PARTNERSHIP. scrip-receipts were sold by L. to the plaintiff. Before the day for payment of the balances, the defendant issued a notice to the holders of scrip, granting, upon certain conditions, an extension of the time for payment of the balances due thereon, and requiring those who wished to avail themselves of this offer, to send their receipts to his office to be marked. The plaintiff accordingly sent in his receipts, which were marked by the defendant with his (the plaintiff's) name. Another notice was afterwards issued by the defendant, that, unless the balances were paid by a particular day, he would dispose of or keep the certificates, charging the parties with any loss that might arise thereon. The forfeiture of the deposits was not a condition of the original contract. The plaintiff failed in payment of the balances by the time stipulated, and the defendant afterwards refused to deliver the certificates:Held, that the plaintiff might recover the amount of the deposits in an action for money had and received. Hennings v. Rothschild, MORTGAGE. See BANKRUPT, 4. NEW TRIAL. See BANKRUPT, 2. SHIP AND SHIpping, 1. 559 NOTICE OF DECLARATION. See PRACTICE, 3. PARTNERSHIP. See JOINT-STOCK COMPANY. PATENT. See SPECIFICATION. PAYMENT. See BANKRUPt, 2. 1. In 1823, the defendant was indebted to the plaintiffs in 2,500l. on a bill of exchange then over-due, and gave him a warrant of attorney, to secure payment of that debt, and interest. In 1825, the defendant, by a deed reciting that a sum of 5,000l. was then due from the defendant to the plaintiffs, mortgaged to them certain property, to secure the debt and any further advances. It did not appear that the bill for 2,500l. was secured by this mortgage. In 1826, other premises were mortgaged by the defendant to the plaintiffs. In this last mortgage no particular mention was made of the bill, but the mortgage was founded upon an account signed by both parties, in which that debt was mentioned. Part of the premises conveyed by the first deed was sold for 3,600l., which sum was received by the plaintiffs. The plaintiff's having signed judgment upon the warrant of attorney and issued execution-The Court refused to set it aside. Stoveld v. Eade, 370 2. The plaintiff and defendant each kept an account with a banker at M. In October, the plaintiff desired the defendant to pay in to his account a sum due to him for rent. The defendant wrote to the plaintiff, stating that he had caused the amount to be transferred to his account, and the plaintiff sent him a receipt by return of post. The sum, however, was not actually transferred until the 8th December. On the 9th, notice of the transfer was sent to the plaintiff by post, which did not reach him till the 11th. On the 10th, the banker stopped payment:-Held, that the transfer was equivalent to payment. Eyles v. Ellis, PAYMENT INTO COURT. See PRACTICE, 2. 306 PERILS OF THE SEA. See INSURANCE, 2. PETITIONING CREDITOR'S DEBT. See BANKRUPT, 3. PIRACY. See ENGRAVINgs, 1. PLEADING. See PRACTICE, 1, 5, 24. 1. In replevin, the defendant made cognizance as bailiff of R. W., for rent in arrear from the plaintiff under a demise from R. W. On the production of the lease under which the plaintiff held, R. W. was described as a receiver appointed by the Court of Chancery, and the rent was made payable to him or any future receiver-Held, that R. W. was entitled to distrain for rent in arrear; and that the plaintiff was estopped by his own deed from pleading non tenuit. Dancer v. Hastings, 34 2. The plaintiff declared in assumpsit as assignee of a bankrupt, for goods sold and delivered to the defendant by the bankrupt, before his bankruptcy:-Held, that a plea, alleging that, on an account stated between the defendant and the bankrupt before his bankruptcy, the former gave his bill of exchange to the latter, and was still liable to him thereon, was bad upon general demurrer. Rolt v. Watson, 82 3. A count in case stated that the defendant was possessed of certain cattle, and, being so possessed thereof, represented and affirmed to the plaintiff (an auctioneer) that he was legally entitled to sell the same, and requested him to put them up for sale by auction; that the plaintiff sold the cattle and paid over the net proceeds to the defendant; that the defendant deceived and defrauded the plaintiff in this, to wit, that he was not, at the time of the said sale, legally entitled to sell the cattle; and that the true owner afterwards sued the plaintiff, and recovered against him the value of the cattle so soldbreach non-payment by the defendant of the sum so recovered and costs: -Held sufficient after verdict. Adamson v. Jarvis, 241 4. On a plea of the statute of limitations-Held, that a new promise infra sex annos need not be declared on specially, although made thirteen years after the accrual of the original cause of action. Upton v. Else, 303 5. Under a joint-commission against two partners, the assignees may declare in the same action for separate as well as joint debts due to the bankrupts. Graham v. Mulcaster, 327 6. Trespass for assaulting and imprisoning the plaintiff-Plea, that the plaintiff was wilfully trespassing on the land and breaking down the hedges of the defendant, wherefore he apprehended him, and took him before a Justice-Replication, that the plaintiff entered the land and broke down the hedges in the assertion of a right of way; traversing that he did so wilfully, or for any other purpose than in the exercise of such right-Rejoinder, that the plaintiff was in the act of committing wilful damage to the defendant:-Held, that, upon that issue, the plaintiff might give evidence as to the right of way claimed by him, in order to shew quo animo he entered the locus in quo.Looker v. Halcomb, 410 7. Trespass for assaulting and imprisoning the plaintiff-Plea, that the plaintiff was trespassing on the de. fendants' close, whereupon the defendants molliter manus imposuerunt Replication, that the defendants had nothing in the close, except under R. N. C.; that, before and at the time when &c., and before the defendants had any thing in the close, W. C. held it as tenant from year to year to R. N. C.; that it was agreed between R. C., the plaintiff, and one D., that W. C. should plough the land, and the plaintiff and D. plant teazles thereon, W. C. to have one half, and the plaintiff and D. the other; and that the plaintiff entered to cut his and D.'s share of the teazles, when the defendants, of their own wrong, committed the assault, &c.-Held, on general demurrer, that the replication was sufficient— although it was contended, that it did not allege that the interest of W. C. was continuing at the time the plain. tiff so entered the close. Kingsbury v. Collins, 424 8. In a declaration on a bill of exchange, accepted payable at J. S.'s, an averment of presentment," at the house of J. S." is sufficient, without alleging a presentment to J. S. Hawkey v. Borwick, 478 issue; secondly, a fraudulent misrepresentation as to the state of health of the party whose life was insured; and lastly, that the policy was not under seal. Weld v. Foster, 61 2. Where the defendant had, before declaration delivered, tendered a sum of money in discharge of debt and costs, but the plaintiff declined to accept it, the Court refused to grant a rule, that, upon payment of such debt and costs by the defendant into Court, and upon the same being taken out by the plaintiffs, the subsequent costs should be paid by them; as their conduct did not appear vexatious or oppressive. Hatchard v. Hague, 66 3. The defendant, a travelling showman, having been duly served with process, referred the plaintiff's attorney to a certain house in London, where he stated he should be on a given day; the notice of declaration was left there accordingly, but the person who left it was informed at the time, that the defendant did not reside, but only occasionally called at the house, and that it was not known where he then was:-Held, not to be sufficient service of the notice. Hyde v. Wombwell, 85 4. The venue cannot be changed after a plea in abatement. Wigley v. Dubbins, 91 5. In an action of covenant on a charter-party, the defendant pleaded several special pleas, to some of which the plaintiff demurred, and, after argument, obtained judgment:-Held, that the defendant could not afterwards file additional pleas, although it was sworn that facts had come to his knowledge, material for his defence, since the argument on demurrer, and with which facts he was then unacquainted. Munnings v. Lennox, 133 6. Where, by a Judge's order, the 8. The Court will allow the venue to be changed in an action of special assumpsit, for the breach of an agreement, unless it appear upon the face of the declaration, that the agreement is in writing. Pickard v. Featherstone, 161 9. An insolvent, after his discharge, gave a cognovit in an action which had been previously commenced against him by the plaintiff: judgment having been entered up, and execution issued thereon, the Court refused to set it aside, on the ground that the cognovit constituted a new 163 promise. Sweenie v. Sharp, 10. If sham bail in error are put in by the defendant, the plaintiff may treat them as a nullity, and sue out execution. Browne v. Brown, 172 11. The plaintiff, in an affidavit to hold to bail, alleged that the defendant was indebted to him for money had and received by the defendant to the use of the plaintiff's wife. The writ having been sued out in the joint names of the husband and wife:Held, to be a variance. Wade v. Wade, 198 12. In an action against a Sheriff, for an escape, the Court refused to allow the venue to be changed to the county in which the escape took place, although it was sworn that all the witnesses resided there. Jenkins v. Lawrence, 230 13. A capias into Cambridgeshire issued on an affidavit filed with the filacer for that county. A testatum 17. An affidavit on a motion, was intitled "In the Common Place:"Held, sufficient. Rolfe v. Burke, 298 18. The rule of Michaelmas Term, 7 Geo. 4, does not apply to bail by affidavit, but only to bail in town causes. Martin v. Bidgood, 299 19. The defendant having been taken in execution on a ca. sa. sued out by the plaintiff' in person, and sent to the Sheriff inclosed in a blank sheet of paper, the defendant swearing that he had never been served with process, nor had any notice of the proceedings, or knowledge of the plaintiff The Court ordered the proceedings to be set aside, and the money levied under the ca, sa. returned to the defendant. Morgan v. Short, 360 20. The Court refused to order the bail-bond to be cancelled, on the ground that the plaintiff had misdescribed himself in the affidavit to hold to bail-the defendant not swearing that he did not owe the money, but merely that he could not find the plaintiff. Brown v. Moore, 361 21. The Court refused to compel the defendant to give the plaintiff a copy of a lease in his possession, on which an action of covenant had been brought, upon an affidavit that no counterpart of the lease was in the possession or power of the plaintiff, and that the attorney who drew the lease and counterpart had absconded. Lord Portmore v. Goring, 363 22. Where a witness had declined at the trial to release his interest, the Court refused to grant a new trial, on the ground that he had misapprehended the effect of the release, and was then ready to execute one. Kellen v. Bennett, 393 23. A rule for an attachment against the chief bailiff of a liberty, for not bringing in the body, was obtained on the 12th February, and the attachment not sued out until the 19th May following, and, in the interim, one of the defendants in the original action obtained his discharge under the Insolvent Debtors' Act:-The Court set aside the attachment. Rex v. Jewison, 483 24. Where a defendant obtains an order for time to plead, upon the terms of pleading issuably, he is not thereby precluded from taking advantage, by special demurrer, of any subsequent irregularity in the pleadings. Betts v. Applegarth, 501 25. An attorney who has in that character received papers from a client, cannot be called to produce them in a cause, although he does not act therein as the attorney of the party. Parker v. Yates, 520 26. The Court refused to set aside |