Ch. D. 587 48 L. J. Ch. 592 40 L. T. 208
; ; . ; ; ; ;

559; 931 333, 477


.

107 .183

27
239 233
681

W.

R. 282
;

Dixon V. Ewart (1817) 3 Mer. 322 Buck, 94 Dixon V. Hammond (1819) 2 B. & Aid. 310 Dixon V. James (1698) Freem. 273 Dixon o. Robinson (1686) 3 Mod. 107 Dixon V. White (1883) L. R. 8 App. Ca. S33 Dixon V. Yates (1833) 5 B. & Ad. 313 2 Nev. Dobree v. Napier (1836) 2 Bing. (N. C.) 202
.

692

& M.

2 L. J. K. B. i 3 Scott, 201 ; 5 L. J. C.

177

781 921
341 235 510

273

2 Hodges, 84

Docker

r.

Somes (1834)

My. & K. 655

;
.

3 L. J. Ch.

Dockrell

v.

Dougall (1899) 80 L. T. 556

[1906] P. 189 ; 75 L. J. P. 49 54 W. R. 541 ; 22 T. L. R. 484 Dodd V. Norris (1814) 3 Camp. 519


V.

Dodd

Dodd

94

L,

1189

Dodwell

Doe

V.

Burford (1669) i Mod. 24 . Allen (1800) 8 T. R. 503


V.

Sid.

433

469 432
16

Digitized

by Microsoft

cii

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
0. o.

Doe Doe
(

Barber (1788) 2 T. R. 749 Barnard (1849) 13 Q. B. D. 945


.

389
Q. B. 306; i3j"''-9'5
'

,18 L. J.

3^9)

.;

'

Doeo. Barton (1840) II A. &E. 307; 3 P. & D. 194 9 L. J. Q. B. 57 4 Jur. ^ 432 Doe V. Baytup (1835) 3 A. & E. 188 4 N. &'M. 837 ; i H. & W. 270 4 L. J. K B. 263 Doe d. Rigge v. Bell (1793) J T. R. 471 ; 2 R. R. 642 .
; ;
.

..........
; .
.

390
.

642

390
618 621

Doe Doe
Doe Doe Doe

(1845) 7 Q. B. 976 ; 14 L. J. Q. B. 342 9 Jur. 662 . V. Benjamin (1839) 9 A. & E. 644 ; i P. & D. 440 ; 2 W. W. & H. 96 8 L. J. Q. B. 117
V.
;

Benham

614
615
.

V.
SI.

Clarke (1807) 8 East, 183 Cole (1S27) 7 B. & C. 24"3

20
V.

Day

...........
;

Man.

&

Ry. 33
;

6 L. J. (0. S.) K. B.

650

(1842) 2

Q';

B. 147

2 G.

913

Doe V. Dixon (1807) 9 East, 14 Doeo. Dorvell(i794) 5T. R. 518 Doe V. Dyball (1829) Moo. & Malk. 346
I

.......
;
.

&

D. 757

12 L. J. Q. B. 86

6 Jur.
.

388, 610, 611

620 656

M.

&

P. 330

Doe

V.

Giles (1829) 5

30 R. R. 686

Doeo. Eyre(i848) 5 Doe 0. Hare (1833) 2 C. & M. 146 Doe V. Harlow (1840) 12 A. & E. 40 Doe o. Knight (1826) 5 B. & C. 471 8 Dow.
;

; 8 B. & C. 70 ; 2 M. & Ry. 184 6 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 317 ; 3 Car. & P. 610 390 Bing. 421 ; 2 M. c& P. 749 ; 7 L. J. (O. S.) C. P. 134 642, 64s, 646 . C. B. 713 .
.

.906
19 18

& Ry.

K. B. 348
:

4 L.

J. (0. S.)

K. B. 161

29 R. R. 355
;

Doe V. Lightfoot (1841) 8 M. & W. 553 11 L. J. Ex. 151 5 Jur. 966 Doe V. Manning (1807) 9 East, 59 9 R. R. 503 Doe V. Martin (1790) 4 T. R. 39 Doe V. Morris (1835) ^ Bing. N. C. i8g 2 Scott, 276 i Hodges, 215 4 L.
;
.

.....
.

812

818, 819

814
875 S48 811

J.

C. P. 285

Doe Doe Doe Doe Doe Doe Doe

Oliver (1830) 5 Man. & Ry. K. B. 202 V. Pearsey (1827) 7 B. & C. 304 v. Penfold (1838) 8 C. & P. 536 V. Rivers (1797) 7 T. R. 276 0. Roberts (1819) 2 B. & Aid. 367 d. Hampton o. Shotter (1838) 9 A. & E. 905 V. Skirrow (1837) 7 A^ & E. 157 ; 2 Nev. & P. 123
V.

...... ........ .....


;

778, 779 557, 765 571

810 1409

517

..

Will.

WoU. & Dav.


810 898

Doe V. Doeo. Doe d. Doe o. Doe o.


32

Smith (1788) 2 T. R. 436

Smythe (1815) 4M. & S. 347: 16 R. R. 486 Gray v. Stanion (1836) i M. & W. 695 5 L.
;
;

.390.
186, 193

J.

Ex. 253.
;

Stone (1846) 3 C. B. 176; 15 L. J. C. P. 234 VardUl (1835) 2 CI. & F. 571 (1840) 7 CI. & F. S95
;

810
9 Bligh (N. S.)
.

Doe Doe

Watts (1797) 7 T. R. 83 ; 2 Esp. 501 4 R. R. 387 . w. Whichelo (1799) 8T. R. 211 Doe.William8(i836)5A. &E. 291 6N. &M. 816; 2 H. & W. 213 5 L. J. K. B. 231 Doe d. Clayton v. Williams (1843) 11 M. & W. 803 12 L. J. Ex. 420 DoeringB. Doering (1889) 42 Ch. D. 203; 58 L. J. Ch. 553; 37 'W. R.
V.
. ; ; ; .

1298 618
571

642 690
1

796 Doherty

v.

AUman

143

(1878) L. R. 3 App. Qa. 709

39 L. T. 129

26

W. R.

513
577,62,6

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
; ;

cm

Doherty-Waterhouse, Re [1918] 2 Ch. 269 87 L. J. Ch. 630 119 L. T. 2 62 Sol. Jo. 636 869 Doidge V. Carpenter (1817) 6 M. & S. 47 18 R. R. 299 678 DoUond V. Johnson (1854) 2 Sm. & G. 301 2 Eq. R. 621 23 L. J. Ch. 637 18 Jur. 767; 2 W. R. 505 1376 Dolphin V. Robins (1859) 7 H. L. C. 390 3 Macq. H. L. 563 29 L. J. P. II 5 Jur. (N. S.) 1271 ; 7 W. R. 674 3 Don, Re (1857) 4 Drew. 194 27 L. J. Ch. 98 ; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 119255 W. R 836 1298 Don's Estate, Re (1857) 4.Drew. 194 27 L. J. Ch. 98 3 Jur. (N. S.) 1192 " 1206 5 W. R, 836 Donald v. Suckling (1866) L. R. 1 Q. B. 5S5 35 L. J. Q. B. 232 7 B. & S. 12 Jur. (N. S.) 795 14 L. T. 772 15 W. R. 13 783 416, 955, 956 Donations (Commissioners oi)v. Wybrants C1845) 2 Jo. & La. 182; 7 Ir. Eq. R. c8o 756 Doncaster v. Doncaster (1856) 3 K. & J. 26 2 Jur. (N. S.) 1066 580 Donegal's (Lord) Case ({751) 2 Ves. Sen. 407 1258 Donellan o. Read (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 899 Donoughmore's Estate, i?c [1911] I I. R. 211 1076 Donovan v. Laing [1893] i Q. B. 629 63 L. J. Q. B. 25 4 R. 317 68 L. T. 512 ; 41 W. R. 455 351, 352 57 J. P. 583C. A. Doody, Re [1893] i Ch. 129 62 L. J. Ch. 14 67 L. T. 650 41 W. R. 49 2 R. 166 n. .1124 Doorman v. Jenkins (1834) 2 A. & E. 256 4 N. & M. 170 4 L. J. K. B. 29 204 Dosso. Doss (1866) 14L. T. (N. S.)646i 14W. R. 590 P. C. 413 Dothie V. Macandrew [igo8] i K. B. 803 77 L. J. K. B. 388 98 L. T. 495 24 T. L. R. 326 463 Dougal V. McCarthy [1893] i Q. B. 736 62 L. J. Q. B. 462 68 L. T. 699 ." 4.1 W. R. 484 57^ J. P. 597 4 R. 402 Douglas, Re (1884) 28 Ch. D. 327 52 L. T. 131 54 L. J. Ch. 421 33 W. R, 39 553.753 Douglas V. Andrews (1849) 12 Beav. 310 ig L. J. Ch. 69 . 14 Jur. 73 1214 Douglas c. Douglas (1871) L. R. 12 Eq. 625 3 Douglas V. Dysart (Earl) (1861) 10 C. B. N. S. 688 : 6 L. T. 327 . 595Douglas V. Forrest (1828) 4 Bing. 686 6 L. J. (O. S.) C. P. 157 : M. & P. 1386 663 29 R. R. 695 Douglas V. Lock (1835) 2 A. & E. 705 673 Douglas o. Patridc (1790) 3 T. R. 683 i R. R. 793 107, 108 Douglas-Menzies v. Umphelby [1908] A. C. 224 77 L. J. P. C. 64 98 L. T. 1277 509 24 T. L. R. 344 Dovaston v. Payne (1795) 2 H. Bl. 527 3 R. R. 497 358 . Dowglas V. Kendall (1609) Cro. Jac. 256 617 Dowling c. Mill (1816) I Madd. 541 Downshire (Marquis) v. Sandys (1801) 6 Ves. 107 792 Dowse, Re (1881) 50 L. J. Ch. 285 29 W. R. 563 991 64 L. T. 809 ; 40 Dowse 0. Gorton [1891] A. C. 190 60 L. J. Ch. 745 1113,1404,1405,1416,1417 W. R. 17 . 1264 Dowsett, Re [1901] i Ch. 398 70 L. J. Ch. 149 49 W. R. 268 . 1333 Doyle V. Blake (1804) 2 Sch. & Lef. 231 ; 9 R. R. 76 Dovle V. Falkener (1866) L. R. i P. C. 328 4 Moore, P. C. (N. S.) 203 ; 36 ' 511 L. J. P. C. 34; 15 W. R. 366 Drake, Ex parte {lijj) 5 Ch. D. 866 i Mont. D. & D. 539 3 Deac. & C. 284 425 1210 Drapers. Glenfield (1631) 2 Bulstr. 345 992 Drayton, ZJe (1912) 56 Sol. Jo. 253 i W. R. 318 Ch. 717 1315 . Pirew " Long (1853) 22 L. 17 Jur. 173
; ;
;

...... ......
.
.

.'

.619

.......
;

.......
;
. .

.....
.

.....715
. . .
.

.......
; ; ; .

J.

Digitized

by Microsoft

CIV

TABLE OF CASES

V. Nurin (1879) 4 Q- ^- ^- ^^' L. J. Q. B. 591 ; 40 L. T. 671 J 27 W. R. 810 59> 238 Drewetl t). Tovyler (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 735 i L. K. B. 228 714 J. Drewry o. Thacker(i8i9) 3 Swanst. 546 1419 Dreyfus o. Peruvian Guano" Co. (1889) 42 Ch. D. 66 58 L. J. Ch 758 62 L. T. 518 affirmed 4S Ch. D. 316 373 Drinkwater ii. Goodwin (1775) i Cowp. 251 56 Driver o. Broad [1893] i Q'. B. 744 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 12 69 L. T. i6g'; 41 W. R, 483 C. A. \ 841 Driver v. Thompson (1812) 4 Taunt. 294 13 R. R. 592 90s Drummond v. Drummond (1861) 30 L. J. P. & M. 177; 4 L. T. 4r6 1 Jur. (N. S.) 762 194 Drummond v. Parish (1843) 3 Curt. 522 1243 Drury 0. Kent (1603) Cro. Jac. 15 678 Drybutter . Bartholoniew (1723) 2 P. Wms. 127 15 Duberley . Gunning (1792} 4 T; R. 651 Peake, 97 ; 3 R. R. 664 369 Duberley v. Page (1788) 2 T. R. 391 718 Dubois V. Keats (1840) 1 1 A. & E. 329 3 Per. & Dav. 506 ; 9 L. J. Q. B. 66 4 Jur. 148 493 Du Bost . Beresford (1810) 2 Camp. 511 500 Gill (1830) 4 Car. & P. 121 Ducarry . 63 Duck V. Mayeu [1892] 2 Q. B. 511 62 L. J. Q. B. 69 4 R. 38 67 L. T. 336 547 41 W. R. 56 ; 57 J. P. 23-C. A. Duckworth-,!!. Lee [1899] i I. R. 405 1292 Du Crds, Re [1913] A. C. 624 57 Sol. Jo. 728 29 T. L. R. 772 30 R. P. C. 660' 1025 Duder v. An^sterdamsch Trustees Kantoor [1902] 2 Ch. 132 71 L. f. Ch 87L. T. 22 618 ; 50 W. R. 551 339 Dudson's Contract, Re (1873) 8 Ch. D. 628 47 L. J. Ch. 632 ; 39 L. T. 182 27 W. R. 179 566 Duff's Executors' Case (1886) 32 Ch. D. 301 54 L. T. 558 C. A, Nuffield o. Elwes (1827) I Bligh (N. S.) 497 983,984,1290,
.

Drew

'

.....
.
.

.... .....
.

'^9'> '292 Pereira (1769), Dick. 419 1246 Q' B. D. Dufourcet s. Bishop (1S86) 18 373 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 497 ; 56 L. T. . . . 633 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 109 Jig Dugdale, TJe (1888) 38 Ch. D. 176; 57 L. J. Ch. 634; 58 L. T. 181 ; 36 ^ W. R.,462 558. 559 Dugdale o. Dugdalle (;888) 38 Ch. D. 176 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 634 ; 58 L. T. 581 ;
I

Dufour

o.

.......
. .
1

....
.

36W.
Dugley
o.

R. 462

...
.

,
.

-.
.

Tolferry (1715) I P. Wms. 285 Duheu V. White [1901] 2 K. B. 669 70 L. J. K. B. 837 . W. R. 76 .


. ; . .

.43,44,931
.

1233

Dumpor's Case (1603) 4 Rep. 119 b biinbari. Diinbar [i909]2Ch. 639


Jo- 32

......
.
.

85 L. T. 126
.

50 454, 523

795^796
1084, 1087,
1

loi L. T. 553

26T.

L. R. 21;

54 Sol.
102

,',

Duncan Duncan

v.
11.
;

3 Exch. 644; Cashin (1875) L. R. 10 C. P.

Benson (1847)

18 L. J. Ex. 169; 12 Jur. 218 . 554 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 225 ; 32 L. T.

317

497 23 Duncan, Fox


355
;

W. R.

561
v.

.'
.

1149,1150
298 522
124

N. S. Wales Bank (i88o) 6 App. Cas. 43 I" T. 706 ; 29 W. R. 763


Co.
0.

&

50 L. J. Ch.

Daniell (1838) 2 Jur. 32 ; 8 C. & P. 222 ; I W. W. Dunkirk Colliery Co. v,. Lpver (1878) 9 Ch. D. 20 ; 39 L. T. 239 841

Duncombe

&
;

H. loi
26

W. R.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Dunkley, Re [1905] 2 K. B. 683 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 963 ; 93 L. T. 248 ; 21 T. L. R. 707 12 Manson, 364 54 W. R. 171 Dunlop V. Macedo (1891) 8 T. L. R. 43 Dunn V. Green (1724) 3 P. Wms. 9 Dunnii. Large. (1783) 3 Doug. 335 Dunn V. Macdonald [1897] i Q.B. 401, 455 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 420 76 L. T. 444 ; 45 W. R. 355 Dunne v. Anderson (1825) 3 Bing. 88 10 Moore, 407 Ry. & M. 287 Dunne v. Byrne [19:2] A. C. 407 81 L. J. P. C. 202 ; 106 L. T. 394 56 Sol. 28 T. L. R. 257 Jo. 324 49 Sc. L. R. 1025 Dunne 0. English (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 524 Dunraven (Earl) v. Williams (1836) 7 C. & P. 332 Dunsany's Settlement, Re [1906] i Ch. 578 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 356 94 L. T. 361
; ;
. '

cv
PAGE
1066 388 606
18 61

526
1099 232 688
553,

570

Dunwich

(Bailiffs of) v.

Sterry (1831)
i

B.

&
;

Ad. 831
72 L.
;

9 L. J. (0. S.) K. B.

Du

'67 Pasquier 519

411,932
v.

Cadbury [1903]

K. B. 104
;

J.

K. B. 78

87 L. T.

423
61 L. J. P, 49 Eccl. 733
.

Duplany v. Duplany [1892] P. 53 Durant v. Durant (1825) i Hagg.

66 L. T. 267

Durham (1885) 10 P. D. 80 27, "75 (Corporation) o. Fowler (1889) 22 Q B. D. 394'; 58 L. J. Q. B 246 ; 60 L. T. 456 299 Durham ii. Northen [1895] P. 66 ; 69 L. T. 691 ; 6 R. 582 . . . 1239 Durham (Bros.) v. Robertson [1898] i Q. B. 765 ; 67 L. j. Q. B. 484 ; 48 L. T. 438 C. A. . 1047 Durham . Wharton (1836) 3 CI. & Fin. 146; 6 L. J. Ch. 15 ; 10 Bligh (N. S.) 526 ; 3 Myl. & K. 698 ; reversing 5 Sim. 297 1283 Duthy and Jesson's Contract, In re [1898] i Ch. 419 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 218 ; 78 L. T. 223 ; 46 W. R. 300 189 Dutton V. Crowdy (1863) 33 Beav. 272 33 L. J. Ch. 241 9 L. T. 630 ; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 28 ; 12 W. R. 222 ; 3 N. R. 234 . . 1289 Duxbury v. Sandiford (1898) 80 L. T. 552 C. A 609, 616 . . . Dyer o. Dyer (1788) 2 Cox, 92 2 R. R. 14 1102 Dyer v. Munday [1895] i Q. B. 742 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 448 ; 14 R. 306 ; 72 L. T. 448 ; 43 W. R. 440 ; 59 J. P. 276 C. A 351 Dyers' Co. v. King (1870) L. R. 9 Eq. 438 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 339 ; 22 L. T. 120 ;
v.

Durham Durham

195 194

....
; . . . .

" R. 404 712 Rendall (1852) 2 De G. M. & G. 209 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 905 ; 16 Jur. 939 1322 0. Sweeting (1745) Willes, 587 804 -f 12 Jur. 839 v. Walford (1846) 5 Moo. P. C. 434 1328 Dykes' Estate, Re (1869) L. R. 7 Eq. 337 ; 20 L. T. 292 17 W. R. 658 870 Dynevor (Lord) o. Tennant (1888) L. R. 13 App. Ca. 279 57 L. J. Ch. 671, 673 1078 59 L. T. 5 37 W. R. 193 Dyson, jRe [1910] I Ch. 750 79 L. J. Ch. 433 ; 102 L. T. 425 1357 Dyson v. Forster [1909] A. C. 98 5 78 L. J. K. B. 246 99 L. T. 942 25 104, 628, 629, 802 T. L. R. 166 53 Sol. Jo. 149 H. L. (E.)

18

W.

Dyke Dyke Dyke

0.

'

'

A., In re [190:] 2 K. B. 642 70 L. J. K. B. 810 85 L. T. 31 : 49 W. R. 642; 8 Manson, 250 C. A Bade, J!J(:9o6)94L. T. 277; 22T. L. R. 239 Eager 0. Fumivall (1881) 17 Ch. D. 115 50 L. J. Ch. 537; 44 L. T. 464; 29 W. R. 649 45 J. P. 503 Eagleton v. Gutteridge (1843) 11 M. & W. 465 ; 12 L. J. Ex. 359 ; 2 Dow.

E.

W.

155 1387

1313

(N. S.) 1053

385

Digitized

by Microsoft

cvi

TABLE OF GASES
PAGE
Granville (Earl) (1876) 3 Ch. D. 826 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 669 ; 34 L. T. 24 W. R. 528 j 594, 780 Lubbock [1905] i K. B. 253 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 121 ; 53 W. R. 145 ; 91
v.

Eardley 609
Earl
o.

L.T. 830
Earle
v.

J36
;

Kingscote [1900] 2 Ch. 585


3

W. R.

Earle c. Peale (1712) I Salfc. 387 Eastern and South African Co. . Cape Town Tramways [1902] A. C. 381 ; 50W. R. 657; 86L. T. 457; 18T. L. R. 523J. C. 71 L. J. P. C. 122 Eastern Archipelago Co. . R. (1853) 2 C. L. R. 145 ; 2 El. & Bl. 856 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 82 18 Jur. 481 2 W. R. 77 Eastern Counties Ry. Co. . Broom (1851) 20 L. J. Exch. 196 6 Ex. 314
.

.'....'.
;

69 L. J. Ch. 725

83 L. T. 377
"
.

49
29.
.

.-JS

23

406
13 55

Doriing (1859) 28 L. J. C. P. 202 5 C. B. N. S. 821 400 5 Jur. (N. S.) 869 Eastern Counties Ry. Co. 0. Hawkes (1855) 5 H. L. C. 348 24 L. J. Ch. 601 10 3 W. R. 609 Eastern Telegraph Co. o. Dent [1899] i Q. B. 835 68 L. J. Q. B. 564 80 L. T. 459 .. IS T. L. R. 296 C. A., East Greensted Case (1633) Duke, 64 (3) 756, 757 East India a Hensley (1794) I Esp. 112 56 East Indian Railway Co. o. Kalidas Mukerjee [1901] A. C. 396; 70 L. J. P. C. 63 84 L. T. 210 259 Eastland w. Burchell (1878) 3 Q. B. D. 432 38 L. T. 47 L. J. Q. B. 500 ." 568 27 W. R. 290 57 Eastwood V. Bain (1858) 3 H. & N. 738 28 L. J. Ex. 74 7 W. R. 90 540 Eastwood o. Dinke (1731) 2 P. Wms. 613 1282 Eastwood V. Lever (1863) 3 D. J. & S. 103 3 N. R. 232 32 L. J. Ch. 355 ; 12 W, R. 195 28 J. P. 212 9 L. T. 615 377 Eaton o. Bell (1821) 5 B. & Aid. 34 116 Eaton V. Swansea Waterworks Co. (1851) 17 Q. B. 267 20 L. J. Q. B. 482 ; 15 Jur. S75 850 Eberle's Hotels v. Jonas (1887) 18 Q. B. D. 466 56 L. J. Q. B. 278 35 W. R.
v.
;

15 Jur. 297 Eastern Counties Ry. Co.


;

............
;
,

...........
; ; ;
. .

......
. . .

.627

......
;
. .

'\

467
Eccles

C.

Mills [1898] A. C. 360 398; 14T. L. R. 270


V.

Ecclesiastical Commissioners

.........
. ;

422
1364

67 L. J. P. C. 25

78 L. T. 206

46

W.
J.

R.

v.

Kino (1880) 14 Ch. D. 213

R. 544 C. A. 673,711 Parr [1894] 2 Q. B. 420 63 L. J. Q. B. 784 ; 71 L. T. 65 42 W. R. 561 C. A. Ecclesiastical Commissioners o. Penny [1900] 2 Ch. 736 69 L. J. Ch. 844 16 T. L. R. 556 C. A. 83 L. T. 384 ; 49 W. r! 82 Eccleston v. Clipsham (1668) i Saund. 153 ; 2 Keb. 338, 339, 347, 385 . 156 Eckersley s.' Pktt (1866) L. R. i P. & M. 281 36 L. J. P. 7 ; 15 L. T. 327 ; \ 15 W. R. 232 1252 Ecroyd v. Co^lthard [1897] 2 Ch. 554 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 751 ; 77 L. T. 357 61 . 46 W. R. 119 720 J. P. 791 Xdelstein v. Schuler [1902] 2 K. B. 145 71 L. J. K. B. 572 87 L. T. 204 18 T. L.'R. 597 40 W. R. 493 7 Com. Cas. 172 1012 Edelsten o.'Edelsten (1863) i De G. J. & S. 185 7 L. T. 768 9 Jur. (N. S.) 479; II W. R. 328 1029 Edge V. NiccoUs [191 1] A. C. 693 80 L. J. Ch. 745 105 L. T. 459 55 Sol. T. L. R. 555 28 R. P. C. 582 27 Jo. 737 1029 Edgington v. Fitzraaurice (1885) 29 Ch. D. 459 55 L. J. Ch. 650 ; 53 L. T. 369; 33 W.R. 911; 50 J. P. 52 538,540

529; 42 L. T. 201
;

28

W.
v.

Ecclesiastical Commissioners

....
;

49 L.

Ch.

."

.766 .839

.... ....
; ; ;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Edmonds v. Blaina Furnaces Co. 57L.T. 139; 35W. R. 798 Edmondson v. Birch & Co. [1907]
415
;

cvii

PAGE
(1887) 36 Ch. D. 215
i
;

56 L. J. Ch. 815
;

1007

K. B. 371
;

76 L. J. K. B. 346

96 L. T.
.

23 T. L. R. 234
v.

'

505, 518
;

Edmondson

Copland [191 1] 2 Ch. 301 80 L. J. Ch. 532 ; 105 L. T. 8 27 T. L. R. 446^ 55 Sol. Jo. 520 Edmondson v. Machell (1787) 2 T. R. 4 Edmund v. Martell (1908) 24 T. L. R. 25 : 52 Sol. Jo. 10 C. A. Edmunds v. A.-G. (1876) 47 L. J. Ch. 345'; 38 L. T. 213 26 W. R. 550 Edmunds v. Bushell (1865) L. R. 1 Q. B. 97 35 L. J. Q. B. 20 12 Jur. (N. S.) 332 55,
. .

829 467
577 998

229

Edmunds v. Edmunds [1904] P. 362 73 L. J. P. Edmundsc. Wallingford(i885) 14Q. B. D. 811 720 33 W. R. 647 49 J. P. 549 C. A
; ; ; ;

97 ; 91 L. T. 568 54 L. J. Q. B. 305

1058, 1059

52 L. T.

Edwardes v. Wootton (1607) Hawarde's Cases in the Star Chamber, 343 502 Edwards, .Ex pflrte (1747) 3 Atk. 519 1218,1219 .Edwards, Ex parte ; Chapman, / re (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 747 ; 51 L. T. 881
. ;

......
; .

317

33

W.
.

R. 268
.

Morrell, 238

234
8 R. 618
. ;

Edwards, Re [1894]
169 308
;

Ch. 644; 64 L. J. Ch. 179


. . .

43

W.
.

R.
.

666
901 525
22, 898

Edwards, Re [1910]

Ch. 541

79 L.

J.

Ch. 281

Edwards Edwards

54 Sol. Jo. 32s Bell (1824) i Bing. 403 v. Carter [1893] A. C. 360 J. P. 4; I R. 218
v. v.

... .......
;

102 L. T. 308

26 T. L. R.

63 L. J. Ch. 100

69 L. T. 153

58

Edwards
438

Edwards Edwards Edwards Edwards Edwards

v.
v.

Edwards [1894] P. 33 63 L. Edwards [1909] A. C. 275 78


;
;

v. v. v.

Fashion (1712) Pre. Cha. 33 Fincham (1842) 4 Moo. P. C. 198

.......... ......
Edwards
(1834) 2 Cr.

& M.

612; 3 L.
62
;

J.

Ex. 204; 4 Tyr.


.
.

J. P.

L. J.

70 L. T. 39 Ch. 504 100 L. T. 84


; .
.

1402 1200 672, 1076


. .

1091

1258

Freeman
.

(1727) 2 P.
. .

Wms.
.

435
.

Eq. Cas. Abr. 249


. . . .

2 Eq. Cas.
.

Abr. 442

.1310
;

Edwards

v.

Godfrey [1899] 2 Q. B. 333

68 L. J. Q. B. 666
;

80 L. T. 672
. .

47

W.

R. 551
v. v.

'452
1

Edwards Edwards
Edwards

^arben

(1788) 2 T. R. 587 Hood-Barrs [190.5] l Ch. 20


;

R. R. 548 74 L. J. Ch. 167


i
;

io6o, 1343 91 L. T. 766 ; 21

T. L. R. 89
v.
;

145

60 Jenkins [1896] i Ch. 308 65 L. J. Ch. 222 73 L. T. 574 W. R. 407 744 J. P. 167; 44 Edwards v. Mallan [1908J t K. B. 1002 331 Edwards v. M. Ry. Co. (1880) 6 Q. B. D. 287 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 2S1 ; 43 L. T. 55, 494 694 ; 29 W. R. 609 45 J. P. 374 Edwards . Moscley (1740) Willes, 192 551 811 Edwards . Omellhallum (1639) March, 64 Edwards v. Picard [1909] 2 K. B. 903 ; 78 L. J. K. B. 1108 loi L. T. 416 1057 25 T. L. R. 815 C. A 866 Edwards v. Slater (1665) Hardr. 410 Edwick V. Hawkes (i88i) 18 Ch. D. 199 50 L. J. Ch. 577 45 L. T. 168 29 383 W. R. 914 751 Edwin V. Thomas (1687) i Vern. 489 1218 Egleton's Case (1599) 2 Roll. Ab. 40 694 Egremont (Earl)?". Saul (1837) 6 A. & E. 924; 6 L. J. K. B. 205 32 W. R. Elderton, Re (1883) 25 Ch. D. 220 ; 53 L. J: Ch. 258 ; 50 L. T. 26 441 j27i 48 J. P. 341
; ; ;
:

....
.

Digitized

by Microsoft

CVlll

TABLE OF CASES
Positive, etc., Life Assur. Co. (1876) 45 L. J.
. .

Eley

V.

Ex. 451
.'
;

i
.

Ex. D. 88
.

34L. T. 190; 24 W. R. 338 C. A. Elias V. Snowdon Quarries (1879) L. R. 4 App.


. . .

.103
;
.

Ca. 454
,

48 L.
.

J. Ch. 811

. . . . 41 L. T. 289 ; 28 W. R. 54 790 Ellen 0. Topp (1851) 6 Ex. 424 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 241 ; 15 Jur. 451 Z17 EUenborouigh, Re [1903] i Ch. 697; 72 L. J. Ch. 218 ; 87 L. T. 714; 51 W. R. 315 1051, iioi EUesmere Brewery Co. v. Cooper [1896] i Q. B. 75 ; 65 L. J. Q. B. 173 ; 73 L. T. 567 ; 44 W. R. 254 56, 297 Elliot''s Trusts, Re (1873) L. R. 15 Eq. 194 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 289 ; zi W. R. 455 1413 Elliot o. Elliot (1677) 2 Cha. Ca. 231 813 EUiotson 0. Feetham (1835) 2 Bing. N'. C. 134 ; 2 Scott, 174 i HoBges, 259 394 Elliott v. Crutchley [1904] i K. B. 565 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 406 ; 90 L. T. 497 52 W. R. 499 ; 20 T. L. R. 286 C. A 132 Elliott V. Dearsley (1880) 16 Ch. D. 322 ; 44 L. T. 198 ; 29 W. R. 494-

..........
. ;

C.

A
0.

Elliott

Elliott (1841) 9

Elliott?).

Gurr (1812) 2

EUiott
30

V.

Elliott V.

(1840) 7 M. & W. 306 Turquand (1881) 7 App. Ca. 79

Kemp

W. R. 477 Ellis, Ex pane [1898] 2 Q. B. 79 W. R. 531 14 T. L. R. 454


;

Ellis o. Ellis
ts.

24 R. 832 Ellis o. Goultcn [1893] : Q. B. 350 62 L. J. Q. B. 232 68 L. T. 144 41 W. R. 411 Ellis V. Loftus Iron Co. (1874) L. R. 10 C. P. 10 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 24 31 L. T. 483 23 W. R. 246 Ellis 1). Rogers-(i885) 29 Ch. D. 66r 186, 187, 53 L. T. 377 Ellis 1). Sheffield Gas Co. (1853)2 E. & B. 767 2 C. L. R. 249 23 L. J. Q. B. . . 42 18 Jur. 146 2 W. R. 19 EUistqn 11. Reacher [1908] 2 Ch. 665 78 L. J. Ch. 87 99 L. T. 701
; ;

Banyard (1911) 28 T. L.R. 122 56 Sol. Jo. 139 Emanuel (1876) i Ex. D. 157 ; 46 L. J. Ex. 25
; ;

.... .421 ."........ ....


M.

&W.

23

11 L. J.

Ex. 3

1397 1269
ii77

Phill. 16

51

L. J. P. C.

45 L. T. 771
;

60,

239

67 L. J. Q. B. 734 C. A 5 Mans. 231

78 L. T. 733

46

954 774

34 L. T. 553

W.

294
60

358 188

354

; .

C.

'

Elme
Elsee Elsee

o. V.
1).

Da

Costa (i79i)

Phill. 173

Elwes

V.

Gatward (i'793) 5 T. R. 143 Smith (1822) i Dow. & Ry.'97 2 Brigg Gas Co. (1886) 33 Ch. D. 562
;

....... ....
Chit.

.805
1338 221

304

489

55 L. J. Ch. 734

55 L. T. 831
cSc

Ely (Dean Ely

35W.R. 192 & Chapter) v. Caldecot (1832) Cj. C. P. 131 (Dean & Chapter) v. Warren (1741) 2
.

424,623,777,921
8 Bing.

439

Atk. 189
.
.

Emanuel v. Symon (1907) 23 T. L. R. 94 Emblen v. Myers (i860) 6 H. & N. 54 30 L.


;

....
.

M.

Sc.

633

598 721 323

J.

Ex. 71

2 L. T. 774
;

W. R.
.

665

Embrey

v.

Owen

Emmens v. Pottle 34 W. R. 116


1).

ij Jur. 633. (1851) 6 Exch. 353 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 212 (1885) 16 Q. B. D. 354 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 51 ; 53 L. T. 808 50 J. P. 228 C. ; 329,

370 327

Emmetto. Lyne (1805) I B. &P. N. R. 255 Smith (1848) 2 De G. & Sm. 722 Emuss
England
21
.
;

Cowley (1873) L. R. 8 Exch. 126 42 L. J. Ex. 80 28 L. T. 67 R. 337 417 Englehart n. Farrant [1897] i Q. B. 240 66 L. J. Q. B. 122 ; 75 L. T. 617 13 T. L. R. 81 ; 45 W. R. 179 327, 334
; ;

......

347, 506

440 1262

W.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
English
o.
;

cix

Metropolitan Water Board [1907] i K. B. 588 76 L. J. K. B. ; 96 L. T. 573 ; 71 J. P. 313 ; 23 T. L. R. 313 5 L. G. R. 384-403, 77' Englishman, The, and The Australia [1894] P. 239; [1895] P. 212; 64 L. J. Adm. 74 1 1 R. 757 ; 72 L. T. 203 43 W. R. 670 ; 7 Asp. M. C. ^5 334, 337 English, Scottish, etc., Investment Co. . Brunton [1892] 2 Q. B. 700 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 136; 67L. T. 406; 41 W. R. 4R. 58C. A. 1048 133; Entickc. Carrington(i765)2Wils. 275 ; 19St.Tr. 1030 .326,340,380,439 Erlanger v. N. Sombrero Phosphate Co. (1878) L. R. 3 App. Ca. I2i8 iq L.T. 269; 26W. R. 65. 39 Errington, Re [1894] i Q. B. 11 10 R. 91. 69 L. T. 766 819 Erskine o. Adeane (1873) L. R. 8 Ch. App. 756 ; 42 L. 29 L. T. J. Ch. 835 234 ; 21 W. R. 802 784 Ertel Bieber v. Rio Tinto [1918] A. C. 260 ; 87 L. 118 L.T. J. K. B. 531 181 ; 23 Com. Cas. 243 ; 34 T. L. R. 208 H. L. (E.) 31A Erving v. Peters (1790) 3 T. R. 685 1369 EsdaUe o. Stephenson (1822) 6 Madd. 366 23 R. R. 248 . 119 Essex o. Essex (1855) 20 Beav. 442 267 Ethel's and Mitchell's and Butler's Contract [1901] i Ch. 945 70 L. J. Ch. 498 84 L. T. 459 ; 17 T. L. R. 392 555 Eustace, Re [1912] i Ch. 561 81 L. J. Ch. 529 106 L. T. 789 56 Sol. Jo. 468 1367 Euston (Earl) o. Seymour (1802) 2 Curt. 338 1243, 1244 Evans, Re ([1887) 34 Ch. D. 597 56 L. T. 768 35 W. R. 586-1C. A. 1416 Evans v. Bicknell (1801) 6 Ves. 174 ; 5 R. R. 245 761 Evans v. Brown (1842) 5 Beav. 114; 1 1 L. J. Ch. 349 ; 6 Jur. 381 1326, 1396 Evans v. Evans (1790) i Hagg. Con. 35 1188 Evans v. Evans [1892] 2 Ch. 173 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 456 67 L. T. 15 ; 40 W. R. 660 465 Evans v. Harlow (1844) 5 Q. B. 624 ; Dav. & M. 507 13 L. J, Q. B. 120
361
; ; ;
.

"

....
;

...
; .
. .

501 Ch. 452 79 L. J. Ch. 383 102 L. T. I 28 630, 631 v. Powis (1847) i Ex. 601 Jur. 1043 151 v. Rival Granite Quarries [1910] 2 K. B. 979 79 L. J. K. B. 970 1009 54 Sol. Jo. 580 ; 26 T. L. R. 509 C. A. Evans v. Walton (1867) L. R. 2 C. P. 615 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 307 ; 7 L. T. 92 15 W. R. 1062 215, 475 Eve, Re [1909] i Ch. 796 78 L. J. Ch. 388 100 L. T. 874 1274 Evelyn, Ex parte (1833) 2 My. & K. 3 133') 1341 Evelyn v. Chichester (1765) 3 Burr. 1717 591 Evelyn v. Evelyn (1754) 3 Atk. 762 Amb. 191 1309 Everest v. Glyn (1815) 6 Taunt. 425 586, 591 Ewer V. Corbet (1723) 2 P. Wms. 148 1406 Ewer V. Moyle (1600) Cro. Eli2. 771 622 Ewing, In the Goods 0/(1881) 6 P. D. 19 50 L. J. P. II 44 L T. 278 ; 45 W. R. 474 1340 J. P. 376 ; 29 1 105 Ewing V. Orr-Ewing (1885) L. R. 10 App. Ca. 453 ; 53 L. T. 826 Ewing V. Wheatlev (18 14) 2 Hagg. Con. 175 1176 Exall V. Partridge' (1799) 8 T. R. 308 ; 3 Esp. 8 4 R. R. 656 103 Exchange Telegraph Co. v. Gregory [1896] i Q. B. 47 65 L. J, Q. B. 262 429 74 L. T. 83 60 J. P. 52C. A."^ 18 Exeter (Bishop) v. Marshall (1867) L. R. 3 H. L. 17 37 L. J. C. P-331

8 Jur. 571
v.

Evans Evans Evans

Levy

[1910]

L.T. 376
Exeter
Carrier's

724

Case

(n. d.),

quoted

in

Yorke

v.

Greenaugh (1703)

Ld,

Raym. 866

964

Digitized

by Microsoft

ex

TABLE OF CASES
I>AG
;

Eykyn'sTnists, i?(i877) 6 Ch. D. H5 37L. T. 261 Eyre, fie (1883) 49 L.T. 259. Eyre o. Dunsford (1801) I East, 318 Eyre v. Shaftesbury (1723) 2 P. Wms. 102 Eyres o. Faulkland (1697) I Salk. 231
. .
. . .

.......
,

.1102
871 541

1218, 1224, 1231, 1232


. . .

665

1221 F. o. F. [1902] I Ch. 688; 71 L. J. Ch. 415 106 Fairclough v. Swan Brewery Co. [1912] A. C. 565 ; 81 L. J. P. C. 207 L. T. 931 28 T. L. R. 450 815,832 Fairfax v. Derby (1708) 2 Vern. 612 738 Fairhurst v. Liverpool Adelphi (1854) 23 L. J. Exch. 163 29 Fairlie v. Fenton (1870) L. R. 5 Exch. 169 39 L. J. Ex. 107 22 L. T. 373 18 W. R. 700 65 Fairman . Ives (1822) 5 B. & Aid. 642 ; i Dow. & Ry. 252 i Chit. 85 518 810 Fairtitle d. Mytton v. Gilbert (1787) 2 T. R. 169 ; i R. R. 455 Falcke v. Scottish Imperial Co. (1886) 34 Ch. D. 248 56 L. J. Ch. 707 ; 56 L. T. 220 317,325 35 W. R. 143C. A. Falvey v. Stanford (1874) L. R. 10 Q. B. 54 44 L. J. Q. B. 7 ; 31 L. T. 677 23 W. R. 162 372 Fane v. Fane [191 3] W. N. 61 57 Sol. Jo. 321 ; 29 T. L. R. 306 C. A. 877 Farhall v. Farhall (1871) L. R. 7 Ch. App. 123 41 L. J. Ch. 146 25 L. T. 1415 865 ; 20 W. R. 157 Farley v. Bonham (1861) 2 J. & H. 177 30 L. J. Ch. 239 ; 3 L. T. 806 ; 1319,1324 7 Jur. (N. S.) 232 ; 9 W. R. 299 Farmer v. Dean (1863) 32 Beav. 627 1 125 Farmour v. Brook (1596) 2 Bulstr. 195 697 Farnham, Re [1904] 2 Ch. 561 73 L. J. Ch. 667 ; 91 L. T. 781 2 L. G. R. 1050 C. A II20, 1130 Farquhar, In -the Goods of (1846) 4 Notes of Cases, 651 1256 Farquharson v. Cave (1846) 2 CoU. 356 1291 15 L. J. Ch. 137 ; 10 Jur. 63. Farquharson o. Floyer (1876) 3 Ch. D. 109 45 L. J. Ch. 750 35 L. T.
; ;
. .

...:..
; ; ; ; ;

1392 355 Farr o. Newman (1792) 4 T. R. 621 1349 Farrant v. Barnes (1862) 11 C. B. N. S. 553 ; 31 L. J. C. P. 137 ; 8 Jur. (N. S.) 868 259, 331 Farrar v. Beswick (1836) i M. & W. 682, 688 ; i Tyr. & G. 1053 ; 5 L. J. Ex. 225 ; I M. & Rob. 527 418 Farrer v. Lacy (1883) 25 Ch. D. 636 53 L. J. Ch. 569 50 L. T. 121 ; 32 R. 196 W. 820 Farrer v. Nelson (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 258 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 385 ; 52 L. T. 786 ; . 360, 724 49 J- P- 725 ; 33 W. R. 800 ., Farrer v. St. Catherine's College (1873) L. R. 16 Eq. 19 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 809 28 L. T. 800 ; 21 W. R. 643 1251 Farrington . Knightley (1719) I P. Wms. 544 1329 Farrow v. Wilson (1869) L. R. 4 C. P. 744 38 L. J. C. P. 326 20 L. T. 810 18W. R. 43 130,214 Faulkner o. Daniel (1843) 3 Hare, 199 10 L. J. Ch. 33 8 Jur. 29 1078 Faulkner B. Lowe (1848) 2 Ex. 595. 95,103 Fauntleroy v. Beebe [191 1] 2 Ch. 257 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 654 104 L. T. 704 5S Sol. Jo. 497-^C- A 1360 Faux, Re [1915] W. N. 135 ; 113 L. T. 81 ; 31 T. L. R. 289 ; 59 Sol. Jo.
. . . . . .
,

'

..... ......
; ; ;
. .

457 Favenc 0. Bennett (1809) II East, 36 Faviell o. Eastern Cos^ Ry. Co. (1848) 2 -Exch. 344;
.
.

....
&
L. 54
.

1287 114
53

6 D.

17
.

L. J. Ex. 223

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Fawcet v. Bowers (1693) i Ed. 287 Fawcet v. Lowther (1751) 2 Ves. Sen. 300 Fawcett v. Cash (1834) 5 B. & Ad. 904;
.

cxi
PAGE

.815

113

i R. & M. 132 4 L. J. (0. S.) Ch. 64 8 L. J. 27 R. R. 260 39 Fay V. Prentice (1845) i C. B. 829 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 298 ; 9 Jur. 877 381, 391 Fear v. Vickers (1911) 27 T. L. R. 558 ; 55 Sol. Jo. 688 C. A. 771 Fechter v. Montgomery (1863) 33 Beav. 22 222 Feistel v. King's College, Cambridge (1847) ' Beav. 491 16 L. J. Ch. 339 II Jur. 506 999 Fell . Biddolph (1875) L. R. 10 C. P. 701 44 L. J. C. P. 402 ; 32 L. T. 864 1289 23 W. R. 913 Fell V. Whittaker (1871) L. R. 7 Q. B. 120 41 L. J. Q. B. 78 25 L. T. 880 ; 20 W. R. 317 533 Fells V. Read (1796) 3 Ves. Jun. 71 930 Fenn v. Harrison (1790) 3 T. R. 757 59 Fennell v. Ridler (1826) 5 B. & C. 406 8 D. & R. 204 4 L. J. (0. S.) K. B. 69 207 29 R. R. 278 Fenton v. Blythe (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 417 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 589 ; 63 L. T. 453 39W. R. 79 951 Fenton v. Thorley [1903] A. C. 443 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 787 ; 89 L. T. 314 52 W. R. 81 456 Ferguson-Davle v. Ferguson-Davie (1890) 15 P. D. 109 59 L. J. P. 70 ; 62 T. 703 1238 L. 116 Fergusson . Fyffe (1841) 8 CI. & F. 121 Fermiers. Maund (1683) I Rep. in Ch. 116 790 11 Jur. Fessard v. Mugnier (1865) 18 C. B. N. S. 286 34 L. J. C. P. 126 Ill (N. S.)283; II L. T, 635 12 M. & W. 279 Festing v. Allen (1842-4) 5 Ha. 573 13 L. J. Ex. 74 658,

Fawcett

v.

Whitehouse (1829)
;

...........
. .

N.

& M.

177;

586, 594, 751, 1354 3 L. J. K. B. 211, 212


;

(O. S.) Ch. 50

...........
; ; ; ; : ;

.....
. .

....... ....... ..........


; ; ;

"

......
; ;

663, 1271

Fewster,

Re {1901]

Ch. 447

70 L.
;

J.

Ch. 254
;

84 L. T. 45

17 T. L. R.
.

205 Ffinch V.
Field
V.

Combe [1894] P. 191 Adams (1840) 12 A. &

1 Field V. Carr (1828) 5 Bing. 13 ; 2 M. & P. 46 ; 6 L. J. (0. S.) C. P. 203 . 14 1341 Fielder 11. Hanger (1832) 3 Hagg. Ecc. 769 . 511 Fielding v. Thomas [1896] A. C. 600 ; 65 L. J. P. C. 103 ; 75 L. T. 216 Filburn v. People's Palace Co. (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 258 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 471 ; 361,453 38 W.R. 706; 55 J. P. 181 C. A . 776 Q- B. 347 ; 17 L. J. Q. B. 89 ; 12 Jur. 202 Filliter v. Phippard (1847) 762 Finch's (Sir Moyle) Case ^1590) 2 Leon. 134 . . . . 691, 849, 850 Finch's (Sir Moyle) Case (1606) 6 Rep. 63 a Finch I-. Brook (1834) i Scott, 70 ; 2 Scott, 511 ; i Bing. (N. C.) 253 ; 2 107 Hodges, 97 ; 4 L. J. C. P. I 1149 Fincho. Winchelsea (Earl) (1715) I P. Wms. 280 Findon 0. Parker (1843) 11 M. & W. 675 ; 12 L. J. Ex. 444 ; 7 Jur. 903.. .496, 498 Fine Art Society v. Union Bank (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 705 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 70 ; . 55 L. T. 536 ; 35 W. R. 114 ; 51 J- P- 69 C- A. Finlay v. Chirney (1888) 57 L. J. Q. B. 247 ; 20 Q. B. D. 494 ; 58 L. T.

4 Jur. 103

...........
; ; ;

6 R. 545 63 L. J. P. 113 70 L. T. 695 E. 649 10 L. J. Q. B. 2 4 P. & D. 504

144 1249
1

84

"

.416

664 Firbank 36;

36
31;

W.

R. 534
92

v.

Humphreys

52 J- P- 324 C. ; (1886) 18 Q. B. D. 54
. . .

111,362
;

56 L. J. Q. B. 57

56 L. T.
61

W.R.

Firebrass

v.

Pennant (1764) 2 Wils. 354

5*5

Digitized

by Microsoft

CXll

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE Re

Firth,

56 Sol. Jo. [1912] i Ch. 806 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 539 ; 106 L. T. 865 . 1108, IIIO 467 ; z8 T. L. R. 378 Firth o. Bowling Iron Co. (1878) 3 C. P. D. 254; 47 L. J.- C. P- 358 ; 38
.

L. T. 568 ; 26 W. R. 558 783 Fischer v. Kamala Naicker (i860) 8 Moo. Ind. App. 187 498 Fish, Re [1893] ^ C^i- 4^3 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 977 ; 69 L. T. 233 ; 2 R, 467- -C. A, 141 Fish o. Ke^y (1864) 17 G. B. N. S, 194 230 Fisher o. Bristow (1779) i Doug. 215 49 Fisher v. Prowse (1862) 2 B. & S. 770 ; 31 L. J. Q. B. 212 ; 8 Jur. (N. S, i2o8;.6L. T. 7,11403 Fisher o. Smith (1879) L. R. 4 App. Ca. i ; 48 L. J. Ex. 4:1 ; 39 L. T. 430 ; 27 W. R. 113 964, 965 Fisher v. Wigg (1700) i P. Wms. 14 590, 666 Fisher s. Young (1614) 2 Bulstr. 268 925 Fitch V. Rawling (1795) 2 H. Bl. 393 ; 3 R. R. 425 . 679. 744, 746 Fitch o. Stuckley (1594) 4 Rep. 23 a 653 Fitch V. Sutton (1804) 5 East, 230 ; i Smith, 415 95 Fitch . ^eber (1848) 6 Ha. 145 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 361 ; 12 Jur. 645 1361 Fitzgerald, Re [1904] i Ch. 573 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 436 ; 90 L. T. 266 jz W. R1051 432 ; 20 T. L. R, 332C. Fitzgerald c. Firbank [1897] 2 Ch. 96 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 529 ; 76 L. T. 584
. .

... ....
.

C. A.

'

403, 672, 719, 721

'Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald (1874) L. R. 3 P. 31 L. T. 270 ; ,22 W. R. 267 Fitzgerald v. North'cote (1865) 4 F. & F. 656
Fitzgerald's Trustees

&

M. 136

43 L. J. P.

&

M.

13

:i9i 1225

v. MeUersh [1892] 1 Ch. 385 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 231 ; 66 L. T. 178; 40W. R. 251 829 Fitzhardinge (Lord) v. Purcell [1908] 2 Ch. 139 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 529 ; 99 L. T. 24T. L. R. 564. . . 680,715,745 154; 7aJ-P-276; Fitzjohn v. Mackinder (1861) 9 C. B. N. S. 505 ; 30 L. J. C. P. 257 ; 7 Jur.
. .

(N. S.) 1283

4 L. T. 149

W.
;

Fitzroy

v.

Cave [1905] 2 K. B. 364

R. 477 74 L. J. K. B. 829

W.

R. 17; 21 T. L. R. 612

Fitzwalter's (Lord) Case (1764) 1 Mod. 105 Fitz Williams o. Kelly (1852) 10 Ha. 266; 22 L. J. Ch.

....
i

93 L. T. 499

491, 493 54

496
701

1016; 17 Jur.
1395
;

249 Flack B. Downing College (1853) 13 C. 229 17 Jur. 697 ; I W. R. 453 Flamank, Re (1889) 40 Ch. D. 461 ; W. R. 502 Flanders v. Clarke (1747) 3 Atk. 509 Flartyc. Odium (1790) 3 T. R. 681 Fleet V. Metropolitan Asylums Board Fleetwood's Case (1608) 8 Rep. 171 a Fleetwood, iJe (1880) 15 Ch. D. 594 Fleetwood v. Curley (1619) Hob. 267
; ;

B. 945

C. L.

R. 692
;

22 L.

J. C.
-iyS

P
665

58 L. J. Ch. 518
i

60 L. T.

37
1183 1335

Ves. Sen. 9.

(1886) 2 T. L. R. 361

49 L. J. Ch. 514 ; 29 W. R. 45 Cro. Jac. 557 ; Palm. 69 2 RoUe,


; ; .

.....
; ;

999 400
.

863 1259

148

5S
Prentis [1892] 2 Ch. 428
.
;

61 L. J. Ch. 705 67 L. T. 107 57 G. M. & G. 976 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 886 (1853) 3 1393 v. Dollar (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 388 L. J. Q. B. 548 61 L. T. 230 58 II, 520 37 W. R. 684 Fleming I'. Hislop (1886) L. R. 11 App. Cas. 686H. L. (Sc.) 394 Fleming v. Newton (1848) 1 H. L. C. 363 515 Fletcher, Re (1888) 38 Ch. D. 373 57 L. J. Ch. 1032 59 L. T. 313 ; 36 W. R. 841 1285

Flegg

V.

Fleming Fleming

Buchanan

De

...

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Fletchers. Ashburner (1779)
i

cxiii

PAGE
Bro. C. C. 497
;

WWte & Tud.

L. C. (8th ed.)

347
Fletcher Fletcher Fletcher
v.

1357

J. P. Ill
v. v.

678; 7W.JI. 187 438 v. Rylands (1868) L. R. 3 H. L. C. 330 37 L. J. Ex. 161 ; L. R. i Exch. 280 358j 404 Flight V. Bolland (1828) 4 Russ. 298 28 R. R. lot 128 Flight V. Leman (1843) 4 Q- B. 883 ; Dav. & M. 67 ; 12 L. J. Q. B. 353 ; 7 Jur. 557 496 Fhnt V. Pike (1825) 4 B. & C. 473 6 Dow. & Ry. 528 ; 3 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 272 512 Florence v. Jenings (1857) 2 C. B. N. S. 454 26 L. J. C. P. 274 ; 3 Jur. (N. S.)772 1,8 Flory V. Denny (1852) 7 Exch. 581 21 L. J. Ex. 223 940, 950 Flower and Metropolitan Board of Works, Re (1884) 27 Ch. D. 592; 53 L. J. Ch. 955 51 L. T. 257 32 W. R. loii 190, 1132 Flower o. Pritchard (1909) 53 Sol. Jo. 178 818 Fludyer, Re [1898] 2 Ch. 562 67 L. J. Ch. 620 ; 79 L. T. 298 ; 47 W. R. 5 1378, 1380 Flureau 0. Thornhill (1776) 2 Wm. Bl. 1078 121 Foakes s. Beer (1884) 9 App. Cas. 605 151,152 Foden v. Foden [1894] P. 307 ; 63 L. J. P. 163 ; 71 L. T. 279 ; 42 W. R. . 1200 689 ; 6 R. 633 C. A. Foley's Charity v. Dudley Corporation [1910] i K. B. 317 ; 79 L. J. K. B. 140 ; 102 L. T. I . 738 74 J. P. 41 i 8 L. G. R. 320 C. A. Foley V. Burnell (1783) i Bro. C. C. 274 ; 4 Bro. P. C. 319 928, 1149 Foley V. Hill (1848) 2 H. L. C. 28 202 Foord o. Morley (1859) I Fost. & F. 496. 207 Foordo. Noll(i842)2D. (N. S.) 617; 12 L. J. C. P. 2 106 Forbes v. Samuel [1913] 3 K. B. 706 ; 82 L. J. K. B. 1135 109 L. T. 599 ; . 29 T. L. R. 544 990 Force v. Warren (1864) 15 C. B. N. S. 806 527 Ford, Re [1902] 2 Ch. 605 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 778 ; 87 L. T. 113 ; 51 W. R. 20 18 T. L. R. 809C. A 1311,1336 Ford V. Batley (1853) 17 Beav. 303 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 225 . 995 Ford V. De Pontes (1861) 30 Beav. 572 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 185 5 L. T. 515 ; 8 10 W. R. 69 Jur. (N. S.) 323 1251 Ford o. Stier [1896] P. I ; 73 L. T. 632 1175 Fords. Tynte (1864) 2De G. J. cfe S. 127 792 Fordham c. Wallis (1853) 10 Ha. 217; 22 L. J. Ch. 548; 17 Jur. 228; i W. R. 118 1385 Fores ti. Wilson (1791) Peakej^7 465, 468, 474 Forget V. Ostigny [1895] A. C. 318 ; 64 L. J. P. C. 62 72 L. T. 399 ; 43 W. R. 590 309, 313 Forshaw o. Higginson (1855) 20 Beav. 485 1109 Forster o. Baker [1910] 2 K. B. 636 ; 79 L. J. K. B. 664 102 L. T. 522 ; 26 T. L. R. 421 C. A. 818, 1047, i93 Forster o. Hale (1798) 3 Yes. 696 ; (1800) 5 Ves. 308 4 R. R. 128. .99, 267, iioo Forster 0. Lawson (1826) 3 Bing. 452 ; 11 Moore, 360 ; 4 L. J. (O. S.) C. P. 148 524 Forster v. Patterson (i88i) 17 Ch. D. 132 50 L. J. Ch. 603 ; 44 L. T. 465 ; . 29 W. R. 463 77, 847
Fletcher
; ;

Birkenhead Corp. [1907] i K. B. 205 ; 76 L. J. K. B. 218 71 ; 96 L. T. 287 ; 23 T. L. R. 195 ; 5 L. G. R. 293 C. A. Fletcher (1844) 4 Hare, 67 14 L. J. Ch. 66 8 Jur. 1040 Fletcher (1859) i E. & E. 420 ; 28 L. J. Q. B. 134 ; 5 Jur. (N. S.)
; . : ; .

345 97

....
.
.

...'...
. . . .

...... ......

. . . .

...... ....
;

...
;

......
; ; ; .

C.I..

Digitized

by Microsoft

cxiv

TABLE OF CASES

605 Fort V. Ward (1598) Moore, 667 * Forth 0. Chapman (1720) i P. Wms. 663 1273 Forth V. Simpson (1849) 13 Q. B. 680 ; 18 L. J. Q. B. 263 964 13 Jur. 1024 . Fossett V. Breer (1673) 3 Keb. 59 2 Lev. 63 474, 475 Foster, In the Goods 0/(1871) L. R. 2 P. & M. 304 ; 41 L. J. P. 18 25 L. T. 1332 763 20 W. R. 302 Foster V. Sates (1843) 12 M. & W. 226 13 L. J. Ex. 88 ; 7 Jur. 1093 I D. & L. 400 1347, 1348 Foster v. Charles (1830) 7 Bing. 105 540 Foster o. Dawber (1851) 6 Ex. 839 20 L. J. Ex. 385 75, 144, 145 Foster o. Foster (1700) 2 Vern. 386 739 Foster . Foster (1875) i Ch. D. 588 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 301 1360 24 W. R. 185 20 L. T. Foster o. Mackinnon {1869) L. R. 4 C. P. 704 38 L. J. C. P. 310 887; 17W. R. 1105 34,37 Foster v. Mentor Life Assurance Co. (1854) 3 El. & BL 48 ; 2 C. L. R. 1404 loi 18 Jur. 827 '. 23 L. J. Q. B. 145 Foster o. Pearson (1834) i C. M. & R. 849 5 Tyr. 255 4 L. J. Ex. 120 230 Foster o. Stewart (1814) 3 M. & S. 191 15 R. R. 459 217,476 Foster v. Warblington Urban Council [1906J i K. B. 648 ; 75 L. J. K. B. 514 ; 70 J. P. 233 54 W. R. 575 94 L. T. 876 22 T. L. R. 421 ; 4 L. G. R.
;

......
....
; ; . . ;

PAGE

....... .......
; . ; ; ; ;
.

394 v. Wright (1878) 4 C. P. D. 438 49 L. J. C. P. 97 44 J. P. 7- -72, 77% 779 Fotherby v. Metro. Ry. Co. (1866) L. R. 2 C. P. 194 36 L. J. C. P. 88 12 Jur. (N. S.) 1005; 15 L. T. 243; 15 W. R. 112 529 Fothergill v. Phillips (1871) 52 L. J. Ch. 833 24 Ch. D. 439 ; 49 L. T. 5 ;
Foster
; ; ; ; ; ;

735 C. A

'

126 32 W. R. 6 C. A i D. (N. S.) 86 ; 10 L. Fouldes V. WiUoughby (1841) 8 M. & W. 540 J. Ex. 407. 417 364 S Jur. 534 Foulger o. Newcomb (1867) L. R. 2 Ex. 327 ; 36 L. J. Ex. 169 ; 16 L. T. 595 ; 15 W. R. 1181 504 Foveaux, Re [1895] 2 Ch. 501 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 856 73 L. T. 202 43 W. R. 661 ; 13 R. 730 916 Fowkes V. Pascoe (1875) L. R. 10 Ch. App. 343 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 367 32 L. T. 813,1103 545 23 W. R. 538 Fowler V. Hollins (1872) L. R. 7 Q. B. 629 ; 44 L. J. Q. B. 169 ; 33 L. T. 73 417 Fowler V. Sanders (1617) Cro. Jac. 446 395 Fox's (Edward) Case (i 610) 8 Rep. 93 b, 94 a 609,616 Fox 0. Buckley (1876) 3 Ch. D. 508 25 W. R. 170 C. A. U43 Fox V. Chester (Bishop) (1829) 6 Bing. i ; i Dow. & CI. 416 ; 3 Bligh (N. S.) 123 34 R. R. 23 727 Fox c. Fisher (1819) 3 B. & Aid. 135 22 R. R. 324 1350 Fox V. Gaunt (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 798 i L. J. K. B. 198 437, 438 Fox 1). Mackreth (1788) 2 Cox, 321 ; 2 Bro. C. C. 400 2 R. R. 5; 39, 1125
; ; ; ; ;

.......
. . . .
.

....
. . . .
. . .

Fox

V.

Whitchcocke (1614) 2 Bulstr. 290


.

Foxall 0. Venables (1590) Cro.'Eliz. 180 746 Foxley's Case (1601) 5 Rep. 109 a ; Moore, 572 ; Cro. Eliz. 69J . 698, 849 Foxwist . Tremain (1669) 1 Mod. 47 . . . . .1331 Fkmpton v. Stephens (1882) 21 Ch. D. 164 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 562 ; 46 L. T. 617 ; . . . . . . 30 W. R. 726 1323 France 0. Clark (1883) 22 Ch. D. 830 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 362 ; 48 L. T. 185 ; 31 W. R. 374 ; affirmed (1884) 26 Ch. D. 257 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 585 ; 50 L. T. i; 32 W. R. 466^C. A. . . 956,1005 Frances v. Frances (1854) 3 De G. M. & G. 108 . 1147 Francis v. Cockerell (1870) L. R. 5 Q. B. 501 ; 10 B. & S. 850 ; 39 L. J. Q. B. 291 ; 23 L. T. 466 ; j8 W, R. 1205 . . . . 332, 355
. . . . . . . . . . . .
.

...... ......
;

795

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Hayward (1882) 22 Ch. D. 177 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 291 : 48 L. T. 207 ^\' ^.'\ \ 47 J. P. 517; 31 W.R. 488 Frankenbnrg v. Great Horseless, &c., Co. [1900] i Q. B. 504 ; 6g L. J. Q. B. 147 ; 81 L. T. 684 ; 7 Manson, 349 C. A
Franas
v.

cxv
PAGE

..".'.
;

713

29 Cooper (1799) 4 Vcs. 763 1382 Fraser, Re [1904] i Ch. 726 ; 73 L. 52 W. R. 516 J. Ch. 481 ; 91 L. T. 48 20T. L. R. 414C. A 1267,1396 Fraser v. Balfour (1917) 34 T. L. R. 134; (19x8) 87 L. J. K. B. ni6; 62 Sol. Jo. 680 34 T. L. R. 502 H. L. (E.) 340, 342 Fraser o. Hamilton (1917) 33 T. L. R. 431 C. A 342 Fraser v. Mason (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 574 52 L. J. Q. B. 643 49 L. T. 761 32 W. R. 421 591 Fraser v. Pendlebuty (1861) 31 L. J. C. P. i ; 10 W. R. 104 319, 810 Frazeri;. Hatton (1857) 2 C. B. N. S. 512 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 226 ; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 694 ; 5 W. R. 632 95 Frearson v. Low (1878) 9 Ch. D. 48 27 W. R. 183 1017

Franklin v. Hosier (1821) 4 B. & Aid. 341 ; 23 R. R. 305 Franklin c. Neate (1844) 13 M. & W. 481 14 L. J. Ex. 59 Franks, a;pae(i83i) 7 Bing. 762; I M. & S. C. I
.

337

.
.

Franks

.....957
.

964

o.

....
;

Frederick (1721) i P. Wms. 710 1218 (i 646) Sid. 458 642,643 v. Pope (1869) L. R. 9 Eq. 206 21 L. T. 816 18 39 L. J. Ch. 148 W. R. 399 ; (1870) L. R. 5 Ch. App." 538 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 689 ; 21 L. T. 816; 18 W. R. 906 C. A 1060,1061,1063 Freeman v. Read (1863) 4 B. & S. 174 32 L. J. M. C. 226 10 Jur. (N. S.) 1 1 W. R. 802 149 8 L. T. 458 70 Freeth v. Burr (1874) 43 L. J. C. P. 91 ; L. R. 9 C. P. 208 ; 29 L. T. 773 22 W. R. 370 146, 147, 148 Freman, Be (1898) i Ch. 28 67 L. J. Ch. 14 77 L. T. 460 1119, 1130 Freme, Re [1894] l Ch. i 63 L. J. Ch. 139 ; 69 L. T. 613 42 W. R. 119 ; 7 R. I C. A 883 French i: French (1841) 2 Man. & G. 644 3 Scott (N. R.) 121 10 I-. J. C. P. Frederick
b.

Freeman Freeman

?).

Barnes

...... ......
; ; ; ; . .

220 ; 5 Jur. 41b French v. Macale (1842) 2 Dr.


'

291

&

War. 269
i

Con.

&
;
.

L. 559

Ir.

Eq. R.
139
;

573 French-Brewster's Settlements, Re [1904] L. T. 378 i S2 W. R. 377


. .

Ch. 713
-.

73 L. J. Ch. 405
."
.

90
.

553

Freshfield v.

Frisby,

Re

(1842) 11 L. J. (N. S.) Exch. 193 ; 9 M. & W. 404 (1889) 43 Ch. D. 106 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 94 ; 61 L. T. 632 ; 38

Reed

96
76 1417
961

W.
.

R.

65

Ch. 342 71 L. J. Ch. 199 ; 86 L. T. 212 . 8 Jur. (N. S.) Frith . Forbes (i86z) 4 De G. F. & J. 409 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 10 . 1113 ; II W. R. 14 Fritz . Hobson (1880) 14 Ch. D. 542 49 L. J. Ch. 735 42 L. T. 677 ; 28 W. R. 722 62 L. T. 25 ; 38 W. R. Frost, Re (1889) 43 Ch. D. 2465 59 L. J. Ch. 118
Frith,

Re

[1902]

-773

264
Frost
.

662, 1075

Knight (1872) 41
R. 471
.

L. J.

Ex. 78

L. R. 7 Ex. iii

26 L. T. 77
.

20
.

W.

Frost V. London Joint Stock Bank (1906) 22 T. L. R. 760 C. A. Fry, Re [1912] 2 Ch. 86; 81 L. J. Ch. 640; 106 L. T. 999; 56 Sol. Jo. 518 Fry V. Fry (1859) 27 Beav. 144 28 L. J. Ch. 593 5 Jur. (N. S.) 1047 Fry V. Lane (1889) 40 Ch. D. 312 : 58 L. J. Ch. 113 60 L. T. 12 37 W. R.

120,122,124,147
508

..

1397 1119
37

13s

7.2

Digitized

by Microsoft

cxvi

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
Smellie [1912] 3 K. g. 282
. ;

Fry

V.

81 L. J. K. B. 1003

106 L. T.

4041006
;

C. A.

'

Fryman, Re (1888) 38 Ch. D. 468

57 L. J. Ch. 862

58 L. T. 872

36

1388 R. 631 L. R. 4 C. P. v. Montis (1868) L. R. 3 C. P. 268 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 95 416,420 93; I9,L. T. 364; i7W;-R.2o8 12 Jur. (N. S.) Fuller w. Chamier (1866) L. R. 2 Eq. 682 35 L. J. Ch. 772 660 642; 14W. R. 913 1005 Fuller o. Glyn Mills [1914] 2 K. B. 168 ; 30 T. L. R. 162 58 Sol. Jo. 235 1240 Fuller V. Hooper (1750) 2 Ves. Sen. 242 Fuller V. Redman (No. 2) (1859) 26 Beav. 614 1383 Fulwood's Case (1591) 4 Rep. 64 b 976 1176 Fulwood's (Lady) Case (1637) Cro. Car. 488 C. A. Furniss o. Cambridge Daily News, Ltd. (1907) 23 T. L. R. 705 513 Furnival 0. Crew (1744) 3 Atk. 83 617 1220 Fynn, Re (1848) 2 De G. & S. 457 ; 13 Jur. 483
.

W.

Fuentes

......
,

.....
.

1 0. w. G. (1908) 25 T. L. R. 328 C. A 177 Gabriel v. Churchill, etc. [1914] 3 K. B. 1272 ; 84 L. J. K. B. 233 ; 19 Com. L. T. 933 ; 58 SoJ. Jo. 740 ; 30 T. L. R. 658 C. A. 60, 236 ;Cas. 411 ; Gabriel v. Dresser (1^55) 15 C. B. 622 ; 3 C. L. R. 415 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 81 ; 3

W.
Gadd
V.

R. 236

151

Houghton
R. 975
o.

(1876)

Ex. D. 357
;

46 L.

J.

Ex. 71
;

35 L. T. 222
.

24
.
;

W. W.
Gage
o.

62
421

Gadsden

Barrow (1854) 9 Exch. 514


.

2 C. L. R. 1063
. . .

23 L. J. Ex. 134
. . .

R. 241
. .

Smith (1613) Godb. 209 Galbraith v. Poynton [1905] 2 K. B. 258 74 L. J. K. B. 649 Gale V. Gale (1877) 6 Ch. D. 144 46 L. J. Ch. 809 36 L. T. 690 . 772 Gallwey v. Marshall (1853) 9 Exch. 294 2 C. L. R. 399 23 L.
; ; ; .
. . ;

790,791
591, 592

25

W.

R.
104

W.
o.

R. 106

Galton

Hancock

Game, Re

. 96 L. T. 145 [1907] i ; Gardiner, In the Goods 0/(1884) 9 P- D. 66 ; 53 L. J. P. 31 ; 48 J. P. 456'; 32 W. R. 756 1332 Gardiner v. Courthope (i886) 12 P. D. 14 56 L. J. P. 55 ; 57 L. T. 280 50 J. P. 791 ; 35 W. R. 352 1251 Gardner o. Gardner (1877) L. R. 2 App. Cas. 723 . 1205,1207 Gardner 0. Hodgson's Brewery [1903] A. C. 229 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 558 ; 88 L. T. 698; 52 W. R. 17; 19T. L. R. 458 849 Gardner v. L. C. & D. Ry. (1866) L. R. 2 Ch. App. 201 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 323 ; 15 L. T. 552; 15 W. R. 324 Garfitt V. Allen (1888) 37 Ch. D. 48 57 L. J. Ch. 420 ; 57 L. T. 848 ; 36
.

(1743) 2 Atk. 427 Ch. 276 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 168

.......
;

J.

Ex. 78

524 1399 1075, 1078

...

...
, . .

.ion

820 384 Garland, i'K^ane (1804) 10 Ves. no; i Smith, 220 7 R. R. 352. 1405, 1416, 1417 Garland v. Mead (1871) L. R. 6 Q. B. 441 40 L. J. Q. B. 179 24 L. T. 421 19W. R. nje 587 Garner i>. Hannyngton (1836) 22 Beav. 627 574 Garrard, Re [1907] i Ch. 382 ; 76 L. Ch. 240; 76 L. T. 357; 23 T. L. R. J. 256 1099 Garrard v. Garrard (1871) 2 P. & M. 238 25 L. T. 162 19 W. R. 569 1339 Garrardzi. Tuck (1849) 8 C. B. 231 18 L. J. C. P. 338 13 Jur. 871. 643 Garret . Taylor (1620) Cro. Jac. 567 2 RoUe, 162 474, 48
.
.

W. R. 413 Gargrave v. Smith (1691)


.

>

Salk. 221

....... ......
; ; ; ; ; ;
.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Garrick

CXVll

156 35 T. L. R. 129 108 Garter o. Dee (1671) i Freem. K. B. 13 1351 Garth v. Cotton (1750) i Ves. Sen. 545 66g Garton v. Bristol & Exeter Ry. Co. (1861) i.B. & S. 112; 30 L. Q. B J. 273 ; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 1234 9 W. R. 734 249 Gaskell's and Walters' Contract [lopei 2 Ch. i 7c L. T. Ch. ;o3 : 04. L. T, 658 22 T. L. R. 454-C. A. 918 Gasquoine, Re [1894] l Ch. 470 ; 63 L. 70 L. T. 196 7 R. 449 1422 J. Ch. 377 Gatayes v. Flather (1865) 34 Beav. 387 186 Gatenbyn. Morgan (1876) I Q. B. D. 685 556 Gateward's Case (1607) 6 Rep. 59 b 680, 745 Gathercole . Miall (1846) 15 M. & W. 319 10 Jur. 337 15 L. J. Ex. 179 526 Gattward v. Knee [1902] P. 99 71 L. J. P. 34 86 L. T. 119 18 T. L. R.
; . ; ; . .

Taylor (i860) 29 Beav. 79 30 L. J. Ch. 211 ; 7 Tur. (N. S.) 116 9W. R. 181 Garside, Re (1918) 53 L. W. N. 378 63 Sol. To J. 428 ; 146 L. T. Jo. no ''
v.
;

3L. T. 460;

I09I

... ...
: . . ; ;
. .

63

Gaussen Gautret
17;

v.

Morton (1830) 10 B. &


Egerton
638

v.

Gay

B.

ijW.R. Kay (1599)

. 731 ; 8 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 313. (1867) L. R. 2 C. P. 371 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 191 ; 16 L. T.

C.

1243 240

Gayfordo, Geale, In the Goods of (1864)


1027

Cro. Eliz. 661 Moffatt (1868) L. R. 4Ch.


3

App. 133
Tr. 431

332 585 854


33 L. J. P. 125
;

Sw.

&

Geanes Gearns
86

v.

v.
;

Portman (1594) Cro. Ehz. 314 Baker (1875) L. R. 10 Ch. App. 355
i

......
;
;

12

W. R.
1258 647

44 L.
;

J.

Ch. 334
;

Geary

v.

23 W. R. 543 Bearecroft (1667)

Sid.

346

2 Keb. 148

Lev. 202

33 L. T. 722, 723 Cart. 57 643, 647,


;

654, 762 York. Ry. Co. (i860) 6 H. & N. 2n 30 L. J. Ex. 11 ; 6 Jur. (N. S.) 1118; 3 L. T. 328; 9W. R. 103 . 122 Geere v. Burkensham (1682) 3 Lev. 85 . 700 Geipel v. Smith (1872) 41 L. J. Q. B. 153 L. R. 7 Q. B. 404 ; 26 L. T. 361 20 W. R. 332 I Asp. M. C. 268 132 General Accident Assurance Corporation v. Noel [1902] i K. B. 377 ; 71 L. J. K. B. 236 86 L. T. 555 50 W. R. 381 139 General Auction Co. 0. Smith [1891] 3 Ch. 432 60 L. J. Ch. 723 65 L. T. 188 40 W. R. 106 1008 General Finance Co. u. Liberator Society (1878) 10 Ch. D. 15 39 L. T. 600 27W. R. 210 388,811 General Provident Co., iie (1869) 38 L. J. Ch. 320; 17 W. R. 514 . 1008 Genner . Sparks (1704) 6 Mod. 173; Salk. 79. . 432 George, Re (1877) 5 Ch. D. 837 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 118 26 W. R. 37 L. T. 204 65C- A 1135 . George v. Bank of England (18 19) 7 Price, 651 . 1103 George v. Chambers (1843) 11 M. & W. 149 2 D. (N. S.) 783 12 L. J. M. C. 413 94 7 Jur. 836 18 George v. Skivington (1869) L. R. 5 Ex. i 39 L. J. Ex. 8 21 L. T. 495 W. R. 118 331 . Gerard f. Dickenson (1590) 4 Co. Rep. 18 a 406 i C. L. R. 868 ; 22 L. Gerhard v. Bates (1855) 2 E. & B. 488 J. Q. B. 364 536 17 Jur. 1097; I W. R. 383 Gerrard v. Butler (1855) 20 Beav. 541 876 61 L. J. Q. B. 487 ; 67 L. T. 204 . Gerrard v. Clowes [1892] 2 Q. B. ii 988 6g& Gery v. Redman (1875) I Q. B. D. 161 45 L. J. Q. B. 267 24 W. R. 270

Gee

V.

Lane.

&

......
; . .
. ;

'

Digitized

by Microsoft

cxviii

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE

"

Gestetner,

156 C. A 1029 Gibbon, Re [1909] i Ch. 367 100 L. T. 231 78 L. J. Ch. 264 53 Sol. Jo. ^77 553 Gibbons 0. Pepper (1694) 4 Mod. 405 407 Gibbs 0. Cruikshank (1873) L. R. 8 C. P. 454 28 L. T. 104 42 L. J. C. P. 21 W. R. 734 123, 413 273 Gibbs . Fremont (1853) 9 Exch. 25; 22 L. J. Ex. 302; 17 Jur. 820; i W, R. 482 125 Giblan v. National Labourers' Union [1903] 2 K. B. 600 72 L. J. K. B. 907 89 L. T. 386 479,481,484 Gibson o. Bott (1802) 7 Ves. 89 6 R. R. 87 1270 Gibson v. Seagrim (1855) 20 Beav. 741 836 Gibson -0. Winter (1838) 5 B. & Ad. 102 2 N. & M. (K. B.) 737 . 65 Gidley o. Palmerston (Lord) (1822) 2 B. & B. 275 7 Moore, 91 ; 21 R. R. 668 998 Gifford, a;^ae (1802) 6 Ves. 805 6 R. R. 53 297 Gilbert, Re [1898] i Q. B. 282 ; 67 L. J. Q. B. 229 ; 77 L. T. 775 46 W. R. 1380 351; 14T. L. R. 125; 4 Manson, 337 Gilbert v. Schwenk (1845) '4 M- ^ W. 488 14 L. J. Ex. 31759 Jur. 693 441, 475, 1226 Gilbert w. Witty (162 1 ) Cro. Jac. 655 , 655 Gilbertson v. Richardson (1848) 5 C. B. 502 12 Jur. 292 17 L. J. C, P. ii2 413 Gilbey v. Rush [1906] i Ch. 11 75 L. J. Ch. 32 93 L. T. 616 ; 54 W. R. . 883, 888 71 ; 22 T. L. R. 23 Gilding v. Eyre (1861) 10 C. B. N. S. 592 31 L. J. C. P. 174 ; 5 L. T. 136 ; 494 9 W. R. 946 Giles, Re (1886) 55 L. J. Ch. 695 .1113 55 L. T. 51 34 W, R. 712 Giles, Re [1896] i Ch. 956 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 419 74 L. T. 21 ; 44 W. R. 283 1381 Giles V. Grover (1832) 6 Bligh (N. S.) 277 2 M. & Sc. 197 9 Bing. 128 I CI. & F. 72 971 68 J. P. 10 Giles o. L. C. C. (1904) 2 L. G. R. 306 446 Giles V. Walker (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 656 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 416 62 L. T. 933 38 W. R. 782 406, 775, 784 54 J. P. 599 Gill, /KAGooii.'! of (1873) L. R. 3 P. &M. 113 1335 Gill o. Gill [1909] P. 157 100 L. T. 861 78 L. J. P. 60 25 T. L. R. 400 .' 1248 S3 Sol. Jo. 359 Gillard v. Cheshire Lines Committee (1884) 32 W. R. 943 612 Gillespie v. Alexander (1826) 3 Russ. 130 1367 Gillett V. Fairbank (1887) 3 T. L. R. 6i8 365 Gillett . Mawman (1808) I Taunt. 137 Gillingham v. Beddow [1900] 2 Ch. 242 69 L. J. Ch. 527 j 82 L. T. ,791 ; 64 J. P. 617 289, 1031 Gillo, iJe (1891) 8 Morr. 157 1064 Gingell 0. Stepney Borough Council [1908] i K. B. 115 77 L. J. K. B. 347 71 J. P. 486 ; 23 T< L. R. 759 24 T. L. R. 148 ; 6 97 L. T. 599 L. G. R. 180 C. A 693 Ginger, 'fie [1897] 2 Q. B. 461 66 L. J. Q. B. 777 76 L. T. 808 46 W. R. 144 4 Mans. 149 952 Girdlestone v. Brighton Aquarium (1878) 3 Ex. D. 137 ogo Gisbourn v. Hurst (1710) i Salk. 249 249 Gist, Re [1904] I Ch. 398 73 L. J. Ch. 251 90 L. T. 35 1360 52 W. R. 422. Gist, Re [1906] I Ch. 58 75 L. J. Ch. 19 ; 94 L. T. 89 ; 54 W. R. 164 22 T, L. R. 35 affirmed 2 Ch. 280 : 75 L. ]'. Ch. 657 ; 95 L. T. 41 ; 22 T. L. R.fi37 ,3,0
;
.

Re

[1908]

Ch. 513

77 L.

J.

Ch. 298

98 L. T. 121

25 R. P. C.

.......
; ; ; ; ; .

.......
; ; .
. .

'

'

.... ......
.

.132

.......
.
.

...
; . ;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Gjer6,ile[i899]2Ch. 54; 68 L.
J.

cxix
PAGE

Ch. 442 ; 80L.T. 689; 47W. R. 535 752, 11 19 Gladdon v. Stoneman (1808) i Madd. 143 n 1332 Gladman . Plumer (1845) '5 L. J. Q. B. 79 ; 10 Jur. 109 652 Gladstone v. Birley (1817) 2 Mer. 404 g6i Glaholm v. Hayes (1841) 2 Scott (N. R.) 471 2 Man. & G. 257 ; 10 L. J. C. P. 98 148 Glamorgan Coal Co. v. S. W. Miners [1903] 2 K. B. 545 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 893 ; 89 L. T. 393 ; [1905] A. C. 239 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 525 ; 92 L. T. 710 53 W. R. 593 ; 21 T. L. R. 441 479 Glasgow Ry. v. Boyd and Forrest [1915] A. C. 526; 84 L. J. P. C. 157

...

H. L. (Sc.) 38 Glassington, Re [1306] 2 Ch. 305 ; 75 L. . . 1361 J. Ch. 670 ; 95 L. T. 100 Gledsbane v. Hewitt (1831) 1 Cr. & J. 555 ; 9 L. 422, 423 J. Ex. (O. S.) 145 . Glegg V. Bromley [1912] 3 K. B. 474 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 1081 ; 106 L. T. 825
C. A. . . . . Gloag's and Miller's Contract, Re (1883) 23 Ch. D. 320 48L. T. 629; 31 W. R. 6oi
. . . .

Glovers. Coleman (1874) L. R. 10 C. P. 108 ; 23 W. R. 163 853 Glover v. L. & S. W. Ry. Co. (1867) L. R. 3 Q. B. 25 37 L. J. Q. B. 57 17 L. T. 139 327 Glubb, Re [1900] i Ch. 354 69 L. J. Ch. 278 ; 82 L. T. 412 39 Glyn V. Howell [1909] i Ch. 666 78 L. J. Ch. 391 loo L. T. 324 Sol. 53 Jo. 269 766 Godard o. Gray (1870) L. R. 6 Q. B. 139 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 62 ; 24 L. T. 89 ; 19 W. R. 348 323 Godbolt's Case (1577) 4 Leon. 33 742 Goddard's Case (1584) 2 Rep. 5 a 614 Goddard v. Jeffreys (1881) 51 L. J. Ch. 57; 45 L. T. 674; 30 W. R. 269. 38 Godefroy o. Jay (1831) 7 Bing. 413 . 5 M. & P. 284 Godsall V. Boldero (1807) 9 East, 72 308, 474 Godts V. Rose (1855) 17 C. B. 229 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 61 ; i Jur. (N. S.) 1173 W. R. 129 4 922 Goff V. Great Northern Railway Co. (1861) 3 E. & E. 672 7 Jur. (N. S.) 286 ; 3 L- T. 580 352 Goffin V. Donnelly (1881) 6 Q. B. D. 307 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 303 44 L. T. 141 29 W. R. 440 ; 45 J. P. 439 512 Goldfrei, etc. v. Sinclair [1918] i K. B. 180 118 L. T. 87 L. J. K. B. 261 I47;.34T. L. R. 74-C. A Goldschmidt o. Lyon (1812) 4 Taunt. 534; 13 R. R. 670 239 Goldschmidt v. Oberrheinische Metallwerke [1906] i K. B. 373 75 L. J. K. B. 300 ; 94 L. T. 303 54 W. R. 255 ; 22 T. L. R. 285C. A. 1057 Goldsmid v. G. E. Ry. (1883) 25 Ch. D. 511 53 L. J. Ch. 371 ; 49 L. T. 717 32 W. R. 341 ; (1884) L. R. 9 App. Cas. 927 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 162 ; 52 L. T. 270; 49 J- P- 26; 33 W. R. 8i 684,695 Goman v. Salisbury (1684) i Vern. 240 . Gompertz v. Kensit (1872) L. R. 13 Eq. 369 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 382 26 L. T. 95 ; 20 W. R. 313 1170 Gooch V. Gooch [1893] P. 99 ; 62 L. J. P. 73 ; 68 L. T. 462 41 W. R. 655 I R. 516 1194 Goodall's Settlement, Re [1909] i Ch. 440 882 78 L. J. Ch. 241 ; 100 L. T. 233 Goodall V. Skerratt (18 JS) 3 Drew. 216 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 323 ; i Jur. (N. S.) 57 ; zEq. R. 295; 2W. R. 152 77 Gooddayo. Michell (1595) Cro. Eliz. 441 747 . 1201 Goodden v. Goodden [1892] P. 1 65 L. T. 542 ; 40 W. R. 49 . .
; ; ;
.

. 105 1, 1059, 1064 52 L. J. Ch. 654 187 44 L. J. C. P. 66 ; 31 L. T. 684 ; .

.121
;

.337
.
.

..........
. . . . . ; ; . ; ;

.145
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

cxx

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
;
.

Goode . Burton (1847) i Excb. 189 16 L. J. Ex. 309; li Jur. 851 Goodman's Trusts, Re (1881) 17 Ch. X). 266 50 L. J. Ch. 425 44
; ;

840

L. T.

Goodman

i2o, 1298, 1306 527; 29 W. R. 586 C. A v. Boycott (1861) 2 B. & S. i 31 L. J. Q. B. 69 ; 8 Jur. (N. S.) . 417)425 763; 6L. T. 25 Goodman I!. Chase (1818) I B. & Aid. 297; 19 R. R. 322 290 Goodman v. -Saltash (Mayor) (1882) L. R. 7 App. Cas. 633 680, 704 Goodright 0. Meade (1765) 3 Burr. 1704 548 Goodright o. Richardson (1789) 3 T. R. 462 615,620 Goodright v. Vivian (1807) 8 East, 190 789 Goodson J). DufReld (1612) Moo. 830 693 Goodson V. Richardson (1874) L. R. 9 Ch. 221 43 L. J. Ch. 790 ; 30 L. T. 22 W. R. 337 381 142 Goodtitle d. Palrker v. Baldwin (1809) 1 1 East, 488 80, 848 , Goodtitle v. Herring (1801) i East, 264 660 Goodtitle d. Newman v. Newman (1774) 3 Wils. 316 2 W. Bl. 938 1231
; . ;

....... ....... .......


.

Goodtitle

(1770) 3 Wils. I iS Goodwin v. Finlayson (1850) 25 Beav. 65 Goodwyn v. Chevely (1859) 28 L. J. Ex. 298
0.

Tombs

.... .....
;

19,389,767,768
.

1289

4 H.

&

N. 631

W.

R.

631

84,358

Carter (1847) 9 Q.B. 86^ 647,767 Gordon B. Harper (1796) 7 T. R. 9 ; 2 Esp. 465 ; 4 R. R. 369 . 409,414 Gordon o. Jennings (1882) 9 Q. B. D. 45 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 417 ; 46 L. T. 534 ; 226 30W. R. 704; 46J. P. 519 212 Gordon ^J. Potter (1859) I F. & F. 644 Gordon i). Silber (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 491 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 507 ; 63 L. T. 283 ; 39 W. R. Ill i 55 J. P. 134 Gorge's and Dalton's C^se (1587) 3 Leon. 196 727 Goring o. Edmonds (1829) 6 Bing. 94 ; 3 M. & P. 259 ; 7 L. J. (0. S.) C. P.

Goody

o.

235

Swanst. 661 Gorries 0. Scott (1874) L. R. 9 Exch. 125 ; 43 L. J. Ex. 92'; 30 L. T. 431 ; 22 W. R. 575 Gosden v. Elphiii (1849) 4 Exch. 447 19 L. J. Ex. 9 13 Jur. 989 Gosling, In the Goads oj (1886) P. D, 79 ; 55 L. J. P. 27 50 J. P. 263 ; 34W. R. 492 . . Gosling 0. Birnie (1831) 7 Bing. 339 ; 5 M. & P. 160 9 L. J. (0. S.) C. P.105 . Gosman, /?e(i88o) 15 Ch. D. 64 753, Goss V. Lord Nugent (1833) 2 N. & M. 28 2 L. J. K. B. j B. & Ad. 58
o.

Goring

31 R- R- 358 Goring (1676)

....... ...... .......


.

.247

298 790 328

440
1247 421 1 103
145

.......
; ; ;
. .

. . [1906] i Ch. 120 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 88 ; 54 W. R. 193 . Goswell's Trusts, lie [1915] 2 Ch. 106 ; 84 L. J. Ch. 719 ; 113 L. T. 319 ; 59 Sol. Jo. 579 Gott v. Gandy (1853) 2 El. & Bl. 845 ; 2 C. L. R. 392 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. i ; 18 . . . . . Jur. 310 ; 2 W. R. 38 . Gould, Re (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 92 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 333 ; 56 L. T. 806 ; 35 W. R. . 569 ; 4 Morrell, 202

127 Gossehn,

Re

1357 1357

637
1389

Govt, of Newfoundland
;

Newfoundland Ry. (1888) 13 App. Cas. 199; 57 L. J. P. C. 35 58 L. T. 285 P. C 143, 1049 Governments Stock, &c , Co. v. Manila Ry. Co. [1897] A. C. 81 ; 66 L. J.
v.

Ch. 102

75 L. T. 553

45

W.

R. 353
,

1009
56 L. J. Q. B. 131
65 L. J. Ch. 472
" ;

Gowan

b.

297

v,

Wright (1886) 18 Q. B. D. 201


C.

A
[1896]
. .

35

W. R.

'

986
i

Graham
44

Drummond
596

Ch. 968
.

74 L. T. 417
1408

W. R.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Graham . Ewart (1855) n Exch. 326 Graham v. Johnson (1869) 38 L. J. Ch. 374 L. R. 8 Eq. 36 17 W. R. 810 Graham v. Londonderry (1746) 3 Atk. 393 Graham v. Peak (1801) i East, 244 6 R. R. 268 11 R. R. Preface V. Graham 0. Seal (1919)88 L. J. Ch. 31 119 L.T. 526C. A.
. ; ; ;

cxxi
PAGE
722
142

..... ......
,

934
381

.107
1391

Grainger,

Re [1900] 2 Ch. 756

69 L.
i
;

J.

Ch. 789

673

reversed [1902] A. C.

71 L. J. Ch. 132

83 L. T. 209 ; 48 W. R. ; 85 L. T. 763 ; 50
;

W. R. 337 r Grainger v. Kill (1838) 4 Bing. (N. C.) 212; 3 Scott, 561 i Arn. 42; 7 L. J. C. P. 85 2 Jur. 235 Hotel v. White (1914) 84 L. J. Ch. 938 ; no L. T. 209 58 Sol. Jo. Grand
; ;

440
708

117H. L. (E.) Grand Junction Canal Co.


12 Jur. 886

v.

Dimes (1846)

15 Sim.

402

17 L. J. Ch. 206

590

Grand Trunk Railway v. Jennings

(1888) L. R. 13 App. Cas. 800 ; 58 L. J. P. C. I 371 59 L. T. 679 ; 37 W. R. 403 P. C i Grange, Re [1907] i Ch. 313 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 220; 96 L. T. 359; affirmed . 1353, 1360 [1907] 2 Ch. 20 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 456 ; 96 L. T. 867 Grant v. Easton (1883) 13 Q. B. D. 302 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 68 ; 49 L. T. 645 ;

..
.

32

W.

R. 239
.

1376
.

Grant Grant

(1841)9 M. & W. 113 ; 11 L. J. Ex. 228 v. Grant (1869) L. R. 2 P. & M. 8 39 L. J. P. 17 W. R. 230 Grant v. Thompson (1895) 73 L. T. 264 43 W. R. 446
w. Ellis
; ;

.843
;

21 L. T. 645
15 R.

18

1331
;

290

Grantham zi. Hawley (1615) Hob. 132 Grassi, Re [1905] i Ch. 584 74 L. J. Ch. 341
;

496 940

92 L. T. 455

53

W.

R. 396

21 T. L. R. 343 Graves, Ex parte (1881) 19 Ch. D.

70 Graves
5

30

v.

W.
v.

Graves

i ; 51 L. J. Ch. i ; 45 L. T. 397 ; . 918, 1256 14 Cox, C. C. 629 ; 15 Cox, C. C. 118 . Legg (1854) 2 H. & N. 210 ; 26 L. J. Ex. 316 ; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 519 ; R. 597 135 Weld (1883) j B. & Ad. 105 ; 2 N. & M. 725 ; 2 L. J. K. B.

1242, 125s 46 J. P.

W.

R. 51

176

Graves v. Wells (1839) 10 A. & E. 427 Gray, Re (1887) 36 Ch. D. 205 ; 56 L.


795

575 549
J.

Ch. 975

57 L. T. 132

35

W.

R.
.

Gray Gray
Gray Gray Gray Gray

v. v.

W.
o.
0.

(1821) 2 Brod. & B. 667 ; 5 Moore, 527 Bonsall [1904] i K. B. 601 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 515 R. 387 ; 20 T. L. R. 335C. Duke of Northumberland (1806) 13 Ves. 236

Bond

...
;

1264 713

90 L. T. 404
.

52

Haig (1854) 20 Beav. 219,


Pearson (1870) L. R.
5 C. P.

. v.

Smith (1889) 59 L.
R.

W.

310 C.

J.

568; 23 L.T. 416 Ch. 145 43 Ch. D. 208 ; 62 L. T. 335


;

....
;

-592
z33 104
99>

799

38

267

Clarkson (1868) L. R. 3 Ch. App. 605 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 550 ; 18 1403 L. T. 494! 16W. R. 716 Graydon, Re [1896] I Q. B. 417 ; I Mac. & G. 655 ; 14 Jur. 157, 211 ; 2 28 H. & Tw. 182 1332. '339) '34, J345 Graysbrooko. Fox (1565) Plowd. 275 Great Berlin Steamboat Co., Re (1884) 26 Ch. D. 616 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 68 ; 51

Grayburn

v.

....

L. T.

445C. A
V.
;

"03

G. E. Ry.

Goldsmid (1884) L. R. 9 App. Cas. 927 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 162 ; 52 403.' 684 L. T. 270 ; 49 J. P. 260 33 W. R. 8i G. E. Ry. V. Lord [1909] A. C. 109 ; 78 L. J. K. B. 160 ; 100 L. T. 130 ; 25 9*' T. L. R. 176; 16 Mans. I

Digitized

by Microsoft

cxxu

TABLE OF CASES
V.

Behrens (1862) 7 H. & N. 950 ; 31 L. J. Ex. 299 ; 8 Jur. (N. S.) 8 L. T. 328 ; 10 W. R. 389 G. W. Ry. V. Bunch (1888) 13 App. Cas. 31 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 361 ; 58 L. T. 128 : 36 W. R. 785 ; 52 J. P. 147 G. W. Ry. o. Smith (1876) 2 Ch. D. 235 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 235 ; 34 L. T. 267
G. N. Ry.

567

254

256
801

G. G.

24 W. W. Ry.
92

R.
0.

443C. A

Sutton (1869) L. R. 4 H. L. 226


;

38 L. J. Ex. 177;

18W.

249 Talbot [1902] 2 Ch. 759 71 L. J. Ch. 835 ; 87 L. T. 405 312 18 T. L. R. 775 708 Greaves r. Greaves (1872) L. R. 2 P. & D. 423 41 L. J. P. & M. 66 ; 26 L. T. 745 20 W. R. 802 1 170 Green's & Moody's Case (1627) Godb. 384 764 Green, Re [191 1] 2 Ch. 275 80 L. J. Ch. 623 ; 105 L. T. 360 ; 27 T. L. R. 1 174 490 55 Sol. Jo. 552 Green . Belchier (1737) i Atk. 505, "35 Green v. Button (1835) 2 C. M. & R. 707 ; 1 Gale, 349 i Tyr. & Gr. 118 5 L. J. Ex. 81 505 Green v. Duckett (1883) 1 1 Q. B. D. 275 ; 52 L. J. K. B. 435 48 L. T. 677 31W. R. 607; 47J. P. 487 . 321 Green v. Farmer (1768) 4 Burr. 2214 963 Green v. Goddatd (n. d.) 2 Salk. 641 435 Green o. Green (1873) L. R. 3 P. & M. 121 43 L. J. P. & M. 6 29 L. T. 21 W. R. 824 251 1 189 Green .0. Pertwee (1846) 5 Ha. 249 15 L. J. Ch. 372 ; 10 Jur. 538 1267 Green 0. Rheinberg (1911) 104 L. T; 149 C. A. 759 Green v. tribe (1878) 9 Ch. D. 231 38 L. T. 914 ; 27 47 L. J. Ch. 783 W. R. 39 1240, 1254 Green v. Wynn (1869) L. R. 4 Ch. 204 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 220 20 L. T. 131 17 W. R. 385 295, 299 Greene v. Cole (1670) 2 Wms. Saund. 252 ; i Lev. 309 576, 790 Greene v. Greene [19 16] P. 188 ; 85 L. J. P. 224 ; 115 L. T. IZ7 ; 60 Sol. Jo. 32T. L. R. 520 ;. .1180 620; ." Greenland . Chaplin (1850) 5 Exch. 243 19 L. J. Ex. 293 327 Greenlands v. Wilmshurst [1913] 3 K. B. 507 83 L. J. K. B. i ; 109 L. T. 487; 57 Sol. Jo. 740; 29 T. L. R. 685 C. A 336,518 Greenwell v. Low Beechburn Coal Co. [1897] 2 Q. B. 165 ;^ 66 L. J. Q. B. 643 ; 2 Q. B. 165 76 L. T. 759 373, 397 Greenwood, Re [1892] 2 Ch. 295 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 558 ; 67 L. T. 76 ; 40 W. R. . 681 1266 Greer, Re [1895] 2 Ch. 217"; 64 L. J. Ch. 620 72 L. T. 865 59 J. P. 441 ; 43 W. R. 547; 13 R. 598; 2 Mans. 350 1055 Gregg V. Holland [1902] 2 Ch. 360 71 L. J. Ch. 518 ; 86 L. T. 542 ; 18 T. L. R. 563 Manson, 259 C. A 50 W. R. 575 1061 9 Gregory v. Brunswick (D. of) (1844) 6 M. & Gr. 205, 953 i Dow. & L. 518 ; Scott (N. R.) 809 6 I Car. & K. 24 482, 483 Gregory v. Cotterell (1855) 5 E. & B. 571 25 L. J. Q. B. 33 2 Jur. (N. S.) 16 ; 4 W. R. 48 530 Gregory . Hill (1799) 8 T. R. 299 436 Gregory !). Lockyer (1821) 6 Madd. 90 22 R. R. 246 .1182 Gregory v. Piper (1829) 9 B. & C. 591 4 M. & Rv. 500 . 380 Greig, In the Goods of (1866) L. R. i P. & M. 72 ; "35 L. J. P. 1 13 ; 13 L. T. 681; 14W. R. 349 1251 Greig v. National Union, etc. (1906) 22 T. L. R. 274 496 Grendon v. Lincoln (Bishop) (i 575) Plowd. 493 730

W. Ry. W. R.

<,.

'

....
; ;

';

'

....

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Grenfell
. .

CXXIU
PAGE

^^

v. Windsor (Dean and Chapter) (1840) 2 Beav. 544 ggg Grenville-Murray v. Clarendon (Earl) (1869) L. R. 9 Eq. u 39 L. J. Ch. 221 ggg Gretton B. Haward (1819) I Swanst. 413 1279,1280 Greville v. Browne (1859) 7 H. L. C. 689 1398 5 Jur. (N. S.) 849 ; 7 W. R. 673 Grevillc v. Chapman (1844) 5 Q. B. 731 Dav. & M. 553 ; 13 L. J. Q. B. 172 ; 8 Jur. 189 525 Grey's Trusts, Re [1892] 3 Ch. 88 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 622 ; 41 W. R. 60 1274 Grey v. Ellison (1856) i Giff. 438 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 666 2 Jur. (N. S.) 511 4 W. R. 497 Grey v. Hesketh (1755) Ambl. 268 107 Greyvensteyn v. Hattingh [191 1] A. C.'355 80 L. J. P. C. 158 ; 104 L. T. . 360 27 T. L. R. 358 772 Griffin o. Coleman (1859) 4 H. & N. 265 437 Griffith B. Clay [19 12] I Ch. 291 712 Griffith V. Hughes [1892] 3 Ch. 105 62 L. J. Ch. 135 66 L. T. 760 40 W. R. 524 1 140 Griffith V. Owen [1907] i Ch. 195 ; 76 L. 96 L. T. 5 23 T. L. R. J. Ch. 92 1 104, II2J 91 Griffiths. Pound (1890)45 Ch. D. 553 59 L. J. Ch. 522 Griffith B. Pownall (1843) 13 Sim. 393 877,1077 Griffith V. Ricketts (1849) 7 ^^- *99 > '9 L'359 J- ^^- ' i '4 J""^- '^^ Griffith w. Tower Publishing Co. [1897] i Ch. 21 66 L. J. Ch. 12 ; 75 L. T. 141 330 i 45 W. R. 73 Griffiths' Case (1564) Moo. 69 785, 791 Griffiths, Re (1885) 29 Ch. D. 248 54 L. J. Ch. 742 53 L. T. 262 33 W. R. 728 1233 Griffiths V. Dudley (E. of) (1882) 9 Q. B. D. 357 L. J. Q. B. 543 ; 47 L. T. 51 10 30 W. R. 797 46 J. P. 711 448 Griffiths V. Fleming [1909] i K. B. 805 78 L. J. K. B. 567 100 L. T. 765 ; 308 53 Sol. Jo. 340 25 T. L. R. 377 C. A Griffiths V. Griffiths (1871) L. R. 2 P. & M. 300 ; 41 L. J. P. 14 25 L. T. [238 574; 20 W. R. 192 Griffiths V. Lewis (1846) 8 Q. B. 841 ; 15 L. J. Q. B. 249 10 Jur. 711 524 Griffiths V. London, etc.. Dock Co. (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 259 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 332,449 504; 51 L. T. 533; 33W. R. 35; 49J. P. loo-l-C. A. Sim. 202 Griffiths . Pruen (1840) 1285 Griffiths V. Teetgen (1854) 15 C. B. 344 i Jur. (N. S.) 426 24 L. J. C. P. 35 ; . 466, 467 3 W. R. 1 1 1080,1081 Griffiths . Vere (1803) 9 Ves. 127 Griffiths V. Vesey [1906] i Ch. 796 75 L. J. Ch. 462 94 L. T. 574 ; 54
. ;

...........
; ; .
.

.103

...........
; ;
.

......
. . ; ; ; ;

.832

W. R. 490

137
; ;

Grigg V. National Guardian Insurance Co. [1S91] 3 Ch. 206 61 L. J. Ch. 11 64 L. T. 787 ; 39 W. R. 684 Griggs o. Gibson (1866) 14 W. R. 819 Grill V. General Iron Screw Collier Co. (1866) L. R. i C. P. 600 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 321; 12 Jur. (N. S.) 727; 14L. T. 711; 14W. R. 893
. .

954
585

-199
1062

Grimsby

f.

Ball (1843)

M.

& W.

531
. . .

Grimstead v. Marlowe (1792) 4 T. R. 717 680, 745 . Grimthorpe, Re [1908] 2 Ch. 675 ; 25 T. L. R. 15 1359, 1361 125 Grimwood v. Cozens (i860) 2 Sw. & Tr. 364 ; 5 Jur. (N. S.) 497 Grinham v. Willey (1859) 4 H. & N. 496 ; 28 L. J. Ex. 242 ; 5 Jur. (N. S.) 440 444 ; 7 W. R. 463 Grinnell v. Wells (1844) 7 Man. & G. 1033 8 Scott (N. R.) 741 ; 2 Dow. & L. 610 14 L. J. C. P. 19; 8 Jur. iioi 465
. . ; j

Digitized

by Microsoft

cxxiv
I

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
;
.

Grizewoodn. Blane (1851) n C. B. 526 Groom, Re [1857] 2 Ch. 407 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 778 77 L. T. 154 Groos, Re [1904] P. 269 ; 73 L. J. P. 82 91 L. T. 323 Grove, Re (1888) 40 Ch. D. 216 58 L. J. Ch. 57 59 L. T. 587
. .

IC. A

313 1287 1241, 1245 37 W. R. 1205, 1206


. . .

Grove

18 d. Portal [1902] i Ch. 727 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 299 ; 86 L. T. 350 ; T. L. R.'Jig Groves v. Wimborne (Lord) [1898] 2 Q. B. 402 ; 67 L. J. Q. B. 862 79 L. T.
;

672

328,445,449 284; 47W. R. 87 C.A Grunnell v. Welch [1905] 2 K. B. 650 74 L. J. K. B. 925 93 L. T. 269 21 T. L. R. 554 385 230 Guerriroo. Peile (1820) 3 B. & Aid. 616; 22 R. R. 500 Guests' Estates D. Milner's Safes (191 1) 27 T. L. R. 59 707 Guild 0. Conrad [1894] 2 Q. B. 885 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 721 ; 71 L. T. 140 42 W. R. 642 290 Gulliver o. Vaux (1746) 8 De G. M. & G. 167 559 Gunsbourg, Re [1920] 2 K. B. 426 ; 89 L.-J. K. B. 725 123 L. T. 353 64 1066 R. 485 C. A. Sol. Jo. 498 ; 36 T. L. 12 Gurnell v. Gardner (1863) 4 Giff. 627 ; 9 L. T. 367 9 Jur. (N. S.) 1220 W. R. 67 965 Gurr. Cuthbert (1843) 12 L. J. Exch. 309 416 Guthingc. Lynti (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 232 33 Guthrie . Armstrong (1822) 5 B. & Aid. 628 229 Guthrie v. Walrond (1883) 22 Ch. D. 573 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 165 47 L. T. 614 ; 1135,1271 31 W. R. 285 Guy V. Churchill (1888) 40 Ch.'D. 481 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 345 ; 60 L. T. 473 37 W. R. 541 . ., 40, 499 Guy o. Livesey (1618) Cro. Jac. 501 472 Guye*. Felton (1813) 4Taunt. 876 476 Guyton & Rosenberg's Contract, Re [1901] 2 Ch.' 591 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 751 ; 85 L. T. 66 1265 50 W. R. 38 Gwinnell 0. Earner (1875) L. R. 10 C. P. 658 ; 32 L. T. 835 . Gylbert v. Fletcher (1629) Cro. Car. 179
;

....
;

.'

.......
; . . . .
.

Habergham . Vincent
353
.
.

H.'s Settlement, i? [1909] 2 Ch. 260,; 78 L. J. Ch. 745 (i792)'5 T. R. 92 ; (1793) 2 Ves. Jr. 204

....
;

-397 .217
1230

4 Bro. C. C.
590, 663

Habra

v.

Habra

39t Haddricki). Heslop (1847) 12 Q. B. 285

............
[1914] P. 100
;

83 L. J. P. 54
;

no

L. T. 991

30 T. L. R.
.

i6 L. J. Q. B. 442

iijur. 1012

1191 491,
'

493 Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch. 341 2 C. L. R. 517 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 179 ; 2 W. R. 302 18 Jur. 358 122, 369 Hague c. Doncaster R. D. C. (1908) 100 L. T. 121 25T. L.R. 130 . 74 Haigh . Brooks (1839) 10 A. & E. 309 ; 4 P. & D. 288 94, loi Haighj), Haigh(i869)L. R.,i P.&M.709; 38 L. J. P. &M. 37 20L. T. 281 1201

Hadley

v.

........
; ; ;

...

Haigh
Haire

0.

West

[1893] 2 Q. B. 19

358 ; 4 R. 396 C. A Wilson (1829) 9 B. & C. 643 Haldane 0. Johnson (1853) 8 Ex. 689 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 264 ; 17 Jur. 937 Hale ti. Exeter (Bishop) (1691) 2 Salk. 539 Haley v. Bannister (1819) 4 Madd. 275 ; 20 R. R. 299 Halfen , Brodington (1881) 6 P. D. 13 ; 50 L. J. P. 61 ; 44 L. T. 252 W. R. 444 Halfotd V. Kj^mer (1830) lo B. & C. 724 8 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 3n .
J. P.
v.
;

62 L. J. Q. B. 532

69 L. T. 165

57

...... ....
;

850 507

105,

in

730 1214
1

29
.

177

308

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Halifax Joint Stock Banking Co. v. Gledhill [1891] i Ch. 31 60 L. J. Ch. 181; 63L. T. 623; 39W. R. ro4 Hall, Re [1903] 2 Ch. 226 72 L. J. Ch. 554 88 L. T. 619 51 W. R. 107
; ;
;

cxxv
PAGE
1059

1412. 1413
Hall,
I

In
;

the Estate oj [1914] P.

58 Sol. Jo.

30 C.

83 L. J. P.
;

109 L. T. 587
;

30 T. L. R.

A.
56 L. J. Ch. 722
;

1277
56 L. T. 683
;

Hall
Hall

V.

Bromley (1887) 35 Ch. D. 642


R.

W.
V.

659C. A
:

35
=

752

Burnell [1911] 2 Ch. 551

81 L. J. Ch. 46

loj L. T. 409

55 Sol. Jo.

136 City of London Brewery Co. (1862) 2 B. & S. 737 31 L. J. Q. B. 257 ; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 18 635 Hall V. Fearnley (1842) 3 Q. B. 919 432, 434 Hall V. Flockton (1851) 14 Q. B. 386 16 Q. B. 1039 ; 20 h. J. Q. B. 201 ; IJ Jur. 600 151, 368 HalU. Hallet(i784) I Cox, C. C. 134 1420 Hall V. Hollander (1825) 4 B. & C. 660 7 Dow. & Ry. 133 ; 4 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 39 474 Hall V. Jones (1827) 2 Sim. 41 1224 Hall V. Norfolk (Duke of) [1900] 2 Ch. 493, 500 69 L. J. Ch. 571 ; 64 J. P. 710; 48 W. R. 565; 82L. t. 836; 16T. L. R. 443 . Hall . Nottingham (1875) i Ex. D. i 45 L. J. Ex. 50 ; 33 L. T. 697 ; 24 W. 58 74S, 746 Hall . Odber (1809) II East, ii8 ; 10 R. R. 443 323,990 Hall V. Palmer (1844) 3 Hare, 532 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 352 8 Jur. 459 43, 97 Hall V. Whitcman [1912] i K. B. 683 81 L. J. K. B. 660 105 L. T. 854 28 T. L. R. 161 C. A. 19 Manson, 143 951 Hallas V. Robinson (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 288 54 L. J. Q. B. 364 33 W. R. 246

737
V.

Hall

"

.......
; ; . ; ;

.397

....
; .
.

,C-A.
Re

Hallett,

(1879) 13 Ch. D. 696

732C. A
Halley,

49 L.
;

J.

Ch. 415

The (1868) L. R. 2 P. C. 193 7 Moore, Adm. 33; 18L. T. 879; 16W. R. 998-P.

....
42 L. T. 421
;

933,941,954

28

W. R.
1

142,

143

P. C. (N. S.) 263 C. .


.

Hallifax (Marquis) v. Higgens (1689) 2 Verti. 134 831 Hallyburton, In the Goods oj (i866) L. R. i P. & M. 90 ; 35 L. J. P. 122 ; 12 1242 Jur. (N. S.)4i6; 14L. T. 136 Halsey c.Lowenfeld [1916] 2 K. B. 707 ; 85 L. J. K. B. 1498 ; 115 L. T. 31B 617; 32 T. L. R. 709 C. A. Halston, i?[i9i2] i Ch. 435; 81 L. J. Ch. 265 ; 106 L.T. 182; 56 Sol. Jo. 311. .1331 Harabley v. Trott (1776) i Cowp. 371 364 Hambro v. Hambro [1894] 2 Ch. 564 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 627 ; 70 L. T. 684 ; 43 W. R. 92; 8R. 413 739,837,838 Hamer . Knowles (1861) 30 L. J. Ex. 102 396 Hamerton v. Stead (1824) 3 B. & C. 478 ; 5 D. & R. 306 ; 3 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. . . . 643 33 ; 27 R. R. 407 Hamilton D. Davis (i 771) 5 Burr. 2732 700 Hamilton (Duke) v. Graham (1871) L. R. 2 H. L. (Sc.) 166 781 Hamilton w. Long [1903] 2 I. R. 407 ; [1905] 2 I. R. 552 . . . 465 Hamilton v. Vaughan Sherrin Electrical Co. [1894] 3 Ch. 589 ; 63 L. J. Ch. . . . . 22, 267 795.; 8 R. 750 i 71 L. T. 325 ; 43 W. R. 126

..... .....
; .
.

37 L. J.

53,339

...... ....... ..
.

Hamilton

s.

Watson

(1845) 12 CI.
i

&

F. 109
;

Hamhn

G. N. Ry. (1856) II22; 5 W. R. 76


v. o.

H.

& N. 408
;

26 L. J. Ex. 20
J.

292, 293 2 Jur. (N. S.)


.

122,123
;

Hamlyn

Houston [1903]

K. B. 85

72 L.

K. B. 72

T.J-.

R..66 g.

87 L. T. 500

19

350

Digitized

by Microsoft

cxxvi

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
Co. v. Brand (1869) L. R. 4 H. L. 171 18 W. R. 12
C. 69
;

Hammersmith Ry.
21 L. T. 238
;

38 L. J. Q. B. 265

Hammerton

v.

Hammond
763

o.

(1876) 24 W. R. 603 Anderson (1803) i B. & P. N.

Honey

344, 393 746, 858

Camp. 243

8 R. R.

Hammond v. Bussey (1887) 20 Q. B. D. 79 Hammond v. Schofield [1891] i Q. B. 453


;

57 L. J. Q. B. 58 60 L. J. Q. B. 539
J.

922 302
152 238

Hammonds v. Barclay (1801) 2 East, 227 Hampden o. Walsh (1876) i Q. B. D. 189 24W. R. 607
Hanbury,
2?e [1904]
i

Ch. 415 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 222 ; 90 L. T. 66 ; 52 W. R. 662 559 Hanbury v. Hanbury [1892] P. 222 ; 61 L. J. P. 115 ; 8 T. L. R. 560 ; [1894] P. 102 ; 63 L. J. P. 105 ; 6 R. 5gi 70 L. T. 569 ; 42 W. R. 434 H. L. (E.). .26, 347 C. A. ; reversed[i%q^'\ A. C. 417; 11 R. 302; 72L. T. 480 Hanbury . Jenkins [1901] 2 Ch. 401 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 730 ; 65 J. P. 631 ; 49 W. R. 615; 17T. L. R. 539 676,705,719 Hancock, Re [1905] i Ch. 16 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 69 ; 91 L. T. 737 ; 53 W. R. 89 . 1279 Hancock 0. Peaty (1867) L. R. i P. & M. 335 ; 36 L. J. P. & M. 57 ; 16 L. T.
;

..........
;

45 L.

Q. B. 238

33 L. T. 852

310

182; 15

W.

R. 719

1175
.

1402 (1830) i B. & Ad. 260 ; 8 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 403 v. Smith (1889) ^i Ch. D. 456 ; 58, L. J. Ch. 725 ; 61 L. T. 341 '. 1 142, 1 C. A. . . . . . 143 Handcock v. Baker (1800) 2 B. & P. 260 ; 5 R. R. 587 . 385, 437

Hancock Hancock

Podmore

Handford
Hanfcey
v.

v.

Palmer (1820) 2 Brod.

&

Bing. 359

Martin (1883) 49 L. T. 560 570, Hankinson o. Bilby (1847) 16 M. & W. 442 Hannaford v. Hannaford (1871) L. R. 7 Q. B. 116 Hannam v. Mockett (1824) 2 B. & C. 934 ; 4 Dow. & Ry. 518 ; 2 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 183 ; 26 R. R. 591 769, Hanson v. Waller [1901] i Q.'B. 396 70 L. J. Q. B. 231 49 W. R. 445 84 L. T. 91 ; 17 T. L. R. 162 Harben v. Phillips (1S83) 23 Ch. D. 14 48 L. T. 334 31 W. R. 173 C. A. Harburg India Rubber Co. v. Martin [1902] i K. B. 778 ; 71 L. J. K. B. 529 86 L. T. 505 ; 50 W. R. 449 Hardaker v. Idle District Board [1896] i Q. B. 335, 340 74 L. T. 69 65 L. J. Q. B. 363 44 W. R. 323 ; 60 J. P. 196 C. A. Hardcastle . Dennison (1861) 4 L. T. 707 Hardcastle v. S. Y. Ry. Co. (1859) 4 H. & N. 67 28 L. J. Ex. 139 5 Jur. (N. S.) 150 7 W. R. 326 Hesketh (1859) 4 H. & N. 175 Harden . Harding, Ex parte (1879) L. R. 12 Ch. D. 557 ; 41 I.. T. 388 Harding . Cooke (1831) 7 Bing. 346 Harding v. Harding (1872) L. R. 13 Eq. 493 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 523 : 26 L. T. 656 Harding o. Harding (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 442 55 L. J. Q. B. 462 34 W. R.
. . . .
. .

......
;

Moore, 74

195 571 5'

655

770
353 96
291 355

......
; . .
'.

586

774 549
154 389 839
142

Hardingham
775
v.

NichoUs (1745) 3 Atk. 304 Hardman !;. Willcock (1832) 9 Bing. 382 n. Hardoon v. Belilios [1901] A. C. 118 ; 70 L. J. P. C. 9 ; 83 L. T. 573 ; 17 T. L. R. 126 ; 49 W. R. 209 Hardy, JS'x parte (i 861) 30 Beav. 206 Hardy, Re (1881) 17 Ch. D. 798 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 241 44 L. T. 49 ; 29 W. R. 834 Hare v. Burges (1857) 4 K. & J. 45 27 L. J. Ch. 86 3 Jur. (N. S.) 1294 ; 6 W. R. 144 617, Hargrave v. Le Breton (1769) 4 Burr. 2422
: ; ;

...... ...... .......


; ;

756 233
1138 1361

1266 1077

406

'

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Hargreave v. Spink [1892] W. R. 254
Hargreaves,
i

cxxvii
PAGE

Q. B. 25
;

61 L. J. Q. B. 318

65 L. T. 650

40

Re

947
59 L. J. Ch. 375
;

(1890; 44 Ch. D. 236

62 L. T.

819C. A.
1378, 1387
. .

Hargreaves v. Parsons (1844) '3 M. & W. 561 14 L. J. Ex. 250 290 Hargrove, iJe [191 5] I Ch. 398; 84 L. J. Ch. 484 ; 112L. T. 1062; 59 Sol. Jo. 364 1280 Hargthorpe o. Milforth (1594) Cro. Eliz. 318 1422 Harington v. Hoggart (1830) i B. & Ad. 577 9 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 14 320 Harkero. Birkbeck (1764) 3 Burr. 1563; rW. Bl. 482 381 Harlock v. Ashberry (1882) 19 Ch. D. 539 51 L. J. Ch. 394 46 L. T. 356 30 W. R. 327 C. A 846 Harman v. Jones (1841) Cr. & Ph. 299 374 Harmer v. Cornelius (1858) 5 C. B. N. S. 236 28 L. J. C. P. 85 + Jur. (N. S.) T 1 10 ; 6 W. R. 749 210,213,222 Harmer v. Jumbil Tea Areas (1920) 37 T. L. R. 91 C. A. 635 Harmood 0. Oglander (1803) 8 Ves. 106 1392 Harndenj Ex pane (1859) 28 L. J. Bky. 18 7 W. R. 5 Jur. (N. S.) 852 280 998 Harnett v. Maitland (1847) 16 M. & W. 257 ; 4 D. & L. 545 16 L. J. Ex. 134 647 Harper 0. Luffkin (1827) 7 B. & C. 387 i Man. & Ry. 166 ; 6 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 23 467 Harper v. Mclntyre (1908) 99 L. T. igi 24 T. L. R. 738 52 Sol. Jo.
;

...
; ; .
.

...... ......
;
.

533

"44
v.

Harriman

Harriman [1909]

P. 123

78 L.

J. P.

62

100 L. T. 557
;

73 J. P.

193 ; 25 T. L. R. 291 Harrington, Re [1908] 2 Ch. 687

85s Harrington Harrington


;

...........
;

1189
.

72

J. P. 501

25 T. L. R. 3
.

52 Sol. Jo. 1213


. .

Chatel (1781) i Bro. C. C. 124 v. Victoria Graving Dock (1878) 3 Q. B. D. 549 47 L. J. Q. B. 594 39 L. T. 120 26 W. R. 740 Harris, In the Goods oj (1870) 2 P. & M. 83 22 L. T. 630 39 L. J. P. 48 18W. R. 901 iii L. T. 666 Harris, Re [1914] 2 Ch. 395 83 L. J. Ch. 841 58 Sol. Jo.
v.
.
.

Du

42
232
1332

'379, 1380 653 Harris v. Austin (:6i3) 3 Bulstr. 36 728 Harris v. Booker (:827) 4 Bing. 96 ; 12 Moore, 283 652 5 L. J. (O. S.) C. P. 92 Harris v. Brisco (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 504 55 L. J. Q. B. 423 ; 55 L. T. 14 40, 498 34 W. R. 729 Harris v. Butler (1798) i Hagg, 463 n 503 Harris v. Butler (1837) 2 M. & W. 539 Murph. & H. 117 6 L. J. Ex. 133
; ; ; ; ;

Jur. 608
v. v.

Harris Harris
J.

Davison (1846) 15 Sim. 128

467 863
;

De Pimm

(1886) 33 Ch.

V).

238
;

56 L. J. Ch. 344
.

54 L. T. 38 5/50
711
. .

P. 308
v.

Ekins (1872) 26 L. T. 827 20 W. R. 999 v. Fergusson (1848) 16 Sim. 308 v. Flower (1905) 74 L. J. Ch. 127 ; 91 L. T. 816 ; 21 T. L. R. 13 . Goodwyn (1841) 2 Scott (N. R.) 459 ; 9 D. P. C. 409 ; 2 Man. & G. ^ 405 ; 10 L. J. C. P. 62 Harris . Harris (1861) 29 Beav. no
Harris Harris Harris Harris
. .
.

.......
.

787
1091

708
150

76
291 'As 1287

Harris Harris Harris

11.

Huntback

v. p.

(1757) i Burr. 373 . Jays (1599) Cro. pliz. 699 Lloyd (1823) I Turn. & Russ. 310; 24 R. R. 68

Digitized

by Microsoft

cxxviii

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
. .
.

Harris

'

. ^orris (1801) 4 Esp. 41 . 1 . 57 Hams V. Perry [1903] 2 K. B. 219 72 L. J. K. B. 725 ; 89 L. T. 174 . . 259 Harris . Petherick (1879) 4^ L. J. Q. B. 521 4 Q. B. D. 611 ; 41 L. T. 146 C. A. . . 124, 371 Harris v. Ryding (1839) 5 M. & W. 60 8 L. J. Ex. 181 . 781 Harris 0. Truman (1882) 9 Q. B. D. 264 51 L. J. Q. B. 338 ; 46 L. T. 844 go W. R. 533 233 Harrison, Re (1886) 32 Ch. D. 395 55 L. J. Ch. 687 ; 55 L. T. 150 34 W. R. 736 1381 Harrison v. Barton (i860) i J. & H. 287 ; 30 L. J. Cb. 213 7 Jur. (N. S.) 1091 19 i 9 W. R. 177 Harrison & Bottomley, Re [1899] i Ch. 465 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 208 80 L. T., 29 ; 863 47 W. R. 307 C. A. Harrison 0. Bush (1855) 5 El. & Bl. 344 ; 25 L. J. Q. B. 25 ; i Jur. (N. S.) 846 3 W. R. 4^74 518 Harrison o. Goodall (1852) Kay, 310 n. 1230 Harrison v. James (1862) 7 H. & N. 804 31 L. J. Ex. 248 221 Harrison o. L. B. & S. C. Ry. (1862) 2 B. & S. 122 31 L. J. Q. B. 113 ; 8 Jur. (N. S.)740,; 6L. T. 466 257 Harrison v. L. & N. W. Ry. (1885) i Cab. & E. 540 473 Harrison v. Paynter (1840) 6 M. & W. 387 ; 8 Dowl. 349 9 L. J. Ex. 169 . 4 Jur. 488 532 Harrison v. Rutland (D. of) [1893] i Q. B. 142 ; 62 L.J. Q. B. 117 57 J. P. 278 ; 4 R. 155 68 L. T. 35 41 W. R. 322 C. A. 384, 435, 443 Harrison D. Smith (1869) 20 L. T. 713 507 Harrison . Southwarfc & Vauxhall Co. [1891] 2 Ch. 409 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 630 L. T. 864 . 64 Harrison o. Weldon (173 1) 2 Stra. 911 1350 Harrod c. Harrod (1854) i K. & J. 4 ; 18 Jur. 853 2 W. R. 612 "55 Harrold v. Plenty [1901] 2 Ch. 314; 70 L. J. Ch. 562; 85 L. T. 45 17 8 Mans. 304 T. L. R. 545 955 Harrold 0. Watney (1898) zQ. B. 320 67 L. J. Q. B. 771 ; 78 L. T. 788 ? 46 W. R. 642 C. A. 334 Harrop's Estate, Re (1857) 3 Drew. 726 .1361, 1362 Harrop . Hirst (1868) L. R. 4 Exch. 43 ; 38 L. J. Ex. i 19 L. T. 426 ; 17 W. R. 1*64 327 Harsant v. Blaine (1887) 56 L. J. Q. B. 511 233 Harse o. Pearl Assurance Co. [1904] i K. B. 558 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 373 90 L. T. 245 ; 52 W. R. 457 ; 20 T: L. R. 264 308 Hart, Ee [1912] 3 K. B. 6 81 L. J. K. B. 1213 ; 107 L. T. 368 ; 28 T. L. R. 482 C. A 860, 1070 Hart V. Aldridge (1774) i Cowp. 54 475 Hart V. Baxendale (1851) 6 Ex. 769 21 L. J. Ex. 123 ; 16 Jur. 126 . 254 Harto. Mills(i846) 15M. &W. 85; 15 L. J. Ex. 200 88 Hart s. Rogers [1916] i K. B. 646 85 L. J. K. B. 273 114 L. T. 329 ; 32 T. L. R. 150 . 635 Hart o. Windsor (1842) 12 M. & W. 68 13 L. J. Ex. 129 ; 8 Jur. 150 636 Harter c. Colman (1882) 19 Ch. D. 630 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 481 46 L. T. 154 30W. R. 484 . 834 Hartley, JJ.r parte (1835) I Deac. 288 836 68 L. J. P. 16 JHartley, In the Goods nj [1899J P. 40 47 W. R. 287 1327, 1338,

v.

.......
; . . . ; .
,

....... .......
; . . ' . .
.

'

.394

....
.
.

Hartley

0.

Cummings

(1847) 5 C. B. 247 (i8i8)


i

2 Car.

& K. 433

1392
;

17 L. J. C. P. 84
;

12 Jur. 57

Hartley

0.

Harnman

B.

&

475
Aid. 620
;

2 Stark. 212

Holt, 617

359, 360

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Hartley
o.

cxxix
PAGE

(1866) L. R. i C. P. 553 ; Har. & R. 607 ; 35 L. J. M. C. 255 ; 12 Jur. (N. S.) 502 ; 14 W. R. 862 438 Hartley v. Moxham (1842) 3 Q. B. 701 ; 12 L. J. Q. B. 41 ; 3 G. & D. i ; Car. & M. 504 ; 6 Jur. 946 407 Hartopp's and Cock's Case (1627) Hutt. 88 671, 728 Hartwell . Hartwell (1799) 4 Ves, 811 42 Harvey's (Sir E.) Estate, Re [1893] i Ch. 567 ; 62 L, J. Ch. 328 ; 68 L. T. 1288 562 ; 41 W. R. 293 ; 3 R. 247 Harvey v. Bridges (1845) M. & W. 437 ; i Exch. 261 ; 3 D. & L. 55 ; 14 L. J. Ex. 272 i 9 Jur. 759 82, 383, 435 Harvey v. Gibbons (1675) 2 Lev. 161 95, 129 Harvey t>. Grabham (1836) j A. & E. 61 ; 6 N. & M. 154; 5 L. J. K. B.

Hindmarsh

235

'45

Harvey Harvey
343

v.
v.

Newlyn

(1601) Cro. Eliz. 859 Walters (1S73) L. R. 8 C. P. 162

743
;

42 L. J. C. P. 105

28 L. T.

7'
v.

47' (1844) 7 M. & G. 644 Harvic v. Blacklole (i6io) Brownl. 236 . 699 Haslewood v. Pope (1734) 3 P. Wms. 322 1374 Hasluck o. Clark [1899] i Q. B. 699 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 486 ; 80 L. T. 454 ; 47 W.,R. 471 ; 15 T. L. R. 277 ; 6 Manson, 146 C. 1389 682 Haspurt o. WiUs (1670) I Vent. 71 Hastelow v. Jackson (1828) 8 B. & C. 221 ; 2 M. & Ry. 209 ; 6 L. J. (O. S.) 32 K. B. 318 Hastings, / tie Goo</so/ (1878) 4 P. D. 73 ; 47L. J. P. 30; 39 L. T. 45...1331, 1332 Hastings v. Douglas (1632) Cro. Car. 343 934 Hastings (Corporation of), . Letton[i9o8] i K. B. 378 ; 77 L. J. K. B. 149 ; 14 97L. T. 582; ijManson, 58; 23T. L. R. 456 .1170 HasweU v. Haswell (i88i) 51 L. J. P. D. & A. 15 ; 30 W. R. 231 Hatch o. Hatch (1804)9 Ves. 292; 7 R. R. 195 35 Hatchard v. Mege (1887) 18 Q. B. D. 771 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 397 ; 56 L. T. 662 ;

Harvey

Watson

35

W.
v.

Hatten

R. 576; 51 J. P. 277 Russell (i888) 57 L. J. Ch. 425

362,406,428
;

38 Ch. D. 334

58 L. T. 271

36
49. '48

W.
Hatter

R. 317
v.

(1696) i Ld. Raym. 84 Hatton V. May (1876) 3 Ch. D. 148 ; 24 W. R. 754 Hawes v. Draeger (1883) 23 Ch. D. 173 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 449

Ash

614
995
;

48 L. T. 518

W.
Hawes

R. 576

1207

(1824) 2 B. & C. 540 ; 4 D. & R. 22 ; R. & M. 6 ; 2 L. J (0. S.) K. B. 83 ; 26 R. R. 448 Hawke o. Corri (1820) 2 Hagg. Con. 280 Hawken v. Shearer (1887) 56 L. J. Q. B. 284 Hawkes v. Hubback (1870) L. R. 11 Eq. 5 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 49 ; 23 L. T. 642
v.

Watson

923 170 784


45 713

19

W. R.

117

Hawkins v. Wallis (1763) 2 Wils. K. B. 173 Hawksley v. Bradshaw (1880) 5 Q. B. D. 302


285
;

49 L.

J. Q. B. 333

42 L. T.
520

28

W.

R. S57
L. R. 6 Ch. App. 538
;

Hawksworth v. Hawksworth (1871) 25L.T. lis; 19W. R. 735


Haycraft
v.

40 L.

J. Ch.

534
1228
541

Creasy (1801) 2 East, 104 Hayes o. Foorde (1770) 2 D. Bl. 698 Haygarth, Re [1912J i Ch. Jio ; 81 L. J. Ch. 255 ; 106 L. T. 93 ; 56 Sol. Jo, 239 Hayles v. Pease [1899] i Ch. 567 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 222 ; 80 L. T. 220 ; 47 W. R, 370
C.L.

660
1078

782

Digitized

by Microsoft

cxxx

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE

Hayn cCuIliford (1879) 4 C. P. D. 182 48, L. 27 W. R. 541 4 Asp. M. L. C. 128 C. A


; ;

Haynes,

i?e (1842) 3 Curt. 75.


o. Foster [1901] R. 327
i

Haynes

........
;
;

J. C. P.

372

40 L. T. 536

429 1332

Ch. 361

70 L.
J.

J.

Ch. 302
:

84 L. T. 139
;

49
906, 1280

W.
,

Hayward,
296

iJc [1901]
.
'

Ch. 221

70 L.

Ch. 155

84 L. T. 256
;

49

W. R.
1380

Hayward

East London Waterworks Co. (1884) 28 Ch. D. 138 54 L. J. Ch. 523; 52 L.T. 175; 49 J. P. 452 Hayward o. Raw (1861) 6 H. & N. 308 Haywood a. Brunswick Building Society (1881) 8 Q. B. D. 403 ; 51 L. J. Q. B: 73; 45L. T..699; 30W. R. 29.9 Head o. Briscoe (1833) 5 C. & P. 484 Head v. Head (1919) 88 L. J. Ch. 236 63 Sol. Jo. 464 35 T. L. R. 352 Head v. tattersall (1871) 41 L. J. Ex. 4 ; L. R. 7 Ex. 7 ; 25 L. T. 631 20 W. R. 115 Heald v. Carey (1852) 11 C. B. 977 21 L, J. C.P. 97 ; 16 Jur. 197 Heald v. Kenworthy (1855) 10 Exch. 739 24 L. J. Ex. 76 ; i Jur. (N. S.) 70 ; 3 W. R. 176 Hearle v. Greenbank (1749) 3 Atk. 695 i Ves. 303 899, 901, 1233, Heasman v. Pearse (1871) L. R. 7 Ch. 275 41 L. J. Ch. 705 27 L. T. 89 ; 20 W. R. 876 Heath, Re [1907] 2 Ch. 270 76 L. J. Ch. 450 ; 97 L. T. 41 Heath . Crealock (1874) L. R. 10 Ch. App. 22 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 1,57 ; 31 L. T. 650 Heath o. Deane [1905] 2 Ch. 86 74 L. J. Ch. 466 96 L. T. 643 ; zi T. L. R. 404 Heath v. Perry (1744) 3 Atk. loi Heatho. Pugh (1881) 6Q. B. D. 345 Heath's Garage, Ltd. /. Hodges [1916] i K, B. 206 85 L. J. K. B. 1289 14 L. G. R. 911 ; 60 115 L. T. 129 ; 80 J. P. 321 [1916] 2 K. B. 370 Sol. Jo. 554 32 T. L. R. 570 C. A Heather, Re [1906] ? Ch. 230 5 75 L. J. Ch. 658 95 L. T. 352 54 W. R. 625 Heaven o. Pender (1883) 1 1 Q. B. D. 503 52 L. J. Q. B. 702 30 W. R. 749
v.
. .

328
591

...
;

.803 -356
.

11

16

146 419
63 1271 1078 1317

8n
606
1271

....'.. .......
; . ; ; ; ; . ; ;

846

358 1283

T. 357; 47 J. P. 709 C. 332 Hebblethwaite v. Peever [1892] i Q. B. 124 ; 40 W. R. 318 . 986 Hebden v. West (1863) 3 B. & S. 579 ; 32 L. J. Q. B. 85 ; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 747 306, 308 7 L. T. 854 ; 1 1 W. R. 422 Hebditch v. McUwaine [1894] 2 Q. B. 54 : 9 R. 452 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 587 ; 70

49L.

..
W.

L. T. 826

Hedges

o.

Tagg

42 W. R. 422 ; 58 J. P. 620 (1872) L. R. 7 Exch. 238 ; 41 L. J. Ex. 169


(159,6)

....'.
;

518,519
465,

20

R. 976.

466

Heddy

Cro.Eliz. 558 681,694 Heffield v. Meadows (1869) L. R. 4 C. P. 595 ; 20 L. T. 746 . . 292 Hegarty v. Shine (1878) 14 Cox C. C. 145 433 Helier c. Okeden (1560) Moo. 14 . 656 Hellawell v. Eastwood (1851) 6 Exch. 295 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 154 . . . 691 Hellman's Will, Re (1866) L. R. 2;Eq. 363 ; 14 W. R. 682 . 1234 Hellwig V. Mitchell [1910] i K. B. 609 ; 79 L. J. Q. B. 270 ; 102 L. T. no ; 26 T. L. R. 244 504 Helmore v. Smith (1886) 35 Ch. D. 449 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 145 ; 56 L. T. 72 ; 35
.

Wheelhouse

....... .. ..........
11 C. B.
;

W.
Helyar

R. 157
v.

2to

Helsham
0.

Blackwood (1851)
;

Beckett [1902] i Ch. 391 18 T. L. R. ?07 W.. R! 285

.........
;

20 L. J. C. P. 187 ; 15 Jur. 861 71 L. J. Ch. 209 85 L. T. 627 ; 50


;

in

511

1231

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
6 Jut. 858 Hemming v. Hale (1859) 7 C. B. N. S. 487: 29 L. (N. S.)554; 8W. R. 116

CXXXl
PAGE

Heming

v.

Power

(1842) 10

M.

& W.
.

564

224
T.

C. P.
.

137: 6
.

Tur,
.

,.

Gasson (1858) El. Bl. & El. 346 27 L. T. Q. B. 252 ; 4 Tur. (N. S.) 834 6 W. R. 601 Hemmings v. Stoke Poges Club [1920] i K. B. 720 89 L. J. K. B. 744 122 L. T. 479; 64S0I. Jo. 131 36T. L. R. 77 C. A Hemstead v. Phoenix Gas Co. (1865) 3 H. & C. 745 ; 34 L. J. Ex. 108 ; 11 Jur, (N. S.) 626 ; 12 L. T. 313 13 W. R. 662 Henderson v. A. R. Mail Co. (1885) 5 El. & Bl. 400 24 L. T. Q. B. 322 ; Jur. (N. S.) 830 3 W. R. 571 . Henderson v. Bromhead (1859) 4 H. & N. 569; 28 L. J. Ex. 360; 5 Jur. (N.S.)ii75; 7W.R.492 Henderson o. Comptoir d'Escompte de Paris (1872) L. R. 5 P. C. 253 ; 42 L. J. P. C. 60 ; 29 L. T. 192 ; 21 W. R. 873 2 Asp. M. L. C. 98 Henderson v. Eason (1851) 17 Q. B. 701 21 L. J. Q. B. 82; 16 Jur "
v.
; ; . ; ; ; ;
. ; .

Hemmings

.... ...

230

383

....
; ;
.

472
53

512

943

Hensworth v. Fowkes (1833) i B. & Ad. 449 Henthorn v. Fraser [1892] 2 Ch. 27; 6i L.

319 20 W. R. 23 490 v. Stobart (1850) 5 Ex. 19 L. J. Ex. 135 151 99 v. Williams [1895] i Q. B. 521 64 L. J. Q. B. 308 14 R- .175; 72 L. T. 98 43 W. R. 274 C. A. 33,414 Henn's Case (1632) W. Jones, 297 709 Henniker v. Howard (1,904) 90 L. T. 1 57 779 Henning o. Burnet (1852) 8 Exch. 187 22 L. J. Ex. 79 708 Hensloe's Case (t6oo) 9 Rep. 38 b 1328 Hensman v. Fryer (1867) L. R. 3 Ch. App. 420 37 L. J. Ch. 97; 17 L. T. 1265 394 16 W. R. 162 Henson, Re [190S] 2 Ch. 356 77 L. J. Ch. 598 99 ..T.'336 : 1410
5

Henderson Henderson Henderson

t>.

M. Ry. Co. (1871) 24 L. T. 881


; ;

.'

489
J.

Ch. 373
41

66 L. T. 439

40

W. R.433-C. A. Henwood v. Harrison (1872) 938 20 W. R. 1000


;

89,91
L. R. 7 C. P. 606
;

J. C. P.

6^6

26 L. T.
S', 526

Lordan (1865) 34 L. J. Ch. 293 i Jur. (N. S.) 132; 13 W. R. 368 ; 2 H. & M. 345 Hepworth v. Hill (1862) 10 Beav. 476 Herald v. Connah (1876) "34 L. T. 885 Herbage Rents, Re [1896] 2 Ch. 811 65 L. J, Ch. 871 75 L. T. 148 ; 45
u.
; . .
.

Hepburn

402
1396
61

W. R. 74

.738

Herbert's Case (1731) 3 P. Wms. 116 . 1230 Herbert v. Turball (1663) i Keb. 589 I Hercy v. Birch (1804) 9 Ves. 357 127 Herlakenden's Case (1589) 4 Rep. 62 a . 786,787 Hermann v. Charlesworth [1905] 2 K. B. 123 ; 74 L. .K. B.620; 54W.R. 22 ; 93 L. T. 284 ; 21 T. L. R. 368 C. A, 42, 43, 321 Hernando, Re (1884) 27 Ch. D. 284 53 L. J. Ch. 865; 51 L. T. 117; 33 W. R. 252 1255 Hervey v. Hervey (1739) i Atk. 561 873 Heseltine v. Simmons [1892] 2 Q. B. 547 62 L. J. Q. B. 5; 67 L. T. 611 950,951 57 J. P. 53 41 W. R. 67 ; 4 R. 52 C. Hesketh v. Braddock (1766) 3 Burr. 1858 12 Hethrington v. Graham (1829) 6 Bing. 135 . 1323 Heugh V. L. & N. W. Ry. (1870) L. R. 5 Ex. 51 39 L. J.Ex.48;2iL.T. 676 251 Hewett, Re [1894] i Ch. 362 63 L. J. Ch. 182 ; 70 L. T. 393 ; 42 W. R. 1092 233; 8 R. 70
. .
.

12

Digitized

by Microsoft

cxxxii

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
. ;

Hewlson v. Guthrie (1836) 2 Bing. N. C. 755 3 Scott, 298 ; 5 L. J. C. P. 283 Hewitt 0. Kaye (1868) L. R. 6 Eq. 198 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 633 ; i6 W. R. 835 ." Hewitt o. Wright (1780) i Bro. C. C. 86
.

968
1293 I3S9 493

Hewlett

Taunt. 277 HewUns v. Shippam (1826) 5 B. & C. 221 (O. S.)K. B. 241; 31 R. R..757
B.

Cruchley (1813)

7 Dow.

&

Ry. K. B. 783

4 L.

J.

671,705
1351

Shelley [1914] 2 Ch. 13 ; 83 L. J. Ch. 607 ; no L. T. 785 ; 58 Sol. Jo. 397 ; 30 t. L. R. 402 C. Hext V. Gill (1872) L. R. 7 Ch. App. 699 : 41 L. J. Ch. 761 ; 27 L. T. 291 ;

Hewson

e.

20 W. R. 957 594i 782 Heydou's Case (1584) 3 Rep. 7 a 589 Heydon's & Smith's Case (161 1) 13 Co. Rep. 69 4" Heys, In the Estate of [1914] P. 192 83 L. J. P. 152 ; in L. T. 941 ; 30 1246 T. L. R. 637 59 Sol. Jo. 45 Heys s. Tindall (1861) i B. & S. 296 ; 30 L. J. Q. B. 362 4 L. T. 403 9 230 W. R. 664 Heyward's Case (1595) 2 Rep. 34 b, 35 a 609, 652 Heywood, Re [1897] 2 Ch. 593 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 25 ; 77 L. T. 423 ; 46 W. R. 72 1388 Heyworth 0. Knight (1864) 17 C. B. N. S. 298 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 298 ; 10 Jur.
; ; ; ;
. .

.'

(N. S.) 866

56
;

Hick

o.

41

Raymond [1893] A. C. 22 62 L. J. W. R. 384 7 Asp. M. C. 233 H.


;

Q. B. 98
L. (E.)

R. 125
R. 528

68 L. T. 175
affirmed,

112
L.
;

Hickman

b.

Kent Sheep-breeders (1920) 36 T.

T. L. R. 163 . Hicks' Case (1619) Hob. 215 ; Poph. 139 Hicks v. Faulkner (1878) 8 Q. B. D. 167 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 268 ; 30 W. R. 545 ; affirmed (1882) 46 L. T. 427 ; 46 J. P. 420 C. Hicks V. Newport, &c., Ry. (18517) 4 B. & S. 403 n Higgens' Case (1605) 6 Co. Rep. 44 b . . Higges V. Austen (1609) Yelv. 152 ; 2 Bulst. 82 ; Poph. loi Higginbotham v. Hawkins (1872) L. R. 7 Ch. App. 676 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 828 ; 27 L. T. 328 ; 20 W. R. 955 Higginbottora, Re [1892] 3 Ch. 132 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 74 ; 67 L. T. 190 ; 3 R. 23

......

A
.

37

497 502
491 371 149 504

Higgins V. Higgins V. Higgins V. Higgins 9. Higginson

. Roll. Rep. 55 Butcher (1606) Yelv. 89 i Brownl. 205 ; Noy, 18 . 478 Grant (1583) Cro. EUz. 18 678, 727 iz6 Samels (1862) 2 John. & H. 460 ; 7 L. T. 240 & Dean, Re [1899] i Q. B. 325 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 198 ; 79 L. T. 673 ; 14 47 W. R. 285 Higgs 1). Holiday (1600) Cro. Eliz. 746 414 Highmore v. Primrose (1816) 5 M. & S. 65 322 Hilbers 0. Parkinson (1883) 25 Ch. D. 200 53 L. J. Ch. 194 49 L. T. 502 32W. R. 315 570 Hilbery v. Hatton (1864) 2 H. & C. 822 ; 33 L. J. Ex. 190 ; 10 L. T. 39 350, 420 Hill's Case (1875) 44 L. J. Ch. 423 ; L. R. 20 Eq. 585 ; 32 L. T. 747 ; 23 W.R. 646 15s Hill, Re [1902] I Ch. 807 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 417 ; 86 L. T. 336 ; 50 W. R. 434; ' 18T. L. R. 487C. A.' . . Hill V. Begg [1908] 2 K. B. 802 ; 77 L. J. K. B. 1074 ; 99 L. T. 104 ; 24 T. L. R. 711 . 458 Hill V. Chapman (1789) 2 Bro. C. C. 612 ; i Ves. J. 407 1233 Hill V. Cooper [1893] 2 Q. B. 85 62 L. J. Q. B. 423 69 L. T. 216 57 J. P. 663 ; 41 W. R. 500 4 R. 418 1199 Hill o. Curtis (1865) L. R. i Eq. 90 ; 35 L. 13 L. T. 584 ; 12 Jur. J. Ch. 133 (N:S.) 4; 14 W.R. 125 1343,1344
;
.

Andrews (1620) 2

.....
.

378 1108 386

....
; .

.928

....
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Hill
V.

cxxxiii
PAGE

Fearis [1905] 187

Ch. 466

74 L.

J. Cb.

237

53

W.

R. 457

21 T. L. R. 1031

Hill 0.

Hill

Hill V.

371C. A
Hill

(1859) 4 H. &N. 359 Grange (1556) 1 Plowd. 164 Hill [1897] I Q. B. 483 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 329

Fox

312 675
;

76 L. T. 103
. .
.

45
.
.

W.

R.
934, 1356

Hillw. Kitching(i846) 3 C. B. 299; 15 L. J. C. P. 251 . V. London (Bishop of) (1738) i Atk. 618 755 Hill V. London Central Markets Cold Storage Co. (19 10) 102 L. T. 715 ; 26 T. L.'R. 397; 15 Com. Cas. 22: 963,967 Hill V. Manchester, &c., Waterworks Co. (1833) 5 B. & Ad. 866 ; 2 N. & M. ". 11 573 ; 3 L. J. K. B. 19 . Hill V. New River Co. (1868) 9 B. & S. 303 ; 18 L. T. 555 327, 403 Hill V. Rattey (1862) 2 J. & H. 634 995 Hill V. Scott [1895] 2 Q. B. 371, 713 ; 65 L. J. Q. B. 87 ; 73 L. T. 458 C. A. 261 Hill B. Smith (1809) 10 East, 475 ; 10 R. R. 357 850 Hill V. Tupper (1863) 2 H. & C. 121 ; 32 L. J. Ex. 217 ; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 725 ; 8 L. T. 792 ; 1 1 W. R. 784 670 Hillso. Hills(i84i)8M. . 401 ; loL. J. Ex.440; 5 Jur. 1185 1294

.237

......
.

&W.

Hills

V.

Mills (1691)

Salk. 36

1332, 1341

t". Sughrue (1846) 15 M. & W. 253 129 1121 Hilton, i?f [1909] 2 Ch. 548 ; loi L. T. 229 Hilton o. Granville (Earl) (1841) i Cr. & Ph. 292 ; (1844) 5 Q. B. 701 ; Dav. . &M. 614 ; 13 L. J. Q. B. 193 ; 8 Jur. 310 374, 586, 594, 718 Hilton V. Ticker (1888) 39 Ch. D. 669 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 973 ; 59 L. T. 172 ; 36 W. R. 762 922, 923, 954 Hinchinbrooke v. Seymour (1784) i Bro. C. C. 395 87:

Hills

Lyon (1577) 3 Leon. 64 Hindley v. Westmeath (1827) 6 B. &


Hinde
o.

.....
K. B. 115
; ;

664
C. 200
;

5 L. J. (O. S.)

D.

&
;

R. 351
45

30 R. R. 290
[1896] 2 Ch.
I

1181
;

W. R. 252 720, 773, Rabett (1839) 5 Bing. N. C. 623 Hinson 0. Burridge (1594) Moo. 701 Hinton v. Heather (1845) 14 M. & W. 131 15 L. J. Ex. 39 Hiort V. L. & N. W. Ry. (1879) 4 Ex. D. i88 48 L. J. Ex. 545 40 L. T. 674 27 W. R. 778 C. A Hippisley v. Knee [1905] i K. B. i ; 74 L. J. K. B. 68 92 L. T. 20 ; 21 T. L. R. 5 232, 235, Hipwell V. Knight (1835) i Yo. & C. (Eq. Ex.) 415 4 L. J. Ex. Eq. 52 Hirst, 2Je(i892) 68 L. T. 557; 2 R. 409 C. A Hirst V. West Riding Banking Co. [1901] 2 K. B. 560 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 828
'

Hindson 484

o.

Ashby

65 L. J. Ch. 515

74 L. T. 327

60 J. P.

Hingham

v.

779 707 933


491

416
236 49 917

17 T. L. R. 629 C. A. 49 W. R. 715 Hiscock, In the Goods 0] [1901] P. 78 70 L. J. P. 22 84 L. T. 61

87 L. T.

350, 541

17 T. L. R.
21, 1243

no
Hitchcock
.

;
.

37 Giddings (1817)4 Price, 135; 18 R. R. 725 Hitchman v. Stewart (1855) 24 L. J. Ch. 690 3 Drew. 271 3 Eq, R. 838 ; 156.297 I Jur. (N. S.) 839 ; 3 W. R. 464 i H. & H. 8 L. J. Ex. Hitchman v. Walton (1838) 4 M. & W. 409 374 642, 645 31 697 Hix V. Gardiner (1614) 2 Bulstr. 195 Hoares. Metropolitan Board of Works (1874) L. R. 9 Q. B. 296; 43 L. J. 386, 73 M. C. 6s ; 29 L. T. 804 9^8,957 Hoares. Parker (1788) 2 T.R. 376, 525 Hoare o.Silverlock (1848) 12 Q. B. 628 17 L. J. Q. B. 306 ; 12 Jur. 695
; ; ; ; ;
,

...

Digitized

by Microsoft

CXXXIV

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
.

Hobbs u. L. & S. W. Ry. (1875) L. R. 10 Q. B. Ill Hobbs V. Wayet (1887) 36 Ch. D. 256 57 L. T. 225 36 W. R. 73 Hobson 0. Bass (1871) I.. R. 6 Ch. 792 19 W. R. 992 Hobson V. Blackburn (1822) i Add. 274 Hobson V. Cowley (1858) 27 L. J. Ex. 205 6 W. R. 334 Hobson V. Thelluson (1867) L. R. 2 Q. B. 642 8 B. & S. 476 36 L.
;
;

122, 123, 125

29s 294
1246 215
J,

Q.B,

302; 16L. T. 837; isW. R. 1037 53 Hobson o. Todd (1790) 4 T. R. 71 2 R. R. 335 327 Hochster i>. De la Tour (1853) 2 El. & Bl. 678 22 L. J. Q, B.455; I 7 Juf' I 20, 208 972 I W. R. 469 Hocking o. Matthews (1671) i Ventr. 86 i Lev. 292 11 Sid. 463 Keb. 636 489 Hodges 11. Hodges [1899] i Ir. R. 480 1417 Hodges V. Webb [1920] 2 Ch. 70 89 L. J. Ch. 273 23 L. T. 80 36 T. L. R. 311 480 Hodgeson v. Bussey (1740) 2 Atk. 89 9 Mod. 236 580 Hodgkinson, Ex parte (18 15) 19 Ves. 291 G. Cooper, 99 13 R. R. 199 96 Hodgkinson v. Crowe (1875) L. R. 10 Ch. App. 662 44 L. J. Ch. 680 i 33 L. T. 388 23 W. R. 885 633 Hodgson, Re (1885) 31 Ch. D. 177 55 L. J. Ch. 241 ; 34 W. R. 127 54 L. T. 222 C. A. 155, 1368 Hodgson V. Bective (Earl) (1863) i H. & M. 376 32 L. J, Ch. 489 ; 9 L. T. 18 2 N. R. 233 1271 Hodgson o. Hodgson [190c] P. 233 74 L. J. P. 140 93 L. T. 446 ; 53 W. R. 623 ; 21 T. L. R. 601 1195 Hodgson o. Scarlett (1818) i B. & Aid. 232 512 Hodgson V. Sidney (1866) L. R. i Ex. 313 4 H. & C. 492 35 L. J. Ex. 182 12 Jur. (N. S.) 694 14 L. T. 624 14 W. R. 923 366, 367 Hpdkinson o. L. & N. W. Ry. (1884) 14 Q. B. D. 228 32 W. R. 662 HodsoH V. Baxter (1858) E. B. & E. 884 28 L. J. Q. B. 61 4 Jur. (N. S.) 506 6 W. R. 686 523 Hodsoll V. Stallebrass (1840) 11 A. & E. 301 3 P. & D. 200 9 Car. & P. 63; 8 D. P. C. 482; 9 L- J. Q.B. 132 373,477 Hodsoll B. Taylor (1873) L. R. 9 Q. B. 79 43 L. J. Q. B. 14 29 L. T. 534; 22 W. R. 89 371, 469 Hodson, i? (1818) 3 Madd. 138 1405 Hodson . Pare [1899] i Q. B. 445 68 L. J. Q. B. 309 80 L. T. 13 47 ." W. R. 241 512 Hodson v. The Tea Co. (1880) 14 Ch. D. 859 ,49 L. J. Ch. 234 28 W. R. IO(2 458 Hogan o. Page (1798) I Bos. & P. 337 118 Holbird o. Anderson (1793) 5 T. R. 235 1064 B. 489 Holden v. Thompson [1907] 2 K. 76 L. J. K. B. 889 97 L. T. 138 23 T. L. R. 529 496, 498 Holder o. Coates (1827) Moo. & M. 112 780 Holder d. Sulyard v. Preston (1769) 2 Wils. K. B. 400 595 868 Holder 11. Soulby' (i860) 8 C. B. N. S. 254 244 Holder v. Taylor (1614) Hob. 12 635 Holderness v. Collinson (1827) 7 B. <fe C. 212 i M. & Ry. 6 L. J. (O. S.) 55 K. B. 17; 31 R. R. 174 205,962 Holdsworth v. Goose (i860) 29 Beav. in 30 L. J. Ch. 188 4 L. T. 196 7jur. (N. S.)3oi"; 9W. R. 443 873: Hole, Re [1906] i Ch. 673 . 75 L. J. Ch. 362 94 L. T. 451 553 Hole V. Bradbury (1879) 48 L. J. Ch. 673 12 Ch. D. 886 41 L. T. 250 28 W. R. 39 . \. 141
.

......
;
;

".

..
; ;
.

.251

...

.......
.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Hole Hole
V,

cxxxv
PAGE

Chard Union [1894]

52C. A
o.

Ch. 293

63 L. J. Ch. 469
;

7 R. 84

70 L. T.

372

Sittingbourne Ry. (i86i) 6 H. & N. 488 30 L. J. Ex. 81 ; 3 L. T. 750 ; 9 W. R. 274 Holford, Re [1894] 3 Ch. 30 ; 63 L. 70 L. T. 777 ; 42 W. R. 563 J. Ch. 637 7 R. 304 C. A
; ; ;

354

"35

Holford V. Acton Urban District Council [1898] 2 Ch. 240 67 L. J. Ch. 636 ; 78 L. T. 829 128 Holfordn. Bai]ey(i846)8Q. B. 1000; 16L. J. Q. B. 68; 10 Jur. 822 719,720 Holford -u. Bailey (1849) 13 Q. B. 426; 18 L. J. Q. B. 109; 13 Jur. 278 327, 381 Holford B. Hatch (1779) i Doug. 1779 627 Holland o. Boins (1586) 2 Leon. 121 911 Holland v. Hatton {1697) Carth. 414 642 Holland v. Idea! Bedding Co. [1907] 2 Ch. 157 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 441 96 L. T. 774 ; 23 T. L. R. 467 14 Mans, n 3 1057 Holland 0. Worley (1884) 26 Ch. D. 578 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 268 50 L. T. 526; 32 W. R. 749 49 J. P. 7 373 Holies V. Wyse (1693) 2 Vern. 289 831 Hollidav v. National Telephone Co. [1899] 2 Q. B. 392 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 1016 ; 81 L. T. 252 ; 47 W. R. 658 C. A.' . 354, 355 HoUingshead, Re (1888) 37 Ch. D. 61; i 58 L. T, 758; 57 L. J. Ch. 400 36 W. R. 660 76, 1384 HoUins V. Fowler (1875) L. R. 7 H. L. 757, 767 44 L. J. Q. B. 169 ; 33 L- T. 73 416, 419 HoUis' Hospital Case [1899] 2 Ch. 540 68 L. J. Ch. 673 81 L. T. 90 47 W. R. 691 45, 795, 1075 Hollis V. Palmer (1836) 3 Scott, 265 ; 2 Bmg. (N. C.) 713 ; 2 Hodges, 55 ;
.

... ....... .......


.
. . . . .

"

'

264 Smith (1808) lO East, 293 Holman v. Loynes (1854) 4 De G. M.


5 L. J. C. P.
0.

Hollis

839

Holme
Holmes Holmes Holmes Holmes Holmes

V.

& G. 270 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 529 ; 18 Jur. 2 W. R. 305 Brunskill (1877) 3 Q. B. D. 495; 47 L. J. Q. B. 610; 38 L. T.
' .

.......

116 1363

36

838
z;.

Bell (1841) 2 Beav. 298

9 L. J. Ch. 217
;

Bellingham (1859) 7 C. B. N. S. 329 Blogg (l8l8) 2 Moo. 552 19 R. R. 445 v. Coghill (1802) 7 Ves. 499 2 Jur. v. Godson (1856) 25 L. J. Ch. 317 ; 8 De G. M. & G. 152 ; C. A. (N. S.) 383 ; 4 W. R. 415 ; 20 Beav. 193 559, 931 Holmes o. Mather (1875) L. R. 10 Exch. 261 44 L. J. Ex. 176 33 L. T. 361 ; 23 W. R. 364 329, 380, 432 Holmes o. Millage [1893] i Q. B. 551 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 380 ; 68 L. T. 205 57 C. A 1057 J. P. 551; 41 W.R. 354; 4 R. 332 Holmes v. Simmons (1868) L. R. i P. & D. 523 ; 37 L. J. P. & M. 58 18 L. T. 770 ; 16W. R. 1024 1163,1171 Holmes p. Wilson (1839) 10 A. & E. 503. 372 691 Holroyd v. Breare (1819) 2 B. & Aid. 473 2i R. R. 361 . Holroyd o. Marshall (1862) 10 H. L. C. 191 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 193 ; 7 L. T. 172 II W. R. 171 940 9 Jur. (N. S.) 213 60 Sol. Jo. 640 Holt, Re (1916) 85 L. J. Ch. 779 ; 115 L. T. 73 1396 Holt . Ely (1853) I E. & B. 795 5 17 Jur. 892 319 1310 Holt o. Frederick (1726) 2 P. Wms. 356 Holyland v. Lewin (1884) 26 Ch. D. 266 51 L. T. 14^ 53 L. J. Ch. 530 1287,1288 3Z W. R. 443 C. A
v. .

.......

299 149 778 23 1370

....
. . . .
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

cxxxvi

TABLE OF CASES
FACE

Holywell Union v. Halkyn Drainage Co. [1895] A. C. 126 ; 64 L. J. M. C. . 113 i II R. 98 ; 71 L. T. 818 ; 59 J. P. 566H. L. (E.) Home V. Bentinck (1820) 2 Brod. & B. 130 ^12 Hone's Trusts, Re (1883) 22 Ch. D. 663 52 L. J. Ch. 295 ; 48 L. T. 266 ; 31 1288 W. R. 379 Honjrwood V. Honywood (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 306 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 652 ; 30 L.T. 671*; 22W. R. 749 574,787,789 Hood 0. Hood (1867) 26 L. J. Ch. 616 3 Jur. (N. S.) 684 5 W. R. 747 . 839 Hood 0. Stokes (1753) i Wils. 341 . 1093 Hood-Barrs v. Cathcart [1894] 2 Q. B. 559 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 602 45 Hood-Barrs . Heriot [1896] A. C. 174 ; 65 L. J. Q. B. 352 ; 60 J. P. 612 ; 74 L- T. 3S3 44 W. R. 481 45, 1055 Hood-Barrs v. Heriot [1897] A. C. 177 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 356 76 L. T. 299 ; 46 45 W. R. 507 Hoop, The (1799) I C. Rob. 196 31A, 313 Hooper v. Herts [1906] i Ch. 549 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 253 94 L. T. 324 ; 54 W. R. . 1005, 1006 350 ; 13 Mans. 85 C. A. Hooper 0. Lane (1857) 6 H. L. C. 443 530 Hooper v. L. & N. W. Ry. (i88o) 50 L. J. Q. B. 102 ; 43 L. T. 570 ; 29 W. R. 241 ; 45 J- P- 223 429 Hooper v. Mayor of Exeter (1887) 56 L. J. Q. B. 457 Hooper v. Smart (1875) i ,Ch. JD. 90 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 99 ; 33 L. T. 499 ; 24 W. R. 152 1409 Hooper . Sumniersett (1810) Wight. 16. . 1344 Hope V. Corporation of Gloucester (1855) 7 De G. M. & G. 647 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 6i6 145 ; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 27 4 W. R. 138 Hope V. Evered (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 339 ; 55 L. J. M. C. 146 ; 55 L. T. 320 ; 34W. R. 742; 16 Cox, C. C. 112 492 Hope V. Glendinning [191 1] A. C. 419 80 L. J. P. C. 193 ; 48 Sc. L. R. 962 775 Hope o. Hope (1854) 4 De G. M. & G. 328 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 682 z W- R. 698 1219 Hope I). Hope [1892] 2 Ch. 336 61 L. J. Ch. 441 66 L. T. 522 ; 40 W. R. 522 . 1314, 1315 Hope 5. Leng (1907) 23 T. L. R. 243 C. A 513 Hope V. Osborne [1913] 2 Ch. 349 82 L. J. Ch. 457 ; 109 L. T. 41 ; 77 P. 317 II L. G. R. 825 ; 57 Sol. Jo. 702 T. L. R. 606 . 29 398 J. Hope o. Walter [1900] i Ch. 257 69 L. J. Ch. 166 ; 82 L. T. 30 C. A. 127 JKe (1909) 25 T. L. R. 369 Hope Johnstone, .1110 Hopkins, parte (1732) 3 P. Wms. 152 1215,1226 Hopkins, Re, Williams v. Hopkins (1881) 18 Ch. D. 370; 45 L. T. 117; 29 W. R. 767 C. A. 1387 Hopkins, Re, Dowd v. Hawtin (1881) 19 Ch. D. 61 C. A. . 30 W. R. 601 1332 Hopkins v. G. N. Ry. (1877) 2 Q, B. D. 224 46 L. J. Q. B. 265 ; 36 L. T. 898C. A 696 Hopkins V. Hopkins (1734) Cas. temp. Talb. 44 658 Hopkins V. Logan (1839) 5 M. & W. 241 7 D. P. C. 360 ; 8 L. J. Ex. 2i8 94 Hopkinson v. Gibson (1805) 2 Smith, 204 408 Hopkinson v. Richardson[i9i3] i Ch. 284 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 2i i ; 108 L. T. 501 ; : 1360 57 Sol. Jo. 265 Hopkinson v. Rolt (1861) 9 H. L. C. 514 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 468 ; 5 L. T. 90 7 Jur. (N. S.) 1209 ; 9 W. R. 900 817 Hopper p. Conyers (1866) L. R. 2 Eq. 549 12 Jur. (N. S.) 328 ; 14 W. R. , 6?8 1142

.......382 ......
.

....... ......
; ;
. .

.321

.....
. . . . ;

....

......
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES'
Hopwood
o.

cxxxvii
PAGE

(1859) 7 H. L. C. 728 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 747 ; 5 Jur. (N. S.) 897; r-ii^ 5 W. R. 331 Horbury Bridge Co., Re (1879) 11 Ch. D. 115 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 341 ; 40 L. T.

Hopwood

1283
9 237
1281
131

353 ; 27 W. R. 433 Horford v. Wilson (1807) i Taunt. 12 Horlock, Re [1895] i Ch. 516 64 L. J. Ch. 325 72 L. T. 223 ; 43 W. R. 410 13 R- 356 Horlock V. Beal [1916] i A. C. 486 ; 85 L. J. K. B. 602 1 14 L. T. 193 21 Com. Cas: 201 60 Sol. Jo. 236 32 T. L. R. 251 H. L. (E.) Home, Re (1888) 39 Ch. D. 84 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 790 ; 59 L. T. 580 37 W. R. 69 Horseman v. Abbey (1819) i J. & W. 381 ; 21 R. R. i88 . . Horsey Estate, Ltd. v. Steiger [1899] 2 Q. B. 79 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 743 80 L. T. 857; 47W. R. 6^4; 15T. L. R. 367 Horsford, In the Goods of {1%^^) L. R. 3 P. & M. 21 1 44 L. J. P. 9 ; 31 L. T. 553; a3W. R. 211 Horsley v. Chaloner (1750) 2 Ves. Sen. 83 Horsley v. Cox (1869) L. R. 4 Ch. App. 92 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 285 ; 20 L. T. 128 ; 17W. R. 596 Horsley 0. Style (1893) 69 L. T. 222 ; 4 R. 574 58 J. P. 38 ; 9 T. L. R. 605
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
.

884
975
628
1249 1419 1152
428,

.....
; ; . ;

Horton

v.

Hall (1874) L. R. 17 Eq. 437


V.

Timber Co. [1917] i 115 33 T. L. R. 86 61 Sol. Jo. 1 14 C. Horwood o. Smith (1788) 2 T. R. 750 ; i R. R. 613 2 Leach, C. C. 586 n. Hotchkys, Re (1886) 32 Ch. D. 408 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 546 ; 55 L. T. no 34 . W. R. 569C. A. Hotham o. East India Co. (1787) I T. R. 638 ; I R. R. 333 Houghton, Re [1904] i Ch. 622 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 317 ; 90 L. T. 252 ; 20 T. L. R.
Millar's
;
;

Horwood

. 22 W. R. 391 K. B. 305 86 L. J. K. B. 190

495 837

L. T. 805

42 420
1130

.134

276; 52W. R. 505 Houghton, Re [1915] 2 Ch. 173 562; 31T. L. R. 427

1133,1411
;

84 L.

J.

Ch. 726

113 L. T. 422

59 Sol. Jo.

1277,1296
P. 150; 72 L. J. P; 31
;

Houghton

o.

Houghton [1903]
;

89 L. T. 76; 52
1190 238 342

W.

R. 272

19 T. L. R. 505
;

Houghton o. Matthews (1803) 3 B. & P. 485 Houlden v. Smith (1850) 14 Q. B, 841 19 L. J. Q. Hounsell v. Smyth (i860) 7 C. B. N. S. 73 1 29 L. J.
;

B. 170
C. P.

203

14 Jur. 598 6 Jur. (N. S.)

897 ; I L. T. 440 ; 8 W. R. 277 Household Fire Insurance Co. v. Grant (1879) 4 Ex. D. 216

...

332
91

65 L. J. Ch. 832; 75 L. T. 40; 45 R. 103 77 Howard v. Crowther (1841) 8 M. & W. 601 5 Jur. 91 ; 10 L. J. Ex. 355 366, 468 Fanshawe [1895] 2 Ch. 581 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 666; 73 L. T. 77; 43 Howard v. W. R. 645 13 R. 663 797, 980 815 Howard c. Harris (1683) 1 Vern. 190 206 Howard v. Harris (1884) i Cab. & El. 253 Howard o. Hopkyns (1742) 2 Atk. 371 139 619,643 Howards. Shaw (1841) 8 M. &W. 118 Howard -o. Woodward (1864) 5 N. R. 8 34 L. J. Ch. 47 ; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 139 1123; II L. T. 414; 13 W. R. 132 Howarth, Re [1909] 2 Ch. 19 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 687 100 L. T. 865 ; 53 Sol. Jo. 519C. A 994 1121 . . Howe D. Dartmouth (Earl) (1802) 7 Ves. 137; 6 R. R. 96 . . . 597 Howes, Howe (1686) I Vern. 415

How V. Planner (1666) Sid. 301 How V. Winterton [1896] 2 Ch. 626;
i

435

W.

Digitized

by Microsoft

cxxxviii

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE

Howe B. Smith W. R. 802


Howel
Howell
B.

(1884) 53 L. J. Ch. 1055 . 48 J. P. 773 C. A. ; Johns (1600) Cro. Eliz. 773

R. 97 4 Tyr. 548 ; 3 L. J. Ex. 255 . Howley v. Knight (1849) 14 Q. B. 240 19 L. J. Q. B. 3 ; 14 Jur. 665 Hoyle, In re; Hoyle 0. Hoyle [1893] i Ch. 84 62 L. J. Ch. 182 67 L. T. 674 41 W. R. 81 D'Huart o. Harkness (see " D ").
V.

Jones (1834)

C.

M.

&

.......
;

27 Ch. D. 8q
. .
'

50 L. T. 573
.

32

126,136,137
693 298 976

290

(1886) 17 Q. B. D. 690"; 55 L. J. Q. B. 490; 59 L. T. . . . 3 Morrell, 246 ; 949, 955 Hubbuck, In the Estate of [1905] P. 129 ; 74 L. J. P. 58 ; 92 L. T. 665 ; 54 W. R. i6; 21 T. L. R. 333 1331 Hubbuck . Wilkinson '[1899] i Q. B. 86 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 34 ; 79 L. T. 429. 510 Huber, In the Goods of [1896] P. 209 ; 65 L. J. P. iig ; 75 L. T. 453 . 1242 Huckle V. Money (1763) 2 Wils. 205 370 Hudson, Re [1908] i Ch. 655 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 305 ; 98 L. T. 567 ; 24 T. L. R.
n-dhhsLid,

Ex parte
;

172 n.

35

W.

R. 2

.......
; ; ;
.

333

751

Hudson . Baxendale (1857) 2 H. &N. 575 27L.J.EX.93; 6W.R.83 250,251 Hudson V. Fawcett (1844) 7 Man. & G. 348 2 D. & L. 81 8 Scott (N. R.)
32
;

Hudson Hudson Hudson Hudson


Hudson
25

13 L. J. C. P. 141 e. Granger (1821) 5 B.


.

V. c.

Parker (1844) i Roberts (1851) 6 Exch. 697 20 L. J. Ex. 299 . . Spencer [1910] 2 Ch. 285 79 L. J. Ch. 506 103 L. T. 276
; ; ; .
. . .

Aid. 27 Rob. 14

&

.... .......
;

.>

24 R. R. 268

116 59

1259

359, 453
;

54
983, 1292
;

Sol. Jo. 601


V.

'

Tabor (1877) 2 Q. B. D. 290


R. 740
; ;

46 L.

J.

Q. B. 463

36 L. T. 492
. .

W:

Hughes, Re [1906] 2 Ch. 642 AHughes, Re [1916] i Ch. 493

75 L. J. Ch. 784 ; 95 L. T. 379 114 L. T. 845 ; 60 Sol. Jo. 418

Hughes

Britannia B. S. [1906] 2 Ch. 607 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 739 ; 91; ; .' 22 T. L. R. 806 . Hughes V. Griffith (1862) 13 C. B. N. S. 324 ; 32 I.. J. C. P. 47 . . Hughes 0. Lenney (1839) 5 M.' & W. 183 ; 2 H. & H. 13 ; 8 L. J. Hughes 11. Macfie (1863) 2 H. & C. 744 ; 33 L. J. Ex. 177 ; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 682; 9L. T. 513; 12W. R. 315
D.
.'

783 566 1297, 1305 L. T. 327 834 68 Ex. 177 i22


.
. . .

334 Parker (1841) 8 M. & W. 244 '. 186,557 o. Percival (1883) 8 App. Ca. 443 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 719 ; 49 L. T. 189 31 W. R. 725 47 j. P. 772 59 Hughes . Wells (1852) 9 Hare, 749 16 Jur. 927 868 Hugh Stevenson & Sons 0. Aktien-Gesellschaft [1918] (see " S "). Hugo, In the Goods of (1877) 2 P. D. 73 46 L. J. P. 21 36 L. T. 518 ; 25 W.R. 396 1248 Huguenin v. Basely (1807) 14 Ves. 273 9 R. R. 148, 276 36 Huish, Re (1889) 43 Ch. D. 260 59 L. J. Ch. 135 62 L. T. 52 38 W. R. 1282 199 Huley's (Prior) Case (1344) Y. B. 18 Edw. HI, Mich. pi. 55, fo. 48 937 HuU & Selby Ry., Re (1839) 5 M. & W. 327 ; 8 L. J. Ex. 260 778, 779 Hulme 0. Hulme (1823) 2 Add. 27 .1188 Hulse, Re [1905] i Ch". 406 74 L. J. Ch. 246 92 L. T. 232 788, 1356 Hultono. Brown (1881)45 L. T. 343 29 W. R. 928 69 Hulton . Hulton (No. 2) [1916] 2 K. B. 642 ; 86 L." J. K. B. 51 115 L. T. 60 Sol. Jo. 695 T. L. R. 645 46 32 340 Htenble v. Hunter (1848) 12 Q. B. 350 17 L. J. Q. B. 310 ; 12 Jur. 1021 . 62, 64 Hilmirey v. Dale (1857) 7 El. & Bl. 266 (1858) E. B. & E. 1004 : 27 L. J. Q.B. 390; 5jur. (N. S.)i9i; 6W.R. 854 . ro5

Hughes Hughes

"

...
; .
. . .

......
;
. .

....
. . .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Humfrey
v.

cxxxix
PAGE

Gery (1849) 7

C. B.
i

Hummel o. Hummel W. R. 507


Humphreys
v.

[1898]

567 Ch. 642

843
;

67 L. J. Ch. 363
;

78 L. T. 518 92 L. T. 834
. .

46
1242
53

Morten [1905]

Ch. 739

74 L.
;

W.

J.

Ch. 370

R. 552
v. v.

Humphries

Brogden (1850) 12 Q. B. 739


Polak [1901] 2 K. B. 385
;

797
20 L. J. Q. B. 10 K. B. 752 85 L. T. 103
; . . .

781

Humphrys
49 W.

R.
o.

612 C. A
;

70 L. J.

42,1216,1217
.

Humphrys

Pratt (1831) 5 Bligh (N. S.) 154 531 Hunt, In the Goods o/[i896] P. 288 66 L. J. P. 8 ; 45 W. R. 236 1332 Hunt . Bate (1568) Dy. 272. 94 Hunt V. Bishop (1853) 8 Exch. 675 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 337 796 Hunt V. G. N. Ry. [1891] 2 Q. B. 189 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 498 ; 55 J. P. 648 527 Hunt V. Luck [1902] i Ch. 428 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 239 86 L. T. 68 ; 50 W. R. 18 T. L. R. 265 C. A 291 759 Hunt V. Remnant (1854) 9 Exch. 635 23 L. J. Ex. 135 18 Jur. 335 ; 2 W. R. 276 Hunt V. Star Newspaper Co. [1908] 2 K. B. 309 77 L. J. K. B. 732 98 L. T. 629 24 T. L. R. 452 509,510 Hunter B. Edney (1881) 10 P. D. 93 27,1175 Hunter v. Hunter [1905] P. 217 74 L. J. P. 157 ; 93 L. T. 451 53 W. R. . .1192 666; 21 T. L. R. 602 Hunter v. Nockolds (1849) i Mac. & G. 640 19 L. J. Ch. 177 14 Jur. 256 I Hall & Tw. 644 996 Hunter ti. Walters (1871) L. R. 7 Ch. 75 41 L. J. Ch. 175 25 L. T. 765 20 W. R. 218 756,1141 Hunter's and Hewlett's Contract [1907] i Ch. 46 76 L. J. Ch. 26 ; 95 L. T.

........ ....
. ; ; ;
. .

.796

...

674 Hunt-Foulston v. Furber (1876) 3 Ch. D. 285 24 W. R^756 Huntley's Case (1572) Dyer, 326 a Huntley v. Ward (1859) 6 C. B. N. S. 514 6 Jur. (N. S.) 18 Hurdman v. N. E. Ry. (1878) 3 C. P. D. 174 47 L. J. C. P. 368 339 26 W. R. 489 C. A
; .
. . .

.
.

-991

573

656, 1089
519, 528

38 L. T.
. .

80 L. J. Ch. 29 Hurlbatt, Re [1910] 2 Ch. 553 103 L. T. 585. Hursello. Bird (1891) 65 L. T. 709 Hurst V. Beach (1819) 5 Madd. 356 21 R. R. 304 Hurst V. Holding (1810) 3 Taunt. 32 12 R. R. 587 Hurst V. Picture Theatres, Ltd. [1915] i K. B. i'; 83 L. J. K. B. 1837 L. T. 972 58 Sol. Jo. 739 30 T. L. R. 642 C. A. Hussey (P. Hussey (1820) 5 Madd. 44; 21 R. R. 275 Hutchins v. Hutchins (1845) Bigelow, Leading Cases on Torts, 207 Hutchinson v. Chambers (1758) i Burr. 590
; ; ; ; . . ; ;

393 1081
1343 1275

236
;

in
386, 435
.

789 484 532


61

Hutchinson

1).

L. T. 103

Hutchinson v. 19 L. J. Ex. 296 ; 6 Ry. ; Cas. 580 448, 449 Hutley V. Hutley (1873) L. R. 8 Q. B. 1 12 42 L. J. Q. B. 52 28 L. T. 63 ; 21 W. R. 479 498) 499 Hutt, i2e(i839)7D. P. C. 690; 3 Jur. 1105 593 62, 63 Hutton V. Bullock (1874) L. R. 9 Q. B. 572 30 L. T. 648 ; 22 W. R. 956 L. J. Ch. 689 ; 49 L. T. Hutton V. West Cork Ry. (1883) 23 Ch. D. 654 52 221 420 31 W. R. 827 Huzzey v. Field (1835) 2 C. M. & R. 432 i Gale, 166 5 Tyr. 855 ; 4 L. J. 695) 696 Ex. 239 . 928 Hyde o. Parratt (1695) i P. Wms. i 2 Vern. 331
; ; . ; ; ; ; . ;

Tathara (1873) L. R. 8 C. P. 482 22 W. R. 18 York, &c., Ry. (1850) 5 Exch. 343


. . .

42 L.

J. C. P.

260

29

....

Digitized

by Microsoft

cxl

TABLE OF
v.

(^ASES
PAGE

Hyde Hyde

ScysBor (1619) Cro. Jac. 538

470, 472
5

v.

Trent

&

Mersey Navigation Co. (1793)

T. R. 389

Esp. 36

2 R. R. 620

'.251
88,90
35
91 L. T. 361
;

Hydec. Wrench*(i84o)

3 Beav. 334; 4 Jur. 1106 Hylton V. Hylton (1754) 2 Ves. 547

Hymau v. Hyman [1904]


696'
."

P. 403

f^ L. J. P. 106
;

20 T. L. R.
1

187
195

Hyman v. Nye (1881) 6 Q. B. D. 685 44 L. T. 919 Hyman v. Van den Bergh [1907] 2 Ch. 516 76 L.
aj^me(i[i9o8]
I.
I

45

J. P. 554.

Ch. 167;

77L.

J.

; J. Ch. 554 ; 97 L. T. 297 ; Ch. 154; 98 L. T. 478 . . 856,857

1163 (1838) 2 Jur. 463; 3 Myl. cfe C. 471 Stuart (1787) i T. R. 748 525 Ibbotson c. Peat (1865) 3 H. & C. 644 ; 34 L. J. Ex. 118 ; 11 Jur. (N. S.) 480,770 394; 12L. T. 313; 13 W. R. 691 Ideal Bedding Co. -v. Holland [1907] 2 Ch. 157 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 441 ; 96 L. T. 1062, 1063, ii'?8 774 ; 23 T. L. R. 467 ; i4Manson, 113 . . Idle 0. Cqok (1705) i P. Wma. 70 . . . Iggulden V. May (1806) 7 East, 237 617 Illidge, Re (1883) 24 Ch. D. 654; (1884) 27 Ch. D. 478 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 991 ; 51 L. T. 523; 33 W. R. 18 C. A 1372,1380 . Ilott V. Wilkes (1820) 3 B. & Aid. 304 ; 22 R. R. 400 . 446, 775 Imperial Gas Light & Coke Co. o. Broadbent (1859) 7 H. L. C. 600 ; 29 L. J. (E.) Ch. 377 ; 5 Jur. (N: S.) i3I9-H. L. 401 Imperial Loan Co. o. Stone [1892] i Q. B. 599 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 449 ; 66 L. T. 26 556 ; 56 J. P. 436 Imray v. Oakshette [1897] 2 Q. B. 218 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 544 ; 76 L. T. 632 ;
I'anson
o.
'

C, ^Aiparw

....
'.

.666

45 W. R. 68i C. A. 759, 799 Incandescent Light Co. 1). Cantelo (1895) 12 R. P. C. 262 927 Ince, In the Goods 0/ (1877) 2 P! D. 1 1 1 ; 46 L. J. P. 30 36 L. T. 5 19 25 W. R. 396 1254 20 L. T. [259 ; 17 Inchbald v. Barrington ) (1869) L. R. 4 Ch. App. 388 Inchbald v. Robinson ) W. R. 459 375, 401, 402 Incledon v. Northcote (1746) 3 Atk. 430 1400 Income Tax Commissioners o. Pemsel [1891] A. C. 531 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 265 ; P. 805 ,65 L. T. 621 ; 55 J. 916 Indermaur 0. Dames (1866) L. R. i C. P. 274 36 L. J. Ex. 181 ; 16 L. T. 293; 15W. R. 434 332 Ingham, Re [1893] 1 Ch. 352 62 L. J. Ch. 100 68 L. T. 152 41 W. R. 760, 1408 235 ; 3 R. 126 Ingle V. Vaughan Jenkins [1900] 2Ch. 368 69 L. J. Ch. 618 83 L. T. 155 ; 48 W. R. 684 Inman, Re [1903] i Ch. 241 88 L. T. 173 72 L. J. Ch. 120 51 W. R.
; ;

....

.....
; ; ; . . ; ;

.553
1121

188

579, 1304
iJe [191 5]
i

Inman,
161

Ch.

87

84

I..

J. Ch.

309

1 1

2 L. T. 240

(1873) L. R. 15 Eq. 260 ; 21 W. R. 433 Innes v. Sayer (1849) 7 Ha. 377 ; i8 L. J. Ch. 274 ; 13 Jur. 402 Inues V. Wylie (1844) 1 C. & K. 257 International Contract Co., i?e (1871) L. R. 6 Ch. App. 525 International Tea Stores v. Hobbs [1903] 2 Ch. 165 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 543

Inman

o.

Inman

....
.

59 Sol. Jo.

...
;

22 870 431 62 746

88

L.T. 725; 5iW:R. 615 Irish, In re; Irish v. Irish (1888) 40 Ch. D. 49
R. 231 IrishClubCo.,iJe[i9o6]

58 L.

J.

Ch. 279

60 L. T.

224; 37W.

W. N.

127

2io ,008

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Irish

cxli

Land Commission v. Grant (1884) L. R. 10 App. Ca. 14 ; ;2 L. T. 228 ; 33 W. R. 357 73, 843 . Irons V. Smallpiece (1819) 2 B. & Aid. 551 ; 21 R. R. 395. 939 Irvine c. Watson (1879) 5 Q. B. D. 102 ; 49 L. J. Q. B. 239 ; 42 L. T. 51 ;
.

28 W. R. 353 Irving V. Veitch (1837) 3 M. & W. 107 ; 7 L. J. Ex. 25 ; Mur. & H. 313 Irwin, Re [1904] z Ch. 752 73 L. J. Ch. 832 53 W. R. 200 Irwin V. Brandwood (1864) 2 H. & C. 960 ; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 370 ; 33 L. J. Ex. 257 ; 9 L. T. 722 12 W. R. 438 Irwin V. Caruth [1916] P. 23 85 L. J. P. 25 ; 32 T. L. R. 193 ; sub nom. In the Estate 0/ Millar, Irwin v. Caruth, 114 L. T. 373 60 Sol. Jo. 210
.
. .

63 322 754
525
1330,

467,468 (1809) II East, 23 868 V. Farrer (i8ii) 19 Ves. 86 Isaacs, Re [1894] 3 Ch. 506 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 815 ; 71 L. T. 386 ; 42 W. R. 685 ; 1361 8 R. 660 Isaack v. Clark (161 5) 2 Bulstr. 306 ; Moore, 841 ; Godb. 21 a ; Roll. Rep.
Irwin Irwin
9.

Dearman

......
;

1332

Iseham

i99>205. 419. 422,920 608, 609 Morrice (1628) Cro. Car. 109 Isenberg v. East India House Co. (1863) 3 De G. & S. 272 ; 33 L. J. Ch, 392; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 221 ; 9 L. T. 625; 15 W. R. 450; 3 N. R, 376 345 M. & W. 347 ; 2 D. (N. S.) 548 ; 12 L. J, Isherwood v. Whitmore (1843) 106 Ex. 318 ; 7 Jur. 535 12 M. & W. 20 n. . 684 Islington Market Bill, Re (1835) 3 CI. & F. 513 456 Ismay & Co. v. Williamson [1908] A. C. 437 616 Isteedii. Stonelay (1580) I And. 82 728 Ive's Case (1597) 5 Rep. II b 806 Ch. 373 Ives V. Brown [1919] 2 Ch. 314 ; 88 L. 59
*.

...
; .

J.

Ives

Lucas (1823)
v.

C.

&

P. 7
;

53'

Ivimey

Stocker (1866) L. R. i Ch. App. 396 (N. S.) 419 ; 14 L. T. 427 ; 14 W. R. 743

35 L. J. Ch. 467

12 Jur,

744
fo.

J. L. 0.
J. S.,

Potkin (1522) Y. B. 14 Hen. VIII, Mich., at Case of (1585) 1 Leon. 33


c.

Jackman
Jackson, 194 Jackson,

Hoddesdon (1594)

Re Re

Cro. Eliz. 351 (1883) 25 Ch. D. 162 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 180

....
;

14

613 560 548, 590


;

50 L. T. 18 56 L. T. 562

32
35

W.

R,

1289
(1887) 34 Ch. D. 732
:

56 L. J. Ch. 593

W.

R.
157, 1091 ir

646

Jackson, In the Goods of [1892] P. 257 ; 61 L. J. P. 126 ; 67 L. T. 327 56 J. P. 457 Jackson's & Haden's Contract, In re [1905] i Ch. 603 ; [1906] i Ch. 412 75 L. J. Ch. 226 ; 94 L. T. 418 ; 54 W. R. 434 Jackson v. Cummins (1839) W. & M. 342 ; 8 L. J. Ex. 265 ; 3 Jur. 436

.')

339
187
205,

Jackson Jackson

Dickinson [1903] T. L. R. 350


v. v.

Ch. 947
;

72 L.

J. Ch.

761
;

L.T.507;
;

960, 964 19

"39
77 L.
J. P.

Jackson [1908] P. 308


535

147
;

24 T. L. R. 674

52
117s

Jackson v. Normanby Brick Co. [1899] i Ch. 438 80 L. T. 482 ; 68 L, J. Ch 407 C. A R. Jackson v. Rainford Coal Co. [1896] 2 Ch. 340 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 757 ; 44 W.

Sol. Jo.

v.

376
1007

554 Jackson

Rogers (1684) 2 Show. 327

249

Digitized

by Microsoft

cxlii

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
v. v.

Jackson Jackson

C. P. 125 ; 44 L. J. 131, 146 31 L. T. 789 ; 23 W. R. 169 ; 2 Asp. M. C. 435 . ; Jackson v. Watson [1909] 2 K. B. 193 ; 78 L. J. K. B. 587 ; 100 L. T. 799 ; 53 Sol. Jo. 447 ; 25 T. L. R. 454 473

Smithson (1846) 15 M. & W. 563 Union Marine Insurance Co. (1874) L. R. 10

359
.

C. P. 27

Jacob V. Lawrence (1879) 14 Cox, C. C. 321 Jacobs V. Cr6dit Lyonnais (1884) 53 L. J. Q. B. 156
L. T. 194
;

......
;

528 129 967

12 Q. B. D. 589

50

32

W.

R.
5

761 C. A
;

Jacobs Jacobs

V.

Latour (1828)

Bing. 130

V. Seward (1872) L. R. 5 H. L. T. 185 ; 18 W. R. 953 387, 418 . . 525 Jaines 1). Brook (1846) 9 Q. B. 7 ; 16 L. J. Q. B. 17 ; lo Jur. 541 816 James v. James (1873) L. R. 16 Eq. 153 ; 42 L, J. Ch. 386; 21 W. R. 522 .

6 L. J. (O. S.) C. P. 243 ; 2 M. & P. 201 L. 464, 472 ; 41 L. J. C. P. 2ZI ; 27

James James

o.

v.

Johnson (1677) I Mod. 231 Kerr (1889) 40 Ch. D. 449


;

58 L. J. Ch. 355

W.
James James James
v.

R. 279

53

J.

P. 628

v.

Krauth (1910) 26 T. L. R. 240


Oades (1700) 2 Vern. 402 Plant (1836) 4 A. & E. 749
;

6 L. J. Ex. 6 Nev. & M. (K. B.) 282 260 lo R. R. 626 Jansen v. Brown (1807) i Camp. 41 Janson v. Driefontein Mines [1902] A. C. 484 71 L. J. K. B. 857 87 L. T. 372 51 W. R. 142 7 Com. Cas. 268 ; 18 T. L. R. 796 H. L. (E.) .
v.
; ; ; ;
;

............ ....
; ; ; ; ;

....... ...... .......


;

697
37,

60 L. T. 212

37

499 2i6 815


673 361

31A, 31B, 42

Janvier v. Sweeney [1919] 2 K. B. 316 88 L. J. K. B. 1231 ; 121 L. T. 179 63 Sol. Jo. 430 35 T. L. R. 360 C. A 454, 523 Jaques v. Millar (1877) 6 Ch. D. 153 47 L. J. Ch. 544 ; 37 L. T. 151 ; 25 W. R. 846 614 Jarmain v. Hooper (1843) 6 M. & G. 827 i D. & L. 769 ; 7 Scott, N. R. 663 8 Jur. 127 531 Jarrah Co. v. Samuel [1904] A. C. 323 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 526 ; 90 L. T. 731 ; 52 W. R. 673 20 T. L. R. 536 II Mans. 276 831, 959 Jarrett v. Aldarn (1870) L. R. 9 Eq. 463 39 L. J. Ch. ^49 22 L. T. 192 ; 18 W. R. 511 . 35 Jay V. Johnstone [1893] i Q. B. 189 62 L. J. Q. B. 128 ; 68 L. T. 129 57 4 R. 196 C. A 986 J. P. 309; 41 W. R. 161 Jeffereys 0. Small (1683) i Vern. 216 . 1090 ' Jefferson v. Jefferson (1682) Lev. 130 . 667 Jeffery, Re (J914) i Ch. 375 ; 83 L. J. Ch. 251 ; 1 10 L. T. 1 1 1087 58 Sol. Jo. 120 Jeffery'sTrusts, i?e(i866)L. R. 2Eq. 68; 3S L. J. Ch. 426 .1135 Jeffreys v. Jeffreys (1841) 3 Atk. 120 96 Jeffries v. G. W. Ry. Co. (1856) 5 E. & B. 802 25 L. J. Q. B. 107 ; z Jur. (N. S.) 230 ; 4 W. R. 201 412, 421 Jeffryes v. Evans (1865) 19 C. B. N. S. 246 34 L. J. C. P. 261 ; 11 Jur. (N. S.) 584 ; 13 L. T. 72 13 W.'R. 864 7^2)723 Jegon 0. Vivian (1871) L. R. 6 Ch. App. 742 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 175 ; 22 L. T. 7 18 W. R. 162 767 Jekyll V. Moore (1806) 2 Bos. & P. N. R. 341 6 Esp. 63 512 Hayward [;905] 2 K. B. 460 74 L. J. K. B. 717 53 W. R. 686 ; 92 Jelks V. L. T. 692 ; 21 T. L. R. 527 343 Jell V. Douglas (1821) 4 B. & Aid. 374 23 R. R. 310 157 Jemmett's and Guest's Contract [1907] i Ch. 629 76 L. J. Ch. 367 884 18 L. J. Q. B. 274 Jenkins v. Hutchinson (1849) 13 Q. B. 744 60 13 Jur. 763 Jenkins v. Jones (1866) L. R. 2 Eq. 323 3s L. J. Ch. 520 14 L. T. 540 : 12 ." 14 W. R. 665 Jur. (N. S.) 368 1264
; ; ; ;

....
; . . . .
.

.......
; . . ; ; ;
.

'

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
*

cxliii

PAGE
Jenkins v. Jones (1882) 9 Q. B. D. 128 51 ; 30 W. R. 668 C. A Jenkins o. Morris (1880) 14 Ch. D. 674 C. Jenkins v. Price [1907] 2 Ch. 229 ; 76 L. reversed [1908] i Ch. 10 77 L. J. Ch. 70 ; 14 Mans. 343 C. A Jenkins o. Tucker (1788) I H. Bl. 90
L. J. Q. B. 438
;

46 L. T. 795
.

A.
J.

.'

706 27

Ch. 507
;

41

23 T. L. R. 608 97 L. T. 734 ; 24 T. L. R.
;

630, 631 1181, ii8j


;

-c. Vaughan (1856) 3 Drew. 419 2 Jur. (N. S.) 25 L. J. Ch. 338 109; 4 W. R. 214 1063 Jenner v. Turner (1880) 16 Ch. D. 188 ; 50 L. 42 J. Ch. 161 Jernies, Re (1909) 53 Sol. Jo. 376 1380 Jenning's & Gower's Case (1589) Cro. Eliz. 219 1332 Jennings v. Broughton (1853) 17 Beav. 234 22 L. 17 Jur. 905 J. Ch. 585 I W. R. 441 540 Jennings v. Jennings [1898] i Ch. 378 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 190 ; 77 L. T. 786 ; 46 W. R. 344 ; 14 T. L. R. 198 1031 Jennings v. Jordan (1881) L. R. 6 App. Ca. 698 51 L. J. Ch. 129 ; 45 L. T. 593 ; 30 W. R. 369 834 Jennings v. Rundall (1799) 8 T. R. 335 4 R. R. 680 25, 347 Jeuaure v. Delmege [1891] A. C. 73 60 L. J. P. C. 11 63 L. T. 814; 39 W. R. 388 55 J. P. 500 519 Jentleman's Case (1583) 6 Rep. II b 685,691 Millward (1782) 3 Doug. 73 Jerdon . 678 Jersey v. G. W. Ry. (1893) [1894] 3 Ch. 625 n. C. A 127 Jervis v. Wolferstan (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 18 1269 43 L. J. Ch. 809 ; 30 L. T. 452 Jesser v. Gifford (1767) 4 Burr. 2141 396, 681 Jesson v. Jesson (1691) 2 Vern. 256 1283, 1284 Jesson V. Wright (1820) 2 Bligh, i ; 21 R. R. i 660 Jessopp & Watson (1833) i Myl. & K. 665 ; 2 L. J. Ch. 197 . 1309 Jewis V. Lawrence (1869) L. R. 8 Eq. 345 1285 Jipks V. Edwards (1856) 11 Exch. 775 ; 4 W. R. 303 6ii Job V. Job (1877) 6 Ch. D. 562 ; 26 W. R. 206 1420 John V. John [1898] 2 Ch. 573 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 616 79 L. T. 362 47 W. R. 52; 14 T. L. R. 583 C. A. 1347 John Brothers v. Holmes [1900] i Ch. 188 69 L. J. Ch. 148 81 L. T. 771 ; 64 J. P. 152; 48 W. R. 236 834 Johns 0. Pink [1900] i Ch. 296 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 98 8 1 L. T. 712 ; 48 W. R. 246 ; 16 T. L. R. 70 632 Johnson, Re (1880) 15 Ch. D. 548 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 745 ; 43 L. T. 372 ; 29 W. R. 168 1416, 1417 . Johnson, i?e( 1 894) I Mans. 54 632 Johnson Johnson, Re [1904] i K. B. 134 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 220 ; 90 L. T. 61 ; . 52 W. R. 304 ; 1 1 Mans. 14 44, 577 . Johnson v. Baker (1825) 2 C. & P. 207 ; 31 R. R. 663 1402 Johnson v. Barnes (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 592 678 Johnson v. Barnes (1873) L. R. 8 C. P. 527 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 259 29 L. T. 65 716 Johnson v. Burgess (1873) L. R. 15 Eq. 398 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 400 28 L. T. 188 ; 21 W. R. 453 864 Johnson v. Clark [1908] i Ch. 303 77 L. J. Ch. 127; 98 L. T. 129; 24 T. L. R. 156 904 Johnson v. Credit Lyonnais (1877) 47 L. J. C. P. 241 37 L. T. 657; 26 ' W. R. 195 . . . 33 Johnson v. Diprose [1893] i Q. B. 515 62 L. J. Q. B. 291 ; 4 R. 291 ; 68 L. T. W. R. 371 ; 57 J. P. 517-C. A 49 485 ; 41 loi . . . Johnson v. Dodgson (1837) 2 M. & W. 653 ; 6 L. J. Ex. 185

Jenkyn

...

...... ...... ......


; . . . . . ; ; ; ; ;

....

....... ....... ...... ......


,

Digitized

by Microsoft

cxliv

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
v.

Johnson 337 Johnson

Emerson (1871)

L. R. 6 Exch. 329

40 L.

J.

Ex. 329

25 L. T.

Helleley (1864) 2 De G. J. & S. 446 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 179 ; ii L. T. 581 ; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 1041 ; 13 W. R. 220 Johnson 0. Hudson (1836) i H. & W. 680 ; 7 A..& E. 233 n. ; 5 L. J. K. B.
0.

.....
.

487,492
1031

95

. . . .

Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson


Johnson
61

. v. v.
v.

. Johnson (1841) 4 Beav. 318 Johnson (1843) 3 Ha. 157 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 79 ; 8 Jur. 77 Kennett (1835) 3 My. & K. 624 reversing 6 Sim. 384 Marshall [1906] A. C. 409 75 L. J. K. B. 868 ; 94 L. T. 828
. ; . ;

.1312
. .

S6

1288 1410

22 455
'

T. L. R. 565
0.

Midland Ry. (1849) 4 Exch. 367

18 L. J. Ex. 366

6 Railw. Cas.

Johnson Johnson

Ha. 160 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 1039 ; 17 Jur. 825 . (1853) o. Pickering [1908] i K. B. i ; 77 L. J. K. B. 13 ; 98 L. T. 68 ; 24 T. L. R. I J 14 Mans. 263 C. A. . Johnson . Pye (1666) i Sid. 258 Johnson o. Stear (1863) 15 C. B. N. S. 330 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 130 ; 9 L. T. 538 ; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 99 ; 12 W. R. 347 Johnston, Re (1884) 26 Ch. D. 538 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 645 ; 52 L. T. 44 ; 32 W. R.
v.

Newton

...... ........ .......


; .
. .

256 1404

924
348

956

634
Johnston, i?e [191 1]
v.

W. N. 234; 105 L. T. 701 iiii Consumers Gas Co. of Toronto [1898] A. C. 447 ; 2 Ch. 614 79 Johnston L.T.478; 67L. J. P.C. 33 328 Johnston v. G. W. Ry. [1904] 2 K. B. 250, 255 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 568 ; 50 W. R. 612; 91 L. T. 157; 20T. L. R. 455 C. A. 369,371,372 Johnston v. O'Neill [191 1] A. C. 552; 81 L. J. P. C. 17; 105 L. T. 587; 24 T. L. R. 545 H. L. (I.) [1912] I I. R. 61 ; 49 Sc. L. R. 638 702 Johnston 0. Salvage Association (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 458 57 L. T. 218 ; 36 W. R. 56 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 167 295 Johnston v. Sumner (1858) 3 H. & N. 261 27 L. J. Ex. 341 ; 4 Jur. (N. S.) 462 ; 6 W. R. 574 57,1181 Johnstone v. Cox (1881) 19 Ch. D. 17 ; 45 L. T. 657 ; 30 W. R. 114 C. A. 1052 Johnstone v. Milling (1886) 55 L. J. Q. B. 162 ; 16 Q. B. D. 460 ; 54 L. T. 629 ; 34 W. R. 238 50 J. P. 694C. A. 120, 146, 147 Johnstone 11. Sutton (1786) I T. R. 510 493 Joint Stock Discount Co. (see "Mann's Case"). Jolly V. Kine [1907] A. C. i 76 L. J. Ch. i 23 T. L. R. i 95 L. T. 656 H. L 4.03 Jolly V. Rees (1864) 15 C. B. N. S. 628 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 177 ; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 319; 18 L. T. 299; 12 W. R. 473
;

.....

. ;

578, 1264

'

'

Jolly V. Wills (1678) 2 Rep. in Cha. 72 Jones, Ex parte (1881) 18 Ch. D. 109 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 673

5 928

45 h. T. 193

29

W.

R. 747

Jones, Re (1898) 79 L. T. 154 1098 Jones, Re[i<)io] i Ch. 167 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 34 ; loi L. T. 549 . . . 562 V. Arthur (1840) 8 D. P. C. 442 Jones . . . 108, 109 ; 4 Jur. 859 . Joiies V. Ashburnham (1804) 4 East, 455 ; i Smith, 188 . . . 93, 95 Jones V. Barkley (1781) 2 Doug. 684 106, 134, 135 Jones o. Bonner (1848) 2 Exch. 230 ; 5 D. & L. 718 ; 17 L. J. Ex. 343 . 368 Jones V. Brown (1795) Peake, 233 477 Jones . Chapman (1S49) 2 Exch. 803 ; 2 D. & L. 907 ; 14 M. & W. 124 ; 14 L. J. Ex. 313 383,384 Jones o. ChappeU (1875).!. R. 20 Eq. 539, 543 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 658 . . 395,

25,348

.........

396, 790

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Jones
V.

cxlv
PAGE

Corporation of Liverpool (1885) 14 Q. B. D. 890 54 L. J. Q. B. 345 ; 33W. R. 551; 4qJ. P. 311 Jones V. Davies (1861) 7 H. & N. 507 552 Jones V. Dowle ^1841) 9 M. & W. 653 ; i D. (N. S.) 391 ; 11 L. J. Ex. 52 425 V. Evans (1876) 2 Ch. D. 420 Jones 1382 45 L. J. Ch. 751 ; 24 W. R. 778 ; Jones V. Festiniog Ry. (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 733 9 B. & S. 835 ; 37 L. J. Q. B. 214 ; 18 L. T. 902 ; 17 W. R. 28 345 Jones V. Financial Times (1909) 25 T. L. R. 677 ; 53 Sol. Jo. 677 515 60 L. J. Q. B. 464 Jones V. Foley (iSgi) i Q. B. 730 64 L. T. 538 ; 39 W.R. 510; 55 J. P. 521 383 . Jones . Gwynn (1713) 10 Mod. 214 Salk. 15. . 488 Jones V. Heavens (1877) 4 Ch. D. 636 ; 25 W. R. 460 139 Jones V. Heme (1759) 2 Wils. 87 524 Jones V. Hulton [1902] 2 K. B. 444 78 L. J. K. B. 937 ; loi L. T. 330 25 T. L. R. 597 501, 507, 508 Jones V. Humphreys [1902] i K. B. 10 ; 71 L. J. K. B. 23 50 W. R. 191 1050 Jones V. Jones (1858) 4 K. & J. 361 1319 Jones V. Jones (1872) L. R. 2 P. & M. 333 20 W. R. 320 affirmed-, 41 L. J. P. & M. 53 ; 26 L. T. 106 ; 20 W. R. 449 " 1201, Jones 0. Lavington [1903] i K. B. 253 72 L. J. K. B. 98 88 L. T. 223 51 W. R. 161 19 T. L. R. 77 635 i N. & P. 677 ; 6 L. J. K. B. Jones V. Littledale (1837) 6 A. & E. 469

.......
;
.

.351
.

.... .......
; . .
. .

.......
; ; ; .
.

169 80 L. J. Ch. 338 104 L. T. 53 ; Jones V. Llanrwst M. C. [191 1] i Ch. 393 75J. P. 99 Jones V. Menoneth Buildmg Society [1892] i Ch. 173 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 138 ; 65 L. T. 685 ; 40 W. R. 173 17 Cox C. C. 389 6 L. J. (O. S.) Ch. 26 28 R. R. 22. Jones V. Mudd (1827) 4 Russ. 118 Jones B. Peppercorne (1858) John. 430; 28 L. J. Ch. 158; 5 Jur. (N. S.) 140 ; 7 W. R. 103 Jones V. Pope (1667) Wms. Saund. 37, u. 2 2 Keb. 93 ; i Lev. 191 ; i 5id.
.

32

...
; ;

-771
42
119
.

..........
; ; ; ;

962

63 530 Jones c. Pritchard [1908] i Ch. 630; 77 L. J. Ch. 405; 98 L. T. 386; 24 T. L. R. 309 707, 709 Jones V. Richards (1837) 6 A. & E. 530 ; 2 Nev. & P. 747 ; Will. Woll. & Dav. 276 717 Jones V. Scottish Accident Insurance Co. (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 421 55 L. J. Q. B. 415 7 351 Jones . ScuUard [1898] 2 Q. B. 565 67 L. J. Q. B. 895 ; 79 L. T. 386 923 Jones V. Selby (1710) Pre. Cha. 300 i Man. & Ry. Jones V. Tanner (1827) 7 B. & C. 542 ; 6 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 71 1268 420 6 Jur. 348. 967, 968 11 L. J. Ex. 267 Jones V. Tarleton (1842) 9 M. & W. 675 Jones V. Victoria Graving Dock Co. (1877) 46 L. J. Q. B. 219 2 Q. B. D. 314 loi 36 L. T. 347 ; 25 W. R. 501 916 Jones c. Williams (1766) 2 Ambl. 651 385 Jones V. Williams (1843) M. & W. 176 12 L. J. Ex. 249 80 L. T. Jordeson 0. Sutton Gas Co. [1899] 2 Ch. 217 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 457 A. 403, 771, 781 815 ; 63 J. P. 692 ; 15 T. L. R. 374 11 L. J. Ex. 74 775 Jordin v. Crump (184O 8 M. & W. 782 5 Jur. 11 13 . 1191 Joseph V. Joseph (1865) 34 L. J. P. & M. 96 13 W. R. 872 51 L. T. 740 Joseph V. Lyons (1884) 15 Q. B. D. 280 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. i 933, 94i> 954 33 W. R. 145 C- A Jowitt . Union Cold Storage Co. [1913] 3 K. B. i ; 82 L. J. K. B. 890 ; 108 965 L. T. 724 ; 18 Com. Cas. 185 ; 57 Sol. Jo. 560 ; 29 T. L. R. 477
'

....... '.,..........
; ; ; ; . ;
.

C.l.

Digitized

by Microsoft

cxlvi

TABLE OF CASES
c.

Weeks [1891] 2 Q. B. 41 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 510 ; 65 L. T, 16 ; 39 R. 583 ; 55 J. P. 725 610,611,612,613 Joynt V. Cycle Trade Publishing Co. [1904] 2 K. B. 292 73 L. J. K. B. 752 ; 91 L. T. 15s 509 Jubber v. Jubber (1839) 9 Sim. 503 1263 Judson V. Etheridge (1833) i Cr. & M. 7^3 ; 2 L. J. Ex. 300 3 Tyr, 954 205,
Joyner

W.

964
Jupp, Re (1888) 39 Ch. D. 148 71Z
;

57 L. J. Ch. 774

:
'

59 L. T. 129

36

W.

R. 1087

Kane Kaye Kaye

b.

Reynolds (1854) 4

De

G. M.

&
;

G. 565

24 L.

J.

Ch. 321

Jur.

(N.
v. o.

S.)i48;.3W. R.8s. Banks (1770) 2 Dickens 431


Button (1844) 2 D.
i

1328 789
8 Scott (N.

&

L. 291

R.)495; 7 Man

&G.

'

94 . 215, 474 Kearley 0. Thomson (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 742 L. J. Q." B. 288 ; 63 L. T. 59 15b; 38 W. R. 614; 54 J. P. 804 43 Kearney v. Lloyd (1890) 26 L. R. Ir. 268 481 Kearney B. L. B. & S. C. Ry. (1871) L. R. 6 Q. B. 759 40 L. J. Q. B. 285 ; 24 L. T. 913 ; 20 W. R. 24 . 330 Kearsley o. Cole (1846) 16 M. & W. 128 ; 16 L. J. Ex. 115 299 Keat V. Allan (1707) 2Vern. 588 42,48 Keates 0. Earl Cadogan (1851) IQ C. B. 591 636 Keck V. Faber (1916) 60 Sol. Jo. 253 121 Keeble o. Hickeringill (1706) 1 1 East, 574, n. 39' Keech v. Hall (1778) i Do'ugl. 22 642, 646 Keech 0. Sandford (1726) Sel. Ca. in Ch. 61 2 Eq. Cas. Ahr. 741, pi. 7 1104, 1 1 23, 1124, 1125 Keen v. Priest (1859) 4 H. & N. 236 28 L. J. Ex. 157 f 7 W. R. 376 532, 533 Keeneo. Dilke (1849) 14EX. Ch. 388; 18 L. J. Ex. 440 413 Keene 11. Keene (1857) 3 C. B. N. S. 144 27 L. J. C. P. 88 118 Keene v. Thotfias [1905] i K. B. 136 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 21 ; 92 L. T. 19 53 W. R. 336 21 T. L. R. 2 223 Keighley's Case (1609) 10 Rep. 139 a 783 Keighley & Co. v. Durant [1901] A. C. 240 84 L. T, 70 L. J. K. B. 662
,13

495

Keane

L. J. C. P. 183 ; 8 Jur. 910 Boycott (1795) 2'H. Bl. 511

.....
;
. .

.771
v. Watson (1849) 3 Ex. 716 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 339 Keigwin o. Keigwin (i 843) 3 Curt. 107 Keir o. Leeman (1844) 6 Q. B. 308 8 Jur. 824 13 L. J. Q. B. 259 Keith V. Garcia & Co. [1904] i Ch. 774 73 L. J. Ch. 411 go L. T. 395 W. R. 532 ; 20 T. L. R. 330 Kekewich 1). Manning (1851) i 0e G. M. & G. 176 21 L. J. Ch. 577

Keightley

54 157 123S
41
;

.......
; ; ; ; .
.

52

754
;

Jur. 6B5

Kelk

Pearson (1871) L. R. 6 Ch. App. 809 24 L. T. 890 19 W. R. 665 Kelland v. Fulford (1887) 6 Ch. D. 491 47 L. J. Ch. 94 25 W. R. 606 Kelly o. Kelly (1870) L. R. 2 P. & M. 59 22 L. T. 308 39 L. J. P. & M. 28 18W. R. 767 Kelly V. Metropolitan Ry. [1895] i Q. B. 944 64 L. J. Q. B. 568 14 R. 417 72L. T. 551; 43 W. R.497; 59J. P. 437 Kelly : Sherlock (1866) L. R. i Q. B. 686 35 L. J. Q. B. 200 12 Tur. (N.S.) 937 6 B. & S. 480 Kelly 0. Tinling (1865) L. R. i Q. B. 699 12 Jur. (N. S.) 35 L. J. Q. B. 231 940; 13L. T. 255; 14W. R. 51
V.
; ;
;

1051 711 1361

....
;

1189

...
: ;

477
522
526

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Kelseyi'.

cxlvii
PAGE

(1881) 52 L. J. Ch. 34 Kemble v. Farren (iSzg) 6 Bing. 141 ; 3 M. & P. 425 ; 3 Car. & P. 623 7 L. J. (O. S.) C. P. 258 ; 31 R. R. 366 Kemeys-Tynte, Re [1892] 2 Ch. 211 ; 61 L. J, Ch. 377; 66 L. T. 752; 40
;

Dodd

103

137

W. R.423

Kemp

574
;

Falk (1882) L. R. 7 App. Cas. 573 52 L. J. Ch. 167 ; 47 L. T. 454 31 W. R. 125 ; 5 Asp. M. L. C. I 922 Kemp V. Westbrook (1749) i Ves. Sen. 278 956 Kempster, Re [1906] i Ch. 446 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 286 94 L. T. 248 ; 54 W. R. 139^ 385 Kendall o. Hamilton (1879) 4 App. Cas. 504 48 L. J. C. P. 705 41 L. T. 418; 28 W. R. 97 64, 152, 155 Kennedy . Broun (1863) 13 C. B. N. S. 677 32 L. J. C. P. 137 g Jur. (N. S.) ng; 7L. T. 626; II W. R. 284 94 Kennedy v. Kennedy [1907] P. 49 76 L. J. P. 34 96 L. T. 476 ; 23 T. L. R.
V.

......
; ; ; ; ;

139

"79
v.
;
. .

Kennedy

Kingston (1821) 2 Jac. & W. 431 22 R. R. 197 875, 876 Kensington (Lord)i?c (1885) 29 Ch. D. 527 54 L. J. Ch. 1085 53 L. T. 19 33W. R. 68g 1154 Kensington (Baron), Re [1902] i Ch. 203 71 L. J. Ch. 170 85 L. T. 577 50W. R. 201; 18 T. L. R. 8g 1277 Kent V. Kent [igo2] P. 108 71 L. J. P. 50 86 L. T. 536 18 T. L. R. 2g3. .1247, 1250 Kent V. Rilev (1872) L. R. 14 Eq. igo 41 L. J. Ch. 56g ; 27 L. T. 263 20 1061 W. R. 852 _ _ Kent V. Shuckard (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 803 : L J. K B. I 24s Kenyon v. Hart (1865) 6 B. & S. 249 34 L. J. M'. C. 87 11 Jur. (N. S.) 602 II L. T. 733 381 13 W. R. 406 Keppell V. Bailey (1834) 2 My. & K. 517 Coop, temp. Brough. 2g8 670, 806
; ; ; .
. .

Ker

V.

Wauchope
v. v.

(i8ig)

Bligh, 1.

1278

Kerford

Mondel (1859) 28

Kermode

McDonald
;

L. J. Ex. 303 (1868) L. R. 3 Ch.

967

App. 584
J.

37L.
;

J. Ch.

87g;i9
1264
:

L. T. 179 Kerr's Trusts,

17
.

W.

R. 4
;

Re

(1877) 4 Ch. D. 600


.
.

46 L.

Ch. 287

36 L. T. 356

W. R. 390 Kerr, In re (1889) 24 L. R. (Ir.) 59 C. A. 66 I.. J, Q. B 762 77 L. T. 344 Kerrison v. Smith [1897] 2 Q. B. 445 Kershaw, Re (i888) 37 Ch. D. 674 57 L. J. Ch. 599; 58L.T. 512; 36W.
;
.

877 1216 386

R
1396 898

413 Ketsey's Case (1613) Cro. Jac. 320.


Kettlewell v. Kettlewell [1898] P. 138 67 L. J-P 16; 77 L. T. 631 ; 14 T. L. R. 96 Keylway v. Keylway (1726) 2 P. Wms. 344 Keyse v. Powell (1853) 2 E. & B. 132 22 L. J. Q. B. 305 17 Jur. 1052
;

I2CO 1308

594, 77^, 777

Fairthorne [1895] i Ch. 2ig 64 L. J. Ch. 184 ; 71 L. T. 755 43 R. 327 75 11 Kidderminster (Mayor) o. Hardwick {1873) L. R. 9 Ex. 13 L. J. C. P. 177 B. 364 i L. M. & P. 131 19 Kidgill V. Moor (1850) g C. 327,396,681 14 Jur. 790 135 Kidner. Stimpson (igi8) 35T. L. R. 63 C. A <;5 L. J. Ch. 185 34 Kilford V. Blaney (1885) 31 Ch. D. 56 54 L. T. 287 i3g4, i3g7 W. R. 109 C. A 52 90 L. T. 604 Kilgour V. Gaddes [1904]. i K. B. 457 73 L. J. K. B. 233 854 W, R, 438 ; 2(5 T. L. R. 240 C. A

Kibble

v.

W.

kz

Digitized

by Microsoft

cxlviii

TABLE OF CASES
Press Association [1893]
i

KJmber
Kinch

v.

(1825) 2 Sim. & S. 409 ; King, Re [1907] i Ch; 72 ; 76 L. J. Qh. King o. Bellord (1863) i H. & M. 343 ; 8L. T. 633; II W. R. 900 King B. BroWti & Co. [1913] 2 Ch. 416 ;
V.

67L.T. 515; 4iW. R. 17; 57J.

62 L. J. Q. B. 152 Q. B. 65 P. 247.

Ward

.......
;

4 L. J. (O. S.) Ch. 28 44 95 L. T. 724


.

....
;

4 R. 95
516 659 1378

.
.
.

32 L.

J.

Ch. 646

New

Rep. 442 899


;

82 L. J. Ch. 548

109 L. T. 69

57

754 29 T. L. R. 691 Denison (1813) ' V. & B. 260 ; 12 R. R. 227 V. England (1864) 4 B. & S. 782 33 L. J. Q. B. 145 9 L. T. 645 12 W. R. 308 Jur. (N. S.) 634 King *. Gillet (1840) 7 M. & W. 55 10 L. J. Ex. 164 King 0. Hoare (1844) 13 M. & W. 494 King . Jones (1814) 5 Taunt. 418 ; i Marsh. 107 15 R. R. 533
Sol. Jo.
V.
;

38/
1 1
;

King King

.....
; . ;

03

10

973 144
i2, 136:

King King

o.

King (1735)
;

3 P.

Wms.

358

V. Victoria Insurance Co. [1896] A. C. 250 ; 65 L. J. P. C. 38 ; 74 L. T, 206 44 W. R. 592^P. C. 365, 1048 Kingdon, Re (1886) 32 Ch. D. 604,; 55 L. J. Ch. 598 54 L. T. 753 ; 34 W. R. 634 1249 kingdon o. Ndttle (1813) I M. &;S. 355 14 R. R. 462 1362,1363 Kingsbury 0. Walter [1901] A. C. 187 70 L. J. Ch. 546 ; 84 L. T. 697 1286 Kingston's (Duchess) Case (1776) 20 Howell, St. Tr. 355 ; 2 Smith, L. C. (iithed.)p. 731 1 178 Kingston 0. Preston (1773) 2 Dougl. 689. 34, 135 Kingston, Miller & Co. v. Kingston & Co. [1912] i Ch. 575 81 L. J. Ch, 417 56 Sol. Jo. 310 28 T. L. R. 246 ; 29 R. P. C. 289 '. 1029 Kinloch v. Craig (1789) 3 T. R. 119:; 4 Bro. P. C. 47 ; i R. R. 664 961 Kinloch o. Sec. of State for India (1882) L. R. 7 App. Ca. 619 51 L. J.Ch 885; 47L. T. 133; 30W. R. 84s 998 Kinnaird v. Trollope (1888) 39 Ch. D. 636 57 L. J. Ch. 905 ; 59 L. T. 433 820 37 W. R. 234 kinnaird i>. Trollope (1889) 42 Ch. D. 610 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 556 ; 60 L. T 892 107,
'

..;....
. .

..

...

1363 819

....
: ;

108

Kinsman
29

v.

Rouse (1881) 17 Ch. D. 104


R. 627
;

50 L. J.

Ch
;

i;

44L-T. 597

77, 847 8 Jur: 1024 13 L. J. Ch. 402 1284 (1844) 3 Ha. 509 Gregory (1876) i Ex. D. 55 45 L. J. Ex. 186; 34 L. T. 24 W. R. 614 407, 410 Kirkcudbright v. Kirkcudbright (1802) 8 Ves. 51 1310,1311 Kirsley . Duck (1712) 2 Vern. 684 614 Kirwan's Trusts, Re (1883) 25 Ch. D. 373 52 L. J. Ch. 952 49 L. T. 292 ' 32 W. R. 581 871, 1242 Kitchen v. Ibbetson (1873) L. R. 17 Eq. 46 43 L. J. Ch. 52 29 L. T. 45 22 W. R. 68 1350 Kitchen 0. Palmer (1877) 46 L. J. Ch. 611 557 Kitton 0. Hewitt [1904] Wj N. 21 840 Klein, Re [1906] W. N. 148 22 T. L. R. 664 227 Kleinwort, Sons & Co. v. Comptoir National [1894] i Q. B. 157 63 L. J, Q.B '. 674; 10 R. 259 416 Knapman, Re (1880) 18 Ch. D. 300 50 L. J. Ch. 629 45 L. T. 102 C. A, 1276,

W.

Kirk Kirk

o.

Eddowes

V.

.....
.

....
. ; ;

1311
Knight's Case (1588) Moo. 199 Goldsb. 15
;

Rep. 54 b

Anders. 173

2 Leon. 124

Knight Knight

V. V.

Boughton (1844)
Caithorpe (1685)

ii CI.
i

&

F. 513
.

8 Jur.
,

923
,

. ,
.
'

Vern. 347

796 1097 740

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Knight
Knill
V.

cxlix
PAGE

A. &E. 45 3 Nev. & M. 467 ; 3 L. J. K. B. 135. 527 [1911] 2 Ch. 199 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 708 ; 105 L. T. 178 ; 55 Sol. Jo. 648 ; 27 T. L. R. 525 C. A 991, 999 Kreglinger v. New Patagonia Co. (1913) 29 T. L. R. 464 C. A. reaersed 83 L. J. Ch. 79 109 L. T. 802 [1914] A. C. 25 58 Sol. Jo. 97 ; 30 T. L. R. 114 832, 1013 Krehl v. Burrell (1877) 7 Ch. D. 551 11 Ch. D. 146 48 L. J. Ch. 252 40 L. T. 637 27 W. R. 805 38 L. T. 407 376 Krell V. Henry [1903] 2 K. B. 740 72 L. J, K. B. ^94 89 L. T. 328 C. A. 130,

Gibbs (1834)

1).

Dumergue

Kusel

V.

Watson

(1879) ii Ch. D. 129

48 L.

J.

Ch. 413

27

W.
.

R. 714
.

132 573

o. Tupper (1857) 11 Moo. P. C. 198 .1415 5 W. R. 797 Lacey, Ex parti (1802) 6 Ves. 625 6 R. R. 9 1125 Lacey, Re [1907] i Ch. 330 ;- 76 L. J. Ch. 316 96 L. T. 306 C. A. 1384, 138; Lacey v. Hill, Crowley's Claim (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 182 43 L. J. Ch. 551 ; 30 L. T. 484 ; 22 W. R. 586 237,295 Lacey v. Hill, Leney v. Hill (1875) L. R. 19 Eq. 346 44 L. J. Ch. 215 ; 32 L. T. 4.8 i 23 W. R. 285 1322 ..,'. . Lacoa o. Hooper (1795) 6 T. R. 224 529 Lacons v. Warmoll [1907] 2 K. B. 350 76 L. J. K. B. 914 ; 97 L. T. 379 ; 1421 23 T. L, R. 495 C. A. Ladyman v. Grave (1871) L. R. 6 Ch. App. 763 25 L. T. 52 ; 19 W. R. 856 863 208 Lagerwall v. Wilkinson (1899) 80 L. T. 55 106 Laing . Header (1824) I Car. & P. 257 i L. T. 259 Laird i(. Birkenhead Ry. (1859) Johns. 500 29 L. J. Ch. 218 8 W. R. 58 6 Jur. (N. S.) 140 840 Lairdo. Briggs (1881) i9Ch. D. 22; 45 L. T. 238 856 Lake's Case (1619) Hudson, Star Chamber, 227 : Cal. Stat. Pay. (Dom.) IH, . 502 19, 21 88 L. T. 31 ; 51 W. R. Lake, Re [1903] i K. B. 439 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 213 1123 496 1091 Lake . Gibson (1729) I Eq. Ca. Ab. 291. Lake v. Hatton (1618) Hob. 252 502 i Mod. 58 i Lev. Lakeo. King (1668) i Wms. Saund. 131 b ; i Sid. 414 Hard. 470 240 ; 2 Keb. 361 ; 503,512 Lakeman 0. Mountstephen (1874) L. R. 7 H. L. 17 ; 43 L. J. Q. B. 188 30 L. T. 437 ; 22 W. R. 617 290 Lamare v. Dixon (1873) 43 L. J. Ch. 203 L. R. 6 H. L. 414 ; 22 W. R. 126 49 Lamb v. Evans [1893] i Ch. 218 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 404 2 R. 189 ; 68 L. T. 131 C. A. 210, 223, 234, 427 41 W. R. 405 Lambert, Re (1888) 39 Ch. D. 626 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 927 ; 59 L. T. 429 -' 1315, 1317 Lambert v. Thwaites (1866) L. R. 2 Eq. 151 35 L. J. Ch. 406 ; 14 L. T. 875 159; 14W. R. 532 Lambourn v. McLellan [1903] 2 Ch. 268 72 L. J. Ch. 617 88 L. T. 748 ; 788 51 W. R. 594; 19T. L. R. 529 C. A Lambton 0. Mellish [1894] 3 Ch. 163 63 L. J. Ch. 929 ; 8 R. 807 ; 71 L. T. 337 385 43 W. R. 5 ; 58 J. P. 83s Lamburn v. Cruden (1841) 2 Man. & G. 253 ; 2 Scott (N. R.) 533 ; 10

Labouchere

".

......
; ; ; ; ;

.....
; . . ; ;

L. J.

C.P. 121

213,221
;

Richard [1897] i Q. B. 541 ; 66 L. 45 W. R. 289 ; 6i J. P. 260 liampleigh 0. Braithwaii (1615) Hob. 105

Lamond

o.

J.

Q. B. 315

76 L. T. 141

244, 24s

94

Digitized

by Microsoft

cl

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
; . .

Lamprell v. Billericay Union (1849) 3 Ex. 283 18 L. J. Ex. 282 96 Lancashire Wagon Co. v. Fitzhugh (1861) 6 H. & N. 502 ; 30 L. J. Ex. 231 ; 3 L- T. 703 417, 530 Lancaster v. Eve (1859) 5 C. B. N. S. 717 28 L. J. C. P. 235 5 Jur. (N. S.) 683 ; 7 W. R. 260 713 Lancaster 0. Lowe (161 5) Cro. Jac. 93 730 L. J. Ch. 203 ; 31 Lancefield v. Iggulden (1874) L. R. 10 Ch. App. 136 44 L. T. 813 1265 23 W. R. 223 Land Credit Co., ilc (1872) 21 W^R. 135 1390 Lapd Credit Co. o. Fermoy (Lord) (1870) 39 L. J., Ch. 477 L. R. 5 Ch. 155 323; 22L. T. 394; 18W, R. 393, Land's Patent, Re [1910] 2 Ch; 236 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 594 103 L. T. 102 54 Sol. Jo. 680 10J9 27 R. P. C. 481 Land Tax Commrs. v. Central London Ry. [1913] A. C. 364 82 L. J. Ch. 11 L. G. R. 693 274 108 L. T. 690 77 J. P. 289 57 Sol. Jo. 403 29 T. L. R. 395-^H. L. (E.) 778 Lane, / /Ae Goo^s 0/(1864) 33 L. J. P. 185 1332 Lane, Re (1880) 14 Ch. D. 856 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 768 43 L. T. 87 ; 28 W. R. 1264 ,764 Lane, Re (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 74 58 L. J. Q. B. 373 ; 61 L. T. 54 37 W. R. 80 671 Lane v. Capsey [1891] 3 Ch. 411 61 L. J. Ch. 55 65 L. T. 375 40 W. R. 87 392, 398, 400
; ;
,

....... .......
; ;
.

............
; ; ; ; ; ;
" .

Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane Lane

v. o.

Chapman

(1840) 11 A.
i

Cotton (1701)

& E. 966. Ld. Raym. 646 ; Am. 100


;

......
. .

531

11

Mod. Rep. 12
;

Salk.

17
v.

34

Cox [1897]
. .

Q. B. 415
.
.

76 L. T. 135
. . ;

;
.

45

W.
.

R. 261
.

66 L. J. Q. B.
.
. .
.

193
v. v.

.636
382
1

Dixon (1847) 3 C. B. 776 Goodwin (1843) 4 Q. B. 361


Hill (1852) 18 Q. B.

D. 610
v.

............
; ;

16 L. J. C. P. 129 ; 11 Jur. 89 12 L. J. Q. B. 157 ; 7 Jur. 372

3 G.

&
.

252 ; 21 L. J. Q. B. 318 ; 16 Jur. 496 Lane-Fox, Re [19D0] 2 Q. B. 508 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 722 83 L. T. 176 48 W, R. 650 7 Mans. 295 1060, Langdale (Lady) o. Briggs (1856) 8 De G. M. & G. 391 26 L. J. Ch. 27 12 Jur. (N. S.) 982 4 W. R, 703 Langford, In the Goods of (1867) L, R. i P. & M. 458 37 L. J. P. 20 17 L.T. 415 Langfort 0. Tiler's Admix. (1704) I Salk. 113 Langrick v. Langrick [1920] P. 90; 89 L. J. P. 114.; 123 L. T. 94; 64 Sol. Jo. 531 36 T. L. R. 308 Langridge o. Levy (1837) 2 M. & W. 519 4 M. & W. 337 ; 7 Dowl. 27 Langton v. Carleton (1873) L. R. 9 Ex. 57 43 L. J. Ex. 54 ; 29 L. T. 650 Langton 0. Horton (1842) i Ha. 549 Lanoy v. Athol (Duke) (1742) 2 Atk. 444 Lascelles 0. Oilslow (1877) 2 Q, B. D. 433 46 L. J. Q. B. 333 ; 36 L. T. 459 ; 25 W. R. 496
. ; ; ; . ; ; ;
.
,

170 322

io6i

1262
1332 136 1203 539 212

......
; ;
.

...

...
.
.

....... ......
; ; ; . . . . . .
.

940 836

.'

.721
.

Latham

(1635) Cro. Car. 515 . Latter v. Braddell (1881) 56 L. J. C. P. 448 45 J. P. 520


.
.

Atwood

575

44 L. T. 369
. .

29
.

W.

R. 366
'.
.

.432

Laughter's Case (1595) 5 Rep. 21 b . Laugher v. Pointer (1826) 5 B. & C. 547, 558 8 D. & R. 550 4 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 309 . 351,352 Laughton v. Sodor & Man (Bishop of) (1872) L. R. 4 P. C. 495 ; 9 Moore P.C. (N.S.)3iS;42L. J. P.C. n; 28L.T. 377; 21W. R.204. 519
; ; .
.
1

.48
.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Launchbury v. Bode [1898] 2 Ch. 120 67 L. J. Ch. 196 78 L. T. 14 62 J-P-248 Laun V. Renad [1892] 3 Ch. 402 61 L. J* Ch. 580 67 L. T. 275 40 W. R.
; ;
;

cli

747

A. 349 Llewellyn [1906] i K. B. 487 75 L. J. K. B. 320 ; 94 L. T. 359 54 W. R. 368 70 J. P. 220C. A. 342, 512 Law V. London Indisputable Life Policy Co. (1855) 3 Eq. R. 338 j i K. & J. 304, 306 223 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 196 ; I Jur. (N. S.) 178 ; 3 W. R. 154 Law V. Redditch Local Board [1892] 1 Q. B. 127 61 L. J. Q. B. 172 ; 66 L. T. 76 56 J. P. 292 C. A 137,138,139 Lawes, Re (1881) 20 Ch. D. 81 ; 45 L. T. 453 30 W. R. 33 . 1283 Lawes v. Bennett (1785) i Cox, 167 1361 Lawford v. Billericay, &c. [1903] 1 K. B. 1 72 L. J. K. B. 554; 88 L. T. II 317; 51 W.R. 630; 67 J. P. 245 . Lawless v. Mansiield (1841) 1 Dr. & War. ^98 ; 4 Ir. Eq. R. 113 49 Lawley v. Lawley (1717) Jac. 71 n. 792 Lawrence . Malo [1904] a! C. 17 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 85 89 L". T. 569 ; 52 W. R. 1038 369 ; 20 T. L. R. 42 Lawrence o. Hedger (1810) 3 Taunt. 13 442 Lawrence v. Hitch (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 521 ; 37 L. J. Q. B. 209 ; 9 B. & S. 694 467; 18 L. T. 483; 16W. R. 813 Lawrence v. Jenkins (1873) L. R. 8 Q. B. 274 ; 42 L. J. Q. B. 147 ; 28 L. T. 406 ; 21 W. R. 577 .714, 783 Lawtona. Lawton (1743) 3 Atk. 13 788,1356 Layard v. Maud (1867) L. R. 4 Eq. 397 36 L. J. Ch. 669 ; 16 L. T. 618 ; 15 760 W. R. 897 Laybourn 0. Gridley [1892] 2 Ch. 53; 61 L. J. Ch. 352; 40 W. R. '87 474 . Layton . Pearce (1778) I Dougl. 15 Lea o. Charrington (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 45 58 L. J. Q. B. 461 61 L. T. 222 ; 492 37 W. R. 736 ; 16 Cox, C. C. 704 ; 53 J. P. 614 Lea V. Thursby [1904] 2 Ch. 57 73 L. J. Ch. 518 90 L. T. 667 ; 20 T. L. R.
.

679C.
V.

Law

....... ....... .......


; .
.

470; 11 Mans, iji Leach, Re [1912] 2 Ch. 422 649

.........
: ;

....
;

.110

553
44, 559

81 L. J. Ch. 683

106 L. T. 1003

56 Sol. Jo.

Leach Leake

(1835) 7 C. & P. 327 v. Loveday (1842) 4 M. & G. 972 624 ; 12 L. J. C. P. 65 ; 7 Jur. 17 Leake o. Robinson (1817) 2 Mer. 363
v.

Thomas

626
;

Scott,

N. R. 908

2 D. (N.

S.)

421
. .

146; 1 Keb. 510; I Lev. 102 Leame . Bray (1803) 3 East, 593 407, 434, 544 Learoyd v. Brook [1891] i Q. B. 431 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 373 ; 64 L. T. 458 ; 39 219 W. R. 480 ; 55 J. P. 265 Learoyd v. Whiteley (1887) L. R. 12 App. Cas. 727 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 390 ; 58 1112,1113 L. T. 93 ; 36 W. R. 721 523; 35 Leather Cloth Co. 0. American Leather Co. (1865) 11 H. L. 12 L. T. 742 ; L. J. Ch. 53 Jr. (N. S.) 513 ; 13 W. R. 873 ; 6 N. R. '28 209 Leathes v. Leathes (1877) 5 Ch. D. 221 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 562 ; 36 L. T. 646 ; 25 574 W. R. 492 658 Lechmere & Lloyd, Re (1881) 18 Ch. D. 524 ; 45 L. T. 551 Leeo. Jones (1864) 17 C. B. N. S. 482 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 131 ; 11 Jur. (N. S.) . . . 292, 293 13 W. R. 318 81 ; 12 L. T. 122 . . . 728 Lee V. Merest (1870) 39 L. J. Ecc. 53 ; 22 L. T. 420 . . . 1275 Lee V. Pain (1845) 4 Ha. 201 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 346 ; 9 Jur. 247

Leakinso.

Clissel (1663)

Sid.

-537

877

"

..

...

Digitized

by Microsoft

clli

TABLE OF CASES
0.

Lee Lee Lee

Smith (1854) 9 Exch. 662

1079 .* Vincent (1584) Cro. EHz. 26 V. Walker (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 121 41 L. J. C. P. 91 ; 26 L. T. 70 Leech's (Sir Simon) Case (1692) Carth. 250 Leeds (Duke of) v. Amherst (1846) 2 Ph. 117 10 Jur. 956 Leeds v. Cromptoji (1586) cited 4 Rep. 120 a; Noy, 32; Cro. Eliz. 8i6; 4 Leon. 58, Godb. 93 Leeds (Duke of) o. Stratford (Earl of) (1798) 4 Ves. 180 Leeming, i?e [1912] i Ch. 828 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 453 106 L. T. 793 Lees B. Nuttall (1829) i Russ. & M. 53 ; Tam. 282 Lees v. Whitcomb (1828) 5 Bing. 34 2 M. & P. 86 3 Car. & P. 289 ; 6 L. J. (0. S.) C. P. 213 30 R. R. 539 Le Fanuo. Malcolmson (1848) I H. L. C. 637 Legg 0. Strudwick (1709) 2 Salk. 414 Legh, Re [1902] 2 Ch. 274 71 L. J. Ch. 668 66 J. P. 600 86 L. T. 884
o.
. ; ; .
.

............
;

PAGE
618 873 230

23 L. J. Ex. 198

W.

R. 377

2 C. L. R.

812
791

....
.

...
; ;

796 593 1262

233
215 508 619
1

5o,W. R. 570 Leicester, Case of the

130

of (1586) 2 Leon. 190 Leicester Forest Case (1607) Cro. Jac. 155 Leigh, Tie (1888) 40 Ch. :D. 290 ; 58 L. jf. Ch. 306 241 C.
.

Town

.
.

.
.

. .

694 684

A 899 Dickeson (1884) 15 Q. B. D. 60 54 L. J. Q. B. 18 52 L. T. 790 ; 33 W. R. 538^c. A 763 Leigh z). 'Gladstone (1909) 26 T. L. R. 139 437 Leigh V. Shepherd (1821) 2 Brod. & B. 465 5 Moore, 297 5 23 R. R. 516 . 1084 Leigh V. Taylor [1902] A. C. 157 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 272 86 L. T. 239 ; 50 W. R. 623; i8'T. L. R. 293 '. 788,1356 Leiston Gas Co. o. Leiston Council [1916] 2 K. B. 428 ; 85 L. J. K. B. 1759 ; 115L. T. 172; 80 J. P. 385; 14L. G..R. 922; 60 S.J. 554; 32T. L. R. 588 C. A 132 Leith II. Pope (1780) 2 W. Bl. 1327 493 Le Lievre . Gould [.1893J i Q. B. 491 62 L. J. Q. B. 353 4 R. 274 ; 68 L. T. 626; 41. W. R. 468; 57 J. P. 484 C. A 329 Lemage v. Goodban (18S5) L. R. i P. cfe M. 57 ; 35 L. J. P. 28 ; 13 L. T. 508 12 Jur. (N. S.) 32 1247 Le Maitre v. Davis (1881) 19 Ch. D. 281 ; 5: L. J. Ch. 173 46 L. T. 407 ; 30 W. R. 360 ; 46 J. P. 324 355 Le Mesurier o, Le Mesurier [1895] A. C. 517 64 L. J. P. C. 97 ; 72 L. T. 873 ; .' ii-R. 527 1204 Lemmon v. Webb [1894] 3 Ch. i ; 63 L. J. Ch. 570 ; 70 L. T. 712 ; 58 J. P. 716 7 R. 275 affirmed [1895] A. C. i 64 L. J. Ch. 205 71 L. T. 647 59J.P..564; II R. 116 ., .. 4,381,385,399,714,780 Lempriere v. Lange (1879) '^ Ch. D. 675 ; 41 L. T. 378 ; 27 W. R. 879 . 348 ii.JVIartin (1777) 2 W. Bl. 1148 Lempriere 597,598 Lempriere 0. Pasley (1788) 2 T. R. 485 965 Le Neyfi 0. Le Neve (1747) I Ambl. 436 757 Leng, Re [1895] i Ch.652 64 L. J. Ch. 468 72 L. T. 407 ; 43 W. R. 406 12.R. 2ca C. A. 1387, 1388, 1389 Leonard v. Leonard [1902] P. 243 ; 71 L. J. P. 1 17 87 L. T. 145 18 T. L. R, 1248 747 , Lepard . Vernon (1813) 2 V. & B. 51 13 R. R. 13 1408 Lepine, iJe,[i892] i Ch. 210 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 153 66 L. T. 360 C. A. 1412 Lepla V. Rogers [1893] i Q. B. 31 68 L. T. 584; 57 J. P. 55 5 R. 57 122 Leroux v. Brown (1852) 12 C. B. 801 22 L. J. C. P. i 16 Jur. 1021 W. R. 22
Leigh
V.
;

60 L. T. 404
;

37

W. R.

......
;
.

..... .....
; ; ; . ;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
LesUe
Lesbe
v.

cliii

PAGE
Cave (1888)
3 T. L.

R. 584

T. L. R. 5

56 L. T. 332

35

W. R.
406
1201

.515
v. Leslie [1911] P. 203 ; 80 L. J. P. 139 ; sub nam. L. V. L. (No. 2) 104 L. T. 462 ; 27 T. L. R. 316 ; S5 Sol. Jo. 386 Leslie, Ltd. v. ShieU [1914] 3 K. B. 607 ; 83 L. J. K. B. 1 145 ; 1 1 1 L. T. 106 58 Sol. Jo. 453 ; 30 T. L. R. 460 C.

Leslie V.

(1851) 9 Ha. 268 ; 20 L. J. Ch. 561 ; 15 Jur. 717 . . Lester v. Garland (1808) 15 Ves. 248 ; 10 R. R. 68 Lethbridge v. Phillips (18 19) 2 Stark. 544 Leuckhart v. Cooper (1836) 3 Bing. N. C. 99 ; 6 L. J. C. P. 131 ; 3 Scott, 521 Lever v. Goodwin (1887) 36 Ch. D. i ; 57 L. T. 583 ; 36 W. R. 177 C. A.' '. Leverett o. Townsend (^1590) Cro. Eliz. 198 Levy V. Abercorris Slate Co. (1887) 37 Ch. D. 260 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 202 ; 58 L. T. . 218; 36W. R. 411 . . Levy V. Stogdon [1898] i Ch. 478 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 313 ; 78 L. T. 185 ; affirmed ". . . [1899] I Ch. 5 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 19 ; 79 L. T. 364 C. A. Levy V. Walker (1879) 10 Ch. D. 436 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 273 ; 39 L. T. 654 ; 27

Tompson

348 38
71

206
963 378
681

1009
136

R. 370 C. A. 1030 Yates (1838) 3 N. & P. 249 i W. W. & H. 219 ; 8 A. & E. 129 ; 7 L. J. Q. B. 138 . . 95 Lewal, Re [1918] 2 Ch. 391 81 L. J. Ch. 588 ; 119 L. T. 520 ; 62 Sol. Jo. 702 ; 34 T. L. R. 538 1255 Leward . Baseley (1694) I Ld. Raym. 62 Salk. 407 434 Lewin v. Lewin (1752) 2 Ves. Sen. 415 1266 Lewis, i?e [1910] W. N. 217 ; 103 L. T. 495 .1125 55 Sol. Jo. 29 Lewis o. Alcock (1838) 3 M. & W. 188 6 Dowl. 389 530 Lewis V. Baker [1905] i Ch. 46 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 39 ; 21 T. L. R. 7 54 W. R. 146 611 Lewis V. Baker (No. a) [1906] 2 K. B. 599 75 L. J. K. B. 848 ; 95 L. T. 10 22 T. L. R. 680 Lewis V. BranthWaite (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 437 9 L. J. (0. S.) K. B. 263 594, 781 Lewis V. Clay (1898) 67 L. J. Q. B. 224 77 L. T. 653 46 W. R. 319. 37 Lewis V. Lane (1834) 2 Myl. & K. 449 586 Lewis V. Levy {li^S) El. Bl. & El. 537 27 L. J. Q. B. 282 ; 4 Jur. (N. S.) 970 ; 6 W. R. 629 516 Lewis V. Lewi3'(i87i) L. R. 13 Eq. 218 41 L. J. Ch. 195 ; 25 L. T. 555 20 W. R. 141 1395 Lewis V. Ponsford (1838) 8 C. & P. 687 471 Lewknor's Case (1586) 4 Leon. 162 789 Ley, / /Ae Gooiis 0/' (1840) 2 Curt. 375 1244 Ley c. Ley (1868) L. R. 6 Eq. 175 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 328 18 L. T. 126 ; 16 W. R. 59 995 LejTman v. Latimer (1877) 3 ^^- ^- 35^ 47 L- J- Ex. 470 37 L. T. 819 26 W. R. 305 14 Cox, C. C. 51 524 Lickbarrow v. Mason (1787) 2 T. R. 63 943 . Lidderdale v. Montrose (Duke) (1791) 4 T. R. 248 2 R. R. 375 999 1028 Liebig's Extract of Meat Co. o. Hanbury (1867) 17 L. T. 298 Liebmann, Ex pane [1916] i K. B. 268 ; 85 L. J. K. B. 210 ; 113 L. T. 971 31A 80 J. P. 49 32 T. L. R. 3 Lightly o. Clouston (1808) 1 Taunt. 112 476 Liles V. Terry [1895] 2 Q. B. 679 ; 65 L. J. Q. B. 34 73 L. T. 428 ; 44 W. R. 36 116 560 Lilford's Case (1614) II Rep. 49 a 16 L. T. Lilford (Lord) o. A.-G. (1867) L. R. 2 H. L. 63 ; 36 L. J. Ex. 116 184; 15W. R. 595 555

W.
o.

Levy

>

....
...
. ; .
.

.618
.

.......
; ; ; ;

....... ......
; ; ; . .
.

Digitized

by Microsoft

cliv

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
Doubleday (1881)
708 Elwin (1848)
11

Lilley o.

51 L. J. Q. B.

310

7 Q. B. D. 510
;

44 L. T. 814
.

46

J. P.

122,

204
208,

Lilley v.

Q. B. 742

17 L. J. Q. B. 132

12 Jur. 623

211, 213
Lilley

Roney (1892) 61 L. J. Q. B. 727 Lijnond, Re [1915] 2 Ch. 240 84 L. J. Ch. 833 59 Sol. Jo. 613 Limpusc Lt)ndon General Omnibus Co. (1862) i H. & C. 526 32
v.
;
;

342 1259

L. J. Ex.
. .

II W. R. 149 34 9 Jur. (N. S.) 333 7 L. T. 641 Lind, Re [1915] 2 Ch. 345 941 84 L. J. Ch. 884 59 Sol. Jo. 651 C. A. Lingwood . Gyde (1866) L. R. 2 C. P. 72 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 10 ; 16 L. T. 229 ; 15W. R. 311 584 Linoleum Co. n. Nairn (1878) 7 Ch. D. 835 47 L. J. Ch. 430 38 L. T. 44 1029 20 W. R. 463 . Linotype Co. w. British Empire Co. (1899) 81 L. T. 331 Linsley, Re [1904] 2 Ch. 785 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 841 1139 53 W. R. 172 Lintott, Ex parte {i%6i) 36 L. J. Ch. 510 ; L. R. 4 Eq. 184 ; 16 L. T. 228 ; II15 W. R. 617 Liquidation Estates Co. o. Willoughby [1898] A. C. 321 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 251 830 14 T. L. R. 295 78 L. T. 329 46 W. R. 589 Lister v. Lanes. & Yorks. Ry. [1903] i K. B. 878 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 385 ; 88 L. T. 561 ; 52 W. R. 12 250 Lister v. Ferryman (1870) L. R. 4 H. L. 521 ; 39 L. J. Ex. 177 ; 23 L. T. 269 : 19 W. R. 9 442, 49I1 493 Lister v. Stubbs (1890) 45 Ch. D. i 59 L. J. Ch. 570 ; 63 L. T. 75 ; 38 W. R. 548 23-3 Littleton o. Hibbins (1600) Cro. Eliz. 793 i375i '377 Liver Alkali Co. o. Johnson (1874) L. R. 9 Ex. 338 ; 43 L. J. Ex. 216 31 L. T. 95 249, 261 Liverpool & Adelphi Loan Co. v. Fairhurst (1854) 9 Exch. 422 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 18 Jur. 191 2 W. R. 233 58 163 2 Liv;erpool Household Stores, iJc (1890) 59 L. J. Ch. 616; 62 L. T. 873 Meg. 217 229 Liversidge 0. Broadbent (1859) 4 H. & N. 603 ; 28 L. J. Ex. 332 7 W. R. 6'5 143 Llandudno Urban Council v. Woods [i'899l 2 Ch. 705 68 L. J. Ch. 623 81 ,L. T. 170 48 W. R. 43 63 J. P. 775 377 Llewellin, Re [1891] 3 Ch. 145 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 732 65 L. T. 249 ; 39 W. R. 713 962 Llewellyn, Re [1911] i Ch. 451 80 L. J. Ch. 259 104 L. T. 279 ; 55 Sol. Jo.
; ; ; . . ; ; ; ;
.

.35'

.508
.

...........
; ; ; ; ; " ; ; ; ; ; ;

Williams (1610) Cro. Jac. 258 614 72 L. J. Ch. 78 87 L. T. 541 : 51 W. R. 177 [1903] i Ch. 385 19 T. L. R. loi C. A 996 Lloyd o. Carew (1697) Pre. Ch. 72 . 1074 Lloyd V. Dimmack (1877) 47 L. J. Ch. 398 ; 7 Ch. D. 398 38 L. T. 173 ; 26 W. R. 458 123 Lloyds. Jones (1848) 6 C. B. 81 12 Jur. 657 17 L. J. C. P. 206 745 Lloyd B. Nowell [1895] 2 Ch. 744 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 744 13 R. 712 73 L. T. I54;44W. R. 43 91 Lloyd 0. Spillet (1740) 2 Atk. 148 813,1103 Lloyds. Tench (1750) 2 Ves. Sen. 212 1308,1309 Lloyd's V. Harper (1880) 16 Ch. D. 290 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 140 43 L. T. 481 ; 29 W. R. 452 292, 293, 300 Lloyds' Bank v. Colston [1912] W. N. 26 ; 106 L. T. 420 827 Lloyds' Banking Co. v. Jones (1885) 29 Ch. D. 221 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 931 ; 52 L. T. 469 33 W. R. 781 761
v.

254 Llewelyn
Lloyd,

Re

......
. . . . . ; ;
.

884

....

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Lloyds'
Lloyds'

civ
PAGE

Bank

v.

Pearson [1901]

Ch. 865

70 L. J. Ch. 422
;

84 L. T. 314
;

761,

"53
Bank v. Swiss Bankverein (1912) 107 L. T. 309 28 T. L. R. 501 56 Sol. Jo. 688 17 Com. Cas. 280 (191 3) 108 L. T. 143 57 Sol. Jo. 29 T. L. R. 219; 18 Com. Cas. 79 C. A. 243 ; W. N. 52 933, 960 Lloyd Edwards, i?e (1891) 61 L. J. Ch. 22; 65 L.T. 453 117 Lloyd- Jones v. Clarke-Lloyd [1919] i Ch. 424 88 L. J. Ch. 278 120 L. T. 578; 63 Sol. Jo. 317; 35 T. L. R. 273 C. A 887 Llynvi Co. v. Brogden (1870) L. R. 11 Eq. 188 40 L. J. Ch. 46 23 L. T. 518; 19 W. R. 196 378 Loane v. Casey (1775) 2 Wm. Bl. 965 1382 Lock V. Furze (1866) 19 C. B. N. S. 96 11 Jur. (N. S.) 726 affirmed, i H. & R. 379 35 L. J. C. P. 141 L. R. I C. P. 441 15 L. T. 161 14 W. R. 403 121 Lockwood . Abdy (1845) 14 Sim. 437 9 Jur. 267 231 Lockwood V. Cooper [1903] 2 K. B. 428 72 L. J. K. B. 690 ; 89 L. T. 306 52 W. R. 48 ; 67 J. P. 307 309,311 Lockwood V. Levick (i860) 8 C. B. N. S. 603 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 340 7 Jur. (N. S.) 102 2 L. T. 357 8 W. R. 583 237 Lockwood V. Wood (1841) 6 Q. B. 31 13 L. _J. Q. B. 365 ; 8 Jur. 543 704 Loddington v. Kime (1694) i Salk. 224 656 Lodge's Patent, Re [1911J 2 Ch. 46; 80 L. J. Ch. 517; 104 L. T. 716; 1015 27 T. L. R. 419 28 R. P. C. 362 Lodge V. National Union Invest. Co. [1907] i Ch. 300 76 L. J. Ch. 187 ; 96 L. T. 301 23 T. L. R. 187 930 Lodie . Arnold (1697) 2 Salk. 458 15 Jur. 117 399 Logan V. Bank of Scotland [1904] 2 K. B. 495 73 L. J. K. B. 794 ; 91 20 T. L. R. 640--C. A L. T. 252 8 53 W. R. 39 Logann. Wienholt (1833) I CI. & F. 611 7Bligh(N. S.) I London's (Bishop of) Case (1522) Y. B. 14 Hen. VIII, pi. i 770 London (Mayor and Corporation of). Re [1910] 2 Ch. 314 79 L. J. Ch. 622 20 54 Sol. Jo. 562 616 103 L. "T. London Assurance v. Mansel (1879) 11 Ch. D. 363 48 L. J. Ch. 331 ; 41 L. T. 225 27 W. R. 444 39, 305 L. B. & S. C. Ry. V. Truman (1885) L. R. 11 App. Ca. 45 55 L.J. Ch. 354; 54 L. T. 250 34 W. R. 657 50 J. P. 388-H. L. (E.) 344, 393 London Chartered Bank of Australia v. White (1879) 4 App. Cas. 413 48 L. J. C. P. 75 205
; ; ;

....
. ; ; ; ;

.......
; ; ; ;

.....
.

.......
; ; ; .
. .

.....
. . ;

.140
;

........
; ;
. .

42 49 L. J. Ch. 297 L. T. 580 44 J. P. 345 28 W. R. 610 London County Council . A.-G. [1902] A. C. 165 71 L. J. Ch. 268 86 L. T. 161 ; 50 W. R. 497 ; 66 J. P. 340 London & Globe Finance Corporation, Re [1902] 2 Ch. 416 71 L. J. Ch. 18 T. L. R. 679 87 L. T. 49 893 London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Fearnley (1880) 5 App. Cas. 911 ; 43 L. T. 390 28 W. R. 893 45 J. P. 4 London & Midland Bank v. Mitchell [1899] 2 Ch. 161 : 68 L. J. Ch. 568 81 15 T. L. R. 420 L. T. 263 ; 47 W. R. 602 London & Northern Bank, In re [1900] i Ch. 220 69 L. J. Ch. 24 8i L. T. 512; 7 Manson, 60 L. & N. W. Ry. Co. V. West (1867) L. R. 2 C. P. 553 ; 36 L. J. C. P.
-o.
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; : ;

London (City of) v. Goree (1677) 3 Keb. 677 Riggs (1880) 13 Ch. D. 798 London Corporation

324
708
10

962
185

.........
; ; ;

947
91

245

55
41 Ch. D. 547
;

London School Board, Ex parte {iii<))


L. T. 817; 38

58 L. J. Ch. 752

60 606

W.

R. 61

Digitized

by Microsoft

clvi

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
S.

W. Ry. o. Gomm (1882) 20 Ch. D. 449 30 W. R. 620 Long, Re [1901] W. N. 166', 36 L. J. 405
L.

&

562
;

51 L. J. Ch.

530; 46L. T.
804, 1075
26,

Long . Blackall (1797) 7 T. R. 100 4 Long c. Grayi(i9i3) 58 Sol. Jo. 46^ -C. A. Long . Hebb (1652) Style, 341 Long V. Keightley (1877) li I. R, C. L. 221 Long . Long (1890) 15 P. D. 218 60 L. J. P. 27 Long V. Millar(i879) 48 L. J. C. P. 596 4 C. P. D. 450 27 W. Long v.. Symes (1832) 3 Hagg. Ecd. 771 Longchamp o. Fish (1807) 2 Bos. & P. N. R. 415 Longmeid 0. Hblliday (1851) 6 Exch. 761 20 L. J. Ex. 430

.....
.
.
'

iii L. T. Jo; 368 R. R. 73 ; 3 Ves. 466

....
;

720

C. A,

1234 1074 802, 803 925 467 1 187

102

1333 1258 '332

Lonsdale D. Nelson (1823) 2 B. & C. 311 3 D. & R. 556 ; 2 L. J. (0. S.) K. B, 28 ; 26 R. R. 363 Lonsdale v. Rigg (1857) i H. & N. 923 ; 26 L. J. Ex. 196 ; 3 Jur. (N. S.') 390 . 5 W. R. 355 Looker v. Looker [1918] P. 132 87 L. J. P. 72 ; 118 L. T. 654 62 Sol. Jo 405; 34T. L. R. 270 Loom, Re [1910] 2 Ch. 230 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 704 ; 102 L. T. 907 ; 54 Sol. Jo. 583 Lord V. Lord (1867) L. R. 2 Ch. ApfS 782 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 533 17 L. T. 105 15W. R. 1118 Lord V. Price (1874) L. R. 9 Ex. ^4 ; 43 L. J. Ex. 49 22 30 L. T. 271 W. R. 318 Lotan 0. Cross (i!8io) 2 Camp. 464. Lougher v. Williams (1673) 2 Lev. 92 Louis o. Louis (1866) L. R. i P. & M. 230 35 L. J. P. & M. 92 14 L. T. 770 14 W. R. 102(3 Louis V. Smellie (1895) 73 L. T. 226 C. A. Loveday, In the Goods of [i goo] P. 154 69 L. J. P. 48 83 L. T. 692 Lovell V. Beaucharap [1894] A. C. 607 63 L. J. Q. B. 802 71 L. T. 587 43 W. R. 129; I Manson, 467 Lovell . Lovell (1743) 3 Atk. II Lovell o. Martin (1813) 4 Taunt. 801 14 R. R. 668 Lovelock V. Franklyn (1846) 8 Q. B. 371 ; 15 L. J. Q. B. 146 ; 10 Jur. 246
;
.

399 932
1

179

752
1

271

.....
. .
.
'

'

414 409
1363
1201

'

210
1356

....... ...
;
. . .

267 59 415
120,

146 Loveridge, Re, Drayton 11. Loveridge [1902] 2 Ch. 859 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 865 87 L. T. 294 ; 51 W. R. 232 1354 Loveridge, Re, Pearce v. Marsh [1904] i Ch. 518 ; 73 L. J, 503 ; 52 W. R. 138 8, 1354 Lowo. Bouvttie [1891] 3 Ch. 82 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 594 ; 65 L.

50C. A
V.

Low

Burron (1734)

3 P.

Wms. 262

'

1154 580
T. 195
;

Lowe o. Adams

[1901] 2 Ch. 598 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 783 85 L. 37 ; 17 T. L. R. 763 Lowe V. Chester (Bishop) (1883) 10 Q. B. D. 407 48 L. T. Lowe 0. Darhng [1906] 2 K. B. 772 75 L. J. K. B. 1019 T. L. R. 779 Lowe V. Dixon (1885) 16 Q'. B. D. 455 34 W. R. 441 Lowe V. Fox (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 667 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 561 W. R. 144; 50 J. P.' 244 Lowndes, Re (1887) 18 Q. B. D. 677 ^6 L. J. Q. B. 425 ; W. R. 549'; 4Morrell, 139 Lowndes i>. CoUens (1810) 17 Ves. 27 . Lowndes v. Stont (17^75 4 Ves. 649 ; 4 R. R. 316 . Lows 11. Telford (1876; Li R. i App. Ca. 414
; ; ; . . .
. .

50
J-

W.

R.

79

47

673, 722 P- 375 728


;

95 L. T. 243

22

533

156,

297

53 L. T. 886

34
77,

....
;
.

844

56 L. T. 575

35
. .

1068 118 1263 383

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Lowther e. Carlton (1740) Barn, Ch. 359 Lowthers. Lowther (i8o6) 13 Ves. 95 Lubbock o. Tribe (1838) 3 M. & W. 607;
158

clvii

PAGE
757 930

H.

&

H. 160

7 L. J.

Ex

Luby

Wodehouse (1865) 17 Lucan (Earl), In re, Hardinge


V.

3"
Ir. C.
v.

L. R. 618.
L. J. Ch.
.

Cobden (1890) 60

40

470 ; 63 L. T. 538 ; 39 W. R. 90 96, 127 Lucas V. De la Cour (1813) i M. & S. 249 ; 14 R. R. 426 64 Lucas V. Dixon (1889) 58 L. J. Q. B. 161 22 Q. B. D. 357 ; 37 W. R, 37 102 Lucas V. Dorridh (1817) 7 Taunt. 278 ; i Moore, 29 ; 18 R. R. 480 922 Lucas V. Janies (1849) 7 Hare, 410 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 329 ; 13 Jur. 912 90 Lucena v. Lucena (1842) 5 Beav. 249 870 Lucy V. Levington (1671) 2 Lev. 26 1363 Ludgater v. Love (1881) 44 L. T. 694 45 J. P. 600 C. A. 64, 543 Ludwell V. Newman (1795) 6 T. R. 458 3 R. R. 231 6l2 Luke V. South Kensington Hotel Co. (1879) 11 Ch. D. 121 ; 48 L. J. Ch 361; 40 L. T. 638; 27W. R. 514C. A. 157 Lumley v. Gye (1853) 2 E. & B. 224 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 463 475, 479 Lumley v. Wagner (1852) i De G. M. & G. 604 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 898 16 Jur.
;

45 Ch.

34

..... ....

. . .

871

28 T. L. R. 45 19 Mans. 26 C. A i Ir. Ch. R. 273 Lusher v. Hassard (1904) 20 T. L. R. 563 C. A. . Lutterel . Weston (161 1) Cro. Jac. 308 Luttrel's Case (1601) 4 Rep. 86 a 722, Lycett V. Stafford & Uttoxeter Ry. (1872) L. R. 13 Eq. 261 ; 41 L. J. Ch, 474 25 L. T. 870 Lyddon v. Moss (1859) 4 De G. cfe J. 104 ; 5 Jur. (N. S.) 637 7 W. R. 433 Lyde v. Barnard (1836) i M. & W. 115 i Gale, 388 ; i Tyr. & Gr. 250 ; 5 L. J. Ex. 117 Lyell V. Hothfield (Lord), [1914] 3 K. B. 91 1 ; 84 L. J. K. B. 251 30 T. L. R. 630 Lyles V. Southend-on-Sea [1905] 2, K. B. i 74 L. J. K. B. 484 ; 69 J. P. 3 L. G. R. 691 C. A. 193 ; 92 L. T. 586 ; 21 T. L. R. 389 Lynch o. DalzeU (1729) 4 Bro. P. C. 431 Lynch v. Knight (1861) 9 H. L. C. 577 5 L. T. 291 464, 470, 473, Lynch v. Nurdin (1841) i Q. B. 29 ; 4 P. & D. 672; lo L. J. Q. B. 73 ;
Sol. Jo.
o.

Lundyc. Lundy (i895)24Can. S. C. 650 Lunn.c. Thornton (1845) 15 M. & W. 379 Lupton, Re [1912] 1 K. B. 107 8i L. J. K. B. 177
;

..... ...... ......


. ;

128

1277

940
999 672
590 849 839 232
541
,

205

105 L. T. 726

56

Lurting

Conn

(1850)

......
. . .
. . . .

-75

853
345 305 505

5 Jur- 797 Lynch-Blosse, iJe [1899] W. N. 27 (8) Lyne, 'A;pae (1822) 3 Starkie, 132 Lynes, Re [1893] 2 Q. B. 113 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 372

.......
;

327, 334

1122 441

68 L. T. 739

41

W.

R.

488
Fishmonger's Co. (1876) L. R. 1 App. Ca. 662 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 68 ; 35 L. T. 569 ; 25 W. R. 16S-H. L. (E.) 328, 392, Lyon o. Home (1868) L. R. 6 Eq. 655 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 674 81 L. T. 451 ; 16 W. R. 824 Lyons v. De Pass (1840) 1 1 A. & E. 326 3 P. & D. 177 9 C. & P. 68 ; 9 L. J. Q. B. SI 4 Jur. 505 Lyons v. Wilkins [1899] i Ch. 267 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 146 79 L. T. 709 ; 47 W. R. 291 ; 63 J. P. 339C. A Lvsaght V. Edwards (1876) 2 Ch. D. 499 45 L. J. Ch. 554 34 L. T. ' 787 ; 24 W. R. 778 189,
o.
. .
. .

29
773

Lyon

34 947

402
19J

Digitized

by Microsoft

clviii

TABLE OF CASES
M. 414
;

C. (1872) L. R. 2 P. & 20 W. R. 495 M. B. D. (I'SSj) 10 P. D. 75 Maas o. Pepper [1905] A. C. T. L. R. 304 12 Mans.

M.

V.

41 L. J. P.

&

M. 37

26 L. T. 321
.
.

177

Macartney

0.

54 L. J. P. 68 ; 33 W. R. 657 102 92 L. T. 371 74 L. J. K. B. 452 107 Londonderry & Co. [1904] A. C. 301 73 L. J. P. C. 73
; ; ; ; ; ;

L. T. 105 H. L McAuliffe, In the Goods of [1895] P. 290


II

Macbeth

R. 610 v. N. & S. Wales Bank [1906] 2 K. B. 718 75 L. J. K. B. 1026 [1908] A. C. 137; I K. B. 13 McGallum, Re [1901] i Ch. 143 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 206 83 L. T. 717 ; 49 W. R. 129; 17T. L. R. 112 MacCarthy 0. Jacob & Richardson, Ruegg (7th ed.) 133 MacCarthy o. Young (1861) 6 H. & N. 329 ; 30 L. J. Ex. 227 3 L. T. 785 9 W. R. 439 McCartney v. Londonderry Ry. [1904] A. C. 301 73 L. J. P. C. 73 91 L. T. 105; 52W. R.'385
; ; .
. .

........ ...........
; ;

1176,1177
21

950
327
1339

91

64 L.

J.

P. 126

73 L. T. 193

416 76 364
198

...

710
1225

McClellan, a;pae (1831) I Dow. 81 Macclesfield (Mayor) v. Chapman (1843) 12 M. & W. 18 ; 13 L. J. Ex. 32 ; 7 Jur. 1041 Macclesfield (Mayor) o. Pedley (1833) 4 B. & Ad. 397 ; i Nev. & M. 708 McCloughan v. Clayton (1816) Holt, N. P. 478 MeClure's Settlement, Re (1906)76 L. J. Ch. 52 ; 95 L. T. 704 ; 23 T. L. R.

...........
.

694 694 442


II 20

42

MacCombie v. Davies McCormick o. Grogan


961

McCreight II. McCmght (1849) 13 Ir. Eq. 314 1234 66 L. J. Ch. 630 Macdonald, Re [1897] 2 Ch. 181 76 L. T. 713 ; 45 W. R. 628 76, 1384 Macdonald v. Irvine (1878) 8 Ch. D. loi ; 47 L. J. Ch. 494 38 L. T. 155 26W. R. 381 1 121 Macdougall v. Knight (1889) L. R. 14 App. Cas. 194 58 L. J. Q. B. 537 ; 60 L. T. 762 38 W. R. 44 516,517 S3 J. P. 691 MacDowallc. G. W. Ry. [1903] 2 K. B. 331 72 L. J. K. B. 652 88 L. T. 825 19 T. L. R. 552 C. A. 327,334 McEacharn, i? (1911) W. N. 23 103 L. T. 900 1119 55 Sol. Jo. 204 McEntire v. Crowley Bros. [1895] A. C, 457 64 L. J. P. C. 129 72 L. T. 731; 2 Mans. 334; II R. 207 950 McEwan v. Smith (1849) ^ H. L. C. 309 ; 13 Jur. 265 922 McGachen o. Dew (1851) 15 Beav. 84 1115 McGrath, Re [1893] i Ch. 143 62 L. J. Ch. 208 67 L. T. 636 41 W. R. 1219,1220,1221,1226 97; 2 R. 137^ ^C. A McGregor v. Thwaites (1824) 3 B. & C. 24 4 Dbwl. & R. 695 508 McGruther v. Pitcher [1904] 2 Ch. 306 73 L. J. Ch. 653 91 L. T. 678 ; 20 T. L. R. 652; 53W. R. 138 C. A 927,1018 Machado v. Pontes [1897] 2 Q. B, 231 66 L. J. Q. B. 542 76 L. T. 588 ; 45 W. R. 565C. A. 339 Machil 0. Clark (1702) 2 Salk. 619 570 Machu, i?e (1882) 21 Ch. D. 838 47 L. T. 577 30 W. R .837 43, 44, 558, 559 Mcllquham v. Taylor [1895] i Ch. 53 63 L. J. Ch. 758 ; affirmed 71 L. T. 8 R. 750 n. C. A 1002 679 Macintosh v. Dun [1908] A. C. 391 77 L. J. P. C. 113 24 99 L. T. 64 R,7o5 T. L. 518
; ;
.

........... .....
(1805) 7 East, ^ ; 3 Smith, 3 ; 8 R. R. 534 (1869) L. R. 4 H. L. 82 ; Ir. R. i Eq. 313 ; 17
.

416
1

W.

R.
100

.... .......
'

'.

.......
; ; . ; ;

Pigitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Mclvers. Richardson (1813) I M. & S. 557 Mackay, iJe[j9ii] I Ch. 300; 80 L. J. Ch. 237; 103 L. T. 755 Mackay o. Dick (1881) 6 App. Ca. 251

cUx
PAGE
.

go 1146,1147 48
;

Mackay o. Douglas

(1872) L. R. 14 Eq. 106

W. R. 652 McKean v. Mclver


20

41 L. J. Ch. 539

26 L. T. 721

(1870) L. R. 6 Ex. 36

40 L.

Mackensie v. Robinson (1747) 3 Atk. 559 755 Mackenzie, In the Estate /"[igog] P. 305 26 T. L. R. 39 1330 Mackenzie, Re [191 1] i Ch. 578 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 443 105 L. T. 154 .27 T. L. R-337; 55S0I. Jo. 406 3, 1184 Mackenzie 11. Childers (1889) 43 Ch. D. 265 59 L. J. Ch. 188 ; 69 L. T. 98 .805, 806 McKenzie o. Hardinge (1906) 23 T. L. R. 15 468 McKerrell, Re [1912] 2 Ch. 648 82 L. J. Ch. 22 ; 107 L. T. 404 1092, 1093 Mackinley o. Sison (1837) 8 Sim. 561 ; i Jur. 558 867 Mackinnon v. Peach (1838) 2 Keen, 555 7 L. J. Ch. 211 1288
; .
. ;

......
J.

Ex. 30

24 L. T. 559

1060 251

Macklin, .Epae (1755) 2 Ves. Sen. 675 Mackreth . Symmons (1805) 15 Ves. 329 MacLaughlin v. Pryor (1842) 4 M. & G. 48 4 Scott, N. R. 555 ; Car. & Man. L.J. C. P. 169 354; Macleay, Re (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 186 44 L. J. Ch. 441 : 32 L. T. 682 23

...... ..... ...... ......


. . .

1235

840
354

McLeod
M'Leod

W.R.718 V. Drummond
R. R. 41
V.
.

(1805) 41 Ves. 353


. .
. .

affirmed (1811) 17 Ves. 152


. .

...
; .

45,558
;

11
.

1406
152

Power

[1898] 2 Ch. 295

67 L. J. Ch. 551
;

79 L. T. 67;
;

47 48
;

W.
McLeod

R. 74
V. St.

Aubyn

[1899] A. C. 549

68 L. J. P. C. 137
;

81 L. T. 158

W. R. 173 506 Maclure, Ex parte (1870) L. R. 5 Ch. 737 23 L. T. 685 39 L. J. Ch. 685 ." i8 W. R. 1122 McMahon v. Lennard (1858) 6 H. L. C. 970 742 McManus v. Bark (1870) 39 L. J. Ex. 65 L. R. 5 Ex. 65 21 L. T. 676 151 McManus v. Cooke (1887) 35 Ch. D. 681 56 L. J. Ch. 662 56 L. T. 900 51 J. P. 708 35 W. R. 754 99, 671 MacManus v. Crickett (1800) i East, 106 5 R. R. 518 353 M'Manus v. Lanes. & Yorks. Ry. (1859) 4 H. & N. 327 28 L. J. Ex. 353 ;
. .
. .

......
. .
.

.222
. ;

....
-

Sjur. (N. S.)65i; 7W. R..S47 MacMillan v. Dent [1907] i Ch. 120 76 L. T. L. R. 45 C. A
;

256
J. Ch. 136
;

95 L. T. 730

23
;

427 Goods of {1S67) L. R. i P. & M. 540 37 L. J. P. 14 17 16 W. R. 283 L. T. 393 21, 1244, 1256 McMurray . Spicer (1868) 37 L. J. Ch. 505; L. R. 5 Eq. 527; 16 loi W. R. 332 McMyn, Re (1886) 33 Ch. D. 575 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 845 55 L. T. 834 35 W. R.

M'Murdo, In

the
;

179

Macnamara
M'Neillie
v.
;

..........
;

1182, 1183, 1376

o.

Dillon (1S83) II

Ir.

Acton (1853) 4 De
.

R. fCh.) 29 G. M. & G. 744;


.
. .

660
23 L. J. Ch. 11
. .

17 Jur.
. .

2 Eq. R. 21. 0. Daniels (1829) 10 B. & C. 263 5 Man. (O. S.) K. B. 14 McPherson v. Watt (1877) L. R. 3 App. Ca. 254 McQueen 0. Farquhar (1805) II Ves. 467
1041

1405

McPherson

&

Ry. 251

8 L. J. 507, 508

39 871
;

McQuire

v.

Western Morning News [1903] 2 K. B. 100


.

72 L. J. K. B. 612
;

88 L. T. 757; 51 W. R. 689 Macreight, Re (1885) 30 Ch. D. 168 W. R. 838

"

509,510
53 L. T. 146

55 L. J. Ch. 18

...
;

33
3

Digitized

by Microsoft

clx

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
(1871) L. R. 6 Q. B. 612
;

Macrow v. G. W. Ry.

40 L.

J.

Q. B. 300
;

24 L. T.
256
;

618; 19W. R. 873 Maddever, Re (1883) 27 Ch. D. 523

1062, 1064 R. 286^C. A v. Alderson (1883) 52 L. J. Q. B. 737 ; 8 App. Ca. 467 ; 49 L. T. . 99, 100 303 31 W. R. 820H. L. (E.) Haddock, Religoz} 2 Ch. 220 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 567 ; 86 L. T. 644 ; 50 W. R. iioo, 1393 598 C. A. Magdalen College Hospital v. Knotts (1879) 4 App. Ca, 324 48 L. J. Ch. 390,618' 579 40 L. T. 466 ; 27 W. R. 602 Magnolia Metal Co. [1897] 2 Ch. 371 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 598 ; 76 L. T. 672 C. A. 1029 Magrett, Ex pane [1891] i Q. B. 413 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 339 55 J. P. 100 ; 39 W. R. 337 23 Maguire v. Liverpool Corporation [1905] i K. B. 767 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 369 ; 21 T. L. 92 L. T. 374; 69 J. P. 153 53 W. R. 449 3 L. G.: R. 485 R. 278 C. A. 404 1200 Maidlow 0. Maidlow [1914] P. 245 ; 84 L. J. P. 20 112 L. T. 804 C. A. Major o. Brandword (1630) Cro. Car. 260 551 Makin v. Watkinson (1871) 40 L. J. Ex. 33 ; L. R. 6 Ex. 25 23 L. T. 592 19W. R. 286 115 Malachy o. Soper (1836) 3 Bing. N. C. 371, 384 ; 3 Scott, 723 ; 6 L. J. Cj P. . 406,428 32; 2 Hodges, 217. Maleverer 0. Spinke (1537) Dyer, 35 b, 36 b . 790 Mallett V. Bateman (1865) L. R. i C. P. 163 1 H. & R. 109 ; 35 L. J. C. P. . . 290 40; 12 Jur. (N. S.) 122 ; 13 L. T. 410 14W. R. 225 Mallinson 0. Siddle (1870) 39 L. J. Ch. 426 ; 18 W. R. 569 590 Mallott V. Wilson [1903] 2 Ch. 494 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 664 89 L. T. 522 . 812 Malone v. Laskey [1907] 2 K. B. 141 ; 76 L. J. K. B. 1 134 ; 97 L. T. 324 23 T. L. R. 399 C. A. 329, 391 Manchester Corporation 0. Williams [1891] i Q. B. 94 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 23 ; 63L.T. 805; 39W. R. 302; 54 J. P. 712 . .10,346,521 Manchester &'01dham Bank 0. Cook (i,883j 49 L. T. 674 201 Manchester, Sheffield, &c., Ry. v. North Central Wagon Co. (i888) L. R. 13 App. Ca.. 554 58 L. J. Ch. 219 59 L. T. 730 37 W. R. 305 . 941 Manchester & Soilthport Ry. Co., Re (1854) 19 Beav. 365 . . 1362 Manchester Trust v. Furness [1895] 2 Q. B. 539 64 L. J. Q. B. 766 73 L. T. no 44 W. R. 17S 8 Asp. M. L. C. 57 14 R. 739 933 Manders 0. Williams (1849) 4 Exch. 588 18 L. J. Ex. 437 . . 417 Mangan 0. Atterton (1866) L. R. i Ex. 239 4 H. & C. 388 ; 35 L. J. Ex. 161 ; 14 W. R. 771 14 L. T. 411 334 Mangena v. Lloyd (1908) 24 T. L. R. 610 98 L. T. 640 ; reversed, 25 T. L. R. 26599L. T. 824 514 Mangena . Wright [1909] 2 K. B. 958 ; 78 L. J. K. B. 879 ; 100 L. T. 960 ; 509,514,527 S3 Sol. Jo. 485 ; 25 T. L. R. 534 Mangles v. Dixon (1852) i Mac. & G. 437 ; i Hall & Tw. 542 19 L. J. Ch. 240 142 Manks . Whiteley [191 1] 2 Ch. 448; 8b L. J. Ch. 696; 105 L. T. 504; reversed [1912] i Ch. 735 81 L. J. Ch. 457 106 L. T. 490 . 836 Manley 0. Field (1859) 7 C. B. N. S. 96 29 L. J. C. P. 79 ; 6 Jur. (N. S.) 300 464 Mann's Case (1867) L. R. 3 Ch. App. 459 n. Mann, &c., Ltd,, v. Land Registrar [1918] i Ch. 203 87 L. J. Ch. 81 ; 117 L. T. 705 ; 62 Sol. Jo. 54 ; 34 T. L. R. 39 1077 Manners v. Pearson [1898] i Ch. 581 67 L. J. Ch. 304 ; 78 L. T. 432 ; 46 W. R. 498C. A no Manning o. Andrews (1576) I Leon. 256 ; 4 Leon. 2 1263 Manning 0. Spooner (1796) 3 Ves. 114 1391,1392

53 L. J, Ch. 998

52 L. T. 35

33

W.

Maddison
;

'

...
.

....
.

....
; . ;

........
; ; ; ; . ; . . .
.

.981

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Manning v. Thesiger (1835) 3 My. & K. 29 Manning v. Wasdale (1836) 5 A. & E. 758 6 L. J. K. B. 59
;
.

clxi

PAGE
;

4 L. Nev.
;

J. Ch.

&

. 285 P. 172 2 H.
;

1274

& W.
.

43 1

710,715
.

Mannox

Greener (1872) L. R. 14 Eq. 456 27 L. T. 408 556, 562 Mansel's Settled Estates, iJe [1884] W. N. 209 919 Mansel . Norton (1883) 22 Ch. D. 769 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 357 48 L. T. 654 ; 31 W. R. 325C. A 1364 Mansell v. GrifiSn [1908] i K. B. 160 ; 98 L. T. 51 ; 72 J. P. 6 ; 24 T. L. R. i K. B. affirmed [1908] 67 947 ; 77 L. J. K. B. 676 ; 99 L. T. 132 ; 72 J. P. 179 24 T. L. R. 431 ; 6 L. G. R. 1:48 C. A. 436, 437, 1225 Mansell v. Mansell (1732) 2 P. Wms. 681 ; Cas. t. Talb. 252 2 Eq. Cas. Abr.
v.
;
.

747, pl- 6 756 Mansell (Lady) v. Mansell (Sir E.) (1757) Wilm. 36 872, 873 Mansell v. Valley Printing Co. [1908] 2 Ch. 441 77 L. J Ch. 742 99 L. T. 464 ; 84 T. L. R. 802 52 Sol. Jo. 660 C. A. . 419, 427, 429 Manser o. Back (1848) 6 Hare, 443. 126 Manvell v. Thomson (1826) 2 C. & P. 303 464, 467 Manzoni o. Douglas (1880) 6 Q. B. D. 145 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 289 29 W. R. 425 45 J- P- 391 330 Mapey 0. Baker (1909) 73 J. P. 289 ; 7 L. G. R. 636 ; 53 Sol. Jo. 429 C. A. 527 "" ' " Mara o. Browne [1896] i Ch. 199 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 225 ; 73 L. T. 638 ; 44 W. R. 268 330 Maraver, In the Goods of {iZii) 1 Hagg. Eccl. 498 1255 March, Re (1883) 24 Ch. D. 222 reversed (1884) 27 Ch. D. 166 1087 March v. Lee (1670) i Cha. Ca. 162 ; 2 Vent. 337 817 Marchant v. Morton, Down & Co. [1901] 2 K. B. 829 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 820 85 L. T. 169 142 Margate Pier Co. v. Margate Corporation (1869) 20 L. T. 564 3 B. & Aid. 266; 22 R. R. 378 401 Marker o. Marker (1851^ 9 Hare, I 786,792 Market Overt Case (1596) 5 Rep. 83 a 946, 947 Markham o. Cobb (1626) Sir W. Jones, 147 Latch, 144 Noy, 82 ; Benloe,
.

......
;
. .

185

478
v.

Markham
Marks
V.

Paget [1908]

Ch. 697

77 L. J. Ch. 451

98 L. T. 605
;

24

T. L. R. 426

-63;
78 L. T. 607
;

Frogley [1898] i Q. B. 888 W. R. 548 19 Cox, C. C. 91 Marks 11. Samuel [1904] 2 K. B. 287 W. R. 88 ; 20 T. L. R. 430
;

67 L.

J.

Q. B. 605

46
442
53 501, 524

73 L. J. K. B. 587
;

90 L. T. 590
;

Markwick
361

v.

Hardingham

(1880) 15 Ch. D. 339

43 L. T. 647

29

W.

R.

Marlow v. Pitfield (1719) i P. Wms. 558 Marney O.Scott [1899] 1 Q.B. 986; 47W. R. 666; 68 L. J. Q. B. 736. Marquis of Bute v. Thompson (1844) 13 M. & W. 487 14 L. J. Ex. 9; Marriott II. Hunyton (1797) 7 T. R. 269 Marsden's Trusts, Re (1859) 28 L. J. Ch. 906
;

-23
332,355
. .

59.

239

129 39 871 1102 1331 1098

. . v. Crutwell (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 328 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 504 Marshall, /i6eGoO(iso/ (1836) I Curt. 297 . Marshall, Re [1914] i Ch. 192 ; 83 L. J. Ch. 307 ; 109 L. T. 835 C. A. Marshall o. Berridge (1881) 19 Ch. D. 233 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 329 ; 45 L. T. 599 ; 46 J. P. 279 ; 30 Vl^. R. 93 Marshall v. Broadhurst (1831) i Cr. & J. 403 ; 9 L. J. (O. S.) Ex. 105 ; i Tyr.

Marshal

614
1405 1320

349 Marshall Maishall


c.L.

ir.

v.

Smith (1865) 5 Giff. 37 Steward (1615) Hob. 129

Moore, 868

Brownl. 8

54
'

Digitized

by Microsoft

clxii

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
I

Marshall Marshall

v.

JJUeswater Steam Navigation Co. (1863) 3 B. &,S. 732

701, 702,

v.

UUeswater Steam Navigation Co. (1871) L. R. 7 Q. B. 166


.

719, 720 41

L. J. Q. B. 41 ; 25 L. T. 793 ; 20 W. R. 144 . . Marshalsea, Case of the (1613) 10 Co. Rep. 68' b, 75 Marten, Re [1902] i Ch. 314; 71 L. J. Ch. 203 ; 85 L. T. 704; 50

773
.

209 Martin v. Margham (1844) 14 Sim. 230 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 392 ; 8 Jur. 609 Martin o. Porter (1839) 5 M. &W. 351 2 H. &H. 70 Martin w. Power (1839) 5 M. & W. 351 Martin v. Price [1894] i Ch. 284 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 209 ; 7 R. 90 ; 70 L. T. 202 42 W. R. 262 C. A Martin v. Shoppee (1828) 3 C. & P. 373 Martin w. Strachan (1742) 5 T. R. 107 n Martin 0. Temperley (1843) 4 Q. B. 298 ; 3 G. & D. 497 ; 12 L. J. Q. B. 129
; . . .

............
W.
.

324)343 R. 869

.381
7^
;

991

373

432 389
;

7 Jur. 150 Martindale, Re [1894] 3 Ch. 193


53
i

351
;

64 L.

J. Ch. 9

71 L. T. 468

43

W. R.
1230

8 R.
v.

729
R. M.
S.

Martineaus

Co. (1912) 106 L. T. 638 ; 28 T. L. R. 364 ; 56 Sol. Jo. 445 ; 17 Com. Cas. 176 Martinez v. Gerber (1841) 3 M. & G. 88 ; 3 Scott (N. R.) 386 ; 10 L. J. C. P. 314; 5 Jur. 463 Marvin, Re [1905] 2 Ch. 490 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 699 ; 93 L. T. 599 ; 54 W. R. 74 ;

944 477

Mary, Duchess
V .

21 T. L. R. 765 of Sutherland,
.
.

Re ; Bechoflo. Bubna

1383, 1418 (191 5) 31 T. L. R. 394


. .

C. A. Marys' (Robert) Case (1612) 9 Co. Rep. iii b ; 2 Brownl. 55, 146 Marzetti ii. Williams (1830) i B. & Ad. 415 ; 9 L. J. (0. S.) K. B. 42

31B 477
121,

124, 370

Maskell's and Goldfinch's Contract, Re [1895] 2 Ch. 525 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 678 ; 22. 898 72 L. T. 836 ; 43 W. R. 620 . Maskell v. Horner [1915] 3 K. B. 106 ; 84 L. J. K. B. 1752 ; 113 L. T. 126 ; 321 79 J. P. 406 ; 13 L. G. R. 808 ; 59 Sol. Jo. 429 ; 31 T. L. R. 332 C. A. . . . Mason, Re [1901] i Ch. 619 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 342 ; 84 L. T. 174 1267 Mason v. Bogg (1837) 2 My. & Cr. 443 ; i Jur. 330 1388 Mason v. Famell (1844) 12 M. & W. 674, 684 ; i D. & L. 576 ; 13 L. J. Ex.

.....
.
.

142 Masoii v. Harvey (1853) 8 Exch. 819 22 L. J. Ex. 336 Mason . Hill (1833) 5 B, & Ad. i 2 Nev. & M. 747 2 L. J. K. B. 118. Mason v. Keeling (1700) i Ld. Raym. 606
.

Mason Mason

v.

Lickbarrow (1790)

H.

Bl.

357

(1882) 7 P. D. 233 ; (1883) 8 P. D. 21 ; 52 L. J. P. 27 L. T. 290 ; 31 W. R. 361 C. Mason v. Shrewsbury Co. (1871) L. R. 6 Q. B. 578 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 293 L. T. 239 ; 20 W. R. 14
v.

Mason

...... ......
; .

....
. .

423, 1268

48

710 360
921

48
.

1203

25
706, 710
;

Masonic Life Assurance

Co.,

Re

(1885) 32 Ch.

D. 373

34W.R.
Masper
v.

55 L. J. Ch. 666
;

739
(1876)
i

1346
C. P.

Brown

D. 97

45 L. J. C. P. 203
;

34 L. T. 254

24
439i 472 53

W.
Masson

R. 369
.

Fries [1909] 2 Sol. Jo. 744 C. A.

De

K. B. 831
i

loi L. T. 476
;

25 T. L. R. 784
;

934
Ch. 32I

Master's Settlement,
55 Sol. Jo. 170

Re

[1911]

Master D. Miller (1791) 4 T. R. 340. Masters v. Pollie (1620) 2 Rolle Rep. 141

.......

80 L. J. Ch. 190

103 L. T. 899

873, 87s

497 780

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Mather v. Fraser (1856) 25 L. J. Ch. 360 ; 2 Kay & J. 536 2 Jur. (N. S.) 900 4 W. R. 387 Mather v. Lord Maidstone (1856) i C. B. N. S. 273 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 58 ; 3
;

clxiii

PAGE
17

Mathew

Jur. (N. S.) 112; 5 W. R. 163. t/. Brise (1851) 14 Beav. 341
v. v.

Biddulph (1841) 3 M. & G. 390 438 Feaver {ijiS) i Cox, 278 ; i R. R. 39 1058, 1062 Mathieson, ii(i9i8) 87L. J. Ch. 445; 119 L. T. 18 C. A. 1220 Matthews v. Baxter (1873) L. R. 8 Ex. 132 42 L. J. Ex. 73 ; 28 L. T. 169, 669; 21 W. R. 389, 741 28,977 Matthews v. Matthews (1859) 29 L. J. P. & M. 118 2 L. T. 472 6 Jur. (N. S.) 659 8 W. R. 591 I Sw. & Tr. 499 affirmed 3 Sw. & Tr.

Mathews Mathews

.......
. . . . . . . . : ; ; ;

94
1235

161

Matthews Matthews

Ruggles-Brise [1911] i Ch. 194; 80 L. J. Ch. 42 ; 103 L. T. 491 v. Smallwood [1910] i Ch. 777 ; 79 L. 102 L. T. 228 J. Ch. 322 Matthieson v. Clarke (1854) 3 Drew. 3 24 L. J. Ch. 202 ; 18 Jur. 1020; 3 W. R. 2 Matts V. Hawkins (18 1 3) 5 Taunt. 20
zi.
; ;

............
; ;

1195 1138

799
1

Maunder

v.

Venn

(1829)

M.

& M.

......
. . . .
. .

323

Maundrell 11. Maundrell (1804) 10 Ves. 246 Maxim-Nordenfelt Case [1894] A. C. 535 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 749 ; 69 L. T. 471 ; 42 W. R. 38 42 Maxwell !(. Martin (1830) 6 Bing. 522 May V. Burdett (1846) 9 Q. B. loi 16 L. J. Q. B. 64 ; 10 Jur. 692 361, 453 May V. Lane (1894) 64 L. J. Q. B. 236 14 R. 149 ; 71 L. T. 869 ; 43 W. R. 193 C. A 141, 365, 496 May V. Piatt [1900] i Ch. 616 69 L. J. Ch. 357 ; 83 L. T. 123 48 W. R. 617 38 Mayfair Property Co., Re [1898] 2 Ch. 28 67 L. J. Ch. 337 78 L. T. 302 ; 1008 46 W. R. 465 14 T. L. R. 336 5 Mans. 127 C. A. Mayfair Property Co. v. Johnston [1894] i Ch. 508 63 L. J. Ch. 399 ; 8 R. 781 ; 70 L. T. 485 405, 1085 Mayfield v. Wadsley (1824) 3 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 31 3 B. & C. 357 5 D. & R. 114 224 Mayhew v. Eames (1825) 3 B. & C. 601 4 D. & R. 484 ; i C. & P. 550 ; 3 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 108 64 Mayhew o. Herrick (1849) 7 C. B. 229 18 L. J. C. P. 179 13 Jur. 1078 418 Mayhew v. Suttle (1854) 4 E. & B. 347 3 C. L. R. 59 24 L. J. Q. B. 54 i Jur. (N. S.) 303 643 3 W. R. 108 Mayor o. Pine (1825) 3 Bing. 285 321 Mead, Re (1880) 15 Ch. D. 651 50 L. J. Ch. 30 43 L. T. 117 28 W. R.
.

124 780 464 866

.718

891

1292, 1293

Mead
Meats

V. V.

Orrery (Lord) (1745) 3 Atk. 235 L. & S. W. Ry. (1862) 1 1 C. B. N.


;

426 igo Mecca, The [1895] P. 95 64 L. J. P. 40 ; 71 L. T. 711 ; 43 W. R. 209 "4 7 Asp. M. L. C. 529 ; 1 1 R. 742 C. A Mediana, The [1900] A. C. 16 69 L. J. Q. B. 35 ; 48 W. R. 398 82 L. T. 95 37 16 T. L. R. 194 ; 9 Asp. M. C. 41 H. L. (E.) 596 Medows, Re [1898] i Ch. 300 67 L. J. Ch. 145 78 L. T. 13 ; 46 W. R. 297 Meek v. Chamberlain (1881) 8 Q. B. D. 31 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 99 46 L. T. 344 ; 1324 30 W. R. 228 1051 . Meek v. Kettlewell (1843) i Ph. 342 13 L. J. Ch. 28 ; 7 Jur. 1120 Melling 0. Leak (1855) 16 C. B. 652 ; 3 C. L. R. 1017 24 L. J. C. P. 187 ; i . . 643,644 3 W. R. 595 Jur. (N. S.) 759
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; . ; . . . . i

.........
S.

1406

850

31 L. J. C. P. 220

6 L. T.

/2

Digitized

by Microsoft

clxiv

TABLE OF CASES
V.

Mellor Mellor Mellor

Baddeley (1834) 2

Cr.

& M.

675

4 Tyr. 962

6 C.

&

P. 374

L. J. Ex. 217
o. V.

490
386, 679, 717
Ch, 475
;

Spateman (1669) i Wms. Saund. 343 Walmesley [1905] 2 Ch. i64;-74 L. J.


;

93 L. T. 574

53

W.
Melville

R. 581
v.

21 T. L. R.

S91 C.

A.

Aiicketill (1909) 25 T. L.

R. 655 C. A.

Melwich v. Luter (1588) 4 Rep! 26 Mendes v. Me'ndes (1747) 3 Atk. 619 ; i Ves. Sen. 8 Menetone v. Athawse (1764) 3 Burr. 1592 132, 224 Mennie v. Blake (1856) 6 E. & B. 842 25 L. J. Q. B. 399 ; 2 Jur. (N.5.) 413 953 4 W. R. 739 Mentney v. Petty (1722) Pre. Ch. 593 1309 Menzies o. Breadalbane (1828) 3 Bligh (N. S.) 414 772 Mercantile Bank of London v. Evans [1899] 2 Q. B. 613 68 L. J. Ch. 921 i47 81 L. T. 376 15 T. L. R. 535C. A. Mercantile Bank of Sydney v. Taylor [1893] A. C. 317 ; 57 J. P. 741 155. 3i
;
'

773 1335 59

Mercer's Case (1586) Jenk. 268 . Mercer, Ex parte (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 290 C. A,

502
;

55 L. J. Q. B. 558

54 L. T, 720
1061
;

Mercer

2Ch. '538 74 L. J. Ch. 723 65i 54W. R.303; 3L. G. R. 1293-C. A.


11.

Denne

[1905]

; .

93 L. T. 412
. .

70 J. P. 385,680,744, 745. 747, 858


.

Mercer . Irving (1858) El. Bl. & E!.'s63 27 L. J. Q. B. 291 5 Jur. (N. S.) 143; 6 W. R, 661 Merchant Taylors' Co. o. A.-G. (1871) L. R. 6 Ch. App. 512 40 L. J. Ch. 545 ; 25 L. T. 109 19 W. R. 641 Mercler v. Mercier [1903] 2 Ch. 98; 72 L. J. Ch. 511 88 L. T. 516; 51 W. R. 6ii C. A. Meredith. Joans (1632)' Cro. Car. 244 Merest . Harvey (1814) 5 Taunt. 442 i Marsh. 15 R. R. 548 139 Merivale v. Carson (1887) 20 Q. B. D. 275 58 L. T. 33: 36 W. R. 231 ; 52
; ; . . ; ;
. .

50
1

103

...

1183 573 370

J- P- 261

Merle

Wells (1810) 2 Camp. 413 Merry v. Green (1841) 7 M. & W. 623 10 L. J. M. C. 154 . 921, Merryvs^eather o. Moore [1892] 2 CK 518 ; 61 L'. J. Cli. 505 66L. T. 719 40 W. R. 540 Merryweather 1). Nixan (1799) 8 T. R. 186 16 R. R. 810 Mersey Docks v. Gibbs (1866) L. R. i H. L. 93; 11 )H. L. Cas. 686; 35 L. J. Ex. 225 12 Jur. (Jf. S.) 571 ; 14 L. T. 677 14 W. R. 872o.
; . : ; . . . ; ;
,

....... ..........
; . .
.

509, 526

292 924

210 337

~ H. L. (E-.) 340 Mersey Steel & Iron Co. v. Naylor (1884) 51 L. J. Q. B. 576 9 Q. B. D. 648 120, 146, 147, 148 47 L. T. 369 31 W. R. 83 Re Merten's Patent [1915] i K. B. 8^7 ; 84 L. J. K. B. looi 112 L. T. 313 ; 20 Com. Cas. 189 j 32 R. P. C. 109 ; 59 Sol. Jo. 216 ; 31 T. L. R. 162 '. C. A 31B Merttens v. Hill [1901] i Ch. 842 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 489 ; 65 J. P. 312 ; 49 W. R. 408 ; 17 T. L. R. 289 607 Messenger v. Armstrong (1785) i T. R. 53 619 Messenger v. Clarke (1850) 5 Exch. 388 19 L. J. Ex. 306 ; 14 Jur. 74S 1184 Metcalf,7 A GooiiJf 0/(1822) I Add. 343 1341 Metropolitan Assoc, v. Petch (1858) 5 C. B. N. S. 504, 512 27 L. J. C. P. 330 ; 4 Jur. (N. S.) 1000 396 Metropolitan Asylum Board v. Hill (i88i) L. R. 6 App. Cas. 193 ; 44 L. T. W. R. 617 47 L. T. 29 45 J. P. 664 50 L. J.. Q. B. 353 653 29 H.L. (E.) 345,402
; ; ;
. .

......
; ;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Metropolitan

ckv
PAGE

449 ; 53 Metropolitan Metropolitan 37 L. T. Metropolitan


54 L. T. Metropolitan

201

Pooley (1885) L. R. 10 App. Cas. 210 54 L. J. Q. B. L. T. 163 33 W. R. 709 497, 49 J. P. 756 Ry. v. G. W. Ry. (iqoi) 84 L. T. 333 C. A. Ry. i/. Jackson (1877) L. R. 3 App. Cas. 197 ; 47 L. J. C. P. 303 ; 679 26 W. R. 175 H. L. Ry. v. Wright (1886) L. R. 11 App. Cas. 152 55 L. J. Q. B. 401 658 ; 34 W. R. 746 H. L. (E.) Saloon Co. v. Hawkins (1859) 4 H. & N. 146 5 Jur. (N. S.)
v.
; ;

Bank

..
;

498 707
330 372
521

Metropolitan Water Board v. Dick, Kerr & Co. [1918! A. C. 119 87 L. J. K. B. 370 117 L. T. 766 82 J. P. 61 16 L. G". R. I 23 Com. Cas. 62 Sol. Jo. 102; 34T. L. R. 113 H. L. (E.) 148 133 Mette V. Mette (1859) i Sw. & Tr. 416 28 L. J. P. & M. 117; 7 W. R. 543 1 173 Meux V. Cobley [1892] 2 Ch. 253 61 L. J. Ch. 449 66 L. T. 86 577, 626 Meux V. G. E. Ry. [1895] 2 Q. B. 387 64 L. J. Q. B. 657 14 R. 620 73 L. T. 247 336, 429 43 W. R. 680 59 J. P. 662 C. A. Meux Brewery . City of London Electric Light Co. [1895] i Ch. 287; 64 L. J. Ch. 216 12 R. 112 C. A. 72 L. T. 34; 43 W. R. 238 377, 378, 396, 401 Mews . Mews (1852) 15 Beav. 529 1184 Mexican and South American Co., Re (1859) 4 De G. & J. 544 28 L. J. Ch. 1014 7 W. R. 681 769 5 Jur. (N. S.) 1191 Meyer o. Dresser (1864) i6 C. B. N. S. 646 33 L. J. C. P. 289 10 L. T. 612 12 W. R. 983 loj Meyerstein v. Barber (1866) JL- R. 2 C. P. 38 943, 949, 954 Meynell . Howard (1696) Pre. Ch. 61 . Michael 0. Fripp (1868) L. R. 7 Eq. 95 17 W. R. 23 1233 19 L. T. 257 Michael o. Gay (1858) I F. & F. 409 1065 Michael v. Hart [1901] 2 K. B. 867 70 L. J. K. B. 1000 85 L. T. 548 50 W. R. 154 17 T. L. R. 761 [1902] I K. B. 482 71 L. J. K. B. 26? 86 L. T. 474 61 L. J. Ch. 326 66 L. T. 366 40 W. R. 375 Michell, Re [1892] 2 Ch. 87 1304, 1319 Micklethwait v. Vincent (1892) 67 L. T. 225 770 Micklethwaite v. Micklcthwaite (1857) i De G. & J. 504 26 L. J. Ch. 721 786 5 W. R. 861 3 Jur. (N. S.) 1279 Micklethwaite 0. Newlay Bridge Co. (1886) 33 Ch. D. 133; 5s L. T. 336; 51 J. P. 132 C. A 778 Middleton . Chichester (1871) L. R. 6 Ch. 152 40 L. J. Ch. 237 24 L. T. 1 19 W. R. 299 144 173 10 L. T. 408 12 W. R. 706 840 Middleton v. Magnay (1864) 2 H. ^ M. 233 Middleton 0. Sherburne (i84i)4yo. &C. 351 36 Middleton p. Spicer (1783) I Bro. C. C. 201 ^ 753 Midgley v. Midgley [1893] 3 Ch. 282 62 L. J. Ch. 905 69 L. T. 241 41 1383,1420 W. R. 659 2 R. 561C. A 1170 Midgley p. Wood (i860) 30 L. J. P. M. & A. 57 Midwood V. Manchester Corp. [1905] 2 K. B. 597 7+ L. J. K. B. 884 69 J. P. 348 ; 54 W. R. 37 93 L. T. 525 21 T. L. R. 667 ; 3 L. G. R. 1 136 C. A 345 63 L. J. Q. B. 593 Mighell V. Sultan of Johore [1894] i Q. B. 149 9 R. 447
; ; ; ;

....
; .

.......
;
.

.819
.

'.122

......
;
;

58 J. P. 244 C. 48 L. J. C. P. 695 Migotti V. Colville (1879) 4 C. P. D. 233 27 W. R. 744 14 Cox C. C. 305 Mildmay's Case (1606) 6 Rep. 40 a Mildmay v. Hungerford (169 1) 2 Vern. 245

70 L. T. 64

341
;

40 L. T. 747
67, 70, 71

5^4 590

Digitized

by Microsoft

clxvi

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
Forest

. . Co. (1918) 62 Sol. Jo. 634 ; 34 T. L. R. 500 V. New Zealand Alford Estate Co. (1886) 55 L. J. Ch. 801 ; 32 Ch. D. 266 ; 54 L. T. 582 ; 34 W. R. 669 C. . ,. . . Millard's Case (1678) 2 Freem. 43 ,. ., . . Millard, Re (1895) 72 L. T. 823 C; A. ; reversing 2 Manson, 56

Miles Miles

V.

Rock

406

1417 Millbourn v. Lyons [i 914] i Ch. 34 83 L. J. Ch. 737 ; [1914] 2 Ch. 23 1 1 1 803 L. T. 388 ; 58 Sol. jo. 578 C, A . . Millechamp . Johnson (1746) Willes, 265 n. 745 Millen o. Hawery (1625) Latch, 13 386 Miller o, David (1874) L. R. 9 C. P. 1-18 43 L. J. C. P. 84 ; 30 L. T. 58 ; 22 510 W. R. 332 Miller v. Dell [1891] i Q. B. 468 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 404; 63 L. T. 693 39 W. R. 342C. A. 422, 947 Miller v. Douglas (1886) 56 L. J. Ch. 91 ; 55 L, T. 583 1132 35 W. R. 122 Miller v. Miller (1735) 3 P. Wms. 356 1291, 1292 Miller o. Race (1758) I Burr. 452 415,420,938,1142 Milligan v. Wedge (1840) 12 A. & E. 737 4 P. & D. 714 ; i Q. B. 714 ; 10 L. J. Q. B. 19 354 Millington 0. Fox (1838) 3 Myl. & Cr. 338 1029 121 L. T. 254 ; 17 Mills 0. Brooker [1919] i K. B, 555 ; 88 L. J. K. B. 950 L. G. R. 238; 62.S0L Jo. 431 84 35 T. L. R. 261 . Mills 0. Capel (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 692 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 674; 33 L. T. 158 570 MiUs 0. Colchester (Mayor of) (1867) L. R. 2 C. P. 476 36 L. J. C. P. 210 16L. T. 626; 15W. R. 955'. 745 2 Am. 62 ; 8 L. J. Mills v. Fowkes (1839) 7 Scott, 444 ; 5 Bing. N. C. 455 C. P. 276 ; 3 Jur. 406 . Mills o. Graham (1804) i B. & P. N. R. 140 ; 8 R. R. 767 . 347 126 Mills V. Haywafd (1877) 6 Ch. D. 196 C. A . Mills 7>. Millward (1890) 1.5 P. D. 20 ; 59 L. J. P. 23 ; 61 L. T. 651 124& 81 L. J. Ch. 210,; 105 L. T. Mills V. United Counties Bank [1912] i Ch. 231 742 ; 28 T. L. R. 40 C. A . . Millward v. Littlewood (1850) 5 Ex. 775 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 2 129 Milner's Safe Co. v. G. N. Ry. [1907] i Ch. 208 76 L. J. Ch. 99 96 L. T. 130 23 T. L. R. 88 C. A 708 Milner's Settlement, Re [1891] 3 Ch. 547 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 84 65 L. T. 310 40 W. R. 76 46 Milnes, iic(i885) 53 L. T. 534; 33 W. R'. 927 1276 Mibes 0. Gery (1807) 14 Ves. 400 ; 9 R. R. 307 185 Milroy 0. Lord (1862) 4 De G. F. & J. 264 8 Jur. (N. S.) 31 L. J. Ch. 798 iioi 806; 7L. T. 178 Milward v. Thanet (Earl of) (1801) 5 Ves. 720 n. 126 5 R. R. 150 n. Miner v. Gilmour (1858) 3 L. T. 98; 12 Moo. P. C. 156; 7 W. R. 328 403,771 Mirams, .Re [1891] i Q. B. 594; 60 L. J. Q. B. 397; 64 L. T. 117; 39 W. R. 464 8 Morr. 59 998, 999 Mires v. Solebay (1677) ^ Mod. 242 419 Mitchell, Re [1913] i Ch. 201 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 121 108 L. T. 34; sub nom. Mitchell, / re; Truelovec. Mitchell, 57 Sol. Jo. 213 . 985 Mitchell 0. Alestree (1677) I Vent. 295 361 Mitchell 0. Homfray (1881) 8 Q. B. D. 587 50 L. J. Q. B. 460 45 L. T. .694; 29W. R. 558 35 Mitchell v. Jenkms (1833) 5 B. & Ad. 588 ; 2 N. & M. 301 3 L. J. K. B.
.

94 756

....
; ; ; .

....
.

.114

.828
.

.....
; .

.......
; . . . ; ; ; ;

35.

Mitchell V. Lanes. & Yorks. Ry. (1875) L. R. 10 Q. B. 256 :o7 ; 33 L. T. 61 ; 23 W. R. 853

33Si 493

44 L.

J.

Q. B.

251

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Mitchell
V.
;

ckvii
PAGE

Mosley [1913] W. N. 43 57 Sol. Jo. 340 ; 29 T. L. R. 273 109 L. T. 648 [1914] I Ch. 438 ; 83 L. J. Ch. 135 58 Sol. Jo. 218 ; 30 T. L. R. 29 C. A 74, 777, Moens v. Heyworth (1842) 10 M. & W. 147 10 L. J. Ex. 177 Moeser v. Wisker (1871) L. R. 6 C. P. 120 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 94 24 L. T. 134 19W. R. 351 Moet V. Pickering (1878) 8 Ch. D. 172 47 L. J. Ch. 527 ; 38 L. T. 799 26 W. R. 637
; ; ;
.

842
541

320
205

Moffatt

V.

Bateman

(1869) L. R. 3 P. C. 115;

22 L. T. 140

6 Moore,

P. C. (N. S.) 360 iJ. Mogg (1824) 2 Add. 292 Mogul S.S. V. Macgregor (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 598 W.R. 756; 53 J. P. 709

259

Mogg

H93
;

58 L. J. Q. B. 465
;

37 481,484. 1333

Mohanudu Mohideen Hadjiar v. 90; 71 L. T. 99i 6R. 510


MoUineux
Molton
V. 0.

Pitchey [1894] A. C. 437


P.

63 L. J. P. C.
. .

Powell (1730) at

Wms. 267
;

footnote

Camroux (1849) 4 Exch. 17 18 L. J. Ex. 356 Molyneux v. Hawtrey [1903] 2 K. B. 487 72 L. J. K. B. 873
;

...
.
; ; ;

577,668 26, 977


;

89 L. T. 350 R. 23 186 Molyneux v. Richard [1906] i Ch. 34 75 L. J. Ch. 39 ; 93 L. T. 698 ; 54 W. R. 177 ; 22 T. L. R. 76 127 Monckton, Re [1913] 2 Ch. 636 ; 83 L. J. Ch. 34 109 L. T. 624 57 Sol. Jo. 836 754 Monckton v. Payne [1899] 2 Q. B. 603 68 L. J. Q. B. 951 81 L. T. 204 '591 48W. R. 44; 15T. L. R. 531 Mondel 0. Steel (184:) 8 M. & W. 858 i D. (N. S.) i ; 10 L. J. Ex. 426 124 Monmouth Canal Co. v. Harford (1834) i C. M. & R. 614 5 Tyrw. 68 4 L. J. Ex. 43 850 Monson's S. E., Re [1898] i Ch. 427 67 L. J. Ch. 176 78 L. T. 225 ; 46 W. R. 330 ; 14 T. L. R. 247 883 Monson v. Tussaud, Ltd. [1894] i Q. B. 671 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 454 9 R., 177 ; 70 L. T. 335 ; 58 J. P. 524 C. A 376, 500 Montagu, Re [1896] 1 Ch. 549 65 L. J. Ch. 372 ; 74 L. T. 346 44 W. R. 583 1281 Montagu v. Forward (1893) 2 Q. B. 350 69 L. T. 371 : 42 W. R. 124 65 Montague v. Sandwich (Earl) (1886) 32 Ch. D. 525 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 925 54 L. T. 502 C. A 1284 Montefiore 0. Brown (1858) 7 H. L. C. 241 873 4 Jur. (N. S.) 1201 Montefiore v. Guedalla (1859) : De G. F. & J. 93 i L. T. 29 L. J. Ch. 65 1282 251; 6 Jur. (N.S.) 329; 8 W.R. 53 Montefiore v. Guedalla [1903] 2 Ch. 723 52 W. R. 151 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 13 1 107 89 L. T. 472 Montefiore v. Menday Co. [1918] 2 K. B. 241 87 L. J. K. B. 907; 119 L. T. 340 ; 62 Sol. Jo. 585 42 34 T. L. R. 463 661 Monyppnny c. Dering (1847) 16 M. & W. 418 Monypenny o. Dering (1852) 2 De G. M. & G. 145 ; 22 L. J. Ch. 313 ; 17 i73 J'ir-4S7 Moodie v. Garnon (1616) i Roll. Rep. 330; Moo. 848; Cro. Jac. 390; 3 Bulstr. 153 796 870 Moodie o. Reid(i8i6) I Madd. 516; 16 R. R. 257 Moody V. Steggles (1879) '^ Ch. D. 261 48 L. J. Ch. 639 ; 41 L. T. 25 713 Moon . Towers (1860)8 C. B.(N. S.) 611 58 1309 Moor . Barham (1723) I P. Wms. 53 Moore, /Ae G00& o/[i892] P. 14s ; 61 L. J. P. 119 1339 Moore, Re [1901] i Ch. 936 70 L. J. Ch. 358 ; 84 L. T. 501 ; 17 T. L. R. 1073 356 49 W. R. 484
52

W.

....

Digitized

by Microsoft

clxviii

TABLE OF CASES
Darton (1851) 4 De G.

Drinkwater (1858) i F. & F. 134 413 o. Meagher (1807) i Taunt. 39 3 Smith, 135 523 v. Metropohtan Railway Co. (1872) L. R. 8 Q. B: 36 ; 42 L. J. Q. B. 21 W. R. 145 27 L. T. 579 23 352 Moore v. Moore (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 474 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 617 30 L. T. 752 22 W. R. 729 984, 1293 Moore 0. Plymouth (Lord) (1817) 7 Taunt. 614 671,722 Moore o. Robinson (1^31) 2 B. & Ad. 817 ; i L. J. K. B. 4 408, 412, 921 Moore v. Singer Manufacturing Co. [1904] i K. B. 820 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 457 68 J. P. 369 C. A. . 973 52 W. R. 385 20 T. L. R. 366 Moore . Voughton (1816) I Stark. 487 . Moran v. Pitt (1873) 42 L. J. Q. B. 47 ; 28 L. T. 554 21 W. R. 525 947 Morant, In the Goods qf{i&74) L. R. 3 P. cfe M. 151 ; 43 L. J. P. 16 ; 30 L. T. 1334 74 22 W. R. 267 Mordan, Re [1905] i Ch. 515 92 L. T. 488 ; 53 W. R. 74 L. J. Ch. 319 .1117 599 C. A. Mordaunt v. British Oil Mills [1910] 2 K. B. 502 ; 79 L. J. K. B. 967 ; 103 L. T. 217; 54 Sol. Jo. 654 15 Com. Cas. 285 923 Mordaunt v. Mordaunt (1870) L. R. 2 P. & M. 382 ; 41 L. J. M. 42 26 L. T. 8i2 20 W. R. 553 347 Morel V. Westmoreland (Earl of) [1903] i K. B. 64 72 L. J. K. B. 66 ; 87 L. T. 635 ; 51 W. R. 290 56 Mores . Conham (1609) Owen, 123 2 Brownl. 273 557 Morgan, In the Goods of (1866) L. R. i P. & M. 214 35 L. J. P. 98 ; 14 L. T. 894 ; 14 W. R. 1022 . . 1238 Morgan, Re (1881) 18 Ch. D. 93 50 L. J. Ch. 834 ; 45 L. T. 183 ; 30 W. R. 223 C. A. 1350, 1407 Morgan, Re [1893] 3 Ch. 222 62 L. J. Ch. 789 ; 69 L. T. 407 C. A. . 992 Morgan v. Davies (1878) 3 C. P. D. 260 26 W. R. 816 70 Fear [1907] A. C. 425 L. J. Ch. 660 Morgan 0. 76 857 Morgan 0. Hughes (1788) 2 T. R. 225 489, 490 Morgan v. Jackson [1895] i Q. B. 885 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 462 ; 72 L. T. 593 722 59 J. P. 327; 43 W.R. 479; 15 R. 411 Morgan v. Jeffreys [1910] i Ch. 620 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 360 ; 74 J. P. 154 26 T. L. R. 324 830 Morgan 0. Lingen (1863) 8 L. T. 800 J25 Morgan 0. Milman (1853) 3 De G. M. & G. 24 22 L. J. Ch. 897 ; 17 Jur. I W. R. 143 193 99 Morgan . Morgan (i 841) 2 Curt. 679 1195 R. 10 Eq. 99 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 493 Morgan o. Morgan (1870) 22 L. T. 59 j ; 18W. 1r. 744 666 Morgan v. Ravey (1861) 6 H. & N.^265 30 L. J. Ex. 131 ; 3 L. T. 784 ; 9 W. R. 376 245 Morgan o. Scudamore (1677) 2 Ch. Rep. 70 595 Morgan 0. Stable (1872) L. R. 7 Q. B. 6i i : 41 L. J. Q. B. 260 26 L. T..906 367 Morgan w. Thomas (1853) 8 Exch.. 302 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 152 17 Jur. 283 1347 Morgan v. Vale of Neath Ry. (186;) L. R. i Q. B. 149 5 B. & S. 736 35 L. J. Q. B. 23; 13'L. T. 56<t; 14W. R. 144 448 Morison v. Thompson (1874) L.'R. 9 Q. B. 480; 43 L. J. Q. B. 215 ; 30 T. 869 22 W. R. 859 L. 209, 23s Morley o. Bird (1798) 3 Ves. 628 ; 4 R. R. io6 1088, 1090, 1091, 1093, 1288 Morley 11. Clifford (1882) 20 Ch. D. 753 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 687 46 L. T. 561 ; 30 W. R. 606 , 717
0.
; ; ; ; . ; ;

Moore Moore Moore Moore Moore

B.

v.

Denn

(1800) 2 B.

....... ...... .... ......... ....


&
Sm. 517 P. 247

PAGE
16

&

20 L. J. Ch. 626

983,1292

.116
.

.........
; ; ; . . . ;

.....
;

<

....
. . . . . .
.

.........
.

.... ......
; ;

....... .......
;

.....
; ; ; . ;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Morley v. Hay (1828) 7 L. J. (O. S.) 104 3 M. & Ry. 696 Morley v. Pincombe (1848) 2 Exch. loi 18 L. J. Ex. 272 Morrant v. Gough (1827) 7 B. & C. 206 : Man. & Ry. 41
; ; ;

clxix

..
.

PAGE
. .

Morrell

v.

Cowan

(1877) 7 Ch. D. 151


. .

47 L.
.

J.

Ch. 73
.

;
.

31 R. R- 171 ; 37 L. T. 586 ; 26
.

967 972 988

. W. R. 90 . . . . . 292 Morrell v. Martin (1841) 3 M. & G. 581 ; 4 Scott (n. r.) 300 ; 1 1 L. J. M. C. 22 343 Morris's Estate, Re (1874) L. R. 10 Ch. App. 68 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 178 ; 31 L. T. 1382 491 ; 23 W. R. 120 Morris, Re [1908] i K. B. 473 ; 77 L. J. K. B. 265 ; 98 L. T. 500 962, 968 Morris 0. Baron cSc Co. [1918] A. C. i ; 87 L. J. K. B. 145 ; 118 L. T. 34
.

(E.) 145 6 Jur. (N. S.) Barrett (1859) 7 C. B. N. S. 139 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 102 68 609 ; I L. T. 38 ; 8 W. R. 45 Morris o. Davies (1836) 5 CI. & F. 163 i Jur. 911 1207 Morris v. Dimes (1834) i A. & E. 654 3 Nev. & M. 671 3 L. J. K. B. 170 703 Morris v. Howes (1845) 4 Ha. 599 i6 L. J. Ch. 121 ; 10 Jur. 955 906, 975 Morris v. MacCuUoch (1763) 2 Eden, 190 Ambl. 432 42 Morris v. Morris (1858) 3 De G. & J. 323 28 L. J. Ch. 329 5 Jur. (N. S.)

H. L.
o.

Morris

....
.

791 229 7 W. R. 249 421 Morris v. Robinson (1824) 3 B. & C. 206 5 D. & R. 35 27 R. R. 322 1009 Morrison, Re [1914] i Ch. 50 Morritt, Re (1886) 18 Q. B. D. 222 56 L. T. 42 56 L. J. Q. B. 139 35 W. R. 277C. A 949>9S5 ^ ^ 870 Morse v. Martin (1865) 34 Beav. 500 Mortgage Insurance Corpn. v. Canadian Co. [1901] 2 Ch. 377 70 L. J. Ch. loii 684 ; 84 L. T. 861 Mortimer, Re [1905] 2 Ch. 502 74 L. J. Ch. 745 93 L. T. 459 659, 661 48 L. J. Ch. 470 Mortiraore v. Mortimore (1879) L. R. 4 App. Cas. 448 27 W. R. 575 affirming 37 L. T. 520 Mortimore v. Wright (1840) 6 M. & W. 482 9 L. J Morton, In the Goods 0/(1887) '2 P- D- H' 5^ I- J- P51 J. P. 680; 35 W.R. 735 Morton v. Lamb (1797) 7 T. R. 125 ; 4 R. R. 395 Morton v. Woods (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 658 Moseley v. Rendell (1871) L. R. 6 Q. B. 338 ; 40 L. 774; 19 W. R. 619 Moseley v. Virgin (1796) 3 Ves. 134 i Morr. 244 Moser, Re (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 738 33 W. R. 16 8; L. T. 596 ; 18 T. L. Moses, Re [1902] i Ch. 100 71 L. J. Ch. loi 1264 147C. A. 3'5 Moses V. Macpherlan (1760) 2 Burr. 1005 i W. Bl. 219 874 Mosley . Mosley (1800) 5 Ves. 248 Mosley v. Walker (1827) 7 B.'& C. 40 9 Dow. & Ry. (K. B.) 863 ; 5 L. J 694 31 R. R. 146 (O. S.) K. B. 358 646 Moss V. Gallimore (1779) i Dougl. (K. B.) 279 208 Moss V. Hall (1850) 5 Exch. 46 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 205 Moss V. Hancock [1899] 2 Q. B. 1 1 1 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 657 ; 80 L. T. 693 ; 47 414. W. R. 698 ; 15 T. L. R. 353 ; 19 Cox C. C. 324 63 J. P. 517 420, 938 1173, MosS V. Moss [1897] P. 263 66 L. J. P. 154 77 L. T. 220 45 W. R. 635 1 176
;

........
; ;
;

Mostyn v. Fabrigas (1774) i Cowp. 161 Mott V. Buxton (1802) 7 Ves. 201 Mott V. Sihoplbred (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 22

34'

755
;

44 L.

J.

Ch. 380

,23

W. R.

545

395^

396, 851

Digitized

by Microsoft

clxx

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
s.

Moule

Garrett (1872) L. R. 7 Exch. loi

41 J. Ex. 62

26 L. T. 367

20

W. R. 416 629, 632 Moult V. Halliday [1898] i Q. B. 125 ; 67 L. J. Q. B. 451 ; 77 L. T. 794 212 46 W. R. 318; 62 J. P. 8 Mounsey 0. Ismay (1863) i H. & C. 729 32 L. J. Ex. 94 ; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 306 7 L. T. 717 ; II W. R. 270 ; (1865) 3 H. & C. 486 ; 34 L. J. Ex. 52 ; 12 L. T. 27 II Jur. (N. S.) 141 13 W. R. 521 679, 744, 745, 746, 858 Mountain v. Bennet (1787) i Cox, 353 12561 1258
; ; ; ; . .
.

Mount-Cashell (Earl)

v.

More-Smyth [1896] A.
0.
;

C. 158

65 L. J. P. C. 12
. .

74L. T. 321 Mount Edgecumbe

1304,1312

Inland Revenue Commissioners [1911] 2 K. B. 24 ; 80 L. J. K. B., 503 27 T. L. R. 298 55', 616 Mounttord v. Gibson (1804) 4 East, 441 ; i Smith, 129 7 R. R. 599 1345 Mountgarret's Will, Re [1919] 2 Ch. 294 88 L. J. Ch. 405 121 L. T. 414 63 Sol. Jo.. 626; 35 T. L. R. 585 561 Mountjoy o. Huntington (1583) Godb. 17 684, 685 Mousley v. Ludlam ((851) 21 L. J. Q. B. 64 625 15 Jur. 1107 Mowbray 0. Odrich (1333) 2 Wils. 24 Moxham, The M^ (1876) L. R. i P. D. 107 ; 46 L. J. P. 17 ; 34 L. T. 559 24 W. R. 650 339 Moxhay 0. Inderwick (1847) I De G. & S. 708 Moxon V. Berkeley Building Society (1890) 59 L. J. Ch. 524 62 L. T. 250 836 Moxon V. Bright (1869) L. R. 4 Ch. 292 20 L. T. 961 378 .' Moyle's Ca*e (1599) Noy, 70 . 672 Muggleton . Barnett (1857) 2 H. & N. 653 27 L. J. Ex. 125 4 Jur. (N. S.) 139 ; 6 W. R. 182 1299, '32 Mulcahy o. R. (1868) L. R. 3 H. L. 317 I. R. i C. L. 13. 481 Mulgrave 0. Qgden (1591) Cro. Eliz. 219 416 Mullens c. Miller (1882) 22 Ch. D. 194 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 380 48 L. T. 103 31 W. R. 559 126, 229 Muller 0. Trafford [1901] i Ch. 54 70 L. J. Ch. 72'; 49 W. R. 132 . 6i6 Mullett o. Challis (1851) 16 Q. B. 239 20 L. J. Q. B. 161 ;,15 Jur. 243 530 Mulligan o. Cole (1875) L.R. 10 Q.B. 549; 44L. J. Q. B. 153 33 L. T. 12. .508, 510 MuUiner v. Florence (1878) L. R. 3 Q. B. D. 484 47 L. J. Q.-B. 700 38 L. T. 167 26 W. R. 385 C. A 247, 416, 961 Mulroony v. Todd [1909] i K. B. 165 78 L. J. K. B. 145 ; 100 L. T. 99 ; 73 461 J. P. 73 ; 25 T. L. R. 103 Mumford v. Stohwasser (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 556 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 694 30 L. T. 859 22 W. R. 833 757 Mundy's and Roper's Contract [1899] i Ch. 275 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 135 ; 79 L. T. 583 ; 47 W., R. 226 C. A 882,883 Munro v. Munro (1840) 7 CI. & F. 842 1206 Munster v. Lamb (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 588 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 726 ; 49 L. T. 252 W. R. 248 ; 47 J. P. 805 32 512 Murphy v. Ford (1855) 5 Ir. C. L. R. 19 647 Murphy 0. Glass (1869) L. R. 2 P. C. 408 ; 6 Moore, P. C. (N. S.) i ; 20 L. T, 461 17 W. R. 592 2g6 Murray v. East India Co. (1821) 5 B. & Aid. 204 24 R. R. 325 . . 1348 Murray v. Hall (1849) 7 C. B. 441 ; 18 L. J. C. P. 161 ; 13 Jur. 262 387, 389 Murray v. Mann (1848) 2 Exch. 538 ; 17 L. J. Ex. 256 ; 12 Jur. 634 234 Murray 0. Watkins (1890) 62 L. T. 796 77 Murthwaite o. Jenkinson (1824) 2 B. & C. 357 ; 3 B. & C. 191 ; 3 D. & R. 764 26 R. R. 384 580 Muschamp e. OLancs. & Preston Junction Ry. (1841) 8 M. & W. 421 2 Railw, Cas. 607 ; 5 Jur. 656 250
(Earl of)
;
.

.411
;

....
; . . . . . ; .
.

.191

......
. ; ; . ; ; ;

......
.
,

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
.

clxxi

PAGE Musgrave v. Brooke (1884) 26 Ch. D. 792 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 102 ; 33 W. R. 211 655 Musgraveo. Cave (1741) Willes, 319 675,678,679 Musgrave o. Pulido (1879) L. R. 5 App. Cas. 102 (J. C.) ; 49 L. J. P. C. 20 28 W. R. 373 P. C 41 L. T. 629 341 Musgrove v. Chun Teeong Toy [1891] A. C. 272 ; 60 L. J. P. C. 28 ; 64 L. T,
;

378

340

Musgrove v. Newell (1836) i M. & W. 582 ; 2 Gale, 91 ; i Tyr. & Gr. 957 5L. J. Ex.227 49j493 Musgrove v. Pandelis [1919] 2 K. B. 43 88 L. J. K. B. 915 120 L. T. 601 ;
; ;

35 T. L. R. 299 C. Musurus Bey o. Gadban [1894] i Q. B. 533 ; affirmed 2 Q. B. 352 ; 63 L. J Q. B. 621 ; 9R. 519; 71 L. T. 51 ; 42W. R. 545 C. A. . Mutton V. Hornsey D. C. (1899) Times, April 12 . Mutzenbecher v. La Aseguradora Espanola [1906] i K. B. 254 ; 75 L. J K. B. 172; 94 L. T. 127; 54 W. R. 207

63 Sol. Jo. 353

406

.341
.

534

Myddleton o. Rushout (1797) i Phill. 244 Myers v. Washbrook [1901] i Q. B. 360 70 L.


;

......
J.

240
1403

Q. B. 357

83 L. T. 633.

929

Napier v. Napier [1915] P. 184 ; 84 L. J. P. 177 ; 113 L. T. 764 59 Sol. Jo. 560; 31 T. L. R. 472 C. A Napier o. Williams [191 1] i Ch. 361 80 L. J. Ch. 298 104 L. T. 380 ; 55
;

1092 Ch. i 101 L. T. 837 ; 26 T. L. R. 57 79 L. J. Ch. i C' A. 1278 661, 75 54 Sol. Jo. 48 Nash V. Armstrong (1861) lo C. B. N. S. 259 30 L. J. C. P. 286 ; 7 Jur, (N. S.) 1060; 9 W. R. 782 J45 Nash V. Derby (Earl of) (1705) 2 Vern. 537 592 Nash o. Hodgson (1855) 6 De G. M. & G. 474 3 Eq. R. 1025 ; 25 L. J. Ch, 186 I Jur. (N. S.) 946 "3 Nash V. Inman [1908] 2 K. B. i 77 L. J. K, B. 626 98 L. T. 658 24 T. L. R. 401 22 52 Sol. Jq. 335 C. a. Nash V. Preston (1630) Cro. Car. 190 609 66 L. J. Ch. 222 76 L. T. 1 National Bank of Wales, Re [1897] i Ch. 21005 45 W. R. 401 National Exchange Co. -a. Drew (1855) 2 Macq 145 543 National Manure Co. /. Donald (1859) 4 H. & N. 8 28 L. J. Ex. 185 W. R. 185 851 National Mercantile Bank v. Rymill (i88t) 44 L. T. 767 C. A 415 National Phonograph Co. v. Edison-Bell Co. [1908] i Ch. 335 yy L. J. Ch, 218; 98L. T./291; 24T. L. R. 201 429,479 National Phonograph Co. a. Menck [191 1] A. C. 336 80 L. J. P. C. 105 104 L. T. 5 27 T. L. R. 239 ; 28 R. P. C. 229 48 Sc. L. R. 733 927 Natt, Re {1888) 37 Ch. D. 517 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 797 58 L. T. 722 ; 36 W. R.

235 Nash, Re [1910]

Sol. Jo.

....
; ;
.

....
;

177

548

Naylor 0. Arnitt (1830) I Russ. & M. 501 1127 Neale v. Electric Ordnance Co. [1906] 2 K. B. 558 75 L. J. K. B. 974 ; 95 L. T. 592 ; 22 T. L. R. 732 452 Nealec. RatclifI(i85o) 15 Q. B. 916; 20L. J. Q. B. 130^ 15 Jur. 166 135 319 Neate o. Harding (1851) 6 Exch. 349; 20 L. J. Ex. 250 1254 Neate v. Pickard (1843) 2 Notes of Cases, 406 Neaverson v. Peterborough Council [1902] i Ch. 557 71 L. J. Ch. 378 ; 86 66 J. P. 404 50 W. R. 549 18 T. L. R. 360 C. A. L. T. 738 394, 851 Negus . Forster (1882) 46 L. T. 675 30 W. R. 671 C. A. 57 684, NeiU o. Devonshire (Duke of) (1882) L. R. 8 App. Cas. 135 ; 31 W. R. 622. 685,813
;

......
; ;

1307

....
...

Digitized

by Microsoft

clxxii

TABLE OF CASES
>

PAGE

. Neilson v. Betts (1871) L. R. 5 H. L. i ; 40 L. J. Ch. 317 ; 19 W. R. 1121 378 Nelson's Case (1585) 3 Leon. 128 673 Nelson v. Liverpool Brewery Co. (1877) L. R. 2 C. P. 31 1 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 675 ; 25 W. R. 877 397, 404 Nelthorpe v. Famngton (1674) 2 Lev. 113 349 Nepean 0. Budden (1822) 5 B. & Aid. 626 55 Nerot V. Wallace (1789) 3 T. R. 17. 95 Nevil's (Sir Henry) Case (1570) Plowd. 377 676, 722, 743 Nevil's Case (1604) 7 Rep. 33 a, 33 b 671.743 Nevill o. Fine Art Co. [1897] A. C. 68 ; 66 L. J Q. 195 ; 75 L. T. 606 ; 61

.J.P-5
Neville
'

v,
;

London Express Newspapers


120 L. T. 299
i

282

501, 508, 510 [1919] A. C. 368 ; 88 L. J. K. B. . 496, 63 Sol. Jo. 213 35 T. L.. R. 167 H. L. (E.)
;

Nevin, iJfi[i89i]2Ch. 299 60L. J. Ch. 542; 65 L. T. 35 C.A.. New, Re [1901] 2 Ch. 534 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 710 85 L. T. 174 50 W. R.
; . ; ;

497 1228,1229

17
1 1

C.

12

Newbegin o. Bell (1857) 23 Beav. 386 Newbery, Re (1866) L. R. i Ch. App. 263

35 L. J. Ch. 330 ; 13 L. T. 781 ; ; 12 Jur. (N. S.) 154; 14W. R. 360 Newbiggingo. Adam (1886) 34Ch. D. 582 C. C. A.. Newhould, JfJe(i9i4) no L. T. Newby o. Wiltshire (1785) 4 Dougl. 284 ; Cald. 527 2 Esp. 739 ; 3 Bos. & P.

.......
A
. ; ;

1391

....
; ;

1228
38

1357

208 247 5 R. R. 772 21 L. T. Newcastle (Duke of), Re (1869) L. R. 8 Eq. 700 39 L. J. Ch. 68 18 W. R. 8 343 Newcastle (Duke of) . Worksop [1902] 2 Ch. 145 71 L. J. Ch. 487; 86 L. T. 405 18 T. L. R. 472 693, 694 Newcomb v. Bonham (i68i) i Vern. 7 2 Vent. 364 ; 2 Freem. Ch. 67 815 P. 767 Ch. 297 L. J. Ch. 763 L. T. 653 NeWen, Re [1894] 2 63 58 J. 70 8 R. 309 43 W. R. 58 754 Newfoundland Govt. v. Newfoundland Ry. (1888) 13 App. Cas. 199; 57 L. J. P. C. 35; 58L.T. 285 P. C.: 143,1049 New Land Development Association & Gray [1892] 2 Ch. 138 61 L. J. Ch. 28 66 L. T. 4P4 ; 40 W. R. 295 323 Newman, i?e (1876) 3 Ch. D. 494 C. A. 367 Newman 0. Barton (1690) 2 Vern. 2P5 1269 Newman v. Newman (1760) 2 Wils. 125 558 Newman v. ZJachary (1670) Alcyn, 3 428 New Monckton Collieries 0. Keeling [191 1] A. C. 648 80 L. J. K. B. 1205 105 L. T. 337 27 T. L. R. 551 H. L. (E.) 462 55 Sol. Jo. 687 Newport (Mayor ol) v. Saunders (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 411 i L. J. K. B. 147. 324 New, Prance & Co.'s Trustee v. Hunting [1897] i Q. B. 607 1067 Newry and Enniskillen Ry. 0. Coombe (1849) 3 Exch. 565 18 L. J. Ex. 5 Railw. Cas. 633 981 325 New Sharlston Co. v. Westmorland (1900) 82 L. T. 725 New South Wales (Bank of) v. Owston (1879) L. R. 4 App. Cas. 270 (P. C.) 48 L. J. P. C. 25 40 L. T. 500 ; 14 Cox C. C. 267 P. C. 353 Newr South Wales Taxation Commrs. v. Palmer [1907] A. C. 179 76 L. J. P. C. 41 ; 96 L. T. 278 T. L. R. 304 . 14 Manson, 106. 23 1377 Newstead v. Searles (1737) i Atk. 265 104 Newton, Re [1896] i Ch. 740 65 L. J. Ch. 641 73 L. T. 692 44 W. R. 470C. A. 1229 Newton v. Anglo-Australian Invest. Co. [1895] A. C. 244 64 L. J. P. C. 57 ; II R. ^%i 2 Mans. "2^6 1008 72 L. T. 305 43 W. R. 401
; ;

.863
.

...... ....... ....... ......


;
.

.........
.
.

...
. . ;

.781
.

.......
;
.

'

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Newton
v.

ckxiii
PAGE

Cubitt (1862) 12 C. B. N. S. 32

31 L. J. C. P. 246

6 L. T. 860

695,

696

Newton v. Harland
6 D. P. C. 630

Newton
588

v.
;

Newton
17

A.-G. [1899] A. C. 62 68 L. J. Q. B. 135 79 L. T. 568; 63J. P. 179; 48W. R. 32; 15T. L. R. 93 .1343 New Zealand and Australian Land Co. v. Watson (1881) 7 Q. B. D. 374 50 L. J. Q. B. 433 ; 44 L. T. 675 29 W. R. 694 231 Niboyet v. Niboyet (1878) 4 P. D. i 48 L. J. P. i 27 W. R. 39 L. T. 486 203C. A. 1204 NichoUc. McKaeg (1830) 10 B. & C. 721 644 NichoUs V. Bastard (1835) 2 C. M. & R. 659 i Tyr. & G. 156 i Gale, 295 S L. J. Ex. 7 417 Nichols, Ex pane (1883) 22 Ch. D. 782 52 L. J. Ch. 635 48 L. T. 492 31 W. R. 661C. A 1050 Nichols V. Marsland (1875) L. R. 10 Ex. 255 44 L. J. Ex. 134; 23 W. R. 693 33 L. T. 265 ; (1876) 2 Ex. D. I 46 L. J. Ex. 174 ; 35 L. T. 725 25 W. R. 173 C. 361, 406, 453 Nicholson, Re [1909] 2 Ch. iii 100 L. T. 877 ii2i 78 L. J. Ch. 516 Nicholson v. Chapman (1793) 2 H. Bl. 254 3 R. R. 374 205, 964 Nickoll & Knight v. Ashton, Edridge & Co. [1901] 2 K. B. 126 70 L. J. K. B. 600 ; 84 L. T. 804 49 W. R. 513 6 Com. Cas. 151 ; 17 T. L. R. 467 ; 130 9 Asp. M. L. C. 209 C. A NicoU . Greaves (1864) 33 L. J. C. P. 259 10 Jur. 17 C. B. N. S. 27 (N. S.)9i9; loL. T. 531 ; 12 W. R. 961 212 Nield V. L. & N. W. Ry. (1874) L. R. 10 Ex. 4 23 W. R. 44 L. J. Ex. 15 60 772 Nightingale, Re [1909] i Ch. 385 ; 106 L. T. 292 T 1286 Nightingale o. Lawson (1785) i Bro. C. C. 440. 596 Nightingale o. Quartley (1787) i T. R. 630 1094 Nightingale o. Reynolds [1903] 2 Ch. 236 88 L. T. 654 72 L. J. Ch. 564 52W. R. I C. A 837 Nisbet's and Potts' Contract [1906] i Ch. 386 75 L. J. Ch. 238 ; 94 L. T. . 297 54 W. R. 286 22 T. L. R. 234 C. A. 759, 766, 767, 804 Nixon, iJe [1904] I Ch. 638 73 L. J. Ch. 446 1366 Noakes v. Rice [1902] A. C. 24 71 L. J. Ch. 139 86 L. T. 62 ; 66 J. P. J47 ; 18 T. L. R. 196 831 50 W. R. 305 Nobel's Explosives Co. o. Anderson (1894) II R. P. C. 115 1017 Nobel's Explosives Co. v. Jones (1881) 17 Ch. D. 721 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 582 44 L. T. 593 ; 30 W. R. 294 C. A. ; affirmed L. R. 8 App. Cas. 5 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 339; 48 L. T. 490; 31 W. R. 388 1017 Noble o. Brett (1858) 24 Beav. 499 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 516 4 Jur. (N. S.) 623 6 W. R. 219 1409 Noden v. Johnson (1850) 20 L. J. Q. B. 95 16 Q. B. 218 15 Jur. 424 437 Noel V. Redruth Foundry Co. [1896] i Q. B. 453 65 L. J. Q. B. 330 74 L. T. 196 ; 44 W. R. 407 451 1269 Noell V. Robinson (1682) i Vern. 90 ; 2 Rep. Ch. 248 Nordenstrom v. Pitt (1845) 14 L. J. Ex. 150 ; 13 M. & W. 723 ; 2 Dowl. & 116 L. P. C. 672
u.
; ; . . ; ; ;
;

New York

W. R. 238 Breweries Co.

(1840) i M. & Gr. 644 ; 4 Bing. (N. C.) 406 ; 6 Scott, 186 ; I Scott (N. R.) ; . 473 ; 2 Jur. 350 ; 9 D. P. C. 65 . (1868) L. R. 4 Ch. App. 143 ; 38 L. J. Ch. 145 ; 19 L. T.

383

7G0

".'.......... ..... ......


; ; .
.

....
36 L. T. 788
;

Norfolk (Duke

of) .

Browne

(1697) Pre. Cha. 80

Norman o. Baldry (1834) 6 Sim. 621 Norman v. Villars (1877) 2 Ex. D. 359 W. R. 780

813 1420

46 L.
,

J.

Ex. 579

25

1196

Digitized

by Microsoft

clxxiv

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
;

Norrington, Re (1879) '3 ^h. D. 654 ; 44 J. P. 474 28 W. R. 711C. A. Norris V. Baker (1616) i RoUe, 393 ; 3 Bulst. 196 ; J. Bridg. 47 Norris v. Chambers (1861) 3 D. F. c& J. 584 29 Beav. 246 36 L. J. Ch. 285 9 W. R. 794 7 Jur. (N. S.) 689 4 L- T. 345 Norris 0. Seed (1849) 3 Exch. 782 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 300 13 Jur. 830 North, Re [1895] 2 Q. B. 264 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 694 ; 72 L. T. 854 59 J. P,
; ; ; ; ; ;

1408

477
339 473
71

724

North North

v.

G. N. Ry. (i860) 2
.

Giflf.

64

29 L. J. Ch. 301

L. T. 510

6 Jur.

(N. S.)244
o.

929
J.

Wakefield (1849) 18 L.

Q. B. 214; 13 Q. B. 536; 13 Jur,


'

'

731

Northam

(1855) 11 Exch. 70 ; 24 L. J. Ex. 237 Northampton's Case (1613) 12 Rep. 134; Moor. 821 Northan v. Hurley (1853) i E. & B. 665 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 183 ; 17 Jur. 672 North British Insurance Co. v. Lloyd (1854) 10 Exch. 523 ; 3 C. L. R. 264 24 L. J. Ex. 14 ; I Jur. (N. S.) 45 Northen v. Carnegie (1859) 4 Drew. 587 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 930 ; 9 W. R. 481
v.

Bowden

15s 421 508 710

Northern Bank v. McMamn [1909] i Ir. R. 374 Northern Counties Insurance Co. o. Whipp (1884) 26 Ch. D. 482 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 629 51 L. T. 806 32 W., R. 626 C. A Northumberland (Duke of) o. Houghton (1870) L. R. 5 Exch. 127 ; 39 L. J. Ex. 66 22 L. T. 49 ; 18 W. R. 495 Northumberland (Duke of) v. Tynemouth [1909] 2 K. B. 374 ; 78 L. J. K, B 767 100 L. T. 930 ; 73 J. P. 326 North Western Bank 11. Poynter [1895] A. C. 56 11 R. 73 ; 22 Ct. of Sess
i ; ; ; ;

293 578 1319


761

683
59

Cas.

959
V.

N.

W. Ry.

McMichael (1850)
1]

Exch. 114; 20 L.
;

J.

Ex. 97;
;

15 Jur.

132 Norton, Re [191 169

2 Ch. 27

80 L. J. Ch. 119
;

103 L. T. 821 69
;

Norton

c.

EUam

433

Norton c. Freeker. (1737) I Atk. 523 Norton v. Jason (1,653) Style, 398 Norton . Seton (1819) 3 Phlll. 147 Norwood's and Blake's Contract [1917] i Ir. R. 472. Nottidge o. Dering [1909] 2 Ch. 647 loiL. T. 491. Nottingham (Mayor of) . Lambert (1738) Willes, Nottingham Corporation, Re [1897] 2 Q. B. 502 66 L.
. . . . . . . ; ;

(1837) 2 M.

& W. 461

M.

....... ...
. .

& H.

55 Sol. Jo. 874, 877, 107 6 L. J. Ex. I2i ;' i Jur.


108,

"5
580 465

m
J.
:

.... .... ....


. . ;

.1177
1406 866 682

Q. B. 883

77 L. T.

61 J. P. 725 Hill, The (1884) 9 P. D. 105 ; 32 W. R. 764 C. A. 51 L. T. 66; s Asp. M. L. C. 241 Nowellc. Hicks (1601) cited Co. Litt. 114 b
;

210 Notting

Nowlano. Ablett(i835)2C.M. &R. 54;


155

..... ......
53 L. J. P. 56
"

986

329,369
852 212 1406

Gale, 72;

~ 5Tyr.709; 4 L.J. Ex.


146,

Nugent o. Gifford (1738) i Atk. 463 Nugent V. Smith (1876) i C. P. D. 423 W.R.'ii7 Nutbrown o. Thornton (1804) 10 Ves.
Nuttall
o.
. .

45 L.
161

J. C. P.

697

34 L. T. 827
. .
.

25
249, 250

.125

Hargreaves [1892] i Ch. 23 ; 61 L. J. Ch, 94; 65L. T. 597 40 W. R. 200 C. A. 1018 Nutter 0. Holland [1894] 3 Ch. 408 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 932 ; 71 L. T. 508 43 W. R. i8 i 7 R. 491C. A. 1113 Nyberg 0. Handelaar'[i892] 2 Q. B. 202; 61 L. J Q. B. 709 67 L. T. 361 ; 40 W. R. 545 56 J. P. 694 C. A. 418, 423
5 ; ; ;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Oakden
v.
;

ckxv
PAGE

Pike (1865) 34 L. J. Ch. 620 ; 11 Jur. (N. S.) 666 12 L. T. 527 ; 13 W. R. 673 49 Oakes v. Turquand (1867) L. R. 2 H. L. C. 325 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 949 ; 16 L. T. 808 ; 15 W. R. 1201 34 Oakes v. Wood (1837) 2 M. & W. 791 ; Murph. & H. 237 ; 6 L. J. Ex. 200 436 Oatway, Re [1903] 2 Ch. 356 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 575 ; 88 L. T. 622 1142, 1143 O'Brien v. Clement (1846) 16 M. & W. 159 ; 4 Dow. & L. 563 ; 16 L. J. Ex. 76 525 O'Brien v. O'Brien (1751) i Ambl. 107 789, 792 Ocean Accident Co. v. Ilford Gas Co. [1905] 2 K. B. 493 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 799 21 T. L. R. 610 C. A 384, 612 93 L. T. 381 Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Sutherberry (1880) 16 Ch. D. 236; 50 L. J. Ch. 308 141 43 L. T. 743 ; 45 J. P. 238 29 W. R. 1 13 C. A. Oddy, Re [1906] i Ch. 93 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 141 ; 94 L. T. 146 ; 54 W. R. 291 1 144 Oddy, Re [191 1] i Ch. 532 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 404 ; 104 L. T. 338 27 T. L. R. Sol. To. 348 1123 312; 55 Odihamc. Smith (1593) Cro. Eliz. 589 551 O'Driscoll V. Manchester Insurance Committee [1915] i K. B. 811 84 L. J. K. B. 734; 112 L. T. 594; 59 Sol. Jo. 235 ; 31 T. L. R. 103 ,
. .
.

......
; ;

affirmed [1915] 3 K. B. 499 ; 85 L. J. K. B. 83 ; 79 J. P. 553 ; 113 L. T. 683 ; 31 T. L. R. 532 C. 1055 Offley . Best (1668) I Sid. 370 1350 Offord I/. Davies (1862) 12 C. B. N. S. 748; 31 L. J. C. P. 319; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 22 ; 6 L. T. 579 ; 10 W. R. 758 88, 293 Ofner, Re [1909] i Ch. 60 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 50 ; 99 L. T. 813C. A. . . 1331 Ogden o. Ogden [1908] P. 46 ; 77 L. J. P. 34 ; 97 L. T. 827 ; 24 T. L. R.

94

C. A.

1204

. 17 R. R. 13 O'Gorman v. O'Gorman [1903] 2 Ir. Rep. (K. B. D.) 573 O'Grady, Re [1915] i Ch. 613 ; 84 L. J. Ch. 496 ; 112 L. T. 615

Ogilvie

V.

Foljambe (1817)

3 Mer. 53

loi, 186

358, 360

59

Sol. Jo.

332^C. A O'Grady v. Wilmot [1916] 2 A.


60
Sol. Jo.

C. 231

456

32 T. L. R. 456
I

....
85 L. J. Ch. 386

1357
114 L. T. 1097
;

1352,1361,1371,1373
1287 644 1007
124
95

Ves. Sen. 135 Oland's Case (1602) 5 Rep. 116 b . . Olathe Silver Mining Co., Re (1884) 27 Ch. D. 278 ; 33 W. R. 12 Oldershaw o. Holt (1840) 4 P. & D. 307 ; 12 A. & E. 590 ; i A. & H. i ; 11 L. J. Q. B. 221 ; 4 Jur. 1012 Oldershaw v. King (1857) 27 L. J. Ex. :20 ; 2 H. & N. 577 ; 3 Jur. (N. S.)

Okeo. Heath (1748)

1152;

5W.

R. 753

827 Stringer (1885) 51 L. T. 895 Oliver's Settlement, Re [1905] i Ch. 191 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 62 ; 53 W. R. 215 ; 21 T. L. R. 61 754. 1278 . . .1121 Oliver, i2e [1908] 2 Ch. 74 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 547 ; 99 L. T. 241 Oliver v. Hinton [1899] 2 Ch. 264 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 583 ; 81 L. T. 212 ; 48 W. R. 3 ; 15 T. L. R. 450C. 759 Oilier V. Oilier [1914] P. 240 ; 84 L. J. P. 23 ; in L. T. 697 ; 58 Sol. Jo.

Oldham

v.

754C. A

1202

1405,1416 O'Neillf. McGrorty [1915] I Ir. R. I Onions v. Tyrer (1716) i P. Wms. 343 ; 2 Vern. 742 ; Pre. Ch. 149 ; Gilb. 1250 Eq. R. 130 13^5 Onslow o. Corrie(i8i7) 2 Madd. 330 1284 . . . Onslow V. Mitchell (1812) 18 Ves. 490 ; 11 R. R. 240 811 Onward Building Society v. Smithson [1893] 1 Ch. i ; 41 W. R. S3C. A. . 260, 964 Oppenheim v. Russell (1802) 3 Bos. & P. 42 ; 6 R. R. 604
. . .

Digitized

by Microsoft

clxxvl

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
u.
;

Oppenheim

White Lion Hotel


v.

Co. (1871) L. R. 6 C. P. 515

40 L.

J.

25 L. T. 93 245 Frazer [1907] 2 K. B. 50 ; 76 L. J. K. B. 806 ; 97 L. T. 3 ; 420 23 T. L. R. 410 ; 12 Com. Cas. 280 C. A Orby 0. Trigg (1722) 9 Mod. 2 831 Orchard v. Bush & Co. [1898] 2 Q. B. 284 ; 67 L. J. Q. B. 650 ; 78 L. T. 46 W. R. 527 244, 245 557 . 1262 Ord, Re (1879) '2 Ch. D. 22 J 41 L. T. 13 ; affirming 26 W. R. 880 . 1216 Ord w. Blackett (1725) 9 Mod. 116 Oriental Bank, Re (1884) 28 Ch. D. 643 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 327 ; 52 L. T. 170 60, 1389 Original Hartlepool Co. v. Gibb (1877) 5 Ch. D. 713 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 311 ; 36 L. T. 433; 3Asp. M. C. 411 394 Ormeo. Orme (1824) 2 Add. 382 1179 Ormerod's Case (1867) L. R. 5 Eq. no ; 37 L. J. Ch. iii ; 16 W. R. 240 . 1014 Ormerod v. Todmorden Joint Stock Mill (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 155 ; 52 L. J. . . . Q. B. 445 ; 47 J. P. 532 ; 31 W. R. 759-C. A. 402, 678 Ormonde (Marquis) v. Kynnersley (1820) 5 Madd. 369 786 Orsmond, Re (1887) 58 L. T. 24 1379 Orton V. Butler (1822) 5 B. & Aid. 652 414 Osborne. Gillett (1873) L. R. 8 Exch. 88 ; 42 L. J. Ex. 53 ; 28 L. T. 197 : 21
C. P. 231

Oppenheimer

........ ....... ........


.

.......
i

....
;
.

W.
Osborne

R. 409
o.

477
[1911]

Amalgamated Society
;

Ch. 540

. 6 L. T. 267 27 T. L. R. 289 Osborne 0. Bradley [1903] 2 Ch. 446 73 L. J. Ch. 49 89L. T. 11 . 805 Osborne v. Chocqueel [1896] 2 Q. B. 109 65 L. J. Q. B. 534 ; 74 L. T. 786 44 W. R. 575 359, 360, 453 Osbourn o. Rider (1606) Cro. Jac. 133 614 Osgood V. Sunderland (1914) in L. T. 529 ; 30 T. L. R. 530, 76 Ossulston's (Lord) Case (1708) 3 Salk. 336 562 O'SuUivan v. Thomas [1895]' i Q. B. 698 64 L. J. Q. B. 398 ; 72 L. T. jio, 321 285 43 W. R. 269 59 J. P. 134 Otlery Monastery Case (1583) I Leon. 4 592 Otter V. Vaux (Lord) (1856) 2 K. & J. 650 affirmed 6 De G. M. & G. 638 ; 26L. J. Ch. 128; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 169; 5W. R. 188 830 Otway o. Hudson (1706) 2 Vern. 584 752 Otway V. Otway (1888) 13 P. D. 141 57 L. J. P. 81 59 L. T. 153 C. A. 1194 Oughton . Seppings (183b) i B. & Ad. 241 8 L. J. (0. S.) K. B. 394 1346 Ovey, Re (1885) 29 Ch. D. 560 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 752 52 L. T. 849 33 W. R.
; ; .

80 L. J. Ch. 315 ^

104

....... ... ......


; ;
.

...
.

....
.

...
. . ;

<

821*.

1112
[1900] 2 Ch. 524
;

Ovey

V.

Ovey

69 L. J. Ch. 804
L. J. Ch. 248
J.
;

49

W.

R. 45
.

83 L. T.

311

1116

Owen, Re (1878) lo Ch. D. 166 ; 48 Owen, Re [1894] 3 Ch. 220 63 L.


;

27 W. R. 305
;

583

Ch. 749
;

71 L. T. 181

43
;

W.
2

R. 55

Owen &

8 R. 566 Co. o.

837

Cronk [1895]

Q. B. 265

64 L.

J.

Q. B. 288

Manson,

Owen

' " 234 20 L. J. Ch. 314 ; 15 Jur. 339 (1851) 3 Mac. & G. 378 affirmed (1853) 4 H. L. C. 997 ; 17 Jur. 861 ; i Eq. R. 370 149, 152, 299 Owen V. Lewyn (1672) i Ventr. 223 420

"5

V.

Homan

Owen Owen

. .

Owen (1738) I Atk. 494 Thomas (1834) 3 Myl. & K. 353


(Francis),
;

....... ........
; .

3 L. J.

Owston

In
10

the

Goods 0/(1862) 2 Sw.

&

Ch.>2o5 Tr. 461 ; 31 L. J. P. 177


. .
.

.101

1349

6 L. T. 368

W. R. 410

1258

Oxenham

v.

Clapp (1831) 2 B.

&

Ad. 309

9 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 229

1344, 1345,

1379

Digitized tfy Microsoft

TABLE OF CA8ES
.

clxxvii
PAGE

Oxford's (Bishop of) Case (1621) Palm. 174 -'^yiS Oxley, Re [1914] i Ch. 604. ; 83 L. iio.L. T. 626 58 Sol. Jo. J. Ch, 442 .11405,1417 319; 30 T. L. R. 327 C. A Oxley V. Wilkes [1898] 2 Q. B. 56 ; 67 L. 520 J. Q. B. 678 ; 78 L. T. 728
. . . . ; ;
'.

'

Packington's Case (1744) 3 Atk. 215 Padget o. Priest (1787) 2 T. R. 97 i R. R. 440 Padmorea. L,awfence (1840) ii A. &E. 380 3 Per.
; ;

'.

792 1343,1345
-

& Dav.
. .

209

9 Li J. Q. B.
. .

137; 4jur. 458


. .
.

'.-'.

527

Page V. Hayward (1704) 2 Salk. 570 . . 561 Page !). Leapingwell (1812) 18 Ves. 463 ; iiR. R. 234 .'1103 Page V. Newmaa (1829) 4 M. & Ry. 305 B: & C. 378,; 7 L. J. (0. S.) ' K. B. 267 116 Paget's Case (1593) 5 Rep. 76 b .'1 / (iif. 786 ", .->'A.Paget 0. Huish (1863) I H. & M. 663 1267 Paine, In re ; Read, Ex parte [1897] i Q. B. 122 66 L. J. Q. B. 71 75 L. T. . 316; 45 W. R. 190 3 Mailson, 309
. ;
. . -

.301
. .

i'j;-. Paine z". Partrich (1690) Carth. 19I '. . ..lo.". Palmer's and Thprpe's Case (1583) 4 Repi 20 Palmer, Re [1893] 3 Ch. 369 62 L. J. Ch. 988 ; 69 L. T. 477 42 W. R. '-y^i. 151; 2 R. 619 C. A. Palmer v. Caledonian Ry. [1892] i Q. B. 823 61 L. J. Q. B. 552 ; 66 L. T. '" 40 W. R. 562 771 Palmer 0. Danby (1701) I Eq. Ca. Ab. 261 .. Palmer v. Day [1895] 2 Q. B. 6l8.>, 64 L. J. Q. B. 807 ; 44 W. R. 14 2 Manson, 386 . .
.
.

696 503
1267
'8

....;.'
.

1231

Palmer Palmer

o. I Ch. 758 ; 80 L. J. Gh. 418 T. L. R. 320 ; 55 Sol. Jo, 365 . : Palmer 0. Fleshees (1663) i Sid. 167

Edwards (1783) Emerson [191 1]

poug;i86

n.

Palmer H. Palmer
205

v.

Grand Junction Ry. (1839) 4 M.


489 ; 3 Jur. 559 Rich [1897] i Ch. 134
.
.

...... .......
, ,
.

'

239 627
1118 713
'If'
1

104L. T. 557; 27
.

''

& W.

749

7 D. P. C. 232

& H.
0.

256
1092 69

66 L. J. Ch. 69; 75 L. T. 484


. .

'.

...
;

45

W.
;

R.yii
.

Palmer

v.

Snow
i

W. R. 351 Panama Co., Re W. R. 441

Q. B. 725 6g L. J. Q. B. 356 ; 82 L. T. 199 64 J. P. 342 (1870) L. R. 5 Ch. 318 39 L. J. Ch. 482 ; 22 L. T. 424
[1900]
i
; ;
.

48
18
.

'<

Pankhursto. Howell (1870) L. R. 6 Ch. App. 136; 19 W. R. 312 Paradine II. Jane (1647) Aleyn, 26 Styl. 47 .. Parfitt V. Chambre (1872) 42 L. J. Ch. 6 L. R. 15 Eq. 36 27 L. T. 750
;
.

'

!'""
;

1012 1285 130

21

W.

R. 50

.138
657,661
;

(1867) L. R. 4 Eq. 443 Parfitt V. Lawless (1872) L. R. 2 P. & D. 462


Parfitt o.
21

Hember

;
'

41 L. J. P. 68
.

27 L. T. 215

W. R. 200

-35,
,

1258, 1259

8 De G. M. & G. 5 Pariente . Lubbock (185.5) 20 Beavi 588 Paris V. Levy (i860) 9 C. B. N. S. 342 30 L. J. C. P. 11 7 Jur. (N. S.) 289 :. . 9 W. R. 71 3 L. T. 323 Parker, In the Goods oj (i860) i Sw. & Tr. 523 31 L. J. P. 8 6 Jur. (N. S.)
:

.231
;

''

5z6
1288
'-'I

354

Parker's Trusts,

Re

(1888) 39 Ch. D. 303

58 L. J.Ch. 23

60 L. T. 83

37
.

W. R. 313 C.
Parker,
.
.

A
. ,.

//

1413

Re [1901] i Ch. 408; 70 L. J. Ch. 170; 84 L. T. iiS; 49 W. R. -..-'no 7yi27 .,.).'.' . . 215 ''>' 5*6 Parker v. Combleford (1599) Cro. Eliz. 725
. '

c.i.

Digitized

by Microsoft

clxxyiii

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
52 L. J: P. 95 ;v .10.,.
; ;
'.

.^f..

Parker .0. Felgate (1883) 8 P. D. 171


186,;
.

....

;3v\

: ,1.

621 i Salk. 262 a6 Jons [rio|| 2 K. B. 32 79 L. J. K. B. 921 ; 102 L. T. 685 627, 801 T. L. R. 453 i Salk. 12 Mod. Rep. 466 Holt JParkerp. Kett(i702) I Ld. Raym. 658 95 a. a Com. 84 1345 (K. B.) 221 ;i Parker . McKemna (1874) L. R. lo Ch. 96 44 L. J. Ch. 425 31 L. T. 739 232 23 W. R. 271 f' ihinK1376 P^rker.i). Ringham (1864) 33 Beav. 535 Parker 0. Thomas .(1842) 3 Man. & G. 815 587 Parkes v. Prescptt (1-869)1, R. 4 Ex. H6g ;, 38 L; J. Ex. 105 20 L. T. 537 17 : W. R. 773' 505. 506 .1112 Parkes v. Royal Botanic Society (1908) 24 T. L. R. 50S Park Gate Waggon Works Co., Re (1881) 17 Ch. D. 234 44 L. T. 901 ; 30

Parker Parker

11.

iHarris (1692)

...
; ;

47

J. P.
.

808
. .

32
'

W. R:
1^^'.
. .

'<'

1256

0.

'

.' 20d-A. .1.1 .l.dd.;;'i ,U ,<,! jJt"[1892] 3 Ch. 510 ; 62 L. J. Ch.ijf ;, 67 L. T. 77 ; 41 W. R. 120 . Parkino. Radcliffe (1798) I Bos. &.P. 282; 4 R. R. 797 ;Parkiao. Thorold (1852) 16 Beav. 59 ; 2 Sim. (N. S.) i ; 22 L. J. Ch. 170 ; -.. J :..<*'.: i . . . . .J 16 Jur. 959 Parkins 0. Scott (1.862) i H. & C. 153 ; 31 L. J. Ex. 331 ; 8 Jur. (N. S.) 593 .' . . . 6L. T. 394.;' 10 W. R. 562 i. ;Parkinson *. Potter (1885) 16 Q. B. D. 152 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 153 ; 51 L. T.

W.iR.

.365
.

Parkin,

Re

1246 586
148

'

-'

..

'

507

341 8i8; 34W. R. 215.; 50 J. P. 470 Parlement.Belge,a?he((i88o);5 P. D. 197'; 42 L. T. 273 38 W. R. 642 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 234 C..A ,r. 341 626 Parmenter v. Webber (1818) 8 Taunt. 593 ; 2 Moore, 656 20 R. R. 575 . . Parnaby v. Lancaster Canal' Co. (1839) 11 A. & E. 223 332 Parr v. Winteringham (1859) i E. & E. 394; 28 L. J. Q. B. 123 ; 5 L. T. . 320 361 ; S Jur. (N. S.) 787 ;. 7 W. R. 288 Parrett Navigation .(Stpwer(i84o) 6 M.' & W. 564 ; 8 Dow.. 405 ; 9 L. J. Ex. 180 J , 534 Parry.o; Great Ship Co. (1863) 4 B. & S. 556 ; 33 L. J. Q. B. 41 ; 10 Juf. " (N. S.) 294 9 L. T. 379 ; 12 W. R. 78 105 ,1 / Parry 11. Sitiith (1879) 4 C. P. D. 325 ; 48 L. J: C. P. 731 ; '41 L. T. 93 ; 27 W. R.,8oi 333 Parsons 0. Lanoe (1748) I Ves. Sen. 189 1240 Parsons 0. Loyd (1772)3 Wils. 341 531 . Parsons . Parsons (1869) L. R. 8 Eq. 260 17W. R. 1005 1355 ' Partridge ..Bere.(;i822) 642 5 B..& Aid. 604 ; i D. & R. 272 ; 24 R. R. 487 Partridgaii. Partridge [1894] i Ch. 351 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 122 ; 70 L. T. 261 901 'Pasley v. Freeman (1789) 3 T. R. 51 536, 537, 538, 540 Pasmore v. Oswaldtwistle, &c., Council [1898] A. C. 387 67 L. J. Q. B. 635 ". . 328 78 L. T: 569 ; 62 J. P. 628 H. L. (E.) Pater v. Baker (1847) 3. C. B. 831 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 124 ; 11 Jur. 370 . 406 Paterson . Scott (1852) i De .G. M. & G. 531 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 346 ; 16 Jur. i .1 898 C. A. . . 1399 Patrick, Re [1891] i Ch. 82 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 1 1 1 ; 63 L. T. 752 ; 39 W. R. 1 13 II, ./,,'.. C. A. . . . . 1051 Patrick . Colerick (1838) 3 M. & W. 483 ; 7 L. J. Ex. 135 . 82, 386 Patrick v. Mihier (1877) 2 C. P. D. 342 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 537 ; 36 L. T.-738 ; / 25 W. R. 790 49 Patscheider v- G; W. Rf. (.iSfS) 3 Ex. D. 1 53 ; 38 L. T. 149 ; 26 W. R. 268 . 25 -Patterson's Estate, Re (.i864).4 De G. J. & S. 422 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 596 ; 10 L. T. '. 801; 12W. R. 941 C. A. . . . . 1291 h'.,
,'.,
.*'
. . . ; ;
'

.').'.

.......
. . . ; . . . ; . . . . .
.

,..." * ....

"^

,'

'

'

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Pattinson o. Luckley (1875) 44 L. J. Ex. 180 ; L. R. 10 Ex. 330 360 ; 24 W. R. 224 Pattison v. Jones (1828) 8 B. & C. 578 ; 3 Man. & Ry. loi ; 7 L. K. B. 26 Paul 0. Moodie (1620) 2 Roll. Rep. 131 Paul V. Nurse (1828) 8 B. & C. 486 ; 2 M. & Ry. 525 ; 7 L. J. (0.
.
.

clxxix

33 L. T.

12

Paul

(1878) 4 Q. B. D. 9 ; 48 L. J. M. C. 33 ; 39 L. T. 574 27W. R. 215; 14 Cox C. C. 202 385 Paull V. Simpson (1846) o Q. B. 365 ; 15 L. J. Q. B. 382 ; 11 Jur. 13. 1343 Paxton V. Douglas (1803) 8 Ves. 520 1376 Pay's Case (1601) Cro. Eliz. 878 656, 658 Pa^h V. Esdaile (i888) 13 App. Cas. 613 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 299 ; 59 L. T. 568 80 37 W.R. 273 ; 53 J. P. 100
.

Summerhayes

.......
(1856) 22 Beav. 69
.

..... ....
.

149
J. (0. S.

528 1334
S.)
.

K.

B
632

.... .....
;
. i . .

Mortimer (1859) 4 De G. & J. 447 28 L. J. Ch. 716 5 Jur. (N. S. 749 7 W. R. 646 C. A. 1374 Payne v. Porter (1618) Cro. Jac. 490 488 Payne . Rogers (1794) 2 H. Bl. 350 i Dougl. 407 ; 3 R. R. 415 397 Peaceable o. Watson (1811) 4 Taunt. 16 13 R. R. 552 557, 765 Peachy . Somerset (Duke of) (1721) Pre. Cha. 567 S9h 593 Peacock v. Monk (1751) 2 Ves. Sen. 190 906 Pe'arce, Re [1909] i Ch. 819 100 L. T. 699 78 L. J. Ch. 484 25 T. L. R. 497 .S3 Sol. Jo. 419 1^71, 1395 Pearce v. Bulteel [1916] 2 Ch. 544 32 T. L. R. 723. "43 Pearce v. Foster (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 536 55 L. J. Q. B. 306 54 L. T. 664 34 W. R. 602; 51 J. P. 213 213 Pearce v. Gardner (1897) 10 Hare, 287 i W. R. 98. 102 Pearce o. Morris (1869) L. R. 5. Ch. 227; 39 L. J. Ch. 342 ; 22,L.T.i90; ig
v.
;
.

Payne Payne

v. Little

1419

..... .....
;
.

.'

"

....
;
. . .

. 828, 829 L. J. Ch. 492 ; L. R. 20 Eq. 492 . 87 23 W. R. 771 Peardon v. Underbill (1850) 16 Q. B. 120 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 133 ; 15 Jur. 465. 721 Pearl v. Deacon (1857) 24 Beav. 186 ; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 879 ; 5 W. R. 702 300
. . . .

W.

R. 196

Pearce

v.

Watts (1875) 44

Pearse v. Green (1819) i J. & W. 140 233, 1123 Pearson v. Dawson (1858) E. B. & E. 448 27 L. J. Q. B. 248 4 Jur. (N. S.) 1015 922 Pearson & Son v. Dublin Corporation [1907] A. C. 351 77 L. J P. C. 1.-541,543 Lemaitre (1843) 5 Man. & G. 700 6 Scott (N. R.) 607 Pearson v. 12 L. J. C. P. 253 ; 7 Jur. 748 521, 522 Pearson v. Pearson (1802) i Sch. & Lef. 10 9 R. R. i 1272 Pechell V. Watson (i84i)'8 M. & W. 691 11 L. J. Ex. 225 496 Peckham v. Peckbam (1788) 2 Bro. C. C. 584 n. 1216 Peek V. Gurney (1873) L. R. 6 H. L. 412 43 L. J. Cb. 19 22 W, R. 29 S39j 540,
; ; ;
.

......
; ; ;

...

541
Peel's Settlement,

Re

[191

1]

j^

Cb. 164

55 Sol. Jo. 580 Peers o. Sneyd (1853) 17 Beav. 151 Peeters v. Opie (1671) 2 Wms. Saund. 346 Pelbam o. Pickersgill (1787) i T. R. 660
.

Pelbam-Clinton
Pells
V.

v.

Newcastle (Duke

of) [1902]

(1620) Cro. Jac. 590 Pember v. Mathers (1779) i Bro. C. C. 52 ; Dick. 550 Pemberton v. Barbara (1590) 4 Rep. 59 b Pemberton v. Barnes [1899] i Cb. 544 68 L. J. Ch. 192
;

Brown

.... ....
i

80 L. J. Ch. 574

10

L. T. 33

Cb. 34

1283 229 134 682, 697 562

664
191

1376
;

80 L T. 181

47 652

W.

R. 444

Digitized

by Microsoft

clxxx

TABLE OF CASES
P.

PAGE Hughes [1899] i Ch. 781 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 281 go L. T. 369 ; 47 W. R. 354-C. A 323 Penn 1). Baltimore (Lord) (1750) ' Ves. Sen. 444 339> "5 416 Penn v. Bittleston (1851) 7 Exch. 152 L.T. Penn 0. Spiers & Pond, Ltd. [1908] i K. B. 766 77 L J. K. B. 542
Pemberton

462, 463 52 Sol. Jo. 280 Penn v. Ward (1835) 2 C. M. & R. 338 437 615 Pennant's Case (1596) 3 Rep. 65 866 Penne v. Peacock (1734) Ca. temp. Talb. 41 6ig Pennington v. Taniere (1848) 12 Q. B. 998 Penny v. Wimbledon Urban Council [1899] 2 Q. B. 76, 392 ; 68 L. J. Q. B 704 80 L. T. 615 47 W. R. 565 63 J. P.*(.o6 C. A. 355 Penruddock's Case (1598) 5 Co. Rep. 100 b 394, 395 '397 L. J. Ex. 103 L. T, Penryn (Mayor) v. Best (1878) 3 Ex. D. 292 48 38 27 W. R. 126 805 694

541

24 T. L. R. 354

Penaon o. Gooday (1633) Cro. Car. 327 Pepin V. Bruyere [1902] i Ch. 24 71 L.
;

504
J. Ch.

39

34-C.A
Percival
o.

Perera v. T. L. R. 389

L. R. 8 App. Cas. 443 Perera [1901] A. C. 354 ; 70 L. J. P. C. 46


" . .
.

Hughes (1883)

....
.
.

85 L. T. 461

50

W.

R
1

241

355
;

84 L. T. 371

1256
;

Perham
Perkins;
3

v.

Kempster [1907]
i

i
;

Re [1893]

Ch. 283

Ch. 373 76 L. J. Ch. 223 ; 96 L. T. 297 62 L. J. Ch. 531 ; 67 L. T. 743 ; 41 W. R. 170


;

757
877

R- 40

Perkins, Re (1909) loi L. T. 345 1081 53 Sol. Jo. 698 Perkins v. Steadi(i907) 23 T. L. R. 433 351 660 Perrin v. Blake (1769) i W. Bl. 672 ; (1772) 4 Burr. 2579 ; i Dougl. 329 n. Perrin^i. Perrin [1914] P. 1355 83 L. J. P. 69; 1 11 L.T. 335 ; 58 Sol. Jo. 513 1204 Perrins o. Bellamy [1899] i Ch. 797 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 397 ; 47 W. R. 417 ; 80 L. T. 478 . . . 1113, 1127, 1 146 Perrot v. Perrot (1744) 3 Atk. 95 . 789 Perrott . Perrott (1811) 14 East, 423 1250 Perry . Barker (1806) 13 Ves. 198. 820 Perry v. Clissold [1907] A. C. 73 ; 76 L. J. P. C. 19 ; 95 L. T. 890 ; 23 T. L. R.
.

.... ......

....... .......
;

232 Perry o. 602 Perry o. Perry v. Perry v.

Eames
.

[1891]

Ch. 658

60 L. J. Ch. 354
;

64 L. T. 438
;

29

389r39, 765 W. R.

851, 853, 857 Fitzhowe (1846) 8 Q. B. 757 15 L. J. Q. B. 239 10 Jur. 799 399, 400 Phelips (1790I i Ves. Jr. 255 664 ]'. K. B. 236 Wright [1908] i K. B. 441 ; 77 L. 98 L. T. 327 24 T. L. R. 186 451, 463 Perry-Herrick v. Attwood (1857) 2 De G. & J. 21 25 Beav. 205 761 Pertwee v. Townsend [1896] 2 Q. B. 129 65 L. J. Q. B. 659 75 L. T. 104 738 Peruvian Guano Co. v. Dreyfus [1892] A. C. 166 61 L. J. Ch. 749 66 L. T. 536; 7 Asp.'M. L. C. 225 923 Fetch V. Tutin (1846) 15 M. & W. no 15 L. J. Ex. 280 940 Peter v. Compton (1693) Skin. 353 ; Holt, 326 ; i Smith, L. C, iithed. 316 98 Peter v. Rich (1629) i Ch. Rep. 34 297 Peters v. Leeder (1878) 47 L. J. Q. B. 573 1330, 1343 Petre v. Duncombe (1851) 17 L. J. Ch. 370 12 Jur. 261 118 Petrie v. Lamont (1842) C. & M. 93 ; 4 Scott (N. R.) 335 3 Man. & G. 702

.......
; ; ; . ;
;

.......
. .

P. 63 Pett's Case (1692) i P.


J. C.

iiL.
0.

Wms.

25

i
;

Pettey

Sol.

Parsons [1914] 2 Ch. 653 20 T: L. R. 655 Jo. 721


i

CA

Salk. 250 ; i Ld. 84 L."j. Ch. 81

Raym.
;

571
;

337 1307
58

L. T. loii

707

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Petty Petty
V.

clxxxi
PAGE

V.

Evans (1610) 2 Brownl. 40 Styward (1631) i Rep. in Cha.

31

Peytoe's Case (i6ii) 9 Co. Rep. 77 b Phelps o. Lyle (1839) 10 A. & E. 113 Phene's Trusts, Re (1870) L. R. 5 Ch. App. 139 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 316; 22 L. T. Ill ; 18 W. R. 303 Philips V. Philips (1844) 3 Ha. 281 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 445 Phillimore, Re [1904] 2 Ch. 460 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 671 ; 91 L. T. 256 ; 52 W. R,

1090 368 239


4 1290

882 Goods 0/(1824) 2 Add. 336 n. (b) '34' 33 Phaiips, Re (1887) 34 Ch. D. 467 56 L. J. Ch. 337 56 L. T. 144 35 W. R, 284 i' 899 Phillips' Trusts, Re [1903] i Ch. 183 ; 72 L. 88 L. T. 9 C. A. "53 J. Ch. 94 Phillips (Jas.), iJ [1919] i Ch. 128; 88 L. J. Ch. 27; 120 L. T. 213; 63 Sol. Jo. 116; 35 T. L. R. 98 1 174 Phillips V. Barnet (1876) i Q. B. D. 436 45 L. J. Q. B. 277 ; 34 L. T. 177 24 W. R. 345 349 Phillips 0. Bignall (181 1) I Phill. 239 1403 Phillips V. Brooks [1919] 2 K.B. 243 88 L. J. K. B. 953 121 L. T. 249 24 Com. Cas. 263 35 T. L. R. 470 37 Phillips V. Cayley (1889) 43 Ch. D. 222 62 L. T. 86 38 59 L. J. Ch. 177 W. R. 24i^C. A. Phillips V. Eyre (1870) L. R. 6 Q. B. i 10 B. & S. 1004 40 L. J. Q. B. 28 22 L. T. 869 339 Phillips V. Foxall (1872) L. R. 7 Q. B. 666 41 L. J. Q. B. 293 27 L. T, 20 W. R. 900 231 292 Phillips V. Homfrav (1883) 1 1 App. Cas. 466 24 Ch. D. 439 52 L. J. Ch. 833 49 L. T. 5 32 W. R. 6 C. A 19. 364 Phillips V. L. & S. W. Ry. (1879) 5 Q- B- D. 78 49 L. J. Q. B. 233 41 L. T, 121 ; 28 W. R. 10 C. A 23, 371 Phillips . Phillips (1832) i My. Sc K. 649 ; i L. J. Ch. 214 1361 Phillips V. Probyn [1899] l Ch. 811 68 L. J. Ch. 401 80 L. T. 513 ; i I, 1105 T. L. R. 324 Phillips J). Smith (1845) 14 M. & W. 589 15 L. J. Ex. 201 787 Phillipson v. Hayter (1870) L. R. 6 C. P. 38 40 L. J. C. P. 14; 23 L. T. 56 556; 19 W. R. 130 Phillpotts V. Clifton (1861) 10 W. R. 135 109 8to Phillpotts V. Phillpotts (1850) 10 C. B. 85 ; 20 L. J. C. P. n Philp 0. Squire (1791) Peakc, 11; 471 Philpott V. Jones (1834) 2 A. & E. 41 114 4 N. & M. 14 4 L. J. K. B. 65 Philpott V. Kelley (1835) 3 A. & E. 106 416 Philpotts 0. James (1784) 3 Doug. 425 1304 1248 Phipps p. Anglesey (1751) 7 Bro. P. C. 445 Phypers v. Eburn (1836) 3 Bing. (N. C.) 250 3 Scott, 634 ; 2 Hodges, 230 6 L. J. C. P. 20 598 Piazzi-Smyth, In the Goods o/[i898] P. 7 67 L. J. P. 4 ; 77 L. T. 375 46 ,1246 W. R. 426 Pickard, Re [1894] 3 Ch. 704 64 L. J. Ch. 92 71 L. T. 558 7 R. 479 841 C. A. 32 Pickard v. Sears (1837) 6 A. & E. 469 2 N. & P. 488 Pickard v. Smith (1861) 10 C. B. N. S. 470 4 L. T. 470 355 541 Pickering . Dowson (1813) 4 Taunt. 778 Pickering v. James (1873) L. R. ^ C. P. 489 42 L. J. C. P. 217 29 L. T. 529 210 21 W. R. 786 i Stark. 56 16 R. R. 777 381 Pickering o. Rudd (1815) 4 Camp. 219
Phillips,

682

In

the

........
; ; ; ; ; ;
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

clxxxii

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
Grey (1862) 30 Beav. 352;
706
;

Piekersgill v.

31 L. J. Ch.
. .

394; 8 Juf. (N.


,.
.
. .

S.)

632

5 L. T.
v.

10

W.
5

R. 207
Ch. D. 163

663, 1075
.

Piekersgill

Rodger (1877)

1279

Pickett o. Packham (1868) L. R. 4Ch. App. 190; 16 W. R. 1177 551 Pickford o. Grand Juriction Ry. (1841) 8 M. & W. 372 ; 9 D. P. C. 766 ; 2 Railw. Cas. 592; 5 Jur. 731 . . 249, 250 Pidcock V. Bishop (1825) 3 B. & C. 605 ; 5 D. & R. 505 ; 3 L. J. (0. S.) K. B. . . . . . 292 109 ; 27 R. R. 430 Piercy, Re [1895] i Ch. 83 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 249 ; 71 L. T. 745 ; 43 W. R. 134.; 1 105 13 R. 106 Piercy v. Fynney (1871) 40 L. J. Ch. 404 ; L. R. 12 Eq. 69 ; 19 W. R. 710 58. Piggot V. Penrice (1717) Gilb. Eq. Ca. 137 ; i Com. 250 870 Piggott V. Birtles (1836) I M. & W. 441 ; 2 Gale, 18 ; i Tyr. & Gr. 729 ; 5 L. J.
. . . .

...
.

...........
. . . ,

....
;
. . .

Ex. 193 V. Middlesex County Council [1909] i Ch. 134 77 L. J. Ch. 813 99 L.T. 662; 72 J. P. 461 ; 52 Sol. Jo. 698; 6 L. C. R. 1 177 Pigot's Case (1614) 11 Rep, 26 b 2 Bulst. 246 i RoU. Rep. 39 43, Pigot V. Bullock (1792) I Ves. Jr. 479 2 R. R. 148 ,. 3 Bro. C. C. 589 Pigot V. Cubley (1864) 15 C. B. N. S. 701 33 L. J. G. P. 134 ; 9 L. T. 804 " 10 Jur. (N. S.) 318 12 W. R. 467 Pike o. Harsen (1591) 3 Leon. 233 Pike o. Ongley (1887) 18 Q. B. D. 708 56 L. J. Q. B. 373 ; 35 W. R. 534 Pike V. Stephens (1848) 12 Q. B. 465 ; 6 Dow. & L. 157 17X. J. Q. B. 282
Piggott
; ; ; ; ;

532 629 149 668


955 762
61

12 Jur. 748 530 Pilcher 0. Rawlins (1872) L. R. 7 Ch. App. 259 41 L. J. Ch. 485 ; 25 L. T. . 921 ; 20 W. R. 281 756, 757, 1141 Pilkington 11. Scott (1846) 15 M. & W. 657 ; 15 L. J. Ex. 329 ; 475 Pill V. Towers (1600) Cro. Eliz. 791 851 Pinchon's Case (161 1) 9 Rep. 86 b ; Cro. Jac. 293 ; 2 Brownl. 137 HI,
;
'.

....... .......... ......


; ; . . ; ;
. . . . . .

244, 1349

Pinhoru

v.

Souster (1853) 8 Exch. 763

22 L. J. Ex. 266

16 Jur. looi

w:

R. 336
.
.

644,

647
1276
95 1346

Pink, Re [1912] 2 Ch. 529 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 753 R. 107 L. T. 241 ; 28 T, 528 ; 56 Sol. Jo. 668 C. A. Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 Rep. 117 a Pinney v. Pinney (1828) 8 B. & C. 335 Piper . Piper (i86o) i J. & H. 91 29 L. J. Ch. 719 6 Jur. (N. S.) 1026 L. T. 458 ; 8 W. R. 543 Piper V. Winnifrith (1917) 34 T. L. R. 108 Pippett o. Hearn (1822) 5 B. & Aid. 634 ; i Dow. & Ry. 266 Pitcher v. Tovey (1692) 4 Mod. 71 ; i SaUc. 81 ; 2 Vent. 234 ; 3 Lev, 295 I Show. 340 ; Carth. 177 12 Mod. Rep. 23 Holt (K. B.) 73 Pittj). Donovan (1813) 1 M. & S. 639 14 R. R. 535 Pittard o. Oliver [1891] i Q. B. 474 60 L. J. Q. B. 219 64 L. T. 758 39 W. R. 311 ; 55 J. P. 100 Plaice V. Allcock (1866) 4.F. & F. 1674 Planch* V. Colburn (1831) 8 Bing. 14 5 Car. & P. 58 i M. & Scott, 51;
. . ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

589 337 49
1365

406
5ig
963
321

L.J.C.P.7

Planck V. Anderson (1792) 5 T. R. 40 Plasycoed Collieries Co. . Partridge [1912] i K. B. 345 106 L. T. 426 56 Sol. Jo. 327
;

53
;

L. J. K. B,723

973
801

Piatt

Sleap (161 1) Cro. Jac. 275 Player v. Fsxhall (1826) i Russ. 538
0.
; .

1383
32 R. R. 793
.

Playford v. Hoare (1829) 3 Y. & J. 175 Pleadal . Gosmore (1625) Winch, 124

553

699

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Pledge
V.

clxxxiii
PAGE

White [1896] A. C, ,187

65 L. J.:h. 449

74.L. T. 323

589

Plews

Samuel [1904] i Ch. 464; 73 L. J. Ch. 27$; 90 L. T. 533; 52 R. 410 . Plimmer v. Wellington (Mayor of) (1884) L. R. g App. Cas. 659 ; 53 L. J. P. C. 104; 51 L.T. 475; 49 J. P. 116 Plummer, Re [1900] 2 Q.B. 790; 69 L. J. Q.i B. 936; 83 L. T. 387; 48 W. R. 634C. A , i.
V.

...
;
.

44 W. R.

833
188

W.

.....
,i
.

.840
.

1069
.

Plummer
Polak
V.

v.

David [1920]
1

Everett (1876) 24W. R. 689


o.

K. B. 326; 112 L. T. 493 Q. B. D. 669 46 L. J. Q. B. 218


i
;

628
.

35 L. T. 350
.

298

Polglass

Oliver (1831) 2 C.

Walter (1832^ 3 B. Polkinhorn v. Wright (1845)


Polhillii.

& J. 15 2 & Ad. 123;


;

Tvr. 89
I
J

L. J.

Ex.
;

5
.

.
.

107, 108

Pollard Pollard

10 Jur. 11 435 Ch. Repi 1815: 1-870 V. Photographic Co. (l888) 40 Ch. D. L, J. Ch. 251 60 345 ; 58 t. T. 4i8;,37W. R. 266 223,427 Pollock, iJ;(i88sj 28 Ch. D. 552; 54 L. 1285 J. Ch. 489'; 52 L. T. 718 C. A. . Pollock, Re [J906J I Ch. 146 884 75 L. J, Ch. 120 94 L. T. 92; 54 W. R. 267 Polsue V. Rushmer [1907] A. C. I2i 6 L. J. Ch. 365 ; 96 L. T. 510 23 T. L. R. 362 H. L.. 401 Pomeroy, Ltd. o. Scale (i9o6t-7)i 23 T. L. R. 170 103 Pomfret v. Ricroft (1669) i Wms. Saund. 321 386, 637, 705, 709 Pomfret (Earl)?. Windsor (Lord) {1752) 2 Ves. Sen. 482 . 643 Ponselle v. Webber [1908I i Ch. 254 98 L. T. 375 24 77 L. J. Ch. 253 T. L. R. 190 955 Ponsonby, In the Goods of [1895] P. 287 ; 64 L. J. P. 1.19 44 W. R. 240 R. 613 1340 Ponting V. Noakes [1894] 2 Q. B. 281.; 63 L. J. Q. B. 549 70 L. T. 842 58 L 775 J. P. 559 ; 42 W. R. 506; 10 R. 265 Pool V. Pool (1889) 58 L. J. P. 67 61 iL. T. 401 238 Poole's Case (1703) I Salk. 368 .. ;.: 788 Poole's & Clarke's Contract [1904] 2,Ch. 173 73 L. J. Ch. 612; 91 L. T. 20 T. L. R. 604 275 ; S3 W. R. 122 Poole o. Hill (1840I 9 D. P. C. 300 ; 6 M. & W. 835 10 L. J. Ex. 81 . 188, 19O .: Poole . Nedham (i 608) Yelv. 149 . 560 Poole 0. Shergold (1786) 2 Bro. C. C. u8 ; i Cojt, 273 i R. R. 37 191 Poole . Tumbridge (1837) 2 M. & W. 223 .: Pope . Garland (1841)4 Y. &C. Ex. 394; 10 L. J. Ex. Eq. 13 187 Pope . Onslov? (1692) 2 Vern. 286. !. . 834 . Popham V. Woolcot (1666) i Sid. 291 849 Popplewell V. Hodkinson (1869) L. R. 4 Ex. 248 38 L. J. Ex. 126 ; 20 L. T.
.

* Q- S- '97

L. J. K.B, 92 '5 L. J. Q. B. 70

J39, 540

V.

Greenvil (1662)

Ca. Cha. 10

'

....
. ; .
.
I

....
;
. .

...
. ;

..,.....,
|

'

.191
.

'.

...
. .

.112
. .

'

17 W. R. 806 Pordage v. Cole (1669) i

403, 771 Saund., 1871 ed.,1548 ; i L6v. 274 T. Raym. 'i I Saund. J19 2 Keb. 533 ,. 134 183; I Sid. 423 Portal V. Lamb, Re (1885) 30 Ch. D. 50 ; 54 t.-J. Ch. 1012 53 L. T. 650 ; 1262 33 W. R. 859C. 31B Porter o. Freudenberg [1915] I K. B. 857 Portington's (Mary) Case (1614) 10 Rep. 35 a, 4i a 560, 563, 564 Portland (Duke of) v. Hill (1866) L..R. 2 Eq. 765 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 439 ; 12 Jur.
;

578

Wms.

'

.(N. S.)286; 15W. R. 38 584,594,606,607 Portland (Duke of) v. Topham (1864) 11 H. L. C. 32 34 L. J. Ch. 113,; 10 l ..! . fi . 871 L. T. 355; 10 Jur. (N. S.)50i ; 12W. R. 697 Porton V. Unemployed Committee [1909] i K. B. 173 ; 78 L. J. K. B. 139; . . . . . 100 L. T. 102 ; 73 J. P. 43 25 T. L. R. 102 457
; . . ;

Digitized

by Microsoft

clxxxiv
K

TABLE OF CASES
PAGfi
.

PortsmoiitH Waterworks Co.

L. B. &. S. C.

Ry. (1909) 26 T. L. R. 173


. . .

706 73 J- P- (Journal) 624. . Postlethwaite v. Mouflsey (1842) 6 Ha. 33 n. . . 1420 Eatinger . Weightman (1817) 3 Mer. 67 ; 17 R. R. 20 3 202 Pott 0. Qegg (l8t^9) 16 M. & W. 321 ; i& L. J. Ex. 210 ; 11 Jur. 289. loi Potter a. Duffield (1874) 43 L. J. Ch. 472 ; L. R. 18 Eq. 4 ; 22 W. R. 585 Potters, Inland Revenue Commissioners (1854) loExch. 147; 23 L. J.- Ex. . . 1029,1030 345; 18 Jur. 778 ; 2 W. R. 561 . Potter o. North (1669) I Wms. Saund. 346 "S' .716 Poulett. Peerage Case [.igogJ.iA. C. 395 72 L. J. K. B. 924 19 T. L. R. 644 1207 Poulett (Earl) 0. Hood (1868) L. R. 5 Eq, 115 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 224; 17 L. T. . / . . 189 P)486; 16W. R., 323 < Poulterers' Case (i6n) 9 Rep. 55 b ; Moor; 813 . 482 Poulton.0. L. & S. W. Ry. (1867) L. R. 2 Q.B. 534 ; 8 B. & S. 616 ; 36 L. J. 16 W. R. 309 /. Q. B. 294; 17.L. T. ; Poulton. Moore [I9IS] i K. B. 400 84 L. J. K. B. 462 ; 112 L. T. 202 ; -.'.' 811 31 T. L. .R. 43 C. A Pountney 0. Clayton (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 838 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 5665 49 L. T. >,<. . 381 283 ; 3J W. R. 664 ; 47 J. P. 788 C. A. Powdrdl V. Jones (1854) 2 Sm. & 0.407 24 L. J. Ch. 123 ; 18 Jur. iiii ; 1324 3 W. R. 32 ; 3 Eq. R. 63 Powell, Re [1898] i Ch. 227 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 148 1286 77 L. T. 649 ; 46 W. R. 23J . V Powell o. Birmingham Vinegar Co. [1896] 2 Ch. 54 1028 Ppwell o. Brodhurst [1901] 2 Ch. 160 j 70 L. J. Ch. 587; 84 L. T. 620; 49W..R. 532 . 157, 158 C. A. Pewell V. Browne (1907-8) 97 L. T. 167, 854 ; 24 T. L. R. 71 759 "' .'i Powell . Evans (1801) 5 Ves; 839 .' 'I . 1403 Powell 11. FaE (1880) 5 Q. B. D.. 597 49 L. J. Q.B. 428 43 L. T. 562 C. A. 345 Powell V. Hemsley (1909] 2 CK 252 ;,, 78 L. J. Ch. 741 lai L. T. 262 ; 25 T. L. R. 649 C. A. 807 Powell . Jones [1905] iK. B. 11 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 115 ; 92 L. T. 430 ; 53 !( . W. R. 277 ; 21 T. L. R. 5.5 231,233 Powell V. Powell (r866) L. R. i P. & M. 209 35 L.. J. P. 100 ; 14 L. T. jO . . . 800 . 1250 Powell 0. Riley (1871) L. R. 12 Eq. 175 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 533 19 W. R. 869 . 1393 Power 0. Banks [1901] 2 Ch. 487 ; 70 L. J, Ch. 700 ; 85 L. T. 376 ; 49 W. R. .r', . \p 10,976 679; 66. J. P. 21 ; 17 T. L. R. 621 ;!', '*. Powero. Hayne (1869) L. R. 8 Eq. a62;Ji7 W. R. 782 . . 44 ij.'-> . Powis 0. Corbet (1747) 3 Atk. 556 .-! <}, .' . 1392

....
. . . . . . . ; . .

'

-352

:'

.'.....
. ;

...
.

'

'

.......
; ; . . ;
.

Powsley
Praed
I""

Blakeman (1622) 2 Rolle, 284 Practice Note [1899] W. N. 262


.

v.

Graham

.......
. .

642,643

(1889) 24 Q: B. D. 53

C.

A
; ;

59 L. J. Q. B. 230
5

38

W.

1372, 1379 R. 103 372, 521


;

Pratt D. Bristol Medical Association [1919] i K. B. 244 88 L. J. K. B. 628 120 L. T. 41 63 Sol. Jo. 84 35 T. L. R. 14 480, 486 Pratt V. Swaine (1828) 8 B. & C. 285 ,6 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 353 2 M. & Ry. ^ 1348 35 . Prattle v. Kmg (1681) Sir T. Jones, 169 1349 Prehn v. Royal Bank of Liverpool (i-Sye) 39 L. J. Ex. 41 L. R. 5 Ex. 92 18 W. R. 463 .,,.(.-. 21 L. T. 830 Preston , Love (1607) Noy, I20 763 Preston v. Luck (1884) 27 Ch. D. 497 126, 375 Pretty v. Bickmore (1873) L. R. 8 C. P. 401 j 28 L. T. 704 21 W. R. 733. 397 Pretty v. Pretty [191 1] P. 83 80 L. P. 19 ; 104 L. T. 79 27 T. L. R. J. . . , , . . H9I) 1192 169
. :

........ ......
; . . . .

.123

'

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Price,

ckxxv

Re [1900] 1 Ch. 442 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 225 ; 82 L. T. 79 ; 48 W. R. 373 ; 16 T. L. R. 189 1241, 1245 Price V. Easton (1833) 4 B. & Ad. 433 ; i N. & M. 303 ; 2 L. 103 J. K. B. 51 . Price V. John [1905] i Ch. 744 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 469 ; 92 L. T. 768 ; 53 W. R456
Price Price Price
V.

(1864) 3 H. & C. 437 ; 34 L. J. Ex. 35 ; 11 L. T. 314 o. Moulton (1851) 10 C. B. 561 0. Price [191 1] P. 201 ; 80 L. J. P. 145 ; 105 L. T. 441 ; 27 T. L. R, 560; 55 Sol. Jo. 689 Price V. Seeley (1843) 10 CI. & F. 28 . . . Price . Strange ^1820) 6 Madd. 161 ; 22 R. R. 266 Price V. Union Lighterage Co. [1904] i K. B. 412 ; 73 L. B. 222 ; 89 J. K. L. T. 731 ; 52 W. R. 325 i 9 Com. Cas. 120 ; 20 T. L. R. 177 . . Prichard v. Prichard (1864) 3 Sw. & Tr. 524 Priddy v. Rose (1817) 3 Mer. 86 ; 17 R. R. 24 1143, Prideaux v. Warne (1673) T. Raym. 232 Pridgeon v. Mellor (1912) 28 T. L. R. 261 Priestley v. Fernie (1865) 3 H. & C. 977 ; 34 L. J. Ex. 172 ; 11 Jur. (N. S. 813 ; 13 L. T. 208 ; 13 W. R. 1089 Priestley v. Fowler (1837) 3 M. & W. i ; Murph. & H. 305 ; 7 L. fex. 42

Kirkham

.......
.

740 294
149

...

1190
1307

.437
252
1201

......
J.

1147 682
971

64

I Jur. 987 Prince's (The) Case (1605) 8 Rep. 17 Prince v. Oriental Bank (1878) 3 Ap'p. Cas. 325 41 ; 26 W. R. 543

a.

448 560.
;

47 L.
;

J. P. C.

42

38 L. T.

Prince Albert v. Strange (1848) 2 De G. & Sm. 652 13 Jur. 507 Princess Thurn, &c. v. Moffitt [1915] {see " Thurn ").
8 M. & W. 873 10 L. J. Ex. 371 Hitchcock (1843) 6 M. & G. 151 ; 6 Scott (N. R.) 851 12 L. J, C. P. 322 Probert 0. CliflFord (1739) i Ambl. 6 Prodgers v. Langham (1663) i Sid. 133 16 W. R. 445 Prole . Soady (1868) L. R. 3 Ch. App. 220 37 L. J. Ch. 246 Prosser v. Edmonds (1835) i Yo. & C. (Ex.) 481 Proud V. Bates (1864) 34 L. J. Ch. 406 ; 13 L. T. 61 1 1 Jur. (N. S.) 441 6 New Rep. 92 Proud V. Turner (1729) 2 P. Wms. 560 Prowse V. Spurway (1877) 46 L. J. P. D. & A. 49 26 W. R. 1 16 Pryce, Re (1877) 4 Ch. D. 685 36 L. T. 1 17 25 W. R. 432 Pryse, In the Goods o/[i904] P. 301 73 L. J. P. 84 90 L. T. 747 C. A.

149 223 156


211 1400 1062
1

Prior

V.

Henibrow (1841)
0.
.

Pritchard

196

496
781 1310
1171 841
1330,

......
. ;

"347 Prytherch, Re (1889) 42 Ch. D. 590 59 L. J. Ch. 79 W. R. 61 Public Works Commissioner v. Hills [1906] A. C. 368 ; 22 T. L. R. 589 P- C 94 L. T. 833 Pugh V. Leeds (Duke of) (1777) 2 Cowp. 714 PuUen V. Serjeant (1684-5) ^ Ch. Rep. 300 Pulleyne v. France (1913) 57 Sol. Jo. 173 C. A Pullman o. Hill & Co. [1891] i Q. B. 524 60 L. J. Q. B. 39 W. R. 263 Puhnan v. Meadows [1901] i Ch. 233 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 97 Punchard, In the Goods 0/(1872) L. R. 2 P. & M. 369 L. T. 526 : 20 W. R. 446 Purcell V. Horn (1838) 8 A. & E. 602 ; 3 Nev. & P. 564
; ; ; ; ;
;

61 L. T. 799

38

819
75 L. J. P. C. 69
;

......
299
;

137 615

1339 806

64 L. T. 691

55, 518

84 L. T. 26 . 41 L. J. P. 25
;

1380
1330

26

Purcell

V.
.

Macnamara

Purefoy

(1808) 9 East, 361 Rogers (i 671) 2 Wms. Saund. 380

......

7 L. J. Q. B. 228

432 490 657

Digitized

by Microsoft

clxxxvi

TABLE OF CASES
;

Pursell V. Sowler (1877) 2 C. P. D. 215


.25

46 L.

W,
V.

R. 362

Pusey
Pust

V. 34 L. J. Q. B. 127 ; 13 W. R. 459 Ex. Ch 135, 147 Putt 0. Roster (1682) 2 Mod. 318; 3 Mod. i; Poll. 634; Skin. 48 2 Show.* 2:1; T. Raym. 472 947 PwUbach Colliery Co. v. Woodman [1915] A. C. 634 ; 84 L. J. K. B. 874 113 L. T. 10; 31 T. L. R. 271H. L. (E.) ,; 394 . Pybus j. Mitford (1674) I Vent. 372 1263 Pye, ;c^ae (1811) 18 Ves* 140 1282,1283 R.,R. 173 Pyke, Ex parte; Lister, In re (1878) 8 Ch. D. 754 47 L. J. K. B. 100 38 L. T. 923; 26W.R.!8o6 Pyle, Re [1895] i Ch. 724 64 L. J. Ch. 477 ; 72 L. T. 327 ; 43 W. R. 420 ; 1361 13 R. 396 Pyle Works, Re (1890) 44 Ch. D. 534 62 L. T. 887 59 L. J. Ch. 489 1008 38 W. R. 674 ; 2 Meg. 83 C. A Pym V. G. N. Ry. (1863) 4 B. & S. 396 32 L. J. Q. B. 377 ; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 8 L. T. 734 iiW. R. 922 ., 199 473
;

Pusey (1684) i Verp. 273 Dowie (1863) 5 B. & S. 20

...
...

J. C. P.

308
.

36 L. T. 416
. .

526
929, 934

........
. .

....
;

.312
;

Pym V. Pym 0.

HarrisT)n (1876) 33 L. T.

796C;
Cr.

A.

.671
.

Lockyer (1841)

My. &

39

o. Downs (1677) 2 Mod. 176 Quarm v. Quarm [1892] j Q. B. 184 61 L. J. Q. W. R. 302 Quarman 0. Burnett (1840) 6 M. & W. 499

Quadring

.......
;

10 L. J. Ch. 153

5 Jur.

34

1283

1217
573

B. 154

66 L. T. 418

40

9 L.

J.

Ex. 308

4 Jur.

969 Quartz Hill Gold Mining Co. 0. Eyre (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 674 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 488 49 L. T. 249 31 W. R. 668 487, 488, 491, 495 Quick, /niA^Goo^so/^[i899] P. 187; 68 L. J. P.. 64; 80 L. T. 808 1336 QuickC's Trusts, Re [1908] i Ch. 887 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 523 192, 98 L. T. 6io 306, 1 120 Quinn o. Butler (1868) L. R. 6 Eq.. 225 1250 Quinn o. Leathern [1901] A. C. 510 70 L. J. P. C. 76 ; 85 L. T. 289 ; 50 W. R. 139 6s J. P. 708 479484

-351
.

R.,

R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R.

V.

[1906] I Ch. 730 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 421 ; 54 W. R. 578 ; 94 L. T. 494 377 Ashwell (1810) 12 East, 22 12 V. Barnardo (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 305 61 L. T. 547 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 55J 37W. R. 789 C.'A 1216,1225 0. Bayly (1841) i Dr. & W. 213 986 4 Ir. Eq. R. 142 11. Bennett (1866) 4 F. & F. 1105 433 V. Bettesworth (1734) 2 Stra. 956 1340 V. Birmingham (1828) 8 B. & C. 29 ; 6 L. (O. S.) M. C. 67 2M, &Ry. J. 1 163 230 . Bongbey (1823) i B. cSc C. 565 ; 25 R. R. 516 595 V. Bower (J823) i B. & C. 498; 2 D. & R. 842 ; i L. J. (O. S.) K. B.

Re

....
.

'

no

'

Bradford (1813)
J. P,

V.

V.

V.
V.

75 L. J. K. B. 64 ; 93 L. T. 401 ; ,69 ; 21 T. L. R. 727 Brampton (1808) 10 East, 282 ; 10 R. R. 289 Brasier (1779) i Leach, C. L. 199 ; i East, P.C. 443 Brewer's Co. (1824) 3 B. & C. 172 ; 4 D. & R. 492 ; 27 R. R. 318

M. & S. 151 Brailsford [1905] 2 K. B, 730


I

....
. . .

9 217
4!JI

370

1167 25
593 683

V.

Briggs (1614) 2 Bulstr. 295

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
R. R. R.
i).

clxxxvii

W.
V.
V.

Brighton (1861) R. 831

B.

&

S.

447; 30 L.
.

J.

M.

C. 197;

5 L.

Brooke (1766) 4 Burr. 1991

(1883) 10 Q. B. D. 381 ; 52 L. J. M. C. 49 W. R. 460 i 47 J. P. 327 ; 15 Cox, C. C. 19$ . R. V. Bunn (1872) 12 fox, C. C. 316 .

Brown

..
. ;

R. V. Burdett (1696) i Ld. Raym. 148 R. ..Burnett (1815) 4 M. & S. 272 ; 16 R. R. 468 R. V. Butler (1679) 2 Ventr. 344 R. V. Cambrian Ry. (1871) L. R. 6 Q. B. 422 40 L. J. Q. 84; 19 W. R. 1 138 R. V. Campbell (1827) i Mood. C. C. 179 R. V. Capper (1817) 5 Price, 217 R. V. Case (1850) Den. C. C. 580 ; 4 Cox, C. C. 220 ; Temple New Sess. Cas. 347 19 L. J. M. C. 174 14 Jur. 489 R. 0. Chadwick (1847) n Q. B. 205

.... ....
.

& M.

318

4
433
1 1 1

72,

173

R.

R. R.
R. R. R.

R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R.
R. R. R.
R.

Charles (1861) 17 Cox, C. C. 499 31 L. J. M. C. 69 7 Jur. (N. S.) 1308 L. & C. 90 5 L. T. 328 ; 10 W. R. 62 404 V. Chawton (1841) i Q. B. 247 4 P. & D. 525 ; 10 L. J. M. C. 55 69 V. Chetwynd (1828) 7 B. & C. 703 i M. & Ry. 534 6 L. J. (O. S.) M. C. 49 31 R. R. 282 9 V. Chillesford (1825) 4 B. & C. 94 1235 Chorley (1848) 12Q. B. 515; 12 Jur. 822 ?>. 3 Cox, C. C. 262 852 V. Clarence (1888) 23 Q. B. D. 23 58 L. J. M. C. 10 ; 59 L. T. 780 ; 37 ; W. R. 166 16 Cox, C. C. 511 53 J. P. 149 433 o. Clarke (1857) 7 E. & B. 186 ; 26 L. 3 Jur. (N. S.) 335 J. Q. B. 169 441, 1215 5 W. R. 222 V. Clinton (1869) 4 Ir. R. (C. L.) 6 411 D. Coggan (1805) 6 East, 431 593 . Cole (1847) 2 Cox, C. C. 340 409 V. Coney (1882) 8 Q. B. D. 534 ; 15 Cox, C. C. 46 ; 51 L. J, M. C. 66 ; 46 L. T. 307 30 W. R. 678 ; 46 J. p. 404 433 446 V. Cornish (1854) Dears. 425 6 Cox, C. C. 432 409 /. Cotterill (1827) i.fi. & Aid. 67; 2 Chit. 487 693 -u. Cotton (1751) Parker, loi 411 V. Crediton (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 493 216 9 L. J. (O. S.) M. C. 89
V.
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

.......... ........
; ;
.

......
.

V. V.

Dare (i86i) 2

F.

&

F. 355
;

594
1

De Manneville
Dendy

(1804) 5 East, 221

Smith, 358

7 R. R. 693

1225,

1226
V.
.
i B. C. C. in (1852) 22 L. J. Q. B. 39 DilUngton (1689) Freem. K. B. 494 Druitt (1867) lo Cox, 592 DuUingham (1838) 8 A. & E. 858 I P. & D. 172;
; ;
.

593 595

v.
i>.

482
1

W. W. & H.

865 598

R.

V.

8L. J. Q.B. 37 Edwards (1853) 9 Exch. 321-628


333

W. R.
R. R.
V. Ellis

....
.

23 L. J. Ex. 42;

18 Jur. 834;
1

(1888) 16 Cox, 469 56 L.J. Q.B. 315; 57 V. Essex C. C. Judge (1887) 18 Q. B. D. 704 L. T. 643 ; 35 W. R. 511 C. A. 27L. J. Q. B. 132; 4jur. (N. S.) R. -0. Eton College (1857) 8 E. & B. 610 335 ; 6 W. R. 72 R. -u. Fagham Commissioners (1828) 8 B. & C. 355 ; 2 Man. & Ry. 468 R. V. Flattery (1877) 2 Q. B. D. 410 ; 46 L. J. M. C. 130 ; 36 L. T. 32 ; 25 W. R. 398 ; :3 Cox, C. C. 388

67 170
117

729 772 433

Digitized

by Microsoft

clxxxviii

TABLE OF CASES
. .

R. R. R.
R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R.
R.

Flinton(i83o) I B. & Ad. 227i 9L. J. (O. S.)M. C. 33 .1181 Forty Nine Casks of Brandy (i836).3 Hagg. Adm. 257 . 700 -0. Glyde (1868) i C. C. R. 18 L. T. 613 :6 139 ; 37 L. J. M. C. 107 W. R. 1174; II Cox, C. C. 103 924 V. Goodbody (1838) 8 C. & P. 46; 409 211 o. Great Yarmouth (1816) 5 M. & S. 114 0. Greenhill (1836) 4 A. & E. 624 6 N. & M. 244 1225 o. Gyngall [1893] 2 Q. B. 232 ; 62 L. 69 L. T. 4i ; 57 J. P. J. Q. B. 559 1220 773 ; 4 R. 448 C. A. 0., Halifax [1891] i Q. B. 796 4 F.I. & Bl. 647 3 C. L. R. 843 : 24 L. J. M. C. 65 I Jur. (N. S.) 181 426 3 W. R. 239 V. Ham (1839) 8 L. 593 J. Q. B. 265 V. Hands (1887) 16 Cox, C. C. 189 52 J. P. 24 56 L. T. 370 409 f. Hanger (1614) 3 Bulstr. i 698, 704 . Harris (1831) I B. & Ad. 936; 9L. J. (O. S.)K. B. 165 9 . Harris (1871) L. R. I C. C. R. 282 V. Havering-atte-Bower (1822) 5 B. & Aid. 691 2 Dow. & Ry. 176 n. ; 24 R. R. 532' 684 o. Hendon (1788) 2 T. R. 484 591, 593
o. V.

.......
; ;
.

...
. .
.

...
.

.........
;

.404

t o.

Hey (1849) T.&M. 209;

Hermitage (1692) Carth. 239 i Den.


;

154; 3 Cox, C. C. 582 409 Holmes (1883) 12 Q. B. D. 23 53 L. J. M. C. 37 49 L. T. 540 32 '^404 W. R. 392 15 Cox, C. C, 343 R. V. Hopley (i860) 2 F. & F. 202 1225 R. 11. Hornchurch (18181 2 B. & Aid. 189 558 R. /. Howes (i860) 3 E. & E. 332 30 L. J. M. C. 47 7 Jur. (N. S.) 22 suknom. Ex pane Basford, 3 L. T. 467 9 W. R. 99 8 Cox, C. C. 405 441, 1225, 1226 R. V. Humphery (1825) McCIe. & Y. 173 29 R. R. 783 961 R. V. Humphreys [1914] 3 K. B. 1237 84 L. J. K. B. 187 1 1 1 L. T. 1 1 10 ; 1213 79 J. P. 66 ; 30 T. L. R. 698 R. . Isley (1836) 5 A. & E. 441 6 N. & M. 730 2 5 L. J. K. B. 253 H. & W. 196 -122; R. V. Jackson [1891] l Q. B. 671 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 346 ; 64 L. T. 679 ; 39 W. R.
V.
.

....... ........
C. C.

673

602

zCar.

& Kir.
;

983

14 Jur.

+7; 55J-P-246
R.
o. Joliffe

(1823) 2 B.

&

C.
.

54

i
.

L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 232


. . .

437,441,471,1181 Dow. & Ry.


. . .

R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R.
R.

240 ; 26 R. R. ^64 Jones (1832) 4 B. & Ad. 345 o. Journeyman Tailors (1721) 8 Mod^
V. V. o.
1).

icing's

Lynn

(1826) 6 B.
i

&

C.

Kinnersley (1719)

Str. 193

R.
R. R. R.

6 N. & M. 203 9 Leggatt (1852) 18 Q. B. 781 sub nom. Sandilands, Ex parte, 21 L. J. Q. B. 31Z; 17 Jur. 317 471,1181 -u. Linneker [1906] 2 K. B. 75 L. J. K. B. 385 ; 94 L. T. 856 ; 54 99 W. R. 494 70 J. P. 293 22 T. L. R. 495 431 i N. & M. 576 V. Longnoff (1833) A B. & Ad. 647 2 L. J. M. C. 62 53 L. T. 583 V. McDonald (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 323 W. R. 735 ; 15 52 33 P. 695 Cox, C. C. 757 49 J. 347 V. Mann (1726) Gilb. Eq. Rep. 223 1348
.
; . . .
.

Knight (1871) 12 Cox, 102 Langhorne (1836) 4 A. & E. 538


;

...... ....... ........


II

858 481

97

482 216 484 924

1).

....
; ; ;
.

-0.

Mannevil'le (1804) 5 East, 221

441
;

V.

Middleton (1873) L. R. 2 C. C. R. 55 42 L. J. M. C. 73 I Chit. 654 12 Cox, C. C. 260, 417 22 R. R. 826


;

28 L. T. 777
. .

;
.

409

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
R. R. R.
V.

clxxxix
PAGE

Minis (1844) 10 CI. & F. 534 ; 8 Jur. 717 1 1 169 1 57, V. Moore (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 184 i L. 402 J. M. C. 30 V. Munslow [1895] 1 Q. B. 758 ; 64 L. J. M. C. 138 ; 72 L. T. 301 ; 43 W. R. 495; 15 R. 192 507 R. V. Naguib [1917] i K. B. 379 86 L, J. K B. 709; 116 L. T. 640; 8 P. 116 1 172 J. R. a. Nash (1883) 10 Q. B. D. 454 48 L. T. 447 3 52 -J- I B. 442 W. R. 420 C. A. 1216 R. J). New (1904) 20 T. L. R. 583 C. A. 6, 1225 R. V. Oakley (1809) 10 East, 491 I, 1232 R. V. Osbourne (1803) 4 East, 335 3 R. V. Oxford (Bishop) (1806) 7 East, 600 865 R. I/. Patteson (1832) 4 B. & Ad. 9 i Nev. & M. 612 2 L. J. K. B. 33 743 R. V. Pear (1779) i Leach, 212 2 East, P. C. 685, 697 3 R. R. 703 409 .' R. f. Posmore (1789) 3 T. R. 199 13 R. V. Price (1884) 12 Q. B. D. 247 53 L. J. M. C. 51 33 W. R. 45 n. Cox, C. C. 389 1402 R. V. Raynes (1698) i Salk. 299 1332 R. V. Reed (1854) i Dears. 257 ; 2 C. L. R. 607 ; 23 L.J. M. C. 25 18 Jur, 2 W. R. 190 6 Cox, C. C. 284 67 408 R. V. Reeve (1631) 2 Bulstr. 344 1213 R. V. Rennett (1788) 2 T. R. 197 593 R. V. Richardson (1758) i Burr. 517 12 R. V. Riley (1853) i Dears. 149 22 L. J. M. C. 48 6 Cox Jur. 189 C. C. 88 921 R. 0. Rogier (1823) i B. & C. 272 2 D. & R. 431 25 R, R- 393 404 R. V. Roswell (1698) 2 Salk. 499 681 R. V. Rymer (1877) 2 Q. B. D. 136; 46 L. J. M. C. 108; 35 L- T. 774 W. R. 415 13 Cox, C. C. 378 244 R. V. Saddlers' Co. (1863) 10 H. L. C. 404 12 R. V. St. George (1840) 9 C. & P. 483 431, 432 R. V. St. Giles in the Fields (1847) 11 Q. B. 173, 244 "73 R. V. St. John, Devizes (1829) 9 B. & C. 896 209 R. V. St. Mary's, Warwick (1853) i El. & El. 816 22 L J. M. C. 109 I
; .
.

Jur. 551

R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R.

V. K.
.

Sherrington (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 714 Shinfield, (181 1) 14 East, 541


. .

L. J. M,

C.7

67 1232

Smith (1836) I M. C. C. 473 . Smith (1837) 8 C. &P. 153 V. Smith (1853) 22 L. J. Q. B. 116 V. Sourton (1836) 5 A. & E. 180 5 N. & IV^. 575
; .

82,

207 409 217

1216
L. J.

M.

C. 100

H.

& W.

209

R. R. R.

R.

R. R. R,

Stanton (1606) Cro. Jac. 259 -0. Starkey Will. Woll. & Dav, 502 2 Nev. & P. 169 (1837) 7 A. & E. gs 6 L. J. K. B. 202 I Lev. V. Starling et al. (1664) i Keb. 675 ; i Sid. 174 12s V. Staverton (1610) Yelv. 190 County Court Judge [1910] 2 K. B. 410 sub nom. R. v. FarnV. Surrey ham and Aldershot County Court Judge and Cope, 79 L. J. K. B. 802 103 L. T. 250 ; 26 T. L. R. 503 V. Sutton (1670) I Saund. 273 & S. 73) o. Sutton (i767)-^R. v. Vantandillo (1815) 4 i V. Sutton (1835) 3 A. & E. 597 ; 4 L. J. K. B. 215 ; 5 N. & M. 353 H. & W. 428 776, 1231, V. Symondson (1896) 60 J. P. 645
V.
. ; . .

1207 684

693

482 684

715 692 402


I2'!2

82

Digitized

by Microsoft

cxc

TABLE OF CASES

Talbot (1633) Cro. Car. 311 V. Thanies Ditton (1785) 4 Dougl. 300 207 8 Jur. (N. S.) 1 162 i V. Thompson (1862) L. & C. 225 ; 32 L. J. M. C. 57 II W. R. 41 ; 9 Cox, C. C. 222 7 L. T. 983 R. V. Toddington (1818) i B. & Aid. 560 776, 1 217 R. V. Vantandillo (1815) 4 M. & S. 73 ; 16 R. R. 389 402 2 East, P. C. 570 R. V. Waite (1743) i Leach, 28 R. V. Wantage (189,1) i East, 601 217 R. V. Warburton (1870) L. R. i C. C. 276 40 L. J. M. C. 22 ; 23 L. T, 473; 481 19 W. R. 165 ; II Cox, C. C. 584 R. V. Wellesley (Lord) (1853) 2 E. & B. 924 591 4B. & C. 481 2 R. . Westwood (1830) 7 Bing. i 4 Bligh (N. S.) 213 12 Dow. & C. 21 7 D. & R. 267 R. V. Wilby (1814) 2 M. & S. 504 ; 15 R. R. 328 1231 2 East, P. C. 673 R. V. Wilkins (1789) i Leach, 520 408 10 Mod. 63 R. V. Williams (171 1) i Salk. 383 404 R. V. Winter (1705) 2 Salk. 588 646 (Bishop) (1604) Cro. Jac. 53 R. V. Winton 731 R. . Woodham Walter (1869) 100 B. & S. 439 598 N. & M. 712 1 170 R. V. Wroxton (1833) 4 B. & Ad. 640 ; 2 L. J. M. C. 64 R. s. Yarborough (1824) 3 B. & C. 91 2 Bligh (N. S.) 147 I Dow. & Clark, 178 ; 5 Bing. 163 4 Dow. &Ry. 790 27 R. R. 292 778 R, V. Younger (1793) 5 T. R. 449 69 I Race B. Ward (1855) 4 E. & B. 702 3 C. L. R. 744 24 L J. Q- B. 153 Jur. (N. S.) 704 710, 746 Radburn v. Jervis (1841) 3 Beav. 450 992 26 W. R. 417 Radcliffe, Re, (1878) 7 Clj. D. 733 1379 Radcliffe, Re [1892] ii Ch. 227 ; 61 L. J. Ch. ,186 66 L. T. 363 : 40 W. R. 323C. A. 552> 1349 RadclifEe v. Bartholomew [1892] i Q. B. 161 ; 61 L. J. M. C. 63 ; 65 L. T. 71 677; 40W. R. 63; 56J. P. 262
R. R. R.
I'.
; ;
.

....
.

PAGE

.....
; .
. . .

...
; ; ;

....
;

Radley p.^Eglesfield (1671) i Ventr. 174 937 Radley v. L. & N. W. Ry. (1876) L. R. i App. Gas. 754 46 L. J. Ex. 573 ; 35 L.T. 637; 25W. R. 147-H. L. (E.) 333,544 Raffles V. Wichelhaus (1864) 2 H. & C. 906 : 33 L.. J, Ex. 160 . 37 Raggett 0. Findlater (1873) L. R. 17 Eq. 29 43 L. J. Ch. 64 29 L. T. 448 ;
;
. .

22 W. R, 53 1028 Raggi, Be [1913] 2 Ch. 206 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 396 108 L. T. 917 1386 Railton v. Mathews (1844) 10 CI. & F. 934 292 Rainford v. Keith [1905] i Ch. 296 92 L. T. 786 .12 74 L. J. Ch. 531 21 T. L. R. 382 Manson, 278 538 Raitto. Mitchell (1815)4 Camp. 146 16R. R. 765 105,224,968 Raleigh v. Goschen [1898] i Ch. 73 67 L. J. Ch. 59 77 L. T. 429 46 W.R. 9 340 Ralph, Re (1883) 25 Ch. D. 194 53 L. J. Ch. 188 49 L. T. 504 48 J. P. 1029 135 ; 32 W. R. 168 Ramsbottom B. Wallis (1835) 5 L. J. Ch. 92 829 Ramsden v. Dyson (1866) L. R. i H. L. 129 I2 Jur. (N. S.) 506 14 W. R. . . 926 121 Ramsgate Corporation v. Debling (1906) 70 J. P. 132 ; 22 T. L. R. 369 ; 4 L. G. R. 495 680 Ramsgate Hotel Co. v. Montefiore (1866) 4 H. & C. 164 35 L. J. Ex. 90 12 Jur. (N:S.)4S5i 13L. T. 715; 14W. R. 335 88 Randall B. Jenkins (1673) I Mod. 96 . Randall . Scory (1633) Cro. Car. 313 551
;
.

:
'

.......
. .

.751

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Randfield
v.
;

cxci
PAGE

Randfield (i860) 8 H. L. C. 226 30 L. J. Ch. 179 n. ; reversing 1 1 W. R. 1260 847 ; 2 N. R. 309 Rangeley v. Midland Ry. (1868) L. R. 3 Ch. App. 306 37 L. J. Ch. 313 18 L. T. 69 ; 16 W. R. 547 679, 705 Rann v. Hughes (1778) 7 T. R. 350 n. 4 Bro. P. C. 27 92, 1418 Raphael v. Goodman (1838) 8 A. & E. 565 3 Nev. & P. 547 i W. W. & H. 7 L- J- Q- B. 220 363 530 Rapier v. London Tramways Co. [1893] 2 Ch. 588 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 36 2 R. 448; 69 L. T. 631 C. A 345)401 Rapson v. Cubitt (1842) 9 M. & W. 710 ; 1 1 L. J. Ex. 271 6 Jur. 606 354 Rassam v. Budge [1893] i Q. B. 571 5 R. 336 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 312 68 L. T. 511 717 ; 41 W. R. 377 ; 57 J. P. 361 Ratcliff's Case (1592) 3 Rep. 37 b 1218 Ratcliff V. Davis (1610) Yelv. 178 i Bulstr. 29 956 Ratcliffe, In the Goods oj [1889] P. 1 10 68 L. J. P. 47 80 L. T. 170 1341 Ratcliffe v. Evans [1892] 2 Q. B. 524 66 L. T. 794 40 61 L. J. Q. B. 535 W. R. 578 56 J. P. 837C. A 428 Rattenberry, Re [1906] i Ch. 667 75 L. J. Ch. 304 94 L. T. 475 54 W. R. 1281 311 ; 22 T. L. R. 249 Raulin v. Fischer [191 1] z K. B. 93 80 L. J. K. B. 811 104 L. T. 849 27 T. L. R. 220 323 Ravengao. Mackintosh (1824) 2 B. & C. 693 4 Dow. & Ry. 107 ; i C. & P.
; ; . . .
.

....
;
;

492 Upcott (1869) 20 L. T. 233 406 Rawlings ij. General Trading Co. [1920] 3 K. B. 30 ; 36 T. L. R. 649 ; reversed 37 T. L. R. 252 ; 65 S. J. 220 C. A. 42 Rawlings v. Till (1837) 7 L. J. (N. S.) Ex. 6 432 611,613 Rawlings o. Walker (1826) 5 B. & C. Ill Rawlins v. Vandyke (1801) 3 Esp. 250 57 28 L. J. Ch. 188 Rawlins v. Wickham (1858) 3 De G. & J. 304 5 Jur. (N. S.) 278 ; 7 W. R. 145 541 Rawlinson v. Mort (1905) 93 L. T. 555 21 T. L. R. 774 939 811 Rawlyns' Case (i587)-4 Rep. 52 a /. 36 Raworth o. Marriott (1833) I My. & K. 643 Rawstron o. Taylor (1885) II Exch. 369; 25 L. J. Ex. 33 1350 Ray 0. Ray (1815) Cooper, 264; 14 R. R. 255 82 L. T. 46 Raybould, Re [1900] i Ch. 199 48 W. R. 69 L. J. Ch. 248

204

Ravenhill

......... ............
; ; ; ; ; ; ; .
.

v.

....
. . .

....
. . . . .

-77'

301 Rayer, Re [1903] i Ch. 685 72 L. J. Ch. 230 Rayer v. Strickland (1842) 2 Q. B. 792 Rayment v. Rayment [1910] P. 271 79 L. T. L. R. 634; 54 Sol. Jo. 721
; ;
. .

1415, 1416, 1417


;

87 L. T. 712
115
.

51

W.

R. 538
;

1254

558, 585
J. P.
.

103 L. T. 430
. . .

26
.

27 L. T. 506 ; ; 1344 R. 859 353 Rayner v. Mitchell (1879) L. R. 2 C. P. D. 357 25 W. R. 633 Rayner 0. Preston (188 1) 18 Ch. D. i 50 L. J. Ch. 472 44 L. T. 787 ; 29 188, 191, 192 W. R. 546 127 Rayner . Stone (1762) 2 Eden, 128 Rayson v. South London Tramways Co. [1893] 2 Q. B. 304 4 R. 522 62 4871 4^9 42 W. R. 21 69 L. T. 491 L. J. Q. B. 593 I343 Read's Case (1604) 5 Rep. 33 b Read v. Anderson (1882) 10 Q. B. D. 100 (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 779 53 L. J. 237, 240, 241 32 W. R. 950 49 J. P. 4 51 L. T. 55 Q. B. 532 1378 Read 11. Blunt (1832) 5 Sim. 567

Raynerc. Grote(i846) 15 M. & W. 359; 16L. J. Ex. 79. Rayner v. Koehler (1872) L. R. 14 Eq. 262 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 697
20

...
. .

1204 65

W.

Digitized

by Microsoft

CXCll

TABLE OF CASES
Coker (1853) 13 C. B. 850 990 I W. R. 4.13 Edwards (1864) '17 C. B. N.
; ;

Read

s.

Jur.

Read Read

.........
i

C. L. R,

746

22 L. J. C. P. 201
;

17

432
360

v.

S.

245

N. R. 48

34 L.

P. 31 J. C.

II L. T.
v.

3H

'

G. E. Ry. (i868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 555 ; 9 B. & S. 714 ; 37 L. J. Q. B. 278 ; 18 L. T. 82 ; 16 W. R. 1040 363 1:81 Read v. Lega'fd (1851) 6 Exch. 636 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 309 ; 15 Jur. 494 Read 0. Operative Stonemasons [1902] 2 K. B. 732 ; 71 L. J. K. B. 994 87 L. T. 493 ; 51 W. R. 115 ; 66 J. P. 822 479, 480 Reado. Rann (1830) loB. &C.'438; 8 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 144. . 236 Read v. Snell (1743) 2 Atk. 649 580 Reade (Alfred), In the Goods o/[i902] P. 75 ; 71 L. J. P. 45 ; 86 L. T. 258 1253 Readhead v. Mid. Ry. (1869) L. R. 4 Q. B. 379 ; 38 L. J. Q. B. 169 ; 20 L. T.
. ; .

628 17 W. R. 737 Reading v. Menham (1832) i Moo. & Rob. 234 Reason v. Wirdnam (1824) i Car. & P. 434 Reay w. Huntington (1803) 4 East, 271
;

Reddaway
44 Reddel Reddie

v.

Banham

.... .....
65 L. J. Q. B. 381
;

59. 331

195 Z2I

607
1028

[1896] A. C. 199
.

74 L. T, 289 922 467


615
;

W.
0.
o.

R. 638

Dobree (1839) 10 Sim. 244

3 Jur.

Scoolt (1795) Peake, 240. Rede 0. Farr (1817)6 M. & S. 121 ; 18 R. R. 329 Redgrave v. Hurd (1881) 20 Ch. D. 1 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 113
.

.....
722
;

R. 251 C. A. 38, 126 Taylor (1835) 4 Nev. & M. 469 i H. & W. 15 ; 4 L. J. K. B. 74 434 Reed 0. Nutt (1890)24 Q. B. D. 669 59 L. J. Q. B. 311 ; 62 L. T. 635 38 W. R. 621 54 J. P. 599 438 Reed 0. Royal .Exchange Co. (1796) 2 Peake (Add. Cas.) 70 308 Reedie o. L. & N. W. Ry. (1849) 4 Exch. 244 6 Railw. Cas. 184 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 65 351 Rees V. De Bernardy [1896] 2 Ch. 437 65 L. J. Ch. 656 74 L. T. 585 35, 40, 499 Reese River Silver Mining Co. u. Atwell (1869) L. R. 7 Eq. 347 ; 20 L. T. 163; 17 W. R. 6oi ~ 106^ Reeve v. Lisle [1902] A. C. 461 87 I,. T. 308 51 W. R. 71 L. J. Ch. 768 18 T. L. R. 767 830 576 Reeves Trusts, Re (1877) 4 Ch. D. 841 46 L. J. Ch. 412 36 L. T. 906 1285 25 W. R. 62 Reeves v. Barlow (1884) 12 Q. B. D. 436 53 L. J. Q. B. 192 50 L. T. 782 32 W. R. 672 C. A 949 Reeves o. Capper (1838) 5 Bing. (N. C.) 136 6 Scott, 877 ; i Am. 427 2 Jur. ^ 1067 949 Reid, In the Goods of (1866) L. R. i P. & M. 74 13 L. T. 35 L. J. P. 43 680; 12 Jur. (N. S.) 300; 14 W. R. 316 1245 Reid V. Bickerstaff [1908] 2 Ch. 305 78 L. J. Ch. 753 100 L. T. 952 C. A. 806 Reid V. Shergold (1805) 10 Ves. 370 870 62 L. T. 378 38 W. R. 484 Reilly w. Booth (1850) 44 Ch. D. 12 777 Reis, Re [1904] 2 K. B. 769-; 73 L. J. K. B. 929; 91 L. T. 592; 20 Clough i>. Samuel [1905] A. C. 442 T. L. R. 547 C. A. affirmed 21 T. L. R. 702 1068 74 L. J. K. B. 918 ; 93 L. T, 491 Reis V. Pfiiry (1895) 64 L. Ji Q. B. 566 43 W. R. 648 \ 15 R. 427 514 Renals o. Cowlishaw (1878)9 Ch. D. 125. 802 Rendall v. Andrese (1892) 61 L. J. Q. B. 630 1349, 1366 Reneaux 11. Teakle (1853) 8 Exch. 680 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 241 i 17 Jur. 351 W. R. 312 57

W.

Reece

........
; ; ; ; ;

45 L. T. 485

30
.

v.

...

........ .......
; ; . ; ; ; ; ; ;
.

Rennington

u.

Cole (1618) Noy, 29.

...... ..... .......


.

592

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Reuss (Princess
Reuter
Revis
of) v.

cxciii

PAGE
Bos (1871) L. R.
;

H.

L. 176

40 L.
;

J. Ch.

655

24
1014
27

L. T. 641 v. Sala (1879) 4 C. P. D. 239

48 L.

49 18 C. B. 126 25 L. J. C. P. 195 ; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 614 R. 506 512 Reynel's Case (1612) 9 Rep. 94 b 742 Reynell v. Champernoon (1631) Cro. Car. 228 701, 720 Reynell v. Sprye (1849) 8 Hare, 222 ; affirmed (i8?2) 21 L. J. Ch. 13, 633 ; iD. M. &G. 660; 15 Jur. 1046 " 543 Reynolds, In the Goods of (1873) L. R. 3 P. & D. 35 ; 42 L. J. P. 20 ; 28 L. T. 144; 21 W. R. 512 1253,1254 Reynolds v. Bridge (1856) 6 El. & Bl. 528 26 L. J. Q. B. 12 ; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 1164; 4 W. R. 640 139 Reynolds . Kennedy (1748) I Wils. 232. 490 Rhoades, Re [1899] ^ Q. B. 347 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 804 80 L. T. 742 47 W. R. 561 15 T. L. R. 407 6 Manson, 277 C. A. .1381, 1383, 1389 Rhodes, i?e(i89o)44Ch. D. 94; 59L. J. Ch. 298; 62L.T. 352C.A. 325 Rhodes v. Bate (1865) L. R. i Ch. App. 252 35 L. J. Ch. 267 ; 12 Jur. (N. S.) 178; 13L. T. 778; 14W. R. 292. 36 Rhodes v. Monies [1895] i Ch. 236 64 L. J. Ch. 122 12 R. 6 71 L. T. 414 599 ; 43 W. R. 99 C. A Rice . Gordon (1848) II Beav. 265 1407 Rice V. Rice (1853) 2 Drew. 73 2 Eq. R. 341 2 W. R. 23 L. J. Ch. 289 139 760, 840 Rice . Wiseman (1615) 3 Bulstr. 82 703 Rich V. Chamberlayne (1752) i Ca. lemp. Lee, 134 1341 Richards . Delbridge (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 11 43 L. J. Ch. 459 ; 22 W. R.' IIOI 584 Richards v. Easto (1846) 15 M. & W. 244 15 L. J. Ex. 163 ; 10 Jur. 695 ; 3 D. & L. 515 776 Richards v. Frankum (1840) 6 M. & W. 420 9 Car. & P. 221 8 D. P. C. 346 ; 9 L. J. Ex. 162 423 Richards o. Hayward (1841) 2 M. & G. 574 2 Scott (N. R.) 670 ; 10 L. J.
i>.

W.

J. C. P.

492

40 L. T. 476

R. 631

Smith (1856)

4W.

.....
. . .
.

......
; ;
.

.....
; ; ;

....... ....... .....


; ; ; ; ; ; .
. .

.:!>> 47,209 Heather (1817) i B. & Aid. 29 . 154 v. Kidderminster (Mayor of) [1896] 2 Ch. 212 ;. 65 L. J. Ch. 502 ; 951, 952 74 L. T. 483 44 W. R. 505 4 Mans. 169 Richards v. Rose (1853) 9 Exch. 218 2 C. L. R. 311 23 L. J. Ex. 3 ; 17

C. P. 108
v.

Richards Richards

.........
.
;

'

...
; ; . .

Jur. 1036 Richards 0. Squibb (1698) I Ld.Raym. 726 Richardson, In the Goods 0/(1871) L. R. 2 P. & Mj 244 40 L. J. P. 36 25 L. T. 384; 19W. R. 979 Richardson, Re [1900] 2 Ch. 778 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 804 Richardson v. Atkinson (1723) i Stra. 576 Richardson v. Barnes (1849) 4 Ex. 128 18 L. J. Ex. 468 Richardson v. Graham [1908] i K. B. 39 77 L. J. K. B. 27 98 L. T. 360
. .
.

......
;

713
,717

....
. .

1339 754

416

.105

C.

673,674,857
v.

Richardson

G. E. Ry. (1876)

C. P. D.

C.

A A
o.

Richardson v. Greese (1743) 3 Atk. 65 Richardson v. Harrison (1885) 16 Q. B. D. 85

......
; ; ;

342

35 L. T. 351

24

W.

R. 907
.

331 1282

55 L. J. Q. B. 58
9 D. P. C. 715
;

54 L. T. 456

C.

659,751.875
Jackson (1841) 8 M.

Richardson
303

& W.

298

10 L. J. Ex.

^9

Digitized

by Microsoft

cxGiv

TABLE OF CASES
tAGt
v.
;

Kensit (1845) 5 ^- '* ^- 4^5 i' ^ Scott fN. R.) 419 12 L. J. C. P. 154; 7jur. 856 Richardsbn ! ILarigriHge (1811) 4 Taunt. 128 Richardson v. Mellish (1824) 1 1 Moore, 104 ; 3 Bing. 334 4 L. J. (O. S.) C. P.
'
. . . ^ .

Richardson

597 618
123

68

Richardson . Rowntree [1894] A. C. 217 6 R. 95 63 L. J. Q. B. 283 88 70 L. T. 817 ; 58 J. P. 493 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 482H. L. (E.) Richardson v. Smallwood (1822) Jac. 552 1063 Richardsbn . Sydenham (1705) 2 Vern. 447 616 Richardson . Walker (1824) 2 B. & C. 827; 4 Dow. & Ry. (K, B.) 4:98; 2 L.'J. (O. S.) K. B. 180 747 Richardson v. Younge (1871) L. R. 6 Ch. App. 478 40 L. J. Ch. 338 25 L. T. 230 rgW. R. 312 76 Richerson, Re [1892] 1 Ch. 3793 61 L. J. Ch. 202 66 L. T. 174 40 W. R. 233 1358,1359 Richmond v. White (1879) 12 Ch. D. 361 48 L. J. Ch. 798 41 L. T. 570 1381 27 W. R. 878 C. A. Rickards 0. Bartrum (1908) 25 T. L. R. 181 521 Ricket V. Metropolitan Ry. (1867) L. R. 2 H. L. 175 36 L. J. Q. B. 205 16 L. T. 542 IS W. R. 937 773 iijur. 918 Ricketts o. Bell (1847)1 Pe G. & Sm. 335 100 Ricketts v. Enfield Churchwardens [1909] i Ch. 544 78 L. J. Ch. 294 L. T. 362 Ridge's Trusts, Re (1872) L. R. 7 Ch. App. 665 41 L. J. Ch. 787 27 L. T. 141 ; 20 W. R. 878 65; Ridjsway, Re (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 447 54 L. J. Q. B. 570 34 W. R. 80 2 Morr. 248 939 Ridgwa'yji. Wharton (1854) 3 De G. M. & G. 677; affirmed {iS^j) 6 H. L. Cas. loi, 238 ; 2 Eq. R. 839 27 L. J. Ch. 46 4 Jur. (N. S.) 173 5 W. R. 804 .-PI102 Ridley, Re [1904] 2 Ch. 774 73 L. J. Ch. 696 91 L. T. 189 1106, 1380 Ridout o. Fowler [1904] 2 Ch. 93 73 L. J. Ch. 579 91 L. T. 509 53 W. R. 42 C. A. 1057 Rigby V. Connol (1880) 49 L. J. Ch. 328 14 Ch. D. 482 ; 42 L. T. 139 28 W. R. 650 127 Rigden o. Vallier (1751) 2 Ves. St. 252 ; 3 Atk. 731 1090, 1093 Rigg V. Lonsdale (Earl of) (1857) J H. & N. 923 26 L. J. Ex. 196 3 Jur. (N. S.)39o; 5W. R. 355 417 Right d. Jefferys j).!Bucknell(i83i) 2 B. & Ad. 278 . Right o. Darley (1786) 1 T. R.I 59 618,619 Riley v. Home (1828) 5 Bing. 217 2 M. & P. 331 260 30 R. R. 576 Rimington o. Hartley (i 880): 14 Ch. D. 630 43 L. "T 15 29 W. R. 42 1232 Ripon (Earl of) . Hobart (1843) 3 Myl. & K. 169 Coop. temp. Brougham,
;

...... ......
; .
.

.'

.189 .628

'

..........
.

.811
. .

"

333 ; 3 L. J. Ch. 145 374 ,' . 1191 Rippingall . Rippingall (1882) 48 L. T. 126 Riseley v. Ryle (1843) 11 M. & W. 16 ; 12 L. J. Ex. 322 . 530 Rising, iJe [1904] i Ch. 533 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 455 ; 90 L. T. 504 B. & S. 409 ; 32 L. J. Q. B. 386 ; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 202 ; Rist o. Faux (1863) 4 W. R. 918 8 L. T. 737; . . 466,467 River Steamer Co., Re (1871) L. R. 6 Ch. App; 822 ; 25 L. T. 319 ; 19 W. R.
. . . . . . . . .

.661

11.30

Rivers (Lord) v. Adams (i878)'3Ex. D. 361 .' 27 W. R. 381

75
;

48 L.
.

J.

Ex. 47
.

39 L. T. 39

Roach Roach

w.
!).

Garrari (1748)

Ves. Sen. '157

Thompson. (1830) Moo.

& M.

487

......
.

....
.
.

;
.

715 1218 302

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Robb
V.

cxcv
PAGE

Green [1895] 2 Q. B. 315 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 593 ; 14 R. 580 ; 73 L. T. 15 44 W. R. 25 59 J. P. 69S~C. A 210, 427 RobbJns, Re [1907] 2 Ch. 8 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 531 ; 96 L. T. 755 C. A. 995 Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co. (1902) 171 N. Y. 538 501
; ;
.

Roberts, In the Goorfxo/[ 1898] P. 149 67 L. J. P. 71 78 L. T. 390 1337 Roberts, Re [1902] 2 Ch. 834 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 38 87 L. T. 523 ; 51 W. R. 89... 1392, 1394, 1398 Roberts v. Brennan [1902] P. 143 71 L. J. P. 74 86 L. T. 599 50 W. R. 18 T. L. R. 467 1204 414; Roberts 0. Brett (1865) 11 H. L. Gas. 337; 34 L. J. C. P. 241 11 Jur. (N. S.)377: 12L. T. 286; 13W. R. 587 47,134,135 Roberts v. Crowe (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 629 41 L. J. C. P. 198 27 L. T. 238 317 Roberts v. Dixwell (1738) i Atk. 607 751 Roberts v. Gray [1913] i K. B. 520 82 L. J. K. B. 362 ; 108 L. T. 232 57 Sol. Jo. 143 ; 29 T. L. R. 149 C. A 21 Roberts v. Gwyfrai District Council [1899] 2 Ch. 608 68 L. J. Ch. 233 ; 80 L.T. 107; 47W. R. 376; 63 J. P. 181 .375 Roberts . Havelock (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 404 224 Roberts v. Holland [1893] i Q. B. 665 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 21 5 R. 370; 41 W. R. 494 349, 405 Roberts . Macord (1832) I Moo. & R. 230 Roberts o. Roberts (1917) 117 L. T. 157; 61 Sol. Jo. 492'; 33 T. L. R.
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
:

....... ......
. . .

.711

Ex. 82 ; 4 H. & C. 103 35 L. J. Ex. 62 12 Jur. (N. S.) 78 ; 13 L. T. 471 ; 14 W. R. 225 399 Roberts v. Smith (1857) 2 H. & N. 213 26 L. J. Ex. 319 3 Jur. (N. S.) 469 ; 5 W. R. 581 Roberts v. Walker (1830) i Russ. & M. 752 1394 Roberts a. Wyatt (i8io) 2 Taunt. 268 II R. R. 566 . Robertson v. Amazon Tug Co. (1881) 7 Q. B. D. 598 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 68 ; 46 L. T. 146 30 W. R. 308 4 Asp. M. C. 496 195 Rober^n v. Broadbent (1883) L. R. 8 App. Ca. 812 53 L. J. Ch. 266 ; 50 L. T. 243 ; 32 W. R. 205 1263,1374,1398 608 Robertson v. Gardiner (1852) 12 C. B. 319 Robertson v. Hartopp (1889) 43 Ch. D. 484 9 L- J- Ch. 553 ; 62 L. T. 585 C. A 327, 717 Robertson v. Robertson (1883) 8 P.D. 94; 48 L. T. 590; 31 W. R. 652 1200 C. A. Robins & Co. v. Gray [1895] 2 Q. B. 501 65 L. J. Q. B. 44 73 L. T. 252 245, 247, 964 44 W. R. I 59 J. P. 741 C. A Robinson v. Bousfield (1844) 6 Q. B. 492 590 Robinson 0. Continental Insurance Co. [1915] i K. B. 155 84 L. J. K. B. 238 ; 31B 20 Com. Cas. 125 59 Sol. Jo. 7 31 T. L. R. 20 112 L. T. 125 Robinson t). Cook (181 5) 6 Taunt. 336 ; 16 R. R. 624 Robinson v. Currey (1881) 7 Q. B. D. 465 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 561 ; 45 L. T. 368 ; 46 J. P. 148 ; 30 W. R. 39 C. A 989 Robinson v. Davison (1871) 40 L. J. Ex. 172 L. R. i Ex. 269 ; 24 L. T. 755 130, 131 19 W. R. 431 Robinson v. Duleep Singh (1878) 11 Ch. D. 798 48 L. J. Ch. 758 39 L. T. 716, 718 27 W. R. 21 313 Robinson o. Geldard (1852) 3 M. & G. 735 reversing 3 De G. & Sm. 499 18 1267 L. J. Ch. 454 i 14 Jur. 143 Robinson c. Greinold (1704) I Salk. 119 57 Robinson -v. Harkin [1896] 2 Ch. 415 65 L. J. Ch. 773 74 L. T. 777 ; 44 1139,1422 W. R. 702
v.

333 Roberts

"9
Rose (1865)
L. R.
i
; ;

.445
.

'

-415

......
;
. . . . .

.108
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

excvi

TABLE OF CASES
. v. v.

Robinson Robinson Robinson

Harman (1848) I Ex. 850 Hindman (1800) 3 Esp. 235


;

18 L. J.
i

Hofmaii (1828) 4 Bing. 562

Moo.
.

......
Ex. zo2
. .

PAGE
213
1084

.121
; .

& P.

474
.

3 C.
.

&

P. 234
.

6L.
Robinson

J. (0.
o.

W.

Robinson Robinson
544

R. 545-C. A i>. MiJne (1884) 53 L. J. Ch. 1070 o. MoUett (1875) L. R. 7 H. L. 802


.

'. S.)C. P. 113; 29 R. R. 627 Kilvert (1889) 41 Ch. D. 94 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 392

......
;

61 L. T. 60

37

394
623

44 L.
;

J. C. P.

362

33 L. T.

232
52 L. J. Ch. 440
J. Ch.
;

Robinson

v.

19; 31

Ommanney W. R. 525

(1883) 23 Ch. D. 285

49 L. T.
S.)

1246

Robinson
186

v.

Preston (1858) 4 K.

&
De

J.

505

27 L.

395

4 Jur. (N.

1091
ii.

Robinson

Robinson (1851)
. .
/

G. M.

&
;

G. 247

21 L. J. Ch.

in
.

16
.

Jur. 255

Robinson v. Tonge (1735) 3 P. Wms. 398 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 259, 454 Robinson 11. Walter (1616) 3 Bulstr. 269 Robson, Re [1916] i Ch. 116 ; 85 L. J. Ch. 137 ; 114 L. T. 134 60 Sol. Jo. 222 Robson V. Premier Oil, etc. Co. [1915] 2 Ch. 124 84 L. J. Ch. 629 113
. ; . ; ;

......
A
. .

1122
1375

247
753

L. T. 523 ; 59 Sol. Jo. 475 ; 31 T. L. R. 420 C. Roby, Re [1508] i Ch. 71 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 169 97 L. T. 773 C. A. Roche 11. Roche [1905] P. 142 ; 72 L. J. P. 50 ; 92 L. T. 668 ; 21 T. L. R.

31A
13 10

332 Rochefoucauld 11. Boustead [1898] i Ch. 550 67 L. J. Ch. 427 C. A. Rochester (Bishop) v. Le Fanu [1906] 2 Ch. 513 75 L. J. Ch. 743 95 L. T. 602 22 T. L. R. 800 Roddam o. Morley (1857) i De G. & j; i 26 L. J. Ch. 438 3 Jur. (N. S.) 5 W. R. 510 449 Roddy c. Fitzgerald (1857) 6 H. L. Cas. 823
;

......
,

1192 1124

864
76

.660
.

6 C. B. 427 18 L. J. C. P. i 12 Jur. 921 Parker (1856) 18 C. B. 1 12 25 L. J. C. P. 220 2 Jur. (N. S.) 496<f 4W. R. 545 Rodgers 11. Price {1829) 3 Y. & J. 28 Rodriguez o. Speyer [1919] A. C. 59 88 L. J. K. B. 147 119 L. T. 409 62 Sol. Jo. 765 34 T. L. R. 628H. L. (E.) Roe o. Harvey (1769) 4 Burr. 2487
v.
;
;

Roden

Eyton (1848)

532
533 318

Rodgefs

V.

Nix [1893] P. 55 ; 62 L. J. P. 36 : R. 472 68 L. T. 26 26, 27 11 R. R. 455 d. Bamford o. Hayley (1810) 12 East, 464 1363 Rogers, iJe [1915] 2 Ch. 437 84 L. J. Ch. 837 ; 60 Sol. Jo. 27 1357 Rogers v. Brenton (1847) 10 Q. B. 26 17 L. J. Q. B. 34 ; 12 Jur. 263 744, 745 Rogers v. Challis (1859) 27 Beav. 175; 29 L. J. Ch. 240; 7 W. R.
V.
; ; . . ;
.

Roe Roe Roe Roe

o. w.

Hodgson

(1760) 2 WUs. 129 Lees (1778) 2 W. Bl. 1 171

....... .......
; ; .
.

31A
389
1^532

618
.

710 201 Rogers 0. Goodenough (1862) 2 Sw. & Tr. 342 ; 31 L. J. P. 49 5 L. T. 719 N. S. 391 8Jur. 1253 Rogers v. Hadley (1863) 2 H. & C. 227 32 L. J. Ex. 241 9 Jur. (N. S.) 66 898; 9L. T. 292; iiW. R. 1074 Rogers 0. Hosegood [1900] 2 Ch. 388 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 652 83 L. T. 186 48 W. R. 659; 16 T. L. R. 489 C. A 802 Rogers v. Hull Dock Co. (1865) 34 L. J. Ch. 165 4 N. R. 494 10 Jur. (N. S.) 1245; II L. T. 42, 403 69 Rogers v. Lambert [1891] i Q. B. 318 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 187 ; 64 L. T. 406 39 W.R. 114; 55j-,P-452 233,425
; ; .
.

............
; ; ; ; ; ; ;

CA

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
; 1 ;

cxcvii
PAGE

Rogers v. Spence (1844) 13 M. & W. 571 1 M. & W. 191 15 L. J. Ex. 49 ; (1846)1201. &F. 700 322,326,367 RoUason, Re (1887) 34 Ch. D. 495 56 L. J. Ch. 768 ; 56 L. T. 303 35 W. R. 607 gjg Rolls V. Pearce (1877) 5 Ch. D. 730 46 L. J. Ch. 791 25 36 L. T. 438 W. R. 899 1292 Roll V. Somerville (1737) 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 759 791 Rooke . Dennis (1586) 2 Leon. 192 698 Roope o. D'Avigdor (1883) 10 Q. B. D. 412 48 L. T. 761 47 J. P. 248 338 Rooper v. Harrison (1855) 2 K. & J. 86 728, 8i6,
; ; ; ; ;
;

817
Roose, Re (1880) 17 Ch. D. 696 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 197 ; 43 L. T. 719 29 W. R. 230 Rooth V. Wilson (1817) i B. & Aid. 59 18 R. R. 431 Roper . Holland (1835) 3 A. & E. 99 4 N. & M. 668 i H. & W. 167 4 L. J. K. B. 156 Roret V. Lewis (1848) 17 L. J. Ex. gg 5 Dow. & L. 371 Roscoe (James) v. Winder [1915] i Ch. 62 84 L. J. Ch. 286 1 12 L. T. 121 H. B. R. 61 59 Sol. Jo. 105 Roscorla v. Thomas (1842) 2 G. & D. 508 ; 3 Q. B. 234 1 1 L. J. Q. B. 214 6 Jur- 929 Rose, Re [1904] 2 Ch. 348 73 L. J. Ch. 726 71 L. T. 254 [1905] i Ch. 91 L. T. 821 ; 11 Mans. 353 C. A. 859, 917, 94 74 L. J. Ch. 22
;
.
.'

1356 921

322 4g5
1

143

94
919,

Rose Rose

Bartlett (1632) Cro. Car. 292 V. Buckett [1901] 2 K. B. 449 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 736 L. t. 670; 17T. L. R. 544; 8 Manson, 259 C.
V.

.......
;

977 1332
366

50

W.

R. 8

84
;

Rose V. Groves (1843) 5 Man. & G. 613 12 L. J. C. P. 251 Dow. & L. 61 ; 6 Scott (N. R.) 645 Rose V. Hyman [191 1] 2 K. B. 234 80 L. J. K. B. ion
;
;

7 Jur. 951

773
104 L. T. 619
;

55 Sol. Jo. 405 22 Cox, C. C. 356 (1911) 103 L. T. 730 75 J. P. 71 55 Sol. Jo. 126 ; 27T. L. R. 132 Rose V. N. E. Ry. (i876).2 Ex! D. 248 ; 46 L. J. Ex. 374 ; 35 L. T. 693 ; 25 . W. R. 205C. A. 10 L. T. 106 ; 10 Rose V. Watson (1864) 10 H. L. C. 672 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 385 Jur. (N. S.) 297 ; 12 W. R. 585 ^. Rosenquist v. Bowring [1908] 2 K. B. 108 ; 77 L. J. K. B. 545 ; 98 L. T. 773 :
;

27 T. L. R. 367
V.

785

Rose

Kempthorne

437
334 840 463 397
558

'

24 T. L. R. 504 Rosewell o. Prior (1701) 2 Salk. 460 Rosher, Re (1884) 26 Ch. D. 801 53 L. J. Ch. 722 ; 51 L. T. 785 ; 32 W. R. 825 Rosher 0. Rosher (1884) 26 Ch. D. 801 51 L. T. 785 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 722 32 W. R. 820 Ross' Trusts, Re (1871) L. R. 13 Eq. 286 41 L. J. Ch. 130 25 L. T. 817 20 W. R. 231 81 L. T. 578 Ross, Re [1900] I Ch. 162 48 W. R. 264 69 L. J. Ch. 192 Ross V. Johnson (1772) 3 Burr. 2825 20 L. T. Ross V. Ross (1869) L. R. I P. & M. 734 38 L. J. P. & M. 49
; ; ;

.......
;

45 1307
991;

420

853
Rossiter
v.

26

W.

Miller (1878) 48 L. J. Gh. 10 R. 865 H. L. (E.)

Rotherhamw. Fanshaw(i 748)3 Atk. 627


Rothschild v. Brookman (1831) 2 30 R. R. 147
.
. .

.... ......
;

"94
91, loi

App. Cas. 1124

39 L. T. 173

1233
231

Dow &
.

CI.

188

Bligh (N.

S.)

165

Digitized

by Microsoft

CXCVlll

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
o.

Rothwell (1825) 2 Sim. & St. 217 1418 Rourke v. White Moss Colliery Co. (1877) 2 C. P. D. 205 46 L. J. C. P. 283 ; 36 L. T. 49 25 W. R. 263 C. A 352 Rouse's Case (1587) Owen, 28 647, 762, 763 Rouse J). Bardin (1790) I H. Bl. 353 706 Routledge v. Grant (1828) i M. & P- 717 4 Bing. 653 3 Car. & P. 267 6 L. J. (0. S.) C. P. 166 29 R. R. 672 89 Rowbotham 0. Wilson (1857) 8 E. & B. 123 3 Jur. (N. S.) 297 27 L. J. Q. B. 61 2 L. T. 642 ; 6 (1861) 8 H. L. Cas. 348 30 L. J. Q. B. 49 Jur. (N. S.) 965 402, 782 Rowe 1). Rowe (1S65) 4 Sw. & Tr. 162 34 L. J. P. D. & A. iii 12 L. T. II Jur. (N. S.) 568 13 W. R. 1048 1 639 179 Rowley v. L. & N. W. Ry. (1873) L. R. 8 Ex. 231 42 L. J. Ex. 153 29 i8b; 21 W. R. 869 L. T. 369 RowUs o. Bebb [1900] 2 Ch. 107 69 L. J. Ch. 562 82 L. T. 633 48 W. R. Rothwell
;

..... .......
; . ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

562 C. A

Rownson, Re (1885) 29 Ch. D. 358


J. P.',759
;

54 L.
;

35

W.

R.

604C. A
47 L.
.

J.

Ch. 950

52 L. T. 825

49
1383

Roxburghe
30

v.

Cox

Roy,

W. R. 74 C. A Ex parte (1877) 7 W. R. 82
.

(1881) 50 L. J. Ch. 772

17 Ch. D. 520

45 L. T. 225
142
;

Ch. D. 70
.

; .

J.
.

Bky. 36
.

37 L. T. 508

26
965

Royal Aquarium v. Parkinson [1892] i Q. B. 431 61 L. J. Q. B. 409 66 L. T. 513 40 W. R. 450 56 J. P. 404 512, 19, 527 Royal Baking Powder Co. 0. Wright (1900) 18 R. P. C. 95 428 o. G. W. Ry. (1893) i Ch. 427 .Ruabon Co. 62 L. J. Ch. 483 68 L. T. no 2 R. 237 C. A 41 W. R. 418 782
; ; ; ;
. . . .

Great Fingall Consolidated [1906] A. C. 439 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 843 95 L. T. 214; 22 T. L. R. 712 ; 13 Manson, 248 H. L. 353 Ruddington Land, Re [1909] i Ch. 701 78 L. J. Ch. 378 100 L. T. 648 14 Ruding V. Smith (1821) 2 Hagg. Con. 371 1 167 Ruel V. Tatnell (1880) 43 L. T. 507 29 W. R. 172 508 Rumsey v. Walton (1760) 4 T. R. 444 691 Rundle o. Hearle [1898] 2 Q. B. 83 67 L. J. Q. B. 741 78 L. T. 561 14 T. L. R. 440 46 W. R. 619 404 Rundle 0. Rundle (1691) 2 Vern, 252 597 Rushw. LuGas|i9io] i Ch. 437 79 L. J. Ch. 172 loi L. T. 851 54 Sol. Jo, 200 . 790 -Rushforth v. Hadfield (1805) .6 East, 519; (i8o6) 7 East, 224; 8 R. R, 520 260, 962, 963 Rushmere v. Polsue [1906] i Ch. 234, 250 75 L. J. Ch. 79 93 L. T. 823 22 T. L. R. 139 C. A. 54 W. R. 161 [1907] A. C. 121 76 L. J. On. 365; 96 L. T. 510; 23 T. L. R. 362 H. L., 393. 395 Rushworth 0. Taylor (1842) 3 Q. B. .699 3 G. & D. 3 I2 L. J. Q. B. 80" 6 Jur- 945 419 Russell's Case (1537) Dyer, 26 b 502 Russell, In the Goods of (ligo) 15 P. D. in L. J. P. 80 62 L. T, 644 59 1247 Russell, Re [1895] 2 Ch. 698 ; 64 I.. J. Ch. 891 73 L. T. 195 44 W. R. 100 ; 12 R. 499 C. A. 1078 Russell . Austin Fryers (1909) 25 T. L. R. 414 41, 985 Russell V. Clowes (1846) 2 Coll. 648 10 Jur. 732 1328 Russell V. Come (1704) 2 Ld. Raym. 1031 6 Mod. 128 Salk. 119 Holt, 699 464 Russell 0. Jackson (1852) 10 Hare, 204 1 100 Russell V. Ledsam (1845) 14 M. & W. 574 ; 14 L. J, Q. B. 71 353 9 Jur. 557
v.
; ;

Ruben

..... ......
; ;
. . .

...
-

......
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

.....

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Russell Russell Russell
V.
.

cxcix
PAGE

Men

V.
;

213
Russell

. . . (1788) 2 T. R. 667 ; i R. R. 585 40+ Moseley (1822) 3 Brod. & B. 211 290 Russell [1895] P. 315 ; 64 L. J. P. 105 ; 73 L. T. 295 ; 44 W. R. [1897] A. C. 395 ; 66 L. J. P. 122 ; 75 L. T. 249 ; 61 J. P. 756.. .1179,

of

Devon

......
;

1188, 1189
V.

Shenton (1842)

3 Q. B.

458

2 G.

&

D. 573
;

1 1

L. J. Q. B. 289

Jur. 1059

397
45 L. J. Q. B. 249
. . . ;

Rustomjee v. The Queen (1876) i Q. B. D. 487 278 24 W. R. 428 Rutter, Re [1907] 2 Ch. 593 24 T. L. R. 12
; ; ;

34 L. T.

79
.
.

1171

Rutter V. Everett [1895] 2 Ch. 872 73 L. T. 82 44 W. R. 104 ; 13 R. 719 ; 2 Mans. 371 982, 1053 Rutter w. Maclean (1799) 4 Ves. 531 976 Ryall D. RoUe (1749) i Atk. 165 949 .1101 Ryall . Ryall (1739) i Atk. 59 Ryan v. Clark (1849) Q. B. 65 13 Jur. 7 D. & L. 8 ; 18 L. J. Q. B. 267 1000 381, 384, 612 Ryano. Mutual Tontine Association [1893] I Ch. 116; 2R. 156; 62 L. J. Ch. 125, 126 252 67 L. T. 820 41 W. R. 146 C. A. Ryan v. Sams (1848) 12 Q. B. 400 ; 17 L. J. Q. B. 271 ; 12 Jur. 745 57 Ryder, In the Goods of {1S61) 2 Sw. & Tr. 127 ; 31 L. J. P. 215 3 L. T. 756 1330 7 Jur. (N. S.)i96 Ryder v. Wombwell (1868) L. R. 4 Ex. 32 38 L. J. Ex. 8 ; 19 L. T. 491 ; 22 17 W. R. 167 Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) L. R. 3 H. L. 330 37 L. J. Ex. 161 ; 19 L. T. 220 406, 453 Rymer, Re [1895] i Ch. 19 64 L. J. Ch. 86 71 L. T. 590 ; 43 W. R. 87 ; 12 1112 R. 112 C. A Rymer v. Mcllroy [1897] i Ch. 528 66 L. J. Ch. 336 ; 76 L. T. 115 ; 45 W. R. 41 1 672
;

........
. .
. . .

....
;

....
;

S. S. B.,

Re

[1906]

Ch. 712

75 L. J. Ch. 522
;

94 L. T. 599
.

54
.

W. R. 429
.

22 T. L. R. 461
S. V. S. [1907]

887, 917
;

P. 224
!).

JacksOn (1903) 20 R. P. C. 6u Sacheverill 0. Porter (1637) Cro. Car. 482 Sadgrove v. Hole [1901] 2 K. B. i 70 L. J. K. B. 455 W. R. 473 Sadgrove v. Kirkby (1795) 6 T. R. 483 3 R. R. 239 Sadler v. G. W. Ry. [1896] A. C. 450 65 L. J. Q. B. 462
Saccharin Co.
;

76 L. J. P. 118

23 T. L. R. 460

1177 1017 676

84 L. T. 647
. . .

49
505, 507
.

398

74 L. T. 561
;

45

W.
Sadler
v.

R.

51-H.

L. (E.)

337
;

Worley [1894] 2 Ch. 170 70 L. T. 494 42 W. R. 476 8 R. 194 Sadler's Co. /. Badcock (i74J) 2 Atk. 554 70 L. J. K. B. 145 83 L. T. 394 49 Saffery v. Mayer [1901] i K. B. 11
; ; ; ;

loii 305

St.

W. R. 54 64 J. P. 740 Albans (Duke) v. Skipwith (1845) 265


:

312
8

Beav. 354

14 L. J. Ch. 247
;

9 Jur.

79 24 L. T.
1

St.

Germans

(Earl)

o.

Crystal Palace Ry. (1871) L. R. 11 Eq. 568


.

St.

St.

St.

839 Tipping (1865) 1 1 H. L. C. 642 ; 35 L. J. Q. B. 66 ; II Jur. (N. S.) 785 ; 12 L. T. 776 ; 13 W. R. 1083 393, 395 Mary Newington v. Jacobs (1871) L. R. 7 Q..B. 47 41 L. J. M. C. 72 25 20 W. R. 249 L. T. 800 773 Thomas's Hospital v. Richardson [1910] i K. B. 271 ; 79 L. J. K. B. 1138 17 Manson, 129 C. A 488; loi L. T. 771
. .
.

288 ; 19 W. R. 584 Helen's Smelting Co.

Digitized

by Microsoft

cc

TAteLE OF CASES
PAGE
137, 138
;

Sainter v. Ferguson (1849) 7 C. B. 716 ; 18 L. J. C. P. 217 ; 13 Jur. 828 Saker, In the Estate of [1909] P. 233 ; 78 L. J. P. 85 ; loi L. T. 400
Sol. Jo.

53
.

562

Ch. 419 ; 96 L. T. 809 . . 1412 Sale o. Kitchingham (1713) 10 Mod. 158 1363 Salford Corporation v. Lever [1891] i Q. B. 168 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 39 ; 63 L. T. 658 ; 39<W. R. 85 ; 55 J. P. 244 235 Salisbury (Marquis) v. Gladstone (i86cJ) 6 H. & N. 123 ; (1861) 9 H. L. C. C. P. 222; 4L.T. 849; 8 Jur. (N. S.) 625 ; 9 W. R. 930. ..586, 718 692; 34 L.J. Salmon. Re (1889) 42 Ch. D. 351 ; 61 L. T. 146 ; 38 W. R. 15c C. A. 1122 Salmon', Re [1903] i K. B. 147 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 125 ; 87 L. T."654 ; 51 W. R. 288 ; 10 Mans. 22 832, 959 Salmon ^i. Swann (1621) Cro. Jac. 619 611 Salomans 0. Pender (1S65) 3 H. & C. 639 ; 34 L. J. Ex. 95 ; 11 Jur. (N. S.) 236 432; 12 L. T. 267; 13 W. R. 637 Salomons, Re [1920] i Ch. 290 ; 89 L. J. Ch. 222 ; 122 L. T. 670 : 64 Sol. Jo. 241 : 36 T. L. R. 212 1234 Salt, Re [1895] 2 Ch. 203 64 L. J. Ch. 494; 43 W. R. 500; 13 R. 499... 1392,
;

Salaman, Re [1907] 2 Ch. 46

76 L.

J.

......
. .

1340

1394, 1398; 1399 (Marquis) Northampton [1892] A. C. i ; 61 L. J. Ch. 49 ; 65 L. T. W. R. 529 765; 40 33,49,815 Saltern . Saltern (1742) 2 Atk. 376 578 Salters Co. v. Jay (1842) 3 Q. B. 109 ; 2 Gale & Dav. 414 ; 11 L. J. Q. B. 173 ; 6 Jur. 803 857 Salts V. Battersby [1910] 2 K. B. 155 ; 79 L. J. K. B. 937 ; 102 L. T. 730 . 622 Salt Union v. Brunner Mond [1906] 2 K. B. 'B22 ; 76 L. J. K. B. 55 ; 95 L. T. 647; 22T. L. R. 83s 403,783 Sampson, Re [1906] i Ch. 435 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 302 ; 94 L. T. 241 ; 54 W. R.
Salt
V.

........ .....;. ......... .......


.
,

342

Sampson v. Pattison (1842) 1 Hare, 533 Sampson and Wall, Re (1884) 25 Ch. D. 482
.

....
;

.1107
837
;

32

W.

R.

617C. A
;

53 L. J. Ch. 457
;

50 L. T. 435

Samson, Re [1906] 2 Ch. 584

76 L. J. Ch. 21
;

Samuel

Jarrah Corporation [1904} A. C. 323 20 T. L. R. 536 11 Mans. 276 52 W. R. 673 Sandbrook, Re [191-2] 2 Ch. 471 81 L. J. Ch. 800 107 L. T. 148
0.
;

1372, 1377, 1379) 1380 73 L. J. Ch. 526 ; 90 L. T.


.

95 L. T. 633

900,1218
C. A.

731

1013

56

Sol. jo. 721

1217
; .
.

Rushton (1891) 61 L. J. Ch. 136 66 L. T. 180 Sandei-sii. Maclean (1883) II Q. B.D. 327; 52 L. J. Q. B. 481 31 W. R. 698 5 Asp. M. L. C. 160 C. A. Sanders . Teapc (1884)51 L. T. 263; 48 J. P. 757
.Sandeman
0.
;
.

740

;
'

49L.T.462;
.

.943 .360
.

Sanders-Clerk o. Grosvenor Mansions Co. [1900] 2 Ch.'373 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 579 ; . 48 W. R. 570; 82L. T. 758; 16T. L. R. 428 . . . Sanderson, Re [1912] W. N. 54 ; 106 L. T. 26 ; 56 Sol. Jo. 291 v. Aston (1873) L. R. 8 Ex. 73 ; 42 L. Sandersori J. Ex. 64 ; 28 L. T. 35 ; 21
. .

394 868 292

W.R.

293
v.

Sanderson

Collins [1904]

52 W. R. 354 ; 196,353 Sandilands, Ex parte (1852) 21 L. J. Q. B. 342 ; 17 Jur. 317 ; sub nom. R. v. Leggatt, 18 Q. B. 781 . . , . 471,1181 Sands to Thompson (1885) 22 Ch. D. 614 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 406 ; 48 L. T. 210 ; 31 W. R. 397 643 Saner v. Bilton (1878) 7 Ch. D. 815 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 267 ; 38 L. T. 281 ; 26
.'
. . .

K. B. 628 20 T. L. R. 249
i

73 L. J. K. B. 358

go L. T. 243

W.R.

394

787

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Santley
v.
; ; ;

cci

PAGE Wild [1899] 2 Ch. 474. 68 L. J. Ch. 681 81 L. T. 393 48 W. R. 90; 15T. L. R. 528 C. A 815,831 Sarch . Blackburn (1830) 4 C. & P. 297 Mood. & M. 505 446 Sard V. Rhodes (1836) 4 D. P. C. 743 ; i M. & W. 153 i Gale, 376; 5
;
. . ;

L. J. Ex. 91

Sargent,

(1873) L. R. 17 Eq. 273 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 42? ; 22 W. R. 815 Sari, Re [1892] 2 Q. B. 591 ; 67 L. T. 597 ; 9 Morr. 263 Sarpy v. Holland [1908] i Ch. 443 Saunders' Case (1599) 5 Co. Rep. 12 a . . . Saunders (Daniel), In the Goods 0/(1865) L. R. i P. & M. 16 ; 35 L. J. P. 26 ; 13 L. T. 411 ; II Jur. (N. S.) 1027 ; 14 W. R. 148 . . Saunders f. Edwards (1662) Sid. 95 ; T. Raym. 61 ; i Keb. 389
. . . . . . . .

Ex pane

.... ........
; . . . . . .

15, 1005 951

426
1268 1244 523

Saunders

v. Evans (1861) 8 H. L. C. 721 ; 31 L. 5 L. T. 129 ; 7 J. Ch. 233 . . Jur. (N. S.) 1293 ; 9 W. R. 501 Saunders v. Marwood (1599) 5 Rep. 12 a . . . . Saunders v. Mills (1829) 6 Bing. 213 ; 3 Moo. & P. 520 ; 8 L. J. (O. S.) C. P. 24 Saunders D./Musgrave (1827) 6 B. & C. 524 ; 9 Dow. cS; Ry. 520 ; 5 L-

.873
790 522

J.
.

643 Saunders v. Newman (1817) i B. & Aid. 258 19 R. R. 312 710 Saunders v. Saunders (1858) i Sw. & Tr. 72 ; 4 Jur. (N. S.) 147 6 W. R. 1201 328 Saunders o. Wakefield (1821) 4 B. & Aid. 595 23 R. R. 409 Saunders-Davies, Re (1887) 34 Ch. D. 482 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 492 56 L. T. 153 35 W. R. 493 1392, 1400 Saunderson & Co. 0. Clark (1913) 29 T. L. R. 579 1071 Saunderson . Jackson (1800) 2 Bos. & P. 238 3 Esp. 180 5 R. R. 580 loi Savacool v. Boughton (1830) 5 Wend. (New York), 170 343 Savery v. King (1856) 5 H. L. C. 655 25 L. J. Ch. 482 2 Jur. (N. S.) 503 ; " 34 4 W. R. 571 Savil 11. Savil (1727) 11 Vin. Ab. 154 563 Carth. 416; 12 Mod. Rep. 208 Savile o. Roberts (1698) I Salk. 13 Holt, 150 487, 488 Savin . Burchard (1801)4 Esp. 53 962 Savill Bros. v. Bethell [1902] 2 Ch. 523 71 L. J. Ch. 652 ; 87 L. T. 191 50 W. R. 580C. A Saxby 0. Easterbrook (1878) 3 C. P. D. 339 27 W. R. 188 Saxby v. Fulton [1909] 2 K. B. 208 ; 78 L. J. K. B. 781 loi L. T. 179 53 Sol. Jo. 397 ; 25 T. L. R. 446 C. A 312 Saxby 0. Manchester & Sheffield Ry. (1869) L. R. 4 C. P. 198 38 L. J. C. P. 153; 19L. T. 640; 17W. R. 293 397 Saxlehner v. AppoUinaris Co. [1897] i Ch. 893 66 L. J. Ch. 533 76 L. T. 617 378, 1029 Saxton V. Saxton (1879) 13 Ch. D. 359 49 L. J. Ch. 128 41 L. T. 649; 28 W. R. 294 1251 608 Say 0. Smith (i 561) Plowd. 269 51 L. T. 723 Sayers o. CoUyer (1884) 28 Ch. D. 103 ; 54 L. J. Ch. i 49 33 W. R. 91 C. A 377, 804, 806 J. P. 244 Scaife v. Farrant (1875) L. R. 10 Ex. 358 44 L. J. Ex. 234 33 L. T. 278 252 23 W. R. 840 1400 Scales V. Collins (1852) 9 Hare, 656 Scales 0. Key (1840) II A. & E. 819; 3 P. & D. 505 Scanlan, Re (1888) 40 Ch. D. 200; 57 L. J. Ch. 718; 59 L. T. 599; 36 1228 W. R. 842 Scarborough v. Cosgrove [1905] 2 K. B. 805 74 L. J. K. B. 892 93 L. T. 204 530 54 W, R, 100 21 T. L. R. 754
;
.
.

(O. S.) K. B. 192

30 R. R. 414

'

.101
;

.....
; ;
. > . . .

'

.813 .501

'

.746

.,.,..
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

ccii

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
V.

Scarf

Jardine (1882) 7 App. Cas. 345

51 L. J. Q. B. 612
i

47 L. T. 258

30
Scarfe

W. R. 893 H.
0.

L. (E.)

144
;

Morgan

(1838) 4

M. & W. 270

H.

&

H. 292

7 L. J. Ex. 324

2 Jur. 569 69, 223, 964, 965, 967 Scarsdale (Lord) v. Curzon (1859) i J. & H. 40 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 249 ; 6 Jur. (N,S.).ig9 928 Scattergood v. Sylvester (18^50) 15 Q. B. ;o6 ; 19 L. J. Q. B. 447 14 Jur. 977 947
697) i Salk. 229 SchafFenius v. Goldberg [1916I i K. B. 284 ; 85 L. J. K. B. 374 ; 113 L. T. 949; 60 Sol. Jo. 105 ; 32T;L. R. 133 C. Schibsby v. Westenholz (1870) L. R. 6 Q. B. 155 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 73 ; 24
v.
(i

Scatterwood

Edge

.......
;

664 31B

L. T. 93 19 W. R. 587 323 i Marsh, 500 Schmaling o. Thomlinson (1815) 6 Taunt. 147 103,230 Schmalz v. Avery (1851) 20 L. J. Q. B. 228 15 Jur. 291 65 loi Schneider . Norris (1814) 2 M. & S. 286 15 R. R. 825 Schofield J). Orrell Colliery Co. [1909] A. C. 433 78 L. J. K. B. 677 loo L. T. . 462 786; 53 Sol. Jo. 518; 25 T. L. R. 5,69 Scholefield 0. Templer (1859) 4 De G. & J. 433 7 W. R. 653 34 1266 Schweder, Re [1891] 3 Ch. 44 60 L. J. Ch. 656 65 L. T. 64 39 W. R. 588 Scobie *. Collins (r895) ' Q. B. 375 64 L. J. Q. B. 10 71 L. T. 775 15 R. 6 644 Scotland o. South African Territories (1917)33 T. L. R. 255. 31B Scott, Re [1891] 1 Ch. 298 60 L. J. Ch. 461 63 L. T. 800 39 W. R. 264 24 Scott, iJf [1901] 1 K. B. 228 83 L. T. 613 70 L. J. K. B. 66 65 J. P. 1287 84; 49 W. R. 178 17 T. L. R. 148^C. A Scott, Re [1903] I Ch. I 72 L. J. Ch. 20; 87 L. T. 574; 51 W. R. 182 1282 C. A no Scotto. Bevan(l83i>2B. &Ad: 78; 9L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 152 Scott . Brown (1885) 51 L. T. 746 82 61 L. J. Q. B. 738 Scott V. Brown [1892] 2 Q. B. 724 67 L. T. 782 41 W. R. 116; 57 J. P. 213 41,42 Scott o. Cumberland (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 578 31 L. T. 44 L. J. Ch. 226 26; 22 W. R. 840 1392 Scott V. Jones (1835) 4 CI. & Fin. 382 ; 7 L. J. Ch. 242 1386 Scott V. Littledale (1858) 8 E. & B. 815 27 L. J. Q. B. 201 4 Jur. (N. S.) 849 38 Scott 0, London Dock Co. (1865) 3 H. & C. 601 1 1 Jur. 34 L. J. Ex. 220 (N. S.)204i 13 L. T. 148 13 W. R. 410 330 Scott V. Morlev (1887) 20 Q. B. D. 120 57 L. J. Q. B. 43 54 L. T. 919 36 W. R. 67'; 4 Morrell, 286 52 J. P. 230 C. A. 348 Scott V. N. S. P. C. C. (1909) 25 T. L. R. 789 496, 498, 499 Scott o. Sampson (1882) 8 Q. B. D. 491 51 L. J. Q. B. 380 46 L. T. 412 30 W. R. 541 ; 46 J. P. 408 521,522 Scott B. Scott [1913] A. C. 417 ; 82 L. J. P. 74 109 L. T. i 29 T. L. R. 520; 57 Sol. Jo. 498 1176 Scott . Sebright (1886) 12 P. D. 21 56 L. J. P. 11 57 L. T. 421 35 W. R. 258 1175 Scott o. Shepherd (1773) 2 W. Bl. 89Z 3 Wils. 403 433, 439, 446, 544 Scott o. Stansfield (1868) L. R. 3 Ex. 220 L. J. Ex. 155 ; 18 L. T. 572 ; 37 16W. R. 911 342,512 Scott . Tyler (1788) 2 Dick. 712 Bro. C. C. 431 2 1406,1407 Brown (1825) 4 B. & C. 485 ; 6 Dow. & Ry. K. B. 536 ; 28 R. R. Scratton v. 344 . Scriven Bros. *. Hindley [1913] 3 K. B. 564 ; 83 L. J. K. B. 40 109 L. T. 526 38
;
; .

...
. . .

; ;

.........
.

;,

....
. .

,...,..,,...

-719

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Seabrook, i?e[i9ii]
I

cciii

PAGE
Ch. 151 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 61 ; 103 L. T. 587 . 869 Seagram v. Knight (1867) L. R. 2 Ch. App. 628 . 576, 667, 786 Sealey v. Tandy [1902] i K. B. 296 71 L. J. K. B. 4r ; 85 L. T. 459 ; 50 W. R. 347 ; 66]. F, 19 ; 20 Cox, C. C. 57 435

..
.

Seaman s. Cuppledick (1614) Owen, 150 Seaman v. Netherclift (1876) 2 C. P. D. 53

.....
. .

46 L. J. C. P. 128 25 W. R. 159 51Z Scare . Prentice (1807) 8 East, 348 331 Searle, Re [1912] 2 Ch. 365 81 L. J. Ch. 751 106 L. T. 1005 56 Sol. Jo. 613 1360 Searle v. Cooke (1890) 43 Ch. D. 519 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 259 62 L. T. 221 593, 606 Searle v. Lane (i688) 2 Vern. 88 i Eq. Cas. Abr. 332 1375 Searle v. Lindsay (1861) C. B. N. S. 429 ; 31 L. J. C, P. 106 8 Jur. (N. S.) 746 ; 5 I,. T. 427 ; 10 W. R. 89 449 Searles t). Sadgrove (1855) 5 El. & Bl. 639; 25 L. J. Q. B. 15; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 21 ; 4.W. R. 53 109 Searles v. Scarlett [1892] 2 Q. B. 56 61 L. J. Q. B. 573 66 L. T. 837 40 W. R. 696; 56J. P. 789 515 Seaton v. Heath [1899] i Q. B. 782 68 L. J. Q. B. 631 80 L. T. 579 47 .' W. R. 487 Secretary of State v. Wynne [1905] 2 K. B. 845 75 L. J. K. B. 25 93 L. T. 797 22 T. L. R. 8 50 W. R. 235 972 Seddon v. Bank of Bolton (1882) 19 Ch. D. 462 51 L. J. Ch. 542 46 L. T. 30 W. R. 362 225 853 Seddon v. N. E. Salt Co. [1905] i Ch. 326 74 L. J. Ch. 199 91 L. T. 793 5-! W. R. 232 21 T. L. R. u8 38 Seddon . Smith (1877) 36 L. T. 168 C. A 777 Sedgwick v. Watford, etc. Ry. (1867) 36 L. J. Ch. 379 840 Seear v. Lawson (1880) 15 Ch. D. 426 28 49 L. J. Bky. 69 42 L. T. 893 W. R. 929 C. 365, 499 Sefton (Earl), i?e [1898] 2 Ch. 378 67 L. J. Ch. 518 78 L. T. 765 47 1281 W. R. 49; 14 T. L. R. 466 C. A Selby V. Alston (1797) 3 Ves. 336 753 Selby V. Greaves (1868) L. R. 3 C. P. 594 37 L. J. C. P. 251 ; 19 L. T. 186 ; 621 16 W. R. H27 12 L. J. Ch. 249 26 Selby V. Jackson (1843) 6 Beav. 192 Selby V. Nettlefold (1873) L. R. 9 Ch. App. 1 1 1 43 L. J. Ch. 359 ; 29 L. T. 'I 661 ; 22 W. R. 142 709 817, 834 Selby V. Pomfret (i86i) 3 De G. F. & J. 595 86 L. J. Ch. 353 ; W. C. Seligman v. Eagle Insurance Co. [1917] i Ch. 519
; ; ;
;

434,436 35 L. T. 784

....
; ; :

-305

....
; ;

....... ....
; ;
.
,

.;

&L
Sellen
v.

Rep. 175

ii6L. T. 146
;

31B

Seller v.

(1829) 4 C. & P. 80 Seller (1859) ' Sw. & Tr. 482

Norman
R.
5

208, 213

28 L. J. P.

&

M. 99

5 Jur.

686
1

8W.
Sellon
Selous,
V.

Watts (i86i) 28 Beav. 579


;

Re [1901] i Ch. 921 49 W. R. 440 553, 753 385. 971 Semayne's Case (1604) 5 Co. Rep. 91a 419 Seton V. Lafone (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 68 4^,191 Setono. Slade ('1802) 7 Ves. 274; 6 R. R. 124 48 L. J. Ch. 513 Sevenoaks Ry. v. L. C. & D. Ry. (1879) n Ch. D. 625 608 27 W. R. 672 40 L. T. 545 78 L. J. Ch. 432 ; 100 L. T. 883 ; 16 Manson, Sewell, Re [1909] i Ch. 806 1133,1146 113 Sewell V. Burdick (1884) L. R. 10 App. Ca. 74 54 L. J. Q. B. 156 52 L. T. 944, 955, 9^3 33 W. R. ^61 ; 5 Asp. M. L, Q, 376 445
; .
. .

9 W. R. 847 70 L. J. Ch. 402 ; 84 L. T. 318


;

194 1267

...

Digitized

by Microsoft

CCIV

TABLE OF CASES
V.
; ;

National Telephone Co. [1907] i K. B. 557 76 L. J. K. B. 196 gf 44 23 T. L. R. 226 Sewers (Commissioners of) v. Glasse (1874) L. R. 19 Eq. 134 44 L. J. Ch 675 129; 31L. T. 495; 23 W. R. 102 Seymor's (Edward) Case (1612) 10 Rep. 97 b, 98 a 560, 565, 579 Seymore B. Tresilian (1737) 3 Atk. 358 '. 934 Seymour v. Pickett [1905] i K. B. 715 74 L. J. K. B. 413 92 L. T. 519 ; 21 T. L. R. 302 C. A 114 Shackello. Rosie'r(i836) 2 Bing. N. C. 634 3 Scott, 59 5 L. J. C. P. 193 4) 324> 56 Shadwello. Hutchinson (1829) Moo. & Malk. 350; 3 B. & Ad. 97; 4 Car. & P. 333 9 L. J. (0. S.) K. B. i4i 396 1264 Shaftesbury . Shaftesbury (1716) 2 Vern. 748 Shafto V. Butler (1871) 40 L. J. Ch. 308 24 L. T. 412; 19 W. R. 595 45 Shallcross v. Oldham (1862) 2 John. & H. 609; 5 L. T. 824; 10 W. R. 291 23 s
Sewell
L. T. 483
;
.

Shannon
Shardlow
30 Sharer,

v. v.

Shannon (1864)
'

Sch.

&

Lef. 324
;

.....
;

413

Cotterell (1881) 51 L. J. Ch. 353


.

lOI R. 143 . 1092 (1912) 57 Sol. Jo. 60 Sharland . Mildon (1846) 5 Ha. 469 ; 15 L. J. Ch. 434 ; 10 Jur. 771 1343 Sharpw. Lush (1879) 10 Ch.D. 468; 48 L. J. Ch. 231 ;27W. R. 528.. .1271, 1402, 1415 L. T. 436 ; Sharp V. Powell (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 253 ; 41 L. J. C. P. 95 ; 26

W.

Re

.......
.

20 Ch. D. 90

45 L. T. 572

20W.R.
Sharp Sharp
V.

78 L. J. Ch. 29 833 99 L. T. 916 26 0. St. Sauveur (1871) L. R. 7 Ch. App. 343 41 L. J. Ch. 576 L. T. 142 20 W. R. 269 31 Sharp o. Sfcues (1909) 25 T. L. R. 336 C. A. 55 20 L. T. 41 Sharpe v. Crispin (1869) L. R. i P. & D. 618 38 L. J. P. 17 17 W. R. 368 4 Sharpe v. Durrant (1911) 55 Sol. Jo. 423 C. A. 1076 affirmed, [1911] W. N. Sharpington v. Fulham Guardians {1904] 2 Ch. 449 68 73 L. J. Ch. 777 20 T. L. R. 643 52 W. R. 617 91 L. T. 739 74, 985 J. P. 510 Sharrod v. L. & N. W. Ry. (1849) 4 Exch. 580 6 Rail. Cas. 239 7 D. & L 20 L. J. Ex. 185 ; 14 Jur. 23 213 407 Shaw V. Benson (1883) II Q. B. D. 563 52 L. J. Q. B. 575 266 1118 Shaw V. Cates [1909] i Ch. 389 78 L. J. Ch. 226 Shaw V. Crompton [1910] 2 K. B. 370 80 L. J. K. B. 52 103 L. T. 501 843 Shaw 1). Gould (1868) L. R. 3 H. L. 55 37 L. J. Ch. 433 ; 18 L. T. 833 1204 Shaw V. G. W. Ry. [1894] r Q. B. '373 70 L. T. 218 42 W. R. 285 58
i

.. 584 Ridtards [1909]

.
,

327
; ; ; ;

Ch. log

....
; ;

;
:

J-P-3I8 55, 257, i6o Shaw V. Jersey (E. of) (1879) 4 C. P. D. 120, 359 28 W. R. 142 C. A. 533 Shaw V. Neale (1858) 6 H. L. C. 581 27 L. J. Ch. 444 4 Jur. (N. S.) 695
;
.

R. 635 960 Shaw V. Port Philip Co. (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 103 50 53 L. J. Q. B. 369 L. T. 685 32 W. R. 771 55 Shaw V. Shaw (1788) Vern. & Scr. 607 1232 Shaw f. Thompson (1595) 4 Rep. 30 b 1319 Shee V. French (1857) 3 Drew. 716 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 317 137 3 Jur. (N. S.) 428 Sheehan v. G. E. Ry. (1880) 16 Ch. D. 59 50 L. J. Ch. 68 43 L. T. 432 ; 29 W. R. 69 349, 1085 Sheers v. Brooks (1792) 2 H. Bl. 120 441 Sheffield, &c. Bdg. Soc. u. Aizlewood (1889) 44 Ch. D. 412 59 L. J. Ch. 34 62L. T. 678 1127 Sheffield Corporation 0. Barclay [1905] A. C. 392 74 L. J. K. B. 747 ;' 21 T. L. R. 642 10 Com. Cas. 93 L. T. 83 ; 54 W. R. 49 69 J. P. 385 287; 12 Manson, 248 ; 3 L, G. R. 992 H. L 324,337
6
;

W.

....... ....... .......


; ; ; . ; : ;
.

'

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES

ccv
PAGE

Shelfer v. City of London Electric Light Co., &c. [1895] 1 Ch. 287; 64 L. J. Ch. 216 ; 72 L. T. 34 ; 12 R. 1 12 ; 43 W. R. 238 C. A. 377, 378, 396, 401 Shelley's Case (1581) i Rep. 219; i And. 69; Moore, K. B. 136; Jenk.
.

249 659, 660, 661 Shelley v. Westbrook (18 17) Jac. 266 ; 23 R. R. 47 1220 Shelmerdine, Re (1864) 33 L. J. Ch. 474; 11 L. T. 106 25 Shelton v. Shelton (1869) 38 L. J. P. & M. 34 ; 20 L. T. 232 1191 17 W. R. 401 Shelton I'. Springett (1851) II C. B. 452 57 Shephard,7?e(i889)43Ch. D. 131 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 83 ; 62 L. T. 337; 38 W. R. 133 1057 Shepheard v. Bray [1906] 2 Ch. 235 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 633 ; 54 W. R. 556 ; 95 L. T. 414; 22 T. L. R. 625 ; 13 Manson, 279 325 Shepheard o. Whitaker (1875) L. R. 10 C. P. 502 ; 32 L. T. 402. ..505, 506, 507, 525 Shepherd v. Bristol & Exeter Ry. (1868) L. R. 3 Ex. 189 ; 37 L. J. Ex. 113 ; 18 L. T. 528 ; 16 W. R. 982 251 Sheppard, Re [1897] 2 Ch. 67 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 445 ; 76 L. T. 756 ; 45 W. R.
.

...... .....
;

....
. . .

'3=4, 1312 Ch. 50; 80 L. J. Ch. 52: 103 L. T. 424; 55 Sol. Jo. 13 . 11 14 Sheppard v. Kent (1702) 2 Vern. 435 ; Pre. Ch. 190 1374 Sherrard v. Harborough (Lord) (1753) Ambl. 165 728 Shewen v. Vanderhorst (1831) i Russ. & My. 347 ; i L. J. (O. S.) Ch., 107 . 1383 . . Shields, Re [1912] i Ch. 591 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 370 ; 106 L. T. 748 1284 Shields v. Atkins (1747) 3 Atk. 56 560 . Shiells V. Blackburne (1789) i Hy. Bl. 158 ; 2 R. R. 750 . 230, 331 Shilling V. Accidental Death Insurance Co. (1857) 2 H. & N. 42 ; 26 L. J. Ex.

475 Sheppard, Re[i()ii\

.... .....
.

308 5 W. R. 567 126 Stratton (1785) I Bro. C. C. 440 Shoplane v. Roydler (1605) Cro. Jac. 98 585, 901 1088 Shore (Lady) v. Billingsley (1687) i Vern. 482 Shrager v. March [1908] A. C. 402 ; 77 L. J. P. C. 105 ; 99 L. T. 33 ; 24 1068 T. L. R. 641 ; 52 Sol. Jo. 580 647 Shrewsbury's (Countess of) Case (1600) 5 Rep. 13 b Shrewsbury's (Earl of) Case (1610) 9 Rep. 46 b ; 2 Brownl. 330; 4 Lane, 243 ; Yel. 208 743 Shropshire Ry. v. Reg. (1875) L. R. 7 H. L. 496 ; 45 L. J. Q. B. 31 ; 32 L. T. 761 W. R. 709 283 ; 23 . Shrubb,iJ[i9io]W.N. 143; 45 L.J.N. C. 390; 129 L. T.Jo. 182 667 137 Shuttleworth . Clews [1910] i Ch. 176 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 121 ; loi L. T. 708 .

266

Shirley

.....

Garnet (1687) 3 Mod. 240 324, 591 Le Fleming (1865) 19 C. B. N. S. 687 34 L. J. C. P. 309; II Jur. (N. S.)840; 14W. R. 13 719,853,858 8 Jur. (N. S.) 275 ; 5 L. T. Sichel V. Mosenthal (1862) 31 L. J. Ch. 386 201 784 ; 10 W. R. 283 68 L. J. P. 114 81 L. T. 495 ; 48 W. R. Sickert v. Sickert [1899] P. 278 471, "89 268 15 T. L. R. 506 Sidebotham z. Holland [1895] i Q. B. 378 64 L. J. Q. B. 200 72 L. T. 62 ; 615 43 W. R. 228 ; 14 R. 135 Sidney, Re [1908] i Ch. 488 77 L. J. Ch. 296 ; 98 L. T. 625 24 T. L. R. 296
Shuttleworth Shuttleworth
v. 0.
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

1099 52 Sol. Jo. 262 C. 102 Sievewright v. Archibald (1851) 1-7 Q. B. 103 20 L. J. Q. B. 529 15 Jur. 947 3 C. L. R. 1209; 24 L. J. Q. B. 305 Siggers v. Evans (1855) 5 E. & B. 367 939i 94 I Jur. (N. S.) 851 . 1125 Silkstone Co. o. Edey [1900] I Ch. 167; 69L. J. Ch. 73; 48 W. R. 137 3 Silvester, Re [1895] i Ch. 573 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 390 72 L. T. 283 ; 43 W. R. 443 102 Simmons v. Heath Laundry [1910] i K. B. 543 79 L. J. K. B. 395 458 L. T. 210; 26T. L. R. 326^C. A. .
; ; ; ; ; ; ;

Digitized

by Microsoft

ccvi

TABLE OF CASES
fAGE
c.

Lillystone (1853) 8 Exch. 431 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 217 ; 1 W. R. 198 416 Simmons 0. Mitchell (1880) L. R. 6 App. Cas. 156 ; 50 L. J. P. C. 11 ; 43 L. T.. 710 ; zg W. R. 401 ; 45 J. P. 237 504, 524 Simmons 0. Norton (1831) 7 Bing. 640 ; 9 L. J. (O. S.) C. P. 185 ; 5 Moo. &

Sinunoris

P-645

85,

79d

Simxinin v. Mallac (i860) 2 Sw. & Tr. 67 ; 29 L. J. P. M. & A. 97 ; 6 Jur. (N. S.) 561 ; 2 L. T. 327 1167,1204 Simpero. Foley (1862) 2 J. & H. 555; 5 L. T. 669 856,857 Simpson, Re [1916] i Ch. 502 ; 85 L. J. Ch. 329 ; 114 L. T. 835 . . 1242 Simpson 0. Bathurst (1869) L. R. 5 Ch. App. 193 ; 22 L. T. 29 ; 18 W. R. 772 873

....
8Q.
;

Simpson Simpson
546
i

o. 0.

Bithwood (1691) 3 Lev. 307 Crippin (1872) 42 L. J. Q. B. 28

......
L. R.
; .
.

700
148

B..14; 27 L. T.

21

K. B. 453 74 L. J. K. B. 347 92 L. T. 282 ; 21 T. L. R. 209 53 W. R. 390 458 Simpsdn v. Godmanchester (Mayor of) [1896] i Ch. 214 [1897] A. C. 696 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 770 ; 77 L. T. 409-^C. A 670, 710 Simpson . Hartopp (1744) Willes,' 512 . 972 Simpson v. Lamb (1856) 17 C. B. 603 25 L. J. C. P. 115 ; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 26 L. J. Q. B. 121 ; 3 Jur. 91 ; 4 W. R. 328 (1857) 7 El. & B. 84 4ij 241 (N. S.) 412 5 W. R. 227 Simpson v. L. & N. W. Ry. (1876) i Q. B. D. 274 45 L. J. Q. B. 182 33 L. T. 805 ; 24 W. R. 294 122 Simpson v. Savage (1856) i C. B. N. S. 347 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 50 ; 3 Jur. (N. S.) 161 . .^396 5 W. R. 147 Simpson v. Simpson (1838) 4 Bing. N. C. 333 . 652 Simpson v. Wells (1872) L. R. 7 Q. B. 214 41 L. J. M. C. 105 26 L. T. 163 858 Sims, J?s (1896) 3 Man. 340; 45 W. R. 189 1068 Siijis o. Midland Ry. [1913] i K. B. 103 ; 82 L. 107 L. T. 700 ; J. K. B. 67 18 Coni. Cas. 44 261 29 T. L. R. 8i Simson v. Ingham (1823) 2 B. & C. 65 3 D. & R. 249 1 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 113 234 ; 26 R. R. 273 Simson o. London General Omnibus Co. (1873) L. R. 8 C. P. 390 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 112; 28 L.T: 560; 21 W. R. 595 259 Sinclair o.Broughton (1882) 47 L. T. I70r-P. C. . 443 Sinclair . Eldred (18 11) 4 Taunt. 7 492 Sinclair c. Fell [1913] i Ch. 155 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 105 108 L.T. 152; 29T.L. R. 1196 103 ; 57 Sol. Jo. 145 Singer Manufacturing Co. 11. Clark (1879) 5 Ex. D. 37 ; 49 L. J. Ex. 224 41 .' L; T, 551 420,957 44 J. p. 59 ; 28 W. R. 170 Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Loog (1882) L. R. 8 App. Cas. 15 52 L. J. Ch. 481 ; 48 L. T. 3 ; 31 W. R. 325 1029 Singleton v. Eastern Counties Ry. (1-859) 7 *- ^- -N- S- '^^7 334 Singleton v. Williamson (r86i) 7 H. & N. 410; 31 L. J. Ex. 287; 8 Jur. (N. S.) 157; 5 L.T. 645; 10 W. R. 301 84 Siniiott . Bowden [1912] 2 Ch. 414 81 L. J. Ch. 832 ; 107 L. T. 609 28 T. L. R. 594; [1913] W. C. & L Rep. 464 306 Sissons . Chichester [1916] 2 Ch. 75 114 L. T. 1163 60 85 L. J. Ch. 489 Sol. Jo., 605 1410 Sitwell, Re [1913] W. N. 261 1392 57 Sol. Jo. 730 Sitwelli;. Worrall(i898)79L.'T. 86 594 . , Six Carpenters' Case, The (1610) 8 Co. Rep. 146 a, 146 b 343 Skelton . Skelton (1677) 2 Swanst. 1702 789 Sketchley o. Berger (1894) 69 L. T. 754 707 Skinner, Re [1904] i Ch. 289 1123 73 L. J. Ch. 94 ; 89 L. T. 663 ; 52 W. R. 346 .
v.
i
; ; .

Simpson

W. R. 141 Ebbw Vale [1905]

...
;

.......
; ;
. . .
.'

......
; ; . .
. .

.......
,

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES
1,

(icVu
rtwjxi.

Skinner

v.

Gunton

(1669)
i

Wms.

Saund. 228

T.

Raym. 176
;

:
'

Vent.
. . .

12, 18,

19; 2 Keb. 473 3 Keb. 118 Skinner v. L. B. & S. C. Ry. (1850) 5 Exch. 787 15 Jur. 299 Skinner 0. Shew [1893] i Ch. 413; [1894] 2 Ch. 581; 63 L. J. Ch. 826 71 L. T. no; 8 R. 455 335,427,428 Skmner v. Upshaw (1702) 2 Ld. Raym. 752 260 Skipbrook v. Hinchinbrook (1805) 11 Ves. 252 8 R. R. 138 1422 Skippfr . Holloway [1910] 2 K. B. 630 79 L. J. K. B. 91 ; 26 T. L. R. 82 reversed, 2 K. B. 635 n. 26 T. L. R. 357 79 L. J. K. B. 496 C. A. 1050 Slade V. Chaine [1908] i Ch. 522 77 L. J. Ch. 377 98 L. T. 352 52 Sol. Jo, 240 C. A. 1123 Slade V. Pattison (1834) 5 L. J. Ch. 51 80,,581 Slade V. Torapson (161 5) 3 Bulstr. 58 901 Slanning v. Style (1734) 3 P. Wms. 334 1184 Slater, Re [1907] i Ch. 665 1264 76 L. J. Ch. 472 97 L. T. 74-C. Slatter o. Slatter (1833) i Yo. & C. (Ex.) 28 1323 Slazenger v. Spalding [1910] i Ch. 257; 79 L. J, Ch. 122 102 1026 27 R. P. C. 20 Sleigh II. Sleigh (1850) 5 Exch. 514 ig L. J. Ex. 345 295 Slingsby's Case (1588) 3 Swans. 178 156 Slinn, In the Goods 0/(1890) 15 P. D. 156 59 L. J. P. 82 63 L T. 229 39 W. R. 175 1238 Slobodinsky, Re [1903] 2 K. B. 517 72 L. J. K. B. 883 89 L, T, 190; 19 T. L. R. 616 860, 1066 52 W. R. 156 ; 10 Manson, 341 Sloman v. Walter (1784) i Bro. C. C. 418 136 Slubey V. Heyward (1705) 2 Hy. Bl. 504 3 R. R. 486 922 Smally v. Smally (1700)'! Eq. Ca. Abr. 6 24,52 Smart, In the Goods o/[i902] P. 238 71 L. J. P. 123 ; 87 L, T. 142; I T. L. R. 663 1239 Smart v. Hutton (1833) 8 A. & E. 568 n. 2 Nev. & M. 426 530 Smart v. Jones (1864) 15 C. B. N. S. jy 33 L. J. C. P. 154 ; 10 Jur. (N. S.; '. 12 W. R. 430 10 L. T. 271 678 7'5 Smart v. Sanders (1846) 3 C. B. 380; i6 L. J. C. P. 39; 10 Jur. 841 12 Jur. 751 17 L. J. C. P. 258 3:,240 (1848) 5 C. B. 895 Smartle . Penhallow (1701) i Salk. 188 672 Smartle 0. Williams (1694) i Salk. 245 762 Smee v. Smee (1879) 5 P- D. 84 49 L. J. P. 8 ; 44 J. P. 220 ; 28 W. R. 703 1257 Smethurst v. Mitchell (1859) i El. & EI. 623 28 L, J. Q. B. 241 5 ]pr. 63 (N. S.) 978 7 W. R. 226 Smith, In the Goods of (1869) L. R. i P. & M. 717 38 L. J. P. 85 21 L. T. 1240 17 W. R. :iio 340 Smith, Re (1883) 22 Ch. D. 586 52 L. J. Ch. 411 ; 48 L. T. 154; 31 W. R, . 1387 413 Smith, Re (1889) 42 Ch. D. 302 58 L. J. Ch. 860 61 L. T. 363 37 W. R. 1268
.
.

.482 .330
.

..
.
.

.7S

Smith, Re (1890) 45 Ch. D. 632


93 Smith, Re [i8q6] i Ch. 171 Smith, Re [1899! i Ch. 365 Smith, Re [1904] i Ch. 139 52W. R. 104 Smith, Re [1906] i Ch. 799 22 T. L. 54 W. R. 449 Smith, 7?e [19:3] 2 Ch. 216;
. ; ;
;

60 L.

J. Ch.

57

63 L. T. 448

39

W.

R
1253 1405 1397

65 L. J. Ch. 269 ; 74 L. T. 14 ; 44 W. R. 280 68 L. J. Ch. 33-! : 80 L. T. 113 ; 47 W. R. 223 89 L. T. 604 ; 20 T. L. R. 66 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 74


;

1136,1414
75 L. J. Ch. 442
;

94 L. T. 643

70
.

J. P.

169

R. 412

"20

83L.J. Ch.

13; 108 L. T. 952

1105,1391,1394

Digitized

by Microsoft

CCVlll

TABLE OF CASES
(1854) 5 De G. M. & G. 712 ; 18 Beav. 499 l8 Jur. 968 ; 2 W. R. 698 Andrews [1891] 2 Ch. 678 ; 65 L. T. 175

Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith

o.

Adams

258
V.
o.

Baker (1737) i Atk. 385 Baker [1891] A. C. 325 60 L.


.

660
o.

...........
.
. .

..... ...
. . ;

24 L.

J.

Ch.

1319, 1324

701 597

J.

Q. B. 683
.

65 L. T. 467
. .

55 J. P. 446, 4^1
.

Barrett (1663)

Sid.

162

.911

App. Cas. 187 53 L. J. Ch. 873 50 L. T. 540 697 ; 32 W. R. 687 48 J. P. 644 Smiths. Claxton (1819) 4 Madd. 484 20 R. R. 320 13^8 Smith o. Clinton (1908) 99 L. T. 840; 25 T. L. R. 34 Smith V. Colgay (1595) Cro. Eliz. 384 362 Smith V. Day (1837) 2 M. & W. 6S4 M. & H. 135 6 L. J. Ex. 219 611 Smith V. Bay (1880) 13 Ch. D. 651 28 W. R. 712 C. A. Smith o. Evans (1751) I Wils. 313 1238 Smith V. Giddy [1904] 2 K. B. 448 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 894 91 L. T. 296 53 W. R. 207 ; 20 T. L. R. 596 406, 714 Smith V. Gold Cgast, etc., Ltd. [1903] i K. B. 285 72 L. J.i K. B. 235 ; 88 L. T. 442; 51 W. R. 373 C. A 67,98 Smith V. Green (1844) i Coll. 555 828, 829 Smith V. Haskins (1742) 2 Atk. 385 1375 Smith o. Hurst (1852) 10 Hare, 30 22 L. J. Ch. 289 ; 17 Jur. 30 1062 Smith V. Johnson [1897] (Wilkinson o. Downton) 2 Q. B. 57 329 Smith V. Kay (1859) 7, H.L. C. 771 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 45 6 Smith V. Kaye (1904) 20 T. L. R. 261 470 Smith V, Kemp (1692) 2 Salk. .637 Carth. 285 701, 719, 721 Smith V. Kenrick (1849) 7 C,,B, 515 18 L. J. C. P. 172 ; 13 Jur. 362 783 Smith V. L. & St. Katharine's Dock Co. (1868) L. R. 3 C, P. 326 37 L. C. P. 217 18 L. T. 403 ; 16 W. R. 728 332 Smith V. L. & S. W. Ry. Co. (1870) L. R. 6 C. P. 14 40 L. J. C. P. 2i ; 23 L. T. 678; 19 W. R. 230 329, 330 Smith o. Low (1739) i Atk. 489 89S Smith V. Lucas (1881) 18 Ch. D. 531 ; 45 L.- T. 460 30 W. R. 451 976 Smith V. McGuire (1858) 3 H. & N. 554 i F. & F. 199 55 Smith V. Malings (1607) Cro. Jac. 160 622 Smith 0. Marrable (1843) 1 1 M. & W. 5 Car. & M. 479 2 L. J. Ex. 223 636 Smith v. Milles (1786) i T. R. 475 408, 409, 1346, 1349 Smith . Parker (1844) 13 M. & W. 459 2 Dow. & 14 L- J394 Ex. 52 5" Smith n. Patrick [1901] A. C. 282 70 L. J. P. C. 19 L. T. 740 8 17
V.

Chadwick (1884)
;

L. R. 9

....... .......
. .
.

....-337
. . . ;
. .

-376

.......
; :

L-T. R.477 Smith . Peters (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 51 1 Smith B. Scott (1847) 2 Car. & Kir. 580 Smith V. Selwyn [1914] 3 K. B. 98 ; 83 C.A.
. .

271,
; .

104,
.

144
185

44 L.

J. Ch.

613

23

W.

R. 783

522
III L. T.

L. J. K. B. 1339
.

195
338 697 376 1200

Smith Smith Smith Smith

Shepherd (1598) Cro. Eliz. 710 Smith (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 500 V. Smith [1898] P. 29 ; 67 L. 78 L. T. 27 J. P. 54 0. Streatfield [1913] 3 K. B. 764 ; 82 L. J. K. B. 1237 29 T. L. R. 707 Smith 0. Trowsdale (1854) 23 L. J. Q. B. 107 ; 3 El. & Bl. 874 ; 18 Jur. 552 Smith II. Whiteman [1909] 2 K. B. 437 78 L. J. K. B. 1073 C. A. Smith o. Widlake (1877) 3 C. P. D. 10 ; 47 L. J. Q. B. 282
o. 0.
. ; . .
.

i9 L. T. 137

520
83
;

2 C. L.

R
151

100 L. T. 77026

W.

R. 52

951 641

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Smith Smith Smith
.

ccix
PAGE
.
.

V. V.

V.

"69
.

Wilson (1807) 6 M. & S. 78 ; 8 East, 437 Woodfine (1857) i C. B. N. S. 660 Wright (i86i) 6 H. & N. 821 ; 30 L. J. Ex. 313
. .

jo6 i2z
S.)
.

(1808) I Camp. 439 Smithies v. National Association of Plasterers [1909] K. B. 259 i 100 L. T. 172 ; 25 T. L. R. 205

Smith

Young

...
;

7 Jur. (N.
.

\ >!
;

534 ^,q

K. B. 310
T.

78 L.

J.

Smurthwaite

v.

Wilkins (1862) 11 C. B. N.
.

479
31 L.
C. P. 214.. .

S. '842
.

;
.

< :

L.T.842; loW.R. 386


Smythe

044
ii6

Smyth, x^artfi(i8i8) I Swanst. 337 Smyth V. Wheeler (1671) 2 Keb. 772


v.

Smythe

(1818.)
;

Snark, The [1900] P. 105 Asp. M. C. 50 C. A

2 Swanst. 251 ; 19 R. R. 72 69 L. J. P. 41 ; 82 L. T. 42

812 792
355 g^^

16 T. L. R. i6o
_

g
.
_

)mji-_ Sneed 0. Sneed (1747) I Ambl. 64 Sneesby v. Thome (1855) 7 De G. M. & G. i Jur. (N. S.) 1058 399 3 W. R. 605C. A. . Snellgrove 0. Baily (1744) 3 Atk. 214 .' Snelson v. Corbet (^746) 3 Atk. 369 .-**. Snow V. Boycott [1892] 3 Ch. no; 61 L. J. Ch. 591 ; 66 L. T. 762; 40 W. R. 603 Snow V. Whitehead (1884) 27 Ch. D. 588 51 L. T. 253 53 L. J. Ch. 885
; ; . .
. .

1,

1408 1292 1400

458

33 W. R. 128 Snowball, Ex parte (1872) L. R. 7 Ch. 534 2o W. R. 786 Snowdon, Ex parte (i88i) 17 Ch. D. 44 29 W. R. 654
. .
.

404
;

41 L. J. Bky. 49

26 L. T. 894

239
50 L. J. Ch. 540
;

Ireland (1808) 10 East, 259 584, 69b v. Knight (1827) i Mood. & M. 74 526 Soar V. Ashwell [1893] 2 Q. B. 390 ; 69 L. T. 585 ; 42 W. R. 165 ; 4 R. 602 C. A. . . . . . . . . iioo^ 1 104, 1 146 Sobey v. Saintsbury [1913] 2 Ch. 513 ; 83 L. J. Ch. 103 ; 109 L. T. 393 ; .>0' . . . . 806 57 Sol. Jo. 836 _ .'''<. SoUey 0. Gower (1688) 2 Vern, 61 . . 752 SoUoryc. Leaver (1871)40 L. J. Ch. 398; 21 L. T. 453 993 .' Solly K. Rathbone (1814) 2 M. & S. 298 .' . Solomon, Re [1912] i Ch. 261 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 169 ; 105 L. T. 951 ; 28 T. L. R. 28 ; 56 Sol. Jo. 109 . . . . . . . 1118 Solomon v. Vintners' Co. (1S59) 4 H. & N. 585 ; 28 L. J. Ex. 370 ; 5 Jur. -^. (N. S.) 1177; 7W. R. 613 . . . . . . 713 Soltau V. De Held (1851) 2 Sim. N. S. 133 ; 15 Jur. 1151 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 153; 16 Jur. 326 375,392,401 Somerset, In the Goods of (tS6y) L. R. i P. & M. 350 1341 Somerset (Duke of). Re (1887) 34 Ch. D. 465 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 733 ; 56 L. T. ^'^B *. 145 ; 35 W. R. 273 29 Somerset, Re [1894] i Ch. 231 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 41 ; 70 L. T. 541 ; 42 W. R.
v.
'

Soane Soane

......
. . . . . . .

44 L. T. 830

'

-297

'

.....964
.
'

....
. .

'.

"

274; 7 R. 34 Somerset (Duke of) Somerset (Duke of)

''
.

747 ; 5 L. J. Somerton's Case (1433) Y. B. II Hen; VI. fo. 18, pi. Somervill's and Turner's Contract [1903] 2 Ch. 583 L. T. 405 ; 52 W. R. loi '^L Somerville v. Hawkins (1851) 10 C. B. 583 20 L. J. Somes, Re [1896] i Ch. 250 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 262 ; 74 L.
1. .

3 P. Wms. 390 Fogwell (1826) 5 B. & C. 875 ; 8 Dow. (O. S.) K. B. 49 ; 29 R. R. 449
v.

Cookson (1735)

1140 929

v.

&
.
.

Ry. K. B.
.

'

700, 720

10

-537
;

72 L. J. Ch. 727
.
.

89

C. P. 131

15 Jur.

751,1303,1352 450 519


R. 236
.

T. 49

44

W.

871

C.I..

Digitized

by Microsoft

ccx

TABLE OF CASES
V.

Sopies
,

B. E. Shipping Co. (i860) & H. L. C. 338


,
,

30 L. J. Q. B. 229
.

Jur. (N..S.)76i; 8 W. R. 707 Sonday's: Case (161 1) 9;Rep. 1271b. Soobie V. Collins [1895] i Q. B. 375
,
,

.j;
1

,
. . . . .

967 666

64 L. J. Q. B. 10 ; 71 L. T. 775 15 R. 6 Soper zi. Arnold (1889) 14 App. Cas. 429 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 214 ; 61 L. T. 702 ; 38W. R.'449 136 Sotheran.B. Dening (1881) 20 Ch. D. 99 C. A 1249,1250 Souter V. Drake (1834) 5. B. & Ad. 992 193 3 N. & M. 40 3 L. J. K. B. 31 South, jc^ae (1818) 3 Swanst. 392 1051 South, Re (1874) L. R. 9 Ch. App. 369 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 441 ; 30 L. T. 347 ; 22 W, R. 460 863 11 L. T. 264 South 0. Bloxam (1865) 2 H. & M. 457 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 369 II Jur. (N. S.) 319 836 South African Territories v. Wallington [i8g8] A. C. 309 67 L. J. Q. B. 201,1014 470; 78 L. T. 426 46W. R.,545; 14 T. L. R. 298 S. E. Ry. o. Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900) Ltd. [1910] I Ch. 12 loi L. T. 865 79 L. J. Ch. 150 74 J. P. 21 ; 26 T. L. R. 61 ; 54 Sol. Jo. 80 C. A. ^j \672,1076 South of England Dairies Co. v. Baker [1906] 2 Ch. 631 76 L. J. K. B. 78 " 629 96 L. T..48 South Hetton Coal Co. v. North Eastern News Co. [1894] i Q. B. 133 63 L. J. Q. B. 293 9 R. 240 ; 69 L. T. 844 i 42 W. R. 322 58 J. P. 196 C. A. 10, 346, i L 5>i 521, 525) 526 South of Ireland Coll. Co. v. Waddle (1868) L. R. 3 C. P. 463 4 C. P. 617 II 17 W. R. 896 38 L. J. C. P. 338 37 L. J. C. P. 211 South Metropohtan Cemetery Co. . Eden (1855) 16 C. B. 42 709 South Staffordshire Water Co.' b. Sharman [1896] 2 Q. B. 44 65 L. J. Q. B .-; 460 74 L. T. 761 ; 44 W*. R. 65,3 ., 424,772,921,937 Southampton's (Lord) Estate, Re (1880) 16 Ch. D. 178 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 218 R. 231 ,,. 818 43 L. T. 687; 29 W. Southampton v. Hertford (1813) 2 Ves. & B. 54; 13 R. R, 18 1082 Southcote V. Stanley (1856) 25. L. J. Ex. 339 i H. & N. 247 332 5o)itheyo. Sherwood (i8i7);2lHer. 435 374 Southport Tramways Co. . Ciandy [1897] 2 Q. B. 66 66 L. J. Q B. 532 76 45 'V^. R. 684-^C. A L. T. 815 388 Sowell V. Champion (1837) 6 A. & E. 407 ; 2 Nev. & P. 627 W. W. & D. 667 ,. 7L.J.Q.B. 197 412 Sowerby's Trusts, Re (1856) 2 K. & J. 630 1290 'f Sowerby o. Coleman (1867) L. R. 2 Exch. 96 36 L. J. Ex. 57 i 5 L. T. 667 . 15 W. R. 451 745 Spain, i?c(i9i5) 31 T. L. R. 435 1252 Spalding o. Thompson (1858) 26 Beav. 637 959 Spark 0. Spark (1559) Cro. Car. 305 647 Sparke's (Sir George) Case (1612) Winch, 6 716 Sparrow, Re [1892] i Ch. 412 61 L. J. Ch. 260 66 L. T. 276 40 W. R 326 884 Sparrow v. Oxford, Worcester & Wolverhampton Ry. (1852) 2 De G. M. & G. 16 Jur. 703 94;. 21 L.J. Ch. 731 187 Sparrow . Paris (1862) 7 H.,& N. 594 ; 31 L. J. Ex. 137 ; 8 Jur, (N.S.)39i 5L.T. 799 ..^;. 138 Speake o. Hughes [1904] i K. B. 138; 73 L. J. K. B. 172 89 L. T. . . 576 55 Speake v. Richards (1618) Hob. 2o6. . .i 324
; ;
. . .

.642

.......
;
.

.,

'.

;,

.....
; . .
.

....
;
. . .

'

.;......,.
,

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Speight
V.

cexi
PAGE

Gaunt

(1883) L. R. 9 App. Cas.

53 L. J. Ch. 419

50 L. T. 330
.

32 W. R. 435 1112,1113 ; Speight V. Gosnay (1891) 60 L. J. Q. B. 231 507 55 J. P. 501C. A. Speight V. Oliveira (1819) 2 Stark. 493 466 Spence, Re (1847) 2 Ph. 247 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 309 ; 11 Jur. 399 1219, 1225 Spencer Cooper, Re [1908] i Ch. 130 77 L. J. Ch. 64 ; 98 L. T. 344 1397 Spice V. Bacon (1877) 2 Ex. D. 463 46 L. 36 L. T. 896 25 J. Ex. 713 W. R. 840 Spiers v. English [1907] P. 122 ; 76 L. 1259 J. P. 28 ; 96 L. T. 582 Spirett V. Willows (1864) 3 De G. 12 L. T. 34 L. J. Ch. 365 J. & S. 293 614; II Jur. (N. S.) 70; 13 W. R. 329 1061 Spong V. Spong (1829) 3 Bligh (N. S.) 84 1265 48 J. P. 84
;
.

'

.247

Spooner

o.

Day

Sports, &c.,

[1917] 2 K. B. 125 ; 86 L. J. K. B. 702 ; 1 16 L. T. 626 ; 61 Sol. Jo. 299 ; 33 T. L. R. 204 C. A. 670 Spotswood V. Barrow (1850) 5 Exch. no ; 19 L. J. Ex. 226 . 214 Sprange v. Lee [1908] i Ch. 424 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 275 ; 98 L. T. 400 1316, 1317 Spratt, In the Goods of {li^j] P. 28 ; 66 L. J. P. 25 ; 75 L. T. 518 ; 45 W. R.
. . .

Agency

(1636) Cro. Car. 432 v. " Our Dogs," &c.

677

150

H. L. C. 588 ; 13 L. T. 164 6 N. R. 269 1280 Sprigge V. Sprigge (1868) L. R. i P, & M. 608 38 L. J. P. 4 19 L. T. 462 ; 17 W. R. 80 1252 Sprye v. Porter (1856) 7 E. & B. 78 26 L. J. Q. B. 64 3 Jur. (N. S.) 330 5 W. R. 81 33, 40 Spyer v. Hyatt (1855) 20 Beav. 621 i Jur. (N. S.) 315 3 W. R. 294 1319 Squire v. Midland Lace Co. [1905] 2 K. B. 448 74 L. J. K. B. 614 93 L. T. 29; 53W. R. 653; 69 J. P.257; 2iT. L. R. 466 Squire v. Squire [1905] P. 4 74 L. J. P. i ; 92 L. T. 472 21 T. L. R. 41 1200 Squire o. Wheeler (1867) 16 L. T. 93 246 Stafford's Case (1609) 8 Rep. 73 a 2 Brownl. 252 552, 553, 570, 640 Stafford (Earl of) v. Buckley (1750) 2 Ves. Sen. 169 656, 992, 1355 Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal 0. Bradley [1912J i Ch. 91 676, 677 '1383 Stahlschmidt . Lett (1853) 1 Sm. & G. 415 Stahlwerk, &c., Patent, iJe [1917] 2 Ch. 272 86 L. J. Ch. 670 1 17 L. T. 216 61 Sol. Jo. 479 31B 33 T. L. R. 339
11
;
.

Spread '0. Morgan (1865)

............
.

1240

.225

Staight

V.

Burn

(1869) L. R. 5 Ch. 163

39 L. J. Ch. 289
;

22 L. T. 831
;

18

R. 243 Stainton v. Carron Co. (1853) 18 Beav. 146 2 W. R. 176 2 Eq. R. 466
;

W.

[1912] i Ch. 343 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 302 ; 105 L. T. 913 ; 56 Sol. Jo. 204; 28 T. L. R. 159 C. A. . 1076, 1077, 1082 . . Stamford v. White [1901] P. 46 ; 70 L. J. P. 9 ; 84 L. T. 269 . 1250 Standard Bank v. Stokes (1878) 9 Ch. D. 68 ; 47 L: J. Ch. 554 ; 38 L. T. 672 ;
(Earl),

Stamford

Re

........
23 L. J. Ch. 299
i8 Jur. 137
. . .

711

1332

26 W. R. 492 Standard Manufacturing Co., Re [1891] i Ch. 627 L. T. 487 2 Meg. 418 39 W. R. 369 Standen v. Chrismas (1847) 10 Q. B. 135; 16 L.
; ;

780
;

60 L.
J.

J.

Ch. 292

64
941, 951

Q. B. 265; ii Jur.

694 Standing

Bowring (1885) 31 Ch. D. 282 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 218 ; 54 L. T. 191 939, 34 W. R. 204 C. A. Stanford 0. Hurlstone (1873) L. R. 9 Ch. App. 116; 30 L. T. 140 ; 20 W. R.
v.

.......
1

588
; .

102

422
Staniland v. Willott (1852) 3 Mac. & G. 664 Stanley, Re [1916] i P. 192 85 L. J. P. 222 ; 32 T. L. R. 643
;
'

375
1290, 1291
14 L. T. 1182
;

60

Sol. Jo.

604

1244
o 2

Digitized

by Microsoft

ccxu

TABLE OF GASES
; ;

1 14 L. T. 85 L. J. Ch. 809 ; 933 60 Sol. Jo. 478 657 Stanley v. Powell [1891] i Q. B. 86 60 L. J. Q. B. 52 63 L. T. 809 39 W. R. 76 55 J. P. 327 329, 380, 407, 434, 545 Stanley v. Stanley (1739) i Atk. 455 1308 Stanton 0. Brown [1900] i Q. B. 671 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 301 ; 64 J. P. 326 48 W. R. 333; 16T. L. R. 156 722 Stanton v. Tattersall (1853) i Sm. & G. 529 187 17 Jur. 967 ; I W. R. 502 Star V. Rookesby (1710) i Salk. 335 705, 714, 783 Startup V. Macdonald (1843) '^ L. J. Ex. 477 6 Man. & G. 593 7 Scott (N. R.) 269 106, 113, 144 State Fire Insurance Co., Re (1864) 34 L. J. Ch. 58 11 L. T. 489 10 Jur, (N. S.) 1176; 13W. R. 152 117 Stathatos o. Stathatos [1913] P. 46; 82 L. J. P. 34; 107 L. T. 592; 29 T. L. R. 54; 57S0I: Jo. 114 1204 Stavers v. Curling (1836) 3 Bing. (N. C.) 355 2 Hodges, 237 3 Scott, 740 6 L.J. C. P. 41 134 Stead, Re [1900] i Ch. 237 1 100 69 L. J. Ch. 49 81 L. T. 751 ; 48 W. R. 221 Stead V. Platt (1853) 18 Beav. 50 1313 Steam v. Prentice Bros. [1919] i K. B. 394 88 L. J. K. B. 422 120 L. T. 445 ; 17 L. G. R. 142 ; 63 Sol. Jo. 249 ; 35 T. L. R. 207 784 Stedham, In the Goods of In the Goods of Dyke (1881)6 P. D. 205 ; 50 L. J. P 1254 75 ; 45 L. T. 192 45 J. P. 784 46 J. P. 40 ; 29 W. R. 743 Steed V. Preece (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 192 43 L. J. Ch. 687 22 W. R. 432 1360 Steeds o. Steeds (1.889) 5^ L. J. Q. B. 302 22 Q. B. D. 537 60 L. T.,318 37W. R. 378 145,157,158 Steel V. Dixon (i88i) 17 Ch. D. 825 50 L. J. Ch. 591 ; 45 L. T. 142; 29 W. R. 735 298 Steele, In the Goods 0/(1868) L. R. i P. & M- 575 37 L. J. P. 72 n. 19 L. T. 91 ; 17 W. R. 15 1253 Steele v. Brannan (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 261 41 L. J. M. C. 85 ; 26 L. T. 509 20 W. R. 607 404 Steele v. Williams (1853) 8 Exch. 625 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 225 17 Jur. 464 321 Steers v. Rogers [1893] A. C. 232 68 L. T. 726 : R. 173 1085 Steinson v. Heath (1693) 3 Lev. 400 697 Stenning, Re [1895] 2 Ch. 433 1 142, 1143 73 L. T. 207 ; 13 R. 807 Stephens, pae (1876) 3 Ch. D. 659, 807 44 Stephens, Re (1889) 43 Ch. D. 39 61 L. T. 609 59 L. J. Ch. 109 1386 Stephens, Re [1904] i Ch. 322 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 3 L. T. 167 91 52 W. R. 89 928, 1287 Stephens o. Bridges (1821) 6 Madd. 66 22 R. R. 242 553 Stephens v. Gadsden (1855) 20 Beav. 463 876 Stephens iJ. Lewis (1599) Cro. El^z. 673 849 Stephens v. Myers (1830) 4 C. & P. 349 432 Stephens v. Wall (1569) 3 Dyer, 282 b 727 Stephenson, Ex parte (1847) ' De G. 586 17 L. J. Bky. 5 12 Jur. 6 836 Stephenson & Co., ifc (1913)2 Ch. 201 ; 2oManson, 358 107 L. T. 33 C. A loog Stephenson 0. Hart (1828) 4 Bing. 476 i M. & P. 357 6 L. J. (0. S.) C. P, 97 29 R. R. 602 416 Stevens, Re [1897] 1 Ch. 422 66 L. J. Ch. 155 76 L. T. 18 45 W. R. 284 affirmed [1898] i Ch. 162 67 L. J. Ch. 1 18 jy L. T. 508 46 W. R. 177 14T. L. R. Ill 1333,1420, 142 Stevens, In the Goods of [1898] P. 126; 67 L. J. P, 60; 78 L. T. 389 14 T. L. R. 327 1337 Stevens v. Adamson (1818) 2 Stark. 422 ; 20 R. R. 707 186

Stanley's Settlement, iie [1916] 2 Ch. 50


;

........
; ; ; ; ; ; ;

.....
;

,-

'

..... .....
; ;
.

..... ...... ...... .....


; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

.........
; ;
; .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Stevens
o,

ccxiii

PAGE Son [1919] 2 K. B. 722 ; 88 L. J. K. B. 1147 izi L. T. 354 ; 24 Com. Cas. 252 35 T. L. R. 594 C. A. 321 Stevens . Chown [igoi] i Ch. 894 ; 70 L. 84 L. T. 796 65 J. P. J. Ch. 571 470 ; 49 W. R. 460 17 T. L. R. 313 328, 695 Stevens I/. Hmce (1914) no L. T. 935 30 T. L. R. 419 1152 Stevens v. King [1904] 2 Ch. 30 ; 73 L. 90 L. T. 665 52 W. R. J. Ch. -535
Bromley

&

....
; ; ;

443 1290 Stevens v. Sampson (1879) 5 Ex. D. 53 41 L. T. 782 : 49 L. J. Q. B. 120 28W. R. 87 517 Stevens . Theatres, Ltd. [1903] i Ch. 857 72 L. 88 L. T. 458 J. Ch. 764 SI W. R. 58s ; 19 T. L. R. 334 825 Stevens v. Tyrell (1753) 2 Wils. i 586 Stevens o. Webb (1835) 7 Car. & P. 60 131 Stevenson & Sons v. Aktiengesellschaft [1918] A. C. 239 87 L. J. K. B. 416 118 L. T. 126 ; 34 T. L. R. 206 H. L. (E.) 31B, 282 Steward v. Gromett (1859) 7 C- B. N. S. 191 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 170 6 Jur. (N. S.)776 490 Stewart, /k ?Ae Goo(/j) of (1875) L. R. 3 P. & D. 244 25 Stewart v. Kennedy (i8go) 15 App. Cas. 75 17 Rettie (H. L.) i 27 Sc. L. R. 386 126 Sticklehorne o. Hatchman (1585) Owen, 43 785,791 Stikeman v. Dawson (1847) i D. & S. 108 16 L. J. Ch. 205 11 Jur. 214; 4 Railw. Cas. 585 347, 348 Stileman 0. Ashdown (1742) 2 Atk. 477 Amb. 13 1060 . Stiles, In the Goods of [1898] P. 12 ; 67 L. J. P. 23 78 L. T. 82 46 W. R. 444 14 T. L. R. 61 1335 Stocks V. Dobson (1853) 4 De G. M. & G. 11 22 L. J. Ch. 884 ; 17 Jur. 539 142 Stocks o. Wilson [1913] 2 K. B. 235 82 L. J. K. B. 598 108 L. T. 834 20 Manson, 129 29 T. L. R. 352 348 Stoddart v. Union Trust, Ltd. [1912] i K. B. 181 81 L. J. K. B. 140 ; 105 L. T. 806 C. A 1049 Stokes V. Berry (1699) 2 Salk. 421 389 Stokoe V. Cowan (1861) 29 Beav. 637 4 L. T. 695 ; 7 Jur. (N. S.) goi ; 9 W. R. 801 1058 Stonard v. Dunkin (1809) 2 Camp. 344 11 R. R. 724 Stone V. Grubham (1614) 2 Bulstr. 225 1060 Stone V. Hoskins [1905] P. 194 74 L. J. P. no 93 L. T. 441 54 W. R. 1246 64; 21 T. L. R. 528 Stone V. Newman (1635) Cro. Car. 428 564, 570 Storke 0. Storke (1730) 3 P. Wms. 51 1226 Stote V. Tyndall (1757) 2 Lee, 394 1338 Stott V. Milne (1884) 25 Ch. D. 710 50 L. T. 742 C. A. 1120, 141 Strachan v. Universal Stock Exchange (No. i) [1895] 2 Q. B. 329; [1896] A. C. 166 ; 65 L. J. Q. B. 429 74 L. T. 468 ; 44 W. R. 497 ; 60 J. P. 468 ^H. L. (E.) 310,311 Strachan v. Universal Stock Exchange (No. 2) [1895] 2 Q. B. 697 65 L. j. 310 Q. B. 178 73 L. T. 492 ; 44 W. R. 90 59 J. P. 789 C. A. Strachy. Francis (1741) 2 Atk. 217 575 Strangways, Re (1885) 34 Ch. D. 423 56 L. J. Ch. 195 ; 55 L. T. 714 ; 35 W. R. 83C. A 884 Strata Mercella's (Abbot) Case (1591) 9 Rep. 24 a Moore, K. B. 297. 683, 849 Stratford-on-Avon v. Parker [1914] 2 K. B. 562; 83 L. J. K. B. 1309; no L. T. 1004; 58 Sol. Jo. 473 13^4 Stratheden (Lord), Re [1894] 3 Ch. 265 63 L. J. Ch. 872 71 L. T. 225 ; 42 W. R. 647; 8 R. 511 1073,1074,1077
; ; ;

.... ....
;
;

..... .....
; ; ; ; ;

....... ........ ....... ......


;
;

.421

Digitized

by Microsoft

ccxiv

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
o.
.

v iq88 Best (1787) 2 Bro. C. C. 233 Streets;. Blay (183 1) 2 B. & Ad. 456 124 Strickland v. Strickland (1839) 10 Sim. 374 9 L. J. Ch. 60 1399 Strickland v. Symons (1883) 22 Ch. D. 666 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 423 48 L. T. 188 31 W. R. 888 1404 Strickland . Williams [1899] i Q. B. 382 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 241 80 L. T. 4 15 T. L. R. 131 C. A 50,988 Stripping's (Sir George) Case (162 1 ) Winch, 15 789 Strode o. Parker (1694) 2 Vern. 316 831 Strong V. Foster (1855) 17 C. B. 201 298 25 L. J. C. P. 106 4 W. R. 151 Strong . Strong (1854) 18 Beav. 408 1062,1063 810 Stronghill v. Buck (1850) 14 Q. B. 781 19 L. J. Q. B. 209 ; 14 Jur. 741 Stroud, Re (1849) ^ C. B. 502 i L. . 813 J. C. P. 117 Stuart V. Bell [1891] 2 Q. B. 341 60 L. J. Q. B. 577 64 L. T. 633 39 W. R. 612 518, 527 Stuart o. Crawley (1818) 2 Stark. 323 20 R. R. 691 250 Stuart O.Evans (1883) 49 L. T. 138 31 W. R. 706 Stuart V. Wilkins (1778) i Doug. 18 537 Stubbs' Estate, Re (1878) 8 Ch. D. 154 26 W. R. 736 1376 47 L. J. Ch. 671 Stubbs . Holywell Ry. (1867) L. R. 2 Ex. 311 5.36 L. J. Ex. i66; i6 L. T. 631 214 15 W. R. 869 Stubbs V. Slater [1910] i Ch. 632 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 420 102 L. T. 444 955 Stucley, Re [1906] i Ch. 67 75 L. J. Ch. 58 93 L. T. 718 54 W. R. 256 22 T. L. R. 33 C. A 119 Sturges V. Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch. D. 863, 865 41 L. T. 48 L. J. Ch. 785 200 C. A. 393, 394 219 ; 28 W. R. Sturmey's Trustee v. Sturmey (1912) 107 L. T. 718 1069 Sturton V. Richardson (1844) 13 M. & W. 17 ; 2 D. & L. 182 13 L. J. Ex. 281 8 Jur. 476 1093 Styant v. Staker (1691) 2 Vern. 250 605 Style B. Hearing (1605) Cro. Jac. 73 H. &Tw. Styles 0. Guy (1849) i M. & G. 422 ; 19 L. J. Ch. 185 ; 14 Jur. 355 1422 523 Styles V. Wardle (1826) 4 B. & C. 908 7 Dow. & Rv. 507 4 L. J. (O. S.) .' K. B. 81 28 R. R. 501 614,811 66 L. J. P. 98; 77 L. T. 137; 45 Suarez, In the Goods of [iS^y] F. %2 W. R. 704 1341 Suffello. Bank of England (1881) 9 Q. B. D. 555 149 Suffield V. Brown (1863) 33 L. J. Ch. 249 4 De G. J. & S. 185 3 New Rep. 12 W. R. 356 340 10 Jur. (N. S.) Ill 714 9 L. T. 627 Sugden v. St. Leonards (Lord) (i 876) i P. D. 1 54 45 L. J. P. 49 34 L. T. 372 24 W. R. 60 C. A 1251,1252 Suisse V. Lowther (1843) 2 Ha. 424 affirmed 12 L. J. Ch. 315 7 Jur. 407 1274 Sullivan o. Sullivan (1818) 2 Hagg. Con. 238 1175,1176 Sulzer V. Rochford [1906] i Ir. R. 399 1076 Sumner 0. Partridge (1740) 2 Atk. 47 .1313 Sunderland Co. v. Kearney (1851) 16 Q. B. 939 20 L. J. Q. B. 417 15 Jur. 1006 65 Wharton [1891] i Q. B. 491 60 L. J. Q. B. 233 ; 64 L. T. 866 Surman v. 39W. R. 416 13151 1317 Sury 0. Pigot (1626) Poph. 166 ; 3 Bulstr. 339 706 Sutherland (Duchess), Re [1914] 2 Ch. 720; 84 L. J. Ch. 126; 112 L. T. 72 1380, 1382 Sutherland (Duke) v. Heathcote [1892] i Ch. 475 61 L. J. Ch. 248 ; 66 L. T. 210 C. A 715,718,719

Stratton

....... ......
;
. .

;
'

......
.

....-451
.

...... .....
; ;
.

.811

...

..... .......
; .
. . .

.....

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Sutton, iJe (1912) 56 Sol. Jo. 650 . Sutton Coldfield Case (1635) Duke oii Charitable Uses, 68 . Sutton's Hospital Case (1613) 10 Rep. i ; i Roll. Abr. 513 Sutton i>. Johnstone (1786) 1 T. R. 544 . . Sutton V. Moody (1697) i Ld. Rayra. 250 . . .
. .

ccxv
PAGE

mo

756, 757, 758 . 7, 662, 911


.
.

4,89

Sutton Sutton

(1814) 5 Taunt. 758 Sadler (1857) 3 C. B. N. S. 87 1150; 5 W. R. 880 Sutton V. Stone (1740) 2 Atk. loi
c. V.
. .

Morgan

Sutton i;. Temple (1843) 12 M.&W. 52; 13 L. J. Ex. 17 Swainson v. N. E. Ry. (1878) 3 Ex. D. 341 47 L. J. Ex. 372 38 L. T. 201 26 W. R. 413 Swainson v. Swainson (1856) 6 De G. M. & G. 648 26 L. J. Ch. 119 3 Jur. (N. S.) 145 5 W. R. 187 Swans, Case of (1592) 7 Rep. 15 b Swan, Re [1915] i Ch. 829 ; 84 L. J. Ch. 590 113 L. T. 42 ; 31 T. L. R.
.
.

........
;

26 L. J. C. P. 284
.

704, 771, 772, 932 118 3 Jur. (N. S.)


.

.636
;

1256 590

448
1395

266.

Stransham (1567) Dyer, 257 a Swan's and Cleland's Graving Dock v. Maritime Insurance Co. [1907] i K. B. 116 76 L. J. K. B. 160 23 T. L. R. loi 12 Com. Cas. 73 Swayne's Cas'e (1608) 8 Rep. 63 a Moo. 811 i Brownl. 231 Sweeney v. Coote [1907] A. C. 221 76 L. J. P. C. 49 ; 96 L. T. 748 23
.
; ; ;
.

Swan

............ .......
.
. .

770
1270 635
1049 901

East, 4; 5 R. R. 497 967 Sweet V. Southcote (1786) 2 Bro. C. C. 66 757 Sweetapple v. Bindon (1705) 2 Vern. 536 ; i Eq. Cas. Abr. 394 752, 1313, 1357 Swift V. Jewsbury (1874) L. R. 9 Q. B. 301 ; 43 L. J. Q. B. 56 ; 30 L. T. 31 ;
i

T. L. R. 448 Sweet V. Pym (1800)

......
;
.

484

22

W. R.

319

350, 541

Swift . Kelly (1835) 3 Knapp, 257 Swift V. Pannell (1883) 24 Ch. D. 210 ; 48 L. T. 351 ; 31 W. R. 543 Swifte o.. A.-G. for Ireland [1912] A. C. 276 ; 81 L. J. P. C. 158 ; 106 L. T. > . 3 ; 28 T. L. R. 199 Swinburne o. Milburn (1884) L. R. 9 App. Cas. 844 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 6 ; 52 L. T. 222 ; 33 W. R. 325 Swindon Water Works Co. -o. Wilts., &c., Canal Co. (1875) L. R. 7 H. L. 704 45 L. J. Ch. 638 ; 33 L. T. 513 ; 24 W. R. 284 Swire v. Francis (1877) L. R. 3 App. Ca. 106 ; 47 L. J. P. C. 18 ; 37 L. T.
. . .

1167

952

1167 617

....
150
;

402

554 Swire v. Leach (1865) 18 C. B. N. S. 479 II Jur. (N. S.) 179; 13 W. R. 385 Swire v. Redman (1876) i Q. B. D. 536

'^
;

,542
1 1

34 L.

J. C. P.

L. T. 680

Sybray

v.

White (1836)

M.

& W.
;

435

. 35 L. T. 470 ; 24 W. R. 1069 5 L. J. Ex. 173 ; 2 Gale, 68 ; i Tyr.

958 298

784 416 Syeds o. Hay (i7gi)4T. R. 260 2 R. R. 377. Syero. Gladstone (1885) 30 Ch. D. 614; 34 W. R. 565 1396 .1123 Sykes, Re [1909] 2 Ch. 241 78 L. J. Ch. 609 ; loi L. T. i C. A. Sykes v. Beadon (1879) 11 Ch. D. 170 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 522 40 L. T. 243 ; 27 266 W. R. 464 i P. & D. 463 ; i Sykes v. Dixon (1839) 8 L. J. Q. B. 102 9 A. & E. 693 W. W. & H. 120 215, 475 Ch. D. 826 1017 48 L. J. Ch. 769 41 L. T. 79 Sykes v. Howirth (1879) 31A Sylvester's Case (1702) 7 Mod. Rep. 150 Symes v. Green (1859) ' Sw. & Tr. 401 ; 28 L. J. P. 83 5 Jur. (N. S.) 742 1257 Symons v. Leaker (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 629 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 480 53 L. T. 227 ; 49 J. P. 775 ; 33 W. R. 875
1

&

G. 746

"

.856

Digitized

by Microsoft

Gcxvi

TABLE OF CASES
J>AGE
.

66 L. ]. P. 81 1191 77 L. T. 142 Synges. Syonge[i894] I Q..B. 466; 63 L. J. Q. B. 202 ; 70L. T. 221; 58 I.. . 120,146 J. p., 396; 42 W. R. 309 Synge V, Synge [1900] P, 180 ; 69 L. J. P., 106 ;; 83 L. T. 224 64 J. P. 454; 16T. L.-R. 388; affirmed [igoi] v. 217 i 70 L. J. P. 97 85 L. T. . 1193,1195 ,. 83; i7Ti L. R. 718 C. A
P. i7
; .
.

Symons

Symons [1897I

Tabernacle Building Society o. Knight [1892] A. C. 298 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 50 ; 67 L. T. 483 ; 41 W. R. 207 56 J. P. 709 67 Taddy v. Sterious [1904] i Ch. 354 73 L. J. Ch. 191 89 L. T. 628 ; 52 W. R. 152; aoT. L- R. 102 927 Taff Vale Ry. . Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants [1961] A. C. 6 85 L. T. 147 426 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 905 50 W. R. 44 65 J. P. 596 Tailby . Official Receiver (1888) L. R. 13 App. Cas. 523 58 L. J. Q; B. 940,1051,1057 -75; 60 L. T. 162 ; 37W. R. 513 Talbot V. Bjaddill (1683-6) i Vern. 183, 394 49, 830 . Talbot J). Frere (1878) 9 Ch. D. 568 27 W. R. 148 1379 1281 Talbot . Shrewsbury (Duke of) (1714) Pre. Ch. 394 Gilb. Ch. 89 Talbot V. Shrewsbury (Earl of) (^840) 4;My,. & Cr, 672 9 L. J. Ch. 125 4 121 5 Jur. 38^ Tamplin v. James (1880) 15 Ch. D. 215 43 L. T. 520 ; 29 W. R. 31 f 126 Tamplin Steamship Co. o. Anglo-Mexican Co. [1916] 2 A. C. 397 85 L. J. K. B. 1389; 115 L. T. 315 21 Com. Cas. 299; 32 T. L. R. 677
;

...

....'.
; . .
.

....
;
;

'

Tamworth

133 Ferrers (1801) 6 Ves. 419 792 Tancred o. Leyland (1851) f6 Q. B. 669 20 L. J. Q. B. 316 ; 15 Jur. 394 532 Tangye 0. Tangye [1914] P. 201,; 83 L. J. P. 164; iii L. T. 944; 30 T. L. R. 649 ; ,58 Sol. Jo. .723 . 1180,1201 Tawkard, Re [1899] 2 Q. B. 57 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 670 ; 80 L. T. 500 15 L. T. R. 1069 33^; 47W.,R. 624; 6 Mansoii,! 188 Tapner v. Merlott (1739) Willes, 180 . . 58, 659 Target v. Gaunt (1718) i P. Wjtns. 432 ; Gilb. Eq. R. 149 ; 10 Mod. 402 1273 Tarleton . Liddell (1851) 17 Q. B. 390 ; 20 L. J, Q. B. 507 ; 15 Jur. 1170 1063
o.
; . .

H. L.

(E.)

........ ... .......


...
.

...

...

Tarleton 11. McGawley (1793) i Peake, 270 Tarlton 0. Fisher (1781) 2 Dougl. 671

Tarn Tarn

v.

Commercial Bank of Sydney (1884) 12 Q. B. D. 294


;

...... ...
.
.

480
343
;

32W. R.492
.

....
. '

50 L. T. 365
.

1346

Turner (1888) 39 Ch. D. 456


R. 2760. A.
v.
. .

57 L. J. Ch. 1085
. .

; .

59 L. T. 742
.
:

37
.

W.
Tarpley

829
522

Blabey (1836) 2 Bing. N.


,
1

C.

437
;.

2 Scott, 642
.

Hodges, 414
. .

; .

5L.
Tarry
r

v.

Ashton

,. J. C. P. 83. (187,6) i

Q. B. D. 314

,45 L. J. Q. B.

260

34 L. T. 97
. ;

24

R. 581 355) 397, 403 Shepherd (1861) 6 H. & N. 575 30 L. J. Ex. 207 4 L. T. 19 R. 476 215 9 W. Tasker v. Tasker [1895] P. i 64 L. J. P. 36 71 L. T. 779 43 W. R. 255 ; II R. 619 934 Tatam 11. Reeve [1893] i Q. B. 44 62 L. J. Q. B. 30 6y L. T. 683 ; 41 ^ W. R. 174; 57J. P. 118 312 Tate c. Hilbert (1793) 2 Ves. Ill 2 R. R. 175 .. 1291,1294,1393 Tatec. Leithead (1854) Kay, 658; 23 L. J. Ch. 736; 2W.R.630 1291, 1294, 1393 Tatton t.Wade (1856) 18 C. B. '371 540 Tayler o. Fisher (1591) Cro. EUz., 245 386 Taylor, Ex parte (1886) 18 Q. B. D. 295 L. J. Q. B. 195 56 35 W. R. 148 C Ai 1067

W.

Tasker
,

p.

...
;

...
; ;
.
, i

>.....,.
; ;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Taylor,

ccxvli
PAGE

Re

1276 1144 962 640, 641 Taylor v. Bank of N. S. Wales (1886) 11 App. Cas. 596 55 L. J. P. C. 47 55 L. T. 444 299, 300 Taylor v. Bowers (1876) i Q. B. D. 291 46 L. J. Q. B. 39 34 L. T. 938 24 W. R. 499 C. A 43, 320 Taylor v. Brewer (1813) i M. & S. 290 21 R. R. 831 87 Taylor o. Brown (1839) 31 L. J. Ch. 453 ; 10 W. R. 361 Taylor . Bydall (1677) Freem. K. B. 243 26 Taylor v. Caldwell (1863) 3 B. & S. 826 8 L. T. 356 32 L. J. Q. B. 164 II W. R. 726 130, 132 Taylor o. Cole (1789) 3 T. R. 292 / Taylor v. Devey (1837) 7 A. & E. 409 2 Nev. & P. 469 ; Will. Woll. & Dav. I Jur. 892 646 7 L. J. M. C. u 745, 747 Taylor . G. E. Ry. [1901] i K. B. 774 70 L. J. K. B. 499 84 L. T. 770 ; W. R. 431 6 Com. Cas. 121 86 49 Taylor v. G. N. Ry. (1866) L. R. i C. P. 385 12 Jur. 35 L. J. C. P. 210 (N. S.) 372 ; 14 L. T. 363 ; 14 W. R. 639 251 Taylors. Hawkins (185 1) 16 Q. B. 308 20 L. J. Q. B. 313 ; 15 Jur. 746 527,528 Taylor v. Henniker (1840) 12 A. & E. 488 4 Per. & Dav. 243 9 L. J. Q. B. 383 53 Taylor o. James (1607) Godb. 150 699 Taylor v. Johnston (1882) 19 Ch. D. 603 51 L. J. Ch. 879 46 L. T. 219 30 W. R. 508 974, 981 Taylor v. Jones (1743) 2 Atk. 600 1063 Taylor v. Laird (1856) i H. & N. 266 ; 25 L. J. Ex. 329 88 Taylor v. London and County Banking Co. [1901] 2 Ch. 231 70 L. J. Ch. 17 T. L. R. 413 C- A. 760, 817 477 ; 84 L. T. 397 49 W. R. 451 Taylors. Manchester, &c., Ry. [1895] i Q. B. 134 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 6 71 L. T. 596; 43 W. R. 120; 59 J. P. 100; 14 R. 34 477 10 L. J. Ch. 339 Taylor v. Martindale (1841) 12 Sim. 158 992 5 Jur. 648 Taylor v. Mostyn (1886) 33 Ch. D. 226 819 55 L. J. Ch. 893 ; 55 L. T. 651 2 Rose, 457 ; 16 R. R. 361 Taylor v. Plumer (1815) 3 M. & S. 562 .1142 61 L. J. Ch. 657 66 L. T. 565 Taylor v. Russell [1892] A. C. 244 41 W. R. 43 757) 1141 Taylors. Seed (1696) Comb. 383 764 4-R. R. 759 Taylor v. Shum (1797) i B. & P. 21 632 102 C.A. Taylors. Smith [1893] 2 Q. B. 65; 61 L. J. Q. B. 331; 67L.T. 39 Taylors. Taylor (1870) L. R. 10 Eq. 477 39 L. J. Ch. 676 ; 23 L. T. 134 ; 18 W. R. 1102 1378 1282 Taylor s. Taylor (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 155 44 L. J. Ch. 718 52 Taylor s. Timson (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 671 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 216
373 ; Taylor, iJe [1913] W. N. 212 i 135 L. T. Jo. 239 Taylor, Stileman & Co., Re [1891] i Ch. 590 Taylor B. Ashe (1633) Vin. .44. X, 396 .
.

[1894] i Ch. 671 8 R. 186

63 L. J. Ch. 424;

70 L. T. 556; 42

W.

R.

...'...
. . 1 .
.

-147

;'

..... .....
; .

-863

....... ........
; ;

J. P. 135

Taylors. Whitehead (1781) 2 Dougl. 745 Tebbs s. Carpenter (1816) i Madd. 290 16 R. R. 224 Tee s. Ferris (1856) 2 K. & J. 357 25 L. J. Ch. 437 ; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 807 Teevan s. Smith (1882) 20 Ch. D. 729 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 621 47 L. T. 208 ; 30 W. R. 716 Tempest s. Tempest (1856) 2 K. & J. 635 Templeton s. Tyree (1872) L. R. 2 P. & M. 420 41 L. J. P. & M. 86 27 L. T. 429; 21 W. R. 81 Tenants of Owning's Case (1587) 4 Leon. 43
; ; . ; ; ;

....

431;

709 1420 iioo 49 1259


1170
715

Digitized

by Microsoft

ccxviil

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
;

Tendring Hundred Waterworks v. Jones [1903] 2 Ch. 615 52 W. R. 61 ; 19 T. L. R. 720 357 Tennant v. Trenchard (1869) L. R. 4 Ch. 537 38 L. J. Ch. 661 ; 20 L. T. ^ 855 837 Teofani Co. o. Tec{ani'[i9i3] 2 Ch. 545 82 L. J. Ch. 490 109 L. T. 114 sub nom. In re 29 T. L. R. 674 30 R. P. C. 446 57 Sol. Jo. 686 Trade Mark No. 312065, 29 T. L. R. 591 C. A. 1025 Terry v. Hutchinson (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 599 18 L. T. 37 L. J. Q. B. 257 464,467,468,1235 521; 16W. R. 932; 9 B. & S. 487 Tetley o. Wanless (1867) 36 L. J. Ex. 25 L. R. 2 Ex. 21 ; 15 L. T. 255 ; 15 W. R. 356 Teutonia, The (1872) L. R. 4 P. C. 171 ; 41 L. J. Adm. 57 26 L. T. 48 20W. R. 421; 8 Moore, P. C. (N. S.) 411 132 Tewart v. Lawson (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 490 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 673 22 W. R. 822 574 Tewkesbiirfy (Bailiff) v. Bricknell (1809) 2 Taunt. 120 695 Thacker v. Hardy (1878) 4 Q. B. D. 685 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 289 39 L. T. 595 ; 27W. R. 158 237, 313 Thames Ironworks Co. v. Patent Derrick Co. (i860) 29 L. J. Ch. 714 ; 2 L. T. 208; 6 Jur. (N. S.) 1013; I J. &H. 93; 8W. R. 408 Tharpe v. Stallwood (1843) 5 M. & G. 760 12 L. J. C. P. 241 ; 7 Jur. 492 I D. & L. 24 6 Scott N. R. 715 384, 410, 925, 1347 Thatched House Case (1716)1 Eq; Ca.Ab. 322 761 Thellusson v. Woodford (1799) 4 Ves. 226 13 Ves. 209 26, 1080 Thomas, Re [1912] 2 Ch. 348 81 L. J. Ch. 603 106 L. T. 996 56 Sol. Jo. C. A 571 1421, 1422 Thomas v. Bennet (1725) 2 P. Wms. 341 1281 Thomas v. Bradbury, Agnew & Co. [1906] 2 K. B. 627 75 L. J. K. B. 726 22 T. L. R. 656 95 L. T. 23 54 W. R. 608 509 Thomas v. Churton (1862) 2 B. & S. 475 31 L. J. Q. B. 139 ; 8 Jur. (N. S.) 512 795; 6L. T. 320 Thomas v. Howell (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 198 ; 30 L. T. 244 22 W. R. 676 1250 Thomas 11. Howell (1886) 34 Ch. D. i66 56 L. J. Ch. 9 ; 55 L. T. 629 1322 Thomas v. Jones (1841) i Y. & C. Ch. Cas. 510 790 Thomas v. Ketteriche (1749) i Ves. Sen. 333 1309 Thomas v. Quartermaine (1887) 18 Q. B. D. 685 56 L. J. Q. B. 340 57 L. T. 537^ 35W. R. 555; 51 J.P. 516-aA. 332,446,451 Thomas o. Roberts (1847) '6 M. & D. 778 3 De G. & Sm. 758 19 L. J. Ch. 506 14 Jur. 639 24 Thomas . Searles [1891] 2 Q. B. 408 60 L. J. Q. B. 722 ; 65 L. T. 39 W. R. 692 C. A 39 951 Thomas 11. Sylvester (1873) L. R. 8 Q. B. 368 42 L. J. Q. B. 237 29 L. T. 21 W. R. 912 290 738, 954 Thomas v. Thomas (1835) ^ Cr. M. & R. 34 ; i Gale, 61 5 Tyr. 804 4 L. J. Ex. 179 673, 674, 710 Thomas v. Williams (1834) i A. & E. 685 3 Nev. & M. (K. B.) 545 3 L.J. K. B. 202 Thomasin v. Mackworth (1666) Cart. 78 762 Thompson's Settlement, i?e [1904] W. N. 205 1106 Thompson, Re [1906] 2 Ch. 199 75 L. J. Ch. 599 95 L. T. 97 ; 54 W. R. 613 1073 Thompson 0. Cartwright (1863) 33 Beav. 178 2 De G. J. & S. 10 33 L. J; Ch. 234; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 1215; 9L.T. 4JI 12W. R. 116 991,992 Thompson v. Dibdin [1912] A. C. 533 81 L. J. K. B. 918 107 L. T. 66 ; 28 T. L. R. 490 56 Sol. Jo. 647 1 173
. ; . . ; ; ; ;

....
; .
.

-151
;

....
; .
.

.966
;

..... ... ......


.
.

......
.
.

............
; ; ; ; ;
.

......
, . . . .
.

.215

.......
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Thompson
33
v.

ccxix
PAGE
J.

Thompson v. Hardinge (1845) ' C. B. 940 14 L. 607 J. C. P. 268 9 Jur. 927 Thompson v. Havelock (1808) i Camp. 527 10 R. R. 744 209, 217, 235 Thompson Hickman [1907] i Ch. 550 76 L. J. Ch. 254 96 L. T. 454 23T. L. R. 311 766,778 Thompson v. Montgomery [1891] A. C. 217 (1889) 41 Ch. D. 35 1028 Thompson v. Pettitt (1847) 'o Q. B. loi 16 L. Q. B. 162; 11 Jur.
;

......
Gibson (1841) 7 M.

& W.

456; 9 Dowl. 717; 10 L.


;

Ex.
395 307
.

11.

;,
;

J.
i

748

Thompson
1

v.

Ross (1859)
;

L. T. 43

W.

5 H. R. 44

& N.
11

413
16
;

29 L. J. Ex.
J.

5 Jur. (N. S.)

1133
:

Thompsons. Rourke

^66
;

[1893] P.

62 L.

501C. A
!;.

P. 46;

67 L. T. 78?;

R.

Thompson v. Shackell (1828) Mood. & M. 187 Thompson Thompson (1901) 85 L. T. 172 17 T. L. R. 572 Thomson v. Davenport (1820) 9 B. & C. 78 4 M. & Ry. no Thomson v. Eastwood (1877) 2 App. Cas. 215 H. L. (Ir.) Thomson Harding (1853) 2 El. & HI. 630 22 L. T. Q. B. 448
; .

7g
. .

...
. . : .
. .

526 1189 62

94
,345

-o.

18 Tur.

58

W.

R. 468
S.

Thongs. Bedford (1815)4 M. &


Thorley
v.

362

46 L. J. Ch. ; (1880) 14 Ch. D. 763 ; 42 L. T. 851 28 W. R. 966 C. A.. 374, 501 Thornborow . Whitacre (1705) 2 Ld. Raym. 1164 . 95, '33 Thome v. Cann [1895] A. C. 11 ; 64 L. J. Ch. i 71 L! T. 852 ; 11 R. 67 830 Thorne zi. Kerr (1855) 2 K. & J. 54 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 57 ; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 322 ; 4 W. R. 131 1421 Thorne v. Smith (1851) 20 L. J. C. P. 71 ; 2 L. M. & P. 43 ; 15 Jur. 469 . 154
713
;
;

Kerry (Lord) (1812) 4 Taunt. 355 Thorley's Food for Cattle Co. v. Massam (1877) 6 Ch. D. 582

...
...
;

660 504

Tilbury (1858) 3 H. & N. 534 ; 27 L. J. Ex. 407 425 Neats (i860) 8 C. B. N. S. 831 2 L. T. 539 144 Thornley v. Thornley [1893] 2 Ch. 229 62 L. J. Ch. 370 68 L. T. 199 41 W. R. 541 ; 3 R. 311 1084,1087,1196 Thornton v. jenyns (1840) 9 L. J. (N. S.) C. P. 265 ; i M. & G. 166 i Sc. N. R. 52 94 Thoroughgood's Case (1584) 2 Rep. 9 a 37 Thorpe v. Bestwick (1881) 6 Q. B. D. 311 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 320 44 L. T. 180 1260 45 J. P. 440 29 W. R. 631 Thorpe v. Brumfitt (1873) L. R. 8 Ch. App. 650 327, 337 Thorpe v. Holdsworth (1868) L. R. 7 Eq. 139 38 L. J. Ch. 194 17 W. R. 760 394 Threlfall, jR(i88o) 16 Ch. D. 274; 50L. J. Ch. 318 Throgmorton . Tracey (1555) Dyer, 124 b 650 Thurgood v. Richardson (1831) 7 Bing. 428 5 Moo. & P. 270 4 C. & P. 481 9 L. J. (O. S.) C. P. 121 530 Thurn (Princess), &c. o. MofBtt [191 5] i Ch. 58 84 L. J. Ch. 220 ; 112 L. T. Sol. Jo. 26 T. L. R. 24 31B 31 114; 59 102 L. T. 838 Thursby's Settlement, Re [1910] 2 Ch. 181 79 L. J. Ch. 538 54 Sol. Jo. 581 C. A. Thurstan v. Nottingham Building Society [1902] i Ch. i ; 71 L. J. Ch. 83 87 L. T. 529 50 W. R. 179 23 Thurston v. Charles (1905) 21 T. L. R. 659 519 Thynne, i?e [191 1] i Ch. 282' 80 L. J. Ch. 205 104 L. T. 19 18 Mans. 34 928, 1052 Thynne v. Glengall (1848) 2 H. L. C. 131 ; 12 Jur. 805 affirming i Keen, 1281, 1283, 1284 769 ; 6 L. J. Ch. 25

Thorne

v.

..
. .

Thornhill

v.

.......
; ;

...
.

......
. . ; ; ;
.

.641
;

...
;

.754
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

ccxx

TABLE OF CASES
tAGE
o.
; ; ;

Thynne

Shove (1890) 45 Ch. D. 577 59 L. J. Ch. 509 62 L. T. 803 38 W. R. 667 . Tidd . Lister (1852) 10 Hare, 140 62 L. J. Ch. 915 69 L. T. Tidd, In re ; Tidd v. Overell [1893] 3 Ch. 154 255 42 W. R. 25 Tidman . Ainslie (1854) 10 Exch. 63
. . . . . .
. . .'

1030 836

508 Tilbury v. Silva (1890) 45 Ch. D. 98 ; 63 L. T. 141 C. A. 605, 721 TiUett o. Ward (1882) 10 Q. B. D. 17 ;' Sz L. T. Q. B. 61 47 L. T. 546 31 " W. R. 197 47 J. P. 438 330, 358 61 L. J. Ch. 38 TiUott, Rs [1892] I Ch. 86 40 W. R. 65 L. T. 781 1 123 204 Timothy v. Simpson (1835) i Cr. M. & R. 757 5 Tyr. 244 ; 6 C. & P. 499 ; 4 L. J. M.'C. 73 437 Tingley o. MuUer [1917] 2 Ch. 144 86 L. J. Ch. 625 ; 116 L. T. 482 ; 61 31B Sol. Jo. 478f33T. L. R. 369 C. A. Tiping II. Bunning (1597) Moore, 465 598 tipping o. St. Helen's Smelting Co. (1865) L. R. i Ch. App. 66 394 Tipping 0. Tipping (1729). i P. Wms. 730 934, 1400 Tisdall o. Essex (1616) 3 Bulstr. 204 6i6 Tobino.'R. (1864) i6C. B.N. S. 310; 33 L. J. C. P. 199 10 Jur. (N. S.) 12 W. R. 838 1029 ; 10 L. T. 762 340 Todd V. Flight (i860) 9 C. B. N. S. 377 30 L. J. C. P. 21 7 Jur. (N. S.) 291 397,404 9 W. R. 145 3 L. T. 325 Tolhausen v. Davies (1888) 57 L. J. Q. B. 392 59 L. T. 436 52 J. P. 804 affirmed 58 L. J. Q. B. 98 C. A. 329 Tolhurst V. Assoc. Portland Cement Manufacturers, &c. [1902] 2 K. B. 660 ; B. 949 ; 87 L. T. 465 A. 141, 143 71 L. J. K. 51 W. R. 81 C. ToUemache, Re [1903] 1 Ch. 955 72 L. J.Ch. 539 51 W. R. 597 ;.88 L. T. 670 C. A. 1112 Toilet V. Toilet (1728) 2 P. Wms. 489 870 Tomalin v. Pearson [1909] 2 K. B. 61 78 L. J. K. B. 863 100 L. T. 685 ; 25 T. L. R. 477 460, 463 Tombs ..Roch (1846) 2 Coll. 490 1393 Tomes o. Chamberlaine (1839) 5 M. & W. 14 9 L. J. Ex. 32 644 Tomkins v. Jones (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 599 58 L. J. Q. B. 222 60 L. T. 939 16 37 W. R. 328 Tomkins?;. Tomkins (1858) I'Sw. cfcTr. 168 1188 Tomlinson II. Gill (1756) Amb. 330. 1418 Tomplin v. James (1879) 15 Ch. D. 215 43 L. V. 520 ; 29 W. R. 311 38 Toms 0. Wilson (1863) 32 L. J. Q, B. 382 ; 4 B. & S. 442 ; 10 Jur. (N. S.) 201 8 L. T. 799 ; 11 W. R. 592 17 L. T. 266 412 Tong . Robinson (1730) i Bro. P. C. 114 725 Tongue, Re [1915] i Ch. 390; 84 L. J. Ch. 378 112 L. T. 685 ; affirmed 128c [1915] 2 Ch. 283 ; 84 L. J. Ch. 933 C. A Tongue v. Tongue (1836) i Moo. P. C. 91 1170 Toogood 0. Spyring (1834) i C. M. & R. 181 4 Tyr. 582 3 L. J. Ex. 347 518,
. ,
.

......
; ;
.

204

....... ..... ....... ......


.

........... .......... .........


;
. .

....... ......
; ;

527 Glascock (1669) i Wms. Saund. 250 570 Torkington 0. Magee [1902] 2 K. B. 427 71 L. J. K. B. 712 87 L. T. 304 18 T. L. R. 703 ; reversed [1903] i K. B. 644 72 L. J. K. B. 336 ; 88 L. T. 443 19 T. L. R. 331 C. A 141, 1048, 1051 Torre s. Browne (1855) 5 H. L. C. 555 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 757 15 Torriano v. Young (1833) 6 C. & P. 8 626 Totcombe, Case of the Hundred of (1410) Y. B. 11 Hen. IV., Trin. pi. 44 (1412) 13 Hen. IV., Mich. pi. 28 675

Took

.....
; ; ;

....

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Tottenham U. D. Council
v.
;

ccxxi
PAGE

Williamson [1896] 2 Q. B. 353 75 L. T. 238 . 65 L. J. Q. B. 591 ; 44 W. R. 676 ; 60 J. P. 225 392 Tottersall's Case (1632) W. Jones, 283 684 Toulmin v. Steere (18 17) 3 Mer. 210 830 Tourret v. Cripps (1879) 4^ L. J. Ch. 567 ; 27 W. R, 706 lOI Toussaint v. Martinnant (1787) 2 T. R. 100 Z94 Towndrow, /Je [1911] i Ch. 662 80 L. J. Ch. 378 104L. T. 534 .1143 Townley o. Bedwel! (1808) 14 Ves. 591 1361
;
. .

....
.

Townley v. Watson (1844) 3 Curt. 761 Townsend v. Jarman [1900] 2 Ch. 698 69
;

1249
L. J. Ch. 823

W.

R. 158

Townsend v. Wathen (1808) 9 East, 277 Townshend v. Mostyn (1858) 26 Beav. 72 Townshend v. Windham (1750) 2 Ves. Sen.
;

...... .....
;
.
.

83 L. T. 366

49 1030

775 1395 1393, 1401

Townsonti. Tickell (1819) 3 B. & Aid. 31 22 R. R. 291 .^' 812,1268 Tozeland v. Guardians of West Ham [1907] i K. B. 920 76 L. J. K. B. 514 96 L. T. 519 71 J. P. 194 23 T. L. R. 325 ; 5 L. G. R. 507 C. A. 344 Tozer v. Child (1857) 7 E. & B. 377 26 L. J. Q."B. 151 3 Jur. (N. S.) 774 5 W. R. 287 529 Tozer.D. Mashford (1851) 6 Exch. 539 504, 524 Train v. CJapperton [1908] A. C. 342 ; Sc. (H. L.) 26 77 L. J. P. C. 124 1098 45 Sc. L. R. 682 Trash v. Wood (1839) 4 My. & Co. 324 9 L. J. Ch. 105 4 Jur. 669 751 Treasury Solicitor v. Lewis [1900] 2 Ch. 812 69 L. J. Ch. 833 83 L. T. 1291 139; 48 W. R. 694; 16T. L. R. 559 Trego V. Hunt [1896] A. C. 7 73 L. T. 514 44 W. R. 225 289, 1029, 1031 22 W. R. 843 Treloar v. Bigge ^1874) L. R. 9 Exch. 151 ; 43 L. J. Ex. 95 630 Tremeere v. Morison (1834) i Bing. (N. C.) 89 ; 3 L. J. C. P. 260 4 Moo. 1366 6 S. 603 i W. R. Trent v. Hunt (1853) 9 Exch. 14 22 L. J. Ex. 318 17 Jur. 899 646 481 Tresidder II. Tresidder (1841) I Q. B. 416 590 Treswell v. Middleton (1623) Cro. Jac. 653 ; 2 RoUe, 269 209, 476 . Trethewy v. Helyar (1876) 4 Ch. D. 53 46 L. J. Ch. 125 1391, 1392 Trevalion v. Anderton (1897) 66 L. J. Q. B. 489 ; 76 L. T. 642 C. A. 997 103 L. T. 212 Trevanion, Re [1910] 2 Ch. 538 54 Sol. Jo. 749 555, 566, 1081 762 Trevillian v. Andrew (1697) 5 Mod. 384 Tribourg v. Pomfret (1773) 2 Ambl. 733 n 834 82 L. T. 626 Trigg, In the Goods o/[i90i] P. 42 ; 69 L. J. P. 47 .1339 Trimble v. Hill (1880) 5 App. Cas. 342 49 L. J. P. C. 49 ; 42 L. T. 103 ; 28 311 W. R. 479 1258 Trimlestown v. D'Alton (1827) i Dow. & CI. 85 Trimmer v. Baynes (1803) 9 Ves. 209 1399 Tringham, Re [1904] 2 Ch. 487 73 L. J. Ch. 693 91 L. T. 370 20 T. L. R.
.

'

......
; ; ; ; ; ;
.

657 Trinidad Asphalte Co. v. Coryat [1896] A. C. 587 L. T. 108 ; 45 W. R. 225 Tripp V. Frank (1792) 4 T. R. 666 2 R. R. 495 Tritton, Re (1889) 61 L. T. 301 ; 6 Morrell, 250 TroUope & Sons . London Federation (1895) 72 L. Trott V. Buchanan (1885) 28 Ch. D. 446 54 L. J. 33 W. R. 339 Trotter v. Trotter [1899] i Ch. 764; 68 L. J. Ch. W. R. 477; 15T. L. R. 287
; ;

....

754
65 L. J. P. C. 100
.

75 811
695, 696
929, 1052
.

T. 342 C. A. Ch. 678 ; 52 L. T. 248


.

...
. .

428
'39'

363

80 L. T. 647; 47
. .

1260

Trotter

v.

Windham &

Co. (1907) 23 T. L. R.

676C.

A.

423

Digitized

by Microsoft

CCXXll

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
.
v.

Troward

Trueman
>

C^iUand (1796) 8 Bro. P. C. 71 Lodei (1840) 11 A. & E, 589

729
;

P.

165

Trueman

(1766) 2 Wils. 296 Triiro (Lady), In the Goods of (1866) L. R. i P. & M. 201 ; 35 L. J. P. 89 ; 14 L. T. 893 ; 14 W. R. 976 Truro Corporation 0. Rowe [1901] i K. B. 870 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 794 ; 87 L. T. 386 ; 66 J. P. 821 ; SI W. R. 68 ; 18 T. L. R. 820 C. A.
v.

Walgham

......
;
1

&

D. 567

9 L. J. Q. B.

60 682 1239

v. Merchant Taylors' Co. (1856) ii Ex. 855 857 Trustees' and Exofs.' Co. v. Short (1888) L. R. 13 App. Ca. 793 ; 58 L. J. . P. C. 4 ; 59 L. T. 677 ; 53 J. P. 132 ; 37 W. R. 433 767, 842, 843 Tuam (Archbishop) p. Robeson (1828) 5 Bing. 17 ; 2 Mop. & P. 32 6 L.J. 5i, 525 (O. S.) C. P. 199 Tubbs V. Wynne [1897] i Q. B. 74 ; 66 L. J. Q. E. 116 317 Tubervilo. Stamp (1697) i Salk. 13 . . 406, 776 Tuberville v. Savage (1670) i Mod. 3 ; 2 Keb. 545 ; i Vent. 256 431 Tuck V. Priester (i88'7) 19 Q. B. D. 629 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 553 ; 36 W- R. 93 ; 52 J. P. 213 C. 223, 427 Tuck o. Southern Bank (1889) 42 Ch. D. 471 ; 60 L. T. 885 . 941 Tucker, In the Goods 0/(1864) 3 Sw. & Tr. 585 . 1336 34 L. J. P. 29 Tucker, Re [1893] 2 Ch. 323 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 442 ; 69 L. T. 85 ; 41 W. R. 505 ;

Truscott

....

747

..

R- 436 837, 994 v. Linger (1883) L. R. 8 App. Ca. 508 52 L. J. Ch. 941 ; 49 L. T. 105,787 373; 32W. R.40; 48J. P.4-H. L. (E.) Tucker . New Brunswick Trading Co. (1890) 44 Ch. D. 249 59 L. J. Ch. 551; 63 L. T. 69 38 W. R. 741 C. A 376 Tucker v. Newman (1839) 11 A. & E. 40 396 Tuff V. Warraan (1858) 5 C. B. N. S. 573 27 L. J. C. P. 322 5 Jur. (N. S.) 222 6 W. R. 693 ^ 333 Tufnello. Borrell (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 194; 44 L. J. Ch 756 ; 23 W. R. 717 Tugwell, Re (1884) 27 Ch. D. 309; 53 L. J. Ch. 1006; L. T. 83 33 W. R. 132 1362 Tulk V. Moxixay (184B) it Beav. 571 804, 807 Tullay B. Read (1823) i C. & P. 6 435 Tullett V. Armstrong (1838) i Beav. i 8 L. J. Ch. 19 2 Jur. 912; 4 My. &
3
. .

Tucker

....
;
; .

.......
; . :
'

C.377; 9L.
Tullidge
v.

Wade
;

Tunbridge Wells
L. T. 385

. . J. Ch. 41 . (1769) 3 Wils. 18 (Mayor of) . Baird [1896]


.

45
.

A. C. 434
;

370, 467, 468, 469 65 L. J. Q. B. 451 j '74

60 J. P. 788-^H. L. (E.) Tupper V. Foulkes (1861) 9 C. B. N. S. 797 7 Jur. (N. S.) 709 ; 9 W. R. 349

381,777
30 L. J. C. P. 214
;

3 L. T., 741

Tupper V. Tupper (1855) i K. TurnbuU, Re [1905] i Ch. 726

Jur. (N. S.) 917 ; 3 W. R. 616 . 74 L. J. Ch. 438 ; 53 W. R. 440 ; Turner, Re (1872) 41 L. J. Q. B. 142 ; 25 L. T. 907 Turner, iJe [1897] i Ch. 536; 66 L. J. Ch. 282; 76 L. T. 116; 45 W. R.
J.

&

665

811 1250 1266

-441
1122

495 Turner, Re [1907] 2 Ch. 126

76 L.

524C. A

J.

Ch. 492

96 L. T. 798
;

23 T. L. R.
1

138

Turner v. Ambler (1847) 10 Q. B. 252 11 L. J. Q. B. 158 6 Jur. 346. 491, 493 Turner v. Bennett (1841) 11 L. J. Exch. 453 9 M. & W. 643 642 Turner o. Buck (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 301 43 L. J. Ch. 583 22 W. R. 748 1272 Turner P. Cox (1853) 8 Moo. P. C. C. 288 1372 Turner v. Ford (1846) 15 M. & W. 212; 15 L. J. Ex. 215 414 301' Turnero. Hockey (1887) 56 L. J. Q. B.
;
.

...
.
.

.415

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Turner v. Turners. Turner o. Turner v.
; ;

ccxxiii
PAGE

Marriott (1867) L. R. 3 Eq. 744 ij L. T. 607 ; 15 W. R. 420 840 Mason (1845) 14 M. 112; 14 L. J. Ex. 311 209,213 Meyers (1808) I Hagg. Con. 414 1171,1175 Meymott (1823) i Bing. 158 7 Moore, 754 i L. J. (O. S.) C. P. R. R. 612; 79 Mob. 574 31 25 83 Turner v. Robinson (1833) 5 B. & Ad. 789 ; 2 N. & M. 829 ; 6 Car. & P. 15
.

&W.

209, 213

Turner
49

v.

Sawdon

[1901] 2 K. B. 653

W. R. 712
;

70 L. J. K. B. 897
;

85 L. T. 222
208, 222

Smith [1901] i Ch. 213 70 L. J. Ch. 144 83 L. T. 704 ; 49 W. R. 186; 17T. L. R. 143 Turner v. Stallibrass [1898] i Q. B. 56 ; 67 L. J. Q. B. 52 ; 77 L. T. 482 46
Tiirner v.

Sig

W.

R.
v.

81C. A

331, 336
.

(i888> 13 P. D. 37 ; 57 L. J. P. 40 ; 58 L. T. 387 ; 52 . 36 W. R. 702 1177 ; Turner v. Turner (1783) i Bro. C. C. 317 ; Amb. 776 Turner v. Wright (i860) 2 De G. F. & T- 234 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 598 ; 6 Jur. (N. S.) 809 ; 8 W. R. 675 ." . . . 557, 563, 668, 786 Turton v. Turton (1889) 4-2 Cli. D. 128 ; 61 L. T. 571 ; 38 W. R. 22 C. A. . 1029 Tussaud V. Tussaud (1878) 9 Ch. D. 363 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 849 ; 39 L. T. 113 ; 26 W. R. 874 1284 Tweddle v. Atkinson (1861) 30 L. J. Q. B. 265 ; 4 L. T. 468 ; 9 W. R. 781
J. P. 151
. . .

Turner

Thompson

-991

Tweedale, Re [1892] 2 Q. B. 216; 61 L.


Morrell,

1067 Twigg's Estate, Re [1892] i Ch. 579 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 444 66 L. T. 604 ; 40 W. R. 297 1317, 1318 Twining . Muscott (1844) 12 Mr & W. 832 591 Twisden v. Lock (1768) 2 Amb. 663 655, 657 Twisden v. Twisden (1804) 9 Ves. 413 7 R. R. 254 1310 Twopenny v. Young (1824) 3 B. & C. 208 J Dow. & Ry. (K. B.) 259 298 Twycross v. Grant (1878) 4 C. P. D. 45 48 L. J. C. P. i 39 L. T. 616 27 W. R. 87C. A. 362 Twyne's Case (1601) 3 Rep. 81 a 1059, 1060 Tyler 0. Tyler [1891] 3 Ch. 252 60 L. J. Ch. 686 65 L. T. 367 ; 40 W. R. 7 C. A. 1077 Tynt V. Tynt (1729) 2 P. Wms. 542 934, 1393, 1400, 1401 Tyrrell's (Lady) Case (1674) Freem. K. B. 304 11 84 Tyrrell's Estate, Re [1907] i Ir. R. 292 1076 Tyrrell v. Painton [i894]'P. 151 70 L. T. 453 ; 42 W. R. 343 6 R. 540 C. A 1259 11 R. Tyrrell v. Painton [1895] i Q. B. 202 ; 71 L. T. 687 ; 43 W. R. 163 589 C. A 1057 . Tyrringham's Case (1584) 4 Rep. 36 b 84, 673, 675, 676, 721 Tyser v. Shipowners' Syndicate [1896] i Q. B. 135 ; 65 L. J. Q. B. 238 ; 73 8 Asp. M. C. 81 L. T. 605 ; 44 W. R. 207 154 Tyson o. Smith (1838) 9 A. & E. 406 (1837^) 6 A. & E. 745 : N. & P. 784 6 L. J. K. B. 189 385, 744. 745. 747

no

..........
J.

103, 104

Q. B. 505

66 L. T. 233

......
; ;
.

....
. .

.......
; ;
. .

....

Udall

V.

777

Atherton (i86i) 7 H. 4 L. T. 797


v.

&

N. 172

30 L. J. Ex. 337

7 Jur. (N.

S.)

542

Udny a. Udny
Underbill

Underwood

(1869) L. R. I Sc. App. 441 . Horwood (1804) 10 Ves. 225 ; affirmed 14 Ves. 28 . 0. Underwood [1894] P. 204 ; 63 L. J. P. 109 ; 70 L. T. 390
;

2,4
-

156
152

6 R. 604

42

W.

R.

372C. A

Digitized

by Microsoft

ccxxiv

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
i

Uneeda Trade Mark [1901]

Ch. 550 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 318 ; 84 L. T. 2595 17 T. L. R. 241 ; 18 R. P. C. 170 ; affirmed [1902] i Ch. 783 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 353 i 86 L. T. 439 ; so W. R. 467 ; 18 T. L. R. 453 ; 19 R. P. C. 281
C.

1025
of
;

Union Bank
'

London
37

o.

Kent

(1888) 39 Ch. D. 238

57 L. J. Ch. 1022

59

L. T. 714

W.

R. 364
.

760
. .

Union Lighterage Co. 0. London Graving Dock Co. [1902] 2 Ch. 557 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 7^1 ; 87 L. T. 381 i 18 T. L. R. 754 C. A. 713,850 United Collieries v. Simpson [1909] A. C. 383 78 L. J. P. C. 129 loi L. T.
; ;

129

25 T. L. R. 678

53 Sol. Jo. 630

46

Sc. L.

R. 780
;

S. C.

364 United Land Co. v. G. E. Ry. (1875) L. R. 10 Ch. App. 586 44 L. J. Ch. L. T. 292 W. R. 896 23 707 685 33 Unity Bank, Ex pane (i 8 58) 3 De G. & J. 63 27 L. J. Kky. 3354 Jur. (N. S.) 348 1257 6 W. R. 640 Unity Joint Stock Banlf 0. King (1858) 25 Beav. 72 27 L. J. Ex. 585 . . 840 4 Jur. (N. S.) 470 ; 6 W. R. 264 Universal Stock Exchange v. Strachan [1896] A. C. 166 65 L. J. Q. B. 428 ; 3">3i2 74 L. T. 468 44 W. R. 497 60 J. P. 468 University College v. Taylor [1908] P. 140 77 L. J. P. 20 98 L. T. 472 24 T. L. R. 29 C. A 1239 Upton Cottrell Dormer, Re (1915) 84 L. J. Ch. 86i ; 112 L. T. 974; 31 T. L. R. 260 1357
; ; . ; ;
. .

H.

L. 19

:
'

...
; ;

Upton

o.

Dawkin
v.
.

Urq'uhart

(1686) 3 Mod. 97 Butterfield (1887) 37 Ch. D. 382


. .

.......
;

701

57 L.

J.

Ch. 521

750 Urquhart . Macphersop (1878) L. R. 3 App. Ca. 831 Uruguay, &c., Ry., Re (1879) 11 Ch. D. 372 ; 481.
571

...

....
;

58 L. T.

2,3
35

J.

Ch. 540
;

27

W. R.
1007
;

Usill V. Hales (1878) 3 C. P. D. 319 W. R. 371 ; 14 Cox C. C. 61

47 L.

J. C. P.

323

Ussher [1912] 2 Ir. R. 445 ' ^6 I. L. T. 109 Utley, iie[i9i2] W. N. 147; 106L. T. 858; 56 Sol. Jo. 518 Ussher
v.

....
.
. . . .

38 L. T. 65

26
516 1157 1123

Vachell

v. JeflEereys

(1701) Pre. Ch. 170

63 L. T. 128 38 W. R. 516 Valentine v. Canali (1889) 24 Q. B. D. 166 59 L. J. Q. B. 74 ; 61 L. T. 731 38W. R. 331; 54J. P. 295 Valentine v. Hyde [1919] 2 Ch. 129; 88 L. J. Ch. 326; 120 L. T. 653 63 Sol. Jo. 390 35 T. L. R. 301 Valentini v. Canali (1889) 24 Q. B. D. 166 59 L. J. Q. B. 74 ; 61 L. T. 731

Vadala

v.

Lawes {1890) 25 Q. B. D. 310

.......
; ;

1310 323
23

480

38W.
Valpy,

R. 331; 54J. P. 295


[1906]
; ;

,974

i Ch. 531 ; 75 L. 94 L. T. 472 54 W. R. 401 1397 J. Ch. 301 Vandenbergh c. Spooner (1866) L. R. i Ex. 316 35 L. J. Ex. 201 14 L. T. .101 701 4 H. & C. 519 14 W. R. 843 Vane v. Lord Barnard (1716) 2 Vern. 738 576, 786, 791 Van Gheluive v. Nerinckx (1882) 21 Ch. D. 189; 51 L. J. Ch. 929; 47
; ;

Re

....
, .

L. T. 46

30

W.

R. 789
; ;
;

Van Grutten v. Foxwell [1897] A. C. 658 66 L. J. Q. B. 745 Vanneck v. Benham [1917] i Ch. 60 86 L. J. Ch. 7 115 L. Van Straubenzee, Re [1901] z Ch. 779 70 L. J. Ch. 825
;
; ;

77 L. T. 170 T. 588 . 85 L. T. 541 ;


.

1376 660 1312


1121

17T. L. R. 755 Vardon's Trusts, Re (1885) 31 Ch. D. 275 34 W. R. 185 Vaughan . Atkyns (1771) 5 Burr. 2764
. .

...

55 L. J. Ch. 259

53 L. T. 895 : 906, 976, 1280

...

752

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Vaughan
6 L.
v.

ccxxv
PAGE

Menlove (1837)

3 Bing.
;

N. C. 468

4 Scott, 244
.

3 Hodges, 51

Vaughan

P. 92 ; I Jur. 215 7 Car. & P. 525 Taff Vale Ry. (i860) 5 H. & N. 679 ; 29 L. J. Ex. 247 ; (N. S.)899; 2L.T. 394; 8W. R. 549 Vaughan o. Watt (1840) 6 M. & W. 492 ; 9 L. J. Ex. 272 Vautin, Re [1899] 2 Q. B. 549 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 971 ; 48 W. R. 96 6
J. C.
v.

....
.

199, 402, 776 6 Jur.


.

829 Veal (1859) ^7 Beav. 303 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 321 2 L. T. 228 6 Jur. (N, S.) 527 8 W. R. 2 .11^1292 Venables o. Foyle fi66o) I Cha. Ca. 2 h. 819 Venezuela Co. v, Kisch (1867) L. R. 2 H. L. 99 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 849 ; 16 L. T. 500; 15 W. R. 821 541 Vernon's Case (1572) Dyer, 317 a ; 4 Co. Rep. i a ; Benl. 210 ; 3 Lton. 28 1322 Vernon o. Keyes (1810) 12 East, 632 ; 4 Taunt. 488 538 Vernon 0. Wright (1858) 7 H. L. C. 35 562 Verrall v. Robinson (1835) 2 Cr. M. & R. 49; ; 4 Dowl. 242 ; i Gale, 244 5 Tyr. 1069 419 Verry v. Watkins (1836) 7 C. & P. 308 469 Vibart v. Coles (1890) 24 Q. B, D. 364 .59 L. J. Q. B. 152 62 L. T. 551 ; 38 W. R. 359-C. A 1379 Vicars o. Wilcocks (1806) 8 East, i . 504 Vicars Choral of Litchfield v. Ayres (1639) Sir W. Jones, 435 672 Vickers v. Bell (1864) 10 L. T. 77 10 Jur. (N. S.) 376 ; 12 W. R. 589 1333 Villar V. Gilbey [1907] A. C. 1 39 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 339 96 L. T. 5 1 1 23 T. L. R. 392 "L26, 1074 Villareal c. Melhsh (1737) 2 Swans. 533 . 1215 Villers c Beaumont (1682) i Vern. 100 813 Villers v. Monsley.(i769) 2 Wils. 403 . 524 Vine, Ex parte (1878) 8 Ch. D. 364 38 L. T. 730 26 47 L. J. Bky. ii6 W. R. 582 28 Viner v. Francis (1789) 2 Cox, igo 2 Bro, C. C. 658 ; 2 R. R. 29 1286 Viner v. Vaughan (1840) 2 Beav. 466 574, 790 102 L. T. 141 ; 26 Vines, In the Estate qfiigio] P. 147 ; 79 L. J. P. 25 .IS 1240 T. L. R. 257 54 Sol. Jo. 272 ' Vinkinstone v. Ebden (1697) Carth. 357 69^ Vint V. Padget (1858) 2 De G. & J. 61 1 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 21 4 Jur. (N. S.) 1 1 22 > 6W. R, 641 834 C. A. . Vizetelly v. Mudie [1900] 2 Q. B, 170 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 645 506, 507, 544 Vogan & Co. V. Oul.ton (1898) 79 L. T. 384 195 Von Buseck, In the Goods o/(i88i) 6 P. D. 21 1 51 L. J. P. 9 ; 46 J- P- 104 . 1243 30 W. R,..i40 Von Hellfield v. Rechnitzer [1914] 1 Ch. 748 ; 83 L. J. Ch. 521 no L. T. . 31A 877; 58 Sol. Jo. 4I4^C. A Von Joel V. Hornsey [1895] 2 Ch. 774 65 L. J. Ch. 102 73 L. T. 372 C. A. 375, 376, 401 Voss' and Saunders' Contract [191 1] i Ch. 42 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 33 103 L. T. 810 493 ; 5S Sol. Jo. 12 Vowles p. Miller (i8io) 3 Taunt. 137 779 1246 Vynior's Case (1610) 8 Co. Rep. 81 b ; i Brownl. 62 2 Brownl. 290 Vyse V. Foster (1874) L. R. 7 H. L. 318 44 L. J. Ch. 37 31 L. T. 177 1417 23 W. R. 355 Vyse V. Wakefield (1840) 7 M. & W. 126 ; 8 D. P. C. 61 1 ; affirming 9 L. J. Ex.
391
B.
:

329,344,776 tt. 419 Mans.


.

Veal

....
; . . .
.

....... ......

; .

274

''

"S
2

Vyvyan

&
C.L.

Arthur (1823) i B. & C. 410 Ry. K. B. 670 ; 25 R. R. 437


v.
'

L. J. (O. S.)

K. B. 138

Dow.
1363

Digitized

by Microsoft

ecxxvi

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
. -^ .

(':' R. (1876) I P. D.i 405 1177 J 108 Wade's. Case (1600) 5 Rep. 115 Wadham .-'Marlowe(i785)'8 East, 314 n ..J'. 549 Wadhurst o. Damme (1604) Cro. Jac. 44. '' 361, 703 100 L. T. 955. 882 W^gstaff's S. E., Re [1900] 2 Ch. 201 78 L. J. Ch. 513 WaidaiiisjJ?ci[igo8] * Ch. 123 77L. J. Ch. 12; 97 L. T. 707 1107 100,101 , Wain 0. WaMters (1804) 5 East, 10

W.

o.

'

......
;

...
.
,

Wainewright, i?e,(i843) I Phill. 258 567 Wainford v. Heyl (i875).L. R. 20 Eq. 321 44 L. J. Ch. 567 ; 33 L. T. 155 ; 23.W. R. 848 3481 1098 Waite V. Jennings [1906] 2 K. B. 11 75 L. J. K. B. 543 54 W. R. 511 22 T. L. R. 510 631, 632 95 L. T. I Waite V. Moriand (1888) 38 Ch. D. 135 59 L. T. 185 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 655 1197 36 W. R. 484 Waite V. N. E. Ry. (1858) E. B. & E. 719 28 L. J. Q. B. 258 5 Jur. (N. S.) .. . 333 936; 7 W. R. 311 Waites o. Franco-British Exhibition {1909) 23 T. L. R. 441 C. A. 458 .1176 Wakefield o. Mackay (1807) I Phill. 134 Wakeham 11. Merrick (r867)'37 L. J. Ch. 45 17 L. T. 134 ; 6 W. R. 73 995 Wakelin v. L. & S. W. Ry. (1886) L. R. 12 App. Cas. 41 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 229 51 J- P- 44 H. L. (E.) 55 L. T. 709 35 W. R. 141 Waldock V. Winfield [1901] 2 K. B. 596 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 925 85, L. T. 202 : 17 T. L. R. 661 C. A 107 L. T. 657 Walford;. Walford [1912] A. C. 658 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 828 56 .Sol. Jo. 631 1271 50 Sc. L. R, 602 Walgham v. Key (1766) 2 Wils. 296 697 Walker, Re [1.901] i Ch. 879 70 L. J. Ch. 417 ; 84 L. T. 193 49 W. R. 394 1 135 Walker, Re [1905] i Ch. 160 74 L. J. Ch. 86 91 L. T. 713 53 W. R. 177 C. A. .26, 917, 977 Walker, Re [1908] i Ch. 560 52 Sol. Jo. 77 L. J. Ch. 370 ; 98 L. T. 524 .1. 280 1241, 1242 Walker, Re [1908] 2 Ch. 705 77 L. J. Ch. 755 99 L. T. 469 927 Walker ._(E. V.),s(a2e 0/(1912) 28 T. L. R. 466 ^^^alkero. Baird [1892] A. C. 491 61 L. J. P. C. 92 . 67 L. T. 513 341 Walker .0. Bentley (1852) 9 Hare, 629 735 Walker o. Bradford Old Bank (1884) 12 Q. B. D. 511 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 280 32
. ;
,

: '

.33 .351
.

'

.......
; ;
. . .

..

.."..
;

;
.

-917

'

W.R.
Walker
,,(

645

37 L. J. Ch. 33 ; 17 L. T. 135 ; ; 59 Walker:!!. Crystal Palace Club [1910] i K. B. 87 Walker v. G. W. Ry, (1867) L. R. 2 Ex. 228 ; 36 L. J. Ex. 123 ; i6 L. T. 327 ; ;''l; ,{,..' . 15W. R. 769 ,. Walker v. Hodgson [1909] i K. B. 239 ; 78 L. J. K. B. 193 : 99 L. T. 902 -o.
'

Brewster (1867) L. R. 5 Eq. 25

.........
.

'

142J 1050, 1051


'

16

W. R.

402 458
229
509,

510,5"
Walker Walker
[1907] 2 Ch. 104 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 500 ; 97 L. T. 92 760, 761 a. MSdland Ry. (18S6) 2 T. L. R. 450 ; 14 L. T. 796 ; 55 I,. T. 489'; 822 51 J. P. 116 H. L. (E.) Walker v. Mottram (i88l) 19 Ch. D. 355 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 108 ; 45 L. T. 659 ;
v.

Linom

30

Walker

W. R. 165 C. A v. Needham (1841)

220.

Walker .OijSojuthall (1887) 56 L.T. 882 Walker c. Witter (1778) I Doug. I Walker a. Yorks &'N. Mid. Ry. (1.853) 2 El. 23L. J. Q. B. 73; 18 Jur..i43; 2W. R. i

..........
3

103
i

M. & G. 557

4 Scott (N. R.) 222

D. (N. S.)

&

Bl.

.....
750
;

422 127 3i3s 99


1

2 C. L. R. 237";

252

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Wallace
v.

ccxxvli
PAGE

Kelsall (1840) 10 L, J. Ex. 12

7 M.

& W.

264

8 D. P. C. 841

4 Jur. 1064 157 Wallace v. Pomfret (1805) 11 Ves. 542 ; 8 R. R. 241 1281 Wallace v. Universal Automatic Machines Co. [1894] 2 Ch. 547 70 L. T. lou 852; 7 R. 316; I Mans. 315 C. A Waller v. Loch (1881) L. R. 7 Q. B. 619 ; 45 L. T. 242 30 W. R. 18 527 Wallingford v. Mutual Society (1880) L. R. 5 App. Cas. 685 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 831 49 43 L. T. 258 29 W. R. 81 Wallis V. Hands [1893] 2 Ch. 75 62 L. J. Ch. 586 68 L. T. 428 41 W. R. 612 471 3 R. 351 Wallis V. (Duke of) Portland (1797) 3 Ves. 494 496 Wallis V. Smith (1882) 51 L. J. Ch. 577 ; 46 L. T. 473 121, 138, 139 Wallwyn v. Lee (1803) 9 Ves. 24 7 R. R. 142 557, 765 Walpole V. Orford (1797) 3 Ves. 402 ; 4 R. R. 38 1246 Walrond v. Walroud (1858) 28 L. J. Ch. 97 4 Jur. (N. S.) 1099 7 W. R. 96, 139 33 ; John. 18 Walsh V. (Bishop) Lincoln (1875) L. R. 10 C. P. 518 44 L. J. C. P. 244 32 L. T. 471 728 23 W. R. 829 Walsh V. Trimmer (1867) L. R. 2 H. L. 208 36 L. J. Q. B. 318 16 L. T. 722; 15 W. R. 1150 73')732 Walsh o. Walley (1874) L. R. 9 Q. B. 367 43 L. J. Q. B. 102 22 W. R. 571 213 Walsh 0. Wallinger (1830) 2 Russ. & M. 78 Taml. 425 9 L. J. (O. S.) Ch. 7 875, 876 Walsh o. Walsh (1695) Pre. Ch. 54 : Eq. Ca. Abr. 24 pi. 7 1308 1 R. 627 62 L. J. P. 88 Walter D. Wallet, The [1893] P. 202 69 L. T. 77^ 494 Walter v. Everard [1891] 2 Q. B. 369 60 L. J. Q. B. 738 65 L. T. 443 39 W. R. 676 55 J. P. 693 21, 217 Walter v. Selfe (1851) 4 De G. & Sm. 315 20 L. J. Ch. 433 15 Jur. 416 393,4' Walter o. Yalden [1902] 2 K. B. 304 71 L. J. K. B. 693 87 L. T. 97 51 W. R. 46 ; 18 T. L. R. 668 650, 763, 766, 847 Walters v. Green [1899] 2 Ch. 696; 68 L. J. Ch. 730; 81 L. T. 151 ; 48 W. R. 23 ; 63 J. P. 742 484 Walters v. Morgan (i86i) 3 De G. F. & J. 718 4 L. T. 758 39, 191 Walters v. Walters (1881) 18 Ch. D. 182 50 L. J. Ch. 819 44 L. T. 769 1380 29 W. R. 888 Walton V. Jacobson (1765) i Hagg. 346 1340 Walton 0. Mascall (1844) 13 M. & W. 452 2 D. & L. 410 14 L. J. Ex. 54 115, 294 131 Walton 0. Walton (1807) 14 Ves. 318 Wandsworth Board v. United Telephone Co. (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 904; 53 L. J. Q. B. 449; 51 L. T. 148; 32 W. R. 776; 48 J. P. 676
.

'

C.

381
v.

(1700) i Salk. 299 Ward's and Knight's Case (1588) i Leon. 231 Ward V. Duncombe [1893] A. C. 369 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 881

Wankford

Wankford

133S, 1339

682
;

69 L. T. 121

42

'

W. R. 59 1 R. 224 Ward V. Eyre (1615) 2 Bulstr. 323 Ward V. Hobbs (1878) 4 App. Cas. 13 73; 27W. R. 114 H. L. (E.) Ward D. Macauley (1791) 4 T. R. 489 Ward B. National Bank of New Zealand
;

"53
937
;

48 L. J. Q. B. 281

40 L. T.
328

382,409
(1883) 8 App. Cas. 755
;

52 L. J.

P. C. 65 ; 49 L. T. 315 Ward V. Petifer (1634) Cro. Car. 362

153,301 7'6

P2

Digitized

by Microsoft

ccxxviii

TABLE OF CASES

;,,

Paul (1789) 2 Bro. C. C. 583 . , . . . . izi6 V. Turner (1752) 2,Ves. Sen. 431 923, 1291, 1293 . Wallis [1900] i Q. B. 675 82 L. T. 261 39 69 L. J. Q. B. 423 V. Weeks (1830) 7 Bing. 211 ; 4 Moo. & P. 796; 9 L. J. (O. S.) C. P. 6 507 Wardrop, Goods 0/ [19 17] P. 54 86 L. J. P. 37 ; 115 L. T. 720 ; 61 Sol. Jo. 171 1247 ., 33 T. L. R. 133 Ware t). Chappell (1649) Style, 186. . l -.iff 134 .- > .4^2 Ware v. Motor Trades Association (1921) 37 T. L. R. 213 :'... Wareham, 5e [1912] 2 Ch. 312 ; 81 L. J. Ch. 578 107 L. T. 80 56 Sol. Jo. '. 613 C. A1121 Waring 0. Dewberry (1717) cited in R. v. Mann, 2 Stra., at p. 757 1348 Waring o. Ward (1802) 7 Ves. 337 5 R. R. 130 317,828 Warlow c. Harrison (1859) ' El. & El. 295 ; 29 L. J. Q. B. 14 ; 6 Jur. (N. S.) 66; 8 W. R. 95 , Warneford . Thompson (1797) 3 Ves. 513 1410 Warner o. Borsly (1679) 2 Rep. in Cha. 79 929 Watner . Riddiford (1858) 4 C. B. (N. S.) 180 . 440 Warren v. Kslson (1858) i Sw. & Tr..290 ; 28 L. J.: P. 122 5 jur. (N. S.) 415; 7W. R. 348 1351 Warren. Warren (1834) i C. M. & R. 250; 4 Tyr. 850;. 3 L. J. Ex.
w. St.
; ; .
,

Ward Ward Ward Ward

.....
.
,

PAGE

-..

......
.

...
.

.24s
.
'

'.

294

Taunt. 379 Warrick 0. Queen's College, Oxford (1871) L. R. 6,Ch. App. 716 Warrington (? Harrington) p. Wise (1596) 2 RoUe, M. 449, 450.
i).

Warren

Webb

(1808)

Warwick Warwick

v.

Greville (1809)

Phil!.

123

v.

Warwick

(19 18) 34 T. L. R. 475

....... .......
.
:

-519
391
,'

/f

,-.

6o6'

k// XI
.

C. A.

'

. .

Warwickero. Bretnall (i88z) 23 Ch. D. 188;


;
,

31
;

W.

Wasdale, Re [1899] i Ch. 163 68 L. J. Ch. 117 15 T. L. R. 1154 97 47 W. R. 169 Wason V. Walter;(i868) L. R. 4 Q. B. 73 8 B. & S. 671 : 38 L. J. Q. B. 34 17W. R. 169 19 L. T. 409 509,514,526 Wasserberg, fie [1915] I Ch. 195 112L. T. 242; 59 Sol. 84 L. J. Ch. 214 1291,1292 Jo. 176. Wastneys o. Chappell (1714) 3'Brp. P. C. 50 580,581 Waterer w. Freeman (1620) Hob. 266 : Brownl. 12 ; Noy, 23 . 494 Waterhouse B. Waterhouse (1905) 94 L. T. 133 471 Waterman. 0. Soper (1698) I Ld. Raym. 737 780 Waters, Re (1889) 42 Ch. D.; 517 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 750 61 L. T. 431 ; 38 W. R. 1272 57 Watkin V. Hall (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 396 ; 9 B. & S. 279 ; 37 L. J. Q. B. 125 ; 18L. T. 561 ; 16W. R. 857 . 500,504,507,508,524 Watkins, Ex parte. (1752) 2 Ves. Sen. 470 > 1218 Watkins, Ex parte (1873) L. R. 8 Ch. App. 520 42 L, J. Bky. 50 ; 28 L. T. .' 958 7?3,; 21 W. R. 530 Watkins' Settlement, Re [191 1] i Ch. i ; 80 L. J. Ch. 102 ; 55 Sol. Jo. 63
; ; ; ; ;

R. 520 79 L. T. 520

622 1337 322 1120

.......... .....
.
.

..... ...
.
.

,':

'

C. A.

,'

904.

Watkins 484 Watkins


'

b.

Lee (1839)

M.

& W. 270

7 Dowl. 498

8 L. J.

Ex. z66

3 Jur.
.

Overseers of Milton (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 350 ; 37 L. J. M. C. 73 ; 18L.T. 601 ; i6W. R. 1059 . Watkins o. Scottish Imperial Co. (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 285 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 495 ; 60 L. T. 639 ; 37 W. R. 670 Watkins v. Vince (1818) z Stark. 368 . . Watling V. Lewis [1911] i Ch. 414 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 242 ; 104 L. T. 132 . .
w.
. . .
'

.......
.

494
616
8
'

24

1415

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
;

CCXXIX

Wat8on,iie(i886)i8Q. B. D. ii6; 56 L. J. Q. B. 78 35W. R. 290; (1887) 57L. T. 215; 35 W. R. 709 19Q. B. D. 234; 56 L. J. Q. B. 619
C.

1347, 1348

44 780 480 74 L. J. P. C. 151 93 L. T. 489 512 D. Macquire (1848) 5 C. B. 836 530 V. Mid-Wales Ry. (1867) L. R. 2 C. P. 17 593 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 285 L. T. 94; 15 W. R. 1107 143 Watt 0. Watt [1905] A. C. 115 21 T. L. R. 386 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 438 69 J. P. 449 ; 53 W. R. 547 92 L. T. 480 H. L. 369, 372 Watteau v. Fenwick [1893] i Q. B. 346 67 L. T. 831 41 W. R. 222 56 5 R. 143 55, 229 J. P. 839 Watton V. Watton (1866) L. R. i P. & M. 227 35 L. J. P. & M. 95 ; 14 L. T. 1186,1191 742; 15 W. R. 288 Watts V. Ball (1708) i P. Wms. 108 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 727 cited 2 Vern. 681 752,
;

Watson

V.

Gray (1880) 14 Ch. D. 192


28 W. R. 438 MacEwan [1905] A.
;

49 L.

J.

Ch. 243

42 L. T. 294

J. P.

537

Watson Watson Watson

V.

C.

.......
;
.

'3'3 Eraser (1835) 7 C. & P. 369 7 A. & E. 223 505, 522 ti. Kelson (1870) L. R. 6 Ch. App. 166 40 L. J. Ch. 126 ; 24 L. T. 710 209 19 W. R. 833 Watts V. Shuttleworth (i86i) 7 H. & N. 353 29 L. J. Ex. 229 7 Jur. 10 W. R. 132 (N. S.) 94S 5 L. T. 58 299 Waugh V. Morris (1873) L. R. 8 Q. B. 202 42 L. J. Q. B. 57 28 L. T. 265 21 W. R. 438 41 Weatherston 0. Hawkins (1786) i T. R. no Weaver o. Bush (1798) 8 T. R. 78 82, 435 Weaver v. Ward (16 16) Hob. 134 Moor. 864 26, 329, 347, 380, 432 Webb's (Jehu) Case (1608) 8 Rep. 45 b. 697 Webb V. Beavan (1883) Q. B. D. 609 52 L, J. Q. B. 544 49 L. T. 201

Watts Watts

V.

.527

47

Webb Webb Webb Webb Webb


Webb
C.

. J. P. 488 . Beauvoisiii (1862) 31 V.

504, 524

V. V.

De Fox

Beav. 573 Peake's Add. Cas. 167 (1797) 7 T. R. 391 ; 4 R. R. 472 Lawrence (1797) 7 T. R. 398 ; 2 D. P. C. 8i ; I C. & M. 806

1391

421
;

Tyr. 906
V.

414
(1823)
i

Needham

V.

Rhodes (1837)

212
V.

......
3
;

Add. 494 Bing. N. C. 732

1337

4 Scott, 497

6 L. J. C. P,

Webbs.

Russell (1789) 3 T. R. 393 Stanton (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 518

237 803
52

A
V.

J.

Q. B. 584

49 L. T.

4321055 580

Webb

Webb
v.

J Q. B. 485 47 L. T. 215 47 A. Webber v. Smith (1689) 2 Vern. 103 114 L. T. 214 ; 60 85 L. J. K. B. 944 Weber, Ex pane [1916] i A. C. 421 80 J. P. 249 Sol. Jo. 306 32 T. L. R. 312 H. L. (E.) Weblin v.. Ballard (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 122 55 L. J. Q. B. 395 54 L. T. 53 2; 450, 5 J- P- 597 34 W. R. 455 Webster . Cecil (1861) 30 Beav. 62 38, B. 73 12 Jur. 243 17 L. J. Q. Webster v. Watts (1847) 11 Q. B. 311
; ;

Webber

P. Wms. 132 Lee (1882) 9 Q. B. D. 315 ; 51 L.


(1710)
i
;

J. P.

30

W. R. 866 C.

715 629

31A
451 127

Webster Webster

v. o.

Webster (1726) 2 P. Wms. 347 Webster (1804) 10 Ves. 93 ; 7 R. R. 35 r


.

435 1267 1344

Wedd
C.

V.

Porter [1916] 2 K. B. 91
v,

85 L. J. K. B. 1298
;

115 L. T. 243

A
de Bernardy (1908) 24 T. L. R. 497
25 T. L. R. 21

Wedgerfifild

629, 791

C. A,

499

Digitized

by Microsoft

ccxxx

TABLE OF CASES
;

Wednesbuiy Corporatioil v. Lodge Holes Colliery [1907] i K. B. 78 76 L. J. K. B. 68 71 J. P. 73 23 T. L. R. 80 5 L. G. R. 95 L. T. 815


;
; ; ;

C. A. ; [1908] A. C. 323 ; 77 L. J. K. B. 847 ; 99 L. T. 210 J. P. 417 ; 24 T. L. R. 771 ; 25 Sol. Jo. 620 ; 6 L. G. R. 924 Weedqp v. Timbrell (1793) 5 T. R. 357
.

43

72
.

398
471

Weekes' Settlement, Re [1897] I Ch. 289 66 L. 45 W. R. 265 Weekly v. Wildman-(i698) i Ld. Raym. 405
;

J.

Ch. 179

76 L. T. 112
.

875, 876, 1263

717

Birch (1894) 69 L. T. 759 550,811 . Goode (1859) 6 C. B. N.'S. 367 967 v. Tibold (1605) i RoUe Ab. 6 33, 86 Weinberg . Ogdens (1905) 22 T. L. R. 58 C. A,: 141 Weir Hospital Case [19 10] 2 Ch. 124 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 722 102 L. T. 26 T. L. R. 519; 54 Sol. Jo. 600 C. A. 1112 Welch V. National Cycle Co. (1886) W. N. 96 lOII Welcome v. Upton (1840) ,6 M. & W. 536 7 Dowl. 475 9 L. J. Ex. '54 679 Weld 0. Hornby (1806) 7 East, 195 701 Weld-Blundell v. Stevens [1920] A. C. 956 89 L. J. K. B. 705 64 Sol. Jo. 529 ; 36 T. L. R. 640-H. L. (E.) 337, 369 Weldono. De Bathe (1884) 54 L.J. Q.B. 113; 14Q. B. D. 339; 53 L. T. 520 ; W. R. 328 33 525 Wellaway o. Courtier (1917) 62 Sol. Jo. 161 381 34 T. L. R. 115 Wellesley . (Duke of) Beaufort (1827) 2 Russ. i 2 Bligh. (N. S.) 124 ; (1831) 2 R. & M. 639 1214, 1215, 1220. 1230 , Wellesley v. Mornington (1855) 2 K. & J. 143 i Jur. (N. S.) 1202 871 Wellocko. Hammond (1590) Cro. Eliz. 204 664 Wells . Foster (1841) 10 L. J. Ex. 216 8 M. & W. 149 5 Jur. 464 95 Wells . Head (1831) 4 C. & P. 568 361 Wells 0. Kingston-tapon-HuU (1875) L. R. 10 C. P. 402 44.L. J. C. P, 257 32 L. T. 615 ; 23 W. R. 562 Wells V. Ody (1836) 5 L. J. Ex. 199 i M. & W. 452 : 2 Gale, 12 5 D. P. C, ; I Tyr. & G. 715 7 Car. & P. 410 95 391 Wells o. Smith [1914] 3 K. B. 722 iii L. T. 83 L. J. K. B. 1614 30 T. L. R. 623 539 Welsh o. Welsh (1852) i Drew. 64 1233 B. 836; i C. L. R. 592 Wenman v. Ash (1853) 13 C. 22 L. J. C. P. 190 17 Jur- S79 ; I W. R. 452 595 Wenmoth's Estate, Re (1887) 37 Ch. D. 266 57 L. J. Ch. 649 57 L, 36 W. R. 409 1287 709 Wennallo, Adney (1802) 3 Bos. &P. 247; 6 R. R. 780 209 Wennhak v. Morgan (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 635 57 L. J. Q. B. 241 59 L. T. 28 52 J. P. 470 36 W. R. 697 505 Wernher, Re [1918] 2 Ch. 82 87 L. J. Ch. 372 n8 L. T. 388 62 Sol. Jo, T. L. R. 391 C. A 503 ; 34 125s West, Ex parte (1784) i Bro. C. C. 575 i P. Wms. 275 1289 West, Re [1909] 2 Ch. 180 L. J. Ch. 559 loi L. T. 375 78 1268 West V. Baxendale (1850) 9 C. B. 141 19 L. J. C. P. 149 442 West . Errissey (1726) 2 P. Wms. 349 655 West o. Gwynne [1911] 2 Ch. I 631 West V. Smallwood (1838) 3 M. & W. 418 6 Dowl. 580 7 L. J. Ex. 144 440 West . Treude (1630) Cro. Car. 187 764 West V. Williams [1899] i Ch. 132; 68 L. J. Ch. 127; 79 L. T. 575 47 W. R. 308 C. A. 817,827
o.
.

Weeks Weeks Weeks

.......
; ; ; ; . ; ;

.....
.

........
; ;
.

...... .......
;
;

Westburne

0.

Mordant (1590)

Cro, Eliz. 191

......
;

305

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Western
v.
;

ccxxxi

[1897]

C-A

Bailey [i8g6] z Q. B. 234 ; 65 L. J. Q. B. 64.1 75 L. T. 210 I Q. B. 86 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 48 ; 75 L. T. 470 45 W. R. 115


;

551
; ;
.

Western Wagon Co. v. West [1892] i Ch. 271 61 L. J. Ch. 244 66 L. T. 402; 40W. R. 182 West Ham (Charity, etc.) 0. East London Waterworks [1900] i Ch. 624 69 L. J. Ch. 257 ; 82 L. T. 85 ; 48 W. R. 284 West Ham Guardians v. Bethnal Green [1896] A. C. 477 65 L. J. M. C.
;

201

785

75 L. T. 286 ; 60 J. P. 240 ; Westlake o. Adams (1858) 27 L. J. C. P. 271 (N. S.) 1021 201

West Leigh

Colliery Co.

..........
;

5 C.

B. N.
.

S.

248
.

4 Jur.
.

"

985

94
373
8

Westman v. 24 W. R. 405
Westmeath
.

Tunnicliffe [1908] A. C. 27 Aktiebolaget Co. (1876) i Ex. 237;


v.

Salisbury (1831) 5 Bligh. N. S. 340 42 Westminster 0. Gerrard (1632) 2 Bulstr. 346 1210,1213 West of England Bank, Re (1879) '^ Ch. D. 823 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 604 41 L. T. 27 ; 27 W. R. 869 1388 West of England Fire Insce. Co. v, Isaacs [1897] i Q. B. 226 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 36 ; 75 L. T. 564 C. A 307, 318
;

..... .....
.
,

45

L. J.

Ex. 327;

Weston's Case (1576) 3 Dyer 347 a. Weston, Re [1900] 2 Ch. 164"; 69 L. 467 Weston, Re [1902] i Ch. 680 71 L. 294; 18 T. L. R. 326
;
. .

727
;

J.

Ch. 555

82 L. T. 591 86 L. T. 551
.

48
50

W.

R.
1147

J. Ch.
.

343
.

W. R.
;

939,983,1292,1293
Q. B.
;

Westwick

v.

Theodor (1875)
23

L. R. 10 Q. B. 224
v.

44 L.

J.

no
J.

32

L. T. 696.;

W. R. 620
Coleridge [191
;

West Yorkshire Darracq Co.

1]

1 122; 18 Manson, 307 105 L. T. 215 Wetdrillc. Wright (1814) 2 Phill. 243 Wetzlar v. Zachariah (1867) 16 L. T. 432 Whale V. Booth (1785) 4 T. R. 625 n.

......
2 K. B. 326

.219
93 1340 489

80 L.

K; B.

483

n.

Whaley, iJ<;[i908] 1 Ch. 615; 77L. J. Ch. 367; 98 L. T. 556 1356 Whalley v. L. & Y. Ry. (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 131 53 L. J. Q. B. 285 ; 50 L. T. 772 472; 48 J. P. 500 ; 32W. Rj7ii C. A. * Wharton v. Naylor (1848) 12 Q. B. 673 ; 6 D. & L. 136 17 L. J. Q. B. 278 ; 12 Jur. 894 971, 972 6 L. J. Ch. 195 i Jur. 133 .1101 Wheatley v. Purr (1837) i Keen, 551 Wheatley . Wheatley (1814)2 Haggj Con. 175 1170 Wheaton e. Maple & Co. [1893] 3 Ch. 48 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 963 69 L. T. 203 41W. R. 677 851,852,853,857 Wheelero. Montefiore (1841)2 Q.B. 133; i 0. & D. 493 ; 11 L. J. Q. B. 34 410 6 Jur. 299 Wheeler o. Morris (1914) 84 L. J. K. B. 1435 "3 L- T. 644 C. A. Wheeler o. Thorogood (1589) Cro. Eliz. 127 . Wheeler o. Whiting (1840) 9 C. & P. 262 Whidborne e. Ecclesiastical Commissioners (1877) 7 Ch. D. 375 ; 47 L.
.
.

...........
;

4 Dougl. 36 n.

2 R. R.
.

1406

...........
.

....
.
. . .

129

37 L. T. 346
V.
:

Whincup
74
;

Hughes (1871) L. R. 6 C. P. 78 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 104 ; 24 19 W. R. 439 Whistler's Case (161 3) 10 Rep. 63 a . Whistler v. Webster (1794) 2 Ves. Jr. 367 ; 2 R. R. 260 Whiston's Settlement [1894] i Ch. 661 5 63 L. J. Ch. 273 ; 70 L. T. 681

42

W, R, 327; 8R-

175

7H

ccxxxii
'

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
; ;

'4

Whitaker, Re [igoi] i Ch. 9 70 L. J. Ch. 6 83 L. T. 449 ; 49 .. i7T.;L. R.:24' 1. , Whitbourne v. Williams [1901] 2 K. B. 723 70 L. J. K. B. 933
.

W. R.
;

106

1.

271

'.

Whitbread Whitbread

East, 522 597 & Co. t'. Watt [1901] iCh. 911 ; 70 L. J. Ch. 515 ; 84L.T.419; 49 W. R. 534 ; [1902] I Ch. 835 ; 71 L. J. Gh. 424 ; 86 L. T. 395 ; 50 -5 '5 W. R. 442; 18T. L. R. 465 . 119,840 Whitby V. Mitchell (1890) 44 Ch. D. 85 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 485 ; 62 L. T. 771 ; 38 W. R. 337 66i Whitby o. Roberts (1825) McCle. &Yo. 118 408,411 Whitby o. Van Luedecke [1906} i Ch. 783 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 359 ; 94 L. T. 432 ;
v.

Jenney (1804)

......
.

. 1388, 85 L. T.
.

1389

466

Cavanagh [1902] A. C. 117 71 L. J. K. B. 400 85 L. T. 349; 50 W. R. 218 ; 9 Manson, 351 White's and Hindle's Contract, In re (1877) 7 Ch. D. 201 47 L. J. Cfa. 85
v.
;
.

54W. R. 415 Whitchurch (George) Ltd,


.

654,662
;
.

542

37 L. T. 574 26 W. R. 124 White's Charities, i?e [1893] I Ch. 659 White o. Bayley (1861) 10 C, B. N. S. 227
;

656 77&

30 L. J. C. P. 253
;

7 Jur. (N. S.)


;

948

Beetpn (1861) 7 H. & N. 42 30 L. J. Ex. 373 7 Jur. (N. S.) 735 4L. T. 474; 9W. R. 751 Wjhite V, Bluett (1853) 23 L. J. Ex. 36 ; 2 C. L. R. 301 2 W. R. 75 White 0/ Coleman (1673) I Freem. 134 White V. James (No. 2) (1858) 26 Beav. 191 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 179 ; 4 Jur. (N. S.) .:; 1214; 7W. R. 35

.643
13s

White

V.

87 680 837 236 428


409,

White V, (Lady) Lincoln (1803) 8 Ves. 363 ; 7 R. R. 71 . Whiteo. Mellin[i895]A. G. 154; 64 L. J. Ch. 308 11R.141; 72
. ;

L. T. 334
.

5
.

43 W. R. 353 ; 5? J- P- 628-H. L. (E.) , 21 L. J. C. P. 185 Wljite V, Morris (1852) 11 C. B. 1015


. ;

.,

16 Jur. 500
i

White White

V.

Riley (1920) 64 Sol. Jo. 725


.
,

36 T. L. R. 849
;

[1921]

Ch.

338,
.

410
480

C. A.
V,

Spettigue (184,5) 13 M.

& W.
.
;

603
.

i
.

Car.
_

&
.

331 White, o..Stenning [1911] 2 K. B. 418 80 L. J. K. B. 1124 27 T. L. R. 395 C. A. 55 Sol. Jo. 441 1054 White V, Siimmers [1908] 2 Ch. 256 77 L. J. Ch. 506 ; 98 L. T. 845 24 .1 T. L. R. 552657 White V. Tyndall (1888) 13 App. Cas. 263 ; .57 L. J. C. P. 1 14 ; 58 L. T. 741 ; J.).' 52J. P. 675H.iL.(Ir.) 153,155,157 Whitehall 0. Squire (1691) i Salk. 295 1347 Whitehead, Re [1913] 2 Ch. 5,6 82 L: J. Ch. 302 108 L. T. 368 ; 57 Sol. Jo. 1266 323 Whitehead o. Palmer [1908] i K. B. 151 77 L. J. K. B. 60 ; 97 L. T. 909 ;
.

99 ; ^ J"'' 70, White , Stedman [1913] 29T. L.R. 563


;

...,:
3
.

K. 673
. ;

14 L. J. Ex.
.

K. B. 340
.

82 L. J. K. B. 846
.

...
.

477

109 L. T. 249; .104 L. T. 876 ;


.
.

.......
. . .

24!. L.R.
Whitehtiuse
v.

41

>l

.11..

1341,1366
372 1112

Fellowes (1861) lo C. B.-N. S. 765 ; 30 L. J. C. P. 306 ; 4 L. T. . . . 177; 9W. R.:557'. Whiteley, iJe (1911) 55 SoL Jo. 291 Whiteley v. Adams. (1863) 15 C. B. N. S. 392 ; 33 L. J. C' P. 89 ; 10 Jur; (N. S.)47.o; 9L-T.483; i2iW. R. 153 . . Whiteley 0. Delaney![i9i4] A. C. 132 ; 83 L. J. Ch. 349 : 116 L. T. 434 ; 58
>
;

.5,8

Sol. Jo.

2j8H.

L..

(E.)

.830

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES

CCXXXIU'

Whiteley v. Hilt [1918] 2 K. B. 808 ; 87 L. J. K. B. 1058 ; 62 Sol. Jo. 717 34 T. L. R. 592 C. A. 95 Whiteley v. Learoyd (18S6) 33 Ch. D. 347 1113 Whiteley v. Pepper (1877) 2 Q. B. D. 276 ; 46 L. J. Q. B. 436 36 L. T. 588 25 W. R. 607 355 Whitfield, Re [191 1] i Ch. 310 ; 80 L. 103 L. T. 878 27 T. L. R, J. Ch. 263 55S0L Jo. 237 203; "74 Whitfield V. Bewit (1724) 2 P. Wms. 240 786, 789 Whitfield V. Despeneer (1778) 2 Cowp. 765 429 Whitfield v. S. E. Ry. [1838) E. B. & E. 115 27 L. J. Q. B. 229 4 Jur, ' (N. S.) 688 6 W. R. 545 11,521 Whitgift o. Barrington (1622) Winch, 31 763 Whiting o. Burke (1870) L. R. JO Eq. 539 ; 6 Ch. App. 342 297 Whitley !). Roberts (1825) McCle. & Yo. 107 924 Whitmore-Searle v. Whitmore-Searle [1907] 2 Ch. 332 76 L. J. Ch. 576 97
. . . .

...

.'

;_

L. T. 160

568
(1890) 45 Ch. D. 320
;

Whittaker

v.

Kershaw

60 L.

39 W. R. 23 C. A Whittingham's Case (1603) 8 Rep. 42 b Whittington v. Gladwin (1826) 5 B. & C. 180 Whittle V. Henning (1848) 18 L. J. Ch. 51 ; 2 Ph. 731 12 Jur. 1079 Whitwood Chemical Co. v. Hardman [1891] 2 Ch. 416 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 428 64 L. T. 716 ; 39 W. R. 433 C. A Whitworth v. Hall (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 695 9 L. J, (O. S.) K. B. 297
. ; ;

J.

Ch. 9

63 L. T. 203
i,

1269 901 504 75


128
487,

490

M. & W. 63 ; 10 L. J. Ex. 153 Wickin8 0.Wickin8[i9i8]P. 265; 87L.J.P.155; 119L.T.268; 62

Wickham
583
;

v.

Hawker

(1840) 7

673, 722

1191 1201 34 T. L. R. 447 C. A Wicks !!. Fenthani (1791) 4 T. R. 247 49 Wiehe . Dennis (1913) 29 T. L. R 250 204 Wigford V. Gill (1591) Cro. Eliz. 269 398 Wiggan 0. Branthwaite (1699) 12 Mod. 259 700 Wigglesworth 0. Dallinson (1779) i Dougl. 201 624 Wigmore v. Jay (1850) 5 Exch. 354 19 L. J. Ex. 300 14 Jur, 837 449 Wilbraham . Snow (1670) 2 Wms. Saund. 47 410, 414 Wilby V. West Cornwall Ry. (1858) 27 L. J. Ex. 181 2 H. & N 703 ; 4 Jur. 6 W. R. 225 (N. S.) 284 250 Wilcox V. Steel [1904] i Ch. 212 73 L. J. Ch. 217 89 L. T. 640 ; 68 J. P. 146C. A 695 Wild's Case (1599) 6 Rep. 16 b 562, Wild V. Harris (1849) 18 L. J. C. P. 297 7 C. B. 999 7 D. & L. 114; 13
.

.... .... ....


.
'

Sol. Jo.

Jur. 961

. Wilde V. Minsterley (1639) i RoUe Ab. 565 Wilkes B. Hungerford Market Co. (1835) 2 Bing. N. C. 281 Wilkes . Spooner [1911] 2 K. B. 473 80 L. J. K. B. 1107 27 T; L. R. 426 C. a. 55 Sol. Jo. 479
; ; . . . . .

........
; ;
. . .

129 713 773


;

104 L. T. 911

757,804,

141

870 Wilkie o. Holme (1752) i Dick. 165 Wilkins V. Carmichael (1779) i Doug. loi 964, 968 61 Sol. Jo. 117 L. T. 81 Wilkinson, Re [1917] i Ch. 620 86 L. J. Ch. 511 . 1242 414 33 T. L. R. 267 1274 Wilkinson v. Adam (1813) i Ves. & B. 452 12 R. R. 255 1218 Wilkinson v. Boulton (1665) i Lev. 162 221, 228 Wilkinson v. Coverdale (1793) i Esp. 74 Wilkinson 0. Downton [1897] 2 Q. B. 57 66 L. J. Q. B. 493 76 L. T. 493 45 W.R. 525 445,454,523
; ; ; ; .

...

'

Digitized

by Microsoft

ccxxxiv

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
; ;

Wilkinson

Gibson (1867) L. R. 4 Eq. 162 36 L. J. Ch. 646 ; 16 L. T. 733 15W. R. 983 1316 Wilkinson . Hall (1837) 3 Bing. (N. C.) 508 ; 4 Scott, 301 3 Hodges, 56 ; 6 L. J. C. P. 82 622 Wilkinson 0. Haygarth (1847) 12 Q. B. 837 16 L. J. Q. B. 103 11 Jur 104 387 Wilkinson v. Johnson (1824) 3 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 58 ; 5 D. & R. 403 3 B. * & C. 429 149 Wilkinson 0. Lindo (1840.) 7 M. &W. 81 158 Wilkinson v. Lloyd (1845) 7 Q- ^- ^7 '4 L- J. Q. B. 165 ; 9 Jur. 328 320 Wilkinson v. Oliveira (1835) i Scott, 461 i Bing. (N. C.) 490 94 Wilkinson . Parry (1828) 4 Russ. 272 1109 Wilkinson. Proud (1843) II M. &W. 33 12 L. J. Ex. 227 ; 7 Jur. 284 719 Wilkinson v. Verity (1871) L.. R. 6 C. P. 206 40 L. J. C. P. 141 24 L. T. R. 604 204, 422 32 ; 19 W. Wilkinson) v. Wilkinson (1871) L. R. 12 Eq. 604 40 L. J. Ch. 242 24 L. T. 314; 19 W. R. 558 1179 Wilks o. Groom (1856) 3 Drew. 584 25 L. J. Ch. 724 ; 2 Jur (N. S.) 681 4 W. R. 697 1404 Willans v. Taylor (1829) 7 L. J. (O. S.) C. P. 250 ; 6 Bing. 183 3 Moo. & P. 350 49") 492) 493 Willatts V. Kennedy (1831I 8 Bing. 5 i M. & Scott, 35 94 Willcock 11. Terrell (1878) 3 Ex. D. 323 39 L. T. 84 C. A. . 999 Willi 0. St. John [1910] I Ch. 325 L. J. Ch. 239 io2 L. T. 383 26 79 T. L. R. 405 ; 54 Soil Jo. 269 806 Willeters. Dobie (1856) 2 K. & J. 647; 4 W. R. 669 .'1182 WilUts 0. Green (1850) 3 C. & K. 59 214 Willett B.Winnell (t687) I Vern. 488 . Williams' iEstate, Re (1872) L. R. 15 Eq. 270 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 158 28 L. T. 17 1376 61 L. T. 58 Williams, i?e (1889) 42 Ch. D. 93 : 58 L. J. Ch. 451 869 Williams, He [1897] 2 Ch. 12 66 L. J. Ch. 485 76 L. T. 600 45 W. R. 519 C. A. 1097 Williams, iJc [1904] i Ch. 52 73 L. J. Ch. 82 89 L. T. 580 50 W. R. 318 .20T. L. R. 54 . 1373,1379,1380 Williams, Re [1915] i Ch. 450 no L. T. 569 84 L. J. Ch. 578 1279 Williams o. Arkle (1875) L. R. 7 H. L. 606 45 L. J. Ch. 590 ; 33 L. T. 187 24W. R. 215 1305 Williams v. Ashton (i860) i J. & H. 115 3 L. T. 177 1253 i H. L. C. 200 Williams -v. Bayley (1866) L. R. 35 L. J. Ch. 717; 12 Jur. (N. S.) 875 ; 14 L. T. 802 37 Williams v. (Duke of) Bolton (1784) i Ves. Sen. 545 668 Williams . Bosanquet (1819)1 B. & B. 238; 3 Moore, 500; 21 R. R. 585 610, 611, 629 Williams v. Carwardine (1833) i N. & M. 418 ; 4 B. & Ad. 621 ; 5 Car. & P. 566 2 L. J. K. B. loi 91 Williams . Eady (1893) 10 T. L. R. 41 C. A. 333 Williams, o. Gesse (1837) 3 Bing. N. C. 849 7 Car. & P. 777 5 Scott, 56 3 Hodges, 131 420 Williams v. G. W. Ry. (1874) L. R. 9 Exch. 157 ; 43 L. J. Ex. 105 31 L. T. 124 22 W. R. 531 334 Williams v. Groucott (1863) 4 B. & S. 149 32 L. J. Q. B. 237 ; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 1237; 8L. T. 458; II W. R. 886 Williams v. Hensman (1861) i J. & H. 546 30 L. J. Ch. 878 ; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 771 5 L. T. 203 1092 Williams v. James (1867) L. R. 2 C. P. 577 708 Williams V. Jones (1826) j B. c& C. 108 ; 7 D. & R. (K. B.) 549 ; 29 R. R. 18I 267
i).
;

...........
;
;

... .......
; ; ; ; ;

......... ...........
; ; ;

.831
.

...

.......... ....
;

....
;

'

.784

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams Williams
v. v.

ccxxxv

& W. 628 ; 2 D. & L. 680 ; 14 L. J. Ex. 145 (1873) ^8 L. T. 232 ; 21 W. R. 386 v. Millington (1788) i H. Bl. 181 ; 2 R. R. 724 . v. Morgan [1906] i Ch. 804 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 480 ; 94 L. T. 473 v. Moss Empires [191 5] 3 K. B. 242 ; 84 L. J. K. B. 1767 ; 1 13 L. T. 560; 31 T. L. R. 463
Jones (1845) 13 M.

Mason

323 350
65

830
145

IJ.

Mostyn (1838) 4 M. & W. 145


B.
;

530 225

v. North's Navigation Collieries [1906] A. C. 136; 75 L. J. K. 334 ; 94 L. T. 447 ; 54 W. R. 485 70 J. P. 217 Williams v. Ocean Colliery Co. [1907] 2 K. B. 422 76 L. J. K. B. 1073 L. T. 150; 23 T. L. R. 584 Williams v. Scott [1900] A. C. 499 69 L. J. P. C. 77 82 L. T. 727 W. R. 33 16 T. L. R. 450 Williams v. Smith (1888) 22 Q. B. D. 134 58 L. J 21 59 L, T. 757 ;
; ; . ; ; ;
.

97

462
49
1125

37

W. R. 93 ; 52 J. P. 823 505, 508 Williams e. Sorrell (1799) 4 Ves. 389 142 Williams v. Stern (1879) 5 Q- ^- ^- 49 49 L- J- Q B. 663 42 L. T. 719 28 W. R. 901 C. A 145 >oo L. T. 630 Williams o. Thomas [1909] i Ch. 713 78 L. J. Ch. 473 1320 Williams v. Williams (18 10) 12 East, 209 563 Williams v. Williams (1882) 20 Ch. D. 659 51 L. J. Ch. 385 46 L. T. 275 1402 46 J. P. 726 30 W. R.'438 15 Cox, C. C. 39 Williams v. William^ ['9] Ch. 152 69 L. J. Ch, 77; 81 L. T. 804; 48 W. R. 245 1393 1281 Williamson v. Naylor (1834) 3 Y. & Coll. (Ex.) 208 Willion V. Berkley (1562) i Plowd. 223 813 Willis, Re [1902] i Ch. 15 50 W. R. 70 ; 85 L. T. 43671 L. J. Ch. 73
.

C.

A.

1
;

130

Willis V.

Baddeley [1892] 2 Q. B. 324

61 L. J. Q. B. 769
.

69 L. T. 206

Willis

40 VV. R. 597 V. Jermin (1589) Cro. Eliz. 167 WiUis V. Willis (1865) 34 Beay. 340 34 L. J. Ch. 313 ; 13 W. R. 77 i Moore, 133 18 R.R. 525 Willison V. Patteson (18 17) 7 Taunt. 439 103 L. T. 447 Willmott V. London Road Car Co. [1910] 2 Ch. 525
; ;
;

66
811
20,

1324 31A
631 223

27
.

T. L. R. 4;

Willoughby, Ex Willoughby, Re W. R. 850C. A. Willoughby v. Willoughby (1787) i T. R. 763 Wills V. Murray (1850) 19 L. J. Ex. 209 4 Ex. 843 65 L. J. Q. B. 474 Willson V. Love [1896] i Q. B. 626 W. R. 450 C. A
; ;

55 Sol. Jo. 873 parte (1881) 16 Ch. D. 604 ; 44 L. T. iii (1885) 30 Ch. D. 324 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 1122 ;

R. 935 53 L. T. 926 33

29

W.

1232

756
III
;

74 L. T. 580
;

44
39

Willyams

v.

BuUmore

(1863) 33 L. J. Ch. 461


;

9 L. T. 216

32 Beav. 574

41,42 9 Jur. (N. S.) 115; iiW. R. 506 89 L. T. i Wilmer's Trusts, Re [1903] 2 Ch. 411 72 L. J. Ch. 670 I 1074 C. A. Wilmer's Trusts, Re [1910] 2 Ch. iii 79 L. J. Ch. 617; 102 L. T. 5641 568, 661 723 1050 Wilmot V. Alton [1897] i Q. B. 17 45 W. R. 1 13 ; 4 Mans. 17 C. A. 756 Wilmoto. Pike (1845) 5 Hare, 14; 9 Jur. 839 Wilson's Estate, Re (1863) 3 De G. J. & S. 410 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 191 7 L. T. 722 ; 596 u W. R. 294 13 L. T. 576 ; Wilson's Trusts, Re (1865) L. R. i Eq. 247 35 L. J. Ch. 243 sub nom. Shaw v. Gould (l868) 14 W, R. 161 12 Jur. (N. S.) 132 117? Ch. 433 ; 18 L. T. 833 L. R. 3 H. L. 55 37 L.
; ;
'

J.

Digitized

by Microsoft

CCXXXVl

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
the Goods, of {iM6)h.R. I P. . (1878) 8 Ch. D. 364 C. A.

WOsoa, In WUson, Re
Wilson, Wilson,

&D.z6c)
.
'

.1238
366

Re [1907] i Re [1916]!

Ch. 394 Ch. 220

;
,

Ch. 210 85 L. J. Ch. 254

76 L.

J.

;
;

96 L. T. 453 114 L. T. 390


.

1121, 1122 32 T. L. R.
.

. . ^320 150 ; 60 Sol. Jo. 190 :; . . . Wilson O.Allen (1820) I J. & W. 611 ; 21 R. R. 255 Wilson . Brett (1843) II M. & W. 113 ; 12 L. J. Exl 264 199,204,331 Wilson V. Finch-Hatton (1877) 2 Ex. D. 336 ; 46 L. J. Ex. 489 ; 36 L. T. 473 ; . . . 636 25 W. R. 537 ' Wilson II. Fuller (1843) 3Q.'B. 68, 1009; 3 G. cSsD. 570 54' Wilson V. Glossop (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 354 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. i6i ; 58 L. T. 707 ; 36 W. R. 296 ; 52 J. P. 246' 57 Wilson V. Hodson (1872) L. R. 7 Exch. 84; 41 L. J. Ex. 49 ; 20 W. R. .' . . . , ,. . . 438 1345 Wilson V. London Navigation Co. (1865) L. R. i C. P. 61 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 9 ; 13L. T. 435; 12 Jur, (N. S.) 52 ; i H. & R. 29 ; 14W. R. loi . 135 Wilson . Madkreth (1766) 3 Burr. 1824 3261 381 Wilson B. Maddison (1843) 2 Y. & CoU. C. C. 372 ; 12 L. J. Ch. 420 ; 7 Jur.

.605

'. . . 1272 572 Wilson 0. Merry (18.68) i H. L. Sc. 326 448 Wilson V. Queen's Club [1891] 3 Ch. 522 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 698 ; 65 L. T. 42 40 W. R. 172 Wilson V. Phillips (1824) 2 Bing. 13 633 Wilson V. Robinson (1845) 7 Q- ^- ^8 14 L. J. Q. B. 196 ; 9 Jur. 726 527 Wilson V. Sewell (1766) 4 Burr. 1979 36 Wilson o. Strugnell (i88i) 7 Q. B. D. 548 ; 50 L. J. M. C. 145 ; 45 L. T. 218 ., . 14 Cox, C. C. 624; 45 J. P. 831 43 Wilson 0. Tumman (1843) 12 L. J. C. P. 306 6 M. & G. 236 6 Scott, N. R. . .54, 35. 531 894; iDow. &L. 573 Wilson V. Waddell (1876) L. R. 2 App. Cas. 95 ; 35 L. T. 639 783 Wilson V. Wilson (1872) L. R. 2 P. & M. 435 ; 41 L. J. P. & M. 74 ; 27 L. T. 20 W. R. 891 1204 351 Wilson V. Wilson [191 1] i K. B. 327 80 L. J. K. B. 296 ; 104 L. T. 96 ; 18 . Manson, i8 . 1380 Wilton's Settled Estates, Re [1907] i Ch. 50 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 37 ; 96 L. T. 193 ?3 T. L. R. 64 887 Wiltshire o. Sidford (1827); i Man. & R. (K. B.) 404 780' 18 L. T. 38 Wilts. Iron Co. (1868) L. R. 3 Ch. App. 443 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 554 13' 16W. R. 682 Wily 11. Wily [1918] P. i 87 L. J. P. 31 117 L. T. 703 ; 62 Sol. Jo. 55 34 T. L. R. 33 ._ 1179 Wimbledon Conservators o. Dixon (1875) i Ch. D. 362 45 L. J; Ch. 353 ; '; 33 L. T. 679; 24 W. R. 466 C..A. 708 Wimbledon Local Board o. Underwood [1892] i Q. B. 836 61 L. J. Q. B. ./ 67 L. T. 55 40 W. R. 640 56 J. P. '633 952 484 Winans o. A.-G. [1904] A. C. 287 73 L. J. K. B. 613 90 L. T. 721 ; 20 T. L. R. 510 . 2 Winchester (Bishop of) o. Knight (1717) i P. Wms. 406 584, 592 Winohilsea's Trusts, Re (1888) 39 Ch. D. 168 58 L. J.^Ch. 20 59 L. T. 167 . 1120 37 W. R. 77 Windham's (Justice) Case (1589) 5 Rep. 7 a 1094 Windham . Clere (1589) Cro. Eliz. 130 i Leon. 187 489 Windhill L. B. of'Health v. Vint'(i89o) 45 Ch. D. 351 59 L. J. Ch. 608 63 L. T. 366 ; 38 W. R. 738 17 Cox, C. C. 41 42 Wing 0. Angrave (i860) 8 H. L. C. 183 30 L. J. Ch. 65 . 4
.

'

.......
. . . .

...

.834
. .

....
; .
:

.......
; .
.

...... ....
; . . ;

....
; , ;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Wing
Taylor (1861) 2 Sw. 583 ; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 737
V.

CCXXXVll
PAGE

&

Tr. 278

30 L.
;

J.

P.

M. & A. 258
;

4 L. T.
1157,

1173

Wmgrovc v. Wmgrove W. R. 260

(1886) 11 P. D. 81

55 L. J. P. 7

50 J. P. 56

34

1258 Winkfield, The [1902] P. 42 ; 71 L. J. P. D. & A. 21 ; 85 L. T. 688 ; 18 T. L. R. 178 ;. 50 W. R. 246 ; 9 Asp. M. L. C. 259 C. A. 412, 417, 921 Winn, Re [1910] i Ch. 278 ; 79 L. J. Ch. 165 ; loi L. T. 737 . 1286 . Winn V. Ingilby (iSii) 5 B. & Aid. 625 . . Winn V. Littleton (1689) i Vern. 3 818 .

Winsmore
Winstone
126

v.

o.

Winter

v.

(Lord) Anson (1828) 3 Russ. 488

117

Winter v. Mouseley (1819) 2 B. & Aid. 802 Winterbottomo. (Lord) Derby (1867) L. R. 2 Ex. L. T. 771; 16W. R. 15 Winterbottom v. Wright (1842) 10 M. & W. 109
. . . .

............ ...........
;

Greenbank (1745) Willes, 577 Linn (1823) i B. & C. 460 2 D.

&

....788 ......
.
'

470
219 840

R. 465 Sim.
.

L. J. (O. S.)

K.

&

S.

434

27 R.
.

R
i

31

36

L. J.

.991
400

Ex. 194

L./

Ex. 415

329. 336

Winterboume

v.

Morgan

(1809) 11 East, 395

533

Winterburn v. Brooks (1846) 2 C. & K. 16 Wintour e. Clifton (1856) 8 De G. M. & G. 641


(N. S.) 75
;

436
;

R. 129 Wise V. Perpetual Trusted Co. [1903] A. C. 139 72 L. J. P. C. 31 87 L. t" 19 T. L. R. 125 569 ; 51 W. R. 241 Wiseman v. Denham (1623) Godb. 330 Witham v. Bland (1674) 3 Swanst. 277, n. Withers v. Iseham (1552) Dyer, 70 a B. 30 : L. Withers v. Reynolds (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 882 J, K. Withey v. Cottle (1823) Turn. & R. 78 ; i L. J. (O, S.) Ch. 117 Withrington v. Banks (1725) Sel. Ca. Cha. (Macnaghten) 92 Witt, Re (1876) 2 Ch. D. 489 ; 45 L. J. Bky. 118; 34 L. T. 785 ; 24 W. R,
5
; ; i . ; .

W.

...

26

J. L. Ch. 218

3 Jur,

1278

1138 938 873 675 321

49 822 962

891C. A

10 L. J. C. P. 303 ; 3 Scott, Wollaston v. Hakewill (1841) 3 Man. & Gr. 297 N. R. 593 Wollaston v. King (1869) L. R. 8 Eq. 165 38 L. J. Ch. 392 ; 20 L. T. 1003 17 W. R. 641 Wohnershausen v. Gullick [1893] 2 Ch. 514; 62 L. J. Ch. 773 ; 68 L. T,
; ;

1366
1278

753 Woltereck

295, 301
v.
;

Woltereck [1912] P. 201 T. L. R. 532; 56 Sol. Jo. 706


v.
; ;

81 L. J. P. 145

107 L. T. 27
;

28
1

191

Emmons [1901] i K. 84 L. T. 407 49 W. R. 553 C A 429 Wolverhampton & Walsall Ry. 0. L. & N. W. Ry.
Wolverhampton Corpn.
43 L.
J.

B. 515

70 L.

J.

K. B.
127
;

(1873) L. R. 16 Eq. 433

Ch. 131

L. J. Bky. 121 ; 30 L. T. 743 ; ; R. 936 Wood, Re [1896] 2 Ch. 596 ; 65 L. J. Ch. 814 ; 75 L. T. 28 44 W. R. 685 . . Wood V. Beard (1876) 2 Ex. D. 30 46 L. J. Q. B. 100 ; 35 L. T. 866 Woodp. Braddick (1808) 1 Taunt. 104; 9 R. R. 711 Wood V. Downes (181 1) 18 Ves. 120; 11 R. R. 160

Wombwell o. Belasyse (1825) 6 Ves, no, n Wood, Re (1874) L. R. 9 Ch. App. 670 43

127 792

22W,

1172

.... ....
;

674 642 76
41

Wood V.
142

(E. of)
;

Wood Wood

n.
o.

37 Gossage (1921) 37 T. L. R. 302 C. A Hewett (1846)80. B. 913; 15 L. J. Q. B. 247; 10 Jur. 390

Durham (1888) 21 W. R. 222

Q. B. D. 501

57 L. J. Q. B. 547

59 L. T.

521
.

1244 713

Digitized

by Microsoft

CCXXXVlll

TABLE OF CASES
& W.
S38
;

Wood

.lLcadbitter (1845) 13 M.
.

14 L. J. Ex. 161

9 Jur.

187

386, 435i 671, 75

Woodo. Lovatt

(1796)
(1839)
.

6T. R.
1 1
.

511

688
;

Wood V. Manley
1028
.

A.

& E.
.

34

3 P.

...

&

D.

9 L. J. Q. B. 27
.

3 Jur.

386
.

Wood Wood Wood Wood

o.
0. o.

Penoyre (1807) 13 Ves. 333

o.

Rowclifle (1847) 2 Ph. 382 ; Scarth (1855) 2 K. & J. 33 ; Tassell (1844') 6 Q. B. 234

Woodo. Waud

Wood . Wood
.,

(1849) 3 Exch. 748 (1870) L. R. 10 Eq. 220


. . . .

"....... ...
.

. . 9 R. R. 185 '7 L. J. Ch. 83 ; 11 Jur. 915 i Jur. (N. S.) 1107 ; 4 W. R. 31

1270 930 126 922 706

:
'

39 L. J. Ch. 790
.

23 L. T. 295

18

Woodhouse
;

868, 906,975 Walker (1880) 5 Q. B. D. 404 46 L. J. Q. B. 609 ; 42 L. T. 28 W. R. 765 770 405, 576 44 J. P. 666 Woodhouselee w. Dalrymple (1817) 2 Mer. 419 16 R. R. 193 1274 Woodin, Re [1895] 2 Ch. 309 ; ,64 L. J. Ch. 501 72 L. T. 740 ; 43 W. R.
.

W.

R. 819
v.

615

12 R. 302

C. A.

.
,

Woodland . Mantel (1552) Plowd. 94 Woodley o. Midland Ry. (1887) 2 Ex. D. 384
.

46 L.
;

419C. A
Woodmeston o. Walker (1831) 2 Russ. & M. 197 9 L. Woodson V. Nawton (1727) 2 Stra. 777 Woodwatd, In the Goods 0/(1871) L. R. 2 P. & M. 206
. . .
,

J.

Ex. 521

1271, 1413 . 551 36 L. T.


.

33[2

J. (O. S.) Ch.


. .

257
.

995 412
1248

;i

40 L.J. P. 17
. ;

24
.

L. T.

40;
.
)

19W.
Dowse

R. 448
(1861) 10 C. B. N. S. 722
.

Woodward
(N. S.

31 L. J. C. P. 70

8 Jur.

413 ; 9 W. R. 870 Goulstone (1886) L. R. 11 App. Gas. 469 56 L. J. P. L. T. 790; 35.W. R. 337 Woodwards. Walton. (1807) 2 B. &, P. N. R. 476 Wooldridge . Norris (1868) L. R. 6 Eq. 410 16 W. R. 965 WoolleyK. Broad [1892] I Q. B. 806; 66 L. T. 680 40W. R. 511 WooUey v. Clark (1822) 5 B. & Aid. 744 i D. & R. 409 24 R. R. 546

1324
i
;

Woodward

v.

55

1252
.

464
295 1023
135 1170 107 435 1075

1346, 1347,

Neale (1868) 19 L. T. 93 (1796) 6 T. R. 710 ; 2 H. Bl. 574 ; 3 R. R. 323 Worth ti. Terrington (1844) 13 M. & W. 781 14 L. J. Ex. 143 Worthing Corporation o. Heather [1906] 2 Ch. 532 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 761'! 95 L. T. 718; 22T. L. R. 750; 4L.G.R. 1179 .. Worthington v. Curtis (1875) i Ch. D. 419 45 L.J. Ch. 259 33 L. T. 828 ; ; 24 W. R. 221 Worthington . Morgan (1849) 16 Sim. S47 '8 L. J. 233 ; 13 Jur. 316 Wraggo. Denham (18365.2 Y. &C. (Ex.) 117
o.

Wormald
Worsley

v.

Wood

'

.819
322 275

304 759

Wray Wray
>

o. v.

MJlestDne>(i839) 5 M. & W. 21 Wray [190.5] 2 Ch. 349 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 687

93 L. T. 304

54

W.

R.

136
;
,

Wren

0. Wield (1869) L. R. 4 Q. B. 730 38 L. J. Q. B. 327 ; 20 L. T. 1007 10 B. & S. 51 . , Wright's Trusts, Re (1856) 2 K. & J. 595 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 6?i ; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 465 ; 4 W. R. 541 Wright, In the Goods o/[i893] P. 21 ; 62 L. P. 31 ; 68 L. T. 25 ; 41 W. R.

428
1205 1341

318
Wright,,

R. 476

'.

J.

Re

(1876) 3 Ch. D. 70

977C. A
Wright,
iJc [1906] 2

45 L. J. Bky. 130

35 L. T. 21

24
.

W. R.

Ch. 288

75 L. J. Ch. 500; 94 L. T. 696; 54


>

W.
.

.953
R.
.

5'J

'.

1278

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES
Wright
V.

ccxxxix
PAGE

Anderton [igog] Barlow (1815)


3

K. B. 209

78 L. J. K. B. 165

25 T. L. R. 156

Wright Wright

B.

V.

M. &S. 512; 16 R. R. 339 Callender (1852) 2 De G. M. & G. 652 ; 21 L.

....
Ch. 787
; .
'.

100 L. T. 123

245 96
995

J.

16 Jur.

647
;

Wright o. Colls (1849)80. B. 150; 19L. J. C. P. 60; 13 Jur. 1056 . 320 Wright V. Court (1825) 4 B. & C. 596 6 Dow. & Ry. 623 ; 4 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 17 .442 Wright . Dowley (1773) 2 W. Bl. 1185 573 Wright V. Laing (1824) 4 D. c& R. 783 ; 3 B. & C. 165 27 R. R. 313. 114 Wright . Leonard (1861) 10 C. B. N. S. 258 8 Jur. 30 L. J. C. P. 365
_

(N. S.)4i5; 5 L. T.

Wright Wright Wright Wright Wright


34

t).

Mills (1859) 4

H.

no; 9W. R. &N. 488


i

944

V.

Naylor (1820)

V.
V.

5 Madd. 77 Ramscot (1667) Wms. Saund. 82 Redgrave (1879) 11 Ch. D. 24; 40


. . . .
. ,

....... ...... ....


; . ; ; .

348 67 441

361,
1

407
1

L. T.
. .

206; 27
. ;

W. R.
.

562
.

C. A.
V.

149,
;

50

Robotham

(1886) 33 Ch. D. 106

R. 668 C. A Sanderson (1884) 9 P. D. 149 32 W. R. 560 C. A J. P. 180 Wright V. Simpson (1802) 6 Ves. 734

55 L. J. Ch. 791

55 L. T. 241

W.
0.

349
;

Wright

Wright Wright

V. V.

8W.
Wright
V.

Snell (1822) 5 B. & Aid. 35C^; 24 R. R. 413 Stavert (i860) 29 L. J. Q. B. 161 ; 2 L. T. 175 R. 413; 6Jur. (N. S.)867
;

.......
;
;

53 L. J. P. 49

50 L. T. 769

48
1238

294

260, 963, 965

2 El.

& El.
8

721

382
;

710 Wrightson, Re [1904I 2 Ch. 95 73 L. J. Ch. 742 ; 90 L. T. 748 657, 658 Wrigley V. Gill [1905] i Ch. 241 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 160 92 L. T. 49 53 W. R. 334; affirmed [1906] i Ch. 165; 75 L. J. Ch. 210 ; 94 L. T. 174; 54 W. R. 274 820, 821, 831 Wrixon v. Vize (1842) 3 Dr. & W. 104 2 Con. & Law 138 846 Wrotesley o. Adams (1559) Plowd. 187 656,672 Wulff V. Jay (1872) L. R. 7 Q. B. 756 41 L. J. Q. B. 322 ; 27 L. T. 118 ; 20 W. R. 1030 300 Wyat Wild's Case (1609) 8 Rep. 78 b 675, 676, 680 Wyatt o. Harrison (1832) I L. J. K. B. 237 3 B. & Ad. 871 Wyatt V. Palmer [1899] 2 Q. B. 106 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 709 80 L. T. 639 ; 47 W. R. 549 487 Wyld V. Pickford (1841) 8 M. & W. 443 4:6 Wylie, Re [1895] 2 Ch. 116 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 613 13 R. 483 1256 43 W. R. 475 Wylie V. Birch (1843) 4 Q- B. 566 ; 12 L. J. Q. B. 260 3 Gal. & D. 629 530 Wyman v. Knight (1888) 39 Ch. D. 165 57 L. J. Ch. 886 59 L. T. 164 37 W. R. 76 379 Wynne v. Cockes (1780) i Bro. C. C. 515 605 Wythes, Re [1893] 2 Ch. 369 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 663 68 L. T. 520 ; 3 R. 433 41 W. R. 375 754 Wythes . Lee (1855) 3 Drew. 396; 26 L. T. 192 840
;
.

Vanderplank (1855) 25 L. J. Ch. 753 2 K. & J. i & G. 133; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 599; 4 W. R. 410 Wright V. Williams (1836) 5 L. J. Ex. 107; i M. & W. 77; 375 ; I Gale, 410
;

De
Tyr.

G. M.
35

&

G.

..........
; .
.

.. ......
; ;

.781

Xenos

o.

800; 16

Wickham (1866) W. R. 38

L. R. 2 H. L. 296

36 L. J. C. P. 313

16 L. T.

Yard

v.

Ford (1670) 2 Wms. Saund. 172 (1845

ed.)

....

97
681, 851

Digitized

by Microsoft

ccxl

TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
849 451 1187 987 534

Yarmouth (Mayor) v. Eaton (1763) 3 Burr. 1402 Yarmouth . France (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 647 57 L. J. Q. B. 7 Yarrow . Yarrow [1892] P. 92 61 L. J. P. 69 66 L. T. 383, Yates V. Aston .(1843) 4Q. B. 182 I2 L. J. Q. B. 160 3 Gale &Dav,
:
;

351

Yates V. Eastwood (i85i)'6 Exch. 805 20 L. J. Ex. 303 . Y. B. 47 Edw. III., Mich. pi. 15 (1374) 477 Y. B. 7 Hen. IV., Mich. pi. 15 (fo. 31) (1405) .482 Y. B. II Hen. IV., Mich. pi. 46 (1409) 465 Y. B. 19 Hen. VI., Mich. pi. 59 (1440) 434 Y. B. 22 Hen. VI., Mich. pi. 54 (1443) 496 Y. B. 9,E(iw. IV., Mich. pi. 4(1469) 475 Y. B. 9 Edw. IV., 35 pi. 10 (1470) 386 Y. B. 13 Edw. IV., fo. 9, pi. 5 (1473) 409 Y. B. 21 Edw. IV., fo. 74, pi. 6 (148 1) 412 Y. B. II Hen. VII., Trin. pi. 7 (fo. 26) (1496) . 482, 487 Y.B. 12 Hen. VII., Trin. pi. 2 (fo. 22 a) (1498) 501 Y. B. 21 Hen. VII., 27 b., p!. 5 (1506) 386 Yellowly . Gower (i8S5) n Exch. 274 24 L. J. Ex. 289 626 Yockney v. Hansard (1844) 3 Ha. 620 8 Jur. 822 .. 1275 B. 215 Yonge V. Toynhep [igip] i 79 L. J. K. B. 208 ; 102 L. T. 57; .
!

.... .... .... ....


.

C. A,
of)

61

York's (Archbishop

and Willock's Case (1753)

3 Dyer,
.

327 b

Yorke v. Grenaugh (1703) 2 Ld. Raym. 866*, i Salt. 388 Yorkshire Banking Co. v. Beatson (1880) 5 C. P. D. 109 49 L. J. C. 42 L. T. 455 ; 28 W. R. 879 63 Yorkshire Woolcombers, Re [1903] 2 Ch. 284 ; [1904] A. C. 284 1009 Ex parte ; Kitchin, In re (18,81) 17 Ch. D. 668 50 L. J. Ch, 824 Young, 45 L. T. 90 293? 32 Young, i?e [1912] z Ch. 479 81 L. J. Ch. 817 j 107 JL. T. 380 994 Young Sf Co. -0. Bankier Distillery Co. [1893] A. C. 691 '69 L. T. 838 ;58 100 771 J. P. Young o. Cole (1837) 3 Bing. N. C. 724; 4 Scott, 489 ; 3 Hodges, i 26; 6 L. J. C. P. 201 229 Young 0. Fowler (1639) Cro. Car. 555 ; W. Jones, 310 900, 901 Young V. Hichens (1844) 6 Q. B. 606 D. & M. 592. 408, 920 Young o. (Mayor, &c.) Leamington (1883) 8 App, Cas. 517 52 L. Q. B. 713; 49L. T. i; 3pW. R. 500 96 Young V. Peachey (1741) 2 Atk. 248 813, 1103 Schuler (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 651 L. T, 546 Young V. 62 49 Young 0. Spence;: (1829) lo B. & C. 145 ; 5 Man. & Ry^ (K. B.) 47 L.J. (O. S.) K. B. 106 790 Young 9. Stoell (1632) Cro. Car. 279 742 Young V. (Lord) Waterpark (1839) ^ ^- J- ^^- ^'4 76
.

...

730 205, 964 P 380

'

<

...
;

72 L. J. K. B. 103 ; 88 L. T. 46 [1903] i K.B. 577 R. 343 ; 19 T. L. R. 189 Zouche's Case (1543) Dyer, 557 b Zouche (Lord) "" Dalbiac (1875) L. R. 10 Exch. 172 ; 44 L.J. Ex. 109 ; 33 L. T. 221 ; 23 W. R, 564 Zouche c. Forse (1806) 7 East, 186. Zouch V. Parsons (1765) 3 Burr. 1794 ; i W. Bl. 575 22, Zouch B. Thompson (1695) 3 L?y. 419.; Salk. 210 . . Zwinger . Samuda.(i8i7) 7 T^unt. 265 ; i Moore, 12 Holt, N. P. 395 ; i R. R. 476
Zimbler
51
o.

Abrahams

W.

573 762
551

...... ...
. .
.

598 898 536 923

Digitized

by Microsoft

ERRATA
TABLE OF CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS
PAR.

683 (note). 745 (note).

For " Bolmar " read " Delmar."

The

first

question posed in this note has

now been answered

in the negative, as suggested,

by Johnston

v.

Pedlar (1921)

XXXVII

T. L. R. 867. (note). For " Wills v. Read " read " Wells v. Head." 785 838 (note). For " Harmer " read " Hamer." S'jy (note). For " Seaton " read " Seton."

For " act or " read " act, or an." For " Hardon " read " Harden." 1039 1051 (note). For " 3 D. M. & G." r^ai " 8 D. M. & G." 1058 (line 12). For " I 33 " read " 1833." 1091 (vii.) (note). For " 1984 " read " 1894." 1099 (note). For " (1904) " read " [1904]." 1 109 (note). For " 1894, 8 (i) " read " 1894, s. 8 (i)." 1 1 82. Add footnote : " [Where the talcing effect of a contingent remainder is suspended by the statute, the land will, until the vesting of the remainder, pass as undisposed of by the settlement, if the limitations are legal (Re Scott [191 1] 2 Ch. 374). But where the limitations are equitable, the next vested remainderman will get the income of the land until the contingency happens {Re Conyngham [1921] I Ch. 491). Qutere : Are not all contingent remainders limited by testament now
912
(line 3).
(ii.)

(note).

equitable {Re Robson [1916]


1 1

Ch. 116) ?]."

8 3 (note).

1292 (note).

At end add " ]." For " Law of Property and Amendment Act " read " Law of

Property
1309 (note).
[1921]

Amendment Act." Add at end: "And this view

has been_ followed in ^5ojiofi

Ch. 432." " " " 1334 (vii.) (note). For Llanwrwst r^ad Llanrwst." For " Ulestoater " read " Ullswater." 1335.
I

1389 (line 3). 1529 (note).


c.L.

For "

sale

" read " sale,"

Add

to

note:

"When

of land, chattels

on the land

will be

two persons are fointly in possession deemed to be in the possession


q

Digitized

by Microsoft

ccxlii
of that one of

ERRATA
are

them who is owner of the chattels, even when they husband and Wife {Ramsay v. Margrett [1894] z Q. B. 18;
; ;

French v. Gething (1921) XXXVII T. L. R. 867)." " HuUock, B. " read " HuUock, B.) " 153s (note). For 1540 (i.) (note). For " [1903] " read " [1904]." 161 1 (line 3). For " or " read " of."
1719 (note).
1778
(line 14).

For " (1849) " read" (1850)." For " co-trustee " read " co-trustees."
After " 1822 " add "
).";

1814 (footnote). 1817


(line 6).

For " taken " read " taking." (note (b) ). For " i P. & D. " read " i P. D." 1977 2133 (footnote). For " ee " read " fee."
.,;uf

rm)

^.t."

2203

(ii.)

(note).

For " Drurnmona " read " Drummond."

Digitized

by Microsoft

BOOK
SECTION
PERSONS

GENERAL
I

TITLE
1.

NATURAL
a

PERSONS
Legal

The

legal capacity of

human being com;

mences from the time of

his birth

but for certain "^f"'^


is

purposes (63) a child en ventre sa mire as already born. Legal capacity is not
until the attainment of majority.

treated

complete

[The expression " legal capacity " is used in English Law to the notion of ability to acquire rights cover two different notions (which may be called " passive capacity "), and the notion of the ability to transact legal business ("active capacity"). The former may be said to date from the time of birth, the latter is only completely acquired on the attainment of full age.]

2.

Majority

is

attained at the

commencement of
Keb. 589.

Majority

the day immediately preceding the 21st birthday.


Herbert
v.

Turball (1663)

3.

The

following persons

are, for the

purposes of
less

Legal

in-

English Civil Law, subject to a greater or

degree

'"^"^^

Digitized

by Microsoft

LAW OF PERSONS
viz.

of legal incapacity,

persons undergoing sen-

tence after conviction of treason or felony, outlaws,

minors, persons of unsound mind (vs^hether so found


bj'

inquisition or not), undischarged bankrupts,

mar-

ried

women,

aliens.

(See Bk.

I.

Sect. III. Tit. I.)

Domicile

4.

person having

full legal

capacity

who

reit

sides in a

country with the intention of making

home, acquires a domicile in that country, and retains it until he acquires a domicile elsewhere. No person can have more than one domicile at the same tirne.
his
domicile," which is of great importance in sotnewhat unsettled in English Law. The statement in the text is generally accepted ; but the difficulty of interpretation is great, and the definition of "home'' is continually changing with changes of social habits. For a recent discussion of the subject, see Winans v. A.-G. in the House of Lords [1904] A. C. 287.]
civil matters,
is

[The notion of "


still

Udny V. IJdu^ (1869) L. R. Laws, 958.

Sc.

App. 448.

See Hicty', Conflict of

Domicile of
lunatic
.

5.

lunatic cannot
at

change the domicile which


to

he had

the time
as
v.

when he began

be placed

under restraint
Urquhart

insane.
Butter field (1887) 37 Ch. D. 382.

Official domicile

6.

person in the naval or military service of

the Crown, wherever he

may be

stationed, retains

Digitized

by Microsoft

PERSONS
if that

the domicile which he had on entering the service,

domicile was British.


Re Macreight (1885) 30 Ch. D.
168.

7.

married woman's domicile


husband, even though

is

the same
is

as

Wife's

that of her
living apart
Dolphin
V.

she

in

fact

from him.
effect of judicial

separation, qttcere (Re Mackenzie [191 1]

Robins (1859) 7 H. L. C. 390. As to the I Ch. 578).

8.

The

domicile of a legitimate minor


If his father
is

is

that of

Minor's
'""'"

his father, if living.

dead, and the


is

minor

lives

with his mother, his domicile

that

of his mother, unless the mother has changed her The domicile domicile for a fraudulent purpose. of an illegitimate minor
living
;

is

that of his mother, if


last

if

she

is

dead, (probably) her

domicile.
Butter Id fie

Potinger v.

Re Beaumont [1893] 3 Ch. 490. Wightman (1817) 3 Mer. 67; Urquhart

v.

(^1887) 37 Ch. D. 382.

9.

If a

legitimate minor has no parent


is

living,

Orphan's

his domicile
at

that

which

his
is

surviving parent had

""'"

his

or her decease,*

It

doubtful whether a

guardian (not being the ward's mother) can change


the domicile of his ward,
* Quaere,
the domicile of his guardian, if any. (Dicey, op. Douglas V. Douglas (1871) L. R. 12 Eq. 625.
cit.

120-4.)

Digitized

by Microsoft

4
Change of
minor's
domicile

LAW OF PERSONS
10.

minor cannot by
domicile.
v.

his

own act
i

effect a

change

of his

own

-i

Sharpe

Crispin

(1869) L. R.

P.

&

D. 618.

Domicile of
ortgin

1 1

person

acquired by his

who own

abandons a domicile which he


act,

without acquiring a

new
at

domicile, re-acquires the domicile

which he had
App. 448.

the time of his birth.


Udny
V.

Udny (1869) L. R.

Sc.

Presumption
'j

12.

A person who
is

has not been heard of for seven

'" '

years

presumed

in

law to be dead; but there


at

is

no

presumption in law that he died


time during the seven years.
of death will be rebutted,
that
alive,
it is

any particular

And

the presumption

if

the circumstances

likely that the person in question,


of.
5

shew though

would not be heard


Re Phene's
Bowden
v.

Trusts (1870) L. R,

Henderson (1854) z Sm.

Ch. App. 139, & G. 360.

Simultaneous
'"* '

13.

When

perished in
as to
.A,

two or more persons are shewn to have the same disaster^ there is no presumption
rule
is

the order of their deaths.


often attended with great inconis,

venience, especially
to each other.

[The working of this when

the persons in question are nearly related


that neither of

The

practical result of the rule

the persons can be credited with any rights

which would have acIn the Goods of Beynon

crued to him had he been held to have survived the other.]

Wing
[1,901]
I

V.

Angrave (i860) 8 H. L. G. 183.

P. 141.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE II ARTIFICIAL PERSONS


14. Associations are either corporate or unincorporate.
[There is now no rule of English law to prevent any number of persons associating themselves for a common lawful object, except that not more than ten persons may associate themselves for the
business of banking, and not more than twenty persons
ciate themselves for
Associations

may

asso-

any other business having gain for its object, except as an association under royal or statutory authority (ComBut an unincorporated association is, for panies Act, 1908, s. i).
legal purposes, very little

more than

number of

isolated individuals

employing

common

agents.]

15. Generally speaking, an unincorporated association has

Non-corpo'""

but

no personality which the law

will recognise

"

"^

(a)

The

property of certain classes


is

of unincor-

porated associations
sions

protected by the provi-

of the Criminal
s.

Law
i
;

Larceny Acts, 1861,

68

1868,

s.

Trade Union Act, 1871,

s.

12.

[b\

Certain unincorporated associations,

if regis-

tered or certified as provided by law, are entitled to enforce against their trustees
ficials

and

of-

the due administration of the property

held on behalf of such associations;


Building Societies certified before 1857 (6&7 Will. IV. (1836), c. 32 ; Building Soc. Act, 1874, s. 7 & 1894, s. 25) ; Friendly Societies (Friendly Soc. Act, i896,,ss. 47-50); Collecting Societies (Collecting Soc. Act,

Digitized

by Microsoft

6
1896,
Act,
s.

LAW OF PERSONS
15)
;
;

Religious
Literary,

&

1850)

Artistic,

Scientific

Institutions

Act,

(Trustee Appointment and Scientific Institutions (Literary & 1854) ; Trade Unions (Trade Union Acts,
Educational Societies

1871

&

1876).

(c)

An

unincorporated association, recognised and


is

regulated by Act of Parliament,

liable, to

the extent of
nify persons
ful acts

its

associate property, to

who

have suffered

indemby the wrongof the

of the

officers

and servants

association,

done in pursuance of the objects

of the association;
Toff Vale Ry. Co.
v.

426

(subject, of course,

now

Amalgamated Soc. of Railway Servants [1901] A. to the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, s. 4).

C.

{d)

A
of

Trade

Union
add

is

not

competent, either

originally to include
its

among, or by amendment
to, its

rules to

objects,

something
a

wholly

distinct
as

from the purposes of

Trade

Union
Acts
;

contemplated by the Trade Union

Amalgamated
[See,

Society v. Osborne [1910] A. C. 87.

however, the provisions of the Trade Union Act, 191 3.]

{e)

An

unincorporated association, not being in

fact

formed with an

illegal

object,

may
in

be
de-

restrained

from expelling

member,

fiance of the rules of such association,

from

the

benefits

of membership, or ordered to
if so expelled.
i

'reinstate

him
is

Osborne v. Amalgamated Society [191 1]

Ch. 540.

[Such reinstatement

damages for the breach Union Act, 1871 (fbid.).^

of,

not an attempt to enforce, or recover an agreement within s. 4 of the Trade

Digitized

by Microsoft

PERSONS
16.

Corporations can only be created by the authority of the State, expressed or implied but, after
;

corporation!.

the exercise from time immemorial of the privileges

of a corporation, the necessary authority will be pre-

sumed ("Corporations by prescription").


Case of Sutton' s Hospital {\6\t,^ io Rep. 29.

17.

corporation
its

may

at

any given time

consist,
^'"'P"''"''"'

by the nature of '

constitution, of a single individual

aggregate

("corporation sole"), or of two or more individuals ("corporation aggregate").


gate,

and

sole

But a corporation aggreto one,

whose members have become reduced does not thereby become a corporation sole.
[There
in
is, it

this

The

is believed, no express authority for the last statement but the results of a different ruling would be curious. "corporation sole " is, it is believed, peculiar to English Law.]

18.

Whether an
is is

individual,

who

is

also a corpora-

Corporation

tion sole,

acting in his individual or in his corpoa question

"'

rate capacity,

of fact in each
Str.

case.

Doctor Bentlefs Case (1726) 2

913.

19.

The

domicile of a corporation

is,

in the case
its

Domicile of
""'P'"''"""'

of

a trading corporation, the place in


is

which
its

ad-

ministrative business

carried

on

in the case of

any

other corporation, the place in which


are performed.
Jones V. Scottish Accident Insurance Co. (1886) See Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 154-6.

functions

17

Q. B. D. 421.

Digitized

by Microsoft

LAW OF PERSONS
20.

Foreign
corporation

A
-^^

Corporation
f^^.

which

is

not domiciled in Eng-

j^^^

^j^^

purposcs of English Civil

Law,

foreign corporation.
Carron Iron Co.
v.

Maclaren (1855)

H. L.

C,

436.

a corporation domiciled in England may become " enemy," in fact, its agents are resident in enemy territory, or under the if, control of persons so resident {Daimler Co. v. Continental Tyre Co.

[And

[1916] 2 A. C. 307).]

Powers of
foreign
corporation

21. Subject to the rules affecting British ships, a


foreign corporation can acquire property in England,

and sue and be sued

in the

English Courts, to the


as a

same

extent, and in the

same manner,

British

corporation.
Westman
v.

Aktiebolaget Co. (1876)

Ex. D. 237.

Scottish

and

22.
sued

A
in

Scottish or an Irish corporation cannot be

Irish corporations

the

English

Coutts, even

though

it

has

branches or agents in England.


Watkins
v. Scottish

Imperial Co. (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 285


i

Palmer

v.

The Caledonian Ry. Co. [1892]

Q.

B. 823.

[Apparently this rule now only applies where the proceedings involve service of process outside the English jurisdiction {Logan v. Bk. of Scotland [1904] 2 K. B. 495).]

Constitution

23.

The

constitution of. a corporation aggregate

is

of corporation

determined by the provisions of the charter. Act of


Parliament, statutes, by-laws, or other documents of
its

incorporation

in the case of corporations

by pre-

scription,

by immemorial custom.

Digitized

by Microsoft

PERSONS
to

9
Government
"J

24. Subject to the documents of incorporation, and

immemorial custom, administration of the


is

affairs

of

"''P'"'"*'""

a corporation aggregate

vested in

all

the members,

assembled
ing
is

at a

general meeting.

But, unless the meetit

held on a fixed and regular date,

can only
to

deal with matters of

which notice has been given


time beforehand.

the

members

a reasonable

R. V. Harris (1831) i B. & Ad. 936. R. V. Langhorn (1836) 4 A. & E. 538; Re Bridport Old Brewery It is possible that, if all the corporators Co. (1867) L. R. 2 Ch. App. 191. attended, and waived the question of notice, the objection could not afterwards be raised. {R. v. Chetwynd (i8z8) 7 B. & C. 703-4.)

25. Subject to the documents of incorporation, the


decisions of the

Majority

members assembled
all

at a

meeting are
present at

arrived at by a majority of the corporators present;

but a majority of

the

members must be
(1879)
B.

the meeting to form a quorum.


Re Horbury Bridge
R.
V.

Co.
1

Bower (1823)

&

Ch. D. 115. ' ' C. 498.

26. Subject to the documents of incorporation,

Powers of
corporatioti

27, 28, a corporation has, in the powers and liabilities of an individual, in so far juristic as they are capable of being applied to a

and

to

Ill general, all

person.

But

a statutory corporation, created by, Act

of Parliament for a particular purpose, is limited, as to all its powers, by the purposes of its incorporation,
as

defined by that Act,

controversy, largely academic in character, has long existed as by English Law. to the true theory of the powers of corporations

[A

B 3

Digitized

by Microsoft

lo

LAW OF PERSONS

taken by the text, which is believed to be supported by is, that a corporation is presumed to be capable of doing and suffering anything which an individual can do or suffer, provided that the act or liability is not inconsistent with the very ^ nature of a corporation.]
the best authorities,
Eastern Counties Ry. Co. v. Hawkes (1855) 5 H. L. C. 348 ; Ashbury Railway ^c. Co. v. Riche (1875) L. R. 7 H. L. C. 693 ; A.-G. v. G. E. Ry. Co. (1880) L. R. 5 App. Ca. 473 L. C. C. v. A.-G. [1902] A. C.
;

The view

165.
V.

corporation can even sue for defamation (^South Hetton Coal Co.

N. E. News Ass.

[1894]

business or property {^Manchester Corp. v. Williams


It

Q. B. 133); but only in [1891]

respect of
i

its

Q. B. 94).

jointly with another corporation or individual.

was, until recently, the rule that a corporadon could not hold property But this disability has been removed. (Bodies Corporate (Joint Tenancy) Act, 1899.)

Mortmain

27.

An

assurance, to or for the benefit of a cor-

poration, of any interest in land, otherwise than under

the authority of a Ucence from the

Crown

or an

Act

of ParUament, works a forfeiture of the interest to


the

Crown
roll

or

mesne
and

lord.

No

qorporation (even

with such licence


of court
;

as aforesaid)

can hold land by copy

a corporation sole cannot, except

in so far is expressly authorized

by Act of Parliament

or special custom, acquire personal property. [The " mesne


decessor in
is

lord "

is

primarily* the person

who, or whose preis

title,

has created the interest.


a fee

If the interest in question

life estate,

or a term of years, such person


the interest
is

generally easy to

find.

But

if

simple, then, for reasons

which

will appear in

very likely be impossible to discover the mesne lord. The direct mesne lord has twelve months from the date of the assurance in mortmain in which to enforce his claim each superior lord has six months from the expiry of his immediate
III,
it

Book

will

inferior's right.]

Mortmain & Charitable Uses Act, 1888, s. i. A.-Q. v. Lewin (1837) C. P. Cooper, 54. Co. Litt. 46, b. ; Power v. Banks [1901] 2 Ch. 487.

Digitized

by Microsoft

PERSONS
28. Subject to the exceptions mentioned

below*

Acts of corP"""'^"^

and

in

24, a corporation aggregate (not being a

company incorporated under

the Companies Clauses

Act, 1845, or the Companies Act, 1908) can only execute conveyances and enter into contracts through
the

medium of

its
its

common
is

seal,

duly affixed in ac-

cordance with

documents of incorporation.

But
of
its

every corporation
officials, servants,

bound by the other

acts

and agents, in accordance with the

ordinary rules of agency.

*[The exceptions from-the rule that a corporation aggregate can only execute conveyances and contracts through the medium of its common seal, are not very clear in principle. They appear to com(i) cases of immediate necessity or trifling importance prise (JVelh V. Kingstm-upon-Hull (1875) L. R. 10 C. P. 402); (2)
:

cases in which a trading corporation, incorporated for a particular

purpose, is entering into an engagement in direct pursuance of that purpose (^South W. Colliery Co. v. Waddle (1868) L. R. 3 C. P. 463, and 4 C. P. 617) ; (3) cases in which a corporation, having received the benefit of an executed contract, entered into in pursuance of its ordinaiy business,
is

sued on
i

the contract {Lawford v. Billericay

R. D. Council [iqo'il

K. B. 772.J
v.

Mayor of Kidderminster

Hardtaick'{i%-J'f) L. R. 9 Ex. 13.

Whitfield V. S. E. ^ji. C. ( 1 8 5 8 ) El. Bl. & El. 1 1 5 ; Cornford v. Carlton Bk. Ld. [1899] I Q. B. 392. This is the case, even when express malice Life Assurance Co, v. Brown [1904] is a condition of liability (^Citizens'

A. C. 423).

..

29.

A member
with
the

of a corporation aggregate can


corporation
in
his

Contracts

contract
capacity.

individual

^^^^^^^

Hill'i. Manchester

Waterworks Co. (1833)

5 B.

& Ad.

866.

Digitized

by Microsoft

12
Expulsion

LAW OF PERSONS
30. Subject to the documents of incorporation,

every corporation aggregate has


officers

power
to

to

amove
But

its

and members for reasonable cause.

person

whom

it

is

proposed

amove must be

allowed an opportunity of being heard in his


(defence.
R.
,

own

V.

Richardson (1758)

;?. V.

Saddler's Co. (1863) 10

Burr. 517. H. L. C. 404.

By-lazoi

31. Subject to the documents


every corporation aggregate has
laws,

of .incorporation,

power

to

make

by-

which,

until

repealed,

will

bind the corpoas such.

ration,

and the members of the corporation


its

But the corporation cannot, by


persons

by-laws, affect

who

are not

members of the corporation,


by law to do
so, or (pos-

unless expressly authorised


sibly) unless there is
[In
all

an ancient custom to that

effect.

probability the only corporations

which (apart from ex-

press statutory authority) can claim to affect strangers by their by-

laws, are corporations having control of particular geographical areas.

There are now very few such corporations which do nop derive their powers directly from statute.]
Chili V. Hudson's Bay Co. (1723) 2 P. Wms. 207. The existence of a by-law may be presumed after long usage. [R. v. Ashwdl (1810^. 12 East, 22.)

Heskethw. Braddock (1766)

Burr. 1858.

Enacting
tody

32. Subject to the documents of incorporation,

and

to ancient custom, the

power of making by-laws

belongs to the whole body of the corporators.


R. V. Westwoad (1830) 7 Bing. i. (In that case it was held, that even an express power in a select body to make by-laws did not deprive the whole body of its inherent rights.)

Digitized

by Microsoft

PERSONS
33.

13
Dissolution

by Act of Parliament (any corporation), by the death of all its members or of all the members of an essential part of it
corporation
is

dissolved

(corporations aggregate), by surrender duly enrolled,

by judgment of revocation on

a writ of scire facias

(any corporation created merely by Letters Patent or


Charter), by Order of the Court or other statutory for-

mality

(companies incorporated under or governed

by the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908).


V. Pasmore (1789) 3 T. R. 199. R. V. Osbourne (1803) 4 Easr, 335. Eastern Archipelago Co. v. Ihe Queen (1853) 2 C. L. R. 145. Companies Act, 1908, s. 172.

R.

34.

corporation which

is

subject to the proviloses


its

sions of the

Companies Act, 1908,

legal
for
'

capacity by the

commencement of proceedings
is

winding up.
for the

But the liquidator of the corporation


entitled, subject to the provisions

time being

of the Acts, to administer the property and enforce


the rights of the corporation.
[This category includes many corporations which were not originally incorporated under Companies Acts. (Companies Act, 1908, ss. 268-273 ; Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1876. s. 17.)]

Re

Wiltshire Iron Co., L. R., 3 Ch. App. 443.


s.

Companies Act, 1906,

139.

35.

On
;

the dissolution of a corporation,


estates revert to the

its

frank-

Assets on
'"'"'^*""

almoigne and socage


their heirs
its

donors or

personal property vests in the

Crown.

Digitized

by Microsoft

14

LAW OF PERSONS

[The difference of opinion referred to in the Note below, is not of great practical importance. It is very unlikely that a corporation owning property would be dissolved before the property had been disposed of. In the case of modern corporations, such as trading companies, care is always taken to preserve the existence of the corIn the case of an poration until its affairs have been wound up. ancient corporation, the result of the practical difficulty of discovering the donor's heirs would be to give the property to the Crown. Presumably, the leasehold interests of such a corporation would
also, as personalty, pass to the

Crown.]
256, founded on Co.
the passage.)
Litt.

Blackstone,
see Hargrave's

Commentaries,

II,

13 b.

(But

&

Butler's
is

Note on
its

property jointly
rule,

dissolved,
joint

Jf a corporation holding interests devolve, according to the usual

on the other

tenants

(Bodies Corporate (Joint Tenancy) Act,

1899).

Re Higginson

y Dean [1899]

Q. B. 325.

(It is

doubtful vvhether the

term " personal property " will here include choses-in-action. And it does not include leaseholds. These expire on the dissolution of the corporation (Corporation of Hastings v. Letton [1908] I K. B. 378).)
corporation is dissolved, a new trustee is appointed, the trust property is vested by Order of the Court (Re No. 9 Re Ruddington Land [1909] I Ch. Bomore Road [1906] i Ch. 359
[If a trustee

in

whom

701)0

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION
THINGS
36.

II

The word "thing"


{!))

is

used in English

Law
acts,

Things

to include [a) material objects, not being living

human
which

bodies,

rights or collections of rights, (c)

omissions, and

forbearances.
is

The

sense

in

the word-

is

used

to

be gathered from the context

in each case.

37.

"Things real" include


chattels,

(a) all interests in

land

Things
'^"'

held by frankalmoigne, socage, or copyhold tenure,


(b)
all

such

as

heirlooms, which, unless


interests

alienated inter
in land

vivos,

devolve along with

on the death of

their owner, (c) peerages,

offices, franchises,

dignities,

and other public rights

which

are treated as property, (d) shares in certain


interests in land.

companies owning

[Equivalent expressions are "realty,"

"

real estate,"

"real property. "J

Torre
estate"

v.

Browne (1855)
its

H. L. C. 571.
include

The
in

laxer rules of inter-

pretation applied to the language of testaments allow the expression

" real
{Re

and

equivalents

to

leaseholds

certain

cases

Davison (1888) 58 L. T. 304).


"chattels real."

But leaseholds are, properly speaking,

Drybutter

v.

Bartholomew (1723) z P.
Shares in a

W.

127; Buckeridge

y.

Ingram

by the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, are personal estate, even though the company owns interests in land (Companies Clauses Act, 1845, s. 7 ; Companies Act, 1908, s. 22).

(1795) 2 Ves. Jr. 652. Clauses Act, 1845, or

company governed by the Companies

Digitized

by Microsoft

i6
Things

LAW OF PERSONS
38. " Things personal " include
all

"things" not

f'"""'^

comprised in things real."


[Equivalent expressions are "personalty,"
property."]

"

personal estate," "personal

Corporeai
heredita-

39. " Corporeal hereditajnents "


terests in lands

include

all

in-

ments

which confer the

right to possession

of the land on the person in

whom

they are vested,


to
i

whether they are capable of passing

heirs

by

way of

sixccession,

or not.

[It must be remembered that a freehold estate which is subject only to a term of years is regarded as a corporeal hereditament. The possession of the termor does not destroy the seisin of the freeholder.]

Thus 9 life Denn (i8oo)

interest

in land

may be

a corporeal hereditanient (^Moore v.

B.

for livery of seisin,

the abolition of the necessity terms of years in possession haye also been classed as
P.

&

247).

Since

corporeal hereditaments

There

is

{Tomkins v. yones (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 599). some doubt whether the term "hereditament" does not more

properly apply to the subject matter of the interest, than to the interest itself (^boe v. Allen (1800) 8 T. R. 503). But it apjjears to be difficult
to reconcile this

view with the common practice of describing

a right of

pasture as an incorporeal hereditament.

Incorporeal
heredita-

40. " Incorporeal hereditaments " include


terests in

all in-

ments

'

land

which do not of themselves confer


;

the right to possession


chises, dignities,

and peerages,

offices, fran-

and other public rights which are

treated as property.

Chose-inaction

41.

" chose-in-action " means any right, vested

in a definite person or persons, to obtain

from another.

Digitized

by Microsoft

THINGS
by
legal

17

proceedings, any

money
to

or money's worth,

or any right in the nature of property, whether the

aim of the proceedings be


specific material

get

possession

of a

object, or not.

[The scope of the phrase " chose-in-action " is at present unsettled. Certainly the phrase includes claims to specific material objects, rights to enforce the performance of contracts, stocks, shares, and negotiable instruments ; probably also patents, copyrights, and trade marks ; probably not claims to compensation in damages for torts. (See discussions by various
writers of eminence, in

Law

Quarterly Review, Vols. IX-XI.)]

42.

The term
itself,

" land "

includes,

in addition

to Land

the soil

unworked

minerals, surface and other

water, trees and other vegetation actually growing


in

the

soil,

buildings affixed

to

the

soil,

and

all

articles affixed to

the

soil,

or to any building itself

affixed to the soil, in such a

manner

that they can-

not be removed without perceptible disturbance of


the soil or building ("Fixtures").
[It is, unfortunately, the case that informal documents, e.g. homemade testaments and contracts, often employ the word " land " when The precise scope of the word they mean an interest in land.

such events has usually to be determined by the rest of the docuBut in a testament it may the circumstances of the case. be governed by the Wills Act, 1837, s. 26, and, in an Act of Parliament passed after the year 1850, it is subject (unless the Act expressly provides otherwise) to s. 3 of the Interpretation Act,
in

ment or

1889.J
v. Eraser (1856) 25 L. J. Ch. 360, frequently followed. of the difficulty connected with the law of fixtures is the result of a careless use of terms. An article may be a "fixture," even though a lessee may be entitled to remove it at the expiration of his lease.

Mather

Much

Digitized

by Microsoft

i8
Servitudes

LAW OF PERSONS
43. Eascments, profits, franchises^ and other similar

rights exercised

such, are also

by the owner or occupier of land, as included in the term " land," and pass
of,

on the conveyance

or succession to, the interest

of the owner or occupier, without express words.


Conveyancing Act, 1881,
conveyances made
before
ist
s.

6.

It is

doubtful if this rule applies to

January,

1882.

(See A.-G.

v.

Ewelme

Hospital (1853) 17 Beav. 385.)

Movables

44.

The

extent of the material object included in


is

the description of a movable

a question

of fact

in

each

case.

No

easement, profit, franchise, or similar

right can be annexed to or imposed

upon

thfe

owner-

ship or possession of a movable.


Bagot Pneumatic Ch. 146.

Tyre Co.

v.

Clipper

Pneumatic Tyre

Co.
''

[1902]

by condition or

[As to the possibility of restricting the user or transfer of movables contract, see Bk. III., Sect. IX., Tit. I., 1539.]

Profits

45.
value

The
which

"profits" of a thing
is

mean

the pecuniary

or

may be

derived from the occupa-

tion, exercise, or

enjoyment of the thing.


;

Dunn
E. 40
;

V.

Large. (1783) 3 Doug. 335

Phillips V.

Doe v. Harlow (1840) Homfray (1,883) ^4 Ch. D. 455.

A.

&

Mesne
profits

46.

person liable to pay " mesne profits,"

i.

e.,

the profits of a thing accruing during his unlawful

Digitized

by Microsoft

THINGS
occupation,

19

may be

ordered to pay, in addition to

the value of the premises, the

damage
all

(if

any) suf-

fered by the lawful claimant by reason of the latter's


dispossession; but

he may deduct

sums paid by

him which
Goodtitle V.

the lawful

occupant could have been

compelled to pay.
Doe
I

V.

Tombs (1770) 3 Wils. 118 ; Phillips v. Homfray, ubi sup. Hare (1833) 2 C. & M, 146; Barker v. Brown (1856)
ii;o.

C. B. N.

S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION

III

LEGAL ACTS

TITLE
Convicts

LEGAL

CAPACITY

47.
viz.
{a)

The

following persons have no legal capacity,

and

alien

person

who

is

under judgment of death or

penal servitude, or a proclamation of outlawry,

recorded by a competent Court, upon a charge

of treason or felony
Forfeiture Act, 1870,
ss.

6, 8.

(Outlawry
is

is

not strictly confined to

charges of treason or felony; but the point

of little practical importance.)

(1^)

An alien enemy, having no licence to trade with


the subjects of the Crown.

Willison V. Patterson (1817) 7 Taunt. 439.

[As to the position of an alien enemy, see

-post,

74A.J

Property

48.

The
and
all

property

(including

choses-in-action)

of convict

which belongs
tion,
to

to a convict at the

time of his convicchoses-in-action)

property (including

which he becomes

entitled during the continuance

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS
by the Court, and
is

21

of his sentence, vests in an administrator appointed

by him administered in accord1

ance with the provisions of the Forfeiture Act,

870.

the

[Under the old law, the personalty of a convict was forfeited to Crown, his realty (except in the case of a traitor, whose realty was also forfeited to the Crown) to the next lord of the fee. The Act of 1870 is not retrospective and the old law may possibly still
;

apply in rare cases.]


Forfeiture Act,

1870,

ss.

10, 12-18.

49.
tracts

made by a minor, and all conentered into by him for the repayment of money
testament
all

Minors

lent or to be lent, or for goods (not being necessaries)

supplied or to be supplied, and

accounts stated

with minors, are


active service,
I

void.

Wills Act, 1837, s. 7. There are exceptions in the case of soldiers on and of sailors at sea (In the Goods of Mc. Murdo (1867) L. R. P. D. 540 ; In the Goods of Hiscock [1901] P. 78 ; Wills (Soldiers and

&

Sailors) Act, 1918).

Infants Relief Act, 1874,

s.

I.

50.

minor can enter


services,

into a binding contract.

Necessaries

expressed or implied, to pay a reasonable price for

goods and
tion
in

of

a nature suitable to his condi-

life,

and

actually required by

him

for his

reasonable comfort ("Necessaries").


Cooper (1844) 13 M. 252; Walter v. Everard There is authorSale of Goods Act, 1893, s. 2. ; ity for saying, that a contract of employment, which, in the opinion of the Court, is for the minor's benefit, is binding on him {Clements v. L. N.

Chappie

V.

&W.

[1891] 2 Q. B. 369

Ry. Co. [1894] 2 Q. B. 482

Roberts v. Gray [191 3]

K. B. 520).

Digitized

by Microsoft

.22

LAW OF PERSONS
51.

Necessaries

Whether goods
is

or services can possibly be


a question

classed as necessaries,

of law

whether
is

they were actually required by the minor,


tion

a ques-

of fact in each
Ryder
v.

case.
{\%(i%) L. R.

Wombwell

4 Ex. 32.
is

[The onus of proving the affirmative of the latter question the creditor {Nash v. Inman [1908] 2 K. B. i).]

on

Voidable
acts

52.

conveyance made by or to a minor (other

than a conveyance by way of feoffment under a special

custom), and a "continuing" contract entered

into

by him, are voidable


time
a reasonable

at

the option of the minor,

up

to a reasonable
is

after

he

attains his majority.

What
each

time

is

a question

of

fact in

case.

are somewhat reluctant to compel a purchaser to which depends upon a customary feoffment by an infant (MaskeWs and Goldfinch's Contract [1895] 2 Ch. 525); but in the matter of " continuing " contracts the tendency is to give increased

[The Courts
title

take a

recognition to the capacity of the infant.]


Robinson, Gavelkind, 248, 277, &c. Zouch \. Parsons (1765) 3 Burr. 1805; Inman v. Inman (1873) L. R. 15 Eq. 260; Edwards y. Carter [1893] A. C. 360; Hamilton v. Vaughan-Sherrin Co. [1894] 3 Ch. 589.

Continuing
contracts

53.

"continuing" contract means

contract

(such as a contract
ship, or a contract
liabilities arise

of tenancy, a contract of partnerof service) out of which rights and


to time after the

from time

making

of the contract.

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS
54.

23

minor cannot,

in the absence

of fraud by

Money paid
^^ """'"'

the other party, recover

money
it.

paid by

him under
if

void or voidable contract or conveyance,


received any benefit under
Valentini v. Canali (1889)
2

he has

24 Q.

B.

D. 166

Holmes
Bing.

v.

Moo. 552;

Corpe

v.

Overton (1833) 10
sup.

252;

Blogg (1818) Hamilton v.

Vaughan-Sherrin Co., ubi

55. If money, borrowed

by

minor

for

such

Subrogation

purpose, has been actually expended by

him

in pay-

ment
a

for necessaries, or in acquiring real property

by

conveyance which he has not repudiated, the person

lending the

money

will be entitled to stand in the

place of the person to

whom

the

money
is

has actually

been paid

but a negotiable instrument, given by a


for necessaries,
void.

minor in payment
ently allowed to

[This doctrine, long ago adopted by Courts of Equity, but apparfall into oblivion, has recently been revived in the
case, cited in the note below.
It is

Nottingham Building Society

part of the general principle of subrogation,

by which a fund which

has benefited by an operation, or a series of operations,

with

liabilities

properly incurred
benefited.]
I

in

is charged conducting such operations.

The

doctrine does not extend to impose personal

liability

on the

parties

who have

Earle v.
I

Peak (17 12)

Salk.

387;

Mar low
i

v.

Pitjield

(1719)

P.

558. Thurstan v. Nottingham Building Soc. [1902] Ex parte Margrett [1891] i Q. B. 413.

W.

Ch.

i.

56.

male
.

mmor
,

at

the age of twenty, and a


r
^
^1

Marriage
settlements

female

mmor

at

the age of seventeen, may, on the ^y^,>

Digitized

by Microsoft

24

LAW OF PERSONS
make
a

occasion of his or her marriage, and with the ap-

proval of the Court,


property.

binding settlement of
instrument

But such settlement may not include an


a

appointment under
creating
it

power which

(in the

*)

is

expressly declared not to be exercis-

able by a minor; and every exercise of a

power of

appointment, and every disentailing assurance by any


infant tenant-in-tail, comprised in such settlement,

becomes absolutely void on the death of the minor


before attaining majority.
'

* These words

are not in

the

Act

but

it is

presumed that they


'

are

implied.
)
,

Infant Settlement Act,

1855

'

^^ ^"^' ['^9']

^h. 298.

Ratification

^7.

No

ratification,

made, after

full age,

by any were

person, of any contract


ity,
is

made by him during minorratification

enforceable,

whether such

given for

new

consideration, or not.
Infants Relief Act, i874,"s. z.

Minor
agent

58.
as

minor may

act as

an agent; but he cannot

incur any contractual liability in that capacity.


authority is extremely small ; but in Watkins v. yince 368, Lord Ellenborough allowed a man to be sued on a guarantee signed on his behalf by a youth of sixteen. It is said, by some writers, that a minor can appoint an agent to do any act which he himself could lawfiiUy do ; but the balance of opinion is against this view (Thomas

[The amount of
Stark.

(1818) 2

'

V.

Roberts (1847) 16 M. & W. 778). A minor married woman may, however, appoint an attorney by deed (Conveyancing Act, 1 881, s. 40).]
Small'j V. Smglly

(1700)

Eq. Ca. Ab. 6.

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS
69.

25
a Miner
as

minor can be appointed an executor,


;

guardian, or a trustee
capacities until

but he cannot act in such

'"""""^

he

attains his majority.

In the Goods of Stewart (1875) L. R. 3 P. & D. 244. In some cases a minor can himself appoint a guardian, either or his children (12 Car. II. c. 24, s. 8 ; 2 Ves. Sr. 375). Re Shelmerdine (1864) 33 L J. Ch, 474.

for

himself

60.
if

A
is

he

minor can act as a witness on all occasions, old enough to understand the nature of the
R.
V. Brasier {ijTci)
1

Minor
^'(^"

transaction.
Leach C. L. 199.

61.
acts

minor

is

civilly responsible for his tortious

Torts of
'"'"'"'

and omissions; but

claim really arising out of

contract cannot be converted into a claim on tort,


for the purpose of

making
8

a m,inor liable.
;

Jennings v. Rundall(^ij-jci) 14 C. B. N. S. 45.

T. R. 335

Burnard

v.

Haggis (1863)

62.

person cannot be adjudicated a bankrupt in


debt
contracted

Minors and "" '^"^"^

respect of a

by

him during
Quare
:

his

minority.
Ex
were
parte

Jones (1881)

18 Ch. ,D.

109.

if

the

contract

for necessaries,

or the claim founded on tort.

63.

child en ventre sa mere can acquire property Unborn


a future interest can

by devise or succession, and

be

Digitized

by Microsoft

26

LAW OF PERSONS
it

limited to
est

by deed

but (probably) a present interit

cannot be limited to
Taylor
v.
ifjii/a//

by deed.

Longv. Blackall
10
cover

{\']()'f)

(1677) .Freeman K. B. 243. 3 Ves. 466;


(1699),
c.
i'6,

&
all

II
cases

Will. III.

extended by interpretation

to

4 Ves. 322). would be to deprive the unborn


A. C. 139).

of posthumous children {Thellusson v. Woodford (^799) The rule does not apply when the result of following it
child of

an

interest {Villar v. Gilbey [1907]

Acts of

64.

The
;

unilateral acts

of a person of unsound

mind

are void, unless they are

done during

a lucid

interval

his contractual acts (other


it

than marriage),

are valid, unless

can be proved, by the person seek-

ing to avoid them, that the other party to the transaction

was aware of the unsoundness of mind.


or
a

But

the deeds of an idiot,


[semble)

lunatic so

found, are
to the
is

void,

whether

his state

was known
at least if

other party, or not.


liable for torts

person of unsound

mind

committed by him,

they do

not involve the formation of a specific intention.


Roe V. Nix [1893] P. SS (testament); Selby v. Jackson (1843) 6 Beav. 192 (deed). Imperial Loan Co. v. Stone [1892] i Q. B. 599. Molton V. Camroux (1849) 4 Exch. 17. Beverley's Case (1603) 4 Rep., at 126 b ; Re Walker [1905] i Ch. 160. Weaver v. Ward (1618) Hob. 134. But see the concluding remarks of Esher, M. R., in Banbury v. Hanbury (1892) VIII T. L. R. at p. 560.

Lunacy

65.

Whether

person

is

of unsound mind, for the


is

purposes of a particular transaction,


fact in each case.

a question

of

[There
pacity.

is

will

no "status" of lunacy for the purposes of legal camay be valid, though it has been made by a person

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS
seded [Roe
V.

27

found to be a lunatic by an inquisition which has not been super-

Nix [1893]
Jenkins
v.

P. 55)].

Morris (1880) 14 Ch. D. 674.

66.

The

property of a person of unsound mind

is

Necessaries

liable to

pay a reasonable price for necessaries sold

and delivered to him, even by persons aware of his unsoundness of mind.


Sale of

who were

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

z.

67.

The

marriage of

person of unsound

mind

is

Marriage

(probably) void, even though the other party were

unaware of the unsoundness of mind the marriage was contracted.


[This
is

at the

time

when

is,

probably, the only case in which "general insanity"

by English Law. In other cases, the question is whether the alleged unsoundness of mind affected the particular transaction. In other words, a man may be sane on some points, and insane on others.]
recognised

Durham
ibid.

v.

Durham (1885) 10
v.

93

Cannon

Srnalley

P. D. 80 (J885) Hid. 96.

Hunter

v.

Edney (1881)

68.

A contract

of partnership

may be
is

dissolved by

Partnership
'-f^"""^"^

the Court, if one of the parties thereto becomes per-

manently of unsound mind, or


inquisition.
Partnership Act, 1890,

found lunatic by

s.

35 (a).

Digitized

by Microsoft

28
Drunkards

LAW OF PERSONS
69.

The

contracts and conveyances of a

drunken

person stand on the same footing as those of a person

of unsound mind (see ante,


Matthews
{Semble,, there is
v.

64).
J.

Baxter (1873) 4^ L.

Ex. 73.

no suggestion that the deed of a drunken

person

is

void per

se.'\

Bankrupts

70.

An

undischarged bankrupt

may
But

acquire pro-

perty and enter into contracts.

his rights, not

being rights arising from purely personal services or injuries to his person or character, may be claimed

by

his

trustee
;

at real

any time for the benefit of his


property (other than advow^sons,
acquired by an undischarged

creditors
dignities,

and
and

offices)

bankrupt, passes to his trustee without express claim.

But

all

transactions

by

bankrupt with any person

dealing with

him

bond fide and for value, in respect

of property, whether real or personal, acquired by


the bankrupt after adjudication, if completed before
intervention
trustee.

by the

trustee,

are valid

against

the

Re Graydon [1896] i Q. B. 417. Prpbably, as against the trustee, the bankrupt will only be able to retain so much of the proceeds of his earnings as will suffice for the maintenance of himself and his family. Ex parte Vine (1878) 8 Ch. D. 364. New Land Development Asiaciation and Gray [1892] 2 Ch. 138.
Clayton's

y Barclay's Copfract [1895]

Ch. 214.

Bankruptcy Act, 1914, ss. 47, 53. [It will be observed that the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, though they affect the consequences of the distinction between real and personal property set up by Cohen v. Mitchell (1890) 15 Q. B. D. 262, and New Land Development Association and Gray {supra), do not abolish it entirely.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS
71.

29
as regards

married

woman

is

now,

the ac-

Married

and disposal of property, and the acquisition of rights and liabilities in contract and in tort, in the
quisition

women

same position

as a single

woman,
s. i
;

Married Women's Property Act, 1882,

1893,

s.

1907,

s. I.

except that
()

woman
cannot be rendered peror of

married

sonally liable in respect of contract,

fraud committed in connection with contract.

Such

liabilities

can only be enforced against

her property
Fairhurst v. Liverpool Adelphi (1854) 23 L. J. Exch. 163 ; Re Lynes The liability of a married' woman in respect of (1893) 2 Q. B. 113. pure tort seems to be somewhat doubtful. (See Married Women's Property Act, 1882, s. I (2), and jEar/^ V. Kings cote\\^<:>o\ 2 Ch. 594.) Of course her property
is liable.

{b)

She cannot be made a bankrupt, unless she

is

carrying on a trade or business, or (possibly)


unless she has obtained a judicial separation

or an order of protection, or unless her husband


is civiliter

mortuus

Married Women's Property Act, 1882, s. i (6). Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, ss. 21, 256.

Ex parU Franks (1831) Bankruptcy Act, 1914,


[c)

7 Bing. 762.
s.

125.

She may be restrained from anticipating her income, in manner stated in 105-108
;

[d)

She cannot act ad litem


Re Duke

as

"next friend" or guardian

of Somerset (1887) 34 Ch. D. 465.

Digitized

by Microsoft

30

LAW OF PERSONS

[But she can act as " protector of a settlement " ( 73) in respect which is her separate property (Married Women's Property Act, 1907, s. 3). SemUe, also when she is especially appointed " protector " by the settlor.]
of ,an interest

Aliens
rttis

and
s

72.

No

alien (not being a denizen) can acquire or


;

tfs

JjqJj ^ share in a British ship

nor can a natural-born

British subject

who

has acquired a foreign nationality,

and subsequently re-acquired British nationality, nor


any naturalized foreigner, or denizen, unless he
taken the oath of allegiance, and
has,

since his repatriation, naturalization, or denization,


is

either a resident

within British

dominions, or a partner in a firm

actually carrying

on business therein.
s.

Merchant Shipping Act, 1894,

I.

Aliens and
estates tail

73.

No

alien

can be appointed " protector of a


land
in

settlement"
Sect.
I.,

of

England

{post,

Bk.

III.,

Tit. III.).

[A "protector of
required to enable the

a settlement"

is

a person

whose consent

is

by the same son may be either () the owner of the first life estate in the premises under the same settlement, or (V) a person specially appointed by
the settlor to act as " protector."
]

estate tail in remainder, created settlement, to bar the entail completely. Such a per-

owner of an

first life

Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833, s. 32. Quiere, as to the effect of the estate under the setdement being vested in an alien, and there being
,

no

special

appointment of protector,

'

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS
74. Subject to the provisions of the
Acts,

31

Crown

Suits

Aliens
^""'^

and

1769 and 1861

( 171),

no

alien,

nor any pera title to

son claiming through an alien, can

make

any

interest in land

by virtue of

a disposition

made
died

before 12th

May, 1870,
the death

or by virtue of a succession

occurring on

of any person

v^^ho

before that date.


Collingwood
s.

v.

(3)

Sharp

v. St.

Pace (1661) i Levinz, 59; Naturalization Act, 1870, Sauveur (1871) L. R. 7 Ch. App. 343.

74a.

An
;(")

alien

enemy cannot

sue in an English

Court

even in respect of rights acquired by him


('')

before he became an alien enemy.

All contracts

purporting to be entered into with an alien enemy are void ;W and all contracts entered into by a British
subject with an alien
in so far as

enemy

before he

became such,

they have not been performed


alien

when he
to, or

became an
void,''')

enemy, (probably) then become


as

except in so far

they are annexed


rights.
('^)

concomitant with,

proprietaiy

But the

proprietary rights of an alien enemy, acquired before

he became such, are valid,W except that he cannot

them by proceedings before English tribunals, whilst he is an alien enemy ;(s) and rights which were acquired against an alien enemy before he became such, can be enforced against him by proenforce

ceedings before an English


poses of this
,

tribunal.^'')

For the pur-

an alien

enemy means

a person (natural

Digitized

by Microsoft

3IA

LAW OF PERSONS

or juristic), including a British subject,(') voluntarily

residing or carrying on business in a territory under

the control of a State with


is

which the

British

Empire

at

war,W

as well

as

an

enemy

subject (natural or

juristic^'), residing or

carrying on business within the


in so far as such persons shall

British

Empire, except

have obtained frorh the Crown a licence to reside or


to trade or
its

equivalent,*),

but (probably) not a sub-

ject of a hostile State residing or carrying

on business

in an allied or neutral country.

juristic person
is

carrying on business in British territory,

an alien

enemy,

if its

operations in such territory are de facto

controlled

by persons

who

in

fact

adhere

to,

take

instructions from, or act under the control of, alien

enemies/")
Case (1702) 7 Mod,. Rep. 150 Brandon v. Nesbitt (1794) The Hooflljg^) I C. Rob. 196. (b) The Hoop, ubi sup. ; Von Helljield v. Rechnitzer (1914) Times Newspaper, nth December.
(a)

Sylvester's
;

6 T. R. 23

seems doubtful whether he can even obtain a writ of habeas Case [1916] I A, C. 421 ; Liebmann's Case [1916] i K. B. 268). But an alien enemy may be added as a nominal plaintiff by his partners who merely wish to use* his name to wind up the business (Rodriguez v.
[It

cor-pus for the protection of his personal liberty (JVeber's

Speyer
(c)

[i 91 9]

A. C. 59).]
;

The Hoop, ubi sup. ; Willison v. Patteson (1817) 7 Taunt. 439 and Pipe Line Co. [1915] 2 Ch., at p. 1 36 (approved in Ertel Bieber y Co's Case, infra) ; Kreglinger & Co. v. Cohen (1915) XXXI T. L. R. 592.
P.obson V. Premier Oil
(d) Ertel Bieber 13 Co. v.' Rio Tinto Co.

[1918] A. C. 260.

[The " svtspension " Mtta in Janson v. Driefontein Minfs [1902] A. C. 484, probably refer only to rights which have matured before the outbreak of war. And it makes no difference that the contract itself provides for suspension during war {Ertel Bieber Co, v. Rio

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS

31B

Tinto Co., uhi sup). But there may be one or two contracts which on the outbreak of war are merely suspended, e.g., life insurance

(Seligman v. Eagle Insurance Co. [1917]


(e)

Ch., at p. 526.]

Jktiett-Gesellschafi [1918]

Halsey v. L'dwenfeld [1916] 2 K. B. 707 ; Hugh Stevenson Sons v. A. C. 239. (f) Tingley v. Milller [1917] 2 Ch. 144. In effect, the ancient rule that the private property of enemy subjects is res nullius has been abandoned by English law {Hugh Stevenson i3 Sons v. Aktien-Gesellschaft, uhi sup!). Qutere, as to property acquired by an alien enemy without contract, e.g., by will or
gift.

&

(g)

The Hoof, uhi sup.

Robinson v. Continental Insurance Co. of Mannheim [1915] i K. B. In such a case, the alien enemy defendant can appeal {In re Mertens Patent [1915] i K. B. 857) ; but he cannot counter-claim, as that would, in effect, be to allow him to act as plaintiff (Robinson v. Continental Insurance Co., ubi sup). He may, however, plead a set-off {In re Stahkoerk, &c.. Patent [1917] 2 Gh. 272, 276). (i) Porter v. Freudenberg [1915] I K. B. 857 ; Scotland v. South African Territories (1917) 33 T. L. R. 255. (k) Porter v. Freudenberg, ubi sup. (1) Janson v. Driefontein Mines [1902] A. C. 484 ; Daimler Go. v. Continental Co. [1916] 2 A. C. 307. (m) Princess Thurn Taxis v. Moffitt [1915] i Ch. 58 ; Schaffenius v. Goldberg [1916] I K. B. 284. (n) Janson v. Driefontein Mines [1902] A. C, at p. 506 ; In re Mary, Co. v. Bubna (1915) XXXI T. L. R. Duchess of Sutherland; Bechoff, David
(h)

155.

394(o)

Daimler Co.

v. Continental, l^c, Co., ubi sup.

[The whole of the difficult subject of this will be found treated, with great learning and care, in a little work entitled Legal Effects of War, by A. D. McNair (Cambridge University Press, 1920).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
Mode of
declaration

II

DECLARATION

OF INTENTION
may be

75. Subject to special rules of law, and to agree-

ment between the

parties, intention

declared

by conduct, words, writing, signs, or any other means.


E. g. there are various statutes which require transactions to be evidenced by writing, deed, attestation of witnesses, &c. These will be noted in the clauses which deal with the transactions in question.

Nature of
,

76. Subject to the various rules affecting the construction of written documents,

intention

the nature of the


is

intention declared by any such


fact in

means

a question

of

each

case.

Ostensible
intention

means of declaration which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be taken to indicate a particular intention, he cannot be allowed
77. If a person uses
to

deny the existence of such 'intention

as against
it.

any

party

who

has, in

good

faith, acted
;

upon

ibid.

Pickardw. Sears (1837) 486.

6A. &E. 469

Jones v. Littledale (1837)

Scope of
declaration

78.

It is

not necessary that the declaration of in-

tention should be

made

directly to the party acting

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS
upon
it;

33

it is (probably) necessary, that it should be made with the apparent object of being acted

but

upon by persons

in the position of the party seeking


it.

to obtain the benefit of

Hendersons. Williams [1895] i Q. B. 521. Johrtson v. Credit Lyonnais (1877) C. P. D. 32.

79.

An

act or

a certain character, but

document which purports to be of which was really intended

Real '"""'""

by the parties to it to be of a different character, must be treated as of its real, and not as of its apparent character.
is small, except in conceived that the proposition There is, as a rule, no object in concealing the true is sound. nature of a transaction, except a desire to evade the law?. Presumably, however, the rights of innocent purchasers for value who rely on the ostensible transaction will be protected.]

[The amount of

authority for this proposition


;

the instance of mortgages

but

it is

Benyon

v.

Nettlefield

(1850)

Mac.

&

G. 94;

Sprye

v.' Porter
i.

(1856) 7 E.

&

B. 78

Salt V. Marquess of Northampton

[1892] A. C.

80.

declaration of intention, not

meant

to pro- Mere
^""""""*'

duce legal consequences, cannot be enforced by any


person,
its

who, when he acted upon

it,

was aware of

real character.
Weeks V. Tibold (1605) & Ad. 232.
Rolle

Ab. 6

Guthing

v.

Lynn (1831)

2 B.

C 2

Digitized

by Microsoft

34
Fraud

LAW OF PERSONS
81. If a person has been induced by the fraud,

duress, threats, or

undue influence of another to form


intention, he (or, if
will

and declare
dead,
.

a particular

he be
as

his

representatives)

be

entitled,

against the guilty party, and all other persons


at

who,

the time

when

they acted upon the intention,

knew, or ought
threats,

to have

known, of the

fraud, duress,

or undue influence, and against " volunteers,"

to revoke his intention.

But he will not be entitled


of persons

to

do so
faith

to the detriment

who

have, in good

and

for valuable consideration, acted

upon

it

unless the fraud has resulted in a mistake of the, kind


specified in the
Morley
v.

first

sentence of 87.

Loughnan [1893] i Ch. 736. Templer (1859) 4 De G. & J. 433. ij) V. Home (1868) L. R. 6 Eq. 655 ; Barron v. Willis [1900] 2 Ch. 133. A person who takes by a voluntary gift from a purchaser for
Scholefieldv.

value

is

not a "volunteer."

Cobbett V. BrocJt (1855) 20 Beav. L. R. 2

H.L. C. 325
also

524; Oales v. Turquand (1867) Bainbriggey. Brown (1881) 18 Ch. D. 188.


4 C. P. 704.
II.,

Foster v.

Mackinnon

(1869) L. R.

[He may
Sect. X.).]

be able to claim damages (see^orf, Bk.

Pt. III.,

Laches

82.

The

person seeking to revoke his intention on

one of the grounds mentioned in 8i, must do so within a reasonable time after the discovery of the
fraud, or the cessation of the duress, threats, or
influence,

undue

and before

the

circumstances

have so

changed, by his
party cannot

own

act or default, that the other

be

remitted to his
is

former position.
of fact in

What
each

is

a reasonable time

a question

case.

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS

35

Mitchell V. Homfray (1881) 8 Q. B. D. 587; J/lcanl v. Skinner (1887) 36 Ch. D. 145. (It does not appear to be Rees V. de Bernardy [1896] 2 Ch. 446.
quite certain,
that the

change of circumstances must be due to the person

seeking to avoid the transaction.)

Vrquhart v. Macpherson (1878) L. R. 3 App. Ca. 831. (But the mere fact of the deterioration of the subject-matter will not prevent the rescission of a sale (^Adam v. Newbigging (1888) L. R. 13 App. Ca. 308.)

83. If any person, having a right to avoid a transaction on one of the grounds mentioned in
81,

Confirmation

and, being aware of and reasonably capable of enforc-

ing such right, manifests an intention to confirm the


transaction,
Wright
V.

he cannot

afterw^ards avoid

it.
v.

Vanderplank (1855)

zK. &J. i;

Jarratt

Aldam

(i

870)

L. R. 9 Eq. 463.

84.

Undue

influence
,

w^ill

be presumed in trans1
\

Presumption

actions inter vivos betw^een trustee and

c benenciary,

of influence

parent and unemancipated child, guardian and former ward, legal adviser and client, medical adviser and
patient, spiritual adviser

and penitent, and between any other persons standing towards one another in a In such relationship implying special confidence.
cases,

must

the person seeking to affirm the transaction In other cases (except prove its fairness.

those mentioned in 86), the person alleging the


existence of undue influence must prove
it.

[The

rule has

(1876) 2 P.
Savery
v.

&

no application D. 462).]

to testaments.

{Parfitt v. Lawless

Coles \. Trecothick

Hyltott V.

(1804) 19 Ves. 234. King (1856) 5 H. L. C. 655. Hylton (1754) 2 Ves. Sr. 547; Hatch

v.

Hatch (1804)

9 Ves. 292.

If the relationship of guardian and ward actually exists at

Digitized

by Microsoft

36

LAW OF PERSONS
against the guardian
is,

the time of the transaction, the presumption


course, even stronger.

of

Holman v. Loynes (1854) 4 De G. M. & G. 270; Broun v. Kennedy (1863) 33 L. J. N. S. Ch. 71 and 342 ; Liks v. Terry [1-895] 2 Q. B. A voluntary gift inter vivos made by a client to his legal adviser 679.
cannot be supported, even though undue influence be disproved {Rhodes v. But this latter rule does not Bate (1865) L. R. i Ch. App. 252).
apply to
gifts

by

vyill

{Raworth

v.

Marriott (1833)

Myl.

&

K. 643).

Billage v. Southee (1852) 9 Ha. 534.

Huguenin s. Bazeley {y'&o'i) 14 Ves. 273; Middleton v. Sherburne (1841) 4 Yo. and C. 358. Billage v. Southee, ubi sup., at p. 540 ; Smith v. Kay (i 859) 7 H. L. C. 771.

Cases where
no presumption

85.
for-life

The

relationships of

husband and wife, tenant-

and remainderman, and mortgagee and mort-

gagor, do not raise a presumption of undue influence


for the purposes of 84.
Barron
v.
ff^illis

[iSg^'\ 2 Ch.

578.

(The

decision on this point

was

not affected by the appeal.) Wilson V. Sewell (ijGS)

4
i

Burr. 1979.
J.

Sevan

v.

Habgood (i%6q)

& H.

222.

Persons

86.

The

onus of proving the fairness of the trans-

below normal

standard

action rests also

upon

all

persons,

whether standing
deal with ex-

in a confidential relation or not,

who

pectant heirs, illiterate and ignorant persons, persons

under manifest pecuniary


(probably)

or

moral

distress,

and

with

any other persons who, to the

knowledge of the person seeking to confirm the transaction, were at a disadvantEige in relation to it.
V.

Earl of Aylesford y. Morris (1873) L. R. 7 Ch. App. 484; Brenchley Higgins (1901) 70 L. J. Ch. 788. The Siles of Reversions Act, 1867,

has not altered the lav7 in this respect.

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS
Lane (1888) 40 Ch. D. 312. (1866) L. R. i H. L. C. 200; James (1889) 40 Ch. D. 449.
V.

37

Fry

fViJliams v. Bayley

v.

Kerr

bond fide mistake of fact, made without negligence, by one party to a transaction, as to the
87.

Mistake of

^"^

nature of the transaction, or the identity of the other


party,

or

the existence or identity of the subject

matter, renders the transaction void.

And

common

mistake

as to

the extent of the transaction, or the


parties,

rights of the

will

enable any one of the

parties to avoid the transaction, unless the other will

consent to execute

it

in such a

manner

as

to carry

out his real intention.


Thoroughgood'' s Case (1584) 2 Rep. 9 a; Foster v. Mackinnon (1869) 4 C. P. 704; Lewis v. Clay (1898) 67 L.J. Q. B. 224.

L. R.

Boulton V. Jones (1857) 2 H.


3

App. Ca. 459.

But
;

N. 564 ; Cundy v. Lindsay (1878) L. R. see Phillips v. Brooks [1919] 2 K. B. 243.


;

&

Hitchcock V. Giddings (1817) 4 Price, 135


5

Couturier v. Hastie (1856)

H. L. C. 673

Raffles v.

Calverley v. Williams (1865) L. R. I Ch. App. 58. Cooper V. Phibbs (1867) L. R. 2 H. L. C. 149 Winn (1873) L. R. 6 H. L. C. 223.

Wichelhaus (1864) 2 H. (1790) i Ves. Jr. 210;


;

&

C. 906. Cochrane

v.

Willis

Earl Beauchamp

v.

bond fide mistake of fact by one of the r .1 J parties to a transaction, not being or the kind men88.
I

inoperative

mistake

tioned in 87, and not being induced by the fraud or misrepresentation of the other parties, will not
entitle the

mistaken party to avoid the transaction.


parties

But, if

it

would be unreasonable of the other

Digitized

by Microsoft

38
to insist

LAW OF PERSONS
upon fulfilment of the
transaction, the

Court

will not decree specific performance.


Scott V. Littledak

(1858) 8 El.

&

BI.

815

IS Ch. D. Z15; Goddard v. Jeffreys {\%%\') Piatt [1900] I Ch. 61.6.


JLeslie
v.

Tamplin v. James (1879) 51 L. J. Ch. 57; May v. Webster


v.

Tompson

(1851)
this

Ha.

z68

Cecil (1861)

30 Beav. 62.

has been considerably shaken by recent Scriven Bros. v. Hind.ley\i<)i'i\ 3 K. B. 564 ; Bk. of Ireland v. McManamy [1916] 2 K. B. (Ir.) 161). And it would now seem to be almost safer for the mistaken party t-o repudiate the transaction entirely, than to plead hardship as a bar to specific performance i^ost, 289.]

[THe doctrine of

common law

decisions

{e.g.,

Innocent misrepresentation

89.

Where

a person has been induced to enter into

a transaction

by the misrepresentation, made without

fraud or recklessness, of another party to the transaction or his agent, with regard to a material fact
(not being of the kind specified in 87), the party
so
set

induced will be entitled to have the transaction


asidCj^")

provided that he repudiates the transit

action on discovering his mistake, and before

has

become impossible to restore the parties to the positions which they occupied before entering into
the transaction.
('')

(a) Redgrave v. Hurd (1881) 20 Ch. D. i ; Newbigging v. Adam (1887) 34 Ch. D. 582. (b) Seddon v. N. E. Salt Co. [1905] i Ch. 326 ; Glasgow Railway v. Boyd [1915] A. C. 526.

in the

[The qualification in the latter part of the is frequently stated form of a provision that the transaction must- " remain in Heri" or "not have- been completed by conveyance." But the form in the text seems to be the more correct. Moreover, the qualifiication cannot be claimed as a protection by k party who

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS

39

stands in a fiduciary relationship to the plaintiff {^Armstrong v. Jackson [1917] 2 K. B., at p. 825). No damages can, however, be recovered for innocent misrepresentation ; though the deferidant may be ordered to restore property formerly belonging to the plaintiff
{Derry v. Peck (1889) L. R.
14.

App.

Ca.' 337).]

90.

Mere

non-disclosure of facts does not


.
. .

amount
r" 1

Non-disclosure

to misrepresentation, unless

it

occurs in a sale or land,

or a sale to a

company by
or

its

promoters, or a contract

of insurance, or a transaction between partners or


intending
partners,

between agent
gift.

(or

fornier

agent) and principal, or a


[It

may be

regarded as very doubtfiil whether the ordinary vendor of an

interest in land

{Fox

& J.
see

is bound to disclose any facts beyond those affecting his title Mackreth (1788) 2 Cox, 321 Walters v. Morgan (1861) 3 D. F. But there are dicta to the contrary. As to sales by promoters, 7 1 8). Central Ry. Co. of Venez.uela v. Kisch (1867) L. R. 2 H. L. C. 99 ;
-v.
;

Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co. (1878) L. R. 3 App. Ca. 1218. As to insurance, see Bufe v. Turner (18 15) 6 Taunt. 338 (fire) ; London Assurance Co. v. Mansel (1879) 11 Ch. D. 363 (life); Marine Insurance Act, 1906, s. 18 (marine). As to partners, see Fawcett v. Whitehouse (1829) I R. & M. 132 ; Blisset v. Daniel (1853) 10 Ha. 493. As to agents, see McPherson v. Watt (1877) L. R. 3 App. Ca. 254. As to gifts, see Re Glubb [1900] i Ch. 354.]

91.

Money
;

paid under a mistaken

belief, arising

Money
^^l^iJ^

from

a misapprehension of fact, that

it is

due, can be

recovered

unless

it

was paid under pressure of legal

proceedings, bond fide exerted.


Barber

Brown (J856) 1 C. B. N. S. 121. Hampton (1797) 7 T. R. 269. Cadaval v. Collins (1836) 4 A. & E. 858 ; Ward
v.

Marriott
I

v.

v.

Wallis [1900]

Q. B. 675.

C 3

Digitized

by Microsoft

40
Maintenance

Law of persons
92.

No

transaction, having for

its

object the sup-

port and assistance by one party of another in the

conduct of

litigation, will

be enforced by the Court,

unless the party rendering, or agreeing to render, the


assistance, has an interest in the subject-matter
litigation, or unless

of the

he

is

the parent, child, master,

husband, guardian, or other natural protector of the


litigant, or unless
ity

he has acted from motives of char-

("Maintenance" and "Champerty").

[" Champerty " is the aggravated form of " Maintenance," in which the party agreeing to render the assistance stipulates for a share in the proceeds of the litigation {Rees v. de Bernardy [1896] 2 Ch. 437). Charitable motives will not justify champerty (Cole v. Booker (1913) XXIX T. L. R. 295).]
Shackellw. Rosier (1836) 2 Bing. N. C. 634. Guy V. Churchill (1888) 40 Ch. D. 481.
2 Inst.

564

Harris

v. Brisco

Bacon Ab. " Maintenance " (b). (188,6) 17 Q. B. D. 504.

[For the remedy of the person injured by maintenance, see fost,

Bk.

II.,

Pt. III., Sect. VII., Tit. 11.]

Sale of evidence

93.

transaction

whereby one party

supplies, or

stipulates to supply, information intended to lead to

recovery of property by the other, in return for a

promise of a share of the property


is

when

recovered,

not, on that account alone, unenforceable.

[The point is, that a mere sale of evidence, not involving or contemplating any legal proceedings, or any assistance by the vendor But the Court must in the conduct of proceedings^ is per se lawful. be satisfied that the transaction is, actually as well as nominally, of
that character.]
Sprye V. Porter

(1856)

7 El.

&

Bl. 78.

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS
94.

41
Purchase iy
"'^'"''"'

The

purchase, or agreement to purchase, by a

soHcitor, of the subject-matter of any Htigation, of

which he
forceable.
fFooJ V.
7 El.

has,

or has had, the conduct,

is

unen-

&

Bl.

84

Dowines (1811) 18 Ves. izo; Simpson v. Lamb (1857) Davis v. Freethy (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 519. ;

95.

No

transaction having for


illegal

its

object the per-

illegal
object

formance of an

or immoral act, or an act

deemed

to be contrary to public policy, will be en-

forced by the

Court.

But

if the

parties

did not

intend to violate the law, and the transaction can be


carried out in a legal manner,
it

will be enforced,

even though

it

originally contemplated the perform-

ance of acts which,


illegal.

unknown

to the parties,

were

Blantern (1767) 2 Wils. 341 ; Keir v. Leeman (1844) Willyams v. Bullmore (1863) 33 L. J. Ch. 461 ; Scott v. Brown [1892] 2 Q. B. 724. It is doubtful if the Court will take away property which has actually been transferred in pursuance of an immoral object which has been accomplished {Ayerst v. Jenkins (1873) L. R. But see Phillips v. Probyn [1899] i Ch. 811. 16 Eq. 275).
Collins
V.

6 Q. B. 308

Waugh

V.

(1873) L. R.

Morris (1873) L. R. 8 Q. 5 P. C. 155.

B.

202; Cargo ex Argos

96. For the purposes of 95, a transaction is re- immoral ^"^ garded as having an object immoral or contrary to

public policy, if

it

contemplates

[a) irregular sexual

connection,
ic)

[B)

prospective dissolution of marriage,

the procurement of marriage in return for reward, (d) complete or undue restriction on marriage, [e)

Digitized

by Microsoft

42

LAW OF PERSONS

unreasonable restraint of trade, {f) deception of the public in matters of trade, () concealment of disgraceful
(/)

misconduct,

[h)

evasion of duties imposed by law,


office, [k)
(/)

purchase or sale of a public

procurement
public
(o)

or resig'nation of public offic6,


creditors,

defeat or delay of

{m)

stifling

of prosecution for a

offence, () unreasonable restraint of liberty,

job-

bery in the public service.


Willyamsy. Bullmore (1863) 33 L.J. Ch. 461. Westmeath v. Salisbury (1831) 5 Bligh, N. S. 340. Keaty. Allen (1707) 2 Vern. 588; Hermann \. Charlesworth (1905) 118 L. T. 502. But a gift of real Bellairs v. Bellairs (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 510. estate, accompanied by a restriction against marriage with a particular class of persons, is good {Jenner v. Turner [I'i'io) 16 Ch. D. 188). And a gift of any property with a restriction on remarriage is also good (^Allen v. Jackson (1875) I Ch. D. 399). Davie s v. Davies (1887) 36 Ch. D. 359; Maxim Nordenfelt Case [1894] A. C. 535.
Scott V.

Brown

v.

Brown [1892] Brice (1875)


v.

2
i

Q. B. 724. Ex. D. 5.
2

Hutnphreys

Polak [1901]

K. B.

385

Janson

v.

ontein Brief

Mines [1902] A. C. 484.


Haneington v. Du Chatel (1781) i Bro. C. C. Hartwell ( 1 ,799) 4 Ves. 811. Morris v. MacCulloch (1763) 2 Ed. igo.

124; Hartwell

v.

Building Soc. [1892]

(1890) 45 Ch. D. 351 Ch. 173. Horwood V. Millar's Timber Co. [1917] I K. B. 305. Montefiore v. Menday Co. [1918] 2 K. B. 241.
I

13 Eliz. (1571) c. 5. Windhill L. B. v. Vint

Jones v. Merioneth

[A particularly interesting question is at present under conby the Courts, viz. whether an agreement by two or more persons not to bid against one another at an auction, and to share the profits of the "knock out," is "contrary to public policy." In Rawlings v. Ggneral Trading Co. [1920] 3 K. B. 30, Shearman, J., refused to enforce such a contract; but his decision has been overruled by the C. A. (1921) Law Times Jo., Vol. 151, at Would such an agreement give rise to an action of conp. 4). spiracy by the vendor {post, Bk. II., Pt. III., Sect. VI., 967), or justify him in refusing to complete the sale ? (anU, Tit. II., 81).]
sideration

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS
97.
gal or
as

43
Reward of
'

A gift

or promise,

made
stands

in return for past ille-

immoral conduct,

on the same footing

'^""^

any other voluntary


3

gift or

promise.
v.

Hall V. Palmer (1844) Q. B. 483.

Ha. 532; Beaumont

Reeve (1846)

98. When,"in return for a lawful consideration (or,


in the case of contracts under seal, for
tion), several distinct promises,

Tramac'lii'lar''^

no considerasome of which con-

template an illegal or immoral object, and others do


not, are

made, the promises which do not contem-

plate an illegal or
Pigot's

immoral object can be enforced.


11

Case (16 14)


P.

Rep. 27;

Baai of

Australasia v. Breillat

(1847) 6 Moo.

C. zoi.
Restitution

99. Property transferred in contemplation of an


illegal

or immoral object can be recovered


illegal or

at

any

time before a material part of the


object has been accomplished
;

immoral
illegal

and, in the case of a


or

claimant in minori

delicto,

even after the

immoral object has been accomplished.


7

Q.

Taylors. Botvers (1876) 1 Q. B. D, 300 ; fFilsoa v. Strugnell [liii) B. D. 548 ; Kearley v. Thomson (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 742. Atkinson v. Denby (i860) 6 H. & N. 778 ; Hermann v. Charlesworth
1

(1905)

18 L. T. 502.

[Presumably the rights of innocent third parties would be saved.]

100.

Any

absolute prohibition

of. alienation

at- Restraint
"" '"^"''^""'

tached to a transfer or creation of an estate in fee


simple or fee
tail,

or to the ownership of personal


interests), is void.
Corbett v. Corbett (1888)

property (other than leasehold


Bradley 14 P. D. 7
v.
;

Peixoto (1797) 3 Ves.

324;

Dugdale

v.

Dugdale (1888) 38 Ch. D. 176.

Digitized

by Microsoft

44
Forfeiture
on bank-

LAW OF PERSONS
101.

provision in a similar transaction for the

ruptcy

divesting of the acquirer's interest in the event of his

bankruptcy,

is

also void.
Maci>tt.{iS32) zi Ch. D. 838.

Re
Termination
on alienation

102.

A
is

provision

for

the

termination

of a

life

estate, or a leasehold interest,

on alienation or bankthe Rule

ruptcy,

valid, if

it

does not transgress

against Perpetuities.
Baker
8 Eq.
V.

Nezvtott (^i&^g)
v.

2 Beav.

112;
3

262; Blackman

Fph [1892]

following refer only to beneficial fiduciary powers of alienation and management conferred upon limited owners by the Settled Land Acts and similar statutes. Any attempt to
restrict the exercise of these

Hayne (^iS6g) L. R. This and the two alienation, and do not apply to the
J^otaer v.

Ch. 209.

Land Act,
Limitation
until alienation

1882,

ss. 51,

powers is usually void. (See e. g. Settled S2,andpost, Bk. IIL, Sect. VL,Tit. IL, 1482),

103.

limitation of a life interest unti/ alienation

or bankruptcy (not being a limitation

by a person of

an

interest in his
is

own
It is

property until his

own bank-

ruptcy)

valid.

doubtful whether a limitation

of a fee until alienation or bankruptcy would


held valid.

now

be

Ex parte Stephens (1876) 3 Ch. D. 807. But a limitation by ,a man own property, to go over on alienation, cannot be defeated by a single creditor {Detmolds. DetmoU {iSSg) 40 Ch. D. 585).
of his

Brandon v. Robinson (liii") 18 Ves. 429; approved in Dugdale Dugdale (1888) 38 Ch. D. 180 ; Dean v. Dean [1891] 3 Ch. 155. Re Machtt (j%%z) 21 Ch. D. 842; Dugdale v. Dugdale, ubisup. Re Johnson Johnson [iip^l I K. B. 134.

v.

decision in

[The doubt above expressed must now be qualified by the Re Leach [1912] 2 Ch. 422, where, however, the point was

not seriously argued.]


Partial
restraints

104.
valid, if

A
it

qualified restriction against alienation

is

does not transgress the Rule against Per-

petuities.

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS
Re Macleay (1875) L. R. zo Eq. 188. been very severely criticised by Pearson,
26 Ch. D. 801.
restriction
J.,

45

The

This decision has, however, in Rusher w. Rosher (1884)

result

may

take the form of prohibiting alienation

of the two decisions appears to be, that the beyond the limits of a

particular class,

time.

A
it

conveyance of an

(probably)
purpose,

but not of prohibiting alienation altogether for a limited estate in land for charitable purposes may provide that, if the estate is not employed for the charitable shall revert to the donor or his heirs {Hollis' Hospital Case

[1899] 2 ^^- 540)-

105.

conveyance for the benefit of

married

Restraint on

woman may

provide that she shall, during the exist-

ence of her marriage, have no power to alienate the


corpus, or anticipate the

income, of the property


(subject to

and such a provision


prevent
ried
all

107 and 108) alienation, direct or indirect, by the marvvill

woman.
(The
v.

point
1

Hood-Barrsv. Cathcart [1894J 2 Q. B. 559. is not affected by the appeal in Hood-Barrs


Tullett \.

decision

on

this

Heriot [1896] A. C.

74-)

Armstrong (1838)

Beav.
gift

i.

It is

not necessary that the


;

woman

should be married not operate until marriage.

when

the

takes effect

but the restraint will

106. Such a provision will cease to operate on the

Revival on
"-'""''"''S'

termination of the marriage


it

but, if suitably

worded,

will revive, unless the property has in the

mean-

time been alienated, on any subsequent marriage.


Hawkes V. Htthback (1870) L. R. Ch. 308. J.
1 1

Eq.

Shafto v. Butler (1871)

40 L.

Digitized

by Microsoft

46
Setting aside
restraint

LAW OF PERSONS
107.

The

restraint

on anticipation may. With the

consent of the married

woman, be
is

set aside

by the
to

Court, to such an extent as


interest in a transaction

necessary to bind her

which the Court deems

be for her benefit.


Conveyancing Ch. 547.
Act,
1911,
s.

7;

Jie

Miller's

Settlement

[1891]

Liability

108. Notwithstanding any restraint ou anticipation,


*^^ Court

indemnity"

may

order the costs incurred by the oppo-

site party, in litigation initiated

married woman, to

by or on behalf of a be paid out of her property and


;

may

also

hold her property liable to indemnify a


at

trustee

who,

her instigation, or with her consent

in writing, has

of the estate
part.

.of

committed a breach of trust in respect which the property in question forms

Married Women's Property Act, 1893, [1897] A. C. 177. Trustee Act, 1893, s. 45.

s.

2; Hood-Barrs

v.

Heriot

j.iability in

108a.

When

married

woman

has

been made

bankruptcy

^^^j^^^pt^ the Court

may, on the application of the


payment, for any

trustee in bankruptcy, order the

time, of the whole or part of any income


is

which she

restrained

from anticipating,
amongst her

to

such trustee, for

distribution

creditors.
s.

Bankruptcy Act, 1914,

52.

[It will be remembered, of course, that a married woman carrying on business, whether separately from her husband or not, may now be made bankrupt {ihid., s. 125).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
109.

III
is

CONDITIONS
a

condition

term in a contract or conact, or

Condition

veyance, to the effect that on the occurrence, or non-

occurrence of an uncertain event,

forbearance,

a right shall arise, or cease to exist.


Co.
Litt.

20 1

a.

110.
right
is

condition, on the occurrence of


is

which

Conditions

to arise,

called a " condition precedent "

^anlsulse-

(or "suspensive"); a condition,


vv^hich a right
is

on the occurrence of
is

?^'

to cease to exist,

called a

"con-

dition subsequent" (or "resolutive").


Richards
v.

Hayward (1841)

Man.

&

G. 574.

111.

Whether

a term in a contract

is

a condition.
is

Conditions
""'^^'"'''''"'y

or a n\pre independent agreement ("warranty")

question of construction in each case.


Roberts
v.

Brett (1865)

1 1

H.

L. C. 337.

112.

When

the vesting of a right

is

dependent

Fulfilment of

upon the fulfilment of a condition precedent, the

Digitized

by Microsoft

48

LAW OF PERSONS
com-

right does not vest until the condition has been


pletely fulfilled.
Mason
v.

Harvey (1853) 8 Exch. 8 1 9.

Fulfilment

113.

When

the fulfilment of a condition has been

preven e

prevented by one of the parties to a contract or conveyance, that party cannot take advantage of
fulfilment.
1

its

non-

Mackay

v.

Dich (1881) L. R. 6 App. Ca. 251.

Invalid
conditions

114.
ditio'n

conveyance of property, subject to a conis

subsequent which

impossible at the time of

making it, or which afterwards becomes impossible by the " act of God," or which is illegal or immoral, is or becomes absolute, and an obligation defeasible
on the happening of
time of making
defeasible
it,

a condition impossible at the


is

absolute

but an obligation
illegal or

immoral condition, or a condition which afterwards becomes impossible or illegal, is or becomes void.
I

on the happening of an

Co. Litt. 206 Ch. 252.

Browning

v. Beston (1556) Plowd. 131

Re Croxon [I904]

Ibid.; Kent v. Allen


conditions,

and.

one

(1707) 2 Vern. 588. become impossible, the


5

If there are alternative


obligation
is

also

void

{^Laughter's case

(1595)

Rep. zib).

Time

115. Stipulations
conditions,

as to

time are not construed

as

Seton V. Slade (1802) 7 Ves. 265

Judicature Act, 1873,

s-

25 (7).

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS
except where
{a)
:

49

have expressly agreed that time


;

The
shall

parties

be of the essence of the contract

Oaitien v. J'iie Hipwe/Iv. Knight (1835) i Yo. & C. (Eq. Ex.) 415 (Such a stipulation may, however, be waived (1865) 34 L. J. Ch. 620. by mere acquiescence.)

(/^)

There

is

a presumption,

from the nature of

the transaction, that such an agreement was


intended.
V.

Reuter v. Sale (1879) 4 '-' P- ^* ^39 (mercantile contracts) Withey (1823) Turn. & R. 78 (life annuity) ; Day v. Luke (1868) L. R. Eq. 336 Patrick v. Milner (iBjj) 2 C. P. D. 342.
'

Cottle

But an unreasonable delay

in the fulfilment

of a

stipulation as to time will entitle the promisee, even

though such

stipulation

is

not of the essence of the

contract, to treat the transaction as at an end.


advantage of
requiring

[In order to entitle the party seeking to rescind the transaction to take this rule, he must have given to the party in default a notice

him

to

fiilfil

his obligation

within a reasonable time, which notice

has not
p.

347

been complied with (^Hatten v. Russell (1888) Compton v. Bagley [1892] i Ch. 313)-],

38 Ch. D.

at

116.

condition as to time will not prevent the


a

Mortgages

redemption of

mortgage;
it.

but

it

may,

if not

un-

reasonable, delay
[This
is

rules adopted by the Court of Chancery " Once a mortgage, always fundamental maxim " It could be wished that the limits of" reasonableness a mortgage." in this connection were a little more clearly defined.]
in

one of the many


its

support of

Salt V. Marquess of Northampton [1892] A. C.

i.
v.

Taliot

V.

Braddill (1683)

Vern.

183, 394; Lawless


v.

Mansfield
at

(1841) p. 729

I
;

Dr.
Biggs

& W.
V.

at p.

598; Teevan

Smith (i88z) 20 Ch. D.

Hoddinott [1898] 2 Ch. 311.

Digitized

by Microsoft

5
Penalty

LAW OF PERSONS
117.

penalty imposed
;

upon breach of a condition


liability,

will not be enforced


to

but a

intended merely
loss

compensate the other party for

occasioned

by the default of the person subject to the condition,


is

valid.

Whether
is

a liability a question

is

in the nature

of a penalty, or not,
case.

of fact in each

Re Bagenham Dock
Irving
I

(1858)

El.

Bl.

Co. (1873) L. R. 8 Ch. App. El. 563; Strickland v.

1022

Mercer

v.

&

Williams

[1899]

Q. B. 382.

Forfeiture

118.
for

The enforcement

of a condition of re-entry
is

of leases

non-performance of the stipulations in a lease

subject to special restrictions.


[These
restrictions will be set out in,

Book

III.]

Conveyancing Act, 1881,

s.

14; Conveyancing Act, 1892,

ss.

2-5.

j^onds

119.

On

an ordinary

money bond,

the creditor

can recover nothing beyond principal, interest, and


costs.

4 Anne (1705)

c.

16,

ss.

13, 14.

Intervening
""^^^

120.

When

an interest in land

is

forfeited
all

by the

fulfilment of a condition subsequent,

the acts of

the person forfeiting the interest, and his predecessors


in
title,

affecting the land, or his or their interest

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS
forfeiture,

51

therein, are Void' as against the person enforcing the

[This again is one of those elementary rules of law for which it hard to find an express authority. But, if it did not exist, every condition subsequent could be evaded in the simplest manner.]
is

Pericins,

Profitable Book,

s.

840

Shepjiard,

Touchstone,

121.

"conditions in law," posed by law, independently of the agreement of the conditions are now very rare.)
rule does not always apply to

i.e. conditions
parties.

(This imBut such

!l!

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE IV AGENCY ANt) REPRESENTATION


Agent

121.

An "agent"

is

a person

who

has authority,

express or implied, to act


(the "principal "),
his acts

on behalf of another person

and to bind that other person by

and

defaults.

Capacity

122.

Any

person of sound mind, notwithstanding

any legal incapacity,

may

act as an agent

but his

own
cipal

rights

and

liabilities,

in respect of both his prinwill

and third

parties,

be determined by his

legal capacity.
Smally
v.

Smally (1700)

Eq. Ca. Ab.

6.

Effects

of

123.

The
I)

legal relations of principal

and agent,
Part III).

re attons tp

^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^


II,

governed by the

Law

of Contract (Book
II,

Part

or Quasi-contract

(Book

The

existence and extent of the agency, as regards

third parties, are determined

by the

facts

of each case,

and the rules of law applicable thereto.


seems to be generally admitted, that the creation of the reand agent must now always, by English Law, be referred to an agreement between the parties. But it may well be (a) that this agreement is not legally enforceable, and (F) that third parties are not bound by the terms of it.]
[It

lationship of principal

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS
124.

53

The

relationship of principal and agent

may

Agency by

be created by any conduct, from which the agree-

ment of both
tionship

principal and agent to adopt such rela-

may be

inferred

to appoint an agent (^rhe

There must be consent of both parties. A person cannot be compelled Halky (i868) L. R. 2 P. C. at p. 201).

except that
{a)

deed
is

An

agent appointed to execute a deed must

(unless the

executed by

him

in

the

presence of the principal), be

himself ap-

pointed by deed
Berkeley v. Hardy (1826) 5 B. B. & Ad. 647.

&

C.

355

R.

v.

Longnor (1833)

{!))

An

agent appointed by a corporation aggre-

gate must (except

where the appointment

is

made

for the purpose of effecting the direct

objectsibr

which the corporation was

created)

be appointed under the


corporation.

common

seal

of the

Arnold v. Mayor of Poole (1842) 4 Man. & G. 860; Henderson v. But, as between the corporaA. R. Mail Co. (1855) 5 El. Bl. 409. tion and third parties, an agent may be appointed by mere conduct {Faviellv. The Eastern Counties Ry. Co. (1848) 2 Exch, 344).

125.
after the

The

principal

agent has

may agree to the relationship commenced to act as such ("Ratifi-

Agency by

cation").

But a person

who

really or ostensibly acts

on

his

own

behalf cannot afterwards claim to have

Digitized

by Microsoft

54

LAW OF PERSONS
;

acted as an agent

nor can the subsequent adoption

of his acts place the person professing to adopt them


in the position of a principal.
[Probably, the legal analysis of the position
offers to act as such, and,

ceeds to act

as

agent.

omit to accept the offer ; back to the date of the offer.]

that the agent be accepted, proThe intended principal may decline or but, if he accepts it, his acceptance relates
is
:

assuming

his offer

to

IVilson V. Turntnan (1843) 6 M. Durant [1903] A. C. 240.

&

G. 242; Keighly 6-

Co.

v.

Liability of

126.

The

extent of the liability of a principal for


is

principal

the acts and defaults of his agent

governed by the

terms of the authority conferred, or deemed to have

been conferred, by him upon the agent.

Authority
knozvti

127.

When

the terms of the authority actually

conferred by the principal are know^n to the person


dealing with the agent, such person can only

make

the principal liable for acts and defaults w^ithin the

scope of such authority.


Re Arthur Average
Association

(1876) 34 L. T. 942.

Authority

128. )Vhen the terms of such authority are not

unknown

known
bility

to the person dealing with the agent, the lia-

of the principal
is

depends upon whether the


a "special" dgent.

agent

"general" or

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS
129.

55
General and
'P"'"^ "S'""

"general agent"
{a) in a

is

an agent appointed to

act as such:

course of dealing which

com-

prises all the affairs of his principal, or all the affairs

of his principal

in a particular business or character,

or (^) in the ordinary course of the agent's recog-

nized trade or profession.

A "special
act,

agent"

is

an

agent appointed to do a particular

not being in

the course of his recognized trade or profession.

130.

person

who employs

a general

agent

is

Liability

for

liable to third parties for all acts


in, or

of the agent usual


of, his

f!.*^,^

apparently within the scope

employment,
done or

or authorized by the custom of the trade or profession,

and for

all his

wrongful

acts or defaults

committed in the course of his employment, as well


as for
all

acts

and defaults expressly authorized or

ratified

by him.

Smith V. McGuire (1858) 3 H. & N. 554; Edmunds v. Bushell Watteauy. Fenwick [1893] I Q. B. 346; [1865] L. R. I Q. B. 97 Shaw V. Port Phillip Co. (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 103; Edwards v. Midland Hy. Co. (1880) 6 Q. B. D. 287 ; Eastern Counties Ry. Co. v. Brown (1850 20 L. J. Exch., at p. loi.
;

131.

partner, a

manager of

a business, a factor

Partners

(and probably a broker), and a shipmaster, are general


agents of their partners or employers, for the purposes

of 130.
Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

5.

Barwick

\.

English Joint Stock

Bank (1867) L. R.

Ex. 259.

Digitized

by Microsoft

56
Drinkwater
w.

LAW OF PERSONS
Goodwin {ijj^)
i

East India Co. v. Hensley {ij<)^) i Esp. (1864) 17 C. B. N. S. 298. Jr/i-ar v. Barton (1840) 6 M. & W. 138.

Cowp. zji. iiz; Heyworth

v.

Knight

^5^^

132.

wife living with her husband

is

(probably)

a general agent of the husband, in respect of the


daily

management of thp household, and may pledge


for necessaries suitable to his
is

her husband's credit


position,

and the manner in which the household

maintained; unless her husband 'has either () supplied her with sufficient necessaries, or money to
purchase the same, or
pledge his credit.
Phillipson v. Hayter (1870) L. R. 6 C, P. at p. 41 Westmoreland [1903] I K. B. 64. Debenham v. Mellon (1880) L. R. 6 App. Ca. 24. Jolly V. Rees (1864) 5 C. B. N. S. 628.
;

(^) expressly

forbidden her to

Morel

v.

Earl of

Wife
"^""^

living

133.

A wife

living apart

from her husband,

either
is

with

his consent, or

by reason of

his misconduct,

entitled to pledge his credit for necessaries supplied


for the uSe of herself

her

unless she

is

and their children, living with provided by him with an adequate


Adultery by the wife, unless con-

maintenance, or an income which she has agreed to


accept as adequate.

nived at or condoned by the husband, revokes such


authority to pledge his credit.
[The
case of the wife
is,

wish, leaves him,

who justifiably, but against her husband's perhaps, the one case in which, by English

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS
Law, agency does
It

57

not

now

rest

would be a

violent straining of

to pledge the husband's credit in

on agreement, express or implied. argument to urge that authority such circumstances was implicitly

given by the husband by the fact of marriage.]


Rawlins v. Vandyke (1801) 3 Esp. 2 50; Bazeley v. Forder (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 559. Johnston v. Sumner (1858) 3 H. & N. 261. If the maintenance is not provided by the husband, quare.
3

Negus V. Forster (1882) 46 L. T. 675; Eastland v. Burchell (1878) Q. B. D. 432. Wilson V. Glossop (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 354; Harris v. Morris (1801)

4 Esp. 41.
Atkyns v. Pearce (1857) 2 C. B. N. S. 763. Apparently adultery during cohabitation does not alter the wife's legal position (^Robinson v. Greinold (1704) i Salk. 119).

134.

housekeeper or servant presiding over


.

a Housekeeper

man's household has the same authority, whilst so


presiding (but not aftervv^ards), to pledge his credit as
a wife.
Hyan v. Sams (1848) 12 Q. B. 460; Rencaux v. Teakle (1853) Exch. 682 (approved in Debenham v. Mellon, at p. 33).

135.

child, even

though

living

with his parents,

child

has no authority to pledge his parents' credit.


(1851)
Mortimore v. Wright II C. B. 452.
{i%j\.o)

M. & W. 482;

Shelton v. Springett

136.

husband
acts

is

responsible to third parties for

Torts of

the

tortious

of his wife (not

being directly

^'^'if"

connected with, or by way of inducing, a contract)


but a parent
is

not responsible for the tortious acts

Digitized

by Microsoft

58

LAW OF PERSONS
committed
at his instigation,

or defaults of his child, unless they were

with his actual authority, or


V.

Liverpool Adelphi Loan Co. v. Fairhurst (1854) 9 Exch. 422 ; Earle Kingscote [1900] z Ch. 585. Moon V. Towers (i860) 8 C. B. N. S. 611. (If the parent actually
as his

employs the child


other agent.)

agent, he

is,

of course, responsible, as for any

[Sentence of judicial separation before judginent is obtained in the action of tort, releases the husband from liability (Cuenod v. Leslie [1909] i K. B. 880).]

Ante-nuptial

137.
tracts

husband
torts

is

liable for the ante-nuptial


all

con-

and

of his wife, to the extent of

prop-

erty

coming

to

him from

or through her.

Married
for his

passing of the Married

Women's Property Women's

Act, 1882, s. 14. Previously to the Property Acts, the liability of the husband

wife's ante-nuptial

contracts

and

torts

was unlimited, but

disap-

peared with the dissolution of the marriage.


rule applies
at

Qtiare, whether the same

to the statutory liability

{Beck vJ Pierce (1889) 23 Q. B. D.

p.

321).

Torts of
servant

138.

master

is

responsible for the wrongful acts

and defaults of
ter

his servant,

done or committed in the


;

course of the servant's

employment

save that a mas-

cannot be held liable by one servant for damage


act

from the employed by him


arising
cases provided for

or default of another servant

in the

same

business, except in the

by the Employers* Liability Act, and the Workmen's Compensation Acts.


[The
doctrrine

of

"common employment "


and

is,

probably, a survival

from the days of


still

gild contracts

statute labour.

The
;

Acts men-

tioned in the text have destroyed

much of

its

force

but there are

many

callings to
v.

which

their provisions

do not

apiply.]

Bayley
V.

Manchester &'C.
i

Ry
H.

Co. (1873) L. R. 8 C. P.

148

Degg

Midland Ry. Co, (1857)

& N.

773.

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS
139.

59
contractor

Where

a person employs an independent conact

which is Kkely, unless carefully performed, to result in damage to a third party, and there is a duty cast upon such person to use reasonable
tractor to

do an

care and

skill,

such person will be liable to the third

party for the negligence of the contractor, whereby

the third party suffers damage.


Hughes
V.

/'ifrV/?/(i883) L. R. 8 App. Ca. 443.

140.

person

who employs

a special agent

is

only

special agent

responsible to third parties for acts and defaults of the

agent which are authorized by him, or which are


necessary or incidental to such acts or defaults,
Fennv. Harrison (i^go)
3

T. R. 757

Bradyv. 7W</(i86i) 9 C.

B.

N.

S.

592.

141.

The

relation of principal

and agent may,


and

as Revocation
''

regards third parties, be terminated at any time, and


in
is

"^^"'^

any manner, by either principal or agent


ipso facto

it

terminated by the death, unsoundness of

mind, or bankruptcy of principal or agent.


Blades v. Free (1829) 9 B. & C. 167; Drew v. Nunn (1879) 4 Q. B. D. 661 ; Markwick v. Hardingham (1880) 15 Ch. D. .339; Hudson V. Granger (1821) 5 B. & Aid. 31.

except that:
{a\

The

revocation of an agent's authority (other

than a revocation by death or bankruptcy) does


not relieve the principal from responsibility
for dealings of the agent

with third persons.

Digitized

by Microsoft

6o

LAW OF PERSONS
with

whom

the principal has formerly dealt

through the same agent, and


notice of the revocation
Blades Ca. 79.
v.
;

who

have no

Free, ubi sup.; Elliotts.

Turquand (1881) L. R. 7 App.


E. 589
;

Trueman v. Loder (1840) 11 A. (1884) 28 Ch. D. 634.

&

Re

Oriental

Bank

Corp.

(J))

a person acting in

good

faith,

on

power of

attorney,

is

not rendered liable by the fact of

by death or otherwise, of which he had no notice


a revocation,
;

Conveyancing Act, 1881,5.47; Trustee Act, 1893,


(c)

23.

power of

attorney, executed after 3

Dec.

1882, given for valuable consideration, and


expressed to be irrevocable, or, whether given
for valuable consideration or not, expressed

to be irrevocable for

any fixed period not


its

exceeding one year from


during that period

date,

is,

in favour

of a purchaser, irrevocable, or
(as

irrevocable

the case

may

be) by

any act of the principal (including his death,


unsoundness of mind, and bankruptcy) done

without the consent of the agent.


Conveyancing Act, 1882,
ss. 8, 9.

Agenfs
;

lia-

142.

An

agent, acting as such,

is

not personally
'

tty on

contract

liable to third parties r

or for

on contracts entered into by him. J monies received by him,


744;
Ellis v. Goulton

Jenkins v. Hutchinson (1849) 13 Q. B.


I

[1893]

e.

B. 3S0,

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS
except that
()
:

6i

who
executes a deed in his

a person
is

own name

personally liable on the covenants contained

therein, even
it

though he

is

expressed to execute

as

agent
Appktony. Binhs {\%o\)
J East,

418.

[b)

a person

who accepts a bill of exchange drawn upon' him in his own name, is personally liable,

even though he accepts


Herald
y.

as

agent

Connab (1876) 34 L. T. 885.

[c)

by the custom of a particular

trade, a person

who
liable

enters into a contract as agent for an

unnamed

principal

may
8

be made personally

Hutchinson v. Tat ham (1873) L. R. (1887) 18 Q. B. D. 708,

C. P. 482

Pike

v.

Ongley

[d)

person

who

professes

to act as
to

an agent,
so, is per-

without having any authority

do

sonally liable to third parties,

who

deal with

him on
("

the faith of the alleged authority


").

warranty of authority

This rule does


officials profess-

not (probably) apply to public

ing to contract on behalf of the

Crown

Collen V. Wright (iSS7) 8 El. Bl. 647 ; Firbank's Exors. v. Humphreys (1886) 18 Q. B. D. 54 ; Tonge v. Toynbee [1910] I K. B. 215. (If the aUeged agent knew that he had no authority, he may be liable in an action ex delicto.)

&

Dunn
S.

V.

Macdonald [1897]

0/

State (1920)

XXXVII

I Q. B. 401, 555. T. L. R. 138.)

(See also

Denning

v.

(e)

a person acting as agent for a foreign principal,

who

does

not become liable to the

third

Digitized

by Microsoft

62
party,

LAW OF PERSONS
is

presumed

to be himself personally

liable' for
Huttoti V. Bulloch

the principal's solvency.

of liability

may

be rebutted.

(1874) L. R. 9 Q. B. 572. But the presumption (Gaddy. Houghton (1876) i Ex. D. 357.)

contract, but only the

[The del credere agent does not guarantee performance of the payment due from his principal (Gabriel v. Churchill [1914] 3 K. B. 1272).]

Agent's

lia-

143.
^j.

An

agent

is

personally liable ta third parties


tliey
it

hhiy

tn tort

^^^^^

committed by him, whether

were au-

thorised by his principal or not.


difference that the agent thought
fully.
Consolidated Co. v. Curtis

And

makes no

he was acting lawi

[1892]

Q. B. 495.

'Undisclosed
ijrtnctpa

144.

When
is

person,

who

apparently acts as a

principal,

discovered to have been really acting as

an agent, the true principal


the persons with

may be made
&
Gr
at p.

liable

by

whom

the agent has dealt,


86
;

Thomson v. Davenport (1829) 9 B. (1871) L. R. 6 C. P. 486.

Calder

v.

Dobell

except that
(a\

no evidence contradicting the express terms of a written document can be adduced to


prove the existence of the agency
Humble
v.

Hunter (1848) 12 Q. B. 310.

{b\

A person

cannot (probably) be made liable on a


is

deed in which he
Re
see

not

named

as a party;
525.
(But

Young

International Contract Co. (1871) L. R. 6 v. Schuler (1883) 1 1 Q. B. D. 651.)

Ch. App.

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS
[c)

63

a foreign principal

cannot be made liable on a


unless
it

contract
is

made by his agent in England,

proved that he actually authorised the agent

to pledge his credit


Hutton V. Bulloch (1874) L. R. 9 Q. (1872) L. R. 7S. B., at p. 605.
B.

572; Armstrong

v.

Stokes

[d)

person cannot be

instrument, unless

made liable on a negotiable his name appears thereon,


same
signs
in

or unless he signs the

a trade

name,
is

or unless a partner of a firm, of


or

which he

was

member,

it

in the partner-

ship

name

Ducarrey v. Gill (1830) Moo. & Mai. 450; Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, ss. 23, 89. As to when the acceptance of a bill of exchange by an active partner will bind a dormant partner, see Yorkshire Banking Co. v. Beatson (1880) 5 C. P. D. 109.
[e)

if

the state of accounts between the principal


to the

and the agent has been altered owing


conduct of the creditor, the
the
prejudice
:

latter

cannot, to

of the

principal,

hold

him

/V

liable

Heald v. Kenworthy (1855) 10 Exch. 739; Armstrong v. Stokes (1872) L. R. 7 Q. B. 598. But the exception does not apply where the agent, though not naming his principal, admits that he is acting as an agent ^'^^ indeed there is some doubt (Irvine v. Watson (1879) 5 Q- ^' '-* '^) whether it applies at all, unless the creditor has in some way induced the principal to believe that he may safely settle with the agent.
5

[f) a third party who, after discovering the existence of the principal, unequivocally manifests
his intention

of giving credit to the agent,

cannot afterwards sue the principal


Smethurst
v.

Mitchell {i^^q)

El.

&

El.

623.

Digitized

by Microsoft

64
!,

LAW OF
[g)
if

PE'RSONS
recovers

third

party

judgment against

li 8y-vini,

the agent, he cannot (probably) afterwards sue

ja3;^j5

3 the principal,

even though the judgment re-

mains

unsatisfied.

Priestley v. Fernie (1865) (1879) L. R. 4 App. Ca. 514.

H.

&

C. 977;

Kendall

v.

Hamilton

Men's rea

145.

When,

in

order to affect a principal,

it

is

necessary to prove the existence of a certain state of

mind,
agent.

it w^ill

be sufficient to prove the existence of

that state of mind, either in the principal or in the


,!,-,

to

ifi'j

Mayhew
IK'

v.

Fames (1825)
v.

B.

&

C. 601
B.

Liidgater v. Love (1881)

44 L. T. 694.
.Blackburn

Haslam (1888) zi Q.

D. 144.

Action by

146.
jr
1'

An

undisclosed principal

may

declare

himwould
But

uniscose prmctpal

^^^ assume auv contract entered into on >


the establishment of the agency

his be-

half, unless

contradict a statement in a written document.


a principal

who

allows his agent to act as a principal,

cannot prejudice the''rights of third parties against the


agent, acquired b-efore notice of the agency.
'

Browning

v.

Provincial Insce. Co. (1875) L. R.

P. C. 263.

'\''Eumble-w. Hunter (1848) i 2 Q. B. 310. Qucere, whether this qualification extends to verbal statements (Lucas v. De La Cour (18 13) 1 M.

&

S. 249).

Where
is

person describes himself as an agent for an

principal, but

in fact acting

on

his

own

behalf, he

may

sue

unnamed on the con-

Digitized

by Microsoft

LEGAL ACTS
tract,

65
jivery

ev?n though

it

is

in

writing {Schmalz

v.

(1951) zo

L.

J.

Q. B. 228).
Barries
V. Eshelby
v. Imperial Ottoman Bank (iSyj) L. R. 9 C. P. 38; Cooke (1887) L. R. 12 App. Ca. 271 ; Montagu v. Ftfrjt'W [i 893]
r;
>'.

Q.

B. 350.
'11

b-.
'.

,'1

.,

;.

/hfii.i^nij'.

".!

\y>i

147.

An

agent expressed to contract

as such,

canthe

Action by

not sue on the contract in his

own name, whether


'''^*"'

"i"^'

name of
not,

the principal has been actually disclosed or


'

Fair lie
f

v.

Fenton (1870) L. R. 5 Ex. 169.

unless
[a)

he has
a special property in the subject-matter

of the contract, or an interest in the completion of the contract


Williams
V.

Millington (1788)

H.

Bl. 81.

{b')

the Other party, with knowledge of the facts, has consented to treat
Rayner
v.

him

as a principal
359.

Grote (1846) 15

M. & W.

ic)

he

is

suing on a contract of insurance effected


as
;

by him

broker Wxxh the authority of his

principal
Sunderland Co.

v.

Kearney (1851) 16 Q.

B., at p.

939.

[d)

the contract was

made by
&

deed, to

which the

principal was not a party.


Gibson v. Winter (1833) 5 B.

Ad.

at p.

102.

D2

Digitized

by Microsoft

66
(^)

LAW OF PERSONS
he has entered into the contract on behalf of
a foreign principal.
There
is

extraordinarily

little

direct authority for this proposition

but
it

it

is

clearly implied in

Willis v.

Baddeley [1892] 2 Q. B. 324, and

is

believed to be constantly acted

upon

in practice.

'''". / Xhave been available against his principal are avail'


'

And, when he does


^
'

so, all
'

defences which
.'
'

would

'.

'

able against him.


Rogers^. Hadley (1863) z H.

&

C. 227

Willis v. Baddeley (ubi sup.).

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION IV
TIME
148. A legal day and begins and ends
Co.
Litt.

consists
at

of twenty-four hours, Day

midnight.

1353; Migotti V. Colville (1879) 4 C. P. D. 233. Time, document, means Greenwich mean time (Statutes (Definition of Time) Act, 1880).
in a legal

149. Fractions of a day are not taken into account Fan


in calculating periods of time
acts or events
;

of a

but, if

two or more

"''

occur on the same day, the order in which they occur may be proved, except as against claims by the Crown.
Mary's, Warwick (1853) > El. & Bl. 816; Smith I K. B. 285. Tabernacle Building Society v. Knight [1892] A. C. 298. H. V. Edwards (1853) 9 Exch, 52, 628.

R.
Coast

V.

St.

v.

Gold

^c. Ld. [1903]

50.

A judicial

act

is

deemed

to have been
it

done

judicial
acts

at

the earliest hour of the day on which

actually

took place.
Wright
writ of
B.
V.

summons

Mills (1859) 4 H. & N. 488. is not a judicial act {Clarke

The
v.

issue of an ordinary Bradlaugh (1881) 8 Q.

D. 63).

Digitized

by Microsoft

68
Acts of ar tamen

LAW OF PERSONS
151.

An Act

of Parliament conies into force

at

^^
it

expiration of the day previous to that on


(as

which
be)

received the Royal Assent, or


it is

the case
to
;

may

on which
1889,
s.

fixed

by Parliament

commence.
Interpretation

Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act, 1793


36.

Act,

152. In the absence of usage to the contrary,


a period of

when
in

time

is

fixed, either
act,

by law or by agree-

ment, for the doing of an


the reckoning
;

Sundays are included

but this rule does not apply to periods

of

less

than six days, allowed or prescribed by statute

or Order of Court for taking legal proceedings.


Brown
.

R.

S.

V. Johnson (1842) 10 H. C, 1875, O- LXIV. r. I.

& N.

331.

Holidays

^^S.
fiar

When

the time allowed by statute or Order

doing any act expires on a Sunday, or other holiday, such act may be duly done on the next business
day
;

but this rule does not apply to contracts, except

that,
falls

when
due on

a bill
a

of exchange or promissory note

dishonour

is

Bank Holiday, payment or notice of effectual, if made on the following

business day.
Morris v. Barrett (1859) 7 C. B. N. S. 139; Hughes v. Griffiths (1862) 13 C. B. N, S. 324; R. S. C. 1875, O- LXiy. r. 3. . E. g. a bill of exchange which falls due ori a Sunday is payable on the previous day (Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, s. 14 (i) (a)). Bank Holidays Act, 1871, ss. i, 2.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TIME
154.
artificer,

69
Sunday
'^''

Any -contract
workman,

entered into by a tradesman,

or labourer, in the ordinary course


is

'"^

of his trade or calHng, on a Sunday,


this rule does

void.

But

not apply to other contracts, or to works


or
charity;

of necessity

and

a
is

bill

of exchange,
invalid,

promissory note,

or

cheque,

not

only

by reason that
Sunday
B.

it

bears date on a Sunday.


Act,

&
Q.

Observance C. 406.
B. 725.

1677,

s.

Fennell

v.

Ridler (1826) 5
v.

Scarfe v.
I

Morgan (1838) 4 M. & W. 270; Palmer

Snow [1900]

Ji. V.
Bills

Tounger (1793) 5 T. R. 449. of Exchange Act, i88z, s. 13 (2).

55. In legal matters, unless the contrary

is

to

be Month

gathered from the context, the word "


a lunar
i?. V.

month

" means

month of twenty-eight

days,

Chawton (1841) i Q. B. 247. Lacon v. Hooper (1795) 6 T. R. 224; Rogers v. Dock Co. (1865) Bruner v. 34 L. J. Ch. 165 ; Hutton v. Brotvn (1881) 45 L. T. 343 Moore [1904] I Ch. 305.
;

but:

In Acts of Parliament passed after the year


1850, and in Rules of Court, and documents

[a\

which

are part of legal procedure,

it

means,

unless a contrary intention appears, a calendar

month;
Interpretation Act, 1889,
s.

R.

S.

C. 1875, O.

LXIV.

r.

i.

{b\

In

bills

of exchange, promissory notes, and


for

contracts

the

sale

of goods,

it

means
10 (2).

[prima facie) a calendar


Bills

month;
Goods Act, 1893,
s.

of Exchange- Act, 1882,

s.

Sale of

Digitized

by Microsoft

70
(c)

LAW OF PERSONS
A
" twelve-month " fneans a period of twelve calendar months and a " half-year " {tempus
;

semestre)
f
.

means a periodof six calendar months;


Cro. Jac. 166.

Catesby' s Case (1607) 6 Rep. 6za.


s.

c.

[d\

"

six

months "

notice, required to determine

a tenancy

commencing on one of the


means
a year.

usual

quarter days,

a notice extending over

two customary quarters of


Morgan
v.

Davies (1878)

C. P. D. z6o."

Reckoning
tn

156. In ca,lculating a palendar month, the time

is

man

reckoned from the day on which the period commences, to the corresponding day in the following

month, and
in the last

so on.

If there
last

is

no corresponding day

month, the

day of that

month

is

reckoned
'

as

the expiration of the period.


v.

Freeman

Read (1863) 4
Colville

B.

&

S.

174.

ottiy.

(1879) 4 C.

P.

D.

at p.

238.

Calendar
^^"^^

156a.

A commoD

Calendar year consists of three

hundred and

sixty-five days.

bissextile

or leap

year consists of three hundred and sixty-six days

and such a year recurs whenever the number of the


year after Christ can be divided by four exactly, save
that every hundredth year (except the year

2000 a.d.

and every four hundredth year thereafter) will be a

common

and not a leap year.


Calendar (New Style) Act, 1750,
s. 2.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TIME
157. Generally speaking,

71
a

when

time

is

fixed for

inclusive
""^^ "j

the currency of an interest, or the period of a delay


or imprisonment, the day

period

commences

is

on which the currency or included in the reckoning and


;

the currency or period expires at midnight of the


last

day.
act,

of an
is

But when a period is allowed for the doing the day on which the period commences

not included.
Russell \. Ledsam

(1845) 14 M.

& W.

at

p.

582; Migotti

v.

Col-

ville,

uhi sup.
V.

Migotti

Colville, ubi sup.


v.

>

Lester v.

[1892]

Garland (1808) ij Ves. 248; Radcliffe Q. B. 161 J Re North [1895] 2 Q. B. 264.

Bartholomew

D3

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION V
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
Limitation

158.

The

right to bring an action, to enforce a

of actions

civil claim, is

barred by the expiration of a period


to run

which begins

from the time

at

which the

right to bring the action accrued.


Limitation Act, 1623, s. 3; Civil Procedure Act, 1833, s. 3 ; Real (In the case Property Limitation Act, 1833, ss. z, 40; 1874, ss. 2, 8. of claims to recover land, rent, or money charged on land, distress and Real Property Limitation Acts, entry are barred when the action is barred.

1833 and liy ^,

passim,')

Periods

159. Subject to
respective periods,

62-1 67, the following are the


barred, viz.

on the expiration of which the


is
:

right to bring actions


l^a\

In the case of a claim to recover

money due

upon a deed or recognizance, or to proceed on a recognizance by scire facias, or to enforce a specialty contract, or to recover the

personal estate of an intestate from his representatives, or

from the Crown

s.

period of

twenty years
Civil Procedure Act, 1833,
s.

3.

Law

of Property

Amendment
1884,

Act, i860,
s.

13.

Intestates Estates Act,

3.

Digitized

by Microsoft

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
(^)

73

In the case of a claim to recover land, or money-

charged on land, or rent (including tithe-rentcharge), or a legacy


years
Land Commission v. Grant (1884') L. R. 10 App. Ca. 14. Real Property Limitation Act, 1874, 's. i, 8. (But where the money charged on land is only a simple contract debt, the personal action will be
Irish

a period

of,

twelve

barred at the expiration of' six years.

Barnes

v.

Glentan [1899]

Q.

B.

885.)

(c)

In the case of a claim for trespass to the person, assault, or false

imprisonment

a period

of four years
Limitation Act, 1623,
s.

3 (3).

{d)

In the case of a claim for the infringement of

copyright

a period of three years


s.

Copyright Act, 191 1,

10.

{e\

In the case of a claim for defamation by spoken

words actionable per


penalties,

se

("slander") or for

damages, or sums of money given by

statute to the party grieved (except

statute otherwise provides)

where such period of two

years
Limitation Act, 1623, s. 3 (4). Civil Procedure Act, 1833, s. 3.

against [f) In the case of a claim by auditors a period Poor Law Guardians and officers

of nine months
Poor

Law Amendment

Act, 1849,

ss.

9, 11.

Digitized

by Microsoft

74
(_g-)

LAW OF PERSONS
In the case of a claim for any act done in pursuance
of,

or for any neglect of duty under,

any Act of Parliament, or of any public duty


or authority
Constables

a period of six

months

1750, s. 8 ; Public Authorities Protection Presumably, this latter Act repeals s. 170 of the Army Act, 1881, which allows twelve months for proceeding under that Act. (See Andrews v. Clifford (1920) Times Newspaper, 20th December). As to what constitutes an act or neglect connected with a public duty, see Sharpington v. Fulham Guardians [1904] 2 Ch. 449.
Protection Act,
I

Act,

1893,

s.

(a).

[In actions under the Act of 1893 for continuous damage, the period does not commence to run until the ceasing of the damage; and damage sufffered more than six months before the action may be vindicated {Hague v. DoncasUr R. D. C. (1908) T. L. R. 130; Bradford Corpn. v. Myers [1916] 1 A. C. 242).]

XXV

(h)

In the case of a claim against the Heir


parent
to the

Crown

Ap-

a period

of three

calendar months after particulars of the claim

have been duly delivered to his principal officer


,

Heir Apparent's Establishment Act, 1795, s. 9. The particulars must be delivered within ten days after the expiration of the quarter in which the demand accrued (s. 7), and the action must be brought against the officer, and not against the Heir Apparent (s. 9).

(?)

In the case of any other claim


six years.

s.

a period of

Law Amendment

Limitation Act, 1623, s. 3 (2) ; 4 Anne (1705) c. 16, Act, 1856, s. 9 ; Trustee Act, 1888, s.

17

Mercantile

8.

[Owing to the curious history of the English law affecting chattels, there appears to be no statutory time-har to the recovery of chattels in specie {Mitchell v. Moseley [1914] i Ch. 438).]
Acknowledgment

160.

A Written acknowledgment of the


payment
to

claimant's

x\^&, or a

him

or to any person through

Digitized

by Microsoft

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS

75

whom

he claims, on account of principal, rent, or interest, by the person in possession of the land, or liable to the debt or damages for breach of contract,
will cause the period of limitation to

recommence
action on ac-

except that,
legacy, has

when

claim

to

land, or rent, or a

become unenforceable by
will revive
it.

count of lapse of time, no subsequent acknowledg-

ment

or

payment

But the acknowl-

edgment,

in the case of claims


to

on simple contract,
pay

must be such, that a promise ably inferred from it.


Statute of Frauds

may

be reason-

Amendment

Act, i8z8,

s.

Real Property Limitation

Act, 1833, s. 14; Mercantile Civil Procedure Act, 1833,


s.

Law Amendment
s.

Act, 1856, s. 13. Real Property Limitation Act, 1833,


s.

1874,

s.

8.

Real Property Limitation Act, Fairthorne [1895] ^^- ^'9'


Foster v.

1833,
at p.

34^ 1874,
;

s.

8;

Kibble

v.

Dawber (1851) 6 Exch.

(187 1) L.
563-

R. 6 Ch. App. 8a2; Lusher

v.

In re River Steamer Co. 853 Hassard (1904) T. L. R.

XX

161.

An acknowledgment

or

payment by one of

Co-debtors

co-owners or co-debtors, co-executors or co-administrators, will

not prevent the period of limitation runothers,

ning in

favour of the
it is

unless

the
act,

person
as

making
agent.
life

entitled to act,

and does
interest

their

But the payment of

by

a tenant for
testator,

under a devise, on a debt due from the

prevents the period running in favour of the remain-

dermen
of the

and an acknowledgment by one of several

co-executors will prevent the period running in favour


testator's estate.

Digitized

by Microsoft

l-je
'TO

^>5^('l

LAW OF PERSONS
Act, 1828,
s.

Statute of Frauds
s.

Amendment

Mercantile

Law Amend-

14; Real Property Limitation Act, ,1874, s. 7; Dickenson \.' Teesdale (1862) i De G. J. & S. 52; Richardson v. Tounge (1871) L. R. 6 Ch. App, 478. Wood V. BraddhJi (1808) i Taunt. 104; Re Frisby (1889) 43 Ch. ''^" J't D. 106. i? (?(/'; V. Mr/fj (1857) De G. & J. i ; Re HoUingshead (1888) 37 Ch. D. 651! 'I Re Macdonald [1897] 2 Ch. 181.
menit Act, 1856,
'

~gb3lv/('fl>l^l;
-IWofi>l:>i;
Joint claimants
'

7f[3Up,. :

>^

Ji

162.

An acknowledgment
:

Of

payment

to

one of

joint

claimants

prevents

the

period

of limitation

running against the others.


'"'"*

^otoi^ y.'^'Lord

Waterpark (1839)

L.

J.

Ch. 214; Real Property

Limitation Act, 1874, s. 7."'(But th6 claimants must really be joint, and not several. Ashlin v. Lee (1875) 44 L. J. Ch. 376.) 7\

Concealed y'

163. Where, through the fraud of the defend-

fraud"
ant, or

of some one through


acts

whom

he claims, or

for

whose
ni>\^Vv, -

he

is

responsible, a cause

upoa which
he claims, he

the clalmiant'^ bases his action was

not discovered

by him, 'or by the person through


at the

whom

time

when

it

arose, the period

of limitation

will not begin to run against the claimant until

has discovered, or with i-ea^onable diligence

might

have disdovered,

thfe

commission of the fraud.

Real Property Limitation Act, 1833, s. 26 ; Bulli Coal Co. v. Osborne (Probably a [1899] A. C. 351; Re McCallum [1901] i Ch. 143. similar rule applies where, owing to a mutual mistake, a claimant has remained in ignorance of his rights. Harris v. Harris (1861) 29 Beav. no. But the rule in the is confined to claims which could, prior to the Judicature Acts, be made the basis of a suit in equity {Armstrong v. Milburn (1886) 54 L. T. 247, 723 ; Osgood V. Sunderland (1914) ill L. T. 529).

Digitized

by Microsoft

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
164.

77
Trustees

trustee fnay not take the benefit of the

Statutes of Limitation, if

fraudulent breach of trust,

he has been guilty of a or if he still retains the


its

property which

is

the subject of the action, or

pro-

ceeds, or has previously converted the

same

to his

own

use.
s.

Trustee Act, 1888,

How

v.

Winterton [1896] z Ch. 6i6.

165.

Except

in

respect of claims to
interest,

advowsons,
to

Disabilities

and to arrears of rent and

and

redeem

mortgagee

in possession, the period

of limitation dpes
an infant,

not begin to run against a person


or of unsound mind,

who was

when

his right accrued, until the

attainment of his majority, or the recovery of his


sanity,
;

but a period, which has once

commenced

to
or,

run

is

not suspended by the occurrence, of infancy

insanity.

De

Beauvoir

v.

Owen (1850)

Exch.,

at p.

182.

1623, s. 7; Civil Procedure Act, 1833,5. 4; Real B\it, in the case of actions to Property Lirnitation Act, 1874, ss. 3, 5. recover land or rent, the period after the removal of the disability is six years only ; and the extreme limit is thirty years from the accrual of the The disability of marriage is now, virtually, abolished. cause of action.
Limitation Act,

{Lowe V. Fox (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 667; Trustee Act, 1888, s. 8(b).) GoodaU V. Skerratt (1855) 3 Drew. 216 Murray v. IFafl^ins (1890) 62
;

L. T. 796.

Kinsman

v.

Rouse (1881)117 Ch. D. 104

Forster v. Patterson, ibid,, 132.

166.

The

period of limitation does not begin to

Future
""^''^^'^

run against a person entitled to a future interest in


land or rent, until the

determination
interest.

of the imBtjt
if the

mediately preceding estate or

Digitized

by Microsoft

78

LAW OF PERSONS
a preceding interest
is

owner of

but of possession at

the determination of his interest, the owner of the


future interest has only six years

from the natural

determination of the preceding; interest, or twelve


years

from the time when the owner of the preceding interest ceased to be in possession, whichever is the
longer period.
Real Property Limitation Act,
1

874,

s.

2,

Estates tail

67.

When

the period of limitation begins to run


it

against a tenant-in-tail,
all
it

begins to run also against

persons

whose

interests

he

is entitled to

bar; and

begins to run against the remainderman, in favour


a'

of

person taking under an assurance by a tenant-in-

which does not bar the remainder, from the time at which such tenant-in-tail could have barred
tail,

the remainder.
Real Property Limitatidn Act; 1833,
ss.

zi.zz, 23;

1874,

s-

6.

Short
tenancies

168.

When

a person

is

in possession of land

as

tenant-at-will, the period of limitation begins to run

against the lessor,

from the expiry of the


a

first

year of

the tenancy
land
as

and when

person

is

in possession

of

a tenant-from-year-to-year, or

other period, begins to


first

without any

lease in writing, the period

run against the lessor from the expiry of the

Digitized

by Microsoft

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
year or other period of tenancy, or from the
receipt of rent, whichever last happens.
Real Property Limitation Act, 1833,
Ibid.
s.

79
last

s.

7.

8.

169.

No

land or rent

may be

recovered by an

Corporations

ecclesiastical or

eleemosynary corporation sole after


right of the corporation ac-

"^^

the expiry of two incumbencies and six years, from

the time at

which the
is

crued, or after the expiry of sixty years


date,

from

that

whichever

the longer period.

Real Property Limitation Act, 1833, s. 29. (The six years are reckoned from the appointment of the third incumbent, not from the happening of the vacancy.)

170.
("

claim
"),

to

the

patronage

of

church

Advowsom

Advowson

cannot be enforced after the expiry


years,

of three adverse incumbencies, or sixty


ever period
is

whichto

the longest

and no claim
after

such

patronage can be enforced,


the claimant, or some

one hundred years


unless

from the appointment of an adverse incumbent,


person

through

whom

he

claims, has since presented.


Real Property Limitation Act, 1833, ss. 30, 33 ; Limitation of Actions (Incumbencies filled on the lapse of the patron's rights Act, 1843, s. 3. are counted ; but not incumbencies filled by the Crown, on the promotion
of the former incumbent
to a bishopric.)

Digitized

by Microsoft

8o
Crown
suits

LAW OF PERSONS
171. Claims by and
against

the

Crown, other

than claims in respect of the personal estate of a deceased person, are not affected by the ordinary Statutes

of Limitation.

But the claims of the Crown

to real

property and chattels real (other than franchises and


liberties^)

are barred at the expiry of sixty years


last

from

the time at which they arose, or from the

receipt

of rent

in respect thereof.
Intestates Estates Act,

1884,3.
s.
I

3,
i

>

Rustomjee

v.

The Queen (^1876)


1769,
;

Q. B. D; 491.
s.

Crown

Suits Acts,

1861,

I.

Extinction

172.

When

the right to bring an action to recover


is

of title

land, rent, or an advowson,

barred by the expiry of

the period of limitation, the


is

title

of the person barred

extinguished

but this rule does not apply to claims

for debt or damages, or for

money charged on

land,

or to claims by the

Crown.
s.

Real Property Limitation Act, 1833,

34.

Re Lane Re Lord
quence of

(18,89) 23 Q. B. D. 74. Clifden [1900J i Ch. 774.

The consecan (probably) be enforced by any lawful means, other than the bringing of an action e. g. ; by retainer, set-ofF, seizure, &c.
Goodtitle d.
tliis

Parker

v.

Baldwin (1809) 11 East, 488.


that claims falling within
it

exception

is,

Arrears of
tithe rent-

173.

Not more than two

years' arrears

of tithe-

charge

rent charge can be recovered.


Tithe Act, 1836,
Tithe-rent-charge
is
s. 81 ; Paynes. Esdaile (1888) L. R. 13 App. Ca. 613. recovered by distress, or the appointment of a receiver ;

not by action.

Digitized

by Microsoft

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
174.

8i
Other

Not more than

six years' arrears

of rent, or
secured

any other periodical payment, can be recovered by


distress or action,

even though the payment

is

by express
ss.

trust.
1623,
s.

Limitation Act,

.3;

Real Property Limitation Act,


"-'

1833,

41, 42. Real Property Limitation Act, 1874,

^-

175.

dr
The
legal or

landlord

of
r

an
1

agricultural

holding

Agricultural
holdinf

istram tor rent after the expiry or one year

from the

customary date for the payment

thereof; and a landlord

who

distrains

upon

bankof rent

Bankruptcy

rupt tenant cannot recover, by

distress, arrears

due more than

six

months prior

to the order of ad-

judication in the tenant's bankruptcy.


Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908,
for six years' arrears.)
s.

28.

(But, of course, he

may

sue

Bankruptcy Act, I914, s. 35 (l). (But he may prove in the tenant's bankruptcy for any amount not exceeding six years' arrears.)

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION

VI

SELF HELP
Self-defence

76.

A person
is

who, or whose wife,


is

child, master,

or servant, or

threatened with wrongful physical harm,

whose

possession

wrongfully interfered with,

is

justified in

employing, against the wrong-doer, force

apparently necessary to prevent the accomplishment


or continuance of that
50;
Weaver
160
;

harm
;

or interference.
a,

Bkckstone, Comm. III. 120, 121


pi.

v. V.

C.

&

P.

R.

Y. B. 21 Hen. VII. (1505) 39 Bush (1798) 8 T. R. 78 ; R. v. Smith (1837) Symondson (1896) 60 J. P. 645.

Seizure of
chattels

77.

A person entitled to the possession of a chattel


it,

may

seize

by force

if necessary;

but no one

may

take possession of land by force.


Blades v. Higgs (1861) 10 C. B. (N. S.) 713. upon the land of a wrong-doer for the purpose (^Patrick
3

He may
v.

even enter

Colerick

(1838)

M. & W. 483)
5

but not of an innocent third party (^Anthony v. Haneys

(1832)

8 Bing. 186).

Ric. II. (13 81) St. I., c. 8 ; 8 Hen. VI. (1429) c. 9, ss. 2, 7. But the remedy for breach of the statutes is a criminal one ; and, though
the person dispossessed
is

entitled to
if

be restored by the Justices, he has,


is'

probably, no action for damages,

the claim of the dispossessor

really

lawful (^Harvey v. Bridges (1845) 14 (1885) SI L.T. 746).

M, & W.' 437

Scott

v.

Brown

Distress

178. If rent or other annual


land, or the

sum charged upon

incom6

thereof,

is

in arrear, the person

Digitized

by Microsoft

SELF HELP
entitled to receive the

83
land,

same may enter upon the

and seize and


isfy his

sell

the chattels found thereon, to sat-

claim ("Distress").
right extends to

tress (Distress for

goods fraudulently removed to avoid a dis1 737, s. i) until they have come into the hands of a bona fide purchaser for value. It takes precedence also, subject to various exceptions, of the claims of the tenant's other creditors, and even of his trustee in bankruptcy.]

[The

Rent Act,

2 W. & M. St. I, c. 5 (pr.) as to ordinary rent; Landlord and Tenant Act, 1730, s. 5, as to rents seek; Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 44, as to other annual charges created after 1 8 8 1 The exercise of the right of distress
.

is

subject to

many

regulations
;

and

restrictions.

(See especially. Lodgers'

Goods Protection Act, 1871


igo8.
If

or

sum

Acts, 1888 and the distress is levied under the Conveyancing Act, l88l, the rent claimed must be in arrear for twenty-one days.)
of Distress

Law

Amendment

179.

When

an annual charge on' land, created by

Rent-charges

an

instrument

coming
is

into
arrear

operation
for

after

31st

December, 1881,

in

forty

days,

the

person entitled to receive the same

may

enter

upon

the land, and retain possession until his claim has

been

satisfied

out of the incomings of the land, or

may demise
gage,
sale,

the land to a trustee

who may, by mortbecome

or demise, raise the rent-charge, and the

arrears thereof,

and

all

future payments to

due under the same, for the benefit of the claimant.


[These powers may be excluded or modified by the instrument They do not apply to ordinary rent-service.J
Conveyancing Act, 1881,
s.

creating the charges.

44

(3) (4).

Digitized

by Microsoft

84
Damage
feasant

LAW OF PERSONS
180.

person lawfully in possession of any land

coming unlawfully thereon, and causing encumbrance or damage, if they are not removed by their owner within a reasonable time (" Distress damage feas^^^^ Seize and

impound any chattels

or animals

ant").

But he cannot exercise this right, if he has contributed to the trespass by his own negligence,

or if the chattels or animals are in the actual use of

remove such chattels or animals but, if thqir presence on the land was due to, his own negligence, he niust remove them in such a manner as not to cause them harm.
any person.
;

He may

also

Ambergate ky. Co. v. Midland Ry. Co. (1853) z EL & Bl. 793; Tyrringham's Case (1585) 4 Rep. at 38 b. Goodwin v. Cheveley (1859) 4 H. & N. 631 ; Boden v. Roscoe [1894] I Q. B. 608. Singleton v. Williamson (1861) 7 H. & N. 410. Fields. Adams (1840) 12 A. & E. 649. Carruthersy. Hollis (i'83$) 8 A. & E. 113.

Overhanging

181.

The

occupier of land

is

justified in cutting

branches of trees growing in his neighbour's land,

which overhang
to his

his

own

land, without giving notice

neighbour of his intention so to do.


hemmonv. Webb\\'i^'^ A. C.
I.
.

yd [He is not

. ,

justified in appropriating the fruit


i

growing on them

{Mills V. Brookir [1919]

Yi.

B. 555).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

BOOK
Part

II

OBLIGATIONS
I

OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM CONTRACT


(General)

SECTION

FORMATION OF CONTRACT

TITLE
182.
or
is

OFFER
is

AND ACCEPTANCE
Contract

contract

an agreement which creates,

intended to create, a legal obligation between


it.

the parties to

183.

contract

which does not


is

create a legal
a

Void
contract

obligation between the parties


contract.

termed

" void

84.

contract

which one or more of the

parties
is

Voidable

thereto"

may

affirm or avoid at his or their option

termed a " voidable " contract.

Digitized

by Microsoft

8^
Unenforcee contract

LAW OF CONTRACT
185.

Contract upon i^hich an action cannot be


is

j^aintained by one of the parties thereto

said to

be unenforceable by that party.


Taylor
v.

G. E. Ry. Co. [1901]

K. B.

at p.

779.

[For examples of unenforceable contracts see Book I, 158(Limitation of Actions) and 220, 222 below (Statute of Frauds, s. 4; Sale of Goods Act 1893, s. 4)" I" ^^^ ^^^^ ^ ^ statute-barred claim, the contract has become unenforceable by lapse of time. But it is not avoided, and may be revived without fresh consideratipn in accordance with Book I, 160162. The classes of contracts specified in 220 and 222 (below) are

175

unenforceable unless they are in writing, or otherwise satisfy the

requirements ( 222). Nevertheless, even though the evidence of their existence is wanting, they are valid contracts. They create obligations and produce most of the legal consequences of Contracts, so that (e. g.) if the contract is for the
statutory
requisite

of specific goods, the property in the goods passes to the buyer Bigham J., Taylor v. G. E. Ry. Co. [1901] i K. B., at They may be rendered enforceable ex post facto by p. 779). written evidence forthcoming at any time before action brought (See Addendum to Title II of this Section). Finally, neither the lapse of time nor the absence of writing is- available as a defence, unless expressly raised by the pleadings.]
sale

(per

Non"engagemtnts

186. There
f'"^"^

is

no contract

if

it is

to be gathered

language or acts of the parties, or from the circumstances of the ca,se, that the parties did not

^^

intend to create a legal obligation between them.


Weeks
V.

lihold (1605)

RoUe, Ab.

6.

[There is little direct authority for this proposition ; but it is presumed that a purely social engagement, e. g. of two persons to dine together, does not produce legal consequences. This is sometimes expressed by the phrase, that an agreement which is to produce legal consequences must be an " act ih the law." (Pollock,
Principles of Contract.) 7th ed. p. 3.)]

Digitized

by Microsoft

FORMATION OF CONTRACT
187. There
is

87

no contract

if

it

is

impossible to Vague
f''""'''"

gather from the language or acts of the parties, or from the circumstances of the case, the nature and
content of the obligation intended to be created.
White
Pearce
V. Bluett
v.

(1853) 23 L. J. Ex. 36. Watts (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 492.

188. There
the parties to

is

no contract

if it

is

left

to

one of

Unascertained
.^^^^^^

determine the character or amount ;ter

of the performance due from him.


Taylor
v.

Brewer (181 3)

M. &

S.

290.

189.

contract

is

concluded when one party has

Making of
"''^^'"*

communicated
has accepted
a concurrent
it,

to another an offer,

and that other


to

or

when

the parties have united in

expression

of intention, designed

create a legal obligation.


little attention to offer and acceptelements of contract. (See, for instance, BlackIt appears that in English law there stone, Comm. II, pp. 442 S.) may be contracts which do not arise from the acceptance of a preceding offer. Thus, a lease is at once a conveyance and a conSo far as it is a contract, we must look for the terms of the tract. contract within the instrument itself; for rules of evidence preclude us in general from supplementing or varying the written contract by reference to the negotiations which preceded it. The deed is Antecenot merely evidence of the contract, but is the contract. dent discussion therefore, even though it may have resulted in a

[Our

older law-writers pay

ance

as constituent

contract, viz. in an agreement for a lease, is inadmissible, as regards the lease itself, to point to one party more than to the other as In such a case, the union of minds takes the offeror or acceptor. the acceptance of an offer, but of a concurrent exform, not of (See Pollock, Principles of Contract, 7th ed. pression of intention.

pp. 6-7.)]

Digitized

by Microsoft

88
Offer

LAW
190.
it is

OF CONTRACT
of an offer takes place

The communication
it is

when
to

brought to the knowledge of {he person

whom

made.
V.

Taylor

Laird (1 856) 25 L.
v.

J.

Ex. 329.

Richardson

Rozvntree [1894] A. C. 217.

Mode of communication

191. Subject

to

special

rules

of law, an

offer

may be communicated
written), or
partly

either

by words (spoken or
partly by

by conduct, or

words and

by conduct.
Hart
V.

Mill! (1846)

M. & W.

87.

When

offer

192.

An

offer does

not bind the offeror until ac-

binding

ceptance, and

may

lapse or

be revoked

at

any time

before acceptance.
Offordv. Davies (1862) iz C. B. N.
Dickinson v. Dodds (1876) 2 Ch.
S.

748.

D. 463.

Lapse of
offer

193.
it is

An

offer lapses
fails

when
it

[a)

the person to

whom

made

to accept

within the time or in

the manner prescribed by the offeror, or, if no time

manner is prescribed, within a time or in a manner reasonable under the circumstances, [b) the offeree communicates his refusal of the offer, or
or

makes

a counter-offer,

[c]

either party dies.


Ramsgate Hotel Co.
v.

\a) Bailfs Case (1868)


Montefibre (1866) L. R.
i

L. R. 5 Eq. 428. Ex. 109.

(3) Hyde v. Wrench (1840) 3 Beav. 334. (f) Dickinson v. Dodds (1876) 2 Ch. D. at p. 475 (death of offeror). Duff's Exors' Case (1886) 32 Ch. D. 301 (death of offeree).

Digitized

by Microsoft

FORMATION OF CONTRACT
194.

89
Revocation
''^''^"'

An

offer

is

revoked when the offeror makes

known to the offeree that it is no longer open to him to accept it. An offer is deemed to be revoked when the offeror renders it impossible for himself to
act or forbear in terms of his offer,

and the offeree


party,

learns

of

this,

even

from

third

before

acceptance.
1

v. Dodds (1876) 2 Ch. D. 463. Byrne v. Fan Tienhoven C1880) 5 C. P. D. 344. Henthorn v. Fraser [1892] 2 Ch. 27.

Dickinson

[The second

part of the

above rule

is

rendered necessary by the

decision of the Court of Appeal (James and Mellish, L. JJ. Baggallay, J. A,) in Dickinson v. Dodds (1876) 2 Ch. D. 463. This decision has been adversely criticised, but must be accepted as
a

correct statement of the law until the

House of Lords has an opit

portunity in

some

future case of determining whether

rightly in-

terpreted the law.]

195. Even if an offeror prescribes a time for acceptance, he

may

nevertheless revoke the offer


;

offer always revocable

at

any time before acceptance

but if he has entered

into an independent contract not to do so,


liable for a

he will be

breach of siuch contract.


v.

Routledge
Bristol

Bread

Grant (1828) 4 Bing. 653. Co. v. Maggs ( 1 890) 44 Ch. D. 616.

196. Acceptance takes place


presses his

when

the offeree ex-

Acceptance

acceptance of the offer in the manner

prescribed by the offeror, or, in default of this, in

Digitized

by Microsoft

go
a

l.AyN

OF CONTRACT
in the circumstances
;

manner reasonable
last case,
is

but, in

the

subject to the provisions of 198, acit is

ceptance

not complete until

communicated

to the' offeror.
Maclver
Brogden
y.

v.

Adams

V.

Richardson (181 j) I M. & S. 557. Metro. Ry. Co. (1877) L. R. 2 App. Ca. 666. Lindsell {\%\'i') i B. & Aid. at p. 683.

Mode of
acceptance

Subject as aforesaid, and to special rules of law,

acceptance

may be communicated

either

by words

(spoken or written), or by conduct, or partly by

words and partly by conduct.

Ineffectual

197.

An

acceptance which does not correspond


offer
is

acceptance

with the terms of an


offeree

ineffectual.

If the

purports to

accept

subject

to

conditions,

additions, restrictions, or alterations, his

purported

acceptance counts

as a refusal

of the original offer

and
after

as a

new

offer.

purported acceptance

made

an

offer has lapsed or

been revoked (probably)

counts as a

new
Hyde
Lucas

offer.
V.
V.

W'rench (1840)

'3

Beav. 334.

James (1849)

7 Hare, 410.

Acceptance
by post

198. If acceptance through the post

is

expressly or
offeror,

by implication prescribed or permitted by the


acceptance
the
is

made, and the contract


acceptance
is

is

concluded, at

moment when an

duly posted for

Digitized

by Microsoft

FORMATION OF CONTRACT
ance
is

91

transmission to the offeror, even though the accept-

delayed or

lost in

the post.

Household Fire Insurance Co. v. Grant (1879) 4 E*- ^- 2' 6. Cozoan v. Qi' Connor (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 640. Henthorn v. Eraser [1892] 2 Ch. 27. In re London i^ Northern Bank [1900] 1 Ch. 220.

199.

When

it

is

to be gathered

from an

offer.

General
"ff^"''

(whether made to a
persons
generally,)

definite person or persons or to

that

the offeror intends


acts or forbears in

to be

bound
of the

to the person
offer

who

terms

without previous

communication of
with

acceptance, the person so acting or forbearing accepts the offer,

when he
offer,

so

acts or forbears

knowledge of the
Ex p.

Williams v. Carviardine (1833) 4 B. & Ad. 621. Asiatic Banking Co. (1867) L. R. 2 Ch. App. 391. Brogden v. Metro. Ry. Co. (1877) L. R. 2 App. Ca. at p. 691. Carlillv. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 Q^ B. (C. A.) 256.

200, If the parties to a contract have agreed that


their contract
is
is

inchoate

to be put into a particular form,

"""'"'"
it

a question of fact in each case

whether they

in-

tend that no obligation shall


is

arise until the contract

put

into

such

form.

The mere

fact that the

parties

have so agreed does not prevent them from


if

being bound,
are
at

they intended to be

so, ai;id if

they

one

as

regards the terms of the proposed

contract.
Chinnock
Lloyd
y.

Rossiter v. Miller

The Marchioness of Eh (1865) 4 D. J. (1878) L. R. 3'App. Ca. 1 124. Nowell[iig$\ 2 Ch. 744.
v.

&

S.

638.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
specialty

11

FORM AND
under

CONSIDERATION
:

and

201. All contracts are either


{a.)

" contracts

simple

contracts

in writing

seal (" specialties "

under seal"), or
[b.)

otherwise expressed (" parol " or " simple "


contracts).
Rann
v.

Hughes (1778) 7 T. R. 350

n.

[The text-books speak:also of " contracts of record." But tkese, in so far as thsy are contracts at all, .have ceased to be of practical
importance.]

Promisor

and
promisee

202. Every contract contains a promise or promises. The person who makes a promise is termed " the
promisor."
"
-

The

person to

whom

promise

is

made

is

termed

"the promisee."
In a contract containing reciprocal promises, each
party
is

at

the same time promisor and promisee.


is

[In the case^of a specialty contract, the promise

termed a

" covenant," and the promisor and promisee are term;d " coveIn the case of a bond, nantor " and " covenantee " respectively. the corresponding terms are " obligor " and " obligee."]

Nudum
pactum

203.
to
it

No

simple contract
is

is

binding upon a party

unless there

consideration for his promise.

Rann_ V. Hughes, ubi sup. Cook V. Oxley (1790) 3 T. R. 650.

Digitized

by Microsoft

FORMATION OF CONTRACT
204.
,

93
is

Except
,
1

as hereinafter
.

mentioned, there
r

said

fa/uaik
consideration

to be valuable consideration tor a

promise

when
1

the

promisee does, forbears, or

suffers, or

promises, at the

time of the promise made to him, to do, forbear, or


suffer,

something

in

exchange

for the promise.

Jones V. Ashburnham (1804) 4 East, 455. Currie v. Misa (1875) L- ^' ' Ex. at p. l6z.
Carlillv. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

[1893]

Q.

B., at p. 2(54.

[There
tion

is

an apparent exception from the

rule that the considera-

must " move from the promisee " in compositions with creditors. But, though the promise is ostensibly made to the debtor and maybe pleaded by him, it is really made to the other creditors in return for similar promises made by them QVest Yorkshire Darracq Co. v.
;

Coleridge [191 1] 2 K. B. 326).]

205.
'

When
'

a consideration consists in
it is

something
'

Executed
'"""',
tory constder"tions

done, forborne, or suffered, '

said to

be "executed

:" ""^

when

a consideration consists in a
it is

forbear, or suffer,

promise to do, " executory." said to be An

executory

consideration

becomes

executed

upon

performance.
[Formerly the terms "executed" and "executory" were often itself. This practice is to be deprecated. Every contract is, in its nature, executory. When it has been Ed.] completely executed, it ceases to exist.
applied to the contract
'

206. Subject to the rules relating to the revival of


statute-barred debts, an antecedent act, forbearance,

Fast

con-

or promise, of one party

is

no consideration for
is

subsequent promise of the other party, nor

a sub-

sequent act, forbearance, or promise of one party

Digitized

by Microsoft

94

LAW OF CONTRACT

any consideration for an antecedent promise of the


other.
Hopkins
Roscorla v.

Kaye
[It
is

v.

Logan (1839) 5 M. &' W. 241. Thomas (1842) 3 Q. B. 234. Button (1844) 7 M. & Gr.Soy.
V.

sometimes

said

that

may
(See

be consideration for a subsequent

an antetedent act or forbearance promise, if the antecedent

was done or forborne at the promisor's request. Bate (1568) 3 Dyer 272 a; LampUigh v. Braithwait (1614) Hob. 105; Thornton v. Jenyns (1840) i M. & G. 166.) But quaere whether this is so, unless the request in substance amounts to an offer, the term^ of which are repeated or defined in the subsequent undertaking {Wilkinson v. Oliveira (1835) i Bing. N. C. 490 ; Kennedy v. Brown (1863) 13 C. B. N. S. 677),]
act or forbearance

Hunt

v.

Inadequacy
sideratkn

207.

It

is

not necessary that the consideration

should be of equal value with the promise in respect

of which

it is

given.
(1839) 10 A.

Haigh

V. Broois
v.

&

E. 309.
p.

Westlake
Bolton V.

Adams (1858) 5 C. B. N. S., at Madden (1873) L. R. 9 Q. B. 55.

265.

Abandonment- of claims

208.

The abandonment

of a right or bona

fide

claim, even though unfounded, or the forbearance


to exercise a right or to assert a

claim,

may

be a

valid consideration for a promise.


(1831) 8 Bing. 5. Lord Maidstone (1856) 18 C. B. 273. Cook V. Wright (1861) i B. & S. 559. Callisher v. Bischoffsheim (1879) L. R. 5 Q. B. 449. Miles V. New Zealand Alford Estate Co. (1886) 32 Ch. D. (C. A.) 266. \Quaere, if the claim abandoned is wholly unreasonable (^Thomson v. Eastwood [li-jj) L. R. 2 App. Ca. 215) or utterly untenable (Chapman v. Franklin (1905) XXI T. L, R. 515.)!
Willatts V. Kennedy
v.

Mather

Digitized

by Microsoft

FORMATION OF CONTRACT
209.

95
Reasonable

What
Older shaw

is
is
v.

a reasonable a question
King (1857)

time within the meancase.


)if.v

ing of 208,

of fact in each
zH. &
N.,
at p.

"^'

<!>.'

524.

'J

210.

When, by

reason of a general rule of law or Nugaton


">""^'^''tions

of a subsisting obligation, one party already owes to


another an act or forbearance, such act or forbearance, or the promise thereof in

whole or

in part,

is

no consideration

for a promise by'^that other.


(1602) (1804)
5

Pinnell's Case

Rep. 117.

Fitch V. Sutton

Crowhurst
Fraser
v.

230. Laverack (1852) 8 Exch. 208. Hatt07i (1857) z C. B. N. S. 51Z.


v.

5 East,

211.

An
is

act

or forbearance which,

is

contrary

illegal
"^'^'

to law, morality, or public policy, or the promise

'^^^

thereof,

no consideration.
Collins V. Blantern

Nerot'y. Wallace (1789) 3

Jones V. Lev^ V.

(1766) z Wils. 341. T. R. 17. Ashburtiham (1804) 4 East, 455. Yates (1838) 8 A. & E. 129.

'

We'llsv. Foster

{\%\\)%M.. hV^:

151.

n^'-

>

'1

212.

A promise
is

is

no consideration when the thing

impossible
""'"'^"''>-

promised

at the

time of the promise either con-

trary to the course of nature or impossible in law.


Harvey v. Gibbons (1675) ^ Lev. Thornborow v. Whitacre (1705) 2 Faulkner s. Lowe (1848) 2 Exch. Cliffords. Watts (J87O L. R. ;
161

Lord Raym.
595.

164.

C. P.,

at p.

588
li

Digitized

by Microsoft

96
specialty
contract

LAW OF CONTRACT
213.

contract under seal without consideration

is

valid
tain

but, in case of breach, the promisee can only ob-

damages, not specific performance or injunction. Jefferys v. Jefferys (1841) Cr. & Ph. 138.
Walrond\. Walrond (1858) Johns.
In re Lucan (1890) 4; Ch. D. 470.
18.

[The existence of an illegal consideration of course renders the alleged contract void (Collins v. Blantern {1766) 2 Wils. 341).]

Legal form

2I4. If a contract

is

required by law to be ex-

pressed in writing under seal, then, in the absence

of provision to the contrary, no obligation arisea unless

the contract
V.

is

expressed accordingly.
3

Lamprellv. Bilkricay Union (1849)

Exch. 283.

Young

Mayor

etc. 'of

Learningtoh (1883) L. R. 8

App. Ca. 517.

Formal
tract
,,

con\

215.
or'

specialty contract

must be wholly written

printed, of partly written

papefr

and partly printed, on or parchment, sealed and delivered by, or by


of,

the direction

the party executing

it.

Sheppard, Touchstone, p. 54.


[Signing, though invariable in practice, is not essential {ex parte Hodgkinson (1815) 19 Ves. at p. 295). Attestation, though usual, is only essential where it is expressly required by law or by the special authority under which the deed is executed.

Wright
Harben

\.

Freshfieldy.
v.

Barlow (18 15) 3 M. &S. 512. Reed (1842) 9 M. & W. 404. Phfllips (1883) 23 Ch. D. (C. A.) 14.J

Delivery

^16.

specialty contract

is

said to

be delivered
it

of specialty
contract

when

the promisor ia) transfers possession of

to

the promisee or to a third party on his behalf with

the intention that

it

sha^r take effect as his act and

Digitized

by Microsoft

FORMATION OF CONTRACT
deed
ficient
(^)

97

declares such intention otherwise by suf-

words or conduct.
Sheppard, Touchstone, pp- 57, 58. Xenos V. Wkkham (1866) L. R. z H. L.
at p.

312.

217.

specialty contract

may be
(Book
I,

delivered sub- Eurow

ject to a suspensive condition

lo).

It is

then termed an " escrow."


Xenos
V.

Wkkham

(1866) L. R. 2 H. L.

at p.

323.

218. If a specialty contract

is

to be executed

by

Counterf"^''

more than one

party,

it

is

sufficient if

each party

executes a duplicate ("counter-part").

219. If a specialty contract


the promisor from
the
is

is

unilateral,

it

binds

moment of
unaware of

delivery, even
its

Unilateral """''"^"

though the promisee


execution, repudiates

existence

but if the promisee, upon


it,

receiving notice of

its

the contract becomes void

ab

initio.

A unilateral

contract need not be executed

by the promisee.
Butler's and Baker's Case (1591) 3 Rep. 25. Hallv. Palmer (1844) 13 L. J. Ch. 352.

Xenos

Fletcher v. Fletcher (1845) 14 L. J. Ch. 66. V. Wickham (1866) L. R. 2 H. L. 296.

220. Subject to the provisions of 221, a contract is unenforceable whereby a person (tf) being an
to

Requirement
'J

^''"'"^

executor

or

administrator,

expressly

promises
[b)

answer damages out of his

own

estate;

ex-

E 2

Digitized

by Microsoft

gS

LAW OF CONTRACT
answer for the debt, default, or
;

pressly promises to

miscarriage of another
sideration of marriage
interest

(c)

makes
oi"

promise in conany
(^)

(c/);.promises to transfer

in
a

lands tenements

hereditaments;

makes

promise the performance of which


it,

must

extend, as regards both parties to

beyond the period

of one year from the making thereof; unless the contract

sought to be enforced, or some


is

memorandum

or

note thereof

in writing, signed

by the party against

whom
(a)

it

is

sought to be enforced, or by some other

person thereunto by .him lawfully authorised.


ofFrauds ,(^1677) s. 4. ;. , ,,,.,, This clause applies only to contracts of guarantee, not to contracts of ' J3X indemnity. Birkmyr v. Darne/i (^lyo^) I Salk.'27. (f) Mutual promises of marriage do not fall within this clause. Cork v. Baker (1716) i Stra. 34. {e) Peter; \. Compton (1693) Skinn. 353.
Statute
,

(i)

'

'

'Donellan v.
fact

Read (1832)
that
it

B.

&
is

Ad. 899.
determinable within
v.

[The'

contract

the

year,

does not prevent

falling

within this.^lause, {Birch

Liverpool

(1829) 9 B. & C. 392). A contract to serve for a year .from to-morrow is not within the clause QSmitIo v: Gold Coast L''. [1903] I K. B. 285.)] fll ;. .uq-.

Part performance

221.
j^^^

If,

in the case of

any such contract,

(<z)

there

been part performance by the person seeking to


it,

enforce

the acts of part performance being un-

equivocally referable to 'some such contract as that


alleged
;

[hi)

the alleged contract

is

such

as

would,

if

in writing, be specifically enforceable under the equi-

table jurisdiction of the

Court;

[c) it

would under
defendant
;

the circumstances
to
avail

be

fraudulent in the

himself of the absence of writing

and

Digitized

by Microsoft

FORMATION OF CONTRACT
[d)

99

the contract can be sufficiently proved by parol


;

evidence

a defendant to an action for specific perrelief

formance or other equitable


defence.
(a)
Forster v. Hale

may
as a

not avail

himself of the absence of writing

ground of
M. R.
Wigram

(1798)

3 Ves. at p.
5

Hamilton (1846) V. C. Caton V. Caton (1865) L. R.

Dale

V.

Hare,

at p.

712, per Lord Alvanley 381, at p. 148, per

Ch. App., at p. 147, per Lord Cranworth


Cf.

L. C.

Maddison
(3)

v. Alderson (1883) L. R..8 App. Ca. 479. (1889) 43 Ch. D. 208. Britain v. Rossiter (1882) 11 Q. B. D. 123.

Gray

v.

^mith

v. Cooke (1887) 35 Ch. D. 697. Fry, Specific Performance (4th ed.) p. 262. (f) Catoti V. Caton (1865) L. R. i Ch. App. 137.

McManus

Morgan

v.

Milman (1853)

De G. M. & G.

33.

222.

contract for the sale of any goods of the


is

Sale of
"'"^

value of ;^io or upwards

not enforceable by action

/-"/J"

unless the buyer accepts part of the goods so sold,

and actually receives the same, or gives something


in earnest to

bind the contract, or in part payment,

some note or memorandum in writing of the contract is made and signed by the party against
or unless

'

whom

it

is

sought to be enforced, or his agent in

that behalf.
Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

4. subs. i.

223.

The

provisions of the

last

apply, notwith- Meaning of

standing that the goods


livered at

some
fit

future

may be intended to be detime, or may not at the time


some
act

" ^'"'

of such contract be actually made, procured, or provided, or

or ready for delivery, or that

Digitized

by Microsoft

lOO

LAW OF CONTRACT
requisite

may be

thereof, or

making or completing rendering the same fit for delivery.


for

the

Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

4, subs. 2.

Acceptance
ds

224. There

is

an acceptance of goods within the

meaning of

222,

when

the buyer does any act in

relation to the goods

ing contract of
in

sale,

which recognises a pre-existwhether there is an acceptanc^e


s.

performance of the contract or not.


Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,

4, subs. 3.

Indirect en-

225.

contract, unenforceable by action

owing

to

forcement

the absence of the requirements of 220 and 222, may nevertheless be valid in other respects.
Leroux
v.

Brown (1852) iz C.

B. 801.

Britain v. Rossiter (1882) 11 Q. B. D. 123. Maddison y. Alderson (1883) L. R. 8 App. Ca., at p. 474. Taylor v. G. E. Ry. Co. [1901] i K. B., at p. 779.

Marine
insurance

226.

contract of marine insurance (other than


as
is

such insurance

referred to

in

s.

506 of the
it

Merchant Shipping Act, 1894,) is not is expressed in the form of a policy.


Stamp Act, 1891,
s.

valid unless

93.

Addendum to Title
Meaning of "note or memoran-

II.

[In 220 and 222 the words "note or memorandum in writing " include any printed or written documents, from which all the

terms of the contract


(a)

may be
v.

collected (')

more
lo.

especially the

dum"

Wain

Warlters (1804)

5 East,

Digitized

by Microsoft

')

FORMATION OF CONTRACT^^'>
parties C"), the subject matter the promise of the party sued.
C^),

oi
for

and

the consideration

('')

But, in the case of a contract to answer for. the debt default or miscarriage of another, it is not required that the consideration should appear in writing ().
(b)
(c)

Bailey y. Sweeting (1861) 9 C. B. N. S. 843. Vandenbergh v. Sfooner (1866) L. R. i Ex. 316.


v. Cotterell (1881) 20 Ch. D. 90. Warhers, ubi sup. Saunders v. Wakefield (i8zi) 4 B. & Aid. 595.

Shardlow

(d)
(e)

Wain

v.

Mercantile

Law Amendment
is

Act, 1856,

s.

3.

When
is

the contract

to

be gathered from several documents,

it

Several

sufficient if the person sued

has signed one document which in- documents

It is corporates, directly or by reference, the essential terms C^). not necessary that the signature should be placed at the end of the

document but it must be of such a character and so placed as to A name connect the signer with the whole of the contract ().
;

printed

upon a document may constitute a

sufficient

signature for

the purpose of these C").


(f
)

(g)

Ridgway v. Wharton (1857) 6 H. L. C. 238. Jones V. Victoria Graving Dgck Co. (1877) 2 Q. B. D. 314. Johnson v. Dodgson (1837) z M. & W. 659. Foster v. Mentor Life Assurance Co. (1854) 3 E. & B. 48. Caton V. Caton (1867) L. R. 2 H. L. 127.
Schneider

(h)

Saunderson v. Jackson (1800) 2 B. v. Norris (1814) 2 M. &

&
S.

P. 238.

286.

Tourret

v.

Cripps (1879) 4^ L-

J-

Ch. 567.

It is sufficient if

that they can be identified easily

the parties, though not named, are so described Description and certainly {'). For this pur- of parties

The same principle applies also pose oral evidence is admissible. It is not matter (J) and to the consideration (''). necessary that the documents containing the terms of the contract should have been made for the purpose of supplying evidence of the
to the subject

contract, if in fact they do so


(i)

(').

Potter V. Duffield {i^-ji^) L. R. 18 Eq. 4. Commins v. Scott (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 15. Rossiter v. Miller (1878) L. R. 3 App. Ca.
Ogilvie
V.

124.

(j)

Foljambe (1817) 3 Mar. 53.

Owen V. Thomas (1834) 3 My. & K. 353. M' Murray v. Spicer (1868) L. R; 5 Eq. 527.
Haigh v. Brooks (1839) 10 A. & E. 309. Buxton \. Rust (1872) L. R. 7 Ex. i, and 279.
'

(k)
(1)

Digitized

by Microsoft

I02
Date of
writing
^

LAW OF CONTRACT
is

'

documents produced of the contract, or even with the object of repudiating it, provided t"hat they are of such a character as to supply evidence of its terms (") and were made Oral evidence is admissible to connect before action brought (). two or more documents (p), provided that it obviously appears from the documents themselves that they refer to one another (i). It seems that letter and' envelope may be treated as together constiIt

immaterial that any or

all

(") of the

in

evidence were

made

after the conclusion

tuting a single

document Q.
1
1

(m) Sievewright

v. Archibald ( 1 8 5 ) 1 7 Q. B., at p. 1 {n)-Baiiey v. Sweeting (1861) 9 C. B. N. S. 843. (o) Billy, Bament (1841) 9 M. & W. 36. Lucas w. Dixon (1889) zz Q. B. D. 357.

4.

(p)

Ridgway
Long
V.

v.

Wharton (1853)

De G. M. & G.

677.

Millar (1879) 4 C. P. D. 454. Taylor v. Smith [1893] z Q. B. (C. A.) 65. (q) Boydell v. Drummond (1809) 11 East, 142. (r) Pearcew. Gardner \_lig-]'\ i Q. B. 688.

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION

II

PARTIES TO A CONTRACT
227. There must be
contract.
Faulkner v. Lowe (1848) 2 Exch. 595. Grey v. Ellhon (1856) Giff. 438.
[

at least

two

parties to every Two


f"'''"

228.

It

is

not essential that the identity of the

promisee should be

known
;

to the promisor at the

Promisee "" """"'

time of contracting

but no contract can exist ex-

cept between definite persons,


Kelsey v.

Dodd (1881) 52 L.
Asiatic

J.

Ch. 39.

Ex parte

Banking Company (1867) L. R.

Ch. App. 391.

229. Subject to the law regarding the creation of


trusts,

Strangers
to

and

to the

assignment of contracts

by act

contract

of the parties and by operation of law, no person


can acquire
rights

or

incur contractual
is

liabilities

under

a contract to

which he

not a party.

\ Price V. Easton (1833) 4 B & Ad. 433. (rights) Tweddle v. Atkinson (1861) i B. & S. 393. [ Eley V. Positive Life Assur. Co. (1876) i Ex. D. 88. )

Exall V. Partridge (1799) 8 T. R. 308. Schmaling v. Thomlinson (1815) 6 Taunt. 147.

")

^ J

.liabilities)

E 3

Digitized

by Microsoft

104
Marriage

LAW OF CONTRACT
When
a Settlement
is

230.

made in contemplation

of marriage, the children of the marriage

may

en-

force any covenant for their benefit contained in the


settlement.

New steady.
Gale
V.

Searles {y-jT,']') I Atk. 265. Gale (1877) 6 Ch. D. 11., 144.

[The rule appears to extend to the children of a widow by a But see J. G. v. Jacobsformer marriage {Gale v. Gale., ubi sup.). It does not extend to the Smith [1895] 2 Q. B., at p. 349. IVells (1887) 37 Ch. children of a widower {Re Cameron

&

D.

32).]

Right
sue

to

231. Subject as aforesaid ( 229 230), the parties to a contract cannot, unless authorised by
statute,

&

confer

upon

third

person

the right of
it

maintaining or defending an action in respect of


in his

own name.
Tweddle v. Atkinson {i%6\) I B. & S. 393. Gray v. Pearson (1870) L. R. 5 C. P. 568,

[An. iniportant illustration of statutory exception is to in the

be found

Real Property party to an indenture, ing any tenements or of this power is to be

Act, 1845, s. 5, which enables a person, not to take the benefit of a covenant in it " respecthereditaments." good example of exercise found in Dyson v. Forster [1909] A. C. 98.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION

III

PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT

TITLE
232.

I.

DUTY

OF PERFORMANCE
Perfot

The

parties to a contract must, unless legally

excused from performance, perform their respective duties under the contract.
Cranky
Haldane
v.

Hillary (1813) 2

M. &

S., at p.

izz.

v.

Johnson (1853) 8 Exch. 689.

233.

The

character and extent of the performance

Extent of
P^'f"'""""^

due from each party are determined by the words and conduct of the parties
usage and law.
Mitchell (l Si ^) 4 Campb. 146. v. Dale (1857) 7 E. & B. 266. Tucker v. Linger (1883) L. R. 8 App. Ca. 508. Bl. Comtn. Ill, 443. Meyer v. Dresser (1864) 16 C. B. N. S. 660.
Raitt
V.

as interpreted

by reference

to

Humfrey

234. Performance must be complete, and strictly


in

Compii 'etion

accordance with the terms of the contract.


Birdv. Smith (1848)
i

fotmance

Q.

B. 786.

'^
,

Richardson v. Barnes (i 849) 4 Exch. 128. Parry v. Great Ship Co. (1863) 4 B. & S. 556.

J,,

[Where a contract for work and labour for a lump sum has been substantially but not completely performed, the party performing is entitled to recover the price less an abatement, for the deficiency (Dakin v. Ltf [1916] 1 K. B. 566).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

io6
Conditions

LAW OF CONTRACT
When
that

235.
is

the performance due from one party


it

such

cannot be rendered
other,

without the
party,
is

concurrence
if

of the

the

first-named
to the other,

he has tendered performance

dis-

charged from the duty of performance, and

may

sue

the other for any breach of contract committed by

him.
Startup V. Macdonald {li^'i) 6

M. & G.,

at p.

6io.

This
debt,

applies to a tender

of payment of a money
not
inconsistent

in

so

far

as

it

is

with

239-245.
Jones V. Barkley (1781) z Dougl. 659. Smith V. Wilson (1807) 8 East, 437. Bankart v. Bozvers (1866) L. R. i C.

P.

484.

Strictness of

236. Such
strictly in

tender

must be

unconditional,

and

accordance with the terms of the conit

tract

and the party making

must do, or be ready

and willing to do, everything necessary on his part to the complete performance of the contract.
Laing v. Header (1824) i C. & P. Z57. Foordw. Noll (1842) 2 Dowl. N. S. 614.

Mode of

237.

tender must be
as

made

at

such time and in

such manner

to give the person to

whom

it

is

made a reasonable opportunity of ascertaining whether it is made in accordance with the contract.
Ishervjood
s.^

Whitmore (1843) 11 M.

& W.

347^^

Digitized

by Microsoft

PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT
238.

107
Concurrence
"ft^''''' ?<"':!

When

performance depends upon the con-

currence of a third person,

performance
effect

(in

no excuse for nonthe absence of agreement to that


it is

between the decHnes to concur.

parties)

that

the third

person

Grey v. Hesketh (1755) Ambl. 268. Worsley v. Wood (1796) 6 T. R.'7'io.


Perkins, Profitable Book,
'

s.

756.

239. In the case of a money-debt, tender without

Tenders of
""""'^

payment does not discharge the debtor but tender of payment duly made, and followed by a continued readiness to pay, will, if the amount of the debt is paid into Court, be a good defence to an action for
;

non-payment.
Dixon V. Clarke (1848) 5 C. B., at p. 377. Kinnaird V. Trollope (1889) 42 Ch. D. 610.

240.

A
is

tender of payment

is

not valid unless the

Production
"^""'"^y

money

actually produced, or the creditor expressly

or by implication dispenses with production.


Douglas
Finch
V. V.

Patrick (1790) 3
l

T. R. 683.

Brook (1834)

Scottf at p. 76.

[This rule is not strictly followed in the case of redemptions of mortgages {Graham v. Seal (1919) 88 L. J. Ch. 31).]

241. Tender of payment must be made in current Medium coin of the United Kingdom, Bank of England Notes,
or in other

of

medium

authorised, by law.

Polglass V. Oliver (183 1) 2 Cr.

&

J.

15.

Digitized

by Microsoft

io8

LAW OF CONTRACT
Notjes are legal tender for any
itself.

[Bank of England
five

pounds, except by the Bank


'

sum afeove (Bank of England Act,

1833,

s.

6.)

the Coinage Act, 1870, s. 4, gold coins are legal tender to any amount, silver coins up to, forty shillings, bronze coins up to

By

one

shilling.

same Act, the Crown in Council is empowered in any foreign country shall be a legal tender, to direct the establishment of a branch of the Mint in any British possession, and to determine the extent to which coins issued

By

s.

II of the

to direct that coins coined

therefrom are to be legal tender. tender in country bank-notes, or by a cheque on a banker, is good, if the creditor objects only to the amount and not to the quality of the tender. (JPolglass v. Oliver (1831) 2 Cr. & J. 15 Jones \f. Arthur (1840)18 J^Owl. 442).]

'
'

ji'nyf;

Change

242. If a debtor tenders


this
is

a greater

good tender of the

sum than is due, amount due but the


;

debtor

may not demand change, and


it.

the creditor

is

not bound to give


Douglas
^i

v^.J

Wade's Case (1600) 5 Rep. 115 a. V. Patrick (1700) 3 T. R. 683. Betterbee w. Davis {18 11) 3 Campb. 70. Robinson v. Cook (1815) 6 Taunt. 336.
-

,q..-

-.

Interest

243.

tender must include


debt.
'

all interest, if

any, due

upon the
Norton
v.

''A tender duly

made

prevents the

accrual of future interest.


<-

Ellam (1837) 2 M. & W., at p. 463. Kinnairdw. Trollope (1889) 42 Ch. D. 610. Bank of N. S. Wales v. O'Connor (1889) L. R. 14 App. Ca.

p.

284.

Refusal of
tender

244.

creditor

who

refuses a tender of

payment

on

a specified ground,

cannot afterw^ards

justify his

Digitized

by Microsoft

PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT
refusal

109

by alleging an objection which he did not put


at the

forward

time of

refusal.

Black V. Smith (1791) Peake, 88. Richardson v. Jackson (1841) 8 M.

& W.

298.

245.
a

An

offer to

pay

debt upon condition of the


is

Conditional
'^^ ""

creditor giving a receipt,

not a good tender


is

but

mere request

for a receipt

not a condition,

Jones V. Arthur (1840) 8 Dowl. 442. Richardson v. Jackson (1841) 8 M. & W. 298.

[A person
ment of
fine
a debt

refusing to give a receipt duly stamped,

upon payliable to a

amounting

to

two pounds or upwards,


s.

is

often pounds.

(Stamp Act, 1891,

103.)]

246.

debtor cannot, in the absence of agreement^

Set-off

apply a set-off in reduction of his debt, and tender


the residue
;

but he

may

avail

himself of such set-off


in an action

by way of plea or counter-claim


creditor.

by the

Searles v. Sadgrave (1855) 5 E.


Phillpotts V. Clifton

(1861) lo

& W.

B. 639.

R. 135.

247.
a

When

action

is

brought in England to recover


an
equivalent

Foreign
'"''''^'"y

sum of money

expressed to be payable in a foreign


is

currency, the amount recoverable

sum

in English currency, calculated according to the

rate of

exchange

at

the date

when payment

fell

due,

Digitized

by Microsoft

no
or, in

LAW OF CONTRACT
the case of an action upon a foreign judgment,

at the date

of the judgment sued upon.


Manners
Scotfy. 5wtf,(.i83i) 2 B. V. Fears.on\^iigi']

&
i

Ad. 78. Ch. 581.

Alternative
'performance's

248. If one of two alternative performances


due, the person who',
(in
i

is

to

perform has the right


once

the abspnce of agreement to the contrary), to


either
:

elect

alternative.

Election,

made,

is

irrevocable.

;,C0. Litt.,, 146^

a.

Layton
' '

v.

Pearce (1778)

Dougl. 15.
1

Brown

V. Roya'/

hs.'Co.>(iSS9)'

'.

&

E. 853'.

Performance
by agent
''

249. Unless a contrary intention appears from the

language of the

parties, or the

nature of the trans-piart


is

action, a dehtor rhay


oi:

perform his

by' a sefvant

agent.

Such

a'

contrary intention

presumed, in

the case of any duty' involving personal confidence

between the
personal
British

parties, or
. ,

the exercise of the debtor's

skill.

,r

>

Waggon

Co. v. Lea (1880) 5

Q.

B.

D. 149.

Liability of

230/ l^xcept in the cases specified

in,

249, the duty

represen atives

^ pej-fQi-j^ance devolves upon the representatives of a

deceased jcjebtor.
ar.e

Any

defences available to the debtor

equally available to the debtor^s representatives.

Digitized

by Microsoft

PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT
Pinchon' s Case (i6iz) 9 Rep. 86 b.
Pf^ills V.

iii

Finlay

v.

Murray (1850) 4 Exch., at p. 865. Cbirney (1888) 20 Q. B. D. 494.

251. Unless a contrary intention appears from the language of the


parties, or the nature of the transac-

Enforcement
^^(^[il]^

tion, the right to

claim performance devolves upon

the representatives of a deceased creditor.

Such

contrary intention

is

presumed

in

the qase of any

duty

involving

personal

confidence

between

the

parties.
Wills V. Murray, ubi sup.

252. If the place of performance


contract,
place.
Sheppard, Touchstone, p. 136.

is

fixed

by the
at

Place of
f^'^J'"'"^'"'"

performance

must

be

rendered

that

253. If no place of performance


contract, the debtor
is

is

fixed

by the

Creditor's

bound

(subject to the provi-

sions of 254) to find

the creditor,

and make or
creditor
is

tender

him performance, provided the

within the jurisdiction.

If the creditor, by being

outside the jurisdiction, prevents performance being

duly

made

or tendered, the debtor


v.

is

excused.
Litt.

Sheppard, Touchstone, pp. 136, 378.

Co.

zio

b.

Haldane

Johnson (1853) 8 Exch., at p. 695. Fessards. Mug''ier (iS6s) 18 C. B. N. S. z86.

Digitized

by Microsoft

112
Delivery

LAW OF CONTRACT

254. Under a contfact to deliver goods without

of goods

any place being expressly or by implication appointed for delivery, the promisor may require the promisee
to appoint a proper place
w^ill

and mode of delivery, and

be discharged if he delivers accordingly.


Co.
Litt.

zio b; Sheppard, Touchstone,


s.

p.

379.

Perkins, Profitable Book,

785.

[If delivery is to be made in pursuance of a contract of sale, the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, s. 29 (i) apply(See^oj-Z, Pa'rt II,

388396).]

Time of performance

255.

When
is

time

is

fixed, at or

within which

performance

to take place,
at or

performance or tender

must take place

within the time agreed.


& W.
223.

Poole V. Tunbridge (1837) 2 M. Sheppard, Touchstone, p. 378.

[As to the
agreed, see

efFect
I

of non-performance'

at

or within

the

time

Book

115, 116.]

Reasonable
time

256.

When

no time

is

fixed for performance,, pera reasonable rime,

formance must take place within

reference being had to the naturp of the contract and

the circumstances of the case. What time is a question of fact in each case.
Hick
V.

is

a reasonable

Raymond [1893] A. C.

z2.

Carlton Co. v. Castle Mail Coi [1898] A. C. 486. Sale of Goods Act, 1893, s. 29 (2).

Digitized

by Microsoft

PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT
257.

113
or

Demand
a question
Sale of

or tender o delivery of goods must Demand

be made

at a reasonable hour.

What
case.

is

a reasonable TJj!

"-^

hour

is

of fact in each

Startup V. Macdonald {\%i^-^ 6 Goods Act, 1893, s. 29

M. & G.
(4.).

593.

258.

When

time

is

of the essence of the contract

Extension
'""''

(Book I, 115), an extension of the time of per- ^ formance by request or agreement only substitutes,
in the absence

of expression to the

contrary, the
fixed,

extended time for the time originally


further waiving the condition.
Barclay
v.

without

Messenger (1874) 43 L.

J.

Ch. 449.

259.

When

a debtor,

to one person,

owing several distinct debts makes him a' payment, either with
is

Appropria*l^efil'''^'
^^l'*"'

express intimation or under circumstances implying


that the

payment

to

be applied to the discharge


if accepted,

of some particular debt, the payment,

must be applied accordingly.


Clayton's Case {x'ix^')

Simson

v.

Nash

V.

I Mer. 572. Ingham (1823) 2 B. & C, Hodgson (1855) 6 De G. M.

at p.

72.
at p.

&

G.,

487.

260.

When

the debtor has omitted to indicate,

Appropria'^"J-^/,^"^' creditor

and there are no other circumstances indicating, to which debt the payment is to be applied, the creditor

may

at

any time apply

it

at

his option to

any

Digitized

by Microsoft

114

LAW OF CONTRACT
to.

lawful debt actually due

him from

the debtor, even

though

it is

barred by the law relating to the limitation

of actions, or otherwise unenforceable.


Claymi's Case (1816)
i

Mer. 572.

The Mecca [1897] A. C. 286. Wright V. Laing (1824) 3 B. & C. 165. Mills V. Fozaies (1839) S ^'"g- N. C. 455. MayfieUv. Wadsley (1824) 3 B. & C. 362 (per Abbot C.
E. 41. Philpott V. Jones (1834) 2 A. Seymour v. Pickett [1905] I K. B. 715.

J.)

&

Unappropriatedpayments.

261.
^^^

When neither party makes any appropriation,


is

payment

applied by law in discharge of the


If the debts are of even

debts in
date, the

order of date.

payment

is

applied in discharge of each

proportionately.
Clayton's Case, ubi sup.

Favenc

V.

Bennett (1809) 11 East, 36.

Y^iere whether,
law
in discharge

in such a case, the payment is ever applied by of statute-barred debts, or debts otherwise unen-

forceable.

(See Mills v. Fowkes., ubi sup.yj

Account
current

262.

Where

there

is

a single account current be-

tween the
at the

parties, or separate

accounts treated as one

entire account,

payments not otherwise appropriated


be made in (discharge of the
Mer.,

time are presumed, in the absence of evidence


contrary, to

to

the

earlier

items of the account.


Clayton's Case (181 6)
i

at p.

608.

Fields. Carr (1828) 5 Bing., at p. 15. City Discount v. McLean (1874) L. R. 9 C. P. 692. The Mecca [1897] A. C. 286.

Digitized

by Microsoft

PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT
263.
ditional

115
Request for
P^''f'"''"''""

The

duty of performance

upon an antecedent
a contrary

may be made conrequest or demand


;

but, unless

intention

appears from

the

language of the parties or the nature of the con-

no request or demand of performance is necessary, and action may be brought immediately that performance falls due.
tract,
Birksy. Trippett (1666) i Wms. Saund. 33. Walton \. Mascall (1844) 13 M. & W., at p. 458. Norton v. Ellam (1837) 2 M. & W. 464.

264.
,.
.

When
,

ditional

upon
is

11 the happenmg
.

the

duty

of

performance
c oi

is

conthe
,1

Conditional
'^

some

event,

performances ^

debtor
either

not entitled to notice of the event unless


;

or (b) he has stipulated for notice the event lies within the peculiar knowledge of the
{a\

creditor.

Vpe

V.

Makin

V.

Wakefield {li^fO) 6 M. & W., at p. 452. Watkinson (1871) L. R. 6 Ex. 25.

265. Unless the law specially provides otherwise. or there is an express or implied agreement /or interest in the contract, a debtor is not liable to pay
simple or

Interest

compound

interest
C')

on

his debt
(=)

(*).

contract to pay simple

or

compound

interest

may be

inferred

from the course of dealing between

the parties, or from the custom or usage of a trade


or business.

Digitized

by Microsoft

ii6
(a)

LAW OF CONTRACT
de Bernales v. Fuller

(1810)

Campb. 426.

Page

V.

Newman (1829)

9 B.

&

C. 378.

(b) Calton V.

{c)

Bragg (1812) 15 East, 223. Bruce v. Hunter (18 1 3) 3 Campb. 467. Eaton V. Bell (1821) 5 B. St Aid. 34. ' Moore y. Voughton (1816) i Stark. 487. Fergusson v. i^jj^? ( 1 841) 8 CI & F., at p. 140.
at the

[See

Addendum

end of

this Title.]

Accrue! from day to day

266. Interest under a contract

is

deemed

to accrue
at fixed

from day
intervals,

to day,

though agreed to be paid

and

is

apportionable between persons suc-

cessively entitled to the principal fund;


Banners. Lowe (1806) 13 Ves. 135. Ex p. Smyth (18 18) i Swanst. 349.
Apportionment Act, 1870,
s.

2.

Separable

267. Interest under a contract

may be
is

recovered
debt
(^).

from
principal

by action, with or without the principal

When
(a)

the claim for the principal debt


is

barred, the

claim for interest

barred with

it

C').

,(b)

Hudson v. Fawcett (1844) 7 M. & G. 348. Nordenstrom v. Pitt (1845) 13 M. & W. 723. Hollis V. Painter (1836) 2 Bing. N. C, at p. 717.

Rate

268.

The

parties to a contract

may

agree upon any


;

rate of interest

the case

which they think proper but, in of loans by money-lenders, the provisions of

the Money-lenders Act, 1900, apply.


Usury Laws Repeal Act, 1854.

Digitized

by Microsoft

PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT
269.

117
asinterest as

When
may
if

an action

is

brought to recover an

certained sum, the jury, or the court


a jury,
at discretion

when
as

acting as

^''""'^"

allow interest

damages
:

a rate not
[a)

exceeding the current rate of interest


the debt
is

at

payable by virtue of a written


a

instrument

at

certain

time,

from

such

time
(^)

if

the debt

is

payable otherwise, from


shall

the

when demand of payment been made in writing. Such demand must give notice to the
time
interest will

have

debtor that

be claimed from the date of demand


(1864) z H. & M. 722. (1867) L. R. 4 Eq. 188.
s.

until the

time of payment.
Restate Fire
Insce.' Co.

Ex parte

Lintott

Civil Procedure Act, 1833,

28.
L. J.

Re Lloyd Edwards (1892) 61

Ch. 22.

270. Every judgment carries interest


four pounds per

at the rate

of

interest on
-^^ ^'"'^'^

centum per annum from the time of entering up the judgment until the same is satisfied and such interest may be levied under a writ of executioh on such judgment.
;

'

Judgments Act, 1838,5. 17. R. S. C, 187s, O. XLII. r. 16.

[This

until they are

does not apply to County Court judgments, unless and removed into the High Court. {Reg. v. Essex C. C.

(1887) 18 Q. B. D. 704).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

ii8

LAW OF CONTRACT
Addendum to Title
1.

The
noted.

following cases in which the law allows interest

may be

By the Law Mer1 Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes. chant and by statute (Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, s. 57 (i) ) these In the absence' of express carry interest without express agreement. agreement for interest, interest runs only "from the time of presentment for payment, if the bill is payable on demand,, and from the maturity of the bill in any other case "' (Bills of Exchange Act, But " where a bill, is expressed to be pay1882, s. 57 (i) (b) ). able with interest, unless the instrument otherwise provides, interest runs from the date of the bill, and if the bill is undated, from the issue thereof" (ibid. s. 9 (3) ). In this case, the agreed interest is recoverable until the maturity of the bill or note, as part of the debt, and not as damages {Florence v. 'Jenings (1857) ^ ^" ^- ^" ^ After maturity, interest is in each case recoverable as 454). damages only. " Such interest may, if justice require it, be withheld wholly or in part and, where a bill is expressed to be payable with interest at a given rate, interest as damages may or may not be given at the same rate as interest proper " (Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, s. 57 (3) ) ("Bill" includes "note" (s. 89) ). The rate, if any, expressed in the instrument is presumptively the measure of damages {Keene v. Keene (1857) 3 ^' ^- N- S- ^44)Contracts to pay a debt by bill or note. Interest is recoverable 2. in the same manner as if the bill or note had been duly given {Lowndes v. Collens (1810) 17 Ves. 27) Sutton v. Morgan (1814)
;

5 Taunt. 758.
3.

sum due on an

account stated in respect of

money

lent

from the date of the statement {Blaney v. Hendricks But see the remarks of Lord.Ellenborough, (1771) 2 W. Bl. 761. C. J., in Calton v. Bragg (18 1 2) 15 East, 223).
carries interest

who, owing to the default of his principal, is comsum of money* is entitled to recover from the principal interest on the sum so paid, from the date of payment \Petre v. Buncombe (1851) 20 L. J. Q. B. 242). 5. A bond with a penalty conditioned for the payment of money carries interest, in the absence of provision to the contrary, from
4. yi surety

pelled to pay a

the time of the obligor's default (4 single bond does not carry interest

&

Anne
v.

c.

16,

s.

13).
i

A
B.

{Hogan

Page (1798)

P-

337>

Digitized

by Microsoft

PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT
\

119

Interest is payable upon the of land. purchase-money from the time fixed for completion of the purchase, or from the time of the vendor making a good title, whichever is
6.

Contracts for sale

the latest, unless the purchaser

is entitled to take possession before be liable to pay interest from that time (^Esdaile v. Stephenson (1822) I Sim. S. 122, followed in fones v. Afudd (^iSzj') 4 Russ. 118), provided that a good title has then

completion,

when he

will

&

been made. Interest is also payable upon the lien for the return of a deposit or of purchase-money which arises upon a rescission of the contract of sale {Whitbread v. Watt [1901] i Ch. gii, affirmed [1902] i Ch. 835), and on the vendor's lien for unpaid purchase-money (Re Stucley (1905) XXII T. L. R. 33).

The
varies

mercantile rate of interest

is

from 3 to 5 per cent, according Barclay [1899] i Ch. 674.)

usually 5 per cent ; the equitable rate (See Re to the circumstances.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE II CONSEQUENCES OF NON-

PERFORMANCE
Breach of
'2ri\.

When
is

a party to a contract,

from

whom perper-

formance

4ue, without lawful excuse


is

fails to

form

his promise, the contract

broken.

Jnticipatory

272.

When
is

a party to a contract

from

whom per-

formance
[a)

not yet due, absolutely and unequivocally

expresses an intention not to perform, (^) dis-

ables

himself from performing, his

promise,

the

other party

may
v.

at

his option treat the contract as


is

broken
{a)

and the contract

thereupon determined.

(b~)

Delatour (1853) z E. & B. 678. R. 7 Ex. 114. Johnstone v. Milling (1886) 16 Q. B. D. (C. A.) 460. Lovelock v. Franklyn (1846) 8 Q. B. 371
Hochster
Frost V. Knight(i'iii) L.

Synge

V.

Synge '\_iSg^']

Q.
v.

Mersey Steel <y Iron Co

B. 466. Naylor (1884) L. R. 9 Ajjp. Ca. 434.

[But {semble) if a party temporarily disables himself from performing an act due at a fixed future date, there is no breach. {Lovelock V. Franklyn, uhi sup., pfer Lord Dennian, C. J., at
P-

378-)]

Damages

273. Every breach of contract gives


tion for

rise to

an ac-

damages

but, in the case of a breach of

promise to pay a fixed sum of money, no damages

Digitized

by Microsoft

PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT
are recoverable other than the
if any.
Marzettiy. Williams (1830) i B. & Ad. 415. Godefroy v. Jay (1831) 7 Bing. 413. WallisM. Smith (1882) 21 Ch. D. 243, />^r Jessel, M. R.

121
interest

sum

itself,

and

274.
is

When a

contract

is

broken, the injured party

Measure of
""'"^'^

of 276, to receive such a sum of money by way of damages as


entitled, subject to the provisions
will, so far as possible,
as if

put

him

in the

same

position

the contract had been performed.


Robinson

Lock

V.

v. Harman (1848) i Ex. 855. Furxe (1866) L. R. i C. P., at

p.

451.

[Contracts for the sale and purchase of real estate which go off because the vendor fails to make a title, are an exception. The purchaser may, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, re-

cover the amount of the deposit he has paid, together with interest, and the expenses of investigating the title, if any ; he cannot obtain compensation in damages for the loss of his bargain.
Flureau v. Thornhill (1776) 2 W. Bl. 1078. Lock V. Furxe, ubi sup. Ramsden v. Dyson (1866) L. R. i H. L. 129. Bain v. Fothergill {\i-j \) L. R. 7 H. L. 158.

V.

Faher (1916) 60

But the exception does not apply to any other breaches {Keek Sol. Jo. 253), nor where the vendor ought to have
title

foreseen the defect in his

{Re Daniel [1917] 2 Ch. 405).]

275.

When

the breach
is

is

of the kind described

in
is

Anticipatory
'""''^"

272, and action

brought before performance

due, the plaintiff

is

entitled to such

damages

as

would

have arisen from the non-performance of the contract


at

the

appointed time.

In calculating such
to

damages, regard must be paid

any circumstances

Digitized

by Microsoft

122

LAW OF CONTRACT
mitigatloss.

which may have afforded him the means of


ing his
(See 282)
y.

Frost V. Knight

Michael

(1872) L. R. Hart [1902] i K.

7 Ex. iii. B. 482.

Remoteness
of damage

276. Damages are not recoverable in respect of


loss

following breach of contract, unless the

loss

was

[a)

the natural and direct consequence of the breach,


[b')
,

or

within the contemplation of both parties at

the time of
result

making the contract

as

the probable

of

a breach.

Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch. 341. Gee V. Lanes. &> York. Ry. Co. (i860) 6 H. & N.. at p. 220. Simpson v. L. dv N. W. Ry. Co. (1876) 1 Q. B. D. 274. Lepla V. Rogers [1893] I Q. B. 31. Agius V. G. IV. Colliery Co. [1899] i Q. B. 312.

The
Hobbs

decision of this question


V.

is

matter of law.
Q.
B., at p. 122.

L.

&

S.

W. Ry.

Co. (1875) L. R. 10

the bailee of an article deals with it in a manner inconwith the terms of the bailment, and damage follows, such damage is deemed to be the natural and direct consequence of the breach of contract, unless the damage would have inevitably happened in any event (Lilley v. Doubleddy (1881) 7 Q. B. D. 510).]
sistent

[Where

Mental
distress

277-

Damages

are not recoverable in respect

of

disappointment of mind or injured feelings, except


in the case of a breach of contract, to marry.
Hamlin v. G. N. Ry. Co. (1856) i H. & N. 408. Hobbs y. L. d> S. W. Ry. Co., ubi sup., at p. I 22. Smithy. Woodfine (1857) i C. B. N. S. 669. Vrost V. Knight (1872) L. R. 7 Ex, 1 1 1.

Digitized

by Microsoft

PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT
plaintiff

123
Inconven-

278. Personal trouble and inconvenience to the

may be
V.

taken

into

account

in

assessing

damages.
Hobbs
L.
Jg"

S.

Phillips V. L.

&

S.

W. Ry. Co., obi sup. W. Ry. Co. (1879)

C.

P.

D. z8o.

279. Damages
well as for

may be claimed
accrued
at

for the probable

Prospective
''""'^"

prospective consequences of a breach of contract, as


loss in fact

the time of action

but not in respect of anticipated future breaches.


Richardson v. Mellish (1824) z Bing. 229. Lloyd w. Dimminack (1877) 7 Ch. D. 398.

280.

When

damages have been

assessed

in

an

Subsequent
loss

action, further compensation cannot be claimed for

subsequent
Gibbs
V.

loss arising

from the same breach.


"I

Phillips V. L.

Cruickshank (1873) L. R. 8 C. P. 454. 6- S. W. Ry. Co. (1879) S- B. D.,

at p. 87.

281.
.
.

When

a party to a contract

is
1

in default, the Making


1

injured party

may

any reasonable manner make


as part

sood breach *

good the breach, and recover

of his damages
so.

the expenses reasonably incurred in doing

Hamlin v. G. N. Ry. Co. (1856) 1 H. & N. 408. Prehn v. Royal Bank 0/ Liverpool {1S70) L. R. 5 Ex. 92. N. W. Ry. Co. (1876) i C. P. D., at Le Blanche v. L. Ex parte Bank of Brazil [1893] 2 Ch. 438.

p. 31.

Digitized

by Microsoft

124
Mitigating
loss

LAW OF CONTRACT
A
party to a contract
is

282.

bound
If

to take

all

reasonable means of mitigating the loss consequent

upon
do

a breach by the other party.

he neglects

to

so,

he cannot recover any part of the damages

which he might have avoided by taking such means.


Frost V. Knight {li J z) L. R. 7 Ex., at p. 115.

Dunkirk

Colliery Co. v.

Lever (1878) 9 Ch. D,,

at p.

25.

Mitigation

283. In

an

action

for

damages for breach


in

of

of damages

contract, the

defendant

may prove

mitigation
plaintiff

of damages any breaches

on the part of

existing at the time of action brought.


Eiay\i%ii) 2 B. & Ad. 456. Cameron (1833) i Cr, & M. 840. Oldershaw v. Holt (1840) iz A. & E. 590. Mondel'v. Steel (1841) 8 M. & W. 858. Sale of Goods Act, 1893, s. 53. Bartlett w. Holmes (1853) 13 C. B.,at p. 638.,
Street v.
V.

Allen

Nominal damages

284. In an action for breach of contract,


plaintiff proves the breach, but fails to

if

the

prove any ap-

he will be entitled only to nominal damages. In such a case, the Court will somepreciable
in fact,

damage

times order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs.


Harris

Marzettiy. fVilliams {l8^o) 1 B. &Ad. 415. y. Petberick (iSy^) 4 Q. B. D. 6ii.

Court and jury

285.

When

a case

is

tried

by

judge and jury,

damages are

assessed

by the

jury, subject to the direc-

tion of the Court in rpatters of law.

Digitized

by Microsoft

PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT
Hohhs
Fremont (1853) 9 Exch., at p. 32. y S. W. Ry. Co. (1875) L. R. 10 Q. Chaplin v. /^jf/fj [191 1] 2 K. B. 786.
V.

125

Gibbs

V. L.

B., at p. 122.

286.

breach of contract

may

entitle the injured

specific

party to obtain from the Court a decree for specific

f"'-'"''"''""

performance
in cases in

but this remedy will only be granted


sufficient

which damages would not be

compensation.
Nutbrown v. Thornton (1804) 10 Ves. 161.. Ryan v. Mutual Tontine Association [1893] i Ch. (C. A.)
at p.

126.

287. Contracts to create or transfer interests in


land,
able,

Contracts
'l^f^l^gJi^

and marriage

articles, are

specifically enforce-

provided that they

satisfy

the requirements of

220221.
Adderley v. Dixon (1824) ' S. & S. 607. Caton V. Caton (1867) L. R. 2 H. L. 127.

288.

The Court

will not, in the absence of special

Contracts not

circumstances, decree specific performance of a contract

'l'f^l''eJif.

relating to movables

but in any action for

breach of contract to deliver specific or ascertained

goods the Court may,


tion of the
plaintiff,

if

it

by

its

thinks fit, on the applicajudgment or decree direct


specifically,

that

the

contract

shall

be performed

without giving the defendant the option of retaining


the goods upon payment of damages.
Buxton V. Lister (1746) 3 Atk. 383. Adderley v. Dixon, ubi sup. Sale of Goods Act, 1893, s. 52. (Does tte section apply to transactions other than sales ?)

Digitized

by Microsoft

126
Discretion

LAW OF CONTRACT
It lies

289.

in

the

judicial

discretion

of the
specific

Court to

grant

or refuse

the

remedy of
Ch. (C. A.),

performance
Ryati V.

Mutual Tontine

Association

[1893]

at p.

126.

and, in particular, specific performance

may

be re-

fused on the ground of:


(a)

Mistake, involving substantial hardship to the


defendant
Back (1848) 6 Ha., at p. 449. 2 K. & J. 33. Tamplin v. James (1880) 15 Ch. D. 216. Preston v. iri(.i884) 27 Ch. D., at p. 506. Stewart v. Kennedy (1890) L. R, 15 App. Ca. 108.

Manser

v.

Woody. Scarth (1855)

(b)

Fraud;
Higgins
V. v.

Mullens

Samels (1862) 2 J. & H. 460. Miller (1882) 22 Ch. D. 194.

(c)

Misrepresentation
Lamare
v.

Redgrave

v.

Dion (1873) L. R. 6 H. L. 414. Hurd {\%%\) 20 Ch. D. i.

(d)

Concealment of

facts

which
;

it

was the duty

of the plaintiff to disclose


Shirley v. Stratton

(1785)

Bro. Ch. 440.

Fothergill y. Phillip (1871) L. R. 6

Ch. App. 770.

(e)

Delay or

failure

by the

plaintiff in

performing

his part, or delay in claiming relief;


Earl of Thanet (1801) 5 Ves. 720 n. Hart (1858) 6 H. L. C, at pp. 635-6. Mills V. Haywood (1877) 6 Ch. D. 196. Howe V. Smith (1884) 27 Ch. D., at p. 92. Cornwall v, Henson [1900] 2 Ch. (C. A.) ig8.
v.

Milward
Clarke

v.

Digitized

by Microsoft

PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT
(f )

127

Any

other circumstances rendering

it

inequit-

able or improper to grant this relief.


Buxton V. Lister (1746) 3 Atk., at p. 386. Webster v. Cecil (1861) 30 Beav. 62. Hope V. Walter [1900] i Ch. 257.

The Court will not decree specific performance of a contract for personal service, or of any con290.
tract

Contracts for

f'^^"^^

which

it

would be impracticable or inexpedient


specifically.

for the
Rayner

Court to enforce

v. Stone (1762) 2 Eden, 128. Moseley v. Vitgin (1796) 3 Ves. 184. Wolverhampton Ry. Co. v. Z. fs" N. W. Ry. Co. (1873) L- R- 16 Eq. 439. Rigiy V. Connol (1880) 14 Ch. D., at p. 487, per Jessel, M. R. Bairtlv. fTells (1890) 44 Ch. D. 661.

[As a general rule, contracts to build fall within this clause but where a person has contracted to build on a piece of land according to certain detailed plans, and has obtained a conveyance or lease of the land on the terms that he will do so, a decree of specific performance will be granted, if the remedy in damages would not be adequate. {Wolverhampton Corpn. v. Etn?nons [1901J i Q. B. 515; Molyneux v. Richard [1905] W. N. 164.) And the same rule applies where a railway company has acquired land in consideration of undertaking to execute specific works upon it {Jersey v. G. W. Ry. Co. [1894] 3 Ch. 625, n).]
;

291.

The Court

will not specifically enforce graseal,

Gratuitous

tuitous promises,

though under

nor contracts

""^^"'^^

determinable at the will of either party.


In re Lucan (1890) 45 Ch. D. 470. v. Birch (1804) 9 Ves. 357.

Hercy

Digitized

by Microsoft

128
Infants

LAW OF CONTRACT
An
infant cannot obtain a decree of specific

292.

performance of a contract entered into by him.


Flight V. Bolland (1828)

4 Russ. 298.

[This

is

because the infant cannot himself be made to perform

his contracts.]

Injunction

293.

When

the parties contract (expressly or by

implication) that a certain thing shall not be done,

breach of such a contract

may be

prohibited by inis riot

junction, although the contract itself

capable

of being

specifically enforced,

v. Wagner (1852) i De G. M. & G. 604. Whitwood Chemical Co. v. Hardman [1891] z Ch. (C. A.) 416. .Holfordw. Acton Urban District Council [1898] z Ch. 240.

Lumley

[A
I

contract in form ' positive may,


(^Catt v.

if

it

is

in eiFect negative,it

be

enforced by the remedy of injunction, unless, perhaps,


tract
;

is

a con-

of personal service.

Tourle (1869) L. R.

4 Ch. App.

654 Whitwood, Chemical Co. v. Hardman, uhi sup.) But the Court is reluctant to grant an injunction at all in a contract for personal -services, especially if it would have the effect, if obeyed, of compelling the defendant to perform his contract under pain of losing
his livelihood

(Chapman

v. Wistefby' (1914)

58 Sol. Jo. 50).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE

III

IMPOSSIBILITY
is

OF

PERFORMANCE
294.

contract

void

if

the performance of

it is

impossibility
"'

either contrary to the course of nature or, by reason

"l^,^"'""'

of

facts

known
Clifford \.

to

both

parties, impossible in law.


5

Watts (1871) L. R.

C.

P., at p.

588.

Harvey
[Apparently,
to

v.

Gibbons (1675) z Lev. 161.

when the facts causing the impossibility in law are one party only, that party cannot sue upon the contract but the other party can sue. {Wild v. Harris (1849) 7 C- ^ Millward v. Littlewood (1850) 20 L. J. Ex. a.) ] ; 999

known

295. Impossibility arising from law other


English law, counts
Barker
Jacobs
v.

than

Foreign law

as

impossibility of fact.

V.

Hodgson (18 14) 3 M. & S. 267. Credit Lyonnais (1884) 12 Q. B, D. 589.

296.

contract, performance of

which

is,

at

the

impossibility

time of concluding it, impossible in fact, is not void ;W unless the parties contracted conditionally

upon

performance being

possible

in

fact.^*")

But
by
a

(probably) no action can be brought upon

it

party who,

at

the time of concluding

it,

knew of the
W.
487.

impossibility.^'^
{a)

(i)

(f)

Marquis of Bute v. Thompson (1844) 13 M. & Hills V. Sughrue (1846) 15 M. & ,W. 253, Cliffords. Watts (1871) L. R. 5 C. P. 577. Sale of Goods Act, 1893 s. 6. Cunningham v. Dunn (1878) 3 C. P. D. 443.

F3

Digitized

by Microsoft

ijo
Supervening
impossi
t

LAW OF CONTRACT
A
Contract for a performance which, at the
is

297.
jjjj^g

ity

q concluding the contract,

possible in

law and

in fact, but

which afterwards becomes impossible

withoi|t default pf either party, remains jValid


Brown
\

o,\A
V,

J^s^ (1647) Aleyn 26,4 Royal Insurance Co. (1S59) ' E. & E., at p. 859. Arthur v. Wynne (1880) 14 Ch. D, 603. Nickolly. Ashtan, Edridge and Co. [1901] z K. B. (C. A.) 126. Krellw. HenrylKjOi] 2 K, B. (C. A.), at p. 748,
Paradine
y.
,

v.

unless
(a)

4,j the subsequent impossibility is due to an alteration in the law


;

j^j,

'.'

"'/' ]'''Baily V. de Cresfigny

(1869) L. R. 4 Q. B, 180.

(b)

the parties intended that in the event of impossibility

of performance the contract should


-

'-

'i.-.H

'

cease to be binding. imijo


;

Such, an iht.ention
(i)

is

presumed
of

,,

when the known by

possibility

performance

was

the parties to depend upon the

continued existence of some thing, condition,


'

r or state of things,

which has ceased

to exist;

Taylor vl Caldwell (1863) 3 B. & S. 826. Afpleby v. Myers (1867) L. R. 2 C. P. 651. Boast V. Firth (1868) L. R. 4 C. P. 1. Krell V. Henry, ubi sup.
,,

Sale, of

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

7.

.,
^

(2)

when

the agreernent relates to personal ser-

vices to be rendered

by one of the

parties,

and performance becomes irnpossiblp by reason of the death or


Farrow
v.

illness

of that patty.

Roiinson, v. Davison

Wilson (1869) L. R. 4 C. P. 744. (1871) L. R. 6 Ex, 269.

Digitized

by Microsoft

PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT
(3)

131

when,

in a

commercial contract, performance


perform, either impossible,

has become, without the fault of the party


liable

to

or

so

difficult that,

had the circumstances been


(" frustration of adventure

fore-

seen,

no reasonably prudent
it

man would have


").

undertaken
Jackson
V.

Union Marine Insurance Co.


I

(1874) L. R. 10 C. P. 125.

Horlock V. Seal [1916]

A. C. 486.

298.

When

either of

two

alternatives

is

to

be peris

One aitema'IJfJZiTinz

formed
at

at the promisor's option,

and one of them


to

the time of concluding the contract impossible in


in fact, the
is

law or

promisor

is

bound
I

perform the

one which

possible.
Costa V. Davis (1798)

Da

B.

Stevens v.

Webb (1835)

7 C.

& P. & P.,

242.
at p.

62.

299.

When

either of

two

alternatives

is

to be per- One

aiterna-

formed

at the promisor's option,

and one of them beof the contract,


it is

j'^pg/Ji^'"^

comes impossible

after the conclusion

but before the option has been exercised,

a ques-

tion of construction in each case whether, according


to the true intention of the parties, the

promisor
possible,

must perform the alternative which remains


or
is

altogether discharged.
Barkwerth
v.

Toung (185.6) 4 Drew.,

at p.

25.

300.

When
,

either of
.

two
,

alternatives
1

is

to be per>

Choice
impossible

formed

at

the promisor

or the promisee

option.

^-

Digitized

by Microsoft

132

LAW OF CONTRACT

and the promisor or the promisee chooses an alternative which afterwards becomes impossible, the promisor is in the same position as if he had originally
contracted to do the act, which he or the promisee
has elected.
Brown
v.

Royal Insurance Co. (1859)

E.

&

E. 853.

Partial
imposstbtlity

301.

When

the performance of a contract

is

or

becojnes in part possible and in part impossible,


a question of intention, depending struction in each case,

it is

on usage and conpartial impossi-

whether the

bility avoids or discharges the contract,

and whether
entitles

performance by one party of the possible part

him

or his representatives to claim any and if any

how much

counter-performance from the other.

Menetonev. Athawes (1764) 3 Burr. 1592. Cutter V. Powell (1795) 6 T. R. 320. Gillett V. Mawman (1808) I Taunt. 140. Appleby V. Myres (1867) L. R. 2 C. P. 651. Geipely. Smith (1872) L. R. 7 Q. B. 404. The Teutonia (1872) L. R. 4 P. C. 171. Leiston Gas Co. v. Leiston Council [1916] 2 K. B. 428.

Rights
^ac7tiire/

302.

The

dissolution of a contract

by subsequent

impossibility does- not affect any specific right already

acquired under

it

by either of the
3 B.

parties.

826. Whincup V. Hughes (1871) L. R. 6 C. P. 78. Anglo- Egyptian. Co. v. .Renpie (1875) L. R. 10 C. P. 271. Krellv. Henry [1903] 2 K. B. 740. Chandler v. Webster [1904] i K. B. (C. A.) 493.
S.

Taylor v. Caldwell (1863)

&

[In

Elliott

V.

affirmed by the

Crutchley [1904] i K. B. 565 (subsequently H. of Lords), there was an express stipulation,


rule.]

which took the case out of the general

Digitized

by Microsoft

PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT
plied to the contrary,

133
inability to

303. In the absence of agreement express or im-

mere

inability to

perform

f^^J"'"'

promise

is

not impossibility within the meaning of

this Title.
Thornborow
v.

Whitacre (1706)

Lord Raym. 1164, per Holt, C.J.


in

(For the
a bond, see

effect of impossibility

relation to a condition of

Book

I,

114.)

[In spite of the

many

war on the

effect of

important decisions pronounced during the war conditions upon pending contracts, the

statements in the text remain substantially correct {Blackburn Bohbin Co. v. Allen [191 8] 2 K. B. 467), though there has, inevitably, been a tendency to extend the doctrine of " frustration of adventure." One of the chief difHculties in applying this doctrine has been in deciding whether merely to suspend (F. A. Tamplin Co. v. AngloMexican Co. [1916] 2 A. C. 397), or to terminate {M. W. Board v. Dick, Kerr y Co. [191 8] A. C. 119), the currency of the contract.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
Independent
promises

IV

RECIPROCAL

PROMISES

304.
ises,

When

a contract consists

of reciprocal promis,

and the promise of either party


I

according to

the true construction of the contract, a

mere inde-

pendent agreement (Book


is

iii), the other party

entitled to performance,

whether he has himself


or not.

performed his
Ware
Jones
V.
v.

own promise

Kingston

Chappell (1649) Style, 1 86. v. Preston (1773) (per Lord Mansfield, C. J.), cited in Barkley (1781) z Dougl.,. at p. 689.

Conditional

305.
ises,

When

a contract consists

of reciprocal prom-

promises

and performance or some performance by one


is

party

a condition precedent
first

of performance by the
is

other, the

named

party

not entitled to per-

formance by the other unless he has himself performed or tendered performance in terms of the contract,

or unless performance has been prevented or

refused by the other party.


Pordages. Cole {\66q')
Peeters v. Opie
I

(1672)

Wms. Wms.
7

Saund. 319. Saund. 350.

Hotham
Morton
Roberts

v. V.

East India Co. (1787)

Lamb (1797)

1 T. R. 638. T. R. 125.

Stavers v. Curling (1836) 3 Scott, 740. v. Brett (1856) 18 C. B. 561.

'Christie v. Borelly

(i860) 7 C. B. N.

S.

561.

The

order
is

in

which such promises

are
in

to

be

performed

determined by the

Court,

view

Digitized

by Microsoft

PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT
transaction.
Kingston
p.
v. Preston (1773), cited 689. Graves v. Legg (1854) 9 Exch.,

135

of the lariguage of the parties and the nature of the

in Jones v. Barkley

(1781)
2

2 Dougl., at

at p.

716

(1857)

H. & N. 210.

Roberts v. Brett (1856) 18 C. B. 561. Kidner v. Stimpson (1918) T. L. R. 63.

XXXV

306.

When,

several acts or forbearances are promised

in a contract falling within 305, Part peron either ^l^Jl"i"f


a question

or both sides,

it is

of construction for the


entitles

Court whether part performance by one party

him

to a corresponding part

performance or to entire

performance by the other, or whether complete performance on one side is a condition precedent of any
performance on the other.
Neale v. Ratcliff (1850) i; Q. B. 916. Wilson V. London Navigation Co. (1865) L. R.
1

C.

P. 61.

307. In a contract falling within 305, a party who has, by accepting substantial part performance,

jvaiver of
""'^""'"

waived the breach of a condition, cannot


complete performance
as

insist

upon
of

a condition precedent

performance by himself; but he may claim compensation in

respect

of the

other

party's

failure

in

performance.
White V. Beeton (1861) 7 H. & N., at Behn v. Burness (1863) 3 B, & S. 751. Fust V. Dowie (1865) 5 B. & S. 37. Sale of Goods Act, 1893, s. 11, subs, i
p. 50.

(c),

F3

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
Earnest
is

V EARNEST AND
upon the making of a
It

PENALTIES
something

308.
given

If,

contract,

as earnest, this is

evidence of the conclusion


also serve as a security that

of the contract.
LangfOft

may

the contract shall be performed.


Ex parte
y. Tiler's Admix. {1704) i Salk. 113. Barrell {\ij^) L. R. 10 Ch. App., at p. 514.

Character

309. In the absence of agreement to the contrary,


earnest
{a)
is
:

of earnest

to be returned or treated as part

payment upon
it

performance
{b)

to

be forfeited, if the party giving


if

fails

to

(c)

to

perform be returned,

the party receiving

it fails

to perform.

Howe
Kail

V. ^mith (1884) 27 Ch.

D.

(C. A.), at pp. loi

102.

V. Burnell [1911] 2 Ch. 551.

Deposit

310. In the absence of expression to the Contrary,


^ dcposit

pure aie

by

a purchaser

on

a sale counts as earnest.

Soper V. Arnold (iSSg) L. R. 14 App. Ca., at p. 43 j. Levy V. Stogdon [1898] i Ch. 478.

Earnest as

311. If a person

who

has received earnest

money

amages

fj-Qm another claims

damages from that other for

Digitized

by Microsoft

PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT
breach of contract, the earnest
is,

137

in the absence of

agreement

to the contrary, to be taken into account

in estimating the

damages due

to the claimant.
at p.

Home

V.

Smith (1884) z/ Ch. D.,

105.

[There seems, however, to be some difference of opinion on this point in contracts for the sale of land {Griffiths v. Vesey [1906] i Ch. 796; Shuttleworth v. Clows [1910] i Ch. 176).]

312.
certain

When
sum
is

the parties to a contract agree that a


to be paid in the event of breach

Penatty or

by

'/"^/l^^

the party in default, the

Court must decide, with

reference to the intention of the parties to be gath-

ered from the whole of the contract, whether the

sum

so agreed to be paid

is

to be regarded as a penI
1

alty or as liquidated
Davies
v.

damages (Book

1/)-

Penton (1827) 6 B. & C. 216. (1849) 7 C. B, 619. Law V. Redditch Local Board [1892] I Q. B., at p. 132. Public Works Commissioner v. Hills [1906] A. C. 368.
Sainter v. Ferguson

313. If in the view of the Court the sum in question is a penalty, the injured party cannot recover

Penalty not

""^"'''

more than the amount of the


by him.
Kemble
v.

loss actually suffered

Farren (1829) 6 Bing. 147.

314. If in the view of the Court the


tion
is

sum

in ques-

Liquidated
re7,l^frabie

liquidated damages, the injured party

may

re-

cover such

sum

in full.
Kemble
v.

Farren, ubi sup.

Digitized

by Microsoft

138
Language
immaterial
it is

LAW OF CONTRACT
sum
in

315. If the

question

is

in

law a penalty,
it

immaterial that the parties have expressed


as liquidated

to

be payable
question
terial
is

damages

and

if

the
it is
it

in truth liquidated damages,

sum in imma-

that

the

parties

have expressed

to be a

penalty.

KemUe

v. Farren (1829) 6 Bing. 147. Sainter v. Ferguson (1849) 7 C. B. 619.

Sparrow

Parfitt V.

Paris (1862) 7" H. & N. 599. Chambre (1872) L. R. 15 Eq. 36. Cljdi Bank Engineering Co. v. Castaneda [1905] A. C.
v.

6.

Larger sum
on failure to

316. If
failure to

sum of money

is

agreed to be paid on
is

pay smaller

pay a smaller sum, the former sum

penalty.
Astley
V.

Wallis V. Smith

Weldon (1801) 2 B. & P. 346. (1882) 21 Ch. D. 257.

on

[This principle probably extends to agreements to pay money perform any obligation for the breach of which damages can be readily assessed; e. g., to supply goods or render, services of a kind readily obtainable in the open market. {Sloman v. Walter (1784) I Bro. C. C. 418; Zzt) v. Reddhch Local Board
failure to

[1892]

Q.

B. (C.

A)

127.)]

Same provision for

317. If a contract contains several promises, of

different

breaches

which any one is a promise to pay a certain sum of money, and a fixed sum is to be paid for the breach of any of them indifferently, this is a penalty.
Kemble
v.

Farren (1829) 6 Bing. 147.

Digitized

by Microsoft

PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT
done
is
is

139
Provision for

318. If the value of the thing or things to be


not readily ascertainable, and a specified

agreed to be paid in the event of breach, this


recovered
as liquidated

sum sum

^
^^*7/m/
val'

may be

damages.

Reynolds v. Bridge (1856) 6 E. & B., at p. 540. Wallis V. Smith (i88z) 21 Ch. D. 257.

Law
[But
or
if

V.

Redditch Local Board [1892]

Q.

B. 127.

the things to be done under the contract comprise one

more matters of unascertained but trivial importance, and a large sum is to be paid in the event of any breach, quare whether this would not be treated by the Court as a penalty. {JVallis v.
Smith, ubi sup., at pp. 262-265.) I Q. B. 626 (C. A.).]

And

see Willson v. Love [1896]

319. If the parties have agreed for a penalty or


liquidated
this

Provision

damages

to

be paid in the event of breach,


or

cirUeothe7'
^'>neiies

agreement does not preclude the remedy of


performance
is

specific

injunction

where

such
has

remedy
avail

appropriate.

But a

plaintiff

who

actually adopted the one

remedy cannot afterwards


2 Atk. 371.

himself of the other.


Howards. Hopkyns (1742)
French
v.

Macule (1842) 2 Dr. & W., at p. 284. Coles v. Sims (1854) 5 De G. M. & G. i. Jones V. Heavens (1877) 4 Ch. D. 636. Howard v. Woodward (1864) 34 L. J. Ch. 47. General Accident Assurance v. Noel\\^oz\ i K. B. 377.

whereby a man agrees to pay a sum of money or to do any other act on failure to
320.
contract

Penalty
,//^^"/,vy

in-

do an
void.

illegal act

[quare, or to omit a legal duty)

is

Collins V. Blantern

(1767) 2 Wils. 341. Johns. 18. Walrondv. Walrond (1%$%)


i

Digitized

by Microsoft

140
Penalty for

LAW OF CONTRACT
A
contract (not being a bond) to pay a pen-

321.
alty,

non-performance of impossibility

or to

do any other

act, in

the event of the non-

performance of an act contrary to the course of


nature or, by reason of facts impossible
in

known

to both parties,

la^,

is

mere

voluntary

promise

If the contract is expressed in ( 203, 212, 213). the form of a bond, the provisions of Book' I 114,
apply.
Co.
Litt.

206

b.

Bond conditioned for

322. Subject to Book

114, ve^hen a

bond

is

performance
or non-

conditioned to be void upon performance or non-

performance by the obligor of a certain act or


it is

acts,

performance

construed as a contract by the obligor to perform

or not to perform the act or acts, as the case


Logans. Wienholt (1833)
i

may

be.

CI.

&

F. 611.

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION

IV

ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT
323. Subject to the provisions of 324 and 325, any right arising out of a contract may be
assigned.
Tolburst
V.

Contractual
''^f'^J-"^^,'
able

Associated Cement Manufactures

[1903] A.

C,

at p.

420.

[Even a contractual right to an indemnity may be assigned {British Union v. Rawson [1916] 2 Ch. 476).]

324.
.

mere

right to sue for unliquidated


_

damages

Assignment

in respect of a breach of contract already y


is

committed "

?^"^^'' '" sue for past


breaches

(probably) unassignable, except by operation of law. May V. Lane (1894) 64 L. J. Q. B. 236.


Torkington
v.

Magee [1902]

K. B.

at p.

433.
L. R. 58.]

[But

see

Weinberg

v.

Ogdens Ld. (1905)

XXII T.
is

325.

The

benefit of a contract

not assignable, if

Personal
contracts

the parties intended that the promisee alone should

be entitled thereto.
if

Such an intention

is

presumed,
personal

the nature of the transaction involve^


is

confidence between the parties, or

otherwise such

that personal considerations are of the essence of the


contract.
Bradbury (1879) '^ Ch. D. 886. Tower Publishing Co. [1897] i Ch. 21. Tolhurst V. Associated Cement Manufacturers [1902] 2 K. [1903] A. C. 414.
Hole
V.

Griffith V.

B.

660;

[But, though a right to the performance of personal services is not assignable, the right to money due under a contract for personal services is (Crouch v.Jilartin (1707) 2 Vern. 595 ; Russell v. Austin Fryers (1907) T. L. R. 414).]

XXV

Digitized

by Microsoft

142
Notice
to

LAW OF CONTRACT
An
assignment of a right
is

326.

not complete

as
If,

promisor

against the debtor until

he has notice thereof.


to

before notice

is

communicated

him, he has bond

fide discharged his liability to the assignor,


liable to the assignee.
Williams
v.
- >'

he

is

not

Sorrell

Stocks V. -Dohon (1853)

(1799) 4 Ves. 389. 4 De G. M. & G.

15.

Priorities

327. If there are more assignees than one, they


are entitled, as against the debtor, according to priority of notice to
Marchant
y.

him.

Morton, Down,

Co.

[1901] z K. B. 8zg.

Consideration

328.

A debtor

may

not decline performance to an

assignee on the
for

grpund that there is no consideration the assignment as between assignee and assignor.
Walker v. Bradford Old Bank (1884) 12 Q. B. D. 51 Harding v. Harding (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 442.
1.

Equities

329.

The

debtor majy put

forward

against the

assignee any defences

which

at

the date of the notice

were

available to
Mangles
v.

him

against the assignor.

Dixon (1852) 3 H. L. C. 735. Johnson (186,9) ^' ^ ^<!" S^Grouchy. Credit Fonder {iSy 3). L. R., 8 Q., B. 380. Roxiurghe v. Cox (1881) 17 Ch. D. 520.

Graham

v.

'-'

[Such defences- may include claims against the assignor which, though not actually enforceable at the date of the notice, arise out of transactions entered into between the as&ignor and the debtor

Digitized

by Microsoft

ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT
before that date.
there

143

But, to render these claims available as defences,

have been an agreement between the assignor and the debtor that mutual credit should be given in respect of such transactions, or the claims must have arisen out of the coneither
tract the benefit of

must

which is assigned. {^Watson v. Mid-Wales Ry. Co. (1867) L. R. 2 C. P. 593; Christie v. Taunton [1893] 2 Ch. 175 Govt, of Newfoundland v. Newfoundland Ry. Co. (1888) L. R. 13 App. Ca. 199.)]

330.

duty arising out of contract

is

unassignable.

Contractual
duties not

Liversidge v. Broadbent (1859) 4 H. & N. 3Tolhurst V. Associated Cement Manufacturers [1902] z K. B. 660.

assignable

the

[The universality of this rule is unaffected by the judgment of House of Lords in Tolhurst's case. Nor is it affected by the
249
supra,'\

provisions of

331.

The
^.
,

provisions of this Section do not apply


.

Negotiable
instruments

to negotiable instruments.

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION V
DISCHARGE OF CONTRACT
Modes of
discharge

332. A contract r n the lollowing ways


^l

'

may be

discharged in any of
:

'

[a)
{b)
[c)

{d)

By performance ( 333). By agreement ( 334-3S7)By condition subsequent ( 338).' By breach of condition or renunciation
;
;

{e)

By

( 339-343)operation of law; ( 344-347).

Performance

333.
yj^hgn

Contract

is

discharged

by performance
equivalent to

and tender

each party has wholly performed his duty


it.

under

Subject to 239, tender

is

performance.
Startup V. 'Macdonald (1843) 6

M. & G.

593.

Agreement

334.

contract

may be

discharged by a subsethat
it

quent

agreement of the

parties

shall

no

longer bind them, or by the substitution of a


contract.
King
V. Gillett

new

(1840) 7

M. & W.

55.
at p.

851. Thornhilly.-Neats (i860) 8- C. B. N. S. 831. Scarfs. Jar dine (1882) L, R. 7 App. Ca., at p. 351.

Fosters.

Dawber (1851) 6 Exch.,

Digitized

by Microsoft

DISCHARGE OF CONTRACT

145

[Although the original contract was a specialty contract, performance of a simple contract, which professes to vary or discharge it, will be an answer to an action on the original contract. {Nash v. Jrmitrong (1861) 10 C. B. N. S. 259; Steeds v. Steeds (1889) 22 Q. B. D. 537.) But quare whether the second contract is effectual as a discharge without performance?]

335. Contracts falling within 220 and 222 may


be discharged by oral agreement
;

Oral

and a substituted
it fails

"^^""^'^

agreement which

is

unenforceable because

to

comply with the requirements of those may yet


operate as a discharge of such a contract.
Goman
v. Salisbury *

(1684)

Vern. 240.

& Ad. 65. Harney v. Grabham (1836) 5 A. & E., at pp. 73-74. Williams v. Moss Empires [1915] 3 K. B. 242. Morris v. Baron [1918] A. C. i.
Goss V. Lord Nugent (1833) 5 B.

336.

When
side,

a contract has been wholly performed

Considera'""^

on one

an agreement by the continuing cred-

itor to discharge the debtor

from the performance


is

due from him,


or

is

ineffectual, unless it

under

seal

made

for a consideration.
Dawber (1851) 6 Exch. 839.
V.

Foster v.

Williams

Stern (1879) 5 Q. B. D. (C. A.) 409,

337.

The

discharge of instruments governed by

the Bills of

Exchange Act 1882,

is

regulated by

Negotiable '"'"'"""'"-

ss.

59, 62, 63 of that Act.

338.

If

it is

an express or implied term in a con-

Condition

tract that, in a certain event or after a certain time,

^"^^"^"'"^

Digitized

by Microsoft

146

LAW OF CONTRACT
is

the contract shall be wholly or partly at an end, the


contract

wholly or partly discharged accordingly,


event
happens,
or

when such

time

has

elapsed

("Condition subsequent").
Now Ian
Ablett (1835) 2 C. M. & R. 54. Tattersall {\^j 1) L. R. 7 Ex. 7. Geipelv. Smith (1872) L. R. 7 Q. B. 404. Jackson V. Union Marine Insurance Co. (1874) L. R. lo C. P. I4'8.
v.

Heads,

Existing

The

determination of a contract by a condition

"^^"

subsequent does not affect any right already enforceable under the contract

by either

party.

Anglo- Egyptian Co. v. Rennie (1875) L. R. 10 C. P. 271. Chandler \. Webster [1904] i K. B. (C. A.) 493.

Future of
condition

339.

When
j
is

contract r

consists

of
r

reciprocal
i_

promises, and performance or

some perrormance by
II

one party

a condition precedent of performance by

the other (Book


first

named
to

305), if the party without lawful excuse {a) either


I

no; Book
(^)

fails so

perform or

absolutely and unequivo[c)

cally expresses

an intention not to perform, or

disables himself

from performing,
is

his promise, the

other party

may

at his option treat the contract as at

an end, and the contract


{a)

thereupon discharged.

Mersey Steel Co.

v.

Naylor, Benson and Co. (1884) L. R. 9 App.

Ca. 434. {b) Freeth v. Burr (1874) L. R. 9 C. P. 208. Jvtmstonew. Milling (1886) 16 Q. B. D. 460. (f) Lovelock \. Franklyn (1846) 8 Q. B. 371.
Synge
v.

Synge.^\%<)i^

Q.

B. 466.

Digitized

by Microsoft

DISCHARGE OF CONTRACT
340. Even
either party
if

147
is

performance by one party

not a

Renunciation

condition precedent of performance by the other,

may
it.

'

treat the contract as discharged if

the acts and conduct of the other evince an intention


to

renounce

Freeth v. Burr, ubi sup. Mersey Steel Co. v. Naylor (1884) L. R. 9 App. Ca.,

at p.

438.

341.

If,

in a case falling within 339, 340, the- Waiver of


breach

other party does not treat the contract as discharged,

he continues

liable to

perform
the

his part,

and the

first-

named

party

may

claim

benefit
as

of any subsean excuse for

quently arising ground of discharge

non-performance

but w^ithout prejudice to any right


to

which the other party may have acquired damages for breach of contract.
Frost V. Knight (1872) L. R. 7 Ex. 114.

claim

Johnstone v. Milling (1886) i6 Q. B. D. 460. Avery v. Bowden (1855) 5 E. & B. 714. Fusty. Dowie (1863) 32 L.J. Q. B. 179.

342. Whether a term in a contract


(a)

is

character of
stipulations

a condition, the fulfilment or non-fulfilment

of which will discharge the contract


{b)

or

a promise, the

breach of which
injured
;

may

at the
as

option of the

party be

treated

having that
{c)

effect

or

a promise, the breach of


rise to a

claim for

which merely gives damages (" warranty "),

Digitized

by Microsoft

148
is

LAW OF CONTRACT
be decided by the
M. & G.

a question to

Court on the

construction of the contract.


t

Gkholm
Simpson

V. v.

Hays (1841) z

257.

Crippin (1872) L. R. 8 Q. B. 14. Fr'eeth v. Burr (1874) L. R. 9 C. P. zo8.

Bettiniw. Gye (1876) i Q. B. D. 183. Mersey Steel & Iron Co. w.Naylor (1884) L. R. 9 App. Ca. 434.
-

Delay

in

343.

When

in a contract a time
act,

is

fixed for the


is

performance

performance of an
there

and such time

not of the

essence of the contract


is

(Book

115), then, if

delay in J)erformance on

the part of the

promisor, the promisee has the right by notice to

Hmit
'

a reasonable

time for performance, and, upon


treat the con-

failure to

perform within that time, to


a reasonable

tract as discharged.

What
\ \

is

time

is

a question

of fact in

each

case.
Taylor v.

Brown (1839)

Parkin Hatten

v.

v.

z Beav. 180. Thorold {\%t,z) 16 Beav. 59. Russell (1888) 38 Ch. D. 334.

Operation
"J

344.

Contract

may be

discharged by operation
:

"'

q Y^y^ in any of the following ways


{a)
[b)
[c]

By merger; ( 345). By bankruptcy ( 346). By alteration of a written instrument.


;

( 347).

Merger

345.
tract
is

An

obligation arising out of a simple con-

discharged by merger,

when an

identical

Digitized

by Microsoft

DISCHARGE OF CONTRACT
obligation
specialty.
Higgens^ Case (1605) 6 Rep. 45 b. Holmes v. Bell (1841) 3 M. & G. 213. Sellw. Banks (1841) 3 M. & G, 258.
is

149

created between the same parties by

Owen

V.

Homan (1851)

Mac.

& G.
J.

Price V. Moulton (1851) 20 L.

378. C. P. 102.

346.

The making

of a receiving order in bankthe

Bankruptcy

ruptcy suspends the creditor's right to sue the debtor

on

a contract,

and compels him


as to

to

resort

to

method of enforcement provided by the Bankruptcy


Act,
ss.

19 14.

Except

claims provided

for

by

and 30 (subs, i) of that Act, the discharge of the bankrupt destroys the creditor's right
28
(subs, i)

of action against him.


Bankruptcy Act, 1914,
s.

28

(2).

347.

Any

material alteration in a written contract

Alteration
'document

intentionally made, without the consent of the


isor,

promin-

by the promisee, or by any person while the


is

strument

in the possession of the promisee, not

being an alteration made by mistake, discharges the


promisor.
Bigot's Case (16 1 4) 11 Rep. 27 b. Wilkinson v. Johnson (1824) 3 B.

&

C. 428.

Cooper (1844) 13 M. & W. 343. Aldotts V. Cornwell\\%b%) L. R. 3 Q. B. 573. Pattinson v. Luckley (1875) L. R. 10 Ex. 330. Prince v. The Oriental Bank (1878) L. R. 3 App. Ca. 325.

Davidson

v.

Suffell V.

Bank of England (1881)


in
s.

Q.

B.

D. 270; 9 Q. B. D.

(C.A.)S55.
[For a modification
the case of negotiable instruments, see Bills of

Exchange Act, i88z,

64.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION

VI

DISCHARGE OF RIGHTS OF ACTION ARISING FROM CONTRACT


Modes of
discharge

348. Rights of action arising out of contract

may

be discharged in any of the following ways


{a)

{b)
(f)

(d) [e)
-

By release; ( 349) By accord and satisfaction ( 350, 351) By payment in satisfaction ( 352) By judgment; (353) By operation of the Statutes of Limitation.
;
;

( 354)

Release

349.

document under

seal,

whereby

a party en-

titled to sue

foregoes his claim, discharges his right

of action ("Release").
Barker
Harris
v. St.

v.

Quintin (1844) 12 M. & W., Goodwyn (1841) 2 M. & G. 405.

at p.

453.

Accord and
satisfaction

.350.

party entitled to sue another for breach

of contract

may

agree with the party liable to accept

some

act in satisfaction of his claim.

When

such

act has

been

performed, the agreement

and per-

Digitized

by Microsoft

DISCHARGE OF RIGHTS OF ACTION

151

formance discharge the right of action (" Accord and Satisfaction ")
Bayley
v. V.

Smith

Day

V.

Homan (1837) 3 Bing. N. C. 920. Trowsdale (1854) 3 E. & B. 83. McLea (1889) 22 Q. B. D. (C. A.) 610,

351. Such an agreement not followed by performance does not operate of a


as a

Accord
JJlijf"^^iig

discharge

but the making

new promise may be


parties,

accepted absolutely or con-

ditionally as a satisfaction, if that

was the intention

of the

and then will absolutely or conditionclaim

ally discharge the


Sard
V.

Evans

Rhodes (1836) i M. & W. 153. Powis (1847) i Exch. 601. Henderson v. Stobart (1850) 5 Exch. 99. Hallv. Flockton (1851) 16 Q. B. 1039. Gabriel \. Dresser (1855) i 5 C. B. 622.
v.

except that a promise by the party


a negotiable instrument, to

liable,

not being

pay the whole or a part

of a liquidated debt, cannot be so accepted.


Bidder
v. Bridges (1887) 37 Ch. D. (C. A.) 406. Cumbers. Wane (lyiS) i Stra. 426. McManus v. Bark (1870) L. R. 5 Ex. 65. Foakesw. Beer (1884) L, R. 9 App. Ca. 605.

352.
is is

right

of action

on

liquidated

claim

Payment

discharged
in

law
Ash

by payment, or by any act which equivalent to payment (" Payment in


(1867) L. R. 3 Q. B. 86. Wanless (1867) L. R. 2 Ex. 27 J (Ex. Ch.).

Satisfaction ").
V.

Fouppeville
V.

TetUy

Digitized

by Microsoft

152
Payment of

LAW OF CONTRACT
in coin

The mere payment

of the realm of a

lesser

.sum, in satisfaction of a debt accrued due, only discharges the debt pro tanto.
Foakes
v> Beer (1884) L. R. 9 App. Ca. 605. Underwood v. Underwood [ 1 894] P. Z04.

Judgment

353.

right of action arising

discharged

when judgment

is

from contract recovered upon it

is

in

due course of law.


Owen V. Homan (1853) 3 Mac. & G. 407 ; 4 H. L. C. 997, 1037. Kendall y. Hamilton (1879) L- ^- 4 -^PP- *-'* S4' Commrs. of Stamps v. Hope [1891] A. C. 476.

Hammond

V.

Schofield

McLeody. Power [1898]

[1891] I Q. B. 453. z Ch, 295.

Lapse of ""^

354.

right of action arising out of a breach

of contract
(Bk.
I Sect.

may be
V).

discharged by the lapse of time

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION

VII

CO-DEBTORS AND CO-CREDITORS


355.
isors

When two

or

more

persons contract as

prom-

Co-promisors

in respect

contract as:
{a)

of the same performance, they may

joint

or

[b)
(c)

several; or

joint and several,

promisors.

356. Persons contract

as

joint

promisors

when

joint
P'''""""''

they unite in making one and the same promise.


White
[e. g.
V.

Tjndall (1888) L. R. 13 App. Ca. 263.

"

The

said

A and B

do hereby for themselves, their exec-

utors administrators and assigns, covenant, promise, and agree."]

357. Persons contract as several promisors when they enter into independent promises for the same
performance.
Ward
[e. g.
V.

Several
\romisors P'"""

"'

National Bank of Mew Zealand (1883) L. R. 8 App. Ca. 755.

and B, each for himself, his executors promise, and agree."] do hereby covenant,
said

" The

etc.,

Digitized

by Microsoft

154
Joint and
several

LAW OF CONTRACT
Persons contract as joint and several promunite in
into

358.
isors

promison

when they
also enter

making the same promise,


promises for the

and

independent

same performance.
Ex parte Harding (1879)
Burns
v.

'^ ^^- ^- 557Bryan (1887) L. R. 12 App. Ca. 184.

" The said A and B for themselves do hereby covenant, [e. g. and each of them for himself doth covenant."]

Liability of

359.

When
for

co-promisors

promisors

two or more persons contract the same performance (whetl*r


is

as as

joint promisors, or as several promisors, or as joint

and several promisors) each of them

liable for the

whole performance promised, unless the contrary appears from the terms of the contract.
Richards

King
Tyser

V.
V.

v. Heather (18 17) i B. & Aid., at p. 35. Hoare (1844) 13 M. & W., at p. 505. The Shipowners' Syndicate [1896] I Q. B. 35-

Discharge of
co-promisors

360. If

One co-promisor
satisfied

has

fully

performed
lia-

^^^ promise, or
bility

judgment thereon, the

to the creditor of the other


is

co-promisor or

co-promisors

discharged.
p. 500.

King V. Hoare ( 1 844) 13 M. & W. 494. Beaumont v. Greathead (1846) 2 C. B., at Thome v. Smith (1851) 10 C. B. 659.

Judgment
promisor""'

361.

judgment
discharges

recovered
the

against
to

one joint
creditor

promisor
of'

liability

the

the

other or others, even though the judgment

Digitized

by Microsoft

CO-DEBTORS AND CO-CREDITORS


has not been satisfied
to several, nor to joint
;

155

but this rule does not apply

and

several, promisors.

Kendalls. Hamilton (1879) ^- R- 4 ^PP- Ca. 504.

362.

valid release of one

joint, or joint

and

Release of

several promisor, discharges the liability of the other J""'?""'"'"'

or others, unless the release expressly reserves the


rights of the creditor against the other promisor or

promisors.
North V. Wakefield {li^i^ 13 Q. B., at p. 541. Mercantile Bank v. Taylor [1893] A. C. 317. In re E. W. A. [1901] 2 K. B. 642.

363.

When judgment

has been obtained against


levied

Execution
^f.^'^J^/^^^^

upon any one of them for the whole amount of the judgment debt. Wm. Bl. 388. Birdv. Randall {1762)
co-promisors, execution
i

may be

Land Credit

Co. v. Fermoy

(1870) L. R.

Ch. App. 323.

364. Except in the case of partners, the

liability Survival of
''""'

of one joint promisor survives on his death to the

'"*"">

remaining promisor or promisors, and does not pass


to
his representatives.

Upon

the death of a

last

surviving joint promisor, his liability passes to his


representatives.
Hill's Case (1875) L. R.

20 Eq. 585.

Re Hodgson (1885)
White
V.

D. 177. Tyndall (iSSS) L. R. 13 App. Ca. 263.


3' Ch.

Digitized

by Microsoft

156
Contribution

LAW OF CONTRACT
promisors, has

365. If One of joint promisors, or of joint and


several

performed the promise, or


it,

suffered

and

satisfied

judgment upon

he

is

presump-

tively entitled to equal contribution

from the other

surviving co-promisor or co-promisors, and from the


representatives of a deceased co-promisor.
V. Horwood (1804) 10 Ves., at p. 226, Hembrow \ii^i) 8 M. & W. 889. Batardy. Hawes (1853) z E. & B. 287.

Underbill

Prior V.

Ellesmere Brewery Co.y. Cooper [1896]

Q. B. 75,

Insolvency

366. If one joint, or joint and several, promisor


insolvent, the contribution

is is

due from the others

increased proportionately,
Hitchtnan
v.

Stewart (1855)

Dr. 271.
B.

Lowey. Dixon (1885) 16 Q.

D. 455.
at p.

Ellesmere Brewery Co. v. Cooper, ubi sup.,

80.

[The presumption of any


butted by circumstances,
e,

or of equal contribution

g. in the case

may be reof principal and surety.]

Co-promisees

367.

When
:

tw^o

or

more

persons

contract

as

promisees in respect of the same performance they

may

contract as
;

{a) joint
(/5)

or

several,

promisees.

They cannot
(1588)
5

contract

as

joint

and

several promisees,
Slingsby's Case

Rep. 18
i

b.

Ecclestony. Clipshapi (1668)

Bradburney. Botfteld

Wms. Saund. 153. (1845) 14 M. & W. 573.

Digitized

by Microsoft

CO-DEBTORS AND CO-CREDITORS


Whether they
contract
is

157

as

joint

promisees

or

as

several promisees,

a question

of construction for

the Court in each case.


Keightleyy. Watson (1849) 3 ^'^> ^' P- 72iWhite V. Tyndall (1888) L. R. 13 App. Ca. 263.

368.

When

several parties are joint promisees in Enforcement

respect of the

same promise, they can only claim


from the
promisor,

Lj^l'^g,

performance

collectively
to

and

must

all

be parties

an action upon the promise.


Wms. Saund. 461 & Aid. 374.
Ch. D. 121
;

Cabell y. Vaughan (1669) i Jelly. Douglas (i8zi) 4 B.

n.

(i).

[They need not

all

be joined as parties
11

plaintiff.

.{Luke

v. South

Kensington Hotel Co. (1879) [1898] 2 Q. B. 380.)]

Cullen v.

Knowles

369. If one joint promisee

dies,

his rights sur- Survival of


-'

vive to the other or others, and, ultimately, to the ' '


representatives of the last survivor
;

""M joint

"^

but, in the case

promisee

of joint loans, the survivor or survivors


representatives of the
last

and the

survivor are presumptively

accountable to the representatives of a deceased joint


promisee, in respect of his share.
Anderson v. Martindale ( 1 80 1 ) i East, 497. Re Jackson (1887) 34 Ch. D. 7.32. Steeds v. Steeds (1889) zz Q. B. D. 537.

370. Payment to one joint promisee discharges


the promisor's liability to the other or others
Wallace v. Kelsall (1840) 7 M. & Powell y. Brodhurst [1901] z Ch.,

Payment
one joint '"'j"'"'

to

promisee

W.

Z64.
164.

at p.

Digitized

by Microsoft

158

LAW OF ^CONTRACT

[This is the Common Law rule; and there is nothing inconwith it in Steeds v. Steeds {zz Q. B. D. 537), which merely recognises the rule that, in case of doubt, equity presunies against a joint loan. If upon the true construction of the contract the creditors are found to be jointly interested, the Common Law rule still applies (per Farwell J., in Powell v. Brodhurst [igoi] 2 Ch.,
sistent
at p. 1

known by

64) unless (perhaps) the person to whom the money the debtor to be one of co-trustees.]

is

paid

is

Release by
one joint

promisee

by one joint promisee discharges the promisor from his liability to the other or
371.
release

others,

unless

it

was given

in

collusion with the

debtor, and in fraud of the other promisees.


Bain
Wilkinson v. Lindo (1840) 7 v. Cooper (1842) 9 M.

M. & W. 81. & W. 701.

Piercy v. Fynney (1871) L. R. 12 Eq. 69.

[Or, perhaps, unless the promisees are be co-trustees.

known

to the debtor to

-;'i

f-R

Digitized

by Microsoft

NOTE TO BOOK
The
(Book

II,

PART

II

Particular Contracts dealt with in this Part

are governed also by the General


II,

Part

I),

so

far

as

Law of Contract that Law is not

inconsistent with the rules herein set forth.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Digitized

by Microsoft

BOOK
Part

II

^
j

^^^1

^^^
,,,

OBLIGATIONS
II

i,,^,,,,,,^

^ni

h>

OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM PARTICULAR CONTRACTS ui .5V8 SECTION I


.J

SALE
^looii
'

''
:;

"'''.,'"
^'

"'^^'.'^.^^

ss.

to

?.mm}W

TITLE
372.

SALE

OF GOODS
is

contract of sale of goods

a contract

Definition

whereby one person, " the


to

seller," transfers or agrees

""

transfer the property in


for
a

buyer,"
price."

raoney

goods to another, " the consideration, called " the


a contract

There may be
Sale of

of

sale

between

one partowner and another.


Goods Act, 1893,
s.

I.

373. " Goods " within the meaning of


include
all

this Title

^'""^^

chattels

personal other than

things in

action and money.

The term

includes emblements

(annual crops produced by labour), and things at-

tached to

or forming part of the land


sale,

which

are

agreed to be severed before


tract

or under the con^^^


j,

of

sale.
Sale of

g^g
-J

Goods Ace, 1893,

s.

62.
.

'/nJnoj

']

G2

/(J

Digitized

by Microsoft

62

LAW OF CONTRACT
The
goods! which form the subject

Existing or

374.

of

contract of sale

may be

either existing goods,

or possessed by the seller, or goods to be

factured or acquired by the seller after

owned manumaking the

of the contract of
Sale of

sale (" future

goods").
s.

Goods Act,

1893,,

5.

(i)

Sale over

375. In the case of a contract for the sale of

^^

goods of the value of ;^IQ. or upwards, the provisions of

222 (Book
Sale of

II,

Part

I)
s.

apply.

Goods Act, 1893,

4. (i)

Non-existent
^'^
'

376. WJhere there,


specific,

is

a contract

for the sale of

goods, and the goods, without the


seller,
is

ledge of the

have perished

at the
is
6.

knowtime when

the contract

made, the contract


Sale of

void.

Goods Act,

893,

s.

Risk of loss

377.

Where

there

is

an agreement to

sell

specific

goods, and subsequently the goods, without any fault

on the part of the


risk passes to

seller or buyer, perish

before the
is

the buyer (386), the agreement


,

thereby avoided.
,

pale of Gpods. Act,

1893,5,

7.

Price

378.

The

price in a contract of sale


left to

may be

fixed

by the contract, or niay be

be fixed in man-

Digitized

by Microsoft

SALE OF GOODS
ner thereby agreed, or
course of dealing between the parties.
price
is

163

may be determined by Where

the

the

not determined in accordance with the foregoing provisions, the buyer must pay a reasonable
price.
fact in

What
each

is

a reasonable price

is

a question of

case.
Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

8.

379. Where there is an agreement to sell goods on the terms that the price is to be fixed by the valuation of a third pa^ty, and such third party does
not or cannot
is

Sale at a

make such
if
to,

valuation, the

agreement

avoided

but

the goods, or any part thereof,

have been delivered


buyer,

and appropriated by, the


price
therefor.

he

must

pay

a reasonable
is

Where such

third party

prevented from making


seller or

the valuation by the fault of the


party not in fault

buyer, the

may maintain
Goods Act, 1893,

an action for dam-

ages against the party in fault.


Sale of
s.

9.

380.

Where

a contract

of sale

is

subject to any

Conditional

condition to be fulfilled by the

seller,

the buyer

may

waive the condition, or may elect to treat the breach of such condition as a breach of warranty, and not
as a

ground for treating the contract


a

as

repudiated.
sale
is

Whether

stipulation

in a contract

of

condition, the

breach

of which

may

give rise to

Digitized

by Microsoft

64

LAW OF CONTRACT
war-

a right to treat the contract as repudiated, or a

ranty, the breach of for

which may give

rise to a

claim

damages but not

to a right to reject the

goods

and
case

treat the contract as repudiated,

depends in each

on the construction of the contract.

A
a

stipu-

lation

may be

a condition,

though called
a contract

warranty
is

in the contract.

Where

of sale

not

severable,

and the buyer has accepted the goods, or


specific

where the contract is for goods, the property in which has passed
part thereof, or

to

the

buyer, the breach of any condition to be fulfilled

by the

seller

can only be treated


not
as a

as

breach of
the

warranty, and

ground

for

rejecting

goods and treating the contract


there
is

as repudiated, unless

term of the contract, express or implied,


Goods Act, 1893,

to the latter effect.


Sale of
s.

11 (i).
I,

[For conditions and warranties see further, Book and Book II, Part I, 305-3071 339-3

109-120,

Implied
'^^""

381. In a contract of

sale,

unless

the

circuma differ-

stances of the contract are such as to

ent intention, there


(i)

is

show
part
sale,

an

implied

condition

on

the

of

the
a

seller

that, in
sell

the case of a

he has

right to
/

the goods, and that, in the case


sell,

of an agreement to
to
sell

the
is

goods
to pass

at

he will have a right the time when the

property

Digitized

by Microsoft

SALE OF GOODS
(2) an

165

implied

warranty
enjoy

that

the

buyer
of

shall

have

and

quiet

possession

the

goods
(3)

an implied warranty that the goods shall be

from any charge or encumbrance in favour of any third party, not declared or
free

known to the buyer before when the contract is made.


Sale of

or at the time

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

iz.

382.

Where

there

is

contract for the sale of


is

Sale by de"^''/"*"

goods by description, there

(subject

to

implied condition that the goods shall

411) an correspond
as

with the description

and
it is

if the sale

be by sample,

well as by description,

not sufficient that the bulk


if the
,

of the goods corresponds with the sample,

goods do not

also

correspond with the description,


Goods Act, 1893,
s.

Sale of

13.

383. Subject to the provisions of

this Title

and of

Q,uaiity

and

any statute

in that behalf, there

is

no implied wara con-

^^""'

ranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any


particular purpose
tract

of goods supplied under


as

of

sale,

except

follows

(i)

Where

the buyer, expressly or by implication,

makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, so as to show that the buyer relies on the
seller's skill or

judgment, and the goods are

Digitized

by Microsoft

i66

LAW OF CONTRACT
of
a description
seller's

which

it

is

in the course of

the

business to supply

(whether he
there
is

be the

manufacturer or not),
for such purpose.

an
be

implied condition that the


reasonably
fit

goods

shall

But, in the

case of a contract for the sale -of a specified


article

under
is

its

patent or other trade name,


as to its fitness

there
for
(2)

no implied condition
;

any particular purpose


are

Where goods
a seller

bought by description from


goods of that descripthe

whq
is

deals in

tion

(whether he be

manufacturer

or

not), there

an implied condition that the

goods shall be of merchantable quality.


if
is

But

the buyer has examined the goods, there

no implied condition
such
;

as

regards

defects
to

which
revealed
(3)

examination

ought

have

An

implied warranty or condition as to quality

or fitness for a particular purpose

may be
does

an-

nexed by the usage of trade;


(4)

An

express warranty or

condition

not

negative a warranty
^

or condition implied by

this Title unless inconsistent therewith.


Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

14.

Sale by

384.

Contract of sale
is

is

a contract for sale

by

sample

sample where there

term

in the contract, express

or implied, to that effect.

In the case of a contract

Digitized

by Microsoft

SALE OF GOODS
for
sale

167

by sample, the
:

implied, viz.
[a)

following

conditions

are

That
That

the
in

bulk

shall

correspond

with the
reasonable

sample
((^)

quality

the

buyer

shall,

have

opportunity of comparing the bulk with the

sample
(c)

That the goods shall be free. from any defect, rendering them unmerchantable, which would
not be apparent on reasonable examination

of the sample.
Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

15.

385.

It

is

the duty of the seller to deliver the

Duties of

goods, and of the buyer to accept and pay for them,


in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale.
Sale of

""
^'^^^^

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

27.

386. Unless otherwise agreed, the goods remain


at

Risk

the

seller's risk until


;

the property therein

is

trans-

ferred to the buyer


is

but

when

the property therein

transferred

to

the buyer, the goods are at the

buyer's risk, whether delivery has been

made

or not.

But where delivery has been delayed through the fault of either buyer or seller, the goods are at the
risk

of the party in

fault as regards

any

loss

which Nothof

might not have occurred but


ing
in
this

for such fault.

affects

the

duties

or

liabilities

G3

Digitized

by Microsoft

68

LAW OF CONTRACT

either seller or buyer as a bailee of the- goods of the

other party.
Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

zo.

Delivery and

387. UnlesS

Otherwise

agreed,

delivery

of

the

paymtn

goods and payment


ditions
;

of the price are concurrent con-

that

is

to say, the seller

must be ready and

willing to give possession of the goods to the buyer


in

exchange

for the price,

and the buyer must be

ready and willing to pay the price in exchange for


possession of the goods.
Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

28.

Delivery

388. Whether

it is

for the buyer to take posses-

sion of the goods or for the seller to send

them

to

the buyer,

is

a question

depending in each case on

the contract, express or implied, between the parties.

Apart from any such contract, express or implied,


the place of delivery
if
is

the

seller's

place of business,
;

he have one, and,

if not,

his residence
sale

except

that, if the contract

be for the

of specific goods,

which, to the knowledge of the parties when the contract is made, are in some other place, then that
place
(a)
is

the place of delivery.

But

Where

under the contract of

sale the seller

is

bound to send the goods to the buyer, and no time for sending them is fixed, the seller is bound to send them within a reasonable
time

Digitized

by Microsoft

SALE OF GOODS
(b)

169

Where

the goods at the time of sale * are in


is

the possession of a third person, there

no

delivery by seller to buyer unless and until

such third person acknowledges to the buyer


that
(c)

he holds the goods on


unless
is

his behalf;

Demand
as

or tender of delivery

may be
a

treated

ineffectual

made

at

reasonable
is

hour.

What

a reasonable

hour

a ques-

tion of fact
(d)

Unless otherw^ise agreed, the expenses of and


incidental to putting the goods into a deliv-

erable state must be borne by the seller.


[*
ale

This
is

is

the

wording of the Act


Sale of

but surely " contract

of

"

meant.]

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

29,

389.

Where

the

seller

delivers

to

the buyer a
sell,

Mis-deiwery

quantity of goods

less

than he contracted to

the

buyer may reject them.


contract rate.

But

if

the buyer accepts

the goods so delivered, he must pay for

them

at

the

Where
may

the seller delivers to the buyer a quantity


sell,

of goods larger than he contracted to


reject the rest, or

the buyer

accept the goods included in the contract and

he

may

reject the whole.

If the

buyer accepts the whole of the goods so delivered,

he must pay for them

at the contract rate.

Where

the seller delivers to the buyer the goods


to sell

he contracted

mixed with goods of

a different

Digitized

by Microsoft

170

LAW OF CONTRACT
accept the goods which are in accordance with
rest,

description not included in the contract, the buyer

may

the contract and reject the

or he

may

reject the

whole of the goods.

The

provisions of this are subject to any usage

of trade, special

agreement, or course of dealing


i

between the

parties.
Sale of

A
Delivery by
instalments
-^

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

30.

390. Uulcss Otherwise agreed, the buyer of goods


^^^ bound to acccpt delivery thereof by instal-

'

ments.

Where

there

is

a contract for

the sale of goods to

be delivered by stated instalments,


separately paid
for,

deliveries in respect

which are to be and the seller makes defective of one or more instalments, or
it is

the buyer neglects or refuses to take delivery of or

pay for one or more instalments,


each
case,

a question in

depending on the terms of the contract


case,

and the circumstances of the


breach of contract
contract, or
rise to
is

whether the
of the whole breach giving

a repudiation
is

whether

it

a severable

a claim for compensation but not to a right

to treat the

whole contract

as

repudiated.
s.

Sale of Goods Act, 1893,

31.

Delivery
(arrter

to

391. Where, in pursuance of a Contract of

sale,

^^

seller is

authorised or required to send the goods

Digitized

by Microsoft

SALE OF GOODS
to

171

the buyer,

delivery

of the goods to a carrier,


not, for the purpose

whether named by the buyer or


of transmission
to
to the buyer,
is

prim(^ facie

deemed
But

be a delivery of the goods to the buyer.


{a)

Unless otherwise authorised by the buyer, the


seller

carrier

must make such contract with the on behalf of the buyer as may be
pf the
do,

reasonable, having regard to the nature of the

goods and the other circumstances


case.

If

the

seller

omit

so

to

and

the goods are lost or damaged in course of


transit,

the buyer

may
the

decline to treat the

delivery to the carrier as a delivery to


self,

himin

or

may hold
;

seller

responsible

damages
{j})

Unless otherwise agreed, where goods are sent

by the

seller

to

the

buyer by a route in-

volving sea

transit,

under circumstances in

which

it

is

usual to insure, the seller must

give such notice to the buyer as

may

enable

him

to insure

them during
fails to

their sea transit;


so,

and, if the seller

do

the goods are

deemed
transit.

to

be

at

his

risk

during such sea

Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

32.

Where the seller of goods agrees to deliver them at his own risk at a place other than that where they are when sold, the buyer must, never392.

Distant

^'^''^

Digitized

by Microsoft

172
thele^s,

LAW OF CONTRACT
unless

otherwise agreed, take any risk of


the goods
necessarily

deterioration' in

incident to

the course of transit.


Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

33.

Examination

393.

Where goods

are delivered

to

the buyer,

^'"' ^

which he has not previously examined, he is not deemed tb havfe accepted them, unless and until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them
for the piurpose

of ascertaining whether they are in

conformity with the contract.


wise
agreed,

And

unless other-

when
a

the

seller
is

tenders delivery of

goods to the buyer, he


afford

bound, on request, to

the

buyer

reasonable opportunity of ex-

amining' the godds, for the purpose of ascertaining

whether they are in conformity with the contract.


,

Sale of Gojads Act, 1893,

s,

34.

Acceptance

394.

'J'he

buyer

is

deemed

to

have accepted the


seller that

of goods

gopdjS vyhpn

he intimates to the

he has

accepted them, or

when

the goods have been dein relation to

livered to him, and

he does any act


after the lapse

them which
the
seller,

is

inconsistent with the ownership of

or

when,

of a reasonable

time^ heTetains the goods without intimating to the


steller<

that

he has rejected them.'


Sale of

Goods Act,

893,

s.

35.

Digitized

by Microsoft

SALE OF GOODS

173
Rejection of
^

395. Unless otherwise agreed, where gopds are

delivered to the buyer, and he refuses to accept them, ^^

having the right so to do, he

is

not bouiid to return

them

to the seller.

It

is

sufficient if

he intimates
them.

to the seller that

he refuses

to accept
s.

Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,

36.

396.

When

the seller

is

ready and

willing

to

Failure to
^^/^^'

deliver the
delivery,

goods, and requests the buyer to take


a reasonable

and the buyer does not within


any
loss

time

after

such request take delivery of the goods,


occasioned by

he

is

liable to the seller for

his neglect or refusal to take delivery,

and

also for

a reasonable charge for the care

and custody of the


his rights

goods.

The
to

rights of the seller in such a case are

additional

and independent of

where

the neglect or refusal of the buyer to take delivery

amounts

to a repudiation of the contract.


Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

37.

[Presumably this section of the Act only refers to a buyer improperly refuses or neglects to accept deliveiy.]

who

deemed to be an "unpaid seller" within the meaning of this Title la) When the whole of the price has not been
397.

The

seller

of goods

is

Unpaid
"^''^''

paid or tendered
ib)

When

a bill of

exchange or other negotiable


as

instrument has been receiived

conditional

Digitized

by Microsoft

174

LAW OF CONTRACT
paymentj and the condition on which
it

was

received has not been fulfilled, by reason of

the dishonour of the instrument or otherwise.

In son who

398-406 the term "seller"


is

includes any per-

in the position
seller to

of

a seller, as, for instance,

an agent of the

whom

the

bill

of lading has

been indorsed, or a consignor or agent


self paid, or
is

who

has him-

directly responsible for, the price.


Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,5.38.

Remedies of

398. Subject to the provisions of this Title, and


^^ ^^^ statute in
:that behalf,

mpat

se

er

notwithstanding that
passed to the

the property in the goods

may have

buyer, the unpaid seller of goods, as such, has by

implication of law
(a) a lien

[i.e.

on the goods
t|he

right to retain them)


is

for

price,

while he

in

possession of

them
(J))

in ease of the insolvency

of the buyer,

a right

of stopping the goods in transitu after he has


parted \vith the possession of
(f) a

them

right of re-sale as limited by this Title.

Where

the property in goods has not passed to

the buyer, the unpaid seller has, in addition to his


other remedies, a right of withholding delivery, similar to

and co-exterisive with his rights of

lien

and

stoppage in transitu where the property has passed


to the buyer.
Sale

ofGoods'Act, 1893,

s.

39,

Digitized

by Microsoft

SALE OF GOODS
unpaid
is

175
Lien

399. Subject to the provisions of this Title, the


seller

of goods

who

is

in possession of

them

entitled to retain

possession

of them until pay-

ment or tender of the namely


:

price in the following cases,

[a)

Where
Where

the goods have been sold without any

stipulation as to credit;
{b^

the goods have been sold on credit,

but the term of credit has expired

Where the buyer becomes insolvent. The seller may exercise his right of lien,
[c)

notwith-

standing that he

is

in

possession of the

goods

as

agent or bailee for the buyer.


Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

41.

400.
livery

Where an unpaid seller has made part deof the goods, he may exercise his right of lien

Part
'^'^'^

de-

on the remainder, unless such part delivery has been made under such circumstances as to show an agree-

ment

to waive the lien.


Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

42.

thereon
[a)

401.

The unpaid
he

seller

of goods

loses

his

lien

Loss of Hen

When

delivers the goods to a carrier or

other bailee for the purpose of transmission


to the buyer, without reserving the right of

disposal of the goods

Digitized

by Microsoft

176
(/^)

LAW OF CONTRACT
When
the buyer or his agent lawfully obtains
;

possession of the goods


[c)

By waiver thereof. The unpaid seller of goods, having

a lien thereon,

does not lose his lien by reason only that he has

obtained judgment for the price of the goods.


Sale of

Goads Act, 1893,

s.

43.

Stofpage in

402. Subject to the provisions of

this Title,

when

the buyer of goods becooies insolvent, the unpaid


seller

who

has parted with

the possession of the


in transitu; that as

goods has the right of stopping them


is

to say,
as

he may resume possession of the goods


transit,

long

they are in course of

and may retain

them

until

payment
Sale of

or tender of the price.


Goods Act, 1893,
s.144.

Duration of
tramit

403. Goods are deemed to be in course of

transit

from the time when they are delivered


by land or water, or other
bailee, for the

to a carrier

purpose of

transmission to the buyer, until

the buyer, or his

agent in that behalf, takes delivery of them from

such carrier or other bailee.

If the buyer or his

agent in that behalf obtains delivery of the goods


before their arrival at the appointed destination, the
transit is at
If, after

an end.
the arrival of the goods at the appointed

destination, the carrier or other bailee

acknowledges

Digitized

by Microsoft

SALE OF GOODS
to the buyer, or his agent, that

177

he holds the goods


at

on

his behalf,

and continues in possession of them


is

as bailee for the buyer, or his agent, the transit

an end

and

it

is

immaterial that

a further destina-

tion for the goods

may have

been indicated by the

buyer.
If the goods are
carrier

rejected by the buyer, and the

or

other bailee continues in possession of


transit
is

them, the
if

not deemed to be

at

an end, even
back.

the seller has refused to receive

them

When

goods are delivered to


it is

a ship chartered

by

the buyer,

a question

depending on the circum-

stances of the particular case,

whether they are

in

the possession of the master


to the buyer.

as a carrier, or as

agent

Where
refuses

the

carrier

or

other

bailee

w^rongfuUy

to

deliver

the goods to the buyer, or his


is

agent in that behalf, the transit

deemed

to be at

an end.

Where

part delivery of the goods has, been

made

to the buyer, or his

agent in that behalf, the rein transitu,

mainder of the goods may be stopped


unless such part delivery has been

made under such

circumstances

as

to show^

an agreement to give up

possession of the

whole of the goods.


Goods Act, 1893,
s.

Sale of

45.

404.
stoppage

The

unpaid
A

seller

may
\

exercise his right of


y

Process of stoppage

tn transitu, either

by taking actual posses-

Digitized

by Microsoft

178

LAW OF CONTRACT
by giving notice of
bailee in
his claim

sion of the goods, or

to the carrier or other

whose

possession

the goods are.

Such notice may be given either


of the goods or to
In the
latter
at

to the person in actual possession


his principal.
effectual,

case the notice, to be

must be given
diligence,

such time and under such

circumstances that the principal, by the exercise of


reasonable

may communicate

it

to his

servant or agent in

time to prevent a delivery to


given by

the buyer.

When

notice of stoppage in transitu

is

the seller to the carrier, or other bailee in possession

of the goods, he must re-deliver the goods


according to the directions
penses
seller.
'

to, or

of,

the

seller.

The

ex-

of such re-delivery must be borne by the


Goods Act,

Sale of

893,

s.

46.

Transfer of
rights

405. Subject to the provisions of this Title, the

unpaid

seller's

right of lien or stoppage in transitu


sale,

is

not affected by any


goods,
seller

or other disposition of the


unless the

which the buyer may have made,


document of
title to

has assented thereto.

But, where a

goods has been

lawfully delivered to any person as buyer or

of the goods, and that


to a person

who

takes

owner person transfers the document the document in good faith


if

and for valuable consideration, then,

such

last-

mentioned

transfer

was by way of

sale,

the unpaid

Digitized

by Microsoft

SALE OF GOODS
seller's

179
is

right of lien

or stoppage in transitu

de-

feated,

and

if

such last-mentioned transfer was by


or other disposition for value,

way of pledge
unpaid
seller's

the

right of lien or stoppage in transitu

can only be exercised subject to the rights of the


transferee.
Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

47.*

406. Subject to the provisions of this Title, a


contract of sale
cise
is

Resale

not rescinded by the mere exerseller

by an
in

unpaid
transitu.

stoppage
{a)

But

of his

right

of lien or

Where

an unpaid

seller

who

has exercised his

right of lien or stoppage in transitu, re-sells

the goods, the buyer acquires a good


thereto as against the original buyer
[b)

title

Where
or

the goods are of a perishable nature,


seller

where the unpaid

gives notice to
re-sell,

the buyer of his intention to

and the

buyer does not within a reasonable time pay


or tender the price, the unpaid seller
re-sell the

may

goods, and recover from the origi-

nal buyer

damages

for

any

loss

occasioned

by
(c)

his

breach of contract
the seller expressly reserves a right of

Where

re-sale in case the

buyer should

make
is

default,

and, on the buyer

making

default, re-sells the

goods, the original contract of sale

thereby

Digitized

by Microsoft

i8o

LAW OF CONTRACT
rescinded; but without prejudice to any claim

the seller

may have

for damages.
s.

Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,

48.

Action for
price

407. Where, under a contract of

sale,

the property

in the goods has passed to the buyer,

and the buyer


seller

wrongfully neglects or refuses to pay for the goods


according to the terms of the contract, the

may
the

maintain an action against

him

for the price of the


sale,

goods
price
livery,

and where, under a contract of

is

payable on a day certain irrespective of de-

and the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses

to pay such price, the seller

may

maintain an action

for the price, although the property in the

goods

has not passed, and the goods have not been appropriated to the contract.
Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

49.

Action for
non-accep-

408.

Where

the

buyer

wrongfully neglects or

tance

refuses to accept and pay for the goodsy the seller

may

maintain an action against

him

for

damages

for non-acceptance.

The measure
rectly

of damages

is

the estimated loss di-

and naturally
there

resulting, in the ordinary course

of events, from the buyer's breach of contract.

Where
to

is

an available market for the goods


is

in question, the

measure of damages

prima facie
the

be ascertained by the difference between the con-

tract price

and the market or current price

at

Digitized

by Microsoft

SALE OF GOODS
time or times when
then
the.

i8i

goods ought to have been

accepted, or, if no time was fixed for acceptance,


at

the time of the refusal to accept.


'

Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

50.

409.

Where

the seller wrongfully neglects or re-

Remedies of
2c7ion for
non-delivery
_

fuses to deliver the

goods to the buyer, the buyer

may maintain

an action against the seller for damages

for non-delivery.

The
rectly

measure of damages

is

the estimated

loss di-

and naturally
there

resulting, in the ordinary course


seller's

of events, from the

breach of contract.

Where

is

an available market for the goods

in question, the measure of

damages

is

prima facie

to

be ascertained by the difference between the contract price

and the market or current price of the


time or times
or, if

goods

at the

when

they ought to have


fixed, then at the

been delivered,

no time was
deliver.
s.

time of the refusal to


Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,

51.

410.
seller,

Where

there

is

breach of warranty by the


elects, or is

Breach of
^"^''""'y

or

where the buyer

compelled, to

treat
seller

any breach of a condition on the part of the as a breach of" warranty, the buyer is not, by
goods
but he

reason. only of such breach of warranty, entitled to


reject the
ia)
set
;

may

up against the

seller

the breach of warranty


;

in

diminution or extinction of the price

or

Digitized

by Microsoft

l82
[S^

LAW OF CONTRACT
maintain an action against the
seller for

dam-

ages for the breach of warranty.

The measure
is

of damages for breach of warranty of events, from the breach of

the estimated loss directly and natufally resulting,

in thie ordinary course

warranty.

In the case of breach of warranty of quality, such


loss

prima fade the difference between the value of the goods at the time of delivery to the buyer,
is

and the value they would have then had


answered to the warrantv.

if

they had

The

fact that the

buyer has

set

up the breach of
action

warranty in diminution or extinction of the price,


does not prevent
for the

him from maintaining an


if

same breach of warranty


Sale of

he has suffered

further damage.
Goods Act, 1893,
s.

53.

Special

411.
arise
it

Where any

right, duty, or liability


sale

would

agreement

by implication of law, may be negatived or varied by express agreement,


under a contract of
if

or by the course of dealing between the parties, or

by usage,

the usage be such as to bind both parties

to the contract.
Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

55.

Sales hy

412. In the case of a


(fl)

sale

of goods by auction

auction

Where goods
in lots,

are put
is

up for

sale

by auction

each lot

primd facie deemed to be


;

the subject of a separate contract of sale

Digitized

by Microsoft

SALE OF GOODS
((^)

183

sale

by

auction

is

complete
its

when

the

auctioneer announces
fall

completion by the

of the hammer, or in other customary


Until such announcement
is

manner.
any bidder
(c)

made

may

retract his bid


is

Where
seller,

a sale

by auction
not lawful

not notified to be

subject to a right to bid


it

on behalf of the

is

for the seller to bid

employ any person to bid, at such sale, or for the auctioneer knowingly to take any bid from the seller or any such perhimself, or to
son.

Any

sale
as

contravening this rule

may

be treated
.

fraudulent by the buyer

[d)

sale

by auction may be notified to be sub;

ject to a reserved price

and

a right to bid

may
Where
behalf,

also

be reserved expressly by or on beseller.


is

half of the

a right to bid

expressly

reserved, but
his

not otherwise, the

seller, or

any one person on

may

bid at the auction.


Sale of

Goods Act, 1893,

s.

58.

413.
tracts

The
sale

provisions of this Title relating to con-

Sale by
"-^

way
''

of

do not apply

to

any transaction in the

'"""

form of a contract of sale which is intended to operate by way of mortgage, pledge, charge, or other
security.
Sale of

Goods

Actjt

1893,

s.

61 (4).

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
Definition

II

SALE
of
sale

OF LAND
of land
is

414.

contract

a contract

whereby one party ("the vendor") agrees


fer

to trans-

an existing estate or interest in land to another

party ("the purchaser") for a


called " the price."

money consideration, There may be a contract of sale

between one part-owner and another.

Statute of

415.
satisfy

Frauds

which does not the requirements of 220-221 (Book II,


contract of sale of land

No

Part

I) is

enforceable by action.
Statute of

Frauds (1677)

s.

4,

Price

416. In a contract of sale of land the parties


alternatively
(tf)
:

may

fix a

price

[b)

provide

for

the

price

to

be ascertained in

manner thereby agreed


[c) stipulate for a fair price.
Fry, Specific Performance (4th ed.)
s.

354.

When
is

the price

is

to

be ascertained, the contract


as-

prima facie conditional upon the price being

Digitized

by Microsoft

SALE OF LAND
certained in the

185

way

prescribed.

Upon such

ascer-

tainment of the price the contract becomes absolute.


Milnes v. Gery (1807) 14 Ves., at p. 408. London Guarantie Co. v. Fearnley (1880) L. R.
5

App. Ca.,

at p.

920.

What

is

a fair price

is

a question of fact depen-

dent on the circumstances of each particular case.

41 7.

Where

there

is

a contract to sell
is

land on PrUe u
^'^^

be

the terms that the price

to be fixed

by the valu-

ation of a third party, and such third party does not

make such
[Where

valuation, the contract


Milnes
v.

is

avoided.

Gery, ubi sup.

prevented from malcing the valuation by the fault of the vendor or purchaser, the party not in fault may (probably) maintain an action for damages against the party in fault. At least, in Smith v. Peters (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 511, Sir G. Jessel, M. R., granted a mandatory order to compel the vendor to
the third
party
is

allow the valuer to enter.]

418.

contract of sale of land

may

contain any "

open''

terms agreed upon by the parties which are not If the parties have merely agreed contrary to law.
to sell and purchase without expressing the terms

contract

upon which the

sale

is

to take place ("

open contract

of sale") the provisions of the following apply.

419. In every contract of sale of land, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, there are an

Good

title

Digitized

by Microsoft

86

LAW OF CONTRACT
II,

implied condition and warranty (Book

Part-

I,

342) that the vendor will make a good the property contracted to be sold.
Ogihie
V.

title to

Foljambe (1817) 3 Mer. 531.


v.

Doe

d.

Gray

Stanion (1836)

M. & W.,

at p.

701.

Ellis V.

Rogers (1885) 29 Ch. D. 661.

Disclosure

of defects

420. In the absence of agreement to the contrary, ^ J a vendor must disclose to a purchaser any material de.

fect in the title to the property

within his

which is exclusively knowledge, and which the purchaser could


Stevens v. Adamson (18 18) 2 Stark. 422. v. Hawtrey [1903] 2 K. B. 487.

not with reasonable care discover for himself.


Molyneux

Carlishy. Salt [1906]

Ch. 335.

\_^aeref whether this


matter.]

liability

extends to defects in the subject-

Construction

42I. j^ every contract of sale of land


^

it is
_ _

(in the

of contract

absence of agreement to the contrary) implied that


the vendor undertakes
{a^ to

convey the whole interest in the land which


is

he

legally
Boioer
V.

competent to convey
Cooper (1842) 2 Ha. 408.

(b)

to
*

convey
Hughes
V.

a freehold estate
{\%\o) 4 Y. & Parker (1841) 8 M.

of fee simple;
C, at & W.
p.

Cattell V. Corrall

236.

244.

(f )

to

convey free from incumbrances.

Gatayes v. Flather (1865) 34 Beav. 387. Ogihie_ V. Foljambe (1817) 3 Mer., at p. 65. Re Bettesworth isf Richer (1883) 37 Ch. D. 535.

Digitized

by Microsoft

SALE OF- LAND


But these implications do not

187

(in the absence of

agreement
negativing
Cox
Caio

to the contrary] arise

when
at p.

circumstances

them
V.

are

known

to the purchaser.
216.

Middleton (1854) 2 Drew.,

V.

Gloag' s
.

Ellis V.

Thompson ( 1882) 9 Q. B. D. 616. and Miller' s Contract (1883) 23 Ch. D. 320. Rogers (1885) 29 Ch. D., at p. 666.

422. In every contract of

sale

of land

it is

prima
to

Subject-

fade implied
sold

that

the

interest

contracted

be

[a) carries

with

it

rights of access to the land


its

and

other incidents necessary to


Stanton
v.

enjoyment
529.

7'attersall

{iS^})

Sm.

& G.

Denne

v.

Light (1857) 8

De G. M. & G.

774.

[At least in the absence of such incidents of ownership the Court will not compel specific performance. " To do so would be to compel the purchaser to pay for what he would not have the means of enjoying." {Denne v. Light, at p. 784.) The cases cited are silent as to the effect of such a contract at Common Law.]
(6)

comprises rights of ownership usque ad coelum


et

ad

inferos.

Pope V. Garland (1841) 4 Y. & C, at p. 403. Sparrow v. Oxford (1852) 2 De G. M. & G., at Bellamy v. Debenham [1891] i Ch. 412. Laybourn v. Gridley [1892] 2 Ch. 53. Haden's Contract [1905] i Ch. 603 Jackson's

p.

110.

[1906]

Ch. 412.

[On

a sale of copyhold land, minerals and timber 3lk prima facie

excluded, these

being

usually

by the custom of the manor the

property of the lord and not of the tenant.]

But a contract of

sale

of land to a railway com-

pany under the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act,

Digitized

by Microsoft

88

LAW OF -CONTRACT
^
*^

1845,

undertakers

under

the

Waterworks
be necessary

Clauses Consolidation Act, 1847, does not include

the minerals, other than, such as


to

may

be dug, used, or carried away in the construction

of the contemplated works, unless they are expressly


comprised
in

the purchase.
s.

Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,

77.
s.
1

Waterworks Clauses Consolidation Act,

847,

8.

Duties of

423. In the absence of provision to the contrary,


it is

the duty of the vendor


to

{a\

show and make

a
;

good

title to

the property

agreed to be sold

//wv. Rogers (1885) 29 Ch. D. 661.

[See

Addendum

to this Title.]

[b\

upon

payment or tender of the purchase money and interest, if any, and all outgoings and expenses, if any, properly payable by the purchaser, to execute, and procure the execution by
of, a
all

other necessary parties

(if

any)

proper conveyance vesting the legal and


M. & W.

equitable ownership in the purchaser


Poole V. /////(1840) 6

835.
at p.

(1S04) 2 Sch. & L., at p. 166. Raynerx. Preston (1881) 18 Ch. D. per Brett L. J.,
Costigan v. Hastier

11.

(c)

upon such payment or tender


he has not already obtained
Bennety. Stone [1903] Plezos V. Samuel [1904]
i

as aforesaid, to

give or tender possession to the purchaser, if


it

Ch. 509. Ch. 464.

Digitized

by Microsoft

SALE OF LAND
[d)

189
to the pur-

upon completion,
chaser
all

to

hand over
in

title

deeds

the possession or
as

power of the vendor, except such


also

relate

to

other

property

retained

by

the

vendor
Bryant v. Busk (1827) 4 Russ. i. Duthy's and Jesson' s Contract [1898] I Ch. 419. Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 9. (^Quare, can a trustee-vendor be called upon to give more than an acknowledgment ?) [In respect of the
latter, a

covenant or a statutory acknowledgment

and undertaking must be given.]


[e)

to take reasonable care of the property to

(*)

and

pay the outgoings

until the purchaser


;

takes or ought to take possession


(a)

(b)

Lysaght v. Edwards (1876) z Ch. D., at p. 507. Clarke v. Ramuz [1891] 2 Q. B. 456. Carrodus v. Sharp (1855) 20 Beav. 56. Barsht V. Tagg [1900] i Ch., at p. 234.

[f) in or concurrently with the conveyance to enter into proper covenants for title and any
other usual covenants.
Earl Poulett
Blakeney
v.

Ricketts V. Bell {i%^j)

Hood (1868) L. R. 5 Eq. 115. 1 De G. & Sm., at p. 345 Hardie (1874) I. R. 8 Eq., at 390.
v.
;

[Express covenants for title are not now inserted the Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 7, having provided that such covenants shall be implied from the use of appropriate words in the deed of conveyance, e.g. in a conveyance for valuable consideration from the use

of the words " as beneficial owner."]

424. In the absence of provision to the contrary.


it is

the duty of the purchaser

Duties of
^"''' "'^^

Digitized

by Microsoft

I90
[a'j

LAW OF CONTRACT
within a reasonable time after proof of the
vendor's
title,
it

to prepare a proper
to the

conveyance
;

and tender

vendor for execution


M. & W.
835.

Feo/e V. /////(1840) 6

(/^)

upon the execution of the conveyance by the vendor and all other necessary parties, to pay
to the persons entitled the purchase

money

and interest

(if

any)

Poo/e V. Hi//, ubi sup.

[Formerly, where the vendor was' a trustee for third parties, it was generally the duty of a purchaser to see that the money paid by him was duly applied for the benefit of the beneficiaries under the trust. But now, by s. 20 of the Trustee Act, 1893 (amplifying

former legislation), the receipt


discharge.

in

writing of a trustee
several
trustees, all

is

sufficient

When

there

are

must

concur in giving receipts {In re Flower (1884) 27 Ch. D. 592). Similar provisions as to the receipts of trustees under the Settled Land Acts are contained in the Settled Land Act, 1882, s.
Purchasers from mortgagees, even where there was a joint account clause, were formerly bound to satisfy themselves that the joint tenancy had not been severed. This is now rendered in most cases unnecessary by the Conveyancing Act, 1881, ss. 22 & 61. Formerly purchasers from an heir or beneficial devisee, when "the land was charged with debts or legacies, were bound to see to the application of the purchase money. This is now rendered in most cases unnecessary by the Land Transfer Act, 1897, which makes realty (other than legal interests in copyholds) devolve in the first instance upon the personal' representatives, who have the same powers, rights, duties, and liabilities with regard to it as in the case of chattels real.]
40.

(c)

upon completion,
property so

to

take

possession

of the
all
;

as to relieve

the vendor from

future liabilities incident to the ownership


Fry, Sfecific Performance (4th ed.)
s.

1396.

Digitized

by Microsoft

SALE OF LAND
(<^)

191

to

enter into proper covenants for performliabilities relating to

ance of future
erty,

the prop-

when

the

vendor

remains liable in

respect thereof;
[, g. the purchaser of a lease is bound to covenant to pay the rent and pefform the covenants, and indemnify the vendor

upon them. (^Pember v. Mathers (1779) i Bro. So a purchaser of freeholds subject to restrictive covenants. (^Moxhay v. Inderwick (1847) 1 De G. & S. 708; Poole's 5f Clarke's Contract [1904] 2 Ch. 173).]
against liability

C. C. 52).

(e) if

he

desires to investigate the vendor's title,

or to

make

requisitions or objections, to do

so within a reasonable time after the delivery

of a complete abstract of
Seton V.

title.

Skde (1802)

7 Ves. Z78.

425.

A
.

purchaser

Circumstances)

XII bound
is

not (in the absence of special


to
disclose
J1

Disclosure by

any

r lact
if

purchaser

exclusively within his

knowh

to

knowledge which, the vendor, might be expected


of the subject of the
sale.

to

affect the price

Walters v. Morgan {i%6i) 3 De G. F. & J. 718. Coaksw. Boswell (1S86) L. R. 11 App. Ca., at p. 235.

426.

The

loss

resulting

from any accidental


on the purchaser.

in- Rjsi of
''''"'''"'"""

jury to the property happening after the date

of the contract
Lysaght
v.

falls

Poole V. Shergold

Rayner

v.

Edwards (1876) z Ch. D., at p. 507. (1786) z Bro. C. C. 118. Preston (1881) 18 Ch. D. i.

[In the absence of 'special agreement, the ivendor is not bound to keep up existing insurances on the property for the benefit of the

Digitized

by Microsoft

19?
purch^isei;;

LAW^OF CONTRACT
nor,
is

by him from the insurers.


after the date

he a trustee for the purchaser of moneys recovered {Rayner v. 'Preston^ iib't sup.) If the insurer has paid money to the vendor in respect of a loss occurring

of the contract, he

may
v.

(generally) recover the

amount

from the purchaser.

Spooner [1905] 2 K. B. 753.) And a purchaser can usually protect him'sdif, in the case of losses by fire, by requiring the insurers to reinstate the buildings under the Fires Prevention Act, 1774. (Re Quiche's Trusts [1908] I Ch. 887.)]
,,,,

{Phanix Co.

(of

-.VMV

Saks by

427.
lars

When

land

is

sold

by auction, the particu-

or conditions of skle must state whether such

land will be sold without reserve, or subject to a


reserved price, or whether a right to bid
If
it
is

is

reserved.

stated that such land will be sold


to that effect, then the seller
'

without
not
the

reserve'^ or

employ any person


auctioneer

to bid at such sale,

may nor may

know^ingly take any bidding from any

such person.
'

V.

U
bid

i,

j3qj; to

Sale of

Land by Auction Act, 1867,

s.

5.

Right

to

428.

Where any

sale by. auction

of land

is

de-

clared, either in the particulars or conditions


sale, .to

of such

be subject to a right for the

seller to bid,

the seller or any one person on his behalf


at

such auction in such a manner

as

may bid he may think


6.

proper.
,

fj'fn'jii

^^^

of Land by Auction Act, 1867,

s.

Contracts of
tenancy

'429.

Any

contract
fr

whereby one party agrees


1 i

to

create an estate or mterest in land in favour of an-

/-

/-

other for a

money

consideration

is

governed by the
of land, so far
as

rules relating to contracts of sale

thb same are applicable.

Digitized

by Microsoft

SALE OF LAND
430.

193

contract of sale of land within the

mean-

Mortgages

ing of this Title does not include an agreement to


create a mortgage.

Addendum
It
is

beyond the scope of


to land.

this

work
this^

to enter

upon a discussion

of
(

title

Without doing

the statement in the text

423 () ), that the vendor must show and make a good title to the property to be sold, may be amplified as follows. The vendor
must
(i)

show a good title, i. e. at his own expense deliver to the purchaser an " abstract " (i. e. a summary of documents and events) showing a sufficient right to convey (^Soutef v. Drake (1834) 5 B. & Ad. 995 ; Doe d. Gray v. Stanton (1836) I M. & W., at p. 701). By a "good title" is meant a title deduced from the legal period of commencement, and complete in all other respects. It is sufficient to show a good equitable title, with the power to get in the legal estate by the time appointed for completion {Camberwell V. HoUoway (1879) 13 Ch. D., at p. 763). " (2) make a good title, i. e. at his own expense verify his " abstract by producing all the abstracted documents in his possession, and procuring, at the purchaser's expense, the production of all such documents as are not in his possession, and supply'

other evidence necessary to establish the title shown Incidentally, the vendor must duly answer and comply with all proper requisitions on title made by the
ing
all

in the abstract.

purchaser.

With
(i)

respect to the legal period of

commencement of

title,

the

following rules

may be

noted.

(2)

purchaser may generally claim to have the title traced back over a period of forty years next before the date of the contract (Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, s. i). In the absence of stipulation to the contrary, the purchaser of a term of years may not call for the title to the freehold
(ib. s.

2.)

(3)

The

purchaser of a term granted by underlease has not


title
s.

the right (unless expressly reserved) to call for the to the leasehold reversion (Conveyancing Act, 1881,

(0(9))-

H2

Digitized

by Microsoft

194
.

LAW OF CONTRACT
The
purchaser of an intel'est in land converted by enfranchisement from copyhold or customary tenure into freehold has not the right (extept by agreement) to call for the title to make the enfranchisement (/^. s. 3 (2) (9) ). purchaser in every case
root of title,"
i. e.

(4)

may require the vendor to go back " to some instrument of disposition dealing" with, or proving on the face of it (without the aid of extrinsic evidence), the ownership of thc' whole legal and equitable estate in the property Sold, containing a description by which the property can be identified, and showing nothing to cast, any doubt on the title of the disposing parties." (Williams, Vendor and
to

The

" a good

Purchaser^ Vol.

I. p.

87)].

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION
HIRE
431.

II

contract of hire

is

a contract

whereby one

Definition

person (" the letter") agrees to allow another ("the


hirer ") to use goods for a limited time for a valu-

able consideration.
to land.

The

contract has no application

432.

When

the contract
is

is

for the hire of a spe-

Defects
^^^^^^"

cific thing,

the letter

not responsible for the conseat the

quences of defects of which he was unaware


the thing
entrusted to the letter,

time of the hiring ;W but when the selection of


is it is

the duty of

the letter to supply to the hirer a thing as reasonably

and proper for the purpose for which, to the knowledge of the letter, it was intended to be used,
fit

as care
(a)

and

skill

can

make
Co.

it.W
(1881)
7

Robertson

v.

Amazon Tug

Q.

B.

D. 598.
case.)

(See

judgment of Bramwell, L. J., in this (b) Hyman v. Nye (1881) 6 Q. B. D. 685. (But see Vogan 3" Cit. v. Oulton (1898) 79 L. T. 384.)

however

the dissenting

433. If an animal

is

hired, the duty of feeding


hirer.
1-

it

Keep of ani"'"l^

prima facie

j^

falls

r- 1

on the

^l-

hired

Handford\. Palmer (1820) z Brod. Readings. Menham (1832) i Moo.

& &

Bing., at p. 360.

Rob. 234.

Digitized

by Microsoft

196
Duties of
"^^'^

LAW OF CONTRACT
the duty of the hirer
:

434. In the absence of agreement to the contrary,


it is

{a) to

take reasonable care of the goods hired. (*)


is

Reasonable care in a hirer


prudent

such care

as a

man may be

expected to take of his


;

own
(a)

property of the same kind


Sanderson

(b)

Dean

v. Collins [1904] I K. B. 6z8. Keate (1811) 3 Camp. 4. Batson v. Donovan (1820) 4 B. & Aid., at p. 30. v.

(b) to

use the thing hired only for the purpose

and time agreed


Coggs V. Bernard (1704) z Ld. Raym. 915. Burnardv. Haggis (1863) 14 C. B. N. S. 45,

(c) to

restore the thing at the

time fixed for the

expiration of the hiring, or,


fixed,

where no time

is

within a reasonable time after notice

requiring

him

to

do

so

Coggs V. Bernard, ubi sup.,

at p.

916.

(d ) to restore the thing in the condition in


it

which

was received,
this

fair

wear and
arise
lost,

tear excepted.
if

But

duty does not

the thing

hired has perished, been


rated,

or has deterio-

without default on the part of the

hirer
Cooper V. Barton (1810) 3

Camp.

(n.)

\e)

to

perform the consideration agreed upon.

Digitized

by Microsoft

HIRE
trary, the offspring

197
Offspring

435. In the absence of agreement to the conof a female animal hired, born
belongs to the owner of the

""""" af anil hired


"'

during
animal,

the

hiring,

[It is difficult to find express authority for this


is

statement

but

it

believed that

it

represents the law.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION
LOAN

III

TITLE I LOAN OF GOODS


Defimtion

436.

contract of loan of goods

is

a contract

whereby one person


a limited

(" the lender ") allows or agrees

to allow another (" the

borrower ") to use goods for

time without valuable consideration.

Promise of
loan

437.
unless
it

A
is

promise to lend

goods

is

not

binding

under

seal.
(See

&

[This follows from the general rule of English Law. 213, Book II, Part I.)]

203

Latent defects

438. In the absence of agreement to the contrary,


it is

the duty of the lender to

borrower any latent defect


thing lent, which
is

make known to known to him in


it

the
the

likely to render

perilous to

the borrower if used for the purpose for


lender

which the
If the

knows

that

the

loan

is

accepted.

by reason of the lender's nondisclosure of such, defect, he is entitled to damages.


borrower
suffers loss
Blakemore

MacCarthy

& Exeter Ry. Co. (1858) Toung (1861) 6 H. & N. 329. Coughlinv. Gillison [1899] I Q. B. 145.
v. Bristol v.

8 E.

&

B., at p.

1050.

Digitized

by Microsoft

LOAN OF GOODS
it is

199
Duties of

439. In the absence of agreement to the contrary,


the duty of the borrower
:

[a) to exercise

such care and

skill

with regard to
exer-

the thing lent as a prudent


cise.

man would

This includes the exercise of

special

skill

where

special skill

is

required

Isaack V. Clark (1614) 2 Bulstr. 306. Vaughan v. Menlove (1837) 3 Bing. N. C. 468.

Wilson V. Brett (184.3) '" M. & W. 113. Grills. General Iron Screw Co. (1866) L. R.

C. P.,

at p.
is

612.
re-

[The dictum
quired

in

Coggs v. Bernard: that exceptional care

from

gratuitous

borrower, seems

never

to

have

been

acted upon.]

[b) to use

the thing lent for the purpose and time


it

only for which


Coggs
V.

was

lent
at pp.

Bernard (1704) 2 Ld. Raymond,

915, 916.

(f) to restore

the thing lent [quaere, together with

the increments, if any,) at the time agreed,


or within a reasonable time after
Coggs
V.

demand

Bernard, ubi sup.

Story, Bailments, 257, 260.

(^) to restore the thing lent in the condition in

which
this

it

was

at

the time of the lending


tear

(reasonable

wear and

excepted).

But

duty does not arise if the thing lent has

perished, been lost, or has deteriorated with-

Blakemore

out default on the part of the borrower. v. Bristol &= Exeter Ry. Co. (1858) 8 E. & B., at p.

1050.

440. Unless

a contrary intention

is

expressed or
is

Borrower's
'^tfamferlbie

implied, the right to use the thing lent

personal

H3

Digitized

by Microsoft

200
to the

LAW OF CONTRACT
borrower
;

and the borrower will be respon-

sible for

any

loss

which may

arise

from the
it.

fact that

he has permitted another person

to use

Bringloev. Morrice (1687) I Mod. zio, Camoys v. Scurr (1840) 9 C. & P. 383.

Determifiation

441.
j-jj^^g

The
^j.

lender

may demand

the return of the

of oan

jgjj^.

^^^ time, even though the loan was

expressed to be

made

for a definite period.

Story, Bailments, 257, 258, 271.

'

..1(

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
442.

II

LOAN

OF MONEY
money
is

contract of loan of

a contract

Definition

whereby one person ("the lender") pays or agrees to pay consideration of a promise by another (" the borrower") to pay money in return, upon demand
or at a fixed or ascertainable date.
If the contract

contains an agreement for interest, the provisions of

266-268 (Book

II,

Part I) apply.

443.

The

breach of a contract to lend

or to

Contract

to

borrow W money gives rise to an action for damages. The measure of damages is the loss sustained by the
one party
(a)

^"

"^

in

consequence of the other's default.

(b)

Manchester Oldham Bank v. Cook (1884) 49 L. T. 674. Western Wagon Co. v. West [1892] i Ch. 271. Rogers \. Challis (1859) 27 Beav. 175. Sichelv. Masenthal (1862) 31 L. J. Ch., at p. 389.

444.
is

contract to lend

or to

borrow

money

Not

spedfi-

not specifically enforceable.


(a)

'"f""'

^f|

(b)

South African territories Co. v. Wallington [1898] A. C. 309. Rogers v. Challts, ubi sup.

pay

[There is an exception in the case of a contract to take up and for debentures of a joint-stock company (Companies (Cons.

solidation) Act, 1908,

185).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

202
Remedies of

LAW OF CONTRACT
II,

445. In the case of a breach of the borrower's

promise to repay, the provisions of 273 (Book


Part
I)

apply.

Money

at

446. Moijey lodged with a banker in the ordinary


course of business
is

deemed

to be

on loan to the

banker by the customer.


Foley V. Hill (1848) z H. L. C. 28. Pott V. Clegg (1849) 16 M. & W. 321.

years

[And therefore recovery (Book I, 159 (h) ).

is

barred after the

expiration

of six

Pott v. Clegg, ubi sup.). ]

Professional

447. Transactions by
g-^^^^j

way of

loan by a profes-

money-en

ers

mon-ey-lendcr, entered into since 31st October,

1900, or in respect
security has been

of which

any

agreement or

made

or taken since that date, are

subject to revision by the


its

Court in the exercise of


the creditor attempts to

discretion, either

when

enforce his claims by action or proof in bankruptcy,


or on the application of any party liable for repay-

ment of the

loan,

and are otherwise subject to the


1.

provisions of the Money-lenders Acts, 1900 and 191


Money-lenders Act, 1900,
s. i.

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION
DEPOSIT
M8. In
a contract

IV

this Section, a contract

of deposit means

Definition

depositor ") places in the custody of another (" the depositee " or
(" the

whereby one person

"depositary") goods or other movables to be kept

by the

latter for the former, either gratuitously

or

for reward.

449.

depositee, in the absence of agreement to


is

the contrary,
id) to

bound

Duties of
eposttee

exercise reasonable care and skill in regard

{a) Care

to the property deposited.

What

is

reason-

""

able care depends

upon the circumstances of

each case
The Swan

but, in the absence of special cir:

cumstances, the following rules apply


Butler
V.

Electric

Engraving Co. (1906) XXII. T. L. R.

275.
(i)

depositee for reward


cise

is

bound
as

to

exer-

such

care

and

skill

prudent

man would
where

exercise in the circuqistanqes.


special skill
;

This includes the exercise of


special skill
v.

is

required

Brabant 13 Co.

King [1895] A. C,
i

at p. 640.

Coldman

v. Hill [1919]

K. B. 443.

Digitized

by Microsoft

204
(ii)

LAW OF CONTRACT
A
as.

gratuitous depositee

cise

bound to exersuch skill as he has, and such care reasonably prudent and careful man
is

takes

of' his
;

own
igQa'^Q

property of the

like

description

Ao^>n,^X^(\

af

Coggs V. Bernard (1704) z Ld. Raym. 909. Doorman v. ^eniinsi^iSj^) z A. & E. Z56. .Sea/v. South Devon Ry. Co. (1864) 3 H. & C. 337. [The onus of proving such care is on the depositee (fViehe v. Demiis (191 3) XXIX T.'"L. R. 250).]
i'li-O'

jf|

(iii)'

depositee professing
or calling,
is

a, particular

trade,

10

bound to exercise the degree of care and skill usual and


business,

requisite in such trade^ business, or calling.


Wilson
Vovva
\

V.

Brett (1843) 11

M. & W.

113.

o) 7'rjmy'.

Sc'"'l>o^o''Shy-Cosgrove.ligos^.2'!^,.^..ios.

{b)

No

user
'

[6^ to deal
\

with the thing' deposited only


:ay,thorized
Z)?//^/fd'j)

in the

Av,'>
^V.-y
.

ii-jsi

manner
,j

by the depositor;
(1881)7 Q.
B.

V.vu
_-j^^^_^,,j_

j^f,L/%v.

p.fjio.

(f)

Resto-

1'^

(r)

to allow the depositor at


to take possession

any time on demand

ration

of the thing deposited, to"

gether With any increase or profits accrued to


'A

.J.

."
jj.

fdo^r
Wilkinson
v.

Ferity (1871) L. R. 6 C. P. zo6.

[18,93] 3 Ch. 154. "' ''^W' Story, Bailments, 99. l(i[A depositee is generally estopped from denying his depositor's the other hand, he has no clefence against a rightful title. owner. In a case of disputed title, his proper course is to interplead.
'

Re Tidd

On

that the

As'kgainst the depositor claiming: re-delivery, it is' a good defence depositee has beer? evicted by title paramount. But a

depositee cannot justify retaining the deposit as against the depositor, unless he does so by the authority of some third person, whose title

he must prove {Biddle

v.

Bond (1865) 6 B,

&

S.

225).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

DEPOSIT
450.

//AJ

205
Finder

finder of goods
is

who

undertakes the custhe same care of


'

tody of them

bound

to take

them

as a gratuitous depositee.

-^^N-t

^v.A

Doctor and Student, Dial, z, c. 38. Isaack Y. Clark (1614) Bulst. 306, 312.

\^^are, whether he is entitled to receive from the owner pensation for expenses properly incurred in relation to them. has no lien for such expenses. {Binstead v. .Buck z
(1777)

com-

He
Bl.

Wm.

1117

Nicholson v.

Chapman

{i-jq^) 2

H.

6I. 254).]

451.

mere depositee

has, as a rule,

no

lien for Lien of


epo^'^f
;

his charges in the absence of express

agreement

('')

but a wharfinger has a

special,('')

and may by

local

custom have
finger,
ties

general lien

W
as

for his charges as

whar-

and bankers have

a general lien

deposited with
is

them

on all securibankers by a customer,


inconsistent with

unless there

an express contract, or circumstances


contract,

that

show an implied
Torke

the lien.W
(a)
v. Grenaugh (1704) Ld. Raymond, 868. Judsonw. Etheridge (1833) i C. & M. 743.

Jackson
(b)

v.

Cummins (1839)

W. & M.,

at p.

349.

Pickering (1878) 8 Ch. D. 172. (c) Holderness v. Collinson (1827) 7 B. & C. 212. (d) Brandas v. Barnett (1846) iz CI. & F., at p. 806; London Chartered Bank of Australia v. IVhite (1879) L. R. 4 App. Ca., at p. 422.

Moet

V.

[A " special " lien is confined to the articles in respect of which the charges were incurred ; a " general " lien extends to charges incurred in respect of other goods of the same depositor. As to liens, see Bk. III., Sect. X., Tit. II., 15911603.]

452.

person to

whom

goods are consigned by

Unauthor
ized consign-

mistake, or otherwise without his authority, incurs

ment

Digitized

by Microsoft

2o6
v.,

LAW OF CONTRACT
liability
,,

no

to

the consignor merely by receiving


,,,

them.

Lethbridge

v. Phillips

Howards. Harris (1884)

(i8ig) 2 Stark. 544. i Cab. & El. 253.

Pledge

453. This Section has no application to a deposit


as security for a

loan or other liability.

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION V
EMPLOYMENT
TITLE
454.
I

MASTER

AND SERVANT
is

contract of service

a contract a

whereby

Definition

one person (" the servant ") agrees for


other valuable consideration to

wage
agrtees

or

work

subject to the

orders of another ("the master"),

who
547.

to

employ him.
R.
V.

ShinfieU (i8i i) 14 East,

at p.

455.
raises

The mere

fact that

one person serves another,


so in pursuance

Voluntary

no presumption that he does

of a contract of service.
R. V. Thames Ditton (1785) 4 Dougl, 300. Foords. Morky (1859) 1 Post. & F. 496.

456.

The mere

between the

...
parties
Davies
v.

existence of domestic relationship


.

Domestic relationship

raises

no presumption
&

tor

or

against the existence of a contract of service.


Davies (1839) 9 C.
P. 87.

which must extend beyond one year from the making thereof, is not
457.
contract of service,

Statute of

Digitized

by Microsoft

208

LAW OF CONTRACT
it
is

enforceable by action unless


220,

in writing [supra,-

Book
Banks

II,

Part
v.

I).
(18*18)
i

Bracegirdle
V.

HeaU

B.

&

Aid. 722.

Crossland (1874) L. R. 10 Q. B. 97.

Retainer

458.

The

master must receive the servant into

his service

W
;

and retain
('')

him

as

his servant for the

time agreed

but,

in the absence

of express or

implied agreement, the master need not find work


for his servant to
(a)

do.W
I

(b)
(c)

Tour (1853) 2 E. & B. 678. '4 -'" Lilleyy. Elwin {xiifV) 1 1 Q. B. 742. mIi Lagerwallv. Wilkinson (1899) 80 L. T. 5;. Turner v. Sawdon [1901] 2 K. B. 653.
Hochster v.

De

la

Devonald

v. Rosser (1906)

XXII

T. L. R. 682,

Wages or reward

459.

The

master must pay his servant his wage,

and perform any other consideration agreed.


no wage or other consideration
is

Where

expressly agreed
is

to be paid or performed, the servant

entitled to

receive a reasonable reward for his services, if such

was the intention of the


Bryant
v.

parties.
5

Flight (1839)

M. & W.

114.

Medical
attendance

460.'"

The

master need not provide his servant


attendance
or

with

medical

medicine,

unless

he

has agreed to do so.


Neteiyv. Wiltshire (17 Ss) 4 Dougl. 284. Wennallv. Adney (1802) 3 B. & P. 247. Sellen v. Norman (1829) 4 C. & P. 80. Cooper V. Phillips (1831) 4 C. & P. 581.

[No
It is a

general rule can be laid down with regard to providing food. matter of usage, depending on the nature of the service.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

MASTER AND SERVANT


461.

209
Testimonials

The

master

is

not bound to give his servant

or former servant a testimonial as to character.


Carrol
v.

Bird (1800)

3 Esp.

zoi.

462. In the absence of agreement to the contrary,


the master
is

Servants'

entitled to any earnings accruing to his

""""'"S'

servant in the course of his service.


Co. Litt. 117 a (ed. Hargrave & Butler) note 161. Thompson v. Havelock (1808) i Camp. 527. Mortspn V. Thompson (1874) '-' ^- 9 Q,' ^ ^' P- 4^^[Semble, an action will not
third
lie

at the suit

of a master against a

party
as

to

recover the servant's earnings, unless the servant


master's agent {Treswell v. Middleton (1623) Cro.

acted

his
]

Jac. 653),

463.

The
.

servant must enter


tor the
y.

upon
1

his service

and

^a'" /
servant

continue

in

it

time agreed.

Bird

Richards

Randall {xibi) 3 Burr. 134.5. v. Haytoard (18 ^i) 2 M. & G. 574.

464.
fully,

The

servant

must serve

his

master faith-

Obedience

and obey
v.

his law^ful

commands.^

(a)
ilt

(b)

& Ad., at p. 790. Turner Robb V. Green [1895] 2 Q. B., at p. 10. The King v. St. John, Devizes (1829) 9 B. & C, Turner v. Mason (iS^s) '4 M. & W. 112.
Robinson (1833)
5 B.

at p.

900.

465. If the servant

is

engaged

for skilled labour, Warranty


^
'

and he

has, expressly or

by implication, held himself

Digitized

by Microsoft

2IO

LAW OF CONTRACT
skill,
it.

out as having the necessary

he

is

liable if

he

does not possess and exercise


Harmer
v.

Cornelius (1858) 5 C. B.

N.

S.

236.

Betrayal of
confidence

466.
alter
^
.

The
,

Servant
.
.

may

not, during his service or


"

its

termination, use, to the prejudice or his

master, confidential information or materials obtained

by him
so,

in

the course of his service.

If he does
is

he may be restrained by injunction, and


damages.
Merr-jweather

also

liable in

Lamb
Robb

V.
V.

Louis V.

v. Moore [1892] 2 Ch. 518. Evans [1893] I Ch. 218. Green [1895] 2 Q. B. 315 (C. A.). Smellie (1895) 73 L. T. 226 (C. A.).

[Semble,a. person

who,

after the termination

of his service,

solicits

the customers of his former master, does not thereby incur

liability,

unless he makes use of information or materials improperly obtained

during the course of his service (^Helmore


at
p.

v.

456;

Irish

v.

Irish

(1888) 40 Ch. D.,


p.

Smith (1886) 35 Ch. D., at p. 51 ; Robb v.

Green [1895] 2 Q. B., at

13).]

Indemnity

467.

The

master

is

bound

to

indemnify his servant


incurred by the

for all expenses, loss, or

liability,

servant in obeying the master's lawful orders, or in

doing

at

the master's orders any act which

is

not

obviously unlawful, and which the

servant was in-

duced by
lawful.

his

master's

conduct to

believe

to

be

Adamsan

v.

Jarvis (1827) 4 Bing.,

at p.

72.

Digitized

by Microsoft

MASTER AND SERVANT


468.

211
indemnity
"f"""^'''

Tke

servant

is

bound

to

indemnify his mas-

ter against loss or liability .incurred

by the master to

third persons in consequence of the servant's


ful act or default,
Pritchardw. Hitchcock (1843) 6

wrong-

M. &

G.,

at p.

165.

469.
fixed

The
by
the

duration of a contract of service

is

Duration of
""''''"'

agreement

of

the

parties

or

by

usage.
[There was formerly
a presumption that an
indefinite hiring

was

a yearly hiring, at least in the case of agricultural labourers and

domestic and menial servants but it is doubtful how far the presumption exists at the present day (Co. Litt., 42 b Beeston v. Collyer (1827) 4 Bing. 309 Fawcett v. Cash (1834) 5 B. & Ad. G. 935; Lilley v. Elwtn 904; Baxter v. Nurse {li^if) 6 M.
; ; ;

&

(1848) II Q. B. 742;
635)-]

Fairman

v.

Oakford (i860) 5 H.

&

N.

470.

An

agreement
or

to

pay
is

quarterly/^)
necessarily

Periodical

monthly/'')

weekly

('^)

wage

not

conclusive as to the duration of the hiring.


(a)

Beeston

(b)
(c)

Davis

V.

Rex

V.

Collyer (1827) 4 Bing. 309. Marshal/ (1S61) 4 L. T. 216. Great Tarmouth (1816) 5 M. &
v.

S.

114.

471.
servants

The engagement
is

of

domestic

or

menial
at

Month's

determinable

by either party

any

time on giving a month's notice, and by the mas-

Digitized

by Microsoft

212
ter

LAW OF CONTRACT
on paying or tendering
a

month's wage in

lieu

thereof.
Fazucett v. Cash (1834) 5 B. Nozvlan V. Ablett (1835) 2 C.

&

Ad.,

at

pp. 908-909.

Moult

V.

Halliday [1898]

R. 54. Q. B., at p. 129.

M. &

[The servant is not entitled to any compensation for loss of board {Gordon v. Potter (1859) i F. & F. 644). The term "menial" is wider than and includes "domestic." " No general rule can be laid down as to who do and who do not come within the category of menial servants." {Nicoll v. Greaves (1864) 33 L. J. C. P. 259.)]

Reasonable
notice

472. Other engagements for an indefinite period


are determinable

by reasonable notice.
is

What

is

reasonable notice

a question of fact dependent

on

usage and circumstances.


Creenw. Wright {1876)
i

C. P. D. 591.

[Thefe seems to be some authority for saying that a hiring for an indefinite number of periods, ^.^. a yearly or monthly hiring, is determinable only by notice expiring at the end of one of such But where there is a hiring for one definite period, no periods. notice to determine at the end of such period is necessary, even though the contract contemplates a possible continuance of the hiring {Langton v. Carleton (1873) L. R. 9 Ex. 57). ]
,

Breach by
servant

473. If the servant wilfully disobeys


ally neglects
C')

or habituis

the lawful

commands of

his master,

grossly
is

incompetent,^ absents himself from service,^


faithful

guilty of gross misconduct,^ or otherwise acts in

manner incompatible with the due and

discharge of his duty,(0 he

may be

4ismissed by the

Digitized

by Microsoft

MASTER AND SERVANT


master without notice or compensation. (s)
servant's
is

213
If the

wage

is

payable at fixed periods, the servant

not entitled to payment of any portion of an in-

stalment which has not become due at the time of

such dismissal.

W
v.

The same

rule applies if the ser-

vant wrongfully quits his service without notice.


(a)

fb)
(c)

(d)
(e)

Mason (1845) 14 M. & W. 112. (1831 ) 4 C. & P. 518. Harmer y. Cornelius (1858) 5 C. B. N. S. 236. Robinson v. Hindman (1800) 3 Esp. 235.
Turner
Callo V, Brouncker

Callo y. Brouncker (ubi sup.').

(f)

Atkin V. Acton (1830) ,4 C. & P. 208. Turner v. Robinson (1833) 5 B. & Ad., at p. 907. Pearce v. Foster (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 536.
Lilley v. Elwin (1848) 1 1 Q. B. 742. Boston Deep ^ea Co. v. Ansell (1888) 39 Ch. D. 339. Turner v. Robinson (1833) 5 B. & Ad. 789. Boston Deep Sea Co. v. Ansell, ubi sup., at p. 364.

(g)

(h)

(i)

Walsh V. Walley (1874) L. R. 9 Q. B. 367. Lamburn v. Cruden (1841) 2 M. & G; 253.


will
justify

[The degree of misconduct which


question of fact
{Clouston v.

dismissal

is

Carry

[1906]

A. C. 122.)]

474.
ness or

The

servant

may

be dismissed

if,

from

sick- Hint" of
servant

any other cause, he becomes for a considernot dismissed, the master

able time or permanently unable to perform his duties.

But

if the servant

is

is

not,

in the absence of agreement, entitled to

make any

deduction from the agreed wage in respect of such


sickness or incapacity,(^) nor to charge the servant
for

medicine and medical attendance procured for

the servant by the master.


(a)

Cuckson
Sellen v.

v. Stones

(b)

(1859) ' E. & E. 248. Norman (1829) 4 C. & P. 80.

Digitized

by Microsoft

214
Damages for
wrongful
dismissal

LAW OF CONTRACT
The
servant

475.

who

is

wrongfully dismissed

may

recover compensation for services under the contract

rendered and not paid for [quantum meruit), and also


recover damages for loss of prospective wages
in
;

but,

estimating the latter, the jury

must take into

account the value of any other employment which


the servant

may
Brace

obtain or has already obtained.


v.

Calder [1895] 2 Q. B. 253.

Ground of
dismissal

476. In an action for wfongful dismissal,


sufficient

it is

defence

if

the master can

show

that a

good

ground
missal

for dismissal did at


exist,

the time of such dis-

though the master may have alleged another ground of dismissal,^ or may have been unaware that such ground of dismissal existed. W
even
(a)
Baillie v. ^^7/(1838) 4 Bing. N. C. 638. Spotswgod V. Barrow ( 1 8 50) 5 Exch. 1 1 o. Willets V. Green (1850) 3 C. & K. 59.

(b)

Death of
party

477.

contract of service

is

determined by the

death of either master

or, servant.

Farrow v. Wilson (1869) L. R. 4 C. P. 744. Stubbs V. Holywell Ry. Co. (1867) L. R. 2 Ex. 311.

[Presumably where a contract of hiring and service is determined by the death of master or servant, or otherwise without default on either side, in the absence of agreement or custom to the contrary the servant or his representatives will be entitled to payment in
respect of services rendered
V.

up

to the time of determination (^Cutter

Powell (i J () 5)' 6

T. R. 320.

Apportionment Act, 1870,

s.

2).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

MASTER AND SERVANT,


478. In the absence of express agreement,
tract
a

215

con-

Bankruptcy
"f """''''

of service

is

not determined by the bankruptcy

of the master.
Thomas
v.

Williams (1 834)

Ad.

&

E. 685.
,

[Quare, whether, in the case of partner employers, the dissolution of the partnership or the death of one partner dissolves a contract of hiring and service (^Hohson v. Cowley (1858) 27 L. J. Ex. 205 ; Tasker v. Shepherd (1861) 6 H. & N. 575; Brace v. Colder [1895] 2 Q. B. 253).]

479.

promise to serve another gratuitously, not


seal, is

Gratuitous

being under
service

not enforceable

and gratuitous

may

be determined by either party w^ithout

notice.^

But, so long as the relationship of master


in fact exists, the rights

and servant
persons
tract
(a)

and duties of

the parties tovv^ards one another and towards third


C*)

are governed by the law affecting the conas the

of service, so far
Lees
Sykes
v. V.

same

is

applicable.

Whitcomb (1828) 5 Dixon (1839) 9 A.


Boycott

Bing. 34.

&

E. 693.

(b)

Keane Evans

Francesco v.

(1795) 2 H. Bl. 512. v. iValton (1867) L. R. z C. P. 615. Barnum (1890) 45 Ch. D., at p. 443.)
v.

(But see

De

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
Definition

II

MASTER

AND APPRENTICE
is

480.

Contract of apprenticeship

a contract

whereby one person ("the master") undertakes


ness,

to

teach another ("the apprentice") his trade or busi-

and to employ him therein, and such other

person undertakes to learn the trade or business and


to serve his

employer
V.

in

it.

Rex
Rex

King's Lynn (i8z6) 6 B.


Creiiipn (1831) 2 B.

&

C. 97.
240.

V.

'James v. Krauth (1910)

& Ad. 493. XXVI T. L. R.

Statute of

Frauds

which must extend beyond one year from the making thereof,
481.
contract of apprenticeship,
is

not enforceable by action unless

it

is

in writing

[supra, 220,

Book

II,

Part

I).
s.

Statute of Frauds

(1677)

4.

[In practice, contracts of apprenticeship are always in writing, By such " indentures of apprenand usually in writing under seal. ticeship " the apprentice and some one or more of his relations and
friends usually covenant that he shall faithfully serve his master

and

obey

his lawful

commands.

The

master on his part covenants to

teach.]

Infant apprentice

482.

An
for

infant

may

contract to

become an apis

prentice,
benefit,

and will be
the

liable, if

the contract

for his

amount of any premium he has

Digitized

by Microsoft

MASTER AND APPRENTICE


contracted to pay
;

217

(*)

but he cannot be sued on his

contract to serve/'')
tract are not released
(a)

The

other parties to the conrefusal.


z

by his

Walter

v.

Everard [1891]

Q.

B.

369.

(b)
(c)

Gylbert V. Fletcher (1629) Cro. Car. 179. Cuming v. Hill (18 ig) 3 B. & Aid. 59.

483.

The

master must employ the


to

apprentice. Duty

of

and teach him the trade or business apprentice has been apprenticed.
Ellen V. Topp (i 851) 6 Ex. 424.

which the

"""^'^''

484.
.

The
.

master

is

entitled to all the earnings of

Apprentice's

earnings

the apprentice.
The King
v. Wantage (i8oi) Thompson v. Havelock (1808) The King v. Bradford (181 3)
i i

East, 601.

Camp. 527.

Foster v. Stewart (18 14) 3

1 M. & S. 151. M. & S., at p. 200.

[If an apprentice has worked for a third person

who

icnows that

an apprentice, the master may maintain an action against such third person to recover compensation for the apprentice's woric and
he
is

labour (^Foster

v.

Stewart, ubi f/.).]

485.

The

apprentice must act faithfully towards Duty


,his

of

his master,

and obey

lawful commands.

486.

When

the apprentice lives with his master.

Domestic

the master must provide him with necessary food, medical attendance, and medicine.
Reg.
V.

"ff""'*"'

Smith (1837) 8 C.

&

P. 153.

Digitized

by Microsoft

2l8
Wages of
apprentice

LAW OF CONTRACT
is

487. In the absence of express agreement, the


apprentice

not entitled to wages.


I

Bl.

Comm. 428.

Death of
party

488.

contract of apprenticeship

is

determined

by the death of master or apprentice.


Baxter
v.

Burjield (1747) 2 Stra. 1266.

Return of
"

489. If a

premium
is

has been paid for or by the

%'^h""

apprentice, there

agreement, to

no duty, in the absence of special return the whole or any part of it on

the death of master or apprentice.


Whincup
V.

Hughes (1871) L. R. 6 C. P. 78.

Bankruptcy
of master

490. Where,

at

the time of the presentation of


is

a bankruptcy petition, any person


is

apprenticed or

an articled clerk to the bankrupt, the adjudication


is,

of bankruptcy

if either

the bankrupt or appren-

tice or clerk gives notice in writing to the trustee

to that effect, a

complete discharge of the indenture


articles

of apprenticeship or

of agreement

and

if

any money has been paid by or on behalf of the


apprentice or clerk to the bankrupt as a fee, the
trustee

may, on the application of the apprentice or

clerk, or of

some person on

his behalf,

pay such sum

Digitized

by Microsoft

MASTER AND APPRENTICE


as the

219

trustee, subject to

an appeal to the Court,

thinks reasonable, out of the bankrupt's property, to


or for the use of the apprentice or the clerk, regard

being had to the amount paid by


behalf,

him

or on his

and to the time during which he served with


the bankruptcy, and to the

the bankrupt under the indenture or articles before the

commencement of

other circumstances of the case.


Bankruptcy Act, 1914,
s.

34.

491.

When

it

appears expedient to a trustee, he


articled

Return of

may, on the application of any apprentice or


clerk to the

^l^^^'"^//

bankrupt, or any

person

acting

on

behalf of such apprentice or articled clerk, instead

of acting under the provisions of the

last , transfer

the indenture of apprenticeship or articles of agree-

ment

to

some other

person.
Ibid.

492.

The

master

may

not determine the contract

Misconduct
''

of apprenticeship on the ground of the apprentice's misbehaviour,(*) unless in the case of habitual theft,('')
or
(?)

"Pf""**"

other gross misconduct. W


(a)

(b)
{c)

Wins tone v. Linn (1823) i B. & C. 460. Cox V. Mathews (1861) 2 F. & F. 397.
Learoyd, v. Brook [1891]

Westwick

V.

i Q. B. 431. Theodor (1875) L. R. 10 Q. B. 224.

Digitized

by Microsoft

220
Parish and
fnarine atprentices

LAW OF CONTRACT
The
provisions of this Title do not apply to

493.
Parish
t

apprentices,

nor

to

apprentices to the sea

service or sea fishing service, except in so far as they

are not inconsistent with

the Acts of Parliament


,nn\- ,ii

specially relating to such apprentices.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
494. In

III

WORK
Title
a

AND LABOUR
contract

this

of

work and
("the em-

Definition

labour means a contract whereby one person (" the

employee") agrees

to

work

for another

ployer"), but not as servant, apprentice, or agent.

495.

promise to work for another gratuitously


;

Gratuitous

(not being a specialty) creates no legal liability


if
it,

but,

the promisor
liable if

commences the work promised, he


skill,

he does not use reasonable care, diligence in so much of it as he performs.


Coggs
V.

and

Elsee V.

Bernard (1704) Gatward (1793)

2
5

Ld. Raym. 915. T. R. 143.


i

Wilkinsons. Cover dale (1793)

Esp. 74.

496.
.

When

no reward
r
I

is

paid in respect or work,

it

expressly agreed to be Quantum meruit c c is a question or tact in


each case whether the work


Reason
v.

is

to

be remunerated.

Wirdnam (1824)
v.

Lamhurn
Hutton
V.

Harrison v.

& P. 434. Cruden (1841) 2 M. & Gr. 253. James (1862) 7 H. & N. 804.
i

C.

West Cork Ry.

Co.

(lU'i) 23 Ch. D.,

at p.

667.

which must extend beyond one year from the making thereof
497.
contract of wor-k and labour
:

Statute of

Digitized

by Microsoft

222
is

LAW OF CONTRACT
it
is

unenforceable by action unless


II,

in writing

(Book

Part

I,

220).
(1677)
s.

Statute of Frauds

4.

Pttty of

498.

It is

the duty of the employer to render the


or,

empoyer

reward agreed,
is

not fixed, but the

where the amount of the reward work was intended to be remu-

nerated, to render a reasonable reward.


it is

also the

duty of the employer to


is

Whether provide emof


fact, to

ployment for the employee,


be decided according

a question

to the circumstances

of each

cascW
(a)

Brown
Hughes

v.

(b)

W., at p. 193. Fechter y. Montgomery (1863) 33 Beav. zz, Ex parte Maclure (1870) L. R. 5 Ch. App. 737. Turner v. Savidon [igoi] z K. B., at p. 659.
V.
Si

Nairne (1839) 9 C. Lenny (1839) 5 M.

&

P. Z04.

Devonald

V.

Rosier

&

Sons

(1905) 93 L. T. 274.

Duty of
empoyee

499.
^^^

It is

the duty of the employee to perform


in ,the

work agreed
it,

manner and

for the time

agreed, and to use reasonable care, diligence, and skill


in

performing
have
Clarke

infcluding any such skill as

he pro-

fessed to

at
v.

the time of contracting.


Earnshaw (1818) Gow, 30. Cornelim (185?) 5 C. B. N.
S.

Harmer

v.

Z36,

Breach of

500.

It is aii

implied tdrm in any contract of work


involves
confidential
relations

'""

and labour,

which

Digitized

by Microsoft

WORK AND LABOUR


between the
parties,

223
will
not,

that

the employee
its

during the employment or after


has acquired in the course
his

termination,

make

an unfair use of information or materials which he


of,

and in consequence of
this

employment.
also to
Tuck

Breach of

implied term en-

titles

the injured party to compensation in damages,

and

an injunction.
V. Priester y.

(1887) 19 Q. B. D. 629.

Pollard

Lamb

v.

Photographic Co. (1888) 40 Ch. D. 345. Evans [1893] i Ch. zi8.


in

[An

injunction will also be granted

similar

circumstances

against third parties

who have

obtained
v.

information or materials

through the employee {Prince Albert

Strange (1848) 2

De G. &

Sm. 652).]

501.

The employee who

has bestowed

labour

Lien of

and

skill,

or has expended money, upon a

chattel "'"P'S"

bailed to him, has a lien


in respect thereof.

upon

it

for his charges

Scarfe v. Morgan (1838) 4 M. & W., at p. 283. Ex parte Willoughby (1881) 16 Ch. D., at p. 610.

[The lien is created, even though the employer is not the owner of the chattel, if he had authority (express or implied) for the employment. i^Keene v. Thomas [1905] i K. B. 136).]

502.

The

employee's lien in respect of goods in

Lien de^p"jJ"/j/''

his possession does not extend to claims in respect

of

gopds which are no longer in his possession, unless both the goods in his possession, and the goods no
I

Digitized

by Microsoft

224

LAW OF CONTRACT
him under

longer in his possession, were bailed to

one contract.
Blakev. Nicholson (1814) 3 M. & S. 167. Chase V. Westmore (1816) 5 M. & S. 180.

Employment
on credit

503. If an employee has agreed to give credit


after

the completion of the work, he has, in the

absence of express agreement, no right of lien in


respect of the goods bailed to him.
Rain
V.

Mitchell (1815) 4

Camp. 150.

Payment hy
instalments

504. In the absence of agreement or custom to


the contrary,

work and

materials (if any)

must be

paid for by the employer as they are rendered and


provided.

In such a case, if the continuation of the


or if the

work becomes impossible,^


fuses to

workman

re-

complete

it,('')

he

is

nevertheless entitled to
as

be paid for so
carried out.
(a)

much

of the work

he has actually

(b)

Menefonew. Athavies (1764) 3 Burr. 1592. Appleby's Myers ( 1 867') L. R. 2 C. P., at p. 660 (per Blackburn, Roberts V. HaveLck (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 404.
.

J.)

[An agreement to do the whole work for a lump sum will usually be construed as an agreement that the employee is not to be paid anything until the whole* work is complete {Appleby v. Myers^ ubi
sup.).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE IV WAGES
505. In the case of

workmen

as defined in

506,

Payment

in

the payment of wages otherwise than in current coin

of the realm, and deductions from wages, are prohibited, subject to the provisions and exceptions of

the

Truck

Acts, 1831, 1887, and 1896.


s.
l
;

Truck Acts, 1831,

1887,

s.

10

1896,

sS.

1-4.

[The prohibition even extends to the deduction of damages awarded by a court to the employer against the workman ( Williams V. North's Navigation Collieries [1906] A. C. 136).]

" in "Workman" 505 does not include a domestic or menial servant but, save

506.

The

expression "

workman

as aforesaid,

servant in

means any person whoj being a labourer, husbandry, journeyman artificer, handi-

craftsman, miner, or otherwise engaged in manual

whether under the age of twenty-one years or above that age, has entered into or works under a contract with an employer, whether the contract
labour,

be express or implied, oral or in writing, and whether


it

be a contract of service or a contract personally to

execute any

work

or labour.
definition

Truck Act, 1887, s. z (incorporating by reference the " workmen " in the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875).
Squire
v.

of

Midland Lace

Co.

[1905] z K. B. 448.
this

[For the meaning of " employers " and " wages " within see Truck Act, 1831, s. 25.]
I

Digitized

by Microsoft

226
Payment of
lie

LAW OF CONTRACT
No
wages may be paid to any workman,

spirits,

507.

as

houses

defined in

506, at or within any public house,

beershop, or place for the sale of any

wine,

cyder, or other spirituous or fermented liquor, or

any

office,

garden, or place belonging thereto, or


as

occupied therewith, save and except such wages


are paid by the resident

owner

or occupier of such

public house, beershop, or place, to any

workman
s.

bond fide employed by him.


Payment of Wages

in Public-houses Prohibition Act,


s.

1883,

3.

Metalliferous Mines Regiflation Act, 1872,

9.

Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887,

s.

11

(l).

[The two last named Acts contain the words," or other house of entertainment " after the words " fermented liquor."]

Attachment
*j

508.

No

order for the attachment of the wages


labourer, or

^ig

^|. ajjy, ggj-yj^m^

workman, may be made


[?. ,2.

by any Court.
'

Wages Attachment

Abolition Act, 1870,

[This Act supplies ho definition


held not to extend, tp
,a

of"

workman "
company

"but

it

has been
a year

secretary of a

at

100

{Gordon

v.

Jennings (iSS'z) 9

Q.

B. t). 85).]

Preferential

^^^* ^^
rupt, OT
'

^^
1

distribution of the property of a bank' '

ciaimsfor

wages

of a deceased debtor whose estate is being r> T 1 r administered by the Court according to the law of
'

bankruptcy; and in the distribution of the assets of

any company which

is

being

wound up under

the

Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, the following

Digitized

by Microsoft

WAGES
taxes,
viz.
:

227

claims are entitled to rank equally with rates and

and to have priority over

all

other

debts,

[a^

the wages or salary of any clerk or servant, in


respect of services rendered to the bankrupt

(^)

months before the date of the receiving order or the commencement of the winding up, not exceeding fifty pounds all wages of any labourer or workman, whether
or the four

company during

payable for time or for piece-work, in respect

of services rendered to the bankrupt or the

company during two months


exceeding twenty-five pounds.

before the date

of the receiving order or the winding up, not


Bankruptcy Act, 1914, s. 33 (i), (b) (c), ss. I, Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, s. 209.

3.

[" Salary " includes commission of varying amount payable to a commercial traveller (Re Klein (1906) xxii T. L. R. 664).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE V PRINCIPAL AND AGENT


Definition

510.

Contract of agency

is

a contract

whereby
I,

the legal relationship of principal and agent (Book

121, 123)
[No form
is

is

created' between the parties.

except in the cases specified in 124 of representation created by a contract of agency is termed an " authority." An instrument under seal by which an agent is appointed to represent the principal generally (including the execution of deeds and conduct of legal proceedings) is termed a " letter of attorney " or " power of attorney."]
required

(Book

I) supra.

The power

Voluntary

^\.\..

person

who

undertakes without considerspecialty, to act as


;

ation, otherwise than


is

by

an agent,
but
if

not bound to perform his undertaking


as

he

acts

agent he incurs the

liabilities

and acquires

the rights of an agent as defined in this Title, so far


as

they are applicable.


Balfe
Wilkinson \. Cover dale (1793) i Esp. 74. V. West (1853) 13 C. B. 466.

Joint agency

512.
person

An
is,

authority conferred

on more than one

prima facie,
is

a joint authority.

When

an

authority

joint,

it

cannot, in the absence of exall

pression to the contrary, be exercised except by

Digitized

by Microsoft

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT


the agents acting together.
eral, it
is

229

If

it

is

joint and sev-

exercisable by

all

and each of the persons

authorised.
Brown v, Andrew (1849) 18 L. J. Q. B. 153. Re Liverpool Household Stores (1890) 59 L. J. Ch. 625.
Guthrie v. Armstrong (1822)

[But not by some of them (Co. Litt. 181 b.) 5 B. & Aid. 628.]

See, however,

513.

An

agent having authority to do an act has

Extent of
""* ""^"^

authority to do every law^ful thing


in order to

which

is

necessary

do such
Bnyley
v.

act.

Mullens

v.

Wilkins (1849) 7 C. B. 886. Miller (i 882) 22 Ch. D. 194.

514.

An

agent

having authority to conduct a

General
"^'"^

particular trade or business, or to act generally for


his principal in a particular trade, business, or under-

taking, has authority to do every lawful thing necessary or usually incidental thereto.
Young
Peers
V. Cole
v.

(1837)

3 Bing.

N.

C,

at p.

732.

Sneyd\i.%<^i) 17 Beav. 151.

Edmunds v. Bushell {i%6s) L. R. i Q. B. 97. talker v. G.ff. Ry. Co. (1867) L. R. 2 Ex. 228, Watteau v. Fenwick [1893] i Q. B. 346.

515.

It is

the duty of the agent to carry out the

General duty
"-^"S^"'

instructions, express or implied, of his principal,^ so


far as

he may lawfully do so.W

In the absence of

Digitized

by Microsoft

230
instructions,

LAW OF CONTRACT
he must pursue the accustomed course
is

of the business ia which he


(a)

employed. W

Guerreiro v. Peile (i8zo) 3 B. & Aid. 616. Smart v. Sandars (1846) 3 C. B. 380.

Butler
(b)
(c)

V. Knight (1,867) L. R. 2 Ex. 109. Bexwelly. Christie (1776) i Cowp. 395. Comber v. Anderson (1808) i Camp. 523. Foster w. Pearson (1834) i C. M. & R., at pp. 858-9.

Skill

516.

The

agent must exercise a reasonable degree

'^agen7

skill, care,

and diligence
is

in the matter or busi-

ness for

which he
Heys
V.
Lee. V,

employed.

Tindall (1861) i B. & S. 296. Walker (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 121,. Commonwealth Co. v. Weber [1905] A. C,
skill

at p.

70.

depends upon what is usual or proper in the matter or business in hand {Beal v. South Devon Ry. Co. (1864) If a person atts as agent gratuitously, he is 3 H. & C. 337). generally bound only to exercise such skill as he has, unless he has held himself out as competent, in which case he must be reasonably competent (Shiells v. Blackburne (1789) I H.-Bl. 158; Fish v. Kelly (1864) 17 C. B. N. S., at p. 206).]
standard of

[The

Agent cane

517.
gj^pj-ggg

The
qj.

agent must act in person unless he has


authority
to
act

ega e

implied

by deputy.W

Such an authority may be implied from the conduct of the parties, or from the usage of a trade or
business
;

and will be implied where

it

is

matter of

indifference

whether the agent

acts personally or

by

deputy, or where an unforeseen emergency renders


necessary the
(a)

employment of

a substitute.

(b)

Combe's Case (1614) 9 Co. Rep. 77 b. Schmaling V. Thomlinson (181 5) 6 Taunt. 147. De Bussche v. Alt (1878) 8 Ch. D. 286. Hemming v. Hale (1859) 7 p. B. N. S. 487. De Bussche v. Alt ubi sup,, at p. 31 o.

Digitized

by Microsoft

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT


518.

231
Liability for

The

agent

is

(generally) answerable both to


parties, for

his principal

and to third

the acts and

'" '^^'"'

defaults of

any persons

whom

he appoints, whether

authorised to do so <or not, to act for


business of the agency (" sub-agent ")
pal (generally) incurs
defaults of
;

him

in the

and a princithe acts and

no

liability

for

any person so appointed.


v.

Lockwood V. Abdy (1845) 14 Sim. 437. New Zealand and Australian Land Co.
374-

Watson (1881)

Q.

B.

D.

agent is authorised by a principal to appoint another be the agent of such principal, and the appointee consents, an immediate relationship of principal and agent may be produced between principal and appointee {De Bussche v. Alt (1878)
[If an

expressly

to

8 Ch.
result

D. 286; Powell
is

V.

Jones [1905]

K. B. 11).

But such a

not

commonly

intended.]

519.
faith

The

agent must act with the

strictest

good

Uberrima

" towards his principal, and for the principal's ^


Rothschilds. Brookman (1831) z Dow & CI. 188. v. Lubbock (1855) zo Beav. 588.
v.

exclusive benefit.
Pariente

Andrew

Ramsay [1903]

K. B. 635.

520.

The

agent must disclose to his principal

all

Duty of Dis-

material facts within his knowledge, relating to any


transaction into
ticular,

which he
sell

enters as agent.

In par-

an agent to

may

not himself buy, and an

agent to buy

may

not buy from himself the subject


full

matter of his commission, without

disclosure

13

Digitized

by Microsoft

232

LAW OF CONTRACT
The
onus
is

of the circumstances^

of proving that
agent.
sell).

there has been full disclosure


Dunne
v. English
v.

upon the

Robinson

Mollett (1875) L. R. 7

(1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 524 (agent to H. L. 8oz (agent

to

buy).

Secret profit

521.

The

agent

may

not, without the

consent
private

of his principal, stipulate for or


advantage
out

make any
into

of any transaction

which he
any
trans-

enters as agent, nor enter as agent into

action in
interest

which he has an
(as

interest adverse to the

of his principal. W

If he does so, the prin-

cipal
ate

may

between himself and the agent) repudibe-

the transaction within a reasonable time after

the

circumstances justifying repudiation have


to him.(^)

come known
(a)

(b)

Parker v. McKenna (1874) L. R. 10 Ch. App. 96. Harrington v. t^tctoria Graving Dock (1878) 3 Q. B. D. 549. Andrew v. Ramsay [1903] 2 K. B. 635. Champion v. Rigby (1830) i Russ. & M. 539. Lyddon v. Moss (1859) 4 De G. & J. 104.

[The principal may recover from the agent any secret advantage which he may have obtained, and also (but only where the agent has been guilty of fraud) the amount of the commission paid by him to the agent (Hippislej v. Knee [1905] I K. B. I ; Andrew v. Ramsay^
ubi sup.

See

527).

Fiduciary
character

522. If an agent

who

is

employed

to sell or pur-

chase purchases for himself, without the principal's


acquiescence, he holds the purchased property
trust for his principal
;

in

(^)

but otherwise, in respect


relation

of the

liability

to

account, the

between

Digitized

by Microsoft

PRINCIPAL. AND
agent and principal
is

AGENT

233

that of debtor and creditor,

not that of trustee and cestui que trust.^)


(a)

Lees v. Nuttall (1829)

Russ.'

& M.

53 (approved in Austin

v.

Chambers (1838) 6 CI. & F. i). Harris v. Truman (i88z) 9 Q. B. D. Z64. (b) Lister v. Stubbs (1890) 45 Ch. D. I; Powell I K. B. II.

\.

Jones [1905]

523.
title

The

agent

may

not (generally) dispute the Emppeiby


^^""'^

of his principal to any property which he holds

as his agent.
Dixon
V.

Hammond (1819)

z B.

&

Aid. 310.
v.

[For some exceptions to this rule, see Hardman (1832) 9 Bing., at p. 382; Biddle v. Bond (1S6 5) 6 B. Rogers v. Lambert [1891] i Q. B. 318.]

Wilcock
S.

&

225

524.

The

agent must keep the property of his

special duties
-'

from his own and from that of other persons/*) keep and render clear accounts/'') produce documents for inspection by a proper person when requiredjW and be ready to pay over on
principal separate

"^'"^

demand any balance due


fails

to his principal.^

If he

in the last respect,

he

will be chargeable
refusal to pay.(^)

with

interest
(a)

from the date of the


Clarke
v.

(b)
(c)

(d)
(e)

Tipping (1846) 9 Beav., at p. 292. Haig (1854) zo Beav,, at p. 239. Dadsa/ellv. Jacobs (1887) 34 Ch. D. 278. Harsant v. Blaine (1887) 56 L. J. Q. B., at p. 513.

Gray

v.

Pearse

v. v.

Green (1819)

Jac.

& W.

135.

Harsant

Blaine, ubi sup.

Digitized

by Microsoft

234
Agents
allowances

LAW OF CONTRACT
money
is

525. In accounting for

received to the

use of his principal, the agent


all

entitled to deduct

just allowances and disbursements/^)

including

disbursements made, with the authority of the principal, for


(a) (b)

unlawful purposes-W.
Dale v. Sollet (1767) 4 Burr. ZI33. Bayntun v. Cattle (1833) I M. & Rob. 265. Bone V. Ekless (i860) 5 H. & N. 9Z5.

[The sums which the agent is entitled to deduct include sums refunded by him to persons who have paid the same to him under mistake of fact (Book I, 91), or under a contract set aside on the ground of fraud, or otherwise improperly obtained from such persons by the agent. And if, before the-agent has actually paid or allowed
such sums to his principal, they are reclaimed by the' parties entitled, the agent will be personally liable to such third parties in respect thereof. Buller v. Harrison (1777) 2 Cowp. 565 (mistake) Owen Co. V. Cronk [1895] I Q. B. 265 (duress); Murray v. Mann
;

&

(1848)

Q.

B.

Ex parte Edwards (1884) 2 Exch. 538 (fraud) D. 747 (improper payment in bankruptcy).]
;

13

Secrets of principal

526.
interest

The

agent

may

not

make

use, against

the

of his

principal,

of any materials or inhis

formation

obtained

by him in the course of


his principal.
Ch. 218.

employment and on behalf of


Lamb
v.

Evans [1893]

Profits by

527. In the absence of express or implied agree-

agent

ment
profits

to the contrary, the principal

is

entitled to all
in the

and advantages accruing to the agent

course of his

employment beyond the

agent's ordi-

nary remuneration,(^) including any secret commis-

Digitized

by Microsoft

PRINCIPAL
si

AND

AGEl^T
profit

235

on or bribe, W and also including every from the principal's own property.
(a)

made

(b)

Diplock V. Blackburn (1811) 3 Camp. 43. Morison v. Thompson (1874) L. R. g Q, B. 480. Mayor of Salfords. Lever [1891] i Q. B. 168.

Andrew
Hippisley (c)

v.

v.

Docker

v.

Shallcross

Ramsay [1903] 2 K. B. 635. Knee [1905] i K. B. i. Somes (1834) z My. & K. 655. v. Oldham (1862) z J. & H. 609.

528.

The
and

agent

who

accepts a bribe to depart from

Liability of
"^

his duty as agent,

and the person


in

who

gives

it,

are

/""""

jointly

severally liable to the principal for any

loss sustained

by him

consequence of the fraud.

In estimating the amount of damages recoverable

under

this ,

anything which

may have been

or
is

may
not

be recovered from the agent under 527 taken into account.


Mayor of Salfordv. Lever [1891]
i

Q. B. 168.

[Such persons are now also liable to criminal proceedings under the Corrupt Practices Act, 1906, s. i.]

529. If
agent's
all

the

principal

has

stipulated
is

for

the

Agent

in

whole time and

labour, he

entitled to
his
-

profits

made

by the

agent

in

employing
course

time and labour, even

outside

the

of his

employment.
Thompson
v.

Havelock (1808)

Camp. 527.

530.
sell

Where
credit,

an agent for
is

sale

has authority to Del credere


''^^"

on

he

not answerable for the solvency

Digitized

by Microsoft

236

LAW OF CONTRACT
(^del

of a purchaser, unless he has expressly undertaken to be so


credere agent)
a del credere

[The appointment of an agent with


not a contract of guarantee within
s.

commission

is

4 of the Statute of Frauds {Couturier v. Hastie'(i8^2) 8 Exch. 40). Such an agent only guarantees the solvency of his principal, not the performance of the contract (Gabriel v. Churchill [i^i^] 3 K. B. 1272).]

yigexi's commission

531.

fhe

agent

is

entitled to receive

cipal the
tract or

commission for his services


or,

from his prinfixed by the con-

by usage,

where none
pa,rties.

is

fixed, to receive a

reasonable remuneration for his services, if such was

the intention of the


JReady.

Ram (1830) 10 B. & C. 438. Broads. Thomas (1830) 7 Bing. 99.


agent forfeits his right to his commission

Forfeiture of

532.

^he

commission

by wilful breach of duty or misconduct in the business


or matter entrusted to him, as well as by negligence,

whereby the principal


tion,

loses

the benefit of the transac-

If,

in

any case of wilful breach of duty or mis-

conduct, the commission has been paid to or retained

by the agent, the principal may recover


spect of which the
(a)

it

from him,

even though he otherwise adopts the transaction in re-

commission was given or retained. O*)

White v. Lady Lincoln (1803) 8 Ves., at p. 371. Hursts. Holding (1810) 3 Taunt. 32. (b) Salomans s. Pender (1865) 3 H. & C. 639. Andrew v. Ramsay [1903] 2 K. B. 635. But see Hippisley v. Knee [1905] i K. B. 1.

Commission
due
is

533. In the absence of special agreement, the agent


entitled (except in the cases provided' for in

532)

Digitized

by Microsoft

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT


to his

237

commission

so soon as

properly

done

all

he has substantially and that he undertook to do, even


benefit

though the principal has derived no


services/^) or the transaction
falls

from

his

through owing to

causes for v^hich the agent


(a)

is

not responsible.('')

(b)

Harford s. Wilson (1807) I Taunt. 12. Lockwoodv. Levick (i860) 8 C. B. N. S. 603. Webb V. Rhodes (1837) 3 Bing. N. C. 732. Hilly. Kitching (1846) 3 C. B. 299.

534.

The

agent

is

entitled to be indemnified

by

Agenfs
'" ^"'"^^

his principal in respect


bilities,

of

all

expenses, losses, or lia-

actual or contingent, lawfully and properly

incurred by
Lacey

him

in the course

of his employment.
D. 685. D. 779.

v. Hill,

Crowley's Claim (1870) L. R. 18 Eq. 182.


B.

Thacker v. Hardy (1878) 4 Q. Reads. Anderson (1884) i 3 Q.

B.

535.

The

agent

is

entitled to be indemnified

by

indemnity

his principal
at

from

liability for

any unlawful act done m^'^""^'

the instance of his principal, if the act was not

obviously unlawful, and the agent acted innocently,

and was induced by the conduct of the principal


believe the act to be lawful.
Adamson
v.

to

Jarvis (1827) 4 Bing. 66.

Belts V. Gibbins (1834) 2 A.

&

E. 57.

536.

The

agent has a l;en on any movable prop-

Agent's

lien

erty in his possession belonging to his principal, in

Digitized

by Microsoft

238

i'LAW

OF CONTRACT
such property. W

respect of expenses incurred or commission earned

by him

in relation to

By

agree-

ment

or by custom the lien

may extend

to claims in

respect of a general balance due

from the principal

to the agent, or to claims not relating to the prop-

erty over
(a)

which the
Hammonds
v.

lien

is

exercised/'')
'

Barclay (j8oi) 2 East, 227.

Houghton y. Matthews (1803) 3 B. & P., at p. 494. (b) Bock V. GVrmw (1861) 2 De G. F. & J. 434.

[Custom allows

general

lien

to

factors,

brokers, solicitors,

bankers, wharfingers, and to some other agents.]

Termination

of agency

537. Subject to the provisions of 541-546, ^ contract of agency may be determined in any

of the ways specified in 332 (Book

II,

Part

I).

Death
parties

or

538. Except
tract

as

insanity of

of agency

provided in 545, 546, a conis determined by the death or

insanity of either principal or agent, even

though

unknown
'''

to the other party.


y.

Blades

Pool V. Pool (1889) 58 L.

Brew

V.

Free {liig) ^'&ScC. 167. ,, \ ,, (^"tn; J. P. 67. I Nunn (1879) 4 Q- B. D., at p. 665 (insanity).

[For the position of third persons dealing with an agent whose


authority has been determined under this , see

Book

I,

141. J

Bankruptcy

539,

contract of agency

is

prima facie deterthe


principal. (^)

mined by the bankruptcy Whether the contract is or

of
is

not determined by

Digitized

by Microsoft

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT


the

239

bankruptcy of the agent, depends upon the


('')

terms and nature of the contract.


(a)

Goldschmidt

Markwick
(b)

Phelps

V.

Lyon (i8iz) 4 Taunt. 534. Hardingham (i88o) 15 Ch. D. 339. Lyle (1839) 10 A. & E. 113.
v. v.

[In Dixon v. Ewart (18 17) 3 Mer. 322, it was held that the bankruptcy of the principal did not revoke an agent's authority to do a merely formal act in completion of a transaction already legally binding, the act being one which the bankrupt himself might have been compelled to execute, notwithstanding his bankruptcy.]

540.

When

the

principal

has

been
is

adjudged

Relation

bankrupt, the authority of the agent

deemed
first

back

to

have been revoked

as

from the date of the

act

of bankruptcy committed by the principal within


the three months next preceding the date of the
presentation of the bankruptcy petition upon vv^hich

the

principal

is

afterwards

adjudicated

bankrupt.

But

this rule does, not

apply so

as to affect prejudi-

cially

transactions

between

the

agent

and
in

third

persons,
faitTi

who

have dealt with the agent

good

and for valuable consideration before the date

of the receiving order, and without notice of any


available act of bankruptcy, nor so as to prejudice

the agent,

when
him

there are mutual dealings between

him and
quired by

his principal, in respect of

any rights ac-

before the date of the receiving order

and without notice of an available act of bankruptcy.


Elliott V.

{\i-j2) L. R. 7 Ch. App. 534. Turguand (iSSi) L. R. 7 App. Ca. 79. Palmer v. Day [1895] 2 Q. B. 618.

Exp. Snowball

Bankruptcy Act, 1914,

ss.

31, 45.

Digitized

by Microsoft

240
Revocation

LAW OF CONTRACT
as hereinafter

541. Except

provided ( 542-546),

of authority

the authority of the agent


parties)

may

(as

between the

be determined by revocation on the part of

the principal, at any time before the authority has

been completely exercised. W


is

But

if

such revocation

inconsistent with the contract of agency, the agent


entitled to
(a)

is

damages

for breach of contract/'')


'5

Campanari v. Jervis, C. J.

Woodburn (1854)

^-

^'

P-

47'

P^''

Read
(b)

v. Anderson (1882) 10 Q. B. D., at p, 107. Frith v. Frith [1906] A. C. 254. Mutzenbecher v. La Aseguradora [1906] i K. B. 254.

[No form of
(Bromley
v.

revocation

is

necessary.

revocable, no less than any other authority,

power of attorney is by mere word of mouth

Holland (i%oi) 7 Ves. 28).]

Authority
coupled with
interest

542.

When

by deed or for valuable consideration

an authority has been conferred upon an agent for


the purpose of thereby securing to the
authority so given
is

him some

benefit,

irrevocable

(" authority

coupled with an interest").


Gaussen

Smart

Morton (1830) 10 B. & C. 731. Sandars (1848) 5 C. B., at p. 917. Carmichael's Case [1896] 2 Ch. 643.
v. v.

[^are, whether such an


is

authority

is

insanity of the principal (Smart v. Sandars, ubi sup.).

revoked by the death or As to what

an authority coupled with an

interest, see Frith v. Frith, ubi sup.j

Authority
acted on

543.

When

the principal authorises the agent to

do

a lawful act, the

doing of which may, in the ordiloss

nary course of things, involve the agent in


liability to a third party,

or

and the agent, before revo-

Digitized

by Microsoft

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT


incurs the
irrevocable.
Read
in
if
V.

241

cation of his authority, acts upon the authority and


loss

or liability, the authority becomes

Anderson {\iiz) lo Q. B. D. 100; (1884)

13Q.

B.

D. 779.

[This clause follows the language of Hawkins, J., and Bowen, L. J., the case cited, ^uare, does it mean anything more than that,
is

a principal improperly revokes the authority, he indemnify the agent in such a case ?]

liable

to

544. Subject to the provisions of 542, 543, an authority which has been partially executed is
revocable as regards future transactions
;

Authority

^fj^lg/"'

but the
in

agent

is

entitled to
as

reimbursement and indemnity


regards
actual

terms of 534
liabilities

and contingent
already

in

respect

of

any

transactions

properly entered into under the authority.O')


(a)

Simpson

v.

Lamb (1856)

(b)

Warlow

v.

17 C. B., at p. 616. Harrison (1859) 1 E. & E., at p. 317.

\Semble^ this rule probably proceeds on the assumption that the principal has implicitly contracted not to revoke the authority The death of the principal is not, in such case, unreasonably. an unreasonable revocation (Campanari v. Woodburn (1854) 15

C. B. 400).J

545.

Any
is

person making any payment or doing


faith in

Powers of
^"'^"'^

any act in good


attorney
act

pursuance of a

poyi^er

of

not liable in respect of the payment or

by reason that before the payment or act the donor of the power had died or become lunatic, of

unsound mind, or bankrupt, or had revoked the power, if the fact of death, lunacy, unsoundness of

Digitized

by Microsoft

242

LAW OF CONTRACT
at

mind, bankruptcy, or revocation, was not,


time of the payment or
act,

the

making
But

or doing the same.

known to (See Book I,

the person
141 {^)
).

this rule does not affect

any right against the

payee of any person interested in any

money

so paid

and that person has the


the payment had not been
Conveyancing Act,
1

],ike

remedy

against

the
if

payee that he would have had against the payer

made by him.
;

88

1,

s.

47

Trustee Act, 1893,

s.

23.

Powers exfrrevocaik"

546. If a power of attorney given for valuable consideration


is,

in the instrument creating the

power,

expressed to be irrevocable, or if a

power of

attorney,
is

whether given
in the

for valuable consideration or not,

instrument creating the power expressed to

be irrevocable for a fixed time therein specified, not

exceeding one year from the date of the instrument,


then, in favour of a purchaser
(i)
:

the

power cannot in the first case be revoked at any time, nor, in the second case,
be revoked during that fixed time either

by anything done by the donor of the power without the concurrence of the donee of the power, or by the death,
marriage, lunacy, unsoundness of mind, or

(ii)

bankruptcy of the donor of the power any act done as aforesaid by the donee of the power, in pursuance of the power, will
;

be

as valid

as

if

anything done by the

Digitized

by Microsoft

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT

243

donor of the power without the concurrence of the donee of the power, or the
death,

marriage, lunacy, unsoundness of

mind, or bankruptcy of the donor of the


power, had not been done or happened
(iii)

neither the donee of the

power nor the


as

purchaser will at any time be prejudicially


affected

by notice

of anything done

aforesaid by the donor of the power, with-

out the concurrence of the donee of the

power, or of the death, marriage, lunacy,


or unsoundness of mind, or bankruptcy of

the donor of the power.

This

applies only to

powers of attorney created


after

by instruments executed

December
ss.

31st,

1882.

Conveyancing Act, 1882,

&

9.

547. Save

as

hereinbefore mentioned, the rights Third

and

liabilities

of the principal and the agent against

or to third parties, arising out of the conduct of the


agent, are governed by the rules set out in

Book

( 126-147).

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION VI
^:
Definition

INNKEEPER AND GUEST

548.

A common

inn

is

house the master of


provide board

which holds himself out


and lodging for
Calye's Case

as willing to

travellers generally.
(1584) 8 Co. Rep. 32.
Soulby (i860) 8 C. B.
V.

Holder

V.

N.
2

S.

254.
B. 284.

Orchard

Bush &

Co.

[1898]

Q.

Liability to

549.

The

keeper of a

common
offers

inn must receive

receive

into his inn any traveller,

and the baggage and equihimself


as guest,

page of any

traveller,

who

and

Supply him with board and lodging


prices,^ provided that there
is is

at reasonable

room

in the

innjW

and that the

traveller pays, or

able and willing to


is

pay, for his entertainment, and that there

no rea-

sonable ground for refusing to receive him.C'^)

An

innkeeper
(a)
'

may demand payment

in advance.

(b)
(c)

Lamondy. Richard [iSgj] 1 Q. B. 541. Browne v. Brandt [1902] I K. B. 696. The Queen v. Rymer (1877) 2 Q. B. D. 136.
Pinchon's Case (161 1) 9 Co. Rep. 87 b.

,,

(d)

Safety of
guest's belongings

550. In the absence of any express agreement


limiting his liability, and subject to the provisions

of 551-554, the keeper of a

common

inn

is

an-

Digitized

by Microsoft

INNKEEPER AND GUEST


swerable for the safety of goods and

245

money brought

in the ordinary course to his inn by a guest as part

of his baggage or equipage.


(1584) 8 Co. Rep. 32. Shuckard (1831) z B. & Ad. 803 (money), Cashillv. Wright (1856) 6 E. & B. 8gi. Robins Co. v. Gray [1895] 2 Q. B. 501. Wright V. Anderton [1909] i K. B. 209.
Kent
V.

Calye's Case

[A guest is a person who uses an inn for any ordinary convenience of a traveller, whether this includes lodging or not (^Bennett v. Mellor (1793) 5 T. R. 273; Orchard v. Bush Co. [1898] 2 Q. B. 284). person who hires rooms of an innkeeper, but as a lodger merely, is not a guest {Lamond v. Richard [1897] i Q. B. 451); nor is a person who hires a room for a specific purpose, not being an ordinary incident of travel, e.g. as a show-room to exhibit his wares (Burgess v. Clements (18 15) 4 M. & S. 306). A person who comes to an inn as a guest cannot remain on indefinitely in that character. Whether he has ceased to be a guest and become a lodger, seems to be a question of fact, not of law {Lamond v. Richard (ubi ?/>.)).]

&

551.

The

innkeeper

is

not answerable for

loss or

Excuses of
"'" "^'''

injury to the goods of his guest caused by the act

or negligence of the guest himself, or of those for

whom

he

is

responsible,
[.?

by the act of God or by

the King's enemies


fects in the goods].
Burgess
V. v.

or arising from inherent de-

Clements (181 5) 4

M. &

S.

Morgan

Ravey (1861) 6 H. Oppenheim v. White Lion Hotel

& N.
Co.

306. 265.

(1871) L. R. 6 C. P. 515.

552.

No

innkeeper
loss

is

liable to
;to

make good

to

any

guest any

of or injury

goods or property

Limit of '"'^'y

Digitized

by Microsoft

246

LAW OF CONTRACT
his inn (not

brought to

being

horse or other

live'

animal, or any gear


carriage) to a greater

appertaining thereto,

or any
thirty

pounds
( 1

unless

amount than the sum of

such goods or property shall have been stolen,


lost,

or

injured

through
or

the

w^ilful

act,

default, or neglect

of such innkeeper or any


;

servant in his
(2) such

employ

goods or property

shall

have been de-

posited expressly for safe custody with such

innkeeper.

In the case of such deposit the

innkeeper
liability,

may

require, as a condition of his

that such
a

goods or property shall

box or other receptacle, fastened and sealed by the person depositing


be deposited in
the same.
(a)
(^)

"Wilful" applies 16L. T. 93).

tp

"act"

only

(^Squire v.

Wheeler (1867)

(b)

Innkeepers' Liability Act, 1863,

s.

\.

Conditions

553. If the innkeeper refuses to receive any goods


^^ property of his guest for safe custody, or if any

of exemption

guest

is

through such

innkeeper's default

unable

thus to deposit his goods or property, the innkeeper


is

not entitled to the benefit of 552.


Innkeepers' Liability Act, 1863,
s.

2.

Copy of

554. Every innkeeper

must cause

at

least

one

7xhibiud"

copy of

s.

of the Innkeepers' Liability Act, 1863

Digitized

by Microsoft

INNKEEPER AND GUEST


(

247

55^>

supra), printed
a

in

plain

type, to

be exor

hibited in

conspicuous part of the hall


;

en-

trance to his inn

and he

is

entitled to the benefit

of that Act in respect of such goods or property


only as shall be brought to his inn while such copy
shall

be so exhibited.
Innkeepers' Liability Act, 1863,
9.

3.

[The copy exhibited must be substantially accurate Bacon (1877) 2 Ex. D, 463).]

(^Spice

v.

555.

The

innkeeper has a general

lien

for his

innkeeper's
lien

charges upon goods brought to his inn by the guest


as his

goods, whether the property of the guest or

not,W but not upon the goods of a third person sent


to the guest for

temporary

use,

and known by fhe

innkeeper to be so sent-W
(a)

(b)

Robinson v. Walter (1616) 3 Bulstr. 269. Mulliner v. Florence (1878) 3 Q. B. D. 484. Gordon v. Silber (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 491. Robins V. Gray [1895] 2 Q. B. 501. Broadwoodv. Granara (1854) 10 Exch. 417.

556.

The

innkeeper does not, by the mere fact of

Security
'"*

and

taking other security from his guest, lose his right

of

lien. Angus
V.

McLachlan (1883) 23 Ch. D. 330.

goods are detained by an innlceeper in the exercise of he will not be liable for loss of or damage to them unless negligence is proved (Angus v. McLachlan^ ubi sup.).']
his right of lien,

[When

Digitized

by Microsoft

248
Enforcement
^^"

LAW OF CONTRACT
The
innkeeper

557.

may

sell

by public auction of and pay

any goods deposited or

left

by the guest in respect of


a right
lien,

which such innkeeper has

himself out of the proceeds of such sale the amount

of the debt for which the goods could have been


retained under the lien, together with the costs and

expenses of such
able unless
(a)

sale.

But such right

is

not exercis-

the goods have been

left for six

weeks
one

without the debt being paid, and (b)

at

least

month
try

before such sale the innkeeper has caused to

be inserted in one London newspaper and one coun-

newspaper circulating in the


left,

district

where the

goods were deposited or


a short description

an advertisement con-

taining notice of the intended sale, together with

of the goods to be sold, and the

naihe of the owner, if known.

The

surplus (if any) remaining after such

sale

must on demand be paid by the innkeeper to the person by whom the goods sold were deposited or
left.
Innkeepers Act, 1878,
s.

i.

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION

VII

CARRIAGE
558.

A common

carrier

is

a person

who

holds Common

himself out

as willing to carry for

reward, without

special terms, the

goods generally, or any particular

kind or kinds of goods, of any person


to

who

chooses

employ him.
Coggs V. Bernard (1704) z Ld. Raym., at p. 918. Gishourn v. Hurst (17 10) i Salk. 249. Liver Alkali Co. v. Johnson (1874) L. R. g Ex. 338.

\^^eere, whether a person can be a

common

carrier

who

does

not ply regularly between fixed termini (^Nugent v. Smith (1876) I C. P. D., at p. 427 ; Liver Alkali Co. v. 'Johnson., ubi sup."). One

may be

common

carrier to a place outside the realm (Benett v.


Co.

Peninsular

and Oriental Steamboat

(1848) 6 C.

B., at p. 786).]

559.

A common

carrier

is

bound

to accept

and

Liability
_

carry the goods of any person

who

offers to

pay his

'^"''''^

reasonable charge, provided that the goods are such

he professes to carry, and that he has no reasonable excuse for refusing them.
as
Jackson V. Rogers (1684) z Show. 327. Batson v. 'Donovan (1820) 4 B. & Aid. zi. Garton v. Bristol i^ Exeter Ry. Co. (1861) i B. & S., at p. 162. Dickson V. G. N. Ry. Co. (1886) 18 Q. B. D., at p. 183.

[The sum charged by the carrier must be reasonable {Pickford v. Grand Junction Ry. Co. (1841) 8 M. & W., at pp. 377-378; G. W. Ry. Co. V. Sutton (1869) L. R. 4 H. L., at p. 237). J

Digitized

by Microsoft

250
Payment
advance
in

LAW OF CONTRACT
A
V.

560.
as a

carrier

is

entitled to

payment of

his

charge

condition of receiving the goods into his custody.


Donovan (1820) 4 B.

Batson

&

Aid., at p. 28.

Pickford V. Grand Junction Ry. Co., ubi sup.

Outside
radius

561.
carriage

A common
beyond

carrier

who

accepts goods for

his professed limits

primd facie be-

comes

liable as a

common

carrier in respect of the

whole journey.
Muschamp
421.
v.

Lanes.

& Preston Junction Ry.


2

Co.

(1841) 8
at

M. & W.
ff.

miby

V.

West Cornwall Ry. Co. (1858)

H. & N.,

pp.

709

Safe custody

562.

A common
is

carrier

is

bound

safely to carry
in

and deliver the goods which he receives


capacity; and he
loss
(fair

that
all

answerable as an insurer for

of or injury to such goods while in his custody

wear and
is

tear excepted)/*) unless

such

loss or

injury

caused by the act of God/'') or by the


carried/'^)

King's enemies, or by a defect in the thing


or by the negligence of the
(a) (b) (c)

owner of the

goods.C'')

Stuart y. Crapley (1818) 2 Stark. 323.

Nugent Hudson

(d)

Smith (1876) i C. P. D. 423. Baxendale (i8j7)2H. &N. 575. Blofver V. G. W. Ry. Co. (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 655. Lister v. Lanes. Toris. Ry. Co. [1903} i K. B. 878. Baldwin v. London, Chatham i^Dover Ry. Co. (1882) 9 Q. B. D. 582.
\.
V.

Delay

563.

A common carrier is bound to deliver

within

a reasonable

time goods which he has received for

Digitized

by Microsoft

CARRIAGE
carnage
;

251
for

but

he

is

not

answerable

delay in

carriage or delivery arising from causes beyond his


control.
Taylor v. G. N. Ry. Co. (1866) L. R.
i

C. P. 385.

564.
for

A common
entrusted

carrier
to

remains liable
until

as

such

Duration of
^'"^'''''5'

goods

him,

he has delivof them to or

ered

them

or

tendered

delivery

to the order of the consignee.

But
accept

if

the con-

signee or
or if the

his

assignee

fails

to

delivery/'')

carrier

retains

possession
lien,

of the goods

under
express

a lawful claim

of
as

or under a contract

or

implied

wharfinger

or

warehousecarrier,

man,W he
or
in
as

ceases to be liable as a
liable as

common

and becomes
respect

depositee, or as lien-holder,

wharfinger,

or

warehouseman
so

respectively,
in his

of

the

goods

remaining

possession.
(a)

W
v. Gatliffe
v.

Bourne

McKean

(1844) 1 Mctvor (1870)

CI.

&

F. 45.

L. R. 6 Ex. 36.

Patscheiderv. G. W. Ry. Co. (1878) 3 Ex. D. 153. Hodkinson v. L. dr" N. W. Ri. Co. (1884) 14 Q. B. D. 228. (b) HeugJb V. L. &^ N. W. Ry. Co. (1870) L. R. 5 Ex. 51. (c) Shepherd V. Bristol Ry. Co. (i868)L. R. 3 Ex. 189. Mitchellw. Lanes. 6- Torks. Ry. Co. (1875) L. R. 10 Q. B. 256. (d) Crouch V. G. W. Ry. Co. (1858) 3 H. & N. 183. Hudson V. Baxendale (1857) z H. & N., at p. 581.

the absence of any agreement or usage to the contrary, a carrier is bound' to deliver goods at the consignee's Mersey Navigation Co. (1793) 5 T. R. address {Hyde v. Trent
[In

common
389)-]

&

Digitized

by Microsoft

252
Special

LAW OF CONTRACT

565. Subject to the provisions of 575, a common carrier may limit or vary his liability by special
contract
(*)
;

but no

public
affects

notice

or

declaration

limits or in

anywise

the liability at

common

law of any

common

carrier in respect of
its

any goods

to be carried

by him/'') unless

terms are incorpo-

rated in a special contract of carriage/"^)


(a)
Scaife v. Farrant

Price V, Union Lighterage Co. [1904] Carriers Act, 183,0, s. 6.

(1875) L. R. 10 Ex. 358. i K. B. 412.

(b)
(c)

lb.

s.

4,
sf

Walker v.rorks.

N. Mid. Ry.

Co.

(1853)

z E.

&

B. 750.

Valuable

566.

No common

carrier

by land for hire

is

^^

'

liable for the loss

of or injury to any property of

the descriptions following, viz. gold or silver coin


(British or foreign), gold or silver in a

manufactured
notes of

or unmanufactured state, precious stones, jewellery,

watches, clocks, time-pieces, trinkets,

bills,

any bank in Great Britain or Ireland, orders, notes or


securities for

payment of money (English or


silver

foreign),

stamps, maps, writings,, title-deeds, paintings, engravings, pictures, gold or


glass, china, silks in a

plate,

plated articles,

manufactured or unmanufacor lace (other than


in

tured state and whether wrought up or not wrought

up with other machine-made

materials,
lace)

furs,

containesd

any package

delivered either to be carried fbr hire or to

accom-

pany the person of any passenger

in

any public

Digitized

by Microsoft

CARRIAGE
conveyance,

253
ten

when

the

value

thereof exceeds

pounds, unless, at the

time of delivery for carriage,

the value and nature of such property have been declared

by the person sending or delivering the same,


in

and the increased charge mentioned


person receiving such package.C')
(a)
Carriers

567, or a

promise to pay the same, has been accepted by the

Act Amendment Act, 1865,


s.

s.

I.

(b)

Carriers Act, 1830,

1,

[The wording of s. i. of the Carriers Act, if strictly followed, would lead to the conclusion, that a carrier might escape responsibility for valuable goods by refusing to accept the insurance payment or engagement. But such a construction would be inconsistent
with
s.

3 {post, 568).]

567. For the carriage of any package containing

increased
'^

any of the goods mentioned in

566, concerning

"^^'^

which such a declaration has been made, and the value whereof exceeds the sum of ten pounds, a common carrier may demand and receive an increased rate of charge.

Such increased
,

rate

must

be notified by some notice affixed in legible characters in


office,

some public and conspicuous

part of the

warehouse, or other receiving house, where

such packages are received for the purpose of con-

veyance

and

all

persons sending or delivering such

packages to or

at

such

office

are
it

bound by such
having come to

notice, without further proof of


their

knowledge.
Carriers Act, 1830,
s.

2.

Digitized

by Microsoft

254
Receipt

LAW OF CONTRACT
When
the value

5gg^

of such goods has been


rate of

so declared,

and the increased

charge has

been paid, or a promise to pay the same has been


accepted, the person receiving such increased rate of

charge, or accepting such promise, must, if required,


sign a receipt for the package," acknowledging the

same

to

have been insured (which receipt

is

not
is

liable to

any stamp ,duty)

and

if

such receipt
notice

not given

when
the

required, or such

has not

been

affixed,

common

carrier

is

not entitled to

any benefit under 566, 567, but is responsible as at the common law, and liable to refund the
increased rate of charge.
Carriers Act, 1830,
s.

3.

[The construction which has been put upon the somewhat ambiguous contents of ss. 1-3 of the Carriers Act is that the consignor can in no case claim in respect of a package cpming within 566, unless he has made the declaration therein described (Hart On the other hand, the decv.'BaxeHdale (1851) 6 Exch. 769). laration having been made, the carrier can claim no exemption on the ground that no increased charge was paid, if in fact no such charge was demanded (G. N. R. Co. v. Behrens (1862) 7 H. &
:

N. 95o).J

Recovefs of
charge

569.
office

When

package has been delivered


carrier,

at the

of the

common

and the value and conrate

tents

thereof declared

and the increased

of

charges paid in accordance with


parcel has been lost

567, and such or damaged, the party entitled

to recover damages^ in respect

of such

loss

or

damage

Digitized

by Microsoft

CARRIAGE
is

25s

also entitled to recover

back the increased charges


s.

so paid.
Carriers Act, 1830,
7.

l^are,
en route ^1

does this rule apply in the case of a package collected

570.

The

provisions of

566 do not protect


1

a No protection
jelomous
,

common

carrier

from

liability to answ^er for loss or "^"/"'Z J

loss

injury to goods

arising

any servant
acts has

in his

from the felonious acts of employ,W unless liability for such

been excluded by special contract. ('')


(a)

(b)

Carriers Act, 1830, s. 8. Shaw V. G. Vf. Ry. Co.

[1894]

Q^B.

373.

571.

The burden

of proving the value of any

Proof of
^''^*

parcel entrusted to a

common
carrier

carrier, for the pur-

poses of 566, falls any loss or injury.

upon the party suing

in respect of
as

The

is

not concluded

to the value of such parcel

by the value declared

but the party suing cannot recover more than the


declared value, together with the increased charge

paid by

him

(if any).
Carriers Act, 1830,
s.

9.

572. Railway companies are not


riers,

common

car- Railway
""'P""'"

except as to the goods they profess to carry


(*)

as

such.

But

every

railway

company,

canal

Digitized

by Microsoft

256

LAW OF CONTRACT
to
its

company, and railway and canal company, must,


according
respective

powers,

afford

all

reasonable facilities for

the receiving, forwarding,

and delivering of
eral

traffic,

upon and from the sevbelonging to or worked

railways
it. C^)

and

canals

by
j

(a)

Palmer

Grand Junction Ry. Co. (1839) 4 M. & W. 749. Midland. Ry. Co. (1849) 4 Exch. 367. M'Manui V. Lana. &= Yorks. Ry. Co. (1859) 4 H. & N. 2,^^ Dickson V. G. N. Ry. Co. (1886) 18 Q. B. D., at pp. 184-185.
v.

Johnson

w.

(b)

Railway

and'

Gapal Traffic Act, 1854,

s.

z.

["TraflSc" here includes not only passengers and their luggage, and goods, animals, and other things conveyed by any railway company or canal company, or railway and canal company, but also carriages, waggons, t'rucksl, boats, and vehicles of every description, adapted for running or passing on tlie railway or canal of any such company (Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, s. i).]

Luggag.
in carriage

573.
as

When
its

a railway

company
such

professes

to act

common

carrier of the personal


liability
as

luggage of pasto

sengers,

extends

personal

luggage carried or accepted to be carried along with


the passenger in the carriage by
or intends to travel.
G. IV. Ry. Co.
V.

which he

travels

Bunch (1888) L. R. 13 App. Ca.,

at p.

42.

Splecial

574. Railway companies, canal companies, and


railway and canal companies, cannot limit their Uability

contract

(whether

as

common

carriers or otherwfise)(^)

Digitized

by Microsoft

CARRIAGE
for the loss of or for any injury

257

done

to

any animals

or goods in the receiving, forwarding, or delivering


thereof, occasioned

by the neglect or default of such


by any notice, condition, or
special

company

or

its

servants,

declaration, or
coriditions

by any

contract, unless

the

therein

contained with

respect

to

the

receiving, forwarding, and delivering of such goods

or animals are adjudged by the Court to be just and


reasonable, and unless the special contract
is

signed

by the other contracting party, or by the person


delivering such animals or goods for
(a) (b)

carriage.('')

Diehon

v. G. N. Ry. C. (1886) 18 Q, B. D. 176. Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, s. 7.

[The burden of proving a condition to be just and reasonable falls on the company. Dickson v. G. iV.. Ry. Co., uhi sup., at p. 'i 8 The provisions of this do not apply to (per Lord Esher, M. R.).
a limitation of liability for loss occasioned otherwise than by the

neglect or default of the

company
felonious
Co,

or

its

apply

to
V.

loss

by the
ff^.'jRy.

acts
i

servants; e. g. they do not of the company's servants

(Shaw

G.
v.

(Harrison
p. 114).]

L. B.

[1894]
C. Ry.

Q.

S.

Co.

B. 373) or by accident ([1862) 31 L. J. Q. B., at

575.

No

greater damages

may be

recovered from

Live animals

any such company for the loss of or for any injury done to any animals of the following classes beyond
the sums following
for
:

viz. for

any horse,

fifty
;

pounds
for

any neat

cattle,

per head, fifteen pounds

sheep or pigs, per head, two

pounds

any
the

unless

person sending or delivering the same to such com-

pany

has,

at

the time of such delivery, declared

Digitized

by Microsoft

258

LAW OF CONTRACT
to

them

be respectively of higher value than

as

above mentioned, in which' case the company

may
for

demand and

receive by

way of compensation,

the increased risk and care thereby occasioned, a


reasonable percentage

upon the

excess of the value

so declared above the respective

sums above men-

Such excess must be paid in addition to the ordinary rate of charge, and must be notified
tioned.
in the

manner prescribed

in

567.
s.

Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854,

7.

[The proof of the value of such animals or goods, and of the amount of the injury done thereto, lies in all cases upon the person
claiming compensation for such loss or injury
(/ifr/W.).]

Liabilifj as

576.
the

The
as

common
carrier

rights,

provisions of 574, 575 do not affect privileges, or liabilities of any such


carrier

company

common

under th? Carriers Act,


to articles of the

1830 ( 566-571), with respect


descriptions therein mentioned.

Railway and Cai^al Traffic Act, 1854,

s.

7.

Carriage of
passengers

517.
for hire

A
is

person

who
as

undertakes to carry passengers

bound

to furnish a vehicle for the carriage


fit

of such passengers
skill

for the purpose as care

and
care,

can render
skill

it,

and to exercise reasonable

and

in carrying

them

but he does not, in

the absence of express agreement, warrant the safety

of the vehicle, or the security of the passengers.

(*^

Digitized

by Microsoft

CARRIAGE
The same
principle
applies
to

259

the

carriage

of
in

goods by a person
the capacity of a
(a)

who does not carry them common carrier-^*)

Redhead

(b)

v. Mid. JRy. Co. (1869) L. R. 4 Q. B. 379. Simson v. London General Omnibus Co. (1873) L. R. 8 C. P. 390. East Indian Rail. Co. v. Kalides Mukerjee [1901] A. C. 396.

578.

person

who

undertakes to carry passenis

Gratuitous
^"''""S^

gers or goods gratuitously

liable

for

damage

to

them caused by the absence of

reasonable care on

the part of himself or his servants.


Coggs V. Bernard (1705) 2 Ld. Raym. 909. Beauchamf v. Pauley (1831) i Moo. Rob., Mojat V. Bateman (1869) L. R. 3 P. C. 1 15. Harris v. Perry [1903] z K. B. 219.

at p.

40.

579.

person

who

delivers to another for car- Oangero

riage goods

which the

carrier does not


is

know

to

be

^'""^'

of a dangerous character,
character of the goods
is

bound,

if

the dangerous

not apparent, to

make

it

known

tO the person to

whom
do
so,

they are delivered for

carriage.

If he

fails

to

he

is

answerable for

any damages resulting from such non-disclosure.


Brass
v.

Farrant

v.

Maitland (1856) 6 E. &. B. 470. Barnes (1862) 1 1 C. B. N. S. 553.

580. Except
.

the goods

is

provided by 566, the owner of ! Ill/not precluded from pursuing his remeas
'

^I''^' "f non-disclosure

Digitized

by Microsoft

a6o
dies

LAW OF CONTRACT
under the contract by reason of non-disclosure
the. carrier.

of the character of the goods to


Riley v.

Crouch
Shatii V.

V.

Home (1828) Bingf. 217. L. &> N. W. Ry. Co. (1854) G. W. Ry. Co. [1894] i 0^8.

H C.
373.

3. 255.

Carrier's
[ien

581.

A carrier,

carrier, has a lien

whether he is or is not a common upon any goods delivered to him


lien at the

for carriage for his charges in respect of such goods,

and may retain such goods under his


of his journey,
consignee.(^)
as against

end

both the consignor and the


the consignor or

By agreement with

consignee, or by usage, he

may

also

have a lien upon

such goods in respect of a general balance due to

him

for carriage.^

But the

fact that

he has a

lien

for a general balance against either of these parties

does not of itself entitle


against the other.W
(a)

him

to retain

the goods

Skinner V.

Oppeifheim v. Russell (1802) 3 B. & P. 42. IJpshaw (1702) 2 Ld. Raym. 752.

Aspinnllv. PicJford {lioo) 3 B. & P. 44 n. (a) Rushfortb v. Hadjield (1806) 7 East, at pp. 229^230^ (c) Butler v. Woolcott (1805) 2 B. & P. N. R. 64. OppeSheim\. Russell (iSoz) 3 B. & P. 42. Wright V. Shell {1S22) 5 B. & Aid. 350,

(b)

Carriage
by water

582.

Any

person who, as owner of a ship or other


the calling of a carrier of goods for

vessel, exercises

hire,

whether by means of inland navigation, coastagreement

wise, or abroad, incurs, in the absence of

Digitized

by Microsoft

CARRIAGE
to the contrary, the liabiHty

261

of a

common

carrier,

with respect to goods received by him for carriage.


Liver Alkali Co. v. Johnson (1874) L. R. 9 Ex. 338. Hilly. Scott [1895] z Q. B. 371 ; 713 (C. A.)

[But

{jsemble)

he

is

not bound to receive and carry .1

582a.
sell

carrier,

whether by land or

sea,

may

SaUtopre-

perishable goods delivered to

him
not

for carriage,

to

prevent
for

deterioration,

if

it

is

practically

possible

him
Sims

'to

obtain

instructions

from

the

owners of the goods.


V.

M.

R. Co. [1913]

K. B. 103.
.

[Needless to say he must account for the proceeds.]

583. Theprovisionsof this Section, except 566569, apply both to carriage by land and to carriage by sea, but to carriage by sea only so far as they are
not inconsistent with the rules

Carriage
'""

of the

Law Mer-

chant and Admiralty Law.

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION

VIII

PARTNERSHIP
Befriition

584. Partnership

is

the

relation

which

subsists

between persons carrying on a


with
a

biysiness in

common

view of

profit.

The

" expression " business

includes every trade, occupation, or profession.


Partnership Act, 1890,
ss.

i,

(i), 45.

"Firm"

585. Persons

who

have entered into partnership

with one another are in this Section called collectively a " firm "; and the name under which their
business
is

carried on

is

called the " firm-name."


s.

Partnership Act, 1890,

4. (i).

Existence of

586. In determining whether a partnership does


^^ ^^^^ ^^^ exist, regard must be had to the
facts

par

tiers

tp

whole

of the case and the expressed intention of the

parties.

Cox

V.

Hickman (i86o) 8 H. L. C. z86.

Companies

587.

The

pany

or,

between members of any comassociation which is


relation

Digitized

by Microsoft

PARTNERSHIP
[a) registered
as

263

company under the Comtime being in force and


registration of joint

panies Act,

1862, or any other Act of Parthe the


or
in

liament for
relating
to
;

stock

companies
[^)

formed or incprporated by or
any
other

pursuance of

[c) a

Act of Parliament or Letters Patent, or Royal Chartei; or company engaged in working mines within
;

and subject
naries
is

to the jurisdiction

of the Stan-

not a partnership within

the meaning of this

Section.
Partnership Act, 1890,
s.
1

(2).

588. Joint
property,

tenancy,

tenancy in

common,

joint

Co-owner'^
!

common

property, or part ownership, does

not of itself create a partnership as to anything so

held or owned, whether the tenants or owners do or

do not share any

profits

made by
s.

the use thereof.


2

Partnership Act, 1890,

(1).

589.

The

sharing of gross returns does not of


, .

itself create a partnership,

whether the persons shar-

Si^ariag of SL^Oii returns *

ing such returns have or have not a joint or common right or interest in any property from which, or from the use of which, the returns are derived.
Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

2.

(z).

K3

Digitized

by Microsoft

464
Sharing of
profits

LAW OF CONTRACT
The
receipt

590.
profits
is

by a person of
is

a share

of the

of a business

prima facte evidence that he


;

a partner in the business

but the receipt of ^uch


on, or varying
itself

a share, or of a
w^ith,

payment contingent

the' profits
a

of a business, does not of

make him

partner in the business.


Partnership Act, i8go,
s.

2 (3).

Payment of
debt out of
profits

591.

The

receipt

by

a person

of a debt or other

liquidated

amount by

instalments, or otherwise, out

of the accruing
itself

profits

of a business, does not of

make him^

a partner in the business, or liable

as such.
Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

2 (3)

(a).

Remunera'"^
*t7trofit's

592.

Contract for the remuneration of a servant

^ agent of a person

engaged

in a business

by

a share

of the profits of the business, does not of

itself

make

the servant or agent a partner in the business, or


liable as such.
Partnet^hip Act, 1890,
s.

(3) (b).

Widow

or

593.
deceased
a

person, being
partner,

the widow^ or child of a

child of deceased

receiving
profits

by

vi'^ay

of

annuity

partner

portion of the

made
vs^as

in the

business in
is

w^hich the deceased person

a partner,

not,

by

reason only of such receipt, a partner in the business,


or liable as such.
Partnership Act, i8go,
s.

2 (3)

(c).

Digitized

by Microsoft

PARTNERSHIP
594.
a person

265
loan to
Lender of
^"^^'"^

The advance

of

money by way of

engaged or about to engage in any

business,

on

a contract

with that person that the lender shall of the

receive a rate of interest varying with the profits, or


shall receive a share
profits arising

from carry-

ing on the business,

does not of itself

make

the

lender a partner with the person or persons carrying

on the business, or
contract
all
is

liable as such, provided that the

in writing

and signed by or on behalf of

the parties thereto.


Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

(3) (d).

595.

person receiving, by

way of annuity

or

Vendor paid
""'
"J

otherwise, a portion of the profits of a business in


consideration of the sale by

P'''J"'

him of

the goodwill of
receipt,

the business,
a partner in

is

not,

by reason only of such

the business, or liable as such.


Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

(3) (e).

596. In the event of any person to


has been advanced by
tract as is

whom money

Postponement

way of

loan upon such a con-

{ ^j"^'^j^
to

mentioned in 594, or of any buyer of

ordinary

a goodwill in consideration of a share of the profits

of the business, being adjudged a bankrupt, entering into an arrangement to pay his creditors less than

twenty shillings

in the

pound, or dying
is

in insolvent

circumstances, the lender of the loan

not entitled

Digitized

by Microsoft

266
to recover
seller

LAW OF CONTRACT
anything in respect of his loan, and the
is

of the goodwill

not entitled to recover any-

thing in respect of the share of profits contracted


for, until

the claims of the other creditors of the


valuable

borrower or buyer for

consideration
satisfied.

in

money

or money's

worth have been


s.

Partnership Act, 1890,

3.

Number of
partners

597.
persons

No

partnership consisting of

more than
is

ten

may be formed

for the purpose of carrying


it

on the business of banking, unless


a

registered as

company under the Companies Act, 1908, or is formed in pursuance of some other Act of Parliament, or of Letters Patent and no partnership consisting of more than twenty persons may be formed
;

for the purpose of carrying

on any other business by the

that has for

its

object the acquisition of gain

partnership, or by the individual

members thereof, unless it is registered as a company under the Companies Act, 1908, or is formed in pursuance of some
other Act of Parliament or of Letters Patent, or
a
is

company engaged

in

working mines within and

subject to the jurisdiction of the Stannaries.


Companies Act, 1908, s. I. Sykes V. Beadon (1879) 11 Ch. D. 170. Shaw V. Benson (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 563.

[The Court of
exist; but
tain
its

jurisdiction

the Vice- Warden of the Stannaries has ceased to still survives, and is exercisable by cer-

County Courts (Stannaries Court (Abolition) Act, 1896).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

PARTNERSHIP
598.

267

Any

person capable of contracting

may

be-

infants in

come

a partner.

minor avoiding

a contract

of

f""*^'"

*f

partnership in terms of

Book

I,

r^over back any money paid by him


of such contract,
if
;

52, 53, may in pursuance

he has derived no advantage


but, so long as

under the contract


nership

(*)

he remains

partner, any property brought


is,

by him

into the part-

as

betw^een himself and his co-partners,


discharge

applicable
firm.C')

in

of the

liabilities

of the

Corpe v. Overton (1833) 10 JBing. 252. Hamilton v. Vaughan Sherrin Electrical Co, [1894] (b) Lovelly. Beauchamp [1894] A. C, at p. 611.
(a)

Ch, 589.
1

599.

contract for a partnership w^hich


a year

is

to

statute of
'^''"

commence more than


contract, or
a year,
is

to continue in

from the date of the existence for more than

'

falls

(Book

II,

within 4 of the Statute of Frauds Part I, 22o).W But the fact that a
is

partnership

formed

in

relation

to
it

or

for

the

acquisition of land

does not

bring

v^ithin the

statute.^
(a)

Williams

v.

Jones (1826)

B.

&

L. 108.

Forster v. Hale

Dale
(b) Essex

V. V.

(1800) 5 Ves. 308. Hamilton (1846) 5 Ha. 369. Essex (1855) 20 Beav. 449.

[An agreement
sists

to retire from a firm, the property of

which constatute, if

of interests in land, is probably within the it contemplates the assignment of the partnership assets. Smith (1889) 43 Ch. D. 208.)]
partly

{Gray

v.

Digitized

by Microsoft

268
Authority tf

LAW OF CONTRACT
Evcry partner
is

600.
j^-^

an agent of the firm and

farners

(other) partners for the purpose of the business of

the partnership; and the acts of every partner

who
busi-

does any act for carrying on in the usual


nessis

way

of the kind carried on by the firm of which he

member, bind the firm and

his partners, unless

the partner so acting has in fact no authority to act


for the firm in the particular matter,

and the person


that

with, whom he

is

dealing either

knows

he has
to

no authority, or does not know or believe him


a partner,
j,^,
.

be

Partnership Act, 1890,


to,

s.

5.
;

[The word " other " appears


the Act.]

be superfluous

but

it

occurs in

Business of the firm

601, Whether an act


ing on in the usual

is

or

is

not done for carry-

way

husiness of the kind carried


busi-

on by the
ness

ppon the nature of the and the practice of persons engaged in it.
firm, depends

Mara v. Browne [i8g6] i Ch. 199. Lindley, Partnership (7th ed.) p. 148.

ad)

Exercise of
authority

602.

An

act or instrument relating to the busi-

and done or executed in the firmname, or in any other rnariner showing an intention to bind the firm, by any person thereto authorised,
ness of the firm,

whether a partner or not, is (if otherwise regular) binding on the firm and all the partners.
Partnership Act,
1

890,

s.

6.

Digitized

by Microsoft

PARTNERSHIP
603.

269
Partner act'If/l'jIJjj

Where one

partner pledges the credit of the

firm for a purpose apparently not connected

with
is

the firm's ordinary course of business, the firm not bound, unless he
is
;

in fact specially authorised

by the other partners

but this rule does not affect


incurred

any personal
partner.

liability

by an
s.

individual

Partnership Aet, 1890,

7.

604. If

it

has been agreed between the partners


,

Partiter act-

that any restriction shall be r power of placed on the r J any one or more of them to bind the firm, no act

*"p"^'fi<""^ of agreement

done

in contravention of the

agreement

is

binding on

the firm with respect to persons having notice of the

agreement.
Partnership Act,
1

890,

s.

8.

605. Every partner in a firm


the other partners, for
all

is

liable, jointly

with
of

Liability of

debts
is

and. obligations
;

debt^rffirm

the firm incurred while he


his death, his estate
is

a partner

and, after

also severally liable in a

due

course of administration for such debts and obligations, so far as they

remain
,of his
1

unsatisfied, but subject

to the prior

payment

separate debts.
890,
s.

Partnership Act,

9.

[Nothing which occurs


the
liabilities

after the death of the partner can increase

of his estate.
till

not delivered

after the
lie

delivered will not

goods are ordered before, but action for goods sold and against the representatives of the deceased
E.g.^
if

death, an

partner (Bagel

v.

Miller [1903] 2 K. B. 212).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

270
Liability of

LAW OF CONTRACT

606. Where, by any wrongful act or omission of


,'.

firm for torts

of partner

s^y partner acting in the ordinary course or the business of the firm, or with the authority of his
co-partriers, loss or injury
is

...
is

caused to any person


is

not being a partner in the firm, or any penalty


incurred, the

firm

liable

therefor to

the same

extent as the partner so acting or omitting to act.


Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

10.

Misapplication
ter ty

607. In the following cases


[a\

namely

the scope

of propof third

where one

partner,

acting within

parties by

of his apparent authority, receives the

money

partner

or property of a third person and misapplies


it
;

and
a firm
in

(^)

where

the course

of

its

business

receives

money or proper-ty of a third person, and the money or property so received is misapplied by one or more of the partners
while
it is

in the custody

of the firm
the
1 1

the firm

is

liable to

make good
1

loss.

Partnership Act,

890,

s.

Liability in
tort joint

608. Every partner

is

liable, jointly

with his co-

and

several

partners and also severally, for everything for

the firm, while he


liable

is

a partner
last
s.

therein,

which becomes

under either of the two


Partnership Act,
1

preceding .
I

890,

z.

Book

[For the consequences of joint liability, see 361-366 (^ante. II, Part I). But there is no right, of contribution ( 365) amongst joint tort-feasors. See poit^ Book II, Part III.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

PARTNERSHIP
ploys
trust

271
Breach of
^l^lnll

609. If a partner, being a trustee, improperly emproperty


in

the

business

or

on
is

the
liable

account of the partnership, no other partner


for

the

trust

property to the
;

persons

beneficially

interested therein
(tf)

except that

this

does not affect any liability incurred


his

by any partner by reason of


a

having notice of

breach of
(^)

trust

and
this prevents trust

nothing in

money from
if still

being followed and recovered from the firm


in
its

possession or under

its

control.
s.

Partnership Act, 1890,

13.

\E. g.^ a partner with whose knowledge trust moneys are employed in the business of the firm remains .liable in respect
thereof, even after retirement

from the firm, and even though he


(Smith v.
^

has received a [gratuitous] discharge from the trustees. Patrick [1901J A. C. 282.)]

610. Every one who, by words spoken or written.


or by conduct, represents himself, or
suffers

who knowingly
a partner in a

"'

Holding out f"" "^^

himself to be represented,
is

as

particular firm,
has,

liable as a partner to

any one

who

on the

faith

of any such representation, given

credit to the firm,

whether the representation has


or

or has not been

made

communicated

to the per-

son so giving credit by or with the knowledge of the apparent partner


suffering
it

making the
is

representation or
after a partner's

to be

made.

But where,

death, the partnership business

continued in the

Digitized

by Microsoft

272

LAW OF CONTRACT
as

old firm-name, the continued use of that name, or

of the deceased partner's name


not of
estate
itself

part thereof, will

make

his executors or administrators,

or

effects,

liable

for

any

partnership

debts

contracted after his death.


Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

14.

Representa-

611.

An

admission or representation
'
,

Hon of partner binding on firm

partner concerning the partnership

made by any /
.

affairs,

and in

^^
to

ordinary course of

its

btsiness

(other

than a

representation as to the extent of his

own

authority

bind the firm),

is

evidence against the firm.


s.

Partnership Act, 1890,

15.

Notice

to

612. Notice to any partner


in the partnership business,

who

habitually acts
to

partner
'notice to

of any matter relating


as

firm

partnership

affairs,

operates

notice to the firm,

except in th? case of a fraud on the firm committed

by or with the consent of that partner.


Partnership Act, l8go,
s.

16.

Liability

ef

613.

person

who

is

admitted
'

as a partner into

incoming

partner

^^ existing firm does not thereby become liable to the creditors of the firm for anything done before
_

he became

a partner.
Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

17 (l).

Digitized

by Microsoft

PARTNERSHIP
614.

273
a firm does not
Liability of

partner

who

retires

from

thereby cease to be liable for partnership debts or


obligations incurred before his retirement.
Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

''^''""^ retiring

partner

17 (2).

615.

retiring partner
liabilities,

maybe

discharged from

Release of
^^'/[^^f

any

existing

by an agreement to that

between himself and the members of the firm as newly constituted and the creditors; and this agreement may be either express, or inferred as a
effect

fact tors

from the course of dealing between the and the firm as newly constituted.
Partnership Act, i8go,
s.

credi-

17 (3).

[But see note to 609.

616.

continuing guarantee, given either to a


in the absence of agreement to
as

Effect of

firm or to a third person in respect of the transactions of a firm,


is,

partners on
S'""''""^^

the contrary, revoked

to

future

transactions

by

any change

in the constitution

of the firm to which,

or of the firm in respect of the transactions of which,

the guarantee was given.


Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

18.

617.

The

mutual rights and duties of partners.

Variation of
'^

whether ascertained by agreement or defined by this Section, may be varied by the consent of all the

^"erms"

Digitized

by Microsoft

274
partners;

LAW OF CONTRACT
and such consent may be either express or

inferred

from

a course

of dealing.
s.

Partnership Act, 1890,

19.

[Observe that the operation of this is confined to mutual rights and duties. It does not, of course, apply to dealings with
third parties.]

Partnership
property

618. All
property,

property,

and rights and

interests

in

originally

brought into the partnership

Stock, or acquired,

whether ,by purchase or otherfor the purposes

wise,

on account of the firm, or

and

in the course of the partnership business (" partner-

ship property "), must be held and applied by the


partners
exclusively for the purposes of the
in

part-

nership, and

accordance with

the

partnership

agreement.
Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

20 (l).

Partnership

gjg^

j'jjg

igg^j

estate

or

interest

in

any land

which belongs
rules

to the partnership devolves according

to the nature a,nd

tenure thereof, and the general


(so far

of law thereto applidable, but in trust

as necessary*), for

the persons beneficially interested

in the land under 6i8, 622.


Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

20 (z).
is

[The

precise

meaning of these words

not apparent

but

they are in the Act.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

PARTNERSHIP
620.

275

Where co-owners of an
itself

estate or interest in Purchase of


^
"iJ^^^^j-s

any land, not being


partners as to profits

partnership property, are

made by

the use of that land,


profits to

and purchase other land put of the


in like

be used

manner, the land


as partners,

so purchased

belongs to

them, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary,

not

but as co-owners, for the same

respective estates and interests as are held by them,


at

the

date

of the

purcliase,

in

the

land

first

mentioned.
Partnership Act, i8go,
s.

20 (3).

621. Unless a contrary intention appears, property

Property
'^^,

bought with money beloneins: ' o


.

00

to the firm

is

deemed

partnership

T'^

to

have been bought on account of the firm.


Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

funds

zi.

[And
will not
V.

the mere fact that

it

has been bought in a fictitious


title

present even the legal


2 Ch. 349).]

vesting in the partners

name (Wray

Wray [1905]

622.

Where an

interest in land has


'

become
.

part.

Partnership

land personal
estate

nership property,

it

is,

unless the contrary intention

appears, treated as between the partners (including

the representatives of a deceased partner), and also


as

between the

heirs of a deceased partner

and

his

executors or administrators, as personal and not real


estate.
Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

zz.
'
'

[The importance of this rule fully appears Tit. II, 1753-1756.]

in,

Book

V., Sect.

XVI,

Digitized

by Microsoft

276
Execution
against partnership prop-

LAW OF CONTRACT
A writ of execution will
not issue against any
.

623.

partnership property, except on a

judgment

against

V^irtner*'

^^

^"^ ^^ Court may, on the application by summons of any judgment creditor of a partner,
^'^"^-

make an
the

order charging that partner's interest in the


profits

partnership property and

with payment of
debt

amount

of

the judgment

and

interest

thercion,

and may, by the same or a subsequent order,

appoint a receiver of that partner's share of profits

(whether already declared or accruing) and of any


other
>

money which may be coming


and give
all

to

him

in re-

spect of the partnership, and direct all accounts and


inquiries,

other orders and

directions

which might have been directed or given if the charge had been made in favour of the judgment creditor by the partner, or which the circumstances
of the case

may

require.
s.

Partnership Act, 1890,

23 (i)

(2).-

'

Redemption
by other

624. In the case of such a charge

as is

described
or are at

partners

in the last , the other partner or partners


liberty at

is

any time to redeem the interest charged,


of a
sale

or, in case

being directed, to purchase the


s.

same.
Partnership Act, i8go,

23 (3).

Rights of partners
inter se

625o

The

interests

of partners in the partnership

property, and their rights and duties in relation to

Digitized

by Microsoft

PARTNERSHIP
ment

277

the partnership, are determined, subject to any agreeexpress or implied between the partners, by
:

the following rules

(i) All the partners are entitled to share equally

in the capital

and

profits

of the business, and


losses,

must contribute equally towards the


whether of by the
(2)
firm.
capital

or

otherwise, sustained

The

firm must indemnify every partner in

respect of payments
bilities
(()

incurred by
in

made and him

personal

lia-

the

ordinary and

proper conduct
;

of the business of the firm


(^) in or

or,

about anything necessarily done

for the preservation of the business or

property of the firm.


(3)

partner making, for the purpose of the partnership, any actual

payment or advance behas


is

yond the amount of capital which he


agreed to subscribe,
the rate of five per cent per

entitled to interest at

annum from

the date of the payment or advance.


(4)

partner

is

not entitled, before the ascertainto


interest

ment of

profits,

on the

capital

subscribed by him.
(5)

Every partner may take part in the manage-

ment of the partnership


(6)

business.

No

partner

is

entitled to

remuneration

for

acting in the partnership business.

Digitized

by Microsoft

278
(7)

LAW OF CONTRACT
No
Any
person

may

be introduced
all

as

a partner

without the consent of


(8)

existing partners.

difference arising as to ordinary matters

connected with the partnership business be decided by a majority


but no cha.nge
,.

may

of the

partners

may be made

in the nature

^C>f thp partnership business without the con-

sent of all existing partners.


(9)

The

partnership books must be

kept at the

place of business of the partnership (or the


principal place, if there

and every partner


them.

more than one) may, when he thinks fit,


is
;

have access to and inspect and copy any of


Partnership Act,
890,"
s.

24.

Expulsion of
partner

626.

No

majority of the partners can expel any

partner unless a

power

to

do so has been conferred

by express agreement between the partners.


Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

25.

Determina;

627.

Where no
:

fixed

term has been agreed upon

tion

of

partnership

for the duration of the partnership, any partner


.

may

determine the partnership at any time, on giving


notice of his intention so to do
partners.
to
all

the other
origi-

Even where the partnership has

nally

been constituted by deed, a notice

in writing,

Digitized

by Microsoft

PARTNERSHIP
signed by the partner giving
purpose.
Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

279
sufficient for this

it, is

26.

628.

Where

a partnership, entered into for a fixed

Prolongation
'''""' "fp" "'^
ship

term,

is

continued after the term, has expired, and

without any express

new agreement,

the rights and


as
is

duties of the partners remain the


at

same

they were
consistent

the expiration of the term, so far as


the
incidents

with

of a
'

partnership at will.

A
or

continuance

of the

business

by

the

partners,

such of them

as habitually acted therein

during the

term, without any settlement or liquidation of the


partnership
affairs,
is

presumed

to be a continuance

of the partnership.
Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

27.

629. Partners are bound to render true accounts

Accounts and
'"j"'""""'"

and

full

information of

all

things affecting the part-

nership, to any partner or his legal representatives.


Partnership Act,
1

890,

s,

28.

630. Every partner must account to the firm for

Separate
^p'^^'neri

any benefit derived by him, without the consent of the other partners, from any transaction concerning
the partnership, or from any use by

him of

the

partnership property, name, or business connexion.

This rule applies

also

to

transactions

undertaken

Digitized

by Microsoft

28o

LAW OF CONTRACT
been dissolved by the death
affairs

after a partaership has

of a partner, and before fhe

thereof have been

completely w^ound up, either by any surviving partner


or by the representatives of the deceased partner.
Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

29.

[" either

words

relate to

Presumably by any surviving partner," etc. "undertaken" and not to "wound up."]

these

Profits of

631. If a partner, without the

consent of the

competing
business

other partners, carries on any business of the same

nature

as,

and competing with, that of the firm, he


to the firm all profits

must account for and pay over

made by him

in that business.
Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

30.

Assignee of share not


-

Q22t,

An

assignment by any partner of his share


,
. .

entitled to

m
.

the

partnership, either absolute or by

way

ot

act as partner

mortgage or redeemable charge, does not,

as against

the other partners, entitle the assignee, during the

continuance of the partnership, to interfere in the

management

or

administration

of the partnership

business or affairs, or to require any accounts of the

partnership transactions, or to inspect the partnership

books, but entitles the assignee only to receive the


share of profits to

which the assigning partner would


;

otherwise be entitled

and the assignee must accept


(i).

the account of profits agreed to by the partners.


Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

31

Digitized

by Microsoft

PARTNERSHIP
633.

281
Accohnt on

In case of a dissolution of the partnership,


as respects all

whether

the partners or as respects the


is

assigning partner, the assignee

entitled to receive
to

the share of the partnership


assigning partner
is

assets

which the

entitled as

between himself and

the other partners, and, for the purpose of ascertain-

ing that share, to an account as from the date of the


dissolution.
Partnership Act, 1890,
3.

31 (2).

634. Subject to any agreement between the partners, a partnership


(a) if
1

Expiry of
'^

is

dissolved

partnership "^

entered into for a fixed term, by the expira-

tion of that
(b) if

term

entered into for a single adventure or under-

taking, by the termination of that adventure

or undertaking;
(c) if

entered into for an undefined time, by any


partner giving notice to the other or others

of hxk intention to dissolve the partnership.


In the
solved as
last

mentioned

case, the partnership

is

dis-

from the date mentioned in the notice as the date of dissolution, or, if ho date is so mentioned, as from the date of the communication of the notice.
Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

32.

635.
ners,

Subject to any agreement between the partis

Dissolution

every partnership

dissolved, as

regards

all

iankruptcy

Digitized

by Microsoft

282

LAW OF CONTRACT
partners,

the

by the death or bankruptcy of any


Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

partner.
33 ( I
).

Dissolution

636.

A partnership

may,

at the

option of the other


suffers his share

o/shlrf

partners, be dissolved if

any partner

of the partnership property to be charged under the


Partnership Act, 1890, for his separate debt.
Partnership Act^, i8go,
s.

33 (z).

Dissolution

637.

A
for

partnership

is

in every case dissolved


it

by
un-

iy illegality

the happening
lavi^ful

of any event w^hich makes

the business of the firm to be carried

on, or for the


in partnership.

members of the
Partnership Act, 1890,

firm to carry

it

on

s.

34.

[E.g.

by one

Stevenson quences.]

of the parl;ners becoming an alien enemy. See Sons v. Aktiengesellschafi [191^] A. C. 239, for conse'

Dissolution
by decree for

638.

On

application

by

a partner, the Court

may

decree a dissolution of the partnership^ in any of the

following cases
Lunacy
(a)

when
or
to

a partner

is

found lunatic by inquisition, Court

is

shown

to the satisfaction of the

be of permanently unsound mind, in either

of which cases the application


as

may be made
com-

well on behalf of that partner by his

mittee or next friend as by any other partner


Incapacity

(b)

when

a partner,. other than the partner suing,


in-

becomes in any other way permanently

Digitized

by Microsoft

PARTNERSHIP
nership contract
(c)

283

capable of performing his part of the part-

when

a partner, other than the partner suing, Misconduct


as,

has been guilty of such conduct,

in the

opinion of the Court, regard being had to the


nature of the business,
is

calculated to affect
;

prejudicially the carrying on of the business


(d)

when

a partner, other than the partner suing. Breach

of

wilfully or persistently

commits

a breach

of

"^r^momlati-

the partnership agreement, or otherwise so ^'%

conducts himself in matters relating to the


partnership business that
it

is

not reasonably

practicable for the other partner or partners


to carry

on the business

in partnership

with

him;
(e)

when

the business of the partnership can only


at a loss
*

Loss on

be carried on
(f)

working

whenever
arisen

in

any

case .circumstances

have

Other dr'^'*'"'

which, in the opinion of the Court,


it

"""'

render

just

and equitable that the part-

nership be dissolved.
Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

35.

639.

Where
its

a person deals with a firm after a

Retiring

change in
apparent

constitution,

he

i?

entitled to treat all ^^aTdntinue

members of
firm

the old
until

firm as

still

being

^'"^^'^

members of the
change.

he has notice of the


place of business
in

An

advertisement in the " London Gazette,"


principal
is

by

a firm

whose

Digitized

by Microsoft

284

LAW OF CONTRACT
is

England or Wales,

notice to persons

who had

not

dealings with the firm before the date of the dissolution or change so advertised/^) but not [semble)
to persons

who
(a)

dealt

with the old firm unless they

actually

knew of it.C")
Partnership Act, 1890,
s.
i

36 (l)

(2).

(b)

Grahamji. Hope l\']()z),

Peake, 208.

Exemption

640.

The

estate

of

a partner

who

dies,

or

who
to

becomes bankrupt, or of
be a partner,
retires

a partner

who, not having


is

been known to the person dealing with the firm

from the

firm,

not liable for

partnership debts

contracted after the date of the

death, bankruptcy, or retirement respectively.


Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

36

(3).

Notice of

641 .

On
^

retirement

the dissolution of a partnership or retire*

ment

oi a partner, any partner

may

publicly notiiy

the same, and

may

require the other partner or partall

ners to concur for that purpose in

necessary or

proper

acts, if

any,

which cannot be done without


9.

his or their concurrence.


Partnership Act, 1890,
37.

Winding-up
lution

642. After the dissolution of a partnership, the


authority of each partner to bind the firm, and the

other rights and obligations of the partners, continue,


notwithstanding,

the dissolution, so far as

may

be

Digitized

by Microsoft

PARTNERSHIP
necessary to

285

wind up the

affairs

of the partnership,
at

and

to

complete transactions begun

the time of

the dissolution, but not otherwise.


Partnership Act, 1890,
s,

38.

643.

The

firm

is

in

no case bound by the

acts

Liability for

but this parmer proviso does not affect the liability of any person
;

of a partner

who

has

become bankrupt

who

has, after the bankruptcy, represented himself,

or knowingly suffered himself to be represented, as


a partner

of the bankrupt.
Partnership Act, 1890-,
s.

38.

644.
partner

On
is

the dissolution

of a
.

partnership every
.

Distribution

entitled, as against the other partners


all

of assets on
dissolution

the firm, and

persons

claiming through

them

in respect of their interests as partners, to

have the

property of the partnership applied in payment of


the debts and
liabilities

of the firm, and

to

have the

surplus assets after such

payment applied

in

payment
as part-

of what
after

may be due to deducting what may


;

the partners respectively,

be due from them

ners to the firm

and for that purpose any partner


the termination of

or his representatives may, on

the partnership, apply to the Court to wind up the


business and affairs of the firm.
Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

39.

Digitized
/

by Microsoft

286
Return of

LAW OF CONTRACT
Where one
partner has paid a

645.

premium
before

to

premium

another on entering into a partnership for a fixed


term, and the partnership
is

dissolved

the

expiration of that term, otherwise than by the death

of

a partner,

the Court

may

order the repayment of


it

the premium, or of such part thereof as


just,

thinks

having regard to the terms of the partnership

contract and to the length of time during

the partnership has continued; unless


(a)

which

the dissolution

is,

in the judgment of the Court,

wholly or

chiefly,

due to the misconduct of


been dissolved by an agreefor a return of

the partner

who

paid the premium, or

(b) the partnership. has

ment containing no provision any part of the premium.


Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

40.

Rights of
innocent

646.

Where

a partnership contract

is

rescinded on

partner on

the ground of the fraud or misrepresentation of one

of the parties thereto, the party entitled to rescind


is,

without prejudice to any other right, entitled


(a) to a lien

on the surplus of the partnership

as-

sets, after

satisfying the partnership liabilities,

for

any sum of money paid by him for the

purchase of a share in the partnership, and for

any capital contributed by him


(b) to stand in the place

of the creditors of the

firm for any payments

made by him

in respect

of the partnership

liabilities

Digitized

by Microsoft

PARTNERSHIP
(c) to

287

be indemnified by the person guilty of the

fraud or
all

making the

representation, against

the debts and

liabilities
s.

of the firm.
41.

Partnership Act, 1890,

647.
1

Where any member

Otherwise ceased to

11be
as

of a firm has died or

Interest on
capital of

a partner,

11 and the

surviving

outgoing
P"''*"^''

or continuing partners carry on the business of the

firm with

its

capital or assets,

without any

final settle-

ment of accounts
going partner or
or his estate

between the firm and the outof

his estate, then, in the absence

any agreement to the contrary, the outgoing partner


is

entitled, at the option

of himself or

his representatives, to such share of the profits

made

since the dissolution as the Court

may

find to be

attributable to the use of his share of the partnership


assets,

or to interes,t at the rate of five per cent per

annum on
ship
assets.

the

amount of

his share of the

partner-

Partnership Act, 1890,

s.

42

(i).

648.
is

Where by

the partnership contract an option

Purchase of
p^fi*"f,^ ;.
^^rest

given to surviving or continuing partners to pur-

chase the interest of a deceased or outgoing partner,

and that option


the case

is

duly exercised, the estate of


not entitled to any

the deceased partner, or the outgoing partner or his


estate, as

may

be,

is

further or other share of profits; but if any part-

Digitized

by Microsoft

2&8

LAW; OF CONTRACT
iri,

ner, assurning to act

exprciae:

of the option, does

not in

all

material respects
is

comply withf the terms

thereof, he

liable to
PE^rjtnej-ship

account under
Act, 1890,
s.'

647.

42

(2).

Purchase.monefa. debt

649.
<

Subject to any agreement between the partr amount due irom surviving or continuing
1

ners, the

partners to an outgoing partner, or the representatives

of a depeased p^rt^oer in respect of the outgoing or


de^ceased ,pa;rtner's sha;:e,
;

is

a debt accruing at the

date of the dissolution or jdpath.


Partnership Act, 1890,
s.

43.

Accounts on
dissolution

650.
^
;

In settling accounts between the partners


,;'
,
.
:

,'

j.l

.,;

(.

,,

after a dissoliition or partnership, the


are, subject to
(a) Losseis,

lollowing rules
:

any agreement, to be observed

including losses and deficiencies of capi-

tal,

are paid nrst out or prohts, next out oi

capital,

and

lastly, if

necessary,

by the partners

individually in the proportion in

which they

were entitled
(b)

to share profits.

The

assets

of the firm, including the sums, if

any, contributed by the partners to


'

make up

losEips

or deficiencies of capital, are applied in


:

the following manner and order


I
.

In paying the 4pbts and


firm to persons
thereio;

liabilities

of the

who

are not partners

Digitized

by Microsoft

PARTNERSHIP
2.

289
partner
rateably
to

In

paying

to

each

what
capital
3.

is

due from the firm


as

him
from

for advances

distinguished

In paying to
is

^acjfci

pajrtner rateably
to

what
in

due from the firm

him

respect of capital
4.

The ultimate residue, if any, is divided among the partners, in the proportion
in

which

profits are divisible.


1

Partnership Act,

890,

s.

44.

651.

The

sale

of the goodwill of a partnership

Sale of

business, either to

one or more of the partners or

to

^' ^'

a third party, does

not (in the absence of special

agreement) prevent the vendor carrying on a similar


business in competition with the purchaser or pur-

chasers.W

But the vendor may not


solicit

(in the absence

of special agreement)
they resort to
(a) (b)

the customers of the


business with

old business, though he


if

may do

them

him without

solicitation.^')

Churtonv. Doug/as (18 ^g) Johns. 174. Trego V. Hunt .pi 8g6] A. C. 7. Gi//ig/bam'V. Biddtw [1900] i Ch. 685. Curl Bros. v. Webster [1904] I Ch. 685.
Ill,

[As to goodwill generally, see Bk.

Sect.

XIII,

Tit.

VI,

1676 1680.]

L 2

Digitized

by Microsoft

hti^'M/t^TH/.M

'.hi

'H'Vtv:

.(1,7,

SECTION IX
rl

ill

fffui

iTj

GUARANTEE
\
Defifiition

652.

contract

of

guarantee
")

IS

contract

whereby one .person (" the surety

promises

an-

other person ("the creditor") to be answerable in


the event of a third person (" the principal debtor")

making
'

default in respect of a liability incurred or

to be incurred
Hargreavcs

by such third person to the promisee.


v.
Par.i.ons
i

(1844) 13 M.
Ch.,
at p. '99.

& W.,
-aot..

at p.

570,

In re Hoyle [185.3]

&Dna;^'-

atu

ion

ofit;

Must
debtor

be a

653.

It is

essential

to

the^ contract

of guarantee

principal

that there should be a primary aftd continuing liability

of a

principal

debtor

(^)

but the

primary
future

liability'

contemplated by the contract


f')

may be

or contingent,
(a)

(b)

Birkmyry, Z)ar<?// (1705) I Salk. 27. Goodman v. Chase "(iSig) i B. & Aid. 297. Lakeman v. Mountstephen (1874) L- ^' 7 ^- L./at .Rew(?// V. Moseley (1822) 3 BVod. & B. 211. Molktv. Batman (1865) L. R. I C. P. 163.

p. 24.

[A contract of guarantee must be distinguished from a contract of indemnity,, which is a contract to save another harmless, independently of the question whether a third person makes default or
not {Guild V.

hard to

tell

in a given case

It is often Conrad [1894] 2 Q. B., at p. 896). whether an indemnity or a guarantee

Digitized

by Microsoft

GUARANTEE

291

In the former event, the liability of the promisor is is intended. primary and independent ; in the second, it is merely subsidiary and collateral, attaching only in the event of the default of the principal debtor. A contract may appear to be a guarantee and yet be an indemnity, as where a person purports to guarantee an infant's debt for goods, not being necessaries. Since the infant incurs no primary liability, the other party renders himself liable, not as surety but as principal {Harris v. Huntback {i"JSl) ^ Burr. 373,
per Foster, J.).]

654.
antee
is

When
to

the sole object of a contract of guardefault, or miscarriage

Statute of

answer for the debt,

of another, the contract must (subject to 655) comply with the requirements of 220, Book II, Part I
but

when

it

is

merely incidental

to

a transaction

having another object in view, the provisions of

220 do not apply.


Harburg India Rubber
Co. v.

Martin [1902]

K. B. 778.

[For instances of guarantees not falling within the Statute of Frauds ( 220 supra) see the remarks of Vaughan Williams, L. J.,
in the case last cited, at p. 786.]

655.

contract of guarantee (not being a spe;

Considera
tion

cialty) requires a consideration

but

it is

not neces-

sary that the consideration should be expressed in

writing.^
(a)

French

v.

French (1841) 2

M. & G.

644.
s.

(b)

Mercantile

Law Amendment

Act, i8j6,

3,

656.

contract of guarantee

may

apply either

Single

and

to a single transaction, or to all transactions of the

guar"an"fes

Digitized

by Microsoft

292

LAW OF CONTRACT
latter case, either

kind specified, and, in the

for a

given time or indefinitely ("continuing guarantee").

Whether

a guarantee

is

single

or

continuing

is

question of construction, depending in each case upon

the terms of the contract and the circumstances in

which

it

was made.
Meadows (1869) L. R. 4 C. P. 595. Morrelly. Cowan (1877) 7 Ch. D. 151. Lloyd's V. Harper (1880) 16 Ch. D., at p. 303. And see Merle v. Wells (1810) 2 Camp. 413.
Heffieldv.

Uberrima

Q57.

The

Surety

is

entitled to be .truly

informed

of the
creditor

real nature

of the transaction between the


in respect of

and the principal debtor,


to be liable.

which

he promises
his
is

If by the creditor, or with

knowledge, any material part of the transaction


to, or fraudulently

misrepresented

concealed from,

the surety, before or at the time of his promise, the

guarantee
Pideoci

is

void.

v.

Bjshop (1825) 3 B.

&

C. 605.
_:

& F. 934. Hamilton \. Watson (1845) 12 CI. & F. 109. Lee v. Jones (1863) 14 C. B. N. S. 386 ; 17 C. B. N.
Railton v.

Mathews (1844) 1

^1.

S.

482.

Subsequent
dealings

658. In the case of a continuing guarantee,


,
.

if
,

any such misrepresentation or concealment takes

making of the contract of the guarantee thereupon becomes void.


place after the
Phillips V.

guaraintee,

Sanderson

v.

Foxall{\iT2) L. R. 7 Q. B. 666. Aston (1873) L. R. 8 Ex. 73.

Digitized

by Microsoft

GUARANTEE
659.

293
last

Except

as

provided by the
is

two , no
creditor.

Disclosure

general duty of disclosure

cast

upon the

North British Insurance Co. v. Lloyd (1854) 'o Exch. 523. Lee V. Jones (1863) 14 C. B. N. S. 386 ; 17 C. B. N. S. 482. Hamilton v. Watson (1845) 12 CI. & F. 109. Davies v. London Marine Insurance Co. (1878) 8 Ch. D., at p. 475.

660.
Qti

A
at

continuing guarantee may, in the absence

Revocation
'^ S'^'roitee

express or implied agreement to the contrary, be

revoked

any time

as

regards future transactions,


;

by notice to the creditor

unless the consideration

moving from the


before the notice
Lloyd's w.

creditor has been wholly performed


is

given.

Offord^. Davies (1862) iz C. B. N. S. 748. Harper (1880) 16 Ch. D. 290. In re Grace [1902] i Ch. 733.

[At
semble.,

common law
this

a specialty
exists

guarantee was irrevocable;


(per Joyce,

but,

rule

no longer

J., In re Grace., at

P-

738)-]

661.

The

extent of the surety's liability


It

is

deterless,

Liability of

mined by the contract of guarantee. but cannot be more than that of the
Ex parte Young (1881)

may be

surety

principal debtor.

17 Ch. D., at p. 671.

662.
in

When
it

amount,

the surety gives a guarantee limited is a question of construction whether


is

Limited
^'^"''""'^^

the guarantee

intended to cover part only of the

Digitized

by Microsoft

294
principal

LAW OF CONTRACT
debt,

or

the whole of the debt with a

limited liability.
Ellis V.

Emanuel (1876)

Ex. D. 157.

" up to ;'iooo " a debt of ;^5000 owing to B by C, then, so long as 1000 of that debt remains owing to B, A will be liable to pay ;'iooo. But if A guarantees to B " a thousand pounds of the ;^5000 owing To B by C," then, if, in C's bankruptcy, B receives a dividend of 2y_ in the , A will be entitled to credit for zj- in the pound on a thousand pounds, ;. e. for ;^ioo {Hobson v. Bass (1871) L. R. 6 Ch. App., at p. 794).]
[. ^.,
if

guarantees to

Default of
principal
debtor

663.

Immediately upon the default of the prin-

cipal debtor, the liability of the surety

becomes

a
it

primary
is

liability.

In the absence of agreement,

not a-condition precedent of such

liability that the

creditor should give the surety notice of such de-

faultjW or that the creditor should take any steps to

enforce his claim against the principal.


Mascall (1844) 13 M. & W. 452. Kirkham (1864) 3 H. & C. 437. (b) Wright V. Simpson (1802) 6 Ves.. at p. 734.
(a)

Walton

v.

Price V.

Indemnity
of surety

664.

The

surety

is

entitled to

be indemnified by

the principal debtor against

all liability

and

loss in-

by him under the contract of guarantee, in consequence of the principal debtor's default.
curred

Such
surety

loss

includes interest on any


called

sum which
to

the

may have been

upon

pay to the

creditor.
(a)

Badeley
(b)

Toussaint V. Martinnatit (1787) 2 T, R. 100. v. Consolidated Bank (1886) 34 Ch. D., at p. 556. Ex parte Bishop (1880) 15 Ch. D., at p. 421.

Digitized

by Microsoft

GUARANTEE
665.

295

The

surety

may claim indemnity from

the when
claimable

principal debtor, even before default/*)

and before

the surety has

made any payment


liability against

to the creditor/'')

and though the

indemnity
before
for the
(a)

is

which he claims merely contingent ;("=) but he cannot,

by discharging the principal's debt to the creditor


it

accrues due,
so

make

the principal his debtor

amount
v.
v.

paid.W
at p.

Cruse
Lacey

Johnson
(b)
(c)
v.
V.

Hoiis

Paine (1868) L. R. 6 Eq. 641. Salvage Association (1887) 19 Q. B. D., Hill (187^) L. R. 18 Eq., at p. 191. fTayet (1887) 36 Ch. D. 256.
is

460.

(d)
5

Because such a payment

voluntary

(^Sleigh v.

Sleigh

(i8;o)

Exch. 514).

666.

Upon

the default of the principal debtor,

Remedies of
'"'^"^

the surety may, if the creditor refuses to sue, either


{a)

take proceedings to compel the principal debtor

to exonerate

him from

liability, or [b)

himself pay

the creditor and sue the principal

debtor for the

amount

paid.

Antrobus v. Davidson (1817) 3 Mer., at p. 579. Davies v. Humphreys (1840) 6 M. & W. 153. Wooldridge v. Norris (1868) L. R. 6 Eq. 410. Green v. fFynn (1869) L. R. 4 Ch. App., at p. 207. Bechervaise v. Lewis (1872) L. R. 7 C. P., at p. 377.

[The

from the cases.


creditor

nature of this equitable remedy does not clearly appear Apparently the surety should make the creditor

a party to his action ; and the court will then order payment to the Semble, the by the principal debtor of the amount due.

has not satisfied the creditor's claim, cannot insist on {Lacey v. Hill (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 182; surety may sue Wolmershausen v. Gullick [1893] 2 Ch. 514.) this toties quoties he makes a payment on account of the under
surety,

who

payment

to himself.

principal debt (ihid.W

L3

Digitized

by Microsoft

296
Subrogation

LAW OF CONTRACT
The
surety

667.

who. has discharged the principal


is

debtor's liability to the creditor

entitled to

have

assigned to or in trust for

him

every security held by


liability,

the creditor in respect of such


in the place of the creditor,
itor's

and to stand
all

and to use

the cred-

remedies, and, upon a proper indemnity, to use


creditor in any action or other pro-

the

name of the

ceeding, in order to obtain from the principal debtor


or any co-surety indemnity, in

whole

or in a just pro-

portion, for the loss or liability sustained by him.


Mercantile

Law Amendment

Act, 1856,

s.

3.
at p.

Bechervaise V. Lewis (1872) L. R. 7 C. P.,

377.

Set-off

668.

The

surety yvho

is

sued by the creditor

may

claim the benefit of any right of set-off which the


principal debtor could plead in answer to the creditor's

claim.
Murphy
v.

Glass

(1869) L. R.

2 P.

C. 408.

Contribution
by co-sureties

669.
,.,.,.

Where

liability as
eral,

.... joint such


is it

there are co-sureties, whether their

or several, or joint and sev-

..

and whether

arises

under one or more than one


it

contract,(*)

and whenever
was

arose,

and whether the fact

of the
not,('')

co-suretyshijp

any one surety

known to each co-surety or who has discharged more than


liability ,W

his proportion

of the principal debtor's

may

claim

contribution

from

his co-sureties

(and

Digitized

by Microsoft

GUARANTEE
from the
(a)

297

representatives of a deceased co-surety) pro-

portionate to the
Deering
V.

amount

for

which each
i

is

surety. ("*)

Lord Winchehea (1787)

Cox, 318.

(b)
(c)

Gifford (1802) 6 Ves., at p. 808. Whitings. Burke (1870) L. R. 10 Eq. 539; 6 Ch. App. 342. Davies v. Humphreys (1840) 6 M. & W., at p. 168.

Ex parte

(d)

Batardv. Hawes (1853) 2 E. & B. 287. Ellesmere Brewery Co. v. Cooper [1896] i Q. B. 75.

670. In estimating the amount due


.

as contribu-

Only solvent
co-sureties

tion,

account

is

taken only oi such sureties

as are reckoned

solvent at the date of the claim for contribution,


Peter v. Rich (1629) i Ch. Rep., at p. 34. Hitchman v. Stewart (1855) 24 L. J. Ch, 690, Lowe V. Dixon (1885) '6 Q. B. D. 458. Ellesmere Brewery Co v. Cooper, ubi sup.

671. Proceedings for exoneration

may be com-

Exoneration

menced by a surety against payment but no claim to


;

his co-sureties, even before

contribution can be estab-

lished except in respect of

money

actually paid.

Ex parte Snowdon (1881) [A


a

17 Ch. D. 44.
toties quoties

surety-plaintifF cannot sue his co-surety


until
it

payment on account,

is

clear that he has paid

he makes more than


153).]

his proportion (^Davies v,

Humphreys (1840) 6

M. & W.

672.

A surety who
is

is

entitled to contribution

from

Share of
securities

a co-surety

entitled pro rata to the benefit of every

security held

by such co-surety

in respect

of the

guaranteed debt, whatever was the date at which such security was given, and whether such surety knew

Digitized

by Microsoft

298
or did not

LAW OF CONTRACT
know of
its

existence

when he gave

his

guarantee.
Steely. Dixon (1881) 17 Ch. D., at p. 832. Duncan, Fox i^ Co. v. N. 5" S. Wales Bank (1880) L. R. 6 App.

Ca.

I.

Discharge of suretybyexUnction of
'^^^'

IS

.... discharged
-.

673. Subicct to the provisions of 67 c, the surety -^

/ by any transaction between the cred, ,

itor

and the principal debtor by which the principal


is

debt

extinguished.
V.

Moss

Hall (1850)

Exch.,

at p.

49 (per Parke, B.).

Discharge by
indulgence

74. Subject

as aforesaid,
. 1

the surety

is

discharged

the creditor enters into a binding contract with the


principal

i-

.11

if

debtor to give

him time

for

payment,W

but not by the mere fact that the creditor forbears


to

sue.W or

is

remiss in suing,W or takes a further

security

from the principal debtor.^

Howelly. Jones (1834) i Cr. M. & R., at p. 107. Szeire V. Redman (1876) i Q. B. D., at p. 541. PoM V. Everett (1876) i Q. B. D. 669. Clarke V. Birley (1889) 41 Ch. D. 422. (b) Strong v. /"w/^r (1855) 17 C. B., at p. 215. (c) Goring v. Edmonds (1829) 6 Bing. 94. (d) Twopenny v. Toung (1824) 3 B. & C. 208. Bells. Banks (1841) 3 M. & G. 258.
(a)

Unless rights

675.

Creditor

who makes
-

reserved

composition with, ^

or gives time to, a principal debtor, can do so with

an express reservation of his right of recourse against

Digitized

by Microsoft

GUARANTEE
the surety.

299

In such a case, the surety's rights to inall

demnity and contribution, and


remain unimpaired.
Kearsley
v.

incidental rights,

Cole

(1846) 16 M.

& W,

iz8.

L. C. 997. Boaler V. Mayor (1865) 19 C. B. N. S. 76. Green v. Wynn (1869!) L. R. 4 Ch. App. 204.
V.

Owen

Homan (1853) 4 H.

such reservation can be made upon a release of a principal two things being inconsistent (Kearsley v. Cole (ubi sup.), at p. 136, per Parke, B.). But where there is such reservation, the so-called release will sometimes be construed as a covenant not to sue {Green v. Wynn,
debtor, the
ubi sup., at p. 206).]

[No

676.

The

surety
his

is

disicharged

by any

variation. Discharge

iy

made without
unless
it is

consent,

of the

liability

of the
unsub-

""""'''"'

principal debtor, or of any co-surety, to the creditor,


self-evident that such variation
is

stantial, or

one which cannot prejudice the

surety.

Holme
Taylor
Bolton

V.
v.
V.

Brunskill (1877) 3 Q. B. D., at p. 505. Bank of N. S. Wales (188.6) L. R. 1 1 App, Ca. 596 (P. Salmon [1891] 2 Ch. 48.

C).

677.

The

surety

is

discharged if the creditor does

Discharge by

any act

in connection

with the

liability

of the prin- S/'""''

cipal debtor injurious to the surety or inconsistent

with his rights, or if the creditor omits to perform any duty and, by such omission, injury is caused to
the surety.
Dawson
Watts
v.
V.

Durham

Lawes (1854) 23 L. ]. Gh. 434. Shuttleworth (i86i) 7 H. & N. 353. v. Fowler (1889) 22 Q. B. D., at pp. 405 and 419.

Digitized

by Microsoft

300
Abandonsecurity iy
.

LAW OF CONTRACT
fails

678. If the Creditor sujTrenders a Security, or ncglito ehfdrce a security, or if

gently

he allows

creditor

security to be impaired or to deteriorate^ the surety


is

discharged pro tanto.

'

.--t
;

Pearl

Deacon (1857) 24-Reavj 186, Wulffy. Jay (1872) L. R. 7 Q. B. 756. Ta-jlor V. Bank, of N. S. Wales (1886)
w.

L.

R.

1 1

^pp. Ca.,

at

p;6o3

(P. co."'\:;-;

;";;;''^

..,,..'"'''"'

[Where the surety is personally discharged, any property which may have given as security to the creditor is discharged, also. {Bolton V. &/ [1891} 2 Ch. 48).]
he

Death df
surety

679.

continuing guarantee comes to an end so

soon

as

the creditor has notice of the surety's death,

whole of the consideration moving from the creditor has been wholly performed before such
unless the

notice has been given, or unless a contrary intention

appears from the terms of the contract.^

But the

death of one co-surety does not relieve a surviving


co-^surety from! future liability. C^)
(a)

Coulthart

v.

Lloyd's V. Harper {l%%6) 16

Clementson (1879) 5 S- ^- ^- 4^ Ch. D. 290.


882)
i Ch. 573. 9 Q. B. D. 78 3

(P^''

Bowen,

J.).

And
(b)

see

In re Silvester [1895]

Beckett- v.

Addyman

'

Change of
partnership
is

680.

Where

the creditor or .the principal debtor

a partnership firrn, the liability of, the surety, in


is

case of a change in the constitution of the firm,

governed by the provisions of 6i6.


,

Partnership Act, 1890,5. 18.

Digitized

by Microsoft

GUARANTEE
681.

301
Rekase of "'''"'"y

When

the creditor releases one of two or

more
and

sureties

who

have contracted jointly, or jointly


of the co-sureties released

severally, the other or others are discharged.(*)


liability
is

But where the

a sevefal liability, the other surety or sureties are not

discharged by such release.^


(a)

(b)

Mercantile Bank of Sydney v. Taylor [1893] A. C. 317. Ward V. National Bank of New Zealand (1883) L. R. 8 App.

Ca. 755l^Semble, in

the latter case the right of contribution against the


is

released co-surety

unaffected by the release.]

682. In case of the bankruptcy of, the principal


/1

Bankruptcy

debtor, an order of discharge of such

-111 principal debtor,


-

of principal
debtor

or the acceptance by the creditor of a composition or

scheme under the Bankruptcy Act,

19 14,

does

not discharge the surety.


Bankruptcy Act,
1914,
s.

28

(4).

683.

The

surety

may prove

in the

bankruptcy of

Proof by
^"^nkiuttc

the principal debtor, or of a co-surety, even though he


has not been called upon to satisfy the claim of the
creditor.
Bankruptcy Act, 1914, s. 30 (3) (8). Ex parte Bolmar (1890) 38 W. R. 752. Wolmershausen v. Gullick [1893] 2 Ch. 514, In re Paine [1897] i Q. B. 122.

Digitized

by Microsoft

302
Indemnity

LAW OF CONTRACT
When
;ipi

684,

the surety has unsuccessfully defended

J or

cos s

an action brought by the creditor on the guarantee,

he cannot,
principal

an action for^ indemnity against


or for

the.

debtor,

contribution

from

co-

surety, recover thp costs of such

defence, unless in
as a

defending the action he has acted

reasonable and

prudent man, unindemnified, would have acted in his

own

case.

,,;

,:^,^^,s

-v

'

'^

Roach Beech

Thompson (1830) Moo. & M. 487. 5 C. B. 696. Broom y.' Hall ( i S'sg)' 7 C. B.' N. S. 503.
V. v.

Jones (184.8)

"''
!''>-:>

Hammoniy.

Biissiy (i'8'87)

zo'

Q. B: D. 79.

!'

Third-party
procee

685.
y_^^,

When

an action

is

brx)ught against the surety

mgs

^^

Creditor, the^ surety

may, by taking " third-

party proceedings," have ^ any person against

whom

he has a ckim
party.
R.
'^'^

to

indemnity or contribution made a


.n>|n.
,

^Ai

'S. C, 1883, Ord. XVI.' rr. 48-55. Ex parte Young (1881) 17 Ch. D., at p. 670

/'

\)oV'i.

i'.L

.':.>J(

;;.-(.>l(tf;'i

)(!]

fli

mvohj

vi.;'.'

vr<:'

."Jilt

\-;

i'Mcf'i

^ih

i\.\n:?.

oj

n';(|ij

b3J[B'.j

f!-;jii

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION X
INSURANCE
686.

contract

of

insurance

is

contract

Definition

whereby one party ("the insurer")

agrees
of, a

with
pay-

another ("the insured"), in consideration

ment
(

or series of payments

to the latter or to his representatives

693)
it

sum
the
is

or

("premium"), to pay or nominee sums of money conditionally on

death or

happening of any uncertain event,

which

contemplated will or

may

cause loss or

expense to the insured or such nominee (" interest or " insurable interest "),

687. Except
Part
I),

provided by 226 [ante. Book II, no special form is required for the contract
as

^'"'

of insurance, other than marine insurance.

But the

name

or

names of the persons


with

interested
(?

must be

inserted in every policy of


policies effected

insurance W

other than

a registered Friendly Society,

and certain

assurances

of

money
)

payable

on the

deaths of children under ten, effected with an industrial

assurance

company

C")

and

all

contracts of

insurance not to be performed within a year from

Digitized

by Microsoft

304
the

LAW OF CONTRACT
making thereof
w.
Assurance Act, 1774,
s. 2.

are subject to the provisions of

220

(a) Life

Manns' Insurance Act, igo6, s. 23. (In the case of insurances affected by this Act, the contract must take thft form of a policy (s. 22).) (b) Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies Act, 1896, s. 13 (2). Atkinson v. Atkinson (1895) W. N. 114.
(c) Statute'

of Frauds (1677)'^
all

s.

4.

[In practice

form

called

a "policy."

contracts of insurance are contained in a written By the Stamp Act, 1891, s. 100, every

who receives a 'premium, or pays or allows money on any insurance, other than a sea Insurance, except under a policy duly
person

stamped, incurs a fine of 10. There is an exemption of policies issued by a registered Friendly Society (Friendly Societies Act,

1896,8.33.)]

'

Necessity for

688.

A contract of insurance

is

not binding on the


"l

insurable
interest

parties unless the insured has a (pecuniary

interest in

the event insured against.


Marine Insurance Act, 1906,
Halford v.
ss. 4,

Kymer

(1830) 10 B.

&

5 C. 724.

Life Assurance Act, 1774,

s.

;,

[But it may be treated as valid for ascertaining the rights of third persons (Worthington v. Curtis (1875) "i Ch. D. 419 A.-G. v. Murray [1904] I K. B. 165). And there is an exception in the case' of a
;

by a Collecting Socielty or an company (Assurance Companies Act, 1909, s.


policy issued
'

Industrial Assurance
3,6).]

But:
(a) in

"
"

\'

\,,^

the case of a contract qf

life

insurance,

it is

time of the making of the contract, though it may afterwards cease to exist in vi^hole or in
Da/iy V. Intiia &^ London Life Assurance Co. (1854) 'S C. B. 36c. Latav. London Indisputable L. I. Co. (1855) i K. & j. 223.

sufficient if the interest exists at the

(b) in the case

of

a contract

of marine insurance,

Digitized

by Microsoft

INSURANCE
it is

305

sufficient if the interest exists at the


loss.

time

of the

Marine Insurance Act, 1906,

s.

6.

In the case of a contract of


(probably) of
all

fire

insurance, and

other kinds of insurance, the interest


at the'

must

exist

both

time of the rtiaking of the

contract and at the time of the happening of the

event insured against.


Lynch
v.

Sadler's Co.

Dalzell (1729) 4 Bro. P. C. 431. v. Badcock (1743) 2 Atk. 554.

[The strictness of this rule appears to make the benefit of such insurances unassignable without the consent of the insurer. Policies

of life and marine insurance were expressly made assignable at law by the Policies of Assurance Acts, 1867 and 1868 respectively, and policies of marine insurance by the Marine Insurance Act, 1906,
s.

so.]

689. In every contract of insurance

it is

the duty

Duty ofdu-

of the insured

to disclose to the insurer at the

time
facts

of the making

of the contract

all

material

within his knowledge which might influence the

judgment of the
London Assurance
cited.
v.

insurer with regard to the contract

contemplated [uberrima fides).


Mansel (1879)

"

^^- ^- 3^3>

^'^^

^^^^^ therein

Seaton v. Heath [1899] I Q. B. 782. Marine Insurance Act, 1906, ss. 17, 18.

690.

The

insured cannot (generally) recover from


a

indemnity

the insurer

more than

sum

sufficient to
;

indemnify
but in the

him

against the loss actually sustained

case of contracts of life insurance (including

endow-

Digitized

by Microsoft

306

LAW OF CONTRACT
policies) the

ment and annuity


to
at

whole amount agreed


recovered.

be paid, not exceeding the value of the interest


the date of the contract,

may be

Marine Insurance Act, 1906, s. 67. Dalby v. India y London Life Assurance Co. (1854) 15 C. B. 365. Law V. London Indisputable L. I. Co. (1855) i K. & J. 223. Hebdon y. West (1863) 3 B. & S, 579.

[Except where the only


or readily ascertainable
the

interest in the life ii^tsured


e.g.,

is

a detinite

sum of money,

where a

creditor insures

life of his debtor (^Hebdon v. IVest, ubi sup.) the Courts would probably never attertipt to estimate the value of the loss caused by death. But, in marine insurance, the insured can only recover such proportion of his loss, as represents the ratio of 'the value (actual or As to the agreed) of the property to the amount of the policy. uninsured balance, he is deemed to be his own insurer (Marine Insurance Act, 1906, s. 81).]

Rebuilding
after fire

691. In the case of a

fire

insurance on a building,

when

a loss has occurred, the insurer

may, and, on

the request of any party interested in the building,


mii^t, cause the insurance

money

to

be expended in

reinstating the building.


Fires jPreven,tipn (Metropolis) Act, 1774, 'Quiche's Trusts [1908] i Ch. 887.
Sinnott v. Bouiden [1912] 2 Ch. 414.
5.

83.

Re

Subrogation

^92.

An

insurer

who
is

has paid

money under

contract of insurance

entitled, for the

purpose of

recovering the

sum

so paid,

to stand in the place


all

of the insured in respect of


action,

remedies, rights of

and

securities available to the insured, as well

as to. recover

from the insured

all

sums which the

insured has received, or with due diligence

might

Digitized

by Microsoft

INSURANCE
same
loss.
B. D., at p. 388.
v. Isaacs

307

have received, from other sources in respect of the


Castellain v. Preston

(1883) 1 1 Q. West of England Fire Insurance Co.

[1897]

Q. B. 226.

[But the insurer cannot recover mere gratuities or benevolences received by the insured without claim of right (Burnand v. Rodocanachi (1882) L, R. 7 App. Ca. 333).]

693.

policy of insurance effected by any


life,

man

Matrimonial

on

his

own

and expressed

to be for the benefit

of his wife, or of

his children, or

of his wife and

children, or any of them, or by any

woman on

her

own

life,

and expressed to be for the benefit of her

husband, or of her children, or of her husband and


children, or any of them, creates a trust in favour

of the objects therein named

and the moneys pay-

able under any such policy do not, so long as any

object of the trust remains unperformed,

form

part

of the

estate

of the insured, or become subject

to his

or her debts.

But

if it is

proved that the policy


paid,

was effected and the premiums


entitled to receive, out of the

with intent to

defraud the creditors of the insured, the latter are

the policy, a

sum

equal to

moneys payable under the premiums so paid.


s.
1

Married

Women's

Property Act, 1882,

1.

694. Insurances effected with Friendly Societies

insurance of
children

and Industrial Assurance Companies on the

lives

Digitized

by Microsoft

3o8

LAW OF CONTRACT

of children are governed by the provisions of the


Friendly Societies Act, 1896.
Friendly Societies Act, 1896, ss. 62-67, 84. Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies Act, 1896,
s.

13.

Nature of
insurable
interest

695. Subject to 693, 694, no man is presumed, by the mere fact of the relationship, to have

an interest in the
or creditor
;

life

of his child,

''^

brother, sister,

C")

but a wife has an interest in the


^''^

life

of her husband,

and

vice versa,

man
^^
<s)

or

woman
that of

in that of his or her debtor or co-surety,

and (prein.

sumably) an infant, but not an adult,


his

parent.

Every person

is

deemed
<'')

to

have an

unlimited interest in his


(a)

own

life.

Halfprd

v.

Kymer (1830) 10 B.
,,

&

C. 724.

tion in the

case of certain policies validated


, ;

(There is an excepby the Friendly Societies Act,


i

1896).
(b)

Barnes

v.

London Src. Insurance Co. [1892]

Q. B. 864.

(In

this case a special interest

was proved.)

(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)

Hebdon v. West (1863) 3 B. & S. 579. Reedy, Royal Exchange Co. (1796) 2 Peake (Add. Ca.) 70. Griffiths v. Fleming [1909] I K. B. 805.
Godsall V. Boldero (1807) 9 East, 72. Shilling V. Accidental Co. (1857) 2 H. N. 42. Horse V. Pearl Assurance Co. [J904] I K. B. 558.

(g)

&

[There

is

and Indusiyial
(h)
It

a slight modification of this rule in the case of Collecting Societies (Assurance Companies Act, 1909, s. 36).]
difficult

might be

to

find

propositioii, v^hich is,

however, assumed

express authority for the elementary in the great majority of the life

insurancecases that

come

befoje the courts.

Wagering
policies

696. All contracts of insurance

made by way of
void.

gaming

or wagering (Section

XI) are
"
s.

Life Assurance Act, 1774, ^Marine Insurance Act, 1906,

(i).

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION XI
GAMING AND WAGERING
697. All contracts by way of gaming or wagering
Wagering

are null and void, and, subject to 698-700, and ""Ij""' no action may be brought or maintained for 704,

recovering any
to

sum of money or valuable thing alleged be won upon any wager, or which shall have been

deposited in the hands of any person to abide the

event upon which any wager shall have been made.


Gaming
Act, 1845,
s.

18.

[The Courts have, with their habitual caution, shrunk from attempting an exhaustive definition of the qualities of "gaming" or " wagering," though there have been judicial observations on the point. (See remarks of Hawkins, J., in Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke
Q. B., at p. 492; and of Herschell, L. C, [1895] A. C, at p. 323.) It would seem that the notion of a " sport " or " pastime " as well as that of a "bet" (Lockwood v. Cooper [1903] 2 K. B. 428) is an essential element in the first term, while in the second the idea of a " bet " But this distinction, though it may emphasize is alone involved. the difference between an appeal to skill and an appeal to pure chance, does not solve the difficulty. Perhaps the essence of a
in

Ball Company [1892] 2


Forget v.
Ox/fg-wy,.

gaming contract is, that the rights of the parties are made to depend upon an event which, though it may be the result of the exercise of skill, would not, in the natural order of things, produce economic gain or loss to the parties reasonably commensurate with
If it would, the contract is one of legitiIn a wagering contract, the parties stand to gain mate insurance. or lose upon an event or fact which it is presumably beyond their

the thing stipulated for.

Digitized

by Microsoft

3IO
power

LAW OF CONTRACT
to influence or affect,
in the

though it may not be a matter of ordinary acceptation of the term. E.g.yZ bet upon the shape of the earth is a " wager." Ed.]

"chance"

Recovery of
stakeholder

698. Notwithstanding 697, a party to a wager who has deposited a sum of money or valuable
thing with a stakeholder, to abide the event of a

wager,
unless

is

entitled to reclaim such

money

or thing,

it

has been paid over or delivered to the win-

ner in pursuance of the wager before the depositor


has given notice to the stakeholder not to deliver or

pay

it

over.
Hampden
Burge
V.
v.

O' Sullivan

Walsh (1876) I Q. B. D. 189. Thomas [iSgs^ ' Q- ^- 698. yishley [ 1 900] i Q. B. 744.
V.

Recovery of
other party

699.

When money
it

is

deposited as a stake by one

party with the other party to abide the event of a

wager,

may be

reclaimed by the depositor at any

time before the happening of the event.


v. Universal Stock Exchange (No. 2) [1895] 2 Q. B. 697. In re Cronmire [1898] 2 Q. B., at p. 397.

Strachan

[Can a winner recover

his

own

stake after the event ?]

Cover"

700. Securities

deposited

as

"cover" by one

party to a wager with the other are not deposited


to

" abide the event " within the meaning of 697,

and are recoverable by the depositor, either before

Digitized

by Microsoft

GAMING AND WAGERING


or after the decision of the wager.W

311

Securities so

deposited can be followed into the hands of a transferee,

unless

they are negotiable

instruments
a

and

have

been

taken

without notice by

bona fide

purchaser. (^)
Universal Stock Exchange y. Strachan [1896] A. C. 166. Strachan v. Universal Stock Exchange [1895] 2 Q. B., at p. 329, (per Lord Esher, M. R.).
(a)

(b)

701.

subscription or contribution, or agreement

Subscription
"

to subscribe or contribute, for or towards any plate,


prize, or

f"^"

sum of money,
is

to be

awarded

to the

winner

or winners of arjy lawful


exercise,

game

or sport, pastime, or

not a gaming or wagering contract within

the meaning of 697.


Gaming
Act,
1

84$,

s.

8.

[This does not exclude from the operation of 697 a case in which the parties to the wager are themselves the contributors, e.g. an agreement to walk a match for ;^200 a side {Trimble v. Hill (1880) L. R. 5 App. Ca. 342; Diggle v. Higgs (1877) 2 Ex. D. 422; Lockwoodv. Cooper [1903] 2 K. B. 428). "Lawful game" means any game not unlawful by statute or

common

law.

The Gaming
games

Acts of 1738,
:

1739, and

1744

declare the following

to be unlawful, as falling within the

scope of the Lottery Acts, viz. ace of hearts, pharaoh, basset, hazard ; passage and other games with dice, except backgammon
roulet or roly poly.]

702.

What

in fact
11

were the intentions of the par1 1

ties to a transaction

alleged to be a wager

Alleged wagers

is

a question

Digitized

by Microsoft

312
for the jury.W
tract,
(a)

LAW OF CONTRACT
A
contract

may
so

be a wagering conit.(b)

though not apparently

on the face of

(b)

Universal Stock Exchange \. StYacban [1896] A. C. 166. Hilly. Fox (1859) 4 H. & N. 359.
Carlill V. ^Carbolic Smoke

Ball

Co.

[1892]

Q.

B.,

at p.

,492

(per Hawkins, J.)

[Semble, there

the contract (per

must be a wagering intention Hawkins, J., uhi sup.).']

in

both parties to

on

Money paid wager

703. Any promise, express or implied, to pay any person any sum of money paid by him under or in
respect of any contract falling within 697, or to pay

any sum of money by way of commission,

fee,

reward,

or otherwise in respect of any such contract or of any


services in relation thereto, or in connection there-

with,

is

null

and void; and no action may be brought

or maintained to recover any such


Gaming Act, 1892,
s.

sum of money.

i.

[. g. if A, at B's request, settles B's debts for lost wagers, is precluded by this from recovering from B the sums so paid Or if by him (Tatam v. Reenii [1893] I Q. B. 44). entrusts money to B for the purpose of betting on their joint account, A

cannot claim indemnity from


losses (Saffery v.

B
I

in

respect of any portion of the


11).,

Mayer [1901]

K. B.

Money
wager

re-

ceived on

704. Notwithstanding 6g/, if one person makes bets as agent for another, and wins, the principal

may

maintain an action to recover from the agent


bets.

any moneys received by him in payment of the


Bridger v. Savage (1885") 1.5 Q. B. D. 363. De Mattos v. Benjamin (1894) 63 L. J. Q. B. 248.

borrower to pay his lost bets could Act, 1892. {Ex parte Pyke (1878) Quare since the Act. Quare, money lent to enable 8 Ch. D. 754). the borrower to make bets. {Saxby v. Fulton [1909] 2 K. B. 208.)]
lent to enable the
be,

[Money

repovered before the

Gaming

Digitized

by Microsoft

GAMING AND WAGERING


705. Every
note,
bill,

313

or

mortgage,

given

in

Securities for

whole or in part for any money or valuable thing ^X^ won by gaming or by betting upon any game or pastime, or for repaying any

^"^

money

lent for such

gam-

ing or betting, or lent at the time or place of such


play, to

any person so gaming or betting,

is

deemed

and taken to have been made, drawn, accepted, given,


or executed, for an illegal consideration.
Gaming Act, 1835,
s.

i.

[The result of this rule is, briefly, that the holder of such an instrument must show that he gave value for it. Even then he will not be able to enforce it, if the other party shows that he (the
holder)

was aware of the

illegality

when he

paid his money.]

705a.
J
.1

The
1

giver of such note,


c
1

bill,

or mortgage as
r

Recovery of

IS

described in 705, who pays the amount or money thereby secured, to any indorsee, holder, or assignee

,1

money paid
thereundeT

thereof,

may

recover the

amount

so paid as a debt

due and owing by the person to

whom

the note,

bill,

or mortgage in question was given.


Ibid.,
s. 2.

[A banker to whom a cheque has been handed for collection is a " holder " for purposes of this ; and ifthe drawer of the cheque pays him, he may recover the amount from the person to whom the cheque was given {Dey v. Mayo [1920] 2 K. B. 346). The point is under appeal. (See Briggs v. Sutlers, 1920, Times, Newspaper,
7th December.)]

706.

The

provisions of this

Section extend

to

Stock

Ex-

transactions in stocks and shares, so far as they are

'Jtlfns"'''"''

wagers and not genuine contracts of purchase and


sale.

Grizewoodw. Blane (1851) ii C. B., at p. 538. Thacher v. Hardy (1878) 4 Q. B. D. 685. Forget V. Ostigny [1895] A. C. 318 (P. C).

Digitized

by Microsoft

,!ili

/-

Digitized

by Microsoft

BOOK
Part

II

OBLIGATIONS
III

OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM QUASI-

CONTRACT AND TORT A QUASI-CONTRACT


707.

When

the law imposes

upon one person, on

Definition

the grounds of natural justice, an obligation towards

another similar to that which arises from a true contract,

although no contract, express or implied, has

in fact

been entered into by them


is

to that effect,

such

obligation
Moses
V.

said to arise

from Quasi-contract.

Macfarlane (1760) 2 Burr. 1009, per Lord Mansfield.

[It is somewhat difficult to find a special place, in the scheme of English Law, for a department of Quasi-contract which shall be distinct, on the one hand, from Contract, and, on the other, from Quasi-contractual obligations are, really imposed by law as Tort. the result of a desire to do justice between parties who have been brought into relation with one another, where such relation is not For example, if A, under a mistake of'fact, strictly one of contract. pays money to B which he does not owe him, A certainly ought to But on what technical ground B has not be able to recover it.
.?

promised to repay the money ; indeed the implication is that in An obvious all probability he received.it intending to keep it. that B has been guilty of a wrong (or Tort) in suggestion is withholding money which does not belong to him ; and, but for
:

Digitized

by Microsoft

3i6

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

it is quite possible that English law would have taken this view. But the position hardly appeared to satisfy the legal conception of a Tort. And so English Law, unable to class such obligations either under Contract or under Tort, classes them under Quasi-contract ; as closely, though not completely, resembling contractiial obligations. The truth of this statement, as well as the test of its application, is to be found in the fact that, under the old system of pleading, such obligations were enforced by the action of Assumpsit, like true contractual obligations. The scantiness of the English Law of Quasi-contract is due to two causes; one substantial, the other technical. The one is the highly formal character .of our early law, with its sharp distinction between law and morality ; an example of which is the fact that the voluntary benefactor or agent (jiegotiorum gestor) has, even now, no action to recover his actual expenditure, though that expenditure may have resulted in pecuniary benefit to the person on whose behalf he acted. The second cause is the fact, that English Law prefers to class a

technical reasons,

good many obligations, which are really quasi-contractual, among obligations arising from implied promises in contracts. For example, the various .obligations of the. innkeeper, the agent, and the' bailee (ante^ Book II, Part II) are treated as arising out of implied promises ; though it would be a violent straining of probability to pretend that the minds of the parties adverted to them on each occasion of entering into the contract of which they are deemed to form a part. The fact that^there is such a contract, makes it convenient to treat them as parts of it. The need for the separate recognition of a quasi-contract only arises, when there is no true contract with which the obligation which it is desired to enforce can be connected.]
Remedies

708.

The consequenccs

of a breach of such obhga-

tion are, generally speaking, the

same

as those attend-

ant upon a breach of contract.


[The
best proof of the truth of this statement
is,

probably, the

system of pleading, the appropriate remedy for breach of quasi-contract was, as above stated, the action of AssumpThere is, however, it is believed, no case in which a remedy in sit. the nature of specific performance would lie to compel the fulfilment of a quasi-contractual obligation,]
fact that, in the old

Money paid
'an/s"ttst

709. Where one person has been compelled, under


threat or reasonable

apprehension of legal proceed-

Digitized

by Microsoft

QUASI-CONTRACT
ings or legal restraint of goods, to

317

pay a sum of money


is

or do any other act which another person


liable

primarily
to
in-

to

pay or perform, the

latter

is

bound

demnify the former


incurred by

in respect of all expense properly

him

in

respect of such

payment or peris

formance/*)

But (subject

to 710) there

no such
act;

obligation in respect of a voluntary

payment or

even though the person on whose behalf the money


has been paid, or the act done, has received the benefit
of such payment or
(a)

act/*"^
3

Duncan
Roberts

v.

Benson (1847)

Exeh. 644.

(b)
p.

Crowe (1872) L. R. 7 C. P., at p. 637. Edmunds v. Wallingford (1885) 14 Q. B. D., at pp. 814-5. Tubbs V. Wynne [1897] i Q. B. 74. Falcke v. Scottish Imperial Insurance Co. (1886) 34 Ch. D.,
v.

at

248.

[This is the principle upon which rest the obligation of a jointpromisor to contribute to a payment by his co-promisor {ante., Book II, Parti, 365), the obligation of a principal debtor to indemnify his surety {ante., Book II, Part II, 664, 665), and the obligation of the purchaser of an equity of redemption to indemnify his vendor from the mortgage debt {Waring v. Ward (1802) It should be noticed, that there is no obligation 7 Ves., at p. 337). unless the defendajit was himself bound to satisfy the liability discharged by the plaintiff {Bonner v. Tottenham and Edmonton Society

[1899]

Q.

B. 161).]

710.

When money

improperly borrowed by an agent

Loan
"^""'

to

in excess of his authority has

been applied in payment


is

of debts which the principal

legally

bound

to pay,

the lender will be entitled to that extent to stand in the

same

position as

if

the

money had been borrowed by

the principal.
Blackburn Building Society v. Cunliffe (1882) zz Ch. D. 6i. Bannatyne v. Maclver [1906] i K. B. 103.

Digitized

by Microsoft

3i8

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


Money
paid under a bond fide mistake 6f fact
in the

71 1 .
y
mtsta e

^^^^ ^^ recovered by the payer from the payee, circumstances described in Book I, 91.

Funeral ex^""'"

712.

The husband

of a deceased

woman, and

the

personal representatives of any deceased person, are

Hable to re-imburse to any person who, in circumstances of necessity,

has undertaken the charges of

the deceased's funeral, the reasonable


charges/')
tives

amount of such
assets of

But the
is

liability

of personal representa-

as such

limited

by the amount of
or,
C')

the deceased
diligence,
(a)

which they have received,

with due

might have received.


Rogers
Brice
v.

Price (1829) 3 Y.
v.

&

J.

z8,

Bradshaw
(b)
v.

Beard (i86z) iz C. B. N. S. 344. Wilson (1834) 3 L. J. K. B. (N. S.) 93.

Money
7iaint%'s
use

713. Where one person has received money which


i^^t^y

^^^ equitably belongs

to another, the latter

is

entitled to recover .the

same from the former,


use.
this rule are
:

as for

money received to his The chief examples of


(i)

re-

An

insurer

who has

paid for a loss can recover

against the ceived

moneys subsequently by the latter from third parties


insured

in

respect of the loss.


Dufourcetw. Bishop (ii%6) 18 Q. B. D. 373. Wbst of England Co. v. Isaacs [1897] i Q. B. 2z6.

[There
7

is

represented a legal

no claim unless the sum received from the third party liability {Burnand v. Rodocanachi (1882) L. R.

App. Ca. 333).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

QUASI-CONTRACT
(ii)

319

When money
the
plaintiff,

or goods have been fraudulently

or forcibly obtained
the

by the defendant from

latter

may waive

the

tort

and sue
sale
title

for the

money

or the proceeds of the

of the goods>)

This rule does not en-

a person whose land has been wrongfully

occupied to sue for use and occupation. ('')


(a)

Neate v. Harding (1851) 6 Exch. 349. Holt V. Ely (1853) I E. & B. 795. Fraser v. Pendkbury (1861) 31 L. J. C. P.

i.

(b)

Churchward

y.

Ford (1857) 2 H.

& N.

446.

(iii)

When

the defendant has improperly obtained


parties the

from third
cover from
,

payment of debts due


is

to the plaintiff, the plaintiff

entitled to re-

him the amount


J.

so obtained.
Exch. 323.

Andrews
is

v.

Hataley (1857) 26 L.

the plaintiff bound to elect between the defendant and the original debtor ? Or can he sue both ? ]

[^tere,

(iv)

A joint

tenant or tenant in

common, who

has

received

more than
is

his just share of the rents


liable as bailiff, in respect

or profits of land,

of the excess, to an action of account by the

common. But the mere fact that he has enjoyed more of the benefit of the land, or made more by its occupation, will not per se render him
other joint tenants or tenants in
liable to account. (*")
(a)

&

Anne (1705)
v.

c.

3,

s.

27.

(b)

Henderson
statute

Eason (1851) 17 Q. B. 701.


to co-parceners, or
to

[Does the
chattels ?]

apply

co-owners of
-M

Digitized

by Microsoft

320
(v)

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


When
to

one party to a contract has paid money

another in respect of an executory con-

sideration

which wholly

fails

through the de-

fault of the latter, the

former

may

rescind the

contract
so paid.

and recover from the

latter the

amount

Wilkinson v. l,loyd' (1845) 7 Q. B. 27. Wright \: Colls (1849) 8 C. B. 150. Moeser v. Wisker (1871) L. R. 6 C. P. 120.

[This formance
in

no application to cases of impossibility of perand is independent of the plaintiff's claim for damages respect of breach of contract. (See Book II, Part I, 294rule has
;

303-)]
(vi)

When moneys

or goods

are

deposited

in

the

hands of a stakeholder
the event

to abide the event of

a valid transaction, the party in whose favour


is

determined

may
i i

recover

them from

the stakeholder; but without interest.


Harington
v.

Hoggart (1830)

B.

Parry. Winteringham (1859)


(vii)

E.

& Ad. & E.

577. 394.

When moneys
any one
such as
is

or goods have been entrusted to

for a particular purpose, other

than

may

(vi), they be recovered at any time before they have been parted with by the holder in due ful-

described in sub-clause

filment

of his

instructions.

This
is

rule

apat

phes, even though the purpose

illegal;

any
is

rate, if the

person entrusting the property

in minori delicto.
Hastelow
v.

Jackson (1828) 8 B.
i

&

C. 221.

Taylor V. Bowers {\%-j6)

Q.

B.

D. 291.

Digitized

by Microsoft

QUASI-CONTRACT
Barclay v. Pearson [1893] 2 Ch. 154. O'Sullivany. nomas [1895] i K. B. 698. Hermann v. Charlesworth [1905] z K. B. 123.

321

(viii)

When

the defendant has unlawfully detained

the goods or body of the plaintiff, or the

body of
of a

his wife, child, or servant, and re-

fused to release

them except upon payment sum of money, the plaintiff who has

paid such

sum may

recover the same from

the defendant by action.


Astley V. Reynolds (173 1) 2 Str. 915. Ashmole v. ffaimvright (1842) 2 G. D. 17. Green v. Duckett (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 275.

&

(ix)

Money
tioner

unlavi^fuUy extorted colore

officii,

or

by

threats,

may

be recovered from the extor-

by the party paying such money

Steele y. Williams (1853) 8 Exch. 625. Hooper v. M. oj Exeter (1887) 56 L. J. Q. B. 457. Maskell V. Horner [191 5] 3 K. B. 106.

714. Where one party to a contract, whether


visible

di- Quantum
"'"^"'^

or not,

is

entitled
it

by reason of the default

of the other to treat

as at an end, he
for

may

recover

from the party

in

default

the

work and labour

done or the goods supplied under the contract.


Mayor
v.

Pine (1825)

3 Bing.

285.

Planch'ey. Colburn (1831) 8 Bing. 14. Withers v. Reynolds (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 882.

Clay V. rates (1856)


Stevens v.

H. & N.

73.

Adam

Bromley [1915] 2 K. B. 722.

[In the last case, the quantum meruit was said to arise by " implied contract."]

715.

When

an

account

has

been

stated,

either Account

orally or in writing, admitting the indebtedness of the

Digitized

by Microsoft

322

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


it

party stating
certain

to the party to

whom

it is

stated, in a
is

sum

or

sums of money, the account

treated

as evidence of a promise implied in law


renderitig the account to

by the party

pay the whole sum stated to


mentioned in the account.^

be due, and each item thereof, at the time and subject


to the conditions (if any)

And where

there have been mutual dealings between

the parties, and an account has been stated between

them, showing a balance due from one of the parties


to the other, the latter will

be entitled to recover the

amount of
(3.)

the balance/''^
Highmore v. Primrose (1816) 3 M. & S. 65. Roper V. Holland (1835) 3 A. & E. gg. Irving V. l^eitch (1837) 3 M. & W., at p. 107. Laney. Hill (iS^ 2) 18 Q. B. 252.
fTray v. Milestone (1839) 3
stated
is

(b)

M. & W.

21.

[An account

only evidence of liability; and


all

it

may be

rebutted by proof of the invalidity of

or any of the items (Lub-

bock V. Tribe (1838) 3 M. conditions prescribed in

& W.
it

612).

It cart v.

only be used under the


(1918)

(Warwick

Warwick

XXXIV

T.L.R.47S).]

Action on

716. Where
jurisdictioil

Court (British or foreign), having

judgment

over the parties and subject-matter, has

adjudicated a certain

sum

to

be due from one person

to another, a legal obligation arises to

pay that sum,

and may (subject


But, in
the

to 717)

be enforced by action.

case

of

foreign

judgment,

jthe

de-

fendant

may

raise the defence that the

judgment was

obtained by fraud, or

that

the

proceedings in the

Digitized

by Microsoft

QUASI-CONTRACT
foreign

323

Court offended English views of substantial


Walker \. Witter (1778) i Doug. i. Williams v. Jones (1845) 13 M. & W. 628. Hodsollv. Baxter (1858) E. B. & E. 884. Godards. Gray (1870) L. R. 6 Q. B. 139. Schibsbyv. Westenholx (1870) ibid. 155. Emanuel -v. Symon (1906) XXIII T. L. R. 94. (b) Vadala v. Lames (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 310. Pemberton v. Hughes [1899] ' ^^-f ^^ P- 79(a)

justice/''^

[But a foreign judgment does not create a debt of record in an English tribunal ; and so it is sometimes spoken of as merely " evidence of the debt " {fValker v. Witter., ubi sup.; Hallw. Odber (1809) II East, 118). A plaintiff, it may be observed, has usually a more speedy remedy on an English judgment than the bringing of an action; and, by the Judgments Extension Act, 1868, judgments of the superior courts of Scotland and Ireland can by registration be placed on the same footing in all parts of the United Kingdom. A similar privilege has been conferred on judgments of inferior jurisdiction in the United Kingdom by the Inferior Courts Judgtirfents Extension Act, 1882. No criminal penalty can be enforced under the above , even though, by the lex fori, it is payable to the plaintiff (Ranlin v. Fischer [191 1] 2 K. B. 93).]
.

717.

No

action

may

be brought
in the

in a

County Court
(*)

County

on any judgment obtained

High Court;

nor

may any
Court-C-)

action be brought on a judgment of a

County

(a)

(b)

County Courts Act, 1888, ss. 63, 151. Berkeley v. Elderkin (1853) i E. & B. 805. Austin V. Mills (18 S3) 9 Exch. 288.

reason for the latter rule, which is applicable only to the County Courts, is stated to be that to allow an brought on such judgments would defeat the object of action to be the Acts, which have provided other methods for enforcing them.]

[The

modern

statutory

718. Where by statute, valid


duty, one person
is

custom,

or

official

Official duet

required to pay a

sum of money

Digitized

by Microsoft

324

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


an action
the
will lie to
is

to or for the benefit of another,

compel such payment;

unless

contrary

ex-

pressed or implied in the statute, custom, or document


creating the office.
Case of the Marshalsea (1613) 10 Co. Rep. 75 b. '5 ) Anonymous (1704) 6 Mod. Rep. 27, per Holt, C. J. ) (statute) , ^ City of London v. Goree (1677) 3 Keb. 677 Richards (1618) Hob. 206 (office). Speake Y. Shuttleworth v. Garnet (1687) 3 Mod. 240. ) Ccustom'i '' Mayor of Newport v. Saunders (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 411. )
,

Liability

719.

Where one person

has, at the request

and on

Z^defend"
ant's request

^^^ behalf of another, done an act imposing liability

on the person
nified

acting, the latter

is

entitled to

be indemacted, in

by the person on whose behalf he


;

respect of such liabihty

(^^

unless the act in question


so act-

was manifestly
ing

illegal,^''^

or unless the person

was under a duty


Birmingham

to

perform the act independently

of such request.^")
(a)
at
isfc.

Land

Co. v. L.

& N.

W. R. (1886) 34 Ch.

D.,

pp. 272, 275.


Sheffield Corporation v. Barclay
5,&/7f/ti?//v.

[1905] A. C, at p. 397. ^w/Vr (1836) 2 Bing. N. C. 634. Burrows v. Rhodes [1899] i Q. B. 816. (c) Collins V. Evans (1844) 5 Q. B. 820. (But it must be carefully noted that, in order to escape liability on this ground, the act which the plaintiff was under a duty to do must be really, not merely apparently, the same as that which the defendant requested him to do. . g., if the plaintiff is only under a duty to register genuine transfers, and the defendant induces him to register a forged transfer, the defendant will be liable, even
(b)

though he acted bona fide\

Sheffield Corporation v. Barclay, uhi sup.)

Voluntary
agency

720. Subject to the law maritime on the subject


^^ salvage, and to the rights of trustees and mort-

Digitized

by Microsoft

QUASI-CONTRACT

325

gagees in respect of moneys expended by them in the


preservation of the trust or mortgaged property (see
post.

Book

III), a

person

who

has voluntarily expended

money, labour, or materials


duct of his

in the preservation or

im-

provement of the property of another, or


affairs,

in the con-

has no claim to indemnity on the

principle of negotiorum gestio.


Falcke V. Scottish Imperial Co. (1886) 34 Ch. D.,
at p.

248.

721.

person

who

has been

made

liable to

pay-

Directors

ment, as a director or promoter of a company, for

^'"^'^"y ^''

an untrue statement

in a prospectus or notice,
is

under

the Companies (Consolidation) Act, igo8,

entitled

to recover contribution, as in cases of contract,

from

any other person, or from the representatives of any


other person, who,
if

sued separately, would have

been

liable to

make

the same payment.


s.

Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, Shefheard v. Bray [1906] 2 Ch. 235.

84

(4).

[But this right cannot be exercised if the claimant was, and the person from whom contribution is sought was not, guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation (Companies Act, 1908, s. 84(4)).]

Note
It

may very

estate of a lunatic, to

well be urged that the liability of a minor, and the pay for necessaries (Book I, 50, 66), and

the liability of a trustee for breach of trust, as well as the liability of a beneficiary of full age and capacity to indemnify his trustee, (See Re Rhodes ( 1 890) 44 Ch. D., are all founded on quasi-contract. But these subjects will be more conveniently treated at p. 105.) under their several heads elsewhere.

Digitized

by Microsoft

B TORT
SECTION
GENERAL
I

TITLE
Definition

PRELIMINARY
an obliga-

722.

tort is a

breach of duty (other than a con-

tractual or quasi-contractual duty) creating


tion,

and giving

rise to

an action

for

damages.

Actual

723. As a
tort, unless it

rule,

no act or omission amounts to a

damage

causes appreciable
trespass
(*)

damage

in fact.

But

in

actions

for

to

land or to goods or to

the person (including false imprisonment), or for con-

version of cha,ttels, or for

libel,
se,

or for slander where

the words are actionable per

and

in cases

where
need

the denial of a public right gives rise to an action by

an

individual,^'')

appreciable

damage

in

fact

not be proved.
(a)

Entick

(b)

v. Carrington (1765) 19 St. Tri.' 1030. Rogers V. Spence (1844) 13 M. & W. 571. Ashby v. White (1703) 2 Ld. Raymond, 938.

respect to incorporeal hereditaments, no general rule preIn some cases, an infringement of itself gives rise to an action in others, proof of damage is essential. For the fprmer proposition
vails.

[With

see

iVilson v.

Mackreth (1766) 3 Burr. 1824 (exclusive

profit in

Digitized

by Microsoft

TORT (PRELIMINARY)
the soil)
;

327

Hobson v. Todd (1790) 4 T. R. 71 ; Robinson v. Hartopp (1889) 43 Ch. D. 484 (commons); Holford v. Baiiey (1849) 13 Q. B. 426 (several fishery); Embrey v. Owen (1851) 6 Exch. Co. [1904] A. C. 301 (water); 353; Macartney v. Londonderry Kidgill V. Moor (1850) 9 C. B. 364 Thorpe v. Brumfitt (1873) L. R. 8 Ch. 650 (rights of way) Brockhbank v. Thompson [1903] 2 Ch., at p. 348 (local rights); Harrop v. Hirst (1868) L. R. Contra., Angus v. Dalton (1881) 4 Exch. 43 (proprietary right). L. R. 6 App. Ca. 740 Barley Main Colliery Co. v. Mitchell (1886) L. R. II App. Ca. 127 (rights of support) Colls v. Home Colonial Stores [1904] A. C. 179 (rights of light). These cases will be considered under their appropriate headings.]

&

724.
the

When

the

damage

is

the gist of the action,

Remoteness

damage

alleged

must be the "natural and proba;

'f '^""'"^^

ble " consequence of the defendant's conduct


its

^^^

but

immediate cause

may

be the conduct of others, or

even (subject to 732) of the plaintiff j^"*) if its effective or decisive cause was the conduct of the defendant.
(a)

Glover v. L. i^ S. W. Ry. Co. (1867) L. R. Hilly. New River Co. (1868) 9 B. & S. 30. Sharp V. Powell (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 253.

Q.

B. 25.

(b)

Lynch

v.

Nurdin (1841)

Q.

B. 29.

Clark V. Chambers (1878) 3 Q. B. D. 327. Englehart v. Warrant [1897] i Q. B. 240. McDowally. G. W. Ry. Co. [1903] 2 K. B. 331.

[By " natural and probable consequence " is meant such consequence as an average man could be reasonably expected to foresee in the circumstances of the case {Greenland v. Chaplin (1850)
5

Exch.,

at

p.

248, per Pollock, C. B.).]

725.

The

infringement of a

right

of the

public

ifringe'""'*

gives rise to "^

when

an action

at

the suit of an

individual

"f
,

publtc right

M3

Digitized

by Microsoft

32^
(a) a
r

OUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


private
right

of the plaintiff has also been

infringed
of,

by the act or omission complained

or

(b)

the plaintiff has suffered a special

damage by

such act or omission.


Benjamin
v. Storr (1874) L- ^- 9 ^- P* 4Lyon V. Fishmongers' Company (1876) L. R. i App. Ca. 662. Boyce V. Paddington C27- [1903] i Ch. 109; [1906] A. C.

I.

[A public authority is not liable to an action for mere nonfeasance, unless such liability is imposed by statute. But for misfeasance
Breach of
"^^
'duty

it

may

be {Dawson v. Bingley U. C. [1911] 2 K. B. r49).]


rise to

726.

The

breach of a statutory duty gives

an

action at the suit of an individual only


(a)

when
by such

he has

suffered
;

special

damage

breach
(i) the

and
suffered
is

damage

within the mischief con;

templated by the statute ^^ and


{c)

the statute has not expressly or

by implication

excluded the remedy by action.


,

(*=)

Atkinson V. Newcastle Waterworks (1877) z Ex. Gorris v. Scott (1874) L. R. 9 Exch. 125; (1878) L. R. 4 App. Ca. 13. (c) Groves V. Wimborne [1898] z Q. B. 402. Clegg V. Earby Gas Co. [1896] i Q. B. 592.
(a)

D. 441.

(b)

Ward

v.

Hoiis.

Johnston
(P.

v.

Consumers Gas Co. of Toronto


i

[1898! A. C.

4.4.7.

C).
Davis
V.

Mayor of Bromley [1908]

K. B. 170.

[Sometimes even the remedy of Mandamus is not available (Pasmore v. OswaldtwistU &c. Council [1898] A. C. 387). But w^hen the right of action for damages in respect of a breach of statutory duty is excluded, the Court may yet have jurisdiction to
.

grant a remedy by

way of injunction {Hayward v. East London Waterworks Co. (1884) 28 Ch. D. 138; Stevens v. Chown rigoxl I Ch. 894).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

TORT (PRELIMINARY)
ject

329
intention or

727. Subject to the provisions of the law on the subof


liability for the torts

of other persons and ani-

"'si'gfu^f

mals

{post, Titt.

IV &

V), an act or omission does not


it is

give rise to

an action of Tort unless

either inten-

tional or negligent.
Holmes
y.

Emmemw.
Stanley v.

Mather (187;) L. R. 10 Exch. 261. Pottle (1885) 16 Q. B. D. 354. Powell [1891] i Q. B. 86.

[The
sion
V.

fact that the defendant did not

know

that his act or omis-

was wrongful, or
if,

defence;

Ward

harm by it, is no was either intentional or negligent {IVeaver (1616) Hob. 134; Baseley v. Clarkson (1680) 3 Lev.
that he did not intend any
in fact,
it

37)0

728. Negligence, for the purposes of the law of

torts, Negligence

means

the absence of such care or skill as


^^^

it

was the

duty of the defendant to use


the plaintiff must (subject to

towards the

plaintiff.C")

In order to succeed in an action founded on negligence,

729)

show

that the de-

fendant has been guilty of a breach of such duty towards


him,^"")

and that the damage alleged was the consequence


Taff Vale Ry. Co. (i860)

of such breach. (')


(a)

Vaughan

v.

H. & N.,

at p.

688, per

Willes, J.
(b)

(c)

Tolhausen v. Davies (1888) 58 L. J. Q. B. 98. Winterbottom v. Wright (184Z) 10 M. & W. 109. Dickson V. Renter's Telegraph Co. (1877) 3 C. P. D. i. Le Lievre v. Gould [1893] i Q. B. 491. Cavalier v. Pope [1906] A. C. 428. Malone v. Laskey [1907] 2 K. B. 141. Adams v. Lanes, (r Torks. Ry. Co. (1869) L. R. 4 C. P. 730 Smith V. L. b' S. W. Ry. Co. (1870) L. R. 6 C. P. 14.

The Notting Hill (iSH) 9 P. D. 105. Smith V. Johnson [1897] 2 Q. B., at p. 61.

Digitized

by Microsoft

330

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


was negligent, the fact' that he could not have S, damage is immaterial {Smith v. L.

[If the defendant

foreseen the' extent of the

&

W.

Ry. Co.yubi

sup.).]

Res

ipsa

729.

When

an object (not being a

live anii;nal)'i*) is

oquttur

apparently under the control and management of the


defendant, and
it

causes

damage

to the plaintiff of a

kind which, in the ordinary course of things, does not

happen

if

the person having control or

management

of

similar objects exercises proper care,


is

and the defendant


it

bound

to exercise care to prevent

damaging the
absence

plaintiff,

the

damage

will

be presumed

(in the

of explanation) to have been caused by the defendant's


negligence/'')
(a)

Manzoni v. Douglas (i88o) 6 Q. B. D. 145. Tillm V. Ward (i88z) 10 Q. B. D. 17.


Skinner v. L. B.

(b)

&

S. C.

Byrne
Scott

v.

Boadk (1863)

Ry. Co. (1850) H. & C. 722.

Exch. 787.

-v. London Dock Go. (1865) 3 H. & C, at p. 601. Briggsy. Oliver (1866) 4 H. & C. 403. Kearney v. L. B. 3" S. C. Ry. Co. (1871) L. R. 6 Q. B. 759.

S. W. Ry. Co. (1886) L. R. 12 App. Ca. [In fFaielin v. L. 41, and Crisp v. Thomas (1890) 63 L. T. 756, the Court apparently thought that the facts did not raise any presumption of want

&

of care.

But the

latter decision

can hardly be supported.]

Court and
^"'"^

730. Whether the facts alleged are evidence of negligence


is

a question for the Court; whether negligence


is

ought to be inferred from such evidence

(subject to

729) a question of fact for the jury.


Metro. Ry. Co.
v.

Jackson (1877) L. R.

App. Ca.,

at

p.

197, per

Cairns, L, C.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TORT (PRELIMINARY)
731
.

331
of

The
is,

degree of care or

skill

required of the de- Standard

fendant

in general, that
ability

which a

man

of ordinary
in

''S'""

prudence and
circumstances.

would have manifested

the

Readheadw. M. R. Co. (1869) L. R. 4 Q. B. 379. Richardson v. G. E. Ry. Co. (1876) i C. P. D. 342.

In particular, the following rules are applicable


(i)

is

person

who

holds himself out as possessed

of special

skill,

must

exercise such skill as

usually manifested by persons


professions
Sbie//s V.

making

similar

Blackburne (1789)

H.

BI., at p. 161.

Prentice (1807) 8 East, 348. Chapman v. ffalton (1833) 10 Bing., at p. 63. Wilson V. Brett (1843) J i M. & W. 113.
v.
is framed in Contract or in Boorman (1844) 11 CI. & F., at p. 44, /"^r Campbell, L. C; Turner v. Stalllbras [1898] 1 Q. B. 56; Edwards v. Mallan [1908] i K. B. 1002).]

Scare

[It is

immaterial whether the action


v.

Tort (Brown

(ii)

person

who

delivers to another goods

which

he knows are intended to be used for a particular purpose,


is

bound

to take all reasonable

care to bring to the notice of that person, and


all

others who, to his knowledge, are likely to

use .the goods for that purpose, the existence


of any qualities in such goods,

known

to him,
if

which may render the goods dangerous


for such purpose;
Exeter Ry. Co. (1858) 8 E. v. Bristol Farrant v. Barnes (i86z) 11 C. B. N. S. 553. George v. Skivington (1869) L. R. 5 Ex. i. Clarke v. Army ^ Navy Stores [1903] i K. B. 155. Whiu V. Suadman [191 3] 3 K- B. 340 (animals).

used

Bkkemore

&

B., at p.

105 1.

Digitized

by Microsoft

332

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


'

[^are.
{Blakemore
Holliday
'

v. Bristol

In respect of what persons does the liability extend ? Exeter Ry. Co., ubi sup.) In Longmeid v.

(1851) 6 Exch. 761, there was no evidence that the defendant knew of the dangerous character of the goods.]

(iii)

An occupier of land,
a right to

though he does not, as such,

guarantee the safety, even of persons

come on
to

to

it,

or

who have who have been inbound


(''^

vited

by him
to

do

so,^*) is

to exercise to

care

prevent

injury

happening

them

through a defect in his premises.

mere

hceiisees,

he

is

As respects bound only to warn them

of any latent source of danger

known
them.^"*)
1

to him.^"^

As

respects trespassers, he

is

only bound not

to inflict intentional
(a)

harm on

Griffiths v. L.

5f

St.

v. Quatermaine (1887) 18 Q. B. D. 685. Woodley v. M. Ry. Co. (1887) z Ex. D. 384. (The negligence which Cockburn, C. J., attributed in this case to the defendants was expressly explained by him to be "moral negligence" only.) (b) Parnaiy v. Lancaster Canal Co. (1839) 11 A. & E. 223. Indermaur v. Dames (1866) L. R. i C. P. 274. Heaven v. Pender (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 503. (The wider principle laid down by Brett, M. R., in this case, at p. 509, cannot be sustained.) Bede Steamship Co. v. Wear Commrs. [1907] I K. B. 310. (c) Southcote V. Stanley (1856) 25 L. J. Exch. 339. Corby V. Hill (1858) 4 C. B. N. S. zzi. Bolch V. Smith (1862) 7 H. & N. 736. Gautret v. Egerton (1867) L. R. 2 C. P. 371. (d) Birdy. Holbrook (1828) 4 Bing. 628. Hounselly. Smyth (i860) 7 C. B. N. S. 731.

Walker Thomas

v.

M. R.

Co. (1886) II

Katharine's Dock Co. (1884) T. L. R. 450.

Q.

B.

D. 259.

Batchelor

v.

Fortescue (1883)

1 1

Q. B. D. 474.

[The
rine's

liability

extends to a person

who

invites others to use or

enter upon a ship, staging, or machinery {Smith v. L.

Dock
I

Cockerell

St. Katha(1868) L. R. 3 C. P. 326 (gangway); Francis v.' (1870) L. R. 5 Q. B. 501 (race-stand); Marney v. Scott

&

Co.

[1899]

Q.

B.

986

(ship)).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

TORT (PRELIMINARY)
(iv)

333
^

A person who

keeps or uses a thing whicl?, unless


special care,
is

managed with
is

likely to cause
it,

injury to persons coming into contact with

bound

to use such care as

is

necessary to

prevent such injury.


Bell (1816) 5 M. & S. 198. Smith (1879) 4 C. P. D. 325. miliams V. Eady (1893) X T. L. R. 41.

Dixon Parry

V.

v.

732. In an action of Tort founded on the negligence


of the defendant, the plaintiff will
fail

Contributory

(notwithstanding
if the

"^s^'s^""

proof of negligence on the defendant's part)

decisive

cause of the damage suffered by the plaintiff was the plaintiff's

own

negligence,'^) or

(where the

plaintiff^ is

child of tender years) the negligence of the person in

charge of
(a)

him.*'"'

Tuffv. Warman (1858) 5 C. B. N. S. 573. Radley v. L. & N. W. Hy. Co. (1876) L. R. 1 App. Ca. 754. The Bernina (1887) L. R. 12 P. D., at p. 89 (where see valuable remarks of Lindley, L. J.). (b) Waite v. N. E. Ry. Co. (1858) E. B. & E. 719. (This decision See The was based on the doctrine of "identification," now exploded. Bernina, ubi sup., and L. R. 13 App. Ca., at p. 16 (n), where Lord Bramwell expressed the opinion that Waite' s case was wrongly decided. But, semble, Waite's case can be justified on the ground that the defendant's negligence was not the decisive cause of the damage.)

But:
(i)

where the conduct of the


reasonable choice of
defendant's
plaintiff,

though the

proximate cause of the damage, amounts to a


difficulties created

by the
is

negligence,

the

plaintiff

not

guilty of contributory negligence


Clayards v. Dethick (1848) i 2 Q. B. 439. Rose V. N. E. Ry. Co. (1876) 2 Ex. D. 248.

Digitized

by Microsoft

334
(ii)

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


where the
plaintiff is a child

of tender years, the

amount of
that which

care expected from

him

will not

be

would be expected of an adult in similar circumstances, but only that which he


is

capable of exercising;
s.

Lynch

Nurdin
V.

(1

841)

Williams

G.

W. R.
v.

i Q. B. 29. Co. (1874) L. R. 9 Exch. 157.

[But see Singleton

Eastern Counties Ry. Co. (1859) 7 C. B.

N.
V.

Hughes v. Macfie (1863) 2 H. Atterton (1866) L. R. I Ex. 239.]


S.

287

&

C. 744

and Mangan

(iii)

where the defendant's, negligence amounts

to

an

inducement to the child to commit the act

which causes damage


child

to him, the fact that the

was a

trespasser, or guilty of contributory


is

negligence,

no defence.

Harrold v. WatneyllS^S] 2 Q. B. 320. Cooke V. M. R. of Ireland [1909] A. C. 229.

an important exception to the rule stated in this in to ship or cargo caused by collision' at sea, where In such a case, the old Admiralty rule both parties are to blame. now prevails in all Courts ; and the total loss of both parties is equally divided between them. (Judicature Act, 1873, * ^5 (9)' The Englishman and The Australia [lif)^] P. 239). But the Admiralty rule does not apply to actions for loss of life ( The Bernina (2) (1887) 12 P. D. 58).]
is

[There

the case of

damage

Act of third

733. Where the damage to the


^.j^g

plaintiff is

caused by

f^'y

negligence of the defendant in conjunction with


is

the act of a stranger, the defendant

liable if his negli-

gence was the effective cause of the damage.


Clark V. Chambers [1878) 3 Q. B. D. 327, Englehart v. Farrant [1897] I K. B. 240. McDowall V. G. W. R. [1903] 2 K. B. 331. Wheeler v. Morris (1914) 84 L. J. K. B. 269.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TORT (PRELIMINARY)
734.

335
Justifiable

An

act

which

is

prima

facie evidence of negli-

gence on the part of the defendant


justified

may
in

(semble) be

"'^'^"""

by proof

that

it

was done

obedience to a

more pressing
Jnguj

duty.
Southend Co. (1906)

V. Ltiniioa Tilbury ts"

XXII T.

L. R. 222.

[Note. The negligence of trustees and executors, as such, will be more conveniently dealt with at later stages of the work. Such negligence does not give rise to an action of Tort.]

735. Except where malice


of specific
to a tort
torts,

is

an essential element

Malice

an act or omission does not amount


fact

by reason merely of the


caused.

that
;

it

is

in-

duced by a malicious or improper motive


pecuniary damage
is

even though

Mayor of Bradford v. Pickles [1895] A. C. 587. Allen V. Flood [1898] A. C. i.


frame a definition of " malice" which will cover may be made to the dicta of Bayley, J., in Bromage v. Prosser (1825) 4 B. & C, at p. 255, and of Parke, B., in Mitchell v. Jenkins (1833) 5 B. & Ad., at p. 595. Generally speaking, proof of malice rebuts a prima facie defence or presumption that an act causing damage was done in discharge of a legal or moral duty, or in the exercise or protection of a common or indiThus, in malicious prosecution, proof of vidual right or interest. malice rebuts the presumption that the defendant in prosecuting was (See Allen v. Flood, ubi merely exercising his rights as a citizen. In defamation, malice need sup., opinion of Wright, J., at p. 66.) be proved only to rebut the defence of privilege (and, semhle, to disprove the plea of fair comment). In slander of title, malice rebuts the presumption that the defendant acted in exercise of a claim of right. (See per Bowen, L. J., in Skinner v. Shew [1893] i Ch., at In cases of interference with contractual rights, malice p. 423.) rebuts the presumption that the defendant acted in ignorance of the right infringed, and with just cause or excuse. Proof of malice is (See below, sometimes material also in aggravation of damages.
[It
is

difficult to
;

all

the cases

but reference

Tit. VII,

798

(ii).)]

Digitized

by Microsoft

336
Choice of remedies

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


The same
act or omission

736.

may

be both a

breach of contract and a tort;W and in such cases


the person injured,
if

a party to the contract,

may

(subject to 761) sue either in Contract or in Tort.

But no stranger
in Tort.^*")

to the contract

can sue otherwise than

Coggs V. Bernard (1704) 2 Ld. Raymond, 909. Bradshaw-\. L. T. Railway Co, (1875) L. R. 10 C. Winterbottom v. Wright (\%\^) 10 M. & W. log. Dickson y. Reuter's Telegraph Co. (1877) 3 C. P. D. i. Turner v. Stallibrass [1898] i Q. B. 56. (b; Meux V. G. E. Ry. Co. [1895] z Q. B. 387. Ear/ V. Lubbock [1905] I K. B. 253.
(a)

&

P.

189.

\Semhle^
in

where the
Viall

plaintiff

is

entitled to sue both in Contract


liability

and

Tort, he cannot increase the defendant's


v.

by suing

in

Tort

{Chinery

(i860) 5 H.

&

N. 288).]

Liability

737. Where two or more persons have been concerned in the commission of a
the whole
of'the loss suffered
tort,

of co-tortfeasors.

each

is

Hable for

by the

plaintiff;

and,

therefore, separate
them-^*")

damages cannot be awarded against


is

But

if

judgment

obtained against one, or

if

the person injured releases one of them, the action


is

against the other or others


(a)

bar-red. ('')

(b)
(c)

Clark v. Newsom (1847) i Exch. 140. Greenlands v. Wilmshurst [191 3] 3 K. B. 507. Brinsmead v. Harrison (1871) L. R. 6 C. P. 584

7 C. P. 547.

Duck

V.

Mayeu

[1892] 2 Q. B. 511.

[A covenant not to sue is not a release (Duck v. Mayeu, ubi sup.) but taking out of Court money paid in in satisfaction of the claim is (Beadon v. Capital Syndicate (191 2) XXVIII T. L. R. 427).]

Contribution

738.

One

of two or more joint tort-feasors,

who

has been compelled to pay damages in respect of the

Digitized

by Microsoft

TORT (PRELIMINARY)
tort,

337
in-

has not, merely from that

fact,

any

right' to

an

demnity or contribution from the other or

others.

But where there

is

in fact

an express or implied agreewill

ment

for

indemnity or contribution, he

be entitled

to enforce

such agreement; unless he was, at the time


tort,

of committing the

aware of the existence of

facts

rendering the act or omission complained of unlawful.O')

(Book
(a)

II,

Part

II, 535.)

M.errywe(ither v.

WeU-Blundell
(b)

Adamson
Sheffield

(1799) 8 T. R. 186. i K. B. 520. v. Jarvis (1827) 4 Bing. 66.


v. Stevens [1919]

Nixan

The Englishman and The Australia [1895] P. 212.


Corporation v. Barclay [1905] A. C. 392. Smith V. Clinton (1908) 99 L. T. 840.

[For an apparent exception to the


72I-]

first

part of the rule, see ante,

739. Persons

are

co-tort-feasors

when one

aids,

Who

are

counsels, or joins the other in the commission of a tort. /J^j^w


Petrie v. Lamont (1842) C.

& M.,

at p.

^6, per Tindal, C.

J.

[The masters of two dogs which do damage together are not

by reason

XXXIV T.
740.

of that fact co-tort-feasors (Piper v. Winnifrith (1917) L. R. 108).]

Where

relief

is

claimed

against
facts,

different independent
*^'J^'''"-

persons on substantially the same

such persons

may

be joined as defendants in the same action, and

sued jointly and severally, or alternatively, even though


the causes of action against
all

of

them

are not the

same.
Frankenburg
v. Horseless v.

Carriage Co. [1900]

Q. B. 504.

Campania Sansinena

Moulder Bros. [1910]

K. B.

54.

in the

action, judgment against one does not merge the claim against the others {Goldfrei v. Sinclair [1918] i K. B. 180).]

[Where same

different remedies are sought against different defendants

Digitized

by Microsoft

338
tort and

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

741.

felonious act

may

give rise to an action of

J'

""y

Tort

but (semble) the policy of the law does not per-

mit the party injured by such felonious act to seek


civil redress, if

he has failed in his duty of bringing,

or endeavouring to bring, the felon to justice.

Ex parte
[The

Ball {li-] I)) lo Ch. D.,

at p.

6j^,per Baggallay, L.

J.

rule only applies as

between the felon and the party injured

{IVhite V. Spettigue (1845) ,13 M. 603; Appleby v. Franklin The proper method of enforcing it appears (1885) 17 Q. B. ID. 93). to be a summons to stay the civil proceedings (Smith v. Selwyn [1914] 3 K. B. 98).]

& W.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE II EXEMPTIONS FROM LIABILITY FOR TORTS


742.

No

action can be maintained in


title

England

for Foreign

a tort bringing in issue the


situate out of

or possession of land

England, or for a trespass or other tort


;

to land so situate

(*)

but an action will

lie

for a tort

affecting person or
land/'')
(i)

movables committed out of Eng:

provided that
the

wrong

would
in

have

been

actionable

if

committed
(ii)

England ;(") and


not, at

the

wrong was

the time of

its

com-

mission, nor has subsequently become, justifiable

by the law of the place where

it

was

committed/'')
Mozambique v. British South Africa Co. [1892] [1893] A. Ci 602. (b) rhe M. Moxham (1876) L. R. i P. D. 107; Carr \. Fracis Times 6- Co. [1902] A. C. 176. (c) The Halley (1868) L. R. 2 P. C. 193. (d) Phillips V. Eyre (1870) L. R. 6 Q. B. I ; Machado v. Fontes
(a)

Companhia de

2 Q. B. 358, at p.

366

[1897] 2

Q.B.

231.

[Courts of Equity sometimes entertain actions concerning contracts or equities affecting lands situated abroad,

when

the parties

can be made amenable to their jurisdiction. {Penn v. Lord Baltimore '(1750) I Ves. Sen. 445; Duder v. Amsterdamsch Trustees Kantoor [1902] 2 Ch. 132. And see Norris v. Chambers (1861) 3 D. F. & But the principle is difficult to define.] J. 584.)

Digitized

by Microsoft

340
Torts of

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


No
proceedings

743.

can

be

taken

against

the

Crown

Crown

for a tort.
Tobin V. Reg. (1864) 16 C. B.

N.

S. 310.

Official liability

744. Public

officials,

being servants of the Crown,

cannot be sued in their representative capacity for


torts

committed by them or by their subordinates.


v. Cotton (1701) i Ld. Raym. 646. Raleigh v. Goschen [1898] I Ch. 73. Bainbridge v. Postmaster General [1906]

Lane

K. B. 178.

Fraser v. Balfour (191 8) 87 L.

J.

K. B.

11 16.

Personal
bility

lia-

745. Public

officials

may

be sued in their private

of

officials

them on behalf of or with the authority of the Crown and the order of the Crown is no defence to such action.^^^ But they are
capacity for torts committed by
;

not personally liable for the torts of their subordinates,


unless expressly authorized or ratified
(a)

by

them.e")
(See also Raleigh
v.

Etttick V. Carrington (i

765) 19

St. Tri.

lojo,

Goschen, and Bainbridge v. P.. M. G., ubi sup.) (b) The subordinates of a Crown official are not his servants ; and therefore he is not responsible for their acts as an employer would be {Mersey Docks v. Gibbs (1866) L. R. I H. L., at p. 124; Fraser v.

Balfour, vhi sup.).

" Act of " State

lAiQ.

No

action of Tort can be maintained in an

English Court by any foreign State, or by any alien,


in respect of

an act affecting such State or alien;


ratified

if

such act has been authorized or

by the British

Crown.
Buron v. Denman (1848) 2 Exch. 167. Musgrove v. Chun Cheeung Toy [1891] A.
[Quesre.
C. 272.

Crown done to an England ? Quare also. Is there a converse rule which would prevent an action being brojight in an English Court
Does
this rule apply to acts of the alien friend resident in

Digitized

by Microsoft

EXEMPTIONS FROM TORTS


against a defendant

341

who

justifies

government

(See Dobree v. Napier (1836) 2 Bing.

under the authority of a foreign N. C- 202.)]

747.

An

action of Tort can be brought against a

Colonial
^''^^''""'

Colonial Governor, either in the colonial or an English

Court; but the defendant

may

plead as a defence
his

that the act complained of

was within the scope of


justified.

lawful authority.

Each Court has


is
i

jurisdiction to de-

termine whether this plea


Mostyn
v.

Fabrigas (1774)

Cowp. 161,

Musgrave v. Pulido (1879) L. R. 5 App. Ca. 102 (P-X;.). Walker v. Bair J [1892] A. C. 491 (P. C).

[The

principle in

744-747

is

that

no action can be brought


it
;

against the
that every

Crown

or

its

servants or agents as representing


not,

but

man, whether a servant of the Crown or

and whether

acting under the orders of the


personally liable at
or by his orders.

Crown

or not,

is

(subject to

746)

common law for every tort committed by him The Irish Courts have, however, held that the
not liable to be sued in them during his term of (Luby v. Wodehouse (1865) political act.

Lord Lieutenant
office, in respect

is

of any 17 Ir. C. L, R. 618. pp. 111-112.)]

And

see

Musgrave

v. Pulido^ ubi sup., at

748.
ruler,^*)

No

action of Tort can be brought against the

Foreign

or an ambassador or duly accredited public


StatCj^*")

''Jip['J'"ij

Minister, of a foreign

or against any
;

member
("^

of the suite of such ambassador or Minister

unless

such person submits himself to the jurisdiction.


(a)

The farlement Beige (1880)

5 P.

D. 197.

Mighellv. Sultan ofjohore [1894] i Q. B. 149. (b) Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1 708, s. j. Musurus Bey v, Gadban [1894] i Q. B. 533 ; 2 Q. B. 352. (c) Parkinson v. Potter (1885) 16 Q. B. D. 152.

Digitized

by Microsoft

342
Judicial act!

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

749. Subject to

750, no action of Tort will

lie

against a judge for any act done by

him

in his judicial

capacity; even though such act


Anderson' y. Gorrie [1895]

was done maliciously.


i

Q. B. 668.
i

Bottomley

v.

Brougham [1908J

K. B. 584.

[This doctrine applies, not only to the superior Courts, but to the Court of a Coroner and to a Court Martial, which are not
Courts of Record. (See per Kelly, C. B., in Scott, v. Stansfield (1868) L. R. 3 Ex. 220; Dawkins v. Lord Roieby (iSy^) L. R. 8 Qf B., at p. 263.) A magistrate, while sitting in the course of his judicial duties, has in this respect the privilege of a judge; at least so far as defamation is concerned (Law v. Llewellyn [igo6] I' K. B. 4^7). And, apparently, the privilege extends also to superior officers of H.M. forces in respect of their administrative acts {Fraser v. Hamilton (1917) XXXIII T. L. R. 431). As to whether such acts can be questioned in a civil tribunal, see Fraser
V. Balfour, ubi sup.'\

Excess of
jurisdiction

750.
will

judge with inferior or Hmited jurisdiction

be

liable to

an action for a

tort

committed in ex-

cess of his jurisdiction;

provided he knew, or ought


in

to

have known, that he had no jurisdiction


Calder
v.

the

matter.
Halket (1839)
3

Moo.

P. C. 28.

Hottlden y. Smith

\i%^o) 14 Q. B. 841.

this rule does not also apply to a judge of a (See Anderson v. Gorrie, ubi sup., at p. 671, per Lord Justice of the Peace is entitled to certain privileges in respect of such actions (see Justices Protection Act, 1848).]
:

\^^are

whether

superior Court. Esher, M. R.)

Forensic
privilege

751.
counsel,

No

action of libel or slander will

lie

against

witnesses,

or parties,

for

words written or

spoken
fore

in the ordinary course of

any proceeding be-

any court or tribunal recognized by law.


Dawkins
v.

Lord Rokeby, ubi

sup.

Lilleyy. Roney

(1892) 61 L.J. Q.
sup.

B. 727.

Bottomley

v.

Brougham, ubi

Digitized

by Microsoft

EXEMPTIONS FROM TORTS


752.

343
Ministerial

ministerial officer

is

not liable to an action

for executing the order of a

Court or of a magistrate
is

'-^""^

-^

acting judicially;

if

the order executed

on the face
be

of

it

both regular and within the jurisdiction of the


it.^'^

Court or magistrate issuing


ble
if it

But he

will

lia-

appears on the face of the order that the Court


if

or the magistrate had no jurisdiction, or

he exceeds

his authority, or carries out the order improperly /'')


(a)

Case of the Marshahea (1613) 10 Co. Rep. 68 b. Tarlton v. Fisher (1781) z Dougl. 671.

Andrews

-v.

Harris (1841)
i

Carratt V. Morley (1841)


,

Q. B. Q. B.

3.

18.

(b)

Morrelly. Martin (1841) 3 M. & G. 581. (And compare Savacools. Boughton (1830) 5 Wend. (New York) 170.) Coote V. Lighworth (1596) F. Moore, 457. Six Carpenters^ Case (1608) 8 Co. Rep. 146 a. Jelks V. Hayward [1905] 2 K. B. 460.

And

see

Andrews

v.

Harris, supra.

753.

constable

is

also

protected

in

respect of

Constables*

anything done in obedience to a warrant under the

^"^"^^

hand or

seal of a Justice of the Peace, notwithstandif

ing any defect of jurisdiction in such Justice,

such

constable produces the warrant, and furnishes a copy

within six days from the


the complainant.
,

demand by

or on behalf of

Constables Protection Act, 1750,

s.

6.

Clark

y.

Woods (1848) 2 Exch. 395.

754.

No

action will

lie

against a Board of Guar- Boards


set

of

dians by a pauper

who

has been

to work by such

Digitized

by Microsoft

344

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


in

Guardians
ministerial

the

due discharge of

their

statutory
in

duties,

and

has

suffered

injury

the

course of such
their officer.

work by reason of the neghgence of


Ham
[1907]
i

Tozelandy. Guardians of fVest

K. B. 920.
to

\^are.

How

far will the


?]

principle of this decision apply

other public bodies

Trade
putes

dis-

755.
Qf

No action will lie against a Trade Union, whether


or masters, or against any

workmen

members or
all

officials thereof,

on behalf of themselves and


in respect of

other

members of the Trade Union,


act alleged to have

any

tortious

been committed by or on behalf of

the

Trade Union.
Trade Disputes Act, 1906,
s.

4.

that the member or official cannot be sued in his individual capacity (Bussy v. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants and Bell {1^08) XXIV T. L. R. 437).]
\_Semble, this

does not

mean

'

Defence of

756. Where an
^

act,

prima

facte tortious,
it

is

sought

TuthorL

^^

justified

on the ground that


it

was committed

under statutory powers,


tion in each case

is

a question of construc-

whether the powers were intended


be absolute
(in

by the
act
is

legislature to
(*))

which case the


(in

justified

or merely qualified

which case

they are only exercisable subject to the rules of the


general
(a)

law).('')

Vaughan v. Taff Vale Ry. (i860) 5 H. & N. 679, 'Hammersmith Ry. Co. v. Brand (1869) L. R. 4 H. L. 171. London, Brighton ts" S. C. Ry. v. Truman (i 885) L. R. 1 1 App. Ca. 45.

Digitized

by Microsoft

EXEMPTIONS FROM TORTS


[But see Canadian
(P. C.).]
(b) Jones v. Festiniog Ry.
Pacific

345

Ry. Co.

v.

Parke [1899] A. C. 549

(1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 733. Q. B. D. 597. Metropolitoti Asylum Board y. Hill (i88i) L. R. 6 App. Ca. 193. Rapier v. London Tramways Co. [1893] 2 Ch. 588. Midivoody. Manchester Or/. [1905] 2 K. B. 597.
Co.

Powell

V.

Fall (1880)

Fletcher y. Birkenhead Corp. [1907]

K. B. 205.
it

principle

[These are ail cases of nuisance but would apply to torts generally.]
;

seems clear that the

757. Actions brought


in

in

respect of

any act done


execution,

Actions
ff^/J/'^^
tborities

pursuance,

or

execution,

or

intended

of any Act of Parliament, or of any public duty or


authority, or in respect of an alleged neglect or default
in the execution of

any such Act, duty, or authority,


rule
I)

are

subject

to

the

of limitation

specified

in

159

(/) {_ante.

Book

and

to certain rules in respect

of costs.
Public Authorities Protection Act,
1

893,

s.

i.

[As to the kind of actions which fall within this statute, see the judgment of Vaughan Williams, L. J., in Lyles v, Sovthend-on-Sea

[1905] 2 K. B.

I.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE

III

CAPACITY
TORTS
is

IN RESPECT OF

Liability

of

758.

corporation

liable for a tort

committed

corporations

by

its

officers or servants in the course

of their emis

ployment; even though a particular mental state


of the
gist

of the tort complained

of.
2

Barwick
[It

v. EngJish Joint Stock

Bank (1867) L. R.

Exch. 259.

was once thought that a corporation could not be made liable which prpof of a particular mental state {e. g. malice) was material and this view was forcibly expressed by Lord Bramwell in Abrath v. N. E. Ry. (1886) L. R. 11 App. Ca., at p. 250. But it has now been abandoned. (See Cornford v. Cariton Bank [1900] I Q. B. 22; Citizens' Life Assurance Co. v. Brown [1904] A. C. 423 (P. C.).)]
for a tort to
;

Actions by
corporations

759.

corporation can bring an action for a tort


its

affecting
tort

business

or property ;(*)

but not for a

which,

though apparently directed against the

corporation, in fact only affects the personal reputation of


(a)

its

members.^'')
News
I

South Hetton Coal Co. v. North Eastern

Co.

[1894]
B. 94.

Q.

B.

133(b)

Mayor of Manchester
is

N.

Williams [1891]

Q.

[It

pointed out by Lord Esher,


is

M.

R., in the case

first

cited,

that the law

the
is

same

for corporations

the application
poration
assault.]
is

difFerent.

This
being
;

results

and individuals, but that from the fact that a core.

not a

human

and so can not,

^.,

suffer

an

Digitized

by Microsoft

CAPACITY IN RESPECT OF TORTS


760.

347
liable infaats ana

minor

^^^

(and probably a lunatic ^^'>)

is

for a tort;

but where proof of a particular state of defendant


is

mind

in

the

essential

to

liability,

the

mental capacity of the defendant

will

be relevant to
state

the determination of the existence of such


mind.^'^)
(a)
v. Dawson (1847) i D. & S. 108. Burnardy. Haggis (1863) 14 C. B. N. S. 45. Weaver w. Ward {1616) Hoh. 134. Mordaunt v. Mordaunt (1870) L. R. 2 P. & M., Hanbury v. Hanbury (1892) VIII. T. L. R.. at

of

Stikeman

(b)

at p.

p.

142. (See 560.

Book

I,

64.)
v.

(c)

Weaver Emmens

Ward, ubi

sup.
at p.

v. Pottle

(1885) 16 Q. B. D.,

356.

a claim in
V.

[A claim really, Tort for the purpose of making a minor liable (Jennings Rundall (1799) 8 T. R. 335). See Book I, 61.]

arising out of a contract cannot be converted into

761. Where a minor commits a


or where a

tort

which

is

in-

infants'
'"
'

directly connected with, but independent of, a contrapt,^')

"^

minor wrongfully detains goods

obtained under a contract which he has repudiated,


or which has determined,^') the plea of infancy
is

no

defence to an action founded on Tort.


(a)

(b)

Burnards. Haggis (1863) 14 C. B. N. S. 45. Mills V. Graham (1804) i B. & P. N. R. 140. The Queen v. McDonald (1885) 15 Q. B. D., at pp. 325
J.

&

328,

per Cave,

minor cannot be made liable in Tort for fraudulent representation, whereby he has induced
762.

Fraud of
'"/""*

Digitized

by Microsoft

348

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


But
then

the plaintiff to enter into a contract with him/')

he

is

Hable in equity to restore, so far as

may

be possible, the property which he has obtained by


a false' representation as to his age, or {semhle) by

means of any other


V.

fraud. (''^
in

(a) Johnson -v. Pye (1666) l Sid. Z58 (quoted at length Damson, supra). Wright y. Leonard {i%b\') 10 C. B. N. S. 258.

Stikeman

(b)

Ex parte Unity Bank (1858) 3 De G. & J. 63. Lemprierev. Lange (1879) iz Ch. D. 675. Ex parte Jones\\%%\) 18 Ch. D., at p. izo.

V. Shiell [1914] 3

[But he cannot be made personally liable to repay money {Leslie K. B. 607, questioning Stocks v. Wilson [1913] 2
)

K.B.23S).]

Torts of marrted
uiomen

763.

married

woman may
.

sue or be sued in re-

gpect of totts committed against or '^

during the marriage, as

if

by her before or she were a feme sole; and


But damages
re-

her husband need not be joined.

covered against her in such an action are payable


only out of her separate property not restrained from
anticipation.
Married

Woman's

Property Act, i88z,

s.

(z), 13, 19.

[Before the Act the separate estate of a married woman was not in equity for her general torts {Wair^ord v. Heyl (1875) But at common law a married woman could L. R. 20 Eq. 321). be sued for her torts ; though, if her husband was not joined, she
liable

could plead her coverture in abatement. If sued jointly with her husband, judgment went against both ; and she could be taken in
personal execution.
estate, the
{Scott V.

If it then appeared that she had no separate Court would discharge her as a matter of indulgence Morley (1887) 20 Q. B. D. I20).J

Torts be-

764. Husband
i

and wife cannot sue one another

Zndanawife i" ^^^

except that a wife

may

bring an action against

Digitized

by Microsoft

CAPACITY IN RESPECT OF TORTS

349

her husband for the protection and security of her


separate property.
Married

Woman's
same

Property Act, i88z,

s.

z.

[It appears that the


in respect

rule prevails

between divorced persons,

of torts committed during the marriage. (See Phillips v. Burnet (1876) i Q. B. D. 436.) The rule does not prevent a married woman suing her husband to set aside a deed obtained by fraud {Hulton V. Hulton [1916] 2 K. B. 642).]

765.
respect

One co-owner may sue a of the common property,


plaintiffs.^*^
its

stranger in tort in

Actions iy

without joining his


in the

"''^"^^'

co-owners as
exercise of
plaintiff's
(a)

But the Court may,


stay

discretion,

the

action,

until

the

co-owners are added as

defendants.^'')

(b)

Sheehan v. G. E. Ry. Co. (1880) 16 Ch. D. 59. Lauri v. Renad [1892] 3 Ch., at p. 413. Roberts v. Holland [1893] 1 Q. B. 665. R. S. C. 1883. O. XVI. r. II.

[There is an exception from the rule in the case of Detinue ; at _ any rate where the defendant is in the position of a stake-holder, or other lawful position {Wright v. Robotham (1886) 33 Ch. D. 106). And, though the subject is obscure, it would seem that, under the old law, if one joint owner sued a stranger in respect of the joint property, the defendant could plead .the joint ownership in abatement; though, if he did not do so, and judgment was recovered against him, it was then too late to raise the point. (See notes
to
p.

Coryton

v.

Lithebye

(1670) 2

Wms.

Saund.

(edn.

1845),

at

117.)

Possibly the rule as to abatement applied also to owners

In actions in common {Addison v. Overend (1769) 6 T. R. 766). of Trover {post^ Sect. Ill, Tit. II) evidence of co-ownership could not even be given in evidence on the general issue {Nelthorpe v. Farrington (iby^) 2 Lev. 113; Brown v. Hedges (1708) i Salk. And, apparently, a mere wrong-doer could not, even in an 290). action of Detinue, plead non-joinder of co-owners {Broadbent v. Ledward (1839) 11 A. & E. 209). On the other hand, a partowner can only recover to the extent of his interest {Addison v. Overend., ubi sup.; Dent v. Turpin (1861) 2 J. & H. 139).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE

IV

LIABILITY
person

FOR THE TORTS OF OTHERS


(including

Torts of
agents

766. Every
liable

corporation)

is

for

a tort committed

by another which such

person has authorised or

ratified.

Wilson V. Tumman (1843) 6 M. & G. 236. Hilbery v. Hatton (1864) z H. & C. 8zz.

[There is a statutory exception from this rule which prevents a person (including a corporation and the partners in a firm) being sued on any representation made as to the credit of another person, unless he has actually signed such representation (Statute of Frauds (Amendment) Act, 1828, s. 6 ; Williams v. Mason (1873) 28 L. T. 232 ; Swift V. Jewsbury (1874) L. R. 9 Q. B. 301 ; Hirst v. fFest Riding Banking Co. [1901] 2 K. B. 560).]

forts of
servants

IQl.

master
in

is

liable for the torts

of his servant,

committed

the course of his employment, to the

extent specified in 138 {ante.


the tort in question
is

Book

I);

even though

in excess of the servant's duty,

or

is

an improper mode of performing an act author-

ised

by the master.
Bayleyy. Manchester Ry. Co. (1873) ^- R- 8 C. P. 148. Hamlyn v. Houston \\')oi\ i K. B., at p. 85..

Forbidden
acts

768.

The

fact

that

the

conduct of the servant,


the
tort,
it

which occasioned or
pressly forbidden

constituted

was

ex-

by the

master,^') or that

amounts

Digitized

by Microsoft

LIABILITY FOR THE TORTS OF OTHERS


to a criminal offence/'')
is

351

no defence

to

an action of
H. &C. 526.

Tort against the master.


Limpus v. London General Omnibus Co. (1862) Dyer v. Munday [ 1 8( " Q. B. 742. [1895] " Bakery. Snell[\<)o\ W. N. i:
(a)
I

(b)

769. For the purpose of

ascertaining liability in Who

is

Tort, where one person reserves the control and direction of the

mode

in

which work

is

to

be done by another,
servant.

he

is

said to be the master

and the other the

Laughers. Pointer (1826) 5 B. & C. 547. Quarman v. Burnett (1840) 6 M. & W. 499. Martin v. Temperley (1843) 4 Q. B. 298. Jones V. Scullard [ligi] 2 Q. B. 565. Waldock V. Winfield [1901] 2 K. B. 596. Dewar v. Tasker and Sons (1907) XXIII T. L. R. 259.

770.

The

question whether the defendant does or


is

Evidence of

does not reserve such control and direction,


tion for the jury.W

a ques-

But the

fact

that

he has {a)

the right of
or
{c)

selection,^'')

or {h) the

duty of paying,^')

the power of dismissingj^"*) the person actually


tort,
is

committing the

prima

facie

evidence of the

relationship of master
tion
is

and

servant.

This presumpis

strengthened by the fact that such person

using the property of the defendant.^


(1835) i Moo. & Rob. 494. Burnett (1840) 6 M. & W. 499. Q- B- D. 890. (But (c) Jones V. Corporation of Liverpool {liis) not conclusive evidence {Donovan v. Laing [1893] i Q. B. 629).) (But not (d) Dewar v. Tasker and Sons (1907) XXIII T. L. R. 259. conclusive evidence {Reedie v. L. S^ N. W. R. Co. (1849) 4 Exch. 244).) (e) Jones V. Scullard [iSgS] 2 Q.B. s6s. Perkins v. Stead (1907) XXIII T. L. R. 433.
(a J

Brady

v. Giles
v.

(b)

Quarman

Digitized

by Microsoft

352
special
relationship

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


may
be the general servant of one
of.

771 .A pcTson
i^2i%x.tx,

and yet the servant

another for the pur-

poses of a particular matter.


Riurke v. White Moss Colliery Co. (1877) 2 C. Donovan v. Laing [1893] i Q. B. 629.
[In these cases the person who is alone liable.
is

P.

D. Z05.

mission of the tort


several liability in
dale, J., in

"

master at the time of the comThe law does not recognize a


are

two

principals

who

unconnected"
JS^)-]

(Little-

Laugher

\. Pointer, ubi sup., at p.

" Course of emp/oyment"

712. In Considering the question whether the conduct of the servant


,

is

withm the course


:

ment, the following rules ar^ material


(a)

or his

employ-

master will not be responsible for the unlawact

ful

of his

servant

committed under the


such
it

bonS

fide

but mistaken belief that the master


to authorise
act, if in fact the

had power

master has not authorised


Poulton
V.

L. e^ S.

W.

Ry. Co. (1867) L. R. 2 Q. B. 534.

[Does not
of ultra

this decision rest

on a misapprehension of the doctrine

vires F

Has
?

it

ever been held to apply where the defendant

was an

individual

(b)

Where
master

a discretion
will

is

given to a servant, the

be

liable if siich discretion is

wrongly

exercised
Gofv. Great Northern Ry.
Moore
v.

C. (1861)

E.

&

E. 672.

Metropolitan Ry. Co. (1872) L. R. 8

Q.

B. 36.

(c)

It is

within the course of a servant's employment


act necessary for the protection of his

to

do any

Digitized

by Microsoft

LIABILITY FOR THE TORTS OF OTHERS


master's property.
this

353

But the master

will not

on

ground be held responsible

for a

wrongful

arrest or other tort

committed when the propin danger;

erty

was no longer

Bank of New South Wales (P.C). Abrahams v. Deakin [1891]


Hanson
v.

Allen V. L. S. IV. Ry. (1870) L. R. 6 Q. B. 65. v. Owston (1879) L. R. 4 App. Ca.


i

270

Q. B. 516.
B. 390.

Waller [1901]

Q.

{d)

tort

committed by a servant

for his

own
his

ends,

and not on behalf of

his master, will not

be

deemed
McManus
Rayner
v.

to
;

be within the course of

em-

ployment

Cricket t (1800) i East, 106. Mitchell (1877) L. R. 2 C. P. D. 357. Ruben v. Great Fingall Consolidated [i()o6\ A, C. 439.
y.

(e)

Where

the tort of a servant

is

such as to break
it

the connection of master and servant,

will

not be deemed to be within the course of his

employment.
v. Collins [1904] i K. B., at p. 632. Cheshire v. Bailey [1905] i K. B. 237.

Sanderson

[Is this case anything

more than an extreme example of

(d)?'j

Subject to the above rules, the question whether


the
servant's
is

conduct was within the course of his


a question of W.
v.

employment

fact, for

the jury.
4 App. Ca. 270.

Bank ofN.

S.

Otoston (1879) L. R.

Digitized

by Microsoft

354
Independent

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


An
employer
is

773.

not generally liable for the

imperfect or improper performance of work by an

independent contractor.
Milligan v. Wedge (1840) Repson v. Cuiitt (1842) 9
I 2 A. & E. 737. M. & W. 710.

But
viz.
:

this rule is subject to the following exceptions,

(a)

Where

the
will
,

work commissioned
be
liable;
Gas Co. (1853) 2 E.

is

unlawful,

the

employer

,,// V. Sheffield

&

B. 757.

{h)

Where

the employer himself takes part in, or


with, the performance of the work,

interferes

he wild be liable
McLaughlin v. Pryor (i'842) 2 M. & G. 48. Halliday v. National Telephone Co. [1899] z Q. B. 392.

{c)

Where

there

is

an absolute duty imposed by


law^'''^

statute^*) or

by the common by
employing

upon the

employer,

he cannot discharge himself from

responsibility

an

independent

contractor
(a)

Hole

V. Sittingbourne
v. V.

(b)

Bower
Dalton

& N. 488. D. 321. Angus (1881) L. R. 6 App. Ca., at p. 829.


Ry. (186 1) 6 H.
1

Peate (1876)

Q.

B.

(d)

Where
in

there

is

duty upon the employer to

see that reasonable skill

and care are exercised


particular

the
will

performance of the
be
liable if

work,

he

such

skill

and care are not

Digitized

by Microsoft

LIABILITY FOR tHE TORTS OF OTHERS


exercised.^*)

355

Such a duty

is

cast

upon an

employer,

who, being the occupier of land

or a building, or the supplier of any carriage,


ship,

machinery, or other

artificial

structure,

invites

persons to enter on or use the same

for

his

own
is

purposes,^'')
likely,
if

or

who
to

authorises

work which
danger to

badly done, to cause

his neighbours,^') or

any of the
.('')

pubhc lawfully passing along the highway


(a)

Pickardv. Smith (1861) 10 C. B. N. S. 470. Hardaker v. Idle District Board [iSg6] 1 Q. B. 335. (b) Francis v. Cockrell (1870) L. R. 5 Q. B, 501. Marney v. Scott [1899] i Q. B. 986. Cougblin V. Gillison [1899] i Q. B. 45 (where the machinery in question was not used at the invitation of the defendants orin"their interests). (c) Percivalv. Hughes (1883) L. R. 8 App. Ca. 443. (d) Tarry v. Ashton (1876) i Q. B. D. 314. Penny \. Wimbledon Urban Council [18^^] 2 Q. B. 73.
Holliday v. National Telephone Co. ibid. 392-.

The Snark [1900]

P.

105.

[In such cases both the employer and the independent contractor
are liable for the wrongful act of the contractor or his servant.
Whiteley Lemaitre
v.
v.

Pepper (1877) 2 Q. B. D. 276. Davis (1881) 19 Ch. D. 281.]

774. If an independent contractor

is

employed

to

Collateral

do a lawful which

act, his

employer

is

not liable for negli-

"t^acur""'

gence on the part of the contractor or his servants,


is

casual and merely collateral to the performact.


829, per Lord

ance of the

Pickardv. Smith (1861) 10 C. B. N. S. 470. Dalton V. Angus (1881) L. R. 6 App. Ca.,


Blackburn.

at

p.

Hardaker s. Idle District Board [1896] I Q. B., at p. 340. Penny v. Wimbledon Urban Council li-8gg] 2 Q. B., at p. 76,

Digitized

by Microsoft

356^

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TOJRT

Husband's
liability

775.

husband

is

liable

for

torts

committed by
to the

his wife before marriage

and during marriage;


I,

extent specified in

Book

136

and 137

respectively.

(1833) 5 C. & P. 484; Capelv. Powell 743, as to the effect of separation and divorce. In the case of ante-nuptial torts, the husband may be sued alone; as his liability is statutory {Beck v Pierce (1889) 23 Q. B. D., at p. 321).]
[See also

Head v.

Briscoe
S.

(1864) 17 C. B. N.

Partners'

IIQ. Where by any wrongful act or omission of

any partner, acting


loss or injury is

in the ordinary course of the busi-

ness of the firm, or with the authority of his co-partners,

caused to any person not being a partner,

the firm
partner.

is

liable therefor, to the

same extent as such


s.

Partnership Act, 1890,

10.

[For the statutory exception from


Act, 1890.]

this

rule,

Semble, this exception has not been abolished

see 766, note. by the Partnership

Liability

of

777. Where one partner, acting within the sfcope


of his apparent authority, receives the
erty of a third person

partnership

for misapplication by.

money or propit,

and misapplies
its

and where

partner

a firm in the course of

business receives the

money

or property of a third person, and the


erty so received
is

money

or prop-

misapplied by one or more of the

Digitized

by Microsoft

LIABILITY FOR THE TORTS OF OTHERS


partners while
is
it is

357

in the custody of the firm, the firm

Hable to

make good

the
s.

loss.

Partnership Act, 1890,

11.
v.

Tendring Hundred Waterworks

Jones [1903] 2 Ch. 615.

with his co-partners, and also severally, for everything for which the firm while he is a partner
is

[Every partner

liable jointly

therein
1890,,
s.

becomes
12).]

liable

under 776 and 777

(Partnership Act,

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE

V LIABILITY

FOR THE ACTS OF ANIMALS

Domestit

animah

778. Subject to 779 and 782, a person who keeps a domesticated animal is liable for any damage

committed by

it

as the result of

its

trespassing
is

upon
of the

the land of another;

provided such damage

kind usual for such animal to commit.


Y. B. 20 Edw. IV (1481) fo. II. pi. 10, quoted by Lord Blackburn in Fletchers. Uylands (1866) L. R. 1 Exch. z8o (cade). Dewellv. Sanders (1618) Cro. Jac. 490 (doves). Ellis V. Loftus Iron Co. (1874) L. R. 10 C. P. 10 (horses)^

Brady

v. Warren [1900] 2 Ir. Rep. (Q. B. D.) 632 (tame deer). O'Gormany. O' Gorman [1903] 2 Ir. Rep. (K. B. D.) 573 (bees).

[It

seems doubtful whether the


by the Court

liability

other than that caused by trespass to land.


this point

extends to any damage (See the stress laid on


Co.., ubi.

in Ellis v. Loftus Iron

And there is Chitty, Pleading (6th ed.), I. 82.) liability to keep ordinary domestic! animals off the
Garage
v.

sup. ; and see no common law highway {Heath's

Hodges [1916]

K. B. 206).]

Animals highway

779. Subject to 781 and 784, where a domesticated animal, being lawfully upon a highway, trespasses

upon land adjoining the highway, there


unless

is

no
the

liability

negligence

is

proved

against

defendant.
Dovaston

Goodwyn

Payne (1795) z H. Bl. 527. Chevely (1859) 28 L. J. Ex. 298. Tilletty. Ward (1882) 10 Q. B. D. 17.
v.

v.

'Scienter"

780. Subject to 781 and 784, where a domesticated animal does damage of a kind not usual for such an

Digitized

by Microsoft

LIABILITY FOR THE ACTS OF ANIMALS


animal to commit, there
is

359
it

no

liability;

unless

is

proved that the defendant was aware of a tendency

on the part of the animal to commit such damage {^' scienter") y^ or that such damage was caused by
his negligence/'')

If

knowledge of such tendency


is

is

.proved, absence of negligence


(a)

no

defence/''^

Hartley

Cox
(b)
(c)

V.

v. Harriman (1818) 1 B. & Aid. 620. Burbidge (1863) 13 C. B. N. S. 430.

v. Chocqueel [1896] 2 Q. B. 109. Jackson v. Smithson (1846) 15 M. & W. 563. Jackson v. Smithson, ubi sup. (ram). Hudson V. Roberts (1851) 6 Exch. 697 (bull). Cox V. Burbidge (1863) 13 C. B. N. S. 430 (horse). Barnes v. Lucile (1907) 96 L. T. 680 (dog).

Osborne

[It would appear that there is no distinction in this respect between a domesticated animal known to be dangerous, and an animal fene natura {Jackson v. Smithson., ubi sup., at p. 565, per

Alderson, B).]

781.

The owner

of a dog

is

liable in

damages

for Dogs and

injury done by the dog to cattle, horses, mules, asses,

sheep, goats, and swine;

whether or not such owner


in the

was aware of a propensity

dog
is

to

do such injury,

and whether or not the injury

attributable to

any

negligence on the part of such owner.


Dogs Act, 1906,
s.

I.

[The occupier of any house


permitted to live,
is,

or premises

where the dog

is

kept or

owner of the dog; (Dogs Act, 1906, s.

for the purposes of this , presumed to be the unless he proves that he was not the owner
7).]

^ ^

Digitized

by Microsoft

360
Dogs and oterojects

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

782. Subjcct to

781, a person

who

keeps a dog

is

(pj-Qbably) not liable for any,


it^*);

damage committed by
is proved/''^
-

unless scienter or negligence

i i ,

(a)

(b)

Mason y. Keeling (1700) i Ld. Raymond, 606. Ready. Edwards 17 C. B. N. S. 245. (1864J Sanders y. Teape (1884) 51 L. T. 263. (But see Coxy. Burbidge (1863) 13 C. B. N. S., Hartley v. Harriman (1818) I B. & Aid. 620. Osborne v. Chocqueel [1896] 2 Q. B. ,109.
,

\);,
'

at pp.

400401.)

Damage

by

783. Subject to section lo 9f the Agricultural

Hold-

wild animals

ings Act, 1908, an occupier of land

is

not liable for

damage done
unless

to his neighbour's crops

by wild animals
(^)
;

living in their natural liberty on his land

{semble)

he has deliberately introduced and fostered such


^''^

animals to an unreasonable extent.


(a)

Brady
(b)

Hardy (1597) Cro. Eliz. 547. Warren [1900] 2 Ir. Rep. (Q. B. D.) 632. Farrer v. Nelson (1885) ij Q. B. D. 258. G" Gorman y. O^ Gorman [1903] 2 Ir. Rep. (K. B. D.) 573.
Boiolston v.
v.

[Bowlston V. Hardy has been a good deal criticised ; but it would seem that its main prdposition is still law. For the limits and peculiar methods of enforcing a claim to compensation by the tenant of

an agricultural holding, see the Act.]

Dangerous
animals

784.

person
( ?)

who keeps an animal

of a dangerous,

ferocious, or
peril;

mischievous kind, does so at his

own

and

will

be liable for any damage inflicted by

Digitized

by Microsoft

LIABILITY FOR THE ACTS OF ANIMALS

361

such animal, without proof of negligence or knowledge


of
its

vicious propensities.
V.

Burdett (1846) 9 Q. B. loi. Marsland (1875) L. R. io Ex., at p. 260; in which case Bramwell, B., suggested that not even the "act of God" would be a (And see Baker v. 5^//[i9o8] W. N. 122.) defence. Filburn v. People's Palace Co. (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 258 (C. A.).
Nichols V.

May

bility

[There appears to be some little doubt as to how long the liawould remain after the animal had regained its freedom (Cox\.

Burbidge (1863) 13 C. B. N. S., at p. 439). Probably the true test is, whether the damage was really caused by the defendant's " keeping."

If the defendant had imported a foreign animal,

e.

g. a tiger,

and

it

escaped, and, after running wild for some months, attacked the

plaintiff,

the

ant's act.

damage might fairly be said to be caused by the defendBut if the defendant had merely tamed a native fox,

which had subsequently escaped, and, after a similar interval, robbed the plaintifPs hen-roost, it might be held that the damage was not caused by the defendant's act. (See Mitchell w Alestree (167^) i Vent. There appears to be no authority on the question whether a 295.) person who keeps an animal (not domesticated) of a kind usually
.

harmless,

is

liable (apart

from negligence)

if

it

commits damage.]

785.

The proper remedy


is

for trespass

by domestiI, is
1

Destruction
*

cated animals

action or distress {ante.

Book

80)

'^'

not destruction of the animals.^*^


fied in destroying a
it

But a man

justi-

dog trespassing upon

his land; if

is

necessary to prevent the killing or maiming of


fercB naturce) thereon.^''^

animals (even
(a)

(b)

Dewellv. Sanders (1618) Cro. Jac. 490. Wadhurst v. Damme (1604) Cro. Jac. 44. Wright V. Ramscot (1667) l Wms. Saund. 82. Barrington v. Turner (1681) 3 Levinz, 28. Jansen v. Brown (1807) i Camp. 41. Wills V. Read (1831) 4 C. & P. 568.

[The

last

two

cases

show

that the Court

is

somewhat

reluctant

to recognise the justification.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE VI EXTINCTION AND TRANSFER OF RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES IN TORT


Death ofperson tnjured

786.

The death

of the person injured before judghability of the person

mgnt extinguishes the


ting a tort;

commit-

Tmycross v. Grant (1878) 4 C. P. D.,

at p.

45.

Bowkerv. Evans (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 565. Finlay v. Chirney (1888) 20 Q. B. D., at p. 503.

except in the following cases


{a)

on
torts

The
son

personal representatives of a deceased perare


entitled

to

sue

committed

against the deceased in his lifetime in respect

of his goods and

chattels,^"^

and

for torts to the

real estate of the deceased


six'

committed within

calendar months before his death,

upon
in his

which

he

himself

could

have

sued

lifetime^)
Ill (1330) c. 7 (executors). 25 Edw. Ill (1351) c. 5 (executors of executors). Smithy. Colgay (1595) Cro. Eliz. 384 (administrators). Hatchardw. Mege (1887) 18 Q. B. D. 771. (b) Civil Procedure Act, 1833, s. 2. (The action must be brought within one year after the death.)
(a)

4 Edw.

(i)

The

personal representatives of a person whose

death was caused by any wrongful act, neglect,


or default, are entitled to sue any person who,

Digitized

by Microsoft

EXTINCTION AND TRANSFER


if

363

the deceased, were living, would be liable to


for

an action

damages

in respect of

such wrong-

ful act, neglect, or default;


act, neglect, or default
Fatal Accidents Act, 1846.

even though such


to a felony;

amounted
3

Readw. G. E. Ry.

Co.

(1868) L. R.

Q.

B. 555.

but

(i)

every such suing must be for the benefit of


the wife, husband, parent, and child of the

deceased
[For the extended meaning of these words see
s.

5 of the Act.J

(ii)

the
is

amount of the damages recoverable thereby


Umited to the pecuniary
loss directly re-

sulting to such persons

from the death of the

deceased
Blake
\.

Midland Ry.

Co.

(1852) i8 Q. B. 93.

(iii)

any damages recovered thereby

(after deduct-

ing costs not recovered from the defendant)

must be divided among such of the abovementioned persons in such shares as the jury
shall
(iv)

by

their verdict direct;

the action must be brought within twelve cal-

endar months from the death of the deceased.


[If there
is

sentative neglects to sue for six calendar

no personal representative, or if the personal repremonths from the death,

the persons beneficially interested

may

bring the action (Fatal Acci-

dents Act, 1864).

For the

special
post.,

rules as to the assessment

of

damages under

this Act, see

Tit. VII,

799

(note).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

364
(c)

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


Where an
injury causes the death of the injured

party, liabihty

may
1

arise

under the Ehiployers'

LiabiHty Act,

880,

and the Workmen's Com-

pensation Act, 1906.


[Further details as to these daims will be found in Sect. IV.,
Tit. III.]
(</)

Claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act,


1906, are not extinguished

by the death of the


dependant
;

Workman
accident.

injured,

or

his

even

though the death was not caused by the

Workmen's Compensation Act,

1906,

s.

13.

United Collieries Co. v. Simpson [1909] A. C. 383.

[The case appears to be otTierwise with regard to claims under the Employers' LiabiHty Act, 1880 (McCarthy v. Jacob and Richardson, quoted hy Kuegg, Employers' Liability,&c.{jth. edn.), p. 133).]
3.Ct

.'-

Death of
tort-feasor

1^1.

The death
his

of the person committing the tort


liability;

extinguishes
cases:
(i)

except

in

the

following

Where

a person has wrongfully appropriated the

chattels personal of another

and therewith

in-

creased his

own

estate,

an action

will lie against

his representatives to recover the value of the

property; appropriated
Hambly
v.

Trott {yj^fi)

i'

Cowp. 371.

Phillips V.

Homfray (1883) 24 Ch. D. 439.

[Of
(ii)

course land can be recovered in ejectment after the death of

the ejector.]

.Where a person has, within


prior
to/

six calendar

months

his death,

committed a

tort against an-

other, in respect of the latter's real or personal

Digitized

by Microsoft

EXTINCTION AND TRANSFER


property, an action will
lie

365

against the personal


respect

representatives of the wrong-doer in


thereof.

But such action must be brought

within six calendar months after such personal


representatives have taken

upon themselves the

administration of the deceased's property


Civil Procedure Act,

1833,

s.

z.

(iii)

Claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act,


1906', are

not extinguished by the death of the

person liable in respect thereof.


Woricmen's Compensation Act, 1906,
s.

13.

otherwise with regard to claims under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880 {Gillett v. Firbank (1887) III T. L,

[The

rule

is

R. 618).]

788.

The

right to recover

damages

for a tort

cannot

Assignment
jr^^^

be transferred by voluntary assignment


Lane (1894) 64 L. J. Q. B. 236. v. G. N. isf City Ry. Co. [1904] i K. B. 277. view of Wright, J., was not questioned by the C. A.) Dejries v. Milne [191 3] i Ch. 98.
V,

May

Dawson

(The gene-

ral

[But see Cohen


V. Victoria

v.

Mitchell (1890) 25

Q.

B. D. 262, and King

Insurance Co. [1896] A. C. 290 (P. C.).]


:

except that
(i)

rights of action in

Tort which pass to a trustee

in bankruptcy,^*) or

which can be exercised by


j^*")

the liquidator of a

company

may

be by him

assigned to a stranger;
(a)

(b)

Seears. Lawson (1880) 15 Ch. D. 426. Re Park Gate. Waggon Works Co. (1881) 17 Ch. D. 234.

Digitized

by Microsoft

366
(ii)

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


a claim under the

Lands Clauses Consolidation


by a public undertaking
is

Act, 1845, to compensation in respect of lands


injuriously affected
in

the lawful exercise of statutory powers,

not

a claim to recover
the
Dawson
v.

damages

for a tort within

meaning of
G. N.

this .
i

&

City Ry. [1905]

K. B. z6o (C. A.).

[Probably this principle would be held to apply to all cases of claims to compensation under Acts of a similar character,]

Assignment
ti^torf"'^

789.

liability in

Tort cannot be transferred by


.

voluntary assignment.
[It
is

but

it

is

not easy to find an eji^l^ess authority for this statement; conceived that it is indisputable.]

Rights of bankrupt

790.

The

right to recover

damages

for a tort,

com-

jnitted before or since the

ruptcy, which

is

commencement of the banksubstantially a personal wrong to a


damages
for a tort

bankrupt, does not pass to his trustee in bankruptcy /*)

But a

right to recover

which causes

a direct pecuniary loss to the bankrupt, passes to or

may
(a)

be claimed by the trustee according to the provi-

sions of

Book

I, 70.^*^^

M, & W. 601 (Act of 1836). (1843) 11 M. & W. 625 (do.). Rogers v. Steme (1846) 12 CI, & F. 700 (do.). Re Wilson\\%i%) 8 Ch. D. 364 (C. A.) (Act of 1869). Rose V. Buckett [190 1] z K. B. 449 (Act of 1883). (b) Beckham v. Drake (1847) z H. L. C. 579. (But this was really claim on contract.) md^son V. Sidney (1866) L. R. i Ex. 313.
'koioardw. Crow'ther (1841) 8

Brewery.

Dew

'

"

'

Digitized

by Microsoft

EXTINCTION AND TRANSFER


791. Where the same act or omission ^ives

367
rise to Douiie

two

distinct torts,

one of which

is

to the person,

and

'^"""^

the other to the property, semhle, the right to sue on

may be claimed by the trustee in bankruptcy of the person injured, according to the prothe latter passes to or
visions of

Book

I,

70

whilst the right to sue

on the

other remains in the bankrupt.


Rogers v. Spence, ubi sup., at p. 721, per Lord Campbell. Hodgson V. Sidney, ubi sup., at p. 316, per Bramwell, B. Darley Main Colliery Co. v. Mitchell (1886) L. R. 11 App. Ca., p. 145, per Lord Bramwell.

at

[But when a single cause of action causes both personal and it is doubtful whether there can be any severance of action {Hodgson v. Sidney., ubi sup. ; and Morgan v. Steble (i872)L. R. 7Q. B. 611).]
proprietary damage,

792.

liability in

Tort

is

not extinguished by the


for unliq-

Liabilities of
''""'"'"P'

bankruptcy of the wrong-doer; but a claim

uidated damages in respect of a tort committed by a

bankrupt before the commencement of the bankruptcy


cannot be proved
in the

bankruptcy, unless the amount

of the damages was ascertained by judgment before the


date of the receiving order.
Bankruptcy Act,

1914,3.30

(i).

Re Newman (1876) 3 Ch. D. 494 (C. A.) (Act of 1869). Re British Goldfalds of W. Africa [1899] 2 Ch. 7. (Act of 1883.)

[By section 10 of the Judicature Act, 1875, the rules of bankruptcy on this point apply equally in the winding-up of insolvent companies by the Court. But a claim for the value of specific goods
which have passed to a trustee in bankruptcy by virtue of the order and disposition clause of the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, s. 38 (c), can be proved in the bankruptcy (^1? Button [1907] 2 K. B. l8o).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

368
Accord and
satisfaction

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

793.
^gj-gg

person entitled to sue another in Tort

may
sat-

with the person Hable to accept some act in

isfaction of his claim.

When

such act has been per-

formed, the agreement and performance discharge the


right of action.
Peytoe's Case

Boosey v.

Wood (1865)
to be

(1611) 9 Co. Rep. 77 b. 3 H. & C. 484.


little

[There would

also

seem

claims on contract {ante, Bk; II, Pt.

I,

be discharged by mere Agreement, if accepted as satisfaction. (See Hall v. Flockton (1851) 14 Q. B., at But there does not appear to p. 386, affirmed 16 Q. B. 1039.) be any express authority on the subject.]

doubt that, as in the case of 351), a claim in Tort may such agreement is expressly

Release of
right

794.
release

right of action in
seal;

Tort

may be

discharged by
is

under

and no consideration

necessary

for the validity of such release.


yones
V.

Bonner (1848") 2 Exch. 230.

[A
r.

release

must be

specially pleaded.

R.

S.

C,

1883, O.

XIX,

15.]

Limitation of
actions

795.

right of action in

Tort

will

be barred by the

expiration of the respective periods specified in

Book

I,

159,

and Bk.

II, Pt. Ill, 757, 786,

subject to the various savings for

and 787; but disabilities and other

exceptions described in

Book

I,

160-169.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
796.
injured

VII

REMEDIES
He may

FOR TORTS
person
for
Pecuniary

The normal and primary remedy of a


by the commission of
have other remedies;
a tort
is

an action

^^"'"^^

pecuniary damages.
stitution,

also, in addition or sube.g., recaption

{ante,

Bk.

I,

177), distress {ante, Bk. I, 180),


I,

abatement

{ante,

Bk.

181,

and

post,

843-848), injunction

{post,

805-808), account {post,

809), re-entry {post,

817,

819), restitution {post, 810), replevin {post,'

867), penalties {post, 891 n.).


[In this Title damages are dealt with only so far as the general measure and incidence are concerned. For
special

principles affecting their

the

rules

affecting

particular torts,

see

under such

torts

respectively.]

797.

The amount
is,

of the damages in an action of


;

Measure of
'^'"""^^

Tort

is

a question for the jury

W but the proper measure


which the
plaintiff

of damages

in general, the loss

has suffered as the " natural and probable " conse-

quence {ante
(a)

724) of the commission of the

tort.^*"^

(b)

Duberley v. Gunning (1792) 4 T. R. 651. N. W. Ry. Co. (1873) L. R. 8 Ex. 221. Rowleys. L. Johnston v. G. W. R. [1904] 2 K. B. 250. Watt V. Watt [1905] A. C, at p. 121. Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch. 541. The Netting Hill (1884) 9 P. D., at 113, per Brett, M.R.

'

[Where the loss, though proximately caused by the tort of the defendant, was the result of the plaintiff's own wrong-doing, the loss is not deemed to be the natural and probable consequence of the defendant's tort {Weld-Blundell v. Stefhens [1920] A. C. 956).

Digitized

by Microsoft

370
Exemplary and nominal
damages

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


The

798.

aggravation,

may take and may award


jury
tort

into account

matter of

vindictive or exemplary
:

damages
(i)

especially in the following cases

Where the manner


Merest

was committed

in

an insulting

\.

Harvey (1814)

Taunt. 442.

(ii)

Where

the conduct of the defendant has been

mahcious or high-handed; Emblen v. Myers (i860) 6 H. & N.


Bellv.

54.

M. R.

Co. (1861; 10 C. B.

N.

S.

287.

(iii)

Where

the defendant has been guilty of seduc-

tion or brutal conduct;


Tullidge V.

Wade (1769)

3 Wils.

18..

(iv)

Where

the plaintiff has been deprived of a con-

stitutional right.
Httckle V.

Money (1763)

2 Wils. 205.

[But the jury ought not to treat such matter of aggravation as giving a separate or independent right to damages {Anderson v, Calvert (1908)

XXIV

T. L. R. 399).]

On
(i)

the other hand, the jury


;

contemptuous damages

where

&

may award nominal

or

The

action

is

brought merely to estabhsh the


(nominal damages);
I

plaintiff's right

Marzettiw. Williams (1830) The Mediana [1900] A. C,

B.

Ad. 415.

at p.

16, per Halsbury, L. C.

(ii)

The

plaintiff,

though technically

justified,

ought

not, in the opinion of the jury, to

have brought

the action (contemptuous damages).


Cooke V. Brogden (1885) I T. L. R. 497.

Digitized

by Microsoft

REMEDIES FOR TORTS


[In the latter case, the plaintiff

371
his costs, or
v.

may

be deprived of

even ordered to pay those of the defendant {Harris

Petherick

(i879)4Q,B. D.

6ii).J

799.

The

jury

may

not take into account the means

Estimate of

of the defendant,^") nor the fact that the plaintiff has


insured against the
(a)

"^"^^

loss/'')

(b)

Hodsolly. Taylor (1873) L. R. 9 Q. B. 79. Bradburn v. G. W. R. (1874) L. R. 10 Ex.

i.

[There was, apparently, a partial exception from the last rule in the case of claims under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846 (Hicks v. Newport, i^c. Ry. (1857) 4 B. & S. 403 n. ; Grand Trunk Ry. v. Jennings (1888) L. R. 13 App. Ca. 800). But it has now been abolished (Fatal Accidents (Damages) Act, 1908. s. i).]

800. Where the damages awarded by the jury are New


unreasonably
large,^*)

trial

or

unreasonably

small,('')

the

Court
(a)

may
Cox
Phillips

order a
L.

new
W.

trial

of the action.
4 Q.
B.

V. English,
V.

i^c.
S.

Bant [^905] A. C. 168.


Ry.
Co.

(b)
5

(1879)

D.

406;

Q.

B.

D. 168.

But the Court

will not disturb the verdict of the jury


it is

on these grounds unless


(i)

convinced

that certain material points have not been taken


into consideration at all

by the

jury, or that

irrelevant matters have been taken into con-

sideration; or
Phillips V. L. S. IT. Ry. Co.

Johnston v. G.

W.

(1879) S C. P. D. z8o. R. [1904] z K. B. 250.

Digitized

by Microsoft

372
(ii)

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


that the verdict
result of a
is

no true verdict
;

at all,

but the

mere compromise

or,

Falvey v. Stanford (1874) L. R. 10 Q. B. 54.

(iii)

that the verdict

is

such that no twelve reasonable


it

men

could have given

unless

swayed by preju-

dice or passion.
Metropolitan Ry. Co. v. Wright (1886) L. R. 11 App. Ca. 152. Praed y. Graham (1889) 24 Q. B. D. 53 (approved in Johnston v.

G.

W.

R., ubi sup.,

at p.

255).

though

[The Court has no power to alter the assessment of damages it may order a new trial {Watt\. Watt [1905] A. C. 115).]

Continuing
''"'*'

801 . Where the cause of action


arises de die in diem.

is

a continuing injury,

giving rise to a continuing loss, a fresh cause of action

But damages
;

will

be assessed

down
future

to the date of the assessment

and

in respect of

damage
Holmes
V.

a fresh action

must be brought.

Wilson (1839) 10 A. & E. 503. v. Fellowes (1861) 10 C. B. N. S. ^65. Hole V. Chard Union [1894] I Ch. 293.

Whitehouse

trespass or nuisance, a fresh right of action did not arise

of a continuing from day to day, the defendant might by means of his wrongful act acquire It must be remembered, that the title to an estate or easement. payment of damages in such cases does not amount to a purchase of the right to continue the act complained of.]
if,

[The

principle seems to be, that

in the case

One

tort, one

802. All loss arising

from
loss,

a single

ground of action,
for

action

including prospective

must be recovered once

Digitized

by Microsoft

REMEDIES FOR TORTS


all in

373

same action but {semble) no damages can be awarded in respect of a merely apprehended tort/'')
the
^^'>
;

at

Hodsoll V. Stallehrass (1840) II A. & E. 301. Darley Main Colliery Co. v. Mitchell (1886) L. R. II App. Ca., pp. 132, 144. (b) Non obstante s. 2 of the Chancery Amendment Act, 1858. Dreyfus v. Peruvian Guano Co. (1889) 43 Ch. D. 316.
(a)

Cowper
Martin

V. Laidler [1903] 2 Ch. 337. (But see Holland v. Worley (1884) 26 Ch.
v.

D. 578, and

Price [1894]

Ch.,

at p.

284.)

803. Where the

loss arising

from the act or omission New


itself, is

loss,

of the defendant, and not the act or omission

"^^

""''

the cause of action, a fresh cause of action arises so


often as fresh loss results;

and damages therefor are

only claimable in such fresh action.


Darley

Crumble

And

Colliery Co. v. Mitchell, ubi sup. Wallsend Local Board [1891] I Q. B. 503. see Greenwell v. Low Beechburn Colliery Co. [1897] 2 Q. B. 165.
v.

Main

whose land

last two rules is, e. g., that a landowner owing to his neighbour working coal in his (the neighbour's) own land, is entitled to damages for all loss arising from that particular subsidence but not for depreciation in value .of his land due to the risk of further subsidence. If future

[The

result

of these

subsides

subsidence takes place, he will be able to bring a fresh action {ff^est Leigh Colliery Co v. Tunmcltfe [1908] A. C. 27).]

804.

When

the

same

act or omission infringes dif- One

act,

two

ferent rights of the plaintiff, the latter


rately in respect of each right.
entitled to
Brunsden
Darley Bramwell.

may

torts

sue sepa-

In any case, he will be

damages

in respect of each.
B.

v. Humphrey (1884) 14 Q. Main Colliery Co. v. Mitchell,

D. 141.
144, per Lord

ubi sup., at p.

Digitized

by Microsoft

374
Injunction

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


The Court may
;

805.

in its discretion grant

an

in-

junction prohibiting the commission, continuance, or


repetition of a tort
to restrain the
^*)

but in a quia timet action brought


tort,

commission of an apprehended

the
is

Court

will not

grant an injunction unless there

strong probability that the apprehended loss will actually


arise/''^
(a)

^b),

Crowder v. Tinkler (i8l6) 19 Ves. 622. Earl of Ripon v. Hohart (1834) 3 My]. & K. 1 69. A. G. V. Corp. of Manchester [1893] 2 Ch. 87. A. G. V. Corp., of Nottingham [1904] I Ch. 673.

Grounds far
tnjunc ton

806. The Court wiU, in the exercise of


g^^nt an injunction where there
is

its

discretion,

a reasonable appretort,

hension of the continuance or repetition of a

and

where the

loss

caused by such continuance or repetition

could not be adequately compensated by the payment

of damages
(i)

and particularly where

the proprietary rights of the plaintiff would be


interfered with

by a continuance or

repetition

of the tort
Southey
v.

or,

Bacpn
Hilton

V.

V.

Sherwood (18 1 7) 2 Mer., at p. 438 (copyright). Jones (1839) 4 My. & Cr., at p. 436 (patent). Earl Granville '(1841) Cr. & Ph., at p. 292 (land).
Jones (1841)
ibid., at p. 301 (do.). Gas Consumers Co. (1853) 3

Harman
A. G. p. 320.
Baird

v.

V. Sheffield

De G. M. &

G.,

at

Thorley
V.

v.

Wells (1890)

Massam (iSyy) 6 Ch. D., at 44 Ch. D., 661.

p. 588.

(ii)

the loss caused


V.

would be irreparable

or,

Forbes (1836) 2 Myl. & Cr. 123. V. Forbes (1867) L. R. 5 Eq., at p. 172. A.G. V. Cambridge Consumers Gas Co. (1868) L. R.

A. G. Cooke

4Ch. App.,

atp. 81.

Digitized

by Microsoft

REMEDIES FOR TORTS


(iii)

375
or,

the loss

is

present and continuous


S.

Soltau V. de

Held (1851) 2 Sim. N.

133.

A. G.

Cambridge Consumers Gas Co., ubt sup., at p. 81. Inchhald v. Robinson (1869) L. R. 4 Ch. App. 388.
V.

(iv)

a repetition of the tort would necessitate an incessant series of actions for


its

prevention
8

or,

Soltau V. de Held, ubi sup., at p. 15 z.

Clowes
P-

\. Staffordshire

Waterworks Co. (1872) L. R.

Ch. App.,

at

43-

(v) the

defendant asserts a right to repeat,^ or an

intention of repeatingj^*") the injury; or


(a)

A. G.

V. Sheffield v.

Stanford
(b)

Roberts v.

Gas Consumers Co. ubi sup., at p. 315. Hurlstone (1873) L. R. 9 Ch. App. I 16. Gwyfrai District Council [1899] 2 Ch. 608.

(vi)

the defendant has acted in a high-handed


ner, or with

manof his

knowledge of the
endeavoured to

illegality

action, or has

steal

march

upon
J

the plaintiff, or to evade an injunction


plaintiff,

applied for by the

or an order of the

Court.
Fon Joel
Colls V.
V.

Home

Hornsey [1895] 2 Ch. 774. and Colonial Stores [1904] A.

C,

at p.

193, per Lord

Macnaghten.

[The injunction may be granted way of interlocufcry order, in all


(Judicature Act, 1873,

before the
cases

Court to be just and convenient that


rigg

* ^5 (^)> ^^ But interlocutory orders are only (1878) 10 Ch. D. 294). granted with caution, when the Court is satisfied that the matter is

trial of the action, by where it appears to the such an order should be made interpreted by Day v. Brown-

urgent, that there

is

a serious question to be tried at the hearing,


it,

and that, on the facts before


tiff
is

there
v.

is

a probability that the plainat

entitled to relief {Preston

Luck (1884) 27 Ch. D.,

500), and, in cases of libel, only when "it is clear that if a jury gave a verdict for the defendants, it would be set aside as unreasonp.

Digitized

by Microsoft

376

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

able" (Bonnard v. Ferryman [1891] 2 Ch. 269; approved in TKe Court always Monson V. Tussaud [1894] I <^ B. 671). demands, as a condition of granting an interlocutory order, that the plaintifF shall undertake to indemnify the defendant against the loss caused by the order; if at the trial it shall appear that there is no case for an injunction. But the Court cannot compel a plaintifF to accept an order on such terms {Tucker v. 'New Brunswick Trading Co, (1890) 44 Ch. D. 249).]

Mandatory

807. The ordinary injunction

is

merely prohibitory;

but where the tort complained of consists in the creation

of a physical obstruction or interruption of a

permanent nature, which would cause permanent and


substantial loss to the plaintiff unless removed,^*^

and

the plaintiff

makes speedy application

to the Court,^''^

especially if the tort has

been committed after notice of

the plaintiff's claimsj^"^ or after action brought, (""^ the

Court
^

may

grant a mandatory order compelling the de-

fendant to remove such* obstruction, or otherwise tc*


restore things, to the condition in

which they were

at the

time

when

the plaintiff's complaint


v. V.

was

made.^*^

(a)

(b)
(c)

Smith Smith

(d)

Smith (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 500. Smith, ubi sup. Smifyb V. Day (1880) 13 Ch. D. 651. Krehl V. Burrell (1877) 7 Ch. D. 55I; II Ch. D. 146. ^i Daniel v. Ferguson [1891] 2 Ch. 27.
v.

(e)

Isenherg

E.

I.

Ho.

Co. (1863) 3

De G. &

S., at p.

272.

[This order used only to be granted in indirect language. The defendant was "restrained from permitting (the obstruction) to remain." But this scruple is now abandoned {Jackson v. Normanhy Brick Co. [1899] I Ch. 438). It is clear that, since the Judicature Act, the Court has had power to grant even a mandatory injunction by way of interlocutory order; though such power will only be
exercised with great caution {Daniel v. Ferguson., ubi sup.
;

Von Joelw.

Hornsey [1895] 2 Ch. 774).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

REMEDIES FOR TORTS

377
Damages
^-HfiJ^'
in

808. Even where an injunction would be the primd


facie

remedy, the Court may,


in lieu thereof;

if it

thinks

fit,

award

damages

Chancery Amendment Act, 1858,

s.

2.

[The statute is repealed by the Statute Law Revision and Civil Procedure Act, 1883, s. 3; but the jurisdiction is saved by s. 5 (b) of the latter statute (See Sayers v. Collier (below) and Re R.
;

[1906]

Ch. 730).]

and

will
(i)

do so

if

either

Court to refuse an

the plaintiff has been guilty of acquiescence,

which, though not sui^^^ient to deprive him of


all

remedy,

will incline the

injunction; or
Eastwood
Sayers
V.

Lever (1863)

D.

J.

&

S.

103.

v. Collyer

(1884) 28 Ch. D. 103.

(ii)

the injury to the plaintiff's legal rights

is

small,

and

is

capable of being adequately estimated in


a small

money and compensated by


ment, and
it

money pay-

would be oppressive

to the defend-

ant to grant an injunction; or


Shelfer
v.

City of London Electric Light Co. [1895]


is

Ch.,

at p.

322.

[The exercise of the discretion mandatory orders are applied for.

not confined to cases in which 3 19.

Ibid., at p.

(iii)

the plaintiff
legal
rights,

is

unreasonably insisting on his

and has suffered no substantial


Woods [1899]

damage.
Llandudno Urban Council
Behrens
v.
v.

Ch. 705.

Richards [1905] 2 Ch. 614.

Digitized

by Microsoft

3/8

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


will not

But the Court

substitute

damages
defendant.

for

an

injunction where the result would be to compel the


plaintiff to sell his legal rights to the
Shelfer v. City of

Cowfer

V. Laidler

London Co., uhi sup. [1903] 2 Ch, 337.

Account

809. In cases of waste, trespass to the

plaintiff's

mines, and infringement of patents, trade-marks, and


copyright, where the Court has jurisdiction to grant an

injunction in respect of the commission of a tort which

has resulted in the appropriation or user by the defendant of the plaintiff's property, the plaintiff may, at his
option, instead of a

judgment

for

damages, obtain, as

ancillary to such injunction,

an order for the taking of

an account of

profits received

by the defendant, and


to

for

the payment by the defendant to the plaintiff of such

amount

as shall be

shown by the account

have been

wrongfully received by the defendant.


2 Ha. 543. (1871) L. R. 5 H. L. I. Htggtnbotham v. Hawkins (1872) L. R. 7 Ch. App. 676. De Vitre v. Betts (1873) L. R. 6 H. L. 319. Lever v. Goodwin (1887) 36 Ch. D. I.

Colhurn Neilson

v.

Simms (1843)

v. Betts

Saxlehner

v.

Apollinaris Co. [1897]


is

Ch. 893.

an alternative to the claim for (Lever v. Goodwin, uhi sup,, at But where the defendant's conduct involves p. 5,^^r Collins, L. J.), the commission of more than one tort, an account may be claimed in respect of one, and damages in respect of another {Llynvi Co. v. Brogden (1870) L. R. 11 Eq. 188). Before the Judicature Act, a Court of Equity could only entertain a claim for an account in Tort as ancillary to a claim for an injunction {Moxon v. Bright (1869) L. R. 4 Ch. 292; Betts v. Gallais (1870) L. R. 10 Eq. 392).

[The

claim for an account

damages

in respect

of the same

tort

Digitized

by Microsoft

REMEDIES FOR TORTS

379

^are, since the passing of the Act. ^are, also. Does this rule cover all cases of Tort involving appropriation or user of another's property ? In cases of infringement of patent, an account cannot now be demanded as of right (Patents Act, 1919, s. 10).]

810. In an action to recover land or chattels of which


the defendant
ful,
is

Delivery of

in possession, if the plaintiff

is

success- P"""'"

the Court

may
S.

order possession of such land or

chattels to be delivered to the plaintiff


R. C. 1883, O.

by the

Sheriff.

tlNll and XLVIII.

[This has, of course, long been the rule with regard to land. for the recovery of chattels in specie (other than in replevin {post,-^ 867) and in rare cases in Equity) existed until the passing of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, s. 78; and even that statute, apparently, applied only to actions of Detinue. With the abolition of forms of action, however, the remedy became general. The appropriate machinery in the case of land is a writ in the case of chattels, a writ of delivery, followed, of possession if necessary, by a writ of assistance {Wyman v. Knight (1888) 39 Ch. D. 165).]

But no machinery

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION

II

TORTS IN RESPECT OF LAND

TITLE

TRESPASS
is

Definition

811. Trespass to land


ference,

any unauthorised

interact,^''^

however shght/'^ by means of a voluntary


;

with the possession of land


is

whether such interference

or
(a)

is

not intentional/'^^

(b)

Enticky. Carrington (1765) 2 Wils., at p. 291. Holmes v. Mother (1875) L. R. 10 Exch. 261 (not land). Stanley v. Powell [l^l] 1 Q. B. 86 (do.).

\^^are,

voluntary act,

Ward
(c)

means of a due to the negligence of the defendant {Weaver v. (1616) Hob. 134; Holmes v. Mather, at p. 269).]
if

the interference, though not effected by

is

Base ley v. Clarkson (1680) 3 Levinz, 37. Gregory v. Piper (1829) 9 B. & C. 591.

[The proper remedy under the old procedure for trespass to land was a writ of Trespass quare clausum fregit. But where the harm was not immediate but consequential, or where the injury was regarded as being done to a right and not to possession, as, e. g., the disturbance of an easement, or where the party injured had an interest in reversion or

remainder but not in possession, the proper


;

remedy was Case. Case was a very general form of action, based on the Statute of Westminster the Second and it became the remedy for numerous torts besides injuries to land, e.g., libel, slander, and conversion. It developed a variety of specialised forms, generally known by the name of the particular tort remedied. The gist of this action was the damage caused by the infringement of another's legal rights. For historical reasons, the action founded on
the straying of cattle {ante, 778)
is

Trespass.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

TRESPASS
812.

381
lies

An

action

of Trespass

for

'mterference Extent

of

with the

possession of the sub-soil or minerals

be- f"^"'""

neath the surface of land,W or of the air space in-

cumbent

thereon;^'')

but (semble)
is

this

right,

for the

purpose of suing in Trespass,

Hmited to so

much

of the air space above as the plaintiff can show to

have been
(a)

in his effective control.


v.
V.

Martin
Goodson

Porter (1839) 5 M. & W. 351. Richardson (1874) L. R. 9 Ch. 221.

Pountney v. Clayton (1883) 11 Q. B. D., at p. 838. Mayor of Tunbridge Wells v. Baird [i 896] A. C. 434. (b) In Pickering v. Rudd (181 5) 4 Campb. 219, Lord Ellenborough thought that an interference with the column of air superincumbent on a close was not remediable by Trespass quare clausum /regit, but by Case (See also Fay v. Prentice (1845) 14 L. J. /. e. damage must be proved. C. P. 298.) But see Kenyan v. Hart (1865) 6 B. & S., 249; Wandsworth Board v. United Telephone Co. (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 904; Lemmon V. Webb [1894] 3 Ch., at p. 20; Belts v, Pickford [1^06] 2 Ch. 87.

813.
of the

An

action of Trespass to land can be brought Who may


is

by any person who


land;W
titlc^*")
(a)

de facto in exclusive possession


is

""^

"""'

whether such possession

with or

without

(b)

v. Wadsworth (1805) 6 East, at p. 609. Cary v. Holt (1746) 2 Stra. 1238. Harkerv. Birkbeck (1764) 3 Burr. 1563. Graham V. Peat (1801) i East, 244. Ryan v. Clark (1849) Q- ^- ^S-

Crosby

[It seems that when the plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive enjoyment of the vesture or herbage of the land, or of several fishery or free warren in alieno solo, he is also allowed to bring the action

Trespass (Co. Litt. 46; Wilson v. Mackreth (1766) 3 Burr. 1824; Crosby V. Wadsworth (1805) 6 East, 602; Holjordv. Bailey So also if he is exclusively (1849) 8 Q. B. 1000; 13 Q. B. 426). entitled to a crop (JVellaway v. Courtier (igij) XXXIVT. L. R. 115).]
of

Digitized

by Microsoft

382
Tenant at
will

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


,

814. Where a trespass has been committed in

re-

spect of land in the occupation of a tenant at will,


either the tenant at will

or

the

immediate landlord

can sue.
Bro. Ab. Trespass,
pi.

131.
i

Attersollw. Stephens (1808)

Taunt.,

at p.

190 (fer Mansfield, C.

J.).

Lodger

815.

lodger

who has

contracted for the excluin a

sive use of a specific

room or rooms

house can

(probably)
lord
;(*)

sue

in

Trespass, even against his land-

but not a lodger


as his landlord

room

who is bound to take such may from time to time assign

to him.C')
(a) Dean v. Hogg (1834) ' ^ing., at p. 351 ; Lane v. Dixon (1847) C. B. 776. (But see dicta in Allan v. Overseers of Liverpool (1874) L. R. 9 Q. B., at p. 191, 192 ; and Holywell Union \..Halkyn DrainThese were, however, both age Co., [1895] ^- ^-y ^^ PP- '^^ '34rating cases ; in which other considerations apply. (b) fFright V. Stavert (i860) 29 L. J. Q. B. 161. 3

Occupier

816. Where the occupier of land has a

certain

and exclusive

interest,

he alone can sue in Trespass.


(This was a case of goods;

Wari-v. Macauley (1791) 4 T. R. 489.


but the reasoning applies.)

Baxter

v. Ta-ylor

(1832) 4 B.

&

Ad. 72,

Temporary
ejectment

817.

person

who

is

in

possession

of
is

land,

whether with or without

title,

and who

expelled

by a mere

trespasser,

may, before such trespasser

Digitized

by Microsoft

TRESPASS

383

has acquired possession, forcibly re-enter and eject

him;

and a wrong-doer cannot, by

riiereily
title.

evicting

the possessor, put the latter to proof of his

Browne V. Dawson (1840) 12 A. & E. 624. Lows V. Telford (1876) L. R. 1 App. Ca. 414.

818.

person entitled to the immediate posses-

Entry

sion of land

may make

a peaceable entry thereon;

and such entry will have the effect of vesting the possession in him,W notwithstanding that another person
remains without
entitled
title

on the

land.^'')

If a person so

makes a

forcible

entry on land, he will be

hable to indictment ;('^


tain possession of the
to a civil action for

but he will nevertheless obland,^'')

and

will not

be

liable

damages

for

such entry,W though

he will be

civilly liable for

any unnecessary assault or

injury to goods committed in the course thereof.^


(a)

Lows
Jones

V.

(b)

Butcher
V.

v.

Telford (1876) L. R. I App. Ca. 414. Butcher (1827) 7 B. & C. 399.

Chapman (1847)
426).
c. 7.

2 Exch., at p. 821 (approved in

Lows

V. Telford, ubi sup., at p. (c)

5 Ric. II.

(1381J

Hen. VI (I429) c. g. (d) Turner v. Meymott (1823) I Bing. 158. Harvey v. Brydges (1845) 14 M. & W. 437 (approved in Lows v. Telford, ubi sup., at p. 426, non V. Harland (1840) I M. & Gr. 644). Burling v. Read (1850) 11 Q. B. 904. (e)
8
(f)

Exch. 261

obstante

Newton

Hemmings v. Stoke Pages Club [1920] 1 K. B. 720. Beddall V. Maitland (1881) 17 Ch. D. 174. Edwick V. Hawkes (1881) 18 Ch. D. 199.
i

[In Jones v. Foley [1891]

Q.

B. 730,

it

was held

that there

was no

forcible entry.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

384
Relation

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

819.
sion

A
to

person entitled to the inimediate possesis,

back

of land

on completing

his

title
it

by

entry,

deemed

have been in possession of

since the time

when

his titje accrued.

He

can, therefore, bring actions


date,^'^

in respect of trespasses

committed since that

and

claim mesne profits for the whole of such period/''^


(a)

Barnett v. Earl of Guildford (1855) II Exch, 19. Anderson v. Radcliffe (1858) E. B. & E. 806. Ocean Accident Co. v. Ilford Gas Co. [1905] z K. B. 493. (b) Tharpe v. Stallwood (1843) 5 M. & Gr., at p. 774.

justertii

820. In an action for trespass to land, the defendant

may

justify

by

setting

up

title

in himself.^^^

But

he cannot
tertii);

justify

by

setting

up

title

in another {jus

unless

he proves also that he acted under

,the authority of that other /''\


(a)

This

is

called

" a plea of soil and

freehold,

' '

or of liberum tenementum.

For the nature and effect of the plea, see Ryanw. Clark (^i%/\-<)) (b) Chambers v. Donaldson (1809) 11 East, 65. Jbnes V. Chapman (1849) 2 Exch. 803.

14Q.

B. 65.

Trespass ab
initio

821

One who

enters the land of another

under an au-

thority given

by the law, and subsequently exceeds such

authority by an act

W
v.
v.

(but not by a mere omission

^~^'),

is

deemed

to

have originally entered as a trespasser.


Gargrave Harrison

(a)
,.;

Smfth (169,1) I Salk. 221. D. of Rutland [1893] I Q. B. 14Z.

trine

[Since the Distress for Rent Act, 1737, ss. 19 and 20, this docno longer applies to distress for rent nor, since the Poor
;

Relief Act, 1743,


(b)

s.

8, to distress for

poor

rate.]
b.

Six Carpenters' Case (16 10) 8 Co. Rep. 146

Digitized

by Microsoft

////

TRESPASS
822.

385

An

alleged trespass to land

on the following, grounds:


(i)

may

be

justified

justification

of trespass

that

it

has been committed under an authority


;

conferred by the law

more
inn;

particularly,

the entry complained of has been


(a) into

made
b.

where

common

Six Carpenters', Case (16 10) 8 Co. Rep. 146

(^)

by a

reversioner, to see if waste has been

committed
ihid.

(y)

by a landlord, for the purpose of demanding rent or levying a distress;


Litt.

Co.

201

b.

Eagleton v. Gutteridge (1843) 11 M. & Grunnell v. Welch [1905] z K. B. 650.

W.

465.

(8) in

the lawful execution of lawful process


a.

Semayne's Case (1604^ 5 Co. Rep. 91 Cooke V. Birt (18 1 4) 5 Taunt. 764..
(e)

to prevent the
v.

commission of murder
&
P. 260.

Handcock

Baker (1800) 2 B.

(0
Jones
V.

to abate a private nuisance

which cannot

otherwise be abated;
Williams (1845) II
v.

M. & W.
post^

176.
;

Lemmon

Webb [1894]
JO

3 Cli., at p. 13

[1895] A.

C,

at p. 5.

[For the law as to abatement, see


{rf)

843-848.]

in the exercise of a lawful

custom;
'! '.i

Tyson V. Smith (1838) 9 A. & E. 406. Mercer v. Denne [1905] z Ch. 538.

[Fox-hunting is not recognised as such a custom Summerhayes (1878) 4 Q. B. D. g).]

(Paul

v.

O 2

Digitized

by Microsoft

386

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


prevent (^) for the defence of the realm, or to
the spread of
fire

^i-'^

9 Edw. IV (1470) 35> Pl- lo21 Hen. VII (1506) 27 b, pi. 5. Maleverer v. Spink (153?) ' ^Y^' ^t 36 b. Dewey V. White (1827) Moo. & Malk. 56, per Best, C. Cope V. Sharpe [1912].! K. B. 496.

J.

(0

to recover the

goods of the defendant,

which were upon the land of the plaintiff, either as the result of an accident,^')
or by the act of the
the felonioi^s
act
plaintiff,^'')

or by

of a third party ;('=^

but not
(a)

otherwise.^'')
Latch, 13.

Millen v.

Hawery (1625)
V.

(b)
(c)

Patrick

V. Colerick

(d)

Higgins Anthony

(1838) 3 M. & W. 483. Andrewes (1620) z Roll. Rep. 55.

v.

Haneys (1832),

8 Bing. 186.

[The

rule does not apply to a house

(Tayler y. Fisher (1591)

Cro. Eliz. 245)'.]


(ii)

that

it

has

been

committed
right of

under

licence

granted by the

plaintiff/*^

or in the

lawful

exercise of a private

way

or other or other

easement, or of a right of
profit
(a)

common

a prendreS^^

Wood Wood

V.

V. Leadbitter

Manley (1839) 1 1 A. & E. 34. (1845) 13 M. & W. 838.

[Such a licence (unless coupled wi>:h,aii interest) may be revoked but the licensee may not be treated as a trespasser (Hurst V. Picture Theatres, Li. [1915] l K. B. i). The, revocation of the licence does not, it would seem, afect the contractual rights (if any) of the licensee (Z^mi-o v., Smith [1897] 2 Q. B. 445).]
at

any time

v., Met.

Pomfret v. Ricroft (16^9) I Wms. Saund. 321 (approved B. of Works (1874) L. R. g Q. B. 296). Mellor V. Spateman (1670) i Wms. Saund. 343,
(b)

mHoare

Digitized

by Microsoft

TRESPASS
823. The defendant
land
in

387
to Disclaimer

an action of trespass
title,

may

plead a disclaimer of

that the trespass a tender or


If these
is

was by negligence or involuntary, and offer of amends before action brought.


of his action.
Limitation Act, 1623,
s.

is-

sues are found for the defendant, the plaintiff

barred

5.

Basely

v.

Clarkson (1680) 3 Lev. 37.

824. Co-owners of land cannot bring actions of


trespass against one another ;(*) unless there has been

Co.,

actual expulsion. C')


(a)

Because they are only entitled to undivided possession.


(Litt. s.

(b)

323 J Jacobs v. Seward (1872) L. R. 5 H. L., Wilkinson v. Haygarth (1847) 12 Q. B. 837. Murray v. Hall (1849) 7 C. B. 441.

at p.

472.)

[Comiiioners can sue each other without proof of special


for acts involving physical interference with the use of the

damage

common

As to the rights of corights {King v. Brozan [191 3] 2 Ch. 416), owners of land against strangers, see ante, 765.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
Ejectment

II

DISPOSSESSION

825.

person entitled to the immediate possession

of land can, in addition to his right to enter peaceably on the land {ante, 8i8) recover possession against

any one withholding


in the

it

from him, by an action

for the

recovery of land in the nature of ejectment ;(*)' and can

same

action,(^)

or separately ,("=) recover damages


profits")-

for dispossession
(a)

("mesne

For the history of the action of ejectment, see Blackstone, ComBook III, c. 1 1 And see note of Serjeant Manning to report oi Butcher v. Butcher (1827) 1 M. & R, zzo. A person entitled to an interesse termini may bring ejectment, if the term is actually running {Doe v. Day (1842) z Q. B. 147). Since the Judicature Act, 1873, no action for the recovery of land can be defeated for want of the legal estate, where the plaintiff has the title to the. possession {General Finance Co. v. Liberator But in other cases Soc. (1878) 10 CJi. D., at p. 24, ^ir Jessel, M. R.). the person in whom the legal estate is vested must be before the Court
mentaries,
.

{Allen
(b)
'

V.

Wood (1893) 68
r. z.

Common Law

L. T. 143.) Procedure Act, 1852,


P.

s.

Z14; R.

S.

C,

1883,

O.' XVIII,

(The C. L.

Act limited the

right of joining a claim for

mesne profits to a landlord suing his tenant in ejectment ; but this restriction has been removed by the R. S. C. See Dunlop v. Macedo (1891) VIII T. L. R. 43.) It is advisable to make such a claim the subject of a special indorsement under O. Ill, r. 6 ; and, if this be done, judgment can be obtained for mesne profits up to the time of acquiring possession, under O. XIV, r. I ( Southport Tramways Co. v. Gandy [1897] 2 Q. B. 66). But the special indorsement is only available on behalf of a landlord. (c) Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, s. 218. And see cases
quoted
in last note.

Co-owners

826.

co-owner

who
by

is

totally

excluded

from

possession of the land

his co-owners

may

recover

Digitized

by Microsoft

DISPOSSESSION
possession and mesne profits against
in the nature of ejectment.
Co.
Litt.

389

them by an action

199

b.

Common Law
Goodtitle V.

Procedure Act, 1852,


3

s.

189.*

Tombs (1770)

Wils. 118.
J.

Murray
[*

v.

Hall (1849) 18 L.
is

C.

P., at p. 163.

This section

repealed by the Statute


s.

Law

Revision and
is

Civil Procedure Act, 1883, s. 5 (b) of the latter Act.]

3; but the principle

retained by

827. The

plaintiff in

an action of ejectment must

Onus pro-

recover on the strength of his

own
n.

title,

and not on

the weakness of that of the defendant.


Martin
v.

Strachan (1742)
(l

T. R. 107
(j>er

Roe

V.

Harvey

Perry

v. Clissold

769) 4 Burr. 2487 [1907] A. C. 73.

Lord Mansfield, and Willes,

J.).

[But possession for the statutory period*


enable the plaintiff to recover in ejectment.

is

a sufficient

title

to

Harding

Stokes V. Berry (1699) 2 Salk. 421. v. Cooke (1831) 7 Bing. 346.]

828. Subject to
of ejectment,
against the
title

830, the

defendant in an action
is

Jus tertu

unless

his

possession
set

wrongful as

plaintiff,^*)

may

up as a defence the
is

of another {jus

tertii),^^^

and

entitled to rely

on any flaw
(a)

in the title of the

plaintifT.('=)

Davison

v.

Harding
Asher
(b)
tertii is

v.

V.

Gent (1857) 3 Jurist, N. S. 342. Cooke (1831) 7 Bing., at p. 348. Whitlock (1865) L. R. I Q. B. 1.
(Quiere.

Barnard (1849) 13 g. B. 945. disclosed in the plaintiff's case.)

Doe

V.

Only

if

the;W

(c)

Doe Doe

V. V.

Barber (1788) 2 T. R. 749. Barnard, ubi sup.

Digitized

by Microsoft

,>,

390
"

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


criticism of the last decision uttered by

[The

in Perry v. Clissold

Lord Macnaghten [1907] A. C. 73 (P. C.) does not seem to be

conclusive.]

Mere
passer

ires-

829. Posscssion

is

Sufficient

to

support an action
;

^^ ejectment against a mere trespasser

and the
title,

latter
set

cannot put the

plaintiff to

proof of his

nor

up a

jus

tertit.

Doe V. Dyball (1829) Moo. & Malic. 346. Browne v. Dawson (1840) 12 A. & E. 624. Davison v. Gent (1857) I H. & N. 744. Asher V. Whitlock (1865) L. R. I Q. B. I.

Estoppel

830.

lessee or licensee of the

plaintiff in ejecttitle

ment
such

is

estopped from denying the latter's


;

to

grant the lease or licence


title
(a),
,

(^)

but he

may show
with.^'')

that

has since expired or been parted


Doe Doe
V.
V.

(b)

Smythe (18 1 5) 4 M. & S. 347. Bayiup (1835) 3 A. & E. 188. Claridge v. Mackenzie (1842) 4 M. & Gr. 142.
the alleged lease was totally void by virtue of an e:^press

[Where
statute,
it

and lessee was not created thereby {Magdalen Hospital v. Knotis (1879) L. R. 4 App. Ca. 324).]

w^as held that the relationship of lessor

Digitized

by Microsoft

-ilfe'

TITLE
831.

III

NUISANCE
whereby
Definition
(>

nuisance
is

is

an act or omission

a person

unlawfully annoyed, prejudiced, or dis;

turbed in the enjoyment of land


ical

whether by phys-

his

damage to the land, or by other interference with enjoyment of the land or with his exercise of an
profit,

easement,

or other similar

right,('')

or with his

The fact that such an annoyance, prejudice, or disturbance legally amounts


health, comfort, or convenience.
to trespass,^')
(a)

is

no bar
the
I

to

an action of Nuisance.
for nuisance

The

action on

case

was
assise

local

in

its

character

(^Warren v. fFebb (1808)

Taunt. 379).

The

of nuisance was a real

action, and, a fortiori, local.


(b) Keehle v. Hickeringill (1706) 11 East, 574 n, per Holt, C. J. Brocklebank v. Thompson [1903] 2 Ch., at p. 348. (In such

cases, apparently, proof of actual

damage

is

unnecessary.)

[The case of Malone v. Laskey [1907] 2 K. B. 141, seems to decide conclusively that a plaintiff who has neither an interest in land nor a local right cannot recover.]
(c)

Baten's Case (16 10) 9 Co. Rep. 53 b.


Wells V.

Ody (1836)

M. & W.,

at p.

459.

Fay

V. Prentice

Battishill V.

(1845) ' ^- ^- ^*9Reed (1856) 18 C. B. 696.

earliest private remedies in respect of nuisance were the of nuisance and the writ of " quod permittat prostei^nere " But these the latter to authorise the plaintiff to abate the nuisance. actions, being available only for and against freeholders, were ultimately superseded by the action of Case under the Statute of Westminster the Second ; which action, however, tequired proof of (See 3 Bl. Comm. special damage, and sounded only in damages. 222, and remarks of Cresswell, J., in Battishill v. Reed (1856) Still, the right to abate, as an extra-judicial 18 C. B., at p. 714.)

[The

assise

03

Digitized

by Microsoft

392

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


;

remedy, remains in certain cases but inasmuch as an injunction or mandatory order {ante. Section I, Title VII, 805-808), which may be granted at the discretion of the Court, has substantially the effect of an order of abatement, it is probable that the right of abatement, as an extra-judicial exercise of authority, will tend to fall into disfavour. See, however, Zasi? v. Capsey\^i%()i] 3 Gh. 411 ; where Chitty, J., left a plaintiff who had been refused a mandatory order, to take such steps as he might be advised to abate a nuisance on land in the occupation of a receiver appointed by the Court.]

Ground of
action

832.
/
\

An

action of nuisance lies:


r

iz-i-oo m 831

(a) in

respect of a

nuisance as denned

(private nuisance)
[In such cases actual
I

damage must

generally be proved, except

in the cases referred to in the note to Section I, Tit. I, 723.]

(b)

in

respect of a public

nuisance,
particular
in

whereby

the

plaintiff

has

suffered

damage

be-

yond that suffered by him


other

common

with

members of

the public.

Benjamin v. Starr (1874) L. R. 9 C. P. 400. Lyon V. Fishmonger's Co. (1876) L. R. lApp. Ca. 662. Tottenham U. D. Council v. Williamson [1896] 2 Q. B. 353. Boyce v. Padiington Council [1903] i Ch., at p. 114; affd. [1906] A. C.
I.

[For a definition of public nuisance see works on Criminal

Law; and

Garret,

Law

of Nuisances (3rd edh.) 1908.]

Diminution
in value

833. Mere diminution of the value of the


property does not, per
it
1

se,

constitute a nuisance; but

...
N.
S., at p.
i

plaintiff's

may be

evidence as to the extent of a nuisance.


De Held (1851)
2 Sim.

Soltau V.

58.

Digitized

by Microsoft

NUISANCE
834.

393
it

An act or

omission, even though

in fact causes

justification

annoyance, prejudice, or disturbance to the


does not give
{a)
it is

rise to

an action of nuisance

if:

plaintiff,

done

in the

due exercise of the defendant's

proprietary rights in his


{b) it is

own
by

land

W
and cannot
annoyance,
of/''^

expressly authorised

statute,

be done without occasioning the

prejudice, or disturbance complained


(a)

Chasemore

v.
V.

Richards

(l

859) 7

H. L. C. 349.

Hurdman
(b)

E. Ry. (1878) 3 C. P. D., at p. 1 74. Bradford v. Pickles [1895] A. C. 587. Hammersmith Ry. Co. v. Brand (1869) L. R. 4 H. L. 171. L. B. bf S. C. R. V. Truman (1885) 1 1 A. C. 45.
latter exception, see ante. Section I,Tit. II,

N.

[For the limits of the

756.]

835. In determining whether an act or omission

Estimate of
""'"^^

complained of causes annoyance, prejudice, or


turbance to the
plaintiff in

dis-

his health or the enjoy-

ment of

his property, regard will

be had

{a) to the

ordinary standard of living in England


De G. & 'Smale,
at p.

Walter v. Selfe (iSjl) 4

322.

(J))

to

the

character of the locality in which the

act or omission took place;


Sturges V. Bridgman (1879) ^^- ^-j ^^ P- ^^SColonial Stores [1904] A. C, at p. 182. Colls V. Home

"

Rushmer v. Polsue [1906] i Ch., at p. 250 (adopted on appear by House of Lords [1907] A. C, at p. 123).

the

[It would seem that the latter consideration is of less importance where the nuisance complained of is directly an injury in respect of property, than where it is an injury in respect of health {St. Helen's Co. V. Tipping (1865) 1 1 H. L. C, at p. 650, per Lord Westbury).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

394
(c)

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


to the necessary

annoyances arising from the

common and
business.

ordinary use and occupation of

lands and houses, or from the necessities of

v. Turnley (l86z) 3 B. & S., at p. 83, per Bramwell, B. Original Hartlepool Co. Vi Gibb (1877) 5 Ch. D. 713.

Bamford

Robinson Harrison
case,

w. Kilveift v.

some

stress

(1889) 41 Ch. D., at p. 94. (In this Southwark fcf Vauxhall Co. [ 1 89 1 ] z Ch. 409. was laid on the fact that the annoyance was only temporary.)

rnvalid
excuses

836. If an act or omissiop


it is

is

prima

facie a nuisance,
:

no defence for the defendant to prove


the
se,

(a) that

act or

omission complained of was,


use of the
defendant's

per

reasonable

property
Broder v. Saillard (1876) 2 Ch. D., at p. 701. Sanders-Clerk v. Grosvenor Mansions Co. [1900] z Ch. 373.

{b)

that the nuisance complained of

was

in exist-

ence before the plaintiff came to the place in

which he

suffers it;

Penruddock's Case (1598) '5 Co. Rep. loo b. Bliss V. Hall (1838) 4 Bing. N. C. 183. Tipping V. St. Helen's Smelting Co. (1865) L. R. I Ch. App. 66. Fleming v. Hislop (1886) L. R. II App, Ca., at p. 697.

{c)

that he

is

carrying on a useful trade in a con;

venient locality
Bamford
St.

v. Turnley (1862) 3 B. & S. 62. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping (1865) II H. L. C. 642. Rushmer v. Polsue [1906] I Ch. 234; affd. [1907] A. C. 121,

(J)

that he has not been guilty of negligence.


Paillbach Colliery Co. v.

Woodman [1915] A.

C. 634.

Digitized

by Microsoft

NUISANCE
The defendant may, however,
action
(semble)
right to

395
defeat the

by proving a prescriptive
of.

do the acts

complained
Elliotson V.

Feetham (1835) 2 Bing. N. C. 134. Hall (1838) 4 Bing. N. C, at p. 186. Crump V. Lambert (1867) L. R. 3 Eq., at p. 413. Sturges y. Bridgman (1879) 11 Ch. D., at f. 863.
Bliss V.

Neaverson

v.

Peterborough Rural Council [1902]


I

Ch.,

at p.

564.

Foster V. fFarblington Urban Council [1906]


[It
is

K. B. 648.

which the defence of

remarkable that there appears to be no modern case in prescriptive right was successful ; and it could, probably, only be successful where the defence showed that the defendant, in doing the acts complained of, was exercising a recognised easement or profit a prendre. It is clear that there can be no prescriptive right to comm't a public nuisance {Fowler v. Sanders (1617) Cro. Jac. 446; MoU v. S'hoowred (1875) L. R. 20 Eq., at
p.

24).]

837. The occupier of land affected by a nuisance


is,

Occupier's
'"^""

primi facie, the person entitled to bring the action.^*^


,

Where

the nuisance
title

is

continuous, the fact that the

occupier's

arose since the act or omission which


is

caused the nuisance,

no bar

to his action-C*)
(Jones
v.

(a) Semble, even a weekly tenant may bring the action Chappell (r87S) L. R. 20 Eq., at p. 543). Westburne v. Mordant {1^90) Cro. Eliz. 191. (b) Beswick V. Cunden (593) Cro. Eliz. 402. ' Penruddock's Case (1598) J Co. Rep. 100 b. Thompson v. Gibson (1841) 7 M. & W., at p. 460.

838.

reversioner also can sue where the alleged


1

Action by
reversioner

nuisance causes a permanent damage to the premises

^1

Ca'*

^ '

but the fact that tenants have given notice to quit in consequence of it,^'') or that the value of the premises

Digitized

by Microsoft

396

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


is

has depreciated/'^^

not conclusive proof of perma-

nent damage.
(a;

(b)
(c)

(1767) 4 Burr. 2 1 41. 11 A. & E. 40. Kidgill V. Moor (1850) 9 C. B. 364. Metropolitan Assocn. v. Prfci (1858) 5 ,C. B. N. S. 504. Harmerv. Knoides (1,861) 30 L. J. Ex. 1 02. Mfux' Brewery Co. V. CityofLondonElectricLtghtCo.[l'Sgs] Ch. 287. Simpson v. Savage (iS^S) 1 C. B. N. S. 347. Jones V. Chappell (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 539.
Jesser v. Gifjord
V.

fucker

Newman, {li^g)

[The

cases appear to

would seem to be no reason why the maindermen.]

be confined to reversioners; but there rule should not include re-

Claim of
right

839.
at
its

nuisanre, even though


entitle

it

might be removed
if

any moment, may

a reversioner to sue,

continuance would be evidence adverse to the ex-

istence of a right of the plaintiff.^*^

But an

act,

even

though done under a claim of

right,

not being evi-

dence of a right against the reversioner, will not entitle

him

to bring the action

unless

it

in fact causes

permanent damage
(a)

to the premises.^^

Shadwell v. Hutchinson (1829) Moo. Tenterden, C. J., at Nisi Prius.

&

Malk., 350, per Lord

Metropolitan Assocn. v. Fetch (1858) 5 C. B.

N.

S., at p. 5

2.

Mott
(b)

ShoqUfed (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 2-2. Baxter v. Taylor (1832) 4 B. & Ad. 72.
V.

Liability of

840. The person primarily hable in respect of a


nuisance
is

creator of nuisance

the person

who

creates the

nuisance.^*^

The
ceeds

occupier of the land whence the nuisance prois,

presumably, such

person.^')

But a

lessor

who has agreed


in respect of

to repair, and failed to do so, is liable any nuisance arising from such failure ^'^
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

NUISANCE
and a person who
has
a
continuing
lets

397

or

sells

land which at that time


thereon,

nuisance

remains

liable

to third parties therefor.^'')


(a)

Rosewell

Prior (1701) 2 Salk. 460. Gibson (1841) 7 M. & W. 456. Saxby V. Manchester fcf Sheffield Ry. Co. (i 869) L. R. 4 C. P. 198. Nelson V. Liverpool Brewery Co. (1877) z C. P. D. 311.
v.

Thompson

v.

(b)

(c)

Cheetham v. Hampson (1791) 4 T. R. 318. Payne v. Rogers (1794) 2 H. Bl. 350. Payne v. Rogers, ubi sup. Russell V. Shenton (1842) 3 Q. B., at p. 458.
Nelson
V.

Liverpool Brewery Co., ubi sup.

(d)

Thompson v. Gibson, ubi sup., at p. 46 1 Todd V. Flight (t86o) 9 C. B. N. S. 377. Bowen V. Anderson [1894] I Q. B. 164.

[It appears, however, that if the lessor, in the last case, takes an express contract from the lessee to abolish the nuisance, he^ ceases

{Pretty v. Bickmore (1873) L. R. 8 C. P. 401 Earner (1875) L. R. 10 C. P. 658; and see Hale v. Duke of Norfolk [1900] 2 Ch., at p. 500, and Cavalier v. Pope [1905] 2 K. B., at p. 752). This doctrine seems contrary to principle ; especially if the lessor knew of the existence of the nui-

to

be

liable
v.

Gwinnell

gratjited the lease, ^uare, if it would apply where was under an absolute duty to the public, e. g. in the case of a dangerous structure abutting on or projecting over a highway. (See Tarry v, Ashton (1876) i Q. B. D. 314.)]

sance

when he

the lessor

841. Where a nuisance

is

caused by the act or


title,

Predecessor's

omission of the occupier's predecessor in


occupier
is

the

nuisance

not liable unless he continues the nuisance


it

or permits

to continue.

Penruddock's Case (1598) 5 Co. Rep. 100 b. Greenwell v. Low Beechbuni Coal Co. [1897] 2 Q. B. 165. Hall V. Duke of Norfolk [1900] 2 Ch. 493.

[If these cases are right; it would seem that there is no remedy by action unless the nuisance arises during the lifetime of the predecessor, e.g. a case of subsidence due to an excavation made by a (See Civil Procedure Act, 1833, s. 2.)] deceased predecessor.

Digitized

by Microsoft

398
Measure of damages

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


Where
is

842.

the plaintiff in an action for nuisance


is

causing physical injury to a highway

a public

body

which

merely under a statutory

liability to
is

maintain

the highway, the measure of damages


of restoring the

not the cost

highway
it

to

its

former condition, but

the cost of rendering the public.


Wedneshury Corporation

equally convenient for ^se by

v.

Lodge Holes Colliery [1908] A. C. 323.

Abatement

843. As an alternative to an action for damages,


the person injured by the existence of a private nui-

sance

may

himself remove the nuisance (Abatement)


necessary
for^

and may,

if

that purpose, enter

upon the

land from which the nuisance proceeds.


Wigford
V. Gill

(1591) Cro.

Eliz.

269.
a.

Baten's Case (16 10) 9 Co. Rep., at 55

[It seems doubtful whether a person who has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a mandatory order to destroy an alleged nuisance can afterwards abate it (^Lane v. Capsey [1891] 3 Ch., at p. 416).]

Lord of manor
is,

844.
his

commoner may not abate a nuisance


right caused

to

common
primt

by an

act of the lord


is,

which

facie, lawful,

but which

in fact,

an excesis

sive exercise of the: lord's rights.

His remedy

by

action.
.!
'

Cooper

V.

S adgrove
Arlett V.

Hope

V.

Marshall (1757) I Burr. 259. Kirkby. (1795) ^ "^^ ^' 4^3Ellis (1827) 7 B. & C. 346. Osborne [i^l^] 2 Ch. 349,
Vi

Digitized

by Microsoft

NUISANCE
845.

399

person

abating a nuisance

must
the

do

so

peaceably, and without avoidable

damage ;W and

he

limits of ''"^'^^

may

not, to

effect

his object, infringe

rights of

third parties.^'')
Lodie v. Arnold (1697) 2 Salk. 458. Perry v. Fitzhowe (1846) 8 Q. B. 757. (b) Roberts v. Rose (1865) L. R. i Ex. 8z.
(a)

846. Where a nuisance


the
it,

arises

from an omission,

Notice

to

party injured must, before proceeding to abate


give notice to the wrong-doer of his intention to
;

"^"'^

abate

(*)

unless

(a) the

nuisance

is

caused

by the encroachment
^''^

of the boughs or roots of a tree growing in the land of the wrong-doer


{b)
it
;

or,

is

necessary to abate immediately in order

to secure Ufe or property/"^


v. Nelson (1823) z B. & C, at p. 311, per Best, J. Williams (1843) 11 M. & W. 176. (b) Lemmon v. Webb [1895] A. C. 1. (c) Lonsdale v. Nelson, ubi sup., at p. 311, per Best, J. Jones V. Williams, ubi sup., at p. 182, per Lord Abinger, C. B.

(a)

Lonsdale
V.

Jones

847. Where a nuisance


jured party
'

arises

from an

act, the in- Notice

may
is

abate

it

without

notice,^*) unless:

m-

necessary

(a)

it

necessitates

the
;

demolition
^^^

of a

building

which
(b)
it

inhabited

or,

necessitates

an entry on the land on which


arises,

the nuisance

and such land

is

in the

Digitized

by Microsoft

400

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


occupation of a person
action,

who

is

not liable to an
is

and

the

abatement

not

urgently

necessary.^

(a)

(b)

Davies Davies

v.
v.

Williams (1851) .16 Q. B. 546, Williams, uhi sup.


'

Lane
(c)

v.
V.
v.

Capseyll^l]

Ch.,

at p.

415.

Jones Perry

Williams (1843) 1 1 M. & W., at p. l8z. Fitzhowe (1846) 8 Q. B. 757.

Public
nuisance

848.

person

may

not abate a public nuisance,

unless he suffers such special


entitle
if

damage from

it

as

would
But
a

him

to bring
is

an action {anU,
caused by the

832

(i).)^*^

the

nuisance

obstruction of

public highway, a person

who cannot
^"^

otherwise con-

veniently exercise his right of passing along the high-

way may
doing as
(a)

pass

over ^^ or remove

the obstruction

little

damage
v.

a? possible/*^)

Mayor

of Colchester v. Brooke

Winterbottom

(1845) 7 Q. B, 339. Lord Derby (1867) L. R. 2 Ex. 316.

[The latter was an unsuccessful action to recover the expenses of removing obstructions from the alleged obstructor. The question of the right to remove the obstructions was not directly discussed.]
Eastern Counties Co. v. Dorling (1859) z8 L. J. C. P. 20Z. Dimes v. Petley (1850) 15 Q. B. 276. Bagshaw v. Buxton Board of Health (1875) I Ch. D., at p. 224, per Jessel, M. R. (d) Campbell Davys v. Lloyd [1901] 2 Ch. 518.
(b)
(c)

Injunction

849.
cretion,

The Court
grant

will,

in

the

exercise of

its

dis-

against
nuisance

an

injunction

(if

necessary)

Digitized

by Microsoft

NUISANCE
mandatory order
(a)
(''^

401
the-

to

restrain

continuance

or

compel the removal of a nuisance.


Imperial Gas Light
Shelfer v. City of

& Coke

Co. v. Broadbent (l 859) 7

H. L. C. 600.
Ch. 287.

London

Electric Light Co.

[1895]

(b)

Daniel

Ferguson [1891] 2 Ch. 27. Fon Joel V. Hornsey [1895] 2 Ch. 774.
v.

[For the general principles upon which the discretion of the Court is exercised in granting or withholding injunctions, see ante^ Section I, Tit. VII, 805-808.]

850.
strain

An

injunction

may

also

be granted to

re- Apprehended

the commission of an apprehended nuisance,


in 805.
II

on the principles explained


Crowder
v.

Tinkler (l8l6) 19 Ves. 617.

Fleet V. Metropolitan

Asylums Board (1886)

T.

L. R. 36 1.

[Both approved in A. G. v. Corporation of Manchester [1893] 2 Ch., at p. 91 ; A. G. V. Corporation of Nottingham [1904] i Ch. 673.]

Addendum to Title
It

III
list

would be dangerous
;

to attempt

any exhaustive

nuisances

for

it

is

to be expected that, with changes in social

of specific and

industrial habits,

new examples
list.
:

will continually arise, and, possibly,

old ones disappear from the

instances
1.

may be mentioned

But the following well-established

Emission of noxious smells.

Walter v. Selfe (1851) 4 De G. & Sm. 315 (brick-burning). Margate Pier Co. v. Margate Corpn, (1869) 20 L. T. 564 (seaweed). Rapier v. London Tramways Co. [1893] 2 Ch. 588 (stables).

A. G.
2.

V.

Tod-Heatley [1897]

Ch. 560 (rubbish).

Production of unusual or excessive noise.


Soltau V.

De Held (1851)
v.

2 Sim.

N.

S.

133 (church

bells).

Inchbald

Broder
Polsue

V.

Barrington (1869) L. R. 4 Ch. 388 (circus). Saillard (1876) L. R. 2 Ch. D. 692 (stables).

Colwell V. St. Pancras [1904]


V.

I Ch. 707 (electric station). Rushmer [1907] A. C. 121 (printing machines).

Digitized

by Microsoft

402
3.

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


Knowingly harbouring, or exposing
cases of infectious disease

or explosive or inflammable substances.

4 M.

Lord Ellenborough in R. v. Vantandillo (18 1 5) 73 (inoculation for small-pox). R. V. Burnett (18 15) ibid., 272 (do.). Crowder v. Tinkler (18 1 6) 19 Ves. 617 (storage of gunpowder). Vaughan v. Menlove (1837) 3 Bing. N. C. 468 (storage of hay). Hepburn V. Lordan (1865) 34 L. J. Ch. 293 (storage of jute). Metropolitan Asylums Board v. Hill (1881) L. L. 6 App. Ca. 193
R.
V.

Sutton (1767), per

&

S.

(hospital).

4.

Causing crowds to assemble.


jR. V.

Moore (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 184 (pigeon shooting). Walker v. Brewster (1867) L. R. 5 Eq. 25 (outdoor fete). Bellamy v. Wells (1891) 39 W. R. 158 (boxing club). Barber v. Penley [1893] 2 Ch. 447 (theatre).

[The obstruction must be permanent; the mere passing by of crowds on their way to a place of entertainment is not sufficient {Inchbaldv. Robinson (1869) L. R. 4 Ch. App., at p. 396).]
5.

Besetting or watching approaches to a house.


V.

Lyons

Wilkins [1899]

Ch., at p. 267 {per Lindley,

M.

R.).

[This form of nuisance must now be considered in connection with the Trades Disputes Act, 1906, s. 2; which practically abolishes it, if peacefully conducted, so far as industrial disputes are concerned.]
Fouling or substantially diminishing a (natural) water supwith the right of lateral or vertical support of
its

6.

ply, or interfering

land in

original state,
v.

Rowbotham
(vertical

Wilson (1857) 8 E.

&

B., at pp.

142, 151, 154, &c.

and

lateral support).

Bonomi w. Backhouse (1859) ^- ^- ^ ^' ^' P- 654> per curiam (do.). Swindon Waterworks Co. v. Wilts bfc. Canal Co. ( 1 875) L. R. 7 H. L. 704 (stream of water). Ormerod v. Todmorden Mill Co. (1883) II Q. B. D. I 55 (do.). A. G. V. Conduit Colliery Co. I Q. B., at p. 312 (vertical [1895J
support J.

(Where

it is

said that

no

aptual

damage need be proved.


is

Sed

qucere.)

[But the complainant's right of action


considerations, viz.
<

subject to the following

Digitized

by Microsoft

NUISANCE
(i)

403

Every riparian proprietor has a right to the reasonable user of the water flowing past his land, whether such user does or does not interfere with the enjoyment of a lower riparian
proprietor

Miner v. Kingsdown.
(ii)

Gilmour

(1858)

iz Moo.

P.

C,

at

p.

156, per Lord

Every occupier

of land has the right to take water percolating through his land in undefined or unknown channels, and to drain his land ; even though the effect be to deprive adjacent occupiers of water or support.

Chasemore
Popplewell

v.
V.

Richards (1859) 7

H.

L. C. 349.

Hodgkinson (1869) L. R. 4 Ex. 248. Bradford Corporation v. Ferrand [1902] 2 Ch. 655. Salt Union v. Brunner Moi[l9o6] 2 K. B. 822. English V. Met. Water Board [1907] I K. B. 588.

[But the right to take percolating water does not cover (a) the it {Ballard v. Tomlinson (1885) 29 Ch. D. 1 15) or (b) the right to abstract silt from the defendant's soil in such a way that it will cause the plaintiff's land to subside {Jordeson v. Sutton., i^c. Gas Co. [1899] ^ C^' 217. SembUj in this case, the defendants took away silt from the plaintiff's soil).]
right to foul

7. prejit

Substantial interference with the enjoyment of any easement,

a prendre, or local right.


Ca. 740 (support of buildings). App. Ca. 927 (market).
(fishery).

Dalton V. Angus (1881) L. R. 6 App. G. E. Ry. V. Goldsmid (1884) L. R. 9 Fitzgerald v. Firbank [1897] 2 Ch. 96 Brocklebank v. Thompson [1903] z Ch.
Colls V.

Home

&

355

(local rights).
1

Colonial Stores [1904] A. C.


I
;

79

(lights).

Jolly V.

Kine [1907] A. C. (Only a few cases are given

(do.).

the rule

is

indisputable.)

8.

Causing obstruction

to,

or danger to the use of, a highway

or public bridge. Barnes v. Ward (1850) 9 C. B. 392 (unfenced area). Abbot V. Macfie (1863) 2 H. & C. 744 (cellar flap). Hill v. New River Co. (1868) 9 B. & S. 303 (water spout). Benjamin v. Storr (1874) L. R. 9 C. P. 400 (obstruction). Tarry v. Ashton (1876) I Q. B. D. 314 (sign-board). (But a highway may be dedicated to the public subject to what would otherwise be a nuisance {Fisher v. Prowse (1862) 2 6. & S. 770).)

Digitized

by Microsoft

404
[There

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


is

a curious rule that no action can be brought for a pri-

vate nuisance caused by the alleged obstruction of a highway through

mere non-feasance
defendant.

{e.

g.

omission to repair)

unless

it

can be shown

that a statutory liability to an action for the omission rests

upon the

Men of Devon (1788) z T. R. 667. Cowley V. Newmarket Local Board [iSgz] A. C. 345. Maguire v. Liverpool Corporation [1905] I K. B. 767.
Russell V.

Trbbably the liability of a person bound to repair ratione tenurae comes under the above rule. {Rundle v. Hearle [1898] 2 Q. B., at And see also pp. 86 and 87.)] p. 89.
9.

Causipg water to overflow on to the

plaintiff's land.

Baten's Case (161 1) 9 Co. Rep. 53 b. (eaves-drip). Fletcher v. Rylands (1868) L. R. 3 H. L. C. 330 (flood water).

Snow
10.
dition.

v.

Whitehead (1884) 27 Ch. D. 588

(rain water).

Allowing buildings or fences to

fall

into a dangerous con-

Cheetham

was

as to

v. Hampson (1791) 4 T. who was liable).

R. 318 (where the only question

Todd v. Flight (i860) 9 C. B. N. S. 377. Nelson V. Liverpool Brewery Co. (1877) L. R. 2 C. P. 311 (where there was no doubt as to the liability of some one).

11.

also

Maintenance of scandalous or riotous premises, or unR. R. R.


v.

licensed entertainments.

V. V.

Williams (1711) I Salk. 383. Rogier (1823) i B. & C. 272.


Charles (1862) 9 Cox, C. C. 18.

12.

Public display of acts of indecency or immorality, or of

indecent literature.
R.
V. Holmes (1853) 3 Car. & K. 360 (indecency). The Queen v. Harris (1871) L. R. i C. C. R. 282 (immorality). Steele v. Brannan (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 261 (indecent literature).

[There
detailed.

are numerous other statutory nuisances which cannot be For a list, see Garrett, Law of Nuisances (3rd. edn.),

pp. 288-372.J

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
An

IV

OTHER
will
lie

TORTS IN RESPECT
by a reversioner or

OF LAND
851.
action
re- Waste

mainderman

against a tenant of the land in respect

of waste,W or against a stranger in respect of damage


to the inheritance. C")
(a)

Bacon

v.

Jfoodhouse

Smith (1841) i Q. B. 345. v. Walker (1880) 5 Q. B. D. 404.

[The rule was extended to copyhold estates by Blackmore v. White [1899] I Q- S- 293 which, however, treats it as an action on an implied contract.]
;

(b)

Baxter v. Taylor (1832) 4 B. & Ad. 72. Roberts v. Holland [1893] I Q. B. 665. Mayfair Property Co. v. Johnston [1894]

Ch. 508, and

cases

therein cited.

[Such an action would not be an action of trespass, because the would not have been infringed. As to what constitutes waste, see post., Book III. Various other remedies are open to the reversioner or remainderman in respect of waste but it is conceived that the ordinary action for damages would still lie {Woodhouse v. Walker., ubi jk/>.).]
plaintiff's possession
;

852.

person who, for his


in
his

own

purposes, brings

Dangerous
'" ^'"""^

on land
prima

occupation, and collects and keeps

there, anything likely to


facie

do mischief
all

if it

escapes,

is

answerable for
is

damage

to
its

the

land

of another which

the consequence of

escape.

But he can excuse himself by showing that the escape

Digitized

by Microsoft

406

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


to the plaintiff's default,W or to the " act of

was due

God"
(a)

{vis major)^"^
Tubervilv. Stamp
{i6()j) i Salk. 13 (fire).

Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) L. R. 3 H. L. 330 (water). Crowhurst v. ^mershmi Burial Boari (1878) 4 Ex. D. 5 (poisonous
"

trees).

Smith V. Gidiy [1904] 2 K. B. 448 (boughs of trees). [In the report of this case it is not stated that the defendants had planted the trees. But, if it were not so, the decision would be inconsistent with principle, and with the decision of another Divisional Court in Giles v.

Walker {1890) 24 Q. B. D. 656.]


(b)
(c)

Eastern, &c. Co. v.

Nichols

V.

Cape Town Tramways [1902] A. C. 381. Marsland (1876) 2 Ex. D. I.

[The rule is not confined to cases of damage to land {Miles v. But the protection Forest Rock Co. (191 8) T. L. R. 500). afforded by the Fires Prevention Act, 1774, s. 86, to the man on whose land a fire " accidentally " begins, Applies, provided the fire is really " accidental " {Musgrove v. Pandelis [1919] 2 K. B. 43).]

XXXIV

S/anJer of
'**^^

853.
lies nies/'')

An

action for

against a person

who
title

damages and an injunction W maliciously and falsely deexistence or soundto property in land,

by words or writing,W the


suffers

ness of the plaintiff's

the

plaintiff

actual

damage

'^^

whereby and such

action will survive to the representatives of the party


to have Proof that the defendant honestly believed himself to be acting in the exercise of his own right or duty, is inconsistent with the existence of mahce in him.

injured, in so far as

damage can be proved

been caused

to his estate.^

(a)

Leslie v.
5.

Cave (1888)

II

T. L. R. 584;

affd.

on appeal, VIII

T. L, R.
(b)
(c)

Dickenson (1590) 4 Co. Rep. 18 a. Dickenson, uhi s'up. Malachy v. Soper (l 836) 3 Bing. N. C, at p. 384, per Tindal, C.J. (d) Hargrove v. Le Breton (1769) 4 Burr. 2422. Ravenhill v. Upcott (1869) 20 L. T. 233.
Gerard Gerard
v. v.

(e) (f)

Hatchard
Pitt V.

v. Mkge (1887) i8 Q. B. D. 771. Donovan (1813) I M. & S. 639.

Pater

v.

Baker (1847)

C, B. 831.

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION

III

TORTS IN RESPECT OF CHATTELS PERSONAL

TITLE

TRESPASS
is

TO GOODS
direct

854. Trespass to goods

any

infringement

Definition

of the possession by another of corporeal personal chattels

by means of an

asportation^") or other
is

physical
is

invasion ;W
intentional/'*)
(a)

whether such infringement

or

not

'Hartley v.

Moxham

(b)

L. N. W. Ry. Co. (1849) 4 Exch. 580. Bushell V. Miller (17 18) I Stra. 128. FouUes V. Willoughby (1841) 8 M. & W. 540. Burroughes v. Bayne (l86o) 5 H. & N., at p. 30I.

Sharrod

v.

(1842)

Q.

B. 701.

'.

\
^

Kirk

V.

Gregory (1876)

Ex. D. 55.

[The
(c)

technical

name

for the old writ in this case

was Trespass

de bonis asportatis.]

Wright

V.

Ramscot (1667)

Wms.

Saund. 82.

Dand
(d)

Sexton (1789) 3 T. R. 37. Liame v. Bray (1803) 3 East, 593.


V.

Covell V.

Laming (1808)

Camp. 497.

[But where the alleged injury, though consequent upon the defendant's conduct, was caused by forces over which he had no control, and was not the result of his negligence, there is no act on
his part, and, consequently,

no

liability.

4 Mod. 405; 727O

Stanley V. Powell \_ii()i'\

{Gibbons v. Pepper (1694) I Q. B. 86.) See tf/f,

855. Subject to the exceptions mentioned in 858, 859, 860, and 862 {post), the plaintiff, in an action for

Action by

f"""""'

Digitized

by Microsoft

4o8

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


must prove that he had actual pos-

trespass to goods,

session of the goods at the time

when

the defendant

interfered with them.


I T. R. 475. Hichens (1.844) 6 Q. B. 606. Davis V. Banks (1849) 3 Exch. 435. Brierly v. Kendall (1852) 17 Q. B. 937.

Smith

V.

Milles (1786)

Young

V.

[A
to be

still

person whose goods have been distrained for rent is deemed in possession of them for the purposes bf the action of

trespass {Whithy v. Roberts (1825)

McCle.

&

Yo.,

at

p.

1I8, per

Hullock, B.J

Custody of
servant

856. Goods
servant

...by remam m the


left

a master in the custody of a


.

possession or the master,

who

alone can bring Trespass in respect of


servant
is

them

and the

himself guilty of trespass

if

he does anything

with the goods inconsistent with the master's possession. ("'^

But goods handed

to a servant

on behalf of

his master

by a
;

third person, are in the possession of

the servant

until they

have been definitely appropriated


use.W
i

by him
'

to his master's
v. Iffilkins{i
v.

(a)

^.

ySg)

Leach, 5Z0.
at p.

Hopkinson
borough, C.
(b)
(c)
J.

Gibson (1805) z Smith,

204, per Lord Ellen-

Bloss V. Holntan (1586)

Owen,

52.
to

R. R.

V.

Waite (1743)

I
I

Leach, 28.

y.

Reed (1854)

that the statutory offence of

Dears. 257. (It was "embezzlement" was

meet

this difficulty

introduced.

And

see

Larceny Act, 1901.)

[As to who is a servant (1831) 2 B..& Ad. 817.]

for this purpose, see

Moore

v.

Robinson

Digitized

by Microsoft

TRESPASS TO GOODS
857.
his

409
Bailor and
"'

A bailor of goods cannot bring Trespass against bailee W unless the bailee determines the bailment
;

by breaking
(a)

bulk/'')

R
R. R.

V. V.
V.

Smith (1836) i M. C. C. 473. Goodbody (1838) 8 C. & P. 665. Cole (1847) 2 Cox, C. C. 340.
5, per Brian,

R. V. Hey (1849) T. & M. 209. (b) Y. B. 13 Edw. IV (1473) fo. 9, pi. R. V. Cornish (i^S4) Dears. 425.

C.

J.

[For purposes of the criminal law, a bailee


is

who

originally ob-

tained possession by deceit, intending at the time to misappropriate,


guilty of larceny {R. v. Pear (1779) i Leach, 212; Campbell (1827) i M. C. C. 179; R. v. Thompson (1862) L. & C. 225 ; R. V. Hands (1887) 16 Cox, C. C. 189). ^are Would he be guilty of civil trespass ? It was to meet the difficulty stated in the text, that the statutory criminal offence of "larceny by a bailee " was introduced ; for where the original taking was lawful or excusable there trespass did not lie. {Cooper v. Chitty (1756) I Burr. 20; Smith v. Milles (1786) i T. R. 475; R. v. Middleton (1873) L. R., 2 C. C. R. 55. And see Larceny Act,

deemed
V.

R.

1901.]

858.

bailor of goods has sufficient possession to

Bailor and
'

''""g^''^

support an action for trespass against third persons ;(*)


unless an exclusive possession of the goods for a period

not yet expired has been granted by him to the bailee.


Cross (18 10) 2 Camp. 464. Morris (1852) II C. B. 1015. Johnson v. Deprose [1893] I Q. B., at p. 515. (b) Ward v. Macauley (1791) 4 T. R. 409. Gordon v. Harper (1796) 7 T. R. 9.
(a)

(""^

Lotan White

v.

V.

[The
bailee

fact that the bailor


his

of

can sue does not, of course, deprive the obvious right to bring the action.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

4IO

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

trustee

859.

trustee of goods can maintain the action of

trespass in respect of

them against

third parties

though

the cestui que trust


White
V.

is

in occupation of them.
1 1

Morris (1852)

C. B. 1015.

way of mortgage, upon permit the assignor to hold the goods until default, the assignee may maintain trespass a^irist a third party before default for the mere holding of the assignor is consistent with the assignee's legal possession [White v. Morris, ubi sup.) But if the assignment contains a legal proviso (expressed or implied) that the assignor shall retain possession until default, the assignee cannot sue in trespass until default is made {Wheeler v. Montefiore (1841) 2 Q* B. 133; Bradley v. Copley (1845) i C. B. 685; Barker v. Furlong [1891] 2 Ch., at pp. 179, 180). Apparently, therefore, when the assignment is a bill of sale under the Act of 1882, the assignee cannot sue in trespass before the happening of default, or other cirassigned by
trust

[Where goods have been


to

cumstance mentioned
possession.]

in

s.

7 of that Act, entitling

him

to take

Personal
representative

860.

An

executor or administrator can bring tres-

pass for an injury committed to the goods of the de-

ceased after the

latter' s

death but before the grant of

pfbbate or

letters

of administration.

Tharpe v. Stallwood (1843) 5 M. & G. 760. Kirk V. Gregory (1876) I Ex. D. 55.

[The
trespasses

right of the personal representative to bring actions for

a different footing, and


ante.'\

committed during the lifetime of the deceased stands on is dealt with in Section I, Tit. VI, 786,

Sheriff

861.

sheriflf
f,.

a writ of

fa.

who has seized goods in execution of may bring Trespass against any one
V.

who

interferes with them.


Wilbraham

Snow (1670)

Wms.

Saund, 47.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TRESPASS TO GOODS

411

[The common law remedy of a distrainor, if the goods seized by him have been wrongfully interfered with, is by the actions of Rescous or of Pound-breach, according to the circumstances. In the case of a distraint for rent, the distrainor has also the special
of an action on the 2 W. & M., st. I. (1690), c. 5, s. 4. The goods being in the custody of the law, the distrainor could not bring trespass (R. v. Cotton (1751) Parker, 10 1 ; Whitby v. Roberts

remedy

(1825) McCle.

&

Yo. 107).]

862. The owner of a franchise which


to goods
{e. g.,

entitles

him

Owner

of

estray or wreck), can bring Trespass in

^'^""'^ *'"

respect of interference with the goods before he has


actually seized them.
Mowbray
Bailiffs of
v.

Odrich (1333) 2 Wils. 24. Efunwich v. Sterry (1831) I B.

&

Ad. 831.

[The

last case
:

has sometimes been cited in support of the wider

proposition

that a right to possession always carries the right to

bring Trespass.

But see the


6.]

Irish

case of

R.

v. Clinton

(1869)

Ir.

R. (C. L.)

863. The possession of a mere finder,W and even of


a wrong-doer,('') though only intended to be temporary,^
is

Finder

sufficient to

support an action of Trespass against a


title;

person without
jus
tertii

and the

latter

cannot

set

up a
he

as a defence, unless he can prove that


it.^"*)

acted under
(a)

Armorie
Bridges

v.
v.

Delamirie (1722)

Stra.

505.
J.

Hawksworth (1851) 21 L.
;

Q.

B. 75.
is

[These were cases of Trover


stronger.
It
is

but the argument for Trespass


the
title

much

clear that

that of a

mere wrong-doer

a fortiori of a finder cannot be made the basis of an action

Digitized

by Microsoft

412

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

them {Blades
(b)
(c)

of Trespass against the owner of the goods^ who has a right to take v. Higgs (1865) 20 C. B. N. S. 214).]
Wbodson
v.

Nawton (1727)

2 Stra. 777.

Colwill V. Reeves

Moore

V.

(1811) 2 Campb. 575. Robinson (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 817.


G. W. R. Co. (1856) 5 E.

the
(d)

Winkfield [1902] P. 42.

Jeifries v.

&

B., at p.

806.

Receiver

864.

person

who

receives

goods from a

tres-

passer does not thereby bfcconle guilty of trespass;


unless he

was a participant

in the original taking.


J.

Y. B. 21 Edw. IV (.1481) fo. 74, pi. 6, per Brian, C. V. Austin (1595) Owen, 70. Badkin v. Powell (1776) 2 Cowp. 476.

Day

[It

was

to

meet

this point that the statutory ofFence

ing stolen

goods " was introduced. guilty of Conversion {post, 868).]

The

recipient

is,

of " receivof course,

Loss of goods

865. Where the

plaintiflF

in

an action of Trespass
goods;

has been deprived of his goods, the measure of damages


is

prima

facie

the value of the

but

if,

as

between the

parties, the

defendant has an interest in

the goods, the measure of

damages

is

limited to the

value of the plaintiff's interest. C')


(a)

Heydon's &' Smith's Case (1611) 13 Co. Rep., Sowell V. Champion (1 837) 6 A. & E. 407.

at p. 69.

The
(b)

fFinkfield

Brierley v. Kendall

Toms
[By the
Trespass de

V.

[1902] P. 42. (1852) 17 Q. B. 937. mison (1863) 32 L. J. Q. B. 382.

Civil

Procedure Act, 1833,

s.

bonis asportatis^

the jury may,

if

29, in all actions of they shall think fit,

give damages in the nature of interest, over and above the value of the goods at the time of seizure.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

TRESPASS
866. In
all

TO GOODS

413
of

other cases of trespass to goods, the Measure


is

measure of damages
of the defendant's

the loss actually suffered by the

""""^^

plaintiff as the " natural and probable " consequence


act.(*^

But

if

the

trespass

was

accompanied by circumstances of
the jury-C*)
(a)
plaintiff recovered

insult or

contumely,

the Court will not scrutinize too closely the verdict of

Thompson v. Pettitt (1847) 10 Q. B. loi. &r more than the value of the goods.)

(In this

case

the

Gilbertson v. Richardson (1848) 5 C. B. 502. Keene v. Dilke (1849) 4 Exch. 388. Moore V. Drinkivater (1858) I F. & F. I 34. (b) Brewer v. Dew (1843) 11 M. & W. 625. Doss V. Doss (1 866) 14 L. T. N. S. 646 (P. C),

867.

As an

alternative remedy, the party wrongfully

Replevin

deprived of his goods

may bring the

action of Replevin

for the recovery of the goods themselves.^')

But

if

he adopts
Trespass
(a)

this

remedy, his right to bring the action of

is

barred. C")
v.

Shannon

Shannon (1804)

Sch.

&

Lef. 324.

George v. Chambers (1843) 11 M. & W. 149. Mennie v. Blake (1856) 6 E. & B. 842. (b) Gibhs V. Cruikshank (1873) L. R. 8 C. P. 454.

[In ordinary practice Replevin


distress.]

is

confined to cases of wrongful

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
Definition

II

CONVERSION
possession/*")

OF GOODS
another person
the tort
is

868. The unjustifiable exercise of an act of ownership over specific goods/*) of which

has a right to the


of Conversion;
infringed
in
is

constitutes
right

and the person whose

thus

entitled to recover the value of the


Trover.("=)
Eliz.

goods

an action of
(a)

Higgs
Orton

V.
V.

Holiday (1600) Cro.

746.
,

Aid. 652. Moss Q. B. III. (This was not a case of Conversion ; but the arguments employed would apply.)
Butler (1822) 5 B. V. Hancock [1899] 2

&

[A bank note is specific goods Race (1758) I Burr. 452).]


(b)

for the purposes

of

this {Miller v.

Wilhraham v. Snow (1670) 2 Wms. Saund. 47 (and notis thereto). Biddulph V. Ather (1755) 2 Wils. 23. Gordon v. Harper (179Q 7 T. R. 9. Lord V. Price (1874) L. R. 9 Ex. 54.

[The/" right to possession " which is necessary to found an action of Trover is often described as a "; special property " in the goods. This is a most unfortunate expression for in one of the best known cases it is expressly laid down that the term " special property includes interests which do not carry the right to possession, and
;

which, therefore, are not sufficient to found actions of Trover. (See Webb V. Lawrence (1797) 7 T. R., at p. 398, per Lawrence, J.) On the other hand, a person whose goods have been distrained for rent can sue a third party in Trover {Turner v. Ford (1846) 15

M.

&W.

212).]

Cooper V. Chitty (1756) I Burr. zo. Henderson v. Williams [1895] I Q. B. 251. Rhodes V. Monies [1895] I Ch. 236. (It would seem that if, as between plaintiff and defendant, the defendant's act has not deprived the plaintiff of the full value of the goods, the measure of damages is the loss actually suffered by the plaintiff {Chinery v. Viall (l 860) This case shows incidentally that a bailee may even 5 H. & N. z88). maintain Trover against his bailor who has improperly deprived him of pos(c)

Digitized

by Microsoft

CONiVERSION OF GOODS;)
I

415
,

session.

(See also Roberts v. Wyatt (1810) 2 Taunt. ?68.) By the Civil Procedure Act, 1833,3. 29, the jury may in all cases of trover give damages in the nature of interest over and above the value of the goods.)

[The action of Trover acquired its name from the original style of declaration, which alleged that the plaindfF was lawfiillyi possessed of certain goods as of his own property, and casiially lost the said goods, and that the same came to the defendant's hands by finding (trouver). This averment ,of loss and finding ultimately became fictitious, and could not be disputed but the name survived, not only for this action, but for the cognate action of Detinue (post.
'

Tit. III. And see Cooper v. Chitty (1756) i Burr. 20). Since the abolition of the necessity for this averment by the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852,8. 49, the term "trover" has tended See ^urroughes v. to be superseded by the term '^'conversion." Bayne (i860) 5 Hi N., at p. 301, per Martin, B.]

&

869.

It

is

immaterial'! for the purposes of Trover Defendanfs

whether

the

defendant

acquired

possession

of,

the

'"''

goods lawfully or unlawfully.


Cooper
taking
V.

'

'

was

unlawful,' the plaintiff

Chitly (1756) i.Burr., at p. 31., (If the defendant's original who adopts this form of action is said to

"waive the trespass." If the original kakidgi.was lawful, the plaintiff is required to prove a formal demand of possession and a refijsal ; unless there is other distinct evidence of conversion (Bruen v. Roe (1667) Sid. 264; Robertsv. Wyatt (1810) 2 Taunt, 268 ; Lwell v. Martin (1813) 4 Taunt.,
at

p.

801

Chitty, Phtading (6th ed.)


.,,i,

I, p.

167).
''i"
'

'idj ^

'

' '

'i:.-

i'

''

A
I

870.
5 *

An

" act of ownership,'' for the purppses of


.

fr/>at

868, '

means some

physical act '^ '

asserting the* claim "

"""x""'/"
conversion

of the defendant to deal with the goods in a manner


inconsistent

with the

rights]

of

the

plaintiff.
;

National Bank v. Rymill (188.1) 44 L. T. 767. Turner v. Hockey (1887) 56 L, J. Q. B. 301.


explained by Collins,
p.'

(See this case


i

J.,

in Consolidated Co. v. Curtis


-i-u..

[1R92J
.
<^\
rtW>->

Q.

B., at

502.)

rtv)
,-,?,

Barker

v.

Furlong [1891]
it

2 Ch., at p.

181.

^,,^

In particular,

includes:

\i

.z \'

Digitized

by Microsoft

4i6
(i)

QUASPCONTRACT AND TORT


the

unauthorised user, or consumption of the

goods

Ogden (1591) Cro. Eliz. 2 1 9. Atkinson (1723) I Str. 576. Phflpott V. Kelley (1835) 3 A. & E. 106. Gurr V. Cuthbert (1843) I? L. J. Exch., 3,09.
Mulgrave
v.

Richardson

v.

(ii)

the destructioh (but not the the goods;


Simmons
v. Lillystone

mere damaging) pf

(iS^j)

Exch. 431.

(iii)

the delivery of the goods to a third person with


intent
to
;

pass
C')

the ownership/") or even the

possession
(a)
,

(1851) 7 Exch. ijz. Fowler (1875) L. R. 7 H. L. 757. Hiort V. L. '& N.,W. Ry. Co. (1879) 4 Ex. D. 188. (b) Syeds v.' Hdf {17^1) 4 T. R. z6o. Devereux v. Barclay (1819) z B. & Aid. 70Z.

Penn

v. Bittleston V.

Hollins

Stephenson v. Hart (l8z8)-4 Bing. 476. Wyld^y. Pickford (1 841) 8 M; & W. 443.

(iv)

the unwarranted pledging or

charging

of the

goods;
!

Piuihtei V.

Montis (1868) L. R.

C. P. 268.

Mulliner

v.

Florence (1878) L. R. 3

Q. B. D. 484.

he pledges the goods on which v. Davies (1805) East, 5 V Gurr v. Cuthbert (1843) 12 L. J. Q. B. 309; Donald 7 v.^ Suckling (186^) L. R. I Q. B. 585.)]
lienor
is

[A

guilty of conversion if

he has a lien;

a pledgee

is

not.

{McCambie

(v) the collection of


f

a cheque or

bill

by a banker
title,

on behalf of a person who has no


change Acts, 1882 and 1906.

under

circumstances not justified by the Bills of Ex-

Arnold V. Cheque Bank (1876) I C. P. D. 579. Fine Art Society'v. Union Bank (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 705. Kleinwort Sons Co. Comptoir National [1894] i Q. B. 157. Macbeth, V. N. S. W. Bank [1908] A. C. 137.

& y

Digitized

by Microsoft

CONVERSION OF GOODS
But a mere bargain and
sale,

417
is

by which property

incapable of passing/*) or a mere handling or moving

without reference to the ownership/'') does not amount


to conversion.
(a)

(b)

Lancashire Wagon Co. v. Fitzhugh (l 86 1 ) 6 H. & N. 502. Consolidated Co. v. Curtis [1892] 1 Q. B., at p. 498. Fouldes V. Willoughhy (1841) 8 M. & W. 540. Fowler V. Hollins (1872^ L. R. 7 Q. B., at p. 629. England v. Cowley (1873) L. R. 8 Exdh. 126.

871 .

A
Rigg.

title
is
v.

which

relates

back

to the date of the

Re/atia "^

conversion
Balme

sufficient to

maintain Trover.

Hutton (1833) 9 Bing. 471. E. of Lonfdale (1857) I H. & N. 923. Goodman v. Boycott (1862) 2 B. & S. I (approved in Blades V. Higgs (1865) 20 C. B. N. S. 214). Bristol Bank v. M. R. Co. [1891] 2 Q. B. 653. (But Goodman v. Boycott v/as an action of Detinue.)
V.

[^are

Whether

the right extends to cases in which the plain-

tifPs title, acquired after the conversion,

does not relate back.]

872. Where there has been a bailment which the


bailor

Bailors
'

and

may

put an end to at his pleasure, either the

bailor or the bailee

may

sue a third party in Trover.

Burton V. Hughes (1824) 2 Bing. 173. Nicholls V. Bastard (1835) 2 C. M. & R. 659. Manders v. Williams (1849) 4 Exch. 588.

The

Winkfield [1902] P., at p. 56.

873. The finder of a chattel


against a

may

maintain Trover
is

Finders

mere wrong-doer
Armorie
Bridges

(*)

but he

liable

to the

owner

if

he refuses to give up the chattel on demand. (*)


v. v.

(a)

Delamirie (1722)

Str.

505.
L.
J.

(b)

Hawksworth (1851) 21

Q. B. 75.

P 2

Digitized

by Microsoft

4t8
Mere wrong'''
'

QU^ASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

874.

mere wroHg-doer whose possession has

beeii

divested cannot maintain Trover.


5f/^/^;y V. Groj!r

(1863)

3 B.

&

S. '566.

.v:

-x.

CONVERSION OF GOODS
if

419

he acted only
it

in a

manner which would have been


act of such person.C")

justifiable if
(a)

had been the

Hollins

V.

Consolidated Co.

Fowler (1875) L. R. 7 H. L. 757. v. Curtis [1892] 1 Q. B. 495.


I

Mansell
(b)

Valley Printing Co. [1908] Carey (1852) 11 C. B. 977. Hollins V. Fowler, uhi sup., at p. 767.
v.

Ch. 567.

Heald

v.

877. The
goods
is

defendant's
itself a

refusal

to
;

deliver

up the Demand and


is

not in

conversion

but

it

prima

^'^"'''

facie evidence of a conversion,

which may be rebutted


his refusal did not in-

by the defendant showing that volve any claim of ownership/*")


(a)

Isaack v. Clarke (16 1 5) z Bulst. 306. Mires V. Solebay (1677) 2 Mod. 242. (b) Alexander v. Southey (1821) 5 B. & Aid. 247. Verrall v. Robinson (1835) z C. M. & R. 495. Faughan v. Watt (1840) 6 M. & W, 492. Acraman v. Cooper (1 842) 10 M. & W., at p. 593. Rushworth v. Taylor (1842) 3 Q. B. 699.

[A plaintifF in Trover who relies on demand and refusal must prove either (i) that the defendant has it in his power to give up the goods, <' or (2) has represented - that he has such power, (W or (3) that he has disabled himself by his own wrong from giving up the goods/")
(a) sup.,-

Smith
v.

v.

Toung (1808)

Camp. 439;

Verrall v. Robinson, ubi

Carey (1852) 11 C. B. 977. (b) Seaton v. Lafone (1887; 19 Q. B. D. 68. (c) Bristol Bank v. M. R. Co. [1891] 2 Q. B.,

Heald

at pp.

663-664.]

878. Subject

to

the rules

affecting negotiable
fide

in- Purchaser

struments and coin of the realm,W the bona

pur-

chaser or pledgee of goods which the vendor or pledgor

had no

right to sell or pledge

is

guilty of conversion,

Digitized

by Microsoft

420
if

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


except in the case of a sale of goods
in

he deals with them in a manner inconsistent with the


of the owner
;

title

('')

in

market overt,W or other cases


is,

which such a

sale

or pledge
(a)
1
'

though unlawful, binding on the owner/'')


1882,
v.

Bills

Burr.
(b)

452

s. 38 (3); Miller 899] 2 Q. B. 1 1 1. Cooper v. Willomatt (1845) I C. B. 672. Fuentes v. Montis (1868) L. R. 3 C. P. 268. Singer Manfg. Co. v. Clark (1879) 5 ^x. D. 37. Oppenheimer v. Frazer [1907] 2 K. B. 50.
;

of Exchange Act,

Race (1758)

Moss

v.

Hancock

[l

[The

rule applies even

defendant's agent without express authority

afterwards ratified

where the purchase was made by the if the purchase was by the defendant {Hilbery v. Hatton (1864)
;

2 H.

&

C. 822).]
Sale of

Goods Act, 1893, s. 22. (But even in this case the purhave to restore the goods to the owner, if the title has passed through a thief, and the goods are still in the purchaser's possession (ihid. The purchaser in market overt incurs, s. 24 ; Larceny Act, l86i, s. 100). however, no personal liability, and cannot be sued in Trover if he has parted with the goods before the conviction of the thisi -(Horwood v. Smith (1788) 2T. R. 750).], (d) Sle of Goods Act,. 1893, ss. 21, 23, 25.
(c)

chaser

may

Liability

879.

bailee

is

not liable in Trover

if

the goods

of

bailee

are lost or stolen without his connivance whilst they


are in his
possession.
is

W
I

The

bailor's

remedy against

him,
(a)

if

any,
v.

an action on the contract of bailment/'')


Ventr. 223, per Hale, C.J.
(1 J 72) 3 Burr.

Owen
Ross

Lewyn (1672)

V.

Johnson

2825.

Williams v. Gesse (1837) 3 Bing. N. C. (b) Ross V. Johnson, ubi sup. (For the contractual liabilities of the various classes of bailees, see Book II, Part II, sub titt. " Hire," "Loan of

Goods,"

"Deposit," "Carriage.")

Jus

tertii

880.
tertii

mere wrong-doer may not

set

up a
at

jus
rate

as a defence in

an action of Trover,

any

Digitized

by Microsoft

CONVERSION OF GOODS
as against a

421
;

person

who
in

has been in possession


in

nor

may
his

a bailee set

up such a defence
set

an action
defendant

by
in

bailor.C")

But

other cases the

an action of Trover may


to

up a jus

tertii;

even

though he does not claim


(a)

be acting under it.W


70.

Webb v. Fox (1797) 7 T. R. 391. Northam v. Bowden (1855) II Exch. Jefferies v. G. W. R. Co. (1856) 5 E.
Bourne
v.

&

B. 8oz.

(b)

S. 515. Stonard v. Dunkin (1809) 2 Camp. 344. Gosling V. Birnie (1831) 7 Bing. 339. Crosskey v. Mills (1834) i C. M. & R. 298.

Fosbrooke (1865) 18 C. B. N.

(c)

Elliott V.

Kemp (1840) 7 M. & W. 306. Leake v. Loveday (1842) 4 M. & G. 972. Gadsden v. Barrow (1854) 9 Exch. 514.

881.

judgrhent in Trover for the

full

value oi

Effect of
-^^

the goods, followed by satisfaction, vests the property


in the

^"'""'

g6ods

in the

defendant as against the

plaintiff,

as

from the date of the conversion.


Morris Cooper
v. V.

Robinson (1824) 3 B. & C, at p. 2o6. Shepherd (1846) 3 C. B. 266. BucMand v. Johnson (1854) 15 C. B. 145. (This case appears to decide that judgment in Trover vests the property in the defendant, even without satis&ction. But this extension of the doctrine was expressly repudiated by the same Court in Brinsmead v. Harrison (1871) L. R. 6 C. P. 584 ; ibid. 7 C. P. 547.)
[It

must be remembered

that a plaintiff in

Trover

is

now

entitled

to specific rejyovery of the goods, if they are in the possession of the

defendant.

(See

ante.,

Sect, i, Tit.

VII,

810.)]

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
Definition

III

DETINUE
in

882.

Any

person who, being in possession of the

goods of another, unlawfully refuses to give them up

on demand,
he
is

is

liable to

an action of Detinue,

which

ordered to restore the goods or pay the value

thereof,

and

to

pay damages

for the unlawful deten-

tion.W

In this action, the refusal to give up consti-

tutes the offence,


(a)

and

is

not merely evidence of

it.C')

Clements v. Flight (1846) 16 M. & W. 42. Eherles Hotels v. Jonas (1887) 18 Q. B. D., at p. 466, per Lord

Esher,
(b)

M.

R.
v.

Clark (1615) 2 Bulst., at p. 308. (One consequence of Hewitt (1831) I Cr. & J: 565. that the, period of limitation only begins to run against the plainthis.rulek tiff frtfm the date of his (first) demand against the defendant and the latter's
Jsaack
Gledstatie v.
:

refusal

'{Wilkinson v.
B. 468).)

Verity

(1871) L. R. 6 C.

P.

206;

Miller v. Dell

[1891]! Q.

[The nature of the action of Detinue has often been the subject of discussion by the Courts (Cf. Isaack v. Clark^ ubi sup. ; Gledstane V. Hewitt, ubi sup.; Walker v. Needhqm (1841) 3 M. & G. 557; and Bryant v. Herbert (1878) 3 C. P. D. 389). And even Parliament itself has, at different times, taken different views on the subject. (Cf. Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, Sched. B (29), and County Courts Act, 1850, s. 11.) The truth appears to be, that Detinue was a variety of the ancient action of Debt, which was itself originally in the nature of a real action, to recover specific chattels, but, owing partly to historical, partly to economic, causes, came early to be treated as a personal action, generally founded on contract. As a natural consequence of this origin, various anomalies attached to it; one being that, until 1833, a claim in Detinue could generally be met by the primitive defence known as " wager of law," a defence not available against the action of Trespass, or the more modern actions founded on the Statute of Westminster the Second (" Case "). Hence Detinue tended at one time to be superseded

Digitized

by Microsoft

DETINUE

423

by Trover (ante. Title II), which, in many cases, is equally applicable to the facts. But after the defence of "wager of law " had been abolished by s. 13 of the Civil Procedure Act, 1833, there was a revival of Detinue, and, naturally, with some misunderstanding as to its nature. The action is, in fact, useful in cases in which the defendant sets up no claim of ownership, and has not been guilty of
trespass; for,
acquisition

on the

latter point

especially,

it

is

clear that

it

was

never necessary in Detinue to allege that the defendant's original

was unlawful.

The

typical case

was

that in

which a

bailor sued his bailee to recover the goods bailed (detinue sur bail-

ment), there being then no action founded on simple contract


this long

; and remained the formal assumption in every action of Detinue; though at an early date the allegation of bailment became a mere matter of form, which could not be denied or " traversed." (See Gledstane v. Hewitt, ubi sup.) But allegations of finding, and even of trespass, were also admitted (detinue sur trover, &c.) ; and thus, as was natural, the plea of " not guilty " was recognised, in addition to the more correct plea of " non detinet." With regard to the latter,

it must be understood merely as a denial of the fact of detention, or as including a denial of the plaintiff's title. The Common Law Rules of Pleading issued in 1834, under s. i of the Civil Procedure Act, 1833, adopted the former view; after which it became necessary for the defendant, if he wished to set up a title adverse to the plaintiff, to plead specially (Richards v. Frankum (1840) 6 M. & W. 420 ; Mason V. Farnell (1844) 12 M. & W. 674). And this distinction (See existing rules of practice. is, in effect, maintained by the R. S. C. 1883, App. D, Sect. VI.) The action of Detinue is now,

a good deal of doubt existed at one time as to whether

apparently, treated as an action of Tort (Trotter v. Windham Esf Co. (1907) XXIII T. L. R. 676); but it may be regarded as doubtful

whether a claim for the return of specific goods (Du Pasquier v. Ctfa?^ry [1903] i K. B. 104) or a claim really arising out of contract (Re Button [1907] 2 K. B. 180) e. g. bailment, would be treated as a claim in Tort merely because it was framed in Detinue.]

883. The expression "goods of another"

in

882
in-

Plaintiff's

means goods
Mason
Nyberg

in

which

the plaintiff

has sufficient

terest to entitle

him

to possession.
p.

v. Farnell
v.

(1844) iz M. & W., at Handelaar [18^2] 2 Q. B. 202.

684.

Digitized

by Microsoft

414
Finders

OUASI-CONTRACt AND TOkt

884. Subject to

885, the finder of a chattel has


entitle

a sufficient interest to
Armorie
v.

him

to possession.
I

Delamirie (I'jz-z)

Str.

505.

Occupier of land

885. Subject to

886,

the

possessor of land to
sufficient
in-

which the public have not access has


terest to entitle

him
in

to possession of chattels

found

on the land.W
ferent interests

But, as between persons having difthe land, the right to possession


interests,

depends ^on the nature of the


cumstances
(a)

and the

cir-

in

which the chattels are

found.C')

(b) Elwes V,

South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman [1896] z Q. B. 44. The Brigg Gas (Jo. (1886) 33 CK. D. 562.

Chattels on

886.

When

a chattel

is

found in a place to which


is

which the fubiic have


access

^^

public have access, the finder


r.

entitled to the

possession of the chattel against every one but the

owner

thereof.
Bridges \, Hawkesworth (1851) 21 L.J. Q. B. 75.

[This was an action, of Trover; but. the language of the Court In this case the goods were found on the floor of a shop which the finder had entered as a customer, ^eere : if the finder had been a mere trespasser.]
covers Detinue.

Parting with
fessesston

887. The fact that the defendant has, before the

demand by

the plaintiff, improperly parted with the

Digitized

by Microsoft

DETINUE
person,

425

property or possession in or of the goods, to a third


is

no defence
Jones
Bristol
V.

to the action.

Dowle (1841) 9 M.
v.

Bank

M.

& W. 652. R. Co. [1891] 2 Q. B. 653.

[The last case also set at rest a doubt which had existed since the decision in Goodman v. Boycott (1861) 2 B. S. i ; and decided that it was no defence that the plaintiff's title had accrued since the

&

defendant had parted with the chattel.]

888. The defendant


as against his

in

an action of Detinue cannot,

Jus tertu

own

bailor, set
itj^*")

up a jus

tertii;

unless

he claims to act under

or unless the

title

of the
(*=)

bailor to the goods has expired since the bailment.


(a)

Betteley v.
V.
V.

Rogers (b) Biddle


(c)

Read (1843) 4 Q. B., at p. 517. Lambert [1891] i Q. B. 318. Bond (1865) 6 B. & S.''225.
Tilbury (1858) 3 H. & N. 534; quoted in Rogers (But Thorne v. Tilbury was an action of Trover.)
V.

Thorne

v.

Lambert, ubi sup.

889.

judgment

in

Detinue for the value of the

Eject of
J'''^^'"'"'

goods, followed by satisfaction, vests the property in


the goods in the defendant, as against the plaintiff.
Brinsmead V. Harrison (1871) 6 C. P. 584. Ex parte Drake (1877) 5 Ch. D. 866.

[The Court may now


instead of allowing

order the defendant to deliver

him

to exercise his

up the goods former option of paying the


(R. S.C.

value

and, if he refuses, may attach him for disobedience. ; 1883, O. XLVIII. r. I.)]

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE IV OTHER TORTS IN RESPECT OF

CHATTELS PERSONAL
Action by
reversioner

890. The owner of goods the possession of which


|g

vested in another person for a definite period

may

bring an action against a stranger, in respect of any

permanent injury
defendant.
Mears
v.

to

his

reversionary interest in the

goods, caused by the wrongful act or omission of the

L. b? S.

W. Ry. Co. (i86z)

1 1

C. B. N.

S.

850.

Infringement
of monopolies

891.

An

action mayL be brought for the infringe-

^g^j

(intentional or unintentional) of

any patent,
vested
in

registered

trade

mark,('')

or

copyright, W

the plaintiff;

and the

plaintiff's

remedy may include


in lieu

an injunction
of,

in addition to,
,

and an account

damages.

v.

(a), Patents and Designs Act, 1907, s. 34. (No damages can be obtained against the innocent infringer of a patent granted after ist January,

1908 {iUd.

s.

33)

and, .therefore (sembU), no injunction (Sarpy v. Holland

[1908] I Ch. 443). And an account cannot now,be claimed in an action foi infringement of patent (Patents and Designs Act, 1919, s. 10).
(b)
(c)

Queen v. Halifax [1891] i Q. B., Trade Marks Act, 1905, s. 40. Copyright Act, 1842, s. 15.
for

at p.

796.

[The remedies
pirated copies.

tory, include penalties,

(Book III.). A mere licensee (Diamond Co.


47)
)

breach of copyright, which are purely statuand even, in certain cases, seizure of the For further particulars, see under " Copyright " threat of proceedings by a patentee (but not by a

v. Mining Co. (1915) for infringement of a patent is, unless followed

XXXII

T. L. R.

up by action

Digitized

by Microsoft

CHATTELS PERSONAL
with due diligence,

427

itself a groun,d of action for damages and an injunction (Patents and Designs Act, 1907, s. 36 ; Craig v. Dowding (1908) 97 L. T. 683) ; and to the latter action bona fides is no defence {skinner v. Shew [1893] i Ch. 413). few trade-marks are still protected, even though not registered (Trade Marks Act, if905,

'

S.42).]

.
.

lies
Violation of

892.

An

action for

damages and an injunction

against a person
(i)

who
makes use of mate-

'""fi^'""

publishes information, or
rials,

obtained by a person being (or having

been) in a confidential relationship towards the


proprietor thereof, without the latter's permission;
Tucky.
Pollard
Priester
V.

(1887) 19 Q. B. D. 629. Photographic Co. (1888) 40 Ch. D.,


I

at p.

349.

Lamb

V.

Evans [1893]

Ch. 21?.,

i2oii V. Gr^^n [1895] 2

Q. B. 315.
i

Mansel

v. Valley Printing Co. [1908}

Alperton Rubber Co. v.


(ii)

Manning

[1917]

Ch. 567. 2. Ch. 441.

publishes, without the

authority of the

comletters,

poser or owner for the time being,


lectures, or other literary or artistic

composito

tion

which have not been delivered

the

public at large
Tuck
Caird
V. Priester, ubi sup.
v.
,;
>
,

Sime (1887) L. R. I 2 App. Ca. 326. Macmillan v. Dent [1907] I Ch., at p. 120. [Quare, as to effect of s. 31 of the Copyright Act, 191 1 (abolishing the so-caUed " common law " right), which, however, expressly reserves the jurisdiction to restrain a breach of trust or confidence.]
(iii)

without the authority of the person by (or on

whose

behalf),

he was employed to

tal^e

a pho-

tograph, and without any statutory right, publishes copies of


Pollard
V.

such photograph.

Photographic Co., ubj sup.

Digitized

by Microsoft

428
S/ander of
's

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

893.

person

who

maliciously publishes false and

disparaging statements concerning the chattels personal

of another/*) or his
trade

title

thereto/'')

or concerning the

or

business

of

another,^

which

statements
other/'')
is

cause actual
liable to

pecuniary damage to that

the

suit'

an action for damages and an injunction at of the party damaged. The action will surbe proved to have been caused to his
g/h
,

vive to the latter's personal representatives, in so far


as

damage

carl
,

-estate.>),

n'r--.

iOJSi.

rr^n V. FiVW (1869) L. R. 4 Q. B. 730. Royal Baking PxnUder Co. v. fFright (1900) 18 R. P. at p. 99 (jier Lord Davey), and p. loi ijier Lord James of Hereford). (b) Newman v. Zachary (1670) Aleyn, 3. Malachy v. Safer (1836) 3 Bing. N. C. 371. Atkins V. Perrin (1862) 3 F. & F. 179. Crampton v. Swete (1888) 58 L. T. 516. (c) Ratcliffe v. Evans [1892] 2 Q. B. 524. .f^ Trollope Sons v. London Federation (1895) 72 L. T. 342.
(a)

C,

(d)
(e)

Hatchard

A.C.I S^. (1887) 18 Q. B. D. 771. Horsley v. Style (1893) 69 L. T. 222.


White'V.<Mellin[l'Sgs]
v.

Mige

''.

'

:.'/..

.'

,.,.;

to,.

the disparagement consists in .threatening ^proceedings for the infringement of a patent, bona fides is no defence {Skinner
V.

[Where

5^w

[1893]

Ch. 413).]

Proprietary

'

894. Where one person intentionally violates the


right

"^

*'

of property of another by an illegal act/^) or,

being under a duty towards another, negligently omits


to

perform such duty, whereby the goods or other

personal property of that other are injured or.lostjO')

Digitized

by Microsoft

CHATTELS PERSONAL
an action
lies

429

against the wrong-doer to recover the

damage.
(a)

Exchange Telegraph Co. v. Gregory [1896] I Q. B. 47. National Phonograph Co. v. Edison-Bell Co. [1908] i Ch. 335. Mansell v. Valley Printing Co. [1908] 2 Ch. 441.

[Do these cases amount to anything more than the violation of contractual rights, as to which, see Sect'. V., Tit. IV., 963 ?
(b)

Anon. (1674)
Whitfield
V.

I Vent. 264. Despencer (1778)

Cowp.,

at

p.

765, per Lord

Mansfield.

Hayn
Meux
modern times
But
in

v. Culliford
V.

Hooper

V.

(1879) 4 C. P. D. 182. Co. (1880) 50 L. G. E. Ry. Co. [1895] 2 Q. B. 387.


L.

N. W. Ry.

J.

Q.

B. 102.

[The scope of
;

this

action has been substantially curtailed in


carriers,

owing

to the tendency to treat the liabilities of ser-

vants, innkeepers,

common
is

&c., as arising out of contract.


it

the eighteenth century Digests the

plays a considerable part.

Where

damage

to land, semble, the case

would be one of

Nuisance.]

[Note on Sections
\

II

and

III.

must, of course, be remembered, that the same facts often to two or more of the torts specified in these Sections, and For that the plaintiff can, therefore, sue on one or all of them. example, the same facts may shew both trespass and nuisance to land, or trespass, conversion, or detinue, in the case of chattels. But the importance of distinguishing between these various torts is that the plaintiff, to succeed, must bring his case within one of them. And, sometimes, it will be better for him to prove one tort than
It

amount

another.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

Digitized

by Microsoft

I'^iOi

BOOK
"art

II

tfi
:

OBLIGATIONS
III (continued)

OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM QUASICONTRACT AND TORTS

B TORTS
'

(continued)

SECTION

IV

TORTS IN RESPECT OF THE PERSON

TITLE
An

TRESPASS
A.

TO THE PERSON
when the defendmenaced or attempted to
lies
Assault

SUB-TITLE

ASSAULT AND BATTERY

895.

action for assault


act/*\.

ant has, by an overt

touch the body of the


consent,
ble
(''^

plaintiff,

without the

plaintiff's

in 'such a

way

that the plaintiff

had reasonawas able


to

ground

for believing that the defendant

effect his purpose/''^


(a)

Tuberville v. Savage (1670)

Mod.

3.

(In this case the actual overt


dicta

act
at

was deprived of its tortiqus character by the words used; but the the end of the report bear out the statement in the text.)

R. V. St. George (1840) 9 C. & P. 483 (questioned on another point, but not on this, in R. v. Brown (1883) 10 Q. B. D. 381; R. v. Linneker
[igo6] 2

K. B.

99).

"

Innes

Wylie (1844) i C. Cobbett V. Grey (1850) 19 L.


v.

&

K. 257.

q'

Mfh
WfeH

J. Ex., at p. 145.

fh

Digitized

by Microsoft

432
(b)

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


Christopherson v. Bare (1848) II Q. B. 473. V. Johson (1877) 13 Cox, C. C. 625. Latter v. Braddell (1881) 56 L. J. C. P. 448.

Agnew

(c)

Shoppee. (1828) 3 C. S^ P. 373. Stephens v. Myers (1830) 4 C. P. 439. R. V. 5*. George, uhi sup., at p. 493, per Parke, B. Read V. Coker (1853)13 C. B. 850.
v.
;

Genner Martin

v.

Sparks (1704)

Doug.

73.

&

(See the American decision in Beach v.

Hancock (27

New Hamp.

223)

cited in Bigelow, Torts (2nd edition), p. 170.)

Battery

896.

An

action for battery

lies

when

there has been

any actual and direct application of force (however


slight)/* Whether intentional- or negligent/''^

on the part

of the defendant, to the body of the plaintiff, without


the latter's consent.

Such force may be applied through

an instrument, animate or inanimate. ^"^


Cole V. Turner (1704) 6 Mod. 149, per Holt, C. J. Rowlings V. Till (1837) 7 L. J. (O. S.) Ex. 6. Coward v. Baddeley (1859) 4 H. & N. 478. (This case appears to leave it doubtful whether a mere seizing of the plaintiff's arm, with the object of arresting his. attention, is battery for the purposes of a civil action.) (b) Weaver \. ^W, (161 7) Hob. 134. Hall V. Fearnley (1842) 3 Q. B., at p. 921, per Denman, C. J. Holmes V. Mather (1875) L. R. 10 Ex. 261. (c) Weaver v. Ward, uhi sup. (bullet). Dodwell V. Burford (1669) I Mod. 24 (horse). Pursell V. Horn (1838) 8 A. & E. 602 (water).
(a)

Third party

897.

The

intervention of a third person does not


the

necessarily

prevent

application
896.

of

force

being

direct within the

meaning of

(Defendant threw lighted squib Scott V. Shepherd (1773) 2 W. Bl. 892. on to third party's stall; third party, to save his goods, threw it on to plainHeld that Tresp^s^ lay.). tiff.

Digitized

by Microsoft

ASSAULT AND BATTERY


898.

433
Reality of

If consent of the plaintiff to the act of the

defendant has been obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation as to the nature of the act complained of,
the defendant
in fact
is

"^""""^

liable in Trespass/*^

But

if

the plaintiff
of,

understood the nature of the act complained


thereto,

and consented
the consent

no action

will lie;

even though

was obtained by fraud or concealment of

material
(a)

facts/''^

Case (1850) Den. C. C. 580. (1877) 2 Q. B. D. 410. (b) Hegarty v. Shine (1878) 14 Cox, C. C. 145 (Irish case). R. V. Clarence (1888) 23 Q. B. D. 23. {R. V. Bennett (1866) 4 F. & F. 1105, is probably wrong.
R. R.
V. V. Flattery

At any

rate

it is

no authority
little

for a civil case.)

[It
is

seems a

doubtful whether,

when

the act complained of

a criminal offence, consent is always a good defence to a civil action of trespass {Boulter v. Clarke (1747) B. N. P. 16; R. v. Coney (1888) 22 Q. B. D. 534). Of course consent is not always

a defence to a criminal charge.]

899.

An

alleged assault or battery

may be
:

or excused on any of the following grounds


(i)

justified

justification

that the defendant, though his act

was

vol-

untary, did not and could not reasonably


foresee that
plaintiff
V. Fearnley (1842) 3 Q. B. 919. Stanley v. Powell [1891] I Q. B. 86 (explaining

it

would cause a trespass

to the

Hall

Leame

v.

Bray (1803)

3 East, 593).
[It

seems a
is

little

case

really

battery.

doubtful whether the defendant's act in such a But Hall v. Fearnley seems to show

Digitized

by Microsoft

434
that,

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


under the old system,
it was so regarded. If, however, the dewas involuntary, e. g. if he were pushed against crowd, there is no battery at all (Gibbon v. Pepper
.

fendant's impact

the plaintiff in a

(1694) 2 Salk. 637).]

(ii)

that the act complained of

wa done by the

defendant for the necessary defence of himself or

herself,
child,^''^

his wife or her husband/^'

parent,

master, or servant,

^'^^

against

the plaintiff (son assault demesne),

and that
in the

the force used

was not unreasonable


^^^

circumstances
(a)

(b)
writers.

Anon. (1440) Y. B. 19 Hen. VI. Mich. pi. 59. Leward v. Baseley (ifx)^ I Ld. Raym. 62. Soj said in Anon. (n. d.) 3 Salk. 46, and adopted by modern
, ,

V. Reynolds (1729), I Str. 953. (In Leward v. Baseley, ubi was said, that a master cbuld not justify for defending his servant, because he could have the action per quod servitium amisit. But this is contrary to the solemn resolution of the Court of Common Bench in 1440 (Y. B. 19 Hen. VI. Mich. pi. 59), and to the opinion of the majority of the Court

(c)

Barfoot

sup.,

it

in

Seaman
(d)

v. Cuppledick (1614) Owen, 150.) Cockroft V. Smith (1705) 2 Salk. 642, per Holt, C. J. Reece v. Taylor (1835) 4 N. &. M., at p. 470.

Blunt

V.

Beaumont (1835) 2 C. M.

&

R. 412.

(iii)

that the act complained of

was done

in the

defence of the defendant's possession of land


or chattels
(a)
;

e.

g.:

to

resist

an

illegal

entry

upon land

in the possession
l^eaver v.

of the defendant

Bush (1798)
V.

Polkinhor'n

8 T. R. 78. Wright (1845) 8 Q. B., at

p.

206 {per

Curiam).

Digitized

by Microsoft

ASSAULT AND BATTERY


(^) to
eject

435

a trespasser/*^ or a person
in

making a disturbance
worship (')

common

inn, or licensed house/'') or place of


( ?

any place which the


;)

public has a license by law to enter


(a)

Harvey

v.

Bridges (1845)

H M- ^ W.
I

Harrison
[It

v.

D. of Rutland [1893]

Q. B.

437. 142.

land by his

was formerly held that a person who enters the defendant's license, and subsequently refuses to leave on demand, becomes a trespasser for this purpose (JVooci v. Leddbitter (1845) 13 M. & W. 838). But this view has been greatly shaken by the decision in Hurst v. Picture Palaces, Li. [1915] i K. B. i.]
(b)
v. Whiting (1840) 9 C. P. 262, per Patteson, J. Webster v. Watts (1847) 11 Q. B. 311. Sealey v. Tandy [1902] I K. B. 296.

Wheeler

&

(c)

How V.
Burton

Planner (1666)
V.

Sid. 301.

M. W. 105. (Probably the authority of a churchwarden for this purpose is confined to the hours of divine service; at other times the
Henson (1842)
10
rector
is

&

the authority {Worth


781).)
is

v.

Terrington

(1844)

'3

M.

& W.

[But a churchwarden
thinks there will not be

not justified in excluding a person by

force from entering a church, metely because he (the churchwarden)

room for others who may wish to attend Timson (i888) 20 Q. B. D. 671). And, generally, before ejecting, the defendant must have requested the plaintiff to Ballard v. leave peaceably {Green v. Goddard (n. d.) 2 Salk. 641
{Taylor
v.
;

Bond

(1837) I Jur. 7); unless the plaintiff himself used force to P. 6; Polkinhorn v. Wright enter {Tullay v. Read (1823) i C.

&

(1845) 8 Q. B. 197.).]

(y)

to

prevent

the

unlawful

seizure

of

chattels in the possession of the de-

fendant;
(The reCuppledjck (1614) Owen, 150. but if a man is entitled to take goods by force (see below), a fortiori he must be allowed to defend

Seaman
is

v.

port

obscure;
force.)

them by

Digitized

by Microsoft

436

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


(8)

to take

chattels

to

the possession of
entitled.

which the defendant was

Anon. (1494) Keilwey, 92. Blades V. Higgs (1861) 10 C. B. N. S. 713. (This last for the chattels (wild rabbits) had is an extreme case; never been in the possession of the defendant's employer.)
not necessary that the wrongful talking should have been but where the plaintiff has not himself been the trespasser, probably -a request for delivery is necessary before force .is used (Blades v. Higgs, ubi sup.)!\
[It is

by the

,plaintifF;

But the defendant,

to justify

an assault

in defence or

assertion of possession of land or goods,

must plead and


for

show that he used no more


the protection of his right
;

force than
(*)

was necessary

and wounding can never

be

justified

on such a
(a)

plea;^'')

(b)

Collins v. Renison (1754) Sayer, 138. Gregory v. Hill (1799) 8 T. R. 299.

Oakes

V.

Wood

(1837) 2

M.

& W.

791.

(iv)

that the plaintiff or the person


alleged
assault

on

whom
was
(**)

the the

was

committed

child,^*^ ward,^'')

apprenticej^") or pupil,

of

the defendant,

and that the alleged assault


latter

was committed by the


moderate chastisement;
:

by way of

Winterburn v. Brooks (1846) 2 C. & K. 16, Mansell v. Griffin [1908] I K. B., at p. 166. (b) There appears to be no diirect authority for this statement; but the rights of the parent and the guardian are usually spoken of as being And see Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904, ejusdem generis. s. 28, which is, however, repealed by the Children Act, 1908, s. 134 (3). (c) Penn v. Ward (1835) 2 C. M. & R., at p. 341. (d) Cleary v. Booth [1893] I Q. B. 465. Mansell v. Griffin, ubi sup.
.

(a)

Digitized

by Microsoft

ASSAULT AND BATTERY


parent;

437

[The authority of the schoolmaster is a delegation of that of the and it is not confined to offences committed on the school premises {Chary v. Booth, ubi sup.). A husband has no right to
chastise or imprison his wife; unless, possibly, to imprison her in order to prevent her committing adultery (R. v. Jackson [1891] I Q. B. 671).]

(v)

that the act complained of

was committed
lawful
service

for

the purpose of effecting a lawful arrest (see


post,

process
Rose
-v.

905-909),

or

of

Kempthorne (1911) 103 L. T. 730.

(vi)

that the act complained of

was necessary

to

prevent the plaintiff committing a felony (including suicide)


Handcock
Leigh
V. v. Baker (1800) 2 B. P. 260. Gladstone (1909) XXVI T. L. R. 139.

&

(vii)

that the act complained of

was committed

in

order to prevent the continuance or repetition of a brea,ch of the peace


Timothy v. Simpson (1835) 1 C. M. & R. 757. Cohen V. Huskisson (1837) 2 M. & W. 477. Baynes v. Brewster (1841) 2 Q. B. 375.
Price
V.

Seeley (1843) 10 CI.

&

F. 28.
J.

Noden

V.

Johnson (1850) 20 L.

Q. B. 95.

[If the disturbance has once ceased, there must be well-founded apprehension of a renewal to justify an arrest (Price v. Seeley, ubi And no other past misdemeanor will justify arrest without sup.). warrant; except under special statutory authority (Fox v. Gaunt (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 798; Mathews v. Biddulph (1841) 3 M. & G. 390). In this respect the powers of a constable do not differ from those of a private person (Bouiditch v. Balchin (1850) 5 Exch. 378; The cases on the Griffin V. Coleman (1859) 4 H. & N. 265). Qucsre: as to point are mostly instances of public disturbance. a breach of the peace in a private place.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

438
(viii)

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


that
the
it

plaintiff

was a dangerous
to restrain

lunatic
force,

whom

was necessary
than

by
for

and that no more


defendant
restraint.

force

was used by the


such

was

necessary

Fletcher y. Fletcher (1859)

E.

&

E. 420.

it,

[The law looks with great jealousy on the fact of dangerous lunacy must be

this plea
strictly

cases of urgency, the proper proceeding is order" under the Lunacy Act, 1890, ss. 4-8.]

and, to support Unless in to apply for a "reception


;

proved.

Trifling
fljjau/f or

900. Where a person has been charged by or on


behalf of the party aggrieved with an assauk or battery

under sections 42 or 43 of the Offences against the Person Act, i86i,W and, after a hearing on the meritSj^*")
has received a certificate of dismissal of the charge,
("=^

or has paid the fine or suffered the imprisonment inflicted

by the Court, he

will not

be liable to an action

of assault or battery founded on the facts which were


the subject of the charge,^"*^ or for

any consequential

damage flowing therefrom.


(a)
,

^^^

(b)
(c)

24 & 25 Vict. c. 100. Reed V. Nutt (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 669.


I.

e., of acquittal [Hartley v. Hindmarsh (1866) L. R. I C. P. 553). Offences against the Person Act, 1861, s. 45. (The rule is only applicable where the case has been heard by two justices of the peace;) (e) Masper v. Brown (1876) i C. P. D. 97.

(d)

Digitized

by Microsoft

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

439
Aggravated
^'""''^"

901. In an action for assault or battery, special damage need neither be alleged nor proved ;W but
(subject to

797),

if

alleged,

it

may

aggravation of damages/''^
(a)

be proved in *
{Entick
v.

This

is

the general rule in actions of Trespass.

Car-

rington (1765) 2 Wils., at p. 291.)


(b)

Bourden v. Alloway (1708) 11 Mod. 180. ScoU V. Shepherd (1773) 2 W. Bl. 897.

SUB-TITLE

B.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT
his

902. Where the defendant, by agency of


others,^'^

own

act, or

by the

Definition

and without

legal justification, has,

no matter

for

how

short a time, restrained the liberty


direction,^''^

of the plaintiff in every

he

will

be liable to

an action of

false

imprisonment, without proof of actual

damage
(a)

suffered

by the

plaintiff.^')

Wheeler v. Whiting (1840) 9 C. & P. 262. Chivers v. Savage (1856) 5 E. B. 697. (b) Bird V. Jones (1845) 7 Q- B. 742. (c) An action for false imprisonment is an action of Trespass; successful plaintiflP is at least entitled to nominal damages.

&

and a

903.

To

constitute

false

imprisonment,

it

is

not

Contact not

necessary that there should be actual contact with the

"""'"^y

body of the

plaintiff.

It is sufficient if the plaintiff

has

submitted to superior force or show of authority.


Grainger
v.

Warner
[It

v.

Hill (1838) 4 Bing. N. C. 212. Riddiford (1858) 4 C. B. N. S. 180.

used to be said that every imprisonment included a battery. But that view is now exploded {Emmett v. Lyne (1805) i B. & P. N. R. 255).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

440
Third party

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


To make
the defendant liable where the actual
it

904.

imprisonment has been by a third person,

must be

shown
It is

that the third person acted under the express

direction of the defendant, or otherwise as his agent.

not sufficient that the third person has acted upon

the information of the defendant.


Gosden v. Elphick (1849) 4 Exch. 447, per Alderson, B. Chivers v. Savage (1855) ubi sup., at p. 701, per Lord Campbell, C. J. Sewell V. National Telephone Co. [1907] I K. B. 557.

[Therefore, where the plaintiff

is

arrested by a constable to
v.

whom

the defendant has merely pointed

him out {Gosden

Elphick, uht sup.),

or where the defendant has n\,erely signed a charge sheet at the dictation of a constable {Grinham v. Willey (1859) 4 H. & N. 496), or where the plaintiff his been arrested on a magistrate's warrant issued on the inforrnation of the defendant, an action for false imprisonment will not lie against the latter; though an action for malicious prosecution may (West v. Smallwood (1838) 3 M. & W. 418; Brown v.

Chapman (1848) 17 L. L. R. 5 C. P. 534).]

J.

C. P. 329;

Austin

v.

Dowlirtg (1870)

Parental
authority

905.

father ^^) or other lawful guardian,^'') unless


is

deprived of his right by the Court,(^)


exercise
( ?

entitled

to

such restraint upon the body of his infant

unmarried) child or ward, as will enable him to retain


within his custody or control
the
;

it

though the Court


infant

will

usually consider

wishes

of an

who

has

attained years of discretion.^"*)


the present day in a

No

such right exists at

husband

in respect

of the body of

Digitized

by Microsoft

FALSE IMPRISONMENT
his wife;

441

except, possibly, for the purpose of preventing

her committing adultery/')


(a)

R. R. R.

Manneville (1804) 5 East, 221. Clarke (1857) 7 E. B., at p. 193, per Lord Campbell, C. J. V. Howes (i860) 3 E. E. 332. Re Agar-Ellis (1883) 24 Ch. D. 317.
V. de

V.

&

&

(b) R. V. Clarke, ubi sup. (mother).

in

Naylor (1820) 5 Madd. 77 (testamentary guardian). Sfhwenck (1845) 14 M. & W. 488 {id.). Re Andrews (1873) L. R. 8 Q. B. 153 {id.). (c) Guardianship of Infants Act, 1886, s. 5. Re Elderton (1883) 25 Ch. D. 220 (father). Re Turner (1872) 41 L. J. Q. B. 142 (mother). (d) R. V. Clarke, ubi sup., at p. 197. (The age of discretion is fourteen males and sixteen in females {Re Agar-Ellis, ubi sup., at p. 326, per
Wright
V.

Gilbert v.

Brett,
(e)

M.
R.

R.).)
V.

Jackson [1891]

Q. B. 671.

see post,

[For the appointment, rights, and duties of guardians generally, Book IV (Family Law).]

906.

bail

is

entitled to arrest the person for


if

whom

Bail

he has gone bail;

he has reasonable grounds for


is

believing that such person

about to escape, or other-

wise cause a forfeiture of the security.


Bond
Isaac (1757) I Burr. 339. Brooks (1792) 2 H. Bl. 120. parte Lyne (1822) 3 Starkie, 132.
V.

Sheers

v.

Ex

907.

defendant

may

justify

an arrest on the

Suspicion

ground that a felony has been committed, that he

'f^"y

had reasonable and probable cause

for suspecting that

Digitized

by Microsoft

442

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


had committed
before
if
it/^^

the plaintiff
plaintiff

and that he took the

forthwith

magistrate.^''^

Whether

the facts alleged would,

proved,

amount
is

to reasonable

and probable cause


the Court;
for the jury.^"^
is

for such suspicion,

a question for
is

whether such

facts existed,

a question
it

If the defendant

was a constable,

sufficient

that he has reasonable grounds for sus;

pecting the plaintiff


committed.^'')
,

though no felony has been

in fact

.M

,1
v.

<

Clayton (1816) Holt, N. P. 478. Beckwith V. Ftlhy (1827) 6 B. C. 635. Broughton v. Jackson (1852) 18 Q. B. 378. (b) bright V. Court (1825) 4 B. & C. 596. (c) If'est V. Baxendale (iS^o) g C.B. J^.
(a)

McCloughan

&

Lister V.

Ferryman, (1870) L. R. 4 H. L.,


v.

at

p. 535, per

Lord

Chelmsford, C. (d) Lawrence Beckwith

Hedger (1810)
ubi sup.

Taunt.

13.

V. Filhy,

[A constable or churchwarden of the parish has also a special power to arrest and take before a magistrate any person guilty of the misdemeanor of brawling in church, or other misdemeanor mentioned in section 2 of the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act, 18^69 (see section 3 of that Act).]

Military
off^nce

908.

military officer

is

justified in arresting a per-

g^^ subject to military law,

who

is

charged with hav-

ing committed an offence punishable under the


Act,^^)
(a)

Army

or against military disciplined''^

(b)

Marks v. Frogley [1898] I Q. B. 888; Army Act, Dawkins v. Lord Rokehy (1866) 4 F. & F. 806.

ss.

41, 45, 158.

Digitized

by Microsoft

FALSE IMPRISONMENT
909. Generally speaking,
justifications

443
for

assault

Justification
^'"'^''

{ante, 899) are also justifications for


if

imprisonment;

the circumstances require such an exercise of force.


Harrison
v.

D. of Rutland [1893]

Q. B.

42.

[For some special statutory powers of arrest by private persons,


see

Appendix

to this Title.]

910. Subject

to 907, the fact that the

defendant

Mistake

honestly but mistakenly believed in the existence of


certain
i^acts

which,

if true,

would have
is

justified

him

in imprisoning the plaintiff,

no defence

to

an action

of false imprisonment.
Sinclair v. Broughton (1882) 47 L. T. 170 (P.

C).

APPENDIX
Statutory Powers of Arrest by Private Persons WITHOUT A Warrant
Vagrancy Act, 1824 (5 Geo. IV. c. 83), s. 6 (rogues and vagabonds). Night Poaching Act, 1828 (9 Geo. IV. c. 69), s. 2 (persons destroying game

by

night).

Highway

Act, 1835

(S

&

6 Will. IV.

c. 50), s.

79 (persons committing
s.

certain offences).

Metropolitan Police Act, 1839 (2 & 3 Vict. c. 47), by owners of property). against Act); s. 66 (offenders Prevention of Offences Act, 1851 (14 & 15 Vict. c. 19),

63 (offenders
11 (indictable

s.

offenders at night). 25 Vict. c. 96), s. 103 (thieves). Larceny Act, 1861 (24 25 Vict. Malicious Injuries to Property Act, 1861 (24 by owners). (persons damaging property

&

&

c.

97),

s.

61

Coinage Offences Act, 1861 (24

&

25 Vict.

c.

99),

s.

31 (false coiners).

Digitized

by Microsoft

444

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


&
3S Vict.
c.

Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871 (34


offenders).

112),

s.

7 (previous

Pawnbrokers! Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 93), s. 34 (pawners of stojem goods by pawnbrokers). Licensing Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 94), s. 12 (persons drunk in certain

circumstances).

Salmon Fisheries Act, 1873 by night by water bailiffs).

(36

&
c.

37 Vict.
58),
s.

c.

71)

s.

38 (salmon poachers
(illegal

Ariny Act; 1881 (44


accoutrements).

&

45 Vict.
A(;t,

156 (4)
c.

purchasers of
5 (2)

Regulation of Railways
refusing

name, &c.

by railway

1889 (52

&

53 Vict.
s.
i

57),

s.

(persons

officials).
c.

Licensing Act, 1902 (2 Edw.


circumstances).

VIL

28),

(persons drunk in certain

Note
In addition to the civil action for damages, a person wrongfully imprisoned may, of course, usually avail himself of the prerogative writ of habeas corpus.

I'l',

.-lUno'O

(^

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
911.

II.

OTHER
who

INJURIES IN RESPECT

OF THE PERSON

person

causes physical
in

harm
is

to

another

Breach of
jl"*'^^

in the circumstances

mentioned

726

liable to

an

action for

damages
Groves
V.
V.

in respect of

such harm.

David
[^uiere
:

fVimborne [1898] 2 Q. B. 402. Britannic Coal Co. [1909] 2 K. B. 146.

Does

a similar principle apply in cases pf breach of legal


?]

duty not statutory

912.

person who, intentionally ^'^ or negligently/''^


justification/'^^

intentional

without legal

and without the consent

^^s'lg^nt
^

of the party injured/''^ by an act or omission of duty

owed
is

to

such party, causes physical harm to another,

liable to

an action for damages

in respect of the

harm caused by such act facts do not amount to a


(a)

or omission;
trespass.

although the

Bird

v.

Roberts

v.'

Hqlbrook (1828) 4 Bing.-628. Smith (1857) 2 H. & N. 213.

v. England (1864) 33 L. J. Q. B. 32I. Clark V. Chamberi (1878) 3 Q. B. D. 327. Wilkinson v. Downton [1897] 2 Q. B. 57. (b) For definition and principles of negligence, see ante, 728-731. Of course an action founded on negligence can be defeated by proof

Davies

(c)

of contributory negligence in the plaintiff ( 732). The justification in such an action would certainly include all cases of justification in an action of Trespass (see ante, 899); and, probably, a good many more. Thus, it has been ruled by judges of eminence that a man is justified in keeping a savage dog, or pladng
I

Digitized

by Microsoft

446

QUASI-COl^TRACT AND TORT


Copeland (1794) i Esp. 203, per Lord Kenyon, C. J.; Deane v. Clayton (1817) 7 Taunt., at P., at p. 300, p. 521, per Dallas, J.; Sarch v. Blackburn (1830) 4 C. per Tindal, C. J.). And yet it certainly would not be permissible
glass spikes, in defence of property {Brook v.

&

for the defendant to set the

dog or drive the spikes


'

at a

mere

tres'

passer {Deane v. Clayton, ubi sup.).


(d)
Ilott V.

'

mikes (1820) 3

B.

&

Aid. 304.

Giles V. L. C. C. [1904] 2 L.

G. R. 306.

[The form of the action in. this Title would hav^ been Case; and actual damage must therefore be proved. (For the distinction, see Scott V. Shepherd (1773) 2 W.Bl. 892.) ]

Volenti non
fit

913. The consent referred

to in

912 includes not


is

injuria

only a consent to suffer the harrn which

the subject

of the action, but also a consent to incur the risk of


suffering such harm.^*)

But mere knowledge of the

existence of such risk does not

amount
fit

to consent

i^*"^

and the doctrine of


statutory

volenti

non

injuria has no ap-

plication in the case of


duty.^"^)
(a)
jr.

harm caused by breach of a


'

'

Ilott V.

Wilkes, ubi sup.


vj Quarteirmaine (1887) 18

Thomas
V.
V.

Q. B. D. 685.

Smith (b) Smith


(c)

Baker [1891] A. C. 325.


Baker, ubi sup.
V.

Baddeley

E. Granville .{iSSy) ig

Q.B..D. ^23.

[This
to

is an example of the general rule that consent is a defence an action of Tort {Volenti non fit injuria). But the rule has

special application to this class of cases.


effect that

There are

dicta to the

consent

is

no defence to a

civil

action founded on a

criminal assault {Boulter v. Clarke (1747) B. N. P. 16; R. v. Coney (1882) 8 Q. B. D., at p. 538, per Cave, J.). Sed quare.}

Common
employment

914. Where an action

is

brought by an employee, or

his representatives, or the persons entitled in case of his

Digitized

by Microsoft

OTHER INJURIES TO PERSON

447

death/*) against his employer, in respect of personal

injury incurred in the course, of the employment, and

caused by the act or default of another employee of the

same employer, engaged,


injured,^'')

at the time of the occurrence

of such injury, in the same employment as the person

and no personal negligence or


is
(*=)
;

wilful act

on
the

the part of the defendant

proved, the defendant will

not be liable

unless the employee was,

when

injury occurred, a
the injury to

workman

as defined in 916,^'')

him

arose from:

and

(i)

a defect in the condition of the ways, works,

machinery, or plant connected with, or used


in,

the

business
itself

of the

defendant,

which

defect

arose

from, or was
to,

not dis-

covered or remedied owing

the negligence

of some person in the service of the defendant,


entrusted by the latter with the duty of seeing that such works, ways, machinery, or

plant were in proper condition

^'^

or,

(ii)

the negligence of any person in the service of the defendant

who had any


when

superintendence

entrusted to him, and was exercising such

superintendence
or,

the injury, occurred

(^

(iii)

the conformity of the employee with the orders

or directions of a person in the service of the

defendant, to whose orders or directions the

Digitized

by Microsoft

448

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


employee was, at the time when the injury
occurred,

bound

to

conform ;^s)

or^

(iv)

an act or omission of any person in the


service of the defendant,

done or made

in

obedience to an improper or defective rule


or by-law of the defendant, or in obedience to

improper or defective particular instructions


given by any person delegated with the authority of the defendant in that behalf;
^''^

or,

(v) the negligence

of a person in the service of the


the charge or control of

defendant,

who had
points,

any
train,
(a)

signal,

locomotive

engine,

or

upon a

railway.^')

Fatal Accidents Act, 1846,


357".

Q. B. D.
it

(It

s. 2; Griffiths v. E. of Dudley (1882) 9 must be remembered that common employment remains

except so far as has been abolished by the Employers' Liability Act {Wilson v. Merry (1868) I H. L. Sc. 326).) (b) Morgan v. Vale of Neath Ry. Co. (1865) L. R. 1 Q. B. 149. Suiainson v. N. E. Ry. Co. (1878) 3 Ex. D. 341. (c) Priestley v. Fowler (1837) 3 M. & W. I. (This decision does not really, as reported, involvfe the doctrine of common employment at all; but it is always treated as if it did.) Hutchinstiri v. York, &c. Ry. Co. (1850) 5 Exch. 343. Bartonshill Coal Co. v. Reid (1856) 3 Macq. H. L. C. 266. (A Scotch case, but expressly decided to be the law of England also.)
(d)
(e)
(f)

a defence to an action based on the Fatal Accidents Act;

Employefs' Liability Act, 1880,


Ihid. ss. Ibid.
s. s.

s.

I.

I I I
I

(i),
(2). (3).

(i).

(A by-law which has been approved by a Secby any department of the Government, under an Act of Parliament, cannot be deemed improper or defective for the purposes of the
Ibid. ss.
(4), 2 (2).

(g) (h)

Ibid.

retary of State, or

Act.)
(i)

Ibid.

s.

(5).

Digitized

by Microsoft

OTHER INJURIES TO PERSON

449

[The key to the Employers' Liability Act, as well as to the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, is to be found in the fact that almost
every clause of both statutes
decision.
is

intended to reverse a previous judicial

doctrine of common employment applies, subjectto the Acts, to bar an infant as well as an adult (Bass v. Hendon V. D. C. (1912) XXVIII T. L. R. 317).]

The

915.

An
:

employer

is

deemed,

for the purposes of Negligence


if

914, to

have been guilty of personal negligence,

has either
(i)

he

"'

'"'Py"^

associated the employee with persons of less

than ordinary
(ii)

skill

or care

^^^

or,

failed,

through want of due care, to provide

proper machinery or appliances for the work

on which the employee was


(iii)

engaged,^*") or,

taken part (by himself or his partner) in the employee's task, and thereby caused the
injury ;('^)
or,

(iv)

been guilty of a breach of an absolute duty

imposed upon the employer by statute for


the protection of the employee.^'')
Hutchinson v. York, &c. Ry. Co. (1850) 5 Exch. 343, per Alderson, B. Wigmore v. Jay (18-50) ibid. 354. (b) Searle v. Lindsay (1861) II C. B. N. S. 429. Griffiths v.' London, &c. Dock Co. (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 259. (c) Ashworth v. Stanwix (1861) 3 E. & E. 701. (d) Groves v. Wimborne [1898] 2 Q. B. 402. David V. Britannic Coal Co. [1909] 2 K. B. 146.
(a)

916.

"workman," 917-920, means any

for the purposes of 914,

and "Workma

person, of whatever age, who,

Q2

Digitized

by Microsoft

450

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

being a labourer, servant in husbandry, journeyman,


artificer,
-in

handicraftsman, miner, or otherwise engaged


into, or

manual labour, has entered


with

works under, a

contract
servant.

an

employer,

and

also

any railway

Employers and

Workmen

Act, 1875,

s.

10.

Employers' Liability Act, 1880, s. 8. rule here apply to railway servants ?)

{Quare: Does the ejusdem generis

Knowledge
0/ defect

917.

A
1

worlcmau who knew of the defect or


1 1 1

gence which caused his injury, and

negliM failed to give, or


/-

cause to be given, within a reasonable time, to the

employer or some person superior to himself in the


service of the employer, information of such defect or

negligence, will not be entitled to

any remedy under


unless

the

Employers? Liability Act,

1880;

he was

aware that the employer or such superior already knew


of such defect or negligence.
Employers' Liability Act, 1880,
Wehliriy. Ballard {l?,%b)
s.

(3).

17Q. B; D.

122.

[Apparently, the mere fact that the employer was aware, as well workman, of the existence of the defect or negligence, is not sufficient to enable the workman to recover. The workman must
as the

be aware that the employer was aware.]

Limits of

918. The defences of volenti non

fit

injuria {ante,

fTabluty" ^ct

913) and of contributory negligence (ante,


to

732) are

open

an employer sued under the Etttployers' Lia-

bility Act, 1880.

Digitized

by Microsoft

OTHER INJURIES TO PERSON


Stuart V. Evans (1883) 49 L. T. 138. fTeblin v. Ballard (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 122. point, by Bowen, L. J., in the following case.)
(Criticized, but

451

on another

Thomas v. Quartermaine (1887) l8 Q. B. D., Yarmouth v. France (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 647.


Smith
V.

at p. 698.

Baker [1891] A. C. 325.

919. The amount of damages recoverable by or


respect of a

in

Maximum
'^"^'^''''

workman under
limited to the

the Employers' Liability

Act, 1880,

is

amount of

the estimated

earnings, during the three years preceding the injury,

of a person in the same grade, employed during those


years in the like employment, in the district in which
the

workman was employed

at the time of the occur-

rence of the injury.


Employers' Liability Act, 1880, s. 3. (The word "person" in the section probably means a normal person in the same employment as that of the person injured. But attention should be directed to the fact that the earnThe actual ings of such a person are the maximum of compensation. earnings of the person injured may probably be taken into account {Noel See also Perry v. Wright V. Redruth Foundry Co. [1896] I Q. B. 453). [1908] I K. B. 441.)

920. If a workman, or
sue an employer at
ers' Liability Act,

his personal representatives.

Alternative

or the persons entitled to sue in the event of his death,

""^^ '"

common

law, or under the

Employ-

1880, in respect of personal injury,

and are defeated, he or they cannot afterwards claim against the same employer in respect of the same injury under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906;^*)
though they may,
if

they have shown in such action a

Digitized

by Microsoft

452

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


for

good claim
insist

compensation under the

latter

Act,

upon the Court which


accordingly.^*")

tried the action assessing

compensation

And

if

there has been

paid to a workman, or his representatives, or any persons claiming by, under, or through him, any statutory

penalty or part of a penalty in respect of the same


injury, the

employer

is

entitled to credit for

such pay-

ment
ers'

in the assessment

of damages under the Employ;

Liability Act,

880

and payment of damages


his representa-

under that Act debars the workman,


tives,

or such other persons, from receiving any such

penalty or part of a penalty as might have otherwise

been payable
cause of
(a)

to

him or them

in respect

of the same

action/*^)
1906, s. l (2) (b); Edwards v. Godrule applies, jeven if the workman is a minor

Workmen's Compensation Act,

frey [1899] 2 Q. B. 333.

The

{Neate v. Electric Ordnance Co. [1906] 2 K. B. 558). But the converse proposition does not hold {Rouse v. Z)jxon [1904] 2 K. B. 628), (b) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, s. l (4). (But "the action

must have been brought within the time limited for claiming compensation under that Act (Cribb v.Kynoch Ld. (No. 2) [1908] 2 K. B. 551); and the costs incurred by the employer in defending the common law action will be deducted from the compensation payable under the Act {Cohen v. Seabrook (1908) XXV T. L. R. 176).) (c) Employers' Liability Act, 1880, s. 5. (The statutory penalties referred to are probably those imposed by the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Aa, 1872, s. 38, the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, s. 70, and the Factory

and Workshop Act, 1901,


ceedings under the
that Act.)

s.

136.

The

rule

is

different in the case of pro-

Workmen's Copipensation Act,

1906.

See

s.

(5) of

[There are provisions

in

the

Workmen's Compensation

Act,

1906, (see post. Title III) giving an employer a right of subrogation against the person who really caused the injury. But there doe^ not

appear to be any corresponding provision in the Employers' Liability ^are: whether such person would be responsible to the employer in quasi-cantract or otherwise.]
Act, 1880.

Digitized

by Microsoft

OTHER INJURIES TO PERSON


921.
1

453
Limitation
^ '*'"

An

action under the Employers' Liability Act,


six

880,

must be brought within


of the

months

after the oc-

currence of the accident causing the injury, or, in the


case of death
( ?

workman) within twelve months

from the time of death.


Employers' Liability Act,
1

880,

s.

4.

[There are various provisions in the Act as to giving notice of and the procedure in actions brought under the statute. (See ss. 4, 6, & 7.) Though in the Act the word "compensation" is used to signify the amount for which the employer is Hable, it has been thought better to use in this Title the more correct term "damages"; to distinguish it from the statutory liability of the employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906.]
the injury,

922.

person

who keeps dangerous


substances,^''^

animals,^*) or Dangerous
^

harbours dangerous

which cause physical

^"^^

h^rm
784,

to another in the circumstances specified in 780,


is

and 852,
(*=)

liable to

an action

for

damages

in reis

spect of such

harm;

even though negligence

not

proved.

(a)

May

v. Burdett (1846) 9 Q. B. loi. Filburn \.J'eople's Palace Co. (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 258. Osborne v. Chocqueel [1896] 2 Q. B. 109.

[For the doubt as to whether the doctrine of vis major would apply in such a case, see Nichols v. Marsland (1875) L. R. 10 Ex., at p. 260, and Baker v. Snell [1908] 2 K. B., at-p. 354.]
(b)

Rylands

v. Fletcher

(l868) L. R. 3 H. L. 330.

[There does not seem to be any reported case of this kind in which the damage was to the person. But the principle probably applies, and probably also the exception oi vis major. (See 852.)]
(c)

Hudson v. Roberts (1851) 6 Exch. 597. Rylands v. Fletcher, ubi sup. Barnes v. Lucile (1907) 96 L. T. 680.

Digitized

by Microsoft

454
Mental

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


Mental shock
is

923.

not of

itself

sufficient

to

support an action under


caused

912; mental shock may be. by

but physical harm

Wilkinson v. Downton [1897] 2 Q. B. 57 (false news). ^Azi [1901] 2 K. B. 669 (careless driving). Janvier v. Sweeney [1919] 2 K. B. 316 (threats).

Dm&m V.

^i,

i-t>('

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE

III STATUTORY COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS AND INDUSTRIAL DISEASES ("WORKMEN'S COMPENSA-

TION")
924.

An

employer, as defined in
(to

925,

is

liable to Compensa*'"f^

pay compensation
to a
his

be assessed

in

manner provided
II)
if

by the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, Sched.

workman

as defined in 926, or,

he be dead, to

dependants as defined

in 933, in respect of per-

sonal injury by accident arising out of and in the course

of the workman's employment, or in respect of certain


specified diseases

due

to the nature of his

employment,

if

the injury disables the

workman
full

for a period of at least at the

one week from earning


he was employed
less it is
( ?

wages

work

at

which
;

at the time of the accident)


is

un-

proved that the injury


wilful

attributable to the

serious

and

misconduct of the workman,^*) and


in his

that

it

has not resulted

death or serious and perthe case of such

manent disablement; or
diseases,
it is

unless, in

proved that the workman has, at the time

of entering into the employment, wilfully and falsely


represented himself in writing as not having previously
suffered
(a)

from the
v.

disease/''^
v.

Johnson

Marshall [1906] A. C. 409; Bist


Act, 1906,
ss.

L. (^ S. W. R. [1907]

A. C. 209.
(b)

Workmen's Compensation

i, 8.

Q3

Digitized

by Microsoft

456

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

[The "industrial diseases" covered by the Act are set out in Sched. Ill thereof. The Secretary of State may add others (s. 8) (6) ) and has done so by orders dated 22nd May, 1907, and 2nd December, 19Q8. No disease, other than those so specified, can be the basis of a claim to compensation under the Act as an "industrial disease"; but what in ordinary language would be called a "disea,se"
;

may be the basis of a claim founded on "accident" (s.' 8 (10); .Brintom V. Turv'ey [1905] A. C. 230; Broderick v. L. C. C. [1908] 2 K. B. 807; Ismay tf Co. v. Williamson [1908] A. C. 437). The principle is: that while nothing can rank as an "accident" which may fairly be considered aS an ordinary consequence of the workman's employment, any unintended and unexpected occurrence may so rank, even though its immediate effect be what is usually called a " disease " {Fenton v. Thorley [1903] A. C. 443). Though
the' " course of the employment " is not co-extensive with the existence of the relation of employer and workmen {Davidson v. Officer [191 8] A. C. 304), nevertheless a workman may b.eientitled to compensation iti respect of an accident which occurred when he was

not actually at work ( Armstrong, Whitworth A. C. 757)-]

& Co.

v.

Redford [1920]

"Employer"

925.

An

"femployer," for the purposes of

924, in-

cludes not only an individual

who has

entered into a

contract of service or apprenticeship with a


as defined in

workman

926, but also

any body of persons


and, where the

corporate or unincorporated*^ and the legal personal representative of a deceased employer


vices of a
;

ser-

workman

are temporarily lent or let on hire

tq another person

by the person with

whom

the work-

man

has entered into such a contract as aforesaid, the

latter is

deemed,

for the purposes of this Title, to con-

tinue to be the employer of the

workman

whilst he

is

working

for

such other person/''^


is

When

the claim to

compensation

based on the occurrence of one of the

industrial diseases referred to in 924, the


tion
is

compensalast

recoverable from the employer

who

em-

Digitized

by Microsoft

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
ployed
the

457

workman during
to

the

period

of twelve

months previous
(a)

the date of the disablement or


disease/''^

suspension caused by the occurrence of such


Porton v. Unemployed Committee [1909]
I

K. B.

173.

(b)
(c)

Workmen's Compensation
Ibid.
s.

Act, 1906,

s.

13.

(There are various detailed provisions concerning the shifting of this prima facie liabiHty, and the contribution of various employers towards the compensation payable; for which see s. 8 (i) (e) (i)8 (i)
(c).

())

926.

"workman,"

for the purposes of 924, in- "Workn

eludes every person

who has

entered into or works under

a contract of service or apprenticeship/*) whether by

way of manual
word includes
the sea-service
vice
^''^

labour, clerical work, or otherwise.


also masters, seamen,

The
to

and apprentices

and apprentices

in the sea-fishing ser-

(other than

members of the crew of a


are

fishing vessel

remunerated by shares
of such vessel)

in the profits or gross earnings

members of the crew of a ship registered in the United Kingdom, or of a British ship of which the managing owner or manager resides, or has his principal place of business, in the United Kingdom, and also pilots to whom Part X of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, applies.
(i)

who

But

it

does not include:

any person employed otherwise than by way


of manual labour, whose remuneration
ceeds two hundred and
fifty
(=)

ex;

pounds
is

a year

(ii)

a person whose employment


nature,^**)

of a casual

and who

is

employed otherwise

than for the purposes of the employer's trade


or business;

Digitized

by Microsoft

458
(iii)

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


a

member of a

police force

(iv)

an outworker;

(v) a

member

of the employer's family dwelling

in his house/*)
(a) Probably this contfblling clause limits the whole application of the Act to persons who are technically in the position of " servants" as distinct from independent contractors, e. g., architects, managers, and the like. {Wattes V. Franco-British Exhibition (1909) XXV T. L. R. 441; Simmons V. Heath Laundry Co. (1910) XXVI T'. L. R. 326.) For the distinction see ante, Bk. II, Pt. II, 454, and Bk. II, Pt. Ill, 769, 770, and the cases decided on the Act of 1897, c g. Simpson v. Ebbw Vale [1905] i K. B. But a professional football 453; Bagnall v. Levinstein [1907] I K. B. 531. player is a "workman" for the purposes of the Act {Walker v. Crystal Palace Club [1910] I K. B. 87). (b) The provisions relating to industrial diseases in the Act have no Co., [1909] 2 K. B. 529). application to seamen {Curtis v. Black (c) Does this refer to the remuneration payable, by the employer against whom the claim is made; or to the remuneration earned by the claimant from all sources ? The latter view would lead to strange results; but there is nothing in the Act to exclude it ; and, in assessing compensation, it is actually adopted (Act, Sched. I, (2) {b)). (d) It seems clear that the word "employment" in this clause refers, not to the general character of the claimant's occupation, but to the contract of employment between him and the employer against whom the claim is made {Hill v. Begg [1908] 2 K. B. 802; Dewhurstv. Mather [1908] 2 K. B. 754.) The last case shows that employment, though intermittent, may yet be regular. (e) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, ss. 7, 13.

/Alternative

927.

When
.
.

Workman has
. .

a legal claim to damages


a,

remedies

respect or

mjury agamst

person other than his

employer, in addition to a statutory claim to compensation against his


injury, he

employer in respect of the same


;

may

pursue both his remedies

but he

will

not be entitled to recover both damages and compensation.

And

if

he obtains compensation

from

his

Digitized

by Microsoft

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
employer, the latter
is

459

entitled

to

be indemnified by

any

third

person against

whom

the

workman might
such injury.
s.

have recovered damages

in respect of

Workmen's Compensation

Act, 1906,

6.

[It sliould be noted that the method of calculating the amount payable to the workman may be quite different in the two cases, and may consequently lead to different results. Is the indemnity recoverable from the third person by the employer limited to. the amount for which the former would be liable to the workman ?]

928. Proceedings

to recover statutory

compensation
is

Notice of

are not maintainable;

unless notice of the accident

l"i^"

given in statutory form as soon as practicable after


occurrence/*) and before the
left

its

workman
made

has voluntarily

the

employment
for

in

which he was injured, and unless


is

the

daim

compensation

within six months

from the occurrence of the


man's death.
such notice
is
is

accident,^*) or of the

workin,

But want

of,

or defect or inaccuracy
;

not a bar to proceedings


it,

if

the employer

not prejudiced by

or

if it,

or the failure to claim,


the United

was occasioned by mistake, absence from


Kingdom,^'') or other reasonable cause.
(a)
^"^^

In the case of " industrial diseases," the disablement from earning wages, or suspension frqm the usual employment, is to be reckoned as the occurrence of the accident (s. 8 (i) (iii) (a), 8 (4)). For the special case of "workmen" lost at sea, see s. 7 (i). (b) Quare: of the employer or the workman, or either ?
full

(c)

Workmen's Compensation

Act, 1906,

s.

2.

929. Except where expressly provided for by


.
.

stat- Occident
1

ute,^')

compensation cannot be claimed, either by a

occurring

abroad

Digitized

by Microsoft

460

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


himself or his dependants, in respect of an

workman
(a)
e.

accident occurring outside the United Kingdom/''^


g.

Workmen's Compensation
v.

Act, 1906,

s.

7.

(b)

Tomalin

Pearson [1909] 2 K. B. 61.

Contracting
out

930. JMo contract


liability to

exempting

an employer
to
;

from
his

pay statutory compensation


voluntarily entered into

any of

workmen will be a bar to a statutory claim


contract
is

unless the

by

the

workman

affected, in

pursuance of a scheme sanctioned by the

Registrar of Friendly Societies.


Workmen's Compensation Act,
1906,
s.

3.

[No such scheme will be sanctioned if it contains an obligation on the workman to join the scheme as a condition of being hired, or if it does not contain provisions enabling him to withdravfr from the scheme (Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, s. 3).]

Sub-contracting

931

Where

the undertaker of a business ^'^ engages

a contractor to do the whole or any part of the work undertaken by him, the undertaker
is

liable (alternatively

with the contractor) to pay the statutory compeilsation


to

any workman employed

in

such work, in respect of


in,

an accident taking place on, or


controlled

or about premises

^^^

by the undertaker, or on, or in, or about premises on which the undertaker has undertaken to
execute the
ately

work

as

if

the

workman had been immedito the earnings

employed by him.
is

But the amount of the com-

pensation

calculated

by reference

Digitized

by Microsoft

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
of the

461

workman under
provides

his

immediate employer; and,


is

where the work


contractor

in question

agricultural,

and the

and uses machinery driven by

mechanical power for the purpose of such work, the


contractor
is

alone liable to pay compensation to a

workman
(a)

so employed/"^

Including a local or other public authority (Workmen's Compensa-

tion Act, igo6,

(b)
(c)

Mulroony v. Todd [1909] i K. B. Andrewes [1908] 2 K. B. 567. Workmen's Compensation Act, igo6, s. 4.
s.

13;

165).

Andrewes

v.

[The undertaker (in the section called the "principal") is entitled by any person liable independently of this provision (Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, s. 4 (2)). It seems doubtful whether the workman can sue both principal and contractor under this section, or whether he must elect between them {Mulroony v.
to be indemnified

Todd, ubi sup., at

p.

169).]

932. Where the


tory compensation

liability
is

of an employer to pay statu-

Insurance

covered by insurance, and such

employer becomes bankrupt or compounds or makes

an arrangement with

his creditors, or, being a

company,

commences to be wound up, any workman to whom any statutory compensation is due from such employer
acquires the rights of such employer against the insurers
;

and, in the event of the

liability

of the latter being

less

than that of the employer,

may

prove in the bank-

ruptcy or liquidation for the balance.


Workmen's Compensation
Act, 1906,
s. 5.

[Claims to statutory compensation up to 100 are payable in bankruptcy and liquidation, where the employer has not insured {Ibid. s. 5 (3) (4)). The section does
priority to ordinary debts in

Digitized

by Microsoft

462

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

not apply to a company going into voluntary liquidation for the purpose of being reconstructed or amalgamated (s. 5 (5)).]

"Depend-

933. The " dependants " of a dcccascd workmaii, for


the benefit of

whom

statutory compensation

may be
grandstep-

obtained (see
relatives,
viz.

924), comprise such of the following

the wife,

husband,

parents,

parents,

step-parents,

children,

grand-children,

children, brother,

sister,

half-brother,

and

half-sister

of the workman, as were wholly or in part dependent

upon the earnings of the workman


dent, have been so dependent.

at the time of his

death, or would, but for his incapacity due to the acci-

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906,

s.

13.

[Illegitimate relationship is recognized in lineal but not in collateral degrees (Ibid.).

A posthumous child, even though illegitimate, can claim as a dependant {Williams v. Ocean Colliery Co. [1907] 2 K. B. 422 ; Schqfield v. Orrdl Colliery Co. [1909] A. C. 433). The existence of " dependancy " is a question of fact \New Monchton
Collieries V. Keeling [i^ii]

A. C. 6^8).]

.',

Maximum
7;^^""^'^'
tion
'

934. The amouut of statutory compensation recoverable under this Title is assessed with reference to the
average earnings ^^^ of the

workman

for a period of three


it

years preceding the injury.


is

In the event of his death,


;

limited to three

hundred pounds
it

in the event

of his

incapacity only,

may

not exceed an allowance of

one pound a week during the continuance of such


incapacity.^'''
(a)

"Earnings"

is

a larger

term than wages;

and'

may

include such
v.

things as "tips," where these are openly

and habitually given {Penri

Digitized

by Microsoft

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

463

Spiers bf Pond, LJ. [1908] i K. B. 766), and board and lodging' {Dothie v. Macandrew [1908] I K. B. 803; Rosenqvist v. Bowring [1908] 2 K. B. 108). For the proper method of computing " aveiage weekly earnings," see Perry
V. fFright [1908]
I K. B. 441 4nslow v. Cannock Chase [1909] A. C. 435. Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, Sched. I (i). If the incapacity lasts less than two weeks, no compensation is payable in respect of the first week (ibid, proviso (b)).
;

(b)

[By the Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Acts, 1917 and 1919, the scale of weekly allowances was raised by 75 per cent. " during the continuance of the present war, and for a period of six months thereafter."]

935. The provisions of this men" employed by the Crown

Title apply to

"work-

Crown

(other than persons

in '"'P'y'"

the naval or military service of the

Crown)

in the
;

same

manner

as to the employees of private persons

except

that, in the case

of a person employed in the private

service of the

Crown, the head of that department of


was employed
at the
to

the royal household in which he

time of the accident,

is

be deemed his employer.


Act, igo6,
s.

Workmen's Compensation

9.

Note
As stated above, ( 929) except as provided by the statute itself, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, has no application outside But, the United Kingdom (Tomalin v. Pearson [1909] 2 K. B. 61). by the Workmen's Compensation (Anglo-French Convention) Act,
the
1909, provision is made for modification in the application of the principal Act to French citizens, in pursuance of treaty.

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION V
TORTS IN RESPECT OF DOMESTIC AND CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

TITLE
Definition

SEDUCTION
woman
to

QZQ.

A man who

debauches a
is

whose

services another person

entitled,
ill,

and thereby causes

her to become pregnant or

so that such other per-

son loses her services,

is

liable to

an action for damages

at the suit of such other person/*'*

The woman
debauching of

de-

bauched cannot herself bring the action;

nor can a
his

husband bring the action


wife/*'^
(a)

for the

Russell V.

Come

(1704) 2 Ld.
, ,

Raymond,

1031, and 6

Mod.

128, per

v. Thomson (1826) 2 C. & Maunder v. Venn (1829) M. & M. Manley v. Field (l?59) 7 C. B. N.

Holt, C. J.

Manvell

P. 303 (np child born). 323, per Littledale, J.


S. 96.

Hutchinson (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 599. (b) Lynch v. Knight (l86l) 9 H. L. C, at p. 589, per Lord Campbell, C. (Before the passing of the Divorce Act, 1S57, s 59, the approipriate action of the husband was for crim. con.)
Terry
v.

and technical action; as will appear seems at one time only to have Iain where Trespass quare clausum fregit could be alleged, and therefore to have been restricted to cases in which the woman was living in the plaintiff's house when the seduction occurred; though it seems afterwards to have been treated rather as trespass to the person {Woodward v. Walton (1807) 2 B. & P. N. R. 476). In either view, the seduction was regarded as mere aggravation of damages
[This
is

a higkly anomalous
It

in the course of the Title.

(Russell v.

Come, ubi

sup., per Holt, C. J.).

action

was

treated as Case, or as based

At other times, the on an infringement of the

Digitized

by Microsoft

SEDUCTION
old proprietary relationship of master and servant;
servitium amisit being the gist of the action {Grinnell
7
v.

465
the per quod

Wells (1844) G., at 1041, per Tindal, C. J.)- One of the results of this change of view vfas, that the action could be brought within six

M.

&

years, instead of being limited to four {Norton v. Jason


Style, 398).

(1653)

was decided that either Trespass or. Case could be brought (Chamberlain v. Hazlewood (1839) 5 M. & W. 515); but to the influence of the form of Case can be referred the rule that some evidence of loss of service, however slight, must
Ultimately,
it

always be given (Grinnell

v.

fFells,

ubi sup.).]

937. In order

to succeed in this action, the plaintiff

Essential

must prove
(2) that the

(i) that the

debauching took place/*^ and


illness

^^'"^"'^

pregnancy or

occurred,

'^^

whilst the

woman debauched was


(a)

in his service.

v. Williams (1847) 10 Q. B. 725. Hedges V. Tagg (1872) L. R. 7 Exch. 238. (b) Hedges v. Tagg, ubi sup., at pp. 285-286, per and Bramwell, BB.

Davtes

Kelly, C. B., Martin,

lifetime,

if a daughter living with her father is debauched in his and becomes pregnant after his death, her mother cannot bring the action (Hamilton v. Long [1903] 2 I. R. (K. B. D.) 407

[Thus,

[1905] 2

I.

R. (K. B. D.) 552).]

938.

It is

not necessary,

ift

order to maintain the Knowledge

action, to prove that the defendant

was aware that the

""'

"I'J^,"!

woman debauched was


Fores
v.

in the service of the plaintiff.


J.

Wilson (1791) Peake, 77, per Lord Kenyon, C.

939. Subject to
"

040, -^
"^

where the

woman debauched,
.

^'f'"" '""f be brought by

though rendering occasional voluntary services to the

employer

Digitized

by Microsoft

466
plaintiff,

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


was, at the time

when

the offence
^*^

was com-

mitted, in the exclusive

employment

of another perthe action will

son, whether the defendant or not,

^^^

not

lie;

even though the

plaintiff is the

parent

of, or
It

stands in loco parentis to, the

woman

debauched.

makes no

difference that the services

were rendered

to the plaintiff with the consent of the employer/"^


(a)

Rist V.

Faux

(1863) 4 B.

&

S. 409,
,

(b) Blaymire v.

(c)

Haley (1840) 6 M. & W. 55. Davies v. Williams (1847) 10 Q. B. 725. Thompson v. Ross (1859) 5 H. &. N. 16. Hedges V. Tagg {l%jz) L. R. 7 Exch. 283.
Whithourne
v.

Williams [1901] 2 K. B. 723.

Colourable

940. Where the defendant has induced the

woman
in-

debauched

to enter into his service

with a view of de-

bauching her, the person vvho would, but for such

ducement, have been entitled to the services of the

woman, may bring

the action against him.

Speight V. Oliveira (1819) 2 Starkie, N. P. 493 (approved in Griffiths V. Teetgen (1854) 15 C. B., at p. 347).

Presumption
of service

941. Where the

plainPtiff is

the parent of, or stands

^^ ^^^^ parentis to, the


latter

woman

debauched,^*^ and the

was

living in his

house at the time when the

offence
the

was

committed,^*'^ his claim to the services of


will

woman debauched
Where
is

be presumed on
is

slight

evidence/"^

the

woman

a minor, but of an
is

age to render domestic service, there


that such service

a presumption

being rendered.'"*'

Digitized

by Microsoft

SEDUCTION
(a)

467

Bennett v. /Ilkott (1787) 2 T. R. 166. Edmondson v. Machell (1787) 2 T. R. 4 (approved in Irwin v. Dearman (1809) II East, 23) (aunt). Irwin V. Dearman, ubi sup. (adoptive father).

Manvell
(b)

The

Thomson (1826) 2 C. & P. 303 (uncle). woman was away from home on a temporary visit (Griffiths V. Teetgen (1854) 15 C. B. 344) or even on daily work {Rist V. Faux (1863) 4 B. & S. 409) when the offence was commitv.

fact that the

(c)

ted, is immaterial; if she still continued to live in the plaintiiF's house, and' rendered some service to him. Tullidge V. Wade (1769) 3 Wils. 18.

Bennett

v. Allcott, ubi sup. v. v.

Harper
(d)

Harris

C. 387. Luffkin (1827) 7 B. Butler (1837) 2 M. W., at p. 542, per Parke, B.

&

&

942. For the purposes of


under age who, having
be
left

this

action, a

daughter

intention of
"^'"''"'"s

her former employment,


is

intends to return to her parent's house,


in the service
Terry
v.

deemed

to

of her parent.

Hutchinson (1886) L. R. 3 Q. B. 599.

(In the Irish case of

Long v. Keightley (1877) L. R. 11 C. L. 221, the principle appears to have been extended to the case of a daughter over 21.)

943. Where the conduct of the

plaintiff

has con-

Conduct of

duced

to the debauching, the action will not


v. Scoolt

lie.

"'"''^

Reddie

(1795)

Peake, 240.

[This wfas only a Nisi Prius decision; and it may be doubted whether, on principle, anything less than the plaintiff's actual consent would be sufficient. The conduct of the woman debauched is not material to the right to bring the action; though it may be
material in assessing the damages (see post, 948).]

944. The right


to the trustee in

to bring the action does

not pass Notaffecud


banl

bankruptcy of the person injured ;^*^ J^^"" ptcy

Digitized

by Microsoft

468

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


is

nor

the liability of the defendant affected

by a comin

position with his creditors, or

by order of discharge

his bankruptcy, except so far as the

Court may, ex-

pressly order
(a)

/''^

(b)

Howard, v. Crowther (1841) 8 M. Bankruptcy Act, 1914, s. 28 (l)

& W.
(c).

601.

Affiliation

945. The fact that an application by the


alleged to have been debauched, for

woman
order

proceedings

no estoppel

an

affiliation

against the defendant, has been graated or refused

by

a court of

summary
v.

jurisdiction,

is

not an estoppel in

an action under
Andersptt

this Title.

Collinson [1901] 2 K. B. 107.

Exemplary damages

946. Where the successful

plaintiff,

in

an action

under

this Title,

is

the parent of, or stands in loco

parentis to, the

woman

debauched, the jury

may award
feelings or

damages

in respect of his or her


798).

wounded

anxiety {ante,
Tullidge V.

Irwin Terry

V. v.

Wade (1769) 3 Wils. 18. Dearman (1809) II East, 23.


in Fores v.

Hutchinson (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 599-

Wilson (1791) Peake, 77, took the view that the same rule applied where the plaintiff was an ordinary employer. But this view has been repudiated in a recent case {McKenzie v. Hardinge (1906) XXIII T. L. R. 15).]

[The ruling of Lord Kenyon

seems to suggest that

his lordship

Aggravation
of

947. Where

the

defendant

has

debauched

the

damages

woman under

the guise of honourable courtship, evi-

Digitized

by Microsoft

SEDUCTION
dence of
this

469

fact

may

be given in aggravation of

damages
titled

for the seduction.

But the jury

is

not en-

to

include in the

damages assessed any com-

pensation for breach of promise of marriage.


Tullidge V. Wade, uhi sup.

Dodd

V.

Norris (1814) 3 Campb. 519.


is,

[The reason

that, in the case supposed, the right to bring the

action for breach of promise belongs to the

woman

debauched, and

not to the employer.]

948. The general

levity of character of the

woman

Mitigation
^

debauched, and even her improper conduct or conversation,

^"'"S"

may be

proved in mitigation of damages.

Ferry v. IFatkins (1836) 7 C. Carpenter v. Wall (1840) 11 A.

&

P. 308.

&

E. 803.

949. In assessing the damages


this Title, the jury

in

an action under

Position of
'

may

take into account the position

?"'""

in life of the parties;'"^

but direct evidence of the degiven.


^''^

fendant's
(a)

means may not be


&

(b)

P. 7, per Tindal, C. J. (Probably v. Askey (1837) 8 C. the rule only applies to the plaintiff when he is the parent of, or stands in loco parentis to, the woman debauched.) Hodsoll V. Taylor (1873) L. R. 9 Q. B. 79.

Andrews

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
Enticing

II

LOSS

OF CONSORTIUM
tvoman

950.
ingly

person who, without lawful excuse/*' knowwilfully persuades or procures a


to

and

leave her

husband against the


is

latter's

will,

whereby

the

husband
is

deprived of the society and comfort of


to

his wife,

liable

an action

for

damages by the

husband/''^
(a)

There appears
it is

to be no express authority for this qualification; but submitted that it must be the law.

(b)

Hyde

v.

Winsmore

Scysfor (1619) Cro. Jac. 538. v. Greenhank (1745) Willes, 577; approved by

Mathew,

J.,

of Lords in Allen v. Flood [1898] A. C, at p. 27, and followed by Wright, J., at Nisi Prius in Smith v. Kaye T. L. R. 261. (1904) Lynch v. Knight (1861) 9 H. L. C, at p. 598, per-'LotA Wensleydale.
in advising, the Hoiise

XX

[There is now no action merely for debauching a v^ife; the old action of crim. con. having been abolished by s. 59 of the Divorce Act, 1857. But, under that Act, damages may be awarded against a co-respondent who has been guilty of adultery with the wife, on
a petition by a husband for divorce or judicial separation, or for damages only (s. 33) ; and the principles of the old action are expressly preserved.
(See
/)orf,

Bk. IV., Sect.

I.,

Tit. V., 1895.)]

Harbouring

951.

husband has
against

.also

right

of action for

damages
excuse,*"'

any

person

who,

without

lawful

knowingly receives, harbours, and detains

his wife against his will/'''


(a)

(b)

For lawful excuses, see next section. Winsmore v. Greenhank, uhi sup. But see note to

952.

Digitized

by Microsoft

LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
[Queere
:

471
?

Would an
v.

(See Waterhouse

injunction ever be granted in such a case Waterhouse (1905) 94 L. T. 133).]

952.
he
if

No
:

such action as that described in

either
(i)

951 will

Excuses

the plaintiff

and

his wife

were living apart

by agreement, or were

judicially separated,

when

the act of the defendant took place; or

Weedon v. Timhrell (1793) 5 T. R. 357. Lewis V. Ponsford (1838) 8 C. & P. 687 (Nisi Prius). Harvey v. Watson (1844) 7 M. & G. 644.

(ii)

the plaintiff has been guilty of cruelty to his


wife,

and the defendant harbours the wife


;

from motives of humanity

or

R. V. Brooke (1766) 4 Burr. 1991. Philp V. Squire (1791) Peake, 115. Berthon v. Cartwright (1796) 2 'Esp. 480.

(iii)

the defendant has reasonable grounds for believing that the

husband has been

guilty of

cruelty to his wife,

and harbours the wife

from similar motives.


Philp
V.

Squire, uhi sup., per

Lord Kenyon, C.

J.

[Inasmuch as a wife is justified in leaving her husband who habitually commits adultery and refuses to amend (Stckert v. Sickert [1899] P. 278), it would seem that the action for harbouring cannot

now be brought by such

Queere: as to the effect of a a husband. of adultery in depriving a husband of his rights against single act Regard being had to this decision, and to the case of third parties.

V. Jackson [1891] i Q. B. 671 (which, following Ex parte Sandilands (1852) 21 L. J. Q. B. 342, and overruling Cochrane's Cos/ (1840) 8 Dow. 630, decided that a husband has no right to use force

R.

Digitized

by Microsoft

472

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


who
desires to live apart

to rttain of recover his wife


it*

be said that anything practical harbouring ?]


i

now remains

from him) can of the action of

Physical
'

953. Subject

to

^*^

954,

where the defendant has,


neglect of

wife"^"

either intentionally
isting

or

by

some duty

ex-

independently of contract/''^ inflicted physical


'"^

harm

upon a woman, and thereby deprived her


society,

husband of her comfort and


action for
loss.

he

is

liable to

an

damages by the husband


right of the
of,

in respect of such

The

husband

is

in addition to,

and

independent

any

right

which the wife

herself, or

the husband in her name,


for the injury inflicted
(a)

may have
her.'**^

to bring

an action

on

Guy V. Livesey (1618) Cro. Jac. 501. Hyde V. Scyssor (1619) Cro. Jac. 538.
Masper v. Brown (1876) I C. P. D. 97 (where, however, the action was held barred by s. 45 of the Offences Against the Person Act,
1861.

Ante, xpo.)

(b)

Dengate v. Brockhank

GWiWr
v. v.

Hemstead

(1838) 4 M. & W. 5. Whitehaven Junction Ry. (1862) 7 H. & N. 834. Phcenix Gas Co. (1865) 3 H. & C. 745.

[Presumably the rule laid down in Alton v. M. R. Co. (1865) 19 C. B. N. S. 213 {post, 959 (b),) applies to a husband suing for loss of consortium.^
(c)
It
is

believed that the decisions go no further than this.

But on

prjnciple the rule should apply to all unlawful deprivations of

consortium, e. g. false imprisonment of the wife. (See Norris v. Seed [1849] 3 Exch. 782.) A husband cannot, however, recover damages on the ground that a defamation of the wife has made her ill, and thus deprived her husband of her society {Allsop v. Allsop (i860) 5 H. & N. 534).
(d)

Guy

V.

Livesey, ubi sup.


v.

Hemstead

Phoenix Giis Co., ubi sup.

^~-

Digitized

by Microsoft

LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
954.

473
Fatal

husband whose

wife,

and a wife whose husrise

Acd-

band, has been killed under circumstances giving


to an action under the Fatal Accidents Act,

'^^"'^ ^'^*

846 {ante,

786)

may

maintain an action under that statute

against the person causing her or his death/*'

Apart
in

from

statute,

no action of Tort can be maintained

respect of the death of the plaintiff's husband or wife.^'


(a)
v. G. N. R. (1863) 4 B. & S. 396. Harrison v. L. & N. W. R. (1884) 4. Cab. & E. 540. (b) Baker v. Bolton (1808) I Campb. 493. (See also 786.)

Pym

[Even apart from statute, it would seem that damages might be recovered for loss of a wife's consortium prior to her death {Baker V. Bolton, uhi sup.). And where there is a breach of contractual duty resulting in the death of the plaintiff's wife, evidence of the death

may

2 K. B. 193).

be given in aggravation of damages {Jackson v. Watson [1909] Of course, claims may arise under the Workmen's
(ante, 924-935).]

Compensation Act, 1906

955. Subject to
to bring"

954, a

wife has (probably) no right

an action for

loss of the society

and comfort

Loss of hus""

of her husband.
Lynch
Knight (1861) 9 H. L. C. 577 (where there was much and the case was decided against the plaintiff on the ground of remoteness of idamage). Davies v. Solomon (1871) L. R. 7. Q. B. 112 (where the point was
v.

division of opinion;

also evaded).

[Both these cases were actions of slander; but the loss of consortium was alleged as proof of damage.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
Of
servant

III

DEPRIVATION

OF SERVICES

956.

pcrson who, knowingly and wilfully/*^ and


ser-

without lawful excuse/*"^ deprives a master of the


vices of his servant/"^

by persuading or compelling

the

servant to break an existing relation of service (whether

such a relation

is

founded on a legally binding con-

tract or not),'^^ or

by knowingly harbouring,

receiving,
relation,'*^

or detaining a servant
is

who has broken such


an action
^^^

(subject to 962) liable to

for

damages

and an injunction by
(a)
^

the master!

Garret v. Taylor (1620) Cro. Jac. 567.


Fossett V. Breer (1673) 3

Keb. 59 (quoted also as Fawcet v. Beavrei, 2 Lev. 63). Fores V. Wilson (1791) Peake, 77, per Lord Kenyon, C. J. (b) For the grounds of excuse (if any) see 963 (b). (c) Bird V. Randall (1762) 3 Burr. 1345, per Lord Mansfield. (The decision in this, case was criticized by the Court of King's Bench in Godsall v. Boldero (1807) 9 East, at p. 78; but rather on grounds .of application than of principle. As the action was Case, proof of damage is essential.) Hall V. Hollander (1825) 4 B. & C. 660. (d) Barber v. Dennis (1703) 6 Mod. 69 (only Nisi Prius).
,
'

Keane
(e)

Blake

H. Bl. 511. Lanyon (i79S) 6 T. R. 221. (This case shows that it is not necessary to prove knowledge by the defendant at the time when
v. Boycott (1795) 2
v.

he received the servant.


(1890) 63 L. T. 914.))

It is sufficient if

he continues to harbour
Francesco
v.

the servant after knowledge.

(See also

De

Barnum

sometimes said that, in an action founded on harbouring, from enticing, it is necessary to prove the existence of a valid contract between, the plaintiff and the servant. Probably this statement only means, that the servant cannot be said to have deserted his service if he was lawfully entitled to leave it, and that
[It is

as distinct

Digitized

by Microsoft

DEPRIVATION OF SERVICES
the defendant 9 A.

475

is at liberty to set up this plea (Sykes v. Dixon (1839) E. 693; Pilkington v. Scott (1846) 15 M. W. 657). If this were not so, contracts of employment would, in effect, in most cases, be terminable only at the option of the employer.]

&

&

(0 Hart

Aldridge (1774) I Cowp. 54. Cummings (1847) 5 C. B. 247. Lumley v. Gye (1853) 2 E. B. 224. Evans V. Walton (1867) L. R. 2 C. P. 615. (This case shows that, for the purpose of this action, a child Hving with its parent may be a servant of the parent. Possibly a similar principle might be
V.

Hartley

v.

&

held to apply to guardian and ward (Gilbert

v.

Schwenck (1845)

14

M.

& W.

488).)

[The origin of this action has been much debated. A writ of Trespass lay at the common law where the servant had been forcibly abducted; but the action for enticement seems to have been founded upon the Statutes of Labourers (especially the 23 Edw. Ill (1349) c. 2), and to have afterwards been extended by analogy to
cases to which the statutes themselves

had no

application.

The

scope of the action was discussed in the case of Lumley v. Gye, quoted above ; especially in the elaborate judgment of Coleridge, J.
(2 E.

&

B., at pp. 244-269).

It is curious to notice, that the action

on the

and more summary remedies against both. (See the writs in Fitzherbert, Natura Brevium, ff. 167-8.) The rule that notice need not be proved if the servant was found in the same county as that in which the plaintiff lived (which survived
statute lay against the servant as well as the enticer;
also that the statute itself provided to the interpretation put

as late as Fossett v. Breer (1673) 3 Keb. 59), seems to have been due upon the amending statutes of 25 Edw. Ill

(See Hale's note to (1350) c. 7, and 34 Edw. Ill (1360) c. 10. Fitzherbert, 167 C.) The writ of Trespass was not at first available unless actual force was used to the servant (Y. BB. 47 Edw. Ill (1374)

Mich. pi. 15; II Hen. IV (1409) Mich. pi. 46); though this rule appears afterwards to have been relaxed (Y. B. 9 Edw. IV (1496) Mich. pi. 4) for cases of enticing. But for mere harbouring, the only remedy was on the statute (ib.).]

957.

similar liability exists where the defendant Of apprenttce

has knowingly enticed away or harboured an apprentice


;

but {semble) in

this case the plaintiff

must prove

Digitized

by Microsoft

476

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

the existence of a contract of apprenticeship legally

binding on the appreritice.


De
Francesco
v.

Barnum

(i8go) 45 Ch. D. 430.

Felton (1813) 4 Taunt. 876, and


375-)

Cox

v.

Muncey

(1859)

(And see Guye 6 C. B. N.

v. S.

[In this case of De Francesco v. Barnum, there was no evidence of any de facto service; and the plaintiff was driven to rely upon an alleged breach of a term in the contract of apprenticeship not to serve other persons. It should be noted that circumstances which give rise to an action under 956 or 957, will frequently Jilso support an action for procurement of breach of contract (see Title IV,

post)]

.,

Quasi-contract

958. In the case of an apprentice, the employer

may

at his option

waive the

tort,

and sue

for the value

of the benefit acquired by the defendant from the apprentice's labour {ante, Bk. II, Pt. II,
Lightly
V.

484

n.).

Clouston (1808)

Taunt. 112.

Foster V. Stewart (1814) 3

M.

&

S. 191.

[There seems to be some doubt as to the case of a servant.

{Tres-

well V. Middleton (1623) ^^o. Jac. 653.) But this case may be explained either on the ground of the form of the action (Debt), or on

the ground that,

when

it

was decided, the


Certainly
cases.]

principle of "waiving the


it is

tort" had not been introduced.

very

difficult to see

any

logical distinction

between the

Physical darhage to
servant

959. Subject to

960, where the defendant has,

either intentionally,^"^ or
isting independently of

by neglect of some duty


contract,^'''

ex-

inflicted

physical
plaintiff

harm upon
has thereby

the plaintiff's servant,


lost,

and

the

wholly or partially, the services of


lie.

such servant, an action for damages will

Digitized

by Microsoft

DEPRIVATION OF SERVICES
(a)

477

Robert Marys' Case (1612) 9 Co. Rep., at Norris v. Baker (1616) I Rolle, 393.

fo.

113 a (dictum).

Jones V. Brown (ijgs) Peake, 233. Martinez v. Gerber (1841) 3 M. & G. 88. Alton V. Midland Ry. Co. (1865) 19 C. B. N.
(b)

S., at p.

Dixon

Bell (1816) 5 M. S. 198. Hodsoil V. Stallebrass (1840) II A.


V.

&

239, per Willes, J.

&

E. 301.

R. Co., ubi sup. (This decision has been somewhat severely criticized, e. g. in Taylor v. M. S. bf L. Ry. Co. [1895] I Q. B. 134; but chiefly on the ground of the incorrect use made of it. See Kelly v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. [1895] i Q. B., at p. 947; where the point is clearly put by Smith, L. J.). Derringer v. G. E. R. (1879) 4 C. P. D. 163.

Alton V.

M.

960. Subject to the provisions of the Fatal Accidents


Act, 1846 {ante, 786 {h)), where the physical

Death of
"""'

ser-

harm

alluded to in 959 has resulted in the immediate death

of the servant, the master has no right of action for


the death.
Osborn v. Gillett (1873) L. R. 8 Exch. 88. Clark V. L. G. 0. Co. [1906] 2 K. B. 648.

some time after the infliction of the inno bar to the recovery of damages in respect of the period between the injury and the death (Baker v.
[If the death takes place

jury, there

would seem
I

to be

Bolton (1808)

Campb.

493).]

961 . Where the physical harm alluded


is

to in

959

Death by
'^ "^

caused by the felonious act of the defendant, (semble)

the master

may

nevertheless sue the defendant before

the latter has been prosecuted for the criminal offence


{ante, 741).
Osborn V. Gillett (1873) L. R. 8 Exch. 88. Appleby V. Franklin (1885) 17 Q. B. D. 93 (following ^hite
Speitigue (1845) 13

v.

M.

& W.

603; but not quite consistently with

Digitized

by Microsoft

478

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


the older cases, e.g. Higgins v. Butcher (1606) Yelv. 89, and

Markham

v.

Cobh (1626)

Sir

W.

Jones, 147).

Trade dis-

962.

No

action will

lie

in respect of

an act done by

any person
dispute,

in contemplation or furtherance of a trade


it

on the ground only that

induces some other

person to break a contract of employment.


Trade Disputes Act, 1906,
s.

3.

Conway

v.

Wade

[1909] A. C. 506.

privilege of Trade Unions has been stated in 755. not restricted to cases of interference between master and serFor the meaning of the phrase "trade dispute," see post vant.

[The wider

It is

973-]

Note
[The action of enticing dealt with in this Title is also sometimes called an action of " seduction " ; but it differs in esseritial points
'

Qucere : are both actions included in s. 56 of the County Courts Act, 1888, R. S. C, O. XXXVI, r. 2, and s. 28 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1914 ?]
in Title
I.

from that dealt with

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE IV PROCURING BREACH OF CON-

TRACT AND INTERFERENCE WITH


BUSINESS
963. Subject
to 965, a person

who, knowingly
'"'

^*'

Breach of
Contract

and without lawful


vice or otherwise)
loss is inflicted
^^^

excuse/''^ induces

one party

to

a legally binding contractual relation (whether of serto

break such a relation, whereby

liable to

upon another party to such relation, is an action for damages and an injunction at

the suit of the latter/^^


(a) The defendant must have been aware of the probable consequences of his action. (Allen v. Flood [1898] A. C, at p. 96, per Lord Watson; Quinn V. Leathern [1901] A. C. 510, per Lord Macnaghten.) (b) No case has yet decided what is a lawful excuse for inducing a breach of contract; but several cases have decided what is not. Thus (i) a general

improve the industrial position of one's fellow-workmen {Glamorgan Coal Co. v. S. W. Miners [1905] A. C. 239), (a) a desire to enforce, payment of a debt {Giblan v. National Labourers' Union [1903] 2 K. B. 600), or fine (Conway v. Jf^ade [1909] A. C. 506), and (3) an unfounded belief that' the plaintiff's employers are attempting to violate the terms of an inliustrial agreement (Smithies v. National Association of Plasterers [1909] I K. B. 310), are not lawful excuses. It has been judicially suggested, that a duty arising from natural or fiduciary relation might be a justification (Glamorgan Coal Co. V. S. ff. Miners [1903] 2 K. B;, at p. 377, per Stirling, L. J.). (c) Merely supporting or assisting the breaker of a contract after the breach is not an actionable wrong (Denaby v. Torkshire Miners [1906] A. C.
desire to

384)(d)
'

is some doubt whether the action lies for breaches of all cononly of contracts which set up a permanent relation between the parties to them (National Phonograph Co. v. Bell [1908] I Ch., at pp. 366-

There

tracts, or

368).
(e)

Lumley

v.

Gye (1853) 2 E.

&

B. 224. B. 732.

Bowen v. Hall (1881) 6 Q. B. D. 333. Read v. Operative Stonemasons [1902] 2 K.

National Phonograph Co. v. Bell [1908] I Ch. 335 (adopting dicta in Allen v. Flood and Quinn v. Leathern, ubi sup.).

Digitized

by Microsoft

480

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


1

[It is sometimes said, that in this class of cases there must be "malice" on the part of the defendant. This seems to mean only that the defendant must have acted knowingly and without lawful excuse. {Allen v. Flootl [iSgSi] A. C, at pp. 121 and 154; Quinn v. Leathern, [igoi] A- C, at p. 510; Read v. Operative Stonemasons,

ubi shp., at p. 739).]


Interference

with bust-

964. Subject to

965,

a person who, by the com-

mission of an unlawful act, intentionally interferes with


the trade, business, or

employment of another person,


damage,
is

whereby the
action
for

latter

suffers

liable

to

an

damages and an injunction by that other

person.
Garret v. Taylor (1620) Cro. Jac. 567.

>

>i"

(1793) I Peake, 270. Taylor (1809) II East, 571. Ihbotson V. Peat (1865) 34 L. J. Exch. 118. Pratt V. British Medical Association [1919] i K. B. 244.
Tarleton v.

McGawley

Carrington

v.

[Semble : the act must be " unlawful " ; but it need not be actionable per se (fionway y. JVade [1909] A. C. 506 ; Pratt v. B. M. A., ubi sup).. It is difficult to know exactly what " unlawful, 'means in this connection.]

Trade
pute

dis-

Ill

965.

No

action will

lie

in respect of

an act done by

any person
dispute,

in contemplation or furtherance of a trade


it

on the ground only that

induces some other


it is

person to break a contract of employment, or that


interference with the trade, business, or

an

employment of

some other person, or with

the right of

some other

per-

son to dispose of his capital or his labour as he


,

wills.

Trade Disputes Act, 1906, s. 3. (It would seem that this section would not exemfit in the case of actual breaches of contract, not being a contract of employment.)
[Threats to interfere with a workman unless he transfers from one trade union to another may be protected by this section in an action by the workman. It has been held that such a' proceeding is not a " trade dispute " within the meaning' of the Act {Valentine But see Hodges v. Webb [1920] 2 Ch. <v. Hyde [191.9] 2 Ch. 129). The question is really one of fact in each case (JVhite v. Riley 70.
[1921]
I

Ch.

(C. A.)).

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION

VI

CONSPIRACY
966. If two or more persons enter into a criminal
conspiracy, with the design of causing
Criminal
"p-jj"'

harm

to

another

person, and
to

harm

is

directly caused
will

by such conspiracy
have an action for
all

such person, such person

damages and an injunction against


Barber
(1859) 7 C. B. N. S. 175.

or any of the

persons taking part in the conspiracy.


v. Lesiter

Mogul SS. Co. V. Macgregor*(lSS^) 23 Q. B. D., at p. 624. Quinn V. Leathern [1901] A. C, at pp. 529 and 542, per Lords Brampton and Lindley. Giblan v. National &c. Union [1903] 2 K. B. 600.

[A criminal conspiracy has been defined as an "agreement by two or more to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means" {Mulcahy v. Reg. (1868) L. R. 3 H. L. 317, /><?r Willes, J., adopted in R. v. Brailsford [1905] 2 K. B. 730). This definition, which is founded on an earlier dictum of Lord Denman in R. v. Jones (1832) 4 B. & Ad. 345, has been criticized; and, indeed, it is difficult to see what the second part of it adds to the first. It will be observed, that an unlawful object need not be in itself criminal it is sufficient it if amounts to a civil wrong (Jieg. v. Warburton (1870) L. R. I C. C. 276), such as the procurement of a breach of contract {Kearney v. Lloyd (1890) 26 L. R. Ir. 268), or, possibly, an ecclesiastical dffence {Boots v. Grundy (1900) 82 L. T. 769).]

[We can
c.

trace three distinct elements which have gone to the

tort of Conspiracy, (i) A statute of 28 Edw. I (1300) provided for the issue of a Writ of Conspiracy; and an ordinance of 33 Edw. I (1305) defined the persons against whom this This writ only lay where "two, three or more writ could issue. persons of malice or covin do conspire and devise to indict any person falsely, and afterwards he who is so indicted is acquitted." (F. N. B. 114 D.) Afterwards, it appears, the writ was confined to

making of the
10,

R2

Digitized

by Microsoft

482

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

whereby the plaintiff's had been endangered (Skinner v. Gunton (1669) I Wms. Saund. The remedy so devised, and the action on the case derived 228). out of it (Y. BB. 3 Ass. (4329) pi. 13 7 Hen. IV (1405) Mich. pi. 15, fo. 31 II Hen. VH (1519) Trin. pi. 7, fo. 26) are the parents of the
cases of indictment for treason or felony,
life
; ;

but, as will appear, the existence action of Malicious Prosecution of this Writ of Conspiracy, and the Action on the Case, may have influenced the scope and. nature of the modern action of Conspiracy. (2) The Court of Star Chamber treated conspiracies to commit crimes or torts as substantive offences {The' Poulterers' Case (161 1) 9^ Rep. 55 b.); and this idea was taken over by the Court of King'5 Bench after the Restoratiqn {R- v. Starling et al. (1664) I Keb. 675). Thus we get the modern crime of conspiracy. Ultimately, in the early part.of.thefniiieteenth century, it seems to have been admitted, that an action lay for intentional damage caused by a criminal conspiracy {Gregory v. D. of Brunswick (1844) 6 M. Gr. 205, 953). Possibly this development was aided by the existence of the action on the case for conspiracy (Malicious Prosecution). The criminal offence presents an analogy to the old Writ of Conspiracy, in that neither the writ lay against, nor could the criminal offence be committed by, one person only (F. N. B. 114 D). The gist of the Action on the Case, on the other hand, is the damage caused to the plaintiff; and it can be brought against one defendant only. (3) In the eighteenth century, the idea had also been entertained by some of the. judges, that a conspiracy to impede the free course of trade was a criminal offence at common law {R. v. 'Journeymen Tailors (1721) 8 Mod. 11). It is true that this idea has been by no means universally accepted (Wright, Conspiracies, 1-18; Stephen, H. C. L. Ill, 210); and it is clear that this common law offence, if it existed,, was unimportant whilst the Combination l,aws were in force. On their repeal, however, the question whether such an offence existed became a very practical question and in many cases the judges acted on the hypoth'esis that it did exist (see Reg. v. Druitt (1867) 10 Cox, 592; Reg. V. Bunn (1872) 12 Cox, 316). In some cases, moreover, they seem to have regarded it as part of some more general ,pririciple that a conspiracy to injure, aimed at a specific person, was a crime which would give rise to an action at the suit of the injured party; even though, the acts of the individual conspirators were neither criminal nor tortious (see cases cited by Lord Macnaghten in Quinn v. Leathern [igoi] A. C. at pp. 510, 511). Prac-: tically, however, the principle was only applied to cases of trade disputes. Between the years 1875 and 1906, this action for conspiracy assumed an importance which it had not previously enjoyed.
;

&

Digitized

by Microsoft

CONSPIRACY
The Conspiracy and

483

Protection of Property Act of 1875 had provided, that a combination to do an act in contemplation or further-

ance of a trade dispute should not be indictable as a conspiracy; if the act committed by one person would not be a crime. But the Courts held that this did not prevent persons injured by such conspiracies from' bringing the civil action of conspiracy for damages (Quinn v. Leathern [1901] A. C, at p. 542). The Trade Disputes Act, 1906, has in substance enacted for the civil wrong what the statute of 1875 enacted for the criminal offence. The result is, that, practically, the only class of cases in which the action of Conspiracy came into question has ceased to be affected by it. All that is left is the vague principle, that a conspiracy to injure a specific person may be a criminal offence, and give rise to a civil action; even though the acts of the individual conspirators are neither criminal nor tortious a principle of which it is difficult to find any concrete illustration outside the sphere of trade disputes.]

967. Subject

to 970, 971,

and 972,

if

two or more

injury

to

persons combine with the design of causing

harm

to

another in respect of his trade, business, or profession,


or of his right to dispose of his labour or capital as

he

wills,

and harm

is

thereby directly caused to such

other person, an action for damages and an injunction


will lie at the suit of

such other person against

all

or

any of the persons so combining.


Gregory
v.

Quinn

v.

D. of Brunswick (1844) 6 Leathern [1901] A. C. 495.

M.

&

G. 205, 953.

[The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Davies v. Thomas qualified the above state[1920] 2 Ch. 189, seems to have materially ment, by holding that such a combination is not unlawful, unless it
seeks to achieve its object by illegal means at any rate lyhere the combination has been formed to protect common trade interests,

and the object is incident to that purpose. See also fFare Motor Trades Association (1921) XXXVII T. L. R. 213.]

v.

The

Digitized

by Microsoft

484
Other injuries

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


(Possibly)

968.

an action

will

also

lie

where the

circumstances are the same as in

967, except that the

harm intended and

effected

was not concerned with


Jiis

the plaintiff's trade or business, or with

right to

dispose of his labour or capital (in the, ordinary sense

of the words).
Allen
V.

Sweeney

Flood, ubi sup., at pp. 173-174, per v. CooU [1907] A. C. 221. in

Lord Davey.

[But see the American case of Hutchins Bigejow; Leading Cases on Torts, p. 207.]

v.

Hutchins (1845)

Judgment
against one

969. Even

if all

the defendants save one in such an

defendant

action receive a favourable verdict,

judgment may be
combination was

given against that one,


proved.
Rex

if

in

fact

V. Kinnersley (1719) I Str. igj. Walters v. Green [1899] 2 Ch., at p. 701. Giblan v. National Labourers [1903] 2 K. B. 600.

[The cases quoted in Walters v. Green in support of this proposion examination to be cases of Malicious Prosecution. But the decision in R. v. Kinnersley seems to show that the view expiressed in the text is correct.]
tion will be found

Trade competition

970.

It

is

a complete defence to an action based


to prove that th6 acts

upon 967 and 968,


tompetition.

complained

of were done solely in the course of legitimate trade

Mogul SS. Co. V. Macgregor [1892] A, C. in Quinn V. Leathern [1901] A. C. 495.

25,

quoted with approval

Digitized

by Microsoft

CONSPIRACY
in

485
Trade com'"""

971.

An

act

done

pursuance of an agreement or
is

combination by two or more persons

not, if

done in

contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, actionable;

unless the act,

if

done without any such

agreement or coinbination, would be actionable.


Trade Disputes Act, 1906,
s.

i.

[This section, which is to be read as an addition to s. 3 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, dealing with criminal liability for conspiracy, seems to affirm by implication the doctrine, occasionally doubted (see p. 483), that an act may be wrongful if done in combination, which is lawful, or at least not actionable, if done by an individual.]

972.

An

act done

by

a/

person in contemplation or
is

Trade

dis-

furtherance of a trade dispute,


the ground only that
trade, business, or
it

not actionable on

ferference

is

an interference with the


to dispose of his

employment of some other person, some other person

or with the right of

capital or his labour as he wills.


Trade Disputes Act, 1906,
[For the
still
s.

3.

wider immunity of Trade Unions, see

755.]

973. The expression "trade dispute"

in 062, 071,

Definition of

and 972, means any dispute between- employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which
is

"trac
pute'

connected with the employment or non-employment,

or the terms of the employment, or with the conditions

of labour, of any person.


Trade Disputes Act, 1906, s. 5 (3). Conway v. Wade [1909] A. C. 506.
[As to how far a dispute between rival trade unions dispute " within the Act, see ante, 965 n.]
is

a " trade

Digitized

by Microsoft

486
Definition of

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


974. The exprcssion "workmen" in

973 means

wor men
^jj pgj-gQj^g

employed in trade or industry; whether or

not in the employment of the employer with


trade dispute arises.
Trade Disputes Act, 1906,
s.

whom

5 (3).

Note on Section
It is

an interesting qtiestion whether, for purposes of the law of

conspiracy, a corporation aggregate (see an??, Bk.

I, 17) is to be treated as one person or several. Probably, the corporation could be made liable for the conspiracy of its agent {Pratt v. B. M. A. [1919] I K. B. 244).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION

VII

TORTS IN RESPECT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

TITLE

MALICIOUS
action
^*^

PROSECUTION AND
the

ABUSE OF CIVIL PROCESS


975. An.
maUciously
lies

where

defendant

has, Malicious
/'^"'^"

and without reasonable and probable

cause/^' instituted or carried

on
to

against the plaintiff

unsuccessful criminal, bankruptcy, or winding-up proceedings,^"'

involving

scandal

the

reputation

or

damage

to the credit of, or possible loss of liberty by,


/'*'

the plaintiff
(a)

N. E. Ry. (1886) L. R. 11 App. Ca., at p. 251, per Lord Bramwell. (b) Abrath v. N. E. Ry. (1886) ubi sup. Cox V. English (sfc. Bank [1905] A. C, at p. 175, per Lord Davey. (c) Rayson v. South London Tramways Co. [1893] 2 Q. B. 304 (criminal). Whitworth v. Hall (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 695 Johnson v. Emerson (1871) L. R. 6 Exch. 329
/Ibrath v.
fFyatt V.

Palmer [1899] 2 Q.

B., at p.

no

(bankruptcy).

Cox V. English Joint Stock Bank [1905] A. C. 168J Quartz Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Eyre (1883) 11 Q.
ing up).
(d)

D. 674 (wind-

Savile v. Roberts (1698)

Salk. 13.
v.

Quartz Hill Gold Mining Co.

Eyre, ubi sup., at pp. 691

ef seq.

[As has been previously pointed out (p. 482), the action of Malseems to have been an early offshoot of the action of Conspiracy, invented to meet the difficulties raised by the latter highly technical action. An example of the process may be found as early as 1496 (Y. B. 11 Hen. VII. Tr. pi. 7); and it is fully recognized by Fitzherbert {Nat. Brev. 1 16, A. K. L.). The well-marked
icious Prosecution

R3

Digitized

by Microsoft

488
distinctions

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

between the Writ of Conspiracy and the action of Malwere (i) that the latter could be directed against a single defendant, while the former required two defendants at least, (ii) that the latter lay for false indictments on "common trespasses," (i. ., misdemeanours), whilst the former could only issue in case of false indictments of treason or felony. The action of Maliicious Prosecution

Prosecution became common in the seventeenth century; and, in one report (Carth. 416) of the leading case of Savile v. Roberts in 1698, is expressly called "an action on the Case in nature of a Conspiracy." The same report (p. 417) shows that the modern
cious
title

of "Malicious Prosecution" was then already coming into use.


the other hand, the distinctions between this action and the

On

action of False Imprisonment {ante, 902910) are (i) that Malicious Prosecution involves the setting in motion of a judicial officer, whilst false imprisonment is the act of a private person or a ministerial officer {Austin v. Dowling (1870) L. R. 5 C. P., at p. 54p), and (ii) that. False Imprisonment being Trespass, no proof of damage is necessary in that action, while Malicious Prosecution is an action of Case, in which damage is (at
least noniinally) of the gist of the action. Bowen, L. J., has ingeniously suggested {Quartz Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Eyre, ubi sup.,

somewhat analogous

at p. 6^2) that there

is

a close anailogy between proceedings which

will give rise to the action of Malicious Prosecution,

and the charges


se.]

of crime which will amount to slanders actionable per

Definition of criminal

976. For the purposes of


ings include
(i)
:

proceedings

975, criminal proceed-

indictments

and

criminal

informations

in-

volving either scandal to reputation or loss

of liberty 5
Quartz Hill Gold Mining Co.
[It
v.

Eyre (1883)

11

Q. B. D.,

at p. 691.

seems doubtful whether the action would lie for preferring of indictment which was thrown out by the grand jury. On the one hand, Payne v. Porter (1618) Cro. Jac. 490, and Jones v. Gwynn (1713) 10 Mod. 214, are in the affirmative; while on the
a
bill

other,

Byne

v.

Moore (1813) 5 Taunt.

187,

is

in the negative.

But
bill

possibly this last case

may

be explained by the view that the

was held not

to contain scandal.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
(ii)

489

proceedings before magistrates preliminary to

such indictments, and proceedings for sum-

mary

conviction involving either scandal to

reputation or loss of liberty


Rayson
Wetzlar v. Zachariah (1867) 16 L. T. 432 (preliminary). v. South London Tramways Co. [1893] 2 Q. B. 304 (summary).

(iii)

procuring the issue of search warrants


v.

Windham Morgan
Elsee

(1589) Cro. Eliz. 130 (severely criticized in 2 T. R., at p. 231, per Ashurst J.; but only in regard to the form of action).
Clere
v.

Hughes (1788)

V. Smith (1822) I D. & R. 97. Hensworth v. Fowkes (1833) i B. & Ad. 449.

(iv)

(semble) prosecutions before courts martial.

[There appears to be no authority for or against this last proposibut, regard being had to the extensive criminal jurisdiction of courts martial, it would seem that the action ought to lie. The cases of Sutton v. "Johnstone (1786) i T. R. 544, Dawkins v. Lord Rokeby (1866) 4 F. & F. 806, and Dawkins v. Lord Paulet (1869) L. R. 5 Q. B. 94, were cases of breach of military discipline, where the same considerations do not apply. But, even in such cases, the remarks of Cockburn, C. J., in the last case, and Lord Penzance in Dawkins v. Lord Rokeby (1875) L. R. 7 H. L., at p. 755, are worthy of consideration. There seems to be authority for saying, that an ex officio proceeding in an ecclesiastical court will give rise to an action of Malicious Prosecution {Hocking v. Matthews (1671)
tion;
,

Ventr. 86).

Quare:

as to divorce

and

affiliation proceedings.]

977. In an action of Malicious Prosecution, the


plaintiff
(i)

must prove
that

Essentials of

the
^*^

proceedings

complained of termi-

nated

in his favour,^*"' if in fact they


^"^

were

capable of so terminating;

Digitized

by Microsoft

490
(a)

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


Fisher v. Bristow (1779) i Doug. 215. v. Hughes (1783) 2 T. R. 231. Mellorv. Baddehy (1834) 2 Cr. M. 675.

Morgan
(b)

&

(c)

Whiiworth V. Hall (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 695. Basebe v. Matthews (1867) L. R. 2 C. P. 684. Ahrath V. iV. . iSjy. Co. (1883) II Q. B. D., at p. 455, per Bowen, L. J. Bynoe v. Bank of England [igoz] l K. B. 467. Steward v. Gromett (1859) 7 C. B. N. S. 191. (In this case, the defendant had, on ex parte proceedings, exhibited articles of the peace against the plaintiff, who had had no opportunity of rebutting the charges. For the modern practice in such cases,
see

Summary

Jurisdiction Act, 1879,

s.

25.)

[The fact that the plaintiff was acquitted on a flaw in the indictment, does not alter the fact that the proceedings terminated in his favour {Wicks v. Fentham (1791) 4 T. R. 247; Pippett v. Hearn
(1822) 5 B.

&

Aid. 634).]

(ii)

that such proceedings were instituted or carried

on without reasonable and probable

cause
Hicks
Faulkner (1878) 8 Q. B. D. 167. N. E. Ry. (1883) II Q. B. D. 440, aff'd (1886) L. R. App. Ca. 247.
V. V.

Abrath

11

(iii)

that the defendant, in instituting or carrying

on such proceedings, was acting maliciously,


that
is,

was influenced by some motive other


to justice.

than the desire to bring a criminal


Reynolds
Purcell V.
v.

Kennedy (1748)

Wils. 232.

Macnamara

Henderson-

Brown

V.

v.M. Hawkes

(1808) 9 East, 361. R. Co. (1871) 24 L. T. 881.


[1891] 2
;

K. B.,'at
if

p. 728.

[These three elements are cumulative

and,

the plaintiff

fails

as regards any one of them, he will lose his case.

Thus,
is

if

reason-

able and probable cause existed, proof of malice

not sufficient

(Williams

v.

Taylor (1829) 6 Bing., at


I

p.

186, per Tindal, C. J.;

Musgrovey. Newell (1836)

M.

& W.,

at p. 587, per

Lord Abinger,

Digitized

by

IVlicrosoft

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
C. B.).
actual
It is

491

sometimes said, that the plaintiff must also prove But proceedings this being an action on the Case. which will give rise to the action of Malicious Prosecution import damage without special proof. (Quartz Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Eyre (1883) 11 Q. B. D., at p. 691, et seq.)]

damage;

978. Subject
or

to

979,

"reasonable and probable

cause" means a reasonable belief


liability,

in the plaintiff's guilt ""^/'^

Reasonable "

based on an honest and reasonable con-

viction of the existence of facts which, if they


isted,

had exfor the

would have afforded reasonable ground


or
carrying on of the

institution

proceedings com-

plained
belief
is

of.'*'

The

material time in relation to such

when
^''^

the acts complained of are done

by the

defendant.
(a)

Broad v. Ham (1839) 5 Bing. N. C. 722. M. & W. 131. Hinton V. Heather (1845) Turner v. Ambler (1847) 10 Q. B. 252. Haddrick V. Heslop (1847) 12 Q. B. 285. Lister V. Ferryman (1870) L. R. 4 H. L. 521. (This was an action 'of false imprisonment; but the reasoning applies.) Hicks V. Faulkner (1878) 8 Q. B. D. 167; (1882) 46 L. T. 427. (b) Delegal v. Highley (1837) 3 Bing. N. C. 950. Fitzjohn V. Mackindef(li6l) 9 C. B. N. S., at p. 531, per Cockburn,

C.J.

[An unfounded and unreasonable belief in the plaintifE's guilt, is, however honest, not a " reasonable and probable cause " for the
purposes of

977

(ii).

(Cruise v. Burke [1919] 2

Ir.

R.

i82.)J

979. Where
against the

search

warrant

has

been issued
of the

Search
'^'""'''" ^

.plaintiff

on the bond

fide application

defendant, under a statute which imposes on the magistrate issuing


it

the onus of deciding whether there


its issue,

is

reasonable justification for

the defendant will

be deemed to have, had reasonable and probable cause


for his application.

Digitized

by Microsoft

492
Hope
Lea

QUASI-CONTRACT sAND TORT


V. V.

Evered (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 339. Charrington (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 45.


v.

[And see Daniels

Fielding (1846) 16

M.

& W.

200.]

Acquittal of

980. The mere fact that the


jj^
|.jjg

plaintiff

was acquitted

/""""#

criminal proceedings, does not prove absence

of reasonable and probable cause on the part of the


defendant.
Sinclair v. Eldred (l8li)

4 Taunt.

7.

Willans

V.

Taylor (1829). 6 Bing., at p. 186, per Tindal, C.

J.

[Is there any reason for supposing that a similar rule would not apply in the case of bankruptcy or liquidation proceedings ?]

Legal advice

981.,

Where

the defendant, in instituting or carry-

ing on the proceedings complained of, has acted bond,


fide

upon

legal advice obtained

statement of the facts, he will


reasonable and probable cause.
I-}
,

and honest be held to have had


on a
fair

Ravenga

v.

Blackford

V.

Abrath v. L. R. ir App. Ca.,


/
'

Mackintosh (1824) 2 B. & C. 693. (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 179. N. E. Ry. (1883) 11 Q. B. D., at pp. 454-455; (1886)

DW

at p. 249.

[As to the effect of a decision of a CoUrt which

was afterwards

annulled, see Johnson v. Emerson (1871) L. R. 6 Exch. 329.]

Court and
'"'^^

982. Whether there was reasonable and probable


cause for the defendant's proceedings,
the Court,
is

a question for
'^'

on the

facts as

found by the jury.

Whether

Digitized

by Microsoft

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
there

493

was malice

in the

defendant,

is

a question of fact

for the jury."''


(a)

Johnstone

Turner

v.

Lister V.

v. Sutton (1786) I T. R., at p. 545. Ambler (1847) 'o Q- B-, at p. 260, per Lord Denman, C. J. Ferryman (1870) L. R. 4 H. L., at p. 535, per Lord Chelms-

ford, C.

(b)

V. Tayor (1829) 6 Bing., at pp. 186-187, P'^ Tindal, C. J. Blackford V. Z)o(/ (1831) 2 B. Ad. 179. Mitchell V. Jenkins (1833) 5 B. Ad. 588. H'f*j V. Faulkner (1878) 8 Q. B. D., at p. 174.

milans

&

&

983. Absence of reasonable and probable cause


evidence from which the jury
inference
is,

is

Malice

may infer

malice/*'

Such

however, excluded by proof that the defendplaintiff's guilt.^'''

ant genuinely believed in the


(a)

Mitchell

Musgrave

Jenkins (1833) 5 B. Newell (1836) i Abinger, C. B. Turner v. Ambler, ubi sup.


v.
v.

&

M.

Ad. 588. & W.,

at

p.

587, per

Lord

Haddhck
(b)

V.

Willans

v.

Heslop (1848) 12 Q. B. 267. Taylor, ubi sup.


[1891] 2

Brown

V.

Hawkes

Q. B. 718.

[The fact that the defendant was bound over to prosecute may be material on the question of malice {Dubois v. Keats (1840) 11 A.

&

E. 329; Fitzjohn

v.

Mackinder (1861) 9 C. Bi N.

S. 505).]

984. Exemplary damages


of Malicious Prosecution
;

may be awarded

in actions Exemplary

and a new

trial will

not be

''""'^"

granted on the ground of excessive damages, unless


they are so excessive as to show partiality on the part

of the jury.
Leith V.

Pope (1780) 2 W.
V.

Bl. 1327.

Hewlett

Cruchley (1813) 5 Taunt. 277.

Digitized

by Microsoft

494
Action
lies

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


An
action of Malicious Prosecution

985.

may

be

against a corporation

brought against a corporation aggregate.


Edwards
Cornford
V. v.

Carlton

Midland Raily. Co. (1880) 6 Q. B. D. 287. Bank [1899] I Q. B. 392; [igbo] I Q. B.

22.

[Against this view stands the well-knowrt deliverance of Lord


v. N. E. Ry. (1886) L. R. 11 App. Ca., This utterance has been treated in subsequent cases (e. g. Cornford v. Carlton Bank, ubi sup., and Citizens' Life Assurance Co. V. Brown [1904] A- C, at p. 426 (P. C.) per Lord Lindley) as an obiter dictum; though Lord Bramwell himself clearly regarded

Bramwell

in

^ira^A

pp. 250-254.

it

as disposing of the case.]

Malicious
arrest

986. Where

the

defendant

has,

maliciously

and

without reasonable and probable cause, by means of


civil

proceedings, procured the arrest of the

plaintiff,'^^

or execution or distress against his land or goods,^**^ an


action will
to recover
it is

lie

against the defendant

by the

plaintiff

damages.

In order to maintain this action,

necessary that the proceedings should have termiplaintiff's favour.^"^

nated in the
'

''

B. .929. Churchill v. Siggers (1854) 3 E. Gilding v. Eyre (1861) 10 C. B. N. S. 592. (b) Waterer v. Freeman (1620) Hob. 266. Craig V. Hasell (1843) 8 Q. B. 481.
(a)

&

Chandler v. Poulton (1865) 3 H. & C. 553. The' Walter D. Wallet [1893] P. 202.

[The action also lies where the execution is for an amount exceeding that due under^ the judgment (Churchill v. Siggers, ubi sup., ft PP- 937^3^, P^^ Lord Campbell, C. J.) ; and proof' of bonajide/ is no defence (ClisseU v. Cratchky [1910] 2 K. ,B, 244).]
(c)'

Watkins

De Medina

Lee (1839) 5 M. & W. 270. v. Grove (1846) 10 Q. B., at p. 168, per Lord Denman, C. J. (But where irregular arrest is proved, the Court will assume that the proceedings terminated in the plaintiff's favour {Gilding
v. V.

Eyre, ubi sup,).)

Digitized

by Microsoft

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
987. (Possibly) an action
civil
'

495

will lie in other cases of Malidoi


-'

proceedings brought maliciously and without rea" sonable and probable cause, whereby the plaintiff has
suffered loss;
i)ut in

"""'iP^" ceeatngs

such cases the

loss necessary to

support the action must be more than the mere expenses of defending the proceedings.
Roret V. Lewis (1848) 17 L. J. Ex. 99. Cotterell v. Jones (1851) 11 C. B. 713. Quartz Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Eyre (1883) II Q. B. D. 674.

[Horsley v. Style (1893) 69 L. T. 222 (wrongful registration of of sale) seems to have been treated by the Court as falling under this head. Sed qucere.]
bill

jjJijrti;.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE

II

MAINTENANCE
CHAMPERTY
the'

AND

Maintenance

988.

pcrson who, without just causc/** supports


"'^

and
or

assists

another in
'^^

commencement/"^ carryproceedings/'^ against

ing on/**^ or defence

of

civil

by

third person,

suffers losSjfe) is

hable to

whereby such third person an action of Maintenance at


Proof of improper motive
is

the suit of such third person, in respect of the damage

thereby caused to him.

on the part of defendant


(a)

not necessary. C")

(1843) 4 Q. B. 883. P. C. C. (1909) XXV T. L. R. 789. (b) Mere advice is not maintenance (Y. B. 22 Hen. VI (1443), Mich.
Scott V.

Flight V.

Leman
S.

N.

pi. 54, per Curiam; Hawkins, P. C. Book I, c. 89, 9); neither is, now-a-days, the assignment of a chose-in-action, even though the* sole object be to enable the assignee to take harassing proceed-

Cave [1905] 2 K. B. 364). assignment of a mere right to litigate savours of Maintenance; though possibly it may not amount to a tort. {Prosser v. Edmonds (1835) i Yo. & C. (Ex.) 481 (assignment of right to file a bill in equity for a fraud); May v. Lane (1894) 64 L. J. Q. B. 236, />r Rigby, L. J.).
ings against the plaintiff (Fitzroy v.

On the other hand, an

Pechell v. Watson (1841) 8 M. W. 601. Alabaster v. Harness [1895] I Q. B. 339. Greig v. National Union (1906) XXII T. L. R. 274. (d) Bradlaugh v. Newdegate (1883) II Q. B. D. I.
(c) (e)

&

Findon

v. Parker Abinger, C. B.

(1843)

11

M.

&

W.,

at

p.

682,

per Lord

(f)

V. Thompson [1907] 2 K. B. 489 (though the action failed on another ground). Including an election petition {Wallis v. D. of Portland (1797) 3 Ves. Maintenance has no application to criminal proceedings. 494).

Holden

(g) (h)

proper remedy in such a case is Malicious Prosecution {Grant Thompson (1895) 73 L. T. 264). Neville v. London Express [1919] A. C. 368.
v.

The

Bradlaugh

v.

Newdegatej ubi sup., at

p.

1 1.

Digitized

by Microsoft

MAINTENANCE AND CHAMPERTY


volving Maintenance, and the ground of illegality. It
'

497

[As has previously been pointed out (Book I, 92), contracts inits aggravation. Champerty, are void on may here also be stated, that both Maintenance and Champerty are also criminal offences (see i Edw. Ill
(1326)
St. II, c.

14;

32 Hen. VIII (1540)


(1885)

c.

Ric. II (1377) c. 4; 7 Ric. II (1383) c. 15; 9); for it is, apparently, out of the criminal

offence that the civil action has

grown {Metropolitan Bank v. Pooley L.R. loApp. Ca.,atp. 2i8,/>i?rLordSelborne, C). Formerly

many transactions which are now regarded as innocent {c. g. the assignment of a chose-in-action) were held to amount to Maintenance {Master v. Miller (1791) 4 T. R. 340, per Buller, J.); but, with the gradual increase of social tranquillity. Maintenance, at any rate in the simpler form, almost disappeared from practice. It revived, however, with somewhat dramatic effect in Bradlaugh v. Newdegate {ubi sup.) and, as will appear from the text, there have been a good many recent cases on the point. Champerty is an aggravated and subtle form of Maintenance. Like Maintenance, it is expressly prohibited by statute (28 Edw. I (1300) c. 11; so-called "Statute of Champerty" (uncertain date, usually given as 33 Edw. i (1305)).]
;

989. The
ful in the

fact that the plaintiff has


is

been unsuccessto the action

Success of
^ec"ss'ary'

proceedings maintained,

no bar

of Maintenance.
Neville v.

London Express [1919] A. C. 368. (The House was divided has been suggested that the success of the defendant may be proof that the-plaintiff has suffered no damage {Hickman v. Kent and
it

Sheepbreeders Association (1920)

XXXVI

T. L. R., at p. 532.)

990. The defendant

in

an action of Maintenance
(i)

Justification

may justify his


that he

support and assistance on the ground

had

(or reasonably believed himself to have) a

common and

lawful pecuniary interest with the party


in the suit

supported and assisted

maintained, whether
contingent,'*^ or

such interest were present, future, or


(2) that the

party supported and assisted was nearly

Digitized

by Microsoft

498

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


him by blood or
was induced
marriage/''^ or (3)

related to

by a and

relationship such as that of master


(4)

and

servant/"^ or

that he

to render such support

assistance
(a)

by motives of

charity/"*^

Findon v. Parker (1843) 1 1 M. & W. 675. BradlaUgh v. Newdegate (1883) U Q. B. D., at p. II. Alabaster v. Harness [1894] 2 Q. B., at p. 905. British Cash Co. v. Lamson [19,08] I K. B. 1006. (b) So in the old books. But see Burke v. Greene (1814) 2 Ball. 517; Hutley V. Hutley (1873) L. R. 8 Q. B. 112. (c) Bradlaugh v. Newdegate, ubi sup., at p. II. (d) Harris v. Brisio (1886) 17 Q. B. D. 504. Holden V. Thompson [1907] 2 K. B. 489 (religious sympathy).

&

B.

[The

last case

shows that charity need not be the

sole motive.]

Genuineness

991. The

justification

on the ground of the


in 990,

rela-

tion^

tionship of master

and servant stated

may

be

rebutted by proof that the relationship was not in fact


the

motive of the alleged maintenance.^*^

(Queere:

whether proof of mala

fides does not always rebut an

attempt, at justification. '''^).


(a)

Scott V.

N.

S. P. C. C. (1909)

XXV
8

(b)

Fischer v.

Kamala N^icker (i860)

T. L. R. 789. Moo, Ind. App. 187.

Action
against com-

992.
^

An

action of Maintenance will not


in liquidation. ^

lie

against

pany

in

company j r
how

liquidation

Metropolitan

Bank

v.

Pooley (1885) L. R. 10 App. Ca. 210.


I

Qutei-e:

far this doctrine extends to other corporations (British

Cash

Co. V.

Lamson

[1908]

K.

B., at pp. 1012, 1021).

Champerty

993. Where a

suit is

maintained with a view to paris

ticipation in the proceeds of such suit, the offence

Digitized

by Microsoft

MAINTENANCE AND CHAMPERTY


called

499

"Champerty";
is

and the person maintaining

the suit
jured.

equally liable to an action

by the party

in-

mere agreement

to supply information for

carrying on proceedings, in consideration of a share in


the proceeds, does not
Co.
Litt.
v.

amount

to

Champerty.

James

368 b. Kerr (1889) 40 Ch. D., at p. 456. Rees V. de Bernardy [1896] 2 Ch. 437. Wedgerfield v. de Bernardy (1908) XXV T. L. R. 21.

994. Neither

common
XXIX

interest

<''

nor charity

<'')

is

No

justifica-

a justification in an action of Champerty.


(a)

Thamperty

(b)

T. L. R. 295. Cole V. Booker (1913) Hutley v. Hutley (1873) L. R. 8 Q. B. 112. (But see Seear v. Lauison (1880) IS Ch. D. 426 ; and Guy v. Churchill (1888) 40 Ch. D.
481).

[Can Champerty be

justified

on any other ground

?]

995. The damages

in a successful action of

Main-

Measure of
'""''^"

tenance include, in addition to any damages or penalty

which the

plaintiff

has been compelled to pay in the

proceedings maintained, solicitor and client costs incurred by him in carrying on or defending such latter
proceedings.
Scott V.

N.

S. P. C. a.

(1909)

XXV

T. L. R. 789.

[Of course a successful plaintiff in an action of Maintenance as a rule also gets his party and party costs of that action.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION

VIII

TORTS IN RESPECT OF THE REPUTATION

(DEFAMATION)
Definition

996.

pcrsoii

who, without just cause or lawful


^^^

excuse, either
writing,
print,
^''^

by spoken words ("slander")


pictures,
effigies,

or by

or

similar

means

(" libel"),

publishes concerning another a statement,

conveying an imputation upon such other, calculated,


to bring

to

him into damage him in

hatred, contempt, or ridicule/''^ or


his trade, business, profession, or

official position,^**^ is liable

(subject to 1006-9) * ^^

action for

damages by the person concerning


is

whom

such statement

published, and,

if

necessary, for an

injunction restraining the repetition or continuation of

such statement/'^
(a)

Watkin

v.

Hall (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 396.

[There are one or two modern developments which may give gramophone, phonograph, cinematograph, &c.]
rise to interesting questions, e. g.

'

Case of Libels (1606) 5 Rep. 125. II Mod. 99 ("^s to paint a man playing at cudgels with his wife") per Holt, C. J. du Bost V. Beresford (1810) 2 Campb. 511 (picture). Monson V. Tussauds Ld. [1894] i Q. B. 671 (wax model). Corelli V. Wall (1906) XXII T. L. R. 532 (picture postcard) fer Swinfen Eady, J.
(b)

Anon. (1706)

Digitized

by Microsoft

DEFAMATION
is

501

[This last case appears to show that a mere invasion of privacy And see Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co. (1902) 171 N. Y. 538, quoted in Kenny, Cases on Tort,
not, as such, defamatory.

PP- 364-367]
(c)

Cropp V. Tilney (1693) 3 Salk. 225. Abp. of Tuam v. Robeson (1828) 5 Bing.
Clements
v.

17.

Chivis (1829) 9 ^C. 172. Cook V. Ward (1830) 6 Bing. 409. Nevill V. Fine Art Co. [1897] A. C, at p. 72, per Ld. Halsbury, C.

&

[The question is, not whether the defendant intended to disparage the plaintiff, but whether persons to whom the statement was published would so understand it {Hankinson v. Bilby (1847) 16 M. & W. 442; Marks V. Samuel [1904] 2 K. B. 287). For examples of imputations held to be defamatory, see Addendum I
'

(P- 524)-]

(d)

771, per

Capital and Counties Lord Blackburn.

Bank

v.

Henty (1882) L. R.

App. Ca.,

at p.

[Disparagement of the

plaintiff's

goods

is

not necessarily defama-

tory of hirn personally (Evans v.


(e)

Harlow

(1844) 5 Q. B. 624).]

Saxby

v.

Thorley's

Easterbrook (1878) 3 C. P. D. 339. Food for Cattle Co. v. Massam (1880) 14 Ch. D. 763.

[The injunction may even be granted before trial {Collard v. Marshall [1892] I Ch. 571); but only when it is clear that if a jury gave a verdict for the defendants, it would be set aside as unreasonable {Bonnard v. Ferryman [1891] 2 Ch. 269).]
[In spite of the dictum of Fletcher Moulton, L. J., in Jones v. B., at p. 458, it cannot be admitted that "the action of libel" (or, indeed, any form of defamation except the

Hulton [1909] 2 K.

anomalous statutory scandalum magnatum) "is a very ancient


action for a tort at
fact that there

common

law."

On

had been three attempts

the contrary, in spite of the in the year 1493 *^ bring

cases of slander before the Star pp. 28-45), case which


it

Chamber

(Selden Soc, Star Chamber,

was fully admitted, by the three judges, in an important came before the King's Bench at the end of the fifteenth century (Y. B. 12 Hen. VII (1498) Tr. pi. 2, fo. 22 a) that slanderous words were then matter for the ecclesiastical courts; though it is clear, from other evidence, that actions for slander had long been familiar in the local courts of the manor and borough (S. S. Select

Digitized

by Microsoft

502

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


;

ih. The Court Baron Pleas in Manorial Courts, pp. 36, 82, 95, &c. &c. pp. 133, 136).- More than a hundred years later, in the Court of Star Chamber, Hbel, so far as the King's Courts were concerned,' was treated as a purely criminal matter; whether it was directed against a private person or against a magistrate {Case of Scandalous Libels (1605) 5 Rep. 125 a). The procedure is in that case said to be (a) indictment at the common law, or (b) bill or confession in

the Star
is

Chamber; and the purely criminal character of the


,

offence

emphasized by the statement, made without any quahfication,


libel, and the character of the party libelled, Between 1498 and 1605, hoAVever, the action of slanderous words had been adopted by, the King's Courts;

that the truth of the


are immaterial.

Case for and there are several reported decisions of the sixteenth century, the
first
it

being, apparently, in the year 1536 {Anon. Dyer, 19 a), when was held by tlie Court of Common Bench, that two plaintiffs who had been called by the defendant "two false knaves and thieves"

could not join in one action against him.

In the following year,

Russell's Case (1537) Dyer, 26 b, the principle that words imputing crime are actionable per se, was clearly adopted by the same Court

on a plea of non damnificatus ; and thereafter the action of Case for spoken w;ords becomes common in the reports of Dyer, Godbolt, and Jenkins, though the other sixteenth-century reporters apparently ignore it. In the year 1586, we get the interesting decision, that the allegation of malice in a declaration of slander is only

formal, and that

On

its omission is not fatal {Mercer's Case, Jenk. 268). the other hand, though the introduction of the printing press

would seem to have rendered such a reniedy essential, the action of Case for libel does not make its way into the books until the seventeenth century,
bill in
it

the Star

when it begins to be regarded as an alternative of a Chamber {Lake v. Hatton (1618) Hob. 252); and

is then admitted by the reporter (Hobart) that to the action of Case, as distinguished from a bill or indictment, a plea of truth is

'

Another difference early taken was that, while communication to the party libelled may be sufficient publication for, a criminal prosecution, it is insufficient for an action of Case {Edwardes v. Wootton (1607), reported in Hawarde's Cases in the Star Chamber, ed. Baildon, pp. 343-4; Barrow v. Levjellin (16 16) Hob. 62; Hicks' Case {i6iC))\\).zi^). The practice of awarding damages
to the libelled party, in addition to the fine or imprisonment due to the criminal character of the offence, was introduced by the Star

a good answer.

Chamber

itself,

as in

Edwardes
Stat,

Case of 1619 (see Cal.

v. Wootton, ubi sup., and in Lake's Pap. (Dom.) Ill, pp. 19, 21, and Hud-

Digitized

by Microsoft

DEFAMATION

503

son, Star Chamber, p. 227); and it would, therefore, have been natural that, on the abolition of the Star Chamber in 1641, the civil

action for

damages should

at once take the place of the older prois

cedure.

Nevertheless, though there


v.

a thin stream of reported


privilege,

cases from the Restoration onwards (one of the earliest being the

well-known Lake
libel

King on p^liamentaty

in

1668),

continued for some time to be regarded mainly as a criminal offence punishable on indictment or information and it may be to this fact that we owe the rule (certainly anomalous in an action of Case) that in libel no damage need be proved. The greater popularity of the action of slander is shown by the publication of a special
;

treatise

on the subject

in

1647, by the reporter

by the

far greater frequency of the reported cases

The

jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts in abolished until 1855 (18 19 Vic. c. 41); but as, long before that time (Palmer's and Thorpe's Case (1583) 4 Rep. 2o), the King's Courts had adopted the rule of prohibiting suits in the ecclesiastical courts where the plaintiff had a remedy at law, and as the ecclesiasti-

John March, and on that subject. Defamation was not

&

cal courts themselves

would only

entertain suits in respect of

words

{Harris v. Butler (1798) I Hagg. 463 n), the scope of the jurisdiction must have been small. It seems to have been chiefly resorted to in the case of spoken words imputing unchastity, which, until the passing of the Slander of Women Act,

imputing an

ecclesiastical offence

89 1, were not actionable per se in the common law courts, and are so actionable only when spoken of a woman. It seems, therefore, that, while the common law action of slander may be as old as 1535, the common law action of libel only dates from the commencement of the seventeenth century.]
1

now

997. Proof of damage


sustain an action for libel
;

in fact
(^)

is

not necessary to

Special

or for slander where the


(i)

words spoken
rendering

attribute to the plaintiff


liable at the time

an offence

him

when

the words were

spoken to corporal punishment/''^ or


profession,^'^ or

(ii)

misconduct or

incapacity, at such time, in his office, trade, calling, or


(iii),

where the

plaintiff

is

a trader,

insolvency at such

time,^"*)

or (iv) the suffering at such

Digitized

by Microsoft

504

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


if

time from a contagious disease/*^ or (v)


tiff

the plain-

is

a female, unchastity.^^)
is

But, in other cases of

Defamatipn, damage
(a)

of the gist of the action. ^^^

Blackstone {Comm. v. Lord Kerry (i" 2) 4 Taunt. 355. seems to have thought that special damage must be proved' to make signs or pictures actionable. Sed quiere. (b) Higges V. Austen (i6og) Yelv. 152. Marshall v. Steward {161^) Hob. 129. Penson v. Gooday (1633) Cro. Car. 327. Webb v. Beavan (1883) II Q. B. D. 609. Hellivig V. Mitchell [191G] i K, B. 609 (mere liability to arrest is
Thorley
Ill, 126)
insufficient).
(c)

Bellamy Foulger

v. v.

Burch (1847) 16 M.

& W.

590.

(1867) L. R. 2 Ex. 327. 0'atkin V. Hall (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B., at p. 399, per Blackburn, Booth y. Arnold [1895] I Q. B. 571.

Newcpmb

J.

[The occupation must not be


sup.):\

illegal

(Foulger

v.

Newcomb,

uhi

(d)

Brown

Whittington v. Gladwix (1826) 5 B. V. Smith (1853) 13 C. B. 596.

&

C. 180.

actionable
V.

[There appears to be some doubt whether such an imputation, is />r se if made of a person who is not a trader {Dauncey Holloway\x()oi\ 2 K. B. 441).]
(e)

Carslake v. Mapledoram (1788) 2 T. R. 473. Bloodworth v. Gray (1844) 7 M. G. 334.

&

[The cases on
(f)

this point are all of venereal diseases.] Act, 1891 (In an action founded on this statute,

Slander of

Women

the plaintiff cannot recover more costs than damages; unless the judge certifies that there was reasonable gi;ound for the action.)
(g)

Daiincey

v.

Holloway

[1901] 2

K. B. 441.

[A mere allegation of unfitness to hold an honorary office is not actionable per se (Alexander v. Jenkins [1892] i Q. B. 797); neither is a mere statement to the effect that the plaintiff labburs under
suspicion of having committed a crime (Tozer v. Mashford (1851) 6 Exch. 539; Simmons v. Mitchell (1880) L. R. 6 App. Ca. 156). In Vicars v. Wilcocks (i8o6) 8 East, i, it was held, that where the

Digitized

by Microsoft

DEFAMATION
special

505

damage alleged was the wrongful act of a third party, the damage was too remote. But this decision is inconsistent with other
Davis v. Gardiner (1593) 4 Rep. 16; Green v. Button R, 707 (not defamation); Lynch v. Knight (1861) (1835) 2 C. M. 9 H. L. C, at p. 600). It would seem that the proper test is the general rule {ante, 724, 797) that the damage must be the 'natural and probable consequence of the defamation {Chamberlain v. Boyd
cases
(e. g.

&

'

(1883) II Q. B. D. 407; Speaie

v.

Hughes

[1904]

K. B.

138).]

998. For the purposes of a


matter
is

civil action,

defamatory

Publication

deemed
if it

to

have been published by the de-^^

fendant,
to

has been brought by him or his agent

the knowledge

and understanding^''^ of a person


whether such communi,

other than the plaintiff ; ^'^


cation

was made
to
(')

intentionally or

by

mistake.^^^
is,^^^

Comis

munication to the wife of the

plaintiff

but comnot,

munication
publication.
(a)

the

wife

of the

defendant,

(b)

Parkes v. Prescott (1869) L. R. 4 Ex. 169. Fleetwood v. Curley (1619) Hob., at p. 268, per Hobart, C.

J.

Amann
(c)

v.

Damm
v.

(i860) 8 C. B. N.
[1901] 2

S., at p.

600, per Williams, J.

Sadgrove

Hole

K. B.
I

i.

Pullman
Bo.sius

v. V.

Q. B. 524. Goblet Frires[xS94 I Q- B. 842.


v.
v.

Hill bf Co. [1891]

(Qn

this

point
.

Edmondson
(d)

Shepheard
Williams

v.

Btrch tf Co. [1907] r Whitaker (1875) L. R. 10 C. P. 502. Smith (1888) 22 Q. B. D. 134.


635.

^ ^^e cases agree.) ^ K. B. 371. )

(e)

Wenman
Wennhak

v. v.

(0

Ash (1853) 13 C. B. 836. Morgan (1888) 20 Q. B. D.

[Whether the defendant can be made liable for a communication X, when in fact he intended a communication to Y, depends on whether his acts were sucTi as would be likely, in the judgment of a reasonable man, to lead to communication to X {Sharp v. Skues (1909) XXV T. L. R. 336). It appears that the fact that the publication was procured by the plaintiff himself (e. ,g. by sending a servant to purchase a copy of a libel) is no objection to the action (D. of Brunswick v. Harmer (1849) 14 Q. B. 185).]
to

Digitized

by Microsoft

5o6 Who
'"
'

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


proprietor/'') editor/'^) printer/^)

is

999. The author/')

and pubhsher

(in the

commercial sense)

(*)

of a news-

paper, book, or other document put into circulation, are

deemed

to

have published defamatory statements con-

tained therein.

But a person who merely

distributes
is

such documents in the ordinary course of business


not deemed to have published them;
that he did not
if

he can show

know, when he distributed them, that


his to negligence/')
157.

defamatory matter was contained therein, and that

want of knowledge was not due


(a)

Adams
Parkes

v. Kelly (1824)
v. Prescott

Ry.

&

Moo.

(1869) L. R. 4 Ex. 169.

Duke of Brunswick v. Harmer (1849) '4 Q- ^' 1^5Shepheard v. Whitaker (187,5). L. R- 1 C, P. 502. (c) Waits V. Fraser (1835) 7 C. & P. 369; 7 A. & E. 223. (d) Baldwin v. Elphinston (1775) 2 W. Bl. 1037; criticised
(b)

in

Watts

v.

Fraser, ubi sup.


liable
(e)

(f)

But in the same case (7 C. & P. 369) the printer was held (see also Johnson v. Hudson, infra). Johnson v. Hudson (1836) i H. & W. 680. Shackell V. Rosier (1856) 2 Bing. N. C. 634. Day V. Bream (1837) 2 Moo. & Rob. 54. Emmens v. Pottle (1885) 16 Q. B. D. 354. Mcleod V. St. Auhyn [1899] A. C. 549, (P. C). Fizetelly v. Mudie [1900] 2 Q. B. 170.
.

Who may
sue

1000.

It is

uot necessary, in order to sustain an ac-

tion for defamation, that the defendant should

have

in-

tended to refer to (*) or injure the


person,

plaintiff,

or any other

by

his statement,^'') nor

is it

even necessary that


plaintiff's existenCie,

he should have been aware of thq

when he published
a person to

it

('^)
;

if,

in the opinion of the jury,

whom

it

was published reasonably regarded

the statement as being

made concerning

the

plaintiff.^'')

Digitized

by Microsoft

DEFAMATION
(a)

507

Bromage Haire v.
Harrison

v.

Prosser (1825) 4 B.

fFilson (1829) 9 B.
v. v.

&

& C. 247. C. 643.

The Queen

Smith (1869) 20 L. T. 713. Munslow [1895] I Q. B. 758.

ill

will, is

[These cases show beyond question that malice, in the sense of not a necessary ingredient in a, defamatory statement.]

Shepheard v. Whitaker (1875) L! R. 10 C. P. 502. Fizetelly v.Mudie [1900] 2 Q.B., at p. 178, />fr Vaughan Williams, L.J. (c) Hulton V. Jones [1910] A. C. 20. (d) SaJgrove v. Hole [igoi] 2 K. B. I (C. A.). Hulton V. JoneSf ubi sup.
(b)

[Where the ordinary reader would attribute the imputation to a wholly irriaginary person or a literary type, the statement would probably be held to be not defamatory (see Harrison v. Smith, supra). Whether, if there were two actual persons, with regard to one of whom the statement could be justified, the other would be deprived of his action, seems doubtful.]

1001. The mere repetition of an actionable slander

Repetition

by a

third person does not

make

the original utterer

J'^^ ^

liable to

an action of Defamation by the person dam;

aged by such repetition

(*^

unless such repetition

was

made

in

pursuance of a moral or

legal obligation, or

was authorized or intended by the original utterer, or was the natural consequence of the original utterance.^'')
But such
third person
(a)

is

himself

liable.^'^^

Ward v. Weeks (1830) 7 Bing. 211. Parkins v. Scott (1862) i H. & C. 153. (b) Derry v. Handley (1867) 16 L. T. 263. Speight V. Gosnay (1891) 60 L. J. Q. B. 231. (c) McPherson v. Daniels (1829) 10 B. & C. 263. Watkin V. Hall (1868) L. R. 10 Q. B. 396.
[There was formerly a doctrine that, if the words were actionable se, and the person who repeated them gave the name of the original author, he (the repeater) was not liable; inasmuch as the
per

Digitized

by Microsoft

5o8

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

party defamed could sue the original utterer {Northampton's Case (1613) 12 Rep. 134). But this doctrine was repudiated in McPherson
V.

when

Daniels (ubi sup.). And the doctrine, apparently, never applied the repetition took the form of a libel {McGregor v. Thwaites (1824) 3 B. & C. 24; Tidman v. Ainslie (1854) 10 Exch. 63).]

Innuendo
"^

1002. Whether a statement

is

reasonably capable
if

of defamatory meaning, or whether,

a special deit

famatory meaning {innuendo)


plaintiff, it is

is

attributed to

by the
is

reasonably capable of that meaning,


(*^

question for the Court;

whether

it is is

in the circum-

stances defamatory of the plaintiff,


fact for the jury/^^
(a)

a question of

Mulligan
Capital

&

Nevill

V.

Cole (1875) L. R. 10 Q. B. 549. Counties Bank v. Henty (1882) L. R. 7 App. Ca. 74I. Fine Arts Co. [1897] A. C. 68.
v.

Frost V. London Joint Stock

Bank

Beswick

V.

Smith (1907)

XXIV

(1906) XXII T. L. R. 760. T. L. R. 169 (C. A.).

mere

Bank v. Henty appears to show, that the defamatory interpretation might conceivably be put upon the statement does not compel the Court to leave the
[Capital and Counties
fact that a
(b)
v. Malcolmson (1848) I H. L. C. 637. Williams V. Smith (1888) 22 Q. B. D. 134. Australian Newspaper Co. y. Bennett [1894] A. C. 284 (P. C). Linotype Co. v. British Empire Co. (1899) 81 L. T. 331 (H. L.). Dakhyl V. Lahouchere [1908] 2 K. B. 325 n. (H. L.).

question to the jury.]

Le Fanu

"

Jones

V.

Hulton [1909] 2 K. B. 444.


is

not, in the ordinary acceptation of words defamatory of the plaintiff, the latter must, in his pleadings, allege the special imputation which he attributes to it {innuendo) ; and, if he fails to prove this imputation, he will be defeated {Cox v. Cooper (1863) 9 L. T. 329; Watkin v. Hall (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B., at p. 402, per Blackburn, J.; Ruel v. Tatnell For examples of imputations held to be (1880) 43 L. T. 507). defamatory, see Addendum I (p. 524).]

[Where a statement

or signs, on the face of

it

Digitized

by Microsoft

DEFAMATION
1003.
terest
is

509
public inFair

fair

comment upon matters of


;

not defamatory

even

if it

tends to preju-

comment

dice, or

imputes blame

to,

the

plaintiff/'')

But an un-

true statement of facts


basis of fair
in the

by the defendant cannot be the comment by him and proof of malice


^"'^
;

defendant

is

material for the jury in determining


is fair.^*")

whether the comment


(a)

4 Q. B. 73. (1887) 20 Q. B. D. 275. McQuire v. Western Morning News [1903] 2 K. B. 100. Hunt V. Star Newspaper Co. [1908] 2. B. 309. (b) Digby V. Financial News [1907] I K. B. 502.
v.

^ason

f^alter (1868) L. R.

Merivale

v.

Canon

Hunt
(c)

V.

Star

Newspaper

Co., ubi sup.

Walker v. Hodgson [1909] I K. B., at p. 251. Campbell v. Spottiswoode (1863) 3 B. & S. 769. Joynt V. Cycle Trade Co. [1904] 2 K. B. 292. Digby V. Financial News, ubi sup.

Hunt
(d)

V.

Star
v.

Newspaper

Co., ubi sup.


is'

Thomas

Bradbury Agnew

Co. [1906] 2 K. B. 627.

[It is now common, where the alleged defamation consists partly of facts stated by the defendant, and partly of comments thereon, for the defendant to plead that the facts stated were true and that the rest of the statement was fair comment. Such a pleading really raises two issues, viz. (a) the truth of the facts stated, and (b) the nature of the comment thereon; and the defendant is entitled to have these submitted separately to the jury (Dakhyl v. Lahouchere [1907] A. C. reported in [1908] 2 K. B. 325 n.). Such a pleading is but the defendant is not, technically, a plea of 'justification'; entitled to interrogate the plaintiff with a view to establishing the

{Walker v. Hodgson [1909] i K. B. 239). If the facts in the were alleged by the defendant, and the issue is found against him, the defendant cannot succeed. But, if the facts were stated by the plaintiff himself (Digby v. Financial News, ubi sup.), or, possibly, if they were contained in a communication which the defendant was privileged to publish on the same occasion (Mangena Wright [1909] 2 K. B. 958), the question of their truth is V. immaterial. For examples of matters held to be of public interest,
first
first

issue

issue

see

Addendum

II (p. 525).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

510
Court and
jury

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


is

1004. Whether a matter

of public

interest/^J*

and

whether a comment

is

capable of being construed as

unfair, are questions for the Court.

Whether a comis

ment

is,

in the circumstances, unfair,

a question of

fact for the jury.^*")

The onus
is

of proving that the matter


interest, is

commented upon
defendant;
unfair,, is
(a)

one of public

on the
is

the onus of proving that such


plaintiff/*^)

comment

on the

p. 143, per

South Hetton Coal Co. v. N. E. News Association [1894] Lord Esher, M. R. (b) Henwood v. Harrison (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 606. McQuire v. Western Morning News [1903] 2 K. B. lOO.

Q.

B., at

Hunt
(c)

V.
V.

Star

Dighy

Financial

Newspaper Co., News, ubi

uhi sup., at p. 324.


sup., at p. 509.

Walker

v.

Hodgson,

ubf sup., at p. 249.

Imputation
not defamatory

1005.
though
it

An
is

imputation which

is

not defamatory, even

made

maliciously,

and causes intentional

damage
t

to the plaintiff,

cahnot be

made

the ground of

an action of Defamation.
Miller
V.

David (1874) L. R. 9 C.
V.

Mulligan
Capital Nevill V.

&

P. 118.Cole (1875) L. R. 10 Q. B. 549. Counties Bank v. Henty (1882) L. R. 7 App. Ca. 741. Fine Arts Co. [1897] A. C. 68.

Hubbuck

V.

Wilkinson [1899]

Q.

B., at p. 92.

Dockrell V. Dougall (1899) 80 L. T., at p. 558.

slander of
torts are

[Such statements may, of course, amount to other torts, e. g. title or goods {ante, 853, 893), interferfence with trade

But these or business or contractual relations {ante, 963, 964). governed by their own special rules. See the point carefully explained by Vaughan Williams, L. J., in Dockrell v. Dougall,
ubi sup., at p. 558.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

DEFAMATION
1006.

511
Justifica-

defendant

may
and

'justify

the publication of a

defamatory statement by proof that such statement

was true

in substance
Alexander
v.

in fact.

N.

E. Ry. Co. (1865) 6 B.

&

S. 340.

1007. In order
the defendant
truly stated,

to succeed in a plea of justification, Proof

oj

must prove, not only that the

facts

were
{in-

but that every injurious imputation

nuendo) in the statement in question was also substantially true.


Parker (1844) 13 M. & W. 459. v. Blackwood (1851) 11 C. B. Dighy V. Financial News [1907] I K. B., at p. 507, per Collins, M. R. Walker v. Hodgson [1909] I K. B., at p. 253, per Buckley, L. J.

Smith

V.

Helsham

m.

[A defendant cannot
{Fleming v. I Q. B., at

justify a part of a

defamatory statement;

unless the statement contains

two or more distinct imputations Dollar (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 388; Rassam v. Budge


p. 576).]

[1893]

1008. The following statements are absolutely


leged in an action of Defamation;
/.

privi- Absolute
P"'"'"^'

e.,

so soon as the

defendant proves

that
is

the

statement

which
is

is

the

ground of the action


to

judgment:
(i)

such a statement, he

entitled

Statements

made

in

the

course

of parlia-

mentary debates or proceedings;


Bill

of Rights (1689)

s.

i.

[The question whether a similar privilege extends to the debates and proceedings of colonial parliaments, is settled by a reference to local law (see Doyle v. Falkener (1866) L. R. i P. C, at p. 339, and Fielding V. Thomas [1896] A. C. 600 (P. C.)).]
S

Digitized

by Microsoft

5U
(ii)

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


Statements contained in a petition presented
to

Parliament or eithpr House or a com-

mittee thereof, being relevant to the prayer

of the petition
Lake \
V.

King (1668)

Wms.

Saund. 131

b.

to persons not being

does not follbw that a publication of copies of the petition members of the House or committee would be privileged (See Flint v. Pike (1825) 4 B. C. 423).]

[But

it

&

(iii)

Statements, having reference to the course of


the

enquiry,

made by
and

parties,^*)

judges,('')

advocates,^*')

witnesses,^"^) in the

course

of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings;


(a)

Revis v. Smith (1S56) 18 C. B. 126. Henderson v. Bromhead (1859) 4 H.

&

N.

569.

(b)
'

Scott V. Stansfield (1868) L. R. 3 Ex. 220.

Hodson

V.

Pare

[1899]'

Q. B. 455.

[For the limits of this privilege, see 750 (ante)j The privilege of a judge extends not only to persons technically so-called, but to all persons acting in a judicial capacity, e. g. coroners {Thomas v. Churton (1862) 2 B. & S. 475), magistrates {Hodson v. Pare {ubi sup.); Law v. Llewellyn [1906] I K. B. 487), members of a court martial {Jekyll v. Moore (1806) 2 Bos. & P. (N. R.) 341) or a military court of enquiry {Home v. Beniinck (1820) 2 Br. B. 130), and

&

official receivers

{Bottomley v.

Smith [1909] 2 K. B. 306). capacity have not absolute privilege {Royal


V.

[1908] i K. B. 584; Burr Magistrates acting in an administrative

Brougham

Aquarium

v.

Parkinson

[1892]
(c)

p.

B., at p. 443).}
V. Scarlett v.
v.

Hodgson
Munster

(1818)

B.

& Aid.

232 (counsel).

Lamb

(d)
J

Dawkins
Seaman

Q. B. D. 588 (solicitor)! Lord Rokeby (1875) L. R. 7 H. L. 744 (military court of


(1883)

enquiry).
v. Netkerclift

Goffin V. Donnelly (i88i) 6

Barratt v.

(1876) 2 C. P. D. 53. Q. B. D. 307 (parliamentary committee). Kearns [1905] I K. B. 504 (statutory commission).

[The privilege extends to statements made by an intending witness to the solicitors of a party for the purpose of preparing a proof {Watson v. McEwan [1905] A. C. 40), and to statements similarly made by a persQi^ vyho may or not be a witness in contemplated proceedings {Beresjbrii v White (1914) T. L. R. 591).]
.

XXX

Digitized

by Microsoft

DEFAMATION
(iv)

513

Statements being reports, papers, votes, or


proceedings ordered by either House of Par-

liament to be published, or copies thereof;


Parliamentary Papers Act, 1840,
gives " published.")
ss. i

and

2.

(The mar-

ginal note to the statute reads "printed"; but the text

(v)

Statements being

fair

and accurate newspaper


publicly

reports of proceedings
fore

heard be-

any Court exercising

judicial authority,

and published contemporaneously with such


proceedings

Law
Hope

of Libel
V.

Amendment

Act, 1888,

s.

3.

Leng (1907) XXIII T. L. R. 243.

[The Act expressly refrains from authorizing the publication of blasphemous or indecent matter. As to what amounts to " proceedings" for the purposes of this statute, see Furniss v. Cambridge Daily News, Ld. (1907) XXIII T. L. R. 705. It has been doubted whether
the intention of the legislature
privilege in this case
;

was to confer absolute or only qualified but the words of the section seem clear.]

(vi)

Statements being reports

made by

the de-

fendant in the course of his military duty as

an

officer, to his military superior, reflecting

on the
Dawkins
diss.).
v.

plaintiff in a military capacity

Lord F. Paulet (1869) 9 B.

&

S.

768 (Cockburn, C. J.

(vii)

Statements being communications, on matters

of State, by one high State

official

to

another.
Chatterton v. Sec. of State for India [1895] 2 Q. B. 189.

[There seems to be no very accurate definition of the persons to

whom

this privilege extends.}

S2

Digitized

by Microsoft

514
Qualified

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


entitled to qualii.

1009. The following Statements are

prwtege

g^j privilege in an action of Defamation;


defendant,
if

e.,

the the

he proves that the statement which


is

is

ground of the action


tled to

such a statement,

will

be

enti-

judgment, in the absence of malice or such other

fact depriving

tioned

him of

privilege as

is

hereinafter

men-

(i)

Statements being

and accurate reports But no such of Parhamentary proceedings.


fair

statement will be privileged,

if

the plaintiff

can show that


Wason

it

was published maliciously;


L. R. 4 Q. B. 73.

V. Walter (1868)

(ii)

Statements being extracts from, or abstracts


of,

reports,

papers,

votes,
to

or

proceedings
published.

ordered

by

Parliament

be

But nb such statement


published bona
Mangena

will

be privileged,
that
it

unless the defendant can


fide

show

was

and without malice;

v. Lloyi (1908) XXIV T. L. R. 610 (reversed, but only on the T. L. R. 26). Mangena v. Wright [1909] 2 K. B. 958. Parliamentary Papers Act, 1840, s. 3. (Note the very unusual provision which lays the onus of disproving malice on the defendant.)

facts,

XXV

[An extract, to be privileged, must be correct {Rets 64 L. J. K. B. 566).]

v.

Perry (1895)

(iii)

Statements being accurate copies


tracts

of,

or ex-

from,

registers

of judicial

proceed-

ings, kept

pursuant to Act of Parliament, to


statu-

which members of the public have a

Digitized

by Microsoft

DEFAMATION
tory right of access.
will

515

But no such statement


the plaintiff can show

be privileged,
it

if

that
Fleming
Jones
V. v.

was published maliciously;


i

Newton (1848)

H. L. C. 363.
(C. A.).

Searles v. Scarlett [1892] 2

Q. B. 56 (C. A.). The Financial Times (1909) XXV T. L. R. 677

[The actual decisions appear


ings.

to be confined to judicial proceed-

Qucere as to other

official registers, e. g.

the Register of Bills

of Sale.]

(iv)

Statements being

fair

and accurate newspaper

reports of the proceedings of a public meet-

ing or (except where neither -the public nor

any newspaper reporter

is

admitted) of any

meeting of a vestry, town council, board of


guardians, statutory board or statutory local
authority,

or any committee of any such

body, or of commissioners acting under any


lawful

warrant or authority, or of

select

committees of either House of Parliament,


or of Justices of the Peace in Quarter Sessions

assembled for administrative or depurposes;

liberative

and statements being

publications of any notice or report issued


for the information of the public

by any govofficer

ernment
State,
stable,

office

or

department,

of

commissioner of

police, or chief conits

such publications being made at

or his request.

But no such statement


if:

be privileged,

will

Digitized

by Microsoft

5i6

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


(a) the

plaintiff

proves that

it

was published
defendant has

maliciously; or
(b) the plaintiff proves that the

been requested

to insert in the

newspaper a

reasonable contradiction or explanation of

such report or other document, and has


fused or neglected to do so
(c)
;

re-

or

the statement

is

or contains blasphemous or
is

indecent matter, or

matter not of public


is

concern, the publication of which


the

not for

pubhc

benefit;

]paw,of Libel

Amendment

Act, 1888,

s.

4.

[For the purposes of this sub-paragraph, "public meeting" means any meeting bona pie and lawfully held for a lawful purpose, and for the furtherance or discussion of any matter of public concern; whether the admission thereto be general or restricted. Representatives of the Press can only be excluded from, the meetings of a local authority by express resolution having a temporary effect
(Local Authorities (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Act, 1908,
s.

I).]

(v)

Statements being fair and accurate reports


(other than contemporaneous
ports) of

newspaper

re-

any proceedings, whether prelimany court of


will

inary, interlocutory, or final, in


justice/*)

But no such statement


'^^
;

be
it

privileged, if the plaintiff can prove that

was published maliciously


(a)

Levy (1858) E. B. & E. 537. Hales (1878) 3 C. P. D. 319. Macdougall v. Knight (1889) L. R. 14 App. Ca. 194. Kimber v. Press Association [1893] i Q. B. 65.
Lewis
v.

TJsiU V.

ante,

[This sub-paragraph must, of course, be read with 1008 (v) which gives absolute protection to contemporaneous news-

paper reports.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

DEFAMATION
(b) Stevens v. Sampson (1879) 5 Ex. D. 53. case by Bramwell, B., that such statements, if
privileged, even
(It

517
was suggested
in this

made by

a regular news-

paper reporter to his employers in the ordinary course of business, would be though malicious. See this case, at p. 56.)
is fair and accurate, is a question need not comprise the whole of the proceedings; if the omissions do not tehd to mislead {Macdougall v. Knight,

[Whether

a particular report
It

of fact for the jury.


ubi fup.)i\

(vi)

Statements being communications passing be-

tween

solicitor

and

client/^^

or

between

solicitor

and

counsel/''^ or

between two or
solicitor/'^^

more

clients

employing the same

relevant to matters in respect of which the


solicitor
is

or has been consulted with a view


legal proceedings, or in reis

of commencing

spect of which he

conducting legal proIt


is

ceedings, on behalf of such clients.

doubtful whether proof of malice would rebut

such privilege
(a)

^''^
;

(b)

Browne v. Dunn (1893) 6 R. 67. There seems to be no authority


it

for this statement;

but

it

is

con-

ceived that
(c)

must be
v.

correct.

(d)

Browne Browne

v.

Dunn, Dunn,

ubi sup. ubi sup., at p. 80, per

Lord Bowen.

[See note to 1008 (iii.) as to statements made by witnesses to the solicitor for the purpose of preparing the case. In Boxsius v. Goblet Frires [1894] l Q. B. 842, it was held that communications which would be privileged if made directly by a solicitor are none the less privileged because they have been shown to clerks of the But malice will destroy solicitor in the ordinary course of business.

such privilege.]
(vii)

Statements being communications made by

one person who has a lawful interest in the


subject-matter of the communication, and

Digitized

by Microsoft

5i

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


communications made
legal or
in

pursuance of a

moral duty/*^

to another person

who

has a corresponding interest or duty, on an


occasion and in a

manner which
z. e.,

are reason-

able in the circumstances,


to inflict

not calculated
plaintiff

more harm upon the

than

was necessary

for the protection of the inter-

est or the discharge of the

duty in question/''^ be privileged,


it

But no such statement


maliciously
(a)
^"^
;

will

if

the plaintiff can prove that

was published

Aid. 642. C. M. & R. 181. B'lackham v. Pugh (1846) 2 C. B. 611. B. 344. Harrison v. Bush (1855) 5 E. Whiteleyv. Adams (1863) 15 C. B. N. S. 392. Baker v. Carrick [1894] I Q. B. 838.
v,

Fairman
ToogQod

Ives ,{l%zz) 5 B.

&

V.

Spyring (1834)

&

[An interest or duty arising out of a relationship entered into merely for the purpose of making pecuniary profit, is not an interest or duty within this {Macintosh v. Dun [1908] A. C. 391 (P. C.)). The defendant must show that the alleged duty is founded upon considerations of the welfare of society as a whole, not of a mere section of it (Greenlands v. Wilmshurst [191 3] 3 K. B. 507). Blackham V. Pugh and Baker v. Carrick appear to suggest, that a communication bona fide made for the protection of the person making it is privileged; even though the person to whom it was made had no corresponding interest or duty. But see Hehditch v. Mcllwaine
(infra).]

(b)

Harrison

v.

Bush, ubi sup.

Pittard v. Oliver [1891] i Q. B. 474. Pullman v. Hill, ibid. 524.

that there

is

Stuart V, Bell [1891] 2 Q. B. 341. y, Mcllwaine [1894] 2 Q. B. 54. (This case shows no privilege merely because the defendant thought that the

Hehditch

person to

whom

Edmondson

he made the statement had an interest or duty.) v. Birch [1907] I K. B. 371.

Digitized

by Microsoft

DEFAMATION
(c)
i C. M. R. 250. (1851) 10 C. B. 583. Clark V. Molyneux (1877) 3 Q. B. D. 237.

519

Warren

v.

Warren (1834)

Somerville v.

Hawkins

Jenoure v. Delmege [1891] A. C. 73 (P. C). Royal Aquarium Co. v. Parkinson [1892] I Q. B. 431.

[For examples of qualified privilege arising out of interest or


duty, see

Addendum

III (p. 527).]

(viii)

Statements

made

in self-defence, in

answer to
be
it

charges brought against the defendant by the


plaintiff/*^

But no such statement


if

will

privileged,

the plaintiff can prove that


maliciously/''^

was published
(a)

v. Gasson (1858) E. B. & E. 346. Laughton v. B. of S odor and Man (1872) L. R. 4 P. C. 495. (b) Huntley v. Ward (1859) 6 C. B. N. S. 514. (It appears from case, that irrelevance in a statement will entitle the Court to find malice

Hemmings

this

as a

matter of fact; notwithstanding the verdict of the jury.)


[It is

immaterial to the plea of qualified privilege, that the publitort,

cation in question involved a tort of another kind.

damages for such other loss which the plaintiff has


ing
v.

the jury

may

But, in awardtake into account the

Charles (1905)

XXI

suffered from the publication {Thurston T. L. R. 659).]

1010. Whether the circumstances alleged

justify a Court
{"'^^

am

privilege, and whether there is evidence of claim of r o ' malice, are questions for the Court. Whether such cir-

!"

privilege

cumstances

exist,

and whether there

is

or

is

not in fact

malice, are questions for the jury.


Hawkins (1851) 10 C. B. 583. B. 328. (This case also shows that exWildes (1855) 5 E. pressions in the statement alleged to be privileged may themselves be eviSomerville v.

Cooke

V.

&

'

dence of malice.) Clark V. Molyneux (1877) 3 Q. B. D. 237. Hehditch v, Mcllwaine (1894) 2 Q. B., at p. 58, per Lord Esher,

M.

R.

S3

Digitized

by Microsoft

526
Malice of
''g^nt

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


is

1011. Where qualified privilege


defendants jointly,
if

claimed in respect

q ^ defamatory statement published by two or more


it is

sufficient to rebut the privilege

the plaintiff proves malice on the part of one of

them.
Citizens' Life

Assurance Co.

v.

Broibn [1904] A.

C,

(P, C.) at p. 42^, per

Lord Lindley
Smith V.

(principal

and

agent).

Streatjield

[1913] 3 K. B. 764 (author and publisher).

Apology and
ainen s

1012. In

aji

action for libel contained in any public

newspapcr or periodical publication, the defendant may


plead that the libel was inserted without malice or gross
negligence,

and that a

full

apology was inserted by him


action, or at the earliest

before the

commencement of the

opportunity afterwards, in such newspaper or publication, or, if

such newspaper or publication was ordinarily

published at intervals exceeding one week, that he had


offered to publish such apology in

any newspaper or
Such plea must

periodical selected

by the

plaintiff.

^^^

be accompanied by payment of money into Court by

way
(a)

of amends. ^''^
Libel Act, 1843, Libel Act, 1845,
s. 2.
s-

(b)

2.

(The

plaintiff is entitled to the


v.

sum

paid
i

in,

whatever the verdict of the jury {Dunn


211 n.).)
^

Devon

& Exeter Co. [1895]

Q. B.

[The defendant may plead justification as to one part of a libel, and apology and payment into Court under the Libel Acts as to another (Hawksley v. Bradshaw (1880) 5 Q. B. D. 302). But he must show clearly which part he justifies and which he admits {Oxley V. Wilkes [1898] 2 Q. B. 56). Payment into Court, accompanied by apology, under the Libel Acts, must be carefully distinguished from ordinary payment into Court under the Judicature Acts (O. XXIL r. i), which operates only in mitigation of damages {Fleming v. Dollar (1889) 23 Q. B. D. 388).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

DEFAMATION
1013.

521
Corporations

A corporation may sue

or be sued in an action
is

of Defamation/")

But an imputation which

really

an Zi

^'^""""

imputation upon the individual members of a corporation cannot

be made the subject of an action of Defa-

mation by the corporation/''^


(a)

Whitfield V. S. E. Ry. Co. (1858) E. B.

Metropolitan Saloon Co.

v.

Hawkins

South Hetton Coal Co. v. N. 133 (plaintiff and defendant). Citizens' Life Assurance Co. v. Brown [1904] A. C. 423 (P. C.) (defendant).
[It seems now that even an unincorporated body, other than a trade union, may be sued in Defamation {Richards v. Bartram (1908) T. L. R. 181). Quaere : if it could sue.]

E. 115 (defendant). N. (plaintiff). (1859) 4 H. E. News dissociation [1894] I Q. B.

&

&

XXV
(b)

Mayor

of Manchester v. Williams [1891]

Q. B.

94.

1014. Vindictive damages


of Defamation
;

may

be given in an action

Vindictive

and

facts in relation to the defendant's


in aggravation

""^"^ '

conduct

may be

proved

of damages. ^^^

But
jury

if

such facts disclose a separate cause of action, the


in respect of such separate

may not award damages


action.^'')
(a)

cause of

Praed v. Graham (1889) 24 Q. B. D. 53. Anderson v. Calvert (1908) XXIV T. L. R. 399. (b) Pearson v. Lemaitre (1843) 5 M. 8e G. 700.
J

1015. In an action of Defamation, evidence of the


following facts
(i)

Mitigation
^

may be given in mitigation of damages

"mages

the plaintiff's general reputation, but not his


disposition

Scott V.

Sampson (1882) 8 Q. B. D.

Wood

V. -E. of

Durham

491. (1888) 21 Q. B. D., at p. 505, per Manisty, J.

Digitized

by Microsoft

522
(ii)

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


that the defendant received provocation;
Tarpley v, Slahey (1836) 2 Bing. N. C. 437. E. 223. Watts V. Fraser (1837) 7 A. Kelly V. Sherlock (1866) L. R. i Q. B. 686.

&

(iii)

that the publication complained of


fact malicious

was not

in

Pearson v. Lemaitre (1843) 5 M. & G. 700. Smith V. Scott (1847) 2 C. & K., at p. 585, per Coleridge,

J.

(ix)

that the defendant

made

or offered an apology

commencement of such action, or, if such action was commenced before he had an opportunity of making or
to the plaintiff before the

offering such apology, as soon afterwards as

he had an opportunity of doing


Libel Act, 1843,
s.

so.

I.

Common
rumour

1016. Evidence

to the effect that the charges con-

tained in the statement

upon which an action of Defa-

mation, is brought were the subject of


is

common

rumour,

not admissible in mitigation of damages/*^

But a

defendant

who has made such

a statement avowedly as

hearsay, may, with a view to disproving malice,

show

from what source he derived


(a)

it/*"^

Scott V.

Sampson (1882)
v.

(b)

Saunders

Buncombe

8 Q. B. D., at p. 503. Mills (1829) ^ Bing., at p. 220. v. Daniell (1838) 2 Jurist, 32.

Proceedings aliunde

1017. At the
in

trial

of an action for a

libel

contained

any newspat)er, the defendant may give

in evidence.

Digitized

by Microsoft

DEFAMATION
in mitigation

523

of damages, that the plaintiff has already

recovered or brought actions for damages, or has received or agreed to receive compensation, in respect of a
libel

or libels to the same purport or effect as the libel

for

which such action has been brought.


Law
of Libel

Amendment

Act, 1888,

s. 6.

1018. (Semble) a
fused
to live

woman whose husband


in

has

re- Remoteness
"'

with her

consequence of a defamatory
her, cannot, in

"'""^^

statement

made concerning

an action of

Defamation, obtain damages for loss of his society.


Lynch
Davies
V. v.

Knight (1861) 9 H. L. C. 577. Solomon (1871) L. R. 7 Q. B.

12.

[In neither of these cases, nor in Allsop v. Allsop, infra (which,


like the other cases,

was based on

a charge of unchastity),

was
:

there

a ground of action without proof of special damage. Qucere the point been affected by the Slander of Women Act, 1891 ?

Has
Loss

of hospitality has, however, been allowed to rank as special damage (Moore V. Meagher (1807) I Taunt. 39). It was held in Allsop v. Allsop (i860) 5 H. & N. 534, that ill health caused by slander was too remote a consequence to support an allegation of special damage. But see now Wilkinson v. Downton [1897], 2 Q. B, 57 Dulieu v. White [1901] 2 K. B. 669 ; Janvier v. Sweeney [1919] 2 K. B. 316.]
;

Note on the Section.


[Notwithstanding the generality of the language of section 2 of the Limitation Act, 1623, it was early held, that the statutory limit of two years applied only to actions for words actionable per It would appear that, in se {Saunders v. Edwards (1662) Sid. 95). other cases of slander, the period would be six years from the occurrence of the damage. (Se?, however, the dictum of Lord Cranworth in Bonomi v. Backhouse (1861) 9 H. L. C, at p. 513).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

Addendum

to Section VIII

The following may be quoted as examples of imputations which have been held to be defamatory; but it is obvious that no exhaustive list can be given, and that changes may be expected as public opinion varies. For this reason, later authorities are to be preferred to older on this point.
A. Imputations actionable per
1.

se.

The commission of

a crime rendering plaintiff then liable to

death or imprisonment.
87 (forgery). & W. 564 (bigamy). Leymqrt v. Latimer (1877) 3 Ex. D. 352 ("convicted felon"). Webb V. Beavan (1883) II Q. B. D. 609 , , ,, (.generally;. Marks V. Samuel [1904] 2 K. B. 287 J
V.

Jones

Heme

(1.759) 2 Wils.

Heming

v.

Power (1842) 10 M.

"I

[Imputation of mere suspicion of crime is not actionable per se V. Mashford (1851) 6 Exch. 539; Simmons v. Mitchell (1880) L. R. 6 App. Ca. 156 (P. C.)).]
(Tozer
2.

contagious disease.

Fillers V. Monsley (1769) 2 Wils. 403. Carslake v. Mapledoram (1788) 2 T. R. 473. Bloodworth v. Gray (1844) 7 M. G. 334. JVatkin V. Hall (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B., at p. 399, per Blackburn, {CarsJ. lake V. Mapledoram decides that this imputation, to be actionable, must refer to the time when the statement was made).

&

3.

Incapacity, misconduct, or unfitness, in or for the plaintiff's

trade, profession, or calling.


Forster v. Lawson (i8z6) 3 Bing. 452 (suspension by a banker). Boydell V. Jones (1838) 4 M. W. 446 ("sharp practice" by an attorney). Griffiths \.,Lewis (1846) 8 Q. B. 841 (using false weights by a butcher).-

&

Gallwey
clergyman).

v.

Marshall (1853) 9 Exch. 294 (incontinence

in a beneficed

Digitized

by Microsoft

ADDENDUM

525

Bignell v. Buzzard (1858) 3 H. & N. 217 (keeping a "disorderly house" by a licensed victualler). Irwin V. Brandwood (1864) 2 H. & C. 960 (drunkenness in master of a
ship).
i>

Skepheard v. IVhitaker (1875) L. R. 10 C. P. 502 (insolvency in a trader). South Hetton Co. v. N. E. News [1894] i Q. B. 133 (unsanitary cottages of colliery company).

B.

Imputations which

(if

contained in spoken words) are

actionable only on proof of special damage.


4.

Insanity.

Morgan
Weldon

v. V.

Lingen (1863) 8 L. T. 800. de Bathe (1884) 54 L. J. Q. B. 113.

5. General immorality or misconduct, not amounting to crime, but tending to cause persons to shun the society of the plaintiff.

I'anson v. Stuart (1787) I T. R. 748 ("swfindler"). Aid. 685 (callousness). Churchill v. Hunt (18x9) 2 B. Edwards v. Bell (1824X1 Bing. 403 ("invective from pulpit").

&

Clement v. Chivis (1829) 9 B. & C. 172 (insulting women). Ayre v. Craven (1834) A. & E. 2 (adultery of physician). Greville v. Chapman (1844) 5 Q. B. 731 (unfair racing). O'Brien v. Clement (1846) 16 M. & W. 159 ("consorting with
blacklegs").

James Hoare

v.

v. Silverlock (1848) 12

Cox
6.

V.

Brook (1846) 9 Q. B. 7 (immorality in a police Q. B. 628 ^"g""*"''^^ | ^^^^^i^^^^. Lee (1869) L. R. 4 Ex. 284 )

officer).

Conduct or experiences provocative of

ridicule of the plaintiff.


17.

Abp. of Tuam v. Robeson (1828) 5 Bing. Cook V. Ward (1830) 6 Bing. 409.

Addendum

II

to Section VIII

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST


This subject has been discussed in a number of cases; but no very clear limitations of the general principle are to be found. The question has been held to be one for the judge {South Hetton Coal Co. V. N. E. News Association [1894^ I Q. B., at p. 143). The

Digitized

by Microsoft

526
two extreme
(1846) 15

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


limits

seem

to lie

on the one hand

in Gathercole v.

Miall

M.

& W.

Case {supra).

319, and, on the other, in the South Hettoti In the first case, it was held that the administration of

a purely local charity for purposes not parochial, but for the propagation of a particular form of worship, was not a matter of public interest. In the second, it was held that the sanitary condition of pitmen's cottages on the plaintiff's property, was a matter of public" interest. The question is discussed fully in the dissenting judgment of Grove, J., in Henwpod v. Harrison (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 606.
cases seem to fall into two more or less distinct classes as out below; but the general principle appears to be, that where persons by their position, publications, or profession, invite public criticism, their acts and their writings are matters of public interest.
set
I. All literary or artistic, productions, arid all other written matter published to the world, and the conduct of all persons who by their professions either expressly or implicitly invite comment.

The

Esp. 28 (theatrical performance). M, M. 74 (architect's work). Thompson v. Shackell (1828) i M. & M. 187 (work of a painter). Paris V. Levy (i860) 9 C. B. N. S. 342 (advertisement). Campbell v. Spottiswoode (1863) 3 B. S. 769 (missionary scheme). Merivale \. Carson (1887) 20 Q. B. D, 275 (stage-play). Dakhyl V. Labouchere (H. L.) reported [1908] 2 K. B. 325 n. (conduct of
i

Dibdin v. Swan (1793) Soane v. Knight (1827)

&

&

advertising doctor).
i.'

The

acts of thcvExecutivfe, the public acts of the clergy, poli-

ticians, rriembers

of the army and navy, the judiciary, and persons


administration of justice or of the Poor

concerned

in the

Law.

Dunne

v. Anderson (1825) 3 Bing. 88 (petition to Parliament). Gathercole v. Miall (1846) 15 M. W. 31 9 (sermons, (/ijj-. Parke, B.). Kelly V. Tinling (1865) L. R. I Q. B. 699 (conduct of public worship). Wason V. Walter (i868) L. R. 4 Q. B. 73 (petition to Parliament).

&

Henwood v. Harrison (1872) L. R. 7 C. P. 606 (plans for public safety submitted to the Admiralty). Davis v. Duncan (1874) L. R. 9 C. P. 396 (conduct at political meeting). Purcell V. Soulier (1877) 2 C. P. D. 215 (administration of Poor Law). South Hetton Coal Co. v. N. E. News, ubi sup, (sanitation of houses of pitmen belonging to a large colliery).
[This last case seems somewhat of an extensidn of the rule unwe may say that the quiestion really concerns the public health.]
;

less

Digitized

by Microsoft

ADDENDUM
Addendum
III

527

to Section VIII

The following are examples of statements in respect of which the defendant has been held entitled to claim qualified privilege on the ground of interest or duty.
1.

Statements

made

in the course

of public duty.

Taylor v.
count).

Hawkins

(1851) 16 Q. B. 308 (dismissing a servant

1st

Waller
Society).

v.

Loch (1881) L. R.
v.

Q. B. 619 (Report of Charity Organization


I

Royal Aquarium Co.


Council meeting).

Parkinson [1892]
i

Q. B. 431 (speech

at

County

Andrews

v.

Nott-Bower [1895]

Q. B. 888 (Report of Head Constable to

Watch Committee). Mapey v. Baker (1909) 73 Mangena v. Wright [1909]


2.

J. P.

289 (speech at Board of Guardians). 2 K. B. 958 (Report by Agent-General).

Statements

made

in

course of private duty.

Baker
3.

Stuart v. Bell [1891] 2 Q. B. 341 (statement as to servant's character). v. Carrick [1894] I Q. B. 838 (letter by solicitor).

Statements
v.

made

in
I

pursuance of
A.

( ?

common)

interest.
J.

Knight
Wilson

Gibbs (1834)

&

E., at p. 45, per

Lord Denman, C.

(landlord and tenant).


V.

Amann
Fdrce
V.
V.

v.

Hunt

Robinson (1845) 7 Q. B. 68 (partners). Damm (i860) 8 C. B. N. S. 597 (merchant and customer). Warren (1864) 15 C. B. N. S. 806 (enquiry to obtain evidence). G. N. R. [1891] 2 Q. B. 189 (master and servant).

this
V.

[Perhaps accusations of crime against the defendant fall under head {Toogood v. Spyring (1834) i C. M. & R. i8i; Padmore E. 380). But in neither of these cases Lawrence (1840) II A.

&

had the person^

in

whose presence the accusation was made any

common
4.

interest with the defendant..]

Statements

made

in

answer to enquiries.

Weatherston v. Hawkins (1786) I T. R. no (as to servant's character). Child V. Affleck (1829) 9 B. & C. 403 (as to servant's character). Taylor v. Hawkins (1851) 16 Q. B. 308 (as to servant's character. 2nd
count).

Digitized

by Microsoft

528

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

[The fact that the defendant volunteered a communication of a kind which would have been privileged if made in answer to an enquiry may, be evidence of malice but it does not destroy the privi;

lege {Pattison V. Jones (1828) 8 B.

&

C. 578).]

5.

Statements

made

in

rebuttal

of allega'tions

against

the

defendant.
Croft V. Stevens (1862) 7 H.

&

N.

570.
(Irish case).

Jacob

V.

Lawrence (1879) 14 ^ox, C. C. 321


is

[But

in

such cases the defendant

not at liberty to

make

entirely

irrelevant charges against the plaintiff {Huntley v. JVard (1859) 6

C. B. N. S. 514).]

!,-i\

M!i

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION IX
TORTS IN RESPECT OF PUBLIC RIGHTS, EXECUTION, AND DISTRESS
1019.
or

An action for damages lies when, by statute common law, the plaintiff is entitled to demand the
official,

Refusal of

"^'"

performance of a public duty by a public

and

the latter refuses or neglects to perform such duty.


Ashby V. White (1703) 2 Laconw. Hooper (1795) Barry v. Arnaud (1839) Clifton V. Hooper (1844)
Ld. Raymond, 938. 6 T. R. 224. 10 A. E. 646. 6 Q. B. 468.

&

Tozer V. Child (1857) 7 E. B. 377. Fotherby v. Metro. Ry. Co. (1866) L. R. 2 C. P., at p. 194. Pickering v. James (1873) L. R. 8 C. P. 489.
v. Goldsmid [1894] I Q. B., at p. 189. Marquis of Bristol v. Beck (1906) 96 L. T. 55 (where, however, the action was dismissed on the merits).

&

Chaffers

seems clear from the decisions (e. g. Tozer v. JChild, ubi sup.) the defendant is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, proof of malice on his part is essential; otherwise, when he is acting ministerially {Pickering v. fames, 'ubi sup., at p. 503). The duties which ai^ the subject of this action must be distinguished from the statutory duties imposed (not necessarily on public officials) for the benefit of individuals. As to these, see ante, 726.]
[It

that

when

1020.

An

action for

damages

lies

against a sheriff

^^^

Misconduct

or high bailiff of a County Court ( for any


neglect, ^^^ extortion,^'^ or irregularityj^*^ of

'''"''^ failure,<^) *^

which

either

he or his subordinate
tion, or

^s)

has been guilty, in the execu-

by

colour, ^'^ of legal process.

Such action may

Digitized

by Microsoft

530

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


who can
prove that he has

be brought by any person


suffered actual loss
tion, or irregularity.
^^^

by such

failure, neglect, extor-

(a) The sheriff and not the subordinate is the proper person to be sued; even when the offence has been actually committed by the subordinate {Cameron V. Reynolds (1776) Cowp. 403). (For other remedies against the sheriff, see Sheriffs Act, 1887, s. 29, which, however, appears to contemplate also liability of the subordinate.) (b) Burton v. Le Gros (1864) 34 L. J. Q. B. 91; County Courts Act, (For other remedies against the high bailiff, see ss. 50-52 of 1888, s. 35.

the Act.)
(c)

(d)

Mullett V. Challis (1,851) 16 Q. B. 239. Lewis V. Alcock (1838) 3 M. W. 188.

&

(e)

Stephens (1848) 12 Q. B. 465. Brun v. Hutchinson (1844) 13 L. J. Q. B. 244 (where a


V.

Pike

summary

remedy was given). (f) Smart v. Hutton (1833) 8 A.


fi.fa.).

&

E. 568 n. (arresting defendant under

Raphael v. Goodman (1838) ibid. 565 (fraudulent exaction of bond). Hooper v. Lane (1857) 6 H. L. C. 443. (g) The subordinate need not even have been actually appointed by the sheriff. It is sufficient if he has been appoirited by the sheriff's deputy.
(Gregory
(h)
(i)

v. Cotterell

(1855) 5 E.

&

B. 571.)
"]

Smart v. Hutton, uhi.sup. Thurgood -v. Richardson {li'^i)


Riseley v. Ryle (1843)

Bing.

^Z%\
J

,,

,.

,.

M.

& W.

16

(.'^ndlord).
/,
.,

Watson

V.

Lancashire

Macquire (1848) 5 C. B. 8^6 ) Waggon Co. v. Fiti-hughilS6l) |

-.s

^'^^''""^

"^ g""'*^ ^"^^'')-

6H. &N.

502.

[Actions by execution creditors or debtors are, of course, the most

common
(k)

of

all.]

Williams v. Mostyn (1838) 4 M. & W. 145. Wylie v. Birch (1843) 4 Q. B. 566. Hobson V. Thelluson (1867) L. R. 2 Q. B. 642.

(There was formerly an exception where the defendant had a debtor in custody on final process at the suit of the plaintiff, and allowed him to escape. In such a case, it was not necessary to prove

damage; even though the escape was only temporary {Planck v. Anderson (1792) 5 T. R., at p. 40, per BuUer, J.); and, if the action was framed in Debt, the plaintiff recovered the whole debt and sheriff's poundage (Jones v. Pope (1667) Wms. Saund. 37, n. 2). 'A similar rule seems to have applied where the ground of action

Digitized

by Microsoft

PUBLIC RIGHTS, EXECUTION, DISTRESS


was a
failure to arrest {Clifton v.
s.

531
See

Hooper (1844) 6 Q. B.

468).

now

Sheriffs Act, 1887,

i6.)

officers in

plaintiff complains of the conduct of the sheriff or his executing process taken out by him (the plaintiff), he must, of course, show the validity of the process {Lane v. Chapman E. 966). But proof of the existence of an apparently (1840) II A. regular judgment by which his conduct was justified at the time, is

[Where the

&

judgment

a conclusive answer to an action against the sheriff; even though the is afterwards set aside {Ives v. Lucas (1823) i C. P. 7).

&

When

the act of the sheriff

amounts

to Trespass, of course

no damage

need be proved.]

1021.

creditot at

whose

suit the sheriff

has wrong-

Liability of

fully seized goods, is not liable for the seizure to the /'''"""/

owner of the goods


latter case,
(a)

;^''^

unless he has expressly or

by imIn the

plication directed the seizure of those goods/''^

he
v.

is

also liable to indemnify the sheriff.^')


(1843) 6

Wilson

Tumman

M.

&

G. 236.

(b)

Balme

v.

Hutton (1833) 9 Bing.,

the execution

was of

at p. 478, per Patteson, (Where J. the person, the creditor was usually liable; because the

delivery of a writ of capias to the sheriff was, in effect, a direction to seize

named therein {Parsons v. Loyd (1772) 3 Wils. 341). But, even in such a case, it seems that he would not have been responsible for the sheriff's mistake of identity, or improper mode of arrest.)
the body of the person
(c)

Humphrys

ment on the
in

v. Pratt (1831) 5 Bligh, N. S. 154. (But a mere indorsewrit for the information of the sheriff is not a direction to seize

accordance therewith {Childersv. Wooler (i860) 2 E. & E. 287); though subsequent ratification may make the creditor liable {Jarmain v. Hooper (1843) 6 M. & G. 827).)

1022.

An

outgoing sheriff

is

not liable for irregu-

Outgoing

larities, in

respect of writs not completely executed by

'^'"f

Digitized

by Microsoft

532

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


duringihis term of office, committed after the expiry

him

of such term;

provided that he has duly transferred

such writs

to his successor/*'

A sheriff
from

cannot be called

upon
six

to

make

a return to a writ after the expiration of


his retirement
office/''^

months from

(As to what writs are "completely ex(a) Sheriffs Act, 1887, s. 28 (l). ecuted," see Harrison y. Panyter (1840) 6 M. W. 387). (b) Ibid. s. 28 (3).

&

Excessive or
irregular
distress

1023.

pcrsou who, being entitled to distrain upon o 1


'

the goods of another for rent due/"' seizes a manifestly


excessive quantity of such goods to satisfy his claim/^'

or

is

guilty of

any

irregularity in the

conduct of such
.other
('"

distress/^^ is liable to

an action by such

to re-

cover the

damage caused by such

excess or irregularity,

and

to

an injunction

to prevent its continuance/^'

(a) If the defendant, is not entitled to distrain at all, he will be a mere wrong-doer; and the remedies of the plaintiff will be Trespass {ante. Sect. Ill, Tit. I), Conversion {ibid.. Tit. .II), or Replevin {ante, 867), in the first two of which he will recover the full value of the goods, and in the third the goods themselves. A similar result follows if the defendant, though entitled to distrain on the plaintiff's goods, forcibly breaks open the plaintiff's house

(Attack
distress

Bramwell (1863) 3 B. & S. 520), or seizes goods privileged from {Keen v. Priest (1859) 4 H. & N. 236). (b) 52 Hen. III. (Statute of Marlbridge, ann. 1267) st. I, c. 4, s. 5. Hutchinson v. Chambers (1758) I Burr., at p. 590.
V.

Piggott

V. Birtles

(1836)

M.

& W.

441.

Roden

V.

Eyton {iS^S) 6 C. B. ^zy.

is

[There must be excessive seizure. Merely claiming too much rent not sufficient; unless special damage follows {Tancred v; Leyland (1851) 16 Q. B. 669, overruling Taylor v. Henniker (1840) 12 A. & E. 488). On the other hand, when there has been excessive seizure,
{Chandler
(c)

slight evidertce
v.

of damage will be sufficient to support the action Doulton (1865) 3 H. & C. 553).]
Rent Act, 1737,
s.

Distress for

19.

(The remedies given by


i.

the

statute are Trespass or Case, at the option of the plaintiff,

e.

according to

Digitized

by Microsoft

PUBLIC RIGHTS, EXECUTION, DISTRESS


the nature of the irregularity {Winterhourne
actual

533

v. Morgan (i8og) ii East, 395). But, in neither form of action would the plaintiff recover unless he proved

damage {Rodgers

v.

Parker (1856) 18 C. B. 112).

distress

[Prior to the Act of 1737, any irregularity in the conduct of a made the distrainor a trespasser ab initio. (See preamble

to the section.)]

Priest, ubi sup.;

person interested in the goods may bring the action {Keen v. Fell v. TFhittaker (1871) L. R. 7 Q. B. 120). (e) An injunction against a landlord will only be granted under special circumstances, and with strict precautions {Shaw v. E. of Jersey (1879)
(d)

Any

4 C. P. D. 120 and 359.)


[It is worthy of note, that a landlord, as well as his bailiflF or other person employed by him, who proceeds with a distress upon the goods of his tenant, undertenant, lodger, or other person not being a tenant of the premises, after such person has taken the steps required for his protection by the Law of Distress Amendment Act, 1908, s. I, is liable, not merely for irregular, but for illegal distress and i. e. presumably, he js deemed a trespasser ah initio {ibid. s. 2 see Lowe v. Darling [1906] 2 K. B. 772). A summary remedy fo.r the recovery of the goods distrained is also provided by the Act. A summary remedy is also open, in all cases of illegal, excessive, or irregular distress, to the occupants of small tenements, and to occupants on short tenancies, within the metropolitan district Similar remedies (Metropolis Police Courts Act, 1839, s. 39).

exist

under the

Law

of Distress

Amendment
s.

Act, 1895,

s.

4,

and the

Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908,

30.]

1024.

similar action for

damages

lies

against a
relief

Distress for

person distraining for money justly due for the


the poor, to recover the special

of

^^

damage sustained by

the plaintiff through any irregularity done by the party


distraining.
Poor Relief Act, 1743,
s. 8.

[A clause similar to that contained


s.

in the Distress for

Rent Act,

19, abolishes the doctrine of trespass ah initio in this case 1737, also. County, rural district, and borough rates are collected through

Digitized

by Microsoft

534

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


But there does not appear
to be

the overseers; and the provision would, therefore, probably apply

any corresponding proviwhich are collected by the sanitary authorities; and, presumably, any irregularity in a distress for such rates would make the distrainor a trespasser ab initio (see Public Health Act, 1875, s. 256, and Mutton v. Hornsey D. C, reported in The Times of 12th April, 1899).]
to them.

sion with regard to urban district rates,

Rescous

1025.

person

who

has seized and impounded


distress, is entitled to

goods under an alleged right of


bring an action of Rescous or
treble

Pound Breach

to recover

damages and
It is

costs of suit against

any person who

interferes with such

goods otherwise than under process

of law.

immaterial for this purpose whether the


distrain

plaintiff's title to

was well-founded or

not.^'^

similar action lies against the


;

owner of the goods

distrained

if

they are afterwards found to have come

into his possession.^'')


(a)

Parrett Navigation v. Slower (1840) 6


if

M.

& W.

564.

[But

a distrainor improperly uses, or attempts to use, goods

distrained, the

owner may

seize

them

to prevent the user, without

being liable to an action of Rescous or Wright (1861) 6 H. & N. 821).]


(b)

Pound Breach {Smith

v.

& 3 W. &
law of

M.

(1689)

altered the
trainor.
is still

distress for rent

Before this statute,

(This was the statute which by conferring a power of sale on the disthe distrainor could merely impound; knd this
St. I. c. 5. s. 3.

the law with regard to distress

damage
s.

feasant.

VI,

180.)

special action

on the statute

lies for

{Ante, Bk. I, Sect. not leaving the overplus


v.

in the

hands of the

sheriff after a sale {ib.

2;

Tates

Eastwood (1851)

6 Exch. 805).

Double amages

1026. Where an action


succcssfully brought

for illegal distress has

been

by the owner of goods which have

Digitized

by Microsoft

PUBLIC RIGHTS, EXECUTION, DISTRESS

535

been distrained and sold by the defendant under the


2

&

3
to

W.

&

M.

(1689)

St. I, c.

5,

though no rent was

due

him (the defendant), the plaintiff may recover as damages double the value of the goods so distrained,
together with
(full) costs

of

suit.

2 W. 8e M. (1689) St. personal representatives.)

I, c. 5, s. 4.

(The

right of action survives to the

Digitized

by Microsoft

SECTION X
DECEIT
Definition

1027.

person

who

fraudulently
fact,

makes

to another

a representation false in

with intent that such other

should act upon such representation, whereby such


other
is

deceived,

is

liable to

an action of Deceit

to re-

cover damages for any loss suffered by such other as


the direct consequence of so acting.
Pasley
v.

Freeman (1789) 3 T. R.

51.

Bates (1855) 2 E. B., at pp. 488-9, per Behn V. Kemble (1859) 7 C. B. N. S. 260. Derry v. Peek (1889) L. R. 14 App. Ca. 337.

Gerhard

v.

&

Lord Campbell, C.

J.

[The action of Deceit has had a curious history. The old common law writ, as Fitzherbert tells us {Natura Brevium, 95 E), and, as the still older authorities (e. g. the Old Natura Brevium (fF. 50-52) and a very beautiful and complete MS. Register attributed to the reign of Henry IV in the Library of the Law Society (105 H) at ff. 130-5) show, was practically restricted to personation or other Not unnaturally, trickery in connection with legal proceedings. there was much dispute whether it was really an original writ at all, or merely a judicial writ issuing from the Court in which the in other words, whether personation or trickery had been practised it was not in the nature of a proceeding for contempt of Court. Fitzherbert {op. cit. 99 G) took the view, that either form of writ was available to a party to the proceedings in which the deceit was practised; and this view, with modifications, was accepted in the late seventeenth century case of Zouch v. T hompson (1695) 3 Lev. Even by Fitzherbert's time, however, we see {op. cit. 98 K) 419. that the writ is being extended by analogy to what we should now call breach of warranty; though it is noticeable that a precisely similar writ is classed by Fitzherbert under the head of Trespass on the Case {op. cit. 94 C), and it is clear that allegations of deceit,

Digitized

by Microsoft

DECEIT

537

as well as allegations of negligence, played a considerable part in the development of that form of Trespass on the Case (i. e. Assumpsit)

which ultimately gave us our action of simple contract. (See Somerton's Case Y. B. II Hen. VI (1433), ^- '^> However, by P^- ^-) the adoption of the doctrine of Consideration, Assumpsit became substantially a contractual action, though unnecessary allegations of deceit and negligence continued to be made in it, and, even so late as the year 1778, it could be doubted whether Assumpsit lay for breach of warranty (Stuart v. Wilkins, Douglas, 18). Thus the action of Deceit fell into the background; and an attempt to hold the defendant liable on the ground of deceit in the well-known case of Chandelor v. Lopus (1603) Cro. Jac. 4 (Action on the Case) failed entirely; the Exchequer Chamber (reversing the King's Bench, and against the opinion of Andersdn, C. J.) refusing to allow
the action against a goldsmith for falsely stating that to be a bezar stone which was not. It will be observed, however, that this action

of Chandelor v. Lopus arose out of a sale, and was, in effect, an attempt to base the action upon a mere statement by the vendor which was held not to amount to a warranty, no scienter being alleged. It had been previously noted by Fitzherbert {op. cit. 94 C) that the common law recognized no implied warranty on a sale of goods; and he also admitted (98 K) that not even an express warranty given after a sale could be made the basis of an action of Deceit, It is worth noting that, in the standard printed edition of the Register of Writs (anno 1687) the only example given of Trespass on the Case alleging deceit (falA) machinando, f. 112) is based on circumstances which suggest trespass rather than fraud. And this, notwithstanding that a considered decision of the Court of King's Bench had, a quarter of a century before, recognized the validity of the writ of Deceit on the Case (Leakins v. Clissel (1663) i Sid. 146), and that, two years after the publication of the printed Register, a similar action was allowed by the same Court (Crosse v. Gardner (1689) Carth. 90). These two cases, however, were, in fact though not in form, actions

on

false

statements

made

in relation

to contracts between parties

Freeman (1789) 3 T. R. 51, which is always looked upon as the origin of the modem action of Deceit, is, that the Court in that case allowed the action in circumstances which could not give rise to an action on contract, and thus finally settled the tortious character of the action of Deceit.
to the actions.
real novelty, then, in Pasley v.

The

After Pasley v. Freeman, the action became enormously popular as a means of evading the Statute of Fi:auds in cases which were really guarantees; and, after several broad hints from the Bench

Digitized

by Microsoft

538

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

was imposed in that numerous class of which the action was founded on a false representation as to character or credit (Statute of Frauds Amendment Act, 1828, s. 6). The rapid growth of commercial joint-stock cbmpanies in the middle of the nineteenth century, greatly enlarged the application of the action, which was successfully brought against the authors of fraudulent prospectuses; and, though the decision in Derry v. Peek (1889) L. R. 14 App. Ca. 337, put a stop to the extension of the action to negligent as distinguished from fraudulent misrepresentations, the principle laid down in Pasley v. Freeman remains law
the requirement of writing
cases in
to the present day.
is strictly

of Tort.

It should be carefully noted, that this Section confined to deceit as the basis of an independent action The effects of fraud and other forms of misrepresentation

as affording defences to actions of Contract, or as the basis of claims


to set aside conveyances or contracts, are stated in their proper

places ( 8r-86, 89-90, 221). Fraud by trustees, and so-called "frauds on powers," will be dealt with in the succeeding Book (Property). Fraud as an element in crime does not fall within the scope of this work.]
'

1028. In order
of action

to succeed in

an action of

De'ceit,

the plaintiff
tation
:

must prove with regard

to the represen

(i)

that,

it

was

as to a matter of fact,

and was

made by
Vernon
v.

the defendant or his agent;

Keyes (1810) 12 East, 632; afFd. in Error, 4 Taunt. 488. Lord Ebury (1872) L. R. 7 Ch. App. 777. Rainford v. Keith [1905] I Ch. 296.
Beattie v.

[A belief or an intention is as much a matter of fact for this purpose as anything else {Edgington v. Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch. D.,
at p. 483;

Angus

v. Clifford

[1891] 2 Ch., at pp. 470-1).]

(ii)

that

it

was made

to the plaintiff, or to a third

person with the intention and consequence


that
it

should be and was communicated to

the plaintiff;

Digitized

by Microsoft

DECEIT
Polhill V. Salter (1832) 3 B. Langridge v. Levy (1837) 2 M.

539
123.

& Ad., at p. & W. 519;

4 M.

& W.

337.

(iii)

that the defendant intended that the plaintiff

should act upon

it

in the

manner

in

which

he did act;
Langridge v. Levy (1837) 2 M. & W. 519; 4 M. & W. 337. Barry v. Croskey (1861) 2 J. & H. I (approved by the House of Lords Peek V. Gurney (1873) L. R. 6 H. L., at p. 412, per Cairns, C). Andrews v. Mockford [1896] I Q. B. 372.

in

(iv)

that

it

was

(i)

untrue to the knowledge of the

defendant, or (2) that the defendant had no


belief in its truth
Derry
v.

Angus

V. Clifford [1891] 2

Peek (1889) L. R. 14 App. Ca. 337. Ch. 449.


v.

[Lord Herschell, in Derry

Peek, at

p.
it

374, adds as a third

be true or false"; but immediately proceeds to explain that this is only an example of (2). No degree of negligence will render the defendant liable, if he had an honest belief in the truth of the representation.]
alternative, "recklessly, careless

whether

(v)
Attwood

that
V.

it

was believed by the

plaintiff to

be true

Small (1838) 6 CI.

&

F., at p.

448 (rescission of conveyance).

[It seems a little doubtful how far the knowledge of the plaintiff's agent will be attributed to the plaintiff for this purpose, especially if the agent was fraudulent (see Cowen v. Simpson (1795) i Esp. It 290, per Lord Kenyoq, C. J. ; and Partnership Act, 1890, s. 16). will not be so attributed if the knowledge of the agent was acquired when he was not acting as such (JVells v. Smith [1914] 3 K. B. 722).]

(vi)

that

it

was

in fact acted in

on by the

plaintiff in

the

manner

which

it

was intended by the


it

defendant that he should act upon

Digitized

by Microsoft

5^o

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

Jennings v. Broughion (^853) 17 Beav. 334. Smith V. Chadwick (1884) L. R. 9 App. Ca. 187. (There is some little doubt as to how far a jury, or the Court acting as a jury/ may draw inferences on this point.)

(vii)

that the plaintiff has suffered loss as the direct

consequence of acting on
Eastwood V. Bain (1858) 3 H. & N. 738. Barry v. Croskey (1861) 2 J. & H. I (adopted L. R. 14 App. Ca. 337).

it.

in

Derry

v.

Peek (1889)

[The
Olfaction

fact that other causes contributed to the plaintifF's course


is

immaterial;
v.

if

the false representation

was

a substantial

inducement {Tatton

^ade (1856)
459').]

18 C. B. 371;

Edgington

v.

Fitzmaurice (1884) 29 Ch. D.

Motive
immaterial

1029.

It is

not necessary, in an action of Deceit, to

show
any

that the defendant has

made, or intended

to

make,

profit

by the alleged

false misrepresentation,^*^ or
plaintiff.^''^

that he
(a)

had any

desire to injure the

v. Freeman (1789) 3 T. R. 51. Foster V. Charles (1830) 7 Bing. 105. Derry v. Peek (1889) L. R. 14 App. Ca., at p. 365. (b) Polhill V. Walter (1832) 3 B. Ad. 114.

Pasley

&

Peek

V.

Gurney

(1873.)

L; R. 6 H. L., at p. 410, per Lord Cairns.

Mode of representation

1030.

The

representation which

is

the ground of an

action of Deceit

may be made by
;

words, writing, signs,

or other conduct

^^^i

except that no action

may

be

brought to charge any person upon any alleged representation


as
to

the

character,

credit,

ability,

or

business of any other person,

made

to enable

such

Digitized

by Microsoft

DECEIT
other person to obtain credit, money, or
less
goods,^*")

541

un-

such alleged misrepresentation

is

made

in writing
("^

signed by the party to be charged therewith.


(a)

Moens

v.

Heyworth (1842) 10 M.

&

W.,

at p. 157, per

Parke, B.

[Suppressio vert may, of course, in this as in other cases, be equiva-

Dunsford (1801) I East, (1831) 8 Bing. 33 Peek v. Gurney (1873) L. at p. 392, per Chelmsford, C.)But no mere omission basis of an action of Deceit (Haycraft v. Creasy (1801)
lent to suggestio falsi {Eyre v.
bett V.

Brown

318; CorR. 6 H. L., can be the


2 East, at

p.

104, per

Lord Kenyon, C.

J.;

Pickering

v.

Dowson (1813) 4
Arkwright

Taunt. 778; Wilson


V.

Newbold (1881)
(b)

v. Fuller (1843) 3 Q. B. 68, 1009; 17 Ch. D. 301 (C. A.)).]

The wording

of this clause

in

the statute cited below

is

admittedly
(i

obscure.
1

M.

&

For the various possible W., at pp. 115, 123.

interpretations, see

Lyde

v.

Barnard

836)

(The Act does not (c) Statute of Frauds Amendment Act, 1828, s. 6. authorize signature by an agent; and it is on this account that a corporation aggregate cannot be sued on a fdlse representation as to credit (Swift v.
Jewsbury (1874) L. R. 9 Q. B. 301 Hirstv. ff^est Riding Banking Co. [1901] 2 K. B. 560). In Lyde v. Barnard (1836) I M. & W. loi, and Bishop v. Balkis Co. (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 77, 512, the members of the Court differed considerably on the question whether a representation which only indirectly affected the credit of the third party was within the statute.)
;

1031. The

fact that the plaintiff

might have

dis- Bona

fides

covered the falsity of the defendant's representation by

^ /"'"'""/

making independent
tion of Deceit;
if,

enquiries,

is

no answer

to

an ac-

in fact, the plaintiff honestly acted

upon the defendant's


Rawlins
Pearson
v.

representation.

Wickham
v.

(1858) 3

De G.

&

J. 304.

Venezuela Co.
v.

Kisch (1867) L. R. 2 H. L. 99 (rescission). Dublin Corporation [1907] A. C. 351 (where even a clause

in

a contract to the effect that the plaintiff

must

satisfy himself as to the facts,

and that the defendants should not be responsible ments, was held no bar to the action of Deceit).

for their agents' state-

Digitized

by Microsoft

S42
Plaintiff
gutlty of

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT

1032.

A plaintiff who has been induced by the fraudsuch


misrepresenta-

unlawful act

ulent misrepresentation of the defendant to do a criminal ^

or tortious act which, owing to


tion,

he did not

know

to

be criminal or tortious, and


is

has thereby suffered Joss,


lawful nature of his

not debarred by the unbringing an

own conduct from

action of Deceit against the defendant.


Burrows
v.

Rhodes [1899]

Q. B. 816.

[In this case the plaintiff

criminal offence.
see 738.]

Qucere

if

had not actually been convicted of any he had been. As to torts generally,

Fraud of
''^*"'

033.

principal

is

liable for the

fraud of his agent

committed in the circumstances specified in

77z;

even though he (the principal) derives no advantage

from

it.

See the cases quoted in "JJz, and add: Swire V. Francis {l%-Jj) L. R. 3 App. Ca. 106. George Whitchurch, Ld. v. Cavanagh [1902] A. C. 117. [In Udall V. Atherton (1861) 7 but there the principal
;

divided

H. & N. 172, the Court was equally had taken advantage of the agent's
it.]

fraud, though

he had not authorized

Fraud
ln"/ agent

1034.

principal

is

liable for a misrepresentation

made by
pressly or
false,

his agent

which he

(the principal) has exit

by implication authorized, knowing


its

to

be

or without belief in

truth;

even though the


fal-

agent acted in good faith and was unaware of the


sity

of the representation.

Digitized

by Microsoft

DECEIT
Cornfoot Parke, BB.
V.

543
and
l(contract).

Fowke (1849) 6 M.

& W.

358, per Alderson

National Exchange Co. v. Drew (1855) 2 Macq., at pp. 145-6, per Lord St. Leonards, C. Ludgater v. Ltrve (1881) 44 L. T. 694 (C. A.).

Fowke, uhi sup., the majority of the Court held where an innocent misrepresentation had been made by the plaintiff's agent, without the knowledge of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was not prevented from enforcing the contract, though, if he had in fact been aware of the misrepresentation, he would have known that it was false. But this case turned largely on the fornji of the pleadings, and the decision has been severely criticized {National Exchange Co. v. Drew, uhi sup., at p. 145; Piarson iff Son v. Dublin Corporation [1907] A. C, at pp. 357-8, pfr Lord Halsbury).]
[In Cornfoot v.

that

1035. {Semhle) a person


believes to be true, does not

who

rriakes,

bona

fide,
it,

Subsequent
^^I'^f'^^^u

representation which, at the time of

making

he

become

liable in an action

of Deceit to the person to


is

whom

the representation

made, merely on the ground

that, to the

knowledge
it

of the person making the representation,


quently becomes untrue, or
is

subse-

subsequently discovered
it

by the defendant

to have been untrue, before

is

acted upon by the person to


Arkwright
v.

whom

it

was made.

Newbold (1881)

17 Ch. D. 301 (C. A.).

[Probably, if the defendant can be held to have continued to affirm the statement after he discovered its untruth, e. g. by allowing the plaintiff to enter into a contract with him on the strength of the statement, the rule is the other way (Reynell v. Sprye (1852) i D. M.

&

G. 660; Brownlie

v.

Campbell (1880) L. R.

'5

App. Ca.,

at pp.

951-2)-]

1036. Every director of a company registered under


the

Directors'
''"^''"3'

Companies Act, 1908,

is

liable to

pay compensation

Digitized

by Microsoft

544

QUASI-CONTRACT AND TORT


who
subscribe for any shares or deben-

to all persons

tures

on the

faith of a prospectus, issued whilst he

was

a director, inviting sucl| subscriptions, for any

loss or

damage which they may


statement therein
of the means
Act, 1908.
;

sustain

by reason of any untrue by any


84 of the Companies

unless he can excuse himself

specified in section

similar liability attaches to every person

who has
named,
person
>;

authorized the naming of him, and

who

is

in such prospectus, as

having agreed to become

a director; as well as to every promoter, and to every

who has
sMt;M*
,

authorized the issue of such prospectus.


Companies Act, 1908,
s.

.-4'^;

84.

Digitized

by Microsoft

DECEIT

545

Note on the Treatment of Negligence


Negligence has already been dealt with
in

in this
the

Work
Part

General

( 728-734 inclusive); and the reader will look in vain for it among the specific torts. This has been deliberately adopted as the only

from being a specific tort, Negligence merely one of the commonest grounds of liability in specific torts. Putting aside the few cases, such as Malicious Prosecution and Deceit, where there is no liability without intentional wrong doing, there is no class of tort which cannot be committed negligently as well as intentionally, e. g. Trespass to the person {Scott y. Shepherd (1777) 2 W. B. 892, 3 Wils. 403; Leame V. Bray (1803) 3 East 593), Libel {Vizetelly v. Mudie [1900] 2 Q. B. 170). Conversely, every act which is a tort if committed negligently, will be equally a tort if committed intentionally. It would seem,
logical

arrangement.

So

far

in itself is not a tort at all,

but

is

then, that to classify Negligence


fication
specific contracts,

among

specific torts,

is

like a classi-

which should put contracts

for valuable consideration

among

such as Sale, Hire, and Insurance. It is true that, in some of the cases, we read of an " action for negligence" (e. g. Radley v. L. N. W. R. (1876) L. R. i App! Ca., at This is due to the fact that, excluding Trespass, and a few p. 759). of the actions (originally Actions on the Case) which received distinctive names, e. g. Libel, Trover, Deceit, &c., no systematic clasThere was sification of torts was attempted by the Common Law. no necessity to specify in pleading whether a special Action on the

Case was an action


or to

for

damage

to the person, or to the property,

by the wrong. All fell equally under the heading "Actions on the Case." But when it was recognized that (in the absence of intention) damage to the plaintiff was not a ground of liability, unless there was negligence on the part of the defendant, negligence came to be spoken of as the " gist of the action" (see Stanley v.Powell [1891] i Q. B., at p. 94) and an "action for negligence " became a common type of Action on the Case. The treatment of Negligence as a special kind of tort is therefore survival of a classification of torts based on the forms of action a a classification which has now disappeared in favour of a division based mainly on the nature of the interest affected and negligence has no logical place among torts divided into such classes as Torts
interest affected
;

some other

in

Respect of Property, the Person, the Reputation, and the like. The circumstances in which the Law of Torts imposes a duty

to take care, the failure to discharge

which amounts to negligence,

T2

Digitized

by Microsoft

546
will be
if"

QUASI-CONTRACT* AND TORT

found dealt with in the above referred to, and particularly This Part of the work does not deal with Negligence in the performance of contracts or in the administration of trii^its really by far the larger part of the law of Negligence. Still less does it deal with Negligence regarded as an element in criminal liability.
731^

Digitized

by Microsoft

BOOK III PROPERTY


A LAND
SECTION
I

INTERESTS IN LAND

TITLE
1037.
Interests

GENERAL
by English
interests
'" ^"""^

in

land recognized

Law

are either (a) estates in possession or expectancy,

or (b) interests less than estates.


session
s.

An

estate in pos[ante,

is

'corporeal hereditament'

Bk.

I,

39)['

were, originally, those interests which i. e. possession of the land as by a free tenant. By virtue of the doctrine of tenure, each of them was deemed to have been originally created by way of a feudal gift (" feoffment ") by a superior (" lord ") to an inferior (" tenant "), to hold upon terms of service. This principle of tenure, which still colours the general character of English Land Law, and is the
'

Corporeal hereditaments

carried seisin of the freehold,

some otherwise inexplicable peculiarities, was, originally, no less a principle of government than of ownership. It was based on the theory that every acre of land in the kingdom was possessed by a tenant who could be held responsible to his lord, and, ultimately, to the Crown, for any services and other liabilities due in
origin of

respect of it. Consequently, a corporeal hereditament could only be conveyed by notorious transfer or taking of seisin ; and the

Digitized

by Microsoft

548

LAW OF PROPERTY

terms " seisin " and " corporeal hereditament " became ultimately, about Littleton's time, co-extensive. Though at first the King's Courts recognized only seisin of a free tenement, i. e. under free tenure, seisin " according to the custom of the manor" came in with the recognition of the interest of the copyholder in the sixteenth century. The term " seisin " was not extended to the estate for years ; because the latter was at first regarded as a merely contractual or chattel interest. But, ultimately, though it is still regarded as a chattel interest, the term " estate," and the general doctrine of tenure, were extended also to the tejm of years, which now ranks as a ' corporeal hereditament,'~though it does not descend to heirs, and, not being a freehold, is not the subject of seisin.]

Estates

1038.
are
:

The

estates

recognized by English
estates tail,

Law
(iii)

(i)

estates in fee simple, (ii)


life, (iv)

according to the custom of a manor, (" copyholds " ,and " customary
estates

for

estates

held

freeholds"), (v) estates for years,

(vi) estates

at will.

Estates rank in point of size in the order

named.W

An

estate for the life

of the tenant

is

greater than

an estate pur autre


(a)
It is difficult to find
it is

viefi^

(b)

any express authority for this proposition; but statements of real property law. Any attempt to create an estate in defiance of this order would, before 1 845, at least if made by feoffment, have incurred a forfeiture. There was an exception in the case of a tenant-in-tail, e, g. a life or any estate created out of an estate tail was merely defeasible on the death of the creator ; unless made under the provisions of the Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833 {Goodright v. Meade (1765) A lease for longer than a year by a copyholder 3 Burr. 1704). requires, in the absence of special custom, the licence of the lord of the manor {Jactman v. Heddesden (1594) Cro. Eliz. 351.) Slade V. Pattison (1834) j L.J. Ch., at p. 57, /^r Bosanquet, L. C.
implied in
all

Snow

V. Boycott

[1892]

Ch.,

at p.

115.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERESTS IN LAND
1039.
. .

549

By

virtue of his tenancy, every

an estate in possession
(i)

is

owner of

Liabilities

of tenant '

must, unless he

a tenant in
{^post.

frankalmoigne

or merely at will

Tit. VII), take the


(if

oath of fealty to his lord

demanded)

the liability to take

[In practice, the oath of fealty is always " respited " ; but, semhle, it is the origin of forfeiture by disclaimer {post, (iii)). The tenant at will is not bound to do fealty (Co. Litt. 63 a) ;

nor the tenant in frankalmoigne

{ibid.,

95 b).]

(ii)

must render the

services reserved at the

creation of the estate


tenant is liable to be sued for rent service, even though no express contract to pay (32 Hen. VIII (1540) c. 37"; Wadham v. Marlowe (1785) 8 East, 3i4n.; Hardon v. Hesketh (1859) 4 H. & N. 175); and also for rent reserved in a lease at will, though that is not rent service (Litt. s. 72).]
is

[The

there

(iii)

must not disclaim (on pain of


his

forfeiture

of

tenement) the relation of tenure ex-

pressed to be created by the grant of the


estate
Graves
case that
(It would seem by this V. Wells (1839) 10 A. & E. 427. some unequivocal act, e. g. a claim on record, or attorning

to a stranger, is required as evidence

of the disclaimer.)
s.

provisions of the Cohveyancing Act, 1881, no application to forfeiture occasioned by disclaimer.]

[The

14, have

(iv)

is

estopped, so long as he remains in pos-

session

of the land, from denying in legal


title

proceedings that his lord had some

Digitized

by Microsoft

55

LAW OF PROPERTY
to grant the interest

fessed to grant ("


Nepean
L.
v.

which sueh lord proestoppel by tenure")


626.
P. 553.

Budde (i8zz)

5 B.

& Aid.

& N. W. Ry. Cei. V. ff^est (1867) L. R. 2 C. fFeeh v. Birch (1894769 L. T. 759.

[But a tenant

who

admits the grant

may show

that the lord's

interest has since expired ("

No estoppel

where an

interest passes").]

(v)

must pay, by way of

relief,

on succeeding
equal to the

to the estate as heir, a

sum

value, in the case of a freehold tenant, of

one
of
a

year'si rent

(if any), or, in

the case

copyhold tenant,
;

sum

fixed

by the

custom of the manor


28 Edv(t.
tain.)
I (
1

300)
91
a.

St.

I, c. 4.,

(The

date of

tliis

statute is uncer-

Co.

litt.

Co. Cop. 32.


contribute by way of aid to ransom the lord's war was not expressly abolished by the Act of 1660 (12 Car. II, c. 24), which swept away most feudal liabilities; but, if it ever attached to socage tenure, which is doubtful, it has

[The

liability to

body- captured in

long been
years.]

obsolete.

It

never attached to copyholds or terms of

Incidents of

1040.

By

virtue of his reversion, every

owner of
estate

reversion

an

estate in possession out


:

has been created


(i)

of which a smaller

may

distrain, in

manner permitted
all

or pro-

vided by law, for

rent service due from

the tenant of such smaller estate in re-

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERESTS IN LAND

55

spect thereof/*) and for all reliefs payable

therefor
(a)
Litt. 8.

W
may
also distrain for a yearly rent,
s.

226. (A though such rent


s.

lessor at will
is

not rent service (Litt.

72; Co.

Litt.

57 b).)

(b)

Litt.

127.

[Presumably, the reversioner cannot distrain unless the tenant or has been in possession of the land; e. g. the creator of a life estate in remainder <:ould not distrain until the remainder had taken
is

effect in possession.]

(U)

may

seize,

on the death

of^,

his tenant's

ancestor or predecessor, or distrain for (as

the case
decessor's

may
best

be)

the ancestor's or preor

beast

other

chattel

("heriot"), in accordance with custom


or reservation
Y. B. 21 Hen. VII (1505) Hil.
pis.

15, 24.

'Major V. ,3randwerd\{i6'i6)'Qro. Car. -260. Austen v. Bennet (1693) i Salic. 356. 'Edwards -v. 'Mosiley (1740) 'Willes, 192. DamerelH. Protherce (1847) 10 Q. B. 20.

Western

v. Bailey

[1896]

Q.

B., at p. 2 J 8.

may be seized or discustomary earn orily be seized (Woodland v: Mantel (1552) Plowd. 94; Odihani v. Smith {isg;^) Cro. Eliz. 589, and Moore, 540 ; Randall v. Scory (1633) Cro. Car. 313.) Seizure may take place anywhere; distress only on the land in respect of which the heriot is due (Justin v. Bennet, ubi sup.
[Heriot-service, at any rate if ancient,
heriot

trained for;

The right to seize heriots v. Bailey [1897] i Q. B. 86). not barred by lapse of time under the Limitation Acts (Lord In the case of Zouchev. Dalbiac (1875) L. R. 10 Exch. 172). years terminable hy lives, a heriot may be reserved on an estate for the dropping of the lives (Williams v. Burrell (1845) i C. B. 402 ; E. of Mount Edgecumhe v. Commrs. of Inland Revenue [191 1] 2 K. B. 24) and in the case of an estate for a fixed term of years,
Western
is

on the death of a tenant or the alienation of the term Packham (1868) L. R. 4 Ch. App. 190).]

{Pickett v.

Digitized

by Microsoft

5S2
(iii)
is

LAW OF PROPERTY
estopped, in like

manner
his

as his tenant,

so

long

is

he

claims

reversionary

estate,

from denying

in legal proceedings
title,

that he, or his predecessor in

had

some

right to grant the estate

which he

professed to grant (" estoppel by tenure ").


Corporation of Canterbury s. Oo/^r (1908) 99 L. T. 613. (This however, shows that the doctrine of estdppel' cannot be emto validate a lease

case

ployed

void by statute.)

[The

reversioner has also the rights specified in

Book

II, Part II,

838, 839, 851, ante:\

Merger

1041.

Whenever an
is

estate in

land

is

vested in

any person and


estate in the

immediately followed by a larger

same land, which becomes vested W in the same person in the same right,^'') the smaller
estate

1067) absorbed in the larger (" merger ");W unless it was the intention of the
is

(subject to

person conveying or acquiring either of


their

them

that

separate
it is

existence should

be maintained, or

unless

for the advantage of the person in

whom

the estates are vested that they should continue to


exist separately.
(a)
(""^

If one

is

vested and the other contingent, there

is

no merger

(5</*'

(b)

ford^s Case (16(59) ^ ^^P- 73 ^)' (In this case some little Jones v. Davies (i86r) 7 H. & N, 507. doubt was expressed by the Court as to whether estates in different rights did not inerge at law, if the merger

by the

acts

of the parties.
s.

ture Act,

1873,

was brought about But, since the passing of the Judica25 (below), this question has had only an
'
<

historical interest.)'

:>

(c)

Re RadcHffe [1892J

Ch. 227.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERESTS IN LAND

553

[A longer term may even merge in a shorter ; if the latter is expectant in reversion upon the former, and both become vested in the same person {^Stephens v. Bridges (1821) 6 Madd. 66).]
(d) Judicature Act, 1873,
s.

25 (4).
2

A. G.

V.

Kerr (1840)

survive, though the fee

Beav. 420 (where a had been vested in the

lease
lessee

was held to
for (appar-

ently) half a century).

Vaughan Jenkins [1900] 2 Ch., at p. 370. Capital and Counties Bank v. Rhodes [1903] i Ch. 652. Lea V. Thursby [1904] 2 Ch. 57.
Ingle v.

[The

legal estate

doctrine of merger applies also to (a) coalescence of the and the corresponding equitable interest in the same

land (Re Douglas (1884) 28 Ch. D. 3275 Re Seleus [1901J i Ch, 921), (b) coalescence of a charge and the estate on which it is

charged {Re French-Brewster" s Settlements [1904 J i Ch. 713; Re Hole [1906] 1 Ch. 673; and Re Gibbon [1909] i Ch. 367, Butler V. Rice [19 10] 2 Ch. 277), (c) coalescence of a higher with a lower There is no coalescence obligation {ante, Bk. II, Part I, 345). of a true estate tail or a base fee with the estates immediately expectant thereon {Stafford's Case (1609) 8 Rep., at 75a; Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833, s. 39; Re Dunsany's Settlement [1906] i The extinguishment of satisfied terms under the Ch., at p. 582). Satisfied Terms Act, 1845, is very like merger; but the word is not It was argued in Playford v. Hoare (1829) 3 Y. used in the statute. at p. 180, by Mr. Preston, of counsel for the successful deJ., fendant, that an estate for life executed by the Statute of Uses will Sed quarel\ never merge in a remainder at the common law.

&

1042.

Interests in land less than estates recognized

interests

les\

by English
and
(ii)

Law

are

(i)

franchises, easements, profits,

advowsons, tithe rent charges, other rent charges,


offices

("hereditaments

purely incorporeal"),
(iii)

customary rights over land,

equitable in-

terests,

and

(iv)

tenancies at sufferance and adverse

possession.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
Fee simple
is

II

FREEHOLD

ESTATES IN FEE SIMPLE


is an estate which Land Transfer Act,

1043.

An

estate in fee simple

descendible (subject to the


^-

1897,

i) to heirs

general of any degree, lineal or

collateral, in
Co.
Litt.
I

due order of inheritance.


(At the

b.

common

heirs of the person last seised.

law, the estate was descendible to the By the Inheritance Act, 1833, s. z,
'

December, 1833, de"purchaser" (i. e. the person who last acquired the estate otherwise than by descent) but the Law of Property Amendment Act, 1859, s. '9 make? the statement in the text correct. There is no restriction of remoteness. Such an estate is, obviously, capable of enduring indefinitely. The provisions of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, s. i, have no application
the estate, on intestacy occurring since 31st
first

scends, in the

instance, to the heirs. of the

to the beneficial interest in the land (ibid.

s.

2 (2).)

Cannot be
created

1044.

No new

estate in fee simple

can be created

otherwise than by the

Crown W
;

by the following methods,


(i)

viz.

except (possibly)

Dy

the

enfranchisement

of a copyhold

tenement, or by the grant by the lord

of a manor of parcel of the waste

{posi^

(ii)

109 IV, 1 1 06-1 II 6). by the barring of an estate


enlargement of a base fee

tail,

or by the

[post,

1057,

io65).W
(iii)

by the enlargement of

a long

term under

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES IN FEE SIMPLE

555

the provisions of the Conveyancing Act,


1

88 1
I, c.

{post, iiS5).(^)
I

(a)

18

Edw,

{Quia Emptor es).

This enactment, despite,

its

ancient date

and

teclmical cliaracter, has important practical con-

sequences
(b) It
is,

at

the present day.


to argue that, in these

of course, possible
is

operations,

no new

fee simple,
is

created;

and

that, the estate

of the lord or reversioner

merely transferred.

But, in that case, incun^branpes affecting


;

the latter would, semble, attach to the estate of the transferee

which can hardly have been intended. And, moreover, the doctrine of the text is supported by judicial authority {Lord Lilford V. A. G. (1867) L. R. z H. L., at p. 70, per Lord Chelmsford, C, ; Re Trevaaia/i [1910] z Ch. 538).

1045.

An

estate

in

fee

simple

is

transferred to Words of
""*'"*""'

an individual or individuals, in an assurance by deed, by the use of the words " and his heirs " after the

name of

the transferee,^ or by a limitation to the

heirs of a

named perSon,W

or, in the case

of deeds

executed after 31st December, 1881, by a limitation


to the transferee

" in fee simple."

In a testamentestator's

tary disposition, any

words signifying the


and,

intention to devise such an estate will suffice, in point

of form, to do so
real estate

where there

is

a devise of

without words of

limitation,,

Such devise

will be construed to pass the fee simple, or other the

whole

estate or interest

which the
in

testator

had power

to dispose of

by testament

such real

estate, unless

a contrary intention appears


(a)
Litt. s.
I

by the testament. W

(b)
(c)

Inheritance Act, 1833, s. 4. Conveyancing Act, 1 881,

s.

51.

(The

alternative

expression

allowed by the Act

is

technical, and must be strictly followed.

Digitized

by Microsoft

SS6
;
,

LAW OF PROPERTY
{Ethel's
'

,a4.

Mitchell's and Butler's

Contract .[igoi"]

Ch.

'

\ (d) Mannex y. Greener (iSyz) L. R. 14 Eq.^56. Crumpe V. Crumpe [1900] A. C. 127. (e)"' Wills' Act, 1837,8. 2?. (The statute only applies
'

945)-)

"

to wills exe-

'

cuted, revived, or republished, after 31st


wills of an earlier date,
it

December, 1837.

In

was necessary,

in order to pass a fee

simple, to
devise his

iise some expression showing the testator's intention to whole estate (Gatenby v. Morgan\\%^(>) 1 Q. B. D
'

68s).)

,:

Gimtor^'
corporation

1046.

In, an assurance by deed to a corporation

aggregate, no special words are necessary to transfer


a. fee, simple ^

in an assurance
.

by deed
a

to

cor-

poration sole, the words ," a:nd his successors" are


necessary an4 sufficipnt to convey
Semble,
in a devise to a
is

fee

simple. W

corporation sole, the pre-

suniption

^he same as in the case of a devise to


(^f?;^,

an individu,alj
(a)
!)
:

io45).('')

Co. Litt. 8 b, 94b; E. p. Vicar of Castle Bytham [1895] I Ch. (But it is said that a gift "in frankalmoigne," or "in free 348. alms," to a religious corporation sole, passes a fee simple without It is the better opinion, that s. 51 of the word "successors." the Conveyancing Act, 1 881, has no application to conveyances
to corporations.)

(b)

Wills Act, 1837, to, any person "

of the section are "devised of "person " in the Act. (See Interpretation Act, 1889, s. 19, which, however, does not apply to the Wills Act, 1837.)
8.
;

z8.

The words
is

and there

no

definition

[Of course,

all

the Rule, against jiyiortniain. passing, to the corporation.]

assurances of land to corporations are subject to But this does not prevent the property

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES IN FEE SIMPLE


1047.

557
sell

Where one

person contracts to
is,

land

Contract
^"'^'

to another, the vendor

in the absence of expres-

sions or other circumstances to the contrary,


to

bound

convey an

estate in fee simple.

{AnU, Bk.

II, Pt. I,
,,.^,,...,

421(b).)
Hughes
V.

Kitchen v.

Parker (1841) M. & W. 244. Palmer (1877) 46 L. J. Ch. 611.

J*
i'');'i
.:

ni ^iiifi
:

lot

-,

;';;:,-fi j-flt;

1048.

person

who

is

in possession of land

is

Presumption

presumed, unless the contrary appears,' to be spised f'""" in fee simple of the land. ilqni,,
Wallwyn v. Lee (1803) 9 Ves., at p. 31, per Peaceable y. Watson (1811) 4 Taunt. 16. Doe V. Penfold (1838) 8 C. & P. 536.
'

Lqrd Eldon, C.
'

ju; 3}

"Hi
.

Busher v. Thompson (1846) 4 C. B., at 'p. 59, per Colt^ian, J. Asher v. Whitlock (1865) L. R. i Q. B., at p. 6, per Mellor,
. . >

,. '
'
,

J.'
I

>

'
'

1049.

Subject to his

liabilities

towards the public

Rights of

and towards his neighbours


II),

{post, Spct. II, Tit. I

and

fge

^simple

and to any

liabilities

by covenant or agreement
title,

undertaken by himself or his predecessors^ in

and binding on him


Ill,

at

law or in equity
any franchises,
possession

{pQst, Sect.

Tit.

II),

and
Tit.

to

easements,

or profits

{post.

IX) affecting the land, the


is

tenant

in

fee

simple in

entitled

to

treat the land,

and everything therein and thereon,


a tenant

in

any manner that he pleases; except that

in fee

simple subject to a valid executory limitation

Digitized

by Microsoft

558
over

LAW OF PROPERTY
may be
restrained
'LI,

from committing equitable


234.

waste (/oj/. Sect.


Turner
Blalie V. Petirs

Tit. III).

v. Wright' {i%(io) 2

(1863)

De G. F. & De G. J. & S.

J.

34.5.

(Here the

restriction

was by the

settlor.)

s. 25 (3) has no application to tenPresumably, therefore, the Gguct cannot award damages for equitable waste against such persons} except as a discretionary alternative under the Chancery Amendment Act, 1858, s. 2.]

[The

Judicature Act, 1873,

ants in fee.

Alienation of

1050.
simple
it

Subject

to,

tfbe

law relating to

trusts

knd

fee simp

mortgages, the beneficial owner of an estate in fee

may

transfer his estate, or


estate

may

create out of
;

any smaller

recognized by the law

except

that an estate to be held according to the


a mafapr can only be created

Gustom of

by virtue of the custom

of the manor, and


conditions.

on the customary terms and


condition, covenant, proviso, or

W Any
fee

limitation providing for the cesser or forfeiture of

an

estate in

simple upon alienation generally,

whether voluntary or involuntary, W and whether


within a
litiiited

period or

indefiniteiy,<'*) is void;^'')

but an estate in fee simple


alienable only to
(a)

may

{semble)

be made
class.^*^)

members of

a limited

I (1290) c. I {Quia Emptores). The secoMd power is consequence of the general principle of tenure {ante, 1037, n.) It is difficult to find any express authority for it ; but it is the basis of ordinary practice. (b) Ifewman y. Newman, {i-jSo) 2 Wils. 125. R. V. Hornchurch (1818) 2 B. & Aid. 189. Rayer v. Strickland (1842) 2 Q. B. 79-2. (c) Re Uacbtt\\%%z) 21 Ch. D. 858. (d) Re 'Rosher (1884) 26 Ch. D. 801.

i8^dw.
a

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES IN FEE SIMPLE


(e)
Litt.
s.

559

360.

(f)

Re Dugdale (1888) 38 Ch. D. 176. Carbett v. Corbett (1888) 13 P. D. 136; 14 P. D. 7. Re Mackay (1875) L. R. 20 Eq. 186. (But this decision was siverely criticised by Pearson, J., in Re Rosher, ubi sup.)

Re
,

Dligdale, ubi sup., at p. 179, per Kay, J.

[It is a little doubtful whether the rule laid down by this might not be evaded by a skilful use of a conditional limitation, e. g. " to

and

his heirs to hold until" (the prohibited event happens).

See

expressions of Chitty, J., in Re Machu, ubi sup., at. p. 842, and of Kay, J., in Re Dugdale, ubi sup., at p. 181. An equitable fee simple so limited has, in fact, been recognised, though without serious discussion {Re Leach [1912] 2 Gh. 422).]

1051.

Any

attempt on the part of a transferor

Attempted

of an estate in fee simple to arrange for the disposal

I'^H"'""

of the estate after the death of the transferee, in the


event of the latter not having disposed of
lifetime,
is

it

in his

void.
Vaux
(1746) 8 D. M.

Gulliver v.

&

G. 167, n.

Holmes v. Godson (1856), ibid. Re Dixon [1903] 2 Ch. 458. Re Hanbury [1904] I Ch. 415. Re Crutchley [1912] 2 Ch. 335.

152.

[Such provision would,


for the transferee.]

in

effect,

be an attempt to make a will

1052.

fee simple
restricting

may be made
its

determinable

Determi"''ipi{"

by any words
period vrhich

duration to an uncertain

may come

to an

end by the happening


failure

of a contingency other than the of the person to

of the heirs
is

whom

the fee simple

limited.

The owner of a
rights as the

fee simple determinable has the


estate in fee

same

owner of an ordinary

simple

Digitized

by Microsoft

S6o

LAW OF PROPERTY
;

(" fee simple absolute ")

except that his estate will

terminate, ipso facto, on the happening of the con-

tingency which puts an end to the period fpr which


it

was
(a)

limited.^')
Case of J.
Poole
S. (1585) i Leon. 33. x.Nedham (1608) Yelv. 149.

Edward
Ayres
(b)
V.

Seymor's Case (161 2) 10 Rep. 97 b.

Lilford's Case

(1614)

11 Rep.

49

a.

Falkland (16^1') L. Raympnd, 326, /^r Curiam. Bagshaw v. Spencer (1748) i Ves. Sen. 142. Mary Portington's Case (16 13) 10 Rep. 42 a.
last is

[This

the essential distinction between a

fe.e

simple de-

terminable and a fee simple absolute to which a condition subsequent is annexed. The latter estate is not determined until the

breach of condition

and this point may be important For the apby lapse of time. propriate words for each kind of limitation, see" Coke's remarks in the decision last quoted ; but see also the remarks of Lord Hardis

enforced

in relation to the barring of rights

wicke, in Shields

v.

^tiins (1747)

3 Atk.,

at p.

563.

There

is

considerable dispute as to the proper legal description of the de-

terminable fees simple which are the subject of this ; but the expression would seem to be conveniently applicable to all fees descendible to heirs general which are liable to expire by the hap-

pening of any external contingency. The most common example of such fees is that conveyed by the limitation contained in a strict settlement to the settlor and his heirs until the celebration of the intended marriage.]

Intermittent

1053.

fee simple
i.

cannot be
e.

limited
it

to

take

fee

smp

gffgct intermittently,

to revive after

has once

determined (" desultory limitation").


Co.
Litt.

27

a,

and Hale's note.


at p.

Corbet's Case

(1599) i Rep. 87. The Prince's Case (1605) 8 Rep.,

17

a.

[The well-known exception of the Duchy of Cornwall under the express provisions of an Act of Parliament.]

is

limiteJ

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
1054.
ible

III

ESTATES
owner

TAIL
is

An

estate tail is
its

an estate which

descend-

Estate tail

to all the lineal issue of the original donee, or of a person who was his
lineal ancestor, in
tail

on the death of

due order of inheritance


in

(" estate

general"),

or,

due order,
a

to all the lineal

issue

of such

person by

particular

husband or
class

wife or by a
or
description

husband or wife of a specified


("estate
tail

special"), or
lineal
tail

to

and

through the male or female


person or persons (" estate in

of such male " (or " feissue

male") "general"

(or "special ")).


Conditionalihus').

13 Edw. I (1285) c. I {De Donis Co. Litt. 9 1 et seq. Page V. Hayviard (1704) 2 Salk. 570.

Re Mountgarrett [1919]
[In the case of a
gift to

2 Ch. 294.

where such person takes no


by
s.

the heirs of the body of a named person, interest, the estate will be inheritable

all the issue, answering the description, of the named person, not merely by the issue of the first taker (Inheritance Act, 1833,

4).]

1055.
tation, in

An

estate tail general

is

created by a limi-

General and
'^^""

an assurance by deed,

to the

donee " and

the heirs of his body,"

or,

in the case of deeds

executed after 31st December, 1881, to the donee " in tail." W An estate tail special is created in an
assurance by deed by a limitation to the donee " and

Digitized

by Microsoft

562

LAW OF PROPERTY

the heirs of his (her) body by his (her) wife (husband) " (naming or describing, such wife or husband).^"^

An

estate in tail

male (or female)


of his body
";(*)

is

created by a

limitation in a deed to the donee

"and
or, in

the heirs

male

(or female)

the case

of deeds executed after 31st December, 1881, to the donee "in tail male" (or " female ").W Any of such kinds of estate
in any
tail

may be

created by a devise

words from which: the

testator's intention, to

('^^ create such kind of estate can be gathered.

(a)

In Littleton's day,
or

it was necessary to add the word " begotten,"' some equivalent; but by Coke's time, the word had become' There seems to have been a unnecessary (Co. Litt. 20 b). good deal of uncertainty at one time about the orthodox " words of procreation." (See Butler's & Hargrave's notes to same

passage.)

(b)" Conveyancing Act, 1881,


(c)

s,

51.

Co.

Litt.

20

b.

(d)
(e)

Ibid.

24 a.

(f)

Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. Ji. (There appears to be no statutory form of creating an estate tail special.) Lord Ossulston's Case (1708) 3 Salk. 336 ("heirs males "). Fernony. Wright (1858) 7 H. L. C. 35. Mannox v. Greener (1872) L. R, 14 Eq. 456. Petham-Clittton v. D. of Newcastle [1902] i Ch. 34.

[A grant to a corporation sole and the heirs of its body would probably be held evidence of an intention to grant an estate tail to
the donee in his
estate

individual capacity, at

least

so

far

as the legal

was concerned. carefully remembered

it must be by the well-known resolution in WiWs Case (1599) ^ Rep. 16 b, a devise to a man and his "children" or " issue " does not confer on the first taker an estate tail if either

On

the last clause of the text,

that,

(a)

there

is

children or issue to take by


tion

evidence in the will that the testator intended the way of remainder or executory limita-

{Re 'Jones [1910] i Ch. 167)^ or (b) the devise is capable, by reason of the fact that children or issue of the first taker were living
of
the' devise,

at the date
V.

Byng (1862) 10 H. L. C. 171.) Under the

of being, held to pass a joint estate {Byng old law, the joint devi-

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES TAIL

563

sees in this case usually took only life estates. ' Now, under s. 28 of the Wills Act, 1837, they will, usually, take the whole interest of the testator.]

1056.

The

tenant in

tail

in

possession has the


as

Rights of
tenant in
tail

same rights

to possession

and user of the land

the

tenant in fee simple {ante, 1049); W except that a tenant in tail special whose spouse is dead leaving no surviving issue inheritable under the entail ("tenantin-tail

after

possibility

of issue extinct")

may be

restrained
(a)

from committing
2243.
Partington's Case

equitable wraste.W

Co.

Lite.

(b)

(1614) 10 Rep., at 39 a. Savily. Savil {17 ij) 11 Vin. Ab. 154. Turner v. Wright (i860) 2 De G. F. & J., at ,p. 247, per Lord Campbell, C. Before the Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25 (3), a tenant in tail after possibility could not be sued in tort for waste Quare : since (^Williams v. Williams (18 to) 12 East, 209.
the Act).

Mary

1057.

An

estate tail

cannot be transferred by act


tail in possession,

Barring
'"'"'^

of the

parties/^)

But any tenant in

and any tenant


tail

in tail entitled to the remainder or

reversion in fee immediately expectant on his estate


(not being a tenant in
tail

after possibility

of

issue extinct, C") or a tenant in

tail

whose

estate tail

was originally granted by the Crown


in the Crown)(')

for services
is

rendered, and the reversion or remainder whereof

may

convert his estate


in

tail

into a fee

simple by a deed enrolled

the

High

Court, in

Digitized

by Microsoft

564

LAW OF PROPERTY
and a tenant in
as aforesaid)
tail

manner provided by the Fines and Recoveries Act,


1833;^'')

in remainder (not being

such tenant

may, with the consent of the


tail

protector of the settlement,^') so convert his estate


into a fee simple or any less estate. W

Any condition,

covenant, proviso, or limitation forbidding such conversion, or providing for the cesser or forfeiture of an
estate tail
(a)

upon such conversion,


Newman (1635)
Cro. Car.,
s.

is void.(s)

Stone v.

at p.

428, per Curiam.

(b)
(c)

Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833,

18.

34 and 35 Hen. VIII (1542) c. 20, ss. i, 2. Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833, s. 18 ; A.-G. v. D. of Richmond [1907]- 2 K. B. 940.
Ibid.
Ibid.
s.
s.

(d)
(e)

3.

34.
1

(f)

Ibid. ss.

5 and' 21.

(For definition of protector, see post, 1059.) (The consent may be given by a deed which
it
;

does not expressly state

if

it

is

clear that the protector in-

(g)

remaindermen to be barred (^Re Wilmer' s Trusts [1910] 2 Ch. III).) Corbet's Cast (1600) 1 Rep. 84. Mildmay' s ,Case (1606) 6 Rep. 40 a. Mary Partington's Case (1614) 10 Rep. 35 a. Dawkins v. Lord Penrhyn (1878) L. R. 4 App. Ca., at p. 6\,per Lord Penzance.
tended the

Base fee

1058.

disentailing assurance

executed, under

the provisions of the Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833, by a tenant in tail not in possession, and not entitled
to the remainder or

reversion
tail,

in

fee immediately

expectant on his estate

without the consent of


(if any), limits a base
is

the protector of the settlement


fee to the person in

whose favour the assurance


issue

executed. W

Such base
of the

fee will ipso facto terminate


in tail;

on the

failure

unless in the

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES TAIL
meantime
it

565
fee

has been enlarged into a

simple

absolute under the provisions of the Fines and


coveries Act,
(a)

Re-

133

[post,

065

).('')

Edward Seymor's Case (161 2) 10 Rep. 98 a. Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833, ss. 22 and 34. (b) Ibid. s. 19.
is,

[The

principle of the base fee

that

it

lasts so

long only as the

Thus, if of the person creating it would have lasted. there is a limitation in remainder to A and the heirs male of his body, and B, who has inherited the estate as A's eldest son, conveys, without the consent of the protector, to C and his heirs by enrolled conveyance under the Act, C's estate, unless enlarged, A base ceases with the failure of A's issue male through males. fee is a fee simple determinable (^Edward Seymor^s Case, ubi sup.).']
estate tail

1059.

The

protector of the settlement, for the

Protector of

purposes of 1058, means either (i) the person or persons appointed (not exceeding three in number

^'" '"'^"

and not being


such,W or
(ii)

aliens ( 73))

by the

settlor to act as

failing such

person or persons, the

person or persons appointed under any pow^er in the


settlement in place of such of the persons appointed
or

by the

settlor as shall
(iii)

die

by deed relinquish

office,^ or

failing

any such person or persons,

the person or persons entitled by the settlement to the


first

subsisting beneficial estate

in the land (being

an estate for years determinable on the dropping of


a life or lives, or lease
at

any greater

estate,

and not being a


that

rent),W notwithstanding

any such

person or persons has or have alienated or encum-

bered such

estate.

Digitized

by Microsoft

566
(a)

LAW OF PROPERTY
Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833, s. 32. (The deed of relinquishment must be enrolled as a disentailing Ibid.
assurance.)
Ibid.

(b)

(c)

s.

25.
(^h.

Re Dudson's Contract (1873) 8 Re Hughes [1906] 2 Ch. 642.


(d)
(e)

D. 6z8.
26.

Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833, Ibid. s. 22.

s.

[It appears to be clear, from the provisions of s. 32, that, upon an estate tail coming into possession, the powers oi any specially appointed protector cease as regards such estate ; though they may continue as to subsequent estates tail.]

Estates not

1060.

No

dowrcss, bare trustee, heir, executor,

'protect7r%ip

administrator, or assign

becomes protector of

a settle-

ment by

virtue of

any

estate

taken in such capacity.


s.

Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833,

27.

[Trustees directed to accumulate rents until a tenant in tail ' protectors ' of such estate tail ; and. such tenant in tail can create a fee simple by enrolled deed without their consent [Re Trevanion [1910] 2 Ch. 538).]
reaches a given age are not

Supple-

mentary
protectors

excluded under 1060 from being protector of the settlement, the owner
1061.

When

any person

is

or owners of the next estate of the kind described


in

1059 will be protector of the settlementlW If the protector is of unsound mind (whether so found
not), the

by inquisition or

Lord Chancellor, or other

the person or persons for the time being entrusted

by the King's sign manual with the custody of the persons and estates of persons of unsound mind, is

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES TAIL
protector of the settlement.^
If the

567
protector
is

convicted of treason or felony/'^) or (being a person

nominated by the
infant, or if it
is

settlor to act as protector)

is

an

uncertain whether he

is

alive or

dead, or if the person


titled

who would

otherwise be en-

by virtue of

his estate to

be protector has been

excluded by the
in

settlor,

but no substitute appointed

his stead, or

if for

any other reason there


estate,

is

no protector existing by virtue of such


protector of the settlement.
(a)
(""^

the
is

Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice

Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833,


Ibid.
s.

s.

28.

(b)

(c)

33. Lunacy Act, 1890, s. 108. The case of the convict, though stated,

is, by a slip of the draftsman, not provided for by the section (33). The omission must be rectified by implication (^Re Wainewrigbt (1843) i Phill.

258).
(d)

Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833,

s.

33.

1062.

The
tail,

protector of the settlement, in giving

Discretion

or withholding his

consent to a disposition by the

'fP'""^'""'

tenant in
tion,

acts
as

according to his absolute discrea trustee.


it is

and not

Any

device, shift, or

contrivance, by

which

attempted to control the

free exercise of the protector's discretion,

whether

imposed by the
tector himself,
is

settlor or entered into

by the pro-

void.
ss.

Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833,

36, 37.

Digitized

by Microsoft

S68
Joint
protectors

LAW OF PROPERTY
Where two
or

1063.

more persons
estate

are the pro-

tector of the settlement,

by virtue of the ownership


of the kind described of
sole protector in respect

of undivided shares in an
in 1059, each of

them
as

is

such undivided share

he could dispose of.W

Where
settlor as

two

or

more persons

are appointed

by the

protectors, the consent of the survivor or survivors

will be sufficient to enable the tenant in

tail

in re-

mainder to bar the

entail

in so far as

no

substitute

for a deceased protector has


(a)

been appointed. W

Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833,

(b)

Cohen

y.

s. 23; Bayky-Worthington [1908] A. C. 97.

Mode of
consent

1064.

The

consent of the protector of the


at all), either

settle-

by the tenant in tail is effected, or by a separate deed executed on or before the day on ^hich such disposition is made,
disposition

ment must be given (if assurance by which the

by the same

and enrolled
position
is

at or

before the time

when

such

dis-

enrolled. W

No

consent given by a pro-

tector can be revoked. W


(a)

Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833,

s.

42, 46.

Whitmore-Seark [1907] z Ch. 332. (b) Fines -and Recoveries Act, 1833, s. 44.
Whitmore-Searle
V.

[Inasmuch as the protector's consent must be given either by a deed executed before or on the same day as the disposition by the tenant in tail, or by joining in such disposition itself, it follows that, if it was not given before the tenant in tail's death, it can only be given by executing such disposition. {Whitmore-Searle v. WhitmoreSearle, ubi sup.) It may be effectually given by an (enrolled)

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES TAIL
the deed

569

deed which does not, in form, profess to give it ; if it is clear from that the protector intended the remaindermen to be barred (Re Wilmer's Trusts [1910] 2 Ch. m).]

1065.

base fee

is

enlarged into an estate in fee


viz.
:

simple by any of the following events,


(i)

Enlargement
of base fee

the vesting of the immediate remainder or


reversion in fee (simple) in the same land,
in the person in

whom

such base fee

is

vested
Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833,
(ii)
s.

39.

the execution by the person who, but for


the creation of such base fee, would have

been tenant in
such base fee

tail

of the land, of a

dis-

position, in favour
is

of the person in

whom

vested,

which

disposition

would, but for the existence of such base


fee,

have passed a fee simple


s.

in such land

Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833,

19.

of course, require the consent of the But if, after an assurance of a base fee by a trustee in bankruptcy, there ceases to be a protector of the settlement, the base fee automatically enlarges into a fee simple
will,

[Such a disposition

protector, if any

{ibid, s.

35).

absolute

{ibid. s.

60) .J

(iii)

the continuance in possession of the person


in

whose favour such base

fee

was crea

ated, or

any person whatsoever except


of the

person claiming in remainder on or defeasance


estate
tail,

for

twelve

Digitized

by Microsoft

S70

LAW OF PROPERTY
years next after the creator of such base
fee

might have barred the

entail

without

the consent of any other person.


Real Property Limitation Act, 1874,
s.

6.

Covenant
to settle

1066.

covenant to

settle after ^acquired

property

does not bind the covenantor to execute a disentail-

ing assurance of an estate

tail

which subsequently belife estate

comes vested
Re

in

him, or to grant a

but of
//;7^^rj

it.

Parkinson (1883) 25 Ch.

Dupsany's Settlement [1906] i Ch. D. 200).

578 (approving-

v.

No

merger

1067.
will
(a)

Neither an
in

estate

tail,W

nor a base

fee/*")

merge

any subsequent

estate.

Stafford's Case (1609) 8 Rep., at p. 75 a. Re Dunsany^s Settlement, ubi sup., at p. 582, per

Romer, L.

J.

(b)

Fines and Recoveries Act,

1833,

s.

39.

(A

base fee does not

merge

it

enlarges.)

Imperfect
alienation

1068.

An

assurance by deed by a tenant in


in conformity

tail

made otherwise than

with the Fines

and Recoveries Act, 1833, confers upon the transferee only a descendible fee, determinable, on the
death of the assuror, by the heir in
estate as
is

tail,

or such

less

expressed by the assurance to be created or

transferred.
lutely

W A devise by a tenant in tail is absovoid W and no contract by a tenant in tail to


;

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES TAIL

571

execute a disentailing assurance will be specifically enforced against the issue in tail or the remainderman.^
(a)

Stone v.

Newman

(1635) Cro. Car. 427.


.

Machils. Clark (1702) 2 Salk. 619 (overruling Tiai v. Glascock (1669) I Wms. Saund. 250). Miles V. Capel (187 s) L. R. 20 Eq. 692. Hankey v. Martin (1^83) 49 L. T. 560 (where the estate is described, by Kay, J., as a "base fee").
V,

[Whether the heir's right is a right ofentry or a right of action? Doe Rivers (1797) 7 T. R. 276; Doe\. fVhichelo (1799) 8 T. R. 211.]
(b)

Campbell

V.

Sandys (1803)

Sch.

&

Lef., at p.

295, per Lord

Redesdale.
(c)

Fines and Recoveries Act,

(This section does not 1833, s. 47. prevent the contract being enforced against the tenant in tail himself during his lifetime {Bankes v. Small (1887) 36 Ch. D. 716). It is generally assumed that estates tail do not pass to the personal representatives of a deceased owner under s. i of the Land Transfer Act, 1897.)

1069.

When

tenant

in

tail

has

created,

in

Confirmation

favour of a purchaser for valuable consideration, a


voidable estate, and has afterwards

made an

assurance

(other than a lease not requiring enrolment) under

the Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833, of any estate in the same land, such subsequent assurance, whatever
its

object, will, except as against a purchaser for valuable

consideration without express notice of the voidable


estate,

have the

effect

of confirming such voidable

es-

tate, to

the extent to
it

which the tenant

in tail could

have confirmed

by disposition under the Act.

Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833, s. 38. Crocker v. Waine (1854) 5 B. & S. 697.

Hankey

v.

Martin (18S3) 49 L. T. 560.

[By

defeasible by the issue in

"voidable estate," the Act presumably means an estate tail or the remainderman or reversioner.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE IV ESTATES FOR LIFE


Estate for
life

1070.
the
life

An

estate for life

is

an estate tenable during


In the

of the tenant or of some person or persons


other than the tenant.
latter

(cestuis que vie)

case

it is

called an estate
Co.

pur autre
Litt.

vie.

41

b;

Creation

1071.
ited in a

An

estate for the life

of the tenant

is

lim-

deed by any words which are insufficient to

limit an estate of inheritance, and do not

show an
pur

intention to limit a term of years.W


autre vie
to the
is

An

estate

created in a deed either by a limitation


life

tenant during the

of another person or

persons,
life

or by a limitation
estate other

made by

a tenant for

of any

than a term of years,W or by

a limitation

without words of inheritance to a person

to the use of another person for

any

estate other than


life are

a term of years.

In a devise, estates for

created or transferred

by any words from which the


such an estate can be
unless there are

testator's intention to confer

inferred.

But a devise without words of limitation

will not confer an estate for life;

other expressions in the testament conveying such

an intention, or unless, in the case of an estate pur

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES FOR LIFE


autre vie, the testator

573

had no other

interest in the

land devised.
(aj

Co.

Litt.

42
V.

a.

Wright

Dotaley (1773) 2

W.

Bl. 11 85.

Kuselv. Watson (1879) Ch. D. 129. Zimbler v. Abrahams [1903] I K. B. 577. Austin V. Newham [1906] 2 K. B. 167. (b) Brudnel's Case (1592) J Co. 9. (c) Boddington v. Robinson (1875) L. R. 10 Exch. 270. (d) Meredith v. jfoans (1632) Cro. Car. 244. Hunter' s anfl Hewlett' s Contract [1907] i Ch. 46.
[Brudnel's Case
is

the lives of

B and C will continue until the death B and C {Day v. Day (1854) Kay, at p. ,709).]
(e)

an authority for spying that a lease to A during of the survivor of

Wills Act, 1837,

s.

28.
i

Quarm

v.

Quarm [1892]

Q. B. 184.

[Various anomalous forms of estates for life may be imagined, during the lives of A, B, and C and the surfor life if B shall so long live, vivor (Co. Litt. 41 b), an estate to
e.g. an estate to

&c.

But these are of small practical importance.]

1072.

corporation

may

(subject to the

Mortestate
life

Life estate in

main and pur autre


(see
cestui que

Charitable
vie; but

Uses Acts)

hold
its

an

""P"^'"''"

not an estate for

own

1045).
vie.

Semble, a corporation

cannot be

Bacon, Abridgement, Tit. Corporation E, quoting Y. B. 21

Edw. IV

(1482) Hil.

pi. 9.

1073.

Subject to the law relating to trusts and

Rights of
*i^^"'^'"'

mortgages, the

tenant for
is

life

in

possession

(not

being a mortgagee)

entitled,

subject to any dis-

Digitized

by Microsoft

574
position

LAW OF PROPERTY
made by
hiiiiself or his predecessors in title,

and

to

any

liabilities

by covenant or agreement entitjp,

tered into by himself or his predecessors in

and

binding on
Tit. II),

him
IX)

at

law or in equity
land,

[post^ Sect. Ill,

and to any franchises, easements, or


affecting, the
title

profits

[post. Tit.

to

possession of
C")

the landW and the

deeds thereof,

and to the

enjoyment of the rents of the land,W and (subject to


1076) to the produce and other profits of the soil.W
(a)

(b)

Tewart v. Laioson (1874) L- R- 18 Eq. 490. Garner v. Hannyngton (1836) 2Z Beav. 627. Allwoody. Heywood (1863) i H. & C. 745. Leathesv. Leathes (1877) 5 C^- ^- 221.

[If there are special circumstances, e. g. if the tenant for life is not a safe custodian, or the deeds are required to enable the Court to administer the property, the Court may deprive the tenant for life of the title deeds (^Leathes v. Leathes, ubi sup.).'^
(c)

Re Kemeys-Tynte [1892]
Finer
v.

(d)

2 Ch. 211. Vaughan (1840) 2 Beav., at


y.

p.

469, per Lord Langdale,


at p.

M.

R.

Honywood

Brigstock V. Brigstock (1878) 8 Ch.

Honywood (1874) L. R. 18 Eq., D. 357.

31

1.

Estovers

1074.

tenant for

life is entitled,
lavnr

notwithstand-r

ing the provisions of the

against waste, to cut

and take reasonably from the land sufficient timber for repair and fuel of his house standing thereon
(" housebote "),

for

making and

repairing

instru-

ments of husbandry to be used thereon (" ploughbote"), and for repairing (ancient) hedges (i. e.
fences) thereon

("haybote")

unless

he

is

restrained

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES: FOR LIFE


from

575

so 4oing by special provision in the instxun?ent

creating his estate.


C9,
Litt.

41

b.

[The

incuipbi^nt of advving has sijnilar rights {Strachy v. Franc/s

(1741) 2 Atk. 217)0

1075.

tenant for

life

whose

estate determines Embiemenu

(otherwise than by his

own
is

act or default)

between

seed time and harvest,

entitled, notwithstanding

such determination, to free ingress and regress into

and from the land, for the purpose of reaping annual


crops sown by

him

in the

land ("emblements").

If the tenant for

life

be dead, his representatives

may

exercise such right.


Co.
Litt.

55 b.'

[Can the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1851,5. i,(j>ost, 1141) ever As a rule, the apply tp a clainn of a tenant for life to emblements ? claim of emyements is confined strictly to annual crops (^Graves v. Weld (1833) 5 B. A.d. 105). But it is extended to hops, on account of the great labour involved in the cultivation of them (Latham v. Atwqod (1635) Cro. Car. 515)! Sembte : ttie right is unaffected by the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908,

&

(s.46).]

1076.

tenant for

life,
is

not expressly
liable

,;ina,de

un^

Waste iy
"'^

impeachable for waste,

to

an action for
aji
(*

'i^""

damages or an account, and, if necessary, junction, if he commits any act of positive

in-

vol-

untary ") waste [post. Sect. II, Tit. Ill) on the land.W Even if he is not impeachable, for waste, he will, be
similarly liable if he
is

guilty of equitable waste [fast.

Digitized

by Microsoft

576

LAW OF PROPERTY
by implication authorizes him to

Sect. II, Tit. Ill), unless the instrument creating his


estate expressly or

commit
sive

equitable wa^te^W

tenant for

life is not,

in the absence

of special provision, liable for permisIII).W


'

waste

*
'

[post. Sect. II, Tit. Co.

(a)
'

''i'

^
,

''^
ii.'r

C')

Litt. 53 a. WoodhoUse-y. Walker (1880) 5 Q. B. D. 4041 f^ine V. Lord Barnard (1J16) z Vera. jjS.
s. 25 (3). Cartwright (1889) 41 Ch. D. 53a,

Judicature Act, 1873,


(c). ^1?

^afil
Action for

'

1077.

The

pefson having the (next) vested estate

waste

of inheritance in the land at the

was committed, and


brought,
I')
1

at
the;

the

when the waste time when the action is


tiriie
sup.

may

bring

action
Walker, ubi

WoodhoAst
old Action of

V.

[The
it

Waste was

very technical
its

on

this point

but

formal abolition in 1833 (Real Property Limitation Act, 1833, s. 36) by the Action of Case. The owner of the next vested estate of inheritance may also bring an Action of Trover to recover articles severed from the land, or an action for money had and received from the sale therieof {Seagram
y.

was

practically superseded, long before

Knight (1867) L. R. 2 Ch. App.,

at p.

to be

some
also

authority for saying that the

There appears 632). owner of a vested estate


life

for life

or years in remainder or a reversioner for

or years,

may
2

bring

an

action for damages

{Greene

v.

Cole

(1670)

Wms.

for life

Sand. 252 n.). For ithe case of collusion between a tenant and a remainderti;an in fee, see Birch-JVolfe v. Birch (1870)
''

L.R.'g Eq. 683.]

Ameliorating

1078-

No

equitable

remedy

will be given against


if

waste

a tenant for life in

an action of waste,

the Court

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES FOR LIFE


is

577
life

of opinion that the acts of the tenant for

have really improved the value of the inheritance


(" ameliorating waste ").
Mollineux v. Powell (1730) in note to Bewick V. Whitfield (1734) 3 P. Wms. 268. Doherty v. Allman (1878) L. R. 3 App. Ca. 709.
'

Meux
[The
last

V. Cobley

[1892] z ,Ch. 253.

two cases were terms of years; but the argument would be stronger for life tenants. In Edmund -v. Martell (1908) XXIV T. L. R. 25, the Court even refused to give the plaintiff judgment for nominal damages in such a case. But the point was
not seriously argued.]

1079. Provisions for the cesser or forfeiture of an


estate for life
tary, are valid

Forfeiture

upon
;

alienation, voluntary or involun-

/f///^^^

provided that they are not aimed

at securing

objects

deemed

to be contrary to the

policy of the law.W

settlement by a person of his


life,

own

property upon himself for

with a provision
bankruptcy,
is

for cesser or forfeiture

on

his

own

binding upon the tenant for


trustee in
(a)

life,

but not upon his

bankcuptcy.W

Re

Blackman

Re
(b)

Bedson's trust: (1884) 25 Ch. D. 458 (personalty). v. Fysb [1892] 3 Ch. 209. Cotgrave [1903] 2 Ch. 765 (personalty).

For

list of such objects, see ante, Bk. I; 96 ; and add, (n) preventing the tenant entering the military service of the Crown

(c)

{Re Beard [ii)o%] i Ch. 383). Re Johnson Johnson [1904] I K. B. 134. Re Burroughs-Fowler [1916] 2 Ch. 251.

1080.

Subject to 1079, the owner, of an estate

Alienation
j..

for life (including an estate

pur autre

vie)

may

alien- /^

V2

Digitized

by Microsoft

578

LAW OF PROPERTY
may
create a quasi fee sim)

ateit,W and^ in so doing,


ple ( io8
1

or a quasi entail (I 1083). He may also create out of it any estate for years/'') or, if the sub-

ject matter of the estate, is a

manor, may grant, by

the customary' methods, any ancient customary tene-

ment
any
,

to be held at the ancient rents


;..ttv.

and

services, for

estate justified
Litt.

by the Custom bf the manor.


;f,;iv
j

^ (a) ;Co.
(b)

42

a.

.'.

Of course
of the

such estate, unless made under an overriding power (e. g. under the Settled Land Acts), will come to an en4 with the expiry
lessor's estate.

But a
;

lease for yeafs


it

by

a freeholder never
seisin.

occasioned a forfeiture
(c)

because

did not convey the

Co.

Litt.

58 b

Co. Cop. 34, pp. 80, 81.

'/ni

"o

V'i-iJ'nfjFov

)ti';'i3iiii

noqic

Quasi fee
simple

1081.

A
a

quasi fee simple

is

ereatefd

by

a limitation

of land in
during the

deed to a person and his

heirs, to

hold
toi^a

life

of another, or by a limitation

person and his heirs iby an assuror


the land
gifl

whose
^

interest in
.

is

a life estate only,


-Jud

^uiji;),
-

i^

rtoqu joft

Co.

Litt. 4*1 b.

jH? n6c{u

s^'

[A conveyance
special

of an estate for lives to 'a'^-'man " his executors


,

and administrators," has been held


occupant

to give the executor a right as {Northen v. Carnegie (1859) 4 Drew^. 58^). Quare : since the Land cTransfer Act, 1897. A limitation of a term of years, or of pure personalty, to a personi and. his: heirs, will confer upon such person all the interest of the donor in such property absolutely {Saltern v. Saltern

(1742) 2 Atk. 376; Re Johnston

(1884) 26 Ch. D. 538).]

Alienation

1082.

quasi fee simple


inter^

may be

disposed of by

of quasi fee
simple

the owner thereof

vivos or by testament in

the

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES FOR LIFE


same manner
it is

579
life
it
;

as

an ordinary estate for

but, if

undisposed of by

him

at his death,

will

go to

his heir as special occupant.^

In

all

other respects,

the qualities of a quasi fee simple are those of an


ordinary estate for life.W
(a)

Co.

Litt.

41 b

\
a f

Edward

Seymor's Case (161 2) 10 Rep. 98 Wills Act, 1837, s. 3 (by testament).

/ ^'".'"'
,

\ ^""">-

in

[He cannot destroy an executory interest limited to take effect defeasance of the quasi fee {^Re Barber (1881) 18 Ch. D. 624).]
(b)

Wills Act, 1837, s. 6. Land Transfer Act, 1 897,


if

s.

the limitation is to A " his heirs executors (and adminA's heir and not his personal representative, will (subject to the Land Transfer Act, 1897, s. i) be entitled as special occupant on A's death intestate {^Atkinson v. Baker (1791) 4 T. R. But (semble) where a quasi fee simple is devised without 229). express words of limitation, the devisee's heir cannot claim as special occupant (^Re Inman [1903] i Ch. 241).]

[Even

istrators),"

(c)

Co.

Litt.

41

b.

1083-

quasi entail

is

created by a limitation of

Quasi entail

land in a deed to a person and the heirs of his body,


to hold during the life of another, or

by a similar
a life estate

limitation to a person and the heirs of his body by

a donor

whose

interest

in the land

is

only.W

Any

devise for the life of a person other

than the devisee, and any devise made by a person having an estate pur autre vie, from w^hich an intention to create an' estate
tail

can be gathered, will


similar limitation of

have

similar

efFect.^*")

Digitized

by Microsoft

58o

LAW OF PROPERTY
estate for years or

an

pure personalty will convey


to

the whole of the donor's interest


absolutely. W

the

donee

Blake v. Luxton (179s) 6 T. R. 289. Campbell y. Sandys (1803) i Sch. & Lef. 281, -^Slade V. Pattison (1834) S L. J. Ch. 51. Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 51. (b), Wast/ieys v. Chafpell (1714) 3 Bro. P. C. 50. Murthwaite v. Jenkinson (1824) 2 B. & C. 357.
(a)

(c)

Webb -v. Webb^iyid) Low V. Burron (1734)


Hodgson
V.

P.

3 P.

Wms. Wms.

132. 262.

Bussey (1740) 2 Atk. 89.

Ready.

Snell {yi \'i) ibid. 642.

Murthwaite v. Jenkinson (1824) 2 B. & C. 357. boncaster v. Doncaster (1856) 3 K. &J. 26.

from a note in 3 B. & C. 191, that the Lord Chan(Lord Eldon), by whom Murthwaite v. Jenkinson had been referred to the King's Bench, took the view that the gift of the perThat was also the view sonalty in that case was for life only. taken in the two previous cases, on the wording of the limitations;
[It appears

cellor

but the principle stated in the text was fully admitted.]

Barring of
quast entati

1084.
ggggJQjj

person entitled to a quasi entail in poscouvey, uot Only his

jjj^y

own

interest,
tail

but

also the interests

of the issue in quasi

and the

remaindermen expectant on the failure of such issue, by ordinary conveyance inter vivos. A tenant in
^'''^

quasi

tail

in remainder can only, withbut the concurlife in possession,

rence of the quasi tenant for


his

convey
tenant

own
(a)

interest

and that of

his issue.W

No

in quasi tail can devise his


Norton

interest. W

v. Freeker (1737) 1 Atk. ^ (overruiingLoa/v.^arr (1734) 523 ' 262, on that 3 P. Wms. Blake y. Luxton{ij^<i) 6 T. R.
'

289

point).

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES FOR LIFE


[

581

a person destroy an executory interest limited of his estate ? The tenant of a quasi fee cannot {Re Barber (1881) 18 Ch. D. 624).]
in defeasance

Quare : can such

(b)

Slade V. Pattison (1834) 5 L. Re Barber, ubi sup.

IVastneysv. Chappe II {iji^) 3 Bro. P. C. 50. J. Ch. 51.


v.

(c)

Campbell

Sandys (1803)

Sch.

&

Lef., at p.

2^^, per Lord

Redesdale.

Cresswelly. Hawkins (1857)

3 Jur.

N,

S., at p.

408.

1085.

tenant in quasi

tail has,

with regard to

Rights of
'^"''".'

the user of the land, only the powers conferred upon ^


,

quasi entatl

the original tenant by the instrument creating the


estate for lives
;

or, if there

is

no such instrument, or
1073-1078).
this
life

so far as such instrument does not extend, only the

powers of a tenant for


[It is difficult to find

life

{ante,

any express authority for


has,

but
fer

it

is

equally difficult to suppose that a tenant for

statement could con-

more powers than he himself

by the simple process of

alienating his estate.]

1086.

When

an estate
_

is

limited by deed to a per-

Determi"^^^^
estate

son (without words of inheritance) until the happenf* \

'

ing of an uncertain event, or whilst a certain state of


things shall continue, such an estate will be a deter-

minable

life estate.

W A

similar limitation in a testa-

ment
such

will {semble) confer a fee simple determinable

[ante,

1052)

unless the nature of the limitation

is

as to

show an

intention on the part of the testalast

tor, that

the estate shall not

beyond the lifetime

Digitized

by Microsoft

582

LAW OF PROPERTY
\(

of the devisee or some other person Hving

at the

time

when

the testament takes effect.

In the latter event,


to take a de-

the devisee will (probably) be

deemed

terminable
(a)

life estate/'')

Co.

Litt.

42

a,

by
(b)

a limitation to a

(A common example of such an woman durante viduitate.)


s.

estate

is

created

Wills. Act,

1837,

28.

Absence, of
ces

1087.
j^j^jjjjjj^g

If,

in an action, by, a lessor or reversioner


qjj
it is

que

me
j^j^^j

jjjg

alleged expiry of an estate

pur autre

vie,

proved by the plaintiff that any

cestui que vie has

been absent from the realm by the


is,

space of seven years together, such cestui que vie


in the absence of proof of his
life,

presumed
I.

to be

dead.
18

&

19 Car. II (1666)

c.

II,

s.

Produethnof
cestutquevte

1088.

Any

person entitled to any estate in expect-

^^^^

^^^^^ ^j^g death


fact,

of any other person may, on

proof of such
to believe

and that he has reasonable grounds


is

that such other person's death

being

concealed, obtain from time to time an order of the

High Court compelling production of such


death.

other

person by the person alleged to be concealing his

In default of such production, such claimant

will be entitled to enter

upon the land

in question;

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES FOR LIFE

583

unless the person ordered to produce the cestui que vie

can

satisfy

the Court that he has failed, from no fault

of his own, to make such production, and that the


cestui que vie
is

in fact alive.
Que Vie Act, 1707,
ss. 1-4. 10 Ch. D. 166.

Cestui

In re

Owen (1878)

U3

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
1089.

V COPYHOLDS AND CUSTOMARY


FREEHOLDS
A
copyhold
estate
is

Copyhold
^'*''*"

an estate granted by
the will of the lord

the lord of a

manor

to

be held

at

according to the custom of such manor.


Co.
Litt.

57

b.

[The term " copyhold " is derived from the fact that all changes in the tenancy of copyhold estates are entered on the manorial rolls, and that copies of such entries are treated as evidences of title {Cawthorn v. Mee (1833) 4 B. & Ad. 617). There is much dispute as to the legal definition of a manor ; but, substantially, it may be said to be a feudal unit consisting both of demesne and tenemental lands, and including the right to hold
a court for the lord's tenants.

manor can
it is

exist

without at

least
v.

the Court Baron {Bradshaw

There is a tradition that no true two freehold tenants to constitute Lawson (1791) 4 T. R. 443); but

quite certain that, so far as copyhold tenants are concerned, as

well as for other purposes, the unit may continue to exist as a " reputed manor," notwithstanding the absence of freehold tenants
{Soane v. Ireland (1808) 10 East, 259; Clayton v. Williams (1843) W., at p. 807, per Abinger, C. B.). 11 M. The question of

&

the existence of a
V.

manor

is

a question of fact for the jury (Standen

(1847) ^ Q- ^' ^"iS'i Delacherois v. Delacherois (1864) II H. L. C, at p. 99). Difficulties have sometimes been caused by the existence in a manor of tenants described as holding " according to the custom of the manor," but not " at the will of the lord." But it is now definitely decided (5. of Winchester v. Knight (1717) I P. Wms. 406; D. of Portland v. Hill (^\%66) L. R. 1 Eq. 765) that such tenants, if they hold by copy of court roll, are only privileged copyholders, and not freeholders, i. e. the freehold is in the lord. See, however, the expressions of Willes, J., in Lingnvood v. Gyde (1866) L. R. 2 C. P. 72, decided in the same
Chrismas
year as

D, of Portland

v. Hill^ ubi sup.'\

Digitized

by Microsoft

COPYHOLDS
1090.

58s
estate in possesCreation of
"j'/Jlff

The

beneficial
as

owner of an
interest,
is

sion in the

manor

tenant for term of years ("lord

farmer") or any greater

the lord of the

manor
estates.

for the purpose of

making grants of copyhold But the lord of a manor cannot make a


roll.

grant to himself/'') or [semble) to his wife,W of an


estate to
(a)

be hpld by copy of court


s.

Co. Cop.

34.

Kay (1599) Cro. Eliz. 661. Rayer v. Strickland (1842) z Q. B. 792. Dean of Christchurch y. D. of Buckingham {1^6/^) 17 C.
Gay
V.

B.

N.

S,

391-

[The lord of a manor may appoint a steward for Dowries (1825) 3 B. C. 616).]

life

{Bartlett v.

&

(b)

(c)

Dean of Christchurch v. D, of Buckingham, uhi sup. Griggs y. Gibson (1866) 14 W. R. 819 (even though there trust for accumulation during the infancy of such person) Firebrass v. Pennant (1764) 2 Wils. 254. Quare : since Married Women's Property Act, 1882?

is

ttie

[Where the acts of the lord are merely ministerial, e.g. the admittance of a new tenant on a surrender in his favour by the former tenant, it would seem that they would be valid, even though the lord's title was bad ; if he was de facto in enjoyment of the manor (Clarke v. Pennifather (1584) -4 Rep. 23 b; Burgess v. Thompson (1836) 5 A. E. 532). Otherwise, where the acts involve the exercise of discretion, e. g. the grant of a licence to demise {Petty v. Evans (1610) 2 Brownl. 40); unless done under statutory provisions (e.g. Copyhold Act, 1894, s. 94). A similar rule applies to a steward de facto {Harris v. fays (1599) Cro. Eliz. Where the lord is under personal incapacity, his powers are 699). exercised by his guardian, committee, &c. {Shoplane v, Roydler (1605)

&

Cro. Jac. 98

Griggs v. Gibson, ubi

sup.).']

1091.

The

extent of the estate which


roll,

may be

Extent of
"P^^'^'^

granted to hold by copy of court

the land in

Digitized

by Microsoft

586
respect of
liabilities

LAW OF PROPERTY
which
it

may be

granted, the rights and

of the tenant against and towards his lord,

the methods of transfer, and the incidents of the

upon and custom of the manor;


estate,

depend

are

determined

by the

Clarke v. Pennifather (1584) 4 Rep. 23 b. Everest v. Glyn (181 5) 6 Taunt., at 430, per Gibbs, C. Hardcastle v. Dennhon (1861) 4 L. T. 707.

J.

[Of course the copyholder, though nominally holding at the will of his lord, has long been protected against arbitrary ejectment by
the latter (see />w(, 1094, n.).]

except that
(i)

any manorial custom which, in the opinion of the Court,


treated as null
is

unreasonable, can be

Co. Cop.

s.

33.

Parkers, Co mblefor d {I'^gg) Cro. Eliz. 725. Broadbent V. Wilh (1742) Wils. 360. Fawcet v. Lowther (1751) z Ves. Sen., at p. 302, per Lord Hardwicke, C.
Parkin Badger
Stevens v. Tyrell (1753) z Wils. i. Y. Raddiffe {i7()?>) i Bos. & P. 282. v. Ford (1819) 3 B. & Aid. 153. Hi/tony. E. Granville (1844) 5 Q. B. 701.

M.

of Salisbury v.

Gladstone

(i86i) 9 H. L.

C,

at

p.

701, per

Lord Cranvvorth, C.
(ii)

copyhold

estates,

notwithstanding any cus-

tom

to the contrary, are devisable in the

form prescribed by the Wills Act, 1837, and only in that form
Wills Act, 1837,
ss.

3, 9.

[Befo;;e the passing of the Wills Act, the devisability pf copy-

holds depended

449)

upon custom (^Lewis v. Lane (18^4) 2 Myl. & K. though, where a custom to devise existed, a surrender to

Digitized

by Microsoft

COPYHOLDS

587

the use of the will had been rendered unnecessary by the 55 Geo. Although the estate has been devised under Ill (1815) c. 192.

remains in the customary heir until the devisee Mead (1871) L. R. 6 Qi B. 441). But admittance of a devisee for life devests the, estate of the testator's customary heir; and the remainderman thei^eupon becomes seised, even though he never takes possession^ This v/as important before the passing of the Inheritance Act, 1833, and may, even now, be worth noting {Parker v. Thomas (J042) 3 Man. & G. 815).]
the Wills Act,
is
it

admitted {Garland \.

(iii)

copyhold tenement may, notwithstanding

any custom

to the pofitrary, be alienated

by

its

owner

in parcels,

with the written


of the steward

licence of the lord

(or

authorized in Writing by the lord) entered

on the court

rolls.

If the tenement

is

divided, the lord

may apportion
s.

the yearly

customary rent
CopyKold Act, 1894,
(iv)
86.

in an action for partition of a

copyhold
land of

tenement, the like order


as

may be made
to

may be made
Ibid.
s.

in respect

freehold tenure;
87.

[Presumably, this section would authorize an order for sale under the Partition Acts 1868 and 1876, as well as an order for
partition.]

(v)

notwithstanding any custom to the contrary,

no lord of

manor may make


of copy-

grants of land not previously

hold tenure to any person to hold in customary tenure without the consent

Digitized

by Microsoft

5^8
':5r!i

LAW
f
51

!OF

PROPERTY
when
it

of the Board of Agriculture; and


land
is

so granted with such consent,


tO'

ceases

be of copyhold

tenure,

and

vests irfthe grantee in free

and

common

socage for the interest granted


'

Copyhold Act, 1894,5. 81.

[Such a grant is, of course, only prima facie possible By virtue of express customi, which often requires; the consent of the homage or freeholders of the manor. In such a case such consent must be duly obtained (Copyhold Act, i894,''s. 83).]
(vi)

notwithstanding any custom to the contrary, a

customary court

may be

held, by
al-

-,,

,,ii,j,

the lord, steward, or deputy steward,


I

V! iiiyv

,f{i

though there is no copyhold tenant of the manor, or although no copyhold tenant, or

only one,

is

present at such court.


at

But a proclamation made

such court within one

hKr
\

/!{</>
'

yf\\\ jjQt affect


v;

any one not present, unless


served
^^^

'Aisun
"t^>

notice of

it is

oil hinii

f^"

"^

month;

'"
'''"^^'^^

Iiid.s.U.
(vii),

notwithstanding any custom to the contrary, a

proper grant of a copyhold or


estate,

customary
'S'O
,>!Pfn
cidi
vf;:
'

and a valid admittance

to a similar estate,

may be made, by

the

lordi or steward, or deputy .steward, out

7;
ill

Tio

of the manor, without a court, and, in


dJthe case of admittance, without any pre-

h\6tl

J(.'j;uio^

sentment by the homage of the surrender.

Digitized

by Microsoft

COPYHOLDS
instrument, or fact, in pursuance of

589

which

the admittance

is

made
ss.

Copyhold Act, 1894,

83, 84.

[Surrenders and wills are to be entered on the court


s.

rolls (ibid,

^5).]

(viii)

notwithstanding any custom to the contrary,

voluntary or compulsory

enfran-

chisement of copyholds may be effected


[post,

1106-1116).
lit J.
s.

I,

[In addition to the incidents specified in Tit.

I,

common

incidents of copyhold tenure are -r-

(i) fines

1040, ante^ on admittance

and for breaches of custom, (ii) suit of court. Some statutes (e.g. the 12 Car. II (1660), c. 24, and the Real Property Act, 1845) expressly exclude copyholds from their operation others (e. g, the Copyhold Acts themselves) as expressly include them. Where the Act is silent, it is often difficult to know whether copyholds are affected ; and the principles to apply arp discussed in Heydon's Case (1584) 3 Rep. 7 a, where it was ruled (obiter) that the statute De Donis does not apply to copyholds, though there may be, in a given manor, a special custom to entail. The Statute of Uses (27 Hen. VIII (1535) c. 10) does not apply to copyholds (^Baker v. fFhite (1875) L. R. 20 Eq., at p. 175,^1??- Jessel, M. R.) nor to tenancy in 'antient demesne' (Cresswell v. Hawkins (1857) 3 Before 1833, copyhold tenants in tail barred the Jur. N. S., 407). entail by surrender in the manorial court; and the practice is now made statutory by ss. 50-54 of the Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833. The Real Estates Charges Acts apply to copyholds (Piper v. Piper (i860) I J. &H. 91).]
;

1092. Subject to the existence of any custom to


the contrary, the owner of limit any number of smaller
a

Alienation by
"Py^"^^^''

copyhold

estate

may
the

estates thereout in

Digitized

by Microsoft

S90

LAW OF PROPERTY
;

eustomary manner

exeepf

that, in the absence

of

special custom, a copyholder

who professes

to

demise

any part of his tenement for more than one year,


without the licence of the lord of the manor, incurs
a forfeiture
(a)

of his

estate.

W
i.
' '

Mildmayv. Hunerford,^(i6qi) z^crri. Z45.


Lovell v'.'LoveYl (1743) '3 Atk. i Haberghamv. Finceat (l^gi) 5. ;T., ,R., 92. Mallinsott v. Siddle (1870) 39 L. j. Ch. 426.,

'

'

'

Alleny. Bewsey (i%J7) jChl'D.'i^^'i.

''

'

[The same constructioii will be put upon such limitations as upon analogous limitations of freehold estates {^Fisher v. Wigg
(1700)
(b)
I

P.

Wms.,

at
:

p.
..
,

16, per Holt, C. J.;


.;
_

Sutton v. Stone

(i74o),,2 Atk., io,i).J


Melwich Jackman
v. ia'f^r

(1588)' 4 Rep. i6. Hoddesdon (1594) Cro. EliZi 3JI1. Lutterel y. ti^es/ik (1611) Cro. Jac. 308 (though here the rule was 'pleaded as a special custom)

v.

as

[A demise made in defiance of this rule is not, however, void between lessor and lessee {Tresidder v. Trvsidder (r84i) i Q. B.

416'; 'Robinson v. Bousfield (1844) 6

Q.

B. 492).]

Corporation
as copyholder

1093.
pgjjg^j
|.q

The
admit

Iprd^ of a

mauor

cannot;

be

com-

& corporation as tenant

by copy of

court
poses

roll ;W may be

but qopy holds required for public purconv'ej^d to a corporation under an Act

of Parliament with avieWto their enfranchisement.^


(a)

A. G.

V.

Grand function Canal Co.

Lewin (1837) 8 Sim. 366. v. Dimes (1846) 15 Sim. 402.

rule as stated in Bk. I, 27, is, perhaps, too wide. But supported by more than one eminent real property lawyer (see Scriven, Copyholds, Vol. I, p. 108).].
it iis

[The

(b)

Lands Clauses Act, 1845,


i).

"'
' '

of

Nmiumbefland

^.

ss, 95-97. Tynvmouth [1909] 2 K. B. 374.

Digitized

by Microsoft

COPYHOLDS
1094.

591
lie

No

action for damages will

by the lord

Actions be''"'''

of a manor against

his. copyhold tenant,

or vice versa,

^^'f"
holder

in respect of any alleged breach of customary duty

owed by

virtue of the tenancy


Galbraith v. Poynton [1905] 2 K. B. 258.

except that
(i)

an action

may

be brought by the lord of


his personal representative,

a manor, or

to recover a fine payable

on the alienation

of

copyhold tenement,

or

by the

steward of a manor for his fees in connection with the admittance of a

new copy-

hold tenant, or the enfranchisement of a

copyhold tenement
(a)

; C')

Shuttleworth

v.

Garnet (1687)

Mod. 240.

Evelyn

v.

Chichester (1765) 3 Burr. 1717.

(b)

Raw (1861) 6 H. & N. 308. Eraser \. Mason (1883) 1 1 Q. B. D. 574. Everest \. Glyn (i8i;) 6 Taunt. 425. Blaker v. Wells (1873) z8 L. T. 21.
Haytaardv.

[The fine is not due until after admittance (^Rex v. Hendon (1788) 2 T. R. 484; The Queen v. Lord Wellesley (1853) 2 E. & But if an heir or devisee will not take admittance, and B. 924). thus fill the vacancy on the rolls, the lord may, after due proclamations, seize the tenement quousque, i. e. until a new tenant is admitted {Twining v. Muscott (1844) 12 M. & W. 832). In the case of infant heirsor devisees, the seizure is only until payment of the fine ; the lord's claim in such a case being limited by statute (InIn the case of a lunatic, the fants' Property Act, 1830, ss. 6, 9). tenant is admitted by attorney (Lunacy Act, 1890, ss. 125-6). Before action is brought for an uncertain fine, the fine must be assessed by the lord with reasonable certainty {Fraser v. Mfson^ ubi but the Statute of Limitations begins to run against the lord sup.) from the date of the tenant's admittance {Monckton v. Payne [1899]
;

Q.

B. 603).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

592
(ii)

LAW OF PROPERTY
where the conduct of
tions
tract

a tenant gives rise to


fulfil

an implied promise to

his obliga-

under a custom, an action of conor quasi contract or his personal


will
lie

against
for

him
Blachmore
alone
;

representatives

non-fulfilment of such obligations,


V. White [1899] 1 Q. B. 293. (This case atands absolutely and is difficult to reconcile with Galbraith v. Poynton, ubi sup.)

[The origin of the principal rule is the fact that, until the end of the 15th century, copyhold tenure was not recognized by the King's Courts. It has, however, long been settled, that for any act or omission of lord or tenant which amounts to a common law tort, e. g. trespass or ejectment, an action will lie {Otlery Monastery Case (1583) I Leon. 4; Rennington v. Cole (161 8) Noy, 29); and the equitable remedies of account and ihjunction will be granted against a copyholder guilty of waste, or a lord encroaching on the copyholder's rights {Bishop of Winchester v. Knight (17 17) i P. Wms. 406; Grey v. D. of Northumberland (1806) 13 Ves. 236).]

Relief

1095. Where'^ the act or default upon which a


claim to forfeiture for breach of custom
is

"iTrJL^. jorj enure

founded

was not deliberate, and the

loss

caused thereby to the

lord can be compensated by

payment of money, the


forfei-

Court may grant equitable relief against such


ture on

payment of compensation by the

tenant.

Nash \. E. of Derby (1705) z Vern. 537. Cox V. Higford (i7io)' lb. 664. Peachy v. D. of Sofuerset (1721) Pre. Cha. 567.

remedy would have been an Since the coming into operation of the Judicature Act, 1873, * -^4 (5) ^^ remedy has been given by way of equitable defence to the action of the lord
[Before the Judicature Act, the
injunction to prevent the lord suing in ejectment.

Digitized

by Microsoft

COPYHOLDS
to recover possession of the tenement.
forfeits the

593
act or omission only
(^Peachy v.

The
of

estate of

the person

guilty

it.

D. of

Somerset, ubi sup.y]

1096.

A Mandamus will
to

be granted by the King's Mandamus


a

Bench Division

compel the lord of

manor

to
as

admit a person lawfully claiming to be admitted


other ministerial act).
R. V. Hendon (1788) 2 T. R. 484. R. V. Breiiiers'Co. (1824) 3 B. & C. 172. The Queen v. Ham (1839) 8 L.J. Q. B. (N. S.) 265. The Queen v. Dendy (1852) 22 L.J. Q. B. 39.

tenant of a copyhold estate (or, semble, to do any

[It was at one time thought, that a Mandamus would not be granted on the application of an heir; inasmuch as he could enter and act as tenant before admittance {R. v. Rennett (1788) 2 T. R. But this doctrine has long been abandoned (i2. v. Brewers' 197). On the return to the order nisi, the lord may give Co., ubi sup,).

reasons for alleging that the claimant is not entitled to be admitted ; and the matter then proceeds as in an ordinary action to try a title {R. v. Coggan (1805) 6 East, 431 ; The ^een v. Dendy, A Mandamus may also be granted to compel ubi sup., p. 247). the lord to produce the manorial rolls for inspection by a party entitled (Re Hutt (1839) 7 D. P. C. 690).]
his

1097. In the absence of custom to the contrary,


is

it

Reservation

the duty of a copyholder to preserve the boundaries


;

'f ''^'""^'"'"^

of his tenement
tenements.

so as to avoid confusion

with other

D. of Leeds

v. E. of Stratford {\'i^i) 4 Ves. 180. Searle v. Cooke (1890) 43 Ch. D. 519.

Digitized

by Microsoft

594
Waste by

LAW OF PROPERTY
a

1098. In the absence of custom to the contrary,


jjQ

"py

'^

copyhold tenant, even though he holds

customary

fee,

may commit any


on

act of voluntary waste {post.


his
is,

Sect. II, Tit. Ill)

tenement ;W and
in the absence of

[semble)

every copyhold tenant


to the contrary, liable
Sect.
II,

custom
[post.

even for permissive waste

Tit.

III).^

But the lord may

not, in

the absence of custom, enter upon the tenement to


cut timber, or enter on the surface to dig for minerals,(a)

without the consent of the copyholder.^


Keyse
v.

Powell (1853) 2 E.

&

B. 132.
Mellish,

Duke of Portland w. Hill (1866) L. R. 2 Eq. 765. Hext V. Gill (1872) L. R. 7 Ch. App., at p. 713, per
L. J. Eardley
Jessel, v.

E.

Granville

(1876)

Ch,

D.,

at

p.

832, fer

M.

R.
ij Ch. D. 150.

A. G. V. Tomliiie (1877) 5 Ch. D. 750; Sitwellv. Worrall (iSgS) ^9 L. T. 86.

[In Fawcet

v.

Lmxither (175 1)

2 Ves. Sen:, at

p.

303, Lord
for a copy-

Hardwicke expressed the opinion that even a custom holder for life to commit waste would be bad.]
(b)

Co. Litt. 53 b. Co. Cop. s. 57.

(c)

Cox V. Higford (1710) 2 Vern. 664. Reginay. Dare^ (1S61) 2 F. & F.355. Bourne v. Taylor (1808) 10 East, 189.
Hilton V. E. Granville (1845) 5

Q. B. 701.

[In Bowser v. Maclean (i860) 2

De G.

F.

&

J.

415,

it

seems

to have been assuiped, that the lord might tunnel through the copyhold tenement to work coal in other parts of the manor ; and

a fortiori, he would be entitled to work the minerals in the tenement without disturbing the surfacp. But a stranger who works minerals, even without disturbing the surface, is guilty of trespass against the copyholder {Lewis v. Branthwaite (1831) 2 B. & Ad. 437). So too the lord is guilty of trespass, jf he uses the space below the surface for the purpose of working minerals outside the manor [Lewis V. Branthwaite, uhi,sup.).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

COPYHOLDS
1099.
tion of a

595
effect that Reduced

Where

there

is

custom to the

a tenant of the

manor may be admitted, on the acquisinew tenement, on payment of a fine smaller


has acquired a smaller tenement within

than that payable by a stranger on a similar occasion,


a person

who

the

manor

for the express purpose of qualifying

him-

self to

claim admittance as a tenant of the manor in

more valuable tenement, will not on that ground be disqualified from claiming to be admitted on payment of the smaller fine.W But if in fact the
respect of a
acquisition of the smaller tenement

was not bona fide,


it

or was with secret trust or reservation for or by the

person alienating

it,

the person acquiring

will not

be entitled to avail himself of the custom.


(a)

(b)

R. V. Boughey (1823) i B. & C. 565. A. G. V. Sandover (1904) i K. B. 689.

1100*
is

Where

the

amount of

a fine

on admittance
assessed

Arbitrary

uncertain ("arbitrary"), the

amount

by ^

the lord must not exceed what the Court deems to

be reasonable in the circumstances.


Morgan v. Scudamore (1^77) z Ch. Rep. 70. R. V. Dillington (1689) Freem. K. B. 494. Douglas V. E. Dysart (1861) 10 C. B. N. S. 688. J. G. V. Sandover, uhi sup.

[The

justify the lord in assessing higher fine than two years'

existence of a custom such as that described in 1099 will on the tenement first acquired a much improved value, which is the normal

amount {Holder
an

&

Sulyard v. Preston (1769) 2 Wils.,

at p.

401) of

'arbitrary fine' {R. v. Dillington, ubi sup.).']

Digitized

by Microsoft

596
Fines in
settled

LAW OF PROPERTY
Where
the lordship of a

1101.

manor

is

the sub-

manors

ject of a settlement, all fines received


for life or

by the tenant

the trustees of the settlement, whether

in respect of ordinary admittances or of

new

grants

out of the waste, and

all

usual profits of the waste,

belong, in the absence of express directions in the settlement, to the tenant for life for the time being.

But where a lump sum is paid by way of compensation by an authority having power to acquire land within the _manor compulsorily for public purposes, no part of such sum can be claimed by the tenant
for life as representing fines.
(a)

W
&
S.

Earl Cowley

v.

Wellesley (1866) 35 Beav. 635.

(b)

Re Medows (1898) i Ch. 300. Re Wilson's Estate (1863) 3 De G.

J.

410.

Fines of
limited

1102.
j.|^g

Where

a tenant for life has paid iines for

owners

renewal of copyholds held for terms of lives.W ' '^ J


is

or

on the admission of new trustees,^ he on the corpus of the


fines as represents

entitled

to a charge

settled property for

such proportion of the

the interest

of the remaindermen in such property.


(a)

Bradford
Carter

(b)

Re

Brownjohn (1868) L. R. 3 Ch. App. 711. Sebright (1859) 26 Beav. 374. Bullock's Settled Estates (1905) 91 L. T. 65i.
y. v.

[For the somewhat complicated system on which the proportions Ldwson (1785) i Bro. C. C. 440, expressly followed by the Court in Bradford v. Brovinjohn,']
are calculated, see Nightingale v.

Digitized

by Microsoft

COPYHOLDS
1103.

597

Whether

a
life

copyhold

estate

granted to a

Grants for

tenant for his


is

own

and that of others successively


first

'^"

a grant for the benefit of the


cestuis

taker only, or
his

for the other

que vie beneficially after

death,

is

a question of fact in each case.W


estate w^ill pass,

In the

former event, the


the
first

on the death of

taker, to his personal representatives, during

the lifetimes of the remaining cestuis que


(a)

wV.W

Randle v. Rundle (1691) 2 Vern. 252, 264. Smithy. Baker (1737) ' ^^^- 3^5(b) Clark V. Danvers (1679) i Ca. Ch. 310. Howe S.Howe (i686) i Vern. 415. Wills Act, 1837, s. 6.

[The

decision
first

is

influenced by (i) the existence of a custom en-

titling the

taker to dispose of the estate absolutely during his

life (2) the question of who paid the fine on admittance (3) the existence of valuable consideration by the cestuis que vie. If the grant

was
1

to the first taker and his heirs, the heir of the first taker succeeds as special occupant (JLempriere v. Martin (1777) 2 W. Bl.

148).]

1104. In the absence of express custom,^ the ad-

Admittance
...11'*'

mittance of a tenant for

life

is

the admittance of
;

owners

the remaindermen under the same settlement

and

where

a full fine has


life,

been paid on the admittance of


of a manor cannot, in
full

a tenant for

the lord
-

the absence of custom to the contrary, claim a


fine

on the admittance of
(a)

remainderman under the


5 East,

same settlement.
WhitbreadW Jenney (1804)
Richardson
(b)
v.

522.

Kensit (1845) 5

M. & G.

485.

Tiping v. Sunning (1^97) Moore, 465. Aufitetme v. Auncelme (1603) Cro. Jac. 31.

Digitized

by Microsoft

598
(c)

LAW OF PROPERTY
D.
isf

C. of Ely V. Caldecot
v.

Phyperi

Eburn (1836)

3 Bing.

(1832) 8 Bing. 439, N. C. zjo.


B.

Reg.

\'.

Woodham Walter (1869) 100

&

S.

439.

[The rule has no application where the second taker does not claim under the same settlement as the first {Reg. v. Dullingham
(1838) 8 A.

&

E. 858).]

Alienation by

1105.
lives

copyholder having an estate for

life or

customary
tenant for
life

may, in the absence of custom to the contrary,


it

create out of

a customary quasi fee simple, or, if

the custom permits, create a quasi entail, in the

same manner
life

as

the tenant of a freehold estate for

or lives [ante, 1081-1085).


LemprHre
v.

Martin (1777) 2

W.

Bl.

1148.

Allen V. Bewsey (1877) ) Ch. D. 453.

[In the last case, the derivative interests were in fact equitable but the Court of Appeal assumed that they might have been legal. Even before the passing of the Wills Act, 1837, s. 6, there could be no general occupant of a cfopyhold estate ; and the lord might enter after the death of the tenant \Zouch v. Parse (1806) 7 East, 86).]

Voluntary

1106.
character

Every person for the time being


of,

filling

the

enfranchise-

ment

or acting

as,

lord of a manor, whether

lawfully entitled or not,(*)

may, with the consent of

the Board of Agriculture, agree to carry out a vol-

untary conversion into freehold (" enfranchisement")

of the tenant's land


lord or the tenant
is

but where the estate of the

a limited interest, then, unless

the tenant pays the whole cost of the enfranchise-

ment, notice

in

writing of the proposed

enfran-

Digitized

by Microsoft

COPYHOLDS

599

chisement must be given to the person entitled to the next estate of inheritance in the manor or tene-

ment

respectively. (=)
(a)

Copyhold Act,
Ibid.
s. s.

(b)
(c)

1 894, 14 (i) (2).

s.

94.

Ibid.

14 (3).

[There are
in the case

special provisions as to voluntary enfranchisement

of

Crown manors

{ibid, s.

69) ]

1107.

The

consideration for a voluntary enfran-

Comider-

chisement under the Copyhold Act, 1894, may be


either
:

"iWl^'an
enfranchise-

ment.

(i)

gross

sum, payable
or,

at

once or

at

an

agreed date;
(ii)

a rent

charge on and issuing out of the


;

land enfranchised
(iii)

or,

a conveyance of

land,

or of a

right to

mines, or minerals,

w^hether subject to

the same or corresponding uses and trusts


as
(iv)

the land enfranchised, or not

or,

conveyance of
the manor;
or,

a right in the waste

of

(v)

partly one

and partly another or others of

the above forms.


Ibid.
s.

15.

[Special precautions are taken


fee
first

when
;

the lord

is

not

owner
is

in

simple

15 (3))charge on the enfranchised land


s.

{ibid.

The

enfranchisement

money

be a mortgagee
terest as if
it

in

fee

in

and the lord is deemed to respect thereof, and may distrain for in-

were rent

in arrear (s. 19).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

6oo
Ciimpulsory

LAW OF PROPERTY
An
admitted
tenant

1108.
(other

of copyhold

land

enfranchise-

ment

than a

mortgagee not in possession) may


in writing
a

compel the lord by notice chise his tenement; and


being
filling

to enfran-

person
of,

for

the
as,

time
lord,

the character

or acting

whether lawfully
notice, W compel chisement. W

entitled or not,W

may, by similar
accept enfran-

such a tenant to

(a)

Copyhold Act, 1894,


Ibid.
Ibid.
s.
s.

s.

4.

(b)
(c)

94.
I

[All fines

and

fees in

arrear

must be paid before a tenant can


It
is

claim enfranchisement

(ibid. s. 3).

the duty of the steward


'

on the admittance or enrolment of any tenant, to give him notice If the in statutory form of his right to obtain enfranchisement.
steward fails to give such notice, he loses his right to any fee for such admittance or enrolment (ibid, s, 42).]

Considera-

1109. If the enfranchisement


the lord, or if

is

at

the instance of

tion/or

compulsory
enfranchise-

the compensation for the enfranchiseto

ment amounts

more than one

year's

improved value
such

ment

of the land, and the land can, in the opinion of the

Board of Agriculture, be

sufficiently identified,

compensation takes the form, unless otherwise agreed,


or unless the tenant insists on paying a gross sum, of
a

(perpetual) annual rent charge, equivalent to in-

terest at

the rate of four per cent on the amount In


paid

of the compensation on the land enfranchised. W


other cases, the compensation
is

a gross

sum

Digitized

by Microsoft

COPYHOLDS
before enfranchisement. W
steward's compensation.
(a)
(')

6oi

The

tenant also pays the

Copyhold Act, 1894,


Ibid.
Ibid.
8.
8.

8 (i).

(b)
(c)

8 (2).
9.
is

[The method of

assessing compensation
is

regulated by

s.

7.

The award of enfranchisement

made by the Board of Agriculture (s. 10). A rent charge created [by way of compensation for enfranchisement may be redeemed in manner provided by the Act
(s.

30).]

1110. Where, in the opinion of the Board

oi. Alternative
'"j''"" of enfran''

Agriculture, the enjoyment or value of the lord's

chisement

mansion house, park, gardens, or pleasure grounds,

might be prejudicially affected by an enfranchisement demanded by a tenant, the lord may elect, in
lieu

of enfranchising the tenement, to purchase the


of the tenant at a valuation (including expenses

interest

of purchase) made by the Board of Agriculture.


Ibid.
s.

II.

1111.

The Board

of Agriculture may suspend any


opinion there

Suspension of
"'f'''""^

proceedings for compulsory enfranchisefnent under


the Copyhold Act, 1894, where in
its

'"-

ment

would be

difficulty,

owing

to peculiar circumstances,

on the prospective value of the land, or where any special hardship or injustice would unavoidably result from compulsory enfranchisement.
in deciding

Digitized

by Microsoft

6o2

LAW OF PROPERTY

But any such suspension must be reported by the Board to Parliament.


Copyhold Act,
1

894,

s.

z.

Rights not

1,112.

No enfranchisement made under


afFects

Sir/"^
ment

hold Act, 1894,


(i)

the Copy-

the lord's right of escheat in respect of the enfranchised tenement;

(ii)

the application of the custom of gavelkind


in

Kent

(iii)

the dower, freebench, or curtesy, of any

person ma!rried before the date at which


the enfranchisement takes effect
(iv)

any right of
tenant

common

belonging to the

(v)

any right to or in respect of mines or


minerals,

or any

easement

in

connec-

tion therewith, of the lord or tenant, or

any rights or privileges of the lord


respect of
fairs,

in

markets, or sport; except

so far as expressly consented to in writing

by the party
Hid.

affected.
ss,

21-23.

[On any enfranchisement utlder the Act, a right of way or other easement for the, purpose of working mines or minerals under the enfranchised tenement may, with the consent of the tenant, be
reserved or granted to the lord
(s.

24).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

COPYHOLDS
1113. Subject to 1
the
1 1

603
Effect of

2,

an epfranchisement under

1894, whether voluntary or compulsory, converts the enfranchised tenement into


free

Copyhold Act,

enfranchise-

ment

exempt from any local custom of descent, dower, freebench, curtesy, or any other kind whatever, and free from any estate,
socage,

and

common

right, charge, or interest affecting the

manor; but

subject to

all

the rights and interests of any person

having, at the date of the enfranchisement, any right


or interest under any testament, settlement, mort-

gage, lease, or other disposition, in the enfranchised

tenement.
Copyhold Act, i 894,
s.

[Where

the tenement

is,

at

the date of the enfranchisement,


lease,

subject to a lease, the freehold


as if the term

becomes the reversion on the

had originally been created out of it {ibid. (3)). Where the tenant was admitted subject to any condition affecting the user of the land, imposed for the benefit of the public or the other tenants of the manor, and the enfranchisement is compulsory, the Board of Agriculture may, if in its opinion some special hardship or injustice would result if the land were released from the condition, continue and give effect to the condition by the award of enfranchisement {ibid. s. 13).]

1114.

Where

in a

manor the

fines are certain.

General

and

it is

the practice for copyholders in fee to grant

^^[^"'

"^'

derivative interests to persons

who

are admitted as

copyholders of the manor in respect of those interests,

the Board of Agriculture may, at the request of

Digitized

by Microsoft

6o4

LAW OF PROPERTY
roll

the lord, or of one fourth of the copyhdlders for the

time bfeing on the court


local enquiry
;

of the manor, hold a


it

and

if at

such enquiry

appears that

not

less

than two thirds of the copyholders desire


all

enfranchisement of

the copyhold tenements of

the manor, the Board must


ingly,

make an

order accord-

and proceed

to

ascertain the

compensation

payable to the lord in respect thereof.


pensation must consist of a gross

Such comin re-

sum of money

spect of each tenement, unless the lord and the tenant


in fee of such

tenement otherwise agree; and must

be apportioned in each case by the Board between


the tenant in fee and the owners of the derivative
'

interests in

each tenement.
Copyhold Act,
1

894,

s.

79.

[The expenses of
apportioned
{ibid. s.

the enquiry and enfranchisement are similarly

79

(c)).]

Enfranchise-

1115.
^" ^

person having an estate in fee simple


estate,

'^mmm

lam

manor, or a power to dispose of such an

or to enfranchise,^

may, by agreement with

a copy-

holder, enfranchise such copyholder's tenement, either

by conveyance of
Act, 1894.W
the tenant at

his estate, or [semble)

by

release of

his seignorial rights, independently

of the Copyhold

But such enfranchisement will deprive law of all rights over the manorial

lands, including

commonable

rights,

which

existed

Digitized

by Microsoft

COPYHOLDS
prive the
lord of
rights

605

by virtue of his copyhold tenure,^ and will deall

over the enfranchised

tenement.
(a)

(b)

Bradsbaw

under the Settled Land Act, i88z, s. 3 (ii). ^ v. Lawson (1791) 4 T. R. 443. Wilson V. Allen (1820) i J. & W. 611. (In this case Sir Thos. Plumer appears to have thought that the fact that the copyholder had not actually been admitted was immaterial, if the beneficial interest was vested in him.) But the enfranchisement enures for the benefit of the persons really entitled to the tenement ( Wynne V. Cockes (1780) I Bro.'C. C. 515).
e. g.

Scriven, Copyholds, I, p. 5 52.


(c)

Forty. Ward (i^gS) Moore, 667. Crowder v. Oldfield (1706) I Salk. 170. Deny v. Sanders [1919] i K. B. 223.

rights,

[But where the circumstances imply a grant of commonable Equity will secure them to the enfranchised tenant (Siyant v. Staker (169 1) 2 Vern. 250). And the doctrine of the text has no

application to a claim of

commonable
exist

rights in land

outside the

manor

because

these

cannot

by

reason

of the

custom

(^Crowder v. Oldfield, ubi sup^.'\


(d)

(The Copyhold Act, Tilbury v. Silva (1890) 45 Ch. D. 98. 1887, (s. 4) reserved the lord's right of escheat on enfranchise-

ment
1

in all cases

but

this

Act
2
1

is

now

repealed by the Act of


the Act.)

894, which, apparently,

(s.

(b)) only reserves the right of


is

escheat

when

the enfranchisement

made under

1116.

An

enfranchisement,

even

though not

Enfranchise-

made under
in
tail,

the Copyhold Act, 1894, to a tenant Zlolnl^ confers upon such tenant in tail a fee
all restrictions

simple, W free from

affecting the copy-

hold tenement, imposed for the benefit of the lord, and not reserved by the enfranchisement, C") and from
all liabilities

arising frpni manorial custom, W

It is

Digitized

by Microsoft

6o6

LAW OF PROPERTY
confers
Punn
v.

doubtful whetker an enfranchisement to a tenant for


life

upon him
Gree/i

a fpe simple.^
3 P.

(a)

(1724)

Wms.

g.

Challoner v. Murhall (179S) z Ves. Jun, 524. Ex parte School Boardfor London (i88g) 41 Ch. D. 547. (ThU rule js now, (b) Brabant v. Wilson (1865) L. R. 2 Q. B. 44. of course, subject to s. 13 of the Copyhold Act, 1894 {ante,

S
(c)

1 1

13

n.).)

Qutsre, as to non-statutory enfranchisements.


sup.,
at

(d)

Searle v. Cooke (18,89) 43 Ch. D. 519. Ex parte School Board for London, ubi

p.

550, per

North,

J.

Customary
^''"
"

1 1,1 7.

An
is

estate

of customary freehold^

is

an

es-

tate

which

held of the lord of a

manor according
at

to the

custom of such manor, but not


roll.

the will of

the lord, nor by copy of court

Binghamy. Woodgate (1829) I Russ. & M. 32. Warwick v. Queen's College, Oxford (1871) L, R. 6 Ch. App. 716.
Heath
V. Dearie P905] 2 Ch. 86. Copestakev. Hoper [[1908] 2 Ch. 10.
1

report of D. of Portland v. Hill (1866) L. R. 2 Eq., at 776, shows (what indeed can hardly be doubted) that the law still recognises a peculiar form of manorial tenure known as " customary freehold," intermediate between copyhold and ordinary socage tenure. The position of true customary freeholders, i. e. customary tenants in whom the freehold is vested, is very doubtful (see Bingham v. Woodgate, ubi sup.., Bushet v. Thompson (1846) Either lord or tenant claiming to exercise any 4 C. B. 48). exceptional right in respect of the tenement, would be compelled to prove it by reference to the custom. It should be remembered, that all freehold tenants of a manor are entitled as of common right, in respect of their ancient arable land, to common of pasture over the waste of the manor (Co. Litt. 122a; Heath v. Deahe, ubi sup., at p. 91, per Joyce, J.). But the tendency of the Courts is to class every tenure as copyhold in which the estates require perfection by admittance at the hands of the lord, and to hold that in such cases the freehold is in the lord (see Burrell v. Dodd

[The

p.

Digitized

by Microsoft

COPYHOLDS

607

(1803) 3 Bos. & P. 378 ; Reay v. Huntington (1803) 4 East, 271 ; Cook V. Danvers (1806) 7 331,299; Thompson v. Hardinge (1845) 1 C. B. 940) ; and this rule is said by Fitzherbert {Nature Brevium, 14) to apply even to tenants in ' antient demesne,' i. e. tenants of a manor which was in the hands of the Crown in the days of Edward the Confessor. The practical consequence is, that the tenants of such estates are in substantially the same position as ordinary copyholders with regard to the commission of waste and other manorial incidents (Z). of Portland v. Hill^ ubi sup.) ; though at one time they may have enjoyed greater security of tenure than ordinary Tenants in antient demesne, however, are, according copyholders. to modern views, to be ranked among freeholders {Merttens v. Hill [1901] I Ch. 842).]

1118.
to

The

lord or the tenant of any land subject

Extinguish'"^"* "J.
|^^^'

any manorial right or incident may compel the


re-

extinguishment of such right or incident and the


lease or

enfranchisement of the land subject thereto,

in like

manner

as

nearly as possible as the lord or

tenant of a copyhold tenement

may compel
94.

enfran-

chisement

{ante,

1108).
1

Copyhold Act,

894,

ss z,

[Presumably, a lord entitled in fee simple may also release or extinguish such rights or incidents by deed independently of the But such a release will not destroy the tenant's Copyhold Act. rights of common {Baring v. Abingdon [18192] 2 Ch. 374).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
Estate for

VI

ESTATES
is

FOR YEARS

1119.
("lease")

term of years

created by a limitation

of land, by a |3ers6n having an interest In the case


law, the

therein, to hold for any certain period. W

of a limitation which operates

at

common

term becomes an

estate only

when

the lessee enters

or remains upon the land in pursuance of the lease. C")

Where

the limitation operates under the Statute of


it ipsofacto

Uses (27 Hen. VIII (1535) c. 10), an estate by virtue of the statute. (")
(a)
Litt.
s.

creates

58.
a.

5y y. Smith (1561) Plowd. 269. Bishop of Bath's Case (1605) 6 Rep. 34 Sheppard, Tombstone, p. 267.

[Interests in the nature of leases in perpetuity have sometimes been authorized by statute {Robertson v. Gardiner (1852) 12 C. B. D. Ry. Co. ( 1 879) 1 1 Ch. D. 625). 319; Sevenoaks Ry. Co. v. L. C. The Settled Land Act, 1882, s. 10 (i), seems also to contemplate such interests as existing under local custom.]

(b)
,

Co.

Litt.
v.

46

b.

yic), Ise,ham

Morrice (1628) Crd, Car. 109. Banker v. Keat (1677) z Mod. 249.

[The

classification of
it, it is

terms of years
is

dealing with

difficult to

is not very clear ; and, in avoid a cross division. The distinc-

tion adopted in the text

safest for legal purposes.

one of form ; but it appears to be the Although the interest of the lessee for

was not completely protected until the passing of the statute of 1529 (21 Hen. Vin, c. 15), it is clear that by Littleton's day it was regarded as an estate, subject at'least to some of the incidents of tenure. (Litt. s. 132.) But the influence of its originally conyears
tractual character ( 1037, note) has always prevented it being classed, technically, as real property, and, therefore, as capable of

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES FOR YEARS


seisin.

609

Consequently, it was not a suitable subject for the normal law conveyance, viz, feoffment with livery of seisin ; and, until the passing of the Statute of Frauds in 1677, no formalities were required for the creation of a term of years. Still, as we have seen above, the common law Courts had, by Littleton's day, laid it down that, while the making of the lease created an interesse termini, which was transferable, and passed to she executors of the lessee on the latter's death, no estate arose until entry, which, however, unlike entry after livery in law, did npt necessarily take place in the lifetime of the lessor or lessee (see post, 1120). It was said, indeed, by the Court in Iseham v. Morrice {ubi sup.), that the lessor might "waive the possession"; but this dictum seems to have been without due consideration, and the necessity for entry by the lessee remains a rule of the common law. The passing of the Statute of Uses, however, paved the way for the creation of estates for years without entry ; the most important instance of which was the lease on which the conveyance by Lease and Release was founded. But, inasmuch as neither the common law nor the Statute of Uses required the employment of any special words for the limitation of a term of years \HeywarcCs Case (1595) 2 Rep. 35 a; Edward Fox^s Case (1610) 8 Rep. 94 a; Duxiury v. Sandiford (1898) 80 L. T. 552 (C. A.)), and inasmuch as it was decided in Barker v. Keat {supra) that a merely nominal consideration was sufficient to raise, a use for the purpose, it is sometimes extremely difficult to tell whether a It is clear, lease operates at common law or under the statute. however, that no one but a freeholder can limit a term by way of use ; because no one but a freeholder can be seised to uses. A more practical classification of estates for years is to be found in the objects for which they are created, i. e. whether for occupation purIt is clearly assumed in poses or by way of security for money. Littleton's well-known passages (e.g. ss. 58, 59, 66, 67), and in Coke's commentary thereupon, that the lessee for years is an occupier. But a practice, said by Barton {Modern Precedents, V, 133) to date from the reign of Elizabeth, grew up of effecting a mortgage of freeholds by granting a long term to a mortgagee at a nominal rent ; probably to prevent claims of dower by the mortgagee's widow {Nash V. Preston (1630) Cro. Car. 190), possibly also to avoid the inconvenience of having the estate and the right to receive the

common

mortgage money vested in different persons. This practice persisted of the 19th century (Barton, op. cit. Vol. V, Precedents), but is stated by Davidson in 1869 {Precedents,'^ o\. II, Again, Pt. II, p. 1008 n {a)) to have been then almost abandoned. the long terms invented by the Caroline conveyancers, under the X 2
until the beginning

Digitized

by Microsoft

i6io
system of

LAW OF PROPERTY
strict settlements,

were

for the

ures and portions; but they were generally

purpbse of securing jointmade by way of use

(Bridgman, Conveyances, pp. 225, 259, 260, 332, &c.). Finally, the familiar practice of effeoting mortgages of terms of years by the process of sub-demise, renders it impossible to identify the common

law term with the occupation


with the mortgage.]

lease,

and the term by way of use

interesse ter-

1120.
ates

Icasc operatiflg at the

common

law cre-

mint

an

interesse termini in

favour of the lessee before

entry,

which

interesse termini

may be

granted away

or demised iby the lessee, and will pass to his personal


representatives
is

on

his death.

An

interesse termini

converted into an estate for years by entry on the


lessee, or his

land by the

personal representatives, or

by any person by
lawfully acquired.
(a)

whom

the same

may have been

Co.

Litt.

46

b.

Bruerton v. Raipsford (1583) Cro. Eliz. 15. Wheeler N. Tborogped {1 ^8g) Cro. Eliz. 127. Barwick's Case (1597) S Rep. 93 b.

Doe

V.

Day (1842)

Q. B.,

at p.

156.

[The
assignee

doctrine of interesse termini has


existing estate for years,

ment of an

no application to an assignwhich vests the estate in the


assignment
{Williams
v.

immediately
I

he

accepts

the

Bosanquet (1819)
(b)
Litt.
s.

B.

&

B. 238).]

58.

Co.

Litt.

46

b.

J'oyner'v. Wee'ks

[1891] 2 Q. B.,

at p.

47, per Fry, L.

J.

Not an

estate

1121.

An

interesse termini

may be

released

(but

not surrendered) by the owner thereof to the lessor,

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES FOR YEARS


and will thereupon become extinguished. W
lessor
interesse termini

6ii

But the
dis-

cannot convey his estate to the owner of the

by way of

release/''^

nor can he
lease
;

train

on the land

for rent reserved

by the

W and

the doctrine of merger has no application to any

attempted surrender by the owner of the


terminiS^^
(a)

interesse

Salmon v. Swam (1621) Cro. Jac. 619. Rawlings v. Walker (1826) 5 B. & C, at p. 118, per Bay ley,
interesse

J.

[An

termini

is,

in

fact,

mere contract

{jfoyner

v.

Weeks [1891] 2 Q. B.,


(b)
Litt. s.

at p.

44, per Lord Esher).]

459.

Sheppard, Touchstone, p. 324. Williams -v. 'Bosanquet{iS ig) i B. & B., at p. 257. (c) Because there is, in fact, no reversion in the lessor till the lessee has entered {Smith v. Day (1837) 2 M. & W. 684). (d) Rawlings v. Walker, aii sup.

[On

the same principle, where a present estate for years and an

interesse termini

immediately expectant thereupon are vested


v.

in the

same person, there is no enlargement of the former {Lewis [1905] I Ch. 46).]

Baker

1122,
titling

The owner of a valid interesse termini enhim to immediate possession of the land may
(")

Rights of

"^"J^^jJ
termini

bring an action against the lessor


to recover the land,

or a stranger

C")

or

damages

for

non-delivery

thereof.
(a)

Coe

V.

Jinks
(b)

V.

Doe

V.

5 Bing. 440 (? only an Edwards (1856) 11 Exch. 775. Day (1841) 2 Q. B. 147.

Cky (1829)

action for damages).

\^uare : would the owner of an interesse termini be entitled to enforce hi$ claim against a bona fide purchaser of the legal estate in

Digitized

by Microsoft

6l2
reversion

LAW OF PROPERTY
who,
at the date

of his purchase, had no notice of

his

claim ? The dicta in the two cases of Gillard v. Cheshire Lines Committee (1884) 32 W. R. 943, and Joyner v. Weeks [1891], 2 Q. B. 31, as to the nature of an interesse termini appear to be irreconcileable ; notwithstanding the fact that two of the learned judgea took part in both cases.]

Actions
against-

1123.

The owner

of a valid

interesse termini

may

strangers

bring an action against a stranger for damage to the


land; even though he
sion
is

not yet entitled to posses-

of ^ the land.W

action for trespass to

But he cannot maintain an the land C") nor [semble) an action


;

for breach of covenant for quiet

enjoyment, unless

he has attempted
prevented by the

to take possession,
lessor

and has been


cla,iming

or

some person

under him.W
(a)

Gillard v.

(b)

Cheshire Lines Committee (1884) 32 W. R. (C. A.). Ryan v. Clarke (1849) 14 Q. B., at p. 73, per Patteson, J.

943

[But, semble, if he recovered possession by ejectment, he could sue for trespass committed since his title to possession accrued {Barnett v. E. of Guildford (1856) 1 1 Exch. 19 ; Ocean Accident Co. V. Ilford Gas Co. [1905] 2 K. B. 493) 1
(c)

Ludwelly. Newman (1795) 6 T. R. 458. Wallis V. Hands [1893] 2 Ch. 75.

Liabilities

of

1124.

The owucr

of an

interesse termini is liable

etry

to the lessor on all the covenants of the lease,W and


for

payment of the rent

reserved, C")

even

before

entry.

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES FOR YEARS


(a)

613

This would seem to follow from the fact that a covenant is a contract ; even though no estate has yet been created by the lease. But would an assignee of the interesse termini be liable ? (b) Bellasis v. Burbriche (1696) I Ld. Raym. 170. (The rule is
different in tenancies at will.)

1125.

Where

take effect

term of years to immediately on the expiry of an existing


a lessor creates a

Reversionary
lease

estate for years created out

of the estate out of which

the future term will take effect, he nevertheless retains

the reversion
entitled to

upon the earlier term, and will be enter on the land on the expiry of such

earlier term.
Joyner
v.

Weeks [1891] z Q. B.,

at p.

47, per Fry, L.J.

this case and that of upon the first term. In such a case (e. g. Colehourn's i^ Mixtone's Case (1588) i Leon. 129, as corrected in Rawlings v. Walker (1826) 5 B. & C, at p. 123), the lessor will have lost his right to distrain for the rent reserved by the first lease. In other words, a reversionary lease and a lease of a reversion arc two different things.]

[Care must be taken to distinguish between


tHfe

a lease of

reversion

1126.

The

date of the

commencement and

the

Limits of

exact duration of an estate for years need not be

term

by the lease creating it. But provision must be made by the lease for fixing such date or duration in the lifetime of the lessor; and the
specifically fixed

lease will

be good only

if a

term certain be fixed

accordingly.
7. L. V. Potkin (1522) Y. B. 14 Hen. VIII, Mich., Brudnel, C. J. Rector of Chedington' s Case (1598) i Rep. 152 b.
at
fo.

14, per
case

(This

Digitized

by Microsoft

6 14
suggests
parties. )

LAW OF PROPERTY
that
%>

the

fixing

must

be

in

the

lifetimes

of

both

the

Bishop' of BaiF s Case (1605) 6 Rep. 35. Kirsley v. Duck (17 12) 2 Vern. 684.

[The cases show that there is some vagueness as to the amount of certainty requisite to constitute a good term of years.]

Commencelerm

1127.

When

the time of

Specified in the lease, or

commencement is not when the lease is expressed


its

to take effect

from the making thereof^ or " from henceforth," the term is deemed to begin on the delivery of the lease. W But when the term is expressed to commence " from " the day of the date or making
of the lease,^ or
will

"from"
unless

a fixed calendar date,W

it

begin on the day following such delivery or


;

date respectively
lease effectuarl,

it is

necessary, to ijender the

that the term should


specified date.(^)

begin

imme-

diately or
(a)

on the

Co. Litt. 46 b. Goddard's Case (1584) 2 Rep. 5 a. Clayton's Case (1585) J Rep. i. Osbourn v. Rider (1606) Cro. Jac. 133. Llewelyn v. Williams (1610) Cro. Jac. 258, Hatter v. Ash (1696) I Ld. Raym. 84. Doe V. Benjamin (1839) 9 A. & E, 644.

lease is not made by deed, and the date of not fixed, the term will begin on the day on which the writing was executed, or the oral bargain made (yaques V. Millar (1877) 6 Ch. D. 153). But a mere agreement to grant a lease, without specifying when the term is to commence, is void for uncertainty {Marshall\. Berridge (1881) 19 Ch., D. 233).]

\Semhle^

where the
is

commencement

(b)

Clayton's Case, uhi sup.


,

Barwick's Case (1597) 5 Rep. 94 a. -Anon. (161 1) I Bulstr.atp. iyj,per Fleroming, C. Cornish v. Caway (1648) Aleyn, 75.
Styles V.

J.

Wardle (i8z6) 4 B.

&

C. '908.

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES FOR YEARS


[But see Bacon v. Waller (16 16) 3 Bulstr. 204.]
(c)

615

Anon. (1773) Lofft, 275.

Acklandy. Lutky (1839) 9 A.


[It
is,

&

E. 879.

fixed calendar date (^Sidebotham v.


(d)

of course, otherwise when the term is to begin " on " a Holland [^iSgs] i Q- B. 378).]

Pughv. D. of Leeds {1777)

Cowp. 714.

1128. Subject to 1129, the fact that a term of


years
is

Contingent
^^''""

to

commence, or

is

liable to

be determined,

on the happening of a contingency, W or is only to last until the happening of an uncertain event,W does
not prevent
it

being a certain period within the

meaning of
(a)

1119.
Litt.

Co.

45

b.

Sheppard, Touchstone, 274, 284. GoBdright v. Richardson (1789) 3 T. R. 462. (b) Doe V. Clarke (1807) 8 East, 183.
[It was said in Pennant's Case (1596) 3 Rep. 65, properly worded condition, an estate for years might
that,-

under a
void,

become

without necessity for entry or other act of avoidance by the lessor, on the happening of a contingency ; and this doctrine is repeated in But it seems to be the better opinion, that Sheppard, op. cit. 284. the lessor may waive the forfeiture ; in other words, that the 'lease becomes voidable only, not void, on the happening of the contin{Rede v. Farr (1817) 6 M. & S. 121.) Where the term gency. is limited " until " the happening of an event, or " if tlie lessee shall so long, live," it comes to an end on the event happening or the
lessee dying {Dae v. Clarke., ubi SHp.).^

1129.

lease for years

may
it

form of words from which

be created by any Fomtof can be gathered that ^^"'^


.

a person having an interest in land agrees that an-

other shall have possession of such land for a certain

X3

Digitized

by Microsoft

6i6
period. (^)

LAW OF PROPERTY
But
a

mere licence to

use land for a defi-

nite purpose, even for a certain period


rent, does not create

and

at a fixed
fol-

an estate for years, though

lowed by
(a)

entry.

e*)

Edward

Fox's Case, (1610) 8 Rep. 93 b.

Tisdallv. Essex (16 16) 3 Bulstr. 204. Sheppard, Touchstone 2712.

Duxbury
[If the term
is

v.

Sandiford (1898) 80 L. T. 552 (C. A.).

to operate

must have an
(b)

estate
v.

under the Statute of Uses, the lessor of freehold in the land.]

Watkins

Overseers of Milton (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 350.

Covenant for
^'"''""^
'

1130.

lease for years

may

contain a covenant
it
;

for renewal of the

term granted by

and such

covenant will be enforceable against the lessor and


all

persons acquiring his estate, W

covenant for

perpetual renewal entered into in favour of the lessee

and

his successors in title will not


;

be void for per-

petuity

C")

but a similar covenant in favour of other

persbns claiming in their


(a)

own

right will be

void.^'^)

Isteedy. Stone/ay (i^So)

And. 82.

Jnon. (1584) Moore, 159. Richardson v. Sydenham (1705) 2 Vern. 447. Brook V. Bulkeley (1752) 2 Ves. Sen. 498. Muller V. Tr afford [1901] 1 Ch., at p. 60, fer Farwell, (b) Bridges v. Hitchcock (i7i'5) S Bro. P. C. 6. Re Mayor and Corporation of London [19 10] 2 Ch. 314. E. of Mount Edgecumbe v. Commrs. of Inland Revenue

J.

[19I1]
647.

2
(c)

K. B. 24.
V.

Hope

Corporation of Gloucester (1855) 7

De G. M. & G.

[Of
in

course, the covenant for renewal only binds the estate of


{^Muller v. Traffhrd, at p. 62).]

the covenantor, not (in the absence of special powers) any estate

remainder or reversion on

it

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES FOR YEARS


1131.
pressly or

617
Single cove-

Unless a contrary intention appears, ex-

by implication/')
is

a cqvenant to

renew

"""'
is

presumed to be exhausted by a
the lessee
inserted in the
(a)

single exercise;

and

not entitled to have a similar covenant

renewed
v.

lease. (""^
3 Atk. 83.

Furnitialv.

Crew (1744)

(b)

Beach (1823) 13 Beav. 478. Hare v. Surges (1857) 4 K. & J. 45. Iggttldeny. May (1806) 7 East, 237. Dowlingy. Af/7/(i8i6) i Madd. 541.

Copper Mining Co.

Brown
Hare

v.

v.

Tighe (1834) 2 CI. & F. 396. Burges, ubi sup., at p. 54, per Wood, V. C.

(lives).

[But see the remarks of Selbofne, C, in Swinburne (1884) L. R. 9 App. Ca., at p. 850 (lives).]

v.

Milhurn

1132.

An

estate

from year
:

to year ("yearly ten-

Yearly ten""'^

ancy

")

is

created by

(i)

any expressions in
estate

a lease

from which the

intention of the parties to create such an

can be gathered;
7

Clarke

v.

Smaridge (1845)
is

Q.B.,

at p.

959, per Lord Denman, C.

J.

expressed to create a tenancy ' for one year and so on from year to year,' or to that effect, the yearly tenancy does not begin till the expiry of the first year, and cannot, consequently,
[If the lease
in the absence of express provision, be determined before the end of the second {Denn v. Cartright (1803) 4 East, 31 ; Chidborn v. Cannon Brewery v. Nash (1898) Green (1839) 9 A. & E. 658) 77 L. T. 648).]
;

(ii)

a general demise, not operating as a grant

for

life, at

an annual rent, without men-

tion 6f any term


775. 1171. Richardson v. Langridge (181 1) 4 Taunt. 128. Lewis V. Baker (No. z) [1906] z K. B. 599.

Agardv. King (1600) Cro.


Roe
v. Lees

Eliz.

(1778) 2

W,

Bl.

Digitized

by Microsoft

6i8
(iii)

LAW OF PROPERTY
an occupation by permission of the owner of land, ^uhder a void
lease,

followed by

the acceptance by such owner of a yearly


rent,

or

some aliquot

part thereof.

In

such a case, the terms of the void


in
so, far as

lease,

the lessor had power to enter

into them,, and in so far as they are not

inconsistent with a yearly tenancy, will be

binding on the parties


d. Rigge v. Bell (1793) 5 T. R. 471. Pennington v. Tamere (i848>) 12 Q. B. 998.

Doe
Lee

V.

Smith (1854) 9 Exch. 662.


College, Hospital v.

Magdalen
p.

Knotts (1879) L.

R. 4 App. Ca.,

at

335, /^r Lord Selborne.

[It seems a little doubtful how far this doctrine would apply if the lease were void under the provisions of a disabling statute. Both Lord Cairns and Lord Selborne, in Magdalen College Hospital
V. 'Knotts, uii sup.,

seem

to

have thought

that'it.vwouldi.]

(iv)

holding over, accompanied by payment

of rent,

after the expiry or

determination

of a previous
nual rent.
'

definite tenancy, at

an an-

In such a case, the parties

will continue to be

bound by such of the


as

terms of the former lease

are not in;

consistent with a yearly tenancy

(')

unless

there

is

evidence of agreement
(''

to

the

contrary.
(a)

Ri^U V. Darby (1786) iT. R. 159. Doe V. Watts (1797) 7 T. R. 83. tSishop v. Howard (1823) 2 B. & C.

100.
(In this case

Clarke v. Smaridge (1845) 7 Q. B. 957. Dougal v. McCariiy [1893] i Q. B. 736.


been- paid.)
(b)

no rent had

Wedd

V. Porter [1916] 2

K. B,

91,

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES FOR YEARS


[On
is

619

the other hand, a person


is let

who

has contracted to purchase

land, and

into possession pending completion of the contract,

not, in the absence of special stipulation, a tenant from year to

year, but a tenant at will, to the

vendor
v.

(^Ball v. Cullimore

(1835)

2 C.

M. &

R. 120;

Howard

Shaw (1841) 8 M.

& W.

"8)0

1133.

tenancy from year to year can only,, in

Determiua-

the absence of agreement to the contrary, be termi-

^UlanJ'"^'^

nated by six months' notice expiring at the end of


a year of the tenancy ;W and, in cases to

which the
where the

Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, applies, only by


a year's notice similarly expiring, except
lessor

and

lessee

agree in writing to the contrary, or

where
certain

a receiving order in
('')

bankruptcy has been made


a

against the tenant.

Where
determine

term expires
necessary

at

date,W or on the happening of a specific

event,

('')

no notice

to

is

except

in pursuance

of express agreement or the provisions


(1709) 2 Salk. 414. (1803) 4 East, 31.

of a
(a)

statute.
Legg
V. Strudiaick v. Cartright

Denn

[Where the original term was for more than a year, a tenancy from year to year created by holding over and. payment of rent notice expiring. on an ( 1 132 (iv.) ), can only be determined by anniversary of the expiry of the original term {Croft v. Blciy [1919]
2 Ch, 343)-]
(b)
(c)

Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908,

s.

22,

r.

Messenger v. Armstrong (1785) i T. R., at p. 1 54 1 per Lord Right V. Dariy (ijS6) ibid., at p. 162 j Mansfield, C. J. Cobb V. Stokes (1807) 8 East, 358. (d) BromJieUv. Smith (1805) 6 East, 530. (e) The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908 (s. 12 (2)), entitles the tenant of a mortgagor, whose lease is not binding on the mortgagee, in the case of all holdings to which that Act applies (s. 48), to six months' notice of termination by the latter, if the tenant holds at a

Digitized

by Microsoft

6^o

LAW OF PROPERTY
rack rent, and his term was originally not for longer than twenty-one years. It appears that the wider provision of the Tenants Compensation

Act,

1890
is

,(s.

occupiers of land,

now

2), giving similar protection to all repealed. See Agricultural Holdings

Act, 1908, Sclied. IV,

col. 3.

Option

to

1134.
-j^

When,

in pursuance of an express clause


*

determine

^ lease, the lessor or the lessee

is

entitled to deterlease

mine the term created by such


expiry thereof, reasonable notice
exercise such right

before the
intention to

of, his

must be given

to the other party.W

In the absence of express reservation for the benefit

of the

lessor,

an option to determine will operate

only in favour of the lessee.^


(a)

(b)

Goodrjigkty. Richardson '(\ji()) 3 T. R. 462. Dann v. Spurrier {\%oi) 3 B. & P. 399.

Doe

v.

Hixon (1807) 9

East, 14.

Rent

1135.

It

is

not necessary to the creation of an

estate for years, that a rent


lessor.(^)

should be reserved by the


reserved,
C")

But

if a rent

is

it

must be

re-

served in favour of the lessor,


certain fixed
as his

and must be of
lessor

amount

and the

cannot reserve

own

property any part of the annual profits

of the land.W
(a)
Litt. s.

58.

Sheppard, Touchstine, z68.


(b)
t,itt. s.

346.

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES FOR YEARS


(c)
Litt. 8.

621

213.

(d)

Parker v. Harris (1692) i Salk. 262. (But the amount may depend upon subsequent events {^Selby v. Greaves (1868) L. R. 3 C. P. 594)-) Co. Litt. 142 a.
rent need not consist of

[The

money (Doe

v.

Benham (1845)

And there seems no objection to a reservation as 7 Q. B. 976). rent of a part of the ore produced under a mining lease [Buckley v.
Kenyan (1808) 10 East, 139.)]

Rent reserved by a incident to, and goes with, the


1136.
such estate

lease
estate

is

annexed and
lessor in

Rent incident
to reversion

of the

the land or arty part thereof, notwithstanding that

may be

divided amongst two or

more

persons ("severance");

and each of such persons

will be entitled to recover,

from time
is

to time, the

proportion of such rent which


to his share of the reversion.
this
, a

properly attributable

For the purposes of

severance means a division of the lessor's

estate,

by operation of law or otherwise, among


in severalty; not a vesting

owners

of such

estate in

co-owners. C")
(a)

Conveyancing Act, 1881,


leases

s.

10.

(This enactment only applies to


;

(b)

1881 but, where the rent was reserved in money or other divisible matter, the rule was the same at common law (Co. Litt. 148).) Though there is no definition of the word "severance" in the Conveyancing Act, it seems clear, from the examples of severance given in this passage by Coke, that this was the kind of severance contemplated by the common law rule. The examples are (1) purchase of part of the lessee's estate by the lessor,
after
:

made

31st December,

(2) recovery of part of the land by the lessor in an action of waste, (3) grant or devise of part of the reversion, (4) lawful eviction by the lessor of the lessee from a part of the land

{William Clunks Case {\6\i') 10 Rep. 128 a); be added (5) similar eviction by a stranger by

to

title

which may paramount

Digitized

by Microsoft

622
{Smith
,

LAW OF PROPERTY
V.

parceners

(^w^r
local

Malings (1607) Cro. Jac. l6o), (6) partition among v. Moyle (1600) Cro. Eliz. 771), (7) descent
lieirs, e. g.

of difierent parts of the land to different

by common

law and
whether,

custom

{ii.).

at the

common
But

one time some doubt law, apportionment could be claimed

There was

at

where the severance occurred by the


Moyle, ubi sup.).
tlie

act of the parties (Eaier v.

ppinioti of

Coke

ultimately prevailed.

The

have the apportionment made by a jury Of course, no {Bliss V. Collins (1822) 5 B. &. Aid. 876). division of the land which the lessee may make can affect the But liability of every part of the land for the v?hole of the rent. the purchaser of part of the land is not personally liable, even while the term is vested in him, for more than his due proportion of the rent, based on the value of the land at the time when the
lessee
is

entitled to

'

severance was

made

{"Salts \.

Battersby

[1910]

K. B. 155).

When
^"^'^

rent
^

1137.

Where no
is

Other days of payment are fixed


lease or the previous practice

by the terms of the


the parties, reat

of

payable at the end of each year

of the
year as

term W
is

or of such other aliquot part of the

ex^pressed in the reservation


is

of >the

rent-C")
it is

Jf the rent

a x:ed

sum

for the

whole term^

payable, in the absence of contrary agreement, at the

end of the term


fication

but a rent reserved without speciit is

of ithe period in respect of which

pay-

able will be presunied to be an annual rent/'')


(a)

Coomber

v.

Howard (1845)

C. B. 440.

(b)

Collettv. Curling (1847) lo'Q. B. 785. Where no express term is mentioned, the period in respect of
the rent
is

which

(c)

be some indication of the intended length <Jf the term {Wilkinson y. Hall (1837) 3 Bing. N. C. 508). There appears to be no authority for this proposition ; but it is conpayable
wrill

(d)

'

due on the whole of the day (and therefore cannot be distrained for) till after midnight of that day (D/^^/i? v. 5water (1853) 2 E. &'B., at p. 568, /i?r Lord Campbell, C. J.). Warrington {? Harrington) v. Wise (1596) 2 Rolle, Ab. 449-450,
ceived that
it

is

correct.

Rent
is

is

on which

it is

payable, but

not in arrear

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES FOR YEARS


1138.

623

Prima facie,

a lease for y^ars gives only a Rights of


;

right to possession and profits of the land


it is

but

if

^"^
''"^^^

expressed, or to be implied from the circum-

stances, that the lease

was granted
lessee, in

for a

particular

purpose or purposes, the


right to

addition to his

possession of the land and enjoyment of

the annual profits, will be entitled, as against the


lessor,

to

use

the
for

land

in

any

manner reasonpurpose or

ably

necessary

carrying

out such

purposes. W
(a)

Elwes

v.

(b)

Robinson

Elwes

V.

Brigg Gas Co. (1886) 33 Ch. D. 562. v. Milne (1884) 53 L.J. Ch. 1070, per North, Brigg Gas Co., ubi sup.
to

J.

[There appears

be singularly

little

authority regarding

the

The general rights of the lessee for years, as against the lessor. apparent anomaly probably arises from the facts (i) that, in the great
majority of cases, these rights are settled by the express terms of the lease, and (2) that, in the absence of such express terms, the
position

of the lessee
(/larf.

is

judged from the negative standpoint of


II, Tit.

the law of waste

Sect.

III).]

1139.

lessee for years

is

entitled, notwithstand-

Estovers

ing the provisions of the law against waste, but subject to the terms of his
lease,' to

the same rights of


life (

reasonable estovers as a tenant for


Co.
Litt.

1074).

41 b.

140.

A lessee for years whose estate

is

determined
is

Emblements

by some uncertain event not caused by himself,

Digitized

by Microsoft

624
entitled
to

LAW OF PROPERTY
emblements, or the statutory substitute
1

therefor (
life

141 ), in the same manner as a tenant for in similar circumstances ( 1075).^ But a lessee

for years
date,

whose term expires at a fixed and certain has no right to emblements or any substitute
;

therefor

except in pursuance of express agreement,

special custom, or statute. C")


(a)

Co.
Litt.

Litt.
s.

56

a.

(b)

68.
v.

Wigglesworth

Dallison (1779)

Dougl. 201.

[The

right to

Agricultural Holdings Act,

emblements is unaffected by the provisions of the 1908 (s. 46).]

Substitutefor

1141.
^.^^j^

When
j^

the lease of a farm or lands held at

ements

^^^^

determined by the death or cesser of the

estate
terest,

of any landlord entitled for any uncertain inthe lessee, instea.d of claims to emblements,
to

will

continue

hold and occupy such

farm or

lands until the expiration of his then current year

of tenancy, upon the terms of his lease


of the period between
lessor's interest

the

lessor's

successor being substituted for the lessor in respect

the

determination

of the
year.

and the expiry, of such current


lessor's successor

As between the

and the
is

lessee, no'
.

notice to determine such holding

-necessary.
s.

Landlord and Tenant Act, 1851,

i.

Compensaprovements

1142.

Except

l?y

virtue of

express

agreement,
is

Special custom, Or statute, a tenant for years

not

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES FOR YEARS


entitled, at the expiration

625

of his tenancy, to any com-

pensation or allowance for improvements

made by

him, or

fixtures erected

by him, in or on the land.


B.

Caldecott V. Stnphies

Mousley

v.

{liii) y C. ScP. SoS, per Parke, Ludlam (1851) 21 L. J. C. P. 64.

[By far the most important exception from the general rule is to be found in the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, under which agricultural tenants (including tenants of market gardens) can obtain compensation for improvements and fixtures
(ss.

I 11).

The
is

right extends to the tenant of a


(s.

a lease

which

not binding on the mortgagee

12)

mortgagor under and cannot ;


of
for

be waived, even by express


ascertaining compensation
(s.
1

agreement
specially

(s.

5).

The method

is

provided
15).

by the Act

3 and Sched. II)

and the compensation may be made a charge


(s.

on the inheritance of the reversion


is

similar protection

extended to the tenants of allotments and cottage gardens by the Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation for Crops Act, As to the right 1887, and the Tenants Compensation Act, 1890. of a tenant for years to remove fixtures set up by him, see post^ Sect,
II, Tit. III.]

1143.
'

lessee for years, not expressly


'

made unact of

Waste by
^'""f"''
years

impeachable for waste,


voluntary waste,
or

is

liable to

an action for

damages or an account,
(*^

if
is

he commits any

(?)

guilty of permissive

W
a

waste, in respect of the land comprised in his lease.

But no equitable remedy will be granted against


lessee for years
(

in respect of ameliorating waste


to year

W
is

1078)

and an urban tenant from year

[semble)

not liable for permissive waste. W


Statute of
Litt.
s.

(a)

Marlborough (52 Hen.

Ill

(1267))

c.

23.

67.

Digitized

by Microsoft

626
(b)
Lift.
s.

LAW OF PROPERTY
71.

Co. Litt. 53 a. Leach v. Thomas (1835) 7 C. & P. ^zj,per Patteson, J. Telkwly V. Gozver (1855) 11 Excih., at p. 294, /^r Panke, B. Davieiy. Bavies (1888) 38 Ch. D. 499.

[Tkere was, at one time, a good deal of doubt whether a tenant for years is liable for permissive waste (Re CcLrtwright (1889) 41 Ch. D. 532) ; but, so far as agricultural holdings are concerned, it v. Porter [1916] 2 was laid down by the Court of Appeal in K. B. 9r, that even a tenant from year tec year is, in the absence of express provision, liable to cultivate in a husbandlike manner, according to the custom of the country.]

WeM

(c)

Doherty

v.

Meux
(d)

V.

Cohley [iS'gz] z
v.

Tarriam

Allman (1878) L. R. 3 App. Ca. 709. Ch. 253. Yokng (1833) 6 C. & P. 8.

[The

peculiarities
n.).

noted ( 1077

The

of the action of waste have been previouslyprovision in the Judicature Act, 1873,5. 25

(3), respecting waste, does not affect tenants for years.]

Alienation

1144.
ys^rs-

Subject to the terms of his lease, a lessee for


alienate his estate, or create

lar""

may

any smaller

term of years out of it by way of sub-demise.


[The statement
in
statutes
in the text
is

so
it

amply borne out by assumptions


is

almost^ unnecessary to quote however, important to note the difference between an alienation of the lessee's estate (" assignment ") and an under-lease for part of the original term. By whatever words effected {Parmenter v. Webber (1818) 8 Taunt.. 593), an alienation of any part of the land for the whole term makes the alienee a
decisions, that
It is,

and

authority for

it.

tenant of the original lessor, and, therefore, liable to the lessor, so long as the estate remains in him (the alienee), by privity of estate, for the rent and covenants of the lease, in respect of that part of
the land {post, 1146). standing any assignment.

remains liable notwiththe other hand,*an alienation for part only of the original term makes the alienee a tenant of the original lessee, and, therefore, only an under-lessee, without privity of estate, of the original lessor, who cannot charge the alienee perlessee- also'

The

On

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES FOR YEARS


his

627

sonally with rent and covenants, though he can, of course, pursue

remedies against the land {Molford


v.

v.

1779; Palmer
it,

Edwards (1783)

ibid.

Hatch (1779) i Doug. 186 n.). Equally clear is

that a condition in a lease for years prohibiting alienation or

on terms, is valid ; for breach almost the only cause of forfeiture against which no relief can be given to an immediate lessee, either under statute (Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 14) or under the general jurisdiction of the Court {Barrow v. Isaacs [i8gi] i Q. B. 417 ; Eastern
under-letting, either absolutely or

of such a condition

is

Telegraph Co. v. Dent [1899] i Q. B. 835). But an underlease granted in defiance of such a prohibition none the less confers an interest in the land ; though it is a ground of forfeiture {Parker v. Jones [1910] 2 K. B. 32).]

1145.
son in
vested,

A transfer of the lessee's estate to the perwhom for the time being the reversion is

Surrender
"^"^

by w^hatever words effected, W operates as a surrender, and (subject to 1041) destroys the lessee's But when a mesne estate is estate by merger.^")
surrendered,
as against

or merges, the estate

which

confers,

the tenant of such term or sub-term, the

next vested right to possession of the land, becomes,


for the purpose of preserving the incidents and obli-

gations of the

merged

estate in respect

of such term

or sub-term, the reversion upon any term or sub-term

which may have been surrendered or merged


(a)

directly created out of the

estate.^
(1851) 7 Exch. 143.
s.

Cottee v. Richardson

(b)
(c)

Co.

Litt.

337

b.

Real Property Act, 1845,

9.

[At the common or by operation of law, of a term out of which a sub-term had been created, destroyed the reversion on the sub-term, the owner of which, therefore, ceased to be liable for rent and other incidents of
law, a surrender, whether by act of the parties

Digitized

by Microsoft

628

LAW OF PROPERTY

a reversion during the rest of his sub-term.

In practice this rule caused extreme inconvenience, and was partially altered by s. 6 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1730, which applied only to terms That section is still in force surrendered in order to be renewed.

and has been applied

in a recent case {Plummer v. David [1920] i K. B. '326). For the case in which a trustee in bankruptcy disclaims a mesne term under his statutory powers, see Bankruptcy Act, 1914,

s.S4(3H6).].

Covenants

1146.

The

benefit and the liability


lease,

of covenants

^lan7"^^"

^^^ conditions in a

having reference to the

subject-matter thereof,W pass to successive assignees

of the estate for years and the reversion

thereon.^'')

Where

the reversion has been severed, and the rent

legally apportioned, the assignee of each part

of the

reversion

is

entitled

to

enforce

all

conditions and

powers of re-entry for non-payment of the rent


reserved by the lease, in respect of his part of the
reversion
;

and, in the

case

of leases in writing
all

made

after 31st

December, 1881, the benefit of

express conditions contained in the lease will pass to

the assignees of any part of the reversion, notwithstanding severance, and notwithstanding the avoid-

ance or cesser of the term in respect of any other part of the land originally comprised in the lease.W
(a)

This

is

older phrase

the language of the Gonveyancing Act, 1881, .s. 10 (i). The was " which touch and concern." (As to the meaning of

the restrictibn, see Horsey Estate v. Steiger [1899] 2 Q. B. 79; Ricketts v. Enfield Churchwardens [1909] i Ch. 544 ; Dyson v. Forster [1909] A. C, at p. loz). (b) Covenants Act, 1540, ss. I, 2; Conveyancing Act, 1881, ss. 10, 11.

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES FOR YEARS

629

[It will be observed that the later statute contains no provision on the subject of the benefit of conditions passing to assignees of the term (s. 11). But, j-i?wW/?, both the covenants and conditions implied by law ran at common law both with the term and the reversion QVedd V. Porter [1916] 2 K. B. 91) and the wording of the Act of 1540 is general in this respect. It seems that there is no statutory authority for saying that the burden of covenants and conditions passes with an assignment of the term but the rule of the common law is implied in numerous decisions, e.g., Williams v. Bosanquet (1819) I B. & B. 238.; Moule V. Garrett (1872) L. R. 7 Exch. loi. The Act of 1540 is expressly confined to indentures and even the Conveyancing Act is restricted in its application to written leases {jBlane V. Francis [1917] I K. B. 252). The benefit of the reversionary rights conferred by the latter Act may be enforced by " the person from time to time entitled, subject to the term, to the income of the whole or any part, as the case may be, of the land leased " (ibid.,
; ; ;

S.IO(I)).]
(c)

Law of Property Amendment Act,


all leases,

1859,

5- 3-

CTh^ operation of this

section appears to extend to

whenever made.)

law, severance of the reversion, if it was e.g., by inheritance among co-parceners, did not destroy the benefit of a condition (Co. Litt. 215 a ; Piggott V. Middlesex C. C. [1909] 2 Ch. 134). It is hardly necessary to observe, that no severance of the lessee's interest can prevent the liabilities of the lease being enforced against the whole of the land
at the

[Even

common

effected

by operation

of law,

(Webber v. Smith (1689) 2 Vern. 103).]


(d)

Conveyancing Act, 1881,

s.

12

(i).

[It must be carefully observed, that neither the common law nor any statute confers, in the absence of expressions to the contrary, on any person other than the assignee of the reversion or of the term, any rights in respect of " running " covenants or condiThus, for example, an under-lessee cannot claim the benefit tions. of a covenant entered into by the head lessor with the under-lessor even though the head lessor has acquired the under-lessor's estate, and the effect of the breach of covenant is to damage the underlessee (^South of England Dairies Co. v^ Baker [1906] 2 Ch. 631). On the other hand, a covenant which " runs with the land," entered into since the passing of the Real Property Act, 1845, s. 5, can, if expressed to be made in favour of a stranger to the lease, be enforced by that stranger's successors in title [Dyson v. Forstef

[1909] A. C. 98).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

630
Condition
against
alienation

LAW OF PROPERTY
Where
the lease contains a covenant or

1147.

sign, underlet, part

condition to the effect that the lessee shall not aswith the possession, or dispose of
lessor,

the land leased, without the permission of the

but that such permission shall not be unreasonably

withheld
(i)

unreasonableness on the part of the lessor


will not be presumed, in the absence of
clear evidence
;

(')

but

when such

unrea-

sonableness clearly exists, the lessee


alienate,

may

notwithstanding the refusal of


;

the lessor's permission


(a)

C")

Jenkins

y. V.

Price [<)o^

Ch. no.

(b)

Trehar

Bigge (1874) L. R. 9 Exch. 151.

[A declaration of the Court that the lessee is entitled to assign may also now be obtained {^Evans v. Levy [1910].! Ch. 452).]
(ii)

no action can be brought to compel the


lessor to

grant permission, or to obtain


for his refusal;

damages

unless the lease

contains an express contract

grant permission in

by him to circumstances which

have happened
Trehar
v. v.

Bigge, uhi sup.

Andrew

Bridgman [1908]

K.

B., at p.

598, per Cozens-

Hardy,

M. R.

4
(iii)

no

fine or

sum of money
(in the

in the nature of a

fine

may

absence of express provibut the payment

sion in the lease) be exacted for or in re-

spect of such permission

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES FOR YEARS


may be
(a)

631

of a reasonable sum in respect of expenses


required/*) and a contract to pay
is

such a fine
tive

not an illegal contract


s.

C')

Conveyancing Act, 1892,

3.
1]

(This section, which


2

is

retrospec-

(^West V. Gzoynne [191


;

against alienation in leases

Ch. i), applies to all provisions whether there is any qualification of

"
(b)

unreasonableness
v.

" or

not.)

Andrew

Bridgtnan [1908]

alienation, except
alienate

i K. B. 596. (But a refusal to allow upon payment 'of a fine, entitles the lessee to

without permission.)

(iv)

a stipulation that the

proposed alienee shall

covenant with the lessor for the payment

of the rent and performance of the covenants during the remainder of the term
is

not a fine within the meaning of the


s.

Conveyancing Act, 1892,


stipulation for

(*)
;

but a
to be

an

increased
is;

rent

paid by the alienee


(a)

W
decision

Watte

(b)

v. Jennings [1906] 2 K. B. 11. Jenkins v. Price [1907] 2 Ch. 229. on appeal ; but on another point.)

(The

was reversed

(v)

a refusal to allow the

owner of the term


is,

to assign to a corporation

in the ab-

sence of special circumstances, an unreasonable refusal


;

and

so is a refusal to
lessee's wife,

allow an assignment to the

except upon condition of the assignor undertaking responsibility during the whole

of the term.W
(a)

(b)

Jenkins y. Price \\<^o%\ i Ch. no. Willmott V. London Road Car Co. [19 10] 2 Ch. 525. Evans v. Levy [1910] i Ch. 452.

Digitized

by Microsoft

632
Liability

LAW OF PROPERTY
When
a lease

of

1148.

has been bona fide assigned


ceases to be

assignee

^^ ^^ assignee thereof, such assignee


liable for the rent thereby reserved or

on the cove;W except in so far as the nants therein contained


rent has accrued due or breaches have been

com-

mitted while the term was vested in him, and except in so far as he
express contract. W
in

may have incurred liability by The original lessee remains liable


rent and covenants during the
;

respect of such

continuance of the term

but he

is

entitled to be

indemnified in respect of rent accruing and breaches


incurred after he has assigned over the term, by the
person in

whom
v.

the term was vested

when such
1

rent

accrued or breaches^ occurred.^


(a)

other Barnf

Jordan (1780) 2 Burr. 4521 \- (rent). (1781) ibid. 764 Taylor v. Shum (1797) I B. & P. zi J Beardman v. Wilson (1868) L. R. 4 C. P. 57 (covenants).
Chanc-ellor v. Poole

[It

makes no

difFerence that the alienation

was

in defiance of an

C. express covenant in the lease {Paul v. Nurse (1828) 8 B. Quare : if there 486; Re Johnson [1894] i Mans. 54 (C. A.).)

&

had been a condition that on such assignment the lease should be


void.]
(b)
(c)

Waite v. Jennings [1906] z K. B. 11. Burnett v. Lynch (i8z6) 5 B. & C. 589. Mouley. Garrett (187Z) L. R. 7 Exch. loi. (But the liability to indemnify only attaches to assignees in the ordinary sense of the term, not to execution creditors {Johns v. Pink [1900]
,

Ch. 296).)

Re-entry by

1149.
tioned,

A lessor

Cannot, except as hereinafter

men-

recover possession of the land during the

continuance of the term, on the ground of failure

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES FOR YEARS


of the person in
there

633

whom

the term

is

vested to pay the

rent or perform the covenants of the lease; unless


is

a condition

of re-entry or forfeiture to that


at a

efFect.W

But

if

any tenant deserts premises which


rent equal to three fourths
rentjC")

have been demised

of their yearly value, owing a half year's


lease contains a condition

and

leaving no sufficient distress, the lessor, whether the

of re-entry or not,^

recover possession of the premises in a

may summary way

on application
tress for

to

two

justices, or a police or stipen-

diary magistrate, W in

manner provided by the Dis1737.W And a lessor, under an Rent Act,


lease, is

open contract to grant a

entitled to have

inserted in the lease a condition of re-entry

on non-

payment of
(a)

rent,

but not on non-performance of any


lease.

other covenants contained in the

Wilhon v. Phillips (1824) 2 Bing. 13. Darke v. Bow ditch (1846) 8 Q. B. 973.

[The enforcement of conditions of re-entry in leases is subject to (See post^ Sect. Ill, Tit. I).] important statutory restrictions.
(b)
(c)
.

Deserted Tenements Act, 181 7. Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1840, Stipendiary Magistrates' Act, 1858, s.
s.

s.

13.

i.

(d)
(e)

16.
v.

Hodgkinson
Andertofi's

Crowe (1875) L. R. 10 Ch. App. 662. and Milner's Contract (1890) 45 Ch. D. 476.

1150.

When

the term

created

by

lease
is

has
en-

Recovery by

expired or been duly determined, the lessor


titled to

"^ll"T
'^'"^

recover possession of the land by peaceable


;

entry or action of ejectment

(^)

and, if the term did

Digitized

by Microsoft

634

LAW OF PROPERTY
fine,

not originally exceed seven years, nor the rent twenty

pounds a year without


refusal

upon proof of neglect or


justices in

of the tenant or occupier to give -up possession,

the lessor

may

obtain

from two

petty

sessions, or a police or stipendiary magistrate, a

war-

rant to secure possession


if necessary.^
(a)

through a constable, by force

For

details, see ante,

Bk. II, Part III, 825.

and

[A tenant who holds over after the determination of his term, after demand and written notice, is liable to pay double value (Landlord and Tenant Act, 1730, s. i) and a tenant who fails to
;

up possession on the expiry of a notice of quitting given by him is liable to pay double rent (Distress for Rent Act, 1737, s. 18) for the .period during which he retains possession.]
deliver
(b)

Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1839, Stipendiary Magistrates' Act, 1858, ss.

s.

i.

s.
i

14.

and

2.

[Various special statutory provisions have from time to time been


passed to facilitate the recovery of parish property (Poor Relief Act, 1 8 19, ss. 24 and 25), cottage allotments (Allotments Act,

1832,

s.

6), allotment gafdens (Inclosure Act, 1845,

s.

m), War

Office lands

(Defence Act, 1859, *> S)i ^""^ Admiralty lands (Admiralty "Lands and Works Act, 1864, s. 12). But these are

not of sufficiently general interest to justify a detailed statement.]

Liability for

1151. In the absence of express contract, the only


liability

quiet enjoy-

ment

undertaken by the

lessor in respect

of the
is

security of the estate of the lessee for years


bility for quiet

a lia-

enjoyment by the
lessor's

lessee

during the
the land.W

continuance of the

interest in

Such

liability
all

extends to the acts of ,the lessor and

those of

persons claiming through him,;

but

it

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES FOR YEARS


does not extend to the acts of mere

635
tort-feasors/'')

and

it is

doubtful if
title

it

extends to the acts of persons

claiming by
(a)

paramount.

Sheppard, Touchstone, 165. Hallv. City of London Brewery Co. (1862) 2 B. & S. 737. Baynes v. Lhyd [1895] i 'Q. B. 820. (But see the doubt expressed by Kay,, L. ]., in delivering the judgment of the C. A., in [1895] 2 <2. B.. atp. 615.)

Hart

Budd-Scott V. DanMl [1902] 2 K. B. 351. V. Rogers [1916] i K. B. 646.

[" Quiet enjoyment " means absence of physical interference with the enjoyment of the premises, not mere disturbance by noise, invasion of privacy, or the like {Browne v. Flower [191 1 J i Ch. 228,

per Parker,

J.

But

see

Harmer

v.

Jumbil Tea Areas (1920)


a.

XXXVII
(b)

T. L. R. 91.]

Swan V. Stransham (1567) Dyer, 257 Adams v. Giiney (1830) 6 Biijg. 656.
Baynes
v. Lloyd, ubi sup.

(c)

(d)
(e)

v. Paget [1908] i Ch. 697. Andrew's Case, (1591) Cro. Eliz. ZI4, approved

Markham

in

Markham

v.

Paget, ubi sup. Bandy v. Cartright (1853) ^ Exch. 913 \( a\ ''' Hall V. City of London Brewery Co., ubi sup. J Jones V. Lavington [1903] i K. B. 253, approved
*-

in"!

Markham
Budd-Scott

v.

V.

Paget, ubi sup. Daniel, ubi sup.

Mneg.).
J

[It has been the subject of acute controversy whether the employment of the word "demise," or, before the passing of the Real Property Act, 1845 (s. 4) the word ", grant," in a lease, Russell, created an implied warranty of title to grant the lease. C. J., in Baynes v. L/ay^/ [1895] i Q. B. 820, thought that it did; but his view was repudiated by the Court of Appeal ([1895] 2 Q. B. 610), and, if the authorities quoted by the C. J. are examined, it will be found that the only decision (as distinct from dictci) which involves the proposition, is the old case of Holder v. Taylor (16 14) Hob. 12, where the Court of Common Pleas allowed a lessee by "demise " to recover damages against his lessor before It is curious that the Real Property Act, 1845, should eviction. not have included the word " demise " within the scope of section 4 ; and the omission may be claimed as an argument by either ^are : when the term is created by party to the controversy, way of use, is there any liability at all on the part. of the lessor?]

Digitized

by Microsoft

636
Warranty of

LAW OF PROPERTY
speaking,
there
is

1152. Generally

no implied

"

condition or warranty ( 342) by the lessor in a lease for years that the premises leased are suitable for the

purposes for which they are let.W


furnished

But where

house

is

let

with a view to immediate


or otherwise,^ the lessee

habitation, and

it

proves to be uninhabitable, owing


C")

to defects in the premises

may
any

repudiate the lease, and recover from the lessor


loss

which he may have

sustained

from entering
a contract has
letting

into the transaction.

And where

been made

after

2nd December, 1909, for the


of a house

for habitation of a house or part

at a rent

not exceeding, in London forty pounds, in any other

urban

district

with a population according to the

last

census of 50,000 or upwards twenty-six pounds, in

any other area sixteen pounds, there will be an implied condition to the effect that the house
is,

at the

commencement of the holding, sonably fit forj human habitation.


(a)

in all respects rea-

Sutton V.

Hart

(b)
(c)

Temple (1843) 12 M. & W. 52. Windsor (iS/^i) ibid. 68. Keates\. Cadogan (1851) 10 C. B. 591. Lane v. Cox [1897] i Q. B., at p. 417, per Lord Esher, Wilson V. Finch-Hatton (1877) 2 Ex. D. 336. Smithy. Marrable (1843) 11 M. & W. 5. Birdy. Lord Greville (1884) Cab. & E. 317K-..
v.
. .

M.

R.

(d)

Charsley v. Jones: (1889) 53 J. P.


last

280

('^''' '^^""^^

[In the

case

it

was

laid dowil, that the

lessor as to the state of the premises


(e)

knowledge of the was immaterial.]


1909,
s.

Housing,
certain^
lessee.)

Town

Planning, &c.. Act,

14.

(The

section

does not apply

when

the letting
it is

is

for not less than three years

upon terms

that

to be

made

fit

for occupation

by the

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES FOR YEARS


1153.
Generally speaking, a lessor
is

637
not, in the
effect
Repairs 6y
^^""'

absence of express contract, bound


repairs

to

any

or

improvements in the premises


5 2,

leased.

But
the

in the case of a letting such as that described in


last

sentence of

there

is

an implied

undertaking that the house


be kept by the lessor in
all

shall,

during the holding,


fit

respects reasonably

for

human
(a)

habitation/'')

(b)

Pomfrety. Ricrofl (1670) i Wms. Saund. 321. Gott V. Gandy (1853) 2 B. & C. 845. Housing, Town Planning, &c.. Act, 1909, s. 15.
authority to carry out the undertaking or insist on

(The
its

section

contains elaborate provisions enabling the landlord and the local


fulfilment.

There does not appear to be any provision in the Act to prevent the exclusion, by express contract, of the terms of ss. 14 and 15. But, in the cases to which the similar provisions of s. 75 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, also apply,, contracting out is forbidden by s. 12 of the Housing of the 'Working
Classes Act, 1903.)

1154.

Every term of years which becomes, either

Satisfied

by express declaration or by operation of law, beneficially vested in or in trust for the owner of the
inheritance out of

terms

which

it

was created (" attendant


ceases

term"), thereupon absolutely


as to

and determines
it
is

the land upon the inheritance whereof

attendant.^

But

if

such term became attendant


ist
its

by express declaration before


afford such protection as
it

January,

1846,

it

will continue, notwithstanding

determination, to
afforded, if
it

would have

Digitized

by Microsoft

638

LAW OF PROPERTY
had not been dealt with, 31st December, 1845.W
to subsist, but
(a)
Satisfied

had continued
after

Terms Act, 1845,


I.

s.

2.

(b)

Ibid.

s.

is obscure and difHcuk ; but, be said to have arisen out of the practice, previously referred to ( 1037, note), of creating long terms at nominal or no These terms rents and liabilities, for the purpose of raising money. were often (though by no means invariably) created by family settlements ; and, wrhen they were redeemed by the owner of the inheritance, or acquired by a purchaser, they were not surrendered to him, but, with excessive caution, kept alive for his benefit, so that he might be able to shelter himself behind them in the event of his title to the inheritance proving defective. The practice not only increased the cost of conveyancing ; but, bwing to the complications it produced, gave rise to more mistakes than it prevented. As to when a term becomes " attendant," or " satisfiedj" for the purposes of the Act, see Anderson \. Pignet (r872,), L. R. 8 Ch. App. 1 80, which was not, however, a settlement term. That decision *suggestS' that, notwithstanding the Satisfied Terms Act, a term is never deemed to be "attendant" if Equity would prevent its merger.]

[The

subject of attendant terms

briefly,

it

may

Enlargement of long terms

1155. ij, hundred

Any term,
years,
r

originally for not less than three


^

of which there are


actually payable, W

at least

two hun-

dred years to run, in respect of which no rent of a

money

value

is
is

and in respect of
be determined
unless
it
is

which there
reversioner,

no right or

trust

of redemption in the

may, unless

it is

liable to

by re-entry

for condition broken, or

sub-term created out of a term itself not capable of enlargement under this ,W be enlarged by declaratory deed by the

owner thereof W

into a fee simple.

Such fee simple will

vest in the previous

owner of

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES FOR YEARS


the term
;

639
all trusts,

and be held by him subject to

powers, executory limitations over, rights, equities,


covenants and provisions relating to usct and enjoy-

ment, and to
affected

all

obligations,
if it

vi^hich

would have

the

term

had, np,t

been enlarged.^

Such fee simple

will include all

mines and minerals

under the surface comprised in the term, which

were unsevered in
enlargement/^
(a)
It is

fact

or right at the, date of the

immaterial that there was once a substantial rent, if it has been

released or barred
s,

by

lapse of time.

(Conveyancing Act, 1881,

(b)
(c)

65 (I).) Conveyancing Act, 1882,5. 11. Such owner includes (a) a person'
for sale or in receipt
,

beneficially entitled, (b) a trustee

of the ,inconie, (c) the representative of a deceased person and whether subject to incumbrances or not. (Conveyancing Act, 1881, q. 65 (2).)

'

(d)
(e)
(f)

liiJ.

s. s. s.

Hid. Hid.

65 65 65

(i).

(4). (6).

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE VII ESTATES AT WILL


Estate at

1156.
a person

An

estate at will

is

a possession of land

by

""

with the permission of another person enpresent interest therein,

titled to a

upon the terms


copyhold

that either party tniy put an end to the estate at any

time.
estate

For the purposes of


is
'

this Title, a
'

not an estate at will.


Litt.

Co.
'"'

55

a.

'

'

Tafkr'w. Ashe (1633) Vin. Ab. X, 396. Blunden v. Baugh (1634) Cro. Car., at p. 303, per Curiam.

really

may well be doubted whether a so-called 'estate at will' is an estate at all; but it is oftd;h described as such. No fealty is owed by the tenant in irespfict of it; an^ a rent reserved out of it, though it may be distrained for, is not rent service (Co. Litt. 57 b). No remainder can be limited on a so-called estate at will (Stafford's Case (1609) 8 Rep., at 75 a) ; and, neither before nor since the passing of the Juries Act, 1825, has such an estate been
[If

a qualification for jury service (32 Hen. VIII (1543) c. 6, s. 3 27 Eliz. (1585) c. 6, s. I; Juries Act, 1825, ss. i, 50, 52). the other hand, the doctriiie that a tenant is estopped from denying

On

1038 (iv)) applies to a tenancy at will {Morton Woods (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 658) ; and a tenant at will can take the reversion on his estate by release (Co. Litt. 270 b). It was the practice of some of the older writers (e. g. Blackstone) to class all copyhold estates as estates at will; but as the copyholder has long been protected by the King's Courts from arbitrary ejectment by his lord, this classification is manifestly untenable.]
his lord's title {ante,
V.

1157.
How
created
(i)

tenancy at will

is

created

by entry under an express agreement for


tenancy at the will of the lessor or the

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES AT WILL
lessee,W
less a

641

or for an indefinite period (unis

freehold

created)

C")

(a)

Litt.

s.

68.

Co.
(b)

Litt.

55

a.

Taylor V. Ashe (1633) Vin. Ab.

Xj 396.
J.

Anon. (1572) 4 Leon. 33, per

Manwood,

Cadee's and Oliver's Gdse (1587) 3 Leon. 153. Bishop of Bath's Case (1605) 6 Rep., at 35 b,

Blamfordy. Blamfbrd {\6i^) 3 Bulst. iqo, Anderson v. M. R. Co. (1861) 3 E. & E. 614.
[If it is clear from the facts, that the parties intended to create a tenancy at will, the circumstance that a definite term of years is mentioned will not affect the character of the tenancy (^Morton v. Woods (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 658). On the other hand, an express tenancy "from year jtoyear" will not be converted into a tenancy at will, merely because it contains a power enabling the lessor to put an end to it at any time {Re Threlfall (1880) 16 Ch. D. 274). But the rule that an indefinite grant (not being of a freehold) creates an estate at will, does not hold against the Crown a Crown grant of that nature being void for uncertainty {Alton Woods Case (1600) i Rep., at 43 b).]
,

(ii)

by entry under

a lease for so

many

a third person shall

third person has

name until such named the term


Sid.

years as

Bedford^. Johnson (1659) 2

153.

(iii)

by entry, under

a void

title,

upon the land

of another, followed by an acquiescence of


that other after
Litt. s. 70.

knowledge of the entry

of Frauds (1677) s. i. Blunden v. Baugh (163 1) Cro. Car.,


Statute

at p.

303, per Curiam.

Denn
Smith

v. Fearnside

V.

(1747) Widlake (1877)

Wils- 176.

C. P. D. 10.

Digitized

by Microsoft

642
(iv):

LAW OF PROPERTY
by a holding over of a tenant, with the
acquiescence of the landlord, after the
expiry of the tenant's interest
Barham
v.

;]

Hayman (1559) Dyer, 173

a.

Bedford y. Jvbnson, ttbi suf. Sir Thomas Bowes" Case (1,670) V.\a. Ab. X, 400. Turner v. Bennett (1841) 11 L. J. Exch. 453.

[Acceptance of rent by the lessor, in either of the last two cases, any rate if the rent is accepted for any aliqiibt part of a year, converts the tenancy into a tenancy from year to year ( Wood v. Beard (1876) 3 Ex. D. 3,0; ante, 1132 (iv)).J
at

(v)

by the occupation of a mortgagor, with


the consent of the mortgagee, under a

mortgage by which the legal the land passes to the mortgagee


Pozi/s/ey.v.

estate in

Blakeman (1622) 2 Rolle, 284. Barnes (1646) Sid., at p. 460, per Curiam. Holland y. Hatton {iGg-j) Carth. 414. Keech v. Hall (ij-jZ) i Dougl. 22.
Freeman
v.

[There appears at one time to have been a good deal of doubt, whether the relation of lessor and, tenant at will i? created between a mortgagee and a mortgagor by the mere occupation of the mortgaged premises by the latter without' any attornment or tenancy clause (see the remarks of Bijller, J., in Birch v. Wright (1786) I T. R., at p. 383, of Patteson, J., in Doe v. Williams (1836) 5 A. & E., at p. 297, of Best, C. J-i ^^ ^"^ v. Giles (1829) 5 Bing., at pp. 4267, and of Lord Denman, C. J,, in Doe v. Barton (1840) 11 A. & E., at p. 314.) On the other hand, it seems quite .cleac that, as against a stranger, the mortgagee may treat the mortgagor in possession as his tenant {Partridge v. Bere (1822) 5 B. & Aid. 604 ; Hitchman v. Walton (1838) 4 M. & W. 409; both approved in Doe v. Barton, ubi sup.). It would seem, then, that it is at the option of the mortgagee to treat the mortgagor in possession as a tenant at will or as a mere tenant at sufferance. But modern legislation, which has conferred, many rights of dealing with the property on the mortgagor, is certainly against the presumption that he is a wrong-doer ; and the statement in the text probably represents the modern view. It would seem, however, that^ in order

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES AT WILL
to constitute a tenancy at will, there

643

must be an actual recognition by the mortgagee of the mortgagor's holding (^Scobiev. Ctf///'r [1895] I Q. B. 375). And a mere covenant by the mortgagee that he will not take any of the profits of the land until default, does not, of itself, create a tenancy at will in the mortgagor (J'owsley v. Blakeman ubi sup.). In Sands to Thompson (1883) ^^ ^^- D., at p. 616, it was said by the Court, that a mortgagor who had paid off the mortgage without taking a reconveyance was a tenant at will to the Sed guare.] mortgagee.
(vi)

by the occupation by a

cestui que trusty

with

the permission of the trustee in


the legal estate in the land
Freeman
E.
v.

whom
v.

is

vested;
Tuck).
at

Barnes, ubi sup. (so taken in Garrard

Pom/ret v. Lord Windsor (1752) 2 Ves. Sen., 481, per Hardwicke, C. Garrard y. Tuck (1849) 8 C. B., at p. 250. Melting V. Leak (1855) 16 C. B. 652.

p.

s.

[For the purposes of the Real Property Limitation Act, 1833, 3, the possession of the cestui que trust is the possession of the Apparently this is trustee (Garrard \. Tuck, ubi sup.., at p. 252). also the rule for other purposes (Geary v. Barecroft (1667) i Sid.
346).]
(vii)

by the admission
son

to possession of the land,

with the consent of the vendor, of a per-

who

has contracted to purchase an

interest in or take a lease

of the land,

pending completion of the contract.


Hamerton
dale, J.
v. Musgrave (1827) 6 B. & C. 524. Bally. Cullimore (1835) 2 C. M. & R. 120. Howard y. Shaw (1841) 8 M. & W. 118. Coatsittortb v. Johnson (i 886) 54 L. T. 520 ; 55 L,

v.

Stead (1824) 3 B.

& C,

at p.

485, per

Little-

Saunders

J.

Q. B.

220.

[Care must be taken to distinguish between a tenant


a servant occupying his master's property

at will

and

(Mayhew
TVhite v.

v. Suttle

4 E. & B. 347 (public-house manager); 10 C. B. N. S. 227 (Society's manager)).]

(1854) Bayley (1861)

Digitized

by Microsoft

.644
Termination

LAW OF PROPERTY
A, tenancy at will
is

1158.
(i)

determined by

the

of tenancy
at will

demand of possession on the part of lessor, communicated to the lessee


Litt.

Co.

55

b.

Nichollw.

McKaeg (1830) 10

B.

&

C. 721.
14.

Tomes
(ii)

v. Chamber'lain (i8'39) 5

M. & W.

an entry on the land by the


the assent of the lessee
Co. Litt. 55 b. Lomes V. Chamberlain, uhi
sup.,

lessor,

without

per Parke, B.

lessor
Litt.

[Unless the entry is for the purpose of doing an act which the is entitled to do without putting an end to the tenancy (Co.

55 b).J
(iii)

an attempted assignment of his interest by


the
lessee,

of which

the, lessor

has notice

Tinhorn Mailing

v. Souster v.

(1853) 8 Exch. 763. Leak (1855) (?) i6 C. B. at

p.

669, per Curiam.

(iv)

the death of the lessor or the lessee


Co.
Litt.

57 b, 62 b.

Scohie y. Collins

(1895)

Q,

B. 375.

[Even

if

his heirs at the will

the lease was expressly worded to hold to the lessee and of the lessor, the lessee's heir is a trespasser if

Outlawry of either party is said also to he enters (Litt. s. 82). determine the tenancy {Olanc^s Case (1602) 5 Rep; 116 b).]
(v)

any other act of the

lessor or the

lessee,

knowledge of the other party, and which shows an intention to put an end to the tenancy.
to the
Dimsdale
v. Isles

which comes

(1672) 3 Keb. 166, 207.

[The
at a rent,

hardships involved in this last rule, in the case of tenancies were so obvious, that the Courts at an early date attempted

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES AT WILL
to fay
ft

645

must be imposed must not determine his tenancy just before rent becomes due {Anon. (1505) Keilw. 65). But the tendency,' previously referred to ( 1132 (ii)) to treat any payment and
that certain reasonable restrictions

down,

upon

it,

e.g. that a tenant

acceptance of rent for an aliquot part of a year as evidence of a tenancy from year to year, which is manifest as early as Agard v. King (1600) Cro. Eliz. 775, has put an end to many of these refinements. The Apportionment Act, 1 870, by making rent accrue from day to day, has removed other difficulties. A summary of the old restrictions laid down to enforce 'reasonableness' will be found in Viner, Ab. X, pp. 406-7.J

1159.

No

previous notice of his intention to ter- No


at will

notice to

minate a tenancy

need be given either by the


lessor

determine

lessor or the lesee.

But the

cannot recover in

ejectment against the lessee; unless the tenancy has

been already determined.


application to
a

This

latter

rule has
eject

no
the

mortgagee

seeking to

mortgagor from the mortgaged premises.


Doev.
Hitchman
421 (assumed). Walton (1838) 4 M. & W., at pp. 414, 415, per Lord Abinger, C. B., and Parke, B.
v.

Giles (1829) 5 Bing.

1160.

If a rent certain

is

reserved on the creation Rent may

be
''^

of a tenancy
in arrear.

at will, the lessor

may

distrain for rent

""'"'"^

Litt. s.

72.

Co.

Litt.

57
v.

b.

Anderson

M. ^.

Co.

(186 1)

E.

&

E. 614.

[Coke (Co.
II,

146)
s.

state, that if
is

the will

57 b) and, following him, Blackstone {Comm. the lessor impounds the distress on the land, See Distress for Rent Act, Sed quare. determined.
Litt.

1737,

10.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

646
Tenant at
mill entitled
to profits

LAW OF PROPERTY
A
tenant at will
is

1161.

entitled to the profits


{ante,

of the land, including reasonable housebote


1074)'

Y. B. 12 Edw. IV (1473) Pasch. pi. 20, per Choke, R. V. Winter (1705) 2 Salk. 588, per Powel, J. Bennett v. Turner (1840) 10 L. J. Exch. 213. Trent v. Hunt (1853) 9 Exch. 14.

J.

And

emble-

1162.

tenant at will

whose tenancy

is

deter-

ments

mined by some uncertain event not caused -by himself


is

entitled to

emblements, or the statutory substitute

therefor (1141), in the


life

in

similar

application to a

same manner as a tenant for This rule has no circumstances.^ mortgagor occupying the mortgaged

premises with the consent of the mortgagee. W


(a)
Litt.
s.

68.

Co. Litt. 55. Landlord and Tenant Act, 1851, s. i. (b) Burden's and Withington's Case (1587) 2 Leon. 54. Keech v. Hall (1778) i Dougl., at p. 22, per Lord Mansfield, C. Moss V. Gallimore (1779) i Dougl., at p. 283, per Buller, J. Birch V. Wright (1786) i T. R., at p. 383, /^r Buller, J. Doe V. Giles (1829) 5 Bing.,-at p. 427, per Best, C. J.

J.

[The

tenant

at will

of a house

who

is

put out by his lessor


his

is

entitled, within a reasonable time, to

remove

goods

(Litt.

s.

69).]

May

bring

1163. of

xi

tenant at will

may

maintain the actions


{ante.

7eTmenT'^

Trespass W

and

Ejectment W

Book

II, Pt.

Ill, Sect. II, Titt. I

and

II,

814, 829),

if his pos-

Digitized

by Microsoft

ESTATES AT WILL
session of the land
is

647

wrongfully interfered with or

taken, from him.


(a)

(b)

Geanes v. Portman (1594) Cro. Eliz. Blunden v. Baugh (1634) Cro. Car. 305, /^r Jones, Berkeley, and Croke, JJ., quoting Spark v. Spark (1559-60), which was, however, a copyhold case. It seems that the lessor at will can
also

bring Ejectment {Geary v. Barecroft (1667) But there the tenant at will was a cestui que trust').

Sid.

346.

1164.

tenant at will, not expressly


is is

made un-

Uabiefoi
^"^""'"n

impeachable for waste,


tary ") waste.

liable for positive (" volun-

But he

not

liable, in

the absence of
[post. Sect. II,

express stipulation, for permissive waste


Tit. III).
Litt.
s.

71.

Co.

Litt.

57

a.

Countess of Shrewsbury' s Case (1600) 5 Rep. 13 b.

Harnett

v.

Maitland (1847) 16 M.

& W.

257.

1165.

It is

doubtful whether an attempted aliena tenant at will vests

Alienation

ation of his interest by


in the alienee.
Broughten's Case, Y. B. 22

anything

^^

^^^"'

Edw. IV (1482)

Pasch. pi. 16, per Brian,

J.

Co.

Litt.

57
v.

a.
i

jinon. (n. d.)

Brownl. 43.
5
I""-

Murphy

Ford (1855)

^- ^- ^- ^9-

[The argument seems


will
is

to be, that an alienation

a determination of his will.

by a tenant at But an assignment is not a

determination, unless the lessor has notice of it (Carpenter v. Colins (1605) Yelv. 73; Pinhorn v. Souster (1853) ^ Exch. yb^-, ante,
1

158
V.

den

BlunIt was held in Rouse's Case (1587) Owen, 28 (iii).) Baugh (1634) Cro. Car., at p. 304; and Goody v. Carter
;

at will

(1847) 9 Q. B. 863, that a lease for years or at will by a tenant was binding on all persons but the original lessor.]

Y3

Digitized

by Microsoft

TITLE
Species

VIII

FUTURE

INTERESTS IN LAND
or

of

1166.
parties,

By

operation of law

by

act

of the

future
interests

an

estate

may, subject to the Rule against


be created to take
effect in posses-

Perpetuities and to the other restrictions set forth in


this Title, arise or

sion at a future date, certain or uncertain.


estate takes effect either

Such an

by way of reversion, or of

remainder, or of executory interest.


[The notion of interests in land not clothed with possession may be said to be alien to a system of law in which possession was long regarded as the best, if not the only satisfactory, evidence of ownership. But in fact the recognition of such interests followed, almost inevitably, from the fundamental doctrine (ante, 1037 n.) which regarded every estate in land as derived from the estate of a superior for it was siujjstanti^lly, if not logically, impossible to deny to the superior an interest in the land, even though, by his own act, he had Accordingly, some place had to be deprived himself of possession. found for the interest of the superior ; and, ultimately, it was classed as a future estate, though, as Ventris, J., pointed out, in his elaborate judgment in the leading case of Dighton v. Greenvil (late 17th cent.)
2 Vent., at p. 328, a reversion
in theory at least,
it

is

really a present interest, because,

carries

enjoyment of the services of the tenant,

though
that

it

cal difficulty

does not confer possession. It was, probably, the techniof admitting two independent seisins of the same land,
for the classification
;

was responsible
est^ate.

for

it

was impossible

to

allow seisin to the reversioner, where the


a freehold
seisin, a reversion

particular tenant had

But, as a mere estate for years does not carry thereon is, as we shall see (1167) for some purposes regarded as a corporeal hereditament, and, as such, carries Very early also was recognized another- class of interests, seisin. which conferred neither present enjoyment of the services nor present possession and the idea of the remainder, which was evidently approaching in Bfacton's day (Liber de Legibus Jnglia, fo. 18 b) through the medium of conditional limitations, was fully recognized by Littleton (ss. 716-719) at the end of the fifteenth
;

century; though the creation and operation of remainders were hfedged about, as will appear, by elaborate rules to prevent abeyance

Digitized

by Microsoft

FUTURE INTERESTS
or interruption of the
Litt.
seisin.

IN

LAND

649

Shortly after Littleton's time (Co.

378

a), a

further development of the theory of remainders

admitted of their creation in favour of unascertained persons a practice which, though condemned by Littleton (s. 721), obviously, when recognized, added greatly to the powers of disposition enjoyed by landowners. Meanwhile, the freedom allowed by the Court of Chancery in dealing with the use, or beneficial interest in land held

by a fiduciary owner, permitted the creation of almost any future or contingent interests of an equitable kind ; and when these were, by the Statute of Uses, converted into legal estates, a third class of future interests (known as ' executory interests^') became possible. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the common law courts continued to give some effect to the strict rules which still bound the creation and operation of remainders ; but, as will be seen, during the nineteenth century, partly by statute, partly by judicial decision, remainders and executory interests have been very
largely assimilated, at
least so far as settlements dated after
it

1877

are concerned.

Nevertheless,

is

still

quite

impossible for any

systematic statement of the law to ignore the technical differences

between them.J

1167.

reversion

arises

by operation of law
is

Reversion

whenever
tion

a smaller

('particular') estate

created

by act of the

parties out
at

of a larger, by any limita-

which does not

the same time dispose of the

residue of the estate of the creator to a third party. (^^

When

the particular estate

is

an estate of freehold,
is

the reversion arising in the creator

an incorporeal
is

hereditament.

C")

When
(

the particular estate

an

estate for years, the reversion arising in the creator


is

for

some purposes
Litt.
s.

present estate subject to


(a)

1170 n.) deemed to be the term of years.W


b.

19; Co.

Litt.

22

(The

fact that the creator

of the

smaller estate expressly limits or reserves the residue to himself or his heirs, is immaterial (ibid.); except that such a limitadon

Digitized

by Microsoft

650

LAW OF PROPERTY
now makes
the creator a purchaser for the purposes of the law of
s.

inheritance (Inheritance Act, 1833,


(b)

3).)

And

(c)

(Litt. s. 554, &c. The last is one Throgmorton v. Tracey (1555) Dyer, 124 b. of the best general authorities on the nature of a reversion). And no dower could' be claimed in respect of \t <jy Arcy y. Blake (1805) 2 Sch. & Lef., at p. 390, per Redesdale, C. (I)). (Apparently it lay both Walter v. Yalden [1902] 2 K. B. 304. in livery and in grant at the common law (Co. Litt. 48 b and 49 a; Anon. (1537) Dyer, 33 a; Doe v. Cole (1827) 7 B. & C.
it

therefore

lay in grant at the

common law

243-)

[The
is

interest retained

by the creator of an

estate in fee simple

called a

"

sfeignory."

must have been Emptores in 1 290

rare exceptions ( 1044) a seignory created before the passing of the statute Qw'a
;

With

and, not unnaturally,

its

incidents are

now

of

conspicuous is the right to claim the possession of the land as an " escheat " ; should the tenant of the fee simple die intestate and without heirs. But this is little more than the right of every reversioner to claim the land on the expiry pf the particular estate.]
small practical value.

The most

Rights of
reversioner

1168.

The owner

of a reversion

is,

subject to ex-

press restriction, entitled to all the rights in respect

of the land specified in 1 040, and to such other rights as may have been expressly reserved, excepted,
or otherwise created, by the instrument under
his reversion arises.

which

[The owner of a reversion is, by his very definition, the ' lord of the owner of the particular estate, and, as such, entitled to the incidents of lordship.]

Declaration

1169.

The owner

of a fee simple reversion on

of

title

term of years in land, whether absolute or subject to any incumbrances, estates, rights, or interests, vested

Digitized

by Microsoft

FUTURE INTERESTS
or contingent, and
a

IN

LAND

651

every person claiming to have

power of disposing of such an interest for his own benefit, may apply to the Chancery Division of the

High Court
title
;

for a declaration

of the validity of his

and such declaration may be granted under the conditions prescribed by, and will be valid to the
extent described
in,

the Declaration of Title Act,

1862.
Declaration of Tide Act, 1862,
ss.

i,

48.

1 1

70.

The owner

of a reversion

may by deed

or

Alienation iy
reversioner

testament alienate his estate without the consent of


the owner of the particular estate.
though contrary to feudal principles^ was early establaw ; for Bracton (ep. cit. fo. 82), after some little hesitation, states roundly, that services can always be assigned, at any rate by fine, though the right to receive the tenant's homage cannot be transfei-red without the tenant's consent. Apparently, Bracton's view soon prevailed ; for, though the attornment, or consent of the tenant to hold under the transferee, was still required, the Old Nature Brevium (temp. Edward III, ed. Pynson (n, d.) fo, xlix; ed. Tottell (1584) fF. 168-170) contains two forms of writ {.Quid yuris Clarhat, and Per Quae Servitia) which can be traced back to Bracton's own day, devised to compel the tenant, not being a tenant in tail (Lewis Bowles' Case (1615) 11 Rep. 80 a) It is worth noting, that Fitzherbert, to attorn or to be attorned. whose (New) Natura Brevium was printed in 1534, though obviously aware of the existence of these writs (op. cit. 49 H, 147 A), did not think it worth while to reproduce them ; but it would not, perhaps, be safe to attribute the omission to anything but the fact that they were not Writs Original, with which Fitzherbert was mainly concerned. The Quid Juris Clamat is given in the printed Register of 1687 (JudiciaRum, ff. 36, 57). Meanwhile, the passing of the
rule,

[This

lished in the

common

Digitized

by Microsoft

6sz
Statute of

LAW OF PROPERTY

Uses had dealt a further blow at the theory of feudal it was soon afterwards held {Heyward's Case (1595) 2 Rep. 34 b) that a conveyance which operated by virtue of'the statute passed the re\ersion without attornment of -the tenant. Finally,
allegiance; for

1705, a statute (4 & 5 Anne,c. 16, s.,9) abolished the necessity attornment in all " grants aiid conveyances " of reversions. Apparently, attornment still remains necessary where the reversioner comes in. by hostile title {Harris y. Booker (1827) 4 Bing. 96). Any act which recognizes the position of the new reversioner will be sufficient as an attornment [Gladman v. Plumer (1845) 15 The attornment of the tenant to a stranger, L J. Q. B. 79). which formerly worked serious detriment to the reversioner, no longer has any tffect (iDistress for Rent Act, 1737, s. 11) ; except (possibly) as a disclaimer involving forfeiture of the tenant's interest. A tenan,t is protected if, he pays rent to the former reversioner without notice of the transfer of the reversion (4 & 5 Anne, c. 16, s. 10). With regard to the form by which a reversion could be transferred, it seems quisle clear that, subject to the necessity for attornment, a i'eversion, whether a true 'reversion on a freehold estate, or a so-called r/eversion on a term of years, could, by Littleton's day, be transferred by deed of grant (Litt. ss. 567-8).]
in

for

Possibility

1171.

possibility

of reverter

arises in

the donor

or his heirs

upon

a grah't or devise of a determinable

fee sim-^\e (ante, 1052), or an estate defeasible

on

the happening of a condition subsequent [post. Sect.


Ill, Tit.
I).^*),

Such

a possibility

may be

devised, or

assigned inter vivos by deed.e")


'

.(a)

(b)

Simpson v. Simpson (i;838) 4 Bing. N. C. 333. Bemberton v. Barnes [1899],! Ch. 544. Wills Act. 1837,8. 3. ^^., Real Property Act, 1845, s. 6. Pemberion v. Barnes, ubi sup.

[A fee simple conditional iwilL merge in the possibility of reverter expectant upon it {Simpson v. Simpson^ ubi sup.). difficulty arises where there is a limitation of a contingent remainder in fee simple.

Digitized

by Microsoft

FUTURE INTERESTS

IN

LAND

653

According to Coke (Co. Litt. 342 b) and Blackstone (Csotot. II, 107), the fee is in abeyance so long as the contingency may, but does not take effect. Clearly, however, some interest remains in the donor; but whether a reversion or some other species of interest may be doubted, though Fearne {Contingent Remainders, pp. 359364) takes the former view. The point does not, at the present day, seem to be of practical importance. The effect of the Contingent Remainders Act, 1877, on such a case should, however, be
noted,]

1172.
[post,
1

Subject

to

the

Rule against Perpetuities

Remainders
vested

and the Rule against Double Possi bilities [post, 1179), a remainder is created whenever an estate of freehold or copyhold W is limited
181
n.),

and

contingent

to a person other

than the
C")

settlor, to

take effect in

possession

on the expiry

of a preceding estate of
the

freehold duration/"^ limited by


ance.

same convey-

If such remainder

is

limited absolutely to an

existing and ascertained person or persons, it is said if it is limited in favour of an unto be " vested "
;

born or unascertained person or persons, or in favour


of an ascertained person or persons on the happening of an event other than the expiry of the particular estate, it is said to be " contingent." W Upon

the happening of the contingency, a contingent re-

mainder
(a)

is

said to be vested.

There can be no doubt, whatever

the difficulties of the theory, that copyhold remainders have been recognized almost ever since the recognition of copyhold tenure itself by the King's Courts.

(Brown's Cj^ (1581) 4 Rep., atzzb ; Fitchy. Stuckley (1594) On the other hand, a common law term of years 23 a). to take effect in futuro, though it may be loosely styled a reibid.

Digitized

by Microsoft

654

LAW OF PROPERTY

mainder, cannot be anything more dian an interesse termini; because the person in whose favour it is limited cannot enter under
it

of the particular estate {Corbet y. Stone (1653) T. Raym., at p. 151). In Geary v. Barecroft (1665) i Sid. 346, it was said by the Court, that even an estate at will could be limited by way of remainder. (b) It is important to notice, that the remainder must contemplate
until the expiry

Sir

neither (a) premature determination of the particular estate, for


seisin (which was disby the common law), nor (^) entry for condition broken, which can only be reserved to the donor, nor (y) an interval between the expiry of the particular estate and the taking effect in possession of the remainder, for that would involve an abeyance of the seisin, a result also repugnant to the common law. (See the arguments and opinions of the Court in Colthirst v. Bejushitt (1550) i Plowd. 21, and Corbet v. Stone, ubi sup.) ", On the expiry" appears, then, ,to be the correct phrase. The necessity for' a particular estate of freehold to support a remainder of freehold is obyious on common law principles; for a freehold estate could at the common law only be limited in pais by a feoffinent, and a feoffment involved livery of seisin. But an apparent exception to this rjale could be made by enfeoffing a tenant for years on behalf of an ascertained so-called remainderman, who thus, in fact, acquired a pr^senti estate subject to the term. This is the explanation of the passage in Littleton (s. 60), which has puzzled so many readers; and presumably the same result might be. produced by an appropriately vyorded deed under the Real Property Act, 1845. Obviously, no contingent remainder (so called) could be limited in either of these ways. J Co. Litt. 49 a. Co. Litt. ^7% a.; Whitby- v. Fon Luedecke [1906] i Ch. 783. (As pointed out above, Littleton (s. 721) was unwilling to admit the legality of contingent remainders; but for once his distinguished commentator did' not agree with him. The truth probably is, that the question was an open one in Littleton's day, and,' before Coke wrote, had been definitely settled in the

that

would involve an interruption of the

liked

(c)

(d)
(e)

affirmative {Colthirst y, Bejushin

(1550)

Plowd. zi).)

(f)

Jrcher's Case {i^g-j)

Rep. 66

b.

Freehold

1173.

Any

attempt to limit a freehold to comotherwise

mence

at a' future date,

than

as

re-

Digitized

by Microsoft

FUTURE INTERESTS
mainder
as

IN

LAND

655

upon

a particular

estate

of freehold, or

an executory

interest

{post,

1183)

is

void ab

initio.

HeHer v. Okeden (1560) Moo. 14. Barwick's Case (1597) 5 Rep. 93 b (3rd resolution). Pay's Case (1601) Cro. Eliz. 878.
[There seems to be no corresponding rule with regard to copyholds or estates for years. But the doctrine extends to limitations of existing future interests of freehold {WrotesleyY. Adams (1559) Plowd. 187; Buckler v. Harvey (1594) Cro. Eliz. 450).]

1 1

74.

No

remainder may be limited to


a fee simple r
; '

take No

remain"

efFect

on the expiry of ^ '

(")
,

but alternative
liiliited,

^^'' ''(''^,

fee simple

contingent remainders in fee simple


in such a

may be

manner
Litt.

that only

one of them can pos-

sibly take effect. C")


(a)

Co.

8 a.

Blackstone,

Comm.

Musgrave

v.

II, p. 164. Brooke (1884) 26 Ch. D. 792.

[This

is

greatest estate

the logical result of the fact, that a fee simple is the known to the law, combined with the working of

the statute Quia Emptores^ which forbids any attempt to create an


estate in fee simple

by subinfeudation.
left

Having

limited a fee simple,

the settlor has nothing


to

to give.

The

rule applies, according

Lord Hardwicke, even

to determinable fees
at p.

{E. of Stafford v.

Buckley (1750) 2 Ves. Sen.,


(b)

180).

Loddington

v.

Kime (1694)

White's and

HindWs

i Salk'. 224. Contract (1877) 7 Ch. D. 201.

[Thus, for example, a


in fee simple
if

limitation to

for life,

remainder to

he should survive A,

if not, to

in

fee

simple,

would be

a perfectly

for the transfer of the fee simple to

B, would be bad as by executory limitation

But any attempt to provide C, after it had once vested in a remainder; though it might be good if effected
good
limitation.
{jfost^

1182).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

656
Cross re-

LAW OF PROPERTY
Where
there
is

1175.

a single devise

mainders

two or more persons


with a
gift over in

as

tenants in

W of common
to time,

land to
in tail,
all

the event of such persons

dy-

ing without

issue, then,

from time

on the

death without issue of any one of such persons, the


survivor or survivors (if any) and the issue (if any)

of a deceased devisee or devisees


per stirpes (and, if

(if

any) will take

more than one,

as tenants in

com-

mon) an

estate tail in

remainder of the same kind

in the share of such person dying without issue, be-

fore the gift over takes effect. W

The
;
(*=)

rule has no

application to limitations inter vivos


it

except that

has been applied to marriage articles. W


(a)

There
ties

is

no implication
Case

if there are several gifts

of separate properv.

(b)

(c)

(d)

(1572) Dyer, 330b; Gilbert (1621) Cro. Jac. 655). Anon. (1570) Dyer, 303 b. Huntley's Case (1572) ibid. 326. Coley. Levingston (1672) i Vent. 224. Doe V. Dorvell (1794) 5 T. R. 518. West V. Errissey (1726) 2 P. Wms. 349 (H. L.). Twisden v. Lock (1768) z Amb. 663.
i^Clacbe's

Witty

[In Cole V. Levingston it is suggested that there cannot be cross remainders by implication where the devise is to more than two persons. But this doctrine has since been disapproved {Mannaford

Hamaford (1871) L. R. 7 Q. B. 119 ; Re Ridge's Trusts (1872) L. R. 7 Ch. App., at p. 668, per James, L. J. Obviously there can be no cross remainders in fee simple (see 1173).]
V.

Cross

1176.

Where

there

is
.

a single devise to

two
.

or
a

remainders

for

life

more

persons as tenants in

common

,.^
lire,

lor

with

gift over

on the death of the survivor or

all

of them,

Digitized

by Microsoft

FUTURE INTERESTS

IN

LAND

^si

then, from time to time, on the death of any of such persons, the survivor or survivors (if any) will take

(and if more than one as tenants in


estate for life in the share

common)

an

of such deceased person, before the gift over takes effect.W The rule has no application to limitations inter vivos; except that it
has been applied to marriage articles.
(a)

Ashley

Parfitt V.
(b)

Ashley (1833) 6 Sim. 358. Member (1867) L. R. 4 Eq. 443. Twisden v. Lock, ubi sup.
v.

[The

latter part of this rule has

now been shaken by

of Sargant, J., in a rather subtle


limitations.]

Re

Stanley',s Settlement [1916] 2

distinction

between

the decision Ch. 50, which draws constructive and implied

1 1

77.

limitation

which

is

capable of being con-

Remainders
""'^^'"^"""'3

strued as a remainder must, whether '

made by deed J

or

hmttattons

by testament, and whether by common law conveyance or by instrument operating under the Statute of
Uses, be so construed; even though
ceivably be construed
{post,
I

it

might conlimitation

as

an

executory

183).

Cbudleigh's Case (1589) I Rep. 113 b. Purefoy v. Rogers (1671) 2 Wms. Saand. 380. Cole V. Sewell (1843) 4 Dr. & W. i, per Sugden, C.

White
2

V. Summers'\\<)o^\ Ch. 95).

Ch. 256 (explaining Re Wrightson [1904]

[This is one of the means before referred to ( 1165, '^)-) ^7 which the common law courts, subsequently to the passing of the
Statute of Uses, succeeded in keeping alive the technical rules affecting

remainders, notwithstanding the growing


interests.
It

popularity of executory
limitations created after

has

little

practical effect
if these

upon

2nd August, 1877; because,


ders, they

may

cannot take effect as remainyet take effect as executory interests (Contingent Re-

Digitized

by Microsoft

6s8

LAW OF PROPERTY

But, though it is rarely that a limitation is mainders Act, 1877). capable of being construed both as a remainder and as an executory interest, there is one important species of limitation, viz. gifts to a class, which causes difficulty, and in respect of which, especially if

made
there

before
is

2nd August, 1877, the

is

important.

Thus,

if

a devise of land to

for life, and, after his decease, to such

of

his

children

children as shall attain 21, the limitation in favour of A's must be construed as a remainder ; and, consequently, only

those children who' attain 21 before A's death will be entitled, subject to the Contingent Remainders Act, 1877, to take under it
{Festing v.

Men

(1843) 12

M. & W.

279).

And

limitations by

way of use

are, for this purpose, construed in the

same way

as

common

law limitations ( Tafnerv. Merlott (1739) Willes, at p. 180, But if the words used by the settlor are inconsistent per Curiam). with the creation of a true remainder, e. g. if they contemplate a defeasance of the prior estate, or if the gift is " to all the children of A who shall attain 21, whether in A's lifetime or afterwards," then the gift will be construed as' an executory limitation, and, therefore, all A's children will be admitted to share, whenever born {Re Lechmere and Lloyd (1881) 18 Ch. D. 524; Blackman v. Fysh [1892] 3 Ch. 209). Even with regard to limitations created after 1877, the rule may still have some importance, e. g. a limitation to A for life, and after his death to the first of his sons who attains 24. As an executory limitation, this would be clearly bad ; but it might take efi^ect as a remainder if, in fact, A left a son who had attained 24 in his lifetime (Re Wrightson [1904] 2 Ch. 75). Finally, it' should be noted, that a devise which, originally, was clearly framed as a remainder, may, according to the circumstances existing at the Thus, if testator's death, take effect as an executory limitation. there is a devise to A for life (or in tail) with remainder to the" first son of B who shall attain 21, in fee, and A dies (without issue) in the lifetime of the testator, then, if at the testator's death B has no son who has attained 21, the devise to such person becomes executory {Pafs Case (1601) Cro. Eliz. 878 ; Hopkins v, Hopkins (1734) Ca. temp. Talbot, 44).]

Rule

in

11
^

78.

When a

limitation of an estate of freehold

Cate

^^

followed, in the same conveyance, either mediately

or immediately, W by a limitation of an estate

in the.

Digitized

by Microsoft

FUTURE INTERESTS
same land
person to
to the heirs, or heirs

IN

LAND
is

659

of the body, of the


estate

whom the

former freehold

limited,

or, in a devise,

by words signifying

a similar inten-

tion,

the effect of the subsequent limitation will be,

to enlarge the interest taken

under the former limi-

tation into an estate in fee simple or an estate tail


respectively,

and not to confer

such heirs.W

and a codicil
regarded
(a)

a separate estate upon For the purposes of this , a testament thereto, ('^ and a settlement and an

appointment under
as parts

power contained therein, W of the same conveyance.


a

are

Including analogous interests in copyhold tenure (Creaton v. Creaton

(1856) 26 L. J. Ch. 266; Bakery. Parson (1872) 42 L.J. Ch. 228). A limitation of an existing term of years to A, with a gift over, whether by lease or assignment, vests the whole term and so the rule has no application in such a case. And in him a bequest of a term of years to A, with a gift over in favour of his heirs, also gives A the whole term (^Kinch v. Ward (1825)
;

Sim.

&

S.

409).

But even a limitation of

new term of
v.

years with a subsequent limitation to the "heirs and assigns" of


the lessee, does not cause the rule to operate
(

Tafner

Merlott

(b)

180). In theory, the first and second estates do not unite so long as there and, consequently, the latter, even is an intervening estate ;
at p.

(1739) Willes,

(c)

though contingent, is not destroyed, but takes effect as though the had never operated {Lewis Bowles' Case (161 5) 11 Rep. 79 b). It seems that if any intervening limitations are void for remoteness, the Rule in Shelley's Case will not prevent the subsequent limitations being bad (^^ Mortimer [1905] 2 Ch. 502). The word "estate" is here used strictly. The rule will not operate to unite a legal estate and an equitable interest (Baker v.
rule

Parson, ubi sup.).


(d)

But two equitable

interests,

of a freehold

nature, will unite {Richardson \. Harrison

(1885) 16 Q. B.D. 85).

This

is

the

most

difficult

point in the application of the rule.

Apparently, in a deed, no word other than the word "heirs" will cause the rule to operate ; sinc^ no other words were, at the common law, sufficient to limit an estate of inheritance. On the other hand, the word "heirs" in a deed will not necessarily
bring in the rule
;

if it is

clear that the settlor

is

using the

word

Digitized

by Microsoft

6o

LAW OF PROPERTY
merely to indicate
173).
tation,
specific persons (^Evans v. Evans [1892] 2 Ch, But, in a devise, owing to the greater laxity of interpre-

jthe heirs

any expressions indicating an intention to limit an estate to of the first taker will be sufiicient to bring in the rule {Roddy V. Fitzgerald (1857) 6 H. L. C. 823, approved in Fan Grutten v. Foxwell [1897] A. C. 658); while, on the other hand, the use of the word "heir" {Archer's Case (1597) i Rep. 63 b; Fuller v. Chamier (1866) L. R.y2 Eq. 682) or even "'heirs" {Goodtitle v. Herring (1801) i East, 264, recognized in Jesson v. Wright (1820) 2 Bligh, at p. 18) wiH not have that effect ; if it is clear from the context that the testator intended by these expressions to indicate specific persons, and not successors
in general.
^

(e)

(f)

(s)

(1579) i Rep. 219. Perrin v. Blake {ijSi)) i W. Bl. 672; (1772) 4 Burr. 2579. Hayes v. Foorde (1770) 2 W. Bl. 698. Jesson v. Wright, ubi sup.
Shelley's Case

[The mere
operate,
is

Van
it is

fact that the settlor intends that the rule shall not immaterial {Thong v. Bedford (1815) 4 M. S. 362; Grutten v. Foxwell^ ubi sup., at p. 684, per Lord Davey). But

&

sometimes very

difficult to distinguish

between an intention that

the rule shall not operate, which does not prevent the application of the rule, and an intention to indicate specific persons, which does.
It

has been held, in Ireland, that the rule applies to limitations of

successive interests in an estate pur autre vie

{Macnamara

v. Dillon

(1883) II

Ir.

R. (Ch.) 29).]

So-called ^^

1179.

Where,

in a

conveyance

inter vivos, there

'Lsslbiiities"

^ limitation

of an estate to an unborn person for


of the same land to
later limi-

life,

followed by a limitation
issue (as

any

such)W of such person, the

tation

is void.''')

Where
effect

similar limitations occur in


is

a devise, they will, if the second limitation


estate tail,

of an
first

have the
tail

of conferring on the
it

taker an estate

of such a nature that

^yould,

unless barred, be capable of descending to the persons

Digitized

by Microsoft

FUTURE INTERESTS
in whose favour the remainder them only {cy-pres)y>
(a)

IN
is

LAND

66i

Hmited, and to

Re Bullock [1915]
Whithy
v.

(b)

I Ch. 493. Mitchell (1890) 44 Ch. D. 85. (This decision shows (i) that limitations effected by way of use are subject to the rule, equally with common law remainders, (ii) that a settlement creating a special power of appointment and an appointment under it are, for

the purposes of the rule, treated as parts of the same conveyance.)

Re Nash f 1 9 1 o]

1 Ch. i . (This case decides that successive equitable limitations are also subject to the rule.) Re Clarke's Settlement [1916] i Ch. 467 (copyholds).

(c)

Monypenny v. Bering (1847) 16 M. & W. 418. Parjitt V. Member (1867) L. R, 4 Eq., at


passage, Romilly,

(In this p. 446. R., states the cy-pres doctrine as if it were applicable where the void limitation is only for life. Sed quare.)

M.

Re Rising [1904] i Ch. 533. Re Mortimer [1905] 2 Ch. 502.


estate
tail

(This case shows, that if no of recognized character would answer the description in the text, it is not possible to save the limitation by implying an estate tail of a novel character. Thus, a devise to the eldest (unborn) son of A, with remainder to his daughters successively in tail, would not confer upon A's son an estate in tail female ; because such an estate does not descend to daughters successively.)

[This rule, sometimes called the " Rule Against Double Possibilities," which has recently been the subject of much discussion in the cases above quoted, was probably, in its origin, one of the many checks devised by the Courts to prevent the creation of an unbarIt is not applicable to limitations of chattels perrable estate tail. Neither is it applicable to sonal (Re Bowles [1902] 2 Ch. 650). vested remainders; for no remainder limited to an unborn person It is probably applicable to executory limcan possibly be vested. It is but there seems to have been no case on the point. itations quite independent of the Rule against Perpetuities (^Re Nash, ubi sup., at p. "Jtper Farwell, L. J.); and is said to be much older than that Care must be taken to distinguish it from the Rule in Shelley's Rule. Case; which has no application when the second limitation is to a
-,

The Rule against Double Possibilities specific person or persons. only applies where the first limitation is for life ; because a first limitation in tail would enable the first taker to get rid of all remainders by barring the entail, while there can be no remainder on For the purposes of the rule, the first taker is not a fee simple.
deemed to be ' unborn,' if he is en ventre sa mere when the settlement comes into operation (^Re Wilmer's Trusts [1903] 2 Ch. 41 1).]

Digitized

by Microsoft

662
Future cor-

LAW OF PROPERTY
No
remainder can be limited to a corporaof a person not

1180.

hein'\f"
unbornperson

*^" ^^ ^" existence, or to the heirs

bom when

the limitation was made.


26
b.

Cholmley's Case (1597) 2 Rep., at 51 b.


Sutton's Hospital Case (161 2) 10 Rep., at
;

[There is not much authority on this point but the dicta in the two authorities quoted are accepted as law. Obviously, there could be no limitation of a present interest or of a vested remainder in
either case
;

but

it is

possible that an executory limitation having a


carefully kept within the
e.

similar object, if
petuities,

it

was

Rule against Per-

might be good,

g. a devise to

in fee, but if

(a

bachelor) should beget a son the heir of that son.].

who

should die in A's lifetime, then to

Rule against

1181.

All future interests in land, whether preated

"'by way of remainder W or of executory limitation, are subject to the Rule against Perpetuities. C")
(a)

Re Frost (1889) 4.3 Ch. D. 246. Re Ashforth [1905] I Ch.' 535Whitby v. Von Liiedecke [1906] I Ch.
CadeU
v.

783.

(b)

Palmer (1833)

I CI.

&

F. 372.

[This

is

not the place in which to deal with the Rule against

Perpetuities, which, as a restriction affecting limitations of all kinds of property, will be found fully stated in a, later Section (XV). It is

enough here to say, that the Rule renders void any limitation which might permit a claim to property to arise after the expiry of lives in being at the date of the limitation and a further period of twentyone years. If no life interests are involved, the limitation is restricted in operation to an absolute period of twenty-one years from its date. There is the usual allowance for gestation where gestation
actually exists.

The

reason

why
and

the rule
after

is

alluded

to at this

stage
versy,

is

that,

quite, recently,

somewhat acute contro-

it has been established, so far as Courts of First Instance can lay down a rule of law, that it applies to contingent remainders equally with executory interests, though, historically speaking, it was evolved in connection with the latter class of in-

Digitized

by Microsoft

FUTURE INTERESTS
terests.

IN

LAND

663

The cause of the extension of the Rule is probably to be found in the statutory changes made during the nineteenth century, by which the former liability of a contingent remainder to be defeated by the determination of the particular estate, has been largely diminished. Of course, no reversion or vested remainder can be
void for perpetuity.]

1182.

contingent remainder, whether freehold


is

Abeyance
'J

or copyhold,

taking

effect,

118 o, 1181) capable of notwithstanding the determination, by


(subject to

'"""

forfeiture,
estate, in

surrender, or

merger, of any preceding


all respects, as if

the same manner, in

such

determination had not happened. W

And

a contin-

gent remainder
provided that
it

created

after

2nd August, 1877,


is

conforms

to the rules affecting the

limitation of executory interests,


effect
as if
it

capable of taking
as

had originally been created


notwithstanding
the

an

executory

interest,

previous
particular

determination
estate. C")
(a)

(by

any

means)

of the

(b)

Real Property Act, 1845, s. 8. Pickersgillv. Grey (i86i) 30 Beav. 352 (copyhold). (The Act applies to hereditaContingent Remainders Act, 1877. ments of any tenure ; and, apparently, even copyholds were, prior to the Act, liable to destruction on the natural Mure of the particular estate {Habergham v. Fitieent (1793) 2 Ves. Jr., at
p. T-ll.per Buller, J.).)
.

[Apart from statute, a contingent remainder which was not ready to vest eo instanti that the particular estate determined, *' And there may still be cases in failed," i.e., became extinct.

which the common law M. & W. 279).]

rule applies (Testing v.

Mien

(1843)

I2

1183.
ever,

An

executory interest in land

arises

when-

Executory

by a valid limitation, land is limited to or js vested

"""'""

Digitized

by Microsoft

664
in

LAW OF PROPERTY
at

one person to the use of another


such
a

date, certain or uncertain, in

some manner

future
that a

remainder

is

not created.
to

In a deed, such limitation

must be expressed
lent

be made by

way of use

or equiva-

words; in a devise, or in a disposition of copyr-

holds, the limitation

may be

expressed directly in

favour of the person taking the executory interest.


Hinder. Lydn (1577)
the
3 a

defeasance

of

Leon. 64 (said to be the earliest case in which fee simple by an executory, limitation was
Eliz.

recognized).

Weihckw. Hammond (1590) Cro.


Pells
V.

204.

Brown (1620) Cro.

Jac.

590.

(This case laid

down

the

important rule, that an executory interest, except where it followed on an estate tail, could not be destroyed by a common recovery.) (This case is so badly Scatterwood v. Edge (1697) i Salk. 229.
reported, that
it is

difficult to

be sure what was actually decided.


at p.

But

the remarks of the Court are valuable.)

Baker

v.

White (1875) L. R. 20 Eq.,

171.

[Executory interests arose out of the practice of the Court of Chancery, which, prior to the Statute of Uses, treated future dispositions of the profits of land, though not conforming to the rules affecting common law remainders, as binding in Equity on the conscience of the legal owner who had accepted his estate with knowledge of the dispositions, or was otherwise in conscience bound by them. On the passing of the Statute of Uses, such dispositions, where the necessary conditions were present, became binding also Thus, for the first time, it bein law, i. e. independently of notice. came possible to limit future legal interests in land regardless of the technical rules of the common law on the subject of remainders. For
instance, it became lawful (a) to limit future interests independently of a particular estate (" springing uses "), (b) to limit such interests in defeasance of preceding interests ("shifting uses "). In the former case, the seisin remained in the settlor or the trustees until the future
in the latter it shifted away from the previous taker, in had already been executed by the statute. The reason why the formality of expressing the use was dispensed with in executory devises was (probabjy) that, all devises of land before 1540 (Statute of Wills) being, apart from local custom, merely equitable in their effect, it was assumed, after devises became legal, that the

use arose
it

whom

Digitized

by Microsoft

FUTURE INTERESTS

IN

LAND

665

testator intended his limitations to be executed

by the Statute of Uses {Ferry v. Phelips (1790) i Ves. Jr., at p. 255, per Thurlow, C). But the recognition of executory devises of estates for years, which, after some hesitation, was accorded before the end of the seventeenth century {Eyres v. Faulkland (1697) i Salic. 231), though convenient, was less logical for the Statute of Uses can have no application to such dispositions, inasmuch as neither the testator nor his personal representatives qr legatees can be "seised" of an estate for years. It seems, however, also to be well settled,
;

that there can be an executory limitation inter vivos of copyholds of

which the settlor is seised in fee or for life {Boddington v. Abernethy (1826) 5 B. & C. 776) though it may be that the lord cannot be compelled to accept a surrender by which future uses are left to be executed under a power of appointment {Flack v. Downing College As to the distinction between execu(1853) 13 C. B. 945).
;

tory interests and remainders, see ante, 11 77. As above stated ( 1 181, n.), the Rule against Perpetuities applies to executory
limitations
(for which, indeed,
it

was

specially introduced)

and

so also, probably, does the so-called Rule against Double Possibilities (


1 though, on this point, no case can be found. For1 79), merly, a theoretical difficulty arose in limiting an executory interest in defeasance of a fee simple (which, provided that the Rule against Perpetuities is observed, is a valid and, indeed, common limitation). It was argued, that the execution of the first limitation in fee simple

exhausted the seisin of the trustee, and

left

no

seisin out^

of which

To nveet this difficulty, the the subsequent use could be executed. fiction of a scintilla juris in the trustee was invented; but this fiction has been rendered unnecessary (if it ever was necessary) by the
provisions of the

Law

of Property

Amendment

Act, i860,

s.

7.

1184.
since

Where,

in

testanfent

made

or

revived

Failure of

1837, there is an executory devise over on failure of the issue of any person (whether such
person
takes

"'"'

an

interest

in

the land under


is

the

testament or not), such failure of issue


(subject to
1

construed

185) to mean a failure of issue in the lifetime or at the death of such person, and not an

Digitized

by Microsoft

666

LAW OF PROPERTY
by reason of such
tail

indefinite failure of issue; unless,

person having a prior estate

in the land, or of a
aristail

preceding

gift being,

without any implication


contrary
intention

ing from such words, a limitation of an estate


to such

person or

issue, a

appre-

pears

by the

testament. W

There

is

no such

sumption in the case of an executory limitation by


deed-C-)
!'

(a )

Wills Act, 1837, s. 29. (The wording of the Act is confined to "issue" ; but there is a disposition to extend the rule to other See Re Edexpressions, e. g. "male issue " and "children."
Fisher v. l^igg

(b)

Ch. 644; Re Booth [1900] i Ch. 768.), (1700) i P. Wms., at p. i^,per Gould, J. Bamfield v. Popham (1702) ibid., at p. 57, per Powell, J. Morgan v. Morgan (1870) L. R. lo Eq. 99.

wards [1894]

[Before the passing of the Wills Act, 1837, the rule was to treat such limitation as referring to an indefinite failure of issue, and, therefore, as creating an estate tail in the person the failure of whose issue was contemplated, unless such person's interest was greater than an
estate tail {Sonday's Case

(161

1)

9 Rep. 127 b; Fisher v. Wigg, ubi

sup.; Bamfieldw. Popham, ubi slip.; Idle v. Cook (1705) I P. 70). Obviously, this construction was far from satisfactory to the execu-

Wms.

tory devisees
tail

inasmuch as the previous taker might bar the estate ; and destroy their chances. But it seems to be applied, even now, to limitations by deed {Morgan v. Morgan., ubi sup., Sf/hext, however, the estate already limited to the previous taker was, ap.

parently, a fee simple).]

Issue attain'"^

1185.

Where

a person

is

entitled to land for an

^^

estate in fee, or for a

term of years absolute or delife,

terminable on

life,

or for term of

with an exall

ecutory limitation over on default or failure of

or

any of his

issue,

whether within or

at

any specified

Digitized

by Microsoft

FUTURE INTERESTS

IN

LAND

667

period or not, that executory limitation will be or become void and incapable of taking effect, if and as soon as there is living any issue who has attained

the age of twenty-one years, of the class on default or failure whereof the limitation over was to take
effect.
is

This rule only applies when the limitation contained in an instrument coming into operation

after 31st

December, 1882.
Conveyancing Act, i88z,
s.

10.

W.

[The section applies to equitable interests (Re Shrubb [19 10] N. 143). Quare : can an executory limitation of the legal
be contained
in

estate in copyholds be said to

an " instrument "

?]

1186.

Generally

speaking,

in

the

absence

oi

Rights of
"Z"are
interest

express provision, a person entitled to a remainder

or an executory interest has no right to possession or


profits

of the land, or to exercise any control there-

over.

But
(i)

the owner of a vested remainder of inheritance


is

entitled to bring an action or

apply for

an

injunction

in

respect

of

actual or apprehended waste or trespass

on the land by
or a stranger;

a tenant for life or years

Jefferson v. Jefferson (1682) Lev. 130. Bedingfield V. Onslow (1685) ibid. 209. Seagram v. Knight (1867) L. R. 2 Ch. App., at p. 632.

[It is necessary that the plaintiff's interest should

have existed
It is said

(vhen the

vt^aste

was caused or the

trespass committed.

Digitized

by Microsoft

668

LAW OF PROPERTY

(Co. Litt. 53 b) that a tenant in tail after possibility could not bring But it is doubtful whether this disability the old Action of Waste. For the various prevents him bringing the modern Action of Case. kinds of action open to the remainderman, see ante, 1077 note.]
(ii)

the owner of a vested remainder for life,W

and the owner of a contingent remainder in fee/"") though he cannot obtain damages
for waste,

may

apply for and obtain an

injunction to prevent the commission of

unlawful waste, and an account of the


profits received
(a)

Dayrellv. ChaMpness (1700) i Eq. Ca. Ab. 400. Millineux v. Powell (1730) i P. Wms., at p. 268 (n).

[It

to an account {Pigot v. Bullock


(b)

seems doubtful whether a remainderman for life has a right (1792) i Ves. Jr. 479).]
Garth
v. Cotton
v.

Williams
(iii)

(1750) i Ves. Sr. 545. D. of Bolton (1784) ibid., per Lord King, C.

a person in

whose favour

a valid executory
is

limitation in defeasance of a fee simple

limited

may

obtain an injunction to re-

strain the

commission of equitable waste

by the tenant in fee simple, and an account


of the
Turner
Blake
V. v.

profits received.
Wright (i860) 2
i

Peters (1863)

De G. F. & J. 234. De G. J. & S. 345.

Claxton V.

[In two reported cases [Aspinwallv. Leigh (1690) 2 Vern. 217; Claxton (1690) ibid. 152) owners of future interests
to enter

were allowed

upon the land and cut timber

for their

own

benefit, against the will

of the tenants for life in possession. But one of these decisions, at least, was given during a vacancy of the Great Seal ; and neither is likely to be followed at the present day.]

Digitized

by Microsoft

Digitized

by Microsoft

Digitized

by Microsoft

Digitized

by Microsoft

You might also like