« AnteriorContinuar »
tiorari from a county-court, is, as to of limitations stated, that, at the re-
wards returned from the said parts
beyond the seas into this kingdom, and
he commenced the suit within six years
next after his said first return into this
The court refused to allow, in addi.
tion to a traverse (under the 15 & 16
Vict. c. 76, s. 81), a rejoinder that the
plaintiff was and is a Frenchman born
in France, and was domiciled there at
of action, and which said causes of ac-
tion respectively first accrued to the
before the commencement of
this suit, the plaintiffs recovered judg.
of the same causes of action, whereby
according to the law of France the
causes of action were merged and es.
tinguished in the said judgments; and
that the defendant had been domiciled
and resident in England for more than
six years from the date and recovery
of the said judgments,-on the ground
ments recovered in France, the re-
and, as to the rest, that it was no an.
swer to the replication,-the proviso
in favour of persons under disabilities,
in the 21 Jac. 1, c. 16, 8. 7,
as well to foreigners who have never
been in this country, as to parties re-
siding abroad at the time of the accru-
ing afterwards to England. Lafond v.
III. Setting aside Judgment signed CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE.
By Apprentice,- See APPRENTICE.
I. Construction of.
had been shewn to the iron-masters,
and that they refused to deliver the iron
unless the document was previously left
with them. Bartlett v. Holmes, 630.
2. A. wrote to B. on the 15th of July.
to the time, I certainly should wish it
answered, on the 16th,—“I am ready
to accede to your proposal. With
regard to time, if you could possibly
defer my coming until the second week
in September, it would suit much best.”
On the 19th, A. again wrote,"The
time is very important, and ought not
to be later than August :"-Held, that
these letters did not constitute an abso-
lute agreement; and, the judge of the
county-court having left it to the jury
to determine whether B.'s letter of the
See USE AND OCCUPATION. of A.'s proposal of the 15th,-Held, a
misdirection. Cheveley, App., Fuller, | versed,—that the count was good after
verdict; for, that it sufficiently alleged
an agreement by the company creating
the relation of attorney and client, and
at least a year. Emmens v. Elderton,
III. Measure of Damages in Case of
The measure of damages in the case
between the contract price and the
vendees. Peterson v. Ayre, 353.
And see MASTER AND SERVANT, 1.
RAILWAY COMPANY, I.
a large scale, employing labourers under
him, is not an “artificer, workman, or
to time labours personally therein.
Sharman v. Sanders, 166.
• And see Case, I, 5.
of the survivor of them, or within directed a verdict to be entered for the
II. Suggestion under the London Small
Debts Act, 15 & 16 Vict. c. lxxvii,
The 119th section of the London
small debts extension act, 15 & 16 Vict.
c. lxxvii, is not repealed by the 120th
necessarily inconsistent with
former,-the combined effect of the
two being, that, if the plaintiff, in an
action on contract in the superior court,
for which a plaint might have been
entered in the local court, recovers 201.,
and not more than 501. (or less than 51.
in tort), a suggestion may be entered to
recovers less than 201. in an action on
contract (not being an action for breach
of promise of marriage), or less than
51. in trespass, trover, or case (not
being an action for malicious prosecu-
tion, libel, slander, criminal conversa-
tion, or seduction), he loses his costs
, by excavating by the side of it, absolutely, unless the judge certifies
under the 121st section. Castrique v.
III. Taxation of
never indebted, -secondly, except as
first issue for the plaintiff, and the rest
I. For Payment of Rent.
Mortgagor and mortgagee of an un-
divided moiety of certain premises,
one years to one Green, the latter
covenanting with the three lessors
jointly and severally to pay the rent
reserved, but not saying to whom.
Green entered upon the premises, and
assignees having accepted the lease,
Held,--deferring to the authority of
that the defendants were liable in
covenant at the suit of the three
became possessed of the premises.
Magnay v. Edwards, 479.
ments in machinery or apparatus for
his executors, administrators, or as-
signs, should make and sell in pur-
such patent rent to be paid without de-