Page images
PDF
EPUB

A, after the partnership, had admitted the receipt of the money.

France v. White, 6 Bing. N. C. 33. SLANDER. (PleadingsActionable words.) Words spoken of

a tradesman, imputing to him a criminal intercourse with a female employed by him in his trade, are not actionable (although laid to be spoken of him in his trade); unless they can be construed as imputing that he kept a bawdy-house. (2

Ad. & El. 1.) Brayne v. Cooper, 5 M. & W. 249. STOCK BROKER. (Authority of.) A broker, a member of

the stock exchange, has an implied authority to act according to its rules, whether his employer be cognizant of them or not. Therefore, where such broker having entered into a contract for the sale of stock, which was not fulfilled by his principal, the stock was repurchased at a higher price by the broker from the vendee, and the selling broker paid the difference and the commission on such repurchase : Held, that he might recover from his original customer the amount of such payment, on proof that it was compulsory on him by the rules of the society, in addition to the amount of his own commission on the original

sale. (8 T. R. 610.) Sutton v. Tatham, 2 P. & D. 308. TRESPASS. (By custom-house officer.) Where a custom-house

officer took by force, from under the arm of a passenger landing from a vessel, a portfolio containing drawings, without making any previous demand: Held, that as drawings, which had not paid duty, were liable to forfeiture under the 3 and 4 William 4, c. 56, the officer was not liable in trespass de bonis asportatis. But (by lord Denman, C. J.) he would be liable in an action of trespass to the person, unless some attempt were made to con

ceal the goods. De Gondouin v. Lewis, 2 P. & D. 283. USURY. The members of a benefit society raised a joint stock

fund, portions of which were from time to time advanced to members of the society, by way of loan, at £5 per cent. interest : the sums so advanced were put up to competition among the members, and the member who bid the highest obtained the loan. The defendant, a member of the society, bid £15 17s. 6d. for a loan of £80, the £15 17s. 6d. to be paid in addition to

the £5 per cent. interest on the £80. Held, that the contract

was not usurious. Silver v. Barnes, 6 Bing. N. C. 180. WARRANTY. (Of horseSpecial damage.) The plaintiff pur

chased a horse of the defendant with a warranty of soundness, and sold it again with a like warranty to J. some months afterwards; J. returned the horse, finding it to have been unsound at the time of the sale. The plaintiff declining to take it back, J. brought an action against him on the warranty. The plaintiff gave notice to the defendants that the horse was returned to him as unsound, and an action brought: the defendant disregarding this notice, the plaintiff defended the action brought against him by J. and failed. In an action against the defendant on his warranty, the jury found that the plaintiff might, by a reasonable examination of the horse, have discovered that he was unsound when sold to J. Held, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, as special damage, the costs incurred by him in the defence of the former action, such defence being under the circumstances rash and improvident. Wrightup v. Chamberlain,

7 Scott, 598. WAY. (Pleadings-Entering verdict on right of way distribu

tively.) To an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, the defendant pleaded a right of way, on foot, and with horses, cattle, carts, wagons, and other carriages, for the convenient occupation of his close K. The jury found that he had a right of carting timber and wood only from K. : Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to the entire verdict on this issue, and that the defendant could not have it entered distributively for such right as the jury found : but the court allowed an amendment of the plea in accordance with the verdict, on payment of costs. Higham v. Rabett, 5 Bing. N. C. 622 ; 7 D. P. C. 653.

EQUITY.

Selections from 1 Beavan, part 2; and 9 Simons, part 1. BILL OF DISCOVERY. (Against whom it will lie.) A bill of discovery in aid of a defence to an action can only be brought

against the parties to the record at law; and it was held on demurrer to be not sufficient to support such a bill against another party, that he was alleged by the bill to have an interest in the result of the action, and that it was averred by the plaintiff in his declaration that the interest in the subject of the action was either in himself, the plaintiff, or in such other party. Glyn v. Soares, 2 Y. & C. 127, commented on, and the statements in that case of the decisions in Fenton v. Hughes, 7 Ves. 287, and the Bishop of London v. Fytche, 1 Bro. C. C. 96, corrected. Quære, How far the decisions in the exchequer, as to the proper parties to bills of discovery in aid of a defence to an action, are to be followed in Equity ? and whether the practice in the exchequer, of praying for the delivery up of the instrument upon which the action is brought, does not afford a special reason for making parties to the bill all who have an interest in

the instrument? Irving v. Thompson, Sim. 17. CHARITY. (Parish.) Where a charity is founded for the relief

of the poor of any place, it should be applied exclusively for the benefit of those who do not receive parish relief. Attorney

General v. Wilkinson, Bea. 372. CONSTRUCTION OF ORDERS. (Just allowances.) Sums

paid by an executor out of an infant's property for his maintenance, cannot be allowed by a master under a general direc

tions to make all just allowances.” Cotham v. West, Bea. 380. COPYRIGHT. (Assignment-Parties.) The legal interest in a

copyright cannot be assigned by anticipation before the work has been written, nor will an agreement subsequently entered into, though intended to operate immediately, and executed upon receipt of the consideration, but referring to a “regular assignment” to be subsequently executed, enable the purchaser of the work to sue for an infringement of the copyright, without mak

ing the author a party. Colburn v. Duncombe, Sim. 151. GUARDIAN. (Practice.) Where a female guardian appointed

by the court marries, although she be the mother of the infant, it is of course to make a new reference to the master to appoint a guardian, but the same may again propose herself. Re Gor mall, Bea. 347.

JOINT SECURITY. (Survivorship.) Where a sum of money,

payable at a future time, was assigned to two persons who were partners as a security for money to be advanced by them, or either of them : Held, that the survivor of such two persons could give a discharge for the whole amount due on the secu.

rity. Brasier v. Hudson, Sim. 1. LEGACY. (Interest.) Testator having first given his wife an

annuity of £1000, payable quarterly, at the end of a month from his decease, directed his trustees as soon as convenient after his wife's decease to raise £10,000 for his nephew, the dividends to be applied for his maintenance while an infant. The wife died before the testator: Held, that interest on the nephew's legacy began to run from the testator's death. Pick

wick v. Gibbes, Bea. 271. MORTGAGE. (Second mortgagee.) Where the first mortgage

was subject to a charge of legacies (specified in the mortgage deed), and the second mortgage was made expressly subject to the first mortgage : Held, that it was also subject to the payment

of the legacies. Eland v. Eland, 2 Bea. 235. NEXT FRIEND. (Substitution.) Where a suit was instituted

by a husband and wife and their infant children by their father, as their next friend, and he, pending the suit, absconded ; the court held it had no jurisdiction to appoint a next friend for the wife, and a new next friend for the children, but allowed the wife to appoint some person to conduct the suit without prejudice to the lien for costs of the husband's solicitor. Greenaway

V. Rotherham, Sim. 88. PARTIES. (Absent executors-Administration ad litem.) Where

of three executors the two who had proved were out of the jurisdiction, and the other, who was resident in England, had never proved, and a bill was filed against the latter as acting executor, and against the other two, with prayer of process, when within the jurisdiction, for the general administration of the estate, and seeking to charge the resident executor as having been party to a breach of trust : Held, that the cause could not proceed for want of a personal representative of the testator,

and administration ad litem was accordingly taken out. Lowry

v. Fulton, Sim. 104. 2. (Account.) Where two executors jointly employed a person as

their agent and solicitor in the executorship : Held, that after the death of one of them, the survivor might file a bill for an account against the agent, without making the representatives of the deceased executor parties. (See Thorpe v. Jackson, 2

Y. & C. 553.) Slater v. Wheeler, Sim. 156. 3. (Infringement of copyright.) The author is a necessary party

to a suit to restrain the infringement of copyright, unless he has legally assigned his interest in the work. Colburne v. Dun

combe, Sim. 151. PATENT. (Account.) Semble, that a party infringing a patent,

though he does not make any direct profit from the sale of the subject of the patent, is liable to account to the patentee for a collateral profit arising to him from the use of the patent article by his customers, as where the result of the invention is to diminish the amount of gas supplied to them. (See Crossley v. The Derby Gas Light Company, 4 M. & K. 72.) Bacon v.

Spottiswoode, Bea. 382. 2. (Injunction at the hearing.) In a suit to restrain the infringe

ment of a patent, the plaintiff is not precluded from obtaining an injunction at the hearing, because he did not apply for one on motion, but it will not be granted to him on a prima facie case, made out by the help of the facts proved in the cause, in order to give him further time to establish his title at law, and semble, that he must make out such a case as would entitle him

to a perpetual injunction. Ib. 3. (Pleading-Specification.) Where a bill to restrain the in-'

fringement of a patent did not set forth the specification, but contained an extract from it, and alleged that all had been done by the specification which was required by the terms of the patent, and that the drawings and a full description of them could not be set out in the bill, and charged that the invention was new : Held, upon the authority of Kay v. Marshall, 3 M. & C. 373, (but with some doubt expressed by the court) that the bill was not demurrable. Westhead v. Keene, Bea. 287.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »