Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

SCIRE FACIAS. See Joint-STOCK COMPANIES Act.

brought on a judgment, but within twenty years after the cause of such action or recovery of such judgment, only applies to actions begun by summons and plaint, and not to writs of revivor or proceedings by suggestion. Q. B. Johnston v. Bell 526

REFERENCE TO MASTER TO

ASCERTAIN DAMAGES. An application for a reference to the

Master to ascertain the amount of final judgment, under Common Law Procedure Act 1856, must be made on notice, or a conditional order only will be granted. E. Honohan v. Ahern

141

RENT. See ATTACAMENT.

RENTAL See LANDLORD AND TENANT.

RENT, ABATEMENT OF See LANDLORD AND TENANT.

REPORT, WHEN ACTIONABLE.

See SLANDER.

SCOTCH MARRIAGE.
See Evidence, 1.
SECURITY FOR COSTS.
See PRACTICE, 4,

SEIZURE IN EXECUTION. Where a creditor, having seized the

goods of a principal debtor in execution, afterwards caused a return of nulla bona to be made on the writ of execution, and forbore to sell the goods, though called on by the surety so to do, and then issued a ca. sa. against the person of the surety, marked for the full sum due, without deducting therefrom the value of the goods so seized :-Held, that this amounted to a voluntary abandonment of the seizure; and that, as the seizure and subsequent abandonment of the goods of the principal operated in Equity as a discharge pro tanto of the surety (who was entitled to call upon the creditor to proceed and sell the goods, and to give him credit for the amount realised by such sale), the value of those goods was an equitable deduction, to which the plaintiff should be entitled under the statute of 6 Anne, c. 7.

Held also, that an action at Common Law lies for maliciously, and without probable cause, overmarking the writ of execution under which the debtor is arrested, as the statute of Anne provides no specific remedy for that case, but only for the case of the omission to deliver a proper certificate, or for overcharging the debtor in that certificate.

Plaintiff, having deposed in evidence that he wrote a letter about his affairs to the defendant, calling on him to sell the goods so seized, and that he, or somebody for him, posted it; and evidence having been given that the defendant had held a conversation with a third person, in which he stated that he had been so called upon, and during which

REPUTATION, FAMILY. See CIVIL-BILL EJECTMENT.

REQUEST, NECESSITY OF. See PLEADING, 3.

RETAINER. See ATTORNEY.

REVERSION, NECESSARY TO

SUSTAIN EJECTMENT.
See EJECTMENT, 1.

RIGHT OF ENTRY. See EJECTMENT, 1.

RULES. See PRACTICE, 5, 14.

RULE TO PROCEED TO TRIAL.

See PROCEDURE ACT.

SALE BY SAMPLE. See PLEADING, 4.

с

an

son

conversation he held a letter in his Letters written by the defendant's hand, which he did not read, but solicitor, subsequently to the arrest of which he said he had received on the plaintiff, with reference thereto, the subject :-Held, sufficient ground were Held properly receivable as evito admit secondary evidence of the dence of malice in the arrest; as the letter written by plaintiff (a notice animus of the defendant is to be to produce having been served). inferred by the jury ex antecedentibus

et consequentibus. The decree in a Chancery petition matter, in which the plaintiff was

An incomplete finding of the jury petitioner, and the defendant was a

on one of the issues in the case was respondent as public officer of a Held immaterial, as the admissions on Bank, and in which matter the

the record and the findings on the amount of the value of the goods

other issues showed a sufficient cause seized by defendant, and the plain

of action, although, if the former had tiff's right to that amount, as

stood alone, there should have been a equitable deduction, had been deter

venire de novo. E. Spencer v. Thompmined, being offered in evidence, was

537 objected to, as obtained against the

SERVICE. defendant in autre droit.- Held, that

See Civil-BILL EJECTMENT. such proceeding was not res inter alios

MARKING JUDGMENT. acta, but was admissible against de

PRACTICE, 8, 16. fendant, as he bad, prima facie, a complete control over the suit as a

SETTING ASIDE DEFENCE. party thereto (no evidence of limited

See PLEADING, 1. control having been given). Held also, that this decree, although

SETTING ASIDE PROCEEDINGS.

See JUDGMENT. made subsequently to the arrest complained of, was evidence at least to

SEVERAL ISSUES, prove the value of the goods, which had been ascertained thereby; and

See LIBEL, 4. that, 'if admissible for any purpose,

SIDE-BAR RULE. the exception taken to its reception, being general, should be overruled.

See PRACTICE, 9. Semble also, that the decree would

SLANDER. be admissible as the decision of a

See LIBEL, 1. Court of competent jurisdiction, that a right to an equitable deduction had Action for a libel published by the deexisted at the time the execution

fendant in a newspaper. issued.

The defendant pleaded that he was Semble.-A party maliciously ar

a guardian of the poor of a certain

union, and at a meeting of the board resting another for more than is due cannot be held to have probable cause,

of guardians of that union a discussion

arose in reference to the plaintiff, and by reason of his mere belief that he is warranted by law in so doing.

that speeches were made by several

of the guardians, including the deThe relinquishing of the execution fendant, and by the plaintiff on his against the goods of the principal, own behalf, and that the defendant and the issuing of execution against spoke in discharge of a public duty, the person of the surety, with the without malice, &c.; also, that in motive of serving the principal by order to assist the newspaper repor. injuring the surety, is evidence for ter, who attended for the purpose of the jury on the question of malice. reporting the proceedings, to publish

145,

a correct account of them, he handed, 11 Anne, c. 2, s. 8

20

32
to him a correct report of his own 4 G. 1, c. 5

32
speech, and that the proprietor of said 8 G. 1, c. 2
newspaper published, without any 8 G. 1, c. 4, s. 2 (Ir.)

528
communication with the defendant or 12 G. I, c. 3

146

32
his consent, a portion of said speech 5 G. 2, c. 4

450
only.Held, as to the first defence, 9 G. 2, c. 7
that the defendant was not privileged, 11 G. 2, c. 10

145

19 G. 2, c.
as it appeared on the defence itself

13

146

32
that the report of the proceedings 25 G. 2, c. 13
was not a fair one; the speeches of

26 G. 3, c.

33, s 15. English Marriage
the other guardians, or of the plaintiff

Act 155, 167
himself, not having been given. 29 G. 2, c. 16, s. 3

9

7
33 G. 2, s. 2
Held also, that if the privileged 33 G. 2, c. 14, s. 8

10
occasion failed, the denial of malice 5 & 6 G. 3, c. 17

453
did not constitute a defence.

15 & 16 G. 3, c. 27, s. 3

32
Held, as to the second defence, 21 & 22 G. 3, c. 25. Irish Marriage
that the defendant was responsible

Act 168

451
for the fair publication of the pro- 23 & 24 G. 3, c. 39, s. 3
ceedings, when he gave a report of 33 G. 3, c. 5. Upper Canada 145

11
his own speech for publication. E. 40 G. 3, c. 22, ss. 1 and 8
Pierce v. Ellis

55 57 G.3, c. 51. Newfoundland 168
58 G. 3, c. 84

168

20
SOURCE FROM WHICH EVI.

58 G. 3, c. 39

20
DENCE IS DERIVED.

1 G. 4, c. 41
3 G. 4, c. 39, s. 3 (Eng.)

235
See CiviL-BILL EJECTWENT.

4 G. 4, c. 99, ss. 21 and 25. Goulburn's

Act 514
STATUTE.
5 G. 4, c. 65

513
See EJECTMENT, 1.
5 G. 4, c. 68

169
5 G. 4, c. 73, s. 17

10
STATUTORY AND EQUITABLE 6 G. 4, c. 68

145
DEFENCE
6 G. 4, c. 42, ss. 17, 18

6

234
7 G. 4, c. 57
See EJECTMENT, 3.
7 & 8 G. 4, c. 60, s. 4

514
10 G. 4, c. 17

145
STATUTES CITED AND
2 & 3 W. 4, c. 119

515
COMMENTED ON.
3 & 4 W. 4, c. 27, s. 40

533
1 H. 7, c. 4
153 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 100

515
25 H. 8, cc. 21 and 22
143 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 26

29
31 H. 8, c. 14
145, 146, 1536 W. 4, c. 53. Railway Act

512
32 H. 8, c. 10
145, 1536 & 7 W. 4, c. 85

145
2 & 3 E. 6, c. 21
145 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 116, s. 55

50
2 & 3 E. 6, c. 2
153 1 Vic., c. 26, s. 26

452
5 & 6 E. 6, c. 12
1451 & 2 Vic., c. 109

510
5 & 6 E. 6, c. 12

146 1 & 2 Vic., c. 56, s. 93. Irish Poor Law
12 Car. 2, c. 33

145

Act 584
1 Jac., c. 25
154 3 & 4 Vic., c. 105

574
7 W. & M. (p. 129)
480 3 & 4 Vic., c. 105, 8. 12

234
9 W. & M. (p. 438)
483 5 & 6 Vic., c. 113

156
. 11 & 12 W. 3, c. 2 (Ir.)
353 5 & 6 Vic., c. 39

395
15 W. & M. (p. 166)
485 | 6 & 7 Vic., c. 39

156
10 Anne, c. 19, s. 176 (Eng.) 167 16 & 7 Vic., c. 116, s. 55

244

[ocr errors]

7 & 8 Vic., c. 81. Dominica Law for

SUGGESTION.
1802
145

See LEASE.
7 & 8 Vic., c. 81, s. 13

156
7 & 8 Vic., c. 81. Irish Marriage Act

169

SUMMONS AND PLAINT.
8 & 9 Vic., c. 37, s. 5. Currency Act 10 See PRACTICE, 3, 8.
8 & 9 Vic., c. 16, s. 135. Lands Clauses
Consolidation Act 443

SURPRISE.
8 & 9 Vic., c. 127.

51

See PRACTICE, 11.
9 & 10 Vic., c. 111, s. 3

228
11 & 12 Vic., c. 28, ss. 1,

6

48
12 & 13 Vic., c. 113, s. 24. Bankrupt TIMBER ACTS, CONSTRUCTION

Act 121

OF.
12 & 13 Vic., c. 107. Bankrupt Act 122 See Will, CONSTRUCTION OF, 1.
12 & 13 Vic., c. 27

321
12 & 13 Vic., s. 77-

464

TIME.
14 & 15 Vic., c. 57, ss. 116, 118 49
14 & 15 Vic., c. 57, ss.,

73, 81, 86

20

See PRACTICE, 5.
16 & 17 Vic., c. 113

590
17 & 18 Vic., c. 125, s. 83

255 TITHE RENTCHARGE.
19 & 20 Vic., c. 77, s. 3

132
19 & 20 Vic., c. 102, s. 99. Procedure

An applotment was made under the
Act 141

Tithe Composition Act, on certain

lands, of which Lord H. was entitled
19 & 20 Vic., c. 102, s. 50

509

to the first estate of inheritance. The

defendants, for the purposes of their
STAYING EXECUTION.

Railway, took a conveyance of the
estate from Lord H.

The tithe,
The Court will not stay execution on a

pur-
habere obtained in an action of eject-

suant to the 1 & 2 Vic., c. 109, had
ment for non-payment of rent, unless

been reduced one-fourth.-Held, that
all rent due at the time of the issuing

the rentcharge, imposed by 1 & 2 Vic.,
of the habere be paid to the plaintiff.

being substituted in lieu of the charge
Q.B. Tottenham v. Goff 237 formerly created on the lands, re-

mained a charge thereon, and that

the lands being occupied as a Railway
STAYING PROCEEDINGS.

made no ground of exemption. Q. B.
An application under the provisions of Hertford v. Ulster Railway Co. 511

section 22 of the Chancery Regulation
Act should be made before a single

TRAVERSE.
Judge, and not before the Full Court.

See LIBEL, 1.
C. P. Fitzgerald v. Marsh

277

PLEADING, I.
SPOPPAGE OF PAYMENT.
See Joint-Stock COMPANIES Act.

TRESPASS.

To an action of trespass, for breaking
STRIKING OUT PARTIES.

and entering the close of the plaintiff,
See PRACTICE, 18, 19.

and seizing and taking and carrying

away and converting the goods and
SUBSTITUTION OF SERVICE. chattels of the plaintiff, the defendant
See PRACTICE, 16.

pleaded a justification ;-because of
an arrear of rent being due by the

plaintiff to the defendant as his land-
SUCCESSIVE OCCUPATION.

lord, he, the defendant, entered and
See FRANCHISE, 2.

distrained the goods and chattels as

1

and for a distress for the rent due,

according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided ;' quæ sunt eadem, &c.Held, on demurrer to this defence, per LEFROY, C. J., and PERRIN, J., that such general pleading was good ; and per CRAMPTON and MOORE, JJ., that the requirements of the statute 9 & 10 Vic., c. 111, should have been specifically set out in the defence. Q. B. Spratt v. Murphy

489

TRIAL, WITNESS UNABLE TO

ATTEND.
See AFFIDAVIT.

a codicil, reciting that he had purchased certain freeholds, and had converted leaseholds into freeholds, he specifically devised the same, and such as he should thereafter purchase, upon the same trusts. At the time of making this will and codicil, he was seised under a lease of an estate for lives.Held, that that leasehold interest did not pass to the trustees under the will and codicil, but descended upon the heir-at-law of the testator.

A, in his lifetime, planted timber trees on said leasehold estate, and duly registered the same, and died without having felled the timber, and was succeeded by B, his heir-at-law, the surviving life in the lease. After the death of B, and within twelve months after his decease, his personal representatives cut the timber.

Held, that at Common Law, the timber was part of the inheritance until severed; but that when severed, it became a mere chattel; and that under the Timber Acts, the tenant not having felled said trees during the existence of the lease, they remained part of the inheritance, and descended with the land. Q. B. Alexander v. Godley

445

VACATION. See PRACTICE, 5.

VENUE. See POOR-LAW Act.

VERDICT, GENERAL. See INDICTMENT.

VERBAL AUTHORITY. See ATTORNEY.

VOTER. See CounTI REGISTRY.

WARRANT. See POOR-RATE.

WILL, CONSTRUCTION OF. 1. A, by his will, dated the 21st of No

vember 1832, reciting that he was seised in fee-simple of certain estates, and also of the reversion in fee in certain settled estates, and that he was desirous of settling and disposing of his unsettled and other estates, devised to trustees all the lands of which he was seised in fee-simple, and also his reversion in fee of his settled estates, and all his estate and interest in said estates respectively, upon certain trusts therein named ; and by

2. IA testator by his will appoints execu

tors, and empowers them “ to act as such, and that they will dispose and manage the effects in manner and form following :-First, I recommend my lawful debts to be paid, as my lawful debts to be recovered.” He then devised his real estates among his sons in certain portions, each son to become entitled to possession upon his marriage, subject to a proportionate share of the debts and charges affecting the real estate.—Held, that the executors took the legal estate only during the interval between the death of the testator and the happening of the event upon which each son was to become entitled to possession ; and that the words of the will did not give the executors a

« AnteriorContinuar »