Halsburys Laws of England - Volume 1 - Action To Bankers and Banking

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2015
https://archive.org/details/lawsofenglandbei01hals
THE
LAWS OF ENGLAND.
VOLUME I.
f
:
THE
LAWS OF ENGLAND
BEING
A COMPLETE STATEMENT OF THE WHOLE

LAW OF ENGLAND.
BY
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE
EARL OF HALSBURY
LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR OF GREAT BRITAIN,
1885-86, 1886-92, and 1895—1905.
AND OTHER LAWYERS.
VOLUME I.
INTRODUCTION.
ACTION. ALLOTMENTS.
ADMIRALTY. ANIMALS.
AGENCY. ARBITRATION.
AGRICULTURE. AUCTION AND AUCTIONEERS,
ALIENS. BAILMENT.
BANKERS AND BANKING.
LONDON
BUTTERWORTH & CO., 11 & 12, Bell Yard, Temple Bar.
KRADBURY, AONEW, &, CO. LD., PRINTERS,
LONDON AND TONBRIDGE.
To
HIS MOST CxRACIOUS MAJESTY
Iking )E6wai6 mi
THIS WORK
IS
BY HIS MAJESTY'S GRACIOUS

PERMISSION
DEDICATED BY THE
EARL OF HALSBURY.
:
Editor in Cbict
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE
EARL OF HALSBURY,
LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR OF GREAT BRITAIN, 1SS5-S6, 1SS6-92, and 1S95— 1905
IRevtsiUG iSMtors:
For Equity and Chancery Titles
The Hon. Sir CHAKLES SWINFEN EADY,

ONE OF HIS majesty's JUDGES OF THE CHANCERY DIVISION,
Assisted hy
T. H. CAESON, Esq., KC.

For Keal Property and Conveyancing Titles :
AETHUK UNDEKHILL, Esq., M.A., LL.D.,

OF LINCOLN'S INN, BARRISTER-AT-LAW,
ONE OF THE CONVEYANCING COUNSEL OF THE COURT.
For Common Law Titles and Practice and Procedure :
T. WILLES CHITTY, Esq.,

OF THE INNER TEMPLE, BARRISTER- AT-L AW, A MASTER OF
THE SUPREME COURT.
For Local Government Titles and Licensing :
WILLIAM MACKENZIE, Esq., M.A.,

OF LINCOLN'S INN, BARRISTER-AT-LAW.
/IDanaGtug JEMtor.
T. WILLES CHITTY, Esq.,
OF THE INTSTER TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW, A MASTER OF
THE SUPREME COURT.
Assistant /iftaiiaGing Bt)itor*
HUMPHKEY H. KING, Esq., B.A., LL.B.,

OF THE INNER TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW,
LATE SCHOLAR OF PEMBROKE COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
Aubrey J. Spencer, Esq., M.A. Sidney W. Clarke, Esq.

Austin Fleeming Jenkin, Esq. Montague E. Emanuel, Esq., M.A.,
Harold B. Bompas, Esq., M.A. B.C.L.
Hugh H. L. Bellot, Esq., D.C.L. A. W. Baker Welford, Esq., M.A.
Cecil B. Gedge, Esq., B.A. Alfred Bucknill, Esq., M.A.
J. Eelix Waley, Esq., M.A. E. Hardinge Dalston, Esq., B.A.
Edward J. M. Chaplin, Esq., M.A. H. Clover, Esq., B.A.
barristers- at-law.
;
The Titles in this Volume have been contributed by the

following gentlemen :
—
TITLE. CONTKIBUTED BY
INTEODUCTION . The Ei,2:htlion, the Eael of IIalsbury, a Member

01 the Judiciai Committee oi His Majesty s Most
Honourable Privy Council.
ACTION . George Albert Bonner, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, a

Master of the Supreme Court, assisted by Henry
Stephen, Esq., H. L. Ormsby, Esq., E. A. Cohen,
Esq., M.A., and E. E. Bush, Esq., M.A., Barristers-
at-Law.
ADMIRALTY The Eight Hon. Sir Gainsfohd Bruce, a Member of

His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, and
late one of His Majesty's Judges of the King's
Bench Division Charles Euhr Jemmett, Esq.,
;
B.C.L., Barrister-at-Law and Edward Stanley ;
rfcClP AT? Tl r^Q VTl cf Q "f — 1 ifl WF A H TYll 1 "f XT' T? Om G^Vn T*
AGENCY His Honour Judge Evans, assisted by Montague E.

E^L4NUEL, Esq., M.A., B.C.L., and A. W. Baker
Welford, Esq., M.A., Barristers-at-Law.
His Honour Judge Austin and J. Brooke Little,

Esq., B.A., Barrister-at-Law.
ALIENS . William Ernst-Browning, Esq., late one of His

Majesty's Judges m
Jamaica; ^V. Haldane Porter,
Esq., B.A., Barrister-at-Law, His Majesty's Insj)ector
under the Aliens Act, 1905; and Cecil B. Gedge,
Esq., B.A., Barrister-at-Law.
ALLOTMENTS Alexander Macmorran, Esq., one of His Majesty's

Counsel; W. Addington Willis, Esq., and Sidney
W. Clarke, Esq., Barristers-at-Law.
His Honour Judge Baugh-Allen C. Willougiiby ;
Williams, Esq., B.A., and E. Thornton H. Lawes,

Esq., M.A., B.C.L., Barristers-at-Law.
AEBITEATION .
The Hon. Sir Eeginald More Bray, one of His
Majesty's Judges of the King's Bench Division and ;
tne Jiioii. iviALUOLM ivi. i\xAOJN aghixjjn jjaiiisLei-au- ,
Law.
AUCTION AND His Honour Judge Tindal Atkinson and Henry

AUCTIONEEEb. Martley Giyeen, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.
BAILMENT . Arthur Powell, Esq., one of His Majesty's Counsel

and Wyatt Paine, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.
BANKEES AND Sir John E. Paget, Bart., one of His Majesty's

BANKING-. Counsel.
The Tables of Ahhreviations Statutes and Cases have heen compiled hi/ Mr.
II. I. Whitaker, Assistant Librarian of the Ilonoitrable Society of Lincoln's Inn.
The Law is stated as at September ist, 1907*

THE FOLLOWING ARE AMONG THOSE WHO SUPPORT THIS WORK AS
ORIGINAL SUBSCRIBERS.
AcHAM, E. Bernard. Andrews, Alexander W.

Acheson-Gray, J. Neyill. Andrews, Frederick B.
ACKLAND, BrYANS L., LL.M. Anthony, A. H.
ACKLAND, W. H. Anthony, E. F.
Acton, Frederick, J. P. Armitage & Speight.
Adam, Thring & Sheldon. ArMITAGE, SyKES & HlNCH-
Adam, John, Middle Temple, CLIFFE.
CiWYii and Public Prose- Armitstead, G. H.
cutor, Madras. Arter, John J. B.
Adam, Leon. Arunachalam, The Hon. P.,
Adams & Allan. Lincoln's Inn, Kegistrar-
Adams, Herbert C. General, Ceylon.
Adams, J. J., Gray's Inn. Ashburner, T., Jun.
Addison, G. B. ASHBY, M. W.
Adkin, H. a. Ashmall, Elias a.
Agg, a. p. AsHURST, Morris, Crisp & Co.
AiNLEY, Herbert. AspiNALL, John Bridge, Middle
AiTKEN & AlTKEN. Temple.
AiYAR, M. Arunachala, B.L. Atkins, Percy C, LL.D.
Albu, Albert. Atkinson, The Hon. Cecil.
Alcazar, The Hon. H. A., K.C., Attenborough, Mark.
Gray's Inn. Austen, W. A. E., Gray's Inn.
Alcock, J. E. Austen-Cartmell, J., Lincoln's
Alcorn, George 0., K.C., M.P. Inn.
Alderson, Son & Dust. Australia, The Library of
Aldridge, Mooring & Haydon. Parliament of the Common-
Alison & Alison. wealth OF.
Allen, Frederick G. Australia,The High Court of
Allen, Joseph. THE Commonwealth of.
Allwood, The Hon. J. H. Avery & Wolverson.
Almond, William, & Sons. Avory, Horace, K.C, Inner
Alpers, 0. T. J., LL.B. Temple.
Amado, Luis de Sousa. Ayrton, William.
Anderson, Charles Augustus.
Anderson, Francis J. Bacup, The Municipal Borough
Anderson, John Norrie. OF.
Anderson, W. Boyd. Baggallay, E. Burrell.
Andrew, Wood, Purvbs & Bagnall, E. D.
Sutton. Bahadar, Nawab Sarbuland
Andrew, Alexander. Jung.
Andrew, Walter. Bahamas Law Library.
xvi List of Original Subscribers.
Bailey, George William, Inner Beal, James.

Temple. Beard, William G.
Bailey, T. A. B. Beaumont, Edward, Lincoln's
Baileys, Shaw & Gillett. Inn.
Bain, Fredebick W. Beckingsale, B. B.
Baker, Baker & Co. Bedford, Edward.
Ball & Kedfern. Beesley, Eustace.
Ball, W. Valentine, Lincoln's Belfast, Northern Law
Inn. Society.
Balsdon, E. E. C. Bell, Gully, Bell & Myers.
Baltimore Bar, The Library Bell, E. D.
Company of the. Bell, Eric W.
Bancroft, William. Bell, W. Henry.
Banes, Arthur Alexander. Bell, W. H. S.
Bannerman, Charles James, Bellamy, William Henry.
Middle Temple. Belyea, George H. V.
Barber, Eobert. Bendall, T. p.
Barciay, Shepard. Benjamin, H.
Barlow, Barlow & Lyde. Bennett & Baddeley.
Barnard, A. Frank. Bennett & Marsh.
Barnes, James. Bennett, A. G.
Barnes, Lionel Hickman, Inner Bennitt & Grazebrook.
Temple. Bensa, Dr. Enrico.
Barnhill, Ewing & Sanford. Bere, Frank W.
Barnish, Robert D. Berkeley, Humphry, Inner
Barnley, George E. Temple.
Barratt, James. Berkeley, Eowland, Lincoln's
Barratt, J. Arthur, Inner Inn.
Temple. Berkeley, Sir Henry, KC,
Barrett, Horace. Inner Temple, Attorney -
Barrington-Ward, F. T., Lin- General, Hong Kong.
coln's Inn. Bermondsey, The Guardians of
Barry, G. J. THE Parish of, London.
Bartlett & Gluckstein. Bern AYS, L. F.
Bartlett, H. E. Berridge, T. H. D., M.P.
Bartlett, Walter. Bertwistle, T. E.
Bartley, John. Besley, C. Holland.
Barton, James. Beverley, Frank.
Barton, The Hon. Mr. Justice, Bewley, Hugh Neville.
K.C., Gray's Inn. Bhandarkar, Yasudev G., Chief
Barwell & Hague. Justice, India.
Barwell, W. T. de B. BiBLIOTHEQUE DU CoMITE DB
Battams, John. Legislation etrangere, Paris.
Battersby, T. S. Frank, K.C. BiCKERSTETH, JoHN.
Baumgartner, George A., Dis- Biddle Memorial Law Library,
trict Judge, Ceylon. Philadelphia, U.S.A.
Baxter & Shrewsbury. BiNNS, C.
Baxter, Eichard W., Lincoln's Bird & Bird.
Inn. Bird & Eldridges.
Baxter, Eeginald T. Birmingham Free Library.
Baynes, Thomas G. Birmingham Law Society.
Beal, Francis B. L. H. Bishop, His Honour Judge.
List of Original Subscribers. xvii
BiSHOPSGATE Institute, London. Brennand, W. a. B.

Blache -Wilson, William, Gray's Breslau University Library,
Inn. Germany.
Blackburn, G. Herbert. Brett, A.
Blackett, Wilfred. Brewer & Son.
Blackwell, Ernley, Inner Brewer, H. J.
Temple. Bridgeman, B. J.
Blair & Sainsbury. Bridgeman, B. p.
Blake & Eiggall. Brierley & Hudson.
Blake, Edward J. Bright, Frederick H.
Blake, Maurice B., Inner Briscoe, A. L.
Temple. Bristol, The City of.
Blakeway, G. W. Sheffield. Bristol Society of Chartered
Blamey & Holgate. Accountants.
Blanchett, The Hon. Mr. British Columbia, The Attor-
Justice. ney-General of.
Blenkhorn, Charles. British Honduras, The Supreme
BODDINGTON, W. SlATER. Court Library of.
Bombay Small Cause Court, British South Africa Com-
The Chief Judge of the. pany.
Bond, John. Broadbent, F. W.
Bone, Edward William. Broatch, Joseph.
Bone, Ernest Edgar. Brockbank, F. W.
BoococK, W. H., & Son. Brooke-Wynn, E. C.
Boone, Samuel. Brooks & Heller.
Booth, Clough & Booth. Broomfield, E.
BosMAN, Daniel Ferdinand. Browett, Harold.
Boston Athenûm, U.S.A. Brown, Auld & Brown.
Boston Social Laav Library, Brown, Abne.
U.S.A. Brown, Archibald, Middle Tem-
BOTSFORD, J. W. ple.
BouLTON, Arthur. Brown, Charles.
Bowen, Alfred E. Brown, C. Wreford.
BowEN, Arthur J. Brown, Edgar J.
Bowen, Thomas W. Brown, G. Phillpotts.
Bower, George W. Brown, H. Douglas.
BowEY, Francis M. Brown, H. I. C.
Bowles, William Docwra. Brown, John H., Jun.
Bowman, Paget J. M. Brown, Paul A.
Boycott, W. J. Browne, Arthur, & Co.
Boydell, William Thomas. Brydges, G. E.
Braby & Macdonald. Buchanan, John G.
Braddell, E. W., Inner Temple. Buck, Cockshott & Cockshott.
Bradford Incorporated Law Buckle, H. 0., Inner Temple.
Society. BucKNALL, Acton T.
Bradley, F. E., LL.D., Gray's BuDDEN, James P.
Inn. Bull, Frederick W.
Bradshaw, E. B. D. Bull, Sir William, M.P.
Bramley, C. H. & J. Bullock, A. H.
Brandon, Jocelyn. Bunny, Eawson & Petherick.
Brandon, Thomas. BuRCH & Brooks.
Brandreth, B. BURCHELLS.
H.L. — I.
xviii List of Original Subscribers.
BuRDEKiN, Harold P. Carter, Egbeet Samuel.

Burger, F. Caetee, H. H.
Burgess, E. E. Carter, H. Lloyd.
BuRMAH, The Kegistrar, Carter, Isidore James.
Chief Court. Carter, John.
Burn, W. A., Middle Temple. Cartwright, Ernest H.
BuRNiE, E. Alfred. Castle, Gordon H.
Burns, Hugh. Cattarns, Eichard.
Burns, T. S. H., LL.B. Cave, Edward W.
BURTCHAELL, GeORGE DaMES, Cawley, Edward.
LL.B. Chad WICK, J., Inner Temple.
Burton, G. W. A. Chad WICK, W. A.
Busk, Mellor & Norris. Chagas, Mario Pinheiro.
Buss, Thomas, Challands, L. E.
butterfield, e. w. Challinor & Shaws.
Byrne, E. C. Challinor, Arthur.
Byrne, G. K. Chamberlain & Johnson.
Chamberlain, W. J.
Caddick, Alfred. Chambers, James, K.C.
Cairncross, William. Champion, Louis James.
Calder & Calder. Champions, Hart, Eeade & Co.
Calder, Charles M. Chandhri, S. D., LL.B.
Callender, W. E. S. Chapman, Sidney.
Caloyanni, Megalos a., Chapman, William Henry.
Lincoln's Inn. Chapple, John Torrington.
Calthrop, Horace G., Inner Charles, H. P., & Son.
Temple. Chatterjee, Mohini Mohone,
Camacho, Marti J., Middle B.L.
Temple. Chatterjee, Nalini Eanjan.
Cambeewell, The Metropolitan Chaundler, Henry.
Borough of. Ghell, Herbert W.
Cambier, Walter. Chew, William Laurence.
Cameron, P. Chicago Public Library, U.S.A..
Campbell, Angus, Inner Temple. Chick, Albeet John.
Campbell, F. W. Groves, LL.D. Child, Harry Alexander.
Canada, The Library of Par- Chitty, T. Willes, Inner
liament OF the Dominion of. Temple.
Canada, The Supreme Court Chorlton, Thomas.
OF THE Dominion of. Churcher, James G.
Canham, G. M. Churchill, Charles Edward.
Cann, George Dunning, LL.M. Cincinnati Public Library,.
Canton, William J. U.S.A.
Cape of Good Hope, The Clark, Edwin E.
Attorney-Geneeal of the. Clark, George Harvey.
Carlile,McLean & Wood. Clarke & Whittington.
Caelton, Haeey W. Clarke, Charles Noel.
Caelyon & Stephens. Clarke, George W., Gray's Inn.
Caeeaea, a. C, Inner Temple. Clarke, Joseph B.
Caeeigan, W. Clarke, J. E.
Caeson, Thomas H., K.C, Clarkson, James.
Lincoln's Inn. Claye, Kenneth.
Caeter & Barber. Clegg, Alfred.
List of Original Subscribers. xix
Clench, Sidney A. Costeker, Charles.

Clifford & Cliffords. Cotes, Herbert V. M.
Clough & Crabtree. CoTTAM, Charles Beaumont.
Clough, G. Benson, Inner CouLSON, Harry.
Temple. COULTHARD, FrANK.
Coal Supply Association, Counsel, E. P. S., LL.D.,
Limited. Middle Temple.
COBBETT, KiCHARD. Cousins & Burbidgb.
CoBBETT, Walter Palmer. COVERDALE, WiLLIAM HeRBERT.
Cochrane, D. Coward, J. C. Lewis, K.C.,
Cocker, J. A. Gray's Inn and Middle Tem-
cockshutt & dunkerley. ple.
Cohen & Cohen. Cowburn, a. Douglas, Middle
Cohen, The Eight Hon. Arthur, Temple.
K.C., Inner Temple. Cowl, Arthur E.
Cohen, George H. COWLARD, GrYLLS & CoWLARD.
Cohen, Philip. Cox, Edward H.
Cohen, S. B., LL.D. Craig, Norman, Inner Temple.
Cohn, Max. Craik, J. H.
CoLCLouGH, J. G., Middle Craven, Mark H.
Temple. Crean, E. J.
Cole, Skelton, Inner Temple. Crease, Edward Albert.
Coles, Sons & Tilburn. Creasy, Harry.
collens, w. j. Crick & Freeman.
Collins & Co. Criddle & Criddle.
Collins & Son. Crisp, Thomas James.
Collins, Sir Arthur, K.C., Crodle, Alfred.
Gray's Inn and Middle Tem- Croft & Mortimer.
ple. Crombie, George.
CoLLis,Harry Neild, LL.B. Crompton, W. W.
Colquhoun, I. J. Trew. Crookes, Walter S.
Columbia University, The Law Cross, J. Ashton, Middle Temple.
Library of. Crowther-Nicol, H. Eoland,
CoNCANON, Henry. Lincoln's Inn.
Connecticut State Library, Crozier, George.
U.S.A. Crump, William A., & Son.
Conservative Club, London. CUBISON, A. E.
Cook, Charles Archer, Lin- CuLRoss & Holt,
coln's Inn. cundall, a. w.
Cook, W. W. Cushman, F. W. a.
Cook, Walter.
Cooke, George T. Dale, George W. M., Lin-
Cooke, John Henry. coln's Inn.
Cooke, Philip H. Daly, P. J. M.
Cooper, A. Savage. Danckwerts, W. 0., K.C., Inner
Cooper, Thomas. Temple.
CoPELAND, Walter C, Gray's Darlington, H. E., Lincoln's
Inn and Middle Temple. Inn.
Cope-Proctor, E. G. Daun, W. H.
Corbin, Greener & Cook. Davar, The Hon. D. D., Middle
CORBITT, E. T. Temple, Puisne Judge, Bom-
CORMAC, T. E. K. bay.
XX List of Okiginal Subscribers.
David, George & Evans. Dixon, J. A., B.CL.

Davidson, John. DoDD, Frank, Graj^'s Inn.
Davidson, William A. G. DoDD, Eeuben J.
Davies & Harvey. DoDDS, The Hon. Mr. Justice,
DaVIES & EOBERTS. K.C.M.G.
Davies, Dixon H. Dolman, A. H.
Davies, E. E. Donaldson & Alexander.
Davies, I. Eedwood, Inner Tem- Done, Neville S.
ple. Dorrell, G. H., Middle Temple.
Davies, Joseph. Douglas, H. P.
Davies, Samuel, J.P. DouLL, William.
Davis, Arthur H. DowDiNG, Arthur Charles.
Davis, Charles A. Downer, G. & J.
Davis, Edward. Downing College Library,
Davis, Edward Finder. Cambridge.
Dawe, K. Hill. DowsoN, Walter.
Dawes, E. W. Doyle, Egbert J.
Dawson & Wallace. Drake, Arthur AV.
Day, K. W. Dransfield, J. Harrop, LL.B.
Daynes, John William Crook. Drew & Napier.
Deacon, Thomas. Drew, Alfred William.
Deakin, Bickerton H. Drewry, J. & W. J., & Newbold.
Deane, The Hon. Mr. Justice Drummond, W. v., Lincoln's Inn.
Bargrave. Drummonds.
Deane, George C, Inner Tem- Drury, a. W.
ple. DucKER, J. E. Townshend.
Deane, P. DucKERs, J. Scott.
DE Becker, J. E. Duckworth & Son.
Deeley, Frank. Duke, Horace.
Deery, Arthur. Duke, H. E., K.C., Gray's Inn.
de Freitas, G. J. Dunderdale, Charles.
Degenhardt, G. Dunn, Cecil W.
DE Gex, W. p. Durham, J.
DE Grey, The Hon. John. DuTT, Baido Nath, B.L.
DE Greiz, Dr. T. DuTT, P. C, Middle Temple,
DE KocK, Thomas Frederick. Dyason, Daniel Mills, J.P.
DE Lautour, Barker & Stock. DyASON, HaZELL & AViLSON.
Delevingne, W. N. Dyne, J. Bradley, Lincoln's
de Meza, J. Inn.
Denniston, a. L.
Derby Law Society. Eady, The Hon. Mr. Justice
DE Eeuter, Baron H. SWINFEN.
DE Yesian, Ellis & Co. Eales, J. F.
DE Villiers, Jacob. Eastley & Eastley.
DE YlLLIERS, J. Easton, Lockhart Dobbin.
Dewar, Charles A. Eastwood, A. E.
DiAS, Francis. Eden & Groom.
Dibben, Herbert William. Edgelow, Hennen, & Co.
Dickinson, J. L. Edleston, E. F. C.
Dickson, E. Cecil. Edmonds, G. W.
Dixon & Dixon. Edmunds, D. Eees.
Dixon, James. EdMUNDSON & GOWLAND.
List of Original Subscribers. xxi
Edmundson & Parkes. FiNDLAY & TaiT.

Edwards, D. S. FiNDLAY, A. W., LL.D.
Edwards, G. H. Dunman. Firth, Alfred Richard.
Edwards, John M. Fisher, Jesson & Wilkins.
Edwards, John R. Fisher, F. T.
Edwards, W. B., Puisne Judge, Fisher, Theodore.
Auckland, New Zealand. Fiske, W. Sanders.
Eggar, Henry Cooper, M.V.O. FiTZHARDINGE & SoNS.
Eggar, Robert Henry. Fitzgerald & Walsh.
Ellicott, His Honour Judge. FiTZHEHBERT, W. L.
Elliott, Frank Uhthoff, J.P, Fl AD GATE & Co.
Elliott, Frederick C. Fladgate, W. F.
Elliott, Thomas. Flavell, Thomas.
Ellis, Bernard. Fleming, Boucant & Aston.
Ellis, G. Lister. Fleming, Stanley H.
Emanuel, Frederick Graham. Fletcher, Ernest.
Emanuel, Samuel H., LL.D., Flint, Ernest R.
Inner Temple. FooRD, R. J. M.
Enever, Charles R. Forbes, A. M. M., & Hatten.
Engall, T. H. Ford, Lloyd, Bartlett &
England & Son. Michelmore.
Ensor, Edward Robert. Ford, A. Rogers.
Entwistle, F., & Son. Ford, H. Gover.
Evans, Asa and Ivor, & Stevens. FoRDHAM, Edward Snow.
Evans, R. W. Picton. FoRSHAw, E. Roney.
Evans, Robert Y. FORSTER, C. D., & Co.
Evans, S. T., K.C., M.P., Middle Forster, J. D., Inner Temple.
Temple. FoRSTER, Samuel J., B.C.L.,
Evershed, Edward. Inner Temple.
Eyre-Kenny, H., Judge, Nelson, Forster, T. Edwards, Middle
New Zealand. Temple.
Foss, Edward.
Fache, E. C. Foster, C. F.
Farbrother, a. F. Foster, J. H.
Farlow & Co. Fox, Robert E.
Farmer, Turner & Thoimpson. France, J. J.
Farnfield, J. A. & H. E. Franco, W. Stephen, Jun.
Farnum, Charles E. D., Lin- Francis, Grosvenor A.
coln's Inn. Francis, W. B.
Farr, George Charles. Eraser, Hugh, LL.D., Inner
Farrar & Crowther. Temple.
Farrar, J. Gordon K. Eraser, H. Lacy, Lincoln's Inn.
Farrer-Morgan & Co. Freeman, Harry Scott.
Fearon, Francis. Freeman, Horace, Lincoln's
Feltham, Harold S. K. Inn.
Ferrier & Ferrier. French, J. M.
Field, E. Thurlow. Friery, C.
Field, G. A., Inner Temple. Fullagar, Hulton, Bailey & Co.
Fieldhouse, H. V. Fuller, Edgar H.
FiLLiTER, George Clavell.
Filmer, Harry J. Gadsden & Treherne.
FiLosE, A. F. Gaffney, James S.
xxii List of Original Subscribers.
Gamble, Philip A. Goss, Edgar O.

Gamlen, Burdett & Gamlen. GouR, A. S., LL.D., D.C.L.,
Gardner, Harold E. Inner Temple.
Garran, E. E., C.M.G. GoVETT & QuiLLIAM.
Garstang, Arthur Harold. GowiNG, H. M.
Gartside, Charles P. Graham, John.
Gasper, A. M. Graham, Sidney H.
Gates, F. C. Gramshaw, Egbert, & Son.
Gawith & Logan. Grant, Douglas.
Gedge, C.B., Inner Temple. Grant, Hugh.
Gedge & Gedge. Gray, The Hon. Eegtnald,
Gee & Edwards. Attorney-General, Bermuda.
George, W. Evans, & Sons. Gray, Alexander.
George, William. Gray, Leonard.
Gething, Egbert. Gray, W. Myers.
Ghosh, E. P., Gray's Inn. Gray's Inn, The Honourable
Gibson, A. E. M., Lincoln's Inn. Society of.
Gibson, C. H. Green, Melvill, & Charles.
Gibson, J. C. Green, C. J. Salkeld, Inner
GiFFARD, Sir Henry A., K.C., Temple.
Lincoln's Inn. Green, Charles O.
Giles, Arthur C. Green, T. Henry.
Giles, Frank, Inner Temple. Greenall, Henry, & Co.
Giles, H. E. Greene, J. A., Lincoln's Inn.
Gillespie, J. T. Greene, John AV.
GiLMORE, J. C. Greenfield & Cracknall.
GiRviN, William J. Greenfield, Thomas Joseph,
Gladstone, E. Phillott. Gray's Inn.
Glasier, William Bedford. Greening, Egbert.
Gledhill, J. J. Gregorowski, E., Gray's Inn.
Glew, William C. Gribble, H. E.
Glover, J. H. Grice-Hutchinson, G. W.
GoDDARD, Eugene H. Griffith, Joseph.
GoDDARD, John Theodore. Griffith, The Eight Hon. Mr.
GoDDARD, W. M. Justice, G.C.M.G.
Godfree, George Stanley. Griffiths, Llywelyn.
Goldberg, Leopold. Griffiths, Eowland E.
Goldie, Noel B. Griffiths, Trevor C.
GoLDiNG & Hargrove. Grimmer, du Preez & Town-
Gomez, Frederick J., Middle send.
Temple. Groom, The Hon. Littleton E.,
Gonville and Caius College Attorney- General, Australia.
Library, Cambridge. Grogs, A. W. J.
Good, Matthew, LL.D. Grover, H. S. M.
Gooding, James Blades, Middle Grunebaum, M.
Temple. Guedalla & Cross.
Goodman, The Hon. G. Aubrey, Guise, J. W.
K.C., Middle Temple, Solicitor- GuLLiGK, Francis William.
General, Barbadoes. Gurney, Clement H.
Goodman, Sydney C. N., Gray's Gush, Geoffrey B.
Inn. Gush, Phillips, Walters &
Gorham, a. Williams.
List of Original Subsceibers. xxiii
Guthrie & Guthrie. Harvey, A. W. H.

GwATiaN, Hugh F. W. Harwood, E. M., & Co.
Haslett, Sidney.
Haddock, Percy, Haslip, J. Montague.
Haddock, W. Hawkes Bay Law Society.
Haines & Sumner. Hawksworth, J. Ledger.
Haines, Alan G. Hawkyord, Arthur, J. P.
Hakim, Mohammed Hussein. Hawtin, W. Grist.
Haldinstein, H. H., Inner Hayball, a. Henry.
Temple. Haycraft, Thomas AV., Inner
Hall, Stout & Lillicrap. Temple, District Judge.
Hall, Anthony, LL.B. Hayes, Samuel.
Hall, Charles A. Kennerley. Haymes, John.
Hall, George Martin. Haynes, Robinson & Co.
Hall, J. E. K. Hayward, J. C.
Hall, Thoinias William. Headley, W. a. E.
Hall, W. G. Carlton. Heap, J. Hammond.
Halliley & Morrison. Hearle, N. S.
Hallmark, John Ernest. Heaton, Tom.
Hall -Wright, James. Heckscher, Edward J., Lin-
Hamilton College, Clinton, coln's Inn.
U.S.A. Heddon, C. H.
Hamilton & Moore. Hellyer, R. Edgecombe.
Hands, John Trace y. Hemmerde, Edward G., M.P.,
Hands, Joseph. Inner Temple.
Hanna, William, LL.B. Hensley & AVhiteley.
Hansell, Arthur D. Hepburn, Patrick H.
Hanson, Oswald H. Herefordshire Incorporated
H.1RB0RD, A. Taylor. Law Society.
Harden, Charles Edward. Heritage, J. E., LL.B.
Harding, William. Herring, E. S.
Hardy, G. L., Inner Temple. Herron, R. W. Cowell.
HaRGREAVES & JOBLIN. Hetley, James Edward.
Harling & Harling. Hicks, Davis & Hunt.
Harratt & Pollock. Hicks, E. F.
Harries, E. A. H. HiGGS & Son.
Harris, H. S., & Co. HiGGS, William Ward.
Harris, A. Sutherland. Hildesheimer, Alfred, Inner
Harris, Edward. Temple.
Harris, Edward Henry, Gray's Hilditch, Richard.
Inn. HiLDYARD, Edward Digby,
Harris, J. C. Garner, Middle Lincoln's Inn.
Temple. Hill & Son.
Harrison & Powell. Hillier & Co.
Harrison, E. E. Hilton, Edwin Iv.
Harrogate, The Borough of. Hilton, Robert.
Harston, J. Scott. HiNCKS, Maurice T.
Hart & Keid. Hinde, F., Gi'a3''s Inn.
Hart, Daniel. HiNDLE, George Edwârd.
Hart, Tasker. HiRD, James AA^.
Hartley, Harry Bark. HoBsoN, George AV., J. P.
Hartley, AV. H. Hobson, James Joseph.
xxiv List of Original Subscribers.
HoDDiNG, Jones & Clark. Inder, William Francis.

Hodgson, John Frederick. Ingledew & Sons.
Hodges & Pyke. Ingram, Andrewes.
hoffland, s. Inskip, James, & Son.
Holder, P. Giles. Inskip, T. W. H., Inner
HoLFORD, J. Burn. Temple.
Holland, William. Isaacs, Hyman, & Lewis.
Holmes, H. K. Isaacs, The Hon. Mr. Justice,
Holmes, J. W M., Lincoln's Inn. K.C.
Holmes, R. C. Isaacs, Rufus, K.C, M.P.,
HoMBURG, The Hon. Robert, Middle Temple.
Puisne Judge, Adelaide, South Izard, William, Inner Temple.
Australia.
Hood, F. A. Jacks, Robert.
Hood, Joseph. Jackson, A. R., & Son.
HoPGOOD, Harold Burn. Jackson, Richard, & Son.
Hopkins, A. E. Jackson, Frank E.
Hopper, A. E. Jackson, E. W., J.P.
HoRNE, Alfred. Jackson, John, Middle Temple.
HoRSFALL, Bertram. Jackson, T. Edwin.
HoRwooD, Thomas Hugh. Jackson, Thornton, LL.B.
HOUCHEN, HOUCHEN & GREEN- Jackson, T. W.
LAND. Jacobs, Herbert Levi, Middle
Hough, Kighley J. Temple.
Houghton-Davies, T. J. Jacques, J. W. F.
Howard, Allen. Jacques, F. V., Clutton &
Howard, E. Stafford, C.B. Jacques.
Howell, M. S., CLE., LL.D. Jager, G. H.
Howlett, Francis K. James, G., Charles & Davies.
Hubbard, Chalton. James & Darbyshire.
Hudson & Frames. James, Frank, & Sons.
Hudson, Arthur Glenton. Jellett, W. M., K.C.
Hudson, Lee. Jenkins, The Hon. Sir Law-
Hughes, E. P. Whitley. rence Hugh, K.C.I.E., Chief
Hughes, J. A. Justice, Bomba}^
Hughes, Thomas. Jenkins, M. A.
HuLBEBT, Thomas W. Jennings, David.
Hume-Williams, W. E., K.C, Jennings, F. B.
Middle Temple. Jesson, John Fisher.
Humm, Henry J. JoBsoN, John.
Hunt, Frederick J. R. V. Johns, Francis A.
Hunt, Frederick Knight. Johnson & Co.
Hunt, Giles. Johnson, Augustus A.
Hunt, H. Johnson, E. T.
Hunter, Herbert. Johnson, S. Nbuman.
Huntley, F. T. Johnson, J. D. A., LL.D.,
Hurst, Joseph. Middle Temple.
Hutchinson, M. W. Johnston, Harold Feather-
HuTTON, F. A., LL.B. STON.
HUXTABLE, H. A. Johnstone & Wiley.
Hyland, a Young.
. Johnstone & Williams.
"
Hymers, J. Allan. Johnstone, James.
List of Original Subscribers. XXV
Jones, R. O., & Davies. King, Humphrey H., LL.B.,

Jones, Cyril O. Inner Temple.
Jones, C. Percy. King, John C.
Jones, Douglas Thomas May- King, Reginald H.
BERY. King, William.
Jones, F. Graham. King, W. G.
Jones, Frederick N. Kingsbury, George C, Middle
Jones, Gwilym D. Temple.
Jones, J. Harris King's College Library, Cam-
Jones, J. Haydn. bridge.
Jones, Morris P. KiNGSFORD & Drake.
Jones, Morris Roberts. KiNSEY, Ade & Hocking.
Jones, T. D. Kirkpatrick, Clarence.
Jones, W. Bramwell. Kitchingham, H. W.
Jones-Lloyd, F. P. KiTsoNS, Mackenzie & Hext.
Jonklaas, R. W. Knight, E. W. Horton.
Jordan & Lavington. Knight, Richard.
Jordan, John R. Knight, W. S. M., Inner Temple.
Josephs, Hector, LL.B., Lin- Knox, Adrian, K.C., Inner
coln's Inn. Temple.
JOYNT, F. A. Krauss, C. Stanley.
JuBB, Booth & Helliwell. KwANG, Sim Boon.
JuBB, James C.
La Brooy, C. a.
Kay, R. Newbald. Laces, Bird, Wilson & Todd.
Kaye, Edmund George. Lake Forest College, U.S.A.
Kays & Jones. Lamb & Stringer.
Keall, H. C. F. Lambert & Hale.
Kearney, Francis Edgar, LL.D. Lambert, Thomas.
Keenlyside & Forster. Lampard, F. J. FoRDER, Graj's
Keep, Ernest Edward. Inn and Middle Temple.
Keites, Harry. Lancaster, Henry, Inner
Kellett, G. a. Temple.
Kelly, P. Robert. Lander, John V. T.
Kelly, S. Hill, Gray's Inn. Lane & Cottier.
Kennedy & Kennedy, Lascelles & Lewis.
Kennedy^ Leo., & Glover. Last, Charles AVilliam.
Kennedy, Ponsonby & Ryde. Last, R. J.
Kennelly, D. J., K.C., Inner Laughton, F. a., K.C.
Temple. Laurance, Howard A.
Kennett, a. M. Lavington, E. W.
Kent & Son. Lawford, Egerton C. Baring,
Kesteven, C. H. Inner Temple.
KiERNAN, James A. Lawrance, W. T., Middle
Killen, J. M. Temple.
KiLNER, J. C. Hugo. Lawson, a. G.
KiMBER, W. D. Layton, G. a.. Middle Temple.
KiMPTON, W. Harold. Laytons.
King & Jenkins. Leader, G. Gardner.
King, Bernard W. Leadam, Edward A.
King, G. A. Lee, Bolton & Lee.
King, Henry J. Leech, Hunt W.
xxvi List of Original Subscribers.
Lefeoy, Franklin G. Lynch, E. Lloyd.

Leigh, H. Eichmond. Lyon & Son.
Le Mesurier, C. J. E. Lyttleton, The Eight Hon.
Lemon, E. W. Alfred, K.C, M.P., Inner
Leonard, The Hon. J. W., Temple.
K.C., Middle Temple.
Le Poer-Trench, C. Macalister Brothers.
Le Eoux, J. J. McArthur, Alexander, LL.D.
Leslie, James Graham, J.P., McCallum, E.
D.L., Gray's Inn. McCann, Hugh J.
Lewis, A. Welle sley, K.C. McCarthy, James A.
Lewis, H. Langford, Inner McCarthy, Jeremiah.
Temple. McCrossan, George E.
Lewis, John T. McDonald & Douglass.
Liberal Publication Depart- McDonald, John J.
ment. McElligot, Edward J.
Light, George M. McFadden, Edward.
Lincoln's Inn, The Honourable Macfarlane, John.
Society of. Macfie, T. G.
Lindsay, Greenfield & Masons. McGiLL University Library.
LiTHGOW, Samuel. McGrath, William Martin,
Littler, Sir Ealph, C.B., K.C, K.C
Middle Temple. McGusTY, George A.
Liverpool, The Incorporated Mackay, Taylor & Goffey.
Law Society of. Mackay, Douglas.
Liverpool, The University of. Mackenzie, A. K. S.
Llewellin, J. C. Mackenzie, M. Muir, Lincoln's
Llewellyn & Son. Inn and Middle Temple,
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick. Official Eeferee.
Lloyd-George & George. Mackenzie, William, Lincoln's
Lloyd & Pratt. Inn.
Lloyd, John E. McKeon, Michael.
Lloyd, Egbert Edward. McKeown, Wilson.
Lloyd, Thomas Henry Gordon, McLaurin, H. N.
LL.B. Maclean, William Haydon.
LoBO, p. C, Gray's Inn. Macmaster, Donald, D.C.L.,
Locke, Francis A. S. K.C, Lincoln's Inn.
London County Council. McMaster, J. M.
Long, George. Macoun, J. EiTCHiE, Middle
LONGBOTHAM & SoNS. Temple.
LoNGUET, Charles Stephen. Macpherson, J., LL.B.
Lord, Arthur E. MacEobert, Norman.
Lord,.W. Greaves. Macrory, E. Henry.
LoucH, Edward Quekett. McVeagh, Egbert.
Louw, J. W., LL.B. McWhannell, Malcolm.
LovELL, Edward, & Son. Madders, H. Franklin.
Low, Victor H. Maddocks, Henry, Inner
Lowe & Co. Temple.
Lucas, F. A. AV., Middle Temple. Madras, The Eegistrar of the
Lucas, Frederick G. T. High Court of.
Lucas, W. W., Inner Temple. Mahaffy, Egbert P., Inner
Lumsden, Thomas, Jun. Temple.
List of Original Subscribers. xxvii
Maingot, Ferdinand J. Maxwell, F. M.

Maingot, Philip. May, Henry Arthur.
Majumdar, Baini Chandra, B.L, May, John Frederick.
Malay States, The Library of Mears, E. Grimwood, Inner
THE Supreme Court of the Temple.
Federated. Megaw, Egbert Dick.
Malkin, Arthur. Mellor, Frank, Inner Temple.
Mallett, E. Arthur. Mendelson, S., Middle Temple.
Malone, Anderson & John- Merry, Major.
stone. Metcalfe, Thomas L.
Manchester, The City of. Metzler, Ernest, Middle
Manchester Law Library. Temple.
Manisty, Henry. Meyer, Fuederick.
Mann, T. Duncombe. Michel, Augustin Raoul.
Manuel, Eobert, Liner Tem- Middle Temple, The Honour-
ple. able Society of the.
March, John A. Middleditch, B.
Marcus, Herbert J. Middlesbrough, The County
Marcy & Hartopp. Borough of.
Marcy, George Nichols, Lin- Miles & Hair.
coln's Imi. Miller & Son.
Marley, H. Miller & Smiths.
Marrable, Douglas H. Miller, H. W.
Marris, George. Mills, T. Hutton, Middle
Marsh, John. Temple.
Marsh, Percy. Milner, James H.
Marsh, Samuel. Milton, Thomas St. M.
Marshall, Benjamin. MiNET, Harvie, May & Co.
Marshall, Harold. Mitchell, Lucas & Mitchell.
Marshall, James Bernard. Mitchell, James J.
Marshall, T. D. Mitchell, Sydney.
Martelli, E. W., Lincoln's Inn. Mitra, Mahendra Kumar.
Martin, Herbert James. Mizzi, Lewis F., LL.D.
Martin, William, LL.D., Lin- Moffat, Thomas B.
coln's Inn. MoLONY, Thomas F., LL.B.,
Martyn & Martyn. K.C., Middle Temple.
Mason, Kichard. Monmouthshire Incorporated
Massachusetts State Library, Law Society.
U.S.A. MooDiE & Son.
Masser, Alfred. Moore, Arthur W. Dod-
Masujima, E., Middle Temple. WELL.
Mather, Harold. Moore, Beaufoi, Middle
Mathews, Sir Charles W., Temple.
Middle Temple. Moore, Maurice.
Mathews, Jehu. Moore, E. E., LL.B., Middle
Matthews, E. H. Temple.
Matthews, J. Barrington. Moreton-Prichard, C. E.
Matthews, J. Bromhead. Morgan, Lewis, & Box.
Maud, W. M. MOEGAN, F. W.
Mawby, E. George. Morgan, John.
Mawby, Frederick T. Morgan, E. E.
Mawer, a. Jefferay. Morgan, W. E.
xxviii List of Original Subscribers.
MoPviARTY, John F., K.C. Nelson, A. E., Middle Temple.

MoRLEY, Arthur W., LL.B. Nelson Law Society, New
MoRLEY, James, LL.M. Zealand.
MoRPHY, His Honour Judge, Nelson, Edmund.
K.C. Nesbitt, T. Thorburn.
Morris, The Hon. Sir E. P., Nevill, R. C. Reginald, LL.B.
K.C, Attorney-General, New- Neville, George.
foundland. Newey, E. C, & Son.
Morris, J. Jones. Newman, Alfred.
Morris, W. Pilgrim. Newman, Arthur.
Mortimer, Lionel H. Newman John.
Moss, C. A. Newman, S. A.
Moss, G. A., McC. Newnham, John Montague,
Moss-Blundell, F.B. LL.D.
Mossop, Clyde Swinton. New York City, The Associa-
MouLE, Hamilton & Kiddle. tion OF the Bar.
MouLTON, The
Right Hon. New York City, The Law Insti-
Lord Justice Fletcher. tution.
MoxoN, John. New York Law School, U.S.A.
Mullens, Harold A. Newson-Smith, Cecil.
Mundell, H. D. New South Wales Public
MuNTON, Francis K. Library.
Murphy, T. J. McCarthy, Newton, J. Deacon.
Deputy Minister of Justice, Newton, John Edward.
Newfoundland. New Zealand, The Supreme
Murray, J. H. P., Inner Temple, Court of.
Chief Judicial Officer, British NicHOLLs, Harold A. Alford,
New Guinea. Lincoln's Inn.
Musgrave & McKelvie. Nicholson & Gribbin.
Musk, George Henry. Nicholson, E. Ferrers.
Myers, M. NiCKLIN & WyLIE.
Myers, Solomon. NiCOLON, J. H.
NiELD, Herbert, M.P., Inner
N AIR AC, G. E. Temple.
Nambyar, p. K., Inner Temple. Nixon, William.
Nankivell, Edward J. Nixon, Charles Eugene, LL.B.
Napier, W. J. NoAD, Lewis, Lincoln's Inn.
Nash, H. Eldon, LL.B., Middle Nodder & Trethowan.
Temple. Noel, Percy.
Nash, John Bobert. Nolan, P. J.
Natal, The Secretary, Law Nolan, William Henry.
. Department. NoRD AN, Charles L., LL.B.
-
Nathan, Manfred. Norman, R. R. G.

Nathan, Myer S. norris & norris.
NAylor, Charles, Inner Temple. NORRIS, J. B.
Neale, Alfred. NoRRis, Osborne E.
Neave, Thomas. North & Sons,
Nee & Gordon-Roberts. northmore, j. a.
Needham, T. a. Norton, Rose, Norton & Co.
Neilson, Alexander, Middle Norton, Eardley.
Temple. Nottingham Incorporated Law
Nelson, Eddisons & Lupton. Society.
List of Original Subscribers. xxix
NoTTMAN, John. Payne, R. H.

No WELL, MeLLER & No WELL. Payne, T. H. G.
NuTT, Reginald J. C. Payne, Walter Jambs.
Peachey, Charles B.
O'Connor, His Honour Judge Peacock, T. F., Fisher &
Arthur, K.C. Chavasse.
O'Connor, M. J., & Co. Peake, Bird, Collins & Co.
Odgers, W. Blake, LL.D,, Pearce, Joseph & Co.
K.C, Middle Temple. Pearce, E. J.
O'Donnell, p. E. Pearce, James Alfred.
Oeconomides, Joannis, H. M. Pears, Edwin, Middle Temple.
Ordinaiy Judge, Cyprus. Pearse & Parsons.
O GIL VIE, Charles M. Pearson, R. O'Neill.
Oliver, Eldred. Pearson, T. E.
Oppenheim, L., LL.D. Peddar, Sydney H.
Oram, A. J. H. Pedley, May & Fletcher.
Ord, W. H. Pemberton, Cope, Gray & Co.
Orr, F. W. Pengilly, a.
Orr. Sutherland. Pennefather, W. Somerset.
Orton, W. L. J. Pepper, J. W.
O' Sullivan, Philip. Pereira, J. C. Walter, K.C,
Owen, Arthur Owen. Solicitor-General, Ceylon.
Perkins, Donald Y.
Padley, a. a. Peters, E. W. L. U.
Page, Arthur, Liner Temple. Philcox, Henry N.
Page, Ernest, K.C, Lmer Phillips, Charles J.
Temple. Phillips, E. T. Adams, LL.B.
Palles, Lord Chief Baron. Phillips, George, Inner
Palmer, H. R. Temple.
Pantin, George Cecil. Phillips, W. A. Maclure.
Pardoe, Avern. PlIILPOT, W.
Parfitt, J. J. Phcenix, John T.
Parikh, J. M., Middle Temple. Picken, Samuel.
Park, Percy T. Pickering & Neilson.
Park, W. Leslie. PiCKSTONE, C. H.
Parker, The Hon. Mr. Justice. Piddington, a. B.
Parker, William. PiLKINGTON, E. G.
Parr, T. H., Inner Temple. Pisa, Seminario Giuridico della
Parry, Alfred Ivor. R. Universita di, Italy.
Parry, R. Ivor. Flange, Henry, Lincoln's Inn.
Parsons, Evans & Francis. Plews, John.
Patell, R. M., Chief Judge of Plymouth, The Incorporated
the Small Court, Bombay. Law Society of.
Paterson, William H. PoHL, Dr. H., Lincoln's Inn.
Patey, Samuel. Pole, Alexander Edward.
Patteson, Frank. Pollock, Ernest M., K.C,
Pattison, Joseph. Inner Temple.
Paul, Dudley M. Pollock, H. E., K.C, Inner
Paul, S. Evan. Temple.
Payne & Co. PoNTiNG, Thomas.
Payne, J. A. Otonba. Porter, Arthur.
Payne, H. A. H. Porter, W. K., Gray's Inn.
XXX List of Oeiginal Subscribers.
Porterfield-Eynd, J. A. Rattigan, H. a. B., Lincoln's

POSTLETHWAITE, W. T. Inn.
Potts, Leonard Francis, Lin- Rau, J. Krishna, Gray's Inn.
coln's Inn. Rawlinson, Cecil J.
PouLTNEY, Edward W. Rawnsley & Peacock.
Pound, Koscoe. Reader, George, & Co.
Powell, T. H. Rearden, James A.
Powers, The Hon. Charles, Redden, F. A. C.
Crown Solicitor, Australia. Reed, J. Hawkes.
Pownall, J. B. Reed, Vernon H.
poynton, j. w. Reed, Walter.
Presgrave & Matthews. Rees, R., & Sydney Jones.
Pre s SWELL & Pre s swell. Reeve, Roscoe.
Preston Incorporated Law Reid, The Right Hon. G. H.,
Society. K.C.
Preston, Arthur Sansome, Reiss, Godfrey E.
LL.B., Inner Temple, Crown Reith, R. a.. Middle Temple.
Prosecutor, Egypt. Render, John William.
Preston, Noel L. K. Reynolds & Son.
Preston, Stanley K. Rhodes & Dent.
Price, Samuel, & Sons. Rhodes, C. T.
Price, Herbert J. E. Rhodes, F., Inner Temple.
Priestley, Jethro S. Rhodes, George.
Prockter & Grimes. RiBEiRO, M. F., Lincoln's Inn.
Procter & Baldwin. Richardson, H. E., & Elder.
Propert, W. Peregrine, LL.D. Richardson, Ewart.
Proud, F. H. RiCKERBY, T. E.
Punjab, The Legal Remem- Riddett, Arthur E.
brancer TO the Government RiDGWAY, Athelstan, Middle
OF the. Temple.
puntan, a. j. RiGBY, H. P.
Purdy, Thomas Woods. RiGG, T.
PURKIS & Co. Ringer, H. C.
Pyke, H. R, RiTTNER, George H., Inner
Temple.
Roberts, A. Rhys.
Quarmby, Horace A.
Roberts, Charles William.
QuiN, J. George.
Roberts, E. Owen.
Roberts, H. G.
Raaff, Johannes Jacobus. Roberts, I. J,
Radcliffe, Cator & Hood. Roberts, Sir Owen, D.C.L., J. P.
Radcliffe, Francis R. Y., K.C., Roberts, Theodore.
Inner Temple. Roberts, Thomas Lee, Inner
Radcliffe, John Edward Temple.
YONGE. Roberts, W. A.
Range, H. W. Henniker, LL.D. Robertson, A. Julius, Gray's
Randall & Co. Inn.
Randell, H. H. Robertson, Gilbert.
Randolph, J. R., B.C.L., Inner Robertson, Harold B.
Temple. Robertson-Macdonald, D. M.
Raphael, Henry J. Robinson & Son.
Rastall, Herbert G. Robinson, A. C.
List of Original Subscribers. xxxi
EoBiNsoN, Francis George. Samble, Read.

Robinson, George. Sampson, E. W.
Robinson, John Sampson, The Hon. Victor,
Robinson, Roland W. K.C., Attornej^-General, Cape
Robinson, Romer. Colon}^
Robinson, T. H. Samson, Charles Leopold.
Robinson, Vaughan W. Sandeman, Edwin.
RoBSON, Alexander. Sanders, Edgar C.
Robson, J. Walter. Sapara- Williams, C. A., Inner
ROBYNS-OWEN, 0. Temple.
RocH, W. P. Sarbah, The Hon. John Mensah,
Roche, Son & Neale. Lincoln's Inn,
Roche, F. J. Sargint, George H.
Roderick, Richards & Williams. Satow, F. a., Middle Temple.
RoDGERs, Robert. Saunders, John S.
RODGERS, R. A. Saunt, T. Ernest, Lincoln's Inn.
ROGERSON, G. H. Savage, G. H., Middle Temple.
RoLFE, Edgar C. Savill, Arthur Edward.
RoLLiT & Sons. Savundranayagam, Antony
Romer, Frederick. Peter, Inner Temple.
Rooks, Spiers, Wales & ScAiFE, J. Harper, LL.B.,
Ward. Middle Temple.
Roper, Alma. Scannell, David.
RoRKE & Jackson. Schiller, F. P. M., Inner
RoscoE, Edward Gawne. Temple.
RoscoE, W. E. Scorer, A. E.
Rose, John. Scott, Leslie.
Rose, J. W. Scott, Walter.
Rose-Innes, p., Lincoln's Inn. Scott-Hopper, Robert.
Roskill, John, K.C., Inner Seal, Samuel Henry.
Temple. Sedgewick, The Hon. Mr.
Ross, A. C. Justice.
Ross, Charles, Lincoln's Inn. Segar, Bastard & Co.
Ross, Hoavard S. Sellina, R. D.
RossER, D. Roberts, & Davies. Serle & Morrison.
Rotherham, The Borough of. Seth, Arathoon, I.S.O., Lin-
Round, Charles. coln's Inn.
Rowlands, J. Evan. Seth- Smith, H. G., Inner Tem-
Rowlands, Joseph. ple, Chief Judge of the Native
Rule, A. R. Court, Auckland, New Zea-
Rumney, Howard. land.
Russell, C. A., LL.B., K.C., Sewell & Maugham.
Gray's Inn. Shackles & Dunkerly.
Russell, Henry Hartley. Shaffer, Samuel.
Russell, John H. S., B.L. Shakespeare, W., & Co.
Rutherford, Henry Taylor, Shand, a. B., K.C.
rutherfords. Sharman, Charles C.
Sharp, Harrison, Turner &
Sainsbury, Logan & Williams. Cooper.
St. John's College Library, Sharp & Weir.
Cambridge. Sharp, Charles J.
Salusbury, F. H. Shaw, Alfred.
xxxii List of Original Subscribers.
Shaw, His Honour Judge, Southern & Fullalove.

K.C. Southland Law Society, Inver-
Shaw, J. Hekbert. cargill.
Shean & Dickson. sowter, g. s.
Sheffield District Incor- Spickett & Sons.
porated Laav Society. Springfield City Library,
Sheldon, Edward W. U.S.A.
Shepherd, T. D. Sprinz & Sons.
Shields, Tasman. Sproston, Thomas B.
Shipman, Walter M. Stafford, Edward.
Shirer, John A. Staffurth, Ernest H.
Shyngle, J. Egerton, Inner Stanford, D. E.
Temple. Stanger, H. Y., K.C, M.P.,
SiLBURN, John H. Lincoln's Inn.
SiMisTER, James Waterhouse. Stanhope- Stoio, F. L.
Simons, F. Sydney. Stansfeld, B. R.
Simpson, Palmer & Winder. Stanton & Hudson.
Simpson, H. Derwent. Stapleton & Son.
Simpson, J. H. Starke, H. E.
Singleton, Charles C. Steavenson, His Honour
SiNHAs, The Hon. S. P. Judge.
SiSNETT, H. K. M., Inner Steed & Steed.
Temple. Steele, Richard Irvine.
Skelton, a. E. Stephen, Henry, Middle
SivERETT & WyLIE. Temple.
Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas, J.P. Stevens, A. G.
Slack, Alfred. Stevens, T. J.
Slade, M. W. Steward & Co.
Slater & Co. Stiling, AV. H. C.
Slater, Henry James. Stocker, E. B.
Slaughter & Colegrave. Stockholm, The Royal Library
Smethwick, The Municipal Stockport Incorporated Law
Borough of. Society.
Smith &Payn. Stoddard, W. H.
Smith, A. A. Stoker, The Hon. W. H., K.C,
Smith, E. T. Leeds. Middle Temple, Attorney-
Smith, F. E., M.P., Gray's Inn. General, Barbadoes.
Smith, F. J. Finch. Stokes, P. S., Inner Temple.
Smith, Joseph H. Stones, Morris & Stone.
Smith, J. P. Fellowes. Stooke-Vaughan, J. Salter.
Smith, J. Walter, LL.D., Storey, James, & Son.
Inner Temple. Storey, Walter.
Smith, N. E. Storrs,' Francis.
Smith, P. Tweedie. Stott, John Horace.
Smith, W. Hubert, LL.M. Stow, Preston & Lyttelton.
Smythe, W. D. Stow, F. L.
Snelling, Percy W. Stuart, Alan L. C, LL.D.,
Snow, Fox & Higginson. President of the District Court,
Solomon, J. & M. Cyprus.
South Australia, -The Law Stuart, James F.
Library of the Supreme Stubbs, Charles, LL.D.,
Court of. Middle Temple.
List of Original Subscribers. xxxiii
SuDPARDs, Fred. Thorne, H. U. H.

SUNYAL, DaSARNTHI, B.L. ^rnoRNE, AV. H. H., Inner .
Sussex Law Society, Temple.

sutcliffe, i) ax. Thornley, Ernest James.
SuTCLiFFE, George G. 0. Thornely, Thomas Heath.
Sutton, Elliott, Turnbull & Thornton, Charles.
Mayne. Thorold, Brodie & Bonham-
Sutton, Eumunl. Carter.
Swan, Eobert A., Lincoiu's Thurnell, G. T. B. S.
Iijii, Senior Puisne Judge, Tiddeman, Henry T.
Trinidad. Tientsin, The University of.
Swann, Bradley & Co. TiGHE, P. E.
Swift & Garner. TiLLEY, S. YaRDLEY.
Swift, Kigby. Tippetts.
Sydney, The Library of the ToLLiT, F. Stanley.
Equity Court. ToNGE, John.
Sydney University Law School. Tonkin, S.
Sykes, John. TooGooD, Reginald Curtis.
ToPHAM, Geoffrey C.
Taleyarkhan, F. p. J. Toronto, The Legislative
Tanner, Philip F. Library.
Taranaki District Law Society. Toronto University, The
Tasmania, The Northern Law Library of.
Society of. Transvaal, The Parliamentary
Tasmania, The Southern Law Library of the Legislative
Society of. Council of.
Tatham, F. S., K.C. Transvaal Supreme Court
Taunton, H. Grosvenor. Library.
Taylor, Rowley, Lewis & Treadwell, Charles Edward.
Davis. Treadwell, Claude.
Taylor, David. Tree, W. W. A.
Taylor, G. E. Neville. Treharne, W. J.
Taylor, G. E. Trinity College Library,
Taylor, J. Cockram. Oxford.
Taylor, Percy Wellington. Tripe, Joseph Albert, LL.B.
Taylor, W. H. Tucker, A. C.
Taylor, W. J. tuppen, j. h.
Terry, Smith. Turnbull, George.
Thacker, Thomas William. Turner, E. F., & Sons.
Thomas, Aeron, & Co. Turner, George, & Osborn.
Thomas, Alfred C, B.C.L., Turner, George, & Son.
Middle Temple. Turner, John Herbert.
Thomas, A. E. S. Turner, Sydney M.
Thomas, Arthur H. TuRPiN, Andrew Francis
Thomas, G. Caradoc. Conyngham.
Thomas, John. TuRPiN, Horace.
Thomas, J. Vivian. Turrell, H. J., Inner Temple.
Thomas, Richard J. Tweed, H.
Thomas, W. E. Tweedy, Arthur C.
Thomas, William. Tweedy, John.
Thomas, W. G. Twell, George.
Thompson, S. F. Tyler, Arthur.
H.L. — I. c
xxxiv List of Original Subscribers.
Underhill, Arthur, LL.D., Warner, George, Lincoln's Inn.

Lincoln's Inn. Warner, John.
Upper Canada, The Law Warren, Murton & Miller.
Society of. Washington, The Library of
Congress.
Vakils' Association, Calcutta. Waterman, J. H.
Vallance, William C. Watson, Charles.
.
Yandamm, Algernon Douglas. Watson, H. T.
Vanderpump, Paul E., & Eve. Watson, Samuel.
VAN Hallen, George St. John. Watson, Samuel Hammond.
VAN Heerden, I. P. Watts, Frank.
Van Hulsteyn, Feltham & Fry. Watts, Walter.
VAN NiEKESK, P. C. F. Wattson, W. B., LL.B.
VAN Os, A. B. AVaugh, AVilliam J., K.C,
Vaughan, Hugh Vaughan. Middle Temple.
Vaughan, Walter John. AVay, The Right Hon. Mr.
Veasey, Arthur C. T. Justice, Bart., D.C.L.
Venables, Eowland G. AVay, W. B.
Vernon, W. F. AVeatherly, Frederic E., Inner
Victoria, The IjIBRary of the Temple.
State Parliament. AVebb, George.
AVebber & Wentzel.
Waddington, Evelyn. AVebster, E. Clifford.
Waddington, Henry. AVebster, Thomas.
Wade & Son. Webster, AVilliam.
Wade, K. AVeightman, Pedder & Co.
Wainwright & Co. AVelchman, Carrick & Jackson.
Wakefield Incorporated Law AVeldon, Bowker.
Society. AVelfare, James H.
Walker, Martineau & Co. AVells, H. H., & Sons.
Walker, Albert W. J. AVells, Robert.
Walker, Charles S. Welman & Sons.
Walker, Frederick. AVestwell, B. T.
Walker, John. AVethered, Ernest H. C,
Walker, J. Ewart, Inner LL.B., Lincoln's Inn.
Temple. AVheatcroft, a. Ashcombe.
Walker, J. Herbert. AVhebler, J. F. W.
Walkington, D. B., LL.B. Whitaker, Alfred Kidd.
Wallace, Henry C, Middle White, C. A.
Temple. AVhite, S.
Wallington, Fabian & Co. White, Julius A.
'AVallis & Starkie. White, -Richard.
Wallis, T. H. Gardner. White, R. F. Moresby.
Walsh, John Edward, B.L., J.P. AVhitehead, J. D.
Walters, Alfred. AVhitehead, AVilliam H.
Walton, George O'Donnell. Whiteside, Cuthbert AV.
Wanklyn, Henry Charles. Whiteside, Henry Jackson
Ward, Bowie & ,Co. AVhitfield, G. H.
Ward, J. W. AVhitford & Sons
Wardrobe, William Hugh, AVhittuck, E. a., B.C.L.
K.C. AVhyte, Just & Moore.
Warner, Charles Edward. . AViDDows, Henry James.
List of Original Subscribers. XXXV
WictAN, The County Borough Winkfield, J., Lincoln's Inn,

OF. Puisne Judge, Southern
AViLKIE, YOUDEN & BrUCE. Nigeria.
Wilkinson, Ratkes & Son. WîNN, Richard Adolphus.
Wilkinson & Grist. Winter, Alfred John.
Wilkinson, Bernard K. R., Withers, Bensons, Withers &
Lincoln's Inn. Davies.
Wilkinson, R. A. WiTWATERSRAND HiGH CoURT
Willes, Eichard a,, Lincoln's Library, Johannesburg.
Lm. Wood, Arthur.
Willey, Arthur. Wood, Frederick.
Williams & James. Wood, Robert Ley.
Williams, Albert H. WOODBRIDGE & SoNS.
Williams, Arthur Harrison. Wôodcock & Son.
Williams, David, Middle WooDFORDE, Randolph.
Temple. WôoDs & Slack.
Williams, Edwin. Woods, Ernest E.
Williams, Ernest E. WooDWARK & White.
Williams, E. H. WooLF, Louis Sydney.
Williams, H. Sylvester, Gray's WoRDEN, William John,
Inn. wormali), g.
Williams, 0. H. M. Wright, Charles R.
Williams, Rees. Wright, F. Baildon.
Williams, Roland, Gray's Inn. Wright, R. A., LL.D.
Williams, William J. Wrigley, H. Greenwood.
Williamson, James. Wyatt, Frederick B.
Willis, R. James, Gray's Inn Wylie, Thomas Calvert.
and Middle Temple. Wynne-Baxter & Keeble.
Willis, W. Addington, LL.B.,
Inner Temple.
Wîllson & Norman.
Yale University, The Law
Wilson & Son. School Library of.
Yarborough, a. Cooke.
WîLSON, Charles, K.C.
Yates, Edwin.
Wilson, Ernest T. S.
Yates, J. M. St. John.
Wilson, Edwin H.
Yates, T. Lamartine.
Wilson, Harry.
AViLsoN, John George.
Yeatman, Archibald H.
York, J. A.
Wilson, T. H.
Youll, J. Gibson.
WiLTON, Henry Pleydell.
Winckworth, L. Herbert. Young, Goodwin.
WiNDYBANK, SaMUELL & Young, Thomas.
Lawrence.
Wingate-Saul, E. W. Zwarenstein, S.
It is hoped to print a Supplementary List at the end of the last volume.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
AND
TABLE OF CROSS-REFERENCES.
PAGE
Table oj Ahhi-eviations Ixi
Table of Statutes Ixxv
Table of Cases ----- ciii
INTRODUCTION - ccy
ABSTKACT OF TITLE.
See Sale of Land.
ACCIDENT.
See Negligence.
ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.

See CoNTEACj.
ACCOUNTS AND INQUIRIES.

See Pbacticb and Procedure.
ACTION 1—55
Part I. Definitions 2
Sect. 1. Action - - 2
Sect. 2. Cause of Action 6
Part II. In Respect of what Acts and Oimissions an Action

WILL LIE 7
Sect. 1. Uhi jus, ihi remedium 7
Sect. 2. LijuHa absque damno 9
Sect. 3. Damnum absque injuria 10
Sect. 4. De minimis non curat lex - - - - - - - 16
Part III. Who may Sub and be Sued 17

Sect. 1. In General 17
Sect. 2. The Crown - - - - 17
Sect. 3. Crown Servants 18
xxxviii Table of Contents.
Paet III. Who may Sue and be Sued — continued page

Sect. 4. Foreign Sovereigns and Governments - - - - 18
Sect. 5. Diplomatic Officers - - - - - - - - 19
Sect. 6. Alien Enemies 20

Sect. 7. Bankrupts - - - 21
Sect. 8. Infants 21
Sect. 9. Lunatics 22
Part IV. Conditions precedent to Action

Sect. 1. Award of an Arbitrator
Sect. 2. Consent
------- - . . . 22
22
22
Sect. 3. Demand or Eequest - - - - - - - - 23
Sect. 4t Notice of Action 24
Part V. Suspension of Eight of Action 27

Sect. 1. By Agreement to refer to Arbitration - - - - 27
Sect. 2. By Eeceipt of Negotiable Instrument - - - - 27
Sect. 3. Actions in respect of Felonious Torts 27
Sect. 4. Conviction for Treason or Felony 29
Sect. 5. Under Vexatious Actions Act, 1896 30
Part VI. Extinction of Eight of Action - - - - 31
Part VIL Forms of Action 31

Sect. 1. Old Forms of Action 31
Sub-sect. 1. Eeal Actions
Sub-sect. 2. Mixed Actions
Sub-sect. 3. Personal Actions
-------
------
32
34
35
Sect. 2. Abolition of Old Forms ...
of Action . - 45
Sect. 3. Modern Actions 47
Sub-sect. 1. Actions in rem and in personam - - - 47
Sub-sect. 2. Actions of Contract and of Tort - - . 48
Sub-sect. 3. Actions Transitory or Local . - . - 50
Part VIII. Maintenance and Champerty 51
For Abatement of Actions - - - >S'ee tiYZe Practice and Pkoceduhe.

Accord and Satisfaction - - ,, CoNTPtACT.
Actions hij and against Personal
Representatives - - - - ,, Executors and Adminis-
trators.
Equitable Remedies - - - ,, Equity.
Information - - - - ,, Criminal Law and Pro-
cedure Crown Practice.
;
Joinder of Causes of Action - - ,, Practice and Procedure.

Jurisdiction - - - - Admiralty; Courts; Prac-
tice and Procedure.
Limitation of Actions - - - Limitation of Actions.
Petition of Right - - - - ., Crown Practice.
Practice and Procedure - - - Practice and Procedure.
Revival of Action - - - ,, Practice and Procedure.
Various matters in resfect of lohich
an action may 'he maintained - See ijarticular titles passim.
ADEMPTION.
See. Wills.
Table of Contents. xxxix
ADJOINING OWNEKS.
See Boundaries and Fences Easements and Profits a Prendre
; ;
Highways, Streets, Footpaths and Bridges Mines, Minerals ;
AND Quarries ; Waters and Watercourses.
ADMINISTKATION OF ASSETS.
See Bankruptcy and Insolvency; Companies and Company Law;
Executors and Administrators.
ADMINISTEATION OF ESTATES OF DECEASED

PEESONS.
See Executors and Administrators.
PAGE
ADMIRALTY 57—142
Part I. Introduction 59
Sect. 1. History of Admiralty Jurisdiction Generally - . . 59
Sect. 2. Exercise of the Jurisdiction 60
Part II. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court - - - 63

Sect. 1. Possession 63
Sect. 2. Co-ownership and Eestraint 64
Sect. 3. Mortgage 65
Sect. 4. Bottomry -65
Sect. 5. Necessaries 67
Sect. 6. Towage 68
Sect. 7. Wages, Master's Wages and Disbursements - - - 68
Sect. 8. Damage by Collision 70
Sect. 9. Damage to Cargo 73
Sect. 10. Limitation of Liability 73
'
Sect. 11. Salvage - - 73

Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
1.
2.
Sect. 12. Droits of Admiralty

Life Salvage
Salvage of Property
-
------
. . . - . -
74
75
76
Sect. 13. Forfeiture 77
Sect. 14. Booty of War and Petitions of Eight - - . - 78
Sect. 15. Slave Trade etc. 78
Sect. 16. Special Jurisdiction of Admiralty Eegistrar - - - 79
Sub-sect. ] . Substitutes for Seamen volunteering into the
Navy . - 79
Sub-sect. 2. Costs in Yice-Admiralty Courts - - - 79
Part III. Practice of the Supreme Court - . . . 80

Sect. 1. Actions in rem - . - 80
Sub-sect. 1. Writ of Summons 80
Sub-sect. 2. Warrants of Arrest and Caveat Warrants - - 81
Sub-sect. 3. Appearance by Defendants - . - - 87
Sub-sect. 4. Eelease on Bail, Caveat Eelease and Caveat
Payment - - . - . - . 88
Sub-sect. o. Sale of Property under Arrest before Judgment - 92
xl Table of Contents.
PAGE
Paet III. Peactice of the Supreme Court —continued.
Sect. 1. Actions in rem — continued.
Sub-sect. 6. Consolidation - - 92
Sub-sect. 7. Preliminary Acts in Damage Actions - - 93
Sub -sect. 8. Pleadings 94
Sub-sect. 9. Cross-Actions and Counterclaims - - - 95
Sub-sect. 10. Pa^^ment into Court and Tender - - - 96
Sub-sect. 11. Other Interlocutory Proceedings - - - 97
Sub-sect. 12. Hearing 99
Sub-sect. 13. Decree 103
Sect.
Sect.
2.
3.
Sub-sect. 14.
Actions in iêrsonam
Transfer of Actions
Costs
-------- - . 103
105
107
Sect. 4. Limitation of Liability 108
Sect. 5. Appeals from Inferior Courts - - - - - - 111
Sub-sect. 1. of London Court
County Courts and the City - 112
Sub-sect. Shipping Casualty Appeals and Eehearings and
2.
Appeals from Naval Courts 115
Sect. 6. Eeferences to the Eegistrar and Merchants and other
Proceedings before the Eegistrar - - - - - 117
Sub-sect. 1. Eeferences to the Eegistrar and Merchants - 117
Sub-sect. 2. Eegistrar's Eeport and Objections thereto - 120
Sect. 7. Judgment in Contested Actions - - - - - 122
Sect. 8. Taxation of Costs 124
Sect. 9. Appeals to the Court of Appeal - - - - - 125
Part IV. Jurisdiction and Practice of Other Courts

HAVING Admiralty Jurisdiction - - - - 127
Sect. 1. County Courts having Admiralty Jurisdiction - - - 127
Sub- sect. 1. Jurisdiction - - - - - - - 127
Sub-sect. 2. Practice and Procedure 129
Sect. 2. The Court of Admiralty of the Cinque Ports - - - 139
Sect. 3. The Cinque Ports Salvage Commissioners - - - 139
Sect. 4. The Court of Passage of the Borough of Liverpool - - 140
Sect. 5. Colonial Courts of Admiralty 140
For Crimes within the Admiralty Juris-

diction See title Criminal Law and
Procedijee.
Discovery, Inspection, and Interroga-
tories, generally - - - - ,, Discovery, Inspection, AND
Interrogatories.
Marine Insurance - - - - Insurance.
Practice and Procedure common to cdl
Divisions of the High Court - - ,, Practice and Proceduee.
Practice in County Courts, generally - County Courts.
Prize Jurisdiction and Laiv - - ,, Prize Law and Jurisdic-
tion Shipping
;
and
Navigation.
Shipping Law, generally - - -
,
, Shipping and Navigation.
Taxation of Costs, generally - - ,, Solicitors.
ADMISSIONS.
"
See Copyholds ; Criminal, Law and Procedure ;
Evidence ;
Practice and Procedure.

Table of Contents. xli
ADOPTION.
See Infants.
ADULTERATION.
See Food and Deugs.
ADULTERY.
See Husband and Wife.
ADVANCEMENT.
See Descent and Distribution Infants
; ; Trusts and Trustees ;
Wills.
ADVERSE POSSESSION.
See Real Property and Chattels Real.
ADVERTISEMENTS.
See Companies ; Contracts Criminal Law
; and Procedure ;
Trade Marks and Designs.
ADVOWSON.
See Ecclesiastical Law.
AFFIDAVIT.
See Evidence ; Practice and Procedure.
AFFILIATION.
See Bastardy.
AFFIRMATION.
See Evidence.
PAGE
AGENCY 155—236
Part I. The Relation of Agency 147
Part II. Competency of Parties 148
Sect. 1. Principals 148
Sect. 2. Agents 151
Part III. Classes of Agents 152

Part IV. Formation of the Contract of Agency - - 153
Sect. 2. Appointment by Deed 154
Sect. 3. Informal Appointment 156
xlii Table of Contents.
Part IV. Foemation of the Contract of Agency — continued. PAGE

Sect. 4. Agency of Necessity 157
Sect. 5. Agency by Estoppel - - - - - - - - 158
Sect. 6. Co-principals and Co-agents - - - - - - 159
Sect. 7. Stamp Duties 160'
.Part V. Authority of the Agent 160

Sect. i. In General - - . . . . . . . . 160'
Sect. 2. Construction of Authority 161

Sub-sect. 1. Powers of Attorney -
161
Sub-sect. 2. Written Authority - - - - - - 16a
Sub-sect. 3. Yerbal Authority 164
Sect. 3. Implied Authorit}^ 164
Sect. 4. Exercise of Authority . . 168-
Part VI. Delegation 169

Sect. 2. Implied Authority to Delegate - . - - - . 170'
Sect. 3. Position of Sub-agent 171
Part VII. Katification - - - - 17^

Sect. 1. In General 173^
Sect. 2. Acts capable of Eatification 173

Sect. 3. Conditions of Eatification 17^
Sect. 4. Manner of Eatification 178-
Sect. 5. Effect of Eatification 18a
Part VIII. Kelations between Principal and Agent - - 181

Sect. 2. Eights of Principal against Agent 183
Sub-sect. 1. General Eights 183^
Sub-sect. 2. As to Care, Skill and Diligence - - - 185
Sub-sect. 3. As to Accounts and Moneys received on
Principal's behalf 18(>
Sub-sect. 4. Disclosure by Agent - - - - - 1 89'
Sub- sect. 5. Eeceipt by Agent of Secret Profits and Bribes - 189
Sub-sect. 6. Measure of Damages for Breach of Duty - - 191
Sub-sect. 7. Estoppel of Person purporting to act as Agent - 192
Sub-sect. 8. Attachment of Defaulting Agent - - - 192
Sub-sect. 9. As to Acts and Defaults of Co-agents and Sub-
agents 193
Sect. 3. Eights of Agent against Principal - - - - -193
Sub- sect. 1. In General 195
Sub- sect. 2. Eemuneration 193
Sub-sect. 3. Eeimbursement and Indemnity by Principal - 196
Sub-sect. 4. Agent's Lien - 197
Sub-sect. 5. Agent's Eight of Stoppage in Transit - - 199
Sub- sect. 6. Interpleader by Agent 200
Sub-sect. 7. As to an Account 20O
Part IX. Eelations between Principal and Third Persons 201

, Sect. 1. In General - - - - 201
Sub-sect. 1. Extent of Principal's Liability - - - 201
Sub-sect. 2. Limitation of Principal's Liability - - - 201
Table of Contents. xliii
PAdE
Paet IX. Eelations between Principal and Third Persons
— conti lined.
Sect. 2. As to Goods etc. intrusted to Agent 203
Sub-sect. 1. In General 203
Sub-sect. 2. Unauthorised Dispositions binding on the
Principal 204
Sect.
Sub-sect.
Sab-sect.
3. Contracts
3.
4. Privilege from Distress
made by Agent
-----
Dispositions under the Factors Act, 1889 - - 205
206
206
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
2.
3.
4.
Settlement with Agent
Praud, Misrepresentation, or Concealment
-----
Limitations on Principal's Eights and Liabilities
-
208
210
211
Sect. 4. Principal's Liability for Torts committed by Agent - - 211
Sub-sect. 1. In General - - - - - - - 211
Sect.
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
5.
2.
3. Misrepresentations
Admissions by Agent
------
Limitations on Principal's Eesponsibility - - 213
214
215
Sect. 6. Notice to Agent 215
Sect. 7. Corruption of Agent - - - - - - - 216
Sect. S. Criminal Liability of Principal for Acts or Defaults of
Agent 217
Part X. Eelations between Agent and Third Persons - 219

Sect. 1. Liabilities of Agent 219
Sub-sect. 1. On Contracts 219
Sub-sect. 2. On "Warranty of Authority - - . .
. 221
Sub-sect. 3. Por Moneys received by Agent - - - 223
Sub-sect. 4. Por Torts- - 224
Sect. 2. Eights of Agent 226
Sub-sect. 1. Enforcement of Contracts - . - - 226
Sub-sect. 2. Eecovery of Money paid by Agent - - - 227
Part XL Duration and Termination of Agency - - - 228

Sect.
Sect.
1.
2.
In General
Irrevocable Authority ------- 228
228
Sect.
Sect.
Sect.
3.
4.
5.
Termination by Act of Parties
Termination by Operation of
Notice of Termination, when
Law
necessary
----- - - . -
230
232
235
Fo7^ Agency hetween Bailor and Bailee - See title Bailment.

Banker and Customer ,
, Bankers and Banking.
Barrister and Client - Barristers.
Master and Servant - ,, Master AND Servant.
Parent and Infant - ,, Ineants.
Partner and Firm - ,, Partnership.
Shipmaster and
Owner - - - Shipping and Naviga-
tion.
and Client -
Solicitor ,, Solicitors.
and Client
Stockbroker ,, Stock Exchange.
Wife and Husband - ,, Husband AND WiEE.
Auctioneers ,, Auction and Auction-
eers.
Bankri(]_.tnj, Effect of - - - ,, BANKRUPTCY AND InSOL-
VENCY.
xliv Table of Contents.
For Brokers' Bought and Sold Notes - See title Sale of Goods.
Gaming and Wagering Contracts - ,, GrAMlNO AND WAGERING.
Insurance Agents and Brokers - - ,, Insurance.
Negotiable Rights and
Instruments,
Liabilities of Principal and Agent
on Bills oe Exchange etc.
Fuhlic Agents ,
, Constitutional Law ;
Public Authorities
AND Public Oeficers.
Trust, Liability of Agent Joining in
Breach of ,, Trusts and Trustees.
Valuers and Appraisers - - - Valuers AND Appraisers.
AGISTMENT.
See Animals.
AGEEEMENTS.
See Contract, and various titles in connection with which
they occur.
PAGE
AGRICULTURE 237—300
Paet I. Definitions - - - - 239
Pakt II. The Tenancy - - - . . .
'
. . . . 240
Sect. L Commencement of the Tenancy . . . . . 240
Sect. 2. Determination of the Tenancj^ 240
Part III. Covenants and Custom of the Country - - 243

Sect. 1. Implied Covenants - 243
Sect. 2. Custom of the Country 243
Sub-sect. 1. Proof 243
Sub-sect. 2. Applicability 244
Sub- sect. 3. Eeasonableness 244
Sub-sect. 4. Exclusion of Custom . . . . . 245
Sub-sect. 5. Covenant to Cultivate according to Custom - 246
Sect. 3. Outgoing Tenant
Liability to for Tillages etc. - - - 246
Sect. 4. Way-going Crops 247
Sect.
Sect.
Sect.
5.
6.
Hay and Straw Covenants
Manuring and other Covenants
Additional Eents, Penalties etc
..... 247
248
249
Sect.
7.
8. Pree Cropping and Disposal of Produce ... - 250

Sect. 9. Injunctions - - - - - 251
Part IY.
Sect.
Sect.
Distress and Execution
1.
2.
Things privileged from Distress
Sheaves and Picks of Corn and Hay
.....
....
252
252
254
Sect.
Sect.
3.
4.
Growing Crops
Amount which may be distrained for .... 254
255
Sect.
Sect.
Sect.
5.
6.
7.
"When Distress may be made
Eemedy for Wrongful Distress
Liability of Growing Crops etc. to
.....
Execution - - -
256
257
257
Table of Contents. xlv
PAGE
Pakt Y. Compensation 258
Sect. 1. For ImproveDients to Agricultural Holdings - - - 258
Sub-sect. 1. Procedure for Eecovery of Compensation - - 263
Sub-sect. 2. Charge on Holding for Compensation - - 266
Sub-sect. 3. Capital Money applicable for Compensation - 267
Sub-sect. 4. Persons under Disability, Trustees etc. - - 268
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
5.
6. Supplemental Provisions -----
Crown, Duchy, Ecclesiastical and Charity Lands 268
269
Sect.
Sect.
2.
3,
Por Improvements to
Por Unreasonable Disturbance

Market Gardens
...... . - - 269
270
Part VI. Fixtures 271

Sect. 1. Eemoval at Common Law 271
Sect. 2. Statutory Eight of Eemoval 272
Sect. 3. Time for Eemoval 274
Part YII. Bankruptcy of Tenant 275

Sect. 1. Tenancy carried on by Trustee 275
Sect. 2. Forfeiture by Banki'uptcy 275
Sect. 3. Disclaimer . 275
Sect. 4. Eeputed Ownership - 276
Part VIII. Miscellaneous 276
Sect. 1. Agricultural Gangs etc. 276
Sect. 2. Damage by Game 277
Sect. 3. Damage of Crops etc. by Sparks from Locomotives- - 278
Sect. 4. Destructive Insects 280
Sect. 5. Dogs 281
Sect. 6. Emblements 282
Sect. 7. Gleaning 283
Sect. 8. Malicious Damage 283
Sect. 9. Meadow and Ancient Pasture 284
Sect. 10. Poisoned Plesh and Grain 284
Sect. 11. Eegulations as to Sale and Adulteration - . . 285
Sub-sect. 1. Pertilisers and Feeding Stuffs - - - - 285
Sub-sect. 2. Hay and Straw- - - - - . - 291
Sub-sect. 3. Hops - - - 291
Sub-sect. 4. Seeds 292
Sect. 12. Sale of Cattle by Weight 292
Sect. 13. Sale of Growing Crops
Sect. 14. Sunday Trading
Sect. 15. Tenant Eight
........
etc. 293
294
294
Sect. 16. Thistles 295
Sect. 17. Threshing and Chaff- Cutting Machines - - - - 295
Sect. 18. Trees - - - 295
Part IX. Board of Agriculture and Fisheries - - - 297

Part X. Eoyal Agricultural Society 299
For Agistment - - - - - -See title Animals.
Agricultural Labourers, Compensation
for Accidents - - - - - Masteh and Seeyant.
xlvi Table of Contents.
For Agricultural Rates - See title Eates and Eating.

Allotments ,, Allotments and Small
Holdings.
Animals, generally - -
Animals.
Butter, Cheese and Cream Food and Detjgs.
Carriage of Cattle
Common Pasture
Cruelty to Animals
----- .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Cariiiebs.
Commons.
Animals.
Customs, generally - - - Landlord and Tenant.
Dairies, Regulation of - Public Health.
Dangerous and Vicious Animals - Animals.
Diseases of Ajiimals . -
Animals.
-------
- -
Drugging Animals . . . .
Animals.
Fences Boundaries and Fences.
Came, Ground Game and Sporting
Rights Game and Sport.
Land Tax Land Tax.
Leases of Glehe Lands - - - - Ecclesiastical Law.
Leases under Settled Land Acts - Eeal Property and
Chattels Eeal.
Milk, Sale and Adulteration of - Food and Drugs.
Produce, Inspection of - Public Health.
Produce, Storage and Transportation of Carriers.
Small Dwellings - - Local Government.
-------
- - -
Small Holdings Small Holdings.

Tithes Ecclesiastical Law.
Trespass hy Cattle and Distress Damage
Feasant Animals.
Truck Acts, Application to Agricultural
Labourers . . . . . Master and Servant.
Warranty of P^'oduce and Seeds - Sale of Goods.
AIK.
See Easements and Profits a Prendre.
ALE AND BEEK.

See Intoxicating Liquors.
ALIENATION, EESTKAINT ON.

See Pe rpetuities Personal Property Eeal Property and
; ;
Chattels Eeal Trusts and Trustees.

;
PAGE
ALIENS 301—329
Part I. Definitions = - - - - 302
Sect. 1. Alien 302
Sect. 2. Statutory Alien 303
Sect. 3. Alien Friend - . - - 303
Sect. 4. Alien Enemy - - 304
Sect. 5. Immigrant 304
Sect. 6. Immigrant Ship - - -
'
304
Sect. 7. Immigrant Port . - . . . . . . 304
Sect. 8. Undesirable Immigra;at 304
Sect. 9. Transmigrant - - , 305
Table of Contents. xlvii
Part I. Definitions — continued. page

Sect. 10. Passenger 305
Sect. 11. Steerage Passenger - 305
Sect. 12. Cabin Passenger 305
Part 11. Eights and Duties of Aliens 306

Sect. 1. Alien Friends
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
1.
2.
At Common Law
Under the Naturalization
------
Act, 1870 - -
-
-
306
306
309
Sub-sect. 3. Military Service 309
Sect. 2. Alien Enemies 310
Sub-sect. 2. Contracts 310
Sub -sect. 3. Trading in War Time 311
Sub-sect. 4. Licences by the Crown 311
Part III. Acquisition of British Nationality. - - _ 312

Sect. 1. By Letters of Denization 312
Sect.
Sect.
2.
3.
By Annexation or Cession
Under the
Sub-sect. 1.
Naturalization^ Act, 1870
By
-----
to the British
Certificate of Naturalization
Crown
-
-
-
-
.
313
313
313
Sub-sect. 2. Married Women 315
Sect.
Sub-sect.
4. By
3. Alien Infants
Private Act of Parliament ------ 315
315
Part IV. Loss of British Nationality _ . _ . . 316

Sect. 1. In G-eneral - - - 316
Sect. 2. Under the Naturalization Act, 1870 - - - - - 317
Sub-sect. 1. By Voluntary Naturalization in a Foreign State 317
Sub-sect. 2. By Declaration of Alienage - - - - 317
Sub-sect. 3. By Marriage 318
Sub-sect. 4. Infants - . 3I8
Part V. Ke-Admission to British Nationality - - - 319

Sect. 1. Statutory Aliens - - - - - - - - 319
Sect. 2. Widows 319
Sect. 3. Infants - _ 319
Part YI. Eegulation of Alien Immigration - . - -

320
Sect. 1. In General - . - _
320
Sect. 2. Admission of Aliens 320
Sub-sect. 1. Inspection and Leave to Land - - - -
320
Sub-sect. 2. AjDpointment of Officers and Boards - - 322
--------
-
Sub-sect. 3. Rules of Secretary of State - - - .

322
Sect.
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
3.
4.
0.
Bonds
Appeals
Expulsion of Aliens
--------
- - - - - _ . -
322
323
323
Sub-sect. 1. Convicted Aliens 323
Sub-sect. 2. Undesirable Aliens 324
Sub-sect. 3. Expenses of Expulsion - - _ . .
324
Sect. 4. Custody of Aliens 325
Sect. 5. Eeturns as to Aliens .
325
Sub-sect. 1. In General 30^
Sub-sect. 2. Exemptions 39^
—
xlviii Table of Contents.
Part VI. Eegulation of Alien Immigration —continued. page

Sect. 5. Ee turns as to Aliens continued.
Sub- sect. 3. Statutory Eorms - - - - - - 32&
(1) For Inward Traffic - - - - - - - 326
(2) JFor Outward Traffic - - 327
Sect. 6. Offences and Penalties 328-
Sect. 7. Jurisdiction - 32 S
For Allegiance, generally

Conflict of Laius
Extradition
----- - - - - See title CoNSTiTUTioisrAL
Conflict of Laws.
Extradition.
Law.
ALIMONY.
ALLEGIANCE.
See Aliens ; Constitutional Law.
ALLOTMENTS 331—361
Sect. 2. Poor Allotments - - 332
Sect. 3. Puel Allotments - 333
Sect. 4. Pield Gardens 335
Sect. 5. Parochial Charity Lands 338
Sect. 6. Allotments under the Allotments Acts . - . - 341
Sub- sect. 1. Methods of Acquisition 344
Hiring by Agreement 344
-------
(1)
(2) Purchase by Agreement 344
(3)
(4)
Compulsory Hiring
Compulsory Purchase ------
Transfer by Allotment Wardens and Trustees -
345
347
349
---------
(5) -
(6) Interchange of Land for Small Holdings and Allot-

ments 350
Sub-sect. 2. Procedure to Compel Defaulting Authorities - 350
Sub-sect. 3. Powers and Duties of Management - - - 352
Sub-sect. 4. Terms and Conditions of Letting - - - 354
Sub-sect. 5. Finance 358
Sub-sect. 6. Miscellaneous 360
For Small JDivellings, Advances hj Local Authori-

ties to enable occupiers to acquire - - See title Local Goveenment.
Small Holdings „ Small Holdings.
ALLUVION.
See Waters and Watercourses.
ALTERATION OF DOCUMENTS.
See Deeds and Documents ; Wills.
AMBASSADORS.
See Action ; Constitutional, Law ; Criminal Law and Procedure.
Table of Contents. xlix
AMBIGUITY.
AMENDMENT.
See Criminal Law and Procedure ; Pleading ; Practice and
Procedure.
AMUSEMENTS.
See Theatres, Music Halls and Shows.
ANCIENT DEMESNE,
See Real Property and Chattels Real.
ANCIENT LIGHTS.
page
ANIMALS 363—53^
Part I. Classification of Animals 365
Part II. Property in Animals - - 365

Sect. 1. Civil Eights
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
1
2.
.
-
------
-
-------
Domestic Animals
Wild Animals
- 365
.365
365
Sect.
Sub-sect.
2. Criminal
3.
Law ---------
Property in Wild Animals when Killed
------
- - 367
368
Sub-sect.
Sub- sect.
1.
2. -------
Domestic Animals
Wild Animals
368
370
Part III.
Sect.
Liability of
1. Injuries caused
Sub-sect. 1.
------
Owners of Animals
by Animals
Injuries b}^ Domestic and Harmless Animals
- - -
-
- 372
372
372
Sub-sect. 2. Injuries by Wild and Dangerous Animals - 374
Sub-sect. 3. Injuries to a Trespasser - - . - . 375
Sect. 2. Trespass by Animals
Sub-sect. 1. Domestic Animals
-
------
-----
- - - - - - 375
375
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
2.
3. Wild Animals ------
Trespass from Highway
-
377
378
Sect. 3. Distress
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
1.
2.
Damage Feasant
The Seizure -------
-----
Impounding the Distress
- - - - - 378
378
382
Sub-sect. 3. Eescue and Pound-Breach _ . - - 385
Part IV. The Contract of Agistment _ - . - - 386

Part V. Warranty on Sale of Animals 388
Part YI. Dogs ----------- 394
Sect. 1. At Common Law
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
1.
2.
In Greneral
Trespass by Dogs
------- - 394
394
395
H.L.— I. d
1 Table of Contexts.
Pabt VI. Dogs — continued. •

page
Sect. 2. By Statute -397
Sub-sect. 1.
Sub-sect. 2.
Sub-sect. 3.
Injuries to Cattle and Sheep
Stray Dogs
Dangerous Dogs
------- - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
397
398
399
Sub-sect. 4.
Sub-sect. 5.
Sub-sect. 6.
Mad Dogs
Muzzling of Dogs
Burial of Carcases
------
------
. 399
400
400
Sub-sect. 7. Use of Dogs for Draught - _ _ 400
-------
.
Sub-sect. 8. Dogs Orders - 400

Sub-sect. 9. Dog Licences 403
Sub-sect. 10. Dog Stealing - - 405
Pabt VII. Wild Birds - - - - 405

Sect.
Sect.
1.
2.
Offences
Prosecution of Offenders ----- - -
405
408
Part VIII. Cruelty to Animals - - - - - - - 409

Sect. 1. Oeneral Offences 409
Sect. 2. Special Offences 412
Sect. 3. Penalties and Procedure 414
Sect. 4. Yivisection - - - 416
Sub-sect. 1. Offences - - - - - - - - 416
Sub-sect. 2. Procedure - - - - - - - 417
Sect. 5. Destruction of injured Animals - - - - - 419
Part IX. Diseases of Animals - • 419

Sect. 1. At Common Law 419
Sect. 2. By
Sub-sect.
Statute
1. In General ------- - - - - 421
42I
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
2.
4.
3.
Isolation of Infected Animals -
Disinfection
Importation of Animals
-------
-----
- - - 422
423
424
Sub-sect. 5. Declaration of Infected Places, Areas and
Circles - - - - - - - - 425
Sub- sect. 6. Slaughter of Animals and Compensation- - 427
Sub-sect. 7. Local Authorities 429
Sub-sect. 8.
Sub-sect. 9.
Enforcement of Statutory Provisions
Offences-
-
-------
-----
- 431
432
Sub-sect. 10.
Sub-sect. 11.
Carriage of Animals
Cows and Dairies ------ 433
433
For Carriage of Animals- - - - See title Carhiers.

Damage to Crops by Game etc. ,- - ,, Agriculture.
Destructive Disects - - - - ,, Agriculture.
Distress ujjon Animals - - - ,, Agriculture Distress.
;
Fish and Fishing - - - - , , Game and Sport.
Game, Poaching etc. - - - - Game and Sport.

Hire of Animals - - - - ,, Bailment.
Horseflesh., Sale of - - - - , , Food -4nd Drugs.
Horse Racing and Coursing - - Gaming and
aistd Wag:
Wagering.
Nuisances from Keeping Animals -
,, Nuisance; Public Health.
Sale of Animals - - - - ,, Auction and Auc:
Auctioneers ;
Sale of Goods.
Sale of Cattle hy Weight - - - Agriculture Markets
\ ;
AND Pairs.
Slaughter Houses - - - - , , Public Health.
Summary Procedure - - - ., Magistrates.
Veterinary Surgeons - - , - - ,, Medicine and Pharmacy.
——— — —— — —
Table of Contents. li
ANNUITIES.
See Kent Charges and Annuities.
ANTICIPATION,
Eestraint on. See Peepetuities ; Personal Property; Real
Property and Chattels Real ; Trusts and Trustees.
APOLOGY.
See Libel and Slander.
APOTHECARIES.
See Medicine and Pharmacy.
APPEAL.
See Constitutional Law County Courts Courts Criminal Law
; ; ;
AND Procedure ; Magistrates Practice and Procedure.

;
As to Licensing. See Intoxicating Liquors.

As to Rates and Rating. See Rates and Rating.
APPEARANCE.
See Practice and Procedure.
APPOINTMENT,
Powers of. See Perpetuities ; Powers.
Trustees, of. See Trusts and Trustees.
APPORTIONMENT.
See Landlord and Tenant Real Property and Chattels Real
; ;
Rent Charges and Annuities Trusts and Trustees. ;
APPRAISERS.
See Valuers and Appraisers.
APPRENTICES.
See Infants ; Master and Servant.
APPROPRIATION,
Of Goods. See Bills of Exchange ; Sale of Goods.
Of Payment. See Contract ; Money and Money Lending.
Of Trust Eunds. See Trusts and Trustees.
d 2
lii Table of Contents.
PAGE
ARBITRATION - 537—593
Introduction ... . . 438
Part I. Keferences by Consent out of Court - - - 439
Sect. 1. The Submission 439
Sub-sect. 1. Definition 439
(1) At Common Law 439
(2) Under the Arbitration Act, 1889 - - - - 441
Sub -sect. 2. Parties - - - 442
Sub-sect. 3. Persons Bound - - - - ... 443
Sub-sect. 4. Subject-matter 444
Sub-sect. 5. Effect
Sub-sect. 6. Clauses --------
Sub-sect. 7. Alteration and Amendment . . . -
445
446
447
Sub-sect. 8. Stamps - - - - - - - - 447
Sub -sect. 9. Ee vocation - - - . - - - - 448
Sect. 2. Stay of Legal Proceedings - - - - - -451
Sect. 3. Appointment Umpire
of Arbitrator or _ . - - 455
Sect. 4. Powers of Arbitrator or Umpire - - - - - 457
Sect.
Sect.
Sect.
5.
6.
7.
Liability of Arbitrator or Umpire
Eemoval of Arbitrator or Umpire
Conduct of an Arbitration
-
-
-----
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
459
459
460
Sect. 8. Time for Making Award and Mode of Enlarging Time - 462
Sect. 9. Special Case for Opinion of Court 464
Sub-sect. 1. Statement of Case during Reference
Sj)ecial - 464
Sub-sect.
Sect. 10. The
2. Award
Award
Sect. 11. Costs of Arbitration
---------
Stated in Eorm of Special Case
.......
- - 466
468
470
Sect. 12. Eemuneration of Arbitrator or Umpire - - - - 471
Sect. 13. Enforcement of Award 473
Sub-sect. 1. By Originating Summons _ _ . - 473
Sub-sect. 2. By Attachment 474
Sub-sect. 3. By Action - - - - - - -475
Sect. 14. Power of the Court to remit or set aside Award - - 476
Sub-sect. 1. Application to Court to remit or set aside Award 476
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
Sect. 15. Appeals
2.
3. -----
Eemission to Arbitrator for Eeconsideration
----------
Setting Aside Award
- 477
478
481
Part II. Keferences Under Order of Court - - - 481

Sect. 1. In General - - - - - - - - - 481
Sect. 2. Eeferences for Inquiry or Eeport - - - . . 484
Sect. 3. Eeferences for Trial 487
Sub-sect. 1. What may be Eeferred 487
Sub-sect. 2. To whom the Eeference may be made - - 488
Sub-sect.
Sub- sect.
Sub-sect.
3.
4.
5.
Powers of the Eeferee or Arbitrator
Conduct of the Eeference
Time for making Award
-----
-----
- - 488
489
489
Sub-sect. 6. Statement of Special Case . - . - 489
Sub-sect. 7. Decision of the Eeferee or Arbitrator - - 490
Sub-sect. 8. Costs of the Eeference^ including Eemuneration
of Eeferee or Arbitrator - _ . .. 490
Sub-sect. 9. Appeals from the decision of Eeferee or Arbitrator 491
Part III. Eeferences Under Act of Parliament - - 492
—
Table of Contents. liii
Arbitration in Relation to —
Acquisition of Land for Allotments - See title Allotments.
Agricultural Holdings - - - , ,
Agriculture.
Building Societies - - - - ,
Building Societies.
Companies ,
Companies.
Compulsory Purchase of Land - - , , Compulsory Purchase AND
Compensation.
Electric Lighting etc. ,, Electric Lighting, Trac-
tion AND Power.
Factories and Workshops Factories and Workshops.
Friendly Societies - - - - Friendly Societies.
Gasworks . . . . . GrAS AND WaTER.
Housing of Working Classes - Public Health.
Industrial and Procident Societies - Industrial, Provident,
AND Similar Societies.
Local Government - - - - Local Government.
Lunatic Asylums . . - -
Public Health.
Public Health - - - - - Public Health.
Railways . . . . . Eailways and Canals.
Telegraphs and Telephones Telegraphs and Tele-
phones.
Trade Disputes . . . .
Trade and Trade Unions.
Tramiuays Tramways and Light
Eailways.
Waterworks Gas and Water.
Workmen's Compensation Master and Servant.
ARCHES,
Court of. See Courts ; Ecclesiastical Law.
ARCHITECT.
See Builders, Building Contracts, Engineers, and
Architects.
ARMORIAL BEARINGS.
See Name, Change of ; Revenue ; Wills.
ARMY.
See Constitutional Law.
ARRANGEMENT WITH CREDITORS.

See Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
ARREST.
See Criminal Law and Procedure ; Trespass.
ARSON.
See Criminal Law and Procedure.
— — ——————
liv Table of Contents.
AETICLES,
Of Apprenticeship. See Infants; Master and Servant;
Solicitors.
Of Association. See Companies.
Thirty-nine. See Ecclesiastical Law.
AKTISANS' DWELLINGS.
See Public Health.
ASSAULT.
ASSEMBLY. .
See Constitutional Law; Criminal Law and Procedure.
ASSESSMENT.
See Landlord and Tenant ; Poor Law ; Kates and Rating.
ASSETS,
Of Deceased Persons. See Executors and Administrators.
Of Insolvent Persons. See Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
ASSIGNMENT,
Of Choses in Action. See Choses in Action.
Of Leaseholds. See Landlord and Tenant ; Sale of Land.
Eor Benefit of Creditors. See Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
ASSIZES.
See Criminal Law and Procedure ; Courts.
ASSOCIATIONS.
See Building Societies Clubs Friendly Societies Industrial,
; ; ;
Provident, and Similar Societies Loan Societies Trade

; ;
AND Trade Unions.

ASYLUMS.
See Charities ; Lunatics and Persons of Unsound Mind ;
Public Health.
ATTACHMENT,
Of Persons. See Contempt and Attachment.
, Of Debts. See Bankruptcy and Insolvency ; Execution ;

—
Table of Contents. Iv
ATTAINDEE.
ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT CRIME.

ATTESTATION.
ATTORNEY.
See Solicitors.
Power of. See Agency.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
See Charities ;Constitutional Law Criminal Law and Pro- ;
cedure ; Public Authorities and Public Officers.
ATTORNMENT.
See Landlord and Tenant ; Mortgage ; Sale of Goods.
page
AUCTION AND AUCTIONEERS 599—521
Part I. Definitions - - 500
Part II. Auctioneer's Licence - . - - - - - - 500
Part III.
Sect.
Sect.
Authority of Auctioneer
1.
2.
As Agent for the
To sign Contract or Note
Yendor -------
or
-
Memorandum
- - -
thereof -
-
-
- 502
502
504
Part IY. Conduct of the Sale 506

Sect.
Sect.
Sect.
1.
2.
3.
Time and Place
Statutory Eegulations
Sales Subject to a Eeserve
-------
and Vendor's Eight to Bid -
506
506
508
Sect. 4. Advertisement of Auction 509
Sect. 5. Particulars and Conditions of Sale - - - - - 509
Sect. 6. Verbal Statements by Auctioneer - - - - - 510
Sect. 7. Bidding - - - - - - - - - - 510
Sect. 8. Damping the Sale 512
Part Y. Deposit - - - 512

Part YI. Interpleader and Payment into Court - - 513
Part YII. Auctioneer's Eights and Duties in Eelation to
THE Vendor - - 514
Sect. 1. Duty Generally - 514
Sect. 2. Duties in respect of Goods - - - - - - 514
Sub-sect. 1. Custody of goods - 514
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
2.
3.
Parting with goods
Eedelivery of goods ------ - 514
415
Ivi Table of Contents.
PAGE
Paet VII. Auctioneer's Eights and Duties in Eelation to
THE Vendor continued. —
Sect. 3. Duty to make a Binding Contract - - - - - 515
Sect, 4. Purchase by Auctioneer 515
Sect. 5. Duty to Account 515
Sect. 6. Eemuneration - - 515
Sect. 7. Lien 517
Sect. 8. Indemnity - - - 517
Part VIII. Auctioneer's Eights and Liabilities in Eela-

tion TO Purchasers - - - - - - - 518
Sect. 1. Action by Purchaser against Auctioneer - - - - 518
Sect. 2. Action by Auctioneer for Price 519
Part IX. Auctioneer's Eights and Liabilities in Eelation

TO Third Persons - - 520
Sect. 1. Eight to Possession of Goods 520
Sect. 2. Privilege from Distress 520
Sect. 3. Conversion - _ . 520
Sect. 4. Executorship de son tort 521
Sect. 5. Partnership Bills - - - 521
For Agency^ generally - - See title Agency.

Appraisers - - - Valuers and Appraisers.
Contracts, generally - - ,, Contract.
Hawkers - - - - Markets and Fairs.
Mouse Agents - - - Agency; Sale of Land; Valuers
and Appraisers.
Licences, generalbj - - ,, Eevenue.
Necessity of Sale by Auction
ill certain cases - - Trust and Trustees; Wills; and
other titles passim.
Sales by Order of Court -
,, Admiralty; County Courts; Prac-
tice AND Procedure Sale of ;
Land.
Sales in general - - - Sale of Goods; Sale of Land.
Valuers - - - - ,, Valuers and Appraisers.
AUTEEFOIS ACQUIT AND AUTEEFOIS CONVICT.

AVEEAGE.
See Insurance ; Shipping and Navigation.
BAIL.
See Admiralty ; Criminal Law and Procedure ; Magistrates.
BAILIFF.
See Copyholds;' Sheriffs and Bailiffs.
Table of Contents. Ivii
PAGE
BAILMENT 523—565
Part I. Definition and Classification 524
Part II. Gratuitous Bailment 526

Sect. 1. Deposit - . . 526
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
1.
2.
In General
Special Kinds of Deposit ----- 526
527
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
3.
4.
5.
Finding- of Chattels
Obligations of tbe Bailee
User of Chattel
----- 528
531
534
Sect. 2. Mandate 535
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
2.
3.
Obligations of the Mandatary
Delegation by Mandatary -----
- - - - 535
537
Sect.
Sub-sect.
3.
4. Obligations of the Mandator
Gratuitous Loan for Use
Sub-sect. 1. In General
------- - - - - 537
537
537
Sub-sect. 2. Obligations of the Borrower . . - . 538
Sub-sect. 3. Obligations of the Lender - ' - - - 539
Sub-sect. 4. User of Chattel lent 540
Sect. 4. Gratuitous <Q/tos/-bailment
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
1.
2.
Mutumn
Fro-muUium
--------
-------
540
540
541
Sub-sect. 3. Inter-mixture of Chattels - - - - 542
Part III. Bailment for Valuable Consideration - - - 543

Sect. 1. Hire of Custody 543
Sub-sect. 1. Nature
of the Contract - - - - - 543
Sub-sect. 2. Obligations of the Bailee - - - - - 544
Sub- sect. 3. Liability to Distress 546
Sub-sect. 4. Lien of the Bailee 547
Sub-sect. 5. Eailway Cloak-rooms - - - - - 549
Sect. 2. Hire of Chattels 550
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
1.
2.
3.
In General
Obligations of the Owner
Obligations of the Hirer
-----
-----
550
550
552
Sub-sect. 4. Eesponsibility for Negligence of Servant - - 553
Sub-sect. 5. Measure of Damages 553
Sect. 3. Hire-Purchase 554
Sub^sect. 1. In General - - 554
Sub-sect. 2. Eights of Owner - - - - - - 555
Sect. 4. Hire of Work and Labour 556
Sub-sect. 1. In General - 556
Sub-sect. 2. Obligations of the Hirer 557
Sub-sect. 3. Obligations of the Workman - - - - 559
Sub-sect. 4. Delegation 560
Sub-sect. 5. Lien of Workman 561
Sect. 5. Pledge 562
Part IY. Considerations Common to all Classes of Bail-
Sect.
Sect.
1.
2.
ment -
Estoppel of Bailee
-
--------
- .
Eights and Obligations as regards Third Persons - -

562
562
563
Sect. 3. Statute of Limitations - - 565
Sect. 4. Joint Bailors and Joint Bailees 565
Iviii Table of Contents.
For Agency generally See title Agency.

Contracts for Work a7id Labour - - - ,, Work and Labour.
Larceny by Bailee - - - - - , , Criminal Law and
Procedure.
Limitation of Actions - - - - ., Limitation OF
Actions.
Negligence, generally - - - - - ,, Negligence.
Position, as Bailees, of Agisters of Cattle - ,, Animals,
Auctioneers - - ,, Auction and Auc-
tioneers.
Bankers - - - ,
, Bankers and Bank-
ing.
Carriers - - - . , Carriers.
Factors - - - ,, Agency.
Innkeepers - - ,, Inns and Inn-
keepers.
Pawnbrokers - - ,, Pawnbrokers and
Pledges.
Printers and Pub-
lishers - - ,, Press and Printing.
Raihuay Comyanies ,, Carriers.
Eeceivers of Goods on
Approval - - ,, Sale of G-oods.
Servants intrusted
with Master s Goods ,, Master and Ser-
vant.
Sheriffs - - - Sheriffs and
Bailiffs.
Solicitors - - Solicitors.
BAKEHOUSES.
See Factories and Woekshops.
BALLOT.
See Elections.
PAGE
BANKERS AND BANKING - - - - 567—6^7
Part I. Definitions 568
Part IL Constitution of Banks 570
Sect. 1. The Bank of England - - - - - - - 570
Sub-sect. 1. Constitution 570
Sub-sect. 2. Note Issue 570
Sub-sect. 3. Eestriction on Note Issue 571
Sect. 2. Bank Notes generally 574
Sect. 3. Banks of Issue in Scotland 575
Sect. 4. Bank of Ireland 575
Sect. 5. Trustee Savings Banks - -
'
576
Sect. 6. Seamen's and Naval and Military Savings Banks - - 578
Sect. 7. Post Office Savings Banks 579
Sect. 8. Joint Stock Banks 581
Sect. 9. Private Banks 583
Sect. 10. Foreign and Colonial Banks 583
Part III. Business of Banking 583

Sect. 1. Eeceipt of Money on Current Account . - - - 583
Sect. 2. Eeceipt of Money on Deposit Account . - - - 588
Table of Contents. lix
Part III. Business of Banking — continued. page

Sect. 3. Collection of Cheques 590
Sub-sect. 1. Generally 590
Sub -sect. 2. Crossed Cheques 593
Sect. 4. Collection of Bills of Exchange 598
Sect. 5. Collection of other Documents 599
Sub-sect. 1. Orders for Payment 599
Sub- sect. 2. Dividend Warrants 600
Sub-sect. 3. Post Office Money Orders 601
Sub-sect. 4. Bankers' Drafts 602
Sect. 6. Payment of Cheques 602
Sect. 7. Protection to Bankers paying Cheques - - - - 608
Sub-sect. 1. Bearer Cheques - - 608
Sub-sect. 2. Order Cheques 609
Sub-sect. 3. Crossed Cheques 610
Sub-sect. 4. Drafts on a Banker 612
Sub-sect. 5. Payment of Orders with Eeceipt attached- - 613
Sect. 8. Payment of Bills accepted payable at a Banker's - - 614
Sect. 9. Porged or Altered Cheques 615
Sect. 10. Eecovery of Money paid on Forged Documents - - 617
Sect. 11. The Pass-book - - - 619
Sect. 12. The Banker's Lien 620
Sect. 13. Letters of Credit and Documentary Bills - - - 623
Sect. 14. Circular Notes 626
Sect. 15. Safe Custody of Valuables - - - - - - 627
Sect. 16. Discounting Bills 629
Sect. 17. Advances by Bankers 630
Sub-sect. 1. Loan 630
Sub -sect. 2. Overdraft . _ 630
Sect. 18. Securities for Advances 632
Sub-sect. 1. Legal Mortgages 632
Sub-sect. 2. Equitable Mortgages 632
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
3.
4.
5.
Bills and Notes
Other Negotiable Securities
Stocks and Shares -
.... 634
635
635
Sub-sect. 6. Policies of Life Assurance 637
Sub-sect. 7. Documents of Title to Goods - - . . 638
Sect. 19. Guarantees 639
Sect. 20. Charges and Commissions 643
Sect. 21. Banker's Obligation to Secrecy 643
Sect. 22. Production, Inspection etc. of Bankers' Books - - 644
For Bills of Exchange and Negotiable Instruments generalhj, see title Bills of
/ Exchai?-ge, Promissory Notes and Negotiable Instruments.
.. —
ABBREVIATIONS
USED IN THIS WOKK.
A. 0. Law Eeports, Appeal Cases, since 1891

A. -a. . Attorney- General
Act. Acton's Eeports, 2 vols., 1809—1811
Act of Sed. Act of Sederunt, Court of Session
Act. Eeg. Acta Eeg'ia
Add. Addams' Ecclesiastical Eeports, 2 vols., and Part I.,
Vol. Ill, 1822—1826
Ad. & El. Adolphus and Ellis's Eeports, 12 vols., 1834—1840
Ale. & N. Alcock and Napier's Eeports (Ireland)
Ale. Eeg. Cas. Alcock's Eegistry Cases (Ireland)
Aleyn Aleyn's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1664—1649
Amb. —
Ambler's Eeports, 2 vols., 1737 1783
And. —
Anderson's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1534 1605
Andr. Andrew's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1738—1740
Annaly . . Annaly's Edition of Lee's Eeports temp. Hardwicke,
fol., 1733—1738
Anon. Anonymous
Anst. —
Anstruther's Eeports, 3 vols., 1792 1797
App. Cas. Law Eeports, Appeal Cases, 1875 —
1890
Arkley . . Arkley's Justiciary Reports (Scotch), 1 vol., 1846
1848
Arm. M. & 0. Armstrong, Macartney, and Ogle's Eeports (Irish),
1840—1842
Arn. Arnold's Eeports, C. P., 2 vols., 1838—1839
Arn. & H. Arnold and Hodges, Q. B., 1 vol., 1840—1841
Asp. M. L. 0. Aspinall's Maritime Law Cases (current)
Atk. —
Atkyn's Eeports, 3 vols., 1736 1755
Avl. Pan. Ayliffe's new Pandect of Eoman Civil Law
Ayl. Par. Ayliffe's Parergon Juris
B. & Ad... —
Barnewall and Adolphus' Eeports, 5 vols., 1830 1834
B. & Aid. Barnewall and Alderson's Eeports, 5 vols., 1817
1822
B. & C. . . Barnewall and Cress well's Eeports, 10 vols., 1822
1830
B. & S. . Best and Smith's Eeports, 10 vols., 1861—1869
Bac. Abr. Bacon's Abridgment
Ball & B. Ball & Beatty's Eeports (Ireland), 2 vols., 1807—1814
Bankr. & Ins. E Bankruptcy and Insolvency Eeports, 2 vols., 1853 -
1855
Bar. & Arn. —
Barron & Arnold's Election Cases, 1 vol., 1843 1846
Bar. & Aust. Barron & Austin's Election Cases, 1 vol., 1842
Barn. (CH.) —
Barnardiston's Eeports, Chancery, 1 vol., 1740 1741
Barn. (k. b.) —
Barnardiston's Eeports, K. B., 2 vols., 1726 1735
Barnes . . Barnes' Notes of Cases, C. P., 1732—1756
Batt. Batty's Eeports (Ireland), 1 vol., 1825—1826
Beat. Beatty's Eeports (Ireland), 1 vol., 1813—1830
———
Ixii Abbreviations.
Beav Beavan's Eeports, 36 vols., 1838—1866

Beaw. . . . . . . Beawes's Lex Mercatoria
Bell's CO Bell's Crown Cases, 1 vol., 1858—1860
Bell, Ct. of Sess. . . Bell (R.), Cases, Court of Session, 1 vol., 1790—
1792
Bell. Sc. App Bell's Appeal Cases, Scotch, 7 vols., 1842—1850
Belt's Sup. . . . . Belt's Suppt. to Vesey Sen.
Benl Benloe or Bendloe's Eeports, foL, 1 vol., 1515—1628
Ben. & D. . . . . Benloe and Dalison's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1358
1574
Bing Bingham's Eeports, 10 vols., 1822—1834
Bing. (N. C.) . . . . Bingham's New Cases, 6 vols., 1834—1840
Bitt, Prac. Cas. . . . . Bittleston's Practice Cases, 1875—1876
Bitt. Eep. in Ch. . . Bittleston's Eeports in Chambers (Q. B. D.), 1 vol.,
1883—1884
Bl. Com. . . . . . . Blackstone's Commentaries
Bl. D. & Osb. . . . . Blackham, Dundas, and Osborne's Eeports (Ireland),
1 vol., 1846—1848
Bli Bligh's Eeports, 4 vols,, 1819—1821
Bli. (n. s.) . . . . Bligh's Eeports, New Series, 11 vols., 1827—1837
Bos. & P. . . . . Bosanquet and Puller's Eeports, 5 vols., 1796
1807
Bos. & P. (N. E.) . . Bosanquet and Puller's New Eeports, 2 vols., 1804—
1807
Bract. . . . . . . Bracton, De Legibus
Bro. (N. C.) . . . . —
Brooke's New Cases, 1 vol., 1515 1558
Bro. Ab. . . . . Brooke's Abridgment
Bro. Ch. Eep. . . . . —
Brown's Chancer}^ Eeports, 4 vols., 1778 1794
Bro. Ent. . . . . Browne's Entries
Bro. Pari. Cas. . . . . Brown's Cases in Parliament, 8 vols., 1702 1800—
Bro. Sup. . . . . Brown's Suppt. Morrison's Diet. Court of Session,
5 vols., 1620—1768
Bro. Syn. . . . . Brown's Synopsis of Decisions, Court of Session,
4 vols., 1540—1827
Brod. & Bing. . . . . Broderip and Bingham's Eeports, 3 vols., 1819
1822
Broun . . . . . . Broun' s Justiciary Eeports (Scotland), 2 vols., 1842
1845
Brown. &Lush. .. Browning and Lushington's Eeports, 1 vol., 1864
1865
Brownl. . . . . . . Brownlow and Goldesborough's Eeports, 2 vols, m 1,
1569—1624
Bruce . . . . . . —
Bruce's Eeports, Court of Session, 1714 1717
Buck . . . . . . —
Buck's Cases in Bankiûptcy, 1 vol., 1816 1820
Bulst Bulstrode's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1609—1639
Bunb. . . . . . . —
Bunbury's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1713 1742
Burr. . . . . . . —
Burrow's Eeports, 5 vols.,. 1757 1771
Burr. S. C Burrow's Settlement Cases, 1 vol., 1732—1776
C. A. . . . . . . Court of Appeal
C. B. . . . . . . Common Bench Eeports, 18 vols., 1845 — 1856
C. B. (isr. s.) . . . . Common Bench Eeports, New Series, 20 vols., 1856
1865
C. C. Ct. Cas. . . . . Central Criminal Court Cases (current)
C. C. E. . . . . . . Law Eeports, Crown Cases Eeserved, 2 vols., 1865
1875
C. L. E. . . . . . . —
Common Law Eeports, 3 vols, in 5, 1853 1855
C. P. D Law Eeports, Common Pleas Division, 1875 1890 —
C. & P. . . . . . . —
Cairington and Payne Eeports, 9 vols., 1823 1841
Cab. & El. . . . . Cababe and Ellis's Eeports, 1 vol., 1882—1885
Cald. Mag. Cas. . . Caldecott's Magistrates Cases, 1 vol., 1776—1785
Calth Calthrop's Eeports, 1 vol., 1609—1618
Camp Campbell's Eeports, 4 vols., 1808—1816
Carp. Pat. Cas Carpmael's Patent Cases, 2 vols., 1602—1842
. . ——
Abbreviations. Ixiii
Oar. & Kir. Carrington and Kirwan's Eeports, 3 vols., 1843

1850
Car. & M. Carrington and Marshman, 1 vol., 1840 1842 —
Cart Carter's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1664—1676
Carth Carthew's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1686—1701
Cas. in Ch. —
Cases in Chancery, fol., 1 vol., 1660 1688
Cas. Pract. K. B. —
Cases of Practice, K. B,, 1 vol., 1655 1775
Cas. Ump. r. Cases ttmp. Einch, fol., 1673—1680
Cas. temp. King Select G-a^sQ^temp. King, Chancery, 1 vol., 1724 1733 —
Cas. temp. Talb. . . Cases temp. Talbot, 1 vol., .1730— 1738_
Ch. (preceded by date) Law Eeports, Chancery Division, since 1891 {e.g.
[1891] 1 Ch.)
Ch. App Law Eeports, Chancery Appeals, 1865 1875 —
Ch. D Law Eeports, Chancery Division, 1875 1890 —
Ch. Eob Christopher Eobinson's Admiralty Eeports, 6 vols.,
1798—1808
Chit Chitty's Eeports, 2 vols., 1819—1820
CI. & Fin. Clark and Einnelly's Eeports, 12 vols., 1831—1846
Clay Clayton's Eeports, 1631—1650
CHf. & Eick. . Clifford and Eickards' Eeports, 3 vols., 1873 1884 —
Clif. & Steph. Clifford and Stephens' Eeports, 2 vols., 1867 1872 —
CHf t Cliffs Entries, fol.
Cockb. & Eowe . . Cockbimi and Eowe's Cases, 1 vol., 1832
Cod. Jiir. Ciy. . . Codex Juris Civilis (Justinian Codex)
Co. Ent. . . Coke's Entries, fol.
Co. Inst. . . Coke's Institutes
Co. Litt Coke on Littleton (1 Inst.)
Co. Eep. . Coke's Eeports, 6 vols., 1572—1616
Coll Collyer's Chancery Eeports, 1844—1846
Coll. Jurid. Collectanea Juridica, 2 vols.
Colt Coltman's Eegistration Cases, 1 vol., 1879 1885 —
Com. —
Comyns' Eeports, fol., 2 vols., 1695 1741
Com. Cas. Commercial Cases, 1895 (current)
Comb. —
Comberbach's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1685 1699
Com. Dig. Comyns' Digest
Con. & Law. Connor and Lawson's Eeports (Ireland)
Cooke, Pr. Cas. Cooke's Practice Eeports, Common Pleas, 1706 —
1747
Cooke & Al. Cooke and Alcock's Eeports (Ireland), 1 vol., 1833
1834
Coop. G- Cooper (Gr.) Chancery Eeports, 1 vol., 1815
Coop. Pr. Cas. . . Cooper (C. P.) Points of Practice, 1 vol., 1837—1838
Coop. temp. Brough. Cooper's (C. P.) Cases temp. Lord Brougham, 1 vol.,
1833— 1834
Coop. temp. Cott. Cooper (C. P.) temp. Cottenham, 2 vols., 1834—1848
Corb. &D. Corbett and Daniell's Cases, 1 vol., 1819
Cowp. —
Cowper's Eeports, 2 vols., 1774 1778
Cox, C. C. Cox's Criminal Cases (current)
Cox & Atk. Cox & Atkinson's Eegistration Appeal Cases, 1 vol.,
1843—1846
Cr. &J Crompton and Jervis's Eeports, 2 vols., 1830-~1832
Cr. &M Crompton and Meeson's Eeports, 2 vols., 1832 1834 —
Cr. M. & E. Crompton, Meeson, and Eoscoe's Eeports, 2 vols.,
1834-^1836
Cr. & Ph. . . Craig and Phillips' Eeports, 1 vol., 1841
Craw. & D. Crawford and Dix's Circuit Cases (Ireland), 3 vols.,
1838—1846
Craw. & D. Ab. C. Crawford and Dix's Abridged Cases (Ireland), 1 vol.,
1837—1838
Cress. Insolv. Cas. Cresswell's Insolvency Cases, 1 vol., 1827 1829 —
Cripps Church Cas. Cripps Church & Clergy Cas., 1 vol., 1846—1850
Cro. Eliz. Croke's Eeports temp. Eliz.
Cro. Jac. Croke's Eeports tem'p. James
Cro. Car. Croke's Eeports temp. Charles
. —
Ixiv Abbreviations.
Cm Cruise's Digest
Cunn. Cunningham's Eeports, 1 vol., 1734 — 1736
Curt. . .
Curteis' Ecclesiastical Eeports, 3 Vols., 1834 — 1844
Dal Dalison's Eepoits, 1 vol., fol. , 1546 1574 —
Dalr Dalrymple's Decisions, Court of Session, 1 vol.,
1698—1718
D'An. Abr. D'Anvers' Abridgment, fol.
Dan. Daniell's Eeports, 1817—1819
1 vol.,
Dan. & LI. Danson and Lloyd's Mercantile Cases, 1 vol., 1828
1829
Davies Davies' (Sir John) Eeports, 1 vol., 1604-1612
Day. Pat. Oas. . . Davies' Patent Cases, 1 vol., 1785—1816
Dav. & Mer. Davison and Merivale's Eeports, 1 vol., 1843 1844 —
Deac. Deacon's Bankruptcy Cases, 4 vols., 1836 1839 —
Deac. & Ch. Deacon and Chitty's Eeports, 4 vols., 1832—1835
Dea. & Sw. Deane & Swabey's Eeports, 1 vol., 1855 1857 —
Dears. C. C. Dearsly's Crown Cases, 1 vol., 1852 1856 —
Dears. & B. Dearsly and Bell's Crown Cases, 1 vol., 1856 1858 —
Deas & And. Deas and Anderson's Eeports, Court of Session,
5 vols., 1829—1833
De G De Gex's Bankruptcy Eeports, 1 vol., 1845 1848 —
De G. P. & J. . De Gex, Pisher, and Jones's Eeports, 4 Vols.,
1860—1862
De G. & J. De Gex and Jones's Eeports, 4 vols., 1857 1860 —
De G. J. & Sm. . De Gex, Jones, and Smith's Eeports, 4 vols., 1862
1866
De G. M. & G. . De Gex, Macnaghten, and Gordon's Eeports, 8 vols.,
1851—1857
De G. M. & G. Bank. De Gex, Macnaghten, and Gordon's Bky. Cases,
Parts L— IX., 1851—1857
DeG. &Sm. .. De Gex and Smale's Eeports, 5 vols., 1846 1852 —
Delane . . Delano's Decisions, Eevision Courts, 1 vol., 1832
1835
Den Denison's Crown Cases, 2 vols., 1844 1852 —
Dick Dickens' Eeports, 2 vols., 1559 1798 —
Dig Justinin's Digest or Pandects
Dirl Dirleton's Decisions, Court of Session, 1 vol., 1665
1677
Dods Dodson's Eeports, 2 vols., 1811—1822
Doug. . . ... Douglas' Eejîorts, 4 vols., 1774 1776 —
Doug. (q. b.) Douglas' Eeports, Q. B., 4 vols., 1778—1784
Dow Dow's Eeports, H. L., 6 vols., 1812—1818
Dow & CI. Dow & Clark's Cases, 2 vols., 1827—1832
Dow. & L. Dowling and Lowndes' Practice Cases, 7 vols.,
1646-1849
Dow. & Ey. (k. b.) Dowling and Eyland's K. B., 9 vols., 1821—1827
Dow. & Ey. (]M. c.) Dowling and Ey land's Magistrates' Cases
Dow. & Ey. (i^f. p.) Dowling and Ey land's Nisi Prius, 1 Part, 1822—
1823
Dowl. (n. s.) Dowling's Prac. Eej)orts, New Series, 2 vols., 1841
1842
Dowl. Dowling's Practice Eeports, 9 vols., 1830—1840
Dr. & Wal. Drury and Walsh's Eeports (Ireland), 2 vols.,
1837—1840
Dr. and "War. Drury and AVarren's Eeports (Ireland), 4 vols.,
1841—1843
Drew. Drewry's Eeports, 4 vols., 1852 — 1859
Drew. & Sm. Drewry and Smale's Eeports, 2 vols., 1860
1865 —
Drury Drury's Eeports (Ireland), 1 vol., 1843—1844
Dugd. Orig. Dugdale's Origines
Dunl. (Ct. of Sess.) DunlojD, Court of Session Cases (2nd series)
Durie Durie's Eeports, Court of Session, 1 vol., 1621 1642 —
Dyer Dyer's Eeports, 3 vols., 1513—1582
....
.. ——
-
Abbreviations. Ixv
Eag. & Y. Eagle and Younge's Tithe Cases, 4 vols., 1204

1825
East East's Eeports, 16 vols., 1801—1812
East, P. C. East's Pleas of the Crown
Ecc. & Ad. Spink's Ecclesiastical and Admiralty Eeports, 2 vols.,
—
1853 1855
Eden Eden's Eeports, 2 vols., 1757 1767 —
Edg. . Edgar's Eeports, Court of Session, fol. 1724 — 1725
EdNv. Edwards' Eeports, 1 vol. 1808—1810
E. & B. . . Ellis and Blackburn's Eeports, 8 vols., 1852 — 1858
E. B. lNc E. Ellis, Blackburn, and Ellis's Eeports, 1 vol., 1858
E. & E. . —
Ellis and Ellis's Eeports, 3 vols., 1858 1861
Eng. Pr. Cas. English Prize Cases
Eq. Cas. Abr. Equity Cases Abridged, 2 1667 — 1744
vols.,
Eq. Eep. Equity Eeports, 3 1853 — 1855
vols.,
Esp. Espinasse's Eeports, 6 1793 — 1807
vols.,
Exch. . . Exchequer Eeports (Welsby, Hurlstone, and Gor-
don's Eeports), 11 1847 — 1856
vols.,
Ex. D. . Law Eeports, Exchequer Division, 1875 — 1890
E. & F. . Foster and Finlason's Eeports, 4 vols., 1858 1867 —

E. (Ct. of Sess.) Eraser, Court of Session Cases (5th series)
Eac. Coll. Faculty Collection of Eeports, Court of Session,
fol., 21 vols., 1752—1825
Ealc. Falconer's Eeports, Court of Session, 2 vols.,
fol., 1744—1751
Ealc. & Eitz. Falconer and Fitzherbert's Election Cases, 1 vol., 1837
Eerg. Ferguson's Consistory Eeports, Scotland, 1 vol.,
1811—1817
Einl. L. C. Finlason, Leading Cases
EitzG. . FitzGibbon's Eeports, 1 vol. 1728—1733
Eitz. Nat. Brev. Fitzherbert, Natura Brevium
El. & K. Flanagan and Kelly's Eeports (Ireland)
Fonblanque's Eeports, 1 vol., 1849—1852
=
Eonbl. ..
For. Forrest's Eeports, Exchequer, 1800 —
1801
Eorb. Forbes' Decisions, Court of Session
Fort. De Laud. Fortesque De laudibus Anglise Legum.
Fortes. . . Fortescue's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1695 1738 —
Fost. Foster's Eeports, Crown Law, 1 vol., 1743 1761 —
Fount. . Fountainhall's Decisions, Court of Session, 2 vols.,
1678—1712
Fox & S. Ir. Fox and Smith's Eeports (Ireland)
Fox & S. Eeg. Fox and Smith's Eegistration Cases, 1 vol., 1886
1895
Eras. Eraser's Elec. Cases, 2 vols., 1776 — 1777
Freem. (ch.) Freeman's Chancery Eeports, 1 vol., 1660 1706 —
Freem. (k. b.) Freeman's K. B. Eeports, 1 vol., 1670 1704 —
Gal. & Dav. Gale and Davison's Eejports, 3 vols., 1841 1843—
Gib. Cod. Gibson's Codex
Giff. Giffard's Eeports, 5 vols., 1857 —
1865
Gilb. Gilbert's Cases in Law and in Equity, 1 vol., 1713
1715
Gilb. C. P. Gilbert's Common Pleas
Gilb. Eep. Gilbert's Eeports, Chancery, fol., 1 vol., 1705 1727 —
Gilm. & F. Gilmour and Falconer's Eeports, Court of Session,
1 vol., 1661—1686
Gl. & J. . Glyn and Jameson's Eeports, 2 vols., 1821 1828 —
Glanv. Glanville De Legibus
Glasc. Glascock's Eeports (Ireland), 1831—1832
Godb. . —
Godbolt's Eeports, 1 vol,, 1575 1638
Goldesb. Goldesborough's, Eeports (the second part of Brown
low and Goldesborough), 1569 — 1624
H.L. — I.
. .... ——
Ixvi Abbreviations.
Go"w . Gow's Nisi Prius Cases, 1 vol., 1818—1820

Gro., De J. B. . . Grotius, De Jure Belli
GwHl . Gwillim's Tithe Cases, 4 vols., 1224—1824
H. &C . Hurlstone and Coltman's Eeports, 4 vols., 1862 — 1865

H. & N . Hurlstone and Norman's Eeports, 7 vols., 1856 — 1861
H. L. Cas. . Clark's House of Lords' Eeports, 11 vols., 1847—1866
H. & Tw. . Hall and Twells' Eeports, 2 vols., 1848—1850
H. & W. . Hurlstone and Walmsley, 1 vol., 1840—1841
Hag. Adm. . Haggard's Admiralty Eeports, 3 vols., 1822 1837 —
Hag. Con. Haggard's Consistorial Eeports, 2 vols., 1789 1821 —
Hag. Ecc. Haggard's Ecclesiastical Eeports, 3 vols, and Parts I.
and II., Yol. lY., 1827—1833
Hailes Hailes's Decisions, Court of Session, 2 vols., 1776
1791
Hale, C. L. Hale's Common Law
Hale, P. C. . Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 2 vols.
Hare. . Harcarse's Decisions, Court of Session, 1 vol., 1681
—1691
Hard . Hardres' Eeports, foL, 1 vol., 1655 1669 —
Hare . Hare's Eeports, 11 vols., 1841—1853
Har. & Euth. . . Harrison and Eutherfurd's Eeports, 1 vol., 1866—
1868
Har. & W. . Harrison and WoUaston's Eeports, 2 vols., 1835
1836
Hawk. P. 0. . Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, 2 vols.
Hayes . Hayes's Exchequer Eeports (Ireland), 1 vol., 1832
1834
Hayes «& Jo. Hayes and Jones's Exchequer Eeports (Ireland),
1 vol., 1832—1834
Hem. & M. Hemming and Miller's Eeports, 2 vols., 1862 1865 —
Het . Hetley's Eeports, foL, 1 vol., 1627—1632
Hob . Hobart's Eeports, 1 vol., 1603—1625
Hodg . Hodge's Eeports, Common Pleas, 3 vols., 1835
1837
Hog . Hogan's Eeports (Ireland), 2 vols., 1816—1834
Holt (K. B.) . Holt's (Sir John) Eeports, 1 vol., 1688—1711
Holt (N. P.) . Holt's Nisi Prius Eeports, 1 vol., 1815—1817
Home, Ct. of Sess. . Clerk Home's Eeports, Court of Session, 1 vol., 1735
—1744
Hop. & Colt. . . Hop wood and Coltman's Eeports, 2 vols., 1868
1878
Hop. & Ph. . Hopwood and Philbrick's Eeports, 1 vol., 1863
1867
Horn & H. . Horn and Hurlstone's Eeports, 2 vols., 1838 — 1839
Hov. Suppl. . Hovenden's Suppl. to Yesey Jun.
How. St. Tr. . Howell's State Trials, 33 vols.
Hud. & B. . Hudson and Brooke's Eeports (Ireland;, 2 vols.,
1827—1831
Hut . Hutton's Eeports, 1 vol., 1612—1639
Hy. Bl . Henry Blackstone's Eeports, 1 vol., 1788—1796
Ind. Jur. . Indian Jurist (current)

I. C. L. R. . Irish Common Law Eeports, 17 vols., 1849 1866 —
I. Ch. E. . Irish Chancery Eeports, 17 vols., 1850—1866
I. Eq. E. . Irish Equity Eeports, 13 vols., 1838—1850
1. L. E . Irish Law Eeports, 13 vols., 1838—1850
I. L. T. . Irish Law Times (current)
I. E. C. L. . Irish Eeports, Common Law, 11 vols., 1866—1877
I. E. Eq. . Irish Eeports, Equity, 11 vols., 1866—1877
Ir. Circ. Ca. . Irish Circuit Cases, 1 vol., 1841—1843
Ir. Jur. . . Irish Jurist, 18 vols., 1849—1866
Ir. L. Eec. 1st ser. . Law Eecorder (Irish) Eirst Series, 4 vols., 1827
1831
... —
Abbreviations. Ixvii
Ir. L. Eec. (n. s.) Law Eecorder (Irish) New Series, 6 vols., 1833
1838
J. Bridg. Sir John Bridgman's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1613—1621

J. P. Justice of the Peace (current).
Jac. Jacob's Eeports, 1 vol., 1821—1822
Jac. & W. Jacob and Walker s Eeports, 2 vols., 1819—1821
Jebb, 0. 0. Jebb's Crown Cases (Ireland), 1 vol., 1822—1840
Jebb & B. Jebb and Bourke's Eeports, King's Bench (Ireland)
1 vol., 1841—1842
Jebb & S. Jebb and Symes' Eeports, King's Bench (Ireland),
2 vols., 1838—1841
Jenk. Jenkin's Eeports, 1 vol., 1220—1623
John. Johnson's Eeports, 1 vol., 1859
John. & H. Johnson and Hemming's Eeports, 2 vols., 1860
1862
Jo. Ex. Ir. Jones's Exchequer Eeports (Ireland), 2 vols. 1834-
1838
Jo. & Car. Jones and Carey's Eeports (Ireland), 1 vol. 1838-
1839
Jo. & Lat. Jones and Latouche's Eeports, Chancery (Ireland),
Jur. Jurist Eeports, 18 vols., 1837—1854

Jur. (n. s.) Jurist Eeports, New Series, 12 vols., 1855 — 1867
Just. Inst. Justinian's Institutes
KB. . Law Eeports, King's Bench Division, since 1901

{e.g.,[1901] 2 K. B.)
K & G. . Keane and Grant's Eegistration Cases, 1 vol., 1854
1862
K. & J. . Kay and Johnson's Eeports, 4 vols., 1854 1858 —
Karnes's Eem. Dec. Karnes's Eemarkable Decisions, Scotland, 2 vols.,
1716—1768
Karnes's Sel. Dec. Karnes's Select Decisions, Scotland, 1 vol., 1752
1768
Kay Kay's Eeports, 1 vol., 1853—1854
Keb. Keble's Eeports, 3 vols., 1661—1679
Keen Keen's Eeports, 2 vols., 1836—1838
Keil Keilwey's Eeports, 1 vol., 1496 1531 —
Kel Sir John Kelyng's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1662—1669
Kel. W Wm. Kelynge's Eeports, 1 vol., 1731 1732 —
Keny. Kenyon's Eeports, King's Bench, 2 vols., 1753—
1759
Keny. (ch.) Chancery Cases in Vol. II. of Kenyon's Eeports,
King's Bench
Kilk Kilkerran's Decisions (Scotland)
Knapp . . . . Knapp's Eeports, 3 vols., 1829—1836
Kn. & Omb. Knapp and Ombler, Election Cases, 1 vol., 1834
L. & Gr. êmj3. Plunk. Lloyd and Goold temp. Plunkett (Ireland), 1 vol.,
1834—1839
L. & G. femjJ. Sugd. Lloyd and Goold temjo. Sugden (Ireland), 1 vol., 1835
L. G. E. . Local Government Eeports (current)
L. J. Law Journal (current)
L. J. (bcy.) Law Journal, Bankruptcy
L. J. (CH.) Law Journal, Chancery
L. J. (EX.) Law Journal, Exchequer
L. J. (ex. EQ.) Law Journal, Exchequer in Equity
L. J. (k. b. or Q. B.) Law Journal, King's or Queen's Bench
L. J. (m. c.) Law Journal, Magistrates' Cases
L. J. N. C. Law Journal, Notes of Cases
L. J. (o. s.) Law Journal, Old Series
L. J. (P.).. Law Journal, Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty
L. J. (p. c.) Law Journal, Privy Council
e 2
.... — ••
Ixviii Abbreviations.
L. M. & P. Lowndes, Maxwell, and Pollock's Eeports, Bail

Courts, 2 vols., 1850—1851
L. Q. E. . Law Quarterly Eeview (current)
L. E. Law Eeports
L. E. Ir. . Law Eeports, Ireland
L. E. A. & E. Law Eeports, Admiralty and Ecclesiastical, 4 vols.,
1865 — 1875
L. E. C. C. E. Law Eeports, Crown Cases Eeserved, 2 vols., 1868 —
1875
L. E. 0. P. Law Eeports, Common Pleas Cases, 10 vols., 1865 —
1875
L. E. Eq. Law Eeports, Equity Cases, 20 vols., 1865 1875 —
L. E. Exch. Law Eeports, Exchequer Cases, 10 vols., 1865
1875
L. E. H. L. Law Eeports, English and Irish Appeals, 7 vols., 1866
—1875
L. E. Ind. App. Law Eeports, Indian Appeals (current)
L. E. Ind. App. Supp Law Eeports, Indian Appeals, Supplementary
Yol. Yolume, 1872—1883
L. E. P. &D Law Eeports, Probate and Divorce, 3 vols., 1865—
1875
L. E. Q. B. Law Eeports, Queen's Bench Cases
L. E. Sc. & Div. Law Eeports, Scotch and Divorce Appeals, House
of Lords, 3 vols., 1866—1875
L. T. Law Times Eeports (current)
L. T. Jo. Law Times Newspaper (current)
L. T. (0. s.) Law Times Eeports, Old Series, 33 vols., 1843—1869
L. & Welsb. Lloyd and Welsby's Commercial Eeports, 1 vol.,
1829—1830
liane Lane's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1605—1612
Lat. Latch's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1625—1628
Laws. Eeg. Cas Lawson's Eegistration Cases (Ireland) (current)
Ld. Eaym. Lord Eaymond's Eeports, 3 vols., 1694 1732 —
Leach. Leach's Crown Cases, 2 vols., 1730 1815 —
Lee Lee's Ecclesiastical Eeports, 2 vols., 1752 1758 —
Lee temp. Hard. Lee's Cases fern/;. Hardwicke, King's Bench, 1 vol.,
1733—1738
Le. & Ca. Leigh and Cave, 1 vol., 1861—1865
Leon. Leonard's Eeports, fol., 2 vols., 1581 1615 —
Lev. Levinz's Eeports, 3 vols., 1660 1697 —
Lew. 0. C. Lewin's Crown Cases, 9 vols., 1822—1838
Ley Ley's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1608—1629
Lib. Ass. Liber Assisarum, Year Book, Part Y.
Lib. Int. . Liber Intrationum
Lib. PI. .. Liber Placitandi
Lil. Lilly's Eeports or Entries
Litt. Littleton's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1626— 1C32
Lofft Lofft's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1772—1774
Long. & T. Longfield and Townsend's Eeports (Ireland), 1 vol.,
1841—1842
Lud. E. C. Luders' Election Cases, 3 vols., 1785 — 1790
Lumley P. L. C Lumley's Poor Law Cases, 1 vol., 1834 1839 —
Lush. Lushington's Admiralty Eeports, 1 vol., 1860 1863 —
Lush Pr. Lush's Practice
Lut. Lutwyche's Eeports, 2 vols., 1682—1704
Lut. Eeg. Cas. Lutwyche's Eegistration Cases, 2 vols., 1843 1853 —
Lynd. . Lyndewode, Provinciales
M. & S. . Maule and Selwyn's Eeports, 6 vols., 1813—1817

M. & W. . Meeson and Welsby's Eeports, 17 vols., 1836 1847 —
M'Cle. . M'Cleland's Eeports, 1 vol., 1824
M'Cle. & Yo. M'Cleland and Younge's Eeports, 1 vol., 1825
Mac. & G. Macnaghten and Gordon's Eeports, 3 vols., 1849
1851
. —
Abbreviations. Ixix
Macl. & Eob. . Maclean and E(3binson's Appeals (Scotch), 1 vol.,

1839
Miicph., Ct. of Sess. Macpherson, Court of Session, 3rd series, 11 vols.,
1862—1873
Macq. Macqueen's Appeal Cases (Scotch), 4 vols., 1851
1865
Macr. Macrory's Patent Cases, 1 vol., 1841 — 1856
Madd. . . Maddock's Eeports, 6 vols., 1815—1822
Madox Madox's Exchequer and Pormulare
Man. & G. Manning and Granger's Eeports, 7 vols., 1840
1844
Man. & Ey. (k. b Manning and Ejdand's Eeports, K. B., 5 vols., 1827
—1830
Man. & Ey. c.) Manning and Evland's Eeports, Magistrates' Cases,
3 vols., 1827—1830
Mans. Manson's Eeports (current)
March March's Eeports, 1 vol., 1639—1653
MaiT. . . Marriott's Eeports, 1 vol., 1776—1779
Marsh. . . Marshall's Eeports, 2 vols., 1814—1816
Meg. Megone's Companies' Cases, 2 vols., 1889 — 1891
Mer. Merivale's Eeports, 3 vols., 1815 1817—
Milw. . . Milward's Ecclesiastical Eeports (Irish), 1 vol., 1819
—1842
Mod. Eep. Modern Eeports, 12 vols., 1669—1732
Mol. Molloy's Eeports (Irish), 3 vols., 1827—1831
Mont. Montagu's Eeports, 1 vol., 1830—1832
Mont. & A. Montagu and Ayrton's Eeports, 3 vols., 1833
1838
Mont. & B. Montagu and Bligh, 1 vol., 1832, 1833
Mont. & Ch. Montagu and Chitty's Eeports, 1 vol., 1838 1840 —
Mont. D. & De G Montagu, Deacon, and De Gex's Eeports, 3 vols.,
1840—1844
Mont. & M. Montagu and Macarthur's Eeports, 1 vol., 1828
1830
Moo. Moore's Eeports, K. B., 1 vol., 1512—1621
Moo. P. C. C. Moore's Privy Council Cases, 15 vols., 1836 1862 —
Moo. P. C. C. Moore's Privy Council Cases, New Series, 9 vols.,
1862—1873
Moo. Ind. Ap. Moore's Indian Appeal Cases, 33 vols., 1873 — 1905
Moo. & E. Moody and Eobinson's Eeports, 2 vols., 1831 1844 —
Moo. J. B. J. B. Moore's Eeports, 5 vols., 1828—1831
Moo. & P. Moore and Payne's Eeports, 5 vols., 1828 1831 —
Moo. & S. Moore and Scott's Eeports, 4 vols., 1831 1834 —
Mood. & M. Moody and Malkin's Eeports, 1 vol., 1827 1830 —
Mood. C. C. Moodv's Crown Cases, 1824—1844
2 vols.,
Moore Moore 1512—1621
(Sir F.) Eeports, foL, 1 vol.,
Morr. Morrell's Bankruptcy Eeports, 10 vols., 1884—1893
Morr. Diet. Morrison's Dictionary of Decisions (Scotland)
Mos. Moseley's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1726 1731—
Murp. & H. Murphy and Hurlstone's Eeports, 1 vol., 1837
My. & Cr. Mylne and Craig's Eeports, 5 vols., 1836 1840 —
My.&K. Mylne and Keen's Eeports, 3 vols., 1832 1835 —
Nels. Nelson's Eeports, 1 vol., 1625—1693
Nev. & M. (k. b.) Nevile and Manning's Eeports, King's Bench Cases,
6 vols., 1831— 1836
Nev. & M. (m. c.) Nevile and Manning's Eeports, Magistrates' Cases
Nev. &P. Nevile and Perry's Eeports, King's Bench, 3 vols.,
1836—1838
Nev. & P. (m. c.) Nevile and Perry's Magistrates' Cases
New Pract. Cas. New Practice Cases, 3 vols., 1844 1848—
New Eep. New Eeports, 6 vols., 1862 1865 —
New Sess. Cas. . New Session Cases (Carrow, Ilamerton, Allen etc.),
4 vols., 1844—1851
—
Ixx Abbreviations.
Nolan . . . . . . Nolan, Settlement Cases, 1 vol., 1791, 1792

Notes of Cases . . . . Notes of Cases in the Ecclesiastical and Maritime
Courts, 7 vols., 1841—1850
Noy . . . . . . Noy's Eeports, foL, 1 vol., 1559 — 16J9
O'M. & H. . . . . O'Malley and Hardcastle's Cases (current).
O. Bridg. . . . . Orlando Bridgman's Eeports, Common Pleas, 1 vol.,
1660—1667
Owen .. .. .. Owen's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1556 — 1615
P. (with date) . . . . Law Eeports, Probate Division, since 1891 (e.a.,
[1891] P.)
P. D. . . . . . . Law Eeports, Probate Division, 1875 1890 —
P. Wms Peere Williams' Eeports, 3 vols., 1695—1736
Palm Palmer's Eeports, foL, 1 vol., 1619—1629
Park Parker's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1743—1767
Pat., App. Cas Paton's Appeal Cases (Scotch), 6 vols., 1726 1822 —
Peake Peake's Eeports, 2 vols., 1790—1812
Peake, Add. Cas. . . Peake's Additional Cases, 1 vol., 1795 1812 —
Peck Peckwell's Election Cases, 2 vols., 1802—1806
Per. & Dav. . . . . Perry and Davison's Eeports, 4 vols., 1838 1841 —
Per. & En. . . . . Perry and Knapp, Election Cases, 1 vol., 1833
Ph Phillips' Eeports, 2 vols., 1841—1849
Phillim. . . . . . . Phillimore's Eeports, 3 vols., 1809—1821
Pig. & E. . . . . Piggott and Eodwell's Election Cases, 1 vol., 1843
18^5
Pitc. . . . . . . Pitcairn, Criminal Trials
Plowd. . . . . . . Plowden's Eeports, fol., 2 vols., 1550 — 1580
Poll Pollexfeu's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1669—1685
Poph Popham's Reports, fol., 1 vol., 1592—1627
Pow. E. & D. . . . . Power, Eodwell, and Dew's Election Cases, 2 vols.,
1847—1856
Prec. Ch Precedents in Chancery, fol., 1 vol., 1689—1722
Price Price's Eeports, 13 vols., 1814—1824
Q. B. . . . . . . Adolphus and Ellis, Queen's Bench Eeports, New

1841—1852
Series, 18 vols.,
Q. B. . . . . . . Law Eeports, Queen's Bench Division, since 1891
{e.g.,[1891] 1 Q. B.)
Q. B. D. . . . . . . Law Eeports, Queen's Bench Division, 1875 1890 —
E The Eeports, 15 vols., 1893— 1895
E. (Ct. of Sess.) . . . . Eettie, Court of Session (4th series)
E. P. C. . . . . . . Eeports of Patent Cases (current)
E. E. . . . . . . Eevised Eeports
E. S. C. . . . . . . Eules of the Supreme Court
East. . . . . . . Eastell's Entries
Eayn. . . . . . . Eayner, Tithe Cases, 3 vols., 1575 1782 —
Eeal Prop. C Eeal Property Cases, 2 vols., 1843—1848
Eep. Ch. . . . . . . Eeports in Chancery, fol., 1 vol., 1625 1710 —
Eick. & M. . . . . Eickards and Michael, Locus Standi, 1 vol., 1885
1889
Eick. & Sa. . . . . Eickards and Saunders, Locus Standi, 1 vol., 1890
1894
Eidg. App Eidgeway's Appeals (Ireland), 1784 1796 —
Eidg. temp. H. . . . . Eidgeway temp. Hardwicke, 1 vol., 1744 1746 —
'Eidg. L. & S. . . . . Eidgeway, Lapp, and Schoales' Eeports (Ireland),
1 vol., 1793—1795
Eidg. Pari. Eep. (Ir.) . . Eidgeway's Parliamentary Eeports (Ireland), 3 vols.,
1784—1796
Eob. Eccl. .. .. Eobertson'sEcclesiasticalEeports,2 vols., 1844 1853 —
;Eob. L. & "W. '. . . Eoberts, Leeming, and Wallis' New County Court
Cases, 1 vol., 1849—1867
——
Abbreviations. Ixxi
Eobert. Ap. . . . . Eobertson's Appeal Cases (Scotland), 1 vol., 1707

1727
Roll. Abr. . . . . Eolle's Abridgment, fol.
Eoll. Eep. . . . . Eolle's Eeports, fol., 2 vols., 1614—1625
Eose . . . . Eose's Eeports, 2 vols., 1810 — 1816
Eoss L. C. . . . . Eoss's Leading Cases on Commercial Law (Scotland),
3 vols., 1854—1858
Eul. Cas. . . . . Campbell's Euling Cases
Euss. . . . . . . Eussell's Eeports, Chancery, 5 vols., 1826 1829 —
Euss. & M. Eussell and Mylne's Eeports, 2 vols., 1829 1831 —
Euss. & Ey. . . Eussell and Eyan's Crown Cases, 1 vol., 1799 1823 —
Ey. & Can. Cas. . . Eailway and Canal Cases, 7 vols., 1835 1854 —
Ey. & Can. Tr. Cas. . . Eailway and Canal Traffic Cases, 1855 (current)
Ey. & M. . . . . Eyan and Moody, Eeports, 1 vol., 1823—1826
S. C. . . . . . . Same Case
S.-G. . . . . . . Solicitor-General
Salk Salkeld's Eeports, 3 vols., 1689— 1712
Sau. & Sc. . . . . Sausse and Scully's Eeports (Ireland),
1 vol., 1837
1840
Saund. . . Saunders's Eeports, 3 vols., 1666 1673 —
Saund. & A. . . . . Saunders and Austin, Locus Standi Eeports, 2 vols.,
1895—1904
Saund. & B. . . . . Saunders and Bidder, Locus Standi Eeports (current)
Saund. & C. . . . . Saunders and Cole's I3ail Court Eeports, 2 vols., 1842
—1848
Sav. . . . . . . Savile's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1580 — 1594
Bay. . . . . . . Sayer's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1751 —
1756
Sc. Jur Scottish Jurist, 46 vols., 1829—1873
Sc. L. E. . . . . Scottish Law Eeporter (current)
Sch. & Lef. . . . . Schoales and Lefroy's Eeports (Ireland), 2 volg., 1802
—1807
Sc. E. E. . . . . . . Scots Eevised Eeports
Scott Scott's Eeports, 8 vols., 1834—1840
Scott (X. K.) . . . . Scott's New Eeports, 8 vols., 1840—1845
Sea. & Sm Searle and Smith's Eeports, 1 vol., 1859—1860
Sel. Cas. Ch Select Chancery Cases, 1 vol., 1724—1734
Seld. Soc. . . . . Selden Society Publications
Sess. Cas. (k. b.) . . Sessions Cases, King's Bench, 2 vols., 1710 1760 —
Sh. (Ct. of Sess.) . . Shaw (Court of Session), 1st series, 16 vols., 1821
1838
Sh. Sc. App Shaw's Eeports of Appeal Cases (Scotland), 2 vols.,
1821—1824
Sh. Dig. . . . . . . Shaw's Digest of Decisions (Scotland)
Sh. & M'L. . . . . Shaw and Maclean's Eeports (Scotland), 3 vols., 1835
—1838
Shep. Touch. . . . . Sheppard's Touchstone
Show Shower's Eeports, 2 vols., 1678—1695
Show. Pari. Cas. . . Shower's Cases in Parliament, fol., 1 vol., 1694
1699
Sid Siderfin's Eeports, 2 vols., 1657—1670
Sim Simons' Eeports, 17 vols., 1826—1849
Sim. {-N. s.) Simons' Eeports (New Series), 2 vols., 1850—1852
—
. . . .
Sim. & St. . . . . Simons and Stuart's Eeports, 2 vols., 1822 1826
Skin Skinner's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1681—1698
Sm. &G Smale and Giffard's Eeports, 3 vols., 1852—1857
Sm. & Bat Smith and Batty's Reports (Ireland), 1 vol., 1824—
1825
Smith, KB Smith's Eeports, 3 vols., 1803—1806
Smith, L. C. . . . . Smith's Leading Cases
Smith, Eeg. Cas. . . Smith's Eegistration Cases (current)
Smythe Smythe's Eeports, Common Pleas (Ireland), 1 vol ,
1839—1840
Sol. Jo Solicitors' Journal (current)
..
... —
Ixxii Abbreviations.
Spottis. . Spottiswoode's Eeports of Session (Scotland)

Stair, Eep. Stair'sEeports (Scotland), 2 vols., 1661—1681
Stark. . Starkie's Eeports, 2 vols., 1815—1822, and Yol. III.,
Parti.
State Tr. . State Trials, 34 vols, 1163—1820
Stra. Strange' s Eeports, 2 vols., 1716 1749—
Stu. M. & P. Stuart, Milne, and Peddie's Eeports (Scotland),
2 vols., 1851—1863
Sty. Style's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1645—1646
Swabev . . Swabey's Admiralty Eeports, 1 vol., 1858—1859
Sw. &"Tr. Swabey and Tristram's Eeports, 4 vols., 1858
1865
Swan. Swanston's Eeports, 3 vols., 1818—1819
T. & M. . Temple and Mew's Criminal Appeal Gases, 1 vol.,

1848—1851
T. Jo. . Sir T. Jones's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1667—1684
T. L. E. . The Times Law Eeports (current)
T. Eaym. Sir Thomas Eaymond's Eej)orts
Taml. Tamlyn's Eeports, 1 vol., 1829—1830
Taunt. . . Taunton's Eeports, 1 vol., 1808—1819
Term Eep. Term Eeports (Durnford and East), 8 vols., 1785
1800
Toth Tothill's Eeports, 1 vol., 1559—1646
Tudor, L. C. Merc. Law. Tudor's Leading Cases on Mercantile Law
Tudor, L.C.Eeal Property Tudor' s Leading Cases on Eeal Property
Turn. & E. Turner and Eussell's Eeports, 1 vol., 1822—1844
Tyr. Tyrwhitt's Eeports, 5 vols., 1830—1835
Tyr. & Gr. Tyrwhitt and Granger's Eeports, 1 vol., 1836
Vaugh. . . Yaughan's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1665 — 1674

Vent. Yentris' Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1688—1691
Yern. Yernon's Eeports, 2 vols., 1681—1720
Yern. & Scr. Yernon and Scriven's Eeports (Ireland), 1 vol., 1786
—1788
Yes. Yesey Jun.'s Eeports, 22 vols., 1789—1816
Yes. & B. Yesey and Beames's Eeports, 3 vols., 1812 — 1814
Yes. Sen. Yesey Sen.'s Eeports, 3 vols., 1747 1756 —
Yin. Abr. Yiner's Abridgment
Yin. Supp. Yiner's Supplement
W. Jo. . . Sir William Jones's Eeports, fol., 1 vol., 1620—1640

W. N. . Weekly Notes, L. E. (current)
W. E . Weekly Eeporter, 54 vols., 1882—1906
Wallis . . Wallis's Eeports, Chancery (Ireland), 1 vol., 1766
1791
Web. Pat. Cas. . Webster's Patent Cases. 2 vols., ICOl — 1855
Welsh Eeg. Cas. Welsh Eegistry Cases (Ireland), 1 vol., 1832—1840
Went. Off. Ex. . Wentworth's Office of Executor
West West's Eeports, House of Lords, 1 vol., 1839—1841
West temp. Hard West's Eeports temp. Hardwicke, 1 vol., 1736 1739 —
White & Tud. L. AVhite and Tudor's Leading Cases
Wight. . Wightwick's Eeports, 1 vol., 1810—1811
Wilies Wilies' Eeports, 1 vol., 1737—1760
Will. WoU. & Dav Willmore, Wollaston, and Davison's Eeports, 1 vol.,
1837
Will. Woll. & H. Willmore, Wollaston, and Hodges' Eeports, 2 vols.,
1838—1839
Wilm. . . Wilmot's Notes and Opinions, 1 vol., 1757 1770 —
Wils. Wilson's Eeports, 3 vols., 1742—1774
Wils. & S. Wilson and Shaw's Eeports (Scottish), 1 vol., 1825
1834
Wils. (CH.) Wilson's Chancery Eeports, 1 vol., 1818— 1819
Yfils. (EX.) Wilson's Exchequer Eeports, 1 part, 1817
... —
Abbreviations. Ixxiii
Win. Winch's Eeports, 1 vol., 1621—1625

Will. Bl. . William Blackstoiie's Eeports, fol., 2 vols., 1746
1779
Wm. Eob. William Eobinson's Admiralty Eeports, 3 vols., 1838
—1852
Wm. Samid. Williams' Notes to Saunders' Eeports
Wolf. & B. Wolferstan and Bristowe's Election Cases, 1 vol.,
1859—1865
Wolf. & D. Wolferstan and Dew's Election Oases, 1 vol., 1856
1858
Wood . Wood's Exchequer Tithe Cases, 4 vols., 1650 — 1798
Y. B. Year Books, 11 vols., 1307—1537
Yelv. . Yelverton's Eeports, 1 vol., 1603—1613
You. Younge's Eeports, 1 vol., 1830—1832
Y. & C. Ch. Cas. Younge atid Collver's Chancery Cases, 2 vols., 1841
1843
Y. & 0. (EX.) Younge and CoUyer's Eeports, 4 vols., 1833 — 1841
Y. & J. . Younge and Jervis' Eeports, 3 vols., 1826 — 1830
—
TABLE OF STATUTES.
PAGE
9 Hen. 3, c. 30. (Magna Charta) (reissue) 320
51 Hen. 3, c. 4. (De Districtione Scaccarrii, 1266) 252
52 Hen. 3, c. 15. (Statute of Marlborough, 1267) 381
c. 29. (Statute of Marlborough, 1267) 34
3 Edw. 1, c. 25. (Maintenance, 1275) 52
6 Edw. 1, c. 5. (Statute of Gloucester) 34
c. 8. (Statute of Gloucester) 44
13 Edw. 1, c. 24. (In consimili casu)
(Statute of Westminster the Second) .....39 32
39
Stat. 1, c. 30.
c. 49.
c. 45.
(Statute of Westminster the Second),
(Statute of Westminster the Second)
(Maintenance)
....
s. 2 . .
38
52
28 Edw. 1, stat. 3, c. 11. (Maintenance) 52
1 Edw. 3, Stat. 2, c. 14. (Maintenance) 52
2 Edw. 3, c. 3. (Statute of Northampton, 1328) . . . . .42
20 Edw. 3, c. 4. (Maintenance) 52
25 Edw. 3, Stat. 1. (Bastardy out of the Kealm, 1350) . . . .303
Stat. 5, c. 2. (Treason Act, 1351) 311
28 Edw. 3, c. 13. (Inquests, de medietate linguee, 1354),, s. 2 . . . 309
I Eic. 2, c. 4. (Maintenance) .52
7 Eic. 2, c. 15. (Maintenance) . .52
13 Ric. 2, Stat. 1, c. 5. fCivil Procedure) 59
15 Ric. 2, c. 2.
8 Hen.
c. 3.
6, c. 9.
(Against Forcible Entries, 1391)
(AdmiraFs Jurisdiction, 1391)
(Land, Forcible Entry, 1429)
..... 59
42
42
c. 29. (Inquests, Aliens, 1429) 309

23 Hen. 8, c. 3. (Attaints, 1531—2) 38
28 Hen.
32 Hen.
8, c. 15.
8, c. 7.
c. 9.
(Offences at Sea Act, 1536)
(Payment of Tithes and Offerings, 1540)
(Maintenance, 1540)
... 59
35
52, 55
1 & 2 Phil. & Mar. c. 12. (An Act for the Impounding of Distresses, 1554)—
s. 1 383
21 Jac. 1, c. 16.
s. 2
(Limitation Act, 1623) .... 4,
383
184, 215, 586
2 Car. 2, c. 7.
29 Car. 2, c. 3. (Statute of Frauds, 1677)
s. 1
....
(Sunday Observance Act, 1667), s. 1
170,207, 274
.
154, 157
. . .294
s. 2 154
s. 3 154
s. 4 . . . . 152, 153, 156, 293, 386, 504
s. 7 157, 192
2 Win. & Mar. sess. 1, c. 5. (Distress for Rent Act, 1 690), s. 2 254, 381
. . .
5 & 6 Will. & Mar. c. 20. (Bank of England Act, 1694)—

s. 17 570
s. 19 570
9 & 10 Will. 3, c. 15. (Arbitration Act. 1698) . . . .. . .482
s. 2 476
II & 12 Will. 3, c. 6. (Aliens Act, 1700) 307
12 & 13 WiU. 3, c. 2. (Act of Settlement, 1700), s. 3 . . . . 308, 313
4 & 5 Anne, c. 3 (some-
times printed as c. 16). (Amendment of the Law, 1705)
s. 17 69
s. 27
'
36
—
Ixxvi Table of Statutes.
PAGE
7 Anne, c. 5. (Foreign Protestants' Katnralisation Act, 1708) . 307
.
s. 53 303
c. 12. (Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1708) 20
s. 3 252
8 Anne, c. 14.
4 Geo. 2, c. 21.
(Landlord and Tenant Act, 1709),
(British Nationality Act, 1730)
s. 2
.... ss. 6, 7 .
.
.
.
. 256
303, 307
.303
c. 28. (Landlord and Tenant Act, 1730), s. 4 . . . .254
7 Geo. 2, c. 19. (Adnlteration of Hops Act, 1733)—
s. 2 . . .291
11 Geo. 2, c. 19.
s. 3
(Distress lor
s. 8
Rent Act, 1737) .... 301,381
254
291
s. 9 .254
24 Geo. 2, c. 44. (Constables' Protection Act, 1750), s. 6 . . . 26
25 Geo.
13 Geo.
2, c. 39.
3, c. 21.
(British Subjects Act, 1751)
(British Nationality Act, 1773)
s. 2
303, .... 307
307
303
c. 26. (Sales of Shares of British-built Ships to Foreigners,
1773) 306
19 Geo. 3, c. 56. (Auction Duties, etc., 1779)
s. 2 500
s. 4 . . 500
21 & 22 Geo. 3, c. 16. (Irish) (Bank of Ireland Act, 1781—2) s. 14 . . 575
22 Geo. 3, c. 25.
26 Geo.
c.
3, c. 71.
46.
(Ransoming of Shii)S, 1782)
(Knackers Act, 1786)

....
......
(Peace with Americ;tn Colonies, 1782)
412,
310
316
413
33 Geo. 3, c. 4.
36 Geo. 3, c. 88.
s. 8
(Lord Grenville's Alien Act,
(Hay and Straw Act, 1796) .
i 793)
.
....
. . .
.413
.291
320
39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 81. (Hop Trade Act, 1800), s. 3 291

54 Geo. 3, c. 56. (Sculpture Copyright Act, 1814), s. 4 . . . .154
c. 123. (Hop Trade Act, 1814) . . . . '
. . . 291
55 Geo. 3, c. 184. (Stamp Act, 1815) 589
56 Geo. 3, c. 50.
s. 24
(Sale of Farming Stock Act, 1816)

s. 1
.... =
. . 573, 575
257
.258
s. 2 . . .258
s. 3 .255 •
s. 4 . 258
8. 6 255. 258
s. 7 . .
' '258
s. 8 258
s. 11 275
57 Geo. 3, c. 87. (Smuggling Act, 1817), 13 .s. 218
59 Geo. 3, c. 12. (Poor Relief Act, 1819) 333
- • - s. 12 . .332
' r" ^ s 13 . 332 333
1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 72. (Bank of Ireland Act, 1821), s. 6
."
.
."
. . 575
'
c. 76. (Cinque Ports Act, 1821)—

ss. 1, 2 140
s. 4 139, 140
s. 18 140
5 Geo.:4, c. 83. (Vagrancy Act, 1824) 328, 329
s. 4 328, 329
6 Geo. 4, c. 42. (Bankers (Ireland) Act, 1825), s. 2 . . . .576
c. 50. (Juries Act, 1825)—
s. 47 309
s. 60 . .38
c.
c-
81.
no.
s. 62
(Excise Licences Act. 1825), s. 25

(Registering of British Vessels, 1825)
....
. . . .306
41
501
7 Geo. 4, c. 6. (Bank Notes Act. 1826), s. 3 574

c. 46. (Country Bankers Act, 1826). . . . . 572,581
s. 4 573
s. 15 570
c. 54. (Registration of Aliens Act, 1826) . . . . .320
i & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30. (Malicious Injuries to Property Act. 1827). s. 4 . . 283
—
Table of Statutes. Ixxvii
PAGE
9 Geo. 4. c. 14. (The Stutute of Frauds Aincnameut Act, 1828 (Lord
Teiiterdeu's Act) )
s. 1 207
s. B . 149, 157, 207, 214, 644
c. 23. (Bank Notes Act, 1828) 572, 573
s. 1 571, 573, 574
s. 2 573
s. 3 . . . 573
s. 4 573
s. 5 573
s. 7 573
s. 10 573
37.c. (Cinque Ports Act, 1828), s. 1 139
c. 65. (Bank Notes (Xo. 2) Act, 1828), s. 1 . . . .574
c. SO.
10 Geo. 4, c. 44.
1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 41.
(Bankers' Composition (Ireland) Act, 1828),
(Metropolitan Police Act, 1829), s. 4
(Special Constables Act, 1831)—
.... ss. 1, 2 , 576
26
s. 5 26
s. 19 431
c. 42. (Poor Relief Act, 1831) 333
s. 2 332
s. 4 333
........
c. 59. (Crown Lands Allotment Act, 1831) . . . 332,333
2 Will. 4, c. 39. (Uniformity of Process Act, 1832) 45
2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 42. (Allotments Act, 1832) 333, 334, 335, 338
s. 1 334
s. 2 334
s. 3 . . 334
s. 4 334
s 5 . . . 334
s. 6 .334
s. 7 334
s. 8 334
s. 9 335
s. ]0 333
s. 11 333
3 & 4 Will. 4,
c.
c.
45.
27.
(Representation of the People Act, 1832),
(Real Property Limitation Act, 1833)
s. 36
....s. 36 . .324
35
33, 34, 46
s. 42 : . 5, 255
c. 41. (Judicial Committee Act, 1833) 127
c. 42. (Civil Procedure Act, 1833), s. 41 440
c.
c.
70.
98.
(Public Notaries Act, 1833)
(Bankof England Act, 1833)
s. 2
.... 151
572,581
572
s. 6 570, 571
4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 36. (Central Criminal Court Act, 1834), s. 22 . . .59
5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 59. (Crueltv to Animals Act, 1835) 384
6 & 7 WilL
c.
4, c. 11.
c. c.
69. (Union and Parish Property Act, 1835), s. 4
(Registration of Aliens Act, 1836)
(City of Dublin Steam Packet Co. Act, 1836)
.... .
.
332, 334
.
320
4
7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 73. (Chartered Companies Act, 1837) 581
1 & 2 Vict. c. 74 . (Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838)—
s. 1 337
s.2 . .337
2 & 3 Vict. c. 47. (Metropolitan Police Act, 1839)—
/ s. 5 26
s. 54 324, 399
s. 56 . . . 400
s. 61 400
c. 93. (County Police Act, 1839), s. 8 26
3 & 4 Vict. c. 65. (Admiralty Court Act, 1840)— 65
s. 4 64, 67. 68
s. 6 . . .
"
67. 68, 70
s. 9 98
s. 22 78
5 & 6 Vict. c. 97. (Limitations of Actions and Costs Act, 1842) . . 24
s. 4 25.
—
Ixxviii Table of Statutes.
PAGE
5 & 6 Vict. c. 109. (Parish Constables Act, 1842), s. 15 . . . . 26
c. 122. (Bankruptcy Act, 1842), s. ] 0 , . . . .239
6 & 7 Yict. c. 30. (Pound-breach Act, 1843)—
s. 1 . . . . . . . . . .386
c. 73.
s.
s. 37
2
(Solicitors Act, 1843) .... .
.
.
.386
151, 472
4, 23
7 & 8 Vict. c. 2.
0.32.
(Admiralty Offences Act, 1844)
(Bank Charter Act, 18 i4)
s. 2 .. . .
.... . . . .
572,576,581
. .571
59
s. 4 571
s. 5 571
s. 6 571
s. 7 .571
s. 10 571, 572, 612
s. 11 571, 572, 612
s. 12 '
. .572
s. 16 '
. . .572
s. 17 573
s. 18 573
s. 21 .
•
. . 582, 583
s. 22 . 573
s. 28 569
c. 66. (Naturalization Act, 1844) —
s. 3 306
s. 5 . r . 307
s. 14 . .306
c. 113. (Joint Stock Banks Act, 1844) 572
ss. 1—45 . . . 581
s. 48 581
8 & 9 Vict. c. 15. (Auctioneers Act, 1845)—
s. 3 501
s. 4 500, 501
s. 5 501
s. 7 506
s. 8 507
c. 16. (Companies Clauses Act, 1845)
s. 14 154, 636
s. 97 . .156
c. 18. (Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845) . . . 344
s. 24 . .280
ss. 128—132 353
. c. 20. (Eailwav Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845) . . 346, 348
s. 68' 377
ss. 77—85 346
Sched. L, pt. 2 (1) 346
c. 37. (Bankers (Ireland) Act, 1845)—
s. 6 570
s. 8 576
s. 15 . . . • . . . . 574
c. 38. (Bank Notes (Scotland) Act, 1845) .
'
. . .575
s. 15 . .570
s. 16 . .574
c. 76. (Revenue Act, 1845), s. 1 . . . •. . .501
c. 106. (Peal Property Act, 1845), s. 3 154
c. 118. (Inclosure Act, 1845) 338
s. 30 . . . .335
s. 34 . . . . . . . . . .335
s. 73 335
s. 108 336
s. 109 . 336, 337
s. 110 . 337, 340
s. Ill . 337, 340
s. 112 337
s. 149 338
S & 10 Vict. c. 70. (Inclosure Act, 1846), s. 4 336
c. 93. (Fatal Accidents Act, 1846) 71,111
s. 1 . . .29
— —
Table of Statutes. Ixxix
PAGE
9 & 10 Yict. c. 95. (County Courts Act, 1846), s. 60 6
10 & 11 Vict. c. 14. (Markets and Fairs Clauses Act, 1847) . . . .430
0.15. (Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847), s. 14 . . . .252
c. 34. (Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847), ss. 125
13] 413
c. 89. (Towns Police Clauses Act, 1847) 399
s. 26 386
s. 28 . . . 399
11 & 12 Yict. c. 43. (Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848), s. 5 . . .411
12 & 13 Yict. c. 1. (Inland Revenue Board Act, 1849), s. 3 . . . 573
c. 92. (Cruelty to Animals Act, 1849) . . . 397, 409, 414
s. 2 409, 412, 414
s. 3 . . .412
s. 4 414
s. 5 384
s. 6 . . . . . 384
s. 7 413
s. 8 . .413
s. 9 . . . 413
s. 10 413
... .413
s.
s.
s.
11
12
13
. - . . . . ...... .413
.415
. .
s. 14 . 415
s.
s.
s.
18
19
20
... 414
415
415
s. 21 415
s. 22 ,
415
s. 25 415
s. 26 416
s. 27 384
s. 29 365, 409
c. 106. (Bankruptcy Act, 1849), s. 171 235
13 & 14 Vict. c. 26. (Piracy Act, 1850) 77
s. 2 77
14 & 15 Vict. c. 25. (Landlord and Tenant Act, 1851)—
s. 1 . .283
s. 2 . 255, 258
s. 3 272
c. 99. .(Evidence Act, 1851), s. 16 440
15 & 16 Vict. c. 76. (Common Law Procedure Act, 1852) . . . . 3, 46
s. 3 46
s. 18 6
s. 41 46
c. 79. (Inclosure Act, 1852) 335
s. 21 335, 338
e. 87. (Court of Chancery Act, 1852), s. 42 . . . .501
16 & 17 Vict. c. 59. (Stamp Act, 1853), s. 19 602, 604, 609, 610, . 612—614
c. 137. (Charitable Trusts Act, 1853) 23
17 & 18 Vict. c.
c.
31.
60.
(Eailwav and Canal Traffic Act, 1854), s. 6
(Cruelty to Animals Act; 1854)
s. 1
.... . . .
397,409
383, 384
5
s. 2 400
s. 3 409
c. 78. (Admiraltv Court Act, 1854), s. 13 . . . .62
c. 83. (Stamp Act, 1854), s. 11 569, 612
c. 103. (Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854), s. 72 . . 324
c. 104. (Merchant Shipping Act, 1854)
s. 103 77
ss. 460—465 140
c.
c.
120.
125.
(Merchant Shipping Repeal Act, 1854),
(Common Law Procedure
s. 5
Act, 1854) ....
s. 10 .
466
. 76
3
s. 11 . 27, 454
ss. 68—77 42
ss. 79-82 42
s. 87 574
Ixxx Table of Statutes.
PAGE
18 & 19 Yict. c. 120. (Metropolis Management Act, 1855)—
Sched. A 357-
Sched. B .357
Sched. C . . . . . .... . .357
19 & 20 Yict. c. 20. (Bankers' Compositions Act, 1856) . . . .572
c. 97. (Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856) . .642
s. 13 . .207
c. 114. (Hay and Straw Act, 1856) 291
, 20 & 21 Vict. c. 49. (Joint Stock Banking Companies Act, 1857) . . . 581
s. 4 . . . 581.
s. 6 582
s. ] 2 . . . . 572
s. 13 582
s. 19 .572
c. clvii. (Mayors Court Procedure Act, 1857), s. 12 . . . 6
'
21
22
23
&
&
k
22 Vict.
23 Vict.
24 Vict.
c. 91.
c. 63.
c. 90.
(Joint Stock Companies Act, 1858), s. 1
(British Law Ascertainment
(Game Licences Act, I860)—
Act, 1859) .... . . .582
3
s. 4 405
c. 126.
s.
s.
5
26 ....
(Common Law Procedure Act, 1860) .... 405
3
46
c. 127. (Solicitors Act, I860)' 151
24 Vict. c. 10. (Admiraltv Court Act, 1861)—
. s. 2 .70
, s. 4 68
s. 5 67
s. 6 . . . . 73
s. 7 . . .70
s. 8 64
10 68, 69
"
s. . . .
s. 11 65
s. 18 102
s. 21 98
s. 28 98
s. 34 95
24 & 25 Vict. c.
c.
11.
14.
s. 35
(Foreign LaAv Ascertainment Act, 1861)

(Post-office Savings Bank Act, 1861)—
... .68, 69, 73
3
s. 1 679
s. 2 579
s. 5 . 580
s. 6 580
c. 21. (Revenue Act, 1861), s. 13 501
c. 9L (Pevenne (No. 2) Act, I861),:s. 35 . . . . 573,575
c. 96. (Larceny Act, 1861)—
s. 10 369
s.
.s.
s. ]
11
12
3
.... 369
371
371
s. 14 372
s. ]5 372
s. 16 ,
372
s. 17 .372
s. 18 . . . 405
.
s. ]9 405
s. 20 405
s. 21 369
s. 22 369, 405
s. 23 . 369
s. 77 . 193
s. 78 193
s. 79 193
s. 102 . . ' . .• 394, 405
c. 97. (Malicious Damnge Act, 1861)—
s. 15 . . 283
s. 16 . . 283
s. 17 283
Table of Statutes. Ixxxi
PAGE
24 & 25 Vict. c. 97. (Malicious Damage Act, 1861)—
s. 19 283
s. 20 283
s. 21 283
s. 23 283
s. 24 283
s. 40 369
s. 41 285, 369
s. 51 283
s. 52 283
c. 100. (Otfences against tlie Person Act, 1861), s. 31 397 . .
25 & 26 Vict. c. 63. (Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1862), s. 49 140
c. 89. (Companies Act, 1862) 156, 169, 176
s. 4 . . . .
-
583
s. 6 207
s. 9 647
s. 22 636
s. 42 221
s. 44 583
s. 72 443
s. 73 443
s. 85 5
8.115 644
s. 175 582
s. 176 582
s. 182 . . .582
s. 205 572
26 & 27 Vict. c. 24. (Vice- Admiralty Courts Act, 1863) . . . .141
s. 19 79
c. 87. (Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863)—
s. 2 576
s. 4 576
s. 7 578
s. 15 577
s. 16 .577
s. 29 577
s. 30 577
s. 31 577
s. 38 .579
S.39 577
s. 41 578
s. 42 578
s. 48 578
s. 49 578
s. 55 . . . . . . . . . 578
c. 113. (Poisoned Grain Prohibition Act, 1863)—
s. 2 285
s. 3 285
s. 4 . . . . • . . . . 285 .
27 & 28 Vict. c. 25. (Naval Prize Act, 1864), s. 52 . . . . 7S '.
c. 53. (Summary Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1864), s. 33. ..324, 329

c. 56. (Revenue (No. 14
2) Act, 1864), s. . . . 502 .
c. 115. (Poisoned Flesh Prohibition Act, 1864)—

s. 2 284
s. 3 284
28 & 29 Vict. c. 60. (Dogs Act, 1865) 281, 397
s.'l 397
s. 2 374, 397
29 & 30 Vict. c. 37. (Hop (Prevention of Frauds) Act, 1866)—
s. 2 291
s. 3 291
s. 4 292
s. 5 292
s. 6 292
s. 7 292
s. 8 292
s. 17 292
s. 18 292
H.L. — I. /
Ixxxii Table of Statutes.
PAGE
29 & 30 Vict c. 43. (Naval Savings Bank Act, 1866)—
s. 7 579
s. 8 579
g. 9 . . .579
30 & 31 Vict. c. 5. (Dog Licences Act, 1867)—
s. 3 403
s. 5 .403
s. 8 403, 404
s. 9 403
s. 10 403
c. 23. (Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1867) . . 231, 280
c. 48. Land by Auction Act, 1867)—
(Sale of
s. 2 509
s. 5 .508
c. 102. (Representation of the People Act, 1867), s. 40 . . 324
c. 127. (Railway Companies Act, 1867), s. 3 . . . . 3
c. 130. (Agricultural Gangs Act, 1867)—
s. 4 277
(1) 276
s. 5 . .277
s. 6 277
s. 8 . . . • 277
s. 9 277
s. 10 . . / . . . . . . .277
s. 11 277
c. 134. (Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867), s. 18 . . . 399, 400
c. 144. (Policies of Assurance Act, 1867), s. 3 . . . . 638
31 & 32 Vict. c. 71. (County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868) 112, 115
s. 2 128, 129
s. 3 127, 128
s. 5 . . 136
s. 6 108
s. 7 108
s. 10 135, 136
s. 11 136
s. 12 137
s. 14 136
s. 15 136
s. 21 (1) 129
(2) 129
(4) .130
s. 22 130, 137
s. 23 137
s. 24 137
s. 25 140
s. 26 112, 128, 140
s. 27 112
s. 30 . 114
s. 32 127
s. 33 139
s. 35 129
c. cxxx. Hundred Court of Record Act, 1868), s. 6
(Salford . 6
32 & 33 Vict. c. 51. (County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Amendment
Act, 1869)—
s. 1 139.
s. 2 128, 129, 140
s. 3 128
s. 4 127, 128
s. 5 . . . 129
s. 6 140
c. 62. (Debtors Act, 1869)—
s. 4 474
(3)
^
. . .193
c. 112. (Adulteration of Seeds Act, 1869)—
s. 3 292
s, 4 . . . 292
s. 5 292
s. 7 . . . 292,
Table of Statutes. Ixxxiii
PAGE
33 & 3i Vict. c. 13. (Survey Act, 1870) . 298
c. 14. (Naturalization Act, 1870) 149, 306, 307
. 309
(1) . 309
(2) 308, 309
C3) . 309
5. 3 317, 318
s. 4 317, 318
s. 5 . 309
s. 6 . 317
s. 7 . 314
303, 319
s. 10 (1) .
315, 318
(3) . . 319
(5) 315
s. 11 . 814
s. 12 (1) . .
318
(2) . . 318
(3) . .
318
s. 13 . 312
s. 15 ,
317
s. 16 .
313
s. 17 .
303, 318
c. 23. (Forfeiture Act, 1870) 29, 149
s. 6 .
. 30
s. 7 . 30
. 30
ss. 9, 10 .
. 30
c. 32. (Airctioneers' Licence Act, 18 0), . 501
c. 52. (Extradition Act, 1870) 305, 324
c. 65. (Larceny (Advertisements) Act, 1870), 405
c. 77. (Juries Act, 1870), s. 8 309
c. 90. (Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870), s. 19 78
c. 102. (Naturalization Oatli Act, 1870), s. 2 314
34 & 35 Vict. c. 43. (Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act, 1871) 344
c. 56. (Dogs Act, 1871)—
s. 2 . 281,
s. 3 399
c. 70. (Local Government Board Act, 1871) 332
s. 2 332, 333
c. 79. (Lodgers' Goods Protection Act, 1871) 252
35 & Vict. c. 19. (PaciSc Islanders' Protection Act, 1872) 78
c. 39. (Naturalization Act, 1872)—
s. 2 318
s. 3 . 318
c. 44. (Court of Chancery (Funds) Act, 1872), s. 11 602.
c. 50. (Railway Rolling Stock Protection Act, 1872) 252
e. 92. (Parish Constables Act, 1872), s. 7 2&
c. 93. (Pawnbrokers Act, 1872)—
s. 19 , 507
s. 20 . 507, 508
s. 45 . 508
Sched." V. (1) 507
(2) 507
(3) 507
(4) 507
(5) 507
(6) 507
(7) 508
(8) 508
(9) 508
36 & 37 Vict. c. 19. (Poor Allotments Management Act, 1873) 333
s. 3 . 333
s. 4 . 333
s. y 333
s. 10 334
s. 13 334
s. 14 333, 334
/2
—
Ixxxiv Table of Statutes.
36 & 37 Vict. c. 19. (Poor Allotments Management Act, 1873)-

s. 15 . 333. 335
s. 16 . . 335
(Judicature Act, 1873) 59, 63, 70,77
s. 16 . . 127
s. 18 . . 127
(5) . . . 63
s. 19 . 125, 481
s. 25 . . 589
s. 34 . 107, 140
s. 35 . . 107
s. 45 . . Ill
s. 56 . . 486
s. 76 . . 140
s. 83 .
5
s. 100. 3, 5, 446
67. (Agricultural Children Act, 1873), 16 . 278
(Slave Trades Act, 1873), s. 20 . 79
37 & 38 Vict. c. 42. (Building Societies Act, 1874) . 157
c. 62. (Infants' Relief Act, 1874)—
s. 1 . . . . . 150
s. 2 150, 176
c. 68. (Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1874), s. 12 . 151
38 & 39 Vict. c. 51. (Pacific islanders' Protection Act, 1875) . 78
c. 55. (Public Health Act, 1875) . 342, 348, 354, 357, 358, 361
s. 109. . 413
s. 170. . 413
s. 174. . 156
s. 176. 344, 430
s. 178. 345, 356
s. 211 (1) . 354
(1) (b) 239
s. 229 .S58
s. 230 . 354
s. 233 . 353
s. 234 . 353
ss. 236—239 353
s. 242. 353
s. 243 . 353
s. 253. 23
s. 314 . 277
c. 58. (Public Works Loans (Money) Act, 1875) 431
c. 63. (Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875), s. 6 218
c. 77. (Judicature Act, 1875) . 63, 70, 95
s. 21 127
Sched. I 46
c. 83. (Local Loans Act, 1875) 430, 578
c. 87. (Land Transfer Act, 1875) 356, 360
Vict. c. 13. (Drugging of Animals Act, 1876) . 409
s. 1 . 414
s. 2 . 414
. 414
s. 4 . 414
39 & 40 Vict. c. 36. (Customs Consolidation Act, 1876), s. 42 403, 432
c. 45. (Industrial Societies Act, 1876), s. 11 (12) . 156
c. 52. (Savings Banks (Barrister) Act, 1876)
s. 2 . 576, 578
. 576
c. 56. (Commons Act, 1876)-
ss. 10—12 . . 332
s. 19 . 334, 336
s. 21 . . 335
s. 22 . 336
.
s. 23 . 335, 336
s. 26 . 334, 338
. 337
. 336
— —
Table of Statutes. Ixxxv
PAGE
39 & 40 Yict. c. 59. (Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876), s. 3 . . .63, 481
c. 77. (Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876 (Vivisection)) . . 409,
410
s. 2 416
s. 3 416
s. 4 416
s. 5 417
s. 6 417
s. 7 417
s. 8 417
s. 9 418
s. 10 416, 418
s. 11 416, 418
s. 12 418
s. 13 418
s. 15 418
s. 16 418
s. 21 419
s. 22 416
c. 79. (Elementary Education Act, 1876) . . . .276
c. 81. (Crossed Cheques Act, 1876) 612
40 & 41 Vict. c. 68. (Destructive Insects Act, 1877) 297
s. 1 280
s. 2 280
s. 3 280
s. 4 281
s. 6 281
s. 8 281
41 & 42 Vict. c. 12. (Threshing Machines Act, 1878) 295
c. 15. (Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1878)
s. 17 403
s. 19 404
s. 20 404
s. 21 404
s. 22 282, 404
s. 23 403
c. 17. (Adulteration of Seeds Act, 1878) 292
c. 31. (Bills of Sale Act, 1878), s. 4 556
c. 74. (Contagious Diseases Act, 1878), s. 34 . . . . 433
42 Vict. c. 11. (Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879)-
s. 3 644
s. 4 644
s. 5 644
s. 6 645
s. 7 645, 646
s. 8 647
s. 9 644, 647
s. 10 645
42 & 43 Vict. c. 37. (Commons Act, 1879), s. 2 . . . . . .337
c. 49. (Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879)
s. 17 369
s. 29 324, 329
s. 40 416
s. 53 403
0.59. (CivilProcedure Acts Eepeal Act, 1879) . . .59
c. 72. (Shipping Casualties Act, 1879) 117
c. 76. (Companies Act, 1879)—
s. 6 582
43 & 44 Vict. c.
c.
20.
33.
s. 7
(Inland Revenue Act, 1880), s. 57
(Post Office (Money Orders) Act, 1880),
....s. 3 . . .601
583
582
c. 35. (Wild Birds' Protection Act, 1880) . . . 405, 406,

409
s. 3 406. 407
s. 4 408
s. 5 408
s. 6 408
s. 8 407
—
Ixxxvi Table of Statutes.
PAGE
43 & 44 Vict. c. 35. (Wild Birds' Protection Act. 1880)—
s. 9 407
Schedule 406
c. 36. (Savings Banks Act, 1880)—
s. 3 .577
s. 6 577
44 & 45 Yict. c. 41. (Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881) . . 346
s. 14 (2) 4
s. 18 263, 344
s. 40 151
s. 45 359
s. 46 169, 184, 208
s. 47 233
s. 48 154
c. 51. (Wild Birds' Protection Act, 1881) 405
s. 1 407
s. 2 406
c. 58. (Army Act, 1881) 309
s. 95 (1) .309
(2) 310
c. 75. (Married Women's Property Act, 1882), s. 1 (2) . . 17
45 & 46 Vict. c. 15. (Commonable Rights Compensation Act, 1882), s. 3 . 337
c. 23. (Public Health (Fruit-pickers' Lodging) Act, 1882) . 277
c. 31. (Inferior Courts Judgments Extension Act, 1882) . . 3
c. 39. (Conveyancing Act, 1882)
s. 3 (1) 216
s. 8 230
s. 9 230
c. 43. (Bills of Sale Act, 1882), s. 9 (Schedule) . . .154
c. 50. (Municipal Corporations Act, 1882) . . . 308, 347
s. 191 26
c. 61. (Bills of Exchange Act, 1882) . . 590, 595, 598, 600
s. 2 4,568,569,608—610,614
s. 3 600, 602
(4) (a) 604
s. 5 (2) 602, 613
s. 7 (3) 614
s. 8 600
(3) 569, 608, 614
(4) 569
(5) 569
s. 12 604
s. 13 (2) 602, 603
s. 17 208
s. 19 (2) 23
s, 20 604
s. 22 (1) • . . . .587
(2) 587
s. 23 208, 221
s. 24 614
s. 25 202, 594, 604
s. 26 208
(1) 208, 221
(2) 208.
s. 27 (3) 597, 622, 634
s. 45 591
(8) 590, 609
s. 46 ^ 23
s. 47 (2) 618
s. 49 . 175
(6) 591
(12) 619
(13) 591
s. 50 (1) . . 618
s. 52 (1) . .
•
23
s. 53 585
(1) . . 605
Table of Statutes. Ixxxvii
PACrE
45 & 46 Yict. c. 61. (Bills of Exchange Act, 1882)—
s. 58 . . 574, 618
s. 59 . 609, 614
s. 60 . . . 609—614
s. 63 (3) . . 615
s. 64 571, 615
(2) 604, 616
s. 70 574
s. 73 569, 587, 602, 604, 612
s. 74 591
s. 75 605, 607
s. 76 569, 593, 611
ss. 76—82 600
s. 77 (2) 593
(5) 593
(6) 569, 593, 611
s. 79 610, 611
s. 80 605, 608, 611
s. 81 569
s. 82 593—595
s. 90 609
s. 95 601
s. 97 (3) 600, 601, 613
c. 72. (Revenue. Friendly Societies, and National Debt Act,
1882), s. 11 582, 647
c. 75. (Married Women's Property Act, 1882) 150, 151, 442, 584
s. 6 577, 580, 587. 590
s. 7 587, 590
s. 13 450
c. 80. (Allotments Extension Act, 1882) . . 333,338,349
s. 4 •. . . . 338, 339
s. 5 334, 339
s. 6 334, 338
s. 7 334, 340
s. 8 339
s. 9 340
s. 10 340
s. 11 339
s. 12 340
s. 13 340
(6) 341
14
s. 338
Sched. 1 339
Sched. VI 340
46 & 47 Vict. c. 52. (Bankruptcy Act, 1883) 516
s. 4 (1) (g) 308
s. 6 (1) (d) 308
s. 9 349, 606
s. 32 349
s. 34 . .349
s. 38 235, 630
s. 42 256
s. 43 236 235,
s. 44 276 203,
(3) 555 198,
s. 49 606
198, 234, 236,
s. 50 (6) 585
s. 55 (3) 276
s. 57 443
s. 122 349
c. 55. (Revenue Act, 1883), s. 17 . 599—601, 612, 613
. .
c. 58. (Post Office (Money Orders) Act, 1883), s. 1. 601 . .
Sched. 1 601
c. 61. (Agricultural Holdings Act. 1883). . 242, 256, 257, 259,
266—269, 273, 276, 294, 343, 352
s. 3 261, 284
s. 4 261 266
s. 5 . 262
Ixxxviii Table of Statutes.
PAGE
46 & 47 Vict, c. 61. Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883)—
s. 24 . 266
25 . 268
26 . . . . . . . . . 268
27 . 269
28 . . . . : . 241, 269
29 . 267
30 . 267
31 263, 268
32 . . . 267
33 241
34 273
35 268
36 268
37 268
38 269
39 269
40 269
41 242, 243
42 .268
43 268
s. 44 255 .
s. 45 253, 388
s. 46 257 .
s. 47 256 .
s. 48 269 .
s. 50 254 .
s. 53 241 .
s. 54 239, 259,
s. 55 262
s. 56 262, 270
s. 58 262 .
s. 59 263 .
s. 60 269, 272, 274 .
s. 61 239, 253, 259, 270

c. 62. (Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1883) 242, 259 .
47 & 48 Vict. c. 56. (Chartered Companies Act, 1884) 581

48 & 49 Vict. c. 46. (Medical Relief Disqualification Kemoval Act, 1885) 324 .
49 & 50 Vict. c. 32. (Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1886), s. 9 433 . .
50 & 51 Vict. c. 26, (Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation for

Crops Act, 1887) 258, 263, 353,
355, 356
s. 2 356 .
s. 4 331, 357
s. 5 357
s. 6 357
s. 7 357
357
357
s. 10 358
(5) . 353
s. 11 357
s. 12 358
s. 13 .
'
358
s. 14 358
s. 15 358
s. 16 358
s. 17 358
s. 18 356
c. 27. (Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1887)
292, 420, 508
s. 3 . . . . 508
c. 28. (Merchandise Marks Act, 1887) 299
s. 2 (1) . . .218
s. 1 . . 580
(2) 580
s. 3 578
. —
Table of Statutes. Ixxxix
PAGE
50 & 51 Yict. c. 48. (Allotments Act, 1887) 332 336, 341—344,
347, 350, 35i, 352, 353, 354,
358
s. 2 . . 351, 352
(1) . 343, 344
(2) 343, 344, 349,
352
s. 3 . 332
(1) . 345
. 352
. 352
(1) 343, 352
(3) . 352
(4) . 352
s. 7 (1) . 354
(2) . 354
(3) . 354
(4) 352, 353
(5) . 355
(6) . 357
s. 8 (1) . 355
(2) . 355
(3) . 355
s. 9 . . 348
s. 10 (1) . 358
(3) . 359
(4) . 353
(6) . 359
s. 11 . 349, 350
(1) . 353
(2) . 353
(3) . 353
s. 12 . . 350
s. 13 . 336, 339, 349
(1) . 336
s. 14 (1) . 358
s. 15 . . 354
s. 17 . 33], 342
c. 55. (Sheriffs Act, 1887) . 516
51 & 52 Vict. c. 10. (County Electors Act, 1888), s. 2 (2) . 308
c. 15. (National Debt (Supplemental) Act, 1888), . 577
c. 21. (LaAv of Distress Amendment Act, 1888)
s. 4 . . 252
s. 5 . . 254
s. 7 . . 152
s. 8 . . 516
c. 33 (Hawkers Act, 1
s. 2 . 502
.
s. 3 . 502
.
c. 41. (Local Government Act, 1888) 361

.
s. 3 . 407
.
s. 28 (2) 431
.
(3) 431
.
s. 69 (2) 357
.
c. 43. (County Courts Act, 1888) 112, 563

s. 53 . 5
s. 54 . 5
s. 60 . 49
.
s. 65 . 48
.
s. 66 . 49
.
s 74 . 7, 129
s. 101 4
s. 104. 488
.
s. 120 . 113, 114

s. 125 . Ill
.
ss. 133—137 383

.
s. 146. 137
.
s. 159 . 152, 501

xc Table of Statutes.
PAGE
51 k 52 Vict. c. 43. (County Courts Act, 1888)—
s.183 . 137
s.186. 3
c. 51. (Land Charges Registration and Searches Act, 1888),
s. 12 . 267
c. 55. (Sand-grouse Protection Act, 1 . 407
c. 59. (Trustee Act, 1888), s. 8 . 184
c. 64. (Law of Libel Amendment
Act, 1 13 .
52 & 53 Vict. c. 30. (Board of Agriculture Act, 1889) 280, 332, 334
s. 2 . . 298
(1) (b) 338, 335, 349
s. 4 . . 299
s. 6 . . 299
s. 12 . . .298
c. 45. (Factors Act, 1889) 161, 205, 520
s. 1 . 152, 638
.
(2) 205 .
(4) 205 .
(5) 205 .
s. 2 . . 225, 563
(1) 205 .
(2) 206 .
(3) 205 .
(4) 206 .
s. 3 . . 205, 639
s. 4 . 206
.
s. 5 . 206
.
205
.
s. 7 . 204
.
s. 8 . 225
.
s. 9 . 225
.
s. 12 (2) 207
.
(3) 207
.
s. 13 . 205
.
c. 49. (Arbitration Act, 1889) 266, 438—442, 445, 447, 450, 454,
463, 470, 476, 482, 483, 487, 489, 491, 493
s. 1 439, 445, 449, 474
s. 2 439, 446, 447, 455, 456, 458, 462, 463, 468, 471, 472
s. 3 439 455
s. 4 27, 439. 445, 451, 453, 455,' 481
s. 5 439, 441, 455-457
s. 6 439, 441, 460
(a) . 456
(b) . 456
. 439
(a) . 458
(b) . 458. 466
(c) . 458
439,
. 461
439, 464, 485, 489
10 . 439
(1) . 476
(2), . 464, 478
s. 11 . 439
(1) . 459
(2) 459, 466, 476, 478
s. 12 439,
. 473
s. 13 439,
. 484
(1) 481,
. 482
(2) . 486
439, 482, 483, 487. 488, 492
. 439
(1) 482. 484, 488
(2) 471, 482, 490, 491
(3) . 486, 491
16 439, 485, 489
17 . 439, 482
18 . 439, 462
Table of Statutes. xci
PAGE
5-2 & 53 Yict. c. 49. (Arbitration Act, 1889)—
s. 19 . . . 439, 446, 450, 454, 464—466, 471, 485,
489, 493
s. 20 439, 465, 477, 490
s. 21 439, 484
s. 22 439, 462
s. 23 439
s. 24 . . . 439, 493
s. 25 439, 441
s. 26 439
s.27 439, 441
s. 28 439
s. 29 439
Sched. I. (a) 441, 455
(b) 441, 456
(c) 458, 462, 463, 468
(d) 446
(e) 458, 463
(f) 446, 447, 458, 462
(g) 447, 458, 462
(h) 447
(i) . . . . 447, 458, 466, 471, 472
c. 63. (Interpretation Act, 1889)—
s. 1 (1) (b) 462
s. 3 462
c. 69. (Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889) .191 . .
53 & 54 Yict. c. 14. (Contagious Diseases (Animals) Pleuro -pneumonia Act,

1890), s. 2 429
c. 27. (Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890)—
s. 2 (1) 141
(2) 141
(3) 141
s. 5 141
s. 6 141
(1) 141
(2) 141
s. 9 141
s. 11 142
(2) 141
s. 17 140
c. 32. (Anglo-German Agreement Act, 1890) .316. . .
c. 39. (Partnership Act, 1890) 442, 605, 642

s. 5 443, 604
s. 8 604
s. 18 642
s. 24(9) H9
c. 57. (Tenants' Compensation Act, 1890) 239, 242, 256, 257,
259, 266—269, 273, 276, 294, 343, 352
s. ] 263
s. 2 .263
(2) 263
s. 3 267
c. 59. (Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890)—
s. 29 413
s. 30 413
s. 31 413
c. 63. (Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890) . . . .516
c. 64. (Directors' Liability Act, 1890) 224
c. 65. (Allotments Act, 1890) 332, 336, 359
s. 2 (2) 341, 351
s. 4 332,348, 352
(c) 359
(f) 352
s. 5 343, 351
s. 6 (1) 359
(2) 358
(3) 360
c. 71. (Bankruptcy Act, 1890) 349. 516
—
xcii Table of Statutes.
PAGE
53 & 54 Yict. c. 71. (Bankruptcy Act, 1890), s. 28 . . . . .256
54 & 55 Vict. c. 15. (Merchandise Marks Act, 1891) 298
s. 2 577
s. 5 (2) . .577
s. 8 578
s. 10 677, 578
s.ll 576
s.12 576
c. 31. (Mail Ships Act, 1891)—
s. 3 82
s. 5 71, 83
c. 33. (Allotments Rating Exemption Act, 1891)
s. 1 .354
c. 39. (Stamp Act, 1891) 571, 589
s. 1 447, 448
s. 2 447
s. 8 (1) 603
(3) 603
s. 22 448
s. 30 573, 574
s. 33 . . .589
s. 34 603
s. 38 603
(2) 603
s. 43 151
s. 53 (3) . .196 .
Sched. 1 160, 447, 448, 589

c. 70. (Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1891) 292,
298, 421, 508
s. 3 (3) 508
s. 4 508
c. 76. (Public Health (London) Act, 1891)—
s. 19 413
s. 20 413
s. 28 433
s. 142 412
55 Vict. c. 9. (Gaming Act, 1892) 231
55 & 56 Vict. c. 19.

s.
(Statute
s.
1
1
Law Revision Act, 1892) .... 196, 197, 229
62
574
c. 31. (Small Holdings Act, 1892), s. 19 . . . 361
.
c. 48. (Bank Act, 1892) 570

s. 6 570, 571
c. 55. (Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892), s. 381 . 324
.
56 & 57 Vict. c. 53. (Trustee Act, 1893)—

s. 17 171
s. 21 443
c. 56. (Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1893) . . 285, 290
c. 61. (Public Authorities' Protection Act, 1893) . 24, 25, 431
s. 1 5, 213, 384
s. 2 24, 384
c. 63. (Married Women's Property Act, 1893) . 150, 151, 587
c. 69. (Savings Banks Act. 1893)—
s. 1 576
s. 2 577
s. 4 577
s. 5 (2) . .577
c. 71. (Sale of Goods Act, 1893) 152,638
s. 4 207, 274, 389, 504
s. 14 . . 388
s. 19 624
s. 21 (1) 204
s. 22 (1) 204
s. 25 (1) 225
(2) . . . 225
s. 53 (1) 391
(2) 391
—
Table of Statutes. XClll
PAGE
56 & 57 Vict. c. 71. (Sale of Goods Act, 1893)—
s. 53 (3) 391
(4) 391
s. 58 508, 509
(1) 505
(2) 511
(3) 508
s. 62 4
(1) . 391
c. 73. (Local Government Act, 1894) . 332, 341, 345, 347, 359
s. 2 (1) 308, 341
s. 4 343, 351
s. 6 (4) 3S6, 349, 352
s. 9 332, 342, 345, 346. 348, 359
(10) 345
(16) 332
(19) 359
s. 10 332, 344, 345, 358
(9) 358
s. 14 (1) 339
s. 27 277
(2) 413
s. 33 345
s. 58 (2) . . .359
s. 68 343
s. 70 343
s. 72 343
(4) 359
ss. 85—88 343
57 & 58 Vict. c. 16. (Supreme Court of Judicature (Procedure) Act, 1894)
s. 1 112, 481
(1) 451
(4) 451, 465, 488
(5) Ill
c. 19. (Merchandise Marks (Prosecutions) Act, 1894), s. 1 . 299
c. 22. (Injured Animals Act, 1894) 419
c. 24. (Wild Birds' Protection Act, 1894) . . . .405
s. 2 408
s. 3 408
s. 4 408
s. 5 408
c. 46. (Copyholds Act, 1894), s. 58 160
c. 47. (Building Societies Act, 1894) 493
c. 57. (Diseases of Animals Act, 1894) . . 297,401,402,421
s. 3 281, 430
s. 4 422
s. 5 425
(1) 425
(6) 425
(7) 425
(8) . 425
(9) 425
(10) 426
s. 6 426
s. 7 427, 428
s. 8 425
(1) 425
(4) 432
(5) 425
(6) 425
(7) 425
(8) 425
(9) 425
(11) 425
(12) 426
s. 9 (1) 426
(2) 425
s. 10 (1) 426
xciv Table of Statutes.
PAGE
57 & 58 Yict. c. 57. (Diseases of Animals Act, 1894)—
s. 11 . .427
s. 12 . . 425, 427
(1) 427
(2) . . . . . . . . .427
s. 13 . . .427
s. 14 . . 426
(1) . . . 428
(2) 428
(4) 428
s. 15 428
(1) 428
s. 16 428
(1) 428
s. 17 . . . 429
s. 18 429
s. 19 428, 429
s. 20 428
(4) 428
(5) 429
s. 21 422
s. 22 281, 421
(i.) 426
(ii.) 426
(iii.) 422, 426
(iv.) 426
(v.) 426
(vi.) . . .426
(rii.) 426
(ix.) 422
(x.) 422
(xi.) 423
(xii.) 423
(xiii.) 423
(xiiiA.) 424
(xiv.) •
. .429
(xv.) 429
(xvi.) 428
(xvii.) 423
(xviii.) 423
(xix.) . . . : 423
(XX.) . . .423
(xxi.) 424
(xxii.) 424
(xxiv.) 433
(xxv.) 433
(xxvi.) 433
(xxvii.) 433
(xxviii.) 433
(xxix.) 433
(xxx.) 400, 401
(xxxi.) 400, 401
(xxxiv.) 431
(xxxv.) 421
(xxxvi.) 421
s. 23 433
s. 25 424
s. 27 . . . .
-
427
s. 28 427
s. 30 (1) (i.) 424
(ii.) 424
(iii.) 424
(iv.) 424
(v.) 424
(vi.) . 424
(vii.) . 424
Cviii.) 424
(ix.) . . 424
— 1
Table of Statutes. xcv
PAGE
57 & 58 Vict. c. 57. (Diseases of Animals Act, 1894)
s. oO (1) (x.) ....
.... 424
s. 31
(xi.)
(xii.) .... .
.
.
424
424
431
s. 32 . 430
(5) . 430
((>) . 430
s, 33 (1) . . •
, . 430
(3) . 430
S, Oi .
S. do . . 432
s. 36 . 430, 432
r,
S.
on
oy . 4oi
s. 40 . 430
s. 41 . 4oU
s. 42 . . 431
(1) . 431
{^) 4oi
(5) . 431
s. 43 . . 402
/'ON
C^)
s, 44 402, 432
(5) . 432
s. 45 . 432
s. 46 . . 431
s. 49 (4) . . . . . . 431
s. 51 .
A no
4UZ, /t AO A QO
s. 52 . 433
(1) . 431
s. 53 432 .
s. 54 . 432
s. 55 . 432
s. 56 403, 432
.'
s. oy . 365, 421, 4Z0, 'loS

(1) . 421
Sched. I-, Part I. . . . . 427
11. . . 427
II . 429
TTT T>„™-i- T An'7
427
111., Part 1. . . . .
TT
. 427
IV . 431
c. 60. (Merchant Snipping Act, 1894) . 321
s. 1 . 77, oUb, 6i6
s. 13 .
ai
d7
S. 10 . DO
s. 22 . . 236
KA
-\
s. 24 . 104
s. 30 . DO
S.
S.
s.
oi
o4
69
......
.
.
'7'7
'7*7
s. 70 77
s. 71 77
s. 73 . 1
s. 135 7A
/ U
s. 148 . 0/y
s. 149 (1) 0/y
S.
s.
iOU
152.
......
(2)
. 579
579
0/ y
'68
s. 165 , 70, 127
s. 167 68, 69
s. 168 . 68
s. 171 . 70
s. 186 . 70
s. 192 . 321
s. 195 . 79
....
XCVl Table of Statutes.
PAGE
57 & 58 Yict. c. 60. (Merchant Shipping Act, 1894)-
s. 196. , 70
s. 197. 79
s. 199. . 70
s. 207. , 70
s. 208 70
ss. 446—449 , 78
s. 472. . 65
s. 473 . 117
.
s. 475 (3) . 115

,
s. 478 . 115
.
s. 487. 129
ss. 502—504 73
s. 503. 73, 109, 110
s. 510. 76
s. 524. 76
s. 525 . 76
s. 526. 127
s. 544. 74
(2) . 75
s. 547 (2) . 105
(4) . 105
s. 557 76
s. 561 141, 142
s. 565. 75.
s. 571. 139.
s. 633 214.
s. 684 . 329.
s. 685. 329.
s. 686. 329.
s. 688 . 72.
s. 693. 329.
58 Vict. c. 16. (Finance Act, 1895), s 610.
58 & 59 Yict. c. 27. (Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895) 239, 242,
256, 257, 259, 266, 267, 268, 269, 273 276, 294, 343 352
s. 3 . 262 270
(1) • 273
(4) . 270
(5) . 273
s. 4 270, 273
s. 6 239, 259
c. 43. (Naturalization Act, 1895), s 315
59 & 60 Vict. c. 15. (Diseases of Animals Act, 1896) 421
s. 1 427
c. 16. (Agricultural Rates Act, 1896) 354
c.
c.
25.
30.
s. 33 (b)
(Conciliation Act, 1896)

....
(Friendly Societies Act, 1896) 493
160
493
c, 51. (Vexatious Actions Act, 1896), s. 1 30
c. 56. (Wild Birds' Protection Act, 1896) 405
s. 1 407
s. 3 407. 408
s. 4 409 .
60 & 61 Vict. c. 44. (District Councils (Water Supply Facilities) Act, 1897) 299
c. 51. (Public Works Loans Act, 1897)—
s. 1 .357
s. 12 (4) .357
Sched. II .357
c. 60. (Chaff-Cutting Machines (Accidents) Act, 1897) .295
0. 65. (Land Transfer Act, 1897) . 356, 360
s. 19 (1) .356
(2) . . .360
61 & 62 Vict. c. 14. Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners) Act
'
1898), s. 3 . 73
€2 & 63 Vict. c. 14. (London Government Act, 1899), s. 6 (4) . 413
c. 30. (Commons Act, 1899)—
s. 16 (1) . 337
(2) . . . .. 337
Table of Statutes. xcvii
PAGE
62 & 63 Vict. c. 30. (Commons Act, 1899)—
s. 18 335, 338
s. 22 (1) 332
(2) 332
Sched. I 332
63 & 64 Vict. c. 32. (Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and
Others) Act, 1900)—
ss. 1, 2 109
s. 2 . . 73, 109
c. 33. (Wild Animals in Captivity Protection Act, 1900) 406,
.
409, 410, 412

s. 1 365, 410
s. 2 410
s. 3 414
s. 4 .410
c."48. (Companies Act, 1900) 583
s. 23 •
. .583
c. 50. (Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900) 239, 242, 256, 257, 259,
266, 267, 268, 269, 273, 276, 294, 343, 352
s. 1 (1) 260
(3) 260
(4) 260
(5) 262
s. 2 (2) 260, 265
(3) 266, 268
(4) 265
(6) 265
(7) . 266
(8) 266
s. 3 267
(1) 298
(2) 267
(3) 268
s. 4 273
s. 5 243, 270
s. 6 250
s. 9 259, 284
Sched 1 262, 266, 347
Part. I. . 260, 263, 266, 267. 269, 270, 284
II 261, 263, 266, 267
III. . . 260, 261, 263, 266, 269, 270
Sched. I., 27 (i.), (ii.), (iii.), (iv.) .356 . . .
Sched. II 264
1 Edw. 7, c. 10. (Larceny Act, 1901) 193
c. 13. (Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, etc.. Continuance Act,
2 Edw. 7, c. 6.
1901)
(Wild Birds Protection Act, 1902)
s. 1
354
405
408
....
c. 36. (Mail ShiT).s Act, 1902), s. 1 82
3 Edw. 7, c. 31. (Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1903) 280, 333, .
335, 349
s. 1 (1) 299
(3) 299
(8) 299
s. 7 299
s. 8 .299
c. 42. (County Courts Act, 1903), s. 3 49
/ c. 43. (Diseases of Animals Act, 1903) 421
s. 1 421, 424
s. 2 424, 432
4 Edw. 7, c. 4.
s. 3
(Wild Birds Protection Act, 1904)
s. 1
.... 424, 430
405
407
s. 2 408
c. 10. (Wild Birds Protection (St. Kilda) Act, 1904) . 405, 406
'
s. 1 578
s. 4 577
H.L. — I. //
—
xcviii Table of Statutes.
PAGE
4 Edw. 7, c. 8. (Savings Banks Act, 1904)
s. 6 (1) . .578
(2) 578
(4) . . . . . . . . . 578
s. 8 .577
s. 11 579
5 Edw. 7, c. 10. (Shipowners' Negligence (Remedies) Act, 1905) . . 71
c. 11. (Railway Fires Act, 1905)—
s. 1 279
s. 2 280
s. 3 279
s. 5 279, 280
C.13. (Aliens Act, 1905) . . . . 304,320,323, 327,328
s. 1 320
ri) .321
(2) 323
(3) 304. 321
(4) 321, 323
(5) 328
s.2(l) . . . . . . . . . 322
(2) 322, 323
s. 3 . . . . 323
(1) 323
(1) (b) 324
(2) 323, 328
s. 4 (1) 325
(2) 325
(3) 328
s. 5 305
(1) 326
(2) . 328
(3) 326
s. 6(1) 304,322
(2) 322
(3) 322.
s. 7 304
(1) 328
(2) 328
(3) 325
(4) 328
(6) 320
s.8(l) 304
(1) (a) 321
(1) (b) 323
(2) 304, 323
s. 9
(3)
(4) ......... 305
323
305, 329
s. 10 (2) 320
s. 22 321
s. 35 304
s. 36 305
6 Edw. 7, c. 17. (Bills of Exchange (Crossed Cheques) Act, 1906) 592, .
596, 597, 600, 601, 606

s. 1 . . . . . . . . . , 225
c. 20. (Revenue Act, 1906), s. 9 '.
470'
c. 27. (Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906)—
s. 1 (1) . . : 285
(2) 286
(3) 286
(4) 286
(5) 287
(6) 287
s. 2 287, 299
s. 3(1) 287
(2) 287
(3) 287
(4) (a) . . 28a
Table of Statutes. xcix
PAGE
6 £dw. 7, c. 27. Tevtilisers and Feedmg Stuffs Act, 1906)—
s. 4 (4) (b) . 288
(5) . 288
(6) . 288
(7) . 288
s. 4 .
289, 299
s. 6(1) . 290
(2) . 290
(3) . 290
(4) . 290
s. 7 .
. 290
290, 299
s. 9(1) . 290
(2) . 291
(3) . 291
s. 10(1) . 286
(2) 285, 286
c. ?,2. (Dogs Act, 1906)—
s. 1 .
(1) 281, 374, 397

(2) . 397
(3) . 397
(4) 281, 398, 399
s. 2 .
281, 298,
400, 421
(l)(a) . 401
(b) . 401
s. 3(1)
(2)
(3) 398
.
(4) 398
.
(5) . 398
(6) 398
.
(7) 281, 398

(8) 398
.
(9) 398
.
s. 4 . 398
.
s. 5 . 404
.
(1) 282
.
(2) 404
.
s. 6 .
282, 397, 400
s. 7 .
. 397
c. 34. (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906) 191, 217
c. 47. (Trade Disputes Act, 1906), s. 4 . 213
c. 48. (Merchant Shipping Act, 1906)—
s. 51 .77
s. 57 68
.
s. 66 115
.
117
.
73, 110
ss. 69—71 73
.
s. 71 .
73, 109
s. 72 . .76
c. 51. (Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1906) 407
.
c. 56. (Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906) 239, 242, 256, 257,

259, 266, 267, 268, 269, 273 276, 294, 343, 352 ,
s.l(l). 260 .
(2) 251, 264, 271, 278

s. 2 (1) 278
.
(2) 277
.
(3) 278
.
(4) 278
.
s. 3 (1) 251
.
(2). 251, 252

(3) 262
.
(4) 250.
s. 4 .
271.
s. 5 .
270, 271
9 2
— —
Table of Statutes.
PAGE
(Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906)—
s. 6 261
s. 7 240, 298
s.
s.
9
(Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906)
11 . . . . .
_
.... 278
493
71
(Destructive Insects and Pests' Act, 1907)
s. 1 (1)
(Injured Animals Act, 1907)
s. 1 (1)
..... .280
409
419
(2) 419
(Limited Partnerships Act, 1907)—
s. 6 (1) 149
(Companies Act, 1907)
s.19 583
s.35 583
(Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907) 270, 332, . .
336, 341, 342, 345, 346, 348, 349, 350,

351, 352, 353, 356, 360
s. 1 350
s. 2 (4) 341
s. 9 . . . . . . . . . .355
s. 19 348
s. 20 (1) 352, 360
(2) 343, 352
(4) 353
(5) . . . 353
(6) 343
s. 21 (1) 344, 354
(a) 354
(b) 355
(2) 355
(3) 355
s. 22 345
s. 23 352
(2) 336
s. 24 351
(1) -341
(2) 351
s. 25 360
s. 26 (2) 345, 348
(3) 346, 348
(4) 348
(5) 348
(6) 346
(7) 343, 349
(8) . . .348
s. 27 (1) 346
(2) 346
s. 28 344
s. 28 (1) 344
(2) 344
(3) 344
s. 29 (1) 348
s. 30 (1) 349, 350
(2) 349, 350
(3) . . 349
s. 32 350
s. 33 (1) . . 347
(2) 347
s. 35 . 258
(1) 356
(2) 347
(3) . . 356
(4) . . . 355
s. 36 (1) . 341
(2) 341
—
Table of Statutes. ci
PAGE
7 Edw. 7, c. 54. (Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907)
s. 37 . . 359
s. 38 . . 242
s. 39 (1) . 360
(2) . 361
(4) 360, 361
s. 40 . 351
s. 41 . 350
s. 42 . 350
(2) 351
s. 43 (3) 347
s. 44 . 360
s. 45 . 352
s. 46 (2) 345
(3) 350
(4) 341, 343
s. 47 . 342, 344, 359
(4) 332, 351
Sched. I. Parts I. and II. . 345
Sched. I. Part I. (1) . 348
(2) . 348
(3) . 348
(4) . 348
Part II. (3) . 346
Sched. II. . 332, 342, 344, 351, 359
Colonial Statutes.
New South "Wales Act,
39 Vict. No. 38. (Claims against the Colonial Government Act) . . 18
Straits Settlements Ordin-
ance No. XV. of 1876. (Crown Suits Ordinance, 1876)
s. 18 (2) . .18
TABLE OF CASES.
A.
PAGE
Aas V. Benham,[1891] 2 Ch. 244; 65 L. T. 25 184
Abbott V. Stratton (1846), 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 233 3 Jo. & Lat. 699 228 ; . . . .
Aberdeen Rail. Co. v. Blackie (1854), 1 Macq. H. L. 461 2 Eq. Rep. 1281 189 ; .
Abergavenny Improvement Commissioners v. Straker (1889), 42 Ch. D. 83 58 ;
L. J. (ch.) 717 60 L. T. 81 38 W. R. 158

; ; 506
Abraham v. Bullock (1902), 86 L. T. 796 50 W. R. 626 212, 551 : . . . .
Abrahams v. Deakin, [1891] 1 Q. B. 516 60 L. J. (q. b.) 238 63 L. T. 690 ; ; ;
39 W. R. 183 55 J. P. 212
: 166
Abrath v. North Eastern Rail. Co. (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 440 (1886), 11 App. Cas, ;
247 52 L. J. (Q. b.) 620 49 L. T. 618 32 W. R. 50

; ; 13 ;
Acton V. Castle Mail Packet Co. (1895), 73 L. T. 158 550

Adair, Ex imrte, Re Gross (1871), 24 L. T. 198 affirmed on appeal, suh nom. ;
Ex imrte Kingston, Ke Gross, L. R. 6 Ch. 632 19 W. R. 910 584 ; . .
V. Young (1879), 12 Ch. D. 13 40 L. T. 598 ; 224

Adams, In re (1837), 1 Moo. P. C. 460 302
V. Bankhart (1835), 1 C. M. & R. 681 443
V. Catley (1892), 66 L. T. 687 40 W. R. 570 ; 452
V. Grane (1833), 1 C. & M. 380 3 Tyr. 326 2 L. J. (ex.) 105 206, 520
; ; .
Adamsonv. Jarvis (1827), 4Bing. 66 12 Moore, 241 5 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.) 68. ..196, 197,
; ;
517 520
Adcock V. Murrell (1890), 54 J. P. 776 412 . .
'
Addison v. Gandassequi (1812), 4 Taunt. 574 209

Adlard v. Booth (1835), 7 C. & P. 108 557
«'
Africano," The, [1894] P. 141 63 L. J. (adm.) 125 70 L. T. 250 42 W. R.
; ; ;
413 7 Asp. M. C. 427 6 R. 767

; ; 99, 123
Agacio V. Forbes (1861), 14 Moo. P. C. 160 4 L. T. 155 9 W. R. 503 226 ; ; . .
Aggs v. Nicholson (1856), 1 H. & N. 165 25 L. J. (ex.) 348 4 W. R. 776 221

; ; .
" Agincourt," The (1877), 2 P. D. 239 47 L. J. (adm.) 37 ; 64

Agnew V. Jobson (1877), 47 L. J. (m. c.) 67 25
Agra and Masterman's Bank, Re, Ex parte Waring (1866), 36 L. J. (ch.) 151 584 .
Re, Ex parte Asiatic Banking Corporation (1867),

2 Ch. App. 397 36 L.J. (ch.)222 16 L. T. 162 ; ; ;
15 W. R. 414 164, 511, 623

Ltd. V. Hoffmann (1864), 34 L. J. (ch.) 285 11 ;
Jur. (n. s.) 335 11 L. T. 701 13 W. R. 226

; ; 587
Aitcheson v. Cargey (1824), 2 Bing. 199 9 Moore, 381 M'Clel. 367 13 Price, 639 469
; ; ;
Aitken v. Batchelor (1893), 62 L. J. (q. b.) 193 68 L. T. 530 441 ; . . . .
Ajello r. Worsley, [1898] 1 Ch. 274 67 L. J. (ch.) 172 77 L. T. 783 46 W. R.

; ; ;
245 11
Akrokerri (Ashanti) Mines, Ltd. v. Economic Bank, [1904] 2 K. B. 465 73 ;
L. J. (k. b.) 742 91 L. T. 175 ; 52 W. R. 670 9 Com. Cas. 281;

20 ; ;
T. L. R. 564 592, 593, 595, 597, 606, 611

Alabaster v. Harness, [1894] 2 Q. B. 897 [1895] 1 Q. B. 339 64 L. J. (q. b.) ; ;
76 71 L. T. 740 43 W. R. 196 14 R. 54
; ; ; 52, 53
"Albert Crosby," The (1864), Lush. 44 69
Albrecht V. Sussman (1813), 2 V. & B. 323 20
Alcinous V. Nigreu (1854), 4 E. & B. 217 24 L. J. (q. b.) 19 1 Jur. (n. s.) 16 ; ; ;
3 W. R. 25 20, 308, 311

Alder v. Boyle (1847), 4 C. B. 635 16 L. J. (c. p.) 232 11 Jur. 591
; 193, 194 ; . .
Alderton v. Archer (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 1 54 L. J. (q. b.) 12 51 L. T. 661 33 ; ; ;
W. R. 136 7
;
civ Table of Cases.
PAGE
Aldred's Case (1610), 9 Co. Eep. 58 . .11
" Alert," The (1894), 72 L. T. 124 7 Asp. M. L. C. 544 11 E. 702
; ; . . . 113
Alexander v. Burchfield (1842), 7 Man. & G. 1061 3 Scott (n. e.) 555 Car. & ; ; M.
75 11 L. J. (c. p.) 253
; . .590
.
V. Davis (1882), 2 T. L. E. 142 230
V. Gibson (1811), 2 Camp. 555 394
. ~ V. Mackenzie (1848), 6 C. B. 766 18 L. J. (c. p.) 94 13 Jur. 346 ; : . 594
V. Sizer (1869), L. E. 4 Exch. 102 38 L. J. (ex.) 59 20 L. T. 38 ; ; . 208,
221
V.(1821), 5 B. & Aid. 247
Southey 226
" Alexandra,"The (1888), 6 Asp. M. L. C. 384, n 94
"Alexandria," The (1872), L. E. 3 A. & E. 574 41 L. J. 27 L. T. ;
(adm.) 94 ;
565 1 Asp. M. C. 464

: 113
Alford V.Vickery (1842), Car. & M. 280 .256
"AUna," The (1880), 5 Ex. D. 227 49 L. J. (adm.) 40 42 L. T. 517 29 W. E.94
; ; ; ;
4 Asp. M. C. 256 108, 128

Allard v. Bourne (1863). 15 C. B. (n. s.) 468 3 N. E. 42 180 ;
Allen V. Flood, [1898] A. C. 1 67 L. J. (q. b.) 119 77 L. T. 717 46 W. E. 258

; ; ; ;
62 J. P. 595 10, 11
.
V. Garbutt (1880), 5 P. D. 165 50 L. J. (q. b.) 141 29 W. E. 287 4 ; ; ;
Asp. M. C. 520. n 120

r. Greenslade (1875), 33 L. T. 567 477 .
V. London and South Western Eail. Co. (1870), L. E. 6 Q. B. 65 40 L. J. ;
(q. B.) 55 23 L. T. 612 19 W. E. 127

; 11 Cox, C. C. 621 : 166 ; . .
V. Small, [1904] 2 I. E. 4, 705 409

Alley V. Hotson (1815), 4 Camp. 325 .228
AUhusen v. Malgarejo (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 340 37 L. J. (q. b.) 169 18 L. T. : :
323 16 W. E. 854
; . . . 6
Alloway v. Steere (1882), 10 Q. B. D. 22 52 L. J. (q. b.) 38 47 L. T. 333 31 ; ; ;
W. E. 290 275
"Alma," The, [1903] P. 55 72 L. J. (p.) 21 88 L. T. 64 51 W. E. 415
;
9 ; ; ;
Asp. M. C. 375 Ill

" Alne Holme," The, [1893] P. 173 63 L. J. (adm.) 51 68 L. T. 862 41 W. E. ; ; ;
572 7 Asp. M. C. 344

;
Alsager v. Currie (1844), 12 M. & W. 751

Altham's Case (1610), 8 Co. Eep. 150 b
13 L. J. (ex.) 203
113
606
2, 6
; ... .
Ambergate Eail. Co. v. Midland Eail. Co. (1853), 2 El. & Bl. 793 23 L. J. (q. b.) ;
17 18 Jur. 243 2 C. L. E. 261

; ; 379, 381
Ambler v. Bradford Corporation. [1902] 2 Ch. 585 71 L. J. (ch.) 744 87 L. T. ; ;
217 66 J. P. 708
;
'
. . .25
Ames V. Milward (1818), 8 Taunt. 637 479
" Amstel," The (1878), 2 P. D. 186 47 L. J. (adm.) 11 37 L. T. 138 26 W. E. ; ; ;
69 3 Asp. M. C. 488
; 112
Ancona v. Marks (1862), 7 H. & N. 686 31 L. J. (ex.) 163 8 Jur. (n. s.) 516 ; ;
5 L. T. 753 10 W. E. 251
; 173, 175
Anderson v. John Croall & Sons, Ltd. (1904), 6F. (Ct. of Sess.) 153 41 Sc. L. E. ;
95 222, 510, 519

V. Gorrie, [1895] 1 Q. B. 668 71 L. T. 382 14 E. 79 13
; ; . . . .
V. North Eastern Eail. Co. (1861), 4 L. T. 216 9 W. E. 519 546, ; . .
549
V. Eadclifie (1858), E. B. & E. 806; 29 L. J. (q. b.) 128 6 Jur. (n. s.; ;
578 1 L. T. 487 8 W. E. 283

; ;
55
V. Sanderson (1817), 2 Stark. 204 Holt, 591 215 ;
V. WaUace (1835), 3 C. & F. 26 458

V. Watson (1823), 3 C. & P. 214 225
V. Wood (1881), 9 (Ct. of Sess.) 9 19 Sc. L. E. 142 412 ;
. . . .
Andrews- 1;. Mitchell, [1905] A. C. 78 74 L. J. (k. b.) 333 91 L. T. 537 :

461 ;
. .
V. Palmer (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 250 449, 451

V. Eamsay, [1903] 2 K. B. 635 72 L. J. (k. b.) 865 89 L. T. 450; 52 ; ;
W. E. 126 191,196 . . . .
Angus T. McLachlan (1883), 23 Ch. D. 330 52 L. J. (ch.) 587 48 L. T. 863 ; ; ;
31 W. E. 641 199
V. Smythies (1861), 2 F. & F. 381 461
" Anna," The (1876), 1 P. D. 253 45 L. J. (adm.) 98 46 L. J. (adm.) 15 34 ;
; ;
L. T. 898 3 Asp. M. C. 237

; 67
" Anna and Bertha," The (1891), 64 L. T. 332 85
" Annandale," The (1877), 2 P. D. 179, 218 47 L. J. (adm.) 3 37 L. T. 139, ;
;
364 26 W. E. 38 3 Asp. M. C. 383, 489, 504

; ;
77
Table of Cases. cv
PAGE
Annesley r. Mnggridge (1816), 1 Madd. 593 513, 514
" Annette," The (1873), L. R. 4 A. & E. 9 42 L. ; J. (adm.) 13 28 L. T. 372 21
; ;
W. E. 552 1 Asp. M. C. 577

; 140
Anning v. Hartley (1858), 27 L. J. (ex.) 145 470, 478, 480
Anon. (1675), 1 Ventr. 264 376
I'. Harrison. See Harrison, r.
(1826), 5 L. J. (o. s.) (k. B.) 16 468
Ansell V. Evans (1796), 7 Term Rep. 1 . 440 .
Anson v. Towgood (1820), 1 J. & W. 637 510

Anthon v. Fisher (1783), 2 Dougi. 649, n 20
Anthony v. Halstead (1877), 37 L. T. 433 390
Antoine v. Morshead (1815), 1 Marsh. 558 6 Taunt. 237 21 ;
Antram v. Chace (1812), 15 East, 209 1 Rose, 344 ; 441, 443

Antrobus v. VVickens (1865), 4 F. & ]^ 291 195
Aplin V. Porritt, [1893] 2 Q. B. 57 62 L. J. (m. c.) 144 69 L. T. 433 42 W. R.
; ; ;
95 17 Cox, C. C. 662 57 J. P. 456 5 R. 467

; ; 409
;
" Apollo," The (1824), 1 Hagg. 312 63

Applebee v. Percy (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 647 43 L. J. (c. p.) 365 30 L. T. 785 ; ; ;
22 W. R. 704 373, 374

Applebv V. Franklin (1885), 17 Q.B. D. 93 55 L. J. (Q. b.) 129 54 L. T. 135 ; ; ;
34 W. R. 231 50 J. P. 359 ; 8, 17, 29

V. Myers (1867), L. R. 2 C. P. 651 36 L. J. (c. P.) 331 16 L. T. (n. s.) ; ;
669 557, 558, 559

Appleton V. Binks (1804), 5 East, 148 1 Smith, 361 ; 221
Archer v. Stone (1898), 78 L. T. 34 211
" Argo," The, [1895] P. 33 64 J. P. 12 71 L. T. 640 43 W. R. 415 7 Asp.
; ; ; ;
M. C. 534 11 R. 675
; 132
" Arina," The (1887), 12 P. D. 118 100
"Arizona," The (1880), 5 P. D. 123 49 L. J. (adm.) 54 42 L. T. 505 28 W. R.
; ; ;
704 4 Asp. M. C. 269

:
" Armenian," The, Admiralty Court, March 20, 1874 (unreported)

Armitage v. Jessop (1866), L. R. 2 C. P. 12 36 L. J. (c. P.) 63 12 Jur. (n. s.)
117
86
; ;
...
963 15 L. T. 214 15 W. R. 130
; ;
5
Armitstead, Ex parte, Be Dilworth (1828), 2 Gl. & J. 371 598
Armitt v. Breame (1705), 2 Ld. Raym. 1076 6 Mod. Rep. 244 Salk. 76 Holt, ; ; ;
212 468
Armory v. Delamirie (1786), 1 Stra. 504 1 Sm. L. C. 34 42, 45, 530
; . . .
Armstrong v. Gaselee (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 250 58 L. J. (q. b.) 149 59 L. T. 591 ; ; ;
37 W. R. 462 6 Asp. M. C. 353;

94
V. Mitchell (1903), 19 T. L. R. 525 88 L. T. 870 67 J. P. 329 396, 412 ; ; .
V. Stokes (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 598 41 L. J. (q. b.) 253 26 L. T. ; ;
872 21 W. R. 52
;
209, 210, 220
Arnold v. Cheque Bank (1876), 1 C. P. D. 578 45 L. J. (c. p.) 562 34 L. T. 729 ; ; ;
24 W. R. 759 225, 599

V. Hamel (1854), 23 L. J. (ex.) 137 9 Exch. 405 2 C. L. R. 499 26 ; ; . .
V. Mayor etc. of Poole (1842), 4 Man. & G. 860

2Dowl. (n. s.) 574 12 L. J. (c. p.) 97 7 Jur. 653
V. Webb (1814), 5 Taunt. 432
;
5 Scott (n. r.), 741
155, 467
36
;
;
... :
Arnot V. Biscoe (1748), 1 Ves. Sen. 95 224

Arnott V. Hayes (1887), 36 Ch. D. 731 56 L. J. (CH.) 844 57 L. T. 299
;
36 W. R. ; ;
246 .
645, 646
Arthur v. Mackinnon (1879), 11 Ch. D. 385 48 L. J. (ch.) 534 27 W. R. 704 16 ; ; .
Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. v. Riche (1875), L. R. 7 H. L. 653 44 ;
L. J. (ex.) 185 33 L. T. 451 24 W. R. 794

; ;
149, 151, 161, 174 . . . .
Ashby V. White (1703), 2 Ld. Raym. 938 3 ibid. 320 1 Smith, L. C. 231 14 ;
; ;
Howell, St. Tr. 695 7, 8, 9, 16

Ashton, Be, Ex parte McGowan (1891), 64 L. T. 28 39 W. R. 320 8 Morr. 72 215 ; ;
V. Spiers and Pond (1893), 9 T. L. R. 606 166, 212

Aspdin V. Austin (1844), 5 Q. B. 671 Dav. & Mer. 515 13 L. J. (q. b.) 155 ; ; ;
8 Jur. 355 230

Aspinall v. London and North- Western Rail. Co. (1853), 11 Hare, 325 1 W. R. ;
518 561
" Assunta," The, [1902] P. 150 71 L. J. (p.) 75 86 L. T. 660 50 W. R. 544.
;
81 ; ;
" Assyrian," The (1890), 63 L. T. 91 6 Asp. M. C. 525 ;

126
Aste V. Montague (1858), 1 F. & F. 264 236
Astley V. Gurney (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 714 38 L. J. (c. P.) 357 18 W. R. 44 235 ; ; .
Aston V. George (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 395 1 Chitty, 204 ;

448
Asylum for Idiots v. Handysides (1906), 22 T. L. R. 573 644
cvi Table of Cases.
PAGE
Athy Guardians?;. Murphy. [1896] 1 Ir. R. 65 . . . . . . .174
Atkins V. Temple (1625), 1 Ch. Rep. 14 284
Atkinson v. Abraham (1797), 1 B. & P. 175 .480
V. Bell (1828), 8 B. & C. 277 & Ry. 292 6 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 258 557
2 M. ; ;
Bradford Third Equitable Benefit Building Society (1890), 25

V.
Q. B. D. 377 59 L. J. (q. b.) 360 62 L. T. 857 38 W. R.
; ; ;
630 586, 588

V. Cotesworth (1825), 3 B. & C. 647 5 D. & R. 552 1 Car. & P. 339 ; ;
;
3 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 104 227, 231

V. Newcastle and Gateshead Waterworks Co. (1877), 2 Ex. D. 441 ;
46 L. J. (EX.) 775 36 L. T. 761 25 W. R. 794 ; 8 ;
Atkyns v. Amber (1796), 3 Esp. 493 227

" Atlas," The (1823), 2 Hagg. 48 66
Attenborough v. London and St. Katharine's Docks Co. (1878), 3 C. P. D. 450 ;
47 L. J. (c. p.) 763 33 L. T. 404 26 W. R. 583 ; 200, 513 ;
A.-G. V. Ashbourne Recreation Ground Co., [1903] 1 Ch. 101 72 L. J. (ch.) ;
67 51 W. R. 125 87 L. T. 561
; 67 J. P. 73 1 L. G. R. 146: 8 : ; . .
V. Birkbeck (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 605 53 L. J. (q. b.) 378 51 L. T. 199 ; ; ;
32 W. R. 905 572
V. British Museum Trustees, [1903 2 Ch. 598 72 L. J. (ch.) 743 88 j ; ;
L. T. 858 51 W. R. 582 ; 531 . .
V. Chesterfield (Earl of) (1854), 16 Beav. 596 18 Jur. 686 2 W. R. 499 171 ; ; .
V. Conduit Colliery Co., [1895 1 Q. B. 301 64 L. J. (q. b.) 207 71 L. T. | ; ;
771 43 W. R. 366 59 J. P. 70 15 R. 267

: : 9 :
V. Be Winton, [1906] 2 Ch. 106 75 L. J. (ch.) 612 54 W. R. 499 70 ; ; ;
J. P. 368 4 L. G. R. 549 22 T. L. R. 446

: 630 ;
V. London Corporation (1849), 2 Mac. & G. 247 2 H. & Tw. 1 19 L. J. : ;
(ch.) 314 14 Jur. 205 ;

192
London County Council, [1901] 1 Ch. 781; 70 L. J. (ch.) 367; 84
L. T. 245 151
V. Margate Pier and Harbour Co., Company of Proprietors of, [1900] 1 Ch.
749 69 L. J. (ch.) 331 82 L. T. 448 48 W. R. 518 64 J. P. 405 25 ; ; ; .
......
;
V. Moore, [1893] 1 Ch. 676 62 L. J. (ch.) 607 68 L. T, 574 41 W. R. ; ; ;
294 3 R 213 • 531 .
V. Odell, [1906] 2 Ch.'47

' 75 L.' J. (ch.) 425 94 L. T. 659 54 W. R.' ; ;
;'
566 22 T. L. R. 466 ;
637
V. Shrewsbury Bridge Co. (1880), 42 L. T. 79 3
V. Siddons (1830), 1 C. & J. 220 1 Tyr. 41 9 L. J. (o. s.) (ex.) 7 .218 ; : .
T. Sutcliffe, [1907] W. N. 91 325

V. Taylor (1824), 13 Price, 636 500
V. Tomline(1879), 12 Ch. D. 214 49 L. J. (ch.) 377 40 L. T. 775 28 W. R. ; ; ;
76 10
V. Weeden and Shales (1699), Parker, 267 311
and Hare v. Metropolitan Railway, [1894] 1 Q. B. 384 ; 69 L. T. 811 ;
42 W.
R. 381 58 J. P. 342 :
14
of Straits Settlements v. Wemyss (1888), 13 App. Cas. 192 ; 57 L.J. (p. c.)
62 58 L. T. 358
; 18
Attwood V. Munnings (1827), 7 B. & C. 278 1 M. & Ry. 78 ; ; 6 L. J. (o. s.)
(K. B.) 9 . .
161
Atwood Ernest (1853), 13 C. B. 881 22 L. J. (a p.) 225 17 Jur. 603 1
V. ; ; ;
C. L. R. 738 1 W. R. 436 :
565
Aubert v. Maze (1801), 2 B. & P. 371 444
Aubrey v. Fisher (1809), 10 East, 446 296
Audley (Lord) v. Pollard (1597), Croke, Eliz. 561 Moore, 457 Poph. 108 177 ; ;
.
" Augusta," The (1813). 1 Dods. 287 66

Austin V. Guardians of Bethnal Green (1874). L. R. 9 C. P. 91 43 L. J. (c. p.) ;
100 29 L. T. 807 22 W. R. 406

: :
155 . . .
'
Austin Friars Steamship Co. v. Strack, 1906] 2 K. B. 499 75 L. J. (k. b.) 658 1 ; ;
94 L. T. 875 70 J. P. 528 22 T. L. R. 701

;
481 :
" Australia," The, Lapraik v. Burrows (1859), 13 Moo. P. C. 132 Swabey, 480 ; ;
7W. R. 718 158,179

Austria, Emperor of, v. Day (1861), 30 L. J. (ch.) 690 2Giff. 628 7 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
483 4 L. T. (N. s.) 274

;
18
Austrian Lloyd Steamship Co. v. Gresham Life Assurance Society, Ltd., [1903]
1 K. B. 249 72 L. J. (k. b.) 211 88 L. T. 6 51 W. R. 402
;
455 ; : . . . .
Autothreptic Steam Boiler Co. and Townsend & Co., Be (1888), 21 Q. B. D.

182 57 L. J. (q. b.) 488 59 L. T. 632 37 W. R. 15
: ;
471 ;
Auty V. Hutchinson (1848), 6 C. B. 266 17 L. J. (c. p.) 304 12 Jur. 962 220 ; ;
. .
Table of Cases. cvii
B.
PAGE
Bache r. Billingham, [1894] 1 Q. B. 107 ; 63 L. J. (m. c.) 1 ; 69 L. T. 648 : 42
W. R. 217 9 R. 79 :
\ \ 475^ 430
Backhouse v. Bonomi (1861). 9 H. L. Cas. 503
. . .
'9
Charlton (1878), 8 Ch. D. 444 26 W. R. 504
V. 585, 594. 604 ; .
.' .'
Bacmeister v. Fenton (1883), 1 C, & E. 121 220

'
Baddeley v. Earl Granville (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 423 56 L. J." (q. b.) 501 57 L. T. ; ;
268 36 W. R. 63 51 J. P. 822
: ;
15 . . .
Badger. Re (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 691 461

Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik v. Levinstein (1883). 24 Ch. D. 156 52 L J ;
(cH.) 704 48 L. T. 822 31 W. R. 913

: :
484,485 . . . . . .
Badkin r. Powell (1776), 2 Cowp. 476 385

Bagiehole, Ex parte (1812), 1 Rose, 271 18 Ves. 528 310, 312 ;
Bagshawe v. Goward (1606), Cro. Jac. 147 Noy. 119 Yel. 96 381,' 382 ;
: . . .
Bailey v. Appleyard (1838), 8 A. & E. 161 3 N. & P. 257 1 W. W. & H. 208 ; ;

;
7 L. J. (q. b.) 145 2 Jur. 872 ;

380
V. Boddenham (1864), 16 C. B. (n. s.) 288 33 L. J. (c. p.) 252 10 Jur. ; ;
(N, s.) 821 10 L. T. 422 12 W. R. 865 :

590
;
V. Collet (1854), 18 Beav. 179 23 L. J. (ch.) 230 2 W. R. 216 233 : ; . .
V. Macaulay (1849), 13 Q. B. 815 19 L. J. (q. b.) 73 14 Jur. 80 221 ; ; .
V. Thurston & Co., [1903] 1 K. B. 137 72 L. J. (k. b.) 36 88 L. T. 43 ; ; ;
51 W. R. 162 10 Manson, 1 : 21 . '
Baillie v. Edinburgh Oil Gaslight Co. (1835), 3 CI. & F. 639 470 . . . .
Baily v. Curling (1851), 20 Lo. J. (q. b.) 235 2 L. M. & P. 161 468, 475 : . . .
Bainbridge v. Postmaster-General, [1906] 1 K. B. 178 75 L. J. (k. b.) 366; 94 ;
L. T. 120 54 W. R. 221 22 T. L. R. 70
; ; 18, 224
Baines v. Ewing (1866), L. R. 1 Exch. 320 4 H. & C. 511 35 L. J. (ex.) 194 ; ;
;
14 L. T. 733 14 W. R. 732 ; 202

Baird v. Williamson (1863), 15 C. B. (n. s.) 376 33 L. J. (c. p.) 101 10 Jur. ; ;
(n. s.) 152 9 L. T. 412 12 W. R. 150

; ; 10
Baker v. Cotterill (1849), 18 L. J. (q. b.) 345 7 D. & L. 20 14 Jur. 1120 459, 473 ; ;
V. Hunter (1847), 16 M. & W. 672; 4 D. & L. 696; 16 L. J. (ex.)

203 468, 478
/•. Oakes (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 171 46 L. J. (q. b.) 246 35 L. T. 832 25 ; ; ;
W. R. 220 82
V. Stephens (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 523 8 B. & S. 438; 36 L. J. (q. b.) ;
236 15 W. R. 902 ; 463

V. Townshend (1817), 7 Taunt. 422 1 Moore, 120 445 :
V. Williams, [1898] 1 Q. B. 23 66 L. J. (q. b.) 880 77 L. T. 495 46 ; ; ;
W. R. 64 62 J. P. 21 ; 433
V. Yorkshire Assurance etc. Co., [1892] 1 Q. B. 144 61 L. J. (q. b.) 838 ; ;
66 L. T. 161 441
Baldry v. Bates (1885), 52 L. T. 620 1 T. L. R. 558 164, 334 ;
Baldwin v. Cassella (1872), L. R. 7 Exch. 325 41 L. J. (ex.) 167 26 L. T. 707 ; ; ;
21 W. R. 16 215, 373
Balfe V. West (1853), 13 C. B. 466 22 L. J. (c. p.) 175 1 R. 335 183, 232 ; ; W .
Balfour v. Ernest (1859), 5 C. B. (n. s.) 601 28 L. J. (c. p.) 170 5 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
439 7 W. R. 207
; . 201, 202, 594
. -,
Ball, Ex parte. Re Shepheard (1879), 10 Ch. D. 667 48 L. J. (bcy.) 57 27 ; ;
W. R. 563 . . 27, 29
V. Dunsterville (1791), 4 Term Rep. 313 2 R. R. 394 154 ;
Bamford r. Shuttleworth (1840), 11 A. & E. 926 223

Banda and Kirwee Booty, The (1866), L. R. 1 A. & E. 109 (1875), L. R. 4
........
;
A. & E. 436 35 L. J. (adm.) 109 44 L. J. (adm.) 41

;
12 Jur. (n. s.) 819 ; ; ;
14 L T 293 33 L T 332 •
78
Bank of Bengal v. Fagan (1849), 5 Moo. Ind. App. 27 163
V. Macleod (1852), 5 Moo. Ind. App. 1 7 Moo. P. C. 35 13 ; ;
Jur. 945 163, 594

Bank of England v. Cutler, [1907] 1 K. B. 889 570, 637
V. Vagliano, [1891] A. C. 107 60 L. J. (q. b.) 145 54 L. T. ; :
353 39 W. R. 657 7 T. L. R. 333 55 J. P. 676

: 602, 608, 609, 014, 615, 620
; ;
.
Bank of Ireland v. Trustees of Evans' Charities in Ireland (1855), 5 H. L. Cas.

389 3 W. R. 573
;
204, 205
Bank of Montreal r. Sweeney (1887), 12 App. Cas. 617 56 L. J. (p. c.) 79 56 ; :
L. T. 897 636
Bank of New South Wales v. Goulburn Valley Butter Factory, [1902] A. C.
543 71 L. J. (p. C.) 112 87 L. T. 88 51 W. R. 367
; ;
199, ;
204, 226, 584, 600

cviii Table of Cases.
PAGE
Bank of New South Wales v. Owston (1879), 4 App. Cas. 270 ; 48 L. J. (p. c.)
25 ; 40 L. T. 500 14 Cox, C. C. 267
; 166, 213
Bank of F. 214
Scotland v. Christie (1840), 8 C. & 632
r. Dominion Bank (Toronto), [1891] A. C. 592 .598 . .
V. Watson (1813), 1 Dow, 45 164, 393, 589

Bank of Upper Canada v. Bradshaw (1867), L. E. 1 P. C. 479 189 . . . .
Bank of Van Diemen's Land v. Bank of Victoria (1871), L. E. 3 P. C. 526 40 ;
L. J. (p. c.) 28 598

Bankruptcy Notice, A, Re, [1907] 1 K. B. 478 96 L. T. 133 473 ; . . . .
Banks v. Banks (1835), 1 Gale, 46 412, 479

Bannatyne v. Maclver, [1906] 1 K. B. 103 75 L. J. (k. b.) 120 94 L. T. 150 ;
54 ; ;
W. E. 293 202, 203

Banner v. Johnston. See Barned's Banking Co., Be
Bannister v. Macdonald, [1890] W. N. 50 487
Banque Jacques-Cartier v. Banque d'Epargne de Montreal (1887), 13 App. Cas.
Ill 57 L. J. (p. c.) 42
; 178, 179
Barber v. Taylor (1839), 5 M. & W. 527 9 L. J. (ex.) 21
Baring v. Corrie (1818), 2 B. & Aid. 137
V. Stanton (1876), 3 Ch. D. 302
;
183
152, 153, 167, 184, 198
35 L. T. 652 25 W. E. 237 3 Asp.
;
.... ; ;
M. C. 294 191
Baring Brothers and Doulton, Re (1892), 61 L. J. (q. b.) 704 449 . . . .
Baring Gould v. Sharpington etc. Syndicate, [1899] 2 Ch. 80 68 L. J. (ch.) ;
429 80 L. T. 739 47 W. E. 564

; : 463
Barker r. Furlong, [1891] 2 Ch. 172 60 L. J. (ch.) 368 ; 64 L. T. 411 39 ; ;
W. E. 621
V. Greenwood (1837), 2 Y. & C. 414 1 Jur. 541
Barkworth, Ex parte, Re Harrison (1858), 2 De G. & J. 194 27 L. J. (bcy.) 5
226, 520, 521, 564
165, 210
; ... ;
.
4 Jur. (n. s.) 547 598, 599

Barlow v. Teal (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 501 54 L. J. (q. b.) 564 54 L. T. 63 34 ; ; ;
.
W. E. 54 50 J. P. 100
;
241
Barned's Banking Co., Re (1871), L. E. 5 H. L. 157 40 L. J. (ch.) 730 24 ; ;
L. T. 542 623, 024, 625

Barnes v. Akroyd (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B. 474 41 L. J. (m. c.) 110 26 L. T. 692 ; ; ;
20 W. E. 671 218
V. Braithwaite (1857), 2 H. & N. 569 472
r. Hayward (1857). 1 H. & N. 742 472
V. Lucill, Ltd. (1907), 23 T. L. E. 389 373
V. Youngs, [1898] 1 Ch. 414 67 L. J. (cH.) 263 46 W. E. 332
;
454 ; . .
Barnett i;. Aldridge Colliery Co., Ltd., The (1887), 4 T. L. E. 16 .484 . .
V. Brandao (1846), 6 Man. & G. 654 606

V. Brown & Co. (1890), 6 T. L. E. 463 195
V. Isaacson (1884), 4 T. L. E. 645 193, 195
V. South London Tramway Co. (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 815 56 L. J. (q. b.) ;
452 57 L. T. 436 35 W. E. 640

; ; 147, 148, 202, 215
Baron v. Husband (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 611 224
Barratt v. Kearns, [1905] 1 K. B. 504 74 L. J. (k. b.) 318 92 L. T. 255 53
; ; ;
W. E. 356 21 T. L. E. 212
;
13
Barret v. Blagrave (1800), 5 Ves. 555 250
Barrett v. Deere (1828), Moo. & M. 200 201
Gilmour (1901), 6 Com. Cas. 72 195,230,231 . . . . . .
Barrington v. Turner (1681), 3 Lev. 28 . 396 . .
Barrow v. Ashburnham (1835), 4 L. J. (n. s.) (k. b.) 146 278

V. Dyster (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 635 51 L. T. 573 33 W. E. 199 ;
220 ; . .
V. Wadkin (1857), 24 Beav. 1 3 Jur. (n. s.) 679 ;

5 W. E. 695 307 ; . .
V. White (1862), 2 J. & H. 580 513

Barry v. Longmore (1840), 12 A. & E. 639 4 P. & D. 344 1 Arn. & H. 14. ;
198, 561 ;
V. Eush (1787), 1 Term Eep. 691 443

V. Stevens (1862), 31 Beav. 258 31 L. J. (ch.) 785 10 W. E. 822 6 L. T.
; ; ;
518 188
Bartlett v. Pentland (1830). 10 B. & C. 760 8 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 264 168
;
. .
V, Pickersgill (1759), 1 Cox, Eq. 15 1 Eden. 515 157 ;
V. Purnell (1836), 4 A. & E. 792 6 N. & M. 299 2 H. & W. 19 5 L. J. ; ; ;
(k. B.) 169 519

Bartram v. Lloyd (1904), 90 L. T. 357 20 T. L. E. 281 ;
217
Barwick v. English Joint Stock Bank (1867), L. E. 2 Exch. 265 36 L. J. (ex.) ;
147 16 L. T. 461
; 15 W. E. 877 : 212, 213, 214, 545
Baschet v. London Illustrated Standard Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 73 69 L. J. (ch.) ;
~
35 81 L. T. 509 48 W. E. 56
; : 225
Table of Cases. cix
PAGE
Baseley v. Forder (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 559 9 B. & S. 559 37 L. J. (q. b.) 237 ; ; ;
18 L. T. 756 158
•'Batavia," The (1889), 15 P. D. 37 59 L. J. (p.) 54 62 L. T. 406 30 W. E.
; ; ;
522 126
Batchelor v. Ellis (1797), 7 Term Eep. 337 45
Bateman, Ex parte (1856), 8 De G. M. & G. 263 25 L. J, (bcy.) 19 2 Jur. ; ;
(n. s.) 265 4 W. E. 329 ; 546

V. Mid Wales Eail. Co. (1866), L. E. 1 C. P. 499 35 L. J. (c. p.) 205 : ;
12 Jur. (N. s.) 453 14 W. E. 672 1 H. & E. 508 : 149, ; . . 588

V. Phillips (1812). 15 East, 272 207
V. Eoss (1813), 1 Dowl. 235 444
V. Service (1881), 6 App. Cas. 385, 392 583
Bater v. Bater, [1906] P. 209 75 L. J. (p.) 60 94 L. T. 835 22 T. L. E. 408
: ; ; . 48
Bates V. Townley (1848), 2 Exch. 152 19 L. J. (ex.) 399 ; 473
Battersby v. Smyth (1818), 3 Madd. 110 187
Battison v. Hobson, [1896] 2 Ch. 403 65 L. J. (ch.) 695 74 L. T. 689 44 ; : ;
W. E. 615 633
Bauerman t\ Eadenius (1798), 7 Term Eep. 663 2 Esp. 653 215, ; . . . . 227
Bavins, jmi. and Sims v. London and South Western Bank, [1900] 1 Q. B.
270 69 L. J. (q. b.) 164 81 L. T. 655 48 W. E. 211 5 Com. Cas. 1
; ; : 225, ; .
592, 595, 599, 600, 601, 613, 618

Bawden v. London, Edinburgh and Glasgow Assurance Co.. [1892] 2 Q. B. 534 ;
61 L. J. (q. b.) 792 216

Baxter v. Midland Eailway (1905), 93 L. T. 538 69 J. P. 389 21 T. L. E. 708 ; ; 493
Bayley v. Chadwick (1877). 39 L. T. 429 516
V. Manchester. Sheffield and Lincolnshire Eail. Co. (1873), L. E. 8 C. P.
148 42 L. J. (c. p.) 78 28 L. T. 366
: ; 212
Wilkins (1849), 7 C. B. 886 18 L. J. (c. p.) 273 13 Jur. 883
V. : 164 ; . .
Baylifie v. Butterworth (1847), 1 Exch. 425 5 Eail. Cas. 283 17 L. J. (ex.) 78 ; ; ;
11 Jur. 1019 182, 197, 220

Bayliss r. Lintott (1873), L. E. 8 C. P. 345 42 L. J. (c. p.) 119 28 L. T. 666 49 ; ; .
Bayntum v. Cattle (1833), 1 M. & Eob. 265 188

Beal r. South Devon Eail. Co. (1864), 3 H. & C. 337 11 L. T. 184 12 W. E. ; ;
1115 185, 536

Bear v. Stevenson (1874), 30 L. T. 177 160
Beard v. London General Omnibus Co., [1900] 2 Q. B. 530; 69 L. J. (q. b.)
895 83 L. T. 362 48 W. E. 658
: : 212, 545, 564
Beaty v. Gibbons (1812), 16 East, 116 249 .
Beauchamp Powley (1831), 1 M.& Eob. 38 185,536 . . . . . .
Beaufort (Duke of) v. Neeld (1845), 12 C. & P. 248 9 Jur. 813 202 ; . . .
^. Glynn (1855), 1 Jur. 888 233

Beavan v. Delahay (1788), 1 Hy. Bl. 5 257
V. M'Donnell (1854), 9 Exch. 309 ; 2 C. L. E. 474 ;
23 L. J. (ex.) 94 ;
22
L. T. 243 150
Bechuanaland Exploration Co, v. London Trading Bank, [1898] 2 Q. B. 658 ;
67 L. J. (q. b.) 986 ;

79 L. T. 270 199
Beck V. Dyson (1815). 4 Camp. 198 373
Becker v. Medd (1897), 13 T. L. E. 313 185
Beckett v. Addyman (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 783 51 L. J. (q. b.) 597 ;
. . 640, 641
v.. Tower Assets Co., [1891] 1 Q. B. 638 60 L. J. (q. b.) 493 ; ; 64 L. T.
497 ; 39 W. E. 438 ; 55 J'. P. 438 . . . 555
Beckham Drake (1847), 2 H. L. Cas. 579 13 Jur. 921
v. 21 ;
Beckhuson and Gibbs v. Hamblett, [1901] 2 K. B. 73 70 L. J. (k. b.) 600 84 ; ;
L. T. 617 49 W. E. 481 6 Com. Cas. 141

;
; 168, 207
Beckwith v. Shordike (1767), 4 Burr. 2092 376, 396
Bedborough v. Army and Navy Hotel Co. (1884), 50 L. T. 173 53 L. J. (cn.) ;
658 491
Beddall v. Maitland (1881), 17 Ch. D. 174 ; 50 L. J. (ch.) 401 ;
44 L. T. 248 ;
29
W. E. 484 4
Beddow v. Beddow
(1878). 9 Ch. D. 89 47 L. J. (ch.) 588 26 W. E. 570 ; ; . 453
Bedford (Duke of) v. Ellis, [1901] A. C. 1 83 L. T. 686 ; 9
Beeley v. Wingfield (1809), 11 East, 46 445
Beer v. London and Paris Hotel Co. (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 412 32 L. T. 715... 504. ; 505
Belcher v. Eoedean School Site and Buildings, Ltd. (1901), 85 L. T. 468 . . 449
Belham v. Hilder (1841), 1 Y. & C. Ch. 3 186
Bell V. Balls, [1897] 1 Ch. 663 66 L. J. (ch.) 397 76 L. T. 254 45 W. E. 378
; ; ;
170, 207, 332, 505

V. Marsh, [1903] 1 Ch. 528 72 L. J. (ch.) 360 88 L. T. 605 51 W. E. 325
; ; ;
192
cx Table of Cases.
PAGE
Bell Nixon (1832), 9 Bing. 393 2 M. & Scott, 534 2 L. J. (m. c.) 44
V. ; ; . . 159
Bellamy Marjoribanks (1852), 7 Exch. 389 21 L.J. (ex.) 79 16 Jur. ; ; 106... 605, 608
Belshaw v. Bush (1851), 11 C. B. 191 22 L. J. (c. p.) 24 17 Jur. 67 ; ; . . 178
" Benares," The (1850), 7 Notes of Cases, Suppl. 50 68
Benford v. Snns, [1898] 2 Q. B. 641 ; 67 L. J. (q. b.) 655 ; 78 L. T. 718 ; 47
W. R. 46 411
Benham v. Batty (1865), 12 L. T. 266 13 W. R. ; 636 180
Beningfield v. Kynaston (1887), 3 T. L. R. 279 515
Benneld, iê, ^;a;_parê Official Receiver, [1907] 1 K. B. 149 . . . .603
Bennett v. Alcott (1787), 2 Term Rep. 166 11
V. Bayes (1860), 5 H. & N. 391 29 L. J. (ex.) 224 : ; 2 L. T. 156 ; 8
W.R. 320 . . . .' 224
V. Smith
(1852), 16 Jur. 421 148
V. Stone, [1902] 1 Ch. 226 71 L. J. (ch.) 60 ; ; 85 L. T. 753 ; 50 W. R.
118 246
Bennetts &
Co. v. Mcllwraith & Co., [1896] 2 Q. B. 464 65 L. J. (q. b.) 362 ; ;
75 L. T. 145 45 W. R. 17 8 Asp. M. C. 176

; ; 222
Benson v. Duncan (1849), 3 Exch. 644 18 L. J. (ex.) 169 14 Jur. 218 158 ; ; . .
V. Heathorn (1842), 1 Y. & C. C. C. 326 190

Bentinck v. London Joint Stock Bank, [1893] 2 Ch. 121 62 L. J. (ch.) 358 68 ; ;
L. T. 315 42 W. R. 140 3 R. 120

; . : 635,636
Bentley r. Craven (1853), 18 Beav. 75 190
Benushe r. Hildersley (1618), Roll. Abr. 33, pi. 21 37
Benwell v. Hinxman (1835), 3 Dowl. 500 1 C. M. & R. 935 5 Tyr. 509 4 ; ; ;
L.
99 J. (ex.) 463
V. Huxman. See Benwell v. Hinxman.
"Berengere," The, [1905] W. N. 18 86
Berkeley v. Hardy (1826), 5 B. & C. 355 8 D. & R. 102 4 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) ; ;
184 154, 169, 208

Berriman v. Peacock (1832), 9 Bing. 384 2 M. & Sc. 524 2 L. J. (c. p.) 23... 295, 296 ; ;
Berry v. Halifax Commercial Banking Co., [1901] 1 Ch. 188 70 L. J. (ch.) 85 ; ;
83 L. T. 665 49 W. R. 164 ; 587

V. Young (1788), 2 Esp. 640, n 512
Bertram v. Godfray (1830), 1 Knapp, 381 164, 183
Berwick v. Horsfall (1858), 4 C. B. (n. s.) 450 27 L. J. (c. P.) 193 4 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
615 6 W. R. 471
: 163
" Beryl," The (1884), 9 P. D. 137 53 L. J. (adm.) 75 51 L. T. 554 33 W. R.; ; ;
191 5 Asp. M. C. 321

; 101, 104, 126
Besant v. Wood (1879), 12 Ch. D. 605 48 L. J. (ch.) 497 40 L. T. 445 444 : ; . .
Besozzi V. Harris (1858), 1 F. & F. 92 375

Best V. Heyes (1862), 3 F. &F. 113 1 H. & C. 718 32 L. J. (ex.) 129 11 W. R. ; ; ;
71 200, 513
V. Osborne (1825), 2 C. & P. 74 R. & M. 290 392 ;
Betteley v. Reed (1843), 4 Q. B. 511 3 G. & D. 561 12 L. J. (q. b.) 172 7 ; ; ;
Jur. (N. s.) 507 562

Betts V. De Vitre (1868), 3 Ch. App. 429 37 L. J. (ch.) 325 18 L. T. 165 16 ; ; ;
W. R. 529 5 W. R.- 165 ;

212
Bevan v. Chambers (1896), 12 T. L. R. 417 247
V. National Bank.(1906), 23 T. L. R. 65 592, 594, 595, 597, 606, 611 . .
V. Waters (1828), 3 C. & P. 520 M. & M. 236 546, 547 ;
V. Webb, [1901] 2 Ch. 59 70 L. J. (ch.) 536 84 L. T. 609 ;

49 W. R. ; ;
548 149, 186

Beverley v. Lincoln Gas Light and Coke Co. (1837), 6 A. & E. 829 2 N. & P. ;
283 W. W. & D. 519 7 L. J. (q. b.) 113

; ;
155
Bexwell v. Christie (1776), 1 Cowp. 395 183, 503
Beyts and Craig, Ex parte, Re The Trustee (1894), 70 L. T. 561 10 R. 143 42 ; ;
W. R. 432 1 Manson, 56 ;
234
Bickerton v. Burrell (1816), 5 M. & S. 383 227
Bidden v. Dowse (1827), 6 B. & C. 255 9 D. & R. 404 442 ;
Bidder v. North Stafiordshire Rail. Co. (1878), 4 Q. B. D. 412 48 L. J. (Q. B.) ;
248 40 L. T. 801 27 W. R. 540

; ; 467
Biddle v. Bond (1865), 6 B. & S. 225 34 L. J. (q. b.) 137 11 Jur. (n. s.) 425 ; ; ;
12 L. T. 178 13 W. R. 561 ; 192, 515, 562

Bigg V. Strong (1857), 3 Sm. & Gif. 592 4 Jur. (n. s.) 108 30 L. T. 282 6 ; ; ;
W. R. 173. 536 180

Biggar v. Rock Life Assurance Co., [1902] 1 K. B. 516 71 L. J. (k. b.) 79 85 ; ;
L. T. 636 202, 215

-Biggs V. Evans, [1894] 1 Q. B. 88 69 L. T. 723 58 J. P. 84 158
; ; . . . .
Table of Cases. cxi
PAGE
Biggs V. Hansel! (1855), 16 562 C. B. 462
I'. Lawrence (1789), 3 Term Eep. 454 211, 215
Bignall v. Gale (1841), 9 Dowl. 631 2 Man. & G. 830; 3 Scott (n. e.) 108 5 ; ;
Jur. 701 460, 481

Bignell v. Clark (1860), 5 H. & N. 485 29 L. J. (ex.) 257 2 L. T. 189 ; ; . . 383
Bilbee r. Hasse (1889), 5 T. L. E. 677 195
Billington, J. H.. Ltd. r. Billington, [1907] 2 K. B. 106 491
Binstead, El\ Ex parte Dale, [1893] 1 Q. B. 199 62 L. J. (q. b.) 207 68 L. T. ; ;
31 41 W. R. 452 9 M. B. R. 319
; ; 3
Buck (1777), 2 Wm. Bl. 1117
('.
365, 394, 528
Birch V. Stephenson (1811), 3 Taunt. 469 284
Bird, Ex parte (1864), 4 De G. J. & S. 200 33 L. J. (bcy.) 49 10 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
138 9 L. T. 669 12 W. R. 321

; ; 219
^rt i?c Bourne (1851), 4 De G. & S. 273 223
V. Boulter (1833), 1 N. & M. 313 4 B. Ad. 443 152, ; . . . . 505
V. Brown (1850), 4 Exch. 786 19 L. J. (ex.) 154 14 Jur. 132 177, : ; . . 181
V. Gibb, The - De Bay"' (1883), 3 App. Cas. 559 52 L. J. (p. c.) 57 8 App. ; ;
Cas. 559 49 L. T. 414 5 Asp. M. C. 156

: ; 118
V. Holbrook (1828), 4 Bing. 628 1 M. & P. 607 6 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.) 146 ; ;
15, 397
V. Penrice (1840), 6 M. & W. 754 9 L. J. (ex.) 257 478 ;
V. Randall (1762), 3 Burr. 1353 1 Wm. Bl. 373, 387 40 ;
V. Relph (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 826 1 N. & M. 415 2 L. J. (k. b.) 99 243 ; ; . .
Birkbeck v. Paget (1862), 31 Beav. 403 277

Birks V. Trippet (1666), 1 Saund. 32 2 Keb. 126 1 Sid. 303 : ; . . . .24
Birmingham, Corporation of, y. Allen (1877), 6 Ch. D. 284 46 L. J. (ch.) 673 ; ;
37 L. T. 207 25 W. R. 810 : 10, 485

Bishop, Ex parte. Re¥ox, Walker & Co. (1880), 15 Ch. D. 400 50 L. J. (ch.) ;
18 43 L. T. 165 29 W. R. 144
; ; 197, 629
V. Balkis Consolidated Co. (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 512 59 L. J. (q.b.) 565 ; ;
39 W. R. 99 2 Meg. 292 ; 214

r. Howard (1823). 2 B. & C. 100 3 D. & B. 293 1 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) ; ;
243 241
V. Montague (Viscountess) (1599) Cro. (Eliz.) 824 45
Bissell V. Fox (1885), 51 L. T. (n. s.) 193 53 L. T. (n. s.) 663 T. L. R. 452 593, ; ; .
594, 609
Black V. Christchurch Finance Co., [1894] A. 0. 48 63 L. J. (p. c.) 32 70 ; ;
L. T. 77 6 R. 394 58 J. P. 332 ; : 148

V. Clay, [1894] A. C. 368 71 L. T. 446 4 R. (Ct. of Sess.) 41, & H. L.
; ;
72 242, 259 . .
Blackburn v. Haslam (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 144 57 L. J. (q. b.) 479 59 L. T. ; ;
407 36 W. R. 855 6 Asp. M. C. 326

; 211;
V. Mason (1893), 68 L. T. 510 4 R. 297 168, 172 ;
V. Scholes (1810), 2 Camp. 341 232, 503

V. Vigors (1887), 12 App. Cas. 531 57 L. J. (q. b.) 114 57 L. T. ; ;
730 36 W. R. 449 6 Asp. M. C. 216

; ; 211, 216
Blackburn and District Benefit Building Society v. CunlifEe, Brooks & Co.
(1882), 22 Ch. D. 61 31 W. R. 98 (1883), 29 Ch. D. 902 54 L. J. (ch.)
; ; ;
1091 53 L. T. 741
; 174, 619
Blackett v. Bates (1865), 1 Ch. App. 117 2 H. & M. 610 475 ; . . . . .
Blackman v. Simmonds (1827), 3 C. & P. 138 372

Blackmore v. Bristol and Exeter Rail. Co. (1858), 8 E. & B. 1035 27 L. J. ;
(Q. B.) 167 4 Jur. (n. s.) 657 6 W. R. 336

; 538, 539
;
Blackstone r. Wilson (1857), 26 L. J. (ex.) 229 215

Blades v. Free (1829), 9 B. & C. 167 4 M. & Ry. 282 7 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 211 ; ;
233 236 '
V. Higgs (1865), 11 H. L. Cas. 621 20 C. B. (n. s.) 214 34 L, J. (c. p.) ; ;
286 11 Jur. (n. s.) 701 12 L. T. 615 13 W. R. 927

; ; 366, 367, 368, 371 ; . .
Blagden v. Bradbear (1806), 12 Ves. 466 504, 505

Blain, Ex parte, Be Sawers (1879), 12 Ch. D. 522 41 L. T. 46 28 W. R. 334 ; ;
202, 308
Blake v. Nicholson (1814), 3 M. & S. 167 561
Blakemore v. Bristol and Exeter Rail. Co. (1858), 8 E. &. B. 1035 27 L. J. ;
(Q. B.) 167 12 Jur. 657 31 L. T. 12

; 6 W. R. 336 ; 552 ;
Blanchard v. Sun Fire Office (1890), 6 T. L. R. 365 .
" Blanche," The (1905), 21 T. L. R. 145 109

Bland & Co., Ltd. v. Russian Bank for Foreign Trade (1906), 11 Com Cas. 71 469
Blanshard, Be (1823), 2 B. & C. 244 2 D. & R. 177 63 ; .
cxii Table of Cases.
PAGE
Bleaden Hancock (1829), 4 C. & P. 152
v. . .561
Bleakley v. Smith (1840), 11 Sim. 150 505
Blore Sutton (1816), 3 Mer. 237
V. 170, 171
50 L. T. 776 32 W. E. 673 53 L.
Bloxam v. Favre (1884), 9 P. D. 130
V.
26 ... ;
Metropolitan Rail. Co. (1868), L. R. 3 Ch. 353 18 L. T. 41 16

;
;
;
;
J. (p.)
W. R.
307, 309
490 545
Blumberg Life Interests and Reversionary Securities Corporation, [1897]
v.
1 Ch. 171 [1898] 1 Ch. 27 66 L. J. (ch.) 127 67 L. J. (ch.) 118 75 L. T.
; ; ; ;
627 77 L. T. 506 45 W. R. 246

; ; 164, 165
Blundell v. Brettargh (1810), 17 Ves. 232 450, 470
Blyth V. Fladgate, [1891] 1 Ch. 337 60 L. J. (ch.) 66 63 L. T. 546 29 W. R. ; ; ;
422 641
V. Whiffin (1872), 27 L. T. 330 . ! 188
Boardman Gill (1808), Camp. 410, n
v. 549
Bobbett V. Pinkett (1876), 1 Ex. D. 369 35 L. J. (ex.) 555 34 L. T. 851 24 ; ; ;
W. R. 711 610
Bock V. Gorrissen (1860), 2 De G. F. & J. 434 30 L. J. (cm.) 39 7 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
81 3 L. T. 424 9 W. R. 209
; ; 198, 547, 548, 621
Boddington v. Schlenker (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 752 1 N. & M. 541 2 L. J. (k. b.) ; ;
138 568, 590

Boden v. French (1851), 10 C. B. 886 164
V. Roscoe, [1894] 1 Q. B. 608; 63 L. J. (q. b.) 767 70 L. T. 450; 42 ;
W. R. 445 58 J. P. 368 10 R. 173 ; 379, 380, 381, 382, 395

; . . .
V. Smith (1849), 18 L. J. (c. p.) 121 13 Jur. 428 25 ;
Bodenham v. Hoskyns (1852), 2 De G. M. & G. 903 21 L. J. (ch.) 864 16 Jur. ; ;
721 202, 203, 204, 584

Bodger v. Nicholls (1873), 28 L. T. 441 420
"Boedes Lust," The (1804), 3 Ch. Rob. 233 1 Eng. Pr. Cas. 459
" Bold Buccleugh," The (1851), 7 Moo. P. C. C. 267
21 ; .. .
7 Notes of Cases, 243 3 ; ;
W. Rob. 229 14 Jur. 138 19 L. T. (o. s.) 235 ; ; 61, 72

Bolingbroke (Lord) v. Swindon New Town Local Board (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 575 ;
43 L. J. (c. p.) 287; 30 L. T. 723 23 W. R. 47 166.212 ;

'
BoUand, Ex parte, Be Marsh (1828), Mont. & M. 315 1 Mont. & Ayr. 570 ; ;
7 L. J. (cH.) 10 29
V. Bygrave (1825), Ry. & M. 271 606 . .
Bolton Partners v. Lambert (1889), 41 Ch. D. 295 58 L. J. (ch.) 425 60 L. T. ; ;
687 37 W. R. 434 ; 174

Bond V. Evans (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 249 57 L. J. (m. c.) 105 59 L. T. 411 36 ; ; ;
W. R. 767 52 J. P. 612 ;
218
"Bonita, The (1861), 5 L. T. 141 30 L. J. (adm.) 145 Lush. 252
'
; 158, 179 ; . .
Boorman v. Brown (1842), 11 CI. & F. 1 2 G. & D. 793 3 Q. B. 511 11 L. J. ; ; ;
(EX.) 437 187

Booth V. Clive (1851), 20 L. J. (c. p.) 151 2 L. M. & P. 283 10 C. B. 827 15 ; ; ;
Jur. 563 26
r. Hodgson (1795), 6 Term Rep. 405 187
V. Turle (1873), L. R. 16 Eq. 182 21 W. R. 721 157 ;
Boraston v. Green (1812), 16 East, 71 244, 247

Borries v. Imperial Ottoman Bank (1873), L. R. 9 C. P. 38 43 L. J. (c. p.) 3 ; ;
29 L. T. 689 22 W. R. 92 ;
210
Borthwick v. Walton (1855), 24 L. J. (c. p.) 83 15 C. B. 501 1 Jur. (n. s.) 142 : ; ;
3 W. R. 203 3 C. L. R. 364 ; 6
Bos V. Helsham (1866), L. R. 2 Exch. 72 4 H. & C. 642 36 L. J. (ex.) 20 15 ; ; ;
L. T. 481 15 W. R. 259 ;
446.
Boschoek Proprietary Co. v. Fuke. [1906] 1 Ch. 148 75 L. J. (ch.) 261 94 ; ;
L. T. 398 54 W. R. 359 ;13 Mans. 100 22 T. L. R. 196 ;

174 ; . . . .
Bosley v. Davies (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 84 45 L. J. (m. c.) 27 33 L. T. 528 24 ; ; ;
W. R. 140 218
Bostock V. Floyer (1865), 35 Beav. 603 L. R. 1 Eq. 26 35 L. J. (ch.) 23 11 ; ; ;
Jur. (n. s.) 962 13 L. T. 489 14 W. R. 120 ;

171 ;
V. Jardine (1865), 3 H. & C. 700 33 L. J. (ex.) 142 11 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
586 11 L. T. 577 13 W. R. 970

; ;
168
Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Co. v. Ansell (1888), 39 Ch. D. 339 59 L. T. ;
345 189, 190, 191, 230

Bottomley v. Ambler (1878), 38 L. T. 545 26 W. R. 566 441 ;
Boulston's Case (1597), 5 Co. Rep. 104 b Moore, 453 Cro. (Eliz.) 547 10, 277, 378 ; ;
Boulston r. Hardy. See Boulston's Case.

Boulton V, Dobree (1808), 2 Camp. 162 20, 21, 311
;
Table of Cases. cxiii
PAGE
Boulton c. Eeynolds (1859), 2 E. & E. 369 ; 29 L. J. (q. b.) 11 ; 6 Jur. (n. S.) 46 ;
1 L. T. 166 8 W. E. 62
; 167
Bourne, Be, Bourne v. Bourne. [1906] 2 Ch. 427 75 L. J. (cH.) 779 95 L. T. : ;
131 54 W. R. 559: 605, 634

r. Diggles (1814). 2 Chit. 311 536
Boursot Savage (1866), L. R. 2 Eq. 134 35 L. J. (ch.) 627 14 L. T. 299 14 :
; ;
W. R. 565 216
Bousfield r. Hodges (1863), 33 Beav. 90 504
V. Wilson (1846), 16 M. & W. 185 16 L. J. (ex.) 44 .187 ; . . .
Boussmaker, Ex parte (1806) 13 Ves. 71 , 21, 311

Bovine, Ltd. r. Dent and Wilkinson (1904), 21 T. L. R. 82 230
Bowen v. Bowen (1862), 31 L. J. (q. b.) 193 8 Jur. (n. s.) 193 5 L. T. 684 473 ;
; .
V. Morris (1810), 2 Taunt. 374 227

Bower r. Foreign and Colonial Gas Co., Ltd. (1874), 22 W. R. 740 606. 629 . .
V. Jones (1831), 8 Bing. 65 1 M. & Scott, 140 1 L. J. (c. p.) 31 : 182 ; . .
Bowers r. Nixon (1848). 12 Q. B. 558 18 L. J. (q. b.) 35, 41 13 Jur. 334 250
:
; . .
Bowes, Be (1886), 33 Ch. D. 586 56 L. J. (ch.) 143 55 L. T. 260 25 W. R. :

; ;
730 198
Be, Strathmore v. Vane (1886), 33 Ch. D. 586 56 L. J. (ch.) 143 55 ; ;
L. T. 260 35 W. R. 166 : 621, 622, 634

r. Fernie (1838), 4 My. & Cr. 150 469, 479
Bowker r. Evans (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 565 54 L. J. (q. b.) 421 53 L. T. 801 33 ; ; ;
W. R. 695 443, 450

Bowlby r. Bell (1846), 3 C. B. 284 16 L. J. (c. p.) 18 ; 197
Bowler v. Barberton Development Syndicate, [1897] 1 Q. B. 164 66 L. J. (q. b.) ;
144 75 L. T. 620 45 W. R. 162

: ; 6
Bowles, Be (1874), 31 L. T. 365 163
Bowring v. Shepherd (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 309 40 L. J. (q. b.) 129 24 L. T. ; ;
721 19 W. R. 852
; 161, 207
Bowyer v. Morgan (1906), 95 L. T. 27 70 J. P. 253 22 T. L. R. 426 410 : ; . . .
Boyd V. Durand (1809), 2 Taunt. 161 44, 159

V. Emmerson (1834), 2 A. & E. 184 4 N. & M. 99 4 L. J. (k. b.) 43 440, ; ; .
591, 608
V. Fitt (1864), 14 Ir. C. L. R. 43 11 L. T. 280 192 ;
r. TovilPaper Co., Ltd. (1884), 4 T. L. R. 332 195

Boyle V. Smith, [1906] 1 K. B. 432 75 L. J. (k. b.) 282 94 L. T. 30 54 W. R. : : ;
519 70 J. P. 115 22 T. L. R. 200

: : 218
Brabant r. King, [1895] A. C. 632 64 L. J. (p. c.) 161 72 L. T. 785 44 W. R. ; ; ;
157 11 R. 517
: 544
Brace v. Calder, [1895] 2 Q. B. 253 64 L. J. (q. b.) 582 72 L. T. 829 14 R. ; ; ;
473 11 T. L. R. 450 59 J. P. 693

; ; 196
V. Taylor (1741), 2 Atk. 253 16
Bracey v. Carter (1840), 12 A. & E. 373 196
Bradbee v. Christ's Hospital (1842), 4 Man. & G. 714 2 Dowl. (n. s.) 164 5 ; ;
Scott (n. e.) 79 11 L. J. (c. p.) 209

; 11, 467
Bradburn v. Foley (1878), 3 C. P. D. 129 47 L. J. (c. p.) 331 38 L. T. 421 ; ;
26 W. R. 423 244, 246, 260

Bradbury, Ex 2ârte, Be Walden (1839), Mont. & Ch. 625, 633 4 Dea. 202 9 ; ;
L. J. (BCY.) 7 3 Jur. 1108 ; 150, 233

V. Morgan (1862), 1 H. & C. 249 31 L. J. (ex.) 462 7 L. T. 104 ; ;
;
8 Jur. (-N. s.) 918 10 W. R. 776 ; 641

Bradford v. Bryan (1741), Willes, 268 7 Mod. Rep. 349 469 ;
Corporation v. Pickles, [1895] A. C. 587 64 L. J. (ch.) 759 73 L. T. ; ;
353 44 W. R. 190 60 J. P. 3
;
11 R. 286 ; ; 10
Bradlaugh v. Clarke (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 38 (1883), 8 App. Cas. 354 50 L. J. ; ;
(Q. B.) 342 52 L. J. (q. b.) 505 44 L. T. 667 48 L. T. 681

; ; ; ;
29 W. R. 517 31 W. R. 677 45 J. P. 484 47 J. P. 405 2 . .
.......
; ; ;
V. Newdegate (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 1 52 L. J. (q. b.) 454 31 W. R. ; ;
792 . . . . 51 52 53
Bradley v. Archibaid, [1899] 2 1. R. 108 50 '.
. . . . !
'
.
'
V. Ibbetson (1851), 2 L. M. & P. 583 479

V. Riches (1878), 9 Ch. D. 189 47 L. J. (ch.) 811 38 L. T. 810 26 : ; ;
W. R. 910 215, 216

Brady v. Todd (1861), 9 C. B. (n. s.) 592; 30 L. J. (c. p.) 223 7 Jur. (n. s.) 827 ; ;
4 L. T. 212 9 W. R. 483 ; 152, 161, 164, 393

—V. Warren, [1900] 2 I. R. 632 277, 377
Brampton and Longtown Rail. Co., Be, Shaw's Claim (1875), 10 Ch. App.
177 44 L. J. (ch.) 670 33 L. T. 5 23 W. R. 813
; ; 176 ;
H.L.— I. h
cxiv Table of Cases.
Bramwell v. Spiller (1870), 21 L. T. 672 18 W. R. 316 ; 227

Brandao v. Barnett (1846), 12 CI. & F. 787 3 C. B. 519 ; 198, 199, 569, 620, 621,
622, 627
Brandon v. (1799), 1 Bos. & P. 394.
Brandon . 475
Nesbitt (1794), 6 Term Rep. 23
V. 20, 308, . 310
V. Scott (1857), 7 E. & B. 234 26 L. J. (q. b.) 163 3 Jur. (N. s.) 362 ; ;
5 W. R. 235 565, . 604

Brandt v. Dunlop Rubber Co., [1905] A. C. 454 74 L. J, K. B.) 898; 93 L. T. ;
495 21 T. L. R. 710
; 294
Bransby v. East London Bank (1866), 14 L. T. (n. s.) 403 14 W. R. 652 ; . 605
Braunstein v. Accidental etc. Co. (1861), 1 B. & S. 782 31 L. J, (q. b.) 17 ; 445
Bray v. Mayne
(1818), Gow, 1 552
Brazier v. Bryant (1825), 3 Bing. 167 10 Moore, 587 : 474
V. Camp (1894), 63 L. J. (q. b.) 257 9 R. 852 : 159
Brazilian etc. Bank r. British and American Exchange Banking Corporation
(1868), 18 L. T. 823 624
Breadalbane (Marquis) v, Stewart, [1904] A. C. 217 6 F. (Ct. of Sess.) p. 23 ;
(H. L.) 247

Breese v. Jerdein (1843), 4 Q. B. 585 2 G. & D. 720 12 L. J. (q. b.) 234 ; 26 ; . .
Brening v. Mackie (1862), 3 F. & F. 197 165

Bretherton v. Wood (1821), 3 Brod. & Bing. 54 6 Moore, 141 ; . . . .49
Brett, Ex parte, Re Howe (1871), 6 Ch. App. 838 40 L. J. (k. b.) 54 25 L. T ; ;
252 19 W. R. 1101
; 624, 626, 642
V. Clowser (1880), 5 C. P. D. 376 211, 510
Brewer v. Sparrow (1827), 7 B. & C. 310 1 Man. & Ry. 2 6 L. J. (o. s.) ; ;
(k. B.) 1 178

Bridger v. Savage (1885). 15 Q. B. D. 263 54 L. J. (q. b.) 464 53 L. T. 129 33 ; ; ;
W. R. 891 1 T. L. R. 585 ; 187

Bridges v. Garrett (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 451 39 L. J. (c. p.) 251 22 L. T. 448 ; ; :
18 W. R. 815 165, 168, 182, 210

V. Hawkesworth (1851), 21 L. J. (q. b.) 75 15 Jur. (o. s.) 1079 530 ; . .
Bridgman v. Gill (1857), 24 Beav. 302 584

Bright, Ex parte, Be Smith (1879), 10 Ch. D. 566 48 L. J. (bcy.) 81 39 L. T. ; ;
649 27 W. R. 385 : 203

V. River Plate Construction Co., [1900] 2 Ch. 835 70 L. J. (ch.) 59 82 ; :
L. T. 793 49 W. R. 132 64 J. P. 695

; ; 480
Brighton Marine Palace Co., Ltd. v. Woodhouse, [1893] 2 Ch. 486 62 L. J. ;
(CH.) 697 68 L. T. 669 41 W. R. 488 3 R. 565

; ; 462, 454 ; . . . .
Brind r. Hampshire (1836), 1 M. & W. 365 2 Gale, 33 1 Tyr. & G. 790 5 : ; ;
L. J. (EX.) 197 224

Brine v. Great Western Rail. Co. (1862), 31 L. J. (q. b.) 101 2 B. & S. 402 6 ; ;
L. T. 50 10 W. R. 341 8 Jur. (n. s.) 410

:
Bringloe v. Morrice (1676), 1 Mod. Rep. 210 3 Salk. 27

;
Brinsmead v. Harrison (1872), L. R. 6 C. P. 584 L. R. 7 C. P. 547 40 L. J.

14
537. 540 ;
;
... :
.
(c. p.) 281 41 L. J. (c. p.) 190

; 24 L. T. 798 27 L. T. 99 19 W. R. 956 ; ; ; ;
20 W. R. 784 213, 224

Bristol and West of England Bank v. Midland Rail. Co., [1891] 2 Q. B. 653 65 ;
L. T. 234 40 W. R. 148
; 24, 628
Bristow V. Sequeville (1850), 19 L. J. (ex.) 289 5 Exch. 275 3 Car. & K. 64 14 ; ; ;
Jur. 674 160

V. Taylor (1817), 2 Stark. 50 231
•
V. Towers (1794), 6 Term Rep. 35 20, 311
Bristowe v. Whitmore (1861), 9 H. L. Cas. 391 4 L. T. (n. s.) 622 9 W. R. 621 180 ; ;
Britain v. Rossiter (1879), 11 Q. B. D. 129 48 L. J, (ex.) 362 40 L. T. 240 ; ;

;
27W. R. 482 . . . 47
British Columbia Saw Mill Co. v. Nettleship (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 499 37 L. J. ;
(c. p.) 235 18 L. T. 604 ; . . 215

British Linen Co. v. Caledonian Insurance Co. (1861), 4 Macq. 107 7 Jur. ;
(N. s.) 587 4 L. T. 162 9 W. R. 581

; ;
624
British Mutual Bank v. Charnwood Forest Rail. Co. (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 714 ;
56 L. J. (Q. B.) 449 57 L. T. 833 35 W. R. 590 52 J. P. 150

;
212 ; ; . . .
British South Africa Co. v. Companhia de Mo9ambique, [1893] A. C. 603 63 ;
L. J. (Q. B.) 70 69 L. T. 604 6 R. 1; ; 50, 51, 83, 106

British Waggon Co. v. Lea & Co. (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 149 49 L. J. (q. b.) 321 ; ;
42L. T. 437;'28W. R. 349; 44 J. P. 440 556

Briton Medical and General Life Association. Re (1886), 32 Ch. D. 403 55 L. J. ;
(CH.) 417 5
Broad v. Selfe (1863), 9 Jur. (n. s.) 885 11 W. R. 1086 516. ;
Table of Cases. cxv
PAGE
Broad v. Thomas (1830), 7 Bing. 99 ; 4 M. & P. 732 ; 4 C. & P. 338 ; 9 L. J.
(o. sO C. P. 32 . . 194, 196
Broadbent v. Ledward (1839), 11 A. & E. 209 565
Broadwater v. Blob (1817), Holt, N. P. C. 547 387, 545
Brock V. Copeland (1794), 1 Esp. 203 375
Brocklebank, Ex parte (1877), 6 Ch. D. 358 46 L. J. (bcy.) 113 37 L. T. 282 ; :
;
25 W. R. 859 22
Brocklesby v. Temperance Permanent Building Society, [1895] A. C. 173 ;
64 L. J. (CH.) 433; 72 L. T. 477 43 W. R. 606; 59 J. P. 676; 11 R. ;
159 205, 633

Broder v. Saillard (1876), 2 Ch. D. 694 45 L. J. (ch.) 414 24 W. R. 1011 ; 484 ; .
Broderick, Ex parte, Be Beetham (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 766 57 L. J. (q. b.) 635 ; ;
35 W. R. 613 633
Bromhall v. Norton (1683), Sir T. Jones, 193 379
Bromley v. Holland (1802), 7 Ves. 28
Brond r. Bromhall, [1906] 1 K. B. 571 75 L. J. (k. b.) 548
Brook and Delcomyn, Be (1864), 16 C. B. (n. s.) 403 33 L. J. (c. p.) 246 10
;
231
64
;
.... ;
Jur. (N. s.) 704 10 L. T. 378

; 486
V. Hook (1871), L. R. 6 Exch. 89 40 L. J. (ex.) 50 24 L. T. 34 19 W. R.
; ; ;
508 174, 616

Brooke v. Mitchell (1840), 6 M. & W. 473 8 Dowl. P. C. 392 9 L. J. (ex.) ; ;
269 4 Jur. 657

; 443, 450, 458, 470
Brooks V. Hassall (1883), 49 L. T. 569 164, 394
Broom v. Hall (1859), 7 C. B. (n, s.) 503 197
Broomfield v. Williams, [1897] 1 Ch. 602 66 L. J. (ch.) 305 76 L. T. 243 45 ;
; ;
W. R. 469 11
Broomhead, Be (1847), 5 D. & L. 52 16 L, J. (q. b.) 355
; 198
Brown v. Andrew (1849), 18 L. J. (q. b.) 153 13 Jur. 938 159 ;
V. Arundell (I860), 10 C. B. 54 20 L. J. (c. p.) 30

; 206, 520 . . . .
V. Crump (1815), 1 Marsh. 669

.
6 Taunt. 300 ; 243
V. Dixon (1786), 1 Term Rep. 274
V. Farebrother (1889), 59
t'. Foot (1892), 66 L. T. 649
L. T. 822 68 L. J. (ch.) 3
61 L. J. (m. c.) 110 56 J. P. 581
;
:
44
515
218 ;
.... . .
r. Giles (1823), 1 C. & P. 118 395

V. Goodman (1789), 3 Term Rep. 592 447
V. Hawkes, [1891] 2 Q. B. 718 65 L. T. 108 ; 55 J. P. 823 60 L. J. ; ;
(Q. B.) 332 13

V. Hickinbotham (1881), 50 L. J. (q. b.) 426 520
V. Overbury (1866), 11 Exch. 716 26 L. J. (ex.) 169 4 W. R. 262 ; 441 ; . .
V. RoUo (1832), 10 Sh. (Ct. of Sess.) 667 558

r. Staton (1816), 2 Chit. 363 23 R. R. 750
; 513, 515
V. Tibbits (1862), 11 C. B. (n. s.) 855 31 L. J. (c. p.) 206 6 L. T. 385 ; ;
;
10 W. R. 465 4
V. Tombs, [1891] 1 Q. B. 263 60 L. J. (q. b.) 38
; 64 L. T. 114 55 ; ;
J. P. 369 1 Fox, 196

:
Brown & Co. v. National Bank of India (1902), 18 T. L. R. 669

Brown and Croydon etc. Canal Co., Be (1839), 9 A. & E. 622 8 L. J. (q. b.) 92 469
170, 184
602
;
...
Brown, Shipley & Co. v. Kough (1885), 29 Ch. D. 848 54 L. J. (ch.) 1024 52 ; ;
L. T. 870 34 W. R. 2
; 625
Browne v. CoUyer (1851), 20 L. J. (q. b.) 426 2 L. M. & P. 470 15 Jur. 881 464 ; ; .
V. Powell (1827), 4 Bing. 230 12 Moore, 454 6 L. J. (o. s.) C. P. 169

; 383 ; .
Bruce v. Everson (1883), 1 Cab. & E. 18 561

Brummell v. M'Pherson (1828), 5 Russ. 263 7 L. J. (o. s.) 1 231 ; . . . .
" Brunei," The, [1900] P. 24 69 L. J. (p.) 8 81 L. T. 500

; 48 W. R. 243 9 ; ; ;
Asp. M. C. 10 110
Brunswick (Duke of) v. King of Hanover (1837), 6 Beav. 1 13 L. J. (ch.) 107 ; ;
8 Jur. 253 2 H. L. C. 1 ; 19
Brunton v. Electric Engineering Corporation, [1892] 1 Oh. 434 61 L. J, (cH.) ;
256 65 L. T. 745 8 T. L. R. 168

; ; 198
Bryan v. Eaton (1875), 40 J. P. 213 . 370, 396
Bryans v. Nix (1839), 4 M. & W. 775 1 H. & H. 480 8 L. J. (ex.) 137
; 198 ; . .
Bryant v. Flight (1839), 5 M. & W. 114 2 H. & H. 84 8 L. J. (ex.) 189 3 Jur.

; ; ;
681 193, 194

V. Herbert (1878), 3 C. P. D. 390 47 L. J. (c. p.) 670 39 L. T. 17
; 26 ; ;
W. R. 898 46, 49, 60

Bryant, Powis and Bryant v. Quebec Bank Bryant, Powis and Bryant v. La ;
Banque du Peuple, [1893] A. C. 170 62 L. J. (p. c.) 68 68 L. T. 546 42 ; ; ;
W. R. 600 161, 694
h 2
cxvi Table of Cases.
PAGE
Bryson v.Russell (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 720 54 L. J. (q. b.) 144 52 L. T. 208 33
; ; ;
W. R. 34 49 J. P. 293
; 431
Buccleugh (Duke of) v. Metropolitan Board of Works (1868), L. R. 5 Exch. 221 ;
(1871), L. R. 5 H. L. 418 89 L. J. (ex.) 130 41 L. J. (ex.) 137 27 L. T. 1

; ;
;
469,477.
Buchanan V. Parnsliaw (1788), 2 Term Rep. 745 390,391 . . . . . .
Buckingham v. London and Midland Bank (1895), 12 T. L. R. 70 587, 606 . .
Buckley v. Gross (1863), 3 B. & S. 566 32 L. J. (q. b.) 129 9 Jur. n. s.) 986
; ; ;
7 L. T. 743 ; 11 W. R. 465 542

V. Hull Docks Co., [1893] 2 Q. B. 93; 62 L.J. (q. b.) 449 69 L. T. 427 ; ;
41 W. R. 657 50
V. Taylor (1788), 2 Term Rep. 600 256
Buckmaster v. Harrop (1812), 7 Ves. 341 13 Ves. 456 ; .505
Budd V. Fairmaner (1831), 8 Bing. 48 1 M. & Scott, 74 5 C. & P. 78 1 L. J.
; ; ;
(c. P.) 16 390

Budge V. Parsons (1863), 3 B. & S. 382 32 L. J. (m. c.) 95 ; 7 L. T. 784 11 ; ;
W. R. 424 409, 410

"Buenos Ayres," The (1868), 17 W. R. 617 103
Bulfield V. Fournier (1894, 5), 11 T. L. R. 62, 282 15 R. 176 230 ; . . . .
Bulkeley v. Schutz (1871), L. R. 3 P. C. 764 583

Bull, Ex parte, Re Bew (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 642 56 L. J. (q. b.) 270 56 L. T. ; ;
571 35 W. R. 455 4 Morrell, 94 51J. P. 710

; ; ; 256
V. Price (1831), 7 Bing. 237 5 Moo. & P. 2; 9 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.) 78
; 181, 194 .
BuUen v. Denning (1826), 5 B. & C. 847 8 D. & R. 657 ; 296

V. Swan Electric Engraving Co. (1906), 22 T. L. R. 275 (1907) 23 T. L. R. ;
258. C. A 527, 531, 532, 533, 545, 560

Buller V. Harrison (1777), Cowp. 565 223
Bullock v. Dodds (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 258 29, 30
Bult V. Morrell (1840), 12 A. & E. 745, 750 10 L. J. (q. b.) 52 : 169 . . , .
Bultfontein Sun Diamond Mine,i?e, E.i; parte Qo-x., Hughes and Norman (1897),
75 L. T. 669 228
Bulwer v. Bulwer (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 470 282
Bunch V. Kennington (1841), 1 Q. B. 679 4 P. & D. 509 10 L. J. (q. b.) 203; ; ;
5 Jur. 461 380, 393

Burdick v. Garrick (1869), 5 Ch. App. 233 39 L. J. (ch.) 369 18 W. R. 387 ; 188 ; .
V. Sewell (1884). 13 Q. B.D. 174; 53 L. J. (q. b.) 399 32 W. R. 740.. .623, 638 ;
" Bure," The (1850), 14 Jur. 1123 86

Burge V. Ashley and Smith, [1900] 1 Q. B. 744 69 L. J. (q. b.) 538 82 L. T. ; ;
518 ; 48 W. R. 438 231

Burgess v. Burgess (1853) 3 De G. M. & G. 896 22 L. J. (ch.) 675 17 Jur. 292 11 ; ;
V. Morton, [1896] A. C. 136 65 L. J. (q. b.) 321 73 L. T. 713

;
442 ; . .
Burial Board of St. Margaret, Rochester v. Thompson (1871), L. R. 6 CP. 445,

457 40 L. J. (c. p.) 213 24 L. T. 673 19 W. R. 892
;
Burke v. Green (1814), 2 BaU & B. 517

; 169, 170
;
53
...
Burke's Estate, Be (1881), 9 L. R. Ir. 24 633
Burland v. Earle, [1902] A. C. 83 71 L. J. (p. c.) 1 85 L. T. 553 50 W. R.
; ; ;
241 190
Burley v. Stephens (1836), 1 M. & W. 156 4 Dowl. P. C. 255, 770 1 Gale, 374 463 ; ;
Burling v. Harley (1858), 3 H. & N. 271 27 L. J. (ex.) 258 4 Jur. (n. s.)
; ;
789 26
" Burma," The (No. 1) (1899), 80 L. T. 808 8 Asp. M. C. 549 113
; . . . .
Burmester v. Norris (1851), 6 Exch. 796 21 L. J. (ex.) 43 ; .165 . . .
Burn V. Brown (1817), 2 Stark. 272 198

V. Carvalho (1839), 4 M. & C. 690 231
Burnaby v. Equitable Reversionary Interest Society (1885), 29 Ch. D. 416 54 ;
L. J. (CH.) 466 52 L. T. 350 33 W. R. 639.

; ; 587, 589
Burnard v. Haggis (1863), 14 C. B. (n. s.) 45 32 L. J. (c. p.) 189 9 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
1325 8 L. T. 320 11 W. R. 644

; ; 150, 553
V. Wainwright (1850), 19 L. J. (q. b.) 423 1 L. M. & P. 455 478 ; . .
" Burns," The (1907), 23 T. L. R. 323 4, 5, 26, 80

Buron v. Denman (1848), 2 Exch. 167 15, 181, 225
Burrard v. Calisher (1882), 19 Ch. D. 644 51 L. J. (cH.) 510 46 L. T. 341 30 ; ; ;
W. R. 540 486
Burrell v. Jones (1819), 3 B. & Aid. 47 220
Burrough v. Skihner (1770), 5 Burr. 2639 512
Burroughes v. Bayne (1860), 5 H. & M. 296 29 L. J. (ex.) 185 2 L. T. 16 45
; ; .
Burroughs v. Clarke (1831), 1 Dowl. 48 473

Burt V. Moore (1793), 5 Term Rep. 329 379, 388
Table of Cases. cxvii
PAGE
Burt V. Palmer (1804), 5 Esp. 145 215
Burton v. Great Northern Kail. Cc. (1854), 9 Exch. 507 ; 23 L. J. (ex.) 184 ; 2
W. E. 257 230
V. Hughes (1824),
2 Bing. 173 195, 564
Busk V. Bell (1812), 16 East, 3 311
Bustros V. White (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 423 ; 45 L. J. (q. b.) 642 ;
34 L. T. 835 ; 24
W. E. 721 442
V. Lenders (1871), L. R. 6 C. P. 259 454
" Busy Bee," The (1868), L. R. 3 A. & E. 527 ; 26 L. T. 590; 20 W. R. 803 ;
1
Asp. M. C. 293 114
Butler r. Knight (1867), L. R. 2 Exch. 109 ; 36 L. J. (ex.) 66 ; 15 L. T. 621 ; 15
W. R. 407 232
Button, Be, [1907] W. N. 24 209
Buxendin v. Sharp (1696), 2 Salk. 662 372
Buxton V. Baughan (1834), 6 C. & P. 674 544
Byrne v. Brown (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 657 58 L. ; J. (q. b.) 410 60 L. T. 651; . 488
Byvvater v. Richardson (1834), 1 Ad. & E. 508 ; 3 N. & M. 748 3 L. J. (k. ;
b.)
164 392,509
c.
" C. S. Butler," The (1870), L. R. 4 A. & E. 238 ; 31 L. T. 549 ; 23 W. R. 113 ;
2 Asp. M. C. 408 114

Caerleon Tinplate Co. v. Hughes (1891), 60 L. J. (q. b.) 640 65 L. T. 118 441 ; . .
Caerphilly Colliery Co., Be, Pearson's Case (1877), 5 Ch. D. 336 46 L. J. (ch.) ;
339 25 W. R. 618
;
191
CahiU V. Cahill (1883), 8 App. Cas. 420 31 W. R. 861 49 L. T. 605 ;
444 ; . .
Cahn V. Pocketfs Bristol Channel Packet Co., [1899] 1 Q. B. 643 68 L. J. ;
(Q. B.) 515 80 L. T. 269 47 W. R. 422 8 Asp. M. C. 516

; ;
206, 624, ; . .
638, 639
Cailiff V. Danvers (1792), Peake, 155 3 R. R. 666 ; 543
Cairncross v. Lorimer (1860), 3 Macq. H. L. 827 616
^-
Cairo," The (1874), L. R. 4 A. & E. 184 43 L. J. (adm.) 33 30 L. T. 535 22 ; ; ;
W. R. 742 2 Asp. M. C. 257 ; 74

Calcott and Elvin's Contract, Be, [1898] 2 Ch. 460 67 L. J. (ch.) 553 78 ; ;
L. T. 826 46 W. R. 673 ; 5 Mans. 208 ;

633
Caldecott v. Smythies (1837), 7 C. & P. 808 244, 245
Calder v. Dobell (1871), L. R. 6 C. P. 486 40 L. J. (c. p.) 224 25 L. T. 129 ; ; ;
19 W. R. 978 169, 209

" Caledonia," The (1869), L. R. 4 A. & E. 11 140
Caledonian Insurance Co. r. Gilmour, [1893] A. C. 85 57 J. P. 228 1 R. 110 445 ; ; .
Caledonian Rail. Co. v. Lockart (1860), 3 Macq. 808 458

Callaghan v. Pepper (1840), 2 Ir. Eq. R. 399 155
Calland r. Loyd (1840), 6 M. & W. 26 9 L. J. (ex.) 56 ;
584
Callander v. Oelricks (1839), 5 Bing. (n. c.) 58 6 Scott, 761 8 L. J. (c. p.) 25 183
,
— V. Smith (1900), 37 Sc. L. R. 890 2 F. (Ct. of Sess.) 1140 .239 ;
; ;
. .
.
Callow r. Kelson (1862), 10 W. R. 193 204

Calvert and Wyler, Be (1899), 106 L. T. Jo. 288
Calvin's Case (1609), 7 Co. Rep. 1 Jenk. 306
" Cambrian Monarch," The, March 7, 1907 (unreported)
;
458
19, 302, 303, 316
112
... .
Camelo v. Britten (1820), 4 B. & Aid. 184 312

Camidge r. AUenby (1827), 6 B. & C. 373 9 D. & R. 391 5 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) ; ;
95 574
Camoys (Lord) v. Scurr (1840), 9 C. & P. 383 537, 540
Campanari v. Woodburn (1854), 15 C. B. 400 24 L. J. (c. p.) 13 3 C. L. R. ; ;
140 1 Jur. (n. s.) 17 3 W. R. 59

; ;
196, 231, 233
Campbell v. Hall (1774), 1 Cowp. 208 Lofft, 655 ;
313
V, Hooper (1855), 3 Sm. & G. 153 3 Eq. R. 727 24 L. J. (ch.) 644 ; ; ;
1 Jur. (N. s.) 670 3 W. R. 528 ;

150
V. Spottiswoode (1863), 3 B. & S. 769 32 L. J. (q. b.) 185 9 Jur. ; ;
(N. s.) 1069 8 L. T. 201 11 W. R. 569

;
13
;
47 L. J. (m. g.) 6 37 L. T.
672
V. Strangeways (1877), 3 C. P. D. 105
. . . ...
Canterbury (Viscount) r. A.-G. (1843), 1 Ph. 306 12 L. J. (ch.) 281 7 Jur.
403, 404
. .
;
;
;
224 17,213
cxviii Table of Cases.
PAGE
Cape V. Scott (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 269 ; 43 L. J. (q. b.) 65 ; 30 L. T. 87 ; 22
W. R. 326 . . . . .379
Cape Breton Co., Re, (1884), 26 Gh. D. 221 50 L. T. 388 32 W. R. 853 189, ; ; . 190
" Capella," The, [1892] P. 70 66 L. T. 388 7 Asp. M. C. 158
; ; . . . . 105
Capital and Counties Bank r. Bank of England (1889), 61 L. T. (n. s.) 515 5 ;
T. L. R. 733 571, 572, 573, . . . . 642

V. Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240 72 L. J. (k. b.) 451 ; :
88 L. T. 574 51 W. R. 671 8 Com. Cas. 221

; ; 225, 569, 591, 592, . . 593
594, 595, 597, 599, 602, 606, 609, 610, 612, 613, 629
Capital Fire Insurance Association, Be, Ex parte Beall (1883), 24 Ch. D. 408 ;
52 L. J. (CH.) 71 49 L. T. 697 32 W. R. 260

; ; 198, 199
Carew v. Duckworth (1869), L. R. 4 Exch. 313 38 L. J. (ex.) 149 20 L. T. 882 ; ;
;
17 W.R. 927 605

Carew's Estate, Be (1858), 28 L. J. (ch.) 218 26 Beav. 187 4 Jur. (n. s.) 1290 ; ;
;
7 W. R. 81 512
Cargey v. Aitcheson (1823), 2 B. & C. 170 3 D. & R. 433 S. C, nom. Aitcheson ; ;
'V. Cargey, 13 Price, 639 9 Moore, ;881 2 Bing. 199 M'Clel. 367 469, 486 ; ; .
Cargill V. Bower (1878), 10 Ch. D. 602 47 L. J. (ch.) 649 38 L. T. 779 26 ; ; ;
W. R. 716 160, 193, 224

Cargo ex " Argos, " The (1872), L. R. 5 P. C. 134; 28 L. T. 745; 21 W. R.
707 42 L. J. (adm.) 49
; 108
" Port Victor," The, [1901] P. 243, at pp. 254, 256 70 L. J. (p.) 52
84 L. T. 677 49 W. R. 578 9 Asp. M. C. 182
;
"Schiller," The (1877), 1 P. D. 473 2 P. D. 149; 46 L. J. (adm.)

62, 75
;
;
.. .
;
-
9 35 L. T. 97 36 L. T. 714 3 Asp. M. C. 226, 439
;
" Sultan," The (1859), Swa. Ad. 504

;
5 Jur. (n. s.) 1060

"Venus," The (1866), L. R. 1 A. & E. 50; 12 Jur. (n. s.) 379 14
74
66
;
;
.
... .
;
.
W. R. 460 90
Carlill V. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., [1893] 1 Q. B. 356 4R. 176 62 L. J. (q. b.) ; ;
257 67 L. T. 837
;
41 W. R. 210 57 J. P. 325
: : 511
Carlisle, Be (1890), 44 Ch. D. 200 59 L. J. (ch.) 520 62 L. T. 821
: 38 W. R. ; ;
638 454
" Carlisle," The, [1906] P. 301 75 L. J. (p.) 97 95 L. T. 552 22 T. L. R. 709
; 117 ; :
Carlon v. Ireland (1856), 5 E. & B. 765 25 L. J. (q. b.) 113 2 Jur. (n. s.) 39 ; :
;
4 W. R. 200 605, 608

Carmichael's Case. See Hannan's Empress Gold Mining and Development
Co., Be.
Carolino's Case (1744), 1 Wils. 78 . .20
Carpenter v. Street (1890), 6 T. L. R. 410 602
Carr v. Anderson, [1903] 2 Ch. 279 72 L. J. (ch.) 534 88 L. T, 503 51 W. R.
; : ;
465 149
V. Fracis Times, [1902] A. C. 176 224
V. Jackson (1852), 7 Exch. 382 21 L. J. (ex.) 137
Carr Brothers v. Dougherty (1898), 67 L. J. (q. b.) 371
Carrard v. Meek (1880), 50 L. J. (c. p.) 187 43 L. T. 760 29 W. R. 244
;
490,
; ;
.... . .
220
491
255
Carrington r. Roots (1837), 2 M. & W. 248 293
Carroll v. Eivers (1873), Ir. R. 7 C. L. 226 422
Carruthers v. HoUis (1838), 8 A. & E. 113 3 N. & P. 246 1 W. W. & H. 264 ; ; ;
2 Jur. 871 380

Carter v. Palmer (1841), 8 CI. & F. 657 190
V. Vestry of St. Mary Abbot's, Kensington (1900), 64 J. P. 548 173, . 179
White (1883), 25 Ch. D. 666 54 L. J. (ch.) 138 50 L. T. 670 32 ; ; :
W. R. 692 233
Cartmell's Case (1874), 9 Ch. App. 691 43 L. J. (ch.) 588 31 L. T. 52 22 : ; ;
W. R. 697 169
Cartwright v. Green (1803), 8 Ves. 405 2 Leach, C. C. 952 ; . . . . 529
V. Hateley (1791), 1 Ves. 292 172
Carus-Wilson and Greene, Be (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 7 56 L. J. (q. b.) 530 55 ; ;
L. T. 864 35 W. R. 43
; 440, 444
Cary v. Cary (1862), 10 Vv^. R. 669 294
Case V. Willis (1892), 8 T. L. R. 610 487
Casey v. Rose (1900), 82 L. T. 616 . . 502
Cass V. Rudele (1682), 2 Vern. 280 Eq. Cas. Abr, 25, p. 8 ;
221
Cassaboglou v. Gibb (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 220 11 Q. B. D. 797 51 L. J. (q. b.) ; ;
593 52 L. J. (q. b.) 538 47 L. T. 98 48 L. T. 850 32 W. R. 138 46

; ; ; ; ;
J. P. 568 183, 191, 192, . . 200

Cassell, Re (1829), 9 B. & C. 624 4 M. & R. 555 ; 457
Casseres v. Bell (1799), 8 Term Rep. 166 .20
Table of Cases. cxix
PAGE
«' Cassiopeia," The (1879), 4 P. D. 188 ; 48 L. J. (adm.) 39 ; 40 L. T. 869 ; 27
W. E. 703 ; 4 Asp. M. C. 148 86, 87
Castrique v. Imrie (1860), 8 C. B. (n. s.) 405 L. E. 4 H. L. 414 30 L. J. (c. p.) ; ;
177 39 L. J. (c. p.) 350 4 L. T. 143 23 L. T. 48 9 W. E. 455 19 W. E.

: ; ; ; ;
1 :7 Jur. (n. s.) 1076 48, 615

Caswell t'. Coare (1809), 1 Taunt. 566 2 Camp. 82 .392 ; . . . . .
" Catharina Maria," The (1866), L. E. 1 A. & E. 53 12 Jur. (n. s.) 380 ; . .99
" Cathay," The (1900), 69 L. J. (p.) 89 82 L. T. 823 110 ;
Catlin V. Bell (1815), 4 Camp. 183 169, 183, 187

Catling V. King (1877), 5 Ch. D. 660 46 L. J. (ch.) 384 36 L. T. 526 25 W. E. ; : ;
550 505
Catterall v. Hindle (1866), L. E. 1 C. P. 187 (1867), 2 C. P. 368 1 H. & E. ; ;
267 35 L. J. (c. p.) 161 12 Jur. (n. s.) 488 14 L. T. 102 14 W. E. 371
; : 187, 210 ; ;
Catton V. Bennett (1884), 26 Ch. D. 161 53 L. J. (ch.) 685 50 L. T. 383 510 ; ; . .
Caucasian Trading Corporation, Ltd., Ex parte, Re a Bankruptcy Petition,

[1896] 1 Q. B. 368 65 L. J. (q. b.) 346 74 L. T. 47 44 W. E. 439 3
; ; : ;
Mans. 1 473
Cave V. Cave (1880), 15 Ch. D. 639 49 L. J. (ch.) 505 42 L. T. 730 28 W. E. ; ; ;
793 216
V. Coleman (1828), 3 M. & Ey. 3 7 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 25 389, 390 ; . . .
V. Mackenzie (1877), 46 L. J. (ch.) 564 37 L. T. 218 157 ;
Cave's Sanitary Steam Laundry Co. v. Barclay, Bevan & Co.. Ltd, See Lewes
Sanitarv Steam Laundry, Ltd. v. Barclay, Bevan & Co., Ltd.
Cavendish-Bentinck v. Fenn (1887), 12 App. Cas. 652 57 L. J. (ch.) 552 57 ; ;
L. T. 773 36 W. E. 641
: 190
" Cawder," The, [1900] P. 47 81 L. T. 7 45 W. E. 290 9 Asp. M. C. 19
; 63 ; ; .
" Cecilie," The (1879), 4 P. D. 210 40 L. T. 200 4 Asp. M. C. 78 : ; . . .67

" Cella," The (1888), 13 P. D. 82 57 L. J. (adm.) 55 59 L. T. 125 36 W. E. ; ; ;
540 6 Asp. M. C. 293

; 68
" Celtic King,'^ The, [1894] P. 175 63 L. J. (p.) 37 70 L. T. 652 7 Asp.M. C. ; ; ;
440 65
Chadburn v. Moore (1892), 61 L. J. (cH.) 674 67 L. T. 257 41 W. E. 39 ; :
Chaffers, Re, Ex parte A.-G. (1897), 76 L. T. 351

Chamberlain, Ex parte (1804), 1 Sch. & Lef. 320
45 W. E. 365
166, 184, 202
30
43
; ...
Chambers v. Goldthorpe, [1901] 1 K. B. 624 70 L. J. (k. b.) 482 84 L, T. 444 : ; ;
49 W. E. 401 185, 459

r. Miller (1862), 13 C. B. (n. s.) 125
•
32 L. J. (c. p.) 30 9 Jur. : :
(N. s.) 626 7 L. T. 856

: 11 W. E. 236 : 619
Channon v. Patch (1826), 5 B. & C. 897 295
Chanter v. Hopkins (1838), 8 L. J. (ex.) 14 4 M. & M. 399 1 H. & H. 377 3 : ; ;
Jur. 58 388
Chapleo v. Brunswick Building Society (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 696 222 . . . .
Chapman r. Allen (1632), Cro. (Car.) 271 387

V. Great Western Eail. Co. (1880). 5 Q. B. D. 278 49 L. J. (q. b.) :
420 42 L. T. 252 28 W. E. 566 44 J. P. 363

; :
543 ; . . . .
V. Gwyther (1866), L. E. 1 Q. B. 463 7 B. & S. 417 35 L. J, (q. b.) ; ;
142 14 L. T. 477 14 W. E. 671

: ;
391
V. Keane (1835), 3 A. & E. 193 4 N. & M. 607 ; 4 L. J. (k. b.) 185 175
V. Morton (1843), 11 M. & W. 534
V. Pickersgill (1762), 2 Wils. 146
12 L. J. (ex.) 292 528
7
;
; ...
V. Shepherd (1867), L. E. 2 C. P. 228 36 L. J. (c. p.) 113 15 L. T. ; ;
477 15 W. E. 314
V. Smith, [1907] 2 Ch, 97
V. Winson (1904), 91 L. T. 17
;
76 L. J. (ch.) 394
53 W. E. 19 20 T. L. E. 663
;
197
221, 226
194 ; ;
... .
. .
V. Withers (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 824 57 L. J. (q. b.) 457 37 W. E. 29... 392 ; ;
Chappell V. North, [1891] 2 Q. B. 252 60 L. J. (q. b.) 554 65 L. T. 23 40 ; ; ;
W. E. 16 452
" Charkieh," The (1873), L. E. 4 A. & E. 59 42 L. J. (adm.) 17 28 L. T. 513 19 ; ; .
Charles v. Blackwell (1877), 1 C. P. D. 548 46 L. J. (c. p.) 368 36 L. T. 195 ; ; ;
25 W. E. 472 . . . 608, 609, 610, 612, 615

. . . . . .
Charleston v. London Tramways Co. (1888), 4 T. L. E. 629 165 . . . .
Charlesworth v. Mills, [1892] A. C. 231 61 L. J. (q. b.) 830 66 L. T. 690 41 ; ; ;
W. E. 129 56 J. P. 628 ;
504, 506
" Charlotte," The (1907), 23 T. L. E. 750 71
Charlwood, Ex parte, Re Masters, [1894] 1 Q. B. 643 10 R. 132 63 L. J. (q. b.) ; ;
344 70 L. T. 383 1 Mans. 42

;
Charnley v. Winstanley (1804), 5 East, 266

;
234
448 .......
cxx Table of Cases.
PAGE
Charter v. Trevelyan (1842), 11 CI. & F. 714 8 Jur. 1015 .189 ; . . . .
Chartered Bank of India v. Evans (1869), 21 L. T. 407 231

Chartered Bank of India etc. v. Macfadyen (1895), 1 Com. Cas. 1 64 L. J. ;
(Q. B.) 367 72 L. T. 428

; 43 W. R. 397 15 R. 333 ; 624 ;
Chase v. Westmore (1816), 5 M. & S. 180 2 Marsh. 346 561 ;
Chasemore v. Richards (1859), 7 H. L. Cas. 349 29 L. J. (ex.) 81 5 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
873 7 W. R. 685
; 10
Chastey v. Ackland, [1895] 2 Ch. 389 [1897] A. C. 155 64 L. J. (q. b.) 523 ; ;
;
66 L. J. (q. b.) 518 72 L. T. 845 76 L. T. 430 43 W. R. 627 12 R. 420

; ; 11 ; ; .
Chatterton v. London and County Bank (1890), The Miller Newspaper,

Nov. 3, 1890, p. 394; (1891), The Times Newspaper. Jan. 1, 1891 The ;
Miller, Feb. 2, 1891.

" Chaucer," The (March 8, 1907) .126
Chavasse, Ex imrte, Re Grazebrook (1865). 4 De G. J. & S. 655 34 L. J. (boy.)
17 : 11 Jur. (N. s.) 400 12 L. T. (n. s.) 249 13 W. R. 627
;
" Cheapside," The, [1904] P. 339 73 L. J. (p.) 117 91 L. T. 88 53 W. R. 120 ;

311 ;
;
;
;
... ;
20 T. L. R. 655 96, 128

Chedworth (Lord) V. Edwards (1802), 8 Ves. 47 186, . . . . . . .
188
Cherry v. Anderson (1876), Ir. R. 10 C. L. 204 519
V. Colonial Bank of Australasia (1869), 38 L. J. (p. c.) 49 6 Moo. P. C. C. ;
(N. s.) 235 21 L. T. 356 17 W. R. 1031; ;222

V. Thompson (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 573 41 L. J. (q. b.) 243 26 L. T. ; ;
791 20 W. R. 1029
; 6
Cheshire v. Bailey, [1905] 1 K. B. 237 74 L. J. (k. b.) 176 92 L. T. 142 53 ; ; ;
W. R. 322 21 T. L. R. 130
; 212, 551, 553, 628
. . . . . . .
Chesterman v. Lamb (1834), 2 A. & E. 129 4 N. & M. 195 392 ; . . . .
Chew V. Jones (1848), 10 L. T. (o. s.) 231 551

" Chieftain," The (1863), 32 L. J. (adm.) 106 Br. & Lush. 104 9 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
388 8 L. T. 120 11 W. R. 537

; ; 91
Child V. Hearn (1874), L. R. 9 Exch. 176 43 L. J. (ex.) 100 22 W. R. 864 373 ; ; .
" Chiltonford," The, [1901] W. N. 48 96, 134

China Steam Navigation Co. v. Van Laun (1906), 22 T. L. R. 26 473, 475 . .
Chinnock v. Sainsbury (1861), 30 L. J. (ch.) 409 6 Jur. (n. s.) 1318 3 L. T. ; ;
9 W. R. 7
258 :
" Chioggia," The, [1897], P. 1 66 L. J. (p.) 174 77 L. T. 472 ;
Chisholm v. Doulton (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 736 58 L. J. (q. b.) 133 60 L. T. 966

196, 229, 516
87
;
; .
;
... ;
37 W. R. 749 53 J. P. 550 ; 218, 219

Cholmondeley r. Clinton (1821), 4 Bligh, 1 54, 55
Chown V. Parrott (1863), 14 C. B. (n. s.) 74 183
Chowne r. Baylis (1862), 31 Beav. 351 31 L. J. (ch.) 757 8 Jur. (n. s.) 1028 : ; ;
6 L. T. 739 11 W. R. 5;
29
Christie r. Cooper, [1900] 2 Q. B. 522 69 L. J. (q. b.) 708 83 L. T. 54 49 ; ; ;
W. R. 46 64 J. P. 692 ;
514
V. Griggs (1809), 2 Camp. 80 551
Church V. Imperial Gas Light Co. (1838), 6 A. & E. 846 3 N. & P. 35 1 W. W. ; ;
& H. 137 7 L. J. (q. b.) 118

;
155
Churchill v. Evans (1809), 1 Taunt. 529 879 . .
Churchward v. R. (1865), L. R. 1 Q. B. 173 14 L. T. 57 18 ;
V. Studdy (1811), 14 East, 249 868

Cinque Ports (Lord Warden of) v. The King (1831), 2 Hagg. 438 76 .
Citizens' Bank of Louisiana and the New Orleans Canal and Banking Co. v.
First National Bank of New Orleans (1873), L. R. 6 H. L. 352 43 L. J. ;
(ch.) 269 22 W. R. 194

: 223
Citizens' Life Assurance v. Brown, [1904] A. C. 423, J. C. 73 L. J. (p. c.) 102 ; ;
90 L. T. 739 53 W. R. 176 20 T. L. R. 497

; ;
213 .
-
City Discount Co. v. M'Lean (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 692 43 L. J. (c. p.) 344 30 ; ;
L. T. 883 586, 587, 639

" Citv of Agra," The, [1898] P. 198 67 L. J. (p.) 81 79 L. T. 307 ;
.3 29 ; . .
" City of Calcutta," The (1899), 79 L. T. 517 8 Asp. M. C. 442 442,453 ;

, .
City of Chester," The (1884), 9 P. D. 182 53 L. J. (adm.) 90 51 L. T. 485 ; ; ;
33 W. R. 104 5 Asp. M. C. 311 ;

118
Clack V. Wood (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 276 47 L. T, 144 30 W. R. 931 ;
194 ; . . .
Clapham r. Higha^m (1822), 1 Bing. 87 7 Moore, 703 448 ;
" Clara," The (1730), Swabey, 1 61

Claridge v. South Staffordshire Tramway Co., [1892] 1 Q. B. 422 61 L. J. (q.b.) :
503 66 L. T. 655 56 J. P. 408

; ;
564
Clarisse," The (1856), 12 Moo. P. C. C. -340 Swabey, 129, 133 139 ;
. . .
:
Table of Cases. cxxi
PAGE
Clark, Be, Ex jparte, Beardmore, [18941 2 Q. B. 393 63 L. J. (q. b.) 806 70
R
; ;
— L. T. 751 9 498
;
Ex parte Beyer, Peacock & Co., [1896] 2 Q. B. i96 65 L. J. (q. b.)

. . 603
Iê,
V.
684 75 L. T. 304 45 W. R. 118 3 Mans. 203
; ;
Gaskarth (1818), 8 Taunt. 431 2 Moore, 491 ;

;
;
.... 308
254
V.
V.
907 95 L. T. 435
;
Smythies (1860), 2 F. & F. 83

....
London General Omnibus Co., [1906] 2 K. B. 648 75 L. J. (k. b.) ;
. 10
516
1'. Webster (1823), 1 C. & P. 104 396
Clarke v. Army and Navy Co-operative Society, Ltd., [1903] 1 K. B. 155 72 ;
L. J. (K. B.) 153 88 L. T. 1 : 240

V. Bradlaugh. See Bradlaugh v. Clarke.
V. Crofts (1827), 4 Bing. 143 12 Moore, 349 5 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.) 127
; ; 443,
.
444, 450
V. Cuckfield Union (1852), 21 L. J. (q. b.) 349 ; 1 Bro. C. C. 81 ; 16 Jur.
686 155
V. Earnshaw (1818), Gow, 30 560
V. Hague (1860), 2 E. & E. 281 29 L. J. (m. c.) 105 6 Jur. (n. s.) 273 ; ;
;
2 L. T. 85 ; 8 W. R.
363 8 Cox, C. C. 324 ; 412
V. Lewisham Borough Council (1903), 67 J. P. 195 1 L. G. R. 63 26 ; . .
V. London and County Bank, [1897] 1 Q. B. 552 66 L. J. (q. b.) 354 ; :
76 L. T. 293 45 W. R. 383 ; 596, 643

V. Perrier (1679), 2 Freem. 48 180
V. Sonnenschein (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 226, 464 59 L. J. (q. b.) 461, 561 :
;
38 W. R. 717, 743 62 L. T. 880 54 J. P. 677

; 231, 491 ;
V. Stocken (1836), 2 Bing. (n. c.) 651 5 D. P. C. 32 2 Hodges, 1 3 ; ; :
Scott, 90 449
V. Tipping (1846). 9 Beav. 284
V. Westrope (1856), 18 C. B. 765 25 L. J. (c. p.) 287
Clay V. Yates (1856), 1 H. & N. 73 25 L. J. (ex.) 237 2 Jur. (n. s.) 908 4
187, 188
248 ; ... .
W. R. 557
Clayards v. Dethick (1848), 12 Q. B. 439
;
.557
15
.
;
. ... :
Clayton's Case (1816), 1 Mer. 572 586, 619

Cleave v. Moors (1857), 3 Jur. (n. s.) 48 5 W. R. 234 519 ;
Clement v. Milner (1800), 3 Esp. 95 380

Clemontson v. Blessig (1855), 11 Exch. 135 3 W. R. 510 311 ;
Clerk V. Laurie (1857), 2 H. & N. 199 26 L. J. (ex.) 317 3 Jur. (n. s.) 647 ; : :
5 W. R. 629 448
Clifford V. Hoare (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 362 43 L. J. (c. p.) 225 22 W. R. 828 : ; ;
30 L. T. 465 8
V. Wicks (1818), 1 B. & Aid. 498 41
Clinan v. Cooke (1802), 1 Sch. & Lef. 22 157
Clode V. Bailey (1843), 12 M. & W. 51 13 L. J. (ex.) 17 7 Jur. 1092 ;
591 ; . .
Cloete, Exparte (1891), 65 L. T. 102 65 J. P. 758 8 M. B. R. 195

Close V. Phipps (1844), 7 Man. & G. 586 8 Scott (n. r.) 381
Clothier v. Webster (1862), 12 C. B. (n. s.) 790
;
31 L. J. (c. p.) 316 6L. T. 461

20
223 ;
;
;
... ;
. . .
10 W. R. 624 9 Jur. (n. s.) 231

;
14
Clow V. Harper (1873), 3 Ex. J). 198 47 L. J. (ex.) 393 38 L. T. 269 26 W. R.
.. ; :
;
364 487 .
Clowes V. Higginson (1813), 1 Ves. & B. 524 510

"Clutha," The (1876), 45 L. J. (adm.) 108 35 L. T. 36 3 Asp. M. C. 225 95 ; ; .
Clutterbuck v. Coffin (1842), 3 Man. & G. 842 4 Scott (n. r.) 509 1 D. (n. s. ) ; ;
479 Car. & M. 273

; 11 L. J. (c. p.) 65 6 Jur. 131
;
220 ;
Clutton V. Attenborough, [1897] A. C. 90 66 L. J. (q. b.) 221 75 L. T. 556 ; ;
45W. R. 276 608

" Clyde," The (1856), Swa. 23 122
Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co. v. Yzquierdo, [1905] A. C. 6 74 ;
L. J. (p. c.) 1 91 L. T. 666 21 T. L. R. 58

; ;
250
Coates V. Stephens (1838), 2 Moo. & R. 157 390
Cobb V. Becke (1845), 6 Q. B. 930 14 L. J. (q. b.) 108 9 Jur. 439
;
172 ; . . .
Coburn v. CoUedge, [1897] 1 Q. B. 702 66 L. J. (q. b.) 462 76 L. T. 608 45 ; ; ;
W. R. 488 6
Cockburn v. Newton (1841), 2 Man. & G. 899 9 Dowl. P. C. 671 3 Scott (n. r.) ; ;
261 479
Cockran v. Irlam (1814), 2 M. & S. 301 167, 169
-
Cockrane v. Rymill (1879), 40 L. T. 744 27 W. R. 776 225, 226, 520, 521, 556 ; .
Cocks V. Masterman (1829), 9 B. & C. 902 4 Man. & Ry. 676 8 L. J. (o. s.) ; ;
cxxii Table of Cases.
PA&E
Oodd V. Brown (1867), 15 L. T. 536 . . . . . . . . .246
Coe,-Ex parte (1861), 3 De G. F. & J. 335; 33 L. J. (bcy.) 8 ; 5 L. T.
566 581
V. Wise (1866), L. E. 1 Q. B. 711 ; 7 B. & S. 831 ; 37 L. J. (q. b.) 262 ; 14
L. T. 891 ; 14 W. R. 865 213
Coggs V. Bernard (1703), 2 Ld. Raym. 909 3 Salk. 11 Holt, 13 514, ; Com. 133 ; ;
.
527, 532, 533, 535, 538, 540, 544, 562

Cohen v. Foster (1892), 66 L. T. 616 61 L. J. (q. b.) 643 ;49
V. Kittel (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 680 58 L. J. (q. b.) 241 60 L. T. 932 37 ; ; ;
W. R. 400 5 T. L. R. 345 ; 191

V. Mitchell (1890). 25 Q. B. D. 262, C. A. 59 L. J. (q. b.) 409 63 L. T. ; ;
206 38 W. R. 551 6 T. L. R. 326

; ; 603
Colam V. Hall (1871), L. R. 6 Q, B. 206 40 L. J. (m. c.) 100; 23 L. T. 802 ; ;
19 W. R. 563 413
.
V. Pagett (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 66 53 L. J. (m. c.) 64 32 W. R. 289 48 ; ; ;
J. P. 263 409
Coleman v. Bucks, and Oxon. Union Bank, [1897] 2 Ch. 243 66 L. J. (ch.) 564 ; ;
76 L. T. 684 45 W. R. 616 ; 226, 584, 606

V. Riches (1855), 24 L. J. (c. p.) 128 16 C. B. 104 1 Jur. (n. s.) 596 ; ; ;
3 C. L. R. 795 3 W. R. 453 : . 212, 394 . .
Coles V. Bell (1808), 1 Camp. 478, n 177

V. Bristowe (1868), 4 Ch. App. 3 38 L. J. (ch.) 81 19 L. T. 403 17 ; ; ;
W.R.105 168, 207

V. North Western Bank (1875), L. R. 10 C. P. 354 : 44 L. J. (c. p.) 233 ;
32 L. T. 733 203
V. Trecothick'(1804), 9 Ves. 234 ; 1 Smith, 233 157, 170,
502
Coles and Ravenshear, Rc, [1907] 1 K. B. 1 481
Collen V. Gardner (1856), 21 Beav. 540 164, 167, . 502
V. Wright (1857), 8 E. & B. 647 222
Collet V. Podwell (1671), 2 Keb. 670 1 Ventr. 93 : 470
" Collingrove," The, " Numidia," The (1885), 10 P. D. 158 54 L. J. (adm.) 78 ; :
53 L. T. 681 34 W. R. 156 5 Asp. M. C. 483

: ; 97, 100
Collins V. Blantern (1767), 2 Wils. (k. b.) 341 166
V. Brown (1857), 3 Kay & J. 423 3 Jur. (n. s.) 929 ;
308
V. Collins (1858), 26 Beav. 306 28 L. J. (ch.) 184 5 Jur. (n. s.) 30 32 : : ;
L. T. 233 7 W. R. 115 :
440
V. Griffin (1734), Barnes, 37 193
V. Hungerford (1857), 7 Ir. R. C. L. 581 2 Ir. Jur. (n. s.) 519 : . . 26
V. Locke (1879), 4 App. Cas. 674 48 L. J. (P. c.) 68 41 L. T. 292; 28 : ;
W . R. 189 445
V. Martin (1797), 1 Bos. & P. 648 2 Esp. 250 ;
599
CoUis r. Lewis (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 202 57 L. J. (q. b.) 167 ; ; 57 L. T. 716 ;
36
W. R. 472 4
Collman [1897] 1 Q. B. 396 66 L. J. (q. b.) 170
r. Mills, 75 L. T. 590 61 ; ; ;
J. P. 102 18 Cox, C. C. 481 ;

218
CoUyer-Bristow & Co., Re, [1901] 2 K. B. 839 70 L. J. (k. b.) 941 85 L. T. ;
;
208 50 W. R. 4: 459, 472, 493

Colonial Bank r. Cady (1890), 15 App. Cas. 267 63 L. T. 27 27 W. R. 17 8 ; ; ;
T. L. R. 329 635, 636

r. Exchange Bank of Yarmouth, Nova Scotia (1885), 11 App.
Cas. 84 55 L. J. (p. c.) 14 54 L. T. 256 24 W. R. 417
: : : . . • • 227
Colonial Bank v. Marshall, [1906] A. C. 559 75 L. J. (p. c.) 76 95 L. T. 310 ; ;
;
22 T. L. R. 746 197
Colonial Bank of Australasia v. Marshall, [1906] A. C. 557 ; 75 L. J. (p. c.) 76 ;
95 L. T. 310; 22 T. L. R. 746. . .
616
Columbian Government, The r. Rothschild (1826), 1 Sim. 94 ; 5 L. J. (o. s.)
(ch.) 43 27 R. R. 171 ;
19
Colwill V. Reeves (1811), 2 Camp. 575 542
Combe v. Simmonds (1852), 1 W. R. 289 559
Combe's Case (1614), 9 Co. Rep. 75 Moore, 759 Noy, 101 Comb. 57 ; ;
; . .
149
- Comber v. Anderson (1808), 1 Camp. 523 183
Commercial Bank of Australia t: Official Assignee of Wilson & Co., [1893]
A. C. 181 62 L. J. (p. c.) 61 68 L. T. 540 41 W. R. 603
; ; ; . . . . 639
Commercial Bank of Scotland v. Rhind (1860), 3 Macq. (h. l.) 643; 22 Dunl.
Court of Sess. (h. l.) 2 619
Commins v. Scott (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 11 44 L. J. (ch.) 563 32 L. T. 420 : ; ;
23 W. R. 498 505
Table of CiSES. cxxiii
PAGE
Commissioner Metropolitan Police v. Cartman, [1896] 1 Q. B, 655 65 L. J.
of ;
(M. c.) 113 74 L. T. 726: ;

M
W. E. 637 60 J. P. 357 .218 ; . - .
Commonwealth Portland Cement Co. r. Weber, [1905] A. C. 66 74 L.J. (p. c.) :
25 :91 L. T. 813 53 W. B. 337 10 Asp. M. C. 27

; 21 T. L. R. ; ;
149 183,186
Compagnie du Senegal, La v. Smith (1883), 49 L. T. 527 53 L. J. (ch.) 166 32 ; ;
W. R. Ill 454
Compagnie Generale Transatlantique r. Law, Thomas & Co. See " La
Bourgogne."
Conflans Quarry Co. r. Parker (1867), L. R. 3 C. P. 1 37 L. J. (c. p.) 51 17 : ;
L. T. 283 16 W. R. 127
: 626, 627
Conolan r. Leyland (1884), 27 Ch. D. 632 54 L. J. (ch.) 123 27 Ch. D. 632 ; ; ;
51 L. T. 895 442, 450

"Consett," The (1880), 5 P. D. 52, 177 42 L. T. 33 28 W. R. 622 4 Asp. ; ; ;
M. C. 230 120, 121

Consolidated Co. r. Curtis, [1892] 1 Q. B. 495 61 L. J. (q. b.) 325 40 W. R. ; ;
426 56 J. P. 565
; 225, 520, 521, 556
Consort Deep Level Gold Mines, Ltd., Re (Stark's Case), [1897] 1 Ch. 575 66 ;
L. J. (CH.) 122 76 L. T. 300 45 W. R. 227

: ; 153, 228
Constable r. Cranswick (1899), 80 L. T. 164 245
Constable's (Sir Henry) Case (1601), 5 Co. Rep. 106 a 76
" Constancia," The, (1846), 4 Notes of Cases, 512 10 Jur. 845 2 W. Rob. 404 68 ; ;
" Constantine," The (1878), 4 P. 156 27 W. R. 747 ; 125

" Constitution," The (1879), 4 P. D. 39 48 L. J. (adm.) 13 40 L. T. 219 27 ; ; ;
W. R. 739 4 Asp. M. C. 79
: 19, 73
Continental Caoutchouc and Gutta Percha Co. r. Klein wort (1904), 90 L. T.
474 52 W. R. 489 9 Com. Cas. 240 20 T. L. R. 403
; ; 223 ; . . . .
Contract Corporation, Be (Druitt's Case) (1872), L. R. 14 Eq. 6 644 . . . .
Cook V. Field (1850), 15 Q. B. 460 19 L. J. (q. b.) 441 14 Jur. 951

; 55 ; . . .
r. Sprigg, [1899] A. C. 572 68 L. J. (p. c.) 144 79 L. T. 600 15

..
; ; . . .
V. Ward (1877), 2 C. P. D. 255 36 L. T. 893 25 W. R. 593 ;

183 ; .
Cooke V. Cooke (1867), L. R. 4 Eq. 77 30 L. J. (ch.) 480 15 W. R. 981 ;

445 ; . .
V. Eshelby (1887), 12 App. Cas. 271 56 L. J. (q. b.) 505 56 L. T. 673 ; ; ;
35 W. R. 629 204, 211

V. Gill (1873). L. R. 8 C. P. 107 42 L. J. (c. p.) 98 28 L. T. 32 21 ; ; ;
W. R. 334 6
r. Waring (1863), 2 H. & C. 332 32 L. J. (ex.) 262 9 L. T. 257 ;
419 : . .
V. Wilson (1856), 1 C. B. (n. s.) 153 26 L. J. (c. p.) 15 2 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
1094 5 W. R. 24
;
226
Coombs and Fernley, Re (1850), 4 Exch. 839, at p. 841 472
Cooper r. Barton (1810), 3 Camp. 5, n 552
r. Johnson (1819), 2 B. & A. 394 444, 450
V. Marshall (1757), 1 Burr. 259 2 Ken. 1 2 Wils. 51 ;
.378 ; . . .
V. Pearse, [1896] 1 Q. B. 562 65 L. J. (m. c.) 95 74 L. T. 495 44 ; ; ;
W. R. 494 60 J. P. 282
;
357
V. Shuttleworth (1856), 25 L. J. (ex.) 114 456, 480
r, Whittingham (1880), 15 Ch. D. 501 49 L. J. (ch.) 752 43 L. T. 16 ; ;
;
28 W. R. 720 8
^. Willomatt (1845), 14 L. J. (c. p.) 219 1 C. B. 672 9 Jur. 598 556, 564 ; ; .
Coore f. Calloway (1794), 1 Esp. 115 .177

Cope V. Cope (1885), 52 L. T. 607 454
V. Rowlands (1836), 2 M. & W. 149 2 Gale, 231 6 L. J. (ex.) C3 196 ; : . .
V. Thames Haven Dock and Rail. Co. (1849), 3 Exch. 841 6 Ry. Cas. 83 18 : ;
L. J. (ex.) 345 155

Copland v. Steen (1799), 8 Term Rep. 199 198
Coppen r. Moore (No. 2), [1898] 2 Q. B. 306 67 L. J. (q. b.) 689 78 L. T. ; ^
520 46 W. R. 620 62 J. P. 453

; ; 218, 514
Coppin V. Craig (1816\ 7 Taunt. 237 2 Marsh. 501 ;
519
v. Walker (1816), 7 Taunt. 243 2 Marsh. 497 227, 519
;
Corbett v. Packington (1827), 6 B. & C. 268 387

" Cordilleras," The, [1904] P. SO 89 L. J. 673 9 App. M. C. 506
;
110
36
; .. .
Core's Case (1536), 1 Dyer, 20

Cormick v. Digby (1876), Ir. R. 9 C. L. 557 212
" Cornelia Henrietta," The (1866), L. R. 1 A. & E. 51 12 Jur. (n. s.) 396 14 ; ;
W. R. 502 67
" Corner," The (1863), Br. & L. 161 33 L. J. (adm.) 16 12 L. T. 62
; 90 ; . .
Corner v. Champneys (1814), 2 Marsh. 584 396

Cornfoot v. Fowke (1840), 6 M. & W. 358 9 L. J. (ex.) 297 4 Jur. 919 214, 394 ; ; .
cxxiv Table of Cases.
PAGE
Cornford v. Carlton Bank, [1900] 1 Q. B. 22 81 L. T. 415 213 ; . . . .
Cornwall v. Wilson (1750), 1 Ves. 510 179, ISO .
Cory -y. Patton (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 577 43 L. J. (q. b.) 181 30 L. T. 758 23 ; ; ;
W. R. 46 . . . . . 178
Cory Brothers v. Owners of Steamship " Mecca," [1897] A. C. 286 66 L. J. (p.) ;
86 76 L. T. 579 45 W. R. 667
; ; 586, 587. 639
Costa Rica Rail. Co. v. Forwood, [1901] 1 Ch. 746 70 L. J. (ch.) 885 84 L. T. ; ;
279 49 W. R. 337 8 Mans. 374

; ; 189 . . .
Cothay v. Fennell (1830), 10 B. & C. 671 8 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 302 .159
Cotsworth V. Bettison (1696), 1 Ld. Raym. 104 2 Salk. 246
Cotter V. Bank of England (1833), 3 M. & S. 180 2 Dowl. 728 2 L. J. (c. P.) 158 200
385
;
; ;
... . .
Cotterell v. Jones (1851), 11 C. B. 713 21 L. J. (c. p.) 2 16 Jur. 88 ;14, 52 ; . .
Cottle V. Aldrich (1815), 4 M. & S. 175 1 Stark. 37 .233 ;
Cotton V. Kadwell (1833), 2 Nev. & M. 399 26

Coughlin V. Gillison, [1899] 1 Q. B. 145 68 L. J. (q. b.) 147 79 L. T. 627 ; ; ;
47 W. R. 113 539
Coulthart v. Clementson (1879), 5 Q. B. D. 42 49 L. J. (q. b.) 204 41 L. T. ; ;
798 28 W. R. 355
; 641
" County of Durham," The, [1891] P. 1 60 L. J. (p.) 5 64 L. T. 146 39 W. R. ; ; ;
303 6 Asp. M. C. 606

; 129 •
County Palai ine Loan and Discount Co., i?e (Cartmell's Case) (1^74), 9Ch. App.
691 43 L. J. (ch.) 588 31 L. T. 52 22 W. R. 697
; : 169 ;
County Theatres and Hotels, Ltd. v. Knowles, [1902] 1 K. B. 480 71 L. J. ;
(k. b.) 351 86 L. T. 132 ; 452

Coupe Co., The v. Maddick, [1891] 2 Q. B. 413 60 L. J. (q. b.) 676 65 L. T. ; ;
489 553, 565

" Courier," The (1862), Lush. 541 71
Courtnay v. Waterford Co. (1878), 4 L. R. Ir. 11 559
Cousins V. Paddon (1835), 2 Cr. M. & R. 547 4 Dowl. P. C. 488 1 Gale, 305 560 ; ; .
Coutts & Co. V. The Irish Exhibition in London (1891), 7 T. L. R. 313 631 . .
Couturier v. Hastie (1852), 8 Exch. 40 22 L. J. (ex.) 97 153 ;
Cowan V. O'Connor (1882), 20 Q. B. D. 640 57 L. J. (q. b.) 401 58 L. T. 857 ; ; ;
36 W. R. 895 7
Cowley (Earl) v. Cowley (Countess), [1901] A. C. 450 70 L. J. (p.) 83 85 L. T. ; ;
254 50 W. R. 81
;
11
Cox V. Burbidge (1863), 13 C. B. (n. s.) 430 32 L. J. (c. p.) 89 9 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
970 11 W. R. 435
; 372, 376, 377, 395
V. Hakes (1890), 15 App. Cas. 506 63 L. T. 392 39 W. R. 145 54 J. P. ; ; ;
820 112
V. Midland Rail. Co. (1849), 3 Exch. 268 18 L. J. (ex.) 65 13 Jur. 65 161, 165 ; ;
V. Prentice (1815), 3 M. & S. 344 223, 542

Crace, Be, Balfour v. Crace, [1902] 1 Ch. 733 71 L. J. (ch.) 358 86 L. T. 144. ..640, 641 ; ;
Cracknell v. Mayor and Corporation of Thetford (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 629 38 ;
L. J. (c. p.) 353 14

Cramer v. Giles (1883), 1 Cab. & E. 151 554, 555
Crampton v. Ridley (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 48 57 L. T. 809 36 W. R. 554 473 ; ; . .
Cranch v. White (1835), 1 Bing. (n. c.) 414 6 C. & P. 767 533 ;
" Crathie," The, [1897] P. 178 66 L. J. (p.) 93 76 L. T. 534 45 W. R. 631

;
109 ; ; .
Craw V. Ramsey (1670), Vaugh. 281 2 Jon. 10 2 Keb. 601 Cart. 185 2 Sid. ; ; : ;
23, 51, 148 2 Vent. 1 ;

303
Crawshay v. Collins (1818), 1 Swa. 40 3 Swa. 90 1 Wils. 31 .455
; ; . . .
Credland v. Potter (1874), 10 Ch. App; 8 44 L. J. (cH.) 169 31 L. T. 522 23 ; ; ;
W. R. 36 633
Cree v. St. Pancras Vestry, [1899] 1 Q. B. 693 ; 69 L. J. (q. b.) 389 80 L. T. ;
388 26
Creswick v. Harrison (1850), 20 L. J. (c. p.) 56 16 L. T. (o. s.) 195 475 ;
. . .
" Cricket," The, and the " Endeavour" (1882), 48 L. T. 535 5 Asp. M. C. 33 110 ; .
" Crimdon " The, [1900] P. 171 69 L. J. (p.) 103 82 L. T. 660 48 W. R.

; ; ;
623 . . . 83, 84
Critten v. Chemical Bank of New York (1902), 171 N. Y. Reports, 219 620 . .
Croasdelland Cammell, Laird & Co. Ee, [1906] 2 K. B. 569 75 L. J. (k. b.) ;
769 95 L. T. 441 54 W. R. 620 22 T. L. R. 759

; ; 465, 481 ; . . . .
Croft V. Alison (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 590 212, 564

Crofts V. Harris (1692), Carth. 187 Cases, B. R. 4 ;
470
Cropper v. Cook (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 194 17 L. T. 603 16 W. R. 926 168, 182, ; ;
.
184, 197
Crosby v. Leng (1810), 12 East, 409
V. Wadsworth (1805), 6 East, 602 2 Smith, 559
28
293, 294 ; ... .
Table of Cases. cxxv
PAGE
Crosfield v. Manchester Ship Canal Co., [1905] A. C. 421 74 L. J. : (ch.) 637 ;
93 L. T. 141 21 T. L. R. 689 69 J. P. 441

:
;
22
Cross r. Matthews (1904), 91 L. T. 500 20 T. L. R. 603 ; . . . . . 209
Crosse v. Duckers (1873), 27 L. T. 816 21 W. R. 287
Crosskey v. Mills (1834), 1 C. M. & R. 298 3 L. J. (ex.) 297
Crosskill v. Bower (1863), 32 Beav. 86 32 L. J. (ch.) 540
;
;
;
...
.... .
248
513
631
Crossley v. Clav (1848), 5 C. B. 581 480
V. Magniac, [1893] 1 Ch. 594 67 L. T. 798 41 W. R. 598 ; : : 3 R. 202 . 210
Crowfoot V. Gurney (1832). 9 Bing. 372 2 M. & Sc. 473 2 L. J. (c. ; : p.) 21
224, 229, 231
Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board (1878), 4 Ex. D. 5 ; 48 L. J. (ex.) 109 ;
39 L. T. 355 27 W. R. 95
; 10, 296
Crowther v. Elgood
(1887), 34 Ch. D. 691 56 L. J. (ch.) 416 56 L. T. 415 35 ; ; :
W. R. 369 3 T. L. R. 355 193, 515

;
Cruse V. Paine (1869), 4 Ch. App. 441 38 L. J. (ch.) 225, affirming L. R. ;
6 Eq. 641 37 L. J. (ch.) 711 19 L. T. 127 17 W. R. 41

: ; 207 : . . . .
Cudliff V. Walters (1839), 2 Moo. & R. 232 463

Cull V. Backhouse (1793), 6 Taunt. 148n 560
Cullen V. Barclay (1881), 10 L. R. (ir.) 224 533, 565 i
V. Thomson (1862), 4 Macq. 441 9 Jur. (n. s.) 85 6L. T. 870 225
; ;
. .
CuUerne r. London and Suburban General Permanent Building Society (1890),

25 Q. B. D. 485 59 L. J. (q. b.) 525 63 L. T. 511 39 W. R. 88
; 183, 193
160, 587, ; ;
Culling /•. Tuffnell (1694), Bull. (n. p.) 34 272

Cumberland v. Bowes (1854), 15 C. B. 348 3 C. L. R. 149 24 L. J. (c. p.) 46 ; :
;
1 Jur. (n. s.) 236 3 W. R. 138 ; 248

Cumberland's (Countess of) Case (1610), Moore, 812 295
Cumming v. Shand (1860), 5 H. & N. 95 29 L. J. (ex.) 129 1 L. T. 300 8 ; ; ;
W. R. 182 630
Cuudall and Vavasour, Be (1906), 95 L. T. 483 22 T. L. R. 802 264 ; .. .
Cunlifie Brooks & Co. v. Blackburn and District Benefit Building Society
(1884), 9 App. Cas. 857 54 L. J. (ch.) 376 ; 52 L. T. 225 33 W. R. 309 630 ; ; .
Cunningham v. Collier (1785), 4 Doug. 233 221

Cunningham & Co., Ec, Simpson's Claim (1887), 36 Ch. D. 532 57 L. J. (ch.) :
169 58 L. T. 16
;
202
Curlewis v. Birkbeck (1863), 3 P. & F. 894 235
Currie v. M-Knight, [1897] A. C. 97 66 L. J. (p. c.) 19; 75 L.
;
T. 457; 8 Asp.
M. G. 193 61, 72
Curtice v. London City and Midland Bank, [1907] W. N. 146 607 . . . .
Curtis V. Barclay (1826), 5 B. & C. 141; 7 D. & R. 539; 4 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 82 197
— V. Mills (1833), 5 C. & P. 489 373

•
V. Nixon (1871), 24 L. T. 706 194

V. Williamson (1874), L. R. 10 Q. B. 57 44 L. J. (q. b.) 27 31 L. T. 678 ; ; ;
23 W. R. 236 209
Cybele," The (1878), 3 P. D. 8 47 L. J. (adm.) 86 37 L. T. 773
; 26 W. R. ; ;
345 3 Asp. M. C. 352

;
17
" Cynthia," The (1876), 2 P. D. 52 46 L. J. (adm.) 58; 36 L. T. 184
;
3 Asp. ;
M. C. 378 113
D.
" D. H. Bills," The (1878), 4 P. D. 32 38 L. T. 786 ; ; 4 Asp. M. C. 20 . . 66

Da Costa v. Villa Real (1734), 2 Str. 961 48
Dadswell v. Jacobs (1887), 34 Ch. D. 278 56 L. J. (ch.) 233 55 L. T. 857 35 ; ; ;
W. R. 261 186
Daglish V. Barton, [1900] 1 Q. B. 284 68 L. J. (q. b.) 1044 81 L. T. 551 48
; ; ;
W. R. 50 481
" Daily Telegraph " Newspaper Co. v. McLaughlin, [1904] A. C. 776 73 L. J. ;
(p. c.) 95 91 L. T. 233 20 T. L. R. 674

; ; 50
"Daioz," The (1877), 47 L. J. (adm.) 1 37 L. T. 137 3 Asp. M. L. C. 477 104, ; ; 126
Dalby v. Hirst (1819), 1 B. & B. 224 3 Moore, 536 ; 244, 245
Dale^;. Humfrey (1857-8), 7 E. & B. 266 El. Bl. & El. 1004 26 L. J. (q. b.) ; ;
137 27 L. J. (q. b.) 390; 3 Jur. (n. s.) 213 5 Jur. (n. s.) 191 6 W. R.
; ; ;
854 220
V. Sollett (1767), 4 Burr. 213 188
Dale and Plant, Be (1889), 61 L. T. 206 1 Meg. 338 174, ; 177
cxxvi Table of Cases.
PAGE
Dalling Matchett (1741), Barnes, 57 460
" Dallington," The, [1903] P. 77 72 L. J. ; (p.) 17 ; 88 L. T. 128 ; 51 W. R.
607 9 Asp. M. C. 377
; . 214
DaUy King (1788), 1 Hy. Bl.
V. 1 33
Dalton V. Angus (1881), 6 App. 50 L. J. (q. b.) 689 44 L. T. 844 30
Cas. 740 ; ; ;
\V. R. 191 148

V. Irwin (1830), 4 C. & P. 289 .
194, 196 . . . . . .
Dalyell v. Tyrer (1858), El. Bl. & El. 899 28 L. J. (q. b.) 52 5 Jur. (n. s.) 335 ; ;
;
6 W. R. 684 664
Danby v. Coutts & Co. (1885), 29 Ch. D. 500 54 L. J. (ch.) 577 52 L. T. 401 ; ; ;
33 W. R. 559 161, 232

Daniel v. Janes (1877), 2 C. P. D. 351 284, 396 . ,
" Danzig," The (1863), Br. & L. 102 32 L. J. (adm.) 164 9 L. T. 236; 1 Mar.
; ;
L. Cas. 392 .123

D'Arcy v. Tamar, Kitt Hill, and Callington Rail. Co. (1867), L. R. 2 Exch. 158 ;
4 H. & C. 463 36 L. J. (ex.) 37

; 12 Jur. (n. s.) 548 13 L. T. 626
: 14 ; ;
W. R. 968 160
Dare Valley Rail. Co., Be (1868-1869), L. R. 6Eq. 429 37 L. J. (ch.) 719 L. R. ; ;
4 Ch. 544 477, 478

Dargan Davies (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 118 46 L. J. (m. c.) 122 35 L. T. 810 25
/•.
; ; :
W. R. 2.30 .384
Darley Main Coal Co. v. Mitchell (1886), 11 App. Cas. 127 9 . . . . .
Darling v. Atkins (1769), 3 Wils. 33 20

Darlington Wagon Co. Ltd. v. Harding and the Trouville Pier and Steamboat
,
Co., Ltd., [1891] 1 Q. B. 245 60 L. J. (q. b.) 110

; 64 L. T. 409 39 ; ;
W. R. 167 482, 483, 488

Darnley (Earl) v. London, Chatham, and Dover Rail. Co. (1867), L. R. 2
H. L. 43 36 L. J. (ch.) 404 16 L. T. 217 15 W. R. 817
: ; 463, ; . . . .
481
" Dart," The, [1893] P. 33 63 L. J. (p.) 32 69 L. T. 251 41 W. R. 153
: 112 ; ; . .
Dartnall v. Howard (1825), 4 B. & C. 350 6 D. & R. 438 532

;
Dashwood v. Magniac, [1891] 3 Ch. 306 64 L. T. 99 244, 296

; . . . .
Da Silva v. Fuller (1776), Sel. Ca. MS. 238 602

Daubigny v. Davallon (1793), 2 Anstr. 463 20, 308
Daubuz V. Morshead (1815), 6 Taunt. 332 21
Daun r. Simmins (1880), 41 L. T. 783 48 L. J. (c. p.) 343 28 W. R. 129 44 ; ; ;
J. P. 264 161, 165, 202

Davenport Whitmore (1836), 2 My. & C. 177 187
Davey v. Chamberlain (1802), 4 Eq. 229 565
Davidson v. Cooper (1843), 11 M. & W. 778 12 L. J. (ex.) 467 615 ; . . . .
f. Stanley (1841), 3 Scott (n. r.) 49 2 Man. & G. 721 167 : . . .
Davies, Ex varte, Be Sadler (1881), 19 Ch. D. 86 45 L. T. 632 30 VV. R. 237. ...192, ; ;
200 515 562

V. Clough (1836), 8 Sim. 262
' '
6 L. J. (n. s.) (ch.) 113
; 184 . . . .
V. Otty (1865), 35 Beav. 208 5 N. R. 391 ; 34 L. J. (ch.) 252 12 L. T. ; ;
789 13 W. R. 484
; 157
V. Powell (1737), Willes, 46 7 Mod. Rep. 260
; 367
r. Pratt (1855), 16 C. B. 586 25 L. J. (c. p.) 71
; 458,468,474 . . .
V. Ridge (1800), 3 Esp. 101 443

— V. Solomon (1871), L. R. 7 Q. B. 112 41 L. J. (q. b.) 10 25 L. T. 799 ; ; ;
R. 167
20 W. 12
V. White (1884), 53 L. J. (q. b.) 275 645
V. Williams (1847), 10 Q. B. 725 16 L. J. (q. b.) 369 11 Jur. 750 ; ; . 12
V. Artingstall (1880), 49 L. J. (ch.) 609 42 L. T. 507 29 W. R. 137. ..226, ; ; 521
V. Danks (1844), 3 Exch. 435 18 L. J. (ex.) 213 ; 520
V. Freethy (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 519 59 L. J. (q. b.) 318 ; . . . .55
V. Galmoye (No. 1) (1888), 37 Ch. D. 322 58 L. J. (ch.) 120 60 L. T. ; ;
130 37 W. R. 227 475
...........
;
V. (No. 2) (1889), 40 Ch. D. 355 58 L. J. (ch.) 338; 37 W. R. ;
399 475
V. Garrett (1830), 6 Biiag. 716, at p. T24 4 Moo. & P. 540 ; . . . 534
V. Hedges (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 687 40 L. J. (q. b.) 276 25 L. T. 155 ; ; ;
20 W. R. 60 391
V. Starr (1889), 41 Ch. D. 242
•
58 L. J. (ch.) 808 60 L. T. 797 37; ; ;
W. R. 481 453
Davis & Co., Be, Ex parte Rawlings (1888), 22 Q. B. D. 193 37 W. R. 203 554. ; 556
Davison v. Donaldson (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 623 47 L. T. 564 31 W. R. 277 4 ; ; ;
Asp. M. C. 601 210

Table of Cases. cxxvii
PAGE
Davy Waller (1899), 81 L. T. 107
t'. 202
Dawdy and Hartcup, Be (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 426 54 L. J. (q. b.) 574 53 L. T. ; ;
800 440
Dawkes v. Coveneigh (1652), Sty. 346 28
Dawkins r. Eokeby (Lord) (1875), L. E. 7 H. L. 744; 45 L. J. (q. b.) 8 33
R
;
L. T. 196 23 W. 931 ; . .13

Dawson v. Fitzgerald (1876), 1 Ex. D. 257 45 L. J. (ex.) 893 35 L. T. 220 ; ; :
24 W. R. 773 . . . 445
V. Isle. [1906] 1 Ch. 636 75 L. J. (cH.) 338 95 L. T. 385 54W.R.452
; ; ;
598, 629
V. Sexton (1823). 1 L. J. (o. s.) (ch.) 185 234
Day V. Bonnin (1836), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 219 3 Scott, 397 ; ; 2 Hodges, 207 ; 6 L. J.
(c. P.) 1 469
V. Brownrigg (187S), 10 Ch. D. 294 ; 48 L. J. (ch.) 173 ; 39 L. T. 553 ; 27
W. E. 217 10, 11
V. Longhurst (1893), 62 L. J. (ch.) 334 ; 68 L. T. 17 ; 41 W. E. 283 ; 2 E.
234 669
V. Wells
(1861), 30 Beav. 220 ; 7 Jur. (n. s.) 1004 ; 9 W. E. 857 . . 231, 505
Dean v. Allalev (1799), 3 Esp. 11 272
V. Keate (1811), 3 Camp. 4 552
V. (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 517
King 502
W^hittaker (1824), 1 C. & P. 347
V. 555
Deane v. Clayton (1817), 7 Taunt. 489 2 Marsh. 577 1 Moore, 203 ; : . . . 397
" De Bay,"' The. See Bird v. Gibb.
Debenham v. Mellon (1880), 6 App. Cas. 24 50 L. J. (q. b.) 155 43 L. T. 673 ; ; :
29 W. E. 141 45 J. P. 252 ; 236

De Bouchout v. Goldsmid (1800), 5 Ves. 210 162
De Bussche v. Alt (1878), 8 Ch. D. 286 47 L. J. (ch.) 381 38 L. T. 370 ; ; . . 148,
169, 170. 171, 179, 180, 182, 190
De Carriere v. De Calonne (1799), 4 Ves. 577 306
De Comas v. Prost (1865), 3 Moo. P. C. C. (n. s.) 158 1 Jur. (n. s.) 417 12 L. T. ; ;
682 13 W. E. 595
; 228, 229
De Francesco v. Barnum (1889), 43 Ch. D. 165 63 L. T. 438 39 W. E. 5 ; ; . 21
De Geer v. Stone (1882), 22 Ch. D. 243 52 L. J. (ch.) 57 47 L. T. 434 31 : ; :
W. E. 241 303, 307

De Gorter v. Attenborough (1904), 21 T. L. E. 19 . . . .
'
. . 161
De Haber v. Queen of Portugal (1851), 17 Q. B. 171 20 L. J. (q. b.) 488 16 : ;
Jur. 164 20
De Hoghton v. Money (1866), 2 Ch. App. 164 15 L. T. 403 ; ; 15 W. E. 214 . 55
De Jager v. A.-G. of Natal (1907), 23 T. L. E. 516 306
De la Chammette v. Bank of England (1829), 9 B. & C. 208 ; 7 L. J. (o. s.)
(K. B.) 179 571
Delagoa Bay Co., The, and Sir T. Tancred, Be (1889), 61 L. T. 343 ; 37 W. E.
578 477
" Delano,"' The, [1894] P. 40 64 L. J. (p.) 8 71 L. T. 544 43 W. E. 65
; ; ; ;
6 E. 810 112
Deller v. Prickett (1850), 15 Q. B. 1081 20 L. J. (q. b.) 151 15 Jur. 168 ; ; . . 513
Delobbel-Flipo v. Varty, [1893] 1 Q. B. 663 62 L. J. (q. b.) 398 68 L. T. 797 ; ; :
42 W. E. 48 5 E. 347 ; 4
Delvalle v, Plomer (1811), 3 Camp. 47 13 E. E. 746 ; 20
De Mattos v. Benjamin (1894), 63 L. J. (q. b.) 248 70 L. T. 560 10 T. L. E. ; ;
221 ; 42 W.
10 E. 103 E. 248 ; 187
"Demetrius," The (1869), L. E. 3 A. & E. 523 ; 41 L. J. (adm.) 69 ; 26 L. T.
329 20 W. E. 761 1 Asp. M. C. 251
; : 92
Denew v. Daverell (1813), 3 Camp. 451 196, 509,
516
Denham & Co., (1883), 25 Ch. D. 752 50 L. T. 523 32 W. E. 487 160,224 ; ; .
Dennehy v. Jolly (1874), 22 W. E. 449 452

Dennison t: Jeffs, [1896] 1 Ch. 611 65 L. J. (ch.) 435 74 L. T. 270 44 W. E. ; ; :
476 149, 157

Denton v. Great Northern Eail. Co. (1856), 5 E. & B. 860 25 L. J. (q. b.) 129 ; ;
2 Jur. (N. s.) 185 4 W. E. 240 : 511

V. Legge (1895), 72 L. T. 626 453
V. Eichmond (1833), 1 C. & M. 734 3 Tyr. 630 2 L. J. (ex.) 269 250 ; ; .
Denton and Strong, Be (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 117 464

Denyssen r. Botha (1860), 8 W. E. 710 163
Derbyshire, Be, [1906] 1 Ch. 1.35 75 L. J. (ch.) 95 94 L. T. 138 ; 54 W. E. : :
135 585
cxxviii Table of Cases.
PAGE
Dermatine Co. v. Ashworth (1905), 21 T. L. E. 510 221
De Eothschild v. Morison & Co. (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 750 59 L. J. (q. b.) 557 ; ;
63 L. T. 46 38 W. R. 635
; 513
Designy's Case (1682), Raym. 475 2 Show. 221 ; 43
Deslandes v. Gregory (1860), 30 L. J. (q. b.) 36 2 El. & El. 602 6 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
651 2 L. T. 634 8 W. R. 585

: : 220
Deutsche Springstoff Actien-Gesellschaft v. Briscoe (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 177 57 ;
L. J. (Q. B.) 4 36 W. R. 557

; 448, 452
Devala Provident Gold Mining Co., Re, Ex imrte Abhott (1883), 22 Ch. D. 593 ;
52 L. J. (CH.) 434 48 L. T. 259 31 W. R. 425

; ; 215
Devaynes v. Noble. See Clayton's Case.
Dever, Ex jârte, Re Suse (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 766 51 L. T. 437 33 W. R. 290.. .624, : ;
625
Deverell r. Lord Bolton (1812), 18 Ves. 509 157
Deverges v. Sanderson, Clark & Co., [1902] 1 Ch. 579 71 L. J. (ch.) 328 86 ; ;
L. T. 269 50 W. R. 404
; 623, 635, 636
Dew V. Metropolitan Rail. Co. (1885), 1 T. L. R. 358 171
De Wahl v. Braune (1856), 1 H. & N. 178 25 L. J. (ex.) 343 4 W. R. 646 20, 311 ; ;
Dewell V. Sanders (1618), Cro. (Jac.) 490 377

Dewey v. White (1827), M. & M. 56 12
De Wilton (Lord) Grey v. Saxon (1801), 6 Ves. 106 251
" Diana," The (1862), Lush. 539 32 L. J. (adm.) 57 9 Jur. (n. s.) 26 7 L.T.
; ; ;
397 11 W. R. 189 1 Mar. L. Cas. 261

; ; 71
Dibbins v. Dibbins, [1896] 2 Ch. 348 65 L. J. (ch.) 724 75 L. T. 137 44 W.R.
: ; ;
595 177
Dibdin v. Skirrow (1907), 23 T. L. R. 269 11
Dicas V. Stockley (1836), 7 C. & P. 587 199, 548
Dickenson v. Naul (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 638 1 N. & M. 721 519
;
Dickinson v. Burrell (1866), L. R. 1 Eq. 337 35 L. J. (ch.) 371 12 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
199 14 W. R. 412
; 54
V. Lilwall (1815), 4 Camp. 279 1 Stark. 128 ; 232
V. Marrow (1845), 14 M. & W. 713 229, 231
V. Valpy (1829), 10 B. & C. 140 5 M. & R. 126 8 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) ; ;
51 158, 165
Dickon v. Clifton (1766), 2 Wils. 319 44
" Dictator," The, [1892] P. 304 61 L. J. (p.) 73 67 L. T. 563
; 61, 62, 87 ; . . .
Didisheim v. London and Westminster Bank. [1900] 2 Ch. 15 69 L. J. (ch.) ;
443 82 L. T. 738 48 W. R. 501

; ; 22
Diggle V. Higgs (1877), 2 Ex. D. 422 46 L. J. (ex.) 721 37 L. T. 27 25
; ; ;
W. R. 777 231
r, London and Blackwall Rail. Co. (1850), 5 Exch. 442 6 Ry. Cas. 590 ;
;
19 L. J. (EX.) 308 14 Jur. 937 : 155

Dillon Re, Duffin r. Duffin (1890), 44 Ch. D. 76 59 L. J. (ch.) 420 62 L. T. ; ;
614 38 W. R. 369
: 588, 589
V. Balfour (1887), 20 L. R. Jr. 600 13
Dimmock r. Allenby, cited 2 ]\([arsh, 582 395
Dingle r. Hare (1859), 7 C. B. (n. s.) 145 29 L. J. (c. p.) 143 6 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
679 1 L. T. 38
; 164, 167
Dinn v. Blake (1875), L. R. 10 C. P. 388 44 L. J. (c. p.) 276 32 L. T. 489 ; 477 ; .
Dirks r. Richards (1842), 4 Man. & G. 574 5 Scott (n. e.) 534 Car. & M. 626 ; ; ;
6 Jur. 562 548

Dixon, Eximrte, Re Henley (1876), 4 Ch. D. 133 46 L. J. (bcy.) 20 35 L. T. ; ;
644 25 W. R. 105
;
167
^» r. Ewart (1817), Buck, 94 3 Mer. 327 ; 234, 235
r. Farrer (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 43 56 L. J. (q. b.) 53 55 L. T. 578 35
; ; ;
W. R. 95 6 Asp. M. C. 52
; . 18 .
r. Hammond (1819), 2 B. & A. 310 187, 192

V. London Small Arms Co. (1876), 1 App. Cas. 632 46 L. J. (q. b.) 617 ; ;
35 L. T. 559 25 W. R. 142 ;
224
V. Stansfeld (1850), 10 C. B. 398 198
r. Winch, [1900] 1 Ch. 736 69 L. J. (ch.) 465 82 L. T. 437 48 W. R.
; ; ;
612 216
Dobell V. Hutchinson (1835), 3 A. & E. 355 5 N. & M. 251 1 H. & W. 394 ; ; ;
4 L. J. (k. B.) 201 505

Dobree v. Napier (1836), 2 Bing. (n. c.) 781 224
Dobson and Sutton v. Groves (1844), 6 Q. B. 637 14 L. J. (q. b.) 17 9 Jur. ; ;
86 459, 480
Dod V. Herring (1829), 3 Sim. 143 1 Russ. & M. 153 ; 444, 451
Table of Cases. cxxix
PAGE
Dod r. Monger (1704), 6 Mod. Rep. 215 Holt, 41G ; 385
Dodd r. Holme (1834), 1 A. & E. 493 3 N. & M. 739 : . . . . . 11
Doc d. Auchmuty Mulcaster (1825), 5 B. & C. 771
,-.
317
d. Clarke r. StUlwell (1838), 8 A. & E. 645 3 N. &
P. 701 1 W. W. & H. : :
5322 Jur. 591

:
. . . 470
d. Crisp r. Barber (1788), 2 Term Rep. 749 35
-d. Durom-e r. Jones (1771), 4 Term Rep. 300 307
d. Rhodes v. Robinson (1837) 3 Bing. (n. c.) 677 4 Scott. 396 3 Hodges
84 6 L. J. (c. p.) 235 1 Jur. 356
;
V. Acklam (1824), 2 B. & C. 779 4 D. & R. 394

: .. :
!
;
170
2 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) ; :
129 303, 317

r. Amey (1840), 12 A. & E. 476 4 P. & D. 177 ; 241
r. Archer (1811) 14 East, 245 .242
i: Baker (1818), 8 Tamit. 241 2 Moore, 189 ; . . 240
r. Bell (1794), 5 Term Rep. 471 241
r. Bird (1833), 6 C. & P. 195 , . 296
r. Bucknell (1838), 8 C. & P. 566 241
r. (1810), 2 Camp. 449
Crouch . . . . . . . . 296
1'. Dunbar
(1826), M. & W. 10 241
V. Goldwin (1841), 2 Q. B. 143 ; 1 G. & D. 463 : 10 L. J. (q. b.) 275 . . 177
V. Holmes (184s), 12 Q. B. 951 476
V. Howard (1809), 11 East, 498 240
r. Howell (1850). 5 Exch. 299 19 : L. J. (ex.) 232 475
V. Hughes (1840), 7 M. & W. 139; 10 L. J. (ex.) 185 240
V. Lock (1835), 2 Ad. & E. 705 4 N. & M. 807 4 L. ; : J. (k. b.) 113 . . 295
V. Ongiey (1850), 10 C. B. 25 20 L. J. (c. p.) 26 : 241
V. Porter (1789), 3 Term Rep. 13 241
V. Snowden (1779), 2 Bl. 1224 Wm. 240, 245
V. Spence (1805), 6 East, 120 2 Smith, 255 : 240, 241
V. Walters (1830), 10 B. & C. 626 5 M. & Ry. 357 ; ; 8 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.)
297 177
V. Watkins (1806), 7 East, 551 3 Smith, 517 : 240
V. Watts (1797), 7 Term Rep. 83 2 Esp. 501 ; 241
Dollar V. Greenfield (1905), Times Newspaper, May 19 560
Dolph V. Ferris (1844), 7 W. & Serg. Pa. 367 372
Donaldson v. Haldane (1840), 7 CI. & P. 762 185
Donelly v. Popham (1807), 1 Taunt. 1 181
Donkin and Leeds Canal Co., Be (1893), 9 T. L. R. 192 449
Don Ricardo," The (1880), 5 P. D. 122 49 L. J. (adm.) 28 : ; 42 L. T. 32 ; 28
W\ R. 431 4 Asp. M. C. 225 ; 88, 90, 91
Doolubdass Ramloll (1850), 15 Jur. 257
v. 512
Doorman Jenkins (1834), 2 A. &E. 256 4 N. & M. 170 4 L. J. (k. b.) 29. ..185. 531
v. : :
Dore V. Wilkinson (1817), 2 Stark. 287 43

Dorrington v. Edwards (1620), 2 Rol. Rep. 188 389
Doss V. Secretary of State for India (1875), L. R. 19 Eq. 535 32 L. T. 294 23 :
;
W. R. 773
Dossett V. Gingell (1841), 2 Man. & G. 870 3 Scott (n. e.) 179
Douglas, Eximrte, Be Snowball (1873), 7 Ch. App. 534; 41 L. J. (bcy.) 49; 26
15, 51
472 : ...
L. T. 894 20 W. R. 786: 234
Dovaston v. Payne (1795), 2 Hy. Bl. 527 380
Doward v. Williams (1889), 6 T. L. R. 316 230
Downes v. Grazebrooke (1817), 3 Mer. 200 17 R. R. 62 515 : . . . . .
Downman v. Williams (1845), 7 Q. B. 103, Ex. Ch 221

'•
Dowse," The (1870), L. R. 3 A. & E. 135, 138 39 L. J. (adm.) 46 22 L. T. ; ;
627 18 W. R. 1008
: 140
^ Dowse V. Coxe (1825), 3 Bing. 20 10 Moore, 272 3 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.) 127 442, 443
; ;
Dowson and Jenkins, Be, [1904] 2 Ch. 219 73 L. J. (ch.) 684 91 L. T. 121 162 ; ; .
Dramburg v. Pollitzer (1873), 28 L. T. 470 21 W. R. 682 219 :
Dresser v. Norwood (1864), 17 C. B. (n. s.) 466 34 L. J. (c. p.) 48 10 Jur. ; ;
(n. s.) 851 11 L. T. Ill 12 W. R. 1030

; ; 211, 216
Drew V. Drew (1855), 2 Macq. 1 25 L. T. (o. s.) 282 ;
450
V. Leburn (1855), 2 Macq. 1 481
V. Nunn (1879). 4 Q. B. D. 661 48 L. J. (q. b.) 591 40 L. T. 671 27 : : ;
W. R. 810' 150 233, 236

Dreyfus and Paul, Be (1893), 9 T. L. R. 358 449, 458
Drinkwater r. Goodwin (1775), 1 Cowp. 251, 255 167, 211, 226, 227, 229, 235 . .
"Druid," The (1842), 1 W. Rob. 391 72

Drury v. Molins (1801), 6 Ves. 328 251, 284
H.L.— I. i
cxxx Table of Cases.
PAGE
Du Boulay v. Du Boulay (1869), L. R. 2 P. C. 430 ; 6 Moo.P. C. (n. s.) 31 ; 38
L. J. (P. c.) 35 ; 17 W. R. 594 11
Ducarrey r. Gill (1830), M. & M. 450
" Due d'Aumale," The, [1903] P. 18 72 L. J. (p.) 11 87 L. T. 674 51 W. ; ; ; R
332 9 Asp. M. C. 35 ^
; 72, 106
" Duchesse de Brabant," The (1857), Swa. 265 6 W. R. 329 ;
Dudden v. Glutton Union (1857), 1 H. & N. 627, 630 26 L. J. (ex.) 146 ; .
Duder r. Amsterdamsch Trustees Kantoor, [1902] 2 Ch. 132 71 L. J. (CH. ;
618 87 L. T. 22 50 W. R. 551
; ; 51
Dudley and West Bromwich Banking Co. v. Spittle (1860), 1 Johns. & H. 14
2 L. T. 47 8 W. R. 351: 28
Duff V. Budd (1822), 3 Br. & B. 177 6 Moore, 469 ; 628
Dufresne v. Hutchinson (1810), 3 Taunt. 117 183
Du Hourmelin v. Sheddon (1839), 4 My. & Cr. 525 1 Beav. 79 3 Jur. 69 ; ; 307
Duncan v. Blundell (1820), 3 Stark. 6, at p. 7 616, 557, 559
V. Hill (1873), L. R. 8 Exch. 242 42 L. J. (ex.) 179 29 L. T. 268 21 ; ; ;
W. R. 797 197
Knill (1907), 71 J. P. Report, 287 123 L. T. Journ. 13
V. 408 ; . . .
.
v. Pope (1899), 63 J. P. 217 80 L. T. 120 411 :
Duncan, Fox & Co. r. North and South Wales Bank (1880), 6 App. Cas. 10 ;
50 L. J. (CH.) 355 43 L. T. 706 29 W. R. 763 ; 642 ;
Dunkirk Colliery t. Lever (1878), 9 Ch. D. 28 39 L. T. 239 26 W. R. 841 485 ; ; .
Dunlop f. De Murrieta (1886), 3 T. L. R. 166 171

V. Waugh (1792), 1 Peake, 124 389
Dunn r. Macdonald, [1897] 1 Q. B. 555 66 L. J. (q. b.) 420 76 L. T. 444 45 ; ; :
W. R. 355 18, 221

r. Newton (1884), 1 C. & E. 278 209
V. Sayles (1844), 5 Q. B. 685 D. & M. 579 13 L. J. (q. b.) 159 8 Jur. ; :
;
358 230
V. Walters (1842), 9 M. & W. 293 1 Dowl. (n. s.) 626 476 : . . . .
r. West (1850), 10 C. B. 420 20 L. J. (c. p.) 1 15 Jur. 88 :474 ; . . .
Dunne r. English (1874), L. R. 18 Eq. 524 31 L. T. 75 189 :
Dunning r. Owen, [1907] 2 K. B. 237 218

Du Pasquier v. Cadbury, Jones & Co., Ltd., [1903] 1 K. B. 104 72 L. J. ;
(K. B.) 78 87 L. T. 519 51 W. R. 113

: : 50
Duplessis r. A.-G. (1753), 1 B. P. C. 415 307
Duppa v. Mayo, 1 Wms. Saund. 395 256, 293
Durham i: Robertson, [1898] 1 Q. B. 765 67 L. J. (q. b.) 484 78 L. T. 438 585 ; ; .
V. Spence (1870), L. R. 6 Exch. 46 40 L. J. (ex.) 3 23 L. T. 500 19 : ; :
W. R. 162 6
Durham, etc. Building Society, Be, Fx parte Wilson (1871), 7 Ch, App. 45 41 ;
L. J. (CH.) 164 442

Durrell r. Evans (1862), 1 H. & C. 174, Ex. Ch. 31 L. J. (ex.) 337 9 Jur. ; ;
(N. s.) 104 7 L. T. 97 10 W. R. 665

; : 152, 207
Dutch West India Co. r. Van Moses (1725), 1 Str. 612 17
"Dwina," The, [1892] P. 58 61 L. J. (adm.) 71 66 L. T. 862 7 Asp. M. C.
; ; ;
173 105
Dyer v. Munday, [1895] 1 Q. B. 742 64 L. J. (q. b.) 448 72 L. T. 448 43 ; ; ;
W. R. 440 59 J. P. 276 14 R. 306

; 213, 545
;
r. Pearson (1824), 4 D. & R. 648 3 B. & C. 38 159 :
Dyster, Fx parte, Be Moline (1816), 2 Rose, 349 148

Dyte r. St. Pancras Board of Guardians (1872), 27 L. T. 342 155 . . . .
E.
Eads v. Williams (1854), 4 De G. M. & G. 674 ; 24 L. J. (ch.) 531 ; 1 Jur. (n. s.)
193 3 W. R. 98
: 459, 470, 475, 480
Eaglesfield v. Londonderry 38 L. T. 303 26 W. R. 540
(Marquis of) (1876), ; ;
affirming 4 Ch. D. 693 35 L. T. 822 25 W. R. 190

;
222, 225 ; . . . .
Eames v. Hacon (1881), 18 Ch. D. 347 50 L. J. (ch.) 740 45 L. T. 196 29 ; ; ;
W. R. 877 192
Eardley v. Otley (1818), 2 Chitty, 42 478
i;. Steer (1835), 4 Dowl. 423 1 C. M. & R. 327 5 Tyr. 1071 468 ; ; . . .
Earle v. Hopwood (1861), 30 L. J. (c. p.) 217 9 C. B. (n. s.) 566 7 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
775 3 L. T. 670 9 W. R. 272

; : 54
East and West India Dock Co. v. Kirk (1887). 12 App. Cas. 738 57 L. J. (q. b.) ;
295 58 L. T. 158
; . . . 450, 465 .
.
'
Table of Cases. cxxxi
PAGE
Eastern Counties Rail. Co. v. Broom (1851). 6 Exch. 314 ; 20 L. J. (ex.) 196 ;
15 Jur. 297 175, 179

Eastern Union Rail. Co. v. Cochrane (1853), 9 Exch. 197 2 C. L. R. 292 7 ; ;
Ry. Cas. 792 23 L. J. (ex.) 61 17 Jur. 1103 2 W. R. 43

: .642 .
.......
; ; . .
East Fremantle Corporation v. Annois, [1902] A. C. 213 71 L. J. (p. c.) 39 85 ; ;
L. T. 732 14
East India Co. v. Hensley (1794), 1 Esp. 112 164
V. Syed Ally (1827), cited 7 Moo. Ind. App. 531 . . . .15
V. Tritton (1824), 5 D. & R. 214 3 B. & C. 280 ; ; 3 L. J. (o. s.)
(K. B.) 24 223
East of England Banking Co., Ee (1868), 4 Ch. 14 App. 17 W. R. 18 ; . . 575
Easton v. London Joint Stock Bank 1886), 34 Ch. D. 95 56 L. J. (ch.) 569 ; ;
55 L. T. 678 35 W. R. 220 : 635

Eaton V. Bell (1821), 5 B. & Aid. 34 630, 631
Eckersley v. Mersey Docks etc., [1894] 2 Q. B. 667 ; 71 L. T. 308 ; 9 R. 827 .
449, 453, 480

Ecossaise Steamship Co. v. Lloyd, Low & Co. (1890), 7 T. L. R. 76 . . . 172
Eden v. Blake (1845), 13 M. & W. 614 ; 14 L. J. (ex.) 194 9 Jur. 213 ; . . 510
V. Parkinson (1781), 2 Dougl. 732 391
Edgar Fowler (1803), 3 East, 222
v. 231
V. Spain (1901), 84 L. T. 631 65 J. P. 502 ; 418
Edgecombe v. Rodd (1804), 5 East, 294 1 Smith, 515 : 445
Edgell Day V. (1865), L. R. 1 C. P. 80 35 L. J. (c. p.) 7 ; ; 13 L. T. 328 ;
H. & R.
8 14 W. R. 87
: 188
"Edmond," The (1861), Lush. 211 29 L. J. (adm.) 76
; ; 2 L. T. 192 . . . 121
Edmunds v. Bushell (1865), L. R. 1 Q. B. 97 35 L. J. ; (q. b ) 20 ; 12 Jur. (n. s.)
332 •
. . . 165, 201, 202, 209"
V. Waugh (1866), L. R. 1 Eq. 421 35 L. J. (ch.) 234 ; ; 12 Jur. (n. s.)
326 ; 13 L. T. 739 14 W. R. 254 : 5
Edwards Ux parte, Re Chapman (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 747 ; 51 L. T. 881 ; 33
W. R. 268 : 1 Morrell, 238 223
Ex parte, Be Johnson (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 262 ; 51 L. J. (q. b.) 108 ;
45
L. T. 578 172, 199
V. Aberayron Mutual Ship Insurance Society (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 563 ;
34 L. T. 457 ;
reversing 44 L. J. (q. b.) 67 ; 23 W. R. 304 . . 445
V. Hodding (1814), 5 Taunt. 815 1 Marsh. 377 15 R. R. 662 ; ; . . 512
V. London and North-Western Rail. Co. (1870). L. R. 5 C. P. 445 ; 39
L. J. (c. p.) 241 22 L. T. 656 18 W. R. 834
; ; 166
V. Midland Rail. Co. (1880), 6 Q. B. D. 287 50 L. J. ; (q. b.) 281 ; 43
L. T. 69 213
v. Pearson (1890), 6 T. L. R. 220 '. . .388
Egmont V. Smith (1877), 6 Ch. D. 469
356 46 L. J. (ch.) ; 514
Elbinger Actien-Gesellschaft v. Claye (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 313 42 L. J. (q. b.) ;
151 28 L. T. 405
; 209, 220
Elborough v. Ayres (1870), L. R. 10 Eq. 367 39 L. J. (ch.) 601 23 L. T. 68 ; ; ;
18 W. R. 913 523
Elderton v. Emmens. See Emmens v. Elderton.
'•Eleanor," The (1805), 6 Ch. Rob. 39 60
F>lejv. Positive Government Security Life Assurance Co. (1875), 1 Ex. D. 20, 88 ;
45 L. J. (EX.) 451 34 L. T. 190 24 W. R. 338 ; ; 230>

Elliott, Ex parte (1837), 3 Mont. & A. 110 2 Deac. 172 ; . . , . . 29'
V. Ince (1857), 7 De G. M. & G. 475 26 L. J. (ch.) 821 3 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
597 5 W. R. 465 : 150.

V. Longden (1901), 17 T. L. R. 648 373.
V, Osborne (1892), 65 L. T. 378 56 J. P. 38 17 Cox, C. C. 346 ; ; . . 411
V. Royal Exchange Assurance Co. (1867), L. R. 2 Exch. 237 36 L. J. ;
(EX.) 129 16 L. T. 399 15 W. R. 907 ; ; 445.

V. Turquand (1881), 7 App. Cas. 79 51 L. J. (p. c.) 1 45 L. T. 771 30 ; ; ;
W. R. 477 235
Ellis V. Desilva (1879), 6 Q. B. D. 521 50 L. J. (q. b.) 328 44 L. T. 209 29 ; ; ;
W. R. 493 477, 496

V. Goulton, [1893] 1 Q. B. 350 62 L. J. (q. b.) 232 68 L. T. 144 41 ; ; ;
W. R. 411 4 R, 267 ; 223

V. Hamlen (1810), 3 Taunt. 52 558
V. Hopper (1858), 3 H. & N. 766 28 L. J. (ex.) 1 4 Jur. (n. s.) 1025 7 ; ; ;
W. R. 15 441
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
; 376, 377
i 2
; ;
cxxxii Table of Cases.
PAGE
Ellis V.Pond, [1898] 1 Q. B. 426 67 L. J. (q. b.) 345 78 L. T. 125 ; ; 197
Ellison V. Ackroyd (1850), 1 L. M. & P. 806 20 L. J. (q. b.) 193 ;
472
"Elmville," The (No. 2), [1904] P. 422 73 L. J. (p.) 120; 91 L. T. 330: 20 ;
T. L. E. 783 69, 70, 221

Elphick V. Barnes (1880), 5 C. P. D. 321
139 ; 49 L. J. (c. p.) 698 ; 29 W. E •
44 J. P. 651 '392
"Elpis," The (1872), L. E. 4 A. & E. 1 42 L. J. (adm.) 43 27 L. T. 664 21 ;
; ;
W. E. 576 1 Asp. M. C. 472 ;

.66
Else V. Barnard, Ex parte Courtauld (1860), 29 L. J. (ch.) 729 28 Beav. 228 :
•
6 Jur. (N. s.) 621 2 L. T. 203 ;

504
Elsee V. Gatward (1793), 5 Term Eep. 143 232 535 536
"Elton," The, [1891] P. 265 60 L. J. (p.) 69 65 L. T. 232 39 W. E. 703 ;
105 ;
;
'
Elton V. Brogden (1815), 4 Camp. 281 390 . . . . . . . .
Elvin V. Drummond (1827), 4 Bing. 415 1 M. & P. 88 6 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.j ; ;
31 '.442
Elwes V. Brigg Gas Co. (1886), 23 Ch. D. 562 55 L. J. (ch.) 734 55 L. T. 831 ; ;
35 W. E. 192 531
V. Maw (1802), 3 East, 38 272
V. Payne (1879), 12 Ch. D. 468 48 L. J. (ch.) 831 41 L. T. 118 28 ; ;
;
W. E. 234 .506 . . . . . .
Emanuel v. Eobarts (1868), 9 B. & S. 121 17 L. T. 646 603 ;
Emary v. Nolloth, [1903] 2 K. B. 264 72 L. J. (k. b.) 620 89 L. T. 100 52 ; ; ;
W. E. 107 67 J. P. 354 ; 218

Emerson. E,v xmrte, Re Hawkins (1871), 41 L. J. (bcy.) 20 20 W. E. 110 555 ; .
V. Heelis (1809), 2 Taunt. 38 293, 504, 605

Emery v. Wase (1801), 5 Ves. 846 8 Ves. 505 :
458, 459
^' Emilie Marron," The.
[1895] 2 K. B. 817
'
140
Emmens v. Elderton (1833), 4 H. L. Cas. 624 6 C. B. 160 13 C. B. 495 18 ; ; ;
Jur. 21 17 L. J. (c. p.) 307

; 230
Emmott V. •' Star " Newspaper (1892), 62 L. J. (q. b.) 77 67 L. T. 829 57 ; ;
J. P. 20] 5 E. E. 137 ; 645, 646

Emny," The (1905), The Times Newspaper, August 12th, 1905 .115 . .
Empress Engineering Co., Be (1880), 16 Ch. D. 125 43 L. T. 742 29 W, E. ; ;
342 174, 176, 177

Empusa," The (1879). 5 P. D. 6 48 L. J. (adm.) 36 41 L. T. 383 28 W. E. : ; ;
263 4 Asp. M. C. 185

; .111 •
England v. Davison (1841), 9 Dowl. 1052 474

V. Shearburn (1884), 52 L. T. 22 49 J. P. 86 247 :
Engleheart v. Farrant & Co.. [1897] 1 Q. B. 240 66 L. J. (q. b.) 122 75 L. T. ; ;
617 45 W. E. 179
; 212
English and Colonial Produce Co., Be, [1906] 2 Ch. 435 75 L. J. (ch.) 831 95 ; :
L. T. 580 176 '

.
English and Scottish Marine Insurance Co., Be, Ex parte Maclure (1870), 5 Ch.
App. 737 39 L. J. (ch.) 685 23 L. T. 685 18 W. E. 1122
; ; .232 ; . .
Entick V. Carrington (1765). 19 St. Tr. 1030 224, 225

Entwistle v. Dent (1848), 1 Exch. 812 18 L. J. (ex.) 138 163
;
Erskine v. Adeane (1873), 8 Ch. App. 756 42 L. J. (ch.) 849 29 L. T. 234 21 ; ; ;
W. E. 802 243, 278

Erskine Oxenford & Co. c. Sachs, [1901] 2 K. B. 504 70 L. J. (k. b.) 978 85 ;
';
L. T. 385 189
Esdaile c. La Nauze (1835), 1 Y. & C. 394 S. C. norii. Esdaile v. Lanoge, 4 ;
L. J. (EX. EQ.) 46 . 162, 163

Esposito r. Bowden (1857), 7 E. & B. 763 27 L. J. (q. b.) 17 3 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
1209 5 W. E. 732
; 232, 311
" Europa," The (1849), 13 Jur. 856 84
European and American Steam Shipping Co. v. Crosskey (1860), 8 C. B. (n. s.)
397 29 L. J. (c. p.) 155 6 Jur. (n. s.) 896 8 W. E. 236
; ; 450, 457 ; . . .
European and Australian EoyalMail Co. u.Eoyal Mail Steam Packet Co. (1861),
30 L. J. (c. p.) 247 8 Jur. (n. s.) 136 ; 551
Eustace v. Sargent (1866), 14 L. T. 552 426
" Euxine," The (1871), L. E. 4 P. C. 8 41 L. J. (adm.) 17 25 L. T. 516 20 ; ; ;
W. E. 561 8 Moo. P. C. (n. s.) 189 1 Asp. M. C. 155

; 81 ; . . . .
" Evangelistria," The (1876), 46 L. J. (adm.) 1 2 P. D. 241, n. 35 L. T. 410 ; ;
25 W. E. 255 3 Asp. M. C. 264 ; 64

Evans and Davies and Caddick, Be, (1870), 18 W. E. 723 22 L. T. 507 440 ; . .
V. Evans (1835), 3 Ad. & E. 132 1 H. & W. 239 518, 519

; . . . .
V. Hooper (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 45 45 L. J. (q. b.) 206 33 L. T. 374 24 ; : ;
W. E. 226 . . . 227
;
Table of Cases. cxxxiii
PAGE
Evans v. Kymer (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 528
9 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 92 ; . . . 202
V. National Provincial Bank (1897), 13 Times L. E. 429 . . . . 589
V. Nichol (1841), 4 Scott (n. e.) 43 3 M. & G. 614 11 L. J. (p. c.) 6 ; ;
5 Jur. 1110 192

1'. Roberts (1826), 5 B. & C. 829 8 D. & R. 611 4 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 313
; ; 293
V. Smallcombe (1868), L. R. 3 H. L. 249 37 L. J. (ch.) 793 19 L. T. ; :
207 175
V. Thomson
(1804), 5 East, 189 1 Smith, 380 ; 447
V. Ware, [1892] 3 Ch. 502 67 L. T. 285 ; 21
Everard v. Kendall (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 428 29 L. J. (c. p.) 234 22 L. T. 408 ; ; ;
18 W. R. 892 3 Mar. L. Cas. 39

; 71, 128
v. Paterson (1816), 6 Taunt. 625 2 Marsh. 304 ; 468
Everitt v. Davies (1878), 38 L. T. 361 26 W. R. 332 409,
; 411
Ewart Graham (1859), 7 H. L. Cas. 331 29 L. J. (ex.) 88 5 Jur. (n. s.) 773 :
;
..........
;
7 W. R. 621 . . .
366, .
'
367
r. Latta (1865), 4 Macq. 983 642
Ewbank v. Nutting (1849), 7 C. B. 797 212
Ewer V. Jones (1846), 9 Q. B. 623 16 L. J. (q. b.) 42 10 Jur. 965 150
..
; ; . . .
Ewing V. Dominion Bank (1904), 35 Sup. Ct. Canada Rep. p. 133 . 617
Exchange Banking Co., Be (Flitcroft's case), (1882), 21 Ch. D. 519; 52 L. J.
(CH.) 217 : W. R. 174
48 L. T. 86 31 ; 174
Eyles V. Ellis (1823), 4 Bing. 112 12 Moore, 306 5 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.) 110
; 591 ; .
Eyre and Leicester Corporation, Re, [1892] 1 Q. B. 136 61 L. J. (q. b.) 438 ; ;
65 L. T. 733 40 W. R. 203 56 J. P. 228

; ; 455, 456
F.
Faieclaim ex dcmiss Fowler v. Shamtitle (1762), 3 Burr. 1290
" Fair Haven," The (1866), L. R. 1 A. & E. 67 14 W. R. 821 ;
....
. . . .
85
67
Fairlamb v. Beaumont (1887), 31 Sol. J. 272 256
Fairlie v. Fenton (1870), L. R. 5 Exch. 169 39 L. J. (ex.) 107 22 L. T. 373 ; ;
;
18 W. R. 700 227
"Fairport," The (1882), 8 P. D. 48 52 L. J. (p.) 21 48 L. T. 536 5 Asp.; ; ;
M. C. 62 69, 90
(1884), 10 P. D. 13 54 L. J. (p. D.) 2 52 L. T. 62; 33 ; ;
W. R. 448 70
"Falcon," The (1878), 3 P. D. 100 47 L. J. (adm.) 56; 38 L. T. 294 26
; ;
W. R. 696 3 Asp. M. C. 566 113

;
Falk V. Fletcher (1865), 18 C. B. (n. s.) 403 34 L. J. (c. P.) 146 200 ; .. .
Falkland Islands Co. v. The Queen (1863), 2 Moo. P. C. (n. s.) 266 10 Jur. ;
(N. s.) 807 11 L. T. 9 13 W. R. 57

; ;
365
Falmouth (Earl of) v. Thomas (1832), 1 C. & M. 89 3 Tyr. 26 .293 ; . . .
" Famenoth," The (1882), 7 P. D. 207 48 L. T. 28 5 Asp. M. C. 35 ; 116, 117 ; . .
" Fanny," The (1883), 5 Asp. M. C. 75 48 L. T. 771 ; 170

Farebrother v. Ansley (1808), 1 Camp. 343 517
V. Simmons (1822), 5 B. & Aid. 333 24 R. R. 399 152, 520 ; . .
Farewell v. Coker (1728), 2 P. Wms. 460 172

Farley v. Tarner (1857) 26 L. J. Ch. 710 .586
Farmer v. Robinson (1805), 2 Camp. 338, n 230
1: Russell (1798), 1 Bos. & P. 296 187
Farnell v. Bowman (1887), 12 App. Cas. 643 56 L. J. (p. c.) 72 57 L. T. 318 18 ; ; .
Farnham v. Milward & Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 730 64 L. J. (ch.) 816 73 L. T. 434 ; ; ;
44 W. R. 135 22
Farnsworth v. Garrard (1807), 1 Camp. 38 557
Farquharson v. King, [1902] A. C. 325 71 L. J. (k. b.) 667 86 L. T. 810 51 ; ; ;
W. R. 94 203, 204, 635

Farquharson Brothers & Co. v. King, [1902] A. C. 325 71 L. J. (k. b.) 667 86 ; ;
L. T. 810 51 W. R. 94
;
158
Farrant v. Olmius (1820), 3 B. & Aid. 692 250
Farrar v. Cooper (1890), 44 Ch. D. 323 59 L. J. (ch.) 506 62 L. T. 528 38 ; ; ;
W. R. 410 446
Farrer v. Lacy (1885), 31 Ch. D. 42 55 L. J. (ch.) 149 53 L. T. 515 34 ; ; ;
W. R. 22 183, 186, 187, 503

V. Nelson (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 258 54 L. J. (Q. b.) 385 52 L. T. 766 ; ; ;
33 W. R. 800 49 J. P. 725 ; 10, 277, 378

Farrow v. Wilson (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 744 38 L. J. (c. p.) 326 20 L. T. 810 ; ; ;
18 W. R. 43 233
;
cxxxiv Table of Cases.
PAGE
Faviell r. Eastern Counties Rail. Co. (1848), 2Exeh. 350 ;
6D. & L. 54 ; 17 L. J.
(EX.) 223, 297 155, 156, 450.
479
Gaskoin (1852), 7 Exch. 273 21 L. J. (ex.) 85
r. : . . . . 2*5, 246
Eawcett v. Whitehouse (1829), 1 Russ. & M. 132 4 L. J. (o. s.) (ch.) 64 8 : ;
L. J. (o. s.) (CH.) 50 189

Eawsitt, Be (1885), 30 Ch. D. 231 54 L. J. (ch.) 1131 55 L. J. (ch.) 568 53
; : ;
L. T. 271 34 W. R. 26
; 4
Fearon and Flinn, Be (1869), L. R. 5 C. P. 34 471, 477
Feather i-. R. (1865), 6 B. & S. 257 35 L. J. (Q. B.) 200 12 L. T. 114
; 17 ; . .
Featherstonhaugh v. Johnston (1818), 8 Taunt. 237 520

Feisse v. Wray (1802), 3 East, 93 200
Feize r. Thompson (1808), 1 Taunt. 121 .311
Felix Hadley & Co. v. Hadley, [1898] 2 Ch. 680 67 L. J. (ch.) 694 79 L. T. : ;
299 27
Fell V. Brown (1791), 1 Peake, 131 185
Fenn r. Bittleston (1851), 7 Exch. 152 21 L. J. (ex.) 41 ; 534
r. Harrison (1790, 1791), 3 Term Rep. 757 4 Term Rep. 177 163, 164 : . .
Fenner and Lord, Be, [1897] 1 Q. B. 667; 66 L. J. (q. b.) 498 76 L. T. 376 :
;
45 W. R. 486 477
Fenwick t: Macdonald, Eraser & Co. (1904), 6 F. Ct. of Sess. 850 41 Sc. L. R. :
688 511
Fenwick, Stobart & Co., Be, Deep Sea Fishery Co.'s Claim, [1902] 1 Ch, 507 ;
71 L. J. (CH.) 321 86 L. T. 193 9 Mans. 205

: : 216
Ferguson v. Norman (1837), 4 Bing. (n. c.) 52 5 Scott, 304 1 Jur. 986 465, 467 ; ; .
V. Wilson (1866), Ch. App. 77, 89 15 W. R. 27 151 :
Fergusson v. Fyfe (1840), 8 CI. & F. 121 631

Fermier r. Maund (1637), 1 Ch. Rep. 116 284
Fernley v. Branson (1851), 20 L. J. (q. b.) 178 15 Jur. 354 471, 472 ; .. .
Ferrers (Earl) r. Robins (1835), 2 C. M. & R. 152 1 Gale, 70 5 Tyr. 705 4 ; ; ;
L. J. (ex.) 178 187.503

Fetherstone r. Cooper (1803), 9 Ves. 67 459, 461
Field V. Adames (1840), 12 A. & E. 649 4 P. & D. 504 1 Arn. & H. 17 10 : ; ;
L. J. (Q. B.) 2 4 Jur. 103 : 379

r. Longden & Sons, [1902] 1 K. B. 47 71 L. J. (k. b.) 120 85 L. T. : ;
571 60 W. R. 212 66 J. P. 291

: : . 444 . .
Fielden r. Morlev Corporation, [1899] 1 Ch. 1 67 L. J. (ch.) 611 79 L. T. ; ;
231"; 47 W. R. 295 5, 26
r. Tattershall (1863), 7 L. T. 718 248
Fielder v. Starkin (1788), 1 H. Bl. 17 392
Fielding v. Corry, [1898] 1 Q. B. 268; 67 L. J. (q. b.) 7; 77 L. T. 453;
46 W. R. 97 591
V. Kymer (1821), 2 B. & B. 639 167
Fife V. Round (1858), 6 W. R. 282 30 L. T. 291 ;
6
Filburn V. People's Palace etc. Co. (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 261 59 L. J. (q. b.) ;
471 38 W. R. 706
; 372, 374, 375
Filmer v. Lynn (1835), 4 N. & M. 559 1 H. & W, 59 ;
201
Findon v. M'Laren (1845), 6 Q. B. 891 14 L. J. (q. b.) 183 9 Jur. 369 ; 547 ; . .
v. Parker (1843), 11 M. & W. 675 12 L. J. (EX.) 444 7 Jur. 903 53 ; ; . .
Fine Art Society v. Union Bank (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 705 50 L. J. (Q. b.) 70 ; ;
55 L. T. 536 35 W. R. 114 51 J. P. 69
; ; 225, 592, 599,
601
Fines v. Spencer (1572), 3 Dyer, 306 b 366
Finucane v. Small (1795), 1 Esp. 315 544
Firbank v. Humphreys (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 54 56 L. J. (q. b.) 57 56 L. T. 36 ; ;
35 W. R. 92 222 -
Fischer v. Kamala Naicker (1860), 8 Moo. Ind. App. 170 2 L. T. 94 8 W. R. ; ;
655 54
Fisher v. Begrez (1832), 2 L. J. (ex.) 13 2 C. & M. 240; 3 Tyr. 184 2 D. P. C.
279 4 Tyr. 35
;
r. Drewitt (1879). 48 L. J. (EX.) 32

...39 L. T. 253 27 W. R. 12
;
20
194 ; ;
;
. .
V. Marsh (1865), 6 B. & S. 411 34 L. J. (Q. b.) 177 11 Jur. (n. s.) 795
; ; ;
12 L. T. 604 13 W. R. 834
; 226, 519
V. Miller (1823), 7 Moore, 527 1 Bing. 150 ;
231
r. Smith (1878), 4 App. Cas. 1 48 L. J. (ex.) 411 39 L. T. 430 27
;
; ;
W. R. 113 198, 199

Fishmongers' Co. v. Robertson (1843), 5 M. & G. 131 6 Scott (n. r.) 56 12 ; ;
-
L. J. (c. p.) 185 . . . .
155
Table of Cases. cxxxv
PAGE
Fissington v. Hutchinson (1866), 15 L. T. (n. s.) 390 29
Fitch r. Weber (1847), 6 Hare, 51 17 L. J. (ch.) 73 12 Jur. 76 ; 316 : . . .
Fitton's Estate, Ec, Hardy v. Fitton (1893), 70 L. T. 397 63 L. J. (ch.) 164 ; ;
42 W. R. 281 486 . .
FitzGeorge, Re, Robson, parte, [1905] 1 K. B. 462 74 L. J. (k. b.) 322 92 ; ;
L. T. 206 53 W. R. 384 12 Mans. 14

: : .642 . . . . . . .
Fitzgerald v. Firbank, [1897] 2 Ch. 96 66 L. J. (ch.) 529 76 L. T. 584 ;367 : . .
Fitzmaurice v. Bayley (1856), 6 El. & Bl. 868 26 L. J. (q. b.) 114 3 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
264 178
Fitzroy v. Cave, [1905] 2 K. B. 364 74 L. J. (k. b.) 829 93 L. T. 499 54 ; ; ;
W. R. 17 21 T. L. R. 612
; 55
Fitzroy Bessemer Steel Co., Be (1884), 50 L. T. 144 42 W. R. 475 216 ; . . .
Fitzsimmons v. Mostyn (Lord), [1904] A. C. 46 73 L. J. (k. b.) 72 89 L. T. ; ;
616 52 W. R. 337 20 T. L. R. 134

: :
470
" Five Steel Barges," The (1890), 15 P. D. 142 59 L. J. (adm.) 77 63 L. T. ; ;
499 39 W. R. 127 6 Asp. M. C. 580

: :
62, 75
Fleet r. Murton (1871), L. R. 7 Q. B. 126 41 L. J. (q. b.)49 26 L. T. 181 20 ; ; ;
W. R. 97 220
Fleming v. Bank of New Zealand, [1900] A. C. 577 69 L. J. (p. c.) 120; 83 ;
L. T. 1 174, 630
V. Manchester, Sheffield and Ijincolnshire Rail. Co. (1878), 4 Q. B. D.
81 39 L. T. 555 27 W. R. 481
: : 49
V. Manchester (Mayor and Corporation of) (1881), 44 L. T. 517 45 J. P. ;
423 14
V. Smith (1861), 12 Ir. C. L. R. 404 29
V. Snook (1842), 5 Beav. 250 249
Fletcher v. Rylands (1866), L. R. 1 Exch. 265 (1868), L. R. 3 H. L. 330 12 ; ;
Jur. (N. s.) 603 4 H. & C. 263 14 W. R. 799 35 L. J. (ex.) 154 37

:
; ; ;
L. J. (EX.) 161 19 L. T. 220

; 10, 374. 378
Flight V. Bolland (1828), 4 Russ. 298 21
V. Leman (1843), 4 Q. B. 883 D. & M. 67 12 L. J. (q. b.) 353
; 7 Jur. 557 52 ; ;
Flindt V. Scott (1814), 5 Taunt. 674 312

r. Waters (1812), 5 East, 260 21
Flinn & Co. r. Hoyle. See Malcolm, Flinn & Co. v. Hoyle.
Flint r. Woodlin (1852), 9 Hare, 618 16 Jur. 719 ; 502
Flitcroft's case. See Exchange Banking Co., Re.
Fluker v. Taylor (1855). 3 Drew. 183 182
" Flying Fish," The (1865), Br. & L. 436 2 Moo. P. C. (n. s.) 77 34 L. J. ; ;
(ADM.) 113 12 L. T. 619

; 122, 127
Flynn r. Robertson (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 324 38 L. J. (c. P.) 240 17 W. R. 767 477 ; ;
Foley V. Hill (1848), 2 H. L. Cas. 28 affirming 1 Ph. 399 13 L. J. (ch.) 182

;
; ;
Jur. 347 182, 188, 568, 584, 585, 602

Foligno V. Martin (1852), 22 L. J. (ch.) 502 178
Fontaine Besson v. Parr"s Banking Co. and Alliance Bank, Ltd. (1895), 12
^
T. L. R. 121 . . . 608
Forbes v. Lloyd (1876), 10 Ir. R. C. L. 552 26
Ford?;. Lacey (1861), 7 H. & N. 151 30 L. J. (ex.) 351 7 Jur. (n. s.) 684
; 16 ; .
V. Tynte (1862), 2 J. & H. 150 31 L. J. (ch.) 177 : 367

V. Wiley (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 203 58 L. J. (m. c.) 145 61 L. T. 74 37 ; ; ;
W. R. 709 53 J. P. 485
; 410, 411
Ford's Hotel Co. v. Bartlett, [1896] A. C. 1 452
Forder v. Whittle (April 18, 1907, unreported) 441, 476
Foreman v. Great Western Rail. Co. (1878), 38 L. T. 851 148, 151 . . . .
" Forest Queen." The (1870), L. R. 3 A. & E. 299 40 L. J. (adm.) 70 113 ; . .
Forman r. Bank of England (1901), 18 T. L. R. 339 605

Forman & Co. Proprietary. Ltd. v. The Ship Liddesdale," [1900] A. C. 190
" ;
69 L. J. (p. c ) 44 82 L. T. 331 9 Asp. M. C. 45

; ; 180, 558
Forrest v. Todd (1897), 76 L. T. 500 492
Fortescue, Ex parte (1834), 2 Dowl. 448 475
Forth V. Simpson (1849), 13 Q. B. 680 18 L. J. (q. b.) 263 13 Jur. 1024 546, 547,
; ; .
561
Forwood V. Watney (1880), 49 L. J. (q. b.) 447 454 .
Foster v. Bank of London (1862), 3 F. & F. 214 585, 643

V. Bates (1843), 12 M. & W. 226 1 D. & L. 400 13 L. J. (ex.) 88 7 ; ; ;
— '
Jur. 1093
V. Clements (1809), 2 Camp. 17
173, 176, 177, 233
630
V. Fyfe, [1896] 2 Q. B. 104 65 L. J. (m. c.) 184 74 L.T.784 44W.R.
; ; ;
524 60 J. P. 423
: 149
cxxxvi Table of Cases.
PAGE
Pearson (1835). 1 C. M. & R. 849
Foster
Fothergill
V. Wilson (1843), 12 M. &
Phillips (1871), 6
tJ.
W. 201
Ch. App. 770
;
;5 Tyr. 255
.
4 L. J, (ex.) 120
13 L. J. (ex.) 209
. .
;
.
... . .
.
.
153, 167
.
.180
574
Fourdrin v. Gowdrey (1834), 3 Myl. & Keen, 408 3 L. J. (ch.) 171 ; . . 307, 313
Fowler v. Lock (1872), L. R. 7 C. P. 272 ; 41 L. J. (c. p.) 99 26 L. T. 476 ; . . 551
Fox V. Martin (1895), 64 L. J. (ch.) 473 . 203, 204
V. Railway Passengers' Assurance Co. (1885), 52 L. T. 672 ; 54 L. J. (q. b.)
505 453
Foxton Manchester and Liverpool Banking Co. (1881), 44 L.
V. T. (n. s.) 406 . 584
Fracis, Times & Co. v. Carr (1900), 82 L. T. 898 48
Frampton, Ex parte, Be Frampton (1859), 1 De G. F. & J. 263 ; 28 L. J. (bcy.)
21 : s.) 970
5 Jur. (n. 7 W. R. 690 : 162, 163
France Dutton, [1891] 2 Q. B. 208 60 L. J. (q. b.) 488 64 L. T. 793 39
v. ; ; ;
W. R. 716 149
V. Gaudet (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 199 40 L. J. (q. b.) 121 19 W. R. 622 ; ; . 23
Frankenberg v. The Security Co. (1893), 10 T. L. R. 393 449, . . . . 456
Franklin v. Hosier (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 341 561
Franklyn v. Lamond (1847), 4 C. B. 637 16 L. J. (c. p.) 221 11 -Jur. 780.. .219, ; ; 518
Fraser v. Ehrensperger (1883), 12 Q. B. D. 310 53 L. J. (q. b.) 73 49 L. T. : ;
646 32 W. R. 240 ;
448
.
V. Fraser, [1905] 1 K. B. 368 74 L. J. (k. b.) 183 92 L. T. 341 53 ; ; :
W. R. 310 21 T. L. R. 186 ; 492

Fray v. Voules (1859), 1 E. & E. 839 28 L. J. (q. b.) 232 7 W. R. 446 5 ; ; ;
Jur. (N. s.) 1253 183

Freeman v. Bernard (1697), 1 Salk. 69, n. Comb. 440 Holt, 79 Carth. 378 ; ; ; . 468
f. Cooke (1848), 2 Exch. 654 18 L. J. (ex.) 114 12 Jur. 777 ; ; . . 159
r. Fairlie (1838), 8 L. J. (ch.) 44 230
V. Farrow (1880), 2 T. L. R 519
r. Jeffries (1869), L. R. 4 Exch. 189 38 L. J. (ex.) 116 20 L. T. 533 ; ; . 23
V. Rosher (1849), 13 Q. B. 780 18 L. J. (Q. b.) 340; 13 Jur. 881 :
175, 179, 203

" Freir,"" The, " Albert," The (1875), 44 L. J. (adm.) 49 ; 32 L. T. 571 ; 2 Asp.
M. C. 589 114
Freme Wright (1819), 4 Madd. 364 20 R. R. 313
r. : 509
French v. Howie, [1906] 2 K. B. 674 75 L. J. (k. b.) 980 95 L. T. 274 : ; . . 209
r. Macale (1842), 2 Dr. & War. 269 1 Con. & L. 459 4 Ir. Eq. R. 568. ; ; 250
V. Phillips (1856), 1 H. & N. 564 26 L. J. (ex.) 82 2 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
1169 : 5 W. R. 114 9
" French Guiana," The (1817), 2 Dods. 151 16
Frere and Stavelev Taylor & Co. and North Shore Mill Co., Re, [1905] 1KB.
366 ; 74 L. J.\k. b.) 208 ; 92 L. T. 194 449, ; 53 W. R. 242 21 T. L. R. 188
; .
451, 465, 473

Fricker v. Van Grutten, [1896] 2 Ch. 649 65 L. J. (ch.) 823 75 L. T. 117 ; ; ;
45 W. R. 53 149, 157
"Friedeberg," The (1885), 10 P. D. 112 54 L. J. (adm.) 75 52 L. T. 837 33 : ; ;
W. R. 687 5 Asp. M. L. C. 426 ;

120
Friend v. Friend. See Friend v. Young.
V. Young, [1897] 2 Ch. 421 66 L.
J. (ch.) 737 77 L. T. 50; 40 W. R.
; ;
139 233, 234

Frith r. Frith, [1906] A. C. 254 75 L. J. (p. c.) 50 94 L. T. 383 54 W. R.
; ; ;
618 22 T. L. R. 388 ;
229
r. Cartland (1865), 34 L. J. (ch.) 301 11 Jur. (n. s.) 238 12 L. T. 175 ; ; ;
13 W. R. 493 . . . 204
Fritz i: Hobson (1880), 14 Ch. D. 542 49 L. J. (ch.) 735 42 L. T. 677 28 ; ; ;
W. R. 722 9
Frixione v. Tagliaferro (1855), 10 Moo. P. C. C. 175 180,
196, 517
Froggatt, Fx parte, Re
Parker (1843), 3 M. D. & De G. 322 7 Jur. 710 ; . . 598
" Fulham," The, [1898] P. 206 67 L. J. (p.) 78 79 L. T. 127 ; ; . . . . 74
Fuller V. Abrahams (1821), 6 Moo. C. P. 316 3 Br. & B. 116 23 R. R. 626 ; ; . 512
V. Benett (1842), 2 Hare, 394 12 L. J. (ch.) 355 7 Jur. 1056 : ;
. . 215
•
'y. Eames (1892), 8 T. L. R. 278 194
V. Fenwick (1846), 3 C. B. 705 16 L. J. (c. ; p.) 79 ; 10 Jur. 1057 . . 479
V. Lance (1663), 1 Cas. in Ch. 18 22
V. Wilson (1842), 3 Q. B. 58 2 G. & D. 460 ;
11 L. J. (q. b.) 251 ; . . 214
Fullerton v. Provincial Bank of Ireland, [1903] A. C. 309 72 L. J. (p. c.) 79 ; ;
89 L. T. 79 633, 640
- Furber v. Fieldings, Ltd. (1907), 23 T. L. R. 362 501
Table of Cases. cxxxvii
PAGE
Fiirnivall r. Hudson. [1893] 1 Ch. 335 ; 62 L. J. (ch.) 178 : 68 L. T. 378 : 41
W. R. 358 3 E. 230 : . . 148
Furser ProAvd (^1618), Cro. Jac. 423
v. 470
Furtado v. Lumley (1890), 54 J. P. 407 512
r. Rogers (1802), 3 Bos. & P. 191 311
Furze r. Sharwood (1841), 2 Q. B. 388 2 G. & D. 116 11 L. J. (q. b.) 119 ; ; ;
6 Jur. 554 209

"Fyenoord," The (1876). 34 L. T. 918 3 Asp. M. C. 218 : 112
"Fyenwald,"' The, [1895] P. 142 64 L. J. (p.) 1 71 L. T. 731 43 W. R. 509;
; ;
;
7 Asp. M. C. 539 11 R. 690 ; 112
G.
Gaby i\ Driver (1828), 2 Y. & J. 549 31 R. R. 629: . . . . . . 513
Gadd V. Houghton (1876), 1 Ex. D. 357 46 L. J. (ex.) 71 ; ; 35 L. T. 222 ; 24
W. R. 975 219, 220
Gaden v. Newfoundland Savings Bank, [1899] A. C. 281 ; 68 L. J. (p. c.) 57 : 80
L. T. 329 598, 607, 629
"Gaetano and Maria," The (1882), 7 P. D. 1, 137 51 L. J. (adm.) 67 46 ; ;
L. T. 835 30 W. R. 766 4 Asp. M. C. 535

; ; 62
Gale r. Bates (1864), 3 H. & C. 84 33 L. J. (ex.) 235 10 Jur. (n. s.) 734 10
; ; ;
L. T. 304 12 W. R. 715 : 248

Galland v. Wall (1888), 4 T. L. R. 761 223
Gallop and Central Queensland Meat Export Co., Re (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 230 ;
59 L. J. (Q. B.) 460 62 L. T. 834 38 W. R. 621 ; ; 476

Galloway v. Bird (1827), 4 Bing. 299 12 Moore, 547 5 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.) 180 ; ; 43
V. Keyworth (1854), 15 C. B. 228 2 C. L. R. 860 23 L. J. (c. p.) 218 ; ;
459, 472
Galton V. Emuss (1844), 13 L. J. (ch.) 388 8 Jur. 507 ; 512
" Ganges," The (1880), 5 P. D. 247 43 L. T. 12 4 Asp. M. C. ; ; (n. s.) 317 . 113, 140
Gann v. Brun. See The " Clarisse."
Gardner v. Baillie (1795), 6 Term Rep. 591 1 Bos. & P. 32 ; . . . .163
V. Hart (1896), 44 W. R. 527 397
V. Mansbridge (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 217 ; 57 L. T. 265 ; 35 W. R. 809 ;
16 Cox, C. C. 281 51 J. P. 612 ;

. . 284
Garlick v. Knottingley Urban District Council (1904), 68 J. P. 494 2 L. G. R. ;
1345 213
Garnett v. M'Kewan (1872), L. R. 8 Exch. 10 42 L. J. (ex.) 1 27 L. T. 560 21 ; ; ;
W. R. 57 587, 606
Garside v. Proprietors of Trent Navigation (1792), 4 Term Rep. 581 544 . . .
Gas Float " Whitton " (No. 2), The, [1896] P. 42 65 L. J. (p.) 17 73 L. T. 698 ; ; ;
44 W. R. 263 [1897] A. C. 337 66 L. J. (p.) 99 76 L. T. 663

;
62, 75, 76
; ; . .
Gaskell and Walters' Contract, Be, [1906] 2 Ch. 1 75 L. J. (ch.) 503 94 ; ;
L. T. 658 22 T. L. R. 464
;
30
Gaslight and Coke Co. v. Hollo way (1885), 52 L. T. 434 49 J. P. 344 264 ; . .
Gateward^s Case (1605), 6 Co. Rep. 59 b 283

Gatliffe-y. Dunn (1738), Barnes, 55 .468
Gatty V. Field (1846), 9 Q. B. 431 15 L. J. (q. b.) 408 10 Jur. 980 ;
231 ; . . .
Gaunt V. Tavlor (1843), 2 Hare, 413 607

Gaussen v. Morton (1830), 10 B. & C. 731 8 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 313 228 ; . . .
Gayford v. Chouler. [1898] 1 Q. B. 316 67 L. J. (q. b.) 404 78 L. T. 42 62 ; ; ;
J. P. 165 18 Cox, C. C. 702

;
284
Geddis v. Proprietors of Bann Reservoir (1878), 3 App. Cas. 430 2 L. R. Ir. 118 14 ;
Gee f. Bell (1887). 35 Ch. D. 160 56 L. J. (cn.) 718 56 L. T. 305 35 W. R. 805

;
4 ; ;
V. Lucas (1867), 16 L. T. 357 389, 390, 392

Geilinger v. Gibbs, [1897] 1 Ch. 479 66 L. J. (ch.) 230; 76 L. T. Ill 45 ; ;
W. R. 315 21
" Gemma," The, [1899] P. 285 68 L. J. (p.) 110 81 L. T. 379
" General Gordon," The (1890), 5 Asp. M. C. 533 63 L. T. 117
General Meat Supply Association r. Boufder (1879), 41 L. T. 719
:
124
104
162
;
; .
...
.
..
. .
" Georg," The, [1894] P. 331 71 L. T. 22 7 Asp. M. L. C. 476

;
90, 103 ;
. .
George v. Chambers (1843), 11 M. & W. 149 2 D. (N. s.) 783 12 L. J. (m. c.) ; ;
94 7 Jur. 836 43
— ;
V. Clagett (1797), 7 Term Rep. 359 210

" George Gordon." The (1884), 9 P. D. 46 53 L. J. (p.) 28 50 L. T. 371 32 ; ; ;
W. R. 596 5 Asp. M. C. 216 ;

91
cxxxviii Table of Cases.
PANE
Gerard (Lord) and London and North Western Rail. Co., Be, [1894] 2 Q. B. 915 ;
[1895] 1 Q. B. 459 63 L. J. (q. b.) 764 64 L. J. (q. b.) 260

: 71 L. T. 548 : ; ;
72 L. T. 142 43 W. R. 9, 374 10 R. 501; 14 R. 201 450 ; ;
Germanic," The, [1896] P. 84 81

Gerson r. Simpson, [1903] 2 K. B. 197 72 L. J. (k. b.) 603 89 L. T. 117 51 : ; ;
W. R. 610 224
" Gertrude," The, and The " Baron Aberdare " (1888), 13 P. D. 105 59 L. T. ;
251 36 W. R. 616 6 Asp. M. C. 315 56 L. J. (adm.) 106

; ; 118 : . . . .
Geyer v. Aguilar (1798), 7 Term Rep. 696 48 . . .
Gibbs V. Grey (1857), 2 H. & N. 22 26 L. J. (ex.) 286 3 Jur. (n. s.) 543 5 ; ; ;
W. R. 608 •. .158 .
V. Guild (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 67
W. R. 591
51 L. J. (q. b.) 313 46 L. T. 248 30
Giblin v. McMullen (1869), L. R. 2 P. C. 317 5 Moo. P. C. (n. s.) 434 38 L. J.

47
:
:
:
'
.... ;
;
(p. c) 25 21 L. T. 214 ;17 W. R. 445 185, 526, 531, 532, 533,

; 627 . . .
Gibson r. Crick (1862), 1 H. & C. 142 31 L. J. (ex.) 304; 6 L, T. 392 10 ; ;
W. R. 525 194
— V. Minet (1824), 9 Moore, 31 : 2 Bing. 7 : 1 Car, & P. 247 ; R. & M. 68 ;
2 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.) 99 231

— V. Winter (1833), 5 B. & Ad. 96 2 N. & M. 737 2 L. J. (k. ; ; b.) 130 . 227
Gidley v. Palmerston (Lord) (1822), 3 Br. & B. 275 7 Moore, 91 : . . 18, 223
Gilbert v. Trinity House (1887), 17 Q. B. D. 795 : 56 L. J. (q. b.) 85 : 35 W. R.
30 18
V. Wright
(1904), 20 T. L. R. 164 68 J. P. 143 ; . . 472
. . .
Giles V. Perkins (1807), 9 East, 12 203, 598

V. Taff Vale Rail. Co. (1853), 2 El. & Bl. 822 212
V. Walker (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 656 59 L. J. (q, b.) 416 : 62 L. T. 933
; ;
38 W. R. 782 54 J. P. 599 ; 10, 295

Gill V. Kymer (1821), 5 Moore, 503 167
V. Shepherd (1902), 8 Com. Cas. 48 19 T. L. R. 17 ; 184
Gillard v. Wise (1826), 5 B. & C. 134 7 D. & R. 523 4 L. : ; J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 88 187 .
Gillett V. Mawman (1808), 1 Taunt. 137 557

V. Peppercorne (1840), 3 Beav. 78 189
Giliiat V. Gilliat (1869), L. R. 9 Eq. 60 39 L. J. (ch.) 142 : : 21 L. T. 522 508 .
Gillow V. Aberdare (Lord) (1893), 9 T. L. R. 12 232

Gilman t'. Elton (1821), 3 Bod. & Bing. 75 6 Moore. 243 : . . . . 206,547
Gimbent r. Coyney (1825), 29 R. R. 828 M'Clel. & Y. 469 : . . . .26
Gimson v. Woodfull (1825), 2 C. & P. 41 28, 29
Ginger, Re, E.r ^Jarê London and Universal Bank, [1897] 2 Q. B. 461 ; 66 L. J.
(Q. B.) 76 L. T. 808 46 W. R. 144 4 Mans. 149
777 : ;
: 276
Gladman v. Jobnson (1867), 36 L. J. (c. p.) 153 15 L. T. 476 15 W. R. 313.. .215, : : 373
Gladstone v. King (1813), 1 M. & S. 35 14 R. R. 392 : 216
V. Musurus Bey (1862), 32 L. J. (ch.) 155 1 H. & M. 495 7 L. T. : ;
477 11 W. R. 180 9 Jur. (n. s.) 71

: ;
19
Gladwin v. Chilcote (1841), 9 Dowl. 550 5 Jur. 749 461, : 480
" Glannibanta," The, and The " Transit" (1876), 1 P. D. 283 34 L. T. 934 ; ;
24 W. R. 1003 3 Asp. M. C. 339 ;

126
Glasbrook v. Owen (1890), 7 T. L. R. 62 490
Glasscock v. Balls (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 13 59 L. J. (q. b.) 51 62 L. T. 163 : ; ;
38 W. R. 155 . 609, 634,

. .
635
Glaysher, Ex parte (1864), 3 H. & C. 442 34 L. J. (ex.) 41 10 Jur. (n. s.) : ;
1208 11 L. T. 638 13 W. R. 165

; ;
440, 441
Gleadow v. The Hull Glass Co. (1850), 19 L. J. (ch.) 44 180
Gledstane v. Hewitt (1831), 1 Cro. & J. 565, 570 1 Tyr. 445 9 L. J. (ex.) (o. s.) : ;
42,565
Glenham v. Hanby (1700), 1 Ld. Raym. 739 . - 296
Gloucester Grammar School Case (1411), Y.
B. 11 Hen. 4, fol. 47, pi. 21 . .11
Gloucester Municipal Election Petition, 1900, Be. Ford v. Newth, [1901] 1 K. B.
683 70 L. J. (k. b.) 459 84 L. T. 354 49 W. R. 345 65 J. P. 391
: 174,
; : ; . 181
Gluckstein v. Barnes, [1900] A. C. 240 69 L. J. (ch.) 385 82 L. T. 393 7 : ; ;
Mans. 321 189

Glyn V. Baker (1811), 13 East, 509 202, 203
Giyn, Mills & Co. v. East and West India Dock Co. (1880-82), 6 Q. B. D. 475 ;
7 App. Cas. 791 50 L. J. (q. b.) 62 52 L. J. (Q. b.) 146 43 L. T. 584 47

; ; ; ;
L. T. 309 29 W. R. 316 31 W. R. 201

; :
628
Glynn v. Houston (1841), 2 Man. & G. 337 2 Scott (n. e.) 548 5 Jur. 125 ; ; . 212
V. Thomas (1856), 11 ExcK 870 25 L. J. (ex.) 125 2 Jur. (n. s.) 378 ; ; ;
4 W. R. 363 9
Table of Cases. cxxxix
PAGE
Godfrey v. Saunders (1770), 3 Wils. 73 36
V. Wade
6 Moore, 488
(182'2), 442
Godin r. London Assurance Co. (1758), 1 Wm. Bl. 103 .199 . . . .
Godiva,-' The (1886), 11 P. D. 20 55 L. J. (adm.) 13 54 L. T. 55 34 W. R.

; ; ;
551 5 Asp. M. C. 524

; 94
Godwin v. Brind (1868), 17 W. R. 29 39 L. J. (c. p.) 122, n. 17 W. R. 29 ; 166 : •
V. Francis (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 295 39 L. J. (c. p.) 121 22 L. T. 338 223 ; ; .
Gofif V. Great Northern Rail. Co. (1861), 30 L. J. (q. b.) 148 3 El. & El. 672 ; ;
7 Jur. (n. s.) 286 3 L. T. 850 ; 165

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 : 13 . . .
Gold V. Turner (1874). L. R. 10 C. P. 149 23 W. R. 732 6 ;
" Golden Sea," The (1882), 7 P. D. 194 51 L. J. (adm.) 64 47 L. T. 579 30 ; ; ;
W. R. 842 5 Asp. M. C. 23 : 117

Gollings and Tradesmen's Friendly Society, Peterborough (1891), 64 L. T. 775 493 .
" Golubchick," The (1840), 1 W. R. 143 82

Gompertz v. Cook (1903), 20 T. L. R. 106 594
Gonty and Manchester etc. Rail. Co., Be, [1896] 2 Q. B. 439 65 L. J. (q. b.) ;
625 75 L. T. 239 45 W. R. 83
: ; 467, 493
Goodall V. Lowndes (1844), 6 Q. B. 464 9 Jur. 177 ; 223
Goode V. Harrison (1821), 5 B. & Aid. 147 24 R. R. 307 151 ;
Goodman v. Savers (1820), 2 J. & W. 249, at p. 261 460

Goodson V. Alexander (1837), 1 Jur. 37 233
r. Brooke (1815), 4 Camp. 163
V. Forbes (1815), 6 Taunt. 171 1 Marsh. 525

Croodtitle r. Alker and Elmes (1757), Burr. 134 204,
162, 442
448, 470
35
; ... .
Goodwin v. Budden (]880), 42 L. T. 536

— r. Robarts (1876), 1 App. Cas. 476
r. Robarts (1875), L. R. 10 Exch. 76, 354 44 L. J. (ex.) 57 32 L. T.

487
635
; ;
199 ; 23 W. R. 342 601, 607

Goodwyn v. Cheveley (1859), 4 H. & N. 631 ; 28 L. J. (ex.) 298 ; 7 W. R. 631 378,
.
380
Goodvear
Gordon
r. Simpson (1846), 15 M. & W. 16 15 L. J. (ex.) 191
Capital and Counties Bank, [1902] 1 K. B. 242
; .. . 440
v. [1903] A. C. 240 ; ;
71 L. J. (K. B.) 215 86 L. T. 98 50 W. R. 276 7 Com. Cas. 37

; ; ; 593, .
596, 599, 600, 613

Harper (1796), 7 Term Rep. 9 2 Esp.
V. : 465 45, 563
259,
James (1885), 30 Ch. D. 249 53 L. T.
r. : 641 ; 34 W. R. 217 . . 205
V. London City and Midland Bank. See Gordon v. Capital and Coun-
ties Bank.
Gore i: Gibson (1845), 13 M. & W. 623 14 L. J. ; (ex.) 151 9 Jur. 140 ; . . 150
Gorris v. Scott (1874), L. R. 9 Exch. 125 ; 43 L. J.(ex.) 92 30 L. T. 431 ; ; 22
W. R. 575 420
Gorton r. Falkner (1792), 4 Term Rep. 565 252
Gosling V. Gaskell, [1897] A. C. 575 ; 66 L. J. (q. b.) 848 77 L. T. 314 ;
. . 154
Gough V. Gough, [1891] 2 Q. B. 665 : 60 L. J. (q. b.) 726 65 L. T. 110 ; ; 39
W. R. 593 267
Howard (1801), Peake. Add. Cas. 197
V. 243
Gough, and the Mayor etc. of Liverpool, Re (1890), 6 T. L. R. 453 . . . 467
Gould, Ex parte, Be Walker (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 454 ; 51 L. T. 368 ; 1 Morrell,
168 274
V. Oliver (1837), 4 Bing. (n. c.) 134 ; 5 Scott, 445 ; 3 Hodges, 307 ; 7 L. J.
(c. p.) 68 15
Staffordshire Potteries Waterworks Co. (1850), 5 Exch. 214
r.
& P. 264 6 Rail. Cas. 568 19 L. J. (ex.) 281 14 Jur. 528
:
Govett V. Radnidge (1802), 3 East, 62

;
1 L.
; ... ; M.
468
50
Gower v. Tobitt (1891), 39 W. R. 193 491
Gracey v. Belfast Tramway Co., [1901] 2 Ir. 322 564
Grafton v. Armitage (1845), 2 C. B. 342 15 L. J. (c. p.) 20 9 Jur. 1039 ; ; . . 557
Graham r. Ackroyd (1852), 10 Hare, 192 22 L. J. (ch.) 1046 17 Jur. 657 ; ; ; 1
W. R. 197 182
r. Berry (1865), 3 Moo. P. C. C. (n. s.) 207 16
Haig
(1894), 58 J. P. 835
V. 404
Jackson (1845), 6 Q. B. 811 14 L. J. (Q. B.) 129 9 Jur. 275 ; ; . . 233
t: Works and Public Buildings Commissioners, [1901] 2 K. B. 781 70 ;
L. J. (K. B.) 860; 85 L. T. 96; 50 W. R. 122 65 J. P. 677 18,220 ; . . .
Grand Junction Waterworks Co. v. Hampton Urban District Council (1899), 63

J. P. 503 5, 26
cxl Table of Cases.
PAGE
Grange v. Silcock (1897), 13 T. L. R. 565 77 L. T. 340 61 J. P. 709 281, 397 ; ; .
Grant v. Fletcher (1826), 5 B. & C. 436 8 D. & E. 59 186

;
V. Gold Exploration and Development Syndicate of British Columbia,

[1900] 1 Q. B. 233 69 L. J. (q. b.) 150 82 L. T. 5 48 W.
:
; ; E. 280 . 217
V. Humphrey (1862), 3 F. & F. 162 549
.
r. Thompson (1895), 72 L. T. 264 43 W. E. 446 15 E. 290 ; ; . . 51, 52
V. United Kingdom Switchback Eail. Co. (1888), 40 Ch. D. 185 ; 58 L. J.
(CH.) 211 60 L. T. 525 37 W. E. 312 1 Meg. 117
:
; : . . . . 174
V. Vaughan (1764), 3 Burr. 1516 1 W. Black. 485 ; 608
Grantham Hawley (1616), Hob. 132
r. 295
" Gratitudine," The (1801), 3 Ch. Eob. 240 65, 158
Graves v. Legg (1857), 2 H. & N. 210 26 L. J. (ex.) 316 3 Jur. (n. s.) 519
; ; ; 5
W. E. 597 .207
r. Weld (1833), 5 B. & Ad. 105 2 N. & M. 725 2 L. J. (k. b.) 176
: ; 282 .
Gray c. Gutteridge (1827), 3 C. & P. 40 1 M. & Ey. 614 ; 512

r. Haig (1855), 20 Beav. 219 186, 187
V. Johnston (1868), L. E. 3 H. L. 1 16 W. E. 842 226, 584, 585, ; . 606, 607
V.Pearson (1870), L. E. 5 C. P. 568 23 L. T. 416 ; . . . 162, 227 .
V. Wilson (1865), L. E. 1 C. P. 50 35 L. J. (c. p.) 123 14 W. ; ; E. 584 458 .
Great Britain 100 Al Steamship Insurance Association v. Wyllie (1889), 22

Q. B. D. 710 58 L. J. (q. b.) 614 60 L. T. 916 37 W. E. 407 6 Asp.
; : : ;
M. C. 398 209
" Great Eastern," The (1867). L. E. 1 A. & E. 384 36 L. J. (adm.) 15 17 L. T. ; ;
228 69
Great Luxembourg Eailway r. Magnay (1858), 25 Beav. 586 ; 4 Jur. (n. s.) 839 ;
6 W. E. 711 189
Great Northern Eail. Co. v. Swaffield (1874), L. E. 9 Exch. 132 43 L. J. (ex.) ;
89 30 L. T. 562
: 158
Great Northern Steamship Fishing Co. r. Edgehill (1873), 11 Q. B. D. 225 8 .
Greatorex r. Shackle, [1895] 2 Q. B. 249 64 L. J. (q. b.) 634 72 L. T. 897 44 ; ; ;
W. E. 47 15 E. 501 ; 195, 514

Great Southern Mysore Gold Mining Co., Ee (1883), 48 L. T. 11 149 . . .
Great Western Insurance Co. of New York r. Cunliffe (1874), 9 Ch. App. 525 ;
30 L. T. 661 43 L. J. (ch.) 741

;
188, 190
Great Western Eail. Co., Kp j>arte, He Bushell (1883), 22 Ch. D. 470 52 L. J. ;
(CH.) 734 48 L. T. 196 31 W. E. 419 ;

548 ; . . .
V. London and County Banking Comp. Ltd. [1899] 2

Q. B. 172 [1900] 2 Q. B. 464 [1901] ;
A. C. 414 69 ; ;
L. J. (Q. b.) 741 70 L. J. (k. b.) 915 81 L. T. 54 : ; ;
82 L. T. 746 85 L. T. 152 48 W. E. 144, 662 ; ; ;
50 W. E. 50 5 Com. Cas. 282 6 Com. Cas. 275... 225, ; ;
569, 590, 592, 593, 594, 596, 597, 622, 634

c. Waterford and Limerick Eail. Co. (1881), 17 Ch. D.
493 50 L. J. (ch.) 513 44 L. T. 723 29 W. E.

; ; ;
826 446
c. Willis (1865), 18 C. B. (n. s.) 748 34 L. J. (c. p.) ;
195 12 L. T. 349
;
215
Great Western Eail. Co. and the Postmaster-General, Re (1903). 19 T. L. E.
636 458
Green i: Bartlett (1863), 14 C. B. (n. s.) 681 32 L. J. (c. p.) 261 8 L. T. 503 ; ; ;
11 W. E. 834 195, 504, 516

V. Broad and Hutt (1882), 46 L. T. 888 26
V. Carstang (1901), 66 J. P. 102 85 L. T. 615 :
407
V. Duckett (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 275 52 L. J. (Q. b.) 435 48 L. T. 677 ; ; ;
31 W. E. 607 47 J. P. 487 ;
383
v. Hutt (1882), 51 L. J. (Q. b.) 640 46 L. T.. 888 46 J. P. 599 ;
26,27 ; . .
V. Lucas (1875), 33 L. T. 584 194, 196, 559

V. Mules (1861). 30 L. J. (c. p.) 343 193
V. Penzance (Lord) (1881), 6 App. Cas. 657 51 L. J. (q. b.) 25 45 L. T. ; ;
353 30 W. E. 218 46 J. P. 115

; :
3
V. Pole (1830), 6 Bing. 443 4 M. P. 198 ;
8 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.) 149 448 ;
.
Green & Co. and Balfour, Williamson & Co., Re (1890), 63 L. T. 97, 325 479 . .
Green's Trustee v. Barrett, [1875] W. N. 204 487

Greene v. Cole (1670). 2 Saund. 252 41
Greenwell v. Howell, [19001 1 Q. B. 535 69 L. J. (q. b.) 461 82 L. T. 183 48 : ; ;
W. E. 307 25
Greenwood, ^cc j^ârê, Thickbroom (1862), 6 L. T. 558 203
V. Backhouse (1902), 86 L. T. 566 66 J. P. 519 411 ; . . . .
Table of Cases. cxli
PAGE
Greenwood & Brownhill & Co. (1881), 44 L. T. 47
Co. v. 477
Gregorys. Parker (1808), 1 Camp. 394 10 R. R. 712 : 215
r. Piper (1829), 9 B. & C. 591 4 M. & Ry. 500 : 212
Gregson and Armstrong, Re (1894), 70 L. T. 106 10 R. 408 ; . . . . 480
Greig r. National iVmalgamated Union of Shop Assistants (1906), 22 T. L. R. 274 . 52
i\ Talbot (1823), 2 B. & C. 179 3 D. & R. 446 : 447
"Greta Holme,"" The, [1897] A. C. 596 66 L. J. (p.) 166 77 L. T. 231 : : . . 564
Grev and Bonstead & Co., Re (1892), 8 Times L. R. 703 . 466
227,
l-v. Jones (1764), 2 Wils. 251 38
Grice v. Kenrick (1870), L. R. 5 Q. B. 340 39 L. J. (q. b.) 175 22 L. T. 743 :
; :
18 W. R. 1155 519
Griffin, Re, Griffins. Griffin, [1899] 1 Ch. 408 68 L. J. (ch.) 220 79 L. T. 442 : ; . 589
r. Weatherby (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 753 9 B. & S. 726 37 L. J. (q. b.) ; ;
280 18 L. T. 881 17 W. R. 8
:
Griffith, Re (1897). 66 L. J. (q. b.) 763

Griffiths V. Pnleston (1844), 13 M. & W. 358
:
4 Mans. 217
14 L. J. (ex.) 33
224
242
:
;
... .
.
. .
.
229
256
247
r. Tombs (1833), 7 C. & P. 810 245, 247
V. Williams (1787), 1 Term Rep. 710
'
170
Grill V. General Iron Screw Collier Co. (1866), L. R. 1 C. P. 600 35 L. J. (c. p j ;
321 12 Jur. (n. s.) 724 14 L. T. 711 14 W. R. 893

: : : . . . . 185
Grimoldby v. Wells (1875), L, R. 10 C. P. 391 44 L. J. (c. p.) 203 32 L. T. 490 : : :
23 W. R. 524 . 528
Grindley v. Barker (1798), 1 Bos. & P. 229 160
Grinnell v. Wells (1844), 7 Man. & G. 1033 8 Scott (n. e.) 741 2 D. & L. 610 ; ;
;
14 L. J. (c. p.) 19 8 Jur. 1101 :

11
Grissell v. Bristowe (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 36 38 L. J. (c. p.) 10 19 L. T. 390 ; ;
;
17 W. R. 123 207
Grove v. Dubois (1786), 1 Term Rep. 112 16 R. R. 664 ; 153
Groves v. Wimborne (Lord), [1898] 2 Q. B. 402 67 L. J. (q. b.) 862 79 L. T. ; :
284 47 W. R. 87
:
.'
. . 8
Grymes r. Shack (1611), Cro. Jac. 262 1 Bulst. 95 :
366
Guerreiro v. Peile (1820), 3 B. & Aid. 616 167
Guichard v. Morgan (1819). 4 Moore. 36 167
Gundry v. Feltham (1776), 1 Term Rep. 334 368
Gunn V. Bolckow, Vanghan & Co. (1875), 10 Ch. App. 491 44 L. J. (ch.) 732 ;
;
32 L. T. 781 23 W\ R. 739 ; 27
V. Roberts (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 331 43 L. J. (c. p.) 233 30 L. T. 424 : :
;
22 W\ R. 652 2 Asp. M. C. 250 : 178

Gunnis v. Erhart (1789), 1 Hy. Bl. 289 2 R. R. 769 ; 510
Gurnell v. Gardner (1863), 4 Giff. 626 9 Jur. (n. s.) 1220 9 L. T. 367 12 ; : :
W. R. 67 228
Guthrie Armstrong (1822), 5 B. & Aid. 628
v. ; 1 D. & R. 248 . . . . 159
Guy V. ChurchiU (1888), 40 Ch. D. 481 58 L. ; J. (ch.) 345 60 L. T. 473 ; ; 37
W. R. 504 54, 55
" Guy Mannering," The (1882), 7 P. D. 132. at p. 134 ; 51 L. J. (adm.) 57 ; 46
L. T. 905 30 W. R. 835 4 Asp. M. C. 553
: : 214
Gwatkin Campbell
(1854), 1 Jur. (n. s.) 131
v. 189
Gwilliam v. Twist, [1895] 2 Q. B. 84 64 L. J. (q. b.) 474 ; ; 72 L. T. 579 ; 43
W. R. 566 59 J. P. 484 14 R. 461 11 T. L. R. 415
; ; ; . . 158, 169, 171, 540
Gwyn V. Godby (1812), 4 Taunt. 346 631
H.
"Haabet," The, [1899] P. 295; 81 L. T. 463; 48 W. R. 223 ; 8 Asp. M. C.

605 66, 67
Iladwell Righton, [1907] 2 K. B. 345
V. 377
Hagedorn v. Oliverson (1814), 2 M. & S. 485 173, 177
Haigh, Re (1861), 3 De G. F. & J. 157 31 L. J. (ch.) 420 8 Jur. (n. s.) 983 ; ; :
5 L. T. 507 ; 461
V. Kaye (1872), 7 Ch. App. 469 41 L. J. (ch.) 567 26 L. T. 675 20 ; ; ;
W. R. 597 157
V. North Brierley Union (1858), E. B. & E. 873 31 L. T. 213 ; . . 155
Haigh and London and North Western Rail. Co., Re, [1896] 1 Q. B. 649 65 ;
L. J. (Q. B.) 511 74 L. T. 655 44 W. R. 610

; ; 453
Haines v. Busk (1814), 5 Taunt. 521 1 Marsh. 191 ; 196
cxlii Table of Cases.
PAGE
Haines v. Welch (1868), L. E. 4 C. P. 91 ; 38 L. J. (c. p.) 118 ; 19 L. T. 422 :
17 W, E. 163 . . . . . . . . • . . . .282
Halbot V. Lens, [1901] 1 Ch. 344 ; 70 L. J. (ch.) 125 ; 83 L. T. 702 ; 49 W. E.
214 . . .
222
Halbronn International Horse Agency, Ltd., [1903 J 1 K. B. 270 72 L. J,
v. ;
(K. B.) 90 88 L. T. 232 51 W. E. 622 19 T. L. E. 138

; :
196, 517 ; . . .
Halden v. Glasscock (1826), 5 B. & C. 390 8 Dow. & Ey. 151 463 ; . . . .
Hale, Be, Lilley t: Foad, [1899] 2 Ch. 107 68 L. J. (ch.) 517 80 L. T. 827 47 :
; :
W. E. 579 154, 215

'
Halestrap v. Gregory, [1895] 1 Q. B. 561 64 L. J. (q. b.) 415 72 L. T. 292 43 ; ; :
W. E. 507 15 E. 306 ; .387

Halifax Union v. Wheelwright (1875), L. E. 10 Exch. 194 44 L. J. (ex.) 121 ;
;
32 L. T. 802 23 W. E. 704 ;
612, 615
Hall, Ex parte, Re Whitting (1879), 10 Ch. D. 615 48 L. J. (bcy.) 79 40 L. T. ; :
179 27 W. E. 385 :
224, 633 '
.
V. Ashurst (1883), 1 C. & M. 714 3 Tyr. 420 2 L. J. (ex.) 295 220 ; : . . .
V. Fuller (1826), 5 B. & C. 750 8 D. & E. 464 615 :
V. Harding (1769), 4 Burr. 2426 1 Wm. Bl. 678 379 ;
V. Hardy (1733), 3 P. Wins. 187, 190 3 Eq. Cas. Abr. 28 .475 ; . . .
V. Laver (1842), 1 Hare, 571 4 Y. & Coll. (ex.) 218 5 Jur. 241 179; ; . .
V. Lees, [1904] 2 K. B. 602 73 L. J. (k. b.) 819 91 L. T. 20 53 W. E. ;

; :
17 20 T. L. E. 678: 148 . .
V. Picard (1812), 3 Camp. 187 563

V. Warren (1804), 9 Ves. 605 7 E. E. 306 150;
Hall and Hinds, Be (1841), 2 Man. & G. 847 10 L. J. (c. p.) 210 459, ; .
477, 479
Hallen v. Eunder(1834), 1 C. M. & E. 266 3 Tyr. 959 3 L. J. (ex.) 260 274, 282 : : .
Hallett, Be, Ex parte Blane, [1894] 2 Q. B. 237 63 L. J. (q. b.) 573 70 L. T. :

;
361 42 W. E. 305 1 Mans. 25 ; ; 204

V. Hallett (1839), 7 Dowl. 389 5 M. & W. 25 2 H. & H. 3 3 Jur. ; ; ;
727 463
Hallett's Estate, Be (1880), Knatchbull v. Hallett, 13 Ch. D. 696 49 L. J. (ch.) ;
416 42 L. T. 421 28 W. E. 732

; ; 204, 586
" Halley," The (1868), L. E. 2 P. C. 198 5 Moo. P. C. C. (n. s.) 262 37 L. J. ; ;
(ADM.) 33 18 L. T. 879 16 W. : E. 998 ; 147, 214

Hambro v. Burnand, [1904] 2 K. B. 10 73 L. J. (k. b.) 669 90 L. T. 803 52 ; ; ;
W. E. 583 9 Com. Cas. 251 20 T.

; L. E. 398 201, 594
:
Hamer v. Sharp (1874^, L. E. 19 Eq. 108 44 L. J. (ch.) 53 31 L. T. 643 23 ; ; ;
W. E. 158 166, 184

Hamilton r. Bankin (1850), 3 De G. & S. 782 19 L. J. (ch.) 307 15 Jur. 70 460 ; ; .
.
r. Long, [1903] L. E. 2 Ir. 407, 502 12
Merchants' Marine Insurance Co. (1889), 58 L. J. (q. b.) 544 487 . .
r. Spottiswoode (1849), 4 Exch. 200 18 L. J. (ex.) 393 229 : . . .
V. Watson (1845). 12 CI. & F. 109 639, 640

r. Young (1881), L. E. 7 Ir. 289 168, 189
Hamilton's Windsor Ironworks, Be (1879), 12 Ch. D. 707 40 L. T. 569 27 ; ;
W. E. 445 165
Hamlyn t. Betteley (1880), 6 Q. B. D. 63 50 L. J. (q. b.) 1 43 L. T. 790 29 : ; ;
W. E. 275 4, 462
- — V. Houston, [1903] 1 K. B. 81 72 L. J. (k. b.) 72 87 L. T. 500 51 ; ; ;
W. E. 99
. 193
V. Wood, [1891] 2 Q. B. 488 60 L. J. (q. b.) 734 65 L. T. 286 40 ; ; :
W. E. 24 232
Hamlyn & Co. v. Talisker Distillery, [1894] A. C. 202 71 L. T. 1 58 J. P. ; ;
540 6 E. 188 ;
445
Hammack v. White (1862), 11 C. B. (n. s.) 594 31 L. J. (c, p.) 129 8 Jur. ; ;
(N. s.) 796 5 L. T. 676 10 W. E. 230 ; ; 372

Hammersmith and City Eail. Co. v. Brand (1869), L. E. 4 H. L. 171 38 L. J. ;
21 L. T. 238 18 W. E. 12
(q. b.) 265 ;
Hammond, Be (1844), De G. 93 14 L. J. (bcy.) 14 9 Jur. 358

1;. Holiday (1824), 1 C. & P. 384
;
;
14
239
.196
; ...
. V. Schofield, [1891] 1 Q. B. 453 60 L. J. (q. b.) 539 209 ; . , . .
Hammond and Waterton (1890), 62 L. T. 808 440

Hammonds v. Barclay (1802), 2 East, 227 198
Hampden v. Wallis (1884), 26 Ch. D. 746 54 L. J. (ch.) 83 50 L. T. 515 32 ; ; ;
W. E. 808 477
r. Walsh (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 189 45 L. J. (q. b.) 238 33 L. T. 852 ; ; ;
24W. E. 607 231

Table of Cases. cxliii
PAGE
Hampshire Land Co., Re, [1896] 2 Ch. 743 65 L. J. (ch.) 860 75 L. T. 181 ; ; ;
45 W. R. 136 3 Mans. 269 : 216

Hancock v. Hodgson (1827), 4 Bing. 269 12 Moore, 504 5 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.) ; ;
170 . :221
Smith (1889), 41 Ch. D. 456 58 L. J. (ch.) 725
V.
Handford v. Palmer (1820). 2 B. & B. 359 5 Moore, 74
Hanley v. Cassam (1847), 11 Jur. 1088
:
; ... ; 61 L. T. 341 .
.
.204
539, 552
172
Hanmer v. Flight (1876). 35 L. T. 127
(Lord) 36 L. T. 279 24 ; ; W. K 346 . 47
Ha^nmer r. King (1887), 57 L. T. 367 51 J. P. 804 ; 257
Hanna," The (1877), 3 Asp. M. C. 503 37 L. T. 364 ; 89
Hannam v. Mockett (1824), 2 B. & C. 934 4 D. & R. 518 2 L. ; ; J. (o. s.) (k. b.)
183 366
Hannan's Empress Gold Mining and Development Co., Re (CarmichaeFs Case),
[1896] 2 Ch. at p. 648 65 L. J. (ch.) 902 75 L. T. 45
; 228, 448 ; . . .
Hannan's Lake View Central. Ltd. v. Armstrong & Co. (1900), 16 T. L. R. 236
Hansloh and Reinhold, Re (1895), 1 Com. Cas. 215
Hanson v. Roberdeau (1792), 1 Peake, 163
594
446, 464, 466
518
... .
.
V. Waller, [1901] 1 K. B. 390 70 L. J. (k. b.) 231 84 L. T. 91 49

; ; ;
W. R. 445 166
Hanway v. Boultbee (1830). 4 C. & P. 350 1 M. & Rob. 15 ;.396 . . . .
Harcourt v. Ramsbottom (1820), IJ. & W. 512 461

Hardacre v. Stewart (1804), 5 Esp. 103 520
Hardcastle v. Bielby, [1892] 1 Q. B. 709 61 L. J. (m. c.) 101 66 L. T. 343 56 ; ; ;
J. P. 549 218
Harding r. Forshaw (1836), 1 M. & W. 415 4 D. (p. c.) 761 1 T. & G. 472 468 ; ; .
V. Williams (1880), 14 Ch. D. 197 644

Hardwicke (Earl of) v. Vernon (1808), 14 Ves. 504 188
Hardy v. Fitton. See Fitton's Estate.
V. Veasey (1868), L. R. 3 Exch. 107 37 L. J. (ex.) 76 17 L. T. 607 596,
; ; .
640, 643
Hare, Re (1839), 6 Bing. (n. c.) 158 8 D. (p. c.) 71 8 Scott, 367
;
Hare v. Henty (1861), 10 C. B. (n. s.) 65 30 L. J. (c. p.) 302 7 Jur. (n. s.) 523
458 ; .. .
; ; ;
4 L. T. 363 9 W.:R. 738 590

Hare and O'More's Contract, Re, [1901] 1 Ch. 93 70 L. J. (ch.) 45 83 L. T. ; ;
672 49 W. R. 202
; 230, 510
Hare, Milne and Haswell, Re (1839), 8 Dowl. 71 6 Bing. (n. c.) 158 8 Scott, ; ;
367 444, 450

Harker v. Edwards (1887), 57 L. J. (q. b.) 147 168
Harlow v. Read (1845), 3 D. & L. 203 1 C. B. 733 14 L. J. (c. p.) 239 9 Jur.
; ; ;
642 468
Harman v. Kingston (1811), 3 Camp. 152 310
Harmer v. Cornelius (1858), 5 C. B. (n. s.) 236 28 L. J. (c. p.) 85 4 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
1110 185, 536, 559 .
" Harmonides," The, [1903] P. 1 87 L. T. 448 : 122

'Harmonie," The (1841), 1 W. Rob. 179 86
Harnor v. Groves (1855), 15 C. B. 667 3 C. L. R. 406 24 L. J. (c. p.) 53 3
; ; ;
W. R. 168 528
Harper v. Marcks, [1894] 2 Q. B, 319 63 L. J. (m. c.) 167 70 L. T. 804
; 42 ; ;
W. R. 605 58 J. P. 527 10 R. 335

: : 409
V. Godsell (1870), L. R. 5 Q. B. 422 39 L. J. (q. b.) 185 18 W. R. 954 ; ;
162, 565
Harrington v. Churchward (1860), 29 L. J. (en.) 521 6 Jur. (n, s.) 676 8 ; ;
W. R. 302 200
.
(Earl) V. Derby Corporation, [1905] 1 Ch. 205 8
V. Hoggart (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 577 9 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 14... 188, 512, 513 ;
V. Long (1833), 2 M. & K. 590 54

V. Victoria Graving Dock Co. (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 549 47 L. J. (q. b.) ;
594 39 L. T. 120 26 W. R. 740

; ; 190, 217, 227
Harris v. Brisco (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 504 55 L. J. (q. b.) 423 55 L. T. 14
; 34 ; ;
W. R. 729 52, 53
V. Butler (1837), 2 M. & W. 539 M. & H. 117 6 L. J. (ex.) 133 1 Jur.
; ; ;
608 12
V. "Franconia," Owners of (1877), 2 C. P. D. 173 46 L. J. (c. p.) 363 72, 106 ; .
V. Fiat Motors, Ltd. (1906), 22 T. L. R. 556 171

V. Great Western Rail. Co. (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 515 45 L. J. (q. b.) ;
729 34 L. T. 647 25 W. R. 63
; : 544. 549
V. Nickerson (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 286 42 L. J. (q. b.) 171 28 L. T. 410 ; ; :
21 W. R. 635 509. 510

cxliv Table of Cases.
PAGE
Harris v. Petherick (1878), 39 L. T. 543 194
V. Reynolds (1845), 7 Q. B. 71 14 L. J. (q. b.) 241 9 Jur. 808
; 445 : . .
V. Smith (1880), 44 J. P. 361 432

V. Trueman (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 264 51 L. J. (q. b.) 338 46 L. T. 844 ; :
;
30 W. R. 533 204
Harrison, Ex parte, Re Bentley (1893). 69 L. T. 204 201
, V. (1699), 12 Mod. Rep. 346 235
V. Creswick (1853), 13 C. B. 399 21 L. J. (c. p.) 113 16 Jur. 315 469 ; ; .
V. Wright (1845), 13 M. & W. 816 442

Harriss v. Fawcett (1873), 8 Ch. App. 866 42 L. J. (ch.) 502 29 L. T. 84 21 ; ; ;
W. R. 742 641
Harrold v. Plenty, [1901] 2 Ch. 314 70 L. J. (ch.) 562 85 L. T. 45 49 W.R.
; ; ;
646 8 Mans. 304

; .636
Harrop v. Hirst (1868), L. R. 4 Exch. 43 38 L. J. (ex.) 1 19 L. T. 426 17 : ; ;
W. R. 164 8
V. Ossett Corporation, [1898] 1 Ch. 525 67 L. J. (ch.) 347 78 L. T. ; ;
387 46 W. R. 391 62 J. P. 297

; ; 5
Harsant v. Blaine (1887), 56 L. J. (q. b.) 511 3 T. L. R. 689 187, 188 ; . . .
Hart V. Duke (1862), 32 L. J. (q. b.) 55 9 Jur. (n. s.) 119 11 W. R. 75 ; 450 ; . .
r. Frontino Gold Mining Co. (1870), L. R. 5 Exch. Ill, at p. 115 39 L. J. ;
(ex.) 93 22 L T 30
; 617
T. Hart (1881), 18 Ch. D. 670 30 *W. R. 8 50 L.* J. (ch.) 697 45 L. T. 13 444 .'
; : ;
V. Windsor (1843), 12 M. & W. 68 13 L. J. (ex.) 129 8 Jur. 150 ;

243 ; . .
Hartas v. Ribbons (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 254 58 L. J. (Q. b.) 187 37 W. R. 278 ; ; ;
5 T. L. R. 200 180, 197

Hartland v. Jukes (1863), 1 H. & C. 667 32 L. J. (ex.) 162 3 F. & F. 149 9
; ; ;
Jur. (N. s.) 180 7 L. T. 792;

11 W. R. 519
;
643 .
"
Hartley v. Harriman (1818), 1 B. & Aid. 623 2 Stark. 212 Holt, (n. p.) 617 373 :
;
.
V. Hitchcock (1816), 1 Stark. 408 561, 562

" Harvest Home," The, [1905] P. 177 74 L. J. (p.) 65 93 L. T. 395
;
104 ; . .
Harvey 7-. Norton (1840), 4 Jur. 42

r. Shelton (1844), 7 Beav. 455 13 L. J. (ch.) 466 ;
Haseler v. Lemoyne (1858), 5 C. B. (n. s.) 530 28 L. J. (c. p.) 103 4 Jur.
210
461, 480
:
... ;
(N. s.) 1279 7 W. R. 14

; 175, 178. 203
Haslam and Hier-Evans, Be, [1902] 1 Ch. 765 71 L. J. (ch.) 374 86 L. T. ; ;
663 50 W. R. 444
; 189
Hastelow v. Jackson (1828), 8 B. & C. 221 2 M. & Ry. 209 6 L. J. (o. s.) ; ;
(K. b.) 318 231

Hastings v. Pearson, [1893] 1 Q. B. 62 62 L. J. (q. b.) 75 67 L. T. 553
; 41 ; ;
W. R. 127 57 J. P. 70
;
205
Hatch V. Hale (1850), 15 Q. B. 10 19 L. J. (q. b.) 289 14 Jur. 459
: 167, 212 : . .
V. Searles (1854). 24 L. J. (ch.) 22 2 Sm. & G. 147 3 W. R. 49 202

; ; . .
Hatsall V. Griffith (1834). 2 C. & M. 679 4 Tyr. 487 3 L. J. (ex.) 191 ; 159 : . .
Hatton V. Royle (1858), 3 H. & N. 500 27 L. J. (ex.) 486 : 443

Hawes v. Paveley (1876), 1 C. P. D. 418 48 L. J. (c. p.) 18 34 L. T. 835 24 : : ;
W. R. 895 6
Hawken v. Bourne (1841), 8 M. & W. 703 159, 164, 201
Hawkins Benton (1844). 2 D. & L. 465 14 L. J. (Q. B.) 9 9 Jur. 110 475 ; ; . .
r. Colclough (1757), 1 Burr. 274 2 Ld. Ken. 553 469 ;
V. Maltby (1869), 4 Ch. Anp. 200 38 L. J. (ch.) 313 29 L. T. 335 ; ; ;
17 W. R. 557 . 207
V. Walrond (1876), 1 C. P. D. 280 45 L. J. (c. p.) 772 35 L. T. 210 : ; ;
24 W. R. 824 275
Hawksley v. Outram, [1892] 3 Ch. 359 162
Hawksworth v. Brammall (1840), 5 My. & Cr. 281 463, 469,
479
Hawkyard v. Stocks (1845), 2 D. & L. 936 14 L. J. (q. b.) 236 9 Jur. 451 474 ; ; .
Hawtayne v. Bourne (1841), 7 M. & W. 595 10 L. J. (ex.) 224 158, 165 : . . .
Hay, Ux xjarte (1886), 3 T. L. R. 24 399

Hay's Case, Re Canadian Oil Works Corporation (1875), 10 Ch. App. 593 44 ;
L. J. (CH.) 721 33 L. T. 466 : 190, 191

Haycock's, Ltd. v. Mulholland, [1904] 1 K. B. 145 73 L. J. (k. b.) 125 9 L. T. ; ;
88 52 W. R. 400
;
491
Hayling v. Okey (1853), 8 Exch. 631 22 L. J. (ex.) 139 17 Jur. 325 1 W. R.
; ; ;
182 282
Hayward v. Mutual Reserve, [1891] 2 Q. B. 236 65 L. T. 491 39 W. R. 624 488 ; ; .
V. Phillips (1837), 6 A. & E. 119 1 N. & P. 288 1 Jur. 985 474 ; ; . .
Hazard v. Treadwell (1730). 1 Str. 506 . 201

Table of Cases. cxlv
PAGE
Hazeldine r. Groves (1843), 3 Q. B. 997 3 G. & D. 210 12 L. J. (m. c.) 10 7 ; ; ;
Jur. 262 25
Head, Be (No. 1), [1893] 3 Ch. 426 63 L. j. (ch.) 35 69 L. T. 753 42 W. R. ; ; ;
55 588
Be (No. 2), [1894] 2 Ch. 236 ; 63 L. J. (ch.) 35 ; 69 L. T. 753 ; 42 W. E.
55 588,589
V. Tattersall (1871), L. R. 7 Exch. 7 ; 41 L. J. (ex.) 4 ; 25 L. T. 631 ; 20
W. R. 115 390, 392
Heald v. Kenworthy (1855), 10 Exch. 739 ; 24 L. J. (ex.) 76 ; 1 Jur. (n. s.) 70 ; 3
W. R. 176 ; 3 C. L. R. 612 . . . . 210
Healey v. Bank of New South Wales (1900), November 28, 1900 (not reported) . 584
Heard v. Pilley (1869), 4 Ch. App. 548 38 L. J. (ch.) 718 21 L. T. 68 17 ; : ;
W. R. 750 157
Heath v. Brewer
(1864), 15 C. B. (n. s.) 803 9 L. T. 653 25 ;
V. Chilton (1844), 12 M. & W. 632 13 L. J. (ex.) 225 159, 175, 187, 192 ; .
Heathfield v. Chilton (1767), 4 Burr. 2016 20

Heatley v. Newton (1881), 19 Ch. D. 326 51 L. J. (ch.) 225 ; 45 L. T. 455 30 ; ;
W. R. 72 514, 519
" Hector," The (1883), 8 P. D. 218 52 L. J. (adm.) 51 48 L. T. 890 31 W. R. ; ; ;
881 5 Asp. M. C. 101

; 104, 126
Hedges v. Tagg (1872), L. R. 7 Exch. 283 41 L. J. (ex.) 169 20 W. R. 976 11 ; ; .
Hefier v. Martyn (1867), 36 L. J. (ch.) 372 15 W. R. 390 512 ;
" Heinrich Bjorn," The (1886), 8 P. D. 151 10 P. D. 44 11 App. Cas. 270 ; ;
52 L. J. (adm.) 83 54 L. J. (adm.) 33 55 L. J. (adm.) 80 49 L. T. 405

; ; ;
52 L. T. 560 55 L. T. 66 32 W. R. 279 33 W. R. 719 5 Asp. M. L. 0.

; ; ; ;
145, 391 6 Asp. M. C. 1

; 67, 68
Helby v. Matthews, [1895] A. C. 471 64 L. J. (q. b.) 465 72 L. T. 841 43 ; ; ;
W. R. 561 60 J. P. 20 11 R. 232
; ; 554, 555
"Helen," The (1865), L. R. 1 A. & E. 1 11 Jur. (n. s.) 1025 35 L. J. (adm.) 2 ; ; ;
13 L. T. 305 14 W. R. 136 ; 311

" Helen R. Cooper," The (1871), L. R. 3 A. & E. 339 40 L. J. (adm.) 46 ; . .93
HeUawell v. Eastwood (1851), 6 Exch. 295 252
Helyear r. Hawke (1803), 5 Esp. 72 393
Hemming l\ Hale (1859), 7 C. B. (n. s.) 487 29 L. J. (c. p.) 137 6 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
554 8 W. R. 116 ; 170

V. Parry (1834), 6 C. & P. 580 390
Hemsworth v. Brian (1845), 1 C. B. 131 2 D. & L. 844 14 L. J. (c. p.) 134... 451, 475 ; ;
Henderson v. Australian Royal Mail Steam Navigation Co, (1855), 5 E. & B.

409 24 L. J. (q. b.) 322 1 Jur. (n. s.) 830 3 W. R. 571
; 156 ; ; . .
V. Barnewall (1827), 1 Y. & J. 387 169, 170, 183

t: Bromhead (1859), 4 H. & N. 569 28 L. J. (ex.) 360 5 Jur. ; ;
(N. s.) 1175 7 W. R. 492 ; 13

V. Rothschild (1887), 55 L. J. (ch.) 939 56 L. J. (ch.) 471 33 ; ;
Ch. D. 459 55 L. T. 165 56 L. T. 98 34 W. R. 769 35

; ; ; ;
W. R. 485 223
V. Williams, [1895] 1 Q. B. 521 64 L. J. (q. b.) 308 72 L. T. 98 ; ; ;
43 W. R. 274 11 T. L. R. 148 14 R. 375 ; 192, 563 ; . . . .
V. WiUiamson (1719), 1 Str. 116

Henfree v. Bromley (1805), 6 East, 309 2 Smith, 400
Henley v. Soper (1828), 8 B. & C. 16 1 M. & Ry. 153 6 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.)
468
458, 470
;
;
;
....
210 162
"Henrietta," The (1837), 3 Hagg. (adm.) 345, n .105
Henry v. Lowson (1885), 2 T. L. R. 199 231
" Hercules," The (1819), 2 Dods. 353 29, 59, 66, 76
(1885), 11 P. D. 10 54 L. T. 273 34 W. R. 400 5 Asp. M. C. ; ; ;
545 92
" Hereward," The, [1895] P. 284 44 W. R. 288 64 L. J. (adm.) 87 72 L. T.
; ; ;
903 8 Asp. M. C. 22 11 R. 798

; ; 64
Herlakenden's Case (1589), 4 Co. Rep. 62 b 295
Hernaman v. Smith (1855), 24 L. J. (ex.) 175 6
Heme v. Benbow (1813), 4 Taunt. 764 41
" Hero," The, [1891] P. 294 60 L. J. (p.) 99 65 L. T. 499 40 W. R. 143
; 129 ; ; .
" Herzogin Marie," The (1861), Lush. 292 5 L. T. 88 82 ;
Hetherington v. Robinson (1839), 4 M. & W. 608 8 L. J. (n. s.) (ex.) 148 475 ; .
Hettihewage Siman Appu v. Queen's Advocate (1884), 9 App. Cas, 571 18, 19 .
Heugh V. Abergavenny (Earl of) (1874), 23 W. R. 40 181

V. London and North Western Rail, Co. (1870), L. R. 5 Exch. 51 39 ;
L. J. (EX.) 48 21 L. T. 676 ;
H.L. — I.
cxlvi Tajble of Cases.
PAGE
Hewitt V. Hewitt (1841), 1 Q. B. 110 598
; 4 P. & D. 469
V. Isham (1851), 7 Exch. 77 J. (ex.) 35
; 21 L. .296 . . . . .
Hewitt and Portsmouth Waterworks Co., Be (1862), 10 W. R. 780 461, 480 . .
Hext V. Gill (1872), 7 Ch. App. 700 41 L. J. (ch.) 293, 761 26 L. T. 502 27
; ; ;
L. T. 291 20 W. R. 520, 957

; 342
Heys V. Tindal (1861), 1 B. & S. 296 30 L. J. (q. b.) 362 4 L. T. 403 9 W. R.
; ; ;
664 185, 186

Heywood v. Pickering (1874). L. R. 9 Q. B. 428 43 L. J. (q. b.) 145 590 ; . . .
Hibbert v. Bayley (1860), 2 F. & F. 48 186, 514

Hibblewbite v. M'Morine (1840), 6 M. & W. 200 636
Hick, Be (1819), 8 Taunt. 694 463, 480
Hicks V. Richardson (1797), 1 Bos. & P. 93 471
Hide V. Petit (1671), 1 Ch. Cas. 185 2 Freeman, 133 Eq. Cas. Abr. 49, p. 3. ..448, 482
:
;
Hiern v. Hill (1806), 13 Ves. 114 215

Higgins V. Butcher (1606), Yelv. 89 1 Brownl. 205 Noy, 18 .28
..
; . . .
;
V. Senior (1841), 8 M. & W. 834 11 L. J. (ex.) 199 ; 207, 220 .
V. Willes (1828), 3 Man. & R. 382 479

Higginson v. Clowes (1808), 15 Ves. 516 510
Higham and Jessop, Be (1840), 9 Dowl. 203 462
Hilberry v. Hutton (1864), 2 H. & C. 822 33 L. J. (ex.) 190 10 L. T. 39 ; 175, ; .
178, 181
Hill V. Balls (1857), 2 H. & N. 299 27 L. J. (ex.) 45 ; 3 Jur. (n. s.) 592 5 ; ;
W. R. 740 420
V. Boyle (1867), L. R. 4 Eq. 260 55
V. Featherstonhaugh (1831), 7 Bing. 569 5 Moo. & P. 541 ; 194 . . . .
V. Langley (1670), 1 Vent. 50 2 Keb. 571, 580

; 448
Hill (Lord), Trustee to the Property of v. Rowlands, [1896] 2 Q. B. 124 65 L. J. ;
(Q. B.) 542 ;74 L. T. 556 3 Mans. 136

; 607
Hilton V. Green (1862), 2 F. & F. 821 277
V. Helliwell, [1894] 2 Ir. R. 94 195
V. Woods (1867), L. R. 4 Eq. 432 36 L. J. (ch.) 491 16 L. T. 736 15
; ; ;
W. R. 1105 54
Hinchcliffe. Be (1895). 73 L. T. 522 22
V. Barwick (1880), 5 Ex. D. 177 49 L. J. (ex.) 495 42 L. T. 492; ;
;
28 W. R. 940 44 J. P. 615
;
Hinde v. Whitehouse (1806), 7 East, 558 3 Smith, 528

Hindle v. Pollitt (1840), 6 M. & W. 529 9 L. J. (ex.) 288 ;
;
392
152, 505
249
... .
Hine Brothers v. Steamship Insurance Syndicate (1895), 72 L. T. 79 7 Asp. ;
M. L. C. 558 11 R. 777
; 164, 165, 187, 210
Hiort V. Bott (1874), L. R. 9 Exch. 86 43 L. J. (ex.) 81 30 L. T. 25 22 W. R.
; ; ;
414 628
V. London and North- Western Rail. Co. (1874), 4 Ex. D. 194 40 L. T. ;
674 27 W. R. 778
;
628
Hippisley v. Knee, [1905] 1 K. B. 1 74 L. J. (k. b.) 68 92 L. T. 20 21 T. L. R. 5
: ; ;
191, 196
Hirst V. West Riding Union Banking Co., [1901] 2 K. B. 560 70 L. J. (k. b.) ;
828 85 L. T. 3
; 49 W. R. 715
; 149, 214, 644
" Hjemmett." The (1879), 5 P. D. 227 49 L. J. (adm.) 66 42 L. T. 514 4 Asp.
; ; ;
M. L. C. 274 68, 128

Hobbs -y. Cathie (1890), 6 T. L. R. 292 .603 . .
V. Ferrars (1840), 8 Dowl. 779 4 Jur. 825 ; 461

Hobby V. Ruell (1845), 1 C. & K. 716 387
Hobhouse v. Hamilton (1826), 1 Hog. 401
Hoch V. Boor (1880), 49 L. J. (c. p.) 665 43 L. T. 425
Hochster v. De la Tour (1853), 3 E. & B. 678
;
219
487, 488
232
....
Hocken v. Grenfell (1837), 4 Bing. (n. c.) 103 467 . -
Hodgens v. Keen, [1894] 2 Ir. R. 657 519

Hodges V. Lawrance (1854), 18 J. P. 347 381
Hodgkinson v. Fernie (1857), 3 C. B. (n. s.) 189 27 L. J. (c. p.) 66 3 Jur. ; ;
(N. s.) 818 6 W. R. 181

;
479
V. Kelly (1868), L. R. 6 Eq. 496 37 L. J. (ch.) 837 16 W. R. ; ;
1078 220
Hodgson V. Anderson (1825), 3 B. & C. 842 5 D. & R. 735 ;
229
V. Railway Passengers' Assurance Co. (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 188 458 . .
Hodson V. Railway Passengers' Assurance Co., [1904] 2 K. B. 833 73 L. J. ;
(K. b.) 1001 91 L. T. 648 453, 498 ; .
Hogarth v. Wherley (1875), L. R. 10 C. P. 630 44 L. J. (c. p.) 330 32 L. T. ; ;
800 210
Table of Cases. cxlvii
PAGE
Hogg V.Snaith (1808), 1 Taunt. 347 163
Hoggard v. Mackenzie (1858), 25 Beav. 493 4 Jur. (n. s.) 1008 6 W. E. 572
Hoggart V. Cutts (1841), 1 Cr. & Ph. 197 10 L. J. (ch.) 314
Hogge V. Burgess (1858), 3 H. & N. 293 27 L. J. (ex.) 318 4 Jur. (n. s.) 668
;
; ;
... .
.
198
513
6W. R. 604
;
.
;
. ... ;
. 479
6 Jur. 895 .
Hohenzollern," The, [1906] P. 339 95 L. T. 585

......
Hoggins V. Gordon (1842), 3 Q. B. 466 2 G. & D. 656 11 L. J. (q. b.) 286
;
;
.
;
'. '.
'.
;
472
1,0
Hohenzollern Actien-Gesellschaft and the City of London Contract Corporation,
Be (1886), 54 L. T. 596 . 440
Holderness v. Collinson (1827), 7 B. & C. 212 1 M. & Ry. 55 6 L. J. (o. s.) ; ;
(K. B.) 17 547

Holding V. Piggott (1831), 7 Bing. 465 5 Moo. & P. 427 9 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.) 125
; ; 245
Holdsworth v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Insurance Co. (1907), 23 T. L. R.
521 202
(1863), 4 B. & S. 1
V. Wilson ; 32 L. J. (q. b.) 289 : 10 Jur. (n. s.)
171 8 L. T. 434 11 W. R. 733
; : . . . .
480
Holgate V. Killick (1861). 7 H. & N. 418 ; 31 L. J. (ex.) 7 ; 5 L. T. 358 : 10
W.R. 19 468,479
HoU V.
Holland
Griffin (1833), 10 Bing. 346 3 M. & Scott, 732
V. Brooks (1795), 6 Term Rep. 161
V. King (1848), 6 C. B. 727
;
.... . 563
474
— I77
W. R.
V. RusseU
757 ....
(1863), 4 B,
Holland Steamship Co., Be (1906), 23 T. L. R. 59 95 L. T. 769

& S. 14 ; 32 L. J. (q. b.) 297
;
; 8 L. T. 468
. . .
; 11
223, 592
. 467
Holliday v. National Telephone Co., [1899] 2 Q. B. 392 68 L. ; J. (o b.) 1016 •
81 L. T. 252 47 W. R. 658 ;
143 .
Hollingworth v. Palmer (1849), 4 Exch. 267 18 L. J. (ex.) 409 26 ; .
HoUins V. Fowler (1874), L. R. 7 Q. B. 616 L. R. 7 H. L. 757 41 L. J. (q. b.) ; ;
277 44 L. J. (q. b.) 169 27 L. T. 168 33 L. T. 73 20

; ; ; ;
W. R. 868 23, 225

V. (1875), L. R. 7 H. L. 757 44 L. J. (q. b.) 169 33 L. T. 73 ; ;
;
affirming L. R. 7 Q. B. 616 41 L. J. (q. b.) 277 27 L. T. 168 20 W. R.

; ; ;
868 .628
HoUis V. Claridge (1813), 4 Taunt. 807 561
V. Marshall (1858), 2 H. & N. 755 27 L. J. (ex.) 235 6 W. R. 365 23 ; ; .
Hollond V. Teed (1848), 7 Hare, 70 641

Holman v. Johnson (1775), Cowp. 343 166 535 '
Holmes v. Clarke (1860), 6 H. & N. 349 30 L. J. (ex.) 135 3 L. T. 675 9 ; ; ;
W. R. 419 7 Jur. (n. s.) 397 ; .15

V. Tutton (1855), 5 El. & Bl. 65 24 L. J. (q. b.) 346 1 Jur. (n. s.) 975 ; ;
227 519 '
Holmes and Formby, Re, [1895] 1 Q. B. 178 64 L. J. (q. b.) 391 71 L. T. ; ;
842 ; 43 W. R. 205
15 R. 114 ; 263 266
Holt V. Ely (1853), 1 El. & Bl. 795 17 Jur. 892 ; '227
Holyday v. Morgan (1858), 28 L. J. (q. b.) 9 1 E. & E. 1 5 Jur. (n. s.) 69 7 ; ;
;
W. R. 7 389, 390
Honduras Rail. Co. v. Tucker (1877), 2 Ex. D. 301 ; 46 L. J. (ex.) 391 •
36
L. T. 46 W. R. 310
; 25 . 222
Honywood v. Honywood (1874), L. R. 18 Eq. 306 ; 43 L. J. (ch.) 652 ; 30 L T
761 22 W. R. 749
; 296
Hood V. Barrington (1868), L. R. 6 Eq. 218 505
Hooker v. Gray (1907), 23 T. L. R. 472
" Hoop," The (1799), 1 Ch. Rob. 199 1 Engl. Pri. Cas. 104
Hooper v. Hooper (1860), 1 Sw. & Tr. 602 30 L. J. (p.) 49
;
412
311 312
444 ;
...
. .
'
V. Kerr, Stuart & Co. (1901), 83 L. T. 729 174 . . . .
V. Treffrey (1847), 1 Exch. 17 16 L. J. (ex.) 233 182 196

; . . . .
Hopcraft v Hickman (1824), 2 S. & S. 130 3 L. J. (ch.) 43

Hope, Ex parte (1844), 3 Mont. D. & De G. 720 8 Jur. 1128
Hopkins v. Abbot (1875), L. R. 19 Eq. 222 44 L. J. (ch.) 316 31 L. T 820
458' 469
'640
;
;
; ...
.
;
. .
23 W. R. 227 588
V. De Robeck (1789), 3 Term Rep. 70 1 R. R. 650
V. Great Northern Rail. Co. (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 224 46 L. J. (q. b )
20 ; .. .
265 36 L. T. 98 ; 11
V. Tanqueray (1854), 23 L. J. (c. p.) 162 15 C. B. 130 18 Jur. 608 ; ;
2 W. R. 475 2 C. L. R. 842 ;
390
Ware (1869), L. R. 4 Exch. 268 38 L. J. (ex.) 147 20 L. T. 668 210 ; ;
-Hopkinson v. Rolt (1861), 9 H. L. Cas. 514 34 L. J. (ch.) 468 632 ;

;
cxlviii Table of Cases.
PAGE
Hopper, Re (1867), L. E. 2 Q. B. 376; 8 B. & S. 100 ; 36 L. J. (q. b.) 97 ; 15
L. T. 566 15 W. R. 443; .
440, 456, 480
Hopwood V. Thorn (1850), 8 C. B. 293 ; 19 L. J. (c. p.) 94 ; 14 Jur. 87 . . .12
Horford v. Wilson (1807), 1 Taunt. 12 194
" Horlock," The (1877), 2 P. D. 243 ; 47 L. J. (adm.) 5 ; 36 L. T. 622 ; 3 Asp.
M. C. 421 65
Hornby v. Lacv (1817), 6 M. & S. 166 153, 207
Home Redfearn (1838), 4 Bing. (n. c.) 433 6 Scott, 260 7 L. J. (c. p.) 214
V. ; ;
;
2 Jur. 376 589

HorsefaU v. Mather (1815), Holt, N. P. C. 7 243
Horsford v. Webster (1835), 1 C. M. & R. 696 5 Tyr. 409 1 Gale, 1 ; ; . 253
Horsley v. Style (1893), 69 L. T. 222 4 R. 574 ; 554
Horton v. Sayer (1859), 4 H. & N. 643 26 L. J. (ex.) 28 5 Jur. (n. s.) 989 33 ; ; ;
L. T. (o. s.) 287 ; 7 W. R. 735 445

Hosegood r. Bull (1876), 36 L. T. 617 644
Hoskins v. Robins (1672), 1 Ventr. 163 2 Wms. Saund. 320 2 Keb. 757, 842 379 ; ; .
Hough V. Bolton (1886), 2 T. L. R. 788 216

Houghton V. Bankart (1861), 3 De G. F. & J. 16 447
V. Matthews (1803), 3 Bos. & P. 485 167, 187, 198
Houldsworth v. City of Glasgow Bank (1880), 5 App. Cas. 317 42 L. T. 194 28 ; ;
W. R. 677 189, 213

Houston V. Robertson (1816), 6 Taunt. 448 2 Marsh. 138 4 Camp. 342 ; ;
;
Holt, 88 233
Hovenden v. Millhoff (1900), 83 L. T. 41 217
Hovil V. Pack (1806), 7 East, 166 3 Smith, 164 ; 178
Howard v. Baillie (1796), 2 Hy. Bl. 618 161
—
V. Beall (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 1
V. Braithwaite (1812), 1 Ves. & B. 202, 208, 209
V. Chapman (1831), 4 C. & P. 508
646
164, 502
165, 187
... .
V. Harris (1884), 1 C. & E. 253 528, 529

V. Patent Ivory Manufacturing Co. (1888), 38 Ch. D. 156 57 L. J. (ch.) ;
878 58 L. T. 395 36 W.
; R. 801 ; 176
V. Remer (1854), 2 E. & B. 915 23 L. J. (q. b.) 60 2 W. R. 55 26 ; ; . .
V. Sheward (1866), L. R. 2 C. P. 148 36 L. J. (c. p.) 42 12 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
1015 15 L. T. 183 15 W. R. 45
; ; .. 164, 201, 394 . . . .
V. Tucker (1831). 1 B. & Ad. 712 .201 '.

. . .
HoweU, Ex parte, Rr Williams (1865), 12 L. T. 785 164, 168 . . . . .
V. Lewis (1891), 65 L. T. 672 61 L. J. (ch.) 89 40 W. R. 88 ; 22 : . .
Howett V. Clements (1844). 7 Man. & G. 1044 8 Scott (n. r.) 851 2 D. & L. ; ;
549 14 L. J. (q. b.) 75 9 Jur. 17

; ; 478
Howlett V. Maidstone (Mayor etc. of), [1891] 2 Q. B. 110 60 L. J. (q. b.) 570 ; ;
65 L. T. 448 40 W. R. 116 55 J. P. 182

; : 493
Hoye V. Bush (1840), 1 Man. & G. 775 2 Scott (n. r.) 86 10 L. J. (m. c.) 168 26
; : .
Hubbart v. Phillips (1845), 2 D. & L. 707 13 M. & W. 703 14 L. J. (ex.) 103 222 ; ; .
Hudson V. Granger (1821), 5 B. & Aid. 27 24 R. R. 268 211, 235 ; . . . .
V. Roberts (1851), 6 Exch. 697 20 L. J. (ex.) 299 372 ;
V Shooter (1891), 55 J. P. 325 502

V. Tabor (1876). 2 Q. B. D. 290 46 L. J. (q. b.) 463 36 L. T. 492 25 ; ; ;
W. R. 740 12
Huggins V. Ward (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 521 29 L. T. 33 21 W. R. 914 422 ; ; . .
Hughes V. Graeme (1864), 33 L. J. (q. b.) 335 12 W. R. 857 222, 223

— r. Percival (1883), 8 App. Cas. 443
31 W. R. 725 47 J. P. 772
52 L. J. (q. b.) 719 49 L. T. 189
: 148
;
; .
;
. .
V. Pumphouse Hotel Co., [1902] 2 K. B. 190 71 L. J. (k. b.) 630; 86 ;
L. T. 794 50 W. R. 660 ; 585

V. Quentin (1838). 8 C. & P. 703 553 .
V. Richman (1774), Cowp. 125

Hull V. Pickersgill (1819), 1 B. & B. 282 3 Moore, 612
Hull and Lady Meux, Re, [1905] 1 K. B. 588 74 L. J. (k. b.) 252 92 L. T. 74
249
175, 225 ;
;
... ;
.
53 W. R. 389 21 T. L. R. 220 ;
260
Hull Rope Works Co. v. Adams (1895), 65 L. J. (q. b.) 114 73 L. T. 446 44 ; ;
W. R. 108 554
'
Humber," The (1884), 9 P. D. 12 53 L. J. (adm.) 7 49 L. T. 604 32 W. R. ; ; ;
664 5 Asp. M. C. 181

; 112, 113
Humble v. Hunter (1848), 12 Q. B. 310 17 L. J. (q. b.) 350 209 ; . . . .
Hume-Dick Herries, Parquhar & Co. (1888). 4 T. L. R. 541

'i'. 626 . . . .
Humphreys v. Jones (1850), 5 Exch. 952 20 L. J. (ex.) 88 561 ; . . . .
Humphriss v. Worwood (1895), 64 L. J. (q. b.) 437 25- . . . . . .

Table of Cases. cxlix
PAGE
Hunti;. Maniere (1864), 34 Beav. 157; 11 Jur. (n. s.) 28 11 L. T. 469 13 ; ;
W. E. 312 607
V. Wimbledon Local Board (1878), 4 C. P. D. 48 48 L. J. (c. p.) 207 39 ;
R
;
L. T. 35 27 W. ; 123 156
Hunter r. Atkins (1832), 3 Myl. & K. 113 Coop. tem2D. Brough. 464 189 ;
. .
r. Daniel (1845), 4 Hare, 420

t: Parker (1841), 7 M. & W. 322
14 L. J. (ch.) 194 9 Jur. 520
10 L. J. (ex.) 281
Hurlbatt v. Barnett, [1893] 1 Q. B. 77 62 L. J. (q. b.) 1 67 L. T. 818 41
; 53
155, 178 ;
;
;
;
... .
;
.
W. R. 33 487
Hurst i?. Hurst (1849), 4 Exch. 571 19 L. J. (ex.) 410 ; 249 . . .
•
.
Husband v. Davis (1851), 10 0. B. 645 20 L. J. (c. p.) 118 2 L. M. & P. 50 604

; ; .
Hussey v. Horne-Payne (1879), 4 App. Cas. 311 48 L. J. (ch.) 846 41 L. T. 1 ; ; ;
27 W. R. 585 510
Hutcheson r. Eaton (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 861 51 L. T. 846
Hutcbins v. Chambers (1758), 1 Burr. 579 2 Ld. Ken. 204
Hutchinson v. Heyworth (1838), 9 A. & E. 375 1 P. & D. 266 W. W. & D.
219, 220
252 ;
;
;
.
...
.
;
. .
730 8 L. J. (Q. B.) 17

: 229, 231
V. Shepperton (1849), 13 Q. B. 955 13 Jur. 1098 .479 ; . . .
V. Tatham (1873), L. R. 8 C. P. 482 42 L. J. (c. p.) 260 29 L. T. ; ;
103 22 W. R. 18
; 220
Huth, Ex parte, Re Pemberton (1840), 4 Deac. 294 Mont. & C. 667 189 ; . . .
Hutley V. Hutley (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 112 42 L. J. (q. b.) 52 28 L. T. 63 ; ; ;
21 W. R. 479 53, 54
Hutton V. Bragg (1816), 7 Taunt. 14 2 Marsh. 339 ; 548
V. Bulloch (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 572 30 L. T. 648 22 W. R. 956 209, 220 ; : .
V. Warren (1836), 1 M. & W. 466 2 Gale, 71 1 Tyr. & G. 646 5 L. J. ; ; ;
(EX.) 234 244, 246

Hyatt V. Griffiths (1851), 17 Q. B. 505 18 L. T. 74 241
;
Hyman v. Nye (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 685 44 L. T. 919 45 J. P. 554 551, 552

; ; . .
" Ida," The(1886), 11 P. D. 37 55 L. J. (adm.) 15 ; ; 54 L. T. 497 ; 34 W. R.

628 6 Asp. M. C. 57
; 117
(1860), Lush. 6 1 L. T. 417 ; 72
Ilott V. Wilkes (1820), 3 B. & Aid. 304 15, 397
"Immacolata Concezione," The (1882), 8 P. D. 37 53 L. J. (adm.) 19 50 ; ;
L. T. 539 32 W. R. 705 5 Asp. M. C. 208

; ; 87, 120
Imperial Bank v. London and St. Katharine's Docks Co. (1876), 5 Ch. D. 195 ;
46 L. J. (CH.) 335 36 L. T. 233 ; 200, 220

Imperial Bank of Canada v. Bank of Hamilton, [1903] A. C. 49 72 L. J. (p. c.) ;
1; 87 L. T. 457 51 W. R. 289 ; 607, 612, 615, 617, 618, 619 . . . .
Imperial Credit Co. v. Coleman (1873), L. R. 6 H. L. 189 42 L. J. (ch.) 644 ; ;
29 L. T. 1 189
Imperial Loan Co., The v. Stone, ri892] 1 Q. B. 599 61 L. J. (q. b.) 449 66 ; ;
L. T. 556 56 J. P. 436
;
150
Imperial Wine Co., Re (Shirreff's Case) (1872), L. R. 14 Eq. 417 42 L. J. ;
(ch.) 5 20 W. R. 966
;
232
Inchbald^;. West Neilgherry Coffee Co. (1864), 17 C. B. (n. s.) 733 34 L. J. ;
(c. p.) 15 17 C. B. (n. s.) 733 10 Jur. (n. s.) 1128 11 L. T. 345 13
; ; ; :
W. R. 95 195
"India," The (1863), 32 L. J. (adm.) 185 9 Jur. (n. s.) 417 9 L. T. 234 11 ; ; ;
W. R. 536 1 Mar. L. Cas. 39

; 67
" Indomitable," The (1859), Swa. Ad. 446 5 Jur. (n. s.) 632 33 L. T. 127 66 ; ; .
" Indra," The (1905), 94 L. T. 110 10 Asp. 106 22 T. L. R. 12 ;

108 ; . . . .
"Industrie," The (1871), L. R. 3 A. & E. 303 40 L. J. (adm.) 26 24 L. T. ; ;
446 19 W. R. 728 1 Asp. M. C. 17

; ;
71
Ingham v. Penton (1893), 10 T. L. R. 113 261, 269
V. Walker (1887). 3 T. L. R. 448 200
Inglis V. Robertson, [1898] A. C. 616 67 L. J. (p. c.) 108 79 L. T. 224 ;
152 ; . .
Ingram v. Milnes (1807), 8 East, 445 469

Inman v. Clare (1858), John. 769 5 Jur. (n. s.) 89 ; 622, 625, 634 . . . .
Innes r. Stephenson (1831), 1 M. & R. 145 159

"Innisf alien," The (1866), L. R. 1 A. & E. 72 35 L. J. (adm.) 110 12 Jur. ; ;
(n. s.) 653 16 L. T. 71 2 Mar. L. Cas. 470

; ; 63
Inventor." The (1905), 93 L. T. 189 10 Asp. M. C. 99 109, 110
; . . . .
cl Table of Cases.
PAGE
Ireland v. Hart, [1902] 1 Ch. 522, at p. 527 71 L. J. (ch.) 276 86 L. T. 385 ; ; ;
50 W. R. 315 9 Mans. 209 ; 636, 637 .
V. Livingstone (1872), L. R. 5 H. L. 395 41 L. J. (q. b.) 201 27 L. T. ; ;
79 .• 164, 183, 200

"Ironsides," The (1862), Lush. 458; 31 L. J. (adm.) 129; 6 L. T. 59 1 ;
Mar. L. Cas. 200 73

Irvine v. Elnon (1806), 8 East, 54 458
V. Union Bank of Australia (1877), 2 App. Cas. 366 46 L. J. (p. c.) 87 ; ;
37 L. T. 176 25 W. R. 682
; 174, 181
V. Watson (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 102, 414 49 L. J. (q. b.) 239, 531 42 L. T. ; ;
51, 810 28 W. R. 353

; 210
Irwin V. Dearman (1809), 11 East, 24 .12
Isaack v. Clark (1615), 2 Bulst. 306 Moore, 841 Godb. 210 1 Roll. Rep 59,
; ; ;
126 528, 529

Isaacson, Re, Ex parte Mason, [1895] 1 Q. B. 333 71 L. T. 812 14 R. 41 556 ; ; .
Isberg V. Bowden (1853), 8 Exch. 852 22 L. J. (ex.) 322 1 C. L. R. 722 227

; ; . .
"Isis," The (1883), 8 P. D. 227 53 L. J. (adm.) 14 49 L. T. 444 32 W. R.

; ; ;
171 5 Asp. M. C. 155

; 94
"Isle of Cyprus," The (1890). 15 P. D. 134 59 L. J. (adm.) 90 63 L. T. 352 ; ; ;
38 W. R. 719 6 Asp. M. C. 534

: 97 . .
Ismay v. Blake (1897), 66 L. T. 530 7 Asp. M. C. 189 56 J. P. 486 ;

424 ; . . .
Ives V. Medcalfe (1737), 1 Atk. 64 478

Ives and Barker v. Willans, [1894] 2 Ch. 478 63 L. J. (ch.) 521 70 L. T. ; ;
674 42 W. R. 483
; 452, 453, 454, 480
J.
Jacklyn v. Fytche (1845), 14 M. & W. 381 15 L. J. (ex.) 102 ; . . . . 276

Jackson v. Barry Rail. Co., [1893] 1 Ch. 238 60 L. T. 472 2 R. 207 ; 449, 453, 480 ; .
V. Cummins (1839), 5 M. & W. 342 ; 8 L. J. (ex.) 265 3 Jur. 436 387, 547 ; .
V. Jacob (1837), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 869 ; 5 Scott, 79 6 L. J. (c. p.) 315 ;178, .
179
V. Smithson (1846), 15 M. & W. 563 ; 15 L. J. (n. s.) (ex.) 311 . . 372
V. Spittall (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 542 ; 39 L. J. (c. p.) 321 22 L. T. 755 ; ;
18 W. R. 1162 6, 51
Jacobs V. Latour (1828), 5 Bing. 130 ; 2 Moo. & P. 201 ; 6 L. J. (o.s.) (c.p.) 243. 199,
562
V. Morris, [1902] 1 Ch. 816 ; 71 L. J. (ch.) 363 ; 86 L. T. 275 ; 50 W. R.
371 162, 201, 202, 620
James, Ex parte, Re Mutual Aid Permanent Benefit Building Society (1883),
•
49 L. T. 530 48 J. P. 54
V. James (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 669

;
V. Attwood (1838), 5 Bing. (n. c.) 628 7 Scott. 841

23 Q. B. D. 12 58 L. J. (q. b.) 300,
193
449
:
;
;
....
424 60 L. T. 569 61 L. T. 310 37 W. R. 495, 600
: ;
450, 465 : . . .
V. Kerr (1888), 40 Ch. D. 449 58 L. J. (ch.) 355 60 L. T. 212 37 W. R.

; ; ;
279 53 J. P. 628
;
54
V. Nicholas (1886), 60 J. P. 292 404
V. Ricknell (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 164 57 L. J. (q. b.) 113 58 L. T. 278 ; ; ;
36 W. R. 280 4
V. Smith, [1891] 1 Ch. 384 63 L. T. 524 39 W. R. 396
: 157, 184 ; . . .
V. Swift (1826), 4 B. & C. 681 6 D. & R. 625 2 C. & P. 237 ;

26 ; . . .
James & Sons, Re, [1903] W. N. 99 472

" James Armstrong," The (1875), L. R. 4 A. & E. 380 33 L. T. 390 3 Asp. ; ;
M. C. 46 103
Jamieson v. Dow (1900), 2 F. Ct. of Sess. (Just. Cas. 24) 432
" Jane and Matilda," The (1823), 1 Hagg. (adm.) 187 69
" Jan Frederick," The (1804), 5 C. Rob. 129
Janson v. Brown (1807), 1 Camp. 41
1 Eng. Pri. Cas. 434 21
396
;
.. .
V. Driefontein Consolidated Mines, Ltd., [1902] A. C. 484 71 L. J. ;
(K. B.) 857 87 L. T. 372 51 W. R. 142 7 Com. Cas. 268

; ;
20, 21, 306, 311 ;
.
Janssen v. Green (1767), 4 Burr. 2103 153

Japanese Curtains and Patent Fabric Co., Re. See Shoolbred, Ex parte.
Jardine v. Leathley (1863), 3 B. & S. 700 32 L. J. (q. b.) 132 9 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
1035 7 L. T. 783 11 W. R. 432

; ;
164, 178
Jared v. Clements, [1903] 1 Ch. 428 72 L. J. (ch.) 291 88 L. T. 97 51 W. R. ;
; ;
Table of Cases. cli
PAGE
Jarrett v. Hunter (1886), 34 Ch. D. 182 ; 56 L. J. (ch). 141 ; 55 L. T. 727 ; 35
W. R. 132 51 J. P. 165
; 505
Jarvis v. Jarvis (1893), 63 L. J. (ch.) 10 69 L. T. 412 ; 556
••
Jassy," The, [1906] P. 270 75 L. J. (p.) 93 ; 95 L. T. 363 19, 71 ; . . .
Jebb V. M'Kiernan (1829), M. & M. 340 440

Jeffries v. Great Western Eail. Co. (1856), 5 E. & B. 802, at p. 805 25 L. J. ;
(Q. B.) 107 ;2 Jur. (n. s.) 230 530

Jeffryes v. Agra and Masterman's Bank (1866), L. R. 2 Eq. 674 35 L. J. (cH.) ;
686 14 W. R. 889
; 199, 606
Jenkins v. Betham (1855), 15 C. B. 168 24 L. J. (c. p.) 94 3 C. L. R. 373 ; ; ;
1 Jur. (N. s.) 237 3 W. R. 283 ; 185, 186, 440

V. Hutchinson (1849), 13 Q. B. 744 18 L. J. (q. b.) 274 13 Jur. ; ;
763 . 220 ' 221

V. Jones (1882), 9 Q. B. D.'l28 51 L. J. (q. b.) 438 46 L. T. 795 30; ; ;
W. R. 668 55
V. Morris (1880), 14 Ch. D. 674 42 L. T. 817 ; 150, 208
V. Tongue (1860), 29 L. J. (ex.) 147 634, 635
V. Turner (1696), 1 Ld. Raym. 109
Jenkyns v. Brown (1849), 14 Q. B. 496 19 L. J. (q. b.) 286
Jenner v. Clegg (1832), 1 Moo. & Rob. 213
;
372
199
256
... .
Jennings v. Johnson (1873). L. R. 8 (c. p.) 425 54

Jephson v. Howkins (1841), 2 M. & G. 366 465
Jetley v. Hill (1884), 1 C. & E. 239 .201 •. . .
Jewell V. Christie (1867), L. R. 2 C. P. 296 36 L. J. (c. p.) 168 15 L. T. 580 469 ; ; .
Jobson V. Palmer, [1893] 1 Ch. 71 62 L. J. (ch.) 180 67 L. T. 797 41 W. R.

; ; ;
264 171,560
" Johanna Emilie," The, othertvise " Emilia," The (1854), 2 Eng. Pri. Cas. 254 ;
Spinks, 12 312 .
" Johannes," The (1860), Lush. 182 30 L. J. (adm.) 91 3 L. T. 757

; 74 ; . .
"John Bellamy," The (1870), L. R. 3 A. & E. 129; 39 L. J. (adm.) 28; 22

L. T. 244 120
John Griffiths Cycle Corporation, Ltd.-y. Humber Co., Ltd., [1899] 2 Q. B. 414 ;
64 L. J. (Q. B.) 959 81 L. T. 310 : 156

Johnson, Ex parte, Be United Service Co. (1870), 6 Ch. App. 212 40 L. J. ;
(CH.) 286 24 L. T. 115 19 W. R. 457

; ; 533
V. Emerson (1871), L. R. 6 Exch. 329 40 L. J. (ex.) 201 25 L. T. 337 225 ; ; .
-y. Faulkner (1842), 2 Q. B. 925 5 G. & D. 184 6 Jur. 832 ; 254 ; . .
V. Latham (1851), 20 L. J. (q. b.) 238 2 L. M. & P. 205 478, 480 ; . .
i: May (1683), 3 Lev. 150 37

- V. Robarts (1875), 10 Ch. App. 505 33 L. T. 138 23 W. R. 763 598 ; ; . .
V. Shippen (1703), 2 Ld. Raym. 982 1 Salk. 35 11 Mod. Rep. 79 ; ; ;
Holt, 48 61,66
V. Wilson (1741), Willes, 248 7 Mod. Rep. 345 ; 469
Johnston v. Boyes, [1899] 2 Ch. 78 68 L. J. (ch.) 425 80 L. T. 488 47 W. R.
; ; ;
517 503, 511, 518

V. Kershaw (1867), L. R. 2 Exch. 82 36 L. J. (ex.) 44 15 L. T. 485 ; ; ;
15 W. R. 354 164, 194

JoUifie V. Woodhouse (1894), 10 T. L. R. 553 38 Sol. J. 578 148 ; . . . .
Jonmenjoy Coondoo v. Watson ri884), 9 App. Cas. 561 53 L. J. (p. c.) 80 50 ; ;
L. T. 411 162
Jones, Ex parte (1833), 2 Mont. & A. 193 3 Deac. & C. 525 ; . . . .29
Be (1902), 18 T. L. R. 476 30
V. Bird (1822), 5 B. & Aid. 837 1 D. & R. 497 ;
26
V. Bright (1829), 5 Bing. 544 3 Moo. & P. 155 7 L.
;
J. (o. s.) (c. p.) 213 388 ;
V. Broadhurst (1850), 9 C. B. 173 177

V Cowley (1825), 4 B. & C. 445 6 D. & R. 533 3 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 263
; 390 ; .
V. Cuthbertson (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 504 42 L. J. (q. b.) 221 28 L. T. ; ;
673 21 W. R. 919
;
159
V. Dowle (1841), 9 M. & W. 19 ID. (n. s.) 391 11 L. J. (ex.) 52 ; 533 ; . .
V. Festiniog Rail. Co. (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

; ;
279
•
V. Flint (1839), 10 A. & E. 753 2 P. & D. 594 9 L. J. (q. b.) 252 ; 293, 386 ; .
V. Green (1829), 3 Y. & J. 298 250

V. Hope (1880), 3 T. L. R. 247 175, 221, 222
-. V. Humphreys, [1902] 1 K. B. 10 71 L. J. (k. b.) 23 85 L. T. 488 50 ; ; ;
W. R. 191 585
V. Jackson (3 870), 22 L. T. 828 221
V. Littledale (1837), 6 A. & E. 486 6 L. J. (k. b.) 169 219, 220
; . . .
clii Table of Cases.
PAGE
Jones Liverpool Corporation (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 890
V. 64 L. J. (q. b.) 345 ;
;
53 W. E. 551 49 J. P. 511 ; .564 .
V. Llovd (1874), L. E. 18 Eq. 265 43 L. J. (ch.) 826 30 L. T. 487 22 ; ; ;
W. E. 785 . . . 22
V. Marsh (1791), 4 Term Eep. 464 241
V. Moore (1841), 4 Y. & C. 351 .542
V. Nanney (1824), 13 Price, 76 516
.
V. NichoUs (1844), 13 M. & W. 361 1 New Ses. Cas. 524 2 D. & L. 425 ; ; ;
14 L. J. (EX.) 42 8 Jur. 989 ; 26

V. Owen (1871), 24 L. T. 587 374
V. Page (1867), 15 L. T. 619 551
V. Peppercorne (1858), Johns. 430 28 L. J. (n. s.) (ch.) 158 5 Jur. ; ;
(n. s.) 140 199, 547, 548, 621, 622, 634

V. Perry (1796), 2 Esp. 482 373, 375
i: Phipps (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 567 9 B. & S. 761 37 L. J. (q. b.) 198 ; ; ;
18 L. T. 813 16 W. E. 1044 ; 167

V. Powell (1838), 6 Dowl. 483 1 W. W. & H. 60 ;442
V. Eyde (1814), 5 Taunt. 488 1 Marsh. 157 ; .575 . . . . .
V. Scullard, [1898] 2 Q. B. 565 564

V. Tarlton (1842), 9 M. & W. 675 1 DowL (n. s.) 625 11 L. J. (ex.) ; ;
267 6 Jur. 348 ; 548

V. Thompson (1858), 27 L. J. (q. b.) 234 1 E. B. & E. 63 4 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
338 6 W. E. 443
; 588
Joplin V. Postlethwaite (1889), 61 L. T. 629 453
Jordan v. Norton (1838), 4 M. & W. 155 1 H. & H. 234 7 L. J. (ex.) 281 202, 394 ; ; .
Jordin v. Crump (1841), 8 M. & W. 782 11 L. J. (ex.) 74 5 Jur. 1113 397 ; ; . .
Joseph and Webster, Be (1830), 1 Euss. & M. 496 443

Josephs V. Pebrer (1825), 3 B. & C. 639 1 C. & P. 341 196, 197 ; . . . .
Joyce V. Metropolitan Board of Works (1881), 44 L. T. 811 45 J. P. 667 16 ; . .
Joynson v. Hunt (1905), 93 L. T. 470 21 T. L. E. 692 231 ;
Joynt V. Cycle Trade Publishing Co., [1904] 2 K. B. 292 73 L. J. (k. b.) 752 ; ;
91 L. T. 155 13
Judge V. Cox (1816), 1 Stark. 285 373
Judson V. Ethridge (1833), 1 C. & M. 743 3 Tyr. 954 2 L. J. (ex.) 300 387 : ; . .
K
Kahl v. Jansen (1812), 4 Taunt. 565 215
"Kalamazoo," The (1851), 15 Jur. 885 91
Kaltenbach v. Lewis (1885). 10 App. Cas. 617 ; 55 L. J. (ch.) 58 ; 53 L. T. 787 ;
34 W. E. 477 - . . . .211
" Karnak," The (1868), L. E. 2 A. &
L. E. 2 P. C. 505 6 Moo. P. C. C. E. 289 ; ;
136 37 L. J. (adm.) 41 38 L. J. (adm.) 57 21 L. T. 159 17 W. E. 56, 1028

; ; ; ; . 66
" Kathleen," The (1874), L. E. 4 A. & E. 269 43 L. J. (adm.) 39 31 L. T. 204 ; ; ;
23 W. E. 350 2 Asp. M. L. C. 367 ; 92

Kay V. Grover (1831), 7 Bing. 312 3 Moo. & P. 634 9 L. J. (o. S.) (c. p.) 112
; ; . 26
Keates v. Woodward, [1902] 1 K. B. 532 71 L. J. (k. b.) 325 86 L. T. 369 50 ; ; ;
W. E. 258 50
Keay v. Fenwick (1876), 1 C. P. D. 745 159, 171, 180
Keble v. HeckeringiU (1706). 11 Mod. Eep. 74, 131 3 Salk. 9 Holt, 14, 17 11 ; ; ;
East, 574 11, 366, 367

Keech v. Hall (1778), 1 Doug. 21 263
Keen v. Priest (1859), 4 H. & N. 236 28 L. J. (ex.) 157 7 W. E. 376 ; ; . . 252
Keene v. Thomas, [1905] 1 K. B. 136 74 L. J. (k. b.) 21 92 L. T. 19 53 W. E. ;
; ;
336 21 T L E 2
•
553 '
561
Keighley Maxstead & Co.' and Bryan, Durant & Co., Be, [1893] 1 K. B. 405 62 ;
L. J. (Q. B.) 105 68 L. T. 61 41 W. E. 437 ; 7 Asp. M. C. 268

; ; 455, 467, . 478
Keighley Maxsted & Co. v. Durant, [1901] A. C. 240 70 L. J. (k. b.) 662 84 ; ;
L. T. 777 175, 207, 455, 467, . . 478

Keir v. Leeman (1844), 6 Q. B. 308 9 Q. B. 371 13 L. J. (q. b.) 359 15 L. J. ; ; ;
(Q. B.) 359 8 Jur. 824 10 Jur. 742

: ;
445
Keith V. Eeid (1870), L. E. 2 Sc. 39 506
Kelly Metropolitan Eail. Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 944 64 L. J. (q. b.) 568 72 ; ;
L. T. 551 43 W. E. 497 59 J. P. 437 14 E. 417

; ; ; . . . . 49
V. Solari (1841), 9 M. & W. 54 11 L. J. (ex.) 10 6 Jur. 107 542, ; ; . . 619
Kelner v. Baxter (1866), L. E. 2 C. P. 174 36 L. J. (c. p.) 94 12 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
1016 15 L. T. 313 15 W. E. 278

; . ; 176, 177, 207, 221, . . . . 631
Table of Cases. cliii
PAGE
Ivemeys v.Proctor (1814), 3 Ves. & B. 57 1 J. & W. 350 604 ;
Kemp v. Rose (1858), 1 Giff. 258 480

Kempe v. Crews (1684), 1 Ld. Eaym. 167 Lutw. 1577 253 ;
Kendal v. Wood (1871), L. R. 6 Exch. 243 39 L. J. (ex.) 167 23 L. T. 309 617 ; ;

.
Kendall v. Hamilton (1879), 4 App. Cas. 504 48 L. J. (c. p.) 705 41 L. T. ; ;
418 28 W. R. 97
; 209, 641 . . .47,
Kennedy r. Broun (1864), 13 C. B. (n. s.) 677; 32 L. J. (c. p.) 137 9 Jur. ;
(N. s.) 119 7 L. T. 626 11 W. R. 284

; ; 193
V. Lyell (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 491 1 Cab. & E. 584 53 L. T. 466 55 ; ; . .
V. Panama etc. Mail. Co. (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 587 8 B. & S. 571 36 ; ;
L. J. (Q. B.) 260 17 L. T. 62 15 W. R. 1039 ; .393 ; . . .
V. Thomas, [1894] 2 Q. B. 759 9 R. 564 63 L. J. (q. b.) 761 71 ; : ;
L. T. 144 42 \V. R. 641 618

;
Kenner v. Harding (1877), 85 lU. (U.S.) 264 28 Amer. Rep. 616

Kenrick v. Wood (1869). L. R. 9 Eq. 333 39 L. J. (ch.) 92 19 W. R. 57
389
163
; .. .
.
.
; ;
Kensington, Ex parte (1813), 2 Ves. & B. 79 632

V. Inglis (1807), 8 East, 273 21, 312
Kent V. Elstob (1802), 3 East, 18 468, 479
Kent County Council v. Folkestone Corporation, [1905] 1 K. B. 620 74 L. J. ;
(K. B.) 352 92 L. T. 309 53 W. R. 371 69 J. P. 125 3 L. G. R. 438 21

; ; ; ; ;
T. L. R. 269 25
Kent Tramways Co., Ee (1879), 12 Ch. D. 312 40 L. T. 393 176 ; . . . .
Kenworthv v. Schofield (1824), 2 B. & C. 945 4 D. & R. 556 2 L. J. (o. s.) ; ;
(K. B.") 175 26 R. R. 600 ; 504

" Kepler," The (1861), Lush. 201 118
Kerly, Re, [1901] 1 Ch. 467 70 L. J. (ch.) 189 83 L. T. 699 49 W. R. 211
; 85 ; ; .
"Keroula," The (1886), 11 P. D. 92 55 L. J. (adm.) 45; 55 L. T. 61; 35 ;
W. R. 60 6 Asp. M. C. 23
; 63
Kerr v. Jeston (1842), 1 Dowl. (n. s.) 538 6 Jur. 1110 462 ;
" Kestrel," The (1881), 6 P. D. 182 45 L. T. Ill 30 W. R. 182 4 Asp. M. C. ; ; ;
433 116, 117

Kettle V. Bromsall (1738), Willes, 118 533
Kettlewell r. Refuge Assurance Co,, [1907] 2 K. B. 242 76 L. J. (k. b.) 711 202 ; .
Keys V. Harwood (1846), 2 C. B. 905 15 L. J. (c. p.) 207 ; 556,

557
"Khedive," The (1882), 5 App. Cas. 876 7 App. Cas. 795 52 L. J. (p.) 1 47 ; ; ;
L. T. 198 31 W. R. 249
; 120,122
Kidd V. Home (1885), 2 T. L. R. 141 187
Kidderminster (Mayor of) v. Hardwick (1873), L. R. 9 Exch. 13 43 L. J. Tex.) ;
9 29 L. T. 612 22 W. R. 160
"
; ; 155,181
Kiddill V. Farnell (1857), 3 Sm. & G. 428 26 L. J. (ch.) 818 3 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
786 5 W. R. 324
; 228
Kiddle v. Burnard (1842), 9 M. & W. 669 1 Car. & M. 291 11 L. J. (ex.) 268 ; ;
;
6 Jur. 327 390

Kilgour V. Finlyson (1789), 1 Hy. BL 156 202
Kilsby V. WiUiams (1822), 5 B. & Aid. 819 1 D. & R. 476 591, 605 ; . . . .
Kimber v. Barber (1872), 8 Ch. App. 56 27 L. T. 526 21 W. R. 65 190, 536 ; ; . .
V. Press Association, [1893] 1 Q. B. 65 62 L. J. (q. b.) 152 67 L. T. ; ;
515 41 W. R. 17 57 J. P. 247 4 R. 95
; ; ;
13
Kimberley v. Dick (1871), L. R. 13 Eq. 1 41 L. J. (ch.) 38 25 L. T. 476 20 ; ; ;
W. R. 49 480
King V. Anderson (1874), 8 Ir. R. Eq. 147 189
V. Bowen (1841), 8 M. & W. 625 10 L. J. (ex.) 433 ; 475
V. Eversfield, [1897] 2 Q. B. 475 66 L. J. (q. b.) 809 77 L. T. 195 46 ; ; ;
W. R. 51 259
V. Hoare (1844), 13 M. & W. 494 .641 .
V. Joseph (1814), 5 Taunt. 452 448

V. Leith (1787), 3 Term Rep. 141 235
V. Smith, [1900] 2 Ch. 425 69 L. J. (ch.) 598 82 L. T. 815;
159 ; . . .
King of the Two Sicilies v. Wilcox. See Sicilies, Two (King of) t-. Wilcox.
Kinge v. Fines (1662), Sid. 59 1 Keb. Ill, 166 ; 470
Kingsbury v. Collins (1827), 4 Bing. 202 5 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.) 151 282 ; . . .
Kingston, Ex parte, Be Gross (1871), 6 Ch. App. 632 40 L. J. (bcy.) 91 25 ; ;
L. T. 250 19 W. R. 910
: 226, 584, 621
Kinloch v. Craig (1790), 3 Term Rep. 783 4 Bro. P. C. 47 198 ;
V. Secretary of State for India (1882), 7 App. Cas. 619 51 L. J. (ch.) ;
885 47 L. T. 133 30 W. R. 845

; ; 18, 223
Kinlyside v. Thornton (1776), 2 Wm. Bl. 1111 41
cliv Table of Cases.
PAGE
Kinnaird (Lord) Field (No. 2), []905] 2 Ch. 361 74 L. J. (ch.) 692 93L.T.
v. ; ;
190 54 W. R. 85 21 T. L. R. 682
; ; 4
Kinnear v. Midland Rail. Co. (1868), 19 L. T. 387 548
Kirby v. Great Western Rail. Co. (1868), 18 L. T. 658 151
" Kirby Hall," The (1883), 8 P. D. 75 52 L. J. (adm.) 31 48 L. T. 797 31 ; ; ;
W. R. 658 5 Asp. M. L. C. 90
; 101
Kirk V. Bell (1851), 16 Q. B. 290 160
V. Evans (1890), 6 T. L. R. 9 194
Kirkham v. Peel (1881), 44 L. T. 195 28 W. R. 941 189
;
Kirkleatham Local Board and Stockton and Middlesborougli Water Board, Be,
[1893] 1 Q. B. 375 62 L. J. (q. b.) 180 67 L. T. 811 57 J. P. 421
; 467 ; ; . .
Kirkman v. Booth (1848), 11 Beav. 273 18 L. J. (ch.) 25 13 Jur. 525 516 ; ; . .
Kirkstall Brewery v. Furness Rail. Co. (1874). L. R. 9 Q. B. 468 43 L. J. (q. b.) ;
142 30 L. T. 783 22 W. R. 876

; ; 215 . .
'
Kirwan v. Goodman (1841), 9 Dowl. 330 5 Jur. 293 166 ;
Kissam v. Link, [1896] 1 Q. B. 574 65 L. J. (q. b.) 433 74 L. T. 368 44 ; ; ;
W. R. 452 645
Kitchen v. TurnbuU (1872), 20 W. R. 253 454
Kitts V. Moore, [1895] 1 Q. B. 253 64 L. J. (ch.) 152 71 L. T. 676 43 W. R. 84 446
; ; ;
Kleinwort v. The Cassa Marittima of Genoa (1877), 2 App. Cas. 156 36 L. T. ;
118 25 W. R. 608 3 Asp. M. C. 358

; ; . . . . . .66
V. Comptoir National d'Escompte de Paris, [1894] 2 Q. B. 157 63 ;
L. J. (Q. B.) 674 10 R. 259 ; 596

Knight V. Bowyer (1858), 2 De G. & J. 421 27 L. J. (ch.) 521 4 Jar. (n. s.) ; ;
569 6 W. R. 565
; 54, 55
V. Parnaby (1706). 2 Salk. 670 50
V. North Metropolitan Tramways Co. (1898), 14 T. L. R. 286 78 L. T. ;
227 165, 166, 175

Knight and the Tabernacle etc. Building Society, Re, [1892] 2 Q. B. 613 62 ;
L. J. (Q. B.) 33 67 L. T. 403 41 W. R. 35

; : 464, 466, 471
Knights V. Wiffen (1870), L. R. 5 Q. B. 660 40 L. J. (q. b.) 51 23 L. T. 610 ; ; ;
19 W. R. 244 617
Knott V. Long (1736), 2 Stra. 1025 471, 480
Knowles v. Blake (1829), 5 Bing. 499 3 M. & P. 214 7 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.) 228 385
; ; .
V. Bolton Corporation. [1900] 2 Q. B. 253 69 L. J. (q. b.) 481 82 ; ;
L. T. 229 48 W. R. 433 ;
464
V. Haughton (1805), 11 Ves. 168 187
Knox V. Gye (1871), L. R. 5 H. L. 656 42 L. J. (ch.) 234 188 ;
V. Symmonds (1791), 1 Ves. Jun. 369 3 Bro. C. C. 358 461, 462 ; . . .
" Knutsford," The, [1891] P. 219 64 L. T. 352 39 W. R. 559 ; 102 ; . . . .
" Kong Magnus," The (No. 63 L. T. 715 6 Asp. M. C. 583

1), [1891] P. 223 ; ; .
72. 120 '
Korten v. West Sussex County Council (1903), 72 L. J. (k. b.) 514; 88 L. T.

466 67 J. P. 167 1 L. G. R. 445
; ;
290
Kymer v. Laurie (1849), 18 L. J. (q. b.) 218 13 Jur. 426 614 ;
Kynaston v. Crouch (1845), 14 M. & W. 266 14 L. J. (ex.) 324 9 Jur. 584 235 ; ; .
L.
" La Bourgogne," La Compagnie Generale Transatlantique v. Thomas Law &
Co., [1899] A. C. 431 ; 68 L. J. (p.) 104 80 L. T. 845 8 Asp. M. C. 550 ; ; . 17,
148
La Cave v. Credit Lyonnais, [1897] 1 Q. B. 148 66 L. J. (q. b.) 226 ;
514
Lacey, Ex parte (1802). 6 Ves. 625 6 R. R. 9 ; .
-
.
V. Hill, Crowley's Claim (1870), L. R. 18 Eq. 182 .
" Lady of the Lake," The (1870), L. R. 3 A. & E. 29 .
Lagunas Nitrate Co. v. Lagunas Nitrate Syndicate, [1899] 2 Ch. 392

(CH.) 699 81 L. T. 334
; 48 W. R. 74 7 Mans. 165 ; ;
.
Laidler v. Foster (1825), 4 B. & C. 116

Laird v. Dobell, [1906] 1 K. B. 131 75 L. J. (k. b.) 163 93 L. T. ; ;
W. R. 506 4 L. G. R. 232 70 J. P. 62
; :
Lamb, Ex parte, Re Gibson (1887), 55 L. T. 817 .
V. Attenborough (1862), 1 B. & S. 831 31 L. J. (Q. b.) 41 ; ;
280 10 W. R. 211
;
V. Evans, [1893] 1 Ch. 218 62 L. J. (ch.) 404 68 L. T. 131 41

; ; ; W. R.
405
Table of Cases. civ
PAGE
Lambe v. Jones (1860), 9 C. B. (n. s.) 478 9 W. R. 202 :
. 474
Lamert v. Heath (1846), 15 M. & W. 486 4 Rail. Cas. 302 •
15 L. J. (ex.) 297
10 Jur. 481 186 !
L'Amie v. Wilson, [1907] 2 Ir. R. 130 646

.
.
Lamine v. Dorrell (1705), 2 Ld. Raym. 1216 37 . .
Lancashire Wagon Co. r. Fitshugh (1861), 30 L J. (EX.) 231 6 H. & 502 ; N ;
3 L. T. 703 520, 555

Lancaster v. Hemington (1835), 4 A. & E. 345 5 N. & M. 538 479 ; .
Land v. North (Lord) (1785), 4 Dougl. 266 311

Land Credit Co. v. Fermoy (1870), 5 Ch. App. 763 193 . . . .
Land Credit Co. of Ireland v. Lord Fermoy (1870), 5 Ch. App. 763 39 L. J [CH.) ;
477 23 L. T. 439 18 W. R. 1089

; ;
160, 594
Landauer v. Asser, [1905] 2 K. B. 184 74 L. J. (k. b.) 659 93 L. T. 20 53 :
; ;
W. R. 534 10 Com. Cas. 265 21 T. L. R. 429

; ; 479 .
Lands Allotments Co., Ee, [1894] 1 Ch. 616 63 L. J. (ch ) 291 70 L. T 286 ;
•
;
1 Mans. 107 42 W. R. 404 10 T. L. R. 234 7 R. 115

: ; 185 188 ;
Lane v. Cotton (1701), 1 Ld. Raym. 646 12 Mod. Rep. 472 18 : .
Langan v. Great Western Rail. Co. (1873), 30 L. T. 173 158, 161

Langhorn i\ Allnutt (1812), 4 Taunt. 511 13 R. R. 663 215 ; . .
Langston v. Corney (1815), 4 Camp. 176 224 .
Langton r. Waite (1868). L. R. 6 Eq. 165 37 L. J. (ch.) 345 18 L. T. 81 16 ; :
W. R. 500 208, 209

Langtry r. Union Bank (1896), Journal of Institute of Bankers, Vol. XVII.,
p 338 628
Lanphier v. Phipos (1838), 8 C. & P. 475 560
Lapraik v. Burrows (1859), 13 Moo. P. C. C. 132 180 .
Lara v. Hill (1863), 15 C. B. (n. b.) 45 194

Larios v. Gurety (1874), L. R. 5 P. C. 346 632
Larkin v. Lloyd (1891), 64 L. T. 507 486
Latham v. Atwood (1636), Cro. (Car.) 515 282
Laugher v. Laugher (1831), 1 Dowl. 284 1 C. & J. 398 1 Tyr. 352 475 ; ;
Lavell r. Ritchings. [1906] 1 K. B. 480 75 L. J. (k. b.) 287 94 L. T. 515 54 ; ;
W. R. 394 22 T. L. R. 316
: 252
Law r. Garrett (1878), 8 Ch. D. 26 37 L. T. 602 38 L. T. 3 26 W. R. 426 454, 455
; ; ;
V. Llewellyn. [1906] 1 K. B. 487 75 L. J. (k. b.) 320 94 L. T. 359 54 ; ; .
W. R. 368 70 J. P. 220
; 13
Lawford r. Billericay Rural Council, [1903] 1 K. B. 772 72 L. J. (k. b.) 554; ;
88 L. T. 517 51 W. R. 630 67 J. P. 245 1 L. G. R. 535

; 155 ; ;
V. Harris (1896), 12 T. L. R. 275 232

Lawrence r. Hodgson (1826), 1 Y. & J. 16 463, 468, 479
Laws V. Eltringham (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 283 51 L. J. (m.c.) 13 46 L. T. 64 30 ; ; ;
W. R. 245 15 Cox, C. C. 22 46 J. P. 230

; ; 284
r. Rand (1857), 3 C. B. (n. s.) 442 27 L. J. (c. p.) 76 4 Jur. (n. s.) 74 ; ; ;
6W. R 127 603

Lax Corporation of Darlington (1879), 5 Ex. D. 28 49 L. J. (ex.) 105 41 ;
L. T. 481 15
Layton v. Hurry (1846), 8 Q. B. 811 15 L. J. (q. b.) 244 10 Jur. 616 ; 384 ;
Lea T. Facey (1887), 22 Q. B. D. ,352 56 L. J. (q. b.) 532 35 W. R. 721 : 25 ; .
Leadbitter v. Farrow (1816), 5 M. & S. 345 169

V. Marylebone Corporation, [1904] 2 K. B. 893 73 L. J. (k. b.) 1013 ; ;
91 L. T. 639 53 W. R. 118 68 J. P. 566 20 T. L. R. 778

; : 469 ; .
Leary v. Patrick (1850), 15 Q. B. 266 4 New Sess. Cas. 258 19 L. J. (m. c.) ; ;
211 14 Jur. 932

;
26
Leather Manufacturers' Bank v. Morgan (1885), 117 U. S. 96 617, 620 . . .
Le Brett r. Papillon (1804), 4 East, 502 20, 21

Le Caux v. Eden (1781), 2 Dougl. 594 60
Leek V. Maester (1807), 1 Camp. 138 560
" Leda," The (1856), Swa. (adm.) 40 2 Jur. (n. s.) 119 4 W. R. 322 ; 74 ; . .
Lee, Re, Ex parte Neville (1869), 4 Ch. App. 43 19 L. T. 435 17 W. R. 108 186 ; ; .
v. Atkinson (1610), Yelv. 172 Cro. (Jac.) 236 1 Brownl. 217

; 550 ; . . .
V. Bayes and Robinson (1856), 18 C. B. 599 25 L. J. (c. p.) 249 2 Jur. ; ;
(N. s.) 1093 29, 521

V. Butler, [1893] 2 Q. B. 318 62 L. J. (q. b.) 591 69 L. T. 370 42 W. R.
; ; ;
— :
88 4 R. 563
;
V. Griffin (1861), 1 B. & S. 272 30 L. J. (q. b.) 252 7 Jur. (n. s.) 1302
; 4
554
; ;
L. T. 546 9 W. R. 702 ;
557
V. Hemingway (1834), 3 N. & M. 860 15 Q. B. 305 b 440 ;
V. Munn (1817), 8 Taunt. 45 1 Moo. C. P. 481 ; 19 R. R. 452 513 ; . . .

clvi Table of Cases.
PAGE
Lee V. Page (1861), 30 L. 857 7 Jur. (n. s.) 768 9 W. E, 754
J. (ch.) ; 445 ; . .
V. Eiley (1865), 18 C. B. (n. s.) 722 34 L. J. (c. p.) 212 11 Jur. (n. s.) 822 ; ;
;
12 L. T. 388 13 W. E. 51 ; 376, 377

V. Sankey (1872), L. E. 15 Eq. 204 ; 27 L. T. 809 21 W. E. 286 159, 187 ; .
V. Walker (1872), L. E. 7 C. P. 121 41 L. J. (c. p.) 91 26 L. T. 70 185, 186

; ; .
Leeds v. Burrows (1810), 12 East, 1 440

(Duke of) V. Earl Amherst (1846), 2 Ph. 117 10 Jur. 956 affirming 4 ; ;
Sim. 357 15 L. J. (ch. 351

; ) 179
Leeds Banking Company, Re (Howard's Case), (1866), 1 Ch. App. 561 14 L. T. ;
742 14 W. E. 992
; 169
Leeds and County Bank v. Walker (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 84 52 L. J. (q. b.) 590 ; ;
47 J. P. 502 571, 575

Leeds and Hanley Theatres of Varieties, Re, [1902] 2 Ch. 809; 72 L. J. (ch.)
1 87; L. T. 488 51 W. E.
; 5 190
Lees V. Nuttall (1834), 2 Myl. & K. 819 184
Leese v. Martin (1873), L. E. 17 Eq. 235 43 L. J. (ch.) 183 29 L. T. 742 22 ; ; ;
W. E. 230 562, 621, 627

Legg V. Evans (1840), 6 M. & W. 36 562
Legge V. Byas, Mosley & Co. (1901), 7 Com. Cas. 16, 19 165, 187, 210 . . .
V. Tucker (1856), 1 H. & N. 500 26 L. J. (ex.) 71 2 Jur. (n.s.) 1235 5

; ; ;
W. E. 78 49
Legget V. Finlay (1829), 6 Bing. 255 3 Moo. & P. 629 8 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.) 52
; 463 : .
Leggo V. Young (1855), 16 C. B. 626 24 L. J. (c. p.) 200 ; 468

Legh V. Lillie (1860), 6 H. & N. 165 30 L. J. (ex.) 25 9 W. E. 55 ; 249 ; . . .
V. Hewitt (1803), 4 East, 154 244, 246

Lehain v. Philpott (1875), L. E. 10 Exch. 242 44 L. J. (ex.) 225 33 L. T. 98 ; ;
;
23 W. E. 876 382
Leicester v. Grazebrook (1879), 40 L. T. 883 476
Leigh, Re, EowclifEe v. Leigh (1876), 3 Ch. D. 292 24 W. E. 782 487 ;
.. .
V. Brooks (1877), 5 Ch. D. 592 46 L. J. (ch.) 344 25 W. E. 401; 487 ; . .
Le Lievre v. Gould, [1893] 1 Q. B. 491 185

Lemaitre v. Davis (1881), 19 Ch. D. 281 51 L. J. (ch.) 173 46 L. T. 407 30 ; ; ;
W. E. 360 148
Leman v. Yorkshire Wagon Co. (1881), 50 L. J. (ch.) 293 29 W. E. 466 555 ; . .
Lemcke v. Vaughan (1824), 8 Moore, 646 ; 7 D. & E. 236 1 Bing. 473 312 ; . .
" Lemington," The (1874), 2 Asp. M. L. C. 475 32 L. T. 69 23 W. E. 422 72 ; ; .
Lemmon v. Webb, [1895] A. C. 1 64 L. J. (ch.) 205 71 L. T. 647 59 J. P.

; ; ;
564 11 E. 116
; 296
Lempriere r. Lange (1879), 12 Ch. D. 675 41 L. T. 378 27 W. E. 879 21 ; ; . .
Lennard v. Eobinson (1855), 5 El. & B. 125 24 L. J. (q. b.) 275 1 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
853 3 C. L. E. 1363
; 220
" Leon XIIL," The (1883), 8 P. D. 121 52 L. J. (adm.) 58 47L. T. 659; 48 ;
L. T. 770 5 Asp. M. C. 25, 73

;
70 .
Lepard v. Vernon (1813), 2 Ves. & B. 51 228, 233 .
Leslie, Ex parte, Re Guerrier (1882), 20 Ch. D. 131 51 L J. (CH.) 689; 46 ;
L. T. 548 30 W. E. 344 15 Cox, C. C. 125

; ;
29 .
V. Clifford (1884), 50 L. T. 590 . 188 .
Lethbridge v. Phillips (1819), 2 Stark. 544 528 . .
Leuckhart v. Cooper (1836), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 99 ; 3 Scott, 521 6 L. J. (c. p.) 131 547, ; .
548
Levi V. Anglo-Continental Gold Eeefs of Ehodesia, [1902] 2K. B. 481 71 L. J. ;
(K. B.) 789 86 L. T. 857 50 W. E. 625

; ;
4
V. Levi (1833), 6 C. & P. 239 512
Levita's Case, International Contract Co., Re (1870), 5 Ch. App. 489 39 L. J. ;
(CH.) 673 22 L. T. 395 18 W. E. 476

; ; 201
Levitt V. Hamblet, [1901] 2 K. B. 53 ; 70 L. J. (k. b.) 520 84 L. T. 638 6 ; ;
Com. Cas. 79 209

Lewin v. Holbrook (1843), 11 M. & W. 110 2 Dowl. (n. s.) 991 12 L. J. (ex.) 267 450, ; ; .
455
Lewis, Ex parte, Re Helder (1883), 24 Ch. D. 339 53 L. J. fcH.) 106 49 L. T.
612
V. Fermor (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 532 56 L. J. (m. c.) 45 56 L. T. 236 35
234
;
;
;
.... ;
W. E. 378 16 Cox, C. C. 176 51 J. P. 371

;
411 ;
V. Jones (1884), 49 J. P. 198 . 397

•
V. Levy (1858), El. B. & E. 537 27 L. J. (q. b.) 282 4 Jur. (n. s.) 970
;
;
;
6 W. E. 629 13
V. Nicholson (1852), 18 Q. B. 503 21 L. J. (q. b.) 311 16 Jur. 1041 220
; : .
V. Peake (1816), 7 Taunt. 153 2 Marsh. 431 ; 390

;
Table of Cases. clvii
PAGE
Lewis V. Kamsdale (1886), 55 L. T. 179 35 W. R. 8 ; 161, 162
V. Read (1845), 13 M. & W. 834 14 L. J. (ex.) 295 ; . . . . 175, 178,
203
r. Samuel
(1846), 8 Q. B. 685 15 L. J. (q. b.) 218 10 Jur. 429
; 197 ; . .
Leyland v. Tancred (1851), 16 Q. B. 664 19 L. J. (q. b.) 313 14 Jur. 695 9 ; ; .
Lichfield (Guardians of) v. Greene (1857), 26 L. J. (ex.) 140; 1 H. & N. 884 3 ;
Jur. (N. s.) 247 5 W. R. 370

; . . 574, 575 .
Lickbarrow v. Mason (1787), 5 Term Rep. 683 638

Liddard v. Kane (1824), 2 Bing. 183 9 Moore, 356 :
; 3 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.) 246 . 391
Lienard v. Dresslar (1862), 3 F. & F. 212 168
Liford's Case (1615), 11 Co. Rep. 52 a 296
Lilley v. Barnsley (1844), 2 Moo. & Rob. 548 1 Car. & K. 344 ; . . . . 559
V. Doubleday (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 510 51 L. J. (q. b.) 310 44 L. T. 814 ; ; ;
46 J. P. 708 183, 544, 629

V. Roney (1892), 61 L. J. (q. b.) 727 13
Lilly V. Hays (1836), 5 A. & E. 548 1 N. & P. 26 2 H. & W. 338 6 L. J.
; ; ;
(K. B.) 5 224

V. Smales, [1892] 1 Q. B. 456 40 W. R. 544 ; 222
Limpus V. London General Omnibus Co. (1862), 1 H. & C. 526 32 L. J. (ex.) ;
34 9 Jur. (n. s.) 333 7 L. T. 641 11 W. R. 149

; ; 202, 212, 553, ; . . 564
Linck V. Jameson (1886), 2 T. L. R. 206 210
-Linda Flor," The (1857), Swa. 309 4 Jur. (n. s.) 172 30 L. T. (o. s.) 234
; ; ;
6 W. R. 197 87
Lindus v. Bradwell (1848), 5 C. B. 583 17 L. J. (c. p.) 121 12 Jur. 230 ;169, ; . 208
Linford v. The Provincial Horse and Cattle Insurance Co. (1864), 34 Beav. 291
10 Jur. (n. s.) 1066 11 L. T. 330 ; 202
Lingood v. Fade (1742), 2 Atk. 501 459
Linsell v. Bonsor (1835), 2 Bing. (n. c.) 241 2 Scott, 399 1 Hodges, 305 ; ;
;
5 L. J. (c. p.) 40 215

Lister & Co. v. Stubbs (1890), 45 Ch. D. 1 59 L. J. (ch.) 570 63 L. T. 75 ; ;
;
38 W. R. 548 191
Little V. Newton (1841), 2 Man. & G. 351 2 Scott (n. e.) 159 9 Dowl. P. C. 437 ; ; ;
10 L. J. (c. p.) 88 5 Jur. 246 ; 459, 470, 480

" Little Joe," The (1860), Lush. 89 105
Liverpool Household Stores Association, Be (1890), 59 L. J. (ch.) 616 62 L. T. ;
873 2 Meg. 217

: 160
Livingston v. Ralli (1855), 5 E. & B. 132 24 L. J. (q. b.) 269 1 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
594 3 W. R. 488
; 441
"Lizzie," The (1868), L. R. 2 A. & E. 254 19 L. T. 71 3 Alar. L. Cas. 150 ; ; . 66
Llandrindod WeUs Water Co. v. Hawksley (1904), 20 T. L. R. 241 68 J. P. ;
242 472
Lloyd, Ee, [1903] 1 Ch. 385 72 L. J. (ch.) 78 87 L. T. 541 51 W. R. 177
; 5 ; ; .
V. Harris (1849), 8 C. B. 63 475

V. Mansel (1850), 19 L. J. (q. b.) 192 1 Lo. M. & P. 130 448 ; . . . .
Lloyd and Spittle, Re (1849), 6 D. & L. 531 .468

Lloyd and Tooth. Be, [1899] 1 Q. B. 559 68 L. J. (q. b.) 376 80 L. T. 394 266 ; ; .
Lloyd's Bank, Ltd. v. Cooke, [1907] 1 K. B. 794 205, 569, . . . . .
633, 635
Lloyd's V. Harper (1880), 16 Ch. D. 290 ; 50 L. J. (ch.) 140 ; 43 L. T. 481 ; 29
W. R. 452 .640
''Loch Maree," The (1895), cited in Roscoe, Admiralty Practice (3rd ed.), p.
340 97
Lock, Be, Ex parte Poppleton (1890), 62 L. T. 942 63 L. T. 320 39 W. R. 15 ; ; ;
7 M. B. R. 184 5
V. Pearce, [1893] 2 Ch. 271 62 L. J. (ch.) 582 68 L. T. 569 41 W. R.
; ; ;
369 2 R. 403 ;
4
V. Vulliamy (1833), 5 B. & Ad. 600 2 N. & M. 336 468 ;
Lockwood V. Abdy (1845), 14 Sim. 437 9 Jur. 267 ; 171, 172

v. Coysgarne (1765), 3 Burr. 1676 20
r. Levick (1860), 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 ;
194
Loeschman v. Machin (1818), 2 Stark. 311 556, 564
Logan V. Bank of Scotland, [1906] 1 K. B. 141 75 L. J. (k. b.) 218 94 L. T. ; ;
153 54 W. R. 270 22 T. L. R. 187

; ; 17
" London," The (No. 2), [1905] P. 152 74 L. J. (p.) 71 93 L. T. 393 53 ; ; ;
W. R. 419 21 T. L. R. 339
; 104, 126
London and Blackwall Rail. Co. v. Cross (1886), 31 Ch. D. 254 54 L. T. 309 ; ;
34 W. R. 201 446
clviii Table of Cases.
PAGE
London and County Banking Co. v. Groome (1881), 8 Q
B. D. 288 51 L. J. ;
(q. b.) 224 ; 46 L. T. 60 30 W. E. 382 ; ;
46 J. P. 614 592, 597

V. Eadcliffe (1881), 6 App. Cas. 722 ; 51 L. J.
(CH.) 28 ; 45 L. T. 322 ; 30 W. E. 109 198
London and Globe Financial Corporation, Be, [1902] 2 Ch. 416 ; 71 L. J. (ch.)
893 ; 87 L. T. 49 198, 547, 548, 621, 634
London and Lancashire Fire Insurance Co, v. The British America Assurance
Co. (1885), 52 L. T. 385
54 L. J. (q. b.) 302 ; 488
London and Mediterranean Bank, Be (1868), 3 Ch. App. 651 37 L. J, (ch.) ;
905 19 L. T. 193 16 W. E. 1003

; ; 170
London and Midland Bank v. Mitchell, [1899] 1 Ch. 161 68 L. J. (ch.) 568 ;
;
81 L. T. 263 47 W. E. 602 ; 636

London and North Western Eail. Co. v. J. H. Billington, [1899] A. C. 79 68 ;
L. J. (Q. B.) 162 79 L. T. 503 ; 444

London and Eiver Plate Bank v. Bank of Liverpool, [1896] 1 Q. B. 7 65 L. J. ;
(Q. B.) 80 73 L. T. 473 ; 615, 617, 618

London and Scottish Bank, Be, Ex imrte Logan (1870), L. E. 9 Eq. 149 21 ;
L. T. 742 18 W. E. 273 ; 195, 232

London and Yorkshire Bank v. Belton (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 457 54 L. J. (q. b.) ;
568 34 W. E. 31 50 J. P. 86
-
; ; 253, 388, . . . . . . . 547
London, Brighton and South Coast Eail. Co. v. Goodwin 3 Exch. 320,
(1849),
736 ; 6 Eail. Cas. 177 18 L.J. ;
(EX.) 337 .642 . . .
V. Truman (1885), 11 App. Cas. 45

55 L. J. (CH. ) 354 54 L. T. 250 34 W. E. 657 50 J. P. 388
:
London Chartered Bank of Australia v. M'Millan, [1892] A. C. 292 61 L, J.

14 ; ;
;
... ;
(p. c.) 44 64 L. T. 801 630 ; . . .
V. White (1879), 4 App. Cas. 413 48 L. J. ;
(p. c.) 75 198,631

London City and Midland Bank v. Gordon. See Gordon v. London City and
Midland Bank.
London County Council v. Edwards, [1898] 2 Q. B. 75 67 L. J. (q. b.) 648 :
;
62 J. P. 377
78 L. T. 558 ; 434
V. Hobbis (1896), 75 L. T. 687 45 W. E. 270 61 J. P. ; ;
85 170
London Dock The, and Shadwell (Trustees of the Poor of) (1862), 32 L. J.
Co.,
(Q. B.) 30 7 L. T. 381 11 W. E. 89. .466 ; : . .
V. Sinnott (1857), 8 El. & Bl. 347 27 L. J. (q. b.) 129 4 ; ;
Jur. (N. s.) 70 6 W. E. 165 ; 155

London Financial Association v. Kelk (1883), 26 Ch. D. 107 53 L. J. (CH.) ;
1025 50 L. T. 492
: 175
London Founders' Association v. Clarke (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 576 57 L. J. (q. b.) ;
291 59 L. T. 93 36 W. E. 489
: ;
207
London Freehold and Leasehold Property Co. v. Suffield (Lord), [1897] 2 Ch.
608 66 L. J. (ch.) 790 77 L. T. 445 46 W. E. 102
; ;
201 ;
London Joint Stock Bank v. Simmons, [1892] A. C. 201 61 L. J. (ch.) 723 ; ;
62 L. T. 625 41 W. E. 108 8 T. L. E. 478

; 199, 202, 204, 635
: . . . .
London Eoad Car Co. v. Harrison (1900), 44 Sol. Jour. 424 419
Long V. Great Northern and City Eail. Co., [1902] 1 K. B. 813 71 L. J. (k. b.) ;
598 86 L. T. 440 50 W. E. 402

; ; 451
c. Millar (1879), 4 C. P. D. 450 48 L. J. (c. p.) 596 27 W. E. 720 219 ; ; . .
Longchamp v. Kanny (1779), 1 Doug. 137 37

"Longford," The (1881), 6 P. D. 63 50 L. J. (adm.) 28 44 L. T. 254 29 ; ; ;
W.'E. 491 4 Asp. M. C. 385 ;

93
(1888), 14 P. D. 34 58 L. J. (p.) 33 60 L. T. 373 37 W. E. ; ; ;
372 6 Asp. M. C. 371

;
4
Longman v. East (1877), 3 C. P. D. 155 47 L. J. (c. p.) 211 38 L. T. 1 26 ; ; ;
W\ E. 183 490
Lonsdale (Earl of) v. Nelson (1823), 2 B. & C. 311 3 D. & E. 566 296 ; . . .
(Lord) V. Eigg (1856), 11 Exch. 654 25 L. J. (ex.) 73 26 L. T. 242 368 ; ;
Lord V. Hall (1848), 2 C. & K. 698 170

V. Kellett (1833), 2 My. & K. 1 156
V. Lee (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 404 9 B. & S. 269 37 L. J. (q. b.) 121 16 ; ; ;
W. E. 856 464
Lord and Lord, Be (1855), 5 E. & B. 404 26 L. J. (q. b.) 34 1 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
893 3 W. E. 553
; 456, 470, 480
" Lord Hobart," The (1815), 2 Dods. 105
-
69 . .
Table of Cases. clix
PAGE
Lord Warden, The, and Admiral of the Cinque Ports v. The King (1831), 2
Hagg. 43S 139
"Lotus," The (1881), 7 P. D. 199 47 L. T. 447 30 W. K. 892 4 Asp. M. C.
; ; ;
595 96
Louis r. Smellie (1895), 73 L. T. 226 : 11 T. L. R. 515
184
Love c. Honevbourne (1824), 4 D. & R. 814 443, 469, 479
V. Mack (1905), 93 L. T. 352 . 153, 181
. .
Lowe V. Adams, [1901] 2 Ch. 598 70 L. J. (ch.) 783 85 L. T. 195 50 W. R.

; : ;
37 367
V. Dorling, [1906] 2 K. B. 772 75 L. J. (k. b.) 1019 95 L. T. 243 22
; ; ;
T. L. R. 779 225
V. Great Northern Rail. Co. (1893), 62 L. J. (q. b.) 524 5 R. 535 165 ; . .
Lowndes v. Fountain (1855), 11 Exch. 487 25 L. J. (ex.) 49 4 W. R. ; ;
152 248
Lowther v. Lowther (1806), 13 Ves. 95 189
Loyd r. Freshfield (1826), 2 C. & P. 324 8 D. & R. 19 643 ;
Lubbock i: Tribe (1838), 3 M. & W. 607; 1 Horn. & H. 160; 7 L. J. (ex.)

158 591
Lucas r. Dorrien (1817), 7 Taunt. 279 1 Moore, 29 ; 621
.
V. Fitzgerald (1903), 20 T. L. R. 16 160, 183
V. Godwin (1837), 2 Bing. (n. c.) 737 4 Scott, 502 3 Hodges, 114 6 L. J. ; ; ;
(c. p.) 205 560

V. Mason (1875), L. R. 10 Exch. 251
W. R. 924
V. Pettit (1907), 12 Ontario L. R. 448
44 L. J. (ex.) 145 33 L. T. 13 23
123 L. T. Journ. p. 33
167
375
;
;
;
.... . .
;
V. Williams (1856), 1 H. & N. 420 26 L. J. (ex.) 13 5 W. R. 197 177 ; ; . .
Lucy V. Walrond (1837), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 848 5 Scott, 46 3 Hodges, 215 178 ; ; . .
Ludbrook v. Barrett (1879), 46 L. J. (c. p.) 798 36 L. T. 616 25 W. R. 649 459 ; ; .
Luddy"s Trustees v. Peard (1886), 33 Ch. D. 500 55 L. J. (ch.) 884 55 L. T, ; ;
137 35 W. R. 44
: 189
Ludgater v. Love (1881), 44 L. T. 694 45 J. P. 600 ; 211, 214
Ludlow (Mayor of) v. Charlton (1840), 6 M. & W. 815 8 C. & P. 242 10 L. J. ; ;
(ex.) 75 4 Jur. 657; 155

Lumley v. Nicholson (1886), 34 W. R. 716 195, 516
V. Ravenscroft, [1895] 1 Q. B. 683 64 L. J. (q. b.) 441 72 L. T. 382 ; ; ;
43 W. R. 584 59 J. P. 277 14 R. 347

; : 21
Lund V. Campbell (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 821 490
V. Hudson (1843), 1 D. & L. 236 12 L. J. (q. b.) 365 7 Jur. 992 ; 474 ; . .
Lupton V. White (1808), 15 Ves. 432 187, 542

Lury V. Pearson (1857), 1 C. B. (n. s.) 639 452
Luscombe v. Great Western Rail. Co., [1899] 2 Q. B. 313 68 L. J. (q. b.) 711 ;
;
81 L. T. 183 . . 377
Lutscher v. Comptoir d'Escompte de Paris (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 709 34 L. T. 798 ; ;
3 Asp. M. C. 209 624

Lutterell v. ReyneU (1670), 1 Mod. Rep. 282 28
Lybbe v. Hart (1885), 29 Ch. D. 8 54 L. J. (ch.) 860 52 L. T. 634 ; 275 ; . . .
LyeU X. Kennedy (1889), 14 App. Cas. 437 59 L. J. (q. b.) 268 62 L. T. 77 38 ; ; ;
W. R. 353 177, 192

Lyles V. Southend-on-Sea Corporation, [1905] 2 K. B. 1 74 L. J. (k. b.) 484 ; ;
92 L. T. 586 69 J. P. 193 3 L. G. R. 691 21 T. L. R. 389

; ; 25, 49 ; . .
Lyon V. Fishmongers' Co. (1876), 1 App. Cas. 662 46 L. J. (ch.) 68 35 L. T. ; ;
569 25 W. R. 165
; 9
V. Johnson (1889), 40 Ch. D. 579 58 L. J. (ch.) 626 60 L. T. 223 37 ; ; ;
W. R. 427 453, 454

Lyons v. Elliott (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 210 45 L. J. (q. b.) 159 33 L. T. 806 24 ; ; ;
W. R. 296 206, 520, 547, 555

V. Martin (1838), 8 A. & E. 513 3 N. & P. 509 7 L. J. (q. b.) 214 ;1 ; ;
W. W. & H. 500 381

Lyons (Mayor of) v. East India Co. (1836), 1 Moo. P. C. C. 286 313 . . . .
Lythgoe v. Vernon (1860), 29 L. J. (ex.) 164 2 H. & N. 180 178 ; . . . .
M.
Maas Pepper, [1905] A. C. 102 74 L.
v. ; J. (k. b.) 452 ; 92 L. T. 371 ; 53 W. R.
513 12 Mans. 107
;
21 T. L. R. 304; 554, 555
Macalpine v. Calder, [1893] 1 Q. B. 545 ; 62 L. J. (q. b.) 607 ; 68 L. T. 425 ;
41 W. R. 436 480, 484

clx Table of Cases.
PAGE
McArdle v. Irish lodme and Marine Salts Manufacturing Co. (1864), 15 Ir. C.
L. R. 146 169
M' Arthur v. Campbell (1833), 5 B. & Ad. 518 ; 2 N. & M.
444 . . . 470
V. (1834), 2 Ad. & El. 52 ; 4 N. & M.
208 4 L. J. (k. b.) 25 ; 474
Macartney v. Garbutt (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 368 ; 62 L. T. 368 38 W. B. 559 54 ; ;
J. P. 437 20
Macbeath v. Ellis (1828), 4 Bing. 578 232
Macbeth v. Haldimand (1786), 1 Term Rep. 172 18, 220
North and South Wales Bank, [1906] 2 K. B. 718
V. ; 75 L. J. (k. b.)
1026 11 Com. Cas. 293
; 608, 614
McCall V. Australian Meat Co. (1870), 19 W. R. 188 '
235
MacCarthy v. Young (1861), 6 H. & N. 329 30 L. J. (ex.) 227 ; ; 3 L. T. 785 ; 9
W.R. 439 539, 550
MacClure v. Schemell (1871), 20 W. R. 168 210
McCollin V. Gilpin (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 516 44 L. T. 914 ; ; 29 W. R. 408 ; 45 J. P.
820 220, 221
McCombie v. Davies (1805), 7 East, 5 203, 204
MoConnell v. Hector (1802), 3 Bos. & P. 114 20, 310, 311
Macdonald v. Tacquah Gold Mines Co. (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 539 ; 53 L. J. (q. b.)
376 51 L. T. 210 32 W. R. 760
; ; 47
M'Donnell, ^.x _parê (1819), Buck, 399 234
McDougal V. Robertson (1827), 4 Bing. 435 ; 1 M. & P. 147 ; 2 Y. & J. 11 . 443,
444, 450
Macdougall v. Knight (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 1 ; 59 L. J. (q. b.) 517 ; 63 L. T. 43 ;
38 W. R. 553 P. 788
; 54 J. 13
McEntire v. Crossley, [1895] A. C. 457 ; 64 L. J. (p. c.) 129 ; 72 L. T. 731 ; 2
Mans. 334 11 R. 207 ; 554
V. Potter (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 438 60 L. T. 600 37 W. R. 607 ; ; . . 225
McGowan v. Dyer (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 141 21 W. R. 560 ; . . . . 202
V. Middleton (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 464 52 L. J. (q. b.) 355 31 W. R. ; ;
835 4
M'Harg Universal Stock Exchange (1895), 11 T. L. R. 409
v. . . . . 446
Mclntyre r. Belcher (1863), 14 C. B. (n. s.) 654 32 L. J. (c. p.) 254 10 Jur. ; ;
(N. s.) 239 8 L. T. 461 11 W. R. 889 232, 294

;
McKay v. Buffalo City (1876), 9 Hun. (N. Y.) 401 74 N. Y. 619

;
McKay's Case, Morvah Consols Tin Mining Co., Be (1875), 2 Ch. D. 1 45 L. J.

; .. . 214
;
(CH.) 148 33 L. T. 517 24 W. R. 49

; ; 190, 191
Mackay v. Commercial Bank of New Brunswick (1874), L. R. 5 C. P. 394 43 ;
30 L. T. 180 22 W. R. 473
— L. J. (p. c.) 31
V. Dick (1881), 6 App. Cas. 251
V. Ford (1860), 5 H. & N. 792 ; 29 L. J. (ex.) 404
; 212,
6 Jur. (n. s.) 587

; . . . . 545
559
;
;
2 L. T. 514 8 W. R. 586 ; 13
M-Kean v. M'lvor (1871), L. R. 6 Exch. 36 40 L. J. (ex.) 30 24 L. T. 559 ; ; . 628
MacKenna, Ex parte (1861). 3 De G. F. & J. 629 633
Mackenzie v. British Linen Co. (1881), 6 App. Cas. 82 44 L, T. 431 29 W. R. ; ;
477 174, 166, 617, 620

V. Cox (1840), 9 C. & P. 632 545
V. Johnston (1819), 4 Madd. 373 182
McKenzie v. Hancock (1826), Ry. & M. 436 392
Mackersy v. Ramsays, Bonars & Co. (1843), 9 CI. & P. 818 171, 172, 193, 590. . 598
McKone v. Wood (1831), 5 C. & P. 1 374
Maclae v. Sutherland (1854), 3 E.& B. 1 ; 23 L. J. (q. b.) 229 ; 2 C. L. R. 1320 ;
18 Jur. 942 2 W. R. 161 ; 165, 175

Maclean v. Dunn (1820), 4 Bing. 722 1 ; M. & P. 761 ; 6 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.) 184 175,
.
178, 180
McLean v. Monk (1898), 77 L. T. 663 62 J. P. 180 18 Cox, 0. C. 686
; ; . . 423
" McLeod," The (1880), 5 P. D. 254 50 L. J. (adm.) 6 29 W. R. 34
; ; . . 70, 196
MacLeod v. Power, [1898] 2 Ch. 295 641
McManus v. Fortescue and Branson, [1907] 2 K. B. 1 23 T. L. R. 292 76 L. J.
; ;
(K. b.) 393 . 185, 186, 222, 301, 503, 510, 518
McMuUen v. Helberg (1879), 6 L. R. 463 505
McPherson v. Watt (1877), 3 App. Cas. 254 189
Macqueen and Nottingham Caledonian Society, Be (1861), 9 C. B. (n. s.) 793 . 461
M'Rae v, M'Lean (1853), 2 E. & B. 946 ; 2 C. L. R. 391 18 Jur. 244 ; ; 2 W. R.
63 . 478
Madden v. Kempster (1807), 1 Camp. 12 198
V. Kensington Vestry, [1892] 1 Q. B. 614; 61 L. J. (q. b.) 527; 66
L. T. 347 ; 49 W. R. 390 ; 56 J. P. 471 26
— ;;
Table of Cases. clxi
PAGE
Maddick Marshall (1864), 17 C. B. (n. s.) 829 10 Jur. (n. s.) 1201 11 L. T.
v. ; ;
611 13 W. R. 205
: .159 . .
" Madelaine and Andre Theodore," The (1904), 73 L. J. (p). 24 89 L. T. 675 9 ; ;
Asp. M. C. 508 20 T. L. R. 83 : 107

Magdaleua Steam Navigation Co, Be (1860), 29 L. J, (ch.) 667 Johns. 690 6 ; ;
Jur. (n. s.) 975 8 W. R. 329 175 ; . . .
V. Martin (1859). 28 L. J. (q. b.) 310 2 El. & ;
El. 94 5 Jur. (n.

: s.) 1260 7 W. R. 598 ; . .
'
. . . . .20
Magee v. Atkinson (1837), 2 M. & W. 440 6 L. J. (ex.) 115 219
..
; . . . .
" Magna Charta," The (1871). 1 Asp. M. L. C. 153 25 L. T. 512 101 ; .
Mag-nus i'. Queensland National Bank (1888), 37 Ch. D.466 57 L. J. (ch.) 413 ; ;
58 L. T. 248 36 W. R. 577 : 226 .
Mahony v. East Holyford Mining Co. (1875), L. R. 7 H. L. 869 33 L. T. 338 :

;
Ir. R. 9 C. L. 306 201 . . .
V. Kekule (1854), 14 C. B. 390 23 L. J. (c. p.) 54 18 Jur. 313 2 W. R. ; ; ;
155 2 C. L. R. 343
: 220
'•Maid of Kent," The (1881), 6 P. D. 178 50 L. J. (adm.) 71 45 L. T. 718 29 ; ; ;
W. R. 897 4 Asp. M. C. 476; 103, 118

Mainprice v. Westley (1865), 34 L. J. (q. b.) 229 6 B. & S. 420 11 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
975 13 L. T. 560
; 14 W. R. 9 ; 511, 518 . . . . . . . .
Mainwaring v. Brandon (1818), 2 Moo. 125 191

Maitland v. Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London and China (1869), 38
L. J. (ch.) 363 12 L. T. 372 2 Hem. & M. 440
; ; 164, 623 '
Makepeace v. Rogers (1865), 4 De G. J. & S. 649 11 Jur. (n. s.) 314 34 L. J. ; ;
(ch.) 396 12 L. T. 221 13 W. R. 566

; ; 182, 188
Malcolm r. Scott (1850), 5 Exch. 601 224
Malcolm Flinn & Co. v. Hoyle (1893), 63 L. J. (q. b.) 1 209
Maleverer v. Spinke (1537). Dyer, 35 b, 36 b 12
Mallocke V. Eastly (1685),'3 Lev. 227 3 Salk. 291 : 366
INIallough V. Barber (1815), 4 Camp. 150 183, 186
Malmesbury Rail. Co. v. Budd (1876), 2 Ch. D. 113 45 L. J. (ch.) 271 453 ; . .
Maltby v. Christie (1795j, 1 Esp. 340 514

Malvern Urban District Council v. Malvern Link Gas Co. (1900), 83 L. T. 326 471 .
Manby, Re (1857), 26 L. J. (ch.) 313 3 Jur. (n. s.) 259 ; 156

Manchester Carriage and Tramway Co., Ltd., The r. The Svînton, etc. Urban
District Council, Re, [1906] A. C. 277 ; 75 L. J. (k. b.) 839 93 L. T. 821 :
70 J. P. 81 4 L. G. R. 214 22 T. L. R. 154
; ; 468
Manchester. Sheffield and Lincolnshire Rail. Co. v. Denaby Main Colliery Co.
(1884), 14 Q. B. D. 209 5
Manchester Ship Canal Co. v. S. Pearson & Son, Ltd., [1900] 2 Q. B. 606
69 L. J. (Q. b.) 852 83 L. T. 45 48 W. R. 689 ;
INIander, Ex parte Re the Official Receiver (1902), 86 L. T. 234

442,452,457
234
; .... . . .
;
Mann v. Edinburgh Northern Tramways Co., [1893] A. C. 69 62 L. J. (p. c.) ;
74 68 L. T. 96 57 J. P. 245
: ; 174
V. Forrester (1814), 4 Camp. 60 198, 199
Mansel r. Norton (1883), 22 Ch. D. 769 52 L. J. (ch.) 357 48 L. T. 654 ; ;
31 W. R. 325 246
Mansell r. Clements (1874), L. R. 9 0. P. 139 195
Manser v. Back (1848), 6 Hare, 443 230, 504,
510
Heaver (1832), 3 B. & Aid. 295
V. 470, 480
Mansfield Union (Guardians of) v. Wright (1882), 9 Q. B, D. 686 ; 47 L. T.
602 ; 31 W. R. 312 486
Manson r. Baillie (1855), 2 Macq. 80 194
V. Hope (1862), 4 B. & S. 498 31 L. J. (m. c.) 191 8 Jur. (n. s.) 971; ; ;
6 L. T. 326 10 W. R. 664 ; . . . 502

" Maplin Sands," The, Be (1894), 71 L. T. 594 491
Marcussen v. Birkbeck Bank (1887), Journal of Institute of Bankers, Vol. XL, 403 . 616
Mare r. Charles (1856), 6 E. & B. 978 25 L. J. (q. b.) 119 2 Jur. (n. s.) 234 ; ; ;
4 W. R. 267 221
"Marechal Suchet," The [1896], P. 233; 65 L. J. (p.) 94; 74 L. T. 789; 45
W. R. 141
"Margaret Mitchell," The (1858), Swa. 382; 4 Jur. (n. s.) 1193
" Margery," The, [1902] P. 157 71 L. J. (p.) 83 86 L. T. 863 50 W. R. 654
; ; ;
.... .
81
231
442
Margetson r. Wright (1831), 7 Bing. 603 (1832), 8 Bing. 454 5 M. & P. 606 ; ;
1 M. & Sc. 622 1 L. J. (c. p.) 128 ; 389

" Maria," The (1839), 1 W. Rob. 95 214
Maria v. Hall (1807), 1 Taunt. 33, n 21, 310
H.L. 1. I
;
clxii Table of Cases.
PAGE
"Maria Das Dorcas," The (1863), Br. & L. 27 ; 32 L. J. (adm.) 163 ; 7 L. T.
838 11 W. E. 500
; 99
Maries v. Maries (1853), 23 L. J. (ch.) 154 2 Eq. Eep. 361 2 W. E. 635 ; ; . 156
"Marion," The (1884), 10 P. D. 4 54 L. J. (adm.) 8; 51 L. T. 906; 33 W. E.
;
432 5 Asp. M. L. C. 339

; 64
"Mariposa," The, [1896] P. 273 65 L. J. (p.) 104 75 L. T. 54
; ; . . . 158
Markham v. Cobb (1626), 1 Jones, 147 Latch, 144 : 28
" Markland," The (1871), L. E. 3 A. & E. 340 24 L. T. 596 1 Asp„ M. C. 44 ; ; . 92
Markwick v. Hardingham (1880), 15 Ch. D, 339 43 L. T. 647 29 W. E. 361 ; ; . 153,
192, 234
Marlor v. Ball (1900), 26 T. L. E. 239 374, 375
Marner v. Banks (1867), 16 W. E. 62 17 L. T. 147 ;
556
Marsack v. Webber (1860), 6 H. & N. 1 4 L. T. 553 ; 473
Marsden v. City and County Assurance Co. (1865), L. E. 1 C. P. 232 ; 1 H. & E.
53 ; 35 L. J. (c. p.) 12 Jur. (n. s.) 76 13 L. T. 465 14 W. E. 106
60 ; ; ; . 236
Marsh v. Jelf (1862). 2 F. &
F. 234 182, 196, 504
V. Josephs, [1897] 1 Ch. 213; 66 L. J. (ch.) 128 75 L. T. 558 45 W. E. ; ;
209 13 T. L. E. 136
; 175, 178, 179
_ r. Keating (1834), 1 Bing. (n. c.) 198; 1 Scott, 5 2 CI. & F. 250; ;
8 Bligh (N. s.) 851 . . 29, , 203

V. Wood (1829), 9 B. & C. 659 4 M. & E. 504 7 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) ; ;
327 444, 449, 451

Marshal Cruttwell (1875), D. E. 20 Eq. 328 44 L. J. (ch.) 504
v. ; . . . 604
Marshall t. Green (1875), 1 C. P. D. 35 45 L. J. (c. p.) 153 24 W. E. 175 293,;
;'
. 294
V. Murgatroyd (1870). L. E. 6 Q. B. 31 40 L. J. (m. c.) 7 23 L. T. ; ;
393 19 W. E. 72; 303

V. National Provincial Bank (1892), 61 L. J. (ch.) 465 66 L. T. 525 ; ;
40 W. E. 328 204
V. Parsons (1841), 9 C. & P. 656 194
Marshall and Dresser, JRe (1842), 3 Q. B. 878 3 G. & D. 253 12 L. J. (Q. b.) ; ;
104 469
" Marshfield," The (1886), 32 Ch. D. 499 645
Marten v. Eocke, Eyton & Co. (1885), 53 L. T. 946; 34 W. E. 253 204, . . 513
Martin v. Burge. See Mortin v. Burge.
V. Coggan (1824), 1 Hog. 120 284
V. Coulman (1834), 4 L. J. (k. b.) 37 245
Martini r. Coles (1813), 2 M. & S. 140 167
Martinius v. Helmuth (1815), Coop. 245 2 Ves. & B. 412, n. ; . . . . 513
Martins v. Upcher (1842), 3 Q. B. 662 26
Marzetti v. Williams (1830), 1 B. & Aid. 415 .8, 591, 602, 605, . . . 608
Mason v. Armitage (1806), 13 Ves. 25 9 E. E. 131 ;
512
V. Birkenhead Improvement Commissioners (1860), 6 H. & N. 72 29 ;
L. J. (EX.) 407 26
V. Clifton (1863), 3 F. & F. 899 172, 173, 180
V. Haddan (1859), 6 C. B. (n. s.) 326 453
V. Josephs (1804), 1 Smith, 406 170
V. Keeling (1700), 1 Ld. Eaym. 606; 12 Mod. Eep. 332 372, 373, . . 395
V. Newland (1840), 9 C. & P. 575 384
V. Wirral Highway Board (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 459; 48 L. J. (q. b.) 679 ;
27 W. E. 676 5
Mason, Ltd. v. Lovatt (1907), 23 T. L. E. 486 491
Massey v. Aubry (1652), Styles, 365 469
V. Banner (1820), 4 Madd. 413 1 Jac. & W. 241 ;
536
V. Davies (1794), 2 Ves. 317 190
V. GoodaU (1851), 17 Q. B. 310 20 L. J. (q. b.) 526 15 Jur. 991 ; ; . . 248
V. Heynes (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 330; 57 L. J. (q. b.) 521 36 W. E. 834 ;
59 L. T. 470 222
V. Morris, [1894] 2 Q. B. 412; 63 L. J. (m. c.) 185; 70 L. T. 873 42 ;
W. E. 638 58 J. P. 673 10 E. 342

; ;
218
Master v. Miller (1791), 4 Term Eep. 340 2 Hy. Bl. 141 1 Anstr. 225 ; ; . . 51
Masters v. Green (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 807 59 L. T. 476 36 W. E. 591 52 ; ; ;
J. P. 597 253, 388, 547

V. Manby (1757), 1 Burr. 401 20
Mather, Ex parte (1797), 3 Ves. 373 197
Mathesis," The (1844), 2 W. Eob. 286 86
Mathiesson v. London and County Bank (1879), 5 C. P. D. 7 ; 48 L. J. (c. p.)
529 41 L. T. 35 27 W. E. 838
; ;
601, 602
Matson v. Trower (1824), 1 Ey. & M. 17 468, 480
Table of Cases. clxiii
PAGE
Matthaei v. Galtizin (1874), L. E. 18 Eq. 340 ; 43 L. J. (ch.) 536 : 30 L. T. 455 ;
22 W. R. 700 . . . .51
Matthews v. Baxter (1873), L. R. 8 Exch. 132 ; 42 L. j. (ex.) 73 : 28 L. T. 169 ;
W.
21 R. 389 . . . .150
V. Haydon (1796), 2 Esp. 509 193
V. Williams, Brown & Co. (1894), 10 T. L. R. 386; 63 L. J. (Q. b.)
494 ; 10 R. 210 596
Matthias v. Mesnard (1826), 2 C. & P. 353 206
Matthison v. Clarke (1854), 3 Drew. 3 24 L. J, (ch.) 202 18 Jur. 1020 3 Eq. ; ; :
R. 127 2 W. R. 2 ; 516
MatveiefE & Co. v. Crossfield (1903), 51 W. R. 365 8 Com. Cas. 120 168, 182, 187 ; .
Maunder, Re (1883), 49 L. T. 535 461, 479, 480

V. Venn (1829), Moo. & M. 323 11
MaunseU v. Midland and Great Western of Ireland Rail. Co. (1863), 1 H. & M.
130; 32L. J. (CH.) 513; 8L. T. 347; 11 W. R. 768
Having v. Todd (1815), 4 Camp. 225 1 Stark. 72
444,446
; 545
....
May V. Burdett (1846), 9 Q. B. 101 16 L. J. (q. b.) 64 10 Jur. 692 ; 372, ; . . .
374 375
V. Harcourt (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 688 464 '
Harvey (1811), 13 East, 197

V. . .565
May and Hart v. Angeli (1898). 14 T. L. R. 551 186
Maydew Forrester (1814), 5 Taunt. 615
v. 191
Mayfield v. Wadsley (1824), 3 B. & C. 357 5 D. & R. 224 3 L. J. (o. s.) ; ;
(K. B.) 31 282, 293

Mayhew v. Locke (1816), 7 Taunt. 63 2 Marsh. 377 ; 26
Mayor v. Johnson (1813), 3 Camp. 324 574
Mead, Be, Austin v. Mead (1880), 15 Ch. D. 654 50 L. J. (cH.) 30 43 L. T. 117 ; ; ;
28 W. R. 891 589
Mears Callender, [1901] 2 Ch. 388 70 L. J. (ch.) 621 84 L. T. 618 49 W. R.
><.
; ; ;
584 65 J. P. 615 ; 261, 262, 270, 272, 274

r. London and South Western Rail. Co. (1862), 11 C. B. (n. s.) 850 31 ;
L. J. (c. p.) 220 6 L. T. (n. s.) 190 ; 563

"Mecca," The, [1895] P. 95 64 L. J. (adm.) 40 71 L. T. 711 43 W. R. 209
; ; ; ;
7 Asp. M. C. 529 11 R. 742 ; 67, 70

See Cory Brothers v. Owners of Steamship " Mecca."
"Mediana," The, Owners of v. " Comet," The, Owners etc. of, [1900] A. 0. 113;
69 L. J. (p.) 35 82 L. T. 95 45 W. R. 398 9 Asp. M. C. 41
; : 554 ; . . .
" Medina," The (1876), 1 P. D. 272 107

Meek v. Wendt (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 126 59 L. T. 558 6 Asp. M. C. 331 222 ; ; . .
Melhado r. Porto Alegre Rail. Co. (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 503 43 L. J. (c. P.) 253 ; ;
31 L. T. 57 23 W. R. 57 ; 177
MeUin v. Monico (1877), 3 C. P. D. 149 47 L. J. (c. p.) 211 38 L. T. 1 26 ; ; ;
W. R. 183 485
" Mellona," The (1848), 3 Wm. Rob. 16 119
Membery v. Great Western Rail. Co. (1889), 14 App. Cas. 179, 186 58 L. J. ;
(H. L.) 563 61 L. T. 566; 15

Menetone i: Athawes (1764). 3 Burr. 1592 558, 559
Mennie r. Blake (1856), 6 El. & Bl. 849 25 L. J. (q. b.) 399 Jur. (n. s.) 953 4 ; ; ;
W. R. 739 43
"Mercedes de Larrinaga," The. [1904] P. 215; 73 L. J. (p.) 65 9 L. T. 520; ;
20 T. L. R. 375 104
Merchants of the Staple of England v. Bank of England (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 160 ;
57 L. J. (Q. B.) 418 36 W. R. 880 52 J. P. 580 : 205 :
Mercier v. Pepperell (1881), 19 Ch. D. 58 51 L. J. (ch.) 63 45 L. T. 609 30 ; ; ;
W. R. 228 47S
Meredith v. Footner (1843), 11 M. & W. 202 12 L. J. (ex.) 183 215 ; . . . .
Merivale v. Carson (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 275 58 L. T. 331 36 W. R. 231 52 ; ; ;
J. P. 261
Merry v. Green (1841), 7 M. & W. 623 10 L. J. (m. c.) 154
Merryweather v. Moore, [1892] 2 Ch. 518 61 L. J. (ch.) 505 66 L. T. 719 40
13
529:
; ;
.... ;
W. R. 540 184
" Mersey," The, [1901] P. 369 70 L. J. (p.) 100 85 L. T. 584
: 108 ; . . . .
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, Ex parte, [1899] 1 Q. B. 546 68 L. J. ;
(Q. B.) 540 80 L. T. 143 47 W. R. 306.. .200, 513 ; ;
V. Turner. See The '• Zeta."

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Trustees v. Gibbs (1866), L. R. 1 H. L. 93 ;
11 H. L. Cas. 686 35 L. J. (ex.) 225 ;

14 L. T. 677 14 W. R. 872 12 Jur. ; ; ;
(n. s.) 571 14, 213, 214
Z2
clxiv Table of Cases.
PAGE
Mesnard
"
Metcalf ^
Aldridge (1801), 3 Esp. 271
v.
- - - ^
V. Clough (1828), 6 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 281 2 M. & Ey. 178
392, 509 — ;
Metcalfe v. Hetheriugton (1855), 11 Exch. 257 24 L. J. (ex.) 314 214 ;
Metropolitan Asylum District r. Hill (1881), 6 App. Cas. 193, 203 50 L. J. (q. b.;
353 44 L. T. 653 29 W. R. 617 45 J. P. 664
: ; 14 ; .
Metropolitan Asylums Board v. Kingham (1890), 6 T. L. R. 217 177

Metropolitan Bank r. Heiron (1880), 5 Ex. D. 319; 43 L. T. 676 29 W. B
370 184
Metropolitan District Rail. Co. v. Sharpe (1880), 5 App. Cas. 425 60 L. J. (q. b.;
14 43 L. T. 130 29 W. R. 617 44 J. P. 716
: ; 475;
Mette r. Mette (1859), 1 Sw. & Tr. 416 312

Meux r. Cobley, [1892] 2 Ch. 253 61 L. J. (cii.) 449 66 L. T. 8 ; 246 ;
V. Great Eastern Rail. Co., [1895] 2 Q. B. 387 64 L. J. (q. b.) 657 73 ; ;
L. T. 247 43 W. R. 680 50 J. P. 662

; ; 563
Mews r. Carr (1856), 1 H. & N. 484 26 L. J. (ex.) 39 ;505
Meyerstein v. The Eastern Agency Co. (1885), 1 T. L. R. 595 172 .
Michael, Ex parte (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 658 41 L. J. (q. b.) 349 26 L. T. 871 ; ;
1 Asp. M. C. 337 67
V. Hart, [1902] 1 K. B. 482 71 L. J. (k. b.) 265 86 L. T. 474 ; ;
50 W. R. 308 18 T. L. R. 254 ; 191

Michel r. Allestry. See Mitchil v. Allestre.
Midland Banking Co. v. Chambers (1869), 4 Ch. App. 400 38 L. J. (ch.) 478 ;
20 L. T. 346 17 W. R. 598 ; 640

Midland Insurance Co. r. Smith (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 561 50 L. J. (q. b.) 329 ;
45 L. T. 411 29 W. R. 850 45 J. P. 699

; ; 27, 28
Midland Rail. Co. v. Freeman (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 629 53 L. J. (m. c.) 79; 32 :
W. R. 830 48 J. P. 660 ; 423

V. Withington (1883). 11 Q. B. D. 788 52 L. J. (q. b.) 689 ;
;
49 L. T. 489 47 J. P. 789 ; 26
Mighell V. Sultan of Johore, [1894] 1 Q. B. 149 9 R. 447 63 L. J. (q. b.) 593 ; ;
70 L. T. 64 58 J. P. 244
; 19
Milan Tramways Co., Be, Ex parte Theys (1882), 22 Ch. D. 122 25 Ch. D. 587 ;
52 L. J. (ch.) 29 48 L. T. 213 50 L. T. 545 31 W. R. 107 32 W. R. 601

; : ; ;
Mildred v. Maspons (1883), 8 App. Cas. 874 53 L. J. (q. b.) 33 49 L. T. 685 ; ;
32 W. R. 125 199, 211

Miles r. Cattle (1830), 4 Moo. & P. 630 6 Bing. 743 537 ;
V. Furber (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 77 42 L. J. (q. b.) 41 27 L. T. 756 21 ; ; ;
W. R. 262 388, 547

V. Hutchings, [1903] 2 K. B. 714 72 L. J. (k. b.) 775 89 L. T. 420 396 ; ; . .
V. New Zealand Alford Estate Co. (1886), 32 Ch. D. 266, at p. 290 55 L. J. ;
(CH.) 801 54 L. T. 582 34 W. R. 669

; ; 640
Milford r. Hughes (1846), 16 M. & W. 174 16 L. J. (ex.) 40 14 Jur. 990 153 ; ; . .
Milford Docks Co. v. Milford Haven Urban District Council (1901), 65 J. P. 483 26 .
Mill V. Hawker (1874), L. R. 9 Exch. 309 43 L. J. (ex.) 129 30 L. T. 894 23 ; ; ;
W. R. 26 213
Millar v. Taylor (1769), 4 Burr. 2345 40
Millar, Son & Co. v. Radford (1903), 19 T. L. R. 575 195
MiUen v. Fandrye (1625), Poph. 161 1 Jon. 131 Anon.Benloe, 171 Latch, 13, ; ; ;
119 376, 378, 395

V. Fawtrey. See Millen v. Fandrye.
MiUer v. Beale (1879), 27 W. R. 403 194
V. Green (1831), 8 Bing. 92 2 Tyr. 1 2 C. & J. 143 1 M. & Scott, 199 ;
254 ; ; .
V. Kimbray (1867), 16 L. T. 360 373

V. Lawton (1864), 15 C. B. (n. s.) 834 393
V. Pilling (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 736 51 L. J. (q. b.) 481 47 L. T. 536.. .490, 491 ; ;
Mills V. Bay ley (1863), 2 H. & C. 36 32 L. J. (ex.) 179 9 Jur. (n. s.) 499 8 ; ; ;
L. T. 392 11 W. R. 598 ;
448 . . .
'
V. Bowyers' Co. (1856), 3 K. & J. 66 477, 481

r. Graham (1804), 1 Bos. & P. (n. e.) 140 153
Mills, Bawtree & Co., Re, Ex parte Stannard (1893), 10 Mor. 193 591 .. .
Milne c. Gratrix (1806), 7 East, 608 448

Milnes v. Duncan (1827), 6 B. & C. 671 9 D. & R. 731 5 L. J. (o. s.) (K. b.) ; ;
239 542
Milnes and Robertson, Be (1854), 15 C. B. 451 24 L. J. (c. p.) 29 18 Jur. ; ;
1108 . ... . . . 442 . . •
Minerva," The (1800), 3 Ch. Rob. 34 77

Minister & Co. r. Apperley, [1902] 1 K. B. 643 71 L. J. (k. b.) 452 86 L. T. ; ;
625 50 W. R. 510
: 491
Table of Cases/ clxv
PAGE
"Minna Craig" Steamship Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, [1897] 1
Co. i?.
Q. B. 55, 460 66 L, J. (q. b.) 339 76 L. T. 310

; 45 W. R. 338 ;47 ; . . .
•'Minnetonka/' The, [1904] P. 202 73 L. J. (p.) 62 90 L. T. 354 52 W. R. ; ; ;
672 9 Asp. M. L. C. 544

: 122
Mirams v. "Our Dogs" Publishing Co., [1901] 2 K. B. 564 70 L. J. (k. b.) ;
879 85 L. T. 6 49 W. R. 626
: ; 394, 405 . .
"Miranda," The (1882), 7 P. D. 185 51 L. J. (adm.) 56 47 L. T. 447 30 ; ; ;
W. R. 615 4 Asp. M. L. C. 595

; 94
" Miriam," The (1874), 43 L. J. (adm.) 35 30 L. T. 537 2 Asp. M. C. 259 114 ; ; .
Misa V. Currie (1876), 1 App. Cas. 554 45 L. J. (ex.) 852 35 L. T. 414 24 ; ; ;
W. R. 1049 198, 585, 593, 620, 621

Mitchel V. Reynolds (1711), 1 Sm. L. C. 430 1 P. Wms. 181 166 : . . . .
Mitchell, Re, Mitchell v. Mitchell (1884), 54 L. J. (ch.) 342 52 L. T. 178 172, ; . .
193
V. Hayne (1824), 2 S. & St. 63 200
V. Lancashire and Yorkshire Rail. Co. (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 256 44 ;
L. J. (Q. B.) 107 33 L. T. 61 23 W. R. 853

; : 543
Mitchell and Izard and the Governor of Ceylon, Be (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 408 57 ;
L. J. (Q. B.) 524 59 L. T. 812 36 W. R. 873

: ; 448
Mitchil V. Alestre (1677), 1 Ventr. 294 3 Keb. 650 2 Lev. 172 377
; ; . . . .
Moet V. Pickering (1878), 8 Ch. D. 372 47 L. J. (ch.) 527 38 L. T. 799 26 ; ; ;
W. R. 637 547
MofJat V. Cornelius (1878), 39 L. T. 102 452
Moffatt V. Bateman (1869), L. R. 3 P. C. 115 22 L. T. 140 6 Moo. P. C. C. ; ;
(N. s.) 369 185

Mogul Steamship Co. r. McGregor, Gow & Co. (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 598 58 L. J. ;
(Q. B.) 465 37 W. R. 756

; 53 J. P. 709 affirming 59 L. T. 514 6 Asp.
; ; ;
M. C. 320 10, 11
Moir V. Marten (1891), 7 T. L. R. 330
Molton f. Camroux (1849), 4 Exch. 17 18 L. J. (ex.) 356
Molyneux v. Hawtrey, [1903] 2 K. B. 487 72 L. J. (k. b.) 873 89 L. T. 350
194
150 ;
;
....
; ;
52 W. R. 23 216
" Mona," The, [1894] P. 265 63 L. J. (p.) 137 71 L. T. 24 43 W. R. 173
; 96, ; ; .
120
Monaghan v. Taylor (1886), 2 T. L. R. 685 212
" Monarch," The (1839), 1 Wm. Rob. 4 103
"Monkseaton," The (1889), 14 P. D. 51 58 L. J. (p.) 52 37 W. R. 523 6 ; ; ;
Asp. M. C. 383 60 L. T. 662 : 104, 126

Montagu Forwood, [1893] 2 Q. B. 350 69 L. T. 371 42 W. R. 124 4 R. ; ; ;
579 . 171, 210

Montague, Re, Ex parte Ward (1897), 76 L. T. 203 45 W. R. 384 4 Mans. 1 584, ; ; .
587
V. Perkins (1853), 22 L. J. (c. p.) 187 37 Jur. 557 1 W. R. 437 201 ; ; .
Montaignac r. Shitta (1890), 15 App. Cas. 357 201 .
Montgomerie v. United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance Association,

[1891] 1 Q. B. 370 209
Montgomery, Jones & Co. v. Liebenthal & Co., [1898] 1 Q. B. 487 67 L. J. ;
(Q. B.) 313 78 L. T. 211

;
46 W. R. 292 ; 148, 466, 477
Montreal Assurance Co. v. McGillivray (1859), 13 Moo. P. C. C. 87 8 W. R. ;
165 149, 161

Montrotier Asphalte Co., Re, Perry's Case (1876), 34 L. T. 716 160 . . . .
Moon V. Towers (1860), 8 C. B. (n. s.) 611 178

V. Witney Union, Guardians of (1837), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 814 5 Scott, 1 3 ; :
Hodges, 206 6 L. J. (c. p.) 305 : 170

"Moorcock," The (1889), 14 P. D. 64 58 L. J. (p.) 73 60 L. T. 654 37 W. R. ; ; ;
439 6 Asp. M. L. C. 373 affirming 13 P. D. 157 58 L. J. (p.) 15 59 L. T.

; ; ; ;
872 37 W. R. 31 6 Asp. M. L. C. 357

;
; 550
Moore v. Bushell (1857), 27 L. J. (ex.) 3 223
V. Clarke (1898), 62 J. P. 522 395
V. Metropolitan Rail. Co. (1872), L. R. 8 Q. B. 36 42 L. J. (q. b.) 23 ; ;
27 L. T. 579 21 W. R. 145 ; 165, 212

V. Mourge (1776), 2 Cowp. 479 183, 531
North Western Bank, [1891] 2 Ch. 599 60 L. J. (ch.) 627 64 L. T. ; ;
456 40 W. R. 93
;
637
r. Peachey (1891), 7 T. L. R. 748 159
V. Ulster Bank (1877), Ir. R. 11 C. L. 512 589
Mordue r. Palmer (1870), 6 Ch. App. 22 40 L. J. (ch.) 8 23 L. T. 752 19 ; ; ;
W. R. 86 458, 470, 476

;;
clxvi Table of Cases.
PAGE
Morel Brothers & Co., Ltd. v. Westmorland (Earl
[1904] A. C. 11 73 L. J. of), ;
(K. B.) 93 89 L. T. 702 52 W. R. 353 20 T. L. R. 38

; ; 209, ; . . . 641
Morgan v. Abergavenny (Earl of) (1849), 8 C. B. 768 367
V. Elford (1876). 4 Ch. D. 352 25 W. R. 136 ; 191
V. Lariviere (1875), L. R. 7 H. L. 423 44 L. J. (ch.) 457 23 W. R. ; ;
537 32 L. T. 41 ; 623, . 624

V. Leach (1842), 10 M. & W. 558 12 L. J. (m. c.) 4 ; . . . . 26
V. Oswald (1812), 3 Taunt. 554 312
V. Ravey (1861), 6 H. & N. 265 ; 30 L. J. (ex.) 131 ; 3 L. T. 784 ; 9
W. R. 376 49
V. Smith
(1842), 9 M. & W. 427
(n. s.) 617 11 L. J. (ex.) 379 471 ; 1 D. ; .
V. Tarte (1855), 10 Exch. 82 3 C. L. R. 970 ;447

Morley v. Carter, [1898] 1 Q. B. 8 66 L. J. (q. b.) 843 77 L. T. 337 46 W. R. 77.. .242, 259
— ; ; :
V. Culverwell (1840), 7 M. & W. 174 1 H. & W. 13 4 Jur. 1163 10 ; : ;
L. J. (EX.) 35 602
V. Greenhalgh (1863), 3 B. & S. 374 32 L. J. (m. c.) 93 9 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
745 7 L. T. 624 11 W. R. 263

;
V. Pincombe (1848), 2 Exch. 101 18 L. J. (ex.) 272

Morphett, Re (1845), 2 D. & L. 967 14 L. J. (Q. b.) 259 10 Jur. 546
; 412
252
447, 460, 479
;
;
;
.... .
Morris v. Bethell (1869), L. R. 5 C. P. 47 21 L. T. 323 18 W. R. 137 616 .
— ; ; .
V. Cleasby (1816), 1 M. & S. 576 4 M. & S. 566 153, 196 ; . . . .
V. Morris (1825), 1 Hog. 238 .284

V. Nugent (1836), 7 C. & P. 572 396
V. Salberg (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 614 58 L. J. (q. b.) 275 61 L. T. 283 ; ;
;
37 W. R. 469 53 J. P. 772 ; 212

Morris and Morris, Be (1856), 6 E. & B. 383 25 L. J. (q. b.) 261 2 Jur. (n. s.) : ;
542 4 W. R. 549
; 478
Morrish, Be, Ex parte Hart-Dyke (1882), 22 Ch. D. 410 52 L. J. (cH.) 570 48 ; ;
L. T. 303 31 W. R. 278
; . . 275, 276 . .
Morrison v. Universal Marine Insurance Co. (1873), L. R. 8 Exch. 197 42 L. J. ;
(EX.) 115 21 W. R. 774

; 211
Morritt, Be, Ex parte Official Receiver (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 222 56 L. J. (q. b.) ;
139 56 L. T. 42 35 W. R. 277
; ;
623
Mortgage Insurance Corporation v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1888),
21 Q. B. D. 352 57 L. J. (q. b.) 630 36 W. R. 833
;
589 ;
Mortimer v. Cradock (1843), 12 L. J. (c. p.) 166 7 Jur. 45 530 ;
Mortin v. Burge (1836), 4 A. & E. 973 6 N. & M. 201 468, 479 ; . . . .
Mortlock V. Buller (1804), 10 Ves. 310 155, 157

Morvah Consols Tin Mining Co., Be. See McKay's Case.
Moseley v. Simpson (1873), L. R. 16 Eq. 226 42 L. J. (ch.) 739 28 L. T. 727 ; ;
21 W. R. 694 480, 481

Moss, Be, [1905] 2 K. B. 307 74 L. J. (k. b.) 764 92 L. T. 777
12 Mans 227
;
Mostyn v. Fabrigas (1775), 1 Smith, L. C. (11th ed.) 618 1 Cowp. 161 20*
53 W. R. 558
642
;
;
;
... ;
How. St. Tr. 81 50

Motion V. Michaud (1892), 8 T. L. R. 253, 447 231
Moule V. Brown (1838), 4 Bing. (n. c.) 266 5 Scott, 694 1 Arn. 79 7 L. J. ; ; ;
(c. p.) Ill 2 Jur. 277

; 590
Mounsey v. Stephenson (1827), 7 B. & C. 403 6 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 119 160 ; . .
Mountain v. Parr, [1899] 1 Q. B. 805 68 L. J. (q. b.) 447 80 L. T. 342 47 ; ; ;
W. R. 352 458
Mousley v. Ludham (1851), 21 L. J. (q. b.) 64 15 Jur. 1107 .245 ; . . .
Mowbray v. Merryweather, [1895] 2 Q. B. 640 65 L. J. (Q. b.) 50 73 L. T. ; ;
459 44 W. R. 49 59 J. P. 804
: ;
550
Moyle V. Jenkins (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 116 51 L. J. (q. b.) 112 46 L. T. 472 30 ; ; ;
W. R. 324 243
Mozeley v. Cowie (1877), 47 L, J. (ch.) 271 38 L. T. 908 188 ;
Mulcahy v. Kilmacthomas Guardians (1885), 18 L. R. Ir. 200 432 . . . .
Mulgrave v. Ogden (1588), Cro. (Eliz.) 219 Owen, 141 1 Leon. 224 528 ;
; . .
Mullens v. Miller (1882), 22 Ch. D. 194 52 L. J. (ch.) 380 48 L. T. 103 31 ; ; ;
W. R. 559 166, 211

Mullett V. Mason (1866), L. R. 1 C. P. 559 35 L. J. (c. p.) 299 1 H. & R. 779 : ; ;
12 Jur. (n. s.) 547 14 L. T. 558 14 W. R. 898

; ; 420
Mulligan v. McDonagh (1860), 5 Ir. Jur. (n. s.) 101 2 L. T. 136 185 : . . .
MuUiner v. Florence (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 484 47 L. J. (q. b.) 700 38 L. T. 167 ; ; ;
26 W. R. 385 548. 549

Mullins V. Collins (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 292 43 L. J. (m. c.) 67 29 L. T. 838 ; ; ;
22 W. R. 297 218
Table of Cases. '
clxvii
PAGE
Muncev v. Dennis (1856), 1 H. & N. 216 26 L. J. (ex.) 66 : 248
Munday v. Bluck (1861), 9 C. B. (n. s.) 557 30 L. J. (c. p.) ; 193 ; 7 Jur. (n. s.)
709 9 W. K. 274
; 461
r.Norton, [1892] 1 Q. B. 403 61 L. J. (q. b.) 456 66 L. T. 173 40 ; : ;
W. K. 355 . .
"
492
Munnings v. Burv (1829), 1 Tam. 147 . . 178
Munro v. Butt (1858), 8 E. & B. 738 4 Jur. (n. s.) 1231 : 558
Munster v. Lamb (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 588 52 L. J. (q. b.) 726 49 L. T. 252 ; ;
;
32 W. R. 248 47 J. P. 805
; 13
Murphy v. Boese (1875), L. R. 10 Exch. 126 44 L. J. (ex.) 40 32 L. T. 122 ; ; ;
23 W. R. 474 170
V. Manning (]877), 2 Ex. D. 307 46 L. J. (m. c.) 211 36 L. T. 592 ; ; ;
25 W. R. 540 409
Murieta v. South American Co. (1893), 62 L. J. (q. b.) 396 5 R. 380 ; . . 200
Murray v. East India Co. (1821), 5 B. & Aid. 204 163
V. Mann (1848), 2 Exch. 538 17 L. J. (ex.) 256 12 Jur. 634 187,
; ; . 512
V. Thompson (1888), 22 Q. B. D. 142 58 L. J. (m. c.) 41 60 L. T. 151 ; ; ;
37 W. R. 221 16 Cox, C. C. 554 53 J. P. 70

; ; 404
Musgrave v. Horner (1874), 31 L. T. 632 23 W. R. 125 ; 251
V. PuUdo (1878), 5 App. Cas. 102 49 L. J. (p. c.) 20 41 L. T. 629 ; ; ;
28 W. R. 373 17
Musgrove v. Chun Teeong Toy, [1891] A. C. 272; 60 L. J. (p. c.) 28 64 L. T. ;
378 306, 312, 320

Muspratt r. Gregory (1836), 1 M. & W. 647 2 Gale, 158 3 M. & W. 677 1 ; ; ;
H. & H. 184 7 L. J. (ex.) 385

; 388, 547
Musselbrook r. Dunkin (1833), 9 Bing. 605 2 M. Sc Scott, 740 1 D. (p. c.) 722 ; ; ;
2 L. J. (c. p.) 71 470

Mutton v. Peat, [1900] 2 Ch. 79 69 L. J. (ch.) 484 82 L. T. 440 48 W. R.
486 ... ;
Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association v. New York Life Insurance Co. (1896),
621, 639,
; ;
640
75 L. T. 528 13 T. L. R. 32
; 182
Mynn r. JolifEe (1834), 1 M. & R. 326 167, 503
" Mystery," The, [1902] P. 415 71 L. J. (p.) 39 86 L. T. 359 50 W. R. 414
; ; ; . 106
Mytton r. Cock (1736), 2 Stra. 1099 534
N.
Nabob of the Cabnatic v. East India Co. (1793), 2 Ves. Jun. 56 . . .15
Nantygio and Blaena Ironworks Co. v. Grave (1878), 12 Ch. D. 738 ; 38 L. T.
345 26 W. R. 504
; 189, 190, 191
Naoroji r. Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China (1868), L. R. 3 C. P.
444 37 L. J. (c. p.) 221 18 L. T. 358 16 W. R. 791
; ;
235 ;
Napier v. Lang (1834), 12 Ct. of Sess. Cas. (1st Ser.) 523 559
Nargett v. Nias (1859), 1 E. & E. 439 28 L. J. (q. b.) 143 5 Jur. (n. s.) 198 ; 252 ; .
" Nasmyth," The (1883), 10 P. D. 41 54 L. J. (adm.) 63 52 L. T. 392 33 W. R.

; ; ;
736 5 Asp. M. C. 364

; 96
Natal Land and Colonization Co, v. Pauline Colliery & Syndicate, Ltd., [1904]
A. C. 120 89 L. T. 678
; 11 Mans. 29 ;
176
National Bank v. Silke, [1891] 1 Q. B. 435 60 L. J. (q. b.) 199 63 L. T. 787 ; : ;
39 W. R. 361 569, 592, 595, 597

National Bank of Australasia v. United Hand in Hand Co. (1879), 4 App. Cas.
409 40 L. T. 697 27 W. R. 889
; ;
631
National Bolivian Navigation Co. v. Wilson (1880), 5 App. Cas. 176; 43 L. T.
60 202
National Coffee Palace Co., Re, Ex parte Panmure (1883), 24 Ch. D. 367 53 ;
L. J. (ch.) 57 50 L. T. 38 32 W. R. 326
; ; 222
National Funds Assurance Co., Be (1878), 10 Ch. D. 118 48 L. J. (ch.) 163 ; ;
39 L. T. 420 27 W. R. 302
; . 225
.
National Mercantile Bank v. Rymill (1881), 44 L, T. 767 221, 521 . . . .
National Phonograph Co. r. Edison-Bell Consolidated Phonograph Co. (1906),

76 L. J. (CH.) 194 11
" Nautik," The, [1895] P. 121 64 L. J. (p.) 61 72 L. T. 21
; 43 W. R. 703 11 ; ; ;
R. 716 100
Nayler r. Yearley (1860), 2 P. & F. 41 195
Neale r. Ledger (1812), 16 East, 51 457
Neilson v. James (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 546 51 L. J. (q. b.) 369 46 L. T. 791 182, : ; .
186, 191
clxviii Table of Cases.
PAGE
Nelson v. Aldridge (1818), 2 Stark. 435 186, 503
Macintosh (1816). 1 Stark. 237 532, 537 . . . . . . .
'
Nelson, James & Sons, Ltd. r. Nelson Line (Liverpool), Ltd., [1906] 2 K. B.
217 95 L. T. 180
; 45 W. E. 846 11 Com. Cas. 228
; 22 T. L. E. ; ;
630 227
" Neptune," The (1855), Spinks, 281 19 Jur. 1144 26 L. T. 110 4 W. E. 162 ; ; ; ;
2 Engl. Prize Cas. 520 311

" Never Despair," The (1884), 9 P. D. 34 53 L. J. (adm.) 30 50 L. T. 369 32 ; ; ;
W. E. 599 5 Asp. M. C. 211 108

..
;
Newall r. Tomlison (1871). L. E. 6 C. P. 405 25 L. T. 382 223, 542 ; .
" Newbattle," The (1885), 10 P. D. 33 54 L. J. (adm.) 16 52 L. T. 15 33 W. E.; ; ;
318 5 Asp. M. C. 356

: . . 71, 95. . . . . . . .
Newby v. Eckersley, [1899] 1 Q. B. 465 68 L. J. (q. b.) 261 80 L. T. 314 47 :

; ;
W. E. 245 262, 266 .
r. Van Oppen and Colt's Patent Firearms Co. (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B. 293

;
41 L. J. (Q. B.) 148 26 L. T. 164 20 W. E. 383

; ; 17 . . . . .
" New Draper," The (1802). 4 Ch. Eob. 290 63

Newen, Ee, [1903] 1 Ch. 812 72 L. J. (ch.) 356 88 L. T. 264 51 W. E.
; ; ;
297 170
Newgate r. Degelder (1667), 2 Keb. 10, 20, 24 1 Sid. 281 448 ;
Newland r. National Employers Accident Association (1885), 54 L. J. (q. b.)

428 53 L. T. 242 49 J. P. 628
; ; 202
Newlove v. Shrewsbury (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 41 57 L. J, (q. b.) 476; 36 W. E. ;
835 .556 .
Newman v. Jones (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 132 55 L. J. (m. c.) 113 55 L. T. 327 ; ; ;
50 J P 373 . 218
"Newport,'*' The (1858), Swa.' 317 6 W. E. '310 ";
122 !
*. '.
New Eiver Co, v. Hertford Land Tax Commissioners (1857), 2 H. & N. 129 26 ;
L. J. (EX.) 281 5 W. E. 611 ; 16

Newson r. Smythies (1859), 1 F. & F. 477 249
r. Thornton (1805), 6 East, 17 2 Smith, 207 167;
Newton r. Chambers (1844), 1 D. & L. 869 13 L. J. (q. b.) 141 8 Jur. ; ;
244 220
Newton and Hetherington, Be (1865), 19 C. B. (n. s.) 342 12 L. T. 633 13 ; ;
W. E. 863 440
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. E. 694

; : 171, 199
Nicholas c. Simmonds (1625), 2 Eoll. Eep. 468 282
Nichols r. Hall (1873), L. E. 8 C. P. 322 42 L. J. (m. c.) 105 28 L. T. 473 21 ; ; ;
W. E. 579 422
Nicholson r. Bradfield Union (1866), L. E. 1 Q. B. 620 7 B. & S. 747 35 L. J. ; ;
(q. b.) 176 14 L. T. 830 14 W. E. 731

;
155;
V. Chapman (1793), 2 Hy. Bl. 254, 257 528

r. Harrisson (1855), 4 W. E. 459 565
Nickalls v. Warren (1844), 6 Q. B. 615 14 L. J. (q. b.) 75 4 L. T. (o. s.) 156 ; ; ;
9 Jur. 10 478
Nickels v. Hancock (1855), 7 De G. M. & G. 300 470, 475
Nielans v. Cuthbertson (1891), 7 T. L. E. 516 233
Nield V. London and North Western Eail. Co. (1875), L. E. 10 Exch. 4 44 L. J. ;
(EX.) 15 23 W. E. 60
;
.12
"Nina," The (1867), L. E. 2 A. & E. 44 L. E. 2 P. C. 38 37 L. J. (adm.) ; ;
]7 . 70, 82
Nireaha Tamaki v. Baker, [1901] A. C. 561 70 L. J. (p. c.) 66 84 L. T. ; ;
633 17
Nitedals Taendstikfabrik v. Bruster, [1906] 2 Ch. 671 75 L. J. (ch.) 798 22 ; ;
T. L. E. 724 191, 196 '
Nitro-phosphate and Odam's Chemical Manure Co. r. London and St. Katherine's
Docks (1878), 9 Ch. D. 503 39 L. T. 433 27 W. E. 267 :
12 ; . . . .
Niven v. Geaves (1890), 54 J. P. 548 219

Nobel's Explosive Co. v. Jones (1882). 8 App. Cas. 5 52 L. J. (ch.) 339 48 ; ;
L. T. 490 31 W. E. 388
: 224
Noble V. National Discount Co. (1860), 5 H. & N. 225 29 L. J. (ex.) ;
210 224
Noell V. Wells (1667), 1 Lev. 235 1 Sid. 359 3 Keb. 337, 343, 641
:
48 ; . . .
Norfolk (Duke of) v. Worthy (1808). 1 Camp. 337 207

" Normandy," The, [1904] P. 187 73 L. J. (p.) 55 9 L. T. 351 52 W. E.634 ; ; ; ;
20 T. L. E. 239 128
Norreys (Lord) v. Hodgson (1897), 13 T. L. E. 421 191
Table of Cases. clxix
PAGE
Norris v. Smith (1839), 10 A. & E. 188 ; 2 P. & D. 353 ; 8 L. J. (q. b.)
274 26
North's Case (1557), 2 Dyer, 161 514
North American Land and Timber Co. v. Watkins, [1904] 2 Ch. 233, 242 73 ;
L. J. 91 L. T. 425 20 T. L. R. 642
(CH.) 626 : ; 185, 188
Northampton Gaslight Co. v. Parnell (1855), 15 C. B. 630 3 C. L. R. 409 24 ; ;
L. J. (c. p.) 60 1 Jur. (n. s.) 211 3 W. R. 179

; ; 440
North and South West Jmiction Rail. Co. v. Assessment Committee of Brent-
ford Union (1889), 13 App. Cas. 592 58 L. J. (m. c.) 95 60 L. T. ; ;
274 465, 467

North British and Mercantile Insurance Co. v. Moffatt (1871), L. R. 7 C. P. 25 ;
41 L. J. (c. p.) 1 25 L. T. 662 20 W. R. 114 ; ; 546

Northey v. Trevillion (1902). 18 T. L. R. 048 7 Com. Cas. 201 232, ; . . . 233
Northey Stone Co. r. Gidney, [1894] 1 Q. B. 99 70 L. T. 82 42 W. R. 99 10 ; ; ;
R. 16 7
North London Rail. Co. v. Great Northern Rail. Co., (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 30 52 ;
L. J. (Q. B.) 380 48 L. T. 695 31 W. R. 490: ; 446

North Sydney Investment and Tramway Co. v. Higgins, [1899] A. C. 26 80 ;
L. T. 303 47 W. R. 481
; 6 Mans. 321 : 176
Northumberland Avenue Hotel Co., Be, Sully's Case, (1886), 33 Ch. D. 16 ;
54 L. T. 777 177
"Northumbria," The (1869), L. R. 3 A. & E. 6 93 L. T. 189 39 L. J. (adm.) ;
;
3 ;21 L. T. 681 18 W. R. 188 ; 109

North Western Bank v. Poynter, [1895] A. C. 56 64 L. J. (p. c.) 27 72 L. T. ; ;
93 11 R. 125
; 199, 623
Norton v. Herron (1825), 1 C. & P. 648 R. & M. 229 ; 221
" Norway," The (1865), 3 Moo. P. C. C. (n. s.) 245 11 B. & L. 404 11 Jur. (n. s.) ; :
892 13 L. T. 50 13 W. R. 1085
; ; 548
Nottingham Permanent Building Society v. Thurstan, [1903] A. C. 6 72 L. J. ;
(CH.) 134 87 L. T. 529 51 W. R. 273 67 J. P. 129

; ; ; 587
Novelli V. Rossi (1831). 2 B. & Ad. 757 615
Novello V. Toogood (1823), 1 B. & C. 554 2 D. & R. 833 1 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) ; ;
181 25 R. R. 507
; 20
Nugent r. Kirwan (1838), 1 Jebb & Symes, 97 388
Nulty V. Fagan (1888), 22 L. R. Ir. Q. B. 604 521
" Nuova Raffaelina," The (1871), L. R. 3 A. & E. 483 41 L. J. (adm.) 37 24 ; ;
L. T. 321 20 W. R. 216 1 Asp. M. C. 16

: ; 128
Nuttall V. Mayor of Manchester (1892). 8 T. L. R. 513 449, . . . . 453
V. Staunton (1825), 4 B. & C. 51 6 D. & R. 155 ; 257
Nuttall and Lynton, Be (1899), 82 L. T. 17 466
Nutton V. Wilson (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 744 58 L. J. (q. b.) 443 37 W. R. 522 ; ; ;
53 J. P. 644 16
Nyberg v. Handelaar, [1892] 2 Q. B. 202 61 L. J. (q. b.) 709 67 L. T. 361 ; ; ;
40 W. R. 545 56 J. P. 694 ;
633
" Nymph," The (1856), Swa. Ad. 86 69
0.
" Oakfield," The
(1886), 11 P. D. 34 55 L. J. (adm.) 11 54 L. T. 678 ; ; ; 34
W. 5 Asp. M. C. 575
R. 687 ; 104
Oakley v. Monck (1866), L. R. 1 Exch. 167 35 L. J. (ex.) 87 14 L. T. 20 ; ; ; 14
W. R. 406 4 H. & C. 251 ; 272
"Ocean." The (1845), 2 Rob. 368 Wm. 67
" Ocean Queen," The (1842), 1 W. R. 457 68
Ocean Steamship Co., The v. Anderson & Co. (1883), 33 W. R. 536 . . . 107
Ockenden, Be, Ex parte Matthews (1754), 1 Atk. 235 Bl. 653 ; Wm. . . 561
O'Connor v. Bradshaw (1850), 5 Exch. 882 20 L. J. (ex.) 26 ; . . . .581
Odell Cormack Brothers (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 223
t?. 165 . . . . . .
Offin V.Rochford Rural District Council, [1906] 1 Ch. 342, 357 75 L. J. (ch.) ;
348 94 L. T. 669 54 W. R. 244 70 J. P. 97 4 L. G. R. 595

; ; 26 ; ; . . .
Ogden V. Hall (1879), 40 L. T. 751 219, 220

Ogden's. Ltd. v. Nelson, [1905] A. C. 109 74 L. J. (k. b.) 433 92 L. T. 478 ; ; ;
53 W. R. 497 359
; 21 T. L. R 233
Ogilvie V. Foljambe (1817), 3 Mer. 53 510
r. West Australian etc. Co., [1896] A. C. 257 ; 65 L. J. (p. c.) 46 ; 74
L. T. 201 616, 617
Ogilvy V. Elliot (1905), 7 F. (Ct. of Sess.) 1115 261, 264
clxx Table of Cases.
PAGE
Ogle V. Atkinson (1814). 5 Taunt. 759 1 Marsh. 323 550
;
Oglesby v. Yglesias (1858), El. B. & El. 930 27 L. J. (q. b.) 356 6 W. E. ; ;
690 . . . 219
0' Gorman r. 0' Gorman, [1903] 2 Ir. K. 573 375
O'Grady v. Cardwell (1873), 21 W. R. 340 .220
O'Hanlon v. Murray (1860), 12 Ir. C. L. R. 161 536
Okell V. Charles (1876), 34 L. T. 822 208. 221
Glands Case (1602), 5 Rep. 116 a
Oldfield V. Lowe (1820), 9 B. & C. 63
Oliver v. Court (1820), 8 Price. 127
7 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 142
Daniell, 301 22 R. R. 720 ;
;
282
561
189, 515 ; .
... . .
V. Hinton, [1899J 2 Ch. 264 68 L. J. (ch.) 583 81 L. T. 212 48 ; ; ;
W. R. 3 .633
Oliver and Scott, Be (1889), 43 Ch. D. 310 59 L. J. (ch.) 148 61 L, T. 552 ; ;
;
38 W. R. 476 .476
O'Mealey v. Wilson (1809), 1 Camp. 482 20, 149
Onslow V. (1809), 16 Ves. 173 251
Onward," The (1873), L. R. 4 A, & E. 38 42 L. J. (adm.) 61 2 L. T. 204 ; ; ;
21 W. R. 604 1 Asp. M. C. 540

; 66
Openheimer v. Levy (1737), 2 Stra. 1082 308
Oppenheimer r. Attenborough, [1907] 1 K. B. 510; 76 L. J. (k. b.) 177; 96
L. T. 501 12 Com. Cas. 88 ; 205, 564
i: Frazer, [1907] 2 K. B. 50 reversing in part, [1907] 1 K. B. ;
519 76 L. J. (k. b.) 276 12 Com. Cas. 147

; 206, 563, 638 ; . .
" Orient," The (1871), L. R. 3 P. C. 696 40 L. J. (adm.) 29 8 Moo. P. C. C. ; ;
(N. s.) 74 ; 24 L. T. 918 20 W. R. 6 1 Asp. M. C. 108

: 72 ; . . . .
" Orienta," The, [1895] P. 49 64 L. J. (p.) 82 ; 71 L. T. 711 7 Asp. M. C. ; ;
508, 529 11 R. 687 : 70

[1894] P. 271 63 L. J. (p.) 129 64 L. J. (p.) 32 71 L. T. 343,
; ; ;
711 11 R. 687
; 87
Oriental Bank Corporation, Re, Ex parte Guilleman (1884), 28 Ch. D. 634; 54
L. J. (CH.) 322 52 L. T. 167; 231, 234
Ormerod v. Todmorden Mill Co. (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 677 51 L. J. (q. b.) 348 46 ; ;
L. T. 669 30 W. R. 805
; 487, 488
Orr V. Union Bank of Scotland (1854), 1 Macq. 513; 2 C. C. R. 1566; 24
L. T. 1 624
Osborn v. Gillett (1873), L. R. 8 Exch. 88 42 L. J. (ex.) 53 28 L. T. 197 12 : ; ;
W. R. 409 12, 27, 29, 212

V. Gough (1803), 3 Bos. & P. 550 26
Osborne v. Chocqueel, [1896] 2 Q. B. 109 65 L. J. (q. b.) 534 74 L. T. 786 ; ; ;
44 W. R. 575 .373
•
V. London and North Western Rail. Co. (1889), 21 Q. B. D. 220; 57
L. J. (Q. B.) 618 59 L. T. 227 36 W. R. 809 52 J. P. 806
;
Osgood V. Nelson (1872), L. R. 5 H. L. 636 41 L. J. (q. b.) 329 affirming 10

; 15 ; .. .
;
;
B. & S. 119 20 L. T. 958

; 17 W. R. 895 ; 173
O'Sullivan v. Thomas, [1895] 1 Q. B. 698 64 L. J. (q. b.) 398 72 L. T. 285 : ; ;
43 W. R. 269 59 J. P. 134 15 R. 253

; ;
231
Oswald r. Grey (1855), 24 L. J. (q. b.) 69 460, 463, 479, 486
Overend, Gurney & Co. v. Gibb (1872), L. R. 5 H. L. 480 42 L. J. (ch.) 67 183 : .
Overweg, Re, Haas v. Durant, [1900] 1 Ch. 209 69 L. J. (ch.) 255 81 L. T. ; ;
776 233
Owen V. Cronk, [1895] 1 Q. B. 265 64 L. J. (q. b.) 288 2 Mans. 115 14 R. ;
.........
; ;
229 147 .
V. Legh (1820), 3 B. & Aid. 470 254

V. Lewyn (1673), 1 Vent. 223 3 Keb. 59 ;
45
V. Ord (1828), 3 C. & P. 349 . 156 . . .
-
V. Thomas (1834), 3 My. & K. 353 3 L. J. (ch.) 205 505 ;
Oxford (Mayor etc. of) v. Crow, [1893] 3 Ch. 535 69 L. T. 228 42 W. R. ; ;
200 8 R. 279
; 178
P.
" Pacific," The (1864), Br. & L. 243 33 L. J. (adm.) 120 10 Jur. (n. s.) 1110 ; ; ;
10 L. T. 541 2 Mar. L. Cas. 21 ;

67
,[1898] P. 170 67 L. J. (p.) 65 79 L. T. 125
; 46 W. R. 686 ; ; ;
8 Asp. M. C. 422 74
Padgett V. Priest (1787), 2 Term Rep. 97 225
Table of Cases. clxxi
PAGE
Pad wick r. Hurst Beav. 575 23 L. J. (ch.) 657 18 Jur. 763
(1854), 18 ; 200 ; . .
V. Stanley (1852), 9 Hare, 627 16 Jur. 586 ; 188, 200

Page, Be (1863), 32 Beav. 485 9 Jur. (n. s.) 1116 8 L. T. 231 11 W. K.
; ; ;
584 515
V. Defries (1866), 7 B. & S. 137 212
Paget V. Ede (1874), L. R. 18 Eq. 118; 43 L. J. (ch.) 571; 30 L. T. 228 22 ;
W. R. 625 51
Paice V. Walker (1870), L. R. 5 Exch. 173 39 L. J. (ex.) 109 22 L. T. 547 18 ; ; ;
W. R. 789 220
Painter v. Abel (1863), 2 H. & C. 113 ; 33 L. J. ex.) 60; 9 Jur. (k s.) 549 8 ;
L. T. 287 11 W. R. 651
: 205
Palethorp v. Furnish (1796). 2 Esp. 511, n 207
Palk V. Force (1848), 12 Q. B. 666 17 L. J. (q. b.) 299 12 Jur. 797
; 196 ; . .
Palmer v. Day, [1895] 2 Q. B. 618 64 L. J. (q. b.) 807 44 W. R. 14 2 Mans.

; ; ;
386 15 R. 523 ; 235

V. Hardwick (1890), 63 L. T. 302 484
V. Hutchinson (1881), 6 App. Gas. 619 50 L. J. (p. c.) 62 45 L. T. ; ;
180 18, 213

V. Metropolitan Rail. Co. (1862), 31 L. J. (q. b.) 259 10 W. R. 714 463 ; .
Palmer & Co. and Hosken & Co., Re, [1898] 1 Q. B. 131 67 L. J. (q.b.) 1 77 ; ;
L. T. 350 46 W. R. 49
: 450, 466
'•Palomares," The (1885), 10 P. D. 36 54 L. J. (adm.) 54 52 L. T. 57 33 ; ; ;
W, R. 616 5 Asp. M. C. 343

; 131
" Panama," The (1870), L. R. 3 P. C. 199 30 L. J. (adm.) 37 23 L. T. 12 18 ; ; ;
W. R. 1011 23 L. T. 12 6 Moo. P. C. C. (n. s.) 484 3 Mar. L. Cas. 344, 461

; ; 66 ; .
Panama and South Pacific Telegraph Co. v. India-rubber, Gutta-percha and

Telegraph Works Co. (1875), 10 Ch. App. 515 45 L. J. (ch.) 121 32 L. T. ; ;
517 23 W. R. 583
; 216, 217 . . .
" Panda," The (1842), 1 Wm. Rob. 423 76

Pape V. Westacott, [1894] 1 Q. B. 272 63 L. J. (q. b.) 222 70 L. T. 18 42 W. R.
: ; ;
131 ; 9 R. 55 164, 183, 186. 187, 503

Papillon r. Brunton (1860), 5 H. & N. 518 29 L. J. (ex.) 265 167; . . . .
Pappa V. Rose (1871), L. R. 7 C. P. 32, 525 41 L. J. (c. p.) 11, 187 20 W. R. ; ;
62, 784 27 L. T. 348

: 186, 455, 459
Paquin r. Beauclerk, [1906] A. C. 148 75 L. J. (k. b.) 395; 94 L. T. 350 54 ; ;
W. R. 521 22 T. L. R. 395
;
220
Parfit V. Jepson (1877), 46 L. J. (c. p.) 529 36 L. T. 251 509 ;
Pariente v. Lubbock (1853), 8 De G. M. & G. 5 20 Beav. 588 163 ; . . . .
Paris Skating Rink Co., Be (1877), 5 Ch. D. 959 37 L. T. 298 25 W. R. 701 55 ; ; .
" Parisian," The (1887), 13 P. D. 16 57 L. J. (adm.) 13 58 L. T. 92 36 W. R.

; ; ;
704 6 Asp. M. C. 249

: 119, 120
Park V. Hammond (1816), 6 Taunt. 495 2 Marsh. 189 4 Camp. 344 Holt, 80 ;
186 ; ;
.
Parker v. Burroughs (1702), Colles, 257 480

V. Farebrother (1858), 1 C. L. R. 323 21 L. T. (o. s.) 128 510, 514 ; . .
V. Kett (1701), 1 Ld. Raym. 658 Salk. 95 Holt, 221 12 Mod. Rep. 466; 170 ;
; .
V. London County Council, [1904] 2 K. B. 501 73 L. J. (k. b.) 561 90 ; ;
L. T. 415 52 W. R. 476 68 J. P. 239 2 L. G. R. 662 20 T. L. R.

; ; ; ;
271 25,213
V. McKenna (1874), 10 Ch. App. 96 44 L. J. (ch.) 425 31 L. T. 739 23 ; ; ;
W. R. 271
v. Reynolds (1906), Times Newspaper, December 17
V. Smith (1812), 16 East, 382 14 R. R. 366 ;
.189
375
235
....
V. South Eastern Rail. Co. (1877), 2 C. P. D. 416 46 L. J. (c. p.) 768 36 ; ;
L. T. 540 25 W. R. 564 ;
550
V. Staniland (1809), 11 East, 362 293
V. Walsh (1885), 1 T. L. R. 583 399
V. Winlow (1857), 7 E. & B. 942 27 L. J. (q. b.) 49 4 Jur. (n. s.) 584 ;
220 ; .
Parkes v. Prescott (1869), L. R. 4 Exch. 169 38 L. J. (ex.) 105 20 L. T. 537 ; : ;
17 W. R. 773 201, 211

V. Smith (1850), 15 Q. B. 297 19 L. J. (q. b.) 405 14 Jur. 761
; 440, 464 ; .
Parkinson v. Hanbury (1867), L. R. 2 H. L. 1 36 L. J. (ch.) 292 16 L. T. 243 ; ; ;
15W. R. 642 188

V. Lee (1802), 2 East. 323 390
V. Potter (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 152, 157 55 L. J. (q. b.) 153 53 L. T. ; ;
818 34 W. R. 215 50 J. P. 470

; ;
20 . . .
'
. . . .
V. Wakefield & Co. (1889), 5 T. L. R. 646 630

" Parlement Beige," The (1880), 5 P. D. 197 42 L. T. 273 28 W. R. 642 19, ; ; .
71, 303
clxxii Table of Cases.
PAGE
Parnaby Lancaster Canal Co. (1840), 11 A. & E. 223 3 P. & D. 162 9 L. J.
v. ;
.......
;
(EX.) 338 15
Parnelli;. Tyler (1833), 2 L. J. (CH.) 195 609
V. Wood, [1892] P. 137 645, 646
Parr t: Winteringham (1859), 1 E. & E. 394 28 L. J. (q. b.) 123 32 L. T. 353 ; ; ;
7 W. R. 287 441
Parr's Bank, Ltd. v. Ashby & Co. (1898), 14 T. L. R. 563 591
Parr's Banking Co. v. Yates, [1898] 2 Q. B. 460 643
Parry v. Liverpool Malt Co., [1900] 1 Q. B. 339 69 L. J. (q. b.) 161 81 L. T. 621 ; ; . 453
Parsons v. Gingell (1847), 4 C. B. 545 16 L. J. (c. p.) 227 11 Jur. 437; ; . . 547
Partington r. Hawthorne (1888), 52 J. P. 807 209
Parton r. Williams (1820), 3 B. & Aid. 330 .26
Partridge v. Bank of England (1844), 9 Q. B. 396 13 L. J. (q. b.) 281 8 Jur. ; ;
803 600, 601

v. Naylor (1597), Cro. Eliz. 480 Moore, 453 Noy, 52 Golds. 145 ; ; ; . 384
r. Scott (1888), 3 M. & W. 220 1 H. & H. 31 7 L. J. (ex.) 101 ; ; . 11
V. Strange (1552), Plowden, 88 Dyer, 74, p. 19 ; 52
Pascal, Ex parte, Re Myer (1876), 1 Ch. D. 509 45 L. J. (bcy.) 81 34 L. T. 10 ; ; ;
24 W. R. 263 308
Pasley v. Freeman (1789), 3 Term Rep. 63 7, 389
v. Taylor (1789), 3 Term Rep. 63 40
Pasmore r. Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council, [1898] A. C. 387 67 L. J. ;
(Q. B.) 635 78 L. T. 569 62 J. P. 628

: ; 8
Passingham v. King (1897), 14 T. L. R. 39 194
Patent Floor Cloth Co., Re (Dean and Gilbert's Claim) (1872), 41 L. J. (ch.)
476 26 L. T. 467
; 232
Paterson v. Gandasequi (1812), 15 East, 62 209
r. Tash (1743), 2 Str. 1178 167
Pattle r. Anstruther (1893), 69 L. T. 175 4 R. 470 41 W. R. 625 : ; . . . 505
Paul, Re (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 247 59 L. J. (q. b.) 30 ; 61 L. T. 835 54 ; ;
J. P. 644 242, 259

V. Summerbayes (1878). 4 Q. B. D. 9 48 L. J. (m. c.) 33 39 L. T. 574 ; ; ;
27 W. R. 215; 14 Cox, C. C. 202 . . 368

" Paul," The (1866), L. R. 1 A. & E. 57 35 L. J. (adm.) 16 14 L. T. 192 ; ; . 90
Pauli, Ex imrte, Re Trye (1838), 3 Dea. 169 2 Jur. 208 ; 203
PauU r. Paull (1833), 2 C. & M. 235 2 Dowl. (p. c.) 340; 4 Tyr. 72 3 L. J.
; ;
(EX.) 1 468
Payne v. Elsden (1900), 17 T. L. R. 161 518
V. Hogg, [1900] 2 Q. B. 43 69 L. ; J. (q. b.) 579 ; 82 L. T. 584 ; 48 W. R.
417 6
V. Leconfield (1882), 51 L. J. (q. b.) 642 ; 30 W. R. 814 . . . . 503
-y. Rogers (1794), 2 Hy. Bl. 350 53
Peacock v. Freeman
(1888), 4 T. L. R. 541 194, 515
V. PursseU (1863), 14 C. B. (n. s.) 728
; 32 L. J. (c. p.) 266 8 L. T. ;
636 11 W. R. 834
; 634
Pearce v. Brooks (1866), L. R. 1 Exch. 213 35 L. J. (ex.) 134 12 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
342 14 L. T. 288 14 W. R. 614

; ; 550
•
V. Creswick (1843), 2 Hare, 286 12 L. J. (ch.) 251 7 Jur. 340 ; 588, ; . 589
V. Tucker (1862), 3 F. & F. 136 559
Pearse v. Boulter (1860), 2 F. & F. 133 > . . . . . . . 167
V. Green (1819), 1 Jac. & W. 135 186
Pearson, Re, [18921 2 Q. B. 263 61 L. J. (Q. b.) 585 67 L. T. 367 40 W. R.
: ; ;
532 9 M. B. R. 185
: 307
V. Graham (1837), 6 A. & E. 899 2 Nev. & P. 636 W. W. & D. 691 ; ; ;
7 L. J. (Q. B.) 247 . . 225, 235

V. Henry (1792), 5 Term Rep. 6 443
V. Scott (1878). 9 Ch. D. 198 38 L. T. 747 26 W. R. 796 ; ; . , . 210
Pearson and I'Anson, Re, [1899] 2 Q. B. 618 68 L. J. (q. b.) 878 81 L. T. ; ;
289 48 W. R. 154 63 J. P. 677

; ;
261
PecheU V. Watson (1841), 8 M. & W. 691 11 L. J. (ex.) 225 ; . . . .52
Pedler v. Hardy (1902), 18 T. L. R. 591 458, . . . . . . . ,
. 475
Pedley v. Goddard (1796), 7 Term Rep. 73 474, 480
V. Morris (1892), 61 L. J. (q. b.) 21 65 L. T. 526 40 W. R. 42 ; ; . . 13
Peers v. Sneyd (1853), 17 Beav. 151 . 167
Peirce v. Corf (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 210; 43 L. J. (q. b.) 52 29 L. T. 919 22 ; ;
W. R. 299 170, 389, 515

Pelham v. Hilder (1841), 1 Y. & Ch. 3 165, 182, 186
Penedo v. Johnson (1873), 29 L. T. 452 22 W. R. 103 ;
19
Table of Cases. clxxiii
PAGE
Penn v. Baltimore (1750), 1 Ves. Sen. 444 51
Pennell v. Kidler (1826), 5 B. & C. 406 ; 8 D. & E. 204 ; 4 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.)
207 506
V. Smith (1855), 5 De G. M. & G. 187 ; 24 L. J. (ch.) 750 ; 1 Jur.
(N. s.) 1213 ; 3 W. R. 619 8
V. Walker (1856), 18 C. B. 651 28 L. J. (c. p.) 9 ; . . . 444, 451, 452
Pern-ice r. Williams (1883), 23 Ch. D. 353 52 L. J. (ch.) 593 ; ; 48 L. T. 868 ; 31
W. R. 496 462
Penruddock's Case (1598), 5 Co. Rep. 101 Cro. (Eliz.) 234, 659 Jenk. 260 40 ; ; .
" Pensher," The (1875), Swa. 213 121

Penton v. Murdock (1870), 22 L. T. 371 18 W. R. 382 419, 420
; . . . .
V. Robart (1801), 2 East, 88 4 Esp. 33 ; 272

Pepper v. Gorham (1820), 4 Moore, 148 461
Peppercorn v. Hoffman (1842), 9 M. & W. 618 12 L. J. (ex.) 270 26 ; . . .
Percival, Be (1885), 2 T. L. R. 150 456

V. Oldacre (1865), 18 C. B. (n.s.) 398 390
Perkins v. Smith (1752), 1 Wils. 328 181
Perring v. Rebutter (1842), 2 M. & Rob. 429 185
Perry v. Barnett (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 388 54 L. J. (q. b.) 466 53 L. T. 585 ; ; ;
34 W. R. 154 1 T. L. R. 580
: 168, 182, 197
V. Holl (1860), 2 De G. P. & J. 38, 48 29 L. J. (ch.) 677 6 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
661 2 L. T. 585 8 W. R. 570

; ; 161
V. Mitchell (1844), 12 M. & W. 792 2 D. & L. 452 14 L. J. (ex.) ; ;
88 469
V. Phosphor (1894), 71 L. T. 854 645, 646
Pescod V. Pescod (1887), 58 L. T. 76 457
Petch V. Lyon (1846), 9 Q. B. 147 15 L. J. (q. b.) 393 ; 215
u Tutin (1846), 15 M. & W. 110; 15 L. J. (EX.) 280 .295 . . .
Peterson v. Ayre (1854), 14 C. B. 665 23 L. J. (c. p.) 129 23 L. T. 67 ; ; ;
2 Com. L. R. 722 2 W. R. 373 ; 461

v. (1855), 15 C. B. 724; 23 L. J. (c. p.) 129 2 C. L. R. 722 2 ; ;
W. R. 373 470, 480

Petrie r. Daniel (1804), 1 Smith, 199 247
Pettman r. Keble (1850), 9 C. B. 701 19 L. J. (c. p.) 325 15 Jur. 38 ; 197 ; . .
Anderson (1825), 3 Bing. 170 10 Moore, 577 3 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.) ; ;
207 ,
Comber (1885), 29 Ch. D. 813 52 L. T. 872 33 W. R. 829 ;625 ; . .
Lyle (1840), 10 A. & E. 113 235

Upton Snodsbury Highway Board (1885), 1 T. L. R. 425 1 Cab. & E. ;
524 49 J. P. 408
;
155
PhiHpps r. Rees (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 17 59 L. J. (q. b.) 1 38 W. R. 53 ; 256 ; . .
PhiUimore r. Barry (1808), 1 Camp. 513 10 R. R. 742 505; . . . . .
Phillips V. Alhambra Palace Co., [1901] 1 K. B. 59 70 L. J. (k. b.) 26 83 L. T. ; ;
431 49 W. R. 223
; 196, 233
V. BistoUi (1824), 2 B. & C. 511 3 D. & R. 391 2 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) ; ;
116 505
V, Evans, [1896] 1 Q. B. 305 65 L. J. (m. c.) 101 74 L. T. 314 44 W. R.
; ; ;
429 18 Cox, C. C 300 60 J. P. 120

;
404 ;
V. (1843), 12 M. & W. 309 1 D. & L. 463 13 L. J. (ex.) 80 479 ; ;

.
r. Homfray.
See Fothergill v. Phillips.
r. Jones (1888), 4 T. L. R. 401 233
V. Patterson (1907). The Times, January 16
V. Smith (1845), 14 M. & W. 589 15 L. J. (ex.) 201
Philpott V. KeUey (1835), 3 A. & E. 106 4 N. & M. 611 1 H. &
;
; ;
... W. 134; 4
.
373
296
L. J. (K. B.) 139 23, 565

Phipps V. Ingram (1835), 3 Dowl. 669 449, 479
V. Jackson (1887), 56 L. J. (ch.) 550 35 W. R 378 ; . . . . 251
r. New Claridge's Hotel, Ltd. (1905), 22 T. L. R. 49, at p. 50 . . 527, 532,
545 560
Phosphate of Lime
Co. v. Green (1871), L. R. 7 C. P. 43 25 L. T. 636 175 ; . .
'
Pickard v. Sears (1837), 6 A. & E. 469 2 N. & P. 488 ; 159

Pickering r. Busk (1812), 15 East, 38 159, 167, 204, 394
V. Marsh (1874), 43 L. J. (m. c.) 143 22 W. R. 798 . 399 ; . . .
Pickering s Claim, International Contract Co., Be (1871), 6 Ch. App. 525 ; 24

L. T. 178 208
PickthaU V. Merthyr Tydvil Local Board (1886), 2 T. L. R. 805 . . . . 453
Pierce v. Corf (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 210 43 L. J. (q. b.) 52 29 L. T. 219 ; ; ; 22
W. R. 299 505
clxxiv Table of Cases.
PAGE
Piercy v. Young (1879), 14 Ch. D. 202 42 L. T. 710 28 W. E. 845 444, 452, ; ; . 453
" Pieve Superiore," The (1874), L. E. 5 P. C. 482 43 L. J. (adm.) 20 30 L. T. ; ;
887 22 W. E. 77 2 Asp. M. C. 162, 319

: ; 73
Piggott V. Birtles (1836), 1 M. & W. 441 2 Gale, 18 253, ; . . . . . 254
Pike V. Ongley (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 708 56 L. J. (q. b.) 373 35 W. E. 534 ; ; . 220
i\ Wilson (1854), 1 Jur. (n. s.) 59 509
Pilkington's Case (1602), 5 Co. Eep. 76 383
Pillott V. Wilkinson (1864), 3 H. & C. 345 34 L. J. (ex.) 22 12 W. E. 1084 ; ; . 226
Pinder v. Bulton (1862), 7 L. T. 269 11 W. E. 25 ; 389
Pini V. Eoncoroni, [1892] 1 Cb. 633 61 L. J. (ch.) 218 66 L. T. 255 40 W. E.; ; ;
297 454
Pinto V. Santos (1814), 5 Taunt. 447 1 Marsh. 132 ;171, 584
Pippin V. Sheppard (1822), 11 Price, 400 . 39
Pisani v. Lawson (1839), 6 Bing. (n. c.) 90 8 Scott, 180; 8 Dowl. (p. c.) 57 3 ; ;
Jur. 1153 308

Pitchers v. Edney (1838), 4 Bing. (n. c.) 721 6 Scott, 582 1 Arn. 267 7 L. J. ; ; ;
(c. p.) 276

Pitt v. Dawkra, cited in Earl v. Stocker (1691), 2 Vern. 251
Pitts V. Millar (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 380 43 L. J. (m. c.) 96 30 L. T. 328 ; ;
... .
.
513
480
412
Plant V. Bourne, [1897] 2 Ch. 281 66 L. J. (ch.) 643 76 L. T. 820 46 W. E.
; ; ;
59 505
Plating Co. v. Farquharson (1881), 17 Ch. D. 49 50 L. J. (ch.) 406 44 L. T. ; ;
389 29 W. E. 510
; 53
Piatt V. Depree (1893), 9 T. L. E. 194 194, 233
V. Hibbard (1827), 7 Covven, 500
Plews V. Baker (1873), L. E. 16 Eq. 564 43 L. J. (ch.) 212
Plews and Middleton, Re (1848), 6 Q. B. 845
; ... .
545
454
480
Plummer v. Lee (1837), 2 M. & W. 495 5 Dowl. (p. c.) 760 M. & H. 152 1 ; ; ;
Jur. 658 468

Pole V. Leask (1860), 28 Beav. 562 29 L. J. (ch.) 889 (1863), 33 L. J. (ch.)
;
:
155 6 Jur. (n. s.) 1105 9 Jur. (n. s.) 829 2 L. T. (n. s.) 737 8 L. T. 645
; ; ; ;
153, 159, 163, 181, 235

Polhill V. Walter (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 114 1 L. J. (k. b.) 92 208, 222 ; . . . .
PoUard v. Bank of England (1871), L. E. 6 Q. B. 623 40 L. J. (q. b.) 233 25 ; ;
L. T. 415 19 W. E. 1168;
223
Pollexfen v. Crispin (1671), 1 Ventr. 122 2 Keb. 757, 765 366 ;
PoUitt, Ex parte, Be Minor, [1893] 1 Q. B. 455 4 E. 253 62 L. J. (q. b.) 236 ; ; ;
68 L. T. 366 41 W. E. 276 10 M. B. E. 35
; ; 234, 235
Pollock V. Garle, [1898] 1 Ch. 1 66 L. J. (ch.) 788 77 L. T. 415 46 W. E.
; ; ;
66 645,646
V. Stables (1848), 12 Q. B. 765 5 Eail. Cas. 352 ; ; 17 L. J. (q. b.) 352 . 167
Pomfret v. Eicroft (1680), 1 Saund. 321 2 Keb. 505, 543, 569 ; ; 1 Sid. 429 1 ;
Vent. 26, 44 538, 552

Ponsford v. Swaine (1861), 1 J. & H. 433 4 L. T. 15 472 ;
Pontifex r. Midland Eail. Co. (1877), 3 Q. B. D. 23

47 L. J. (q. b.) 28 35 ; ;
L. T. 706 37 L. T. 403 25 W. E. 215

; 26 W. E. 209
;
49 ;
Pouting V. Noakes, [1897] 2 Q. B. 281 63 L. J. (q. b.) 549 70 L. T. 842 42 : ; ;
W. E. 506 58 J. P. 559 10 E. 265

; ; 10, 297, 376
Pool V. Pool (1889), 58 L. J. (p.) 67 61 L. T. 401 : 233. 234
Popplewell V. Hodkinson (1869), L. E. 4 Exch. 248 38 L. J. (ex.) 126 20 L. T. ; ;
578 17 W. E. 806
;
10
Port Glasgow and Newark Sailcloth Co. v. Caledonian Eail. Co. (1893), H. L. ;
20 Eet. Court of Session (H. L.), p. 35 30 Sc. L. E. 587 279 ;

. . . .
Portishead Warehouse Co. 'y. Bristol and Portishead Pier and Eail. Co., [1887]
W. N. 75 .467
Portland Urban District Council and Tilley, Be, [1896] 2 Q. B. 98 5 L. J. ;
(q. b.) 527 74 L. T. 703 ;

449
Portugal (Queen of) v. Glyn (1840), 7 CI. & F. 466 West, 258 227 ;
. . . .
Portuguese Consolidated Copper Mines Co., Be (1890). 45 Ch. 16 63 L. T. 423 ; ;
3y W. E. 25 2 Meg. 249 ;
174
Pothonier v. Dawson (1816), Holt (n. p.) 385 549
Potter c Dufaeld (1874), L. E. 18 Eq. 4 43 L. J. (ch.) 472 22 W. E. 585 505 ; ; .
Pott V. Bevan (1844), 1 C. & K. 335 7 Man. & G. 604 8 Scott (n. e.) 319 13 ; ; ;
L. J. (c. p.) 187 8 Jur. 560 ;

180
V. Clegg (1847), 16 M. & W. 321 16 L. J. (ex.) 210 11 Jur. 289 585 ; ; . .
Potts V. Bell (1800), 8 Term Eep. 548 2 Esp. 612 311 ;
Poulton V. London and South Western Eail. Co. (1867), L. E. 2 Q. B. 584 8 ;
B. & S. 616 36 L. J. (q. b.) 294 17 L. T. 11 16 W. E. 309

; 149, 212, 213
; ; .
;
Table of Cases. clxxv
PAGE
Pow r. Davis (1861), B. & S. 220 30 L. J. (q. b.) 257 7 Jur. (n. s.) 1010
1 ; ; ;
4 L. T. 399 9 W. E. 611 ; 223

Powell V. Evan Jones & Co., [1905] 1 K. B. 11 74 L. J. (k. b.) 115 92 L. T. ; ;
430 53 W. R. 277 10 Com. Cas. 36 21 T. L. E. 55

; ; 180, 190, 191 ; .
1'. Fall (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 597 49 L. J. (q. B.) 428; 43 L. T. 562 279 ; . .
r. Knight (1878). 38 L. T. 607 26 W. R. 721 409, 411 :
I'. London and Provincial Bank, [1893] 2 Ch. 555 62 L. J. (CH.) 795 ; ;
69 L. T. 421 41 W. E. 545 ; 636, 637

V. Salisbury (1828), 2 Y. & J. 391 376
V. Smith (1872), L. R. 14 Eq. 85 41 L. J. (cH.) 734 20 W. E. 602 178 ; ; .
Power (or Pomeroy) v. Abbot of Buckfast (1442), Y. B. 21 Hen. 6, p. 15 53 . .
Powley V. Walker (1793), 5 Term Rep. 373 243

Pownall V. Moores (1822), 5 B. & Aid. 416 249
Pratt V. Brett (1817), 2 Madd. 62 . 251 . .
V, South-Eastern Rail. Co., [1897] 1 Q. B. 718 66 L. J. (q. b.) 418 76 ; ;
L. T. 465 45 W. R. 503
; 549
Prebble and Robinson, Re, [3892] 2 Q. B. 602 67 L. T. 267 41 W. R. 30 471, 472 ; ; .
Prescott, Dimsdale & Co. v. Bank of England, [1894] 1 Q. B. 351 63 L. J. :
(Q. B.) 332 70 L. T. 7 9 R. 66 573,642

'
; ; .
Preston v. Proprietors of Liverpool, Manchester etc. Railway (1856), 5 H. L. Cas.

605 25 L. J. (ch.) 421 2 Jur. (n. s.) 241 4 W. R. 383
; ; .176 ; . . .
Price V. Metropolitan House Investment and Agency Co., Ltd. (1907), 23 T. L. R.

630 191, 196
V. Popkin (1839), 10 A. & E. 139 2 P. & D. 304 8 L. J. (q. b.) 198 3 ; ; ;
Jur. 433 468, 479

Pricket v. Metropolitan Rail. Co. (1867), L. R. 2 H. L. 175 36 L. J. (q. b.) 205 ; ;
16 L. T. 542 15 W. R. 937 ; 9
Prickett v. Badger (1856), 1 C. B. (n. s.) 296 26 L. J. (c. p.) 33 3 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
66 5 W. R. 117
; 195, 196, 559
V. Gratrex (1846), 8 Q. B. 1020 2 New Sess. Cas. 429 1 C. & K. 651 ; ;
15 L. J. (m. c.) 145 10 Jur. 566 ; 26

Prideaux v. Criddle (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 455 10 B. & S. 515 38 L. J. (q. b.) ; ;
232 20 L. T. 695
; 590
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

; ; 209, 210
V. Pratt (1867), L. R. 2 Exch. 101 36 L. J. (ex.) 89 16 L. T. 64 15 ; ; ;
W. R. 639 276
Prince v. Clark (1823), 1 B. & C. 186 2 D. & R. 266 1 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 69 180
; ; .
Oriental Bank Corporation (1878), 3 App. Cas. 325; 47 L. J. (p. c.)

42 38 L. T. 41 26 W. R. 543
; ; 598, 591
" Prince George," The (1837), 3 Hag. (adm.) 376 69
" Princess Alice," The (1849), 3 Wm. Rob. 138 68
" Prins Frederik," The (1820), 2 Dods. 451 19
"Prins Hendrik," The, [1899] P. 177 68 L. J. (p.) 86 80 L. T. 838 8 Asp. ; ; ;
M. C. 548 214
Prinston v. The Admiralty (1615), 3 Buls. 147 76
Prioleau v. United States of America (1867), L. R. 2 Eq. 659 36 L. J. (cH.) 36 ; ;
14 L. T. 700 14 W. R. 1012 12 Jur. (n. s.) 724

; ;
19
Prior V. Hembrow (1841), 8 M. & W, 873 10 L. J. (ex.) 371 450 ; . . . .
V. Moore (1887), 3 T. L. R. 624 166

Prosser v. Edmonds (1831), 1 Y. & C. 481 55
Prothero v. Matthews (1833), 5 C. & P. 581 396
Proudfoot V. Boyle (1846), 15 M. & W. 198 3 D. & L. 524 442 ;
V. Hart (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 42 59 L. J. (q. b.) 389 63 L. T. 171 38 ; ; ;
W. R. 730 55 J. P. 20 ;
492 .
V. Montefiore (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 511 8 B. & S. 510 36 L. J. ; ;
(Q. B.) 225 16 L. T. 585 15 W. R. 920

; ; 186, 216
Proudlove v. Twemlow (1833), 1 C. & M. 326 3 Tyr. 260 255 ;
Provincial Insurance Co. of Canada v. Leduc (1874), L. R. 6 P. C. 224 43 ;
L. J. (p. c.) 49 31 L. T. 142 22 W. R. 929: ;

227
Pryce v. Belcher (1847), 4 C. B. 866 16 L. J. (c. p.) 264 ; 8
Pryor v. City Offices Co. (1883), 10 Q. B. D. 504 52 L. J. (q. b.) 362 48 L. T. ; ;
698 31 W. R. 777
;
5
Pugh V. Arton (1869), L. R. 8 Eq. 626 '38 L. J. (ch.) 619 20 L. T. 865 274 ; ; . .
V. Duke of Leeds (1777), Cowp. 714, at p. 723 462

Pugsley V. Ropkins, [1892] 2 Q. B. 184 61 L. J. (q. b.) 645 67 L. T. 369 40 ; ; ;
W. R. 596 129
Pulteney v. Shelton (1799), 5 Ves. 261, n. 251 . .
;
clxxvi Table of Cases.
PAUE
Pulteney v. Townson
(1778), 2 B. 1227 Wm. . 38
Purcell V. Henderson (1885), 16 L. E. Ir. 213, 46b 177
Purkis V. Flower (1873), L. E. 9 (q. b.) 114 42 L. J. (q. ; e.) 33 ; 30 L. T. 90;
22 W. E. 239 2 Asp. M. C. 226 ; . . . . . . . . .128
Putt V. Eoster (1682), 2 Mod. Eep. 319 3 Mod. Eep. 1 ; ;
Eaym. 472 ; PoUexf.
634 Skin. 48, 57 2 Show. 211
: ; 365
Q.
QuAEMAN V. Burnett (1840), 6 M, & W. 499 4 Jur. (o. s.) 969 ; . . 148, 537, 564
Quartz Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Eyre (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 674 ; 52 L. J. (q. b.)
488 49 L. T. 249 31 W. E. 668
; ; 14
Quebec and Eichmond Eail. Co., The v. Quinn (1858), 12 Moo. P. C. C. 232 . 170
Queensland Investment and Land Co., Ltd. v. O'Connell and Palmer (1896), 12
T. L. E. 502 221
Quiggin V. Duff (1836), 1 M. & W. 180 ; 1 Gale, 420 ; 5 L. J. (ex.) 149 . . 544
E.
E. V. Abingdon (Lord) (1794), 1 Esp. 227 Peake, 236 13

— V. Arnaud (1846), 9 Q. B. 806 16 L. J. (q. b.) 50 11 Jur. 279 306
;
—
; ; . .
V. Barber (1887), 3 T. L. E. 491 .191

— V. Bardell (1836), 5 A. & E. 619 2 H. & W. 401 1 N. & P. 74 445 .
—
; ; . .
V. Bingham (1829), 3 Y. & J. 101 447

— V. Blakemore (1850), 14 Q. B. 544 445
— V. Bradford Navigation Co. (1865), 6 B. & S. 631 34 L. J. (q. b.) 191 14 . .
—
;
V. Bradshaw (1835), 7 C. & P. 233 386

— V. Brooks (1829), 4 C. & P. 131 370
— V. Bullock (1868), L. E. 1 C. C. E. 115 11 Cox, C. C. 125 37 L. J. (m. c.) ; ;
47 17 L. T. 516 16 W. E. 405 ; 369

—
;
V. Burke and others (1868), 11 Cox, C. C. 138 302

— V. Butterfield (1893), 17 Cox, C. C. 598 386
— V. Cable, [1906] 1 K. B. 719 75 L. J. (k. b.) 381 94 L. T. 772 54 W. E.
; ; ;
626 70 J. P. 246 22 T. L. E. 438 409, 412, 416

—
: ;
t: Carr and Wilson (1882), 10 Q. B. D. 76 52 L. J. (m. c.) 12 47 L. T. 450 ; ;
31 W. E. 121 303
— V. Chantrell (1875), L. E. 10 Q. B. 587 44 L. J. (m. c.) 94 33 L. T. 305 23 ; ; ;
W. E. 707 416
— v. Cheafor (1851), 21 L. J. (m. c.) 43 2 Den. C. C. 361 T. & M. 621 15 Jur.
; ; ;
1065 5 Cox, C. C. 367 370

— ;
f. City of London Court, Judge of (1883), 12 Q. B. D. 115 128 . .
—
. .
r. [1891] 2 Q. B. 71 60 L. J. (q. b.) 575 64

,
; ;
L. T. 869 4
_ ^^, [1892] 1 Q. B. 273 61 L. J. (q. b.) 337
^
: ;
— V.
66 L. T. 135
M. C. 140
40 W. E. 215
and the Owners of the Michigan," [1898]

" ,
7 Asp.
60, 62, 126
;
.... ;
25 Q. B. D. 339 59 L. J. (q. b.) 427 63 L. T. 492; 38 W. E. 638 69 .
—
.
; ;
'V. Clarke (1777), 2 Cowp. 610 384

— f. Cory (1864), 10 Cox, 23 370
— r. Coulman (1883), 48 J. P. 8 427
— V. Cumberland Justices (1848), 5 D. & L. 431 17 L. J. (q. b.) 102; 12 Jur. ;
1025 5 Eail. Cas. 332 156

— ;
V. Deaves (1869), Ir. E. 3 C. L. 306 11 Cox, C. C. 227 529

—
;
V. Be Kromme (1892), 60 L. T. 301 56 J. P. 682 217

—
;
V. Be Mierre (1771), 5 Burr. 2788 308

— V. Dymock (1901), 17 T. L. E. 593 49 W. E. 618 399
— V. Ewen (1856), 2 Jur. (n. s.) 454
;
77
— V. Faraday (1830), 6 B. & Ad. 275 9 L. J. (o. s.) (m. c.) 36 502 . .
—
. .
;
V. Ferrybridge (1823), 1 B. & C. 375 2 D. & E. 634 296

— V. Fisher (1865), 1 C. C. E. 7 35 L. J. (m. c.) 57 11 Jur. 983 13 L. T. 380
;
;
; ; ;
14 W. E. 58 283
— V. Foley (1889), 26 L. E. Ir. 299 371
— V. Forty-nine Casks of Brandy (1836), 3 Hagg. 257
.
76
— V. Gee (1854), 49 J. P. 212 386
;
Table of Cases. clxxvii
PAGE
R. V. Gilham (1885), 52 L. T. 326 49 J. P. 357 407
—
:
V. Glvde (18GS), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 144 11 Cox, C. C. 103 ; ; 37 L. J. (m. c.) 107 ;
18 L. T. (N. s.) 613 16 W. R. 1174 ; 529

— v. Hardev (1850), 14 Q. B. 529 19 L. J. (q. b.) 196 ; 14 Jur. 649 445
—
; . . .
r. Hemsworth (1846), 3 C. B. 745 .475

— i: Henson (1856), Dears. G. C. 24
.
420
— r. Huggins Ld. Raym. at p. 1583
(1730), 2 ; Str. 882 ; 1 Barnard. B. R. 356,
396 Fitzg. 177 9 St. Tr. Ill 372
—
: ;
r. Humphrey (1825), M'Clel. & Y. 173 547

— V. Huntingdon Justices (^1879), 4 Q. B. D. 522 399
— v. Keyn (1876), 2 Ex. D. 63 46 L. J. (m. c.) 17 13 Cox, C. C. 403 59
—
; : . .
r. Leitrim Justices, [1900j 2 Ir. R. 397 232

— V. Lewis (1869), 11 Cox, C. C. 404 509
— V. Longnor (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 647 1 N. & M. 576 9 L. J. (m. c.) 62 148, 154
—
; ; .
r. Lynch, [1903J 1 K. B. 444 72 L. J. (k. b.) 167 88 L. T. 26 51 W. ; ; ; R.

619 6 J. P. 41 310, 317
— ;
r. McDonagh (1891), 28 L. R. Ir. 204 411

— v. Macdonald (1747), 18 St. Tr. 858 Fost. C. G. 59 310, 316 .
— ; . . .
r. Mackerel (1831), 4 C. & P. 448 283

— V. Manning (1849). 1 Den. C. C. 467 T. & M. 155 2 Car. & K. 887 19 ; ;
;
L. J. (M. c.) 1 13 Jur. 962 4 Cox, C. C. 31 308, 312

—
; ;
V. Minchin-Hampton (1762), 3 Burr. 1309 296

— V. Pagham Level Commissioners (1828), 8 B. & C. 355 2 M. & Ry. 468 12
—
; .
V. Pease (1832), 4 B. & Ad. 30 1 N. & M. 690 2 L. J. (m. c.) 26 279

—
; ; . . .
V. Petch (1878), 14 Cox, 116 38 L. T. 788 371

—
;
V. Pratt (1855), 4 E. & B. 860 Dears. C. C. 502 3 C. L. R. 686 24 L. J. ; ; ;
(M. c.) 113 1 Jur. (n. s.) 681 3 W. R. 372 395

—
: ;
V. Property Derelict (1825), 1 Hagg. 383, n 76

— V. Reeves (1859), 5 Jur. (n. s.) 716 527
— V. Robinson (1859), 28 L. J. (m. c.) 58 1 Bell, C. C. 34 8 Cox, C. C. 115 5 ; ; ;
Jur. (n. s.) 203 32 L. T. 302; 7 W. R. 203 ; 368

— V. Robson (1861). 31 L. J. (m. c.) 22 L. & C. 93 9 Cox, C. C. 29 8 Jur. ; ; ;
(n. s ) 64 10 W. R. 61 5 L. T. (n. s.) 402

: 534
—
;
V. Roe (1870), 11 Cox, C. C. 554 22 L. T. 414 371

—
;
V. Rowlands, [1906] 2 K. B. 292 75 L. J. (k. b.) 501 95 L. T. 502 70 J. P. ; ; ;
463 4 L. G. R. 983 16
—
;
V. Searing (1818), Russ. & Ry. 35 370

— V. Secretary of State for War, [1891] 2 Q. B. 326 60 L. J. (q. b.) 457 64 ; ;
L. T. 764 40 W. R. 5 223
—
;
V. Shickle (1868), L. R, 1 C. C. R. 158 38 L. J. (m. c.) 21 19 L. T. 327 :

; ;
17 W. R. 144 11 Cox, C. C. 189 : 370

— V. Shillibeer (1886), 5 Dowl. 238 445
— V. Shurmer (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 323 55 L. J. (m. c.) 153 55 L. T. 126 34 : ; ;
W. R. 656 50 J. P. 743 243

—
;
V. Silvester (1864), 33 L. J. (m. c.) 79 10 Jur. (n. s.) 360 S. C, no7n. R. v. ; ;
Cleworth, 4 B. & S. 927 9 L. T. 682 12 W. R. 376 294 . . .
—
; ; .
V. Slade (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 433 57 L. J. (m. c.) 120 59 L. T. 640 37 W. R. ; ; ;
141 16 Cox, C. C. 496 52 J. P. 599 394

—
; ;
V. South Devon Rail. Co. (1850), 15 Q. B. 1043
—
464 ...
V. Southend County Court Judge (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 142
20 L. J. (q. b.) 145 15 Jur.
,
53 L. J. (q. b.)
472
;
;
;
423 32 W. R. 754 129

—
;
V. Stamford (Mayor of) (1844), 6 Q. B. 433 8 Jur. 909 155

—
;
V. Stephens (1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 702 7 B. & S. 710 35 L. J. (q. b.) 251 12 ; ; ;
Jur. (N. s.) 961 14 L. T. 593 14 W. R. 859 218 ;
—
;
V. Steward, [1896] 1 Q. B. 300 65 L. J. (m. c.) 83 74 L. T. 54 44 W. R. ; ; ;
368 18 Cox, C. C. 232 60 J. P. 356 433

— ;
V. Thurburn's Case (1849), 1 Den. C. C. 396

;
T. & M. 67 2 Car. & K. 831 ; ;
18 L. J. (M. c.) 140 13 Jur. 499 529

—
;
V. Townley (1870), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 315 40 L. J. (m. c.) 144 24 L. T. 517 ; ; ;
19 W. R. 725 12 Cox, G. C. 59 371

— ;
—
—
V. Turner (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 510
V. Wait (1823), 11 Price, 518 1 Bing. 121
V. Warwickshire Justices (1856), 6 El. & Bl. 837
7 Moore, 473 ;
25 L. J. (m. c.) 119 2 Jur.

502
231 ;
;
... ;
.
(n. s.) 930 4 W. R. 650 415

— v. Welch (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 23
;
45 L. J. (m. c.) 17 33 L. T. 753 24 W. R. ;

: ;
280 13 Cox, C. C. 121 376

— ;
V. West (1831), 2 Deac. Dig. Law, 1518 .283 . . . . . .

'
.
H.L. — I. m
;
clxxviii Table of Cases,
PAGE
K. V. Williams
(1867), 15 L. T. 290 .426
— V. Woodward (1796), 2 Eas^ P. C. 653
.
387
Eadcliffe r. Bartholomew (1892), 1 Q. B. 161 ; 61 L. J. (m. c.) 63 ; 65 L. T. 677 ;
40 W. P. 262
R. 63 ; 56 J. 415
Radly and Delbow Eglesfield (1682), 1 Vent. 173
v. 76
" Radnorshire." The (1880), 5 P. D. 172 49 L. J. (adm.) 48 43 L. T. 319 29 ; ; ;
W. R. 476 4 Asp. M. C. 838 ; . 97

Raft of Timber, Re (1844). 2 Wm. Rob. 251 60, 75
" Rainbow," The (1885), 53 L. T. 91 5 Asp. M. C. 479 ; 199
Rainbow v. Howkins, [1904] 2 K. B. 322 73 L. J. (k. b.) 641 91 L. T. 149 ; : :
53 W. R. 46 20 T. L. R. 508 ; 186, 222, 225, 389.

503, 518
Rainforth v. Hamer (1855). 25 L. T. (o. s.) 247 440, 468
Rainy v. Vernon (1840), 9 C. & P. 559 516
Raitt V. Mitchell (1815), 4 Camp. 146 561
Raleigh v. Atkinson (1840), 6 M. & W. 670 9 L. J. (ex.) 206 228 ; . . . .
V. Goschen, [1897-8] 1 Ch. 73 67 L. J. (ch.) 59 77 L. T. 429 46 :

; ;
W. R. 90 18, 224
Ramazotti v. Bowring (1859), 7 C. B. (n. s.) 851 29 L. J. (c. p.) 30; 6 Jur. ;
(n. s.) 172 8 W. R. 114 : . . 207,210 .

'
Ram Coomar Coondoo v. Chunder Canto Mookerjee (1876), 2 App. Cas. 186 534 .
Ramkissenseat v. Barker (1737), 1 Atk. 50 308 . .
Randall v. Randall (1805), 7 East, 81 3 Smith, 90 474, 469 :
Randegger v. Holmes (1866), L. R. 1 C. P. 679 454

Randell v. Thompson (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 748 45 L. J. (q. b.) 713 35 L. T. 193 ; ; ;
24 W. R. 837 448, 452

Randleson v. Murray (1838), 8 A. & E. 109 3 N. & P. 239 1 W. W. & H. 149 ; ;
7 L. J. (Q. B.) 132 2 Jur. 324 ; 545 .
Ranger v. Great Western Rail. Co. (1854), 5 H. L. Cas. 72 480, 558 . . . .
Ranken v. Alfaro (1877), 5 Ch. D. 786 36 L. T. 529 625 ;
Ransted v. Bank of England (1900), Journal of Institute of Bankers, Vol. XXI.,

p. 157 571
Raphael v. Bank of England (1855), 17 C. B. 161 ; 25 L. J. (c. p.) 33 ; 4 W. R.
10 571
Rasch & Co. V. WuKert. [1904] 1 K. B. 118 ; 73 L. J. (k. b.) 20 ; 89 L. T. 493 :
52 W. R. 145 20 T. L. R. 70 : 474, 475

Rashdall v. Ford (1866), L. R. 2 Eq. 750 35 L. J. (ch.) 769 14 W. R. : : 950 . 222
" Ratata," The. [1897] P. 118, 131 66 L. J. (p.) 39 76 L. T. 224 8 Asp. M. C.
236 ..
Evans,
; ; ;
126
Ratcliffe V. [1892] 2 Q. B. 529 61 L. J. (q. b.) 535 ; ; 66 L. T. 794 ;
40 W. R. 578 : 56 J. P. 837 12
Rawley v. Rawley (1876). 1 Q. B. D. 460 45 L. J. (q. b.) 675 ; : 35 L. T. 191 ;
24 W. R. 995 4
Rayner v. Grote (1846), 15 M. & W. 359 ; 16 L. J. (ex.) 79 227
V. Stone (1762). 2 Eden, 128 251
Raynor v. Childs (1862), 2 P. & P. 775 564
Rayson v. South London Tramways
Co., [1893] 2 Q. B. 304 62 L. J. (q. b.) ;
593 ; 42 W. R. 21 4 R. 522
69 L. T. 491 ; ; 13
Read v. Anderson (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 779 53 L. J. (q. b.) 532 51 L. T. 55 32 ; ; ;
W. R. 950 49 J. P. 4 : 229, 231

V. Brown (18881, 22 Q. B. D. 128 50 L. J. (q. b.) 120 60 L. T. 250 37 ; : ;
W. R. 131 6, 7
V. Edwards (1864), 17 C. B. (N. s.) 245.; 5 N. R. 48 34 L. J. (c. p.) 31 ; ;
11 L. T. 311 . . 373, 377,

. 395
V. Rann (1830). 10 B. & C. 438 3 Man. & R. 144 8 L. J. (k. b.) 144 194, : : . 196
Reads v. Dutton (1836), 2 M. & W. 69 2 Gale, 228 ; 463
V. Johnson (1587), Cro. (Eliz.) 242 1 Leon! 155 Moore, 340 ; ;
37
Reading v. Menham (1832), 1 Moo. & R. 234 552
Real and Personal Advance Co. v. Phalempin (1893), 9 T. L. R. 569 . 165
Redgate v. Haynes (1876), 1 Q. B. P. 89 45 L. J. (m. c.) 65 33 L. T. 779 ; ; 218
Redhead r. Midland Rail. Co. (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 412 38 L. J. (q. b.) 169 ; 551
Redmayne r. Burton (1860), 2 L. T. (n. s.) 324 574
Redpath r. Wigg (1866), L. R. 1 Exch.335 35 L. J. (c. p.) 211 4 H. & C. 432 : ;
12 Jur. (n. s.) 903 14 L. T. 764 14 W. R. 866 ; ; 220

Reedie v. London and North Western Rail. Co. (1849), 4 Exch. 244 6 Rail ;
Cas. 184 20 L. J. (ex. ) 65

; 148
Rees, Be, National Provincial Bank of England, Ex parte (1881), 17 Ch. D. 98
44 L. T. 325 29 W. R. 796 ; 640
;
Table of Cases. clxxix:
PAGE
Rees r.
r.
De Bernardy.
Waters
Reese River Silver
(1847), 16
[1896] 2 Ch. 437
M. & W. 268
Mining Co. r. Smith
;
;
65 L.
4 D.
(1869), L. R. 4
J. (ch.)
& L. 567
656
H. L. 64
;
....74 L. T. 585
: 39 L. J.
.
(ch.)
.
469, 479
54
849 17 W. R. 1024
; 211
Reeve v. Reeve (1858), 1 F. & F. 280 193
r. Palmer (1858), 5 C. B. (n. s.) 84 ; 28 L. J. (c. p.) 168 ; 6 Jur. (n. s.) 916 ;
7 W. R. 325 545
"Regina del Mare," The (1864), Br. & L. 315 87
Reid r. Blisland School Board (1901), 17 T. L. R. 626 25
V. Rigby, [1894] 2 Q. B. D. 40 63 L. J. (q. b.) 451 ; ; 10 R. 280 . . 202, 203,
593, 610'
Rellar r. May 19, 1905
Greenfield. Times. 552
Remington Stevens (1749), 2 Str. 1271
v. 4
Rendall v. Blair (1890), 45 Ch. D. 139 59 L. J. (ch.) 641 63 L. T. 265 38 ; ; ;
W. R. 689 23
Rendell v. Grundy, [1895] 1 Q. B. 16 64 L. J. (q. b.) 135 71 L. T. 564 43 ; ; ;
W. R. 50 14 R. 19 : 477
" Rendsberg." The (1805), 6 C. Rob. 42, 54 535
Renpor," The (1882), 8 P. I). 115 52 L. J. (adm.) 49 48 L. T. 887 31 W. R. ; ; ;
640 Asp. M. C. 98
;
Renshaw v. Queen Anne Residential Mansions and Hotel Co., [1897] 1 Q.B.
662 66 L. J. (q. b.) 496 76 L. T. 611 45 W. R. 487
; ; 453 ;
Ronton v. Wilson (1888), 15 Ret. Court of Sess. (Just.) 84 25 Sc. L. R. 501 411 ; .
Renter v. Electric Telegraph Co. (1856), 6 E. & B. 341 26 L. J. (q. b.) 46 2 ; ;
Jur. (n. s.) 1245 4 W. R. 564 ; 175

Renter's Telegram Co. r. Byron (1874), 43 L. J. (ch.) 661 184
Revis r. Smith (1856), 18 C. B. 126 25 L. J. (c.p.) 195 2 -Jur. (n. s.) 614 4 : ; ;
W. R. 506 13
" Reward," The (1818), 2 Dods. 265 16
Reynell r. Sprye (1852), 8 Hare, 274 1 D. M. & G. 660 21 L. J. (ch.) 633 514; ; .
Reyner v. Pearson (1812), 4 Taunt. 662 13 R. R. 723 215 ;
Reynolds v. Chettle (1811), 2 Camp. 596 590

— "
r. Smith (1893), 9 T. L. R. 494 197
Rhadamanthe," The (1813), 1 Dods. 202 66
Rhodes, Be, Rhodes v. Rhodes (1890), 44 Ch. D. 94 59 L. J. (ch.) 298 62 L. T. ; ;
342 38 W. R. 385 ; 150

V. Airedale Drainage Commissioners (1875), 1 C. P. D. 402 45 L. J. ;
(c. p.) 861 35 L. T. 46 24 W. R. 1053 ; ;467

._ V. Forvvood (1876), 1 App. Cas. 256 47 L. J. (ex.) 396 34 L. T. 890 ; ; ;
24 W. R. 1078 196, 232.

V. London and County Bank (1880), Journal of Institute of Bankers,
Vol n. p. 779 626
V. Robinson (1837), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 677 169
^'
Rhosina," The (1885), 10 P. D. 131 54 L. J. (p.) 72 53 L. T. 30 33 W. R. ; ; ;
794 5 Asp. M. C. 460

; 213
^'
Rialto," The (1891), P. 175 80 L. J. (p.) 71 64 L. T. 540 ; 105 ; . . . .
Rich V. Wooley (1831), 7 Bing. 651 5 Moo. & P. 563 ;386

Richards v. Bluck (1818), 6 C. B. 437 6 D. & L. 325 12 Jur. 963 .249 ; ; . .
-y. Symons(1845), 8 Q. B. 90:15L,. J. (Q. b.)35; lOJur. 6 387 . .
V. West Middlesex Waterworks Co. (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 212 54 L. J. ;
(Q. b.) 551 33 W. R. 902 49 J. P. 631

: ; 660
Richardson i\ Brown (1823), 1 Bing. 344 8 Moore, 338 2 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.) 7 390 ; ;
V. Le Maitre, [1903] 2 Ch. 222 72 L. J. (ch.) 779 88 L. T. 626 452 ; ; .
7 Peto (1840), 1 Man. & G. 896 9 Dowl. (p. c.) 73

. 215 ; . . . .
V. Rowntree, [1894] A. C. 217 ; 63 L. J. (Q. b.) 283; 70 L. T. 817 ;
58 J. P. 493 6 R. 95 : 549, 550

V. Silvester (1873), L. R. 9 Q. B. 34 43 L. J. (q. b.) 1 29 L. T. ; :
395 22 W. R. 74 ; 509
V. Williamson (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 276
V. Worsley (1850), 5 Exch. 613
40 L. J. (q. b.) 145
19 L. J. (ex.) 317
Richdale, Ex parte, Be Palmer (1882), 19 Ch. D. 409 51 L. J. (ch.) 862 46
222
469 ;
:
;
.... .
;
.
L. T. 116 30 W. R. 262 ;
592
Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Co. v. Owners of SS. Cape Breton, [1907]
A. C. 112 141
Ricket r. Metropolitan Rail. Co. (1867), L. R. 2 H. L. 175 36 L. J. (q. b.) 205 ;
16 L. T. 542 15 W. R. 937 ; 9
Rickford V. Ridge (1810), 2 Camp. 537
Ricord zj. Bettenham (1765), Burr. 1734 1 Wm. Bl. 563
590
20,310 ; ....
m 2
clxxx Table of Cases.
PAGE
Eichardson, Be (1885), 30 Ch. D. 396
W. R. 286
55 L. J. (ch.) 741
Riddell v. Sutton (1828), 5 Bing. 200 2 Moo. & P. 345 ;

53 L. T. 746 34
:
623
443 .
:
'
....
. . .
;
Ridgway v. Lees (1856), 25 L. J. (ch.) 584 198

V. Stafford (Lord) (1851), 6 Exch. 404 20 L. J. (ex.) 226 255 ; . . .
Ridley v. Plymouth, Stonehouse and Devonport Grinding and Baking Co.

(1848), 2 Exch. 711 17 L. J. (ex.) 252 12 Jur. 542
; 160 ;
Ridoat V. Pye (1797), 1 Bos. & P. 91 289, 462

" Riga," The (1872), L. R. 3 A. & E. 516 41 L. J. (adm.) 39 26 L. T. 202 20 ; ; ;
W. R. 927 1 Asp. M. C. 246

; 87
Right V. Cuthell (1804), 5 East, 491 ; 2 Marsh. 83 5 Esp. 149 177, 242 ; . . .
V. Darby (1786), 1 Term Rep. 159 241

Riley v. Packington (1867), 2 C. P. 536 36 L. J. (c. p.) 204 16 L. T. 382 15 ; : :
W. R. 746 .159
Rimmer v. Knowles (1874), 30 L. T. 496 22 W. R. 574 : 194
V. Webster, [1902] 2 Ch. 163; 71 L. J. (ch.) 561 ; 86 L. T. 491 50 ;
W. R. 517 205, 633

Ringland v. Lowndes (1863), 15 C. B. (n. s.) 173 33 L. J. (c. p.) 25; 9 L. T. ;
479 12 W. R. 168
; 457, 463
" Rio Lima,'" The (1873), L. R. 4 A. & E. 157 28 L. T. 775 2 Asp. M. C. 34 131 ; ; .
Ripley v. Great Northern Rail. Co. (1875), 10 Ch. App. 435 31 L. T. 869 23 ; ;
W. R. 085 445
"Ripon City," The, [1897] P. 226 66 L. J. (adm.) 110 77 L. T. 98 8 Asp.
; ; ;
M. C. 304 61, 69, 72

Risbourgi;. Bruckner (1858), 3 C. B. (n. s.) 812 27 L. J. (c. p.) 90 6 W. R. 215 180 ; ;
Rishton v. Whatmore (1878), 8 Ch. D. 467 47 L. J. (ch.) 629 26 W. R. 827 505 ; ; .
Ritchie v. Couper (1866), 28 Beav. 344 189

Rittson V. Stordy (1856), 3 Sm. & G. 230 1 Jur. (n. s.) 771 2 Jur. (n. s.) 410 307
; ; .
River Lagan," The (1889), 37 L. J. (p.) 28 58 L. T. 773 6 Asp. M. C. 281 104 ; ;

.
Robarts v. Tucker (1851), 16 Q. B. 560, at p. 579 602, 614, 615

Robb V. Green, [1895] 2 Q. B. 315 64 L. J. (q. b.) 593 73 L. T. 15 44 W. R.
; ;
:
25 ; 11 T. L. R. 517 184
Robbins v. Fennel (1847). 11 Q. B. 248 17 L. J. (q. b.) 77 12 Jur. 157 ; 172 ; . .
'•
Robert Dickinson," The (1884), 10 P. D. 15 54 L. J. (adm.) 5 52 L. T. 55 ; ; :
33 W. R. 400 5 Asp. M. C. 341

; 63, 90
Roberts, Be, Evans r. Roberts (1887), 36 Ch. D. 196 56 L. J. (ch.) 952 57 ; ;
L. T. 79 35 W. R. 684 51 J. P. 757
; ; 506
V. Barker (1833), 1 C. & M. 808 3 Tyr. 945 2 L. J. (ex.) 268 245
— r. Barnard (1884), 1 Cab. & El. 336
;
194, 196
; . .
V. Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Rail. Co. (1903), 87 L. T.

732 14
^, Eberhardt (1857), 3 C. B. (n. s.) 482 28 L. J. (c. p.) 74 4 Jur. ;
:
(N. s.) 898 6 W. R. 793

: 472
V. Hardy (1815), 1 Bos. & P. 536 3 M. & S. 533 310 ;
V. Havelock (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 404 557, 558

V. Ogilby (1821), 9 Price, 269 159, 187
V. Williams (1835). 5 Tyr. 583 4 D. P. C. 483 1 Gale, 315 : 26 ; . . .
V. Woodward (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 412 59 L.J. (m. c.) 129 63 L. T. ; ;
200 38 W. R. 770
; 21&
Robertson r. Fauntleroy (1823), 8 Moore, 10 1 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.) 55 224, 231 ; . .
Robey v. Arnold (1897), 14 T. L. R. 39 195

Robey's Perseverance Ironworks r. Oilier (1872), 7 Ch. App. 695 27 L. T. 362 ; ;
20 W. R. 956 . . . 625
Robinson, Be (1885), 31 Ch. D. 247 55 L. J. (ch.) 307 53 L. T. 865
:
4 ; . .
V. Davies (1879), 5 Q. B. D. 26 49 L. J. (q. b.) 218 28 W. R. 255 450

; : .
V. Gleadow (1835), 2 Bing. (n. c.) 156 2 Scott, 250 1 Hodges, 245 179 ; : .
V. Hawksford (1846), 15 L. J. (q. b.) 37'7 9 Q. B. 52 10 Jur. 964 603 ; ; .
y. Jenkins (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 275 59 L. J. (q. b.) 147 62 L. T. ; ;
439 38 W. R. 360 6 T. L. R. 69, 158

; ;
200
V. MoUett (1874), L. R. 7 H. L. 802 44 L. J. (c. p.) 362 33 L. T. ; ;
544 148, 159, 168, 182, 189

v. Montgomeryshire Brewery Co., [1896] 2 Ch. 841; 65 L. J. (ch.)
915 3 :Mans. 279 205
V. Read (1829), 9 B. & C. 449 4 M. & Ry. 349 7 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.)
; ;
236
'y. Robinson (1876), 35 L. T. 337
V. Rutter (1855), 4 E. & B. 954

21 W. R. 694
24 L. J. (q. b.) 250 1 Jur. (n. s.)
209
485,489 :
:
.... :
823 3 W. R. 405
; . . . 227, 519, 520
;
Table of Cases. clxxxi
PAGE
Robshaw
V. Owners
Smith
(1878), 38 L. T. 423
v.
Robson V. Kemp (1802), 4 Esp. 233 5 Esp. 52

of the "Kate"' (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 13
199,
57 L. J. (q. b.)
; .... ;
.
'.
.
*.
,
'
643
229
546 59 L. T. 557 36 W. R. 910 6 Asp. M. C. 330

; ; ; 128
Roche v. Cork, Blackrock etc. Rail. Co. (1889), 24 L. R. Ir. 250 . . . . 549
V. London and South Western Rail. Co., [18991 2 Q. B. 502 68 L J. ;
(Q. B.) 1041 ; 81 L. T. 315 : 48 W. R. 1 108

Rochefoucauld v. Boustead, [1897J 1 Ch. 213 66 L. J. (CH.) 74 75 L. T. 502 ; ; ;
45 W. R. 272 157^ 192. 484 '
Rodgers v. Richards, [ 1892] 1 Q. B. 555 66 L. T. 261 40 W. R. 331 56 J. P. ; ; ;
281 17 Cox, C. C. 475

:
409
Rodick v. Gandell (1852), 1 De G. M. & G. 763 12 Beav. 325 19 L. J. ; ; (ch.)
113 13 Jur. 1087
:
. 224
Rodmell v. Eden (1859). 1 F. & F. 542 *
178
Rodwell 7^ Phillips (1842), 9 M. & W. 501 1 Dowl. (n. s.) 885 11 L. J. ; ; (ex.)
217 257, 293
Roe r. Charnock (1790), 1 Peake, N. P. C. 6 241
V. Harvev (1769), 4 Burr. 2484 35
V. Pierce (1809), 2 Camp. 96 167
Rogers. Ex parte. Be Rogers (1880), 15 Ch. D. 207 43 L. T. 163 29 W. ; ; R 29 . 197
r. Boehm (1799), 2 Esp. 703 188
V- Hadley (1861), 2 H. & C. 227 32 L. J. (ex.) 241 9 Jur. (n. s.) ; ; 898 ;
9 L. T. 292 11 W. R. 1074 : 227

& Co. V. Lambert & Co. (1890). 24 Q. B. D. 573 59 L. J. (q. b.) ; 259 ;
62 L. T. 694 38 W. R. 542 54 J. P. 501 ; ; . 562

[1891] 1 Q. B. 318 60 L. J. (q. b.) 187 ; ; 64
L. T. 406 39 W. R. 114 7 T. L. R. 69
: ; 192
V. Whiteley, [1892] A. C. 118 61 L. J. (q. b.) 512 66 L. T. 303 ;
; . . 586,
588, 606
Rolfe Peterson (1772), 2 Bro. P. Cas. 436
V. 250
Eolin Steward (1854), 14 C. B. 595 23 L. J. (c. p.) 148
V. 2 C. L. R. 959 18 ; ; ;
Jur. 536 608

Eolland r. Cassidy (1888). 13 App. Cas. 770 57 L. J. (p. c.) 97 59 L. T. 873 ; ; . 458
V. Hart (1871), 6 Ch. App. 678 40 L. J. (ch.) 701 25 L. T. 191 19 ; ; ;
W. R. 962 215
Romer and Haslam, Re. [1893] 2 Q. B. 286 62 L. J. (q. b.) 610 69 L. T. 547 ; ;
42 W. R. 51 27
Rooke V. Kensington (Lord) (1856), 2 K. & J. 753, 769 25 L. J. (ch.) 795 2 ; ;
Jur. (N. s.) 755 4 W. R. 829 ; 161

Roope V. DÂvigdor (1883), 10 Q. B. D. 412 48 L. T. 761 47 J. P. 248 ; ; . 28
.
Rooth V. Wilson (1817), 1 B. & Aid. 59 387, 564

Roots V. Dormer (1832), 4 B. & Ad. 77 ; 1 N. & M. 667 . . . . 505, 506
Roper V. Lendon (1859), 1 E. & E. 825 ; 28 L. J. (q. b.) 260 ; 5 Jur. (n. s.) 491 ;
7 W. R. 441 445
" Rory," The (1882), 7 P. D. 117 51 L. J. (adm.) 73 46 L. T. 757 4 Asp. M. C.
; : ;
537 94
Roscorla v. Thomas (1842), 3 Q. B. 234 2 G. & D. 508 11 L. J. (q. b.) 214 6 ; ; ;
Jur. 929 389

"Rose," The (1873), L. R. 4 A. & E. 6 42 L. J. (adm.) 11 28 L. J. 291 21 ; ; ;
W. R. 511 1 Asp. M. C. 567

; 64 '
Rose, Ex parte, Re Hasluck and Garrard (1894), 1 Mans. 218 10 R. 262 228 ; . .
V. Cunnynghame (1805), 11 Ves. 550 505

V. Redfern (1861), 10 W. R. 91 471
Rosenbaum v. Belson, [1900] 2 Ch. 267 69 L. J. (ch.) 569 82 L. T. 658 48 ; ; ;
W. R. 522
Ross -y. Boards (1838), 8 A. & E. 290; 7 L. J. (Q. B.) 209
V. Edwards (1895), 73 L. T. 100 11 R. 574
166, 184, 207
469,479
562 ;
....
V. Hill (1846), 2 C. B. 877 3 D. & L. 788 15 L. J. (c. p.) 182
; 628 ; . . .
V. Johnson (1772), 5 Burr. 2825 445

Rossiter v. The Trafalgar Life Assurance Association (1859), 27 Beav. 377 170 .
•'
Rosslyn," The (1904), 92 L. T. 177 10 Asp. M. C. 24 110
;
Rotherham Alum and Chemical Co., Re (1883), 25 Ch. D. 103 53 L. J. (ch.) ;
290 50 L. T. 219 32 W. R. 131

; ; 176, 179
Rothewel r. Fewer (1431), Y. B. 9 Hen. 6, p. 64 53
Rothschild v. Brookman (1831), 2 Dow & Ci. 188 5 Bli. (n. s.) 165 afarming ; :
3 Sim. 153 7 L. J. (o. s.) (ch.) 163 ; 189

V. Queen of Portugal (1839), 3 Y. & C. Eq. 594 19
" Rougement," The, [1893] P. 275 62 L. J. (p.) 121 1 R. 658 .
; ; . . .95
clxxxii Table of Cases.
PAGE
Rourke v. White Moss Colliery Co. (1877), 2 C. P. D. 205 : 46 L. J. (c. p.) 283 ;
36 L. T. 4925 W. R. 263 ; . . . . .
'
564
Rouse Bradford Banking Co., [1894] A. C. 586 63 L. J. (ch.) 890
i: 71 L. T. ; ;
522 43 W. R. 78 6 R. 349 "

; :
64S
Rouse and Meier, Re (1871), L. R. 6 C. P. 212 40 L. J. (c. p.) 145 23 L. T ; ;
865 19 W. R. 438
; 440
Routh V. Macmillan (1863), 2 H. & C. 750 33 L. J. (ex.) 38 ; 10 Jur. (n. s.) :
158 9 L. T. 541 12 W. R. 381

; ;
163
Routledge v. Low (1868), L. R. 3 H. L. 100 37 L. J. |ch.) 454 18 L. T. 833 ; , ;
16 W. R. 1081 308.
Rowe V. May (1854). 18 Beav. 613 513
V. (1820). 2 B. & B. 165
Young 23
" Rowena," The (1877), 26 W. R. 82 37 L. T. 366 3 Asp. M. C. 506 ; ; . . . 82
Rowland v. Chapman (1901). 17 T. L, R. 669 224, 217
V. Witherden (1851). 3 Mac. & G. 568 21 L. J. (ch.) 480 : . . . 171
Roxburghe v. Cox (1880). 17 Ch. D. 520 50 L. J. (ch.) 772 45 L. T. 225 30 ; ; ;
W. R. 74 585, 620
Royal Albert Hall Corporation v. Winchelsea (1891), 7 T. L. R. 362 . . . 175
Royal Bank of Scotland v. Tottenham. [1894] 2 Q. B. 715 64 L. 3. (q. b.) 99 ; ;
71 L. T. 168 43 W. R. 22 9 R. 569 ; ; 592, 597, 602, 613

Royal British Bank v. Turquand (1855). 5 E. & B. 248 24 L. J. (q. b.) 327 1 ; :
Jur. (n. s.) 1086 2 Jur. (n. s.) 663 ; 165, 202
Ruben v. Great Fingal Consolidated, [1906] A. C. 439 75 L. J. (k. b.) 843 95 ; ;
L. T. 214 13 Mans. 248 22 L. T. 712

; : 202
" Ruby," The. No. 2, [1898] P. 59 67 L. J. (adm.) 28 78 L. T. 235 45 W. R.
; ; ;
687 : 9 Asp. M. C. 421 69

" Ruby Queen," The (1861), Lush. 266 72
" Ruckers,"' The (1801). 4 Ch. Rob. 73 60
Rumball v. Ball (1714). 10 Mod. Rep. 38 23
V. Metropolitan Bank (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 194 46 L. J. (q. b.) 346 ; : 36
L. T. 240 25 W. R. 366 : 204
Runciman v. Smyth & Co. (1904). 20 T. L. R. 625 451
Rushforth v. Hadfield (1886). 7 East, 224 3 Smith, 221 ; 547
Russell, Ex parte (1869), 18 W. R. 753 206
V. Hankey (1794), 6 Term Rep. 12 168. 183, 186, 514
V. Pellegrini (1856), 6 E. & B. 1020; 26 L. J. (q. b.) 75 3 Jur. (n. ; s.)
184 5 W. R. 71 ; . 451
V. Russell (1880), 14 Ch. D. 471 49 L. J. (ch.) 268 42 L. T. 112 ; ; . 453, 454
V. Sa de Bandeira (Viscount) (1862), 13 C. B. (n. s.) 149 ; 32 L. J. (c. b.)
68 559
Russell & Harris (1891), 65 L. T. 752
Co. r. 487
Rust V, Victoria Dock Co. (1887). 36 Ch. D. 113 56 L. T. 216 35 W. R. 673 ; : . 484
Ryan r. Sams (1848), 12 Q. B. 460 17 L. J. (q. b.) 271 12 Jur. 745 154,
; ; . 23G
Ryder r. Wombwell (1868), L. R. 4 Exch. 32 38 L. J. (ex.) 8 ; 19 L. T. 491 ;
;
17 W. R. 167 532
Rylands v. Fletcher. See Fletcher v. Rylands.
Sachs v. Henderson. [1902] 1 K. B. 613 : 71 L. J. (k. b.) 392 : 86 L. T. 437 ; 50

W. R. 418 49
Sadler v. Leigh (1815), 4 Camp. 195 2 Rose, 286 : 206, 207, 227
V. Smith (1869), L. R. 5 Q. B. 40 10 B. &
S. 17 39 L. J. (q. b.) 17 21 ; ; ;
L. T. 502 R. 148
; 18 W. . , . . . 441
Saffron Walden Second Benefit Building Society v. Rayner (1880), 14 Ch. D.
406 49 L. J. (ch.) 465 43 L. T. 3 28 W. R. 681
; : : 216
Sainsbury r. Matthews (1838), 4 M. & W. 343 7 Dowl. (p. c.) 23 8 L. J. ; :
(EX.) 1 293
" St. Cloud," The (1863), Br. & L. 4 8 L. T. 54
;
1 Mar. L. Cas. 309 ; . . 73
St. John's College, Cambridge r. Pierrepoint (1891), 61 L. J. (q. b.) 19 ; 66 L.T.
88 50
" St. Lawrence," The (1880), 5 P. D. 49 L. J. (adm.) 82 67, 68
250 ; . . .
" St. Olaf," The (1877), 2 P. D. 113 35 L. T. 428 3 Asp. M. C. 268 ;

65 ;
. . .
Salaman v. Secretary of State for India, [1906] 1 K. B. 613 75 L. J. (k. b.) ;
418 94 L. T. 858
; 15, 223, 225
Sale V. Lambert (1874), L. R. 18 Eq. 1 43 L. J. (ch.) 470 22 W. R. 47 505 ; ;
. .
Table of Cases. clxxxiii
PAG-E
Salford (Mayor etc. of) v. Lever, [1891] 1 Q. B. 168 60 L. J. (q. b.) 39; 63 L. T.
658 39 W. R. So 7 T. L. R. 18 55 J. P. 244
; ;
Salkeld and Slater, Be (1840), 12 A. & E. 767 4 P. & D. 732

; 191, 216, 217
461, 481 ;
;
.... , . .
Salmon v. Ward (1825). 2 C. & P. 212 390

Salomans Pender (1865), 3 H. & C. 639 34 L. J. (ex.) 95 12 L. T. 267 13 ; ; ;
W. R. 637 . , 196, 515, 516

Salomon v. Broomfield (1896), 12 T. L. R. 239 195
Salter r. Woollams (1841), 2 Man. & G. 650 10 L. J. (c. p.) 145 518 ; . . .
Salton r. New Beeston Cycle Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 43 69 L. J. (ch.) 20 81 L. T. ; ;
437 48 W. R. 92
:
222, 223
Salvesen v. Rederi Aktiebolaget Nordstjernan. [1905] A. C. 302 74 L. J. (p. c.) ;
96 92 L. T. 575
: 192, 222
Salvin v. North Brancepetli Coal Co. (1874), 9 Ch. App. 705 44 L. J. (ch.) ;
149 22 W. R. 904
; 11
Samon's Case (1594), 5 Co. Rep, 77 b 468
Samuel v. Cooper (1835), 2 A. & E. 752 1 H. & W. 86 S. C. novi. Samuel v. ; ;
Levey, 4 N. & M. 520 . . . 469, 479 , . . .

'
. . .
" Sam Laing," The (1870). L. R. 3 A. & E. 284 il2

Sanders v. St. Neots Union (1846), 8 Q. B. 810 15 L. J. (m. c.) 104 10 Jur. 566 155 ; ;
V. Teape (1884), 51 L. T. 263 48 J. P. 757 : 395

Sanderson v. Collins, [1904] 1 K. B. 628; 73 L. J. (k. b.) 358: 90 L. T. 243 52 ;
W. R. 354 20 T. L. R. 249
; 212, 545.
V. ^Yalker (1807), 13 Ves. 601 9 R. R. 234 ; 515
Sandilands v. Marsh (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 673 394
"Sans Pareil," H.M.S., [1900] P. 267 82 L. T. 606 9 Asp. M. C. 59, 78 ; 71 ; .
Sarch v. Blackburn (1830), 4 C. & P. 297 M. & M. 505 ; 375

Sargeant, IJ.i- p,n-t(\ Re Burrough (1810), 1 Rose, 153 598
Sargent v. I\Iorris (1820), 3 B. & Aid. 277 226
Sass, 7.V, Kc parte l^-A.t\o\vA\ Provincial Bank of England, [1896] 2 Q. B. 12 ;
65 L. J. (Q. B.) 481 74 L. T. 383 44 W. R. 588

: 12 T. L. R. 333
; 640' : . .
Saunders r. Seyd and Kelly's Credit Index Co., The (1896), 75 L. T. 193 4 . .
Saunderson v. Collins, [1904J 1 K. B. 628 73 L. J. (k. b.) 358 90 L. T. 243 ; ; ;
52 W. R. 354 20 T. L. R. 249 ; 551-553

Griffiths (1826), 5 B. & C. 909 8 D. & R. 643 4 L. J. (o. s.) ; :
(K. B.) 318 175

Savery r. King (1856), 5 H. L. Cas. 627 25 L. J. (ch.) 482 2 Jur. (n. s.) 503 ; ; :
4 W. R. 571 178, 189

Savile v. Jardine (1795), 2 Hy. Bl. 531 12
Saxby r. Gloucester Wagon Co., [1880] W. N. 28 487
Saxon L\ Blake (1S61), 29 Beav. 438 219
Sayers, Ex parte (1800), 5 Ves. 169 203
Scarf r. Jardine (1882), 7 App. Cas. 345, at p. 349 51 L. J. (q. b.) 612 47 L. T. ; ;
258 30 W. R. 893
: 235
Scarfe r. Morgan (1838), 4 M. & W. 270; 1 H. & H. 292 7 L. J. (ex.) 324 2 ; ;
Jur. 569 294, 547, 548, 561

Schack r. Anthony (1813), 1 M. & S. 573 .208
Schmaling r. Thomlinson (1815), 6 Taunt. 147 1 Marsh. 500 171, 172, 560 ; , .
Schmaltz r. Avery (1851), 20 L. J. (Q. b.) 228 15 Jur. 291 226 ; .

'
. . .
Schneider r. Lizardi (1845), 9 Beav. 461 19

Schofield, Ex parte, Be Firth (1879), 12 Ch. D. 337 48 L. J. (bcy.) 122 27 W. R. ; ;
935 40 L. T. 823
; 598, 629
Schofield r. Hincks (1888), 58 L. J. (q. b.) 147 60 L. T. 573 37 W. R. ; ;
157 259, 264, 275, 276

r. Londesborough (Earl), [1896] A. C. 514 65 L. J. (q. b.) 593 75 ; ;
L. T. 254; 45 W. R. 124 . . . 204,616 •
Scholefield r. Robb (1839), 2 Moo. & R. 210 391

Schroder v. Ward (1863), 13 C. B. (n. s.) 410 552
Schroeder r. Central Bank (1876), 34 L. T. 735 24 W. R. 710 223 ; .
Schuster v. McKellar (1857), 7 El. & Bi. 704 26 L. J. (q. b.) 281 3 Jur, ; :
1321 5 W. R. 656; 211

" Schwan," The. Robert Morrison," The (1879), L. R. 4 A. & E. 187 103
" Scindia," The (1866), L. R. 1 P. C. 241 4 Moo. P. C. C. (n. s.) 84 12 Jur ; ;
(N. s.) 534 126

Scorell V. Boxall (1827), 1 Y. & J. 396 293
Scott V. Avery (1856), 5 H. L. Cas. 811 22 L. J. (ex.) 187 25 L. J. (ex." 303
2 Jur. (N. s.) 815 8 Exch. 487
; 17 Jur. 810
:
22, 445
;
..
;
V. Brown & Co., [1892] 2 Q. B. 724 61 L. J. (q. b.) 738 67 L. T 782 ; ;
41 W. R. 116 57 J. P. 213
; 535
;
clxxxiv Table of Cases.
PAGE
Scott Ebury (Lord) (1867), L. E. 2 C. P. 255 ; 36 L. J. (c. p.) 161 ; 15 L. T.
506 ; 15 W. E. 517 177, 221
V. Glasgow Corporation, [1899J A. 431 0. 470 : 68 L. J. (p. c.) 98 81 L. T. 302 ;
V. Godfrey, [1901] 2 K. B. 726 70 L. J. (k. b.) 954 ; ; 85 L. T. 415 50 ;
W. E. 61 6 Com. Cas. 226 ; 168, 182, 186

-y. Irving (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 605 9 L. J. (o. s.) (k. B.) 89 .168 ; . . .
V. Manchester Corporation (1857), 2 H. & N. 204 26 L. J. (ex.) 406 3 ; ;
Jur. (N. s.) 590 5 W. E. 598 ; 213

V. Mercantile etc. Insurance Co. (1892), 66 L. T. 811 445
V. National Bank of Chester Valley, 10 Canada L. J. (n. s.) 182 532, 533 . .
V. Forcher (1817), 3 Meriv. 652 224

V. Stansfield (1868), L. E. 3 Exch. 220 37 L. J. (ex.) 155 18 L. T. 572 ; ;
.13
;
16W. E. 911
V. Surman (1742), Willes, 400 167, 203
V Van Sandau (1841), 1 Q. B. 102 449
V (1844), 6 Q. B. 237 461,480
Scovell V. Bevan (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 428 56 L. J. (q. b.) 604 36 W. E. 301 129 ; ; .
Seaber v. Hawkes (1831), 5 M. & P. 549 9 L. J. (o. s,) (c. p.) 217 219 ; . . .
Seacomb v. Bowlney (1743), 1 Wils. 20 20

Seaman v. NethercHft (1876), 1 C. P. D. 540 2 C. P. D. 53 46 L. J. (c. p.) ; ;
128 34 L. T. 878 35 L. T. 784 24 W. E. 90 25 W. E. 159

; ; 13 ; ; . . .
Searle v. Laverick (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 122 43 L. J. (q. b.) 43 30 L. T. 89 ; ;

;
22 W. E. 367 544, 545

V. Eeynolds (1866), 7 B. & S. 704 35 L. J. (q. b.) 18 14 L. T. 518 424 ; ; .
Seaton v. Burnand, [1900] A. C. 135 640

Secretary of State for India v. Hewitt & Co., Ltd. (1888), 6 Asp. M. C. 384 94 .
in Council v. Kamachee Boye Sahaba (1859), 7

Moo. Ind. App. 476 13 Moo. P. C. 22 7 W. E. 722 ; 15, 181 ; . . . .
Seear v. Lawson (1880), 15 Ch. 426 49 L. J. (bcy.) 69 42 L. T. 893 28 ; ; ;
W. E. 929 545
Selby Eobinson (1788), 2 Term Eep. 758 .283 . . . . . . .
Sehgmann v. Le Boutillier (1866), L. E. 1 C. P. 681 451

Selot Trust, Re, [1902] 1 Ch. 488 71 L. J. (ch.) 192 : 17
Selsey (Lord) r. Ehoades (1824), 2 S. & S. 41 189
Sememza r. Brinsley (1865), 18 C. B. (n. s.) 467 34 L. J. (c. p.) 161 11 Jur. ; ;
(N. s.) 409 12 L. T. 265 13 W. E. 634

: ;
211
Senior r. Armytage (1816), Holt, N. P. C. 197 244, 245
Sentance v. Hawley (1863), 7 L. T. 745 13 C. B. (n. s.) 458 11 W. E. 311 180 ; ; .
" Seraglio," The (1885), 10 P. D. 120 54 L. J. (adm.) 76 52 L. T. 865 34 ; ; ;
W. E. 32 5 Asp. M. C. 421 ; 85, 86, 88

Sergent, Ex parte, Re Gelder, [1881] W. N. 37 555
Serle i: Norton (1841), 2 M. & E. 401 604
Serrell v. Derbyshire Eail. Co. (1850), 9 C. B. 811 19 L. J. (c. p.) 371 588 ; . .
" Servia and Corinthia," The, [1898] P. 36 67 L. J. (p.) 63 78 L. T. 54 46 ; ; ;
W. E. 492 8 Asp. M. C. 353 : 69

Seton r. Slade (1802), 7 Ves. 266 6 E. E. 124 ;
232, 503
Seward v. Vera Cruz (1884), 10 App. Cas. 59 54 L. J. (adm.) 9 52 L. T. 474 : :
33 W. E. 477 5 Asp. M. C. 386 49 J. P. 324

; ;
71
Sewell r. Burdick (1884). 10 A. C. at p. 98 54 L. J. (q. b.) 126 53 L. T. 445 ; ; ;
33 V/. E. 461 5 Asp. M. C. 376 : 638

r. Taylor (1859), 7 C. B. (n. s.) 160 29 L. J. (m. c.) 50 6 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
582 1 L. T. 37 8 W. E. 26
; ;
506
Seymour r. Bridge (1825), 14 Q. B. D. 460 54 L. J. (q. b.) 347 164, 182, 197, 229 ; .
r. Pickett [19051. 1 K. B. 715 74 L. J. (k. b.) 413 92 L. T. 512 21 ; ; ;
T. L. E. 302 . .
586
Shackell r. Eosier (1836), 2 Bing. (n. c.) 634 3 Scott, 59 5 L. J. (c. p.) 193 54 : : .
'
Shaftesbury (Earl of ) v. London and Southwestern Eail. Co. (1895), 11 T.L. E.
269 . .
.279 . .
Shallcross v. Oldham (1862), 2 Johns. & H. 609 5 L. T. 824 10 W. E. 291 190 ; ; .
Shannon v. Shannon (1834), 1 Sch. & Lef. 324 43

Sharland v. Mildon (1846), 5 Hare. 469 15 L. J. (ch.) 434 10 Jur. 771 225 ; ;
. .
Sharman r. Brandt (1871), L. E. 6 Q. B. 720 40 L. J. (Q. b.) 312 19 W. E. : ;
.
936 . . . . .
152, 226
. . .
'
Sharp V. Nowell (1848), 6 C. B. 253 458

i: St. Sauveur (1871), 7 Ch. App. 343 41 L. J. (ch.) 576 26 L. T. 142 ; ; ;
19 W. E. 269 307, 309

V. Taylor (1850), 2 Ph. 801 187
Sharpe c. Foy (1868), 4 Ch. App. 35 19 L. T. 541 17 W. E. 65 216 ; ; . . .
;
Table of Cases. clxxxv
PAGE
Sharpington t: Fulham Guardians,
[1904] 2 Ch. 449 73 L. J. (ch.) 777 52 ; ;
W. R. 617 68 J. P. 510 20 T. L. R. 643 2 L. G. R. 1229

: ; .445 ; . . .
Shaw r. Woodcock (1827), 7 B. & C. 73 9 D. & R. 889 5 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) ; ;
294 31 R. R. 158
: 153, 181
Shaw and Ronaldson, Rc, [1892] 1 Q. B. 91; 61 L. J. (q. b.) 141 446. 458, 462 . .
Sims, Be (1851) 17 L. T. 160 455

Shee V. Clarkson (1810), 12 East, 507 192
Sheffield Corporation V. Barclay & Co., [1903] 2 K. B. 580: 72 L. J.
(K. B.) 777 89 L. T. 227 52 W. R. ; ;
54 1 L. G. R. 794 9 Com. Cas. 53 ; ;
68 J. P. 17 617
V. [1905] A. C. 392 74 L. J. (k. b.) 747 , ;
;
93 L. T. 83 54 W. R. 49 21 T. L. R. 642 69 J. P. 385 10 Com. Cas. 287

; ;
; ;
;
12 Mans., 248 3 L. G. R. 992 ; 637

Sheffield (Earl) London Joint Stock Bank (1888), 13 App. Cas. 333 57 L. J. ;
(CH.) 986 58 L. T. 735 ; 37 W. R. 33 ; 204, 635

Shelton r. Livius (1832). 2 C. & J. 411 2 Tyr. 420 1 L. J. (ex.) 139 504, 510 ; ; . .
Shenstone v. Hilton, [1894] 2 Q. B. 452 63 L. J. (q. b.) 584 71 L. T. 339 ; ;
225 521 '
Sheridan v. New Quay Co. (1858), 4 C. B. (n. s.) 618 ; 28 L. J. (c. p.) 58 ; 5 Jur.
(N. s.) 248 192
Sherry, Be, London and County Banking Co. v. Terry (1884), 25 Ch. D. 692 ; 50
L. T. 227 32 W. R. 394 ; 586, 639, 641
V. Richardson (1591), Pop. 15 470
Shields v. Bank
of Ireland, [1901] 1 I. R. 222 204, 584, 595
Shiells V. Blackburne (1789), 1 Hy. Bl. 159, 536 185
ShiUitoe r. Claridge (1816), 2 Chitty, 424 390
Shipton V. Casson (1826), 5 B. & C. 378 ; 8 D. & R. 130 ; 4 L. J. (o.s.) (k. b.)
199 559
Shipway v. Broadwood, [1899] 1 Q. B. 369 ; 68 L. J. (q. b.) 360 ; 80 L. T. 11 . 216
217
Shipwick V. Blanchard (1795), 6 Term Rep. 298 45
Shoobred, Ex parte, Be, Japanese Curtains and Patent Fabric Co. (1880), 28
W. R. 339 203
Roberts, [1900] 2 Q. B. 497 68 L. J. (q. b.) 998 81 L. T. 522
V. ; ; . 231
Short V. Spackman (1831). 2 B. & Ad. 962 - . 226
Shrewsbury v. North Staffordshire Rail. Co. (1865), L. R. 1 Eq. 593 35 L. : J.
(CH.) 156 12 Jur. (n. s.) 63
; 13 L. T. 648 14 W. R. 220 ; ; . . . . 176
Shrewsbury's (Countess) Case (1600), 5 Co. Rep. 13 Cro. (Eliz.) 774, 784 ; . 41, 44
Shrewsbury and Birmingham Rail. Co. r. London and North Western Rail. Co.
(1857), 6 H. L. C. 133 26 L. J. (ch.) 482 3 Jur. (n. s.) 775
; ; . . . 161
Shropshire Union Railways and Canal Co. v. McQueen (1875), L. R. 7 H. L. 496 ;
45 L. J. (Q. B.) 31 ; 32 L. T. 283 ; 23 W. R. 709 637

Sicilies, Two, King of v. Wilcox (1851), 1 Sim. (n. s.) 301 ; 19 L. J. (ch.) 488 ;
14 Jur. 751 19
Sickel V. Borch
(1864), 33 L. J. (ex.) 179 6
Sicklemore v. Thisleton (1617), 6 M. & S. 9 24
Sidaways v. Todd (1818), 2 Stark. 401 545, 546
Silcock r. Farmer (1882), 46 L. T. 404 275
Silvester, Be, Midland Rail. Co. v. Silvester, [1895] 1 Ch. 573 64 L. J. (ch.) ;
390 72 L. T. 283 43 W. R. 443 13 R. 448

; : : . . . . . . 641
Silvester's Case (1702) 7 Mod. Rep. 150 304, 310
Simkin v. London and North Western Rail. Co. (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 453 59 ;
L. T. 797 53 J. P. 85 ;
14
Simm V. Anglo-American Telegraph Co. (1879), 5 Q. B.D. 188, at p. 196 49 L. J. ;
(Q. B.) 392 42 L. T. 37 28 W. R. 220 44 J. P. 280

; : ; 617
Simmonds r. Taylor (1858), 2 C. B. (n. s.) 428, at p. 539 4 C. B. (n. s.) 467 : . 611
Simmons v. Norton (1831), 9 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.) 185 7 Bing. 640 5 M. & ; ;
P.
645 284
V. Taylor (1858), 2 C. B. (n. s.) 528 4 C. B. (n. s.) 463 27 L. ; ;
J.
(c. p ) 45, 248 4 Jur. (n. s.) 412 6 W. R. 548
; ; 593, 615
Simon v. Metivier (1766), 1 Wm. Bl. 598 504
Simons v. Patchett (1857), 7 E. & B. 568 26 L. J. (q. b.) 195 3 Jur. (n. ; ; s.)
742 5 W. R. 500
;
222
Simpson v. Eggington (1855), 10 Exch. 845 24 L. J. (ex.) 312 173, 178
— ^
V. Hartopp (1744), Willes, 512
; . . .
547
V. Lamb (1876), 17 C. B. (n. s.) 603 25 L. J. (c. p.) 115 2 Jur. (n. ; ; s.)
91 4 W. R. 328
; 196, 517
clxxxvi Table of Cases.
PAGE
Simpson f. Lamb (1857), 7 El. & B. 84 : 26 L. J. (q. b.) 121 ; 3 Jur. (n. s.) 412 ;
5 W. R. 227 55
-y. London and North Western Eail. Co. (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 274; 45
L. J. (Q. B.) 182 ;
33. L. T. 805 546 : 24 W. R. 294
V. Margitson
(1847), 11 Q. B. 23 ; 17 L. J. (q. b.) 81 463 ; 12 Jur. 155 .
Sims V. Britten (1832). 1 N. & M. 594 4 B. & Ad. 375 . : 169, 172 . . .
.V. Landray, [1894] 2 Ch. 318 63 L. J. (ch.) 535 8 R. 582 70 L. T. 530

; ; ; ;
42 W. R. 621 207, 505

Sinclair, Ex parte, Ee Payne (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 616 53 L. T. 767 2Morr. 255 234 ; ;
V. Bowles (1829), 9 B. & C. 92 4 M. & R. 1 ; 558

V. Broughton (1882), 47 L. T. 170 224
" Singapore," The, and -'Hebe," The (1866). L. R. 1 P. C. 378 4 Moo. P. C. C. :
(N. s.) 271 .126

Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Clark (1879), 5 Ex. D. 37 49 L. J. (ex.) 224 41 : ;
L. T. 591 28 W. R. 170 44 J. P. 59 556 ; ; . . .
V. London and South Western Rail. Co., [1894]

1 Q. B. 833 63 L. J. (q. b.) 411
; 70 L. T. 172 42 W. R. 347 ;
548, 561 : . .
Singleton v. Williamson (1861), 7 H. & N. 410 31 L. J. (ex.) 17 8 Jur. (n. s.) : ;
60 5 L. T. 664 10 W. R. 174
: : 376, 380
.
Sirdar Bhagwan Singh v. Secretary of State for India (1874), L, R. 2 Ind. App.
38 15
" Sir Robert Peel,'" The (1880), 4 Asp. M. C. 321 43 L. T. 364 101 : . . . .
Sissons V. Gates (1894). 10 T. L. R. 392 446

"Sisters." The (1876), 1 P. D. 281 45 L. J. (adm.) 35 L. T. 36
: 3 Asp. M. C. ; ;
224 91, 126

Skee V. Coxon (1830). 10 B. & C. 483 448
Skegness and St. Leonard's Tramways Co.. Be. Ex imrte Hanly (1888), 41 Ch. D.
215 58 L. J. (CH.) 737 60 L. T. 406 27 W. R. 225 1 Meg. 127
; :
176 : : . .
Skelton v. London and North Western Rail. Co. (1867), L. R. 2 C. P. 631 36 ;
L J. (c. p.) 249 16 L. T. 563 15 W. R. 925

;
535 : .
189
1;. Wôod (1895), 71 L. T. 616
Skinner v. Stocks (1821). 4 B. & Aid. 437

15 R. 130
V. Weguelin. Eddowes & Co. (1882), 1 Cab. & EL 12

:
159, 207
172, 193
... .
.
.
Skrine v. Elmore (1810), 2 Camp. 407

" Skiidenaes,"' The (1901), 70 L. J. (p.) 64
Skyring v. Greenwood (1825). 4 B. & C. 281 6 D. & R. 401 1 C. & P. 517
389
135
619
....
; ;
.
Slade's Case (1602). 4 Co. Rep. 92 a Moore, 433 Yelv. 20 Godol. 176, 197 36, 37
: ; ;
Sloman v. Walter (1784). 2 Wh. & Tud. L. C. 267 1 Bro. C. C. 418 250 ; . . .
Small V. Warr (1883). 47 J. P. 20 411

Smally r. Smally (1700). 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 6 151 . . . .
•
• • •
Smart v. Hyde (1841). 8 M. & W. 723 1 Dowl. (n. s.) 60 10 L. J. (ex.) 479 :
392 ;
.
V. Sandars (1846). 3 C. B. 380 16 L. J. (c. p.) 39 10 Jur. 841 :

167 ; . .
V. (1848), 5 C. B. 895 17 L. J. (c. p.) 258 12 Jur. 751

;
228, 229 : .
Smith. Be. Ex jmrte Edwards (1886), 3 Mor. 179 444

r. Bailey, [1891] 2 Q. B. 403 60 L. J. (q. b.) 779 65 L. T. 331 40 W. R.
; ; ;
28 565
r. Baker (1873), L. R. 8 C. P. 350 42 L. J. (c. p.) 155 28 L. T. 637 178 : : .
V. [1891] A C. 325
,
60 L. J. (Q. b.) 685 65 L. T. 467
:
15 ; . . .
V. Barton (1866), 15 L. T. 294 185, 186

V. Betty. [1903 2 K. B. 317 I 72 L. J. (k. b.) 853; 89 L. T. 258; 52 :
W.R.137 586
V. Bickmore (1812), 4 Taunt. 474 231
V. Cadogan (1786), 2 Term Rep. 188 180
270, 274
V. Callender. [1901] A. C. 297
V. Cartwright (1851), 6 Exch. 927
V. Chance (1819). 2 B. & Aid. 753
70 L. J. (p. c.) 53 84 L. T. 801
20 L. J. (ex.) 401
:
155
248
:
;
... .
V. Cook (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 79; 45 L. J. (Q. b.) 122 33 L. T. 722 24 ; ;
W. R. 206 .
372, 387, 544
V. Dear. [1905] 88 L. T. 664 369
^
r. Dearlove (1848), 6 C. B. 132 17 L. J. (c. p.) 219 12 Jur. 377 547
; ;
. .
r. Devonshire (Duke of) (1906). 22 T. L. R. 619 270

V. Ferrand (1827), 7 B. & C. 19
355
r. Fielder (1833). ]0 Bing. 306
.... 9 D. & R. 803 5 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.)
3 M. & Scott. 853 2 Dowl. (p. c.) 764 3 :

210
: ;
; ;
L.J. (CP.) 62 450

73 L. J. (k. b.) 894 91 L. T. 296 20
—
r. Giddy, [1904] 2 K. B. 449
T. L. R. 5S6
r. Goff (1845), 14 M. & W. 264 3 D. & L. 47
;
;
296
461, 462
... ;
. .
;
•
Table of Cases. clxxxvii
PAGE.
Smith r. Great Eastern Rail. Co. (1866), L. R. 2 C. P. 4 36 L. J. (c. p.) 22 468, 15 ; ;
L. T. 2i6 ; 15 W. R. 131 374

1: Hartley (1851), 10 C. B. 800 2 Lo. M. & P. 340 20 L. J. (c. p.) 169
; ; ;
15 Jnr. 755 469

r. Hartopp (1745). 1 Smith L. C, 11th ed. 437 Willes, 512 252. : . . .
V. Hopper (1847), 9 Q. B. 1005 16 L. J. (q. b.) 93 11 Jur 302

; 26. ; . .
r. Hull Glass Co. (1852), 11 C. B. 897 7 Rail. Cas. 287 21 L. J. (c. p.) ; ;
106 16 Jur. 595

;
166, 180
Jackson (1826). 1 Madd. 618 16 R. R 279 : 513
V. Jones (1842). 1 Dowl. (n. s.) 526 11 L. J. (c. p.) 99 6 Jur. 283 443 ; ; .
r. Keal (1SS2). 9 Q. B. D. 340 47 L. T. 143 31 W. R. 67 51 L. J.

: ; ;
(q. B.) 487 212

V. Kenriek (1849). 7 C. B. 515 18 L. J. (c. p.) 172 ;13 Jur. 362 10 ; . .
V. King. [1893 ,
2 Q. B. 543 67 L. T. 420 40 W. R. 512 56 J. P. 775
; 150 : : .
V. Lascelles (1788), 2 Term Rep. 187 183

r. Lindo (1858). 5 C. B. (n. s 587 27 Jj. J. (c. p.) 335
) .197
: . . .
r. London and South Western Rail. Co. (1870), L. R. 6 C. P. 14 40 L. J. ;
(c. p.) 21; 23 L. T. 678 19 W. R. 230 ; 279

r. McGuire (1858). 3 H. & N. 554 27 L. J. (ex.) 465 6 W. R. 726 : 152 ;
.
V. Mercer (1815). 6 Taunt. 76 1 Marsh. 473 : 615, 617, 618 . . . .
r. O'Brvan (1864), 11 L. T. 346 10 Jur. (n. s.) 1107 13 W. R. 79

; 389 ; .
r. Parsons (1837), 8 C. & P. 199 390

r. Plummer (1818), 1 B. & A. 575 231
r. Price (1862). 2 F. & F. 748 191
r. Sorbv (1875). 3 Q. B. D. 552 217
V. Surman (1829), 9 B. & C. 561 4 M. & R. 555 : 294
r. Target (1795). 2 Anstr. 529 16
r. Troup (1849). 7 C. B. 757 6 D. & L. 679
: 18 L. J (c. p.) 209 475 : . .
r. Union Bank (1875). 1 Q. B. D. 31 609,

45 L. J. (q. b.) 149 33 L. T. 557 :
; ;
24 W. R. 194 610. 612, 615

r. Vertue (1860), 30 L. J. (c. p.) 56 9 C. B. (n. s.) 214 7 Jur. (n. s.) :
;
395 ;3 L. T. (n. s.) 583 1 H. & M. 376 ; 32 L. J. (ch.) 218 33 ; ;
L. J. (ch.) 713 10 Jur. (n. s.) 65, 1190

; 62G
V. Whitmore (1864), 2 De G. J. & S. 297 10 L. T. 128 11 L. T. 169 ; ; ;
13 W. R. 2 475
V. Williams (1892). 9 T. L. R. 9 56 J. P. 840 ; 396
r. Wright (1861), 6 H. & N. 821 30 L. J. (ex ) 313 7 Jur. (n. s.) 1169 ; 382 ; .
385
Smith & Co. V. British Marine Mutual Insurance Association, [1883] W. N. 176 452 .
r. West Derby Local Board, The (1878), 3 C. P. D. 423 47 L. J. ;
(c. p.) 607 ; 38 L. T. 716 27 W. R. 137

: 276
Smith and Reece. Be (1849). 6 D. & L. 520 468.
Service. Nelson & Sons, Be (1890). 25 Q. B. D. 545 59 L. J. (q. b.) ;
Wilson, Be (1848), 2 Exch. 327 18 L. J. (ex.) 320 479 ; . . . .
533 63 L. T. 475 39 W. R. 117

; : 446, 449, 456, 457
Smither, Ex parte (1836), 1 Deac. 413 3 Mont. & A. 693 ; 231
Smcut V. Ilberry (1842), 10 M. & W. 1 12 L. J. (ex.) 357 ; 222
Smurthwaite v. Hannay. [1894] A. C. 494 63 L. J. (q. b.) 737 71 L. T. 157 : ; ;
43 W. R. 113 543
r. Richardson (1863), 15 C. B. (n. s.) 463 447
Smyth r. Anderson (1849), 7 C. B. 21 18 L. J. (c. p.) 109 13 Jur. 211 ; 210 ; . .
Snowdonr. Davis (1808), 1 Taunt. 359 223

Soames v. Spencer (1822), 1 D. & R. 32 178
Soares r. Rahn (1838), 3 Moo. P. C. C. 1 65
Societe Generale v. Metropolitan Bank (1873), 21 W. R. 335 27 L. T. 849 616 ; .
Societe Gent rale de Paris r. Tramways Union Co. and Walker (1884), 14
Q. B. D. 424 54 L. J. (q. b.) 177 52 L. T. : ;
912 216, 636

r. Walker (1885), 11 App. Cas. 20 55 L. J. (q. b.) ;
169 54 L. T. 889
: 34 W. R. 662
: 636, 637
Soilleux r. Herbst (1801), 2 Bos. & P. 444 444
" Solis," The (1885), 10 P. D. 62 54 L. J. (adm.) 52 52 L. T. 440 33 VV. R.
; ; ;
659 5 Asp. M. C. 368

; 84, 86
Solley r. Wood (1852), 16 Beav. 370 170
Solly r. Rathbone (1814), 2 M. & S. 298 167, 172, 199
Solomon r. Barker (1862), 2 F. & F. 726 183, 185, 186
V. Solomon (1859), 28 L. J. (ex.) 129 478
r. Turner (1815), 1 Stark. 51 391
clxxxviii Table of Cases.
PAGE
Solomons v. Bank of England (1810), 13 East, 135, n 199, 203
V. Dawes (1794), 1 Esp. 83 177
" Solway," The (1885), 10 P. D. 137 54 L. J. (p.) 83 53 L. T. 680 34 W. E.
; ; ;
232 5 Asp. M. C. 482

; .215 . . . .
Somerset v. Hart (1884), 12 Q, B. D. 360 53 L. J. (m. c.) 77 48 J. P. 327 218 ; ; .
Somes r. British Empire Shipping Co. (1860), 8 H. L. Gas. 338 30 L. J. (q. b.) :
229 6 Jur. (n. s.) 761 8 W. R. 707

; ; 548, 561
Sorensenf. R. (The "Baltica" 1857J, llMoo. P. C. C. 141 20,310 . . .
South African Co. v. WaUington, [1898] A. C. 308 67 L. J. (q. b.) 470 78 : ;
L. T. 426 46 W. R. 545
; 632
South African Republic v. La Compagnie Franco-Beige du Chemin de Per du
Nord, [1897] 2 Ch. 487 66 L. J. (ch.) 747 77 L. T. 241 46 W. R, 67
; 19 ; ; .
South Australian Insurance Co. v. Randell (1869), L. R. 3 P. C. 101 6 Moo. :
P. C. C. (N. s.) 341 22 L. T. 843 ; 524, 525, 541

South Hetton Coal Co. r. North Eastern News Association, ri894] 1 Q. B. 144 ;
63 L. J. (Q. B.) 293 69 L. T. 844 42 W. R. 322 58 J. P. 196 9 R. 240

; ;
12 ; ; .
South of Ireland Colliery Co. v. Waddle (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 463 (1869), 4 C. P. :
617 37 L. J. (c. p.) 211 18 L. T. 405 16 W. R. 756

; : 561 ;
South Sea Co. r. Bumstead (1734), 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 80 478

South Staffordshire Tramways Co. r. Ebbsmith, [1895] 2 Q. B. 669; 65 L. J.
(Q. B.) 96 73 L. T. 454 44 W. R. 97
; ;
646
South Staffordshire Waterworks Co. r. Sharman, [1896] 2 Q. B. 44 65 L. J. :
(Q. B.) 460 ; 74 L. T. 761 44 W. R. 653 ;

531
Southerne r. Howe (1617), 2 Rol. Rep. 5 Bridg. 125 Poph. 143 Cro. (Jac.) 468 389 ; ; ;
Southport and West Lancashire Banking Co., (1885), 1 T. L. R. 204 202 . .
Southwell V. Bowditch (1876), 1 C. P. D. 374 45 L. J. (c. p.) 630 35 L. T. 196 ; :

;
24 W. R. 838 219
Southwell V. Lewis (1880), 44 J. P. 796 433
Sovereign Life Insurance Co., Be Salter's Claim (1890), 7 T. L. R. 602 194 . .
Sowerby Urban District Council and INIytholmroyd Urban District Council, Be

(1896), 74 L. T. 313 493
Spackman v. Evans (1868), L. R. 3 H. L. 171 37 L. J. (ch.) 752 19 L, T.
151 .. 173
147
; ;
Spain V. Arnott (1817), 2 Stark. 256 19 R. R. 715 :
Spain (King of) v. Hullett and Widder (1833), 1 CI. & F. 33 . . . .19
Sparenburgh v. Bannatyne (1797), 1 B. & P. 163 2 Esp. 580 21, 310, 312 : . .
Spartali v. Van Hoorn, [1884] W. N. 32 Bett. Rep. on Chambers, 216 451

;
. .
Spears Hartly (1798), 3 Esp. 81

Spedding v. Nevell (1869j, L. R. 4 C. P. 212 38 L. J. (c. p.) 133
Speight V. Gaunt (1883), 9 App. Cas. 1 53 L. J. (ch.) 419 50 L. T. 330 32 ;
197
223 ;
:
... ;
W. R. 435 48 J. P. 84;
171
Spence r. Eastern Counties Rail. Co. (1839), 7 Dowl. 697 3 Jur. 846 468 ; . .
V. Union Marine Insurance Co. (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. (p.) 427 37 L. J. ;
(c. p.) 169 18 L. T. 632

; 16 W\ R. 1010 :
548
Spence & Co. v. Rowntree, [1894] A. C. 217 550
Spencer v. Clark (1878), 9 Ch. D. 137 638
V, Harding (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 563 39 L. J. (c. p.) 332 23 L. T. ; ;
237 19 W. R. 48
;
510
V. Wakefield (1887), 4 T. L. R. 194 620, 631
Spillers and Baker, Ltd. and Leetham, Be, [1897] 1 Q. B. 312 66 L. J. (q. b.) ;
326 76 L. T. 35 45 W. R. 241
; ;
466
Spittle V. Lavender (1881), 2 B. & B. 452 5 Moore, 270 23 R. R. 508 180, 512 : ; .
Spooner v. Browning, [1898] 1 Q. B. 528-; 67 L. J. (q. b.) 339 78 L. T. 98 46 ; ;
W. R. 369 203
V. Juddow (1850), 6 Moo. P. C. C. 257, 283 26
r. Sandilands (1842), 1 Y. & C. Ch. 390 233
Spotten & Co.. Be, Ex imrte Provincial Bank (1877), Ir. R. 11 Eq. 412 548 . .
Sprague v. Allen (1899), 15 T. L. R. 150 478

Sprye v. Porter (1856), 7 E. & B. 58 26 L. J. (q. b.) 64 3 Jur. (n. s.) 330 5;
: ;
W. R. 81 54
Spurrier v. Elderton (1808), 5 Esp. 1 512, 517
. .
V. La Cloche, [1902] A. C. 446 71 L. J. (p. c.) 101 86 L. T. 631 51 ;

: ;
W. R. 1 . .
445
Stackpole v. Erie (1761), 2 Wils. (k. b.) 133 196
Stackpoole v. R. (1875), I. R. 9 Eq. 619 .
75 . .
Stafford v. Gardner (1872), L. R. 7 C. P. 242 25 L. T. 876 20 W. R. 299 240 ; ; .
Staffordshire," The (1872), L. R. 4 P. C. 194 41 L. J. (adm.) 49 8 Moo. ; ;
P. C. C. (N. s.) 44 27 L. T. 46 20 W. R. 557

;
1 Asp. M. C. 365
;
66 ; . .
Table of Cases. clxxxix
PAGE
Stainbank v. Shepard (1853), 13 C. B. 418 22 L. J. (ex.) 341 17 Jur. 1032 :
; ; 1
W. R. 505 1 C. L. R. 609 :
.66
Stainton r. Carron Co. (1857). 24 Beav. 346 27 L. J. (ch.) 89 3 jur. (n.
1235 . . . .
Stalworth v. Inns (1844), 13 M. & W. 466 2 D. & L. 428 14 L. J. (ex.) 81 9

188.
:
:
;
.
:
... s.)
Jur. 285 470, 479

Stanbury v. Exeter Corporation, [1905] 2 K. B. 838, at p. 848 75 L. J. (k. b.) ;
28 70 J. P. 11
;
22 T. L. R. 3 ; 213 .
Standley v. Hemmington (1816), 6 Taunt. 561 2 Marsh. 276 475 ; . .
Stanhope v. Blith (1585), 4 Co. Rep. 15 12

V. Thorsby (1866), L. R. 1 C. P. 423 35 L. J. (m. c.) 182 1 H." & r'. ; ;
459 12 Jur. (n. s.) 374 14 L. T. 322 14 W. R. 65

; :
42a ;
Staniforth v. Lyall (1830), 4 Moo. & P. 829 7 Bing. 169 9 L. J. (o. s.) (c. p.) ; ;
23 467
Stanley v. Jones (1831), 7 Bing. 369 54
Staples V. Hay (1843), 13 L. J. (q. b.) 60 1 D. & L. 711 8 Jur. 315 ; 476 ; . . .
Star V. Rookesby (1711), 1 Salk. 335 376

Star Corn Millers Society v. Moore (1886), 2 T. L. R. 751 176
Starkey v. Bank of England, [1903] A. C. 114 72 L. J. (cH.) 402 88 L. T. 244 ; ; ;
51 W. R. 513 8 Com. Cas. 142 :

222, 570, 637
Staveley v. Uzielli (1860), 2 F. & F. 30 236
Stead V. Salt (1825), 3 Bing. 101 10 Moore, 389 ; 442
Steads Settlement Trusts, Re (1876), 2 Ch. D. 713 45 L. J. (ch.) 634 35 L. T. ; ;
465 24 W. R. 698
; 5
Steadman r. Hockley (1846), 15 M. & W. 553 15 L. J. (ex.) 332 10 Jur. ; ;
(o. s.) 819 561

Stedman r. Baker (1896), 12 T. L. R. 451 166
Steel r. Houghton (1788), 1 Hy. Bl. 51 28a
Steele r. Gourley and Davis (1887), 3 T. L. R. 772 221
r. M'Kinlay (1880), 5 App. Cas. 754 43 L. T. 358 29 W. R. 17 208 ; ; . .
Steers r. Lashley (1794), 6 Term Rep. 61 444

Steigiitz r. Egginton (1815), Holt (n. p.) 141; 17 R. R. 620 1.54
Stein r. Ritherdon (1868), 37 L. J. (ch.) 369 16 W. R. 477 585 ; . . . .
Steljes Ingram (1903), 19 T. L. R. 534 49

" Stella," The (1867), L. R. 1 A. & E. 340 36 L. J. (adm.) 13 16 L. T. 335 15 ; ; ;
W. R. 936 127
No. 1 (1900), 81 L. T. 235 8 Asp. M. L. C. 605 ; 110 . . . .
Stenning, Re, Wood v. Stenning, [1895] 2 Ch. 433 73 L. T. 207 13 R. 807 586
Stephen v. International Sleeping Car Co. (1903), 19 T. L. R. 261
Stephens v. Badcock (1832), 3 B. & A. 354 1 L. J. (k. b.) 75
550
; ;
.. .
172 ; . . . .
r. Elwall (1815), 4 M. & S. 258 181, 225

V. Lowe (1832), 9 Bing. 32 2 M. & Sc. 44 ; 447, 448, 463, 468 . . .
Stephens, Smith & Co. and the Liverpool & Globe etc. Insurance Co., Re
(1892), 36 Sol. Jour. 464 471
Stephenson r. Hart (1828), 4 Bing. 476 1 Moo. & P. 357 6 L. J. (o.s.) (c. p.) 97 628
; ;
Stepney Election Petition, Re, Isaacson r. Durant (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 64 ;
55 L. J. (Q. B.) 331 54 L. T. 684 34 W. R. 547

; ; 316
Sterne i\ Beck (1863), 1 De G. J. & S. 595 8 L. T. 688 2 N. R. 346 11 ; ; ;
W. R. 791 555
Steven r. Buncle, [1902] W. N. 44 452
Stevens i: BiUer (1883), 25 Ch. D. 31 53 L. J. (ch.) 249 50 L. T. 36 32 ; ; ;
W. R. 419 152, 153

Chown, [1901] 1 Ch. 894 70 L. J. (ch.) 571 84 L. T. 796 49
/•.
; ; ;
W. R. 460 65 J. P. 470 : 8
r. Hill (1805), 5 Esp. 247 224
f, Legh (1853), 2 C. L. R. 251 2 W. R. 16 ; 503, 512
r. Sampson (1880), 5 Ex. D. 53 49 L. J. (q. b.) 120 41 L. T. 782 ; ;
;
28 W. R. 87 la
_ r. Woodward (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 318; 50 L. J. (q. b.) 231 44 L. T. ;
153 29 W. R. 516 45 J. P. 663

; ; 212
Stevenson r. Mortimer (1778), 2 Cowp. 805 227
v. Watson (1879), 4 C. P. D. 148 48 L. J. (c. p.) 318 40 L. T. 485 ; ;
;
27 W. R. 682 459
Steward r. Coesvelt (1823), 1 C. & P. 23 39a
Stewart v. Aberdein (1838), 4 M. & W. 211 1 H, & H. 284 7 L. J. êx.) 292 168 ; ; .
t: Fry (1817), 7 Taunt. 339 1 Moore, 74 ; 22a

Stiles V. Cardiff Steam Navigation Co. (1864), 33 L. J. (q. b.) 310 10 Jur. (n. s.) ;
1199 10 L. T. 844 12 W. R. 1080

; ; 374, 375
'CXC Table of Cases.
PAGE
Stimson r. Farnham (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B. 175 ; 41 L. J. (q. b.) 52 : 25 L. T.
747 ; 20 W. R. 183 9
Stirling Maitlaiid (1864), 5 B.
r. & S. 840 ; 34 L. J. (q. b.) 1 : 11 L. T. 337 : 13
W. R. 76 . . . . . . . 233
Stocks r. Booth (1786), 1 Term Rep. 428 41
'Stokes r. Lewis
(1804), 2 Smith, 12 471
Stone r.Cartwright (1795), 6 Term Rep. 411 224
r. Compton (1838), 5 Bing. N. C. 142 6 Scott, 846 : 640
r. Marsh (1827), 6 B. & C. 551; R. & M. 364 8 D. & R. 71 5 L. J. ; ;
(K. B.) (o. s.) 201 29

Stone and Hastie, Be, [1903] 2 K. B. 463 72 L. J. (k. b.) 846 89 L. T. 353 ; ; ;
52 W. R. 130 474
Stoneham r. Wyman (1901), 6 Com. Cas. 174 209
iStonelake r. Babb (1770), 5 Burr. 2674 160
Stoomvaart Maatschappy Nederland v. Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation
Co. (1882), 7 App. Cas. 803 52 L. J. (adm.) 1 47 L. T. 198 31 W. R. 249
:
; ; :
5 Asp. M. C. 360, 567 and see The Khedive ; 120, 122

Storey v. Ashton (1869). L. R. 4 Q. B. 476 10 B. & S. 337 38 L. J. (q. b.) ; ;
223 17 W. R. 727 212

— ;
r. Garry (1840), 8 Dowl. 299 4 Jur. 73 : .475

r. Robinson (1795). 6 Term Rep. 138 379
Stradbrooke v. Mulcahy (1852), 2 Ir. C. L. 406 4 Ir.- Jur. (o. s.) 390 22, 283 : .
Strange v. Brennam (1846). 15 Sim. 346 2 Coop. C. C. 1 15 L. J. (ch.) 389 ; ; ;
10 Jur. 649 54
Strangford r. Green (1678), 2 Mod. Rep. 228 442
" Strathgarry,"' The. [1895] P. 264 64 L. J. (p.) 59 72 L. T. 202 11 R. 732
; 93 ; : .
Stray v. Russell (1860), 1 E. & E. 888 29 L. J. (q. b.) 115 6 Jur. (n. s.) 168
; ;
;
1 L. T. 443 8 W. R. 240
: 207
Street v. Blay (1831). 2 B. & Ad. 456 391
V. Union Bank of Spain (1885), 30 Ch. D. 156 55 L. J. (ch.) 31 53 ; ;
L. T. 262 32 W. R. 901 ; 11
Streeter v. Horlock (1822). 1 Bing. 34 7 Moore, 283 ; 544
Strickland v. Maxwell (1834). 2 C. & M. 539 4 Tyr. 346 3 L. J. (ex.) 161 247 ; : .
Stringer and Riley. Re. [1901] 1 K. B. 105 70 L. J. (k. b.) 19 49 W. R. Ill 458, : : .
477
Strode v. Dyson (1804). 1 Smith. 400 394
Strousberg v. Republic of Costa Rica (1881), 44 L. T. 199 29 W. R. 125 19 : . .
Strutt V. Rogers (1816). 7 Taunt. 213 2 Marsh. 524 : 475

Stuart V. Wilkins (1778). Dougl. 19 389
Stubbs V. Boyle (1876). 2 Q. B. D. 124 46 L. J. (c. p.) 136 35 L. T. i)G6 25 ; ; ;
W. R. 184 492
Stumore v. Breen (1886). 12 App. Cas. 698 56 L. J. (q. b.) 401 ; 186 . . . .
V. Campbell & Co., [1892] 1 Q. B. 314 61 L. J. (q. b.) 463 66 L. T. ; ;
218 40 W. R. 101
; 4
Sturgis V. Curzon (Lord) (1851). 7 Exch. 17 21 L. J. (ex.) 38 .444 ; . . .
Sturton V. Richardson (1844), 13 M. & W. 17 2 D. & L. 182 13 L. J. (ex.) 281 ; :

;
8 Jur. 476 36
Suart V. Haigh (1893). 9 T. L. R. 4^8 222
Sucksraith v. Wilson (1866), 4 F. & F. 1083 246
Suffell V. Bank of England (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 555 51 L. J. (q. b.) 401 47 L. T. : :
146 30 W. R. 932
: 570, 615
Summers v. City Bank (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 580 43 L. J. (c. p.) 261 31 L. T. : :
218 608
r. Solomon (1857), 7 E. & B. 879; 26 L. J. (q. b.) 301 3 Jur. (n. s.) ;
962 5 W. R. 660
; 158, 201
Sumpter v. Cooper (1831). 2 B. & Ad. 223 9 L, J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 226 : 633 . . .
V. Hedges. [1898] 1 Q. B. 673 67 L. J. (q. b.) 545 78 L. T. 378 46

; : ;
W. R. 454 557, 558 '

. . . .
Sutton, Ex parte (1788), 2 Cox, 84 170, 184

V. Buck (1810). 2 Taunt. 302 387, 564
— r. Moody (1697), 1 Ld. Raym. 250 Salk. 556 5 Mod. Rep. 375 Comb.
; ; ;
458 Holt, 608 ;

367
V, Spectacle Makers' Co., The (1864), 10 L. T. 411 12 W. R. 742 155 ; . .
552
V. Sutton (1882), 22 Ch. D. 511 52 L. J. (ch.) 333 48 L. T. 95 31 ; ; ;
— W. R. 369
V. Tatham (1839), 10 A. & E. 27 161, 168
3
i: Temple (1843), 12 M. & W. 52 13 L. J. (ex.) 17 7 Jur. 1065 ; 550, 551 : .

Table of Cases. cxci
PAGE
Sutton & Grev. [1894] 1 Q. B. 285 9 R. 106 63 L. J, (q. b.) 633 69
Co. V. ; ; ;
L. T. 673 42 W. R. 195
: 153
Swaisland r. Dearsley (1861). 30 L. J. (ch.) 652 29 Beav. 430 4 L. 432 9 ; ; ;
W. R. 526 510
Swale V. Ipswicli Tannery (1906). 11 Com. Cas. 88 189, 191
-Swan," The (1870), L. R. 8 A. & E. 314 40 L. J. (adm.) 8 23 L. T. 633 19 ; ; ;
W. R. 424 108
Swan V. North British Australasian Co. (1863), 32 L. J. (ex.) 273 . . . 636
V. Sanders (1874), 50 L. J. (m. c.) 67 44 L. T. 424 29 W. R. 538 14 ; : ;
Cox, C. C. 566 45 J. P. 522 : 409

Swans. Case of (1591). 7 Co. Rep. 15 365. 366, 367, 368, 370
Swayne r. White (1862). 31 L. J. (q. b.) 260 10 W. R. 759 ; . .
'
. . . 474
Sweet V. Pvm (1800), 1 East, 4 199
Sweeting, Be. [1898] 1 Ch. 268 67 L. J. (ch.) 179 78 L. T. 6 46 W. R. 242
; : ; . 151
V. Pearce (1859). 7 C B. (n. s.)449
•
9 C. B. (n. s.)534 30 L. J. (c. p.) ; :
109 6 Jur. (n. s.) 753 7 Jur. (n. s.) 800 5 L. T. 79 9 W. R.

: ; : :
343 168, 182, 187, 208, 210

V. Turner (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 310 41 L. J. (q, b.) 58 25 L. T. 796 ;
; ;
20 W. R. 185 517
Swift V. Jewesbury (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 301 43 L. J. (q. b.) 56 30 L. T. 31 ; ; ;
22 W. R. 319 149, 214, 224, 644

Swinford v. Burn (1818). Gow, 5 473
Swinford and Horn, Re (1817), 6 M. & S. 223 463
Swire v. Francis (1877), 3 App. Cas. 106 47 L. J. (p. c.) 18 37 L. T. 554 172,; ; . 193
r. Leach (1865), 34 L. J. (c. p.) 150 18 C. B. (n. s.) 479 11 Jur. (n. s.) ; :
179 11 L. T. 680 13 W. R. 385

: : 252, 546
•'
Sydney Cove," The (1815). 2 Dods. 11 69
Sykes r. Beadon (1879), 11 Ch. D. 170 48 L. J. (ch.) 522 40 L. T. 243 27 ; ; ;
W. R. 464
r. Giles (1839), 5 M. & W. 645
V. Haigh (1835), 4 Dowl. 114
9 L. J. (ex.) 106
2 Scott, 193 1 Hodges, 197 ;
; 165,
:
..... .
.
187
503
475
V. Sacerdoti (1885). 15 Q. B. D. 423 54 L. J. (q. b.) 560 53 L. T. 418 ; ; . 4
r. Sykes (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 113 39 L. J. (c. p.) 179 22 L. T. 236 ; ; :
18 W. R. 551 225
'•
Sylph (1867), L. R. 2 A. & E. 24
" The ; 17 L. T. 519 ; 3 Mar. L. Cas. 37 . .71
Sylvester's Case (1704), 7 Mod. Rep. 150 20, 21, 304
T.
Tabernacle etc. Building Society v. Knight, [1892J A. C. at p. 301 62 L. J". ;
50 67 L. T. 483 56 J. P. 709
(Q. B.) : ; 465,466,493
" Tagus," The, [1903] P. 44 72 L. J. (p.) 4 87 L. T. 598 9 Asp. M. C. 371
; 65, ; ; .
69. 70, 87
Tahiti Cotton Co., Re, Ex parte Sargent (1873), L. R. 17 Eq. 273 43 L. J. (ch.) ;
425 22 W. R. 815
: 636
•
Talca." The (1880), 5 P. D. 169
' 29 W. R. 123 42 L. T. 61 4 Asp. M. C. 226
: 63 ; ; .
Tallentire v. Ayre (1884), 1 T. L. R. 143 .163 . . . .

'
. . .
Tancred v. Leyland. Set' Leyland v. Tancred

Tandy and Tandy, Re (1841), 9 Dowl. 1044 5 Jur. 726
Tanham v. Nicholson (1872), L. R. 5 H. L. 561 Ir. R. 6 C. L. 188
190
470, 480
215
;
;
. .
...
. . .
.
.
.
.
Tanner v. European Bank (1865), L. R. 1 Exch. 261 35 L. J. (ex.) 151 14 ; ;
L. T. 414 14 W. R. 675
V. Scovell (1845), 14 M. & W. 32
Taplin v. Barrett (1889), 6 T. L. R. 30
:
14 L J. (ex.) 321
200, 513
; 563
195
... .
r. Florence (1851), 10 C. B. 744 20 L. J. (c. p.) 137 15 Jur. 402 ; 229, 504 ; .
Tapling v. Jones (1865), 11 H. L. Cas. 290 20 C. B. (n. s.) 166 34 L. J. (c. p.)
342 11 Jur. (n. s.) 309 12 L. T. 555 13 W. R. 617
; ; 11
;
;
;
.. .
V. Weston (1883), 1 C. & E. 99 206

Tarkwa Main Reef, Limited v. Merton (1903). 19 T. L. R. 367 189 . . . .
Tarn v. Commercial Bank of Sydney (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 294 50 L. T. 365 32 ; ;
W. R. 492 585
Tarry v. Ashton (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 314 45 L. J. (q. b.) 260 34 L. T. 97 24 ; ; ;
W. R. 581 169
Tasker v. Shepherd (1861), 6 H. & N. 575 30 L. J. (ex.) 207 4 L. T. 19 9 ; ; ;
W. R. 476 232, 233

Tassell v. Cooper (1850), 9 C. B. 509 584, 643
cxcii Table of Cases.
PAGE
Tatam Eeeve, [1893] 1 Q. B. 44 62 L. J. (q. b.) 30 67 L. T. 683 41 W. E.
v. : :
;
174 9 T. L. R. 39
;
I97 229 '
Tate V. Hyslop (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 368 54 L. J. (q. b.) 592 53 L. T. 581 5 Asp. :

; :
M. C. 487 . . . .
216
V. Wilts and Dorset Bank (1899), Journal of Institute of Bankers, Vol.* XX.',
at p. 376 . .
592, 596, 597
Tattan v. Great Western Rail. Co. (1860), 2 E. & E. 844 29 L. J (Q b ) 184 6 ;
•
Jur. (N. s.) 800 8 W. R. 606 ;

49 '
Tattersall v. Parkinson (1848), 2 Exch. 342 17 L. J. (ex.) *208 475 ; . . . .
Taunton r. Costar (1727), 7 Term Rep. 431 379 ]
Tavener r. Cromwell (1594), Cro. (Eliz.) 353 4 Co. Rep. 27; 3 Leon.' 107 16 ;
.'
'
Taylor, Re (1890), 44 Ch. D. 128 59 L. J. (ch.) 803 62 L. T. 754 38 W. R. ; ; ;
422 484, 485, 486

Re, Ex parte Payne Collier, [1891] 1 Ch. 590; 60 L. J. (ch.) 525: 64
L. T. 605 39 W. R. 417
V. Best (1854), 14 C. B. 487, 523
:
2 C. L. R. 1717 23 L. J. (c. p.) 89 18

I99 ... ;
.
; ;
Jur. 402 2 W. R. 259 ; 20

i: Blacklow (1836). 3 Scott, 614
'
184 '
t: Bowers (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 291 46 L. J. (q. b.) 39 34 L. T. 938 24 ; ; ;
W. R. 499 231
V. Brewer (1813), 1 M. & S. 290 19B '
v. Caldwell (1863), 3 B. & S. 833 32 L. J. (q. b.) 164 8 L. T. 356 11 ; ; ;
W. R. 726
.
r. Button (1823), 1 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 158
V. Kymer (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 320 1 L. J. (k. b.) 114

230, 392, 533, 553
458
199 ;
....... .
r. Laird (1856), 1 H. & N. 266 25 L. J. (ex.) 332 557 ;
r. Lendey (1807). 9 East, 49 231

V. Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Rail, Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 134
;
64 L. J. (Q. b.) 6 71 L. T. 596 43 W. R. 120 59 J. P. 100 14 R.

; : ; ;
34 49
r. Marhng (1840), 2 M. & G. 55 2 Scott (n. e.) 374 451 ;
r. Metropolitan Rail. Co., [1906] 2 K. B. 55 75 L. J. (k. b.) 735 95 ; ;
L. T. 149 22 T. L. R. 479 : 223

;
V. Nesfield (1854). 3 E. & B. 725 2 W. R. 474 2 C. L. R. 1312 23 L. J. ; ; ;
(M. c.) 169 18 Jur. 747 ; 26

V. Newman (1863), 32 L. J. (m. c.) 186 4 B. & S. 69 8 L. T. 424 11 :
; ;
W. R. 752 9 Cox. C. C. 314 :

369, 377, 396
r. Plumer (1815), 3 M. & S. 562
: 2 Rose, 457 204 ;
V. Rogers (1881), 50 L. J. (m. c.) 132 45 L. T. 314 407 ;
r. Shuttleworth (1840), 8 Dowl. 281 8 Scott, 565 6 Bing. (n. c.) 277 ; ;
9 L. J. (c. p.) 138 451

Taylerson r. Peters (1837), 7 A. & E. 110; 2 N. & P. 622 W. W. & D. 644 1 ; ;
Jur. 497 257

"Telegrafo " or " Restauracion " The (1871), L. R. 3 P. C. 673 8 Moore, P. 0. ;
(N. s.) 43 40 L. J. (adm.) 18 24 L. T. 748 20 W. R. 242 Asp. M. C.

; ; ;
;
63 76
Temperlev Steam Shipping Co. v. Smyth, [1905] 2 K. B. 791 74 L. J. (k. b.) 876 ; ;
93 L."' T. 471 54 W. R. 150 10 Com. Cas. 301 21 T. L. R. 739

; ;439, 452, 453 ; .
Temnleman and Reed, Re (1841). 9 Dowl. 962 6 Jur. 324 480 ;
Tenant v. Elliott (1797), 1 Bos. & P. 3 187

Terry, Re (1862), 7 L. T. (n. s.) 370 11 W. R. 113 276 ;
V. Hutchinson (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 599 9 B. & S. 487 37 L. J. (q. b.) ; ;
257 18 L. T. 521
; 16 W. R. 932 ; 11, 12
Tew V. Harris (1847), 11 Q. B. 7 17 L. J. (q. b.) 1 11 Jur. 947 ; 456 ; . . . .
Thackrah, Re, Ex xmrte Hughes and Kimber (1888), 5 Mor. Cbcy.) 235 556 . .
Thames Ironworks Co. r. Reg. (1869), 10 B. & S. 33 20 L. T. 318 468 ; . . .
Tharsis Sulphur and Copper Co., The r. La Societe des Metaux (1889), 58 L, J.
(Q. b.) 435 60 L. T. 924 38 W. R. 78
; ; 148, 459 . .
'
. . . . .
"Theodora " The, [1897] P. 279 66 L. J. (p.) 50 76 L. T. 627 46 W. R. 157 ; : :
4, 136
Thielbar t. P. 421 93 L. T. 600
Craigen (1905), 69 21 T. L. R. 745 J. ; ; . . 411
"Thomas A. Scott," The (1879), 40 L. T. (n. s.) 726 19
Thomas t. Atherton (1878), 10 Ch. D. 185 48 L. J. (ch.) 370 40 L. T. 77 : ; 197,
443
Bradbury, Agnew &
95 L. T.,23 54 W. R. 608
K. B. 627 75 L. J. (k. b.) 726
22 T. L. R. 656
:
Co., Ltd.. [1906] 2
Churton (1862), 2 B. & S. 475 31 L. J. (q. b.) 139 8 Jur. (n. s.

:
:
....
;
;
13
795 ; 6 L. T. 320 13
Table of Cases. cxciii
PAGK
Thomas i: Day (1803), 4 Esp. 262 6 R. K. 857 ; 543
r. Fredericks (1847), 10 Q. B. 775 16 L. J. (q. b.) 393 ; . . . . 456
V. Howell (1874). L. R. 18 Eq. 198 43 L. J. (ch.) 799 30 L. T. 244 ; ; ;
22 W. R. 676 587
V. Jennings (1890), 66 L. J. (q. b.) 5 75 L. T. 274 45 W. R. 93 ; ; . . 274
V. Lewis (1878), 4 Ex. D. 18 48 L. J. (ex.) 7 39 L. T. 669 27 W. R.
; : ;
Ill . . . • 186
V. Morgan
(1835), 2 C. M. & R. 496 4 Dowl. (p. c.) 223 1 Gale, 172 ; ; ;
5 Tyr. 1085
4 L. J. (ex.) 362
; 373
V. Morris (1867), 16 L. T. 398 481
V. Quartermaine (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 685 56 L. J. (q. b.) 340 57 L. T. ; ;
537 35 W. R. 555 51 J. P. 516

; ; 15, 16
Reg. (1874), L. R. 10 Q. B. 31; 44 L. J. (q. b.) 9;
V. 31 L. T,
439 23 W. R. 176 ; 18, 207
r. Winchester (1852). 6 N. Y. (2 Selden) 397 420
Thompson v. Adams (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 361 231
V. Charnock (1799), 8 Term Rep. 139 27
r. Davenport (1829), 9 B. & C. 78 4 M. & Ry. 110 ; . . . 209, 219
V. Gardiner (1876). 1 C. P. D. 777 152
V. Mashiter (1824 1 Bing. 283 8 Moore, 254 1 L. J. (o. ; : s.) 104 . 206,
547
V. Meade (1891), 7 T. L. R. 698 189, 190
V. North-Eastern Rail. Co. (1860), 2 B. & S. 106 31 L. J. (Q. b.) 194 ;
.15
;
6 L. T. 127 10 W. R. 404 8 Jur. (n. s.) 991

; : . . .
V. Wright (1884), 13. Q. B. D. 632 54 L. J. (Q. b.) 32 51 L. T. 634 ; ; ;
W. R. 96
33 200, 513
Thompson and Shackell. Ltd. v. Veale (1896), 74 L. T. 130 554
Thomson v. Anderson (1870), L. R. 9 Eq. 523 : 39 L. J. (ch.) 468 ; 22 L. T. 570 ;
18 W. R. 445 448
V. Bell (1894), 22 R. Ct. of Sess. Gas. 16 32 Sc.L. R. 16 589 : . . .
V. Clydesdale Bank, [1893 J A. C. 282 62 L. J. (p. c.) 91 67 L. T. ; ;
156 1 R. 255 : 584, 595

V. Giles (1824), 2 B. & C. 422 3 D. & R. 733 2 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 48
; 593, ; .
598, 599
Thorne v. Smith
(1851), 10 C. B. 659 2 ; 71 Lo. M. & P. 43 ; 20 L. J. (c. p.) ; 15
V.
Jur. 469
Tilbury (1858), 3 H. & N. 534 27 L. J. (ex.) 407
Thornton v. Maynard (1875), L. R. 10 C. P. 695 44 L. J. (c. P.) 382 33 L. T.
;
27
515, 562
:
... ;
433 227
V. Place (1832), 1 Moo. & Rob. 219 558
Thorpe v. Eyre (1834), 1 A. & E. 926 3 N. & M. 214 ;
247
Threlfall v. Fanshawe (1850), 19 L. J. (q. b.) 334 1 Lo. M. & P. 140 459, 472 ;
.
Threlkeld v. Smith, [1901] 2 K. B. 531 70 L. J. (k. b.) 921 85 L. T. 275 50; ; ;
W. R. 158 372
Thunder v. Belcher (1803), 3 East, 449 263
" Thuringia," The (1872), 41 L. J. (adm.) 20 26 L. T. 446 1 Asp. M. C. 283 122 ; ; .
"Thyatira," The (1882), 8 P. D. 155 52 L. J. (adm.) 85 49 L. T. 406 32 ; ; ;
W. R. 276 5 Asp. M. C. 147

; 121
Thynne v. St. Maur (1887), 34 Ch. D. 465 56 L. J. (ch.) 733 66 L. T. 145 ; ; ;
35 W. R. 273 151
Tidd, Re. Tidd v. Overall, [1893] 3 Ch. 154 62 L. J. (ch.) 915 69 L. T. 255 ;
:
;
42 W. R. 25 3 R. 657
Tidswell, Be (1863), 33 Beav. 213
;
10 Jur. (n. s.) 143

534, 541, 565, 585, 586, 588, 589
;
Tiedemann and Ledermann Freres, Be, [1899] 2 Q. B. 66 68 L. J. (q. b.) 852

469, 479, 486 .... ; ;
81 L. T. 191 174, 175

Tillam V. Copp (1847), 5 C. B. 211 461
Tilleard, Re (1863), 32 Beav. 476 3 De G. J. & S. 519 8 L. T. (n. s.) 142, 587
; ; ;
V-
11 \V. R. 476, 764 176
Tillett V. Ward (1882), 10 Q. B. D. 19 52 L. J. (Q. b.) 61 47 L. T. 546 ;
31 ; ;
W. R. 197 47 J. P. 438 ;
376, 377, 378
Tilling, Ltd. v. Dick, Kerr & Co., Ltd., [1905] 1 K. B. 562 74 L. J.(k. b.) 359 ;
;
92 L. T. 731 53 W. R. 380 69 J. P. 172 3 L. G. R. 369 21 T. L. R. 281

; ;
25 ; ; .
Timmins v. Gibbins (1852), 18 Q. B. 722 21 L. J. (q. b.) 403 17 Jur. 378 575
;
; .
Tinkler v. Poole (1770), 5 Burr. 2657 45

Tirlot V. Morris (1611), 1 Buls. 134 308
Tobin r. R. (1864), 33 L. J. (c. p.) 199; 16 C. B. (n. s.) 310 10 Jur. (n. s.) 1029 :
;
10 L. T. 762 12 W. R. 838
; 17, 213
Todd c. Bowie (1902), 4 F. 435 39 Sc. L. R. 307 ;
259
H.L. — I. n
;
cxciv Table of Cases.
PAGE
Todd V. Emly
(1841), 7 M. & W. 427 10 L. J. (ex.) 161 ; 203
r. Reid (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 210 . .168
Todrick v. Wilson (1891). 2 Wh. Just. Gas. 636 411
Toleman v. Portbury (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 344 41 L. J. (q. ; b.) 98 ; 26 L. T. 292 ;
20 W. R. 44 506
Tomkins v. Willshear (1814), 5 Taunt. 431 1 Marsh. 115 ; 36
Tomlin v. Mayor of Fordwich (1836), 6 N. & M. 594 5 ; A. & E. 147 ; 5 L. J.
(K. B.) 209 440, 480
Toms r. Glacton Urban District Council (1898), 62 J. P. 505 ; 78 L. T. 712 ; 46
W. R. 629 25
Toppin V. Healey (1863). 11 W. R. 466 230
Torrance v. Bolton (1872), 8 Ch. App. 118 J. (ch.) 177 27 L. T. 738 21 ; 42 L. ; :
W. R. 134 .509
Torrington r. Lowe (1868), L. R. 4 C. P. 26 38 L. J. (c. P.) 121 19 L. T. 316 ; ;
17 W. R. 78 208
Tott r. Outbwaite (1893), 10 T. L. R. 76 193
Tottenham Urban District Council r. Williamson & Sons. [18961 2 Q. B. 353
65 L. J. (Q. B. 591 75 L. T. 238 44 W. R. 676 60 J. P. 725
) ;
Totterdell v. Fareham Blue Brick and Tile Co. (1866), L. R. 1 C. P. 674 35

: 9 ; ... ;
;
L. J. (c. p.) 278 12 Jur. (n. s.) 901 14 W. R. 919

:
Touche r. Metropolitan Warehousing Co. (1871). 6 Ch. App. 671

Toulmin r. Millar (1887), 12 App. Cas. 746 57 L. J. (q. b.) 301 58 L. T. 96
169
176
194,
;
; ;
... .
195
Toussaint r. Hartop (1817), 7 Taunt. 571 1 Moore, 287 Holt, 335 444, 450 ; : . .
Towiisend r. Inglis (1816). Holt. 278 201

r. Wathen (1808). 9 East. 277 397
Tozeland r. West Ham Union. [1907] 1 K. B. 920 76 L. J. (k. b.) 514 96 L. T. ; ;
519 71 J. P. 194 5 L. G. R. 507

; ;
Trainor r. Phoenix Insurance Co.. Ltd. (1862), 65 L. T. 825

78, 214
22, 445 ...
339 ...
"Transit/' The (1876), 1 P. D. 283 34 L. T. 934 24 W. R. 1033 3 Asp. M. C.
;
Tredwen r. Holman'(1862), 1 H. & C. 72 31 L. J.'(ex.) 389 8 Jur. (n. s.) 1080

126
;
;
. .
*;
;
10 W. R. 052 445
Treffitz r. Canelli (1872), L. R. 4 P. C. 277
" Trelawnev." The (1811), 3 Ch. Rob. 216, n.
27 L. T. (n. s.) 252 20 W. R. 842
4 C. Rob. 223
Trent r. Hunt (1853), 9 Exch. 14 22 L. J. (ex.) 318 17 Jur. 899 1 W. R. 481 154
;
533
62
;
:
....
;
;
.
Trent and Humber Co., Be, Ex ijarte Cambrian Steam Packet Co. (1868), 4
Ch. App. 112 19 L. T. (n. s.) 465 17 W. R. 18
: 560
;
Trever r. Roberts (1664), Hard. 366 37

Trew r. Burton (1833), 1 C. & M. 533 2 L. J. (ex.) 236 458, 468, 470
; . . .
Tribe r. Taylor (1876), 1 C. P. D. 505 194, 195

Tribe and Upperton, Be (1835). 3 A. & E. 295 468, 479
Trickett f. Tomlinson (1863), 13 C. B. (N. s.) 663; 7 L. T. 678 .202 . . .
Trimble r. Hill (1879), 5 App. Cas. 342 49 L. J. (p. c.) 49 42 L. T. 103 28 : ; ;
W. R. 479 231
Triquet v. Bath (1794), 3 Burr. 1478 1 Wm. Bl. 471 ; 20
Trueman v. Loder (1840). 11 A. & E. 589 3 P. & D. 567 9 L. J. (q. b.) 165 235, ; ; .
236
Trufort, Be (1887), 36 Ch. D. 600 57 L. J. (ch.) 135 57 L. T. 674 36 W. R.
; ; :
163 317
Truman's Case, Be Brewery Assets Co., [1894] 3 Ch. 272; 8 R. 508 63 L. J. ;
(CH.) 635 71 L. T. 328

; 43 W. R. 73 1 Mans. 359: 215 ;
Tryer v. Shaw (1858). 27 L. J. (ex.) 320 461, 480

Tucker v. Linger (1882), 21 Ch. D. 18 8 App. Cas. 508 51 L. J. (ch.) 713 52 ; ; ;
L. J. (ch.) 941 46 L. T. 198 49 L. T. 373 30 W. R. 425 32 W. R.

: : ; ;
40 48 J. P. 4
;
244, 245
V. Morris (1832), 1 Cr. & M. 73 ID. P. C. 639 2 L. J. (ex.) 1 .200 ; ; .
Tuckett r. Isle of Thanet etc. Co. (1902), 46 Sol. Jour. 158 473
Tufnell V. Constable (1838), 7 A. & E. 798 3 N. & P. 47 1 W. W. & H. 113 ; ; ;
7 L. J. (q. b.) 106 2 Jur. 79 : 535

TuUis V. Jacson, [1892] 3 Ch. 441 61 L. J. (ch.) 655 67 L. T. 340 41 W. R.
; ; ;
11 459,481
Tupper r. Foulkes (1861). 9 C. B. (n. s.) 797 30 L. J. (c. p.) 214 3 L. T. 741 ; ; ;
- 7 Jur. (n. s.) 709 9 W. R. 349

;
178 .
Turley v. Daw (1906), 94 L. T. 216 25

" Turliani," The (1877), 32 L. T. at p. 843 2 Asp. M. C. 603 131 ; . . . .
TurnbuU v. Garden (1869), 20 L. T. 218 190

Turncock v. Sartoris (1889), 43 Ch. D. 150 62 L. T. 209 38 W. R. 340 454 ; ; . .
Table of Cases. cxcv
PAGE
Turner v. Burkinshaw (1867), 2 Ch. App. 488 . 188
V. Cameron (1870)> L. R. 5 Q. B. 311 ; 39 L. J. (q. b.) 125 ; 22 L. T.
525 18 W. R. 414 10 B. & S. 931
; ; 272
V. Davies (1670), 2 Sannd. 148 39
V. Goldsmith. ri891] 1 Q. B. 544 60 L. J. (q. b.) 247 64 L. ; : T. 301 ;
39 W. R. 547 196, 230, 232

V. Goulden (1873), L. R. 9 C. P. 57 43 L. J. (c. p.) 60 ; . . . . 441
V. Hockey (1887). 56 L. J. (q. b.) 301 521
V. Letts (1855), 20 Beav. 185 24 L. J. (ch.) 638 1 Jur. (n. s.) ; ; 1057 ; 3
W. R. 352, 494 198
V. Reeve (1901), 17 T. L. R. 592 194
V. Rose (1756), 1 Ld. Ken. 373 481
V. Stallibrass, [1898] 1 Q. B. 36 67 L. J. (q. b.) 52 77 L. T. ; ; 482 ; 46
W. R. 81 49, 50, 387, 546
V. Swainson (1836), 1 M, & W. 572 : 2 Gale, 133 ; 5 L. J. (ex.) 266 470, .
479
V. Turner (1827), 3 Russ. 494 469, 479
Turpin v. Bilton (1843), 5 Man. & G. 455 ; 6 Scott (n. r.) 447 ; 12 L. J. (c. p.)
167 ; 7 Jur. 950 183, 186
Twibell r. London Suburban Bank,
[1869] W. N. 127 604, 605, 607 . . . .
Twining v. Morice (1788), 2 Bro. C. G. 326 512

Two Ellens,"' The (1872), L. R. 3 A. & E. 345 L. R. 4 P. G. 161 40 L. J. ; ;
(ADM.) 11 41 L. J. (ADM.) 33 8 Moo. P. G. G. (n. s.) 398 26 L. T. 1 20

: : ; ;
W. R. 592 1 Asp. M. G. 40, 208

; 67, 68, 87 . . . .
'
. . . .
" Two Friends," The (1799), 1 G. Rob. 283 60

Twycross v. Dreyfus (1877), 5 Gh. D. 605 46 L. J. (ch.) 510 36 L. T. 752 : ; . 223
Tyerman v. Smith (1856), 6 E. & B. 719 25 L. J. (q. b.) 359 2 Jur. (n. ; ; s.)
860 463
Tyler v. Jones (1824). 3 B. & G. 144 : 4 D. & R. 740 444, 450
Tylev V. Seed (1696). Skin. 649 241
" Tvnwald," The, [1895] P. 142 64 L. ; J. (p.) 1 ; 71 L. T. 731 ; 43 W. R. 509 ;
^
7 Asp. M. G. 539 11 R. 690 : 4, 136
Tyrell v. Bank of London (1862), 10 H. L. Gas. 26 ; 31 L. J. (ch.) 369 : 8 Jur.
(n. s.) 849 ; 6 L. T. 1 10 ; W. R. 359 190
Tyson v. Smith (1839). 9 A. & E. 406 244
u.
Udell v. Atherton (1861), 7 H. & N. 172 30 L. J. (ex.) 337 7 Jur. (n. s.) 777 ; ;
;
4 L. T. 797 212
Ultzen V. Nichols, [1894] 1 Q. B. 92 62 L. J. (q. b.) 289 70 L. T. 140 40 ; ; ;
W. R. 58 58 J. P. 103; 527
Umfreville v. London Gounty Gouncil (1897), 66 L. J. (q. b.) 177 75 L. T. 550 ; ;
61 J. P. 84 18 Gox, G. G. 464 ; 433'

Underwood v. NichoUs (1855), 17 G, B. 239 25 L. J. (c. p.) 79 4 W. R. 153 ; ; . 164,
167
Underwood and Bedford and Cambridge Rail. Go., Be (1861), 11 G. B. (n. s.)
442
Union Bank
.. Munster D. 51
459
v. (1887), 37 Gh. ; 57 L. J. (ch.) 124 ; 57 L. T. 877 ;
52 J. P. 453 509
Union Bank of Australia v. Murray-Aynsley, [1898] A. G. 693 ; 67 L. J. (p. c.)
123 204, 226, 584, 606
Union Bank of Canada
Cole (1877), 47 L. J. (c. p.) 100 v. 623
Union Bank of London v. Manby (1879). 13 Gh. D. 239 49 L. ; J. (ch.) 106 ; 41
L. T. 393 28 W. R. 23: 97
Union Bank of Scotland v. National Bank of Scotland (1886), 12 A. G. 53 ; 56
L. T. 208 632
Union Credit Bank v. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, [1899] 2 Q. B. 205 ;
68 L. J. (Q. B.) 842 ; 81 L. T. 44 159, 225, 226

Union Steamship Go. v. Glaridge, ri894] A. C. 185 ; 63 L. J. (p. c.) 56 ; 70 L. T.
177 : 6 R. 434 ; 58 J. P. 366 . . . . 564
United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance Association v. Houston, [1896]
1 Q. B. 567 ; 65 L. J. (q. b.) 484-. 457, 480
United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance Association v. Nevill (1887), 19
Q. B. D. 110 56 L. J. (q. b.) 522 35 W. R. 746 6 Asp. M. C. 226, n.
; ; ; . 209
11 2
;
cxcvi Table of Cases
PAGE
United Service Co., Be Johnston's Claim (1870), 6 Ch. App. 212 40 L. J. (ch.) ;
286 24 L. T. 45 19 W. R. 457
; ; 191, 544, 621, 627
United States of America v. Wagner (1867), 2 Ch. App. 582 36 L. J. (ch.) 624 ;
;
16 L. T. 646 R. 1026
; 15 W. 18
Unwin v. Adams (1858), 1 F. & F. 312 563
V. Wolseley (1787), 1 Term Rep. 674 221
Y.
Vagliano v. Bank of England. See Bank of England v. Vagliano.

Vale of Neath Colliery Co. v. Furness (1876), 45 L. J. (ch.) 276 34 L. T. 231 ; :
24 W. R. 631 166
Valentini v. Canali (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 166 59 L. J. (q. b.) 74 61 L. T. 731 ; ; ;
38 W. R. 331 54 J. P. 295 ; 150, 587, 589

Valpy V. Sanders (1848), 5 C. B. 886 17 L. J. (c. p.) 249 12 Jur. 483 ;178 ; . .
Vance v. Lowther (1876), 1 Ex. D. 176 45 L. J. (ex.) 200 34 L. T. 286 24 ; ; ;
W. R. 372 616
Vanderbyl v. McKenna (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 252 447
Vandyck v. Whitmore (1801). 1 East, 475 *.
.311 . . . . . .
Van Grutten v. Trevenen, [1902] 2 K. B. 82 71 L. J. (k. b.) 544 87 L. T. 344 ; ;
50 W. R. 516 241, 269

Van Praagh v. Everidge, [1902] 2 Ch. 266 71 L. J. (ch.) 598 87 L. T. 42 505 ;
; .
Van Toll v. South Eastern Rail. Co. (1862), 12 C. B. (n. s.) 75 31 L. J. (c. p.) ;
241 8 Jur. (n. s.) 1213 6 L. T. 244 10 W. R. 578

; ; 544, 549 ; . . . .
Van Wart v. Woolley (1830), M. & M. 520 191

Vardon's Trusts, Re (1885), 55 L. J. (ch.) 259 4
Varney v. Hickman (1847), 5 C. B. 271 5 D. & L. 364 17 L. J. (c. p.) 102 231 : ; .
Vasper v. Eddows. See Vaspor v. Edwards.

Vaspor V. Edwards (1701), 12 Mod. Rep. 661 Salk. 248 Holt, 256 1 Ld. Raym. ; ; ;
719 380, 381, 382

Vaughan v. Lemcke. See Lemcke v. Vaughan.
V. Menlove (1837), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 468 4 Scott, 244 3 Hodges, 51 1 ; ; ;
Jur. (n. s.) 215 7 C. & p. 525 ; 538

V. Moffat (1860), 38 L. J. (ch.) 144 205
V. Taff Vale Co. (1866), 5 H. & N. 679 29 L. J. (ex.) 247 6 Jur. ; ;
(n. s.) 899 2 L. T. 394 8 W. R. 549

; 14, 279 ;
V. Weldon (1874), L. R. 10 C. P. 47 44 L. J. (c. p.) 64 31 L. T. 683 ; ;

;
23 W. R. 138 6
Vavasseur v. Krupp (1878), 9 Ch. D. 351 39 L. T. 273 28 W. R. 642 19 ; ; . .
Vawdry r. Simpson, [1896] 1 Ch. 169 65 L. J. (ch.) 369 44 W. R. 123 453 ; ; . .
"Velasquez," The (1867), L. R. 1 P. 494 4 Moo. P. C. (n. s.) 426; 36 L. J. ;
(ADM.) 19 :16 L. T. 777 16 W. R. 89 ;

214
Velthasen r. Ormsley (1789), 3 Term Rep. 315 60
Venning r. Bray (1862), 2 B. & S. 502 31 L. J. (q. b.) 181 8 Jur. (n. s.) 1039 ; ; ;
6 L. T. 327 10 VV. R. 561

; 448
" Vera Cruz," The (1884), 9 P. D. 96 10 App. Cas. 59 53 L. J. (adm.) 33 54 ; ; ;
L. J. (ADM.) 9 51 L. T. 104 ; 52 L. T. 474 33 W. R. 477 5 Asp. M. C.

: ; ;
254, 270, 386 49 J. P. 324

: 71, 87
Vere v. Cawdor (1809), 11 East, 568 396
^'Veritas." The, [1901] P. 304 70 L. J. (p.) 75 85 L. T. 136 50 W. R. 30 9
; ; ; ;
Asp. M. C. 237 72, 74, 87

Vicene r. Beard (1860), 8 C. B. (n. s.) 372 610
Victor Covcacevitch, " The (1885), 10 P. D. 40 54 L. J. (adm.) 48 52 L. T. ; ;
632 5 Asp. M. C. 417

;
102
" Victoria," The (1876), 1 P. D. 280 34 L. T. 931 24 W. R. 596 3 Asp. M. C. ; ; ;
230 . . . 125 . . .
'
(1887), 12 P. D. 105 56 L. J. (adm.) 75 35 L. T. 499 35 W. R. ; ; ;
291 6 Asp. M. C. 120 ;

71
(1888), 13 P. D. 125 Ill
Vimbos, Ltd., Re, [1900] 1 Ch. 470 69 L. J. (ch.) 209 82 L. T. 597 48 W. R. 520 154 ; ; ;
Vinden v.. Hughes, [1905] 1 K. B. 795 74 L. J. (k. b.) 410 53 W. R. 429 21 ; : ;
T. L. R. 324 608, 614

" Vindobala," The (1889), 14 P. D. 50 58 L. J. (p.) 51 60 L. T. 657 6 Asp. ; ; ;
M. C. 376 37 W. R. 409
: . 231 . .
Viney r. Bignold (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 172 50 L. J. (q. b.) 82 58 L. T. 26 ; ; ;
36 W. R. 479 445
Table of Cases. cxcvii
PAGE
Viranv r. Warne Esp. 47 (1801). 4 473
Vivar," The (1876), 2 P. D. 29 35 L. T. 782 25 W. E.433 3 Asp. M. C. 308
: ; ;
. 87
Viveash v. Beeker (1814), 3 M. & S. 284 20
-Yivienne," The (1887), 12 P. D. 185; 56 L. J. (p.) 107 57 L. T. 316; 36 ;
W. E. 110 6 Asp. M. C. 178

;
63
Yogan r. Oulton (1899), 81 L. T. 435 550
••
Volant," The (1842), 1 W. Rob. 383 1 Notes of Cases, 503 : . . . .62
'•Vulcan," The. [1898] P. 222 67 L. J. (p.) 101 ;
112
Vynior's Case (1610), 8 Co. Rep. 81 b 445, 448
w.
Waddell r. Blockej (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 678 ; 49 L. J. (q. b.) 517 ; 41 L. T. 458 ;
27 W. R. 931 191
Waddington v. Bristow (1801), 2 Bos. & P. 452 293
Waddington & Sons v. Neale & Sons (1907), 23 T. L. R. 464 . . . . 205
Waddle r. Downman (1844), 12 M. & W. 562 13 L. J. (ex.) 115 : ; 8 Jur. 933 ;
2
L. T. (o. s.) 350 468
Wade V. Dowling (1854), 4 E. & B. 44 ; 2 C. L. R. 1642 ; 23 L. J. (q. b.) 302 ;
18
Jur. 728 2 W. R. 567 ; 470, 479
r. Wilson (1882), 22 Ch. D. 235 ; 52 L. J. (ch.) 399 ; 47 L. T. 696 ; 31
W. R. 237 633
Wadhurst r. Damme (1686), Cro. Jac. 44 396
Wads worth r. Smith (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 332 ; 40 L. J. (q. b.) 118 ;
19 W. R.
797 440
V. Queen of Spain (1851), 17 Q. B. 171 ; 20 L. J. (q. b.) 488 ; 16 Jur.
164 19
Waithman v. Wakefield (1807), 1 Camp. 120 180
Wake r. Harrop (1862), 1 H. & C. 202 ; 31 L. J. (ex.) 451 ; 8 Jur. (n. s.) 845 ;
7 L. T. 96 10 W. R. 626; 220
Wakefield v. Llanelly
Co. (1864), 34 Beav. 245
etc. .462 . . . . .
V. Newbon (1844), 6 Q. B. 276 13 L. J. (q. b.) 258 8 Jur. 735 223 ; ; . .
Waldock V. Winfield, [1901] 2 K. B. 696 70 L. J. (k. b.) 925 85 L. T. 202 564 ; ;

.
Walker and Brown, Ee (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 434 51 L. J. (q. b.) 424 30 W. R. ; ;
703 471
Walker Advocate-General (1813), 1 Dow 11
r. 505
V. Barker (1900), 16 T. L. R. 393 168, 182
V. Bradford Old Bank (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 511 53 L. J. (Q. b.) 280 32 ; ;
W. R. 645 585
r. Bunkell (1883), 22 Ch. D. 722 31 W. R. 138, 661 52 L. J. (ch.) 596 ; :
;
48 L. T. 618 486
V. Constable (1798), 1 Bos. & P. 306 2 Esp. 659 ;
504
V. Frobisher (1801), 6 Ves. 70 480
V. Great Western Rail. Co. (1867), L. R. 2 Exch. 228 36 L. J. (ex.) 123 ; ;
16 L. T. 327 15 W. R. 769 ;
165
V. Hunter (1845), 2 C. B. 324 15 L. J. (c. p.) 12 9 Jur. 1079 173
..
; ; . .
V. Jones (1834), 2 Cro. & M. 672 3 L. J. (n. s.) (ex.) 208 ; . 42

V. Rostron (1842), 9 M. & W. 411 11 L. J. (ex.) 173 224, 229, ; . . 231
V. South Eastern Rail. Co. (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 640
346 23 L. T. 14 18 W. R. 1032
Witter (1778), 1 Doug. 1
; ;
39 L. J. (c. p.)
. .
:
.... 165
37
Wall's Case (1848), 6 Moo. P. C. C. 216 12 Jur. 145 ;
306
Wall V. Cockerell (1863), 10 H. L. Cas. 229 32 L. J. (ch.) 276 9 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
447 8 L. T. 1 11 W. R. 442 1 N. R. 486

; ; ;
179
Wallace, Re (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 22 54 L. J. (q. b.) 293 51 L. T. 551 33 W. R.
; ;
:
66 1 Morrell, 246 ;
162
r. Cook (1804), 5 Esp. 118 . 233
V. Woodgate (1824), R. & M. 193 1 C. & P. 575 ;
199
WaUer v. Holmes (1860), 1 J. & H. 239 30 L. J. (ch.) 24 6 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
1367 3 L. T. 289 9 W. R. 32
; ;
172
V. King (1724), 9 Mod. Rep. 63 461
V. Lacey (1840), 1 Man. & G. 54 1 Scott (n. r.) 186 8 Dav. Pat. Cas. ; :
613 9 L. J. (c. p.) 217 4 Jur. 435

: ;
467
" Wallett, Walter D.," The, [1893] P. 202 62 L. J. (p.) 88 69 L. T. 771 ; ; . . 14
Wallis, Re, Ex parte Jenks, [1902] 1 K. B. 719 71 L. J. (k. b.) 465 86 L. T. ; ;
237 50 W. R. 430 9 Mans. 136

; ;
638
cxcviii Table of Cases.
PAGE
Wallis Trusts, Ee, ^cc_parê Wallis (1888), 23 L. E. I. R. 7
s .3,5 . . •
Wallis V. Hirsch (1856), 1 G. B. (n. s.) 316 26 L. J. (c. p.) 72 453, 454 ; . . .
V. Portland (Duke of) (1797\ 3 Ves. 494 8 Bro. (p. c.) 161 52, 53 ;
. .
V. Sayers (1889), 6 T. L. R. 356 484

Walmsley v. Milne (1859), 7 G. B. (n. s.) 115 29 L. J. fc. p.) 97 6 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
125 1 L. T. 62 ; 263
V. White (1892), 40 V/. R. 675 67 L. T. 433 . . 453
; . • .
Walsh V. Provan (1853), 8 Exch. 843 22 L. J. (ex.) 355 1 C. L. R. 823

;
198 ; . .
V. Whitcomb (1797), 2 Esp. 565 228

Walsham v. Stainton (1863), 1 De G. J. & Sm. 678 33 L. J. (ch.) 68 9 Jur. ; ;
(N s.) 1261 9 L. T. 357 12 W. R. 63 3 N. R. 56

: ;
188 ;
Walter v. James (1871), L. R. 6 Exoh. 124 40 L. J. (ex.) 104; 24 L. T. 188 ; ;
19 W. R. 472 174, 177

Walters v. Morgan (1792), 2 Gox, 369 .440
Walton V. Johnson (1848), 15 Sim. 352 12 Jur. 299 ;
251
Wansborough, Re (1815), 2 Ghitty, 40 443
Wansbrough v. Maton (1836), 4 A. & E. 884 6 N. & M. 367 2 H. & W. 37 272 ; ;
.
Warburg & Co. v. M'Kerrow (1904), 90 L. T. 644 471

Warburton Haslingden Local Board (1879), 48 L. J. (c. p.), 451 476 . . .
V. Storr (1825), 4 B. & G. 103 6 D. & R. 213 448 ;
Ward V. Gartar (1865), L. R. 1 Eq. 29 35 Beav. 171 ;

192
V. Dean (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 234 .458 . .
V. Hobbs (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 150 4 App. Gas. 13 47 L. J. (q. b.) 90 48

; ; ;
L. J. (Q. B.) 281 37 L. T. 654 40 L. T. 73 26 W. R. 151

; 27 W. R. ; ; ;
114 420
V. London General Omnibus Go. (1873), 42 L. J. (c. p.) 265 ;
28 L. T.
850 212, 553
V. Macauley (1791), 4 Term Rep. 489 45
V. Pilley (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 427 ; 49 L. J. (q. b.) 705 ;
43 L. T. 301 ; 28
W. R. 937 487
V. 9 Bing. 608 2 M. & Scott, 756 2 L. J. (c. p.) 58
Shew (1833), ;
167 ; . .
Waring, Ex parte (1815), 19 Ves. 345 2 Rose, 182 2 G. & G. 404 ;

625 ;
. . .
Warlow V. Harrison (1858), 1 E. & E. 295 29 L. J. (q. b.) 14 6 Jur. (n. s.) 66 ; ;
;
8 W. R. 95 196, 220, 230, 504, 510

Warner v. McKay (1836), 1 M. & W. 591 2 Gale, 86 1 Tyr. & G. 965 5 L. J. ; ; ;
(EX.) 276 211

Warner and Powell. Re (1866), L. R. 3 Eq. 261 15 W. R. 303 291 ;
. . . •
Warr i'. Jones (1876), 24 W. R. 695 222

Warren, Ex parte (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 48 54 L. J. (Q. b.) 320 53 L. T. 68 33 ; ; ;
W. R. 572 2 Morrell, 142 1 T. L. R. 430

; ;
216
" Warrior," The (1818), 2 Dods. 289 60, 63
" Warwick," The (1890). 15 P. D. 189 63 L. T. 561 ;
126
Warwick r. Bruce (1813), 2 M. & S. 205 293
Nairn (1855\ 10 Exch. 762 391
r. Slade (1811). 3 Gamp. 127 197, 231
Washbourn r. Burrows (1847), 1 Exch. 107 16 L. J. (ex.) 266 ; . . . .
293
" Wataga,^' The (1856), Swabey, 165 67
Waters v. Monarch Insurance Co. (1856), 5 El. & Bl. 870 25 L. ; J. (Q. b.) 102 ;
2 Jur. (N. s.) 375 4 W. R. 245 :

546
Watkin v. Lamb (1901), 85 L. T, 483 202
Watkins, Ex parte, Re Coaster (1873), 8 Ch. App. 520 42 L. J. (bcy.) 50; ;
21 W. R. 530 28 L. T. (n. s.) 375;

555
r. Philpotts (1825), M'Gl. & ,Y. 393, 397 468
Watling r. Horwood (1847), 12 Jur. 484 506
Watson V. Bennett (1860), 5 H. & N. 531 29 L. J. (ex.) 357 6 Jur. (n. s.) 637 ; ; ;
8 W. R. 612 463
V. Hythe Corporation (1906), 22 T. L. R. 245 4 L. G. R. 340 70 J. P. ; ;
153 9
f. Jones or McEwan, [1905J A. C. 480; 74 L. J. (p. c.) 151; 93 L. T.
489 13
V. King (1815), 4 Gamp. 272 1 Stark. 121 ;
228, 233
V. Lyon (1855), 7 De G. M. & G. 288 24 L. J. (ch.) 754 3 W. R. 543 199 ; ;
.
V. Petts, [1899] 1 Q. B. 54 67 L. J. (q. b.) 970 79 L. T. 330 47 W. R.

; ; ;
18 451
V. Rodwell (1879), 11 Ch. D. 150 188
V. Smith (1899), 15 T. L. R. 473 13
V. Swann
(1862), 11 C. B. (n. s.) 756 31 L. J. (c. p.) 210
.
;
.. . 176
154
V. Threlkeld (1794), 2 Esp. 637 5 R. R. 760 :
Table of Cases. cxcix
PAGE
Watson V. Watson (1649), Styles, 28, 56 469
Watteau v. Fenwick, [1893] 1 Q. B. 346 ; 67 L. T. 831 ; 41 W. R. 222 ; 56 J. P.
839 ; 5 R. 143 201
Weaver, Be (1882), 21 Cli. D. 615 48 L. T. 93 31 W. R. 224 47 J. P. 68 ;
; : . 233
Webb V. Bird (1863). 13 C. B. (n. s.) 341 31 L. J. (c. p.) 335 8 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
621 4 L. T. 445 9 W. R. 899

; : 11
V. Fox (1797), 7 Term Rep. 398 45
V. Plummer (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 746 245
V. Smith (1885), 30 Cli. D. 192 53 L. T. 737 55 L. J. (ch.) 343 224. : : . 517
V. Stenton (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 518 52 L. J. (q. b.) 584 49 L. T. 432 ; ; . 588
Webster v. British Empire Assurance Co. (1880), 15 Ch. D. 169 49 L. J. (CH.) ;
769 43 L. T. 229 28 W. R. 818

: ; 188
V. Be Tastet (1797). 7 Term Rep. 157 183, 191
Weed V. Ward (1889), 40 Ch. D. 555 58 L. J. (ch.) 454 60 L. T. 208 37 ; ; ;
W. R. 406 484
Weeks v. Goode
(1859), 6 C. B. (n. s.) 367 199, 549
V. Propert (1873), L. R. 8 C. P. 427 42 L. J. (c. P.) 129 21 ; ; W. R. 676 222
.
Wee ton v. Woodcock (1840), 7 M. & W. 14 274

Weidner v. Hoggett (1876), 1 C. P. D. 533 35 L. T. 368 ; . . . . 169, 220
Weir V. Bell (1878). 3 Ex. D. 238 47 L. J. (ex.) 704 38 L. T. 929 ; ; ; 26 W. R.
746 160, 224
Wellock V. Constantine (1863), 2 H. & C. 146 32 L. J. (ex.) 285 9 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
232 7 L. T. 751
; 27, 28, 29
Wells V. Abrahams (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 554 41 L. J. (q. b.) 306 26 L. T.433 ; ; :
20 W. R. 659 27, 28
V. Army and Navy Co-operative Society, Ltd. (1902), 86 L. T. 764 559 . .
r. Plead (1831), 4 C. & P. 568 396

r. Mayor of Kingston-upon-Hull (1875), L. R. 10 C. P. 402 44 L. J. (c. p.) ;
257 32 L. T. 615 23 W. R. 562

; ;
155
V. Owners of Gas Float Whitton (No. 2), [1897] A. C. 337 75, 126 . .
V. Williams (1697), 1 Salk. 46 1 Lutw. 34 1 Ld. Raym. 282 20, 21, 307, ; ;
.
310, 312
Welsbach Incandescent Gaslight Co. v. New Sunlight Incandescent Co., [1900] 2
Ch. 1 69 L. J. (ch.) 546 83 L. T. 58 48 W. R. 595
: : 215 ;
Welsh V. Bell (1669), 1 Ventr. p. 36 1 Sid. 422, 440 Raym. 218 2 Keb. 529, ; ; ;
595, 631 3 Keb. 105, 128. 165, 198, 222

; 2 Ser. 73 382 ;
Welton V. Somes (1889), 5 T. L. R, 184 640

Wenlock (Baroness) v. River Dee Co. (1883), 53 L. J. (q. b.) 208 49 L. T. 617 : ;
32 W. R. 220 484
V. (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 155 56 L. J. (q. b.) ;
589 57 L. T. 320 35 W. R. 822

: ; 485, 489, 630
Werra," The (1886), 12 P. D. 52 56 L. J. (adm.) 53 56 L. T. 580 35 W. R. : ; ;
552 6 Asp. M. C. 115

; 90
West V. Williams, [18991 1 Ch. 132 68 L. J. (ch.) 127 79 L. T. 575 47 W. R. ; ; ;
308 632
West Cumberland Iron and Steel Co. v. Kenyon (1879), 11 Ch. D. 782 48 L. J. ;
(ch.) 793 40 L. T. 703

: 10
West London Commercial Bank, Re (1888), 38 Ch. D. 364 57 L. J. (ch.) 925 ; ;
59L. T.396 585

r. Kitson (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 360 53 L. J. ;
(Q. B.) 345 50 L. T. 656 32 W. R. 757

; ;
222, 631
West London Dairy Society, Ltd. r. Abbott (1881), 44 L. T. 376 29 W. R. ;
584 452
West of England Bank v. Batchelor (1882), 51 L. J. (ch.) 199 46 L. T. 132 30 : ;
W. R. 364 199
West Rand Central Gold Mining Co. v. R., [1905] 2 K. B. 391 74 L. J. (k. b.) :
753 93 L. T. 207 21 T. L. R. 562

; ;
15
Westbrook r. Field (1887), 51 J. P. 725 411
Westlake, Be (1881), 16 Ch. D. 605 561
Weston V. Metropolitan Asylum District Managers (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 404 51 ;
L. J. (Q. B.) 399 46 L. T. 580 30 W. R. 623 46 J. P. 564

; ;
.250 : . . .
Westrup r. The Great Yarmouth Steam Carrying Co. (1889), 43 Ch. D. 241 59 ;
L. J. (ch.) Ill 61 L. T. 714 38 W. R. 505

;
6 Asp. M. C. 443 ;
68 ; . . .
Whalley v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Rail. Co. (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 131, 135 53 ;
L. J. (Q. B.) 285 50 L. T. 472 32 W. R. 711 48 J. P. 500

; ;
10, 12 : . . .
Whatley r. Morland (1833), 2 Dowl. 249 2 C. & M. 347 4 Tyr. 255 461 ; ; . . .
Whatman Pearson (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 422 37 L. J. (c. p.) 156 18 L. T. ; ;
290 16 W. R. 649
;
212
cc Table of Cases.
PAGE
Wheatley v. Smithers, [1906] 2 K. B. 321 75 L. J. (k, b.) 627 95 L. T. 96 54 ; ; ;
W. E. 537 22 T. L. E. 591
; 521
Wheeler v. Commissioners of Public Works, [1903] 2 I. E. 202 18 . . . .
Whitaker, ^J^ârê, Jê Gelder, [1880] W. N. 171 .555 . . . . .
V. Bank of England (1835), 1 C. M. & E. 750 5 Tyr. 268 6 G. & P. ; ;
700 1 Gale, 54 4 L. J. (ex.) 57

; ; 602, 605
Whitbourne v. Williams, [1901] 2 Q. B. 722 70 L. J. (k. b.) 933 85 L. T. ; ;
271 11, 12
Whitby V. Lord Dillon (1860). 2 F. & F. 67 296
Whitcher v. Hall (1826), 5 B. & C. 269 8 D. & E. 22 4 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 167; 16 ;
White, Ex parte, Be Nevill (1871), 6 Ch. App. 897 40 L. J. (bcy.) 73 24 L. T. ; ;
45 ; 19 W. E. 488 148
r. Bartlett (1832), 9 Bing. 378 2 L. J. (c. p.) 43 ; 512
V. Bayley (1861), 10 C. B. (n. s.) 227 30 L. J. (c. p.) 253 7 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
948 192
V. Boby (1878), 37 L. T. 652 26 W. E. 133 : 182 . . . . . .
V. Chapman (1815), 1 Stark. 113 516

V. Cuyler (1795), 6 T. E. 176 1 Esp. 200 ; 169
V. Gainer (1824), 2 Bing. 23 9 Moore. 41 1 Car. & K. 324
; 2 L. J. (o. s.) ; ;
(c. p.) 101 549, 562

V. Lincoln (1803), 8 Ves. 363 186
r. Proctor (1811). 4 Taunt. 209 13 E. E. 580 : 504 . . . . . .
V. Sharp (1844), 12 M. & W. 712 1 D. & L. 1039 1 Car. & K. 348 ; 13 ; ;
L. J. (EX.) 215 8 Jur. 344; 468

r. Spettigue (1845), 13 M. & W. 603 1 Car. & K. 673 14 L. J. (ex.) 99 ; ; ;
9 Jur 70 27 29
Whitechurch, George, Ltd. r. Cavanah, [1902] A. C. 117 71 L. J. (k. b.) 400; ;
85 L. T. 349 50 W. E. 218 9 Mans. 351

; : 202, 212
Whitehead r. Butt (1891), 9 T. L. E. 609 6
/•. Greetham (1825), 2 Bing. 464 10 Moore, 183 M'Cl. & Y. ; ;
205 185
r. Harrison (1844), 6 Q. B. 423 2 D. & L. 122 13 L. J. (q. b.) 312 ; ;
;
8 Jur. 894 42
r. Lord (1852), 7 Exch. 691 21 L. J. (ex.) 239 19 L. T. 113 ; 233 ; . .
r. Tattersall (1839), 1 A. & E. 491 468

r. Taylor (1834), 10 A. & E. 210 2 P. & D. 367 9 L. J. (q. b.) 65 177, ; ; .
181
Whiteley r. Pepper (1876), 2 Q. B. D. 276 46 L. J. (q. b.) 436 36 L. T. 588 ; ; ;
25 W. E. 607 212
Whiteley and Eoberts, Be, [1891] 1 Ch. 558 60 L. J. (ch.) 149 64 L. T. 81 ; ; ;
39 W. E. 348 480
Whiteman r. King (1791), 2 Hv. Bl. 4 379
Whitfield i: Brand (1847), 16 M. & W. 282 16 L. J. (ex.) 103 203 ; . . . .
i: Le Despencer (Lord) (1878), 2 Cowp. 754 18

Whitley Partners, Ltd., Be (1886), 32 Ch. D. 337 55 L. J. (ch.) 540 54 L. T. ; ;
914 34 W. E. 505
; 148, 149, 157, 207
Whitlock and Jackson, Be. Ex parte the Official Eeceiver (1893), 53 L. J. (q. b.)
245 10 E. 110 70 L. T. 34
; ; 1 Mans. 33 ;
234
Whitmore v. Smith (1861), 7 H. & N. 509 31 L. J. (ex.) 107 8 Jur. (n. s.) 514 ; ; ;
6 L. T. 618 458
Whittaker v. Barker (1862). 1 C. & M. 113 3 Tyr. 135 247
;
Whittingham r. Murdy (1889), 60 L. T. 956 150

Whitwham and Wrexham etc. Eail. Co. Be (1895), 39 Sol. Jour. 692 460 . . .
Whitworth v. Gaugain (1844), 3 Hare. 416 1 Ph. 728 13 L. J. (ch.) 288 15 : : ;
L. J. (ch.) 433 8 Jur. 374 : 10 Jur. 531 228 :
r. Hulse, (1866), L. E. 1 Exch. 251 35 L. J. (ex.) 149 12 Jur. ; ;
(N. s.) 652 14 L. T. 445 14 W. E. 736

; : 469, 479
'
Wickham t. GatriU (1854), 2 Sm. & G. 353 23 L. J. (cH.) 783 2 Eq. E. 805 ; ; ;
18 Jur. 768 2 W. E. 673

: 29
V. Harding (1859), 28 L. J. (ex.) 215 5 Jur. (n. s.) 871 453, 454 ; . .
r. Wickham (1855), 2 K. & J. 478, p. 487 153

Wiggins V. Peppin (1837), 2 Beav. 403 3 Jur. 721 ;
156
Wigglesworth r. Dallinson (1779), 1 Doug. 201 244, 245
Wight r. Earl of Hopetoun (1864), 4 Macq. 729 1 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 3rd Ser. ;
1097 and 3rd Ser. vol. 2, p. 35 (H. L.) 247

Wightwick r. Pope, [1902] 2 K. B. 100 71 L. J. (k. b.) 709 86 L. T. 750 50 : ; ;
W. E. 531 28 .
Wilde V. Sheridan (1852), 21 L. J. (q. b.) 260 16 Jur. 426 6 ;

Table of Cases. CCl
PAGE
Wilder Speer (1838), 8 A. & E. 547 3 N. & P. 636 7 L. J. (q. b.) 249
r. ; : :
1 W. W. & H. 378 . . . . . . . . . . . ; 383

" Wilhelmine," The (1842), 1 Wm. Rob. 335 1 Notes of Cases, 376 ; . . . 81
Wilkins r. Wood (1848), 17 L. J. (q. b.) 319 12 Jur. 583 ; 244
Wilkinson r. Calvert (1878), 3 C. P. D. 360 47 L. J. (c. p.) 679 38 L. T. 813 ; ; ;
26 W. R. 829 241
r. Godefroy (1839), 9 A. & E. 536 3 P. & D. 411 : . . . . 23
r. London and County Bank (1884), 1 T. L. R. 63 . . . . 621
r. Martin (1837), 8 C. & P. 1 .195
r. Page (1841), 1 Hare, 276 11 L. ; J. (ch.) 193 6 Jur. 567 ; . 469, 479
r. Peel, [1895] 1 Q. B. 516 ; 64 L. J. (q. b.) 178 72 L. T. 151 ; ; 43
W. R. 302 257
Verity (1871), L. R. 6 C. P. 206 40 L. J. (c. p.) 141 24 L. T.
r. ; ;
32 19 W. R. 604
;
23, 534, 565
Wilks V. Back (1802), 2 East, 142 169
Willeox and Storkey, Ec (1876), L. R. 1 C. P. 871 439, 440
" Willem III.," The (1871), L. R. 3 A. & E. 487 25 L. T. 386 20 W. R. 216 ; ; ;
1 Asp. M. C. 129 74
Willesford r. Watson (1873), 14 Eq. 572 8 Ch. App. 473; 42 L. J. (ch.) 90— ;
447 38 L. T. 428 20 W. R. 32 21 W. R. 350

: ; ; 452, 453, . . . . 454
" William," The (1806), 6 Rob. 316 532
" William F. Safford," The (1859), Lush. 69 29 L. J. (p.) 109 2 L. T. 301 ; ; . 67
" William Hutt," The (1860), Lush. 25 92
"William Symington," The (1884), 10 P. D. 1 54 L. J. (adm.) 4 51 L. T. ; ;
461 33 W. R. 371 5 Asp. M. C. 293

: ; 96
Williams r. Birmingham Battery and Metal Co., [1899] 2 Q. B. 338 68 L. J. ;
(Q. B.) 918 81 L. T. 62 47 W. R. 680

: ; 15
r. Car\vardine (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 621 1 N. & M. 418 5 C. & P. 566 ; ;
. 511
r. Evans (1845). 1 C. B. 717 545
r. (1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 352 35 L. J. (q. b.) Ill 13 L. T. ; ;
753 14 W. R. 330
: 165, 210, 503
r. Everett (1811), 14 East, 582 224
t\ Great Western Rail. Co. (1885), 52 L. T. 250 49 J. P. 439 ; . . 423
r. Holmes (1853), 8 Exch. 861 22 L. J. (ex.) 283 1 W. R. ; ;
391 206, 520, 547

r. Innes (1808), 1 Camp. 364 10 R. R. 702 ; 215
—— r. Jones (1865), 11 Jur. (n. s.) 843 537

•
V. Mann (1873), 28 L. T. 232

—
•
V. Mason (1873), 28 L. T. 232 21 W. R. 386 149, 157. 207,
; . .
644
214
r. Millington (1788), 1 Hy. Bl. 81 2 R. R. 724 198, 227, 503, 517, ; . 519
r. Morland (1824), 2 B. & C. 910 4 D. & R. 583 ; 8
V. North China Insurance Co. (1876), 1 C. P. D. 757 35 L. T. 884 ; ;
3 Asp. M. C. 342 173. 178

V. Potts (1871), L. R. 12 Eq. 149 ; 40 L. J. (ch.) 775 . . . . 192
V. Preston (1882), 20 Ch. D. 672 51 L. J. (ch.) 927 47 L. T. 265 30 ; ; ;
W. R. 555
V. Price (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 695
V. Rawlinson (1825), 3 Bing. 71
1 L. J. (k. b.) 258
10 Moore, 362 R. & M. 233 3L. J.
:
; ;
... ;
.
216
382
(o. B.) (c. p.) 164 586. 639

V. Richards. [1907] 2 K. B. 88 399
r. Smith (1819). 2 B. & Aid. 496 564
V. Stevens (1866), L. R. 1 P. C. 352 4 Moo. P. C. C. (n. s.) 235 36 : ;
L. J. (p. c.) 21 12 Jur. (n. s.) 952: 15 W. R. 409 ; . . . . 190

V. Stiven (1846). 9 Q. B. 14 15 L. J. (q. b.) 321 10 Jur. 804
; ; . . 256
V. Williams (1881), 17 Ch. D. 437 44 L. T. 573 ; 226
Williams and Stepney, Be, [1891] 2 Q. B. 257 60 L. J. (q. b.) 636 65 L. T. 208 ; ; ;
/ 39 W. R. 533 reversing [1891] 1 Q. B. 700 64 L. T. 795

: 441, ; . . . 471
Williamson v. Allison (1802). 2 East, 446 389
V. Barbour (1877), 9 Ch. D. 529 50 L. J. (ch.) 147 37 L. T. 698 : : . 188
V. Barton (1862), 7 H. & N. 899 31 L. J. (ex.) 170 8 Jur. (n. s.) ; ;
341 5 L. T. 800 10 W. R. 321

; ; 219
V. Hine, [1891] 1 Ch. 320 60 L. J. (ch.) 123 63 L. T. 682 39 W. R.
; ; ;
239 6 Asp. M. C. 559

; 189, 194
V. Rover Cycle Co., [1901] 2 I.R. 189, at p. 202, and S. C, [1901] 2
I. R. 615 530
V. Taylor (1843), 5 Q. B. 175 13 L. J. (q. b.) 81 8 Jur. 79 ; ; . . 230
V. Williamson (1869), L. R. 7 Eq. 542 20 L. T. 389; 17 W. R. ;
667 631
ccii Table of Cases.
PAGE
Willis r. Baddeley, 1892] 2 Q. B. 324 61 L. J. (q. b.) 769 67 L. T. 206 40
f ; ; ;
W. R. 577 227
V. Palmer (1859), 7 C. B. (n. s.) 340 29 L. J. (c. p.) 194 6 Jur. (n. s.); ;
732 2 L. T. 626 8 W. R. 295

: ; 163
V. Wakeley (1891), 7 T. L. R. 604 473, 486, 491
V. Willis (1740), 2 Atk. 71 .157 .
Willisen v. Patteson (1817), 7 Taunt. 439 1 Moore, 133 ; 310

Willoughby, Ex parte (1881), 16 Ch. D. 605 44 L. T. Ill 29 W. R. 935 561 ; ; . .
Wills r. Maccarmick (1762), 2 Wils. 148 459

Willsoii V. Love, [1896] 1 Q. B. 626 65 L. J. (q. b.) 474 ; 74 L. T. 580
; 44 W. R. ;
450 250
Wilmot V. Smith (1828). 3 Car. & P. 453 Moo. & M. 238 : 557, 558 . . . .
Wilson, Re (1890), 45 Ch. D. 266 63 L. T. 100 39 W. R. 58

; 4 ; . . . .
219 .....
Be, Ex parte Hastings (Lord) (1893), 2 L. J. (Q. b.) 628 10 M. B. R.
V. Anderton (1830), I B. & Ad. 450 ;' 9 L.' J. (k. b.)"(o. s.) 48*
245 247 275
562
;
.
'
.
'
V. Baker (1901), 17 T. L. R. 473 221

V. Barker (1833), 3 B. & Ad. 614 1 N. & M. 409 ; 175
V. Brett (1843), 11 M. & W. 113 12 L. J. (ex.) 264 185, 536
— V. Ducket (1666), 2 Mod. Rep. 61 Freeman, 202
;
;
252, 254 . . .
.
V. Fuller (1843), 3 Q. B. 68, 1009 3 G. & D. 570 ; 214

V. Hart (1817), 1 Moore, 45 7 Taunt. 295 ; 169 '
r. Morrell (1855), 15 C. B. 720 3 C. L. R. 333 1 Jur. (N. s.) 310.

; 450 ; .
V. Newberry (1871), L. R. 7 Q. B. 31 41 L. J. (q. b.) 31 25 L. T. 695 ; ; ;
20 W. R. Ill 10, 297

V. Poulter (1724), 2 Stra. 859 178
r. Powis (1826), 11 Moore, 543 560
f. Salamandra Assurance Co. (1903), 8 L. T. 96 8 Com. Cas. 129 9 ; ;
Asp. M. C. 370 215

r. Short (1847), 6 Hare, 366 17 L. J. (ch.) 289
; 12 Jur. 301 148 ; . .
V. Tumman (1848), 6 Mac. & G. 236 1 D. & L. 573 6 Scott (n. e.) ; ;
894 173, 175

V. Waddell (1876), 2 App. Cas. 95 35 L. T. 639 ; 10
V. West Hartlepool Rail. Co. (1866), 2 De G. J. & S. 475 34 L. J. ;
(CH.) 241 11 Jur. (n. s.^ 124

; 11 L. T. 692 13 W. R. 361 ;
174 ; . .
V. Wilson (1848), 1 H. L. Cas. 538 12 Jur. 467 ; 444

V. Zulueta (1849), 14 Q. B. 405 220
Wilson and Eastern Counties etc. Co., Re, [1892] 1 Q. B. 81 61 L. J. (q. b.) ;
237 65 L. T. 853 8 T. L. R. 264

; ; 441, 456
Wilsons, iê (1804), 1 Sch. & Lef. 320 a .43
Wilsons and Furness-Leyland Line, Ltd. v. British and Continental Shipping
Co., Ltd. (1907), 23 T. L. R. 397 204
Wilts and Dorset Bank v. Cook (1889), 5 T. L. R. 703 53 J. P. 791 186 ; . . .
Wiltshear v.. Cottrell (1853), 1 E. & B. 674 22 L. J. (q. b.) 177 17 Jur. 758 272 ; ; .
Wiltshire Iron Co., Re (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 776 40 L. J. (q. b.) 308 23 L. T. ; ;
666 19 W. R. 935
;
548
Wiltshire v. Sims (1808), 1 Camp. 258 164, 165, 187
Winch V. Conservators of River Thames (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 378 43 L. J. ;
(c. p.) 167 31 L. T. 128 22 W. R. 879

; ; 15
V. Winchester (1813), 1 Ves. & B. 375 510
Windsor and Annapolis Rail. Co. v. The Queen and the Western Counties Rail.
Co. (1886), 11 App. Cas. 607 55 L. J. (p. c.) 41
;
55 L. T. 271 51 J. P. ; ;
260 18
" Winestead," The, [1895] P. 170, 175 64 L. J. (p.) 51 72 L. T. 91 ; 7 Asp. ; ;
M. C. 547 11 R. 720
;
104
Wing r. Harvey (1854), 5 De G. M. & G. 265 23 L. J. (ch.) 511 18 Jur. 394 ; ; ;
2 Eq. R. 533 2 W. R. 370 201

W
;
Winkfield," The, [1902] P. 42 71 L. J. (p.) 21 85 L. T. 668 50

;
R. ; ;
246 Ill, 564

Winter v. Kretchmann (1787), 2 Term Rep. 46 38
V. Munton (1818), 2 Moore, 723 468
Winterbottom v. Derby (1867), L. R. 2 Exch. 316 36 L. J. (ex.) 194 16 L. T. ; ;
771 16 W. R. 15
;
9
Winteringham v. Robertson (1858), 27 L. J. (ex.) 301 457
Wise V. Perpetual Trustee Co., [1903] A. C. 139 72 L. J. (p. c.) 31 87 L. T. ; ;
569 51 W. R. 241
;
203
Wiseman v. Booker (1878), 3 C. P. D. 184 38 L. T. 292 26 W. R. 634 376
; ; . .
Withington v. Herring (1829), 5 Bing. 442 161, 162

Table of Cases. cciii
PAGE
Wohlenburg v. Lageman
(1815), 6 Taunt. 251 1 Marsh. 579 ; . . . 468, 479
Wolff V. Horncastle (1798), 1 Bos. & P. 316 4 R. 808 ; R . . . . 147, 148
r. Oxholm (1817), 6 M. & S. 92 .
'
311
Wolstenholm v. Sheffield Union Banking Co. (1886), 54 L. T. 746 ; 2 T. L. R.
472 198,621
Wolverhampton New Waterworks
Co. v. Hawkesford (1859), 6 C. B. (n. s.)
336 : 28 L. 5 Jar. (n. s.) 1104
J. (c. p.) 24 ; 8
Womersley v. Dally (1857), 26 L. J. (ex.) 219 244, 246
Wood r. Baxter (1883), 49 L. T. 45 518
r. Copper Miners etc. (1854), 15 C. B. 464 24 L. J. (c. p.) 34 468 ; . . .
r. Copper Miners' Co. (1856), 17 C. B. 561 25 L. J. (c. p.) 166 445 ; . .
r. Downes (1811), 18 Ves. 120 11 R. 160 54, 55 ; R

r. Griffith (1818), 1 Swa. 43 1 Wils. 34 469, 475
;
v. Jones (1889), 61 L. T. 551 184

i: Leake (1806), 12 Ves. 412 461
i: Midgiey (1854), 5 De G. M. & G. 41 ; 2 Sm. & G. 115 ; 23 L. J. (ch.)
553 2 W. R. 301 : 505, 518
r. Rowcliffe (1846), 6 Hare, 191 ; 2 Ph. 382 ; 17 L. J. (ch.) 83 ; 11 Jur.
915 205
V. Smith (1829), 5 M. & Ry. 24 ; 4 C. & P. 45 ; 1 M. & M. 539 ; 8 L. J.
CO. s.) (K. B.) 50 389, 390
Woodcroft and Jones, Re (1841), 9 Dowl. 538 5 Jur. 771 ; 449
Woodgate v. Knatchbull (1787), 2 Term Rep. 148 218
Woodin V. Burford (1834), 2 C. & M. 391 4 Tyr. 264 3 L. ; ; J. (ex.) 75 . 164, 394
Woodland v. Freer (1857), 7 E. & B. 519 ; 26 L. J. (q. b.) 202 3 Jur. ;
(n. s.)
587 606
Woodley r. & C. 164 32 L. J. (ex.) 185 9 Jur. (n. S.)
Coventry (1863), 2 H. ; ;
548 8 L. T. 249
: 11 W. R. 599 : 563
Woodward, Be, Ex parte Huggins (1886), 54 L. T. 683 3 Morrell, 75 276, 387 ;
.
r. Gyles (1690), 2 Vern. 119 250

Woolf i: Woolf, 1899] 1 Ch. 343 68 L. J. (ch.) 82 79 L. T. 725 47 W. R.
,
; ; ;
181 . 21
Woolfe r. Home
(1877), 2 Q. B. D. 355 46 L. J. (q. b.) 534 36 L. T. 705 25 ; ; ;
W. R. 728 220, 518

Woollen V. Bradford (1864), 33 L. J. (q. b.) 129 474
V. Wright (1862), 1 H. & C. 554 ; 31 L. J. (ex.) 513 ; 7 L. T. 73 ; 10
W. R. 715 173
Wormer r. Biggs (1845), 2 C. & K. 31 381
Worms r. De Valdor (1880), 49 L. J. (ch.) 261 41 L. ; T. 791 ; 28 W. R. 346 . 17
Worth r. Gilling (1866), L. R. 2 C. P. 1 373, 375
Worthington v. Barlow (1797), 7 Term Rep. 453 443
Wray i: Kemp (1884), 26 Ch. D. 169 53 L. J. (ch.) ; 1020 ; 50 L. T. 552 ; 32
W. R. 334 171, 172
Wren v. Pocock (1876), 40 J. P. 646 34 L. T. 697 ; 399
Wright, Ee, Ex parte Arnold (1876), 3 Ch. D. 70 ; 45 L. J. (bcy.) 130 ; 35 L. T.
21 24 W. R. 97
; 607
V. Dannah (1809), 2 Camp. 203 11 R. R. 693
; 152, 505
r. Freeman (1879), 48 L. J. (c, p.) 276 40 L. T. 134 ; . . . . 513
V. Glyn, [1902J 1 K. B, 745 ; 71 L. J. (k. b.) 497 86 L. T. 373 ; ; 50 W. R.
402 165, 203
r. Graham (1848), 3 Exch. 131 18 L. J. (ex.) 29 ; 474
r. London General Omnibus Go. (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 271 ; 46 L. J. (q. b.)
429 25 W. R. 647
; 213
r. Melville (1828), 3 C. & P. 542 552
r. Pearson (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 582 38 L. J. (Q. B.) 312 ; ; 20 L. T. 849 ;
17 W. R. 1099 10 B. & S. 723 ; 373, 398

r, Ramscot (1665), 1 Saund. 83 1 Sed. 336 1 Lev. 216 ; ; ; 2 Keb. 237 . 396
Reed (1790), 3 Term Rep. 554
V. 574
Wright, and the Cromford Canal Co., (1841), 1 Q. B. 98 . . .469
Wrightson v. Bywater (1838), 3 M. & W. 199 6 Dowl. P. C. 359 1 H. & H. 50 ; ; . 468
Wyatt i: Curnell (1881), 1 Dowl. (n. s.) 327 469
V. Great Western Rail. Co. (1865), 34 L. J. (q. b.) 204 6 B. & S. 709 ; ;
12 L. T. 568 13 W. R. 837 11 Jur. (n. s.) 825

; ;
15
Hertford (Marquis of) (1802), 3 East, 147
r. 210
V. Palmer, [1899] 2 Q. B. 106 68 L. J. (q. ; b.) 709 ; 80 L. T. 639 ; 47
W. R. 549 13
Wyld, Ex parte (1850), 2 De G. F. & J. 642 30 L. ; J. (bcy.) 10 ; 7 Jur. (n. s.)
294 3 L. T. (n. s.) 794 9 W. R. 421
; ; 443
;;
cciv Table of Cases.
PAGE
Wylde r. Legge (1901), 84 L. T. 121 554
r. Radford (1863), 33 L. J. (ch.) 51, at p. 58 ; 9 Jur. (n. s.) 1169 ; 9
L. T. 471 ; 12 W. R. 38 621
Wylie r. Birch (1843), 4 Q. B. 566 3 G. & D. 629 12 L. J. (Q. B.) 260 ; 9 ; . .
Wyllie r. Pollen (1863), 32 L. J. (ch.) 782 3 De G. J. & S. 596 2 N. R. 500 ; ; :
9 L. T. 71 11 W. R. 1081 ; 215, 216

Wynne v. Edwards (1844), 12 M. & W. 708 1 D. & L. 976 13 L. J. (ex.) 222 469 ; ; .
Wynne-Finch v. Chaytor, [1903] 2 Ch. 485 ; 72 L. J. (ch.) 723 ; 89 L. T. 123 ;
52 W. R. 24 481, 491, 492
X.
Xenos v.Wickham (1866), L. R. 2 H. L. 296 : 30 L. J. (c. p.) 313 ; 16 L. T. 800 ;
16 W. R. 38 186, 202
Y.
" Yan Yean," The (1883), 8 P. D. 147 ; 52 L. J. (adm.) 67 ; 49 L. T. 186 ; 31

W. R. 950 5 Asp. M. C. 135 ; 105
Yarmouth v. France (1888), 19 Q. B. D. 647, 657 ; 57 L. J. (q. b.) 7 ; 36 W. E.
281 15
Yates Farehrother (1819), 4 Madd. 239
r. 512, 514
Higgins, [1896] 1 Q. B. 166 65 L. J. (m. c.) 31 44 W. R. 335 60 ; ; ;
J. P. 88 409
r. Hoppe (1850), 9 C. B. 541 19 L. J. (c. p.) 180 14 Jur. 372 : 229 ; . .
r. Terry, [1901] 1 Q. B. 102 70 L. J. (k. b.) 24 83 L. T. 415 49 W. B.

; ; ;
112 586, 606

" Ydun," The, [1899] P. 236 68 L. J. (p.) 101 81 L. T. 10 8 Asp. M. C. 551
; 25, ; ; .
213
Yewens r. Noakes (1880), 6 Q. B. D. 530 50 L. J. (q. b.) 132 44 L. ; ; T. 128
28 W. R. 562 45 J. P. 468 ; 147
York V. Stowers. [1883] W. N. 174 188
York Union Banking Co. r. Artley (1879), 11 Ch. D. 205 27 W. R. 704 ; . . 633
Youl r. Harbottle (1791), Peake, N. P. C. 681 45, 628
Young V. Bank of Bengal (1836), 1 Moo. P. C. C. 150 1 Deac. 622 ; . . . 235
v: Buckett (1882), 46 L. T. 266 ; 51 L. 504 30 W. R. 511
J. (ch.) : . . 454
r. Cole (1837), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 724 : 4 Scott, 489 3 Hodges, 126 6 L. ; ; J.
(c. p.) 201 159
r. Grote (1827), 4 Bing. 253 12 Moore, 484 ; 615, 616
f. Mayor
of Royal Leamington Spa (1883), 8 App. Cas. 517 52 L. J.
"
713 49 L. T. 1
(Q. B.) 31 W. R. 925 42 J. P. 660
;
L. 374
: ; .. ;
. 156
17
r. S.S. Scotia." [1903] A. C. 501 72 L. J. (p. c.) 115 89 T. ; ; .
V. Wright (1803), 1 Camp. 139 215

Youngman r. Morris (1866), 15 L. T. 276 423
Yovatt i: Winyard (1819), 1 J. & W. 394 184
z.
Zalinopp v. Hammond, [1898] 2 Ch. 92 67 L. J. (ch.) 370 78 L. T. 456 ; : . 453, 454

Zelma Gold Mining Co., Ltd. r. Hoskins and Another, [1895] A. C. 100 . . 487
" Zeta," The (1869), L. R. 4 A. & E. 460 44 L. J. (adm.) 22 33 L. T. 477 ; ; ;
24
^
W. R. 180 3 Asp. M. L. C. 73
,
,
:
[1892] P. 285 61 L. J. (p.) 100 40 W. R. 535

;
[1893] A. C. 468 63 L. -J. (p.) 17 69 L. T.' 630 57

;
;
; ;
....
J. P. 660 .
114
59
60, 70
" Zeus,"
312 ....
The (1888), 13 P. D. 188
" Zoe," The (1886), 11 P. D. 72

59 L. T. 344 37 W. R. 127
;
:
55 L. J. (adm.)
;
52 ; 54 L. T. 879
;
;
6 Asp.
35 W. R.
M.
61
C.
128
5 Asp. M. C. 583 HI
Zouch Abbott v. Parsons (1765), 3 Burr. 1794
d. ; 1 W. Bl. 575 . . . .
150
ZuLueta r. Vincent (1851), 1 De G. M. & G. 315 192
Zwilchenbart r. Alexander (1860), 1 B. & S. 234 ; 30 L. J. (Q. b.) 254 ; 4 L. T.
412 9 W. R. 170
;
186
INTKODIJCTION.
INTEODUCTION.
An ideal code has been contemplated by many law

reformers in which every case which could possibly occur
should be provided for, and the determination of it be
simply effected by reference to the code — a code so universal
in its application that no difficulty could be found, but the
solution of every legal problem would be at once disclosed.
A very small experience, however, of the infinite variety of
the incidents of human life will convince us that such an
ideal code is an impossibility, and that the utmost that can
be done is to establish some principles by reference to
which a question may be decided but even then the
;
principles must be stated so generally that their very

generality may work injustice if rigidly adhered to. Hence
Aristotle's idea of the iineiKes and the ^TravopBoaiia v6[iov lAAetVet fj
bta TO KaOoXov.
The necessity of some regulations to enable human

creatures to live as an associated body has produced and
reproduced the same cycle of events in the various
countries of the world. This necessity has developed forms
of government, and systems of laws and written rules
would seem to be an essential element, though tradition
attributes to Lycurgus that his laws were only spoken, and
hence have been called pijrpau
Laws and forms of government grow imperceptibly at

first until the necessities of an advancing civilisation
—
ccviii Introduction.
compel the reduction of what has been

custom or tribal
individual genius into a systematic development of the

principles of justice. The same causes have produced the
same results and in every country it has been found that
;
the system of providing for each necessity as it arises, without

reference to any principle which governs the whole, has
over and over again produced confusion and contradiction.
Jeremy Bentham considers a code of laws to be like a vast
forest: the more it is divided, the better it is known. He
says — " To render a code of laws complete it is necessary
to know all the parts which should be comprised in it. It
is necessary to know what they are in themselves and what

they are in relation to one another. This is accomplished
when taking the body of the laws in their entirety ;
they
may be divided into two parts in such manner that every-
thing which belongs to the integral body may be found
comprised in the one or the other part, yet nothing shall at
the same time be found in both parts."
It may well be doubted whether Bentham' s division

of the law into two parts of what he is pleased to call
" the integral body " is defensible either in theory or
practice. The analogy of any integral body is a false
one. Of the human body it may be true that you do
not find the same complete organ in two different parts
you do not find a toe in the head — but there are veins
in both. So, in a code, there might be rules applicable
to one class of subjects which nevertheless would extend
to others, as in our own law there are rules which are
applicable to both real and personal, civil and criminal,
jurisprudence.
But no State begins with a re^ûlar system of law. A

code is a want developed by progressive and unscientific
legislation and the political relations of the citizens to
;
each other give a form and tone to the laws which may
Introduction. ccix
ultimately produce confusion and contradiction. Justitiae
fniendae causa reges olim constituti sunt; but whatever the

form of government may be, the desire to have justice, and
to know what the State considers justice, is essential to
civilisation.
The code of laws of the Twelve Tables at Kome was the

result of a commission to Athens, at least in respect of ten
of them, and the work, as Mommsen says, was a political

compromise between the popular and the aristocratic
parties. Livy tells us that the laws of the Twelve Tables
formed the foundation of all the Koman law, but Livy's
own description of the heap of laws accumulated one
upon the other "
shows what must have been in his time
the confusion, and therein the uncertainty, of the law.
When one considers the power of every praetor in turn hav-
ing jurisdiction to dictate by published rules what rules of

justice he would observe during his tenure of office, and
that these were not binding on his successor, it is not
wonderful that the Koman law required the labours of
such men as Gains, Papinian, Paul, Ulpian, Modestinus,
and Tribonian, make it intelligible or fit for practical
to
life. Lawyers who advised and judges who decided had
a resource which a modern digestor or compiler does not
possess : the sovereign power of the Emperor, which could
enact that an opinion should become the law, rendered the
task of the law reformer a very different one from what it
is in our own day.
The alteration of existing law and the process of merely

stating what the law is are two very different functions,
and the confusion between the two has marred many an
effort to get a clear and intelligible code. Mr. Gladstone
once said in the House of Commons that you should
first get a comprehensive account of what the law is before
you commence amending it ; and a great many law^
ecx Inteoduction.
reformers have failed because they have not observed the

necessity of this prehminary inquiry.
It is somewhat singular to observe that Cicero, in treating
of the law as administered in his own day, complained of

the mode in which the simplicity and clearness which he
attributed to the Eoman law were obscured in administering
justice. He says that the laws themselves were clear
enough, so far that you might duly distinguish on what
principle every legal case depended, and it would be easy
for everyone possessed of a moderate share of intelligence
to find the rights of a question ; whatever new case should

arise, he would know how to refer the points of debate to
their proper section. *'But unhappily our lawyers," he adds,

''prefer, for the sake of raising objections, and in order to
show that they maybe, or appear to be, more knowing than
they are, raise difficult points ; and our lawyers, I say, do
divide the legal doctrine, which is essentially simple, into
an infinite of technical distinctions."
variety The nimia
suhtilitas which Cicero complains has had its day in
of
our own country, and even in our own time. Happily the
general view of our present lawyers is more in harmony
with Cicero's advocacy of clearness and simplicity than
appears to have been the case with the lawyers of Cicero's
time.
It is, perhaps, interesting to observe the identity of the

process which, at divers times and in different countries,
has exhibited itself, when the carelessly aggregated ''
heaps
of laws " have been found so cumbrous and confused that
nations have sought to get rid of the confusion resulting
therefrom. Frederick the Great, like Cicero, complained of
the lawyers ; and his code was, as he said himself, intended
to get rid of them. The Code Napoleon, imperfect as it
was and is still alleged to be, was, nevertheless, an
immense boon when compared to the confused system
of jurisprudence, if jurisprudence it can be called, which
Introduction. ccxi
prevailed over France. The provinces, differing in their

historical origin, in their traditions, and in their constitu-
tions, had no system of law common to them all ; and
rights differed, not only in different provinces, but even
in respect of different persons. The proclamation of
1789 of equality of rights paved the way for a code which
should be applicable to all persons alike, and in every part
of France.
It is not necessary to insist upon the hundred and eighty

customs which were more or less observed in France and
in divers parts of it. It was manifest that when the equality
of rights was proclaimed the whole system would have to be
put in the hands of some authority calculated to bring it
out of chaos into something like a reasonable adaptation to

the wants of human life. Cambaceres made three attempts,
each of them differing from the other, to produce this
result, but in vain ; and Napoleon himself intervened at
last, and, indeed, has more claim to be treated as the
author of the code than Justinian has to that which goes
under his name.
M. Portalis, one of Napoleon's commissioners, was alive

to the impossibility, already pointed out, of making a code
so universal in its application that it would not require to
be expounded. He says : We have guarded against
the dangerous ambition of wishing to regulate and to
foresee everything. The wants of society are so varied
that it is impossible for the legislator to provide for
every case or every emergency. We know that never,
or scarcely ever in any case, can a text of law be
enacted so fair and precise that good sense and equity
will alone suffice to decide it. A new question springs up :
Then how is it to be decided? To this question it is
replied that the office of the law is to fix by enlarged rules

the general maxims of right and wrong, to establish firm
principles fruitful in consequences, and not to descend
;
ccxii Introduction.
to the detail of all questions which may upon each arise
particular topic. It is for magistrates under Government,

penetrated by the general spirit of the law, to direct this
application."
Mr. Best, speaking of the expositions of the code,

complains that they had already, in his time, run to a con-
siderable length. That of Locr(3 in thirty-one volumes,
that of Toullier and Troplong in nearly fifty volumes, and,
on the Civil Code, those of Pailliet and Teulet and of the
Bulletin des Lois, bid fair to rival our own statute book in
bulk. "France," he said, "may well tremble for the
future."
With us a commission was issued

November, 1866, to
in
the following distinguished persons Lord Cranworth :
Sir Hugh Lord Westbury

Cairns, afterwards Earl Cairns ; ;
Sir James Wilde, afterwards Lord Penzance Kobert Lowe, ;
afterwards Lord Sherbrooke Sir William Page Wood,

;
afterwards Lord Hatherley Sir George Bowyer

; Sir ;
Koundell Palmer, afterwards Earl of Selborne Sir John ;
Shaw-Lefevre Sir Thomas Erskine May, afterwards Lord

;
Farnborough Mr. Daniel, Q.C. Henry Thring, afterwards

; ;
Lord Thring and Sir Francis Reilly. The commission

;
was to inquire into the exposition of a digest of the law

and the best means of accomplishing the object, and other
ways of exhibiting in a compendious and classical form the
law as embodied in judicial decisions.
After pointing out that the law of England, as they under-

stood it, comprised the whole civil law, in whatever Courts
administered, the criminal law, the law relating to the
constitution, the jurisdiction, and procedure of the Courts,
including the law of evidence and constitutional law, the com-
missioners proceeded to point out the extent and variety of
the sources from which the existing law is to be ascertained.
Speaking of the bulk of the statutes and the amount of
Introduction. ccxiii
judicial decisions, they calculated that the judicial decisions

were included in thirteen hundred volumes, exclusive of a
hundred and fifty volumes and they cal-

of Irish reports,
culated the number of cases at a hundred thousand. They
recommended a digest, which they defined as a condensed
summary of the law as it exists arranged in systematic order
under proper titles and subdivisions, and divided into definite
statements or propositions, which should be supported by

references to the sources of the law whence they were
severally derived, and might be illustrated by citations of
the principal instances in which the rules stated have been
discussed or applied.
The commission sat and took some evidence ; but it is
very remarkable that they made no allusion in their

first report, the only one that ever appeared, to the
exhaustive and complete Index to the Statutes, and the
edition of them down to the reign of Queen Anne, which
was prepared by very distinguished commissioners in answer
to addresses of the House of Commons. Both the index and
the edition of the statutes are a marvellous exhibition of
painstaking labour and profound learning. The various
volumes when published were deposited in the Parliament
Ofiice, and received this inscription : This book is to be
perpetually preserved in, and for the use of, the Parliament
Office."
It may be truly said that so great a monument of learning,

both legal and archaBological, is hardly to be found else-
where ; and it is most unfortunate that the edition of
the statutes does not go beyond the reign of Anne, and
does not, indeed, reach the end of that reign. Mr.
Eaithby's index goes down nearly to the period of his
own death in 1826, but many indices have been completed
and continued since his time. Nevertheless, both for
design and execution, Mr. Eaithby's index deserves to be
remembered.
ccxiv Introduction.
The commission, after the publication of its first report
on May 13, 1867, appears to have died out. It pro-

pounded various treatises to be sent in as specimens of the
Digest contemplated ; but some litigation ensued with

Mr. Macleod, one of the v^riters selected, and no more has
been heard of that commission since its first report ; but if
ever the experiment could have been successfully accom-

plished, it would have been when such a body of
commissioners was selected to try it.
A less ambitious, but very useful, course has been pursued

in taking specific subjects and consolidating various statutes
in relation to that subject. The Sale of Goods Act, the
Interpretation Act, the Partnership Act, the Bills of
Exchange Act, and the Marine Insurance Act, are examples
of how useful such a course may be, but no amount of
human ingenuity will ever make a code that will not
require exposition.
An ancient philosopher thought he could make the law

clear by a preparatory account of what it was intended to
effect; but modern ideas rather point to plain enact-

ment and desire to omit preambles altogether. Bacon
undoubtedly favours the modern view that law should
commence with enactment. He says: "Neque nobis pro-
logi legum, qui inepti olim habiti sunt, et leges introducunt
disputantes non jubentes, utique placerent, si priscos mores
ferre possemus. legum plerumque (ut nunc
Sed prologi isti
sunt tempora) necessario adhibentur, non tam ad explica-

tionem legis, quam instar suasionis ad perferendam legem
in comitiis ; et rursus ad satisfaciendum populo. Quantum
fieri potest tamen, prologi evitentur, et lex incipiat a jussione."
It may be that Bacon had in his mind what another judge
expressly said: that the preamble might act as the ''key"
of the statute to explain its object, and thereby elucidate
its meaning; otherwise he would not have added the
qualification " quantum fieri potest." The difference was
Introduction. ccxv
between the speculative Greek philosopher and the practical

lawyer and man of the world, but the controversy whether
the laws should incipere a jussione or whether they should
have an expository, though not perhaps a hortatory, preamble
is not settled yet. At all events, the function of one who
is entitled to alter or make the law is very different from
that of one who is only intrusted with the duty of making
an index to it, however wide may be the system upon
which the index may be made. The various attempts
to state what laws are have occasionally slipped into
apparently authoritative expositions of law by the digestor
himself; and that profound lawyer, Mr. Austin, points
out what he describes as the enormous fault of Justinian's
Code, considered as a code, that it is a compilation of
statutes and judicial decisions, a heterogeneous mass of
subjects having no other relation than that they are all

of them imperial constitutions, that is to say, statutes
and other orders emanating from the emperors directly,
and not emanating directly from subordinate legislatures

or tribunals. While it may be true to say that
no one case can necessarily decide another case under
different circumstances and between different persons, the
principle of law or justice may be severable from the

difference of circumstances or persons, and may establish
a rule applicable to both, and it may well be contended
that a selection of cases in which some one principle of
law is argued will illustrate more cogently the real solution
of a legal problem than any amount of technical or
abstract reasoning.
The great difficulty, of course, is to state the law as it is
without giving such an authority to the mode of its state-

ment as to make itself equivalent to a statute. This is
what Bentham apprehended. He says the legislator in the
code which he is recommending should direct that the
text of the law should be the standard of the law. In
Judging whether a given case falls within the law, the
ccxvi Introduction.
textought to be kept principally in view, the examples

which may be given being designed only to explain, not to
restrain, the purport of the law. No commentary should
be written on this code with a view of pointing out the
sense thereof ; and men should be required to pay no
regard to this comment, neither should it be raised in
any Court ofany manner whatsoever, either
justice in
by express words or by any circuitous designations what-
soever. A passage appears to be obscure ; let it be cleared
up rather by alteration than by comment; retrench, add,
substitute, as much as you will, but never explain. By
the latter certainty will generally, perspicuity and brevity
will always, suffer. The more words there are, the
more words are there about which doubts may be
entertained.
The Commission on the criminal law shared the fate of
its predecessor. It is still a valuable compilation to be

referred to as an authoritative exposition of the views of
the very learned lawyers who composed it, but of no authority
in a court of law. The truth is that the difficulty is inherent
in the subject treated of, and it may well be doubted
whether any code, call it a digest or anything else, can
come up to the digest recommended by the Commission
of 1866.
It has occurred to some minds that an attempt might

be made by private enterprise to carry out in its
main outlines the scheme which was recommended in

the report of the Commission appointed in 1866, and
such an attempt has been made in this work. Different
treatises upon various divisions of the law, and by different
authors, have been brought together, so that a selected

body of writers may expound their several topics, and
at the same time refer to such authoritative decisions
and enactments as support the propositions which they
lay down. A similar system was devised by the late
Intkoduction. ccxvii
Lord Acton in respect of history, and is being successfully

carried out.
The mere encyclopaedia, it is not a mere

result is not a
collection of cases, but a number of treatises composed by
learned lawyers, supported by the decisions of the great
judges who have from time to time adorned the English
Bench ; and it is hoped that when finished the work will
furnish a complete statement of the Laws of England.
HALSBUEY.
( ccxviii )
ABSTRACT OF TITLE.
See Sale of Land.
ACCIDENT.
See Negligence.
ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.

See CONTEACT.
ACCOUNTS AND INQUIRIES.

ACTION.
Part I. DEFINITIONS ---------

-- -- -- --
PAGE
2
-- -_--6
Sect. 1. Action- - 2
Sect. 2. Cause oe Action- -
Part II.
Sect.
IN EESPECT OE
1.
ACTION WILL LIE
Ubi jus, ihi
-------
WHAT
-- -- --
remedium -
ACTS AND OMISSIONS AN
7
7
-- -- --
Sect.
Sect.
2.
3.
Injuria absque
Damnum absque injuria
De minimis non
-------10
damno
------
- 9
Part
Sect.
III.
4.
WHO MAY SUE AND -----

curat lex
________
BE SUED
16
17
Sect.
Sect.
Sect.
1.
2.
3.
In General
The Crown
Crown Servants
________-18 - - - - - -
17
17
Sect. 4. Foreign Sovereigns and Governments - - - 18

Sect.
Sect.
5.
6.
Diplomatic Officers
Alien Enemies __-___-_
- -
---------21
-19
- - -
20
Sect.
Sect.
Sect.
7.
8.
9.
Bankrupts
Infants
Lunatics
___-__-__
--- -- -- --22
2I
Part IV. CONDITIONS

Sect. 1. Award ------
PRECEDENT TO ACTION
----_____
of an Arbitrator
- - _ 22
22
Sect.
Sect.
Sect.
2.
3.
4.
Consent
Demand or Eequest
Notice of Action
-------23
______ _
22
24
Part V. SUSPENSION OF RIGHT OF ACTION _ - _ _ 27

Sect. 1. By Agreement to refer to Arbitration - 27
Sect. 2. By Receipt of Negotiable Instrument - - - 27
Sect. 3. Actions in respect of Felonious Torts - - - 27
Sect. 4. Conviction for Treason or Felony - - - - 29
Sect. 5. Under Vexatious Actions Act, 1896 - - - 30
Part VI. EXTINCTION OF RIGHT OF ACTION - - - - 31
Part VIL FORMS OF ACTION ----__..

------ 31
Sect. L Old Forms of Action
Sub-sect. 1. Real Actions
Sub-sect. 2. Mixed Actions
-------32
----- _
31
34
Sub-sect. 3. Personal Actions - - - - _ - 35
H.L.— I. B
—
2 Action.
Part VII. JFORMS OF ACTION— co7itmued. page

Sect. 2.
Sect. 3. Modern Actions --------47

Abolition or Old Forms of Action -
Sub-sect. 1 Actions in rem and in personam

.
-
-
-
-
-
-
45
47
Sub-sect. 2. Actions of Contract and of Tort - - - 48
Sub-sect. 3. Actions Transitory or Local - - - - 50
Part YIII. MAINTENANCE AND CHAMPERTY - - - - 51
For Abatement of Actions - - - See title Practice and Procedure.

Accord and Satisfaction , ,
Contract.
Actions by and against Personal
Representatives - - - - Executors and Adminis-
trators.
Equitable Remedies - - _
,,, Equity.
Information - - - - ,, Criminal Law and Pro-
cedure; Crown Practice.
Joinder of Causes of Action - Practice and Procedure.
Jurisdiction _ _ _ _
,
, Admiralty Courts Prac-
; ;
tice AND Procedure.

Limitation of Actions • Limitation of Actions.
Petition of Right - - - - ,, Crown Practice.
Practice and Procedure - - - Practice and Procedure.
Revival of Action - - - - Practice and Procedure.
Various matters in respect of which
an action may be maintained See particular titles passim.
Part I. — Definitions.
Sect. 1. Action.
<' Action." 1. An " action," according to the legal meaning of the term, is a
proceeding by which one party seeks in a Court of justice to enforce
some right against, or to restrain the commission of some wrong
by, another party. More concisely it may be said to be the legal
demand of a right," or " the mode of pursuing a right to judg-
ment " (a). It implies the existence of parties, of an alleged right,
of an alleged infringement thereof (either actual or threatened),
and of a Court having power to enforce such a right.
In its wider meaning the term includes both civil and criminal
proceedings ; it was frequently so used by old writers {b), and in a
modern case (c) the House of Lords recognised that it is "a generic
term, inclusive, in its proper legal sense, of suits by the Crown,"
(a) " Action nest autre cbose que loyall demand de son droit " {Home's Mirroir
des Justices (1642), cap. 2, s. 1). "Actio nihil aliud est quam jus prosequendi
in juditio quod alicui debetur " (Co. Litt. 284 b, 285 a, quoting Bracton, iii.
fol. 98). See also Altham's Case (1610), 8 Co. Eep. 150 b; BradlaughY. Clarke
(1881), 7 Q. B. D. 38.
(6) Co. Litt. 284 b, 285 a Com. Dig. Action, D Bac. Abr. Actions in
; ;
General, A.
(c) Clarke v. Bradlaugh (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 38, per Lush, L.J. sub nom. ;
Bradlaugh v. Clarke (1883), 8 App. Cas. 354, per Lords Selborne, L.C, and
Blackburn.
—
PiRT I. Definitions. 3
and comprehending, in legal phraseology, every suit, " whether by a Sect. i.
subject, or in the name of the Sovereign, or by an information by Action,

the Attorney-General on behalf of the Crown." It is, however,
generally used in a more restricted or " popular " sense as denoting
a civil action brought by a subject and commenced by writ or
plaint {d) .
At the present date there are several statutory definitions {e),

2. Statutory
which for certain purposes give to the word " action " meanings (definitions,
ditierent from those indicated above. Thus for the purposes of the
Judicature Act, 1873, and the Eules of the Supreme Court, it means
a civil proceeding commenced by writ, or in such other manner as
may be prescribed by rules of Court, and does not include a
criminal proceeding by the Crown (/). For the same purposes the
word suit "is to include " action," the old technical distinction (g)
between actions at law and suits in equity being thus rendered
obsolete, and both " action " and " suit " are to be included in the
still wider term "cause" (h). For the purposes of the County
Courts Act, 1888 (i), the term ''action" is to include every pro-
ceeding in the Court which may be commenced as prescribed by
plaint, the term "matter" being appropriated to proceedings
commenced in any other way.
Upon the word " action " as defined above and as used in other Judicial
statutes there have been a number of judicial decisions. interpreta-
tions.
The term " action" as used in the Eules of the Supreme Court
Eules of
includes a proceeding by the Attorney-General formerly known as
Court.
an "information" {j).
A matrimonial cause or suit, commenced by petition, is not Matrimonial
cause or
generally known as an " action," and an order for payment of
suit.
costs, forming part of a decree therein, is not a "final judgment"
in respect of which a bankruptcy notice can be served (k).
(d) See note (c), p. 2.

(e) to those referred to in the text, reference may be made to
In addition
the Common Law Procedure Acts, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 76), 1854 (17 18 &
Vict. c. 125), and 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 126), the Inferior Courts Judgments
Extension Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 31), the British Law
Ascertainment
Act, 1859 (22 & 23 Vict. c. 63), and the Foreign Law
Ascertainment Act, 1861
(24 & 25 Vict. c. 11). The latter Acts contain an extremely wide definition, viz.,
*'
every judicial proceeding instituted in any Court, civil, criminal, or ecclesias-
tical." See also the Eailway Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 127), s. 3,
Action includes suit or other proceeding."
(/) Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 100. See E. S. C, Ord. 71,
r. 1.
{g) See, e.g., Suttoii v. Sutton (1882), 22 Ch. D. 511. In one old case, even
before the Judicature Act, a statutory provision as to the Court's power to give
special relief in " actions " of a certain character was held applicable to " suits "
[Pennell v. Smith (1855), 5 De G. M. & G. 167, 187).
ill) As to the origin of the word " cause," see Green v. Lord Penzance (1881), 6
App. Cas. 657. The Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 100, defines
it as including any action, suit, "or other original proceeding" between a
plaintiff and a defendant, and any criminal proceeding by the Crown. A
"suit,"_ therefore (i^f^ WaUiss Trusts, Ex parte Wul/is (1888), L. R. 23 Ir. 7), is
" an original proceeding between a plaintiff and defendant," and the term is a
wider one than "action."
(i) 51 & 52 Vict. c. 43, s. 186.
(,/) A.-G. V. Shrewsbury Bridge Co. (1880), 42 L. T. 79.

(A;) Re B instead, Ex parte Dale, [1893] 1 Q. B. 199.
B 2
4 Action.
Sect. 1. An Admiralty is not an " action " within the meaning

cause or suit
Action of the provision of the County Courts Act, 1888 (/), which gives to
either party in an action, where the amount claimed exceeds £5, a
Admiralty
cause. right to require a jury {7)i) nor is an Admiralty cause or suit in
;
rem an " action " against the owners of the vessel within the
meaning of a statute requiring notice of action (n).
Counterclaim. A counterclaim is for most purposes of procedure, except execu-
tion, treated as if it were a cross-action to be tried together with the
original action (o), but it is not an "action" within the meaning
of the Judicature Act(jj), or within the meaning of the provision of
the County Courts Act, 1888, which deals with the remission of
actions of tort to a county court (q). For the purposes of the Bills
of Exchange Act, 1882 (r), and of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (s),
a counterclaim is specifically included in the word " action."
Set-off. A "set-off" is treated as an "action" for the purposes of the
Limitation Act, 1623 (t), but not for those of the Solicitors Act,
1843 (it).
Interpleader An
interpleader issue ordered in an action is technically a " pro-
issue.
in that action and not itself an action " (a)
' '
ceeding ' , It is, however,
' .
sufficiently distinct from the original action to be regarded for many

purposes {e.g., a solicitor's retainer) as a separate litigation (h).
Proceeding by A proceeding commenced by originating summons falls within the
definition of an "action " in the Judicature Act, 1873 (c) but, as
summonsl^ ;
it is not an action in which a defence is put in, the rules as to
third party procedure do not apply to it (d). Further, it is not an

" action " within the meaning of the provision of the Conveyancing
and Law of Property Act, 1881 (e), which enables a lessee under
(/) 51 & 52 Vict. c. 43, s. 101.

(m) The Tynwald, [1895] P. 142 The Theodora, [1897] P. 279. See also The
;
Longford (1888), 14 P. D. 34.

The Longford, supra, decided under 6 & 7 Will. 4, cap. c, s, 8, a local or
personal Act and see The Barns, [1907] P. 137.
;
(o) Sykes v. Sacerdoti (1885), 15 Q,. B. D. 423 (security for costs of counter-
claim) ; Re Milan Tramways Co., Ex parte Theys (1882), 22 Ch. D. 122, 126,
affirmed (1884), 25 Ch D. 587; Beddall v. Maitland {l^^X) 17 Ch. D. 174;,
Stnmore v. Camphell & Co., [1892] 1 Q. B. 314; Levi v. Anglo-Continental Gold

Reefs etc., [1902] 2 K. B. 481 (third party procedure). A counterclaim is not a
part of the plaintiff's action, and is not affected by his discontinuing such action
{McQowan v. Middleton (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 464).
{p) And the counterclaiming defendant is not a "plaintiff" entitled as of
right to require issnes of fact to be tried by a jury under E. S. C, Ord. 36, r. 2
{Kinnaird {Lord) v. Field, [1905] 2 Ch. 361).
(g) 51 & 52 Yict. c. 43, s. 66; DeloUel-Flipo v. Varty, [1893] 1 Q. B. 663.
See also R. v. Judge of City of London Court-, [1891] 2 Q. B. 71, decided under
s. 65 of the same statute,
(r) 45 & 46 Yict. c. 61, s. 2.

is) 56 & 57 Vict. c. 71, s. 62.
[t) 21 Jac. 1, c. 16;
Remington v. Stevens (1747), 2 Str. 1271 Rawley v. Rawley
;
(1876), 1 Q. B. D. 460.
{u) 6 & 7 Yict. c. 73, s. 37; see Brown v. TihUts (1862), 11 C. B. (n. s.) 855.
(a) Hamlyn v. Betteley (1880), 6 Q. B. D. 63 Collis v. Lewis (1887), 20 Q. B. D.
;
202 (as to appeal from a county court on an interpleader issue).

{h) James Y. Ricknell (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 164.
(c) Re Fawsitt (1885), 30 Ch. D. 231 Re Vardon (1885), 55 L. J. (cH.) 259 ;
;
Gee V. Bell (1887), 35 Ch. D. 160 ; Re Rohinson (1885), 31 Ch. D. 247.

(d) Re Wilson (1890), 45 Ch. D. 266.
(e) 44 & 45 Yict. c. 41, s. 14 (2).
—
Part I. Definitions. 5
certain circumstances to apply for relief against forfeiture in the Sect. 1.
lessor's "action," if any, or in any "action" brought by himself (/). Action.

A garnishee order, made in collateral proceedings between a Garnishee
plaintiff and a third party, was held not to be " a decision in the order.
action " for the purposes of an appeal under the earlier County
Court Acts (g).
A petition is a"pleading" for the purposes of the Judicature Petition.
Act and Kules of the Supreme Court (h). It has been said that for
such purposes the word "action" does not (though "suit" does)
include proceedings upon petition (i) but a petition for payment ;
out of Court of funds lodged there is clearly not in all cases

an " action or suit " within the meaning of sect. 42 of the Keal Pro-
perty Limitation Act, 1833 (k). It is doubtful, indeed, whether it
is so in any case (I).
A motion by a trustee in bankruptcy for delivery up of goods Motion by
" trustee in
taken in execution by a high bailiff was held not to be an " action
bankruptcy.
within the meaning of the provisions of the County Courts Act,
1888 {)n), which require notice of action to be given in certain
cases (ii).
For the purposes of the Public Authorities Protection Act, Public

1893 (o), the term " action " includes actions in the Chancery Authorities
Protection
Division and actions for injunctions and declarations as well as Act,
actions in the King's Bench Division, or actions for damages, but
not an action in rem (p).
The term "proceeding" is frequently used to denote a step in "Proceeding.
an action, and obviously it has that meaning in such phrases as
"proceeding in any cause or matter." When used alone, however,
it is in certain statutes to be construed as synonymous with, or
including, " action " (q).

An action, in the strict sense of the term, ends at judgment (r). Termination
Thus a provision as to the costs of an " action " does not affect the of an action.
costs of an appeal against the judgment therein (s) so it was ;
(/) Lock V. Pearce, [1893] 2 Ch. 271.

{g) Mason v. Wirral Highway Board (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 459.
(A) 36 & 37 Yict. c. 66, s. 100.
{i) Re WalHs's Trusts, Ex parte Wallis (1888), L. E. 23 Ir. 7.
{k) 3 &4 Will. 4, c. 27.
. [l) Edmunds v. Waugh (1866), L. E. 1 Eq. 418 ;Re Stead (1876), 2 Ch. D.
713, distinguished in Re Lloyd, [1903] 1 Ch. 385. See further on this subject
the title Limitation of Actions.
{m) 51 ^V: 52 Vict. c. 43, ss. 53, 54.
{n) Re Lock, Ex parte Foppleton (1890), 63 L. T. 320.
(o) 56 & 57 Yict. c. 61, s. 1.
(jj) Fielden v. Morley Corporation., [1899] 1 Ch. 1 Harrop v. Ossett Corpora-
;
tion., [1898] 1 Ch. 525 Grand Junction Waterworks Co. v. Hampton Urban
;
District Council (1899), 63 J. P. 503 The Burns, [1907] P. 137.

;
{(j) E.g., Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Yict. c. 66), s. 89 Pri/or v. City Offices ;
Co. (1883), 10 Q. B. D. 504; Eailway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Yict.
c. 31), s. 6 Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Rail. Co. v. Benahi/ Main
;
Colliery Co. (1884), 14 Q. B. D". 209, 225. See also sect. 85 of the Companies
Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Yict. c. 89), and Re Briton Medical and General Life Association
(1886), 55 L. J. (CH.) 416.
(r) Bac. Abr. Execution, A.
(s) Fielden v. Morley Corj)or(ition, supra. And costs of execution are not
costs of action {Armitage v. Jessop (1866), L. E. 2 C. P. 12, 15).
—
6 Action.
Sect. 1. ruled that a release of " all actions " would not bar execution upon
Action. a judgment already obtained secus a release of " all suits," for
;
without " suit or prayer " none could have execution {t).
Sect. 2. Cause of Action.

Meaning of 3. The " popular meaning of the expression " cause of action "
"
term. -g particular act on the part of the defendant which gives the
plaintiff his cause of complaint (a). Strictly speaking, however,
" every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff
. to succeed, every fact which the defendant would have a right to
traverse (&), forms an essential part of ^^the cause of action,"
which ''accrues" upon the happening of the latest of such facts (c).
Consequently, in any particular case, "the cause of action," strictly
so called, can only be said to arise within a certain local area,
when all such material facts arise within that area, when (as it is
often stated somewhat tautologically) the " whole " cause of action
so arises. Thus it was held {cl) that the purely common law juris-
diction of the Mayor's Court in London and the county court
jurisdiction under sect. 60 of the repealed statute of 1846 (e), being
in each case limited to causes of action arising within a particular
area, did not attach unless the whole cause of action arose within
that area. It may, however, be that, upon the true construction of
a given statute, the expression " a cause of action " ought to bear a
narrower interpretation and be restricted to the popular meaning
indicated above. Thus after several conflicting decisions (/) upon
sect. 18 of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852 {g), the Courts of
Queen's Bench and Common Pleas differing upon the point, it was
finally held [h) by a majority of all the judges that the expression
in that section must be treated as bearing such narrower inter-
pretation. With reference to the cases cited above as to the
jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court and county courts, it should be
noted that sect. 12 of the Mayor's Court Procedure Act, 1857 (i),
{t) AUham's Case (1610), 8 Co. Eep. 150 b.

(a) Jackson v. Spittull (1870), L. E. 5 C. P. 542.
ih) Cooke V. Gill (1873), L. E. 8 C. P. 107 Read v. ; Brown (1888), 22 Q. B. D.
128.
(c) Colurn v. CoUedge, [1897] 1 Q. B. 702.
(d) As Mayor's Court, see Cooke v. Gill, Bead v. Broiun, supra ; Gold v.
to the
Tur7ier (1874), L. E. 10 C. P. 149 Bowler v. Barberton Development Syndicate,
;
[1897] 1 Q. B. 164; as to the county court, Wi/de v. Sheridan (1852), 21 L. J.

(q. B.) 260 Borthwick v. Walton (1855), 24 L. J. (c. P.) 83 Hernaman v. Smith
; ;
(1855), 24 L. J (ex.) 175. . See also Whitehead v. Butt (1891), 7 T. L. E. 609, and
Payne v. Hoqq, [1900] 2 Q. B. 43, similar decisions upon the words of sect. 6 of
the Salford Hundred Court of Eecord Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Yict. c. cxxx.).
(e) 9 & 10 Yict. c. 95.
(/) In favour of the wider interpretation, Sichel v. Borch (1864), 33 L. J. (ex.)
179 Allhusen v. Malgarejo (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 340 Cherry v. Thompson (1872),
; ;
L. E. 7 Q. B. 573 in favour of the narrower interpretation, Fife v. Round

;
(1858), 6 W. R. 282 Jackson v. Spittall (1870), L. E. 5 C. P. 542, and cases

;
there referred to. In Durham v. Spence (1870), L. E. 6 Ex. 46, the Court were
divided in opinion.
{g) 15 & 16 Yict. c. 76.
\h) Vaughan v. Weldon (1874), L. E. IOC. P. 47, approving t7'acA;so?^ v. Spittall,
supra.
(i) 20 & 21 Yict. c. clvii. s. 12. See thereon Hawes v. Paveley (1876), 1 C.
P. D. 418.
—
and sect. 74 of the present County Courts Act, 1888 (j), make use Sect. 2.
of the expression "cause of action" arising wholly or in part" Cause of

^Yithin the jurisdiction; these words are satisfied if any fact material Action,
for the plaintiff to prove, e.g., non-payment (k) of the debt sued for,
or its assignment (I) to him, or receipt of an order by post or
telegraph (///), took place within the jurisdiction.
The question whether some act gives rise to only one cause of
action, or to a number of recurring causes of action in respect of
recurring damage, is often of importance in determining the
application of the Statutes of Limitation (n).
Part II. — In respect of what Acts and

Omissions an Action will lie.
Sect. 1. — Ubi jus, ibi remediuvi.
4. The general rule is that w^herever there exists a " right " Nature of
recognised by the law, there exists also a remedy for any infringe- •la.
ment of such right in the words of the old maxim, ubi jus, ibi reme-
;
dium (o). Such an infringement of a legal right is known to the law

as an injuria.
Wherever a person has a private (p) "right" {i.e., not merely a where
right enjoyed by him in common with the community at large) he private right
may in general maintain an action against any other person JJJ.QQf ^f^'
who infringes it, and that without proving actual damage. Every damage
injuria, it is said, imports a damage in the nature of it, though unnecessary,
there be no pecuniary loss or damage (q) and, consequently, where ;
a private right and its infringement are proved, it is unnecessary to

show actual damage in order to maintain an action (r). Thus
U)51 & 52 Yict. c. 43, s. 74.
Northeij Stone Co. v. Gidney, [1894] 1 Q. B. 99.
[k)
(l) Bead v. Brown (1888), 22 Q. B. D. 128.
(m) Coiuan v. O'Connor (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 640. Compare also Alderton v.

Archer (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 1.
See title Limitation op Actions.
{n)
See Ashhij y. TF/uYe (1703), 1 Smitli,_ L. C._(lltli ed.), p. 240 3 Ld. Eaym.
[o) ;
320. " Indeed, it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy, for want
of right and want of remedy are reciprocal " [ihid., 1 Smith, L.C., at p. 260, per
Holt, C.J.).
For a consideration of the different kinds of rights recognised by the law, see the
particular titles dealing with various branches of the law of contracts and torts.
[p) See note (ft), p. 9, post.
Iq) "A damage not merely pecuniary; but an injury imports a damage
is
when a man thereby hindered of his right. ... So if a man gives another a
is
Cuff on the ear, though it cost him nothing, no not so much as a little diachylon,
yet he shall have his action, for it is a personal injury " {Ashby v. White, supra,
per Holt, O.J., at pp- 260, 261. But see the maxim, " De minimis non curat
lex," p. 16, post).
(r) The novelty of the complaint is no objection, " for if men will multiply
injuries, actions must be multiplied too" {Ashby v. White, per Holt, C.J.,
at p. 262). Cases new in their principle require legislation to remedy the
grievance, but not cases new only in the instance {Pasley v. Freeman (1789), 3
Term Eep. 51, 63, per Ashhurst, J. Chapman v. Pickersgill (1762), 2 Wils.
;
145, 146, per Pratt, C.J.).

8 Action.
Sect. 1. where a plaintiff's right to vote at a parliamentary election was

TJbi jus, ibi denied by the polling officers it was held that they were liable to
Temedium. him in damages, although the candidates for whom he wished to
vote were nevertheless elected (s) So a banker who had funds
.
wherewith to honour a customer's cheque, but, in breach of his duty,

dishonoured it, was held liable in damages without any proof of
pecuniary loss to the customer (^). Similarly a person who trespasses
on another's land without injuring it (u), or who wrongfully diverts
water from another's stream, though leaving a sufficient flow for
his present use, is liable to an action (x).
Statutory Although it is true that a person who suffers an infringement

5.
remedy alone of some private right may in general maintain an action in respect
available in
certain cases. thereof, yet in the case of rights which depend upon some statute
it may be that there is some statutory remedy which alone he can
pursue. Upon this point the general rule has been stated in the
following words (y) " There are three classes of cases in which a
:
liability may be established founded upon a statute. One is where

there was a liability existing at common law, and that liability is
affirmed by a statute, which gives a special and peculiar form of
remedy different from the remedy which existed at common law.
There, unless the statute contains words which expressly or by
necessary implication exclude the common law remedy, the party
suing has his election to pursue either that or the statutory remedy.
The second class of cases is where the statute gives the right to
sue merely, but provides no particular form of remedy. There the
party can only proceed by action at common law. But there is a
third class, viz., where a liability not existing at common law is
created by a statute which, at the same time, gives a special and
particular remedy for enforcing it. The remedy provided by
. . .
the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to

pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class." In each
case, however, in deciding whether a statutory remedy is, or is not,
intended to be the only remedy for breach of the statutory duty,
the particular statute must be examined (z). And even where the
ordinary remedy by action for damages is excluded, there may also
be a concurrent remedy by injunction (a).
(s) Ashhy v. IVhitt, supra ; but where a person, not in law entitled to vote,
was on the register, it was held that the rejection of his proffered vote was
not an injuria, for he had no " right" to vote {Pryce v. Belcher (1847), 4 C. B.
866).
Marzetti v. Williams (18;30), 1 B. & Ad. 415.
[t)
lUd., per Taunton, J., at p. 426; Clifford v. Hoare (1874), 22 W. E. 828;

(n)
Williams V. Morland (1824), 2 B. & 0. 910.
(x) Harrop v. Hirst (1868), L. E. 4 Ex. 43.
{y) Per Willes, J., in Wolverhampton Waterworks Co. v. Haiuhesford (1859),
6 C. B. (]sr. s.) 336, at p. 356. See also Great Northern Fishing Co. v. Edgehill
(1883), 11 a B. D. 225; Pasmore v. Oswaldtwistle Urban Bistrict Council, [1898]
A. 0. 387; Stevens v. Chown, [1901] 1 Ch. 894; Harrington {Earl) v. Derby Cor-
poration, [1905] 1 Ch. 205, 222.
{z) Atkinson v. Newcastle Wateriuorks Co. (1877), 2 Ex. D. 441, 448, per Lord
Cairns, L.C.; Groves v. Wimborne [Lord), [1898] 2 Q. B. 402, per Vatjghan
Williams, L.J., at p. 416.
{a) Cooper v. Whittingham (1880), 15 Ch. D. 501 Stevens v, Chown, supra ;
;
A.-G. V. Ashborne Recreation Ground Co., [1903] 1 Ch. 101.

— —
Part II. In what Cases an Action will lie. 9
6. Where
the right infringed is a public right, and where the Sect. i.
grievance a grievance to the whole community equally, tliere is Ubijus, ibi
is
similarly a remedium ; but in this case the appropriate remedy is remedium.
by proceedings of a public nature, i.e., indictment or an action by infringement
the Attorney-General, as the guardian of the public's rights {h). of public
Even in this case an individual who has suffered particular damage
beyond that sustained by his fellows, e.g., who has been injured by
an obstruction to a highway, may maintain an action in his own
name (c).
Sect. 2. Injuria absque dainno.
7. apparent from what has been said above that there cannot Where actual
It is
in law be an injuria (strictly so called) absque dainno. There are, eg^s™nt1al
however, numerous cases in which, unless there be actual damage,
there can be no injuria and no cause of action. The distinction
depends upon a distinction in the nature of " rights." Some rights
are absolute, e.g., a man may have a right to claim that some act
shall be done or omitted {simpliciter) others are only qualified,
;
e.g., he may have a right to claim that some act shall not be done
or omitted to his damage in the latter class of case damage is an
;
essential part of the action, and unless there is actual damage

there is no injuria (d). Numerous instances may be cited of rights
thus qualified. Thus a landowner has a right to demand that his
land (in its natural state) shall not be " let down" by excavations
on his neighbour's land if it be so let down, he may maintain an
;
action in respect of the damage but unless subsidence follows no

;
"right" is infringed by the most extensive excavations of his

neighbour (e). So if a landlord ostensibly distrain for more rent
than is due to him, the tenant's right is not infringed unless goods
are in fact seized of a greater value than the amount of rent
actually due from him, for otherwise he suffers no damnum (/).
Again, unless an execution creditor is actually damnified by a
sheriffs mistake in making a false return to a writ of execution,
he has no cause of action in respect thereof (g).
For a consideration of the different types of " rights" recognised
(6) " Suppose the defendant had beat forty or fifty men, the damage to each one
ispeculiar to himself, and he shall have his action. Indeed, where many men
. . .
are offended by one particular act, there they must proceed by way of indict-
ment, and not of action, for in that case the law will not multiply actions"
{Ashby V. White, 1 Smith, L. C. (11th ed.), at p. 262, per Holt, C.J.).
- (c) In the absence, of course, of contributory negligence [Lyon v. Fishmongers'
Co. (1876), 1 App. Cas. 662; Fritz v. Hohson_ (1880), 14 Ch. D. 542). "A
man shall have his action for a public nuisance if he is more incommoded than
others" [jper Fitzherbert, J., Y. B. 27 Hen. 8, fol. 27, pi. 10; see Bedford
(Duke of) V. Ellis, [1901] A. C. 1, 11, 12, See also Bicket v. Metropolitan Bail.
Co. (1867), L. E. 2 H. L. 175 Winterhottom v. Lord Derby (1867), L. 11. 2 Ex.
;
316; Tottenham Urban District Council v. Williamson & Sons, [1896J 2 Q. B. 353;
Watson V. Llythe Corporation (1906), 22 T. L. E. 245.
{d) See per Lord Blackbuhn in Darley Main Colliery Co. v. Mitchell (1886),
11 App. Cas. 127, at pp. 141, 142.
(e) Backhouse v. Bonomi (1861), 9 H. L. C. 503 Darlet/ Main Colliery Co. v.
;
Mitchell snpra; Att.-Oen. v. Conduit Colliery Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 301.

(/) TancredY. Leyland {1850), 16 Q. B. 669; Cb/nn v. Thomas {lSo6), 11 '
Exch. 870 French v. Phillips (1856), 1 II. & N. 564.

;
[g) WylieY. Birch (1843), 4 Q. B. 566; Stimson v. Farnham (1871), L. E. 7

Q. B. 175.
— ;
10 Action.
Sect. 2. by the law the reader is referred to the particular titles dealing
Injuria with various^ branches of the law of contracts and torts.
absque
damno. Sect. 3. Damnum absque injuria.
8. Although an injuria imports, as we have seen, a damnum, there
Damage
without are many cases in which a person may sustain serious damage and yet
infringement have no cause of action, because no right of his recognised by the law
of legal
right.
has been infringed, and he has, therefore, suffered no injuria (h)
and, in general, the fact that an act has been done "maliciously,"
and with intent to inflict damnum, is immaterial in considering
whether such act does, or does not, amount to a legal injuria (^).
User of land. Thus an owner or occupier of land may use it for any
purpose " for which it might in the ordinary course of the enjoy-
ment of land be used," and even though in so doing he inflicts
injury upon his neighbour, the latter has no actionable cause of
complaint {j) he may without incurring liability win the under-
;
lying minerals in the ordinary way, although water is thereby

allowed to percolate into an adjoining mine {k) he may abstract ;
underground water flowing in no defined channel, and so stop the

flow of his neighbour's spring (Q he may grow poisonous yew trees
;
on his land (m) so long as they do not overhang the fences (n),
though animals which stray in may be poisoned, or though third
persons may remove clippings therefrom and deposit them else-
where (o) and he may allow the natural growth of weeds {p), or
;
the natural stock of rabbits to increase unchecked to the

injury of his neighbour's crops. So he may erect a high wall or
disfiguring buildings, and thus deprive his neighbour's house of its
(h) " You must have in onr law injury as well as damage. The act of the
defendant, if lawful, may still cause a great deal of damage to the plaintiff.
If a man erects a wall on his own property and thereby destroys the view from
the house of the plaintiff, he may damage him to an enormous extent. He may
destroy three-fourths of the value of the house; but still, if he has the right to
erect the wall, the mere fact of thereby causing dama.ge to the plaintiff does not
give the plaintiff a right of action" {Day v. Broiunrkjg (1878), 10 Ch. D. 294,
jper Jessel, M.E., at p. 304; Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow & Co. (1889),
23 Q. B. D. 598, 613; AUeji v. Flood, [1898] A. 0. 1 Clark v. London General
;
Omnibus Co., [1906] 2 K. B. 648, jêr Gorell Barnes, P., at p. 663 Sweeney v.
;
Coote (1907), 2'3 T. L. E. 448).

(i) AlleuY. Flood, supra, at pp. 123, 124; Bradford Corporations. Pickles, [1895]
A. C. 587, 594. As to the effect of malice in cases of groundless legal proceedings,
and of defamation, see pp. 12, 13, pjost.
(/) Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), L. E. 3 H. L. 330, per Lord Cairns
Wilson v.
;
TFac?cZe/i(1876),2 App.Cas. 95, 99; Attorney-GeyieralY. 2Wme(1879),12Ch.D. 214,

229, 230 West Cumherlund Iron and Steel Co. v. Kenyon (1879), 11 Ch. D. 782, 786,
;
787 WhalleyY. Lancashire and Yorkshire Rail. Co. (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 131, 135.
;
{k) SmithY. Kenrick (1849), 7 C. B. 515 Wilson v. Waddell (1876), 2 App. Cas.
;
95, 99; Bairdy. Williamson (1863), 15 C. B. (n. s.) 376, 391, 392; Corporation
of Birmingham v. Allen (1877), 6 Ch. D. 284.
(/) Chasemore v. Richards (1859), 7 H. L. C. 349 Bradford Corporation v.
;
Pickles, [1895] A. C. 587 Dudden v. Glutton Union (1857), 1 H. & N. 627, 630;
;
Poppleivell V. Hodkinson (1869), L. E. 4 Ex. 248.

(m) Ponting v. Noakes, [1897] 2 Q. B. 281.
{n) Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board (1878), 4 Ex. D. 5.
(o) Wilson V. Neioherry (1871), L. E. 7 Q. B. 31.
(p) Giles V. Walker (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 656.

Iq) Boulston's Case (1597), 5 Co. Eep. 104 b. See Farrer v. Nelson (1885), 15
Q. B. D. 258.
— ;
outlook or amenities (r) he may cut off light (s) or air (t) from an
; Sect. 3.
adjoining house and even "let it down" (n) by excavations on his Damnum
own land, if no legal right to light or support has been acquired. absque
N^^î^-
9. Again, injury or loss occasioned to a man's trade, calling, or
profession by the interference of others is not actionable, even Trade rivalry
though such interference be concerted, if the means used to inflict
the loss are not unlawful. Thus damage resulting from the setting
up of a rival shop or school to entice away the customers or
scholars of the plaintiff (j;), the underselling of a rival trader to get
a monopoly of a trade (a), the offering of lower terms to such mer-
chants as deal exclusively with one, whereby one draws away the
customers of rival shipping companies (b), are all cases of damnum
absque i}ijnrid. So is loss of trade caused to the owner of a ferry by
the construction of a new bridge close at hand (c). And a workman
has no cause of action against a fellow-workman who informs their
common master that if the other's contract of service be not deter-
mined in due course, he himself will seek new employment {d), thus
procuring the other's dismissal {d). It is not in all cases that the pro-
curing a breach of contract is actionable there must be interference ;
of an active nature causing more than nominal damage {e).
10. The annoyance

or inconvenience resulting from the assump- Use of name,
tion of another's name (/) or that of his residence {g), if not done
for a fraudulent purpose, is damnum absque injuria, for no one has
a right to the exclusive use of any name.
11- The basis of an action for seduction is the right (whether of Seduction,
a parent or a master) to enjoy the services rendered by the woman
seduced (/i); and unless this right is infringed (?) a parent or master
{r) Bay v. Brownrigg (1878), 10 Ck. D. 294; AldrecVs Case (1610), 9 Co. Eep.
57 b ; Saiviti v. North Brancepeth Coal Co. (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 705, per James, L.J.
(s) Taplmgy. Jones {lS6o), 11 H. L. 0. 290; Broom.feld y. Williams, [1897]
1 Ch. 602.
{t) Webh
V. Bird (1863), 13 C. B. (n. s.) 841 and see Chasteij v. AcUand, [1895]
;
2 Oh. 389, and the same case in the House of Lords, [1897] A. C. 155.
{u) Partridge v. Scott (1838), 3 M. & W. 220 though possibly in this case he
;
must not dig negligently. See Dodd v. Holme (1834), 1 A. & E. 493 Bradbee v. ;
Christ's Hospital (1842), 4 M. & G-. 714.

{x) Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410), Y. B. 11 Hen. 4, fol. 47, pi. 21 ;
Keehle v. Hickeringill (1706), 11 East, 574 (note), 576.
(a) Ajello V. Worsletj, [1898] 1 Ch. 274.
(b) Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Goiu & Co. (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 598.
(c) Hopkins V. Great Northern Rail. Co. (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 224; Bibdeny.
Skirrow, [1907] 1 Ch. 437.
{d) Allen v. Flood, [1898] A. C. 1.
(e) National Phonograph Co. v. Edison-Bell Consolidated Phonograph Co.
(1906), 76 L. J. (ch.) 194.
(/) Bu Boulay v. Bu Boiday (1869), L. E. 2 P. C. 430 Burgess v. Burgess ;
(1853), 3 De G. M. & G. 896 Cotvley v. Cowley, [1901] A. C. 450. As to wrongful

;
use of a trade name or description, see title Trade and Trade Unions.
{g) Street v. Uîion Bank of Spain (1885),
V
30 Ch. D. 156; Bay v. Brownriqq
lOCh.D.294. ^
(1878),
[h) Maunder v. Venn
(1829), Mood. & M. 323, per Littledale, J. Terry v. ;
Hutchinson (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 599 Hedges v. Tagg (1872), L. R. 7 Ex. 283

;
Whitbourne v. Williams, [1901] 2 K. B. 722. The services need not be rendered to

a father under any legal obligation {Bennett v. Alcott (1787), 2 Term Rep. 166).
(?) There must be service both at the date of the seduction and of the suc-
ceeding incapacity to serve, see Grinnell v. Wells (1844), 7 M. & G. 1033;
;
12 Action.
Sect. 3. can recover no damages for the seduction, though he may have
Damnum incurred expense in maintaining the woman seduced, the injury to
absque his feeUngs not being in the eye of the law an injuria (k).
injuria.
12. A man's wife or child may suffer the greatest pecuniary
Fatal injuries. loss by his death yet at common law they had no remedy against
;
a person who by an act of negUgence caused such man's death, even

though the victim, had he been merely incapacitated for life, could
have recovered substantial damages (l). At the present day, how-
ever, this grievance has to some extent been removed by statute (in).
Defence 13. Acts done in self-defence against a common enemy, e.g., the
against a erection of banks to prevent inroads of the sea or of floods, do not
common
peril.
amount to an injuria, though they may cause damnum to neighbours
by diverting the water on to their lands (n). Conversely at common
law a man may, apart from any prescriptive liability to repair it,
allow his wall or bank to fall to pieces, although floods are thereby
allowed to reach his neighbour's field (o) but there is a distinction
;
—
between keeping out a flood the common enemy and getting rid —
of flood water already upon a man's own land such water he must
;
not deliberately drain on to another's land to its damage (p).

Defamation. 14. Another instance of damna absque injuria is supplied by that
branch of the law which deals with libel and slander. Speaking
generally, a man has a right to claim that he shall not be damnified
by defamatory statements made about his character. If such a
defamatory statement be made in writing, the law, indeed, presumes
that he is damaged {q). So too if it be made orally, and is a statement
of a particular character (?) and in other cases of oral defamation
;
he can maintain an action upon proof of actual damage (s).

Privileged On the ground of public policy, however, it has been considered
defamatory desirable that no action shall lie in respect of statements, how-
statements.
ever defamatory and damaging, made under certain particular
circumstances.
Davies v. Williams {I S^l), 10 Q. B. 725; Harris y. Butler {IS'31), 2 M. & W.
539; WJiitbourne v. Williams, supra; Hamilton v. Long, [1903] L. R. 2 Ir. 407,
affirmed [1905] L. E. 2 Ir. 552.
{k) Yet if lie can prove loss of service, it is a recognised principle that he
may have damages not only for that, but also for injury to his feelings {Irwin
V. bearman (1809), 11 East, at p. 24 Terry v. Hutchinson (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 599).
;
{I) Oshorn V. Gillett (1873), L. E. 8 Ex. 88.

(m) Eatal Accidents Act, 1846 (9 & 10 Yict. c. 93), commonly called Lord
Campbell's Act see title Negligence.
;
{n) JR. V. Pagham Commissioners (1828), 8 B. & C. 355 ; Nield v. London and
North Western Rail. Co. (1874), L. E. 10 Ex. 4. As to damage caused by pulling
down a burning house, see Maleverer v. Spinke (1537), Dyer, 35 b, 36 b; Dewey
V. White (1827), Mood. & M. 56.
(o) Hudson V. Tahor (1876), 2 Q. B. D. 290. See Nitro -phosphate Co. v.
London and St. Katherine's Docks (1878), 9 Ch. D. 503, as to liability for
actively interfering with a river wall.
[p) Whalley v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Bail. Co. (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 131.
[q) Ratcliffe v. Evans, [1892] 2 Q. B. 524. _per BowEN, L.J., at p. 529; South
Hetton Coal Co. v. North Eastern News Association, [1894] 1 Q. B. 133, at p. 144.
The presumption is apparently based on the principle that litttra scripta manet.
See generally, on the subject of defamation, title Libel and Slander.
(r) L.e., imputing a criminal offence, imputing unchastity to a female, imputing
certain contagious diseases, or relating to a man's office, profession, or trade.
(s) Stanhope v. Blith (1585), 4 Co. Eep. 15 Hoptuood v. TAom (1849), 8 C. B. 293
;
-
Savile v. Jardine (1795), 2 H. Bl. 531 Davies v. Solomon (1871), L. E. 7 Q. B. 112.
;
—
Statements so made are said to be " privileged," and fall into Sect. 3.
two classes according as the privilege is "absolute" or ''qualified"; Damnum

in the former case no action can under any circumstances be atosque
maintained in the latter it can only be maintained upon proof
;
i Ajund .
of express malice. ^
^
Nature of
Words spoken by a judge acting in his judicial capacity (t), by a privilege,
magistrate while sitting as such (û), by a member of Parliament in Absolute

Parliament (a), by a witness in a trial (h), or before a parliamentary P™iege.
committee (c), or before a military Court of inquiry ((i), or when
giving a proof of his evidence to a litigant's solicitor (e), or at
an inquiry under a bishop's commission (/), by counsel (g) or
advocate (h) in the conduct of a case, are absolutely privileged,
and no action will lie for the damage ensuing therefrom even if they
are irrelevant or are uttered maliciously. All documents properly
used in a judicial proceeding are also absolutely privileged (i).
A qualified privilege attaches to statements made in the discharge Qualified
of a duty, or reasonably made in order to protect some interest of the
Pi'^viiege.
maker. So reports of legal proceedings and of public meetings (k)

and fair and bond fide comment on, or criticism (/) of, matters of
public interest are not in general actionable without proof of malice.
15. A person may be seriously damnified by having legal proceed- Unfounded

ings brought against him but it has been found necessary to ^gg^^^^^g"
;
excuse from legal liability a person who brings such proceedings

against another, but does so with reasonable and probable cause and
without malice. If there be malice and a want of reasonable
and probable cause, then indeed an action may lie, but damage is
an essential part of the injuria. In the case of an unsubstantiated
criminal charge the presumed damage done to the defendant's
position is sufficient {n), and it would seem that damage may be
{t) Anderson v. Gorrie, [1895] 1 Q. B. 668 Scott v. Stansfield (1868), L. E. ;
3 Ex. 220 Thomas v. Churton (1862), 2 B. & S. 475 (coroner).

;
{u) Law V. Lleivellyn, [1906] 1 B. 487. K

[a) Dillon V. Balfour (1887), 20 L. E. Ir. 600 ; B. v. Abingdon (1794), 1 Esp.
226.
(&) Seaman v. Netlierclift (1876), 1 C. P. D. 540, affirmed 2 0. P. D. 53 ;
Henderson v. Broomhead (1859), 4 H. & N. 569 ;Bevis v. Smith (1856), 18 C. B.

126.
(c) Q. B. D. 307.
Goffin V. Donnelly (1881), 6
{d) Dawhins (1875), L. E. 7 H. L. 744.
v. Lord Bokehy
(e) Watson v. McEwan, [1905] A. C. 480.
(/) BarrattY. Kearns, [1905] 1 K. B. 504.

(cj) Munster v. Lamh (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 588.
(A) Mackay v. Ford (1860), 5 H. & N. 792 Pedley and May v. Morris (1891),
;
61 L. J. (q. B.) 21 Lilley y. Boney (1892), ibid. 727.

;
(i) Bevis v. Smith, supra ; Henderso7i v. Broomhead, supra.

(k) Lewis v. Levy (1858), E. B. & E. 537 KimberY. Press Association, [1893]
;
I Q. B. 65 Stevens v. Sampson (1879), 5 Ex. D. 53 Macdougall v. Knight

; ;
(1890), 25 Q. B. D. 1 Law of Libel Amendment Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 64).
;
{I) Thomas v. Bradbury, Agnew <k Co., Ltd., [1906] 2 K. B. 627; Campbell
Y. Spottiswoode (1863), 3 B. & S. 769 Merivale v. Carson (1887), 20 Q. B. D.

;
275 Joynt v. Cycle Trade Publishing Co., [1904] 2 K. B. 292.

;
(m) As to the burden of proof and respective functions of judge and jury,
see Abrath v. North Eastern Bail. Co. (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 440, affirmed (1886)
II App. Cas. 247; Brown v. Hawkes, [18911 2 Q. B. 718; Watson v. Smith
(1899), 15 T. L. E. 473.
(ri) Bay son v. South London Tramways Co.,
[1893] 2 Q. B. 304.
14 Action.
Sect. 3. similarly presumed when a bankruptcy petition is presented against

Damnum a person (o) but in the case of ordinary civil proceedings, however
;
absque maliciously and unreasonably instituted, the successful defendant

injuria. has no remedy, for though he is doubtless put to expense, the law
does not recognise his " extra costs " as the natural and legal
consequence of the proceedings, and he has no damage to complete
his cause of action (p).
The publisher of a libel has no right of action against a person
who merely brings the libel to the notice of the person libelled (q).
Acts 16. There are also a number of cases in which the Legislature in
authorised
by Act of
authorising the construction and carrying on of works (especially
Parliament. works of public utility) necessarily interferes with the existing
rights of individuals. Where an Act of Parliament authorises
the use or the doing of a particular thing (r), and the thing is
used or done for the authorised purpose, any damage resulting
therefrom and not due to negligence or unreasonable conduct (s) is
damnum absque injuria, and no action will lie therefor {t). No Court
can treat as an injuria that which the Legislature authorises, and,
except in so far as the Legislature has thought it proper to provide
for compensation to the person damaged by the authorised acts, he
has no remedy. Where the statute does give compensation, the only
remedy is to apply for it in the manner provided by the statute
But for the negligent, unreasonable, or oppressive user or execution
of authorised works an action will lie (a). Moreover, where no com-
pensation is given, and the terms of the statute are not imperative,
but permissive, and no particular place or locality is prescribed
for the authorised work, it may be inferred that the Legislature
intended that the discretion as to the use of the powers conferred
should not be exercised so as to interfere with private rights {b).
Acts of an " act of state " may cause damnum absque injuria.
17. Again,
state.
Since such an act is essentially an exercise of sovereign power, its
(o) Quartz HiU Co. v. Eyre (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 674; The Walter D. Wallet,
[1893] P. 202 ;
Wijatt v. Falmer, [1899] 2 Q. B. 106.
(p) Quartz Hill Co. v. Eyre, supra; Cotterelly. Jones (1851), 11 C. B. 713;
The Walter I). Wallett, supra.
{g) Saunders v. Seyd and Kelly s Credit Index Co. (1896), 75 L. T. 193.
(r) E.g., the construction of a railway, with necessary excavations, and the
use of locomotives. See Vaughany. Taff Vale Rail. Co. (1860), 5 H. & N. 679 ;
London and Brighton Rail. Co. v. Truman (1885), 11 App. Cas. 45 Hammersmith
;
Rail. Co. V. Brand (1869), L. E. 4 H. L. 171 ; Att.-Gen. v. Metropolitan Railway,

[1894] 1 Q. B. 384.
(s) Mersey Docks Trustees v. Gihhs (1866), L. E. 1 H. L. 93 Clothier v. Webster
;
(1862), 12 C. B. (n, s.) 790; Simkin v. London and North Western Rail. Co.
(1888), 21 Q. B. D. 453 ; Geddis v. Proprietors of Bann Reservoir (1878), 3 App.
Cas. 430 Fleming v. Maijor of Manchester (1881), 44 L. T. 517.
;
[t) Vaughany. Taff Vale Rail. Co., supra ; Mersey Docks Trustees v. Gihhs, supra,
at p. 112 Hammersmith Rail. Co. y. Brand, supra, at p. 196 London and Brighton
; ;
Rail. Co. y. Truman, supra; East Fremantle Corporationy Annois, [1902] A. 0. 213.
.
{u) Hammersmith Rail. Co. y. Brand, supra; Mersey Docks Trustees v. Gihhs.
supra; Cracknelly. Mayor of Thetford (1869), L. E. 4 C. P. 629; Metropolitan
Asylum District y. Hill (1881), 6 App. Cas. 193, 203.
(a) Brine y. Great Western Rail. Co. (1862), 31 L. J. (q. b.) 101 ;Roherts y.
Charing Cross etc. Rail. Co. (1903), 87 L. T. 732.
(6) Metropolitan Asylum District v. Hill, supra; Reg. y. Bradford Navigation
Co. (1865), 6 B. & S. 631.
—
Part II. In what Gases an Action will lie. 15
consequences are governed by laws other than those which municipal Sect., b.
Courts administer (c) Accordingly, whether the transaction con-

. Damnum
stitutmg an act of state be one between two independent States absque
injuria,
or between a State and an individual foreigner, no cause of action
arises by reason of it, and redress must be sought by other
means ((/).
18. In some cases a person who has suffered damage by another's Volenti non
wrongful or negligent act may be precluded from recovering by the fi^ injuria.
rule expressed in the maxim Volenti {e) non Jit injuria. One who
invites or consents to the doing of an act which occasions him a
wrong cannot be heard to complain of it (/). Thus at common law
no cause of action arises in respect of personal injuries sustained by
a person who, with full knowledge of a source of danger, voluntarily
undertakes to incur the risk of exposing himself to it {g). So a
person who contracts to do work which is intrinsically dangerous,
such as the manufacture of chemicals which produce noxious fumes
or of articles liable to sudden explosions, must be taken to
voluntarily subject himself to the risks which inevitably accom-
pany such work, and cannot complain of an}^ harm he may
suffer (/i) and a person who trespassed in a wood with knowledge
;
that there were spring guns there, was held to have no cause of
action for personal injuries suffered by him, for, having volun-
tarily exposed himself to the mischief, he must take the conse-
quences of his own act (i).
The maxim, however, does not apply where a person, having a
right to expect to find a place free from danger, voluntarily goes
there knowing it to be in some degree unsafe, provided the danger
is not so great that no reasonable person would have incurred it {j).
In such a case it does not lie in the mouth of the person through
(c)Cook V. Sprig [1899] A. C. 572 Salaman v. Secretary of State for India,

;
[1906] 1 KB. 613.

{d) See cases cited in note (c), supra ; Btiron v. Denman (1848), 2 Ex. 167 ;
East India Co. v. Syed Ally (1827), cited 7 Moo. Ind. App. 531; Nahoh of the
Carnatic v. East India Co. (1793), 2 Ves. Jun. 56; West Band Central Gold
Mining Co. v. The King, [1905] 2 K. B. 391, 409 Boss v. Secretary of State for ;
India (1875), L. E,. 19 Eq. 509 Secretary of State for India v. Kamachee Boye
;
Sahaha (1859), 7 Moo. Ind. App. 476 Sirdar Bhagwan Singh v. Secretary of
;
State for India (1874), L. R. 2 Ind. App. 38.

(e) Note that the rule is volenti, not scienti, non fit injuria.
if) Gould V. Oliver (1837), 4 Bing. N. C. 134:;' Smith v. Baker, [1891]

A C. 325.
{g) Smith v. Memhery v. Great Western Rail. Co. (1889), 14 App.
Baker, supra;
Cas. 179, 186 ; France (1888), 19 Q. B. D. 647, 657; Thomas v.
Yarmouth v.
Quartermaine (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 685, 696 Williams v. Birmingham Battery Co.,
;
[1899] 2 Q. B. 338.
{h) Smith V. Baker, supra ; Thomas v. Quartermaine, supra. See further the
title Master and Servant, post.
[i) llott V. Wilkes (1820), 3 B. & Aid. 304, 311, 314; compare Birdy. Holhrook
(1828), 4 Bing. 628.
(./) Clayards v. Dethick (1848), 12 Q. B. 439 Osborne v. London and North ;
Western Bail. Co. (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 220 Baddeley v. Earl Granville (1887), 19

;
Q. B. D. 423; Lax v. Corporation of Darlington (1879), 5 Ex. D. 28 Thompson ;
V. North Eastern Rail. Co. (1860), 2 B. & S. 106 Parnahy v. Lancaster Canal ;
Co. .(1839), 11 A. & E. 223 Winch v. Conservators of River Thames (1874), L. E.

;
9 C. P. 378 Holmes v. Clarke (1861), 6 H. & N. 349

; Wyatt v. Great Western ;
Rail Co. (1865), 34 L. J. (q. b.) 204.

—
16 Action.
Sect. 3.
whose breach of duty the danger arises to say that the injured
Damnum person had a knowledge of the danger and risked it (k).
absque
injuriS;. 19. Lastly, there are numerous cases in which one man sustains a
damage in consequence of the act of another, but is unable to main-
Eemoteness of
tain an action because the damage is too "remote," i.e., is not
damage.
the legal and natural consequences of the act complained of (Z).
Sect. 4. De minimis non curat lex.
Maxim does 20. As above stated, where a person's right is infringed he can
not apply maintain an action, although he has suffered no appreciable
where
consequential damage. It is reasonable that he should be able to do so where
damage the act in question, if unchallenged, might enable adverse claims
might ensue, to be substantiated against his property, or where his character is
or character
is involved.
involved (in).
Where maxim Where, however, a has no good reason for wishing

plaintiff
applies. to vindicate his right, not the policy of the Courts to encourage
it is
the bringing of actions unless actual appreciable damage has been

suffered and in such cases they may apply the maxim De minimis
;
non curat lex{n). Thus the plaintiff's injury may be of so small

and little consideration in the law that no action will lie for it (o).
A trifling departure from the terms of a contract will not neces-
sarily preclude a Court from holding that it has been substantially
perf ormed ( j9) So too in construing revenue statutes it lias been
.
said that the Court is not bound to a strictness at once harsh and
pedantic in the application of statutes if the deviation were a ;
mere trifle, which, if continued in practice, would weigh little or

nothing in the public interest, it might properly be overlooked (g).
Similarly the law takes no notice of gradual accretion to land not
appreciable except after the lapse of considerable time (r) and ;
where power was confei^ted by. statute to fix boundaries it was said
that the Court would not interfere if the errors complained of were
only trivial {s). It has been suggested too that in considering
whether a councillor is disqualified by reason of his interest in a
contract with his council, the maxim might apply to trifling pur-
chases over the counter, e.g., of " a paint-brush or a few nails " {a).
Again, where a testator leaves to a legatee such articles of plate as
he may choose, the legatee, being entitled (in strictness) to choose
all but a valueless trifle, may take the whole {h).
[k) Thomas v. Quartermaine (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 685, 697.

[l) See title Damages.
(m) See Joyce v. Metropolitan Board of Works (1881), 44 L. T. 811.
{n) See, e.g., Taverner v. CromvjeU [IbÂ), Cro. Eliz. 353; Smith v. Targett
(1795), 2 Anstr. 533 Brace v. Taylor (1741), 2-Atk. 253.
;
(o) Ashby v. White (1703), 2 Ld. Eaym. 938, per Powys, J., at p. 944.
(p) Whitcher v. Hall (1826), 5 B. & C. 269, per Littledale, J., at p. 277.
(q) The Reward (1818), 2 Dods. 265, pjer Sir W. Scott. See also French
Guiana (1817), 2 Dods. 151 (a prize case).
(r) Neiu River Co. y. Land Tax Commissioners (1857), 2 H. & N. 129, 138 see ;
also Ford v. (1861), 7 H. & N. 151, 155.

Lacy
(s) Graham v. Berry (1865), 3 Moo. P. C. C. (n. s.) 207, 223.
(a) Nutton v. JVilson (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 744, per Lopes, L.J., at p. 749 ; but
see R. V. Rowlands, [1906] 2 K. B. 292.
(h) Arthur v. Mackinnon (1879), 11 Ch. D. 385.
— — ;
Part III. Who may sue and be sued. 17
Part III. — Who may sue and be sued

Sect. 1.
Sect. 1. In General,
In General.
21. rule of law is that any person, natural or
The general
artificial, may
sue and be sued in the English Courts (c). Thus ^^^P^f'^J'
individual foreigners and foreign corporations {d) (not being alien beTued!
enemies {c)) may sue and be sued; so too infants (/), lunatics (/),
and married women {(f), and persons of so exalted a position as a
Queen Consort or Prince of Wales {li). It must be understood, Kulesofpro-
however, that this right to sue and liability to be sued are subject aSrrrht
to the rules of procedure framed by our Courts, and may in and liability.
particular cases prove to be restricted by such rules, especially
those relating to service of process outside the jurisdiction {i).
Further, it is necessary to mention specifically certain persons or
classes of persons who are excepted from the general rule enunciated
above, or whose rights and liabilities are restricted by special
provisions.
Sect. 2. The Croicn,
22. Though the Sovereign may, if he see fit, sue a subject in his No action
own Courts, no suit can be maintained against him in such Courts qôw?
by a subject, for it is a maxim of our law that " the King can do no
wrong " (k).
Ifthe act complained of by a subject be in the nature of a per- Tort com-
sonal tort, his remedy is against that servant of the Crown who ^J^yântô^f
actually committed or authorised it (Q, for as such act, even if Crown.
(o) Com. Dig. tit. " Action."
A trade union occupies an anomalous position and cannot now be sued for
any tort (Trade Disputes Act, 1907 (6 Edw. 7, c. 47), s. 4). See title Trade
AND Trade Unions.
{d) Dutch West India Go. v. Van Moses (1724), 1 Str. 612; Newly v. Van Oppen
and Coifs Fatent Firearms Co, (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B. 293; La Bourgoqne, [1899]
A. C. 431 Logan v. Bank of Scotland (No. 2), [1906] 1 K. B. 141. See these cases
;
and the title Practice and Procedure as to the service of writs upon foreign
corporations and the powers of the Court to stay proceedings against them
where a foreign tribunal would be more convenient.
(e) As to alien enemies, see p. 20, post. An alien friend may sue in our
Courts, though under a disability in his own country, if such disability be not
recognised here. Thus a French prodigal may sue, and his conseil judiciaire
cannot intervene [Re Selot, [1902] 1 Ch. 488 Worms v. Fe Valdor (1880), 49
;
L. J. (CH.) 261). See generally title Aliens.

(/) As to infants and
lunatics, see pp. 21, 22, post.
((/) A married woman may now sue and be sued in all respects as if she were
a/eme soh (Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 75), s. 1 (2)).
As to the joint liability of a husband and wife for the wife's torts, and as to their
alternative liability in the case of her contracts, see title Husband and Wife.
[h) Com. Dig. tit. "Action." A Queen Consort was always regarded as a
feme sole.
{i)See title Practice and Procedure.
(k) Canterhury v. The Queen (1843), 12 L. J. (cH.) 281; Toh'n v. The Queen
(1864), 33 L. J. (c. p.) 199; Feather v. The Queen (1865), 6 B. & S. 257, 295.
According to Comyns (Dig. tit. " Action "), " until the reign of Edward I. the
King might have been sued in all actions as a common person." An action for
salvage does not lie against the Crown {Young v. SS. Scotia, [1903] A. C. 501
see also The Cyhele (1878), 3 P. D. 8).
{I) Musgrave y. Fulido
(1879), 5 App. Cas. 102; Nireaha Tamaki v. Baker,
[1901] A. C. 561; ToUny. The Queen, supra.
H.L.— I. n
— — ;
18 Action.
Sect. 2- committed by the King personally, could not in law be attributed

The Crown, to him, so it must be assumed that he did not authorise its com-
mission by one of his servants.
Petition of If, however, the subject's cause of complaint be an injury to, or
''^'^^^
deprivation of, property, or the breach of a contract made by, or
on behalf of, the Crown, redress may be sought by means of the
statutory remedy known as a petition of right against the King
himself or the particular Government department concerned {m).
There are, however, certain colonial statutes which expressly give
a right of action against the Crown {n).
Where the Crown sues, a subject may apparently plead a cross-
claim or set-off (o).
Sect. 3. Croicn Servants.
Crown 23. Crown servants and officers of public departments may sue and
servants.
be sued like any other persons but their liability in tort and contract
;
is governed by different rules. A Government official or servant is

liable for torts committed or expressly authorised by him as such
official or servant, but not for torts resulting from the negligence or
unauthorised acts of his subordinates, for such subordinates are not
his servants, but those of the Crown {jp). Again, a public servant can-
not be made personally liable on a contract made by him on behalf
of the Crown (g), nor can the public revenue be reached by means of
a suit against him. This subject is treated further elsewhere (r).
Sect. 4. Foreign Sovereigns and Governments.

Not liable 24. A foreign Sovereign or State may enforce their private rights
.to be sued. but they cannot be sued therein against
action in our Courts (s) ;
(m) Seetitle Grown Practice Thomas v. The Queen (1874), L. E. 10 Q. B.

;
31 ;Windsor etc. Rail. Co. v. The Queen and the Western Counties Rail. Go. (1886),
11 App. Cas. 607 Kinloch v. Secretari/ of State for India (1882), 7 App. Gas. 619.
;
(??) See New South Wales Act (39 Vict. No. 38) and FarnellY. Bowman (1887),
12 App. Gas. 643 Straits Settlements Grown Suits Ordinance, 1876, s. 18 (2), and
;
Attorney -General of Straits Settlements v. Wemyss (1888), 13 App. Gas. 192. See
also Hettihewage Siman Appu v. Queen's Advocate (1884), 9 App. Cas. 571.
(o) See Hettihewage Siman Appu v. Queen's Advocate, supra.
Ip) Lane v. Cotton (1701), 1 Ld. Eaym. 646; Whitfield v. Lord Le Despencer
(1778), 2Cowp. 754; Raleighy. Goschen, [1898] 1 Ch. 73; BainhridgeY. Postmaster-
•General, [1906] 1 K. B. 178. But the ordinary rule as to the liability of a principal
ior his agent's negligence applies to public bodies which are not Government
departments see Gilbert v. Corporation of Trinity House (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 795
:
;
Wheeler v. Commissioners of Fuhlic Works, [1903] 2 I. E. 202. See sect. 460 of the
Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), as to actions against the Board
of Trade for wrongfully detaining ships and see also Tozeland v. West Ham Union,
;
[1907] 1 K. B. 920, as to the liability of guardians to paupers under their care.

{q) DumiY. Macdonald, [1897] 1 Q. B. 555 Macheath v. Haldimand (1786), 1
;
Term Eep. 172 Gidley v. Lord Palmerston (1822), 3 B. & B. 275 Palmer v.
; ;
Hutchinson (1881), 6 App. Gas. 619. The remedy is by petition of right against
the department in question [Churclnvard v. The Queen (1865), L. E. 1 Q,. B. 173).
As to certain officials and public bodies, who, though acting as agents of the
Crown, have power to contract as principals, and may therefore be sued on a
contract, at any rate to obtain a declaratory judgment, even if execution cannot
issue against them, see Graham v. Commissioners of Works, [1901] 2 K. B. 781
Dixon V. Farrer ,(1886), 18 Q. B. D. 43.
(r) See titles Constitutional Law; Public Authorities and Public
Officers.
(s) United States of America v. Wagner (1867), 2 Ch. App. 582 ;
Emperor of
— —
their will. As a consequence of that principle of international law Sect. 4.
which regards every sovereign State as absolutely independent, and Foreign

of the international comity which induces every sovereign State to Sovereigns
respect the independence and dignity of every other sovereign State, Govem-
nients.
it is a well-settled rule of our law that our Courts will not exercise
by their process jurisdiction over the person of any independent

ruler of even the smallest State or country (t). This is so even if
he is within their territorial jurisdiction perfectly incognito (u).
The public property of a sovereign State [a) and the private property
of a sovereign ruler {h) are protected by the same principle from
arrest in an action in rem.
It would seem, however, that where a foreign Sovereign is the May sue and
plaintiff a defendant may file a cross-claim of a character consistent be counter-
claimed
with our practice (c) and a foreign Sovereign may be named as against.
;
defendant in order to give him notice of a claim which the plaintiff

makes to funds in the hands of a third party or trustee over whom
the Court has jurisdiction {d).
The privilege may be waived {e), but only by an intentional sub- Waiver of
mission to the jurisdiction, as, for example, by entering an right.
appearance with knowledge of the facts (/) and it has been said
;
that, even though there has been a submission, a foreign Power does
not waive the right of removing its property (g).
Sect. 5. Diplomatic Officers.
25. Diplomatic and consular officers may sue in our Courts as Diplomatic
private individuals {h). An ambassador cannot, however, be sued P^îi^g^-
Austria v. Daij (1861), 30 L. J. (CH.) 690 HuUeU v. King of Spain {1828), 2 Bli. (n. s.)
;
31, affirmed (1833), 1 01. & F. 333 King of the Two Sicilies v. Willcox (1851),
;
1 Sim. (n. s.) 301 ; The Colombian Government v. Rothschild (1826), 1 Sim. 94.
[t) The Parlement Beige (1880), 5 P. D. 197. A
certificate from the Foreign or
Colonial Secretary as to the independence of the foreign ruler is conclusive with,
respect thereto {MighellY. Sultan of Johore, [1894] 1 Q,. B. 149, disapproving The
CharJcieh (1873), L. R. 4 A. & E. 59).
(m) Mighell v. Sultan of Johore, supra.
Though a king be in a foreign country, yet lie is judged in law to be a king
there {Calvin's Case (1609), 7 Co. Rep. 15 b).
(a) Public property, e.g., public ships of war, whether armed {The Prins
Frederik (1820), 2 Dods. 451) or unarmed {The Thomas A. Scott (1864), 10 L. T.
726), shells {Vavasseur v. Krupp (1878), 9 Ch. D. 351), mail ships {The
Parlement Beige, supra), and all public vessels belonging to foreign rulers in their
public capacity {The Constitution (1879), 4 P. D. 39 ;The Jassy, [1906] P. 270),
even if partly used for trading purposes {The Parlement Beige, supra).
(h) The Parlement Beige, supra ; Vavasseur y. Krupp, supra.
(c) South African Bepuhlic v. La Compagnie Franco-Beige du Chemin de Fer
du Nord, [1897] 2 Ch. 487 Strousherg v. Bepuhlic of Costa Rica (1881), 44 L. T.
;
199 Prioleau v. Uiiited States of America (1867), 36 L. J. (CH.) 36; Rothschild v.

;
Queen of Portugal (1839), 3 Y. & C. Eq. 594 Wadsworth v. Queen of Spain {1851),
;
17 Q. B. 171 ; Buke of Brunswick v. King of Hanover (1844), 6 Beav. 1 ;
Hettiheivage Siman Appu v. Queen's Advocate (1884), 9 App. Cas. 571.

{d) See note (c), supra.
(e) Mighell v. Sultan
of Johore, supra. See also Gladstone v. Musurus Beii
(1862), 32 L. J. (CH.) 155:
(/) Mighell v. Sultan of Johore, supra. An unauthorised appearance by an
agent is not sufficient {The Jassy, supra).
(g) Vavasseur v. Krupp, supra.
(h) Penedo v. Johnson
(1873), 29 L. T. 452; Schneider v. Lizardi {184:5),
v
9
Beav. 461.
c 2
. — ;
20 Action.
Sect. 5. against his will even in respect of private commercial transactions (t)
Diplomatic and the privilege extends {h) to his family and suite, attaches (l),
OlRcers. secretaries of legation {m) and other secretaries, his domestic
servants, if bond fide employed as such (71), his goods, and his house.
Limits of No privilege was held to exist where a servant lived away from
privilege.
the embassy, and his goods were not necessary for the convenience
of the ambassador (0), nor where a chaplain did no duty {p) and an ;
interpreter {q) and a land waiter at the customs have been held
unprivileged (?)•
Consuls. A consul does not enjoy the same exemption (s).
Waiver. The privilege may be waived as in the case of a foreign
Sovereign {t).
Sect. 6. Alien Enemies.

Eight, to sue 26. On grounds of public policy an alien enemy {u) is not per-
and be sued
mitted to maintain an action in our Courts during the progress of
suspended
during hostilities {a) unless resident in the country by licence, or under
hostilities. protection of the Crown {h). An action commenced by him before
the outbreak of war cannot be continued after its outbreak (c), nor
can any other person maintain an action on his behalf while
hostilities last (c?)
(?) See the Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1708 ( 7 Anne, c. 12) De Haber v.
;
Queen of Portugal (1851), 17 Q.. B. 196 Magdalena Steam Navigation Co. v.

;
Martin (1859), 28 L. J, (q. b.) 310. An English subject accredited is privileged

unless an opposite condition is imposed at the time of his appointment [Macartney
V. Garhittt (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 368).
{k) As to the limits of the privilege generally, see Mogdalena Steam Navigation
Co. v. Martin, supra, and cases cited below.
(/) Farhnson v. Be Potter (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 152, 157.
,(m) Taylor v. Best (1854), 14 C. B. 487, 523 Hopkins v. Be Roheck (1789), 3
;
Term Eep. 79.

[n) Ex parte Cloete (1891), 65 L. T
102; Fisher v. Begrez (1832), 2 L. J. (ex.)
13 ; Belvalle v. Plomer (1811), 3 Camp. 47 Barling v. Atkins (1769), 3 Wils.
;
33 Lockwood v. Coysqarne (1765), 3 Burr. 1676 Triqiiet v. Bath (1764), 3 Burr.

; ;
1478 Heathfield v. Chilton (1767), 4 Burr. 2016.

;
Compare also Binkreshack de Foro Legatorum, v^here it is said that " a

person in debt cannot be taken into the service of a foreign minister in order to
protect him."
(0) Novello V. Toogood (1823), 1 B. & C. 554.
{p) Seacomb v. Boiulney (1743), 1 Wils. 20.
{q) Malachi Carolino's Case (1744), 1 Wils. 78.
(r) Masters v. Manly (1757), 1 Burr. 401.
(s) Viveash v. Becker (1814), 3 M. & S. 284, 298.
{t) See p. 19, ante.
(w) As to who is an alien enemy, see title Aliens, and Janson v. Briefontein
Consolidated Mines, Ltd., [1902] A. C. 484 Sorensen v. Reg., The Baltica (1857),
;
11 Moo. P. C. 141 Albrecht v. Sussmann (1813), 2 V. & B. 323; OMealey v.

;
Wilson (1808), 1 Camp. 482 McConnell v. Hector (1802), 3 Bos. & P. 113.
;
(«) Be Wahly. Braune (1856), 1 H. & N. 178; Brandons. Nesbit 6

Term Eep. 82 ; Bristoiu v. Toiuers (1794), 6 Term Rep. 35 Ricord v. Bettenham
;
(1765), 3 Burr. 1734; Anthon v. Fisher (1783), 2 Dougl. 649, n.

(&) Alcinous V. Nigreu (1854), 4 E. & B. 217; Casseres v. Bell (1799), 8 Term
Eep. 166 Baubigny v. Bavallon (1794), 2 Anstr. 462 Wells v. WilUams (1697), 1
; ;
Salk. 46; Sylvester's Case (1703), 7 Mod. Eep. 150; Boulton v. Bobree (1808), 2
Camp. 163.
(c) Le Bret Y. Papillon (1804), 4 East, 502.
As to staying execution where an alien friend becomes an alien enemy after
verdict but before execution, see Vanbrynen v Wilson (18,08), 9 East, 321.
[d) Brandon v. Nesbitt (1794), 6 Term Eep. 23; Bristoiu v. Toivers (1794), 6
— —— .
His right of action is, however, merely suspended, and revives on ^•
the restoration of peace {e) and a prisoner of war whilst still in

;
Alien
confinement may sue upon a contract entered into by him whilst E nemi es,
such a prisoner (/ ) . Right revives
The Court may apparently take notice of the fact that a plaintiff when hos-
is an alien enemy, even though it be not pleaded {g).
anênd^*
Sect. 7. Bankrupts.
27. A bankrupt's right to maintain an action depends upon uighttosue.
w^hether or not the cause of action is one which vests in his trustee ;
if it does so vest, the trustee is the proper person to sue ; if it does
not so vest, the bankrupt may himself sue, subject to the right of
the' trustee to intervene and take the proceeds of the action, except
so far as they are necessary for the bankrupt's maintenance (li).
Bankruptcy is a defence to any action brought (or continued) Liability to
without leave of the Court in respect of any debt for which the ^®
plaintifi' could prove in the bankruptcy (i)
Sect. 8. Infants.
28. An infant can sue and be sued but specific performance ; infants,
cannot be decreed against him (A;), and, therefore, the Court will not
as a rule grant specific performance at his suit(^). An injunction
may in a proper case be granted against him (?»)• An infant litigant
is, however, subject to special rules of procedure he should sue by :
his "next friend " if he sues in his own name alone, the writ
;
may be set aside with costs against the solicitor issuing it (o) but, ;
in the absence of any objection by the defendant, the action could
Term Eep. 35. See, however, Dauhuz v. Morshead (1815), 6 Taunt. 332 ; Kensing-
ton V. Inglis (1807), 8 East, 273, two exceptional cases as to bills negotiated by
prisoners of war and insurance policies on alien vessels.
(e) Janson v. Driefontein Consolidated Mines, Ltd., [1902] A. C. 484, citing
The Jan Frederick (1804), 5 Ch. Eob. 128, TheBoedes Lust {1S04:), 5 Ch. Eob. 233,
FUndt V. Waters (1812), 15 East, 260; see also Antoine v. Morshead (1815), 1
Marsh, 558; Ex parte Boussmalcer (1806), 13 Ves. 71.
(/) Maria v. Hall (1807), 1 Taunt. 33, n. Sparenbiirgh v. Bannatyne (1797),
;
1 B. & P. 163.
Janson v. Briefontein Consolidated Mines, Ltd., supra, per Lord Davey ;
((/)
and as to pleading generally in an action by an alien enemy, see Wells v.

Williams (1697), 1 Salk. 46 ; Le Bret v. Papillon (1804), 4 East, 502 ; Sylvester's
Case (1703), 7 Mod. Eep. 150; Boulton v. Ihhree (1808), 2 Camp. 163. See
generally, as to status of aliens, title Aliens.
(A) Beckham v. Brakeil^^l), 2 H. L. C. 579
;
Bailey v. Thurston & Co., Ltd.,
[1903] 1 K. B. 137.
(/) Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 52), s. 9 (1). See title Bankruptcy
AND Insolvency.
[k) Lumley
Ravenscroft, [1895] 1 Q. B. 683.
v.
(/) Flight
Bolland (1828), 4 Euss. 298.
V.
_
[m) Lempriere v. Lange (1879), 12 Ch. D. 675 Evans v. Ware, [1892] 3 Ch. ;
502 but not where he could not be sued for damages, De Francesco v. Barnum
;
(1889), 43 Ch. D. 165. He may be ordered to pay the costs of the action for an
injunction, Wool/ y. Wool/, [1899] 1 Ch. 343.
{n) E. S. C, Ord. 16, r. 16. The next friend is liable for the costs of the
action.
(o) Geilinger v. Gihls, [1897] 1 Ch. 479, unless leave were given to amend by
adding a next friend.
— —
22 Action.
Sect. 8. proceed without a next friend (p). An action against an infant is

Infants. commenced against him in the ordinary way, but he must enter
appearance and defend by a guardian ad litem (q).
Sect. 9. Lunatics.
Lunatic so 29. A lunatic may

sue and be sued, subject (like an infant) to
found. special rules of procedure.A lunatic so found by inquisition sues
and is sued together with his committee (r), who should, before
commencing or defending any action, obtain leave from the Court
in lunacy (a).
Lunatic not A person of unsound mind, not so found by inquisition, should
so found.
sue by his next friend he may be sued in his own name as an
;
ordinary defendant, and should enter appearance but a guardian ;
ad litem should be appointed to carry on the defence (6).
Part IV. — Conditions Precedent to

Action.
Sect. 1. Award of an Arbitrator (c).
Arbitration 30. An agreement to refer a dispute to arbitration couched in

as to validity
and amount
such language as to entirely oust the jurisdiction of the Courts is
of claim. invalid (d) but there is no legal objection to an agreement which
;
makes it a condition precedent to the enforcement of a claim that

the liability and amount shall first be determined by arbitra-
tion (e). An agreement of the last-mentioned nature can be
pleaded as a defence to any action brought in respect of the matters
to be referred.
Sect. 2. Consent.
Under Public 31. In certain cases it is necessary for a plaintiff to obtain the
Health Act,
consent of a public officer or body before he can maintain his
{p) Ex parte Brockhbank (1877), 6 Ch. D. 358.

{q) E. S. C, Ord. 16, r. 18. As to the procedure if no appearance is entered,
see Ord. 13, r. 1. See generally titles Infants and Practice and Procedure.
(r) Jones v. Lloyd (1874), L. E. 18 Eq. 265 Farnham v. Milward & Co., [1895]
;
2 Oh. 730 Fuller v. Lance (1663), 1 Ch. Ca. 18. If the committee has adverse
;
interests, a next friend or guardian ad litem respectively may be appointed to

sue or defend.
(a) See Re HinchcUffe (1895), 73 L. T. 522.
(&) Didisheim v. London and Westminster Bank, [1900] 2 Ch. 15 E. S. C, ;
Ord. 16, r. 17. If no appearance is entered, see Ord. 13, r. 1. As to an

inquiry into a party's state of mind, see Lloiuell v. Lewis (1891), 65 L. T. 672.
See generally titles Lunatics and Persons of Unsound Mind and Practice
AND Procedure.
(c) See generally
title Arbitration.
(d) Scott v.Avery (1855), 5 H. L. 0. 811; unless, indeed, it be a statutory
agreement, as to which see Crosfield v. Manchester Ship Canal Co., [1905] A. C.
421.
(e) Scott V. Avery, supra; Trainor v. Phoenix Fire Assurance Co. (1891), 65
L. T. 825.
—
Part TV. — Conditions Precedent to Action. 23
action. Thus under the Public Health Act, 1875 (/), a plaintiff not Sect. 2.
being either a ''party aggrieved" or the local authority of the Consent,

district, or (in certain cases) of an adjoining district, must obtain
the consent of the Attorney-General before commencing proceedings
for the recovery of any penalty under that Act. Under such cir-
cumstances it has been held that a plaintiff must allege in his
pleading that he has obtained the necessary consent, since upon it
depends his title to sue (g).
Again, in proceedings falling within s. 17 of the Charitable Under
Trusts Act, 1853 (h), the leave of the Charity Commissioners must Charitable
Trusts Act
In this case, however, the Court may allow the con- i853_
'
be obtained.
sent to be applied for even after the action has been commenced (i).
The section applies to any suit, petition, or other proceeding for
obtaining any relief, order, or direction concerning or relating to
any charity, or the funds, property, or income thereof (k).
Sect. 3. Demand or Request.
32. In certain cases before a plaintiff can maintain an action for Amount of
money deliver a bill or make a demand. solicitor's
or for goods, he must
costs.
Thus a solicitor must have delivered his bill of costs one month
at least before he commences an action for the amount (1).
In an action on a promissory note payable " on demand," a Negotiable
demand (other than that implied in the issuing of the writ) need not instruments.
be alleged or proved (m) but presentment (n) of a bill of exchange

;
is ordinarily (0) necessary in order to charge the drawer or an
indorsee, and also in order to charge the acceptor, where the bill is
made payable only at a particular place " and not elsewhere."
A previous demand is necessary where a plaintiff seeks to Money paid
recover money paid by him under a mistake of fact (p). under
mistake.
A demand and refusal of goods is evidence of their conversion (g), Goods
and is the ordinary evidence of their detention. Indeed, a demand detained or
would appear to be necessary before commencing an action of converted.
detinue (r), although, of course, if the plaintiff, without proving
an actual demand and refusal, show that the defendant has, by his
mode of originally obtaining the goods or by his conduct in respect
(/) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 55, s. 253.
ig) Hollis V. Marshall (1858), 2 H. & N. 755 and it is still advisable to plead
;
it, though possibly E. S. C, Ord. 19, r. 14, has rendered it unnecessary to do so.
(A) 16 & 17 Yict. c. 137.
(?:) Rendall v. Blair (1890), 45 Ch. D. 139.
^
{k) As to what actions fall within these words, see Fisher v. Jackson, [18911
2 Ch. 84.
(/) Solicitors Act. 1843 (6 & 7 Vict. c. 73), s. 37. See title Solicitors,
(to) Rmiiball V. Ball (1714), 10 Mod. Eep. 38.
(n) Roiue v. Young (1820), 2 B. & B. 165 ; Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 &
46 Vict. c. 61), ss. 19(2), 52(1).
(0) As excusing presentment, see Bills of Exchange Act,
to circumstances
1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. See title Bills of Exchange etc.
61), s. 46.
[p) Freeman v. Jeffries (1869), L. R. 4 Ex. 189.
[q) Hollins V. Fowler (1875), L. E. 7 H. L. 757; FhilpoU v. Kelleij (1835), 3
A. & E. 106 France v. Gaudet (1871), L. E. 6 Q. B. 199.
;
(r) " How could there be a wrongful detention until some claim was made ? "
{Freeman v. Jeffries, supra, per Beamwell, B., at p. 201). See also Wilkinson
y. Verihj (1871), L. E. 6 C. P. 206; Wilkinson v. Godefroy (1839), 9 A. & E. 536
(case of a stakeholder).
— — ;
;
24 Action.
Sect. 3. of them, so dealt with them as to have *' converted " them to his
Demand or own use, then the plaintiff may sue him for the conversion without
Request proof of any demand (s).
Agreement Apart also from these statutory or common law requirements,

requiring parties may by agreement provide for a formal demand in such ;
formal a case an action brought without a previous demand will be

demand.
premature (t).
The necessity for a demand in actions for the recovery of land
and double value is discussed in a later volume of this work («).
As to the necessity for demanding inspection of the warrant
under which a constable has acted before commencing an action
against him in respect of his acts thereunder, see p. 26, post.
Sect. 4. Notice of Actioji.
Notice 33. In numerous statutes, both public general and local and
required by
personal, there are provisions requiring a plaintiff, before com-
statute.
mencing his action, to give notice thereof to persons whom he
intends to sue in respect of any act, neglect, or default committed
by them in execution or purported execution of the particular statute.
At the present date, in considering how far provisions of this nature
are still applicable, it is necessary to bear in mind two statutes of a
general character, viz. ''Pollock's" Act, 1842 (Z>), and the Public
Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (c).
Length of The Act of 1842 provides that in all cases where notice of action
notice.
is required such notice shall be given one calendar month at least
before any action shall be commenced ; and such notice shall be
sufficient, any Act or Acts to the contrary notwithstanding {cl).
Public The Act of 1893 applies to any action, prosecution, or other
Authorities
proceeding against any person for any act done in pursuance or
Protection
Act, 1893. execution or intended execution of any Act of Parliament, or of any
pubhc duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or
default in the execution of any such act, duty, or authority (e)
and it repeals so much of any public general Act as requires
notice of action to be given in any proceeding to which it (the
Act of 1893) applies (/). It follows, therefore, that for the
purpose of determining whether any (and if so what) notice
is now required by any particular statute proceedings must be
divided into the following classes :
(1) Proceedings arising out of a statute not being a public general

statute. In this case reference must be made to the statute itself
(s) See cases cited in note [r), p. 23, supra, and Bristol and West of England
Bank Midland
v. Rail. Co., [1891] 2 Q. B. 653. See title Tegver and
Conversion.
{t) BirksY. Triplet (1666), 1 Saund. 32; SicJclemore v. Thistleton (1817), 6 M.
& S. 9.
See title Landlord and Tenant.
a)
Limitations of Actions and Costs Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Yict. c. 97), as amended by
b)
the Statute Law Revision Act, 1890 (No. 2) (53 & 54 Yict. c. 51), Schedule, Part II.
(c) 56 & 57 Yict. c. 61.
{d) Sect. 4.
(e) Sect. 1. Eor a full treatment of this subject, see title Public Authorities
AND Public Officers.
. (/) Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 61), s. 2.
.
Part TV. — Conditions Peecedent to Action. 25
if it provides for notice, notice must be given if it was passed

;
^'e,gt. 4.
before 1843, one month's notice will be sufficient if it was passed

; Notice of
since 18-13 (//), the length of notice will be that prescribed by the Action,
statute, or if none be prescribed, then reasonable notice, as a rule

presumably one month {h).
(2) Proceedings arising out of a public general statute, and being

proceedings to which the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893,
applies. In this case no notice is now required.
(3) Proceedings arising out of a public general statute, but not
being proceedings to which the Act of 1893 applies this class of ;
cases is governed by the same rules as class (1), supra.

34. It is necessary, therefore, to consider briefly to what proceed- Defendants
ings the Act of 1893 does apply. First, as to the class of defendants
f
to whom it applies. It only applies to defendants acting in pur-
suance or execution, or intended execution, of a statute, pubhc duty,
or authority it is generally accepted that it does not apply to
;
ordinary individuals or trading companies, though acting under

statutory powers {i), but is confined to public officials and authorities.
Thus it applies to local authorities acting as harbour authorities {k),
as tramway authorities (/), as burial authorities (m), as education
authorities {u), as purveyors of gas, water, and electricity (o), as
highway or sanitary authorities etc. To all such bodies and their
officials (p) carrying out their orders the statute apphes if the act
of commission or omission complained of was committed in pur-
suance or execution, or intended execution, of some statute or public
duty. So it was held to apply where officials of a highway authority
were sued in respect of an alleged trespass committed by them
under express orders to assert a public right of way, for it was the
authority's duty to protect rights of way(^), but not to proceedings
against a borough councillor for voting in the council when dis-
qualified (?•). And it applies to the case of a county court bailiff
acting under a warrant wrongly issued (s).
An act is to be regarded as done " in pursuance of" a statute, if
the doer had a reasonable and bond fide belief that he was so
acting {t)
{g) See Bodea v. Smith (1849), 18 L. J. (c. P.) 121.

[h) See Pollock's Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Yict. c. 97), s. 4, note {d), supra.
{i) Att.-Gen. v. Company of Proprietors of Margate Pier and Harhour Co.,
[1900] 1 Gh. 749 Lyles v. Southend -on- Sea Corporation, [1905] 2 K. B. 1

; ;
Parker v. London County Council, [1904] 2 K. B. 501.

ik) The Ydun, [1899] P. 236.
(/) Parker v. London County Council, [1904] 2 K. B. 501 Lyles v. Southend-

on-Sea Corporation, [1905] 2 K
B. 1.
;
(m) Toms v. Clacton Urban District Council (1898), 62 J. P. 505.

{n) Reid v. Blisland School Board (1901), 17 T. L. E. 626.
(o) Ambler
y. Bradford Corporation, [1902] 2 Ch, 585.
[p) But not independent contractors. See Tilling, Ltd. v. Dick Kerr & Co., Ltd.,
[1905] 1 K. B. 562 Kent County Council v. Folkestone Corporation, [1905] 1
;
K. B. 620.
{q) Greenwell v. Hoiuell, [1900] 1 Q. B. 535 Salisbury v. Gould (1904), 68
;
J. P. 158 (medical officer of health).

(r) Humphriss v. Worwood (1895), 64 L. J.
(q. b.) 437.
[s] Tarley v. Daw
(1906), 94 L. T. 216.
{t) Eazeldine v. Grove Lea v. Facey (1887), 19 Q. B. D.
(1842), 3 Q. B. 997 ;
352, 356; Agnew v. Jobson (1877), 47 L. J. (m. c.) 67, 68; Heath v. Brewer
26 Action.
Sect. 4. Secondly, as to the class of actions to which it applies. It applies

Notice of only to actions in respect of a tort or wrong {u), whether actions for
Action. damages only, or actions for injunctions (a) or declarations (h) but ;
Actions to it does not apply to actions for breaches of contract (c), or for the
which Act price of goods or of work and labour, although bargained for in
applies.
order to carry out a statutory duty, nor to actions in rem (d).
Form of The notice, w^hen required, should give the name and address of
notice.
the plaintiff or his solicitor (e), and should state the cause of com-
plaint, with full particulars, and the intention to sue (/) but an error ;
or omission, which cannot mislead the defendants, is immaterial (g).

Pleading the A defendant who intends to rely on the absence of notice must
Act.
raise the point in his defence (h).
Demand for 35. Closely akin to provisions requiring notice of action is.
oTconstabie's
enactment (i) which provides that no action shall be brought
warrant. against any constable (k), head borough, or other officer, or against
any person or persons acting by his order and in his aid, for any-
thing done in obedience to a justice's warrant until demand has been
made in the prescribed mode for inspection of the warrant, and until
six days have elapsed without inspection being given. The object
of the provision is, of course, to enable the plaintiff to see whether
the constable has merely executed a warrant which was a valid
authority to him, or whether he has exceeded his authority (l).
(1864), 9 L. T. 653; Burling v. Harlei/ (1858), 3 H. & N. 271, 274; Booth y.

Clive (1851), 20 L. J. fc. P.) 151 Spooner v. Juddoiu (1850), 6 Moo. P. C. 257,
;
283 Smith v. Hopper {184:1), 9 Q,. B. 1005, 1014.

;
(u) Milford Docks Co. v. Milford Haven Urhan District Council (1901), 65 J. P.
483, per Eomer, L.J. but see Cree v. ;S^. Pancras Vestry, [1899] 1 Q. B. 693 ;
;
Midland Rail. Co. v. Withington Local Board (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 788.

(a) Fielding v. Morley Corporation, [1899] 1 Ch. 1.
[h] Grand Junction Waterioorks Co. v. Hampton Urban District Council (1899),
63 J. P. 503 Offin v. Rochford Bural District Council, [1906] 1 Oh. 342, 357.
;
(c) Clarke v. Leiuisham. Borough Council (1903), 67 J. P. 195.
(d) Milford Docks Co. v. Milford Haven Urhan District Council, supra ; The
Burns, [1907] P. 137.
(e) Morgan v. Leach (1842), 10 M. & W. 558; Roberts v. Williams (1835), 5
Tyr. 583; James v. Siuift (1825), 4 B. & 0. 681 Mayheio v. Locke (1816), 7
;
Taunt. 63 Oshorn v. Cough (1803), 3 Bos. & P. 550.

;
(/) Tatjlor V. Newfield (1854), 2 W. E. 474 Prickett v. Gratrex (1846), 8 Q. B.

;
1020; Gimhert v. Co2j7iey (1825), McL. & Y. 469 Green v. Hutt (1882), 51 L. J.
;
(q. b.) 640; Forbes v. Lloyd (1876), 10 Ir. E. C. L. 552; Leary v. Patrick (1850),
15 Q. B. 266; Jacklin v. Fytche (1845), 14 M. & W. 381*; Jones v. NichoUs
(1844), 13 M. & W. 361 ;Boêese v. Jerdein (1843), 4 Q. B. 585 Martins v. ;
Upcher (1842), 3 Q. B. 662 Norris v. Smith (1839), 10 A. & E. 188; Mason v.

;
Birkenhead Improvement Commissioners (1860), 6 H. & N. 72.

[g) Green v. Broad and Hutt (1882), 46 L. T. 888 Madden v. Kensington
;
Vestry, [1892] 1 Q. B. 614 Hollingsiuorth v. Palmer (1849), 18 L. J. (ex.) 409;

;
Jones V. Bird (1822), 5 B. & Aid. 837 Smith v. West Derby Local Board (1878),
;
3 C. P. D. 423; Jones v. Nicholls, supra; Hoivard v. Remer (1853), 2 E. & B. 915.

(A) Arnold v. Hamel (1854), 23 L. J. (ex.) 137.
{i) Constables Protection Act, 1751 (24 Geo. 2, c. 44), s. 6.
(k) The section applies to metropolitan police (10 Geo. 4, c. 44, s. 4; 2 & 3
Yict. c. 47, s. 5), county police (2 & 3 Vict. c. 93, s. 8), borough police (45 & 46
Yict. c. 50, s. 191), parish constables (5 & 6 Yict. c. 109, s. 15 35 & 36 Yict.
;
c. 92, s. 7),special constables (1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 41, s. 5).

and
(/) See Barton v. Williams (1820), 3 B. & Aid. 330 Cotton v. Kadiuell (1833),
;
2 Nev. & M. (k.b.) 399; Hoije v. Bush (1840), 1 M. & G. 775; Peppercorn y.
Hoffman (1842), 9 M. & W. 618; Kay v. Grover (1831), 7 Bing. 312.
——
Part V. Suspension of Right of Action. 27
Part V. — Suspension of Right of Action,
Sect. 1. By Agreement to refer to Arhitration. Sect. 1.
Agreement
36. A simple agreement to refer a dispute to arbitration, as distinct
to refer to
from one which makes an arbitrator's award a condition precedent Arbitration.
to an action, could not at common law be pleaded as a defence, and
did not bar a plaintiff from bringing his action, if he chose to Agreement
to refer.
disregard the agreement {m). The Legislature has, however,
interfered (») in order to give effect to such agreements and now ;
an action brought in defiance of such an agreement will be stayed

unless there exists sufficient reason to the contrary (o).
Sect. 2, By Receipt of Negotiable Instrument.
37. Where is taken by a creditor, not in

a negotiable instrument Effect of
acceptance.
but merely on account of a simple contract debt,
full satisfaction (p),
it operates as a conditional payment thereof. His right of action is
suspended during the currency of the instrument, and the instru-
ment affords a good defence to an action brought before it
matures (q). If the instrument is honoured in its entirety or
in part, the debt is paid and satisfied wholly or pro tanto (?•). If,
however, it is dishonoured on maturity or only partly paid, the
debt or the balance may then be recovered by action (s).
Sect. 3. Actions in respect of Felonious Torts.

38. Although it has been said that the " suspension " of a cause of BfEect of
action is a thing nearly unknown to our law(0, has long (a)
been recognised that in theory, where an injury amounts to an
infringement of the civil rights of an individual, and at the
same time to a felony, the right of redress by action (or by
proof in bankruptcy) is suspended until the party inflicting the
injury has been prosecuted, and public justice thus vindicated (?>).
(jh) Thompson v. Charnock (1799), 8 Term Eep. 139.

(?/)Eirstby the Comuion Law Procedure Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 125), s. 11,
and now by the Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 4.
(o) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 4. See titles Arbitration
and Practice and Procedure.
{p) Whether it is so taken is a question of fact as to the parties' intention.
See Be Romer and Haslam, [1893] 2 Q. B. 286.
Be Bomer and Haslam, supra; Felix Hadley & Co. v. Hadley, [1898] 2 Ch.
^^{q)
(r) Ihid. ; Thome v. Smith (1851), 10 C. B. 659.

(s) Cases cited above; and Gunn v. Bolchow, Vaughan& Co. (1875), 10 Ch. App.
491. See generally title Bills of Exchange etc.
{t) Ex parte Bali, In re Shepherd
(1879), 10 Ch. D. 667, per Lord Bramwell.
(a) " For three hundred years it has been said in various ways by judges, many
of the greatest eminence, without intimating a doubt, except in one instance,
that there is some impediment to the maintenance of an action " to recover an
indebtedness caused by the felonious act of the defendant {iUd,, per Lord
Bramwell, at p. 671).
{h) Ihid. ;
Appleby v. FranUin (1885), 17 Q. B. D. 93 ; Wells v. Abrahams
(1872), L. li. 7 Q. B. 554; Midland Insurance Co. v. Smith (1881), 6 Q. B. D.
561 ; Osborn v. Gillett (1873), L. E. 8 Ex. 88; Wellock v. Constantine (1863), 2
H. & C.146 ; White v. Spettiyue (1845), 13 M. & W. 603 and
; cases cited in the
.
28 Action.
Sect. 3. This rule is based on the grounds of public policy (c) and at one ;
Felonious time it appears to have been thought that the right of action was
Torts. (as was said) actually " merged," or " drowned," in the felony (d).
It seems clear, however, that the true view is that it is merely
suspended (e).
Application 39. The rule was acted upon in a case where a servant, suing her
of rule.
master for assault, pleaded and proved a rape, for which he had
not been prosecuted, the judge nonsuiting the plaintiff, and the
Court, with hesitation, upholding his decision (/) but in a later
;
case, where the conversion alleged appeared upon the evidence to

amount to a felony, it was held that the judge was right in declining
to nonsuit (^), and subsequently it was also held that a statement of
claim, showing the cause of action to be a felony, was not demur-
rable on that ground (/i). At the present date, therefore, it is
doubtful whether the rule is of any practical importance, since it
seems clear that the defendant cannot raise the point in his
pleadings (i). Nevertheless it would appear to be unsafe to ignore
the existence of the rule and it is submitted that, if in any
;
particular case the evidence disclosed a felony in respect of which

the plaintiff clearly ought to institute a prosecution, the judge might
properly postpone the trial until this had been done. It must be
remembered in this connection that a judge's duty is no longer
confined to the bare trial of issues (/r)
succeeding notes. But the prosecution need not result in a conviction {Crosby
V. Le}t(j (1810), 12 East, 409; Dudley Banking Co. v. Spittle {I860), 1 Jo. &
H. 14)."
So it was said in an action for trover arising out of a theft that if such
(c)
an action could be maintained before the felon had been prosecuted, " . .we .
should have no more criminal prosecutions you must do your duty to the
;
public before you seek a benefit to yourself" [Gimson v. Woodfull (1825), 2 0.

& P. 41, per Best, C.J.).
{d) See,e.g., dicta in Markham v. Cohb (1626), W. Jones, 147; Higgins v.
Butcher (1606), Yelv. 89 Baiokes v. Coveneigh (1652), Sty. 346.
;
(e) See per Watkin Williams, J., in Midland Insurance Co. v. Smith (1881),
6 Q. B. D. 561, at p. 568: *'The history of the question shows that it has at
different times and by different authorities been resolved in three distinct
ways. First, it has been considered that the private wrong and injury has
, been entirely merged and drowned in the public wrong, and therefore no
cause cf action ever arose or could arise. Secondly, it was thought that,
although there was no actual merger, it was a condition precedent to the
accruing of the cause of action that the public right should have been
vindicated by the prosecution of the felon. Thirdly, it has been said that the
true principle of the common law is that there is neither a merger of the civil
right, nor is it a strict condition precedent to such right that there shall have
been a prosecution of the felon, but that there is a duty imposed upon the
injured person not to resort to the prosecution of his private suit to the neglect
and exclusion of the vindication of the public law. In my opinion this last
view is the correct one."
(/) Wellock V. Constantine (1863), 2 H. & C. 146.
{g) Wells V. Abrahams (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B. 554.
{h) Boope V. D'Avigdor (1883), 10 Q. B. D. 412, cited with approval in Appleby
V. Franklin (1885), 17 Q. B. D. 93.
{%) For "nemo allegans suam turpitudinem est audiendus." See Lutterell
V. Eeynell (1670), 1 Mod. Eep. 282, cited with approval in Wells v. Abrahams,
supra.
{k) As it was at the date of Wells v. Abrahams. See Wightivickv. Pope, [1902J
-
2 K. B. 100.
——
Part V. Suspension of Right of Action. 29
In any event the rule applies only to the party injured by Sect. 3;
the felonious act, who owes a duty to the public to prosecute the Felonious
offender (/), and then only if his claim arises directly out of the Torts,
felonious act (m) it does
; not apply to one who has sustained Limitsof
consequential damages (n). Thus it does not suspend the right of a application
trustee in bankruptcy to recover an indebtedness caused by the ^'^^l®-
commission of a felony, for the trustee represents the creditors

generally, and not the person who directly suffered by the felonious
act, and upon whom personally is thrown the duty of prosecution (o) ;
nor is the right of the party actually injured affected where his
action is brought against an innocent third party, e.g., a purchaser
from the thief (p).
Again, it has no application in cases where the offender has been Where
brought to justice at the instance of one or more injured by a prosecution
^•
^"^P*^^^^
similar offence (q), or where prosecution is impossible by reason
of the death of the offender (?'), or by reason of his escape from the
jurisdiction before prosecution could have been commenced by the
use of reasonable diligence (s).
It is specially provided that an action under the Fatal Accidents
Act, 1846 (0, shall be maintainable although the death of the person
in question shall have been caused under circumstances amounting
in law to a felony.
There is no similar rule in the case of misdemeanours (u).
Sect. 4. Conviction for Treason or Felony.
40. At common law a person attainted of treason or felony was At common

considered ciuiliter mortuus, and could not maintain an action (z;).
Attainder and forfeiture for treason or felony were abolished by Forfeiture
statute in ISIO (w) but after defining a "convict" as a person Act, 1870..
;
(/) AppUhij V. Franklin (1885), 17 Q. B. D. 93 Oshorti v. Oillett (1873),

;
L. E. 8 Ex. 88.
(m) Ex parte Leslie, Re Guerrier (1882), 20 Ch. D. 131.
(n) Appleby v. Franklin, supra, in which case a parent sued for the seduction
of a child, and the statement of claim alleged that subsequently to the seduc-
tion the defendant administered to the girl noxious drugs for the purpose of
procuring abortion. See also Oshorn v. GiJJett, supra.
(o) Ex parte Ball, Re Shepherd (1879), 10 Ch. D. 667. See also Ex parte
Elliott (1837), 3 Mont. A. 110. &
(p) Stone V. Marsh (1827), 6 B. & C. 551 White v. Spettigue (1845), 13 M. &
;
W. H03, overruling GimsonWoodfall (1825), 2 C. & P. 41 Marsh v. Keating

v. ;
(1834), 1 Bing. (i^. c.) 198; Xee y. Bayes and Robinson (1856), 18 C. B. 599.
{q) Ex parte Ball, Re Shepherd, supra; Ex parte Jones (1833), 2 Mont. & A.
'
193; BJx parte Elliott, supra; Marsh v. Keating, supra; Wellock v. Constantine
(1863), 2 H. & 0. 146 Choione v. Baylis (1862), 31 Beav. 351.
;
(r) Ex parte Ball, Re Shepherd, supra ; Wickham v. Gatrill (1854), 2 Sm. &
G. 353; Stone v. Marsh, supra; Ex parte Bolland (1828), Mont. & M. 315;
Ex parte Jones, supra.
(s) Ex parte Be Shepherd, supra ; Ex parte Elliott, supra ; Marsh v.
Ball,
Keating, supra ; Wellock v. Constantine, supra.
{t) 9 & 10 Yict. c. 93, s. 1.
_^(w) The Hercules (1819), 2 Dods. 353; Fissington y. Hutchinson (1866), Ic
{v) SeeCo. Litt. 128, 130 a; Fleming v. Smith (1861), 12 Ir. C. L. R. 404;
Bnl/ock V. Dodds (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 258. Apart from the fact of his personal
disability, many of his causes of action had passed by forfeiture to the Crown.
{iv) Forfeiture Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 23).
.
30 Action.
Sect, l
sentenced to death or penal servitude in England, Wales, or Ireland
Conviction upon a charge of treason or felony (x), the Act provides (y) that
for Treason no action shall be brought by any convict for the recovery of any
or Felony, property, debt, or damage, while he is subject to the operation of
the Act. The Act applies until the convict dies, or is made a
bankrupt, or is pardoned, or has undergone his punishment, or
some punishment lawfully substituted for that originally ordered (z).
While he is subject to the operation of the statute an administrator
or a curator may be appointed, in whom will vest the convict's
property, including choses in action, and by or against whom
proceedings in respect of such property may be instituted and
defended (a).
Sect. 5. — Under Vexatious Actions Act, 1896.

Power of 41. If the Attorney-General satisfies the High Court that any
Court to
person has habitually and persistently instituted vexatious legal pro-
prohibit com-
raencement ceedings without any reasonable ground in the High Court or inferior
of action Courts against the same or different persons, the Court may order (b)
without
that no legal proceedings shall be instituted by that person in any
leave.
Court unless he first obtains the leave of the High Court or of some
judge thereof after showing that there is prima facie ground for
such proceeding, and that it is not an abuse of the process of the
Court (c)
Exercise of The Court made such an order {d) where a person had com-
power.
menced forty-eight actions against various public officials,
and had only succeeded in one where the Treasury solicitor paid
the sum claimed into Court in order to avoid expense in dis-
puting the claim, which, however, the Crown regarded as unfounded;
in no case had any costs been recovered from him. The Court
will consider in such cases the general character and result of the
actions, and not merely whether in any one or more there may
have been a possible cause of action {d). So too an order (e) was
made Vv^here a plaintiff bad brought five actions against the com-
mittee of an allotments association, all of which were stayed, and
the last dismissed as frivolous and vexatious. Although the number
of the actions brought was comparatively small, the Court con-
sidered that there were exceptional circumstances justifying the
making of an order.
{x) Forfeiture Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Yict. c. 23), s. 6.
Cv) lUd., s. 8.
(z) Ihid., s. 7. It would seem that a convict at liberty only on ticket of leave
cannot be said to have undergone his punishment [Bullock v. Dodds (1819), 2 B.
& Aid. 258), but by s. 30 such a person may himself sue in respect of property
acquired by him whilst so at liberty.
(a) lUd., ss. 9, 10. See also Re Gaslcell and Walter, [1906] 2 Ch._ 1.
(&) The person in question is to be heard, and counsel may be assigned to him
for the purpose on the ground of poverty.
(c) Yexatious Actions Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Yict. c. 51), s. 1. As to the Court's
inherent power to prevent abuse of process by frivolous proceedings, see title
Practice and Phocedure.
{d) Re Chaffers (1897), 76 L. T. 351.
(e) Re Jones (1902), 18 T. L. E. 476.
— —
Part VI. Extinction of Right of Action. 31
Part VL — Extinction of Right of Action. Part

Extinction
VI.
42. There are various ways in which a right of action may be of Right of
extinguished. Action.
An agreement by one party to accept satisfaction for a breach of Accord and
contract or a tort, followed by performance of such agreement by the satisfaction,
other party, extinguishes the first party's right of action in
respect of such breach or tort (/).
A creditor who assigns to a third party any right capable in Assignment,
law of being effectually assigned, thereby precludes himself from
maintaining an action in respect of such right {g).
A discussion as to those causes of action which pass to a trustee Bankruptcy,
in bankruptcy, and those which remain in the bankrupt, and as to
those liabilities of a bankrupt which do or do not become merged
in a creditor's right of "proof," will be found in a later volume (/i).
Eights of action may also be extinguished where the common Death,
law maxim Actio personalis moritur cum persona applies (^), or by Lapse of
lapse of time {j).
A person who takes a security of a higher legal character than Merger,
he already possesses extinguishes his legal remedies upon his
existing security or cause of action. Thus, if he takes a bond
for a simple contract debt, he can sue only on the bond(/) or if he ;
recovers a judgment, his cause of action transit in rem judicatam,

and he cannot again sue on the same cause of action (k).
A right of action may be discharged by payment (/), and a right Payment,
of action may be released by deed or by an unsealed agreement Release,
supported by consideration (/).
Part VII. — Forms of Action.

Sect. 1. Old Forms of Action (I).
43. The expression "form of action" has been defined as "the Old writs and
peculiar technical mode of framing the writ and pleadings appro-
action
priate to the particular injury which the action is intended to
redress " (m). In early times all actions at law (as distinguished
(/) See title Contract.

{(j) See title Choses iisr Action".
(h) See title Bankruptcy and Insolyency.
{i) See title Executors and Administrators.
(j) See title Limitation of Actions.

(k) See title Judgment.
(I) The description of old forms of
action contained in this section may possibly
be regarded as superfluous in a work intended to state the law of England as it
now stands. It was, however, thought better to depart in this instance from the
prmciple of excluding purely historical matter, since some acquaintance with
the outlines of ancient procedure is necessary for an intelligent perusal of old
reports.
(m) First Eeport of Common Law Commissioners (1851), p. 32.
—
32 Action.
Sect. 1. from suits in the Court of Chancery) were begun by purchasing (n)
Old Forms an original writ out of Chancery and each form of action was;
of Action, founded on a particular original writ (o) appropriate to it. These

writs, which were mandatory letters under the Great Seal (p), had
by the reign of Henry III. become limited in number and crystal-
lised in form, as the clerks in Chancery then considered that they
had no authority to issue an original writ for which they could not
find a precedent consequently the number of forms of action was
;
also limited.
Magistral The Statute of Westminster the Second (q) provided a partial
writs. remedy for the difficulty thus thrown in the way of litigants by
directing the clerks in Chancery to agree in making a writ where
a case, for which no writ was to be found, fell under the " like
law" and required a like remedy as another case for which a writ
Be cursu
found ; such writs were called magistral, to distinguish
writs. them from the writs cle cursu, which were the earlier established
forms.
The legal fictions (?) by which actions came to be commenced in
the King's Bench and Exchequer upon imaginary original writs
affected merely the procedure in, and not the form of, an action.
Classes of Actions were of three classes real, personal, or mixed. In

:
actions. personal actions the plaintiff claimed a debt, or sought to recover a

chattel or damages in lieu thereof, or claimed satisfaction in
damages for some injury done to his person or property. In real
actions the plaintiff claimed the right to recover lands, tene-
ments, and hereditaments. Mixed actions were suits partaking of
the nature of both personal and real actions, some real property
being demanded therein, and also personal damages for a wrong
sustained (s).
Appeals were brought by means of actions of error or false
judgment (0-
Sub-Sect. 1. Beal Actions.
Kinds of real 45. Whena person (technically called the " demandant ") claimed
actions. as against another (called the " tenant ") a right to the possession
of, or an interest in, land, or in incorporeal hereditaments, he had,
until the passing of the Eeal Property Limitation Act, 1833 {u),
various real actions which he could institute to enforce his claim.
It is beyond the scojDe of the present work to give a detailed account
of these actions, each of which was generally named after the most
important words of the appropriate writ but the chief of them ;
{n) lu daj'-s when the granting of a writ was not a matter " of course," there
was an actual bargain for the royal writ.
(o) See Registrum Brevium (1531), and articles by Prof. Maitland in
3 Harvard Law Eeview, pp. 97, 167, 212.
(f>) I.e., the King in Chancery.
\q) 13 Edw. 1, c. 24 ("in consimili casu ").
{r) E.g., bills of Middlesex and latitat, and writ of quomirius, representing
that the defendant was already in the custody of the King's Marshal, or that,
by reason of his default, the plaintiff could not pay a debt to the King, whereby
the Courts of King's Bench or Exchequer had seisin of the case.
(s) See Com. Dig. tit. "Actions."
(t) See 2ôst, p. 45.
-
(u) 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27.
Part YII. —Forms of Action. 33
may be classified (r) as being either actions of right proper, of right Sect. 1.
in their nature, of entry, or as to interests in land. Old Forms

of Action.
46. " of right proper "
An action was the highest remedy known
for the recovery of land. The demandant had to show a title to Actions of
right proper.
the fee-simple and actual seisin, either by himself, or by the
ancestor under whom he claimed Such an action might be
{inter alia) one de rationabili parte (y), the remedy, between privies
in blood, for one co-parcener against another, who had entered on
the land and kept the demandant out or it might be for an
;
advowson (z), but this action was superseded by quaiê impedit,

which was a more convenient form, as under it the intruding clerk
could be put out of the benefice; or it might be for dower (a), the
action of right for dower, though not brought in respect of the fee
simple, being generally treated as one of right proper. This last
action was not often used, as the action of dower imde nihil liabet was
more convenient but where a widow had received a part of her dower
;
in the particular vill or township in which she claimed to be

entitled, it was her proper remedy. It was one of the four real
actions saved by the Real Property Limitation Act, 1833
47. Actions of right in their nature " were akin to actions of right Actions in
proper. The most important was Formedon(c), so called from ^f^^.-^^^^^^^
^
forma donationis, the form of the gift on which the action was
founded being set out in the writ. Another was the action of de
dote unde nihil ]tabet{d), by which a widow could recover dower
against the heir of her husband in a case where she had not re-
ceived any part of her dower in the same vill or township. This
was another of the four real actions saved by the Eeal Property
Limitation Act, 1833 (h).
48. Actions "of entry" were usually resorted to when the Actions of
entry,
"tenant" had come into possession of the land without force or
fraud. An action of entry, brought against the original disseisor or
his heir, was called an action of entry "in the per" if against one ;
who claimed under the disseisor, entry " in the per and cuV {f) and ;
{v) They liave also been classified according to the person last seised of the
property in question, yiz., (1) Possessory actions, brought by a demandant
who bad himself been seised, as, for instance, novel disseisin; and (2) actions
ancestrel, brought by a demandant to whom a right bad descended from an
ancestor who bad himself been seised, as, for instance, Aiel, Cosinage, Mort-
d' ancestor etc. Actions ancestrel were again divided into actions ancestrel
possessory, and actions ancestrel droiturel (see Termes de la Ley, "Actions
Eeal"; Co. Inst., Pt. 2, 1, 241).
{w) "Actio quidem super recto ultimum locum sibi vendicat in ordine
placitorum a summo remedio ad inferiorem actionem non babetur ingressus
ueque auxilium " (Fleta, lib. 6, c. 1). See Eoscoe, "Actions relating
5 to Eeal
Property," 9. ^ ' ^ '
{x) Dally V. King (1788), 1 H. Bla. 1.

(?/) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 9 Eoscoe, 25.
;
(2) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 30 Eoscoe, 26.;
{a) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 7 Eoscoe, 29.

;
{h) 3 & 4 Will. 4, c.

27, 8. 36.
(c) Fitz. Nat. Brev.
211 Eoscoe, 43. ;
{d) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 148 Eoscoe, 39.

;
(/) Co. Litt. 238 b.

H.L. — I. D
—
34 Action.
Sect, 1. ifagainst anyone still more removed from the disseisor, entry " in the
Old Forms post.'' Actions of entry in the post were given by the Statute of
of Action. Marlborough (g). If the demandant himself had been disseised it
was entry sur disseisin.
The action of entry in the nature of an assize (h), also called
entry in de quibus, was founded on a disseisin done to the deman-
dant himself. It could be brought in the per, in the per and cui, and
in the post.
Actions as to 49. Actions as to interests in land " were to recover incorporeal

interests in hereditaments and profits d prendre. The only one which survived
land.
the Real Property Limitation Act, 1833 (i), was the action of quare
impedit {k) This was the remedy when a usurper had wrongfully pre-
.
sented a clerk to a benefice of which the demandant was the patron.

Nuisance. The action of nuisance was either an assize, or an action in the
King's Bench (l), or in the sheriff's Court (m), according to the
subject of the action. It was superseded by the personal action on
the case for nuisance.
Waste. The action of waste (n) originally only lay against a guardian in
chivalry, a tenant in dower, and probably a tenant by the curtesy ;
but by the Statute of Gloucester (o) it was extended to all tenants

for life. It was superseded by the action on the case for waste.
Sub-Sect. 2. Mixed Actions.
Development 50. Most the actions in this category were originally real actions
of
ofmixed to which by statute the incident of damages had been appended, as
actions.
in the case of the action of waste. The action of ejectment, how-
ever, underwent the opposite process, being originally a personal
action for trespass, which developed into a mixed action.
Ejectment. 51. In early times there were two forms of action by which a
lessee for years who was ousted from his possession might have a
remed}^, viz., quare ejecit infra terminwn (p), which was a real action,
and which came to be regarded as applicable only against pur-
chasers from the lessor and ejectione firmce, which was a personal
;
action of the nature of trespass, and which was applicable to all

cases where the termor was dispossessed. In the latter damages only
could at one time be recovered {q), but by the time of Henry YII.
[g) 52 Hen. 3, c. 29.

{h) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 191 Eoscoe, 61.
;
(?•) 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, s. 36.

[h) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 32 ;
Eoscoe, 100 Brit. lib. 4, c. 6.
;
[1) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 183, 184

" Fos (-satum), stag (-num), sepe (-s), vi (-a),
.
diversi cursus aquarum, poscunt assisam mercatum, feria bancum. I terminari

;
coram justic (-iariis) assisar (-um). I placitari in banco."

(m) *'Fab (-rica), fur (-ca), porta, domus, vir (-gultum), gur (-ges), mo
(-lendinum), murus, ovile et pons, tradantur bsec vicecomitibus." (Fitz. Nat..
Brev. 184.)
[n) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 55.
(o) 6 Edw. 1, c. 5.
( p)
Fitz. Nat. Brev. 197, 198. See Pollock and Maitland, Hist, of Eng. Law,
vol. ii., pp. 105 et seq. The earliest recorded instance of the writ of ejectione
firmcE is in 1370 (Y. B. Trin. 44 Edw. 3, fos. 22, 26), while g-ware ejecit infra ter-
minum dates back to about 1235 (Pollock and Maitland, Hist, of Eng. Law,
vol. ii. (2nd ed.), p. 107).
{q) In 1455 it was held by Choke, J., that damages only could be recovered in.
. ——
Part VII. Forms of Action. 35
(at latest) the action had become a mixed action, so that the tenant Sect. i.
recovered his term. Old Forms

Ejectment " developed subsequently into a mode of trying the of Action,
title to land. The person claiming a right of entry came on to the Ejectment
land and sealed a lease to a tenant, who brought an action against as a mode of
the person in possession, or in later times against a fictitious trying title,
person, called the casual ejector (7-). After a time the practice of
actually sealing a lease on the land fell into disuse, and a wholly
fictitious procedure was invented by Chief Justice Eolle. Lease,
entry, and ouster were imagined, and a copy of the declaration in
an action based on a non-existent original writ was served on the
person in possession, bearing a notice signed by his " loving friend
Eichard Roe " (the casual ejector), stating that he was being sued
by one " John Doe "in an action of ejectment, and advising the
person in possession to have himself made defendant by rule of
"
Court in the place of his " friend." This form of " ejectment
gradually usurped the place of all the other real and mixed actions
for the recovery of corporeal hereditaments and by the beginning ;
of the eighteenth century such other actions, with the exception of

quare impedit and de dote unde nihil hahet, had become almost
entirely obsolete (s)
At common law, " ejectment " lay only in respect of things "in
render," or, in other words, of corporeal hereditaments; thus it
would not lie in respect of an advowson, a right of common in
gross, or any profit a prendre but the right to maintain an action
;
in this form in respect of tithes was given by statute {t). It was

necessary for the plaintiff to recover by the strength of his own
title, and not by the weakness of the defendant's (a). Before the
Real Property Limitation Act, 1833 (Z)), it was necessary that the
plaintiff should have a right of entry into the land, but that Act,
which preserved this form of action, abolished the distinction
between a right of entry and a right of action to recover land.
Sub-Sect. 3. Personal Actions.
52. Personal actions may for present purposes be divided into Division of
actions arising out of contract {ex contractu) and actions arising
^^[[^^g^^
out of torts (ex delicto).
ejedione Jirmoe, but in 1467 Fairfax, J., held that " si home port ejectione firmae
leplaintiff recouvera son terme qui est arrere, sihien come in quare ejecit infra
terminum et, si mil soit arrere, donques tout en damages " (Y. B. 7 Edw. 4,
;
6 ; tit. " Quare ejecit infra terminum," 6).

Bro. Abr.
Littleton's Practical Register, 673.
ir) 1
[s] In Goodtitle d. Chester v. Alker (1757), 1 Burr. 133, Lord Manspield
described an action of ejectment as "an ingenious fiction for the trial of titles
to the possession of lands and, in form, it appears as a trick between two to
;
dispossess a third by a sham suit and judgment, an artifice which would be

highly criminal, unless the Court converted it into a fair trial between the
proper parties " ; see Fairclaim d. Fowler v. Shamtitle {11 62), 3 Burr. 1294. An
entertaining account of the proceedings in such an action will be found in
Samuel Warren's " Ten Thousand a Year."
(t) 32 Hen. 8, c. 7.
(a) BoeY. Harveij (1769), 4 Burr. 2484; Doe d. Crisp v. Barler (1788),
2 Term Eep. 749.
(6) 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27.
D 2
;;
36 Action.
Sect. 1. 53. An action of account (c) lay at common law against a

Old Forms guardian in socage, a bailiff, and a receiver {dy, to compel them to
of Action, render an account of what they had received and expended in their
office. It could also be maintained by one joint tenant {e) or one
(1) Actions
ex contractu, tenant in common or partner (/) against another, and it would
Account. lie against the administrator or executor of the person to be
charged.
The proceedings were lengthy, complicated, and expensive and ;
therefore it was a form of action seldom resorted to, an action of

debt (g), or assumpsit for money had and received, or (in complicated
matters) a suit in equity being commonly preferred (/i).
Annuity. 54. The grantee in fee of an annuity and his heirs could bring
an action of annuity (i) against the grantor and his heirs. It was
superseded at a very early period by the more convenient form of
action in debt, or in covenant.
Assumpsit. 55. " Assumpsit " (k) lay for the recovery of damages for the
breach of a promise, express or implied, not made by deed. It was
a special development of the action on the case, the non-fulfilment
of a promise being in the nature of deceit and similar in results to
the person injured (/).
Originally a consideration passing at the time was necessary to
support assumpsit (m), but gradually mutual promises came to be
regarded as sufficient consideration to support each other, and in
1602 (n) it was held that the creation of a debt implied a promise
to pay it, on which an action of assumpsit would lie.
Common ''Common assumpsits" included indebitatus assumpsit, which
assumpsits. ^yg^g promise founded on a precedent debt, e.g., goods sold
quantum meruit, or quantum valebant, where, in the absence of an
agreed price, the amount payable for work done, services rendered,
or materials supplied, had to be assessed and insimul computassent,
;
an action on an account stated and agreed between the parties.

Another class included actions founded on a promise to pay a sum
in consideration of a legal liability to pay it (0), as, for instance, in
the case of a bill of exchange or promissory note, a foreign judgment,
(c) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 116; Eeg. Brev. 135.

(d) Y. B. 2 Hen. 4, 12 b ; Co. Inst. 379.
(e) 4 Anne, c. 16, s. 27.
(/) Godfreij v. Saunders (1770), 3 WHs. 73.

(g) Aplaintiff could sue in debt or in account at his option ( Core's Case (1536),
1 Dyer, 20), or in assumpsit. See Arnold v. Webb (1814), 5 Taunt. 432 n
Tomkins v. Willshear (1814), 5 Taunt. 431.
{h) "The action is so inconvenient that it has long been discontinued " {per
Alderson, B., in Sturton v. Richardson (1844), 13 M. & W. 17). It had been
revived for a time in consequence of delays in Chancery, as to which see
Godfrey v. Saunders, supra.
(^) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 152.
(h) Com. Dig. tit. "Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit."
{l) Bac. Abr. " Actions on the Case." For action on the case, see p. 39, post,
(m) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 94.
[n) Slade's Case (1602), 4 Co. Rep. 92 a.
(o) The assurhpsit on the liability to pay differed from the indebitatus assumpsit,
as in the latter case the promise was founded on a pre-existing debt, which
was pleaded generally, while in the latter the circumstances under which the
defendant became liable had to be pleaded specially.
;;
Part VII. — Forms of Action. 37
a fine or admission to copyhold land, or a contribution to the expense ^êct. i.
of party walls. Old Forms

A third class of common assumpsits covered the case of mutual of Action,
promises, as promises of marriage, or undertakings to perform
special agreements, such as awards, charterparties, or policies of
assurance.
" Special assumpsits" lay on ten kinds of undertakings or pro- Special
mises (1) to marry or to do some personal service (2) to provide
: ;
assumpsits,
necessaries for the plaintiff or for some third person (3) on a ;
retainer to serve or employ (4) to perform work, as promises

;
made by surgeons, attorneys etc. (5) to forbear to sue, or to

;
give time for payment of a debt; (6) on a sale or exchange of

goods to accept, deliver, take back, or return the goods, also on a
warranty as to their quality or value, or the vendor's title to them
(7) on bailment of goods, or against carriers, warehousemen etc.
(8) to sell, assign, or exchange lands (9) as to real or personal
;
securities (10) to account for profits of lands, or for money and

;
goods.
Assumpsit was frequently an alternative form of action. Thus
debt " always lay w^here indebitatus assumpsit might be brought (p).
56. Covenant (q) was the remedy for the breach of a covenant. Covenant,
other than one to pay a sum of money, contained in a deed,
whether indented or poll(r). The claim was for damages for the
non-fulfilment of the covenant.
The covenants which gave rise to this form of action were at first
only such as related to realty, e.g., to levy a fine, but personal
covenants, e.g., to build a house, were sued on as early as the reign
of Edward I.(s).
57. Debt(i) lay to recover definite sums due (a) on records, Debt,
as judgments (a), recognisances of bail, or recognisances in the
nature of a statute merchant (h) (b) on specialties (c), as bills
;
or bonds, agreements to pay money, leases, mortgages etc. (c) on ;
simple contracts (d), as for work done, services rendered, and,

generally, wherever indebitatus assumpsit would be appropriate (e) ;
(d) in maleficio, as against a sheriff for escape (/), or by common
informers and persons aggrieved under penal statutes, even
[p) See alsoLongchamp v. Kenny (1779), 1 Doug. 137 Lamine v. Dorrell

;
(1705), 2 Ld. Eaym. 1216; blade's Case (1602), 4 Co. Eep. 92 b Reade v. John-
;
son (1591), Cro. Eliz. 242; Trever v. Roherts (1664), Hard. 366; Johnson v.
May (1683), 3 Lev. 150.
{q) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 145. The earliest recorded writ is dated 1201. See
Select Civil Pleas (1201), 89, Selden Society, vol. iii., fol. 39.
(r) Benushe v. Hildersley (1618), EoU. Abr. 33, pi. 21. By the customs of London
and Bristol, the action of covenant lay on agreements not under seal (Fitz. Nat.
Brev. 146 a).
[s] Fitz. Nat. Brev. 145; Y. B. 21—22 Edw. 1, 111 (EoUs edition).
it) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 119.
(«) Com. Dig. Dett, A. 2.

(6) Com. Dig. Dett, A. 8.
(c) Com. Dig. Dett, A. 4.
.
(d) Com. Dig. Dett, A. 8, 9.

(e) Walker v. Witter (1778), 1 Doug. 1, at
p. 6.
(/) 1 Fitz. Nat. Brev. 93.
;
38 Action.
Sect. 1. though the statute did not expressly give a right of action for the
Old Forms penalty (g).
of Actio n. Amongst actions of debt on simple contract were what were called
Common the " common counts " i.e., (1) money lent;
:
(2) money paid by
counts. the plaintiff at the defendant's request (3) money received by the
;
defendant to the use of the plaintiff; (4) money due on account

stated (the foregoing were called the " money counts ") (5) goods ;
sold and delivered ; (6) goods bargained and sold (7) interest on ;
money due and forborne at interest at the defendant's request

(8) work done and materials used.
In early days the complaint ran that the debtor unjustly
deforced" (h) his creditor of his money or chattels but in course :
of time the formula changed to Debet et detinet. The latter word

was omitted in vicontiel writs (i) whilst, when the action was
;
brought against an executor for his testator's debt, the writ ran
" quod detinet " only (k).
Scire facias. 58. The writ of scire facias (I) was used when it was desired to
obtain execution on a judgment, statute merchant, recognisance etc.,
for the sum recovered or acknowledged to be due. It also lay where
a demandant who had recovered hereditaments in a real action did
not obtain possession of the land within a year and a day.
Scire facias on a judgment was a continuation of the former
action, but on a recognisance etc. it was an original proceeding;
at common law it did not lie in respect of personal actions, so that,
if a plaintiff did not succeed in getting execution on his judgment
within a year and a day, he had to commence a new action on a

new original writ. The Statute of Westminster the Second
however, gave scire facias to the plaintiff in a personal action to
revive the judgment.
The writ was a judicial writ; but, as the defendant was allowed
to plead to it, it was regarded in law as an action («). An original
writ of scire facias might issue out of the Chancery at the suit of
the King on behalf of a subject to repeal letters patent.
(2) Actions 59. The action of attaint (o) lay when a false verdict was given.
ex delicto. At common law the jury w^ho had given the false verdict were
Attaint. imprisoned, their lands forfeited, their wives and children turned
out of their possessions, and their goods forfeited to the King, and
themselves outlawed. The penalty was mitigated in the reign of
Henry VIII. (2^), and the form of action abolished in the reign of
George IV. (q).
{y) 1 Eoll. Abr. 598, pL 18.

{h) Glanvill, lib. x. c. 2, " deforceat."
(?) Eeg. Brev. Dig. 139.
{k) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 119 m_.
(l) Bac. Abr. tit. "Execution," H. As to the modern use of the writ, see title
Ckown Practice.
(m) 13 Edw. 1, stat. 1, c. 45.
(n) Co. Lit. 290 b, 291 a; Grey v. Jones (1764), 2 Wils. (k. b.) 251 Pulteney ;
V. Townson (1779), 2 Wm. Bl. 1227 Winter v. Kretchman (1787), 2 Term

;
Eep. 45.
(0) Eitz. Nat. Brev. 105.
Ip) 23 Hen. 8, c. 3.
Iq) 6 Geo. 4, c. 50, s. 60.
—
The action of attaint left a permanent trace on procedure, for by ,

^'
the Statute of Westminster the Second (/•) jurors were permitted to Old Forms
protect themselves by finding the facts and praying the aid of the of Actio n.
Court, whether it be disseisin, or not if they said of their own

;
accord that it was disseisin, " their verdict shall be admitted at their
own peril." From this the custom of finding special verdicts in
actions of all forms grew up.
60. The action of audita querela (s) was an action of an equitable Audita
5'^^^^'^^*-
nature akin to trespass, and was a remedy provided for the benefit
of a person who had been, or was in danger of being, taken in
execution upon a judgment, a statute merchant, a statute staple, or
a recognisance, when he had good cause to show against the justice
of such execution. It could thus be used to prevent an oppressive
exercise of the powers of the law where the threatened person had
a good defence in fact or law, but could not set it up otherwise (t) ;
so if A. acknowledged to a statute in the name of B., and then B. was

taken in execution, B. could have a writ; and, since the action lay
quia timet, the proper applicant could have his writ before execution
was actually sued out against him (a) .
61. The action on the case (b) owed its origin to the Statute of Case.
Westminster the Second, which authorised the clerks in Chancery

to issue writs similar to those of which there were precedents to be
found {(). The formal part of the writ was worded similarly to
that in trespass, omitting the words vi et armis. It was the remedy of
plaintiffs who sought to recover damages in cases arising either quasi
ex contractu or quasi ex delicto. The former class included actions
where there was a contractual relation between the parties but
where the real ground of action was some breach of duty collateral
to the actual contract, e.g., mala ijraxis on the part of a surgeon {d),
deceit on the sale of goods (e), waste etc., or (to take a modern
instance) an injury to a railway passenger by reason of the negligence
of the company's servants. The second class included actions
in respect of such wrongs as public nuisances, the keeping of
dangerous animals, libel, scandalum viagnatum(f), slander, wrongful
refusal of bail by justices, malicious prosecution, conspiracy,
neghgence, infringements of patents or of copyrights, disturbance
of rights of common, private nuisances, seduction, pound-breach,
rescue, playing with false dice (r/) etc.
In all cases where a man had a temporal loss or damage by the
wrong of another, he might have an action on the case to be
(r) 13 Edw. 1, stat. 1, c. 30, s. 2.

(s) See Turner v. Davies (1670), 2 Saund. 148 (1).
[t) Com. Dig. tit. "Audita Querela."
(«) Eoll. Abr. 306 c, pi. 6.
1
(/>) Pitz. Nat. Brev. 92 e.
((•) 13 Edw. 1, c. 24. The first instance of a writ in this form is said to be
found in the year-books of Edward II.
(d) Pippin V. Sheppard (1822), 11 Price, 400.
(e)Eitz. Nat. Brev. 94 c.
(/) slander of certain exalted personages, e.g., peers, judges, and other
great officers.
{[)) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 95 d.
40 Action.
Sect. 1. repaired in damages (h). It was adapted to every wrong and

Old Forms grievance a man could suffer by a special invasion of his right
of Action. for which there was no other remedy, and it was no objection that
the case was only new in the instance, if it was not new in
principle (i).
The writs in actions on the case were framed to meet the special
circumstances of each plaintiff; but two of the more common, viz.,
trover and assumpsit, became so important as to constitute in
effect separate forms of action.
Actions on the case were either actions of trespass on the case,
i.e., actions in respect of wrongs similar to those the subject of
trespass, but unaccompanied by immediate violence or general ;
actions on the case, which provided a remedy for all wrongs which
would otherwise have been remediless. Of these latter the most
important were actions on the case for wâste, deceit, or nuisance.
Difference The chief distinction between trespass and action on the case
between
trespass and was that the former was brought in respect of violence either actual
case. or implied where the matter affected was tangible and the plaintiff's
interest was immediate, while the latter was brought where the
element of violence was absent, or the matter affected wâs
intangible, or the injury was consequential, or the interest was
only in reversion. In actions on the case the wrong complained of
was called a tort, and not a trespass (k).
Case for 62.An action on the case for deceit (1) was both real and personal.
deceit.
Itwould lie if one person, A., pretended to be another, B. (the defen-
dant in an action for trespass), and came into Court and alleged
that C. was his attorney, and then C. let judgment by default go
against B. Again, where A., having undertaken to purchase a
manor for the plaintiff, by collusion with C. contriving to defraud
the plaintiff, fraudulently bought the manor for C. instead of for
the plaintiff, it was held that the plaintiff might have an action on
the case for deceit
Case for 63. The action on the case for nuisance, which lay for
nuisance.
nuisance (ii), or for disturbance in the enjoyment of corporeal or
incorporeal hereditaments, to a great extent superseded the real
action on a writ of nuisance, or one of quod jjerinittat (o). Although
in the action on the case a judgment to have the nuisance abated
could not be obtained, the plaintiff could bring a second action on
the case, if it were not abated, and obtain larger damages. In
case of disturbance to corporeal hereditaments, when the injury
was immediate and forcible, the proper remedy was by action of
trespass; but where the injury was not immediate and forcible,
and also in case of disturbance in the enjoyment of incorporeal
(7i) Millar v. Taylor (1769), 4 Burr. 2345.

(?) Pasley v. Freeman (1789), STermEep. 63,_per Ashhurst, J.
[h) Bird v. Randal (1762), 3 Burr. 1353. See, further, note {h), p. 43, post.
{I) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 95.
(to) Y. B. 11 Sen. 6, 18, pi. 10 ; 24, pi. 1 ; 55, pi. 26, v^r CoTTES-
MOEE, J.
[n) Eoscoe, 353.
(o) Penruddocli s Case (1598), 5 Co. Eep. 101 a, note.
—
hereditaments, such as rights of wa}^ (p), franchises, commons, s^ct. i.
pews in churches (q) etc., action on the case lay. Old Forms
of Action.
64. An action on the case for waste (r) was found more convenient
than the real action founded on the writ of waste. It had the dis- Case
ase for
fc
waste.
advantage that the plaintiff could not recover the place wasted
but this was remedied, in the case of demises by deed, by reserving
a power of re-entry on the lessee committing waste and it had the
;
advantage of being maintainable by the remainderman for life, or

for years, as well as by a tenant in fee or tail. Also the plaintiff
could recover his costs, which he could not do in an action of waste.
Where a lease contained a covenant against waste the lessor had
an option either to bring an action on the covenant or on the
ease {s) but it is doubtful whether an action on the case lay
;
against a tenant for permissive waste {a).
65. An action of champerty (b) lay if, w^hen goods, chattels. Champerty,
land, or debt were in suit, a man by covenant or agreement in
writing, or by word of mouth, bargained to take part of so much as
the plaintiff' should recover, and in return agreed to maintain and
aid him in his action. The suit was said to be the King's suit, yet
the party himself might sue the writ out of Chancery.
66. An action for conspiracy (c) lay at the suit of a person Conspiracy,
acquitted of a charge of felony against two or more persons who had
fraudulently and covinously conspired and devised to indict him
therefor. If one person only devised the wrongful indictment, the
remedy was an action on the case. If the conspirators procured a
person to sue an appeal of felony or murder against another with-
out indicting him, the action of conspiracy would not lie, but the
remedy was by writ of scire facias.
67. An action of clecies tantum (cl) was the remedy against Decies
t^^^^"^^^^-
embracery, and lay against jurors who had allowed themselves to be
bribed, and that whether their verdict was true or false, and also
against the embracer, if he had received money. Its name was
derived from the plaintiff demanding ten times the amount of the
bribe. It was abolished in the reign of George IV. {e).
68. Detinue (/) grew out of the contractual action of debt {c)), Detinue,
and was brought to recover specific goods of the plaintiff and
-
(p) 1 EoU. Abr. (166S ed.), fols. 104—106; 1 Com. Dig. tit. "Action upon the
Case for a Disturbance," A 2.
[q) Stocks y. Booth (1786), 1 Term Eep. 428. A lay rector, however, could not
grant a pew in the chancel of a church, so as to give the grantee a right to bring
an action on the case for disturbance {Clifford v. Wicks (1818), 1 B. & Aid. 498).
(r) Eoscoe, 383; Greene v. Oole (1670), 2 Saund. 252.
(s) Kinlysidey. Thornton (1776), 2 Wm. Bl. 1111.
(a) Heme v. Bemhow (1813), 4 Taunt. 764, citing The Countess of Shrewshurif s
Case (1600), 5 Co. Eep. 13 b (which, however, was a case of a tenant at will).
(6) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 172. See p. o3, post. Champerty was forbidden by
3 Edw. 1, c. 25, 13 Edw. 1, c. 49, and by " Articula supra Chartis."
(c) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 114. See titles Criminal Law, Torts.
((/) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 171.
(e) 6 Geo. 4, c. 50, s.
62, repealing 38 Edw. 3, c. 12.
(/) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 138.
((/) See p. 37, cmte.
;
42 Action.
Sect. 1. damages for their detention, and may therefore be regarded as

Old Forms founded both on contract and tort.
of Action. Originally detinue only lay against a bailee of goods himself, but
the rule was soon relaxed so as to enable the bailor to sue the
executors of the bailee under the allegation of devenerunt ad maims.
The liability was again extended so as to include third parties who
had obtained the goods from the original bailee and, by the time
;
of Henry YI., it had become unnecessary to show that there was

any bailment at all. By a legal fiction the action was thus
extended to purchases and other cases where the defendant refused
to give up to the plaintiff goods which, though in the possession of
the defendant, were the property of the plaintiff, a bailment by the
plaintiff to the defendant being alleged, which the plaintiff was
not required to prove, and the defendant was not allowed to
traverse Qi).
Forcible 69. An action for forcible entry ii) could be maintained under
entry. the Statute of Northampton (A;), by which, if a man entered with
force and detained with force any land or tenements, the aggrieved
party might have his action. The statute prohibited entry on land
except where both lawful and effected without force; and, though
it did not expressly give a right of action, actions for forcible entry
against the terms of the statute are said to have been frequent (1).
Under a statute of Henry VI. {m) the forcible detaining of lands
on which the entry had been peaceable was prohibited where the
person who had entered had been less than three years in posses-
sion, and a right of action to a person disseised in this manner was
given either by assize of novel disseisin or by writ of trespass
further, if it was found at the trial that there had been forcible entry,
or forcible detention after peaceable entry, the person aggrieved
could recover treble damages.
Injunction. 70. An action of injunction («) was introduced by the Common

Law Procedure Act, 1854 (o), which empowered a plaintiff to claim
an injunction in his writ and declaration. Injunctions are now
regulated by the provisions of the Judicature Acts and the Eules of
the Supreme Court (jj).
Mandamus. 71. An action of mandamus was also introduced by the Common

Law Procedure Act, 1854 {q), which enacted that the plaintiff in any
action, except one founded on replevin or ejectment, might indorse
on his writ of summons his intention to claim a writ of mandamus,
and might in his declaration claim a mandamus, with or without
{h) Whitehead Y. Harrison (1844), 6 Q. B.'423; Oledstane v. Hewitt (1831), 1

Cro. &
J. 565 Walker v. Jones (1834), 2 Cr. & M. 672
; ;
Armory v. Belamirie
(1722), 1 Str. 504. In other words, the defendant was not permitted to set up a
t€7*tll
(?:)Fitz. Nat. Brev. 248, 249.

(k) 2 Edw. 3, c. 3. See also statute 15 Eich. 2, c. 2.
(l) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 248. 10 Co. Eep. 75 b (note (f) ).
(m) 8 Hen. 6, c. 9.
(n) Injunction had previously been an exclusivel}^ equitable remedv.
(o) 17 & 18 Yict. c. 125, ss. 79—82.
(p) See title Injunction.

(q) 17 & 18 Yict. c. 125, ss. 68—77.
,
Part YII. — Forms of Action. 43
any other demand. These provisions have been replaced by the Sect. 1.
Judicature Acts and the Kules of the Supreme Court (r). Old Forms
of Action.
72. Replevin (s) lay to recover specific goods {t) which had
either been wrongfully distrained from the plaintiff, or had been Replevin
wrongfully taken out of his possession {a). It did not lie to recover
goods in which the plaintiff alleged merely that he had a right of
j)roperty or which had been delivered under a contract (b). At
common law also a human being could be replevied, as, for instance,
where the defendant had abducted a child (c).
If the sheriff', to w^hom the writ was directed, made a return that Writ in
withernam.
the cattle or goods, which he was directed to replevy, were esloigned
(or taken far away), or were dead, or that no one showed him where
the cattle or goods were, the plaintiff could have a capias in
icithernam to have so many of the defendant's cattle etc. delivered
to him {d). The cattle or goods so taken in ivithernam could not be
replevied so long as the original cattle or goods were not restored {e),
nor, if the defendant in a writ of de homine replegiando had been
arrested in withernam, could he be bailed (/).
The peculiarity of the action of replevin was that if the defendant
put in an avowry whereby he acknowledged the taking, but denied
the injustice of the caption, and set forth a good cause for taking
the distress, both parties became in a sense plaintiffs, the one to
have damages for the taking and detaining of his goods and the
other to have return of the goods replevied.
73. Trespass was the remedy for injuries accompanied by

{g) Trespass,
immediate violence whether to real or personal property or to
{h),
the person. The writ alleged that the trespass was done vi et
armis'' and "contra pacem nostram.'' Actions of trespass could
(r) See title Chowf Practice.

(s) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 68 Gilbert on " Distress and Eeplevin."
;
(t) Com. Dig. Pleader (3 1) K

Desigmfs Case (1682), Sir T. Eaym. 475.
;
(o) See Com. Dig. Replevin, A Buller, Nisi Prius, 52 Dore v. Wilkinson
;
;
(1817), 2 Stark. 287; GeorgeY. Chambers (1843), 11 M. & W. 149; Shannon y.

Shannon (1804), 1 Sch. & Lef. 324.
(/>) Galloway Y. Bird {1821), 4: Bing. 299; Me7mieY. Blake (1856) 6 El. & Bl.
,
842, 849; Ex parte Chamherlain {180^), 1 Sch. & Lef. 320; Be Wilsons (1804), 1
Sch. & Lef. 320 a.
(c) By writ of de homine replegiando.
(d) Com.
Brev. 82 b.
Dig.^ Pleader (3 K
1); Fitz. Nat. Brev. 68; Dyer, 189 a Eeg.
;_
If it was a writ de homine replegiando, the defendant was himself

arrested under the capias, even though he were a peer of the realm (Fitz. Nat.
i « v
Brev. 68). '
(e) Y. B. 7 Hen. 4, 27 Designy's Case, supra.

;
See also " Tho. Mori Yita et
Exitus," by J. H. (1652), p. 26.
(/)_ Lord Grey of Werk was arrested in consequence of a writ of de homine
replegiando in 1682, and was bailed on Lady H. Berkeley being produced in Court
(State Trials, vol. ix., p. 186).
{g) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 85.
(A) The Common Law Commissioners
(1851) give the following as an instance
^f the difference between an action of trespass and an action on the case :
*'
Suppose a person throws a log of wood on the highway, and, by the act of
throwing, another person is injured, the remedy in such a case is trespass But
II the log reaches the
ground and remains there, and a person falls over it and
IS injured, the remedy is
case, as the iniury is not immediately consequent on
theact"(FirstEeport, p. 31).
44 Action.
Sect. 1. also be tried by justices in the sheriffs' county courts, in which

Old Forms case the words vi et armis'' and ''contra pacem nostram'' were
of Action. omitted from the writ. The action of trespass was the earliest
form of action for wrongs, and was the source from which were
developed the action on the case, trover, and assumpsit.
Originally the King's Courts did not take cognisance of trespass,
and the remedy was either by a criminal appeal and wager of battle
or by plaint in an inferior Court. By the time of King John,
however, writs of trespass began to appear in the records, and by
the end of the reign of Henry III. had become of frequent
occurrence {i) while in the reign of Edward I. the writ was introduced
,
into the Eegistrum Brevium.

Writ qiiare In later times, a practice grew up of commencing actions by what
clausum was called a common original writ of trespass quare clausum fregit,
fregit.
and then continuing ac etiain to set out the real cause of action.
The fictitious trespass was subsequently abandoned or ignored, and
the action proceeded on the true cause. It was not necessary to set
out the ac etiain in the praecipe for the writ {k).
Trespass to Ejectment was originally a personal action of trespass to real
real property.
property, but (as we have seen (Z)) became a mixed action, and the
customary mode of trying the title to real property. All other
violent wrongs to real property might be made the subject of an
action of this form, the formula being " qiLare clausum fregit.'" An
action of trespass also lay for voluntary waste against a tenant
at will(??0 for cutting trees, fishing in ponds, or taking young
hawks, for hunting in a warren, digging the soil and taking away
sea coal etc. {n).
Trespass to The subject-matter of actions of trespass to personal property
personal
property.
was the violent taking away of goods (o) etc. {quare bona et catalla
asportavit). Where goods were wrongfully taken and detained the
plaintifi* could bring his action either in trespass, detinue, replevin,
or trover, and if they had been converted into money he could
waive the tort and bring his action in assumpsit for money had and
received to his use (p).
Trespass to Menaces, assaults, battery, wounding, mayhem, and false
the person.
imprisonment were the principal wrongs for which redress was
sought by trespass to the person.
Trover, 74. The action of trover {q), which was a form of action on the
case, but which developed into a separate form of action, was
originally the remedy of a person who had lost personal property
against the finder of it. By a legal fiction it became in time the
appropriate form of action wherever a plaintiff sought to recover
(?) Pollock and Maitland, Hist, of England, vol. ii. (2nd ed.), p. 525, note 2.
(k) Boyd V. Durand (1809), 2 Taunt. 161.
(Z) See p. 35, ante.
(m) Countess of Shrevjshury^s Case (1600), 5 Co. Eep. 13 b.

{n) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 86, 87.
(o) After 6 Edw. 1, c. 8, the plaintiff had to swear that the goods were
,
worth 40s.
(p) Didwn V. Clifton (1766), 2 Wils. 319; Broiun v. Dixon (1786), 1 Term
. Eep. 274.
[q) Com. Dig. tit. "Action upon the Case upon Trover."
—
Part YII. —Forms of Action. 45
damages from a defendant who had converted (r) the plaintiff's Sect. 1.
goods to his own use a finding of the goods by the defendant was
;
Old Forms
alleged, and he was not permitted to dispute the allegation. The of Action.
circumstances in which actions of trover and trespass to goods
lay were very similar, but trover wâs founded on the property in
the goods, trespass on the possession of them (s) in trover damages ;
only could be recovered (t).

In order to maintain trover the plaintiff had to prove either an
absolute or a special property in the goods in question {a), and also
a right to the possession of them thus a man who let a furnished
;
house could not maintain trover during the term, if the furniture
was wrongfully taken away (b). As an instance of special property,
the finder of an article was held to have such a property in it as
would enable him to keep it against all but the rightful owner, and
to maintain trover in respect of its conversion (c).
75. The actions of error (d) and false judgment (<?) were the Appeal by
actions of
ancient methods of prosecuting appeals from judgments of superior error and
and inferior Courts respectively. The proceedings on a writ of false
error (which was an original writ) were analogous to those on an judgment.
action, and the person appealing against the judgment was called
the plaintiff' in error. A writ of error was considered to be the
commencement of a new action (/).
Sect. 2. Abolition of Old Forms q/ Action.
76. The principle of conducting litigation in accordance with Royal Com-

rules of procedure, which varied with the different forms of action ^^^g
founded on particular original waits, formed the basis of English
common law for seven centuries. In 1828, however, a Koyal Com-
mission was appointed to inquire into the " course of proceeding
(g)
in actions and other civil proceeding established or used in the
superior Courts of common law."
The first result of the inquiries of this Commission was the Uniformity
Uniformity of Process Act, 1832 {h). This statute abolished the
fJ^ggl'
'
original writ in personal actions, and all the other substituted

methods of commencing actions, and substituted therefor, in cases
where it was not intended to hold the defendant to special bail, a
" Conversion by a long course of practice lias acquired a technical mean-
(?')
ing. It means detaining goods so as to deprive the person entitled to the

.possession of them of his dominion over them" {Burroughes v. Bay ne {I860),
0 H. & N. 296, per Maetin, B., at p. 302. See also Tinkler v. Poole (1770), 5
Burr. 2657; Boss v. Johnson (1112), 5 Butt. 2825; Owen v. Lewyn (1613), 1
Yent. 223; Youl y HarhoUle (1791), Peake, N. P. 68; ShijpwicJc y. Blanchard
.
(1795), 6 Term Eep. 298).

(s) Ward v. Macauley (1791), 4 Term Eep. 489.
[t) Bishop V. Montague [Viscountess) (1601), Cro. Eliz. 824.
a) Well V. Fox (1797), 7 Term Eep. 391, 398.

[h) Gordon Harper (1796), 7 Term Eep. 9.
v.
(c) Armoryv. Delamirie(1122), 1 Smith, L. 0. (11th ed.), p. 356.
{d) Fitz. Nat. Brev. 20.
(e) Ibid., 18 ; Co. Litt. 60 a, 288 b.
(/) Batchelor v. Ellis (1191), 1 Term Eep. 337 but

; see Laidler v. Foster (1825),
4B. &C. 116.
(.7) The Commissioners presented three reports.
{h) 2 Will. 4, c. 39.
.
46 Action.
Sect. 2. writ of summons, and, in cases in which it was intended to hold the
Abolition of defendant to special bail, a writ of capias. Both of these writs set
Old Forms out the form of action in which the defendant was sued, otherwise
of Action. they were the same in each form of action.
Keal Property
The following year saw another step taken towards the simplifica-
Limitation tion of procedure. By this time nearly all the varied forms of real
Act, 1833. and mixed actions had either become obsolete or had been super-
seded by the action of ejectment and the Eeal Property Limita-
;
tion Act, 183B (i), now abolished all except four of the original writs
and forms of action in real and mixed actions. The four forms of
real and mixed action which remained were those founded on the
writs of right for dower, de dote unde nihil hahet, quare impedit, and
ejectment.
Common Law In 1850 another Koyal Commission was appointed to examine
Procedure
intoand report on the condition of the common law of England.
Act, 1852.
This Commission reported in favour of abolishing all forms of action,
although they admitted that the feeling of the profession was very
much divided on the question. The Common Law Procedure Act,
1852 {k), which was the first result of the investigations of the
Commissioners, did not go to the length of abolishing forms of
action altogether but it enacted that no form of action need be
;
mentioned in the writ of summons (l), and that all forms of action
(except ejectment and replevin) might be joined in one action (m).
The practical effect of this was to leave as the only incident affecting
forms of action the various periods of limitation of time in respect
of them (n).
Common Law In 1860, however, a second Common Law Procedure Act (o)
Procedure
abolished the forms of original writs in the three remaining real
Act, 1860.
actions, viz., right of dower, de dote unde nihil habet, and quare
impedit, and substituted for them a writ of summons.
Judicature The procedure introduced by the various Common Law Procedure
Acts.
Acts lasted over twenty years, until the Judicature Acts put a final
end to forms of action by enacting that, in the writ of summons or
the indorsement thereof, it should not be necessary to state the
precise ground of complaint, or the precise relief the plaintiff
claimed {p)
The effect of this legislation, abolishing forms of action, has been
to obviate the inconvenience and expense to plaintiffs who were
nonsuited by reason of having selected the wrong form of action.
{i) 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, s. 36. In introducing the Bill into the House of Lords,
Lord Lyistdhuiist said that the old forms were " antiquated, technical, obsolete,
and little understood" (Hansard, 3rd ser., xviii. 793).
[h) 15 & 16 Vict. c. 76.
[l) lUd., s. 3.
(m) Ibid., s. 41.
The Common Law Procedure Acts " did not abolish forms of action in
(n)
words. The Common Law Commissioners recommended that, but it was sup-
posed that, if adopted, the law would be shaken to its foundations, so that all
that could be done was to provide as far as possible that, though forms of action
remained, there never should be a question what was the form " {per Bramwell,
L.J., Bryant v. Herbert (1878), 3 C. P. D. 389, at p. 390).
(o) 23&24yict. c. 126,8.26.
Ip) Judicature Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Yict. c. 77), Sched. I. ; E. S. C, Ord. 1,
r. 1 ; Ord. 2, r. 1 Ord. 3, r. 2.
;
— —— —
But it is Sect. 2,
and consequently had to pay the defendant's costs (q).
still often of importance, in considering the question whether a Abolition of
plaintiff has a cause of action under particular circumstances and Old Forms
Action,
in determining the period of limitation (r) prescribed for the
particular ground of complaint in question, to inquire what would
have been the form of action under the old practice.
Sect. 3. Modern Actions.
77. A modern action, in the popular sense of that word, is com- Modern
menced by a writ of summons, which states simply the general actions,
nature of the plaintiff's complaint. Neither in the indorsement
upon such writ, nor in the subsequent pleadings, is it necessary to
state in any particular or stereotyped form the facts upon which
he relies. Pleadings are no longer technical in the sense that they
must show the precise legal form which the plaintiff's demand
must take they now show the facts, and then it is for the Court
;
from the facts to decide upon the legal result of those facts (s).
Even at the present date, however, there are certain distinctions
between classes of actions which cannot be altogether disregarded.
Sub-Sect. 1. Actions in rem and in personam,
78. An action or suit in rem is an action brought in the Admi-

%n 7'em.
rait} Division of the High Court, or in some inferior Court having
Admiralty jurisdiction {t), in which the plaintiff seeks to make good
a claim to or against certain property e.g., a ship or cargo in —
respect of which, or in respect of damage done by which, he alleges
that he has an actionable demand. Thus in collision actions and
other cases where a plaintiff' claims a maritime lien {a) he can, if
the res be within the Court's jurisdiction, by process served upon
its corpus, procure its arrest and detention by the Court until either
[q) It lias been suggested that

'
' the law . has been altered by the
. . . . .
Judicature Acts, and by the abolition of the plea in abatement. I am unable to

agree to this suggestion. I cannot think that the Judicature Acts have changed
what was formerly a joint right of action into a right of bringing several and
separate actions " {per Earl Cairns, L.C., Kendall v. Hamilton (1879), 4 App. Cas.,
at p. 516. See also Gihhs v. Guild (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 59, 67; Britain v. Rossiter
(1879), 11 a
B. D. 123, 129; Macdonald v. Tacquah Gold Mines Co. (1884), 13
Q. B. D. 535, 539).
(r) "It was said that inasmuch as the names of actions are altered, and there
is no longer an action on the case, or an action of trespass, the Statute of Limi-
tations did no longer apply but I am of opinion that the Judicature Act, 1873,
;
did not alter or touch the Statute of Limitations at all, and that the statute still
applies to the circumstances which constituted the actions named in it, that is
to say that if the circumstances would have constituted an action on the case,
or an action of trespass, although the action which involves the remedy sought
would not now be called an action on the case or an action of trespass, yet
notwithstanding the Statute of Limitations applies to it, if the facts are such
as would have supported an action on the case or an action of trespass " {Gihhs
V. Guild (1882), 9 Q. B. B. at p. 67, per Brett, L. J.). See generally the title
Limitation or Actions, post.
(s) Hanmer {Lord) v. Flight (1876), 35 L. T. 127.
it) Or in time of war in a prize Court. See title Prize Law and Jurisdiction.
{a) E.g., for salvage, wages, towage or pilotage, or in respect of a bottomry
bond. may also be a statutory right to proceed in rein, e.g., for
There
necessaries or repairs, though no maritime lien is conferred. See title Admiralty.
—
48 Action.
Sect. 3. the owners bail it out by giving security for the amount claimed by
Modem him, or until the Court gives judgment upon his claim, when, if he
Actions. be successful, effect may be given to such judgment by sale of the
property in order to satisfy it. The effect of such a judgment or
sale is that the order of the Court operates directly upon the status
of the property, and transfers an absolute title to a purchaser (5).
Action in In the case, however, of an ordinary action in personam (c), the
personam. judgment of the Court is a personal one (in the nature of a command
or prohibition) against the unsuccessful party it may, it is true, ;
be enforced against his goods by subsequent proceedings but even ;
if the sheriff sells them in execution under the judgment he does
not thereby transfer to a purchaser an absolute title, but only such

title as the owner may in fact have had {d).
It must be noted, however, that it is not only in actions ostensibly
directed against a res that a " judgment in rem,'" as distinct from a
judgment in j^crsonam'' or " inter partes,'' can be obtained (e).
Thus a decision of the Court condemning goods in a revenue case (/),
a grant of probate or administration (g), and a decree in a matri-
monial suit (Ji) are judgments in rem, directly determining the
status of property or persons, though the proceedings in which they
are given are in form proceedings in personam.
Sub-Sect. 2. Actions of Contract and of Tort.
Importance 79. The distinction between actions of, or founded on, contract,
of distinction, ^^d actions of, or founded on, tort is still of importance in deter-
mining whether a claim involving only a small amount should be
brought in the High Court or the county court. A judge or master
must upon application by either party, and in the absence of good
cause to the contrary, remit for trial in a county court any " action
of contract " brought in the High Court where any part of the
plaintiff's claim is contested, and where the claim indorsed on the
writ does not exceed ^100, or where such claim, though it origi-
nally exceeded ^100, has been reduced by payment, admitted set-
off, or otherwise to a sum not exceeding ^100 (i) and where any ;
action of tort " is brought in the High Court a judge or master

may, upon affidavit showing that the plaintiff has no visible means
of paying, if unsuccessful, the defendant's costs, make an order for
the action to be stayed or remitted to a county court unless the
plaintiff gives security for costs or satisfies a judge of the High
{h) See Castrique v. Imrie (1870), L. E. 4 H. L. 414; Minna Craig Steamshi])

Co. V. Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, [1897] 1 Q,. B. 55, and, on appeal,
ihid, 460. See, further, title Admiralty.
(c) An action in personam must be distinguished from the old personal '
'
action " and also from a personalis actio, which, in the words of the maxim,
" moritur cum persona."
{d) Castrique v. Imrie, supra.
(e) See, e.g., Fracis Times & Co. v. Carr (1900), 82 L. T. 698, per Yaughan
Williams, L.J. See also title Judgment.
(/) Geyer Aguilar (1798), 7 Term Eep. 681, 696, per Lord Kenyon.
v.
Wells (1667), 1 Lev. 235.
(V) Jôell V.
(h) Dacosta v. Villa Real (1734), 2 Str. 961. See also Bater v. Bater, [1906]
P. 209.
-
{%) County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 65.
Court that he has a cause of action fit to be prosecuted therein {j). ^^gt. 3.
Lastly, where any action which could have been commenced in the Modern
county court {k) is brought in the Hioh Court, then the plaintiff's A ction s,
right to costs, or to costs upon any particular scale, will depend
primarily upon the amount recovered by him, the crucial amount
varying according as the action is one "founded on contract" or
founded on tort " (/).
An action against a livery stable keeper for negligence in the Actions held
care of a horse standing in his stable for reward to him was held to q°
^^^^ract^^
be an action founded on contract (m). So too were an action against
a hackney carriage proprietor for not carrying securely certain
luggage belonging to the hirer of the carriage (n), an action against
an innkeeper for not keeping securely a traveller's property (o), an
action against a railway company as common carriers for losing
goods intrusted to them for carriage (p), and an action against an
architect for not exercising due skill and care in supervising a
builder's work (q).
On the other hand, an action for the wrongf id detention of pfoods Actions held
is founded on tort (r). So too are an action by a passenger against a tort
railway company through the negligence of whose servants he
has been injured (s), an action against carriers for dehvering goods
to the original consignees after receiving notice to " stop " such
goods in transitu {t), an action in respect of injuries received by a
horse intrusted to the defendant for agistment (a), an action
against a house-owner for removing before the commencement of
a lease granted to a tenant fixtures which by the agreement for
such lease were to remain on the premises during the term (h), and
an action against an auctioneer for reselling in error to a third
person goods bought at an auction by the plaintiff (c).
Each case must, it has been said {d), be decided as it arises, and Mode of
it is difficult to lay down any definite principle but the substance
;
(./)County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Yict. c. 43), s. 66.

{Jc)The following actions cannot be commenced in the county court actions :
for libel, slander, seduction, breach of promise of marriage actions concerning

;
the title to any toll, fair, market, or franchise, or to any corporeal or incorporeal
hereditament (except those within sect. 60 of the County Courts Act, 1888).
{I) Ibid., s. 116, as amended by County Courts Act, 1903
(3 Edw. 7, c. 42), s. 3.
(m) Legye v. Tucker (1856), 1 H. & N. 500; but see now Turner v. Stallibrass,
[1898] 1 Q. B. 56.
(n) Baylis v. Lintott (1873), L. E. 8 C. P. 345.
,
(o) Morgan v. Ravey (1861), 6 H. & N. 265.
{p) Fleming Y. Manchester, IShpffield, and Lincolnshire Bail Co. (1878), 4 Q. B. D.

81. Having regard to this decision and Baylis v. Lintott, supra, Tattan v.
Great Western Rail. Co. (1860), 2 E. & E. 844, can apparently be no longer
relied on.
{q) Ste/jes v. Lngram (1903), 19 T. L. E. 534.
(r) Bryant Y. Herbert {1818), 3 C. P. D. 389; but see pp. 41, 44, ante, and
p. 50, post.
Taylor Y. Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Rail. Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 134 ;
(s)
l<:elly Y.
Metropolitan Rail. Co., ibid. 944. See also Bretherton v. Wood (1821),
3 Brod. & B. 54 Lyles v. Southend-on-Sea Corporation, [1905] 2 K. B. 1.
;
(t) Pontifex V. Midland

Rail. Co. (1877), 3 Q. B. D. 23.
ia) Tamer v. Stallibrass, supra.
(b) Sachs V. Henderson,
[1902] 1 K. B. 612.
(c) Cohen v. Foster
(1892), 66 L. T. 616.
(d) Per EOMER, L.J., in Sachs
y. Henderson, supra, at p. 616.
H.L. — I. V
—
50 Action.
Sect. 3.
of the action must be looked at, and the form of it, as stated in the
Modern pleadings, is immaterial {e) and the rule appears to be that, if the
;
Actions. relationship between the parties is such that the plaintiff can
maintain an action by showing the breach of a duty arising at
common law out of that relationship, his action must be regarded
as founded on tort. On the other hand, if his cause of action is
that the defendant ought to have done something, or taken some
precaution, not embraced by the common law Hability arising out
of their relationship, then he is obliged to rely on contract, and
his action is founded on contract (/).
It must be noticed, however, that it is not every " action founded
on tort" which falls within the above-mentioned provision as to
costs. The provision does not apply to an action, e.g., for trespass
to land, where pecuniary damages for the tort are indeed claimed,
but where an injunction is the substantial relief asked for and
granted (f/), nor to an action of detinue, where the plaintiff claims
and recovers not only damages, but the actual goods in specie (li).
Sub-Sect. 3. Actions Transitory or Local.
Transitory 80. The old distinction between "local" and "transitory"

and local actions, though of far less importance than it was before the
actions.
passing of the Judicature Acts, must still be borne in mind in
connection with actions relating to land situate outside the local
jurisdiction of our Courts. "Transitory" actions were those in
which the facts in issue between the parties had no necessary
connection with a particular locality, e.g., actions in respect of
"
trespass to goods, assault, breach of contract etc. whilst "local ;
actions were those in which there was such a connection, e.g.,

disputes as to the title to, or trespasses to, land (?').
Venue. One importance of this distinction lay in the fact that in the case
of local actions the plaintiff was bound to lay the venue truly, i.e.,
in the county (originally in the actual hundred) in which the land
in question lay (j). In the case, however, of a transitory action, he
might lay it wherever he pleased, subject to the power of the
Court to alter it in a proper case ik). Local venues have now been
abolished and, therefore, so far as actions relating to land in
(1),
England are concerned, the distinction may be disregarded.

Foreign land. It is, however, important from another point of view, viz.,
that of jurisdiction as distinct from procedure. In the case of real
(e) Bryant v. Herbert (1878), 3 C. P. D. 389, and per A. L. Smith, L.J., in

Tur7ier v. StalUbrass, [1898] 1 Q. B. 56, at p. 58.
(/) Per Collins, L.J., in Tamer v. Stallibrass, supra, at p. 59. See also
Govett V. Radnidge (IHO'i), 3 East, 62.
{g) Keates v. Woodward, [1902] 1 K. B. 532, approving Bradley v. Archibald,
[1899] 2 1. E. 108, and overruling St. John's College, Cambridge v. Pierrepont
(1891), 61 L. J. (q. b.) 19.
[h) Dit Pasquier v. Cadbury, Jones & Co., Ltd., [1903] 1 K. B. 104.
(?') See generally as to this subject ^r^^^s7^ S'ow^ A yi/r/c« Co. v. Companliia de
Mofambicjue, [1893] A. C. 602, 618.
(./ See the notes to Mostyn v. Fabrigas (1775), 1 Smith, L. 0. (11th ed.) 618.
(k) The practice of altering the ve/ntr apparently originated about 1600 A.D. :
see Lvnight v. Farnaby (1706), 2 Salk. 670, per Holt, C.J., and 3 & 4 Will. 4,
c. 42 s. 22.
(?)'See E. S. C, Ord. 36, r. 1, and Buckley y. Hull Bocks Co., [1893] 2 Q. B. 93.
actions relating to land in the colonies or foreign countries the Sect. 3.
English Courts had, even hefore the Judicature Acts, no jurisdiction ;

Modern
and, therefore, the removal hy those Acts of a difficulty of procedure Actions.
— viz., the rule as to local venae —
which might have stood in the
way, if they had had and wished to exercise jurisdiction, did not in
any way confer jurisdiction in sucli cases (//O- 'I'he lack of jurisdic-
tion still exists, and our Courts refuse to adjudicate upon claims of
title to foreign land in proceedings founded on an alleged invasion

of the proprietary rights attached thereto, and to award damages
founded on that adjudication (m) in other words, an action for
;
trespass to, or for recovery of, foreign land cannot be maintained in

England, at any rate if the defendant chooses to put in issue the
o^Ynership of such land.
At the same time it should be noted that, in exercise of their
equitable jurisdiction iii peysonain, our Courts will entertain suits
for specific performance of contracts for tlie sale of land, or
respecting mortgages or equitable charges of foreign land, where
the contract or agreement relied on has been made within the
jurisdiction .
On
the other hand, our Courts have jurisdiction (subject to rules Jurisdiction
" over transi-
of procedure as to service of writs etc.) to entertain all " transitory
tory actions.
actions, though the cause of action arose abroad (o) and between
aliens {p), subject only to one possible exception, viz., actions arising
out of contracts made abroad by aliens with regard to a foreign
subject-matter {q).
Part VIII. — Maintenance and Champerty.

81. "Maintenance" (r) may be defined as the giving of assist- Maintenance,
ance or encouragement to one of the parties to an action by a
person wdio has neither an interest in the action nor any olher
motive recognised by the law as justifying his interference.
(m) See Br Hi sh' South Africa

Companhui de Mofambujiie, [1893] A. C. 602.
Co. v.
{n) Penn v. Yes. Sen. 444; Paget v. Ede (1874), L. E. 18
Baltimore (1750), 1
Eq. 118; Duder v. Amsterdamsdi Trustees Kantoor, [1902] 2 Ch. 132; British
South Africa Co. v. Companhia de Mocambique, supra, at p. 626, per Lord
Herschell.
, {o) Mostyn V. 1 Smith, L. C. (Uth ed.) 591.
Fabrigas (1775),
SpittaU (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. at p. 549, per Brett, J.
(p) Jackson y.
[q] See Matlhan v. Galitzin (1874), L. E. 18 Eq. 340; Boss v. Secretary of
State for India (1875), L. E. 19 Eq. 509, 535.
(r) ''Maintenance, mainitenerdia, is derived from the verb maniitcuere, and
_
signifieth in law a taking in hand, bearing up, or upholding of quarrels and sides,
to the disturbance or hindrance of common right " (Co. Litt. 368 b). It is "when
one maintaineth the one side without having any part of the thing in plea or
suit" [ibid. \m a). See also 1 Hawk. P. C. (8th ed.) 454; 2 Co. Inst. 212; 4
Bl. Com. c. 10, s. 12, and other definitions referred to in Bradlauqh v. Newde-
gate (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 1 Grard v. Tliompson (1895), 72 L. T. 264 and the
; ;
various cases cited infra. According to Coke (2 Inst. 212), maintenance might
be by word, writing, countenance, or deed and merely to volunteer evidence
;
might have been regarded as maintenance [Master v. Miller (1791), 4 Term Eep.
at p. 340). At the present date, however, it is unlikely that anything short of
pecuniary assistance would be considered illegal.
;
52 Action.
PAET YIII. A person who was a common mover, exciter or maintainer of

Mainten- suits or quarrels common barrator, and was guilty
was called a of
ance and the offence of barratry (s). This was an indictable offence (t) and
Champerty. punishable by fine and imprisonment (u) it is now practically obsolete.
;
Barratry. Maintenance is a misdemeanour punishable by fine and imprison-

Liability for ment at common law, and is forbidden by various statutes {v) it is ;
maintenance. also an actionable tort rendering the maintainer liable in damages to

the other party to the action {w). Such liability in no way depends
upon the result of the action (x), nor upon the honesty of the
maintainor's motives (^r). But the fact that a plaintiff' is being
" maintained " by a third. person is no answer to his action.
What The doctrine of maintenance is based upon considerations of
amounts to
public policy (6). It has no application to criminal proceedings (c),
maintenance.
and in the case of civil proceedings there cannot be " maintenance "
in the strict sense of the term until the action is commenced (d) ;
but a person who, without reasonable and probable cause, instigates

another to bring an action, incurs a civil liability to the defendant
similar to that incurred by a maintainer (e).
In recent years actions for maintenance have been successfully
instituted against a person who gave a bond of indemnity to a
common informer who wâs suing the plaintiff for penalties (/),
against a trade union which brought an action in the name of a
member against his emjDloyer in respect of an alleged libel on the
member contained in a letter to the union's secretary (g), and
against a director who provided money to bring a libel action in
respect of adverse criticisms upon a report made by an expert as
to certain appliances sold by the director's company (li).
Exceptions 82. There are, however, certain specific exceptions to the general
to rule that
rule of law against maintenance, which have at various times
maintenance
is illegal.
(s) 4 Bl. Com. 1 33.
Co. Litt. 3H8b ; As to barratry by the master of a ship or the
Ciiiminal Law and Procedure Shipping and Navigation.
sailors, see titles ;
(0 Com. Dig. Barretry (C); Ym. Abr. Barretors (B).

(n) Bac. Abr. Barratry (C).
(v) 3 Edw.
1, c. 25 13 Edw. 1, e. 49; 28 Edw. 1, stat. 3, c. 11
; 1 Edw. 3,
;
14 20 Edw. 3, c. 4
stat. 2, 0. ; 1 Eich. 2, c. 4; 7 Eich. 2, c. 15; 32 Hen. 8, c. 9.
;
It has, howevei-, been said that these statutes are merely declaratory of the
common law, with additional penalties {FecheU\. Watson (1841), 8 M. & W. 691
Partridge Strange (1552), Plowden, 77, 88).
v.
{tu) See, PecheJl v. Watson, supra; Bradla/tgh v. Newdeqate (1883), 11
e.g.,
Q. B. D. 1 Alabaster v. Harness, [1894] 2 Q. B. 897,' [18951 1 Q. B. 339 Harris
; ;
V. Brisco (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 504.

(x) BradJaiigJi. v. Newdeyate, supra.
(a) Alabaster v. Harness, supra.
(b) Per Lord Esher, M.E., in Alabaster v. Harness, [1895] 1 Q. B. 339, at
p. 342 Wallis v. Portland (Puke of) (1797), 3 Yes. 494.
;
(c) Grant v. Thompson (1895), 72 L. T. 264, disagreeing with a dictum of Lord
Coleridge, C.J., in Bradlaugh v. Newdegate, supra. Therefore a solicitor can

sue upon an indemnity given by a third party to cover the solicitor's costs of
conducting a certain prosecution in the name of a client {ibid.).
(d) Flight V. Le77mn (1843), 4 Q. B. 883.
(e) PechellY. Watson, supra; Flighty. Leman, swpra ; Cotterell \ Jones (1851),
.
11 C. B. 713; Oreig v. National Amalgamated Union of Shop Assistants (1906),

22 T. L. E. 274.
(/) Bradlaugh v. Newdegate, supra.
(g) Oreig Y. National Amalgamated Union of Shop Assistants, supra.
(h) Alabaster v. Harness, supra
—
Part VIII. Maintenance and Champerty. 53
been recognised by the Courts. In the first place, charity may Part Vlli.
excuse or justify what would otherwise be maintenance; a man Mainten-
may maintain the suit of his near kinsman, servant, poor ^^^^
neighbour, or poor co-religionist, out of charity, with impunity (^). Ch ampe rty.
Where a person thus assists a poor stranger, his action is justified charity,
if he has a bond fide belief in the justice of his cause, and it is not
necessary that he should have made full inquiry into the matter,
so as to have reasonable grounds for such belief {k). Where there
is no questiun of poverty, it is doubtful how far the exemption in
respect of kinship can be extended. It has been said to be confined
to a father, a son, an heir apparent, or the husband of an heiress (/) ;
but in a more recent case brothers, sons-in-law, and brothers-in-

law were apparently regarded as within the exception (m) cousins;
are apparently without it {n).

Secondly, the law permits persons to encourage litigants Commoa
where they themselves have, or reasonably believe (o) that they interest,
have, a common interest in the result of the action. Thus a
remainderman or reversioner may lawfully maintain the tenant in
tail or life tenant. So too a landlord may maintain his lessee, if his
own title may be prejudiced {})). An equitable interest, or a mere
contingency of an interest, is sufficient to justify the maintenance
of another in an action concerning the property in question ;
so too is a common interest in a way, churchyard, or common (q),

or a common liability to pay tithes either in kind, or subject to a
modus, according as the depending suit may result (/•).
But the interest must not be merely a sentimental one [s), and
it must be an interest in the matters actually in issue in the action,
and not merely in matters incidentally connected therewith (^).
83. " Champerty " (a) is a particular kind of maintenance, Champerty,

namely, maintenance of an action in consideration of a promise to
(?) 4B1. Com. 134. See also 1 Hawk. P. 0. (^th ed.) 460 Vin. Abr. and Bac. Abr.
;
"Maintenance"; Eotheiuel y. Peiuer {1431), Y. B. 9 Hen. 6, p. 64; Pomer {or

Pomeroy) v. Ahhot of Buck fast (1442), Y. B. 21 Hen. 6, p. 15 Harris v. Brisco
;
(1886), n Q. B. D. 504; Findon v. Parker (1843), 11 M. & W. 675. Charity

induced by religious sympathy is none the less ohdiVitj {HoldenY Thompson (1901),
.
23 T. L. E. 529). As to master and servant, see Elhoroiigh v. Ayres (1870),

L. E. lOEq. 367.
(k) Harris v,Brisco, supra,
(0 1 Hawk. P. C. (8th ed.) 458. See, however, 2 Eoll. Abr. 115 h, "A man
may maintain his blood."
(m) BradIau(jhv.N'eiudegate{1883), 11 Q.B.D. l,2verLordCoLEMDGE,C.J., atp. 11.
{n) Burke v. Greene (1814), 2 Ball & B. 517.
(o) Findon v. Parker, supra ; Hunter v. Daniel (1845), 4 Hare, 420.
( v) 1 Hawk. P. C. (8th ed.) 456, 457

; 2 Eoll. Abr. 115 g;A/ahaster v. Harness,
[1894] 2 Q. B. 897; Payne v. Rogers (1794), 2 Hy. Bl. 349, 3o0.
(q) 1 Hawk. P. C, supra; Alabaster v. Harmless, supjra. But it must be the
interest felt by a member of a limited class, and not merely by one of the general
public {Wallis v. Portland (1797), 3 Yes. 494, 502).
(r) Jf indon v. Parker, supra.
(s) Bradlaugh v. Neivdeqate, supra. As to common trade interests, see Plating
Co. V. Farquharson (1881), 17 Ch. D. 49.
(f) Alabaster v. Harness,
supra. See also Hutleg v. Hutley (1873), L. E. 8
Q. B. U2, as to " collateral interest."
(a) So called from campi partitio, but the doctrine is not confined to actions
relating to realty (1 Hawk. P. C. (8th ed.) 463). See p. 41, ante.
;
54 Action.
Part Yin. give to the maintainer a share in the subject-matter or proceeds

Mainten- thereof (5). Unlike other kinds of maintenance, champerty is not
ance and excused by blood relationship (c).
Champerty. The Courts will not enforce, or act ujDon, an agreement or
Effect of other instrument which amounts to maintenance or champerty
champertous and this rule extends to agreements or instruments which so
agreement. " savour of " such offences as to be " mischievous," " against good
policy and justice," and "tending to promote unnecessary litiga-
tion "(cO- Instances of this rule fall, under two main heads:
agreements to assist litigation and purchases of interests in
litigation.
Agreements 84. As to the first class, an agreement merely to give informa-

to assist tion to a person on terms of getting a share of any projDerty to be
litigation.
recovered by that person is legal (e) but if it be a term of the agree-
;
ment that the giver of the information is himself to recover, or

actively assist in recovering, the property, the agreement is unen-
forceable (/). A
fortiori an agreement to supply funds or legal
assistance for litigation in return for a share in the proceeds is
invalid (g). So too an agreement lo indemnify a person, willing to
publish a libel, against the costs of an action in respect thereof,
is unenforceable!//). An agreement by a solicitor to charge
nothing for costs in a particular action has been held to be
unobjectionable (i).
Purchase of 85. As to the second class, there is nothing unlawful in the

interest in
purchase of property which the purchaser can only enjoy by defeat-
litigation.
ing existing adverse claims (A). In every case it is a question
whether the purchaser's real object was to acquire an interest in
the property, or merely to acquire a right to bring an action,
either alone or jointly with the vendor; in the latter case his title
is unenforceable (l). Thus the acquisition from a vendor of real
property of the mere right to file a bill to set aside his conveyance
(b) "Every champerty is maintenance" (2 Eoll. Abr. 119 r).

(c) IlutJey V. HuHei/ (1873), L. E. 8 Q. B. 112. But persons having common
interests may agree to prosecute their claim, and to divide the proceeds in a
manner not in accordance with their strict legal rights (Guj/ v. ChurchiU (1888),
40 Ch. 481).See, liowever, as to cases within '62 Hen. 8, c. 9, Cholmondeley
V. Clinton (1821), 4 Bli. I.
{d) ReyneU v. Sprtje (1852), 1 De G. M. & G. 660 Reesy. l)e Bernardy, [1896]
;
2 Ch. 437 Fischer v. Kamala Nakher (1860), 8 Moo. Ind. App. 170.
; ^'ee also
Ram Coomar Coondoo v. Chunder Canto Moohrj'ee (1876), 2 App. Cas. 186.
(e) Sprye v. Porter (1856), 7 E. & B. oS.
(/) S])rye v. Porter, supra ; Stanley v. Jones (1831). 7 Bing. 369 Ridley v. ;
llidley, supra. And

the Court may go behind a written agreement, and draw
its own conclusions as to the parties' intentions {Rees v. De liernardy, supra).
(g) James v. Kerr (1889), 40 Ch. D. 449, and cases there cited Kai^le v. llop- :
ivood (1861), 30 L. J. (c. P.) 217 Strange v. Brevnav (1846), 15 Sim. 346
;
Wood ;
V. Downes (1811), 18 Ves. 120 Hilton v. Woods (1867), L. 11. 4 Eq. 432.
;
(/?) Shackell v. Rosier (1836), 2 Bing. (n. c.) 634.

(i) Jennings v. Johnson (1873), L. E. 8 C. P. 425.
(k) 2 Eoll. Abr. 113 Y. B. 21 Edw. 3, 10, pi. 33; Dickinson v. Burrell (1866\
;
L. E. Eq. 337.
1
(?) Dickinson v. Burrell, supra; Prosser v. Edmonds (1835), 1 Y. & C. Ex.
481; Harrington v. Long (1833), 2 My. & K. 590; Knig/d v. Boiuijer (1858), 2
De G. & .T. 421.
—
Part YIII. Maintenance and Champertv^. 55
on the ground of fraud was held to be bad {m). So too is the PART VIII.
of a right to sue trustees for a breach of trust {n). But a creditor Mainten-
may assign his debt so as to enable another to sue for it, though ance and
such other's wish to enforce the debt arises from ill-feeling towards Champerty.
the debtor (o). It would seem, however, that he cannot transfer
^Yitll his debt the right to proceed with a winding-up petition
ah-eady presented by him (jj). A bankrupt's right of action vesting
in his trustee in bankruptcy, may properly be sold by such trustee,
at any rate to one of the creditors A person may buy shares
in a company merely for the purpose of challenging, by legal
proceedings, ultra vires acts of the directors (?•).
The statute 32 Hen. 8, c. 9, expressly forbade, under penalty of
forfeiture, the sale of "pretended rights or titles" by persons not
in possession (s).
It must be remembered in this connection that solicitors pur- Solicitors.
chasing from their clients the subject-matter of a suit are in a

different position from other purchasers. After his employment as
such in the suit (t) a solicitor cannot purchase the subject-matter
thereof from his client («), alihough he may lawfully take a mort-
gage upon it to secure costs and expenses already incurred {x).
(m) Prossei' v. Edmoiuh (1835), 1 Y. & C. Ex. 481. See also De Hoghton v.
Moneij (1866), L. E. 2 Ch. 164.
(/?) Hill V. Boyle (1867), L. R. 4 Eq. 260.
(o) FUzroy v. Cave, [1905] 2 K
B. 364.
{p) Be Far is Skating Rink Co. (1877), 5 Ch. D. 959.
Iq) Seear v. Lawson (1880), 15 Ch. D. 426 Guy v. Churchill (1888), 40 Ch. D.
;
481.
(r) Bloxam v. Metropolitan Rail. Co. (1868), 3 Ch. App. 337, 353.
{s) Asto the limited application of this statute at the present date, see Jenkins
V. Jones (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 128; Kennedy v. L^Jell (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 491. Eor
earlier decisions under it, see Cholmotideley v. Clinton (1821), 4 Bli. 1 ; Doe d.
Williams v. Evans (1845), 1 C. B. 717. It did not forbid the sale of a mere expec-
tancy {Cook V. Field (1850), 15 Q. B. 460).
(0 Knight V. Bowyer (1858), 2 De G-. & J. 421 ; Davis v. Freethy (1890), 24
Q. B. D. 519.
(w) Wood V. Downes (1811), 18 Ves. 120 ;
Simpson v. Lamh (1857), 7 E. & B. 84;
Davis V. Freethy, supra.
(x) Anderson Y. Baddiffe (1858), E. B. &E. 806. See further, title Solicitors.
( 56 )
ADEMPTION.
See Wills.
ADJOINING OWNERS.
See Boundaries and Fences ; Easements and Profits 1
Prendre;
Highways, Streets, Footpaths and Bridges ;
Mines, Minerals and Quarries Waters and Watercourses.

;
ADMINISTRATION OF ASSETS.
See Bankruptcy and Insolvency ; Companies and Company Law ;
Executors and Administrators.
ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES OF
DECEASED PERSONS.
See Executors and Administrators.
ADMIRALTY.
PAGE
Part I. INTRODUCTION 59
Sect.
Sect.
1.
2. -----
History of Admiralty Jurisdiction Generally
Exercise of the Jurisdiction
- 59
60
Part II.
Sect.
Sect.
1.
2.
Possession ---------63
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
-----
Co-ownership and Restraint
- - 63
64
Sect. 3. Mortgage --- -- -- --65
Sect. 4. Bottomry^ - 65
Sect. 5. Necessaries 57
Sect. 6. Towage - -- -- -- --68
Sect. 7. Wages, Master's Wages and Disbursements - - 68
Sect.
Sect.
8.
9.
Damage by Collision
Damage to Cargo
Sect. 10. Limitation of Liability
-
-------
- -
-
-
- - -
-
-
-
-
70
73
73
-- -- -- --73
Sect. 1L Salvage
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
1.
2.
-
Life Salvage ------

-----
Salvage of Property
74
75
Sect. 12. Droits of Admiralty - - - - - - 76
Sect. 13. Eorfeiture - - - - - - - - 77
Sect. 15. Slave Trade etc. -------

Sect. 14. Booty of War and Petitions of Right -
Sect. 16. Special Jurisdiction of Admiralty Registrar

- -
-
78
7s
79
Sub-sect. 2. Costs in
- -- -- --
Sub-sect. 1. Substitutes for Seamen volunteering into the
Navy
Y ice -Admiralty Courts - - -
79
79
Part HI.
Sect.
PRACTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
1. Actions in Rem
Sub-sect. 1 .
--------80
------
Writ of Summons
- - - 80
80
Sub-sect. 2. Warrants of Arrest and Caveat Warrants - 81
Sub-sect. 3. Appearance by Defendants - - - - 87
Sub-sect. 4.
-------88
Release on Bail, Caveat Release and Caveat
Payment
Sub-sect. 5. Sale of Property under Arrest before Judgment 92
Sub-sect. 6. Consolidation - - - - - - 92
Sub-sect. 7. Preliminary Acts in Damage Actions
Sub-sect. 8. Pleadings - -- -- --94
Sub-sect. 9. Cross- Actions and Counterclaims -
-
-
-
-
93
95
Sub-sect. 10. Payment into Court and Tender - - - 96
Sub-sect. 11. Other Interlocutory Proceedings - - - 97
58 Admiralty.
Part III. PEACTIOE OF THE SUPREME COVW—continued.

Sect. 1. Actions in Eem — continued. page
Sub-sect. 12. Hearing 99
Sub-sect. 13. Decree
Sub-sect. 14. Costs --------103
- - - - - - - 103
Sect.
Sect.
Sect.
2.
3.
Actions in Personam
Transfer of Actions
Limitation of Liability
4.
- -----
------
108
105
107
Sect. 5. Appeals from Inferior Courts- - - - - 111

Sub-sect. 1. County Courts and the City of London Court - 112
Sub-sect. 2. Shipping Casualty Appeals and Eehearings and
Appeals from Naval Courts - - - - -115
Sect. 6. Eeferences to the Eegistrar and Merchants and
other Proceedings before the Eegistrar - - 117
Sub-sect. 1. Eeferences to the Eegistrar and Merchants - 117
Sub-sect. 2. Eegistrar's Eeport and Objections thereto - 120
Sect. 7. Judgment in Contested Actions - - - - 122
Sect. 8. Taxation of Costs - - - - - - -124
Sect. 9. Appeals to the Court of Appeal - - - - 125
Part IV. JUETSDICTION AND PEACTICE OF OTHEE COIIETS

HAVING ADMIEALTY JUEISDICTION - - - 127
Sect. 1.
Sub-sect.
Sub-tect.
1.
2.
Jurisdiction -------
County Courts having Admiralty Jurisdiction
-----
Practice and Procedure
- 127
127
129
Sect. 2. The Court of Admiralty of the Cinque Ports - 139
Sect. 3. The Cinque Ports Salvage Commissioners - - 139
Sect.
Sect.
4.
5.
pool ---------140
The Court of Passage of the Borough of Liver-
Colonial Courts of Admiralty - - - - 140
For Crimes ivithin the Admiralty Juris-

diction - - - - - /See ^;Y/e, Criminal Law and
Procedure.
Discovery, Inspection, and Interrog-
citories, gen
atories, (jenemlly
ercdly - - - - ,, INSPECTION, AND
Discovery, Inspecti
DISCOVERY,
Interrogatories.
Marine Insurance - - - INSURANCE.
Practiceand Procedure common to all
Divisions of the High Court - PRACTICE AND

Practice and PrOC
Procedure.
Practice in. County Courts, generally - ., County Courts.
Prize Jurisdiction and Law - - I'RIZE Law AND JURISDIC-
Ju
TION
TioN Shipping
Shipping
;
; and
Navigation.
Shipping Latu,
Laiu, generally - - ..
. , NaVK
SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION.
Taxation of Costs, generally - - ,
, SOLICITORS.
— —
Pa rt I. In tkod uct ion. 59
Part I. —Introduction.
Sect. 1. History of Admiralty Jurisdiction Generally. Sect. 1
86. The seal of the Judicial Committee of the Priv}^ Council, Admiralty
with which, until the coming into operation of the Judicature Act, Jurisdic-
1873 {a), every order in Admiralt}^ appeals was sealed, bears on its tion.
face the words, " Ab Edgare Vindico," thus picturesquely suggesting .
.
^^"^S'"-
a very ancient origin of the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court.
Whether, ho^yever, Admiralty jurisdiction in England, as we now
understand it, took its origin from Saxon times (/>), or from the
times of Henry 1. (r), when the record of an ordinance at Ipswich {d)
clearly refers to the Admiral's Court, at all events, in the reign of
Edward III. the authority of the Crown {e) to administer justice in
respect of piracy or spoil and other offences committed on the sea
was undisputed.
As a not unnatural consequence of possessing this criminal juris- Civil matters,
diction (/), the Court of the Lord High Admiral began to hear
disputes in all civil matters connected with the sea, gradually usurp-
ing also a jurisdiction over cases arisin<jj in inland tidal waters. In
consequence of this encroachment on the province of the Courts of
Common Law, two statutes {g) were passed in the reign of Richard 11.
confining the admirals and their deputies to things done upon the
sea, and in the main streams of great rivers beneath the bridges.
The criminal jurisdiction of the x\dmiralty as adjusted by these
statutes continued until the twenty-eighth year of Henry VIII.,
when it was to a great extent transferred to connnissioners of oyer
and terminer under the Great Seal, of whom one was the Judge of
the High Court of Admiralty {h).
87. The civil jurisdiction of the Admiralty continued within the Conflict with
hmits laid down by the statutes of Richard II., but its exercise common law
from the reign of Elizabeth to the reign of Charles II. involved ^^"^
^'
the Admiralty Court in a long struggle with the superior courts of

Common Law. The Common Law Courts issued prohibitions to
their rival whenever any matter arose of which the Common Law
(a) 36 & 37 Yict. c. 66. The Act came into operation on November 1, 1875.
(6) See 2 Co. Litt. 260 b Prynne, Animadversions on the 4th Institute,
;
i'. 123.
{()See The Zda, [1892] P. 285, 300.
(''/) Ordhiance of I[)swich, Eolls Series, Monumenta Juridica The Black
Book of the Admiralty, Vol. I., edited by Sir Travers Twiss. See Prynne,
—
Animadversions on the 4th Institute, p. 106.
(e) IL V. Keyti
(1876), 2 Ex D. 63, at p. 167, per CocKBUHN, O.J.
(./) SeeSelectPleasof the Court of Admiralty, a.d. 1390— 1602 (Selden Society's
Bubhcations), by B. G. Marsden (1892—1897).
(j/)13 llich. 2, st. 1, c. 5 (repealed by the Civil Procedure Acts Bepeal Act,
l'S79 (42 & 43 Vict, c.
59), but with a saving of its effect so far as iurisdiction is
concerned), and 15 Bich. 2, c. 3 (repealed in part by 42 & 43 Yict. c. 59).
[h) 28 Hen. 8, c. 15. The jurisdiction of the Admiralty over criminal
oltences committed at sea was ultimately regulated by 4 & 5 Will.
4, c. 36 s. 22,
5Hid the Admiralty Offences
Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 2). See also It. v. Keij7>,
f<"pro, at The Hercules (1819), 2 Dods. at p. 371.
pp. 66, 67 ;
— ;
60 Admiralty.
Sect. 1. Gourts could take cognizance, whilst the Admiralty Court asserted
History of the highest and fullest jurisdiction over all torts committed upon
Admiralty the high seas, and over every kind of contract and everything which
Jurisdic- could happen upon the high seas (i). From time to time during
this period the Court of Admiralty attempted without success to
come to some agreement with the judges of the Common Law
Courts as to the extent of its jurisdiction (j), and in the result it
submitted to its civil jurisdiction being so narrowed and cur-
tailed in practice that the only important subjects over which
in the reign of William IV. it was enabled to exercise jurisdiction
were the following :
—
Collisions between ships on the high seas
outside the body of any county k) salvage services rendered to
( ;
property on the high seas and between high and low water mark,
but otherwise not within the body of any county (I) droits of ;
Admiralty (vi) possession of ships where no title was in question (n)

;
bottomry, so called because money had been lent on the security

of the bottom of the ship, and respondentia and claims of sea-
;
men's wages when there had been no special contract. The Court
had also jurisdiction over the goods of pirates and goods piratically
taken (o) and as part of its old criminal or disciplinary jurisdiction,
;
it entertained suits against masters of ships for assaults and battery

committed on the high seas where the complainants were officers,
seamen, or passengers of the ship {})). Actions in respect of neces-
saries supplied on the high seas and for towage on the high seas
seem also to have been within the jurisdiction, but seldom, if ever,
occurred in practice.
Sect. 2. Exercise of the Jurisdiction,
Arrest of 88. The jurisdiction possessed by the High Court of Admiralty

defendant or
seems at first to have been ordinarily exercised by means of the
his property.
arrest of the person of the defendant, who was required to give bail
both to enter an appearance and to answer judgment in the
cause {q). Where a defendant was not arrested, there was apparently
(/) K
V. Judge of City of London Court, [1892] 1 Q. B. 273, j>er Lord EsHER,
M.E., at p. 292.
(/) In the reign of Elizabeth (4 Inst. 135), in the 8th year of James I. (4
Inst.
134), and in the 9th year of Charles I. ( (1632), Cro. Car. 296), there appear to
have been proceedings of this kind. The answer of the judges to one of the
complaints made to the King by the Lord High Admiral concerning prohibitions
granted to the Court of Admiralty on one of these occasions was in these
terms: "We acknowledge that of contracts pleas" and quarrels made upon the
sea or any part thereof which is not within any county (from whence no trial
"
can be had by twelve men), the Admiral hath and ought to have jurisdiction
(4 Inst. 134, cited in The Zeta, [1893] A. C. 468, at p. 482).
{k) Under 12 Geo. 3, c. 75, s. 31; see Velthisen v. Ormdeij (1789), ,3 Term
Eep. 315.
(/) Raft of Tlmler (1844), 2 W. Eob. 251; The Two Friends (1799), 1
C. Eob.*27l The Eleanor (1805), 6 C. Eob. 39.
;
(m) See p. 76, "post,

(n) The Warrior (1818), 2 Dods. 288.
(o) The Hercules (1819), 2 Dods. 353.
(p) The Ruchers (1801), 4 C. Eob. 73; Le Caux v. Eden (1781), 2 Dougl. 594,
at p. 609.
[q] Clerke's Praxis Curiae Admiralitatis, 3rd ed. (1722), tit. 3.
—
Part I. Introduction. 61
always an alternative method of proceeding, by arresting any ^t^ct. 2.
property belonging to him in tidal waters, and then citing the Exercise of
debtor and all parties interested in the goods attached to appear Jurisdic-
at the suit of the plaintiff (/•).
89. These methods of procedure became obsolete (s), but the Origin of
actions in
Admiralty Com-t succeeded in establishing the right to arrest pro-
l)erty the subject-matter of a dispute, and to enforce its judgments
against the property so arrested, on tlie theory that a pre-existing
maritime lien to the extent of the claim attached to the property
from the moment of the creation of such claim. Such an action
became knoy\ai as an action in rem (t). It is difficult to determine
the exact source from which the present law^ as to maritime liens is
derived {11), but w^hatever may have been the origin and process of
—
development of a maritime lien for damage and the same is equally
true for all claims within the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of
Admiralty, such as damage, salvage, bottomry, and wages there —
is no doubt that the doctrine of such a lien is now established and ;
the right to enforce it differs from the ancient right of arrest to

compel appearance and security in this, that it is confined to the
property by which the damage was caused or in relation to which
the claim arose, and may be enforced against that property in the
hands of an innocent purchaser {a). A maritime lien has been
defined as a privileged claim upon a thing in respect of service done
to it or injury caused by it and is carried into effect by special legal
;
process {b).
90. The inherent jurisdiction possessed by the Court of Admiralty Proceedings

:personam.
was not only exercised by proceedings- ?n rem brought to enforce the ^'^^
maritime liens attaching on the res in each case but, where the ;
ship was lost or for some other reason could not be arrested, a
plaintiff' having a claim cognizable by the Court, other than a claim
{r) See Gierke's Praxis Curiae Admiralitatis, 3rd ed. (1722), tit. 24, If after the
seizure of the goods the defendant appeared, the shijD or goods were delivered
over to him and the case proceeded " "ut in actione instituta contra personam
debitoris " tit. 37). See The Dictator, [1892] P. 304, 311.
(s) The
last instance of a personal arrest is said to have been in 1780 {The
Clara, Swa. 1, 3). See also The Dictator, supra, at p. 313; Johnson v. Shippen
(1703), 2 Ld. Eaym. 982.
{t) As to actions in rem, see title AcTioiS', p. 47, ante.
(?/) One opinion is that the source is to be found
in the ancient law of deodand,
the ship being supposed to be itself responsible to the amount of the claim
against it (see Holmes, Common Law, ed. 18cS2, pp. 25, 27) but the more
;
tenable theory would seem to be that the present law of maritime lien has
sprung from the Admiralty practice of arrest to compel appearance and security,
above referred to. See Marsden on Collisions, 5th ed. p. 72, and Select Pleas in
the Court of Admiralty, edited for the Selden Society by the same author,
Yol. I. p. Ixxii. As to maritime liens generally, see title Shipping and
Navigation.
(a) The Ripon City, [1897] P. 226, at pp. 241, 242 and see The Bold Buccleuqh
;
(1851), 7 Moo. P. C. C. 267, where it was held by the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council that in cases of collision a maritime lien for damage arises and
may be enforced against the vessel which was in fault, and such lien travels
with the vessel into whosesoever possession she may come, and when carried
into effect by a proceeding in rem relates back to the period when it first attaches.
See also this decision approved, Carrie v. M'lvnigld, [1897] A. C. 97, at p. 106.
[h] See Abbott, Law of Merchant Ships and Seamen, 14th ed.,
p. 1012.
62 AdMIRxVLTY.
Sect. 2. on a bottomry or respondentia bond or to the possession of the

Exercise of ship, might take proceedings in personam against the owners of the
Jurisdic- property which would have been arrested if the proceedings had been
tion. in rem{c). Subsequently, in 1854, the High Court of Admiralty
wâs empowered by statute to institute proceedings by personal
service of a monition upon the owners of the property the subject-
matter of the dispute, without the necessity of issuing a warrant
to arrest the property (cQ.
Ameunt 91. The question whether the amountof the judgment recover-
lecoverable. an Admiralty action in personam can extend beyond the
\yi
value of the res does not seem to have been decided, though there is
some authority for holding that, although the Court of Admiralty did
exercise a jurisdiction in personam, whenever there was a proceeding
in rem it limited the damages recoverable to the value of the res {e).
Law adminis- 92- The law administered in Admiralty actions is not the
tered in ordinary municipal law of England, but is the law which the High
Admiralty.
Court of Admiralty, by Act of Parliament or reiterated decisions,
traditions, and principles, has adopted as the English maritime
law (/).
(c) The Volant (1842), 1 W. Eob. 383.

See R. V. Jadf/e of the City of London Court, [1892] 1 Q. B. 273, at
pp. 307 —
310, and cases there cited. It was assumed where the proceedings were
by monition that an action in rem was dej)ending, so that all rights were
tacitly reserved (see The TreJawney (1801), 3 C. Rob. 216 n. ;Five Steel
Barqes (1890), 15 P. D. 142, 146; The Carqo ex Port Victor, [1901] P. 243, at
pp. 254, 256).
The Admiralty Court Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 78), s. 13._ This section
[d)
is repealed with numerous savings by the Statute Law Ee vision Act, 1892
(55 & 56 Vict. c. 19).
As to the present practice, see p. 105, ju)st.
(f) See R. V. Jud(je of the City of London Court, supra, at -p. 310, per
Kay, L.J.
If this is so, the argument assented to by the court in The Dictator, [1892]
P. 304, that where in an action in rem the defendant had aj)peared the action
became an action in ]>ersonani and consequently the liability of the defendant
might extend beyond the value of the res, would fall to the ground, as of course
the liability of the defendant in personam could only be the liability of the
defendant in an Admiralty action in personam.
(/) The Gaetano and Maria (1882), 7 P. D. 137, 143. Accordingly the
original and common law jurisdiction of that court must be ascertained from
the continuous practice and the judgments of its judges and from the judgments
of the courts at Westminster, The former, in moulding and crystallising the
principles and practice of their court, used the laws of the Rhodians, of Wisbey,
the Hanse towns, of Oleron, the Digest, and Prench and other ordinances,
which, though they are no part of the law of England, contain many valuable
principles and statements of marine practice. See The Gas Float Whitton,
No. 2, [1896] P. 42, at p. 48, per Lord Esher, M.R., quoting Abbott, Law of
Merchant Ships and Seamen, 5th ed., Preface to the 1st ed., p. xi.
— —
Part II. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. 63
Part II. — Jurisdiction of the Supreme ^^^^^
Jurisdiction
of Supreme
Court.
93. The present jurisdiction of the Probate, Divorce, and Ad-
p^.^^^^^
miralty Division of the High Court of Justice, for brevity called the uWrce'
Admiralty Division, is derived partly from statute and partly from Adrairait
the inherent and statutory jurisdiction of the High Court of ^îvision.
Admiralty, which, by the Judicature Acts (//), was transferred to
the Admiralty Division.
Appeals lie from the Admiralty Division to the Court of Appeal, Appeals,
and thence to the House of Lords (h).
Sect. 1. Possessio)2,
94. The jurisdiction the Admiralty Division to entertain Disputes as

of to
suits of possession is derivedfrom the inherent jurisdiction of the possession.
Admiralty Court to take ships or vessels out of the hands of wrong-
doers and restore them to the true owners (/), to dispossess masters
who ought to be removed (j), and to give possession to the majority
of the part-owners wishing to send the ship proceeded against to
sea, and on what is called an action of restraint being instituted by
a dissentient minority of part-owners {k) to compel the majority of
the part-owners sending the ship to sea to give bail in the amount
of the value of the shares of the plaintiffs (1) for the safe return of
the ship to a specified port {m). Bail for safe return maybe given
for more than a single voyage, but a bail bond may be cancelled
when the ship is safe within the jurisdiction {n).
95. This jurisdiction was limited to disputes as to possession Questions of
Common Law Courts declared that where any bond fide
alone, for the t^^^®-
claim of ownership was set up as a defence, the Admiralty Court

had no jurisdiction to deal with the question of title (o). To remedy
{q) 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66 38 & 39 Vict. c. 77.

;
(h) Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 18 (5) A^Dpellate Jurisdiction
;
Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 59), s. 3.

(?) Re BJanshard (1824), 2 B. & C. 244.
{j) The New Draper (1802), 4 C. Eob. 287. See also the powers given by The
Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 472. As to ownership and
control of ships generally, see title Shipping and Navigation.
{Ic) The Inmsfalien (1866), L. R. 1 A. & E. 72.
[l] If the value is not agreed on between the parties the shares will have
to be appraised [The Robert Dickinson (1881), 10 P. D. 15, at p. 18).

(m) The 4po//o (1824), 1 Hag. Adm. 306, 312; The 7Wca(1880), 5 P. D. 169;
The Keroula (1886), 11 P. D. 92; The Robert Dickinson, supra. After the
bail has been given the ship sails entirely for the profit of the majorit}^ of the
part-owners who have sent her out, and the minority bear no share of the
expenses of the voyage (Abbott, Law of Merchant Ships and Seamen (14th ed.)
Parti., Chap. III.").
[n) The Vivienne (1887), 12 P. D. 185, in which case the bond had been in
force for three years. Where the bail bond had been given in the usual form
conditioned for the safe return of the vessel to the port to which she belonged,
and it was proved that the ship though not lost had been taken to a port
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the Court held that it had
jurisdiction to order the amount of the bail to be brought into Court (The
Cawdor, [1900] P. 47).
(o) The Warrior (1818), 2 Dods. 289.
—
64 Admiralty,
Sect. 1. this limitation, a statutory jurisdiction (p) was conferred in 1840

Possession, upon the Admiralty Court to decide any question of title to the
subject-matter of any action of possession.
Foreign ships. 96. The Admiralty Division has jurisdiction in suits of possession
against foreign ships, but will generally decline in its discretion to
exercise the jurisdiction unless with the consent of the representa-
tive of the foreign state to which the ship belongs, or on the invitation
Rectification of a competent Court of such foreign state (q). The Court has also
of mistakes in power in a suit of possession to grant a decree declaring that the
register.
plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the ship proceeded against,
and to have the register of British ships rectified accordingly where
it appears that by mistake a wrong entry inconsistent with the
plaintiff's title has been made in the register book (?•).
Sect. 2. Co-owner ship and Restraint.

Disputes 97. The Admiralty Division has jurisdiction to determine all
between
disputes incident to the employment of a ship registered in England
co-owners.
or Wales, and to decide all questions arising between co-owners
as to the ownership, possession and earnings of the ship, and may
order the ship to be sold, and an account to be taken of all trans-
actions outstanding and unsettled between the parties (s). The
jurisdiction thus conferred may be exercised in rem or in per-
sonam it), and in an action for an account between part-owners
where one of the parties had before action parted with all his interest
in the ship the Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the
suit, and ordered him to give security to the amount of the shares
he formerly possessed in the ship {ii),
Sale at 98. The sale of a ship or shares in a ship registered in England
instance of or Wales can, in the discretion of the Court, be ordered at the instance
minority of
co-owners. of a minority of co-owners against the consent of the majority of
the co-owners {a) but a part-owner who can sell his own shares in
;
the ship must make out a very strong case to induce the Court to
make an order for the sale of the whole ship, by which his co-owners
are forced to part with their property whether they like it or not {h),
Restraint. 99. In consequence of this power the Admiralty Court was

enabled in a co-ownership suit to restrain the defendant from
dealing with the share or shares of a ship registered in England
p) Admiralty Court Act,- 1840 (3 & 4 Yict. c. 65), s. 4.

{
The Evavgelistria (1876), 46 L. J. (adm.) 1 The Agincourt (1876), 2 P. D.
((/) ;
239. See also E. S. C, Ord. 5, r. 16 (b).

(r) The Rose (1873), J E. 4 A. & E. 6; and see Brand v. Broomhall, [1906]
.
1 K B. 571.
(s) Admiralty Court Act, 1861 (24 Vict. c. 10), s. 8. For sale and transfer of
of ships generally, see title Shipping and Navigation.
{t) Ibid., s. 35.
The Lady of the Lahe (1870), L. E. 3 A. & E. 29.
(u)
(o) The Bereward, [1895] P. 284, in which case the majority of co-owners
had formed themselves into a limited company and had rendered it impossible
for the ship, to be profitably employed in the general interests of all the owners
unless the minority co-owners joined the company, and there appeared to be no
way of preventing the sacrifice of the property but by a sale.
(b) See The Marion (1884), 10 P. D. 4.
— —
or Wales the subject-matter of the suit, and the Admu-alty Division, ^^^ct. 2.
in common Divisions of the High Court, has now Co-owner-

^Yith the other
ship and
power to prohibit for a specified time any dealing with a ship or any
any person Re strai nt.
share therein on the application of interested (c).
The Admiralt}^ Division has also power to remove the master of Remova] of
any ship within the jurisdiction of the Court after satisfactory master,
proof of the necessity for his removal, and to appoint a new master
in his place {d).
100. The Court may in a fit case make an order for the delivery Delivery up
of certificate
of registry.
101. All disputes concerning duly registered (/) mortgages of Disputes as

mortgages,
British ships are within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Division,
whether the ship or the proceeds of her sale are under the arrest
of the Court or not {g). The Admiralty Division has also jurisdiction
to determine suits concerning unregistered or equitable mortgages
on foreign (h) or British ships where the ship or the proceeds
thereof are under arrest.
Sect. 4. Bottomry,
102. The Admiralty Division exercises the same jurisdiction Actions of
in actions of bottomry and respondentia {i) as the Court of bottomry £
^^^^
Admiralty possessed as part of its inherent jurisdiction. Actions
of bottomry or respondentia are brought for the purpose of
enforcing bottomry bonds on the ship or freight or cargo
proceeded against in the action, or, in case the cargo alone is
hypothecated, for the purpose of enforcing the respondentia bond on
the cargo proceeded against. Bottomry bonds are contracts in the
nature of mortgage of a ship on which the owner or the master
acting for the owner (J) borrows money in circumstances of unfore-
seen necessity in a port of distress to enable him to repair the ship
or to pay for the repairs and despatch of the vessel for the
completion of her voyage {k), and pledges the keel or bottom of
the ship pars pro tola for repayment. If the ship is lost in the
course of the voyage by any of the perils enumerated in the
(c)The Horlock (1877), 2 P. D. 243; Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 08
Yict. 60), s. 80
c. and see also sect. 28 of the same Act as to the powers of the
;
Court to order a sale where there has been a transmission of a registered ship or
share or shares therein to unqualified persons.
(d) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), s. 472.
(e) The St Olaf{lS11), 2 P. D. 113; The Celtic King, [1894] P. 175; and see
the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), s. 15.
^ (/) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), s. 31. See generally,
as to mortgages of ships, title Shipping and Navigation.
{()) Admiralty Court Act, 1840 (3 & 4 Yict. c. 65) Admiralty Court Act, 1861
;
(24 Yict. c. 10), s. 11 Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), s. 34.
;
(A) rAeT«ûs, p9p3]P.44.

(v) Eespondentia is the proper
technical term where the cargo alore is
hypothecated. For bottomry and respondentia generally, see title Shipping
AND Navigation.
(,/) See The Gratitndine (1801), 3 Ch. Eob. 240.
{k) See Soares v. Eahn (1838), 3 Moo. P. C. C. 1.
.
66 Admiralty.
Sect. 4. contract, the lender on the bottomry bond loses his money but if ;
Bottomry. the ship arrives safe, then he recovers the loan, with interest,
which is called maritime interest and may be in proportion to the
risks of the voyage (Q
Evidence of 103. In order to enable the Court to pronounce for the validity
necessity for
of abottomry bond or bill (m) or a respondentia bond put in suit
loan.
before it, and to condemn the ship or freight and cargo or cargo
alone, as the case may be, in the amount found due on the bond or
bill, the Court must be satisfied by sufficient evidence that necessity
existed for the loan on bottomry {n) This is ordinarily established
.
by proof that the master or owner of the ship was in want of

supplies (o) and was without credit at the port where the bond was
executed, and was unable to obtain the necessaries for the con-
tinuance of the voyage without resort to a bottomry bond(p). If
the cargo is hypothecated it must be shown that the necessity of
the cargo required its hypothecation, or at least that some prospect
of benefit accrued to the cargo by the hypothecation {q).
Bond on 104. The Court has no jurisdiction to pronounce for the validity
personal
of a bond if the bulk of the money lent on it has not been advanced
credit invalid.
on the security of the ship or cargo, but on the personal credit of the
owners or master (?) a bond may, however, be good in part and bad
;
in part (s) and upheld so far as it covers money advanced on

,
the credit of the ship though void as to any money advanced on

personal security.
Where Where a bottomry bond has been given, bills of exchange for the
collateral amount lent, drawn by the master, may be, and frequently are,
security
taken as a collateral security for the payment of the bond, and the
taken.
validity of the bond is not thereby affected (^).
Where no 105. Where there is no maritime risk, that is, where the repay-
maritime ment of the money advanced is not made dependent upon the safe
risks.
arrival of the ship a bond cannot be enforced in the Admiralty
Division as a bottomry bond, though a bond covering in part property
not exposed to maritime risk, and bad as to that part, may be valid as
to the residue in respect of which maritime risk exists {tv).
Where mari- A bottomry bond may be pronounced valid and within the
time interest
not stipulated
(/) See The Atlas (1827), 2 Hag. Adm. 48, 53.
for^
(m) These are to the same effect as bottomry bonds. See The Elpis (1872),
L. E. 4 A. & E. 1 ; The D. H. Bills (1878), 4 P. D. 32, n.
{n) The Karnak, (1868), L. E. 3 A. & E. 289, and, on appeal, (1869) L. E. 2 P. C.
505 ; The Panama (1870), L. E. 3 P. 0. 199.
(o) See The Lizzie (1868), L. E. 2 A. & E. 254.
(p) Kleimiuort v. The Cassa Marittima of Genoa (1877), 2 App. Gas. 156 ; The
Onivard (1873), L. E. 4 A. & E. 38.
{q) See The Onward, supra.
(V) The Rhadamanthe (1813), 1 Dods. 201. The Court of Admiralty was not
prohibited where it entertained a cause of bottomry against the ship, but a
prohibition was granted where the owners were sued to compel repayment of the
bond {Johnson v. Shippin (1703), 1 Salk, 35).
(s) See Cargo ex Sultan (1859), Swa. 504; The Augusta (1813), 1 Dods. 283.
(t) Stainhank v. Shepard (1853), 13 C.B.418 ; The Staffordshire (1872), L. E.
4 P. 0. 194 The Onward, supra ; The Haahet, [1899] P. 295,
;
{u) The Indomitable (1859), Swa. 446.

(w) Cargo ex Sultan, supra.
— —
jurisdiction of the Court though it does not stipulate for the pay- Sect. 4.
ment of maritime interest (a). Bottomry.

~
if any question should arise in any action of bottomry as to the
title ownership of any ship or vessel proceeded against,
to or
owu-rsS^
or the proceeds thereof remaining in the registry, the Admiralty
Division has jurisdiction to determine it{h).
In some cases bottomry bond holders who have by the leave of
the Court paid charges which take priority over the maritime lien
for bottomry are allowed, without bringing a separate suit, to stand
in the place of the original claimants (c).
Sect. 5. Necessaries.
106. The Admiralty Division possesses a statutory juris- Claims for

necessaries,
diction in rem and in personam over claims for necessaries (d)
supplied in certain places to certain ships. This jurisdiction
extends (e) over claims for necessaries supplied to any foreign
ship (/) at a time when such ship was in a British or Colonial (g)
port, or on the high seas, or in a foreign port on the high seas (h).
Further, where it is proved to the Court that at the time of
the institution of the suit, no owner or part-owner of the ship was
domiciled in England or Wales, the Admiralty Division has juris-
diction in rem or in personam over claims against any British or
foreign ship (i) for necessaries supplied elsewhere than in the
port(j) to which the ship belongs. A mere temporary absence,
however, from England or Wales of a shipowner domiciled therein
will not enable an action in rem for necessaries to be brought
against the ship (k), but in order to deprive the Court of jurisdiction
it must be shown to the Court before judgment that the owner or
part-owner was domiciled in England or Wales (Z). Claimants

for necessaries do not possess maritime liens in respect of their
claims (7?i), but the proceedings in rem which they are entitled to
(a) The Cedlh (1879), 4 P. D. 210; The Haahet, [1899] P. 295.

(b) Admiralty Court Act, 1840 (3 & 4 Yict. c. 65), s. 4.
(c) The Fair Haven (1866), L. E. 1 A. & E. 67 The Cornelia Henrietta
;
(1866), L. E. 1 A. & E. 51. See also The St. Laiurence (1880), 5 P. D. 250,
where a plaintiff in a necessaries suit had by the leave of the Court paid amounts
due for towage, pilotage, and dock dues, and was given priority over a bond
holder; The William F. Safford (1860), Lush. 69
{d) As to what are necessaries, see title Shipping and Navigation.
(e) Admiralty Court Act, 1840 (3 & 4 Yict. c. 65), s. 6, and Admiralty Court
Act, 1861 (24 Vict. c. 10), s. 5.
(/) This includes a sea-going vessel, see Admiralty Court Act, 1840 (3 & 4
Yict. c. 65), s. 6 The Ocean Queen (1842), 1 W. E. 457.
;
(g) The Aiina (1876), 1 P. D. 253 The Wataga (1856), Swa. 165.
;
(A) See The Mecca, [1895] P. 95, at

pp. 108, 112; The India (1863), 32 L. J.
(ADM.) 185 ;The Ocean (1815), 2 W. Eob. 368.
(?) The Mecca, supra, overrulino- The India, supra, so far as it construed the
Act of 1861.
[j) In the case of British ships, the port of registry is the port to which she
belongs (Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), s. 13).
(AO See The Pacific (1864), Br. & L. 243.
(/) Ex parte Michael (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B. 658.
(m) The Tivo Ellens (1872), L. E. 4 P. C. 161 The Htnrich Bjorn 11
;
J (1886),
\
App. Cas. 270.
F 2
— —
68 Admiralty.
Sect. 5. institute merely give them a right to arrest the ship proceeded
Necessaries, against and thus obtain a statutory Hen for their claims, charging
the ship from the date of her arrest in the suit (n).
Claims for 107. The Admiralty Division has also jurisdiction in rem over
claim for the building, equipping or repairing of any ship if at
lepairmg eetcc.
^^^^trin'
\^[ij^q of the institution of the cause the ship or the proceeds
arising from its sale are under the arrest of the Court (o). A claim
of this nature does not confer a maritime lien upon the claimant (p).
Sect. 6. Toivage.
Claims in the 108. The Court of Admiralty had since 1840 {q) jurisdiction to
nature of decide claims and demands whatsoever in the nature of towage
all
towage.
and to enforce the payment thereof and this jurisdiction, together
;
with whatever inherent jurisdiction the Court of Admiralty possessed

over towage on the high seas, is. now vested in the Admiralty
Division. Claims and demands in the nature of towage " mean
claims and demands in the nature of ordinary towage, i.e., towage
which is only required for expediting the progress of a vessel not
in distress (?•) and not claims and demands for what has been
J
called " extraordinary towage," which are in reality salvage claims

in respect of towage services to a vessel in distress and are
remunerated on a different basis (s).
Towage 109. The jurisdiction extends over claims or demands for towage
within the
body of a
in respect of towage in tidal waters or otherwise within the body of
county. a county {t), but it has been held that the claimant in respect of
towage within the body of a county has not a maritime lien, but
only a statutory lien giving him priority from the date of the
institution of the suit or the arrest of the ship proceeded against {ii).
Sect. 7. Wages, Masters^ Wages and Disbursements.
Seamen's 110. The present jurisdiction of the Admiralty Division over

wages and claims for seamen's wages and masters' wages and disbursements
masters'
wages and comprises a wider jurisdiction than the inherent jurisdiction in
disburse- suits for seamen's wages possessed by the Court of Admiralty before
ments.
1840 (a). This jurisdiction of the Admiralty Division, which may
(^0 See The.CdIa (1888), IW P. D. 82.

(o) Admiralty Court Act, 1861 (24 Yict. c. 10), s. 4.
(p) The Tiuo Ellens (1872), L. K. 4 P. C. 161.

[q) Admiralty Court Act, 1840 (3 & 4 Vict. c. 65), s. 6.
(r) See The FHncess Alice (1849), 3 W.'Eob. 138.
(s) See p. 75, post.
The Hjemmett (1880), 5 P. D. 227.
(t)
{u)Westrup V. Great Yarmouth Steam Carrying Co. (1889), 43 Ch. D. 241,*

see The Henrich Bjorn (1886), 11 App. Cas. 270, at p. 283; but see also The
Constancia (1846), 4 Notes of Cases, 512, 521 The Benares (1850), 7 Notes-
;
of Cases Suppl. 1., liii. The St. Lawrence (1880), 5 P. D. 250.

;
(a) Admiralty Court Act, 1840 (3 & 4 Yict. c. 65), s. 4 Admiralty Court
;
Act, 1861 (24 Vict. c. 10), ss. 10, 35; Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58
Vict. c. 60), ss. 165, 167—168 Merchant Shipping Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 48),
;
s. 57.
—
.
be exercised either in rem or in personam (b), extends over any Sect. 7.
claim by a master or seaman of any ship for wages earned by him Wages etc.
on board the ship, and over any claim by the master of any ship
for disbursements made by him on account of the ship (h).
Masters (e) and seamen {d) have maritime Hens for their wages,
and both masters and persons acting for masters on their decease or
incapacity from ilhiess, have also now a maritime lien for disburse-
ments or liabilities incurred by them on account of the ship (e).
These maritime liens may be lost by negligence or delay if the
rights of third parties may be thereby compromised, but where
reasonable diligence is used and the proceedings are taken in good
faith the lien travels wdth the res into whosesoever possession it
may come {/).
111. A pilot has a maritime lien for his pilotage charges, and can claims for
sue for them in an Admiralty action in rem {(/) The following have also J^^ês etc.
.
by other
been held entitled to bring Admiralty actions in rem for their wages an persons. :
apprentice (/i) a purser {i), the ship's surgeon (k), a woman employed
,
as a ship's stewardess®, a ship's carpenter (7?t), and seamen and

officers employed on board a ship after the discharge of the rest of
the crew(«); hut the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain in an
Admiralty action in rem, or as a claim within either its inherent
or statutory jurisdiction, a claim by a ship's husband for his salary or
emoluments (o).
Suits for wâges in the Admiralty Division must be brought within

six years (j)).
Conditional remuneration promised to a master by his owners if
he stands by the ship and brings her safely into port is included in
the term wages {q)
112. A claim by a seaman for damages for wrongful dismissal can Damages for
be prosecuted by him in an action of wâges within the jurisdiction

^g^^g^}
ismissa .
of the Admiralty Court (?•).
(b) Admiralty Court Act, 1861 (24 Vict. c. 10), ss. 10, '65.
(c) See The Elmville No. 2, [1904] P. 422; 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60, s. 167.
{(i) The Sydney Cove (1815), 2 Dods. 11 The Nymph (1856), Swa. 86.
;
The
maritime lien in respect of seamen's wages due under a special contract may either
be considered to have been conferred by the operation of the 10th section of the
Admiralty Act, 1860, or to have always existed, although the Court of Admiralty
until recent times might have been restrained by prohibition from enforcing it.
(e) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 167 The Tagus, ;
[1903] P. 44 The Mipon City, [1897] P. 226.

;
(/) See The Fairjjort (1882), 8 P. D. 48, 55.

(g) See The Servia and Carinthia, [1898] P. 36 Tlie Adah (1830), 2 Hag.
;
Adm. 326.
(Ii) The Albert Crosby (1860), Lush, 44.
(0 The Prince George (1837), 3 Hag. Adm. 376.
(/i) Tlie Lord Hobart (1815), 2 Dods. 100.
(/) Jane and Matilda (1823), 1 Hag. Adm. 187.
(m) The Lord Hobart (1815), 2 Dods. 100, 104.

{n) See R. v. Judge of the Citii Owners of the SS. Michigan
of London Court and
(1890), 25 Q. B. D. 339.
(o) The llaby No.
2, [1898] P. 59.
(i>) 4 & 5 Anne, c. 3 (sometimes printed as c. 16), s. 17
(q) The Elmville No. 2, supra.
{>) The Great Eastern (1867), L. R. 1 A. & E. 384.
—
70 Admiralty.
Sect. 7. The Court has jurisdiction in an action of seamen's or masters'

Wages etc. wages to decree that all or any part of the wages claimed have
Forfeiture of
been forfeited for desertion, misconduct, or other offences (s).
wages. Certain payments, though not strictly " wages," are recoverable
Other pay- as wages for example, the allowance which has to be made by way
;
ments of compensation for short or bad provisions is recoverable as

recoverable as
wages.
wages (t).
Meaning of
"Disbursements" include all proper expenditure by the master
"disburse- for which he makes himself liable in respect of necessary things for
ments." the ship for the purposes of navigation which he, as master of the
ship, is there to carry out —
necessary in the sense that they must
—
be had immediately and when the owner is neither able to give
the order, nor so near to the master that the master can obtain his
authority, and the master is therefore obliged to render himself
liable in order to carry out his duty as master (a).
Foreign ships. The Court has jurisdiction to entertain both actions of wages and
actions of disbursements (b) against, foreign ships, but may in its
discretion refuse to exercise the jurisdiction where the representative
of the State to which the ship belongs objects on reasonable grounds
to the Court proceeding to adjudicate (c).
Claims under 113. A claim for wages under £50 cannot be brought in the
£50. Admiralty Division, but must be dealt with summarily, unless the
owner of the ship is adjudged bankrupt, or the ship is under arrest
or is sold by the authority of the Court, or tbe claim is referred
by a Court of summary jurisdiction, or unless neither the owner
nor the master of the ship is or resides within twenty miles of the
place where the seaman is discharged (d).
Sect. 8. Damage by Collision.
Claims for The Admiralty Division acquired (e) from the High Court
114.
damage.
of Admiralty jurisdiction over all wrongs committed by or to
British subjects on the high seas (/). It has also statutory
jurisdiction in rem and in personam over claims for damage received
by any ship or sea-going vessel in the body of a county as well
as on the high seas (r/), and over claims for damage done by any
ship in the body of a county or on the high seas {h). It is not
See The Madeod (1880), 5 P. D. 254

(s) The Fairport (1884), 10 P. D. 13;
;
and and Bruce, 3rd ed. p. 206, note (u).

see Williams
{t) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 199. See also
ss. 135, 171, 186, 196, 207, 208 of the same Act.
(a) See The Orienta, [1895] P. 49, at p. 55 The ElmvUle No. 2, [1904] P. 422,
;
at p. 426.
(6) See The Tagus, [1903] P. 44.
(c) The Nina (1867). L. E. 2 A. & E. 44; The Leon XIII. (1883), 8 P. D.
121.
{d) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 165.
(e) Under the Judicature Acts, 1873 and 1875 (36 & 37 Yict. c. 66, and 38 & 39
Vict. c. 77).
(/) See Shipping and Navigation The Zeta, [1893] A. C. 468.
title ;
For
definition of the high seas, see The Mecca, [1895] P. at p. 107.
ig) Admiralty Court Act, 1840 (3 & 4 Vict. c. 65), s. 6.
(h) Admiralty Court Act, 1861 (24 Vict. c. 10), s. 7. Por definition of ship,
—
Part II. Jukisdiction of the Supreme Court. 71
necessary that there should be actual contact causing the damage ^^^^t^- 8-
to found a clahn for damage done by a ship (i). Damage by

The statutory jurisdiction in rem over claims for damage arising Co llisio n,
within the body of a county is limited to cases where a ship or a Extent of
sea-going vessel is concerned, and will not include a case of collision jurisdiction,
between two dumb barges (k). Damage done in a collision to the
cargo carried on a ship cannot be recovered in an action of damage
against that ship (/), but damage "done by a ship" may include
a claim for personal injuries done by a ship {m), though not a
claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846 for damages for the
death of a person (o). It is probable, however, that such a claim
as last mentioned in respect of a foreign ship may now be entertained
in the Admiralty Division by virtue of the statutory jurisdiction
which it possesses in common with the other Divisions of the High
Court (p).
115. The Court has jurisdiction in the case of foreign vessels sus- Foreign ships,
taining damage, and of a collision between foreign vessels other than
foreign national vessels (q). A foreign national vessel cannot be
proceeded against or arrested (r), though where a foreign Govern-
ment seeks to recover damages in respect of a collision in which a
vessel belonging to it has been damaged, a counterclaim against it
may be entertained (s).
116. King's ships cannot be arrested or proceeded against in King's ships.
rem, and where damage has been done by any such ship the
usual course is to bring an action of damage in personam against
the officer in charge of the ship at the time of the collision,
which action the Court has jurisdiction to entertain, and in
most cases an appearance is entered for the defendant by the
Treasury Solicitor, w^ho has succeeded to the duties of the
Admiralty Proctor and defends the suit under the authority of the
Commissioners of the Admiralty or other Government Department
concerned {t). Certain mail ships are also exempt from arrest (u).
The Admiralty Division has jurisdiction in rem in respect of colli- Collisions in
sions between British ships in foreign inland waters (tv), and between foreign
waters.
foreign ships other than foreign national ships in foreign waters (a).
117. A foreign ship which has caused an injury to any property Power to
detain foreign
(i) The Industrie (1871), L. E. 3 A. & E. 303. ships.
(k) Everard v. Kendall (1870), L. E. 5 C. P. 428.
.
(/) The Victoria (1887), 12 P. D. 105.
(m) The Sylph (1867), L. E. 2 A. & E. 24.
(n) 9 &
10 Vict. c. 93 see title Negligence.
;
(o) v. " Vera Cruz " (1884), 10 App. Cas. 59.

Seward
{p) See The Shipowners Negligence (Eemedies) Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 1, c. 10),
s. 1 ;Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), s. 11.
{q) This is so even in a case where proceedings in the same matter are pending
before a foreign tribunal. See The Charlotte (1907), 23 T. L. E. 750.
(r) The Parlement Beige
(1880), 5 P. D. 197 ; The Jassy, [1906] P. 270. See
also title Action, ante, p. 19.
(s) The Newhattle (1885), 10 P. D. 33.
(t) See H.M.S. Sans Fareil, [1900] P. 267.
(u) Mail Ships Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Yict. c. 5.
31), s.
[w) The Diana (1862), Lush. 539.
[a) The Courier
(1862), Lush. 541.
72 Admiralty.
Sect. 8. belonging to His Majesty or to any of His Majesty's subjects may

Damage by be detained if found within three miles of the coast of the United
Collision. Kingdom (b). This is a statutory power in respect of certain

claims in personam which do not include claims for personal
injuries (c).
Damage 118. An
action in rem cannot be brought to recover damages for
^^3^^^^ caused to a ship by the malicious act of the master of
wronrfui'act
of individual, the defendant's ship (d) or the act of any agent done outside the
scope of his authority (e) but in several cases ships allowed
;
by their owners to be in the control of third parties have been

successfully proceeded against to enforce maritime liens which
sprang into being whilst they were under the control of such third
parties (/).
Maritime 119. The claimant in an action of damage has, as before stated, a

lien.
maritime lien for the damage he has sustained in consequence
of a collision on the high seas, and such claimant has also been
held to have had conferred on him by statute a maritime lien
in respect of any damage sustained by him in consequence of a
collision within the body of a county ((/). The maritime lien for
damage may, like other maritime liens, be considered to be prac-
tically indelible in the absence of laches, and has been enforced
eleven years after the collision in respect of which it attached
occurred (li).
Collision with 120. The jurisdiction of the Admiralty Division in actions of

damage in jêrsonam has been in effect increased by the provisions
in^towôf^^^
British tug. allowing service of writs in personam out of the jurisdiction in
certain cases {i). Thus, where a collision occurred out of the
territorial jurisdiction of the Court between a British vessel and a
foreign vessel at the time of the collision in tow of a British
steam-tug, and the owners of the British vessel, to recover for the
damages sustained in the collision, brought their action of damage
in personam against the owners of the steam-tug and the owners of
the foreign vessel, and duly served the writ of summons in the
action on the owners of the steam-tug and obtained leave to serve,
and duly served, notice of a concurrent writ of summons on the
owners of the foreign vessel out of the jurisdiction, the Court of
Appeal affirmed the refusal of the judge of the Admiralty Division
to set aside the service abroad of the notice of the concurrent
writ (k).
(h) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 688.
(c) Harris v. Owiiers of Franconia (1877),'2 C. P. D. 173.
{d) The Ida (1860), Lush. 6 The Druid (1842), 1 W. Eob. 391.
; See Currie
V. M'Knight, [1897] A. 0. 97.
(e) The Orient (1871), L. E. 3 P. C. 696.
(/) The Lemington (1874), 2 Asp. M. L. C. 475; The Ruhy Queen (1861),
Lush. 266. See also The Ripon City, [1897] P. 226.
{g) The Bold Bucdeugh (1851), 7 Moo. P. 0. C. 267. See The Veritas, [1901]
P. at p. 309.
{h) The Kong Magnus, [1891] P. 223.
•
(*) E. S. C, Ord. 11, r. 1 (g).
[l) The Due d'Aumale, [1903] P. 18.
— —— — .
Part 11. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. 73
Sect. 9. Damage to Cargo. Sect. 9.
Damage to
The Admiralty Division has a statutory {I) jurisdiction in
121. Cargo.
rem and in personam (/) over British and foreign {m) ships in
Damage to
respect of claims for damage to cargo, including short delivery (n). cargo.
The claim must be made by the owner or consignee or an assignee
of the bill of lading (being the person to whom the property
has passed) (o) in respect of goods carried (p) or to be carried (m)
into a port in England or Wales and the damage must be
;
caused by negligence, misconduct or breach of contract on the

part of the owner, master or crew of the ship. This jurisdiction,
however, does not exist if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court
that at the time of the institution of the suit the owner or a part
owner of the ship is domiciled in England or Wales (/). The
remedy in rem in respect of damage to cargo does not confer a
maritime lien {p) and cannot be enforced against any ship other
than that in which the goods were carried into England or
Wales (7?i).
Sect. 10. Limitation of Liability.
122. The jurisdiction

in actions of limitation of liability possessed statutory
by the Admiralty Division in common with the other Divisions of jurisdiction.
the High Court, is conferred by statute (q). In these actions the
liability of the owner of a British or foreign ship or a charterer to
whom the ship has been demised w^here loss of life, personal injury,
or damage to vessels, goods, or other property or rights has been
incurred without his fault or privity may be limited in respect of
claims for loss of vessels or goods to £8, and in respect of claims for
loss of life or personal injury to £15, per ton of the tonnage of the
wrong-doing vessel such tonnage being ascertained as directed by
;
statute (r).
Sect. 11. Salvage.
123. The Admiralty Division has acquired its jurisdiction in Salvage,

from the inherent jurisdiction of the Admiralty
actions of salvage (s)
Court and from statutes {t). Actions of salvage may be in rem or
in personam. But, as in other actions in rem, a foreign national
vessel cannot be arrested for salvage (tt)
(1) Admiralty Court Act, 1861 (24 Yict. c. 10), s. 6. As to the remedy in
XJersonam, see ihid., s. 35.
. {m) The Ironsides (1862), Lush. 458.
{n) The Danzig (1863), Br. & L. 102.
(o) The St. Cloud (1863), Br. & L. 4.
( j9) See The Fieve Superiore (1874), L. E. 5 P. C. 482.

iq) See Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), ss. 502—504;
Merchant Shipping Act;, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 48), ss. 69—71, and title Shipping
A^T> Navigation.
(r) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), s. 503 Merchant ;
Shipping (Liability of Shipowners) Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Yict. c. 14), s. 3 Merchant ;
Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Yict. c. 32),
s. 2; Merchant Shipping Act, 1906
(6 Edw. 7, c. 48), s. 69.
(s) See title Shipping and Navigation.
{t) As to the principles on which salvage remuneration is awarded, and the
law on the subject of salvage generally, see title Shipping and Navigation.
(u) The Constitution (1879), 4 P. D. 39.
—
74 Admiralty.
Sect. 11, Salvage, whether of life or of property, confers a maritime lien

Salvage. whether the services of the salvors have been rendered on the high
seas or within the body of a county {a), and such lien is only lost by
laches.
Site-Sect. 1. Life Salvage.
Property 124. In order that life salvage may be awarded some property
must have
been saved.
must have been saved (b), though not necessarily on the same
occasion or by the same salvors (c).
Extent of The jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court to award salvage for
jurisdiction.
services in the preservation of life is entirely statutory (d) In regard
.
to British vessels salvage may be awarded for the preservation of

life wherever the services were rendered, but (except as mentioned
below in the case of Prussian vessels) to give the Court power to
grant salvage ior services to the lives of persons belonging to a
foreign vessel the services must be rendered wholly or in part in
British waters. But with the concurrence of a foreign Government,
the Crown may, by Order in Council, give the Court jurisdiction
over claims for life services rendered to persons belonging to ships
owned by subjects of that foreign Government whilst beyond the
limits of British jurisdiction. An Order in Council relating to
Prussian ships {e) has been made and is still in force, but with that
exception there are no provisions existing with respect to the salving
of life from foreign vessels on the high seas beyond British waters,
and in any case of salvage of life from foreign vessels other than
Prussian vessels on the high seas beyond British waters coming
before the Admiralty Division the practice of giving an enhanced
award if life and property were salved together would probably be
followêd.
125. The Court has no jurisdiction to award life salvage for

saving the lives of persons belonging to a foreign vessel not a
Prussian ship where the services to life were rendered outside
British waters, though the persons whose lives were saved were
transferred from the salving vessel on to another vessel which
brought them into an English port (/). On the other hand, the
Court has jurisdiction to award life salvage where the lives from
the foreign ship were saved by being taken on board the salving
ship outside British waters and carried on board that ship into an
English port (g).
" British waters " mean waters within the territorial limits of the
United Kingdom, i.e., in ordinary cases waters within the distance of
three miles from the coast {h) .
(a) The Veritas, [1901] P. 304, at p. 311.

(b) TheRenpor (1883), 8P D. 115.
(c) See The Cargo ex Schiller (1877), 2 P. D. 145, where the property saved
was recovered by divers long after the life services were rendered.
(d) See Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), ss. 544 et seq.
(e) The date of the Order is April 7, 1864.
( f)
The Willem III. (1871), L. E. 3 A, & E. 487.
(g) The Pacific, [1898] P. 170; The Fulham, [1898] P. 206, at p. 213; The
Cairo (1874), L. E. 4 A. & E. 184.
{h) See The Johannes (1860), Lush. 182 ; The Leda (1856), Swa. 40.
— . ;
126. Salvage in respect of the preservation of life is payable in Sect. ii.
priority to all other claims for salvage (i). Salvage.
Priority of
Sub-Sect. 2.— Salvage of Property. life salvage.
127. Originally the Admiralty Court had no jurisdiction over Salvage

claims for salvage of property unless the services were rendered on wherever
the high seas (A), but the jurisdiction has been extended by statute rendered
to include all claims for salvage of property within the body of a
county (/).
128. Neither under the inherent jurisdiction derived from the Services must
Court of Admiralty nor under the statutory additions to its juris- be rendered
to ship, or
diction has the iVdmiralty Division jurisdiction in an action of cargo etc.
salvage to enforce payment of salvage remuneration for services ren-
dered to any property other than a ship, her cargo or apparel or any
other things belonging to her or to her lading, including freight.
Thus salvage remuneration cannot be recovered for services rendered
to a raft of timber which has not formed part of the cargo of a
ship {m), or to a structure afloat on the water, not used in naviga-
tion but for storing gas to be used in a lamp erected on the structure
for the purpose of lighting a tidal river (n)
129. Not only the owners of salved property, but other persons Persons liable
directly interested in the preservation of the salved property, may, claim for
under the above provisions as to jurisdiction, be liable to an action

of salvage inpersonam for the purpose of enforcing payment of the
salvage remuneration due as, for example, where stores belonging
;
to the Crown in the possession of charterers under bills of lading not

exempting the charterers from liability for negligence were salved,
and the charterers were held liable to pay salvage remuneration (o).
130. No claim can be allowed in any salvage suit for any loss. Claim on
damage or risk caused to any of His Majesty's ships, or to the stores, behalf of
tackle or furniture of any such ship, or for the use of any stores or ^^cfews^^^^
(/) Merchant Shippino; Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), a. 544 (2).
(/v) Raft of Timher (1844), 2 W. Eob. 251.
(0 Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 565.
{m) Raft of Timher, supra.
(n) WeUs y. Owners of Gas Float WliHton No. 2, [1897] A. 0. 337. Whether,
however, this decision would be applicable to cases where, no owner appearing
within a year and a day, similar structures to the Oas Float Whitton No. 2 would
be the sub j ect of condemnation as Admiralty droits to the Crown, may be doubted
and probably in such cases the persons who rendered the salvage services would
be held entitled to be rewarded on salvage principles out of the proceeds of the
structures salved. Otherwise, would the Crown be entitled to the droit of
Admiralty without any pavment to the finders at all ? On this point see Stacpoole
V. R. (1875), L. R. 9 Eq. Ir. 619, where it was held that logs of timber found
floating in the sea were droits of Admiralty and not wreck. See also Williams
and Bruce, 3rd ed. p. 127 n., where many instances of property, other than
the property which the House of Lords has declared to be the subject of salvage,
are referred to as being salved and condemned as droits of Admiralty after
salvage had been paid to the salvors. See also an article entitled "Admiralty
Droits and Salvage," by E. G. Marsden, Law Quarterly Eeview, Vol. XL.,
pp. 353_366.
^^(o) TAe Cargo ex Fort Victor, [1901] P. 243. See Five Steel Barges (1890),
—
76 Admiralty.
Sect. 11. other articles belonging to His Majesty supplied in order to effect
Salvage, salvage services, or for any other expense or loss sustained by His
Majesty by reason of such services, and no claim for salvage services
by the commander or crew or part of the crew of any of His Majesty's
ships will be finally adjudicated upon unless the consent of the Lords
Commissioners of the Admiralty to the prosecution of that claim
is proved. If a claim is prosecuted and the consent is not proved,
the claim will stand dismissed with costs (p).
Distribution 131. A
power of distributing amongst the salvors the amount of
of salvage
j^]^^ remuneration awarded in salvaere suits was always
galvao'e
incident to the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court actions of m
salvage, and is now provided for by statute (q).
lioyaifish. 132. Kemuneration in the nature of salvage is payable to the

captors of royal fish (whales and sturgeons), and is recoverable
in the Admiralty Division in an action of salvage (r).
Disputes as to 133. Disputes as to unclaimed wreck, jetsam, flotsam, ligan (s),

wreck etc.
derelict found in or on the shores of the sea or any tidal
water {t), may be brought before the Admiralty Division and there
determined {iv).
Sect. 12. Droits of Admiralty.
Unclaimed 134. The jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty to con-
wreck etc.
demn as droits of Admiralty unclaimed wreck, flotsam, jetsam,
ligan and derelict found in or on the shores of the sea or any tidal
water, as well as derelict found on the high seas beyond the limits
of the United Kingdom, is vested in the Admiralty Division (a),
but no necessity for the exercise of the jurisdiction can ordinarily
arise, as droits of Admiralty in time of peace are dealt with by the
receiver of wreck of the district (/-»), or by the Board of Trade as
Eeceiver-General of Admiralty droits (c).
Piracy cases. The High Court of Admiralty possessed an inherent jurisdiction
to adjudicate in a case of piracy as to the restitution of goods taken
piratically on the high seas and to condemn the goods belonging to
pirates to the Crown as droits of Admiralty and such jurisdiction
;
is now exercised by the Admiralty Division {d).
{p) The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), s. 557.
[q) Ibid., s. 556.
(/•) The Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports
v. TJte King in His Office of Admiralty
(1831), 2 Hag. Adm. 438, 441.
(s) As to the meaning of these terms, see Sir Henry ConstuUes Case (1601),
5 Co. Eep. 106 a The Gas Flout Whitton No. 2, [1896] P. 42, at p. 51.
;
{t) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), s. 510.
(w) Ibid., s. 526.

(a)See The King v. Property Derelict (1825), 1 Hag. Adm. 383 The King v. ;
Forty-nine Casks of Brandy (1836), 3 Hag. Adm. 257. As to wreck found or

taken possession of outside the limits of the United Kingdom, and brought
within those limits, see Merchant Shipping Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 48), s. 72.
{b) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), ss. 524, 525.
(() See Merchant Shipping Eepeal Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Yict. c. 120;, s. 10.
{d) See Co. Litt. 391 a; The Hercules (1819), 2 Dods. 353; Badly v. Eglesfield
(1671), 1 Yentr. 173; Prinston v. The Admiralty (1615), 3 Euls. 147 The Panda ;
(1842),^ 1 W. Eob. 423. See also The Telegrafo or Bestauracion (1871), L. E. 3

P. C. 673.
— —
The Admiralty Division has also a statutory jurisdiction (e), trans- Sect. 12.
ferred from the High Court of Admiralty, over maritime property Droits of
recaptured from pirates (/) by His Majesty's vessels, and may con- Admiralty,
demn such property as droits of Admiralty or restore it to its
owner, if a British subject, on payment by him of one-eighth of
the value of the property by way of salvage remuneration.
Sect. 13. Forfeiture.

135. The Admiralty Court ahvays exercised jurisdiction over illegal
persons who had infringed the ordinances or proclamations issued colours,
by royal authority with regard to the colours to be worn by merchant

ships ((/), and this jurisdiction is now exercised by the Admiralty
Division, Avhich also has certain statutory powers with reference to
the same subject.
136. The Admiralty Division has under these powers a statutory improper
jurisdiction to impose fines for the improper use of the British use of
national flag.
national colours on board a ship belonging to a British subject iji).
The fines are recoverable from the master or owner, if on board,
and from every other person hoisting the colours Qi).
137. The Admiralty Division also possesses a statutory jurisdiction Concealment
to condemn as forfeited to His Majesty any ship or interest therein of national
the owners of which have incurred forfeiture by the infringement of
certain provisions (i) relating to the improper use of the British flag
on board a ship owned in whole or in part by a person not qualified {j)
to own a British ship, or to an improper concealment by the master
or owner of a British ship of her national character. Any interest,
legal or equitable, in a British ship acquired by a person unqualified
to own a British ship is also subject to forfeiture under the Act {k).
138. The corresponding provision contained in the repealed Position of

Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (Q provided that if the offences specified
,
bona fide
therein were committed the ship should he forfeited and the Court ;
on^fo^feiture
of Appeal decided {m) that under this language the forfeiture accrued
immediately upon the commission of the offence, so that no sale of
the ship or other dealing with it would be of any avail against the title
of the Crown. The sections in the Act of 1894, which take the place
of sect. 103 of the Act of 1854, enact that on commission of the
offences specified therein the ships concerned are subject to forfeiture
under the Act. It is doubtful, in the face of the decision above-men-
tioned (m), whether the result of introducing the words subject to
(e)Judicature Act, 1873, and The Piracy Act, 1850 (13 & 14 Vict. c. 26).
(/) For the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Division to ascertain whether persons
are pirates, see The Piracy Act, 1850 (13 & 14 Yict. c. 26), s. 2.
{g) See Reg. v. Ewen (1856), 2 Jur. (n. s.)454 The Minerva (1800), 3 Oh. Eob.
;
34; see also 3 Ch. Eob. Appendix No. ii., p. 13.

(A) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 73.
{i) Ibid., ss. 69, 70, 71. See also, as to forfeiture of ship improperly registered
as a British ship, Merchant Shipping Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 48), s. 51.
(./) For such qualification, see Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict,
c. 60), s. 1.
(/c) Ibid., s. 71.
(/) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 103.
(m) The Annandale (1877), 2 P. D. 218.
. — —
78 Admiralty.
Sect. 13. not be that the Court will have to uphold the title of a
forjeititre, will
Forfeiture. bond fide purchaser against the Crown, if the sale took place before
proceedings to condemn for the forfeiture had been commenced.
Dangerous 139. The Admiralty Division can, in common with other Courts
goods.
having Admiralty jurisdiction, condemn as forfeited any dangerous
goods sent or carried, or attempted to be sent or carried, on board
any vessel, British or foreign, without being properly marked, or
without a written notice having been given of the description of the
goods, or under a false description or with a false description of the
sender or carrier {n) .
Cases under 140. All proceedings for the condemnation and forfeiture of ships,
Foreign or of arms and munitions of war, in pursuance of the Foreign Enlist-
Enlistment
Act.
ment Act, 1870, are directed to be taken in the Court of Admiralty,
now the Admiralty Division, and not in any other Court. In such
cases the Admiralty Division has, in addition to any power granted
by the Foreign Enlistment Act, all powers over a ship or any other
matter brought before it which the Division has in the case of a
ship or matter brought before it in the exercise of its ordinary
jurisdiction (o).
Sect. 14. Booty of War and Petitions of Right.

Matters 141. The Admiralty Division hasjurisdiction to decide all matters
referred by
and questions concerning booty of war and the distribution thereof
Order in
Council. which may be referred to the Court by Order in Council {jp) and ;
in all matters so referred the Court proceeds as in cases of prize of

war, and its judgment is binding upon all parties concerned (^).
Petitions 142. A petition of right arising out of the exercise of any belli-
of right gerent right on the part of the Crown, or which would be cognizable
in a Prize Court wdthin His Majesty's dominions, and also any other
petition of right, whether instituted in the Court of Admiralty or
not, if the Lord Chancellor so directs, may be prosecuted in the
Admiralty Division {r).
Sect. 15. Slave Trade etc,
Special 143. The Admiralty Division possesses the jurisdiction conferred

statutory
on the Court of Admiralty in regard to the condemnation or restora-
jurisdiction.
tion of vessels, slaves, goods, and effects alleged to be seized, detained,
or forfeited under The Slave Trade Act, 1873 (s), and the enactments
incorporated with it, and in regard to bounties etc., and it also has
jurisdiction under the Pacific Islanders' Protection Acts, 1872 and
1875 {t), to enforce by the condemnation of the vessels engaged the
provisions of those Acts prohibiting the undue importing and
removal of natives of any of the islands of the Pacific Ocean.
{n) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), ss. 446—449.
(o) Poreign Enlistment Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Yict. c. 90), s. 19. And see title
Criminal Law and Procedure.
(p) Admiralty Court Act, 1840 (3 & 4 Yict. c. 65), s. 22.
Iq) The Bunda and Kirwee Booty (1866), L. E. 1 A. & E. 109; (1875), L. E.
4 A. & E. 436. See title Prize Law aistd Jurisdiction".
(r) Naval Prize Act, 1864 (27 & 28 Yict. c. 25), s. 52. As to petitions of
right generally, see title Crown Practice.
(s) 36 & 37 Yict. c. 88.
{t) 35 & 36 Yict. c. 19 ; 38 & 39 Yict. c. 51.
—— — .
Part II.— Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. 79
Sect. 16. Special Jurisdiction of Admiralty Registrar {ii) Sect. 1G.
Jurisdiction
Sub-Sect. 1. Substitutes for Seamen VoJunteering into the Navy.
of Admiralty
144. Merchant seamen belonging to British ships are allowed to Registrar.
leave their ships in order to enter the naval service of His Majesty, Repayment of
and ^yhere in consequence of a seaman leaving his ship and entering excess of
wages pay-
His Majesty's service it becomes necessary for the safety and proper able.
navigation of the ship to engage any substitute, and the wages
or other remuneration paid to the substitute for subsequent service
exceed the wages or remuneration which would have been payable
to the seaman under his agreement for similar service, the master
or owner of the ship may apply in the Admiralty Eegistry for a
certificate authorising the repayment of the excess {x).
145. Any such application may be made by summons or otherwise, How applica-
and either ex parte or upon service of motion on any person, as the

Court may direct (a). It is made to the Admiralty Kegistrar, who,
on receiving the application, gives written notice thereof, and of the
sum claimed, to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, and
proceeds to examine the application, and, if he considers that the
whole of the claim is just, gives a certificate accordingly if, however,;
he considers that the claim, or any part thereof, is not just, he

gives notice of his opinion in writing under his hand to the person
making the application, or his solicitor or agent, who may within
sixteen days from the giving of the notice leave at the Admiralty
Eegistry a written notice demanding that the application be
referred to the Judge otherwise the Registrar decides finally (5).
;
146. The Judge or Registrar (as the case may be) may, if he Costs of pro-
thinks fit, allow for the costs of any such proceeding any sum not
exceeding five pounds for each seaman in respect of whom applica-
tion is made, and that sum is then added to the sam authorised
to be repaid (c).
Sub-Sect 2. Costs in Vice-Admiralty Courts.
147. Any person aggrieved by the charge of any of the practi- Taxatiop.
tioners in any Vice- Admiralty Courts or by the taxation thereof,
may apply to the High Court of Admiralty of England, and there-
fore now to the Admiralty Division, to have the charges taxed and
the taxation revised {d). The taxation or revised taxation on any
application made under these provisions would be referred to the
Admiralty Registrar (e).
{u) For the general jurisdiction of the Admiralty Registrar in matters within
the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Division, see pp. 117 seq., post,
(x) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), ss. 195, 197.
\a) E. S. C. (Merchant Shipping), 1894, rule 2.
(b) Ihid., rule 3 (1)— (4).
(c) Ihid., rule 3 (6).
{d) Vice-Admiralty Courts Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Yict. c. 24), s. 19.
(e) See the Slave Trades Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 88), s. 20, which confers
on the Registrar of the High Court of Admiralty a similar power of taxation
and revising taxation of costs, charges, and expenses incurred in any proceeding
taken in any British Slave Court or any Mixed Commission or Court in His
Majesty's dominions.
—
80 Admiealty.
Part III. — Practice of the Supreme Court.

Sect. 1. Sect. 1. Actions in Rem.
Actions in Sub-Sect. I. — Writ of Summons in Rem..
rem
'
148. An Admiralty action in rem is commenced by a writ of
Issue of writ, summons in rem, prepared, as in other actions, by the plaintiff or
his solicitor {a) on the paper in use for printing the proceedings
in the Supreme Court of Judicature {h). The writ may be either
written or printed or partly printed (c), and must be issued {d) out
of the Central Office, Eoyal Courts of Justice, London, if it is
intended that the action should proceed in London (e), or in other
cases out of that one of the district registries of the High Court of
Justice in which
desired to institute the action (/).
it is There are
two forms one for issue out of the Central Office, and
of the writ,
the other for issue out of a district registry, and these must be
followed with such variations as circumstances may require {g).
Form of writ. 149. The form of the writ to be issued in London is headed " Writ
of Summons, Admiralty action in rem," and is directed, not to any
defendants by name, but, except in cases where the circumstances
require a variation (/<), to "the owners and parties interested in " the
property proceeded against (?). As a writ must specify the division
of the High Court to which it is intended that the action should be
assigned, and as Admiralty actions in rem are invariably in practice
assigned to the Admiralty Division, the writ should be entitled In
the High Court of Justice, Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division
(Admiralty)," and should state that an appearance is to be entered
in that Division to the suit of the plaintiff. In other respects than
those above noted the body of the writ is the same as the body of
a writ of summons in an action in any other Division of the High
Court ij). The form of the writ inan Admiralty action in rem for
similar to that issued out of the
issue out of a district registry is
Central Office, it is headed " Writ in
with the exception that
"
Admiralty action for issue from district registry (/c).
Endorsement. Before being issued the writ must be endorsed, as in other actions,
with a statement of the nature of the claim made, and of the relief
(ai E. S. C, Ord. o, r. 10.

[h] E. S. C, Ord. 66, r. 3.
(c) E. S. C, Ord. 0, r. 10. -
{d) E. S. C, Ord. 5, r. 11.

E. S.
(e) C, Ord.
5, r. 1.
(/) E. S. C, Ord. 5, r. 2. As to the Central Office, Eoyal Courts of Justice,

and the district registries, here referred to, see title Practice and Proceduee.
((/) E. S. C, Ord. 2, r. 7 and see E. S. C, Appendix A, forms 11, 12.
;
(h) As in co-ownership actions where the writ is directed to particular

persons.
The provision of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893(56 & 57 Vict,
(?)
c. 61), requiring any action against certain persons acting in execution of public
duties to be brought within six months of the act or default complained of, does not
apply to an action in rem [The Burns, [1907] P. 137); see title Action, p. 26, ante.
If) See title Practice and Procedure.
(k) It would, however, seem to be convenient that the heading of the writ
should state that it is a writ in rem.
— .
Part III. Practice of the Supreme Court. 81
(/), and the endorsement so made

in the action ^^^t. i:
or remedy required
should be to the effect of such one or more of the official forms Actions in
if none be found applicable, then of such ^^m.
as is or are applicable, or,
other similar concise form as the nature of the case may require {m)
150. The writ must be sealed by the proper officer of the writ Sealing,
and
department in the Central Office, or of the district registry where the stamping
action is pending, and a signed and completed copy stamped with a
stamp of 10s. be left with the officer and filed {n). If the writ has
issued out of the Central Office, the plaintiff or his solicitor must,
before taking any further step in the action, leave a copy of the
writ in the Principal Admiralty Eegistry (o).
151. By the practice of the Admiralty Division the owners of a Owners of
^^^^^
ship or cargo may sue as such, and this practice is in no way affected ^^^P
by the enabling provisions in the Kules of the Supreme Court (p) ^ch.^^^^^
relating to parties to suits (g), or to the joinder of causes of action (r).
But the Court may on the application of the defendant at any period
of the action call upon the solicitor whose name is endorsed on
the writ to state specifically by name the whole of the parties for
whom he is authorised to appear (s).
Sub-Sect. 2. Warrants of Arrest and Caveat Warrants.

152. Having duly procured the issue of the writ, the plaintiff Application
warrant,
or a defendant who counterclaims, or their respective solicitors, may,
even before service of the writ, apply at the Admiralty Eegistry if
the action is proceeding in London, or in the district registry
where the action has been commenced, for a warrant for the arrest
of the property against which the action has been brought (t).
The application for the warrant is made by filing a praecipe (a) Prsecipe for
for a warrant signed by the solicitor, or his clerk, of the party warrant,
applying, stamped with a 15s. stamp (b), and bearing date on the
day on which the warrant issues (c).
The warrant will not be issued until an affidavit by the party Affidavit to
applying or his agent has been filed {d), stating in all cases, unless lead warrant.
(/) E. S. C, Ord.
2, r. 1; Ord. 3, r. 1; E. S. C, Appendix A, Part III.
(Sect. Admiralty). It would seem that the claims should be claims
VI.,
over which the Court has jurisdiction in rem, and in an action of damage in
rem, where it was sought to join a claim in personam against the pilot of one
of the ships which came into collision, the Court, assuming it had jurisdiction
to join the pilot in an action im rem, refused to make an order for the pilot
to be joined, being of opinion that such an order would cause great inconvenience
{The Germanic, [1896] P, 84).
(w) E. S. C, Ord. 3, r. 3.
{n) E. S. C, Ord. 5, rr. 11, 12, 13 Ord. 61, r. 1. Order as to Supreme Court
;
Pees, 1884, Schedule, No. 1.

(o) SeeE. S. C, Ord. 5. r. 14.
[p] E. S. C, Ord. 16, r. 1 Ord. 18, r. 1

; Ord. 48a, r. 1.
;
[q) The Assiinta, [1902] P. 150.

(r) The Marechal Sachet, [1896] P. 233.
(s) The Whihlmine (1842), 1 W. Eob.
335,337; TAe îmwe (1871), L. E. 4
P. 0. 8 see also E. S. C, Ord. 7, r. 1.
;
{t) E. S. C, Ord. 5, r. 16. For form see E. S. 0., Appendix A, Parti., No. 17.
(a) For form, see E. S. C, Annendix A, Part I., No. 15.
{h) Order as to Supreme Court Fees,
1884, Schedule, No. 13.
(<) E. S. C, Ord. 67, r. 10.
{(1) The nature and date of filing of this affidavit, and every other affidavit or
H.L.— I. G
82 Admikalty.
Sect. 1. otherwise ordered, the name and description of the party at whose
Actions in instance the warrant is to be issued, the nature of the claim, the name
and nature of the property to be arrested, and that the claim has not
been satisfied further, if the action be one of wages or possession,
;
the affidavit must state the national character of the vessel proceeded
against, and, if it be against a foreign vessel, that notice of the
commencement of the action has been given to the consul of the
state to which the vessel belongs, if there be one resident in
London {e), a copy of the notice being required to be annexed to the
affidavit. Moreover, before the issue of the warrant in an action of
bottomry, the bottomry bond and also, if it be in a foreign language,
a notarial translation thereof, must be produced for the inspec-
tion and perusal of the registrar, and a copy of the bond or of
the translation thereof certified to be correct should be annexed
to the affidavit (/). The Court or a judge (g) may, however, if it
is thought fit, allow the warrant to issue, although the affidavit (li)
may not contain all the required particulars, and may waive in an
action of wages the service of the notice, and in an action of
bottomry the production of the bottomry bond (i).
Exempted 153. Ships engaged in postal service and subsidised for the
mail ships.
execution of that service within the meaning of a convention with a
foreign state to which the Mail Ships Act, 1891, applies, by reason
of receiving from the foreign state or from the Government of the
United Kingdom or of a British possession a bond fide subsidy for
a specified postal service are, if their owners have given and
maintain in the Admiralty Eegistry sufficient security {j), and proper
document filed in Admiralty actions, must be stated on a printed form called a

minute to be obtained in the Admiralty Eegistry. This is retained in the
registry, and is used to enter up a book called the minute book kept there and
containing a record of all such minutes, of all actions commenced and appear-
ances entered, and of all orders of the Court (R. S. C, Ord. 66, rr. 8 and 9).
A stamp of 5s. is to be paid on every " minute " in Admiralty actions, for every
instrument or document to which the minute relates (other than an exhibit or
any instrument or document previously issued from the registry or the
marshal's office) unless otherwise provided (Order as to Supreme Court Tees,
1884, No. 35).
(e) See The Ooluhchick (1840), 1 W. Eob. 143, at p. 154; The Herzogin Marie
(1861), Lush. 292 The Nina (1867), L. E. 2 A. & E. 44, at p. 52.

;
(/) E. S. C, Ord. 5, r. 16. The rule also makes provision for an affidavit to
lead warrant in an action of distribution of salvage, but the rule only applies to
actions in rem, and no such affidavit is ever filed in an action of distribution of
salvage, which is an action in personam.
(y) E. S. C, Ord. 5, r. 17. Jurisdiction is given by these words both to the
judge in Court and in chambers, and with certain exceptions specified in
E. S. C, Ord. 54, r. 12, to the registrar in chambers. See also the Judicature
Act, 1873, s. 39 Baker v. Gates (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 171, at p. 175.
;
(h) Be B., [1892] 1 Ch. 463.

(r) E. S. C, Ord. 5, r. 17. Forms of affidavits to lead warrants in a
cause of restraint and a cause of possession are to be found in the Supreme
Court Eules of 1883, Appendix A, Part L, Nos. 13 and U. The strict
practice of the Admiralty Court, whereby in a bottomry suit the bond had
to be brought in before its validity would be pronounced for {The Bowena
(1877), 26 W. E. 82), may have been aifected by the discretion given by this
rule.
(/) Mail Ships Act, 1891 r54 & 55 Yict. c. 31), s. 3, amended by Mail Ships.
Act, 1902 (2 Edw. 7, c. 36), s! 1.
—
Part III. Practice of the Supreme Court.
notice has been given by the Board of Trade (k) exempted from 8^^^^. i
,
arrest and entitled to the privileges of exempted mail ships (/). Actions
rem.
154. The warrant is ordinarily issued as of course, unless a
caveat against an arrest is entered. A party, by filing a notice called ^g^^^g*
a precipe for a caveat warrant signed by himself or his solicitor arrest,
undertaking to enter an appearance in any action which may be
commenced against the property the arrest of which it may be desired
to prevent, and undertaking to give bail in such action in a sum
not exceeding an amount stated in the notice or to pay such sum into
the Admiralty Eegistry, may cause a caveat against the issue of a
warrant for the arrest of such property to be entered in the Principal
Admiralty Eegistry in a book kept there and called the Caveat
Warrant Book (m). The due entry of a caveat warrant in the Caveat
Warrant Book does not prevent a warrant being taken out for the
arrest of the property mentioned in the notice, but the party at
whose instance any property in respect of which a caveat is
entered is arrested is liable to have the warrant discharged and to
be condemned in costs and damages unless he shows to the satis-
faction of the judge good and sufficient reason for having taken out
the warrant (/i). It is therefore advisable before taking out the
warrant to make a search for six months back (o) in the Caveat
Warrant Book at the Principal Admiralty Eegistry, or, if the action
is proceeding in a district registry, the district registrar should be
requested to ascertain from the Principal Admiralty Eegistry
whether or not any caveat has been entered against the issue of
a warrant for the arrest of the property proceeded against (p).
These precautions are the more necessary because a plaintiff
who, after the entry of a caveat warrant and before bail has been
put in, takes out a warrant of arrest, may be condemned in costs
and damages notwithstanding that the property before it was
arrested was not under the control of the Court and was free to
leave the jurisdiction at any time (q).
(Jc) The Mail Ships Eules, 1892 (Feb. 27, 1892), printed in Statutory Eules
—
and Orders for 1892, pp. 741 751.
(/) See Mail Ships Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 31), s. 5.
(m) E. S. C, Ord. 29, rr. 11, 12. The form of the notice or praecipe is to be
found inE. S. C., Appendix A, Part II., No. 18. See also E. S. 0., Appendix A,
Part II., No. 19, for the form of the praecipe to withdraw the caveat.
E. S. C, Ord. 29, r. 18.
(o) See E. S. C, Ord. 64, r. 15, whereby in Admiralty actions a caveat,
whether against the issue of a warrant, the release of property, or the pay-
ment of money out of the Admiralty Eegistry, shall not remain in force for more
than six months from the date thereof.
( p)
The district registrar is bound to make the inquiry, unless the party insists
on the warrant being issued notwithstanding a caveat (E. S. C, Ord. 29, r. 13).
{(/) The Crimdon, [1900] P. 171. The attention of the Court does not seem
to have been drawn to the point that, as no bail had been given, the plaintiff
in arresting the property was only exercising the ordinary right given him
by the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of preventing the property being removed
out of the jurisdiction before bail had been given, and that by construing
Ord. 29, r. 18, as enabling the Court to condemn the plaintiff in costs and
damages in these circumstances, the rights of the plaintiff were affected under the
authority of what is only a rule of procedure. See British South Africa Compamj
V. Companhia de Mozambique,
[1893] A. C. 602, per Lord Herschell, at p. 628.
The scope of the rule, as a rule of procedure, in altering the older practice of
G 2
.
84 Admiralty.
Sect. 1.
155. It would seem that by signing a praecipe for a caveat
Actions in warrant in the form given in the Eules of the Supreme Court with-
rem. out quahfication, a sohcitor renders himself personally hable to perform
Undertaking the undertaking contained in the praecipe, and that where such an
in the undertaking has been given the plaintiff is entitled to have a reason-
prgecipe for able opportunity of seeing whether he ought to accept it or not if it is ;
caveat
warrant. not a satisfactory undertaking, and for good and sufficient reason he
does not accept it, he will not be condemned in costs and damages
for taking out a warrant for arrest (7-).
Service of 156. If the solicitor for the plaintiff ascertains that a caveat
writ where
caveat
warrant has been entered in the Caveat Warrant Book against the
warrant arrest of the property against which the plaintiff is proceeding, he must
entered. forthwith serve a copy of the writ of summons (verifying the service
by affidavit) upon the party on whose behalf the caveat has been
entered, or upon his solicitor (s)
Bail in pur-
157. Within three days from the service of the writ or copy
suance of
undertaking. thereof the party on whose behalf the caveat has been entered
must, if the sum in respect of which the action is commenced does
not exceed the amount for which he has undertaken, give bail in
such sum or pay the same into the Admiralty Eegistry or into
the district registry where the action is proceeding (t) and after ;
the expiration of twelve days from the service of the writ or copy
thereof, if such bail has not been given or such sum not paid into
the registry, the plaintiff's solicitor may proceed with the action
by default, and on filing his proofs in the registry may have the
action placed on the list for hearing («).
Judgment 158. If when

the action comes before the judge in Court he is
against party
satisfied that theclaim is well founded, he may pronounce for the
where under-
taking not amount appearing to be due and may enforce the payment thereof by
performed. attachment against the party on whose behalf the caveat was entered,
and by the arrest of the property if it then be or thereafter come
within the jurisdiction of the Court (b).
Service of 159. If no caveat warrant has been entered or if it is desired to
warrant.
have the property arrested notwithstanding the entry of a caveat
warrant, the plaintiff or his solicitor must after the warrant has
been issued if the action is proceeding in London leave it, together
with a notice or praecipe (c) stamped with an impressed stamp of
the Admiralty Court and preventing parties from using the process of the Court
to rearrest unvecessarily property which was already under arrest in other actions,
is shown by Tin- Europa (1M49), 13 Jur. 856.
(r) The Orimdon, [1901)] P. 17 1.
[s) E. S. C, Ord. 29, r. 14.
(t) E. S. C, Ord. 29, r. 15. As to bail, see p. 90, post,
(a) E. S. C, Ord. 29, r. 16; and see p. 100 post,
{b) E. S. C, Ord. 29, r. 17. It is to be observed that the attachment is to
be against the party on whose behalf the caveat had been entered, and that
nothing is to be found in the rule as to the attachment of a solicitor who may have
signed the undertaking to put in bail.
(c) E. S. 0., Ord. 67, r. 13.
—
Part III. Pe actio e of the Supreme Court. 85
^2 the execution of the warrant,

(d) for m
the Admiralty Marshal's Sect. l.
office for servicehj him or his snhstitntes, whether the property to be Actions in
arrested be situate within the port of London or elsewhere within the rem.
jurisdiction of the Court (e). If the action is in a district registry the
warrant has also to be served by the Admiralty Marshal or his sub-
stitutes, but in practice no delay takes place, as the collector of
customs at the port w^here the vessel or other property to be
arrested is situated acts as a substitute of the Admiralty Marshal,
and wall on the application of the solicitor taking out the warrant
effect the service and arrest required.
160. The detainer of a vessel or other property in consequence Detainer by

by telegram is not unusual, and the disregard of a telegram,
of directions sent
notice by telegram from the Admiralty Marshal that a warrant has
been issued against property and that the property is not to be
removed is a contempt of Court (/).
161. Where the solicitor of the defendant agrees to accept service Undertaking
and put in bail or to pay money into Court in lieu of bail no service
to appear etc.
of the writ or warrant is required {g), and where a solicitor has

given such a written undertaking and neglects to enter an appear-
ance or put in bail or pay money into Court in lieu of bail, he is
liable to attachment unless his authority to act as solicitor has
been withdrawn {h).
162. Service of the warrant, if required, may be effected within Mode of

twelve months of its date (?*), either in the day-time or night-time, effecting ser-
and, if necessary, on a Sunday, Good Friday, or Christmas Day (k),

and if the property to be arrested is a ship, freight, or cargo on
board, must be effected by nailing or affixing the original warrant
for a short time on the mainmast or on the single mast of the
vessel, and on taking off the process leaving a true copy of it
nailed or fixed in its place (/). If the cargo has been landed or
transhipped, service of the warrant to arrest the cargo and freight
is to be effected by placing it for a short time on the cargo,
and on taking oft' the process by leaving a true copy upon it ;
if the cargo be in the custody of a person who will not permit

access to it, the service may be made upon the custodian {m) After .
the service of the warrant has been effected, the property arrested,
whatever be its value, remains in the custody of the Court until
the action is determined or the property is released by a release
duly issued from the registry either on the warrant being with-
drawn by the plaintiff's solicitor, which may be done before
(d) Order as to Supreme Court Pees, 1884, Schedule, No. 92. Order as to Fees
and Percentages, July 4, 1884, Schedule, " In the Admiralty Marshal's Office."
(e)E. S. C, Ord. 9, r. 11.
(/) The Seraglio (1885), 10 P. D. 120.
{g) E. S. C, brd. 9, r. 10.
{h) E. S. C, Ord. 12, r. 18; The Anna and Bertha (1891), 64 L. T. 332; and
compare Re IMy, [1901] 1 Ch. 467. As to practice on attachment, see title
Contempt and Attachment, post.
(V) E. S. 0., Ord. 67, r. 11.
m E. S. C, Ord. 67, r. 12.
{I) E. S. C, Ord.
9, r. 12.
(m) E. S. C, Ord. 9, rr. 13, 14.
86 Admiralty.
Sect, 1. appearance or on bail being put in or money paid into Court in

iii),
Actions in lieu of bail. A

ship-keeper is put in possession under the authority
rem. of the Admiralty Marshal during the time a ship is under arrest (o),
and any person breaking the arrest or interfering with the property
whilst under arrest is guilty of a contempt of Court and liable to
attachment {j)).
Verification 163. The service of the warrant is verified by the certificate of the
of service of
Admiralty Marshal, or his substitute who effected the service,
warrant.
indorsed on the warrant [q) and within six days of the service the
;
original warrant bearing the indorsement must be returned to the

Admiralty Eegistry or the district registry out of which it issued,
and be filed there with the usual minute by the solicitor who took
it out (?•).
Removal of 164. If during the time the property remains under arrest it has to
property
under arrest.
be removed to another place than that where it was arrested, or if
cargo has to be unladen from a ship under arrest, a summons must
be taken out before the Judge in chambers or the Eegistrar, who
will issue a commission of removal or a commission of unlivery, as
the case may be. In some cases the issue of a formal commission
will be dispensed with, the Admiralty Marshal acting on a copy
of the order made on the summons (s).
Service of 165. The time for judgment in actions where there has been default
writ.
in appearance is counted from the date of the service of the writ (i),
and accordingly the writ, which may be served by the plaintiff's
solicitor or any person on his behalf {a), should be served as soon as
possible after it has issued, unless the defendant's solicitor agrees
to accept service (h). In practice a convenient opportunity for
service occurs as soon as the Admiralty Marshal or his substitute has
entered into possession under a warrant. The writ is served on ship,
freight, or cargo in the same manner as above mentioned in the
case of the service of a warrant (c) but where the action is against
;
proceeds in Court it is served on the Eegistrar or district registrar {d) .
Verification Service on the Eegistrar need not be verified (e) but in all other
;
of service.
{n) E. S. 0., Ord. 29, r. 2.

(o) By the Order as
Supreme Court Fees, 1884, No. 98, a Court fee of os. per
to
day is Admiralty Marshal's office "on retaining possession of a
to be paid in the
ship with or without a cargo, or of a ship's cargo without a ship, to include the
cost of a ship keeper if required."
{f) The Seraglio (1885), 10 P. D. 120; The Armenian, Admiralty Court,
March 1874 (unreported)
20, The Barmonie {184:1), 1 W. Eob. 179; The Bare
;
(1850), 14 Jur. 1123 The Mathests (1844), 2 W. Eob. 286, at p. 288.

;
iq) E. S. C, Ord. 67, r. 14 The SoUs (1885), 10 P. D. 62, 64.

;
(r) E. S. C, Ord. 9, r. 11.

(s) See " Admiralty Procedure against Merchant Ships and Cargoes etc.," by
E. G-. M. Browne (Admiralty Marshal), 1887 edn., pp. 187-189. Where the issue
of a commission is not required, the only Court fees payable would be those for
the summons and order.
(0 E. S. C, Ord. 13, r. 12a.
(a) The SoUs (1885), 10 P. D. 62.
{h) E. S. C, Ord. 9, r. 10.
(c) See p. 85, ante.
(d) The Cassiopeia (1879), 4 P. D. 188.
(e) Proceeds of The Berengere, [1905] W. N. 18.
— —
Pakt III. Practice of the Supreme Court. 87
cases where the service has to be proved an affidavit of service Sect. 1.
must be made by the person who served the writ (/). The service Actions in
must be made within twelve months of the date of the writ {(/) and ,
rem.
if the writ is amended, which in a fit case may be done even after
judgment (//), the amended writ must be served in the same way as
an original writ (?)•
The writ, like writs of summons in other actions, must within
three days of service be indorsed with a proper memorandum of
service {k).
Sub-Sect. 3. Appearance hy Defendants.
166. Appearances by defendants in Admiralty actions may be Entry of

appearance.
either absolute or, where it is intended to object to the jurisdiction
of the Court, under protest (/), and are entered in the Central Office
if the action is proceeding in London {m), or in the district registry
whence the writ issued if the defendant resides or carries on busi-

ness in that district or chooses to appear there. Notice of an
appearance entered in the Central Office must be sent to the
Admiralty Eegistry(;0.
The owners of the property proceeded against and all persons Who may
directly interested therein may appear and defend, without filing an appear.
affidavit and showing their interest, at any time before judgment (o).
Further, any person not named in the writ may intervene in an
Admiralty action iti rem and appear on filing an affidavit show-
ing that he is interested in the res under arrest or in the fund
in the registry (jij) Such persons are mortgagees {q), trustees in
.
bankruptcy (r), underwriters who have accepted abandonment (s),

persons who have possessory liens (t), or competing maritime
liens (a), and generally persons who are plaintiffs in other actions
in rem against the same property (b).
If a defendant appear at any time after the time limited by the Appearance
more than
writ for appearance, i.e., eight days from the date of the service of
eight days
the writ, he is not, unless the Court or a judge otherwise orders, after service
of writ.
(7) E. S. C, Ord. 13, r. 12; Ord. 67, r. 14.

if/) E. S. C, Ord. 67, r. 11.
(h) The Dictator, [1894] P. 304.

(i) The Cassiopeia (1879), 4 P. D. 188.
(k) E. S. C, Ord. 9, r. 15 The Cassiopeia, supra, at p. 190.
;
(0 The Vivar (1876), 2 P. D. 29 Seward v. " Vera Cruz " (1884), 10 App. Cas.
;
59.
(m) E. S. C, Ord. 12, r. 2.
(n)E. S. C, Ord. 12, r. 3. Unless the protest is disposed of on motion the
proper course after the appearance under protest has been entered is for the
parties to enter into pleadings on protest.
(o) See E. S. C, Ord.
12, r. 22.
(p) E. S. C, Ord. 13, r. 24.
(q) The Regina del Mare (1864), Br. & L.
44 ;
m
OWenâ, [1894] P. 271.
(r) See The Riga
315, at p. 816: The Tagus, [1903]J P.
^
(1872), L. E. 3 A. & E. 516.

^
(s) Underwriters who have not accepted an abandonment have been allowed to
intervene on giving security for costs, see The Regina del Mare, supra.
[t) The Immacolata
Concezione (1883), 8 R D. 34, at p. 36.
(a) The Linda Flor (1857), Swa. 309 ; The Veritas, [1901] P. 304, at p. 308.
(J)) The Chioggia, [1898] P. 1, at 3; The Two Miens (1811) L. E. 3A. &E.,
p. ,
'34o, at p. 355.
—
. .
88 Admiralty.
Sect. 1. entitled to any further time for delivering his defence or for any
Actions in other purpose than if he had appeared according to the writ (c)
rem.
167. In an action in rem any person who has intervened and
Eemoval from appeared may, on giving notice to the other parties to
the suit, remove
district
registry by an action from a district registry as of right, subject to a rule
defendant that the Judge in Court or chambers, or the Eegistrar, may for
intervening-.
good cause order the action to proceed in the district registry
notwithstanding the notice (d),
Sub-Sect. 4. Release on Bail, Caveat Release and Caveat Payment.
Kelease. 168. As soon as appearance has been entered, or the solicitor for
the defendant has accepted service of the writ and undertaken to put
in bail {e) steps may be taken to obtain the release of the property
,
under arrest. For this purpose a release must be obtained, which

issues from the Admiralty Kegistry if the action is proceeding in
London, and in other cases from the district registry where the action
is proceeding (/)
Conditions of The application for this release is made in the same manner and on
obtaining
release.
payment of the same Court fees as on an application for a warrant {g) ,
but except by consent and on payment of the Admiralty Marshal's fees,

or by special order of the judge in Court or in chambers, the release
will not issue (a) unless the sum in respect of which the action has
been commenced has been paid into the registry Qi) or (b) unless, ;
in cases where cargo has been arrested for freight, an affidavit has
been filed as to the value of the freight and the amount of the freight
has been paid into the registry, or the judge is satisfied that it has
already been paid (i) or (c) in an action of salvage unless the value
;
of the res has been agreed or an affidavit of value filed unless the Court
or judge otherwise order (/c) or (d) in ordinary cases unless a bail
;
bond {I), signed by two sureties who have justified (m) in the sum in
respect of which the action has been"commenced, has been filed in
the registry.
Caveat 169. A release will not be granted if there is found to be a caveat

release.
against the release of the property outstanding in a book kept in
the Principal Admiralty Eegistry, London, called the Caveat Kelease
Book ill). Search must be made accordingly in the Principal
Admiralty Eegistry if the action is proceeding in London, or
(c) E. S. C, Ord. 12, r. 22.

{d) E. S. C, Ord. 35, rr. 13, 14.
(e) See p. 85, ante.
If) E. S. C, Ord. 29, r. 1. For form of release, see E. S. C, Appendix A,

Part II., No. 16.
{g) See p. 81, ante. A form of tlie notice or praecipe for the release is given
(E. S. C, Appendix A, Part II., No. 15).
(h) E. S. C, Ord. 29, r. 3.
(i) E. S. C, Ord. 29, r. 4.
(k) See The Seraglio (1885), 10 P. D. 120, 121.
{I) For form, see E. S. C, Appendix A, Part II., No. 13. For form of praecipe
for iDail bond,, see iMd,, No. 12.

(m) E. S. C., Ord. 29, rr. 5, 6. "Justified," i.e., filed affidavit of justification '
(E. S. 0., Ord. 12, r. 19).

{n) E. S. C, Ord. 29, r. 6.
— ,
information as to whether a caveat release is outstanding obtained ^'egt. i.
from the district registry where the action may be proceeding; and Actions in
a district registrar is bound to obtain such information from the ^6^-
Principal Eegistry by telegram or otherwise before he authorises
the release (o).
A caveat release is in force for six months (;>), and may be
applied for by a solicitor desiring to prevent the release of
any property under the arrest of the Court in the same way
and on payment of the same Court fee as in the case of a caveat
warrant {q). A party delaying the release of any property by
the entry of a caveat is liable to have the caveat overruled by
the order of the Judge in Court or in chambers, or the Registrar in
chambers, and to be condemned in costs and damages unless he
shows good and sufficient reason for having entered the caveat (?•)
and an objection to the sufficiency of bail which afterwards turns
out to be groundless is not a sufficient reason for entering a caveat
release (s).
170. The release when obtained must be left, together with a Procedure
praecipe,with the Admiralty Marshal or his substitute by the solicitor ^P^^ release,
who has taken it out(0, who must also at the same time pay the
possession fees and all other costs, charges and expenses attending
the care and custody of the property (/t)? and thereupon the property
will be released.
171. The value given in salvage cases in the affidavit of value above Affidavit of
referred to is the value of the salved property proceeded against ^^^^^ .
^^^^
according to the estimate of the defendants or other person making
the affidavit the affidavit cannot be contradicted by evidence at the
;
hearing, nor is the deponent allowed to be cross-examined on his

affidavit (a).
If the plaintiff considers the value stated in the affidavit of value to Commission
be incorrect his only course is to enter a caveat release and obtain an ^^^^^P^^^^^'
'
order from the Judge or the Eegistrar for a commission of appraise-
ment to ascertain the correct value. After this order has been
obtained, the commission of appraisement should be applied for in
the Admiralty Registry, or the district registry, as the case may
be (b). Unless the Court or a judge otherwise orders, the Admiralty
(o) C, Ord. 29, r. 9.

E. S.
(p) E. S. C, Ord. 64, r. 15.
(?) R. S. C, Ord. '29, rr. 7, 8. For form of praecipe, see E. S. C, Appen-
dix A, Part II., No. 17. For minute, see E. S. C, Ord. 66, r. 8; see also
Order as to Supreme Court Fees, 18S4, Schedule, No. 35.
(r) E. S. C, Ord. 29, r. 10. For form of praecipe to withdraw the caveat, see
E. S. C, Appendix A, Part II., No. 19.
(s) The Bon Eicardo
(1880). 5 P. D. 121.
(0 See E. S. C, Ord. 67, rr. 11, 12, 13,
(m) E. S. C, Ord. 29, r. 7. For form of praecipe for release, see E. S. C,
Appendix A, Part II., No. 15; of release, see ibid.. No. 16. For Court fees,
see Order as to Supreme Court Fees, 1884, Schedule, Nos. 94, 98, 100.
(a) See p. 88, ante; The Hanna
(1877), 3 Asp. M. L. C. 503.
{h) See E. S. C, Ord.
67, r. 10. Forprsecipe, seeE. S. C, Appendix Gc, No. 9.
For the Court fee payable, see Order as to Supreme Court fees, 1884, Schedule,
No. 13. The form of commission can be adapted from Form of Commission and
Sale,R. S. C, Appendix H, No. 16.
;
90 ACMIRALTr.
Sect. 1. Marshal or his substitute appoints valuers (c), whose appraisement

Actions in is conclusive, unless the judge in Court directs a further appraise-
rem. ment to issue (d).
The costs of the appraisement are in the discretion of the Court,
but where the appraised value is considerably more than the value
given in the affidavit of value, the costs of the appraisement are
usually ordered to be borne by the defendants (e).
If, owing to the property being out of the jurisdiction, valuers
cannot value the property, the Court may itself determine the
question of value at the hearing (/).
172. Bail may

be taken either before the Admiralty Eegistrar or a
district registrar, or before any commissioner to administer oaths
in the Supreme Court (g) who or whose partner is not acting as
solicitor or agent for the party on whose behalf the bail is to be
taken (// ) but in practice bail is always taken before a commissioner
;
for oaths, the Admiralty Eegistrar not interfering in matters as to

taking bail, unless, either on a summons or by order of the judge,
a report is made on the sufficiency of the bail, or the sureties are
cross-examined before him on their affidavits of justification (i).
The solicitor desiring to put in bail has, after filing a praecipe
as to the persons tendered as bail {k), to attend with the proposed
sureties before a commissioner for oaths, who will swear the sureties
to the truth of their affidavits of justification {I), and they then sign
the bail bond, which, except in an action of restraint (in which action
a special form is in use) (m), is in the same form in all Admiralty
actions in rem. By the bail bond the sureties submit themselves
to the judgment of the Court, and consent that execution shall issue
against them and their heirs executors and administrators if the
party for whom they are bail does not pay what may be adjudged
against him in the action with costs (n). The sureties to the bail
bond may not be partners (o).
Amount of 173. The amount entered in the bail bond as the amount for
bail. which the sureties make themselves liable should include an amount
sufficient to cover the costs of the action over and above the amount
claimed by the plaintiff. The amount, however, ought not to be too
(c) See E. S. C, Ord. 51, r. 14. Order as to Supreme Court fees, Schedule,
Nos. 13, 15, 94, 95, 100.
(d) The Oeorg, [1894] P. 330 The Cargo ; ex Venus (1866), L. E. 1 A. & E. 50
The Hohenzollern, [1906] P. 339.
(e) The Pavl (1866), L. E. 1 A. & E. 57.
(/) The Werra (1886), 12 P. D. 52.

(g) E. S. C, Ord. 12, r. 19.
(/?) E. S. C, Ord. 12, r. 21.
(*) For the form of report by the Admiralty Marshal as to the sufficiency of
bail, see E. S. C, Appendix A, Part II., No. 11, and as to the cross-examination
of the sureties on questions arisen as to their solvency, see The Bon Ricardo
(1880), 5 P.D. 121 TheFairport (1882), 8 P. D. 48, at p. 55.
;
(k)E. S. C, Appendix A, Part II., No. 9.

(0 E. S. C, Ord. 12, r. 19. Eor form of affidavit, see E. S. C, Appendix A,
Part II., No., 14.
(m) See The Rohert Dickenson (1884), 10 P. D. 15.
{n) See form of bail bond E. S. 0., Appendix A, Part II., No. 13.
(o) The Corner (1863), Br. & L. 161.
—
if the Court thinks that the amount of bail is excessive,

i.
large, as,
the party who has required the excessive bail may be ordered at Actions in
the hearing to bear the costs incurred by such demand over and
above the costs of the lesser amount of bail which ought to have
been put in (p). The bail represents the res {q), and if necessary
the party putting in bail may take out a commission of appraise-
ment to ascertain the value of the res. A commission or fee not
exceeding ^1 per cent, on the amount in which bail is given is pay-
able to each surety, and may be recovered as taxed costs in the
action {r).
174. After the bail bond has been signed in the manner above Objections to
sureties to
described, it must, together with the usual minute and a copy of the
bail bond.
notice of bail containing the names and addresses of the sureties and
the name of the commissioner before whom the bail was taken, verified
by affidavit, be filed in the Admiralty Eegistry or in the district
registry where the action is proceeding (s). But this cannot be
done, in the absence of consent by the adverse solicitor, until twenty-
four hours have expired from the time when such notice was served
on the adverse solicitor (t). From these provisions it follows that
where bail is put in the adverse solicitor has twenty-four hours
before the release can issue to take any objections to the sufficiency
of the sureties, and if necessary enter a caveat release. When a
caveat release is entered a motion before the judge in Court to
overrule the caveat enables the validity of the objections to the bail
to be determined (a). These delays with respect to the taking of
bail may be dispensed with by the consent of the solicitors in the
action (h).
175. The amount of bail put in in an action for damage by collision Amount of
where the owners are not privy to the collision may, whether the vessel ^^^^
^^tions"
be British or foreign, be reduced to the statutory amount for which
the owners are liable under the provisions as to limited liability
contained in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, together with interest
and costs (c) .
176. Money paid into Court in lieu of bail must, in actions Money paid
proceeding in London, be paid into the Law Courts branch of the ^^^^ <ômt.
Bank of England (d), and will not be paid out of Court without the
order of a Court or a judge {e).
If a solicitor desires to prevent the payment of money out of Caveat pay-
Court in an Admiralty action he may file a notice or praecipe for ment.
(p) The George Gordon (1884), 9 P. D. 46 ; The Chieftain (1863), 32 L. J. (adm.)

106.
(?) Tlie Kalamazoo (1851), 15 Jur. 885, 886.
{r) R. S. C, Ord. 12, r. 21 A.
(s) R. S. C, Ord. 12, r. 20.
(0 R. S. C, Ord. 12, r. 20. Por form of notice of bail, see R. S. C, Appen-

dix A, Part II., No. 9.
(«) See The Don Ricardo (1880), 5 P. D. 121 The Corner (1863), Br. & L. 161.
;
{h) R. S. C, Ord. 64, r. 10.

(c) 57 & 58 Vict. c.
60, s. 504; The Diichesse de Brahant (1857), Swa. 264;
The Sisters (1876), 1 P. D. 281.
{d) See Supreme Court Funds Rules,
1905, rr. 28, 29, 46.
(^) R. S. C, Ord. 22, r. 20.
— — ,
92 Admiralty.
Sect. 1. a caveat against the payment of the money (/), and thereupon a.
Actions in caveat against the payment of the money, called a caveat payment {g)
rem. which remains in force for six months, must be entered in a book to
be kept in the Admiralty Registry called a Caveat Payment Book {h).
Where a caveat payment has been entered, notice will be given to
the person at whose instance it has been entered before an order is
made for payment of the money out of Court, and a motion may
then be made in Court on behalf of such person to overrule the
caveat (i). If the question with regard to the payment out has been
settled by consent, the solicitor at whose instance the caveat
payment has been entered may withdraw it by filing in the Registry
with the usual minute a praecipe to withdraw the caveat (/c).
Arrests at 177. The provisions with regard to caveat warrants, caveat releases,
and payment into Court in lieu of bail apply equally
i"eleases, bail
d?fendants
to arrests at the instance of defendants as to arrests at the instance
of plaintiffs.
Sub-Sect. 5. Sale of Properiy imder Arrest he/ore Judgment.
Appraisement 178. Where property under the arrest of the Court is deteriorating
and sale. qj. gQQ(j reason should be sold before judgment, the judge may on
motion (Q, supported by affidavit, after notice to the parties interested
ifthey have appeared, or, if no appearance has been entered, on proof
of that fact by affidavit, and on a report of the Admiralty Marshal
as to the desirability of the sale, order the property to be forthwith
appraised and sold, and the proceeds brought into Court (m). On
such order being obtained the solicitor having the conduct of the
sale must take out from the registry where the action is proceeding
a commission of appraisement and sale (n), which will be executed
by the Admiralty Marshal or his substitute, as in the case of the
sale of property after judgment (o).
Sub-Sect. 6. Consolidation,
Consolidation 179. It is usual, in accordance with the practice of the High Court
of Admiralty {p), to consolidate pending actions of salvage against
damage^^^^^
actions.
(/) A Court fee of bs. is paid on the minute filing the notice ; Order as to
Supreme Court fees, 1884, Schedule, No. 35.
((/) R. S. C, Ord. 64, r. 15.
{h) E. S. C, Ord. 22, r. 21.
The MarJclaud (1871), L. E. 3 A. & E. 340, at p. 341.
(i)
See E. S. C, Appendix A, Part II., No. 19, for form of praecipe.

(k)
(/) The notice of motion must, where the action is proceeding in London, be
filed in the Admiralty Eegistry three days before the hearing, and a copy of the
notice and affidavits must be served on the adverse solicitor before the originals
are filed (E. S. C, Ord. 52, r. 10).
(m) The Hercules (1885), 11 P. 1). 10 The Kathleen (181 4), L. E. 4 A. & E,
;
269, at p. 271.
(n) Eor form of praecipe for commission, see E. S. C, Appendix Gr, Part I.,
No. 9, Form of Commission. See E. S. C, Appendix H, No. 16. Eor Court fees,
see Order as to Supreme Court Eees, 1884, Schedule, Nos. 13, 15.
(o) See p. 99; post.
(p) See The Demetrius (1872), L. E. 3 A. & E. 523; The Wniiam Hutt (1860),
Lush. 25.
— ——
Part III. Peactice of the Sltpkeme Court. 93
the same property and cross actions of damage and wages Sect. i.
mid other actions are also frequently consolidated. The application Actions in
in either case should be made as soon as possible after the writs are rem.
issued. The conduct of the consolidated salvage actions is usually
given to the principal salvor. Where cross actions of damage are
consolidated the conduct is usually given to that party whose writ is
first issued.
180. Consolidation may

be ordered by the Court in its discretion Consolidation
without the and notwithstanding the objection of the ^^gg^^^^^
consent
parties (r) and if it becomes expedient after judgment has been parties
;
delivered to sever the consolidation, the Court will make an order and severing
consolidation,
to that effect, and thereupon the actions will proceed separately as
originally instituted (s).
181. If an order for consolidation of salvage actions contains a Order for

direction that a party may be represented at the hearing by separate ^ppg^J by
counsel, this does not preclude the Court from directing at the separate
hearing how the costs of and incident to the attendance of separate counsel,
counsel shall be borne (t).
Sub-Sect. 7. Preliminary Acts in Damage Actions.
182. In any action of damage by collision between vessels, unless Filing

the Court or a judge otherwise orders, the solicitor for the plaintiff acts^"^^^^^^
must within seven days after the commencement of the action, and the
solicitor for the defendant must within seven days after appearance
and before any pleading is delivered, file in the Admiralty Registry or
the district registry where the action is proceeding a Preliminary
Act, which must be sealed up and not opened until {a) the pleadings
are completed and a consent that the Preliminary Acts shall be
opened, signed by the respective solicitors, is filed in the Admiralty
Registry.
Each preliminary act must contain a statement of the following Contents,
particulars :
(a) The names of the vessels which came into collision and the
names of their masters.
(b) The time of the collision.
(c) The place of the collision.
(d) The direction and force of the wind.
(e) The state of the weather.
(f) The state and force of the tide.
(g) The course and speed of the vessel when the other was first
seen.
(h) The lights (if any) carried by her.
(i) The distance and bearing of the other vessel when first seen,
(k) The lights, if any, of the other vessel which were first seen.
iq) The Strathgarry, [18951 P. 264.

(r) Ibid.
The Helen R. Cooler (1871), L. E. 3 A. & E. 339.
{s)
The Longford (1881), 6 P. D. 60, 67.

(^)
(a) For Court fees, see E. S. C, Ord. Order as to Supreme Court
66, r. 8 ;
Fees, 1884, Schedule, No. 35.

. —
94 Admiralty.
Sect. 1. (1) Whether any

lights of the other vessel other than first seen
Actions in came into view before the collision.
rem. (m) What measures were taken, and when, to avoid collision,
(n) The parts of each vessel which first came into contact,
(o) What sound signals (if any), and when, were given,
(p) What sound signals (if any), and when, were heard from the
other vessel (b).
Opening of 183. The preliminary acts may by order of the Court be opened,
preliminary
acts.
and the evidence taken thereon, without its being necessary to deliver
pleadings, and in such case if either party intends to rely upon
the defence of compulsory pilotage, he should give notice in writing
to the opposite party within two days from the opening of the
preliminary act (c)
In actions of 184. Although the rule of Court as to preliminary acts applies

damage other- only to "actions of damage by collision between vessels" {d), the
wise than by
collision. practice of the Court of Admiralty required preliminary acts to be
delivered in all actions of damage, and accordingly this practice
may still have to be followed and preliminary acts filed in all
actions of damage, whether by collision between vessels or otherwise,
as for instance in actions of damage by owners of cargo against
vessels, or actions of damage arising out of collisions between
vessels and piers or telegraph cables {e).
Amendment. 185. Alterations or amendments will not be allowed in the pre-

liminary acts at the instance of the parties who have filed them, but
where a question in a preliminary act is insufticiently answered the
Court, on the application of the opposite party, may direct the
question to be properly answered and the preliminary act to be
amended accordingly (/).
Sub-Sect. 8. Pleadings.
Statement of 186. A statement of claim should be headed in the same way as a

claim.
writ of summons with the title of the action, and should also state
the date on which the writ was issued ig) More ample and detailed
.
forms are used in practice than those contained in Appendix C,

sects. 3 and 4, of the Eules of the Supreme Court. The material
facts of the case should be clearly set out in numbered paragraphs,
in as succinct a form as possible {h). No particulars of the amount
(&) See E. S. C, Ord. 19, r. 28 (R. S. C, 1883; E. S. C, August, 1898;

E. S. C, November, 1900).
(c) E. S. C, Ord. 19, r. 28.
Armstrong v. Gaselee (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 250.
[d)
See Admiralty Court Eules, 1859, r. 62
{€) E. S. C, Ord. 72, r. 2
; ; The
Secretary of State for India v. Heiuitt & Co., Ltd. (1888), 6 Asp. M. L. C. 384;
The Alexandra, ibid., note.
(/) The Miranda (1881), 7 P. D. 185; The Godiva (1886), 11 P. D. 20.
{g) See E. S. C, Appendix C, sect. 1.
(h) See title Pleading, post, and The Isis (1883), 8 P. D. 227 and, as to the
;
delivery of a further statement of claim, see The Rory (1882), 7 P. D. 117. It is,
however, customary for pleaders to embody as part of the statements of claim in
collision and salvage actions the statements as to the nature of the plaintiff's claim
contained in E. S. C, Appendix C, sect. YL, No. 5, and sect. III., No. 6,
,
respectively.
— — —
of damages claimed should be inserted, as all questions of damages ^'b^ct. i.
are ordinarily assessed by the Eegistrar, assisted by merchants (i). Actions in

The statement of claim should, ^yhere bail has been put in, claim rem.
judgment not only against the defendants but also against their bail,
and in cases ^Yhere the property is under arrest or the action is
against proceeds in Court, it should ask that the Court pronounce
for the damages and condemn the defendants and the property, or
the proceeds, as the case may be, in damages and in the costs.
A statement of claim should be delivered within twelve days from Time for
the appearance of the defendant (A;) unless the time is abridged by delivery,
order (/).
In default actions a statement of claim has to be filed in the in default
registry; this may be done at anytime before the hearing (vi). actions.
187. The principles of pleading applicable to a statement of Defence,

claim apply equally to a defence (//).
188. The plaintift' may, within six days of the delivery of the Reply,
—
defence which should be done wdthin ten days of the delivery of the
statement of claim, unless the time has been abridged or extended
or of the delivery of the last of the defences, deliver a reply without,
as in actions other than Âdmiralty actions, obtaining an order (o),
and the time for delivery of the reply may, as in the case of other
pleadings, be extended or abridged by an order of the Court or a
judge, or by consent {p).
Sub-Sect. 9. Cross Actions and Counterclaims.

189. Special provisions apply as to making arrests and giving Cross actions,
security where cross actions of damage have been instituted((7). Thus,

if in the principal cause the ship of the defendant has been arrested,
or security has been given by him to answer judgment, and in the

cross cause the sliip of the plaintiff (defendant in such cross cause)
cannot be arrested, and security has not been given to answer
judgment therein, the proceedings in the principal cause may be
suspended until security has been given to answer judgment in the
cross cause (?•)• These provisions have been held to apply in
favour of defendants setting up a counterclaim (s).
190. A defendant in an action in rem may set up a counterclaim Counterclaim

in iiersonam {t) ; and the Court has even refused to strike out a fctSn"*^
(0 See p. 117, pos^.

E. S. C, Ord. 20, r. 3.
(/) E.S. C, Ord. 64, r. 9.
C, Ord. 13, r. 12 A.
{m) R. S.
^
(n) The precedents of defence in Admiralty actions in tlie First Schedule
to the Judicature Act, 1875 (38 &
39 Yict. c. 77), are seldom of use. For the
general heading of defences, see R. S. C, Appendix D, sect. 1.
(o) E. S. C, Ord.23, rr. 1, 2.
(p) E. S. C, Ord.64, rr. 7, 8, 9.
{q) As to the consolidation of cross actions of
damage, see p. 92, ante,
Admiralty Court Act, 1861 (24 Yict. c. 10), s. 34.
(r)
(s) The Neiuhatth
(1885), 10 P. D. 33; see also The Rongemont, [1893] P. 275.
But the provision of course does not apply if the plaintiff is suing in personam,
{t) See The Neiuhattle,
supra; The Clutha (1876), 45 L. J. (adm.) 108.
—
96 Admiralty.
Sect. 1. counterclaim as embarrassing, although the plaintiffs were foreigners

Actions in who could not have been served with a writ of summons, and
rem. the counterclaim could, if the plaintiffs had so chosen, have been
tried by a jury {u).
Sub-Sect. 10. Payment into Court and Tender.
Payment 191. The ordinary rules as to payment into Court applicable in

into Court by- other divisions of the High Court apply in the Admiralty Division.
way of satis-
faction or Thus a defendant may before or at the time of delivering his defence,
with denial of or at any later time by leave of the Court or a judge, pay into Court
liability.
a sum of money by way of satisfaction {a) which shall be taken to
,
admit the claim or cause of action in respect of which the payment

is made, or he may, with a defence denying liability, pay money
into Court (b) which may be accepted in satisfaction of the claim
Tender by or refused, as the case may be(c). Further, in accordance with
act in Court.
the practice formerly prevailing in the Admiralty Court, a defendant
may, and in salvage actions frequently does, tender a sum of money
by act in Court, paying the amount of the tender into Court and
pleading the tender in his defence. When such a defence, coupled
with payment into Court, has been raised, and the tender is not
accepted, the plaintiff will only be entitled to receive out of Court
such an amount as the Court may find to be due, which may be a
smaller amount than the sum tendered (d).
Costs where 192. Where a tender by act in Court is accepted or is pronounced

tender
for by the Court after its refusal by the plaintiff, the plaintiff is
accepted.
generally given the costs of the action up to the time of tender, and
condemned in the costs subsequent to the date of tender (e) There .
may be exceptions to this rule, as where the Court pronounces for

the tender as adequate, but does not consider it to be liberal, and
orders each party to bear his own costs (/).
Notice of 193. The defendant, in order to obtain the advantage of these

tender.
rules of discretion as to costs, must, after paying the amount of the
tender into Court (cj), give formal written notice to the plaintiff,
separately from any pleading, that the amount tendered has been
so paid into Court, is tendered to him, and is enough to satisfy his
claim, whilst if the plaintiff' rejects the tender he must on his side
give formal written notice to the defendant of his rejection. The
defendant then in his defence pleads that the tender has been
made, and the plaintiff may state in his reply the facts as to its
rejection.
(w) The Cheapside, [1904] P. 339.

(a) E. C, Ord. 22, rr. 1, 2.
S.
ih) E. C, Ord. 64, rr. 7, 8, 9 Ord.
S. ; 67, r. 8.
(c) E. S. C, Ord. 22, r. 1 ;Ord. 22, r. 6.
_
Payment into Court with, a denial of liability was not admissible in salvage
suits until July, 1901, when the above rules were expressly made applicable to
Admiralty actions. See The Chiltonford, [1901] W. N. 48.
(d) The MoNa, [1894] P. 265.
(e)
(/)
Ig)
m
See The William Symington (1884), 10 P. D.
/:oiMs (1882), 7 P.'D. 199.
The Nasmyth (1885), 10 P. D. 41.
1,
— —
Sect 1
Sub-Sect. 11. Other InterJocufory Proceedinqs. . '
i
Actions in
194. Discovery may be
obtained either by means of the discovery rem.
of documents (//), or by means of interrogatories. The appHcation
iscovery.
for an affidavit of documents is generally made by the plaintiff
after the statement of claim has been delivered, by the defendant
after the defence has been delivered. In fit cases, however, dis-
covery may be obtained before the above steps have been taken (i).
Security for the costs of discovery is not ordered except on special
application {k).
195. As to interrogatories, they are seldom allowed in actions of interroga-

ô^'i^s.
damage (/) or of salvage, or in actions generally other than those
for damage to cargo. The rules of practice in the other divisions
of the High Court {m) as to interrogatories apply in the Admiralty
Division.
196. With regard to all motions which may be required in the Motions,
course of the proceedings in Admiralty actions, notice thereof,
together with the affidavits (if any) in support, must be filed in the
Admiralty Registry three days at least before the hearing of the
motion, unless the time is shortened by leave. A copy of the notice
of motion and the affidavits (if any) should be served on the adverse
solicitor before the originals are filed {n).
197. Summonses are usually heard before the Judge or Eegistrar Summonses,
or Assistant Eegistrar. Every summons must be served two clear
days before its return (o), but this time is frequently abridged.
Amongst summonses heard by the Judge are those for payment of
money out of Court {})), for review of a taxation of costs, for
postponement of an action in the list for hearing, for transfer of an
action from a county court, for removal of an action from or to
another Division of the High Court, and for leave to serve a writ
out of the jurisdiction (q).
All summonses are sealed in the Admiralty Kegistry if the action Sealing and
is a London action, and a filed copy stamped with a stamp of 3s. ^^^^S-
must be left there (r).

198. The examination of one or more witnesses before the Examination
hearing of an action is frequently necessary owing to the exigencies witnesses.
E. S.C., Ord. 31, r. 12.

(h)
See The Loch Maree, cited in Eoscoe, Admiralty Practice (3rd ed.), p. 340;
{i)
Vnion Bank of London v. Manhij (1879), 13 Ch. D. 239.

{k) R. S. C, Ord. 31, r. 26.
[l) This is so especially in actions of damage by reason that the preliminary acts
m many cases afford the information which would otherwise be furnished by

interrogatories. See The Radnorshire (1880), 5 P. D. 172 The Lsle of Cyprus
:
(1890), 15 P. D. 134.
Discovery, Ii^spection, and Ij^tereogatories.
(m) See title
R. S. C, Ord. 52, r. 10. For stamps, see Order as to Supreme Court Pees,
{n)
. 1884, Schedule, No. 52 and No. 35.
(o) E. S. C, Ord. 54, r. 4 e.
{p) E. S. C, Ord. 22, r. 20.

(?) E. S. C, Ord. 54, r. 12. As to the hearing of summonses on appeal from
the judge by a Divisional Court of the Admiralty Division, see The CoUingrove,
The Numida (1885), 10 P D. 158.
(r) Order as to Supreme
Court Fees, 1884, Schedule, No. 11.
H.L.— I. H
98 Admiralty.
Sect. 1. of seafaring life. Such examination sometimes takes place in Court,

Actions in as when the witnesses on one side can be heard, and the witnesses
all
rem. for the other side will be available within a short time. The usual
practice, however, is for an order to be obtained, on affidavit, for
the examination of certain witnesses before one of the standing
Admiralty examiners appointed by the Court (s), or before a special
examiner. Forty-eight hours' notice of the examination is usually
required by the order. The evidence of the witnesses examined is
taken down by a shorthand writer appointed for the purpose, and
a transcript of it is filed in the Admiralty Kegistry or the district
registry, as the case may be, by the solicitor having the conduct of
the examination, who is also required to file printed copies. The
evidence so filed is evidence in the action for all purposes.
Commissions. 199. If it is necessary to examine witnesses abroad, a summons
must be taken out commission (t), or for letters of
either for a
request (a). After the order for a commission is made the com-
mission is taken out of the registry. The commissioner is frequently
a British consul or vice-consul. The return made by the commis-
sioner of the execution of the commission, together with the
evidence taken under it, must be returned by him to be filed in the
Admiralty Registry if the action is proceeding in London, or in the
district registry where the action is proceeding (b).
Letters of 200. Leave to issue letters of request (c) may be obtained on

request. summons. The letters of request are prepared by the solicitor who
prepares the order, and left by him at the Admiralty Eegistry. They
are transmitted thence to the Foreign Office or the Colonial Office,
and thence returned to the Admiralty Registry.
Subpoenas. 201. Subpoenas in Admiralty actions are issued out of the
Admiralty Eegistry in the case of actions proceeding in London,
and in other cases out of the district registry where the action is
proceeding {d).
The any part of Great Britain or Ireland of any writ
service in
of subpoenaad testificandum or subpoena duces tecum issued in an
Admiralty Action is as effectual as if the same had been served in
England or Wales {e).
Filing 202. Every affidavit or other proof used in Admiralty actions,
affidavits and
including the proofs in default actions and references, must be filed
proofs.
in the Admiralty Registry in the case of London actions, and in other
cases in the district registry in which the action is proceeding. In
London actions and in actions in the Liverpool District Registry
(s) As to these officers of the Court, see Admiralty Court Act, 1840 (3 & 4
Vict. 66), s. 9, and the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 (24 Yict. c. 10), s. 28.
c.
{t) E. S. C, Ord. 37, r. 5. The fees payable on the issue of the commission
out of the registry are 15s. on the praecipe, and £1 for the commission. See
Order as toSupreme Court Eees, 1884, Nos. 13 — 15. For form of commission,
see E. S. C, Appendix J, No. 14. '
(a) E. S. C:, Ord. 37, r. 6 a.

{h) E. S. C, Ord. 38, r. 10.
fc) E. S. C, Ord. 37, r. 6 a Appendix K,
;
Forms 37 A, 37 b.
{d) For fees, see Order as to Supreme Court Fees, 1884, Schedule, No. 5.
(e) Admiralty Court Act, 1861 (24 Yict. c. 10), s. 21.
— . —
and other district registries where minute books are kept, the usual Sect. i.
minute must be filed with the evidence (/). The time for filing an Actions in
affidavit may be abridged or enlarged by order (g). rem.
It is usual in actions of damage or salvage for affidavits to be Extract from
brought in verifying extracts from the logs of the lighthouses or lighthouse
light vessels in the vicinity, showing the state of the weather or the logs-
direction of the wind at the time when the collision occurred or the
services were rendered, but occasionally the original logs have been
produced (li), and affidavits used for these purposes must be filed in
the usual manner {i).
Sub-Sect. 12. Hearing.
203. Default actions, both in cases where there is default in Default

appearance and where the defendant has made default in delivering actions,
a defence or in paying money into Court in pursuance of his
undertaking after the entry of a caveat warrant, are heard by
the judge in Court without the assistance of the Trinity Masters,
and on written proofs (k).
If the Court is asked to give judgment by reason of non- Judgment in
appearance, twenty-one days must have elapsed from service of the <êfault of
writ, and an affidavit of service and certificate of non-appearance
and a statement of claim must have been filed (Z). The judge may
then pronounce for the claim, with or without a reference to the
Admiralty Eegistrar or the Admiralty Eegistrar assisted by
merchants {m), and may at the same time order the property to be
appraised and sold, with or without previous notice, and the proceeds
to be paid into Court, or may make any order he may think just(n).
The decree in favour of the plaintiff's claim will be made without
prejudice to other claims against the property, and reserving all
questions as to the priority of such claims (o), such questions being
usually subsequently decided on motion or on a summons for
payment out of the amount to which a claimant is entitled. If a
reference to assess the amount due is ordered, it will usually be to
the Admiralty Eegistrar alone or to the Admiralty Eegistrar assisted
by one merchant. A Court fee of £2 must be paid when the action
is set down for hearing {p)
Where the decree orders the property to be appraised and sold,

the solicitor for the plaintiff must take out of the registry in which
(/) A stamp of 5s. is payable " on every minute on Admiralty actions pursuant
to E. S. C, Order 56, rule 8, for every instrument or document to which the
minute relates (other than an exhibit or any instrument or document previously
issued from the registry or the marshal's office), unless otherwise provided "
(Order as to Supreme Court Fees, 1884, Schedule, No. 35).
(y) E. S. C, Ord. 64, r. 9.
(A) See The Maria das Bores (1863), Br. & L. 27. As to coastguard logs, see
The Catherina Maria (1866), L. E. 1 A. & E. 53.
(i) See note (d),T,. 81, suprâ.
{k) E. S. C, Ord. 37, r. 2.

{I) E. S. C, Ord. 13, r. 12 a.
(m) The Court fee payable on the judgment is £1. See Order as to Supreme
Court Eees, 1884, Schedule, No. 57.
(w) E. S. C, Ord. 13, r. 13.
(o) The Africano, [1894] P. 141, at
p. 150.
(p) E. S. C, Order as to Supreme Court Fees, 1884, Schedule, No. 52.
100 Admiralty.
Sect. 1. the action is proceeding a commission of appraisement and sale, and

Actions in have it executed by the Admiralty Marshal or his substitute (g).
rem.
204. The service of a writ in rem upon property within the juris-
EfEect of diction of the Court is notice to all the world of the claim endorsed
service of
writ in rem.
upon the writ where, therefore, after the service of the writ in rem,
;
but before a warrant of arrest issued in the action had been served,
a foreign vessel proceeded against had left the jurisdiction without the
owners appearing, the Court, on the action coming on for hearing as
a default cause, pronounced for the plaintiff's claim with costs (r).
Judgment in If the defendant in an action in rem makes default in delivering
default of a defence, the plaintiff may on the expiration of ten days from the
pleading.
delivery of the statement of claim, and on filing an affidavit of non-
delivery of a defence, set down the action for judgment by default,
and on the action coming on for hearing accordingly, the above-
mentioned procedure will be applicable (s).
Where default 205. Similarly, where a caveat warrant has been entered, if the
in giving bail
party on whose behalf the caveat warrant has been entered does
after caveat
warrant not give bail in the sum mentioned in the praecipe for the caveat,
issued. or pay the same into the Eegistry, the plaintiff's solicitor may,
after the expiration of twelve days from the service of the writ of
summons in the suit, or a copy thereof {t), proceed with the action
by default, and on filing his proofs in the Eegistry may have the
action placed on the list for hearing {w). If the judge is satisfied at
the hearing that the claim is well founded, he may pronounce for
the amount which appears to him to be due, and enforce payment
thereof by attachment against the party on whose behalf the caveat
has been entered, and by arrest of the property if it then be or
thereafter come within the jurisdiction of the Court {a).
Contested 206. The hearing of contested actions where bail has been put in,
actions.
money paid into Court in lieu of bail, or the property proceeded
against left under arrest by the defendant, takes place before one
of the two judges of the Admiralty Division in the Koyal Courts in
London {h). The day for the hearing is fixed by the Eegistrar on
summons on the application of the plaintiff or the defendant, and is
arranged, so far as possible, to suit the convenience of the parties
and the movements of seafaring witnesses.
Trinity- 207. Where the action is an action of damage or an action of
Masters,
salvage, two of the Elder Brethren of the London Trinity House are
summoned, as of course, except when vessels belonging to the
Trinity House are concerned, to attend the hearing and give the
Court advice on questions of nautical skill and knowledge.
In actions other than actions of damage or salvage, or damage to
{q) See pp. 89, 92, ante.

(r) The NauWc, [1895] P. 121.
(s) E. S. C, Ord. 27, r. 11 a; Ord. 13, r. 11.
{t) See E. S. C, Ord. 29, r. 14.
{w) E. S. C, Ord. 29, r. 16.
(a) E. S. 0., Ord. 29, r. 17.
(b) A Divisional Court of the Admiralty Division may sit to settle important
points of law arising in Admiralty actions, see The Arina (1887), 12 P. D. 118 ;
The Collingrove, The Numida (1885), 10 P. D. 158.

— —
cargo, where nautical questions are involved, the Trinity Masters ^^ct. i.
will only be summoned at the request of the parties, or by order of Actions in

the Court or a judge made on summons. rem.
Trinity Masters only advise the judge on matters of nautical
^^^^
skill on which he desires information, and it is the duty of the judge, Trimty
having received that information, to exercise his own judgment, and Masters,
decide the case before him on his own responsibility (c) "Witnesses .
therefore may not be called to give evidence on questions of general

nautical skill in actions where the judge is assisted by the Trinity
Masters {d).
208. Notice of trial must be given
as in other actions, though Notice of
in practice day, as above stated, is always fixed.

a special
The notice must be filed in London actions in the Admiralty
Eegistry, and in other actions in the district registry where the
action is proceeding. It must be stamped with a stamp of £2
in London actions, that being the amount of the Court fee for
hearing (e). In the district registries, other than those of
Manchester and Liverpool, the same fee is payable in money. In
(c) The Magna Charta (1871), 1 Asp. M. L. C. 153 ; The Beryl (1884), 9 P. D.
137, 141.
(r?) The Kirhj Hall (1883), 8 P. D. 71, 75 ; The Si7' Bohert Feel (1880), 4 Asp. M.
L. C. 321 ; E. S. C, Ord. 36, r. 43.
Thefees payable to the Trinity Masters are as follows :
For hearing, in any action other than one in which salvage only is
(1)
claimed, £4 4s. per diem.
(2) For hearing, in any action in which salvage only is claimed, (i.) where there
is one set of pleadings, £2 2s. per diem (2) where there is more than one set
;
of pleadings, £4
per diem. 4s.
(3) If the part hearing of an action shall on any day end before the midday
adjournment, or shall commence after such adjournment, the Trinity Master
having in the latter case been engaged in a previous case, or not having been
in attendance before such adjournment, half the day fee shall be payable in
respect of such part hearing, provided that such half fee shall not be less than
£2 2s.
For hearing of any appeal, whether there be a cross appeal or not, to the
(4)
Divisional Court, in each case £3 3s.
(5) For attending to hear judgment when reserved, including consultation
with the judge or judges on the day on which judgment is given, £2 2s. For
consultation with the judge or judges on any day other than one on which the
action is heard or reserved judgment delivered, £2 2s.
(6) For attendance on any day when not called upon to sit in any action, half
the day fee shall be payable, provided that such half fee shall not be less
than £2 2s.
notice of attendance in any case has been given, and shall less than
(7) If
three days before the day of hearing have been countermanded, half the day
fee shall be payable, provided that such half fee shall not be less than £2 2s.
(8) Actions in which there are counterclaims, consolidated actions, and all
actions tried together, shall, for the purposes of these rules, be considered single
actions, the total fees being payable in equal parts on each action, unless the
judge shall otherwise order.
(9) In any case not falling within these rules, the fees to be paid shall be
fixed by the judge (Order, January, 1893).
These fees are recoverable as taxed costs between party and party, and are
^
in practice paid in the first place by the party recovering judgment on the
action or other proceeding, except in actions of damage where both vessels are
held to blame, or in actions where each party is directed to bear his own costs,
m which cases a moiety of the fees is paid by each party.
(e) E. S. C, Ord.
36, rr. 11—14. Order as to Supreme Court Fees, 1884,
Schedule, No. 52.
102 Admiralty.
Sect. 1. all cases where the hearing is attended by the Trinity Masters a
Actions in Court fee of 10s. is also payable in the registry in respect of the
rem. registrar writing for the attendance of the Trinity Masters (/).
Shorthand 209. The evidence of every witness examined orally in Court is

note of
taken down in shorthand by the official shorthand writer appointed
evidence.
by the Court or by one of his assistants, and a transcript of the
evidence so taken down is always available for the purposes of an
appeal (g).
Copies of 210. Ten printed copies of the pleadings in the suit and of any
pleadings.
evidence taken on commission or before an examiner or commis-
sioner are brought into the Admiralty Kegistry for the use of the
Court, the Trinity Masters, the Kegistry and the shorthand writers.
Inspection 211. Where Trinity Masters are present at the hearing of an

by Trinity action,and the judge considers it expedient that before the case is
Masters.
decided there should be an inspection of any vessel or property, the
Trinity Masters usually undertake the inspection and report the
result to the judge (Ji).
An application for an order for inspection
by the Trinity Masters
ought not to be made where the condition of the vessel can be
proved by the evidence of witnesses (i).
Amount of 212. Questions as to the amount of damages to be recovered in

damages not the action are not generally entertained by the judge at the hearing,
generally
decided in
and the evidence of the witnesses examined before him is accord-
Court. ingly generally confined to questions of liability, it being the usual
practice both in actions in rem and actions in personam to refer all
(/) Order as to Supreme Court Fees, 1884, Schedule, No. 54.

{(j) As to the correction of a mistake in the shorthand writer's transcript, see
The Knutsford, [1891] P. 219. The fees payable to the official shorthand writer
are as follows :
—
d.
For the hearing of any when
witnesses are examined,
collision case
such cases including cross actions or claims and counterclaims
For the second and following days
For the hearing of a salvage action where witnesses are called, first
day
For any subsequent day or where witnesses are not called
For hearing of two or more consolidated salvage actions where
witnesses are called for the claim having conduct, first day...
For each other claim
For each other claim if more than two ... 0 10
For any subsequent day for the claim having conduct 1 1
For each other claim 0 10
For attending to take a reserved judgment 1 1
For attending reference room, for each reference 1 1
Except where two ships have been held to blame, and the opposijig
claims are examined on the same day, for each claim ...
For a case called on in Court and settled before witnesses are called
For attending to take a judgment in Court of Appeal
For attending to take judgment on appeal to a Divisional Court, or
on a hearia'g in objection to the Eegistrar's report 0 10 6
The amount per folio payable in respect of a transcript of the shorthand
.writer's notes is M. a folio.
{h) Admiralty Court Act, 1861 (24 Yict. c. 10), s. 18.
0") The Victor Oovacevich (1885), 10 P. D. 40.
— ——
questions as to the assessment of damages to the Kegistrar, or to the Sect. l.
Eegistrar assisted by merchants, to report upon (/c). Actions in

Where, however, a question arises whether after a collision a I'em.
vessel has been wrongfully abandoned, the Court will sometimes

decide this point, though one affecting the assessment of damages,
at the hearing.
Sub-Sect. 13. Decree.
213. A
minute of the decree or judgment of the Court is entered Minute of
ê^^^^^-
in theminute book (/), a Court fee of ^£1 being paid by the
solicitor of the party in whose favour the decree or judgment
was pronounced {m).
The minutes of decrees in all Admiralty actions are drawn up in
the Eegistry.
214. well settled that the Admiralty Division possesses a

It IS Rehearing,
power rehearing Admiralty actions, which will be exercised in a
of
lit case, where a mistake is proved to have been made on the first
hearing but this power will only be exercised rarely and with
;
great caution {n).
215. In Admiralty actions certain agreements between the parties Agreements

may be made which are equivalent to decrees of the Court. For between
instance, where it is agreed that the liability of the defendants or
the plaintiffs under a counterclaim shall be admitted, subject to the
question of the amount of damage or of a certain percentage of the
amount of damage sustained being ascertained at a reference before
the Eegistrar and merchants, such an agreement, if in writing dated
and signed by the solicitors of both parties, and such as the
Admiralty Eegistrar thinks reasonable and as the judge would, under
the circumstances, allow, may be filed, and thereupon will become
an order of Court and have the same effect as if such an order had
been made by the judge in person (o).
A stamp or Court fee of 5s. is payable on filing such an
agreement (^).
Sub-Sect. 14. Costs.
216. The costs of Admiralty actions are in the discretion of the Rules for
Court (g), but this discretion is in most cases exercised in accord-
^q^^Î^^^^
ance with certain special rules. Thus where an action of damage discretion
is dismissed, the plaintiff' is condemned in the whole costs of the as to costs,
action ;the issues in the action, as a rule, not being divided and
no order being made awarding to the opposite party the costs of any
separate issue on which he may have succeeded (?•). So where the
(/c) See
pp. 117 et seq., post. The Court will sometimes, however, if such a
course is expedient, decide at th.e hearing questions as to damage which ordinarily
would be sent to a reference (The Maid of Ke7it (1881), 6 P. D. 178).
(0 R. S. C, Ord. 66, r. 9.
(to) Order as to Supreme Court Fees, 1884, Schedule, No. 57.
(r/) The Monarch (1839), 1 W. Eob. 21 The James Armstrong (1875), L. R. 4
;
A. & E. 380; The Georg, [1894] P. 330, 333.

(o) See The Buenos Ayres
(1868), 17 W. R. 627.
{'p) Order as to Supreme Court Fees, 1884, Schedule, No. 66.
(5) R. S. Ord. 65, r. 1.
{r) The Schwan, The Robert Morrison
(1874), L. R. 4 A. & E. 187.
.
104 Admiralty.
Sect. 1. defendant's vessel is pronounced alone to blame in an action of

Actions in damage, the defendant and his bail or his vessel left under arrest,,
rem. as the case may be, is condemned in the whole costs. Similarly,
where there is a- counterclaim in an action of damage and the
plaintiff's vessel is found to be alone to blame, the plaintiffs and
their bail have to bear the whole costs of the action. In actions
of damage where neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants admit
negligence and both vessels are found to blame, no order as to costs
is made, each party being left to bear his own costs (s) but where
;
in an action of damage one party admits in pleading that his vessel

is to blame, and the other party, notwithstanding this admission^
seeks to obtain a decree that his opponent's vessel is solely to blame,
the Court, if it finds both vessels to blame, does not follow the
above rule of " no costs," but holds that the party so admitting
liability is entitled to his costs {t),
Case of 217. Where the defendant sets up the defence of inevitable

inevitable
accident and succeeds upon it, the action may be dismissed with
accident.
costs against the plaintiff (a).
Compulsory 218. In actions of damage, if the defendants raise a defence both

pilotage.
on the merits and on the ground of compulsory pilotage without
setting up a counterclaim (b), and the suit is dismissed by reason of
the defence of compulsory pilotage having succeeded, no costs are
given on either side (c) but where the sole issue to be decided is
;
compulsory pilotage, the party succeeding on that issue is usually

held entitled to the costs of the action {d).
Where a collision took place between a barge towed by a steam-
tug and a steamship, and the owners of the barge, for the purpose of
recovering the damages they had sustained in the collision, brought
an action of damage in rem against the steamship, and an action in
perso7ia7n against the owners of the steam-tug, and the Court, on the
actions coming on to be tried together, found the steamship alone to
blame for the collision, the owners of the steamship, who had inter-
vened as defendants in the action in rem, and sought to throw the
blame of the collision on the owners of the steam-tug, were con-
demned not only in the costs of the plaintiffs, but also in the costs
of the steam-tug (c)
Salvage cases. 219. The rules as to the usual incidence of costs where a tender
by act in Court is made in an action of salvage have already been
(s) The Hector (1883), 8 P. D. 218; The. Beryl (1884), 9 P. D. 137, at p. 144;
The Harvest Home, [1905] P. 177.
(t) The General Gordon (1890), 6 Asp. M. L. C. 533. See also The London,
[1905] P. 152.
(a) The MonJcseaton (1889), 14 P. D. 51.
[h] If a counterclaim is set up and fails, the defendant may be condemned in
tbe costs of the counterclaim, see The Mercedes de Larrinaga, [1904] P. 215, at
p. 235.
(c) The Baoiz (1877), 3 Asp. M. L. C.-477 The Mercedes de Larrinaga, supra,
;
at p. 235; The Winestead, [1895] P. 170, at p. 175.

(d) The Oakfield (1888), 11 P. D. 34, 37.
(e) The River Lagan (1888), 57 L. J. (adm.) 28 ; and see The Mystery, [1902]
P. 115, where a similar order was made by the Divisional Court in a county
court appeal.
— —
Part III. Pkactice of the Supreme Court. 105
referred to (/). In other actions of salvage where an award of salvage Sect. 1.
is madethe usual practice where the salvors have not been guilty of Actions in
any misconduct is for the plaintiffs to have all the costs of the rem.
action (g). And even where no salvage has been awarded the Court
may merely condemn the plaintiffs in a sum nomine cxpensarum (h), or
leave each party to bear his own costs (i). When, however, salvors
have been guilty of misconduct and for that reason there has been
a forfeiture of salvage, they may be condemned in costs (k).
When salvage services have been rendered to ship and cargo and Where ship
and cargo
salvage has been awarded against both, the owners of the salved ship
salved.
and of the cargo contribute to the costs in proportion to the values
on which the award is made, but this has been said to be without
prejudice to the salvor's right to recover the whole from either (/).
Where an action of salvage is instituted in the Admiralty Division, Where less
than £300
and the plaintiff does not recover more than £300, he cannot recover
recovered.
any costs unless the Court certifies that the case was a fit one to be
tried otherwise than summarily, that is to say, otherwise than in a
county court having Admiralty jurisdiction {m).
Sect. 2. Actions in Personam.
220. In actions in personam the procedure and practice mentioned Generally,
above as prevailing in actions in rem, in other matters than those

relating to arrests, caveat warrants, caveat releases and bail, are
equally in force, except so far as they differ in a few particulars to
be mentioned below.
221. The first difference to be noticed between the practice in Issue and
actions in personam and actions iii rem is as to the issue and service of
^J-^^^
the writs of summons. The forms of the writ of summons to be used
in actions in personam are the same as the forms used in other
personal actions in the High Court, the necessary change being made
in the heading thereof, and the action being described on the face of
the writ as an action between the plaintiffs and the defendants by
name, except in the case of actions of limitation of liability (n)?
instead of between the plaintiffs and the owners of the property
proceeded against, as in the case of writs of summons in rem (o).
222. A writ in an Admiralty action in personam for service out of Writ for
the jurisdiction, or of which notice maybe given out of the jurisdiction, êryice out of
""^"^
may be issued out of the Central Office or out of a district registry,
(/) See p. 96, ante.

[g) See The Dwina, [1892] P. 58, at p. 64; The BiaUo, [1891] P. 175, at
p. 179.
(h)See The Henrietta (1837), 3 Hag. Adm. 345, n.
(/)See The Little Joe (1860), Lush. 88.
{k) See The Capel/a, [1891] P. 70; The Yan-Yean
(1883), 8 P. D. 147, 150.
(0 The Elton, [1892] P. 265, 271.
(m) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), s. 547 See
(2), (4).
pp. 127 et seq., post.
(w) See p. 108, post.
(o) Ord. 1, r.
1; Ord. 2, rr. 1, 2, 3. For forms, see E. S. C, Appendix A,
Part I., Nos. 1 to 8. The Court fees for writs for service within the jurisdiction
m actions in personam are the same as for writs in actions in rem.
106 Admiralty.
Sect. 2. as in actions in other branches of the High Court, after leave for its
Actions in issue has been obtained from a judge of the Admiralty Division (p).
personam. Service out of the jurisdiction of a writ of summons or notice of a
Where person writ of summons may be allowed on the grounds prescribed by the
out of the Kules of the Supreme Court (q). The only provision which needs
jurisdiction to be referred to here in relation to the procedure and practice in
a necessary
and proper Admiralty actions is that which in terms allows of the issue of writs
party. for service out of the jurisdiction, or notice of which is to be given
out of the jurisdiction, whenever any person out of the jurisdiction
is a necessary or proper party to an action properly brought against
some other person duly served within the jurisdiction (r). Thus
where salvage services had been rendered to a British ship, laden
with cargo belonging to foreign owners resident abroad, and the
salvors instituted an action of salvage in personam against the
owners of the salved ship and her freight and the owners of her
cargo, the Court refused to set aside the notice of the service of the
writ on the foreign cargo owners, on the ground that the foreign
cargo owners were proper parties to the action properly brought
against the shipowners for the recovery of the salvage due for
salving the ship and freight (s). And where a collision occurred out
of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court between a British vessel
and a foreign vessel at the time of the collision in tow of a British
steam-tug, and the owners of the British vessel brought an action
of damage in personam against the owners of the steam-tug and the
owners of the foreign vessel, and duly served the writ of summons
in the action on the owners of the steam-tug and obtained leave to
serve and duly served notice of a concurrent writ of summons on the
owners of the foreign vessel out of the jurisdiction, the service abroad
of the notice of the concurrent writ was not set aside {t) .
Pleadings, 223. There is no special rule as to the time for the delivery of the
statement of claim in an Admiralty action in personam, and, subject
to the power of the Court to abridge the time for the delivery of
pleadings, the time for the delivery of statements of claim and
ip) R. S. C, Ord. 2, r. 5; Ord. 11, rr. 1, 3, 4.

[q) E. S. C, Ord. 11, r. 1 see title Peactice and Peocedijre.
;
(r) Pv. S. C, Ord. 11, r. 1 (g).

(s) The Elton, [1891] P. 265. It is somewhat difficult to understand the reason-
ing of this decision. Ihe owners of the cargo were in noways concerned with the
liability of the shipowners for salvage or the amount of salvage to be awarded
for the services rendered to the ship and freight {The Pyreanee (1863),
Br. & L. 189), and as before the passing of the Judicature Acts no action
of salvage in personam could have been entertained against the cargo owners,
and as theEules of the Supreme Court are mere procedure rules, no fresh juris-
diction could be conferred by the sub-section. If this decision had been appealed
the Court of Appeal might have decided, in conformity with its decision in the
case {The Due d'Aumale, [1903] P. 18) cited in the next note, that the action
referred to in the sub-section as "an action properly brought within the juris-
diction " must be an action brought to recover a claim or claims which or all of
which both sets of defendants, if served within the jurisdiction, would be
entitled to oppose, and not an action in which (as is frequently the case in
Admiralty actions) there are two or more different and independent claims in
one suit, no single one of which all the defendants are jointly interested to defeat.
(0 The Due d'Aumale, [1903] P. 18. But see Harris v. Owners of Franconia
(1877), 2 C. P. D. 173, 177, and The British South Africa Company v. Companhia
de Mocamhique, [1893] A. C
602, 628.
— —
defences in Admiralty actions not within the exclusive jurisdiction Sect. 2.
of the Admiralty Court before the Judicature Acts (u) is regulated Actions in
by the same rules as are applicable to actions in the King's Bench per sona m,
and Chancery Divisions (a) .
As in actions in rem, so in actions in personam, the plaintiff may,

without obtaining leave, deliver his reply within six days after the
defence or the last of the defences has been delivered, unless the
time is extended by the Court or a judge (6).
224. If in an Admiralty action in personam carried on in default of Judgment in

appearance the writ of summons is endorsed for a liquidated demand, f.!?to!iSL
whether specially or otherwise, judgment may be entered the m
Admiralty Registry in default of appearance for the amount of the
hquidated amount with interest, without motion or hearing in
Court (c). Where there has been default of appearance and there is
endorsed on the writ a claim for pecuniary damage which is not
liquidated, interlocutory judgment may be entered in the Registry,
and the Court or a judge is at liberty to order a statement of claim or
particulars to be filed before the assessment of the damages, and
that the value and amount of damages or either of them be ascer-
tained in any way which may be directed (d). Where there is default
of appearance in an action of salvage in personam, or an action of
co-ownership or any similar action, the procedure is the same as in
an action in rem {e).
225. Where there has been default of pleading by defendants in Default of

Admiralty actions in personam substantially the same procedure pleading,
for obtaining judgment must be followed as is required in similar

cases where there has been default of appearance (/).
Sect. 3. Transfer of Actions.
226. Actions are sometimes transferred to the Admiralty Division Transfer

from the other divisions of the High Court by reason of being actions from another
division of
connected with ships or in which questions are involved which the High
it is convenient to have decided with the assistance of the Trinity Court.
Masters, or by a reference as
to damages to the Registrar and
merchants a transfer is desired it must be made by order,
(g). If
the consent of the President of the division being obtained (h) .
An order for transfer of an action to the Admiralty Division was Where

question
to be tried
(u) See the Judicature Act, 1873
(36 & 37 Yict. c. 66), s. 34, and R. S. C, by jury.
Ord. 30, r. 1 (d).
(«) See title Practice and Peocedure.
{h) E. S. a, Ord. 23, rr.
1, 2.
{c) E. S. C, Ord.
13, rr. 3, 4 The Madelaine and The Andre Theodore (1904),
;
93 L. T. 184.
{d)Thus enabling the damages where so ordered to be referred in actions of
damage in personam to the Registrar, or the Registrar and one merchant. See
R. b. 0., Ord. 13, rr. As to
5, 6, 7. references to the Registrar and merchants,
see p. Wi^post.
if) See R. S. C, Ord. 27, rr. 2, 3, 4, 0, 6, 9, 11.
{(/) See The Medina (1876), 1 P. D. 272.
{h) See the Judicature Act, 1873
(36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 3a, and title
Jr'RACTICE AND PROCEDURE, post.
—
108 Admiralty.
Sect. 3. refused, although a question as to salvage was involved, when it

Transfer of appeared that there were other questions in the action which ought to
Actions. be tried by a jury (i). So an order for the transfer to the Admiralty
Division of an action for loss of life where a decree had been
obtained in an Admiralty action for the limitation of the plaintiff's
liability, was refused on the ground that the plaintiff was entitled to
have his damages assessed by a jury (A-).
Transfer from 227. An Admiralty action proceeding in a county court having
county court. Admiralty jurisdiction may be transferred to the Admiralty Division
In what cases on the application of any party thereto. The application is made
such transfer
ordered.
by summons before the judge in chambers (^).
Such transfer may be ordered if the subject-matter of the action
exceeds the county court limit of jurisdiction (m), or for the purpose
of effecting the sale of a ship in the High Court (n). An order is
also usually made if it is desired to obtain evidence on commission (o),
and frequently when another action arising out of the same cause
of action is pending in the High Court {p), or on the ground that
the hearing in the High Court would be more convenient.
Effect of Where an action is transferred under the above-mentioned pro-
transfer. visions the Admiralty Division acquires by virtue of the transfer
full jurisdiction over the action, notwithstanding that if commenced
as an action in rem in the Admiralty Division it would have been
dismissed for want of jurisdiction (q).
Where 228. Where proceedings in respect of the same collision are

simultaneous pending in the Admiralty Division and in a county court having
proceedings Admiralty jurisdiction, and these proceedings were commenced
in High Court
and county- practically simultaneously, the practice when the county court
court. proceedings are transferred give the plaintiff in the action in the
is to
Admiralty Division the conduct of the proceedings, and,
if the actions
are consolidated, to make his action the principal cause, whilst if the
county court action was clearly commenced first it will be the
principal cause.
Sect. 4. Limitation of Liability.

Nature of 229. The owners of a British or foreign ship, or the charterers
action. to whom the ship has been demised, or the owners of docks or
canals, or harbour authorities, who allege that they have incurred
liability in respect of loss of life, personal injury, or loss of or damage
to vessels, goods, merchandise, or property or rights of any kind,
and that several claims are made or apprehended in respect of
that liability, may apply to the Admiralty Division or any other
division of the High Court to determine the amount of their liability
(0 The Ocean Steamship Co. v. Anderfôn, Tritton & Co. (1883), 33 W. E. 536.
[k) Roche v. The London and South Western Rail. Co., [1899] 2 Q. B. 502.
[l) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Yict. c. 71), s. 6;
The Indra (1905), 10 Asp. M. L. C. 196. As to the Admiralty jurisdiction of

county courts, see p. 182, post.
{m) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), s. 7.
(ri) lUd., ss. 8, 23 and see s. 32.
;
(o) The Swan (1870), L. E. 3 A. & E. 314.
{p) The Never Despair (1884), 9 P. D. 34 The Mersey, [1901] P. 369.

;
{q) The Siuan, supra; The Cargo ex Arcjos (1872), L. E. 5 P. C. 134; The
AUna (1880), 5 Ex. D. 227.'
—
and to distribute that amount rateably among the several claimants, ^'E'Ct. 4.
and any proceedings pending in any other Court in relation to the Limitation
same matter may be stayed. The Court may proceed in such manner of L iabil ity,
and subject to such regulations as to making parties interested parties
to the proceedings, and as to the exclusion of any claimants who do
not come in within a certain time, and as to requiring security from
the owners or other persons applying, and as to payment of any
costs, as the Court thinks just (r).
230. The first step is to issue a writ of summons. The writ must Writ,
contain the actual names of the plaintiffs (s), but it is not directed to
any person by name, but " to the owners of the "(the vessel with
which the collision occurred) "and of the cargo lately laden on board
the and to all or every person claiming in respect of loss of life
,
or personal injury occasioned by the improper navigation of the

," or bears such similar directions as the case may require (t).
The w^rit is in practice served only on the owners of the adverse Service of
vessel, or on any know^n cargo owner who may be conveniently
™^
served. The persons so served usually appear within the time ^PP®^^^^^®-
limited by the writ and act in a sense as representative defendants,
since it would in many cases be practically impossible to serve the
writ on all the persons who might have a claim to share in the
amount of the plaintiffs' liability. Any other persons, however, who
answer the description of those to whom the writ is directed may
also appear before the hearing and raise any defence open to them,
though the Court may not grant all the defendants so appearing
their costs the usual practice being not to allow costs of the hearing
;
to more than one or two sets of defendants.
231. Statements of claim, defences, and replies are delivered in Pleadings,

these actions as in other Admiralty actions in personam, but in most
cases the defences merely put the plaintiffs to proof of those allega-
tions contained in the statements of claim which, if proved, will
entitle the plaintiffs to the relief claimed such allegations usually
;
are the occurrence of the collision or stranding, and any legal pro-
ceedings following thereon, and that claims beyond the amount of
the plaintiffs' limited liability are apprehended. The plaintiffs
submit in the case of there having been loss or damage to goods
or merchandise to pay into Court the limited amount calculated on
the appropriate tonnage of their vessel, with interest at 4 per
cent. [a). In the case of loss of life or personal injury the claimants
submit in addition to give bail for such claims in the Admiralty
Registry or to give an undertaking to pay the amount of their
liability into Court {b).
(r) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 504 Merchant
;
Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and others) Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 32),
ss. 1,2; Merchant Shipping Act, 1906
(6 Edw. 7, c. 48), s. 71.
(s) The Inventor
(1905), 10 Asp. M. L. C. 99.
{t) As to whether the names of the plaintiffs should be set out in the writ
under the present practice, see The Blanche (1904), 21 T. L. R. 145; The
Inventor, supra.
(a) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), s. 503.
{b) See The Northumhria (1869), L. E. 3 A. & E. 6 ; The Crathie, [1897]
i. 178; T lie Inventor, supra.
110 Admiralty.
Sect. 4 232. Except in cases where there is hkelihood of there being a

Limitation conflict of testimony, as where it is alleged that the plaintiffs were
of Liability. privy to the collision and therefore disentitled to relief (c), the evi-
Evidence.
dence is usually given on affidavit. The affidavit of the owner veri-
fying the allegations in the statement of claim and having annexed
to it, in the case of a British ship, a certified copy of the register
in force at the time of collision, and some similar official evidence of
tonnage in the case of a foreign ship, is generally required (d) and ;
an affidavit is also required from the master or some other person on

board that there has been no loss of life, if the limitation of £S per
ton only is sought. The affidavits need not be printed unless the
Court or a judge so orders (e).
Decree.
233. On the case for the plaintiffs being sufficiently proved at
the hearing the Court pronounces that the plaintiffs are entitled
to limited liability according to the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894,
and, if limitation of liability is claimed in consequence of a collision,
that in respect of loss of life or personal injury either alone or
together with damage to vessels, goods, merchandise, or other
things occasioned by the improper navigation of their vessel on the
occasion of the collision in question in the suit, that the plaintiffs
are answerable in damages to an amount not exceeding £ ,
such sum being at the rate of £15 per ton of the tonnage of the
(/), and that in respect of claims for damage to vessels, goods,
merchandise, or other things alone (g), the plaintiffs are answerable
in damages to an amount not exceeding £ of the said sum of
£ being at the rate of £S for each ton etc. The decree also
,
orders that upon payment into Court of the amount to which liability
is limited, or upon giving the necessary bail (li), with interest at
4 per cent, from the date of the collision until payment into Court,
and upon payment of the costs (if any) of actions pending in respect
of the collision in the Admiralty Division, all proceedings in such
actions shall be stayed. It is also ordered that advertisements be
inserted at intervals in certain specified newspapers intimating that
if persons having claims under the decree do not come in and enter
their claims in the Admiralty Eegistry within a specified time, they

will be excluded from sharing in the limited amount.
Time for The time for bringing in such claims is three months from the date
bringing in
of the decree, unless, for special reasons, a shorter period is limited.
claims.
All claims brought in or thereafter to be brought in are by the
(c) See The Cricket (1882), 5 Asp. M. L.-C. 33.

{d) See The Rosslyn (1904), 10 Asp. M. L. C. 24; The Cordilleras, [1904]
P. 90.
(e) E. S. C, Ord. 38, r. 30.
^
(/) As to tlie tonnage on which the limited amount is calculated, which is

different in the case of steamers and sailing vessels, see the Merchant Shipping
Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), s. 503; Merchant Shipping Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7,
c. 48), s. 69; The Brunei, [1900] P. 24; The Cathay (1900), 69 L. J. (p.) 89.
(g) Por instance, passengers' luggage {The Stella (1899), 8 Asp. M. L. C. 605).
(A) If it is clear that the claims for loss of life before the Court at the hearing
do not reach the limit of liability, the Court will sometimes grant a decree on
the plaintiffs giving bail for an amount fixed by the Court and undertaking to
give bail if required for the balance of their statutory liability. See The
Inventor (1905), 10 Asp. M. L. 0. 99.
——
Part III. Practice of the Supreme Court. Ill
decree referred to the Kegistrar and merchants for assessment, and Sect. 4.
the plamtiffs are as a general rule condemned in the costs of the Limitation
action unless the defendants have raised unfounded issues on which of Liability,
they have failed, or costs have been incurred between claimants in
respect of questions with which the plaintiffs have had nothing to do (i).
234. any property of the Crown is damaged or lost in a Damage or

If
the Crown may claim to share in the limited amount paid ^^^^
collision,
ert^Tnd^
into Court by the owner of the vessel to blame {k), and where mails âUs.^
have been lost in a collision the Postmaster-General is entitled,
assuming him to be a bailee in possession of the mails, to share in
the fund paid into Court by the owners of the wrong-doing vessel (l).
235. Where there are loss of life claims, and the statutory amount Where loss
^
of i>15 per ton has all been paid into Court, but some of the loss of ôt'entered
life claimants fail to come in and enter their claims until after the in time,
time appointed for claims to be filed, the Court may, although
the year has not elapsed within which, under the Fatal Accidents
Act, 1846 (m), an action in respect of such a claim could be
commenced, order that the balance of the fund which remains in
Court after all the loss of life claimants who have entered claims in
due time have been paid shall be paid back to the plaintiffs, the
claimants who have not entered their claims in time being thus
excluded from all share in the limited amount (n).
And where there are both loss of life and personal injury claimants Where claims
and claimants in respect of loss or damage to goods, and the sum Jjfe and goods
of ^07 per ton primarily applicable to the loss of life claims and
personal injury claims is not enough to pay such loss of life and
personal injury claims in full, it may be held that the balance of
the claims for loss of life and personal injury which the amount
of £7 per ton is insufficient to cover is entitled to rank ^^tn-i passu
with the claims for loss and damage to goods against the further
amount of £8 per ton (o).
Sect. 5. Appeals from Inferior Courts.

236. All Admiralty appeals from inferior Courts are heard before Right of
a Divisional Court of the Admiralty Division {p), usually consisting of 3i?L1onai
the President and the Judge of that Division sitting together, and Court,
where thought necessary or desirable, by two of the Elder
assisted,
Brethren of the London Trinity House {q) and unless leave to No further
;
appeal to the Court of Appeal be given by the Divisional Court

^^j^hout leave
hearing the appeal, or by the Court of Appeal, the determination of
such Divisional Court is, under the Supreme Court of Judicature
(Procedure) Act, 1894, declared to be final (r).
(?:)See The Empusa (1879), 5 P. D. 6 ; The Winkfield, [1902] P. 42, at p. 61.

[k) The Zoe (1886), 11 P. D. 72.
{!) The Winkfield, [1902] P. 42.
(m) 9 & 10 Vict. c. 93 see title Negligence, post.
:
{n) The Alma, [1903] P. 55.

(o) The Victoria (1888), 13 P. D. 125.
ip) Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 45 E. S. C, Ord. 59, r. 4.
;
[q] The County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 125. For their fees,
see note (d), p. lOl, ante.
(r) The Supreme Court of Judicature (Procedure) Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c.
—
112 Admiralty.
Sect. 5. Sub-Sect. 1. From County Courts and the City of London Court.
Appeals 237. Of these appeals from inferior Courts the most numerous
from Inferior
are from county courts having Admiralty jurisdiction, including the
Courts.
City of London Court. Such appeals are brought either under the
County court County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (s), or under the
appeals.
County Courts Act, 1888 {t).
Under the In order to be entitled to appeal under the Act of 1868, the
Act of 1868. appellant must have given security for costs, and, if the appeal be
from an interlocutory order or decree, have obtained leave to
appeal {u) but the Court cannot entertain an appeal if the parties
;
have agreed that the decision of the Court below shall be final {w).
Notice of the institution of the appeal, called the instrument of
appeal, must be lodged within ten days from the making of the
decree appealed against, unless the time be extended {x). No appeal
under this Act will be allowed, unless the amount decreed or
ordered to be due exceeds i650 {y).
An appeal may be brought either on a question of law or a question
of fact {z).The time for appealing may be extended by a Divisional
Court of the Admiralty Division in its discretion on application by
notice of motion supported by affidavit {a), and no appeal lies from
the decision come to by that Court as to whether the time should
be extended (6).
Security for Security for costs must be given in cases where an appeal on fact
<X)StS.
is asserted, whether with or without leave (c), but where the appeal
is on a question of law the appellants usually exercise the right of
appeal under the Act of 1888 and consequently do not give security 0).
16), s. 1 (5). Possibly, however, certain particular provisions under which an

ulterior appeal without leave lay to the Court of Appeal where the Divisional
Court has altered the judgment of the county court may still be in force (see The
Dart, [1893] P. 33 The Cambrian Monarch, March 7, 1907 (unreported), where
;
such an appeal brought without leave to the Court of Appeal was recently allowed).
See also Coxy. Hakes (1890), 15 App. Cas. 506, 517 The Tynwald, [1895] P. 142,
;
147. As to the cases in which before the Judicature Acts the Court of Admiralty
usually granted leave for a further appeal in county court appeals, see Tlie
Samuel Laing (1870), L. E. 3 A. & E. 284.
(s) 31 & 32 Yict. c. 71.
{t) 51 & 52 Vict. c. 43.
{u) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71),
s. 26. As to this security not being required under the County Courts Act, 1888
(51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), when the appeal is on a question of law, see The Delano,
[1895] P. 40 (note {d), infra).
{lu) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), s. 28.
(x) Ihid., s. 27.
ly) Ihid., s. 31.

(z) See The Delano, supra, at p. 47.
(a) The Dumber (1883), 9 P. D. 12. See County Courts Admiralty Jurisdic-
tion Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), s. 27.
(6) The Amsiel (1878), 2 P. D. 186; the Supreme Court of Judicature
(Procedure) Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 16), s. 1.
(c) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c._71), s. 26.
An order refusing plaintiffs, who have taken out of Court a sum paid into Court
with denial of liability, their taxed costs has been held to be a final order within
this section (The Vulcan, [1898] P. 222) ; see also The Fyenoord (1876), 3 Asp.
M. L. C. 218, where it was held that the sum tendered was " the sum decreed
or ordered to be due " under sect. 31 of the Act of 1868.
{d) See p. 114, post; The Delano, supra, at p. 47. The actual decision
in this case was, that an appeal on a question of law brought from a county
Part III. —Practice of the Supreme Court. 113
The security must be given in the Court below (e), before the Sect. 5.
instrument of appeal is lodged in the Admiralty Kegistry, and Appeals
the amount of the security, usually £50, is fixed by the county court from Inferior
registrar (/). Courts.
The condition that £50 must be decreed or ordered to be due in -^q appeal
order to render an appeal valid does not apply to plaintiffs who where less
have claimed over £50 and obtained nothing, or to appeals by leave [^^^^^^^^
^^^^
from interlocutory orders {g) But no appeal is allowed to a plaintiff
.
whose claim is less than £50, as in such a case in no circumstances

could more than ^£50 be decreed or ordered to be due (h) so also ;
in a damage suit leave to appeal on a question of fact will be

refused to a plaintiff who, though claiming over £50, has only
sustained less than £50 damages (i).
Where an appeal properly brought by a plaintiff is dismissed,
the defendant cannot set up a cross appeal against the decision of
the Court below when it appears that the only ground on which he
can question that decision depends on a question of fact, and the
amount claimed was under £50 (k).
238. The instrument of appeal is, as above mentioned, a notice of Instrument
appeal.
the institution of the appeal, and has to be filed in the Admiralty
Eegistry, together with the usual minute, and a folio number
obtained. The stamp or Court fee to be paid is 10s. on the instru-
ment of appeal (Q .As soon as it has been filed a copy should be
served on the adverse parties in the Court below. A Divisional
Court generally sits on the first Tuesday of each month during the
sittings, and if the appeal is entered for hearing, and a Court fee
of £1 paid for the entry of the appeal (Z), and notice of hearing
(unless dispensed with by consent) duly given, it will come on in
regular course.
239. If the evidence in the Court below has been taken by a Evidence etc.
shorthand writer, the transcript of the evidence so taken, together Pî^^^^^-

with copies of the orders made and other material documents
in the cause, are transmitted to the Admiralty Eegistry (m) and, ,
together with the judge's notes of the hearing in the Court

below and a copy of the reasons for his judgment, form the record,
and are printed for the purposes of the appeal, the directions of
the Admiralty Kegistrar being taken on summons if the parties do
court having Admiralty jurisdiction under the provisions of s. 120 of the

County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Yict. c. 43), could be heard by the Court of
Appeal without any security for costs having been given, and did not really
determine that at the same time there was not an alternative method of appeal-
ing on a question of law under the Act of 1868 on security being first given,
if it ever became necessary for any reason to appeal under the Act of 1868.
(e) The Forest Queen
(1870), L. E. 3 A. & E. 299; The Ganges (1880), 5 P. D.
247.
(/) The Humher (1883), 9 P. D. 12.
^ {g) The Alexandria (1872),
V L. E. 3 A. & E. 574; The Alert (1894),
V
72
L.T.I 24. ^'
[h) The Falcon (1878), 3 P. D. 100.

(0 The Burma (No. 2) (1899), 8 Asp. M. L. C. 549.
{k) The Ahie Holme,
[1893] P. 173.
(0 See Order as to Supreme Court Pees, 1884.
(m) See The Cynthia
(1876), 2 P. D. 52, 53.
114 Admiralty.
Sect. 5. not agree as to what is to be printed. If the parties agree a special

Appeals case may be printed and filed instead of the proceedings in the
from Inferior Court below (w).
Courts. ^]jQ leave of the Divisional Court fresh evidence may be adduced
Fresh by either the appellant or the respondent at the hearing of the

evidence appeal (o), and in one case where none of the evidence taken in the
at hearing
Court below could be brought before the appellate court the appeal
of appeal.
was decided entirely on the evidence of witnesses called and
examined at the hearing of the appeal (p).
Warrant of 240. Where the appeal is from a decree or order in an action in
arrest pend- rem in which the property proceeded against has been kept under
ing hearing
of appeal. arrest until the decision of the Court below has been given, the
appellant, in order to keep the property under arrest pending the
appeal, may obtain in the Admiralty Eegistry, and duly serve, a
warrant of arrest on the property, which will then remain in the
custody of the Admiralty Marshal to abide the order of the
Divisional Court {q).
Costs of When the appellant is unsuccessful he must pay the costs of the
appeal.
appeal, unless the Court otherwise directs (r).
Kemission 241. The Divisional Court, after giving its decision, may either
of cause.
retain the cause or remit it to the Court below.
Appeals 242. Further, a party in an Admiralty or maritime cause in a

under the
County Courts
county court or the City of London Court who is aggrieved by any
Act, 1888. judgment, decision, direction or order of such Court on any point of
law, or on the admission or rejection of any evidence, may appeal
from the same to a Divisional Court of the Admiralty Division
under the County Courts Act, 1888 (s). But there is no appeal on
such points in any action of contract or tort where the debt or
damage claimed does not exceed £20 unless the judge thinks it
reasonable and proper that such appeal should be allowed, and
grants leave to appeal (s).
Agreement No appeal lies from the decision of the judge if before such decision
not to appeal.
be pronounced the parties agree in writing, signed by themselves or
their solicitors or agents, that his decision shall be final, and such
an agreement does not require a stamp (t).
Procedure on With the exception that no security for costs is given and that
appeal.
the appeal is by way of motion, the notice for which is in practice
an eight days' notice served on the respondent and filed in the
registry in conformity with the practice established for county court
appeals to the King's Bench Division (it?) the procedure and practice
,
on an appeal under the Act of 1888 are the same as the procedure
and practice where the appeal is made under the County Courts
{n) The Zeta (1875), L. E. 4 A. & E. 460.

(0) The Busy Bee (1872), L. E. 3 A. & E. 527.
(P) The C. 8. Butler (1874), L. E. 4 A. & E. 238.
The Miriam (1874), 43 L. J. (adm.) 35 The Freir, The Albert (1875), 44
;
(ADM.) 49.
(r) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Yict. c. 71), s. 30.
is) 51 & 52 Yict. c. 43, s. 120.
it) Ibid., s. 123.
[w) See E. S. C, Ord. 59, r. 10.
— — .
Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (a). For instance, the appeal is Sect. 5.
asserted by the notice of motion being filed in the registry within Appeals
ten days of the decision appealed from, but this time may be from Inferior
Courts.
extended by the order of a Divisional Court (h).
Sub-Sect. 2. Shipping Casualty Appeals and Reliearings and Appeals from

Naval Courts.
243. Appeals from a formal investigation into a shipping casualty, Shipping

casualty
or from an inquiry under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, into the
conduct of a master, mate or engineer, lie to a Divisional Court of masters
the Admiralty Division if the decision has been given in England mates or
engineers,
or by a naval court (c),in cases where there has been no application
for a rehearing at the instance of the Board of Trade, or where
such rehearing has been refused, and on the investigation or inquiry
a decision has been given with respect to the cancellation or
suspension of the certificate of a master, mate or engineer (<i)
Similar proceedings may take place in certain cases when the
investigation has been held by a colonial Court or tribunal {e).
Where on any investigation or inquiry into a shipping casualty Appeals by
the Court finds that the casualty has been caused or contributed to shipowners,
by the wrongful act or default of any person, and an application for
a rehearing has not been made under the above provisions or has
been made and refused, the owner of the ship, or any other person
having an interest in the investigation or inquiry who has appeared
at the hearing and is affected by the decision of the Court, has now
the same right of appeal against the decision as a master has
under the above provisions against a decision with respect to the
cancellation or suspension of his certificate (/).
244. The appellant must serve notice of intention to appeal on Notice of

such of the other parties to the proceedings as he may consider to ^PPâi and
• ot grounds
• •
be directly affected by the appeal, and within two days after setting of appeal,
down the appeal must give to those parties notice of the general
grounds of the appeal (^).
The notice of appeal must be served Qi) either within twenty-
eight days from the date on which the decision was pronounced, or
within twenty-one days of the date on which the report was issued in
London by tlfie Board of Trade (i).
ia) 31 & 32 Yict.

c. 71. See p. 112, ayde.
[h] The Emmy
(1905), Times (12 August, 1905).
(c) See as to naval courts, the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict,
c. 60), ss. 470, 480—486.
{d) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), s. 475(3).
(e) Ihid., s. 478.
(/) Merchant Shipping Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 48), s. 66.

Shipping Casualty Eules, 1895, r. 20, printed in the Statutory Eules and
(,f/)
Orders for 1895 at pp. 460, 463—469.

{h) Ihid. Any notice, summons, or other document issued under these rules
may be served by sending the same by registered letter to the address of the
person to be served (Shipping Casualty Eules, 1895, r. 28). The service of
any notice, summons, or other document may be proved by the oath or affidavit
of the person by whom it was served (ibid., r. 29).
(?) Ibid., r. 20. In computing the number of days within which any act is
to be done they shall be reckoned exclusive of the first and inclusive of the last
I 2
116 Admiralty.
Sect. 5. The appellant must, before the expiration of the time within
Appeals which notice of appeal may be given, leave with the officer for the
from Inferior time being appointed by the Court a copy of the notice of appeal,
C ourts .
the officer will thereupon set down the appeal by entering it on
the proper list (.;).
Security for 245- If the appeal is brought by any party other than the
costs.
Board of Trade, the appellant must before the appeal is heard give
security for the costs to be occasioned by the appeal in the manner
directed by the judge from whose decision the appeal is brought {k).
E vidence 246. The Divisional Court is assisted by two assessors, who in

given at
practice are always Elder Brethren of the London Trinity House.
former
hearing. The evidence taken before the judge (A;) from whose decision the appeal
is brought is proved before the Court by a copy of the notes of the
judge or of the shorthand writer, clerk, secretary, or other person
authorised by him to take down the evidence, or by such other
materials as the Court thinks expedient and a copy of the evidence,
;
and of the report to the Board of Trade containing the decision from
which the appeal is brought, and of the notice of the general grounds
of the appeal, must be left in the Admiralty Kegistry before the
appeal comes on for hearing. Copies of the notes of the evidence and
of the report must be supplied to the appellant on request by the
judge or other person having charge thereof on payment of the
usual charge for copying [1).
Fresh The Court has full power to receive further evidence on questions
evidence.
of fact, either by oral examination in Court or by affidavit or
deposition taken before an examiner or commissioner. Evidence
may also be given by special leave as to matters which have
occurred since the date of the decision from which the appeal is
brought {m).
Any application to the Divisional Court for leave to adduce further
evidence should be made in ordinary circumstances by means of a
substantive application prior to the hearing of the appeal (n), and
the Court will not grant leave for expert evidence to be called on
matters as to which the Trinity Masters are present to advise the
Court (o).
Report to 247. On the conclusion of an ajDpeal the Court sends to the

Board of Board of Trade a report of the case signed by the members of the
Trade.
Court.
day unless the last day shall happen to. fall on a Sunday, Christmas Day, or
Good Friday, or on a day appointed for a public fast or thanksgiving or holiday,
in which case the time shall be reckoned exclusive of that day also (Shipping
Casualty Eules, 1895, r. 27).
(./) Shipping Casualty Eules, 1895, r. 20 d.
(k) Ihid., r. 20 e. In these rules, unless the context or subject-matter otherwise
requires, "judge" means the wreck commissioner, sheriff, sheriff substitute,
stipendiary magistrate, justices, or other authority empowered to hold an
investigation into a shipping casualty (/6*cZ., r. 2).
(/) Ibid., r. 20 e. As to the last portion of this rule, see The Kestrel (1881), 6
P. D. 182, 188.
(m) Shipping Casualty Eules, 1895, r. 20 h.
{n) The Famenoth (1882), 7 P. D. 207.
(o) The Ksetrel, supra.
'
— ——
248. The Court has power to make such order as to the whole or Sect. 5.
any part of the costs of and occasioned by the appeal as the Court Appeals
may think just (p). from Inferior
Appeals under the Shipping Casualties Act, 1879 {q), were, as Courts,
also were appeals under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (/•), Costs,
before the Act of 1906 came into force, generally made by certificated
officers whose certificates have been dealt with, and not by the
Board of Trade, and in such cases where the appeals are dismissed
the usual course is to condemn the appellants in costs (s). Where
the Board of Trade appears as respondent in the appeal and the
decision appealed from is reversed, the Board of Trade may be
ordered to pay the costs {t), and in a case where the decision was
affirmed, but the Divisional Court considered that the time for
which the certificate of the appellant had been suspended should
be shortened, no order was made as to costs
249. A rehearing of a shipping investigation or inquiry may be Rehearing

ordered by the Board of Trade to be heard by a Divisional Court of the
goârd^^
Admiralty Division when this is the case, the Board must cause of Trade,
;
such reasonable notice to be given to the parties whom they consider

to be affected by the rehearing as the circumstances of the case may,
in their opinion, permit {v) .
The rest of the procedure on such rehearings is the same as that

already mentioned in regard to shipping casualty appeals (iv).
250. Any person aggrieved by the order of a naval court ordering Appeals from
the forfeiture of wages, or by the decision of a naval court on a ^^^^^ courts,
question as to wages, fines or forfeiture, may appeal to the High
Court and on any such appeal the High Court
; may confirm
quash or vary the decision appealed against (x).
Sect. 6. References to the Registrar and Merchants and other

Proceedings before the Registrar.
Sub-Sect. 1. References to the Registrar and Merchants.
251. Amongst the more important of the powers and authorities

possessed by the Admiralty Eegistrar and assistant Admiralty
Registrar are the holding of references to assess damages in
actions in rem or in personam, and to report on other questions
and matters in wages, co-ownership, mortgage or bottomry suits.
The Registrar is assisted by one (a) or more merchants selected In what cases
references
usually made.
{p) Shipping Casualty Rule.s 1895, r. 20 i.
{q) 42 & 43 Yict. c. 72.

(r) 57 & 58 Yict. c. 60, s. 473.
(s) The Golden Sea (1882), 7 P. D. 194.
{t) The Famenoth (1882), 7 P. D. 207; The Arizona (1880), 5 P. D. 123 ;

The
Carlisle, [1906] P. 301.
(/') The Ifestrel, (1881) 6 P. D. 182.
(y) See The Ida (1886), 11 P. D. 37.
(w) See p. 115, ante, and Shipping Casualty Eules, 1895, r. 21 a, b.
(.x) Merchant Shipping Act, 1906
(6 Edw. 7, c. 48) s. 68. The procedure and
conditions of the appeal are to be provided for by rules of Court. The jurisdic-
tion will probably be exercised by a Divisional Court of the Admiralty Division.
(a) In default actions in rem, the reference is usually to the Eegistrar alone
or to the Eegistrar assisted by one merchant.
.
118 Admiralty.
Sect. 6. by him from a list approved by the President. The judge in Court
Keferences may, if he thinks there is cause for so doing, besides deciding
to Registrar the question of habihty at the hearing, also determine in
etc.
Court any question as to damages or any other matter usually
referred to the Kegistrar or the Eegistrar and merchants (b) ; but in
the following cases the ordinary course is to order a reference some-
times before, and sometimes after, the judge in Court has decided
the question of liability in actions of damage where either the
:
plaintiff's or the defendant's vessel is to blame for the collision and

has suffered damage, or where the two vessels involved are both
damaged, and found to blame (in which latter case two references, i.e.
one in respect of the claim of the plaintiffs and the other in respect
of the claim of the defendants, may be necessary) in actions of
;
damage where after the collision there has been subsequent damage
or an abandonment of either or both of the vessels requiring the
question of consequential damage to be decided in actions of limita-
;
tion of liability, in which, after the decree limiting the amount of

the plaintiff's liability has been made in Court, the right of the
claimants to share in the limited amount and the amounts respec-
tively due to each of them is determined at a reference and reported
upon to the Court and in actions of salvage where the salving
;
vessel has been damaged in rendering the services, and the details
of the damage have to be accurately ascertained (c)
Eeferences are also frequently ordered in actions of co-owner-
ship, mortgage, wages, disbursements, damage to cargo, bottomry
and necessaries, or whenever there are accounts to investigate, and
also in King's Bench actions brought in the Admiralty Division
where damages have to be assessed {d).
Filing of 252. Within twelve days from the day when the order for the
claim and is made, the solicitor for the claimant must file the claim
reference
affidavits.
and any affidavits, and within twelve days from the day when the
claim and affidavits are filed the adverse solicitor must file his counter
affidavits (e). "The claim" here referred to is headed in the action,
and consists of a statement of the particulars of the claim proposed
to be made at the reference, arranged in numbered items, so that
the Eegistrar in the schedule to his report may conveniently place
in a tabular form the items allowed.
Other 253. Any other documentary evidence required to prove the

evidence.
items of the claim, such as vouchers or receipts not made exhibits
to the affidavits, should be numbered to correspond with the items
of claim and should be filed within the twelve days. It is not
necessary to bring in any affidavits if it is intended that the
claimant's case at the reference should be proved by oral evidence
without affidavits.
Copies for In all actions other than actions of limitation of liability (where
other side.
the number of the claimants prevent such a course being taken) a
(h) See The Maid of Kent (1881), 6 P. D. 178.

(c) See Bird v. Gihb, The De Bmj (1883), 8 App. Cas. 559; The City of Chester
(1884), 9 P. D. 182, at p. 190.
id) See The Gertrude, The Baron Aberdare (1888), 13 P. D. 105.
(e) R. S. a, Ord. 56, r. 2.
—
copy of the claim and of the documentary evidence and of any Sect. 6.
affidavits intended to be filed should be supplied to the adverse References

solicitors, and similarly copies of any counter affidavits should be to Registrar
supplied to the claimants' solicitors. etc.
The usual minute must be filed when any affidavits or other

documents are filed, and the requisite Court fee paid (/).
Although evidence on affidavit is admissible, it is within the Evidence on
discretion of the Kegistrar to determine whether he will give any, affidavit,
and what, weight to affidavits made by persons who have not been
cross-examined on their affidavits and where the deponent is the
;
plaintiff in the action, he may, though resident abroad, be required

to attend in this country for cross-examination (g).
254. The hearing of the reference is appointed for a day fixed by Placing
the Eegistrar, who will consult the convenience of the parties as reference in
far as possible and thereupon a notice to have the reference placed hearing
;
in the list for hearing is filed with a 10s. stamp (Ji).
255. If any question of seamanship or nautical skill is likely to Assessors,

arise at the reference, one of the Elder Brethren of the Trinity
House will, if summoned, attend at the hearing of the reference (li).
256. Where discovery is necessary it may be ordered by the Discovery.

Eegistrar but as the vouchers contain the particulars of the claim,
;
discovery is seldom required. It is a frequent practice, however, for

a defendant to apply for inspection of the voyage accounts of the
plaintiffs' ship immediately before and after a collision in order to
ascertain the grounds of the claim in respect of damages for
detention arising from the collision.
257. At the time appointed the reference may be proceeded Hearing of

with, if either solicitor be present, but the Eegistrar may adjourn reference,
the reference from time to time (i).
Witnesses may
be examined at the reference, and on the applica-
tion of either solicitor, but at the expense in the first instance of the
party on whose behalf the application is made, the evidence may be
taken down by a shorthand writer or reporter appointed by the
Court, sworn faithfully to report the evidence, and a transcript
of the shorthand writer's or reporter's notes, certified by him to be
correct, is admitted to prove the oral evidence of the witnesses
on an objection to the Eegistrar's report (j).
(/) II. S. C, Ord. 66, r. 8. The Court fee or stamp to be paid is os. for
every instrument or document to which the minute relates, other than an exhibit
or any instrument or document previously carried from the Registry or the
marshal's office; see Order as to Supreme Court Fees, 1884, Schedule, No. 35.
(g) The Parisian (1887), 13 P. D. 16.
(A) Order as to Supreme Court Fees, 1884, Schedule, No. 12; Order as to
Fees and Percentages, 1884, Schedule.
(0 R. S. C, Ord. 56, r. 5. As to the payment of the costs occasioned by
the adjournment, see The Kepler (1861), Lush. 201; The Mellona (1848), 3
^ V ^
W. Bob. 16.
(y) p. S. C, Ord. 56, r. 6. The fees to be paid to the official shorthand writer
are as follows For attending reference room, for each reference, £1 Is.
:
;
except where two ships having been held to blame and the opposing claims are
examined on the same day, for each claim, £1 Is.
— ;
120 Admiralty.
Sect. 6. Counsel may attend the hearing of any reference ;and though at
References one time the allowance of counsel's fees on taxation was regarded as
to Registrar exceptional it is now the general rule {k) .
etc.
258. The Kegistrar may report whether any and what part of
Costs.
the costs of the reference should be allowed, and to whom (l). The
allowance or disallowance of costs is wholly discretionary. They
do not depend in any way on how the costs of the action are to be
borne, but are in the discretion of the Court, as the costs of a new
litigation (m).
Tender. 259. a tender is made in a reference and is not accepted, the

If
defendant, if the amount found due is less than such tender, is
entitled to have the balance paid out to him
Sub-JSect. 2. Registrar'' s Report and Ohjections thereto.
Registrar's 260. As sOon as possible after the hearing of the reference has
report.
been concluded the Eegistrar makes his report to the Court, stating
his decision on the questions referred to him and where the report ;
is as to damages, it shows in a schedule in parallel columns the

items claimed, and those allowed, and from what period interest at
4 per cent, until payment, allowed as part of the damages proceeded
for, will run (o).
Where the case is important, or a point of law is raised, or there
is likely to be an appeal to the Court, the Kegistrar, in addition to
his formal report, will attach thereto a statement in writing of his
reasons for his decision (o).
Case stated The Eegistrar may state a special case for the opinion of the Court,
by Registrar, either on any special point arising in the course ol: the proceeding
at the reference, or as to the questions involved in the reference
generally (p).
Filing report. Notice is sent from the Eegistry to the parties when the report
has been drawn up, and the solicitor for the claimant must, within
six days from the time when he has received notice that the report
is ready, take up and file the same in the Eegistry (q). If the
, solicitor for the claimant fails to take up and file the report, the
adverse solicitor may take it up and file it, or may apply to the
Court or a judge to have the claim dismissed with costs (r).
Confirmation The Eegistrar's report should, strictly, be confirmed by the Court
by Court. -^^^ -.^ practice this procedure is seldom required in ordinary cases,
the parties agreeing to treat the report as a final decision.
(k) E. S. C, Ord. 56, r. 7.

(0 Ihid., r. 8.
(m) The Consett (1880), 5 P. D. 77; The Friedtlercj (1885), 10 P. D. 112.
{n) The Nona, [1894] P. 265.
(o) As to the payment of interest, see Stoomvaart Maatschappy Nederland v.
Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., The Khedive (1882), 7 App. Cas.
795, at p. 803 The Kong Magnus, [1891] P. 223, in which last case interest
;
would, in strictness, have run for eleven years.

{p ) The Parisian (1887), 13 P. D. 16 The John Bellamy (1870), L. E. 3 A. & E.
;
- 129 The Immacolata Concezione (1883), 9 P. D. 37.

;
((?) E. S. C, Ord. 56, r. 9.

(r) Ibid., r. 10.
—
The fees for a reference vary from i>l Is. to£15 15s. for each Sect. 6.
merchant and the Registry, according to the amount at stake and References
the time occupied. They are payable in advance from day to day to Registrar
as the reference proceeds, by the claimant in the first instance,

a moiety being repayable to him if no order is made as to the costs Fees,
of the reference (s).
261. Any party who objects to the report and desires to appeal Notice of
objection
therefrom must file in the Registry, within six days of the filing of
to report.
the report, a notice of objection to the report (t). Objections may
by consent be heard on motion {a). If the objecting party cannot
obtain the consent of the adverse party to the objections being so
heard, he must within a further period of twelve days file a petition
in objection to the report (t).
Where a petition in objection is filed, it is headed like the state- Petition in

objection,
ment of claim in the action, and sets out in detail the matters
in the report objected to and the grounds of objections, and prays
the Court to reject the report so far as it is objected to or to modify
and alter it. It must be delivered to the opposite party like any
other pleading. The case of the adverse party in answer to the
petition in objection is contained in his " answer," which must be
filed and delivered within ten days of the filing and delivery of the
petition in objection. Further pleadings in objection may, if the
ease requires, be filed and delivered.
All the rules applicable to ordinary pleadings apply to pleadings
in objection to a report (b).
262. Within ten days of the filing and delivering of the last of the Hearing of
pleadings in objection, the petitioner must bring in to the Registry otijection.
printed copies of the " record " containing the pleadings, the evidence
taken at the reference material to the objections, and the Registrar's
report and the same documents are required where the objections
;
are heard on motion. A notice to have the appeal in objection to

the report placed on the list for hearing has then to be filed in the
Registry, and a Court fee of £2 paid(c). The petition will be heard
by the judge in Court in ordinary course with other business on
such day as may be appointed for it.
Where questions are involved in the petition on which it would be Trinity
desirable to have the assistance of the Elder Brethren of the Trinity Masters.
House, they may be summoned to attend on the hearing of the
appeal {d).
Additional evidence may by the leave of the Court be given at Additional
the hearing of the petition, and that evidence may be either the evidence.
(s) See Order as to Supreme Court Pees, 1884, Schedule, Nos. 84—87 ; The
Oonsett (1880), o P. D. 77.
(t) C, Ord. 56, r. 11. A copy of the notice of objection must, before
E. S.
be served on the adverse solicitor {ibid.). The time for filing the notice
it is filed,
of objection under this rule maybe extended (The Thi/atira (1883), 32 W. E.
^
276,279).
(a) See The Edmond (1861), Lush. 211.
{h) E. S. C, Ord. 56, r. 12 see pp. 94, et seq., ante.
;
(c) Order as to Supreme Court ¥ees,

1884, Schedule, No. 52.
id) See The Fenshtr (1857), Swa. 211, 213.
—
122 Admiralty.
Sect. 6. evidence of witnesses examined orally in Court (e), or evidence on

References affidavit (/). Such additional evidence will not, however, be
to Registrar admitted unless the Court is satisfied that such evidence could not
etc. by proper diligence have been produced before the Kegistrar and
merchants (g).
The Court attaches great weight to the experience of the Eegis-
trar and merchants, especially in mercantile matters, and will not
interfere with their report unless fully convinced that they are in
error (h).
Order on 263. Instead of merely allowing the appeal or varying the report,
appeal.
the Court may refer the report back to the Registrar and direct him
to make a further report, either on the case generally, or on any
special point ©.
District 264. The practice and procedure as above stated in regard to

Kegistries.
references to the Registrar and merchants in London actions, and
appeals in objection thereto, are applicable to references heard in
District Registries.
Sect. 7. Judgment in Contested Actions.
Payment 265. Where the amount of the liability of the defendants, or of

ofmoney
found due.
plaintiffs against whoma counterclaim has been substantiated, is
ascertained either by the report of the Registrar and merchants, or
by the amount of the principal sum due being specified in the decree
of the Court, the person entitled to receive the amount can, if the
proceeds of a ship or cargo are in Court or their value has been
paid into Court, on application in the Registry, obtain an order
directing the amount found due to him to be paid to him, or on his
written authority to his solicitor. In actions in rem, where bail has
been put in, the person so entitled to receive the amount due may
similarly obtain an order ordering the sureties to pay that amount
on a day named if the defendants have not paid the amount due
from them.
If there have been cross actions of damage in which both vessels
have been held to blame, or actions where both claim and counter-
claim have been pronounced for, the amount due will be the amount
of the balance (if any) which is found due after the amounts due to
the plaintiffs in the cross actions, or to the plaintiffs and defendants
in cases where there are counterclaims, have been set off against
each other (k).
Caveat, 266. It has already been stated that where for any reason a party
payment.
wishes, by reason of any question of priority or otherwise, to prevent
the Court ordering the payment out of money to any person, the
person objecting may file in the Admiralty Registry a praecipe for
(e) See The Newport (1858), Swa. 317; The Flying Fish (1865), Br. & L. 436.
(/) The Harmonides, [1903] P. 1, at pp. 3, 5.
C^) The Thuringia (1871), -11 L. J. (adm.) 20.
(/i) See The Clyde (1856), Swa. 23.
(/) See The Minnetonka, [1904] P. 202, at p. 210

(/c) See Stoomvaart Maatschappy Nederland v. Peninsular and Oriental Steam
Navigation Co., The Khedive (1882), 7 App. Cas. 795.

—
a caveat payment, and thereupon a caveat against the payment of Sect. 7.
the money will be entered in a book kept in the Admiralty Eegistry, Judgment in
and ^yhenever this has been done no order for payment of the money Contested
will be made either by the Court or a judge until notice has been A ction s,
given to the party on whose behalf the caveat has been entered (l).
Moreover, when in any action before the Court questions of priority
are likely to arise, and in all cases of judgment being pronounced in
default actions, the practice is for the judgment to be without pre-
judice to other claims against the property and reserving all questions
as to the priority of such claims {m).
267. Where in an action of possession the plaintiff's claim is pro- Decree of

possession,
nounced for, possession of the vessel proceeded against will, if it has
not been bailed, be decreed to the plaintiff, and on a praecipe for a
decree of possession being filed (u) in the Admiralty Eegistry if the
action is proceeding in London, or in the district registry where
the action is proceeding, a decree of possession directed to the
Admiralty Marshal or his substitute commanding the release of
the vessel and her delivery to the plaintiff, or his attorney for
him, will be issued out of the Eegistry. The decree must be left
in the Admiralty Marshal's office in London actions, or with his
substitute where the action is proceeding in a district registry,
and after payment of the proper Court fee with the Marshal's charges
for possession fees and other expenses (o), it will be executed by the
delivery of the ship to the plaintiff or his attorney.
268. Where in an action in rem the property is left under arrest Sale where
until the decree is made, the defendant will of course, if the suit is property
proceeded
dismissed, be entitled to have the property released from arrest, on against is
taking the necessary steps (p). It, however, the plaintiff's claim under arrest.
ispronounced for it will be necessary to have the property sold
by the Court in order that the claim may be paid off out of the
proceeds.
The order for sale will usually be made a part of the decree Commission
at the hearing, and in order to carry it out the solicitor for the of appraise-
ment and
plaintiffs must file in the registry where the action is proceeding a sale.
praecipe for a commission of appraisement and sale, and have it
executed when issued, unless the Court or a judge shall otherwise
order,by the Admiralty Marshal or his substitutes (q).
Unless the Court otherwise orders, after the appraised value has Conduct of
been fixed, the property will be sold by auction by the broker of the sale.
Court at not less than such value. For good cause on application
being made by the parties, the Court will sometimes direct the
property to be put up for sale privately. After the property has
been sold the Marshal or his substitute returns the commission of
See pp. 91, 92, ante.

(/)
(m) See The Africano, [1894] P. 141, at p. 150.
00 This must be stamped with a stamp of 15s. (Order as to Supreme Court
Fees, 1884, Schedule, No. 13).
(o) See Order as to Supreme Court Fees, 1884, Schedule, Nos. 94, 98.
See p. 88, ante.
(p)
See R. S. C, Ord. 51, r. 14.
(7) See also p. 89, ante, where the practice in
relation to a commission of appraisement is set out.
— —
124 Admiralty.
Sect. 7. sale and appraisement into the Eegistry, together with a statement
Judgment in of the result of the sale, and an "account of sale" showing what
Contested items of expenditure have to he charged against the proceeds of the
Actions. property. The Marshal also pays the gross proceeds of the sale into
the Law Courts branch of the Bank of England in London actions (r),
and any fees or expenses payable to the Marshal in respect of the
sale are deducted from the gross proceeds of the sale and transferred
to the Marshal's account in the Paymaster- General's books (s).
Taxation of The account of sale brought into the Eegistry by the Marshal
Marshal's may be taxed by the Admiralty Eegistrar, if any party so desires,
account of
sale.
and any person interested in the proceeds may be heard before the
Admiralty Eegistrar on the taxation. An objection to the taxation
is heard in the same manner as an objection to the taxation of a
solicitor's bill of costs {t).
Execution 269. The ordinary remedies for enforcing a judgment in the High
by fi- fa.
Court are applicable to Admiralty actions. Thus writs of fieri facias
are issued when necessary both to recover the amount, including
costs, due under the judgment in an action in personam, and the
amount due in respect of costs under the judgment in an action
in rem (a). It has also been held in an action of damage in rem,
where an amount of bail was put in up to the full value of the res,
but the defendants were condemned in damages greater than the
amount of bail, that the plaintiffs were entitled to a writ of fieri
facias to levy on the ship released on bail the balance of the
damages unpaid "over and above the amount of bail (b).
Sect. 8. Taxation of Costs.
th^RegistTy 270. The taxation of costs is, generally speaking, conducted in

the same manner as in the Central Office (c). The bill for taxation
(r) See E. S. C, Ord. 51, r. 15 Supreme Court Fund Eules (1905), r. 29.
;
(s) Order as to Fees, Dec. 19, 1896 (Statutory Eules and Orders for 1896,
p. 585). The ordinary fees, which are for the most part paid by stamps impressed
by the Marshal on the account of the sale, are :
£ s. d.
On attending, appointing, and swearing appraisers ... ... 1 0 0
On delivering up a ship or goods to a purchaser agreeably to the
inventory ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1 0 0
On attending the delivery of cargo, or sale, or removal of a ship
or goods, per day ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 2 0 0
On retaining posession of a ship, with or without cargo, or a ship's
cargo without a ship, to include the cost of a ship-keeper, if
required, per day ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 0 5 0
If the Marshal or any of his substitutes is required to go more than five
miles from his office to perform any of these duties he is entitled to his reason-
able travelling expenses, board and maintenance, in addition.
On the sale of any vessel or goods sold pursuant to a decree or order of the
Court, for every £dO or fraction of £50 realised, lOs. (Order as to Supreme
Court Fees, 1884, Schedule, Nos. 95—98, 100, 101.)
(t) E. S. C.i Ord. 51, rr. 15, 16. See title Practice and Procedure.
(a) The Court fees payable on the issue of writ of fieri facias out of the
Eegistry are 5s. for the writ, and 15s. for the praecipe (Order as to Supreme
'
Court Fees, 1884, Schedule, Nos. 6, 13).
(b) See The Gemma, [1899] P. 285.
(c) See generally, as to taxation of costs, title Solicitors.
——
. . ' -
must be the Eegistry, and notice of taxation is then sent out

filed in gj,^^ g
by the assistant registrar, who is generally the taxing officer. A Taxation of
certificate is not usually required, unless a difficulty in obtaining
payment of the costs is anticipated. In default actions notice is
Costs,
• —
usually sent to the several claimants on the fund in Court, so that
each party may have an opportunity of criticising the several bills.
Sect. 9. Appeals to the Court of Appeal.
271. Appeals from the decision of the j udge sitting in Admiralty

or from a Divisional Court of the Admiralty Division are to the
Court of Appeal {d)
Where a party has either a right to appeal without leave, or has Filing of
obtained leave to appeal, he, or his solicitor for him, must, after iôtice of
^^^^^
serving the adverse party or parties with notice of appeal (e), file a
copy of such notice in the Admiralty Registry in London the ;
Admiralty Registrar, the assistant Admiralty registrar, and the

clerks there, acting, in respect of all applications in relation to
Admiralty appeals, as officers attached to the Court of Appeal (/).
The copy of the notice of appeal so filed must be stamped with a
stamp ot £1{g).
272. Where the action in which the appeal is made is an action in Security for
rem, it is not the usual practice for an appellant who has put in bail
in the Court below, and so obtained there the release of the property
proceeded against, to be required to give security for the costs of
the appeal (/i). Security for costs may, however, be ordered under
special circumstances, and where the right to such security is plain
it ought to be furnished without any application to the Court being
required (i).
273. In accordance with the practice which prevailed in Admiralty Evidence,

appeals before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the oral
evidence taken in the Admiralty Division in an Admiralty action
is proved before the Court of Appeal by a transcript of the short-
hand notes taken by the official shorthand writer, and the judgment
of the Court below is proved by a copy of such judgment certified
by the reporter of the Court below to be correct (/c).
The transcript of the evidence and the certified judgment, together
.
with copies of the pleadings in the action, of the minute of the
decree appealed from and of the notice of appeal, as well as copies of
any material affidavits or documents, are printed by the appellant
under an order obtained on summons in the Admiralty Registry (l)
274. At the hearing of final appeals in Admiralty actions in which Nautical

questions of nautical skill or knowledge are involved, the Court of assessors.
{d) Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Yict. c. 66), ss. 18, 19.
(e)E. S.C., Ord. 58, rr. 2, 3.
(/) SeeE. S. C, Ord. 60, r. 2.
{g) Order as to Supreme Court Fees, 1884, Schedule, No. 52.
(h) The Victoria (1876), 1 P. D. 280.
(0 E. S. C, Ord. 58, r. 15; The Gonstantine (1878), 4 P. D. 156.
(A) A fee of two guineas is payable to the reporter.
(0 E. S. C, Ord. 58, rr. 11, 12.

. ;
126 Admiralty.
Sect. 9. Appeal is assisted by two nautical assessors (m). The hearing of

Appeals to appeals in which nautical assessors so attend takes place on days
Court of specially appointed for the purpose.
Appeal. Interlocutory appeals from the Admiralty Division are usually
heard or put down for hearing in order with the other business of
that division of the Court of Appeal which has been appointed to
hear Admiralty appeals.
Additional 275. The power of receiving additional evidence in its discretion
evidence.
-^^ Admiralty appeals was transferred to the Court of Appeal together
with the rest of the jurisdiction over such appeals formerly pos-
sessed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council {n)
When the Court of Appeal is assisted by nautical assessors it will
not allow additional evidence to be called on matters of nautical
knowledge and skill (o).
Where
there has been a conflict of evidence in the Court below,
the Court of Appeal must decide, as in other cases, whether the
conclusion come to by the judge appealed from is the proper one,
but will attach great weight to his view of the evidence owing to the
fact that the witnesses were examined before him, and he saw their
demeanour and manner of giving evidence (p).
Costs. 276. The costs of an appeal follow the event as a general rule
but there are certain rules of practice which are followed in cases to
which they apply. Thus where both vessels are to blame each party
usually bears his own costs of the action (q). Where, however, the
plaintiffs in an action of damage in which their vessel has been
found alone to blame appeal to the Court of Appeal, and, admitting
that their vessel was to blame, seek only to have the decision of the
Court below varied by both vessels being held to blame, the Court
of Appeal, if it allows the appeal and pronounces both vessels to
blame for the collision, will give the appellants the costs of the
appeal, but direct that each party is to bear his own costs in the
Court below (?*)•
The rule of practice that where the appellants succeed on the

ground of compulsory pilotage no costs will be given, has been
followed in the Court of Appeal (s).
Application 277. In the event of an appeal being contemplated to the House

for stay. of Lords any application made for a stay of proceedings pending
such appeal must be made in the Court of Appeal (t).
(m) A fee of £3 3s. per day is payable to each assessor for each appeal (see
note {d), p. 101, ante).
See The Scindm (1866), L. E. 1 P. C. 241 ; 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 41 6 & 7 Yict.
(w) ;
c. and see R. S. C, Ord. 58, r. 4.

38 ;
(o) The Assyrian (1890), 6 Asp. M. L. 0. 525.
(p) See The Glannibanta (1876), 1 P. D. 283; The Sisters (1876), 1 P. D. 117 ;
The Singapore and The Hele (1866), L. E. 1 P. C. 378.

{q) See The Hector (1883), 8 P. D., 218; The Beryl (1884), 9 P. D. 137, at
p. 144.
The London, [1905] P. 152.
(r)
See The Daoiz (1877), 3 Asp. M. L. C. 177. As to the costs in inevitable
\s)
accident cases, see The Monkseaton (1889), 14 P. D. 51 The Batavier (1889), 15

;
P. D. 37 The Chaucer (March 8, 1907), where no order was made as to the costs
;
in the Court below.

{t) See The Batata, [1897] P. 118, 131.
— — —
278. The Court of Appeal has power to refer any question arising Sect. 9.
in an appeal to the Admiralty Eegistrar or the Admiralty Eegistrar Appeals to

assisted by merchants {u), and may, if it allows the appeal, either Court of
retain the cause (r) or remit it, with or without directions, to the Appeal.
Court below (?<'). Reference to
Registrar.
Part IV. — Jurisdiction and Practice of other

Courts having Admiralty Jurisdiction.
Sect. 1. County Courts having Admiralty Jurisdiction.
Sub-Sect. 1. Jurisdiction.
279. An Admiralty jurisdiction of a limited character, conferred In salvage

by statute and Orders in Council made thereunder, is exercised
by certain county courts, including the City of London Court.
Such Courts have jurisdiction over all cases of salvage of life or
property where the value of the property saved, when first
brought into safety by the salvors (a), does not exceed £1,000(6),
or the amount claimed does not exceed £300 (5), and over all cases
of salvage, irrespective of value or amount, where the parties to
the dispute agree to the jurisdiction (h). A county court having Wreck.
Admiralty jurisdiction may also determine a dispute as to the title
to wreck as if it were a dispute as to salvage (c).
A county court having Admiralty jurisdiction may determine other cases,
claims not exceeding £150 for towage or necessaries ((^), and claims
not exceeding £300 for damage to cargo or damage to a ship by
collision or otherwise or for damage done by a ship in collision with
another ship or a barge {e).
In respect of wages a county court having Admiralty jurisdiction Wages,
can determine claims not exceeding £150, but claims for wages
below £50 must be dealt with by a Court of summary jurisdiction
except under special circumstances (/).
In any of the above classes of claims a county court having Byagree-
Admiralty jurisdiction has jurisdiction, irrespective of the amount
claimed, where the parties so agree.
{u) See Judicial Committee Act, 1833 (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 41) Supreme Court ;
of Judicature Acts, 1873 (36 & 37 Yict. c. 66), ss. 16, 18, and 1875 (38 & 39 Vict,
c. 77), s. 21.
See TAc Flying Fish (1865), Br. & L. 436.

(<;)
Ibid., at p. 445
[to] and see the special provision as to sale contained in s. 32
;
of the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71).
(a) The Stdla (1867), L. E. 1 A. & E. 340.
{h) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 547.
(c) Ibid., s. 526.
(d) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), s. 3.
(e) Ibid., s. 3, and County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Amendment Act,
1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 51), s. 4.
(/) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 165 ; as to what
such circumstances are, see p. 70, mite.
128 Admiralty.
Sect. 1.
280. Claims for salvage, necessaries, towage, wages, and damage
County to cargo, must be of such a nature (within the statutory limits) that
1Courts in the Admiralty Court would have had jurisdiction to entertain them
Admiralty. at the time when such powers were conferred on the county courts
Nature of having Admiralty jurisdiction (^). The jurisdiction in damage
claims. causes exists when a ship has been damaged, whether the object
causing the damage is a ship or not {h) but claims for damage
;
done by a ship in collision with an object situate on land outside

the ebb and flow of the tide or with a pier are not included (i).
The Admiralty jurisdiction conferred upon the county court may
be exercised either in rem or in personam (k).
Maritime 281. A county court having Admiralty jurisdiction has also

jurisdiction jurisdiction over claims arising out of any agreement made in
over claims on
relation to the use or hire of any ship or the carriage of goods
charter-
parties etc. therein, and also as to any claim in tort in respect of goods carried
in any ship, provided the amount claimed does not exceed ^6300 {I).
This jurisdiction, which may be exercised in rem as well as in
personam, was not possessed by the High Court of Admiralty, and
is not now possessed as an original jurisdiction by the Admiralty
Division (m).
As already mentioned, an appeal lies to a Divisional Court of the
Admiralty Division (n).
County courts appointed to have Admiralty jurisdiction within
certain districts (o) (among which the City of London Court is
included) have thus a statutory jurisdiction in certain maritime
causes in regard to charterparties and bills of lading (_/:>). They
have also the same jurisdiction with regard to the forfeiture of
dangerous goods as is possessed by the Admiralty Division (q).
(g) Everard v. Kendall (1870), L. E. 5 C. P. 428 Purkis v. Flo-wer (1873),

;
L. K. 9 Q. B. 114; The Hyemraett (1880), 5 P. D. 227 (towage); Allen v.

OarhuU (1880), 6 Q. B. D. 165 (necessaries) Wells v. Gas Float Whitton No. 2,
;
[1897] A. C. 337 (salvage). Consequently a claim m

jêrso^âm against a pilot
for negligence causing a collision is not within the jurisdiction of a county
court having Admiralty jurisdiction. See B. v. Judge of Citij of London Court,
[1892] 1 Q. B. 273.
{h) Mersey Docks and Harhour Board v. Turner, The Zeta, [1893] A. C. 468 and;
see The Warwick (1890), 15 P. D. 189.

(*) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Yict. c. 71), s. 3,
and County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Yict. c. 51), s. 4.
Bohson V. The Owner of the Kate (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 13 (damage to a pile-driving
machine on bank of river) The Normandy, [1904] P. 187 (damage to a pier).
;
{k) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Yict. c. 51), s. 3.
(l) Ibid., 8. 2. An action for commission on a charterparty is not within
the jurisdiction conferred by this section {The Nuova Raffaelina (1871), L. E.
3 A. & E. 483). For illustrations of other matters not within this jurisdiction,
see The Zeus (1888), 13 P. D. 188 (demurrage on shipping of coal); B. v. Judge
of City of London Court (1883), 12 Q. B. D. 115 (loss of passenger's luggage).
(m) The Alina (1880), 5 Ex. D. 227. See also The Cheapsrde, [1904] "P. 339, 343.
(n) County Coui-ts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Yict. c. 71), s. 26.
See p. 112, ante.
(o) Ihid., s, 2. The County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Order in Council,
1899, enumerates the county courts upon which an Admiralty jurisdiction has
been conferred, and defines the limits of their districts for Admiralty purposes.
(p) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Amendment Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Yict.
c. 51) s. 2.
{q) See p. 78, ante.

— —
Part IV. Peactice of Other Courts. 129
Actions in personam for damage sustained in a collision between ^^gt. i.
vessels and for claims under £S00 in respect of the use or hire of County
ships or the carriage of goods (r) may be brought on the common Courts in
law side of any county court, whether having Admiralty jurisdiction Ad mira lty,
or not (s), provided the claims are within the amounts to which the
jurisdiction of the court is limited {t).
Sub-Sect. 2. Practice and Procedure (u),
282. Proceedings are commenced in the county court having Court in

Admiralty jurisdiction within the district in which the vessel or which action
^^^^^^^^^^^
property to w^hich the cause relates is at the commencement of the
•
proceedings (a). Failing the possibility of applying this rule, that

Court has jurisdiction in the district of which the owner of the
vessel or property to which the cause relates or his agent in
England resides, or, in the alternative, that Court the district of
which is nearest to such place of residence (^). The extension of
the county court jurisdiction to entertain actions in regard to
charterparties and bills of lading (c) does not affect the application
of these principles as to the Courts in which actions are to be
commenced (cQ Where the vessel or property in question is at sea,
.
the second of the above-mentioned provisions is applicable, not-

withstanding the fact that the owners thereof are plaintiffs in the
action (e).
The general provision enabling a plaintiff' to commence an action

in the district where the defendant dwells or carries on business
is applicable to Admiralty actions (/). In any case the parties
(r) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Amendment Act, 1869 (32 & 33
Tict. c. 51), s. 2.
(s) Notwithstanding sect. 5 of the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction
Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Yict. c. 71).
(t) R. V. Judge of Southend Count^j Court (1884), 13 Q. B. D. Scovell v. M2 ;
Bevan (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 428. The county courts have jurisdiction on

their common law side in respect of the arrest of foreign ships causing damage
to property, claims for wages etc., and the arrest of a ship for personal injuries
caused by the owner's negligence (see p. 71, ante). Moreover the judge
of a county court may be summoned to preside over a court of survey
(Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), s. 487 ; see title
Shipping aisid Navigation, as to courts of survey) and he, and not his court, ;
has jurisdiction in appeals against pilotage bye-laws (see title Shipping and
Navigation).
{u) The practice and procedure is regulated by general orders made under the
County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), s. 35.
The references throughout this section to rules and forms are to the County
—
Court Eules and Forms, 1903 1906, except where otherwise indicated.
(a) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Yict. c. 71),
«. 21 (1).
31 & 32 Yict. c. 71, s. 21 (2). "Agent in England" means a person acting
[h)
for another person in relation to the vessel or property proceeded against at the
time of service of process {The Citij of Agra, [1898] P. 198).
(c) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Amendment Act, 1869 (32 & 33
Yict. c. 51), s. 2.
{d) - The Countij of Durham, [1891] P. 1.
(e) Pugsley v. Rophins, [1892] 2 Q. B. 184 ; The County of Durham,
supra.
if) County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Yict. c. 43), s. 74; The Hero, [1891]
H.L. — T. K
.
130 Admiralty.
Sect. 1. may consent in writing that any county court having Admiralty
County jurisdiction shall have jurisdiction in that case (g).
Courts in
Admiralty. 283. To institute an Admiralty action the plaintiff must file a
praecipe stating the nature of the action, and, where practicable,
Precipe. his name, address, and description and the name of the defendant
or vessel or property against whom or which he proceeds. With
the prsecipe he must file particulars of his claim, with necessary
copies. Where a solicitor is employed his name and address for
service are necessary in the praecipe, and he must sign the par-
ticulars (h). Wlien it is not practicable at the time of filing to
state the name of the plaintiff he may be described as " owner of
the ship or vessel" (i). In an Admiralty action for wages against
the owners of a foreign vessel notice of action must be given to the
consul or vice-consul of the state to which the ship belongs,
if there is one resident within the district of the Court, and a copy
of the notice must be annexed to the praecipe (j).
Summons. 284. The praecipe and particulars being duly filed, the Kegistrar
at once enters a plaint and issues a summons, the particulars
forming part of the summons (/c).
Warrant of
285. Where it is shown by evidence on affidavit (l) to the satis-
arrest.
faction of the judge, or, in his absence, the Kegistrar (m), that it is
probable that any vessel or property to which the cause relates will
be removed out of the jurisdiction of the Court before the plaintiff's
claim (or the defendant's counterclaim) is satisfied, the judge, or
the Eegistrar, may issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of
the vessel or property unless or until bail sufficient to satisfy the
claim and costs be entered into and perfected, according to general
orders, by the owner, his agent, or other person defendant in the
cause {n)
Service of 286. The service of the summons and warrant is effected by

summons
and warrant.
the bailiff of the Court where a solicitor is not employed, but
otherwise in the same manner as a warrant of arrest is served
in the High Court, and if necessary on a Sunday or at night-
time (o) Personal service is necessary upon an agent in
.
England (p) of the owner unless substituted service is allowed

upon affidavit (q). A warrant of arrest directed to the high bailiff
of a county court and others the bailiffs thereof cannot be served
((/) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Yict. c. 71),
s. 21 (4).
(h) County Court Eules, 1903—1906, Ord. 39, rr. 4, 9, form 368.
(0 Ord. 39, r. 5.
U) Ord. 39, r. 8.
{k) Ord. 39, r. 10. For forms of summons, see County Court Forms,
Nos. 370, 371.
(0 Ord. 39, r. 11.
(m) See Ord. 55, as to interpretation of the term " Court."
(n) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Yict. c 71),
s. 22 Ord. 39, rr. 11—14, form 372.
;
(o) See p. 85, ante; Ord. 39, rr. 15 17. —

(p) See p. 137, post,
(q) Ord. 39, r. 18.
. . —
Part IV. Practice of Other Courts. 131
by a clerk in the high baihff's office not authorised by the Court to Sect. i.
execute warrants (r). County

Where a soHcitor is employed and agrees to accept service and Courts in
appear and put in bail, delivery to him of the summons or warrant Ad mira lty,
is sufficient (s)
Where is already under the arrest of the High Court, it

a vessel Vessel already
arrest,
is unnecessary, so long as the vessel remains under such arrest,
for the county court officer to incur possession fees by placing a
person in possession, and a double set of such fees will not be
allowed (0
287. A
defendant desiring to enter an appearance must file a Appearance,
praecipe containing where practicable the name, address, and
description of the party, or parties where there are several defen-
dants, appearing, or where not practicable a statement that the
''owners" or the "defendant" are appearing, and where a solicitor
is employed, an address for service must be given (u).
Any person not named in a summons may intervene in an action Intervening.
in rem on filing an affidavit of interest, and if necessary the inter-
vener may apply for a transfer to the High Court A defendant
may appear at any time before final judgment (x).
Notice of appearance must be given by the defendant to the Notice of
plaintiff, and in the case of an intervener to all other parties who appearance,
have appeared {a). The same rules apply to appearance upon the
arrest of any vessel or property {b).
288. Where no appearance has been entered within the time Proceedings
limited by the summons, if the claim is for salvage or towage and in default of
is not for damages or a liquidated sum, the plaintiff may on affidavit ^PP^^^^^^^-
of service set down the action for hearing in the ordinary course, or,
on application, upon a special day appointed (c). In any other case,
the plaintiff may sign final judgment for a liquidated claim or inter-
locutory judgment for damages to be assessed by the Eegistrar, with
costs to be taxed in either case (d).
289. Bail may be taken before the Eegistrar or before a com- Bail,
missioner for oaths who or whose partner is not acting as solicitor

for the party on whose behalf the bail is to be taken in every ;
case the sureties must justify, unless the adverse party by notice
in writing dispenses with affidavits of justification (e). The bail
(r) The Palomares (1885), 10 P. D. 36.

(s) County Court Eules, 1903—1906, Ord. 39, r. 6 ; Ord. 7, r. 12.
it) The Rio Lima (1873), L. E. 4 A. & E. 157 ; and see The Turliani (1874),
32 L. T. 841, 843.
{u) Ord. 39, rr. 19—21, 25. Per form of praecipe, see County Court Eorms,
No. 374.
[w) Ord. 39, r. 22.
{x) Ord. 39, r. 26.
(a) Ord. 39, r. 24 ; form 374A ; Ord. 54, rr. 2—4.
{h) Ord. 39, r. 23.
(c) Ord. 39, r. 36.
((/) Ord. 39, r. 36 ; forms 375, 395, 397.
(e) Ord. 39, rr. 37, 38; form 377. As to affidavits of justification, see
p. 90, ante.
K 2
132 Admiralty.
Sect. 1. bond and affidavits of justification in proper form (/) must be

County prepared by the party giving bail {g).
Courts in
Admiralty. 290. If bail is to be taken before the Eegistrar, the party giving
bail must serve before six o'clock on the day before the day appointed
Procedure on
for giving bail on the party requiring bail a notice on a form
taking bail.
sent to the party giving bail by the Eegistrar, containing the names
and addresses of the sureties and the time appointed (/i) If bail .
is taken before a commissioner, notice of such bail must be given

and an affidavit of service in proper form filed but the property ;
cannot be released without consent until the expiration of twenty-

four hours from such service {i), nor can the property be released
after that time if within that time the party requiring bail has
given notice to the other party and the Eegistrar that he requires
to cross-examine the sureties as to their means (A;). On receipt of
this notice the Eegistrar appoints a time for cross-examination on
forty-eight hours' notice to all parties, and decides as to the
sufficiency of the bail; the costs of an attendance at an appointment
for cross-examination made without sufficient cause, and the expense
of detaining the property kept under arrest in consequence of the
notice, may in the discretion of the Eegistrar fall on the party
requiring the attendance (l).
Eel ease of 291. Payment into Court of the amount claimed with costs, or
property.
completion of the bail, and payment of the bailiff's charges, entitles
the defendant to an order for release (in). In an action for salvage,
however, the property cannot be released except by consent of the
plaintiff until the value thereof has been agreed or stated in an
affidavit of value by the party seeking the release (ri). A plaintiff
wishing to dispute the affidavit of value may apply by praecipe
for an appraisement, the costs of which are in the discretion
of the judge, but unless he applies for an appraisement he may
not dispute the value sworn to, except by leave of the judge for
good cause (o).
Cargo arrested for freight only may be released on an affidavit
of value as to the value of the freight being filed and payment into
Court of the amount of the freight being made or proof given that
such amount has already been paid (p).
Costs and 292. Costs properly incurred by any party in respect of instruc-
commission. tions for bail, preparation and execution of the bail bond and
affidavits of justification, and any notices, perusals and attendances
in relation to bail, may be allowed on taxation, not exceeding the
(/) County Court Eules and Forms, 1903—1906, forms 377, 378.
(g) Ord. 39, r. 39.
(h) Ord. 39, r. 40.
(i) Ord. 39, r. 41 ; forms 379, 380.
(k) Ord. 39, r. 42 ; form 381.
(/) Ord. 39, rr. 43, 44.
(m) Ord. 39, r. 45 ; form 384.
(n) Ord. 39, r. 46.
(o) Ord. 39, r. 47; The Argo, [1895] P. 33 ; form 383.
Ord. 39, r. 48.
— .
Part IV. Peactice of Other Courts. 133
amounts allowed under the scale of costs in proceedings of a like Sect. i.
nature (q) A commission or fee paid to a surety to a bail bond, or

. to a County-
person otherwise giving securit}'- not exceeding in the aggregate one Courts in
per cent, on the amount of the bail, is also recoverable on taxation (r). Ad miralty.
293. At the time appearance or within seven days statement

of entering of
thereafter, the defendant may
give written notice requiring a state- claim,
ment of claim, and the plaintiff must within ten days after such
notice, or within such further time as the Court allows, deliver a
statement of claim (s).
294. A defendant not requiring a statement of claim may either Defence,

within ten days after appearance file and deliver his defence or give
notice that he does not intend to do so, and thereupon either party
may set down the action for hearing (^). In the ordinary course,
the defence and set-off or counterclaim (if any) follow ten days after
the statement of claim, and the reply six days after the defence (u).
Subject to these rules, the Eules of the Supreme Court as to
pleadings and amendments of pleadings apply with necessary
modifications to pleadings in the county court {x).
295. In actions for damage by collision between vessels where Preliminary

the amount claimed exceeds £20, a preliminary act, unless other-
wise ordered, is filed by each party (a). The contents of the pre-
liminary act and the rules applicable thereto are the same in the
High Court and the county court (b), with the exception that in the
county court the plaintiff' must in addition allege what acts of
negligence or breaches of navigation rules were committed by the
defendant, and the defendant must allege the name of any vessel
other than the plaintiff"'s which he alleges caused the collision or
damage or with reference to which the persons in charge of the
defendant's vessel acted (c). Where preliminary acts are required,
the action is tried without pleadings unless the Court otherwise
orders (d). In such case, where the defence of compulsory pilotage is
raised by either party, the defendant must give notice of the same
within the time allowed for delivery of his set-off or counterclaim,
and the plaintiff within six days from such delivery (e)
296. Leave to administer interrogatories will not be granted interroga-

where the information required is substantially covered by the tones,
pleadings or preliminary acts unless the Court considers the same

necessary (/).
iq) County Court Eules, 1903—1906, Ord. 39, r. 48a.

(?) Ord. 39, r. 49.
(s) Old. 39, r. 27.
(0 Ord. 39, r. 28.

(«) Ord. 39, rr. 29, 30.
(.x) Ord. 39, r. 31 and see ante, p. 94,
;
(a) Ord. 39, r. 32. As to obtaining copies of the preliminary acts after the
pleadings are closed, see Ord. 39, r. 32 (2).
(h) See ante, p. 93 E. S. ; C, Ord. 19, r. 28.
(c) Ord. 39, r. 32 (1).
((/) Ord. 39 r. 32 (3).
(e) Ibid.
(J) Ord. 39, r. 33.
134 Admiralty.
Sect. 1.
297. The action is set down for hearing on the close of the
County pleadings, on the application of either party, to come on upon an
Courts in ordinary day of sitting or on a special day appointed, and the
Admiralty. Kegistrar gives notice of such day to both parties (^).
Setting down.
298. In case of default of pleading (including default of filing
Default of
pleading. a preliminary act), the action may be dismissed for want of
prosecution (h).
Consolida- 299. The Court may on application by any party on notice to all
tion.
other parties make an order to consolidate actions and give all
necessary directions (i).
Admission of 300. The defendant may at any time after appearance, and
liability.
the plaintiffmay at any time after the filing of a counterclaim,
admit liability in any action except an action for salvage (k).
The admission must be in proper form and signed by the
solicitor for the party, or signed by the party in person, attested
by a solicitor, and notice must be given of the admission to all
parties (I).
Tender and 301. A party relying upon a tender must give notice of tender to
payment into
the adverse party in proper form and deliver a praecipe with a copy
Court.
thereof for the opposite party, and pay the amount tendered into
Court. The praecipe should state whether the tender is made in respect
of the whole or what part of the claim, the amount paid for costs (if
any), the fact that liability is denied, and notice of defence on the
ground of tender made before action, if either of these is alleged (m).
Within twenty-four hours the Kegistrar must send notice of the
payment into Court to the adverse party, and within forty-eight
hours after the receipt of the notice the adverse party must serve
notice accepting or rejecting the tender, failure to do so implying
rejection (n).
Acceptance 302. Where a party accepts a tender (o) of the whole amount
of tender.
claimed he can take the same out of Court, unless the tender was
accompanied by a notice of defence on the ground of tender before
action brought, and he is entitled to his costs to be taxed and
enforced where the tender is made without costs. W^here the
payment into Court is made with costs he may accept the sum so
paid or tax his costs at his option, but in the latter case, should the
amount paid prove less than the amount of the taxed costs, he is
(g) County Court Eules, 1903—1906, Ord. 39, r. 35.

(h) Ord. 39, r. 34.
(?) See p. 92, ante; Ord. 39, r. 53a.
(k) Ord. 39, r. 93.

(1) Ord. 39, rr. 93, 94 form 390.
;
(m) Ord. 39, r. 74; form 387. A

tender in the High Court of Admiralty
nevoT" imported a denial of liability see The ChiUonford, [1901] "W. N. 48.
;
—
The provisions of the rules (73 80) of Ord. 39 as to a denial of liability would
seem to refer, not to a tender by act in Court, but to a payment into Court in
salvage actions such as can novs^ be made under E. S. C, Ord. 22, r. 1 (see
p. 96, ante).
(n) Ord. 39, rr. 75, 76 forms 388, 389.
;
(o) I.e., a payment into Court; see note (m), supra.

—
Part IV. Pkactice of Other Courts. 135
entitled to an order for the balance, and where the amount is more Sect. 1.
than the taxed costs the balance must be paid to the party making County
the tender (p). Courts iD
Admiralty,
A party may accept a tender of part of the claim, and is
entitled, unless the tender is coupled with a notice of defence on
the ground of tender before action brought, to costs in respect of
the amount up to the date of notice and acceptance, but the amount
cannot be paid out nor the costs taxed until after the disposal of
the action, and is subject to a set-off for any costs awarded to the
party making the tender {q).
303. Where notice of defence on the ground of tender before Defence on

action brought accompanies the tender and the tender is accepted, ground of
tender before
an order of the Court is necessary for payment out, which will also action.
deal with any costs or set-off for costs allowed to the party making
the tender (r),
304. Where a tender (s) is made with a denial of liability the Payment
adverse party accept the same at any time before the action into Court
may with denial of
is called on, subject to a liability for reasonable costs incurred liability.
by his delay {t). In any other case the usual rules of the Supreme
Court as to costs on payment into Court with denial of liability
apply (u).
A defendant on making a tender should state in his notice Offer to pay
on w^hat scale he is prepared to pay costs, as otherwise he may be costs.
liable, in the event of acceptance and in the absence of a special
order by the judge, to pay costs on a scale higher than that which
would have been applicable if the suit had been tried out (a).
305. Money in Court may be paid out to the solicitor on the Payment out
record without the production of a power of attorney from the of Court.
party entitled to receive the money, unless the judge otherwise
orders (b). The proceeds of the sale of a vessel, where there are
several actions pending against the proceeds, must be retained in
Court to abide the decision of all the actions, unless the judge
otherwise orders (c).
306. The action is heard in the ordinary course at one of the Hearing,
usual sittings of the Court, but it may be heard at some other place
upon the application of either party on an undertaking to provide
for the expenses of such hearing {d). In cases of urgency a special
ip) County Court Eules, 1903—1906, Ord. 39, r. 77.

iq) Ord. 39, r. 78.
(r) Ord. 39, r. 79.
(s) I.e., SI payment
into Court; see note (m), p. 134, ante.
V ^' F '
(t) Ord. 39, r. 80.
(u) See title Practice and Procedure.
(«). See The Skudenaes (1901), 70 L. J. (p.) 64.

^
{h) Ord. 39, r. 81.
{<') Ord. 39, r. 82.
{d) County Courts Admiralty
Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Yict. c. 71),
•^^'^^rd. 39, rr. 1 — 3. Por forms of undertaking, see County Court Porms,
Admiralty.
day for trial may be appointed (e). The action will be heard by the
judge alone or by the judge assisted by assessors, and there is no
power to summon a jury to try the action (/). The case is heard
and determined according to the ordinary rules of procedure of the
county court (g).
In actions of salvage, towage, or damage, the judge may in his
discretion, or at the request of either party, be assisted by two
nautical assessors, as in the High Court (h). A list of suitable
persons to act as assessors is framed by the Eegistrar after the
persons included have been approved by the President of the
Admiralty Division. The assessors are summoned by the Eegis-
trar©. Attendance is by rotation, subject to a penalty of five
pounds for wilful non-attendance {k).
The party requiring the presence of assessors must deUver
a praecipe to that effect and at the. same time pay to the Eegistrar
as remuneration for each assessor the sum of one guinea or two
guineas, according as the amount claimed in the action does not or
does exceed £100, and the same fees are payable for each day's
attendance. Where assessors are summoned by the Court or in case
of adjournment the assessors' fees are payable by the plaintiff (/).
307. In any Admiralty or maritime cause the judge may in his

discretion, oron the request of either party, be assisted by two mer-
cantile assessors; and all the provisions set out above apply to such
assessors (in).
308. In cases except salvage the judge may decide the rights
all
of the parties and refer the question of damages to the Eegistrar,
or to the Eegistrar and assessors, upon a day appointed by the
Eegistrar on four days' notice to all parties (n), subject to a right of
adjournment by him (o). Evidence may be oral or by affidavit,
where necessary, subject to a right of cross-examination upon the
affidavits (^j).
309. The Eegistrar on conclusion of the reference makes a report

with an order as to costs, which within seven days after notice of
the same may be objected to by either party, and the Eegistrar
within seven days of notice of objection may file a statement of
(e) County Court Rules, 1903—1906, Ord. 39, r. 3.
(/) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Yict. c. 71),
s. 10 The Theodora, [1897] P. 279 The Tynwald, [1895] P. 142.
; ;
(g) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Yict. c. 71),
s. 10; County Court Rules, Ord. 22. It appears that the order of speeches
will follow this rule. Evidence will follow the practice of the Admiralty Division.
See p. 102, ante.
(//) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Yict. c. 71),
ss. 10, 11.
(i) rr. 89—91, Porm of Summons No. 393.
Ord. 39,
(k) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Yict. c. 71),
ss. 14, 15.
{I) Ord. 39, rr. 88, 92.
(m) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Yict. c. 51), s. 5.
{n) Ord. 39, rr. 96, 98; form 398.
(o) Ord. 39, r. 99.
(p) Ord. 39, r. 100.

— .
his reasons in support, the whole matter coming before the judge Sect. i.
by way of appeal. The judge may refer the matter back to the County
Eegistrar or finally decide the same, and has a discretion as to the Courts in
costs ((/). Before the hearing the parties in any action, except an Admiralty,
action of salvage, may agree to an assessment of damages in the
manner stated above {r) .
310. Generally speaking, decrees of the county court in an Enforcement

Admiralty cause are enforceable b}^ the ordinary methods of execu- of judgment,
tion in use in the county court (s), except in the case of a judgment
in rem, where, if the vessel has been released, judgment may be
enforced against the parties giving bail or their sureties or against
the amount paid into Court (t). A note of every judgment must be
registered wdth the Eegistrar of County Court Judgments in London
in accordance with the usual practice (a).
311. Where the vessel or property is under arrest the Court Sale of pro-
^^^^^
may by judgment or order, subject to conditions hereinafter set
arrest
out, order a sale of the same (b). The owner may on security for
costs in ^10 apply for a transfer of the sale to the High Court of
Admiralty, in which case the high bailiff shall retain possession of the
vessel or property until possession is transferred to the Admiralty
Marshal by order of the High Court all powers and authorities
;
with regard to the same will thereafter vest in the High Court (c).
Where at the time of judgment the owners of the vessel or pro- Sale where
perty are known, the vessel or property may be arrested or kept owners
known.
under arrest (d), and may be sold with or without notice provided ;
that in the case of a British-owned vessel any persons on the ship's

register having an interest in the vessel, who are not before the
Court, are entitled to service of notice of the judgment by praecipe
and to appear within seven days of such notice in order to contest
the sale by applying for a rehearing (e)
Where at the time of the judgment the owners are unknown, the Where owners
vessel or property may not be sold, but it may be arrested unknown.
or kept under arrest Where they can be ascertained subse-
quently, personal service of notice of the judgment, or substituted
service on affidavit that it is necessary, must be effected on the
owners, and in the case of a British-owned ship on any persons
iq) County Court Eules, 1903—1906, Ord. 39, rr. 101—104 ; forms 399, 400.
(r) Ord. 39, r. 95.
County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Yict. c. 71),
(s)
ss. 12, 23 Ord. 39, r. 54. For form of judgment in personam., see form 395;
;
for form of judgment in rem, see form 396. Ordinarily execution is levied
under and in the manner described by the County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict.
0. 43), s. 146, and Ord. 25, rr. 1—25, of the County Court Eules, 1903—1906.
(t) Ord. 39, r. 55. See forms 402, 403.

(a) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71),
s. 24; County Courts Act, 1888
(51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 183 Ord. 36, r. 2, of
;
the County Court Eules.

(h) Ord. 39, r. 56.
County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), s. 23
(c)
;
Ord. 39, rr. 70-72.

{(i) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction
Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71),
s. 22; Ord. 39, rr. 57, 58.
(e) Ord. 39, rr. 57, 62 forms 404, 405, 410.
;
Admiralty.
on the ship's register having an interest in the vessel, on the same

conditions as those stated above (/).
Where the owners cannot be ascertained a notice must be given
by advertisement, or otherwise as ordered by the Court, and within
not less than ten clear days from receiving the notice the owners
or persons interested may appear and apply for a rehearing (g).
In all the above cases, in default of appearance within the time
limited by the notice, a sale may be ordered by the Court (k).
312. On an order of sale being made a warrant of execution is

issued (^), and under such warrant the high bailiff must employ an
appraiser to make an inventory and valuation of the vessel, which
may not be sold, except by order of the Court, at less than the
appraised value (k) The appraiser is paid by prescribed fees, or,
.
in default of any remuneration being so prescribed, is allowed

10s. per cent, of the appraised value and a reasonable sum for
travelling expenses and maintenance (l),
313. The high bailiff must pay the proceeds into Court with
an account of the sale and a certificate of the appraiser, and any
person interested in the proceeds may object to the account or
the fees paid in the same manner as an objection is heard on
taxation of costs {m). The property is delivered to the purchaser,
and any costs incurred by the plaintiff in the execution are
recoverable on taxation against the vessel or property (n).
314. Costs are generally in the discretion of the Court (o),
which is exercised in Admiralty actions in accordance with the

same principles as are applied in Admiralty actions in the Admiralty
Division (p). The costs of all necessary correspondence (q), and also
of a solicitor necessarily acting asagent out of the district to obtain
evidence, are to be allowed (r). An adjournment due to the neglect
of a party to set up a defence of which notice should have been given
before trial must be considered by the judge in his discretion as to
costs (s). Where the amount recovered, or in the case of the
defendant the amount claimed, does not exceed twenty pounds, costs,
in the absence of a special order, are allowed under column B of the
scale of costs {t). Where the amount in dispute exceeds £100, and
the judge certifies that the action involved some novel or difficult
(/) County Court Eules, 1903—1906, Ord. 39, rr. 59, 60.
(g) Ord. 39, r. 61; forms 408, 409.
(A) Ord. 39, r. 63.
(i) Ord. 39, r. 64.
(k) Ord. 39, r. 65.

(l) Treasury Order, December 30, 1903, Schedule B, Part III., 46, printed in
Statutory Eules and Orders for 1903, at pp. 1409—1412.

(m) Ord. 39, rr. 66, 67.
(n) Ord. 39, rr. 68, 69.
(o) County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Yict. c. 43), s. 113. As to costs where a
tender by act in Court has been accepted or pronounced for, see p. 96, ante,
(p) See p. 103, ante,
(q) Ord. 39, r. 109.
(r) Ord. 39, r. 110.
(s) Ord. 39, r. Ill, e.g., the defence of compulsory pilotage.
(t) Ord. 39, r. 112 and see County Court Scales of Costs.
;
—— — ;
point of law or was of importance to some class or body of persons, Sect. 1.
increased costs may be allowed by the Eegistrar subject to review by County

the judge Costs incident to procuring bail properly incurred Courts in
Admiralty.
may, as stated above, be allowed on taxation on the scale applicable
to proceedings of a like nature {a). After a notice of admission of
liability no costs shall be allowed to any party served with notice
thereof who further contests the question of liability {b).
Sect. 2. The Court of Admiralty of the Cinque Ports.
315. The Court of Admiralty of the Cinque Ports can exercise Jurisdiction,
within the boundaries of the Cinque Ports (c) the same inherent
jurisdiction as the High Court of Admiralty possessed before
the recent statutes enlarging its jurisdiction {d). The Court has Appellate
also an additional statutory jurisdiction as to salvage disputes jurisdiction,
within the same boundaries on appeal (e), concurrently with the
Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice, from the Salvage
Commissioners of the Cinque Ports (/) and it may also in all cases ;
which arise within the jurisdiction of the Cinque Ports (g) entertain
appeals from county courts having Admiralty jurisdiction, con-
currently with the Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice.
316. The Court, in the absence of the consent of the parties. Procedure,
sitsin St. James's Church, at Dover (h), and rules and orders for
regulating its procedure and practice were made in 1891, and are
now in force, and are in substance very similar in many respects
to the Kules of the Supreme Court especially applicable to the
Admiralty Division (i).
From the Court of Admiralty of the Cinque Ports an appeal Appeal,

317.
lies tothe King in Council, and any such appeal would be referred
to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (/c).
Sect. 3. The Cinque Ports Salvage Conwiissi oners,

318. The Cinque Ports Salvage Commissioners are appointed by Duties,
the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports (Q, or by the Deputy Warden
of the Cinque Ports and the Lieutenant of Dover Castle (m), and
(w) County Court Eules, 1903—1906, Ord. 39, r. 113 ; and see County Court
Scales of Costs.
Ord. 39, rr. 48a, 49 see p. 132, ante,
(a) ;
Ord. 39, r. 94.

{h)
(c) Cinque Ports Act, 1821 (1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 76), s. 18.
{d) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 51), s. 1
Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), s. 571; The Lord Warden
and Admiral of the Cinque Ports v. The King in his Ofice of Admiralty (1831),
2 Hag. Adm. 438.
(e) Cinque Ports Act, 1821 (1 & 2 Geo. 4, c.
76), s. 4.
(/) See sect. 3, on this page.
{g) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), s. 33.
(A) See Hasted, "History of Kent," Vol. IV., p. 118.
(i) They are to be found printed, Statutory Eules and Orders, 1896, p. 609.
(k) See, for an instance of such an appeal, Oann v. Brun, The Clarisse
(1856),
12 Moo. P. C. C. 340.
(0 Cinque Ports Act, 1821 (1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 76).
(m) 9 Geo. 4, c. 37, s. 1.
— —
140 Admiralty.
Sect. 3. perform similar duties with respect to disputes as to salvage

The Cinque occurring within the boundaries of the Cinque Ports as were
Ports performed with respect to such disputes elsewhere in England by
Salvage magistrates under the eighth part of the repealed Merchant Shipping
Commis- Act, 1854 {n).
sioners.
319. The principal statute under which these commissioners are
Jurisdiction.
appointed defines the boundaries of the Cinque Ports to seawards
and on the coast (o), and enables the commissioners to determine
questions arising as to the salvage of anchors and chain cables
found at sea or supplied to ships, and as to salvage services rendered
generally to ships within the jurisdiction of the Cinque Ports, and
to goods which have been wrecked or stranded within that juris-
diction, provided the master or owner of the salved ship or the
owners of the goods salved, or his or their agents, are present (j?).
Appeal. 320. An appeal from the determination by the commissioners

of any salvage disputes may within eight days after the award of
salvage is made
be brought either to the Court of Admiralty of the
Cinque Ports or to the Admiralty Division of the High Court of
Justice iq). The appeal is to be proceeded with within twenty
days, and the property in respect of the salving of which the award
was made may be released on security being given in double the
amount of the award (r).
Sect. 4. TJie Court of Passage of the Borough of Liverpool.
Jurisdiction. 321. The Liverpool Court of Passage has an Admiralty juris-
diction similar to and coterminous with that of the County Court
of Lancashire at Liverpool (s). An appeal lies from its decisions
in Admiralty and maritime causes to a Divisional Court of the
Admiralty Division if).
Sect. 5. Colonial Courts of Adrniralty.
Constitution. 322. The Colonial Courts of Admiralty have in most instances

taken the place the Vice- Admiralty Courts abroad
of Subject
to the power of the King in Council to prevent the vesting of any
{n) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104; see ss. 460 — 465; and see the Merchant Shipping
Act Amendment Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Yict. c. 63), s. 49.
(o) Cinque Ports Act, 1821 (1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 76), s. 18.
(p) Ibid., ss. 1, 2.
Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Yict. c. 66), ss. 34, 76.
iq) Ih'id., s. 4 ; the Judicature
(r) Cinque Ports Act, 1821 (1 &
2 Geo. 4, c. 76), s, 4. Por the further pro-
ceedings in appeals from these commissioners, see TAe Caledonia (1869), L. E.
4 A. & E. 11, note; The Annette (1873), L. E. 4 A. & E. 9.
(s) County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Yict. c. 71),
s. 25.
{t) Ibid., s. 26 County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Amendment Act,
;
1869 (32 & 33 Yict c. 51), ss. 2, 6; The Dowse (1870), L. E. 3 A. & E. 135;
The Ganges (1880), 5 P. D. 247. In The Emilie Marron, [1905] 2 K. B. 817,
it would seem that the appeal was treated as coming from the common law side
of the Court of Passage and taken direct to the Court of Appeal, the question of
the jurisdiction not having been raised or argued.
{u) Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Yict. c. 27), s. 17. The
Act is not to come into force in regard to certain British possessions, namely,
New South Wales, Yictoria, St. Helena and British Honduras, until so directed
Part IY. —Practice of Other Courts. 141
particular jurisdiction in the Courts of any British possession not Sect. 5.
having a representative Legislature {a), they consist of every Court of Colonial

law (b) in a British possession of original unlimited civil jurisdiction Courts of
declared by the Legislature of that British possession to be a Colonial Ad mira lty.
Court of Admiralty, and any mferior Court upon which a partial
or limited jurisdiction in Admiralty has been conferred by the
Legislature of that possession (c).
323. Within the limitations, if any, laid down by the colonial Jurisdiction.
Legislatures, the Colonial Courts of Admiralty have similar juris-

diction and powers to those exercised in Admiralty by the High
Court in England (d). And any enactment contained in any statute
of the Imperial Parliament which refers to a Yice-Admiralty Court
applies to a Colonial Court of Admiralty, as if the expression
Colonial Court of x\dmiralty were used instead of Vice-Admiralty
Court, and the Colonial Court of Admiralty has jurisdiction
accordingly (e).
324. The judgments of a Colonial Court of Admiralty are subject Appeal,

to the same local rights of appeal as they would have been if
pronounced by the Court in the exercise of its ordinary civil juris-
diction (/). Moreover, there is an ultimate appeal as of right
without special leave to His Majesty in Council {g) from a judg-
ment of any Court in a British possession in the exercise of the
jurisdiction conferred by the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act,
1890 (li). Leave of the Privy Council to appeal is necessary if the
petition of appeal has not been lodged within the time prescribed
by the rules, or if no time is so prescribed within six months from
the date of the judgment appealed against (i).
325. The Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty may be Estabiish-

empowered by commission under the Great Seal to establish in a T^^âU^^^^'
^
British possession any Yice-Admiralty Court, and the jurisdiction coi^ts?
of a Colonial Court of Admiralty in that possession may be sus-
pended by the Admiralty and vested in the Vice-Admiralty Court so
established {k).
326. The Courts of Jersey arid Guernsey have an Admiralty Courts of

Jersey and
jurisdiction {I) and the provisions of the Colonial Courts of
;
Guernsey
and the Isle
of Man.
by Order in Council (s. 16 (1)). No such. Order in Council having yet been
made, there are still Yice-Admiralty Courts in these possessions.
(a) Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Yict. c. 27), s. 11 (2).
(b) This includes the governor if he is the sole judicial authority (ibid. s. 2
(1 ) ).
,
(c) Ibid., s. 2(1), (3).

{d) Ibid., s. 2 (2).
(e) Ibid., s. 2 (3).
(/) Ibid., s. 5.
(g) Ibid., s. 6.
(A) Ibid., s. 6 (1)
; Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Co. v. Owners of SS. Cape
Breton, [1907] A. C. 112.
{i) Ibid, s. 6
(2).
[k) Ibid., s. 9. The existing jurisdiction possessed by the Yice-Admiralty
Courts abroad is, for the most part, conferred by the Yice-Admiralty Courts
Acts, 1863 (26 & 27 Yict. c. 24).
(0 See Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), s. 561.
142 Admiralty.
Sect. 5. Admiralty Act, 1890, do not apply to the Channel Islands (m).
Colonial A Court of Admiralty also exists in the Isle of Man, its juris-
Courts of diction being almost identical with that of the Admiralty
Admiralty. Division {n).
(m) Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Yict. c. 27), s. 11.
(n) See Eoscoe and Mears'
*
Admiralty Practice
'
'
' (2nd ed.) 420, 42 1
,
; Merchant
Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), s. 561.
ADMISSIONS.
See Copyholds ; Criminal Law and Procedure ; Evidence ;
ADOPTION.
See Infants.
ADULTERATION.
See Food and Drugs.
ADULTERY.
( 143 )
ADVANCEMENT.
See Infants ; Descent and Distribution ; Trusts and Trustees ;
Wills.
ADVERSE POSSESSION.
See Keal Property and Chattels Keal.
ADVERTISEMENTS.
See Companies ; Contracts ; Criminal Law and Procedure ;
Trade Marks and Designs.
ADVOWSON.
See Ecclesiastical Law.
( 144 )
AFFIDAVIT.
See Evidence ; Pbactice and Procedure.
AFFILIATION.
See Bastardy.
AFFIRMATION.
See Evidence.
( 145 )
AGENCY.
PAGE
Paet I. THE EELATION OE AGENCY - - - - - - 147
Paet II. COMPETENCY OP PAETIES 148

Sect. 1. Peincipals 148
Sect. 2. Agents - . . - 151
Paet III. CLASSES OF AGENTS 152
Paet IV. FOEMATION OF THE CONTEACT OF AGENCY - - 153

Sect. 1. In Geneeal 153
Sect. 2. Appointment by Deed 154
Sect. 3. Infoemal Appointment 156
Sect. 4. Agency op Necessity 157
Sect. 5. Agency by Estoppel 158
Sect. 6. Co-peincipals and Co-agents 159
Sect. 7. Stamp Duties 160
Paet Y. AUTHOEITY OF THE AGENT 160

Sect. In Geneeal
1. 160
Sect. 2. Consteuction of Atjthoeity 161
Sub- sect. 1. Powers of Attorney 161
Sub-sect. 2. Written Authority 163
Sub-sect. 3. Verbal Authority 164
Sect. 3. Implied Atjthoeity 164
Sect. 4. Exeecise of Aijthoeity 168
Paet VI. DELEGATION - 169

Sect. 1. In Geneeal - - - - - - - - - 169
Sect. 2. Implied Atjthoeity to delegate - - - - 170
Sect. 3. Position of Stjb-agent - - - - - 171
Paet VII. EATIFICATION 173

Sect. 1. In Geneeal - 173
Sect. 2. Acts capable of Eatification 173
Sect. 3. Conditions of Eatification 175
Sect. 4. Mannee of Eatification 178
Sect. 5. Effect of Eatification 180
Paet VIII. EELATIONS BETWEEN PEINCIPAL AND AGENT - 181

Sect. 1. In Geneeal 181
Sect. 2. Eights of Peincipal against Agent - - - - 183
Sub-sect. 1. General Eights 183
Sub-sect. 2. As to Care, Skill and Diligence - - - . 185
H.L.— I. L
146 Agency.
Part YIII. EELATIONS BETWEEN PEINCIPAL AND AGENT

— continued.
Sect 2. Eights of Principal against Agent continued. —
page
Sub-sect. 3. Asto Accounts and Moneys received on Principal's
behalf 186
Sub -sect. 4. Disclosure by Agent 189
Sub-sect. 5. Eeceipt by Agent of Secret Profits and Bribes - 189
Sub-sect. 6. Measureof Damages for of Duty -
Breach - 191
Sub-sect. v. Estoppel of Person purporting to act as Agent
- 192
Sub-sect. 8. Attachment of Defaulting Agent - - - 192
Sub-sect. 9. As to Acts and Defaults of Co-agents and Sub-
agents 193
Sect. 3. Eights of Agent against Principal ... - 193
Sub- sect. 1. In General - 193
Sub-sect. 2. Eemuneration 193
Sub -sect. 3. Eeimbursement and Indemnity by Principal - 196
Sub-sect. 4. Agent's Lien 197
Sub-sect. 5. Agent's Eight of Stoppage in Transit - - 199
Sub-sect. 6. Interpleader by Agent 200
Sub-sect. 7. As to an Account - 200
Part IX. EELATIONS BETWEEN PEINCIPAL AND THIED

PEESONS 201
Sect. In General 201
1.
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
1.
2.
Extent of Principal's Liability
Limitation of Principal's Liability
... - -
-
-
201
201
Sect. 2. As to Goods etc. intrusted to Agent - - - 203
Sub-sect. 1. In General - -
_ - - _
- - - 203
Sub-sect. 2. Dispositions binding on
Unauthorised the
Principal 204
Sub-sect. 3. Dispositions under the Factors Act, 1889 - - 205
Sub-sect. 4. Privilege from Distress . . . . . 206 4
Sect. 3. Contracts made by Agent 206

Sub-sect. 1. In General - - - - - - 206
Sub-sect. 2. Limitations on Principal's Eights and Liabilities 208
Sub-sect. 3. Settlement with Agent 210
Sub-sect. 4. Eraud, Misrepresentation, or Concealment - 211
Sect. 4. Principal's Liability for Torts committed by
Agent 211
Sub-sect. 2. Limitations on Principal's Eesponsibility - - 213
Sub-sect. 3. Misrepresentations 214
Sect. 5. Admissions by Agent 215
Sect. 6. Notice to Agent 215
Sect. 7. Corruption of Agent . 2I6
Sect. 8. Criminal Liability of Principal for Acts or
Defaults of Agent 217
Part X. EELATIONS BETWEEN AGENT AND THIED PEESONS 219

Sect. 1. Liabilities of Agent 219
'
Sub-sect. 1.
Sub-sect. 2.
Sub- sect. 3.
On Contracts
On Warranty of Authority
Eor Moneys received by Agent
....
- -
-
-
-219
-
221
223
Sub-sect. 4. Eor Torts - - 224
Sect. 2. Eights of Agent - - 226
Sub-sect. 1. Enforcement of Contracts - - - - - 226
Sub-sect. 2. Eecovery of Money paid by Agent - - - 227
—
Part I. The Relation of Agency. 147
PAGE
Pakt XI. DUEATION AND TERMINATION OF AGENCY - - 228
Sect.
Sect.
1.
2.
In General
Irrevocable Authority
Termination by Act of Parties
...... 228
228
230
Sect.
Sect. 4.
3.
Termination by Operation oe Law ... - 232

Sect. 5. Notice of Termination, when necessary - - - 235
For Agency between Bailor and Bailee See title Bailment.

Banker and Customer Bankers and Banking.
Barrister and Client - Barristers.
Master and Servant - Master and Servant.
Parent and Infant - Infants.
Partner and Firm - Partnership.
Shipmaster and
Owner - Shipping and Naviga-
TION.
and Client
Solicitor - Solicitors.
and Client
Stockbroker Stock Exchange.
Wife and Husband - Husband and Wife.
Auctioneers . . . . . Auction and Auction-
eers.
Bankruptcy, Effect oj - - - Bankruptcy and Insol-
vency.
Brokers' Bought and Sold Notes Sale of Goods.
Gaming and Wagering Contracts Gaming and Wagering.
Insurance Agents and Brokers - Insurance.
Negotiable Instruments, Rights and
on
Public Agents
......
Liabilities of Principal and Agent
Bills of Exchange etc.
Constitutional Law ;
Public Authorities
AND Public Officers.
Trust, Liability of Agent Joining in
Breach of - - - - - Trusts and Trustees.
Valuers and Appraisers - Valuers and AppRAisERSi
Part I, —The Relation of Agency.

327. The relation of agency arises whenever one person, called Definition
"the agent," has authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of
another, called " the principal " (a), and consents so to act.
An agent is to be distinguished on the one hand from a servant. Agent dis-
and on the other from an independent contractor. A servant acts
JJ,o^^gg^vant
under the direct control and supervision of his master, and is and indepen-
bound to conform to all reasonable orders given him in the course dent con-
of his work (6) an independent contractor, on the other hand, is ^^"actor.
;
entirely independent of any control or interference, and merely
(a) Wolff V. Horncastle (1798), 1 Bos. & P. 316; The Halley (1868), L. E.
2 P. C. 193, 201. Authority may be implied from the subsequent assent of the
prmcipal. See pp. 173 et seq., post.
(b) Spainv. Arnott (1817), 2 Stark. 256 ; Barnett v. South London Tramways
Co. (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 815; Owen & Co.
v. Cronk, [1895] 1 Q. B. 265; Yeiuens
V. Noakes (1880), 6 Q. B. D.
530. See title Master and Servant.
—
148 Agency.
Part undertakes to produce a specified result, employing his own means

I.
The to produce that result (c). An agent, though bound to exercise his
Eelation of authority in accordance with all lawful instructions which may be
Agency. given to him from time to time by his principal, is not subject in
its exercise to the direct control or supervision of the principal {d).
Existence of In order to ascertain whether the relation of agency exists, the
agency true nature of the agreement between the alleged principal and
depends on
true nature of agent will be regarded, and if it be found that such agreement in
agreement. substance contemplates the alleged agent acting on his own behalf,
and not on behalf of a principal, then, though the alleged agent
may be described as an agent in the agreement, the relation of
agency will not have arisen (e) .
Existence of An agent is employed for the purpose of placing the principal in

third party contractual or other relations with a third party, and it is therefore
essential.
essential to the relation of agency that a third party should be in
existence or contemplation (/). The essence of the agent's position
is that he shall be but a conduit pipe connecting two other parties.
Thus an agent for sale or purchase is debarred from being himself
either buyer or seller without full disclosure to the principal. If
a person who holds himself out to be an agent is in fact seeking
to sell his own property or buy that of his principal, he violates
the first condition of his employment (g).
Part II. — Competency of Parties.

Sect. 1. Principals.
General rule. 328. It may be stated as a general proposition that whatever

a person has power to do himself he may do by means of an
agent (h).
(c) Quarman v. Burnett (1840), 6 M. & W. 499; Beedie v. London and North
Western Bail. Co. (1849), 4 Exch. 244 Hughes v. Perdval (1883), 8 App. Gas. 443
; ;
Dalton V. Angus (1881), 6 App. Gas. 740 JolUffe v. Woodhouse (1894), 10 T. L. E.

;
553 Lemaitre y. Davis {18S1), 19 Gh. D. 281; Black v. Christchurch Finance Co.,
;
[1894] A. G. 48; Holliday v. National Telephone Co., [1899] 2 Q. B. 392; Hall

V. Lees, [1904] 2 K. B. 602.
{d) Wolff V. Horncastle (1798), 1 Bos. & P. 316; Barnett v. South London
Tramways Co. (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 815.
(e) Lx parte White, Be Nevill (1871), 6 Gh. App. 397 Bennett v. Smith (1852),
;
16 Jur. 421 De Bussche v. Alt (1878), 8 Gh. D. 286. Gonversely an agent may
;
remain an agent while purporting to act- as principal.

(/) Ex parte Dyster, Be Moline (1816), 2 Eose, 349; Wilson v. Short (1847),
6 Hare, 366.
{g) BoUnson v. Mollett (1875), L. E. 7 H. L. 802 De Bussche v. Alt, supra ;
;
Ex parte Dyster, Be Moline, supra.

(h) Be Whitley Partners, Ltd. (1886), 32 Gh. D. 337 (memorandum of association ,
of a company may be subscribed by an agent) Compagnie Generale Trans-

;
atlantique v. Thomas Law & Co., '' La Bourgogne,'' [1899] A. G. 431; Tharsis
Sulphur and Copper Co. v. La Societe des Metaux (1889), 58 L. J. (q. B.) 435 (a
foreign corporation may appoint agent to accept service of writ) Montgomery, ;
Jones & Co. V. Liehenthal & Co., [1898] 1 Q. B. 487; FurnivallY. Hudson, [1893]
1 Gh. 335 (an agent maybe appointed to execute a bill of sale) B. v. Lnhabitants
;
of Longnor (1833), 1 N. & M. 576 Foreman y. Great Western Bail. Co. (1878), 38
;
L. T. 851 (a principal who can read may appoint an agent who cannot read to sign
— — — — ;
Part IT. Competency of Parties. 149
The converse proposition similarly holds good that what a person Sect. 1.
cannot do himself he cannot do by means of an agent (i). It is only Principals.

necessary, speaking generally, to ascertain who is legally competent
to act or contract (J), in order to learn who is competent to be a
principal.
There are, however, three exceptions to the general rule that a Exceptions.
person may do by means of an agent whatever he has power to do
himself :
(1) Where the capacity to do the act arises by virtue of a special

custom which requires it to be done in person (k) ;
(2) Where the transaction is required by statute to be evidenced

by the signature of the principal himself (l)
(3) Where the competency to do the act arises by virtue of the
holding of some public office or by virtue of some power, authority,
or duty of a personal nature and requiring skill or discretion for its
exercise (m).
The following classes of persons are incompetent to contract or Persons
incompetent.
act as principals :
(1) An alien enem}^ during the period of hostilities with the

country of which he is a subject (n) ;
(2) A convict during the period that he is serving his sentence (o). Persons with
The following classes of persons have only a limited capacity to limited
capacity.
contract or act as principals :
329. Subject to certain exceptions, an infant cannot be a Infants.
principal, and the agent cannot bind him in respect of contracts

made on his behalf, nor can the infant himself ratify them after
a document) ; Bevan v. Wtbh, [1901] 2 Ch. 59.
Foster y. Fijfe, [1896] 2 Q. B. 104 ;
A partner may employ an agent (to whom no reasonable objection can be taken,
and on the agent undertaking not to use information) to examine partnership
books under the Partnership Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Yict. c. 39), s. 24 (9) compare ;
the Limited Partnerships Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 24), s. 6 (1).

(?) Bateman v. Mid-Wales Rail. Co. (1866), L. E. 1 0. P. 499; PoultoiiY.
Loudon and South Western Rail. Co. (1867), L. E. 2 Q. B. 534; Ashhury Raihuay
Carriaye and Iron Co. v. Riche (1875), L. E. 7 H. L. 653 The Montreal Assurance
;
Co. Y. McGillivray (1859), 13 Moo. P. C. 0. 87.

(./) See title Contract.
[k] Combes Case (1614), 9 Co. Eep. 75 a. An infant's power to convey by
feoffment under custom of gavelkind could not be devolved on an attorney.
(?) E.y.. Lord Tenterden's Act (9 Geo. 4, c. 14), s. 6; Williams Y.Mason
(1873) 28 L. T. 232
, ;Hirst y. West Ridiny Union Bankiny Co,, [1901] 2 K. B. 560.
Compare Re Whitley Partners, Ltd. (1886), 32 Ch. D. 337 Siuift v. Jewshury ;
(1874) L. E. 9 Q. B. 301.
, An agent cannot sign consent for a party to be added
under Ord. 16, r. 11, of the Eules of the Supreme Court, which requires the party's
own consent in writing " {Fricker v. Van
Grutten, [1896] 2 Ch. 649). But par-
ticulars of costs signed by a are " signed by the solicitor " within
solicitor's clerk
the County Court Eules, 1889 [France v. Button, [1891] 2 Q. B. 208), and in
general an agent may sign where the statute does not'expressly or impliedly require
personal signature of the principal (see, e.y., Dennisoii v. Jeffs, [1896] 1 Ch. 611).
(m) Re Great Southern Mysore Gold Mininy Co. (1883), 48 L. T. 11 (the nomi-
nation of an official liquidator by a judge cannot be performed by an agent).
(?0 O'Mealey v. Wilson (1808), 1 Camp. 482. The position of aliens is now
governed by the Naturalisation Act, 1870 (33 Vict. c. 14), see title Aliens.
(o) During this period he cannot enforce any of his existing rights, or employ
an agent. But the Crown may appoint an administrator of his propert}'- with
wide powers of managing his estate, who is answerable for loss arising to the
convict's estate through want of care on his part, see Forfeiture Act, 1870
(33 & 34 Vict. c. 23) ; Carr v. Anderson, [1903] 2 Ch. 279.
150 Agency.
Sect. ]. majority (p). But an infant cannot recover back money actually
Principals, paid in pursuance of such a contract (q) and an agent can bind a
;
minor in respect of necessaries (r), and also in respect of those

contracts which at common law have to be expressly renounced
by the minor on attaining majority in order to be rendered void (s).
A power of attorney given by an infant, other than a married
woman, is void (a). An infant principal is not liable for a tort
committed by his agent, unless committed by his direct command (Z>),
but an infant principal can authorise an agent to expel a trespasser,
and the agent may plead such authority by way of defence in an
action by the trespasser (c).
Lunatics. 330. A lunatic cannot be a principal except by virtue of an

estoppel (d). He cannot authorise an agent to alter the pro-
visions of a settlement (e), or to apply for shares in a limited
company (/). But a lunatic may be treated as a principal where
the third party has no knowledge of, and takes no advantage of, his
lunacy {g).
Drunkards. 331. A drunkard may avoid a contract entered into by him while
he was in such a state of intoxication as not to know what he was
doing, but a person contracting with him may enforce the contract
if he can prove that he had no knowledge of, and took no advantage
of, the drunkenness (li). A person who contracted when drunk may
ratify his contract on becoming sober (i).
Married 332. The competency of a married woman to contract is limited

women. to the extent ofher separate property held at the date of the contract
or subsequently acquired (k). She also has special power, whether
an infant or not, to appoint by deed an attorney for the purpose of
(p) Infants' Eelief Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Yict. c. 62), ss. 1, 2 ; Smith v. King,
[1892] 2 Q. B. 543 ;and see title Infants.
(q) Valentmi v. Canali (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 166.
(r) See title Infants.
(.s) Whittingham v. Murdy (1889), 60 L. T. 956.
(a) Zouch V. Parsons (1765), 3 Burr. 1794.
(6) Burnard v. Haggis (1863), 14 C. B. (n. s.) 45.
(c) JSiver V. Joiies (1846), 9 Q. B. 623.
(d) See pp. 153 et seq., post. He may act during a lucid interval {Drew v. Nunn
(1879), 4 a B. D. 661 Elliot v. J??ce (1857), 7 De G. M. & G. 475 ; Hall v. Warren
;
(1804), 9 Yes. 605 ; Jenkins v. Morris (1880), 14 Ch. D. 674). A mere delusion
does not necessarily render a man incapable of contracting. See, generally,
title Lunatics etc.
(e) Mliot V. Ince, supra, at p. 487 (alteration for his benefit) ;but see as to
contracts for his benefit Hx parte Bradhury, Be Walden (1839), Mont. & Ch.
625, 633.
(/) Daily Telegraph'' Newspaper Co. v. McLaughlin, [1904] A. C. 776.
(g) The Imperial Loan Co. v. Stone, [1892] 1 Q. B. 599 Beavan v. McDonnell
;
(1854), 9 Exch. 309; Camplell v. ôojêr (1855), 3 Sm. & G. 153; ElliotY. Ince,
supra J Molten v. Camroux (1849), 4 Exch. 17. Lord Chanwohth, L.C., suggests
in Elliot V. Ince, supra, at p. 487, that this doctrine is limited to executed
contracts of gale. A
lunatic may enter into an implied contract for necessaries
{Re Rhodes (1890), 44 Ch. D. 94).
{h) Gore v. Gibson (1845), 13 M. & W. 623.
(?:) Mattheius v. Baxter (1873), L. E. 8 Exch. 132.
{k) Married Women's Property Acts, 1882 and 1893 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 75 and
56 & 57 Yict. c. 63). See title Husband and Wife.
— —
Part II. Competency of Parties. 151
executing any deed or doing any other act which she might herself Sect. i.
execute or do (/) . Principals.
333. The capacity of a corporation or incorporated company to Corporations,

contract or do any other act is limited by its objects, to be ascer-
tained from the terms of the instrument of incorporation (m). So
far as it can act or contract at all, it can necessarily only do so
through an agent (n).
Sect. 2. Agents.
334. On the other hand, an agent's competency to act or contract Capacity to

agent,
for his principal is not limited to his competency to contract for
himself (o). Thus a married woman (independently of the Married
Women's Property Acts), or a minor, may be an agent, and act and
contract so as to bind the principal, although not personally liable
on the contract of agency or on contracts with third parties, in
cases where an agent of full contractual capacity would have been
personally liable {p). So an infant partner can bind the firm and
partnership assets in respect of acts done in furtherance of the
objects of the partnership {q).
335. In the case of certain classes of agents the law requires a Special quali-
qualification before they can act (?•)•
fication in
^^s^^-
Solicitors must be duly qualified, and an unqualified person
sî^^^^^^s-
acting as a solicitor is subject to penalties. Solicitors must also
take out an annual practising certificate. principal, who is A
successful in a suit, cannot recover costs from the other party if the
solicitor employed by him is uncertificated, nor can the solicitor
in such a case recover his costs from his client (s). A
solicitor
may act as a notary public when appointed by the Master of
Faculties (t).
Auctioneers and valuers must take out an annual licence {a) . Auctioneers.
(/) Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Yict. c. 41), s. 40.
The point lias not been decided, but it seems probable that this power does
not enable a married woman to appoint an attorney to execute a deed which
would require to be acknowledged if executed by her.
(m) See cases cited in note {i), p. 149, ante. In Ashhury Railway Carriage
and Iron Co. v. Riclie (1875), L. E. 7 H. L. 653, the question is discussed whether
its general competency at common law is limited by the terms of its incorpora-
tion, or whether its competency is given it by the terms of its instrument of
incorporation, and in A.-G. v. London County Council, [1901] 1 Ch. 781, at
p. 797, whether a corporation by royal charter has wider powers than one
created by Act of Parliament.
(w) Ferguson y. Wilson (1866), 2 Ch. App. 77, at p. 89.
(o) Kirhy v. Great Western Rail Co. ^1868), 18 L. T. 658. An agent who
cannot read may bind by his signature a principal who can read {Foreman v.
Great Western Rail. Co. (1878), 38 L. T. 851).
ip) Smally v. Smally (1700), 1 Eq. Ab. 6. But a married woman is not
capable of filling the office of next friend or guardian ad litem {Re Duke of
Somerset, Tliynne v. 8t. Maur (1887), 34 Ch. D. 465).
{q) Goode v. Harrison (1821), 5 B. & Aid. 147.
(r) Solicitors Acts, 1843 (6 & 7 Yict. c.
73), and 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 127).
(s) Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1874
(37 & 38 Yict. c. 68), s. 12 and Stamp ;
Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Yict. c. 39), s. 43 Re Siueeting, [1898] 1 Ch. 268.
;
{t) Public Notaries Act,

1833 (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 70). See generally title
Solicitors.
(a) See titles AucTioif and Auctioneers; Yaluers and Appraisers.
152 Agency.
Sect. 2. A county court bailiff must be authorised in writing by the

Agents. judge to act as broker on an execution, and can then act without
Bailiffs.
any other Hcence (h), and a bailiff to levy a distress must also be
certificated by a county court judge (c).
Agent to sign Apart from these special conditions and qualifications required
contract.
before persons can act in the capacity of particular classes of agents,
no person who is contracting as a principal can act as agent to the
other party to the contract for the purpose of signing a note or
memorandum thereof so as to satisfy the provisions of the Statute
of Frauds But the same person may act as agent of both
(d) .
parties for that purpose (e) .
Part III. — Classes of Agents.

336. An agent may
be either a special agent or a general agent*
Special A who has authority to act for some special
special agent is one
agents. occasion or purpose which is not within the ordinary course of his.
business or profession (/).
General A general agent is one who has authority, arising out of and
agents.
in the ordinary course of his business or profession, to do some act
or acts on behalf of his principal in relation thereto or one who is ;
authorised to act on behalf of the principal generally in transactions

of a particular kind, or incidental to a particular business (g). The
authority of a general agent may extend to all acts which the
principal may do by means of an agent, in which case he is some-
times called a '* universal agent."
Mercantile 337. A
mercantile agent is one having in the customary course
of his business as such agent authority either to sell goods, or tO'
consign goods for the purpose of sale, or to buy goods, or to raise
money on the security of goods (/^).
Factors. A factor is a mercantile agent who in the ordinary course of
business is intrusted with possession of the goods or of the docu-
ments of title thereto (i).
(b) County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Yict. c. 43), s. 159. See title County
COTJETS.
(c) Law of Distress Amendment Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Yict. c. 21), s. 7. See
title Distress.
{d) 29 Car. 2, c. 3, s. 4. It is appreliended that the same rule applies to the-
Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 71), s. 4, see Sharman v. Brandt (1871),.
L. E. 6 a. B. 720; Wright v. Dannah (1809), 2 Camp. 203; Farebrother v.
Sirîmons (1822), 5 B. & Aid. 333.
(e) Hinde v. WhiteJiouse (1806), 7 East, 558 (auctioneer); Bird v. Boulter
(1833), 1 K
& M. 313 (auctioneer's clerk) Durrell v. Evans (1862), 1 H. &
; C
174 (a factor) Thompson v. Gardiner (1876), 1 C. P. D. 777.
;
(/) Brady v. Todd (1861), 9 C. B. (n. s.) 592.

(V) Smith V. McOuire (1858), 3 H. & N. 554; Brady v. Todd, supra. A.
factor, broker, auctioneer, or house agent who is authorised to do any act in the-
ordinary course of his business is a general agent in relation to that employ-
ment. So a steward or manager of a business on an estate is a general agent.
{h) The Factors Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 45), s. 1 Inglis v. Robertson,
;
[1898] A. C. 616.
(*) Baring v. Corrie (1818), 2 B. & Aid. 137; Stevens v. Biller (1883), 25
Ch. D. 31. For form of appointment, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Yol. I., p. 290.
——
Part III. Classes of Agents. 153
A broker is a mercantile agent who in the ordinary course of his I'aet hi.
business is employed to make contracts for the purchase or sale of Classes of
property or goods of which he is not intrusted with the possession Agents.
or documents of title {k). Brokers.
Aninsurance agent or insurance broker is employed to negotiate insurance
and effect policies of insurance (/). agents.
A del credere agent is one who, usually for extra remuneration, Del credere
undertakes to indemnify his employer against loss arising from the agent,
failure of persons with whom he contracts to carry out their con-
tracts A del credere agency may be implied from facts showing
.
that the agent was charging an additional commission for risk {li).
Such an agent need not be appointed in writing (o), the agreement
not being an agreement to answer for the debt, default, or mis-
carriage of another within the meaning of the Statute of Frauds (j)).
An auctioneer is an agent who is employed to sell at a public Auctioneers,
auction. He may be agent for both seller and buyer, and may or
may not be intrusted with possession of the goods or property to
be sold or of the documents of title thereto {q).
In addition to the classes already mentioned, there are numerous
other classes of agents, which are treated of in other parts of this
work (/•).
Part IV. — Formation of the Contract of

Agency.
Sect. 1. In General.
338. The contract of agency is created by the express or implied How created,
assent of principal and agent (s), or by ratification by the principal
of the agent's acts done on his behalf \t).
Express agency is created where the principal, or some person
(7c) Jansseu v. Qreen (1767), 4 Burr. 2103 MUford v. Hughes (1846), 16

;
M. & W. 174; Foster v. Pearson (1835), 1 C. M. & E. 849; Baring v. Corrie

(1818), 2 B._& Aid. 137, Stevens v. Biller (1883), 25 Ch. D. 31.
[1] See title iNSUEAisrcE. Eor form of appointment, see Encyclopaedia
of Forms, Vol. I., p. 340.
{m) Morris v. Cleashij (1816), 4 M. & S. 566 Grove v. Diihois (1786), 1 Term
;
Eep. 112 Flornh./ v. Lacij (1817), 6 M. & S. 166. For form of appointment, see
;
Enclyclopsedia of Forms, Vol. L, p. 297.

{n) Shaiu v. Woodcock (1827), 7 B. & C. 73.
^
(o) Couturier v. Hastie (1852), 8 Exch. 40 Sutton & Co. v. Greij, [1894]
;
1 Q. B. 285 Wickham y. Wickliam (1855), 2 K. & J. 478, 487.

;
{p) 29 Car. 2, c. 3, s. 4.
{q) See title Auction and Aijctioneers.
(r) See the titles Bankers and Banking;Husband and Wiee Infants ; ;
Master and Servant Partnership Patents and Inventions Public

; ; ;
Authorities and Public Oeficers and Constitutional Law (for public

agents) Shipping and Navigation (for shipmasters etc.)
; Solicitors ;
;
Stock Exchange (for stockbrokers).
(s) Pole V. Leash
(1863), 33 L. J. (CH.) 155 Love v. Mack (1905), 93 L. T.
;
3o2 ;
Re Consort Deep Level Gold Mines, Ltd., [1897] 1 Ch. 575.
{t) Markivick v. Hardingham (1880), 15 Ch. D. 339. See pp. 173 et seq., post.
——
154 Agency.
Sect. 1. authorised by him, expressly appoints the agent, either by deed, by

In General, writing under hand, or by parol (a).
Implied agency arises from the conduct or situation of the
parties (b), or from necessity (c).
Sect. 2. Appomtment by Deed,

Agent to 339. An agent who has to execute a deed, as, for example, a con-
execute deed,
veyance or deed of partnership, must be appointed by deed (c^).
.
"
Such an authority is called a power of attorney (e).
Certain acts have no legal force unless effected by deed. In
such cases, therefore, it is essential that the agent's authority
should be conferred by an instrument under seal. The following
are the principal instances :
(1) Conveyances on and legal mortgages of land, and

sale
interests in land other than copyhold (/).
(2) Leases of lands, tenements, and hereditaments for more
than three years, or reserving a rent less than two-thirds of the
improved value (g).
Transfers of shares in companies under the Companies
(3)
Clauses Act (li).
(4) Transfer of a British ship or share therein (i) .
(5) Bills of sale {k).

Sale of sculpture, with copyright (l).
(6)
(7) Under the common
law, a contract of a corporation.
(8) Under the common
law, a contract without consideration.
The necessity for appointment by deed of an agent for the
purpose of executing an instrument under seal does not, however,
exist where the execution of the instrument is in the presence of
the principal, when, at his request, someone signs on his behalf
and in his name (m). And an agent who executes a deed, though
(a) Gosling v. GasMI, [1897] A. C. 575; Be Vimbos, Ltd., [1900] 1 Ch. 470;
Be Hale, [1899] 2 Ch. 107.
(b) Trent v. Hunt (1853), 9 Exch. 14 (mortgagor implied agent of mortgagee) ;
Watson Y. Threlkeld (1794), Byany. Sams (1848), 12 Q. B. 460 (cohabi-

2 Esp. 637 ;
tation as man and wife). And see titles Auction and Auctioneees Husband ;
. AND WiEE Shipping and Navigation. See also as to agency by estoppel,

;
p. 158, post.
(c) As to agency of necessity, see p. 157, post.
{d) Steiglitz v. Egyinton (1815), Holt (n. p.) 141 ;
BerMey v. Hardy (1826), 5
B. & C. 355.
(e) Powers of attorney may be registered in the Central Office of the Supreme
Court under the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict,
c. 41), s. 48. See also p. 161, post.
if ) Eeal Property Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Yict. c. 106), s. 3.
Eor forms of appointment, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Yol. L, pp. 380, 382.
(g) Statute of Erauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), ss. 1, 2, 3 Eeal Property Act, 1845 ;
(8 & 9 Vict. c. 106), s. 3.

Eor form of appointment, see Encyclopaedia of Eorms, Yol. I., p. 383.
h) Companies Clauses Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Yict. c. 16), s. 14.
Eor form of appointment, see Encyclopaedia of Eorms, Yol. 1., p. 354
(/) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), s. 24.
Bills of Sale Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 43), s. 9, schedule.
{k)
Sculpture Copyright Act, 1814 (54 Geo. 3, c. 56), s. 4.
{I)
m) Ball V. Dunsterville (1791), 4 Term Eep. 313, a deed executed for a

partner in his presence B. v. Inhahitants of Longnor (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 647,
;
where the parties, who were unable to write, requested someone to execute the
deed in their presence.
Part IY. — Formation of the Contract of Agency. 155
not authorised under seal, may bind his principal if a deed was not Sect. 2.
required by law in such a case(?z). The authority to contract for, Appoint-

but not to execute, a lease of lands for a term exceeding three years ment by
may be given by parol (o). Deed.
340. That a municipal or other non-trading corporation must Agents of

<ô^Po^^*^^^s-
contract by a seal, or some substitute for a seal, which by law shall
be taken as conclusively evidencing the sense of the whole body cor-
porate, is a necessity inherent in the very nature of a corporation (p).
Their agents must therefore be appointed under seal(g), with certain
exceptions w^hich the necessity of everyday life has admitted. In
matters of trifling importance, of necessary recurrence, and which
admit of little delay, and, lastly, in matters for the doing of which
the corporation was created, these corporations may appoint and
contract by agents not appointed by deed on the ground that to
hold to the contrary would occasion inconvenience and tend to defeat
the very object for which the corporation had been created (r).
It has also been sought to show that the doctrine of part per- Part per-
formance will relieve against the necessity of execution under formance.
seal. Where a corporation has on its side done all that it con-
tracted to do, and the contract is of a mercantile character (s), the
corporation may sue the other party for non-performance (t) but ;
a partial performance will not avail it (a) unless the contract is one
of which specific performance may be decreed. Nor can the other
•
party sue the corporation on a contract not under seal, which he has
performed, unless it be of the trifling or necessary nature before
{n) Hunter v. Farker (1841), 7 M. & W. 322, 344, where the addition of a seal
to the agent's contract of sale of a ship was not required for its validity.
(o) Callaylian v. Pepper (1840), 2 Ir. Eq. E. 399 ;Mortlock v. Buller (1804),
10 Yes. at p. 310.
(p) Mayor of LudJoiu v. CharUon (1840), 6 M. & W. 815; Mmjor of Kidder-
minster V. Hardivich (1873), L. E. 9 Exch. 13. See title Cohporations.
{q) Phelps V. Upton Snodsliiry Hiqlnuay Board (1885), 1 T. L. E. 425 ;Arnold
V. Mayor of Poole (1842), 5 Scott, N. E. 741 (solicitor and town clerk must be
appointed by seal, and cannot recover otherwise, even for work done, although
where payment had been appropriated it was not disturbed). But a corporation
which has appointed an attorney not under seal may be estopped from denying
the validity of his appointment as against other parties {Faviell v. Eastern
Counties Bail. Co. (1848), 2 Exch. 344 Sutton v. The Spectacle-makers' Co. (1864),
;
10 L. T. 411; Austin v. Guardians of Bethnal Green (1874), L. E. 9 C. P. 91 ;
'Smith V. Cartwright (1851), 6 Exch. 927; B. v. Mayor of Stamford (1844), 6

Q. B. 433; Mayor of Ludlow v. Charlton (1840), 6 M. & W. 815; Dyte v. St.
Pancras Board of Guardians (1872), 27 L. T. 342; Cope v. Thames Haven Dock and
Rail. Co. (1849), 3 Exch. 841).
(r) Lawford v. Billericay Bural Council, [1903] 1 K. B. 772 ;Clarke v. Cuck-
fidd Union (1852), 21 L. J. (q. b.) 349; Nicholson v. Bradfield Union (1866), L. E.
1 Q. B. 620; Diggle v. London and Blackiuall Bail. Co. (1850), 5 Exch. 442;
Beverley v. Lincoln Gas Light and Coke Co. (1837), 6 A. & E. 829 Wells v. Mayor
;
of King ston-upon- Hull (1875), L. E. 10 0. P. 402. Compare Haigh v. North Bierley

Union (1858), E. B. & E. 873; Sanders v. St. Neots Union (1846), 8 Q. B. 810.
" Wherever to hold the rule applicable would occasion very great inconvenience,
or tend to defeat the very object for which the corporation was created, the
exception has prevailed" {Church v. Lmperial Gas Light and Coke Co. (1838), 6
A. & E. 846, per Lord Denman, at p. 861).
(s) London Dock Co. v. Sinnott
(1857), 8 E. & B. 347.
it) Fishmongers' Co. v. Bohertson
(1843), 5 Man. & G. 131.
(a) Maijor of Kidderminster
v. Hardwick (1873), L. E. 9 Exch. 13.
—
156 Agency.
Sect, 2. mentioned {b). Nevertheless a corporation is liable to a third party

Appoint- induced to enter into a contract with one whom the corporation has
ment by allowed to hold himself out as their agent (c).
Deed.
341. Every appointment of an agent by a local board or urban
Urban sanitary authority involving a contract of the value of £50 must
authorities.
be in writing and sealed with the common seal (d). As regards
these corporations, therefore, this settles the question as to what are
to be considered contracts of trifling importance or of necessity (e).
This is a mandatory enactment designed to protect the interests of
the ratepayers, and cannot be overcome by any consideration of
the contract being executed on one side (/").
Trading 342. The cases of trading corporations (^/) and joint-stock com-
corporations. panies (Ji) afford important exceptions to the general rule that cor-
porations must contract under their common seal, in that they may by
agents enter informally into all contracts which are in furtherance
of the objects of their incorporation. They may, therefore, appoint
aîents by parol to enter into all such contracts. Special exceptions
may also exist under freedom granted by general or private Acts of
Parliament as in the case of industrial and provident societies {i).
;
Sect. 3. Informal Appointment.
343. The foregoing are the only legal requirements for the formal
by parol. appointment of an agent. However desirable it may be that the
appointment of certain kinds of agents, e.g., solicitors, should be in
writing, so that the fact of agency and extent of the authority
should be thus clearly ascertainable, the law does not require
formal evidence {k).
Agent to buy Nor is writing necessary in the case of an appointment of an
land. agent to purchase land, although contracts relating to land are not
enforceable unless evidenced by writing (/).
An agreement relating to land may be signed either by the party
Hunt V. Whnhledon Local Board (1878), 4 C. P. D. 48.
(h)
Faviell v. Eastern Counties Bail. Co. (1848), 2 Exch. 344, where a submission
(c)
to arbitration by an attorney not appointed under seal was held binding on the
defendants.
Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 174.
(d)
(e) Hunt
V. Wirnhhdon Local Board, sujjra, where a surveyor was unable to
recover for plans ordered by the Board not under seal.
(/) Young v. Mayor of Boyal Leamington Spa (1883), 8 App. Cas. 517.
{g) South of Ireland Colliery Co. v. Waddle (1868), L. E. 3 0. P. 463 affirmed ;
(1869), L. E. 4 C. P. 617 Henderson v. Australian Boyal Mail Steam Navigation

;
Co. (1855), 5 E. & P. 409.

(A) Companies Acts, 1862 1907. —
See Companies Clauses Act, 1845 (8 & 9
Yict. c. 16), s. 97 ; title Companies.
(i) Industrial Societies Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Yict. c. 45), s. 11 (12) B. v. Justices
;
of Cumherland (1848), 5 D. & L. 431; see title Industrial Phovident and

Similar Societies.
Given V. Ord (1828), 3 C. & P. 349 Lord v. Kellett (1833), 2 My. &_E:.
{k) ;
1 ;
Wiggins Y. Peppin (1837), 2 Beav. 403. But the onus lies upon a solicitor
of proving his appointment {Maries v. Maries (1853), 23 L. J. (CH.) 154;
Be Manhy (1857), 26 L. J. (cH.) 313 John Griffiths Cycle Corporation, Ltd.
;
V. Humber & Co., Ltd., [1899] 2 Q. B. 414).

(/) Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), s. 4.
For forms of appointment, see Encyclopaedia of Eorms, Vol. I., pp. 380 et seq.
— —
Part IV. Formation of the Contract of Agency. 157
to be charged, i.e., the prmcipal, or by his agent thereunto lawfully Sect. 3.
authorised, whether the authority is given by parol or otherwise {m) ; Informal

and the principal may prove the agency by parol and enforce the Appoint-
contract against both agent and vendor {ii). Nor is the parol ment.
appointment of an agent to purchase land invalid on the ground that
creations of trust in land must be proved by writing (o), for, in the
first place, such an agent is not a trustee unless and until the land
has been conveyed to him, but a mere conduit pipe, whose contract
vests the equitable estate in the principal and, secondly, since
the Court will not allow the Statute of Frauds to be made an instru-
ment of fraud, an agent to whom land, purchased on behalf of his
principal, has been conveyed, will not be permitted to plead the
statute against the principal, for whom he is a trustee, and who
may give parol evidence of the trust {q).
344. Even in cases where the signature of a principal is required Agent to sign
by statute, an agent may be appointed by word of mouth or in any J^^^^.^^^^

other informal manner to sign for him, unless the statute expressly
requires the agent, if any, to be authorised by writing (?), or
expressly or impliedly requires a personal signature, and so renders
an agent incompetent to sign at all (s). Thus an agent informally
appointed may sign a memorandum of association (t), or a consent
to a dissolution under the Building Societies Act, 1874 (a).
Subject, therefore, to the requirements already mentioned, an
agent may be appointed by mere word of mouth or by signs, though
he may have to execute a written instrument, and even in cases
where he is appointed to enter into contracts which are not enforce-
able unless evidenced by writing (&).
Sect. 4. Agency of Necessity.
345. Agency of necessity arises wherever a duty is imposed upon Agency of

a person to act on behalf of another apart from contract, and in necessity,
circumstances of emergency, in order to prevent irreparable injury.
(to) Clman v. CooJce (1802), 1 Sch. & Lef. 22 ; 29 Car. 2, c. 3, s. 4.

(n) Heard v. Pilley (1869), 4 Ch. App. 548 ; Cave v. Mackenzie (1877), 46
L. J. (cH.) 564.
(o) Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), s. 7.
(p) Cave V. MacJcenzie, supra.

(q) The contrary view was once held [Bartlett v. Pichersgill (1759), 1 Cox, Eq. 15),
and was recognised as still law in James v. Smith, [1891] 1 Ch. 384, but must
now be taken to be overruled. See Booth v. Turle (1873), L. E. 16 Eq. 182 ;
Davies v. 0%, No. 2 (1865), 35 Beav. 208 Haigh v. Kaije (1872), 7 Ch. App. 469
; ;
Willis V. Willis (1740), 2 Atk. 71 and, finally, Rochefoucauld y. Boustead, [1897]

;
1 Ch. 196, in which James y. Smith [supra) was adversely criticised by the Court
of Appeal.
(r) E.g., Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), s. 1.
(s) Fricker v. Va7i Qruttem, [1896] 2 Ch. 649.
{t) Re Whitleii Partners, Ltd. a886), 32 Ch. D. 337.
(a) 37 & 38 Vict. c. 42, s. 32 Dennison v. Jeffs, [1896] 1 Ch. 611.
\
(b) Deverell v. Lord Bolton (1812), 18 Yes. at

p. 509; MortlockY. Buller (1804;,
10 Ves. at p. 311 Coles v. Trecothick (1804), 9 Ves. 234
; the common law rule,
;
Qui facit per alium facit per se, will not be restricted except where a statute
requires personal signature. An instance of the latter is the Statute of Frauds
Amendment A.ct, 1828 (Lord Tenterden's Act, 9 Geo. 4, c. 14), s. 6. See
Williams v. Mason (1873), 28 L. T. 232.
— ;;
158 Agency.
Sect. 4. It may also arise where a person carries out the legal (c) or moral (d)
Agency of duties of another in the absence or default of that other, or acts in
Necessity, his interest to preserve his property from destruction. Most of
the cases have reference to sea or land carriage, when, to prevent
destruction of the ship, cargo or goods, the shipmaster or carrier
has to take prompt action in excess of his instructions and ;
none of them establish that a mere stranger can under any circum-
stances become an agent.
Application The doctrine of agency of necessity has a limited application,
of doctrine.
probably confined to cases in which there is a contractual relation-
ship of some kind, express or implied, in existence already (e). The
occurrence of exceptional circumstances during the carrying out of
the act of agency, from the nature of the contract itself, necessitates
its extension in the interests both of principal and agent of the —
principal because otherwise his property or interests would be
sacrificed of the agent so that he shall have the necessary authority
;
to preserve them and acquire rights against third parties for his
principal and against the principal in respect of his own remunera-
tion, indemnity etc. The authority arises only under urgent
necessity; and, if questioned, it will lie upon the party contracting
with the agent to show that such was the nature of the circum-
stances (/). At the same time, though a strong case is required,
it is not essential that any other course should be an impossibility
the course that a prudent man would take under all the circumstances
is that which will be upheld (g).
Sect. 5. Agency by Estoppel.

Holding out. 346. Agency by estoppel arises where one person has so acted as to
lead another to believe that he has authorised a third person to act
on his behalf, and that other in such belief enters into transactions
with the third person within the scope of such ostensible authority (h) .
(c) On tlie ground that a husband is legally bound to maintain his wife, a
person who supplies a deserted wife with necessaries may recover their price
from the husband, and on the ground that the wife's necessaries include neces-
saries for her children in her custody he may likewise recover the price of
necessaries supplied for such children [Bazeley v. Forder (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 559).
And see title Husband and Wife.
(d) Langan
v. Oreat Western Rail. Co. (1873), 30 L. T. 173 (a police inspector
held to have sufficient authority to bind a railway company for board and
lodging of injured passengers) Oreat Northerii Rail. Co. v. ISwaffield (1874), L. E.
;
9 Exch. 132 (carriers of a horse, finding no one to receive it at the destination,

maintained it from " common humanity ").
(e) OiuiUiam v. Tvrist, [1895] 2 Q. B. 84; haivtayne v. Bourne (1841), 7
M. & W. 595, per Parke, B., at p. 599.
(/) The Bonita (1861), 5 L. T. 141 (sale of ship by master) The Gratitudine
;
(1801), 3 Ch. Eob. 240 Benson v. Duncan (1849), 3 Exch. 644 Oilhs v. Orey
; ;
(1857), 2 H. & N. 22 (payment of freight by master on reshipment of cargo)

and Shipping and Navigation.
see title
{g) The Australia (1859), 13 Moo. P. C. 132. It is not necessary that the ship
should be absolutely unrepairable to entitle a master to sell, the question being
whether it was prudent to incur so large an expense, compare The Mariposa,
[1896] P. 273 (as to whether the shipmaster was acting as agent for the ship or the
[h) Summers v. Solomon (1857), 26 L. J. (Q. B.) 301 ; and see Biggs v. Evans,
[1894] 1 Q. B. 88 ; Dickinson v. Valpy (1829), 10 B. & 0. 128, 140 Farquharson
;
Brothers & Co. v. King, [1902] A. C. 325.

. — —
Part IV. Formation of the Contract of Agency. 159
In this case the first-mentioned person is estopped from denying Sect. 5.
the fact of the third person's agency mider the general law of Agency by
estoppel, and it is immaterial whether the ostensible agent had no Estoppel.
authority whatever in fact (i), or merely acted in excess of his
actual authority (k). The principal cannot set up a private limita-
tion upon the agent's ostensible authority (l), for, so far as third
persons are concerned, the ostensible authority is the sole test of his
liability (m). But the onus lies upon the person dealing with the
agent to prove either real or ostensible authority (n), and it is a
matter of fact in each case whether ostensible authority existed for
the particular act for which it is sought to make the principal
liable (o)
A person who assumes to act as an agent is estopped from denying

the agency as between himself and the person on whose behalf he
professed to act {p).
Sect. 6. Co -principals and Co-agents.

347. Co-principals may jointly appoint an agent to act for them, Co-principals,
and in such case become jointly liable to him {q), and may jointly sue
him(/')- The agent is not bound to account separately to one of
several co-principals (s), and if he has done so is not thereby
discharged from liability to the other or others {t) unless the
co-principals are also partners {a).
348. A may
give authority to co-agents to act for him. Co-agents,
principal
either jointly, or jointly severally. A mere authority to act, with-
and
out further specification, is a joint authority (b), and can be acted
upon only by the co-agents jointly (c), but an authority given jointly
and severally may be acted upon by all or any of the co-agents so
as to bind the principal {d) .
0') Pickard v. Sears (1837), 6 A. & E. 469; Freeman v. Cooke (1848), 2 Exch.
654.
(k) Union Credit Bank
v. Mersey Docks and Harhour Board, [1899] 2 Q,. B.
205 ;
KingSmith, [1900] 2 Ch. 425.
v.
{T) Haivken v. Bourne (1841), 8 M. & W. 703 ; and see Maddich v. Marshall
(1864), 17 C. B. (n. s.) 829 RiletjY. Packington (1867), L. E. 2 C. P. 536

;
RoUnson ;
V. Mollett (1875), L. E. 7 H. L. 802.

(m) Pickering v. Busk (1812), 15 East, 38. See further on this subject
p. 201, post.
[n) Pole V. Leaslc (1862),
33 L. J. (cH.) 155.
(o)Brazier v. Camp (1894), 63 L. J. (q. b.) 257 Dijer v. Pearson (1824), 4 ;
D. & E. 648 ; Young v. Cole (1837), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 724.

^{p) Moore v. Peacheij (1891), 7 T. L. E. 748 ; Roberts y. Ogilhy (1821), 9 Price,
iq) Keay
v. Femvick (1876), 1 C. P. D. 745.
(r) Skinner v. Stocks (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 437 Cothay v. Fennell (1830), 10
;
B. & C. 671 Jones v. Cuthhertson (1873), L. E. 8 Q. B. 504.

;
(s) Hatsall v. Griffith

(1834), 2 Or. & M. 679.
(t) Innes v. Stephenson
(1831), 1 Mood. & E. 145 ; Lee v. SankeyJ \(1872),
J'
L. E.
15 Eq. 204. ^ ^ ^
(a) Innes v. Stephenson, supra; and see Heath v. Chilton (1844), 12 M. & W.
632.
h) Broivn v. Andrew (1849), 18 L. J. (q. b.) 153.
c) Boyd V. Durand (1809), 2 Taunt. 161 Broiun ; v. Andreiu, supra; and see
Bell V. Nixon (1832), 9 Bing. 393.
{d) Guthrie v. Armstrong (1822), 5 B. & Aid. 628.
—— —
160 Agency.
Sect. 6. A principal, again, may

appoint co-agents, and give power to a
Co-princi- quorum to act is commonly done in the case of a
on his behalf, as
pals and joint stock company appointing directors (e). In such case the
Co-agents. principal will not be bound by the act of any number less than the
Quorum of appointed quorum (/).
co-agents. Where a power of a public nature is committed to several persons,
the act of the majority is binding upon the minority (g).
Liability of One co-agent is not liable for the act of another unless he has
co-agents for
expressly authorised or tacitly permitted it {h), or the co-agents are
each other's
acts. partners.
Sect. 7. Stamp Duties.
Stamps. 349. The appointment, if by deed, and not otherwise provided
for, must bear a revenue stamp of 10s. if otherwise, in ;
writing, a sixpenny stamp will probably suffice (i). This applies

to all documents to be proved in the Courts of this country. If to
be proved abroad, the document must also comply with the revenue
laws of the foreign country (k).
Exemptions from duty in this country are provided under the
Copyholds Act, 1894 (Q and, under the Friendly Societies Act,
;
1896 {m)j on transfers by trustees of moneys in a friendly society.
Part V. —Authority of the Agent.

How derived 350. The authority of the agent —
as has been seen in Part lY.
may be derived expressly from an instrument, either under seal or
simply in writing, or may be conferred by word of mouth or even
signs. Authority may also be implied from the conduct of the
parties or from the nature of the employment ; may in certain
cases be due to the necessity of circumstances, and in others be
conferred by a valid ratification subsequent to the actual per-
formance. In extent the authority may be confined to a particular
(e) Ridley v. Plymouth Grinding and Baking Co. (1848), 2 Exch. 711.
(/) Kirh\. Bell (1851), 16 Q. B. 290 D'Arcy v. Tamar, Kit Hill, and Cal-
;
lington Rail. Co. (1867), L. E. 2 Exch. 158 and see Re Liverpool Household Stores
;
Association (1890), 59 L. J. (CH.) 616, and Brown v. Andrew (1849), 18 L. J.

(q. B.) 153.
{g) Grindley v. Barker (1798), 1 Bos. & P. 229.
(/i) This rule is chiefly exemplified in the case of the acts of one or more
directors of a company without the knowledge of the others, and extends to

fraudulent acts {Cargill v. Boiuer (1878), 10 Ch. D. 502 ; Re Denham & Co.
(1883), 25 Ch. D. 752 Re Montrotier Asphalte Co. {Perry's Case) (1876), 34L.T.
;
716 Lucas v. Fitzgerald (1903), 20 T. L. E. 16 Bear v. Stevenson (1874), 30

; ;
L. T. 177 ; Land Credit Co. of Ireland v. Lord Fermoy (1870), 5 Ch. App. 763 ;
Weir V. Bell (1878), L. E. 3 Ex. D. 238 CuUerne v. London and Suburban
;
General Permanent Building Society (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 485).

(?) The Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Yict. c. 39), schedule, tit. "Letter or
Power of Attorney " Mounsey v. Stephenson (1827), 7 B. & C. 403.
;
Eor stamp
duties generally, see title Eeyenue.
{k) BHstoiu V. Secqueville (1850), 19 L, J. (ex.) 289 ; Stonelake v. Babb (1770),
'
5 Burr. 2674.
{T) 51 & 58 Yict. c. 46, s. 58.
(m) 59 & 60 Vict. c. 25, s. 33 (b).

—— —
Part V. Authority of the Agent. 161
act, or be general {a) in its character. In no case, however, can Sect. 1.
the authority of the agent exceed the power of the principal to act In General.
on his o^Yn behalf (Z)).
The authority, whether the agency be created expressly by Extent of
authority.
writing or be implied from conduct, is governed by rules which
define its scope in accordance with the nature of the agent's
employment and duties. As between the agent and his principal,
the authority may be limited by agreement or special instructions,
but as regards third persons the authority which the agent has
is that w^hich he is reasonably believed to have, having regard to
all the circumstances, but only that authority which is reasonably
to be gathered from the nature of his employment and duties (c).
The scope of the authority is therefore largely governed by the
class of agent employed ((^), provided that he is acting within the
limit of his ordinary avocation (<?) or by the relation of the agent to
;
the principal (/) or by the customs of particular trades and

;
professions (g).
Sect. 2. Construction of Authority.

Sub-Sect. 1. Poiuers of Attorney.
351. The instrument conferring authority by deed is termed a Powers of

—
power of attorney a document which is construed strictly by the attorney
construed
Courts, according to well-recognised rules (/z).
strictly.
Eegard is first had to the recitals which, showing the general Kecitals.
object, control the generalterms in the operative part of the deed (i).
General words are construed as having reference only to the General
words.
special powers (Zj), but include incidental powers necessary for
(a) See p. 152, ante.

(b) Shreiusbury and Birmingham Bail. Co. v. North Western Bail. Co. (1857), 6
H. L. Cas. at p. 133 Montreal Assurance Co. v. McGillivray (1859), 13 Moo.
;
P. C. 0. 87; Ashhury Bailway Carriage and Iron Co. v. Biche (1875), L. E.

7 H. L. 653. Corporations and incorporated companies can only enter into
contracts within the powers of their charter, memorandum of association, or
Act of Parliament (see p. 151, ante).
(c) Brady v. Todd (1861), 9 C. B. (n. s.) 592 (a servant sent to deliver a
horse has no implied authority to warrant it, and the person to whom it is
delivered takes it at the risk that the servant had no authority in fact) Cox v. ;
Midland Counties Bail. Co. (1849), 3 Exch. 268 (a stationmaster has no implied
authority to pledge the credit of a railway company for medical attendance to
in j iired passenger) a case of doubtful authority in these days and see Langan
, ;
V. Greed Western Rail Co. (1873), 30 L. T. 173. See also pp. 201 et seq., post.
(d) Auction' and Auctioneers and Stock Exchange.
See, e.g., titles
(e) Baun Simmins (1880), 41 L. T. 783. A broker who by a friend pledged
v.
diamonds of which he had the custody was not acting in the ordinary course of
duty, and the pawnbroker was not protected by the Eactors Act {Be Gorter v.
Attenhorough & Son (1904), 21 T. L. E. 19).
(/) See, e.g., title Husband and Wife.
(g) Sutton V. Tatham (1839), 10 A. & E. 27 Boiuring v. Shepherd (1871), L. E.
;
6 Q.. B. 309. See title Stock Exchange.

{h) Bryant, Powis and Bryant, Ltd. v. La Banque da Beuple, [1893] A. C.
170, 177; Hoiuard v. Baillie (1796), 2 Hy. Bl. 618; Withington y. Herring
(1829), 5 Bing. 442. For forms of power of attorney for various purposes, see
Encyclopsedia of Forms, Vol. I., pp. 275 et seq.
(0 Boolie V. Lord Ifeîsinqton (1856), 2 K. J. 753, 769 &
Danh/ v. Coutts Co. ;
&
(1885), 29 Ch. D. 500.
(/.) Attwood V. Munnings (1827), 7 B. & 0. 278; Ferry v. Holl (1860), 2
De a. F. & J. 38, 48 ; Leivis v. Ramsdale (1886), 55 L. T. 179.
H.L.— I. M
;.
162 Agency.
Sect. 2. carrying out the authority [l). Thus a power granted to the donee
Construe- to manage certain property, followed by general words giving him
tion of full power to do all lawful acts relating to the donor's business and
Authority, affairs, of what nature or kind soever, does not necessarily include
authority to indorse bills, for the general words are construed as
having reference to managing the donor's property, for which
indorsing bills ma}^ not be incidental or necessary But a
power to complete all contracts which the donee may deem neces-
sary for a specific object, includes authority to obtain money for
payment in respect of such contracts, where the payment is
necessary and incidental to the completion (n).
Limitsof 352. The authority conferred by power of attorney must be
authority
adhered to strictly. If the authority is exercised in excess of and
observed. outside the reasonable scope of its special powers, the third party
will be unable to make the principal liable (o) as where a power
;
gave authority to sign contracts, acceptances, and other documents,

and it was held that, while it gave power to sell or purchase
negotiable instruments, it did not give power to pledge them (p).
When inci- 353. The construction
of authorities given by power of attorney
given rise to a multiplicity of cases, which serve to indicate
fm^Hed^^^^^^
the extent to which the Court, in its strict rules of construction,
will allow actual expressions to imply incidental powers.
A power to deal with land gives authority to sell, the conditions
of sale depending on the wording of the authority {q), but not to
sell that portion included in a voluntary settlement (r). A general
power gives authority to instruct a solicitor (s), to sue (t), and to
submit to arbitration (a) but when given to act in partnership
;
matters it does not give authority to dissolve the partnership (^)

A power to sell land belonging to the donor does not give authority
to exercise a power of sale vested in the donor as a mortgagee (c)
nor does a general power to mortgage, sell, or otherwise deal with
(l) Be Wallace (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 22, where, a solicitor being authorised to

conduct legal proceedings, it was held that he was justified in presenting a
bankruptcy petition.
{}))) v. La Nauze (1835), 1 Y. & C. Ex. 394; compare Havper v. Godsell
Esdaile
(1870), L. E5 Q. B. 422 (general words limited to exercise of privileges under a
partnership) and see Lewis v. Eamsdale (1886), 55 L. T. 179.
;
{n) Withinyton Y. Herring (1829), 5 Bing., per Park, J., at p. 459; and see
Henley Y. Soyer (1828), 8 B. & C. 16 (authority to dissolve partnership and appoint
any other person the donee might see fit includes authority to submit the accounts
to arbitration).
(o) Jacobs v. Morris, [1902] 1 Ch. 816, where a loan to the agent was made
without inquiry, and, as he had no general borrowing powers, it was held not
within his authority to bind his principal.
{p) Jonmenjoy Coondoo v. Watson (1884), 9 App. Cas. 561 He Bouchout v.
;
Goldsmid (1800), 5 Yes. 210.

iq) Hawksley v. Outrara, [1892] 3 Ch. 359.
(r) General Meat Supply Association, Ltd. v. Bouffler (1879), 41 L. T. 719.
(s) Ex parte Frampton (1859), 1 De G. F. & J. 263.
{t) Gray Pearson (1870), L. E. 5 C. P. 568.
v.
(a) Henley v. Boper (1828), 8 B. & C. 16 and see Goodson
; v. Broole (1815), 4
-
Camp. 163.
{h) Harper v. Godsell (1870), L. E. 5 Q. B. 422.
(c) Be Voiuson and Jenkins, {1904] 2 Ch. 219.
—
Part Y. —Authority of the Agent. 163
an estate authorise the donee to execute a deed as a voluntary Sect. 2.
gift (d) but a power to borrow money on mortgage, though deficient

; Construe-
in formahties necessary to authorise a vahd mortgage, may be tion of
sufficient authority to borrow money (e), A joint power given by Authority,
husband and wife was not sufficient to authorise a deahng with
separate estate coming to the wife (/) a power to act as executrix ;
did not authorise the donee to bind the donor by accepting bills of
exchange on her account (g) a power to sue for debts and conduct
;
the business of the principal did not give authority to indorse bills
of exchange in his name {k) nor did a power to demand, sue for,
,
recover, and receive moneys, by all lawful ways and means whatso-
ever, give such an authority (?). What would give such an autho-
rity —viz., the words "to sell, indorse, and assign" was decided —
in another case {k). A shipmaster's authority was held sufficient
to empower him to assign the passage money of the ship (l), or to
enter into a charter-party {m) and the ship agent's authority was
;
held to enable him to dismiss the captain An authority to

discount a bill includes authority to warrant it (0).
Sub-Sect. 2. Written Authority.
354. A
written authority is capable of extension either verbally Liberal inter-
or by conduct. Such an authority is not so strictly construed as P^^^^tion of
one under seal, and regard is had to all the circumstances of the under hand,
agency business {p). The ordinary full authority given in one part
of the instrument will not be cut down because there are ambiguous
and uncertain expressions elsewhere {q) but the document will be ;
considered as a whole for the interpretation of particular words

or directions (?•) When once an authority has been reduced into Interpreta-
.
writing, the interpretation of the written document is a matter of

[j^^ of^j^w"
law for the Court and not a question of fact for the jury (s). not fact.
In the absence of express directions, the agent may exercise his Agent's dis-
discretion so as to act in the best manner possible for his principal (t). cretion.
Authority to act generally (whether conferred by writing or verbally)
includes authority to instruct a solicitor {u).
Agents authorised by letter of credit to draw up to a certain
amount will bind the principal for bills in the hands of third parties
{d) Be Boivles (1874), 31 L. T. 365, 366.
(e) Denyssen v. Botha (1860), 8 W. E. 710.
(/) Kenrich v. Wood (1869), L. E. 9 Eq. 333.
{g) Gardner v. BailUe (1795), 6 Term Eep. 591.
ih) Esdaile v. La Nauze & C. Ex. 394 Murray v. East India
(1835), 1 Y. ;
Co. (1821), 5 B. & Aid. 204 Hogg

Snaith (1808), 1 Taunt. 347.
;
y.
(?•) Murray v. East India Co. (1821), 5 B. & Aid. 204.
(k) BanJc of Bengal v. Madeod (1849), 5 Moo. Ind. App. 1 Ba7iJ€ of Bengal v. ;
Fagan (1849), 5 Moo. Ind. App. 27.

(/) Willis V. Palmer (1859), 7 0. B. (N. S.) 340.
(m) Bouth V. Macmillan (1863), 2 H. C. 750. &
(n) Berwick v. Horsfall (1858), 4 0. B. (n. s.)
450, 460, 462.
(o) Fenn v. Harrison (1791), 4 Term Eep. 177.
(i?) Pole V. Leask (1860), 28 Beav. 562.

{q) Pariente v. Lubhock (1855) 8 De G. M. & G. 5.
(r) "May" will, if tlie context so warrant, be interpreted as "mubt"
[Entioisle v. Dent (1848), 1 Exch. 812).
(s) See title Deeds and Documents.
[t]Pariente v. Luhbock, supra. See Tallentire v. Ayte (1884), 1 T. L. E. 143.
[u) Ex parte Frampton (1859), 1 De G. E. & J. 263.
M 2
—
164 Agency.
Sect. 2. for value, although the agents were indebted to the principal to a
Construc- larger amount {a).
tion of Stjb-Sect. 3. — Verhal Authority.
Authority.
355. When authority is given by word of mouth, its construction
Construction and extent are questions of fact for the jury, depending on the
a question of
fact. circumstances of the particular case and the usages of trade or
business.
Effect of An authority conferred in general terms gives an agent power to
authority in act in the ordinary way in reference to the particular business, and
general terms.
to do subordinate acts (b), and all reasonable acts in relation to the
business (c), but does not, in the absence of special conditions, give
authority to take more than the usual risks or employ extraordinary
means {d).
Ambiguous 356. An agent whose instructions are in ambiguous terms is

authoritv. justified if he acts in good faith and places a reasonable con-
struction on his authority (e), but where the limits imposed are
definite, he has no right to exercise a discretion (/).
Sect. 3. Implied Authority.

Necessary and 357. The implied authority of an agent extends to all sub-
incidental
ordinate acts which are necessary or ordinarily incidental to the
acts.
exercise of his exjDress authority {g). It does not, however, extend
to acts which are outside the ordinary course of his business, or
which are neither necessary nor incidental to his express authority Qi) .
Authority to The manager of a business has authority to do all acts necessary

pledge credit. to the regular conduct of the business (^), but he has no implied
(a) Re Agra and Masterman's Bank (1867), 2 Ch. App. 391 Maitland v. The
;
Chartered Mercantile Bank of

India, Londonand China (1869), 38 L. J. (CH.) 363.
(&) Collen V. Gardner (1856), 21 Beav. 540.
(c) Wiltshire v. Sims (1808), 1 Camp. 258 East India Co. v. Hensleij (1794),
;
1 Esp. 112 ; Hoivard v. Braithiuaite (1812), 1 Yes. & B. 202, 208, 209.
{d) Seymour v. Bridge (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 460 Fa])eY. Westacott, [1894] 1 Q. B.
;
272; Hine Brothers v. Steamship Insurance Syndicate, Ltd. (1895), 72 L. T. 79;

UnderiuoodY. Nicholls (1855), 17 C. B. 239 Ex parte Howell (1865), 12 L. T. 785
; ;
Blumherg Y. Life Interests and Reversionary Securities Corporation, [1897] 1 Ch. 171.
The authority to receive money is to receive in cash., and not by a set-off, nor, in
the absence of special custom, by bill of exchange or cheque (see p. 165, post).
(e) Ireland Y. Livingston (1872), L. E. 5 H. L. 395; Boden v. French (1851),
10 C. B. 886 Johnston v. Kershaiu (1867), L. E. 2 Exch. 82.
;
( f) Bertram Y. Qodfraij (1830), 1 Knapp, 381.
(g) Bayley v. Wilkins (1849), 7_C. B. 886.

(A) An agent authorised to deliver a horse has no authority to give a warranty
{Woodin V. Burford (1834), 2 Cr. & M. 391-) nor has an agent authorised to sell
;
a horse privately {Brady v. Todd (1861), 9 C. B. (n. s.) 592), unless he is the
agent of a horse dealer {Howard v. Sheward (1866), L. E. 2 C. P. 148 Bank of ;
Scotland v. Fafeow (1813), 1 Dow, 40, 45; Baldry v. âês (1885), 52 L. T. 620); but
an agent authorised to sell at a fair may give such a warranty {Brooks v. Hassall
(1883), 49 L. T. 569). So an agent authorised to get a bill discounted may war-
rant it good, but not indorse it in the principal's name {Fenn v. Harrison (1790),
3 Term Eep. 757 ; and see Dingle v. Hare (1859), 7 C. B. (n. s.) 145). The
depositary of a policy of insurance on a ship at sea has no implied authority to
give notice to the underwriter of abandonment as for a total loss {Jardine v.
Leathley (1863), 3 B. & S. 700).
(?) Hatvken v. Bourne (1841), 8 M. & W. 703, including the accepting of a bill
in the name in which the business is carried on where drawing and accepting
bills is incident to the ordinary course of the business {Edmunds v. Bushell (1865),
— . ;
money
nor has a servant, merely from the Sect. 3.
authority to borrow {k) ;
fact of service, authority to pledge his master's credit (/.). In certain Implied
cases, however, an agent has implied authority to pledge his
Authority,
principal's credit, e.g., the general manager of a railway company
for medical attendance to a servant of the company {m), or the
matron of a hospital, as agent of the managing committee, for
meat supplied to the hospital (//).
358. Where in the ordinary course of business for the agent Receiving'
it is
to receive payment such payment should, generally payment,

for his principal,
speaking, be received in cash (o). In general the agent has no
implied authority to receive payment by cheque (p), by bill(^), by
other goods (r) or before it becomes due (s)
, nor may he give ,
credit (t). But a reasonable custom to receive payment in any

particular mode may be proved {a)
359. Whether an agent or servant has implied authority to give Authority to
persons into custody has been considered in many cases

• •••• the test ^^^^
is whether in so doing he is acting within the scope of his ordinary
cu-Stodv
;
duties, and also within the scope of the employer's powers. If he is,
he has implied authority (b) if not, it is otherwise (c)
; and it is for ;
the person asserting the existence of the authority to prove it (d).
L. S. 1 For the authority of the manager of a public-house, see Daun

Q. B. 97.
V. Simmms (1880), 41 L. T. 783).
{k) Hawtayne v. Bourne (1841), 7 M. & W. 595 and see Dickinson v. Valpy
;
(1829), 5 Man. & E. 126 ; Bnrmester v. Norris (1851), 6 Exch. 796. But the
directors of a banking or trading company may borrow for the business of the
company (ê Ha7niUon''s Windsor Iromuorhs (1879), 12 Ch. D. 707; Maclae v.
Sutherland (1854), 3 E. & B. 1 ; and Royal British Bank v. Turquand (1855), 5
E. & B. 248).
(/)Wright v. Glyn, [1902] 1 X. B. 745 (a coachman is not an agent to pledge
his master's credit for forage).
(w) Walker v. Great Western Rail. Co. (1867), L. E. 2 Exch. 228, but not so a
stationmaster for medical attendance to an injured passenger {Cox v. Midland
Counties Rail. Co. (1849), 3 Exch. 268); see p. 161, note (c), ante.
[n) Real and Personal Advance Co. v. Phalempin (1893), 9 T. L. E. 569.
(o) Legge \. Byas, Mosley & Co. (1901), 7 Com. Cas. 16, 19 ; Williams v. Evans
(1866), L. E. 1 Q. B. 352 Sijkes v. Giles (1839), 5 M. & W. 645.

;
( }))
Blumherg v. Life Interests and Reversionary Securities Corporation, [1897]
{q) Hine Brothers Steamship Insurance Syndicate, Ltd. (1895), 72 L. T.

v. 79.
(r) Howard v. Chapman (1831), 4 C. & P. 508.
(s) Breming v. Mackie (1862), 3 E. & F. 197.
(t) Wiltshire v. Sims (1808), 1 Camp. 258.
See p. 168, post, and Bridges v. Garrett (1870), L. E. 5 C. P. 451 (payment
(a)
by cheque); Hine Brothers v. Steamship Insurance Syndicate, Ltd., supra (by bill)
Pelham v. Hilder (1841), 1 Y. & C. Ch. 3 (giving credit). And where the prin-
cipal authorises the agent to receive payment, intending that be shall thereout
pay himself a debt due from his principal, the agent may receive payment in any
manner {Barker v. Greeniuood (1837), 2 Y. & C. Ex. 414). An agent appointed, on
the dissolution of a partnership, by a retiring partner to liquidate the partner-
ship affairs, has no authority to accept bills in the name of his principal {Odell
v. Cormack Brothers (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 223).
{b) Loive v. Great Northern Rail. Co.
(1893), 62 L. J. (q. b.) 524.
(r) Walker v. South Eastern Rail. Co. (1870), L. E. 5 C. P. 640 Moore v. Metro- ;
politan Rail. Co. (1872), L. E. 8 Q. B. 36 but see, as to actions for false imprison-
;
ment arising out of this class of offence, Kniglit v. North Metropolitan Tramiuays Co.
(1_898), 14 T. L. E. 286 Charleston v. London Tramiuays Co., Ltd. (188S), 4 T. L. E.
;
{d) GofY. Great Northern Rail. Co. (1861), 30 L. J. (q. b.) 148.
166 Agency.
Sect, 3. An be within the scope of an agent's implied authority,

act, to
Implied must be an apparently necessary one, arising out of the ordinary
Authority, discharge of his duties {e), or to protect the principal's property (/).
Giving a man into custody in order actually to protect the principal's
property is within the implied authority, but so acting on mere
suspicion is not (g) and mere belief in the danger is probably not
;
sufficient [h).
A distinction must be observed between the acts of an agent of a
reasonable nature and those of an excessive or improper character,
which latter would not fall within such authority (i). The manager
of a restaurant has no implied authority to give a customer into
custody on a dispute over the bill(A;), but a person in a similar
capacity is justified in giving persons into custody on a charge of
creating disorder on the premises (1).
Illegal acts. 360. There can of course, owing to general rules of the common
law, be no authority given to do an illegal act so as to justify the
agent, and no agent can recover remuneration or indemnity
against a principal for the performance of an act known by him to
be illegal (m). Powers of attorney given for illegal purposes, as in
general restraint of trade (n), or to prevent penal legal proceed-
ings (o), are void.
Estate and 361.An estate or house agent authorised to procure a purchaser

house agents,
no implied authority to enter into a contract of sale(^); nor
-jô,^
has an agent who is authorised to treat with people, and to permit

them to view property (a). An agent authorised to act " in and
about" a purchase has no implied authority to purchase (6); but an
agent authorised to sell may sign an agreement for sale so as to
bind his principal (c). Authority to find a purchaser and enter
(e) Lord BoJinghrohe v. Local Board of Svnndon New Town (1874), L. E. 9
C. P. 575, There is no implied authority in a servant to do unlawful acts, nor

in a solicitor to exceed his necessary duties, e.g., where issuing^. /a,, to direct
the sheriff to seize certain goods {Smith v. Real (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 340).
(/) Hanson y. Waller, [1901] 1 K
B. 390; Allen v. London and South Western
Bail. Co. (1870), L. E. 6 Q. B. 65; Abrahams v. DeaUn, [1891] 1 Q. B. 516
(a rail way clerk or manager of a business has no implied authority to give
into custody except for the purpose of protecting the property of his employer).
{g) Edwards v. London and North Western Bail. Co. (1870), L. E. 5 0.
P.
445.
(h) Knight v. North Metropolitan Tramways Co. (1898), 14 T. L. E, 286.
(?) Banh of Neio South Wales 4 App. Cas. 270.
v. Oiuston (1879),
[k] Stedman Baker (1896), 12 T, L. E. 451.
v.
{l) Ashton V. Spiers and Fo7id (1893), 9 T. L. E. 606.
(m) Collins v. Blantern (1767), 2 Wils. (k. b.) 341 Holman v. Johnson (1775),
;
1 Cowp., per Lord Mansfield at p, 343. See f mother, pp. 196, 197, post,
[n) Mitchel V. Beynolds (1711), 1 Smith, L. C. (4th ed.), 406.
(o)Kirwan v. Goodman Dowl. 330.
(1841), 9
\p) Hamer v. Sharp (1874), L. E. 19 Eq. 108 Chadburn v. Moore (1892), 61
;
L. J. (CH.) 674 Prior v. Moore (1887), 3 T. L. E. 624. But he has authority to

;
describe the property and state facts affecting its value {Mullens v. Miller (1882),
22 Ch. D. 194).
(a) Godiuin v. Brind (1868), 17 W. E. 29,
(b) The Vale of Neath Colliery Co. v, Furness (1876), 45 L. J. (CH.) 276.
(c) Bosenbaum v. Belson, [1900] 2 Ch. 267. There is a substantial difference
between "to sell " and "to find a purcKaser."
— —
into a contract for the sale of property does not imply an authority Sect. 3.
to receive the purchase-money (d). Implied

A bailiff authorised to distrain has implied authority to receive Authority,
the rent (^). BaiiiiT
362. A
steward has implied authority to give or receive notices Steward,
to quit {/), but a mere rent collector has not (g) nor has a steward ;
implied authority to bind his principal by signing bills of exchange (h),

or by a contract to grant a lease for a term of years (i). A steward
appointed for a particular occasion has a more limited implied
authority than one appointed to act generally, and when appointed
only for the purpose of maintaining order on a special occasion, has
no authority to commit an assault (k).
363. The implied authority of a factor includes authority, Factor,

subject to special instructions,
(1) To sell in his own name (I) ;
(2) To sell on reasonable credit (m), and at such time and price
as he may think best for his principal {7i) ;
(3) To warrant (o) ;
(4) To receive payment when he has sold in his own name (p).
It does not include authority to barter (q) or pledge (r) the
principal's goods, or the bill of lading therefor (s), or to delegate
his authority (t).
364. An agent also has implied authority to act in accordance Custom,

with the customs and usages of the place where {u), or the business
{d) Myim v. Jolife (1834), 1 Mood. & E. 326.

(e) Hatch V. Hale (1850), 15 Q. B. 10; Boulton v. Reynolds (1859), 2 E, & E.
369, but a man left in possession by the bailiif has no such implied authority
{ibid.). And an agent authorised to receive rents for his own benefit has no
authority to distrain therefor ( [Fart^ v. Shew (1833), 9 Bing. 608).
(/) Hoe V. Pierce (1809), 2 Camp. 96; Papillon v. Brunton (1860), 5 H. & N".
518 Jones v. Phipps (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 567.
;
(g) Pearse v. Boulter (1860), 2 E. & E. 133.

(h) Davidson v. Stanley (1841), 3 Scott, N. E. 49.
(i) Collen v. Gardner (1856), 21 Beav. 540, 542, on the ground that a steward
is employed to manage property, which does not involve a right to contract with
tenants, nor is any such custom established. But he may contract for the usual
and customary leases [Peers v. Sneyd (1853), 17 Beav. 151).
{k) Lucas V. Mason (1875), L. E. 10 Exch. 251.
[l] Baring v. Corrie (1818), 2 B. & Aid. 137, 143 Ejc parte Dixon, Re Henley
;
(1876), 4 Ch. D. 133.

(w) HoughtonY. Matthews (1803), 3 Bos. & P. 485, 489 Scott v. Surman (1742),
;
Willes, 400, 406.

(it) Smart v. Sandars
(1846), 3 0. B. 380.
(o) Pickering v. Busk (1812), 15 East, 38, 45, but apparently only where there
exists a custom to warrant the class of article sold {Dingle v. Hare (1859), 7
C. B. (N. s.) 145).
(p) Dririkwater v. Goodwin (1775), 1 Cowp. 251, 255, but only by the usual
mode of payment {Underwood v. Nicholls (1855), 17 0. B. 239, and p. 165, ante),
{q) Guerreiro v. Peile (1820), 3 B. & Aid. 616.
(r) Gill V. Kymer
(1821), 5 Moore, 503 Fielding v. Kymer (1821), 2 B. & B.
;
639; Martini v. Coles (1813), 1 M. & S. 140; PatersonY. TasA (1743), 2 Str.
1178 Gui chard v. Morgan (1819), 4 Moore, 36.
;
{s) Newsom v. Thornton

(1805), 6 East, 17.
(0 Gockran v. Irlam (1814), 2 M. & S. 301 Solly v. Rathbone (1814), 2 M. & S. 298.
;
{u) Foster v. Pearson

(1835), 1 C. M. & E. 849; Pollock v. Stables (1848), 12
Q. B. 765.
—
168 Agency.
Sect. 3. in respect of which (x) his express authority permits him to act,
,
Implied subject to the condition that such customs and usages must not be
Authority. unreasonable, nor change the essential nature of the contract of
agency (y).
Principal Provided the custom or usage is reasonable, the agent's implied
unaware of
authority to act in accordance therewith is not affected by the fact
custom.
that the principal may have been unaware of its existence (a) and ;
the agent is entitled to indemnity from his principal against losses

caused by acting in accordance therewith {b).
Eeasonable- What is a reasonable custom or usage is a question of law (c).
ness of It must be a generally recognised custom or usage, and not merely
custom.
a course of business between the agent and the third party {d). A
custom to receive payment by cheque is reasonable (e), but a
custom to receive payment by setting off a debt due from the agent
personally is not (/).
To an unreasonable custom or usage is
act in accordance with
not within the scope of an agent's implied authority unless the
principal had notice of the custom or usage and agreed to be bound
by it ig) and the burden of proving that the principal had notice
;
of it lies on the person alleging the existence of the authority (h).
Sect. 4. Exercise oj Authority,
Execution of 365. An agent acting under a power of attorney should, as a

deed.
general rule, act in the name of the principal. If he is authorised
to sue on the principal's behalf, the action should be brought in the
principal's name. A deed executed in pursuance of such a power
is properly executed in the name of the principal or with words to
(x) Lienard v. Dresslar (1862), 3 F. & F. 212.

(y) Robinson v. Mollett (1874), L. E. 7 H. L. 802 ; Bostock v. Jardine (1865), 3
H. & C. 700.
(a) and Horton v. Oodfreij, [1901] 2 K. B, 726
Scott and see Beckhimni;
and GiUs v. HamUet, [1901] 2 K. B. 73 Cropper v. Cook (1868), L. E.

;
3 C. P. 194; Satton v. Tatham (1839), 10 A. & E. 27; and see title Stock
EXCHAK^GE.
(h) Barker v. Edwards (1887), 57 L. J. (q. b.) 147; Russell y. Hankey (1794),
6 Term Eep. 12 (custom of bankers).
(c) Coles V. Bristowe (1868), 4 Ch. App. 3.
(ri) Ex Howell, Re Williams (1865), 12 L. T. 785.
]>arte
{e) Bridges v. Garrett (1870),, L. E. 5 C. P. 451; Walker v. Barker (1900), 16
T. L. E. 393.
(/) Todd V. Reid (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 210 Stueeting v. Fearce (1859), 7 C. B.
;
(N. s.) 449; Bartlett v. Pentland (1830), 10 B. & C. 760; Scott v. Irving (1830),
1 B. & Ad. 605 compare Stewart v. Aherdein (1838), 4 M. & W. 211 Blackburn v.
;
;
Mason (1893), 68 L. T. 510. For the authority of a stockbroker, and customs

which have been held reasonable and unreasonable, see title Stock
Exchange.
(y) Ulackburn Y. Mason, supra; Hamilton v. Young (1881), L. E. 7 Ir. 289 ;
Stewart v. Aberdein, supra; Sweeting v. Pearce, supjra ; Bartlett v. Pentland,

supra; Perry v. Barnetf (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 388; Robinson v. Mollett, supra
(in which the opinions of the judges were taken); Bostock v. Jardine, supra;
Scott V. Irving^ supra, at p. 612.
{h) Matveieff Co. v. Crossfield (1903), 51 W. E. 365. For the authority
implied by reason of custom and usages in the case of other special classes of
agent, see titles AucTio^^ and Auctioneers, Bankers and Banking,
Insurance. Shipping and Navigation, and Solicitors.
—
Part V. —Authority of the Agent. 169
show that the agent is signing for him (i). An execution of fiECT. 4.
such a deed in the agent's own name and with his own seal, by Exercise of
the authority of the principal, is now, however, as effectual in law Authority,
as if he had executed it in the name and with the seal of the
principal (A).
An agent having authority to sign a bill of exchange cannot by EfEect of not
signing in his own name render his principal liable thereon (l).
^f^^f^f
P^^'^^P^ •
Subject to this rule and to any personal liability which the agent
may incur by reason of acting in his own name {m), an agent may
exercise his authority, whether verbally or by writing, without
disclosing the name or existence of his principal {n).
Part VI. — Delegation.

366. By delegation is here meant the devolution from an agent Meaning of
upon another person of a power or duty intrusted to the agent

by his principal.
Dtlegatus non potest delegare is the maxim which lays down the General rule
general rule that an agent cannot delegate his powers or duties to
^ffg^^JiQ^
another, in whole or in part, without the express authority of the
principal (a).
Generally speaking, where there is personal confidence reposed or
skill required (b) there can be no delegation, however general the
nature of the duties (c), unless urgent necessity compels the handing
over of the responsibility to someone else (d).
The powers of directors under tlie Companies Acts cannot Directors of
be delegated except in accordance with the articles of association companies,
of the company (e).
(?;) White V. Om/kr (1795), 6 Term Eep. 176; JVtlks v. Back (1802), 2 East,
142; Berkeley v. Hardy (1826), 8 D. & E. 102; M'Ardle v. Irish Iodine and
Marine Salts Manufacturing Co. (1864), 15 Ir. C. L. E. 146.
[k) Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 46.
(/) LeadUtter v. Farronj (1816), 5 M. & S. 345, per Lord Ellenborough and
HoLROYD, J.; and see Bult v. Morrell (1840), 12 A. & E. 745, 750. But see
Lindus v. Bradwell (1848), 5 C. B. 583 (where, however, the agent was a married
woman, who, as such, could only sign as agent).
{in) See p. 219, post.
[n) Calder v. Dohell (1871), L. E. 6 C. P. 486 Wilson v. Hart (1817), 1 Moore,
;
45 ; Weidner v. Hoggett (1876), 1 C. P. D. 533.

(a) Sims v. Britten (1832), 1 Nev. & M. (k. B.) 594.
^(6) Oockran v. Irlam (1814), 2 M. & S. 301 Catlin v. Bell (1815), 4 Camp.
;
183 Henderson v. Barneiuall (1827), 1 Y. & J. 387 Be County Palatine loan ((nd
; ;
Discount Co. (1874), 9 Ch. App. 691 j Tarry y. Ashton (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 314;
Doe d. Rhodes v. Bohinson (1837), 3 Bing. (n. C.) 677.
(c) Burial Board
of St. Margaret, Rochester v. Thompson (1871), L. E. 6 C. P.
445, 457.
{d) De Bussche v. Alt (1878), 8 Ch. D. 286. 310; Giuilliam
'
v. Twist (1895) 11
T. L. R415.
(e) Re County Palatine Loan and Discount Co., supra; Re Leeds Banking Co.
(18H6), 1 Ch. App. 561; Totterdell v. Fareham Blue Brick and Tile Co., Ltd.
a 866), L. E. 1 C. P. 674.
—
170 Agency.
Sect. 2. Sect. 2. Implied Authority to delegate.

Implied
Authority to
367. To the maxim Delegatus non potest delegare there are
delegate. certain well-recognised exceptions, where an authority to delegate
will be implied generally on the ground that there is no personal
;
When delega-
confidence reposed or skill required, and that the duties are capable
tion allowed.
of being equally well discharged by any person (/).
Ministerial 368. Such exceptions exist in the case of purely ministerial

acts.
acts,where no special discretion or skill is required {g), and of acts
subsidiary to the main purpose Qi) thus authority to sign may in
;
general be delegated (i) but in cases where an agent has implied

;
authority to sign a contract for both parties {e.g., an auctioneer or

broker) the signature of his clerk or traveller will not suffice {k).
Custom or 369. Delegation is also permissible if it is in accordance with a

usage.
reasonable custom or usage of trade, if not expressly forbidden (Z).
A master of a foreign ship has been held justified in delegating
the signing of a charter-party to a shipbroker {m).
A country solicitor may employ his town agent, who will bind the
client (n).
An agent cannot, however, depute his clerk to sign for his prin-
cipal so as to satisfy the Statute of Frauds (o), though, without
delegation, he may do through others necessary and subordinate
acts, himself retaining the control {p).
Acquiescence 370. Where the principal knows of the agent's intended delega-
of principal.
tion at the time of his employment, or subsequently acquiesces
in it, or where the very nature of the employment necessitates a
partial or total delegation, the rule can have no application {q).
Thus an English contractor for a railway in Canada, who was
known not to be personally undertaking the work, was held entitled
to engage an agent (g). And where there is a ratification by the
(/) See note (6), p. 169, ante.

Burial Board of St. Margaret, Rochester v. Thompson (1871), L. E. 6 C. P.
(g)
445, 457 (delegation by sexton) Parker v. Kett (1701), 1 Ld. Eaym. 058 (delega-
;
tion by steward of manor).

{h) Re London and Mediterranean Banh (1868), 3 Ob. App. 651 Ex parte;
Sutton (1788), 2 Cox, 84, wbere an agent was autborised to draw bills in the
common course of business, and it was held that be could do this by means of bis
clerk see Henderson v. Barneivall (1827), 1 Y. & J. 387 Murphy v. Boese (1875),
; ;
L. E. 10 Excb. 126 London County Council v. HohUs (1896), 75 L. T. 687 Coles

; ;
V. 2Vecoi/i?:c/c (1804), 9 Yes. 234; Hemming y. Hale (1859), 7 C. B. (n. s.) 487;
Rossiter v. Trafalgar Life Assurance Association (1859), 27 Beav. 377.
ii) Mason Y. Joseph (1804), 1 Smith, 406; Lord v. Hall (1848), 2 C. & K. 698;
Brown v. Tomhs, [1891] 1 d. B. 253.

{h) Peirce v. 6V/(1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 210, 215 Bell y. Balls, [1897] 1 Cb. 663.
;
(l) Be Bussche v. Alt (1878), 8 Cb. D. 286.
(m) The Fanny (1883), 5 Asp. M. L. C. 75. See also Moon v. Guardians of
Witney Union (1837), 3 Bing. (n. C.) 814.
{n) Griffiths v. Williams (1787), 1 Term Eep. 710 ; Solley v. Wood (1852), 16
Beav. 370; Re Newen, [1903] 1 Cb. 812.
(o) Blore v. Sutton (1816), 3 Mer. 237. See Doe d. Rhodes v. Robinson (1837),
3 Bing. (n. c.) 677, and cases cited note (/c), supra.
{p) Rossiter v. Trafalgar Life Assurance Association (1859), 27 Beav. 377.
{q) Quehec and Richmond Rail. Co. v. Quinn (1858), 12 Moo. P. C. C.
232.
—
Part VL -Delegation. 171
principal of the acts of the sub-agent, the latter becomes jointly ^^ct. 2.
liable with the agent to the principal (r) Implied

.
The sanction of the delegation may be evident from the conduct Authority to
of the parties, as where on the sale of a ship in Japan through a de lega te,
sub-agent it was shown that the principal had acquiesced in his
employment (s).
371. Where unforeseen circumstances arise, the necessity of Cases of

the case may make delegation imperative (s). The necessity must îêrgency.
be urgent {t}, or the delegation be absolutely essential from the
requirements of the case, and the employment of the sub-agent
must be with discretion. The agent will be liable even in cases
of necessity if he acts with indiscretion in the use of a sub-agent,
or intrusts the sub-agent, when employed, with unnecessary power
or opportunity {u).
372. The employment by trustees of bankers and solicitors for Trustees,

the receipt of moneys and the giving of a discharge is now per-
mitted by statute but the liability of the trustee for the acts of
;
these and other subordinate agents will not be escaped if he leaves

trust funds longer in their hands than is reasonably necessary, or
does not take all reasonable precautions (a).
Sect. 8. Position of Suh-agent,

373. There is as a general rule no privity of contract between the Privity
principal and a sub-agent, the sub-agent being liable only to his
^^J^^^^^^j
employer, the agent {h). The exception is where the principal was a subâgent^^
party to the appointment of the sub-agent, or has subsequently
adopted his acts, and it was the intention of the parties that privity
of contract should be established between them (c).
There may, therefore, be said to be three classes of sub-agents :
Classes of
^^^-^g^'^^s-
(1) those employed without the authority, express or implied, of
the principal, by whose acts the principal is not bound (î^) ;
(2) those employed with the express or implied authority of the

principal, but between whom and the principal there is no privity
of contract; (3) those employed with the principal's authority,
between whom and the principal there is privity of contract.
{r) Keay v. Ftnwick (1876), 1 C. P. D. 745 ; Dew v. Metropolitan Rail. Co.

(1885), 1 T. L. E. 358.
(s) De Bussche
v. Alt (1878), 8 Ch. D. 286.
{t) Owilliam v. Twist {l^^b), 11 T. L. E. 415. The driver and conductor of an
omnibus have no implied authority to hand over the driving to another person.
And see Harris v. Fiat Motors, Ltd. (1906), 22 T. L. E. 556.
(w) Speight v. Oaunt (1883), 9 App. Gas. 1 JoUony. Palmer, [1893] 1 Oh. 71.
;
(a) Trustee Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 53), s. 17, and see Rowland v.
Witherden (1851), 3 Mac. & G. 568; BostocJii v. Floyer (1865), 35 Beav. 603;
Speight v. Gaunt (1883), 9 App. Gas. 1.
(b) Mackersy v. Ramsays, Bonars & Co. (1843), 9 Gl. & F. 818 Schmaling ;
V. Thomlinson (1815), 6 Taunt. 147 A.-G. v. Earl of Chesterfield (1854), 18

;
Beav. 596; New Zealand and Australian Land Co. v. Watson (1881), 7 Q,. B. D.
374 Dunlop v. De Murrieta & Co. (1886), 3 T. L. E. 166 Lockwood v. Abdy
; ;
(1845), 14 Sim. 437 Mo7itagu v. Forwood, [1893] 2 Q. B. 350; Finto v. Santos

;
(1814), 1 Marsh. 132.

(c) De Bussche
v. Alt, supra.
(d)Blore v. Sutton (1817), 3 Mer. 237; Wray v. Kemp (1884), 26 Gh. D.
169; Dunlop v. De Murrieta & Co., supra.
172 Agency.
Sect. 3. For the acts and defaults of the first two classes the agent is
Position of responsible to the principal (e). Where an agent, employed to
Sub-agent. obtain payment, employed a sub-agent in India, and payment was
actually made to the sub-agent, but not credited to the agent, the
agent was held liable for the sub-agent's failure, on the ground that
the principal could not be called upon to suffer loss through a
sub-agent with whom he had no privity (/).
Kemuneration 374. The sub-agent, not as a rule being brought into contractual
of sub-agent.
relationship with the principal, must look to the agent for his
remuneration and indemnity (c/). Thus, where an agent for the
transport of goods, without authority delegated his entire duties,
it was held that the person performing them was not entitled to
recover for his services against the principal (h).
Sub-agent 375. Similarly a sub-agent is, as a general rule, accountable only

accountable
to the agent who employs him, and that agent in turn to his prin-
to agent who
employs him. cipal (i), so that a sub-agent taking over the conduct of the
principal's business is not liable to render an account to him (k),
and cannot even be sued by the principal (except in the cases stated
already (Z)) for money had and received to the principal's use {m).
This rule applies as between a principal and the town agent
of his country solicitor (n) but though there is no privity of
;
contract between them, yet in a case where the town agent holds
money to which the principal is entitled, even thoupjh such holding
be not fraudulent, the Court may, in the exercise of its jurisdiction
over its own officers, order such money to be paid to the
principal (o).
No delegation 376. The distinction between a delegation of authority and the

by body exercise of the authority by a body through a committee of its own
acting
through
committee. (e) Mackersyv. Ramsmjs, Bonars & Co. (1843), 9 CI. & F. 818 Sioire v. Francis
;
(1877), 3 App. Gas. 106; Skinner & Co. y. Weguelin, Eddowes & Co. (1882), 1
Cab. & El. 12; Ecossaise Steamship Co. v. Lloyd, Lotu & Co. (1890), 7 T. L. E.
76 Meyerstein v. Eastern Agency Co. (1885), 1 T. L.,E. 595.
;
(/) Mackersy v. Ramsay s, Bonars & Co., supra, at p. 845; Be Mitchell (1884),
54 L. J. (CH.) 342, where the agent was held liable for loss arising through his
negligently leaving funds in a sub-agent's hands for a longer time than was
necessary and without seeing vouchers.
(g) Solly V. Bathhone (1814), 2 M. & S. 298 Masony. Clifton (1863), 3 F. & F.
;
899.
{h) Schmaling y. Thomlinson (1815), 6 Taunt. 147.
(?) Stephens v. Badcock (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 354 ; Sims v. Britten (1832), 1
Nev. & M. (k. B.) 594.
(k) Lockwood v. Ahdy (1845), 14 Sim. 437; Cartwright y. Hateley (1791), 1
Yes. 292.
(1) See p. 171 ante. ,
(m) Cohh y. Becke (1845), 6 Q. B. 930. But see Blackharn y. Mason (1893), 68
L. T. 510 (money had and received recovered by principal from London agent
of stockbroker).
{n) Cobb y. Becke, supra; Bobbins y. Fennell (1847), 11 Q. B. 248 Wrayy. Kemp ;
(1884), 26 Ch. D. 169.

(o) Bobbins 'y. Heath 11 Q. B. 257 Hartley y. Cassan (1847), 11 Jur.
;
1088 Ex parte Edivards (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 155, affirmed 8 Q. B. D. 262. ^See

;
title Solicitors, and, as to the lien of the town agent, Farewell v. Coker (1728),
'2 P. Wms.,
460; Waller v. Holmes (1860), 1 John. & H. 239 (no lien if nothing
due to country solicitor when lien claimed).
. — —
Part VI. — Delegation. 173
^•
members is examined in a leading case (p). This is only an exercise
of the authority in a mode prescribed, and there is no delegation of Position of
the duty.
Subênt.
Part VII. — Ratification.
377. Under certain conditions a contract or other act which at Effect of

ratification,
the time it was entered into or done by an agent lacked the
authority, express or implied, of a principal, may by his subsequent
conduct become ratified by him and made as effectively his own
as if he had previously authorised it.
Where the act has been done by a person not assuming to act
on his own behalf, but for another, though without his precedent
authority {q) or knowledge (?•), and is subsequently ratified by that
other person, the relation of principal and agent is constituted
retrospectively. In such a case the principal is bound by the act
whether it be to his advantage or detriment, whether it be founded
in contract or in tort, to the same extent and with all the same
consequences as if the same act had been done by his previous
authority (s)
Sect. 2. Acts capahle of Ratification.
378. A ratification may be of one act or a series of acts ; and as General rule,
a general rule every act may be ratified, whether legal or illegal, if

it be not void in its inception, provided that it was capable of being
done by the principal himself {t). Where the validity of an act

depends on the confirmation of one or more persons, it is voidable
only and not void, and is therefore capable of ratification (a).
The act of a public officer, such as a sheriff's officer, performed Act of public
o®^^^'-
in his public capacity, is not capable of ratification by a private
person (h), but where a sheriff professes and intends to act on behalf
of a private individual, or a corporation, the private individual or
corporation can ratify his act (c).
A contract may be ratified even though the circumstances have Contract,
altered, as by a loss occurring under an unauthorised insurance
policy id), or even w^hen the third party has given notice of
( Osgood V. Nelsoii (1872), L. E. 5 H. L. 636.

p)
Iq) Simpson v. Egghigton (1855), 10 Exch. 845.
(r) Ancona v. Marks (1862), 7 H. & N. 686.
(s) Wilson V. Tumman (1848), 6 Man. & G. 236 {per Tindal, C.J., at p. 242) ;
Maclean v. Dunn (1828), 1 Moo. & P. 761 Foster v. Bates (1843), 12 M. & W.
;
226.
{t) Mason v. Clifton (1863), 3 F. & P. 899.
(a) Spachnan v. Evans (1868), L. E. 3 H. L. 171, at p. 244.
[h) Wilson V. Tumman, supra; Woollen v. Wright (1862), 1 H. & 0. 554.
(c) Walker v. Hunter (1845), 2 C. B. 324; Carter y. Vestrij of St. Mary Ahhofs,
Kensington (1900), 64 J. P. 548.

{d) Hagedorn v. Oliverson (1814), 2 M. & S. 485; Williams v. North China
Insurance Go. (1876), 1 C. P. D. 757.
174 Agency.
Sect. 2.
repudiation {e), provided it be ratified within a reasonable time (/),
Acts and immaterial that the contract was made by the agent in fraud
it is
capable of of the principal {g). But where the agent and third party are able to
Ratification. rescind their transaction (as in the case of a payment by the agent
to the third party, followed by repayment to the agent by mutual
agreement), so that there remains nothing to ratify, ratification by
the principal is inoperative Qi).
Forgery. 379. A forgery is probably, as being void in its inception,

incapable of ratification by the person whose name is forged, though
he may incur a liability on the instrument on the principle of
estoppel (^).
Act ultra An act may be void in its inception, and therefore not capable
vires the
of ratification, because it is one which the intended principal had
principal.
not the power to do. Many cases illustrate this rule, largely
connected with acts done on behalf of corporations or companies
which are not within the scope of their powers as limited by the
special Act, charter, or memorandum of association under which
they are incorporated. However desirous the members of the
corporation or company may be of ratifying such an act, they
cannot do so {k). For instance, if directors pay dividends out of
capital on a balance-sheet inflated by known bad debts, such a pay-
ment cannot be ratified by the shareholders, because the powers of
the company do not authorise the payment of dividends out of
capital (/). But an act which is beyond the powers of the directors
or other agents, but within the general powers of the company, may
be adopted and validly ratified by resolution of the shareholders (m),
though such a ratification will not be implied merely from the fact
that the shareholders have seen and passed without comment the
balance-sheet or formal documents (n). Shareholders may, however,
(e) Bolton Partners v. Lambert (1889), 41 Ch. D. 295. But this decision lias
been much criticised, and Lord Lindley in Fleming v. Bank of New Zealand,
[1900] A. C. 577, at p. 587, expressly reserved the right of the Privy Council
to consider the point; and see pp. 177, 11^, post. Eatification does not relate
back when parties other than the co-- contracting party have acquired rights
before ratification {Re Gloucester Municipal Election Petition, [1901] 1 K. B. 68a).
(/) Re Portuguese Consolidattd Copper Mines, Ltd. (1890), 45 Ch. D. 16; Re
Tiedemaun and Ledermann Freres, [1899] 2 Q. B. 66.
((/) Re Tiedemann and Ledermann Freres, supra.
(A) Walter v. James (1871), L. E. 6 Exch. 124; but see also Hooper v. Kerr,
Stuart &- Co. (1901), 83 L. T. 729.
(i) Brook v. Hook (1871), L. E. 6 Exch. 89 (Martin, B., dissenting), and see
Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 61), s. 24 ; but see contra,
McKenzie v. Britisli Linen Co. (1881), 6 App. Cas. 82, Blackbuei^, J., at p. 99.
{k) Aslibury Railvmy Carriage and Lron Co. v. Riche (1875), L. E. 7 H. L. 653 ;
Atliy Guardians v. Murphy, [1896] 1 Ir. E. 65; Be Empress Engineering Co.

(1880), 16 Ch. D. 125; Re Dale and Plant (1889), 61 L. T. 206 Mann v. Edin-
;
hurgh Northern Tramways Co., [1893] A. C. 69.

{I) Flitcroft's Case (1882), 21 Ch. D. 519.
(m) Irvine v. Union Bank of Australia (1877), 2 App. Cas. 366; Grant v.
United Kingdom Sivitchhack Raihuays Co. (1888), 40 Ch. D. 135. See, however,
Boschoek Proprietary Co. v. Fuke, [1906] 1 Ch. 148. The directors themselves
may ratify an act done on behalf of the company if the act was within their o-vcn
powers {Wilson v. West Hartlepool Rail. Co. (1866), 2 De G. J. & S. 475).
{n) Blackburn and District Benefit Building Society v. Cunliffe, Brooks & Co.
(1883), 29 Ch. D. 902.
—
Part VII. — Ratification. 175
they have a knowledge Sect.

by acquiescence ratify such an act if full of 2.
the circumstances (0). Acts

capable of
380. The illegality of an act will not of itself prevent its ratifica- Ratification,
tion (p). A
trespass or assault committed by a servant is capable
of being ratified by the employer (q), but a principal or employer is, ^JJg^^^^^
in such a case, only liable to the extent of the acts he has ratified (r).
An act tortious ah initio may be ratified, as where agents wrong-
fully seized possession of a stranded ship, and the principals wrote
in terms of approval (s) but the receipt of money, the proceeds of
;
an illegal distress, is not a sufficient ratification of the illegal acts

of the agent levying the distress, unless the principal has knowledge
of the illecâlity {t).
The holder of a bill of exchange
avail himself of notice ofmay Notice of
another person (a) and the dishonour,
dishonour by ratification of the act of ;
unauthorised institution of legal proceedings may be ratified (b).

ceedfngr"
Sect. 3. Conditions of Ratification.
381. The essential to an agency by ratification is that the Act must be

first
agent shall not be acting for himself, but shall intend to bind a
^^JJ^j^^^^
named or ascertainable principal, and one who is actually in principal,
existence at the time when the act is done (c). If A. wrongfully
seizes a chattel for his own use, B. cannot ratify the act (d).
A
contract made by one professing to act on his own behalf.
Act done by
though at the time he has the intention of giving the benefit of the Pf^" ,
contract to an undisclosed principal, cannot be ratified by that on his own

person so as to give him the status of principal and the right to sue behalf,
on the contract ((?), unless in some way the principal's name was
used in the first instance (/). So a contract made professedly
on behalf of a volunteer corps cannot be ratified by individual
members or ofiicers of the corps (g).
(0) London Financial Association v. KeJk (1884), 26 Ch. D. 107 Evans v. ;
Smallcombe (1868), L. E. 3 H. L. 249. See MacJae v. Sutherland (1854), 3 E. & B.

1; Be the Maydalena Steam Navigation Co. (1860), 29 L. J. (CH.) 667; Phosphate
of Lime Co. v. Green (1871), L. E. 7 C. P. 43; Renter v. Electric Telegra.ph Co.
(1856), 6 E. & B. 341.
{]>) Hull V. PicJcersgill (1819), 1 B. & B. 282.
Iq) Eastern Counties Rail. Co. v. Broom (1851), 6 Exch, 314.

(r) Hastier v. Lemoyne (1858), 5 C. B. (n. s.) 530; Lewis v. Read (1845), 13
M. & W. 834; Knight v. North Metropolitan Tramways Co. (1898), 14 T. L. E.
286.
(s) HilUry v. Hatton (1864), 2 H. & C. 822.
[t) Freeman y. Rosher (1849), 13 Q. B. 780.
{a) Chapman v. Keane (1835), 3 A. & E. 193; and BiUs of Exchange Act,
1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 49.
(6) Ancona v. Marks (1862), 7 H. & N. 686.
Wilson V. Tumrnan (1843), 12 L. J. (c.
(c) P.) 306; Royal Albert Hall Corpora-
tion V. Winchelsea (1891), 7 T. L. E. 362 ; Marsh v. Joseph, [1897] 1 Ch.
213.
{d)Wilson V. Barler (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 614.
Keighley Maxsted & Co. v. Hurant, [1901] A. C. 240; Heathy. Chilton
(ft)
(1844), 12 M. & W. 632 (an executor cannot ratify a contract made by his two
co-executors on their own behalf).
{/) Re Tiedemann and Ledermann Freres, [1899] 2 Q. B. 66.
(g) Jones v. Hope (1880), 3 T. L. E. 247 and see Saunderson v. Griffiths
;
(1826), 5 B. & C. 909.

176 Agency.
Sect. 3. 382. The intended principal must, in order that he may be able
Conditions effectively to ratify a contract, be in existence and ascertainable at
of the time when the contract is entered into, and be himself capable
Ratification. of entering into it (li). If there is no such principal there can be no
Principal agency, and the so-called agent will himself be liable on the contract.
must be in This may happen in two cases.
esse and
capable.
A contract entered into on behalf of an infant, other than for
necessaries, will not bind the infant©, nor can an infant after
Infants.
coming of full age ratify any contract made on his behalf during
infancy, even if there is a new consideration for it (k).
Contracts Secondly, contracts made in furtherance of the projects of an
made before intended compan}^, not actually formed, cannot be ratified by the
incorporation
of company. company when it comes into existence. There is in such a case no
agency, and the contract is that of the parties making it (I). But
there may be evidence that the company after formation has
entered into a new contract (m).
Claims have often been made against companies after forma-
tion on contracts entered into by promoters for services rendered,
or to be rendered. In cases where the company has been incor-
porated by private Act of Parliament, and the Act has provided for
the payment of the formation expenses, these actions have generally
been successful (n), even in cases where the plaintiff had given an
undertaking to an individual promoter that there should be no
claim if the company did not proceed with its undertaking (o), or
where there had been a novation of the contract (p). But where
the articles of association of a company incorporated under the
Companies Acts provided for such payment, this was held to give
no right to persons not members of the company (q) and certain ;
cases show clearly that the claimants must look to the promoters
and not to the company for payment (?')•
Position of When a contract is made by one who professes to be making
agent. it as agent, but who has no principal existing at the time,
and the contract would therefore be wholly inoperative unless
binding upon the professed agent, he must be presumed to have
{h) Watson v. Siuann (1862), 11 C. B. (n. s.) 756 ; Foster v. Bates (1843), 12
M. & W. 226.
(i) But see pp. 149, 150, aîte.
[k) Infants' Belief Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Yict. c. 62), s. 2.
(/) Eelner v. Baxter (1866),, L. E. 2 C. P. 174 Be Empress Engineering Co. (1880),
;
16 Ch. D. 125 Natal Land and Colonization Co. v. Pauline Colliery Syndicate,
;
[1904] A. C. 120 Star Corn Millers' Society v. W. Moore & Co. (1886), 2 T. L. E.
;
751 ; North Sydney Investment and Tramway Co. v. Higgins, [1899] A. C. 263.
For the liability, apart from ratification, of' a company which has benefited under
the contract of its promoters, see Touche v. Metropolitan Railway Warehousing
Co. (1871), 6 Ch. App. 671 ;Preston v. Proprietors of Liverpool, Manchester etc.
Railway (1856), 5 H. L. Cas. 605; Re English and Colonial Produce Co., [1906] 2
Ch. 435 Earl of Shrewsbury v. North Staffordshire Rail. Co. (1865), L. E. 1 Eq. 593.
;
[m) Howard v. Patent Ivory Manufacturing Co. (1888), 38 Ch. D. 156.

\n) Re Tilleard (1863), 3 De G. J. & S. 519.
^
(o) Re Brampton and Lorigtown Rail. Co. (1875), 10 Ch. App. 177.
ip) See Re Rotherham Alum and Chemical Co. (1883), 25 Ch. D. 103.
[q) Eley v. Positive Government Security Life Assurance Co. (1875), L. E. 1
- Ex. D. 20, affirmed iUd. 88.
(r) Re Kent Tramways Co. (1879), 12 Ch. D. 312 Re Skegness and St. Leonard's
;
Tramways Co., Ex parte Hanjy (1888), 41 Ch. D. 215.

—
Part VII. Ratification. 177
intended to bind himself, unless a contrary intention clearly Sect. 3.
appears from the terms of the contract and a stranger, as a ; Conditions

projected company subsequently incorporated is in fact, cannot by a .
.
Ra-tifica tion.
subsequent ratification relieve him from personal liability (s).
Even a secretary who has paid for his qualification, under an
agreement with promoters, on the basis of a term appointment and
salary, can only in such a case recover against the company on
equitable grounds for work actually done {t).
383.A ratification, to be eftective, must be by the person for Principal

whom the act was professedly done or his personal representative (zt), must have
been ascer-
and not by a stranger. The person ratifying need not necessarily tainable.
have been a named individual at the time when the act was done,
but mast have been ascertainable (r)- A person entitled to the
reversion of an estate may ratify the agency of one who has been
professedly receiving the rents for the right owner (v).
384. As to the time within which ratification may take place, Time for
the rule is that it must be either within a time fixed by the nature ratification,
of the particular case, or within a reasonable time, after which an
act cannot be ratified to the prejudice of a third person. Thus
an unauthorised notice to quit can only be ratified by the landlord
within the time for giving notice {w) the payment of a debt to a
;
creditor of another cannot be ratified after the money has been re-
turned to the unauthorised agent (x) the entry of an unauthorised
;
agent upon lands barred by fine and proclamation, could not

be ratified after the time for entry had elapsed (y) an unauthorised ;
stoppage m
transitu cannot be ratified after the transit is ended (z) ;
and the exercise of an option must be ratified within the time for
which the option was open (a).
An unauthorised demand of a debt by the creditor's agent cannot,
after tender by the debtor, be ratified so as to defeat the plea of
tender, unless the agent had implied authority to receive the debt
and give a discharge (6) An unauthorised demand of goods cannot
.
be ratified by the owner so as to enable him to sue (c). Nor can

the pledgee of a policy on a ship acquire through ratification by the
owner a right to give notice of abandonment to the underwriters so
{s) Kelner v. Banker (1866), L. E. 2 C. P. 174, per Erle, C.J., at p. 183.
See also Scott v. Lord Ehury (1867), L. E. 2 C. P. 255 Re Empress Engineering
;
Co. (1880), 16 Gh. D. 125; Be Northumberland Avenue Hotel Co. (1886), 33

Ch. J). 16 Melhado v. Borto Alegre Bail. Co. (1874), L. E. 9 C. P. 503.
;
{t) Be Dale and Blant, Ltd. (1889), 61 L. T. 206.
(w) Whitehead v. Taylor (1839), 10 A. & E. 210; Foster y. Bates (IS^S), 12

V ^'
^
M. &W. 226.
(v) Lyell V. Kennedy
(1889), 14 App. Cas. 437 Hagedorn v. Oliverson (1814),
;
2 M. & 485 see Barcell v. Henderson (1885), L. E. 16 Ir. 213, 466.

S. ;
{w) DoeY. Walters (1830), 10 B. & 0. 626; and see Bight v. Cathell (1804),
o East, 491 Doe v. Ooldwin (1841), 2 Q. B. 143.
;
[x) Walter v. James (1871), L. E. 6 Exch. 124; Jones v. Broadhurst (1850), 9

C. B. 173; Lucas v. Wilkinson (1856), 1 H. & N. 420.
(?/) Lord Audley v. Bollard (1597), Cro. (Eliz.) 561.
(z) Bird V. Brown (1850), 4Excli. 786.
(a) Dibhins V. Dibbins, [1896] 2 Ch. 348. See also Holland v. King (1848),
6 C. B. 727 Metropolitan Asylums Board v. Kingham (1890), 6 T. L. E. 217.
;
{b) Coles V. Bell (1808), 1 Camp.478 Coore y.' Callaiuay (1794), 1 Esp. 115.
;
(c) Solomons v. Dawes

(1794), 1 Esp. 83.
H.L. — I. N
— ,
178 Agency.
Sect. 3,
them But a contract
as to render liable (d). of insurance made by
Conditions an agent on the principal's property may be ratified by the principal
of after notice of loss (e).
Ratification.
A contract cannot be ratified in part and repudiated in part. If
Eatification ratified, the whole contract must be ratified, and the agency
must not be accepted aim onere (/). Eatification of one of a series of acts
partial.
constituting one transaction operates as a ratification of the entire
transaction (g).
Sect. 4. Manner of Batification

Deed. 385. The execution of a deed can only be ratified by deed or by
matter of record {h). Subject to this, a ratification may be by parol,
Contract in or be implied from conduct (^) Even in the case of a written contract
.
writing. which is unenforceable unless evidenced by a note or memorandum

in writing, it is not necessary that the ratification should be in
writing (i). An action on a voidable contract (k) or a pleading
relying on an unauthorised act (I) is an adoption of the agency.
Essentials of Ratification must be evidenced either by clear adoptive acts (m),
ratification.
or by acquiescence equivalent thereto. The act or acts of adoption
or acquiescence must be accompanied by full knowledge of all the
essential facts (n),and must relate to a transaction to which effect
can be given unless the principal shows an intention to take all
(o),
risks (^). But it is not necessary that he should know the legal
effect of the act ratified (g). A mere act of repudiation by the
principal does not in itself, and apart from any conduct which it
may have induced in any third person, estop the principal from
subsequently adopting or ratifying the agent's act (?)•
(c^) Jardine v. ZeaÂ/e?/ (1863), 3 B. & S. 700, per Crompton, J., at p. 708.
(e) Cory v. Patton (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 577 Williams v. North China Insur-
;
ance Co. (1876), 1 0. P. D. 757.

(/) Hovil Y. Pack (1806), 7 East, 166, per Lord Ellenbokotjgh ; Wilson y.
Poulter (1730), 2 Str. 859.
((/) Rodwell V. Eden (1859), 1 F. & F. 542.
(/i) Hunter v. Parker (1840), 7 M. & W. 322 Twpper v. Foulkes (1861), 9 C. B.
;
(n. s.) 797 Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of Oxford v. Croiu, [1893] 3 Ch. 535.
;
(i) Maclean v. Iû7in (1828), 1 M. & P. 761 Fitzmaurice v. Bay ley (1856), 6
;
E. & B. 868 Soames v. Spencer (1822), 1 D. & E. 32.

;
(k) Lucy V. Walrond (1837), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 848, per Coltman", J.
(l) Belshatu v. Bush (1851), 11 C. B. 191.
(m) Lythgoe v. Verno7i (1860), 29 L. J. (ex.) 164; Smithy. Baker (1873), L. E.

8 C. P. 350; Brewer v. Sparrow (1827), 7 B. & C. 310; Valpy v. Sanders (1848),
5 C. B. 886 (what constitutes such a clear adoptive act) Moon v. Towers (I860),
;
8 0. B. (n. s.) 611.

{n) Savery v. King (1856), 5 H. L. Cas. 627 Haselery. Lemoyne {l8o8), 5 C. B.
;
(n. s.) 530 ;Gunn v. Roherts (1874), L. E. 9 C. P., per Brett, J., at p. 335 ; and
see Marsh v. Joseph, [1897] 1 Ch. 213.
(o) La Banque Jacques- Cartier v. La Banque d^ Epargne de la Cite et du District
de Montreal (1887), 13 App. Cas. Ill Foligno v. Martin (1852), 22 L. J. (CH.) 502
; ;
Jackson v. Jacob (1837), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 869 Munnings v. Bury (1829), 1 Tarn. 147.
;
{p) Breiuer v. Sparrow, supra (where the assignees of a bankrupt affirmed the
acts of a person wrongfully selling property, they could not afterwards treat him
as a wrong^doer) Haseler v. Lemoyne, supra. But see Valpy v. Sanders, supra.
;
iq) Powell V. Smith (1872), L. E. 14 Eq. 85 Lewis y. Bead (1845), 13 M. & W.

;
834; Fitzmaurice y. Bayley (1856), 6 E. & B. 868; Hilhery v. Hatton (1864),

2 H. & C. 822.
(r) Simpson y. Eggington (1855), 10 Exch. 845; Soames y. Spencer (1822),
1 D. & E. 32).
—
Part VII. Ratification. 179
386. The receipt of purchase-money is generally sufficient Sect. 4.
evidence of ratification of a sale, but not if it is received in Manner of

ignorance of the true facts (s). Where a solicitor, whose name Ratification.
had been used by another on a bill without authority, received a Evidence of
nominal sum, and was told it wâs a formality, whereas it was to ratification.
assist a fraud, this was held not to be a ratification of the act, and
he was liable only to the extent of the amount received by him {t).
In the case of an assault by a railwa}^ company's servant in taking
the plaintiff, a passenger, into custody, it was held that the fact of
the company's solicitor appearing to conduct the charge was no
evidence of a ratification by the company {u) .
While a ratification must be clear and must bear distinct refer-

ence to the facts of the particular case, it need not necessarily be
proved by positive acts of adoption. In certain cases it is sufficient
evidence of ratification that the intended principal, having all
material facts brought to his knowledge and knowing that he is
being regarded as having accepted the position of principal, takes
no steps to disown that character within reasonable time, or adopts
no means of asserting his rights at the earliest period possible {a),
387. Acquiescence may take place before or at the time of or after Katification
by acquies-
the act acquiesced in. If before, it may be said to operate by way
cence.
of estoppel, as w^here a person having a right, and seeing another
person about to infringe it, stands by in such a way as to induce
the person committing the act of infringement to believe that he
assents to it. In such a case he is estopped from afterwards
complaining of the act (b).
Acquiescence after the act, as evidence of its ratification, requires
more consideration. Acquiescence, like acts of adoption, cannot
avail when the contract or act is ultra vires the alleged principal (c),
or is made or done before the alleged principal came into existence
even where such principal has derived advantage from the services
rendered (e).
The acquiescence must be acquiescence in the particular facts and
be incapable of referring to another set of facts. Thus where an
agent in China for the sale of a ship employed, with the principal's
knowledge, a sub-agent in Japan, who, unable to sell at the time,
(s) The Bonita (1861), 5 L. T. 141 Freeman v. Rosher (1849), 13 Q. B. 780.

;
See also Cornwal v. Wilson (1750), 1 Ves. Sen. 509.

{t) Marsh v. Joseph, [1897] 1 Gh. 213 (to constitute a ratification there must
be full knowledge and unequivocal adoption after knowledge, per Lord Russell,
C. J., at p. 246.)
{u) Eastern Counties Rail. Co. v. Broom (1851), 6Excli. 314. But see Carter v.
Vestry of St. Mary Abbots (1900), 64 J. P. 548.
(a) The Australia (1859), 13 Moo. P. 0. C. 132 Jackson v. Jacob (1837), 3
;
Bing. (n. c.) 869

; La Banque Jacques-Cartier v. La Banque d' Epargne de la Cite
et du District de Montreal
(1887), 13 App. Gas. Ill Robinson v. Oleadow (1835),
;
2 Bmg. (N. c.) 156 ; Hall v. Laver (1842), 1 Hare, 571. The burden of proving
such ratification rests on the person alleging it, who must also prove full know-
ledge of facts {Wall v. Cockerell (1863), 10 H. L. Gas. 229, 243).
(b) De Bussche v. Alt
(1878), 8 Gh. D. 286, ?)er Thesiger, L.J., at p. 314;
Duke of Leeds v. Earl of Amherst (1846), 2 Ph. 117, 123.
(d) See p. 176, ante.
(e) Re Rotherham Alum atid Chemical Co. (1883), 25 Gh. D. 103.
N 2
— ;
180 Agency.
Sect. 4. himself became the buyer and subsequently resold at a large profit,
Manner it was held that there had been no such acquiescence by the principal
of
Ratification. in the sale as to extinguish the relation of principal and agent
which had been created between the principal and sub-agent, and
that the principal was entitled to recover from the sub-agent the
profit made on the resale (/).
Where agency Acquiescence is stronger evidence of ratification where the
previously relationship of principal and agent previously existed between the
existing
parties, and the act to be ratified was rather one in excess of the
between
parties. agent's authority than one which was totally unauthorised (g) Thus, .
where a shipmaster who was intrusted with the sale of goods, the
proceeds to be devoted to particular purchases, devoted the pro-
ceeds to other purchases and advised his employer thereof, it was
held that the fact that there was no repudiation by the employer
within a reasonable time was evidence that he assented to and
ratified the shipmaster's conduct (h).
Sect. 5. Effect of Batification.

General 388. An effective ratification places all the parties in exactly the
effect.
same position as they would have occupied in the case of a
precedent agency by formal constitution. Omnis ratihabitio retro-
trahitu?' et mandato priori ceqidparatur (i).
In case of Where a contract is agent is relieved from
ratified the
contract
personal liability to his principal for acting in excess of his
authority (/i;), and may recover his commission and expenses®.
The principal must perform the contract made by the agent in its
entirety (m) and the agent is relieved from personal liability to
;
the other contracting party for breach of warranty of authority, the

only remedy of such party being against the principal, unless the
agent contracted in his own name (n).
In case of In the case of a tort the agent remains liable, and the principal
tort.
(/) De Bussche v. Alt (1878), 8 Ch. D. 286; Powell v. JEvan Jones & Co.,
[190o] 1 K. B. 11 and where the agent of a shipowner contracts for repairs in
;
excess of his authority, the fact that the owner accepts his own ship as repaired
and sells it is not acquiescence {Forman & Co. Proprietary, Ltd. v. The Liddesdale,
[1900] A. C. 190).
{g) Sentancey. Ilawley (1863), 13 C. B. {n. s.)458; Benham v. Batty (1865), 12
L. T. 266; Waithman v. Wakefield (1807), 1 Camp. 120; Lapraik v. Burroius
(1859), 13 Moo. P. C. C. 132; Allard v. Bonrne (1863), 15 0. B. (n. s.) 468;
Smith Y. Hull aiass Co. (1852), 11 C. B. 897 Pott v. Sevan (1844), 1 C.&
; K 335.
(h) Prince v. Clark (1823), 1 B. & C. 186; Sentance v. Hawley, supra
(principal found to have acquiesced in a reasonable custom of brokers)
FothergiU v. Phillips (1871), 6 Ch. App. 770 (where one tenant in common
entered into negotiations for sale, and the other, who allowed them to
go on for three years without dissenting; knowing that the mortgagee was
threatening to foreclose unless the sale took place, was held too late to allege
absence of authority). See also Bigg v. Strong (1857), 3 Sm. & Gr. 592.
(?:) Maclean v. Dunn (1828), 4 Bmg. 722.
{k) Smith V. Cologan (1788), 2 Term Rep. 188 a; Rishourg v. Bruckner {1868), 3
C. B. (isr. s.) 812, where a foreign principal distinctly ratified; Hartas v.
Bibhons (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 254 Clarke v. Perrier (1679), 2 Freem. 48.
;
(Z) Keay y. Fenwick (1876), 1 C. P. D. 745; Masony. Clifton (1863), 3 P. &F.
899; Cornwdly. Wilson (1750), 1 Yes. Sen. 509; Frixioney. Tagliaferro (1856),
10 Moo. P. C. C. 175; Gleadow y. Hull Glass Co. (1850), 19 L. J. (CH.) 44
(directors of a company entitled to indemnity).
(m) Bristoiv v. Whitmore (1861), 9 H. L. Cas. 391.
[n) Spittle y. Lavender (1821), 2 Brod. & Bing. 452.
—
—
Part VII. Katification. 181
becomes as well, unless the wrong is justified by the

liable Sect. 5.
ratification; being no justification for the commission of a

it Effect of
tortious act that the wrong-doer is acting under another's authority, Ratification,
unless that other can justify the wrong (0).
The person ratifying a contract has no right of action for
any breach thereof committed before the time of ratification (p),
and a ratification confers no new authority on the agent (q),
389. A ratification cannot operate to divest rights in rem which Vested rights
not affected.
have become vested in third persons in the meantime (r), and does not
relate back when persons other than the co-contracting party have
acquired interests prior to ratification (s).
The ratification by the Crown of an act against a foreigner by a Ratification
public official in excess of his authority makes the act of the official by Crown.
an act of state in respect of which there is no legal remedy either
against the official or the Crown {t).
Part VIII. — Relations between Principal

and Agent.
390. The rights and duties arising out of the relation of principal Rights and
and agent are to be ascertained by reference to the contract, express ^^^^^
or implied, which subsists between them (a). contract.
The mere existence of the relation raises the implication of a
contract involving certain rights and duties, the nature and extent
of which depend upon the circumstances of the particular case (&),
and the parties, in entering upon the relation, may leave the in-
cidents arising out of it to be determined wholly by reference to the
rights and duties so implied (c).
Where, however, the parties have defined their position by an
express contract, the incidents of their relation depend upon their
contract, as legally construed id), subject nevertheless to such of
Stephens v. Elwall (1815), 4 M. & S. 259

(0) Hilberij v. HaUo7i (1864), 2
;
H. & Perkins y. Smith (1752), 1 Wils. (k. b.) 328; Whitehead v. Tmjlor
0. 822 ;
(1839), 10 A. & E. 210 ; Hengh v. Earl of Ahergavenmj (1874), 23 W. E. 40.

(p) Mayor of Kidderminster v. Hardwick (1873), L. E. 9 Exch. 13.
(q) Irvine v. Union Bank of Australia (1877), 2 App. Cas. 366.
(r) Donelly v. Popham (1807), 1 Taunt. 1 Bird v. Brown (1850), 4 Exch.
^ \
786.
Re Gloucester Municipal Election Petition, [1901] 1 K. B. 683.
(s)
Buron v. Penman (1848), 2 Exch. 167

(^) Secretary of State in Council
;
of India v. Kamachee Boye Sahaha (1859), 7 Moo. Ind. App. 476. See title
Action, pp. 17, 18, ajite.
(a) Love v. Mack (1905), 93 L. T. 352 Pole v. Leask (1863), 33 L. J. (CH.) 155.
;
See pp. 183 et seq., 193 et seq., post ; Shaw v. Woodcock (1827), 7 B. & C.
{b)
^_
73, where the facts raised an inference of a del credere agency.
(c) For agency by necessity, see p. 157, ante.
{d) Bull V. Price (1831), 7 Bing. 237.
;
182 Agency.
Sect. 1. the rights and duties implied by law as are not clearly excluded by
In General. express words or by necessary implication (e).
Effect of 391. Wherever a principal employs an agent belonging to a

usage or class of professional agents, or instructs him to deal at a particular
custom.
place, a question arises how far the usages of the class or place in
question are incorporated with the contract between them. Where
the contract is an implied one only, such usages are deemed to be
incorporated (/), provided that they are reasonable (^), even though
the principal be in fact unacquainted with them (h). But no usage,
which the Courts hold to be unreasonable (i), is binding upon the
principal {k), unless he is shown to have known of it at the time
when he employed the agent, and to have assented to it (I), or unless
the circumstances of the particular case preclude him from denying
his knowledge and assent (m).
The same rules apply to the case of an express contract (n), except
that no usage can be incorporated which is inconsistent with the
expressed intentions of the parties (o).
Fiduciary 392. The relation is of a fiduciary nature (p), whenever the
nature of
principal reposes trust and confidence in the person whom he
relation.
selects as his agent. This is so in all cases of general agency (q),
but where the agency is not a general one, its fiduciary nature
depends upon the circumstances of the particular case (r).
Remedy for A contract of agency, being in the nature of a contract for per-
breach of sonal services, will not be s|)ecifically enforced at the suit of either
contract of
agency.
party (s). But an injunction may be granted to restrain a breach
of such a contract {t).
(e) Graham Y. Ackroyd (1852), 10 Hare, 192, where a del cre.dere agent was
held not to be entitled to reimbursement in respect of matters covered by his
agency; and compare hooper v. Treffry [184:1) 1 Exch. 17, where the reimburse-
,
ment claimed and upheld was outside the del credere agency.
(/) Baijliffe v. Butterworth (1847), 1 Exch. 425.
ig) Eor examples of reasonable usages see Bridges v. Garrett (1870), L. E. 5
0. P. 451 (receipt of payment by cheque) Walker v. Barker (1900), 16 T. L. E.
;
393 {id.) Croj)'per v. Cook (1868), L. E. 3 C. P. 194 (agent incurring personal

;
liability on the contract) ; Pelham v. Hilder (1841), 1 Y. & C. Ch. 3 (sale on

credit) ;Bcott v. Godfrey, [1901] 2 K. B. 726 (consolidation of orders).
(A) Cropper v. Cook^ supra.
(?) For examples of unreasonable usages see Robinson v. Mollett (1875), L. E.
7 H. L. 802 (agent makes himself principal) De Bussche v. Alt (1878), 8 Ch. D.
;
286 Sweeting v. Pearce (1859), 7 C. B. (n. s.) 449 (payment by set-off) Marsh
;
;
V. «/e// (1862), 3 E. & E. 234 (auctioneer selling by private contract).

(k) Neilson v. James (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 546; Perry v. Barnett (1885), 15
a B. D. 388.
(l) See Sweeting v. Pearce, sîpra, per CocKBUB-isr, C.J., at p. 481 ; Mateieffy.
Grossfield (1903), 51 W. E. 365.

(w) Seymour v. Bridge (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 460.
[n) Scott and Norton v. Godfrey, [1901] 2 K. B. 726.
(o) Bower v. Jones (1831), 8 Bing. 65. As to the admissibility of parol
evidence of usage when there is a written contract, see title Contract.
(p)Eor examples see pp. 184, 188, jôst.
Makepeace v. Eogers (1865), 4 De G-. J. & Sm. 649.
(q)
Foley v. Hill (1848), 2 H. L. Cas. 28 Fluker v. Taylor (1855), 3 Drew, 183
(r) ;
Mackenzie v. Johnston (1819), 4 Madd. 373.

(s) White V. Bohy (1877), 37 L. T. 652.
{t) Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association v. Neiu York Life Lisurance Co.
(1896), 75 L. T. 528.
——
Part VIII. Relations between Principal and Agent. 183
Sect. 2. Bights of Principal against Agent (u). Sect. 2.
Sub-Sect. 1.— General Bights.

Piincâ/
393. The first duty of an agent is to carry out the business he against
-Aênt.
has undertaken {a), or to inform his principal promptly if it be
impossible to do so {h) . Agent to
If he has received definite instructions from his principal as to perform
the manner in which the business is to be carried out, he must undertaken,
follow them strictly (c), provided that they be lawful {d) and if he obedience to
;
does so, he is not liable to his principal, because the consequences instructions,
differ from those which the principal had anticipated (e). But he
has no discretion to disregard them, even though he acts in good
faith in the interests of his principal (/ ).
Where no definite instructions have been given to the agent, or Exercise of
agent's dis-
where his instructions leave him a discretion, the agent must be
guided by the honest exercise of his own judgment and the interests
of his principal (g). If his instructions leave two alternative
courses open to him, he incurs no liability merely because he
chooses that course which proves in the event less favourable to
his principal (/<) Where he is a professional agent, he must follow
.
the ordinary course of business (t), and any special usages applic-
able to the particular case (k).
394. As a general rule, an agent must himself carry out the Delegation,
business intrusted to him, and is liable for a breach of duty if he
delegates the performance of this duty to another (I) But delegation
.
This section deals only with the general principles governing the duties and
{ii)
agents. Por the special features of the agency of auctioneers, bankers,

liabilities of
insurance brokers, married women, shipmasters, solicitors, and stockbrokers, see
titles Auction AND AucTioisrEEiis, Bankees and Banking, Husband and Wife,
Insurance, Shipping and Navigation, Solicitors, and Stock Exchange.
(a) Tarpin v. Bilton (1843), 5 Man. & G. 455. If the business is unlawful the
agent incurs no liability through his failure to carry it out ( Webster v. De Tastet
(1797), 7 Term Eep. 157) and, similarly, where the agency is gratuitous {Balfe
;
V. West (1853), 13 C. B. 466).

(h) Cassahoglou v. Gihb (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 797 ; Callander v. Oelrichs (1838),
6 Bing. (N. c.) 58.
(c) Lilleij V. DouUedaii (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 510 ; Smith y. Lascelles (1788), 2 Term
Eep. 187; Catlin v. Bell (1815), 4 Camp. 183; Barber v. Taijlor (1839), 5 M. &
W. 527; Dufresne v. Hutchinson (1810), 3 Taunt. 117.
{d) Bexwell v. Christie (1776), Cowp. 395.
(e) Overend and Ourney Co. v. Gibh (1872), L. E. 5 H. L. 480; and see
Commomuealth Portland Cement Co. v. Weber, [1905] A. 0. 66.
(/) Bertram v. God/ray (1830), 1 Knapp, 381; Fray v. Voules (1859), 1
E. & E. 839, where a solicitor compromised an action on the advice of counsel
against the express instructions of his client and contrast Chown v. Parrott
;
(1863), 14 C. B. (n. s.) 74, where the client had given no express instructions.
((/) Cidlerne v. London and Suburban General Permanent Building Society (1890),
25 Q. B. D. 485, per Lindley, L.J., at p. 487 Chown v. Parrott, supra. And

;
see Lagunas Nitrate Co. v. Lagunas Syndicate, [1899] 2 Oh. 392.

(A) Comber v. Anderson (1808), 1 Camp. 523; Moore v. Mourgue (1776), Cowp.
479 Ireland v. Livingston (1872), L. E. 5 H. L. 395, 416.
;
(?:) Russell V. Hanley (1794), 6 Term Eep. 12; Mallough v. Barber (1815), 4
Camp. 150 Pape v. Westacott, [1894] 1 Q. B. 272, 279.
;
{k) Farrer v. Lacy (1

885), 31 Ch. D. 42 Solomon v. Barker (1862), 2 F. & F. 726.
;
(/) Catlin V. Bell, (1815) 4 Camp. 183 Cook v. Ward (1877), 2 C. P. D. 255;
;
Henderson v. Barneiuall (1827), 1 Y. & J. 387.

;
184 Agency.
Sect. 2. is permissible in immaterial matters (m), or where the agent has

Rights of received authority from his principal to delegate (n).
Principal
against 395. It is the duty of an agent to employ the means of obtaining
Agent. materials and information afforded him by his agency solely for
the purposes of the agency (o), and not to use any materials or
Use of infor-
mation etc. information so acquired, whether his agency has come to an end
acquired in or not, in any manner inconsistent with good faith, as by divulging
agency. them to third parties or by using them himself in unfair
competition with his principal (q). But he may use them for any
purpose which is not a breach of good faith (?•).
Contracts. 396. An agent must not, in the absence of authority, purport to
bind his principal by contract (s). Where he possesses authority so
to do, he must contract in his principal's name and not in his own,
unless the terms of his employment permit it {t). If he purchases
property in his own name on behalf of his principal, and has the
legal estate transferred to himself, he is a trustee for his principal
in respect of the property (a).
No agent, however, is under any personal Hability to his principal
upon any contracts made by him on the latter 's behalf (b), unless
he is made personally liable by usage (c), or unless he is acting as a
del credere agent {d).
Principal's Upon anagent's breach of duty the principal's remedy is, as a
remedy.
rule, bring an action for damages (e), and the Statute of
to
Limitations runs in the agent's favour from the date of the
breach (/).
{m) Ex parte Sutton (1788), 2 Cox, Eq. 84 JBroivn v. Tomhs, [1891] 1 Q. B. 253.
;
(n)See pp. 169 et seq., ante.

(o) Lamh v. Evans, [1893] 1 Ch. 218, per BowEN, L.J., at p. 230 Merry- ;
weather v. Moore, [1892] 2 Ch. 518, jper Kekewich, J., at p. 524 Louis v. Smel'Ue
;
(1895), 73 L. T. 226.
(p) Merryiueather v. Moore, supra; Lamb v. Evans, supra, where Bowen,
L.J., disapproved of Reuter's Telegram Co. v. Byron (1874), 43 L. J. (CH.) 661
Taylor v. Blackloiv (1836), 3 Scott, 614; Davies v. Cloucih (1837), 8 Sim. 262.
{q) RoUy. Green, [1895] 2 Q. B. 315; Yovatt v. Winyard (1820), 1 Jac. & W. 394.
(?•) Louis V. Smellie, supra, per LiNDLEY, L.J., at p. 228 and see Aas v.
;
Benham, [1891] 2 Ch. 244.

(s) Compare Chadhurn v. Moore (1892), 61 L. J. (CH.) 674, with Rosenhaum v.
Bdson, [1900] 2 Ch. 267 and see Ho,mer v. Sharp (1874), L. E. 19 Eq. 108.
;
But the principal may, notwithstanding, be liable on such contracts to the third
party. See pp. 201, 204, 207, ^>ost.
(t) A factor has implied authority to contract in his own name a broker has
;
not, in the absence of usage {Baring v. Corrie (1818), 2 B. & Aid. 137 Cropper v.
;
Cook (1868), L. E. 3 C. P. 194). See also Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45
Yict. c. 41), s. 46.
(a) LeesY.NuttaU{l83'i), 2My.&K. 819; hutsee James v. Smith, [1891] 1 Ch. 384.
Gill V. Shepherd (1902), 8 Com. Cas. 48.
(&) As to his liability to his principal as
holder of a bill of exchange signed by the agent without qualification, see title
(c) E.g., insurance brokers, see title iNSURAifCE.
(d) See p. 153, ante.
(e) For the measure of damages, see p. 191, post; and for the appropriate
—
remedies in special cases, see pp. 185 193, post.
if) Wood V. Jones (1889), 61 L. T. 551 Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron (1880),
;
5 Ex. D. 319. Even when he acted in a fiduciary capacity (Trustee Act, 1888
(51 & 52 Yict. c. 59), s. 8), unless he has been guilty of fraud, or unless the
Part VII T. —Eelations between Principal and Agent. 185
Sub-Sect. 2.— As to Care, Skill and Diligence. Sect. 2.
397. Every agent {g) is responsible to his principal for any loss 5;^^*?
occasioned by his want of proper care, skill, or diligence, in the
against
carrying out of his undertaking {h), even though the principal has Agent
himself been negligent ii). No absolute standard can be laid down '
as to what constitutes proper care, skill, or diligence, and each Ordinary

particular case must be judged by its own circumstances {h). But care^ and skill,
the relation of principal and agent must be clearly established in
respect of the matter complained of (/), before any responsibility
arises (/;0-
Where an agent acts without reward he is only bound to use such Gratuitous
^g^nt.
skillas he has (n), except where he has represented himself as
possessing skill, in which case the amount of skill requisite is such
as may reasonably be expected under the circumstances (o). The
care and diligence required are such as persons ordinarily use in
their own affairs {])).
398. Where an agent acts for reward, a higher standard is Agent tor
exacted {q). The care, skill, or diligence required is not merely reward,
that which he in fact possesses, but such as is reasonably necessary
for the due performance of his undertaking (?•). If he is an agent
following a particular trade or profession, and holding himself out
to the world for employment as such, he represents himself as
reasonably competent to carry out any business which he under-
takes in the course of such trade or profession (s). He must then
show such care and diligence as are exercised in the ordinary and
proper course, and such skill as is usual and requisite, in the
business for which he receives payment {t). In considering the
question regard must be had to the nature of the business {a), and
claim is for property intrusted to him, or for the proceeds or value of such
property {North American Land and Timber Co. v. Watkins, [1904] 1 Oh. 242,
affirmed [1904] 2 Ch. 233 Re Lands Allotment Co., [1894] 1 Ch. 616).
;
{g) Except counsel, Fell v. Brown (1791), 1 Peake, 131 Mulligan v. McDonagh ;
(1860), 2 L. T. 136; and see Perring v. Rebutter (1842), 2 Mood. & E. 429. See
title Barristers.
(K) Real v. South Devon Rail. Co. (1864), 3 H. & C, per Crompton J., at p. 341.
(/) Becker v. Medd (1897), 13 T. L. E. 313.
[k) The question is one for the jury Beauchamp v. Rowley (1831), 1 Mood. & E.
;
38 ;Doorman v. Jenkins (1834), 2 A. & E. 256,

(/) Chambers v. Goldthorpe, [1901] 1 K. B. 624.
(w) McManusY.Fortescue, [1907] 2 KB. 1 Ze Lievre v. Gould, [1893] 1 Q. B.491.
;
[n) Real y. South Devon Rail. Co., supra, at p. 342 Wilson v. Brett (1843), ;
11 M. & W. 113; Mofatt v. Bateman (1869), L. E. 3 P. C. 115.

(o) Such representation may be express [Whitehead v. Greetham (1825), 2
Bing-. 464) or implied {Do7ialdson v. Haldane (1840), 7 01. & E. 762).
;
(p) Beul V. South Devon Rail. Co., supra, at p. 342 Shiells v. Blackburne ;
(1789), 1 Hy. Bl. 159; Doorman v. Jenkins, supra ; Giblin v. McMullen (1868),
L. E. 2 P. 0. 317.
[q) Grill V. General Iron Screw Collier Co. (1866), L. E. 1 0. P., jêr Smith, J.,
at p. 614.
Bealy. South Devon Rail. Co., supra, at p. 341.
(r)
[s] Harmer
v. Cornelius (1858), 5 0. B. (n. s.) 236; Jenkins v. Betham (1855),
15 C. B. 168.
(<) Beal V. South Devon Rail. Co., supra, at p. 342 Smith v. Barton (1866), 15;
L. T. 294 Lee v. Walker (1872), L. E. 7 0. P. 121

; Solomon v. Barker (1862), 2
;
^
E. &F. 726.
(a) Heys v. Tindall (1861), 1 B. & S. 296.
— ;
186 Agency.
Sect. 2. such special usages as may be binding on the principal (6). But the
Rights of agent is not responsible for failure to go beyond his reasonable
Principal duty, even though a loss is occasioned thereby, which might have
against been avoided by extra care, skill, or diligence (c). ISIor does he
Agent.
incur liability in respect of matters which are not fairly within the
scope of his employment (d).
Negotiation In the negotiation of a contract he must take all reasonable pre-
of contract.
cautions that may be requisite for the protection of his principal (e).
Any contract made by him must be in accordance with his instruc-
tions (/) or with usage {g), and must truly represent the agreement of
the parties (h). Its form must be such that it is capable of being
enforced by the principal (i). If the contract be once completed, the
agent cannot rescind it [k) nor vary its terms (I) unless he is
expressly authorised to do so.
Dilatoriness. The agent must not be guilty of unreasonable delay in carrying
out his instructions (m), or in communicating to his principal any
material information (n).
Sub.-Sect. 3. As to Accounts and Moneys received hy the Agent on the

FrincipaVs hehalf.
Duty to keep 399. It is the duty of an agent (o) to keep accurate accounts of
accounts.
his transactions {p), and to be prepared at all times to produce
them to his principal (g). Further, all books and documents
relating to the principal's business must on demand be produced
to the principal, or to some person named by him (r), provided that
such person is not one against whom the agent may have reasonable
grounds of objection (s).
(&) Russell V. Hanhey (1794), 6 Term Eep. 12 Mallough v. Barher (1815), 4

;
Camp. 150; Papey. Westacott, [1894] 1 Q. B. 272, 279; Farrer y. Lacy (1885),
31 Ch. D. 42 Wilts and Dorset Bank v. Cook (1889), 5 T. L. E. 703
; Felham ;
V. mider (1841), 1 Y. & C. Ch. 3.

(c) Commoniuealth Portland Cement Co. v. Weher, [1905] A. C. 66.
(d) ZwilchenhartY. Alexander (1860), IB. & S. 234 Jenkins y. Betham (1855), ;
15 C. B. 168 and see Lee v. Wcdker (1872), L. E. 7 C. P. 121

; Lamert v. Eeath ;
(1846), 15 M. & W. 486; Pappa v. Pose (1872), L. E. 7 C. P. 32, affirmed, ibid. 525.
(e) Heijs V. Tindall (1861), 1 B. & S. 296 Smith v. Barton (1866), 15 L. T. 294;
;
Solomon v. Barker (1862), 2 P. & P. 726.

(/) Park V. Hammond (1816), 6 Taunt. 495.
(_(/) Mallough v. Barher, supra,
(h) Stumor eY. Br een (1886), 12 App. Cas. 698.
(*) McManus v. Fortescue^ [1907] 2 K. B. 1 Rainhoiu v.
ILoiokins, [1904] 2 K. B.
;
322 Scott v. Godfrey, [1901] 2

; K
B. 726 May v. Angeli (1898), ] 4 T. L. E. 551
;
Neil son v. James (1882), 9Q.B.D. 546. A broker must make tlie contract binding
on both parties, Gra7it v. Fletcher (1826), 5 B. & C. 436.
(k) Xenos v. Wickham (1866), L. E. 2 L. 296 Thomas v. Lewis (1878), 4 ;
Ex. D. 18; Nelson v. Aldridge (1818), 2 Stark, 435.

{I) Hihbert v. Baijley (1860), 2 P. & P. 48.
(m) TurpinY. Bilton (1843), 5 Man. & Gr. 455.

[n) ProudfootY. Montefiore (1867), L. E. 2 Q. B. 511.
(o) The rule does not apply where the agency is only to receive moneys in
respect of separate transactions known to the principal in detail at the time {Re
Lee, Ex parte Neville (1868), 4 Ch. App. 43).
{p) Gray v. Haig (1855), 20 Beav. 219; ChedworthY. Edwards (1802), 8 Ves.
47; White v. Lady Lincoln (1803), 8 Yes. 363.
[q) Pearse v. Green (1819), 1 Jac. & W. 135.
(r) Bevan v. Wehh, [1901] 2 Ch. 59.
(s) Badswell v. Jacobs (1887), 34 Ch. D. 278.
Part VIII. — Relations between Principal and Agent. 187
400. Any money or other property intrusted to an agent by his ^^ct. 2.

principal or received by him on his principal's behalf must be kept Rights of
separate, and not mixed with his own (t). Otherwise, all which he Principal
cannot show to be his own will be presumed to belong to the against
principal (a). ^
^ ^
When an agent is employed to carry out any transaction which Principal's

involves a payment to him on his principal's behalf, he must not property to be
separate,
compromise his principal's rights (b) or part with his property (c), ^^^^
until he has received payment, unless authorised by his instructions
âde to*affent
or by usage to do so (d). Payment, in the absence of instructions for principal,
or usage, must be received in cash, and not otherwise (e).
401. All moneys received on the principal's behalf (/) must be Payment over
paid over, or accounted iov{g), to the principal upon request (/i),
ygêived'^
unless the agent has for some lawful reason repaid them to the
person from whom he received them (i). It is immaterial that the
transaction in respect of which the moneys are received is void {k)
or illegal (Q, provided that the agency itself is not illegal Nor
can the agent retain such moneys against the principal in respect
of a debt due to himself from the 23erson paying them {n), or because
of some claim made to them by some thn-d person (o).
Where the moneys are received on behalf of joint principals, the Payrnent
agent is liable to account to them jointly, and is not discharged by p^j.i"ijîpals
payment to one or more of them only, unless by authority of all {p).
{t) Gray v. Haig

(1855), 20 Beav. 218 Olarke v. Tipping (1846), 9 Beav.
;
2:84.
(a) LiijJton V. White (1808), 15 Yes. 432.
(6) As in Fape v. IVestacott, [1894] 1 Q. B. 272.
(c) As in Brown v. Boorman (1844), 11 CI. & F. 1 ; Kidd v. Home (1885),
2 T. L. E. 141.
{d) Wiltshire Y. Sims (1808), 1 Camp. 258; Earl of Ferrers v. Bohins (1835),
2 Or. M. & E. 152. A
factor {Houghton v. MaMhews (1803), 3 Bos. & P. 485) and
a broker [Brown v. Boorman, supra) have an implied authority to sell on credit.
(e) As by a negotiable instrument (Pope V. Westacott, supra ; Wiltshire y. Sims,
supra ; Earl of Ferrers v. Bohins, supra ; Hine v. Steamship Insurance Syndicate
(1895), 72 L. T. 79), unless authorised by usage {FarrerY. Lacy (1885), 31 Ch. D.
42) ; or by set-off or settlement of accounts {Sweeting y. Fearce (1859), 7 C. B.
(n. s.) 449 Legge v. Byas Mosley & Go. (1901), 7 Com. Cas. 16), any usage to that
;
effect being unreasonable {Matveieff Go. v. Grossfield (1903), 51 W. E. 365, and

cases last cited), or by taking other goods {HowardY. Ghapman (1831), 4 C. & P.
508. And see Gatterall v. Hindle (1866), L. E. 1 C. P. 187, and, on appeal (1867),
L. E. 2 C. P
368.
(/) As to what may be equivalent to a receipt, see Gillard v. Wise (1826), 5
B. & C. 134.
{g) For the duty to account, see p. 188, 2'>ost.
(h) Harsant y. Blaine (1887), 56 L. J. (Q. B.) 511.
(/) Murray v. Mann (1848), 2 Exch. 538.
(/c) BridgerY. Savage (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 363 ; De Mattos v. Benjamin (1894),
63 L. J. (Q. B.) 248.
{I) Bousfield V. Wilson (1846), 16 M. & W. 185; Tenant y. Elliott (1797), 1 Bos.
& P. 3; Farmer v. Russell (1798), 1 Bos. & P. 296 Sharp y. Taylor (1849), 2 Ph.
;
801 and see Sijkes v. Beadon (1879), 11 Ch. D. 170.

;
(w) Booth V. Hodgson (1795), 6 Term Eep. 405 ; Gatlin v. Bell (1815), 4 Camp.
183 Knowles y. Haughton{lS05), 11 Yes. 168; Battersby v. Smyth (1818), 3 Madd.
;
110,. with which compare Davenport v. Whiimore (1836), 2 My. & Cr. 177.
(n) Heath v. Ghilton (1844), 12 M. & W. 632.
(o) Eoherts v. Ogilby (1821), 9 Price, 269 .Dixon v. Hamond (1819), 2 B. & Aid.
;
310. As to the cases in which he may interplead, see p. 200, ôost.

{p) Lee V. Sankey (1873), L. E. 15 Eq. 204; Heath v. Ghilton, supra.
;
,
188
Sect. 2. 402. Where an agent fails to pay over to his principal on demand
Rights of moneys received by him, the principal may bring an action for
Principal money had and received (q). He may also claim an account [r).
against Where the agent is not in a fiduciary position, or the accounts are
Agent. of a simple nature, the account will be taken in an ordinary action
Action for in the King's Bench Division (s). But if the agency is fiduciary (t),
account. or the accounts are complicated (a), it is more correct to bring the
action in the Chancery Division.
Settled accounts cannot, as a rule, be reopened {h), but the
principal may obtain leave to surcharge and falsify them (c). On
proof of fraud (d), however, or of undue influence (e), the principal is
entitled to have them reopened from the beginning of the agency (/).
Taking of On taking an account, the agent is entitled to deduct expenses
account.
authorised by the principal, and all proper expenses (g), even though
expended for unlawful purposes (/t). Except where he has been
guilty of fraud (?), an action for an account is barred after six years
from the time when the right of action accrued (j).
Interest. 403. No interest is payable by an agent in respect of money
received by him on his principal's behalf, except under some con-
tract express or implied (k), or where there has been some default
on his part (l), such as a dealing with the money in breach of
duty or a failure to pay it over at the principal's request (?^),
in which cases interest is payable from the date of default (o) The .
agent must also pay interest in all cases of fraud {p), and on
(q) See the cases cited Tinder this sub-section generally.

(r) But the account must not include damages for breach of duty {Great
Western Insurance Co. v. Cunliffe (1874), 9 Ch. App. o2o).
(s) FoJeii V. Hill (1848), 2 H. L. Cas. 28 Barry v. Stevens (1862), 31 Beav. 258
;
myth V. Whifin (1872), 27 L. T. 330 York v. Stowers, [1883] W. N. 174.

;
{t) Makepeace v. Boyers (1865), 4 De G. J. & S. 649 Fadwick v. Stanley (1852),

;
9 Hare, 627.
(a) Foley v. Hill, supra; Leslie v. Cliford (1884), 50 L. T. 590.
(6) Parkinson v. Hanburi/ (1867), L. E. 2 H. L. 1.
(c) Mozeley v. Cowie (1877), 47 L. J. (CH.) 271.
{d) Clarke v. Tipping (1846), 9 Beav. 284; Walsham v. Stainton (1863), 12
W. E. 63.
(e) Watson y. Rodiuell (1879), 11 Ch. D. 150.
(
/) Stainton v. Carron Co. (1857), 24 Beav. 346 Williamson v. Barbour {1811)
;
9 Ch. D. 529.
{g) Bale v. Sollet (1767), 4 Burr. 2133, per Lord Mansfield, at p. 2134.
{h) Bayntum v. Cattle (1833), 1 Mood. & E. 265.
{i) North American Land and Timber Co. v. Watkins, [1904] 2 Ch. 233 Be ;
Lands Allotment Co.,[1894] 1 Ch. 616.

(./) Knox V. Gije (1872), L. E. 5 H. L. 656.
(k) As to when interest is payable undei? a contract, see title Money and
Money Lending.
{I) Empire Mutual Life Assurance Co. (1880), 15 Ch. D. 169.
Webster v. British
{m) As by employing it in his own business {Rogers v. Boehm (1799), 2 Esp.
702 ; v. Oarrick (1870), 5 Ch. App. 233), but contrast Lord Chediuorth v.
Burdick
Edwards (1802), 8 Yes. 46.
{n) Edgell v. Day (1865), L. E. 1 C. P. 80; Harsant v. Blaine (1887), 56 L. J.
(q. B.) 5li. But a mere retaining of money which he ought to pay over, but
which he has never been required to pay, is not sufficient, in the absence of fraud
{Turner v. Burkinshatv (1867), 2 Ch. App. 488). A
stakeholder is not liable to
^dij iwiQTQ^t {Harington v. Hoggart (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 577).
(o)Edgell Y. Day, supra.
(p) Earl of Hardiuicke v. Vernon (1808), 14 Ves. 504.
— —
Part YIII. — Relations between Principal and Agent. 189
all bribes [(j) and secret profits (/) received by him during his Sect. 2.
agency. Rights of
Sitb-Sect. 4. Disclosure hy Agent. Principal
404. An agent will not be allowed to pat his duty in conflict with against
Agent.
his interest (s), and therefore he must not enter into any transaction
likely to produce that result {a), unless he has first made to his Agent's own
principal the fullest disclosure of the exact nature of his interest, interest in
conflict with
and the principal has assented {h). An agent does not discharge his that of
duty in this behalf merely by disclosing that he has an interest (c), or principal.
by making statements which might put the principal on inquiry {cl).
In particular, notwithstanding any usage to the contrary {e), he
must not sell his own property to the principal (/), nor buy the
principal's property {g), without the knowledge of the principal.
And in these and all other transactions Qi) with the principal, he Application
must disclose every material fact which is or ought to be known by of rule.
him, if it would be likely to operate upon the principal's judgment (i).
If this is not done, the fairness of the transaction is immaterial {j),
and it is voidable at the principal's option (k).
Sub-Sect. 5. Beceipt hy Agent of Secret Profits and Bribes {I).
405. An agent must not, without the knowledge of his principal General rule
acquire any profit (n) or benefit (o) from his agency (p) other than
{q) Boston Beep Sea Fishing and Ice Co. v. Ansell (1888), 39 Oh. D, 339, 371.
(r) Nantyglo and Blaina Iromvorhs Co. v. Grave (1878), 12 Ch. D. 738.
(s) Bankof Upper Canada v. BradsJiaw (1867), L. R. 1 P. C. 4:19, per Lord Cairns,
at p. 489 Parker v. McKenna (1874), 10 Ch. App. 96, êr Lord Cairns, at p. 118.
;
(a) For the cases where the transa.ction is entered into with a person with
whom he is deahng on his principal's behalf, see p. 190, 'post.
(b) G-watkin v. Campbell (1854), 1 Jur. (n. s.) 131.
(c) Imperial Mercantile and Credit Association v. Coleman (1873), L. R. 6 H. L.
189 Gluckstein v. Barnes, [1900] A. C. 240

; Costa Rica Bail. Co. v. Forwood,
;
[1901] 1 Ch. 746.

(d) Dunne v. English (1874), L. R. 18 Eq. 524 and see Swale v. Ipswich
;
Tannery (1906), 11 Com. Cas. 88, per Kennedy, J., at p. 96.

(e) Robinson v. Mollett (1875), L. R. 7 H. L. 802 Hamilton v. Young (1881),
;
L. R. 7 It. 289.
(/) GillettY. Peppercorne (1840), 3 Beav. 78; Bothschild v. Brookman (1831),
2 Dow. & CI. 188 Skelton v. Wood (1894), 71 L. T. 616.
;
{g) McPherson v. Watt (1877), 3 App. Cas. 254 Ex parte Huth, Re Pemberton
;
(1840), 4 Dea. 294; Loruther v. lowther (1806), 13 Yes. 95._

{h) Selsey v. Bhoades (1824), 2 Sim. & St. 41, including gifts; Hunter y. Atkins
(1834) 3 My. & K. 1 1 3. As to gifts between solicitor and client, see title Solicitors.
,
(r) Dunne v. English, supra ; Charter v. Trevelyari (1844), 11 CI. P. 714 ; King &
V. Anderson (1874), 8 Ir. Eq. 147 ; Savery v. King (1856), 5 H. L. Cas. 627 ;
Buddy's Trustee v. Beard (1886), 33 Ch. D. 500.
(y) Gillett V. Peppercorne, supra; Aberdeen Bail. Co. v. Blaikie (1854), 2 Eq.
Rep. 1281.
[U] Houldsworth v. City of Glasgow Bank (1880), 5 App. Cas. 317, per Lord
Cairns, at p. 323; Be Cape Breton Co. (1884), 26 Ch. D. 221 GillettY. Peppercorne,
;
supra; Oliuer v. Court (1820), Dan. 301; Great Luxembourg Bail. v. Magnay
(1858), 25 Beav. 586.
[l) As to the principal's rights against the person offering the bribe, see
pp. 216
et seq., post.
(m) Be Haslam, [1902]
1 Ch. 765 ; Bitchie v. Couper (1860), 28 Beav. 344.
{n) Thompson Meade
(1891), 7 T. L. R. 698.
v.
(o) Fawcett v. Whitehouse (1829), 1 Russ. & M. 132 ; Tarkwa Main Beef, Ltd. v.
Merton (1903), 19 T. L. R. 367.
{p) Erskine v. Sachs, [1901] 2 K
B. 504; with which compare Kirkham v.
Peel (1881), 44 L. T. 195 and see Williamson v. Hine, [1891] 1 Ch. 390.
;
190 Agency.
Sect. 2.
that contemplated by the principal at the time of making the con-
Rights of tract of agency (q) And this rule may apply even though at the time
.
Principal of the transaction itself the agency has ceased (?-). The rule applies
against in spite of the fact that the agent has done his best under the circum-
Agent.
stances (s) or incurred a possibility of loss (t), or that the principal
has in fact received the benefit he himself contemplated from the
transaction (a) All such profits and the value of such benefits-
.
must be paid over to the principal (b).

Agent to pur- Where an agent who is employed to buy property on his
chase. principal's behalf sells his own to the principal, and thereby
makes a profit, the principal, in lieu of rescinding the sale, may (c),
and, if rescission be no longer possible, must {d), affirm it. He may
then recover from the agent the full amount of the profit received
by the latter, together with interest (e). Where the agent is
employed to buy a particular property (/) in which he in fact has
an interest before accepting the agency, and sells it to his principal
during the agency without disclosing his interest, the principal
may affirm or rescind the contract, but if he affirms it, he can-
not also claim the profits (g) in the absence of any underhand
dealing (fi).
Bribe. 406. Where the secret profit is received from a third person with
whom the agent is dealing on his principal's behalf, it is called a secret
commission or bribe. The receipt of a bribe, whether in money (i) or
otherwise (k), is a breach of duty, and it is immaterial whether or not
the agent is influenced by such bribe in a way prejudicial to his
principal's interest (Z).
Usual con: Where, however, the principal leaves the agent to look to the
missions. third party for his remuneration {m), or knows that he will receive
[q) See cases cited in notes (n), (o), ( jo), p. 189, ante. Even though the agency
be gratuitous [Turnhull v. Garden (1869), 20 L. T. 218). The same principle
applies to sub-agents where a fiduciary relation is established {Powell v. Evan
Jones & Co., [1905] 1 B. 11). K
(r) Carter v. & F. 657.
Painter (1842), 8 CI.
(s) Shallcross v. (1862), 2 Johns. & H. 609.
Oldham
(t) Willmms V. Stevens (1866), L. E. 1 P. C. 352.
(a) De Bussche v. Alt (1878), 8 Ch. D. 286,

(6) Thompson v. Meade (1891), 7 T. L. E. 698 ; and cases in preceding notes,
(c) The onus of maintaining that the sale has been affirmed lies on the agent
{Cavendish- Bentinck v. Fenn (1887), 12 App. Cas. 652, jper Lord Watson, at p.
{d) As in Re Leeds and Hanley Theatres of Varieties, Ltd., [1902] 2 Ch. 809 and ;
see Re Cape Breton Co. (1884), 26 Ch. D. 221.

{e) Bentley v. Craven (1853), 18 Beav. 75; Tyrrell v. Banh of London (1862),
10 H. L. Cas. 26 Benson v. Heathorn (1842), 1 Y. & C. Ch. 326 Massey v. Davies

; ;
(1794), 2 Yes. 317.

(/) Qucere whether the same rule applies where no particular property is
indicated. See Re Cape Breton Co., supra.
(g) Re Cape Breton Co., supra (affirmed on another ground sub nom.
Cavendish-
Bentinck v. Fenn, supra), approved in Burland v. Farle, [1902] A. C. 83.
{h) Kimher v. Barber (1872), 8 Ch. App. 56.
{i) Hay's Case (1875), 10 Ch. App. 593 Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Lee Go.
;
V. Ansell (1888),39 Ch. D. 339.

(k) Nantyglo and Blaina Ironworks Co. v. Grave (1878), 12 Ch. D. 738;
McKay's Case (1875), 2 Ch. D. 1.
{I) Harrington v. Victoria Graving Pock Co. (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 549.
(m) Great Western Lnsurance Co. v. Cunlife (1874), 9 Ch. App. 525.
— —
something from the third party (n) the agent is entitled to receive
,
^^^t. 2.
and retain such commissions as are usual and customary, and the Rights of
principal cannot object merely on the ground that he was unaware Pnncipal
of the actual amount thereof.
âmst
discovering the receipt of a bribe the principal may instantly
"
On
dismiss the agent (o), and, if he has already been dismissed, may EfEect of
justify the dismissal on that ground, even though the bribery was [^^^^g^^^^
^
not discovered till after the dismissal (p). The agent forfeits any ageift.
commission in respect of the transaction (q) and becomes liable (r)
to his principal for the amount of the bribe, if in money (s), or for
the value of the property so received by him(^), such value being
measured by the highest value which the property might have
fetched whilst in his possession (a). Interest also is payable at the
rate of 5 per cent, per annum from the date when the bribe was
received (b). In addition, the agent is liable, jointly and severally
with the briber, for any loss actually sustained by the principal in
consequence of any breach of duty on the agent's part (c) and both ;
he and the briber may be dealt with criminally {d).

Sub-Sect. 6. Measure of Damages for Breach of Duty.
407. Where an agent is sued by his principal for breach of duty. Measure of
the measure of damages is the full amount of the loss actually sus- damages for
tained (e), and no more (/), provided that such loss is the natural ûty^by^^
and probable consequence (g) of the breach of duty, or such as was agent.
{n) Baring v. Stanton (1876), 3 Ch. D. 502 ; Lord Norreys v. Hodgson (1897),
13 T. L. E. 421.
(o) See Swale Y. Ipswich Tannery (1906), 11 Com. Gas. 88, jser Kennedy, J.,
at pp. 95, 98.
ip) Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Co. v. Ansell {l^S^), 39 Ch. D. 339;
Siuale V. Ipswich Tannery Co., supra.
(q) AndrewsY. Ramsay dt Co., [1903] 2 K. B. 635 ; Frice y. Metropolitan House In-
vestment and Agency Co., Ltd. (1907), 23 T. L. E. 630 but not in respect of other
;
transactions with which the receipt of the bribe was unconnected {Hippisley v.
K7iee, [1905] 1 K
B. 1 Nitedals Taendstikfabriky. Br uster ([906), 75 L. J. (CH.) 798).
;
(r) The relation, however, is that of debtor and creditor, and not of trustee
and cestui que trust [Lister & Co. v. Stuhhs (1890), 45 Ch. D. 1; Fowell v.
Evan Jones (fc Co., [1905] 1 K. B. 11).
(s) Mayor etc. of Salford v. Lever, [1891] 1 Q. B. 168 Hay's Case (1875), 10
;
Ch. App. 593.

{t) McKay's Case {IS7 5), 2 Ch. D. 1; Nantyglo aîd Blaina Ironworks Co. v.
Grave (1878), 12 Ch. D. 738; Re Caerphilly Colliery Co.^ Fearson's Case (1877), 5
Ch. D. 336).
(a) Ibid.
(b) Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Co. v. Ansell, supra. Interest at the rate of
4 per cent, was given in Nantyglo and Blaina Ironworks Co. v. Grave, supra.
(c) Mayor etc. of Salford v. Lever, supra
; Morgan v. Elford{l^l&), 4 Ch. D. 352.
[d.) For conspiracy to defraud [R. v. Barber (1887), 3 T. L. E. 491), or under
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 34), and, if a servant

of a public body, under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889
(52 & 53 Yict. c. 69). See title Criminal Law akd Procedtjee.
(e) Smithy. Frice (1862), 2 F. & F. 748 Maydew y. Forrester (1814), 5 Taunt.
;
615; Neilson y. James (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 546. Unless the loss is not a legal
loss(TFeter v. De Tastet{]191), 7 Term Eep. 157; Cohen y. Kittell {ISS9), 22
Q. B. D. 680). If there has been no actual loss, the principal is entitled to nominal
damages {Van Wart y. Woolley (1830), Mood. & M. 520).
(/) Waddell y. Blockey (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 678; Cassaboglou y. Oibb (1883), 11
Q. B. D. 797 and see Michael y. Hart & Co., [1902] 1 K. B. 482.
;
{g) Compare Mainwaring y. Brandon (1818), 2 Moo. 125, with Re United.

Service Co., Johnston's Claim (1871), 6 Ch. App. 212.
. — — ;
192 Agency.
Sect. 2. within the contemplation of the parties (li). This may include
Rights of profitwhich has actually been lost, but not merely anticipated profits
Principal which might have been made if the agent had performed his duty {i).
against
Agent. Sub-Sect. 7. Estoppel of Person purporting to act as Agent.
408. Where in any transaction a person has admittedly acted as

Denial of
principal's agent on a principal's behalf (/c), he is estopped from denying the
rights. rights which have accrued to his principal in consequence, and from
setting up any claims adverse thereto, whether in himself (l) or third
parties (m)
Goods This rule applies more especially in the case of goods which have
intrusted to been intrusted to him (n), or in respect of which he has acknowledged
agent.
the title of his principal, whether in actual possession of them or
not (o). But where the adverse claim is made by a third person, the
agent may set up the latter's title, if he has actually handed over the
goods to him or is acting by his authority and on his behalf (p), pro-
vided that he had no knowledge of the claim when he received the
goods or attorned to his principal (q). If he is acting as agent for
both parties, he may elect between them(?').
Agent cannot An agent in possession of property as agent (s) will not be per-
acquire title
mitted to deny that his possession is that of his principal. He is
as against
principal. therefore estopped from setting up a statutory title against the
principal {t), or maintaining his own title as true owner against the
statutory title acquired by his principal through him (a). If he
purchases land, and has the legal estate conveyed to him, he will
not be permitted to plead the absence of a written declaration of
trust (6). Nor, if money is paid to him by a third person, can
he set up the illegality or nullity of the contract under which he
received it (c).
Sub-Sect. 8. Attachment of Defaulting Agent.
Attachment. 409. Whenever an agent who has received money on behalf of his
principal in a fiduciary capacity fails to comply with an order of a
(h) Boyd V. Fitt (1864), 11 L. T. 280.

('/) Salvesen & Co v. Rederi Aktieholaget Nordstjernan, [1905] A. 0. 302
Cassaloglou v. Gihh (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 797.
{h) Sheridan Y.Neiv Quay Co. (1858), 4 C. B. (n. s.) 618; A.-O. v. Corporation
of London (1849), 2 Mac. & G. 247.
(Z) Heathy. Chilton{l%^^), 12 M. & W. 632; Lyelly. Kennedy (1889), 14 App.
Cas. 437 ; Williams v. Pott (1871), L. E. 12 Eq. 149.
(m) Eamesy.Hacon{l^^\), l8Ch.D.347; Z>/xow v.Zrawo72cZ(1819), 2B. & Aid. 310.
\n) Zulueta v. Vinent (1852), 1 De G. M. & Gr. 315. For his right to inter-
plead, see p. 200, post.
(o) Henderson & Co. v. Williams, [1895] 1 Q. B. 521 Evans v. Nichol (1841),
;
4 Scott, N. E. 43.
(p) Piddle V. Potid (1865), 6 B. & S. 225 Bogers Sons & Co. v. Lamhert & Co.,
;
[1891] IQ. B. 318.

{q) Biddle v. Bond, supra; Ex parte Bavies, Be Sadler (1881) 19 Ch. D. 86. ,
(r) Shee v. Clarhson (1810), 12 East, 507.

(s) But the possession must be as agent {White y. Bayley (1861), 10 C. B. (isr. s.)
227, and contrast Bell v. Marsh, [1903] 1 Ch. 528 Marhiuick v. Harding-
;
ham (1880), 15 Ch. D. 339).

(i;) Lyell V. Kennedy, supra, and compare Ward v. Carttar (1865), L. E. 1 Eq. 29.
(a) Williams v. Pott, supra.

\h) As required by the Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3) s. 7. See Bochefoucauld
,
V. Boustead, [1897] 1 Ch. 196.

—— — ——
Part VIII. Relations between Peincipal and Agent. 193
Court of equity to pay over the money, he becomes liable to attach- Sect. 2.
ment, even though he has parted with the money or become bank- Rights of
rapt or insolvent {d) . Principal
against
Site-Sect. 9. As to the Ads and Defaults of Co-agents and Sub-agents. Agent.
410. x\n agent is under no responsibility to his principal for the

co-agents
acts or defaults his co-agents, except where they are his
{e) of
partners (/), unless he expressly or tacitly authorised such acts
or defaults (g).
But he is liable for the acts (li) and defaults {i) of his sub-agents Sub-agents,
even though their employment was authorised by his principal (/c), and
he must account to his principal for all moneys received by them (Q.
Sect. 3. Rights oj Agent against Principal,

Sub-Sect. 1. In General.
411. Most of the rights of an agent against his principal depend indemnity
upon the principle that the agent, being a mere representative of his ^l^^^ftjeg ôt
principal, and acting wholly on the latter's behalf, is not expected contemplated,
to incur any liabihties or suffer any losses other than those contem-
plated by him when he undertook the agency, or prescribed by the
contract between them {ni).
Sub-Sect. 2. Remuneration.
412. An agent has no right to receive remuneration from his No right

principal unless there be a contract, express or implied, to that
^Q^jJacT'^^
effect 00 Where the parties have made an express contract for YiYievecon-
.
remuneration, the amount of remuneration and the conditions under tract express,
which it will become payable must be ascertained by reference to the
terms of that contract no implied contract can be set up to add to
:
or vary such terms (o).
Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Yict. c. 62), s. 4 (3); Crowther v. Elgood
(rf)
(1887), 34 Ch. D. 691 and see title Contempt and Attachment. Per tlie
;
criminal liability of an agent wbo misappropriates his principal's money or pro-

perty, see the LarcenyAct, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 96), ss. 77 79, and the Larceny —
Act, 1901 (1 Edw. 7, c. 10), title Criminal Law and Pkocedure.
(e) Lucas v. Fitzgerald (1903), 20 T. L. R. 16; Land Credit Co. of Ireland
V.Lord Fermoij (1870), 5 Ch. App. 763; CuUerne v. Londonand Suburban General
Permanent Building Society (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 485.
(/) See Hamlyn v. Houston & Co., [1903] 1 K. B. 81.
{g)Cargill v. Loiuer (1878), 10 Ch. D. 502.
Be Mutual Aid Perinanent Benefit Building Society, Ex parte James (1883),
(/()
49 L. T. 530; Siuire v. Francis (1877), 3 App. Cas. 106.

(•/) Collins V. Griffin (1734), Barnes, 37; Mackersy v. Ramsays, Bonars & Co.,
(1843), 9 CI. & F. 818.
(Jc) Skinner & Co. v. Weguelin Fddoiues & Co. (1882), 1 Cab. El. 12. &
(/) Matthews Haydon
(1796), 2 Esp. 509
v. Mackersy v. Ramsays, Bonars ;
Co., 8ux>ra; Re Mitchell (1884), 54 L. J. (CH.) 342.

(???) See the following sub-sections, and in particular sub-sects. 2 and 3.
(i?) 1 F. & F. 280
Reeve v. Reeve (1858), and compare Taylor v. Brewer (1813),
;
1 M. & with Bryant v. Flight (1839), 5 M. & W. 114. No barrister can

S. _290,
make a binding contract for remuneration in respect of professional services
{Kennedy v. Broun (1863), 13 C. B. (n. s.) 677) see title Barristers. ;
[o) Burnett Y. Isaacson {1888), 4 T. L. E. 645 Greeny. Mules {ISCA), 'SO ;
L. J. (c. p.)^343 Alder v. Boyle (1847), 4 C. B. 635 Lett v. Outhwaite (1893), 10

; ;
T. L. E. 76. But the contract may be interpreted by reference to usages

which are not inconsistent with it. See p. 182, ante.
H.L.— I. O
;
194 Agency.
Sect. 3. In the absence of an express contract on the subject, a contract to

Rights of pay remuneration may be impHed from the circumstances of the
Agent case(p). The mere fact of employment of a professional agent
against itself raises the presumption of a contract to remunerate him {q),
Principal.
the amount of the remuneration and the conditions of its payment
Implied being ascertainable from the usages of his profession (r). But he
contract. is not entitled to any further or other remuneration than the
usages of the profession justify, unless he does work not strictly
ancillary to the agency, in which case, and also in the case of a
non-professional agent, the implied contract is to pay reasonable
remuneration, having regard to the circumstances of the particular
case (s).
Kemuneration 413. In order to entitle the agent to receive his remuneration, he

must be must have carried out that which he bargained to do {t), or at any rate
earned.
must have substantially done so (a), and all conditions imposed by
the contract must have been fulfilled (b). He is not, however,
deprived of his right to remuneration, where he has done all he
undertook to do, by the fact that the transaction is not beneficial to
the principal (c), or that it has subsequently fallen through (c?),
whether by some act (t^) or default (/) of the principal, or other-
wise (^), unless there is a provision of the contract, express (h) or
implied {i), to that effect, or unless the agent was himself the cause
of his services being abortive (k).
Transaction 414. Kemuneration can be claimed only in transactions which are

in regard to
the direct consequence of the agency (Q. It is not necessary that the
which
remuneration
claimed must (p) Brijant v. Flight (1839), 5 M. & W. 114.
be direct con- Iq) Miller v. Beal (1879), 27 W. E. 403; Manson v. Baillie (1855), 2 Macq
sequence of 80; Turner v. JReeve (1901), 17 T. L. E. 592.
agency (r) Broad v. Thomas (1830), 7 Bing. 99; Bead v. Bann (1830), 10 B. & C. 438
and see cases in preceding note.
(s) Williamson y. Hint, [1891] 1 Ch. 390; Marshall y. Parsons (1841), 9 C. &
P. 656.
{t) Bully. Price (1831), 7 Bing. 237; Peacock y. Freeman (1888), 4 T. L. E
541.
(a) Bimmer y. Knoiules (1874), 30 L. T. 496 ; Johnston y. Kershaiu (1867), L. E
2 Exch. 82.
{h) Chapman y. Winson (1904), 91 L. T. 17; Kirk y. Evans (1889), 6 T. L. E,
9 (conditions imposed by usage of trade).
(c) Green y. Lucas (1875), 33 L. T. 584; Moir y. Marten {1891), 7 T. L. E,
330.
{d) Fidlerv. Fames (1892), 8 T. L. E. 278 ; Harris y. Petherick {181 8), 39 L. T
543.
(e) Horford y. Wilson (1807), 1 Taunt. 12; Piatt y. Depree (1893), 9 T. L. E
194; Passingham y. King (1897), 14 T. L. E. 39.
(/) Fisher y. Dreiuett (1878), 48 L. J. (ex.) 32; Bolerts y. Barnard (1884), 1
Cab. & El. 336; Lockwood y. Levick (1860), 8 0. B. (n. s.) 603.
{g) Fidler y. Fames, sup7-a ; compare Be Sovereign Life Assurance Co.y
Salter's Claim (1891), 7 T. L. E. 602.
(h) Alder y. Boijle (1847), 4 C. B. 635 Bidl y. Price, supra ; Clack y. Wood
;
(1882), 9 Q. B. D. 276; and compare Lara y. Hill (1863), 15 C. B. (n. s.) 45.
{i) Bead y. Bann (1830), 10 B. & C. 438.
\k) DaltonY. Lrvin (1830), 4 C. & P. 289; Hill y. Feather stonhaugh (1831), 7
Bing. 569.
(0 Tril)e y. Taylor (1876), 1 C. P. D. 505 Oilson y. Crick (1862), 1 H. &
;
C
142; Toulmin y. Millar {188'i), 58 L. T. 96; Citrtis y. Nixon {1811), 24 L. T.
706.
— ;
Part YIII. Relations between Principal and Agent. 195
apjent should actually complete the transaction hut he must Sect. 3.
show that it was hrought ahout as the direct result of his interven- Rights of
tion (n). It is not sufficient to show that it would not have been Agent
entered into but for his services, if it resulted therefrom only as a against
Pn^ncipal.
casual or remote consequence {o). It therefore follows that where
several agents are concerned in negotiating a transaction between
the principal and a particular third party the agent entitled to
remuneration is not necessarily the agent who first introduces the
business to him, but the agent who is the effective cause of the
transaction being completed {p).
An agent is not entitled to receive any remuneration in respect ^nd must not
of a transaction resulting from the agency which differs substantially ^cope'oT^

from that which he was employed to procure (q). employment
No remuneration is, as a rule, payable upon transactions between Nor after ter-
the principal and third persons introduced to him by the agent mination of
employment,
arising after the termination of the employment (r), whether such
transactions are due to the agent's introduction (s) or not (t). But
remuneration may be payable in respect of such further transactions
if they are in fact part of a transaction in which the agent was
employed (a), or if there was an express contract to that effect and ;
in the latter case it will be payable even though the agent was
dismissed (h), and may be so though he was not the effective cause
of the transaction (c).
415. If an agent is prevented from earning his remuneration by Agent wrong-

some wrongful act or default on the part of the principal, he is entitled ênted^by
to recover from the latter as damages the actual loss sustained by principal
him(f/). Where the agent has done everything to entitle him to from earning
^^^^^^^^tion.
receive his remuneration, the measure of damages is the full
amount of remuneration which he would have received, if the
transaction in respect of which it was to be payable had been
(w) Mansell v. Clements (1874), L. E. 9 C. P. 139 Green v. Bartlett (1863), 14

;
C. B. (N. s.) 681.

{n) Willdnson v. Martin (1837), 8 C. & P. 1 ; Burton v. Hughes (1885), 1
T. L. K. 207 ; and cases in preceding note.
(o) Trile V. Taylor (1876), 1 C. P. D. 505; Lumley v. Nicholson (1886), 34
W. E. 716; Antrobus v. Wickens (1865), 4 P. & P. 291 ; Millar Son & Go. v.
Radford (1903), 19 T. L. E. 575.
( p) Barrett (1889), 6 T. L. E. 30; Barnett v. Brown & Co. (1890), 6
Taplin V.
T. L. E. 463 Millar Son & Go. v. Radford, swpra. But the principal cannot
;
interplead if several agents claim commission upon the same transaction

{Greatorex y. Shackle, [1895] 2 Q. B. 249).
((i) Toulmin v. Millar (1887), 58 L. T. 96 Barnett v. Isaacson (1888), 4 T. L. E.
;
645.
Trihe v. Taijlor, supra.
(r)
Barrett v. Gilmour & Co. (1901), 6 Com. Cas. 72 ; Hilton v. Helliiuell, [1894]
(s)
2 Ir. E. 94 Nayler v. Yearsley (1860), 2 P. & P. 41.

;
{t) Boyd Y. Tovil Paper Co., Ltd.

(1888), 4 T. L. E. 332.
(a) Wilkinson v. Martin, supra.
[h] Salomony. Brownfield (1896), 12 T. L. E. 239; Bilbeev. Hasse & Co. (1889),
5 T. L. E. 677.
(c) Robey v. Arnold (1897), 14 T. L. E. 39.
{d) Prickett v. Badger Where the agent has only
(1856), 1 C. B. (n. s.)
296.
done part of the work he was employed to do, he recovers on a quantum 7neruit
{Inchbald V. Western Neilgherry Coffee Co. (1864), 17 C. B. (n. S.) 733), unless tjiere
isan express contract to meet the case {Re London and Scottish Bank, Ex parte
Logan (1870), L. E. 9 Eq. 149).
o 2
— ;
196 Agency.
Sect. 3. completed (e) The question whether an act or omission of a

.
Rights of principal which prevents remuneration from being earued by an

Agent agent is wrongful or not, so as to entitle the agent to damages,
against depends upon the terms of the contract between them (f) and the
Principal.
usages of the particular trade or business (g).
Loss of right 416. An agent who is by law required to possess a particular
to remunera- qualification to enable him to act as such, is not entitled to any
tion.
remuneration if at the time when he rendered the services in respect
of which the remuneration is claimed he was not so qualified (It) ;
nor is an agent entitled to any remuneration in respect of trans-

actions in the course of which he has been guilty of wilful miscon-
duct {i) or breach of faith, whether his principal has been damnified
thereby or not (/c), nor in respect of gaming or wagering transac-
tions (Z), or transactions which were unauthorised by his principal and
not subsequently ratified {m) or which were known by the agent to
,
be unlawful (n), nor in respect of any services which were rendered

abortive by reason of his negligence or other breach of duty (o)
Sub-Sect. 3. Reimburseraent and Indemnity by Principal.
Extent of 417. The relation of principal and agent raises by implication a

right. contract on the part of the principal to reimburse the agent in
respect of all expenses, and to indemnify him against all liabilities,
incurred in the reasonable performance of the agency {p), provided
that such implication is not excluded by the express terms of the
contract between them (q), and provided that such expenses and
liabilities are in fact occasioned by his employment (7')-
(e) FrichettY. Badger (1856), 1 C. B. (n. s.) 296; Roberts v. Barnard (1884), 1
Cab. & El. 336.
( f)
Simpson v. Lamb (1856), 17 C. B. 603 and contrast Turner v. OoJdsmith, ;
[1891] 1 Q. B. 544, and Brace v. Cahler, [1895] 2 Q. B. 253, with Rhodes v.

Forwood (1876), 1 App. Gas. 256, and Phillips v. Alhambra Palace Co., [1901] 1
K. B. 59. See also Chinnock v. Sainsbury (1860), 30 L. J. (CH.) 409; Green y.
Lucas (1875), 33 L. T. 584.
[g) Read v. Rann (1830), 10 B. & C. 438 Broad v. Thomas (1830), 7 Bing. 99.
;
(h) PalJc Y. Force (1848), 12 Q. B. 666; Cope v. Rowlands (1836), 2 M. & W. 149.
(?) Andreius v. Ramsay & Co., [1903] 2 K. B. 635 Price v. Metropolitan Home ;
Investment and Agency Co., Ltd. (1907), 23 T. L. R. 630 compare The Macleod ;
(1880), 5 P. D. 254. But he is entitled to his remuneration in other transactions

where he has acted properly {FLippisley y. Knee Brothers, [1905] IK. B. 1
Nitedals Taendstihfabrich v. Bruster (1906), 75 L. J. (CH.) 798).
{h) Sakmians v. Pender (1865), 3 H. & C. 639.
(/) GamingAct, 1892 (55 Yict. c. 9), s. 1 see title Gaming and Wagering.
;
[m] Marsh v. Jelf (1862), 3 F. & F. 234 Campanari v. Woodburn{18oi), 15 0. B. 400.

;
{n) Stackpole v. Farle (1761), 2 Wils. (k. b.) 133; Josephs v. Pebrer (1825)_, 3
B. & C. 639 and see the Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39), s. 53 (3), which
;
requires the broker to stamp the contract note before he can claim his commis-
sion. Otherwise, if the agent was unaware of the illegality {Haines v. BusJc
(1814), 5 Taunt. 521).
(o) Benew v. Daverell (1813), 3 Bracey v. Carter (1840), 12 A. &E.
Camp. 451 ;
373; BaltonY. Lriuin (1830), 4 C. 289; FlamondY. Holiday (1824), 1 0. &P. 384.
&P.
[p) Adamson y. Jarvis (1827), 4 Bing. 66; Frixione v. Tagliaferro (1856), 10
Moo. P. C. C. 175 including those arising out of a premature revocation of his
;
authority ( JFar?ow; v. Harrison (1858),, 1 E. & E. 295, per Martin, B., at p. 317).
[q) As in the case of a del credere agent [Morris v. Cleasby (1816), 4 M. & S. 566).
But a del credere agent is entitled to indemnity against losses outside the
scope of the del credere commission [Hooper v. Treffrey (1847), 1 Exch. 17).
[r) Compare Halbronn v. Fnternational Horse Agency and Exchange, Ltd., [1903]
1 K B. 270.
. —
Part YIII. —Relations between Principal and Agent. 197
The right of indemnity covers not merely the losses actually Sect. 3.
sustained by the agent, bat also the full amount of the liabilities Rights of
incurred by him, even though they may never in fact be enforced (s), Agent
and extends to cases where they were incurred under an honest
^^^^^
mistake of judgment {t). It is immaterial whether or not the agent
professed to be acting on his principal's behalf, if he was so in Extent of
fact (^f).
indemnity.
Where an agent is employed to deal in a particular market or at Where

a particular place, he may acquire wider rights of reimbursement Increase^d by
and indemnity than he would otherwise have, in consequence of the local usages,
usages of the particular market or place (b). Such usages are
binding on the principal, even though unknown to him, if they are
reasonable (c), but not if they are unreasonable (d), unless his
knowledge of them be proved {e).
The agent may enforce his rights of reimbursement and How right
indemnity by action (/), or by the exercise of his lien (g), and, if e^fo'^ced.
he is sued by the principal {li), he may assert them by way of
set-off (0-
418. An agent is not entitled to reimbursement or indemnity in Liabilities to

respect of expenses or liabilities incurred in consequence of his own
^Q^g^^^J^^^^
default {k) or breach of duty (l), or arising out of gaming or wagering extend,
transactions {m), or transactions which are known to be unlawful (n),
or which are outside the scope of his authority and have not been
ratified by his principal (o)
Sub-Sect. 4. Agent's Lien.
419. Every agent has a lien on the goods and chattels of his For what
principal in respect of all claims against the principal [p) arising
^^sên^^^^
(.s) Lacey Claim (1874), L. E. 18 Eq. 182.
v. Hill, Croiuleifs
{t) Broom
Hall (1859), 7 C. B. (n. S.) 503; Pettman v. /fe&ê (1850), 9 0. B. 701.
v.
(a) Ex parte Bishop, Re Fox (1880), 15 Ch. D. 400; Ex ])arte Rogers, Re
Rogers {mO), 15 Ch. D. 207.
(b) Baijh'fe v. Butterworth (1847), 1 Exch. 425. See also p. 182, ante, and for
the usages of the Stock Exchange, see title Stock Exchange.
(c) Reynolds v. ISmith (1893), 9 T. L. E. 494; Chapman v. Shepherd (1867),
L. E. 2 C. P. 228, per Willes, J., at p. 239.
{d) Perry v. Barnett (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 388.
(e) Seymour v. Bridge (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 460.
(/) See the various cases cited in notes to this sub-section.

{g) See pp. 198, 199, post.
(A) Or by anyone claiming through the principal {Cropper v. Crook (1868)
L. E. 3 C. P. 194).
(/) Curtis V. Barclay (1826), 5 B. & C. 141.
(A^) Lewis V. Samuel
(1846), 8 Q. B. 685 Duncan v. Hill (1873), L. E. 8 Exch.
;
2x2.
(/) Ellis V. Pond, [18981 1 Q. B. 426; Thomas v. Atherton (1878), 10
Ch. D. 185.
(m) Gaming Act, 1892 (55 Yict. c. 9), s. 1 Tatam v. Reeve, [1893] 1 Q. B. 44.
;
{n) Josephs v. Pehrer (1825), 3 B. & C. 639

; Ex parte Mather (1797), 3 Ves.
373 ;Warwick v. Slade (1811), 3 Camp. 127. But otherwise where the agent
is unaware that the transaction is unlawful [Adamson
v. Jarvis (1827), 4 Bing.
66), or where the transaction in respect of which the indemnity is claimed is
distinct from the unlawful one [Smith v. Lindo (1858), 5 C. B. (n. s.) 587).
(o) Bowlhy V. Bell
(1846), 3 C. B. 284 and contrast Hartas v. Ribbons (1889),
;
22 Q,. B. D. 254 Colonial Bank of Australasia v. Marshall, [1906] A. C. 559.

;
{p) Including those that are statute -barred {Spears v. Hartly (1800), 3 Esp. 81).
.
198 Agency.
Sect. 3.
out of his employment, whether for remuneration earned, or for
Rights of expenses or liabilities incurred, except where the right of lien is
Agent inconsistent wdth the contract between the parties (q), or with the
against special purpose for which the goods or chattels were intrusted
Principal.
to him (?)
Lien The lienof an agent is, as a rule, a particular lien, confined to
generally a such claims as arise in connection with the goods and chattels in
particular
respect of which the right is claimed (s). But he may be given a
lien.
general lien, extending to all claims arising out of the agency,
either by express contract or by usage {t).
Possession 420. To enable an agent to exercise his lien, the goods must be
necessary. in his possession, actual {a) or constructive (b).
The possession must have been acquired without breach of
duty {c), and the agent must hold the goods by virtue of the same
agency as that under which he claims the \ien(d). The lien, even
if created by an express contract, is subject to the reputed owner-
ship clause of the Bankruptcy Act, if the goods are in the order and
disposition of the principal, though in the custody of the agent (e).
Lien affecting 421. As against third persons, the agent cannot, by the exercise
third parties.
of his lien, deprivethem of their existing rights in respect of the
goods, except in so far as the principal could have done so (/).
But an agent's lien on negotiable instruments and money intrusted
to him is absolute, notwithstanding any defects in the title of the
((/) He Bowes (1886), 33 Cli. D. 586 Wolstenholm v. Sheffield Union Banking

;
Co. (1886), 54 L. T. 746 ; but the inconsistency must be clear [Fisher v. Smith
(1878), 4 App. Cas. 1).
(r) Brandao v. Barnett (1846), 12 CI. & F. 787 ; Burn v. Broiun (1817), 2
Stark. 272.
(s) Bock
Gorrissen (1861), 30 L. J. (CH.) 39
V. and see Williams v. Millington
;
(1788), 1 Hy.
BI. 81.
[t) But there is no lien in respect of claims accruing before the agency began
(Houghton v. Matthews (1803), 3 Bos. & P. 485). A

general lien is possessed by
factors [Baring v. Carrie (1818), 2 B. & Aid. 137, per HoLEOYD, J., at p. 148 ;
Hammonds y. Barclay (1802), 2 East, 227) and by bankers (London Chartered

'
;
Bank of Australia v. White (1879), 4 App. Oas. 413), insurance brokers (ilftm?i v.
Forrester (1814), 4 Camp. 60), solicitors (Re Broomhead (1847), 5 Dow. & L.
52), and stockbrokers (Be London and Glohe Finance Corporation, [1902] 2 Ch,
416), for which see titles Bankers and Banking, Insurance, Solicitoes,
and Stock Exchange respectively.
(a) Bidqivay v. Lees (1856), 25 L. J. (cH.) 584 Liinloch v. Craig (1790), 3 Term
;
Eep. 783.
(h) Bryans v. Nix (1839), 4 M. & W. 775.
. (c) Walsh V. Provan (1853), 8 Exch. 843 Madden ; v. Kempster (1807), 1
Camp. 12.
(d) Misa V. Currie (1876), 1 App. Cas. 554; Dixon v. Stansfeld (1850), 10
C. B. 398.
(e) Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 44 (iii.) Hoggard v. ;
Mackenzie (1858), 25 Beav. 493. See title Bankeuptcy and Insolvency.

(/) Compare Brwaton v. Electrical Engineering Corporation, [1892] 1 Ch. 434,
with. Re Capital Fire Lnsurance Association, Ex parte Beall (1883), 24 Ch. D. 408 ;
and see Turner v. Letts (1855), 20 Beav. 185. But where the principal's disability
to do so depends not upon the nature, but upon the circumstances, of the par-
ticular case, the agent can exercise his lien, unless he has notice of the circum-
stances; see London and County Banking Co., Ltd. v. Ratcliffe (1881), 6 App. Cas.
-722 Barry v. Longmore (1840), 12 A. & E. 639 Copland v. Stein (1799), 8 Term
; ;
Eep. 199 and the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict, c. 52), s. 49.
;
— — ;
principal (//) provided that, when the

,
lien attached, the agent Sect. 3.
had no notice of any such defects (li). Rights of

Ag6Ilt
422. An agent loses his lien hy parting with the possession of against
the goods (0, unless at the time of parting with them he reserves
Principal,
expressly or hy implication his right of lien (k), or they are obtained
Loss of lien.
from him by fraud or other unlawful means (I). He may also, whilst
remaining in possession of the goods, lose his lien by dealing with
them any way which is inconsistent with its continuance (7?i), or
in
by entering into any agreement {n), or doing any act (o) which
necessarily implies its abandonment. But it is not lost by any act
of the principal after it has attached (p).
423. A sub-agent has, in general, no right of lien against the Lien of sub-
principal as such (q). But if he is employed with the authority of ^s^nt.
the principal, and at the time when the right attaches he is unaware
of the existence of a principal, he has the same right of lien against
him as he would have had if the agent employing him had been the
principal (/) and though aware of the principal's existence, he has
;
a similar right of lien against him in respect of claims arising

out of the transaction in which he was employed as sub-agent,
notwithstanding any settlement between principal and agent (s)
but his general lien (if any) is co-extensive with the actual rights of
the agent in that behalf, and no wider (a).
Sub-Sect. 5. Agent's Right of Stoppage in Transit.
424. an agent has bought goods on behalf of his principal,

If Stoppage in
either with hisown money (6), or under such circumstances as to
incur a personal liability towards the seller for the price (c), he
((/) Brandao v. Barnett (1846), 12 Gl. & P. 787 Bank of New South Wales v.
;
Goulhurn Valley Butter Co. Proprietary [1902] A. C. 543 Jones v. Peppercor7ie

, ;
(1858), John. 430 and compare London Joint Stock Bank v. Simmons, [1892] A. 0.
;
201 Bechuanaland Exploration Co. v. London Trading Bank, [1898] 2 Q. B. 658.

;
[h) Solomons v. Bank of England (1791), 13 East, 135; Jeffryes v. Agra and
Masterman's Bank (1866), L. E. 2 Eq. 674.
(?:) Sweet V. Pym (1800), 1 East, 4.
[k) Watson v. Lyon (1855), 7 De G. M. & G". 288 North Western Bank v. ;
Poynter, [1895] A. 0. 56.

(/) Picas V. StocJdey (1836), 7 C. & P. 587; Wallace v. Woodgate (1824), Ey. & M.
193.
(w) Weeks v. Goode (1859), 6 0. B. (n. s.) 367; Jacohs v. Latour (1828), 5
Bing. 130.
in) The Rainlow (1885), 53 L. T. 91.
(o) Re Taylor, Stilemanand Underwood, [1891] 1 Ch. 590. But the mere taking
of security is not by itself sufficient [Angus v. McLachlan (1883), 23 Ch. D. 330).
{p) Godin V. London Assurance Co. (1758), 1 Wm. Bl. 103 West of E)igland ;
Bank v. Batchelor (1882), 51 L. J. (ch.) 199. Nor is it affected by the subsequent

bankruptcy of the principal {Rohso7i v. Kemp (1802), 4 Esp. 233; Re Capital
Eire Lnsurance Association, Ex parte Beall (1883), 24 Ch. D. 408).
[q) Solly V. Rathhone (1814), 2 M. & S. 298.
(r) Taylor v. Kymer (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 320 Mann ; v. Forrester (1814), 4
Camp. 60; New Zealand and Australian Land Co. v. Watson (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 374.
(s) Fisher v. Smith (1878), 4 App. Cas. 1
(a) Mildred Y. Maspons (1883), 8 App. Cas. 874; Ex parte Edwards, Re Johnson
(1881), 8 Q. B. D. 262.
(&) Jenkyns Y. Broiun (1849), 14 Q. B. 496.
(c) As to this, see p. 2i9, post.
——
200 Agency.
Sect. 3. stands towards his principal in the position of an unpaid seller {d),
Rights of and on delivery to a carrier for transmission to the principal^
Agent possesses the same rights of stoppage in transit (e).
against
Principal. Sub-Sect. 6. Inteiyleader hy Agent.
Eight to 425. Where an agent is, by virtue of his agency, in possession

interplead.
of any money, goods or chattels (/), to which conflicting claims are
made by his principal and a third person, he may, notwithstanding
his agency (g), interplead (li), even though he has expressly attorned
to his principal (i), provided that, at the time of so attorning, he
had no notice of the third party's claim (k).
Where right But he must stand in a position of real impartiality between the
exists. claimants (/), and therefore he must not collude with either (m)^
nor claim any interest in the subject-matter except for his costs
and charges (n). A claim of lien in respect of the latter does not
oust him from his right (o). But he cannot interplead, if he claim
any further lien or interest (p), nor can he interplead where one of
the claimants claims unliquidated damages {q).
Sub-Sect. 7. As to an Account.
Agent's right 426. An agent has a rightto have an account taken, and unless
to account.
accounts are of a complicated nature they will be taken in an
^.j^g
ordinary action in the King's Bench Division (?•).
(d) Feise v. Wray (1802), 3 East, 93 Fcdk v. Fletcher (LS65), 18 C. B. {n. s.)
;
403; and see Cassahoglou v. Gihh (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 191, per Brett, M.E.,
at pp. 803, 804.
(e) Ireland v. Livingston (1872), L, E. 5 H. L, 395, j)er Blackburn, J., at
p. 408 ;
Imperial Bank v. London and St. Katharine Locks Co. (1877), 5 Oh. D.
195. See, further, title Sale of Goods.
/) Including things in action {Robinson v. Jenkins (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 275).
g) Ex parte Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, [1899] 1 Q. B. 546; Atten-
horough v. London and St. Katharine's Lock Co. (1878), 3 C. P. D. 450 Tanner ;
V. European Bank (1866), L E. 1 Exch. 261.

h) Under 11. S. C, Ord. 57 ; and see title Interpleader.
i) Ex parte Mersey Locks and Harbour Board, supra,
Compare Ex parte Lavies, Be Sadler (1881), 19 Ch. D. 86.
{k)
3Iurietta v. South American etc. Co. (1893), 62 L. J. (q. b.) 396.
(/)
(m) E. S. C, Ord. 57, r. 2 (b). It is collusion to agree with one claimant to
do what the agent legally can to defeat the other [Murietta v. South American etc.
Co., supra), or to take an indemnity from one of them {Tucker v. Morris (1832),
1 Or. & M. 73), though the party giving the indemnity cannot raise this objection
{ThompsouY. Wright (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 632).
C, Ord. 57, r. 2 (a) Best v. Heyes (1862), 3 F. & F. 113.
E. S. ;
(o) Cotter V. Bank of England (1833), 3 Moo. & S. 180 Attenborough ; v.

London and St. Katharine's Lock Co., supra, per Bramwell, L.J., at p. 454.
{p) Mitchell V. Hayne (1824), 2 Sim. & St. 63.
Iq) Ingham v. Walker (1887), 3 T. L. E. 448.
{r) Padunck v. Hurst (1854), 18 Beav. 575 ;
Harrington v. Churchiuard (1860),
29 L. J. (cH.) 521.
— — .
Part IX. Kelations between Principal and Third Persons. 201
Part IX. — Relations between Principal and

Third Persons.
Sect. l.—In General. Sect. 1.
General.
Sub-Sect. 1.—Extent of PrincipaVs Liahility.
427. Where a principal gives an agent express authority to do a ^cts within

particular act {t) or class of acts (a) on his behalf, the principal is authority
bound, as regards third persons, by every act done by the agent
which is so expressly authorised, or which is necessary for the proper
execution of the express authority (b) even though the existence of
,
such express authority is unknown to the third person (c).
428. Where a principal gives an agent general authority to General

authority,
conduct any business on his behalf, he is bound, as regards third
persons, by every act done by the agent which is incidental to the
ordinary course of such business (d), or which falls within the
apparent scope of the agent's authority (e).
429. Where a person has by words or conduct held out (/) Authority by
estoppel.
another person, or enabled another person to hold himself out [g),
as having authority to act on his behalf, he is bound, as regards
third parties, by the acts of such other person to the same extent
as he would have been bound if such other person had in fact had
the authority which he was held out as having.
430. A principal is not exempt from liability, where he would Fraudulent
°^
otherwise be bound by an act done by his agent, by reason of ^^^^1^
the fact that the agent in doing it was acting in fraud of the immaterial,
principal (//), or otherwise to his detriment (i)
Sub-Sect. 2. Limitation of FrincipaFs Liahility.
431. Where a principal, in conferring authority upon his agent to Effect of
act on his behalf, imposes conditions {k) or limitations (Z) on its exercise, a™horUy!
(t) Parhes v. Prescott (1869), L. E. 4 Exch. 169; Montague v. Perkins (1853),
22 L. J. (c. P.) 187.
(a) Hamhro y Burnand, [1904] 2 K. B. 10; Montaignac v. Bhitta (1890),
15 App. Cas. 357.
(&) Jacols V. Morris, [1902] 1 Ch. 816.
(c) Hambro v. Burnand, supra.
(d) Edmunds v. Bushell (1865), L. E. 1 Q. B. 97 ; Watteau v. Fenwick, [1893]

1 Q. B. 346 ; Haivken v. Bourne (1841), 8 M. & W. 703.
(e) Howard Y. Sheward (1866), L. E. 2 0. P. 148; Howard y. Tucker (1831),
1 B. & Ad. 712; Townsend y. Lnglis (1816), Holt (isr. P.), 278; Wi7ig v. Harvey
(1854), 5 Ue d. M. & G. 265.

(/) Llazard y. Treadwell (1722), 1 Str. 506; Summers y. Solomon (1857), 26
L. J. (q. B.) 301 Jetley y. Hill (1884), 1 Cab. & El. 239 Filmer y. L^/nn (1835),
;
;
4 Nev. & M. (k. b.) 559 Mahony y. Fast Llolyford Mining Go. (1875), L. E. 7
;
H. L. 869; Barrett y. Deere (1828), Mood. & M. 200.

[g] Fx parte Llarrison, Be Bentley & Go. (1893), 69 L. T. 204; Levita's Gase
(1870), 5 Ch. App. 489 London Freehold and Leasehold Property Go. y. Baron
;
Suffield, [1897] 2 Ch. 608.

(/i) Hamhro v. Burnand, supra; Montague v. Perkins, supra; Summers v.
Solomon, swpra*
(i) Haivken y. Bourne, supra; Hoiuard v. Sheivard, supra; Wing y. Harvey, supra,
[k) Jordan y. Norton (1838), 4 M. & W. 155.
(/) Jacobs y. Morris, supra; Balfour y.Frnest (1859), 5 C. B. (n. s.) 601.
;;
202 Agency.
Sect. 1, no done by the agent in excess of the conditional or limited

act
In General. authority is binding on the principal as regards such persons as
have (m) or ought to have («) notice of such excess of authority.
Limitation of But, in the absence of notice, the principal cannot, by any
apparent instructions to his agent, escape liability for acts done by the agent
scope of auth-
ority must be which fall within the apparent scope of his authority (o),
clear.
No liability
432. Where, however, an act done by an agent is not done in
for act the ordinary course of business (p) or falls outside the apparent
beyond scope of his authority {q), the principal is not bound by such act (7-),
apparent
scope of
even if the opportunity to do it arose out of the agency (s), and it was
authority. purported to be done on his behalf {t), unless he expressly authorised
it (a), or adopted it by taking the benefit of it (b) or otherwise (c).
Exception And in particular, where the agent obtains the money or property
where prin- of a third person by means of any such act, the principal is not
cipal accepts
benefit of responsible, unless the money {d) or property (e) or the proceeds
unauthorised thereof (/) have been received by him (g), or have been applied for
act.
(m) Evans v. Kymer (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 528; Bodenham v. Hoshyns (1852),
2 DeG. M. & G-. 903.
{n) Hatch v. Searles (1854), 24 L. J. (CH.) 22 as where a limitation is usual
;
in tlie particular business {Baines v. Ewing (1866), L. E. 1 Exch. 320 Daun v. ;
Simmvns (1879), 41 L. T. 783). For limitations on the powers of directors

imposed by articles of association, compare Balfour v. Ernest (1859), 5 C. B. (isr. s.)
601, with Royal British Banh v. Turquand (1856), 6 E. & B. 327 and see, further, ;
title Companies. Eor the effect of signatures by procuration and analogous

signatures on bills of exchange etc., see Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46
Yict. c. 61), s. 25, title Bills op Exchange etc.
(0) National Bolivian Navigation Co. v. Wilson (1880), 5 App. Cas. 176, Lord
Blackburn at p. 209 Trickett v. Tomlinson (1863), 13 C. B. (n. s.) 663 Bake of
; ;
Beaufort v. Neeld (1845), 12 CI. & F, 248 Davy v. Waller (1899), 81 L. T. 107;
;
Edmunds y.Bushell (1865), L. R. 1 Q,. B. 97; Limpus v. London General Omnibus

Co. (1862), 1 H. & C. 526. Qucere whether it falls within an agent's apparent
authority to represent the extent of his authority so as to bind his principal
see London Joint Stock Bank v. Simmons, [1892] A. C. 201, per Lord Heeschell
at p. 220 and Lord Macnaghten at p. 226.
{j)) McGowan & Co. Y.Dyer (1873), L. E. 8 Q,. B. 141 Re Cunningham & Co., ;
Simpson's Claim (1887), 36 Ch. D. 532; Watkiny. Lamh (1901), 85 L. T. 483;

Biggar v. Rock Life Assurance Co., [1902] 1 K. B. 516 Barnett v. South London ;
Tramways Co. (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 815; Qeorge Whitechurch, Ltd. v. Cavanagh,

[1902] A. C. 117.
(q) Linford v. Provincicd Horse and Cattle Lnsurance Co. (1864), 34 Beav. 291 ;
Newlands v. Nationcd Employers' Accident Association (1885), 54 L. J. (q. b.)

428 Re Southport and West Lancashire Banking Co. (1885), 1 T. L. E. 204
;
Xenos Y. Wickham (1866), L. H. 2 H. L. 296.

(r) Nor can it amount to an act of bankruptcy {Ex parte Blain, Re Saiuers
(1879), 12 Ch. D. 622, per Brett, L.J., at p. 529).

(s) Ruben v. Great Fingall Consolidated, [1906] A. C. 439.
[t) See the cases cited in notes {p>) and (s) supra.
(a) Chadburn v. Moore (1892), 61 L. J. (ch.) 674; Kilgour v. Eirdyson (1789),

1 Hy. Bl. 156.
(b) Jacobs V. Mori-is, [1902] 1 Ch. 816, ^^êr Vaughan Williams, L.J., at p. 832.
(c) See jDp. 173 et seq., ante.
{d) Bannatyne v. McLver, [1906] 1 K. B. 103; Reid v. Rigby & Co., [1894] 2
Q. B. 40.
Glyn v. Baker (1811), 13 East, 509.
(e)
(/) Marsh v. Keating (1834), 1 Bing. (n. c.) 198.

c-
{9) Glyn V. Baker, supra; Marsh v. Keating, supra. See also Kettleiuell Y,
Ltefuge Assurance Co., [1907] 2 K. B. 242; Holdsiuorth v. Lancashire and York-
shire Lnsurance Co. (1907), 23 T. L. E. 521.
— —
Part IX. —Relations between Principal and Third Persons. 203
his benefit (h), in which case he becomes hable to the extent of the ^^ct. i.
benefit received (/). In General.
433. Further, no act done by a person purporting to be an agent No liability

acting on his principal's behalf, but having in fact no authority Jjâuthorised
from the principal so to act, is binding on the principal (k), unless agent.
the latter is prechided by his conduct from denying the existence of
the authority (l).
Sect. 2. As to Goods etc. intrusted to an Agent.

Sub-Sect. 1. In Getteral.
434. Where an agent intrusted with any money, goods, or other Unauthorised
is
property belonging to his principal, no disposition of such property dispositions
made by the agent without the authority of the principal is, as a prlacipfl.
general rule (m), binding upon the principal (n) and, notwithstanding ;
any such disposition, the principal is entitled to follow the property

into the hands of third persons and recover it (o) or its value (p).
Where the agent becomes bankrupt (q), the rule applies in favour Principal's
of the principal against the agent's trustee in bankruptcy and
"ght to follow
creditors, and entitles the principal to follow and recover any goods unaêcted by
of his in the possession of the agent (r), together with any debts agent's
which may be due to him in his capacity as agent of the principal (s). ^ânkruptcy.
But this right of the principal is subject to any lien which the
agent may have in respect of the goods or debts (t), and it does not
attach at all where at the commencement of the bankruptcy the
goods or debts were in the order and disposition of the agent under
such circumstances as to make him their reputed owner (a).
{h) Bannatijne v. Maclver, [1906] 1 K

B. 103; Reid v. Righij cfc Co., [1894] 2
Q. B. 40 ; Re Japanese Curtains and Patent Fabric Co., Ex parte bhoolhred
(1880), 28 W. E. 839.
{i) Unless tke third person was indebted to the principal, and the unauthorised
act relates to the mode of enforcing payment, in which case the principal is
entitled to keep the benefit without being liable for the agent's act {Freeman v.
Rosher (1849), 13 Q. B. 780 Leiuis v. Read (1845), 13 M. & W. 834) but con-
; ;
trast HaseJer v. Lemoyne (1858), 5 0. B, (N. s.) 530, where there was in fact a
ratification (all cases of distress for rent).
(/c) Spooner v. Browning, [1898] 1 Q. B. 528, Wright y. Glyn, [1902] 1 K. B.
;
745; Toddy. Fmly (1841), 7 M. & W. 427; and see Wise v. Perpetaal Trustee
Co.,[1903] A. C. 139.
(0 See p. 201, ante.
(m) For the exceptions to the rule, see pp. 204 206, post, —
(n) Pârquharson Brothers & Co. v. King & Co., [1902] A. 0. 325 Cole v. ;
North Western Bank (1875), L. E. 10 C. P. 354, per Blackburn, J., at p. 363.

(o) Fox V. Martin (1895), 64 L. J. (CH.) 473'; Bodenham v. Hoskyns (1852),
2 De Gr. M. & Gr. 903 M'Comhie v. Davies (1805), 7 East, 5; Solomons v. Bank
;
of England (1791), 13 East, 135.

ip) Farquharson Brothers & Co. v. King & Co., supra.
iq) For the principal's rights on the bankruptcy of his agent, see, further, title
Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
(r) Ex parte Saijers (1800), 5 Ves. 169 Whitfield v. Brand (1847), 16 M. & W.
;
282; Ex parte Greemvood, Re Thickhroom (1862), 6 L. T. 558; Giles v. Perkins

(1807), 9 East, 12.
(s) 8cott V. Surman (1743), Willes, 400; Ex parte Fauli, Re Trye (1838),
3 Dea. 169; Ex parteBright, Re Smith (1879), 10 Ch. D. 566.
{t) See Giles v. Perkins, supra, per Lord Ellenborough, C.J., at p. 14.
(a) Bankruptc}^ Act, 1883 {46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 44; in such case the
principal has a right to prove in the bankruptcy for their value {Re Button, Ex
parte Haviside, [1907] 1 K. B. 397).
204 Agency.
Sect. 2.
Where the agent has mixed his principal's money or property with
Goods his own, the principal has a first charge, as against the agent's trustee
etc.
intrusted to in bankruptcy and creditors, on the mixed fund {h) or property (c), if
Agent. still in specie, or on their proceeds {cl), as the case may be, provided
Principal's that the money, property, or proceeds can be clearly identified.

property
mixed with 435. Where the agent has misappropriated
his principal's money
agent's. or property, the principal as against the agent's trustee in
is entitled,
Misappropria- bankruptcy and creditors, to follow the proceeds of such money or

tion by agent. l)roperty, and take them in their existing form, provided that it is
possible to trace them (e).

Site-Sect. 2. — Unautliorised Dis])ositions hinding on the Principal.
Dispositions 436. Where a principal by any conduct on his part allows or
by apparent enables his agent to appear as owner of any property belonging
owner.
to the principal, the principal is bound by any sale(/), pledge (^),
or other disposition of such property by the agent to the extent
of such disposition, as regards all persons dealing for valuable
consideration with the agent, provided that at the time of the dis-
position they had no notice of the principal's title and believed the
agent to be the owner {h). But it is not sufficient for the principal
merely to have been guilty of negligence, however gross (i), in the
care of his property, whereby the agent obtained the opportunity of
making the unauthorised disposition. The principal must himself
have committed some indiscretion, that is to say, he must have done
some act which was calculated to mislead, and did in fact mislead,
the person dealing with the agent, or omitted some precaution
which it was his duty towards such person to take (J).
Negotiable In the case of money {k) or negotiable instruments (/), the rule
instruments applies even though the persons dealing with the agent knew him
or money.
to be an agent, unless they knew him to be acting without
authority or in breach of faith (ii).
{h) Hancock Smith (lb89), 41 Oh. D. 456; Be Hallett <& Co., Ex parte Blane,
v.
[1894] 2 Q. B. 237 Re Halletfa Estate (1880), 18 Ch. D. 696; but see Wilsons
;
and Eimie.'^s- Leyland Line, Ltd. v. British and Continental Shipping Co., Ltd.
(1907), 23 T. L. E. 397.
(c) Llarris v. Trttman (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 264.
(d) Erith V. Cartland (1865), 34 L. J. (CH.) 301.

(e) Taylor v. Flumer (1815), 3 M. & S. 562.
(/) See Earquharson Brothers & Co. v. Iving & Co., [1902] A. 0. 325, per Lord
Halsbury, at p. 332.
(g) Marshall v. National Provincial Bank of England (1892), 61 L. J. (cH.) 465 ;
Pickerings. Busk (1812), 15 East, 38; Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Yict.
c. 71), ss. 21 (1) (estoppel), 22 (1) (sale in market overt).
(h) Calloiu V. Kelson (1862), 10 W. E. 193 McCornbie v. Davies (1805), 7 East, 5 ;
;
and see Eactors Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 45), s. 7.

{i) But see Eox v. Martin (1895), 64 L. J. (cH.) 473; Cooke v. Eshelhy (1887),
12 App. Cas. 271.
(y) Bank of Ireland v. Trustees of Evans'' Charities in Ireland (1855), 5 H. L.
Cas. 389; Scholfield v. Lord Londeslorough, [1896] A. C. 514.
{k) Marten v. Rocke, Eyton Co. (1885), 53 L. T. 946; Union Bank of Austrcdia
V. Murray- Aynsley, [1898] A. C. 693.
(l) London Joint Stock Bank v. Simmons, [1892] A. C. 201 Goodivin v. Roharts
;
(1876), 1 App. Cas. 476; Rumhall v. Metropolitan Bank (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 194;

and see. further, title Bills of Exchange etc.
(m) Earl of Sheffield v. London Joint Stock Bank (1888), 13 App. Cas. 333.
(n) Bodenham v. Hoskyns (1852), 2 De G. M. & G. 903; and compare Shields
V. Bank of Ireland, [1901] 1 Ir. E. 222 Bank of Neiu South Wales v. Goulburn
;
Valley Butter Co. Proprietary, Ltd., [1902] A. C. 543.

— —
Pakt IX. Relations between Principal and Third Persons. 205
\Yhere a principal (o) intrusts his agent with the title-deeds of any Sect. 2.
property, and gives him authority to raise a loan by means of them Goods etc. _
upon tiie security of the property, he is bound, as regards any intrusted to

Agent,
person who has dealt with the agent in good faith, by any security
given by the agent to the full amount advanced by such person Title deeds,
to the agent on the faith of the security, notwithstanding the fact
that the agent exceeded his authority in borrowing such amount (jj>).
No disposition, however, which depends for its validity upon a Forged
instrument.
forged instrument, is binding upon the principal (q),
Sub-Sect. 3. Disjwsifions under the Factors Act, 1889 (r).
437. Where a mercantile agent (s) is, with the consent of his Dispositions
Factors
principal, in the possession (t) of goods or of the documents of ^^^^^
goods belonging to the principal, the principal is bound
title (u) to
by any sale, pledge (x), or other disposition of the goods made by
the agent (a) for valuable consideration while acting in the
ordinary course of business of a. mercantile agent (h), a,s regards
any person taking under the disj)osition, provided that such person
acts in good faith, and has no notice at the time of the disposition
that the agent has no authority to make it (c). Where the agent
obtains possession without his principal's consent, no disposition
by him is binding on the principal {d). But if the agent has been
in possession with his principal's consent, the revocation of the
(0) Per the position of a mortgagee who allows the mortgagor to retain or
receive the title-deeds of the mortgaged property, see title Mortgage.
BrocldeslnjY, TemjJtrance Building Society, \_lS9o'] A. G. 173; Eohiusony.
Montgomerysltire Brewery Co., [1896] 2 Ch. 841 Gordon v. James (1885), 30
;
Ch. D. 249 Rimrner v. WeUter, [1902] 2 Ch. 163. See also Lloyd's Bank, Ltd.
;
V. Co(jl:e, [1907] 1 K. B. 794.

((/) .Mayor etc. of Mercliants of the Staple of England y. Bank of England (1887),
21 Q B. D. 160; Bank of Lr eland v. Trustees of Evans' Charities in Lr eland (1855),
5 H. L. Cas. 389 ; Fainter v. Ahil (1863), 2 H._ & 0. 113.
(r) 52 & 53 Yict. c. 45. The provision of this Act is in amplification and not
in derogation of the common law powers of an agent [ibid., s. 13).
(s) For the definition of a mercantile agent, see p. 152, ante.
(t) The agent is in possession when the goods or documents are in his actual
custody or are held by any other person subject to his control, or for him, or on
his behalf {ibid., s. 1 (2)).
{u) "Documents of title" include any bill of lading, dock warrant, ware-
house-keeper's certificate, and warrant or order for the delivery of goods, and any
other document used in the ordinary course of business as proof of the possession or
control of goods, or authorising or purporting to authorise, either by indorsement or
by delivery, the possessor of the document to transfer or receive goods thereby
represented {ibid., s. 1 (4)). If the agent obtains possession of any documents of
title by reason of being or having been, with the consent of his principal, in posses-
sion of goods or other documents of title, his possession of the first-mentioned
documents of title is deemed to be with the consent of the principal {ibid., s. 2 (3)).
{x) " Pledge " includes any contract pledging, or giving a lien or security on,
goods, whether in consideration of an original advance, or of any further or
continuing advance, or of any pecuniary liability {ibid., s. 1 (5)). A
pledge of the
documents of title to goods is deemed to be a pledge of the goods {ibid., s. 3).
See Waddington & Sons v. Neale & Sons (1907), 23 T. L. E. 464.
(tt) Or by his clerk or other person authorised in the ordinary course of business
(Factors Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 45), s. 6). But the Act does not protect dis-
positions by persons who are not mercantile agents within its meaning [Lamb v.
Attenborough (1862), 1 B. & S. 831 Wood v. Roiucliffe (1846), 6 Hare, 183 at p. 191).
;
{b) But not when the disposition is outside the ordinary course of business,
see Hastings v. Fearson, [1893] 1 Q. B. 62 Waddington & Sons v. N'eale <^ Sons,
;
supra ; and compare Oppenheimer v. Attenborough & Son, [1907] 1 K. B. 510.

(c) Factors Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 45), s. 2 (1).
{d) Vaughan v. Moffat (1868), 38 L. J. (ch.) 144. So also when possession is
— —
206 Agency.
Sect. consent is immaterial unless the third person had notice of the
2.
Goods revocation at the time of the disposition (e), and the consent of the
etc.
intrusted to principalis presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary
(/).
"^^^t- The consideration may be either a payment in cash, or the delivery
or transfer of other goods, or of a document of title to goods, or of
a negotiable security, or any other valuable consideration
Pledge. In the case of a pledge of goods, however, by a mercantile agent,
the pledgee only acquires a right to hold the goods against the
principal for the full value of the condition, if the advance has been
made in cash((/). If the goods are pledged to secure a debt due from
the agent to the pledgee before the time of the pledge, the pledgee
acquires no right to the goods beyond that which could have been
enforced by the agent at the time of the pledge (^). And where the
goods are pledged in exchange for other goods, documents of title, or
negotiable securities, the pledgee acquires no right or interest in the
goods so pledged in excess of the value of the goods, documents of
title, or negotiable securities at the time of the exchange (k) .
Sub-Sect. 4. Privilege from Distress.
No privilege 438. Where a principal intrusts goods to an agent, the goods

as a rule.
^j,^ ^^^^ general rule, privileged from distress for rent in respect
of the premises on which they are at the time of the distress (l).
Exceptions. But if the agent exercises a public trade or business {m), and the
goods are delivered to him to be dealt with by him in the ordinary
course of such trade or business (n), they are absolutely privileged
from distress (o), provided that at the time of the distress they are
upon premises occupied by him (p). The privilege, however, does
not attach to the goods upon any other premises, even though they
are there for the express purpose of being dealt with by the agent
in the ordinary course of his trade or business (q).
Sect. 3. — Contracts made hy Agent.

Principal may 439. Any Contract made by an agent with the authority of
his principal may be enforced, as a general rule (7-), by (s) or
orbe^sued^^^
obtained by larceny by a trick {Opx>enheimer v. Frazer, [1907] 2 K. B. 50,

approving the dictum of Collins, L.J., in Calm v. PocJcetfs Bristol Channel Steam
Packet Co., [1899] 1 Q. B. 643, at p. 659).
(e) Factors Act, 1 889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 45), s. 2 (2).
(/) Ihid., s. 2 (4).

((/) Ibid., s. 5.
-
(?) J bid. s. 4.
(k) Ibid. s. 5.
(/) Tapling & Co. v. ^Yeston (1883), 1 Cab. & El. 99.
(rn) 1 C. & M. 380
As that of an auctioneer (vlc/ams v. Grcxne (1833), Williams ;
V.Holmes (1853), 8 Exch. 861), or factor {Oilman v. Mton (1821), 3 Brod. &
Bing. 75), or wharfinger {Thompson v. Masliiter (1823), 1 Bing. 283).
{n) But not for some other purpose {Ex jiarte Russell (1870), 18 W. E. 753).
(0) See the cases cited in notes (m) and (n), supra. Eor the meaning of
absolute privilege, see title Distress.
{p) The premises may only be hired by him {Matthias v. Mesnard (1826),
2 C. & P. 353), but there must be a de facto occupation, though it may be tem-
porary only or even by way of trespass {Brown v. Arundell (1850), 10 C. B. 54).
{q) Lyons v. Elliott (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 210.
(r) Eor the exceptions to this rule, see pp. 208 et seq.
-
(s) And if the agent has begun an action against the other contracting party,
the principal may intervene {Sadler v. Leigh (1815), 4 Camp. 195).
—
Part IX. Kelations between Principal and Third Persons. 207
against (0 the principal whether or not his name or existence was Sect. 3.
disclosed to the other contracting -piivty at the time when such Contracts
contract was made (a). made by
Where, however, the contract is made without such authority, it Agent,
cannot be enforced by the principal, unless it is a contract made But not when
ostensibly on behalf of a principal and capable of being ratified by contract
unauthorised,
the principal in question (/)), or unless it is a contract relating to the
principal's goods (c). Nor can it be enforced against the principal,
unless he is estopped from denying the existence of the agent's
authority ((/).
440. Where the enforcement of the contract depends upon the Where signed
existence of a signed memorandum (e), a memorandum signed by
memorandum
the agent is sufficient (/), provided that the agent has authority,
express or implied, to sign it (r/).
441. Where the agent is a professional agent, and the contract Usages of pro-
fissions etc.
made by him on his principal's behalf is made in the ordinary
course of his business as such agent, all reasonable usages, rules,
and regulations in force in such business are deemed to be incor-
porated with the contract (/i), and the contract can only be enforced
by (i) or against (A:) the principal in accordance therewith. The
usages, rules, or regulations, however, must not be inconsistent
with the express terms of the contract (/).
(0 Including- the Crown [Thomas v. The Quem (1874), L. E. 10 Q. B. 31 ; and

see, further, title Constitutional Law).
(rt) IShinner v. Stocks (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 437 Hornby Lacy (1817), 6 M. ^ S.
;
166; Sadler Y. Leigh (1815), 4 Camp. 195; Luke of Norfolk y. Worthy (1808), 1
Camp. 337 Petty v. Anderson (1825), 3 Bing. 170; BatemanY. Phillips (1812), 15
;
East, 272 Biggins v. Senior (1841), 8 M. & W. 834.

;
(h) Keighley Maxsted & Co. v. Larant, [1901] A. C. 240 /feker v. Baxter
;
(1866), L. E. 2 C. P. 174; and see further pp. 173 et seq., ante.

(c) Bamazotti v. Bowring (1859), 7 C. B. (n. s.) 851 factors Act, 1889 (52 & 53
;
Vict. c. 45), s. 12 (2), (3). See further p. 210, post.

(d) See p. 201, ajde.
(e) As under the Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3) Bosenhavm v. Belson,
;
[1900] 2 Ch. 267 the Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Yict. c. 89), s.6; Be Whitley
;
Partners, Ltd. (1886), 32 Ch. D. 337 the Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Yict.
;
c. 71), s. 4 Lurrell v. Lvaiis (1862), 1 H. & C. 174. See further pp. 160 et seq.,
;
ante.
if) Except where the signature of the party himself is essential, as in repre-
sentations as to credit under Lord Tenterden's Act, 1829 (9 Geo. 4, c. 14), s. 6
(
WilUaias v. Mason (1873), 28 L. T. 232). See p. 214, post. But the signature
of the agent is sufficient to revive a statute-barred debt under Lord Tenterden's
Act, s. 1, and the Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856 (19 & 20 Yict. c. 97),
s. 13 [Palethorp v. Furnish (1783), 2 Esp. 511, n.).
{g) Sims v. Landray, [1894] 2 Ch. 318, compare Bell v. Balls, [1897] 1 Ch. 663 ;
and see further p. 157, ante. Eor brokers' bought and sold notes, see title Sale
oi' Goods.
(A) Graves v. Legg (1857), 2 H. & N. 210; Stray v. Bnssell (1859), 1 E. & E.
888; London Founders' Association y. Clarke (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 576; and see
in particular for the usages of the Stock Exchange, title Stock Exchange.
Compare also p. 182, ante.
{i) App. 3 Haiukins v. Malthy (1869), 4 Ch. App.
Coles Y. Bristoiue (1868), 4 Ch. ;
200 Beckhuson and Gihhs v. Hamblet, [1901] 2 K. B. 73.

;
{k) Bowring v. Shepherd (1871), L. E. 6 Q. B. 309.
(/) Cruse Y. Paine (1869), 4 Ch. App. 441 and contrast Grissell v. Bristoiue
:
(1868), L. E. 4 C. P. 36.
—
208 Agency.
Sect. 3.
No usage, rule, or regulation which is unreasonable is binding on
Contracts the principal, unless he gave the agent express or implied authority to
made by contract with reference to it (m). And in no case can the principal
Agent. be deprived of his right to enforce the contract in his own name,
Unreasonable or be exempted from his Uability thereunder, notwithstanding that
usages. a usage, rule, or regulation purporting to have that effect was
known to him at the time when the contract was made (n).
Sub-Sect. 2. Limitations on Principal's Rights and Liahilities.
Deed 442. A
contract under seal executed by an agent in his own
executed in name cannot be enforced by {o) or against (p) the principal,
name of
agent. even though it is expressly stated that the agent is contracting on
behalf of the principal {q).
Bills of 443. A principal is not liable upon any bill of exchange, cheque,
exchange or promissory note, unless his name appears thereon (r).
etc.
But his
signature may be written by the, hand of an agent (s), and in
determining whether any signature is that of the principal, or of
the agent in his personal capacity, the construction most favour-
able to the validity of the instrument is adopted {t).
Where the agent signs the instrument in his principal's name,
the principal is liable {a), except in the case of a bill drawn
upon the agent, in which case the principal cannot be liable as
acceptor (6), even if the agent accepts it in the principal's name
and by his authority (c).
Instrument Where the agent signs the instrument in his own name, the
signed in principal is not liable {d), unless the agent's signature purports
agent's name.
to be made on the principal's behalf (e). But in the case of a
bill drawn upon the principal, the principal is liable, though the
agent accepts in his own name (/).
Business Where the principal carries on a trade or business in the agent's
carried on in
agent's name.
(m) Sweeting v. Pearce (1859), 7 C. B. (n. s.) 449.
(n) Langton v. Waite (1868), L. E. 6 Eq. 165.
(o) Schack V. Aritliomj (1813), 1 M. & S. 573.
{p) Re International Contract Co., Pichering^s Claim (1871), 6 Cli. App. 525;
Torrington v. Lowe (1868), L. E. 4 C. P. 26.
(7) Berkeley v. Hardy (1826), 8 D. & E. (k.
b.) 102. The Conveyancing and Law
of Property Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), s. 46, provides that any instrument
executed in pursuance of a power of attorney by the donee of such power of
attorney in his own name shall be as effectual in law to all intents as if it had
been executed in the name of the donor. But this only applies where the donee
has authority to contract in his own name, and qucere whether this excludes
the operation of the general rule stated above.
(r) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 23. See, further,
title Bills of Exchange etc.
(s)Ibid. ss. 25, 26.
{t) Lhid. s. 26 (2).
(a) Ibid. ss. 25, 26.
(b) Ibid. s. 17.
(c) Compare Polhill v. Walter (1832), 3 B. &
Ad. 114; Steele v. M'Kinlay
(1880), 5 App. Cas. 754.
(d) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 61), s. 26 (1); Ducarrey
V. Gill (1830), Mood. & M. 450.
(e) Bills of Exchange A.ct, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 61), s. 26 (1) ; Alexander
v. Sizer (1869), L. E. 4 Exch. 102.

(/) Lindus v. Bradiuell (1848), 5 C. B. 583; Jenkins v. Morris (1847), 16
M. & W. 877 ; Okell v. Charles (1876), 34 T. 822.L
— ;;
Part IX. Relations between Phincipal and Third Persons. 209
name, he is liable as acceptor (g) or otherwise (/i), as the case may ^•
be, on all instruments signed by the agent in his own name in the Contracts
com*se of such trade or business. made by
Agent.
444. A contract made by an agent on
behalf of a foreign
principal cannot be enforced hj (i), or against (A;), such principal, êhaiTof^^
even though his existence was known to the other contracting party, foreign
unless it is affirmatively shown that at the time when the contract principal,
was made the agent had authority to establish privity of contract
between such principal and the other party, and that privity of
contract was in fact established between them (l).
445. The rights and liabilities of a principal under his agent's Exclusion of
contracts may
be excluded by the express terms of the contract (m), ^^^^^g^^^
but not by usage The mere fact that the agent is himself lifbmties.
liable on the contract, and that credit has been given him (o), is
not sufficient to exclude the principal's liability.
Where, however, the other contracting party, whether in ignor- Election to
ance of the principal's existence or not, obtains a judgment against treat agent as
the agent or, though he knows {q) at the time when the con-
tract is made (?•), or discovers afterwards (s), who the real principal
is, elects to look to the agent to the exclusion of the principal, the
principal is discharged from liability, and his liability cannot be

revived (i^). Such election is conclusively proved by obtaining judg-
ment against the agent (a), even for part of the claim (b). Otherwise
the question of election is one of fact (c), and depends on the
circumstances of the particular case {d).
{(j) Edmunds v. Bushell (1865), L. E. 1 Q. B. 97.

(h) Furze v. Sharioood (1841), 2 Q. B. 388.
(i) ElUnger Actien-Gesellschaft v. Claye (1873), L. E. 8 Q. B. 313.
{k) Button V. Bullock (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 572 FatersonY. Gandasequi (1812),
;
15 East, 62.
(1) Armstrong v. Stokes (1872), L. E. 7 B. 598; ElUnger Adien-Oesellschaft
Q,.
V. Claye, supra, per Blackburn, J., at p. 317 Malcolm v. Hoyle (1893), 63 L. J.
;
<Q. B.) 1.
(m) Montgomerie v. United Kingdom etc. Association, [1891] 1 Q. B. 370
United Kingdom etc. Association v. Nevill (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 110 and contrast ;
Great Britain etc. Association v. Wyllie (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 710. See also Humlle
V. Hunter (1848), 12 Q. B. 310.
{n) Langton v. Waite (1868), L. E. 6 Eq. 165 Levitt v. HamNet, [1901] 2
;
K. B. 53.
(o) Faterson v. Gandasequi, supra; Thompson v. Davenport (1829), 9 B. & C.
78.
{p ) Even though unsatisfied {Kendall v. Hamilton (1879), 4 App. Cas. 504)
but the principal's liability revives if the judgment is set aside on the merits
{Partington v. Hawthorne (1888), 52 J. P. 807; but not where it is merely with
the agent's consent {Cross v. Matthews (1904), 91 L. T. 500; Hammond v.
Schofield, [1891] 1 Q. B. 453).
{q) Actual knowledge must be proved {Dunn v. Newton (1884), 1 C. & E. 278).
(r) Faterson v. Gandasequi, supra, per Bayley, J., at p. 70; Addison v.
Gandassequi (1812), 4 Taunt. 574.
(s) Friestley v. Fernie (1865), 3 H. & 0. 977.
[t) Faterson v. Gandasequi, supra, at p. 70.
(a) Morel v. Earl of Westmoreland, [1904] A. C. 11 ; Priestley v. Fernie, supra.
(6) French v. Hoiuie, [1906] 2 K. B. 674.
(c) Calder v. Dolell (1871), L. E. 6 C. P. 486.
{d) Calder Y. Dohell, supra; Curtis v. Williamson (1874), L. E. 10 Q. B. 57;
RohinsonY.Read (1829), 9 B. & 0. 449; Stonehamy. Wyman (1901), 6 Com. Cas. 174.
—
210 Agency.
Sect. 3. Sub-Sect 3. Settlement imth Agent.

Contracts
made by 446. Where a principal is indebted to a third person on a
Agent.
contract made by his agent, he is not discharged from his liability
to pay the debt by any payment to or settlement with the agent (e),
When prin-
unless such payment or settlement takes place before the existence
cipal dis-
charged. of the principal is discovered (/), or unless the third person
by his conduct leads the principal reasonably to believe that the
debt has been paid by the agent (^) or that the third person has
elected [h) to look to the agent alone for payment (i), and the
principal in consequence alters his position as regards the agent
to his prejudice (/c). Mere delay, without something more©, on
the part of the creditor, is not sufficient to discharge the principal.
Third person 447. Nor is the third person discharged from his liability to
not dis- the principal by any payment to or settlement with the agent {m),
charged in
ordinary- unless such payment or settlement is made in the ordinary course
cases. of business, and in accordance with the agent's authority
express or implied (o) or unless the principal has allowed the
;
agent to appear as principal in the transaction in respect of which

the payment or settlement is made, in which case the third
person is discharged by any payment to or settlement with the
agent which would have discharged him if the agent had been in
fact the principal {p), and is also entitled to setoff {q) any debts due
(e) Irvine v. Watson (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 414; Davison v. Donaldson (1882), 9

Q. B. D. 623; HeaU v. Kemuorthij (1855), 10 Exch. 739; Smyth v. Anderson
(1849), 7 0. B. 21, per Matjle, J., at p. 42.
(/) Armstrong v. Stokes (1872), L. E. 7 Cl. B. 598, doubted in Irvine v.
Watson, supra.
{g) Wyatt v. Hertford {1802), 3 East, 147; MacClureY. Schemeil {1811), 20
W. E. 168.
{h) See p. 209, ante.
(i) Priestley v. Fernie (1865), 3 H. & C. 977; and compare Harvey v. Norton
(1840), 4 Jur. 42.

{k) Hopkins v. Ware (1869), L. E. 4 Exch. 268 ; Smith v. Ferrand (1827), 7
B. & C. 19.
(Z) Davison Y. Do7ialdson, supra; Irvine y. Watson, supra; and conirast HopMns
V. Ware, supra.
(m) Crossley v. Magniac, [1893] 1 Ch. 594 Linck v. Jameson (1886), 2 T. L. E.
;
206; Catterail v. Hindle (1867), L. E. 2 C. P. 368.

{n) Hogarth v. Wherley (1875), L. E. 10 C. P. 630; Catterail v. Hindle, supra;
Legge v. Bijas, Mosley & Co. (1902), 7 Com. Cas. 16.
(o) The third person is not discharged by payment, in the absence of express
authority, by a negotiable instrument {Williams v. Evans (1866), L. E. 1 Q. B.
352 Hine y. Steamship Insurance Syndicate (1895), 72 L. T. 79), unless justified
;
by usage {Bridges v. Garrett (1870), L. E. 5 C. P. 451). Such usage is a reason-

able one and binding on the principal without notice {ibid.). But a settlement
of accounts with the agent does not bind the principal {Pearson v. Scott (1878), 9
Ch. D. 198), notwithstanding any usage to that effect, unless the principal has-
notice of it {Siveeting v. Pearce (1861), 9 0. B. (n. s.) 534). See further, on the
effect of usage, p. 207, ante.
{p) Bamazotti v. Bowring (1859), 7 C. B. (n. s.) 851 Borries v. Imperial
;
Ottoman Bank (1873), L. E. 9 0. P. 38; George v. Clagett (1797), 7 Terni Eep..

359 and see p. 204, ante. Similarly, where an agent is authorised to retain part
;
of a debt paid to him for his own account, he may settle with the third person
as he pleases in respect of such part {Barker v. Greenwood (1836), 2 Y. & C.
Ex. 414).
{q) Borries v. Imperial Ottoman Bank, supra ; Montagu v. Forwood, [1893] 2.
Q. B. 350.
—— — —
Paet IX. Relations between Principal and Thjrd Persons. 211
to him from the agent personally, provided that the payment or Sect. 3.
settlement was made or the debt incurred before the third person Contracts
knew of the existence of the principal (?•). made by
Agent.
448. But where an agent sells in his own name goods belonging
to his principal over which he has a lien against the principal,
f^^^^^^^^^^^
the purchaser is discharged, to the extent of the lien, by any having^Heii.
payment to, or settlement with, or set-off against the agent (s),
even though the purchaser knew of the existence of the principal at
the time of the contract (a), or has had a demand for payment
from the principal (b).
Sub-Sect. 4. Fraud, Misrepresentation, or Concealment.

449. Where, in the negotiation of any contract (c) by an agent, Fraud etc. of
the agent does any act, whether or not the principal is privy ^^^^^^^^^^^
thereto (fZ), which by reason of the agent's knowledge amounts to
fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment (e), or where, though the
agent himself acts honestly, his act, by reason of the principal's
knowledge, would, if done by the principal himself, amount to
fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment (/), the third party may
treat such act as the fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment
of the principal, and may in consequence rescind the contract (g)
or resist any action brought upon it, whether for specific perform-
ance (li) or otherwise (i). Where, however, the third party elects
to af&rm the contract, or has lost the right to rescind it, he may
bring an action for deceit, if the circumstances of the case permit,
but otherwise he has no remedy {k) .
Sect. 4. PrincipaVs Liability for Torts committed by Agent,

450. Where a principal gives his agent express authority to do Wrongful act
a particular act which is wrongful in itself (I), or which necessarily expressly
autnonsecl.
(r) Kaltenlach v. Lewis (1885), 10 App. Gas. 617 ; Mildred v. Maspons (1883),
8 App. Cas. 874; Dresser v. Norwood (1864), 17 C. B. (n. s.) 466; Semenza v.
Brinsley (1865), 18 C. B. (n. s.) 467 ; and see Cooke v. Eshelhy (1887), 12 App. Cas.
271.
(s) Hudson V. Granger (1821), 5 B. & Aid. 27.
[a) Warner v. McKay (1836), 1 M. & W. 591.
{h) Or from his trustee in bankruptcy {Drinkwaterv. Goodiviî {17 15), Cowp. 251).
(c) But tlie fraud etc. of the agent is not imputable to the principal in
reference to the negotiation of another contract through another agent. Contrast
Blackburn v. Haslam (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 144, with BlacJchurn v. Vigors (1887),
12 App. Cas. 531.
{d) Biggs v. Lawrence (1789), 3 Term Eep. 454.
(e) Archer v. Stone (1898), 78 L. T. 34 Mullens v. Miller (1882), 22 Ch. D.
;
194; Blackburn v. Haslam, supra; Morrison y. Universal Insurance Co. (1873),

L. E. 8 Exch. 197.
(/) Ludgater v. Love (1881), 44 L. T. 694. For the position generallj^
when one of the contracting parties is guilty of fraud etc., see title Contract.
{g) Reese Pdver Mining Co. v. Smith (1869), L. E. 4 H. L. 64.
{h) Mullens v. Miller, supra,
ii) Blackburn v. Haslam, supra.
[k) Brett v. Clowser (1880), 5 C. P. D. 376 and see p. 214, post. But the
;
principal must make good any misrepresentation from which he benefits

[Kettleivell v. Befuge Assurance Co. (1907), 23 T. L. E. 506).
{I) Schuster v. McKellar
(1857), 7 E. & B. 704 Parkes v. Prescott (1869),
;
L. E. 4 Exch. 169.
P 2
212 Agency.
Sect. 4. results in a wrongful act (m), the principal is responsible to third

Principal's persons for any loss or damage occasioned thereby.
Liability Where the act complained of is not expressly authorised by the
for Agent's principal, the principal is responsible if such act is committed by
Torts.
the agent in the course of his employment and for the principal's
Wrongful benej&fc (n), but not otherwise (o).
act not Wherever a principal has authorised an agent to do a particular
authorised
expressly. class of acts on his behalf, he is responsible for any act (p)
Act within done by the agent which falls within the scope of his authority
ordinary as measured by reference to his ordinary duties (q), however
scope of improper (r) or imperfect (s) the manner in which the authority
authority,
is carried out, provided that the act is done for the principal's
though
expressly benefit (t) and not for that of the agent (a). It is immaterial
forbidden. that the act in question has been expressly prohibited by the
principal (b).
Act beyond Where, however, the act done by the agent falls entirely
scope of
outside the scope of his employment, the principal is not respon-
employment.
sible (c).
EfEect of A principal is discharged from liability for any tort committed
judgment
against agent.
(w) Glynn v. Houston (1841), 2 Man. & G. 337.
(n) Bariuick v. English Joint Stock Bank (1867), L. E. 2 Exch. 259, per
WlLLES, J., at p. 265. For examples, see Monaghan v. Taylor (1886), 2 T.L. E.
685 ; Betts v. De Vitre (1868), 3 Ch. App. 429 Ewhank v. Nutting (1849), 7 C. B.
;
797 ;Giles v. Taff Vale Rail. Co. (1853), 2 E. & B. 822 ;

Bayley v. Manchester,
Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Rail. Co. (1873), L. E. 8 C. P. 148; Page v. Defries
(1866) 7 B. & S. 137; Ashton v. Spiers (1893), 9 T. L. E. 606
, ;
Whiteley v. Pepper
(1876), 2 Q. B. D. 276. But every act done in the course of the employment is
deemed to be done for the principal's benefit until the contrary is proved;
compare Ward v. London General Omnihus Co. (1873), 42 L. J. (c. P.) 265, with
Oroft V. Alison (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 590.
(o) Bolinghroke v. Sioindon Local Board (1874), L. E. 9 C. P. 575 Stevens v.
;
Woodivard (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 318; Croft v. Alison, supra; Whitechurch v.

Oavanagh, [1902] A. C. 117.
(p) Even though felonious {Oshorn v. Gillett (1873), L. E. 8 Exch. 88).
(q) Cheshire v. Bailey, [1905]^ 1 K. B. 237, per Mathew, L.J., at p. 245.
The onus of proof is on the plaintiff {Beard Y.London General Omnihus Co., [1900]
2 a B. 530).
(r) Compare Udell v. Atherton (1861), 7 H. & N. 172, with British Mutual
BankY, Charnwood Forest Rail. Co. (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 714 (fraud); Hatch v.
Hale (1850), 15 Q. B. 10, with iîcAarcZs v. West Middlesex Waterworks Co. (1885),
15 Q. B. D. 660 (distress) Morris v. Salherg^ (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 614, with
;
Smith v. Kent (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 340 (execution); Moore v. Metropolitan Rail.

Co. (1872), L. E. 8 Q. B. 36, with Poidton v. London and South Western Rail. Co.
(1867) L. E. 2 Q. B. 534 (false imprisonment).
,
(s) Compare Whatman v. Pearson (1868), L. E. 3 C. P. 422, with Storey v.

Ashton (1869), L. E. 4 Q. B. 476; Alraham v. Bullock (1902), 86 L. T. 796,
with Cheshire v. Bailey, supra; Engelhart y. Farrant, [1897] 1 Q,. B. 240, with
Beard v. London General Omnihus Co., supra.
{t) Compare Mackay v. Commercial Bank of New Brunswick (1874), L. E. 5 P. C.
394, with British Mutual Bank v. Charnwood Forest Rail. Co., supra.
(a) Coleman v. Riches (1855), 3 C. L. E. 795.
(h) Limpus v. London General Omnihus Co. (1862), 1 H. & C. 526; Gregory v.
Piper (1829), 9 B. & C. 591.
(c) Sanderson v. Collins, [1904] 1 K. B. 628 ; Poulton v. London and South
Western Rail. Co., supra. In Storey v. Ashton, supra, and Cormack v. Dighy
(1876), 9 Ir. E. C. L. 557, the agent, though acting outside the scope of his
employment, was to some extent acting in his principal's interest, yet the
principal was not liable.
— —
Part IX. Relations between Principal and Third Persons. 213
by his agent by a judgment (d) being obtained against the agent,

although such judgment remains unsatisfied (e). Principal's
Liability
Sub-Sect. 2. Limitations on PrincipaVs Eesponsihility .
for Agent's
451. The Crown cannot in any way be made responsible for any Torts,
wrongful act committed by any public agent (/). CrownT"
Nor can a trade union, whether of workmen or masters, be in rj.^^^^ union,
any way made responsible for any tortious act alleged to have been
committed by or on behalf of such trade union (g).
452. A corporation is responsible, like any other principal, for any Corporation,
wrongful act committed by its agent whilst acting within the scope
of his employment (h), provided that the act done is not outside
the power of the corporation (i).
But where the corporation is a local authority and the agent an Local
officer appointed by it, the responsibility of the authority for his authority,
wrongful acts depends upon whether the act done purports to be

done by virtue of corporate authority or by virtue of something
imposed as a public obligation to be done, not by the local authority,
but by such officer (A;). Where the corporation delegates to such
officer duties which it has to perform, or powers which it is entitled
to exercise, it is responsible for his wrongful acts (Q, provided that
they fall within the scope of his employment (m), and provided that
proceedings are taken within the proper time (n). But if the sole
duty of the authority is merely to appoint the officer, and the duties
to be performed by him are of a public nature and have no peculiar
local characteristics, the local authority is not responsible for acts of
neghgence or misfeasance on his part (o).
(d) Or by the award of compensation in criminal proceedings [Wright v.
London General Omnibus Co, (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 271), but not by the infliction
of punishment {Byer v. Munday, [1895] 1 Q. B. 742). See, further, title Tort.
(e) Brinsmead v. Harrison (1872), L. E. 7 C. P. 547.
(/) Feather v. R. (1865), 6 B. & S. 257; Tohin v. R. (1864), 16 0. B. (n. s.)

310; Viscount Canterbury y. A.-G. (1842), 1 Ph. 306; Palmer y. Hutchinson
(1881), 6 App. Cas. 619. See, further, title Constitutional Law, and see also
note (?), p. 224. jjost.
ig) Trade Disputes Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 47), s. 4. See title Trade and
Trade Unions.
(h) Even where the wrongful act involves fraud [Barivich v. English Joint
Stock Bank (1867), L. E. 2 Bxch. 259; Houldsiuorth v. City of Glasgoiu Bank
(1880), 5 App. Cas. 317, per Lord Selborne at p. 326), or actual malice, as in
libel where privilege is proved ( 6Viize?is' Zv'/e ^ssiArance Co.y. Broivn, [1904] A. C.
423, J. C), or in malicious prosecution [Bank of Neio South Wales y. OwstonllSId),
4 App. Cas. 270 Cornford v. Carlton Bank, [1900] 1 Q. B. 22 ; Ediuards
;
Y. Midland Rail. Co. (1880), 6 Q. B. D. 287).

(i) Poulton V. London and South Western Rail. Co. (1867), L. E. 2 Q. B. 534 ;
Mill V. Haivker (1874), L. E. 9 Exch. 309.
(k) Stanbury v. Exeter Corporation, [1905] 2 K. B. 838,_per Darling, J., at p. 843.
(0 Ibid., per Lord Alverstone, C.J., at p. 841.

(m) Mersey Locks Trustees y. Gibbs{186^), L. E. 1 H. L. 93; The Rhosina (1885),
10 P. D. 131; Coe v. Wise (1866), L. E. 1 Q. B. 711 Scott y. Manchester Corporation
;
(1857), 2 H. &]Sr. 204; Garlick v. Knottingley Urban District Coimcy7 (1904), 68

J. P. 494.
(n) L.e., within six months of the act complained of (Public Authorities Pro-
tection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 61), s. 1, and see Parker v. London County
Council, [1904] 2 K. B. 501 The Ydun, [1899] P. 236). See title Public
;
Authorities and Public Officers.

(o) Stanbury v. Exeter Corporation, supra, per Wills, J., at p. 843 ;
—
214 Agency.
Sect. 4.
453. Where a ship is in charge of a duly qualified pilot, the ship-
Principal's owner's responsibility for any acts or defaults of such pilot depends
Liability upon the circumstances of his employment. If his employment is
for Agent's compulsory, and necessarily involves his taking sole charge of the
Torts.
ship, the owner is not responsible for his errors of navigation {p),
Compulsory unless the master or crew are guilty of contributory negligence (q).
pilotage. But the owner is responsible if the employment of the pilot is not
compulsory (r), or if, though compulsory, it does not necessarily (s)
involve taking the ship out of the charge of the master {t).
Sub-Sect. 3. Misrepresentations.
Where agent 454. Where an agent personally guilty of fraudulent mis-

is
knows repre- representation {a) in the course of his employment, the principal
sentation to
is responsible as for any other tort, and an action of deceit lies
be false.
against him (b).
Where agent Where the agent makes a representation which he honestly
believes re- believes to be true, but which the principal knows to be false, the
presentation
to be true.
principal is responsible if he has intentionally concealed the truth
from the agent in order that the representation in question might be
made by the agent (c). But if the concealment on the part of the
principal is not intentional, and the representation is made by the
agent without his privity or authority, the principal's responsibility
is not free from doubt {d).
Kepresenta- The principal is not responsible for any representation as to the
tions as to
character or credit {e) of another person made by his agent, unless
credit.
such representation is in writing signed by the principal himself (/).
A signature by the agent is not sufficient ((/), even though expressly
authorised or adopted by the principal Qi).
Mersey Docks Trustees Gihhs (1864) L. E,. 1 H. L. 93, ^êr Lord Wensleyd ALE,
v.
at p. 1 24, and Blackburn,
J., at p. 120 Metcalfe v. Hetherinqton (1855), 11 Exch.
;
257 Tozeland v. West Ham Union, [1907] 1 K. B. 920 McKay v. Bufalo City
; ;
(1876), 9 Hun. (N. Y.) 401, 74 N. Y. 619.

{p) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), s. 633; and see The
Halley (1868), L. E. 2 P. C. 193 see title Shipping and Navigation.
;
[q) The Velasquez (1867), L. E. 1 P. 0. 494; The Guy Mannering 7

P. D. 132, per Brett, L. J., at p. 134.
(r) The Maria (1839), 1 W. Eob. 95.
(s) The Dallington, [1903] P. 77 The Prins Hendrik, [1899] P. 177 The Guy
; ;
Mannering, supra.
{t) As in The DaUington, supra.
[a] For the effect of such misrepresentation upon contracts made by the agent,
see p. 211, ante.
(J))
Bariuick v. English Joint Stock Bank (1867), L. E. 2 Exch. 259, per
WiLLES, J., atp. 265.
(c) Ludgater v. Love (1881), 44 L. T. 694.
{d) Cornfoot v. Foiuke (1840), 6 M. & W. 358, decided against his responsibility.
This case, however, was not followed in Fuller v. Wilson (1842), 3 Q,. B. 58, reversed
on another ground Wilson v. Fuller (1843), 3 Q. B. 68, 1009, and doubted in
Ludgater v. Love, supra. See also Barwick v. English Joint Stock Bank, supra.
(e) Eor the meaning of a representation as to credit, see Bishop v. Balkis Con-
solidated Co. (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 512.
(/) Lord Tenterden's Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 14), s. 6; SwiftY. Jewslury (1874),
L. E. 9 Q. B. 301.
[cj) Even though the principal be a corporation {Hirst v. West Riding Banking
-
Co., [1901] 2 K
B. 560).
{h) Williams v. Mason (1873), 28 L. T. 232.
— ——
Sect. 5. Admissions by Agent. Sect. 5.
455. Where a principal gives his agent authority to make admis- "^lÂ^ênt^
sions on his behalf, the principal is bound, as regards third
persons, by any admission so made (i), provided that such admission When prin-
bound,
is one which the agent has authority to make {k). Where, how-
ever, the agent makes any admission without, or in excess of, his
authority, the principal is not bound by it (l) unless the agent, at ,
the time when he made it (m), was acting on his principal's

behalf («) in the transaction to which the admission referred (o),
and made it in the ordinary course of his duty as such agent (p).
In no case does any admission of the agent operate to bind his How far prin-
bound,
principal, except as regards the transaction in respect of which it was
made (q), nor can any statement made by an agent to his principal
be used as an admission against the principal by third persons (r).
Where the admission made by an agent binds the principal, it
binds him to the same extent as it would have done if he had made
it himself (s).
Sect. 6. Notice to Agent,
456. Where an agent, in the course of any transaction in which when

he is employed on his principal's behalf (0, receives notice (a) or imputed to
acquires knowledge {h) of any fact material to such transaction (c), P^^^^^P^l-
under such circumstances that it is his duty to communicate it to the
{i) Welshach etc. Co. v. New SunligJit Co., [1900] 2 Ch. 1 ; Williams v.
Innes (1808), 1 Camp. 364.
{k) Linsell v. Bonsor (1835), 2 Bing. (n. C.) 241 ; Meredith v. Footner (1843), 11
M. & W. 202.
(l) Barnett v. South London Tramiuays Co. (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 815;
Pelch V. Ltjon (1846), 9 Q. B. 147 Young v. Wright (1807), 1 Camp. 139
; ;
Blackstone v. Wilson (1857), 26 L. J. (ex.) 229.

(m) Great Western Rail. Co. v. Willis (1865), 18 0. B. (n. s.) 748.
{n) Pelch V. Lyon, supra; Young v. Wright, supra.
(o) Blackstone Y. Wilson, supra.
Ip) Kirkstall Brewery v. Furness Rail Co. (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 468; Biggs

V. Laiurence (1789), 3 Term Eep. 454 ; British Columbia etc. Co. v. Nettleship
(1868), L. E. 3 C. P. 499; Richardson v. Peto (1840), 1 Man. & a. 896.
[q) Blackstone v. Wilson, supra.
(r) Re Devala etc. Co., Ex parte Aobott (1883), 22 Ch. D. 593; Langhorn v.
Allnutt (1812), 4 Taunt. 511 ; KaU
v. Jansen (1812), 4 Taunt. 565 Reyner v. ;
Pearson (1812), 4 Taunt. 662. Otherwise if the statement is made to the principal
by the agent in the course of his duty {The Sohuay (1885), 10 P. D. 137).
(s) As, for instance, if in writing, in preventing the operation of the Statute of
Limitations (Anderson v. Sanderson (1817), 2 Stark. 204; Burt v. Palmer (1804),

5 Esp. 145 Gregory v. Parker (1808), 1 Camp. 394), and similarly in case of part
;
payment {Re Hale, [1899] 2 Ch. 107, per Lindley, M.E., at p. 119).
(^) Wilson V. Salamandra Assurance Co. (1903), 88 L. T. 96; Hiern v. HiJl
(1806), 13 Ves. 114; and contrast Bawden v. London, Edinburgh and Glasgow
Assurance Co., [1892] 2 Q. B. 534, with. Biggar v. Rock Life Assurance Co., [1902]
1 K. B. 516. The rule applies to sub-agents employed with the principal's
consent {Re Ashton, Ex parte McGowan (1891), 64 L. T. 28 Truman's Case, ;
[1894] 3 Ch. 272).

(a) Gladman v. Johnson (1867), 36 L. J. (c. P.) 153 Tanham v. Nicholson ;
(1872), L. E. 5 H. L. 561.
{b) Baldwin v. Casella (1872), L. E. 7 Exch. 325. The knowledge may have
been acquired before the transaction, if it is in fact present in the agent's mind at the
material time {Fuller v. Benett (1843), 2 Hare, 394 RollandY. Hart (1871), 6 Ch. ;
App. 678 Bradley v. Riches (1878), 9 Ch. D. 189. But see notes (i) and (A;), p. 2\Q,post).
;
(c) WylUe V. Pollen (1863), 32 L. J. (cH.) 782.

—
216 Agency.
Sect. 6. principal (c2), the principal is precluded, as regards the persons who
Notice to are parties to such transaction (e), from relying upon his own ignor-
Agent. ance of such fact (/), and is taken to have received notice of it from
the agent (g) at the time when he should have received it, if the agent
had performed his duty with due diligence (h).
When prin- But in the absence of such duty the principal is not bound by
cipal not any notice given to, or any knowledge acquired by, the agent, if at
bound by-
agent's notice. the time when the agent received such notice or acquired such
knowledge he was not acting as agent on the principal's behalf (i),
or was not so acting in respect of the transaction in which the
notice or knowledge is material (/i;).
"When agent Moreover, where the agent, though acting on his principal's
a party to behalf in some transaction in which his knowledge would otherwise
fraud.
be imputed to his principal, takes part in any fraud (Z) or mis-
feasance against the principal, the principal is not bound by
the agent's knowledge of such fraud or misfeasance (n).
Sect. 7. Corruption of Agent.

Principal's 457. Where a principal has entered into any contract either
remedies through the mediation of an agent (o), or directly by himself on the
where agent
faith of representations made by an agent (p), and it afterwards
bribed.
appears (q) that the other contracting party had made to the
agent (?•) a payment or promise of payment in the nature of a
(d) Blaclihurn v. Vigors (1887), 12 App. Cas. 531 ;

Bradley v. Biches (1878),,
9 Ch. D. 189.
(e) Unless they are aware of the agent's intention not to communicate it
{Sharpe v. Foy (1868), 17 W. E. 65).

(/) Bawden v. London, Edinhurqh and Glasgoiu Assurance Co., [1892] 2 Q. B.
534; Dresser v. Norwood (1864), 11 C. B. (n. s.) 466.
(g) Gladstone v. King (1813), 1 M. & S. 35.
(h) As by telegram instead of by letter (Pro McZ/ooi V. Montefiore (1867), L. E. 2
Q. B.511).
(?) Soa'ete Generale de Paris v. Tramivays Union Go. (1881), 14 Q. B. D. 424;
Saffron Walden Building Society v. Rayner (1880), 14 Ch. D. 406; unless it was
part of his duty to communicate such knowledge, however acquired [Re Payne &
Co., Young v. Paijne & Co., [1904] 2 Ch. 608, and see note [h), p. 215, ante). The
same rule applies when the same person is agent for the two contracting parties,
and acquires knowledge in his capacity as agent for the one party which he
does not communicate to the other {Re Hampshire Land Co., [1896] 2 Ch. 743 ;
Re Feniaick, Deep Sea Fishery Co.'s Claim, [1902] 1 Ch. 507).
(k) Wyllie v. Pollen, (1863) 32 L. J. (CH.) 782
; TateY. Hyslop (1885), 15 Q. B. D.
368 Ex parte Warren (1885), 1 T. L. E. 430. See also Conveyancing Act, 1882
;
(45 & 46 Vict. c. 39) s. 3 (1), and Molyneux v. Haiutrey, [19031 2 K B. 487.
(/) Cave V. Cave (1880), 15 Ch. D. 639; WilliamsY. Preston (1882), 20 Ch. D.
672. Otherwise if the fraud is not against the principal {Dixon v. Winchy
[1900] 1 Ch. 736; Boursot v. Savage (1866), L. E. 2 Eq. 134).
(m) Re Fitzroy Bessemer Steel Co. (1884), 50 L. T. 144.
(n) But it is not sufficient to show merely that it was to the agent's interest to
withhold from his principal the knowledge which he should have communicated
{Bradley v. Riches, supra).
(o) Panama Telegraph Co. v. Lndia Liuhher Teleqrapjh Works Co. (1875),
10 Ch. App. 515 Hough v. Bolton (1886), 2 T. L. E. 788 Salford Corporation \.
; ;
Lever, [1891] 1 Q. B. 168.

( p) Shipiuay v. Broadivood, [1899] 1 Q. B. 369.
{q) Even during the trial of an action on the contract {Shipway v. Broadivood,
supra; Hough y. Bolton {1885), 1 T. L. E. 606).
(r) If the other contracting party discovers after his promise, but before pay-
ment, that the agent is in fact acting as agent for the principal, the payment
——
bribe (s), the principal has two courses open to him (t). He may ^'^ct. 7.
repudiate the contract and get it set aside {a), or he may affirm it Corruption
and obtain such reHef as the Court may think right to give him {h). of Agent.
It is immaterial to inquire whether or not the agent was in fact
influenced by such payment or promise of payment to disregard his
duty towards his principal (c).
The rule extends to cases where the payment or promise was not
made directly with reference to the particular contract, but generally
with a view of influencing the agent in his dealings with the other
contracting party (d).
458. Where the principal elects to affirm the contract, or does not Where prin-
discover the corruption of his agent until it is too late to rescind cipai does not
it (e), he may recover from the person who has paid or promised contract,
the bribe, jointly or severally with the agent (/), damages for any
loss which he has sustained by reason of entering into the
contract {g). The measure of damages is prima facie the amount
of the bribe, without any deduction in respect of such portion of the
bribe as may have already been recovered from the agent (h).
The person giving or promising any bribe to an agent is also
liable to criminal proceedings (i).
Sect. 8. Criminal Liability of Principal for Acts or Defaults of

Agent.
459. No act or default on the part of an agent im^DOses, as a General rule,
general rule, any criminal liability on the principal in respect
will apparently be a bribe {Grant v. Gold Exploration Syndicate, [1900] 1 Q. B.

233, per Yaughan Williams, L.J., at p. 254), but not if be does not dis-
cover it till after payment {ihid., per Collins, L.J., at p. 247).
(s) See p. 189, ante.
{t) Panar)ia Telegraph Oo. v. India Rubber Telegraph Works Go. (1875), 10 Oh.
App. 515, per James, L.J., at p. 526.

(a) As in ShipwayY. Broadwood, [1899] 1 Q. B. 869; Panama Telegraph Go.y.
India Rubber Telegraph Works Go., supra ; Smith y. Sorby (1875), 3 Q. B. D. 552 ;
Bartram v. Lloyd (1904), 90 L. T. 357.

(b) As in Sal/ord Gorporation v. Lever, [1891] 1 Q,. B. 168 Grant v. Gold
;
Exploration Syndicate, supra.

(c) Shipway v. Broadivood, supra; Hovenden v. Millhqf (1900), 83 L. T. 41;
and see Harrington v. Victoria Graving Bock Go. (1878], 3 Q. B. D, 549, per
Field, J., at p. 552. But see Rowland v. Ghapman (1901), 17 T. L. E. 669,
where the agent's duty and interest were not in conflict.
{d) Smith Y. Sorby, supra.
(e) He may lose the right to rescind by acquiescing in the receipt of the bribe
_
by his agent, provided that there is full disclosure [Bartram v. Lloyd, supra).
(f) As to the position of the aênt, see p. 191, ante.
(g) The action may be framed either for money had and received {Hovenden v.
Millhoff, supra), where the amount of damages is a liquidated sum, or for damages
for deceit {Grant v. Gold Exploration Syndicate, supra, per A. L. Smith, L.J.,
at p. 245; see also Salford Gorporation v. Lever, supra). The giver of the
bribe cannot escape liability on the ground that he thought the agent would
disclose its receipt to his principal {Panama Telegraph Go. v. India Rubber
Telegraph Works Co., supra; Grant y. Gold Exploration Syndicate, supra).
{h) Salford Gorporation v. Lever, supra. But an unconditional release of the
agent operates as a release to the third person {ibid., at p. 178).
(?) He may be indicted for conspiracy {R. v. Be Kromme (1892), 66 L. T. 301),
or may be proceeded against under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906
(6
Edw. 7, c. 34). See, further, title Criminal Law and Peocedure.
.
218 Agency.
Sect. 8. thereof (A;), unless the principal himself takes part in, authorises,
Criminal or connives at, the commission of such act or default (Z).
Liability of
Principal.
460. This rule is, however, subject to two exceptions. In the first
place, on an indictment for a public nuisance (m), committed by the
Nuisance. principal through the instrumentality of his agent, the principal is
liable to be convicted, although the nuisance was committed without
his knowledge and against his express instructions {n).
Under special 461. Secondly, a particular statute may impose a criminal liability
Acts'. upon the principal in respect of the acts or defaults of his agent by
itsexpress terms or by implication (o). Where the statute prohibits
the doing of something without reference to the state of mind of the
party doing it, the principal may be responsible, having regard to
the object of the statute, if the agent disobeys the prohibition, the
principal's knowledge being immaterial (^j). When the statute
makes knowledge an essential ingredient of the offence, the prin-
cipal, in spite of his absence of knowledge, and notwithstanding any
prohibition given by him to the agent ((/), is responsible for the
agent's act (?•), if he has delegated to such agent his authority in
respect of the matter in connection with which the act is done, so
as to make the act of the agent from its very nature obviously the
act of the principal (s)
Where, however, there has been no delegation of authority, so
that the act done by the agent is outside the scope of the agent's
employment, the principal is not responsible without proof of
knowledge or connivance (t).
{k) TVoodf/ate v. KnatcJihuU {1181), 2 Term Eep. 148; B. v. Stephens (1866),
L. E. 1 Q. JB. 702, j9er Blackburn, J., at p. 710; Hardcastle v. Bielhy, [1892]
1 Q. B. 709, per Collins, J., at p. 712.
(/) Chisholmy. DouUon (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 736 Roberts v. Woodward (1890), 25

;
Q. B. D. 412 Masseij v. Morriss, [1894] 2 Q. B. 412 Emarij v. Nollotlu [1903]

; ;
2 K. B. 264.
[m) Such proceedings, though criminal in form, being civil in substance [R.
V. Stephens, supra, per Melloe,, J., at p. 708).
{n) R. V. Stephens, supra ; but see on this case Chisholm v. Boulton, supra, per
Field, J., at p. 740. Compare Barnes v. Akroyd (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B. 474.
(o) Hardcastle v. Bielhy, supra, per Collins, J., at p. 712. But this rule does
not apply to crimes, only to acts prohibited by a penalty enforceable by imprison-
ment in default of distress {Newman v. Jones (1886), 17 Q,. B. D. 132, per A. L.
Smith, J., at p. 136).
( p) Chisholm v. Boulton, supra, per Cave, J., at p. 742; Emary v. Nolloth, supra,
per Lord Alverstone, C.J., at p. 269. Por examples see CoppenY. Moore, [1898]
2 Q. B. 306, decided on the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 28),
s. 2 (!) ;Broiun v. Foot (1892), 66 L. T. 649, decided on Sale of Food and Drugs
Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Yict. c. 63), s. 6 CollmanY. Mills, [1897] 1 Q. B. 396, where
;
the act was in contravention of a bye-law Dunning v. Owen, [1907] 2 K. B.

;-
237 (sale of intoxicating liquor by licensed agent for unlicensed principal).

{q) Commissioners of Police v. Cartman, [1896] 1 Q. B. 655.
(r) Emary v. Nolloth, supra, per Lord Alverstone, C.J., at p. 269. For
examples see Bond v. Evans (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 249; Redgate v. Haynes (1876),
1 Q. B. D. 89; Bosley v. Davies (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 84 Mullins v. Co^Zms (1874),
;
L. E. 9 Q. B. 292 (all cases on the Licensing Acts) A.-G. v. Siddons (1830), 1

;
C. & J. 220 (on the Smuggling Act, 1817 (57 Geo. 3, c. 87), s. 13). See contra,
Newman v. Jones, supra (which, however, stands on its own circumstances, see
Bond V. Evans, supra, per Stephen, J., at p. 257).
(s) Roberts v. Woodward (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 412, per Pollock, B., at p. 415.
{t) Somerset v. Hart (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 360; Boyle v. Smith, [1906] 1 B. K
432; Emary Y. Nolloth, supra ; Roberts \. Woodward, supra.
— — —
These exceptions apply only to the case of knowledge. Where Sect. 8.
negligence is an essential ingredient in the offence, the principal Criminal

Liability of
is not responsible for the negligence of his agent
o (a).
V
^ ^ /
Pnncipal.
Part X. — Relations between Agent and

Third Persons.
Sect. 1. Liabilities of Agent.
Sub-Sect. 1. On Contracts.
462. Where a person makes a contract in his own name Fact of

without disclosing either the name or the existence of a principal, agency not
disclosed.
he is personally liable on the contract to the other contracting
party, though he may be in fact acting on a principal's behalf (b).
Nor does he cease to be liable on the discovery of the principal by the
other party, unless and until there has been an unequivocal election
by the other contracting party to look to the principal alone (c).
463. Every person who, in making a contract, discloses the exist- Identity of
ence, but not the name, of the principal on whose behalf he is acting, principal not
disclosed.
is personally liable on the contract to the other contracting party (d),
unless a contrary intention appears (e). In the case of a verbal
contract this isa question of fact (/). But if the contract is in
writing, the question depends upon the construction placed by the
Court upon the terms of such contract {g).
Prima facie a party is personally liable on a contract if he put Agent liable
unless con-
his unqualified signature to it (h). In order, therefore, to exonerate tract shows
the agent from liability, the contract must show, when construed as contrary
a whole, that he contracted as agent only, and did not undertake intention.
any personal liability (i). It is not sufficient that he should have
described himself in the contract as an agent, whether as part of
his signature (j) or otherwise (k). But if he states in the contract (l),
{a)yhisholm v. Doulton (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 736, per Cave, J., at p. 742; but

see JSlixenY. Oeaves (1890), 54 J. P. 548.
{I) Saxon V. Blake (1861), 29 Beav^. 438; Ex parte Bird (1864), 4 De G. J. & S.
200; Sealer v. Hawkes (1831), 5 M. & P. 549.
(c) Dramhurg v. PolUtzer (1873), 28 L. T. 470.
{d) Hohhouse v. Hamilton (1826), 1 Hog. 401 Franlhjn v. Lamond (1847), 4
;
C. B. 637.
(e) Southiuell V. Bowditch (1876), 1 0. P. D. 374.
(/) Williamson v. Barton (1862), 7 H. & N. 899; Long y. Millar (1879), 4

C. P.D. 450.
{g) Southwell v. Bowditch, supra; Jones v. Littledale (1837), 6 L. J. (k. B.) 169.
(A) See title Contract.
(?) Thompson v. Davenport (1829), 9B. & C. 78; Hidcheson v. Eaton (1884), 13
Q. B. D. 861. Or that he stipulated that his personal liability should cease in
the events that have happened {Ogleshy v. Yglesias (1858), E. B. & E. 930).
(./) Hutcheson v. Eaton, supra, per Brett, M.E., at p. 865.
{k) Magee v. Atkinson (1837), 2 M. & W. 440.
[1] Southivell v. Bowditch, supra, and see Oadd v. Houghton (1876), 1 Ex. D.
357 ; Ogden v. Hall (1879), 40 L. T. 751.
;
220 Agency.
Sect. 1. or indicates by an addition to his signature (m), that he is contracting

Liabilities as agent only on behalf of a principal, he is not liable, unless the-
of Agent. rest of the contract clearly involves his personal liability (n), or
unless he is shown
to be the real principal (o).
Usage. When, on the construction of a written contract, the agent is
held not to have contracted personally, evidence of usage is
admissible to make him liable (p), unless the usage is inconsistent
Parol with the express contract (q). But no parol evidence of intention
evidence.
is admissible to exonerate him from liability contrary to the term&
of the contract (?•), except that by way of equitable defence he may
set up an express agreement between himself and the other con-
tracting party to that effect (s).
Where 464. Where a person in making a contract discloses both the exist-
identity of
principal
ence and the name of a principal on whose behalf he purports to
disclosed. make it, he is not, as a general rule, liable on the contract to the
other contracting party {t), whether he had in fact authority to make
it or not (a) but a personal liability may be imposed upon him by
;
the express terms of the contract (h), by the ordinary course of

business (c), or by usage (d). In particular an agent who makes a.
contract on behalf of a foreign principal is personally liable on the
contract, although he discloses the name of the principal (e), unless
the terms of the contract are inconsistent with his liability (/).
(m) Hntcheson v. Eato7i (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 861, per Brett, M.R., at p. 865 ;

Fleet V. Murton (1871), L. R. 7 Q. B. 126, per Blackburn, J., at p. 131.
Weidner v. Hogyett (1876), I'C. P. D. 533 and see Lennard v. Rohinson
;
(1855), 5 E. & B. 125.

(o) Carr v. Jackson (1852), 7 Exch. 382.
(p) Hiitcliinson v. Tatham (1873), L. E. 8 C. P. 482 ; Fleet v. Murton, supra;

Pike V. Ongley (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 708 Hamfrey v. Bale (1857), 7 E. & B. 266;
;
Imperial Bank v. London and St. Katharine Docks Co, (1877), 5 Ch. D. 195 ;,
Bacmeister v. Fenton (1883), 1 Cab. & El. 121.

{q) Barrow v. Dyster (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 635.
(r) Hiqgins v. Senior (1841), 8 M. & W. 834 ; Jones v. Littledale (1837), 6 L. J.
(k. b.) 169.
(s) WaUV. Harrop (1862), 1 H. & C. 202.
{t) Jenkins v. Hutchinson (1849), 13 Q. B. 744 Paquin v. Beauclerk, [1906]
;
A. C. 148. The same rule applies to public agents contracting on behalf of the-
Crown {Macheath v. Haldimand (1786), 1 Term Eep. 172 0' Grady v. Cardwell
;
(1873), 21 W. E. 340, Ir.).

(a) Leiuis v. Nicholson (1852), 18 Q. B. 503.
(6) Jlall V. Ashurst (1833), 1 C. & M. 714; McCollin v. Oilpin (1881), 6
Q. B. D. 516; Woolfe v. Home (1877), 2 Q, B. D. 355; Burrell v. Jones
(1819), 3 B. &
Aid. 47; Parker v. Winhnu (1857), 7 E. &
B. 942 ; and contrast
Eedpath v. Wigy (1866), L. E. 1 Exch. 335. A
public agent may bind
himself personally ( Clutterhuck v. Coffin (1842), 3 Man. & G. 842 Graham v. PuUic ;
Works Commissioners, [1901] 2 K. B. 781). -This is a question of fact {Auty v.

Hutchinson (1848), 6 0. B. 266).
(c) Warlow v. Plarrison (1859), 1 E. & E. 309; Newton v. Chambers (1844),
1 D. & L. 869.
(d) Bayliffe y. Butter worth {1841), 1 Exch. 425 Hodgkinson v. Kelly (1868),
;
L. E. 6 Eq. 496 and see, further, title Stock Exchange.

;
(e) Hutton v. Bulloch (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 572, approving Armstrong v. Stokes
(1872), L. E. 7 Q. B. 598, _per Blackburn J., at p. 605 Wilson v. Zulueta {1849),

;
14 Q. B. 405.
(/) Deslandes v. Gregory (1860), 30 L. J. (q. b.) 36 Elhinger Actien-Gesellschaft
;
V. Claye (1873),L. E. 8 Q. B. 313, per Blackburn, J., at p. 317; GaddY. Houghton

(1876), 1 Ex. D. 357, disapproving Paice v. Walker (1870), L. E. 5 Exch. 173
Ogden v. Hall (1879), 40 L. T. 751 Mahony v. Kekide (1854), 14 0. B. 390.
;
— —
Part X. Relations between Agent and Third Persons. 221
Further, the agent is personally liable on the contract if it is Sect. i.
shown that he is the real principal (g), or that the'principal named Liabilities
by him is non-existent (li) or incapable of making the contract in of Agent,
question (i).
465. Moreover, an agent who executes a deed in his (^n name Deeds
is personally liable upon it, whether he discloses the name and executed by
agent.
existence of his principal or not (k).
In respect of bills of exchange, cheques, and promissory notes Bills of
signed by an agent on his principal's behalf, the agent is not liable exchange etc.
unless he signs his own name {I), in which case he is personally
liable even though he adds to his signature words describing him
as an agent (m), unless he makes it perfectly clear that he is signing
only on his principal's behalf (n). He is not liable upon any accept-
ance in his own name, unless the bill was in fact drawn upon
him (o), in which case he is liable though he purports to accept
merely as agent (p).
In the case of any other written contract signed by the agent in Signed con-
his own name, but purporting to be made on behalf of a named gg^^gpaiiy
principal, the agent is not personally liable, unless from -the terms
of the contract it appears that such was the intention of the
parties ((^). But where the principal is a limited company, any Agent for
agent signing a contract on its behalf is personally liable, if he ^^^^^^^^ ô^-
omits the name of the company or the word " limited " from the
contract (r).
Stjb-Sect, 2. On Warranty of Authority.
466. Where any person purports to do any act or make any con- Warranty
tract as agent on behalf of a principal, he is deemed to warrant (s) ^^P^^^^-
Jenkins v. Hutchinson (1849), 13 Q. B. 744, per Lord Denman, C. J., at p. 752.

{g)
Kelner v. Baxter (1866), L. E. 2 C. P. 174; Scott v. Lord Ehury (1867),
(A)
L. E. 2 C. P. 255; Wilson y. Baler (1901), 17 T. L. E. 473, unless the other
contracting party did not intend to accept the agent's liability {Jones v. Hope
(1880) 3 T. L. E. 247; Steele v. Oourley (1887), 3 T. L. E. 772; and see
,
Bailey v. Macaulay (1849), 13 Q. B. 815). Compare also cases cited in note {i),
p. 219, ante,
(i) Queensland Investment Co. 12 T. L. E. 502.
v. 0' Gonnell (1896),
East, 148
[h] Ap-pleton v. BinJcs (1804), 5 Hancoclc v. Hodgson (1827), 4 Bing.
;
269; Cass v. Rudele (1692), 2 Yern. 280; Chapman y. Smith, [1907] 2 Ch. 97.
But a public agent is not liable on a contract under seal made on behalf of the
Crown {Unwin v. Wolseley (1787), 1 Term Eep. 674; see, however, contra,
Cunningham v. Collier (1785), 4 Doug. 233).
BiUs of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 &46yict. c. 61), s. 23. See, further, title
(1)
(m) Ihid., s. 26 (1) The Elmville, [1904] P. 319.
;
{n) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 26 (1); Aggs v.
Nicholson (1856), 1 H. & N. 165; Alexander v. Sizer (1869), L. E. 4 Exch.
102.
(o) Okell V. Charles (1876), 34 L. T. 822; Dermatine Co. v. Ashiuorth (1905),
21 T. L. E. 510.
(p) Jones Y. Jackson (1870), 22 L. T. 828; Mare v. Charles (1856), 25 L. J.
(Q. B.) 119.
{q) Norton v. Herron (1825), 1 C. & P. 648; and compare McCollin v. Gilpin,
(1881) 6 Q. B. D. 516, with Doionman v. Williams (1845), 7 Q. B. 103, Ex. Ch.
(r) Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Yict. c. 89), s. 42.
(s) Unless he is a public agent contracting on behalf of the Crown (Dunn v.
Macdonald, [1897] 1 Q. B. 555).

222 Agency.
Sect. 1. that he has in fact authority from such principal to do the act (t)
Liabilities or make the contract (a) in question. If, therefore, he has no such
of Agent. authority (Z>), he is liable to be sued for breach of warranty of
authority by any third person who was induced by his conduct in
purporting to act as agent to believe that he had authority to do
the act or make the contract, and who, by acting upon such belief,
has suffered loss in consequence of the absence of authority (c).
Where no The agent's belief in the existence of his authority is immaterial (d).
on
liability
But he is not liable if at the time of doing the act or making the con-
warranty.
tract he expressly disclaims any present authority (e), or if the other
part}^ knows that he has no authority (/), or is fully acquainted
with the facts from which the inference of authority is drawn (g).
Measure of 467. The measure of damages for a breach of warranty of
damages for
authority is the loss actually sustained by the third person as the
breach of
warranty. natural and probable consequence of the non-existence of the
authority (h). In the case of a contract made without authority and
repudiated by the principal, the loss will be the amount that could
have been recovered from the principal in an action for breach of
the contract if it had in fact been made with his authority (i), together
(t) StarJa'e v. Bank of gland, [1903] A. C. 114; Cherry y. Colonial Bank
of Australasia (1869), 38 L. j. (p. c.) 49; Richardson v. Williamson (1871), L. E.
6 Q. B. 276 Weeks v. Propert (1873), L. E. 8 C. P. 427.
;
(a) CollenY. Wright {1851) 8 E. & B. 647

, Simons v. Patchett {1851) 7 E. & B.
; ,
568; Pe National Coffee Palace Co., Ex parte Panmure (1883), 24 Ch. D. 367;
Anderson v. Croall (1904), 6 F. (Ct. of Sess.) 153 Hughes v. Graeme (1864), 33
;
L. J. (q. b.) 335.

{h) But he is not liable for exceeding his real authority, if his apparent
authority would be sufficient to bind his principal {Painhow v. Hoiokins, [1904] 2
K. B. 322). If the principal disputes the authority in an action brought by the
third person, the agent may be joined as defendant, and relief claimed against
him in the alternative {Honduras Rail. Co. v. Lefevre (1877), 2 Ex. D. 301 and;
see Masseij v. He2jnes (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 330 Bennetts v. Mcllwraith, [1896] 2

;
Q. B.464).
(c) See cases cited in th.e notes to this sub-section passim and the proposition
stated by Lord Haxsbuky, L.C., in Salvesen v. Rederi Aktieholaget Nordstjernan^
[1905] A. C. 302, at p. 309.
{d) Starh'e v. Bank of England, supra ; Firhank v. Humphreys (1886), 18>
Q. B. D. 54; Chapleo v. Brunswick Building Society (1881), 6 Q. B. D.
696. If the agent is aware of the absence of authority, he may be suedi
either for breach of warranty of authority or for deceit {Polhill v. Walter
(1832), 3 B. & Ad. 114).
(e) Hallot V. Lens, [1901] 1 Oh. 344.
(/) n^d.
(g) Smout V. Ilhery (1842), 10 M. & W. 1 Salton v. New Beeston Cycle Co.,
;
[1900] 1 Ch. 43; McManus v. Fortescue (1907), 23 T. L. E. 292; and contrast

Lilly V. Smales, [1892] 1 Q. B. 456, with Suart v. Haigh (1893), 9 T. L. E.
488; and compare West London Bank v. Kitson (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 360. When
the evidence of the agency is an inference of law, the agent is not liable, provided
that the facts are equally within the knowledge of both {Eaglesfield v. Londonderry
(1878), 38 L. T. 303 Jones v. Hope (1880), 3 T. L. E. 247; Rashdall v. Ford
;
(1866), L. E. 2 Eq. 750).

(A) Starkie v. Bank of England, supra ; Firhank v. Humphreys, siqjra ; Richard-
son y. Williamson, supra; Meek v. Wendt {1888), 21 Q. B. D. 126; Huhhart y..
Phillips (1845), 2 D. & L. 707 ; Salvesen v. Rederi Aktieholaget Nordstjernan,
supra; and see Salton v. New Beeston Cycle Co., supra.
{i) Simons v. Patchett, supra ; Suart v. Haigh, supra. But the contract must
not have been one which would have been unenforceable against the principal
owing to the absence of some formality {Warr v. Jones (1876), 24 W. E. 695 ;,
and see Painhow v. Howkins, supra).

— —
Paet X. Relations between Agent and Third Persons. 22S
with the costs of any action upon the contract reasonably brought Sect. l.
by the third person against him {k). Liabilities

of Agent.
Sub-Sect. 3. For Moneys received hy Agent.
468. The receipt of money from a third person by an agent on his Liability of
principal's behalf, does not in itself render the agent personally ^^^^'^
liable to repay it when the third person becomes entitled as against person.
the principal to repayment, whether the money remains in the
agent's hands or not (Z). But if a third person pays money to an
agent under a mistake of fact (771), or in consequence of some
wrongful act (n), the agent is personally liable to repay it, unless,
before the claim for repayment was made upon him, he has paid it
to the principal or done something equivalent to payment to his
principal (0). Where, however, the agent has been a party to the
wrongful act (p), or has acted as a principal in the transaction (q),
in consequence of which the money has been paid to him, he is not
discharged from his liability to make repayment by any payment
over to his principal (r).
469. Where an agent is directed by his principal to pay to a third Direction
person any money which he has received or is about to receive on ^^^^ PJ^^-
his principal's behalf, he is not in general responsible to the third overto^tMrd
person if he fails to do so (r), notwithstanding the fact that the person,
money is received by him from the principal for the express
purpose of paying it over to the third person (s), or that his failure
to comply with the direction is a breach of duty towards his
principal {t). But he renders himself personally liable if he assents
(/c) Hughes v. Graeme (1864:), 33 L. J. (q. b.) 335; Spedding y. Nevell (1869),
L. R. 4 C. P. 212 Godivhi v. Francis (1870), L. E. 5 C. P. 295 and contrast

; ;
Foru V. Davis (1861), 1 B. & S. 220.

{I) EUis V. Goidton, [1893] 1 Q. B. 350, per Bowen, L.J., at p. 353;
Bamford v. Shuttleworth (1810), 11 A. & E. 926, per Coleridge, J., at p. 933.
{m) Coxy. Prentice {l%lb), '6 M.. & S. 344; Taylor y. Metropolitan Fail. Co.,
[1906] 2 K. B. 55.
(«) Holland v. Fussell (1863), 4 B. & S. 14 Galland v. Hall (1888), 4 T. L. E.
;
761 ; East India Co. v. Tritton (1824), 5 D. & E. 214 ; Fx parte Bird, Fe Bourne
(1851), 4 De G-. &S. 273.
(0) Bollard y. Bank of England (1871), L. E. 6 Q. B. 623, per Blackburn-, J.,
at p. 630 ; Cox v. Freniice, supra, per Lord Ellenborotjgh, C.J., at p. 348. A
mere crediting the principal with the amount, without there being any change of
circumstances affecting the agent is not sufficient [Bullery. Harrison (mi),
Cowp. 565 Coxy. Frentice, supra; Continental Caoutchouc Co. v. Kleinwort, [1904]
;
90 L. T. 474).
{jp) Close Y. Fhipps (1844), 7 Man. & G. 586; Snoiudon v. Davis, (1808) 1 Taunt.
359 ; Ex parte Ediuards, Fe Chapman (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 747 Wakefield v. ;
Neivhon (1844), 6 Q. B. 276, unless both parties are in pari delicto (Goodall y.
Loiundes (1844), 6 Q. B. 464).
{q) Neivall v. Tomlinson (1871), L. E. 6 C. P. 405.
(r) Citizens' Bank of Louisiana and the Neiu Orleans Canal and Banking Co. v.
First^ National Bank of New Orleans (1873), L. E. 6 H. L. 352; Steiuart v. Fry
(1817), 7 Taunt. 339. The same rule applies to public agents, whether of the
British Crown {Gidley y. Falmerston (1822), 3 B. & B. 275 R. v. Secretary of
;
State for War, [1891] 2 Q. B. 326 Kinloch v. Secretary of State for India
;
(1882), 7 App. Cas. 619 Salaman v. Secretary of State for India, [190(3] 1
; B. K
613),- or of foreign Governments {Henderson v. Rothschild (1887), 56 L. J. (CH.)
471; Tiuycross y. Dreyfus (1877), 5 Ch. D. 605).
(s) Moore y. Bushell (1857), 27 L. J. (ex.) 3.
(t) Schroeder y. Central Bank (1876), 34 L. T. 735.
224 Agency.
Sect. 1. to the direction, and the assent is communicated to the third person (a) ,
Liabilities or if he enters into an unconditional undertaking (b) to pay the money

of Agent. to the third person or to hold it on his behalf (c). In this case he
is not discharged from liability by the subsequent bankruptcy of the
principal {d), or the purported revocation of his authority to pay (e).
Direction It, however, the direction is not a mere authority to make the
amounting to payment (/), but amounts to an assignment of a specific fund,
assignment or
charge.
or a charge upon it {g), the agent, upon receiving notice of the
assignment or charge, becomes liable to the third person for the
amount due to him thereunder. But the agent is not deprived
thereby of any right of lien or set-off which accrued before he
received such notice (/i).
Sub-Sect. 4:.—For Torts.

Liability 470. Any agent, including a public agent (i), who commits a
.generally.
wrongful act (/c) in the course of his employment, is personally
liable (l) to any third person who suffers loss or damage thereby (m),
(a) Walker v. Bostron (1842), 9 M. & W. 411 ; NoUe v. National Discount Co.
(1860), 5 H. & N. 225;
Lilly v. Haijs (1836), 5 A. & E. 548; Griffin v.
Weatherhj (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 753.
(b) BrindY. Hampshire (1836), 1 M. & W. 365, per Parke, B., at p. 372;
Malcolm v. Scott (1850), 5 Exch. 601.
(c) Crowfoot V. Ourney (1832), 9 Bing. 372 Williams v. Everett (1811), 14
;
East, 582 Scott v. Porcher (1817), 3 Mer. 652.

; But if the undertaking to pay
was subject to a condition, the condition must have been accepted by the third
person (Baron v. Husband (1838), 4 B. & Ad. 611), and must have been fulfilled
(Stevens v. Hill (1805), 5 Esp. 247). If the condition is to pay when the money
is received from the principal, the agent is only liable for the amount which he
actually receives (Langston v. Corney (1815), 4 Camp. 176).
(d) Crowfoot N. Ourney, supra; WcdherY, Bostron, supra.
(e) Bobertson v, Faurdleroy (1823), 8 Moo. C. P. 10.
(/) Ex parte Hall, Be Whitting (1878), 10 Ch. D. 615.

(g) Brandt v. Dunlop Bubber Co., [1905] A. C. 454 BodicJc v. Oandell (1851), 1
;
De G. M. & G. 763.
(h) Webb V. Smith (1885), 30 Ch. D. 192 Boxburghe v. Cox (1881), 17 Ch. D.
;
520. See, further, title Choses in Action.

(i) Entich v. Carrington (1765), 19 State Trials, 1030; Siiiclair y Broughton .
(1882), 47 L. T. 170, and see Dixon v. London Small Arms Co. (1876), 1 App.
Cas. 632. But he must not be sued in his official capacity (Bainbridge v. Post-
master-General, [1906] 1 K. B. 178 Baleigh v. Goschen, [1898] 1 Ch. 73). No
;
action can be brought in this country against the agent of a foreign Govern-
ment, though a British subject, for any act done by him abroad under the
authority of his Government, notwithstanding that such act is expressly pro-
hibited by English law (Dobree v. Napier (1836), 2 Bing. (n. c.) 781; and see
Carr v. Fracis Times & Co., [1902] A. C. 176).
Ck) As to what acts of the agent are sufficient to impose liability, contrast Adair
Y. Young (1879), 12 Ch. D. 13, with Nobel's Explosive Co. v. Jones (1882), 8 App.
Oas. 5. But the act must be his personal act, and he is not liable for the acts of
his co-agents (Be Denham (1883), 25 Ch. D. 752) or sub- agents (Sto7ie v. Cart-
wright (1795), 6 Term Eep. 411), unless he is a partner ( TP'eir v. Bell (ISIS),
3 Ex. D. 238, per Bramwell, L.J., at p 244), or has otherwise made himself a
principal in the transaction (Cargill v. Bower (1878), 10 Ch. D. 502, per Ery, J.,
at p. 514 ;Weir v. Bell, supra, 'per CocKBTJRN, C.J., at p. 249), or unless he is
made liable by statute, as under the Directors' Liability Act, 1890 (53 & 54
Yict. c. 64) (Cerson v. Simpjson, [1903] 2 K
B. 197).
(I) But he cannot be sued if judgment has been obtained against the principal.
See BrinsmeadY. Harrison (1872), L. E. 7 C. P. 547.

(m) Bennett v. Bayes (1860), 5 H. & N. 391 ; Arnot v. Biscoe (1748), 1 Ves. Sen.
S4; Swift V. Jeiusbury (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 301; Lowe y. Dorling, [1906] 2
I — — —
Part X. Relations between Agent and Third Persons. •225
notwithstanding that the act was expressly authorised or ratified by Sect. i.
the principal (n), unless it was thereby deprived of its wrongful Liabilities
character (o) It is immaterial that the agent did the act innocently
. of Agent,
and without knowledge that it was wrongful (p), except in cases
where actual malice is essential to constitute the wrong (q).
471. Any agent who, while acting on his principal's behalf, Conversion,
acquires the actual or constructive (?•) possession of goods (s) or
securities (t) which are not in fact the property of his principal, and
deals with them in any manner which is obviously wrongful if his
principal is not their owner (a) or duly authorised by their owner
as by selling and delivering them to a stranger or otherwise
purporting to dispose of the property in them (c) is guilty of a —
conversion (^/), and is liable to their true owner for their value.
His liability is not affected by the fact that he received them in
good faith as the property of his principal, and dealt with them in
accordance with his principal's instructions and in ignorance of the
true owner's claim (e), unless the true owner is estopped from
denying the principal's authority to dispose of them (/), or unless
the agent is a banker receiving payment (g) of a crossed {h)
cheque (i) on behalf of a customer (k).
K. B. 772 Be National Funds Assurance Co. (1878), 10 Ch. D. 118; OuUen v.
;
Thomson's Trustees (1862), 4 Macq. 424, H. L.

(n) Johnson v. Emerson (1871), L. E. 6 Exch. 329.
(o) HuUy. Pickersgill (1819), 1 Bred. & Bing. 282; Anderson v. Watson (1827), 3
C. & P. 2 14 Sijhes v. Sykes (1870), L. R. o C. P. 1 13 and contrast Sharland v. Mildon
; ;
(1846), 5 Hare, 469 Padgetv. Priest (1787), 2 TermEep. 97.

;
The Crown can ratify
the wrongful act of a public agent as against a foreigner {Buron v. Penman (1848),
2 Exch. 167; Salamany. Secretary of State for India, [1906] IK. B. 613), but not
as against a British subject {Eniick v. Carrington (1765), 19 State Trials, 1030.
(p) Baschet v. London Illustrated Standard Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 73.
[q] Eaglesfield v. londonderry (1878), 38 L. T. 303.
(r) Union Credit Bank v. Mersey Pocks and Harbour Board, [1899] 2 Q,. B. 205.
(s) Consolidated Co. v. Curtis, [1892] 1 Q. B. 495 ; Cochrane v. Bymill (1879),
40 L. T. 744; Hollins v. Foiuler (1874), L. E. 7 H. L. 757; Stephens v. Elwall
(1815), 4 M. & S. 259.
(t) Great Western Rail. Co. v. London and County Banking Co., [1901] A. C. 414 ;
Arnold v. Cheque Bank (1876), 1 C. P. D. 578 ; Fine Art Society v. Union Bank
(1886), 17 Q. B. D. 705.
(a) McEntire v. Potter (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 438, per Cave, J., at p. 441.
[h) Consolidated Co. y. Curtis, supra; Cochrane y. Bymill, supra; Hollins v.
Foiuler, supra.
(c) McEntire v. Potter, supra ; Stephens v. Ehuall, supra ; Pearson v. Graham
{1837), 6 A. & E. 899.
(d) Eor the meaning of conversion, see title Trover and Conversiois'.
(e) See cases in notes (r) (d), supra.
If) As where the principal is a mercantile agent, or buyer or seller in possession
of goods or the documents of title thereto with the consent of the true owner
(Factors Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 45), ss. 2, 8, and 9; Sale of Goods Act, 1893
(56 & 57 Yict. c. 71), s. 25 (1) and (2) Shenstone v. Hilton, [1894] 2 Q.. B. 452).
;
{g) Eor the meaning of receiving payment, see Bills of Exchange (Crossed
Cheques) Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 17), s. 1 title Bankers and Banking.
;
(A) The cheque must be crossed before it reaches the banker (^Capital and
Counties Bank v. Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240).
{i) But not of any other instrument {Bavins v. London and South Western
âw/c, [1900] 1 a
B. 270).
{k) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 61), s. 82; and see Great
Western Rail. Co. y. London and County Banking Co., supra. See further on this
point title Bankers and Banking.
H.L. — Q
——
Agency.
No agent, however, is guilty of a conversion who, not being in

possession of the goods or securities, merely negotiates a contract of
sale between his principal and a third person {I), or who, though
being in possession of them, does not do any act which is obviously
wrongful if the principal is not the true owner, but deals only with
the possession of them as directed by his principal without purporting
to dispose of the property in them {m). Nevertheless any dealings
whatsoever with the goods or securities against the will of the true
owner will amount to a conversion if done with notice of his claim (n),
472. Moreover, no agent who, being in possession of property
which his principal holds in trust for another, makes, on the
instructions of his principal, any disposition thereof which is
inconsistent with the trust, is guilty of a breach of trust (o), unless
he had notice of the trust at the time (p), and was aware that the
disposition made by him was in breach of trust {q).
Sect. 2. Rights of Agent.

Sub-Sect. 1. Enforcement of Contracts.
473. Any person who makes a contract in his own name without
disclosing the existence of a principal {r), or who, though disclosing
the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal,
renders himself personally liable on the contract (s), is entitled to
enforce it against the other contracting party (i), notwithstanding
that the principal has renounced the contract (a). And a similar
right appears to exist where the agent, though contracting expressly
as agent only, does not disclose the name of his principal {h).
{I) Cochrane v. Bymill (1879), 40 L. T. 744,jper Bkamwell, L.J., at p. 746;

Barker v. Furlong, [1891] 2 Ch. 172.
(m) National Mercantile Bank v. Rymill (1881), 44 L. T. 767 Union Credit Bank
;
V. Merseij Docks and Harbour Board, [1899] 2 Q. B. 205 Barker v. Furlong, supra.
;
(w) Davis V. Artingstall (1880), 49 L. J. (ch.) 609. But a refusal to deliver

up the goods without an order from the principal, or a request for a reasonable
time for inquiry, does not amount to conversion {Alexander v. Bouthey (1821), 5
B. & A. 247 Pillott v. Wilkinson (1864), 3 H. & C. 345).
;
(o) Gray v. Johnston (1868), L. E. 3 H. L. 1 Bank of New South Wales v.

;
Goulburn Valley Butter Company Proprietary, Ltd., [1902] A. C. 543; and see
Union Bank of Australian. Murray - Ay nsley, [1898] A. C. 693.
{p) Williams Y. Williams (1881), 17 Oh. D. 437; Ex parte Kingston, Be
Gross (1871), 6 Ch. App. 632.
(q) Magnus v. Queensland Bank (1888), 37 Ch. D. 466; and contrast Coleman
V. Bucks etc. Union Bank, [1897] 2 Ch. 243. The fact that a personal benefit to
the agent is designed or stipulated for is strong evidence that the agent is privy
to the breach of trust {Gray v. Johnston, supra, 'per Lord Cairns, L.C, at p. 11.
See further, on this point, title Tkiists and Trustees).
(r) Drinkwater Y. Goodwin (1775), Cowp. 251.
(s) Short V. Spackman (1831), 2 B, & Ad. 962 ; Cooke v. Wilson (1856), 1 C. B.
(n. s.) 153; Agacio v. Forbes (1861), 14 Moo. P. C. C. 160; Sargent v. Morris
(1820), 3 B. & Aid. 277.
{t) Fisher v. Marsh (1865), 6 B. & S. 411, per Blackburn, J., at p. 416.
(a) Short v. Spackman, supra.
(6) Schmalz v. Avery (1851), 20 L. J. (q. b.) 228. But see Sharman v. Brandt
(1871), L. E. 6 Q. B. 720, per Kelly, C.B., at p. 722, and Martin, B., at
p. 723. Compare Chapman v. Smith, [1907] 2 Ch. 97, 103, where the fact that
the person making a lease was therein described " as agent, hereinafter called the
-landlord," was held not to prevent the lease operating as a demise of the estate
vested in him as mortgagee.
— — y
Pakt X. Relations between Agent and Third Persons. 227
But where he names his principal and makes the contract expressly ^^
as agent (c) on his behalf, he cannot enforce it (d), even though he Rights of
is the real principal (e), unless the other party has affirmed the Agent,
contract with knowledge of the fact (/).
An agent cannot sue for a promised bribe, even though he was No right to
not influenced thereby in the discharge of his duty to his principal (g). ^^^^^-^^[^6
Where an agent is entitled to sue upon a contract made by him ^.
his right is lost by the intervention of his principal {li), and is enfoi-ce^con-^
subject to any settlement with either the principal (i) or the agent, tract lost,
even though in the latter case such defence would not be available
against the principal {k). But an agent who has a special interest
in the subject-matter of the contract (/) may enforce it (m), notwith-
standing any settlement with the principal {n), unless the agent has
not been 23rejudiced by the settlement (o), or unless he is estopped
from setting up his interest against the other contracting party (p).
In any action brought by an agent, the defendant is entitled to
discovery from the principal as fully as if he were the plaintiff on
the record, even though he is a foreign principal (q).
Sub-Sect. 2. Recovery of Money paid hy Agent

474. An agent who has paid money on behalf of his principal Money had
received,
to a third person under such circumstances {r) that the principal,
if the payment had been made by him, would have been entitled
to recover the money, may bring an action in his own name for
mone}^ had and received against the third person (s).
(c) The rule applies to a
del credere agent {Bramiuelly. SpiUer (1870), 21 L. T. 672).
Fenton (1870), L. E. 5 Exch. 169; Bowen v. Morris (1810), 2
Id) Fairlie v.
Taunt. 374; Evans v. Hooper (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 45, except where lie is an
insurance broker [Provincial Insurance Co. of Canada v. Leduc (1874), L. E.
6 P. C. 224 and see title Insueance), or an agent with a special interest in
;
the subject-matter of the contract (see note (/), infra).

{e) Bickerton v. Burrell (1816), 5 M. & S. 383.
(/) Baij)ier v. Grote (1846), 15 M. & W. 359.

(g) Harrington v. Victoria Graving Dock Co. (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 549.
(A) Atkinson v. Cotesworth (1825), 3 B. & C. 647 Sadler v. Leigh (1815), 4
;
Camp. 195.
{i) Rogers v. Hadley (1863), 2 H. & C. 227 Thornton v. Maynard (1875),
;
L. E. 10 C. P. 695.
[k) Gibson v. Winter (1833), 5 B. & Ad. 96; Bauerman v. Radenius (1198)
7 Term Eep. 663.
(/) As a factor or auctioneer {Gray v. Pearson (1870), L. E. 5 0. P. 568,,
per WlLLES, J., at p. 574), but not a broker (Fairlie v. Fenton, supra).
(m) Williams Y. Millingtou (1788), 1 Hy. Bl. 81 Brinkwater v. Goodivin (1775),
;
Cowp. 251.
(n) Robinson v. Rutter (1855), 4 E. & B. 954; Athyns v. Amber (1796), 2 Esp.
493 ; Isberg y. Boivden (1853), 8 Exch. 852.
(o) Grice v. Kenrick (1870), L. E. 5 Q. B. 340; Holmes y. Tutton (ISoo), 5
E. & B. 65.
ip) Coppin Y. Walker (1816), 2 Marsh. 497.
(q) Willis V. Baddeley, [1892] 2 Q. B. 324; James Nelson & So7is, Ltd. v.
Nelson Line (Liverpool), Ltd., [1906] 2 K. B. 217, at p. 223. But see Queen of
Portugal Y. Glyn (1840), 7 01. & F. 466.
(r) As mistake of fact (Colonial Bank v. Exchange Bank (1885), 11 App. Gas.
84), or fraud (Holt v. Ely (1853), 1 E. & B. 795), or extortion (Stevenson v.

Mortimer (1778), 2 Cowp. 805). It is immaterial whether the principal autho-
rised the payment or not (Holt v. Ely, supra, per Erle, J., at p. 800).
(s) The action may be brought either by the principal or by the agent (Holt
Y. Ely, supra, per Lord Campbell, C.J., at p. 799).
q2
— — —
228 Agency.
Part XI. — Duration and Termination of

Agency.
[Sect. 1. Sect. 1. In General.
In General.
475. Agency may be terminated either (1) by the act of the
How ter- parties, or (2) by operation of law.
minated.
The act of the parties may be either a revocation by the principal
or a renunciation by the agent.
The law terminates the agency (1) on the expiration
time, if any, agreed upon
— of the
(2) on complete performance
; of the
undertaking (3) on destruction of the subject-matter or the happen-
;
ing of an event rendering the continuance of the agency unlawful ;

or (4) where either party becomes incapable of continuing the con-
tract by reason of death, bankruptcy, or unsoundness of mind.
But the termination of agency by these various events is subject
to qualifications either defined by law, or due to the facts of the
particular case.
Sect. 2. Irrevocable Authority.

Authority- 476. The authority of an agent is irrevocable under the following
coupled with
interest
circumstances :
irrevocable. (1) Where the agency is created by deed, or for valuable con-
sideration, and the authority is given to effectuate a security or
to secure the interest of the agent (^). Thus, if an agreement is
entered into on a sufficient consideration whereby an authority is
given for the purpose of securing some benefit to the donee of the
authority, such an authority is irrevocable, on the ground that it is
coupled with an interest (a). So an authority to sell in considera-
tion of forbearance to sue for previous advances {b), an authority
to apply for shares to be allotted on an underwriting agreement, a
commission being paid for the underwriting (c), and an authority to
receive rents until the principal and interest of a loan have been
paid off {d) or to receive money from a third party in payment of a
debt (e), have been held irrevocable. On the other hand, an autho-
rity is not irrevocable merely because the agent has a special
property in or a lien upon goods to which the authority relates,
(t) What is an authority coupled with an interest so as to be irrevocable was
discussed in Smart v. Bandars (1848), 5 0. B. 895.

(a) Smart v. Sandars, supra, per WiLixE, C.J. See also Walsh v. Whifcomh
(1797), 2 Esp. 565 Gaussen v. Morton (1830), 10 B. & 0. 731 De Comas v. Prost
; ;
(1865), 3 Moo. P. C. C. (n. s.) 158; Kiddill v. Farnell (1857), 3 Sm, & G. 428.
But see Watson v. King (1815), 4 Camp, 272.
(b) Raleigh v. Atkinson (1840), 6 M. & W. 670.
(c)Re Hannan's etc. Mining CarmichaeVs Case, [1896] 2 Ch. 643; but
Co.,
compare Re Consort etc. Mines, Stark's Case (1896), 66 L. J. (CH.) 122.
(d) Abbott Y. Stratton (1846), 9 Ir. Eq. Eep. 233 Whitworth v. Gaugain (1844),
;
3 Hare, 416:
(e) Alley v. Hotson (1815), 4Camp. 325. See also Re Rose, Ex parte Hasluck
and Garrard (1894), 1 Mans. 218; Gurnell v. Gardner (1863), 4 Giff. 626;
Lepard v. Vernon (1813), 2 Y. & B. 51 and Re BuUfontein Sun Diamond Mine,
;
Ex parte Cox Hughes and Norman (1897), 75 L. T. 669.

— .
Part XI. Duration and Termination of Agency. 229
the authority not being given for the purpose of securing the ^^gt. 2.
claims of the agent ( f). Irrevocable

Authority.
477. (2) Where the agent, in pursuance of his authority, has
contracted a personal liability.
it^^^'ersonalTy
^
In such case, the principal cannot revoke the authority without iHbie!^^*^^^
the agent's consent, nor can the principal's trustee in bankruptcy do
so ig). An agent who has authority to receive a debt due to his
principal, and to pay the same to a creditor of the principal when
received, and who promises such creditor to pay him accordingly,
comes under this rule {Ji).
478. (3) Where liability to personal loss or suffering, though Agent liable
not amounting to a legal liability, has been incurred by the agent
fogg^^^^^^^
under the exercise of his authority, as, for example, by the operation
of the rules of the Stock Exchange, which are binding upon the
members (i).
Illustrations of this rule are frequent in the case of betting

transactions (k), and the principle of the agent's liability still
affords a good example, although the Gaming Act, 1892(0, which
makes payments by the agent for bets irrecoverable from his
principal {m), has limited the application of the rule.
479. (4) Where the agent is entitled to sue on a contract and to Agent acquir-
^
a lien on the subject-matter. Here the right to sue is not revocable g^^jg^^
by the act or bankruptcy of the principal until the claim secured matter,
by the lien is satisfied (n).
But a factor's authority to sell is not irrevocable merely because
he has made advances on the goods to his principal. The making
of advances may, however, be a good consideration for an irre-
vocable authority to sell, provided there is an agreement to that
effect (o) and such an agreement may be inferred from the
;
circumstances (o)
480. (5) In favour of purchasers for value, powers of attorney Powers of

created since December 31st, 1882, which are given for valuable ^^ôêy.
consideration and are expressed in the instrument creating them to
be irrevocable, cannot be revoked by any act of the donor without the
concurrence of the donee, or by the death, lunacy, unsoundness of
mind, or bankruptcy of the donor and any act done by the donee
;
(/) Taplin v. Florence (1851), 10 C. B. 744; Chmnock v. Sainshury (1861), 30

L. J. (ch). 409 and see Frith v. Frith, [1906] A. C. 254.
;
(g) Crowfoot v. Ourney (1832), 9 Bing. 372 Walker v. Bostron (1842), 9 M. &
;
W. 411 Hutchinson v. Heyivorth (1838), 9 A. & E. 375 DicMnson v. Marrow

; ;
(1845), 14 M. & W. 713 Griffin v. Weatherby (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 753.

;
(A) Hodgson v. Anderson (1825), 3 B. & C. 842 Hamilton v. Spottisiuoode (1849),

;
4 Exch. 200 Metcal/y. Clough (1828), 6 L. J. (o. s.) (K. B.) 281
;
Yates v. Hoppe ;
(1850), 9 0. B. 541.
(/) Seymour v. Bridge (1885), 14 Q. B. I). 460.
(k) Bead v. Anderson (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 779.
{1} 55 Yict. c. 9.
(m) Tatam v. Beeve, [1893] 1 Q. B. 44.
(n) Drinkwater v. Good-win (1775), Cowp. 251 Bohson v. Kemp (1802), 4 Esp.
;
233.
(o) Be Comas Y. Frost (1865), 3 Moo. P. C. C. (n. s.) 158; Sinart v. Sandars
(1848), 5 C. B. 895.
. —
230 Agency.
Sect. 2. in pursuance of the power will prevail over any act of the donor
Irrevocable without the concurrence of the donee, and notwithstanding the
Au thority, donor's death, lunacy, unsoundness of mind, or bankruptcy and ;
neither the donee of the power nor the purchaser will be pre-
judicially affected by notice of any such act of the donor or
occurrence to him.
And in favour of purchasers for value, powers of attorney, whether
given for valuable consideration or not, expressed in the instrument
creating them to be irrevocable for a fixed time, not exceeding one
year from the date of the instrument, will similarly be valid and
incapable of being affected by any act of or occurrence to the donor
during the time expressed (p).
Agency for 481. Where an agency is created for a fixed time, the
fixed term.
principal's right, as between himself and the agent, to terminate
it before the expiration of the time agreed upon must be ascer-
tained from the terms of the agreement and the facts of the
particular case(q). The taking of a bribe has been held to be good
ground for termination of the agency (?•), and the common defences
of incompetence or negligence would avail in an action for wrongful
dismissal (s)
Sect. 3. Termination by Act of Parties.

By agree- 482. Subject the
cases of irrevocable authority already
to
ment, revoca-
referred to, agency can be terminated either by agreement between
tion, or renun-
ciation. principal and agent, or by the principal giving notice of revocation
to the agent, or by the agent renouncing his authority.
Notice of 483. Notice of revocation may be given at any time before the
revocation.
authority is wholly exercised (t), subject to any right to damages on
the part of the agent for breach of contract (a).
When An authority is not deemed to be exercised, so as to prevent
authority is
revocation, because a preliminary step has been taken which does
exercised so
as to be not bind either principal or agent for example, where an ;
irrevocable. insurance broker had given instructions for a marine insurance

policy and received the initialled slip, it was held, the slip not
being a binding contract, that the authority to complete might be
(p)Conveyancing Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 39), ss. 8, 9.

Burton v. Great Northern Rail. Co. (1854), 9 Exch. 507 Aspdin v. Austin
{(/) ;
(1844), 5 Q. B. 671 Dunn v. Sayles (1844), 5 Q. B. 685 Williamson v. Taylor

; ;
(1843), 5 a
B. 175 Emmens v. Mderton (1853) 4 H. L. Cas. 624 Eleyy. Posi-
; ;
tive Assurance Co. (1875), 1 Ex. D. 20 (where a solicitor was appointed by

articles of association, and it was held that the articles were an agreement
inter socios and not a contract with third parties).
(r) Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Go. v. Ansell (1888), 39 Ch. D. 339;
Bu/Jield V. Fournier (1894), 11 T. L. E. 62, affirmed (1895), ibid. 282.
(s) See title Master and Servant.
(t) V. Harrison (1858), 1 E. & E. 295 (auctioneer's authority may
Warlow
be revoked at any time before the fall of the hammer) Farmer v. Robinson ;
(1805), 2 Camp. 338, n. Manser v. Back (18-18), 6 Hare, 443 Doiuard v. Wil-
; ;
liams (1890), 6 T. L. E. 316 Alexander v. Davis (1885), 2 T. L. E. 142; Bovine

;
V. Dent (1904), 21 T. L. E. 82 Barrett v. Gilmour (1901), 6 Com. Cas. 72 Re

; ;
Hare and O'More, [1901] 1 Ch. 93 ; Freeman y. Fairlie (1838), 8 L. J. (CH.) 44.
(a) Toppin v. HeaJey (1863), 11 W. E. 486 ; Turner v. Goldsmith, [1891] 1 Q. B.
544; Taylor v. Caldtvell (1863), 3 B. & S. 826,
— .
revoked (h). But a revocation after partial exercise of the authority Sect. 3.
will be ineffective (c) unless the authority is severable into parts, so Termination
that the unexecuted parts may be countermanded (d). -^ct
Money paid to an agent by his principal, under authority to Part ies,

devote it to a specific purpose, is recoverable at any time before Authority to
that purpose has been carried out (e), even though paid to abide the pay money,
event of a wager ( /). But where the principal has given the agent
authority to make a payment of money, and a sum has been appro-
priated under an agreement with the payee (g), or where the circum-
stances are such that the payee has obtained an equitable assign-
ment of such sum (li), the principal cannot afterwards revoke the
authority to make such payment.
484. The revocation need not necessarily be by formal instru- Mode of

ment. A deed may be revoked by word of mouth (^), or the principal revocation,
may intervene in the course of negotiations {k) but until some such ;
action of the principal is taken the agent is justified in assuming

the continuance of the agency (/)
485. As far as the principal and agent themselves are concerned, Termination
the agency, whether created by power of attorney (m) or in any other by agreement,
way, may prima facie be terminated at will (n), and in any case may
be so terminated subject to any claim for damages for breach of
contract (o).
Warwick v. Slade (1811), 3 Camp. 127 and see The Vindobala (1889), 6 Asp.
(b) ;
M. L. But see Thompson v. Adams (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 361,i>er Mathew, J.,

C. 376.
at p. 36a (slip a binding contract in fire insurance, the Customs and Inland
Eevenue Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 23), not applying) Campanari v. Woodburn ;
(1854), 15 C. B. 400 and compare Bead v. Anderson (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 779.

;
Daij V. TFells (1861), 30 Beav. 220.

(c)
Bristotu v. Taijlor (1817), 2 Stark. 50.
(d)
(e) Taylor v. Lendey (1807), 9 East, 49 Brummell v. M'Pherson (1828), 5 Euss.
;
263 Gibson v. Minet {1824), 9 Moo. C. P. 31 Edgar y. Foiuler (1803), 3 East, 222
; ; ;
and see Taylor y. Bowers (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 291.

(/) Smith V. Bickmore (18 2), 4 Taunt. 474 Hasteloiu v. Jackson (1828), 8 B. &
1 ;
C. 221 Varney v. Hickman (1847), 5 C. B. 271 Bigqle v. Higgs (1877), 2 Ex. D.

; ;
422 Trimble v. Hill (1879), 5 App. Cas. 342 Gatty v. Field (1846), 9 Q. B. 431
; ; ;
Hampden v. Walsh (1876), 1 Q.B. D. 189. There is nothing in the Gaming Act,
1892 (55 Yict. c. 9), which alters this rule. See O'Sullivan v. Thomas, [1895]
1 Q.B. 698 Biirge v. Ashley and Smith, [1900] 1 Q. B. 744; Shoolbredy. Roberts,
;
[1900] 2 Q. B. 497.
((/) Burn V. Carvalho (1839), 4 My. & Cr. 690; Dickinson v. Marroiv (1845), 14
M. & W. 713 Croiufoot v. Gurney (1832), 9 Bing. 372.

;
{h) Robertson v. Fauntleroy (1823), 8 Moo. C. P. 10 Fisher v. Miller (1823), 7 ;
Moo. C. P. 527 Walker v. Rostron (1842), 9 M. & W. 41 1 Hutchinson v. Heyiuorth

; ;
(1838), 9 A. & E. 375 Chartered Bank of India v. Fvans (1869), 21 L. T. 407.

;
{i) The Margaret Mitchell (1858), 4 Jur. (n. s.) 1193; R. v. Wait (1823), 11
Price, 518.
{k) Atkinson v. Cotesiuorth (1825), 3 B. & C. 647 Smith v. Plummer (1818), 1 ;
B. & A. 575.
{I) Re Oriental Bank, Ex parte Guillemin (1884), 28 Ch. D. 634. The authority
isrevoked by the winding up of a company of which its agent has no notice.
(m) Bromley v. Holland {1802), 7 Ves. 3, perELDON, L.O., at p. 28 Ex parte ;
Smither (1836), 1 Deac. 413.

(?i) Henry v. Lowson (1885), 2 T. L. E. 199; 3Iotion v. Michaud (1892), 8 T.
L. E. 253, affirmed 447 Joynson v. Hunt (1905), 93 L. T. 470 Barrett v. Gilmour
; ;
(1901), 6 Com. Cas. 72; Olerk v. Lattrie (1857), 2 H. & N. 199 (as to what
amounts to a revocation).
(o) As between the principal and third parties, see p. 235, post.
—
232 Agency.
Sect. 3. 486. An agent may at any time before completion of the agency
Termination renounce his authority, but subject to any claim of his principal for
by Act damages for breach of the contract of agency {p).
of Parties.
Kenunciaiion
Sect. 4. Termination by Ojperation of Law.
of authority.
487. Termination by operation of law may take place by effluxion
By effluxion
of the time which may be fixed for the continuance of the agency
of time.
by the parties or by custom or usage of the particular trade or
business (g). It is not necessary that the time for the continuance
of the agency should be expressly stated. It may be presumed
from the nature of the authority, as when a power of attorney
recited the fact that the donor was about to go abroad it was held
to be impliedly revoked on his return home (r).
By perform- 488. The agency may also be terminated by the conclusion of

ance or im-
possibility of
the agency by performance (s) or by destruction of the subject-
continuance. matter or determination of the business where there is no express
or implied undertaking to continue it(i), or by the happening of an
event rendering its continuance unlawful {a).
Performance. On completion of the agency by performance the agent is functus
officio, and has no further authority to bind the principal (Z>).
Termination With regard to the determination of the principal's business,
of principal's
where an agency has been created for a fixed time, the question
business.
whether the agent is entitled to claim damages as for wrongful
revocation of the agency depends upon whether there was any
obligation, express or implied, on the part of the principal to
continue the employment to the end of the agreed period. This
can only be determined from the circumstances of each particular
case (c). If there was such an obligation, liability will not be
escaped by the voluntary winding up of a company (c?), or the
dissolution of a partnership firm {e) constituting the principal but
,
;
ip) Eochster v. De la Tour (1853), 2 E. & B. 678; Balfe v. West (1853), 13

C. B. 466ElseeY. Gatward (1793), 5 Term Rep. 143.
;
{q) Dickinson v. Lilwall (1815), 4 Camp. 279 (by custom a broker's autho-
rity expires with the day) Seton v. Slade (1802), 7 Ves. 265.
;
(r) Danly v. Coutts (1885), 29 Ch. D. 500 ; Laiuford v. Harris (1896), 12 T.

L. R. 275 (as to stockbroker's authority).
(s) Bell V. Balls, [1897] 1 Ch. 663 (the performance of the particular duty ends
the authority, as where an auctioneer sold a week after the auction he was
held to have no authority).
{t) Fhcdes v. Forivood (1876), 1 App. Cas. 256; Tasher v. Shepherd (1861), 6
H. & N. 575 Northey v. Trevillion (1902), 18 T. L. E. 648.
;
(a) Esposito V. Boiuden (1857), 7 E. & B. 763 (where the outbreak of war
avoided a charterparty).
Blackburn v. Scholes (1810), 2 Camp. 341, per Lord Ellenborough at
(&)
p. 343; Macbeath v. Ellis (1828), 4 Bing. 578; Gilloio v. Aberdare (1892), 9
T. L. E. 12 Seton v. Slade, supra, at p. 276 Bell v. Balls, supra ; and see Butler v.
; ;
Knight (1867), L. E. 2 Exch. 109, and R. v. Justices of Leitrim, [1900] 2 Ir. E. 397.
(c) Hamlyn v. Wood, [1891] 2 Q. B. 488; Mclntyre v. Belcher (1863), 14 C. B.
(N. s.) 654 Turnery. Goldsmith, [1891] 1 Q. B. 544.
;
(d) Be Patent Floor Cloth Co., Bean and Qilberfs Claim (1872), 26 L. T. 467;
Re Imperial Wine Co., Shirreff's Case (1872), L. E. 14 Eq. 417 Re London and ;
Scottish Bank, Ex parte Logan (1870), L. E. 9 Eq. 149; Re English a?id Scottish
Marine Insurance Co., Ex parte Maclure (1870), 5 Ch. App. 737.
(e) Rhodes v. Forwood, swpra (agreement as agent for sale of coals for fixed
_
time implied no undertaking to pay damages on sale of the colliery) Stirling ;

—
Part XL Duration and Termination of Agency. 233
if there was no such obligation, then the winding up of a company Sect. 4,
or dissohition of a partnership firm constituting the principal will Termination

put an end to the contract of agency (/), unless (in the case of a by Opera-
partnership) the contract was not of a personal character (g) An tion of L aw, .
undertaking to continue the agent's employment will not, as a

general rule, be presumed (li).
Where there is an agreement for a fixed period, it is not dissolved
by the principal discontinuing the business on the ground of its
unprofitable character (i), nor in consequence of the principal
ceasing to carry on business under agreement with competitors {j).
489. Except as stated above with regard to irrevocable authori- Death,
ties a contract of agency is determined by the principal's death (1),
(A:),
^^^^^^q^^î
^^^^ ^
lunacy or unsoundness of mind (m). The representatives of a °

deceased principal may, however, ratify a contract made by the
agent subsequent to his death if they think fit, though, in the
absence of a ratification, they are not bound by it (n). And as
regards any power of attorney given after December 31st, 1881,
under which any person makes any payment or does any act in
good faith, such person is not liable by reason that, unknown to
him, before the payment or act, the donor of the power had died,
become lunatic, of unsound mind, or bankrupt, or revoked the
power, but the same remedy is available against the payee of any
money so paid as would have been available against the payer had
the payment not been made by him (o).
Thelunacy of a principal determines the agency as between the prin-
cipal and agent, but is not per se a revocation (p) with regard to athird
person dealing with the agent without knowledge of the lunacy {q).
V. Maitland (1864), 5 B. & S. 840 (the dissolution of an insurance compa.ny
dissolved the agency agreement); Northey v. Trevillion (1902), 7 Com. Cas. 201.
(/) Taskerv. Shepherd (1861), 6 H. & N. 575; Salton v. New Beeston Cycle
Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 43 ; Friend v. Young, [1897] 2 Ch. 421.
(^r) Phillips V. Alhamhra Palace Co., [1901] 1 K. B. 59.
(h) See cases cited in note (e), p. 232, ante.

(?) Nielans v. Cuthbertson (1891), 7 T. L. E. 516.
Ij) Ogdens, Ltd. v. Nelson, [1905] A. 0. 109.

(k) See p. 228, ante.
(l) Blades v. Free (1829), 9 B. & C. 167 (death of husband determining the
implied authority of wife to bind his estate for necessaries) Lepard v. Vernon
;
(1813), 2 Yes. & B. 51 ; Wallace v. Cooh (1804), 5 Esp. 118 ; Whitehead v. Lord
(1852), 7 Exch. 691 ; PooIy. Pool (1889), 61 L. T. 401 FarroivY. Wilson (1869),
;
L. E. 4 C. P. 744 ;
Campanari v. Woodhurn (1854), 15 C. B. 400 Houstoun v.
;
Bohertson (1816), 6 Taunt. 448 Cottle v. Aldrich (1815), 4 M. & S. 175 Phillips
; ;
V. Jo7ies (1888), 4 T. L. E. 401

; Be Overtueg, Haas v. Durant, [1900] 1 Ch. 209 ;
Graham v. Jackson (1845), 6 Q. B. 811 Bailey v. Collett (1854), 18 Beav. 179;
;
OoodsonY. Alexander (1837), 1 Jur. 37; Watson v. King (1815), 1 Stark. 121
(even if the authorit}^ is coupled with an interest) but see Spooner v. Sandilands
;
(1842), 1 Y. & C. Ch. 390; and see Carter v. White (1883), 25 Ch. D. 666
(distinction between authority and contract).
(m) Preiu v. Nmin (1879), 4 Q,. B. D. 661. But a lunatic's estate may be liable
for necessaries. See Be Weaver (1882) 21 Ch. D. 615.
(n) Foster v. Bates (1843), 12 M. & W. 226 ;
Campanari v. Woodhurn, supra.
(o) Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Yict. c. 41), s. 47.
(V) Fx parte Bradbury, Be Waldeu (1839), Mont. & C. 625 Duke of Beaufort
;
V. Glynn (1855), 1 Jur. 888.

(q) Drew V. Nunn, supra ; Piatt v. Depree (1893), 9 T. L. E. 194. The principal
excused the representatives of the purchaser, who had become insane agent held
;
entitled to commission.
234 Agency.
Sect. 4.
490. The death
or, apparently, the insanity of an agent deter-
Termination mines agency, which rests on personal relationship (r). A
the
by Opera- joint agency is determined by the death of any one of the joint
tion of Law. agents (r)
.
Death or
insanity of 491. Except as stated above (s) with regard to irrevocable autho-
agent. rities,the authority of an agent is, as a general rule, determined
Bankruptcy by the bankruptcy of the principal {t).
of principal. But mere formal acts in completion of a transaction already
binding on the principal may be performed by the agent under his
authority after the principal's bankruptcy {u), and any bond fide
transaction of the agent under his authority before the date of the
receiving order, and without notice of any available act of bank-
ruptcy, is a valid transaction, and for that purpose the authority
may be treated as still existing (a).
Solicitor Most of the cases arising under the latter exception relate to
acting for
bankrupt
the authority of solicitors. Where a solicitor, even after an act
principal. of bankruptcy by his principal of which he has notice, receives
authority from the principal to act for him, and payment therefor,
for the express purpose of opposing bankruptcy proceedings, the
authority is not terminated as from the act of bankruptcy (and pay-
ment is not recoverable by the principal's trustee in bankruptcy)
upon the principal being adjudicated bankrupt within three months
from the act of bankruptcy (b). But this rule will not be extended
so as to prevent the termination, as from the act of bankruptcy, of
the authority of a solicitor who has notice of an act of bankruptcy,
where his authority relates to other acts than resisting bankruptcy
proceedings (c). Where, however, authority is given before the act
of bankruptcy, and a lump sum paid to include all services, then,
though some of such services may be rendered after the act of
bankruptcy, the authority is not terminated (^0.
Where an act of the agent itself constitutes the act of bank-
ruptcy, such act is not avoided by the bankruptcy, for the bank-
ruptcy only relates back to the completion of the act, and the
authorit}^ is therefore not determined until completion (e).
(r) Friend v. Young, [1897] 2 Ch. 421 Fool v. Fool (1889), 58 L. J. (p.) 67.
;
(s) See p. 228, aiite.

{t) Dawson v. Sexton (1823), 1 L. J. (o. s.) (cH.) 185. See title Bankruptcy
AND Insolvency.
{u) Dixon V. Eioart (1817), Buck. 94; Marhmck v. Hardingliam (1880), 15
Ch. D. 339.
{a) Ex parte M'Donnell (1819), Buck. 399; Ex parte Snowball, Re Douglas
(1872), 7 Ch. App. 534; Bankruptcy Act 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 49; Re
Oriental Bank Corporation, Exparte Guillemin (1884), 28 Ch. D. 634. The same rule
applies in the winding up of a company where the company's agent has no
notice of winding up proceedings.
(&) Apparently on the ground of public policy [Re Sinclair, Ex parte Fayne
(1885), 15 a B. iD.616).
(c) Re Ex parte Minor, [1893] 1 Q. B. 455 Re Wliitlock and Jackson,
Pollitt, ;
Ex parte the Official Receiver (1893), 63 L. J. (q. b.) 245 Re Beyts aiid Craig,
;
Ex parte the Trustee (1894), 70 L. T. 561 ; Re Mander, Ex parte the Official

Receiver (1902), 86 L. T. 234.
{d) Re Charhuood, Ex parte Masters, [1894] 1 Q. B. 643; and see Re Whitlock
and Jackson^ supra.
(e) Ex parte Helder, Re Lewis (1883), 24 Ch. D. 339.
. ——
the agent has a right of lien on goods of the principal

If Sect. 4.
or such right is not affected by the principal's Termination
their proceeds,
bankruptcy (/). by Opera-
If there have been mutual credits or dealings between the tion of Law.
principal and agent, the agent is entitled to a right of set-off Mutual
against all moneys of the principal received before the date of the credits.
receiving order and without notice of the act of bankruptcy (g).

Subject to the above rules and to what is stated above as to Liability of
irrevocable authorities (h), an agent who continues to act after he agent acting
after bank-
has had notice that his principal has committed an act of bankruptcy.
ruptcy takes the risk of being held personally liable, if adjudication
follows on a petition presented within three months of such act of
bankruptcy (i)
So a trustee in bankruptcy has a right of action against an agent
"who, with notice of an act of bankruptcy by his principal, sells his
principal's goods and pays the proceeds to the principal (k).
492.The bankruptcy of an agent determines the agency®, Bankruptcy

•exceptwhere the act which he is authorised to do is merely a of agent.
iormal one (/«), or where the bankruptcy does not make him less
fit and competent for the proper performance of his duties {n).
Whether it does so or not depends on the nature of his duties and
terms of his appointment (n).
493. The onus of proving want of notice of an act of bankruptcy Onus of prov-
Tests on the person relvins: ing notice of
^ o thereon (o).
bankruptcy.
Sect. 5. Notice of Termination, lohen necessary.

494. The cases in which notice of termination has been held to Where third
be necessary are all cases in which a third person had been person led to
believe in
induced to believe through the act of the principal that the agent authority.
had authority, and therefore depend on the principle of estoppel {p).
The belief may have been induced through the principal giving the
agent express authority to do certain acts(^), or through his having
v. Goodiuin (1775), Cowp. 251.

(/) Drinkiuater
Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 52), s. 38; Elliott v. Turquand
{g)
<1881), 7 App. Cas. 79 and Palmer v. Day, [1895] 2 Q. B. 618 (as to what con-
;
stitutes mutual credits) The rule does not apply to the case of a sum paid to an
.
agent for a specific Follitt, Ex parte Minor, [1893] 1 Q. B. 455).

purpose {Re
Eor meaning ofcredits within sect. 171 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1849
mutual
(12 & 13 Yict. c. 106), see Young v. Bank of Bengal (1836), 1 Moo. P. C. 0. 150;
Kaoroji v. Chartered Bank of India (1868), L. E. 3 C. P. 444 ; and Astley v.
Gurney (1869), L. E. 4 0. P. 714.
{h) See p. 228, ante.
(?) Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 52), s. 43 Kynaston v. Crouch (1845),
;
14 M. & W. 266 Re Lamb, Ex parte Gibson (1886), 55 L. T. 817.

;
{k) King v. Leith (1787), 2 Term Eep. 141.
[1) Parker v. Smith (1812), 16 East, 382.

(m) Dixon v. Ewart [l^ll), 3 Mer. 322.
{n) McCallY. Australian Meat Co. (1870), 19 W. E. 188; Hudson v. Granger
<(1821), 5 B. & A. 27; Phelps v. Lyle (1839), 10 A. &E. 113.
(o) Pearson v. Graham (1837), 6 A. & E. 899.
(p) Trueman v. Loder (1840), 11 A. & E. 589; Scarf y. Jardine (1882), 7 App.
•Cas. 345, at p. 349.
(q) V. Harrison (1699), 12 Mod. Eep. 346 Gurleiuis; v. Birkbeck (1863), 3
P. & F. 894 ; Pole v. Leask (1864), 33 L. J. (CH.) 155.
236 Agency.
Sect. 5. ratified the agent's acts In such cases, in the absence of actual
(r).
Notice of notice, or of constructive notice by lapse of time or other indica-
Termina- tions (s), the principal will remain liable to those dealing in good
tion, when faith with the agent on the assumption that his authority still
necessaiy.
continues (a).
Where notice A
mere implied agency, however, may be determined without the
unnecessaiy. necessity of communicating such determination (b), and in the
case of termination by the death (c) or bankruptcy of the principal
it is not necessary that third persons should have notice of the
termination, even where the agent has been held out as having
authority (d).
Byan v. Sarns (1848), 12 Q. B. 460.

(r)
Staveley v. UzielU (1860), 2 F. & F. 30
(s) ; Aste v. Montague (1858), 1 F. &
264 Marsden v. City and County Assurance Co. (1865), L. E. 1 C. P. 232.
;
(a) Trueman v. Loder (1840), 11 A. & E. 589.

(6) Debenham v. Mellon (1880), 6 App. Cas. 24.
(c) Blades v. Free (1829), 9 B. & C. 167. See, however, Drew v. Nunn (1879), 4:
Q.B. D. 661.
{d) Notice of an available act of bankruptcy is, however, necessary, in order
to terminate the principal's authority prior to the date of the receiving order
(Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 52), ss. 43, 49).
AGISTMENT.
See Animals.
AGREEMENTS.
See Contract, and various titles in connection with which
they occur.
( 237 )
AGRICULTURE.
PAGE
Part DEFINITIONS 239
---------
I. - - - -
Part II. THE TENANCY 240

Sect. 1. Commencement of the Tenancy - _ . _ 240
Sect. 2. Determination of the Tenancy _ - - _ 240
Part III.
Sect. 1. Implied Covenants -------
COVENANTS AND CUSTOM OF THE COUNTRY
------
- - 243
243
Sect. 2.
Sub-sect. 1. Proof --------

Custom of the Country
-------
243
243
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
2.
3.
4.
------
Applicability
-----
Eeasonableness
Exclusion of Custom
244
244
245
Sub-sect. 5. Covenant to Cultivate according to Custom - 246
Sect.
Sect.
Sect.
3.
4.
5.
Way-going Crops -------
Liability to Outgoing Tenant for Tillages etc.
Hay and Straw Covenants -

- 246
247
247
Sect. 6. Manuring and other Covenants _ - - _ 248
Sect. 7. Additional Eents, Penalties etc. - - - _ 249
Sect. 8. Free Cropping and Disposal of Produce - - 250
Sect. Injunctions -251
------
9. - - - - - - -
Part IY. DISTRESS AND EXECUTION 252

Sect. 1. Things privileged from Distress - _ _ _ 252
Sect.
Sect.
2.
3. Growing Crops -------

Sheaves and Ricks of Corn and Hay - _ _
-
254
254
Sect.
Sect.
Sect.
4.
5.
6.
-----
Amount which may be Distrained for -
When Distress may be made
Remedy for Wrongful Distress _ -
-
_
-
_
255
256
257
Part Y.
Sect.
Sect.
7.
COMPENSATION
1.
--------
Liability of Growing Crops etc. to Execution
For Improvements to Agricultural Holdings

-
-
257
258
258
Sub-sect. 1. Procedure for Recovery of Compensation - 263
Sub-sect. 2. Charge on Holding for Compensation - - 266
Sub-sect. 3. Capital Money applicable for Compensation - 267
Sub-sect. 4. Persons under Disability, Trustees etc. - - 268
Sub-sect. 5. Crown, Duchy, Ecclesiastical and Charity Lands 268
Sub-sect. 6. Supplemental Provisions _ _ _ _ 269
Sect. 2. For Improvements to Market Gardens - - - 269
Sect. 3. For Unreasonable Disturbance _ - _ _ 270
238 Agriculture.
Part YI. FIXTUEES

Sect. 1. Eemoval at Common Law -
--------- - - - - -
PAGE
271
271
Sect. 3. Time for Eemoval -------

Sect. 2. Statutory Eight oe Eemoval - - - - - 272
274
Part YII. BANKRUPTCY OF TENANT ------ 275

Sect.
Sect.
1.
2. -----
Tenancy carried on by Trustee
--------
Forfeiture by Bankruptcy
- 275-
275
Sect.
Sect.
3. Disclaimer
Eeputed Ownership------- - 275
Part YIII.
4.
MISCELLANEOUS -------- 276
276
Sect.
Sect.
Sect.
1.
2.
3.
Damage by Game
Damage of Crops
-------
Agricultural Gangs
etc.
etc. - - -
by Sparks from Locomotives

- - - 276
277
278
Sect.
Sect.
Sect.
4.
5.
6.
Dogs ----------281
Destructive Insects
Emblements - - - - - - - -
280
282
Sect. 7. Gleaning - - - - - - - - 283
Sect. 8. Malicious Damage - - - - - - - 283
Sect. 9. Meadow and Ancient Pasture
Sect. 10. Poisoned
Sect. 11.
Flesh and Grain -----
Eegulations as to Sale and Adulteration
_ - -
-
-
-
284
284
285
Sub-sect. 2. Hay and Straw ------

Sub-sect. 1. Fertilisers and Feeding Stufe
--------
_ _ - 285
291
Sub-sect. 3. Hops
Sub-sect. 4. Seeds
Sect. 12. Sale of Cattle
--------
-----
by Weight
291
292
292
Sect. 13. Sale of
Sect. 14. Sunday Trading
Tenant Eight
-------
Growing Crops etc.
--------
- - - - - 293
294
-- ------295
Sect. 15. 294
Sect. 16. Thistles -
Sect. 17.
Sect. 18. Trees ---------
Threshing and Chaff-cutting Machines - - 295
295
Part IX. BOAED OF AGEICULTUEE AND FISHEEIES - - 297
Part X. EOYAL AGEICULTUEAL SOCIETY- - - - - 299
Agricultural Labourers^ Compensation
Agricultural Bates - - - - „ Eates AND Eating.

Allotments- - - - - - Allotments and '
Holdings.
Animals, generally - - - - ANIMALS.
Butter, Cheese aoid Cream - - - Food AND DRUGS.
Carriage of Cattle - - - - ,, CARRIERS.
Common Pasture - - - - ,
, Commons.
Cruelty to Animals - - - - ,, ANIMALS.
Customs, generally - - - - LANDLORD AND TENANT.
Agriculture. 239
For Dairies, Recjulation of _ _ _ See title Public Health.

Dangerous and Vicious Animals - Animals.
Diseases of Animals - - - - Animals.
Drugging Animals
Fences ______ - _ _ _ Animals.
Boundaries and Fences.
Game, Ground
Big Jits
Land Tax
------
------
Game and Sporting
,,
,, Game and Sport.

Land Tax.
Leases of Glehe Lands - - - - Ecclesiastical Law.
Leases under Settled Land Acts -
,, Eeal Property and
Chattels Eeal.
Milk, Sale and Adulteration of - Food and Drugs.
Produce, Lnspection of- Public Health.
Froduce, Storage and Transportation of Carriers.
Smcdl Dwellings
Smcdl Holdings ______ _ _ _ Local Government.
Allotments and Small
------
•
Holdings.
Tithes Ecclesiastical Law.
_____
Trespass hy Cattle
Feasant
and Distress Damage
Animals.
_____
.,
Truck Acts, Application to Agricultural

Labourers , , Master and Servant.
Warranty of Produce and Seeds - ,, Sale of Goods.
Part i. — Definitions.
495. An agricultural holding is, for the purposes of the Agri- Meaning of
" agricultural
cultural Holdings Acts, 1883 to 1906 (a), a holding which is either
holding."
wholly agricultural or wholly pastoral, or in part agricultural and as
to the residue pastoral, or in whole or in part cultivated as a market
garden {h), and agreed to be let for a term of years, or for
is let or
lives, or for lives and years, or from year to year (c), and not let to a
tenant during his continuance in any office, appointment, or employ-
ment held under the landlord (b).
A market garden, for the purposes of the Acts, means a holding Meaning of
" market
or that part of a holding (d) which is cultivated wholly or mainly
garden."
for the purpose of the trade or business of market gardening (e).
Special incidents attach in several particulars to a holding to
which the Agricultural Holdings Acts apply, and the expressions
.(a) These Acts are the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict c. 61) ;
the Tenants' Compensation Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Yict. c. 57) the Market ;
Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 27) the Agricultural ;
Holdings Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Yict. c. 50) and the Agricultural Holdings Act,
;
1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 56), which comes into operation on January 1, 1909.

(6) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 61), s. 54.
(c) Lhid., s. 61.
(d)Callander v. Srnith (1900), 37 Sc. L. E. 890.
(e) Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 27), s. 6 there ;
is no definition of market gardening in the Acts. farmer growing peas and A

potatoes in an open field as a fallow crop was held not to be a market gardener
under the bankruptcy law then in force (5 & 6 Vict. c. 122, s. 10 Re Hammond ;
(1844), De G. 93). Land covered with glass-houses for the purpose of growing fruit
and vegetables for sale has been held to be a market garden or nursery ground
for the purposes of assessment under the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict,
c. 55), s. 211
(1), (b).
—
240 Agriculture.
Paet I. agricultural holding " and "market garden " are accordingly used
Definitions, exclusively in the following pages as denoting a holding to which
those Acts apply.
Part II. —The Tenancy.

Sect. 1. Commencement of the Tenancy.
Commence- 496. The commencement of an agricultural tenancy and the time
ment and or times of entry upon the holding are usually provided for by the
time of entry.
express terms of the agreement or lease, but, if not so provided for,
the dates of entry upon the various parts may be regulated by the
custom of the country; for it is usual in various parts of the
country for an agricultural tenant to enter upon part of the holding
for certain purposes of husbandry before entering into occupation
of the whole. The custom of many counties would direct, without
any special words for the purpose, in a taking from Old Lady Day
(April 5), that the arable should be entered upon at Candlemas
to prepare it for the Lent corn, and the meadows not till May- day,
when they are mostly shut up for hay (/). This is the case even
where the agreement of tenancy is in writing {g).
Record of 497. If, at the commencement of any tenancy of an agricultural
condition of
holding at
holding entered into after January 1, 1909, the landlord or the
commence- tenant so requires, a record of the condition of the buildings,
ment of fences, gates, roads, drains, ditches, and cultivation of the holding
tenancy.
must be made within three months of such commencement by a
person to be appointed, in default of agreement, by the Board of
Agriculture and Fisheries. The cost of making the record will, in
the absence of an agreement to the contrary, be borne by the
landlord and the tenant in equal proportions (h).
Sect. 2. Determination of the Tenancy.

Different 498. When a tenant enters upon different parts of the holding at
parts entered different dates,he must at the end of his tenancy quit the various
on at different
times. parts upon dates corresponding to the dates of entry upon the same
respectively. The notice to quit the holding must expire on the
day corresponding to the day of entry upon the substantial part of
the premises (i). It is for the jury to determine what is the
substantial part, and what the accessorial (j).
Notice to 499. The length of the notice to quit necessary to determine a

quit.
tenancy of indefinite duration may -be fixed by agreement (k), or by
(/) JDoe V. Snowdon (1778), 2 Wm. Bl. 1224.

ig) Ibid.
{h) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 56), s. 7.
(*) Doe V. Spence (1805), 6 East, 120; Doe v. Wathins (1806), 7 East, 551 Doe ;
V. Hughes (1840), 7 M. & W. Icl9.

Eor forms of notice to quit, see Encyclopaedia of Eorms, Yol. YII., pp. 743, 744.
{j) Doe v. Hoiuard (1809), 11 East, 498.
[k] Doey. Baker (1818), 8 Taunt. 241.
For form of agreement, to be indorsed on tenancy agreement, see Encyclopaedia
of Forms, Yol. YII, p. 745.
—
Pakt II. The Tenancy. 241
custom of the country (/). In the absence of agreement or custom Sect. 2.
reasonable notice to quit must be given either by the landlord or by Determina-

the tenant (?«). tion of
Tfinaiicy
500. In the case of a tenancy from year to year this reasonable
notice has for a long time been fixed at a half-year's notice expiring l^^^
oyear.
'^^^^^^^
^^^^
at the end of a year of the tenancy {a).
Since January 1, 1884, however (o), a year's notice expiring
with a year of the tenancy is, in the absence of express agreement
in writing to the contrary, necessary and sufficient to determine a
tenancy from year to year of an agricultural holding (1) when a —
yearly tenancy has been created by express contract without any
stipulation as to notice (2) when such tenancy is not created by
;
express contract but is implied hy law, as where a tenant is let into

possession under a void lease and pays or agrees to pay any part of
the annual rent thereby reserved (j)), or where a tenant holds over
after the expiration of his lease and pays or agrees to pay any
subsequent rent at the previous rate {q), or attorns and pays rent
to a mortgagee whose mortgage was subsisting at the time when
the tenant became lessee of the mortgagor (?) or where a remain- ,
derman accepts rent reserved by a lease granted by a previous

tenant for life (which became void on the death of the tenant for
life by reason of his having exceeded his leasing powers), but does
not confirm or establish such lease (s).
The provision making a year's notice necessary and sufficient
does not extend to a case where the tenant is adjudged bankrupt,
or has filed a petition for a composition or arrangement with his
creditors (o).
When there is an express agreement as to the length of notice, as Express
for instance that a six months' notice should be given, the notice
J^^^^J^^^J^*
must be given in accordance with the agreement {t).
501. The notice need not be served on the tenant personally, but Service of
may be left with his wife or servant {a). The statutory year's notice iôtice.
may be served on the person to whom it is to be given either

personally, or by leaving it for him at his last known place of
abode in England, or by sending it through the post in a registered
letter addressed to him there {h).
(J) Tijleij V. Seed (1696), Skin. 649 ; K v. Chariwch (1790), 1 Peake, N. P. C. 6.

ym) Doe v. Spence (1805), 6 East, 120.
[n) Right V. Darly (1786), 1 Term Eep. 159; Doe v. Porter (1789), 3 Term
Eep. 13 Doe v. Watts (1797), 7 Term Eep. 83.
;
(o) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 61), ss. 33, 53.
( j^)
Doe V. Amey (1840), 12 A. & E. 476; Doe v. Bell (1793), 5 Term Eep. 471.
[q) Bishop V. Howard (1823), 2 B. & 0. 100; Hyatt v. Griffiths {l^bl), 17
Q. B. 505.
(r) Doe V. BucTcnell (1838), 8 C. & P. 566 Doe v. 077gley (1850), 10 C. B. 25.
; .
(s) Doe V. Watts (1797), 7 Term Eep. 83.

(t) Barlow v. Teal (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 501 Wilkinson v. Oalvert (1878), 3
;
C. P. D. 360.
(a) Jones V. Marsh (1791), 4 Term Eep. 464; Doe y. Dunbar (1826), Mood. &
M. 10.
(h) Van Qrutten v. Trevenen, [1902] 2 K. B. 82 which decided that sect. 28 of
;
the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 61), applies to notices to
quit under sect. 33 of that Act (see note (o), supra).
H.L. — I. R
242 Agriculture.
Sect. 2. 502. Notwithstanding that a due notice to quit the premises has
Determina- expired, the tenant may by the custom of the country be entitled to
tion of retain possession of part of the premises for certain purposes, as for
T enanc y, taking a way-going crop, storing crops etc., after the tenancy has
Retaining determined (c).
possession of Where
a tenant of an agricultural holding is entitled, either by
holding
express terms of his contract of tenancy, or by the custom of
the country, to retain possession of portions of the holding after
the expiration of the original term for purposes of husbandry, the
determination of the tenancy takes place for all purposes relating
to compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Acts (d) when the
last portion of the arable or pastoral part of the holding is quitted
by the tenant, although possession is still retained by him of the
house, barns etc. {e).
Notice to quit 503. A
notice to quit part only of demised premises is bad at
part of
common law (/). But in the case of an agricultural holding, where
on a tenancy from year to year a notice to quit is given by the land-
lord with a view, as stated in the notice, to the use of land for any
of the following purposes the erection of farm labourers' cottages
:
or other houses with or without gardens the provision of gardens

;
for existing farm labourers' cottages or other houses the allot-

;
ment for labourers of land for gardens or other purposes the ;
planting of trees the 023ening or working of any coal, ironstone,

;
limestone, or other mineral, or of a stone quarry, clay, sand, or gravel

pit, or the construction of any works or buildings to be used in con-
nection therewith the obtaining of brick-earth, gravel, or sand the
; ;
making of a watercourse or reservoir the making of any road, rail-

;
way, tramroad, siding, canal, or basin, or any wharf, pier, or other

work connected therewith or the provision of small holdings, it is no
;
objection to the notice that it relates to part only of the holding (g).
In every such case the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings
Acts respecting compensation (h) apply as on determination of a
tenancy in respect of an entire holding and the tenant is also ;
entitled to a proportionate reduction of rent in respect of the land

comprised in the notice to quit, and in respect of any depreciation
of the value to him of the residue of the holding caused by the
withdrawal of that land from the holding or by the use to be made
thereof, the amount of that reduction being ascertained by agree-
ment or settled by a reference under the Acts, as in a case of
compensation (but without appeal) (g).
The tenant is further entitled at any time within twenty-eight
days after service of the notice to quit to serve on the landlord a
notice in writing to the effect that he. (the tenant) accepts the same
as a notice to quit the entire holding, to take effect at the expiration
. (c) Griffiths V. Puleston (1844), 13 M. & W. 358.

(d) See pp. 258 et seq., post.
(e) Be Paul (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 247 Black v. Olay, [1894] A. C. 368
;
(decided on the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1883) ; Morley v. Carter,

[1898] 1 a
B. 8.
(/) Bight v. Cuthell (1804), 5 East, 491 Doe v. Archer (1811), 14 East, 245.
;
{g) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 61), s. 41, as extended,
after 1907, by the SmaU Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 38.
{h) See p. 258, post.
——— — ,
Part II. The Tenancy. 243
of the then current year of tenancy ; and the notice to quit will Sect. 2.
have effect accordingly (i). Determina-

The landlord's notice to quit part of the premises must be in tion of
writing {k). Tenancy.
Part III. — Covenants and Custom of the

Country.
Sect. I. Implied Covenants.
504. There is no implied covenant or warranty on the part of the No warranty
landlord that the land leased or let is reasonably fit for cultivation (l) as to fitness
of land.
or that no noxious plants are growing on the demised premises (m).
505. The law implies an undertaking or covenant on the part of an Cultivation in

agricultural tenant to cultivate the land in a husbandlike manner, husbandlike
manner.
unless there is a particular agreement dispensing with that engage-
ment {n) ; and the bare relation of landlord and tenant is a sufficient
consideration for the tenant's promise to cultivate the land in a good
and husbandlike manner according to the custom of the country (0).
Such an undertaking is, however, implied only where the relation
of landlord and tenant actually exists, and for that reason neglect
by an incumbent to cultivate glebe land in a husbandlike manner
does not render him or his executors liable in an action by a
succeeding incumbent, though he or they may be liable for leaving
the buildings, hedges, and fences in a state of decay (p).
Beyond this undertaking there is no implied obligation on the part
of a yearly tenant of farming premises to do any particular acts
such as to consume on the premises the hay and straw grown
thereon (r) or to repair generally (q) or to refrain from doing
;
anything which does not amount to voluntary waste.

506. The landlord of an agricultural holding or any person autho- Right of land-
lord to enter
rised by him may at all reasonable times enter on the holding, or and view.
any part of it, for the purpose of viewing the state of the holding (s).
Sect. 2. Custom of the Country,
Sub-Sect. 1. Proof.
507. The custom of the country {t) does not imply an immemorial What is cus-
or universal usage, but only the prevalent usage of the neighbourhood
country
(0 Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 61), s. 41.

{k) See Moyle v. Jenkins (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 116; Reg. v. Shurmer (1886), 17
Q. B. D. 323.
{I) Hart V. Windsor (1843), 12 M. & W. 68.
(w) Erskine v. Adeane (1873), 8 Ch. App. 756.
{n) Broiun v. Crump (1815), 1 Marsh. 569.
(0) Poiuley V. Walker (1793), 5 Term Eep. 373.
(jp) Bird V. ReJjph (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 826; and see title Ecclesiastical
Law, post.
{q) Horsefall v. Mather (1815), Holt, N. P. C. 7.
(r) Oovgh Hoivard (1801), Peak. Add. 0. 197.
V.
(s) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Yict. c. 50), s. 5.
f) The custom of the country varies not only in each county, but often in
K 2
—— . ;:
244 Agriculture.
Sect. 2.
where the land lies which has subsisted for a reasonable length of
Custom of time (u).
Country.
508. The custom of the country is the custom prevalent through-
How proved.
out the district, and is not proved by showing that it is the usage of a
particular estate or of the property of a particular individual, how-
ever large and such usage will not be imported into the terms of a
;
tenancy where it is not shown that the tenant was aware of it (v).
The custom is to be collected, not from what witnesses say they think
the custom is, but from what is publicly done throughout the
district (a). It must be proved by the party alleging it; thus a
custom to retain part of the holding or to take way-going crops etc.,
must be proved by the tenant and in the absence of proof of such
;
custom the tenant must give up possession of land and crops at the
termination of the tenancy {h).
509. Evidence showing that a holding has been managed in

accordance with the custom of the country is proof that it has been
treated in a good and husbandlike manner (c).
Sub-Sect. 2. Applicability,
510. A custom of the country, when once proved, is applicable to

every agricultural tenancy in the district however created, whether by
parol or by writing, unless excluded by the terms of the agreement
itself {d). It is a contract which the law raises in the absence of
^ny particular contract between the parties {e)
Sub- Sect. 3. Reasonableness,
Reasonable- A custom of the country must be reasonable, otherwise it

511.
'^^ void (/) and the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the
;
S^nofl^w"
ion o aw.
ciigtom is a question of law for the Court, and not of fact for the
jury ig).
The following customs have been expressly held to be reasonable
that the tenant should have the way-going crop after the expiration
different parts of the same county. Thus there is a great body of agricultural
customs of which it is impossible to give an exhaustive or exact list, as no
authority exists to determine generally what is the custom in each district, and
new customs arise from time to time as the mode of agriculture changes. It is
beyond the scope of this work to detail all the customs that have been ascer-
tained to exist, but a comprehensive list of the more important customs
prevailing in the different counties will be found in Brooke Little's Agricul-
tural Holdings, pp. 210 231 —Bund's Agricultural Holdings, 3rd ed.
;
pp. 106—153 ; Dixon's Law of the Farm, 6th ed. pp. 710—747.
{u) Legh V. Heiuitt (1803), 4 East, 154; Dalby v. Hirst (1819), 1 Br. & B. 224
Tucker v. Linger (1882), 21 Ch. D. 18; (1883j 8 App. Gas. 508; Dashwood y.
Magniac, [1891] 3 Ch. at p. 324.
(v) Womersley v. Bally (1857), 26 L. J. (ex.) 219.
(a) Tucker v. Linger, supra, per Jessel, M.E.
(b) Caldecotty. Smyfhies (1837), 7 0. & P. 808.
(c) Legh v. Hewitt, supra, per Lord Ellenborough.
(d) Wilkins v. Wood (1848), 17 L. J. (q. b.) 319; Wigglesworth v. Dallison
(1779), 1 Doug. 200 Senior v. Armytage (1816), Holt, N. P. 0. 197, as explained
;
in Hiitton v. Warren (1836), 1 M. & W. 466.

. (e) Boraston v. Green (1812), 16 East, 71.
(/) Bradburn v. Foley (1878), 3 0. P. D. 129.
{g) Tyson v. Smith (1838), 9 A. & E. 406, at p. 421.
— —
Part III. Covenants and Custom of the Country. 245
of the term of tenancy (Ji), and crop one-third of the arable for that Sect. 2.
purpose (i) that on a taking from old Lady Day (April 5) the
; Custom of
tenant should enter upon the arable at Candlemas to prepare for Country,
the Lent corn (k) that a tenant should be entitled to a portion of
;
the expenses of draining the land, though the drainage be done with-
out the landlord's consent or knowledge (/-) that if there be no ;
incoming tenant the landlord should pay to the outgoing tenant the
valuation for fallows, dressings etc. {nij that a tenant should provide ;
work and labour, and sowing, and all materials for cultivation
tillage
in his way-going year, and that the landlord should make him com-
pensation for the same (n) that the tenant should collect flints
;
turned up in the ordinary course of good husbandry and sell them

for his own benefit, notwithstanding a reservation in the lease of
minerals to the landlord (o) that the landlord should deduct rent in
;
arrear from the valuation payable to the out-going tenant {p).
Sub-Sect, 4, Exclusion of Custom.
512. Where
the terms of a lease as to quitting a holding are incon- Lease incon-
sistent with
sistent with thecustom of the country, the custom is excluded thus a custom. ;
custom for an allowance from the incoming tenant torfoldage (a mode

of manuring) was excluded by the terms of a lease which provided for
the tenant keeping a flock of sheep on the farm and in the last year
of the term carrying out the manure on to the fallows, the landlord
paying on the quitting of the farm for fallowing the land and the
cartage of dung, but nothing for the dung itself (q) and a provision ;
in a lease that the tenant shall leave the manure in the fold to be
expended by the landlord or incoming tenant, without mentioning
any payment for it, excludes a custom for the outgoing tenant to
leave the manure and be paid for it (?')•
513. Where, however, the lease contains no stipulations as to the Inconsistency

must be com-
mode of quittirig, the outgoing tenant is entitled to his way-going crop
plete.
according to the custom of the country, even though the terms of
the holding may be inconsistent with such a custom (s).
A stipulation in a lease that the tenant will consume three-fourths
of the hay and straw on the farm and spread the manure arising
therefrom, and leave what is not spread for the use of the landlord
on receiving a reasonable price for it, does not exclude a custom of
the country by which the tenant is entitled on quitting to receive
(h) Wigglestuorth v. Dallison (1779), 1 Doug. 200.

{i) Griffiths V. Tombs (1833), 7 C. & P. 810; Caldecott v. Smythies (1837), 7
C. & P. 808.
{k) Doe V. Snowdon (1778), 2 W. Bl. 1224.
(l) Moushy V. Ludlam (1851), 21 L. J. (q. b.) 64.
(m) Dalby v. Hirst (1819), 1 Br. & B. 224; Faviell v. Gaskoin (1852), 7 Exch.
273.
Senior v. Armytage (1816), Holt, N. P. C. 197.
{n)
(o) v. Linger (1883), 8 App. Cas. 508.
Tucker
(p) Be Wilson, Ex parte Lord Hastings (1893), 62 L. J. (q. b.) 628.
(q) Wehb V. Flummer (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 746.
{r) Roberts v. Barker (1833), 1 C. & M. 808.
(s) Holding v. Pigott (1831), 7 Bing. 465; see also Martin v. Coulman (1834),
4 L. J. (k. B.) 37 Constable v. Cranswick (1899), 80 L. T. 164.

;
— —
246 Agriculture.
Sect. 2. from the landlord or incoming tenant a reasonable allowance for

Custom of seeds and labour on the arable during the last year of tenancy, and
Country, is bound to leave the manure for the landlord if he will
purchase it (t).
Sub-Sect. 5. Covenant to Oaltivate according to Custom,
What 514. Conversion of part of a farm, consisting of arable and pasture

amounts to
land, into a market garden, and the erection of glass-houses etc.
breach of the
covenant. thereon, is not a breach of a covenant to cultivate the farm " in a
good, proper, and husbandlike manner according to the best rules
of husbandry practised in the neighbourhood " (a). On the other
hand, such a covenant, or the ordinary obligation to cultivate in a
husbandlike manner according to the custom of the country, is
broken by tilling half a farm, when it is proved that no other
farmers in the neighbourhood till more than one-third, and some
even less (b).
Sect. 3. Liability to Outgoing Tenant for Tillages etc.
Devolution of 515. Where there is a custom for the landlord to pay an outgoing
liability.
tenant for tillages etc., the liability to make such payment attaches
to the lessor's interest in the land, and devolves upon the person
who, when the payment becomes due, is then in receipt, or entitled
to receipt, of the rent. Thus the devisee of the original landlord
being in possession is liable, notwithstanding that a long term of
years has been created in the land and vested in trustees (c) also ;
executors of a termor in the land who has sub-leased (d) and ;
assignees of the reversion are liable, although the original landlord

received the rent due to the end of the tenancy, and gave the
notice to quit, which was merely renewed and confirmed by the
assignees (e).
Vendor and 516. A vendor who, after the contract for sale but before comple-
purchaser.
tion,pays the outgoing tenant's valuation is entitled, in the absence of
a stipulation to the contrary, to be reimbursed by the purchaser (/).
Incoming 517. An alleged custom that the outgoing tenant should look to
tenant. the incoming tenant, to the exclusion of the landlord's liability, for
payment for seeds, tillages etc., is unreasonable, and cannot be
supported (g) but the incoming tenant may become liable to the
;
outgoing tenant by express or tacit contract (h).

An agreement between the outgoing and incoming tenants with
respect to payment for tillages or crops does not, however, affect
(t) Hutton V. Warren (1836), 1 M. & W. 466.

(a) Meux v.CoUey, [1892] 2 Ch. 253.
{h) Legh v. ffeiuiit (1803) 4 East, 154.
(c) Mansel v. Norton (1883), 22 Ch. D. 769.
(d) Fav'iell v. Oaskoin (1852), 7 Exch. 273.
(e) Womersley v. Dally (1857), 26 L. J. (ex.) 219.
(/) Bennett v. Stone, [1902] 1 Ch. 226.
[g) Bradbiirn v. Fohi/ (1878), 3 C. P. D. 129.
- (h) Ibid.; Codd v. Broiuti (1867), 15 L. T. 53 B Stafford v. Gardner (1872),
;
L. E. 7 0. P. 242 and see Sucksmith v. Wilson (1866), 4 E. & E. 1083.

;
— —
any existing rights of the landlord (i), or deprive him of his right to Sect. 3.
be paid rent due out of the valuation payable by the incoming Liability to
tenant (A). Outgoing
And there may be a custom of the country for the landlord to Tenant,
have a right to deduct the outgoing tenant's rent in arrear from the
valuation due to him as outgoing tenant, which will be operative
even when the outgoing tenant is bankrupt (/).
518. A tenant is not liable to be paid for tillages etc., if he quits How right to
the holding before the due determination of the tenancy {m) but if a payment lost, ;
lease for a term of years is determinable by notice at the expiry of a

lesser period, the tenant's rights are preserved on his quitting after
due notice at the earlier date {n).
Sect. 4. — Way-going Crops,
519. A clause in a lease entitling the tenant to take a way-going Entry to take
crop does not entitle the tenant to retain possession of any part of way-going
the land against the landlord after the determination of the tenancy,
but imports a licence to the tenant to enter the land for the purpose
of taking the crop (o).
But w^here the tenant is entitled by custom to the way-going crop
and is bound to repair fences, he may be entitled also to actual
possession of the land on which the crop is growing until the crop is
carried away (p).
Trover or trespass will not lie by the landlord or incoming tenant
against the outgoing tenant for taking a way-going crop according
to the custom of the country, even though the outgoing tenant has
committed a breach of covenant in cropping too much of the land
and not manuring it {q).
520. Where a Lady Day tenancy is prematurely determined Exclusion of
by a judicial proceeding, such as the award of an arbitrator, the custom,
custom that the tenant should have a way-going crop has

no operation (r).
Sect. 5. Hay and Straw Covenants.
A lease containing a covenant to consume all hay, straw and

521. Covenant to
consume,
clover grown on the farm, and to use the manure on the farm, but
silent as to hay etc. unconsumed on quitting, is not inconsistent
with a custom that the tenant shall be paid for all hay etc. left
unconsumed on his quitting. Such a covenant means only that
Fetrie v. J)aniel (1804), 1 Smith, 199.

(i)
Stafford V. Gardner (1872), L. E. 7 C. P. 242.

(k)
(/) lie Wilson, parte Lord Eastings (1893), 62 L. J. (q. b.) 628.
(m) Whittaker v. Barker (1832), 1 C. & M. 113 England v. Shearburn (1884),
;
52 L. T. 22 see also Breadalbane {Marquis) v. Stewart, [1904] A. C. 217.

;
(w) Bevan v. Chambers (1896), 12 T. L. E'. 417.

(o) Strickland v. Maxiuell (1834), 2 0. & M. 539 Wight v. JSarl of Eopetoim
;
(1864), 4 Macq. 729.

(p) Griffiths V. Paleston (1844), 13 M. & W. 358.
((/) Boraston v. Green (1812), 16 East, 71 and see Griffiths v. Tombs (1833), 7
;
C. & P. 810, where, however, the over-cropping was on parol permission from
the landlord.
(r) Thorpe v. Eyre (1834), 1 A. & E. 926.
—
248 Agriculture.
Sect 5. the tenant will not remove any hay etc. from the farm it does not ;
Hay and compel the tenant to cause it to be all consumed during the
Straw tenancy (s).
Covenants.
522. A covenant by the tenant to pay an additional rent if hay,
Covenant not
to sell or
straw, or other dry fodder should be sold and taken off the farm is
remove. enforceable by the landlord if hay, even though damaged and unfit
for food,has been taken off by the tenant (0-
A covenant by the tenant not to sell or remove from the premises
during the last year of the term any of the hay, straw, and fodder
which shall arise and grow thereon, prohibits him from selling or
removing during the last year any hay, straw etc. grown in
previous years {a).
A covenant by a tenant not to sell any hay or straw etc. off the
farm under penalty of additional rent is broken by a sale of straw
off the farm by the tenant after the determination of the tenancy (h).
An absolute covenant to consume hay and straw on the farm, being
equivalent to a negative covenant not to remove it, may be enforced
by injunction (c).
Where a tenant bound by covenant to consume the hay on the
farm, or to bring in manure, has sold, on quitting, a rick of hay
without informing the purchaser of the obligation to bring in
manure, and the hay is injured owing to delay in performing the
covenant to bring in manure, the purchaser is entitled to refuse to
take it, and the vendor cannot recover the price of the hay {d).
Where a clause in a farming agreement provides that no hay or
straw shall be sold off the holding, except the "value" of the
hay etc. so sold off is returned in manure on the land, it is not
clear whether the tenant, having sold the hay or straw, is bound
only to return as much manure as the straw would have produced,
or to return in manure the price or market value of the straw {e).
Where the tenant is entitled to be paid by the landlord or incoming
tenant at " a fair price " for the hay, straw etc. left on the farm, but
not for the manure, he is entitled only to a fodder or consuming
price of the hay and straw, not to the market price (/). And where
he is entitled to be paid for the hay, straw, and manure left on the
farm "at a fair valuation," the valuer is not necessarily bound to
value the same either at the market or the consuming price, it
being a matter of evidence what is a " fair valuation " {<g).
Sect. 6. Manuring and other Covenants,

Covenant to 523. A covenant by a tenant with his landlord to leave the manure
leave manure
on farm, and
made by him on the farm and to sell it to the incoming tenant at a
sell to incom- valuation, gives the tenant a right of on- stand on the farm for the
ing tenant.
(s) Muncey v. Denms (1856), 1 H. & N. 216.
{t) Fhldtn V. Tattersall (1863), 7 L. T. 718.
(a) Gale v. Bates (1864), 3 H. & C. 84.
{b) Massey v. Goodall (1851), 17 Q. B. 310.
(c) Crosse v. Buckers (1873), 27 L. T. 816.
(d) ISmith V. Chance (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 753.
(e) Lowndes v. Fountain {\8oo), 11 Exch. 487.
(/) Clarke v. Westrope (1856), 18 C. B. 765.

(g Cumberland v. Bowes (1854), 15 C. B. 348.
— —
manure until sold to an incoming tenant, and trespass lies against ^^gt. 6.
an incoming tenant ifhe remove and use the manure before the Manuring
valuation (h). and other
A covenant by a tenant to manure with two sufficient sets of Covenants,
muck within the space of six of the last years of the term, the last covenant to
set to be laid within three years of the expiration of the term, is manure twice
^^^^
satisfied by laying both sets within the last three years of the
term(i).
The condition of a bond that the tenant would not sell or convey Covenant not
aAvay any dung, compost, or manure from the farm is broken by
^î^Me^^
the removal of manure made by cattle purchased from the tenant
and allowed to remain on the farm and fed by the purchaser with
provender from his own farm (k). It is no answer to a breach of
covenant not to remove manure unless on payment of an additional
rent, that the tenant brought upon the premises a quantity of
manure larger and better in quality than that carried away(Q.
524. A
covenant by a tenant that he will consume on the farm all Alternative
the turnips etc., but that if he shall take or sell off any part thereof,
covenant,
which he is at liberty to do, then for every ton sold he shall

bring back and spread a certain quantity of manure, is an alternative
covenant, and in order to make the tenant liable for a breach of
it, both failure to consume and failure to bring back manure must
be proved
525. A covenant not to sow with more than two grain crops during Cropping
four years applies to any four years of the term however taken, covenants,
and not to each successive four years from the commencement (n).
A covenant to cultivate on the four-course system according to the
custom of the country means cultivating in that manner only so
far as is obligatory by the custom (o).
Under a covenant by the tenant to permit the landlord to enter on
such part of the land as in the last year of the term shall be sown
with barley or oats, and to sow clover therewith, the tenant is not
bound to inform the landlord of an intention to sow barley or oats(j9).
Sect. 7. Additional Rents, Penalties etc.
526. It is common in agricultural leases for the tenant to covenant Enforcement

not to do certain acts, with a stipulation that if he do them he will stipulation,
pay an additional rent, or a sum of money. There are many decisions

on the form of such covenants and stipulations, some turning upon
matters of pleading, as whether the plaintiff should declare upon
the breach of covenant not to do the particular act, or upon the
breach of the stipulation to pay the additional rent (q) and some ;
upon the question whether the additional rent or penal sum was
(h) Beati/Y. Gibhons {1812), 16 East, 116.
(*)Poiunall V. Moores{m22\ 5 B. & Aid. 416.
[k] Hindle v. PoZ/vY^ (1840), 6 M. & W. 529.
(/) Leyh V. Lillie (1860), 6 H. & N. 165.

(m) Richards v. Bluch (1848), 6 0. B. 437.
\n) Fleming Y. Snook {18^2), 5 Beav. 250.
(o) Newson v. Sm.tjth'ies{l8bd), 1 P. & F. 477.
Ip) Hughes y. Bichman {1114:), 1 Cowp. 125.

iq) See Hurst v. Hurst (1849), 4 Exck. 571; Legh v. Ltlh'e, supra.
—
250 Agriculture.
Sect. 7. payable by way of penalty or liquidated damages (?•) the general ;
Additional rule in these last-mentioned cases being that when the tenant
Rents, covenants not to do an act, such as ploughing pasture etc., and
Penalties to pay an additional rent if he do it, the additional rent will be
etc.
considered as liquidated damages (r) but that if, besides payment
;
of the additional rent, the tenant's interest may be forfeited, the

additional rent will be considered as a penalty (s), and only the
damage actually suffered will be recoverable. Where the same sum
is made payable on non-observance of two stipulations of varying
degrees of importance, the sum will be treated as a penalty and
not liquidated damages (t). Where a sum is proportionate to the
extent of the non-observance of the stipulation, it is prima facie
liquidated damages and not a penalty (u). Where the negative
covenant is absolute and distinct from the stipulation to pay the
additional rent or penalty, the tenant will be restrained by injunction
from committing the act on payment of such rent or penalty (a).
The right to additional rent reserved in case of breaking up meadow
or permanent pasture is not waived by the landlord accepting the
ordinary rent with knowledge of the acts of breaking up {h),
Penal rents 527. In respect of an agricultural holding, however, notwithstand-

not to give
ing any provision in a contract of tenancy making the tenant liable
more than
actual to pay a higher rent or other liquidated damages in the event of any
damage. breach or non-fulfilment of a covenant or condition, a landlord is
not entitled to recover, by distress or otherwise, any sum in con-
sequence of any breach or non-fulfilment of any such covenant or
condition in excess of the damage actually suffered by him in
consequence of the breach or non-fulfilment but this provision
;
does not apply to any covenant or condition against breaking up

permanent pasture, grubbing underwoods, or felling, cutting,
lopping, or injuring trees, or regulating the burning of heather (c).
In these excepted cases the law is as stated above.
Sect. 8. Fiêe Cropping and Disposal of Produce (d).
Tenant's right 528. Notwithstanding any custom of the country or the provisions
of free crop-
ping and
of any contract of tenancy or agreement respecting the method of
disposal of cropping arable land (e) or the disposal of crops, a tenant of an
produce.
(r) See Woodiuard v. Oyles {\ 690), 2 Yarn. 119 (ploughing pasture) ;
RolfeY.
Peterson (1772), 2 Bro. Pari. Cas. 436 (ploughing pasture) Bowers v. Nixon (1848),
;
12 Q. B. 546, 558 (ploughing pasturej Farrant v. Olmius (1820), 3 B. & Aid. 692
;
(ploughing pasture) Jones v. Green (1829), 3 Y. & J. 298 (sowing excess of

;
clover); WiUson v. Love, [1896] 1 Q. B. 626 (selling hay or straw).

(s) Barret v. Blagrave (1800), 5 Ves. 555
; and see Sloman v. Walter, 2 White
& Tudor, L. C. (7th ed.), p. 257.
(t) WiUson V. Love, supra.
(w) C/ydehank Engineering and, Shiphuilding Co. v. Yzquierdo, [1905] A. C. 6.
(a) French v. Macale{\M2), 2 Dr. & War. 269 (covenant not to burn land) ;
Weston V. Metropolitan Asylum District (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 404.

ih) Denton v. Richmond (1833), 1 C. & M. 734.
(c) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Yict. c. 50), s. 6.
(d) The law stated in this section does not come into operation until
January 1, 1909.
(e) Not including any land in grass which by the contract of tenancy is to be
-retained in the same condition throughout the tenancy (Agricultural Holdings

Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 56), s. 3 (4)).
— — ;
agricultural holding may practise any system of cropping of the Sect. 8.

arable land on his holding, and may dispose of the produce of Free Crop-
his holding without incurring any penalty, forfeiture or liability, ping and
provided that he has made, or as soon as may be makes, suitable Disposal of
Produce.
and adequate provision to protect the holding from injury or
deterioration. In the case of disposal of produce, such provision Provision to
consists in the return to the holding of the full equivalent be made
against injury
manurial value to the holding of all crops sold off or removed in to holdinff.
contravention of the custom, contract or agreement.
These provisions have no application, in the case of a tenancy
from 3êar to year as respects the year before the tenant quits the
holding, or any period after he has given or received notice to quit
which results in his quitting the holding, nor, in any other case, as
respects the year before the expiration of the contract of tenancy (/).
529. If the tenant exercises these rights of free cropping and Landlord's
disposal of produce in a manner that actually results, or is likely to
i^'^r^'^resuit?
result, in injury to or deterioration of the holding, the landlord is
entitled, without prejudice to any other remedy which may be open
to him, to recover damages in respect of such injury or deterioration
at any time, and, should the case so require, to obtain an injunc-
tion restraining the tenant from so exercising his rights. In
default of agreement the amount of damage may be determined by
a single arbitrator (Ji).
Sect. 9. Injunctions.
530. The general rule that affirmative covenants will not be en- When an
forced by injunction applies to agricultural leases, and no injunction
will therefore be granted to restrain breaches by a tenant of a cove- obtained,
nant to repair fences (i), or to cultivate generally in a husbandlike
manner (/c), or to keep the farm properly stocked (/). But if the
proper observance of a covenant necessitates the abstention from
doing a particular act, that act will be restrained by injunction
and a tenant will be restrained by injunction from committing any
act of voluntary waste or from acting contrary to the custom of
the country. Thus a tenant may be restrained from ploughing up
ancient pasture or meadow land (m), from sowing pernicious
crops (n), from carrying away manure (o), hay, straw and
turnips (79), and from damaging hedgerows (q), contrary to the
custom of the country. And the injunction in such cases may be
granted although there is no express covenant, but merely an
implied undertaking to cultivate in a husbandlike manner according
(/) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 06), s. 3 (1).

(h) Ibid., ss. 1 (2), 3 (2).
(0 Bmjner v. Stone (1762), 2 Eden, 128.

(k) Musgrave v. Horner (1874), 31 L. T. 632.
(/) Phrpps V. Jackson (1887), 56 L. J. (CH.) 550.
(m) Brurij v. Molins (1801), 6 Ves. 328 Lord Greij de Wilton v. Saxon (1801),
;
6 Yes. 106; FraM v. Brett{lSll), 2 Madd. 62.

{n) Fratt v. Brett, supra.
(0) Fnlteney v. Shelton (1799), 5 Yes. 260, n.
\v) Walton V. Johnson (1848), 15 Sim. 352.

(2) Onsloiu V. (1809), 16 Yes. 173.
— ;
252 Agriculture.
Sect. 9. to the custom of the country (g). An injunction will also be granted
Injunctions, if the statutory right of the tenant after January 1, 1909, to crop
the land and dispose of the produce thereof without regard to the
covenants in the lease is exercised in such a manner as to injure or
deteriorate, or be likely to injure or deteriorate, the holding (V).
Part IV. — Distress and Executioner

Sect. 1. Things Privileged from Distress.
Things 531. By the general law of distress the following things are abso-
absolutely
privileged
lutely privilegedfrom distress :
—
fixtures (t) animals fercE naturce (u) ; ;
from distress. goods delivered to a person to be worked upon, carried, or managed

in the way of his trade or calling (a) things in actual use (b) ; ;
things in the custody of the law (c) and things which cannot be ;
restored in the same plight (d). To this list other things have been
added by various statutes, such as the goods of an ambassador (e)
the goods of a lodger, if duly claimed (/) gas meters, if the ;
property of a company incorporated by Act of Parliament (g)

railway rolling stock in any works not belonging to the tenant of
the works (h) goods of a tenant or his family which could be
;
protected from seizure in execution under the County Court

Acts (i).
Things 532. The following things are privileged from distress provided
provisionally
privileged.
there is other sufficient distress on the premises beasts of the :
—
plough, sheep (k), and implements of trade (I).
Beasts. No privilege attaches to cart colts and young steers not yet broken
in or used for harness or the plough (k) and beasts of the plough ;
may be distrained for poor rates although there are other

distrainable goods sufficient to answer the demand (m).
So also beasts of the plough may be distrained, though there be
growing crops on the land sufficient to satisfy the distress, for the
(q) See note (w), p. 243, ante.

(r) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 56), s. 3 (2) ; see p. 251, ante.
(s) See, generally, title Distress.
(t) HeUaiuell v. Eastivood (1851), 6 Exch. 295.
(w) Co. Litt. 47.
(a) Siuire v. Leach (1865), 34 L. J. (c. P.) 150, and cases there cited.
(6) Simpson v. Hartopp (1745), 1 Smith, L. C. 1 1th ed. 437, and cases there cited.
(c) Co. Litt. 47 a.
(d)Wilson V. Bucket (1675), 2 Mod. Eep. 61 Morley v. Pincomhe (1848), 2 Exch.
;
lOi. And see p. 254, post, as to sheaves and -ricks of corn and hay.
(e) Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1708 (7 Anne, c. 12), s. 3.
(/) Lodgers' Goods Protection Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Yict. c. 79).
(g) Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 15), s. 14.
(A) Eailway EoUing Stock Protection Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 50), s. 3.
(?) Law of Distress Amendment Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 21), s. 4.
(k) 51 Hen. 3, c. 4; Keen v. Priest (1859), 4 H. & N. 236.
(/) Gorton v. Falkner (1792), 4 Term Eep. 565; Simpson v. Hartopp (1745),
1 Smith, L. C. 11th ed. 437; Lavell v. RicUngs, [1906] 1 K. B. 480; the
implements of trade need not be in actual use at the time {Nargett v. Nias
(L859), 1 E. & E. 439).
(m) HutchinsY. Chamhers (1158), 1 Burr. 579.
—
Part IV. Distress and Execution. 253
landlord has a right to those subjects of distress which are Sect. 1.
immediately available {n). Things

Cattle of a stranger escaping into another's land by breaking Privileged
down fences in good repair, or through defect of fences which the from
Distress.
owner or occupier of the land is not bound to repair, are distrain-
able for rent (o) but if they escape into such land without their Escaping
;
owner's knowledge through defect of fences which the owner or cattle.

occupier of the land ought to repair, they are not distrainable
until they have been on the land for a day and a night and actual
notice has been given to their owner and he has neglected to remove
them ip).
533. In addition to the things mentioned above, the following Special

privilege on
things are absolutely privileged from distress for rent in arrear upon
agricultural
—
an agricultural holding: (1) agricultural or other machinery which holdings.
is the property of a person other than the tenant and is on the holding
under a bond fide agreement with him for the hire or use thereof
in the conduct of his business (2) live stock of all kinds (which
;
includes any animal capable of being distrained {q) ) which is the

bond fide property of a person other than the tenant and is on the
holding solely for breeding purposes (?•)•
534. Live stock belonging to another person which has been taken Live stock
in by the tenant of an agricultural holding to be fed at a fair price (s) ^^^^
is privileged from distress for rent when there is other sufficient
distress to be found if such live stock be distrained by reason of
;
other sufficient distress not being found, there cannot be recovered

by such distress a sum exceeding the price agreed to be paid for the
feeding, or any part thereof which remains unpaid. The owner of
the stock may, at any time before it is sold, redeem the stock by
paying to the distrainer such unpaid price, which will be in full
discharge as against the tenant of any sum of the like amount
which would be otherwise due from the owner of the stock to the
tenant in respect of the price of the feeding. Any portion of the
stock, so long as it remains on the holding, continues liable to be
distrained for the amount for which the whole of the stock is
distrainable {t).
A landlord who is an assenting party to the sale by his tenant

of {inter alia) the eatage on part of the farm on condition that the
rent in arrear shall be paid out of the proceeds of the sale, is
not entitled to distrain on the purchaser's cattle which are
consuming it {u).
{71) Pigqott V. Births (1836), 1 M. & W. 441.

(o) Co. Litt. 47 b.
(_p) Ktm'pe V. Crews (1684), 1 Ld. Eaym. 167.
(?) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 61), s. 61.
(r) Ibid., s. 45.
(s) This need not be money; it may be, e.g., " milk for meat," see London
and Yorkshire Bank v. Belton (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 457. Cattle on land under an

agreement by which the tenant agrees to allow the owner of the stock " the
exclusive right to feed the grass on land for four weeks " for a payment of £2
are not "taken in to be fed at a fair price" {Masters v. Green (1888), 20
Q. B. D. 807).
{t) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 61), s. 45.
{u) Horsford v. Webster (1835), 1 C. M. & K. 696.

_ — —
254 Agriculture.
Sect. 2. Sect. 2. Sheaves and Ricks of Corn and Hay.

Sheaves and
535. Sheaves and cocks of corn were not distrainable at common
Ricks of
Corn and law on the ground that they could not be restored in the same
Hay. plight (a) but by statute (5) persons having rent in arrear (c) may
;
seize and secure any sheaves or cocks of corn, or corn loose or in the
Sheaves and
straw, or hay in any barn or granary, or upon any hovel, stack, or rick,
ricks of com
and hay. or elsewhere on the land, and lock up the same in the place where
found until replevied. In default of replevy the same must be sold
after appraisement at the expiration of five days, and until sale or
replevy it must not be removed out of the place where it is found.
But no appraisement need be made unless the tenant or owner of
the goods by writing requires the same to be made (d).
Sect. 3. Growing Crops.

Growing 536. A lessor or landlord may distrain any cattle or stock of the
crops etc. tenant feeding upon any common appendant or appurtenant or any
ways belonging to the premises, and may seize all sorts of corn, grass,
hops, roots, fruits, pulse, or other product growing on the premises
as a distress for arrears of rent, and cut, gather etc. and lay up the
same when ripe in barns on the premises, or if there be no barns
on the premises, then in barns as near thereto as may be and in ;
convenient time may appraise and sell (e) the same towards satis-
faction of the rent and expenses, the appraisement thereof to
be taken when cut, gathered, cured, and made, and not before (/).
Notice of the place where the distress is lodged must be given to
the tenant, and if the rent and expenses be paid or tendered after
the taking of the distress, but before the crops etc. are ripe and
cut, cured or gathered, the distress must be delivered up to the
tenant (g).
The right does not extend to trees, shrubs, and plants growing in
a nursery ground these cannot be distrained (h) and the grantee of
; ;
a rent-charge, not being a "lessor or landlord," cannot distrain upon

growing crops unless a specific power to do so be inserted in the
grant (i).
Growing crops can only be sold after appraisement, which is not
to be made until the crops are ripe, and a sale before that time is
wholly void, and no action by the tenant lies in respect of it if the
crops are not removed (k). If they are taken away by the purchaser,
(a) iniso7i V. Bucket (1675), 2 Mod. Eep. 61.

{b) Statute 2 W. & M., sess. 1, c. 5, s. 2.
(c) InclTiding grantees of rent-charges (Landlord and Tenant Act, 1730 (4
Geo. 2, c. 28), s. 5 Johnson v. Faulhur (1842), 2 Q. B. 925).

;
{d) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 61), s. 50 now repealed ;
and replaced by s. 5 of the Law of Distress Amendment Act, 1888 (51 & 52
Yict. c. 21).
(e) Thedistress must in this case be sold, and cannot be retained as a pledge
{Figgott V. Birtles (1836), 1 M. & W. at p. 448, jper Parke, B.).
(/) Distress, for Eent Act, 1737 (11 Geo. 2, c. 19), s. 8.
Ig) Hid,, s. 9.
(A) Clark Gaskarth (1818), 8 Taunt. 431.
v.
(i) Miller v. Green (1831), 8 Bing. 92.
{k) Given v. Legh (1820), 3 B. & Aid. 470.
— —
Part IV. Distress and Execution. 255
the tenant can only recover against the landlord nominal damages Sect. 3.
unless he can show actual damage (1) .

Growing
Crops
537. When a sheriff has under an execution sold crops or
produce on a farm subject to an agreement to expend the same on Sale by
the land (m), the landlord of the farm may not distrain on any corn, sherifE subject
to agreement.
hay, straw, or produce thereof which at the time of the sale was
severed from the soil and sold subject to the agreement, nor on
any turnips sold, whether drawn or not, nor on any horses, sheep,
cattle, carts or implements of husbandry on the land employed or
kept by any persons for the purpose of carrying or consuming
such corn etc. or produce according to the agreement (n).
538. As to gT'owing crops, however, seized under an execution Growing
and sold by the sheriff or other officer, such crops, so long as they crops sold and
remain on the farm or lands, are liable in default of sufficient not removed.
distress of the ^>-oods and chattels of the tenant to the rent which
may accrue and become due to the landlord after any such seizure
and sale, and to the remedies by distress for recovery of such rent,
notwithstanding any sale and assignment of such crops by the
sheriff (o) .
539. tenant be under a covenant not to sell hay, straw, or Where tenant
If a
crops the farm, a landlord distraining may not sell such hay, agrees not to
oft^
sell crops,
straw, or crops at a consuming price, but must sell them at the best landlord dis-
market price obtainable, and is liable in damages if he do not (p). training must
sell at best
price.
Sect. 4. Amount which may he Distrained Jor.
540. The arrears of rent which may

be distrained for may not Six years'
in an}^ case exceed six years' arrears {q). rent in
ordinary
In the case of an agricultural holding, however, the landlord may cases.
not distrain for rent which became due more than one year before One year's
the making of the distress. But where, according to the ordinary rent in case of
course of dealing between the landlord and tenant of a holding, the agricultural
holdings.
payment of the rent has been allowed to be deferred until the
expiration of a quarter of a year or half a year after the date at
which such rent lecâlly became due, then for the purpose of distress
the rent of the holding is deemed to have become due at the
expiration of such quarter or half year as the case may be, and not
at the date at which it legally became due (r).
The reference to the expiration of a quarter or half year must be
construed as referring only to the exact period of a quarter or half
year, not to any indefinite period after a quarter or half year(s).
Where rent is customarily payable a quarter or half year after it Where rent
is legally due, the landlord is entitled to distrain for rent legally due ordinarily
payable after
it is due.
{!)Froudlove v. Twemlow (1833), 1 0. & M. 326.
(m) Under the Sale of Farmmg Stock Act, 1816 (56 Geo. 3, c. 50), s. 3, p. 258,
post ; as to which see also title Distress.
(n) Ibid. s. 6.
(o) Landlord and Tenant Act, 1851 (14 & 15 Vict. c. 25), s. 2.
(p) Ridgivay v. Stafford (1851), 6 Exch. 404.

(?) Eeal Property Limitation Act, 1833 (3 & 4 "Will. 4, c. 27), s. 42.
(r) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 61 \ s. 44.
(s) See Garrard v. Meek (1880), 50 L. J. (c. P.) 187.
—
256 Agriculture.
Sect. 4. but not yet payable according to the course of dealing, and at the
Amount same time for rent which became legally due more than a year
Distrained previously but became payable by the course of dealing less than a
^Q^' year previously, although the total amount thus distrained for
exceeds a year's rent (a).
Where tenant 541. Where the tenant becomes bankrupt, the landlord may, after
becomes the commencement of the bankruptcy, distrain only for six months'
an rup •
j^^j^^ accrued due prior to the order of adjudication (h) and he will ;
not be allowed to obtain a larger amount of rent by agreeing with the

bankrupt to waive his right of distress in consideration of taking
over the stock on the farm at a valuation in lieu of rent (c).
Compensation 542. When compensation due to a tenant under the Agricultural
set off against Holdings Acts, or under any custom or contract, has been ascertained
rent.
before the landlord distrains for rent due, the amount of such com-
pensation may be set off against the rent due, and the landlord is
not entitled to distrain for more than the balance (d).
Fees for 543. Where a distress is levied for rent under the Agricultural
distraining.
Holdings Acts, the bailiff, not the landlord, is entitled to the
authorised percentage for levying the distress (e).
When Distress may be made.

Sect. 5.
Distress 544. Distress may be made when rent is in arrear, that is, on the
immediately day after it becomes due {J ). And if by the custom of the country
after rent due.
any rent is payable by the tenant upon entering his holding, it may
be distrained for the next day (g).
Distress 54:5. Eent accruing due before the determination of a tenancy by

after deter- notice to quit by the landlord cannot be distrained for at common law
mination of
tenancy. after the tenancy has expired, although the tenant remains in occupa-
tion (li) but it is otherwise if the rent becomes due after, the deter-
;
mination of the tenancy, and there is no evidence of a renewal of the

tenancy (?').
By statute, however, any person having rent in arrear upon any
lease for life, years, or at will, may distrain for such arrears within
six months after the determination of the term, provided such distress
be made during the continuance of the landlord's title and during the
possession of the tenant {k). The right is not confined to cases
(a) JEx parte Bull, He Beiu (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 642 ; Fairlamh v. Beaumont
(1887), 31 Sol. J. 272.
(b) Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 52), s. 42, amended by Bankruptcy
Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Yict. c. 71), s. 28. See title Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
(c) Be
Griffith (1897), 66 L. J. (q. b.) 763.
(d) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 61), s. 47.
(e) Philipps V. Bees (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 17; Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883
(46 & 47 Yict. c. 61), s. 49, sched. ii.

(/) Buppa V. Mayo (1671), 1 Saund. 287.
((/)BucMeij V. Taijlor (1788), 2 Term Eep. 600 where Buller, J., stated that
;
lie found on inquiry tliat it was a common custom that the landlord might
distrain the first day of the tenancy.
(h) Williams v. Stiven (1846), 9 Q. B. 14.
{i) Jenner y. Clegg (1832), 1 Moo. & Eob. 213; Alford v. Vickery (1842), Car.
& M. 280.
{k) Landlord and Tenant Act, 1709 (8 Anne, c. 14), ss. 6, 7.
— —
Part IV. —Distress and Execution. 257
where there is a holding over of the whole premises, but applies

where by the custom of the country the tenant remains in possession When Dis-
of the barns only for the purpose of stowing his way-going crop (I), tress may
And where the tenant remains in possession of part of the farm by be made.
permission of the landlord, the landlord may distrain on that part
within the six months {m).
But the landlord is not entitled to distrain if the tenant after
holding over for a few^ days has quitted the premises after the entry
of a new^ tenant, leaving some stock on the farm, but giving no
intimation of a purpose to return or to continue the tenancy {n); nor
wliere the landlord has agreed to let to the tenant part of the holding
after the tenancy of the whole has determined, and the tenant remains
in possession of that part (o).
Sect. 6. Bemecly for Wrongful Distress.
546. In addition to the ordinary remedies by action of trespass Remedy for

or replevin in cases of unlawful distress, a special remedy exists wrongful
where such distress is made upon an agricultural holding. In such a^riOTitural
cases any dispute arising (1) in respect of any distress levied con- holding,
trary to the provisions of the Âgricultural Holdings Acts, or (2) as
to the ownership of any live stock distrained upon, or as to the
price to be paid for the feeding of that stock, or (3) as to any
other matter or thing relating to a distress on an agricultural
holding, may be determined by a county court or a court of
summary jurisdiction. Such court may make an order for the
restoration of any live stock or other things unlawfully distrained,
or declare the price to be paid for feeding any live stock distrained,
or make any other order which justice requires. An appeal lies to
quarter sessions from any decision of a court of summary juris-
diction respecting such dispute (jj), and to the High Court from any
such decision of a county court (q).
Sect. 7. Liability of Growing Crops etc. to Execution,
547. Growing fruit cannot be taken in execution under a fi. Ja. (r). At common
Farm produce and growing crops might at common law be taken in l^^-
execution and sold under a/. /ti., and were only subsequently liable
to be distrained for rent if allowed to remain on the land an
unreasonably long time.
The rights of an execution creditor in this respect are now By statute,
regulated by statute (s). No sheriff or other officer may carry
off or sell from a farm any straw threshed or unthreshed, or straw
of crops growing, chaff, colder, turnips, or manure in any case
whatever nor any hay, grass, tares, vetches, roots or vegetables,
;
being produce of such farm, in any case where, according to any
(0 Beavan v. Delahmj (1788), 1 H. Bl. 5.

(w) Nuttall Staimtou (1825), 4 B. & 0. 51.
V.
(n) TayUrson v. Peters (1837), 7 A. & E. 110.
(o) WilUnsoiiY. Peel, [1895] 1 Q. B. 516.
(p) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 61), s. 46.
Iq) Hanmer v. King (1887), 57 L. T. 367.
(r) Rodwell v. Phillips (1842), 9 M. & W. 501, 505, per Lord Abinger, O.B.
(s) Sale of Farming Stock Act, 1816 (56 Geo. 3, c. 50).
H.L. — I. S
—
258 Agriculture.
Sect. covenant or written agreement made for the benefit of the landlord,
7.
Liability ofsuch hay etc. ought not to be removed, of which covenants or

Produce and agreements the sheriff or other officer shall have received written
Growing notice before sale (t). The tenant against whom execution is issued
Crops to
must give notice to the sheriff of the existence of covenants etc. and
Execution.
the name and address of the landlord and the sheriff is to give
;
notice to the landlord of his taking possession of such produce (a).

The sheriff may dispose of any of the crops or produce under a
written agreement that the purchaser will expend the same on the
land (5), and allow the landlord to bring an action in his name in
case of breach of such agreement (c). The landlord may not dis-
train for rent on any produce severed from the soil and sold subject
to such agreement, or on any beasts or carts or implements employed
or kept for the purpose of threshing, carrying or consuming such
produce (<^). The sheriff may not sell any clover or grass crop grow-
ing under any crop or standing corn {e). These provisions do not
apply to any straw, turnips or other articles which the tenant may
remove from the farm consistently with some contract in writing (/).
Growing As above stated (g), where any growing crops are seized and sold
crops.
under a fi. fa., such crops, so long as they remain on the land, are
liable, in default of other sufficient distress, to be distrained by the
landlord for arrears of rent accruing due after the seizure and sale (/i).
Part V. — Compensation.
Sect. 1. Comimisation for Improvements to Agricultural
Holdings.
Generally. 548. In some districts a tenant is entitled on quitting his holding

to compensation from his landlord by the custom of the country in
respect of the unexhausted value of certain improvements, such as
applied manure, marling, buildings etc., as well as for tillages, hauling
materials, manure heaps etc. In some cases his lease or agree-
ment provides for compensation for specific matters. Without
prejudice to the right of the tenant to claim compensation to which
he may be entitled under any custom, agreement, or otherwise, a
statutory right to compensation for certain specified improvements
is given to tenants of agricultural holdings (i), of allotments and
cottage gardens, and small holdings (A;).
{t) Sale of Farming Stock Act, 1816 (56 Geo. 3, c. 50), s. 1.
(«) Ibid., s. 2.
(6) Ihid., s. 3.
(c) Ibid., s. 4.
d) Ibid., s. 6.
e) Ibid., s. 7.
(/) Ibid., s. 8.
[g) Ante, p. 255.
Landlord and Tenant Act, 1851 (14 & 15 Yict. c. 25), s. 2.
(A)
(i) By
the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1883 to 1906, see note (a), p. 239, ante,
[k) Allotments and Cottage Gardens Comj)ensation for Crops Act, 1887 (50 &
51 Yict. c. 26), and Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54),
s. 35, for whicli see title Allotments, pp. 347, 356, post, and title Small
Holdings.
—
Part V. Compensation. 259
With respect to the statutory rights of tenants of agricultural ^^gt. i.
holdings to compensation, the following terms have the meanings Improve-

here given (/) :— nients to
" Contract of tenancy " means a letting of or agreement for the -^^^^^c^ltural
"
letting of land for a term of years, or for lives, or for lives and ^
years, or from year to year (in). Definitions.
"Determination of tenancy" means the cesser of a contract of

tenancy by reason of effluxion of time, or from any other
cause (n).
"Landlord," in relation to a holding, means any person for the
time being entitled to receive the rents and profits of any
holding (o).
" Tenant " means a holder of land under a contract of tenancy
as above defined, and includes his executors, administrators,
assigns, or other persons deriving title from him (p) and the
;
designations of landlord and tenant continue to apply to the

parties until the conclusion of any proceedings taken under
or in pursuance of the Agricultural Holdings Acts in respect
of compensation for improvements, or under any agreement
made in pursuance of those Acts.
"Holding" means any parcel of land held by a tenant which
is either wholly agricultural or wholly pastoral, or in part
agricultural and as to the residue pastoral, or in whole or in
part cultivated as a market garden, and which is not let to the
tenant during his continuance in any office, appointment, or
employment held under the landlord.
" County court " in relation to a holding means the county
court within the district whereof the holding, or the larger
part thereof, is situate.
A tenant at the determination of his tenancy has a statutory Right to com-
pensation.
{I) See Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 61), ss. 54, 61 ;
Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Yict. c. 50), s. 9; Market Gardeners'
Compensation Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 27), s. 6.
(w) An agreement for letting land at a yearly rent, payable quarterly, with a
stipulation that the tenancy may be determined by either party giving three
months' notice to quit on any day of the year, creates a tenancy from year to
year within this definition {King v. Eversfield, [1897] 2 Q. B. 475).
[n) Where the contract of tenancy is rescinded and occupation abandoned by
reason of the failure of one of the parties to perform a necessary condition of
the contract, there is no determination of tenancy within the meaning of this
definition {Todd v. Bov-ie (1902), 4 F. 435, decided under the Scotch
Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883).
If by the terms of the agreement, or by custom, a tenant is entitled or
required to give up possession of different parts of his holding at different
times, the determination of the tenancy takes place at the time for his giving
up the last agricultural or pastoral part, whether he do or do not still retain
some or all of the buildings {Black v. Clay, [1894] A. 0. 368 Morley v. Garter,
;
[1898] 1 _a B. 8 re Faid (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 247; see p. 242, ante).

(o) This definition of landlord excludes the executors of a landlord, unless
they are parties to proceedings for compensation [Goiujh v. OoiigJi, [1891] 2
Q. B. 665).
(p) The trustee in bankruptcy of a tenant is included in this definition, but
in order to be entitled to compensation he must act in accordance with the
provisions of the Act precisely as if he were the tenant. If he disclaim the
lease, he loses the right to compensation {Scliofield v. ] Uncles (1888), 58 L. J.
(Q. B.) 147).
s 2
. ;
260 Agriculture.
Sect. 1. right on quitting his holding (q) to obtain from the landlord {r) as
Improve- compensation for any improvements of the kinds for which com-
ments to pensation is payable made by him on his holding such sum as fairly
Agricultural represents the value of the improvements to an incoming tenant (s).
Holdings.
549. A claim for such compensation cannot be made after the
Time for
making determination of the tenancy; but where the claim relates to an
claim. improvement executed after the determination of the tenancy,
and while the tenant lawfully remains in occupation of part of the
holding, the claim may be made at any time before the tenant quits
that part (t)
How amount 550. In ascertaining the amount of compensation to be paid to a

of compen-
sation may be
tenant there is to be taken into account (i.) any benefit which the
reduced. landlord has given or allowed the tenant in consideration of the tenant
executing the improvement {u), and (ii.) as respects manures (a),
the value of the manure required by the contract of tenancy or by
custom to be returned to the holding in respect of crops sold off or
removed from the holding within the last two years of the tenancy,
or other less time for which the tenancy has endured, not exceeding
the value of the manure which would have been produced by the
consumption on the holding of the crops so sold off or removed (6).
Compensation 551. Compensation is not payable in respect of any improvement
comprised in Part I. of the First Schedule to the Agricultural
im rov'T''^''^
mentey^ Holdings Act, 1900(c), unless the landlord has previously to the
(q) See note (n), p. 259, ante, for the case where a tenant quits parts of his
holding at different times.
(r) A custom for the outgoing tenant to be paid compensation by the incoming
tenant, though frequent in practice, is bad in law {Bradburn v. Foley (1878), 3
0. P. D. 129).
(s) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 56), s. 1 (1). This section
repeals the corresponding sect. 1 (1) of the Act of 1900, but does not come into
operation until January 1, 1909. Until that date, therefore, the provision in the
Act of 1900 that there shall not be taken into account as part of the improvement
what is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil, remains in force.
For forms of notice claiming compensation, see Encyclopaedia of Eorms,
Vol. YIL, pp. 720, 721.
{t) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 50), s. 2 (2); see also
cases decided before the Act, cited in note {n), p. 259, ante.
{u) Ihd., s. 1 (3).
(a) I.e., the improvements numbered
(23), (24) and (25) in note (k), p. 261, post.
{h) Ibid., s. 1 (4), When
hay, straw etc. which the tenant is by his agree-
ment bound to stack and consume on the holding is accidentally destroyed, as
by fire, the landlord is not entitled at the determination of the tenancy to have
deducted from the compensation due to the tenant the manurial value of the
hay and straw so destroyed (Be Hull and Lady 3Ieux, [1905] 1 K. B. 588).
(c) These are: —
(1) erection, alteration, or enlargement of buildings; (2) forma-
tion of silos (3) laying down of permanent pasture
; ;(4) making and plant-
ing of osier beds (5) making of water meadows or works of irrigation
;
(6) making of gardens (7) making or improving of roads or bridges

;
(8) making or improving of watercourses, ponds, wells, reservoirs, or of works

for the application of water power or for supply of water for agricultural or
domestic purposes (9) making or removal of permanent fences;
; (10) plant-
ing of hops; (11) planting of orchards or fruit bushes; (12) protecting
young fruit trees; (13) reclaiming of waste land; (14) warping or weiring
of land; (15) embankments and sluices against floods; (16) the erection of
wirework in hop gardens.
— ;
execution of the improvement consented in writing {d) to the making Sect. i.
of the improvement. Such consent may be unconditional, or upon Improve-

such terms as to compensation or otherwise as may be agreed (e). ments to
Agricultural
552. Compensation is payable for drainage (/) provided that the Holdings,
tenant has, not more than three nor less than two months before
beginning the work, given to the landlord notice in writing of his for'^?ainage!'^
intention to do so, and of the manner in which he proposes to do it.
After such notice the landlord and tenant may agree on the terms as
to compensation or otherwise on which the work is to be executed,
and in default of such agreement the landlord may, unless the
tenant's notice is withdrawn, execute the work, and recover from
the tenant as rent a sum not exceeding £5 per cent, per annum
on the outlay, or not exceeding such annual sum, payable for twenty-
five years, as will repay the outlay in that period, with interest at JbS
per cent, per annum. If the landlord fails to execute the work
within a reasonable time, the tenant may do it, and will be entitled
to compensation therefor (g).
The landlord and tenant may, however, dispense with any
notice, and may, either in the lease or otherwise, make any agree-
ment they please on the subject, and such agreement shall be as
valid as though the statutory notice had been given (h).
The landlord's consent and notices by the tenant to the landlord Landlord's
as to the execution of the improvements referred to above may be ^s^^^-
given by or to the authorised agent of the landlord (i).
553. No notice to or consent by the landlord is required to enable Compensa-

compensation to be claimed for any of the improvements enumerated ^^^^
in Part III. of the First Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, jnents for
1900 (/t) but where any agreement in writing secures to the tenant which land-
;
lord's consent
~ is not
(d) The consent may be given in tlie lease. A
lease providing that the required,
tenant may at his own
cost convert meadow into orchard is such a consent
{Mears v. CaUender, [1901] 2 Ch. 388).
For form of consent, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Yol. YII., p. 717.
(e) Agricultural Holdmgs Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 61), s. 3.
(/) Drainage is the only improvement comprised in Part II. of the Schedule.
For forms of notices as to drainage, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Yol. YII.,
pp. 718, 719.
(g) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 61), s. 4.
(h) Ibid. An
agreement to dispense with notice need not be in writing
{Ogilvij V. Mliot (1905), 7 F. (Ct. of Sess.) 1115).
(i) Ibid., ss. 3, 4. The general manager of an estate is such an authorised
agent {Pearson v. FAusov, [1899] 2 Q. B. 618; Ingham v. Fenton [l^d), 10
T. L. E. 113).
For form of appointment of agent, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Yol. YII., p. 718.
{k) 63 & 64 Yict. c. 50. These improvements are —
(18) chalking of land
:
(19) clay-burning; (20) claying; (21) liming; (22) marling of land (23) appH-
;
cation to land of purchased artificial or other purchased manure (24) consump-

;
tion on the holding by cattle, sheep, pigs, or by horses other than those regularly
employed on the holding, of corn, cake, or other feeding-stuff not produced on
the holding (25) consumption in the same manner of corn proved to have been
;
produced and consumed on the holding (26) laying down temporary pasture
;
with clover, grass, lucerne, sainfoin, or other seeds, sown more than two years
prior to the determination of the tenancy (27) matters special to market gardens,
;
as to which, see p. 269, post.

The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 56), s. 6, adds to this Kst of
improvements, repairs to buildings, being buildings necessary for the proper
262 Agriculture.
Sect. 1.
fairand reasonable compensation for any such improvement, such
Improve- compensation is payable as provided by the agreement, and is
ments to deemed to be substituted for compensation under the Acts (Z).
Agricultural
Holdings, 554. No compensation is payable in respect of manures which have
Manures for
been used by the tenant for the purpose of making provision against
prevention of injury or deterioration of the holding caused or threatened by his
deterioration exercise of his right after January 1, 1909, of freedom of cropping
of holding.
arable land and disposal of the produce of his holding (m).
Agreements 555. Any agreement, other than those already mentioned, by

as to com-
which the tenant is deprived of his right to claim compensation
pensation.
under the Acts for any improvement comprised in the First
Schedule, is void so far as it deprives him of that right (n). But
the tenant has the right to claim compensation under custom,
agreement, or otherwise in lieu of compensation under the Acts (o).
Incoming 556. If an incoming tenant, with the written consent of the land-
tenant sub- lord, pay to an outgoing tenant compensation for an improvement,
rogated to
rights of out- he is entitled on quitting the holding to claim compensation for the
going tenant. improvement in like manner as the outgoing tenant would have
been entitled if he had remained tenant of the holding and quitted
it at the time at which the incoming tenant quits {p),
Change of 557. A tenant who has remained in his holding during two or more
tenancy
tenanciesis not, on quitting the holding, deprived of his right to
during one
occupation. compensation for improvements by reason only that the improve-
ments were not made during the tenancy on the determination of
which he quits the liolding (q).
Restriction on 558. Tenants about to quit a holding are discouraged from making
tenants about or beginning improvements for the purpose of raising a claim to
to quit.
compensation by the provision that no tenant is entitled to compensa-
tion for improvements other than manures {r) begun by him within
a year of the expiration of his contract of tenancy, or in the case
of a yearly tenant within a year before he quits his holding, or at
any time after giving or receiving notice to quit which results in
cultivation or working of the liolding, other than repairs which the tenant is
himself under an obligation to execute, provided that the tenant, before beginning
to execute such repairs, gives to the landlord notice in writing of his intention
together with particulars of such repairs, and the landlord fails to execute such
repairs himself within a reasonable time after receiving such notice. The Act
does not come into operation until January 1, 1909.
{I) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 61), s. 5 and see Newby
;
V. Eckersley, [1899] 1 Q. B. 465.

(to) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906 (6Edw. 7, c. 56), s. 3 (3); and see p. 250,
ante.
(n) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 61), s. 55, This section
does not apply to any agreement by which the tenant may deprive himself of his
right to remove fixtures {Mears v. Callertder, [1901] 2 Ch. 388).
(o) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Yict. c. 50), s. 1 (o).
(p) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 61), s. 56. In the case
of a market garden, the consent of the landlord required by this section is dis-
pensed with(Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Yict. c. 27), s. 3).
For form of consent, see Encyclopsedia of Forms, Yol. Yll., p. 724.
(q) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 61), s. 58.
- (r) "Manures," within this provision, mean the improvements numbered (23),
(24), and (25) in note (k), p. 261, ante.

— —
his quitting his holding. But this restriction does not apply in the Sect. 1.
case of an improvement begun by a yearly tenant during the last Improve-
year of his tenancy if, in pursuance of a notice to quit thereafter ments to
given by the landlord, the tenant quits the holding at the expiration Agricultural
Holdings.
of the year, or where a tenant before beginning the improvement
has served notice on his landlord of his intention to begin it, and
the landlord has either assented, or failed for a month after receipt
of the notice to object to the making of the improvement (s).
559. Where a person occupies land under a contract of tenancy Compensation

when posses-
with a mortgagor which is not binding on the mortgagee (t) he is sion taken
by
entitled, as against the mortgagee who takes possession, to any com- mortgagee.
pensation which but for such taking possession would be due to him
either by statute or custom from the mortgagor for crops, improve-
ments, tillages, or other matters connected with the land. Any sum
found due to the tenant under this provision may be set off against
any rent or other sum due from him in respect of the land, but unless
so set off may, as against the mortgagee, be charged and recovered
only as compensation due from a landlord who is a trustee {a).
If the tenancy is from year to year or for a term not exceeding
twenty-one years, the mortgagee, before evicting the occupier, must
give him six months' notice, and if he then evict him, compensation
must be given for crops and for any expenditure upon the land
which the occupier has made in the expectation of holding the land
for his full term, in so far as the improvement resulting therefrom
is not exhausted at the time of eviction (/>).
Sub-Sect. 1. Procedure for Recovery of Com'pensation.
560. If the tenant of a holding (c) claim to be entitled to statutory Arbitration

failing agree-
compensation, or to compensation under any custom or agreement, in ment.
respect of any improvement comprised in the First Schedule to the
Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 {d), and he fail to agree with his land-
lord as to the amount and mode and time of payment of such
(s) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 61), s. 59. For forms of
notices under this provision, see Encyclopsedia of Forms, Vol. YIL, pp. 719, 720.
{t) Alease by a mortgagor alone made after the mortgage is not binding on
the mortgagee unless it is made in pursuance of an express power in the
mortgage deed, or satisfies the provisions of s. 18 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881
(44 & 45 Yict. 0. 41) see Keech v. Hall (1778), 1 Doug. 21
: Thunder y. Belcher
;
(1803), 3 East, 449. If evicted by the mortgagee the tenant, but for the pro-
vision mentioned in the text, would lose all right to his growing crops, tillages
etc. {Walmsley v. Milne (1859), 7 C. B. (n. s.) 115).
(a) Tenants Compensation Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 57),, s. 2. As by s. 1
this Act is to be construed as one with the Agricultural Holdings Acts and Allot-
ments and Cottage Gardens Compensation Act, 1887, these provisions apparently
apply only to "holdings" under those Acts, notwithstanding the use of the
larger word " land." The mode of charging and recovering compensation due
from a trustee landlord is provided by s. 31 of the Agricultural Holdings Act,
1883 (see p. 268, post).
(b) Tenants Compensation Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Yict. c. 57), s. 2 (2).
(c) A landlord cannot initiate arbitration proceedings under the Agricultural
Holdings Acts. If he has a claim against the tenant, and the tenant does not
commence proceedings by arbitration, the landlord must proceed hj action (Re
Holmes and Formhy, [1895] 1 Q. B. 114:, per Lawrance, J., at p. 178).
(d) See notes (r), {/) and {h), pp. 260, 261, ante.
264 Agriculture.
Sect. compensation, the difference must be settled by arbitration (e), in

1.
Improve- accordance with the provisions, if any, of any agreement between

ments to the landlord and the tenant, and in default of and subject to any
Agricultural such provisions, in accordance with the following provisions
(/).
Holdings.
561. In default of agreement between the parties (g) the arbitrator
Appointment
of arbitrator.
will be nominated by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (h).
If the parties agree in writing (?) that there shall not be a single
arbitrator, each of them must appoint an arbitrator (/c). If for
fourteen days after notice by one party to the other to appoint
an arbitrator, or another arbitrator (l), the other party fails to do so,
the appointment will be made by the Board of Agriculture and
Fisheries on the application of the party giving the notice.
Two arbitra- Where two arbitrators are appointed they must, before entering
tors and an on the arbitration, appoint an umpire (m). If for seven days after
umpire.
request from either party (n) the arbitrators fail to appoint an
umpire, he may be appointed by the Board.
All references 562. After January 1, 1909, all questions as to statutory compen-
after 1908 to
sation or arising under the contract of tenancy of an agricultural
a single
arbitrator. holding which are referred to arbitration must, at whatever date
the question arose, and notwithstanding any agreement to the
contrary, be determined by a single arbitrator in the manner above
mentioned (o).
Removal of 563. If an arbitrator

dies, or is incapable of acting, or for seven
arbitrator.
days after notice requiring him to act fails to act {p), a new arbitrator
may be appointed (cj). The appointment of an arbitrator cannot be
revoked except by consent (?•). Every such appointment, notice,
(e) A
claim for such compensation cannot be made the subject of a set-off
or counterclaim in an action brought by the landlord against the tenant for
rent or breach of covenant {Gaslight and Coke Co. v. Holloimy (1885), 52 L. T.
434 Schofield v. Hincks (1888), 60 L. T. 573).
;
(/) These provisions are contained in the Second Schedule to the Agricultural
Holdings Act, 1900. For arbitration generally, see title Arbitration, post.
(g) For form of agreement, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Yol. YIL, p. 722.
(h) For form of appointment by parties of a smgle arbitrator, see Encyclo-
paedia of Forms, Yol. YIL, pp. 724, 725.
('/) A
clause in a lease referring certain questions of compensation under the
lease to two arbitrators is not an agreement in writing that there shall not be a
single arbitrator if questions arise as to compensation under the Agricultural
Holdings Acts and such questions must, therefore, be determined by a single
;
arbitrator (Ogihy v. EUrot (1905), 7 F. (Ct. of Sess.) 1115). See Encyclopaedia

of Forms, Yol. YII., p. 726, Form 200.
(/c) See Encyclopaedia of Forms, Yoh YII.,
pp. 727, 728, Forms 202, 204.
(l) Ibid., p. 726, Fonn 201.
(m) I hid., p. 731, Form 209. Where an agreement for a tenancy provided that
the rights of the parties thereunder should be adjusted on the determination of
the tenancy by two arbitrators, and such arbitrators were appointed, but the
landlord refused to allow his arbitratoi- to appoint an umpire, it was held that,
as the arbitration was under the agreement and not under the Agricultural
Holdings Acts, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries had no power to appoint
an umpire, and an award made by an umpire appointed by the Board was
altogether void (Re Cundall and Vavasour (1906), 95 L. T. 483).
(n) See Encyclopaedia of Forms, p. 730, Form 208.
(o) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 56), s. 1 (2).
.
(p) See Encvclopaedia of Forms, Yol. YIL, p. 731, Form 210.
iq) lUd., p. "727, Form 203.
(r) Ihid., pp. 729, 730, Forms 206, 207.
Part Y. — Compensation. 265
revocation, and consent must be in writing. The county court has Sect. 1.
power to remove an arbitrator for misconduct (s). Improve-

ments to
564. The evidence of the parties must, and that of witnesses Agricultural
may, be given on oath or by affirmation, which the arbitrator may Holdings.
administer or take the arbitrator may also order production of
;
Evidence.
samples and documents by the parties.
The arbitrator may on request, and must if so directed by the Case stated.
county court, state a case for the opinion of the county court on
any question of law arising in the course of the arbitration and an ;
appeal lies from the county court to the Court of Appeal (t).
565. A single arbitrator must make and sign his award within Time for
twenty-eight days of his appointment or such longer period as the making
award.
Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may (whether the time for making
the award has expired or not) direct (a). Two arbitrators must make
and sign their award within twenty-eight days of the appointment
of the last appointed of them or on or before any later day to which
they may by writing signed by them (h) enlarge the time for making
the award, not being more than forty-nine days from the appoint-
ment of the last appointed of them. If the arbitrators allow their
time to elapse without making an award, or deliver to either party
or the umpire a notice in writing that they cannot agree (c), the
umpire may enter on the arbitration. He must make and sign his
award within one month after the original or extended time for
making the award of the arbitrators has expired, unless the time is
extended by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
566. The award must be in the form prescribed by the Board (d), Contents of
and must fix a day not sooner than one month or later than two award.
months for payment of any money or costs awarded. If requested

by either party the arbitrator must specify in the award the amount
awarded for any particular improvement.
If a claim be made in respect of an improvement executed after
the determination of the tenancy, but while the tenant lawfully
occupies part of the holding, the arbitrator may, if he think fit,
make a separate award in respect of such claim {e).
567. The award is final, but may be corrected by the arbitrator in Award final
respect of any clerical error or accidental slip, or set aside by the

county court for misconduct on the part of the arbitrator or if the
arbitration or award has been improperly procured.
(s) For the rules of practice in the county court with regard to arbitrations
and awards under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, see County Court Eules,
Ord. 40, and title County Courts, post.
(t) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 50), s. 2 (6). See Eules
of the Supreme Court, Ord. 58, r. 20.
(a) For application to the Board to extend time, see Encyclopaedia of Forms,
Yol. VIL, p. 742, Form 221.
(h) See Encyclopsedia of Forms, p. 733, Form 212.
(c) Ibid., p. 733, Form 213.
(d) Ibid., p. 734, Form 214.
(e) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 50), s. 2 (2), (4). For form
of notice of claim under such circumstances, see Encyclopoedia of Forms, Vol.
VII., p. 721.
— .
266 Agkiculture.
Sect. 1,
568. Costs are in the discretion of the arbitrator, subject to
Improve- taxation in the county court and in awarding costs the arbitrator
;
ments to must take into consideration the reasonableness or unreasonableness

Agricultural of the conduct of the parties.
Holdings.
The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries has issued forms for use
Costs. in arbitrations of this nature (/).
Official forms. The Arbitration Act, 1889, does not apply to such an arbitration
unless so provided in an agreement between the landlord and
tenant (g) Witnesses giving false evidence before the arbitrator
.
are guilty of perjury (h).

If any sum agreed or awarded to be paid to or by a landlord or
tenant is not paid within fourteen days after payment becomes due,
such sum may be recovered in the county court (i)
Claims for 569. Where the tenant's claim for compensation is referred to
other matters
and any sum is claimed to be due to the tenant from
arbitration,
than compen-
sation in- the landlord for breach of contract or otherwise in respect of the
cluded in the holding {k), or to the landlord from the tenant in respect of waste or
arbitration.
breach of covenant or otherwise in respect of the holding, the party
claiming that sum may by notice given within seven days after the
appointment of the arbitrator require that the arbitration shall
extend to such claim, and any sum so awarded to be paid by a
landlord or tenant will be recoverable in the same manner as
compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Acts (1).
Sub-Sect. 2. Charge on Holding for Compensation.

Landlord may 570. A landlord on paying
to a tenant the amount due to him by
obtain charge.
statute, custom, agreement, or otherwise, for an improvement com-
prised in the First Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act,
1900 [m), or on expending money on drainage under s. 4 of the
Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, may obtain from the Board of
Agriculture and Fisheries an order in favour of himself, his executors,
administrators, and assigns, charging the holding with repayment of
the amount expended, with such interest and by such instalments
(/) See Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. YII., pp. 734—742.

(fy)Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Yict. c. 50), s. 2 (8). But if the
parties agree to include in the reference matters outside the Agricultural Holdings
Acts as well as matters within them, and one award is made dealing with the
whole of such, matters, the award maybe enforced nnder s. 12 of the Arbitration
Act, 1889 [Re Lloyd and Tooth, [1899] 1 Q. B. 559).
{h) Ihid., s. 2 (7).
(?;)Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 61), s. 24 ; Agricultural
Holdings Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Yict. c. 50), s. 2 (3).
{k) For form of notice of such claim, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Yol. YII.,
p. 722.
(J)Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Yict. c. 50), s. 2 (3). Before
this enactment a landlord could not enforce an award which awarded to
him a larger sum than was awarded to the tenant {Re Holmes and Formby,
[1895] 1 Q. B. 174 and see Re Lloyd and Tnoth, supra).
; Where an agree-
ment between a landlord and tenant provided that, in consideration of the
tenant quitting his holding before the end of his tenancy, the landlord would
pay him compeAsation in respect of certain matters included in the First Schedule,
and also of other matters not mentioned in the Act, th.e amount to be ascertained
by two valuers, it was held that the tenant could recover by action in the Higb
Court the amount of the valuation {Neiuhy v. Eckersley, [1899] 1 Q. B. 465).
{m) See notes (c), (/) and (A;), pp. 260, 261, ante.
as the Board may direct (n). Where the landlord is not the absolute Sect. 1.
owner of the holding for his own benefit, no instalment or interest Improve-
shall be made payable after the time when the improvement will in ments to
the opinion of the Board have become exhausted. No estate or Agricultural
interest of the landlord is or can be made subject to forfeiture by Holdings.
reason of his obtaining a charge on the holding from the Board (o).
The sum charged by an order of the Board is a charge on the Extent of
holding for the landlord's interest therein and all interests therein charge.
subsequent to that of the landlord, but so that where the landlord's
interest is leasehold the charge shall not extend beyond the interest
of the landlord, his executors, administrators, and assigns {p).
571. Any company incorporated by statute, and having power to Assignment

advance money for the improvement of land, may take an assign- of charge.
ment of any such charge made by the Board upon any terms that
may be agreed upon, and may also assign any charge so acquired
by them to any person (q),
572. Where a charge may be made for compensation, the person Certificate as
making the award shall, on the request and at the cost of the land- to charge.
lord, certify the amount to be charged and the term for which the
charge may properly be made, having regard to the time when each
improvement in respect of which compensation is awarded is to be
deemed to be exhausted (a).
573. A charge made by the Board is a land charge within the Registration
of charge.
meaning of the Land Charges Eegistration and Searches Act, 1888,
and may be registered accordingly. If not so registered it will be
void against a purchaser for value of the land charged (b).
Sub-Sect. 3. — Capital Money Applicable for Compensation.

574. Capital money arising under the Settled Land Acts, 1882 Settled Land
^^^^*
to 1890, may be applied (1) in payment of money expended or costs
incurred by a landlord in the execution of an improvement comprised
in Part I. or Part IL of the First Schedule to the Agricultural
Holdings Act, 1900 (c), or paid by or due from him as compensation
for any improvement comprised in that schedule, whether claimed
under statute, custom, agreement, or otherwise (2) in discharge of ;
any charge created on the holding under the Agricultural Holdings

Acts id).
{n) If proceedings for compensation are brought against a tenant for life who
dies before payment of the compensation, his executors, on making the pay-
ment, may obtain a charge on the holding for the amount so paid by them
{Gough V. GougJi, [1891] 2 Q. B. 665).
(o) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 61), s. 29; Agricultural
Holdings Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Yict. c. 50), s. 3.
{p) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, s. 30 Agricultural Holdings Act,
;
1900, s. 3.
(q) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, s. 32 ;
Agricultural Holdings Act,
1900, s. 3.
(a) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900, s. 3 (2).

(6) Tenants' Compensation Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 57), s. 3; Agricultural
Holdings Act, 1900, s. 3; Land Charges Eegistration and Searches Act, 1888
(51 & 52 Yict. c. 51), s. 12.
(c) See notes (c) and (/), pp. 260, 261, a?*^^'.
(d) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, s. 29 Agricultural Holdings Act,

;
1900, s. 3.
. — —
268 AaRICULTURE.
Sect. 1 Sub-Sect. 4. Persons under Disability, Trustees etc.
Improve- 575. The county court may for the purposes of the Agricultural
ments to
Holdings Acts appoint a guardian of any landlord or tenant who
Agricultural
is an infant or of unsound mind and has no guardian (e).
Holdings.
576. Where a woman married before 1883 was before her marriage
Appointment
of guardian. entitled to land, then, if she is entitled to the land for her separate
Married use and is not restrained from anticipation, she is, for the purposes
women. of the Agricultural Holdings Acts, in the same position in respect to
the land as if she were unmarried but if she is not so entitled, her
;
husband's concurrence is requisite in anything done by her under

the Acts, and she must be examined apart from her husband by
the judge of a county court as to her knowledge of the nature
and effect of the intended act, and to ascertain that she is acting
voluntarily (/)
Landlord a 577. A
landlord, whatever his estate or interest in the holding,
limited may give any consent, make any agreement, and do or have done to
owner.
him any act in relation to improvements for which compensation is
payable under the Agricultural Holdings Acts which he might give,
make, do, or have done to him if he were owner in fee simple, or, if
his interest is an interest in a leasehold, were possessed of the whole
estate in the leasehold {g).
Trustees etc. 578. Where any sum is due as compensation or under an award
made under the Agricultural Holdings Acts from a landlord who is
entitled to receive the rents and profits of the holding otherwise than
for his own benefit, whether as trustee or otherwise, (1) the amount
so due is not recoverable personally against the landlord, but is
recoverable only as a charge on the holding (2) the landlord may ;
obtain from the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries a charge on

the holding to the amount of the sum which he is required to pay
or has paid to the tenant and (3) the tenant, if he is not paid
;
what is due to him within a month after quitting the holding, may
obtain from the Board a charge for the amount due to him and
costs. Charges in these cases are made in like manner as other
charges under the Agricultural Holdings Acts Qi).
Lease best 579. W^here any Act or instrument authorising a lease to be made
rent. provides that the best rent shall be reserved, it is not necessary, in
estimating the best rent, to take into account any increase in the
value of a holding arising from any improvements made or paid for
by the tenant {i).
Site-Sect. 5. Croiun, Duchy, Ecclesiastical and Charity Lands.
Crown and 580. The Agricultural Holdings Acts apply to land belonging to
Duchy lands
His Majesty in right of the Crown and of the Dachy of Lancaster,
and to land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall (k).
(e)Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 61), s. 25.
(/) Ibid., s. 26.
(g) Ibid., s. 42.
[h) Ibid., s. 31; Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 50), ss. 2
(3), 3 (3).
(?) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, s. 43.
(k) Ibid., ss. 35—37, which contain special provisions for the raising and
payment of compensation in respect of Crown and Duchy holdings.
— —— ;
Where land forms the endowment of a see the powers conferred by Sect. 1.
the Agricultural Holdings Acts on a landlord (0 may not be exercised Improve-
by the bishop except with the previous approval, in writing, of the ments to
Estates Committee of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners {m). Agricultural
Where a landlord is incumbent of a benefice these powers may Holdings.
not be exercised by him in respect of the glebe except with the Ecclesiastical
previous approval, in writing, of the patron of the benefice, or of lands.
the governors of Queen Anne's Bounty; and the latter may, on behalf
of the incumbent, pay any compensation due, and obtain a charge
on the holding in favour of themselves, which shall be effectual
notwithstanding any change of incumbent {ri).
The power of charging land may not be exercised by trustees for Charity
ecclesiastical or charitable purposes without the approval of the lands.
Charity Commissioners (o).

Sub-Sect. 6. Supplemental Provisions.
581. The costs of any proceedings in the county court under the Costs in
Agricultural Holdings Acts are in the discretion of the court (p) county court.
and no order of the county court or of a court of summary juris- Certiorari.
diction under these Acts can be removed by certiorari or otherwise
into the High Court {q).
582. Any notice, request, demand, or other instrument under Service of
these Acts (r) may be served on the person to whom it is to be notices etc.
given either personally, or by leaving it at his last known place of

abode in England, or by registered letter addressed to him there (s).
Service on a landlord may be made on his agent duly authorised
in that behalf {t) .
583. Except as in the Agricultural Holdings Acts expressed, Saving of

rights.
nothing in those Acts is to affect prejudicially any power, right, or
remedy of any person under any other Act or law, or under any
custom of the country or otherwise, in respect of any contract or
thing {a) .
Sect. 2. Compensation Jor Improvements to Market Gardens.

584. In the case an agricultural holding in respect of which it Improve-
of
is agreed in writing after January 1, 1896, that the holding shall be
ments for
which com-
let or treated as a market garden (b), all statutory provisions as to pensation
compensation for improvements apply as if the following improve- payable.
ments were comprised in Part III. of the First Schedule to the
(I) These power to consent to tke improvements mentioned in note (c),
are,
power as to drainage power to make agreements as to the improve-
p. 260, a7ite ; ;
ments mentioned in note (/v), p. 261, ante, to purchase fixtures, and to charge
the holding.
{m) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 61), s. 38.
{n) lUd., s. 39.
(o) lUd.,s. 40.
Ip) Ibid., s. 27.

(q) Ibid., s. 48.
(r) This includes a notice to quit {Van GruttenY. Trevenen, [1902] 2 K. B. 82).
(sj Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 61), s. 28.
(t) An agent entrusted with the general management of an estate is prima
facie authorised to receive notices for the landlord {Ingham v. Feiiton (1893),
10 T. L. E. 113).
(a) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 61), s. 60.
{b) See definition of this term, p. 239, ante.
270 Agriculture.
Sect.
Improve-
2. Act of 1900
permanently
:
—
planting of standard or other fruit trees
(c) (1)
planting of fruit bushes permanently set
set out ; (2)
ments to out ;(3) planting of strawberry plants (4) planting of asparagus,
;
Market rhubarb, and other vegetable crops which continue productive for
Gardens.
two or more years (5) erection or enlargement of buildings for
;
the purpose of the trade or business of a market gardener (d).

The right of an incoming tenant to claim compensation in respect
of an improvement which he has purchased may be exercised
although his landlord has not consented in writing to the
purchase (e).
Crown and 585. In the case of Duchy lands compensation for any of these
Duchy lands
improvements, and in the case of Crown lands compensation for
improvements (1), (2), and (5), shall be paid in the same manner
and from the same funds as if the improvement were comprised in
Part I. of the First Schedule to the Act of 1900 (/).
Tenancies 586. Where a holding was, under a contract of tenancy current
current in
1896. on January 1, 1896 ((/), in use or cultivation as a market garden at
that date with the knowledge of the landlord, and the tenant has
executed thereon, without previous written notice of dissent by
the landlord, any of the above-mentioned improvements, the tenant
has the same right to comjDensation for the same as if it had
been agreed in writing after that date that the holding should be
let or treated as a market garden (h) and this right extends, after
;
1908, to compensation for such improvements even though they

were executed before January 1, 1896 (i).
Sect. 3. — Compensation for Unreasonable Disturbance.

Nature of 587. If, after January 1, 1909, the landlord of an agricultural
compensation
payable.
holding, without good and sufficient cause and for reasons
(c) See note {k), p. 261, ante.
(d) Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Yict. c. 27), s. 3 ;
Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Yict. c. 50), Schedule I., Part III.
(e) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 61), s. 56, as amended
by the Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Yict. c. 27), s. 3 (4).
(/) Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895, s. 5. See note (k), p. 268, ante.
((/) B}^ s. 61 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, a tenancy from year
to
year under a contract of tenancy current at the commencement of the Act shall
he deemed to continue to be a tenancy under a contract of tenancy current at
the commencement of that Act until the first day on which either the landlord
or tenant could, by giving notice to the other immediately after the commence-
ment of the Act, cause such tenancy to determine, and on and after such day
shall be deemed to be a tenancy under a contract beginning at the commence-
ment of the Act.
(h) Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Yict. c. 27), s. 4.
(?) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 56), s. 5 which, however,

;
does not come into operation until January 1, 1909. This enactment overrides
so much of the decisions in Smith v. Callander, [1901] A. C. 296, and Mears v.
CaUender, [1901] 2 Ch. 388, as decided that the right to compensation in such
cases extended only to improvements executed after January 1, 1896.
As to the effect of terms in a lease substituting a specified allowance for
compensation for fruit trees set out permanently in a market garden subse-
quently to January 1, 1896, see Smith v. Devonshire {Duke of) (1906), 22
T. L. E. 619.
As to compensation for improvements with respect to small holdings and
allotments under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54),
which comes into force on January 1, 1908, see title Allotments, pp. 347, 356,
post, and title Small Holdings.
—
inconsistent with good estate management, terminates a tenancy by Sect. 3.
notice to quit, or, after having been requested in writing at least Unreason-
one year before the expiration of a tenancy to do so, refuses to grant able Dis-
a renewal thereof, or if it is proved that an increase of rent has been turbance.
demanded from the tenant and that such increase was demanded
by reason of an increase in the value of the holding due to improve-
ments executed by or at the cost of the tenant, and for which he
has not received an equivalent from the landlord, and such demand
results in the tenant quitting the holding, the tenant upon quitting
the holding wdll, in addition to any compensation for improvements,
and notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, be entitled to
compensation for the loss or expense directly attributable to his
quitting the holding which he may unavoidably incur upon or in
connection with the sale or removal of his household goods, or his
implements of husbandry, produce, or farm stock on or used in
connection with the holding.
588. No such compensation will, however, be payable (1) unless Conditions

the tenant has given the landlord a reasonable opportunity of ofsuchcom-
making a valuation of such goods, implements, produce and stock, or P®"^^*^°^'
(2) unless the tenant has within two months after he received notice
to quit, or a renewal of the tenancy was refused, as the case may
be, given the landlord notice in writing of his intention to claim
such compensation, or (3) where the tenant with whom a contract
of tenancy wâs made has died within three months before the date
of the notice to quit, or in the case of a lease for years, before the
refusal to grant a renewal, or (4) unless the claim for compensation
is made within three months after the time at which the tenant
quits the holding (k).
In the event of any difference arising as to any matter in respect
of a claim for such compensation, the difference must be settled by
arbitration before a single arbitrator (/).
Part VI. — Fixtures.
Sect. 1. Removal at Common Law.

589. To the common law rule that whatever is affixed by the Ornamental
tenant to the freehold becomes the property of the owner of the tv^^Q
freehold and cannot be severed by the tenant either during the removable at
continuance or after the determination of the term, exceptions were common law.
admitted by the Courts with respect to fixtures erected by a tenant
(1) for the purposes of mere ornament or convenience (2) for the
;
purposes of trade {m).
[k] Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 56), s. 4. This Act does not,
however, come into operation until January 1, 1909. See sect. 9.
(l) Ihid., ss. 1 (2), 4. The arbitration will be conducted in accordance with
—
provisions set out on pp. 264 266, ante.
(w) See title Landlokd and Tenant, jôst.
— ,
272 Agriculture.
Sect. 1. The exception in favour of trade fixtures was not, however, extended
Removal by the Courts to fixtures erected for agricultural purposes (;?).
at Common The right of an agricultural tenant to remove Dutch barns (o), and
Law. barns resting on the soil which have sunk into the soil by their own
weight (p), or placed upon staddles (g), has been recognised on the
ground that such structures are not fixtures, it being necessary to
constitute a fixture that the soil should have been displaced for the
purpose of receiving the article, or that the chattel should have been
cemented or otherwise fastened to some fabric previously attached
to the ground (r).
Erections and 590. A market gardener or nurseryman was, however, entitled to

trees for remove greenhouses and hothouses erected for the purposes of his
business of
market business (s), and shrubs, and trees, or such as are likely to become
garden or trees, planted with a view to sell (a), but not orchard trees (h).
nursery.
Sect. 2. Statutory Right of JRemoval,
Under Land- 591. The harshness of the common law has been to some extent
lordand modified in favour of agricultural tenants by the enactment that if
Tenant Act,
185L
any tenant of a farm or lands shall with the consent in writing of
the landlord at his own cost erect any farm building, either detached
or otherwise, or put up any other building, engine or machinery,
either for agricultural purposes or for the purposes of trade and
agriculture (but not in pursuance of some obligation in. that behalf)
then all such buildings, engines and machinery remain the property
of the tenant, and are removable by him provided that the same can
be removed without injury to the land or buildings of the landlord,
or that the tenant repair such injury, if any and provided also ;
that a month's notice of the tenant's intention to remove any such

fixture be given to the landlord, who has the right to purchase the
same at a price to be fixed by arbitration in case of difference (c).
The benefit of this enactment, it will be observed, enures to any
tenant of a farm or land, and is enjoyed by a tenant of an agricul-
tural holding, upon whom special further rights in respect of the
removal of fixtures have been conferred {d).
Under 592. Where after January 1, 1884, a tenant of an agricultural
Agricultural holding affixes to his holding or acquires any engine, machinery,
Holdings Act,
1883.
fencing or other fixture, or erects or acquires any building for which
he is not under statute or otherwise entitled to compensation, and
which is not so affixed or erected in pursuance of some obligation
(n) Ehues v. Maw (1802), 3 East, 38.
(o) Bean v. AllaUij (1799), 3 Esp. 11.
(_p) Cullmg V. Tvffnal (1694), Bull. N. P.' 34 ;
Wanslrough v. Maton (1836),
4 A. & E. 884.
{q) 1 E. & B. 674.
Wiltshear v. Cottrell (1853),
(r) Turner v. Cameron (1870), L. E. 5 Q. B. 306, 311.
(s) Penton v. Rohart (1801), 2 East, 88; Hears v. Calleoider, [1901] 2 Ch.
388.
(a) Penton v. Boharf, supra ; Oaldey v. Monch (1866), L. E. 1 Ex. 159, 167.
(6) Hears v^ Callender, siq^ra.
(c) Landlord and Tenant Act, 1851 (14 & 15 Vict. c. 25), s. 3. Eor forms of
notice by tenant of intention to remove and by landlord of election to purchase,
see Encyclopaedia of Eorms, Vol. VII., pp. 742, 743.
{d) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 61), s. 60.
; ; — — ;
Part VI. Fixtures. 273
in that behalf or instead of some fixture or building belonging to Sect. 2.
the landlord, then such fixture or building is the property of and is Statutory
removable by the tenant before or within a reasonable time after Right of
termination of the tenancy. The right is, however, subject to Removal,
the following conditions :
(1) Before the removal of any fixture or building the tenant must Conditions of
pay all rent owing by him, and perform and satisfy all other his right of
removal.
obligations to the landlord in respect to the holding ;
(2) In the removal of any fixture or building, the tenant must

not do any avoidable damage to any other building or other part of
the holding
(3) Immediately after the removal of any fixture or building, the
tenant must make good all damage occasioned to any other building
or other part of the holding by the removal
(4) The tenant must not remove any fixture or building without
giving one month's previous notice in writing to the landlord of his
intention to remove it
At any time before the expiration of the notice of removal

(5)
the landlord, by notice in writing given by him to the tenant, may
elect to purchase any fixture or building comprised in the notice of
removal, and any fixture or building then elected to be purchased
must be left by the tenant, and becomes the property of the
landlord, who must pay the tenant the fair value thereof to an
incoming tenant of the holding any difference as to the value
;
will be settled by a reference under the Agricultural Holdings Acts

as in case of compensation (e), but without appeal (/).
593. These provisions apply also to every fixture or building Market

affixed or erectedby the tenant to or upon a holding acquired by him gardens,
for the purposes of the trade or business of a market-gardener, when
it has been agreed in writing after the 1st January, 1896, that the
holding shall be let or treated as a market garden (g). Such tenant
may also remove all fruit trees and fruit bushes planted by him on
the holding and not permanently set out but if he does not remove;
such fruit trees and fruit bushes before the termination of his
tenancy, such fruit trees and fruit bushes remain the property of
the landlord, and the tenant is not entitled to any compensation
in respect thereof (li).
594. In the case of a tenancy current on January 1, 1896, if the Tenancies of

holding was at that date in use or cultivation as a market garden '^^^g^^g
with the knowledge of the landlord, and the tenant has executed current in
thereon, without previous notice of dissent by the landlord, any of 1896.
the improvements in respect of which the tenant would have a

right of removal in the cases above mentioned, the tenant has the
same right of removal of such improvements as he would have if
it had been agreed in writing after January 1, 1896, that the
holding should be let or treated as a market garden (i) and this ;
For a reference in case of compensation, see p. 264, ante.

(f)
If) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 61), s. 34, as amended
by the Act of 1900 (63 & 64 Yict. c. 50), s. 4.
(g) Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 27), s. 3 (1).
(h) Ibid,, sub-s. (5),
(i) Ibid., s. 4. ,
H.L. — I. T
—
274 Agricultuee.
Sect. 2. right extends, after 1908, to the removal of improvements which

Statutory were executed before 1896 {k).
Right of The above provisions as to fixtures and buildings may, however,
Removal. be excluded by any agreement between the landlord and tenant (Q.
If a tenant is entitled by the custom of the country to remove
machinery or fixtures, such right is preserved to him, and may be
exercised by him according to the custom without any of the statutory
restrictions (m).
It would appear that fixtures or buildings which come within the
provisions set forth above become forthwith the property of the
tenant and remain his property should the lease be forfeited (n) ;
but that observance of the conditions (1) and (4) is a condition pre-
cedent to their removal and condition (1) must be fulfilled within a
;
reasonable time.
Sect. 3. Time fur Removal.
Time for 595. It is to be noticed that the statutory right to remove fix-
removal.
tures etc. may be exercised either before or within a reasonable time
after the determination of the tenancy. Eefusal by a landlord to
allow removal of fixtures after the expiration of a tenancy gives the
tenant a right of action against the landlord, but not against his
mortgagees (o). The common law right to remove trade fixtures
must be exercised by the tenant, if at all, during his original term
and during such further period of possession by him as he holds
the premises under a right still to consider himself a tenant (p).
The right is lost on re-entry by the landlord for a forfeiture (q).
Waiver of 596. A
contract by an out-going tenant to leave on the premises
right to
remove.
fixtures which he
is entitled to remove, to be taken by the landlord
at a valuation, is not a sale of an interest in land within sect. 4
of the Statute of Frauds so as to require to be evidenced by writing,
nor, it would seem, a sale of goods within sect. 4 of the Sale of Goods
Act, 1893 (?•) it is a sale of a waiver of the right to remove the
;
fixtures (s).
(k) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 56), s. 5, which, however,

does not come into operation until January 1, 1909. This enactment overrides
the decisions in Smith v. Callander, [1901] A. C. 297, and Mears v. Callender,
[1901] 2 Ch. 388, that the right only extended to improvements executed after
January 1, 1896.
(/) Meats V. Callender, supra. It was, however, held in that case that the
tenant was not precluded from removing glasshouses erected by him, by a
covenant to leave gratis for the landlord all improvements made by the
tenant entered into in consideration of no claim being made by the landlord for
" similar matters " on entry, on the ground that the words " similar matters '*
did not refer to improvements of such a nature as glasshouses.
(m) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 61), s. 60.
(n) Ex parte Ooidd, Be Walker (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 454.
(o) Thomas v. Jennings (1896), 66 L. J. (q. b.) 5.
(p) Weeton v.Woodcock (1840), 7 M. & W. 14.

Iq) Pugh V. Arton (1869), L. E. 8 Eq. 626.
(r) 56 & 57 Yict. c. 71.
{s) Hallen y.. Bunder (1834), 1 0. M. & R. 266.
— —— —
Part VII. Bankruptcy of Tenant. 275
Part VII. — Bankruptcy of Tenantw-
Sect. 1. Tenancy carried on hy Trustee, Sect. 1.
Tenancy
597. Where the trustee in bankruptcy of a yearly tenant of a carried on
farm carries on the farm for the benefit of the creditors, and at the by Trustee.
determination of the tenancy claims from the landlord the value of
the tillages etc. under the terms of the contract of tenancy or the Rent accrued
before bank-
custom of the country, the landlord cannot set off against such value ruptcy.
rent which was due from the tenant before the bankruptcy {a).
If, however, a custom of the country be proved for the landlord to
deduct from the tenant's valuation all arrears of rent, such custom
will prevail notwithstanding the bankruptcy of the tenant (6).
598. The trustee of any bankrupt, or any assignee under any bill Disposal of
of sale, orany purchaser of the goods, stock or crop of any person
engaged in husbandry on any lands let to farm, may not take, use or
dispose of any hay, straw, grass or roots, or any other produce of
such lands, or any manure etc. thereon, in any other manner and for
any other purpose than such bankrupt or other person engaged in
husbandry ought to have done if no such bankruptcy had occurred
or no such assignment or sale had been made (c).
This provision applies to a trustee in bankruptcy notwithstanding
disclaimer by him of the lease (d) but does not extend to a pur-
;
chaser from the landlord of goods distrained by him {e).
Sect. 2. Forfeiture hy Bankruptcy.
599. Where there an absolute covenant by a tenant for a term

is Covenant to
of years not to sell orremove the hay and straw, but to consume the consume hay
and straw.
same on the farm, and also to leave on the farm all fodder grown
in the last year of the term and unconsumed, on being paid for the
same by valuation, then if the lease is forfeited on the bankruptcy
of the tenant for condition broken, and the landlord re-enters, the
landlord is not bound by the stipulations to pay for the uncon-
sumed hay and straw (/).
Sect. 3. Disclaimer,,
600. If a trustee in bankruptcy of a tenant sell hay etc. off the Trustee seii-
farm without returning manure as required by the custom of the hay etc.
^
country or by the terms of the lease, and then disclaim the lease, fiaWe?^
he becomes personally liable to the landlord for his wrongful act {g) .
{t) See generally, title Bankruptcy and Insolvency, post.

(a) Alloiuay v. Steere (1882), 10 Q. B. D. 22.
{h) Re Wilson, Ex parte Lord Hastings (1893), 62 L. J. (q. b.) 628.
(c) Sale of Farming Stock Act, 1816 (56 Geo. 3, c. 50), s. 11.
{d) Lybbe v. Hart (1885), 29 Ch. D. 8.
(e) Haiuhins v. Walrond (1876), 1 C. P. D. 280.
(/) Silcock V. Farmer (1882), 46 L. T. 404 but see Re Morrish, Ex parte
;
Hart-Byke (1882), 22 Ch. D. 410.

((/) Schofield V. Hincks (1888), 60 L. T. 573. For form of disclaimer, see
Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. YII., pp. 707, 708, 711.
T 2
——
276 Agriculture.
Sect. 3. Jn the absence of any order of the Court deahng with such
Disclaimer, matter, when the trustee in bankruptcy of a tenant disclaims the lease
EffecTof ^® entitled to be paid for fallows etc. or to the benefit of any of
disclaimer. the provisions in the lease which were to come into effect upon the
expiration or sooner determination of the lease (li). Nor can he
in such case claim compensation for improvements under the
Agricultural Holdings Acts (i).
If a trustee in bankruptcy of a tenant disclaim the lease the
Court may make such orders with respect to fixtures, tenant's
improvements and other matters arising out of the tenancy, as the
Court thinks just {k).
Sect. 4. Reputed Ownership.

Reputed gQl. Where a farmer becomes bankrupt, the doctrine of reputed
ownership.
ownership Q) does not apply to fixtures, tillages, grass and crops,
included in a bill of sale given by him, of which he is in possession
at the date of his bankruptcy {m).
The custom for purchasers of cattle and stock on a farm to leave the
same with the vendor for their own convenience for a reasonable
time is notorious, and the reputed ownership doctrine does not
apply to such cattle or stock on the bankruptcy of the vendor within
such time {n). The custom of agistment is also notorious, and no
reputation of ownership arises in respect of agisted stock (o).
Part VIII. — Miscellaneous.

Sect. 1. Agricultural Gangs etc.
Conditions of 602. No child under such age as may be fixed by the Educa-
empioyment. tion Acts and bye-laws made thereunder for the employment of
children {p), may be employed in an agricultural gang; no females
may be employed in the same agricultural gang with males and no ;
female may be employed in any gang under a male gangmaster

unless a female licensed (q) to act as a gangmaster is also present
Penalties. with that gang. The penalty for contravention of these provisions
(h) Be Morrish, Ex parte Hart-Dyke (1882), 22 Ch. D. 410.

{i) Schofield V. Hincks (1888). 60 L. T. 573.
(7c) Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52),
s. 55 (3).
\l) I hid., s. 44 :see generally, title Bankruptcy and Insolvency.

(m) Re Ginger, Ex parte London and Universal Bank, [1897] 2 Q. B. 461.
{n) Be Terry (1862), 7 L. T. (n. s.) 370; Priestley v. Pratt (1867),
L. K. 2 Ex. 101.
(o) Be Woodward, Ex parte Huggins (1886), 54 L. T. 683. See title Animals,
pp. 386-388, post. ^ , ^
(p) The Agricultural Gangs Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 130), s. 4 (1), fixed the age
at eight years. The age of eight was altered to ten by the Agricultural Children
Act, 1873 (36 & '37 Vict. c. 67), s. 16, which was repealed by the Elementary
Education Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 79). The age at which children may be
employed is now regulated by the Elementary Education Acts and the bye-laws
made thereunder see title Education.
:
(q) For form of licence, see

Encyclopaedia of Eorms, Vol. XI., p. 119.
—
Part VIII. — Miscellaneous. 277
on the gangmaster, and also on the occupier of the land on which Sect. i.
employment takes place, miless proved by him to have been without Agricultural
his knowledge, is 20s. for each person employed (r). A gangmaster, Gangs,
who may not be a person licensed to sell exciseable liquor (s), must
not act without a licence (fee Is. {t) under penalty of 20s. for every
)
day during wliich he so acts {lo). Licences are granted by district Licences,
councils {x), and remain in force for six months {a), but on the con-
viction of a gangmaster of an offence against the law in any of the
above respects his licence may be suspended or rescinded (h). The
penalties are recoverable summarily (c).
In the above statement the following words have certain defined Definitions,
meanings. " Child " means a child under thirteen years " young ;
person" means a person between thirteen and eighteen years;

''woman" means a female of eighteen years or upwards; "gang-
master " means any person, male or female, who hires children,
young persons, or women with a view to their being employed in
agricultural labour on lands not in his own occupation and ;
agricultural gang " means a body of children, young persons, and

women, or any of them under the control of a gangmaster.
603. A local authority may make bye-laws for securing the decent Hop-pickers
lodging and accommodation of persons engaged in hop-picking andfruit-
withm the district of such authority (d) and also of persons ;
engaged in fruit-picking (e).
Sect 2. Damage hy Game (/).
604. An owner of land is not liable for injury done by rabbits Liability for
^^^^g^-
bred on his land to the crops etc. on a neighbour's land {g), but the
owner or lessee of a right of shooting is liable to the tenant of the
land for injury caused to his crops by rabbits and game brought
on to the land or by their progeny Qi), though not for injury
caused by the natural increase of rabbits etc. already on the
land, or turned down in an adjoining cover not in the tenant's
occupation {i) .
An agreement by the landlord to keep down the game etc. on a Agreement to

farm in consideration of the tenant taking a lease of the farm keep down
game.
(r) Agricultural Gangs Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Yict. c. 130), s. 4.

(s) Ihid., s. 6.
{t) Ibid., s. 9.
(iv) Ibid., s. 5.
(x) Local Grovernment Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Yict. c. '3), s. 27, which transfers
certain powers of justices to district councils.
(«) Agricultural Gangs Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Yict. c. 130), s. 8.
(b) Ibid., s. 10.
(c) Ibid.., s. 11.
(d) Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Yict. c 55), s. 314. Model b^ê-laws
under this section have been issued by the Local Government Board. See title
Public Health, jiost.
(e) Pubhc Health (Fruit Pickers' Lodging) Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 23).
(/) On the subject of game generally, poaching and trespass, and ground
game, see title Game and Spoet, post.
{{/) Boulston's Case, 5 Co. Eep. 104 b Brady v. Warren, [1900] 2 Ir. 632.
;
{h) Farrer v. Nelson (1885)', 15 Q. B. D. 258 Ililtoi?, v. Green (1862), 2 P. & P.

;
821 BirUech v. Paget (1862), 31 Beav. 403.

;
ii) .Hilton V. Green, supra.

—
278 Agriculture.
Sect. 2. may be made verbally, and its breach will entitle the tenant to
Damage by damages (k).
Game.
605. If, after 1908, the tenant of an agricultural holding sustain
Statutory
compensa-
damage to his crops from game (which means deer, pheasants,
tion. partridges, grouse and black game), the right to kill and take which
isvested neither in him nor in anyone claiming under him other
than the landlord, and which the tenant has not permission in
writing to kill, he is entitled to compensation from his landlord for
such damage if it exceeds one shilling per acre of the area over
which such damage extends, and any agreement to the contrary
or in limitation of such compensation is void.
Amount and The amount of compensation must, in default of agreement made
conditions.
after the damage has been suffered, be determined by arbitration
before a single arbitrator, but no compensation will be recoverable
(1) unless notice in writing of the damage is given to the landlord
as soon as may be after the damage was first observed by the
tenant, and a reasonable opportunity is given to the landlord to
inspect the damage (a) in the case of damage to a growing crop,
before the crop is begun to be reaped, raised or consumed, and (b) in
the case of damage to a crop reaped or raised, before it is begun to
be removed from the land and (2) unless notice in writing of the
;
claim, together with particulars thereof, is given to the landlord

within one month after the expiration of the calendar year, or such
other period of twelve months as by agreement between the landlord
and tenant may be substituted therefor, in respect of which the
claim is made (1).
Compensa- 606. If the landlord proves that under a contract of tenancy made
tionby agree- before January 1, 1909, any compensation for damage by game is
ment.
payable by him, or that in fixing the rent to be paid under such
contract allowance in respect of such damage to an agreed amount
was expressly made, the arbitrator must make such deduction from
the compensation which would otherwise be payable as may
appear just (m).
Landlord's 607. Where the right to kill and take the game is vested in some
indemnity person other than the landlord, the landlord is entitled to be
by lessee
of sporting
indemnified by such other person against all claims by the tenant
rights. for compensation for damage by such garae {n).
Sect. 3. Destruction of Crops etc. hy Sparks from Locomotives.

Extent of 608. Crops, ricks and plantations are frequently set on fire by
liability.
sparks from locomotive engines. Save as hereinafter mentioned,
however, a railway company is not liable for the damage so caused,
if it be shown that the engines are of the best construction and that
(k) Ershine y. Adeane (1873), 8 Ch. App. 756 ; Barrow v. Ashhurnham (1835),
4 L. J. (K. B.)]46.
(0 Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 56), ss. 1 (2), 2 (1), ^2).
This Act does not, however, come into oiDeration until January 1, 1909.
See s. 9.
(w) Ihid., s. 2 (3).
(n) Ibid., s. 2 (4).
—
Part VIII. Miscellaneous. 279
the best scientific means have been employed for preventing the Sect. 3.
escape of sparks, and the company or their servants have not other- Destruction
wise been guilty of negligence in the matter (o). by Railway
Fires.
The company will, however, be liable if negligence on their part or
the part of their servants be proved {p).
609. The comparative immunity of railway companies for such Users of
engines
damage is established on the ground that the Legislature, by autho-
without
rising the use of steam engines on railways, has impliedly indem- legislative
nified railway companies against the consequences of the use of such authority.
engines. But a railway that has no legislative authority to use

steam engines is not protected in the same manner (q) neither is ;
the owner or user of a traction engine, who is liable if sparks issuing

from the engine while travelling along the highway set fire to crops
or ricks in the neighbourhood, without any negligence on the part
of him or his servants (?).
610. After January 1, 1908, if damage is caused to agricultural Damage

land (which includes arable and meadow land and ground used for under £100
caused by
pastoral purposes or market or nursery gardens, as well as planta- railway
tions, woods, orchards and fences on such land, but does not include engines.
moorland or buildings) or to agricultural crops (which include any
crops on agricultural land, whether growing or severed, w4iich are
not led or stacked) by fire arising from sparks or cinders emitted
from any locomotive engine used on a railway (which includes a
light railway or steam tramway), the fact that the engine was used
under statutory powers will not affect liability in an action for such
damage if the claim for damage in the action does not exceed
^6100, and if written notice of claim shall have been given to the
railway comj)any within seven days, and particulars in writing of
damage within fourteen days, after the occurrence of the damage.
If the damage has been caused through the use of an engine by one
company on a railway worked by another company, either company
will be liable in such action, but the company using the locomotive
must indemnify the company working the railway, if the action is
brought against the latter (s).
611. A railway company may,
after January 1, 1908, enter on Prevention
any land and do things reasonably necessary for extinguishing or and extin-
all
guishment
arresting the spread of any fire caused by sparks or cinders emitted of fires.
from a locomotive engine and may, for the purpose of preventing
;
or diminishing the risk of any such fire in a plantation, wood, or

orchard, enter upon any part thereof, or any land adjoining thereto,
and cut down and clear away any undergrowth, and take any other
precautions reasonably necessary for the purpose but may not,
;
without the consent of the owner, cut down or injure any trees,
(o) Bex V. Pease (1832), 4 E. & A. 30 ;

Vaughan v. Taff Bail. Co. (1860),
5 H. & N. 679 ; Pori Olasqoiu and Newark Sailcloth Co. v. Caledonian Bail.
Co. (1893), H. L. 20 R. (Ct. of Sess.) 35; Shafteshury {Earl of) v. L. d: S. TP.
Bail. Co. (1895), 11 T. L. E. 269.
(p) Smith Y. L. & S. W. Bail. Co. (1870), L. E. 6 C. P. 14, where railway servants
left heaps of hedge trimmings and grass close to the line for a fortnight in ver}^ hot
weather, and hre originating in the heaps spread to a stubble field and cottage.
{q) Jones v. Festiniog Bail. Co. (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 733.
(r) Powell V. Fall (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 597.
(s) Eailway PiresAct, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 11), ss. 1, 3, 5.
—
280 Agricultuee.
Sect. 3. bushes, or shrubs. The railway company, however, exercising these

Destruction powers must make full compensation to the person injuriously
by Railway affected thereby for all damage, including loss of amenity. SuciEi
Fires.
compensation will be determined, in case of difference, by two
justices in the manner provided by s. 24 of the Lands Clauses
Consolidation Act, 1845 {t).
Sect. 4. Destructive Insects, Fungi, and Pests.

Prevention of 612. The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may make such
importation
orders as they think expedient for preventing the introduction into
of pests.
Great Britain of any insect, fungus, or other pest destructive to
agricultural or horticultural crops or to trees or bushes and any ;
such order may prohibit or regulate the landing in Great Britain

of any vegetable substance, or other articles, the landing of which
may a^ppear likely to introduce such pests, and may direct or
authorise the destruction of any such article, if landed. Any goods
landed or attempted to be landed in contravention of such order
may be forfeited, and the person offending is liable to such penalties
as are imposed on persons importing goods prohibited by the
Customs Acts (a).
Eemoval or The Board may also make orders for preventing the spread-
destruction
ing of destructive insects, fungi, or pests, and by any such order
of tainted
crops etc. may direct or authorise the removal or destruction of any crops,
trees, or bushes on which they are found in any stage of existence,
or to or by which they may appear likely to spread and may ;
prohibit the keeping, selling, or exposing or offering for sale, or

the distribution of any living specimens of such insects, fungi, or
pests and may impose penalties not exceeding ÔlO for any offence
;
against such order, to be recovered summarily (b).

Compensa- 613. When any order of the Board directs or authorises the
tion for crops
etc. removed
removal or destruction of any crops, trees, or bushes, the Board
or destroyed. may authorise, or, with the consent of the local authority, may
direct, payment by the local authority of compensation for such
crops, trees, or bushes, subject as follows in the case of crops, :
trees, or bushes on which the destructive pests are found in any

stage of existence, compensation is not to exceed one-half, and in
other cases is not to exceed three-fourths of the value of the crops,
trees, or bushes,which in each case is to be taken to be the value
which in ordinary circumstances they would have had at the time
of their removal or destruction. The local authority may require
the value to be ascertained by their officers or by arbitration (c).
Local 614. The local authorities for executing these provisions, with
authorities.
their respective districts, local rates, clerks and committees, are
{t) Eailway Fires Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 11), ss. 2, 5. See title Compulsory
PUECHASE AND COMPENSATION-.
(a) Destructive Insects Act, 1877 (40 & 41 Yict. c. 68), s. 1, as extended and
amended by the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 4), s. 1 (1).
The former Act applied only to the Colorado beetle [Doryphora decemlineata).
The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries was substituted for the Privy Council
in this Act by the operation of the Board of Agriculture Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict.
c.'30), and the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 31).
For the provisions of the Customs Acts, see title Revenue.
{h) Destructive Insects Act, 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 68), s. 2. See previous note.
{c) Ibid.,s. 3. See note (a), supra.
——
the as the local authorities under the Diseases of Animals Act,

same Sect. 4.
189J: that is, in the City of London, the Common Council
((/), in a Destructive ;
borough having a population of not less than 10,000 in 1881, the Insects
Borough Council and for the residue of each administrative county, and Pests.
;
the County Council (<?). The Board may require a local authority
to carry into effect any order of the Board and expenses incurred ;
and compensation paid by a local authority are to be paid out of

the local rate (/).
All orders of the Board must be laid before Parliament within Publication
of orders.
ten days after the makincr thereof, or after the next meeting of
Parliament, and must be published in the London Gazette (g),Q.nd also
by the local authority, in such manner as the Board may direct (h).
Sect. 5. Dogs.
615. The owner of a dog is liable in damages for injury done by Liability foi'
injury to
that dog to cattle (under which term are included horses, mules, asses,
cattle.
sheep, goats and swine), without proof of the mischievous disposition
of the dog, or of scienter or negligence on the part of the owner.
The occupier of the house or premises, or, if there are more
occupiers than one in any house or premises let in separate apart-
ments or lodgings or otherwise, the occupier of that particular part
of the house or premises where the dog was kept or permitted to
live or remain at the time of the injury, is presumed to be the owner
of the dog, and is liable for the damages, unless jDroof is made to
the contrary. If the damages claimed do not exceed they may
be recovered in a court of summary jurisdiction as a civil debt (i).
The owner of a dog that does injury to sheep is liable in damages
even though the sheep were at the time trespassing on the property
of the owner of the dog {k).
616. Where a dog is proved to have injured cattle or chased Prevention of

injury by
sheep, an order may be made by a court of summary jurisdiction, dosrs.
directing the dog to be kept by the owner in proper control or
destroyed, and any person failing to comply with such order is
liable to a penalty not exceeding 20s. a day for every day during
which he fails to comply with such order (I).
The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may, inter alia, with a
view to the prevention of worrying of cattle, make orders for pre-
venting dogs, or any class of dogs, from straying during all or any
of the hours between sunset and sunrise (m).
Destructive Insects Act, 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 68), s. 4 (see note (a),
(d)
p. 280, ante); the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869, referred to in thi?t
section, is now replaced by the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict.
c. 57), and amending Acts. See also title Animals, p. 429, post.
(e) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict, c 57), s. 3.
(/) Destructive Insects Act, 1877 (40 & 41 Vict, c. 68), s. 4. See note («),
p. 280, ante,
(g) Ibid., s. 8.
(70 Ibid., s. 6.
(0 Dogs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 32), ss. 1 (1)— (3), repealing the Dogs Act,
1865 (28 & 29 Vict. c. 60).
(k) Grange Y. Silcock (1897), 77 L. T. 340; decided under the Dogs Act, 1865.
(l) Dogs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 32), s. 1 (4)
;
Dogs Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict,
c. 56), s. 2.
(m) Dogs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 32), s. 2 ; Diseases of Animals Act, 1894
(57 & 58 Vict. 0. 57), s. 22.
—
282 Agriculture.
Sect. 5. Any person who knowingly and without reasonable excuse per-
Dogs. mits the carcase of any head of cattle belonging to him to remain
unburied in a field or other place to which dogs can gain access is
liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding 40s. (n).
Sheep dogs. Where dogs are kept and used solely for tending sheep or
617.
cattle on a farm, or in the exercise of the calling or occupation
of a shepherd, exemption from duty may be obtained by the owners
of such dogs from the Commissioners of Inland Kevenue by
the certificate of such Commissioners issued with the previous
sanction of a petty sessional court. Two dogs may be exempted in
ordinary cases but if the sheep are fed on common or uninclosed
;
land so that more than two dogs are required to tend them, three
dogs may be exempted where there are more than 400 sheep four, ;
where more than 1,000 and an extra dog for every 500 sheep above
;
1,000 but not more than eight dogs may be exempted on any one
;
farm (o).
Sect. 6. Emblements.
Definition. 618. The right to " emblements " is a right given to one who has
an estate of uncertain duration, which is unexpectedly determined
without any fault on his part, to take the crops growing upon the
land when his estate determined.
Emblements extend only to such produce as grows by the
industry and manurance of man, and to one crop only of that
produce and are confined to a crop of that species only which
;
ordinarily repays the labour by which it is produced within the

year in which that labour is bestowed (20- Hops, however, fall
within the doctrine of emblements {q).
Eight of 619. A
person entitled to emblements, or his grantee or assignee,
entry.
is upon the land and to cut and carry them away
entitled to enter
after the estate has determined (7').
Contract to A contract by a tenant to give up to the landlord or his successor
give up his emblements or way-going crops at a valuation is not a sale of
emblements.
an interest in land (s).
No right to If the estate of the tenant, although of uncertain duration, be
emblements determined by his own fault or his own act, as by forfeiture for
on forfeiture
etc.
waste or breach of covenant or condition, or by marriage of a female
tenant holding during widowhood, or by resignation of a benefice,
no right to emblements arises {t) nor where a tenancy at will is ;
determined by the tenant {u).
{n) Dogs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 32), s. 6. .
(0) Ihid., s. 5 (1) ; Customs and Inland Eevenue Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Yict.
c. 15), s. 22. See also title Animals, _pos^, where the whole subject is dealt with
(pp. 403—405).
Graves v. Weld (1833), 5 B.
{][>) & Ad. 105; Co. Litt. 55 b; Haines v. Welch
(1868), L. E. 4 C. P. 91.
{q) Latham
v. Atiuood (1636), Cro. Car. 515.
Shep. Touch. Vol. II. 244 2 Bl. Com. 123 ; and see Haylimj v. Ohey (1853),
(r) ;
8 Ex. 531 Kingshury v. Collins (1827), 4 Bing. 202.

;
(s) Hallen v. Iluvder (1834), 1 C. M. & E. 266, per Parke, B., citing Mayfield
V. Wadsley (1824), 3 B. & C. 357.

{t) Com. Dig. tit. " Biens," G. 2 Bidiver v. Buhver (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 470
; ;
Olund's Case (1602), 5 Eep. 116 a Nicholas v. Simonds (1625), 2 EoU. Eep. 468.
;
{it) Litt. s. 68, cited in Kingsbury v. Collins, supra, at p. 207.

— ——
620. The right to emblements is now in most cases replaced by the Sect. 6.
right to hold the land until the end of the current year of tenancy. Emble-
Where the lease or tenancy of any farm or lands, held by a tenant ments.
at rack rent, determines by the death or cesser of the estate of any Right to hold
landlord entitled for his life or for any other uncertain interest, over instead
instead of claims to emblements, the tenant may continue to hold
g^^^î^j^^^^g
and occupy such farm or lands until the expiration of the then
current year of tenancy, and then quit upon the terms of his lease
or holding. The succeeding landlord is entitled to a fair proportion
of the rent for the period which has elapsed since the cesser of the
estate of his predecessor, and he and the tenant are as between
themselves entitled and subject to all the benefits, terms and con-
ditions of the lease or tenancy and no notice to quit is necessary
;
by either party to determine such holding or occupation (x).

If there are no emblements which the tenant can claim he cannot
hold over under this provision (a).
Sect. 7. Gleaning.
621. No person has at common law a right to glean in the harvest No common
field neither have the poor of a parish legally settled (as such)
;
any such right {h) and a custom for poor and indigent house-
;
holders living in a certain township to cut and carry away rotten

boughs and branches in a chase cannot be supported (c).
Sect. 8. Malicious Damage (d),
622. Maliciously to destroy, or damage with intent to destroy or Damage to

render useless(e), any machine or engine used for sowing, reaping,
or crops.
mowing, thrashing, ploughing or draining, or for performing any
other agricultural operation (/), or to set fire to crops, woods, heath,
stacks etc. (g), to destroy hopbinds (h), or to destroy or damage
trees and shrubs (i), is a felony and it is a misdemeanour
;
maliciously to destroy or damage any vegetable production growing

in a garden (k) or elsewhere (Z), or to commit damage to real
property exceeding ^5 {m). Where damage is maliciously done to
real property to an extent less than M5 {n), the offender may be
(x) Landlord and Tenant Act, 1851 (14 & 15 Vict. c. 25), s. 1.
(a) Stradhroolce v. Mulcahy (1852), 2 Ir. C. L. 406.
[h) Steel V. Houghton (1788), 1 Hy. Bl. 51.
• (c) Selhy v. Robinson (1788), 2 Term Eep. 758; and see Gate-ward's Case
(1605), 6 Co. Eep. 59 b.
(d) For this subject generally, see title Criminal Law
and Phocedihie.
(e) If the machine be taken to pieces by the owner, destruction or damage of
any part is sufficient {R. v, Maclierel (1831), 4 C. & P. 448), unless the owner
himself has destroyed some of the parts {R. v. West (1831), 2 Deac. Dig. Cr. Law,
1518); though both these cases were decided under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30, s. 4. The
damage need not be complete or permanent {R. v. Fisher (1865), 1 C. C. E. 7).
(/) Malicious Damage Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 97), s. 15.
{g) Ihid., ss. 16, 17.
(A) Ihid., s. 19.
(0 Ihid., ss. 20, 21.
{k) Ibid., s. 23.
(0 Ibid., s. 24.
(m) Ibid., s. 51.
(?^) Ibid., s. 52.
—— . .
284 Agriculture.
Sect. 8. imprisoned or fined any sum not exceeding £5. A "right of

Malicious herbage " enjoyed by freemen of a borough over a moor is not " real
'
Damage. property within the meaning of the above provision (o)
'
It is no offence to gather mushrooms growing spontaneously and

Gathering
mushrooms. uncultivated in a field, no damage being done to the grass or
fences {p). But a trespasser upon a pasture field thereby doing
injury to the grass to the extent only of a few pence may be guilty
of an offence, and punishable by imprisonment or fine {q).
Sect. 9. Meadoiv and Ancient Pasture.

Meadow land. 623. Ploughing up meadow-land is prima facie waste and con-
trary to good husbandry, and will be restrained even though there
be no express covenant in the lease against it (?) although :
if the ploughing be done for the purpose of ameliorating the

meadow, and does ameliorate it, the act may be justified (s).
The restriction on ploughing ancient pasture is the same as on
meadow {t).
Pasture. 624. Sowing clover with the spring corn does not constitute
laying down land in permanent pasture {a) nor does merely :
sowing common grass seed make land old meadow again (s).
It has been stated that continuance in pasture for twenty years
impresses on the land the character of ancient meadow or pasture (b);
and land that has formerly been ploughed may after a sufficient
lapse of time become ancient pasture which a tenant will be
restrained from ploughing (c)
The laying down of permanent pasture is an improvement to
which the landlord's previous consent is necessary in order to
entitle the tenant to compensation therefor under the Agricultural
Holdings Acts (d).
Sect. 10. Poisoned Flesh and Grain.

Poisoned 625. Every person wilfully placing on any land flesh or meat
flesh.
mixed or impregnated with poison, and calculated to destroy life, is
liable on conviction to a penalty of i^lO (e). This does not prevent
the owner of a dwelling-house or any stack from laying poisonous
preparations in his house, inclosed garden, drains (if protected with
gratings) or stacks, for the destruction of small vermin (/) but ;
laying poisoned flesh in an inclosed garden in order to destroy a
{<>)Laws V. Eltringham (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 283.

(p) Gardner v. Manshridqe (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 217.
{q) Gayford v. Chouler, [1898] 1 Q. B. 316.
(r) Drury v. MoUns (1801), 6 Yes. 328 Martin v. Coggan (1824),
; 1 Hog. 120 ;
Simmons v. Norton (1831), 9 L. J. (o. s.) (c. P.) 185.

(s) Simmons v. Norton, supra,
(t) AtJcins V.Temple (1625), 1 Ch. Eep. 8.

(a) Birch v. StepJmison {1811), 3 Taunt. 469.
(Z>)Morris v. Morris (1825), 1 Hog. 238.
(c) Fermier v. Mauvd (1637), 1 Gh. Eep. 62.
(d) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 61), s. 3; Agricultural
Holdings Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Yict. c. 50), s. 9, and Sch. I., Part I. see p. 260,
;
note (c), ante.

(e) Poisoned Plesh Prohibition Act, 1864 (27 & 28 Yict. c. 115), s. 2.
(/) Ihid., s. 3.
. — — —
troublesome dog that trespasses there is an offence under this Sect. 10.
provision (//) Poisoned

Flesh and
626. Every person selling or offering or exposing for sale (/^) or Grain.
knoAvingly sowing or putting on the ground or other exposed place,
Poisoned
any grain, seed, or meal steeped in or mixed with poison so as to be grain.
dangerous to life, is liable on conviction to a penalty of £10 (i). But
this does not apply to the sale of solution etc. for dressing grain or seed
for ho)id fide use in agriculture, or to the sowing of such seed {k).
Sect. 11. Regulations as to Sale and Adidteration.

Sub-Sect. 1. Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs.
627. Every person who sells, either wholesale or retail, for use Invoice on
sale of
as a fertiliser of the soil, any article (hereinafter referred to as a
fertiliser.
fertiliser) which has been subjected to any artificial process in the
United Kingdom, or which has been imported from abroad, must
give to the purchaser an invoice stating the name of the article and
what are the respective percentages (if any) of nitrogen, soluble phos-
phates, insoluble phosphates, and potash contained in the article.
Such invoice has effect as a warranty by the seller that the actual
percentages do not differ from those stated in the invoice beyond
the prescribed limits of error (l).
Tne prescribed limits of error representing percentages of the Limits of
w^hole bulk of fertiliser sold vary, in the case of soluble phosphates error on sale
of fertiliser.
from 1 to 4 per cent. in the case of insoluble phosphates from 1 to
;
5 per cent. in the case of nitrogen from '3 to 1 per cent. and in
; ;
the case of potash from '3 to '5 per cent., except in the case of
kainit and other jDotash salts and nitrate of potash, when either
1 or 2 per cent, is allowed {m).
628. Every person who sells, either wholesale or retail, for use invoice on
as food for cattle or poultry, any article (hereinafter referred to as feed-
^^^^ ^
a feeding stuff) which has been artificially prepared, must give to the
•
purchaser an invoice stating the name of the article, and whether it

has been prepared from one substance or seed or from more than one
substance or seed, and in the case of any article artificially prepared
otherwise than by being mixed, broken, ground, or chopped, what are
the respective percentages (if any) of oil and albuminoids contained
in the article. Such invoice has effect as a warranty by the seller
as to the facts so stated, except that as respects percentages the
(g) Daniel Y. Janes {1817), 2 0. P. D. 351 but such an act is not an offence
;
under the Malicious Damage Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 97), s. 41.
(A) Poisoned Grain Prohibition Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 113), s. 2.
(?) Ibid., s. 3.
(k) Ibid., s. 4,
(l) Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 27), ss. 1 (1), 10 (2).
This Act repeals the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 56).
(m) The limits are set out in detail in the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs
(Limits of Error) Eegulations, 1906, which give the following example of their
application : —
In the case of a bone compound, if the percentages stated in
—
the invoice are soluble phosphates, 20 insoluble phosphates, 8 nitrogen, 1
;
; ;
then the warranty implied under sect. 1 (1) of the Act will be that the fertiliser
contains :
—
soluble phosphates, 19 to 21 per cent. insoluble phosphates, 7 to 9
;
per cent. nitrogen, '7 to 1*3 per cent.

;
. .
286 Agriculture.
Sect. 11. invoice has effect as a warranty only that the actual percentages
Sale and do not differ from those stated in the invoice beyond the prescribed
Adultera- limits of error (n). " Cattle " here means bulls, cows, oxen, heifers,
tion.
calves, sheep, goats, swine, and horses (o).
Feeding stuff 629. Where any feeding stuff is sold under a name or description
prepared from
implying that it is prepared from any particular substance or from
two or more
substances. any two or more particular substances, or is the product of any
particular seed or of any two or more particular seeds, and without
indication that it is mixed or compounded with any other substance
or seed, there is implied a warranty by the seller that it is pure,
that is to say, is prepared from that substance or those substances
only, or is a product of that seed or those seeds on\j{p).
Implied On the sale of any feeding stuff there is implied a warranty by
warranty that
the seller that the article is suitable to be used as such (q).
feeding stuff
is fit for use.
630. Any statement by the seller of the percentages of the
Statement by
chemical and other ingredients contained in any article sold for
vendor as to
percentages is use as a fertiliser, or of the nutritive and other ingredients contained
a warranty.
and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 27), ss. 1 (2), 10 (2).
(n) fertilisers
The prescribed limits of error with regard to feeding stiifEs are as follows, the
percentage of albuminoids being taken as the percentage of nitrogen multiplied
by 6-25 :—
Description of Feeding Stuff. Limits of Error.
Decorticated Cotton Cake or Meal

ITndecorticated Cotton Cake or Meal .
Earth Nut or Ground Nut Cake or Meal

Palm Kernel or Palm Nut Cake or Meal One -tenth of the percentage of
Cocoanut Cake or Meal oil and one-tenth
of the per-
Niger Seed Cake or Meal .
centage of albuminoids stated
Sesame Seed Cake or Meal in the invoice.
Sunflower Seed Cake or Meal
Hemp Seed Cake or Meal .
Kurdee or Safflower Cake or Meal

Compound Cakes and Meals
One-eighth of the percentage
Linseed Cake or Meal of oil and one -eighth of the
Eape Cake
Maize Products
or
....
Meal percentage of albuminoids
stated in the invoice.
One-fifth of the percentage of

All other feeding stuffs (as above defined) oil and one-fifth of the per-
not otherwise specified in this schedule .

centage of albuminoids stated
in the invoice.
These limits are prescribed by the Eertilisers and Feeding Stuffs (Limits of
Error) Eegulations, 1906, the following example being given In the case of a
: —
linseed cake, if the percentages stated in the invoice are, oil 10, albuminoids
30, then the warranty implied under sect. 1 (2) of the Act will be that the linseed
cake contains :— oil, 8*75 to 11*25 per cent. albuminoids, 26*25 to 33-75 per
;
cent.
(o)Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 27), s. 10 (1).
Ip) Ibid., s. 1 (3).

-
Iq) Ibid., s. 1 (4).

.
Part YIII. — Miscellaneous. 287
in any feeding stuff, made after the 1st January, 1907, in an invoice Sect. 11.
of such article, or in any circular or advertisement descriptive of Sale and
such article, has effect as a warranty by the seller (no- Adultera-
tion.
where an article sold for use as a fertiliser or as a feeding stuff
consists of two or more ingredients which have been mixed at the Feeding stuff
request of the purchaser, it is sufficient, with respect to percentages, consisting
of mixed
if the invoice contains a statement of percentages with respect to
ingredients.
the several ingredients before mixture, and a statement that they
have been mixed at the request of the purchaser (s).
631. The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries must appoint a Appointment
chief agricultural analyst (liereinafter referred to as the chief of analysts
and samplers.
analyst), who may not while holding his office engage in private
practice and every county council must, and the council of any
;
county borough may, appoint an official agricultural analyst (herein-

after referred to as an agricultural analyst) and one or more official
samplers for their county or borough. The council of any county
or county borough may also appoint a deputy agricultural analyst,
who shall, in case of illness, incapacity, or absence of the agricultural
analyst, have all the powers and duties of the agricultural analyst.
The appointment of an agricultural analyst, deputy agricultural
analyst, or official sampler is subject to the approval of the Board
of Agriculture and Fisheries and a person whilst holding the office
;
of agricultural analyst may not engage or be interested in any trade,

manufacture, or business connected with the sale or importation of
fertilisers or feeding stuffs {t).
632. A purchaser of any fertiliser or feeding stuff who has taken Eight of
purchaser to
a sample thereof within ten days after delivery of the article to or
analysis by
receipt of the invoice by him, whichever is later, is entitled, on agricultural
payment of the required fee, to have the sample analysed by the analyst.
agricultural analyst (it)
An official sampler must at the request of the purchaser and on Duty of
payment by him of the required fee, and may without any such official
sampler.
request, take a sample for analysis by the agricultural analyst of
any fertiliser or feeding stuff which has been sold or is exposed or
kept for sale but, in the case of an article which has been sold, the
;
sample must be taken before the expiration of ten days after the
delivery of the article to, or receipt of the invoice by, the purchaser,
whichever is later (x).
Where a sample has been taken with, a view to the institution of Division of
sample into
any criminal proceeding, the person taking the sample must
civil or
three parts.
divide the sample into three parts as nearly as possible equal, and
cause each part to be marked, sealed, and fastened up, and deliver
or send by post two parts to the agricultural analyst and one part
to the seller {y).
(r) Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 27), s. 1 (5).
(s) Ibid., s, 1 (6).
{t) Ibid., s. 2.
{u) Ibid., s. 3 (1).
(x) Ibid., s. 3 (2).
ly) Ibid., s. 3 (3) ; Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs (Sampling etc.) Eegulations,
1906, para. 7.
288 Agricultuke.
Sect. 11. 633. If the sample submitted to an agricultural analyst is not

Sale and divided into three parts marked, sealed, and fastened up, the
Adultera- agricultural analyst should send a copy of the certificate of his
tion. analysis to the person submitting the sample (z).
Duty of If, however, the sample has been so divided into parts, the
agricultural agricultural analyst must analyse one of the parts of the sample
analyst as to
delivered or sent to him and retain the other, and send a certificate
certifying.
of his analysis in the prescribed form, and containing the prescribed
particulars, to the person who submitted the sample for analysis,
and, where that person is not the purchaser of the article, also to the
purchaser, and in every case to the seller and he must report to
;
the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in the prescribed manner

the result of any such analysis. If, however, the agricultural
analyst does not know the name and address of the seller, he must
send the certificate intended for the seller to the purchaser, to be
forwarded by him to the seller (a).
Certificate of 634. At the hearing of any civil or criminal proceeding with
chief or agri-
respect to any article a sample whereof has been analysed as above
cultural
analyst to be provided, the production of a certificate of the agricultural analyst,
evidence of or, if a sample has been submitted to the chief analyst, of the chief
the facts analyst, is sufiicient evidence of the facts therein stated unless the
therein stated.
defendant or person charged requires that the analyst or the person
who made the analysis be called as a witness. This provision does
not, however, apply —
(a) where the sample has been taken otherwise
than in the prescribed manner or (b) where the sample has not
;
been divided into parts and the parts marked, sealed, and fastened
up as above mentioned (h).
Analysis by If in any such legal proceeding (other than a proceeding which
chief analyst.
cannot be instituted until an analysis has been made and a certi-
ficate given by the chief analyst (c)) either party to the proceeding
objects to the certificate of the agricultural analyst, the party
objecting is entitled, on payment of such fee as may be fixed by the
Treasury, to have submitted to the chief analyst the part of the
sample retained by the agricultural analyst, and to have that part
analysed by the chief analyst, and to receive from liim a certificate
of the result of his analysis (d),
Invoice to be 635. Where a sample or part of a sample is sent for analysis

sent to
analyst with
to the chief or an agricultural analyst, there must be sent therewith
sample. the invoice (if any) relating to the article from which the sample was
taken, or a copy thereof but there may be omitted from such copy
;
the name and address of, and any other matter which would identify
or disclose, the seller of the article to which the invoice relates {e).
Mode of The manner in which a sample must be taken is prescribed (/).
taking
sample. (z) Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 27), s. 3 (4) (a).
(a) Ibid., s. 3 (4) (b). For the prescribed form of certificate and prescribed
particulars, see Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs (Ueneral) Eegulations, 1906.
(b) Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c 27), s. 3 (5).
(c) As to which see pp. 290, 291, post.
(^d) Fertilisefs and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 27), s. 3 (6).
(ft) Ibid., s. 3(7), as controlled by the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs (Sampling
etc.) Eegulations, 1906, paras. 4, 5.

f) Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs (Sampling etc.) Eegulations, 1906, para. 6.
of Agriculture and Fisheries may make regula- Sect. 11.

636. The Board
tions — with respect to any matter requiring to be prescribed
(a) Sale and
;
Adultera-
(b) as to the qualifications to be possessed by agricultural
tion.
analysts, deputy agricultural analysts, and official samplers (c) as
;
to the manner in ^Yhich analyses are to be made (d) as to the Power of

;
manner in which samples are to be taken and dealt with and Board of ;
Agriculture
(e) generally provided that nothing in any such regulations and Fisheries
;
shall alfect the right of the purchaser of a fertiliser or feeding to make

stuff to have analysed by the agricultural analyst a sample of regulations.
an article taken by him or at his request otherwise than in accord-
ance with the regulations. All such regulations must be laid
before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they
are made (g).
637. The council of a county or county borough may (i.) concur "^^^^^^j^^^^^^^^J^cj
with one or more other such councils in making any appointment county^ ^
of an agricultural analyst or deputy, or official sampler, and as borough
to the apportionment in the case of such a joint appointment of councils,
the expenses amongst the several councils (ii.) contribute towards
;
any expenses incurred by any agricultural body or association

in causing samples to be taken for analysis by the agricultural
analyst (iii.)
;
fix the fees payable in respect of the making of
any analysis and the taking of any sample at the request of a
purchaser.
638. The expenses of any such council incurred

in the execution Expenses of
of these provisions are to be defrayed in the case of a county council county and
as part of their general expenses, and in the case of a county borough borough
council out of the borough fund or borough rate (h). councils.
639. If any person who sells any article for use as a fertiliser or Penalties for
feeding stufi^, (a) fails without reasonable excuse to give, on or breach of
duty by
before or as soon as possible after the delivery of the article, the seller.
requisite invoice, or (b) causes or permits any invoice or description
of the article sold by him to be false in any material particular to
the prejudice of the purchaser, or (c) sells for use as a feeding stuff
any article which contains any ingredient deleterious to cattle or
poultry, or to which has been added any ingredient worthless for
feeding purposes and not disclosed at the time of the sale, he is^
without prejudice to any civil liability, liable, on summary convic-
tion, for a first offence to a fine not exceeding ^£20, and for any
subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding £50 but no person may
;
be convicted of the offence relating to a false invoice or description

if he proves either (i.) that he did not know, and could not with
reasonable care have ascertained, that the invoice or description

was false, or (ii.) that he purchased the article sold with a written
warranty or invoice from a person in the United Kingdom, and that
that warranty or invoice contained the false statement in question,,
and that he had no reason to believe at the time when he sold the
and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 27), s. 4. Eegula-

(g) Fertilisers
tions have been made by orders of the Board dated December 27, 1906, under
headings " General," *' Sampling etc.," and "Limits of Error."
(h) Ibid., s. 5.
H.L.- U
.
290 Agricultuee.
Sect. 11. article that the statement was false, and that he sold the article in
Sale and the state in which it was when he purchased it (i).
Adultera-
tion. 640. In a proceeding for any of the above offences it is no
defence to allege that the purchaser, having bought only for
Want of
prejudice no
analysis, was not prejudiced by the sale (/<:).
defence No prosecution for any of the above offences may be instituted
Consent of except with the consent of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries,
Board of which consent may not be given until the part of the sample
Agriculture to
prosecution.
retained by the agricultural analyst has been analysed, and a
certificate of analysis given, by the chief analyst (I).
Requisites of In any such prosecution the summons must state particulars of
summons. the offences alleged, and also the name of the prosecutor, and will
not be made returnable in less time than fourteen days from the
day on which it is served; and there must be served therewith
a copy of any analyst's certificate obtained on behalf of the
prosecutor (m).
Penalties for 641. Any person fraudulently (a) tampering with any article so
tampering. as to procure that any sample of it does not correctly represent the
article, or (b) tampering with any sample taken as before men-
tioned, is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ^20,
or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months (n).
Obstructing 642. If the owner, or the person intrusted for the time being
official
with the charge or custody of any article sold or intended to be
sampler.
sold for use as a fertiHser or feeding stuff, refuses to allow an
official sampler to take a sample of the article for the purpose of
analysis, or if the purchaser of any such article refuses to give to
an official sampler the invoice of the article or a copy thereof or of
any prescribed part thereof, the person so offending is liable on
summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £10 (o).
Institution of 643. Subject to the provisions as to the consent of the Board of
prosecution. Agriculture and Fisheries, a prosecution for any of the above-
mentioned offences may be instituted either by the person
aggrieved, or by the council of a county or borough, or by any
body or association authorised in that behalf by the Board of
Agriculture and Fisheries (p).
But a prosecution for an offence of causing or permitting an
invoice or description to be false in any material particular may
not be instituted after the expiration of three months from the date
when the invoice was received by the purchaser, and not then unless
a sample for analysis has been taken, and an analysis by the
(-/) FertiHsers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 27), s. 6 (1). Under
the repealed Act of 1893, it was lield that mens rea was not a constituent element
of the offence of giving an invoice or description false in a material particular
(Laird v. JDobell, [1906] 1 K. B. 131. See also Korten v. West Sussex County
Council (1903), 72 L. J. (k. b.) 514).
{k) Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 27), s. 6 (2).
{l) Ihid., s. 6 (3).
(m) Ibid., s: 6 (4).
{7i) Ibid., s. 7.
- (o) Ibid., s. 8.
(p) Ibid., 8. 9 (1).

—— —
agriciilfcural analyst has been made, and a certificate of analysis has Sect. ii.
been given, in accordance with the regulations made by the Board of Sale and
Agriculture and Fisheries. The proceedings may be taken either Adultera-
before the Court having jurisdiction in the place where the purchaser ^^Q^ -
of the article towhich the invoice or description relates resides or

carries on business, or before the Court having jurisdiction in the
place where the invoice or description was given {q).
Any person aggrieved by a summary conviction in respect of any Appeal,
of the said offences may appeal to a Court of quarter sessions (r).
Sub-Sect. 2. Hay and Straw.

644. All hay or straw sold in London and Westminster or within Weight of
thirty miles thereof must be sold in trusses hay trusses to weigh fifty- t^^^ês.
;
six pounds, or if of new hay sold between June 1st and August 31st
sixty pounds straw trusses to weigh thirty-six pounds all trusses
; ;
to be of one quality throughout, and the bands not to exceed five

pounds wêight. Hay of the year sold between June 1st and
December 31st must not be sold as hay of a former year. Buyers
of hay and straw may cause it to be weighed on delivery, and no
penalty for short weight or bad quality shall be incurred unless the
hay etc. is weighed or complained of on delivery. Fraudulently
increasing the weight, or delivering less than the number of trusses
sold, renders the offender liable to a penalty (s).
645. Every person who mixes or puts or causes to be mixed or put Mixture of
any water, sand, earth, or other matter in any truss of hay or straw water etc.
intended for sale within the said limits, or who sells, offers, or
exposes for sale, or causes to be sold, offered, or exposed for sale any
hay or straw into or with which any such matter has been put or
mixed is liable on conviction to a penalty of £10. And every sales-
man must, at the time of the sale of any hay or straw on behalf of an
owner, under a penalty of £10, deliver to the buyer a ticket or note
showing the number of trusses sold and the name and address of
the owner (t).
Sub-Sect. 3. Hops.
646. A penalty of £5 is imposed on every person who shall mix Kegulations

as to adultera-
with or put into hops any drug or ingredient to alter the colour or
tion and bags.
scent thereof (a). Hops may not be bagged in bags of greater weight
than in the proportion of 10 lbs. for every 112 lbs. of the gross
weight of the bag and hops, under penalty of £20 (h). Growers of
hops must put on every bag in large letters their names, and the
name of the parish and county in which the hops were grown (c),
the year of growth, and the consecutive number and true gross
weight of the bag, under penalty of £20 for every bag (d) .
(q) Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 27), s. 9 (2).
(r) Ibid., s. 9 (3).
(s) Hay and Straw Act, 1796 (36 Geo. 3, c. 88). For the other previsions of
this Act, see title Markets and Fairs.
(t) Hay and Straw Act, 1856 (19 & 20 Vict. c. 114).
(a) Adulteration of Hops Act, 1733 (7 Geo. 2, c. 19), ss. 2, 3. See also title
Food and Drugs.
(6) Hop Trade Act, 1800(39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 81), s. 3.
(c) Hop Trade Act, 1814(54 Geo. 3, c. 123).
{d) Hop (Prevention of Frauds) Act, 1866 (29 & 30 Vict. c. 37), ss. 2, 3.
u 2
— —
292 Agricultuke.
Sect. 11. A penalty of ^20 is imposed on any person marking on any bag
Sale and a false description, symbol, or trade mark(e), or mixing hops of
Adultera- different qualities so that the bulk differs from sample, unless intent
tion.
to defraud is disproved (/) or selling or exposing for sale hops in
,
Penalties. bags not marked or improperly marked, unless under a hofid fide
belief that the bags were duly marked {g), or wilfully altering or
defacing marks on bags with intent to deceive {li). A penalty of
d610 is imposed on any person rebagging foreign hops as British
hops (i). A
vendor of hops in marked bags is to be deemed to
contract that the description etc. is genuine {k). No action or
proceeding for a penalty may be taken but within three years after
the offence, or one year after the discovery thereof, if not discovered
within the three years (Z).
Sub-Sect. 4. Beeds.
Killing and 647. Every person who fraudulently kills or dyes or causes to be
dyeing seeds.
killed or dyed any seeds, or sells or causes to be sold any killed or
dyed seeds, is liable on summary conviction for a first offence to a
penalty of ^85, and for any subsequent offence to a penalty of d650
and publication of the particulars of his offence at the offender's
expense in any newspapers {m). To "kill" seeds is to destroy their
germinating power by artificial means. "Dyeing" seeds means
applying to seeds any process of colouring, dyeing, or sulphur
smoking {n). A prosecution for selling or causing to be sold killed
or dyed seeds must be commenced within twenty-one days after
the offence and it is not necessary to prove an intent to defraud
;
any particular person (o).
Sect. 12. Sale of Cattle hy Weight,
Weighing in 648. The market authority of every market or fair at which tolls
markets.
taken in respect of cattle, unless exempted by order of the
Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, must provide and maintain
suitable and sufficient accommodation for the weighing of cattle.
"Cattle" includes rams, ewes, wethers, lambs, and swine. Every
person selling, offering for sale, or buying any cattle in a market
or fair where there is such weighing accommodation may require
such cattle to be so weighed on payment of the toll therefor, and is
entitled to have delivered to him a ticket specifying the true weight
of the cattle weighed
(e) Hop (Prevention of Frauds) Act, 1866 (29 & 30 Yict. c. 37), s. 4.
(/) Ibid., s. 5.
(g) Ibid., s. 6.
(h) Ibid., s. 8.
(i) Ibid., s. 7. •
{k) lbid.,s. 18.

(0 Ibid., s. 17.
(m) Adulteration of Seeds Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Yict. c. 112), ss. 3, 4.
(n) Adulteration of Seeds Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Yict. c. 17).
(o) Adulteration of Seeds Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Yict. c. 112), ss. 5, 7.
(j)) Markets and Pairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 27),
amended by Markets and Pairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Yict.
c. 70). Per a complete account of these Acts, see title Markets and
Faies.
—
Part YIIT. —Miscellaneous. 293
Sect. 13. Sale of Growing Crops etc. Sect. 13.
649. As a general rule, a sale of growing crops iq) or fruit is Sale of

Growing
deemed a sale of chattels only, and does not confer an interest in
Crops etc.
land so as to come within the provisions of sect. 4 of the Statute
of Frauds. When not
an interest
With respect to fructus industriales, i.e., corn and other growth of
in land.
the earth which are not produced spontaneously but by labour and
industry, a contract for the sale of them while growing, whether
they are in a state of maturity or have still to derive nutriment
from the land in order to bring them to that state, is not a
contract for the sale of any interest in land, but merely for the
sale of goods (r).
Also when the owner of the soil sells what is growing on the Sale of
land, whether natural produce, as timber, grass, or apples, or produce to be
severed by-
fructus industriales, on the terms that he will cut or sever them vendor.
from the land and deliver them to the purchaser, there is no sale
of any interest in the land (s).
On these principles it has been held that the sale of a growing
crop of wheat (t), of a crop of growing corn and the eatage of
the stubble afterwards together with some growing potatoes and
whatever lay grass was in the fields (a), of a crop of potatoes which
had matured {b) and of a crop of growing potatoes (c) are all sales of
,
chattels only.
650. On the other hand, the following have been held to be sales of When held
an interest in land a sale of growing grass for the purpose of being
:
interest
mown and made into hay by the purchaser {d) a sale of hops not in land. ;
yet in bine (e) a sale of growing turnips, no time being stipulated

;
for removing them (/) a contract with an incoming tenant to take

;
and pay for growing crops and tillages in consideration of letting

him a farm (g).
A sale of growing fruit is a sale of an interest in land (h).
An unconditional sale of underwood or growing trees to be cut by Underwood
the purchaser is a sale of an interest in land (i) but not so when and growing ;
trees.
it is stipulated that they shall be removed as soon as possible by
(q) For the discussion growing crops in connection

of the questions affecting
with Bills of Sale.
bills of sale, see title
(?) Note to William.s' Saunders on the case Duppa v. Mayo, p. 395, cited in
Marshall v. Green (1875), 1 C. P. D. 35, 39.
(s) Washbourn v. Burrows (1847), 1 Exch. 107.
(t) Mayfield v. Warhley (1824), 3 B. & 0. 357.

(a) Jones v. i^Zm^ (1839), 10 A. & E. 753.
[h) Parker v. Staniland (1809), 11 East, 362; Wariuicli v. Bruce {l^Vd),
2 M. & S. 205.
(c) Evans v. Rolerts (1826), 5 B. & 0. 829; Sainshury v. Matthews
4 M. & W. 343.
{d) Crosby v. Wadsworth (1805), 6 East, 602 ;
Carrington v. Roots (1837),
2 M. & W. 248.
(e) Waddington v. Bristow (1801), 2 Bos. & P. 452. But see Rodiuell v. Fhillips
(1842), 9 M. & W. 501.
(/) Emmerson v. Heelis (1809), 2 Taunt. 38. It is doubtful if this case would
now be considered to be correctly decided see Jones v. Flint, supra.
;
{g) Fahnouth {Earl of) v. Thomas (1832), 1 C. & M. 89.

(h) Eodwell V. Phi/lips, supra.
(•/) Scorell V. Boxa/l (1827), 1 Y. & J. 396.
——
294 Agriculture.
Sect. 13, the purchaser (/<;), or when sold by cubic measure with a view to
Sale of immediate felling and removal (I).
Growing
Crops etc. 651. In the case of the sale of a crop of growing grass in a close
purpose of being mown and made into hay by the purchaser,
for the
Right to
exclusive
the purchaser acquires a right to the exclusive possession of the
possession close for that purpose, and may maintain trespass against any
on sale of person entering the close and taking the grass even with the assent
a crop of
grass.
of the vendor (m).
Fruit growing The grant of fruit growing on a tree implies an undertaking by

on tree. the grantor not to destroy the tree before the fruit is gathered (w).
Sect. 14. Sunday Trading.

Farmer may 652. A farmer is not a " tradesman,
artificer, workman or
do harvesting labourer" within the Sunday Observance Act, 1667 (o), and is not,
etc. on
Sunday. therefore, liable to penalties under that Act for exercising the work or
labour of his ordinary calling, such as hay-making, harvesting etc. on
Sunday {p). It is doubtful also whether an agricultural labourer is
a labourer " within the enactment {q).
Contracts not Keeping a stallion for use on payment of a price is not part of
v^îthin his
the work or business of the ordinary calling of a farmer, and a
ordinary
calling.
contract by a farmer made and executed on Sunday for the covering
of a mare is not therefore void within the statute (?•).
Sect. 15. Tenant Right.

Meaning of 653. " Tenant right " is a term used to express the right of the
term. tenant to take or receive after the determination of his tenancy the
benefit of the labour and capital expended by him in cleaning, tilling,
and sowing the land during his tenancy, which he would otherwise
lose by the determination of the tenancy. Before the Agricultural
Holdings Acts, it also included the right to receive such payments
from the landlord for unexhausted improvements on the holding as
the custom of the country allowed. Since the Agricultural Holdings
Acts, it is also sometimes used as including the tenant's right to
receive the compensation for all unexhausted improvements which
those Acts allow (s).
An assignment by an agricultural tenant of all his goods and
effects on the farm, and " all his estate and interest thereon and
therein," comprises the tenant right or tillages on the farm {t) and ;
an assignment by a tenant of all his goods and effects etc. and

"all his tenant right and interest yet to come and unexpired in
{k) Marshall v. (7rem(1875), 1 C. P. D. 35.

{I) Smith V. Surman (1829), 9 B. & C. 561.
(m) Crosh/ v. Wadsworth (1805), 6 East, 602.
(n) See M'IntyreY. Belcher (1863), 14 C. B. (n. S.) at p. 664, êr Willes, J.
(o) 2 Car. 2, c. 7, s. 1. See title Time.
Ip) R. v. Silvester (1864), 33 L. J. (m. c.) 79.
Iq) Hid., i)er Mellor, J., at p. 80.
(r) Scarfe v. Morgan (1838), 4 M. & W. 270.
(s) See pp. 258 et seq., ante.
(t) Gary v, Gary (1862), 10 W. E. 669.
— — —— .
and to the farms and premises," passes the tenant's interest in crops Sect. 15.
groAvn in future years, including way-going crops (a). Tenant
Right.
Sect. 16. Thistles.
654. An occupier of land is under no duty to an adjoining occupier No duty to

thistles,
to cut thistles naturally growing on his land, so as to prevent them
seeding on the adjoining land {b).
Sect. 17. Threshing and Chaff-cutting Machines,
655. The drum and feeding mouth of every threshing machine, Threshing
machines.
worked by any motive power other than manual labour, must be
sufficiently fenced and any owner or person for whose service or
;
benefit a threshing machine is used, or person in charge thereof, who

permits the same to be used without being so fenced, or any person
improperly removing the fencing during work, is liable on summary
conviction to a penalty oi £5. A constable may at all times enter
on the premises to inspect any such machine in work. If the
machine is shown to have been worked contrary to these provisions,
the onus of showing that reasonable precautions to ensure compliance
were taken is on the person charged with the offence (c)
The feeding mouth or box, and the fly-wheel and knives, of Cha£E cutters,
every chaff-cutting machine worked by any motive power other
than manual labour, must be sufficiently fenced, and the same
persons are liable for the same offences to a similar penalty as in
the case of threshing machines. The powers of a constable, and
the onus of proof, are also the same as in the case of threshing
machines {d).
Sect. 18. Trees.
656. Timber trees are the property of the landlord, and even Property in
if included in the demise cannot be felled except for repairs and
fuel {e). To cut or top timber trees, or to do any thing whereby
they may decay, is waste (/).
If trees, being timber, are blown down, they belong to the
landlord but if they are dotards they belong to the tenant ig). In
;
the absence of express agreement a landlord cannot, by cutting

down dotards, acquire a right to the wood as against the
tenant {h).
Where, however, trees are excepted from a demise, there is an Trees
implied right in the landlord to enter on the land at all reasonable excepted
from demise.
(a)Fetch V. Tutin (1846), 15 M. & W. 110, following Grantham y. Haivley {lQlQ),

Hob. on the point that goods to come into existence at a future time are
132,
assignable by deed.
{h) Giles V. Walker (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 656.
(c) Threshing Machines Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Yict. c. 12).
{d) Obaff Cutting Machines (Accidents) Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Yict. c. 60).
(e) Doe V. Lock (1835), 2 Ad. & E. 705; Berriman v. Peacock (1832), 9
Bing. 384.
(/) Co. Litt. 53 a.
{g) Herlakenden' s Case (1589), 4 Co. Eep. 62 b Countess of Ciimherland's Case
;
(1611), Moore, 812.

(h) ChannouY. Patch {1S26), 5 B. & C. 897.
Agriculture.
times to show, and to cut and carry away the trees (i). The tenant
is not liable for injury done to excepted trees by his cattle (k).
The destruction of germens, or young plants destined to become
trees, is waste (l) but the tenant has a general property in hedges,
;
bushes and trees which are not timber {m).

In a lease of premises in a county where cider is made, an excep-
tion and reservation to the landlord of " all timber trees and other
trees, but not the annual fruit thereof," does not except apple and
similar fruit trees {n).
Oak, ash, and elm are timber by the common law if over twenty
years old, but not so old as to have no usable wood in them.
Other trees may be timber by the custom of the country (o). Beech
is timber by the custom of Buckinghamshire (j») and parts of
Gloucestershire (q). Aspen and horse-chestnut are timber in some
counties (r). Trees less than six inches in diameter have been said
not to be timber (s).
A covenant not " to remove or grub up or destroy " trees is broken
by removing trees from one part of the premises to another, or by
substituting other trees for those growing on the premises (t) but ;
a tenant may remove from an orchard trees that are decayed and
past bearing, and plant others {a).
Cutting down pollard willows which are of no special service to
the land, but leaving the stools or butts from which fresh shoots
will grow, is not waste (b).
657. Boughs and branches of trees which overhang another man's

land so as to be a nuisance, may be cut by the owner or occu-
pier of such land (c), without notice to the owner of the trees, and
although they have so overhung for more than twenty years {d).
And an action for damages lies for injury done to fruit and other
crops by trees on a neighbour's land overhanging (e).
A person who allows poisonous trees on his land to overhang
a neighbour's land, is liable for the injury caused to the cattle of his
neighbour by their eating the leaves of such trees (/). But if such
trees do not project over the neighbour's land, although they may
(?) Liford's Case (1615), 11 Co. Eep. 52 a; Hewitt v. Isham (1851), 7

Exch. 77.
(k) Hanlij (1700), 1 Ld. Eaym. 739.
Ohnliam v.
{I) PhUlips (18i5), 14 M. & W. 589, 594.
V. Smith
(m) Berriman v. Peacock (1832), 9 Bing. 384.
(n) Bidlen v. Denning (1826), 5 B. & 0. 842 Com. Dig. tit. ''Biens," H.
;
(o) Hollywood v. Honyiuood (1874), L. E. 18 Eq. 306; R. v. Minchin.

Hampton (1762), 3 Burr. 1309.
(p) Dashwood V. Magniac, [1891] 3 Ch. -306; Aulrey v. Fisher (1809), 10
East, 446.
{q) R. V. Minchin- Hampton, supra.
(r) See R. v. Ferrybridge (1823), 1 B. & C. 375, wkeremany old authorities are
epitomised.
(s) Whitiy V. Lord Dillon (1860), 2 E. & F. 67.
(t) Doe V. Bird {1833), 6 C. & P. 195.
(a) Doe V. Crouch (1810), 2 Camp. 449.

(b) Phillips V. Smith, supra.
(c) Lonsdale (E. of) v. Nelson (1823), 2 B. & C. at p. 311.
- (d) Lemmon v. WeU,
[1895] A. C. 1.
ie) Smith V. Giddy, [1904] 2 K. B. 448.
( /) Crowhurst v. Arnershani Burial Board (1878), 4 Ex. D. 5.

. .
come close up to the boundary, and the neighbour's cattle reach and Sect. 18.
eat their leaves, and are thereby injured, the owner of the trees is Trees,
under no liability for the injury, unless he is under an obligation to
maintain the fence between the properties (r/). Nor does the mere
fact that clippings from trees have been placed on a neighbour's
land, and have thereby injured the neighbour's cattle, constitute a
cause of action against the owner of the trees as such, if the
clippings were not placed there by himself or his servants (/i)
Part IX. — Board of Agriculture and

Fisheries.
658. The Board of Agriculture was established in 1889 (i) Its title . Constitution,
was changed to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in 1903 (k),

when the powers and duties of the Board of Trade relating to
fisheries were transferred to it. The Board consists of the Lord
President of the Council, the principal Secretaries of State, the
Pirst Commissioner of the Treasury, the Chancellors of the
Exchequer and the Duchy of Lancaster, the Secretary for Scotland,
and such other persons as His Majesty may appoint. His Majesty
may appoint any member of the Privy Council to be President of
the Board (l) and the holder of that office is not rendered incapable
;
of being elected to and sitting in Parliament (m). The Board may

not act unless the President or one of the officers of State above
mentioned is present (n)
659. There are transferred to the Board (o) (1) the powers and Powers,
duties of the Privy Council under the Contagious Diseases (Animals)
Acts (p) and the Destructive Insects Act, 1877 (q) (2) the powers and ;
duties of the Land Commissioners for England under all Acts relating
to Allotments (?•), Commons (s), Copyhold (t), Drainage and Improve-
ment of Land (a), Inclosure {b), Metropolitan Commons (c), Tithe
Eent-charge (d), Agricultural Holdings (e), Conveyancing (/),
{g) Ponting Noahes, [1894] 2 Q. B. 281.

v.
{h) Wilson L. E. 7 Q. B. 31.
V. Neivherrtj
(V) Board of Agriculture Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 30), s. 1.
[k) Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 31).
(/) Board of Agriculture Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 30), s. 1 (1), (2).
(m) Ihi'd., s. 8.
(n) Ihid., s. 1 (1).
(o) Ihid., s. 2 (1), and First Schedule.
(p) Eepealed and replaced by the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58
Yict. c. 57), and amending Acts see title Animals, pp. 421 et seq., post,
;
(q) See p. 280, ante.

(r) See title Allotments and Small Holdings.
(s) See title Commons.
(t) See title Copyholds.
(a) See title Eeal Property and Chattels Eeal.

(b) See titles Commons ; Copyholds.
(c) See titles Commons Metropolis. ;
(d) See title Ecclesiastical Law.

(e) See pp. 258 et seq., ante.
If) See title Eent-charges and Annuities.

;
298 Agriculture.
Part IX. Glebe Land (g), Settled Land (Ji), Universities and College Estates {i).
Board of Public Schools {k), and several private Acts, and the powers and
Agriculture duties of the Land Commissioners under every other Act whether
and general, local and personal or private ; (3) all powers and duties of
Fisheries.
the Commissioner of Works, under the Survey Act, 1870 (1).
Promotion of 660. The Board undertakes the collection and preparation of

ao:riculture.
(which includes horticulture {m)) and
statistics relating to agriculture
forestry, and may undertake the inspection of and reporting on and
aiding of any schools which are not public elementary schools, and in
which instruction is given in any matter connected with agriculture
and forestry; and the aiding of lectures or instruction connected
with, and the inspection of and reporting on any examinations in
agriculture or forestry ; and may make or aid in making inquiries,
experiments or research etc. for the purpose of promoting agri-
culture or forestry (n).
Animals. The entire regulation of the movement, transit and slaughter of
diseased animals, the prevention and mitigation of disease in
animals, and all things incidental thereto, under the Diseases of
Animals Acts (o), is vested in the Board; and also the power of
making Orders for prescribing and regulating the wearing by dogs
while in a highway or place of public resort of collars inscribed
with the names and addresses of their owners, and, with a view to
the prevention of worrying of cattle, for preventing dogs, or classes
of dogs, from straying between sunset and sunrise (p).
Markets and Certain powers in respect of markets and fairs formerly exercised
fairs.
by the Local Government Board, together with additional powers,
are also vested in the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries {q).
Agricultural The powers formerly vested in the County Court in respect of the
holdings.
granting of land charges to landlords who have paid compensation
to" any tenant of an agricultural holding, are now exercisable by
the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (r) who may also, in ;
default of agreement between landlord and tenant, appoint a

person to make a record of an agricultural holding at the
commencement of a tenancy (s).
Merchandise The powers exercisable by the Board of Trade under the
Marks Acts.
Merchandise Marks Act, 1891 (t), with respect to the prosecution
(g) See title Ecclesiastical Law.

(h) See title Real Property and Chattels Eeal.
(?) See title Charities.
(k) See title Education.
(0 33 & 34 Vict. c. 13. As to these powers, see title Boundaries and
Fences.
(m) Board of Agriculture Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 30), s. 12.
(n) Ibid., s. 2.
(o) As to these Acts, see title Animals, pp. 421 et seq., post,
(p) Dogs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 32), s. 2 p. 281, ante ; and see
;
title Animals,
pp. 401 et seq., post.
(q) Markets aud Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 70)
see title Markets and Pairs.
(r) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 50), s. 3 (1). See
p. 266, ante.
.(s) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 56), s. 7. See p. 240,
ante.
(0 54 & 55 Vict. c. 15.
— ;
Part IX. Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. 299
of offences under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887 {a), may in Part IX.
cases which appear to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to Board of
relate to agricultural or horticultural produce (or the produce of Agriculture
any fishing industry (h) ) be exercised by that Board (c). and
Fisheries.
Powers to appoint analysts for, and to make regulations, and to
consent to prosecutions in respect of fertilisers and feeding stuffs, Fertilisers
are vested in the Board (d). and Feeding
Stuffs Acts.
Powers of sanctioning and executing charges in favour of land-
Charges in
owners who contribute towards the expenses of district councils in respect of
supplying water to the lands of such owners under the District water supply.
Councils (Water Supply Facilities) Act, 1897 (e), are also vested in
the Board.
Such powers and duties of any Government department as are Transfer of
powers by
conferred by or in pursuance of any statute, and appear to His Order in
Majesty to relate to agriculture or forestry (or the industry of Council.
fishing (/) ) may
be transferred to the Board by Order in Council {g).
The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may sue and be sued in Seal etc.
that name, and have an official seal, which must be authenticated by
the signature of the President or some member of the Board, or the
secretary or person authorised to act on behalf of the secretary (li).
Every document purporting to be an order, licence, or other Evidence of
orders etc.
instrument issued by the Board, sealed and authenticated as above
mentioned, or signed by a secretary or person authorised to act on
behalf of the secretary, must be received in evidence, and be deemed
to be such order, licence, or other instrument without further proof,
unless the contrary is shown. A certificate signed by the President
or any member of the Board that any order etc. purporting to be
made or issued by the Board is so made or issued is conclusive
evidence of the fact so certified (i).
Part X, — Royal Agricultural Society.
661. The Koyal Agricultural Society was incorporated by charter Incorporation

and objects.
in 1840 (1), and Hcence was granted to it to hold land in mortmain
of the yearly value of £3,000. The objects of the Society are (1) to
compile agricultural and scientific information; (2) to correspond
with kindred societies (3) to indemnify against loss persons making
;
(a) 50 & 51 Yict. c. 28.

(b) Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 31), s. 1 (8).
(c) Merchandise Marks (Prosecutions) Act, 1894(57 & 58 Yict. c. 19), s. 1.
{d) Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 27), ss. 2, 4, 8
see pp. 287 et seq., ante.
(e) 60 & 61 Yict. c. 44. See title Gas and Water.
(/) Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 31), s. 1 (3).
(g) Board of Agriculture Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 30), s. 4.
(A) Ibid., s. 6, as amended by Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Act,
1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 31), s. 1 (1).
(0 Ibid., s. 7.
(/) By supplemental charter of 1905, the method of

holding general and other
meetings, and of electing ofi&cers and members, was varied.
—
300 Agriculture.
Paet X. experiments in agriculture encourage improvement in imple-

(4) to
;
Royal ments and buildings, the application of chemistry to agriculture,

Agricultural insects, the eradication of weeds
the destruction of (5) to promote
;
S ociet y, discovery of new varieties of grain and vegetables (6) to collect ;
information on forestry and all subjects connected with rural

improvement (7) to advance education in agriculture
; (8) to ;
improve veterinary art (9) to encourage, by holding meetings and

;
giving prizes, farm cultivation and breeding of stock; (10) to

promote the welfare of labourers and the good management of
cottages and gardens.
Management The management of the Society is vested in a president and
council; and the Society may sue and be sued in the name of the
secretary appointed by the council.
AIR.
See Easements and Profits 1 Prendre.
ALE AND BEER.

See Intoxicating Liquors.
ALIENATION,
Kestraint on. See Perpetuities ; Personal Property ; Eeal
Property and Chattels Eeal ; Trusts and Trustees.
( 301 )
ALIENS.
Part I. DEFINITIONS --------- PAGE

302
Sect.
Sect.
Sect.
1. Alien - -
2. Statutory Alien
3. Alien Friend
-
-
-------
- - - - - - - 302
303
303
Sect.
Sect.
4. Alien Enemy
5. Immigrant --------
- -
--------
- - - - - -
-
304
304
Sect.
Sect.
Sect.
6. Immigrant Ship
7. Immigration Port -------

------
8. Undesirable Immigrant
304
304
304
Sect. 9. Transmigrant - - 305
-- -- --
Sect.
Sect.
Sect.
10. Passenger- -
12. Cabin Passenger

------
-------
11. Steerage Passenger
- 305
305
305
Part II. EIGHTS AND DUTIES OP ALIENS . - - - 306.
-- -- --
Sect. 1. Alien Eriends
Sub-sect. 1. At Common Law
-
------ - 306-
306
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect. 3. Military Service ------
2. Under the Naturalization
-- -- --
Act, 1870 - - 309*
309*
Sect. 2. Alien Enemies

Sub-sect. 1. In General
-
-------
-------
- 310^
310*
Sub-sect. 2. Contracts
Sub-sect. 3. Trading in War
Sub-sect. 4. Licences by the
-----
-----
Time
Crown
31O'
311
311
Part III. ACQUISITION OF BEITISH NATIONALITY-

Sect. 1. By Letters of Denization ----- - -
Sect. 2. By Annexation or Cession to the British Cro-wn -

312
312
313
Sect. 3. Under the Naturalization Act, 1870 - - - 313.
Sub-sect. 1. By Certificate
Sub-sect. 2. Married Women
Sub-sect. 3.
of
Alien Infants
------
Naturalization
------
_ - _ 313
315
315
Sect. 4. By Private Act oe Parliament - - - - 315
Part IY. LOSS OF BEITISH NATIONALITY

Sect. 1. In General --------
Sect. 2. Under the Naturalization Act, 1870
- -
-
-
-
-
-
3I6
316
317
Sub- sect. 1. By Voluntary Naturalization in a Foreign State 317
Sub-sect. 2. By Declaration of Alienage
-------
- - - - 3,17
Sub-sect. 3. By Marriage - - - - - - -318
Sub-sect. 4. Infants - 3,18
—
302 Aliens.
PAGE
Part V. EE-ADMISSION TO BEITISH NATIONALITY - - 319
Sect. 1. Statutory Aliens - - - - - - -319
Sect. 2. Widows - 319
Sect. 3. Ineants -
- -
-- -- - - -
-
-
- --
- -
319
Part YI. EEOULATION OP ALIEN IMMIOEATION - - - 320

Sect.
Sect.
1.
2.
In General -
Admission of Aliens
Sub-sect. 1. Inspection and Leave to Land _
------- _ -
320
320
320
Sub-sect. 2. Appointment of Officers and Boards - - 322
Sub-sect. 3. Eules of Secretary of State - - - - 322
Sub-sect. 4. Bonds -
Sub-sect. 5. Appeals-
- - - - -
-------
-------
- -322
323
Sect. 3. Expulsion of Aliens
Sub-sect. 1. Convicted Aliens ------ 323
323
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
2.
3.
Undesirable Aliens
Expenses of -----
------
Expulsion
- - _ - - 324
324
Sect.
Sect.
4.
5.
Custody of Aliens
Eeturns as to Aliens ------
-------
325
326
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
1.
2.
3.
In General
Exemptions
Statutory
-------
Porms - - - - - -
326
326
326
Sect. 6.
(1)
(2)
Por Inward Traffic
Por Outward Traffic
Offences and Penalties
------
------
- - - - - - 326
327
328
Sect. 7. Jurisdiction - 328
For Allegiance, generally - - - - See title Constitutional Law.

of Laws
Coriflict - - - - Conflict of Laws.
Extradition - - - - - ,, Extradition.
Part I.— Definitions.

Sect. 1. Alien.
Alien. 662. An alien is, at common law, a subject of a foreign state who
has not been born within the allegiance (x) of the Crown (a).
The status of a person, as to whether he is an alien or not, is
determined by the law of this country {h),
is the mutual bond and obligation between the king and his
Ligeance
'
[x) '
subjects whereby subjects are called his liege subjects because they are bound
to obey and serve him. Therefore it is truly said protectio trahit suhjec-
. . .
tionem protedionem'' (Calvin's Case (1608), 7 Co. Eep. at p. 5 a).

et suhjectio
(a) Calvin's Case (1608), 7 Co. Eep.^ 1 1 Bl. Com. Ch. 10 R. v. Burke and
; ;
others (1868), 11 Cox, C. C. 138. This definition does not, however, appear to
be exhaustive, as in some cases, notably in that of Germany, if a subject is
absent for ten years from his country, he loses his nationality. It would seem
that such a person resident in England would, if he had not become naturalized
here, have no nationality at all for he would not be regarded as British merely
;
because, by the law of Germany, he had ceased to be a German.

(b) Be Adam (1837), 1 Moo. P. C. C. 460, where it was held that the status
of a man resident in the Mauritius, whether alien or not, is determined by the
law of this country, but the rights and liabilities incidental to such status must
be determined by the law of the colony.
——— —
Persons born within the allegiance of the Crown include —

Sect. i.
(1) Everyone who is born within the dominions of the Crown Alien,
whatever may be the nationality of either or both of his parents pers^^^ôrn ;
miless he is either (a) a child of a foreign sovereign or any foreign within alle-
state's ambassador, or, possibly, of any other foreign diplomatic glance of the
^^'o^^-
agent (c) or (b) a child born in British territory of alien parents,
;
if the territory was in the occupation of a foreign army at the time
of his birth (d).

The dominions of the Crown include
(a) The United Kingdom and any colony, plantation, island, Dominions of
territory, or settlement within His Majesty's dominions and not the Crown.
within the United Kingdom {e).

(b) Places situated within the territory of a prince, who is subject
to the Crown of England in respect of such territory (/).
(c) British ships of war and other public vessels (g).
(d) British merchantmen on the high seas (h), and probably even
if in the territorial waters of a foreign country (i).
(2) The children of the King (k) or of a British ambassador (/), Children of
or, possibly, other diplomatic agent, even though such children Crown or
are born abroad but not the children born abroad of other persons diplomatic
;
officers.
in the service of the Crown (m).
(3) Any person whose father or paternal grandfather was born Children and
wdthin the dominions of the Crown, although he himself was born grand-
children of
abroad, provided that at the time of his birth his father had not natural-born
ceased to have the rights of a British subject (otherwise than by British
death (/i)), and was not in the service of a foreign state at enmity subjects.
with the Crown of England (o).
Sect. 2. Statutory Alien.
663. A statutory alien is a natural-born British subject, who has statutory
become an alien in pursuance of the provisions of the Naturalization alien.
Act, 1870 (iJ).

Sect. 3. Alien Friend.
664. An alien friend is one whose sovereign or state is at peace Alien friend,
with the sovereign of England (q).
(cj The point has never been judicially decided, but it is probable that the
principle would apply at all events to a minister representing the personality of
his sovereign. See Cockburn, Nationality, p. 7.
(d) Calvin's Case (1608), 7 Co. Eep. 1.
(e) Naturalization Act, 1870 (33 Yict. c. 14), s. 17.
(/) Craw V. Ramsey (1670), Vaugh. 281.

{g) Parlement Beige (1880), 5 P. D. 197.
(A) Marshall v. Murgatroyd (1870), L. E. 6 Q. B. 31.
(0 Compare B. v. Carr and Wilson (1882), 10 Q. B. D. 76.

(k) 25 Edw. 3, St. 1.
(/) Calvin's Case, supra, at p. 18 a.
{m) Be Geer v. Stone (1882), 22 Ch. D. 243.
(n) Boe d. Thomas v. AcJclam (1824), 2 B. & C. 779.
(o) The Foreign Protestants Naturalization Act, 1708 (7 Anne, c. 5), s. 53, as
explained and enlarged by the British Nationality Act, 1731 (4 Geo. 2, c. 21),
and the British Nationality Act, 1772 (13 Geo. 3, c. 21). Note, however, that
the children of persons attainted of high treason, or liable to the penalties of
high treason or felony, are expressly excepted (4 Geo. 2, c. 21, s. 2, and
13 Geo. 3, c. 21, s. 2).
(p) Naturalization Act, 1870 (33 Vict. c. 14), s. 8; and see p. 317, post.
(q) 1 Bl. Com. 360.
—— —
804 Aliens.
Sect. 4. Sect. 4. Alien Enemy,

Alien
665. An alien enemy is one whose sovereign or state is at war
Enemy.
with the sovereign of England (r).
Alien enemy.
Sect. ^.—Immigrant.
Immigrant. 666. An immigrant for the purposes of the Aliens Act, 1905 (s),
is an alien steerage passenger who is to be landed in the United
Kingdom but the term does not include (a) any passenger who
;
—
shows to the satisfaction of the immigration officer or board
concerned with the case that he desires to land in the United
Kingdom only for the purpose of proceeding within a reasonable
time to some destination out of the United Kingdom (b) any ;
passenger holding a prepaid through ticket to some such destina-

tion, if the master or owner of the ship by which he is brought
to the United Kingdom, or by which he is to be taken away
from the United Kingdom, gives security to the satisfaction of
the Secretary of State that, except for the purposes of transit or
under other circumstances approved by the Secretary of State, he
will not remain in the United Kingdom, or, having been rejected in
another country, re-enter the United Kingdom, and that he will be
properly maintained and controlled during his transit.
Sect. 6. Immigrant Ship,

Immigrant 667. An immigrant ship is a ship which brings to the United
ship.
Kingdom more than twenty alien steerage passengers who are to be
landed in the United Kingdom, whether at the same or different
ports, or such number of those passengers as may be for the time
being fixed by order of the Secretary of State (i).
Sect. 7. Immigration Port.

Immigration 668. An immigration port is a port at which the Secretary of
port. State has appointed immigration officers and medical inspectors for
carrying the Aliens Act, 1905, into effect (u).
Sect. 8. — Undesirable Immigrant.

Undesirable 669. An undesirable immigrant (x) is an immigrant
immigrant. Who cannot show that he has in his possession (y) or is in a
(a)
(r) Mod. Eep. 150.

Sylvester's Case (1702), Y
(s) 5 Edw. This and the following definitions are contained in
7, c. 13, s. 8(1).
the Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c, 13), and the Memorandum on the Aliens Act,
1905, issued by the Home Office (February, 1906); they apply only to the
provisions of the Act and the memorandum.
{t) Ihid., s. 8 (2). By an order made by the Home Secretary, dated Decem-
ber 19, 1905, the number was fixed at twelve, but by an amended order issued
by the Secretary of State, and dated March 9, 1906, the number twenty was
reverted to.
(u) Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), s. 6 (1), and Memo, on Aliens Act, 1905,
s. 7 see also note (w) p. 322, j)Ost.
;
(x) Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), s. 1 (3).

(y) The test at present is, whether he is possessed of £5 and £2 for each depen-
dant (Memo, on Aliens Act, 1905, s. 35).
————
position to obtain the means of decently supporting (z) himself and Sect. 8.
his dependants, if any ; or Undesirable
(b) Who is a lunatic or an idiot or owing to any disease (a) or Immigrant,
infirmit}' appears likely to become a charge upon the rates, or
otherwise a detriment to the public or ;
(c) Who has been sentenced in a foreign country with which there
is an extradition treaty, for a crime, not being an offence of a

political character, which is as respects that country an extradition
crime within the meaning of the Extradition Act, 1870(6) or, ;
Against whom an expulsion order under the Aliens Act,

(d)
1905 (c), has been made.
Sect. 9. Transmigrant
670. A transmigrant is an alien passenger other than a first-class Trans-

passenger, who holds a prepaid through ticket to some destination 'îg^^'^^-
outside the United Kingdom and in respect of whom security has
been given that he will proceed to a place outside the United
Kingdom (t?).
Sect. 10. Passenger.
671. A passenger is a person carried on a ship other than the Passenger,

master and persons employed in the working or service of the
ship (e).
Sect. 11. Steerage Passenger.
A steerage passenger is any passenger except such persons

672. steerage
as maybe declared by the Secretary of State, by order made either passenger,
generally or as regards any special ships or ports, to be cabin

passengers (/).
Sect. 12. Cabin Passenger.
673. A cabin passenger, as defined by the Secretary of State, is a Cabin

passenger who is entitled to use the cabin, state room or saloons passenger,
where the accommodation is superior to that provided in any
other part of the ship devoted to the carrying of passengers (g).
(z) The fact that he has a definite trade, can speak English etc., must be taken
into consideration (Memo, on Aliens Act, 1905, s. 36).
(a) Medical unfitness is left to the medical inspector; see Eules under the
Aliens Act (December 19, 1905), r. 2.
(b) 33 & 34 Yict. c. 52 and see title Exteadition.
;
(c) See p. 323, post.
(d) Memo, on Aliens Act, 1905, s. 9.

(e) Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw._ 7, c. 13), s. 8 (3).
(/) Ibid., and Memo, on Aliens Act, 1905, s. 5. The result of the decision of
the Secretary of State as to cabin passengers is that where there is more than one
class of accommodation on board a ship, all alien passengers except first-class
passengers are to be reckoned as alien steerage passengers, and where there is
only one class of accommodation on board, all the alien passengers are to be so
reckoned.
(g) Ibid.
H.L. — I. X
—— ;
306 Aliens.
Part II. — Rights and Duties of Aliens.

Sect. 1. Sect. 1. Alien Friends,
Alien Stjb-Sect. 1. At Common Law.
Friends.
674. An
alien friend has no legal right to enter British terri-
In general. tory (/i), but while in this country he owes a temporary and local
allegiance to the Crown to the same extent as a British subject, which
allegiance is founded on the protection he enjoys for his own person,
his family and effects, during the time of that residence. Thus he
may be convicted of treason (i), is subject to a writ of ne exeat regno (j),
and is also amenable to all municipal laws. This applies equally to
any alien, whether he be an alien friend or an alien enemy resident
here under the protection of the King {k).
As to personal 675. At common law {I), and, since 1844, by statute (m), an alien
property. can acquire, hold, and dispose of goods, money, and any other
personal estate, other than chattels real such as leaseholds, with the
single exception of a British ship (n), as freely as a natural-born
British subject; but shares in a company owning a British ship
may be held by an alien, and even if some, or even perhaps all, of
the signatories of the memorandum of association are aliens,
registration of the company cannot be refused (o).
As to real Previously to 1870 an alien could hold no real estate, and this
property. rule extended to leaseholds {p). He could, however, take until an
inquisition was instituted by the Crown but on a return to the
;
inquisition being made, which was termed office found, the Crown
was entitled to take (q). An alien could not, however, take by
operation of law; thus an alien woman married to a British subject
was not entitled to dower (r), and an alien could not be a tenant by
the curtesy, but since 1844 every person then born or thereafter to
be born out of the King's dominions of a mother being a natural-
born subject is capable of taking real estate by devise, purchase,
inheritance or succession (s).
(h) Mmgrove v. Chmi Teeong Toy, [1891] A. C. 272.
{i) See De Jager v. A.-G. of Natal, [1907] A. 0.
326, where it was held
that an alien resident in British territory owes allegiance to the Crown, and
continues to do so although the country of which he is a subject declares war
against this country and enters into military occupation of that part of British
territory in which he resides if, therefore, during the temporary evacuation of
;
that territory by the British forces the alien takes up arms for the invaders, he
is guilty of high treason.
{j) De Carriere v. Be Galonne (1799), 4 Yes. 577.

(k) 1 East, P. C. p. 52 1 Hale's History of the Pleas of the Crown, p. 59
;
Foster's Discourse on High' Treason, p. 185, ss. 2, 3.

(/) 1 Bl. Com. 360. See title Personal Property.
(m) Naturalization Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 66), s. 14.
[n) Under the old Navigation Acts, 1773 (13 Geo. 3, c. 26), and 1825 (6 Geo. 4,
c. 110), s. 13, preserved bvthe Naturalization Act, 1870 (33 Yict. c. 14), and the
Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), s. 1.
(o) R, V. Arnaud (1846), 9 Q. B. 806; see Janson v. Driefontein Consolidated
Mines, Ltd., [1902] A. C. 484, per Lord Macnaghten, at p. 497.
{p) 1 Bl. Com. 360; Co. Litt. 2 b.
{q) Ibid. '
(r) Count de Wall's Case (1848), 6 Moo. P. C. C, 216.

- (s) Naturalization Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Yict. c. 66), s. 3. See title Eeal Property
AND Chattels Eeal.
—
Part II. Rights and Duties of Aliens. 307
As regards leaseholds, an exception was early made by the law Sect. i.
merchant in favour of alien merchants (0, who were allowed to hold Alien
leases of houses, but only for themselves and their families and F riend s,
for the purposes of their trade. In 1844 the right to hold leasehold Leaseholds,
lands was extended to all aliens, but it was still limited to lands
held for the purpose of residence of the alien and his family or of his
business and trade and to terms not exceeding twenty-one years {u).
676. No
descent could be traced through an alien ancestor (x) ; Descent,
and the lands held by an alien pending the institution of an
inquisition escheated to the Crown on his death intestate, because
he could have no heirs (y). The son of an alien father and English
mother, born out of the allegiance of the Crown, could not inherit
to his mother in this country {z). But since 1700 all natural-
born subjects may inherit as heirs and may trace their descent
from any of their ancestors lineal or collateral, although such
ancestors were born out of the allegiance of the Crown (a). The
status of natural-born British subjects which is conferred by
statute {h) on the children and grandchildren born abroad of a
father who was a natural-born British subject at the time of their
birth is purely personal, and is not made transmissible to the
descendants of the persons to whom that status is given (c).
An alien can bequeath or receive as legatee every kind of per- wills.
sonalty((:Q. He can also take the proceeds of land devised in trust
for sale(e), but previously to 1870 a devise of lands to him was
voidable (/), and lands so devised could be seized by the Crown after
office found (g). Where a trust of freehold or copyhold lands was
created in favour of an alien by will the beneficial interest passed
to the Crown (//), and the Court of Chancery v/ill enforce such a
trust in the Crown's favour if made before 1870 (i). The will of an
alien domiciled abroad must be made in accordance with the law of
the country where he is domiciled, even though the property disposed
of is personalty and his domicile of origin is British (7).
(t) 1 Bl. Com. 360; Co. Litt. 2 b.

(u) Naturalization Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Yict. c. 66), s. 5.
(x) Co. Litt. 8 a; Bittson v. Stordy (1856), 2 Jur. (n. S.) 410.
(y) Co. Litt. 2 b.
(z) Doe d. DuroureY. Jones (1771), 4 Term Eep. 300.
(a) 11 & 12 Will. 3, c. 6, as explained by 25 Geo. 2, c. 39.
(b) 7 Anne, c. 5, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21, and 13 Geo. 3, c. 21.
(c) Be Oeer v. Stone (1882), 22 Cb. D. 243 see p. 303, ante.
;
(d) 1 Bl. Com. 360 Wells v. Williams (1697), 1 Lutw. 34.

;
(e) Du Hourmtlin v. Sheldon (1839), 4 My. & Cr. 525.
(/) Shep. Toucb. 404.

[g) Duplessis v. A.-G. (1753), 1 B. P. C. Toml. 415; Fourdrin v. Qowdey
(1834), 3 My. & K 408 ; Shar^ v. St. Sauveur (1871), 7 Cb. App. 343. See
p. 306, ante.
{h) Barroiv v. Wadkin (1857), 24 Beav. 1.
(?) Sharp V. St. Sauveur, suyra.
(,/) BloQcam v. Favre (1884), 9 P. D. 130, wbere it was beld tbat an alien could
not by virtue of tbe Naturalization Act, 1870, make, if domiciled abroad, a valid
will according to tbe provisions of Englisb law, tbougb an Euglisb subject
domiciled abroad migbt do so under 24 & 25 Yict. c. 114, and it was also beld
tbat in determining wbat is a valid will of an alien tbe general principles of law
prior to tbat year are still applicable. See also title Wills.
X 2
.
308 Aliens.
Sect. 1. 677. An alien can commit an act of bankruptcy (k), and may be
Alien made a bankrupt if he is domiciled in England or if within a year
Friends. before the date of the presentation of the petition he has ordinarily
Bankruptcy. resided or had a dwelling-house or place of business in England (l)
and has himself committed an act of bankruptcy in this country (m),
and it would seem that an alien can be a petitioning creditor
whenever he can sue for the debt (n).
Right to sue 678. An alien can sue in our Courts for a personal demand (o).
Thus he can maintain an action for debt for slander (q) or
libel (r), or sue for a fraud upon him by the use of his trade
mark by a manufacturer in this country (s), and he can do so even
though resident abroad (t) He is also entitled, if he is residing
.
at the time of publication within the British dominions, to copy-

right in a work published by him in England (u), and the plea in
an action that the plaintiff is an alien is invalid {v) unless it is also
alleged that he is an alien enemy (x) residing here without the
licence of the Kingiy). But previously to 1870 he had no right
to bring a real or mixed action except in the capacity of a member
of a corporation (z)
Offices. 679. Aliens are incapable of being members of the Privy Council
or of either House of Parliament or of enjoying any office or place of
trust {a), either civil or military, or of having any grant of lands
or hereditaments from the Crown to themselves, or to any other
or others in trust for them (b). They have, however, always been
capable of becoming members of an English corporation (c).
Jfranchise. They are debarred at common law {d) from exercising the Par-
liamentary franchise and by statute (e) from exercising the municipal
{k) Be Pearson, [1892] 2 Q. B. 263 Be Clark, Ex parte Beyer, Peacock & Co.,
;
[1896] 2 Q. B. 476; Ex parte Blahi, Be Suwers (1875), 12 Oh. D. 522, per

Brett, L.J., at p. 528.
(l) Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 52), ss. 4 (1) (g), 6 (1) (d).
(m) Be Pearson, supra.

{n) Ex parte Pascal, Be Myer (1876), 1 Ch. D. 509. See, generally, title
Bankruptcy and Insolyency.
(o) 1 Bl. Com. 360. Bamkissenseat y Barker (1737), 1 Atkins' Eep. p. 50.
.
(p) Dyer, 2 b (6 Hen. 8).

Iq) Tirlot v. Morris (1611), 1 Buls. 134.
(r) Pisani v. Lawson (1839), 6 Bing. (n. c.) 90.
(s) The Collins Co. v. Broiun (1857), 3 Kay & J. 423.
{t) PHsani
v. Laiuson, supra.
Ill) Boutledge v. Low (1868), 37 L. J. (cH.) 454.
{v) Co. Litt. 127—129 Salk. 46
; Brandon v. NesUtt (1794), 6 Term Eep. 23.
;
[x) Openheimer v. Levy (1737), 2 Stra. 1082; DauUgny y. Davallon 1793), 2

Anstr. 462.
(?/) Alcenius v. Nygren (1854), 1 Jur. (n. S.) 16.
(z) 1 Co. Litt. 129 b. See title Action, p. 17, ante.

\a) B. Y. De Mierre (1771), 5 Burr. 2788, wbere it was held tbat the office of
constable of a ward of the City of London, being an office of trust, could not be
held by an alien.
(6) Act of Settlement, 1700 (12 & 13 Will. 3, c. 2), s. 3.
(c) Co. Litt. 129 b.
(d) And see unanimous vote of House of Commons (1698), 12 Com. Jour. 367.
(e) Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 50), s. 9; County
Electors Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Yict. c. 10), s. 2 (2) and Local Government Act,
;
1894 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 73), s. 2 (1); NaturaHzation Act, 1870 (33 Yict.
c. 14), s. 2 (2).
— — .
franchise and from voting at any county council or parish council Sect. i.
election or parish meeting. Alien
AHens who have been domiciled in England and Wales for ten Friends,
years, if in other respects duly qualified, are qualified and liable juries civil
to serve on juries or inquests (/).
An alien is triable criminally in the same manner as if he were Be medietate
a natural-born subject (//), though previously to 1870 he was entitled
by statute (/<), when indicted for a felony or misdemeanour, to be
tried by a \my de medietate Ungues, which was constituted of equal
numbers of British and alien jurors, his right to such a jury, in
the case of treason, having been taken away from him in 1554 (^).
[Sub-Sect. 2. — Under the Naturalization Act, 1870.
680. Eeal and personal property of every description may be

taken, acquired, held, and disposed of by an alien in the same manner
in all respects as by a natural-born British subject, and a title to real
and personal property of every description may be derived through,
from, or in succession to an alien in the same manner in all respects
as through, from, or in succession to a natural-born British subject(j);
but no right is conferred on aliens to hold real property situate
out of the United Kingdom {k), nor is any other right or privilege
as a British subject besides those expressly given {I).
The Act does not affect any estate or interest in real or personal
property to which any person (m) has or may become entitled, either
mediately or immediately, in possession or expectancy, in pursuance
of any disposition made before the passing of the Act, or in pursuance
of any devolution of law^ on the death of any person dying before it
was passed (??).
Sub-Sect. 3. Military Service.
681. The enlistment of aliens in the British army is regulated

by statutory provisions (o) to the effect that an alien may, with the
consent of the Crown signified through a Secretary of State, enlist

in His Majesty's regular forces but the number of aliens serving
;
together at any one time in any corps of the regular forces must
not exceed the proportion of one alien to every fifty British subjects ;
and an alien so enlisted is not capable of holding any higher rank
than that of a warrant officer or non-commissioned officer (p)
Notwithstanding the above provisions any negro or person of
colour, although an alien, may voluntarily enlist, and when so
(/) Juries Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Yict. c. 77), s. 8.

(y) Naturalization Act, 1870 (33 Vict. c. 14), s. 5.
[h) (1354) 28 Edw. 3, c. 13, s. 2, and (1429) 8 Hen. 6, c. 29 see R. ; v. Maiming
(1849), 1 Den. 0. C. 467 Juries Act, 1825 (6 Geo. 4, c. 50), s. 47.
;
(0 (1554) 1 & 2 Phil. & Mary, c. 10.

(V) Naturalization Act, 1870 (33 Yict. c. 14), s. 2.
(k) Ibid., s. 2 (1).
(/) Ibid., s. 2 (2); Bloxam v. Favre (1884), 9 P. D. 130.

{m) Sharp v. St. Sauveur (1871), 7 Ch. App. 343. Person is meant to
apply generally, and it refers to all parties, whether they be aliens or other-
wise.
{n) Sharp v. St. Sauveur, supra; Naturalization Act, 1870 (33 Yict. c. 14),
s. 2 (3). The Act is not retrospective,
(o) Army Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Yict. c. 58).
{p) Ibid., s. 95 (1).

— ——
310 Aliens.
Sect. 1. enlisted is, while serving in His Majesty's regular forces, deemed to
Alien be entitled to all the privileges of a natural-born British subject (q).
Friends.
Sect. 2. Alien Enemies.
Site-Sect. 1. In General.
In general. 682. An alien enemy had no rights at all at common law he ;
could be seized and imprisoned and could have no advantage of the

law of England, nor obtain redress for any wrong done to him
here (?•). But it has for long been the custom to exonerate alien
enemies who have been allowed to remain in this country and are
of good behaviour from the disabilities of enemies (s).
There are, however, persons other than those whose Sovereign
is at war with the Sovereign of England, who are in certain circum-
stances regarded as enemies. Thus, though an Englishman merely
residing in a hostile country {t) is not regarded as an alien enemy,
he is so regarded if trading there (?/) without the licence of the
Crown (v) and he is not freed from any liabilities imposed on him
;
by his British nationality (w), unless he has by voluntary naturaliza-

tion ceased to be a British subject before the commencement of the
war {x). A neutral residing in an enemy's country as consul of a
neutral state, and who also trades there as a merchant, must be
regarded as an alien enemy (?/). To prove a person is an alien
enemy at the time of the commencement of an action, it is not
enough to show that he was some time before domiciled in a
territory which has become hostile (z).
Sub-Sect. 2. Contracts.
Contracts. 683. A
contract made after war has begun with an alien enemy
who is not resident in this country and under the protection of the
Crown (a) is void ah initio, and cannot be enforced even after the
conclusion of peace {h) but a native of a foreign state in amity
;
with this country captured on board an enemy's fleet and brought

to England as a prisoner of war, is considered as being in the King's
protection (c), and a contract with him is valid.
An action, however, was maintainable by an alien enemy on a
ransom bill (cl), but ransoming was made illegal, and all ransoming
contracts were rendered void in 1782 (e).
(q) Army Act, 1881 (44 &45 Yict. c. 58), 95 (2).

(r) Sylvester's Case (1702), 7 Mod. Rep. 150.
(s) Hall's International La\v,>5tli ed., p. 395.
(t) Roberts v. Hardij (1815), 1 Bos. &
P., Lord Ellenborough's judgment at
p. 536.
{u) M'Coimell v. Hector (1802), 3 Bos. & P. at p. 114.
{v) Baglehole, Ex parte(1812), 18 Yes. 528.
'
B. Y. yEueas Macdonald (1747), Post. 59.

(lu)
{x) R. V. Lynch, [1903] 1 K. B. 444.
{y) Sorensen v. Reg. (1857), 11 Moo. P. C. C. 141.
(z) Harman v. Kingston (1811), 3 Camp. 152, 153.
(a) Wells V. Williams (1697), 1 Salk. 45; Maria v. Hall (1807), 1 Taunt.
33, n. M'Connell v. Hector (1802), 3 Bos. & P. 114.
;
(6) Willison v. Patteson (1817), 7 Taunt. 439; Brandon v. Neshitt (1794), 6

Term Rep. 23.
(c) Sparenlurgh v. Bannatyne (1797), 1 Bos. & P. 163.
{d) Ricord v. Bettenham (1765), 3 Burr. 1734.
[e) 22 Geo. 3, c. 25.
— —
—
Where a contract with an alien enemy is executory on the out- Sect. 2.
break of war it is avoided, and both parties are at once absolved Alien
from any performance of it {/). Enemies.
Bat where such a contract is executed (g) before the commence- Executory.
ment of hostilities, the contract is not voided by the outbreak of Executed.
war. The remedy only is suspended, and revives on the restoration
of peace.
It is doubtful whether choses in action belonging to an alien
enemy Crown and can be enforced for its
are forfeitable by the
benefit {h).
Sub-Sect. 3. Trading in War Time.
684. Trading with alien enemies, whether individuals or corpora- Trading in
lions (i), is illegal (j), and any property employed in such trade may time of war.
be confiscated by the Crown (k) and the subject guilty of such illegal
action prosecuted for misdemeanour (Z), and in some cases high
treason (m). It is not a municipal offence for a neutral to carry on
trade with a blockaded port {n), and a contract between subjects of a
neutral state to export contraband of war to a belligerent is not
illegal in the neutral state (o).
Sub-Sect. 4. Licences the Crown.

685. The Crown always has had the power grant licences (^) to Licences,
to British subjects to reside in hostile countriesand to trade with

alien enemies, and to alien enemies to reside here and trade within
the kingdom {q). But mere non-interference with an alien enemy
does not imply a licence to reside or trade, and a previous licence
to an alien friend is not sufficient unless his stay was sanctioned
after hostilities had commenced (r).
Such licences may be general (s) or special®, express (zO or Construction
of licences.
(/) Potts V. Bell (1800), 8 Term Eep. 548 ; and Esposito v. Bowden (1857), 7
E. &B. 763.
{g) The Hoop {rm), 1 Ch. Eob. 196, 200; Ex parte Boussmaker (1806), 13
Ves. 71 ;Alcenius v. Nyqren (1854), 1 Jur. (n. S.) 16; Janson v. Briefontein
Consolidated Mines, Ltd., ^1902] A. C. 484.
(A) A.-G. V. Weeden and Shales (1699), Park. 267; Be Wahl v. Braune
(1856), 1 H. &N. 178; but see contra Wolff y. Oxholm (1817), 6 M. & S. 92,
102, 2iTidi Furtado v. Badgers (1802), 3 Bos. & P. 191, 200. Per rights to sue,
see title Action, p. 20, ante.
(?) Janson v. Briefontein Consolidated Mines, Ltd., supra ; and see per Lord
LiNDLEY, ioid., at p. 505, as to wliat constitutes a foreign corporation.

[j] The Hoop, supra ; Bristow v. Towers (1794), 6 Term Rep. 35; Potts v. Bell,
supra; Janson v. Briefontein Consolidated Mines, Ltd., supra, per Lord Davey,
at p. 499; M'Connell v. Hector (1802), 3 Bos. & P. 114; see also notice of British
Poreign Office (1899), British and Foreign State Papers, vol. 92, p. 383.
(k) Land v. North [Lord) (1785), 4 Dougl. 266.
{I) 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 22.
(m) Statute of Treason, 25 Edw. 3, st. 5, c. 2.
(n) The Helen (1865), 11 Jur. (N. s.) 1025.
(o) Ex parte Chavasse, Be Grazehrook (1865), 4 De Gr. J. & S. 655.
(p) The Hoop, supra.

Iq) Vandyck v. Whitmore (1801), 1
East, 475.
(V) Boulton V. Bohree (1808), 2 Camp. 163.
(s) E.g., the Order in Council allowing certain trades with the enemy at the
outbreak of the Crimean War; and see Clemontson v. Blessig (1855), 11 Exch.
135 ; Busky. Bell (1812), 16 East, 3; The Neptune (1855), Spinks, 281.
{t) Feize Y. Thompson (1808), 1 Taunt. 121.
(u) As in the case of the Order in Council, note (s), supra.

—
312 Aliens.
Sect. 2. implied (?;), and they are not assignable (z<;) A licence to trade .
Alien implies an authority to insure (^). Licences must be construed

Enemies. liberally iy), and a mere misdescription of a party applying to the
Crown for a licence to trade with an enemy, if made without fraud,
does not vacate the licence {z), but any special condition attached to
the licence must be strictly complied with {a). A licence to an alien
enemy to reside within the realm imports a licence to trade Q)) ;
but a licence to a subject to trade with a hostile country does not

imply a licence to reside there (c).
Absence of In the absence of any licence the property of an alien enemy
licence. may be seized for the use of the Crown (^), and the alien himself
may be expelled (e) the country, or, if attempting to land, refused
admission (/). At any time the Crown may revoke a licence
granted {g).
Part III. — Acquisition of British Nationality.
Sect. 1. By Letters of Denization.
In general.' 686. An alien naturalized in this country becomes to all intents

and purposes a British subject, and ceases to be an alien for the ;
character of an alien and British subject cannot be united in one

person {h). Thus a naturalized alien is incapable of contracting a
marriage which would have been void if contracted by a natural-
born subject, though valid by the law of his domicil of origin (i). (
Letters of 687. The right to create denizens by letters patent is a preroga-

demzation. ^^yg Crown, which, though fallen into desuetude, is expressly
preserved by the Naturalization Act, 1870 (J). Letters of denization,
the grant of which is at the absolute discretion of the Crown, are
obtainable upon petition to the Crown through the Home Office,
and the petition must set out the circumstances which make it
impossible or impracticable for the applicant to comply with the
conditions of the Naturalization Act, 1870. The grant may be
{v) Spareoihurgh v. Bannatyne (1797), 1 Bos. & P. 163.

{w) See note {t), p. 311, ante.
{x) Kensington v. Inglis (1807), 8 East, 273. A
licence to insure includes
insurance of the ship, even if it be an enemy's, as well as of the goods put on
board {Morgan v. Oswald (1812), 3 Taunt. 554 ; Flindt v. Scott (1814), 5 Taunt.
674).
{y) Flindt v. Scott, supra.
{z) Lemche v. Vaughan (1824), 8 Moo. C. P. 646.
{a) Camelo v. Britten (1820), 4 B. & Aid. 184.
{h) Wells V. Williams (1697), 1 Salk. 45. .
(c) Ex parteBaglehole (1812), 1 Eose, 271.

\d) The Johanna Emilie (1854), 2 Eng. Prize Cas. at p. 254.
(e) 1 Bl. Com. 259.
(/) Musgrove v. Chun Teeong Toy, [1891] A. 0. 272; see also Hall's Inter-
national Law, 5th ed., p. 390.
{g) The Hoop (1799), 1 Ch. Bob. 196, 199.
{h) R. V. Manning (1849), 1 Den. C. C. 467, per Wilde, C.J., at p. 478.
{i) Mette v. Mette (1859), 1 Sw. & Tr. 416.
[j] 33 Yict. c. 14, s. 13.
— — —
Part III. Acquisition of British Nationality. 813
temporary or conditional, and may either express the privileges Sect. i.
conferred or confer all the rights of a natural-born subject, except Letters of

those specifically excluded by its provisions or withheld by law (k). Denization.
Thus, a denizen is debarred from holding certain offices (Z), and Disabilities of
he is not qualified to own a British ship, unless he has taken the denizens,
oath of allegiance and is during the time he is owner of the ship
either resident in the King's dominions or partner in a firm actually
carrying on business in those dominions (m).
The grant is not retrospective (n) consequently the children of
;
a denizen born out of the King's dominions before the issuing of

the letters patent, do not acquire British nationality unless expressly
included in the terms of the grant. The taking of the oath of
allegiance is a condition precedent to the grant (o).
Sect. 2. By Annexation or Cession to the British Crown.

688. Inhabitants of conquered territory or of territory formally Annexation
ceded by a foreign power become subjects when once received under or cession.
the King's protection
Sect. 3. — Under the Naturalization Act, 1870.
Sub-Sect. 1. Bi/ Certificate of Naturalization^
689. An alien who, within such limited time before making the Application
certificate
application hereinafter mentioned as may be allowed by one of His
Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, either by general order or tion.
on any special occasion (g), has resided in the United Kingdom for
a term of not less than five years, or has been in the service of the
Crown for a similar period, and intends w^hen naturalized either to
reside in the United Kingdom or to serve under the Crown, may
apply to one of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State for a
certificate of naturalization {r).
The applicant must adduce in support of his application such Consideration
evidence of his residence or service and intention to reside or serve
as the Secretary of State may require. The Secretary of State, if
satisfied with the evidence adduced, must take the case of the
{h) Act of Settlement, 1700 (12 & 13 Will. 3, c. 2), s. 3 ; and see p. 308, ante.
(?) Ibid.
Im) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 60), s. 1.
{n) Fourdrin v. Gowdeij (1834), 3 My. & K. 383, where it was held that
letters of denization conferring on a man not only the power of acquiring lands
in the future, but of retaining and enjoying all lands he had heretofore acquired,
gave him the power to devise the freehold and chattel interest which he had
purchased previously to the letters of denization.
(o) For form of petition for letters patent of denization, see Encycloptedia of
Forms, Yol. IX., p. 33 and for form of letters patent, see p. 34, ihid. The
;
practice of the Home Office is to hand the patent to the denizen after he has
taken the oath.
{p) Hall V. Campbell (1774), 1 Cowp. 204, per Lord Mansfield, at p. 208 ;
see also Mayor of Lyons v. East India Co, (1836), 1 Moo. P. 0. C. 175, at p. 286.
After the Boer war the Boers permitted to remain in the country were required
to take the oath of allegiance.
{q) The period has been fixed by general order at eight years.
(r) The right of the Colonies to legislate as to naturalization, subject to the
consent of the Crown, within the limits of such colony, is expressly preserved
by the Naturalization Act, 1870 (33 Vict. c. 14), s. 16.
314 Aliens.
Sect. applicant into consideration, and may, with or without assigning

3.
Under any reason, give or withhold a certificate, as he thinks most con-

Naturaliza- ducive to the public good, and no appeal lies from his decision, but
tion Act, such certificate is not to take effect until the applicant has taken
1870.
the oath of allegiance (s).
Effect of 690. An alien to whom a certificate of naturalization is granted
certificate. -gentitled in the United Kingdom to all political and other rights,
powers and privileges, and is subject to all obligations, to which a
natural-born British subject is entitled or subject in the IJDited
Kingdom, with this qualification, that he is not, when within the
limits of the foreign state of which he was a subject previously
to obtaining his certificate of naturalization, deemed to be a British
subject unless he has ceased to be a subject of that state in
pursuance of the laws thereof or in pursuance of a treaty to that
effect (s).
Special certi- The Secretary of State may grant a special certificate of naturali-
ficate where zation to any person with respect to whose nationality as a British
doubt exists,
g^j^jegi^ ^ doubt exists, and he may specify in such certificate that
the grant thereof is made for the purpose of quieting doubts as to
the right of such person to be a British subject, and the grant of
such special certificate will not be deemed to be any admission that
the person to whom it was granted was not previously a British
subject (s).
Grant to alien An alien who has been naturalized previous to the passing of the
naturalized j\^ct may apply to the Secretary of State for a certificate of naturaliza-
before 1870.
^.-^^^ under the Act, and the Secretary of State may grant such
certificate to such naturalized alien upon the same terms and subject
to the same conditions in and upon which such certificate might have
been granted if such alien had not been previously naturalized in
the United Kingdom (s).
Untrue Any person wilfully and corruptly making or subscribing any
declaration. declaration under the Act knowing the same to be untrue in any
material particular is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to
imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding
twelve months {t).
Certificate The certificate, when once granted, is irrevocable, and there is no
irrevocable. provision in the Act for its withdrawal, even if it can be proved
that it was obtained by fraudulent representations or upon false
evidence The certificate must be registered in the office of one
of the principal Secretaries or Under-Secretaries of State {v).
Form ol 691. The application takes the form of a memorial {iv) stating
application.
^j^^ ^îq foreign state of which the applicant is a subject, his place
(s) Naturalization Act, 1870 (33 Yict. o. 14), s. 7. Eor instructions generally
and the various forms necessary for obtaining a certificate, see Encyclopaedia of
—
Forms, Yol. IX., pp. 9 29. The instructions and forms can also be obtained on
application to the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office.
(t) Naturalization Oath Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Yict. c. 102), s. 2.
{ii) Upon this point reference may be made to the Eeport of the Inter-Depart-
mental Committee on the Naturalization Laws, 1901 (Cd. 723), par. 24.
{v) Naturalization Act, 1870 (33 Yict. c. 14), s. 11; Eegulations issued by
the Home Office, December 28, 1886.
{lu) See Encyclopsedia of Porms, Yol. IX., p. 21.
— — ——
Part III. Acquisition of British Nationality. 315
Sect. 3.
of birth, and the names and nationaUty of his parents (2) his ;
name, address, age, and occupation; (3) whether he is married and Under
has any children, under age, residing with him (with names and ages); Naturaliza-
tion Act,
and (4) details of his five years' residence in the United Kingdom
1870.
during the prescribed period of eight years, and his intention to
Teside in the United Kingdom. The statements in the memorial
must be verified by a general declaration made by the applicant (x),
and the statements as to the five years' residence must be further
verified, from personal knowledge, by a declaration made by one
or more persons who are natural-born British subjects and none of
wîom is the agent or solicitor of the memorialist {ij). The respect-
ability and loyalty of the applicant must be vouched for by a declara-
tion made by four householders, who must also fulfil the conditions
just expressed {z). The fee payable on the grant of a certificate is £5.
Where the applicant is in the service of the Crown a very Alien seamen.
similar memorial is presented (a), and there is a special form {b) for
alien seamen serving on British ships. Only those alien seamen
who have for at least three years out of the qualifying period of five
years been engaged in sea service on a British ship, and have been
at sea within six months of their application, can avail themselves of
this form. The £5 fee is not charged on the grant of certificates to
alien seamen (b).
Sub-Sect. 2. Married Women.
692. Since May 12th, 1870, an alien woman married to a British Married
women.
subject is deemed to be a British subject (c).
Sub-Sect. 3. Alien Infants.
693. Where the father, or the mother being a widow, has obtained Infants,
a United Kingdom, every child of

certificate of naturalization in the
such father or mother who during infancy has become resident
ivith such father or mother in any part of the United Kingdom, or
with such father while in the service of the Crown out of the
United Kingdom, is deemed to be a naturalized British subject {d).
Sect. 4. By Private Act of Parliament.
694. An alien is naturalized by private Act of Parliament only Act of Par-

in exceptional cases. The political and other rights and privileges i^^ment.
conferred on and the disabilities attaching to an alien so natur-
alized depend on the wording of the Acts(e). A Naturalization Bill
must be first introduced in the House of Lords, the standing orders
[x) See Encyclopaedia of Eorms, Yol. IX., p. 22.

[y) Ibid., p. 23.
(z) Ibid., p. 24.
(a) Ibid., p. 21.
(b) Ibid., p. 25.
(c)Naturalization Act, 1870 (33 Yict. c. 14), s. 10 (1).
(d) Naturalization Acts, 1870 (33 Vict. c. 14), s. 10 (5), and 1895 (58 & 59
Yict. c. 43), s. 1. As to the words " during infancy," it is suggested that this
expression means such part of a child's infancy as is sufficient to constitute
residence, and that what circumstances amount to residence of a child with a
parent must in each case be a question of fact (Dicey, Conflict of Laws, p. 10).
(e) Lor precedents, see Encyclopaedia of Eorms, Yol. IX., pp. 31, 32.
— ;
316 Aliens.
Sect. 4.
of which provide thatit must be preceded by a petition, with a copy
By Private of the proposed Bill attached, for leave to bring in the Bill (/). The
Act of standing orders further provide that a Naturalization Bill shall not
Pariiament. be read a second time until the petitioner has produced a certificate
from the Secretary of State as to his conduct and has taken the
oath of allegiance at the Bar of the House, and that such a
Bill shall not be read a second time unless the consent of the
Crown has been previously signified (g).
Part IV. — Loss of British Nationality.
At common 695. At common law a British subject could not by any voluntary
1^^- act of his own divest himself of his British nationality (li) So .
the grandson of an Englishman by birth, who had emigrated to

the United States of America after the recognition of their inde-
pendence, and who bad taken oaths of obedience to the American
Government and of abjuration of all other allegiance, though born
out of the King's dominions, was held capable of inheriting real
estate as a British subject (i).
Loss of 696. A
British subject could, however, lose his nationality by loss
^^^^^ territory by the British Crown either by the severance of the
;
lo^ of
territory. Crown from the territory in which the British subject was born, by
the laws of succession being different in the two countries, in
which case he would cease to be a British subject and become that of
the Prince who had succeeded to the territory in which he was born (;)
or by cession to a foreign country by conquest, treaty, or Act
of Parliament. It is doubtful whether the Crown, without the
authority of Parliament, possesses the right of alienating British
territory by treaty not following the close of a war {k), and when
Heligoland was ceded to the German Empire in 1890, the pro-
visions of the treaty whereby it was ceded were expressly assented
to by Act of Parliament (1), and in the case of the Treaty
made with the United States of America, which was signed on
September 3rd, 1783, a statute (m) was previously passed authorising
the Crown to treat of and conclude a peace with the American
Colonies.
(/) Standing Orders, H. of L. 149—151.

Standing Orders, H. of L. 179, 180.
{y)
{h)1 Bl. Com. 370; H. v. ^neas Macdonald (1747), Post. 59.
(i) Fitch V. Wehtr (1847), 6 Hare, 51.
{j) Re The Stepney Election Petition, Isaacson v. Durant (1886), 17 Q. B. D.

54, wherein it was held that persons born in Hanover before the accession of
Queen Victoria to the throne of the United Kingdom and not naturalized are
aliens, though resident in the United Kingdom; and the dicta in Calvin's Case,
Co. Bep., Part vii., p. 46, 27 b, were dissented from.
(k) Porsyth's cases and opinions on Constitutional Law (1869), pp. 182, 336.
See title Constitutional Law.
(/) Anglo-German Agreement Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Yict. c. 32).
(m) 22 G-eo. 3, c. 46.
— — ;
Part IV. —Loss of British Nationality. 317
Such treaties may specifically regulate the future nationaUty of Sect. i.
the inhabitants of the ceded territory, but in the absence of an In General,

express provision, a relinquishment of the government of a terri- Effect~of loss
tory is not only a relinquishment of the right to the soil or territory, of territory
but also of the rights over the inhabitants of the country (n). by treaty.
Consequently children born in the United States of America since
the recognition of their independence, of parents born there before
that time and continuing to reside there afterwards, are aliens (o) ;
but it was held that children born in the United States since such
recognition, of parents who resided there before, but who were
natural-born British subjects and at the time of the separation
adhered to the British government, are not aliens (p).
Sect. 2. — Under the Naturalization Act, 1870.
Sub-Sect. 1. By Voluntary Naturalization in a Foreign State.
697. Any British subject who at any time, when in any foreign Expatriation,
state and not under any disability, voluntarily becomes naturalized in
such state, is from and after the time of his so having become
naturalized in such foreign state deemed to have ceased to be a
British subject and is regarded as an alien (q), but he is not
thereby discharged from an}^ liability in respect of any acts done
before the date of his so becoming an alien (;r).
A
British subject voluntarily naturalized in a foreign state prior
to May12th, 1870, might within two years of that date have made
a declaration that he was desirous of remaining a British subject,
and have taken the oath of allegiance, in which case he was deemed
to be, and to have been continually, a British subject, with the
qualification that he should not, when within the limits of the
foreign state in which he had been naturalized, be deemed to be a
British subject unless he had ceased to be a subject of that state (s).
Sub-Sect. 2. By Declaration of Alienage.
698. The following persons may make a declaration of alienage, Persons who
whereby they lose their status as British subjects, and are regarded ^^^{^^Îj)^
as aliens {t) :
— ^
convention
of alienage.
1. Where His Majesty has entered into a (u) with ^.Naturalized
any foreign state for the purpose, and such convention has been aliens,
declared to have been entered into by Order in Council, from and

after the date of such order any person being originally a subject
or citizen of the state referred to in such order who has been
naturalized as a British subject
{n) Doe d. Thomas v. Acklam (1824), 2 B. & 0. 779.

(o) Ibid.
Doe d. Auchmuty v. Mulcaster (1826), 5 B. & 0. 771.
(p)
Naturalization Act, 1870 (33 Vict. c. 14), s. 6; Be Trufort (1887), 36
Iq)
Oh. D. 600 B. v. Lynch, [1903] 1 K. B. 444, unless the foreign state was at the
;
time of such naturalization at war with the British Crown.

(r) Naturalization Act, 1870 (33 Yict. c. 14), s. 15 Be Trufort, supra. ;
Ibid., s. 6.
(s)
{t) Ibid., ss. 3, 4. Eor forms of declaration see Encyclopaedia of Forms,
Vol. IX., pp. 30, 31.
{u) Only one such convention has in fact been made, namely, with the
United States of America in 1871. Owing to doubts being entertained whether
; — —
318 Aliens.
Sect. 2. 2. Any person who by reason of his having been born within the
Under dominions of His Majesty is a natural-born subject, but who also
Naturaliza- at the time of his birth became under the law of any foreign state
tion Act, a subject of such state, and is still such subject, and who is of full
1870. age and not under any disability (v).
3. Any person who is born out of His Majesty's dominions (w) of
British-born
subjects. a father being a British subject, if of full age and not under any
disability {v).
Mode of Adeclaration of alienage or a declaration of British nationality

making may be made as follows :
declaration.
(i.) If the declarant is in the United Kingdom, before any justice
of the peace ;
(ii.) If elsewhere in the King's dominions, before a judge of any

Court of civil or criminal jurisdiction, or any justice of the peace, or
any other officer for the time being authorised by law in the place
where the declarant is to administer an oath for any judicial or other
legal purpose
(iii.) If out of the King's dominions, before any officer in the
diplomatic (x) or consular (y) service of His Majesty (z).

Kegistration. Any declaration of alienage, or certificate of naturalization or of
re-admission to British nationality must be registered in the office
of one of the principal Secretaries of State, and may be proved in
any legal proceeding by the production of the original declaration
or duly certified copy thereof {a).
Sub-Sect. 3. By Marriage.
Marriage. 699. Since May 12th, 1870, a female British subject becomes
an alien by marrying an alien {b). But she is not deprived of any
estate or interest in real or personal property to which she may have
become entitled before that date, nor is such estate or interest
affected to her prejudice (c).
Sub-Sect. 4^.—Infants,
Infants. 700. Where a father being a British subject, or a mother being

a British subject and a widow, becomes a statutory alien, every
child of such father or mother who during infancy has become
itsprovisions were in accordance with the Act, renunciations made under the con-
yention were confirmed by the Naturalization Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 39), s. 2.
{y) Disability means the status of being an infant, lunatic, idiot, or married
woman ( Naturalization Act, 1870 (33 Vict. c. 14), s. 17).
{w) Ibid., ss. 3, 4.
(cc) "Officer in the diplomatic service of His Majesty" means any ambassador,
minister, or charge d'affaires, or secretary of legation, or any person appointed

by such ambassador, minister, charge d'affaires, or secretary of legation to
execute any duties imposed by the Act on an officer in the diplomatic service
of His Majesty {ibid., s. 17).
[y) "Officer in the consular service of His Majesty" means and includes
consul-general, consul, vice-consul, consular agent, and any person for the time
being discharging their duties {ibid., s. 17).
(z) Ibid., s. 3.
(a) Ibid., s. 12(1), (2), and (3). See also Eegulations issued by the Home
Office. For penalty on making a false declaration, see p. 314, ante,
{b) Ibid., s. 10 (1).
(c) Naturalization Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 39),s. 3.
. — ——
Part IV. — Loss of British Nationality. 319
resident in the country where the father or mother is naturahzed, Sect. 2.
and has, according to the laws of such country, become naturahzed Under
therein, is deemed a subject of the state of which the father or Naturaliza-
mother has become a subject, and not a British subject {d). î^^ -^ct,
PartV. — Re-admission to British Nationality.

Sect. 1. Statutory Aliens.
701. Any statutory aHen may, on performing the same conditions Application
and adducing the same evidence as is required in the case of an ordi- for certificate
of re-admis-
nary ahen applying for a certificate of naturalization, apply to the sion.
Secretary of State, or to the governor of any British possession in
w^hich he is residing, for a certificate of re-admission to British
nationality (d). The Secretary of State, however, or governor, as
the case may be, has an absolute discretion as to the granting or
withholding of such certificate, and previous to its issue the alien
must take the oath of allegiance (e).
A statutory alien thus re-admitted to British nationality Effect of
resumes the status of a British subject from the date of the grant of
certificate.
certificate of re- admission, but not in respect of any previous
transaction; with this qualification, that he is not deemed a
British subject in the foreign state of which he became a subject
unless he has ceased to be a subject of that state in accordance with
its laws or in pursuance of a treaty to that effect (e).
702. The governor of any British possession is empowered to British

exercise the same jurisdiction in the case of statutory aliens residing possessions,
abroad.
in that possession as is conferred upon the Secretary of State in the
United Kingdom, and residence in such possession shall in the case
of such person be deemed equivalent to residence in the United
Kingdom (e)
Sect. 2. Widotvs,
703. A widow who was a natural-born British subject, and who Widows,
has become an alien by marriage, is to be deemed a statutory alien,
and may as sach at any time during her widowhood obtain a
certificate of re-admission to British nationality (/).
Sect. 3. Infants.
704. Where a father, or a mother being a widow, has obtained Infants,

a certificate of re-admission to British nationality, every child of
such father or mother, who during infancy has become resident
in the British dominions with such father or mother, is deemed to
have resumed the position of a British subject to all intents (g).
{d) Naturalization Act, 1870 (33 Yict. c. 14), s. 10 (3). For penalty for
making a false declaration, see p. 314, ante.
(e) I hid., s. 8.
(/) Ibid., s. 10(2).

(g) Ibid., s. 10 (4).
—— —
320 Aliens.
Part VI. — Regulation of Alien Immigration.

Sect. 1. Sect. 1. In General.
In General.
705. At common law the King had power to reject or expel
Powers of aliens (//), but an exception in favour of merchants was made by
Crown. Magna Carta (i), except in time of war. On the reissue of the
Charter in the reign of Henry III. the words nisi publice antea
prohibiti fuerint " were introduced into the clause {j). The Crown
has, however, not exercised this right of expulsion since 1575 {k),
but Parliament has from time to time passed Acts making regulations
and expulsion of aliens (I).
for the landing, registration,
Alien immigration is now regulated by the Aliens Act, 1905 (???).
In carrying out the provisions of the Act due regard is to be had
to any treaty, convention, arrangement, or engagement with any
foreign country (w).
Sect. 2. Admission of Aliens,

Sub-Sect. 1. Inspection and leave to Land.
Inspection 706. No immigrant (o) may be landed from an immigrant ship (o)
and leave except at a port where there is an immigration officer, whose
to land.
leave {p) must be first obtained, after he has made an inspection {q)
of the immigrants, in company with a medical inspector, and the
immigration officer must withhold leave in the case of any immigrant
who appears to him to be an undesirable immigrant (r).
When leave Leave to land may not be withheld (1) in the case of an immi-
will not be
grant who proves (s) that he is seeking admission to this country
refused.
solely to avoid persecution or punishment on religious or political
grounds, or for an offence of a political character, or persecution,
involving danger of imprisonment or danger to life or limb, on
{h) 1 Bl. Com. 252 ;

Musgrove v. Chun Teeong Toy, [1891] A. C. 272.
[i) Mag. Cart. (1215), iv. 41.
0') 9 Hen. 3, c. 30.
[k) Taswell-Langmead's Constitutional History (6th. ed.), p. 523, n. 3.
(/) E.g.,Lord Granville's Alien Act, 1793 (33 Geo. 4); Eegistrafion of
3, c.
Aliens Act, 1826 (7 Geo. 4, c. 54); Eegistration of Aliens Act, 1836 (6 & 7
Will. 4, c. 11), repealed by the Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), s. 10 (2).
(m) 5 Edw. 7, c. 13. For the various rules orders etc. made under the Act,
see the Eegulations etc. made by the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment viîth regard to the Administration of the Aliens Act, 1905 (Cd. 2879), which
may be obtained from the King's Printers.
{n) Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), s. 7 (6).
(o) For definitions, see p. 304, ante.
(f>)
The leave maybe given verbally (Eules, dated December 19, 1905, No. 1).
\q) Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), s. 1. Such inspection must be made
as soon as practicable.
{r) For definition, see p. 304, ante, and see generally Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7,
c. 13),s. 1.
Note, however, the Instruction to Immigration Officers, issued by the

(s)
Home Secretary, dated March 9, 1906. "In all cases in which immigrants,
coming from th,e parts of the continent which are at present in a disturbed
condition, allege that they are flying from political or religious persecution, the
benefit of the doubt, where any doubt exists, as to the truth of the allegation
will be allowed and leave to land will be given."
Part YI. —Regulation of Alien Immigration. 321
account of religions belief, on the ground merely of want of means Sect. 2.
or the probability of his becoming a charge on the rates nor (2) in ; Admission
the case of an immigrant who shows to the satisfaction of the of Aliens,
immigration officer or board concerned with the case that, having
taken his ticket in the United Kingdom, and embarked direct
therefrom for some other country immediately after a period of
residence in the United Kingdom of not less than six months, he
has been refused admission in that country and returned direct
therefrom to a port in the United Kingdom (^); nor (3) in the case
of an immigrant who satisfies the immigration officer or board con-
cerned with the case that he was born in the United Kingdom
and that his father was a British subject, merely on the ground of
want of means (a).
Alien seamen who prove (b) that they are under actual contract to Alien seamen,
join a ship in British waters are deemed not to be immigrants (c).
In the case of distressed seamen returned to the United Kingdom
from abroad under the orders of a British consul or other competent
British authority, leave to land is given (d). Seamen landing with
the object merely of making engagements are subject to inspection
as ordinary immigrants (e).
707. The Secretary of State may, subject to such conditions as Exemptions,

be thinks fit to impose, by order exempt any immigrant ships from
inspection if he is satisfied that a proper system is being maintained
for preventing the embarkation of undesirable immigrants on those
ships, or if security (/) is given to his satisfaction that undesirable
immigrants will not be landed except for the purpose of transit.
Such order may be withdrawn at any time at his discretion (^).
708. Conditional disembarkation may be allowed — Conditional
disembarka-
(a) For the purposes of inspection (h),
(b) For the purpose of enabling aliens to prove they are
transmigrants. In these cases the sanction of the Secretary
(t) The not clear, but apparently leave to

effect of this particular provision is
land may not be witheld on any of the grounds contained in the section, in the
case of immigrants coming within the terms of the provision.
(a) Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), s. 1 (3). With regard to class (3), a
person born in the United Kingdom is a British subject, and consequently not
within the terms of the Act. It is clear, therefore, that class (3) must refer to
a person born in the United Kingdom who has lost his British nationality by
being naturalized abroad.
(b) Satisfactory evidence of such contract must be produced to the immigration
ofiS-cer, either by an individual seaman or by some responsible person in charge
of or on behalf of a crew (Memo, on Aliens Act, 1905, s. 22).
(c) The presumption is that such seamen may be regarded as coming within
the meaning of s. 8 (1) (a) of the Aliens Act, 1905 (ihid.).
{d) See Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60). A master of a
British ship is bound to receive on board his ship, and afford a passage to the
United Kingdom to, all distressed seamen under that Act (s. 192); consequently,
if on their arrival they were refused leave to land, the provisions of the Act
would be reduced to a nullity.
(e) Memo, on Aliens Act, 1905, s. 22.
(/) See pp. 322, 323, post.

(g) Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), s 1 (4).
(A) Ibid., s. 1 (1).
H.L. — I. Y
— — — :
322 Aliens.
Sect. 2. of State is necessary, and he must first be satisfied that proper

Admission provision has been made for their accommodation and safe
of Aliens. custody (i).
(c) For the purpose of appeal from the decision of an immigra-

tion officer (k).
(d) For the purpose of treatment in a hospital if the medical
inspector or port medical officer of health considers it advisable (l).
Sub- Sect. 2. Appointment of Officers and Boards.
Appointment 709. The Secretary of State must appoint (m) at such ports in
of officers. the United Kingdom
as he thinks necessary for the time being {n)
immigration officers and medical inspectors, and may appoint other
additional officers for the purpose of carrying the Act into effect
the salaries and expenses are to be paid, up to an amount approved
by the Treasury, out of moneys provided by Parliament. Such
officers may be officers of customs (o).
Immigration He must also approve a list of fit persons for service on the
Boards.
immigration boards, which are constituted by the Act to hear
appeals against refusal of leave to land and are to consist in every
case of three persons summoned from those comprised in the list,
in accordance with the rules made by him {p),
Sub-Sect. 3. Rides of Secretary of State.
Eules of 710. The Secretary of State may make rules generally with respect
Secretary of to immigration boards (p), their officers, appeals to such boards
State.
and conditional disembarkation, and may provide for the summon-
ing and procedure of the board, its place of meeting, and for the
security to be given by the master of the ship in the case of immi-
grants conditionally disembarked. Such rules must provide for
notice being given to masters of immigrant ships and immigrants
informing them of their right of appeal, and for notice being given
to the immigrant and to the master of the ship, where leave to
land has been withheld, of the grounds on which leave has been
refused (g).
Sub-Sect. 4. Bonds.
Bonds. 711. Where security is required by the Secretary of State it must

be by bond (r). Security may be required from the master of a ship
(/) Eules, dated December 19, 1905, made by the Secretary of State for the
Home Department, under the Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), r. 7.
[k) Ihid., r. 10.
(0 Ibid., r. 9.
(m) Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), s. 6 (1).
(n) The ports at present established are Cardiff, Dover, Eolkestone, Grange-
mouth, Grimsby, Harwich, Hull, Leith, Liverpool, London (including .
Queenborough), Newhaven, Southampton, and the Tyne ports (comprising

Newcastle, North Shields, and South Shields, which are deemed to constitute one
port). See Rules, dated December 19, 1905 (Preface). The Secretary of State must
make known the ports appointed (Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), s. 6 (3)).
(o) Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), s. 6(2).
{p) Ibid., s. 2 (1). The immigration board of a port is to consist of three

persons summoned, in accordance with the rules made by the Secretary of State,
out of a list approved by him for the port comprising fit persons having magis-
terial, business, or administrative experience.
(g) Ibid., s. 2 (2) Eules, dated December 19, 1905, rr. 4, 5, 11—25.
;
[r) Eules, dated December 19, 1905, r. 8.

— — — —
Part VI. Regulation of Alien Immigeation. 323
immigrants (s), unless a general

for the conditional disembarkation of Sect. 2
bond has already been given by the owner and also for exemption ;
Admission
of immigrant ships from inspection {t) and for transmigrants ; C^^^)
.
of Aliens.
Sub-Sect. 5. Appeals.
712. Where
leave to land is withheld in the case of any immi- Appeal to
orant, the master, owner, or agent of the ship or the immigrant
JJ^^^^^^^^°^
himself may appeal to the immigration board of the port; and that
board must, if they are satisfied that leave to land should not be with-
held under the Act, give leave to land and leave so given operates
;
as the leave of the immigration officer (b).

The notice of appeal by the immigrant may be verbal (c), but the Notice of
master, owner or agent may, and if required by the immigrant ^PP^^^-
must, within twenty-four hours after the refusal of leave to land,

give written notice of appeal to the immigration officer, who must
forthwith give notice to the clerk of the immigration board of the
port (d) .
If any question arises on appeal to an immigration board Determina-

^^^^ of
whether any ship is an immigrant ship, or whether any person is
fin immigrant, a passenger, or a steerage passenger, or whether any secretary of^
•offence is an offence of a political character, or whether a crime is State,
an extradition crime (e), the question must be referred to the

Secretary of State, and the board must act in accordance with his
•decision (/).
Sect. 3. Expulsion of Aliens.
713. The Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, as mentioned Expulsion
l)elow, make an expulsion order, requiring an alien to leave the o^"<i^^-
United Kingdom within a time fixed by the order, and thereafter to
remain out of the United Kingdom (g). Any alien, in whose case
an expulsion order has been made, found at any time within the
United Kingdom in contravention of the order, is guilty of an
offence under the Act (li).
Sub-Sect. 1. Convicted Aliens.
714. The Secretary of State may make an

expulsion order (i) in Convicted
respect of any alien if it is certified to (including ^^^^"s-
him by any Court
.a Court of summary jurisdiction) that the alien has been convicted
Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), s. 2 ('2) Eules, dated December 19, 1905, r. 8.
(s) ;
Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), s. 1 (4), which provides that the Secre-
{t)
tary of State may by order exempt any immigrant ships from inspection on
security being given that undesirable immigrants shall not be landed, and
subject to such conditions as he thinks fit to impose. Under these powers
the Secretary of State has granted exemptions in some cases so conditioned as to
free from inspection only second class passengers on ships. See also Memo, on
_Aliens Act, 1905, s. 20.
(a) Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), s. 8 (1) (b).
(b) Ibid., s. 1 (2).
(c) Eules, dated December 19, 1905, rr. 4, 5.
(d) Ibid.
(e) See title Extkadition.
(/) Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), s. 8 (4).
(g) Ibid., s. (3).
(A) Ibid., s. 3 (2).
,(?:) Ibid., s. 3 (1).
Y 2
——
324 Aliens.
Sect. 3. by that Court of any felony or misdemeanour, or other offence for

Expulsion which the Court has power to impose imprisonment without the
of Aliens, option of a fine, or of an offence under par. 22 or 23 of s. 381 of the
Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892 (k), or of an offence as a prostitute
under s. 72 of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854 (Z),
or par. 11 of s. 54 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839 (m), and
that the Court recommend that an expulsion order should be
made in his case either in addition to or in lieu of his sentence.
Sub-Sect. 2. — Undesirable Aliens.
Undesirable 715. The Secretary of State may also make an expulsion order (ir)
if it is certified to him by a Court of summary jurisdiction after
aliens.
proceedings taken for the purpose within twelve months after the
alien has last entered the United Kingdom in accordance with the.
rules of Court made under sect. 29 of the Summary Jurisdiction
Act, 1879 (o), that the alien
Destitute. (1) Has within three months from the time at which proceedings for
the certificate are commenced been in receipt of any such parochial
relief as disqualifies a person for the parliamentary franchise (p ), or
been found wandering without ostensible means of subsistence, or
been living under insanitary conditions due to overcrowding or, ;
Criminal. (2) Has entered the United Kingdom after the passing of the
Act and has been sentenced in a foreign country with which there,
is an extradition treaty for a crime not being an offence of a political
character, which is as respects that country an extradition crime
within the meaning of the Extradition Act, 1870(g).
Sub-Sect. 3. Expenses of Expulsion.
Expenses of 716. Where an expulsion order is made the Secretary of State may,
expulsion.
thinks fit, pay the whole or any part of the expenses incidental
to the departure from the United Kingdom and maintenance until
departure of the alien and his dependents if any (?•).
(fe) 55 & 56 Yict. c. 55, s. 381, imposes a fine not exceeding 40s. on any
person wlio in any street being a common prostitute or street walker loiters
about or importunes passengers for the purposes of prostitution (par. 22) or ;
habitually or persistently importunes or solicits, or loiters about for the purpose

of importuning or soliciting, women or children for immoral purposes (par. 23).
{I) 17 & 18 Yict. c. 103, s. 72, imposes a fine not exceeding 40s. on every
common prostitute or night walker loitering and importuning passengers for the-
purposes of prostitution, or being otherwise offensive.
(m) 2 & 3 Yict. c. 47, s. 54, par. 11, imposes a fine not exceeding 40s. on every
common prostitute or night walker loitering or being in any thoroughfare or
public place (within the Metropolitan Police District) for the purpose of
prostitution or solicitation to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers.
{n) Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), s. 3 (1) (b).
(o) 42 & 43 Yict. c. 49, s. 29. These rules provide that the proceedings are to be-
commenced by complaint, and that the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction
Acts with reference to proceedings on complaint are in so far as applicable to-
apply accordingly (Summary Jurisdiction (Aliens) Eules, 1906). In Scotland,
the rules are made under s. 33 of the Summary Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1864
(27 & 28 Yict. c. 53), and in Ireland by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
{p) See Eepresentation of the People Acts, 1832 (2 3 Will. 4, c. 45), s. 36,
and 1867 (30 & 31 Yict. c. 102), s. 40. By the Medical Belief Disqualification
Eemoval Act, 1885 (48 & 49 Yict. c. 46), the receipt of medical and surgical-
assistance no longer disqualifies for the parliamentary franchise.
{q) 33 & 34 Yict. c. 52. See title Extkadition.
-
{r) Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), s. 4 (1).
— —
Part VI. Regulation of Alien Immigration. 325
If an expulsion order is made

(except in the case of an alien who Sect. 3.
last entered the kingdom before January

1, 1906, or in whose case Expulsion
leave to land has been given under the Act) on a certificate given of Aliens,
within six months after he last entered the United Kingdom, the Liability of
master of the ship in which he was brought (s), and also the master master of
of any ship belonging to the same owner, is liable to pay to the Secre- ^^^P-
tary of State as a debt due to the Crown any sums paid by the
Secretary of State in connection with the alien under the provision
referred to, and must, if required by the Secretary of State, receive
the alien and his dependents, if any, on board his ship and afford
them tree of charge a passage to the port of embarkation and
proper accommodation and maintenance during the passage {t).
Sect. 4. Custody of Aliens^
Any immigrant who is conditionally disembarked, and any

717. Custody in
whose case an expulsion order has been made, while awaiting
alien in general
the departure of his ship and whilst being conveyed to the ship, and
whilst on board the ship until the ship finally leaves the United
Kingdom, and any alien in whose case a certificate has been given
by a Court with a view to the making of an expulsion order, until
the Secretary of State has decided upon his case, may be kept in
custody as the Secretary of State directs, and whilst in that custody
is deemed to be in legal custody (lo).
Any immigrant who is conditionally disembarked for the pur- Immigrants
pose of inspection, appeal or otherwise, is in the custody of the conditionally
disembarked.
master of the ship until leave to land has been given, or, if leave is
withheld, until he finally leaves the United Kingdom (a),
718. Where
a Court gives a certificate with a view to the expulsion Where
of an without imposing a sentence of imprisonment, the certificate
alien,
of Court
alien must, unless the Court otherwise directs and admits him to given.
bail, be committed to prison until the orders of the Secretary of
State with respect to his expulsion are received (b).
Where the Court gives a certificate and imposes a term of Imprisonment
imprisonment not exceeding one month, the alien must, if the pending
decision of
Secretary of State has not sooner decided upon his case, be detained Secretary of
in prison until the orders of the Secretary of State with respect to State.
his expulsion have been received (b).
A copy of the certificate signed by the clerk or other proper ofiicer
of the Court giving the certificate is sufficient authority to the police
to take the alien into custody and convey him to prison and to the
governor of the prison to receive and detain him until such orders have
been received. The certificate has to be forwarded to the Secretary of
(.s) Even though the alien was brought without the knowledge and consent of
the master {e.g., a stowaway) see A.-G. v. Satcliffe, [1907] W. N. 191.

;
{t) Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw.7, c. 13), s. 4 (2).

{a) Ibid., s. 7 (3).
Orders and IDirections of the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
(a)
ment, dated December 19, 1905, under the Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7,
c. 13).
Directions, dated December 4, 1905, of the Secretary of State for the
(b)
Ilome Department under the Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13, ss. 3 and 7 (3) ),
as to custody in connection with Expulsion Orders, s. 1 (1), (2).
— —— ;.
326 Aliens.
Sect. 4. State, and a copy signed by the proper officer of the Court has to be
Custody of given to the officer whose duty it is to convey the ahen to prison (c)
Aliens.
Sect. 5. Returns as to Aliens.
Returns 719. The master of any ship landing or embarking passengers (d)
required.
at any port in the United Kingdom must furnish, to such person
and in such manner as the Secretary of State directs, a return
giving such particulars with respect to any such passengers who
are aliens as may be required for the time being by order of the
Secretary of State and any such alien must {e) furnish the master
;
of the ship with any information required by him for the purpose of
the return (/).
Sub-Sect. 2. Exemptions.
Exemptions. 720. The Secretary of State may by order exempt from the
provisions as to returns any special class of passengers, or voyages,
or any special ships or ports, and may at any time withdraw such
order at his discretion {g) .
Sub-Sect. 3. Statutory Forms.
(1)For inward 721. The master of every ship (except a ship totally exempted
traflSc.
from inspection) landing alien passengers at an immigration port
Forms for
ships landing
must furnish a return showing the total number of (1) alien cabin —
aliens at passengers; (2) exempted alien second-class passengers; (3) alien
immigration transmigrants; (4) alien immigrants {h).
ports.
Particulars of transmigrants and immigrants must appear on
forms attached to the return.
Transmigrant The transmigrant form {i) contains the following information as
form. to each transmigrant full name, sex, nationality, departure from
:
United Kingdom (port and steamship line), and country or port of

destination outside the United Kingdom.
Immigrant The immigrant form must be signed by every immigrant (unless
form.
he or she comes under the category of dependent), and requires the
following information to be given name, age, sex and nationality:
of immigrant names, ages and sex of dependents (if any) last

; ;
permanent place of abode proposed place of abode in the United

;
Kingdom occupation means in immigrant's possession what

;
; ;
prospects the immigrant has of decently supporting himself (or

herself) and dependents (if any) if the immigrant has been con-
;
victed of any crime, and if so its nature, date when committed, place
of conviction, and sentence and if the immigrant has ever been
;
expelled from the United Kingdom.
(c) Directions, dated Deceuiber 4, 1905, of the Secretary of State for the liome
Department, under the Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13, ss. 3 and 7 (3) ), as to
custody in connection with Expulsion Orclers, ss. 2, 3.
(d) For definition, see p. 305, ante.
(e) For penalty for failinj>' to do so, see p. 328, pos^.
(/) Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), 5 (1) Orders and Directions of the
s. ;
Secretary of State for the Home Department, dated December 19, 1905, under
the Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13).
{(/) Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), s. 5 (3).
(/?) Orders and Directions of the Secretary of State for the Home Department,
dated December 19, 1905, under the Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), par. (1) (a)
and see Form A
in the Appendix to those Orders.
(*) Ibid., Form A. .
— —
Part VI. Regulation of Alien Immigeation. 327
An alien seaman under actual contract to join a ship in British Sect. 5.

waters need only give the following information, viz. full name Returns as
:
and nationality, name of ship he is about to join and of port at to Aliens.

which she is lying, and occupation (l) .
In place of this form a modified form is required from immi- Cross-channel

grants arriving by any of the cross-channel routes (in), and this form form.
requires the following information to be given name, sex, nationality
:
and occupation, whether proceeding to a destination outside the

United Kingdom, and whether holding a return ticket between a
foreign country and the United Kingdom.
The master of every ship (except a ship totally exempted from Non-immigra-
inspection) must furnish a return (n) showing the total number of tion ports.
alien passengers, together with the following information as to
each of them name, sex, nationality and occupation, and whether
:
proceeding to a destination outside the United Kingdom.

722. The master of every ship totally exempted from inspection, Exempted
landing alien passengers at any port in the United Kingdom, must ships.
furnish a return (o) of the total number of such alien passengers,
divided into classes and giving the following information as to
each of them name, sex, nationality and destination as shown
:
by ticket and if any such alien passenger has been rejected at or

;
deported from a port outside the United Kingdom further particulars

must be shown (o) as to the place and cause of rejection or deporta-
tion, and whether the alien was originally a transmigrant, and how
he (or she) is to be disposed of on arriving in the United Kingdom.
723. The master every ship carrying alien passengers from
of (2) For out-
the United Kingdom to
places in Europe or within the Mediterranean ward traffic.
—
Sea must furnish a return (p), showing (1) the number of alien Europe and
Mediter-
passengers, divided into classes and sexes, holding through tickets ranean Sea.
from one country outside the United Kingdom to another; and
(2) the number of alien passengers not holding through tickets,
divided into classes, sexes, and nationalities.
In the case of cross-channel traffic a modified form (q) is required, Cross-
which merely shows the number of alien passengers, divided into channel.
classes.
The master of every ship carrying alien transmigrants to places Outside
not in Europe or within the Mediterranean Sea must furnish a Europe and
the Mediter-
return (r) giving the total number of such transmigrants and ranean Sea.
particulars in the case of each alien as to name, sex, and arrival in
the United Kingdom (port and steamship line).
The master of every ship carrying alien emigrants to such places
must furnish a further return (s) showing with regard to each
(l) Memo, on the Aliens Act, 1905, s. 22, see p. 321, ante ; and see Form A (note)
in the Appendix to Orders and Directions, dated December 19, 1905.
(w) Ihid., Form A2.
(7?) Ihid., Form B.
(o) Forms of the return are obtainable at the Home Office ;
they are not
included with other forms printed with the official regulations.
{p) Ihid., Form E.
{q) Ihid., Form E2.
(V) lUd., Form C.
(s) Ihid., FormD.
. — —
328 Aliens.
Sect. 5. name, sex, nationality, last permanent abode in the United Kingdom,
Ketums as length of residence and original port of arrival.
to Aliens.
Sect. 6. Offences and Penalties.
Persons 724. The following persons are guilty of offences under the
guilty of Aliens Act, 1905 :—
(1) Any immigrant who lands from an immigrant ship either at
a non-immigration port or at an immigration port without the leave
of the immigration officer, or who, if allowed to be conditionally
embarked, fails to comply with the conditions imposed {t),
(2) Any alien found in the kingdom after an expulsion order has
been made against him {u).
(3) Any master of an immigrant ship who allows an immigrant
to be illegally landed {v).
(4) Any master a ship who fails to give a passage to an alien

of
or his (or her) dependents when required to do so by the Secretary
of State {id).
(5) Any master of a ship who fails to make a return or who
makes a false return {x),
Penalties. 725. Any person guilty of such an offence is, if the offence is
committed by him as the master of a ship, liable on summary
conviction to a fine not exceeding ^6100 {y), and if the offence is
committed by him as an immigrant or alien, is to be deemed a
rogue and a vagabond within the meaning of the Vagrancy Act,
1824 {z), and be liable to be dealt with as if the offence were an
offence under s. 4 of that Act {a) and any immigrant, master ;
of a ship, or other person who for the purposes of the Act makes
any false statement or false representation to an immigration officer,
medical inspector, immigration board, or to the Secretary of State,
and any alien who refuses to give the information required to the
master of a ship for the purpose of the return (5), or who gives false
information for that purpose, is liable on summary conviction to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months with hard
labour (c)
Sect. 7. Jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction. 726. Courts and justices have the same extended jurisdiction {d)
(t) Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), s. 1 (5).

'
.
(u) Ibid., s. 3 (2) ; and see p. 323, ante,
(v) Ibid., s. 1 (5).
(w) Ibid., s. 4 (3).
[x) Ibid., s. 5 (2).
(y) Ibid., s. A master making a false return is held guilty of merely
5 (2).
an offence under the Act carrying a penalty of £100 but compare s. 7 (4), ;
where it is enacted that any master making a false statement to an immigra-

tion officer or board shall be liable to imprisonment for three months with hard
labour.
(z) 5 Geo. 4, c. 83. By s. 4 of that Act persons convicted as rogues and
vagabonds are liable to three months' imprisonment with hard labour, and on
subsequent conviction to be indicted as incorrigible rogues, and on conviction
and by special order of quarter sessions to be whipped.
(a) Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), s. 7 (1).
{b) See p. 326, ante.
(c) Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), ss. 5 (2), 7 (4).
.
{d) Ihid., s. 7 (2).
— ;
Part VI. Regulation of Alien Immigration. 329
over offences and complaints committed or arising, and over Sect. 7.

offenders, under the Aliens Act, 1905, which are beyond their Jurisdiction,
original local jm'isdiction, as under the Merchant Shipping Act,
1894 (e) and where a fine or other sum of money is ordered to be
;
paid by the master or owner of a ship, the Court, justice or magis-

trate who made the order has power, if the order is not complied
with, to levy the sum by distress on the ship(/).
The Act applies to Scotland and Ireland (g).
(e) Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), ss. 684—686.
(/) Ihid,, s. 693 Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), s. 7 (2).

;
((/) Aliens Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 13), s. 9. In the application of the Act to
Scotland and Ireland the words " be liable on summary conviction to imprison-
ment for a term not exceeding three months with hard labour" are to be
substituted for the words " be deemed a rogue and vagabond within the meaning
of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, and be liable to be dealt with accordingly as if the
offence were an offence under sect. 4 of that Act" ; and sect. 33 of the Summary
Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1864, is to be substituted as respects Scotland for
sect. 29 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 ;and the Lord Chancellor of
Ireland may as respects Ireland make rules for the purposes of this Act, for
which rules may be made under sect. 29 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act
and all rules so made must be laid, as soon as possible, before both Houses of
Parliament.
( 330 )
ALIMONY.
ALLEGIANCE.
See Aliens ; Constitutional Law.
— —
( 831 )
ALLOTMENTS,
Sect. 1. In General ---------

-------- -
PAGE
331
Sect.
Sect.
Sect.
2.
3.
4.
Poor Allotments
Euel Allotments
Field Gardens - -
--------
- - - - -
-
-
332
333
335
Sect. 5. Parochial Charity Lands - - - - - - - 338
Sect. G. Allotments under the Allotments Acts
Sub-sect. 1.Methods of Acquisition ------ - - - - 341
344
(1) Hiring by Agreement
Purcbase by Agreement
- - -
-------
-
_______
- - -344
344
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Compulsory Hiring
Compulsory Purchase -------
Transfer by Allotment Wardens and Trustees - - -
345
347
349
(6) Interchange of Land for Small Holdings and Allotments - 350
Sub-sect. 2. Procedure to Compel Defaulting Authorities - - 350
Sub-sect. 3. Powers and Duties of Management - - - - 352
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
4.
5.
6.
Finance
Miscellaneous - - -
-------
Terms and Conditions of Letting
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
354
358
360
For Small Diuellmgs, Advances by local autho-

rities to enable occuiners to acquire - See title JjOGAtl,Government.
Small Holdings - - - - - Small Holdings.
727. There is no authoritative general definition of an allot- Meaning of

ment," but the word is used here to refer exclusively to lands which ^^rm ailot- ''
are held by local authorities, or, in a few cases, by trustees or public

bodies, for the purpose of providing the poorer classes with small
plots of land for cultivation (a) . Such lands may be classified as :
(a) The following are the statutory interpretations of the meaning of the
term :
Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation for Crops Act, 1887 (50 & 51
Yict. c. 26), s. 4:
—
"In this Act 'allotment' means any parcel of land of not
more than two acres in extent held by a tenant under a landlord and cultivated
as a garden or as a farm, or partly as a garden and partly as a farm" (and see
note (s), p. 357, post).
Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 48), s. 17 In this Act, unless
—
332 Allotments.
Sect. 1, poor allotments fuel allotments

(1) (2) ; (3) field gardens ; ;
In General. (4) parochial charity lands and (5) lands acquired for allotments
;
under the Allotments Acts, 1887 and 1890, the Local Government
Act, 1894, and the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (b).
Present With the exception of a few allotments which have not been
authorities. transferred to the local authority by the trustees in whom they are
vested, all allotments, together with the powers and duties respecting
them, are vested in district or parish councils (c).
Sect. 2. Poor Allotments.

Description. 728. Poor allotments are those parish lands possessed or acquired
by the poor law authorities (d) under the Poor Eelief Act, 1819 (e),
or by the inclosure of waste or common land in or near the parish
under the Poor Eelief Act, 1831 (/), or by the inclosure of any forest
or waste Crown lands in or near the parish under the Crown Lands
Allotment Act, 1831 (g),
Acquisition. 729. The powers under these statutes were made exercisable by
the overseers of the poor or the poor law guardians under the control
of the Local Government Board (li) though inclosures under the
;
two statutes of 1831 are not now valid unless (1) specially authorised
by Act of Parliament, or (2) made to or by any Government depart-
ment, or (3) made with the consent of the Board of Agriculture and
Fisheries (i) In giving or withholding their consent the last named
.
Board must have regard to the same considerations and, if necessary,

must hold the same inquiries as are directed by the Commons Act,
1876 (Q, with reference to applications under the Inclosure Acts(m).
the context otherwise requires, the expression allotment includes a field

'
'
garden."
Allotments Eating Exemption Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Yict. c. 33), s. 2 " 'Allot- :
—
ment means any parcel of land of not more than two acres in extent and let
'
as an allotment, and cultivated as a garden or a farm, or partly as a garden

and partly as a farm."
Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 73), s. 9 (16) In this section :
—
the expression allotment includes common pasture where authorised to be
'
'
acquired under the Allotments Act, 1887." This sub-section is repealed as from
January 1st, 1908 (the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7,
c. 54), s. 47 (4) and Sched. II.).
(b) 50 & 51 Vict. c. 48 ; 53 & 54 Yict. c. 65 56 & 57 Yict. c. 73 7 Edw. 7,
; ;
c. 54. See pp. 341 et seq., post.

(c) This is effected for the most part by the Local Government Act, 1894
(56 & 57 Yict. c. 73), ss. 9, 10; the Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 48),
s. 3 ;the Allotments Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Yict. c. 65), s. 4; and the Small Holdings
and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54).
See title Local GovEmsrMENT.
{d) For present authorities, see title Poor Law.
(e) 59 Geo. 3, c. 12, ss. 12 and 13, extended by the Poor Eelief Act, 1831
(1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 42), s. 1.

(0 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 42, s. 2.
(g) 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 59.

(h) Union and Parish Property Act, 1835 (5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 69), s. 4; Local
Government Board Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Yict. c. 70), s. 2.
(0 Commons Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Yict. c. 30), s. 22 (1) and Sched. L Board of ;
Agriculture Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 30) Board of Agriculture and Fisheries
;
Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 31).

(0 39 & 40 Yict. c. 56, ss. 10, 11, 12.
(m) Commons Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Yict. c. 30), s. 22 (2) see title Commons. ;
—
Allotments. 333
Inclosures under the two statutes of 1^31 appear, therefore, to ^^ct, 2.
require in ordinary cases the consent of both the Local Government Poor
Board and the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. Allotments.
730. Po^Yers of letting poor lands to poor and industrious Letting,

parishioners were given {n) whilst the provisions of the Allotments
;
Act, 1832, were also made applicable to allotments appropriated

to the benefit of the poor under the two statutes of 1831 above
mentioned (0).
Rents of lands acquired under the Poor Belief Act, 1819, and the Application
Crown Lands Allotments Act, 1831, are to be applied in aid of the

poor rate of the parish in which the lands are situate {p) .
731. Where lands have been acquired under the Poor Belief Act, Disposal of
1819, and the Crown Lands Allotments Act, 1831, for the purposes
J^^^^^J^^^^^^^
of those Acts, and such purposes cannot be carried into effect,
the lands may be sold, exchanged, let, or otherwise disposed of
subject to rules and regulations, if any, of the Local Government
Board (q). No such rules and regulations have been made, and for
all practical purposes the procedure under the above enactments
has been rendered obsolete by more recent legislation on the
subject {r).
Sect. 3. Fuel Allotments.

732. Fuel allotments consist of those provided under local Description.
Inclosure Acts before 1845, and derive their name from the pur-
pose for which the rent received in respect of them is applied.
They were vested in trustees or in the churchwardens and overseers,
either with or without the minister of the parish (s) Their main .
object was to provide poor parishioners with fuel (t).

733. Where the allotment trustees, or where the vestry empowered Management,
to make an order in respect of poor allotments under the Allotments
Act, 1832, exceed twenty in number, such trustees or vestry are
required to appoint annually during August a committee from their
body to manage the allotments, and such committee have the
powers of the trustees or vestry appointing them (a). Failing such
appointment the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may make the
appointment on the application of any person interested (5). In other
{71) Poor Eelief Act, 1819 (59 Geo. 3, c. 12), s. 13; extended to lands acquired
under the Poor Eelief Act, 1831 (1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 42), see s. 4.
(0) AUotments Act, 1832 (2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 42), s. 11 and see p. 334, post.
;
For forms of agreement for letting these allotments, see Encyclopaedia of

Forms, Yol. L, p. 442.
p) Poor Allotments Management Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 19), s. 14.
q) Ibid., s. 15.
See pp. 349, 353, post.
(r)
(s) For the present authorities, see title Local Goveenment.
(t) Such allotments are governed chiefly by the Allotments Act, 1832 (2 & 3;
Will. 4, c. 42), and by the Poor Allotments Management Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict,
c. 19) the powers thereunder being exercised under the control of the Local
;
Government Board, see the Union and Parish Property Act, 1835 (5 & 6 Will. 4,
c. 69), s. 4, and Local Government Board Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 70), s. 2..
The former of those two Acts substituted, for the churchwardens and overseers,
the overseers of the poor or the guardians of poor law unions.
(a) Poor Allotments Management Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 19), ss. 3, 4.
(6) Ibid., s. 9 Board of Agriculture Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 30), s. 2 (1) (b),.
;
and Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 31).

.
334 Allotments.
Sect. 3. cases the powers and duties in respect of the allotments remain in
Fuel the trustees acting together with the churchwardens and overseers
Allotments. in parish vestry assembled (c).
Provisions as 734. Industrious cottagers of good character, being day labourers

to letting. or journeymen, legally settled in the parish, or dwelling within its
bounds or those of the adjoining parishes, or being poor persons in
any such parishes, are entitled to rent the allotments (d) in plots not
exceeding one acre (e) as a yearly occupation from Michaelmas to
Michaelmas and at such rent as land of the same quality is usually
let for in the parish. Applications to rent are to be made in the first
week in September (/) The allottee must cultivate the land pro-
.
perly (g) and no habitation must be erected thereon (h) The rent .
is payable at the end of the year and cannot be made payable in

advance (i). A week's notice to quit may be given if rent is in
arrear for four weeks or on failure to cultivate properly (k). Land
illegally held over or unlawfully possessed, and rent in arrear, may
be recovered summarily before the justices (l).
Eates, taxes, and the like are payable by the persons in whom the
allotments are vested, and such persons are deemed the occupiers
for thispurpose (in).
Application Eents from the allotments are be applied in the purchase of
to
of rents.
fuel for distribution in the winter season among poor parishioners
legally settled and resident in or near the parish {n)
Unlet allot- Allotments which cannot be let to industrious cottagers as men-
ments.
tioned above may be let to any person at the best rent obtainable
for a term not exceeding twelve months (p).
Prevention 735. The diversion of fuel allotments from their originally
of diversion
to other declared uses is forbidden, but the Charity Commissioners may,
purposes. upon the application of the trustees of any fuel allotments, authorise
the use of such allotments as a recreation ground or as field gardens,
and may make an order for the establishment of a scheme for the
administration of such fuel allotments accordingly (q).
(c) Allotments Act, 1832 (2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 42). The churchwardens and
overseers were superseded by the overseers of the poor and the guardians of
poor law unions (as the case might be). See Union and Parish Property Act,
1835 (5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 69), s. 4.
(d) Allotments Act, 1832 (2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 42), s. 1, as extended by the
Allotments Extension Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 80), s. 6.
Por forms of letting, see Encyclopaedia of Porms, Vol. I., p. 442.
(e) Poor Allotments Management Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 19), s. 10,
repealing the original provision as to the minimum of a quarter of an acre.
( f)
Allotments Act, 1832 (2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 42), s. 3.
(g) Ibid., s. 2.
(h) Ibid., s. 10.
(?) Ibid., and Allotments Extension Act, 1882 (45
s. 4, & 46 Vict. c. 80), s. 6.
(k) Allotments Act, 1832 (2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 42), s. 5.

(/) Ibid., ss. 6, 7.
(m) Poor Allotments Management Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 19), s. 13.
{n) Allotments Act, 1832 (2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 42), s. 8. Although the provisions
of this Act are extended to poor allotments (see p. 333, and note (o), ante), the
application of the surplus rents of those allotments is not affected, and they are to
be applied in aid of the poor rate (Poor Allotments Management Act, 1873
(36 & 37 Vict. c. 19), s. 14).
(p) Commons Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 56), s. 26.
Iq] Ibid., s. 19.
—
Allotments. 335
736. Allotments inconveniently situated for the cottagers may Sect. 3.
be let for the best rent obtainable, and other land of equal value, Fuel
and more favourably situated, may be hired (?•) and where the land Allo tments, ;
has been acquired under the Allotments Act, 1832, for the purposes Exchange
of that Act, and such purposes cannot be carried into effect, the land and disposal
i^^^-
may be sold, exchanged, let, or otherwise disposed of in the same
manner as surplus lands acquired for poor allotments (s).
Power to exchange inconvenient land is also given by the Inclosure
Act, 1852 (t) and where application is made to the Charity Commis-
;
sioners for authority to use fuel allotments as a recreation ground or

as field gardens, they may, instead, authorise the exchange of such
allotments for land of equal value situate within the parish or district
and which is better suited for such allotment purposes (a).
The provisions above mentioned do not affect the ordinary juris- jurisdiction of
diction of the Charity Commissioners to make a scheme in respect Charity Com-
missioners.
of any allotment being a charity within their jurisdiction (b).
Sect. 4. Field Gardens.
737. The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (c) is empowered, as Description

a term and condition of inclosure, to appropriate land as allotments and creation,
or field gardens for the labouring poor, and when this is not done
the annual report of the Board must state the reason (cZ). The
Board may, if they think fit, specify in any provisional order for the
regulation of a common, as one of the terms and conditions of the
regulation, the appropriation of allotments for the labouring poor,
and thereupon the provisions of the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1876,
with respect to allotments will apply.
Further, at the meeting for appointing a valuer of lands about to
be inclosed the persons present may resolve upon instructions to the
valuer, not inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the pro-
visional order and of the Act of inclosure, for the appropriation of
parts of the lands proposed to be inclosed for {inter alia) allotments
or field gardens for the labouring poor (e). The land appropriated
must be that which is best suited for the purpose (/) it must be ;
rendered fit for immediate use and occupation, and the expenses
thereof are part of the general expenses of inclosure (g) and it ;
must be appropriated unto the churchwardens and overseers of the

poor (h) who hold the allotments as if they were lands belonging to
,
the parish, but in trust for the purposes for which they are allotted.
(r) Allotments Act, 1832 (2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 42), s. 9.

(s) Poor Allotments Management Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 19), s. 15 ; and
see p. 333, ante.
{t) 15 & 16 Yict. c. 79, s. 21.
(a) Commons Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 56), s. 19.
(6) Poor Allotments Management Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 19), s. 16; see
also Commons Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 56), s. 19 ; Commons Act, 1899 (62 & 63
Vict. c. 30), s. 18.
(c) Board of Agriculture Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 30), s. 2 (1) (b) ; Board of
Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 31).
(d) Inclosure Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 118), s. 30.
(e) Ihid., s. 34.
(/) Commons Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 56), s. 23.
(g) Ibid., s. 21.
(h) Inclosure Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 118), s. 73.
. .
336 Allotments.
Sect. 4. The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may on the application

Field of the valuer and before his award is made substitute other land for
Gardens, that originally allotted (i) and the Board also has power to order
;
'
the allotment to be made out of common, being waste land of a

manor, instead of out of common which is not waste land of a
manor (k).
The appropriated allotment may not be used for any other
purposes than those declared concerning it by the Act of Parlia-
ment and the award, or either of them, under which the same has
been set out (Q.
Management. 738. In any rural parish having a parish council the allotments
are managed by the parish council {m), and in any parish that
has no parish council are managed, until December 31st, 1907, by
"allotment wardens," consisting of the incumbent of the parish or
ecclesiastical districtin which the allotment is situated, or the
officiating ministernominated for the time being by the incumbent
for that purpose, one of the churchwardens for the time being of
the parish, and two ratepayers of the parish, any two of whom may
exercise the statutory powers {n).
The allotment wardens may transfer their powers to sanitary
authorities or to parish councils (o)
The term "parish council" is hereinafter used to include "allotment
wardens " in cases where the latter still remain the managing body.
Eeports at intervals fixed by the Board of Agriculture and
Fisheries must be made by the parish council as to the field gardens
under their management ( p)
On and after January 1st, 1908, the powers of "allotment
wardens " will cease, and, in the case of a parish not having a
parish council, the powers and duties as to the management of the
allotments will be exercised and performed by persons appointed by
the parish meeting (q). And from that date the provisions of the
Allotment Acts, 1887 to 1907 (r), will apply to such allotments as
if they had been acquired by the parish council under the general
powers of the Allotments Acts, 1887 and 1890 (s).

Provisions as 739. The parish council are required to let the allotments in
to letting. gardens not exceeding a quarter of an acre each to poor inhabitants
either for one year or from year to year as they think fit {t) Eents, .
(i) In closure Act, 1846 (9 & 10 Yict. c. 70), s. 4, extended by the Commons
Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 56), s. 22.
{k) Commons Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Yict. c. 56), s. 23.
(0 I hid., s. 19.
(ml Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 73), s. 6 (4).
[n) Inclosure Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Yict. c. 118), s. 108.
(o) Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 48), s. 13 (1).
ip) Commons Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Yict. c. 56), s. 28.

(q) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 23 (1).
(r) These Acts are the Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 48), the Allot-
ments Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Yict. c. 65), and the Small Holdings and Allotments
Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54). For their provisions generally, see pp. 341 et seq.,post.
(s) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 23 (2). For
the general powers referred to, see pp. 344 et seq., post.
(t) Inclosure Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Yict. c. 118), s. 109.
For form of agreement for letting, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. I.,
p. -444.
.
Allotments. 337
terms and conditions are in the discretion of the council, provided Sect. 4.
they are not inconsistent with statutory provisions, but the Board Field
of Agriculture and Fisheries may frame regulations for this pur- Gardens.
pose. The gardens are to be let free of tithes, rates, taxes and
the like, which are payable by the council, who for this purpose are
regarded as the occupiers. Periodical valuations of the gardens
must be made by valuers appointed by the council (u).
Buildings may not be erected on the allotments, and if they are
the council must pull them down, sell the materials, and apply the
proceeds in the same way as rents are to be applied (a).
Provision is made for the determination of tenancies by notice (^)
when rent is in arrear or the conditions of tenancy violated, and
also for the giving of compensation to outgoing tenants (c).
Possession may be recovered against an occupier holding over or
unlawfully possessing by proceedings before justices {d).
740. Eents are payable to the parish council, who have all usual Rents and
remedies for their recovery as if they were landlords (e). Surplus ^^^^'^
Jf^^jj'
rents are applicable to improving the field gardens in the same
parish or neighbourhood, or maintaining the drainage and fenc-
ing thereof, or to hiring or purchasing additional land for field
gardens (/) towards the redemption of land tax or other like
;
charges on the gardens (g) or for any of the purposes for which
;
surplus rents arising from recreation grounds may be applied (/?),

which will include the improvement of recreation grounds in the
same parish or neighbourhood, or the maintenance of the drainage
and fencing thereof, or the hiring or purchasing of additional land
for recreation grounds in the same parish or neighbourhood (^)
Surplus rents arising from recreation grounds may also be
applied to the purpose of improving the field gardens in the same
parish or neighbourhood, or maintaining the draining and fencing
of the same, or in hiring or purchasing additional land for field
gardens {j).
Compensation money received by the churchwardens and over-
seers of a parish in respect of any allotment for field gardens taken
under statutory powers by a railway company or the like, is to be
applied in the same manner as surplus rents arising from field
gardens (k).
741. If unable to let the allotments on the terms above mentioned, Unlet allot
the parish council may let them, or any portion of them, in gardens
(u) Inclosure Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Yict. c. 118), s. 109.

(a) Ibid.
(b) For form of notice to quit, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Yol. I., p. 469.
(c) Inclosure Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Yict. c. 118), s. 110.
(d) Ibid., s. 111. See also Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838 (1 & 2 Yict.
c. 74), ss. 1, 2. For form of notice of intention to apply to justices for recovery of
possession, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Yol. I., p. 470. See title Magistrates.
(e) Inclosure Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Yict. c. 118), s. 112.
/) Commons Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Yict. c. 56), s. 27.

g) Commons Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Yict. c. 30), s. 16 (2).
{h) Ibid., s. 16 (1).
{i) Commons Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Yict. c. 56), s. 27.
ij) Commons Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Yict. c. 37), s. 2 Commons Act, 1876, s 27.
;
{k) Commonable Eights Compensation Act, i882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 15), s. 3.
— .
338 Allotments.
Sect. 4. not exceeding an acre each to poor inhabitants of the parish.

Field Further, it is their duty to offer the gardens to the poor inhabitants
Gardens. of the parish at a fair agricultural rent sufficient to satisfy all rates,
taxes etc., instead of at such rent as is required by the Inclosure
Act, 1845 (l). If still unable to let the allotments to poor inhabitants,
they may let them to any person whatever at the best annual rent
obtainable, without any premium or fine, and on such terms as may
enable the council to resume possession within a period not exceed-
ing twelve months, should they be required for poor inhabitants.
These powers and duties are extended to all persons whatever
having management of lands allotted to the poor under any public
or private Inclosure Act (m)
Exchange etc. 742. Lands unsuitable or inconveniently situated for field gardens
of lands. may be exchanged for land more suitable or convenient by an order
of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, on written application by
the parish council or the overseers, as the case requires, or by the
trustees of the allotment, and by the person willing to exchange the
more suitable land (n).
Jurisdiction 743. The provisions with respect to allotments for recreation

of Charity
grounds, field gardens, or other public or parochial purposes con-
Commis-
tained in any Act relating to inclosure or in any award or order
made in pursuance thereof, and any provisions with respect to the
management of such allotments contained in such Act, order, or
award, may, on the application of any district or parish council
interested in such allotment, be dealt with by a scheme of the Charity
Commissioners in the exercise of their ordinary jurisdiction, as if
those provisions had been established by the founder in the case of
a charity having a founder (o).
Sect. 5. Parochial Charity Lands.
Application 744. Lands held by trustees for the benefit of the poor of any
of parochial
parish or places, and which are not otherwise used for the benefit
charity lands
for allot- of the parish as a recreation ground or otherwise for the enjoy-
ments. ment or general benefit of the inhabitants, are available for letting
as allotments to cottagers labourers and others {p) .
Further, the Charity Commissioners are required, where a.

scheme is made in relation to any charity and part of the endow-
ment consists of lands (other than buildings or appurtenances
thereto), to insert in the scheme a provision authorising the trustees,
of the charity to set apart portions of the lands for allotments, and
these may be set apart and let as allotments in a similar manner {q)..
These provisions do not extend to any lands with regard to which
the Allotments Act, 1882, has been put into operation (r) and if the ,
{I) Commons Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Yict. c. 56), s. 26.

(m) IMd.
{n) Inclosure Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Yict. c. 118), s. 149. Similar powers are giveiL
by the Inclosure Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 79), s. 21.
(o) Commons Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Yict. c. 30), s 18. .
(V) Allotments Extension Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 80), s. 4,

{q) Ibid., s. 14.
{r) Ihid., s. 6, and see pp. 333, 334, ante.
Allotments. 339
lands are held partly for the benefit of the poor and partly for ^^ct. 5.
other objects, they apply only to such proportion of the whole as Parochial
the amount of the gross income of the former bears to the entire Charity
gross income. The Charity Commissioners settle differences as to Lands,
computation (s).
745. Where the trustees for any reason think their lands unsuit- Certificate of
exemption.
able for the purpose of allotments they may apply to the Charity
Commissioners for a certificate to that effect, and if such a certificate
is granted they need not set apart any land for allotments (t). Public
notice of such certificate must be given by fixing a notice on the
doors of the parish church, or, if there is no church, on some public
building or conspicuous place in the parish {a) The certificate may.
be revoked for any cause satisfactory to the Commissioners shown

by any person entitled to make an application to them ; but until
revoked it is final and conclusive (t).
746. The trustees may, with the approval of the Charity Com- Transfer of
missioners, transfer their powers to parish councils or their powers,
appointees (b), or sell or let the land to sanitary authorities (c).
747. The trustees must set apart such portions of the lands as Duties of
trustees.
may be most suitable for allotments, and give public notice specify-
ing the situation, extent, and rent of the portions, and the times and
places for making applications for allotments (d). On applications
being received the trustees must forthwith obtain possession of the
necessary amount of land, fence it, and let it, and continue to do so
until the lands are exhausted or no further applications are made {d).
This general rule is subject to the following limitations and direc-
tions where the whole of the lands cannot conveniently be set
:
apart, the trustees need not set apart any portion if the separation
may make it impossible to let the remainder without substantial loss
to the charity if the lands are let on lease, the statutory duty does
;
not arise until the expiration of the lease if no application for any
;
part be received within the time fixed, the public notice must be
repeated once every year {e) lands lying at an inconvenient distance
;
from the residences of cottagers and labourers may be let for the best
rent procurable, and the trustees may hire more suitable land in lieu
thereof (/) and if part only of the portion set apart is applied for,
;
the remainder may be let in the same manner as unlet allotments (g).
The allotments are to be let to persons in the order in which they Order in
apply, or in accordance with such order as may be provided by the which appii-
cations to
be granted.
(s) Allotments Extension Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 80), s. 8.
(t) Ibid., s. 11.
(a) Ibid., sched. (1).
(&) Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 73), s. 14 (1).
(c) Under the Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 48), s. 13 (2), as to whichsee
p. 349, post.
{d) Allotments Extension Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 80), s. 4. The schedule to
the Act prescribes the method, time, and contents of such notice. If the notice is
not given within the prescribed time, application must be made to the county court
judge for the district or to the Charity Commissioners to extend the time.
(e) Ibid., s. 4.
(/) Ibid., s. 5.
[g) Ibid., s. 4; and seep. 341, post,
z 2
340 Allotments.
Sect. 5. rules hereinafter mentioned, so that no undue preference shall be

Parochial shown as regards the persons to whom they are let (Ii) but where the ;
Charity lands are situated in or adjoining to several parishes, preference is to

Lands. given to the cottagers and labourers being inhabitants of the parish
or place for the benefit of the poor of which the lands are so held (i).
Management. 748. The trustees, or a majority of them, may make, revoke, and
vary such rules as may be necessary for regulating the appointment
and powers of local managers of the allotments, whether as tenants
or agents of the trustees or otherwise, and for preventing the allot-
ments being built upon or sublet, and for preventing any undue
preference in letting, and generally for giving effect to these provi-
sions. The rules may be disallowed by the Charity Commissioners,
and public notice must be given of them and a copy supplied gratis
to any cottager or labourer demanding the same. Any four cottagers
or labourers, or any of the trustees, if aggrieved by such rules, or by
the want of rules, or by any omission therefrom, may apply to the
Charity Commissioners, who may make the necessary orders to
remedy the complaint (k).
If the trustees neglect in any way to perform their duties, any
four or more cottagers and labourers who would be entitled to rent
allotments may, after due notice to the trustees of their neglect (to
be specified in the notice), apply to the Charity Commissioners,
who may thereupon issue their order for remedying the grievance,
and such order is enforceable by attachment as for contempt of
court (Z).
Provisions as 749. Each allotment is to be let free of all charges and outgoings
to letting. w^hatsoever, and for the purpose of rates, taxes, tithes and tithe
rent-charges, the trustees are to be deemed the occupiers thereof.
The rent is to be such as land of the same quality is usually let for
in the parish, with such addition as will satisfy tithe, tithe rent-
charge, rates, taxes and outgoings, including the expense of getting
possession, and of allotting, dividing and fencing the portion set
apart, and collecting the rents, and any sum payable for such
draining of, and means of approach to, the allotments as may be
necessary. The letting is limited to one acre to each person.
Buildings may not be erected on the allotment, and if any are
erected the trustees must pull them down, sell the materials, and
apply the proceeds as if they were rents (m).
Eecovery of Anyrent for an allotment, and the possession of an allotment
rent and
after notice to quit {n) or other failure to deliver up possession
as required by law, may be recovered by the trustees, or in the
case of the appointment of local managers by such managers, in the
same way as in the case of field gardens (q).
(h) Allotments Extension Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 80), sched. (6).
(i) Ibid., s. 7.
{k) Hid., s. 9.
{I) Ibid., s. 10. For the manner of enforcing such order, see title Ohahities.
(m) Ibid., s. 13.
Eor form of agreement for letting, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. I., p. 445.
{n) For form of notice to quit, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Yol. I., p. 469.
Iq) See p. 337, ante, and AUotments Extension Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 80),
s. 12, which applies sects. 110 and 111 of the Inclosure Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Yict. c. 118).
—
Allotments. 341
Any allotment or portions thereof which cannot be let as an Sect. 5.
allotment, may be let to any person whatever at the best annual Parochial
rent procurable, without any premium or fine, and on such terms as Charity
Lands.
may enable the trustees to resume possession thereof within a period
not exceeding twelve months if it should at any time be required to Unlet allot-
be let in allotments. Such letting does not exonerate the trustees ments.
from giving the public notices referred to above (7-).
Sect. 6. Allotments under the Allotments Acts.

750. The Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (5), which Application
of Acts.
comes into operation on the 1st of January, 1908, has very largely
extended the powers of local authorities as to the provision and
management of allotments. Until that date the more restricted
provisions of the older Acts {t) remain effective, and must, therefore,
be referred to but, in view of the enlarged provisions which will
;
shortly become available, it is anticipated that few, if any, steps

will be taken in connection with allotments under the old law. The
reader must be careful to distinguish between the powers now
operative, and those which only come into effect on the 1st of
January, 1908, and must also remember that references in this
article to parish councils, in connection with allotments after that
date, will, in the case of a rural parish not having a parish council,
include references to the parish meeting {a).
751. On that date it will become the duty of a county council to Duty of
ascertain the extent to which there is a demand for allotments in the county
councils.
several urban districts (other than boroughs) and rural parishes in
the county, or to which there would be a demand if suitable land
were available, and the extent to which it is reasonably practicable,
having regard to statutory provisions (b) to satisfy any such
demand (c), and for that purpose to co-operate with such authorities,
associations, and persons, as they think best qualified to assist
them, and to take such other steps as they think necessary {d).
If the county council are satisfied that the circumstances in
relation to any such urban district or rural parish are such that
land for allotments should be acquired for such district or parish,
the council must pass a resolution to that effect, and must proceed
to acquire land and provide allotments, or cause allotments to be
provided {e).
(r) Allotments Extension Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 80), s. 13 (6).
(s) Edw. 7, 0. 54.
7
{t) Namely, the Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 48), the Allotments
Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Yict. c. 65), and the Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57
Yict. c. 73).
(a) See Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 46 (4).
(6) I.e., to the provisions of the Allotments Act, 1887, and of any subsequent
amending statute.
(c) It may
be noticed that if in the course of the inquiries of the Small Hold-
ings Commissioners as to the demand for small holdings (see title Small
Holdings) they receive any information as to the existence of a demand for
allotments, they must communicate the information to the councils of the
county, and of the borough, urban district, or parish concerned (Small Holdings
and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 2 (4) ).
{d) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 24 (1).
(e) Allotments Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Yict. c. 65), s. 2 (2), as amended and
;
342 Allotments.
Sect. For the performance of their duties under {inter alia) the Allot-
6.
Under ments Acts, every county council must establish a small holdings
Allotments and allotments committee, consisting either wholly or partly of
Acts. members of the council, but so that in the latter case the members
Small Hold- of the council are in a majority and all matters relating to the
;
ings and exercise and performance by the council of their powers and duties
Allotments
Committee.
under the Allotments Acts, 1887 to 1907 (except the power of raising
a rate or borrowing money), will stand referred to such committee (/)
and the council before exercising any such powers must, unless in
their opinion the matter is urgent, receive and consider the report
of such committee with respect to the matter in question. A
county council may also delegate to such committee, with or without
restrictions or conditions, as they think fit, any of their powers
under the Allotments Acts, except the power of raising a rate or
borrowing money (g) .
Accounts. The committee may delegate any of their powers to sub-committees,

consisting either wholly or partly of members of the committee (It),
"Where any receipts or payments of money under the Small Holdings
and Allotments Act, 1907, are intrusted by the county council to
the small holdings and allotments committee, or any sub-committee
thereof, the accounts of those receipts and payments will be accounts
of the county council, and must be made up and audited
accordingly (i).
Duty of 752. In addition to the duty imposed, as stated above, on a county

district and council there is a duty upon urban district councils and parish
parish
councils. councils, and until the 1st of January, 1908, upon rural district
councils, to promote the provision of allotments {k) In the case
.
inferentially affected by the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7,
c. 54), s. 47, sched. II. The exact effect of the amended procedure is not quite
clear, but it would seem that an original duty is now cast upon county councils
to initiate proceedings for the provision of allotments where there is a reasonable
demand for them.
(/) Eeferences in th.e Allotments Acts to the standing committee of a county
council are to be construed as references to the Small Holdings and Allotments
Committee (Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 36 (1) ).
(9) Hid.
(h) Ibid., s. 36 (2). There is no instruction as to a majority of a sub-com-
mittee being members of either the committee or the council, and so long as at
leastone member of the committee, not necessarily a member of the council, is
on the sub-committee, all the other members of the sub-committee may be
chosen from outside those bodies. If, however, there is committed to a sub-
committee the power of managing small holdings (as to which see title Small
Holdings), the committee in making appointments thereto must have regard to
the advisability of including certain representative members [ihid.).
(i) Ibid., s. 36 (3). And see p. 359, post, as to accounts of expenses under
the Acts.
(k) The duty devolves upon district councils as successors to the " sanitary
authority" mentioned in the earlier Allotments Acts. The expression has the
same meaning as in the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Yict. c. 55) (Allot-
ments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 48), s. 17). See title Public Health. It
includes the council of a borough. It also includes the parish council where,
under the Allotments Acts, land is purchased by the county council and is
assured to the parish council. On January 1st, 1908, the powers and duties of
rural district councils under the Allotments Acts will be transferred to parish
councils, and the Acts will have effect as if references therein to the sanitary
authority and the district thereof included references to the parish council and
Allotments. 343
of a rural parish not having a parish council, the parish meeting has Sect. 6.
a like duty(0. The council or meeting, as the case may be, must Under
consider any written representation (m) that allotments are required Allotments
in the district or parish. The representation may be made by any Acts.
six registered parHamentary electors or ratepayers resident in the
district or parish (u). If the council or meeting think, after inquiry
made, that there is a demand for allotments, and that they cannot
be obtained at a reasonable rent or on reasonable conditions by
voluntary arrangement, the council, if a district council, must
purchase or hire any suitable land which may be available, within
or without the district, adequate to provide sufficient allotments (o),
and must let such land in allotments to the labouring population (p),
resident in the district and desirous of taking the same(^). The
land must not be acquired save at such price or rent as in the
opinion of the council may, together with expenses, be recouped out
of the allotment rents (r). Where the authority is a parish council
or meeting they must, if they cannot acquire suitable land by
voluntary arrangement, make a represen tation to the county council,
who may thereupon proceed to acquire land on behalf of the parish
council or parish meeting (s).
The duty of a council to provide allotments does not include the Area of
duty of providing allotments exceeding one acre in extent, but they aiiotme]
the parish, and subject to such other adaptations as may be necessary (Small
Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 20 (2) ) ; and all pro-
perty acquired and all liabilities incurred by any rural district council under
the Allotments Acts will, as from an appointed day fixed by the Local Grovern-
ment Board, either generally or as respects any particular district, by virtue of
the Act of 1907, be transferred to and vested in the parish council of the parish
in respect of which the property was acquired or the liability incurred (ibid.,
s. 20 (3) ). Sects. 68, 70, 72, 85, 86, 87 and 88 of the Local Government Act, 1894
(56 & 57 Yict. c. 73) (which relate to adjustment of property and liabilities, the
determination of questions, local inquiries, current rates, accounts and proceed-
ings, existing securities, and the discharge of existing debts, existing regulations,
and pending contracts), will apply in the case of any such transfer (Small
Holdmgs and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 20 C6) ). And see title
Local Government.
(1) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 46 (4).
Where any property by the Act
transferred to and vested in a parish council,
is
the property will, in the case of a rural parish not having a parish council, be
transferred to and vested in the chairman of the parish meeting and the
overseers of the parish {ibid.). For parish councils and parish meetings
generally, see title Local Government.
(m) Eor a form of representation, see Encyclopaedia of Eorms, Vol. I.,
p. 448.
(^^) Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 48), s. 2 (1). As to the right to use
schoolrooms for the purpose of discussing questions relating to allotments, see
Allotments Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 65), s. 5, and the Local Government Act,
1894 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 73), s. 4, and title Edijcation. For form of notice of
intention to exercise the right, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. I., p. 447.
(o) Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 48), s. 2 (1).
(p) This expression is not defined. The authority may make regulations
defining the persons eligible to be tenants, but they must be persons within the
description. See Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 48), s. 6 (1).
(q) Ibid., s. 2 (1).
(r) Ibid., s. 2 (2). This sub-section explains what is meant by " reasonable
rent."
(s) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), ss. 26 (7),
46 (4). As to the procedure, see p. 348, post.
— ;
344 Allotments.
Sect. 6. may provide allotments up to five acres each in extent, and with the
Under consent of the county council may adapt for letting and let as an
Allotments allotment land exceeding five acres (t).
Acts.
Sub-Sect. 1. Methods of Acquisition.
Methods of 753. The necessary land for allotments may be acquired by a
acquisition.
council in several ways, namely (1) by hiring by agreement :
—
(2) by purchase by agreement (3) by compulsory hiring (4) by
; ;
compulsory purchase (5) by obtaining a transfer of appropriated

;
lands from allotment wardens and trustees and (6) in the case of ;
a council of a borough, urban district, or parish, by purchasing or

hiring from the county council land acquired by the latter for
small holdings (a).
(1) Hiring by 754. Under the Allotments Act, 1887, land may be hired, but only
agreement. agreement, and at such rent as, in the opinion of the council, will
j^y
enable all expenses incurred to be recouped out of the rents to be
obtained from the tenants of the allotments (b). A person who has
power to lease land for agricultural purposes (c) may lease land to a
council for the purposes of allotments for a term not exceeding
thirty-five years, either wdth or without such right of renewal as is
conferred in the case of land hired compulsorily (d).
Glebe land or other land belonging to an ecclesiastical benefice
may be leased by the incumbent with the consent of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners (e).
(2) Purchase 755. Land for allotments may be purchased by agreement, and for
by agreement, this purpose the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (/), and
the amending Acts are incorporated with the Allotments Act, 1887,
except the provisions with respect to the purchase and taking of
land otherwise than by agreement, and with respect to the provisions
{t) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 21 (1).
(a) For small holdings, see that title.
(&) See Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 48), s. 2 (1) and (2). Por form
of a lease of land to a parish council, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. I.,
p. 453.
(c) JE.g., a mortgagor or mortgagee in possession, by virtue of the Con-
veyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Yict. c. 41), s. 18.
{d) Small Holdings and AUotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 28 (1). As
to the right of renewal, see p. 346, post. Land belonging to the Crown, the
Duchy of Lancaster, or the Duchy of Cornwall may be leased for allotments
s. 28 (2)).
Ibid., s. 28 (3).
(e) Where glebe land or other land belonging to an
ecclesiastical benefice is hired by a council, the provisions of the Ecclesiastical
Dilapidations Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Yict. c. 43), will not during the continuance of
the tenancy be applicable to buildings upon the land, and at the determination
of the tenancy the incumbent may, under certain conditions, remove any
buildings which have been erected for the purpose of adapting the land for
allotments, and may dispose of the materials thereof (Small Holdings and Allot-
ments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 29). Sect. 10 of the Local Government
Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 73), which enables a parish council to hire land for
allotments by agreement, and, on the authorisation of the county council, com-
pulsorily, will be, repealed on January 1st, 1908, when the Small Holdings and
Allotments Act, 1907, comes into operation (see s. 47, sched. IL). For the
provisions of the latter Act as to compulsory hiring, see post, p. 345.
(/) 8 & 9 Yict. c. 18.
,
Allotments. 345
to be made for affording access to the special Act (g). Land in the Sect, 6.
Duchy of Lancaster may be sold for the purpose of allotments (Ji). Under
Allotments
756. Where a council are unable to obtain land on reasonable Acts.
terms by agreement, they may acquire land by compulsory hiring
(3) Compul-
or purchase {i). Under the Local Government Act, 1894, a parish sory hiring.
council may be invested by the county council with power to hire
land compulsorily ( and the Local Government Board may confer
a like power of hiring compulsorily on the council of a municipal
borough, including a county borough, or other urban district (A;)
but these provisions will be superseded when the extended powers
conferred by the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, come
into operation. Under this Act where a council other than a
parish council (l) propose to hire land compulsorily, they may
submit to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries an order pro-
viding for the compulsory hiring of the land specified in the order
for a period not less than fourteen nor more than thirty-five years.
The provisions as to the compulsory purchase of land by a
council (m) will apply to the order with the substitution of the
word "hiring" for ''purchase/' and the order must, further, deter-
mine the terms and conditions of the hiring other than the rent,
and, in particular, must provide for the insertion in the lease of
covenants by the council to cultivate the land in a proper manner,
and to pay to the landlord at the determination of the tenancy
compensation for depreciation, and, unless otherwise agreed, the
usual lessee's covenants the order must not, except with the con-
;
sent of the landlord, confer on the council any right to fell or cut
timber or trees, or any right to take, sell, or carry away any
minerals, gravel, sand, or clay, except so far as may be necessary
or convenient for the purpose of erecting buildings on the land or
otherwise adapting the land for allotments, and except upon pay-
ment of compensation for minerals, gravel, sand, or clay so used.
The amount of rent, compensation etc., will, in default of agree-
ment, be determined by a single valuer appointed by the Board of
Agriculture and Fisheries (n).
An order will not be effective unless and until it is confirmed by
the Board, who may confirm it with or without modifications.
{g) Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 48), s. 3 (1). Por a form of con-
veyance to a district council of land for allotments, see Encyclopaedia of Forms,
Vol. L, p. 451.
(h) Ihid. Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), s. 178.
;
(i) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 22.
(j) 56 & 57 Vict. c. 73, s. 10, which section will be repealed as from
January 1, 1908.
{Jc) & 57 Vict. c. 73), s. 33.
Local Government Act, 1894 (56
(/) Where
a parish, council proposes to hire land compulsorily they must
act through the county council, as in the case of a compulsory purchase. See
post, p. 348.
(m) See post, p. 347.
(n) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 26 (2),
and Sched. I., Parts I. and 11. Eeference should be made to these schedules
for full details as to the compulsory hiring of land. The expression " land-
lord" when used in relation to land compulsorily hired means the person
for the time being entitled to receive the rent of the land from the council
^"",s.46 (2)).
346 Allotments.
Sect. 6. Confirmation will be conclusive evidence that the order has been
Under duly made (o). It must incorporate any regulations made by the
Allotments Board, and such provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, and of
Acts. sects. 77 to 85 of the Eailways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (p),
as appear to the Board necessary (q). Where the land authorised
to be compulsorily hired is subject to a mortgage, any lease made in
pursuance of the order by the mortgagor or mortgagee in possession
will have effect as if it were a lease authorised by sect. 18 of the
Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (r).
If land hired compulsorily is in the occupation of a tenant, he
may, by notice in writing served on the council before the deter-
mination of his tenancy, require that any claim by him against the
council which, under the Agricultural Holdings (England) Acts,
1883 to 1906 (s), might be referred to arbitration under those Acts
shall be so referred, and such claim will then be determined by
arbitration under those Acts, and not by valuation under the Act
of 1907(0.
Kenewal of 757. Where land has been hired compulsorily, the council may,
tenancy. by giving notice in writing to the landlord, not more than two years
nor less than one year before the expiration of the tenancy, renew
the tenancy for such term, not being less than fourteen nor more
than thirty-five years as may be specified in the notice, and at such
rent as, in default of agreement, may be determined by valuation
by a valuer appointed by the Board, but otherwise on the same
terms and conditions as the original lease, and so from time to time.
If on any such notice being given the landlord proves to the satis-
faction of the Board that any land included in the tenancy is
required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house, such
land shall be excluded from the renewed tenancy (u).
In assessing the rent to be paid under a renewal the valuer must
not take into account any increase in value due to improvements
by the council, or to a possible user of the land as mentioned in
sect. 33 of the Act of 1907, or to the establishment by the council
of other allotments in the neighbourhood, or any depreciation in the
value in respect of which the landlord would have been entitled to
compensation if the council had quitted on the expiration of the
original tenancy (v) .
Resumption 758. Where land has been hired compulsorily under any of the
of possession Allotments Acts, 1887 to 1907, and the land or any part thereof at
by landlord.
any time during the tenancy is shown to the satisfaction of the
Board to be required by the landlord to be used for building,
(o) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 26 (3).
Ip) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20.

Iq) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), Sclied. I.,
Part 11. (1).
(r) 44 & 45 Vict. c. 41. See Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7,
c. 54), s. 26 (6).
(s) For these Acts, see title Agmcultijre.
{t) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), Sched. I.,
Part II. (3).

{u) Ibid., s. 27 (1).
(v) lUd., s. 27 (2) ; for the provisions of s. 33, see next paragraph.
;
Allotments. 347
mining, or other industrial purposes, or for roads, necessary there- Sect. 6.
for, the landlord may resume possession of the land or part thereof Under
upon giving to the council twelve months' previous notice in writing Allotments
of his intention so to do if a part only of the land is resumed the
;
rent payable by the council for the remainder will, in default of

agreement, be determined by valuation (x).
If, however, the land has been hired compulsorily by the Small
Holdings Commissioners acting in default of a county council (a),
any question as to resumption by the landlord must be determined
by an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chief Justice of
England {b).
759. On the determination of a tenancy of land hired, whether Compensation

compulsorily or by agreement, the council will, on quitting the land, ^gjj^^^^^^"
be entitled (subject in the case of land hired by agreement to any
agreement to the contrary) to compensation under the Agricultural
Holdings (England) Acts, 1883 to 1906 (c), for any improvement
in respect of the planting of standard or other fruit trees or fruit
bushes permanently set out, or of the planting of strawberry plants
or of the planting of asparagus, rhubarb, and other vegetable crops
which continue productive for two or more years and in respect of
;
any of the following improvements which were necessary and proper

to adapt the land for allotments, namely, the erection, alteration or
enlargement of buildings, the formation of silos, the laying down
of permanent pasture, making and planting of osier beds, making
of water meadows or works of irrigation, making gardens, making
or improving roads or bridges, making or improving watercourses,
ponds, wells, or reservoirs, or works for the application of water
power or for supply of water for agricultural or domestic purposes,
making or removal of permanent fences, planting hops, planting
orchards or fruit bushes, protecting young fruit trees, reclaiming
waste land, warping or weiring of land, embankments and sluices
against floods, the erection of wirework in hop gardens, and
drainage {d). In the case of land hired compulsorily the compensa-
tion will be such sum as fairly represents the increase (if any) in
the value to the landlord and his successors in title of the land due
to such improvements (e) .
760. Though land can be purchased compulsorily under either (4) Compui-
the Allotments Act, 1887, or the Local Government Act, 1894, the ôry purchase,
powers under these statutes will cease to operate when the provisions
(x) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 33 (1). The
valuer will be appointed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, who will
fix bis remuneration {ibid., ss. 33 (1), 43 (3)).
(a) See p. 350, post.
(&) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 33 (2). All
questions referred to arbitration under the Act will, unless otherwise expressly
provided, be determined by a single arbitrator in accordance with the Agricul-
tural Holdings (England) Acts, 1883 to 1906 {ibid., s. 43 (1)). For these Acts
see title Agrictiltuke. The remuneration of the arbitrator will be fixed by the
Board {ibid., s. 43 (3)).
(c) See title Agriculture.
(d) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 50), sched. I. (27);
and Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 35 (2).
(e) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 35 (2) ),
348 Allotments.
Sect. 6.
of theSmall Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, become applicable
Under on January 1, 1908 (/). By that Act when a council proposes to
Allotments purchase land compulsorily they may submit to the Board of
Acts. Agriculture and Fisheries an order putting in force as respects the
land specified therein the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts with
respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agree-
ment (g). The order must be in a form prescribed by regulations
of the Board (h), and must incorporate, subject to the necessary
adaptations, the Lands Clauses Acts and sects. 77 to 85 of the
Kailways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (^). It must be published
by the council, and notice thereof must be given to parties affected.
If an objection to the order is lodged with the Board and persisted
in, the Board must hold a public inquiry in the locality (;). The
order has no force until confirmed by the Board, but when confirmed
it is conclusive (k).
The order may provide for the continuance or creation of ease-
ments over the land authorised to be acquired, but so that no newly
created easement over land hired by a council shall continue beyond
the determination of the hiring (1) .
Withdrawal If, during the course of proceedings for compulsory purchase or

of notice to
hiring, and within six weeks after the amount of compensation or
treat.
rent to be paid has been determined, it appears to the council that
the land cannot be let for allotments at a rent that will secure the
council from loss, the council may withdraw the notice to treat,
subject to being liable to pay compensation for loss or expenses
caused by the notice to treat and the withdrawal. Where a notice
of withdrawal is given by the Small Holdings Commissioners
acting in default of the county council (m) compensation will be
paid out of the Small Holdings Account (n).
A-cquirement 761. A parish council that proposes to acquire land compulsorily,

of land by-
whether by purchase or hiring, must make a representation to the
parish
council. county council, who may, on behalf of the parish council, exercise
the powers of compulsory purchase or hiring conferred by the Act
of 1907. The order will be carried into effect by the county
council, but the land acquired will be assured or demised to the
(/) For the old powers, reference should be made to the Allotments Act, 1887
(50 & 51 Vict. c. 48), s. 3; Allotments Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 65 j, s. 4; and
Local Grovernment Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 73), s. 9.
ig) SmaU Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 26 (1).
(h) Ibid., s. 26 (2), and Sched. I., Part L (1).
(i) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20. Por these Acts see title Compulsory Purchase and
Compensation.
{j) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), Sched. I.,
Part I. (2), (3), See also title Compulsory Purchase and Compensa-
(4).
tion, where the procedure on taking land compulsorily is fully treated. In
determining the amount of any disputed compensation under an order no
additional allowance can be made on account of the taking being compulsory
[ibid., s. 26 (5)).
{k) Ibid., s. 26 (3).
(Z) Ibid., s. 26 (4).
(m) See p. 350, post.

(n) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), ss. 26 (8),
19. . And see title Small Holdings.
;
Allotments. 349
parish council, who will pay all expenses (o). If the county council ^"ôt. 6.
refuse to proceed on a representation being made to them, the parish Under

council may petition the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, who Allotments
may, after inquiry, make such an order as the county council might Acts,
have made (p).
762. Land cannot be acquired compulsorily, either by purchase General

or hiring, which at the date of the order forms part of any park, ^^^^^^^^^^^^
garden, or pleasure ground or forms part of the home farm attached acquisition
to and usually occupied with a mansion house, or is otherwise of land,
required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house, or
which is woodland not wholly surrounded by land acquired by a
council, or which is the property of any local authority, or has been
acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a
railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking, or is the
site of an ancient monument, or other object of archaeological
interest (q).
A
council in making, and the Board in confirming, an order must
have regard to the extent of land held or occupied in the locality by
any owner or tenant, and to the convenience of other property of
such persons, and must, so far as practicable, avoid taking an undue
or inconvenient quantity of land from any one owner or tenant, or
displacing any considerable number of agricultural labourers or
others employed on or about the land. No holding not exceeding
fifty acres nor any part of such holding can be acquired compulsorily
by an order under the Act of 1907 (r).
Land must not be acquired save at such price or rent that, in
the opinion of the council, all expenses, except those of making
public roads, incurred in acquiring the land or otherwise in relation
to the allotments may reasonably be expected to be recouped out of
the rents obtained in respect thereof (s).
Superfluous or unsuitable land may be sold, let, or exchanged by Surplus land,
the council, with the sanction of the county council {t).
763. Allotment wardens under the general Inclosure Acts, (5) Transfer
having the management of land appropriated under those Acts for ^^^^^^^^
allotments or field gardens, may by agreement with the district ^ûstees!^^
council transfer the management of such land to the council, upon
such terms and conditions as may be agreed with the sanction (as
regards the wardens) of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries
and such land thereupon vests in the council (a).
Trustees under the Allotments Extension Act, 1882 (&), may,
instead of letting their allotments to labourers, sell or let such land
(o) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 26 (7).
Ip) Ibid.
30 (1).
Iq) Ibid., s.
30 (2), (3).
(r) Ibid., s.
(s) Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 48), s. 2 (2). An explanation of
the term " reasonable rent " is there given.
{t) Ibid., s. 11.
(a) Ibid., s. 13. See also Board of Agriculture Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict,
c. 30), s. 2 (1) (b), and Boardof Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7,
c. 31).
(6) See pp. 333—338, ante.

— ;
350 Allotments.
Sect. 6, upon terms to be agreed upon with the sanction of the

to a council,
Under Charity Commissioners.
Allotments In both these cases the provisions of the Allotments Act, 1887,
Acts. became applicable as if the land had been acquired under that
Act (c).
(6) Inter- 764. A county council may sell or let to a borough, urban district,
change of
or parish council for the purpose of allotments any land acquired by
land for small
holdings and them for small holdings, and a borough, urban district, or parish
allotments. council may sell or let to the county council for the purpose of
small holdings any land acquired by them for allotments. The
provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act with respect to
the sale of superfluous land will not apply on any such sale, and
where land acquired for allotments is so sold the proceeds of sale
must be applied to discharging the liabilities of the council in
respect of such land or in acquiring other land for allotments
any surplus may be applied for any purpose for which capital
money may be applied which is approved by the Local Government
Board (d).
Common 765. The powers of a council to acquire land for allotments include
pasture and
power to provide common pasture (e), and to acquire land for the
grazing rights.
purpose of attaching grazing and other similar rights to allotments
provided by them(/). Any rights so created or acquired by a
council must be attached to the allotments in such manner and
subject to such regulations as the council think expedient (g).
Enfranchise- 766. Expenses incurred by a council in the enfranchisement of

ment and
redemption of
land acquired for allotments or in the purchase or redemption of
charges. land tax, quit-rent, chief-rent, tithe or other rent-charge, or other
perpetual annual sum issuing out of the land, are deemed to have
been incurred in the purchase of the land (h),
Stjb-Sect. 2. Procedure to Compel Defaulting Authorities.
Default of 767. Under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, the
county Board of Agriculture and Fisheries is to appoint a body to be
council.
entitled the Small Holdings Commissioners (i), and if the Board
are, in relation to any urban district (other than a borough) or rural
parish, satisfied, after holding a local inquiry (j) at which the county
council and the council of the district or parish, and such other
(c) Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 48), s. 13.

{d) SmaR Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 32 Allot- ;
ments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 48), s. 11.

(e) Allotments Act, 1887 J50 & 51 Yict. c. 48), s. 12. And see title Commons.
(/) SmaU Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 31 (1).
(V) Th'd., s. 31 (2).
[h) Ibid., s. 46 (3).
(i) Ibid., s. 1. Eor the constitution, powers, and proceedings of the Commis-
Small Holdings. Anything required to be done by or to the
sioners, see title
Commissioners may be done by or to any one Commissioner, and any document
purporting to be signed by a Commissioner shall be received in evidence without
proof of the appointment or handwriting of the Commissioner {ibid., s. 41).
(j) Eor the purpose of an inquiry the Board and the Commissioners have
the
same powers as the Local Grovernment Board have for an inquiry under the
Public Health Acts {ibid., s. 42). And see title Public Health.
.
Allotments. 351
persons as the person holding the inquiry may, in his discretion, Sect. 6.
think fit to allow, shall be permitted to appear and be heard (k), Under
that the county council have failed to fulfil their obligations under Allotments
the Allotments Act, 1890, as amended by the Act of 1907 (l), the Acts.
Board may by order transfer to the Commissioners all or any of the
powers of the county council under the Allotments Act, 1890, as
amended by the Act of 1907, in relation to the district or parish,
and those Acts will then apply as if references to the Commissioners
were substituted for references to the county council, and with such
other adaptations as may be made by the order {m). Any land
acquired by the Commissioners in pursuance of the order will be
vested in the Board, but the Board may transfer the land to the
council at whose expense the land was acquired, on payment of all
sums due from the council in connection therewith, and on the Board
being satisfied that the council are willing to exercise and perform
their powers and duties in relation thereto (n).
768. When a representation has been made to an urban district Default of

council or to the council of a rural parish, by any six registered district or
parish
parliamentary electors or ratepayers resident in the district or council.
parish, that allotments are required, and the council have failed to
take steps to acquire land and provide allotments, the applicants may
refer the matter to the county council, and that council, if satisfied
that the circumstances are such that land for allotments should be
acquired, may by resolution transfer to themselves the powers and
duties of the defaulting council under the Allotments Acts, and may
proceed to acquire the necessary land, or carry the Acts into
operation in the district or parish (o), but without prejudice to the
rights and powers of the defaulting council in respect of other land
previously acquired by them (p)
769. Upon such transfer of powers the following provisions Effect of

transfer of
apply: the Allotments Act, 1887, applies with all necessary
powers.
modifications the county council have the powers of borrowing
;
possessed by the defaulting authority, including power to charge

the rates with the repayment of the loan, for which, however, the
authority is liable separate accounts are to be kept by the county
;
council the county council may delegate to the authority any powers
;
of management, letting and use, and for the recovery of rent and
possession, of the allotments, all expenses and receipts arising in
the exercise of the delegated powers being (subject to the terms of
(k) Notices of the inquiry must be given and published in accordance with
directions of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (Small Holdings and
Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 42 (2)).
(?) See ante, p. 341, for these obligations and the amendment referred to.
(m) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 24 (2).
(?2) Ibid., s. 40.
(o) See Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 48), s. 2 ; Allotments Act,
1890 (53 & 54 Yict. c. 65), s. 2 (2) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907
;
(7 Edw. 7, c. 54), ss. 24, 47 (4), and sched. II. As to the right to use public
schoolrooms for meetings etc. relating to the provision of allotments, see
Allotments Act, 1890, s. 5, and Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Yict. c.
73), s. 4. As to the expenses incurred by a county council in taking over powers
of a defaulting council, see p. 359, post.
(p) Allotments Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Yict. c. 65), s. 2 (2).
— :
352 Allotments.
Sect. 6. the delegation) paid and dealt with as expenses and receipts of the
Under defaulting authority under the Act of 1887 (q).
Allotments
Acts. 770. On the request of the defaulting authority, the county
council may, by order under their seal, transfer to that authority
Ke-transfer
all the powers, duties, property, and liabilities vested in and imposed
of powers
and property. on the county council under the Act of 1890 as regards the district
of the defaulting authority, and the property so transferred will be
deemed to have been acquired by the defaulting authority under the
Act of 1887, and that authority will act accordingly (a).
Sub-Sect. 3. Poiuers and Duties of Management.
771. A council providing or acquiring lands for allotments have

the following powers in respect thereof
Improvement They may generally improve and adapt the land, and do all things
of land.
necessary for the convenience and maintenance of the allotments,
including {inter alia) draining, fencing, and road-making (6).
Kegulations. They may make, revoke, and vary regulations for controlling the
letting of the allotments, for preventing undue preference in the
letting thereof, and generally for giving effect to the provisions of
the Allotments Acts (c).
Tenants. They may define the persons eligible to be tenants, provided they
belong to the labouring population, and be resident in or within one
mile of the district or parish {d).
Managers. An urban authority may appoint and remove allotment managers,
being residents and ratepayers of the locality concerned, with such
powers, including those of incurring expenses, as the authority may
define {e).
In rural parishes the allotments will, on and after January 1,
1908, be managed by the parish council, or, where there is no
parish council, by persons appointed by the parish meeting (/).
It must be noted that nothing contained in the Small Holdings
and Allotments Act, 1907, will afi"ect the rights and obligations
under any tenancy created before January 1, 1908, under the
Allotments Acts {q).
[q] Allotments Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 65), s. 4.

(a) Ihid., s. 4 (f).
(&) Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 48), s. 5; and see p. 355, jpost, as to
the erection of buildings on allotments.
(c) Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 48), s. 6. The regulations must be
confirmed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries {Hid., s. 6 (1) ), as amended
by sect. 20 (1) of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54).
Model regulations under the Act of 1887 were issued by the Local Grovernment
Board, dated May 30, 1888. See also Encyclopaedia of Eorms, Yol. I., pp.
456—469.
{d) Allotments Act, 1887 (50& 51 Yict. c. 48), ss. 2 (2), 8 (2) ; subject to the
power of the council to let to other persons when allotments cannot be let in
accordance with the Act {ibid., s. 7 (4)). And see p. 355, post, as to letting
allotments to persons working on a co-operative system and to associations
under the Act of 1907.
(e) Ibid., s. 6 (3), (4)
( f)
See Local' Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 73), s. 6 (4), and Small
Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), ss. 20 (2), 23.
{g) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 45.
Allotments. 353
772. An urban council may borrow money for the purposes of the ^êct. 6.
Allotments Acts, in like manner and subject to the like conditions Under
as for the purpose of defraying general and special expenses under Allotments
the Public Health Acts {h).
A parish council may borrow money for the purposes of the Borrowing
powers and duties as to allotments transferred to or conferred on powers,
the council by the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 such ;
borrowing will be under the provisions of the Local Government

Act, 1894 (i).
Sects. 242 and 243 of the Public Health Act, 1875, relating to
loans by the Public Works Loans Commissioners to a local
authority, will, with the necessary adaptations, apply to a loan to a
parish council under the Local Government Act, 1894, or to a
county council lending money to a parish council under that Act,
where the purpose for which the loan is required by the parish
council is the acquisition, improvement, or adaptation of land under
;the Allotments Acts {k).
773. Allotments which cannot be let in accordance with the pro- Dealing with
visions of the Allotments Act, 1887, and the regulations, may be let
^^J^^™^^*^ '
to any person whatever at the best annual rent which can be ^
obtained, without premium or fine, and on such terms as may

•enable the authority to resume possession thereof within a period
not exceeding twelve months {I).
774. Land acquired under the Acts, but no longer needed or not Sale or
suitable for allotments, may, with the sanction of the county council, exchange,
be sold, let, or exchanged for more suitable land (m) The proceeds
.
are to be applied in discharging the debts and liabilities of the autho-

rity in respect of land so acquired under the Act, or in acquiring,
adapting, or improving other land for allotments. Any surplus
may be applied for any purpose for which capital money may be
applied which is approved by the Local Government Board. Interest
and money received from the letting of the land may be applied in
acquiring other land for allotments, or in like manner as receipts
from the allotments are applicable (n). In the case of a rural
district all such moneys must be credited to and applied for the
benefit of the parish for which the land was purchased (o).
(h) Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c.48), s. 10 (4). Sects. 233, 234, 236—
239, 242, and 243 of the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Yict. c. 55), are made
applicable to such loans (Allotments Act, 1887, s. 10 (5)).
(i) See s, 12 of the Act of 1887, with the proviso that money borrowed
thereunder for the purposes of allotments will not be reckoned as part of the debt
of the parish for the purpose of the limitation on borrowing contained in such
section (Small Holdings Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 20 (4) ).
(k) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 20 (5). As
to borrowing powers generally, see title Local GtOYERNMENT.
(I) Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 48), s. 7 (4).
(m) Ibid., a. 11 (1).

(n) Ibid., s. 11 (2).
—
For the above purposes ss. 128 132 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act,
1845 (8 & 9 Yict. c. 18), under which the owner from whom the land was
originally purchased has a right of pre-emption, are made applicable (Allotments
Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 48), s. 11 (3)).
(o) Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 48), s. 11 (2). So much of the sub-
, section as relates to this last requirement will be repealed as from January 1, 1908.
H.L. — I. A A
— . .
354 Allotments.
Sect. 6.
775. A register must be kept by the council showing particulars
Under of the tenancy, acreage, and rent of every allotment let, and of the
Allotments unlet allotments
Acts.
Within one month after March 25 in each year the council must
Eegister and cause a statement, showing receipts, expenditure, and outstanding lia-
annual bilities in respect of the allotments up to that date, to be deposited
returns.
at some convenient place in the district available to ratepayers {q)
Eating of 776. Allotments are liable, as agricultural land," to pay only one-
allotments.
half of the rate in the pound payable in respect of buildings and other
hereditaments, so far as public local rates are concerned (r), and,
for the purposes of general district rates in urban districts and for
special expenses in rural districts, allotments of not more than two
acres in extent are assessed at one-fourth only of their rateable
value (s).
Sub-Sect, 4. Terms and Conditions of Letting,
Eents. 777. Eents are to be fixed so as to insure the council as far as

can be reasonably expected against loss, but the expression loss "
does not include expenses incurred in an unsuccessful attempt to
acquire land for allotments. Keasonable rents may be charged,
having regard to the agricultural value of the land. Not more
than one quarter's rent may be required to be paid in advance,
where the authority deem payment in advance necessary (t),
Eates and 778. For the purpose of rates, taxes, and tithe rent-charges, the
taxes etc.
council are to be deemed the occupiers of the allotments and liable
to pay but the tenants are to be deemed occupiers thereof for the
;
purpose of parliamentary, municipal, and other local franchises.

Eates, taxes, and tithe rent-charges so paid are to be apportioned
among the tenants, and the apportioned sum is to be certified to
each tenant, and to be added to or deemed part of the tenant's rent,
and to be recovered accordingly {a)
Area of an 779. Sub-letting of an allotment is forbidden {h). One person
allotment.
may not hold any allotment or allotments acquired under the Acts
which exceeds or exceed five acres in extent (until the end of 1907
the limit is one acre) (c) but it is not compulsory upon a council
;
to provide allotments exceeding one acre in extent (d). Further,
{p) Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 48), s. 15. The register is to be
open to the inspection of ratepayers of the district or parish it affects, who may-
take copies or extracts without fee {ibid.).
(q) Ibid.
(r) Agricultural Eates Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Yict. c. 16), as continued by the
Agricultural Hates Act, 1896 etc. Continuance Acts of 1901 (1 Edw. 7, c. 13)
and 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 8). As to payment of rates etc., see par. 778 ; and see,
generally, title Eates and Eating.
(s) Allotments Eating Exemption Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Yict. c. 33), s. 1, which
directs that sects. 211 (1) and 230 of the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Yict.
c. 55), shall be construed as if the word " allotments " was therein inserted.
(t) Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 48), s. 7 (1).
(a) Ibid., s. 7 (2); see also title Elections.
(&) Ibid., s. 7,(3).
(c) Ibid., as extended by sect. 21 (1) of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act,
1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54).
(d) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 21 (1) (a).
Allotments. 355
after the year 1907, where a council has in hand land acquired ^^ct. 6.
under the Allotments Acts, any part which exceeds five acres may Under
be adapted for letting and be let as an allotment if the council Allotments
satisfies the county council that it is convenient and desirable that
Acts,
it should be so let, and the county council consent to such letting (e).
780. One or more allotments may, after 1907, with the consent Co-operative
working,
of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, be let to persons working
on a co-operative system, or to an association formed for the
purpose of creating or promoting the creation of allotments when
such association is so constituted that the division of profits among
the members is prohibited or restricted (/).
781. Up to the end of the year 1907 no building other than a Building on
toolhouse, shed, greenhouse, fowlhouse, or pigstye may be erected allotments,
on an allotment (^), but after that date the statutory restrictions
against building by tenants cease to operate, save that a dwelling-
house cannot be erected for occupation on an allotment of less
than one acre (h). The powers conferred upon a council of
improving and adapting land for allotments will then include
power to erect buildings and make adaptations of existing buildings,
but so that not more than one dwelling-house shall be erected for
occupation with any one allotment {i).
782. Kent, and the possession of any allotment after notice to Recovery of
quit or failure to deliver up possession as required by law, may be
possession.
recovered by the council as landlords {k).
If the rent is in arrear for forty days, or if it appears to the
council that a tenant, not less than three months after the com-
mencement of the tenancy, has not observed the regulations, or is
resident more than a mile out of the district or parish, they may
give him a month's notice to quit but in all such cases the ;
council must, in default of agreement between the outgoing and

incoming tenant, pay on demand to the outgoing tenant any com-
pensation due to him and any Court or justice directing recovery
;
of possession may stay delivery until payment of such compensa-

tion has been made or secured to the satisfaction of the Court or
justice (Z).
Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 21 (1) (b).
(«)
ss. 9 and 21 (3)
(/) Ibid., and see also title Small Holdings.
;
Ig) Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 48J, s. 7 (5), which sub-section is
repealed as from January 1, 1908 (Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907
(7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 35 (4) ).
(A) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 21 (2).
(i) Ibid.
(k) Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 48), s. 8 (1). See also title Land-
lord AND Tenant.
Eor form of notice to quit, see Encyclopaedia of Eorms, Vol. I., p. 469,
and for a form of notice to apply to the justices to recover possession, see ibid.,
p. 470.
(0 AUotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 48), s. 8 (2), (3).
The compensation is to be assessed by an arbitrator appointed by the authority,
unless the tenant elects to have it assessed under the Allotments and Cottage
Gardens Compensation for Crops Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 26), or the Agri-
cultural Holdings Acts, 1883 to 1906. See pp. 356 et seq., post.
A A 2
356 Allotments.
Sect. 6.
783.On the expiration of his tenancy the tenant of an allotment
Under may be entitled to compensation for improvements under either
Allotments the custom of the country {m) or under statute.
Acts.
Compensation by statute is regulated by (1) the Agricultural
Compensation Holdings Acts, 188B to 1906 (n), and (2) the Allotments and Cottage
to tenants. Gardens Compensation for Crops Act, 1887, and it may be claimed
by the tenant under either, at his option but no claim for com- ;
pensation under the former Acts can be made in respect of

anything for which a claim has been made under the Act of 1887 (o),
and (3) by the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, which
comes into operation on January 1, 1908.
(1) Under Under the last-mentioned Act it is provided that where a council,
the Small which term will, as we have seen, include the persons appointed by
Holdings and
Allotments a parish meeting to manage allotments, have let an allotment to any
Act, 1907, tenant the tenant shall as against the council have the same rights
and the with respect to compensation for improvements effected by planting
Agricultural
Holdings standard or other fruit trees permanently set out, planting fruit
Acts. bushes permanently set out, planting strawberry plants, and planting
asparagus, rhubarb, and other vegetable crops which continue pro-
ductive for two or more years, as if it had been agreed in writing that
the allotment should be let as a market garden. The tenant, however,
will not be entitled to compensation in respect of any such improve-
ment if executed contrary to an express prohibition in writing by the
council affecting either the whole or any part of the allotment; but if
the tenant feels aggrieved by any such prohibition, he may appeal to
tbe Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, who may confirm, vary, or
annul the prohibition, and the decision of the Board shall be final (p),
(2) Under 784. Further, the tenant of an allotment to which the Allotments
mentsând ^^^^ a-PP^J ^^y, if he SO elects, claim compensation for improve-
Cottage ments under the Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation
Gardens for Crops Act, 1887, instead of under the Agricultural Holdings
forcrop^'^''
(England) Acts, 1883 to 1906, as amended by the Small Holdings
Act, 1887. and Allotments Act, 1907, notwithstanding that the allotment
exceeds two acres in extent (q).
The law of compensation generally will be found under the title
Agriculture, p. 258, ante ; reference is only made here to the
special provisions which are applied to compensation for crops,
fruit trees and bushes, labour, manure, drains, and structural
improvements by the Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensa-
tion for Crops Act, 1887 which Act, it must be remembered, does
;
not extend to the metropolis (?•).
(m) As to custom of the country and cornpensation thereunder, see title

AGRICULTrHE.
{n) For the provisions of these Acts and compensation thereunder, see title
Agriculture.
(o) Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation for Crops Act, 1887 _(oO & 51
Vict. c. 26), s. 18. In case of conflict between the two codes, the provisions of
this Act are to prevail.
(p) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 35 (1);
Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Yict. c. 50), Sched. I., 27 (i.), (ii.),
(iii.), and (iv.).
(g) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 35 (3).
(r) 50 & 51 yi<3t. c. 26, s. 2. "Metropolis" means the City of London and
Allotments. 357
In that Act ''allotment " means any parcel of land of not more Seot. 6.
than two acres in extent held by a tenant under a landlord and Under
cultivated as a garden (s) or as a farm, or partly as a garden and Allotments
Acts,
partly as a farm; "cottage garden" means an allotment attached
to a cottage " holding " means an allotment or cottage garden Definitions.
; ;
" tenant " means the holder of a holding under a landlord for any
term, and includes the legal personal representative of a deceased
tenant " landlord " means the person for the time being entitled
;
to receive the rents and profits of any holding; "contract of

tenancy" means the letting of land for any term; "determina-
tion of tenancy" means the cesser of a contract of tenancy by
effluxion of time or from any other cause {t).
785. Upon the determination of the tenancy of a holding the Eight to

tenant is entitled, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, to compensation,
obtain from the landlord compensation (1) for crops, including fruit,
growing upon the holding in the ordinary course of cultivation,
and for fruit trees and fruit bushes planted by the tenant with
the previous consent in writing of the landlord (2) for labour and ;
manure since the last crop in anticipation of a future crop (3) for ;
drains, outbuildings, pigstyes, fowlhouses, or other structural

improvements made by the tenant on the holding with the written
consent of the landlord (u).
Deductions may be made from the amount of compensation in Deductions,
respect of rent due from the tenant, and in respect of any breach of
contract or wilful or negligent damage by the tenant (a).
Trees and bushes planted or acquired by a tenant, for which
compensation is not payable, may be removed by the tenant before
the expiration of the tenancy (b) .
786. In default of agreement, the compensation is to be assessed Procedure,

by the arbitration (c) of a person who, unless agreed upon by the land-
lord and tenant, is to be appointed by the justices in petty sessions (c?),
if possible without remuneration (e). Such arbitrator has the
ordinary powers as to taking evidence and calling for the production
of necessary documents (/). He must begin the reference within
all parishes and places mentioned in Schedules A, B and C to the Metropolis

Management Act, 1855 (IS & 19 Yict. c. 120).
(s) A
piece of land less than two acres in extent, occupied by a seedsman for
the purposes of his business, and used to grow vegetables, fruit trees, and
flowers for sale, is not " cultivated as a garden," and is not an allotment within
this definition {Cooper v. Fearse, [1896] 1 Q. B. 562). An allotment is a piece of
land cultivated for food or pleasure and not for business purposes (_29er Collins, J.,
ibid., at p. 566).
(t) Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation for Crops Act, 1887
(50 & 51 Vict. c. 26), s. 4.
(u) Ibid., s. 5.
(a) Ibid., s. 6.
(b) Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 48), s. 7 (6).
(c) Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation for Crops Act, 1887
(50 & 51 Yict. c. 26), s. 7.
_
{d) Ibid., s. 8. Eor appointment of arbitrator by agreement, see Encyclopaedia

of Forms, Vol. I., p. 471.
(e) Ibid., s. 9.
(/) Ibid., s. 11.

—
358 Allotments.
Sect. 6. seven days (g) and make his award in writing within fourteen days
Under from his appointment, though, by consent of the parties, this period
Allotments may be extended to twenty-eight days (h). He may proceed in the
Acts.
absence of either party after notice given to both parties (i). The
costs are in his discretion (A;), and his award, which is final (Z),
must fix a day not sooner than fourteen days after delivery of the
award for payment of the compensation and costs (m). If the amount
awarded or agreed to be paid is not paid for fourteen days it may
be recovered upon order made by the judge of the county court
in the same way as money ordered by a county court under its
ordinary jurisdiction to be paid (n).
Sub- Sect. 5. Finance.
Expenses of 787. All expenses incurred in respect of allotments by urban or

district and parish councils will be defrayed as general expenses. Expenses
parish
councils.
incurred by rural district councils prior to January 1, 1908, will be
defrayed as special expenses, chargeable to the parish on account of
which the allotments were acquired (o) while expenses incurred ;
Apportion-
before that date in respect of two or more parishes are to be appor-
ment of
expenses. tioned among them as in the case of special expenses incurred for
the common benefit of two or more contributory places under the
Public Health Act, 1875 (p).
The sums payable by a defaulting district council under the
Allotments Act, 1890, are to be defrayed as expenses under the Act
of 1887, except that in the case of a rural authority they must,
with the exception of the principal and interest of any money
borrowed, or the rent of any land hired, by the county council,
be charged as general expenses (q).
-Receipts. Moneys received before January 1, 1908, in respect of any land
acquired under the Allotments Act, 1887, otherwise than from sale
or exchange, must be applied in aid of the expenses incurred in
respect of such land, and any surplus must be applied in aid of the
general or special expenses, and in the case of a rural authority
{g) Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation for Crops Act, 1887
(50 & 51 Yict. c. 26), s. 10.
{h) Ibid., s. 13. For form extending time, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Yol. I.,
p. 472.
(i) Ibid., s. 12.
{k) Ibid., s. 14.
(1) Ibid., s. 16. Although the award is final and conclusive both as to law
and facts, it is subject to the general rule that any award may be invalidated
by want of formality in the proceedings or misconduct or want of jurisdiction
on the part of the arbitrator. Thus an award made out of time cannot be
enforced. As to arbitration generally, see title Arbitration". For form of
award, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Yol. I., p. 473.
{m) Ibid., s. 15.
(w) Ibid., s. 17. See County Court Eules, Ord. 40, rr. 7, 8, and see, generally,
title County Courts.
(o) Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 48), s. 10 (1). See, also, title
Public Health.
(p) Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 48), s. 14 (1), which is repealed by
the Act of 1907. See also sect. 229 of the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Yict.
c. 55), and title Public Health.
(q) Allotments Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Yict. c. 65), s. 6 (2). The exception in the
case of a rural authority is repealed by the Act of 1907.
.
Allotments, 359
must be credited to the parish on account of which the land was Sect. 6.
acquired (?•). Under

Allotments
788. As from January 1, 1908, separate accounts must be kept of Acts.
the receipts and expenditure of a council under the Allotments Acts,
Accounts.
and any receipts must, subject to the provisions of the Acts, be
applied to the purpose of the Acts, and not for any other purpose
except with the consent of the Local Government Board and for ;
the purpose of the provisions relating to the audit of accounts (s),

any persons appointed by an urban sanitary authority under the
Allotments Acts, or by a parish meeting under the Small Holdings
and Allotments Act, 1907, to exercise and perform powers and
duties as to the management of allotments {t), shall be deemed to
be officers of the sanitary authority or parish meeting as the case
may be (u)
789. Expenses incurred by a county council in executiag the Expenses of
Allotments Acts or in connection with a local inquiry under the Acts, county
councils.
are to be paid in the first instance out of the county fund as for
general county purposes, and, unless defrayed out of moneys received
by the council in respect of any land acquired under the Allotments
Acts, otherwise than by sale or exchange, or out of money borrowed
under the Acts, they must, when the powers and duties of the
district or parish council are transferred to the county council under
the Allotments Act, 1890, be repaid to the county council as a debt
by the district or parish council (a).
The expenses of a county council incurred in respect of the com-
pulsory purchase of lands for allotments under the Local Government
Act, 1894 (b), are to be defrayed in like manner as in the case of a
local inquiry by a county council under that Act (c).
790. Sums received by a county council in respect of any land Receipts by

acquired under the Allotments Act, 1890, otherwise than from sale ôundls
or exchange, in so far as they are not required for the payment of
{r) Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 48), s. 10 (3), wliich is repealed by
the Act of 1907.
(s) For the provisions as to audit of accounts, see title Local Government.
(t) See p. 352, ante.
(/() Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 37. For the
accounts of authorities and persons acting under earlier Acts, see Allotments
Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 48), s. 10 (6); Allotments Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Yict.
c. 65), s. 4 (c) (these provisions are repealed by the Act of 1907)
; and the Local
Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 73), s. 58 (2); also under title Public
Health.
(a) Allotments Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Yict. c. 65), s. 6 (1), as affected by the
Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 47, and Sched. II.
(6) Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 73), s. 9, as amended by the
Act of 1907.
{<) Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 73), s. 9 (19).
By s. 72 (4) of the Act of 1894 the expenses incurred by the county council
thi ough the application of the council or inhabitants of a parish or district in
relation to a local inquiry (including the expenses of any committee or person
authorised b}^ the county council) are to be paid by the council of that parish or
district, or, in the case of a parish which has not a parish council, by the parish
meeting; but, with this exception, the expenses of inquiries held under the Act
are to be paid out of the county fund.
S —
360 Allotments,
Sect. 6. expenses incurred by them in respect of such land, are to be paid to

Under the district council or parish council as the case may be (d).
Allotments
Sub-Sect. 6. Miscellaneous.
Transfer of
powers etc. 791. The powers of the Local Government Board under the Allot-
under Allot- ments Acts, except such of those powers as relate to the finance of
ments Acts. local authorities, will be transferred to the Board of Agriculture and
Fisheries as from January 1, 1908, and if any question arises as
to whether any power is a power which is so transferred the question
must be determined by the Local Government Board, whose
decision will be final (e).
Annual report 792. The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries must make an annual
to Parlia-
report to Parliament of their proceedings, and of the proceedings of
ment.
the Small Holdings Commissioners under the Small Holdings
and Allotments Act, 1907, and also of the proceedings of the
several county, borough, district, and parish councils under the
Allotments Acts, 1887 to 1907, and for that purpose every council
must, before such date in every year as the Board may fix, send to
the Board a report of their proceedings under the Acts during the
preceding year (/).
Application 793. The powers conferred on sanitary authorities by the Allot-

of Acts in
ments Acts, 1887 to 1907, may in London be exercised by the
London.
London County Council, and the Acts will apply accordingly, except
that, subject to the provisions of the Act of 1907, the expenses must
be defrayed, and money borrowed, under and in accordance with the
provisions of the Local Government Act, 1888 (g).
Co-operative 794. A county council may promote the formation or extension of,
societies.
and may, under certain conditions, assist financially, societies on a
co-operative basis, having for their object or one of their objects
the provision or the profitable working of allotments, whether in
relation to the purchase of requisites, the sale of produce, credit
banking or insurance or otherwise, and may employ as their agents
for the purpose any society having as its object or one of its objects
the promotion of co-operation in connection with the cultivation of
allotments (li).
Grants by With the consent of the Local Government Board, and subject
county to regulations to be made by that Board, a county council may,
council.
for the purpose of assisting a society, make grants or advances
to the society, or guarantee advances made to the society, upon
such terms and conditions as to rate of interest and repayment
or otherwise, and on such security, as the county council think fit,
and the making of such grants or advances will be a purpose for
(d) Allotments Act, 1890 (53 & 54yict. c. 65), s. 6 (3), as amended by the Act
of 1907.
(e) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 20 (1).
(/) Ihid., s. 44. As the Act does not come into operation until January 1,
1908, it follows that no report can be required before January, 1909.
{g) Ibid., s. 25. As to these provisions, see titles Local Government and
-M] E T H 0 1* O Ij I
(A) Small koldings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 39 (1), (4).
;
Allotments. 361
which a council may borrow under the Small Holdings Act, Sect. 6.
1892 (0. Under

The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, with the consent of the Allotments
Treasm7, may out of the Small Holdings Account {k) make grants Acts.
upon such terms as the Board may determine, to any society having Grants by
as its object or one of its objects the promotion of co-operation in Board of
Agriculture
connection with the cultivation of allotments (l).
and Fisheries,
(?) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 89 (2). A
county council may borrow money for the purposes of providing small holdings
any borrowing must be in accordance with the Local Government Act, 1888
(51 & 52 Yict. c. 41), or, in the case of a county borough, with the Public Health
Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Yict. c. 55). See Small Holdings Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict,
c. 31), s. 19, and Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54),
s. 14, and title Small Holdings.

See title Small Holdings.
{k)
(/) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 54), s. 39 (4). The
various powers referred to in sub-s. 6 do not become operative until January 1,
1908.
ALLUVION.
See Waters and Watercourses.
ALTERATION OF DOCUMENTS.
AMBASSADORS.
See Action; Constitutional Law; Criminal Law and Procedure.
( 362 )
AMBIGUITY.
AMENDMENT.
See Criminal Law and Procedure ; Pleading ; Practice and
Procedure.
AMUSEMENTS.
See Theatres, Music Halls and Shows.
ANCIENT DEMESNE.
See Keal Property and Chattels Ebal.
ANCIENT LIGHTS.
( 863 )
ANIMALS,
Paet I. CLASSIFICATION OE ANIMALS ----- PAGE

365
Part II. PEOPEKTY IN ANIMALS ------ 365

Sect. L Ciyil Eights
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
1.
2.
Domestic Animals
Wild Animals -
------ 365
365
365
Sub-sect. 3. Property in Wild Animals when Killed - - 367
Sect. 2. Criminal
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
1.
2.
Law -
Domestic Animals
Wild Animals
-
------
-
-
- - - - - 368
368
370
Part in.
Sect.
LIABILITY OP OWNERS OP ANIMALS
1. Lstjuries
Sub-sect. 1.
Caused by Animals -----
Injuries by Domestic and Harmless Animals
- - -
-
372
372
372
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
2.
3. Injuries to a Trespasser -----
Injuries by Wild and Dangerous Animals - 374
375
Sect. 2. Trespass by Animals
Sub-sect. 1. Domestic Animals
-
------
-
-----
- - - - -375
375
Sect.
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
3. Distress
2.
3.
Trespass from Highway
Wild Animals
Damage Peasant-
------
-----
377
378
378
Sub-sect. 1. The Seizure - - - - - - - 378
Sub-sect. 2. Impounding the Distress - _ - - 382
Sub-sect. 3. Eescue and Pound-Breach - - - - 385
Part IV. THE CONTRACT OP AOISTMENT - - - - 386
Part Y. WARRANTY ON SALE OP ANIMALS 388
----------
- - -
Part YI.
Sect.
DOGS
1. -------
-------
At Common Law-
394
394
Sect.
Sub-sect.
Sub- sect.
2.
1.
2.
By Statute
------
In General
Trespass by Dogs
- -
394
395
397
Sub-sect. 1.
Sub-sect. 2. -------
Injuries to Cattle and Sheep
------
Stray Dogs
- - - - 397
398
Sub-sect. 3.
Sub-sect. 4. -------
Dangerous Dogs
------
Mad Dogs
399
399
Sub-sect. 5.
Sub-sect. 6. -----
Muzzling of Dogs
Burial of Carcases
400
400
Sub-sect: 7.
Sub-sect. 8.
Sub-sect. 9.
-------
Use of Dogs
______
Dogs Orders
Dog Licences
for Draught - - - - 400
400
403
Sub-sect. 10. Dog Stealing - - - - - - 405
Animals.
PAGE
Part YII. WILD BIEDS 405
Sect. 1. Ofeences - - - - - - - - - 405
Sect. 2. Peosecutiois- of Ofeendees - - - - - 408
Part YIII.
Sect.
Sect.
1.
2.
CETJELTY TO ANIMALS
G-eneral Oeeences
Special Offences
-------
------
- - - - - -
-
409
409
412
Sect. 3. Penalties and Procedtjee - - - - - 414
Sect. 4. Yivisection - - - - - - - -416
Sub-sect. 1. Offences- - - - - - - - 416
Sub-sect. 2. Procedure - - - - - - -417
Sect. 5. Destruction of Injured Animals - - - - 419
Part IX. DISEASES OE ANIMALS - - - - - - 419

Sect. 1. At Common Law - - - - - - -419
Sect. 2. By Statute
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
- -
1.
2.
In General -------
•-
Isolation of Infected Animals _ _

- - - - -
-
421
421
422
Sub-sect. Disinfection -
3. - - - - - ,
- 423
Sub-sect. 4. Importation of Animals _ - - _ 424
Sub-sect.
Circles -------
5. Declaration of Infected Places, Areas, and
425
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
7. Local Authorities ------
6. Slaughter of Animals and Compensation-
8. Enforcement of Statutory Provisions -

-
-
427
429
431
Sub-sect. 9. Offences - -
Sub-sect. 10. Carriage of Animals
Sub-sect. 11. Cows and Dairies -
-----
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
432
433
433
For Carriage of Animals- See title Carriers.

Damage to Crops hy Game etc. -
,, Agriculture.
Destructive Insects - - -
,, Agriculture.
Distress upon Animals Agriculture; Distress.
Fish and Fishing - - -
,, Game and Sport.
Fisheries- - - - -
,, Fisheries.
Game, Poaching etc. - - -
,, Game and Sport.
Hire of Animals _ - -
, , Bailment.
Horseflesh, Sale of -
,, EooD AND Drugs.
Horse Racing and Coursing ,, Gaming and Wagering.
Nuisances from Keeping Animals ,, Nuisance; Public Health.
Bale of Animals - - -
, ,
Auction and Auctioneers;
Sale of Goods.
Sale of Cattle hy Weight - ,-, Agriculture ; Markets
AND Pairs.
Slaughter Houses - _ - ,, Public Health.
Summary Procedure ,, Magistrates.
Veterinary Surgeons ,
, Medicine and Pharmacy.
— —— —
Part I. Classification of Animals. 365
Part I. — Classification of Animals.

Part I.
Classifica-
tion of
795. The term animals " may
be said to include all beasts, Animals.
birds, reptiles, fishes, and insects, and is so used here, except where Meaning of
some specially restricted meaning is indicated or stated {a). term
" animals." .
796. The common law follows the civil law in classifying Domestic or
animals in two divisions, as follows :
tame animals.
(1) Domestic or tame {domiUe, or mansuetcs, naturcE), This class
includes cattle, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, poultry, cats, dogs, and
all other animals which by habit or training live in association with
man (b).
(2)Wild {fercB natitrce), and not classed as domestic or tame. Wild animal
This class includes not only lions, tigers, eagles, and other animals
of an undoubtedly savage nature, but also deer, foxes, hares, rabbits,
game of all kinds, rooks, pigeons, wild fowl and the like, and
all fishes, reptiles and insects (c).
Part II. — Property in Animals.
Sect. 1. Civil Rights,
Sub-Sect. 1. Domestic Animals.
797. Domestic animals, like other personal and movable Absolute ^
chattels, are the subject of absolute property. The owner can ôêg^^^c^^
maintain trover for them, and retains his propert}^ in them if animals,
they stray or are lost {d). The property in the young of domestic
animals is in the owner of the mother {e), except in the case of
cygnets (/).
Sub-Sect. 2. Wild Animals.
798. There is no absolute property in wild animals while living, No absolute

and they are not goods or chattels {g). There may, however, be
^^j^J^^nhnai'
what is known as a qualified property in them, either (1) ratione
(a) The term "animals" is specially defined for the purposes of certain
statutes, e.g., the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 92), s. 29 (see
p. 409, post) ; the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 59
(seep. 421, post); and the Wild Animals in Captivity Protection Act, 1900
(63 & 64 Yict. c. 33), s. 1 (see p. 410, post), which includes fish and reptiles.
(6) 3 Co. Inst. 109 ; 1 Hale, P. C. 512.
(c) As to animals which, though originally wild, or ferce naturce, have been
tamed and are actually in a state of subjection, see p. 366, post. Domestic
animals which have reverted to a wild state are ferce naturce, see Falkland
Islands Co. v. The Queen (1863), 2 Moo. P. C. C. (n. s.) 266.
{d) Putt V. Roster (1682), 2 Mod. Eep. 318; Binstead v. Bnch (1776), 2 Wm. Bl.
1117.
(e) Brooke's Abridgment, tit. " Propertie," 29. The common law follows
the maxim of the civil law. Partus sequitur ventrem.
(/) See note (^), p. 366, post; 2 Bl. Com., ch. 25.
{g) Case of Swans {ld92), 7 Co. Eep. 16 a.
366 Animals.
Sect. 1. impotentice et loci, (2) ratione soli and ratione privilegii, or (3) per
Civil Rights, industriam, which may be more properly described as an exclusive

right to reduce them into possession (h).
(1) Qualified 799. A qualified property in living animals feo^ce naturce obtained
industriam, arises by taking, taming or reclaiming them (^).
Im^^Jam!' P^'^^
Animals ferce naturce become the property of any person who takes,
tames or reclaims them, until they regain their natural liberty (k).
Animals such as deer, swans, peacocks and doves are the subjects
of this qualified property, which is lost if they attain their natural
liberty, and have not the animus revertendi (l).
Thus trespass or trover will lie for taking a captive thrush,
singing bird, muskrat, parrot or ape, because, although they are
ferce naturce, they have been held to be merchandise and valuable
when in a state of captivity (m). Also for taking doves out of a
dovehouse (n), hares, pheasants or partridges in a warren or
inclosure (o), deer in a park (p), a hawk if tame (q), fish in a stew
pond (7*), rabbits in a warren (s), swans marked or in private
waters (t), or bees from a hive.
Bees. Bees are fercB naturce, and there is no property in them except by
reclamation. Thus, if a swarm settle on a man's tree, no property
passes until the bees are hived when hived, they become the
;
property of the hiver and if a swarm leaves the hive this property
;
continues in the hiver so long as they can be seen and followed

Deer. Deer, though strictly speaking Jerce natures (x), if reclaimed
(h) See Case of Swans (1592), 7 Co. Eep. 17 b; Blades y. Higgs (1865), 11
H. L. Lord Westbury, L.C., at p. 631, and Lord CHELMsroRD, at
Cas. 621, per
p. 638 compare JEwart v. Graham (1859), 7 H. L. Cas. 331, per Lord Campbell,
;
L.C., at p. 344; KebJe v. Hichringill (1706), 11 Mod. Eep. 74, 76.

('/) Case of Sicans, supra ; Blades v. Higgs, supra, per Lord Chelmseord, at
p. 638.
{h) Bracton, lib, ii. cap. i.
il) Case of Swans, supra; Bracton, supra.

{m) Brooke's Abridgment, tit. "Trespas," 407; Orymes v. ShacTc (1611), Cro.
(Jac.) 262.
Com. Dig. "Trespass,"
(n) 1 A
Fitzberbert, Nat. Brev. 88 1.
;
Fitzberbert, Nat. Brev. 86 M, 87 A.

(0)
Ip) Mallocke y. Easily (1685), 3 Lev. 227.

{q) Fines v. Spencer (1571), 3 Dyer, 306 b.
(r) Pollexfen v. Crispin (1671), 1 Ventr. 122.
(s) Fitzberbert, Nat. Brev. 86 M, 87 A.
(f)
Case of Swans, supra. Tbere is mucb learning in tbis case relating to
swans. Tbe wbite swan, not marked, in open and common rivers is a royal
fowl, and belongs to tbe King. A
subject may, bowever, bave property
in wbite swans, not marked, in bis manor or private waters, and if tbey
escape be may bring tbem back again, but if tbey gain tbeir natural
liberty tbe King's officers may seize tbem. It is said, too, tbat by tbe
custom of tbe realm, wbicb is common law in sucb case, tbe cygnets belong
equally between tbe owner of tbe cock and tbe owner of tbe ben swan, for
. tbe cock swan boldetb bimself to one female and is tbe emblem of an affec-
tionate and true busband to bis wife above all otber fowls. Tbe swans on
tbe Tbames now belong to tbe King, tbe Dyers' Company, and tbe Yintuers'
Company, and are all marked tbe cygnets are appropriated in tbe proportion
;
of tbree to tbe owner of tbe cock to two to tbe owner of tbe ben.
{u) Bracton, lib. ii. cap. 1; 2 Bl. Com. 392; compare HannamY. Mockett (1824),
2 B. & C. 934, at p. 944. See also p. 375, post.
(ce) Blades v. Higgs, supra, per Lord Westbtjry at p. 631.
. — —
Part II. Property in Animals. 367
and kept in inclosed ground are the subject of property, pass to Sect, i.
the executors (i/) and are liable to be taken in distress (-e).

, Civil Rights.
800. The owner of land has a qualified property ratione im- (2) Qualified
potentice et loci in the young of animals fercE natiirce born on the property
ratione impo-
land until they can fly or run away (a), as where hawks, herons, or tentice et loci.
rabbits make their nests or burrows on the land and have young ;
and an action of trespass (b) will lie for taking young animals so
born (c).
801. The owner of land, who has retained the exclusive right ; to (3) Qualified
hunt, take and kill animals ferce naturae on his own land, has a property
ratione soli
qualified property ratione soli in them for the time being while they and ratione
are there {d) But if such an owner grants to another the right to Ijrivilegii.
.
hunt, take and kill SLmmals ferce natures on his land, the grantee has
a qualified property ratione privilegii (e), as in the case of a free
warren on another man's soil (/), or a licence or grant of shooting
or sporting rights (g). Such a grant is an incorporeal heredita-
ment and an interest in realty, and amounts to a licence of a profit d
prendre which can only be validly granted or demised by deed (/i).
Sub-Sect. 3. Projperty in Wild Animals when Killed.
802. Although there is only a qualified property in animals Right of pro-
ferce naturcewhile they are alive, yet if they are killed, or die, there ^îV ^^^^
IS an absolute property in the dead animal, which vests in the owner
or occupier of the land, or the grantee or licensee of shooting or
—
sporting rights as the case may be the grantee or licensee of
sporting rights has an absolute property in game killed, and may
maintain an action against anyone infringing his rights therein {i) .
803. The absolute property which the owner or occupier of land, wild animals,
or the grantee of the privilege, has in dead animals fercE naturm is Y^^^^
^^^P^^^^^*
not confined to animals killed by him or his agents, and if the
animals are killed by a trespasser, the trespasser has no property
in them {k)
Thus in a case of trespass for breaking the plaintiff's close and Poachers,
hunting, killing, taking, and carrying away a hundred rabbits there
found, it was moved in arrest of judgment that conies were fercE
(y) Morgan v. Earl of Ahergavenny (1849), 8 0. B. 768 ; Ford v. Tynte (1861),

2 J. & H. 150.
(2) Davies v. Powell (1737), Willes, 46.
(a) Case of Siuans (1592), 7 Co. Eep. 17 b.
(6) Ihid. and Fitzherbert, Nat. Brev. 86 L, 89 K.
;
(c) Blades v. Biggs (1865), 11 H. L. Gas. 621; per Lord Westbitry, L.C, at
p. 631.
(d) Ibid.
(e) Blades v. Higgs, supra; and per Powell, J., in Kehle v. Hickringill
(1706), 11 Mod. Eep. 74, 75.
(/) Ihid.
{g) For forms of such, licences and grants, see Encyclopaedia of Forms,
Vol. YIL, pp. 599—632.
{Ji) Ewart Y. Graham (1859),7 H. L. Cas. 331.
(t) Fitzgerald v. Firbank, [1897] 2 Ch. 96; compare Lowe v. Adams, [1901] 2
Ch. 598.
(k) Sutton V. Moody (1697), 1 Ld. Eaym. 250 ; and see per Westbury, L.C,
in Blades v. Higgs, supra.
. ——
368 Animals.
Sect. 1. naturce,and therefore there was no property in them in any one,

Civil Rights. and no damages ought to be given but the plaintiff had judgment ;
" because he had property by the possession " {I). If poachers

take rabbits, sell them, and send them avsây by rail, the servants
of the owner of the land are justified in following them up and
taking possession of them from the purchaser {m), and if a customary
tenant, who has a right of pasturing only, such as a cattle-gate,
shoots grouse on his cattle-gate, the lord of the manor may maintain
trover for the dead grouse so killed (?^).
Huntsmen, If a trespasser starts an animal fercB naturce in the ground of one,
and hunts it into the ground of another and there kills it, the
property has been held to be in the killer (o) who, however, is ;
liable to an action of trespass for hunting in either ground. This

view of the law has been adversely criticised, but it has been
received for so long that it is not now likely to be altered by judicial
decision (p)
If a trespasser starts an animal naturce in a forest or warren
and hunts it into the ground of another and there kills it, the
property in the animal remains in the proprietor of the forest or
warren, because his privilege continues {q).
Sect. 2. Criminal Law.

At common 804. Domestic and tame animals, such as horses, cattle, oxen,
law.
sheep, poultry, peacocks, and all animals which are fit for human
food, and their young and eggs, are the subject of larceny at
common law (r). Dogs of all kinds (s), cats, and animals of a base
nature, are exceptions {t). The reason for this distinction has
been variously given as the baseness of their nature, that they are
not fit for food, and that they are kept merely for the whim or
pleasure of man. No doubt the real reason is the severity of the
ancient punishment for felony {u).
By statute. 805. To mare, gelding, colt, filly, bull, cow, ox,
steal a horse,
Stealing heifer, calf, ram, ewe, sheep or lamb, is felony, punishable with
horses, cows,
.€heep etc.
{!) Sutton V. Moody (1697), 1 Ld. Eaym. 250.
(m) Blades v. Higgs (1865), 11 H. L. Cas. 621.
(n) See Lord Lonsdale v. Bigg (1856), 11 ExcL.. 654, affirmed 1 H. & N. 923.
(o) Churchward Y. Studdy (1811), 14 East, 249; where a huntsman maintained
trespass for a dead hare against the owner of the land upon which the animal
wa s killed by hounds.
{p) See Blades v. Higgs, supra, at p. 640 and compare Gundry v. Feltham
;
(1786), 1 Term Eep. 334; Paul v. Summerhayes (1878), 4 Q. B. D. 9 (fox-

hunting) and see title Game and Sport.
;
{q) Per Lord HoLT in Sutton v. Moody, supra ; and see per Lord "Westbury,
Xj.G., in Blades v. Higgs, supra, at p. 633.
(r) 1 Hawk. P. C, bk. 1, c. 19, s. 43 ; 1 Hale, P. C. 511.
(s) See p. 394, post.
(t) 3 Co. Inst. 109 1 Hale, P. C. 512
; nor are they the subject of the crime of
;
obtaining by false pretences (B. v. Bobinson (1859), 28 L. J. (m. c.) 58 (dog) ).

(u) Case of Swans (1592), 7 Co. Eep. 18, citing 12 Hen. 8, 3, and 18 Hen.
8, 2, where it is said that bloodhounds or mastiffs are of "so base a nature that
no felony can b6 committed of them and no man shall lose life or member
for them." The skin of a dog when dead was always the subject of larceny, see
Halloway (1823), 1 C. & P. 127, note (b).
Part II. — PKOPERxr in Animals. 369
penal servitude for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or two Sect. 2.
years' hard labour (x). Criminal

Wilfully to kill any animal with intent to steal the carcase, skin, Law.
or any part of the animal so killed is felony (provided the offence Killing"
of stealing the animal would have amounted to felony (i/)), and animals with
is punishable as on a conviction for the stealinoj (z). intent to steal
the carcase.
806. To steal any bird, beast, or other animal ordinarily kept Stealing
beasts or birds
in a state of confinement or for any domestic purpose, and
not being the subject of larceny at common law, or 1 0 kill with ênt not the
intent to steal the same or any part thereof, is punishable on subject of
summary conviction with imprisonment with hard labour for a larceny,
term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding £20 above the
value of the animal, and on a subsequent conviction with imprison-
ment with hard labour for a term not exceeding twelve months {a) ;
and to be found in possession of any such bird or the plumage

thereof, or of any dog or any such beast or the skin thereof, knowing
the same to be stolen, is punishable with forfeiture thereof, and, on
a subsequent conviction, with the same penalties as if the offender
were convicted of stealing such bird or beast; and a justice may
make an order restoring the animal or its skin etc. to the owner (b).
807. Unlawfully and wilfully to kill, wound, or take any house Killing
dove or pigeon under circumstances that do not amount to larceny pigeons,
at common law is punishable on summary conviction with a fine
of £2 above the value of the bird(c). The right to prosecute is not
limited to the owner of the bird {d).
Unlawfully and maliciously to kill, maim, or wound any cattle is Killing or
a felony punishable with fourteen years' penal servitude (e). maiming
Unlawfully and maliciously to kill, maim, or wound any dog, bird,
beast, or other animal, not being cattle, but being either the subject
^^^J^f
of larceny at common law or being ordinarily kept in a state of other
confinement or for any domestic purpose, is punishable summarily animals,
with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not
exceeding ^620 above the amount of injury done a subsequent ;
offence is punishable with imprisonment with hard labour for a

term not exceeding twelve months (/).
It is not necessary to prove that the wounding was done with an
instrument (g) nor that there was an intention to kill, maim, or
;
(x) Larceny Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Yict. c. 96), s. 10.

{y) Killing a dog with intent to steal its carcase is not, therefore,a felony
under this section, as stealing a dog is not a felony at common law or under the
statute. As to larceny of dogs, see p. 405, post.
(z) Larceny Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Yict. c. 96), s. 11.
(a) Ibid., s. 21.
(b) Ibid., s. 22.
(c) Ibid., s. 23. A conviction under this section cannot be sustained where
a farmer, in order to protect his crops, shoots pigeons plundering his seeds
{Taylor v. Neiumaji (1863), 32 L. J. (m. c.) 186).
{d) Smith V. Bear (1903), 88 L. T. 664.
(e) Malicious Damage Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Yict. c 97), s. 40.
(/) Ibid., s. 41. When charged with a second offence, the accused has a
right to trial by jury (Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Yict. c.
49) s. 17).
(g) R. V. Bullock (1868), 11 Cox, C. C. 125.
H.L. — I. B B
;
870 Animals.
Sect. 2. wound, if the accused acted with knowledge that what he was doing
Criminal would so result, and did the act without caring whether the animal
Law. would be injured or not Qi). Setting a rat-trap to catch trespassing
cats and dogs has beeii held not to be within the provision (i).
Sub-Sect. 2. — Wild Animals.

At common 808. Living animals ferce natuvcE, unless reclaimed and fit for
law not human food, are not the subject of larceny at common law {k).
generally the
subject of They are not in the possession of the owner of the soil or privilege,
larceny. he having at most a qualified property in them, or a right to reduce
them into possession (Q. They belong to the soil, savour of the
realty, and until reduced into possession are nullius in bonis. Nor
are animals ferce naturae which are kept merely for the whim or
pleasure of man the subject of larceny at common law a rule no —
doubt made m
favorem vitce (m) therefore there can be no larceny
;
of a captive lion, bear, monkey, fox, or ferret (n).
Exceptions. 809. Living animals /e?-<^ nature useful for the food of man and
(1) Keclaimed —
reclaimed that is, actually tamed or in confinement are the —
animals. subject of larceny at common law, for a taking of them is a taking
out of the owner's possession.
Examples are, tame deer; rabbits or peacocks domesticated though
not actually in confinement fish in a stew, net, or private pond,
;
whence they can be taken at the will of the owner at any time
pheasants or partridges in an aviary or mew deer in a house or ;
even in a park if inclosed (o) swans marked and pinioned, or

;
unmarked, if tame and kept in private waters (^); young

pheasants and partridges hatched under a hen in a coop,
though unconfined and able to fly a little, if they are unable to
escape, for they are practically in the power and dominion of the
owner {q) pigeons in a dovecot, though they can fly to and fro,
;
which are tame(?-)j for they have the animus revertendi, and are
constructively in the owner's possession and control reclaimed ;
hawks or falcons (s) and young hawks taken from the nest
;
(though not the eggs {t) ) but not hares or rabbits in a forest, chase
;
{h) R. V. Welch (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 23.

{i) Bryan v. Eaton (1875), 40 J. P. 213 ; see pp. 396, 397, post.
{h) 2 East, P. C. 607.
{I) See p. 366, ante.
(m) See note [u] p. 368, ante.
(n) 2 East, P. C. 614. As to ferrets, see R v. Searing (1818), Euss. & Ey.
0. 0. 350.
(o) 1 Hawk. P. C, Sth ed. 149; 1 Hale, P. 0. 511; 3 Co. Inst. 109;
2 East, P. C. 607.
(p) Case ofSiuans (1592), 7 Co. Eep. 18 a.
(q) R. V. Cory (1864), 10 Cox, C. C. 23 ; R. v. SMcUe (1868), L. E. 1 C. C. E.

158.
(r) R. V. Cheafor (1851), 21 L. J. (m. c.) 43; R. v. BrooTis (1829), 4 C. & P.
131.
(s) 1 Hawk. P. C, supra: ''because of the very higli value formerly set _
on the bird " ;

compare 2 Bl. Com. 394 : "a relic of the tyranny of our ancient
sportsmen."
{t) 1 Hale.. P. C. 510 ; 1 Hawk. P. C, supra.
. —
Part II. Property in Animals. 371
or \Yarren, unless the warren is so inclosed that the owner can take Sect. 2.
them at his will (x). Criminal

It has heen said [x) that to convict of larceny of a reclaimed Law.
wild animal, the animal must he known to the thief to be reclaimed. Thief must
This only amounts to a strict proof of the animus farandi if the know animal ;
thief takes it out of actual confinement, such as a pen or aviary, to be

reclaimed.
there can be no question that he knows it is reclaimed; if the
animal is merely tamed and at large, he may not have known it was
not wild: a question of evidence in each case.
it is So if a man is
indicted for receiving pheasants stolen out of a coop or aviary, it is
a good defence to prove that there was nothing to show that they
were not wdld birds and that he took them as such.
810. The bodies of wild animals which have been killed are the (2) Dead wild
subject of larceny (?/), for when such animals are found and killed
they become the absolute property of the owner of the soil, even if
killed by a trespasser, unless the trespasser started an animal
on the land of one person, and killed it on the land of another (^).
If, however, the killing and carrying away are one continuous
act, an indictment for larceny does not lie, owing to the peculi-
arity of the law of larceny; the ownership in the animals is
considered as incident to the property in the land, and severing
and immediately taking away things attached to the freehold is
not a felonious taking so as to amount to larceny (a). If a
W'rong-doer abandons possession after killing, and returns later
with a " fresh intention of taking away," this is larceny, but
merely hiding his spoil in a ditch for two or three hours is not
sufficient {b)
811. Unlawfully and wilfully to course, hunt, snare, carry away, stealing deer,
or kill or wound, or attempt to kill or wound, any deer kept or being
in the uninclosed part of any forest, chase, or purlieu is punishable
summarily before a justice with a fine not exceeding ^50, and a
subsequent ofience is an indictable felony punishable with two years'
imprisonment (c). The same offence committed where the deer are
kept in the inclosed part of any forest, chase, or purlieu, or in any
inclosed land where deer are usually kept, is a felony liable to the
same punishment (c?).
812. Other statutory offences which render the accused liable on Other
summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20 are, being unlaw-
ogg^^gj-^
fully in possession of deer or parts of them, or of engines or snares
(x) See note (o), p. 370, ante,

{y) 3 Co. Inst. 109.
[z) Blades v. Higgs (1865), 11 H. L. Cas. 631.
(a) Ibid., at p. 634, per Lord Westbury, L.C. ; JR. v. Toiunley (1870), L. E.
1 C. C. R. 315. Nor does such a taking amount to embezzlement of the animals.
{R. V. Read (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 131).
(&) Compare R. v. Roe (1870), 11 Cox, C. C. 554 R. v. Toiunley, supra; R.
;
V. Fetch (1878), 14 Cox, C. C. 116; R. v. Foley (1889), L. R. 26 Ir. 299. The

technical distinction in these cases does not affect the civil rights of property
in the animals immediately they are killed.
(c) Larceny Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 96), s. 12.
(ri) Ihid., s. 13.
B B 2
— —
372 Animals.
Sect. 2. for taking them, and unlawfully setting such engines or snares in
Criminal any part of a forest,whether inclosed or not, or in any inclosed land.
Law. or destroying fences where deer are kept {e) and the deer-keepers ;
may demand and seize the guns, snares, or dogs of offenders, who,
if they beat or wound the deer-keepers, are guilty of felony punish-
able with two years' imprisonment (/). Taking or killing hares

or rabbits at night in any warren or ground lawfully used for
breeding and keeping them is an indictable misdemeanour {g).
The same offence in the day-time or setting snares is punishable
summarily before a justice with a fine not exceeding d65 {li).
Part III. — Liability of Owners of Animals.

Sect. 1. Injuries caused hy Animals.
Sub-Sect. 1. Injuries hy Domestic and Harmless Animals.

Scienter. 813. The law assumes that animals which from their nature are
harmless, or are rendered so by being domesticated for generations,
are not of a dangerous disposition©; and the owner of such an
animal is not, in the absence of negligence, liable for an act of a
vicious or mischievous kind which it is not the animal's nature
usually to commit, unless he knows (k) that the animal has that par-
ticular vicious or mischievous propensity proof of this knowledge, ;
or scienter, is essential (I).

Under this rule it has been held that it is not in the ordinary
nature of horses (m), bulls {n), or rams (o) to injure human beings,
or of a boar to bite a mare {p), or of a dog to worry sheep, bite
(e) Larceny Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Yict. c. 96), ss. 14, 15. person cannot be A
convicted under s, 14 of being in unlawful possession of deer which he has killed
neither on the uninclosed nor the inclosed part of a forest, but on the land of a
third person outside the limits of the forest {Threlkeld v. Smith, [1901] 2 K.B. 531).
(/) Ihid., s. 16.
[g) Ihid., s. 17. For punishment, see s. 117.
{h) Ihid., s. 17.
[i) Per EsHER, M.E., in Filhurn v. People's Palace and Aquarium Co. (1890),
25 a B. D. at p. 261.
(k) May v. Burdett (1846), 9 Q. B. 101, where a declaration that contained
DO allegation of negligence was held good; and the gist of the action was said
to be keeping the animal (a monkey) after knowledge of its mischievous pro-
pensities.
(/) A very ancient rule ;
compare 1 Dyer, 25 b, pi. 162; 1 Yin. Abr. 234 Lord
;
Holt Mason v. Keeling (1700), 1 Ld. Eaym, 606, and the

in earlier authorities
there cited; and B. v. Huggins (1730), 2 Ld. Eaym. at p. 1583, for a state-
ment of the law.
(m) Cox V. Burhidge (1863), 13 0. B. (n. s.) 430 Hammach v. White (1862), 11 ;
C. B. (N. s.) 588.

(n) Hudson v. Boherts (1851), 6 Exch. 697 Blachman v. Simmons (1827), 3 C. &
;
P. 138 Buxendin v. Sharp (1696), 2 Salk. 662. It has been decided in America
;
that the owner of a bull is liable without proof of scienter if it attacks a horse
[Dolph V. Ferris (1844), 7 W. & Serg. Pa. 367), and it seems often to be the dis-
position of horned cattle to attack horses [per Blackburn, J., in Smith y. Cooh
(1875), 1 Q,. B. D. at p. 82), though this case is not a decision upon the point.
(o) Jackson v. Smithson (1846), 15 M. & W. 563.
(p) Jenkins v. Turner (1696), 1 Ld. Eaym. 109.

. — ;
Part III. Liability of Owners of Animals. 373
cattle and horses, or attack human bemgs (q). The law as to proof Sect. i.
of scienter in cases of dogs injuring cattle, sheep, horses, mares {r), Injuries by
and pigs (s) has been altered by statute {t). Animals,
814. The evidence of the scienter must be directed to the particular Proof of
^^^^'^î^^-
mischievous propensity that caused the damage. In order to recover
for the bite of a dog on a human being, it is necessary to show that
the owner had notice of the disposition of the dog to bite mankind
that the dog had previously bitten a goat is not enough (zt), though
to prove a general savage or ferocious disposition towards mankind,
and that it was in the habit of rushing at people and attempting
to bite them, is sufficient without proof of any actual previous
bite {x)
A caution not to go near a dog (y), and a statement that a particular
bull would run anything red (z), have been held to be evidence of
at
scienter it is doubtful whether an offer of compensation is evidence,
;
and if left to the jury at all, it ought to have little or no weight

with them (a).
815. Knowledge of the animal's mischievous propensity need Scienter of

not always be the personal knowledge of the owner himself. If he agent,
delegates the care of his business or the care and control of his
animal to others, notice to them is equivalent to notice to himself
upon the ordinary principle of respondeat superior. Therefore
the knowledge of a servant, such as a coachman, who ordinarily
has control over a dog kept in the stable yard, is the knowledge
of his master {h), and a complaint made on the premises to a wife
who helped in her husband's business has been held to be evidence
of scienter in an action against the husband (c) and so have com- ;
plaints made to persons serving behind the bar of a public-house

in an action against the publican (d), although there was no
{q) 1 Dyer, 25 b. pi. 162 Mason v. Keeling (1700), 1 Ld. Eayiii. 606. As to
;
dogs hunting and killing game, compare Read v. Ediuards, note [l), p. 377, post.
(?•) Wright V. Pearson (1869), L. E. 4 Q. B. 582.
(s) Child V. Hearn (1874), L. E. 9 Exch. 176.
{t) See p. 397, post.
iu) Osborne v. Chocqueel, [1896] 2 Q. B. 109.

{x) Worth V. Gill'ing (1866), L. E. 2 0. P. 1, where the dog was chained up
in a yard; the mere fact that the dog was a fierce one will not, however,
suffice, jîer Lord Ellenborough in Beck v. Dyson (1815), 4 Camp. 198. In
Jones V. Perry (1796), 2 Esp. 482, Lord Kenyon said that precautions used to
tie up a dog showed a knowledge that the animal was fierce and not safe to be
permitted to go abroad compare Curtis v. Mills (1833), 5 C. & P. 489; and see
;
Barnes v. Lucile, Ltd. (1907), 23 T. L. E. 389 (bitch only fierce when with pups).
(y) Judge v. Cox (1816), 1 Stark. 285; compare j5er Abbott, J., in Hartley v.
Harriman (1818), 1 B. & Aid. at p. 623. Compare also Phillips v. Paterson (1907),
Times, January lo, 1907.
(2) Hudson V. Roherts (1851), 6 Exch. 697.
(a) Thomas v. Morgan (1835), 2 C. M. & E. 496. In Beck v. Dyson, supra,
Lord Ellenborough refused to leave an offer of compensation to the jury as
evidence of scienter.
(b) Baldtvin y. Casella (1872), L. E. 7 Exch. 325.
(c) Oladman v. Johnson (1867), 36 L. J. (c. P.) 153. Compare Miller v. Kimbray
(1867), 16 L. T, 360 (where notice to her deceased husband did not render a
widow liable) Elliott v. Lotigden (1901), 17 T. L. E. 648 (notice to son aged
;
eleven).
{d) Applebee v. Percy (1874), L. E. 9 C. P. 0)4,1, per Coleridge, C.J., and
—
374 Animals.
Sect. 1. evidence that such complaints were ever communicated to the

Injuries by owner.
Animals. But the mere fact that some servant in the defendant's employ-
ment has knowledge is not sufficient. It must be a servant who has
actual management or control over the premises or business or the
animal {e) .
Who is liable It is not essential that the defendant should be the real owner of
as owner. the animal. Anyone who keeps it on his premises or allows it to
resort there may be liable (/), though if the animal has strayed
there, and he has done nothing to encourage it or exercise control
over it, he will not then be responsible (g).
Negligence. 816. The Owner of a domestic and harmless animal may, how-
ever, be liableon the ground of negligence. Thus, where two dogs
leashed together rushed against a passer-by and threw him down
and broke his leg, the owner was held liable on the ground of
negligence in having two big dogs coupled together on the highway
at night and not keeping them in hand (h).
Sub-Sect. 2. Injuries hy Wild and Dangerous Animals.

Liability 817. With regard to animals of a naturally savage and irre-
apart from
claimable character, such as lions or tigers, though there is nothing
scienter or
negligence. unlawful in keeping them, a man does so at his peril, and is liable
for any injury committed by them, irrespective of negligence or
knowledge {i). This is part of the broad principle of law that a
person who brings on to his land, or keeps, a dangerous thing is
liable, independently of negligence, if it escape and cause damage (Zc).
Therefore, if an animal is of a kind generally known to be dangerous
or mischievous, the owner is liable for any damage caused by it,
whether he have knowledge of its particular propensities or not (Z).
It is difficult to enunciate an exact formula for the classification
of dangerous animals. Whether they are ferce naturce so far as
Keating, J. (Brett, J., dissenting). Lord Coleridge suggested that it is a

question for the jury in each case whether the persons to whom notice was
given stood in such a relation to the defendant as to make it their duty to com-
municate it to him.
(e) Stiles V. Cardiff Steam Navigation Co. (1864), 33 L. J. (q. b.) 310._ The Court
in this case said that there was no difference between a corporation and an
individual in this respect (see also Applebee v. Ferci/ (1874), L. E. 9 C. P. 647).
(/) M'Kone v. Wood (1831), 5 C. & P. 1. The effect of this decision as far as
dogs are concerned was incorporated into the Dogs Act, 1865 (28 & 29 Yict.
c. 60), s. 2, which is now repealed and re-enacted with a slight alteration in
the Dogs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7', c. 32), s. 1. See note (n), p. 397, post.
{g) Smith Y. Great Eastern Bail. Go. (1866), L. E. 2 C. P. 4.
(A) Jones y. Owen (1871), 24 L. T. 587. As to liability of the owner of such
an animal to a tresj)asser, see p. 375, p)Ost.
(i) The duty of a person who owns a wild animal, as laid down in May v.
Burdett (1846), 9 Q. B. 101, is to keep it secuiê at his peril. If he does keep the
animal secure, e.g., tied up in a stable, he is not liable to a man who goes into the
stable to stroke the animal and gets injured by it, see Marlor v. Ball (1900), 16
T. L. E. 239 (zebras).
{h) Fletcher Y. Bylands (1866), L. E. 1 Exch. 265, and on appeal (1868), L. E.
3 H. L. 330 see per BowEisr, L. J., in Filhurn v. Beople's Balace and Aquarium
;
Go. (1890), 25 Q. B. D. at p. 261.

(l) 1 Hale, P. 0. 430.
— —— — ;
rights of property are concerned is not the question (7?^). Some ^^ct. l.
are certainly included, in that they are of a dangerous nature, and Injuries by
to this class belong monkeys, lions, tigers, bears, wolves and Animals,
elephants (0), which still remain wild and untamed, though indi-
viduals are brought to a degree of tameness which amounts to
domestication (0). It would seem that bees do not fall into this
category (p),
Sub-Sect. 3. Ljjm-ies to a Trespasser.
818. There being nothing unlawful in keeping a dangerous No liability

animal, unless it escapes, the owner is not liable for any injury
*J *e?son^^^^
done to a person who is himself a trespasser, or who brings the bringing^
injury upon himself (g). If a savage bull is kept in a properly injury upon
fenced field, and a trespasser enters and is gored, he has no remedy; i^™^^^^'
though if he is there under a claim of right, such as a right of
way, or even a contested right of way, he can maintain his action (?•).
Where a dog was tied up in a yard in the day-time and let loose at
night to protect the yard, a foreman who came into the yard after
it had been shut for the night, and was bitten, was nonsuited (?•).
Undoubtedly a man may keep a fierce dog to protect his property. Liability to
but he must not put it in the way of access to his house, so that persons
persons innocently coming to the house on lawful business may be ^^gi^^^^^
injured (s). If he does so, the fact that he puts up a notice,
"Beware of the dog," will not avail him if the person injured
cannot read, nor will the fact that the dog is chained up, if the
chain is so long that it can reach those who are passing it).
Sect. 2. Trespass by Animals.
819. The owner of animals clomitce natures is bound to keep them Liability of
under control, and is liable, if they escape, for such damage as owner.
(m) Per EsHER, M.E., in Filhurn v. People's Palace and Aquarium Co. (1890),
25 Q. B. D., at p. 259.
(n) BesozziY. Harris (1858), 1 E. & F. 92; Maij v. Burdett (1846), 9 Q. B. 101
1 Hale, P. 0. 430.
(0) Filhurn v. People's Palace and Aquarium Co., supra, per BowEJf, L.J.,
at p. 261.
(p) O'Oorman v. C Gorman, [1903] 2 Ir. E. 573, a case of injuries and subse-
quent death of a man through bees stinging his horse. The jury expressly
found negligence in that the bees were kept in unreasonable numbers and in an
unreasonable place, and were smoked out at an unreasonable time. Bees, unless
disturbed, do not generally sting, and probably the keeping of a few ordinary
hives in an ordinary place would not render the owner liable for damage caused
by their stings, in the absence of negligence. If kept in unreasonable
numbers, however, they may amount to a nuisance. See Parker v. Reynolds,
Birmingham Assizes, Times, December 17, 1906; and compare Lucas v. Pettit
(1907), 12 Ont. L. Eep. 448, a Canadian case noted in L. T. Journ., Vol. 123,
p. 33.
Marlor v. Ball (1900), 16 T. L. E. 239, see note (?:), p. 374, ante.
{q)
BrocM v. Copeland (1794), 1 Esp. 203.
(r)
(s) Per TiNDAL, C.J., in Barch v. Blackburn (1830), 4 C. «& P. 297, at p. 300.
[{) Ih'd, Compare Worth v. Gilling and Jones y. Perry, note (x), p. 373, ante,
and Stilts v. Cardiff Steam Navigation Co., note (e), p. 374, ante.
376 Animals.
Sect. 2. it is ordinarily in their nature to commit {u). The liability is an

Trespass by absolute liability independent of negligence, unless the escape or
Animals, trespass was involuntary (x) or caused by an act of God (y), or was
due to the act or default of the plaintiff (z), or of a third person for
whom he is not responsible {a). In practice the question usually
turns upon the question whose duty it is to maintain the fence
between two properties. The liability is limited to the reasonable
and natural consequences of the animal escaping (b).
Defences. 820. The owner of cattle, therefore, has a good defence if he
can prove that the plaintiff was under some obligation to maintain
the fence on his land and that the animals trespassed owing to the
fault of the plaintiff (z) in not maintaining the fence or that it was ;
the duty of a third party, such as a railway company (a), under whom
the plaintiff held, to fence; or indeed, as it is suggested, simply that
it was not his duty to keep the fence in repair. It is naturally to
be expected that when cattle, sheep, poultry, and the like, stray
into a neighbour's land or garden, they will devour his grass, corn,
or vegetable produce, and their owner is liable for the damage (b).
It is in the ordinary course of nature that one horse should kick
another, especially a strange one, when loose in a field, and the
damages are not too remote therefore the owners of a trespassing
;
mare that injured a horse in this way (c), and of a stallion which
bit and kicked a mare through a wire fence (d), were held liable for
the damage ; and it is apprehended that if two geldings or mares
get together, and injury ensues, the damages are not too remote.
It is a trespass if any part of the animal crosses the boundary of
the properties, whether it gets through the fence (e) or stretches its
neck over a ditch (/). It is not, however, in the ordinary course of
(u) The modern decisions all agree in making the liability in trespass apart from
negligence. See per Brett, J., in Ellis v. Loftus Iron Co. (1874), L. E. 10 C. P.
10, at p. 13, citing Com. Dig. Trespass, C. ; and per Lord Coleridge, C.J., in
Tillett V. Ward (1882), lO Q. B. D. 17, at p. 19. Sir William Blackstone (3 Bl.
Com. c. xii.) says negligence.
tlie liability is Perhaps the most accurate state-
ment of the in an early case of trespass {8tar v. Rookeshy (1710), 1 Salk.
law is
335), where the Court resolved that "either trespass or case lies: trespass
because it was the plaintiff's ground and not the defendant's and case because ;
the first wrong was nonfeasance and neglect to repair, and that omission is the
gist of the action, and trespass is only consequential damage." In an earlier
case, Anon. (1675), 1 Ventr. 264, the declaration was in case in defectu fensu-
rarum. The question is now settled, but it has something more than an academic
interest, because in an action of trespass it would lie upon the defendant to plead
and prove that he was excused by the fact that he was not liable to repair the
fence, whereas in case the plaintiff would allege and prove the duty to repair, and
this may have an important bearing on the burden of proof in an action at the
present day.
(x) Y. B. 37 Hen. 6, 37 pi. 26 Milhn v. Fawdry (1625), Poph. 161 Beckwith
; ;
V. 81iordike (1767), 4 Burr. 2092.

iy) See Powell v. Salishury (1828), 2 Y. & J. 391.
(z) See Singleton v. Williamson (1861), 31 L. J. (ex.) 17.
(a) Wiseman v. Booker (1878), 3 C. P. D. 184.
{I) Per Williams, J., in Cox v. Burbidge (1863), 13 C. B. (n. s.) 430, at p. 438.
(c) Lee Y.Riley (1865), 18 C. B. (n. s.) 722:
{d) Ellis V. Loftus Iron Co., supra.

(e) Compare Ellis v. Loftus Iron Co., supra ; Wiseman v. Booker, supra.
If) Ponting v. Noakes, [1894] 2 Q. B. 281.

— —
Yawt III. Liability of Owners of Animals. 377
nature for horses to kick human beings. Where a horse trespassed êct: 2.
on to a higinvay and there kicked and injured a child, the owner Trespass by-
was not liable in the absence of proof that he knew the horse was Animals,
of a vicious nature (^y), for without such knowledge the damages
are too remote, there being nothing to connect the trespass with the
act of the horse kicking {Ji).
821. If a man
reclaims wild animals and puts them on his land, Damage by
he is liable, they trespass, for any damage caused by them auimals^^
if
which it is their ordinary nature to commit. Thus where

pigeons from a dovecot fly on to neighbouring land and eat the corn,
their owner is liable in an action for the loss of the corn(?).
Whether it is in the ordinary nature of hived bees to sting men or
cattle (/t), or of dogs to chase and kill game {I), seems doubtful on the
authorities, though it is difficult to resist the fact that everyone
knows that they often do so. And an interesting question still open
is for how long the owner of a reclaimed animal is liable after its
escape. It is presumably a question of fact as to whether the
animal has reverted to the wild state or not {m).
Sub-Sect. 2. Trespass from Highway.

822. An exception to the rule above stated exists in the case of Negligence
essential,
cattle trespassing from a highway, while lawfully there for the
purpose of passing and repassing and using it as a highway (n) in ;
such cases it is necessary to prove negligence, and in the absence

of negligence the owner of the cattle is not liable for the damage (o).
It is a risk a man takes who has property adjoining the highway,
and the loss falls upon him if he does not take precautions by
(g) Cox V. Burbidge (1863), 13 0. B. (n. s.) 480. See also Hadwell v. Bighton,
[1907] 2 K. B. 345, where a cyclist who was upset by a fowl in the road was
held not entitled to recover,
(/<) Eemoteness of damage, it is suggested, is the true distinction between this
case and the other horse cases, such as Lee v. Biley and Ellis v. Loftus Iron Co.,
notes [u] and (c), p. 376, supra; see per Erle, C. J., in the former case. Whether
the action is for trespass or negligence, proof of scienter is necessary to make
the damages a reasonable consequence where it is a human being that is kicked.
{i) Dewell v. Sanders (1618), Cro. Jac. 490, where it was said that a dovecot is
not a common nuisance, but that the judges of assize may take cognisance of
it. " Three judges in this case argued that if pigeons come upon my land, I may
kill them, and the owner hath not any remedy. But the fourth held the con-
trary, that the party hath jus propriefatis in them, for they are domestics, and
have animum revertendi, and ought not to be killed, and for killing them
an action lies ;but the other opinion is the best," says the reporter. It is not
a statutory offence. See note (c), p. 369, ante, and Taylor v. Neiuman, there cited.
(k) See note (p), p. 375, aide.
(l) See Bead v. Edwards (1864), 17 C. B. (n. S.) 245, in which case scienter was
alleged and proved and as to the important question of trespass of dogs, see
;
p. 395, post.
(m) See Brady v. Warren, [1900] L. E. 2 Ir. 632, where the defendant was
held liable for damage done by park deer which had escaped some six years
previously, and had wandered about uncontrolled ever since. Compare Mitcliil
V. Alestree (1677), 1 Yentr. 295, per Twisden, J.
{n) Per Darling, J., in Lvscomhe v. Great Western Bail. Co., [1899] 2 Q. B. 303,
at p. 316, where it was held that a railway company is not bound to fence against
straying and trespassing cattle, under s. 68 of the Railways Clauses Consolida-
tion Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 20).
(o) Per Lord Coleridge, C.J., in Til/ett v. Ward (1882), 10 Q. B. D. 17, at p. 20.
—
378 Animals.
Sect. 2. fencing or otherwise to protect it (p). Where, therefore, an ox was

Trespass by being driven through the street of a town and went into a shop
An imal s, through an open door without any negligence on the part of the
drover, and did damage before it could jbe driven out, the owner was
not liable (q).
Sub-Sect. 3. — Wild Animals.
No trespass 823. No action for the trespass of animals fevce naturce on the
by wild land of another will lie for the owner has only a qualified property
;
animals.
in them while they are alive, and they go with and belong to the
soil as soon as they have crossed from the land of one man to that
;
of another they belong to the latter, or, more strictly, he has the
right to kill them and reduce them into possession {r). An owner
of land, therefore, is not liable for the damage done by rabbits or
other wild animals that come from his land (for his neighbour
may kill them as soon as they come on his land (s) ) unless he
brings on to his land a greater quantity of game or wild animals
than can reasonably and properly be kept on it in which case he ;
is liable for damage done by them on the principle Sic utere tuo ut
alienum non laedas (t).
Nuisance. It isapprehended that an action will not lie unless the defen-
dant has actually brought the animals on to the land a mere ;
failure to keep the existing stock within reasonable limits would

not, apart from express agreement to do so, be sufficient and the ;
fact that rabbits have become a nuisance owing to their numbers

does not justify entering upon the land of another and digging up
the burrows to abate the nuisance (x).
Sect. S.— Distress Damage Feasant,

Sub -Sect. 1. The Seizure.
Nature of 824. By an old common law remedy similar to distress for rent,
remedy. damage feasant, trespassing animals may be seized
called distress
and impounded to secure compensation for the damage done by
them.
Who may 825. Any landowner or person having possession of land or a
distrain.
maintain an action of trespass may
sufficient interest in land to
(p) Per Pollock, C.B., and Martin, B., in Goodiuyn v. Cheveley (1859), 4 H. &
N. 681 ;and compare Blackbukn", J., in Fletcher v. By lands (1866), L. R. 1 Exch.
265, at p. 286.
(q) Tillett v. Ward (1882), 10 Q. B. D. 17. It is hardly necessary to support
this decisionby reference to this exception for there is no liability for an
;
involuntary trespass, which seems a much shorter ground for the decision.
Indeed it is the precise case mentioned in Millen v. Faiudry (1625), Poph. 161 (see
note [t), p. 395, post), of a man driving " goods " through a town, one of which
goes into another man's house, as an instance of an involuntary trespass.
{r) See p. 367, ante.
[s) Compare Boulston's Case (1597), 5 Co. Rep. 104 b.
{t) Farrer y. Nelson (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 258, per Pollock, B., at p. 260,

. where a shooting tenant brought on to the land in coops four hundred and fifty
pheasants which had been reared elsewhere and was held liable for damage.
Compare Boidston's Case {supra), where the making of the coney burrows was
an active interference with the existing state of things on the land. See, further,
title Game and Sport.
(x) Cooper v. Marshall (1757), 1 Burr. 259.
— ;
exercise this right he need not have a demise of the soil itself pro-
;
Sect. 3.
vided he has such an interest in the land as to enable him to Distress

maintain an action of trespass for the protection of that interest (y). Damage
A demise of the milk of twenty-two cows to be depastured on certain F easan t.
stated fields, with a covenant not to depasture other cattle there,
gives the grantee a right to the pasturage of those fields, and
he may distrain any cows of the grantor which he finds there
eating the herbage for the remedy under the covenant does not
;
oust the right in trespass or distress {z). A lord of a manor in which

the custom is for the copyholders to have the sole right of pasture
for the whole year may distrain damage feasant the beasts of a
person not a copyholder, because they may damage the soil as well
as the grass (a) a tenant in common may distrain the cattle of
;
another tenant in common who has agreed not to exercise his rights
for a term of years (h) a commoner may distrain the beasts of a
;
stranger, but not of another commoner who exceeds his number,

nor of the lord or any other person who puts cattle on the common
under a colour of right (c). Where two persons have concurrent
possession of land one cannot distrain the cattle of the other {d),
nor can a tenant holding over after expiration of his term, and in
defiance of a notice to quit, distrain cattle put on the premises
by the landlord for the purpose of taking possession (e).
826. Any chattel not of a perishable nature that is trespassing What may
distrained,
and doing damage may be distrained damage feasant the rule is ;
not confined to animals (/), though they form the subject of this
article and afford the chief illustrations of the rule, as they are
more liable to trespass than other chattels. The only chattels
exempt from distress are things in actual use. Thus a horse cannot
be distrained if there is a rider upon it (g) though it is said a horse
,
may be distrained if a person is leading it (h). At common law the

beasts of the plough (z) could not be distrained for rent any more
than the axe of a carpenter or the books of a scholar, but it is
(y) If a man has a grant of vesturam or herlagium terroc., the soil does not
pass, but he has an action of trespass c[uare dausum regit (Co. Litt. i. 1, 4 b).
f
(z) Burt V. Moore
(1793), 5 Term Eep. 329.
(a) HosUns v. Bobbins (1672), 1 Yentr. 123, 163.
(b) Whiteman v. King (1791), 2 Hy. BI. 4.
(c) See Hall v. Harding (1769), 4 Burr. 2426 (where there is much learning on
the question of commoners distraining), and Cape v. Scott (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B.

269. But if the lord improperly put agisted cattle on the common, the
commoners may distrain upon them.
{d) Churchill v. Evans (1809), 1 Taunt. 529.
(e) Taunton v. Costar (1797), 7 Term Eep. 431.
(/) E.g., a railway engine {Ambergate Hail. Co. v. Midland Bail. Co. (1853),
2 E. & B. 793 see per Cave, J., in Boden v. Boscoe, [1894] 1 Q. B. 608, 611)
;
turves laid upon a common {Bromhall v. Norton (1683), T. Jones, 193).

{g) Co. Litt. 47 a Hoskins v. Bobins (1671), 2 Saund. 323 Storeij v. Bobinson
;
;
(1795), 6 Term Eep. 138. Compare Field v. Adames (1840), 12 A. & E. 649,
horse and harness in actual use ; the object of this exception is to avoid a breach
of the peace (ibid., at p. 654).
(h) G-ilbert on Distress, p. 49. It is obvious that a horse being merely led
may not be in actual use.
{i) Averia carucw as opposed to animalia otiosa, which might be always
distrained. See Co. Litt. 47 a and 161 a.
380 Animals.
Sect. 3. submitted that this exemption does not exist for trespass damage
Distress feasant. It is also said that " distress must be of a thing whereof a
Damage valuable property is in somebody, and therefore dogs, bucks, does,
Feasant. conies, and the like, that areferce naturce, cannot be distrained" (/c);
but as regards dogs this is not now the law, for they may be dis-
trained when trespassing and doing damage ®, and greyhounds,
ferrets, nets, and gins may by very old authority be distrained
damage feasant on the land, but not if they are held by a man(?7i).
Justification 827. In order to justify a distress damage feasant there must be
of the distress.
a trespass without lawful excuse the evidence will be the same as
;
in an action of trespass qiiare claiisiimfregit. A right of common or

a right of way, or some title by prescription (n), or an alleged defect
in a fence, where the other party was under an obligation to repair,
may be set up as a defence. Where cattle strayed into a close
owing to a defect in the fence which the owner of the close was
bound to repair, and then broke down another fence on the same
owner's property and trespassed into a cornfield, it was held that
the owner of the close and cornfield had no right to distrain the
cattle, because the first wrongful act which caused the mischief was
his own default in not maintaining his boundary fence in proper
repair (o). Cattle lawfully upon the highway, that is to say, using
it for the purpose of passing and repassing, which escape therefrom
on to the adjoining land, cannot be distrained damage feasant until
after the lapse of a reasonable time for them to be removed (p),
but if they are trespassers on the highway, that is, are using it for
grazing or any purpose other than that of a highway, they may be
distrained immediately they stray on to the adjacent property (q).
Time for 828. The distress must be made at the time of the trespass and
making on the land (?•). There is no doctrine of fresh pursuit in distress
distress.
damage feasant, and the animal cannot be followed if once it goes
ofl" the land (s) .
(/v) Co. Litt. 47 a. This is probably an error on Lord Coke's part, who was
thinking only of what animals were valuable property. See note (w), infra.
(/) Bunch V. Kcnnington (1841), 1 Q. B. 679.
(?n) Eolle, Abr. Distress, A., quoting year-books and Fitzherbert and see ;
Boden v. Ihscoe, [1894] 1 Q. B. 608.

(n) Compare Bailee/ v. ApyJeyard (1838), 8 A. & E. 161.
(o) ISingleton v. Williamson (1861), 7 H. & N. 410. Compare Carruthers v.
HoUis (1838), 8 A. &^ E. 113, and compare p. 376, ante, and other cases there
cited. As to fences generally, see title Boundaries and Fences.
(p) Ooodwyn v. Chevehy (1859), 4 H. & N. 631. Compare p. 377, ante.
{q) Dovuston v. Payne (1795), 2 Hy. Bl. 527. If cattle are being lawfully
driven along the highway and crop the herbage at the side of the road the
trespass may be justified as involuntary (Eolle, Abr. Trespass, K.) ;
presumably
this justification would not succeed if they were taken there for the purpose of
grazing.
(r) Co. Litt. 161 a. " If a man come to distreyne for damage feasant, and see
the beasts in his soyle, and the owner chase them out of purpose before the
distresse is taken, the owner of the soyle cannot distreyne them, and if he doth,
the owner of the cattle may rescue them, for the beasts must be damage
feasant at the time of the distresse and so note a diversitie."
;
(s) Vaspor v. Edivards (1701), 12 Mod. Eep. 661. Compare Clement v Milner .
(1800). 3 Esp. 95, where, however, the first part of Lord Eldon's summing up is
inconsistent with the older authorities.
—
829. Each animal is distrainable only for the damage which it Sect. 3.
does if ten head of cattle are doing damage, one cannot be taken
; Distress
and kept as satisfaction for the whole damage, nor, if an animal Damage
trespasses twice, can it be detained the second time for the damage Feasant.
done the first time {t). For what
To justify a distress damage feasant there must also be actual damage
distress may-
damage {ii) at the time to the land or things on it, even if it only be made.
amounts to a treading down of the herbage. The older text-books
Actual
suggest that the damage must be damage to the soil or its damage
produce (x), but there is no authority for this; and it is now necessary.
decided that damage to an animal on the land, such as a filly, is
sufficient to justify a distress (?/). It may still be an open question
whether injuries to people or to chattels other than animals would
justify the distress, as a filly may be regarded as part of the natural
stock upon the land (?/). In one case, where a horse ran away
into a yard and injured a carriage there, the point was not
specifically decided, as the decision turned upon the seizure being
unnecessary to prevent the horse doing any further damage (z).
830. Generally speaking, distress damage feasant is very similar Restrictions
to distress for rent,but it is a simpler remedy, and there are very ^^^^^^^^^
few statutory modifications of the common law right. Under the

Statute of Marlborough {a) there can be no distress upon the high-
way (b) but, unlike distress for rent, it may be made at night, for
;
otherwise the beasts might escape, and the remedy be lost (c).
831. Distress at common law is merely a pledge for compen- Abuse of the
sation for injury, therefore animals seized damage feasant cannot distress.
be sold or used by the distrainor (d). Any wrongful user of the
distress makes the distrainor a trespasser ab initio, as where a
man used for farmwork a horse which he had distrained, for he
hath it by law only for a gage" (e). Indeed, such a user entitles
{t) v. Edwards (1701), 12 Mod. Eep. 661.

Faspor
(u) Incumbering the land may be damage see Amhergafe Bail. Co. v.
;
Midland Bail. Co. (1853), 2 E. & B. 793.

(x) BuUen on Distress (2nd ed.), p. 257 Gilbert on Distress, pp. 21 and 24.
;
The rabbits mentioned in Rolle, Abr. Distress, A, may fairly be said to be tlie
produce of land.
(?/) Baden v. Boscoe, [1894] 1 Q. B. 608. The language of Mathew, J., at
p. 611, in this case, "all kinds of damage," is wide enough to cover injuries
to other chattels besides animals on the land.
(z) Warmer v. Biggs (1845), 2 C. & K. 31.
(a) 52 Hen. 3, c. 15.

(b) Compare Lyons v. Martin (1838), 8 A. & E. 512 Co. Litt. 161 a.
; See, how-
ever, Hodges v. Laiurance (1854), 18 J. P. 347, from which it seems that distress
may be made if the thing distrained is not using the highway as a highway. This
was a case of a waggon stationary and within the middle of the highway, and
presumed to be on the demised premises. If, therefore, cattle stray on to the
highway and are found grazing on grass at the side thereof, the owner of the
adjacent land can, on the authority of this case, distrain them damage feasant, if
he can show that he is owner or occupier ad medium filum vice, as in many cases
he can.
(c) Co. Litt. 142 a.
(d) The statutes 11 Geo. 2, c. 19, and 2 W. & M., sess. 1, c. 5, s. 2, giving a
power of sale, apply only to distress for rent.
(e) Bagshawe v. Goiuard (1606), Cro. (Jac.) 147.
—
382 Animals.
Sect. 3. the owner to interfere and recover his beast (/). The distress must
Distress not only not be used, but nothing must be done to alter its state at
Damage the time it was taken, because the distrainor has no sort of property
Feasant. in it (g). To tie a horse to the pound to prevent it leaping out has
been said to be a misuser and a conversion (li). It was even at one
time said that cows must not be milked (?), but that statement was
expressly negatived by the whole Court of King's Bench, on the
ground that it was a case of necessity and for the benefit of the
owner, otherwise the beasts would be spoiled (k).
No conenrrent 832. The party w^ho is aggrieved by cattle damaging his land
remedies. has choice of remedies; he may either bring an action for
a
trespass, or distrain and the latter remedy has many conveniences,
;
and avoids legal costs; but he cannot pursue both remedies at once.
So long as the distress is detained or not accounted for, no action
of trespass is maintainable (1) the distress is an answer to the
;
action of trespass till it is ended without the plaintiff's default (m),

as where the animals escape or die without his neglect, when the
right to bring an action of trespass is revived (n).
Sub-Sect. 2. Im]pounding the Distress,
Proper 833. When animals have been seized for distress damage
pound.
feasant they should be impounded as soon as possible. The proper
pound is that of the lord of the manor, generally known as the
"village pound," or in legal language as the ''manor pound" or
common pound." Once there, the animals are said to be in
custodid legis.
Public and 834. It is, however, lawful for the distrainor to impound them
private
pounds.
upon his own land or premises, or upon the land of another with
his consent (o), but they are then in the custody of the party, and not
m custodid legis, and are not really in a pound, with all its legal
(/) Smith V. Wrif/ht (1861), 6 H. & N. 821; 30 L. J. (EX.) 313. That is,
lie is not liable in an action for "rescue" or "pound breach." See p. 385,
ôst.
(g) The law is the same in distress of inanimate chattels perishable articles
;
cannot be distrained because they cannot be returned in the same condition in

which they were taken to tan raw hides is a conversion to cord a box of
; ;
valuables to make it secure was said to be a trespass ab initio in Welsh v. Bell

(1650), 1 Yentr. p. 36. This certainly seems very doubtful (see note (k), infra),
especially as it was permissible to polish armour to prevent it rusting. See
Yin. Abr. Distress, P. EoUe, Abr. Distress Com. Dig. Distress (D 6), where
; ;
the authorities are referred to.

(h) Yin. Abr. Distress, P.
(i) Eolle, Abr. Distress; Gilbert on Distress, p. 65, note (d).
{k) Bagshaiue v. Goivard (1660), Cro. (Jac.) 141.
(/) Vasper v. Ediuards (1701), 12 Mod. Eep. 661 Lehain v. Philpott (1875),
;
L. E. 10 Exch. 242 Boden v. Boscoe, [1894] 1 Q. B. 608.

;
(to) Per Cleasby, B., in Lehain v. Philpott, supra, at p. 246.

{n) Williams v. Price (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 695.
(o) Co. Litt. 47 b. Lord Holt says {Vaspor v. Edwards, supra, at p. 664) that
whether the pound is common or not, it is the pound of him that uses it for that
time, and the law does not require men to put the distress in the common pound,
but only that it be put in a pound overt or be fed at the peril of the distrainor
and taken care of by him and common pounds are either by custom, tenure,
;
or agreement among the inhabitants of a vill or manor and not by common law.
—
consequences {p). This distinction between a private pound and a Sect. .3.
public pound is of some importance, because before cattle are Distress

impounded and in custodid legis the owner may tender amends and Damage
demand them back, and if an adequate tender is refused the distress F easan t.
is wrongful (q) but after they are in custodid legis the tender comes
;
too late (/')• If, therefore, the owner can find them upon the
premises of the distrainor, in a private pound, or anywhere before
they reach the common pound, and tenders adequate compensation,
that forms a good plea in bar to an avowry of distress damage
feasant (s). But if they reach the common pound, they are detained
by the pound-keeper till satisfaction is accepted and certain charges
paid, or till the owner bails them and replevies {t), or till they are
sold under modern statutory powers to pay for their keep (u). The
fact that the distrainor puts the beasts into the common pound does
not relieve him from his duty to see that they are put into a fit and
safe place, so that if the pound is too small for the number of cattle,
or deep in mud, so that they are injured, he is liable for the
tlamage (x).
At the present day the village pound has fallen into disuse owing
to the great increase of fencing and the rise of other important
industries besides agriculture, but the remedy of distraining and
keeping the cattle on private premises is often resorted to and is
really sufiicient, so that it is well to remember the above distinction,
and to accept the tender as soon as it is made, if it is sufficient.
No distress of cattle may be driven out of the hundred where it
is taken except to a pound overt within the same shire, nor above
three miles from where it is taken nor may cattle distrained at
;
one time be impounded in several places, under pain of every

person offending forfeiting for every such offence one hundred
shillings and treble damages and only fourpence may be taken for
;
the poundage of any one whole distress {y).
(p) Browne v. Poiuell (1827), 4 Bing. 230, per Best, C.J., at p. 232 ; Green v.
Buckett (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 275.
{q) Ibid.
(V) PilMngton's Case (1601), 5 Co. Eep. 76.
(s) Broiune v. Powell, supra.
it) Eeplevin is an action for goods unlawfully taken it means the redelivery
;
upon a pledge (replegiare) to bring an action to test the right to the taking.
Eeplev}^ is the redelivery of the goods replevin is the subsequent action.
;
Taking in ivithernam was carrying off other goods where the sheriff could not
find those distrained, in which case he was to take sufficient goods of the person
distraining. In reading the older cases upon the subject it is absolutely
necessary to understand the technical language of the action. The defendant
is the avowant, the avoiury is his defence by way of justification of the distress
in his own right, and cognisance in the right and under the authority of another.
The plea in bar is the equivalent of the plaintiff's replication in an ordinary
action. The registrar of the county court is now substituted for the sheriff,
and all proceedings in replevin are regulated by the County Courts Act, 1888
(51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), ss. 133 137. —
The action may be brought in the High
Court or county court, according to the terms of the replevisor's bond. Animals
ferce naturce are not "goods," and replevin does not lie for them if taken in
distress (Bac. Abr. Eeplevin, ¥).
(u) Cruelty to Animals Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Yict. c. 60), s. 1 p. 384, post.
;
(x) Wilder v. Speer (1838), 8 A. & E. 547 Bignell v. Clao^he (1860), 5 H. & N.
;
485.
(y) 1 & 2 Phil. & Mar. c. 12, ss. 1, 2. Where several persons impound in
.
384 Animals.
Sect. 3. 835. An animal distrained damage feasant must be impounded

Distress where the owner can have access to supply it with food and water,
Damage or, if impounded in a pound covert, the distrainor must feed it (z).
Feasant. Formerly there was a distinction between pound overt and pound
Feeding covert, which had an important bearing upon the question as to
impounded whose duty it was to feed the impounded cattle (a). This has,
cattle.
however, been practically done away with by modern enactments.
At the present time every person who shall impound or cause to
be impounded any animal is required to provide a sufficient quantity
of fit and wholesome food and water to such animal, under a penalty
of twenty shillings (b) and may recover from the owner or owners
;
not exceeding double the value of the food or water so supplied, in

the same manner as penalties may be recovered (c). It is also
lawful for any person whomsoever to supply with food and water
any animal which is impounded and without food and water for
twelve consecutive hours, and to recover from the owner of the animal
not exceeding double the value of the food and water supplied, or,
after seven clear days from the time of impounding, to sell the
animal openly at any public market after giving three days' public
printed notice thereof, in discharge of the cost of the food and
water and expenses of sale, rendering the overplus, if any, to the
owner (d)
Where several animals have been impounded, one or more may
be sold to pay the expenses of supplying food and water to them
all (e), but a sale must not be made within fifteen days of seizure.
Pound- 836. A pound-keeper is entitled to join in selling the cattle, if

keeper. he has supplied the food(/), but he is not liable to the penalties
imposed for not supplying food (g), for the Act is not intended to
apply to him, but to the person taking the animal to the pound
for the purpose of securing compensation {h) and at common law
;
his duties were merely to receive the animals or goods and keep
several pounds one forfeiture satisfies this Act {Partridge v. Naylor (1596), Ore.
(Eliz.) 480 compare R. v. CJarhe (1777), 2 Cowp. 610, per Lord Mansfield, at
;
p. 612).
(z) 1 and see note (a), infra.
Co. Inst. 47 ;
(a) A pound overt was either the common pound, or one which was well
known and to which people had a right of access without trespassing; the
owner would naturally seek his beasts there, so that the distrainor need not give
him notice. A pound covert or close was private, " as to impownd the cattle in
some part of his house, and then the cattle are to be sustained with meat and
drink at the perill of him that distrain eth, and he shall not have any satisfac-
tion therefore " (Co. Litt. 47 b; compare note (o), p. 382, ante; Com. Dig. Dis-
tress D în. Abr. Distress, P).
'
(b) Cruelty to Animals Act, "l849 (12 & 13 Yict. c. 92), s. 5. This Act
repealed a previous enactment (5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 59) to the same effect.
(c) Cruelty to Animals Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Yict. c. 60), s. 1.
(d) Cruelty to Animals Acts, 1849 (12 & 13 Yict. c. 92), s. 6, and 1854 (17 & 18
Yict. c. 60), s. 1. Any proceedings under these Acts must be commenced within
six months (see the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 61),
ss. 1, 2, repealing s. 27 of the Act of 1849).
(e) Cruelty to Animals Acts, 1849 (12 & 13 Yict. c. 92), ss. 5, 6, and 1854
(17 & 18 Yict. c. 60), s. 1 Layton v. Hurry (1846), 8 Q. B. 811 (decided under
;
the similar provisions of 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 59, s. 4).

(/) Mason y/Neiuland (1840), 9 C. & P. 575.
{g] Bargan v. Davies (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 118.
(h) Ibid., per Mellob, J., at p. 121.
— — ;
Sect. 3.
them in custody he is therefore not liable if the distress ordeten-
:
tion were wrongful unless he has taken some active part in the Distress
distress outside his duties (i). Damage
Feasant.
Sub-Sect. 3. Rescue and Pound-Breach.
837. Eescue {rescous) has been defined as " a taking away and Definitions,
setting at liberty against law a distresse taken, or a person arrested

by the proces or course of law " (A;).
Pound-breach {parco fracto) is the taking of the thing distrained
from a lawful pound (Z). The difference is that rescue is the taking
before the animals are impounded, and while in the custody of the
distrainor pound-breach is the taking after they are impounded
;
and in custodid legis. In each case an action of trespass lies for it

and in early days there was a writ of rescous or parco fracto {m).
838. Eescue may be justified in any case where the distress is Justification,
unlawful, as where the distress is made on the highway or after
proper tender of amends {n), or where the beasts are not distrained
at the time of the damage, or are distrained on the soil of another
than the distrainor (o) or where the distress has been abandoned, or
,
the beasts escape in such a way as to amount to an abandon-

ment {p), or in any case where the distress amounts to a trespass
ah initio, as where the animals distrained have been abused {q).
Pound-breach, however, cannot thus be justified, because, once
impounded, the cattle are in the custody of the law the breach of ;
the pound is the gist of the action, and the party who distrained need
not show his right to do so (?•). If the distrainor himself take them
out of the pound in order to use them, the owner may retake them
and use sufficient force to do so, and is not liable in an action for
either rescue or pound-breach (s), and it seems that if the owner
makes " fresh pursuit " and finds the pound open or unlocked, they
are not properly impounded, and he may justify {t). Lord Coke says
there may be rescue in deed and rescue in law, the latter being
where the cattle distrained go into the house of their owner as they
are being driven to the pound, and he refuses to deliver them when
demanded {u) .
The remedies for rescue and pound-breach are either an action in Civil
trespass, or recaption, i.e., the taking of the cattle again into the remedies.
(?:) BadJcen v. Poiuell (1776), 2 Cowp. 476.

(k) Co. Litt. 160 b.
(0 Com. Dig. Distress (D 2).
(m) Fitzherbert, Nat. Brev. 100 E, 101 0.
(w) Co. Litt. 160 b.
(o) Ibid., 161 a. See note (r), p. 380, ante.
(p) Knoides v. Blake (1829), 5 Bing. 499. Compare Bod v. Monger (1704), 6
Mod. Eep. 215. The distinction appears to be between a momentary escape,
e.g., for balf an hour, as in Knowles v. Blake, and a real loss of them.
{q) See pp. 381, 382, ante.

(r) Co. Litt. 47 b Cotsiuorth v. Betison (1696), 1 Ld. Eaym. 104.
;
(s) Smith V. Wright (1861), 6 H. & N. 821.
(t). Co. Litt. 47 b.
(u) Ibid., 161 a. As to the difference between this and abandonment, see
note (p), supra.
H.L. — I. C C
886 Animals.
Sect. 3. hands of the distrainor without a breach of the peace and upon
Distress " fresh pursuit " (^).
Damage
Feasant. 839. Eescue and pound-breach are indictable misdemeanours at
common law, though they are not often heard of at the present
Kemedy by
indictment.
day (?/). The indictment will lie only where the goods have been
taken out of the custody of the law. Thus where an official, such as
a hayward, has distrained beasts on private land and is taking them
to the pound, an indictment will not lie if they are rescued, because
they are in his custody as servant of the owner of the land and not
in citstodid legis (z).
Summary 840. There is also a summary remedy before the justices; if

remedy. any person releases or attempts to release from a pound any horse,
ass, sheep, swine, or other beast or cattle (which includes cows and
heifers (a) ) lawfully seized for the purpose of being impounded in
consequence of having been found wandering, straying, lying, or
being depastured on any inclosed land without the consent of the
owner or occupier, or damages or destroys any part of the pound,
he commits an offence for which he may be subjected to a penalty
not exceeding five pounds, together with reasonable expenses, and
imprisonment in default of payment (&). This jurisdiction of the
justices, however, is ousted if any question arises as to title to lands,
bankruptcy, any execution under legal process, or any obligation to
maintain walls or fences (c).
In places to which the Towns Police Clauses Act, 1847 (d), applies,
there is a remedy on summary conviction by imprisonment for a
term not exceeding three months.
The law as to rescue and pound-breach is here dealt with only so
far as it is material to animals distrained damage feasant it also ;
applies to distress for rent, which is foreign to the present subject,

and is now mostly governed by statutory enactments which do not
apply to distress damage feasant (e).
Part IV. —The Contract of Agistment

Nature of 841. Agistment (/) is in the nature of a contract of bailment,
the contract, conferring no interest in the land and therefore not requiring to be
in writing (g), and arises where one man (the agister) takes another
(x) PerTiNDAL, C.J., in Rich v. WooUey (1831), 7 Bing. 651, at p. 661.

(y) See title Criminal Law and Procedure, and B. v. Butterfield (1892),
17 Cox, C. C. 598.
{z) R. V. Bradshaiu (1835), 7 C. & P. 233.
(a) R, V. Qee (1885), 49 J. P. 212.
Pound-breach Act, 1843 (6 & 7 Yict. c. 30), s. 1.
(c) Ibid., s. 2.
10 & 11 Vict. c. 89, see s. 26.
{d)
See title Distress.
(e)
" gyser," to lie,
(/) The term agistment is said to be derived from the French
because the beasts are there levant and couchant; see Co. Inst. Pt. 4, c. 73, p. 293.
-
{y) Under sect. 4 of the Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3)
Jones v. Flint
;
(1839), 10 A. & E. 753.

— ;
Part IV. The Contract of Agistment. 387
man's cattle, horses, or other animals, to graze on his land for part iv.
reward (usually at a certain rate per week) on the implied term Contract of
that he will redeliver them to the owner on demand (li) If the latter Agistment, .
wishes to have them redelivered to him he must make an express

•contract to that effect (i).
842. The agister is not an insurer of the beasts taken in by him, Negligence of
but he must take reasonable and proper care of them, and is liable agister.
for injury caused to them by negligence or neglect of such reasonable
and proper care (;). Thus he must make good the loss in case of
injury if he puts a horse in a field with heifers, knowing that a bull
is kept on adjoining land separated only by a shallow ditch, and
has several times been found in the field, although he does not
know it is vicious (A;) or if he puts a horse in a field where there is
;
a barbed wire fence concealed by long grass (1) or leaves a gate ;
•open so that the agisted animal strays out and is lost {m), or
injured {ii) or if he puts agisted animals on pasture that is
;
dangerous by reason of the existence therein of wells, pits, or

shafts (o).
843. The agister has no lien, in the absence of special agree- Agister has
ment(2)), upon the beasts he agists, for he expends no skill upon no lien,
them he merely takes care of them and supplies them with food,
;
.and his remedy is to bring an action for the price of the grazing (p)
he has, however, a sufiicient possessory property in them to entitle
him to sue in trespass or trover (r).
The custom of agistment is notorious, and agisted animals are Custom is
not in the order and disposition of the agister within the meaning notorious,
of the Bankruptcy Acts (s).
844. Agisted animals are not, at common law, privileged from Distress on
distress for rent(t) any more than cattle that have escaped on to
agisted
*^ ^ animals.
(A) 2 Bl. Com. 452.

(/) Corbett v. Pacldngton (1827), 6B. & C. 268. Compare Tamer v. Stallibrass,
[1898] 1 a
B. 56, 59.
(j) Smith V. Cook (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 79; Broadwater v. Blot (1817), Holt,
N. P. C. 547.
(k) Smith V. Cook, supra.
(l)Turner v. Stallibrass, supra.
(m) Broadwater v. Blot, supra.
{n) Halestrap v. Gregory, [1895] 1 Q. B. 561. In tkis case an agisted korse kad
escaped from the field owing to the negligence of the defendant's servant in leaving
. a gate open. The occupiers of the adjoining land endeavoured to drive the horse
back through the gate, when it fell over a fence and was injured, and it was held
that the injuiy was the natural consequence of the gate having been left open.
(o) Booth V. Wilson (1817), 1 B. & Aid. b^,per Lord Ellenborough, C.J., at p. 16.
Ip) Bichards v. Symons (1845), 8 Q. B. 90.

Iq) Chapman v. Allen (1632), Cro. Car. 271 Jackson v. Cummins (1839), 5
;
M. & W. 342; JudsonY. Etheridge (1833), 1 C. & M. 743; Hobby v. Buell (1845),
1 0. & K. 716.
(r) Compare Sutton v. Buck (1810), 2 Taunt. 302, 309, and Booth v. Wilson,
- supra. In an indictment concerning the agisted animals, the property therein
may be laid in the agister {B. v. Woodiuard (1796), 2 East, P. C. 653).
(s) Be Woodiuard, Ex parte Huggins (1886), 54 L. T. 683. See title BANK-
RUPTCY AND Insolvency.
{t) Bac. Abr. Distress B. EoUe, Abr. 669. But it is perhaps open to argument
;
that an exemption from liability to be distrained may be claimed on the ground
c c 2
.
888 Animals.
Part IV. the land {u), except in the case of a temporary agistment on the
Contract of road to or at a fair or market (x) which is a consequence arising
;
Agistment, out of the necessity for their refreshment, and is an instance of a

privilege arising as accessory to another privilege (y)
Animals In the case of an agricultural holding there is a statutory exemp-
agisted on ^{qj^ i[yQ stock taken in by a tenant of an agricultural holding (z)
.
hoidint^.^^^ to be fed at a fair price, may not be distrained by the landlord for
rent where there is other sufficient distress to be found and if ;
they are distrained by reason of there being no other sufficient

distress, the landlord can only recover by such distress rent up to
the price of the feeding which remains unpaid, subject to the right
of the owner to redeem the stock by paying such price to the
distrainor; so long as any portion of the live stock remains on the
holding the right to distrain extends to the full extent of the unpaid
price of feeding the whole of them (a). The "fair price " need not
necessarily be money. Cows agisted on the terms of " milk for
—
meat " a very common form of contract by which the farmer takes
the milk of the cows, instead of a money payment, in return for
their feed —
are ''taken into be fed at a fair price" within the mean-
ing of this provision, and are entitled to the partial exemption (b) ;
but live stock taken in under a contract for the letting of the herbage
or grazing of land are not protected by the above provision (c).
Part. V. — Warranty on Sale of Animals.

No implied 845. Domestic animals are goods and chattels, and the ordinary
warranty of law as to the sale of goods (d) applies to them. The purchase of a
quality.
horse is essentially a purchase of an unknown quantity, for no
prudence can guard against all latent defects {e) and although upon
;
a sale there is an implied warranty of the right of the vendor to

sell, and although if a horse is sold for a particular purpose made
known to the seller, there is an implied warranty that it is
reasonably fit for that purpose (/), yet there is no implied warranty
that agisted animals are delivered to the agister in the regular way of his trade
{per Mellou, J., in 3Iiles v. Furber (1873), L. E. 8 Q. B. 77, at p. 83).
(u) Co. Litt. 47 a.
(x) 2 Saund. 290, n. 7 Nugent v. Kirivan (1838), 1 Jebb & Symes, 97.
;
[y) Per Alderson, B., in MmprattY. Gregory (1836), 1 M. &V^. 633, at p. 647.
(z) That is, a holding either wholly agricultural or wholly pastoral, or in part
agricultural and as to the residue pastoral, or in whole or in part cultivated as a

market garden (Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 61), s. 54).
But holdings let to a tenant during any office, appointment or employment held
under the landlord are excluded {ibid.). See title Agriculture, p. 239, ante.
(a) Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Yict. c. 61), s. 45.
(b) London and Yorkshire Bank v. Belton (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 457.
(c) Masters v. Green (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 807. Compare Burt v. ifoore (1793),
5 Term Eep. 329. For precedents of milk and meat contracts and for agistment
and letting of herbage, see Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents, Vol. I.,
pp. 425 et seq.
{d) Edwards v. Pearson (1890), 6 T. L. E. 220; see title Sale of Goods.
(e) Compare per Best, C.J., in Jones v. Bright (1829), 5 Bing. 533, at p. 544.
-(/) Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 71), s. 14 Chanter v. Ho])kins
;
(1838), 8 L. J. (EX.) 14, per Parke, B.

— ;
Part V. Warranty on Sale of Animals. 389
of the quality of theammal, and the rule caveat emptor applies it ;

p^kt V.
is, and certainly advisable, for the buyer to protect
therefore, usual, Warranty
himself by requiring an express warranty with the animal of any on Sale
quality or virtue he may require. of Animals.
846. A warranty is not intended to guard against defects which are Patent
obvious to the senses {g). It has been said that if a man guarantees defects,
that a horse has two eyes he is not liable if it has not, for the buyer
could have an examination before he bought (/i) but it is other- ;
wise if the eye have some defect which is congenital, or which could
not be ascertained by an ordinary man {i). It is a question of fact
what is and what is not a patent defect. A splint " may or may
not cause lameness, and a warranty of soundness will be taken as
meaning that a splint which was plainly visible and pointed out to
the buyer was not at that time such a splint as would cause future
lameness, and the warranty is broken if lameness arises from that
splint (j). If the buyer is not present at the time of the treaty for
sale, then the warranty will cover patent defects (/c), or if the seller
warrants the horse with the intention of preventing the buyer examin-
ing it and so discovering a patent defect, or uses any other artifice
to conceal such a defect, then also the warranty will cover it ®.
847. By a warranty the seller undertakes absolutely that the EfEect of

horse possesses the virtues attributed to it in the warranty, and is warranty,
at the time of the sale free from the defects warranted against,
whether they are known to him or not {in). Special words may, how-
ever, limit the warranty to defects within the seller's knowledge {n).
It is not uncommon to insert the warranty given in the receipt What will
for the price and such insertion does not make the receipt liable amount to
;
to stamp duty as an agreement (o). No particular form of words ^ "^^^^^^^y-
is necessary to constitute a warranty (^). Any statement of fact

made at the time of the sale, and before it is completed, and
intended to be a warranty is a warranty in law (g). The question of
the intention of the statement is one of fact for the jury, as also
{()) Compare Y. B. 11 Edw. 4, fol. 6 B., per Eaiefax, J.

(h) Ibid. per Brian", J.
,
• (i) Holyday v. Morgan (1858), 28 L. J. (q. b.) 9; Soutlierne v. Hoiue (1617),

2 EoU. Eep. 5.
[j] v. WrujM (1831), 7 Bing. 603, and, on rehearing (1832), 8 Bing.
Margetson
454 Smith v. 0' Bryan (1864), 11 L. T. 346.
;
{Jc) Y. B. 13 Hen. 4, fol. 1 B., per Thirning, J.
(/) Dorrhigton v. Edwards (1620), 2 Roll. Eep. 188 Kennerv. Harding (1877),
;
85 III. (U. S.) 264, also reported in 28 Amer. Eep. 615.

Cm) Compare Stuart v. Wilkins (1778), 1 Dougl. 19 Williamson v. Allison
;
(1802), 2 East, 446.

{n) Wood V. Smith (1829), 5 Man. & E. (k. b.) 124. Compare Diinlop v.
Waugh (1792), 1 Peake, 167; Finder v. Button (1862), 7 L. T. 269.
(o) Shrine v. Elmore (1810), 2 Camp. 407. As to what is a note or memoran-
dum within s. 4 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 71) applicable to
a sale of a horse by auction, see Peirce v. Corf (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 210
Bainhow v. Howkins, [1904] 2 K. B. 322 and title Sale of Goods.
;
{p) Gee V. Lucas (1867), 16 L. T. 357.

Iq) Pasley v. Freeman (1789), 3 Term Eep. 59. If made after the sale there
must be anew consideration to support the warranty {Boscorla v. Thomas (1842),
3 U. B. 234). Compare per Bayley, J., in Cave v. Coleman (1828), 3 Man. & E.
(K. B.) 2, at p. 3.
390 Animals.
Paet v. whether the statement was part of the contract of sale (7-). Thus,
Warranty a statement " You may depend upon it that the horse is perfectly
on Sale quiet and free from vice " is a sufficient warranty, although the
of Animals. word " warrant " is not used (s).
Extent of If the word warrant " is used, the warranty extends only to so
warranty. much as is governed by that word. Thus, " a black horse rising
five years, quiet to ride and drive and warranted sound " is not a
warranty that the horse is quiet to ride and drive (i). If the
word "warranted " is used alone, it is taken to refer to soundness
only, and not to a preceding description, as where a horse was
described as a black gelding, five years old, has been constantly
driven in the plough, warranted" {u). The warranty may be
limited in any way (z?), but if a horse is warranted "sound and
quiet in all respects," that is general, and includes being quiet in
harness (w),
A horse is most commonly warranted as to soundness and free-
dom from vice but any quality may be warranted, such as its
;
age (x), or that it has been hunted with a certain pack of hounds (?/),
or that a mare
is in foal to a certain horse {z) .
No warranty The that a sound price, i.e., a good or fair price for a
fact
from price sound animal, is given for the animal does not amount to a warranty
taken.
that the animal is sound {a) .
What 848. If at the time of the sale the horse has any disease or defect
amounts to which actually diminishes, or in its ordinary progress will diminish,
unsoundness.
the natural usefulness of the animal, it is not sound (h). A con-
genital defect, such as convexity of the cornea of the eye, which
causes short-sightedness and induces the habit of shying, is
unsoundness (c). The slightness of the disease, or the ease with
which it is cured, may affect the amount of damages, but does not
afi'ect the principle, unless it is of so trifling a character as not to
amount to unsoundness at all (d). A cough {e), and temporary lame-
ness (/), have, therefore, both been held to be unsoundness. The
question of soundness or unsoundness is one for the jury (g).
(r) Salmon Ward (1825), 2 C. & P. 211 Hopkins v. Tanqueraij (1854), 23

v. ;
L. J. (c. 162
P.) Wood v. Smith (1829), 5 Man. & E. (k. b.) 124; Fercival v.
;
Oldacre (1865), 18 C. B. (n. s.) 398.

(s) Cave V. Coleman (1828), 3 Man. & E. (it. B.) 2, pe?- Lord Tenterden, C.J.
{t) J^nthomj V. Halstead (1877), 37 L. T. 433; Btidd v. Fairmaner (1831),

8 Bing. 48.
(m) Richardson v. Brown (1823), 1 Bing. 344.
{v) Jones V. Coiuley (1825), 4 B. & C. 445 ; Hemming v. Parry (1834),
6 C. & P. 580.
{tu) Smith V. Parsons (1837), 8 C. & P. 199. -
{x) Buchanan Parushaiv (1788), 2 Term Eep. 745.

v.
(y) Head v. Tatter sail (1871), L. E. 7 Exch. 7.
(z) Gee V. Lucas (1867), 16 L. T. 357.
(a) Parkinson v. Lee (1802), 2 East, 314, 322.
{h) See per Parke, B., in Coates v. Stephens (1838), 2 Mood. & E. 157.
Compare Kiddell Burnard (1842), 9 M. & W. 668.
v.
(c) Holyday v. Morgan (1858), 28 L. J. (Q. B.) 9.
{d) Compare jper Parke, B., in Iîddell v. Burnard, supra.
(e) Coates v. Stephens, su'pra ; IShillitoe v. Claridge (1816), 2 Chitty, 425.
(/) Elton V. Brogden (1815), 4 Camp. 281.
((/) Leiuis V. Peaê (1816), 7 Taunt. 153. Eor the various diseases, defects, and
—
849. Unless otherwise expressly stated, a warranty only relates p^kt v.

to facts as they are at the time of sale (h). It may, however, Warranty
expressly relate to the future, as where the seller undertakes on Sale
to deliver horses sound at the end of a fortnight (i) ; but "war- of Animals,
ranted sound for one month " has been held to mean not that warranty
the horse was warranted to continue sound for a month, but that relating to
the duration of the warranty was limited to one month, and that
complaint of unsoundness must be made within one month of sale (j).
850. A warranty is an agreement collateral to the main purpose Kemedy for

of a sale, and a breach of it gives damages, Î'each of
rise to a claim for
^^^^^^ ^'
but not to a right to reject the horse, the sale being a sale of
a specific chattel and the property passing to the buyer on the
sale (A-).
In the absence of agreement, therefore, the buyer cannot, after

the property has passed to him, return a horse to the seller for
breach of warranty ® his remedy is either to set up the breach
;
of warranty in diminution or extinction of the price, or to counter-

claim or bring an action against the seller for damages for the
breach of warranty {m). But if a bill (which includes a cheque or
promissory note) be given for the price, and the horse does not
answ'or to the warranty, and has not been taken back by the buyer,
the breach of warranty cannot be set off by way of diminution of
the price the damages being unliquidated and the failure of
;
consideration partial {n). The measure of damages is prima facie

the difference between the value of the horse at the time of delivery
and the value it would have had if it had answered to the
warranty (o). The fact that the buyer has set up the breach of
warranty in diminution or extinction of the price does not prevent
him from counter-claiming or maintaining an action for damages
in excess arising from the same breach of warranty (^).
851. Where
there has been a breach of warranty and no agree- Tender of
ment he should tender ^^^^^g^^^^^^^f^
entitling the purchaser to return the horse,
°
it to the seller, and, if the latter refuses to take it back, should
î-ranty.
then sell it ; in which case the original seller is liable for its keep
bad habits whicii have been held to amount to unsoundness or vice, see Oliphant '
'
—
on Horses," oth ed., pp. 66 102. " Vice" means either a defect in the temper
of the horse which makes it dangerous or diminishes its usefulness, or a bad
habit which is injurious to its health {Scholefield v. llohh (1839), 2 Mood. & E. 210).
(A) Liddard v. Kain (1824), 2 Bing. 183; and see Y. B. 11 Edw. 4, 10 B.,
êr Choke, J.
{i) Liddard Y. Kain, supra; Edeny. Farkison (1781), 2 Dougl. 732.
{j) Chapman v. Gwyther (1866), L. K. 1 Q. B. 463. Compare Buchanan v.

Parnshaiv (1788), 2 Term Eep. 745.
(k) Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 71), s. 62 (1).
(/) Ibid., s. 53 (1) Street v. Blay (1831), 2 B. & Ad. 456 ; ah'ter of a condition
;
or where there is a fraud.

(m) Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 71), s. 53 (1) (a), (b). By
s. 62 (1) " action " includes counterclaim and set-off.
{n) Wariuick v. Nairn (1855), 10 Exch. 762 Solomon v. Turner (1815),

;
1 Stark. 51.
(o) Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 51 Vict. c. 71), s. 53 (2), (3).
(p) Ibid., s. 53 (4) Street v. Blay, supra; Davis v. Hedges (1871), L. E. 6 Q. B.

;
687.
.
392 Animals.
Part Y. for a reasonable time (q) ;

though he is not so liable if it is not
Warranty tendered to him {r).
on Sale The buyer should give notice to the seller as soon as possible
of Animals. of any alleged breach of warranty, although this is not absolutely
Notice to necessary (s) If there is no time limit in the contract within which
.
seller. complaint must be made, the buyer is not prejudiced by anything

done by him before he discovers the defects {t).
Keturn of 852. If the buyer has reserved a right to return the horse
horse. within a specified time, he may return it at any time within such
period, and is not bound to do so the moment he discovers the
defects so that if injury happens to the horse while in his posses-
;
sion, and without his fault, he is not liable for this and may still
return the horse within the period (u) and if the horse under such ;
circumstances becomes injured so that it cannot be returned within

the specified time, the non-return by the buyer within the period
stipulated will not bar an action for breach of the warranty {v)
If the horse is sold upon a condition that it may be returned
within a specified period in case of unsuitability or for any other
reason, and the horse dies within the specified period without any
default of the buyer, the loss falls on the seller there being no ;
completed sale in the proper sense until the buyer has given
approval expressly, or by implication from his keeping the horse
beyond the specified period (iv).
Time limited It is a usual condition in warranties, especially in those at sales
for duration by auction, that complaint be made or the horse returned within a
of warranty.
specified time if this condition is not complied with no action can
;
be brought on the warranty (x). A condition that a warranty of

soundness shall remain in force until noon of the day after the sale,
when it will be deemed to have been performed and the responsibility
of the seller will terminate, unless in the meantime a notice to the
contrary and a certificate of any alleged unsoundness be given, is
reasonable (?/) and if painted up, or otherwise brought to the
,
buyer's notice, is binding upon him (z).

Warranties Distinct statements of fact printed in an auctioneer's catalogue,
at auctions.
if such as to confer additional value on the horse sold, amount to
warranties (a). They do not generally involve much difficulty of
(q) Chesterman v. Lamh (1834), 2 A. & E. 129 ; McKenzie v. Hancock (1826),

Ey. & M. 436.
(r) CasiueU v. Coare (1809), 1 Taunt. 566.
(s) See Fielder v. SfarJcin (1788), 1 Hy. Bl. 17.
{t) Best V. Osborn (1825), 2 0. & P. 74.
(u) Heady. Tattersall (1871), L. E. 7 Excli. 7.
{v) Chapman v. Withers (1888), 20 Q. B. B. 824; and see also Taylor v.
Caldiuell (1863), 3B. S. 826. &
{iv) Mphick V. Barnes (1880), 5 C. P. D. 321.
{x) Hinchcliffe v. Barwick (1880), 5 Ex. D. 177 Smart v. Hyde (1841), 8
;
M. & W. 723 ; Mesnard v. Aldridge (1801), 3 Esp. 271 Head v. Tattersall, ;
supra.
y) Smart v. Hyde, supra.
z) Byiuater v. Richardson (1834), 1 A. & E. 508.
(a) Fer Kelly, C.B., Gee v. Lucas (1867), 16 L. T. 357, at p. 358. See
generally as to sales by auction, titles Auction and Auctioneers Sale of ;
Goods.
——— ; ;
interpretation, because such warranties are usually printed and p^^^t v.
explained in the conditions of sale {b). Warranty

In many parts of the country cows and other animals are sold on Sale
with a ^varranty, e.g., that a cow is in calf. What has been said of Anim als,
above with regard to warranty of horses applies equally to the Warranty of
warranty of other animals. other animals.
853. Fraud renders a contract voidable at the option of the Fraud,

party defrauded. On discovery of the fraud the buyer may either
return the horse and bring an action for return of the price paid (c),
or keep the horse and claim damages. This is so even where the
fraud concerns something outside an express warranty thus proof ;
of fraud at the time of the sale, e.g., as to a horse's age, would

vitiate the sale though the warranty was only as to soundness and
freedom from vice {d).
854. An agent always an agent to warrant, but when a Warranty

to sell is not
groom sent to sell a horse, slight evidence is sufficient gi^®^
or servant is
to prove an agency to warrant (e). A distinction has generally been
made between the servant of a private seller and that of a horse-
dealer (/) if the servant or agent of a private individual takes
;
upon himself to warrant, in the absence of authority to do so, the

master is not bound, unless the sale be made at a fair or other
public market, in which case the servant or agent is more in the
position of the servant of a horse-dealer, and has an implied
(6) For precedents of special conditions on sale of horses by auction, see

Encyclopaedia of Forms, Yol. XI., p. 578. It is usually provided in such condi-
tions that the following warranties are implied upon sales of horses with specific
words of description :
Horses described as
" Good Hunters," as being sound in wind and eyes, as quiet to ride, as having
been hunted, and as capable of being hunted
'*
Good Hacks," as being sound in wind and eyes, quiet to ride, and not lame
" Good Chargers " or " Good School Horses," as being sound in wind and eyes,
quiet to ride, quiet with troops, and not lame ;
" Good Brougham Horses," " Good Buggy Horses," " Good Wheelers," " Good
Leaders," or " Good Harness Horses," as being sound in wind and eyes, quiet
in the harness named, and not lame ;
*'Good Polo Ponies," as being sound in wind and eyes, quiet to ride, and
capable of being played.
It is also usually provided in the conditions of sale that in the case of horses
described as hunters, hacks, chargers, polo ponies, harness horses, brougham
horses, buggy horses, leaders, or wheelers, without the use of the word " good,"
there shall only be an implied warranty that the horses have been so used ; that
horses described as "regularly" or "constantly" driven, or ridden, are only
warranted as quiet to drive or ride, as the case may be and that horses so sold ;
are expected to be workably sound, and not to have any infirmity or disease
that renders them, unfit for reasonable work.
It has been held that the description " a clever hack" does not amount to
a warranty of soundness (see Dixon's "Law of the Farm " (6th ed.), p. 352). A
sale " with all faults " and without a warranty relieves the seller from all liability
in respect of any disease or defect in the animal {Ward v. Hohbs (1878), 4 App.
Oas. 13).
(c) Compare Kennedy v. Panama etc. Mail
Co. (1867), L, R. 2 Q. B. 580, 587.
{d) Steward v. Corsvelt (1823), 1 C. &
P. 23.
(e) Miller v. Laivton (1864), 15 C. B (n". s.) 834.
(/) Bradij V. Todd (1861), 9 0. B. (n. s.) 592 Bank of Scotland v. Watson
;
(1813), 1 Dow, 40, at p. 45 ; compare Helyear v. Haivke (1803), 5 Esp. 72.

— —
394 Animals.
Paet V. authority to warrant (g) if the servant or assistant of a horse-

;
Warranty dealer gives a warranty the principal is bound, even though such
on Sale servant was expressly forbidden to warrant (li).
of Animals. Any person dealing with an agent or assistant of a horse-dealer
Servants and has a right to assume an authority to warrant (i), and evidence of a
agents of custom amongst horse-dealers not to warrant is inadmissible (j).
horse-dealers.
A horse-dealer is not bound by the action of his servant who is sent
merely to deliver a horse already sold, and who signs a receipt
containing a warranty (A;), or who warrants such an incidental
matter as that a horse may safely be placed with others in a stable,
because the warranty is not given in the course of the transaction
of sale (Z).
On
the other hand, a buyer who sends a servant to accept a horse
with a warranty is not bound if the servant accepts it without a
warranty, and may return the horse (m).
Warranty by A warranty by one of two partners who are horse-dealers binds
partners. the other, though as between the partners there is an agreement
not to warrant (n).
Infants. An infant, not being able to contract except for necessaries, is
not liable for breach of warranty of a horse (o).
Part VI.— Dogs.

Sect. 1. At Coiiwion Laiu,
Stjb-Sect. 1. In General.
Nature of A dog, although a domestic animal (p), is not, on account

855.
property in q| baseness of its nature and the extremity of the ancient
^]jq
punishment for felony (q), the subject of larceny at common law.
(g) Alexander v. Oihson (1811), 2 Camp. 555 Brooks v. Hassall (1883), 49

;
L. T. 569.
(/i) Howard v. Sheiuard (1866), L. E. 2 C. P. 148, i?er Byles, J., at p. 152;
Pickering v. Busk (1812), 15 East, 38, 45. Compare Coleman v. Bidies (1855), 24
L. J. (c. P.) 125, at p. 128.
(?) Hovjard v. Sheiuard, supra, per WiLLES, J., at p. 151.
{k) Woodin v. (1834), 2 Cr. & M. 391. Compare Strode v. By son

Burford
(1804), 1 Smith, 400 ; and
see Cornefoot v. Foivke (1839), 9 L. J. (EX.) 297.
{I) Baldray v. Bates (1885), 1 T. L. E. 558.
{m) Jordan v. Norton (1838), 4 M. & W. 155.
[n) Sandilands v. Marsh (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 673.
(o)See title Infants.
See p. 368, ante. The owner of a lost dog may maintain trover, and the
(j?)
finder has no right to detain it nntil he is paid for its keep {Binstead v. Buck
(1776), 2 Wm. Bl. 1117) merely keeping and feeding an animal does not, apart
;
from contract, confer any lien. See title Bailment.

A dog is goods within the meaning of a statute {B. v. Slade (1888), 21
" "
Q. B. D. 433). A dog is "property " within s. 102 of the Larceny Act, 1861, and
it is therefore an offence to advertise a reward for the return of a lost dog and to
state that " no questions will be asked" (Mirams v. Our Bogs Fuhlishing Co.,
[1901] 2 K
B. 564).
{q) See note (u), p. 368, ante.
— :
Part YI. —Dogs. 395
not considered to be the ordinary nature of a dog to injure

It is Sect. 1.
either mankind
or cattle therefore formerly the owner was not At Common
;
liable for any such injuries without proof being given of his know- Law.
ledge of the dangerous and vicious propensity of his dog. The law Injuries to
has been altered by statute as regards injuries to cattle (r), but is mankind ;
unaltered as regards injuries to mankind. In the absence of proof proof of

scienter.
of scienter^ a dog may still have what is popularly called " his first
bite " at a man in this respect there is no difference between dogs
;
and other domestic animals (s).
Sub-Sect. 2. Trespass by Dogs.
856. The owner not answerable in trespass for its No

of a dog is action
unauthorised entry into the land of another, often described as an
^f^^j^^^^^Q^
unprovoked trespass {t). iand.°
But if a man wilfully send a dog on another man's land in pursuit
of game he is liable in trespass, although he did not himself go on
the land {u). So also if he allow a dog to roam at large, knowing it
to be addicted to destroying game {x). The trespassing dog, if
doing damage to the property of the owners of the land, may be
seized as a distress damage feasant (y) although at the time it was
in the possession and under the personal control of and being used
by the owner (z).
857. To shoot, or injure another man's dog without legal No right

kill,
justification isan actionable wrong at common law. It is no legal [yegâssinc'
°
justification that the dog was trespassing (a). In order legally to dog.
justify such an act it must be proved that it was done under
(r) See p. 397, jôst.

(s) The whole subject is dealt with fully, p. 372, ante.
{t)
'
Et est uu ditference inter uii chein et auters avers
' : si un chein vaer
en vostre terre naveres action" (pe?^ Littleton, J., in Milieu v. Faivdry[162o),
Latch, 119, where the defendant chased sheep off his land with a little dog,
which continued chasing them when on the plaintiff's land. The defendant, it
was was entitled to chase the sheep off his own land, and if a trespass at
said,
all, itwould be an involuntary trespass, as he called the dog back. This case
is distinguished in Beckwith v. Shordike (1767), 4 Burr. 2092, where a defendant
was held liable in trespass for his dog killing a deer, on the ground that the
owner took the dog with him and was really the trespasser. See also Mason v.
Keeling (1700), 1 Ld. Eaym. 606, at p. 608, where Lord Holt is made to say
" The law does not oblige the owner to keep the dog in his house for if a dog ;
break a neighbour's close, the owner will not be subject to an action for it,"
quoting Milieu, v. Faiudry, supra. Compare ê?' Willes, J., in Ready. Edwards
(1864), 17 0. B. (N. s.) 245, at p. 261, andm
6'oa) v. Biirbidge (1863), 13 0. B. (n.s)
430 ;
though the point did not really arise in Bead v. Edwards, supra, as it was
there held that the chasing of game was a mischievous propensity, and scienter
was proved. See also Broiun v. Giles (1823), 1 0. & P. 118, a.ndL. Sanders v. Teape
(1884), 51 L. T. 263, where a big dog jumped over a garden wall and alighted
upon the plaintiff, who was digging a well.
{u) B. V. Fratt (1855), 4 E. B. 860 ; Dimmock v. Allenhy, cited in Deane v.
Clayton (1816), 2 Marsh, at p. 582.
(x) Bead v. Edwards, supra.
[y] See pp. 378 et seq., ante.
[z) Bunch V. Kenningtoti (1841), 1 Q. B. 679; Boden v. Roscoe, [1894] 1 U. B.
608.
(a) See cases cited in notes [h) and (c), p. 396, post, and Moore v. Clarke (1898),
62 J. P. 522.
396 Animals.
Sect. 1. necessity (h) for the purpose of protecting the person, or saving
At Common property in peril at the moment of the act (c).
Law- A dog attacking anyone may be shot in self-defence, whether it
C)f a mischievous disposition or not, but to justify shooting even
Protection of
person. a ferocious dog the animal must be actually attacking the person at
the time {d).
Protection of In practice no question ever arises as to land from the
land. impossibility of proof of necessity.
Protection of The property other than land must be valuable property, and
animals includes cattle, sheep, or poultry, and all
other than
land. animals the subject of absolute property, and such as are the
subject of a qualified property only, but probably game and other
animals ferce naturce, which are not the subject of a qualified
property, are not included (e).
Malicious A similar rule exists in criminal cases. It is no defence to a
injury to dog.
QYiQ^^ge of unlawfully and maliciously killing, wounding or maim-
ing a dog (/), that it was trespassing at the time; but if the
accused proves that he bond fide believed that the act was necessary,
and that he could save his property in no other way, he is entitled
to be acquitted {g).
Dog spears, 858. The limitation placed by the law on the shooting of dogs does
traps and
not extend to prevent the occupier of land from taking measures to
spring guns.
protect his game in his absence. He may set dog spears in his
woods, and if a dog trespasses, and is injured thereby, he need not
prove that his methods were necessary in order to protect his rights
to the game, as he was acting within his rights on his own
(&) Wright v. Ramscott (1665), 1 Saund. 83

Vere v. Caiudor (1809), 11 East,
;
568 ; Frotheroe v. Matheivs (1833), 5 C.

P. 581.&
[c) Janson v. Broiun (1807), 1 Camp. 41 Wells v. Head (1831), 4 C. & P. 568 ;
;
Morris V. N%iqent (1836), 7 C. & P. 572 Haniuaij v. Boidthee (1830), 4 C. & P.

;
350; Clark v." Welster (1823), 1 C. & P. 104. Putting up a notice that trespass-
ing dogs will be shot does not justify the shooting [Corner v. Champneys (1814),
2 Marsh. 584).
[d) Morris v. Nugent, swpra ; Hanway v. Boulthee, supra.
[e) Compare Barrington Lev. 28 (deer in a park)
v. ^Z'-Mrner (1681), 3 Wadhurst ;
V. Damme (1604), Cro. Jac. 44 (rabbits in a warren) Frotheroe v. Mathews,

;
supra (deer in a park), which are all cases of animals reclaimed, and therefore
property. Vere v. Caiudor, supra, is not, perhaps, a very definite authority
either way, except that Le Blanc, J., expresses an opinion in favour of the
view taken here. There is an obiter dictum of Blackbuew, J., to the contrary
effect in Taylor v. Neiuman (1863), 4 B. & S. 89, at p. 91 "A person might
:
shoot even a valuable greyhound which was chasing a hare if the hare was
in peril," but the question of property in the hare was not there raised.
The only definite decision on the point that the authors can find is a judgment
of Judge Ingham in Penrith County Court (1881), 45 J. P. 83, where, after
considering the authorities and statements in text-books, his Honour held that
a trespassing dog may be shot where necessary to preserve animals the subject
of property, but not to preserve animals ferce iiaturce, such as rabbits.
(/) I.e., under s. 41 of the Malicious Damage Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Yict. c. 97),
set out at length ante, pp. 369, 370. As to setting traps for vermin, cats and
dogs, see Bryan v. Eaton{l^1b), 40 J. P. 213.
{g) Miles v. Hutchings, [1903] 2 K. B. 714, commenting on Daniel v. Janes
(1877), 2 C. P. p. 351, and Smith v. Williams (1892), 9 T. L. E. 9, which are
now of doubtful authority. See also Taylor v. Neiuman, supra. As to the
shooting of a trespassing dog not being cruelty, see Armstrong y Mitchell (1903), .
19 T. L. R. 525.
— —
Part VI. Dogs. 397
soil (/<)• But he must not so use his land as to tempt the dogs of Sect. 1.
others to destruction thus if he sets traps baited with strong- At Common
;
smelling meat so near his neighbour's yard, or so near a highway Law.

where dogs may lawfully pass, that dogs are irresistibly drawn to
the traps, he is liable in damages (i). And nothing will justify
the setting of spring guns, man-traps, or other engines dangerous
to human life and limb, and likely to inflict grievous harm {k).
Sect. ±—By Statute.

Sub-Sect. 1. Injuries to Cattle and Sheep.
859. The necessity of proving scienter where injury is caused Proof of

by dogs worrying sheep and cattle has been abolished by statute {I). SGienter
unnecessary.
The owner of a dog is liable in damages for injury done to any
Owner's
cattle by the dog. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to show a liability.
previous mischievous propensity in the dog, or the owner's knowledge
of such previous propensity, or that the injury was attributable to
neglect on the part of the owner {m).
Where any such injury has been done by a dog, the occupier of Who is liable
any house or premises where the dog was kept or permitted to as owner.
live or remain at the time of the injury is presumed to be the
owner of the dog, and is liable for the injury unless he proves
that he wâs not the owner at that time iii). Where there are
more occupiers than one in any house or premises let in separate
apartments or lodgings, or otherwise, the occupier of the particular
part of the house or premises in which the dog has been kept or
permitted to live or remain at the time of the injury is presumed
to be the owner of the dog (o).
If the damages claimed do not exceed five pounds they may Kecovery of
be recovered under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts as a civil damages.
debt(29).
The expression cattle " in the Act of 1906 includes horses, mules, Definition o£
" cattle."
asses, sheep, goats, and swine iq).
(A) Deane v. Clayton (1817), 7 Taunt. 489; Jordin v. Crump (1841), 8 M. &W.
782.
{i) Townsend v. Wathen (1808), 9 East, 277. He would probably now also
be liable under the Malicious Damage Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Yict, c. 97), or the
Cruelty to Animals Acts see pp. 409 et seq., post.
;
(/v) Bird V. Holhrook (1828), 4 Bing. 628. See, however, the earlier case of
Ilott V. Wilkes (1820), 3 B. & Aid. 304, where the plaintiff was a trespasser and
knew of the guns. See now the Offences against the Person Acfc, 1861 (24 & 2o
Yict.c. 100), s. 31, and title Criminal Law and Peocedijiie.
(/)Dogs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 32), s, 6, which re-enacts a similar provision

contained in s. 1 of the repealed Dogs Act, 1865 (28 & 29 Yict. c. 60).
(m) Dogs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 32), s. 1 (1). It is no defence to the claim
that the cattle were trespassing on the defendant's land at the time {Grange v.
iSilcock (1897), 13 T. L. E. 565). As to what is sufficient evidence of a dog
killing sheep, see Leiuis v. Jones (1884), 49 J. P. 198.
[n) Ihid., s. 1 (2). This provision does not go so far as the corresponding
repealed s. 2 of the Act of 1865, the important words " and that such dog was
kept or permitted to live or remain in the said house or premises without his
sanction or knowledge " being omitted from the exception. Compare Gardner v.
Hart (1896), 44 W. E. 527.
(o) Ihid., s. 1 (2).
Ip) Ibid., s. 1 (3).

_
(q) Ihid., s. 7. This is an extension. The Act of 1865 was confined to sheep
—
398 Animals.
Sect. 2. "Where a dog is proved to have injured cattle or chased sheep, it

By Statute. may be dealt with as a "dangerous dog" (r). The power of the
Prevention
Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to make orders with a view to
of cattle prevent the worrying of cattle is dealt with below (s).
worrying.
Sub-Sect. 2. Stray Dogs.
Seizure of 860. A police officer may seize and detain (till the owner has
stray dogs. claimed it and paid all expenses incurred by its detention) any dog
found in a highway or place of public resort which he has reason to
believe is a stray dog. If the dog wears a collar with an address on
it, or the owner of the dop: is known, the police must serve a notice
in writing stating that the dog has been seized, and is liable to be sold
or destroyed if not claimed within seven clear days after the service
of such notice {t). After seven clear days, if the owner has not
claimed the dog and paid all expenses, the dog may be sold, or
destroyed in a manner to cause as little pain as possible.
No dog so seized may be given or sold for the purposes of
vivisection.
Register of The police must keep a register of all dogs so seized which are not
dogs seized.
transferred to an establishment for the reception of stray dogs,
and must not transfer dogs to such an establishment unless a similar
register is kept there. The register is to contain a brief description
of the dog, the date of seizure, and the manner in which the dog
is disposed of, and is to be open to inspection at all reasonable times
by the public on payment of one shilling {u).
Expenses All expenses incurred by the police in connection with stray dogs
incurred by
ipolice.
are defrayed out of the police fund, and any money received by
them on such account is to be paid to such fund (v). It is the duty
of the police or other person having charge of any dog detained as
above to feed and maintain it properly {iv).
Duty of 861. Any person taking possession of a stray dog must forth-
person
finding stray with return it to its owner, or give notice in writing to the police
dog. giving a description of the dog, and stating where it was found
and where it is being detained, under a penalty not exceeding
forty shillings (x) .
Board of The power Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to make

of the
Agriculture orders for the seizure of stray dogs, and for keeping dogs under
ând Fisheries.
control, and regulating the wearing of collars, is dealt with
below iy).
and cattle, which was held to include horses, see Wright v. Pearson (1869),
L. E. 4 Q. B. 582.
(r)Under s. 2 of the Dogs Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Yict. c. 56); Dogs Act, 1906
(6 Edw. 7, c. 32), s. 1 (4). See p. 399, post,
See pp. 400 et seq., ])ost.
(s)
Service of the notice may be made either personally, or by leaving it at

[t]
the address of the person, or by sending it by prepaid postal letter (Dogs Act,
1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 32), s. 3 (3) ).
(w) Dogs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 32), s. 3 (1), (2), (4), (5), (6), (7).
{v) Ibid., s. 3 (9).
(w) Ibid., s. 3 (8).
(x) Ibid., s. 4.
>(y) See pp. 400 ef seq., post.

— —— . .
Part VI. Dogs. 399
Sub-Sect. 3. Dangerous Dogs, Sect. 2.
Stat ute,
862. Adj court of summary jurisdiction may order that a dog
which appears to be dangerous and not kept under proper control be Dangerous
kept by the owner under proper control or destroyed the penalty for ; dog not
failing to comply with such order is a fine not exceeding twenty
pJ^*^JJ.^^^^
shillings for every day during which such non-compliance con- control,
tinues {z). The order for destroying the dog may be made without
giving the owner the option of keeping it under proper control {a).
In the metropoUtan area, upon complaint that a dog has bitten Destruction
or attempted to bite any person, when it appears to a magistrate
JJ^^g^^jf^^^^^
that such dog ought to be destroyed, the magistrate may direct the metropolis,
dog to be destroyed, and any police constable may destroy the same
accordingly (?^).
And it an offence to suffer to be at large any unmuzzled Ferocious

is do^
ferocious dog, or to set on or urge any dog or other animal to attack, ^^^'S®-
wôrry, or put in fear, any person, horse or other animal in any

thoroughfare or pubhc place in the metropolis, or in any street in
a town to which the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, applies and a ;
constable may take into custody without warrant any person who
commits this offence in his view (c)
Sub-Sect. 4. Mad Dogs.
863. A local authority may, if a mad dog, or a dog suspected of Orders by

being mad, is found within their jurisdiction, make and vary orders local
authorities.
placing restrictions, during a prescribed period throughout the whole
or part of their jurisdiction, on all dogs not being under the control {d)
of any person. There is a penalty not exceeding twenty shillings
for contravening the order, and dogs found at large in contravention
of the order may be treated as stray dogs (e)
It isan offence for the owner of any dog to suffer it to go at large Offences
knowing or having reasonable ground for believing it to be in a
p^f^^g Q^^^^^g
rabid state, or to have been bitten by any dog or other animal in a Act, 1847.
rabid state, or, after public notice given by any justice directing dogs
to be confined on account of suspicion of canine madness, to suffer
any dog to be at large, during the time specified, in any street of a
town to which the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847 (/), applies.
(z) Dogs Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Yict. c. 56), s. 2. Where a dog is proved to have
injured cattle or chased sheep, it may be dealt with under this section as a
dangerous dog (Dogs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 32), s. 1 (4)). Presumably the
word "owner" in this section has not the extended meaning given to it under
s. 1 of the Dogs Act, 1906, p. 397, a7ife. Whether a dog is under control or
not is a question of fact, not of law {Wren v. Pocock (1876), 40 J. P. 646 R. v. ;
Huntingdon Justices (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 522; compare Jix parte Hay (1886), 3

T. L. E. 24). It is not necessary to prove the owner's knowledge that the dog is
dangerous before making an order under this section [Parker v. Walsh (1885),
] T. L. R. 583). "Dangerous" includes dangerous to animals {Williams v.
Richards, [1907] 2 K. B. 88).
{a) Pickering v. Marsh (1874), 43 L. J. (m. c.) 143 R. v. Dymock (1901), 17
;
T. L. E. 593.
(6) Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 134), s. 18.
(c) Metropolitan Police Act, 1839 (2 & 3 Yict. c. 47), s. 54; Town Police
Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 89), s. 28.
_
{d) It is a question of fact whether the dog is under control (see note {z), supra).
(e) Dogs Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 56), s. 3. See p. 398, ante.
If) 10 & 11 Vict. c. 89, s. 28.
— ——— —
400 Animals.
Sect. 2. Within the metropolitan area the police have power to destroy
By Statute. any dog (or other animal) reasonably suspected of being in a rabid
state, or of having been bitten by any animal in a rabid state,
Metropolis.
and the owner who permits any such dog or animal to go at large
after having information or reasonable ground for believing that it
is in a rabid state or has been bitten by any dog (or other animal) in
a rabid state, is liable to a penalty of not more than five pounds (g).
Sub-Sect. 5. Muzzling of Bogs.
Muzzling 864. In the metropolis the Commissioner of Police may issue

orders in a notice requiring any dog while in the streets and not led by
metropolis.
some person to be muzzled. The police may detain, and if not
claimed within three clear days may sell or destroy, dogs found
loose in the streets and unmuzzled during the currency of the
notice but if a dog has a collar and an address on it, they must
;
send a letter to the address stating that the dog has been taken
possession of (Ii).
Sub-Sect. 6. Burial of Carcases.
CJnburied 865. Any person who knowingly and without reasonable excuse
carcases of
permits the carcase of any head of cattle belonging to him to remain
cattle.
unburied in a field or other place to which dogs can gain access,
is liable to a fine not exceeding forty shillings (^).
Sub-Sect. 7. Use of Dogs for Draught.
Use of dogs 866. No dog may

be used on any public highway in any part of
for draught. the United Kingdom for the purpose of drawing or helping to draw
any cart, carriage, truck or barrow, under a penalty not exceeding
forty shillings, or five pounds for a subsequent offence {j).
Sub-Sect. 8. Dogs Orders.
Powers of 867. In addition to the statutory provisions as to the regulation

Board of and control of dogs, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries is
Agriculture
and Fisheries,
empowered to make Orders, which have all the force of statutory
enactments, for the following purposes {k) :
{g) Metropolitan Police Act, 1839 (2 & 3 Vict. c. 47), s. 61. As to tlie Eabies
Order, see p. 402, jpost.
(h) Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Yict. c. 134), s. 18. As to the
power of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to make Orders as to muzzling
dogs, see p. 401, post.
('/) Dogs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c, 32), s. 6. The object of this provision is to
prevent the owners of cattle, who are given a remedy for injury done to their
cattle by dogs, from encouraging in dogs the propensity to trespass, by leaving
carcases in places which are accessible to dogs,
(./) Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 60), s. 2, extending to
the whole kingdom a similar provision of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839
(2 & 3 Vict. c. 47), s. 56.
{k) The empowering statutes are the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58
Vict. c. 57), s. 22 (xxx.), (xxxi.), and the Dogs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 32),
s. 2. The Orders now in force are the Eabies Order, 1897 (Ord. 5578, March 23,
1897), the Importation of Dogs Order, 1901 (Ord. 6396 of 1901), and the Dogs
Order, 1906 (Ord. 7124, October 22, 1906), which came into operation on
January 1, 1907. It is not possible in these pages to give more than a short
summary of the main provisions of these Orders, copies of which may be
obtained from the King's Printers.
Part VI.— Dogs. 401
(1) For prescribing and regulating the muzzling of dogs and the Sect. 2.
dogs under control {I)
keepin^]: of ;
By Statute.
(2) For prescribing and regulating the seizure, detention, and
disposal (including slaughter) of stray dogs, and of dogs not
muzzled, and of dogs not kept under control, and the recovery
from the owners of dogs of the expenses incurred in respect of
their detention (m) ;
(3) For prescribing and regulating the wearing by dogs, while

in a highway or in a place of public resort, of a collar with the
name and address of the owner inscribed on the collar or on a
plate or badge attached thereto (n) ;
(4) With a view prevention of worrying of cattle, for

to the
preventing dogs or any class of dogs from straying during all or
any of the hours between sunset and sunrise (o).
868. The effect of the Orders made under these powers, so far Orders now
as they are now in force, is as follows : — force.
A local authority ( may make regulations for prescribing and Wearing

regulating the wearing by dogs, while in a highway or place of ^^^^^^
^
public resort (q), of a collar with the name and address of the owner ^ ^
inscribed on it, or on a plate or badge attached thereto. Such

regulations are not to apply to any pack of hounds (r), or to any
dog while being used for sporting purposes, or for the capture or
destruction of vermin, or for the driving or tending of cattle or
sheep. Any local authority making such regulations must forth-
with send two copies thereof to the Board of Agriculture and
Fisheries, who may disallow any regulation which they are satisfied
on inquiry is objectionable (s).
If a dog is found in a highway or place of public resort without Penalty,
the prescribed collar, it may be seized and treated as a stray dog(0,

and the owner of the dog, and the person for the time being in
charge thereof, and the person allowing it to be in the highway or
in the place of public resort in contravention of the regulations,
is, each in respect of his own acts and defaults, guilty of an offence
under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, and is liable on summary
conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or, if the offence
(?) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 57), s. 22 (xxx.).
(m) Ibid., s. 22 (xxxi.).
(71) Dogs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 32), s. 2 (1) (a).
(o) Ibid., s. 2 (1) (b). Eor the meaning of " sunset" and " sunrise," see title
Time. Orders made in respect of the matters comprised in headings (3) and (4)
may provide that an offending dog may be seized and treated as a stray dog, as
to which see p. 398, ante. No order under heading (4) has yet been issued.
(p) The local authorities are those intrusted with the administration of the
Diseases of Animals Acts, see p. 429, post.
(q) The expressions
" highway " and " place of public resort" are defined to
include any place to which the public have access whether on payment or
otherwise.
(r) These words do not exempt a hound puppy out at walk, unless expressly
so stated in the regulations.
(s) Dogs Order, 1906, s. 1 ; the provisions of the Order are to be executed and
enforced by the local authority (s. 5). Up to March, 1907, over one hundred
local authorities had made regulations "under the order as to the wearing of
collars by dogs.
{t) Ibid., s. 2. And see p. 398, ante,
H.L. — I. D 1)
402 Animals.
Sect. 2. is committed in relation to more than four dogs, not exceeding five
By Statute. pounds for each dog (w).
The power of seizing an offending dog and of prosecuting an
offender is vested in the police and in the inspectors appointed
under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (v).
Rabies Order. 869. Every person having or having had in his possession a
dog affected with or suspected of rabies, must with all practicable
speed give notice thereof to a local police constable, who must
forthwith telegraph the information to the Secretary of the Board
of Agriculture and Fisheries (x), and must also inform the local
inspector, who must at once report to the local authority (y).
Slaughter of The local authority must cause to be slaughtered every dog
diseased or
within their district which is diseased or suspected, or which has
suspected
dog. been bitten by a diseased or suspected dog{z), and the owner or
person in charge of the dog must give them all reasonable facilities
for that purpose (a),
A veterinary inspector's certificate that an animal is or was
affected with rabies is conclusive (b).
Preventive A local authority must make provision for securing the isolation
measures.
of dogs which have been exposed to the infection of rabies, and
may make regulations for the disinfection of places and things
used by a diseased or suspected dog, and may also give public
warning by advertisement or otherwise of the existence of rabies
in any place (c). Every dog is deemed to have been exposed to
infection which has been in the same shed, stable, building, kennel,
field or other place as, or otherwise in contact with, any diseased
or suspected dog (d).
Importation 870. A licence from the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries is

of dogs. required before a dog can be brought into this country from
abroad (e). Conditions may be attached to the grant of a licence;
these principally relate to the movement of the dog when landed,
its being placed in a proper hamper etc. during transit, and to
muzzling (/). An imported dog must, for a period of six calendar
(u) Dogs Order, 1906, s. 3; Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57),
s. 51.
(v) Dogs Order, 1906, s. 4, which makes dogs " animals " for the purposes of
the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, ss. 43, 44 (powers of police and inspectors),
see pp. 431, 4:32, jjost.
(x) The present address of the Board is 4, Whitehall Place, London, S.W.
(y) Eabies Order, 1897, s. 1. For the meaning of "local authority," see
note (^), p. 401, ante.
(z) Eabies Order, 1897, s. 4.
(a) Ihid., s. 5. The penalty for an offence against this section is the same as
that for allowing a dog to be at large without a collar, see p. 401, ante.
(b) Ibid., s. 6 (3).
(c) Offences against the Eabies Order are to be treated
Ihid., ss. 3, 8, 9, 14.
as offences against the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894. They may be punished
on summary conviction by the penalties indicated above (p. 401) in the case of a
collarless dog. Ibid., s. 22.
(d) Ibid., s, 7.
(e) A licence
not required in respect of a dog brought from Ireland, the
is
Channel Islands, or the Isle of Man (Importation of Dogs Order, 1901, s. 1).
-
(/) Importation of Dogs Order, 1901, ss. 1, 3. This order is to be executed
and enforced by the local authority.
. —
Part VI.— Dogs. 403
months after its landing, be detained and isolated at its owner's Sect. 2.
expense upon the premises of a veterinary surgeon previously By Statute,

approved by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (g) (except in
the case of a hond fide performing dog, or of a dog which is intended
to be exported within forty- eight hours after its landing {h) ), and
if it is not so detained and isolated, it may be seized by an inspector
of the Board, and detained and isolated for a similar period by the
Board and if the owner does not within ten days after the expira-
;
tion of the period of detention claim the dog and pay the expenses
incurred in respect thereof, the Board may destroy or dispose of
the dog (/)
Contravention of these requirements is punishable on summary Penalties,
conviction by a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or, if the offence is
committed in respect of more than four dogs, not exceeding five
pounds for each dog. Not only may the owner of the dog be made
responsible, but also, each in respect of his own acts and defaults,
the owner and the charterer and the master of the ship from which
the dog is landed, the person for the time being in charge of the dog,
the person causing, directing, or permitting the landing, the person
landing the dog, and the consignee or other person receiving or
keeping it with knowledge of the contravention {k).
A person wlio lands or attempts to land a dog unlawfully is also
liable to be dealt with under the Customs Acts for importing or
attempting to import goods the importation whereof is forbidden,
and the dog may be forfeited {I).
Sub-Sect. 9. Dog Licences.
871. Every person who keeps a dog of whatever description The licence,
or denomination above the age of six months, must take out an
annual licence, which costs seven shillings and sixpence, and which
commences on the day on which it is granted and terminates on
the following 31st of December {m).
Everyone who keeps a dog without a licence, or keeps a greater Penalty for
number of dogs than he is licensed to keep, or who does not pro- not having
or not pro-
duce his licence to an excise officer or constable within a reasonable ducing
time after request, is liable to a penalty of five pounds [n). licence.
Every person in whose custody, charge, or possession, or in whose Persons
requirmg
Importation of Dogs Order, 1901, 2 (1), licence.
{g) s. (2).
(h) Ibid., s. 2 (o).
(i) Ibid., s. 7.
12; Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 57), s. 51.
{k) Ibid., s.
(l) Ibid.,
8. See also Customs Consolidation Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict,
s.
c. 36), s. 42; the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 57), s. 56;
tho Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Yict. c. 49), s. 53; and see title
Ee VENUE.
_
(m) Dog Licences Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Yict. c. 5), ss. 3, 5, 10. The cost of the
licence was increased from five shillings to seven shillings and sixpence by the
Customs and Inland Eevenue Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Yict. c. 15), s. 17. Although
the licence commences on the day it is granted, a defendant cannot purge his
offence of keepmg a dog without a licence at 12.40 p.m. by taking out a licence
at 1.10 p.m {Campbell v. Strangeways (1877), 3 C. P. D. 105).
(n) Dog Licences Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Yict. c. 5), ss. 8, 9. The Court may
award costs and mitigate the penalty to such an amount as it thinks fit
(Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Yict. c. 15), s. 23).
D D 2
;
404 Animals.
Sect. 2. house or premises any dog is found or seen is to be deemed to be

By Statute. the person who keeps such dog, unless the contrary be proved and ;
the owner or master of hounds is to be deemed to be the person

keeping the same (o).
Burden of Upon the hearing of an information for a penalty for keeping a
proof as to
dog's age.
dog without a licence, the proof of the age of the dog lies upon
the defendant (p) .
The offence is not purged by taking out a licence after discovery

of the fact that a dog is being kept without a licence (q).
Hound 872. No licence is required in respect of any hound under the

whelps.
age of twelve months which has never been entered in, or used
with, any pack of hounds where the owner or master has taken out
proper licences for all the hounds entered in any pack by him (r)
Blind persons' nor for a dog kept and used solely by a blind person for his or her
dogs exempt.
guidance (s) nor for dogs kept and used solely for the purpose of
;
Shepherds'
tending sheep or cattle on a farm or by a shepherd in the exercise
of his calling. The occupier of a sheep farm on uninclosed land
may, on filling up a declaration, with the previous consent of a
petty sessional court (t), obtain a certificate of exemption for not
more than two dogs if he owns four hundred sheep or less on
uninclosed land, or for three dogs if he owns more than four
hundred and if his sheep number one thousand, then for a fourth
;
dog and for every five hundred sheep over one thousand for an
;
additional dog. Provided that he cannot obtain exemption in

respect of more than eight dogs kept on the farm {u).
Game 873. Every person, before he uses any dog, gun, or any other
licence.
means whatever for taking, killing, or pursuing any game, or any
woodcock, snipe, quail or landrail, or any coney or deer, must take
(o) Dog Licences Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Yict. c. 5), s. 8.
(p) Customs and Inland Eevenue Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Yict. c. 15), s. 19.
Iq) Campbell Strangeways (1877), 3 C. P. D. 105.

v.
(?•) Customs and Inland Eevenue Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Yict. 15), s. 20.
(s) Ibid., s. 21.
{t) This is added by the Dogs Act, 1906, s. 5, and compare the Dogs Act Eules,
1906. The Court is to be the Court having jurisdiction where the dog is kept
(r. 1).
Customs and Inland Eevenue Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Yict. c. 15), s. 22, It is
(u)
an offence under this section to deliver an untrue declaration, and to refuse to
produce a certificate. Upon a summons for keeping a dog without a licence, a
certificate is a defence, even if wrongfully obtained, and the burden of proof is
upon the prosecution to show that the dog kept is not a sheep or cattle dog
{James v. Nicholas (1886), 50 J. P. 292), but a declaration is not a defence
{Graham v. Haig (1894), 58 J. P. 835). The justices must convict even if they
think the defendant entitled to a certificate (Phillips v. Evans, [1896] 1 Q,. B.
305). As to a previous conviction and reduction of fine, see Murray v. Thompson
(1888), 22 Q. B. D. 142.
The result of s. 22 and the Dogs Act Eules, 1906, is practically to transfer
the power of exemption from the Inland Eevenue authorities to the magistrates.
In the absence of opposition, the duty of the magistrates to give their consent
appears to be merely ministerial. They cannot require the attendance of the
applicant unless the application is opposed and the Court considers his appear-
ance necessary. The " and " in s. 5 (2) of the Act and r. 5 appears to be con-
junctive; so that in the absence of opposition they cannot require appearance
even if they consider it necessary. No fees are payable under the Act but under ;
r. 10 the Court may allow other just and reasonable costs in a contested case.
—— ;
Part YI. — Dogs. 405
out a game licence, under a penalty of twenty pounds (x). No such Sect. 2.
licence is, however, necessary for pursuing and killing hares by By Statute,
coursing with greyhounds or by hunting with beagles or other hounds
or for pursuing and killing deer by hunting with hounds (a).
Sub-Sect. 10. Dog Stealing.
874. To steal a dog or obtain a dog by false pretences is not an Theft of dog.
offence at common law (b), nor is it to this day, in the case of a first
offence, indictable. Dog stealing is, however, punishable upon
summary conviction before two justices with six months' imprison-
ment or a fine not exceeding twenty pounds above the value of
the dog. A
subsequent offence is an indictable misdemeanour
punishable with eighteen months' imprisonment (c).
Unlawful possession of a stolen dog or its skin is punishable Possession of .
summarily before the justices with a fine not exceeding twenty

^^^Jj^^^^^
pounds a subsequent offence is an indictable misdemeanour
;
punishable with eighteen months' imprisonment ((i).

Corruptly to take any money or reward under pretence of aiding Taking
the recovery of any stolen dosj is a misdemeanour punishable with ^^^^y *o
eighteen months' imprisonment (e). dogs.
A justice of the peace may make an order restoring a dog found
in the possession or on the premises of any person to the owner (/).
To advertise publicly a rewârd for the return of a dog, using words
purporting that no questions will be asked, renders the advertiser
liable to forfeit fifty pounds for every such offence to any person
who will sue, i.e., to a common informer (g).
Part VII.— Wild Birds.
Sect. 1. Offences.
875. Wild birds are specially protected by a series of enactments Close time
known as the Wild Birds Protection Acts, 1880 to 1904 (/i), the for wild
(x) Game Licences Act, 1860 (23 24 Yict. c. 90), s. 4; and see title Game
AND Sport.
(a) Ibid., s. 5.
(b) See p. 368, ante.
(c) The Larceny Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Yict. c. 96), s. 18. An indictment for a
second offence under this section must set out the previous conviction before the
two justices.
(/) Ibid., s. 19. See also s. 22.
(e) Ibid., s. 20.
(/) Ibid., s. 22.
(g) Ibid., s. 102. The words " any property whatsoever " in the section have
been held to include a dog (Mirams v. Our Bogs Publishing Oo., [1901] 2 K. B.
564). If the action is against a newspaper it must be brought within six months
and with the assent of the Attorney- General or Solicitor- General (Larceny
(Advertisements) Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 65), s. 3).
{h) These Acts are the following :—Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880 (43 & 44
Yict. c. 35) Wild Birds Protection Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Yict. c. 51) Wild Birds
; ;
Protection Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 24) Wild Birds Protection Act, 1896
;
(59 & 60 Yict. c. 56) Wild Birds Protection Act, 1902 (2 Edw. 7, c. 6) Wild
; ;
—
406 Animals.
Sect. 1. principal effect of which is to establish a close time for all wild
Offences. birds from March 1 to August 1 in every year. Any person
who between those dates knowingly and wilfully shoots, or attempts
to shoot, or uses any boat for the purpose of shooting or causing to
be shot, any wild bird, or uses any lime, trap, snare, net, or other
instrument for taking any wild bird, or exposes or offers for sale or
has in his control or possession after March 15, any wild bird
recently killed or taken, is guilty of an offence, and is liable to a
penalty not exceeding one pound in respect of any wild bird included
in the schedule {i) to the Act of 1880, and, in the case of any other
wild bird, to a reprimand and payment of costs for the first offence,
and to a penalty not exceeding five shillings for every bird, in
addition to costs, for subsequent offences {k).
Exemption of There is an exemption in favour of the owner or occupier of land,
owner or
or anyone authorised by him, who kills or takes on such land any
occupier of
land. wild bird not included in the schedule (Z).
Birds Protection Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 4).; Wild Birds Protection (St. Kilda)
Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 10).
In addition, the Wild Animals in Captivity Protection Act, 1900 (63 & 64
Vict. c. 33) (see p. 410, post), applies to birds.
The principal Act (that of 1880) excluded St. Kilda, but the Wild Birds
Protection (St. Kilda) Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 10), applied it to that island with this
variation that the schedule to the principal Act is to be read as if the fork-
:
tailed petrel and the St. Kilda's wren were inserted therein, and the fulmar,
gannet, guillemot, puflin, and razorbill were deleted therefrom.
(?) The birds in the schedule are
American quail. Kittiwake. Sealark.

Auk. Lapwing. Seamew.
Avocet. Loon. Sea parrot.
Bee-eater. Mallard. Sea swallow.
Bittern. Marrot. Shearwater.
Bonxie. Merganser. Shelldrake.
Colin. Murre. Shoveller.
Cornish chough. Night-hawk. Skua.
Coulterneb. Night- jar. Smew.
Cuckoo. Nightingale. Snipe.
Curlew. Oriole. Solan goose.
Diver. Owl. Spoonbill.
Dotterel. Ox bird. Stint.
Dunbird. Oyster catcher. Stone curlew.
Dunlin. Peewit. Stonehatch.
Eider duck. Petrel. Summer snipe.
Fern-owl. Phalarope. Tarrock.
Eulmar. Plover. Teal.
Gannet. Ploverspage. Tern.
Goatsucker. Pochard. Thick knee.
Godwit. Puffin. Tystey.
Goldfinch. Purre. Whaup.
Grebe. Eazorbill. Whimbrel.
Greenshank. Eedshank. Widgeon.
Guillemot. Peeve or Euff. Wild duck.
Gull (except Black-backed Poller. Willock.
gull). Sanderling. Woodcock.
Hoopoe. Sandpiper. Woodpecker.
Kingfisher. Scout
to which " Lark " is added by the Act of 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 51) As
to the application of this schedule to the isle of St. Kilda, see last note.
{k) Act of 1880 (43 & 44 Yict. c. 35), s.- 3.
(l) Ihid. Where the accused, with the authority of the occupier of land, shot
thereon at a sparrow match, sparrows captured on other land without the authority
—
Part VII.— Wild Birds. 407
It is a defence to a charge of exposing or offering for sale or Sect. i.

having the control or possession of any wild bird recently killed, Offences,
to prove that the killing of the bird, if in a place to which the
j^^fg^^
Act extends, was lawful at the time when and by the person by
whom it was killed, or that the bird was killed in some place to
which the Act does not extend and its importation from such a
;
place is evidence of this until the contrary is proved {m).

It is an offence to fix or place, or knowingly allow to be fixed or Pole traps
placed, on a pole, tree, or cairn of stones or earth, any spring, trap,
prohibited.
gin, or other similar instrument calculated to cause bodily injury to
any wild bird coming in contact therewith ; the penalty is not to
exceed forty shillings for the first offence, and for a subsequent
offence fivepounds (u).
The sand-grouse is an absolutely protected bird. It is illegal at Sand-grouse,
any time, knowingly or with intent, to kill, wound, or take any sand-
grouse, or to expose or off'er for sale any sand-grouse killed or
taken in the United Kingdom. The penalty, on summary convic-
tion, is a sum not exceeding one pound for every bird so killed,
wounded, or taken, or exposed or offered for sale, together with the
costs of conviction (o).
876. The Secretary of State {p) upon the application of a Powers of

county council (g), or of the council of a county borough (?-), may Secretary
State.
of
by order
(1) Extend or vary the time during which the killing and taking Extension of
close time.
of any wild birds is prohibited, that is to say, extend or vary the
close time as between March 1 and August 1 (s) ;
(2) Prohibit (for special reasons mentioned in the application of Absolute pro-
tection for
the council) the taking and killing of any particular kind of wild bird certain birds.
during the whole or any part of the other months of the year, or
the taking or killing of all wild birds in particular places during the
whole or any part of such other months {t) ;
Exemption
(3) Exempt any county or parts of a county from the operation
of
certain
of the Acts as to all or any wild birds (ii) ; districts.
of the owners or occupiers of the land on which they were captured, it was held
that this exemption did not apply, and that they were rightly convicted {B. v.
Gilham (1885), 52 L. T. 326).
(m) These defences are an amendment of s. 3 of the principal Act by s. 1 of
the Act of 1881, as a result of Taylor v. Eogers (1881), 50 L. J (m. c.) 132. The
.
exception in the Act of 1880 applied to birds " killed or taken," but the amend-
ing section applies only to birds "killed." The result is that it is now no
defence to a charge of exposing for sale birds recently taken to prove they were
imported from abroad; see Green v. Carstany (1901), 66 J. P. 102 (live ravens).
(n) Wild Birds Protection Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 4), s. 1. This section
applies to any wild bird whatever, and is not confined to the wild birds scheduled
to the principal Act. Nor is there a saving clause for owners and occupiers of
land, as in s. 3 of the Act of 1880.
(o) Sand-grouse Protection Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Yict. c. 55), s. 1, continued by
Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 51).
{p) I.e., the Home Secretary.
(q) Originally the justices in quarter sessions. The duties passed to the
county councils by the Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict, c. 41), s. 3.
(r) Wild Birds Protection Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 56), s. 3.
(s) Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 35), s. 8.
{t) Wild Birds Protection Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 56), s. 1.
(u) Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 35), s. 9. By the Wild
. —
408 Animals.
Sect. 1.
Prohibit the taking or destroying of wild birds' eggs, or of
(4)
Offences. any specified kind of wild birds' eggs, in any year or years, in any
Protection of place or places in the county, and may extend the Act within the
wild birds' county to any wild birds not included in the schedule (x).
To take or destroy, or incite others to take or destroy, the eggs of
any species of wild birds within the area specified in such order,
or the eggs of any species of wild birds named in the order, is
punishable with a penalty not to exceed one pound for every egg
taken or destroyed (?/)
Public notice The council of every administrative county and of every county
of orders
made by borough which has applied for and obtained an order must in
Secretary of every year give public notice of any order which is in force
State. in any place within their county or borough during the three
weeks preceding the commencement of the period of the year
during which the order operates, by advertising it in two local
newspapers circulating in or near that place, and by posting notices
of the order in conspicuous spots within and near the place where
it operates (z).
Sect. 2. Prosecution of Offendei^s.

Name and 877. Any person may demand the name and address of an
address of
offender. offender. A
refusal to give the information or the giving of incorrect
information is in itself a distinct offence punishable by an addi-
tional penalty, not exceeding ten shillings (a).
Offences com- Offences committed on the high seas within the jurisdiction of
mitted on
high seas etc. the Admiralty are fco be deemed to have been committed upon any
land in the United Kingdom, and offences committed on boundary
waters between counties may be the subject of proceedings in either
county {h).
All offences are to be prosecuted summarily (c).
Forfeiture of In addition to any penalty, the Court may order any wild bird or
birds, eggs
and traps. wild bird's egg in respect of which an offence has been committed
to be forfeited and disposed of as the Court thinks fit {d) and ;
Birds Protection Order, 1906 (January 30), those parts of the county of Devon
comprised within the limits of the Axe, Exe, Dart, Teign, and Taw andTorridge
fishery districts are exempted as regards the shag and cormorant.
(x) Wild Birds Protection Act, 1894 (o7 & 58 Yict. c. 24), ss. 2, 3. Applica-
tion under this Act must specify the limits of the places, the particular species
of wild birds, and the reasons why the application is made. By s. 3 of the Act
of 1896 the powers of a county council under this Act are exercisable by the
council of a county borough.
{y) Act of 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 24), s. 5. There have been many orders of
local application made under this authority they are enumerated in the annual
;
volumes of Statutory Eules and Orders, and copies of most of them can be
purchased from the King's Printers. But as they vary from time to time, the
best course is to procure a copy of the order in force from the clerk of the
particular county council.
(z) lUd., s. 4 Act of 1896 (59 & 60 Yict. c. 56), s. 3. But a prosecution can
;
be instituted before such notice has been given {Duncan v. Knill (1907), 123
L. T. Jour., 13).,
(a) Act of 1880 (43 & 44 Yict. c. 35), s. 4.
{h) lUd., s. 6.
(c) Ihid., s. 5 Act of 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 4), s. 2.
;
{d) Act of 1902 (2 Edw. 7, c. 6), s. 1.

— ;
Part VII.— Wild Birds. 409
further,upon a conviction under either the Act of 1880 or the Act Sect. 2.
of 1896, may order any trap, net, snare, or decoy bird used for Prosecution
taking any wild bird to be forfeited (e). of Offenders.
Part VIII. — Cruelty to Animals.

Sect. 1. General Offences.
878. It is a statutory offence (/) cruelly to beat, ill-treat, over- 111. treating
drive (^7), abuse, or torture any animal, or to cause or procure any domestic
of these acts to be done (/i). "Animal" here means any horse,
mare, geldinp;, bull, ox, cow, heifer, steer, calf, mule, ass, sheep,
lamb, hog, pig, sow, goat, dog, cat, or any other domestic animal of
any kind or species whatever, and whether a quadruped or not (i).
A person may be charged and convicted on one summons with
having cruelly ill-treated a number of animals, for instance five
cows, on a certain date. It is not necessary to have a separate
summons in respect of each animal (k).
It has been held that the above enactment does not apply to wild
animals reclaimed or in captivity, and that, therefore, a conviction
under it cannot be maintained for cruelty to parrots {I), a tame
seagull {m), caged lions (n), or wild rabbits caught in nets and kept
in boxes and fed for five or six days before being coursed (0) ;
though a fighting cock (p), and linnets kept in captivity and

trained to act as decoys (g), have been decided to be domestic
animals for this purpose, and it has been suggested that trained
elephants and leopards and otters kept and trained to hunt and
fish are also domestic (r).
(e) Act of 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 56), s. 4.
(/) The various Acts applicable to this subject are as follows —

Cruelty to
:
Animals Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 92) Cruelty to Animals Act, 1854(17 & 18
;
Vict. c. 60) Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 77) (vivisection)
;
Drugging of Animals Act, 1876 (39 Vict. c. 13) Injured Animals Act, 1907
;
(7 Edw. 7, c. 5) Wild Animals in Captivity Protection Act, 1900 (63 & 64

;
Vict. c. 33).
{g) The word " overdrive " also signifies " override " see s. 29 of the Act of
;
1849 (the principal Act).

(/<) Act of 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 92), s. 2. Setting cocks to fight, if they are
hurt, is an offence {Budge v. Parsons (1863), 3 B. & S. 382) so is cutting cocks'
;
combs {Murphy v. Manning (1877), 2 Ex. D. 307) but leaving an injured

;
horse to die in agony is not an offence [Everitt v. Davies (1878), 38 L. T. 360 ;
Foiuell V. Knight (1878), 38 L. T. 607, a case of an injured dog).

(/) Ibid., s. 29, as extended by s. 3 of the Act of 1854.
{k) R. V. Cable, [1906] 1 K. B. 719. See also Rodgtrs v. Richards, [1892]
1 Q. B. 555.
(/) Sivan V. Saunders (1881), 44 L. T. 424.
(m) Yates v. Higgins, [1896] 1 Q. B. 166.
(w) Harper v. Marcks, [1894] 2 Q. B. 319.
(o) Aplin V. Forritt, [1893] 2 Q. B. 57.
(p) Budge v. Parsons (1863), 3 B. & S. 382 ;Alien v. Small, [1901] L. R. 2 Ir.
705.
{q) Colam v. Pagett (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 66.
(r) Per Weight, J., in Harper v. Marcks, supra, at p. 323.
410 Animals.
Sect. 1. 879. The importance of this distinction has been greatly dis-
General counted by a modern amending statute (s), which makes any
Offences. person guilty of an offence who, whilst an animal is in captivity
Ill-treating or close confinement, or is maimed, pinioned, or subjected to any
captive wild appliance or contrivance for the purpose of hindering or prevent-
animals. ing its escape from such captivity or confinement, by wantonly or
unreasonably doing or omitting any act, causes or permits to be
caused any unnecessary suffering to such animal, or cruelly abuses,
infuriates, teases, or terrifies it, or permits it to be so treated (t).
The word " animal " in this statute means any bird, beast, fish, or
reptile, not included in the definition above mentioned (^0 i-e., ,
practically any living thing, except insects, that cannot be classed

as a domestic animal. The amending Act does not apply to any
act done or any omission in the course of destroying any animal, or
of preparing any animal for destruction, as food for mankind, nor
to lawful vivisection {x), nor to the hunting or coursing of any
animal which has not been liberated in a mutilated or injured state
in order to facilitate its capture or destruction (y).
Meaning of 880. It is important to ascertain as nearly as possible what is

" cruelly
abuse or
meant in the principal Act by the words cruelly abuse or torture."
torture." The mere infliction of pain, even if extreme pain, is not by
itself constitute the offence.
sufficient to Pain is constantly
inflicted upon the brute creation under various sanctions, such as
surgery, or war, or where it is reasonably necessary. The mere
whim or convenience or, as a rule, the profit of man will not
constitute reasonable necessity though an ojDeration without which
;
an animal does not attain its full development, or is not so service-

able, or is dangerous, may be justified as ''necessary" if properly
done. No doubt suffering is caused by the breaking in or the castra-
tion and docking of horses, but such acts may usually be justified
on the principles above stated, if fairly and reasonably done (2).
The most terse and satisfactory definition of the cruelty aimed at
by the statute is "the unnecessary abuse of the animal "(a).
Branding lambs on the nose with a hot iron is not necessarily
cruelly ill-treating them, since it may be reasonably necessary for
their identification {b).
Dishorning In accordance with the principles above stated, the very painful
cattle.
operation of dishorning cattle by salving off their horns close to their
heads for the purpose of slightly increasing their value, and for
convenience in feeding and packing, was held to be unjustifiable
and unnecessary, and to be cruelty within the meaning of the Act (c).
(s) Wild Animals in Captivity Protection Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Yict. c. 33).
{t) Ibid., s. 2.
(u) Ibid., s. 1.
(cc) I.e., under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict,
c. 77).
{y) Act of 1900 (63 & 64 Yict. c. 33), s. 4.
(z) Ford V. JVileij (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 203, per Lord Coleridge, C.J., and
Hawkins, J.
Budge v. Parsons (1863), 3 B. & S. 382, per Wightman, J.
(a)
Bowyer v. Morgan (1906), 95 L. T. 772.
{b)
(c) Ford V. Wiley, supra. The Court of Justiciary in Scotland and the
Queen's Bench Division in Ireland refused to follow this case, holding that
Part YIII. — Cruelty to Animals. 411
Nor can dubbing or cutting off the combs of cocks, which causes Sect. ].
them pain, be justified for the purpose of exhibiting them or for General
cockfighting ((/). On the other hand, the spaying of sows, which Oftences.
was said to make them more useful for food, was held not to be comb^
within the Act merely because it caused pain (e). An intention to cutting,
commit cruelty is not an essential part of the offence the question ;
in each case being whether there was in fact cruelty to the

animal {/).
881. Guilty knowledge is an essential, and must be proved, Mensrea.
otherwise the accused cannot be said to have caused or procured
the cruelty {g). It is not sufficient to show that a defendant would
have known of the suffering of the animal had he properly per-
formed his duties. The mere fact that it is the duty of a man in
the position of a manager to see that horses are fit to be worked
does not render him liable to be convicted when they are worked
in an unfit state, without proof of his knowledge of the actual
cruelty {h). Where the defendant visited cattle and failed to
loosen their head-ropes after disembarkation, and one was found
suffering from a bad wound, the conviction was quashed in the
absence of proof of his knowledge of the animal's suffering (/).
Where a veterinary surgeon certified a mare as free from pain and
fit for work, and the magistrate found that he knowingly counselled
the owner to cause the act of cruelty, but that such advice was
not the proximate cause of the cruelty, and acquitted him, the
Court remitted the case for conviction on the ground that he was a
principal offender {k) under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848 {I).
882. A
mere omission to alleviate suffering is not an act of Omission to
alleviate
cruelty within the meaning of the statute {m) thus it is no offence
;
^rmg.
merely not to kill an animal in pain {n) it is inhuman cruelty
;
not to kill it, but passive cruelty of that kind is not an offence
under the Act (o).
dishorning cattle when performed with skill and in the usual manner for the
purpose of preventing inj ury is not an offence. See Renton v. TFy7so?i (1888),
15 Ct. Sess., 4th series, Just. Cas. 84, followed in TodricJc v. Wilson (1891),
2 White, Just. Cas. 636, and B. v. McDonagh (1891), 28 L. E. Ir. 204. Ford v.
Wiley is, however, binding on justices in England and Wales.
(d) MurpJuj V. Manning (1877). 2 Ex. D. 307.
(e) Lewis v. Fermor (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 532; dissented from in Ford v.
Wileij (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 203, see note (c), supra.
(/) Duncan v. Pope (1899), 63 J. P. 217 (killing a dog).
{g) A lion tamer was convicted where a pony was attacked by one of the per-
forming lions, but the Court was careful not to lay down a general rule that it
is an offence to put a domestic animal with a tamed beast. There must be some
evidence of mens rea {Thielbar v. Craigen (1905), 69 J. P. 421).
(/i) Small V. Warr (1883), 47 J. P. 20. Compare Greemuood v. Backhouse
(1902j, 86 L. T. 566.
(?) Elliott V. Oshorn (1891), 65 L. T. 378.
(k) Benford v. Sims, [1898] 2 Q,. B. 641. This decision proceeded upon the
very special findings in the case, and is not an authority for holding that every
veterinary surgeon who gives a wrong opinion is liable to be convicted if cruelty
in fact results (/)er Channell, J., at p. 646).
il) 11 & 12 Yict. c. 43 (Jer vis's Act), s. 5.
(m) Westbrook v. Field (1887), 51 J. P. 726 ;

compare Elliott v. Oshorn, supra,
(n) Everitt v. Bavics (1878), 38 L. T. 361.
(o) Per CoCKBURN, C.J., Powell v. Knight (1878), 38 L. T. 607, at p. 608 ;
— ;;
412 Animals.
Sect. 1. Turning a mare into a field where its grazing must involve torture,
General instead of tending it in a stable, has been held to be torture within
Offences. the Act ip) Causing cows to be overstocked with milk (q) and, in
.
Scotland, allowing a horse to remain in a cab exposed and hungry (r)

have been held to be offences under this Act. If a man begins to
kill an animal he must kill it outright to allow it to linger in pain
;
is cruelty (s).
It may be observed that the language of the more recent Wild
Animals in Captivity Act, 1900, is in many of its phrases wider than
in the principal Act, and is designed to meet some of the points
mentioned above in the case of captive wild animals. Moreover,
not only acts, but omissions, which cause cruelty are made offences
under the later Act.
Sect. 2. Special Offences.

Special
883. In addition to the main offence created by sect. 2 of the
offences.
Act of 1849 {t), several other specific offences of cruelty are provided
for, and penalties imposed in each case.
Bull-baiting,
884. To keep, use, or act in the management of any place for
cock-fighting
etc.
the purpose of fighting or baiting {u) any bull, bear, badger, dog,
cock, or other kind of animal, whether of domestic or wild nature,
is an offence rendering the offender liable to a penalty not exceed-
ing five pounds for every day on which the offence is committed
and any person encouraging, aiding, or assisting (w) at such fighting
or baiting is liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds for each
offence.
Every person who receives money for admission to any such place
is to be deemed to be the keeper thereof (x).
Neglecting 885. As to the offence of not feeding and watering impounded
impounded
cattle.
cattle, and the power of others to do so and to recover the expenses
by sale of the cattle or otherwise, see above, (y).
Slaughterer'
886. The provision and regulation of places for the slaughter of
licence.
cattleand horses are the subject of various statutory enactments,
and of bye-laws made by local authorities {z). So far as the subject
approved in Hooker v. Gray (1907), 23 T. L. E. 472. As to wounding a

trespassing dog, see also Armstrong v. Mitchell (1903), 19 T. L. E. 525.
See p. 395, ante.
(p) Everitt V. Davies (1878), 38 L. T. 361.
R. V. CaUe, [1906] 1 K. B. 719.
{q)
(r) Anderson v. Wood (1881), 9 Ct. Sess., 4tli series, Just. Cas. 6.
(s) Adcock V. Murrell (1890), 54 J. P. 776.
{t) See p. 409, ante.
{u) Cruelty to Animals Act, 1849 (12 & 13 -Vict. c. 92), s. 3. Turning out
rabbits before dogs in a place where they cannot escape is not "baiting" {Pitts
V. Millar (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 380).
{w) The offence of encouraging, aiding, and assisting under this part of the
section can only occur at a "place " mentioned in the former part of it. See
Clarke v. Hague (1860), 29 L. J. (M. C.) 105; Morleij v. Greenhalgh (1863),
3 B. & S. 374.
(x) Cruelty to Animals Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Yict. c. 92), s. 3.
{y) See p. 384, ante.

(z) See the Knackers Act, 1786 (26 Geo. 3, c. 71), which does not now apply
to London (Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Yict. c. 76), s. 142)
—
Part YIIl. Cruelty to Animals. 413
of cruelty to animals is concerned, it is only necessary to point out Sect. 2.
that any person who is licensed {a) to slaughter horses and cattle Special
must have affixed or painted over the door of the house or place Offences,
where he carries on his business of a slaughterer, in large and
legible characters, the name of the licensed person and the words
" Licensed for slaughtering horses, pursuant to an Act passed in the
twenty-sixth year of His Majesty King George the Third." For an
infraction of this provision he may on summary conviction be fined
five pounds for every day on which the offence has been committed (b) .
Every person keeping, using, or acting in the management of Conduct of

business,
any place (c) for the purpose of slaughtering horses or other cattle,
not intended for butchers' meat, must immediately cut off the hair
from the neck of such animal brought or delivered there, and kill
it within three days, and properly feed it until it is killed, under
a penalty of five pounds {d), and must not use or permit or cause
it to be used, or permit it to leave the place to be employed in any
manner of work under a penalty of forty shillings for every day on

which the offence continues, to which penalty the person actually
working the animal is also liable (e) he must also enter in a book
;
a full and complete description of the colour, marks, and gender of

the animal, and must produce such book or allow extracts to
be made therefrom whenever required under a penalty of forty
shillings All these penalties may be recovered summarily.
(/').
No person licensed to slaughter horses may, while the licence is

in force, exercise the business of a horse-dealer (g).
887. Any person who conveys or causes to be conveyed in or Improperly

upon any vehicle any animal in such a manner as to subject it to ^°^^^^g^^
unnecessary pain or suffering is liable to a penalty of three pounds
for a first offence, and five pounds for subsequent offences (li),
888. It is an offence for any person, not being the owner of the Administer-
animal or acting by the authority of such owner, wilfully and ^"ô^^^^*^^^^^
Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847 &

11 Vict. c. 34), ss. 125—131 Public
(10 ;
Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), ss. 169, 170; Pablic Health Acts Amend-
ment Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 59), ss. 29, 30, 31 Public Health (London) Act,
;
1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 76), ss. 19, 20 Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Vict,
;
c. 73), s. 27 (2) and London Government Act, 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 14), s. 6 (4).
;
The subject is further dealt with under title Public Health.

(a) To keep a slaughterhouse without a licence is a felony punishable by fine
and imprisonment (26 Geo. 3, c. 71, s. 8). Both the person keeping the
slaughterhouse and the slaughterhouse itself must be licensed. See the Acts
mentioned in note (z), supra.
(b) 26 Geo. 3, c. 71 Cruelty to Animals Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 92), s. 7.
;
(c) The place need not be a licensed slaughterhouse. Where the huntsman of
a pack of hounds, who had the sole management of a place at the kennels used
solely as a slaughterhouse, permitted a horse sent to him for slaughter to leave
the place to be employed in work, the Court held that he ought to have been
convicted under s. 9 {Colam v. Hall (1871), L. E. 6 Q. B. 206).
{d) Cruelty to Animals Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 92), s. 8. A
horse pur-
chased by a slaughterer without any directions from the seller as to slaughtering,
is "brought" to the premises within the meaning of this section (EdyavY. Spain
(1901), 84 L. T. 631).
(e) Cruelty to Animals Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 92), s. 9
(/) Ibid., s. 10.

(g) Ibid., s. 11.
(h) Ibid., s. 12. As to the carriage of animals generally, see title Cauriers.
—
414 Animals.
Sect. 2. unlawfully to administer to or cause to be administered to or taken

Special by any horse, cattle, or domestic animal, any poisonous or injurious
Offences. drug or substance, unless he can show some reasonable cause or
excuse for so doing (i).
Punishment. The offender is liable on summary two conviction before
justices {k) to a penalty not exceeding hve pounds, or
month's to a
imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a first offence, and
to three months' imprisonment for a second or subsequent offence (l).
These provisions do not affect any other liability of an offender
in respect of the same acts, but he cannot be punished more than
once for the same offence (m).
Sect. 3. Penalties and Procedure.

Punishment. 889. Except where otherwise stated, the penalty for any of the
above offences under the Act of 1849 is " a fine not exceeding five
pounds for every offence," to which is added a provision that if the
conviction takes place before two justices or before a metropolitan
police magistrate, they or he may, instead of imposing a pecuniary
penalty, commit the offender for any term not exceeding three
months with or without hard labour {n).
An offender against the provisions relatinj]^ to wild animals in
captivity may be proceeded against under the Summary Jurisdiction
Acts, and the penalty is three months' imprisonment with or with-
out hard labour, or a fine not exceeding five pounds or imprisonment
in default of payment (o).
Compen- 890. Where an offender is convicted of cruelty (within the mean-

sation.
ing of sect. 2 of the Act of 1849) which causes damage or injury to
any animal, or damage or injury to any person or property, he may
be ordered to pay compensation up to the sum of ten pounds. The
payment of such compensation, or imprisonment for the non-pay-
ment thereof, is not to affect the punishment for the offence itself,
nor to prevent a civil action being brought where the amount of
damage is not sought to be recovered under the Act {p).
Imprison- Wherean offender is convicted, and does not pay the penalty
ment in
or the amount awarded as compensation, together with the costs,
default.
within such time as the magistrate appoints, the magistrate is
required to commit him to prison with or without hard labour for
any time not exceeding two calendar months, unless payment be
sooner made (q).
Apprehension 891. Any constable, upon any of the offences against the principal
of offenders.
Act being committed within his view, or upon complaint and informa-
tion of any person who declares his or her name and place of abode,
(*) Drugging of Animals Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Yict. c. 13), ss. 1, 2.
{k) I hid., s. 4.
(l) Ibid., s. 1.
(m) Ibid., s. 3
{n) Cruelty to Animals Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Yict. c. 92), s. 18.
(o) Wild Animals in Captivity Protection Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Yict. c. 33), s. 3.
(p) Cruelty to Animals Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Yict. c. 92), s. 4. See as to such
o:ffences, p. 409, ante,
{q) Ibid., s. 18.
. —
Part VIII.— Cruelty to Animals. 415
may seize the offender and without other authority convey him Sect. 3.
before a justice of the peace to be dealt with (?•). Penalties

If the constable takes an offender having charge of any vehicle or and
animal into custody, he may take charge of the vehicle or animal Procedure,
and deposit it in a safe place as security for any penalty to which Detention of
the offender or the owner may be liable, and for payment of expenses vehicles and
necessarily incurred for keeping it. The justice may order it to be
sold to satisfy the penalty and expenses (s).
It is also made a special offence, under a penalty of five pounds, at Penalty for
any time or in any manner unlawfully to obstruct, hinder, molest,
ônstablesetc
or assault any constable or keeper of a pound while in the exercise
of any power or authority under the Act (t).
892. Where a complaint is made against the driver or conductor Liability of
of any hackney carriage or stage carriage or the driver of any other f^^^^se oT^
vehicle, the justice may summon
the proprietor to produce the offences com-
servant to answer the complaint. If the proprietor fail to do so, the mitted by
justice may proceed to determine the case in the absence of the ^^^^^^^
defendant, and may order the proprietor to pay any penalty money vehicles etc.
or costs in which the servant may be convicted. The proprietor
may recover this sum in a summary way from the servant through
whose default such sum shall have been paid, upon proof of pay-
ment and of such servant's refusing or neglecting to be produced.
Alternatively, if the proprietor fail, without satisfactory excuse, to
produce his servant, the justice may fine him forty shillings as
often as he shall be summoned until he produce the servant (u).
893. The money recovered by way of penalties is distributed as Distribution

penalties,
follows one half to
: the overseer of the parish in which the offence
is committed, to be applied in aid of the rates the other half to
;
the complainant or such other person as to the justice shall seem

fit and proper {v)
894. Most of the special procedure provided in the principal Procedure.

Act has been repealed, and the procedure is now governed by the
Summary Jurisdiction Acts (x).
However, the following special provisions remain in force :
(1) Every complaint must be made within one calendar month (y),
Time of
and may be heard by any justice of the peace within whose jurisdic- <ô"^pi^^'^*-
tion the offence is committed in a summary way {z).
(2) In all cases where the sum adjudged to be paid on conviction Appeals,
exceeds two pounds (a), or where imprisonment is adjudged, any
person who thinks himself aggrieved by such conviction may appeal
to the next Court of general or quarter sessions (h).
(r) Cruelty to Animals Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 92), s. 13.
(s) Ibid., s. 19.
(t) Ibid., s. 20.
(u) Ibid., s. 22.
{v) Ibid., s. 21.
See title Magistrates.
(.x)
{y) Exclusive of the day upon wMch the offence is committed [Radcliffe v
Bartholomew, [1892] 1 Q. B. 161).
(z) Craelty to Animals Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Yict. c. 92), s. 14.
(a) Exclusive of costs {B. v. Warwichshire Justices (1856), 6 E. & B. 837).

(b) Cruelty to Animals Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 92), s. 25
—— :
416 Animals.
Sect. 3. No conviction, order, judgment, or proceeding under the Act

(3)
Penalties may be quashed for want of form, or removed by certiorari (c) into
and the superior Courts {d).
Procedure. A conviction for cruelty to a number of different animals at one
time, such as five cows or sixteen heifers, discloses only one offence,
and is not bad on the face of it as a conviction for separate and
distinct offences {e).
Sect. 4. Vivisection.
Sub-Sect. 1. Offences.
Painful 895. No unlicensed person may perform upon a living verte-

experiments
on living
brate (/) animal any experiment calculated to give pain. Any
animals. person performing, or taking part in performing, any such experi-
ment is liable on summary conviction to a penalty of fifty pounds
for a first offence, and to a penalty of, one hundred pounds or three
months' imprisonment for a second or subsequent offence (g).
General 896. Experiments calculated to give pain may be performed by
restrictions.
a duly licensed (h) person on any living vertebrate animal subject
to the following restrictive regulations [i) —
Object of The experiment must be performed with a view to the advancement
experiment
and licence
by new discovery of physiological knowledge or of knowledge which
for person will be useful for saving or prolonging life or alleviating suffering,
performing it. and by a person holding a licence from the Secretary of State and ;
where the licence is a conditional one, or where the experiment is

for the purpose of instruction, it must be performed in a registered
place.
Use of During the whole of the experiment the animal must be under an
anaesthetics.
anaesthetic (other than urari or curare (j) ) of sufficient power to
prevent its feeling pain. If pain is likely to continue after the
effect of the anaesthetic has ceased, or if any serious injury has
been inflicted, the animal must be killed before it recovers from
the influence of the anaesthetic.
Experiments The experiment must not be performed for the purpose of attaining
in medical
schools etc.
manual skill, nor as an illustration of lectures in medical schools,
hospitals, colleges, or elsewliere, unless a certificate (k) has been given
that the proposed experiments are absolutely necessary for instruc-
tion with a view to the hearers acquiring physiological knowledge,
(c) See R
v. Chantrell (1875), L. E. 10 Q. B. 587. The point seems not to have
been taken in B. v. Cable (note (e), infra). Writ of certiorari for a special case
now lies from quarter sessions under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (42 &
43 Yict. c. 49), s. 40 (see title Magistrates), so that the effect of this section is
minimised.
{d) Act of 1849 (12 &
13 Yict. c. 92), s. 26.
(e) B. V. Cable, 1 B. 719.
[1906] KSee also p. 409, ante.
If) Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876 (39 & 40' Vict. c. 77), s. 22.
ig) Ibid., s. 2.
^
(h) I.e., by the Home Secretary (s. 8) ;
seep 411, post. As to applications for
licences, see p. '418, pos^.
(?) Ibid., s. 3.
.
(j) Ibid., s. 4.
{k) See ss. 10, 11, p. 418, jpost.
— —
Part VIII. Ckuelty to Animals. 417
or knowledge useful to them for saving or prolonging life, or Sect. 4*
alleviating suffering. Vivisection.

Experiments may be performed without anaesthetics, on a certifi- Experiments
cate being given that insensibility cannot be produced without without
necessarily frustrating the object of such experiments; and without anaesthetics,
or without
the necessity of killing the animal before it recovers from the killing the
anaesthetic, on a certificate being given that so killing the animal animal.
would necessarily frustrate the object of the experiment, provided
that the animal is killed as soon as the object is attained.
Experiments not directly for the advancement by new discovery Experiments
to test former
of physiological knowledge or of knowledge useful for saving or pro-
discovery.
longing life or alleviating suffering, but for testing such previous
discoveries, may be performed on a certificate being given that
such testing is absolutely necessary for the effectual advancement
of such knowledge.
897. Dogs, cats, horses, asses, and mules are further specially pro- Special
on
tected. No experiment may be performed upon a dog or cat with- restrictions
experiments
out anaesthetics, except on a certificate being given stating, in addition on dogs, cats
to the statements already mentioned, that the object of the experi- etc.
ment will be necessarily frustrated unless it is performed on an
animal similar in constitution and habits to a cat or dog, and that
no other animal is available and an experiment calculated to give
;
pain may not be performed on any horse, ass or mule, except on a

similar certificate stating that the object of the experiment will be
necessarily frustrated unless it is performed upon a horse, ass or
mule, and that no other animal is available (l).
Exhibitions to the general public (whether admitted on payment Public
exhibition of
or gratuitously) of experiments on living animals which are calculated
experiments
to give pain are illegal. Any person performing or aiding in perform- illegal.
ing such experiments is guilty of an offence and liable on a first offence
to a penalty of fifty pounds, and on a subsequent offence to a penalty
of one hundred pounds or three months' imprisonment. Any person
publishing any notice of any such intended exhibition is liable to a
penalty of one pound. A person punished under this section cannot
be punished under any other section for the same offence (m).
Sub-Sect. 2. Procedure.
898. The power to grant licences is vested in the Secretary of State Licences.
{i.e., the Home Secretary), who may insert a provision in any licence
granted that the place where any experiment is to be performed by

the licensee must be registered as directed by order and approved by
him (n).
The Secretary of State may also license any person whom he may
think qualified, and for so long as he thinks fit, and may revoke
the licence if satisfied that it ought to be revoked. He may annex
to the licence any conditions which he thinks expedient, and which
are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act (o).
{I) Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 77), s. 5.

(m) Ibid., s. 6.
{n) Ibid., s. 7. No general or special orders have yet been issued under this
section.
(o) Ibid., s. 8.
H.L. — I. E E
418 Animals.
Sect. 4. The Secretary of State may also direct a person performing

Vivisection. experiments to report to him the result in such form and with such
details as he may require (p).
Reports to
Secretary of All registered places must be visited from time to time by
State. inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose of
Inspection of securing compliance with these provisions (q).
registered
places. 899. Any application for a licence and any certificate given must
Authentica- be signed by the President of one or more certain specified learned
tion of
certificates
societies in England, Scotland, or Ireland, namely -The Eoyal : —
and applica- Society ; The Royal
Society of Edinburgh The Eoyal Irish ;
tions for Academy; Royal Colleges of Surgeons in London, Edinburgh,

licences.
and Dublin Royal Colleges of Physicians in London, Edinburgh,
;
and Dublin; General Medical Council; Faculty of Physicians and

Surgeons of Glasgow Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Royal
; ;
Veterinary College, and also by a professor of medical subjects in a

university or college in Great Britain or Ireland incorporated by
royal charter, unless the applicant is himself such a professor.
Where the applicant for a certificate is himself authorised to sign
such a certificate the signature of another authorised person must
be substituted for the signature of the applicant.
The certificate may be given for such time and for such series of
experiments as the person signing thinks expedient and a copy ;
thereof must be forwarded by the applicant to the Secretary of

State, and is not available until one week afterwards, and the
Secretary of State may disallow or suspend it at any time (?).
Power of 900. Judges of the High Court in England, Scotland, and Ireland
granriicences
^^^^ gi'ant a licence or give a certificate where they are satisfied
in criminal that it is essential for the purposes of justice in a criminal case to
cases. make an experiment on living animals (s).
Search 901. A
justice of the peace may, upon sworn information that
warrant.
there reasonable ground to believe that experiments are being
is
performed by an unlicensed person in an unregistered place, issue
a search warrant, and the officers may enter and take the names
and addresses of persons found. To refuse admission to or to
obstruct any officer, or to refuse to disclose his name or address, or
to give a false name or address, renders the offender liable to a
penalty of five pounds (t).
Eight to trial 902. A

person summarily accused in England of an offence
on indictment for which may
the penalty is more than five pounds elect to be tried
and appeal.
on indictment any party thinks himself aggrieved by a
; and if
summary conviction, he may appeal under the Summary Jurisdiction

Acts (it).
Prosecution A prosecution under this Act against a licensed person may not
only by leave
of Secretary
of State. (p) Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Yict. c. 77), s. 9.
{(j) Ihid., s. 10.

(r) Ibid., s. 11. Forms of application for licences and certificates are on sale
as Stationery Oflfice publications.
(s) Ihid., s. 12.
(t) Ibid., s. 13.
(u) Ibid., ss. 15, 16.
— —— ;
Part VIII. Cruelty to Animals. 419
be instituted except with the assent in writing of the Secretary of Sect. 4.
State (r). Vivisection.

Sect. 5. Destruction oj Injured Animals,
903. a police constable finds any horse, mule, ass, bull, cow. Powers of
If
ox, calf, sheep, goat, or swine, so diseased or so severely
heifer,
injured or in such a physical condition that it cannot without animafs
cruelty be removed, he must, if the owner is absent or refuses to seriously
consent to the destruction of the animal, at once summon a duly ^î^^^^-
registered veterinary surgeon, if any such surgeon resides within a
reasonable distance and if it appears by the certificate of such
;
veterinary surgeon that the animal is mortally injured or so severely

injured or so diseased or in such a physical condition that it is cruel
to keep it alive, the police constable may, without the consent of the
owner, slaughter the animal or cause it to be slaughtered with such
instruments or appliances, and with such precautions and in such
manner as to inflict as little pain and suffering as practicable, and
if in a street or public place may remove the carcase or cause it to
be removed {iv).
Seasonable expenses of slaughtering or removing the carcase Expenses,
from any street or public place may be recovered from the owner
summarily as a civil debt, i.e., under the Summary Jurisdiction
Acts. Subject to this, the expenses incurred are defrayed out of the
police fund of the area in which the animal was found {x).
Part IX. — Diseases of Animals.
Sect. 1. At Common Law,

904. The owner or possessor of animals having an infectious or Liability for
contagious disease is liable for the damage caused by their infected damage
state in the following cases :
— ?nfected'^
(1) If, knowing them to be suffering from an infectious or con- cattle,
tagious disease, he does not keep them on his own premises (^)
(2) If, knowing of their diseased state, he gratuitously bails
them (and a fortiori if the bailment be for reward), knowing that
the bailee probably will or may place them with other animals
which are healthy, without warning the bailee of their diseased
state (a) ;
(3) If he sells them with a warranty that they are free from
{v) Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 77), s. 21.
{iv) Injured Animals Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 5), s. 1 (1),
(x) Ihid., s. 1 (2). See, as to procedure under the Summary Jurisdiction
Acts, title Magistrates. Under the Injured Animals Act, 189-i (57 & 58 Vict,
c, 22), this power existed only in the case of injury, see London Road Car Co.
V. Harrison (1900), 44 Sol. J. 424, and was limited to horses, mules or

asses.
(2) Cooke V. Waring (1863), 2 H. & C. 332.
(a) Penton v. Murduck (1870), 22 L. T. 371.
;
420 Animals.
Sect. 1. infectious or contagious disease, and in this case, whether he knows

At Common of fcheir diseased state or not is immaterial (b) ;
Law. (4) If he is guilty of fraud or actual concealment in the sale (c)

(5) If, knowing them to be diseased, and that they may be put
in with healthy animals, he sells them at a public market or
fair, or at a public auction; and possibly even if he sells them
privately (d).
Liability for 905. On the sale of an animal, whether suffering from an

selling
infectious or contagious disease or not, the maxim caveat emptoj^
diseased
animals. applies ; thus where a person sent diseased pigs to market and refused
to give any warranty, but stated that the animals must be taken
" with all faults," the House of Lords decided that he was not
liable for thedamage caused thereby, even if he knew that the pigs
were diseased, unless he was guilty of fraud {e). A declaration
stating that the defendant knowingly caused a glandered horse to
be sold by auction, whereby another horse of the purchaser was
affected and died, wâs held to disclose no cause of action (/).
Delivery. On the other hand, a declaration stating that the defendant
knowingly delivered a glandered horse to the plaintiff to be
put with his horse, without telling him it was glandered, was
held good without an averment of concealment, fraud, or breach of
warranty (g).
Misdemea- 906. It is a nuisance, and therefore a misdemeanour at common
nour at
law, to bring a horse infected with glanders into a fair or other public
common law.
place, such as a highway, to the danger of infecting the King's
subjects (li).
{b) Ward V. Hohhs (1878), 4 App. Cas. 13.

(c) MnJlett V. Mason (1866), L. E. 1 0. P. 559; Clarke v. Army and Navy
Co-operative Society, Ltd., [1903] 1 K. B. 155.
{d) Bodger v. Nicholh (1873), 28 L. T. 441.
(e) Ward v. Hohbs (1878), 4 App. Cas. 13. Lord Cairns, L.O., in this case
refrained from criticising the proposition of Blackbuen, J., in Bodger Nicholls
(1873), 28 L. T. 441, at p. 445, that " the defendant by taking the cow to a public
market to be sold, though he does not warrant her to be sound, yet thereby
furnishes evidence of a representation that, so far as his knowledge goes, the
animal is not suffering from any infectious disease," beyond saying that no such
representation could be implied where there was a clear statement that the buyer
must take his purchase with all faults {Ward v. Hohhs, supra, at p. 23). The
question is not affected by the fact that taking diseased animals to market is a
breach of a statutory duty {ihid., and see reports of same case in Courts below,
2 Q,. B. D. 331 3 Q,. B. J). 150).
; As to the remedy for breach of such statutory
duty, see Gorris v. Scott (1874), L. E. 9 Exch. 125.
(/) Hill V. B(dls (1857), 2 H. & C. 299. It may be noted that this case
was decided before the development of a somewhat modern doctrine that
even in the case of a sale there is a duty cast upon the seller who knows
of the dangerous nature of the goods he is supplying, and that the purchaser is
not or may not be aware of it, to give the purchaser warning. Compare Clarke
v. Army and Navy Co-operative Society, Ltd., supra ; also the leading American
case of Thomas v. Winchester (1852), 6 N. Y. (2 Selden) 397, also reported in
Eadcliffe and Miles, Cases on the Law of Torts, p. 408. It must be taken that
the doctrine does not apply where the seller expressly guards himself, as was
done in Ward v. Hohhs, supra.
(g) Penton v. Murduck (1870), 22 L. T. 371. This case is distinguished from
Hill V. Balls, supra, on the ground that the latter was a case of buyer and seller.
(Ji) R. V. Henson (1852), Dears. 24.
— ——
Part IX. Diseases of Animals. 421
Sect. 2. By Statute. Sect. 2.
Sub-Sect. 1. In General. By Statute.
907. A series of statutory provisions (i) have been made dealing Object uf
enactments,
with (1) isolation (2) disinfection (3) regulating the importation
; ;
of animals (4) the declaration of infected " places," "areas," and

;
"circles" and (5) the slaughter of diseased or suspected animals,

;
with the object of preventing the introduction and spread of

contagious diseases amongst animals.
Extensive powers for these purposes are conferred on the Board
of Agriculture and Fisheries (A), and upon local authorities, upon
whom, too, further powers may be conferred by the Board.
Speaking generally, administrative machinery is set up by these
Acts, and the carrying out of the objects of the legislation is effected
by means of Orders of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (l),
908. The diseases dealt with by the Board under these powers Diseases
i^^ciuded.
are plague or rinderpest, contagious pleuro-pneumonia of
cattle
cattle, foot and mouth disease, swine fever {m), sheep pox, and sheep
scab (n). Other diseases may be included by order of the Board (o),
and glanders (including farcy), rabies, anthrax, and epizootic
lymphangitis have been added for certain purposes, including
in the case of glanders and rabies those of slaughter and
compensation (j:)).
909. The animals dealt with are cattle (which expression means Animals
bulls, cows, oxen, heifers and calves) (q), sheep, and goats, and included,
all other ruminating animals, and swine, and there is power for the
Board by Order to extend the scope so as to comprise any other
kind of four-footed beasts (r).
(i) These Acts are :

—
Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 58 Vict. c. 57),
tlie principal and consolidating Act; Diseases of Animals Act, 1896 (59 &
60 Vict. c. 15), as to the slaughter of foreign animals; and Diseases of
Animals Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 43), as to sheep scab.
{k) As to which see title Agricultijre, pp. 297 299, ante. Eeturns are —
made to the Board regularly of all markets and fairs, under the Markets and
Fairs (Weighing of Cattle)* Acts, 1887 and 1891 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 27, and
54 & 55 Vict. c. 70), and the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Eeturns
Order, 1905 see title Markets akd Fairs.
;
(/) See Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 22; Diseases of
Animals Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 43), s. 1; and Dogs Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 32),
s. 2, pp. 400, 401, ante, as to Dogs Orders. These Orders are liable to be
revoked at any time. Copies of any particular Order can be obtained from
the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, 4, Whitehall Place, London, S.W.
{m) Known also as typhoid fever of swine, soldier purples, red disease, hog
cholera, or swine plague.
{n) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 59.
(o) Ibid., s. 22 (xxxv.).
(p) Glanders or Farcy Order, 1894 (5235), s. 2 Eabies Order, 1897 (5578)^ ;
s. 21 Anthrax Order, 1899 (5905), s. 16; Epizootic Lymphangitis Order, 1905

;
(6962), s. 17.
(q)Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 59 (1).
(/) Ibid., s. 22 (xxxvi.). By various Orders, horses, asses, mules, and dogs
have been added for certain purposes Glanders or Farcy Order, 1894, s. 2
:
(horses, asseSj and mules) Eabies Order, 1897, s. 21 (horses, asses, mules, and
;
dogs) Anthrax Order, 1899, s. 16 (horses, asses, and mules) Importation of

;
;
Dogs Order, 1901, s. 10 (dogs) Epizootic Lymphangitis Order, 1905, s. 17 (horses).

;
—
422 Animals.
Sect. 2. Sub-Sect. 2. Isolation of Infected Animals.

By Statute.
QIQ, Every person having in his possession or under his charge
Isolation an animal affected with disease, must as far as practicable keep it
and notice separate from animals not so affected, and must give notice of the
owners.
y animal being affected to a local poHce constable (s), who must forth-
with give information thereof to such person or authority as the
Board by general order direct [t). In cases of cattle plague, pleuro-
pneumonia, foot and mouth disease, sheep pox, swine fever and
rabies the constable must immediately communicate with the Board
by telegraph (u).
Notice to In cases of pleuro-pneumonia and foot and mouth disease the
constable must also give information of the receipt of the notice to
^^Th -f
Uncertain inspector of the local authority (x), who is forthwith to report
cases. the same to the local authority.
In a case of anthrax the inspector must also forthwith report to
the Medical Officer of Health of the sanitary district in which the
diseased or suspected animal is or was (?/).
Orders as to 911. The Board is given power to make orders respecting animals
^^^^ affected with pleuro-pneumonia or foot and mouth disease, while in
^lemo-^
pneumonia or a market, fair, sale yard, place of exhibition, or slaughter-house, or
foot and upon common or uninclosed land, or in transit, or generally while
disease
^ place not in the possession or control of the owner of the
animals, as well as respecting animals being or having been in
contact with animals so affected {z).
All diseases. 912. As regards the Board may make orders for
all diseases,
isolating animals being in an infected area (a) and for prohibiting ;
and regulating the exposure of diseased or suspected animals in

markets, fairs, or other public or private places where animals are
commonly exposed for sale (h) or the sending of such animals, or
;
of dung or other thing likely to spread disease, on railways, canals,

rivers or inland navigable waters, or in coasting vessels or other-
wise (c) ; or the carrying, leading, or driving of such animals on
(s) Tlie burden of proof is on the accused to show tliat he gave the notice,
not on the prosecution to show that he did not {Huggins v. PTârS(1873), L. E. 8
Q. B. 521). But the accused cannot be convicted of not giving notice unless it
is proved that he knew the animal was diseased [Nichols v. Hall (1873), L. E. 8
C. P. 322 and compare Carroll v. Eivers (1873), Ir. E. 7 C. L. 226).
;
[t] Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 4. The Board have
directed such notice to be given to their secretary, 4, Whitehall Place, London,
S.W. See Swine Pever Order, 1894 (5193), s. 1 Pleuro-pneumonia Order, 1895
;
(5289), s. 1 Cattle Plague Order, 1895 (5288), s. 1; Poot and Mouth Disease
;
Order, 1895 (5290), s. 1 Sheep Pox Order, 1895 (5291), s. 1; Eabies Order,
;
1897 (5578), s. 1 Epizootic Lymphangitis Order, 1905 (6962), s. 1.

;
[u) See the respective Orders relating to these diseases

ix) See p. 432, pos^.
[ij) Anthrax Order, 1899 (5905).
{z) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 57), s. 21.
(a) Ihid., s. 22 (iii.).
[h) Ibid., sub-s. (ix). See Cattle Plague Order, 1895, s. 12; Pleuro-
pneumonia Order, 1895, s. 16; Foot and Mouth Disease Order, 1895, s. 19;
Sheep Pox Order, 1895, s. 15 Swine Pever Order, 1894, s. 17 Anthrax Order,
; ;
1899, s. 11 Sheep Scab Order, 1905, s. 11. As to proof that the accused was
;
aware of the disease, see Carroll v. Eivers, supra.

-(c) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 22 (x.). See Swine
. — —
highways, etc. (d) or the placing or keeping them on commons or

;
Sect. 2.
uninclosed lands or in insufficiently fenced fields or on the sides of By Statute.

highways (e) .
The Board may, moreover, make orders for seizing diseased or Seizure of
suspected
suspected animals which are being dealt with in contravention of
animals.
their orders (/)
913. Further, the Board may prohibit and regulate the move- Movement of
ment ofanimals, and the removal of carcases, fodder, litter, animals etc.
and dung, and prescribe and regulate the isolation of animals
newly purchased {g) and also prescribe and regulate the issue and
;
production of licences respecting movement (li).

A railway company may be convicted of moving animals, or Liability
of railway
causing, directing, or permitting animals to be moved, in contra-
company.
vention of the regulations of the local authority, although no party
to the contract of consignment, if they actually convey them into
a prohibited district (0, but they are entitled to refuse to carry
animals at all where the regulations of the local authority are not
strictly complied with {k).
Sub-Sect. 3. Disinfection.
Disinfection,
914. Besides prohibiting and regulating the holding of markets,
fairs, exhibitions and sales of animals (I), the Board may also by
order prescribe and regulate the cleansing and disinfection (m) of
Fever Order, 1894, s. 5; Cattle Plague Order, 1895, s. 6; Pleuro -pneumonia

Order, 1895, s. 4 : Foot and Mouth Disease Order, 1895, s. 5 Sheep Pox
;
Order, 1895, s. 6; Epizootic Lymphangitis Order, 1905, s. 6, Compare Yomujman

V. Morris (1866). 15 L. T. 276.
{(1) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 22 (xi.).
(e) Ihid., s. 22 (xii.). Swine Fever Order, 1894, s. 16; Cattle Plague Order,
1895, s. 11; Pleuro-pneumonia Order, 1895, s. 15; Sheep Pox Order, 1895, s. 14.
(/) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 57), s. 22 (xiii.).
(J/)
Ihid., s. 22 (xvii.); Swine Fever Order, 1894, s. 6; Swine Fever (Infected
Areas) Order, 19U2; Swine Fever (Eegulation of Movement) Order, 1903;
Swine Fever (Eegulation of Movement) Order, 1906; Sheep Scab Order, 1905,
ss. 2, 5, 9, 11 Sheep Scab (Eegulation of Movement) Order, 1906 Cattle Plague
;
—
;
Order, 1895, ss. 5 (rr. 1 3), 7; Pleuro-pneumonia Order, 1895, ss. 5, 11; Foot
a,nd Mouth Disease Order, 1895, ss. 6, 12, 13; Sheep Pox Order, 1895, s. 7.
(A) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 22 (xviii.)) Swine ;
Fever Order, 1894, ss. 20, 21 Cattle Plague Order, 1895, s. 17

; Pleuro-;
pneumonia Order, 1895, ss. 21, 22, 24; Foot and Moutk Disease Order, 1895,
:ss. 28, 29, 31;
Sheep Pox Order, 1895, s. 26 Importation of Dogs Order, 1901,
;
ss. 1, 3. If a licence is produced the justices have no power to inquire into

the sufficiency of the evidence upon which it was granted {Stanhoiie v. Thorshy
<1866), L. E. 1 C. P. 423).
(?) Midland Bail. Co. v. Freeman (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 629.
{k) Williams V. Great Western Rail. Co. (1885), 52 L. T. 250.
(0 Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 ik, 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 22 (xix.). Cattle
Plague Order, 1895, s. 11 (vi.) Sheep Pox Order, 1895, s. 14 (vi.) Pleuro-
;
;
pneumonia Order, 1895, s, 14 Swine Fever (Markets and Fairs) Order, 1896.
;
Hawking pigs is not "holding a sale" under the last-mentioned order; see
McLean v. Monks (1898), 77 L. T. 663. See, generally, title Markets and Fairs.
(m) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 22 (xx.). This
power is exercised in nearly all the orders of the Board. As to disinfection by
inspectors of the Board, see Swine Fever Order, 1894, s. 9, and Pleuro-
pneumonia Order, 1895, s. 9. As to the owner being required to disinfect,
see Swine Fever Order, 1894, s. 10; Foot and Mouth Disease Order, 1895,
5. 10; Sheep Pox Order, 1895, s. 11 Sheep Scab Order, 1905, s. 8. In every
;
— ;
424 Animals.
Sect. 2. many places, such as fairs, markets, yards, and sheds used for animals,
By Statute, also of vessels, vehicles, and pens (n), and the modes of cleansing
and disinfection (o).
They may also prohibit the conveyance of any animal by any
specified vessel to or from any port in the United Kingdom.
They may secure the periodical dipping of sheep, or the use of
some other remedy for sheep scab (j)).
SrB-SECT. 4. Importation of Animals.
Keguiation of 915. The Board may make such orders as they think fit (q) for
ports.
prescribing the ports at which alone foreign animals may be
landed for regulating the movement and inspection and slaughter
;
of animals in a port or defined part of a port, and the removal of

carcases and other things likely to spread disease into, within, or
out of a port (?) for cleansing and disinfecting ports (s)
; for disin- ;
fecting or destroying things therein {t) for regulating the movement

;
of persons there {u), and the disinfecting of their clothes; for the
use of precautions against introducing or spreading disease {x)
and for the seizure and detention of any foreign animal or carcase
likely to introduce or spread disease (y).
Eestrictions They may prohibit the importation and landing of animals, or
specified animals or carcases, fodder, dung, or other thing, from any
tion"^^^^^^'
specified country out of the United Kingdom or from any part of
such country. This power is to be exercised whenever they are not
satisfied that reasonable security is provided against the importation
from such country of animals affected with foot and mouth disease,
having regard to the condition of the animals, the laws in such
country relating to diseases of animals, and the administration of
such laws (z).
case the owner must give facilities for disinfection, but he is not liable for the
disobedience of his servants {Searle v. Beynolds (1866), 7 B. & S. 704).
(u) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 57), s. 22 (xxi.). Compare
Tsmay v. Blake (1892), 66 L. T. 580.
(o) Ihid., s. 22 (xxii.) ; and see Anthrax Order, 1899, s. 9; Swine Fever
Order, 1901 (6339); Swine Eever (Eegulation of Movement) Order, 1903 (6734),
s. 6; Swine Fever (Movement from Ireland) Order, 1904 (6866), s. 3; Sheep
Scab Order, 1905, 2nd Schedule; Epizootic Lymphangitis Order, 1905, s. 9;

Diseases of Animals (Disinfection) Order, 1906 (7047).
[p) Diseases of Animals Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 43), s. 1, which inserts
sub-s. (xiiiA.) in s. 22 of the principal Act. The Act of 1903 also gives power
to inspectors to enter premises to examine sheep (s. 2), and power to local
authorities to provide sheep-dipping tanks (s. 3) see Sheep Scab Order, 1905,,
;
s. 7;
Sheep Scab (Compulsory Dipping Areas) Order, 1906.
[q) See Channel Islands Animals Order, 1896 (5511) Isle of Man Animals
;
Order, 1896 (5512) Importation of Dogs Order, 1901

;
Foreign Animals Order,
;
1903 (6719); Foreign Animals (Amendment) Order, 1903(6744); Swine Fever

(Movement from Ireland) Order, 1904.
(r) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 57), s. 30 (1), sub-ss. (i.)
^(vii.).
(s) Ihid., sub-s. (viii.).
[t] Ihid., sub-s. (ix.).
{u) Ihid., sub-s. (x.).
{x) Hid., sub-s. (xi.).
{y) Ihid., sub-s. (xii.).

(z) Ihid., s. 25. See Foreign Animals Order, 1903 (6719), 1st Schedule;
Foreign Animals (Amendment) Order, 1903 (6744).
— —
Sitb-Sect. 5. Declaration of In fected Places, Areas and Circles. Sect. 2.
By Statute.
916. A " place "
is the actual spot, the shed, field, or group of
buildings where the disease exists or has existed an area " is a Meaning of
;
"
district containing such a place; and a "circle" is the space place,"and
"area,"
lying within half a mile of any part of such place {a). circle."
917. A provisionally declared to be infected where

place is Provisional
declaration as
an inspector (6) makes and
signs a declaration of the exist-
to cattle
ence of disease in that place at the time, or within the last plague,
ten days in the case of cattle plague, fifty-six days in the case pleuro-
pneumonia,
of pleuro-pneumonia, and ten days in the case of foot and mouth or foot and
disease (c). mouth
This provisional declaration is subject to confirmation by disease.
the Board in the case of cattle plague, or by the local authority in Confirming
declaration
the case of pleuro-pneumonia and foot and mouth disease, on by Board
being satisfied that it is correct if not so satisfied, they must
;
or local
declare accordingly, and the provisional declaration will cease (d). authority.
The local authority must have the assistance of a veterinary

inspector in the case of pleuro-pneumonia and foot and mouth
disease {e).
918. In the case of pleuro-pneumonia and foot and mouth Declaration

by local
disease, a local authority may, upon the advice of a veterinary
authority
inspector, declare an infected place free from infection, but only that place is
after the lapse of fifty-six days in the case of pleuro-pneumonia, free from
infection.
or fourteen days (or such longer period, not exceedmg twenty-
eight days, as the Board directs) in the case of foot and mouth
disease (/).
A local authority cannot declare an area infected, but they Report by
local
may recommend the Board to do so. When they report to the authority
Board and declare a place to be infected with pleuro-pneumonia as to area.
or foot and mouth disease, they must report whether in their
opinion an infected area should be declared, and, if so, the
proposed limits thereof, and whether there is a market within it,
and whether they think that the holding of the market ought to
be prohibited {g) and the Board must consider the expediency of
;
prohibiting the holding of such a market whenever they declare an

area so infected {h). Such places as markets can be declared infected
places by the Board only (<).
(a) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (o7 & 58 Yict. c. 57), ss. 5, 8, 12.
"
\h) Defined, s. 59, ihid. The expression "inspector of the Board ot Agriculture
or " inspector of a local authority " means a person appointed to be an inspector
for purposes of this Act by the Privy Council and the Board of Agriculture, or
by a local authority, as the case may be and the expression " inspector," used
;
alone, means such a person, by whichever authority appointed.

(c) Ihid., ss. 5 (1), 8 (1).
{d) Ihid., ss. 5 (6)— (9), 8 (6)— (8).
(e) Ihid., s. 8 (5), and Foot and Mouth Disease Order, 1895, s. 3.
(/) Ihid., s. 8 (11).

{g). Ihid., s. 8 (9).
(A) Ihid., s. 9 (2).
{i) See Swine Fever Order, 1894, s. 16; Cattle Plague Order, 1895, ss. 11, 14;
.
426 Animals.
Sect. 2.
919. The Board is unrestricted, and may at any time if they
By Statute. think fit on any evidence satisfactory to them by order declare
Independent any place or area to be infected with cattle plague, pleuro-

declaration pneumonia, or foot and mouth disease, or extend, contract, or
by Board. alter tlie limits of such infected place or area, or declare them or
any part of them free from infection (/c).
Other 920. In the case of diseases other than cattle plague,

diseases. pleuro-pneumonia, or foot and mouth disease, the Board can
make orders prescribing the cases in which places and areas
are be declared infected, and the authority by which they
to
may be declared, and the duration and discontinuance of the
declarations (l)
Notice of When a place or area is declared infected, notice of the fact may
declaration.
be published in the neighbourhood, and the Board may by order
prescribe and regulate this (m).
Eegulations 921. The Board may prohibit and regulate the movement
as to removal, of animals and persons as well as of carcases and other
isolation,
destruction,
things whether into, or within, or out of an infected place
and dis- or area (o) may prescribe and regulate the isolation and
;
infection. separation of animals there the destruction, treatment, or

removal of carcases and other things {q), and the cleansing and
disinfection of infected places and areas or parts thereof (r) as
well as the clothes of persons coming in contact with diseased
or suspected animals or being in an infected place, and the
use of precautions against the spreading of disease by such
persons (s).
Power to The owner or person in charge of animals in an infected place or
exclude
area may forbid by notice the entrance of persons therein without
unauthorised
persons. permission (t).
Movement When a place is infected with pleuro-pneumonia, only cattle
into, within, which have the disease may be moved into it, and no cattle may
and out of
be moved out of it, except on such conditions as may be pre-
infected areas
and places. scribed by the Board. A local authority, however, may give
licences (on conditions prescribed by the Board) for the movement
Pleuro-pneumonia Order, 1895, ss. 15, 18; Foot and Mouth Disease Order,
1895, s. 21 Sheep Pox Order, 1895,
;
ss. 14, 17.
(/t) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), ss. 5 (10), 6, 8 (12),
9(1).
(/) Ibid., s. 10 (1), and see Swine Pever Order, 1894, s. 3; Sheep Pox Order,
1895, ss. 3, 5.
(m) Act of 1894, s. 22 (i.).
(//) Ihid., s. 22 (iv.) ; Cattle Plague Order, 1895, s. 3; Pleuro-pneumonia

Order, 1895, s. 3.
Act of 1894, s. 22 (ii.). Compare Eustace v. Sargent (1866), 14 L. T. 552.

(o)
The justices of the county from which the animals are moved also have juris-
diction {R. V. Williams (1866), 15 L. T. 290).
(p) Act of 1894, s. 22 (iii.).
{q) Ibid., s. 22 (v.).
(r) Ibid., s. 22 (vi.) Cattle Plague Order, 1895, s. 5, r. 4
; Poot and Mouth ;
Disease Order, 1895, s. 4, r. 5 ; Sheep Pox Order, 1895, s. 4, r. 5 ; Swine Pever

Order, 1894, s..4, r. 5.
(s) Act of 1894, s. 22 (vii.) Cattle Plague Order, 1895, s. 2 (3)
; Poot and ;
Mouth Disease Order, 1895, s. 3 (2) Sheep Pox Order, 1895, s. 2 (3).
;
it) Act of 1894, s. 13.

'
— — ,
of cattle either into or out of such parts of an infected area as are Sect. 2.
not comprised within an infected place {u). By Statute.

The same restriction holds good with regard to the movement of
animals in the case of places or areas infected with foot and mouth
disease (x).
922. Where the Board declare that the provisions of s. 12 Infected

circles.
of the Act of 1894 shall apply in the case of any disease, then,
upon any place becoming a place infected with that disease in
pursuance of a declaration of an inspector of a local authority,
the whole space lying within a distance of half a mile from any
part of a place declared infected becomes an infected circle; when
the place in respect of which an infected circle has been constituted
ceases to be an infected place, the infected circle ceases to exist (y).
When an infected circle is declared, public notice may be îven Effect of
declaration
of it, for which the Board may make regulations the Board may ;
of infected
also make regulations for contracting and dissolving infected circle.
circles, may prohibit and regulate the movement of animals into,
within, or out of the circle, and may authorise local authorities
to do the same (z).
Sub-Sect. 6. Slamjliter of Animals and Compensation.

923. Foreign animals must be landed at a special wharf and
^^[^^^^^•
^^^"^^
killed before they are removed ((x), and this regulation applies
to all animals except such as may not be landed at all owing to
prohibition (6), and such as are intended for exhibition or other
exceptional purposes and allowed by the Board to land subject to
quarantine (c). In such exceptional cases, they must be landed
at a specified part of the port, and kept in particular sheds,
and must not be moved except on conditions prescribed by the
Board {d). With regard to animals from the Channel Islands
and the isle of Man, the Board may make alterations in the above
regulations (e).
924. The Board must slaughter all animals affected with cattle Cattle plague,
plague, or which have been in contact with animals so affected, and
may, if they think fit, slaughter animals suspected of cattle plague,
or in a place infected with cattle plague, and (subject to Treasury
Kegulations) animals in a place in an infected area (/).
(it) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 57), s. 11, and Schedule I.,
Part I.
(.x) Ihid., s. 11, and Schedule I., Part II.
Cv) Ihid., s. 12 (1), (2).
(z) Ibid.,s. 12. It may be noted that a conviction for moving infected
animals in a county is no bar to proceedings in a borough for a like offence,
although the movement was one continuous movement {R. v. Coidman (1883),
48 J. P. 8, a case decided at Doncaster Quarter Sessions).
(a) Schedule III., Part L, para. (1).
{h) See p. 424, aide.
(c) Diseases of Animals Act, 1896(59 & 60 Vict. c. 15), s. 1. See the Eoreign
Animals (Quarantine) Order, 1896 (5513).
{d) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894(57 & 58 Yict. c. 57), s. 27, and Schedule III.
Part II.
{e). Ibid., s. 28 and see Channel Islands Animals Order, 1896 (5511), and Isle
;
of Man Animals Order, 1896 (5512).

(/) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 7.
428 Animals.
Sect. 2. In the case of diseases other than cattle plague, the Board may
By Statute. and authorise slaughter by local authorities (g).
direct
Slaughter
The Board must slaughter cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia,
by local and may, if they think fit, slaughter cattle suspected of, or exposed
authorities. to,such infection (li). When slaughter is decided upon, it must, if
Pleuro- the owner by notice in writing so requires, be done within twenty-
pneumonia.
one days {i).
Foot and The Board may, if they think fit, slaughter any animals, and a
mouth local authority may
slaughter any cattle, sheep, or swine (k) affected
disease.
with, or suspected of, or exposed to the infection of, foot and mouth
disease®.
Swine fever. The Board may also slaughter any swine affected with, or sus-
pected or exposed to the infection of, swine fever (m).
of,
Glanders. A local authority may slaughter horses, asses, or mules affected
with glanders, but, if the owner objects, only with the authority of
the Board; if the owner consents they may slaughter such animals
when suspected of glanders (n).
Sheep pox. A local authority must slaughter, within two days of their hearing
of the disease, all sheep affected with sheep pox, and may, if thej'
think fit, slaughter sheep suspected of, or exposed to, the infection
ofit(o).
General 925. The Board may reserve for observation and treatment an
provisions as animal liable to be slaughtered. When an animal has been
to slaughter
and disposal
slaughtered the carcase belongs to the Board or local authority
of carcases. (whichever ordered the slaughter), and must be disposed of as they
direct. A record of slaughter must be kept {]>).
The Board or the local authority may use the land of the owner
of a slaughtered animal for the burial of the carcase, or common
or uninclosed land if the Board approves (^/) and the Board may ,
make orders prescribing and regulating the burial and destruction

of carcases of slaughtered animals, or of animals dying while
diseased or suspected (?).
Compensa- 926. Compensation is to be paid to persons whose animals are

tion. slaughtered for the common good. Tlie rate varies according to
the disease for the prevention of which the animal was slaughtered,
and according to whether the animal was actually affected with
disease or not (s).
When insurance is payable upon animals thus slaughtered, the
(ty) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 19.
(h) Ibid., s. 14 (1), (2).
(?:) I hid., s. 14 (4).
(k) Foot and Mouth Disease Order, 1895, s. 22.
(/) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 k 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 15 (1).
(m) I hid., s. 16 (1).
{n) Glanders or Parcy Order, 1894, s. 13.
(o) Sheep Pox Order, 1895, s. 18.
Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 20.
Iq) Ibid., s. 20 (4).
(r) s. 22 (xvi.)
Ibid., Swine Fever Order, 1894, s. 7 Cattle Plague Order,
; ;
1895, Sheep Pox Order, 1895, s. 8; Pieuro-pneumoiiia Order, 1895, s. 7;

s. 8;
Foot and Mouth Disease Order, 1895, s. 7; Epizootic Lymphangitis Order,
1905, s. 10.
(s) See Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), ss. 7, 14, 15, 16;
. . — — ;
insurers may deduct the amount of compensation received by the Sect. 2.
owner before they make the payment (t). By Statute.

Persons are hable to lose the whole or part of the compensa- when com-
tion if, in the opinion of the Board or the local authority, they pensation
have been guilt}^ of an offence against the Act, or the animal in may be
w^^^^^^^-
question, being a foreign animal, was diseased at the time of its
landing (ii).
The Board may prescribe the mode of ascertaining the value of

animals, and may regulate applications for and payment of
compensation (x).
927. Compensation for animals slaughtered by the Board, and Funds from
also the expenses of additional inspectorsand valuers employed for which com-
the purposes of compensation, are paid out of an account kept payable,
at the Bank of England called " The Cattle Pleuro-pneumonia
Account for Great Britain " (?/). It is fed by money annually
provided by Parliament (which is not to exceed £140, in any WO
one year), and by the proceeds of sale of carcases of slaughtered
animals.
When, however, animals are slaughtered by the local authority,
the compensation is to be paid out of the local rate (z).
Sub-Sect. -Local Authorities,
928. The local authorities responsible for carrying out most of y^ho
the provisions contained in the orders of the Board are the local
authorities.
Sheep Pox Order, 1895, s. 18 Glanders or Farcy Order, 1894,

; s. 13 (3) (a)
Foot and Mouth Disease Order, 1895, s. 22.
The following table shows shortly the legal rate :
Disease. When the Animal is actually aft'ected. In other Cases.
Cattle plague Half the value immediately before it Full value before it was slaugh-
became affected not to exceed £20
:
tered not to exceed £40.
:
Pleuro-pneumonia Three-fourths the value immediately Ditto.

before it became aifected not to :
exceed £30.
Swine fever . Half value before it became affected. Full value before it was slaughtered.
Sheep pox Ditto, not exceeding 40s. Ditto, not exceeding £4.
Glanders As the local authority thinks expe- Ditto.

dient ;
maximum, one-fourth of
value before the animal became
diseased, minimum, £2 for a horse,
10s. for an ass or mule.
Foot and mouth disease Full value before it became affected . Ditto
(t) Diseases of Animals Act. 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 57), s. 20 (5).
(u) Ibid., s. 20 (7) Foot and Mouth Disease Order, 1895, s. 25; Sheep Pox
;
Order, 1895, s. 12.

(x) Act of 1894, s. 22 (xiv.), (xv.). See Cattle Plague Order, 1895, s. 15
(England), s. 16 (Scotland); Pleuro-pneumonia Order, 1895. s. 19 (England),
s. 20 (Scotland) Foot and Mouth Disease Order, 1895, s. 23 (England), s. 24
:
(Scotland) Sheep Pox Order, 1895, s. 19 (England), s. 20 (Scotland) Animals

;
;
(^Transit and General) Amendment Order, 1904, s. 13 (England), s. 14 (Scotland).

(?/) Act of 1894, s. 17. The account opened under s. 2 of the repealed
Contagious Diseases (Animals) Pleuro-pneumonia Act, 1890(53 & 54 Vict. c. 14),
is continued; see s. 18 and the regulations contained in the Second Schedule to
the Act of 1894.
(z) Ibid., s. 19.
430 Animals.
Sect. 2. borough councils in boroughs with a population in 1881 of not

By Statute. less than 10,000, and elsewhere the county councils, except in the
city of London, where the city corporation is the local authority.
Moreover, the city corporation is the local authority so far as
foreign animals are concerned for the whole county of London (a).
Many important functions which the principal Act authorises the
local authorities to perform have already been noted.
Provision of They are further empowered to provide wharves and sheds for
wharves etc.
landing and keeping (or slaughtering) foreign and other animals, or
carcases, fodder, and dang. Such wharves are " markets " within the
Markets and Fairs Clauses Act, 1847, the provisions of which relat-
ing to building, maintaining and holding markets, erecting and
managing slaughter-houses, weighing goods, levying tolls, and
making bye-laws are incorporated with the principal Act (b).
Periodical returns of tolls levied must be made to the Board (c).
Compulsory powers are given to them to buy or rent land within
or without their district on which to build wharves and sheds, and
also for the burial of carcases (d).
Sheep- They may also provide, fit up, and maintain portable dipping
dipping tanks or, with the sanction of the Board, dipping places for sheep,
tanks.
and charge for the use of them. No dipping place may be used so
as to injure the water in any stream or pond for drinking or other
purposes {e).
Eeports to Local authorities and their inspectors and officers must give the
Board. Board such notices and returns as the Board require (/).
In case of their defaulting in their duties, the Board may exercise
their functions at their expense (g).
Expenses. 929. The expenses of local authorities are defrayed out of

their respective local rates (li) ; and as the boroughs in England,
which have authority themselves to incur expenses, also con-
tribute in the case of county boroughs) to the county
(except
rate, the expenses chargeable to the county rate must be fairly
adjusted (i).
Borrowing When the amount of the local rate levied or required for the
powers.
purpose of defraying such expenses exceeds or would exceed in any
financial year sixpence in the pound, a local authority may borrow
any money necessary for that purpose such borrowing is subject ;
to the Local Loans Act, 1875, and the Public Works Loan Com-
missioners may, on the recommendation of the Local Government
(a) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 57), s. 3.

(h) Hid., s. 32. See title Mabkets and Fairs.
(c) lUd., s. 32 (6). All such sums are to be carried to a separate account,
and applied in payment of interest on money borrowed under the repealed
Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, 1869—1893, or the Act of 1894 (see s.
32 (5)).
{d) Act of 1894, s. 33 (1), (3), which applies s. 176 of the Public Health
Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Yict. c. 55), which itself incorporates the Lands Clauses
Consolidation Acts. See title Compulsory Purchase and Compensation.
(e) Diseases of Animals Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 43), s. 3.
(/) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 36.1
{g) Ih'd., s. 34.
{h) Ih'd., s. 40. See title Bates and Eating.
(i) Ihid., s. 41.
— —
Board, lend them money To secure these loans the local

{k). Sect. 2.
authorities may mortgage their rates for any term not exceeding By Statute,
seven years (/), or the tolls levied upon their wharves (m), in which
case the above restrictions as to amount of rate and term of years
do not operate.
930. Local authorities must pay the expenses of the burial or Burial of
destruction of carcases washed ashore, when such burial or destruc-
^^^^^^^
tion is done under the direction of a receiver of wreck with authority ashore,
from the Board of Trade, but may recover such expenses from the
owner of the vessel from which the carcases were thrown or washed,
in the same manner as salvage is recoverable (n),
931. A
local authority being a county council may delegate any Committee
of theirpowers or duties to a committee, or to a district council, or of county
council.
to the justices of the county sitting in petty sessions, excepting
only the power to raise money by rate or loan (o).
Local authorities may by agreement, to be approved by the Transfer of
powers by
Board, transfer their powers to one another, and form united local
districts {p). authorities.
932. Further, the Board may make orders authorising local Regulations
authorities to make regulations for any of the purposes of the by local
authorities.
principal Act {q) and it has exercised this power in nearly every
,
order issued.
Every local authority must at their own expense publish every Publication
order etc. of the Board sent to them by the Board for publication (?'). of orders.
Sub-Sect. 8. Enforcement of Statutory Provisions.
933. For the purpose of enforcing the Act the police (s) are Powers of
police,
empowered {inter alia) to stop and detain without warrant a person
who is seen or found committing, or is reasonably suspected of
being engaged in committing, an offence against the Act, and under
certain circumstances to arrest him (t). An offence against the
Act includes a contravention of an order of the Board or of a
regulation of a local authority {u).
{k) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 57), s. 42. Any loan by
the Public Works Loan Commissioners is to be made in the manner provided
by the Public Works Loans (Money) Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 58), See title
Local GovEiijs^MEisrT.
(0 Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 42 (1), (2), (5).
(m) Ibid., s. 42 (5).
(n) Ibid., s. 46. See title Admiralty.
(o) Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41), s. 28 (2), (3), and
Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 31, Sched. IV.
(p) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 39.
[q] Ibid., s. 22 (xxxiv.). As to the validity of bye-laws so made, see Scott v.
Glasgoiu Corporation, [1899] A. 0. 470 ; and see title Local Government.
(?) Act of 1894, s. 49 (4).
_
(s) The police were not entitled to notice in writing before being sued, nor to
have the action tried in the county where an alleged grievance was committed,
under the statute 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 41, s. 19 (repealed by the Public Authorities
Protection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 61)). See Bryson v. Russell (1884), 14 Q. B. D.
720. No doubt they are entitled to the protection given by the latter Act.
{t) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 43 (2).
{u) Ibid., s. 52 (1).
— ;
432 Animals.
Sect. 2.
934. Inspectors {x), both of the Board and of local authori-
By Statute. ties, have all the powers of constables, and in addition, on reasonable
Powers of
suspicion of disease, or of neglect of the provisions of, or regulations
inspectors. made under, the principal Act, may enter any place or vessel. An
inspector must, if required by the owner or occupier, state in writ-
ing his reasons for entering (;</). An inspector of the Board and,
if authorised by the Board, an inspector of a local authority, may
enter premises and examine sheep (z). An inspector of the Board

may detain ships (a). The certificate of a veterinary inspector is
conclusive evidence in all Courts of justice that an animal is or was
affected with the disease specified therein (b).
Appointment 935. Local authorities appoint their own inspectors (c), but their
of inspectors inspectors are directly responsible to the Board for notification of
by local
authorities. disease (d) and other reports {e) the inspectors must also execute
;
the orders of the Board, and if they act negligently in doing so

the local authority is not answerable (/). Nor if a local authority
fails to appoint inspectors and disease breaks out is it liable for
damages or for a mandamus (g).
Sub-Sect. 9. Offences.
Unlawful 936. The most against the Act is that of

serious offence
landing of
animals.
landing or attempting to land animals and other things in contra-
vention of orders made under it this may be dealt with as an
;
offence under the Customs Acts {It).

Punishment 937. Other offences may be prosecuted summarily, with a right
of offences.
of appeal to quarter sessions (i).
Acting without a licence, or with a false or stale licence, where
a licence is required, fraudulently obtaining compensation, digging
up carcases, and using vessels or vehicles for carrying animals
when such use is prohibited, may be punished with imprisonment for
two months with or without hard labour, or by a fine (k).
The fine is not to exceed twenty pounds or if the offence is ;
committed with respect to more than four animals, is not to exceed

five pounds for each animal; or if in respect of carcases, dung,
and other things, is not to exceed ten pounds for every half-ton after
tlie first half-ton, in addition to twenty pounds (l).
(x) See definition in Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & o8 Vict. c. 57), s. 59
note 425. ante.
(b), p.
(y) Act of 1894, s. 44.

(z) Diseases of Animals Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 43), s. 2.
(a) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 45.
(6) Ibid., s. 44 (5). See Harris v. Smith (1880), 44 J. P. 361; Jamieson y.
Doiv, (1900) 2 F. (Just. Cas.) 24 and Sheep Scab Order, 1905, s. 3.
;
(c) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 &

5'8 Vict. c. 57), s. 35.
(d) I hid., s. 8 (4).

(e) Ihid., s. 36.
(/) Stanhury v. Exeter Corporation, [1905] 2 K. B. 838.
(g) Midcaliy Y.
Kilmactlwmas Ouardians (1885), 18 L. Ir. 200. R
(A) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 56. The Customs
Consolidation Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 36), s. 42, enables customs authorities
to destroy infected animals etc. see title Eevenue.
;
{i) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), ss. 54, 55.
[k) Ihid., s. 53.
{I) Ihid., s. 51
— —
Part IX. Diseases of Animals, 433
General contravention of the Act or of orders or regulations under Sect. 2.

it,failing to keep an animal separate, or to give notice of disease, By Statute.
failing to produce a licence, refusing to an inspector admission to
premises, and throwing a diseased or suspected carcase into a river,
may be punished by a similar fine, and on a further conviction
within twêlve months by imprisonment with or without hard labour
for one month in lieu of a fine {m).
In addition to these, every order of the Board specifies particular
offences against its provisions.
The right to lay information for offences under these Acts is not
restricted to local authorities, but prosecutions may be instituted by
a common informer (/i).
Sub-Sect. 10. — Carriage of Animals.

938. Eailway companies must see that animals are properly Provision of
supplied wdth food and water on journeys, and they may charge the food and
water.
consignor and consignee for their expenses (o). The Board may
make orders for insuring such supply both by land and sea (p), and
also for protecting animals from unnecessary suffering while
travelling by land and sea {q).
The Board may also make orders prohibiting the use of any Eegulation
vessel, vehicle, or pen etc. for the carrying of animals, in respect of of use of
vehicles etc.
the use of which a penalty has been previously recovered (r), and
for regulating the marking of animals (s).
Sub- Sect. 11. Coius and Dairies.
939. The Local Government Board {t) may make orders for the Cows and
^^^^^'^^
registration of cowkeepers and dairymen {u), the inspection of cattle
in dairies, the lighting, ventilating (^) and cleansing of the water
,
supplies thereof, and for other matters, including the use of
(m) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 57), s. 52.
H. V. Stewart, [1896] 1 Q. B. 300.
(o) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 57), s. 23.
Ip) Ibid., s. 22 (xxiv.), (xxvii.). See Cattle Plague Order, 1895, s. 13;
Pleuro-pneumonia Order, 1895, s. 17 Foot and Mouth Disease Order, 1895,
;
s. 20 Sheep Pox Order, 1895, s. 16 Water Supply on Eailways Order, 1895

; ;
(5306), Schedule I. (this is a list of the stations where a water supply must be
kept) Exportation of Horses Order, 1898 (5886) Animals (Transit and (general)
;
;
Order, 1895; Animals (Transit and General) (Amendment) Order, 1904; Sheep
Scab Order, 1905, s. 13.
(q) Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 57), s. 22 (xxv.), (xxvi.).
See the provisions in Foreign Animals Order, 1903 ; Channel Islands Animals
Order, 1896 Isle of Man Animals Order, 1896.
;
(r) Act of 1894, s. 22 (xxix.).

(s) Ibid., s. 22 (xxviii.).
{t) Under s. 34 of the Contagious Diseases Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Yict. c. 74),
the only section of that Act still in force. The power was transferred from the
Privy Council to the Local Government Board by s. 9 of the Contagious
Diseases (Animals) Act, 1886 (49 & 50 Yict. c. 32), and was transferred again to
the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries by the Board of Agriculture Act, 1889
(52 & 53 Yict. c. 30). As to London the power is now derived from s. 28 of
the Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Yict. c. 76).
(m) For definition of cowkeepers and dairymen, see UmfreviUe v. London County
Council (1897), 66 L. J. (q. b.) 177 Southwell v. Leiuis (1880), 44 J. P. 796.
;
{x) This includes air-space {Baker v. Williams, [1898] 1 Q. B. 23).
H.L. — I.
—
434 Animals.
Sect. 2.
precautions against contamination, and the authorising of local
By Statute authorities iy) to make bye-laws.
Kegulation Orders {z) have been made by which the registration {a) of dairymen
of dairies. and the notification of disease {h) are prescribed, and the construc-
tion of water supplies to new dairies and their sanitary condition
are regulated (c). Local authorities have power to make regulations
relating to the inspection, lighting, and ventilating of dairies {d) .
Milk. The contamination of milk is prohibited {e) and special rules ,
have been made as to the milk of diseased cows (/), in the interests
of consumers. Disease in this case includes a tubercular condition
of the udder of a cow so certified by a veterinary surgeon (^).
The milk of a cow affected with anthrax may not be moved from
the shed or other place in which the cow is or has been kept (/i).
{y) In London, the London County Council ; elsewhere, see pp. 429, 430, ante.
(z) Dairies, Cow-sheds and Milk-shops Orders, 1885, 1886 (amending), and
1899. For precedents for use under these orders see Encyclopaedia of Forms,
Yol. X., pp. 336 et seq.
(a) Dairies, Cow-sheds and Milk-shops Order, 1885, s. 6.
(6) See London County Council v. Edwards, [1898] 2 Q. B. 75.
(c) Dairies, Cow-sheds and Milk-shops Order, 1885, ss. 7, 8.
{d) Ibid., s. 13.
(e) Ibid., ss. 9—12.
(/) Ibid., s. 15.

{g) Dairies, Cow-sheds and Milk-shops Order, 1899, s. 2.
(A) Anthrax Order, 1899, s. 4. See, further, titles Food and Drugs ;
Public Health.
ANNUITIES.
See Kent-chaeges and Annuities.
ANTICIPATION,
Kestraint on. See Perpetuities Personal Property Keal
; ;
Property and Chattels Eeal; Trusts and Trustees.
APOLOGY.
See Libel and Slander.
—— — —
( 435 )
APOTHECARIES.
See Medicine and Pharmacy.
APPEAL
JSee Constitutional Law ; County Courts ; Courts ; Criminal
Law and Procedure ; Magistrates ; Practice and Procedure.
As to Licensing. See Intoxicating Liquors.
As to Rates and Rating See Rates and Rating.
APPEARANCE.
APPOINTMENT,
Powers of. See Powers; Perpetuities.
Trustees, of. See Trusts and Trustees.

F F 2
— —
( 436 )
APPORTIONMENT.
See Landlord and Tenant; Eeal Property and Chattels Keal;.
Eent-charges and Annuities; Trusts and Trustees.
APPRAISERS.
See Valuers and Appraisers.
APPRENTICES.
See Infants ; Master and Servant.
APPROPRIATION,
Of Goods. See Bills of Exchange ; Sale of Goods.
Of Payment. See Contract ; Money and Monby-Lending..
Of Trust Funds. See Trusts and Trustees.

( 437 )
ARBITRATION.
PAGE
INTEODUCTION 438
Pakt I. EEFEEENOES BY CONSENT OUT OF COUET

Sect. 1. The Submission ------- - -
-
439
439
Sub-sect. 1. Definition
-----
-
At Common Law
439
439
Sub-sect. 2.
(1)
(2)
Parties --------
Under the Arbitration Act, 1889
------
- - 441
442
Sub-sect.
Sub- sect.
3. Persons bound
--------
Subject-matter
-- --
443
444
-------
4.
Sub-sect. 5. Effect - - 445
Sub-sect. Q. Clauses - 446
Sub-sect. Alteration and Amendment - - - - 447
-------
7.
Sub-sect. 8. Stamps - - - - - - - - 447
Sect.
Sub-sect.
2.
9. Eeyocation
Stay of Legal Peoceedings -----
Sect. 3. Appointment of Aebiteator oe Umpiee - - -
448
451
455
Sect. 4. Powees of Aebiteatoe oe Umpiee - - - - 457
Sect. 5. Liability of Aebiteatoe oe Umpiee - - - - 459
Sect. 6. Eemoval of Aebiteatoe oe Umpiee - - - - 459
Sect. 7. Conduct of an Aebiteation _ _ _ - - 460
Time -----------
Sect. 8. TiiIe foe making Awaed and Mode of enlaeging
Sect. 9. Special Case foe Opinion of Couet - - - -

462
464
Sub-sect. 1. Statement of Special Case during Eeference - 464
Sub-sect. 2. Award stated in Form of Special Case - - 466
Sect. 10. The Awaed - -- -- -- -468
Sect. 11. Costs of Aebiteation 470
Sect. 12. Eemuneeation of Aebiteatoe oe Umpiee - - 471
Sect. 13. Enfoecement of Awaed - - - - - - 473
Sub-sect. 1. By Originating Summons
Sub- sect.
Sub-sect.
2.
3.
By Attachment
By Action
- -
------ - - 473
474
475
Powee of the Couet
Sect. 14.
Awaed - -- -- -- -- to eemit oe set aside
- 470
Sub-sect. 1. Application to Court to remit or set aside Award 476
Sub-sect. 2. Eemission to Arbitrator for Eeconsideration - 477
Sub -sect. 3. Setting aside Award - - - - - 478
Sect. 15. Appeals-- -- -- --
- 481
Paet 11. EEFEEENCES UNDEE OEDEE OF COUET - - - 481

Sect. 1. Geneeal-
In -- -- -- - - 481
Sect. 2. Eefeeences for Inquiey oe Eepoet - - - - 484
438 Arbitration.
PAGE
Part II.
Sect.
EEFEEENCES UNDEE OEDEE OF
3. Eefeeences for Trial
Sub-sect. 1. What may be referred
______
-----
COVBT—co7iU7med.
487
487
Sub-sect. 2. To whom the Eeference may be made - - 488
Sub-sect. 3. Powers of the Eeferee or Arbitrator - - 488
Sub-sect. 4. Conduct of the Eeference
Sub-sect. 5. Time for making Award
Sub-sect. 6. Statement of Special Case
-----
_
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
489
489
489
Sub-sect. 7. Decision of the Referee or Arbitrator - - 490
Sub-sect. 8. Costs of the Eeference, including Eemuneration
of Eeferee or Arbitrator - - - _ 490
Sub-sect. 9. Appeals from the Decision of Eeferee or
Arbitrator - - - - - - -491
Part III. EEFEEENCES UNDEE ACT OF PAELIAMENT - - 492
For Arbitration in Relation to —

Acquisition of Land for Allotments See title Allotments and Small
Holdings.
Agricultural Holdings - - - Agriculture.
Building Societies - - - - Building Societies.
Companies - - - - - Companies.
Compulsory Purchase of Land - Compulsory Purchase and
Compensation.
Electric Lighting etc. - - - Electric Lighting, Trac-
tion AND Power.
Factoriesand Workshops Factories and Workshops.
Friendly Societies - - - - Friendly Societies.
Gasworks - - - - - Gtas and Water.
Housing of Working Classes - Public Health.
Industrial and Provident Societies - Industrial, Provident and
Similar Societies.
Local Government- - - - Local Government.
Lunatic Asylum.s - - - - Public Health.
Public Health - - - - Public Health.
Railways - - - - - Eailways and Canals.
Telegraphs and Telephones Telegraphs and Tele-
phones.
Trade Disputes - - - - Trade and Trade Unions.
Tramways - - - - - Tramways and Light Eail-
Waterworks -----
Workmen''s Compensation
ways.
Gas and Water.
Master and Servant.
Intmduction.
Classifica- 940. EeferencGS to arbitration are divisible into three classes,
namely, references by consent out of Court, (2) references under
(1)
order of Court, and (3) references under an Act of Parliament.
References by In references by consent out of Court the matter referred is some
difference or dispute between the parties, and the authority of the
ofôurt^^*
arbitrator is derived from and is limited by their submission to
arbitration. Where, as is almost always the case, the submission
is in writing, the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, with
— —
Introduction. 489
regard to references by consent out of Court are applicable, and Part I.

constitute a code regulating the reference throughout (a) . Introduc-
In references under order of Court the matter referred may be tion.
either the whole action pending before the Court or some particular Keferences
question or issue arising therein, and the authority of the referee or under order of
arbitrator is derived from the order of the Court directing the Court.
reference. The provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, with regard
to references under order of Court, supplemented by the Eules of the
Supreme Court, govern references of this description (b).
In references under an Act of Parliament, the subject-matter of Eeferences
the reference is prescribed by, and the authority of the arbitrator under Act of
Parliament.
is derived from, the particular statute in question. In some cases
the statute either expressly excludes the application of the Arbitra-
tion Act, 1889, or renders its application dependent on the agreement
of the parties, but in all other cases of what for convenience may
be termed statutory arbitrations, the provisions of the Arbitration
Act, 1889, except in so far as they may be inconsistent with the
particular statute which regulates the arbitration in question or
with any rules or procedure authorised or recognised by that
statute, are applicable (c).
Part I. — References by Consent out of

Court.
Sect. 1. The Submission,
941. Every reference by consent out of Court must originate
in a submission {d).
Sub-Sect 1. Definition.
At common law a submission to arbitration is an agreement {e) (X) At com-

"^^^
made by two or more parties between whom some difference has
arisen or may thereafter arise (/), whereby they appoint another
person to adjudicate upon such difference, and agree to be bound
by his decision thereon. The person appointed to adjudicate upon
. the difference is called an arbitrator. Where two arbitrators are
appointed, and the submission provides that, in the event of their
disagreement, the matter in dispute shall be referred to the decision
of a third person,such third person is called an umpire.
{a) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), ss. 1—12, 18—23, 25—29.
{h) Ibid., ss. 13—17, 18—23, 25—29; E. S. C, Ord. 36, rr. 45—55 c.
(c) Ibid., s. 24. "This Act shall apply to every arbitration under any Act
passed before or after the commencement of this Act as il the arbitration were
pursuant to a submission, except in so far as this Act is inconsistent with the
Act regulating the arbitration or with any rules or procedure authorised or
recognised by that Act." See, as to such references, p. 492, post.
(d) Bac. Abr. tit. Arbitrament and Award (B), (D).
(e) The agreement between the parties may incorporate the provisions for
arbitration which are set out in some other document {Temjperley Steam Shipping
Co. V. Smyth & Co., [1905] 2 K. B. 791).
(/) WiUcox V. Storkei/ (1866), L. E. 1 0. P. 671. For forms of submission of
future differences, see Encyclopaedia of Eorms, Yol. II., pp. 90 et secj.
. . ;
440 Arbitration.
Sect. 1.
The submission may be by mutual bonds or by deed(g), or by
The writing under hand only, or merely by word of mouth (h)
Submission. In order to constitute a submission to arbitration there must be
Arbitration some difference or dispute, either existing or prospective, between
distinguished the parties, and they must intend that it should be determined in
from valua-
a quasi- judicial manner (i). Therein lies the distinction between
tion.
(g) The submission may be sealed by one party and signed by the other
{Tomlin v. Mayor ofFordiuich (1836), 6 Nev. & M. (k. b.) 594).
(A) An oral submission could not be made a rule of Court under any of the
statutes which were repealed by the Arbitration Act, 1889 {Ansell v. Evans
(1796), 7 Term Eep. 1; Ex parte Glaysher (1864), 3 H. & 0. 442; Newton v.
Hetherington (1865), 19 G. B. (n. s.) 342 and see WillcoxY. Storkey (1866), L. E.
;
1 C. P. 671). The provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, are for the most part
inapplicable where the submission is oral see s. 27, which defines a submission
;
for the purposes of the Act as a "written agreement." Consequently, where

the submission is oral, the arbitration is governed by the common law, under
which (1) either party to the submission may at any time before the award is
made revoke the authority of the arbitrator and so render the reference abortive
(see p. 448, ^jos^) and (2) the award when made cannot be enforced except by
;
action. Moreover, an award made pursuant to an oral submission would fail to

satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Erauds in cases where that statute is
applicable {Walters v. Morgan (1792), 2 Cox, 369; and compare Rainforth v.
Hamer (1855), 25 L. T. (o. s.) 247). At common law an arbitrator had no power
to administer an oath by statute 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, s. 41 (now repealed), an
;
arbitrator under a rule of Court was empowered to administer an oath, and by the
Evidence Act, 1851 (14 & 15 Yict. c. 99), s. 16, every arbitrator or other person
having by law or by consent of parties authority to hear, receive and examine
evidence is empowered to administer an oath to any witness who may be legally
called before him.
{i) See Re Carus-WUson and Greene (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 7 (agreement for the
valuation of timber as between vendor and purchaser on the sale of an estate) ;
Re Hammond and Waterton (1890), 62 L. T. 808 (agreement for the valuation

of plants etc. in a market garden as between purchaser and tenant). In the
following cases it was held that the agreement between the parties amounted to
a submission to arbitration Jebb v. MKiernan (1829), Mood. & M. 340 (agree-
:
ment that due discharge of duties by clerk be ascertained by inspection of

accounts) Farlces v. Smith (1850), 15 Q. B. 297, 309 (agreement for ascertaining
;
the amount due by outgoing partner on dissolution of partnership) Re Hopper;
(1867), L. E. 2 Q,. B. 367 (agreement to refer questions between landlord and

tenant on termination of tenancy, with power to hear witnesses) Re Evans ;
(1870), 18 W. E. 723 (where the agreement referred to the appointees as

" valuers"); Re Hohenzollern Adien-Oesellschaft and The City of London Contract
Corporation (1886), 54 L. T. 596 (refusal of engineer to give certificate under
agreement for sale and purchase of locomotives)
Compare the following cases, in which it was held that the agreement between
the parties did not constitute a submission to arbitration Leeds v. Burrows
:
(1810), 12 East, 1 (agreement for valuation between incoming and outgoing

.
tenants) ;
Goodyear v. Simpson (1845), 15 M. & W. 16 (agreement that a clerk
should adjust the share of profits between the partners in a stage-coach) Jen- ;
kins V. Betham (1855), 15 C. B. 168 (where the agreement was for valuation of
ecclesiastical property between incoming and outgoing incumbent) Northampton
;
Gaslight Go. v. Parnell (1855), 15 C. B. 630 (agreement for ascertainment of

amount due by sureties for a contractor) Collins v. CoIUms (1858), 26 Beav. 306
;
(agreement as to purchase price of a brewery) Bos v. Helsham (1866), L. E, 2 Exch.

;
72 (agreement in conditions of sale as to settlement of disputes) Re Bawdy (1885),

;
15 Q. B. D. 426 (agreement as to compensation payable by landlord to outgoing

tenant, where witnesses were called and there was in fact an arbitration).
See also Boyd v. Emmerson (1834), 2 A. & E. 184 (case submitted for counsel's
opinion) ; Lee v.' Hemingway (1834), 3 Nev. &M. (k. b.) 860 (where an agreement
to purchase land at a price to be named by a third person was held not to be a
submission) Wadsiuorth v. Smith (1871), L. E. 6 Q. B. 332 (a similar decision
;
as to the certificate of an architect as to delay under a building contract)

—
Part I. References by Consent out of Court. 441
an agreement for a valuation and a submission to arbitration, for Sect. i.
in the case of a valuation there is not, as a rule, any difference or The

dispute between the parties, and they intend that the valuer shall, Submission,
without taking evidence or hearing argument, make his valuation
according to his own skill, knowledge, and experience.
A submission to arbitration is not complete at common law Submission
unless and until an arbitrator is appointed. An agreement to refer incomplete
a dispute to arbitration without naming the arbitrator is valid and faw°imtil^
to this extent enforceable, that an action for damages for breach of arbitrator
the agreement can be maintained (k), but it does not by itself con- appointed,
stitute a submission at common law (J).
942. A written agreement to submit present or future differences (2) Under the
to arbitration, whether an arbitrator is named therein or not, con- ^^^^*j^ggy°^
stitutes a submission under the Arbitration Act, 1889 (v/i). ^ '
The agreement must, it seems, be signed by or on behalf of the Writing

parties thereto {n). essential.
In the case of a submission under the Arbitration Act, 1889, as in Existing or

that of a submission at common law, it is essential that there prospective
^^"^^ ^'
should be some difference or dispute, either existing or prospective,
between the parties, and that they should intend their difference to
be decided in a quasi-judicial manner (o).
Where no arbitrator is named in the submission, it usually Submission
contains some provision as to how he should be nominated, and in valid though
certain cases the Arbitration Act, 1889, provides for the nomination ap°point^
JJ^^^
of an arbitrator or umpire {p) but even where the agreement for

; ment of
reference to arbitration is in such a form that in the event of either arbitrator,
party refusing to nominate an arbitrator there is no means of
Turner v. Goulden (1873), L. 9 0. P. 57 (agreement for the valuation of the

goodwill of a business) Bottomley v. Ambler (1877), 38 L. T. 545 (where the
;
matter referred was the amount of rent due under a lease).

The stewards of a horse-race are not in the position of arbitrators, though
called upon to decide some dispute {Elh's v. Hopper (1858), 3 H. & N. 766 ;
Farr v. Winterinyham (1859), 1 E. & E. 394 and see Brown v. Overhury (1856),
;
11 Exch. 715; and compare Sadler v. Smith (1869), L. E, 5 Q. B. 40, as to the

decision of a referee in a professional sculling race).
(k) Livingston v. Balli (1855), 5 El. & Bl. 132.
(O 'See Ex parte Olaysher (1864), 3 H. & C. 442.

(to) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 27. "In this Act 'sub-
mission means a written agreement to submit present or future differences to
'
arbitration whether an arbitrator is named therein or not." The definition of

a submission contained in this section includes submissions made before the Act
came into force see s. 25, and Re Williams and Stepney, [1891] 2 Q. B. 257 Re
; ;
Wilson and Eastern Counties Navigation etc. Co., [1892] 1 Q. B. 81.

{n) In Caerleon Tinplate Co. v.' Hughes (1891), 60 L. J. (q. b.) 640, the Court
expressed the view that the signature of the parties is necessary in order to
constitute a valid submission within the meaning of the Arbitration Act, 1889.
This view, which was not necessary'- for the decision of that case, was repudiated
in Baker v. Yorkshire Fire and Life Assurance etc. Co., [1892] 1 Q. B. 144 ; but
in Forder v. Whittle (April 18th, 1907, unreported) BiiAY, J., decided that the
signature of the parties or their agent is necessary. See also Aitken v. Batchelor
(1893), 62 L. J. (q. b.) 193, where it was held that the indorsements on counsel's
briefs constituted a submission within the meaning of the Act ; and Antram v.
Chace (1812), 15 East, 209. For forms of submission of existing differences, see
Encyclopsedia of Forms, Vol. II., pp. 106—132.
(o) See cases cited note (?'), supra.
Ip) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), ss. 5, 6, Schedule I. (a), (b).
—
442 Arbitration.
Sect. ].compelling him to do so or of otherwise supplying the vacancy, so

The it is impossible to proceed with the reference, nevertheless the
that
Submission. agreement constitutes a valid submission within the meaning of the
Arbitration Act, 1889 (q).
Agreement to When in proceedings pending before the Court the parties agree
be bound by to accept the judge's decision as final, it is said that they thereby
judicial
decision does constitute the judge a quasi-arbitrator (?•) The effect of such an
.
not make agreement is that the decision of the judge is unappealable and
judge an cannot be questioned in any way; but the judge is not thereby
arbitrator
really placed in the position of an arbitrator and his decision is
:
not, and does not in any way resemble, an award.
Sub-Sect 2. Pai^ties.
Capacity to 943. Capacity to make a submission is co-extensive with capacity

make sub-
Every person capable of entering into a contract may
to contract.
be a party to a submission (s) conversely he who cannot contract
:
cannot make a submission {t) and, in the case of persons whose

;
capacity to contract is restricted, the power of making a submission

is, in the same manner and to the same extent, limited.
Married Thus married women, who were with few exceptions incapable at
women. common law of making a contract, were also incapable of making
a submission to arbitration but by virtue of the Married Women's
;
Property Act, 1882, which enables every married woman to con-

tract in respect of her separate estate, a married woman can now
enter into a submission binding on her separate estate {u).
Infants. With regard to infants, it would seem that a submission made by
an infant could not be enforced against him during his infancy,
and would be voidable by him on attaining his majority; but sub-
missions by infants out of Court are very rare, the cases reported (x)
being cases in which the reference was held pursuant to an order of
the Court.
Bankrupts. There is no objection to a bankrupt making a submission any
more than there is to his making any other agreement {y).
Agents. An agent, who is authorised so to do, may enter into a submission
on behalf of his principal {z).
Partners. In the case of partners the cases decided before the Partnership
Act, 1890, seem to show that one partner had no authority to bind
the firm by entering into a submission (a). The matter is now
{q) Manchester Ship Canal Co, v. S. Pearson & So?i, Ltd., [1900] 2 Q. B. 606.
(r) Burgess v. Morton, [1896] A. C. 136 JRe Durham County Fermaneut
;
Benefit Building Society, Ex parte Wilson (1871), 7 Ch. App. 45; Harrison v.
Wright (1845), 13 M. & W. 816. Compare Elvin v. Drummond (1827), 4 Bing.
415 and Bustros v. White (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 423.
;
(s) Com. Dig. Arbitration D 2.
{t) Bac. Abr. tit. Arbitrament and Award C.
(m) Conolan v. Leyland (1884), 27 Ch. D. 632.

(x) See Godfrey v. Wade (1822), 6 Moo. C. P. 488 Dowse v. Goxe (1825), 3
;
Bing. 20 Biddell v. Dowse (1827), 6 B. & C. 255; Jones v. Powell (1838), 6 Dowl.
;
483; Proudfoot v. Boyle (1846), 15 M. & W. 198. See also title Inpants.
{y) Re Milnes and Bobertson (1854), 15 C. B. 451. See title Bankruptcy and
Insolvency.
(z) Goodson V. BrooTie (1815), 4 Camp. 163; and compare The Citij of Calcutta
(1898), 79 L. T. 517, and The Margery, [1902] P. 157. See title Agency, ante,
(a) See Strangford v. Green (1678), 2 Mod. Eep. 228 ; Stead v. Salt (1825), 3
— —
governed by the Act, and depends in each case on the question Sect. i.
^Yhether referring to arbitration is the usual way of carrying on the The

business of the particular partnership {b) and this of course varies Submission,
;
with different businesses. It is incumbent on the person seeking

to hold a firm bound by a submission made by one of its members
to prove that referring to arbitration was the usual way of carrying
on the firm's business, or that the other partners had authorised or
ratified (e) the submission.
In certain cases, such as trustees, executors and adminis- Capacity con-
trators {d), trustees in bankruptcy (e), companies registered under
g^^J^^^^^
the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1900 (/), Parliament has expressly
conferred power to refer disputes to arbitration.
Sub-Sect, 3. Persons hound,
944. The submission is binding on the parties thereto and ;

Parties and
where the subject-matter of the reference is capable of assign- ^g^g^ggg
ment the assignee of a party to the submission would be likewise
bound {g).
Where a party to a reference dies pending the reference {li), and Personal
the subject-matter of the reference is some claim or cause of action
[^^j^^gg^^f ^
which survives his death {i), the question whether his legal party,
personal representatives are bound by the submission depends on
its tei'ms. If the submission provides either in express terms or
by necessary implication that it shall bind the legal personal repre-
sentatives of the parties thereto, then they are bound {k) but if it ;
contains no such provision the ordinary rule of law that the death
Biug. 101; Adams v. Bankliart (1835), 1 C. M. & E. 681; Antnun v. Chace

(1812), 15 East, 209. See also Hatton v. Moyle (1858), 3 H. & N. 500.
{h) The Partnership Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Yict. c. 39), s. 5, provides that the
acts of every partner in carrying on in the usual way business of the kind
carried on by the firm bind the other partners. See title Partnership.
(c) See Thomas v. Atherton (1878), 10 Ch. D. 185.
(d) The Trustee Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 53), s. 21, confers upon executors,
administrators, and trustees power to submit disputes to arbitration. As to how
far a submission to arbitration by an executor or administrator operates as an
admission of assets, see Be Wanshorouyli (1815), 2 Chitty, 40, where it is stated
in the note that a submission to arbitration by an executor or administrator is
in general considered as a reference not only of the cause of action, but also of
the question whether or not he has assets, and when the arbitrator has
awarded the executor or administrator to pay a certain sum of money it is
equivalent to determining that assets existed. See also Pearson v. Henry (1792),
5 Term Eep. 6; Barn/ v. Bush (1787), 1 Term Eep. 691; Biddell v. Sutton
(1828), 5 Bing. 200 Worthington v. Barloiu (1797), 7 Term Eep. 453 Love v.
; ;
Honeyhourne (1824), 4 D. & E. 814 Be Joseph and Webster (1830), 1 Euss. & M.
;
496. Compare Davies v. Bidge (1800), 3 Esp. 101.

(e) The Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 57, authorises a trustee
in bankruptcy, with the permission of the committee of inspection, to refer any

dispute to arbitration. See PJx parte Wyld (1860), 2 De G. F. & J. 642, in
which case the committee of inspection had not given the permission required of
them by the Bankruptcy Act then in force.
(/) Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 72, 73.
{g) Smith v. Jones (1842), 1 Dowl. (n. s.) 526.
(A) An award made before the death of the party is of course binding on his
legal personal representatives. See Brooke v. Mitchell (1840), 6 M. & W. 473.
(?) See Boiuker v. Evans (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 565.
{k) McDougal v. Bobertson (1827), 4 Bing. 435 Doivse v. Coxe (1825), 3 Bing.
;
20 ; Clarke v. Crofts (1827), 4 Bing. 143.

—
444 Arbitration.
Sect, 1. of a principal revokes the authority of his agent takes effect, and
The the legal personal representatives of the deceased party are not
Submission. bound (1).
Trustee in Where
a party to a submission becomes bankrupt pending the
bankruptcy. reference, his trustee in bankruptcy is not as a general rule bound
by the submission (m) ; but if the submission forms one of the
terms of a contract, as, for example, an ordinary building contract,
it would seem that the trustee could not make a claim under the
contract, and at the same time repudiate the arbitration clause in

it; he could not both approbate and reprobate the contract {n).
Sub-Sect. 4. Subject-matter.
Difference or 945. The subject-matter of every reference to arbitration by

dispute
consent out of Court must be some difference or dispute arising
between
parties. between the parties (o).
Nature of Any difference or dispute which the parties might, if they were
disputes that minded so to do, settle between themselves without recourse to
may be arbitration, may be referred to arbitration by their submission.
referred.
Thus a husband and wife may refer to arbitration the terms on
which they shall separate, because they can make a valid agree-
ment between themselves on that matter but they cannot refer ;
to arbitration the question whether or no their marriage was a

nullity or should be dissolved, because on those matters they cannot
make any agreement between themselves
Illegal On the same principle a dispute arising from and founded on
transaction.
some illegal or ultra vires transaction cannot be referred to arbi-
tration. In such cases an agreement for the settlement of the
dispute made by the parties themselves would not be enforceable,
and the award of an arbitrator on such a dispute would likewise be
invalid and unenforceable {q).
Criminal All civil matters may be referred to arbitration, but matters
matter.
which are purely criminal and give rise to no civil remedy cannot
Toussaint v. Hurtop (1817), 7 Taunt. 571

(/) Cooper v. Johnson (1819), 2 ;
B. &
Aid. 394. See also Tyler v. Jones (1824), 3 B. & C. 144 Clarke v. Crofts ;
(1827), 4 Bing. 143; M'Dovgal v. jRohertson (1827), 4 Bing. 435; Be Hare,

Milne, and Hasiuell (1839), 8 Dowl. 71. See title Agency, p. 233, ante.
(m) Re Smith, Ex parte Edivards (1886), 3 Mor. 179 Dod v. Herring (1829), ;
3 Sim. 143 Marsh v. Wood (1829), 9 B. & 0. 659 and see Pennell v. Walker
; ;
(1856), 18 C. B. 651 Sturges v. Curzon (1851), 7 Exch. 17.

;
See title Bank-
ruptcy AND Insolvency.
{n) See Piercij v. Young (1879), 14 Oh. D. 200, at pp. 202, 203, and note it),
p. 451, 'post.
Re Carus-Wilson and (7ree?ze (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 7. Where the submission
(o)
is with respect to future differences, a difference must arise before the authority
of the arbitrator can be invoked. See London and North Western Rail. Co. v. J. H
Billinqton, Ltd., [1899] A. C. 79 and compare Field v. Longden & Sons, [1902]
;
1 K B. 47.
ip) Soilleux V. Herlst (1801), 2 Bos. & P. 444; Bateman v. Ross (1813),
1 Dowl. 235 Hooper (1860), 1 Sw. & Tr. 602 and see Wilson v. Wilson
;
Hooper v. ;
(1848), 1 H. L. Cas. 538 Besa7it v. Wood (1879), 12 Oh. D. 605

; Hart v. Hart ;
(1881), 18 Ch. D. 670 Cahill v. Cahill (1883), 8 App. Cas. 420.

;
(q) Maunsell v. Midland Great Western of Ireland Rail. Co. (1863), 1 H. & M.
-130; Aulert v. Maze (1801), 2 Bos. & P. 371 Steers v. Lashleij (1794), 6 Term
;
Eep. 61.
— . — ;
be referred (r) where, however, some act has been done which Sect. i.
;
renders the person who did it hable to a criminal prosecution, and The _
also to a civil action for damages at the suit of the injured party. Submission,
the adjustment of the reparation to be made to the injured party
may be referred to arbitration (s)
An agreement which purports to oust the jurisdiction of the Ousting the
Court is on grounds of public policy illegal and void (t), but an court
j^^^^^g^
agreement that no right of action shall arise unless and until an
award has been made is valid and enforceable. In policies of
insurance, building agreements, and grain and other produce eon-
tracts it is commonl}^ stipulated that in case of any dispute arising
thereunder, such dispute shall be referred to arbitration, and that
the obtaining of an award shall be a condition precedent to the
right to sue («)•
Sub-Sect. 5. Effect.
946. A submission authorises the arbitrator thereby appointed Right to com-

to hear and determine the matter in dispute between the parties {x),
mence legal
'"^^*
but it does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court. Any party to a
submission may, therefore, before the award is made commence
legal proceedings in respect of any claim or cause of action
included in the submission {y). At common law the Court had
no jurisdiction to stay such proceedings but w^here the submission ;
is contained in a written agreement, the Court has jurisdiction

under the Arbitration Act, 1889, to stay proceedings commenced in
respect of any matter agreed to be referred to arbitration (z).
Where the submission is contained in a written agreement it has
the same effect as if it had been made an order of Court (a).
Edqcombe v. Rodd (1804), 5 East, 294 R. v. Hardey (1850), 14 Q. B. 529

(r) ;
R. V.Bla'kemore (1850), 14 Q. B. 544; and see R. v. Bardell (1836), 5 A. & E.

619, and R. v. Shilliheer (1836), 5 Dowl. 238.
(s) Baktr V. Toiunshend (1817), 7 Taunt. 422 Keir v. Leeman (1844), 6 Q. B.
;
308 and see also Beelnj v. Wingfield (1809), 11 East, 46.

;
{t) Horton v. Smjer (1859), 4 H. & K

643 Lee v. Page (1861)j_30 L. J. (CH.)
;
857 Edwards v. Aherayron Mutual Ship Insurance Society (1875), 1 Q. B. D.

;
563 and see Rijoley v. Great Northern Rail Co. (1875), 31 L. T. 869.
;
(u) Scott Y. Avery {lSo6), 5 H. L. Gas. 811; Trediven v. Holman (1862), 1

H. & C. 72 Braunstein v. Accidental Death Insurance Co. (1861), 1 B. & S. 782
; ;
Elliott V. Royal Exchange Assurance Co. (1867), L. E. 2 Exch. 237 Viney v. Bignold
;
(1887), 20 Q. B. D. 172 Trainor v. Phoiuix Eire Assurance Co. (1892), 65 L. T.

;
825 Scott v. Mercantile Accident and Guarantee Insurance Co. (1892), 66 L. T.

;
811; Caledonian Insurance Co. v. Gilmour, [1893] A. C. 85; Hamlyn & Co. v.
TalisTier Distillery, [1894] A. C. 202 Spurrier v. La Cloche, [1902] A. C. 446;
;
Sharpington v. Fidham Guardians, [1904] 2 Oh. 449. Compare Collins v. Locke

(1879), 4 App. Gas. 674, and Daiuson v. Fitzgerald (1876), 1 Ex. D. 257, in
which cases it was held that an action was maintainable although, there had
been no reference to arbitration, and Roper v. Lendon (1859), 1 E. & E. 825.
See also title Actio^vT, p. 22, ante.
Vynior's Case (1610), 8 Co. Eep. 81 b.
{x)
(y) Harris v. Reynolds (1845), 7 Q. B. 71 and see Wood v. Copper Miners Co.
;
(1856), 17 C. B. 561 Coohe v. Coohe (1867), L. E. 4 Eq. 77. Where the obtaining
;
of an award is a condition precedent to any right of action, neither party can

sue the other until after the arbitration has been held and the award has been
made, because until that happens he has no cause of action. See the cases cited,
note (m), supra.
(2) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 4. See p. 451, p>ost.
{a) Hid., s. 1. This provision of the Act does not appear to have much
— —
446 Arbitration.
Sect. 1. The Court will not, as a rule, restrain an arbitrator from pro-
The ceeding with a reference on the ground that the award will be
Submission. inoperative (h) but where the submission itself is impeached, an
;
When arbi- injunction may be granted to restrain the arbitrator from pro-
trator will be ceeding until the question of the validity of the submission has
restrained
been determined (c).
from pro-
ceeding. Stjb-Sect. 6. Clauses.
Clauses in 947. The parties may insert in their submission such clauses
submissions.
as they think fit {d).
Where the submission is contained in a written agreement and
does not express a contrary intention {e), the following provisions,
so far as they are applicable, are implied :
(i.) The reference is to a single arbitrator unless some other mode

of reference is provided (/).
(ii.) If the reference is to two arbitrators, the two arbitrators may
appoint an umpire (g) if the arbitrators fail to make an

;
award within the time (li) allowed to them for that purpose
or give written notice to any party to the submission or
to the umpire that they are unable to agree upon an award,
the umpire may forthwith enter upon the reference in
lieu of the arbitrators (i).
(iii.) The parties to the submission, and all other persons who
are bound thereby, must, subject to any legal objection,

submit themselves for examination on oath or affirmation
in relation to the matters in dispute (k).
"
practical effect it does not constitute the arbitration a " proceeding in the Court
;
within the meaning of the Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 'SI Vict. c. 66), s. 100,
and it therefore does not enable the Court to direct the issue of a commission
for the examination of witnesses out of the jurisdiction (Be Shaiu and Ronaldsoriy
[1892] 1 Q. B. 91) nor does it make the refusal of either party to appoint an
;
arbitrator a contempt of Court {Re Smith and Service and Nelson & Sons (1890),
2o Q. B. D. 545) but it does make disobedience to the award a contempt of
;
Court punishable in certain cases by attachment. See pp. 473 et seq., post.
{b) North London Rail. Co. v. Great Northern Rail. Co. (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 30;
London and BlachiuaU Rail. Co. v. Cross (1886), 31 Ch. D. 354, at p. 368. And see
Farrar v. Coo2-)er (1890), 44 Ch. D. 323; Great Western Rail. Co. v. Waterford
and Limerick etc. Rail. Co. (1881), 17 Ch. D. 493.
(c) KittsY. Moore, [1895] 1 Q. B. 253; Sissons v. Oates (1894), 10 T. L. E.
392 Maunsell v. Midland and Great Western of Lr eland Rail. Co. (1863), 1 H. &
;
M. 130; and compare M''Harg v. Universal Stock Exchange (1895), 11 T. L. E.

409.
(d) For forms of clauses usually inserted in submissions, see Encyclopaedia
—
of Forms, Vol. II., pp. 126 132; and compare Form 24 in Appendix to theK
Eules of the Supreme Court.
A clause stipulating that neither party shall apply to the Court to direct the
arbitrator to state a special case under s. 19 of the Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 &
53 Vict. c. 49), would seem to be invalid (iê IfansZoA and Reinhold (1895), 1
Com. Cas. 215).
(e) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 2.
(/) lUd., Sched. I. (a).

s. 2,
(g) Lhid., Sched. I. (b).

s. 2,
(h) As to the time within which the award is to be made and the mode of
extending the time, see p. 462, post.
{i) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 2, Sched. I. (d).
(k) LUd., s. 2, Sched. I. (f), which provides that "the parties to the reference,
and all persons claiming through them respectively," shall submit themselves
-for examination. It is conceived that the words " all persons claiming through
— — —
(iv.) The parties to the reference, and all persons claiming through Sect. 1,
them respectively, must, subject to any legal objection, The

produce all relevant documents in their possession or Submission.
power, and do all other things during the proceedings
on the reference which the arbitrators or umpire may
require {I).
(v.) The witnesses on the reference must, if the arbitrators or

umpire think fit, be examined on oath or affirmation (in).
(vi.) The award is final and binding on the parties to the
submission and the persons claiming under them respec-
tively (o).
(vii.) The costs of the arbitration and award are in the discretion
of the arbitrator (p).
Sub-Sect. 7. Alteration and Amendment.
948. Save by consent of the parties thereto, a submission to May be made

arbitration cannot be altered or amended {q). consent of
At any time before the award is made the parties may by P^^^^®^-
mutual agreement alter or amend the terms of the submission,

but the arbitrator or umpire has no power so to do (r).
Any alteration or amendment of a submission constitutes a Alteration or
fresh submission incorporating such of the terms of the original amendment
submission as remain unaltered (s). Therefore, if it is intended that new sub-
the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, should apply to the mission,
reference, the alteration or amendment must be made in writing
and signed on behalf of the parties thereto if the alteration or ;
amendment be made orally, the submission becomes an oral sub-

mission, and the Arbitration Act, 1889, has no application.
Sub-Sect. 8. Stamps,
949. A submission to arbitration made under seal must be Submission

under seal.
stamped with a deed stamp of ten shillings (0-
A submission to arbitration made under hand only must be Submission
under hand
.
Q^ly^
them respectively" must be restricted to such persons as are bound by the

submission.
(/) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 2, Sched. I. (f).
(m) Ih'd., s. 2, Sched. I. (g).
(n) Ibid., s. 2, Sched. I. (h), which provides that the award is to be final and
binding on the parties and the persons claiming under them respectively " but ;
it is conceived that the words " persons claiming under them " must be restricted
to persons who are bound by the submission.
(o) Ibid., s. 2, Sched. I. (h).
(p) Ibid., s. 2, Sched. I. (i).

Iq) Smurthwaite v. Richardson (1863), 15 C. B. (n. s.) 463; Morgan v. Tarte
(1855), 11 Exch. 82 ;
Houghton v. Bankart (1861), 3 De G. F. & J. 16. See also
Vanderbyl v. McKenna (1868), L. E. 3 C. P. 252.
(r) For example, the arbitrators cannot restrict the time allowed for making
the award {Re Morphett (1845), 2 Dow. & L. 967).
(s) Greigy. Talbot (1823), 2 B. & C. 179; Uvans v. Thomson (1804), 5 East,
189. And see Stephens v. Lowe (1832), 9 Bing. 32 Brown v. Goodman (1789),
;
3 Term Eep. 592, n. (b) R. v. Bingham (1829), 3 Y. & J. 101.

;
{t) Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Yict. c. 39), ss. 1, 2; Sched. I., "Deed." The
duty must be denoted by an impressed stamp.
—
448 Arbitration.
Sect. 1. stamped with an agreement stamp of sixpence, unless the subject-

The matter of the submission is not of the value of five pounds, in
Submission, which case no stamp is necessary (^).
One stamp Only one stamp is required, although the submission may corn-
only required, prise a number of separate causes of action by or against a
number of different persons (2/).
Alterations. Any alteration or amendment of a submission, whether indorsed
on the original submission or written on a separate document, must
be stamped {z) .
Sub-Sect. 9. Revocation.
Either party 950. At common law a party to a submission might, at any time
may revoke before the award was made, revoke the authority of the arbitrator {a),
oral sub-
and so render the proceedings on the reference abortive for an ;
award made by an arbitrator after revocation of his authority is a

mere nullity (6). The power of revocation existed notwithstanding
that the authority of the arbitrator was expressed to be irrevocable,
because an arbitrator is in contemplation of law merely an agent
appointed by the parties to decide the matter in dispute between
them, and his authority is therefore revocable by either of his
principals (c).
Liability of The party who revoked thereby rendered himself liable to an
party action for damages for breach of his agreement to refer {d) or ;
revoking.
where, as was in former times commonly the case, the submission
to arbitration was by mutual bonds in a certain sum conditioned
to be void on performance of the arbitrator's award, he was liable
to an action in debt on the bond {e) Where the submission had.
been made a rule of Court, the party who revoked was guilty of
contempt of court, and was liable to attachment (/).
{x) stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 00 Yict. c. 39), ss. 1, 22; Sched. I., ''Agreement."
An adhesive stamp may be used.
As to stamp where the value of the subject-matter of the reference is
uncertain, see Lloiid v. Martsel (1850), 19 L. J. (q. b.) 192.
[y) Goodson v. Forhes (1815), 6 Taunt. 171.
(z) Stephens v. Lowe (1832), 9 Bing. 32.
(a) Vynior's Case (1610), 8 Co. Eep. 81 b Hide v. Petit (1671), 1 Ch. Cas.
;
185 ; Green v. Pole (1830), 6 Bing. 443 Mills v. Bayleij (1863), 2 H. & 0. 36 ;
;
Thomson v. Anderson (1870), L. E. 9 Eq. 523 Re Rouse and Meier (1871), L. R.

;
6 C. P. 212, at p. 217 Re Mitchell and Governor of Ceylon (1888), 21 Q. B. D.

;
408. See also Claphamr. Higham (1822), 1 Bing. 87.

(&) Milne v. Gratrix (1806), 7 East, 608; Fraser v. Ehrensperger (1883),
12 Q. B. D. 310. And see King v. Josejyh (1814), 5 Taunt. 452 Aston v. George ;
(1819), 2 B. & Aid. 395 Randell v. Thompson (1876), 1

; a
B. D. 748 Deutsche ;
Springstoff Actien-Gesellschaft v. Briscoe (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 177. Eor forms of

revocation, see Encyclopaedia of Eorms, Vol. II., pp. 133, 134.
(c) See Vynior's Case and the other cases cited above. The authority given
to an agent is, generally speaking, revocable {Venning v. Bray (1862), 2 B. &S.
502). As to the cases in which such an authority is irrevocable, see Clerk v.
Laurie (1857), 2 H. & N. 199, at p. 203; CarmichaeVs Case, [1896] 2 Ch.
at p. 648. See also Tayler v. Marling (1840), 2 Man. & G. 55, where it was held
that in the peculiar circumstances the arbitrator's authority was coupled with an
interest, and was therefore irrevocable. See, generally, title Agency, p. 230, ante.
{d) Neiugate Y. Begelder (1667), 2 Keb. 10, 20, 24; Charnley v. Winstanley
(1804), 5 East, 266 ;Shee v. Coxon (1830), 10 B. & C. 483,
(e) HillY. Langley (1670), 1 Yent. 50 Warhurton v. Storr (1825), 4 B. & C. 103.
;
(/) Re Rouse and Meier, supra, at pp. 217, 218 Green v. Pole, supra ; Milne
;
V. Gratrix, supra.
—
951. Where the submission is contained in a written agreement Sect. i.

and does not express a contrary intention, the common law power The
of revocation has been abrogated by statute, and the authority Submission,
of the arbitrator is irrevocable except by leave of a Court or g^^^^gg-^^
judge (a). ... .
in writing
The power grant leave to revoke a submission is exercised by the irrevocable
to
Court in a sparing and cautious manner (h), and unless the applicant leave o/court
can establish that there will be failure of justice if the reference is ^^^q^ i^^^q
allowed to proceed, he will not be allowed to revoke (^). granted.
Although bankruptcy does not operate as a revocation of a submis-
sion (k), the fact that one of the parties has become bankrupt may be
a sufficient ground for granting the other party leave to revoke (l).
{g) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 1: submission, "A
unless a contrary intention is expressed therein, shall be irrevocable, except by
leave of the Court or a judge " Re Smith and Service and Nelson & Sons (1890),
;
25 Q. B. D. 545. Applications for leave to revoke a submission maybe made in

the Chancery Division of the Court, but are more usually made in the King's
Bench Division. In the King's Bench Division the application is made by
originating summons returnable before a Master (E. S. C, Ord. 54, r. 12a) ;
from the Master's decision an appeal lies in the ordinary course (E. S. C.,
Ord. 54, r. 21) to the judge in chambers; and from the judge in chambers to the
Divisional Court see Be Frere and Staveley Taylor & Co. and North Shore Mill
;
Co., [1905] 1 K. B. 366, which must be taken to have overruled Be Portland Urban
District Council and Tilley & Co., [1896] 2 Q. B. 98.
If the application be made in the Chancery Division, it may be made either
by originating summons or by motion ; and an appeal lies from the decision of
the judge to the Court of Appeal.
Leave to revoke a submission cannot be granted ex parte {Clarke v. StocJcen
(1836), 2 Bing. (n. c.) 651) ; nor can it be granted after the arbitrator has made
his avtârd [Fhipps v. Ingram (1835), 3 Dowl. 669).
{h) Scott V. Van Sandau (1841), 1 Q. B. 102 ; Be Woodcroft and Jones (1841),
9 Dowl. 538.
See t/ames v. Attwood (1839), 5 Bing. (n. c.) 628 (where the arbitrator was
(?')
charged with prejudice, having taken no note of the evidence of several wit-
nesses) Be Donkin and Leeds Canal Co. (1893), 9 T. L. E. 192 (where he was
;
charged with negligence and incompetence) Jackson v. Barry Bail. Co., [1893]
;
1 Ch. 238 (where he was charged with bias and prejudice) Belcher v. Boedean
;
School Site and Buildings, Ltd. (1901), 85 L. T. 468 (where he was accused of
fraud). The Court held in each of those cases that there were no sufficient
grounds for granting leave to revoke the submission.
The reluctance of the Court to grant leave for the revocation of a submission
is well illustrated by Be Dreyfus and Faul (1893), 9 T. L. E. 358. In that case
one of the parties desired to obtain evidence from abroad but the arbitrator could
;
not issue a commission to take such evidence except with the consent of the other
party, who, however, refused his consent. Application was then made to the Court
for leave to revoke the submission, in order that the matter in dispute might
be litigated in the Courts, in which case a commission to take evidence abroad
could have been issued. Nevertheless the Court refused the application.
On the other hand, in Be Baring Brothers and Doulton (1892), 61 L. J. (q. b.)
704, the Court was satisfied that the arbitrator could not, by reason of some
controversy pending between him and one of the parties unconnected with the
arbitration, bring an impartial and unbiassed mind to the consideration of the
matter referred, and granted leave to revoke the submission. See also Franken-
herg v. The Security Co. (1894), 10 T. L. E. 393 and compare Fckersley v. Mersey
;
Docks and Harbour Board, [1894] 2 Q. B. 667, where leave to revoke on the
ground that the arbitrator might be biassed was refused, Jackson v. Barry Bail.
Co., supra, being approved and Nuttall v. Mayor of Manchester (1892), 8 T. L. E.
513, being distinguished.
[k) Andrews v. Palmer (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 250.
[l) Marsh V. Wood (1829), 9 B. & 0. 659.
H.L. — I. G G
450 Arbitration.
Sect. 1. But the who was expected to join in the

fact that a third person
The submission has refused do so has been held insufficient (m).
to
Submission. Where the arbitrator has been guilty of gross misconduct or
unfairness, leave to revoke may be granted {n) or the alternative ;
course of removing the arbitrator may be adopted (o).

Where arbi- Formerly, where it could be shown that the arbitrator was going
trator about
to make some mistake in matter of law, the Court would in certain
to make mis-
take of law. cases grant leave to revoke the submission, unless he undertook to
state his award in the form of a special case for the opinion of the
Court (p) but in such a case the proper application to be made
;
now is not for leave to revoke the submission, but for an order
directing the arbitrator to state a special case {q).
Revocation 952. At common law the death of a party to a reference by con-

^^^^ Court operated as a revocation of the authority of the
mrtv^^^
arbitrator, unless the submission contained either expressly or by
necessary implication a provision to the contrary and the common ;
law rule seems to be applicable in the case of a submission under

the Arbitration Act, 1889 (?•).
By marriage. Formerly the marriage of a female party to a submission operated
as a revocation of the arbitrator's authority but since the 1st of
;
January, 1883, this is no longer the case (s).

By bank- The bankruptcy of a party to a submission does not operate as a
ruptcy.
—
revocation of the arbitrator's authority that is to say, the bankrupt
is bound by the arbitrator's award —
but the submission is as a
general rule not binding on his trustee in bankruptcy but where ;
the submission forms one of the terms of a contract, it is conceived
(m) Wilso7i V. Morrell (1855), 15 C. B. 720.

(it) Brew (1855), 2 Macq. 1 Be European and American Steamship
See Drew v. ;
Co. and Crosskey

(1860), 8 C. B. (n. s.) 397. And see Cooper v. Shuttlevjort/i
(1856), 25 L. J. (ex.) 114, where the arbitrator appointed by the other party
failed to act.
(o) See p. 459, post.
( p) Faviell v. Eastern Counties Bail. Co. (1848), 2 Excb. 344, at p. 350 ; Hart v.
.Duke (1862), 32 L. J. (q. b.) 55; Bohinson v. Davies (1879), 5 Q. B. D. 26 East
;
and West India Dock Co. v. Kirk and Bandall (1887), 12 App. Cas. 738. It was
within the discretion of the Court whether leave to revoke should be given on
this ground or not. See James v. James (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 12; see also Be
Lord Gerard and London a7id North- Westeryi BaiJ. Co., [1894] 2 Q. B. 915;
and, on appeal, [1895] 1 Q. B. 459.
[q) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 19 ; Be Palmer & Co. and
Eosken & Co., [1898] 1 Q. B. 131, at p. 139.
(r) Blundell v. Brettargh (1810), 17 Yes. 232; Toussaint v. Hartop (1817), 7
Taunt. 571 Cooper v. Johnson (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 394. And see Tyler v. Jones
;
(1824), 3 B. & C. 144 Clarke v. Crofts (1827), 4 Bing. 143

; M'Dougal v.
;
Bohertson (1827), 4 Bing. 435 Smith v. Fielder (1833), 10 Bing. 306; Be Hare,
;
Milne and Hasioell (1839), 8 Dowl. 71 ; Prior v. Hembrow (1841), 8 M. & W.

873 Lewin v. Holbrook (1843), 11 M. & W. 110. In Bowker v. Evans (1885),
;
15 Q. B. D. 565, the matter referred to arbitration was a claim for damages

for a tort ; the death of the wrong-doer before the award was made extinguished
the other party's claim for damages, and it was therefore held that the award
did not bind the executors of the deceased party, though the submission con-
tained a provision that it should be binding on them. See also Brooke v.
Jfr^cAe/Z (1840), 6 M. W. 473. &
(s) See the Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 75), s. 13,
which provides that a married woman shall be bound by her ante-nuptial
contracts. And see Conolan v. Leyland (1884), 27 Ch. D. 632.
— —
Part I References by Consent out of Court. 451
that tlie trustee cannot take advantage of the contract and at the s^^'^. i.
same time repudiate the arbitration clause (0- The

Submission.
Sect. 2. Stay of Legal Proceedings.
953. If a person who is a party to or bound by a submission Power of

contained in a ^Yritten agreement commences legal proceedings Court to stay
^^^^
in respect of any matter agreed to be referred, the Court has
power, subject to the conditions mentioned below, to stay such
proceedings {u).
A defendant in an action, who delivers a counterclaim, thereby
commences legal proceedings against the plaintiff. If, therefore,
the counterclaim is in respect of some matter which is comprised
in a written submission to arbitration, the plaintiff' can apply for a
stay of the counterclaim (x).
The power to stay legal proceedings commenced in respect
of a matter agreed to be referred to arbitration can, it would
seem, be exercised by any Court in which such proceedings are
commenced {g).
954. In order that a stay may be granted, the following Conditions of

obtaining
conditions must be fulfilled.
stay.
(t) Andretus v. Palme?' (1821), 4 E. & Aid. 250 Dod v. Herring (1829), 3 Sim.
;
143; Marsh v. Wood (1829), 9 B. & C. 659; Taijlor v. Shuttleiuorth (1840), 8

Dowl. 281 Tayler v. Marling (1840), 2 Man. & G. 55 Pennell v. Walker (1856),
; ;
18 C. B. 651 Hemsworth v. Brian (1845), 1 0. B. 131. See title Bankruptcy

;
AisT) Insolvency.
{u) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 4 ''If any party to a
:
submission, or any person claiming tbroug'h or under him, commences any legal
proceedings in any Court against any other party to the submission, or any
person claiming through or under him, in respect of any matter agreed to be
referred, any party to such legal proceedings may at anytime after appearance,
and before delivering any pleadings or taking any other steps in the proceedings,
apply to that Court to stay the proceedings, and that Court or a judge thereof, if
satisfied that there is no sufficient reason why the matter should not be referred
in accordance with the submission, and that the applicant was, at the time when
the proceedings were commenced, and still remains, ready and willing to do all
things necessary to the proper conduct of the arbitration, may make an order
staying the proceedings."
Where ,the proceedings have been commenced in the King's Bench Division,
the application is made by summons returnable before a Master (E. S. C,
Ord. 54, r. 12a). An appeal from his decision lies in the ordinary course to
the judge in chambers. From the judge in chambers an appeal lies direct to
the Court of Appeal, because the application is a matter of practice and pro-
cedure within the meaning of the Judicature Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 16),
s. 1 (4) ;see the rule laid down in Watson v. Fefts, [1899] 1 Q. B. 54, and Lo7ig
V. Great Northern and City Pail. Co., [1902] 1 K. B. 863, and followed in Pe
Frere and Staveley Taylor & Co. and North Shore Mill Co., [1905] 1 K. B. 366.
An order granting or refusing a stay of proceedings is an interlocutory order
within the meaning of s. 1 (1) of that Act. Leave to appeal from the decision
of the judge in chambers must, therefore, be obtained, either from him or from
the Court of Appeal.
In the Chancery Division the application may be made either by summons or
motion. For form of notice of application to stay, see Encycloptedia of Forms,
Yol. 11. p. 103.
,
(x) Chappell v. North, [1891] 2 Q. B. 252. See also Spartali v. Van Hoorn,
[1884] W. N. 32 Pussell v. Pellegrini (1856), 6 E. & B. 1020
; Seligmann v.
;
Le Boutillier (1866), L. E. 1 C. P. 681.

(?/) Arbitration Act. 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 4 see, however, Punciman
;
V. Smyth & Co. (1904), 20 T. L. E. 625.
G G 2
452 Arbitkation.
Sect. 2. The matter in question in the legal proceedings which it is

Stay of sought to stay must be within the scope of the submission (z).
Legal Pro- The submission must be contained in a written agreement and
ceedings. must be valid and subsisting {a), but the fact that the plaintiff has
The submis- refused to nominate an arbitrator, and that until he nominates one
sion must be the reference cannot proceed, would not be any ground for refusing
in writing and
a stay (b).
subsisting.
Application 955. The application must be made by a party to the submission

must be by a or bysome person claiming through or under such a party.
party to the
submission or Where there are several persons against whom the proceedings
someone have been commenced any one of them may apply for a stay and ;
claiming the fact that some of them concur with the party who commenced
under a
party. the proceedings in wishing that the matter should be litigated in
Court instead of being referred to arbitration is not of itself sufficient
to induce the Court to abstain from ordering a stay (c).
It is conceived that where the interest of a party to a submission
in the subject-matter in question has devolved on some other
person, either by death or bankruptcy or voluntary assignment or
in any other way, the latter would be a person " claiming through
or under a party to the submission," if he chose so to claim {d).
IJfostep must 956. The applicant must have taken no step in the proceedings.
ihave been A party who makes any application whatsoever to the Court, even
.taken in the
proceedings.
though it be merely an application for time, takes a step in the
proceedings.
What Delivery of a defence (e), application to the Court for leave to inter-
amounts to
rogate (/), or for a stay pending the giving of security for costs {g),
a step in the
proceedings. or for extension of time for delivery of defence (h), are " steps " in
the proceedings. Even attendance on an ordinary summons for
directions issued by the plaintiff and permitting an order to be made
thereon without objection amounts to taking a step in the action (i).
On the other hand, neither a notice requiring a statement of
claim {k), nor a request by letter for extension of time for pleading (1),
nor the filing of affidavits in answer to an application by the plaintiff
(2) Pierci/ V. Young

(1879), 14 Oh. D. 200. See Lunj v. Pearson (1857), 1
C. B. {-N. s.) Denneliy v. Jolly (1874), 22 W. E. 449.
639 ;
(a) Moffat V. Cornelius (1878), 39 L. T. 102 Deutsche etc. Oesellschaft v. Briscoe

;
(1887), 20 Q. B. D. 177 Bandell v. Thompson (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 748

; Oillett v.
;
Thornton (1875), L. E. 19 Eq. 599. The agreement between tke parties may by
reference incorporate provisionis for arbitration which are set out in some other
document {Temperley Steamship Co. v. Smyth & Co., [1905] 2 K. B. 791).
(6) Manchester Ship Canal Co. v. S. Pearson & Son, Ltd., [1900] 2 Q. B. 606.
(c) Willesford v. Watson (1873), 8 Ch. App. 473.
(d) Piercy v. Young (1879), 14 Ch. D. at pp. 202, 203; but see Pennell v.
Walker (1856), 18 0. B. 651.
(e) West London Dairy Society, Ltd. v. AUott (1881), 44 L. T. 376.
(/) ChappellY. North, [1891] 2 Q. B. 252.

{g) Adams y. Catley (1892), 66 L. T. 687.
(A) Ford's Hotel Co. v. Bartlett, [1896] A. C. 1 ;see also Smith & Co. v.
British Marine Mutual Insurance Association, [1883] W. N. 176.
(?) County Theatres and Hotels, Ltd. v. Knowles, [1902] 1 K. B. 480 ;Bichardson
V. Le Maitre, [1903] 2 Oh. 222 Steven v. Buncle, [1902] W. N. 44.
;
(k) Ives and Barker v. Willans, [1894] 2 Ch. 478.
(/) Brighton Marine Palace and Pier, Ltd. v. Woodhouse, [1893] 2 Ch. 486.
—
for the appointment of a receiver (m)-, amount to taking a step in Sect. 2.
the proceedings. Stay of

Legal Pro-
957. The applicant must satisfy the Court not only that he is, ceedings.
but also that he was at the commencement of the proceedings,
Applicant
ready and willing to do everything necessary for the proper conduct must be ready
of the arbitration (??). He must also file an affidavit to this effect to do every-
in support of his application for a stay (o), and unless the Court is thing neces-
sary for
satisfied on the point the application to stay must be dismissed. proper con-
duct of
958. Finally, the Court must be satisfied that there is nosufficient arbitration.
reason why the matter should not be referred to arbitration in Court must be
accordance with the submission (p). satisfied that
conditions are fulfilled, then it there is no

If the above is for the party
sufficient
who wishes the matter to be litigated in Court instead of being reason why
referred to arbitration to show that the matter is one which ought the matter
not be
not to be referred (q), and unless he can show that, an order to stay should
referred.
will be made (r).
959. Where the circumstances are such that the Court would have Grounds for
granted leave to revoke the submission, if an application for that refusal of
stay.
purpose had been made, an application to stay would no doubt be
refused (s).
An order to stay will not be granted if it can be shown that there Impropriety
of arbitrator
is good ground for apprehending that the arbitrator will not act
acting.
fairly in the matter (t), or that it is for some reason improper that
he should arbitrate on the dispute (u).
Where all persons expected to join in the submission had not Persons
expected to
done so, a stay was refused {x).
join not
The fact that the matter in dispute involves a charge of fraud doing so.
against one of the parties, and that the party charged with fraud Party charged
desires the matter to be litigated in open Court, may, in certain with fraud.
{m) Zalinof v. Hammond, [1898] 2 Ch. 92.

[n) Arbitration Act, 1889 (o2 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 4; Hodson v. Raihvay
Passengers' Assurance Co., [1904] 2 K. B. at p. 841.
(o) Fiercy v. Young (1879), 14 Ch. D. at p. 209. And see Davis v. Starr (1889),
41 Ch. D. 242; Renshaw v. Queen Anne Mansions Co., [1897] 1 Q. B. 662; Parry
V. Liverpool Malt Co., [1900] 1 Q,. B. 339 Fox v. Railway Passengers'' Assurance
;
Co. (1885), 52 L. T. 672.

(p) See Vaivdrcy v. Simpson, [1896] 1 Ch. at p. 169 Hodgson v. Railway Pas-
;
sengers' Assurance Co. (1882), 9 a B. D. 188; Walmsley v. White (1892), 40

W." E. 675 Joplin v. Postletlnuaite (1889), 61 L. T. 629.
;
{q) Willesford v. Watson (1873), 8 Ch. App. 473, at p. 479 Lyon v. Johnson
;
(1889), 40 Ch. D. 579 Temperley Steamship Co. v. Smyth & Co., [1905] 2 K. B.
;
791, at pp. 803, 804.

(r) See Wallis v. Hirsch (1856), 1 C. B. (n. s.) 316; Russell v. Russell (1880), 14
Ch. D. 471 ; Denton v. Legge (1895), 72 L. T. 626.
is) See p. 449. ante.
\t) Ives and Barker v. Willans, [1894] 2 Ch. 478, 488.
[u) Nutiallv. Mayor etc. of Manchester (1892), 8 T. L. E. 513; Eckersley v.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, [1894] 2 Q. B. 667. And compare Beddow v.
Beddoiu (1878), 9 Ch. D. 89 Malmeshury Rail. Co.y. Budd (1816), 2 Ch. D. 113 ;
;
Jackson v. Barry Rail. Co., [1893] 1 Ch. 238 Re Haigh and London and North-
;
western Rail. Co., [1896] 1 Q. B. 649 Pickthall v. Merthyr Tydvil Local Board
;
(1886), 2 T. L. E. 805; The City of Calcutta (1899), 79 L. T. 517, at p. 519;

Wickham v. Harding (1859), 28 L. J. (ex.) 215.
[x) Mason v. Haddan (1859), 6 C. B. (n. s.) 526.
454 Akbitration.
Sect. 2.
cases, be sufficient to induce the Court to refuse to stay the
Stay of proceedings {y).
Legal Pro- Before the Arbitration Act, 1889, came into force, it was laid
down in a number of cases that the fact that the matter at issue
Only question between the parties was merely a question of law was not a sufficient
in dispute reason for refusing a stay {z), because, if the parties, instead of
one of law.
resorting to the ordinary Courts, agree to submit their dispute to a
domestic tribunal of their own choosing, it is the prima facie duty
of the Court to give effect to their agreement (a) but since an
;
arbitrator can now be compelled to state in the form of a special

case for the opinion of the Court any question of law arising in the
course of the reference, it would seem that, where the only question
in dispute is a question of law, the Court would be disposed to
refuse a stay, since it would be idle to remit to the arbitrator
a question which the arbitrator in his turn would have to submit to
the Court
"When sub- In some cases the fact that the submission includes but a small
mission part of the matters which are the subject of the legal proceedings
includes only
part of may be a sufficient reason for refusing a stay since the order to
;
matters in stay must of course be confined to those matters only which are
dispute.
within the submission, and therefore the effect of an order to stay
would be that part of the dispute between the parties would be
litigated in Court and part would be referred to arbitration (c).
Stay will not The Court may be said to have a discretion in the matter of
be arbitrarily
granting or refusing a stay {d), but if the conditions necessary for
refused.
granting a stay are fulfilled, and the Court is not satisfied that
there is any sufficient reason why the matter should not be referred
to arbitration, the Court, it is submitted, could not refuse a stay.
Other relief 960. The Court when making an order to stay, or at any time
unobtainable thereafter {e), may grant any relief which would not be obtainable
before
arbitrator. in the arbitration, such as the appointment of a receiver (/), or
an injunction {g).
The Court may, it would seem, at any time discharge or vary an
order to stay (It).
{ij) Wallis V. Hirsch (1856), 1 C. B. (N. s.) 316 Kitchen v. Turnhull (1872), 20
;
W. E. 253, 254; Russell v. Russell (1880), 14 Oh. D. 471. See also Barnes v.
Youngs, [1898] 1 Ch. 414, at p. 419.
(2) Randegger v. Holmes (1866), L. E. 1 C. P. 679; Forwood & Co. v. Watney
(1880), 49 L. J. (Q. B.) 447; Flews v. Baker (1873), L. E. 16 Eq. 564; Cope
V. Cope (1885), 52' L. T. 607.
(a) milesford v. JVatson (1873), 8 Ch. App. 473, at p. 480.
(b) See Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 19 ; Re Carlisle (1890),
44 Ch. D. 200 Barnes v. Youngs, [1898] 1 Ch. 414.
;
(c) Turnock v. Sartoris (1889), 43 Ch. D. 150; Young v. BucTcett (1882), 46

L. T. 266 but compare Ives and Barker v. Willans, [1894] 2 Ch. 478.
;
(d) Lyon v. Johnson (1889), 40 Ch. D. 579 ; Wickham v. Harding (1859), 28

L. J. (ex.) 215; Barnes v. Youngs, [1898] 1 Ch. 414.
(e) ZalinoffY. Hammond, [1898] 2 Ch. 92.
(/) Law V. Garrett (1878), 8 Ch. D. 26; Fini v. Roncoroni, [1892] 1 Ch. 633 ;
Compagnie du Senegal v. Smith & Co. (1883), 49 L. T. 527.

(g) Brighton Marine Palace and Fier, Ltd. v. IVoodhouse, [1893]
2 Ch. 486;
Willesford v. JVdtson (1873), 8 Ch. App. 473.
(h) Bustros V. Lenders (1871), L. E. 6 C. P. 259, a case decided under the
repealed s. 11 of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Yict. c. 125),
—— —
Part I. Refehences by Consent out of Court. 455
It is for the Court to direct how the costs of an application to stay Sect. 2.
should be borne. It is a common practice when an order staying Stay of

j)roceedings is made to direct that the costs of the application to Legal Pro-
stay shall be in the discretion of the arbitrator, but it may be ce eding s.
doubted whether such a direction would be valid if either party costs of
were to object to it. application
for stay.
Sect. 3. Appointment of Arbitrator or Umpire.
961. The parties may appoint whomsoever they please to arbitrate Mode of
appointment,
on their dispute; they may appoint a single arbitrator (i), or two
arbitrators and an umpire, or two or more arbitrators without any
umpire, or a number of persons such as the committee of a trade
association (k) or even a foreign Court (1). They may also choose an
arbitrator by lot or in any other way. If they choose an incompetent
or unfit person, that is their own affair {m).
A person who is appointed arbitrator or umpire does not by
acceptance of the office become bound to make an award (?^), but he
may bind himself to do so (0).
962. The submission itself may name the arbitrator or arbi- Where no
trators, or it may without naming them how they are to
direct
be selected, or it may simply provide for a reference to arbitration ^bmission.
without either naming the arbitrators or directing how they are to
be selected.
In the last-mentioned case, if the submission is contained in a
written agreement and does not express a contrary intention, the
following rules apply :
(1) The reference a single arbitrator (p).

is to
the parties do not concur in the appointment of the arbitrator,
(2) If
any party may serve the other parties with a written notice to
appoint an arbitrator and if the appointment is not made within
;
seven clear days after service of the notice, the Court may, on the
application of the party who gave such notice, appoint an
arbitrator {q).
which, however, expressly enacted that an order to stay made thereunder might
be discharged or varied as the parties might require. The Arbitration Act,
1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 4, contains no such provisions, and the power to
vary or discharge an order made under that section must therefore depend on the
general jurisdiction of the Court, which is, it is submitted, sufficient to enable
it to remove or vary the terms of any stay which it has placed on its own
.proceedings.
(?) The parties may appoint an official referee as their arbitrator (Arbitration
Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict c. 49), s. 3). For forms of appointment, see Encyclo-
paedia of Forms, Yol. II., pp. 95, 98—102.
(k) Be Keighleij, Maxsted & Co. and Burant & Co., [1893] 1 Q. B. 405.
{J) Law V. Oarrett (1878), 8 Oh. D. 26 Austrian Lloyd Steamship Co. v.

;
Gresham Life Assurance Society, Ltd., [1903] 1 K. B. 249.

(m) Re S'haw and Sims (1851), 17 L. T. Jour. 160.
(V^ Lewin V. Holhrook (1843), 11 M. & W. 110; Crawshay v. Collins (1818),
1 Swan. 40, 3 Swan. 90.
(o) Papjja V. Bose (1871), L. E. 7 0. P. 525, 527.
Ip) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 2, Schedule I. (a) Be Eyre ;
and Corporation of Leicester, [1892] 1 Q.. B. 136.

(2) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 5. The application to the
Court is made by originating summons. The appointment can be and usually
—
456 Arbitration.
Sect. 3.
(3) The arbitrator appointed by the Court has the same powers
Appoint- and is in the same position as if he had been appointed by the
ment of parties (?').
Arbitrator Wherethe submission provides that the reference shall be to a
or Umpire.
single arbitrator, and the arbitrator, whether named in the sub-
Where sole mission or subsequently appointed either by the parties or the
arbitrator Court, refuses to act (s) or is incapable of acting, or dies, and the sub-
appointed
refuses to act.
mission does not show that it was intended that the vacancy should
not be supplied, and the parties themselves do not concur in an
appointment, the Court has power to supply the vacancy {t),
Where two 963. Where a submission contained in a written agreement
arbitrators
appointed.
provides that the reference shall be to two arbitrators, one to be
appointed by each party, and does not express any contrary
intention, the following rules apply :
(1) It is the duty of each party to appoint an arbitrator {u).

(2) If either of the arbitrators so appointed refuses to act or is
incapable of acting, or dies, the party who appointed him may
appoint a new arbitrator in his place (?;).
(3) If either party makes default in appointing his arbitrator,
either originally or by way of substitution, the other party may,
after serving the prescribed notice, appoint his own arbitrator to
act as sole arbitrator in the reference, and his award is binding on
both parties as if he had been appointed by consent (^(;).
(4) The Court can set aside any appointment made in accordance
with either of the two preceding rules, though it has no power to
supply the vacancy caused by setting such appointment aside {w).
Appointment (5) The two arbitrators may, unless the submission provides other-
of umpire.
wise, appoint an umpire at any time within which they can make an
award {x). The appointment of an umpire by the arbitrators is a
judicial act they must therefore meet and exercise the power
;
together (y). They owe a duty to the parties to select a fit and
ismade by a Master (E. S. C, Ord. 54, r. 12a). The Court is bound to

make an appointment {Be Eyre and Corporation of Leicester, [1892] 1 Q. B.
136).
(r)Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 5.
(s) As
to what amounts to a refusal to act, see Be Wilson and Eastern Coun-
ties etc. Co., [1892] 1 Q. B. 81. The refusal of the arbitrator appointed by one of
the parties to act in the reference does not render the party appointing him
liable to an action at the suit of the other party {Cooper v. Shuttleworth (1856),
25 L. J. (ex.) 114).
{t) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 5.
(u) The appointment made by each party should be notified to the other {Tew
V. Harris (1847), 11 Q. B. 7 ; and see Thomas v. Fredricks (1847), 10 Q. B. 775).
(y) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 6 (a). See Encyclopaedia of
Forms, Vol. II., pp. 102, 137, 138.
{w) Ibid., s. 6(b); Re FranJcenlerg^ and The Security Co. (1894), 10 T. L. _E.
393. The Court has no inherent jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator or umpire
or to compel any party to a submission so to do. It is, therefore, only in the
cases specified in the Arbitration Act, 1889, s. 5, that the Court can make an
appointment {Be Smith and Service and Nelson & Sons (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 545 ;
and see Be Wilson and Eastern Counties etc. Co., supra, and, on appeal, 8
T. L. E. 264 and Be Percival (1885), 2 T. L. E. 150).
;
{x) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 2, Schedule I. (b).
-{y) Be Hopper's Arhitration (1867), L. E. 2 Q. B. 367, at p. 376; Be
— .
proper person as umpire they must not, therefore, leave the selec-
;
Sect. 3.-
tion to chance, but as between several persons whom they both Appoint-
consider fit and proper persons to discharge the duty of umpire ment of
they may select by lot w^hom they will appoint (0). Arbitrator
or Umpire.
(6) If the two arbitrators or, in cases where the submission
reserves to the parties themselves the appointment of an umpire, the
parties, fail to appoint an umpire, the Court can, after the prescribed
notice has been given, supply the vacancy {a).
(7) If the umpire, w^hether appointed by the parties or the
arbitrators or the Court, refuses to act or is incapable of acting, or
dies, and the submission does not show that it was intended that the
vacancy should not be supplied, and the parties or the arbitrators, as
the case may be, do not concur in making an appointment, the Court
can, after the prescribed notice has been given, supply the vacancy {h)
964. Where the submission is in writing and provides that the Three
reference shall be to three arbitrators, one to be appointed by each arbitrators.
party and the third either by the arbitrators so appointed or by
the parties themselves (c), the Court cannot either directly or
indirectly compel either party to appoint his arbitrator or supply
the vacancy, so that if either party persists in his refusal to
appoint an arbitrator, the reference cannot be held but if the ;
party who refuses to appoint commences legal proceedings against

the other party in respect of any matter agreed to be referred, the
Court has power on the application of the other party to stay such
proceedings (<i) If the two parties have appointed their respective
.
arbitrators, but they or their arbitrators, as the case may be, do

not appoint the third arbitrator, the Court can, after the prescribed
notice has been given, make the appointment (e).
Where the reference is to three arbitrators, all three must concur
in making the award, unless the submission provides that the
decision of the majority shall be binding (/).
Sect. 4. The Powers of an Arbitrator or Umpire.

965. In every reference to arbitration the arbitrator is empowered General
powers.
to make an award on the difference or dispute comprised in the
submission, and the parties may by their submission confer such
other powers incidental to the power of making the award as they
may in their discretion think fit.
Lord and Lord (1855), 5 E. & B. 404. See Encyclopaedia of Eorms, Vol. II.,
pp. 134, 135.
(z) European and American Steamship Co. v. Crosskey (1860), 8 0. B. (n. s.) 397 ;
Pescod V. Pescod (1887), 58 L. T. 76. See also Neale y. Ledger (1812), 16 East, 51,
and Re Oassell (1829), 9 B. & 0. 624. As to acceptance of the appointment by
the umpire, see Ringland v. Lowndes (1863), 15 C. B. (n. s.) 173, at p. 196.
(a) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 5. See Encyclopsedia of
Forms, Vol. II., p. 136.
. LUd.
(&)
Ee Smith and Service and Nelson & Sons (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 545; United
(c)
Kingdom etc. Association v. Houston & Co., [1896] 1 Q. B. 567; and see
Winteringham v. Bohertson (1858), 27 L. J. (EX.) 301.
{d) Manchester Ship Canal Co. v. S. Pearson & Son, Ltd., [1900] 2 Q. B. 606.
(e) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 5.
(/) United Kingdom etc. Association v. Houston & Co., supra.

— ; ; ;
458 Aebitration.
Sect. 4.
Where
the reference is to two arbitrators or an umpire, the umpire
Powers of is,in the event of the arbitrators failing to agree, substituted for
Arbitrator them, and has the same powers as they had (g).
or Umpire.
966. Where the submission is contained in a written agreement
Statutory
powers. and does not express a contrary intention, the arbitrators or umpire
have the following powers :
(1) To examine the parties and their witnesses on oath or

affirmation (li) ;
(2) To enlarge the time for making the award (i)

(3) To direct to whom and by whom and in what manner the
costs of the reference and award shall be paid (k) ;
(4) To state the award as to the whole or part thereof in the form
of a special case for the opinion of the Court (Z)
(5) To correct any clerical mistake or error in the award arising
from any accidental slip or omission (m).
Expert 967. It has been said that an arbitrator may for his own guidance
advice.
consult persons of expert knowledge or skill on questions arising in
the course of the reference {n) but it is not advisable that he
;
should do so except with the knowledge and consent of the

parties (o).
Delegation of An arbitrator or umpire may not delegate to another the powers
powers.
(g) See Tmjlor v. DuUoii (1823), 1 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 158.
(A) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 7 (a), and Schedule I. (f)
and(g-).
Any party to a submission can obtain a writ of subpmna ad testificandum
or subpoena duces tecum (s, 8), but where the reference is a reference by con-
sent out of Court a commission for the examination of witnesses abroad
cannot be issued either by the arbitrators or umpire {Re Dreyfus and Paul
(1893), 9 T. L. E. 358), or by the Court {Re Shaw and Bonaldson, [1892]
i a B. 91).
(/) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 2, Schedule I. (c), (e); and see
p. 462, post.
(/.) Ibid., s. 2, Schedule I. (i) and see p. 470, post.
;
Ibid., s. 7 (b) ; and see p. 466, jôst.

{I)
(m) Ibid., s. 7 (c). At common law an arbitrator or umpire after he had

made his award was functus officio, and had no power to correct even a mere
clerical mistake {Mordue v. Palmer (1870), 6 Ch. App. 22, and see Henfree
-
V. Bromley (1805), 6 East, 309; Irvine v. Elnon (1806), 8 East, 54; Ward
V. Bean (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 234; Trew v. Burton (1833), 1 Cr. & M. 533;
Brook V. Mitchell (1840), 6 M. & W. 473, at p. 477; Bavies v. Pratt
(1855), 16 C. B. 586; Be Calvert and Wyler (1899), 106 L. T. Jour. 288;
Re Stringer and Riley, [1901] 1 K. B. 105, and compare Mountain v. Parr,
[1899] 1 Q. B. 805). The power conferred by the statute is rigidly limited
to mere clerical mistakes or errors arising from an accidental slip or omission
see Pedler v. Hardy (1902), 18 T. L. E. 591 Re Great Western Rail. Co. and
;
the Postmaster- General (1903), 19 T. L. E.- 636, and compare Re Stringer and
Riley, supra.
{n) See Emery
v. Wase (1801), 5 Yes. 846, (1803), 8 Yes. 504, 517; HopcraftY.
Hickman (1824), 2 Sim. &
St. 130 Anderson v. Wallace (1835), 3 CI.
; &
E. 26;
Caledonian Rail. Co. v. Lockhart (1860), 3 Macq. 808 Gray v. Wilson (1865), L. E.
;
1 C. P. 50 ; and see Rolland v. Cassidy (1888), 13 App. Cas. 770. The arbitrator
or umpire must in any case form his own judgment on the question before him
{Re Hare (1839), 6 Bing. (n. c.) 158, 162).
(o) See ShcCrp v. Noivell (1848), 6 C. B. 253, where the parties agreed to a
portion of the accounts between them being adjusted by a person whom they
selected in lieu of the arbitrator, and Whitmore v. Smith (1861), 7 H. & N. 509.
——
which the parties have by their submission conferred on him (p). Sect. 4. .
^Yhere the reference is to several arbitrators they may not even Powers of
delegate their powers to one another (q). Arbitrator
arbitrator or umpire may, and frequently does, obtain legal or Umpire.
An
assistance in the framing of his award (?•). Legal assist-
ance.
Sect. 5. Liability of an Arbitrator or Umpire.
968. An arbitrator or umpire is not liable for want of skill or No liability

care (s). It has been said that an arbitrator or umpire guilty of for negligence
not amount-
fraud would be liable to an action for damages at the suit of the ing to fraud.
party, who had by reason of his fraud suffered loss {t), but there
is not any reported case in which such an action was brought
successfully. No misconduct falling short of fraud would, it seems,
render an arbitrator or umpire liable to an action.
Where an award is set aside by the Court on the ground of Misconduct.
misconduct, the arbitrator or umpire would, it is conceived, be
liable to an action for the return of the fees which had been paid
to him, as money paid for a consideration which had failed {u).
Sect. 6. Removal of an Arbitrator or Umpire,

969. At common law the Court had no jurisdiction to remove an Removal for
arbitrator orumpire {x) but where an arbitrator or umpire has misconduct,
;
misconducted himself power ta remove him has been conferred

upon the Court by statute {y) .
An arbitrator or umpire who has made his award {^functus officio, Remedy of
and cannot be removed. Where, therefore, an arbitrator or umpire ^^^^^^^^
who has made his award is found to have misconducted himself,
the proper remedy is to apply to the Court to set the award
aside {£).
Applications (a) for removal of an arbitrator or umpire are
{p) Lingood v. Eade (1742), 2 Atk. 501, 504; and compare E'mer?/ v. Wase
(1801), 5 Yes. at p. 848.
{q) Little Y. Newton (1841), 9 Dowl. 437; and see Whitmore v. Smith (1861),
7 H. & N. 509, and LJads v. Williams (1854), 4 De G. M. & G. 674.
(r) Fetherstone v. Cooper (1803), 9 Yes. 67 Baker v. Cotterill (1849), 18 L. J.
;
(q. B.) 345; ThrelfallY. Fanshaiue (1850), 19 L. J. (q. B.) 334; Galloivay v.
Keyiuorth (1854), 15 0. B. 228 Be (Jnderiuood and Bedford etc. Bail. Co.
;
(1861), 11 C. B. (N. s.) 442 and see Dobson and Sutton v. Groves (1844), 6 Q. B.
;
637, 647, and Be Colhjer-Bristoiu & Co., [1901] 2 K. B. 839.

(s) See Pappa v. Bose (1871), L. E. 7 0. P. 32, and, on appeal, 525 Tharsis ;
Sidphur etc. Co. v. Loftus (1872), L. E. 8 C. P. 1 Stevenson v. Watson (1879),

;
4 C. P. D. 148 Chambers v. Gotdthorpe, [1901] 1 K. B. 624.

;
(0 See Stevenson v. Watson (1879), 4 C. P. D. 148, 161 Ludbrook v. Barrett

;
(1877), 46 L. J. (c. P.) 798; Wills v. Maccarmick (1762), 2 Wils. 148; and
compare Tullis v. Jacson, [1892] 3 Oh. 441.
(m) Be Hall and Hinds (1841), 2 Man. & Gr. 847, 853. As to the cases in which
an arbitrator or umpire is liable to an action for the return of excessive fees,
see p. 472, post.
ipc) At common law the authority of an arbitrator or umpire was revocable by
any party to the submission at any time before the award was made (see
p. 448, ante) ; and therefore there was no need for any such jurisdiction.
{ij) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 11 (1).
(z) Ibid., s. II (2).
(a) An application for removal of an arbitrator or umpire under a submission

by consent out of Court is made by an originating notice of motion. It cannot
—
460 Arbitration.
rare, partly no doubt because the "misconduct" of the arbitrator

Sect. 6.
or umpire does not in most cases appear until the award has been
Removal of
made, and partly also because, where the circumstances are such
Arbitrator
that it is possible to establish misconduct before the award has
or Umpire.
been made, the aggrieved party has the alternative remedy of
applying for leave to revoke his submission (b).
Appointment Where the submission is contained in a written agreement and
set aside by provides that the reference shall be to two arbitrators, one to be
Court.
appointed by each party, and one of the appointed arbitrators
refuses to act or is incapable of acting, or dies, and the party who
appointed him appoints another arbitrator in his place, the Court
can set aside such appointment; and where on such a reference one
party makes default in appointing an arbitrator either originally or
by way of substitution, and the other party appoints his arbitrator
to act as sole arbitrator in the reference, the Court can likewise set
aside such appointment (c).
Sect. 7. Conduct of an Arbitration.
Appointment 970. It is, in the first place, the duty of an arbitrator, when
of time and calledupon to act pursuant to the submission, to appoint a
place of
meeting. time and place of meeting and to give due notice thereof to the
parties.
Where the reference is to more than one arbitrator, they should
all concur in appointing the time and place of meeting and in doing
all other acts in the course of the reference, unless the submission
provides that the decision of the majority is to be binding (d).
Absence of The arbitrator cannot hear one party in the absence of and
one party. without notice to the other parties (e) but where nothing was done
;
at a meeting notice whereof had not been given to the other side, the
award was not thereby invalidated (/).
In fixing the times and places of meetings it is usual for the
arbitrator to consult the convenience of the parties and to comply,
so far as possible, with their wishes but it is within his discretion
;
to fix such times and places as he may think proper (g).

Failure of Where the time and place of meeting appointed by the arbitrator
party to are reasonable, and due notice thereof has been given to the parties,
attend
appointment.
but one of the parties refuses to attend, the arbitrator may proceed
with the reference in his absence. W^here the arbitrator proposes to
proceed with the reference notwithstanding the absence of one of
be made by summons. In the King's Benob. Division such an application

would be beard by a Divisional Court, and in the Chancery Division by the judge
to whom the motion happened to be assigned by the ballot.
(h) See p. 449, ante.
(c) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 6.
{d) Goodman v. Sayer.f (1820), 2 Jac. & W. 249, at p. 261 and see Dallmg v.
;
Matchett (1741), Barnes, 57. For form of notice of appointment, see Encyclo-
paedia of Forms, Yol. II., p. 141.
(e) Oswald V. Earl Orey (1855), 24 L. J. (q. B.) 69.
(/) Re Morphett (1845), 2 D. L. 967.&
As to waiver of irregularities, see Bignall v. OaJe (1841), 9 Dowl. 631 ;
Hamilton v.Bankin (1850), 3 De G-. & Sm. 782.

{g) See Re WhitxvJiam and Wrexham etc. Rail. Co. (1895), 39 Sol. Jour.
692.
—
Sect. 7.
the parties, it is advisable that he should give that party distinct
notice of his intention to do so (h). Conduct of
If a reasonable excuse for not attending the appointment can be Arb itrat ion,
shown, the Court will set aside an award made by an arbitrator who
has proceeded ex parte (i).
Where the reference is to two arbitrators or an umpire, the powers Powers of
umpire,
of the umpire do not arise unless and until the arbitrators are
unable to agree or allow their time for making an award to expire ;
but in practice the umpire usually sits with the arbitrators from
the commencement of the reference, since, unless he did so, he
would have to hear all the evidence repeated before him (k). The
umpire, if and when required to make an award, is substituted for
and has the same powers with regard to the conduct of the
arbitration as the arbitrator possessed.
971. In the conduct of the proceedings the arbitrator or umpire Conduct of
to any directions which may be contained in the
proceedings,
must conform
submission itself (/). Subject to any such directions, he should
observe, so far as may be practicable, the rules which prevail at
the trial of an action in Court ; but he may deviate from those
rules (m) provided that in so doing he does not disregard the
substance of justice (n).
972. If the submission is contained in a written agreement, any Sulpoena.
party thereto can obtain as of course from the Central Office writs
of subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum to compel
the attendance before the arbitrator of any witness who is in
England (o) and the Court or a judge may order that such writs
;
(/i) Waller v. Khig (1724), 9 Mod. Eep. 63 Fetherstone v. Cooper (1803), 9 Yes.
;
67 Wood v. Leale (1806), 12 Yes. 412 Harcourtv. Ramsbottom (1820), 1 Jac. & W.
; ;
oOo, at p. 512 Hobbs v. Ferrars (1840), 8 Dowl. 779 ; Scott v. Van Sandau (1844),
;
6 Q. B. 237 Tri/er v. Shaiu (1858), 27 L. J. (ex.) 320 Angus v. Smythies {1861),

; ;
2 F. & F. 381 Be Hewitt and Portsmouth etc. Co. (1862), 10 W. E. 780.

;
For form of notice, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Yol. II., p. 141.

(?) Gladwin v. Chilcote (184i), 9 Dowl. 550.
{k) Re Salkeld and Slater (1840),_ 12 A. & E. 767.
(/) If, for instance, the submission requires that the witnesses be examined
on oath or that the arbitrator should have a view, such requirements must be
observed {Smith v. Goff (1845), 14 M. & W. 264, 266) but an arbitrator need ;
not hold a view unless required so to do by the submission {Munday v. Bluch

(1861), 9 C. B. (N. s.) 557).
(m) Knox v. Sijmmonds (1791), 1 Yes. 369 ; Re Badger (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 691 ;
TiJlam v. Copp (1847), 5 C. B. 211.

(w) Harvey v. Shelton (1844), 7 Beav. 455, 462 ; and see Andrews v. Mitchell,
[1905] A. C. 78.
If one party be represented by counsel, the other party must be given an
opportunity of being similarly represented {Whatley v. Morland (1833), 2 Dowl.
249) As to whether an arbitrator could refuse to hear counsel on either side, see
.
Re Macqueen and Nottingham Caledonian Society (1861), 9 0. B. (isr. S.) 793.

The arbitrator or umpire cannot, except for some sufficient reason, exclude
from the meeting any person whom either of the parties desires to be present to
assist in the reference {Re Haigh (1861), 3 De Gr. F. & J. 157).
Each party must be permitted to adduce all his evidence, and must be fully
heard. The arbitrator or umpire should not close the hearing and proceed to
make his award without notifying the parties thereof {Re Maunder (1883),
49 L. T. 535; Peterson v. Ayre (1854), 14 C. B. 665, 677; Pepper v. Gorham
(1820), 4 Moo. C. P. 148).
(o) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 8 ; E. S. 0., Ord. 37,
rr. 26—34.
— .
462 Arbitration.
Sect. 7.
be issued to compel the attendance of a witness who may be in some
Conduct of other part of the United Kingdom, and may also order that a writ
Arbitration. of habeas corpus ad testificandum be issued to bring up a prisoner
for examination before an arbitrator (p).
Evidence. Where the submission is contained in a written agreement and
does not express a contrary intention, the arbitrator or umpire may
require the parties to produce before him all books and documents
in their possession or power which relate to the matters in question
in the reference (g), and may examine the parties and their witnesses
on oath or affirmation (r).
If the submission requires that the evidence should be taken on
oath or affirmation (s), the arbitrator or umpire has no option but
so to take it and even where the submission is silent as to whether
;
the evidence shall be given on oath, since it is the ordinary practice

that it should be so given, the arbitrator or umpire should not take
it otherwise than on oath unless with the consent of the parties (t).
Any person who wilfully and corruptly gives false evidence before
an arbitrator is guilty of perjury as if the evidence had been given
in open Court, and may be prosecuted and punished accordingly (^^)
Party pro- 973. A party who protests that the arbitrator is acting either
testing that
arbitrator is
without authority or beyond the scope of the submission, but
exceeding his nevertheless attends the reference, does not thereby waive his
authority. protest {iv).
Sect. Time for making Award and Mode of enlarging Time.

8.
Time for 974. The time within which the award is to be made may be
making
award.
prescribed by the submission itself, but this is not usually the case.
Where the submission is contained in a written agreement and
does not prescribe the time within which the award is to be made,
the following rules are applicable unless a contrary intention is
expressed in the submission.
Where award The arbitrator (x) or arbitrators, as the case may be, must
made by
arbitrators. make the award within three (y) calendar (z) months after entering
(jj) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52
& 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 18 but the Court cannot
;
order a commission to issue for the examination of witnesses who are outside
the United Kingdom {Re Shaw and Ronaldson, [1892] 1 Q. B. 91).
iq) Arbitration Act,
1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 2, Schedule I. (f) Penrice v. ;
Williams (1883), 23 Ch. D. 353.

(r) Arbitration Act, 1889, s. 7 (a) and s. 2, Schedule I. (f) and (g).
\s) Smith V. Goff (1845), 14 M. & W. 264, 266; Banks v. Baiiks (1835), 1
Gale,
46 and see Eidoat v. Pye (1797), 1 Bos. & P. 91.
;
{t) Wakefield v. Llanelly etc. Co. (1864), 34 Beav. 245 Biygs v. Hansell (1855),
;
16 C. B. 562.
iu) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 &
53 Vict. 0. 49), s. 22.
[w] HamJyn 6 Q. B. D. 63, per Lord Selboene, at p. 65.
v. Betteley (1880),
(cc) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 2, Schedule I. (c), which
provides that " the arbitrators" shall make their award etc. but the clause no ;
doubt applies also where the reference is to a single arbitrator. See the Inter-
pretation Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63), s. 1 (1) (b). .
{ij) In calculating the period of three months the day from which
the period
begins to run should, it seems, be excluded {Re Higham and Jessop (1840),
9 Dowl. 203 Kerr v. Jeston (1842), 1 Dowl. (n. s.) 538. And compare Knox v.
;
Simmonds (1791), 3 Bro. C. C. 358, andPvgh v. Duke of Leeds (1777), 2 Cowp. 714,
at p. 723). „
(z) See Interpretation Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63), s. 3 ; but apart from that
— .
on [a) the reference, or after having been called on to act {b) by Sect. 8.
notice in writing from any party to the submission or on or Time for ;
before any later day to which he or they may from time to time making
enlarge the time for making the award (c). The enlargement of Award etc.
the time must be in WTiting, and must be signed by the arbitrator
or arbitrators after the time for making the award has expired,
;
there is no longer any power in the arbitrator or arbitrators to

enlarge the time (d)
Where the reference is to two arbitrators and an umpire, and Where award
the power of making the award has devolved on the umpire, he (e)
^^P^^®*
must make award within one calendar month after the original
his
or extended time for making the award of the arbitrators has
expired, or on or before any later day to which he may from time
to time enlarge the time for making his award. The enlargement
of the time must be in writing, and must be signed by the umpire.
After the time for making his award has expired, the umpire has no
longer any power to enlarge it (e).
Where the submission itself provides how the time for making the Consent in
writing to
award maybe enlarged, such provisions should be strictly observed( f).
• . . . eniargfement
The parties to a submission may expressly consent to the time of time,
for making the award being enlarged, but the consent should be
given in writing, because it has been held that an enlargement of
the time by consent of the parties amounts in law to a fresh sub-
mission ; and therefore, unless the consent be in writing, the
submission becomes an oral submission, and the provisions of the
Arbitration Act would cease to be applicable thereto (g).
The parties to a submission may by their conduct be precluded Estoppel from
from objecting award on the ground that it was made out of
to the
"'award out
time, although they had given no express consent to the time for of time,
making the award being enlarged (h).
statute " month " means a lunar month, unless it appears that a calendar month,
was intended (Re Swinford and Horn (1817), 6 M. & S. 226 Simpson v. ;
Margitson (1847), 11 Q. B. See title Time.

23).
(a) An arbitrator " enters on " the reference when he hears the case neither ;
acceptance of the office of arbitrator nor giving notice of his intention to proceed
amount to entering on the reference [Baker y. Stephens (1867), L. E. 2 Q. B. 523;
and see CudliffY. Walters (1839), 2 Mood. & R. 232).
{!)) See Baring Gould v. Sharpmgton etc. Syndicate, [1899] 2 Ch. 80.
(c) Oswald V. Earl Grey (1855), 24 L. J. (q. b.) 69, 72. See Encyclopaedia of
(d) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 2, Schedule I. (c).
(e) Ibid., s. 2, Schedule I. (e).
(/) Beade v. Button (1836), 2 M. & W. 69.

(g) Ibid. ; and compare HaldenY. Glasscock (1826), 5 B. & 0. 390, and Leggett v.
Finlay (1829), 6 Bing. 255. As to enlargement of time constituting a fresh
submission, see Stephens v. Lowe (1832), 9 Bing. 32, per Tindal, C.J.
{h) B. V. Hill (1819), 7 Price, 636 Re Hick (1819), 8 Taunt. 694 Laivrence v.
; ;
Hodgson (1826), 1 Y. & J. 16 Benioell v. Hinxman (1835), 3 Dowl. 500 Burlev

; ;
V. Stephens (1836), 1 M. & W. 156 Hallett v. Hallett (1839), 7 Dowl. 389";

;
Haioksworth v. Brammall (1840), 5 My. & Cr. 281 Tyerman v. Smith (1856),
;
6 E. & B. 719 ; Watson y. Bennett (1860), 5 IT. & N. 831 Palmer v. Metropolitan
;
Bail. Co. (1862), 31 L, J. (q. b.) 259 and compare Bingland v. Loiundes (1864),
;
17 C. B. (n. s.) 514. It was held in Darnley v. London, Chatham and Bover Bail. Co.
(1867), L. E. 2 H. L. 43, 57, that taking up an award made out of time did not
preclude the party taking it up from objecting that it was made out of time.
— —
464 Arbitration.
Sect. 8.
975. In every case the Court can enlarge the time for making
Time for the award (i).
This power can be exercised not only after the time for making
Award etc.
the award has already expired (j), but even after the award has
Enlargement been made and thus an award which was at the time that it was
;
of time by made bad on the ground that the authority of the arbitrator had
Court.
expired can be made valid and enforceable (k).
An application to the Court for an order enlarging the time for
making an award is made by originating summons returnable
before a Master (l), and unless the order otherwise directs the
enlargement is for a period of one calendar month (m).
Time for Where an award is remitted by the Court to the arbitrator or
making award umpire for reconsideration, the award is to be made within three
remitted to
arbitrator by calendar months from the date of the order, unless the order
Court. otherwise directs (n) .
Sect. 9. Special Case for the Opinion of the Court.
Sub-Sect. 1. Statement of Special Case during Reference.
Statement of 976. If any question of law arises in the course of a reference,

special case the arbitrator or umpire before making his award may, and if so
on question
of law. directed by the Court must, state such question in the form of a
special case for the opinion of the Court (o).
No appeal The jurisdiction of the Court in the matter is merely, consulta-
from decision tive. No appeal lies from its decision {p).
on special
case.
The case may be stated for the opinion of the Chancery or the
Hearing of King's Bench Division of the High Court. If stated for the opinion
special case. of the Chancery Division, the case is assigned by ballot in the usual
way to one of the judges of that division and comes on for argu-
ment in the non-witness list if, as is usually the case, it is stated
;
for the opinion of the King's Bench Division, it is entered at the

Crown Of&ce, and comes on for argument before a Divisional Court,
consisting of either two or three judges {q).
Mode of The arbitrator or umpire may state a special case for the opinion
stating special of the Court either at the request of a party to the reference or, it
would seem, of his own motion, without any such request. He
(r) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 9. And see Re Denton and
Strong (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 117 Knowles v. Bolton Corporation, [1900] 2 Q. B. 253.
;
(/) See Parkes v. Smith (1850), 15 Q. B. 297.

(k) See Lord v. Lee (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 404 Re May and Ear court (1884),
;
13 Q. B. D. 688 Re Warner and Poivell (1866), L. E. 3 Eq. 261 ; Browne y. Collyer

;
(1851), 20 L. J. (Q. B.) 426.

(/) E. S. C, Ord. 54, r. 12a; Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict,
c. 49). s. 9.
(m) E. S. C, Ord. 64, r. 14a.
{n) & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 10 (2).
Arbitration Act, 1889 (52
(o) Ihid., s. 19. The power
to state a special case pending the reference is con-
ferred by the statute it does not depend on, and cannot be restricted by, the
;
terms of the submission {Re Hansloh and Relnhold (1895), 1 Com. Cas. 215). For
form of special case see Encyclopaedia of Eorms, Vol. II., p. 142.
( p)
Re Knight and Tabernacle Permanent Building Society, [1892] 2 Q. B. 613.
{q) A
direction has been given by the Lord Chief J ustice that all special cases
stated by arbitrators pending the reference shall be heard by at least two judges
because there is no appeal from their decision.
— :
should in the special case set out the facts as found by him affirma- Sect. 9.
tively,and not in the alternative, and then submit the questions of Special Case
law on which the opinion of the Court is sought (?•). fo^ Opinion
of Court.
977. If the arbitrator or umpire be requested by a party to the
reference to state a special case for the opinion of the Court and
;
—
to^compei°^
refuses to do so, application can be made to the Court for an order statement of
directing him to state in the form of a special case the question or special case,
questions of law on which the opinion of the Court is desired. The

application, which is usually brought in the King's Bench Division,
is made by an originating summons returnable before a Master,
fi-om whom there is the ordinary right of appeal to the judge in
chambers. The application is not a " matter of practice and
procedure " within the meaning of the Judicature Act, 1894,
s. 1 (4), and an appeal from the decision of the judge in chambers
lies in the first instance, therefore, to the Divisional Court and

not to the Court of Appeal. From the Divisional Court an appeal
lies to the Court of Appeal (s). An order made on such an
application is an interlocutory order " (t) the appeal must
;
therefore be brought within fourteen days from the date of the

decision of the Divisional Court, and the notice of appeal should
be a four days' notice (u). The costs of an application for an order
directing the statement of a special case are in the discretion of
the Court {x).
The power of compelling the arbitrator or umpire to state a special Mode of
case was conferred by the Arbitration Act, 1889, s. 19. Before o^tammg
that Act the Court could, however, in certain cases, indirectly special case
compel the statement of a special case. A party to a reference who where sub-
feared that the arbitrator was going to give an erroneous decision in
matter of law could apply to the Court for leave to revoke his sub-
mission, and on such an application being made the Court would in
a proper case give leave to revoke the submission unless an under-
taking was given that the arbitrator would state his award in the
form of a special case for the opinion of the Court, setting out the
questions of law which the applicant desired to submit to the
decision of the Court (?/).
978. The Court umpire to state a Principles on

will not direct the arbitrator or
special case unless the applicant has in the first instance which order
(1)
requested him to state a case and the request has been refused, and case^granted.
(2) the question of law on which the opinion of the Court is desired
is material to the issues between the parties, and, having regard to
all the circumstances of the case, is such as should be determined
(r) North and South Western Junction Bail. Co. v. Assessment Committee of
Brentford Union (1888), 13 App. Cas. 592. The Court will not give directions to
an arbitrator as to how he should find the facts. See also Ferguson v. Norman
(1837), 4 Bing. (n. c.) 52, and Jephson y. Hoiuldns (1841), 2 Man. & G. 366.
(s) Be Frere and North Shore Mill Co., [1905] 1 K. B. 366.
h) See Be Croasdell and Cammell, Laird & Co., [1906] 2 K. B. 569.
{u) E. S. C, Ord. 58, rr. 3, 15.
(x) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 20.
(y) Fast and West India Doch Co. v. Kirk and Bandall (1887), 12 App. Cas.
738. See also Tabernacle Permanent Building Society v. Knight, [1892] A. C.
298, at p. 301 and compare James v. James (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 12.
;
H.L. — I. H H
. — .
466 Arbitration.
Sect. 9. by the Court (z). The fact that the arbitrator or umpire has
Special Case expressed no opinion on the question of law which the applicant
for Opinion desires to submit to the Court is immaterial (a).
of Court. A
submission sometimes provides that neither party shall apply
to the Court for an order directing the statement of a special
case but such a provision does not prevent the Court from making
;
an order for the statement of a special case (b)

Award not- 979. An
order directing the statement of a special case cannot be
withstanding made award has been made (c) it is therefore advisable,
after the ;
request for
if the arbitrator refuses to state a special case, to request him to
special case.
defer making his award until an application has been made to the
Court for an order directing the statement of a special case. If
the arbitrator or umpire, notwithstanding such request, proceeds to
make his award, he is, assuming the application for a special case
was such as ought to have been granted, guilty of misconduct,"
and the Court can thereupon set the award aside or, if it think fit
so to do, remit the matter to him with a direction to state a special
case for the opinion of the Court {d).
Costs of 980. The Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the costs of the
special case. argument of a special case stated pending the reference {e). Such
costs form part of the " costs of the reference and award " within the
meaning of the Arbitration Act, 1889, Schedule I. (i), and are, where
the provisions of that schedule apply, in the discretion of the
arbitrator or umpire (/).
Sub-Sect. 2. Award stated in Form of Special Case.
Cases where 981. Unless the submission expresses a contrary intention, the
award may be arbitrator or umpire may state his award in the form of a special
so stated.
case (^7)
The exercise of this power is in the discretion of the arbitrator or
umpire the Court cannot order him to state his award in the
;
form of a special case. But where an application is made

pending the reference for an order directing the arbitrator or
(2) Re Grey and Boustead (1892), 8 T. L. E, 703, where the application was
refused.
(a) Be SpiUers& BaTier, Ltd. and H. Leetliam & Sons, [1897] 1 Q. B. 312.
(h) Re Hansloh and Reinhold (1895), 1 Com. Cas. 215 and compare Re Nuttall
;
and Lijnton Rail. Co. (1899), 82 L. T. 17.

etc.
(c) Tahernacle Permanent Building Society v. Knight, [1892] A. 0. 298, at pp. 302,
304; Re Montgom.ery, Jones & Go. and Liebenthal & Co. (1898), 78 L. T. 406;
Re Palmer & Co. and Hoshen & Co., [1898] 1 Q. B. 131, at p. 138. See also
Re London Dock Co. and Trustees of Poor of Parish of Shadwell (1862), 32 L. J.
(Q. B.) 30.
{d) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 11(2); Re Palmer &
Co. and Hosken & Co., supra.
(e) Re Knight and Tabernacle Permanent Building Society, [1892] 2 Q. B. 613.
If, however, the case be stated pursuant to an order made under the Arbitration
Act, 1889, s. 19, and th.e order directing the statement of the case expressly
reserve to the Court the power of dealing with the costs of the argument, the
Court has apparently jurisdiction to decide how such, costs should be borne.
(/) The submission sometimes provides that the costs of the argument of a
special case shall be paid by the party who applies for the special case, and it
would seem that such, a provision is valid and effective.
(g) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 7 (b), re-enacting in
substance the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 125), s. 5.
—
PxiRT T. References by Consent out of Court. 467
umpire to state in the form of a special case a question of law Sect. 9.

that has arisen in the course of the reference, it not infrequently Special Case
happens that the parties agree that in lieu of such an order being for Opinion
made the arbitrator or umpire shall state his award in the form of Cou rt,
a special case and where an application is made to set aside an
;
award, the Court sometimes remits the matter to the arbitrator or

umpire with a direction to him to state a special case (It) and some- ;
times the submission itself provides that the award shall be stated in
the form of a special case. Where the submission contains such a
provision, the arbitrator or umpire is bound to state his award in
the form of a special case (?), and should he fail to do so, the Court
would no doubt set his award aside.
982. In stating his award in the form of a special case, it is the Form of state-
duty of the arbitrator or umpire to state the facts as found by him (k) ment of award
and then formulate the questions of law for the opinion of the (.^se.
Court (/) ;and he should so state the facts and formulate the
questions of law that when the Court has given its decision on
those questions, the final result and effect of his award can be ascer-
tained. If the award is in such a form that, after the decision of
the Court on the questions submitted for its opinion has been
given, the matter has to go back to the arbitrator in order that he
may make his final decision, it is really no more than a special
case stated by the arbitrator pending the reference, and will be so
regarded by the Court {m).
It is no part of the arbitrator's duty to express his own opinion on
the questions which by his award he submits to the opinion of the
Court.
983. An award in the form of a special case differs from a special Costs and
appeal,
case stated pending the reference in that the Court can direct how
the costs of the argument {n) are to be borne, and the decision of the
Court is appealable (o).
An award in the form of a special case is set down for hearing in Hearing,
the same way as a special case stated pending the reference (p).
Be Montgomery, Jones & Co. and Liehenthal & Co. (1898), 78 L. T.

(h)
406; Be Keiglileij, Maxsted & Co. and Durant & Co., [1893] 1 Q. B. 405; Be
Qoiiyli and Mayor etc. of Liverpool (1890), 6 T. L. E. 453; Be Kirkleatham Local
Board and StocUon etc. Water Board, [1893] 1 Q. B. 375; Staniforth v. Lyall
(1830), 4 Moo. & P. 829 Hocken v. Grenfell (1837), 4 Bing. (n. c) 103.
;
, Bradbee v. Christ's Hospital (1842), 4 Man. & G. 714.

(?)
(A-) North and South Western Junction Bail. Co. y. Assessment Committee of Brent-
ford Union (1888), 13 App. Cas. 592 Ferguson v. Norman (1837), 4 Bing. (n. C.)_52.
;
(l) Bradbee v. Christ's Hospital, supra ; Waller v. Lacy (1840), 1 Man. & Gr. 54;
Arnold V. Mayor etc. of Boole (1842), 4 Man. & G. 860.

Por forms of award by special case, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Yol. II.,
pp. 196—204.
(m) Be Holland Steamship Co. (1906), 23 T. L. R. 59.
{n) Re Oonty and Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Bail. Co., [1896] 2
Q. B. 439, at p. 450 ; and Bortishead'etc. Co. v. Bristol etc. Co., [1887] W. N. 75.
(o) Be Kirkleatham Local Board and Stockton etc. Water Board, supra; and
compare Bhodes v. Airedale Commissioners (1876), 1 C. P. D. 402, and Be Bidder
and North Staffordshire Bail. Co. (1878), 4 Q. B. D. 412. .
{p) In the King's Bench. Division the argument of an award in the form of a
special case is heard by a single judge, whereas a special case stated pending the
reference is argued before a Divisional Court consisting of two or three judges,
II H 2
468 Arbitration.
Sect. 9. On
the hearing of the argument of an award in the form of a
Special Case special case,it is not the practice to make an order enforcing the
for Opinion award the Court merely decides the questions stated in the case,
;
ot Court.
and an order for the enforcement of the award is made on a separate
Enforcement application.
of award.
Sect. 10.— The Aicarcl (q).
Form of 984. Where the submission is contained in a written agreement

award. and does not express a contrary intention, the award must be
made in writing (?•)•
Unless the submission prescribes in what form the award is to

be made (s), it may be made in such form as the arbitrator or
umpire thinks fit.
The arbitrator or umpire, as the case may be, can make but one
award, unless the submission expressly authorises him to make
more {t). Collateral writings not attached or referred to in the
award cannot form part of it {ii) .
Recitals. It is usual to insert recitals in an award, but it is not necessary

to do so (x). Inaccurate recitals do not affect the validity of the
award (y).
Ambiguity. No
particular form of words is requisite for the validity of an
award it may be expressed in such language as the arbitrator or
;
umpire thinks fit (z), provided its meaning be clear {a).

An ambiguous or uncertain award is bad and cannot be enforced (b),
the reason for this difference in procedure being that in the one case the decision
of the Court is, and in the other it is not, appealable.
{(j) For forms of award, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. II., pp. 145 et seq.
(r) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 2, Schedule I. (c).
(s) Everard v. ratcrson (1816), 6 Taunt. 625 Henderson v. Williaiiison (1719),
;
1 Str. 116; Anon. (1826), 5 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 16; and see Gatliffe y. Dunn
(1738), Barnes. 55; Eardley v. Steer (1835), 4 Dowl. 423.
{t) Gould V. Staffor dshire Potteries Waterworks Co. (1850), 5 Exch. 214, at p. 223 ;
and see Stephens v. Loiue (1832), 9 Bing. 32 Winter y. Munton (1818), 2 Moo. 0. P.
;
723 and Re Smith and Reece (1849), 6 D. & L. 520. Compare Wriglitson v. Bywater
;
(1838), 3 M. & W. 199, where the arbitrator was empowered to make one or more
awards at his discretion, and Wood v. Copper Miners etc. (1854), 15 C. B. 464.
{u) Leqgo v. Young (1855), 16 C. B. 626; Holgate v. Killick (1861), 7 H. & N.
418 Kent v. Elstob (1802), 3 East, 18.
;
{x) Spence v. Eastern Counties Rail. Co. (1839), 7 Dowl. 697 Davies v. Frat ;
(1855), 17 C. B. 183 Baker v. Hunter (1847), 16 M. & W. 672.

;
(y) Thames Ironiuorks Co. v. R. (1869), 10 B. & S. 33; Watkins v. PhiUpoits

(1825), M'Cl. & Y. 393, 397; Trew y. Burton (1833), 1 Cr. & M. 533; PaidlY. Paidl
(1833), 2 Cr. & M. 235 WhiteY. Sharp (1844), 12 M. & W. 712 Harlow v. Read
; ;
(1845), 3 r>. & L. 203 ; Baker v. Hunter (1847), 16 M. & W. 672 Re Lloyd and ;
Spittle (1849), 6 D. & L. 531, 536; and see also Price v. Popkin (1839), 10
A. & E. 139.
(z) Locky. VulUamy (1833), 5 B. & Ad; 600, at p. 602; Matson v. Troiuer
(1824), Ey. & M. 17; Whitehead v. Tattersall (1834), 1 A. & E. 491 Eardley v. ;
Steer (1835), 4 Dowl. 423 Smith v. Hartley (1851), 10 C. B. 800. See Harding
;
V. Forshaw (1836), 1 M. & W. 415.

Samon's Case (1594), 3 Co. Rep. 156
(a) Re Tribe and Upperton (1835),
;
3 A. & E. 295 Mortin v. Purge (1836), 4 A. & E. 973

; Baily v. Curling (1851), ;
20 L. J. (Q. B.) 235; Wohlenherg v. Lageman (1815), 6 Taunt. 251, 254 Plummer ;
Y. Lee (1837), 2 M. & W. 495, at p. 499 Waddle v. Doiunman (1844), 12 M. & W.

;
562; and see Freeman v. Bernard [IQ^l], 1 Salk. 69, n. (a); Armitt y. Breame
(1705), 2 Ld. Eaym. 1076; and see Re Manchester etc. Co. and Siuinton Urban
-District Council (1905), 22 T. L. E. 154.
(&) LaiurenccY. Hodgson (1826), 1 Y. & J. 16; Rainforth y. Hamer (1855),
— ,
Part 1. References by Consent out of Court. 469
985. The award must determine all the differences which the Sect. lo.
parties by their submission referred to arbitration and, on the The Award, ;
other hand, it must not purport to determine matters which were

not comprised in the submission. award.
An award which does not decide the differences referred to arbi-
tration is bad and unenforceable (c). So also is an award which
purports to determine matters not comprised in the submission [d)
unless the part of the award which was beyond the scope of the
arbitration can be severed from that which deals with the matters
comprised in the submission, in which case the latter part will be
held good and valid (e).
The Court presumes, unless and until the contrary be shown, Burden of
that the arbitrator or umpire has by his award determined those
matters, and those matters only, which were referred to him. The award?
burden of proving that he has awarded on matters not within the
submission, or that he has failed or omitted to award on matters
which were within the submission, lies on the party who seeks to
impeach the award (/). Where by the submission all matters in
difference between the parties are referred to arbitration, the award
is valid if it deals with all the differences which were placed before
the arbitrator, though there may be other differences which they
did not bring to his notice (g).
The award must be and therefore a conditional award is
final, Conditional
awards.
bad unless it provide an alternative in case the condition be not
25 L. T. (o. s.) 247; Be Tidsiuell (1863), 33 Beav. 213; Hopcraft v. Hichman

(1824), 2 8im. & St. 130; Watson y. Watson (1648), Styles, 28, 56 (''a vicars'
award ") Massey v. Aubry (1652), Styles, 365.
;
Compare Love v. Honeybonrne (182-1), 4]3. & E. 814 and see Johnson v. Wilson ;
(1741), Willes, 248, where the arbitrator awarded that there should be a partition
between the parties, but did not give the directions necessary to make the
partition effectual, and it was held that the award was invalid.
(c) Bradford v. BryaniH-il), Willes, 268; Bandall v. Bandall (1805), 7 East,
81 ;Turner v. Turner (1827), 3 Euss. 494; Samuel v. Goober (1835), 2 A. «& E.

752; Wilkinson v. Page (1841), 1 Hare, 276; Heivitt v. Hewitt (1841), 1 Q. B.
110 Be Marshall and Br esser {184c2), 3 Q. B. 878 Bichardson v. Worsley (1850),
; ;
5 Exch. 613; Boss v. Boards (1838), 8 A. & E. 290, where the award was held
bad in that it did not decide the matter referred and gave directions which were
beyond the power of the arbitrator.
The award need not, unless the submission so directs, deal with each matter
of difference separately {Whitworthy. Hulse (1866), L. E. 1 Exch. 251; and see
Be Brown and Croydon Canal Co. (1839), 9 A. & E. 522, 528, 530).
id) Duhe of Bucrleuch v. Metropolitan Board of Woi^ks (1870), L. E. 5
Exch. 221, (1872) L. E. 5 H. L. 418; Boiues v. Fernie (1838), 4 My. & Cr.
150.
Be Wright and Gromford Ga7ial Go. (1841), 1 Q. B. 98.
(e) See Aitcheson
V. Garqey (1824), 2 Bing. 199; Leadbetter y. Marylebone Corporation, [1904] 2
K. B. 893.
(/) Bland & Co., Ltd. v. Biissian Bank for Foreign Trade (1906), 11 Com.
Cas. 71; Jewell v. Christie (1867), L. E. 2 C. P. 296; Llarrison v. Cresiuick
(1853), 13 C. B. 399; Ingram v. Milnes (1807), 8 East, 445; Cargey y. Aitcheson
(1823), 2 B. & C. 170; W^jattY. Gurnell (1841), 1 Dowl. (n. s.) 327; Day y.
Bonnin (1836), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 219 Wynne y. Edwards (1844), 12 M. & W. 708
; ;
Berry v. Mitchell (1844), 12 M. & W. 792 Smith v. Hartley (1851), 10 C. B. 800;

;
and see Wood v. Crriffith (1818), 1 Swan. 43, and Hawkins v. Colclough (1757), 1
Burr. 275.
{g) Hawksiuorth v. Brammall (1840), 5 My. & Cr. 281 ; and see Bees v. Waters
(1847), 16 M. & W. 263.
—
470 Arbitration.
Sect, 10. fulfilled (h), nor can power be reserved to deal with any difference
The Award. which may on the award (i).
arise
EfPect of 986. An award

has such effect as the submission may pre-
award. scribe. Where
the submission is contained in a written agreement
and does not express a contrary intention, the award is final and
binding on the parties and all other persons who are bound by
the submission (k).
Stamps. 987. A
duty of 10s. is payable on an award ©.
Execution. Where the award is made by more than one arbitrator they should
all execute the award together at the same time and place and in
the presence of each other (?7i). If the only objections to an award
are that all the arbitrators did not execute it at the same time
and place in the presence of each other, the Court will, of course,
remit the award to the arbitrators in order that the defect may
be cured by its re-execution.
Unless the contrary be shown, the Court will presume that the
date stated in the award is the date on which it was in fact made (n).
Publication. An award is published when the arbitrator or umpire, as the
case may be, gives notice to the parties that it is ready (o).
Alteration. An arbitrator or umpire who has made his award is functns
officio, and could not by common law alter it in any way what-
soever he could not even correct an obvious clerical mistake {p).
;
But where the submission is contained in a written agreement, the

Arbitration Act, 1889, enables an arbitrator or umpire to correct
any clerical mistake or error arising from any accidental slip or
omission {q).
Sect. 11. The Costs of the Arbitration.
Arbitrator's 988. The parties may by their submission make such agreement
powers as to
costs and
with regard to the costs of the arbitration as they may think fit (r).
taxation.
(h) Sherrey Y. Richardson (1595), Poph. 15; Fitrserv. Prowd (1618), Cro. (Jac.)
423 K'inge v. Fines (1662), Sid. 59; Crofts v. Harris (1692), Garth. 187 Baillie
; ;
V. Edinburgh Oil Gas Light Co. (1835), 3 01. & F. 639, 655; compare, however,
Turner v. Swainson (1836), 1 M. & W. 572 ; Nickels v. Hancock (1855), 7 De Gr.
M. & G-. 300. See also Collet v. Fodiuell (1671), 2 Keb. 670.
(0 Manser v. Heaver (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 295; Fee Tandy and Tandy (1841),
9 Dowl. 1044.
{k) See p. 443, ajite.
(l) Eevenue Act, 1906 (6Edw. 7, c. 20), s. 9 Goodson v. Forbes (1815), 6 Taunt.
;
171.
(m) Stalworth v. Inns (1844), 13 M. & W. 466; Wade v. Doiuling (1854), 4
E. &B. 44; EadsY. Williams {\^b^), 4 De G. M. & G-. 674, 689; Peterson y,
Ayre (1855), 15 C. B. 724; Anning v. Hartley (1858), 27 L. J. (EX.) 145; and see
Little V. Neiuton (1841), 9 Dowl. 4i37 Re Lord and Lord (1855), 5 E. & B. 404.
;
(n) Doe d. Clarke v. Stillwell (1838), 8 A. & E. 645.

(o) MusselbrookY. Hunkin (1833), 9 Bing. 605; Macarthur v. Campbell (1833),
5 B. & Ad. 518; Brooke v. Mitchell (1840), 6 M. & W. 473; and see Blundtll
V. Brettargh (1810), 17 Yes. 232, at p. 236.
{p) Mordue v. Palmer (1870), 6 Ch. App. 22 and see Henfree v. Bromley
;
(1805), 6 East, 309; Brooke v. Mitchell, supra, at p. 476. An alteration made

by a stranger is, of course, nugatory {Trtiu v. Burton (1833), 1 Or. & M. 533).
{q) 52 & 53 Yict. c. 49, s. 7 (c). See p. 458, ante.
(r) See Fitzsimmons v. Lord Mostyn, [1904] A. 0. 46. Power to deal with the
——
Where the submission is contained in a written agreement and Sect. 11.

does not express a contrary intention, the costs are in the discretion Costs of
of the arbitrator or umpire (s), and he may in his award give such the
_
directions on the subject as he thinks proper (t). He may himself Ar bitration,

tax or settle the amount of the costs {u) or he may direct that they
,
shall be taxed in the High Court {x) he may himself tax them, or
;
may direct that they be taxed, on the solicitor and client scale (y) ;
and he may direct by and to whom and in what manner such

costs, whether fixed by himself or taxed by an officer of the Court,
as the case may be, shall be paid and borne (z).
The costs of an arbitration include not only the costs of the What costs
preparation of the submission (a) and of the proceedings before included,
the arbitrator or umpire and the award, but also the costs of the
argument of a special case stated for the opinion of the Court
pending the reference (6).
Sect. 12. Remuneration of Arbitrator or Umpire.
989. Where the submission does not express a contrary inten- How fixed,
tion, the arbitrator orumpire may himself fix the amount of his
remuneration, and may include it in his award (c). If he includes
it in his award, there is no means of taxing or otherwise dis-
puting the amount so fixed by him {d), unless the amount is so
unreasonable and excessive that the Court would hold him guilty of
misconduct, and on that ground set the award aside (e).
Where the reference is to two arbitrators and an umpire, and the
costs of tlie reference includes power to deal with the costs of the award (Be
Walker and Brown (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 434).
{s) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 2, Schedule I. (i). Before the
Arbitration Act, 1889, an arbitrator had no power to deal with the costs of the
arbitration unless such, power was expressly conferred by the submission, see Re
Williams and, Stepney, [1891] 2 Q. B. 257.
[t) See Re Fearon and Flinn (1869), L. E. 5 C. P. 34, in which, case the sub-
mission conferred on the arbitrator power to deal with the costs and he directed
tlie successful party to pay the costs.
[u) The submission may direct the arbitrator to fix the costs ; and in that case
lie must do so, and cannot direct that they shall be taxed in Court. See
Morgan v. Smith (1842), 9 M. & W. 427.
{x) An arbitrator cannot direct the costs to be taxed by some person not an
officer of the Court {Knott v. Long (1736), 2 Str. 1025).
{y) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 2, Schedule I. (i). See
Malvern Urban District Council v. Malvern Link Gas Co. (1900), 83 L. T. 326.
(2) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 2, Schedule I. (i).
(a) Re Autothreptic Steam Boiler Co., Ltd. v. Townsend, Hook & Co. (1888), 21
Q. B. D. 182.
(b) L.e., under sect. 19 of the Act (p. 464, ante);see Re Knight and Tabernacle
Permanent Building Society, [1892] 2 Q. B. 613.
(c) As to enforcement of the arbitrator's direction with regard to the payment
of his remuneration, see Ilicks v. Richardson (1797), 1 Bos. & P. 93 Stokes v. Lewis
;
(1804), 2 Smith, 12. _

_
Sect. 15 (2) of the Arbitration Act, 1889, does not apply to a submission by
consent out of Court {Warburg & Co. v. McLCerroiu (1904), 90 L. T. 644).
{d) Re Stephens, Smith &
Co. and Liverpool and Ljondon and Globe Lnsurance
Co. (1892), 36 Sol. Jour. 464.
(e) See Re Prebble and Robinson, [1892] 2 Q. B. 602, at p. 604 Fernley
; v.
Branson (1851), 20 L. J. (q. B.) 178;Rose v. Redfern (1861), 10 W. E. 91.
472 Arbitration.
Sect. 12. arbitrators fail to agree, so that the duty of making the award
Remunera- devolves on the umpire, the umpire may include the fees of the
tion of arbitrators with his own charges as part of the costs of the
Arbitrator award (/).
or Umpire.
Where the umpire had included his own and the arbitrators'
remuneration in the award without specifying how much was in
respect of his own charges and how much in respect of those of the
arbitrators, the Court remitted the award with a direction that he
should state those amounts (g).
If the arbitrator or umpire does not include his remuneration in
the award, the party liable to pay his charges can, as between
himself and the other party to the submission, have the charges
taxed {h) .
Lien on An arbitrator or lien on the submission and award

umpire has a
award. for the amount charges (i) and the ordinary practice is to
of his ;
notify to the parties the amount of his charges as soon as the

award is ready, and to retain possession of the award until such
charges have been paid.
The lien does not extend to documents handed to the arbitrator
in the course of the reference (j).
Remedy of If the arbitrator or umpire fixes his remuneration at an
party paying
excessive
unreasonable and excessive amount, the party who has had to pay
remuneration. such amount in order to take up the award can bring an action
to recover back the sum whereby such charges exceed what is
fair and reasonable {k), unless the amount is included in the
award itself, in which case his only remedy is to move to set
aside the award or so much of it as relates to the arbitrator's
remuneration (l)
Action to Where
there is an express agreement by the parties that they
recover re-
will pay him, the arbitrator or umpire can maintain an action to
muneration.
recover reasonable remuneration (m). It was formerly held that
( f) Be Ellison and Achroijd (1850), 1 Lo. M. & P. 806 ; Arbitration Act,

1889 (52 &
53 Vict. c. 49), s. 2, Schedule I. (i) and see Threlfall v. Fan-
;
s/iawe (1850), 1 Lo. M. & P. 340, where the reference was under an order of
Court.
{g) Gilbert v. Wright (1904), 20 T. L. E. 164.
(h) Re PreUle and Eohinson, [1892] 2 Q. B. 602 Be James & Sons, ;
[1903] W. N. 99, where the umpire had fixed a scale fee depending on the
amount of the award and this was disallowed on taxation and see Boberts v. ;
Eberhardt (1857), 3 C. B. (]sr. s.) 482. Where the charges fixed by the arbi-
trator or umpire include a sum paid by him to his solicitors for preparing his
award, the party liable to pay those charges is entitled to tax the solicitor's
bill under sect. 38 of the Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 & 7 Vict. c. 73) {Be Colly er-
Bristow & Co., [1901] 2 K. B. 839 ; and compare Galloivay v. Keyiuorth (1854), 15
G. B. 228, where the arbitrator was not allowed to add his solicitor's bill to his
own fees).
('/) Ponsford & H. 433.
v. Siuaine (1861), 1 Jo.
U) B. Devon Bail. Co. (1850), 15 Q. B. 1043.
V. SoiLth
{k) Llandrindod Wells Water Go. v. Hawhsley (1904), 20 T. L. E. 241;
Fernley v. Branson (1851), 20 L. J. (q. b.) 178 Barnes v. Braitlmaite (1857),;
2 H. & N. 569 Barnes v. Hay ward (1857), 1 H. & N. 742 Be Coombs and
; ;
Fernley (1850), 4 Exch. 839, at p. 841 and compare Dossett v. Gingell (1841), 2
;
Man. & G. 870.'
(1)See note (e), p. 471, ante.

(m) Hoggins v. Gordon (1842), 3 Q. B. 466.
— ——
there was no implied promise by the parties to a submission that Sect. 12.
they would pay the arbitrator or umpire for his services (n) but ; Remunera-
this appears to be no longer the law where the reference is to lay tion of
arbitrators (o) and if a lay arbitrator may bring an action on an Arbitrator
;
or Umpire.
implied promise by the parties that they would pay him reasonable
remuneration for his services, there would seem to be no sound
reason why a legal arbitrator should not also be entitled to maintain
such an action {})).
Sect. 13. Enforcement of Atvard.

Sub-Sect. 1. Bi/ Originating Summons.
990. Where the submission is contained in a written agreement Leave of

the award may, by leave of the High Court, be enforced in the High Court
necessary.
same manner as a judgment or order to the same effect (q). There
is no power to order judgment to be issued on the award, but only
power to order that the award may be enforced as a judgment (r) ;
but a person who has obtained leave to enforce an award may

subsequently bring an action on the award, and in that manner
obtain a final judgment (s).
In the King s Bench Division application for leave to enforce an How applica-
award is made by originating summons returnable before a tion made.
Master (0 from the decision of the Master there is an appeal to
;
the judge in chambers from the judge in chambers to the

Divisional Court {v).
Applications for leave to enforce an award are rarely brought in
the Chancery Division but if brought in that division the
;
application may be by originating summons or by originating

motion.
(n) Virany v. Warne (1801), 4 Esp. 47 ;

Burroughes v. Clarke {18S1), 1 Dowl.
48.
(o) Willis V. WaMeij (1891), 7T.L.E. 604 CramptoiiY. Ridley ;
Co. (1887),
20 Q. B. D. 48 Re Coomhs and Fernley (1850), 4 Exch. 839, 841
; Tuckett ;
V. Isle of Thanet etc. Co. (1902), 46 Sol. Joar. 158 Siuinford v. Bar)i (1818),
;
Gow, 5, 8. See also Marsack v. Webber (1860), 6 H. & N. 1, where it was

held that where one party pays the arbitrator's fees in order to take up the
award and neither party is entitled to costs, the party who has paid the
arbitrator's fees can recover a moiety thereof from the other party and compare ;
Bates V. Toimiley (1848), 2 Exch. 152.

{p) See Crampton v. Ridley & Co., supra, per A. L. Smith, J., at p. 54.
{q) ''An award on a submission may by leave of the Court or a judge be
enforced in the same manner as a judgment or order to the same eSect"
(Arbitration Act, 188f9 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 12). See Ikiker v. Cotter ill
(1849), 7 D. & L. 20; Bowen v. Boiuen (1862), 31 L. J. (q. b.) 193. As to the
manner in which judgments or orders of the High Court may be enforced, see
B. S. C, Ords. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 title Execution.;
(r) Re a Bankruptcy Notice, [1907] 1 B. 478. K

(s) China Steam Navigation Co. v. Van Laun (1906), 22 T. L. E. 26.
[t) E. S. C, Ord. 54, r. 12a; Ex parte Caucasian Trading Corporation, Ltd.,
Re a Bankruptcy Petition, [1896] 1 Q. B. 368. The summons must be served two

clear days before the return thereof (E. S. C, Ord. 54, r. 4e). The respondent
is not required to enter an appearance (E. S. C, Ord. 54, r. 4f (3)).
ill) E. S. C, Ord. 54, r. 21.
(y) E. S. C, Ord. 54, r. 23 Re Frere and Staveley, Taylor (fc Co. and North
;
Shore Mill Co., Ltd., [1905] 1 K. B. 366.

. —
474 Arbitration.
Sect. 13. The application must be supported by an affidavit verifying the

Enforce- award {iv)
ment of The Court has no power to allow an originating summons or
Award. notice of motion for leave to enforce an award to be served out
Party out of of the jurisdiction. Where the party against whom it is sought
jurisdiction. to enforce the award is out of the jurisdiction, it is therefore
necessary to bring an action for the purpose (x).
Grounds of In answer to an application for leave to enforce an award, the
opposing
respondent may set up that the award is a nullity, or is wholly or
application.
in part ultra vires, or is bad on the face of it (y) but if his objection ;
to the award is that the arbitrator misconducted himself, or that

the award was improperly procured, his proper course is to move
to set the award aside (z), and, if necessary, to get the application
to enforce the award adjourned in the meantime. In doubtful
cases the party is generally left to pursue his remedy by action.
Sub-Sect. 2. By Attachment.
Eefusal to 991. A submission in writing, unless a contrary intention is

comply with
expressed therein, has the same effect in all respects as if it had
award may
be contempt been made a rule of Court {a) and consequently a refusal to comply
;
of Court. with an award made on a submission in writing is a contempt

of Court, and in certain cases may be punished by attachment.
Formerly a motion for attachment was the most usual method
of enforcing an award where the submission had been made a rule
or order of Court, but at the present time the enforcement of an
award by attachment is very rare partly because an originating
;
summons or motion for leave to enforce the award as a judgment

or order of the Court is a more direct and simple and, as a rule,
a more effective means of compelling compliance with the award,
but mainly by reason of the statutory provision that, with certain
exceptions, no person may be arrested or imprisoned for making
default in payment of a sum of money (b) where, therefore, the ;
award, as is usually the case, merely directs that one party shall
pay a sum of money to the other, the Court is no longer able
to order an attachment against the party making default in
payment thereof.
Where, however, the award directs one of the parties to do some
act other than the payment of money, and he refuses or neglects
to comply with such direction, the Court has power to order his
attachment.
{tu) See Lnvd v. Hudson (1843), 1 D. & L. 236; Hayiuard v. FMllips (1837),
6 A. & E. 119; EiKjIavd v. Davison (1841), 9 Dowl. 1052; and compare
Hawlnjard v. Stocks (1845), 2 Dow. & L. 936.
{x) Basch & Co. V. Wulfert, [1904] 1 K. B. 118.
{y) Be Stone and Hastie, [1903] 2 K. B. 463 Periley v. Goddard (1796), 7
;
Term Eep. 73; Bandall v. Bandall (1805), 7 East, 81 Lamhe v. Jones (1860), 9;
C. B. s.) 478 SwayneY. White (1862), 31 L. J. (q. b.) 260; and see Wright v.
;
Graham (1848), 3 Exch. 131, and Bwm v. West (1850), 10 C. B. 420.

(z) Davies y. Pratt (1855), 17 C. B. 183, 187 Woollen v. Brad.ford (1864), 33
;
L. J. (q. b.) 129; Brazier Y.Bryant (1825). 3 Bing. 167; Holland v. Brooks
(1795), 6 Term Eep. 161 Macarthur v. Campbell (1834), 2 A. & E. 52.
;
(a) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 1.

-
(&) Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Yict. c. 62), s. 4.
— —
Application for the issue of a writ of attachment for contempt Sect. 13.
in refusing to obey an award should be made by originating notice Enforce-
of motion (c) and, in addition to the usual formalities which must
;
ment of
always be strictly observed on every application for attachment {d), Award,
it is necessary that the applicant should, before serving the notice Application
of motion, formally demand compliance with the award (e). In for writ of
no case will the Court issue a writ of attachment where the attachment,
validity of the award is doubtful (/'). Delay in applying for an
attachment is a good ground for refusing the application (g).
The issue of a writ of attachment does not preclude the applicant
from also bringing an action on the award (li).
Sub-Sect. 3. By Action,
992. Every award is enforceable by action in every Court of Action to

competent jurisdiction (i). award^
Where the submission is oral or the party against whom the
award is sought to be enforced is out of the jurisdiction, an action
is the only available method of enforcing the award (j).
In such an action, if the defendant desires to set up that the
award is bad because the arbitrator misconducted himself or the
award was improperly procured, his proper course is to move to set
the award aside (k). Such a motion must be made within the
proper time (/) it is usually made on an originating notice of
;
motion but there seems to be no good reason why it should not be

;
made on a notice of motion in the action.
(c) Davis V. Galmoye (1888), 39 Ch. D. 322 ; and see same case (1889), 40 Ch. D.
355.
See E. S. C, Ords. 44, 52, r. 4.
{d)
See E. S. 0., Ord. 41, r. 5; Brandon y. Brandon (1799), 1 Bos. & P.
(e)
394 StruttY. Rogers (1816), 7 Taunt. 213, 215 Standley v. Hemmington (1816), 6
; ;
Taunt. 561 Ex parte Fortescue (1834), 2 Dowl. 448 Sykes v. Haigh (1835), 4
; ;
Dowl. 114 (but see Baily v. Curling (1851), 20 L. J. (q. b.) 235) Laugher y. ;
Laugher (1831), 1 Dowl. 284; and compare Llemsivorth v. Brian (1845), 1 0. B.

131, 139; Lloyd v. Harris (1849), 8 0. B. 63, 74; Doe d. Williams v. Howell
(1850), 5 Exch. 299 Tattersall v. Parkinson (1848), 2 Exch. 342
; and see tirîith ;
V. Troup (1849), 7 C. B. 757, and Hatukins v. Beriton (1844), 2 D. & L. 465,

where attachment was allowed to issue though there had been no personal
demand.
(/) Hetherington v. Robinson (1839), 4 M. & W. 608; Creswick v. Harrison
(1850), 20 L. J." (c. P.) 56.
Storey v. Oarry (1840), 8 Dowl. 299.
{g)
R. V. Hemsiuorth (1846), 3 G. B. 745.
(A)
(?) See King v. Boiuen (1841), 8 M. & W. 625 ; Metropolitan District Rail.
Co. Y. Sharpe (1880), 5 App. Gas. 425 China Steam Navigation Co. v. Van Laun
;
(1906), 22 T. L. E. 26. The plaintiff can in appropriate cases claim specific

performance of the award {Eads v. Williams (1854), 4 De G. M. & G. 674 ;
Nickels v. Hancock (1855), 7 De G. M. & G. 300 Blackett v. Bates (1865), 1 ;
Gh. App. 117 and see Llall v. Hardy (1733), 3 P. Wms. 187, 190 Wood
; ;
V. Griffith (1818), 1 Swan. 43, 54).

(/) Rasch & Co. Y. Wulfert, [1904] 1 K. B. 118.
(k) BacJie v. Billingham, [1894] 1 Q. B. 107, 112 and see Pedler v. ;
Hardy (1902), 18 T. L. E. 591 ; Smith v. Whitmore (1864), 2 De G. J. & Sm.

297.
(0 E. S. G., Ord. 64, r. 14.
. — —
476 Arbitration".
Sect. 14. Sect. 14. Poiver of the Court to remit or set aside Award.
Remission
Sub-Sect. 1. AjipUcation to Court to remit or set aside Aiuard.
or setting
aside of 993. The Court has power to remit the award to the recon-
Award. sideration of the arbitrator or umpire {in), or to set it aside
Remitting altogether {n).

or setting An appUcation to the Court to set aside, or to set aside or remit,
aside award.
an award, is made by motion (o). In the King's Bench Division
Application
by motion. the motion is heard by a Divisional Court, and in the Chancery
Division by the judge to whom the motion may be assigned in the
usual manner by ballot {j)). An application to remit an award may
be made in chambers by originating summons, but should generally
be made to the Court (o).
Time for A notice of motion to set aside an award must be given before
application. the last day of the sittings next after the award has been made and
published (g).
No time is prescribed within which an appUcation to remit an
award must be made but it must be made within what, having
;
regard to all the circumstances of the case, is a reasonable time.

Where there has been unreasonable delay in making the application
the Court would on that ground refuse it (r).
The notice of motion, whether it be to remit or set aside the
award, must state in general terms the grounds of the application (s).
(m) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 10 (1) *'In all cases of :
referencfi to arbitration the Court or a judge may from time to time remit the
matters referred, or any part of them, to the reconsideration of the arbitrators
or umpire." It is to be observed that whereas the statutory power of enforcing
an award is confined to the cases where the award is an " award on a sub-
mission," i.e., on a submission contained in a written agreement (see note {q),
p. 473, (inte), the power to remit or set aside an award is given in all cases of
reference to arbitration [per Bray, J., in Forder v. Whittle, 18th April, 1907,
unreported)
(n) Ibid., s. 11 (2): "Where an arbitrator or umpire has misconducted
himself, or an arbitration or award has been improperly procured, the Court
may set the award aside."
(o) The power to set aside an award is conferred hj the Act on " the Court"
{ibid., s. 11 (2)), whereas the power to remit an award is conferred on "the Court
or a judge" {ibid., s. 10 (1)). An order to remit an award might therefore be
made by a Master on an originating summons (see R. S. C, Ord. 54, r. 12a),
but where the application to remit is opposed, it is usually more convenient to
proceed by motion in Court than by summons at chambers.
{p) R. S. C, Ord. 5, r. 9 (c).
{q) R. S. C, Ord. 64, r. 14, and compare 9 & 10 Will. 3, c. 15, s. 2, which was
repealed by the Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49) Re Oallop and ;
Central Queensland Meat Export Co., Ltd. (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 230. The Court
has power under E. S. C, Ord. 64, r. 7, to extend the time for moving to set
aside an award {Re Oliver and Scott (1889), 43 Ch. D. 310).
(r) Warburton v. Hash'ngden Local Board (1879), 48 L. J. (c. P.) 451 Leicester ;
V. GrazehôoJc {181 9), 40 L. T. 883. Grenerally speaking, an application to remit an

award should be made within the same limit of time as is prescribed in the case
of an application to set the award aside {Doe v. Holmes (1848), 12 Q. B. 951);
but see Mordue v. Palmer (1870), 6 Ch. App. 22, where the award was remitted
for the purpose of correcting a mistake eighteen months after it had been
published.
(s) R. S. 0., Ord. 52, r. 4. See Bunn v. Warlters (1842), 9 M. & W. 293;
Staples V. Hay (1843), 13 L. J. (q. B.) 60 Mercier v. Pepperell (1881), 19 Ch. D.
;
58.
—— — ;
Part I. Eeferences by Consent out of Court. 477
Copies of the affidavits intended to be used on the hearing of the Sect. 14.
motion should be served together with the notice, but the Court Remission
has power to dispense with the observance of this requirement (t) .
or setting
Affidavits by the arbitrator or umpire maybe used (it), for the aside of
Award.
evidence of an arbitrator or umpire is admissible upon every point
w^hich may be considered to be a matter of fact with reference to Evidence
the making of the award he may state what course the proceedings on motion,
;
took before him, what claims were made by either party, and what
claims were admitted but his evidence is not admissible to explain,
;
or to aid, or to contradict his award (x).

The costs of an application to remit or set aside an award are in Costs.
the discretion of the Court (ij).
From the decision of the Court on any such application an appeal Appeal.
lies to the Court of Appeal without leave (z).
Sub-Sect. 2. Bemission to Arh'trator for Eeconsideration.
994. There are four grounds on which an award may be remitted Grounds for
umpire (a). They are remission.
to the reconsideration of the arbitrator or
the following :
(1) That there is someon the face of the award,

defect patent (1) Patent
defect on
as, for example, where the award ambiguous or uncertain (&)
is
award.
(2) That the arbitrator or umpire has admittedly made some
(2) Mistake
mistake, and desires the award to be remitted in order that he may by arbitrator.
correct it, as, for example, where the arbitrator made his award
without having seen the submission, and the award therefore did
not deal with the matters referred (c), or where the arbitrator
omitted by mistake to give credit for a payment which had been
duly proved {d), or made some mistake as to the principle on which
he based his award (e);
(3) That material evidence, which could not with reasonable (3) Fresh
evidence
obtained.
{t) R. S. C, Ord. 52, r. 4. See Hampden v. Wallis (1884), 26 Oh. D. 746, and
Rendell v. Grundy, [1895] 1 Q. B. 16. The Court has power to make an order
under E. S. C, Ord. 31, r. 18, for inspection of documents referred to in any
affidavit a copy whereof has been served with the notice of motion, notwith-
standing the fact that the original affidavit is not on the file {Re Fenner and Lord,
[1897] 1 Q. B. 667).
{u) Mills V. The Master etc. of Society of Boiuyers (1856), 3 K. & J. 66.
{x) DuJce of Buccleuch v. Metropolitan Board of Works (1872), L. R. 5 H. L.
418, 462 Re Dare Valley Bail. Co. (1868), L. R. 6 Eq. 429.
;
'
(?/) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 20: "Any order made
under this Act may be made on such terms as to costs or otherwise as the
authority making the order thinks just."
(z) The appeal is an interlocutory, and not a final, appeal {Re Delagoa Bay
Rail. Co. and Sir T. Tancred (1889), 61 L. T. 343).
(a) Re Montgomery Jones & Go. and Liehenthal & Co. (1898), 78 L. T. 406,
per Chitty, L.J., at p. 409.
(b) Ellis v. Desilva (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 521 Re Fearon and Flinn (1869), L. R.
;
5 C. P. 34.
(c) Re Stringer and Riley Brothers, [1901] 1 K. B. 105.
{d) Flynn v. Robertson (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 324 and see Re Hall and Hi)ids
;
(1841), 2 Man. & G. 847.

(e) Mills y. The Master etc. of Society of Boiuyers, supra; and see Binnv.
Blake (1875), L. R. 10 0. P. 388 and compare Allen y. Grenslade (1875), 33 L. T.
;
567; Greenwood & Co. y. Broivnhill & Co. (1881), 44 L. T. 47.

—
478 Arbitration.
Sect. ]4. diligence have been discovered before the award was made, has
Kemission since been obtained (/);
or setting (4) That there has been misconduct on the part of the arbitrator
aside of or umpire. In such a case the Court has also power to set the
Award. award aside, and the question whether, in any particular case where
(4) Mis- the arbitrator or umpire has been guilty of misconduct, the Court
conduct. will remit the award to his reconsideration or will set it aside
depends on the nature of the misconduct.
Partial The whole award or only a part thereof may be remitted in ;
remission. the former case the award so remitted is of no effect (g), in the
latter only that portion of the award which is remitted is avoided,
and the remainder is valid and enforceable (h).
Further Where an award is remitted to the reconsideration of the
evidence on arbitrator or umpire, his original powers are thereby revived (i),
reconsidera-
tion by
and it is his duty to hear such further evidence as the parties may
arbitrator. wish to present (k), unless the remission is merely for the purpose
of correcting some formal defect or making some alteration in the
award which would not involve the hearing of further evidence (l).
Time for Where an award is remitted, the arbitrator or umpire, as the
second award. case may be, must, unless the order remitting the award otherwise
directs, make his second award within three months after the date
of the order {m).
Sub-Sect. 3. Settwg aside Award.
Grounds for 995. The grounds on which an award may be set aside are the
setting aside
award.
following {n) :
—
(1) That the arbitration or award has been improperly procured,
(1) Arbitra-
tion or award as, for example, where the arbitrator is deceived (o), or material
improperly evidence is fraudulently concealed (p) ;
procured. That the arbitrator or umpire has misconducted himself.

(2)
(2) Miscon-
duct of 996. It is difficult to give an exhaustive definition of what
arbitrator.
amounts to misconduct on the part of an arbitrator or umpire.
What is
The expression is of wide import, including on the one hand bribery
"miscon-
duct." and corruption and on the other a mere mistake as to the scope of
the authority conferred by the submission.
Thus misconduct occurs if the arbitrator or umpire, as the case
may be, fails to decide all the matters which were by the submission
(/) Be Keighley, Maxsted & Co. and Durant & Co., [1893] 1 Q. B. 405;
Burnard Y. Waimuright (1850), 19 L. J. (q. b.) 423 Sprague v. Allen (1899), 15
;
T. L. E. 150; and see Solomon v. Solomon (1859), 28 L. J. (ex.) 129; Eardley v.

Otley (1818), 2 Chitt 42.
{g) Be Dare Valley Bail. Co. (1869), 4 Oh. App. 554.
{h) Johnson v. Latham (1851), 20 L. J. (q. B.) 238.
{i) M'Bae v. M'Lean (1853), 2 E. & B. 946.
{k) Niclmlls v. Warren (1844), 6 Q. B. 615; and see Baiter v. Hunter (1847), 16
M. & W. 672.
(/) Anning y. Hartley (1858), 27 L. J. (ex.) 145;
Howett v. Clements (1845),
1 C. B. 128 ; v. Benrice (1840), 6 M. & W. 754;
Bird Be Morris and Morris
(1856), 6 E. B. 383.&
(w) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 10 (2).
{n) Ihid., s. 11 (2).
(o)Ives V. Medcalfe (1737), 1 Atk. 63, 64.
Ip) South Sea Co. v. Bumstead (1734), 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 80.
'
—
referred to him if by his award he purports to decide matters

;
Sect. 14.
(q)
which were not in fact inchided in the submission (?•) ; if the award Remission
is inconsistent (s), or is uncertain or ambiguous (i), or is on its face or setting
aside of
erroneous in matter of law (u) or even if there is some mistake of
;
fact —
but in such case the mistake must be either admitted or at least
Award.
clear beyond any reasonable doubt (x) if there has been ;
irreo;u-
larity in the proceedings, as, for example, where the arbitrator failed
to give notice to the parties of the time and place of meeting (y), or
where the submission required the evidence to be taken viva voce, and
the arbitrator received affidavits (z), or where the arbitrator refased
to hear the evidence of a material witness (<2), or w^here, the reference
being to twô or more arbitrators, they did not act together (h) ;
(q) Samuel v. Cooper (1835), 2 A. & E. 752 Bowes v. Fernie (1838), 4 My. & Cr.
;
150 ; Wilh'nso?}. v. Fage (1842), 1 Hare, 276 Boss v. Boards (1838), 8 A. & E.
;
290 (where a question of title was referred, and the arbitrator awarded that the
property should be taken with all its faults). See Turner v. Turner (1827), 3
Euss, 494. The award will not be set aside for excluding one of the matters
referred to if such matter was not in dispute between the parties at the date of
the submission {Cochhurn v. Newton (1841), 2 Man. & Gr. 899), nor if the matter
excluded was not specifically brought before the arbitrator (iêes v. Waters (1847),
16 M. & W. 268 ;and see Hawksiuorth v. Brammall (1840), 5 My. & Cr. 281).
Unless required by the submission, the award will not be set aside because the
arbitrator has not found separately on each matter referred {Be Whitiuorth and
HuJse (1866), L. E. 1 Exch. 251).
(r) As where the award contains unauthorised directions to the parties (Frice
V. Pop/v/n (1839), 10 A. & E. 139 Be Green & Co. and Balfour, miliamson & Co.
;
(1890), 63 L. T. 97, and on appeal, 325 and see Faviell v. Eastern Counties
;
Rail. Co. (1848), 2 Exch. 344, 349, and Boiues v. Fernie (1838), 4 My. & Cr.
150), or where the arbitrator has the power to direct what shall be done but
his directions affect the interests of third persons (IWwer v. Sioainson
1 M. & W. 572). Excess of jurisdiction over costs alone is not sufficient to
invalidate the award, see Cochhurn v. Newton (1841), 2 Man. & Gr. 899.
(s) Ames v. Milward (1818), 8 Taunt. 637.
(f) An award is uncertain if it is difficult to say whether the matter in dispute
is determined or not (Be Tribe and Upperton (1835), 3 A. & E. 295 ; Martin v.
Burge (1836), 4 A. & E. 973). The award will be set aside for uncertainty if it
does not show to whom and in what proportions the amount found due should
be paid (Be Tidsiuell (1863), 33 Beav. 213), or if it does not show who is liable
to pay {Lawrence v. Hodgson (1826), 1 Y. & J. 16). Uncertainty as to the manner
of payment is not a sufficient objection {Love v. Honeyhourne (1824), 4 D. & E.
814). The arbitrator need not ascertain the exact amount to be paid if he gives
the rule by which the amount is to be ascertained {Higgins v. Willes (1828), 3
Man. & E. 382; and see Wohlenherg v. Lageman (1815), 6 Taunt. 251). The
award will be set aside if it is uncertain as to costs {Be Smith and Wilson (1848),
2 Exch. 327).
(w) Hoggey. Burgess (1858), 3H. &N. 293, 298; Hodgkinsony. Fernie (1857), 3
C. B. (n. s.) 189; Kent v. Elstob (1802), 3 East, 18 Landauer v. Asser, [1905] 2
K
;
B. 184.
{x) Be Hall and Hinds (1841), 2 Man. & G-. 847 Hutchinson v. Shepperton (1849),
;
13 Q. B. 955. But the admission must be proved by the affidavit of the arbitrator
himself. See Phillips v. Fvans (1843), 12 M. & W. 309. See also Hoigate v.
KilUck (1861), 7 H. & N. 418 Lancaster v. Hemington (1835), 4 A. & E. 345
; ;
Fuller V. FenwicJc (1846), 3 C. B. 705.

{y) Osivald v. Orey (1855), 24 L. J. (q. b.) 69. The award will not be set aside on
this ground if nothing is done at the meeting (i?e Morphett {184:5), 2 Dow. & L. 967).
(z) Banks v. Banks (1835), 1 Gale, 46.
(a) Fhipps V. Ingram (1835), 3 Dowl. 669. In such a case the affidavit in
support should state the arbitrator's reasons for refusal {Bradlei/ v. Ibhctson
(1851), 2 Lo. M. & P. 583 and see Be Maunder (1883), 49 L. T. 535).
;
(6) Wade v. Doiuling (1854), 4 E. & B. 44. See Stalworth v. Inns (1844), 13
480 Arbitration.
Sect. 14. if the arbitrator or umpire has failed to act fairly towards both
Remission parties (c), as, for example, where the arbitrator heard one party
or setting and refused to hear the other (d), or where he took instructions from
aside of
or talked with one party in the absence of the other (e), or where he
Award.
has taken evidence in the absence of one party (/) or both parties (g),
or promised to hear certain witnesses and then made his award
without hearing them (li); if the arbitrator or umpire refuses to state
a special case himself or to allow an opportunity for an application
to the Court to order a special case (i) if the arbitrator or umpire
;
delegates any part of his authority (j), whether it be to a stranger (k)

or to one of the parties (I), or even to a co-arbitrator (m) if the ;
arbitrator or umpire accepts the hospitality of one of the parties,

such hospitality being offered with the intention of influencing his
decision (/f); if he acquires an interest in the subject-matter of the
reference (o) ; or if he takes a bribe from either party (p).
M. & W. 466 Lord v. Lord (1855), 5 E. & B. 404 Eads v. Williams (1854), 4
; ;
De G-. M. & G. 674 Auning v. Hartley (1858), 27 L. J. (ex.) 145 and Peterson v.
; ;
Ayre (1855), 15 C. B. 724. Where there are three arbitrators all three must
concur [United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance Assoc. v. LLouston & Co.,
[1896] 1 Q, B. 567). Even where the award is to be made by two out of three
arbitrators, it will be set aside if all three have not met and discussed it {Lie
Templeman and Reed (1841), 9 Dowl. 962).
Cooper V. Shuttleworth (1856), 25 L. J. (ex.) 114.
(c)
Osiuald V. Grey (1855), 24 L. J. (q. b.) 69.
(d)
(e) Be Gregson and Armstroug (1894), 70 L. T. 106; Be Hich (1819), 8 Taunt.
694 LLarvey v. Shelton (18-14), 7 Beav. 455. But where each party was examined
;
separately, and neither party expressed a desire to be present at the examination

of the other, the award was upheld [Matson v. Trou:er (1824), By. & M. 17).
(/) Walker Y. Frohisher (1801), 6 Yes. 70; Dolsony. Groves [l^^^], 6 Q. B.
637; Re. Tidsiuell (1863), 33 Beav. 213 Re Brook and Behomyn (1864), 16 0. B.
;
(n. S.) 403; and see Bache v. Billingham, [1894] 1 Q. B. 107, 112. But see
Atkinson v. Abraham (1797), 1 Bos. & P. 175.
(g) Be Bleius and Middleton (1845), 6 Q. B. 845.
[h) Pitt V. Daiukra, cited in Earl v. Stacker (1691), 2 Vern. 251. As to when
the arbitrator may proceed ex parte, see Gladwin v. Chilcote (1841), 9 Dowl.
550 Scott V. Van Sandau (18J4), 6 Q. B. 237; TrT/er v. Shaiu (1858), 27 L. J.
;
(ex.) 320 Be LLewitt and Portsmouth Waterworks Co. (1862), 10 W. R. 780.

;
(?) See p. 465, ante.
Ij) The arbitrator may delegate a purely ministerial duty, such as the ascer-
tainment of the amount of costs {Holdsu-orth v. Wilson{l863), 4 B. & S. 18), But see
Lvnott v. Long (1736), 2 Str. 1025, and Cargey v. Aitcheson (1823), 2 B. & C. 170.
{k) Johnson v. Latham (1850), 1 Lo. M. & P. 348 ; Tomlin v. Mayor of Fordwick
(1836), 5 A. & E. 147.
(/) Pedley v. Goddard (1796), 7 Term Eep. 73, 77.
(w) Little Y. Neiuton (1841), 2 Man. & G. 351. The arbitrator cannot reserve to
himself the right to deal with future differences arising on the award {Manser v.
Heaver (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 295; Be Tandy and Tandy (1841), 9 Dowl. 1044).
{n) Be LLopper (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 367; Moseley v. Simpson (1873), L. R. 16
Eq. 226; Be Maunder (1883), 49 L. T. 535. To induce the Court to interfere
on such a ground there must be something more than mere suspicion {Crossley
V. Clay (1848), 5 C. B. 581).
(o) Blanchard v. Sun Fire Office (1890), 6 T. L. R. 365. See Parker v.
Burroughs (1702), Colles, 257 (where Titus Gates was the arbitrator); and
compare /femp v. Rose (1858), 1 Giff. 258, and Kimherley v. Dick (1871), L. R.
13 Eq. 1. The award will not be set aside if the interest of the arbitrator was
known to the parties at the time of his appointment {Banger v. Great Western
Rail. Co. (1854), 5 H. L. Gas. 72 ; Jackson v. Barry Bail. Co., [1893] 1 Ch. 238 ;
and see Eckersley v. Mersey Docks and Harhour Board, [1894] 2 Q. B. 667 Lves v. ;
Willans, [1894] 2 Ch. 'ilS;' Bright v. Biver Plate Construction Co., [1900] 2 Ch. 835).
'
{p) See Be Whiteley and Boherts, [1891] 1 Ch. 558. The amount of costs
— ——
In each of the above cases he is guilty of misconduct, and the ^^^^t. 14.
Court has power to set aside his award. Remission

The parties may if they please waive any objection as to the or setting
misconduct of the arbitrator or umpire (q) but the waiver must aside of
;
Awara.
be made with full knowledge of the circumstances (7-) and it would ;
seem that the parties may by their submission agree that neither of Waiver of
them will attempt to set aside the award on the ground of misconduct objection,
by the arbitrator (s).
Sect. 15. Apjieals.
997. The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to entertain an Appeals from

appeal from the decision of the High Court on a special case stated ^^^^ Court,
by an arbitrator pending the reference but, with that exception,
;
every order made by the High Court on any application in the

matter of an arbitration by consent out of Court is appealable (Q,
but no such appeal can be brought after the expiration of fourteen
days except by special leave of the Court of Appeal (u).
From any order made by the Court of Appeal an appeal lies to
the House of Lords (x) .
Part II.— References under Order of Court.

998, The High Court Justice has power to make orders Power to
of
for the reference of a cause ormatter (other than a criminal pro- ^g^g^^g^^^g
ceeding by the Crown) pending in the Court, or of a question or
issue of fact arising in such cause or matter (y) and the Court ;
awarded may be so excessive as to amount to evidence of partiality {Turner v.

Hose (1756)/l Ld. Ken. 393).
(q) Biqnall v. GaJe (1841), 2 Man. & G. 830; Re SaJkeld and Slater (1840), 12
A. & E. 767 Thomas v. Morris (1867), 16 L. T. 398; Moseley v. Simpson (1873),
;
J.. E. 16 Eq. 226; Dreiu v. Drew (1855), 2 Macq. 1, at pp. 8, 9; Mills v.

Master etc. of Society of Botuyers (1856), 3 K. & J. 66.
(r) Earl of Darnley v. Froprietors etc. of London, Chatham and Dover Railiuay
(1867), L. E. 2 H. L. 43.
(s) Tullis V. Jacson, [1892] 3 Oh. 441 and see Moseley v. Simpson (1873), L. E.
;
16 Eq. 226.
(t) Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Yict. c. 66), s. 19. Leave to appeal from a
decision of a Divisional Court is not required. See Wynne-Finch v. Chaytor,
[1903] 2 Ch. 475, at p. 485, overruling Daglish v. Barton, [1900] 1 Q. B. 284.
{u) E. S. C, Ord. 58, r. 15; and see Austin Friars Steamship Co. v. StracJc,
[1906] 2 K. B. 499. If the order appealed from is a final order, tlie notice of
appeal is a fourteen days' notice if interlocutory, a four days' notice (E. S. 0.,
;
Ord. 58, r. 3). As to what is an interlocutory order, see Be Croasdell and

Cammell, Laird & Co., [1906] 2 K. B. 569. Whether in the case of an appeal
from an interlocutory order made by a Divisional Court leave to appeal is
requisite seems open to doubt. See Judicature Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 16),
s. 1. The mistake of counsel as to the time within which an appeal should be
brought is not sufficient ground for granting special leave to appeal {Re Coles
and Ravenshear, [1907] 1 K. B. 1).
As to appeals from an order made on an application to stay an action pursuant
to sect. 4 of the Arbitration Act, 1889, see note {u), p. 451, ante.
{x) Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 59), s. 3.
{y) See Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 13 (1) " Subject to
:
H.L. — I.
—
482 Arbiteation.
Sect. 1. of Appeal has a similar power with respect to appeals pending

In General. before it (z).
Keferences under order of Court made under these powers are

of two kinds, namely (1) references for inquiry or report (a), and
(2) references for trial (b).
References 999. Apart from the above statutory jurisdiction to make orders
by consent. for reference, the Court has, and always has had, power to direct a
reference to arbitration in all cases where the parties desire that
the cause or matter should be referred instead of being litigated in
Court (c) but an order for reference made under this inherent
;
jurisdiction of the Court must be carefully distinguished from an

order of reference for trial made under the jurisdiction conferred by
the Arbitration Act, 1889.
References Where the order for reference is made under the Arbitration Act,
under
Arbitration
1889, the subject-matter of the reference must be limited to the
Act, 1889. cause or matter pending before the Court (d). The referee or arbi-
trator is deemed to be an officer of the Court, and has such authority,
and must conduct the reference in such manner, as is prescribed by
the rules of Court, and subject to those rules as the Court or a
judge may direct {e). Moreover, his decision is, unless set aside by
the Court or a judge, equivalent to the verdict of a jury (/).
rules of Court and to any right to have particular cases tried by a jury, the
Court or a judge may refer any question arising in any cause or matter (other
than a criminal proceeding by the Crown) for inquiry or report to any official or
special referee." And by sect. 14, "In any cause or matter (other than a
criminal proceeding by the Crown),
(a) if all the parties interested who are not under disability consent, or
' *
" (b) If the cause or matter requires any prolonged examination of documents
or any scientific or local investigation which cannot in the opinion of the
Court or a judge conveniently be made before a jury or conducted by
the Court through its other ordinary officers, or
(c) If the question in dispute consists wholly or in part of matters of
'
'
account,
the Court or a judge may at any time order the whole cause or matter, or any
question or issue of fact arising therein, to be tried before a special referee or
arbitrator respectively agreed on by the parties, or before an official referee or
officer of the Court."
{z) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 17 "Her Majesty's Court of
:
Appeal shall have all the powers conferred by this Act on the Court or a judge
thereof under the provisions relating to references under order of the Court."
(a) Ibid., s. 13 (1), supra.
(b) Ibid., s. 14, supra.
(c) Formerly, when the parties to an action pending before the Court agreed
that the matter in difference between them should be referred to arbitration, the
Court gave effect to their agreement by making a rule of Court for the reference
of such matter to arbitration; see Hide v. Petit (1671), Ch. Cas. 185. The
practice of referring matters to arbitration by rule of Court gave rise to the
earliest statute with regard to arbitrations by submission out of Court (9 & 10
Will. 3, c. 15), which begins by reciting that "it hath been found by experience
that references made by rule of Court have contributed much to the ease of the
subject in the determining of controversies because the parties become thereby
obliged to submit to the award of the arbitrators under the penalty of imprison-
ment for their contempt " should they refuse to do so, and goes on to provide
that certain submissions might be made rules of Court.
(d) Darlington Wagon Co., Ltd. v. Harding and the Trouville Pier and
Steamboat Co., Ltd., [1891] 1 Q. B. 245.
(e) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 15 (1).
-
(/) Ibid., s. 15 (2). See p. 490, post.
—
Part II. References under Order of Court. 483
But where the order for reference is made under the inherent Sect. 1.
jurisdiction of the Court, the subject-matter of the reference is not In General.
necessarily hmited to the cause or matter in which such order is Eeferences
made, for it may, and not infrequently does, include all matters in under Court's
difference between the parties The referee or arbitrator is not inherent
(g).
jurisdiction.
in any sense an officer of the Court. He has such authority and
powers as the parties may agree by the order of reference to confer
upon him, and his award is in most respects similar in its nature and
effect to an award made in an arbitration pursuant to a submission
out of Court. Moreover, whereas in certain cases the Court can
make a compulsory order of reference for trial under the Arbitration
Act, 1889, against the will of either or even both of the parties (li),
an order for reference under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court
can in no case be made save with the consent of all the parties.
The real nature and effect of an order for reference made under Effect of
order of
the inherent jurisdiction of the Court is this that, the parties
:
reference.
having agreed that the cause or matter, or that all matters in
difference between them (as the case may be), should be referred to
arbitration, instead of being litigated in Court, the action is
stayed, and an arbitration similar to an arbitration pursuant to
a submission out of Court takes place. The distinction between
an arbitration pursuant to a submission out of Court and an
arbitration pursuant to an order made by the Court under its
inherent jurisdiction and not under the Arbitration Act, 1889, is
that in the former case the submission is made by parties out of
Court, and in the latter case the submission is contained in the
order of the Court; and the arbitrator is usually empowered to
direct how judgment should be entered in the action (i).
References pursuant to an order made by the Court under the Eeferences
under
Arbitration Act, 1889, may be either for inquiry or report or for
Arbitration
trial they are entirely different from arbitrations held pursuant
; Act, 1889.
to a submission out of Court. Moreover, references for inquiry or
report differ in many important respects from references for trial (k).
There are three official referees, who are barristers of ten years Official
standing, and are appointed by the Lord Chancellor (l). When an referees.
order for reference to an official referee is made, the nomination is

determined by the method of rotation prescribed by the rules of
Court (m) or one of the three may be nominated by the order for
,
reference {n).
(g) Darlington Wagon Co., Ltd. v. Harding and the Trouville Pier and:
Steamboat Co., Ltd., [1891] 1 Q. B. 245.
(A) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 14.
{%) See Part I., pp. 439 et seq., ante.
(k) Where an action is pending in a county court the judge may, with the
consent of both parties, order the action, with or without other matters, which
are within the jurisdiction of the Court, in dispute between the parties, to be
referred to arbitration to such person or persons, and in such manner, and on such
terms as he may think reasonable and just. The award of the arbitrator or
arbitrators is entered as the judgment in the action, and, subject to the power of
the judge to set it aside, is as binding and effectual as if given by the judge.
See County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 104.
(/) Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 83.
(m) E. S. C, Ord. 36, rr. 45, 46.
(n) Ihid., rr. 45, 47.
—
484 Arbitration.
Sect. 2, Sect. 2. References for Inquiry or Report.

References
for 1000. Subject to the right of any party to a trial by jury (o), any
Inquiry or question arising in a cause or matter (other than a criminal pro-
Report. ceeding by the Crown) may be referred for inquiry or report but ;
Wheu order
the power to order such a reference is only exercised in cases where
made. the question cannot conveniently be decided in the usual way by
the Court, as, for instance, where a prolonged examination of
documents or of accounts (^), or some scientific or local investiga-
tion (g), is necessary, or where, as may be the case when damages
have to be assessed, the inquiry involves questions of detail
which would occupy too much time in Court (r). The Court will
only refer for inquiry such questions as must necessarily arise,
and not such as are dependent upon the determination of other
issues (s).
An order of reference for inquiry or report may be made by a

Master (i).
To whom 1001. The reference may be made either to an official referee or to

reference a special referee, who may be any person approved by the Court or
made.
judge ordering the reference, and may be appointed without the
consent of the parties {u).
Powers of The referee, whether he be an official or a special referee, is
referee. deemed to be an officer of the Court {x), and has such authority as
is prescribed by the rules of Court {y), and, subject thereto, as the
Court or judge directs. In the absence of direction to the contrary,
he may fix the place for holding the inquiry {z), and may make a
peremptory appointment for the hearing (a). He may have any
inspection or view which he may deem expedient (&), and may
make an order for the inspection of property (c). He has the same
authority as a judge of the High Court with respect to the discovery
and production of documents {cl).
(o) See E. S. C, Ord. 36 ; title Practice and Procedure.

Ir) Be Taijlor (1890), 4:4^ Ch. D. 128; Jlochefoucauld v. Boiistead, 11S91]\
1 Ch. 196, at p. 213.
(q) Broder v. Saillard (1876), 2 Ch. D. 692, at p. 694 Badisclie Anilinund Soda;
Fahrik v. Levindtin (1883), 24 Ch. D. 156, 167.

(r) Rust Y. Victoria Graving Bock Co. (1887), 36 Ch. D. 113, at p. 114; Wallis-
V. Sayers (1890), 6 T. L. E. 356.
(s) Weed v. Ward (1889), 40 Ch. D. 555.
(t) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), ss. 13, 21; E. S. C, Ord. 54,.
r. 12a.
[u) Per Pearson, J., Badische Anilin itnd Soda Fahrik v. Levinstein, supra,
at p. 167.
(x) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. '49), s. 15 (1). In Be Palmer (1890),
63 L. T. 302, it was apparently assumed by the judge that this section applies^
to a reference for inquiry.
{y) See E. S. C, Ord. 36, rr. 48— 55d.
(z) Ibid., r. 48.
(a) Baroness Wenlock v. Biver Dee Co. (1883), 53 L. J. (q. b.) 208.
(6) E. S. C, Ord. 36, r. 48.
(c) E. S. C, Ord. 36, r. 50; Macalpine & Co. v. Calder & Co., [1893] 1 Q. B..
545.
(d) Barnett v. AJdridge Colliery Co. (1887), 4T. L. E. 16; Macal;pine & Co. v..
Calder & Co., supra.
—
Part II. Eeferences under Order of Court. 485
1002. Unless otherwise directed by the Court or judge, he is to Sect 2.
sit de die in diem {e), but this rule is not imperative, and disregard References
of it not invalidate the proceedings (/).
will for
The which the referee is to make is a judicial inquiry Inquiry or
inquir}^
by examination of witnesses (g). Evidence is to be taken, and the Report.
attendance of witnesses may be enforced by subpoena; and the Conduct of

inquiry is to be conducted in the same manner, as nearly as reference.
circumstances will admit, as trials are conducted before a
judge Qi) but a referee is not bound to take accounts in the exact
;
manner which obtains before Masters in the chambers of the judges

of the Chancery Division (i).
The order for reference does not usually fix any time within
which the referee is to make his report. If a time is fixed and
necessity arises for enlarging it, the Court or a judge has power
to make an order for the enlargement (/c).
When the referee makes his report, he should on the same day
give notice thereof to each party by letter directed to his address
for service, and the notice is deemed to have been received in due
course of post (/).
1003. The referee may at any stage of the proceedings, and must Statement of
special case.
if so directed by the Court or a judge, state in the form of a special
course of the reference {m) and any such question may be sub-
;
mitted for the decision of the Court, or any facts may be specially
stated, with power to the Court to draw inferences therefrom, by
the report of the referee
It is not the duty of a referee to whom a question has been Keferee's
report.
referred for inquiry and report to dispose of the matter his ;
duty is to find the materials upon which the Court is to act,

and his report should be so framed that the Court will be able to
determine the matter in question (o). Thus a report by a referee as
to damages should state the mode in which the amount has been
calculated and the facts on which the calculation is based (p) ;
but it is not necessary that the referee should give the reasons
for his conclusions, though he may state facts or figures that
wîll assist the Court to revise the report, or to come to a different
conclusion {q).
(e) H. S. C, Ord. 36, r. 48.

(/) Bobinson v. Robinson (1876), 35 L. T. 337.
{(/) Baroness Wenlock v. Biver Bee Co. (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 155.
{h) E. S. 0., Ord. 36, rr. 49, o5c.
(0 Be Taylor (1890), 44 Ch. D. 128.
{k) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), ss. 9, 16.
(/) E. S. C, Ord. 36, r. 53.
{m) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 19. See as to special case
p. 489, post.
{n) E. S. C, Ord. 36, r. 52.
(o) Melliii V. Moiiico (1877), 3 C. P. D. per Bramwell, L.J., at p. 149 ;
Badische Aniiin und Soda Fabrik v. Levinstein (1883), 24 Ch. D. 156, at

p. 167.
(p) Mayor of Birmingham v. Allen, [1877] W. N. 190.
(q) Dunkirk Colliery Co. v. Lever (1878), 9 Ch. D. 20, per Bramwell, L.J.,
at p. 28.
486 Arbitration.
Sect. 2. In taking accounts, it is sometimes advisable that the report

References should set out the items respectively allowed or disallowed (?•), but
for in complicated cases this is not necessary (s). The report should,
Inquiry or however, provide the materials to enable the parties to question it,
Report. and for this purpose the notes of the evidence taken may be
considered with the report (t).
Costs of The referee has no power to make any order as to the costs of
reference.
the inquiry unless such power is expressly given by the order
appointing him. The costs of the inquiry are part of the costs in
the cause or matter, and must be dealt with according to the order
of the Court or judge by whom it is referred. The remuneration
to be paid to any special referee to whom any matter is
referred under order of the Court or a judge is to be determined
by the Court or judge (u), and after such determination the referee
can sue the parties for the amount allowed {x) .
Adoption of 1004. The Court or judge may adopt the report of the referee
report. wholly or partially. If and so far as the report be adopted, it may
be enforced as a judgment or order to the same effect (y) but until ;
it has been adopted no effect can be given to it (z). The Court or

judge may decide the question referred on the evidence taken before
the referee, either with or without additional evidence {a), but will
not go into the evidence with a view to varying the report at the
instance of a party who has not given notice of motion to vary (b).
Variation or The Court may also require any explanation or reasons from the
remission of
referee, or may remit the question for further consideration to
report.
the same or any other referee (c). If the further consideration of
the cause or matter has been adjourned, while the inquiry is pending,
any party after the rejDort has been made may apply to the Court
or judge to adopt it without notice of motion or summons, but if
the party desires to have the report varied or remitted, four days'
notice of motion must be given to come on with the further considera-
tion (d). If the further consideration has not been adjourned, any
party may apply to the Court by an eight days' notice of motion
to adopt or vary or remit the report (e). The time within which the
application is to be made is not limited by the rules or otherwise (/).
(r) Burrard v. Call slier (1882), 19 Ch. D. 644.

(s) Re Taylor (1890), 44 Ch. D. 128.
{t) Ibid.
Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 15 (3).
{u)
\x)Willis V. WakeJey Brothers (1891), 7 T. L. E. 604. In this case the refer-
ence was under an order made by the consent of the parties, but the right to
recover would seem to be independent of such consent.
{y) Arbitration Act, 1889(52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 13(2).
(z) Guardians of Mansfield Union v. WHylit (1882), 9 Q.. B. D. at p. 686
(decided under the Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 56).
(a) 11. S. C, Ord. 36, r. 52.
[h) Re Fitton (1893), 70 L. T. 397.
(c) R. S. C, Ord. 36, r. 52.
{d) E. S. C, Ord. 36, r. 54 Burrard y. Calisher (1882), 19 Ch. D. 644.

;
(e) E. S. C, Ord. 36, r. 55. In Larldn\. />%cZ(1891), 64 L. T. 507, anaction

for an injunction to restrain a nuisance, the referee found that there was no
nuisance. On' a motion to dismiss the action under Ord. 40, r. 7, it was held
that Ord. 36, r. 55, did not apply.
.
(/) Walker v. Bunhell (1882), 31 W. E. 138.
. — ——
Part II. References under Order of Court. 487
Sect. 3. References for Trial.

g^^^ ^
Sub-Sect. 1. ]yhat may be referred. References
for Trial.
1005. Any cause or matter pending in the High Court of Justice when order
(other than a criminal proceeding by the Crown), or any question or of reference
issue of fact arising therein, may be referred for trial ((/) if all the will be made,
parties interested who are not under disability consent and if the ;
cause or matter requires any prolonged examination of documents (li)

or any scientific or local investigation (i), which cannot in the
opinion of the Court or a judge conveniently be made before
a jury, or conducted by the Court through its other ordinary
officers, or if the question in dispute consists wholly or in part
of matters of account (k), the cause (0 or matter or question may
be referred for trial without the consent of the parties. Where
fraud is alleged, the Court will, as a general rule, be disposed
to direct that the matter be tried in the ordinary way and to
refuse an order for reference, unless the allegations of fraud are
so mixed up with the merits of the case that they cannot be tried
separately
The Court has no jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act, 1889, to Limit of
make an order for reference of questions which do not arise in the J^^sdiction.
cause or matter. Any such order, as, for instance, an order for
reference of " all matters in dispute between the parties," can
only be made with the consent of the parties and under the
(g) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 14 see note {y), p. 482,
;
ante. A consent under this section does not amount to a submission to arbitra-
tion. See Zelma Gold Mining Co., Ltd. v. Hoskins, [1895] A. C. 100 (in Privy
Council)
(A) For the ascertainment of facts, not for the determination of a question of
law, see Ormerod v. Todmorden Mill Co. (1882), 8 Q. B. D. at p. 677, per Brett,
L.J. The prolonged investigation does not mean merely reading a large number
of letters [Green's Trustee v. Barrett, [1875] W. N. 204), or a mass of printed
evidence taken on commission {Hamilton v. Merchants^ Marine Insurance Co.
(1889), 58 L. J. (q. b.) 544). But a reference was ordered when it was necessary
to examine a large number of invoices in order to prove systematic overcharges
{Uoch V. Boor (1880), 49 L. J. (c. P.) 665).
(?) An order of reference was upheld in a case relating to the infringement
of a patent for improvements in a railway signal, as involving a scientific in-

vestigation {Saxby v. Gloucester Wagon Co., [1880] W. N. 28), and in an action
to restrain interference with ancient lights, as requiring local investigation
(Bannister v. McDonald, [1890] W. N. 50). An order for reference was set aside
where the question was whether a coal-mine had been fairly worked under a
lease {Case v. Willis (1892), 8 T. L. E. 610), also in a case as to the genuine-
ness of a large number of pictures {Leigh v. Brooks (1877), 5 Ch. D. 592), but in
that case there were allegations of fraud.
{k) The words "matters of account" should be construed in a wide sense
{Re Leigh (1876), 3 Ch. D. 292). Eor orders made in such matters, see Goodiuin
v. Bud'den (1880), 42 L. T. 536 (partnership accounts), and Ward v. Filley (1880),
o Q. B. D. 427 (action on a builder's bill). In Cloiu v. Llarjper (1878), 3 Ex.
D. 198, an action for breaches of covenant to repair where the breaches were
denied, an order for reference was refused.
(I) The whole case may be referred if a substantial part of the dispute
between the parties is matter of account {Hurlhatt v. Barnett <& Co., [1893] 1
Q. B. 77).
(m) Russell cfc Co. v. Harris (1891), 65 L. T. 752; and see Leigh v. Brooks,
supra.
—— ;
488 Arbitration.
Sect. 3. inherent jurisdiction of the Court, and amounts to a submission to

References arbitration (n).
for Trial. The order for reference may be made by a judge or Master in
Who may chambers upon an application by summons (o), or by a judge at
make order. any stage of a trial before him. An appeal lies to the Court of
Appeal from an order of reference for trial made by a judge at the
trial (p) or in chambers (q).
Sub-Sect. 2. To luJwm the Reference may he made.
To whom 1006. The reference may be made to an official referee or

reference
Master (r) or other officer of the Court (s), or to a special referee
made.
or arbitrator agreed on by the parties {t).
In cases where application is made under the Eules of Court for
summary judgment, if the parties consent, an order may be made
referring the action to a Master of the Supreme Court (n).
Sub-Sect. 3. Poiuers of the Referee or Arbitrator.
Referee an 1007. The referee or arbitrator is deemed to be an officer of the

officer of Court, and has such powers as are prescribed by the Eules of
Court.
Court, and subject thereto as the Court or a judge may direct (x).
Authority. Subject to any order made by the Court or judge, he has the
same authority in the conduct of the reference as a judge of
the High Court {a). He may order discovery and production of
documents, and may grant a commission to examine witnesses
abroad (b) he may make an order for the inspection of property (c),
;
and for the addition of parties who ought to have been joined (d)
and may direct judgment to be entered for any party (e).
No power to A referee or arbitrator to whom a reference for trial is ordered
commit.
has no power to commit any person to prison, or to enforce any
order by attachment or otherwise (/).
See p. 482, ante ; Darlington Wagon Co., Ltd. v. Harding and the Trouville
Pier and Steamhnat Co., Ltd., [1891] 1 Q. B. 245.
(o) E.S. C, Ord. 54, r. 12a.
Hoch V. Boor (1880), 43 L. T. 425. The Coui't of Appeal will not interfere
with the judge's discretion unless it is clear that it has been wrongly exercised
{Ormerod v. Todmorden Mill Co. (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 664 Case v. Willis (1892),
;
8 T. L. E. 610).
(q) Judicature Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 16), s. 1 (4).
(r) As to appeal on a reference to a Master, see p. 492, post.
Is) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 14.

^
(t) The Court cannot refer a cause or matter to a special referee without such
consent {London and Lancashire Fire Lnsarance Co. v. The British America Assur-
ance Co. (1885), 52 L. T. 385, decided on E. S: C, Ord. 36, r. 7).
(u) E. S. C, Ord. 14, r. 7.
{x) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 15 (1) E. S. C, Ord. 36,
;
rr. 48, 49, 50.

(b) Hayward
v. Mutual Reserve Association, [1891] 2 Q. B. 236. There is an
appeal to the judge against an interlocutory order of the official referee.
(c) Macalpine & Co. v. Calder & Co., [1893] 1 Q. B. 545.
{d) Byrne v. Brown (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 657.

(e) E. S. C, Ord. 36, rr. 50, 55b, 55c.
.(/) E. S. C, Ord. 36, r. 51.

— ——
Pakt II. References under Order of Court. 489
Sub-Sect. 4. Conduct of the Reference.

Sect. 3.
1008. In the absence of direction to the contrary, the referee or References

arbitrator may fix the place for holding the reference (//), and may for Trial,
make a peremptory appointment for the hearing [h). ^ T~tinent
The Rules Court provide that, unless otherwise directed, he
of fo?^hearingl^
shall proceed with the trial de die in diem in a similar manner as
in actions tried with a jury (i) but this rule is not imperative, and
;
disregard of it will not in any case invalidate the proceedings (/<:).

Moreover, it would seem that the rule is only intended to apply
where the reference is to an official referee or some other officer of
the Court (Z).
At the hearing the evidence is taken and the proceedings are Procedure at
conducted in the same manner, as nearly as circumstances will êarmg.

admit, as trials are conducted before a judge
Sub-Sect. 5. Time for making Aiuard.
1009. It is not usual for any time to be fixed for a referee, on a No time
reference for trial, to give his decision. If the cause or matter is usually fixed
for decision.
sent to an official referee it would take its place with other causes
in his list, and, in the absence of any special order, come on for
hearing in its turn. If for any reason a time should be fixed by
the order of reference, and occasion should arise for enlarging the
time, it would be necessary to apply to the Court to enlarge the
time {n),
Sub-Sect. 6. Statement of Special Case.
1010. The referee may at any stage of the proceedings, and must Special case
if by the Court or a judge, state in the form of a special
so directed j^^^*^^^
course of the reference (o). The power and duty of a referee on
a reference for trial are in this respect the same as those of an
arbitrator under an ordinary submission to arbitration (p) but ;
since it is open to any party to a reference for trial held pursuant

to an order made under the Arbitration Act, 1889, to appeal against
{g) E. S. C, Ord. 36, r. 48.

[h) Baroness Weidock v. River Dee Co. (1883), 53 L. J. (q. b.) 208.
{i) E. S. Ord. 36, r. 48.
0.,
{h) Robinson v. Robinson (1876), 35 L. T. 337.
{I) E. S. C, Ord. 36, r. o5c, provides that rule 48 shall apply where any
-cause or matter or any question or issue of fact therein is referred to an officer

of the Court or to a special referee or arbitrator, subject to the proviso that
" where the arbitrator is appointed otherwise than by an' order of the Court"
the provisions as to sittint^ de die in diem shall not apply. In every reference for
trial under the Arbitration Act, 1889, the order of reference appoints the
referee or arbitrator but no special referee or arbitrator, that is, a referee or
;
arbitrator who is not an official referee or officer of the Court, can be appointed
unless the parties agree to his nomination and in that sense it may be said
;
that any such special referee or arbitrator is appointed "otherwise than by an

order of the Court."
(m) E. S. C, Ord. 36, r. 49.
(w) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), ss. 9, 16. A
Master has
jurisdiction to enlarge the time (s. 21). See E. S. C, Ord. 54, r. 12a,
(o) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 19.
(j?) See p. 464, ante.

— ;
490 Arbitration.
Sect. 3. the decision of the referee or arbitrator {q), and such decision may
References be questioned on the same grounds as the verdict of a jury, it is
for Trial. not usual on such a reference to invoke the power of stating a
special case for the opinion of the Court.
Sub-Sect. 7. The Decision of the Referee or Arbitrator.
Decision of 1011. Where the referee is an official referee or some other

official
officer ofthe Court, he usually announces his decision orally in the
referee.
presence of the parties, stating, so far as he thinks fit so to do (r),
the findings of fact on the evidence placed before him and the
principles of law which he considers applicable to the facts so
found. He directs how judgment is to be entered, and judgment is
then entered in accordance with the direction so given by him (s).
Decision of Where the reference is to a special referee or arbitrator, a
special
referee or
different procedure is usually adopted. The special referee or
arbitrator. arbitrator does not as a rule announce his decision in the presence
of the parties, but formulates it in an award, resembling in all
respects an award made by an arbitrator or umpire on a submission
to arbitration out of Court, except that it directs how the judgment
in the cause or matter wherein the order of reference was made
should be entered.
Effect of The decision of the referee, whether he be an official referee, or
decision.
some other officer of the Court, or a special referee or arbitrator,
and whether it be announced orally to the parties or be expressed
in the form of an award, is equivalent to the verdict of a jury (t)
that is to say, it has the same legal effect, and may be enforced in
the same way (u) or set aside on the same grounds, as a verdict of a
jury {v). It is the duty of the referee to direct how judgment
should be entered {x).
Where costs If the order of reference directs that the costs shall abide the
are to abide
event, the referee should decide each issue and give separate
event, sepa-
rate findings findings thereon because the word ''event" must, where there are
;
on each issue. separate issues, be construed distributively (y).
Sub -Sect. 8. — Costs of the Reference, including the Remuneration of the

Referee or Arbitrator.
Costs. 1012. The order of the Court or judge directing the reference
may deal with the costs {z) when no directions are given as to
;
costs, or subject to such directions, if any, the referee has the same
discretion as to the costs of the reference as the Court or judge
{q) Seep. 481, ante,

(r) Miller v. Filling (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 736. A
Master gives a certificate of
the effect of the finding and directs judgment to be entered,
(s) E. S. C, Ord. 40, r. 2.
(t) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 15 (2) Carr Brothers v.
;
Dougherty (1898), 67 L. J. (q. b.) 371. Por forms of award on a reference, see
Encyclopaedia of Eorms, Yol. II., pp. 180—189.
(u) Glasbrook v. Owen (1890), 7 T. L. E. 62.
{v) Longman v. East (1877), 3 C. P. D. 142, jjer Brett, L.J., at p. 155.
{x) E. S. C, Ord. 40, r. 2.
(y) Ellis V. Desilva (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 521 Lund v. Campbell (1885), 14

;
Q. B. D. 8^1.
(2) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 20.
——
Paet II. References under Order of Court. 491
could have exercised (a). If no order as to the costs is made by Sect. 3.

the referee it has been held that they follow the event, by reason References
of the statutory provision which makes the report or award equiva- for Trial,
lent to the verdict of a jury {h). Where the whole of an action has
been referred, the order of the referee as to costs cannot be appealed
against except by leave (c).
Official referees are paid by salary, but on proceedings before them Remunera-
certain fees have to be paid according to regulations made by the
Lord Chancellor with the consent of the Treasury (d).
As regards the remuneration of a special referee, provision is
made by the Arbitration Act for its determination by the Court or
a judge (^'). The amount is usually fixed by agreement between
the referee and the parties, and paid in the first instance, as in
arbitrations under a submission out of Court, by the party who takes
up the report or award. If there has been no agreement, the referee
can apply by summons to have the amount determined, and sue the
parties to the reference for the amount fixed by the Court or judge (/).
Sub-Sect. 9, Appeals from the Decision of a Referee or Arbitrator.

1013. The decision of a referee or arbitrator on a reference held Grounds of
pursuant to an order made under the Arbitration Act, 1889, being ^PP^^^-
equivalent to the verdict of a jury (g), can be set aside on the same
grounds as the verdict of a jury may be set aside (/<).
The Court may set aside the judgment directed by the referee
or arbitrator if it has been wTongly entered, and enter judgment
as it ought to have been entered (?').
An application to set aside findings of the referee or arbitrator Application,
and the judgment entered thereon, and to enter some other judgment
or to remit the cause or matter to the same or some other referee,
is made in the King's Bench Division to a Divisional Court (k), and
in the Chancery Division to the judge to whom the action was
assigned (/). The application is made by notice of motion. A
motion to set aside the findings of the referee or arbitrator may be
made at any time before judgment is entered {m). After judgment
(a) E. S. C, Ord. 36, rr. o5b, ooc. A Master to whom a cause is referred by-
consent under Ord. 14, r. 7, lias the same jurisdiction as to costs (Haycocks, Ltd.
V. MidJwlland, [1904] 1 K. B. 145).
(6) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 15 (2) ; Carr Brothers v.
Dougherty (1898), 67 L. J. (q. b.) 371.
(c) Minister & Co. v. Apperley, [1902] 1 K. B. 643.
(d) See Order as to Supreme Court Fees, 1884, Schedule, Nos. 88 — 91, as
amended by order of February 10, 1903.
(e) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 15 (3). See Mason, Ltd. v.
Lovatt (1907), 23 T. L. E. 486.
(/) Willis y. Wakeley Brothers (1891), 7 T. L. E. 604.
{g) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 15 (2).
(A) L.g., that the finding was against the weight of the evidence [Miller v.
Pilling (1882), 9 Q. B. D. at p. 739), or that evidence was improperly admitted
or rejected {Be The Maplin Sands (1894), 71 L. T. 594).
(/) Clark V. Sonnenschein (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 226.
(^) _E. S. C, Ord. 40, r. 6; Goiuer v. Tohitt (1891), 39 "W. E. 193. The
Divisional Court may in a proper case order an appellant to give security for
costs {J. H. Billington, Ltd. v. Billington, [1907] 2 K. B. 106).
(l) Wynne-Finch v. Chaytor, [1903] 2 Ch. D. 475.
(m) Bedhorough v. Army and Navy Hotel Co. (1884), 50 L. T. 173. The party
moving should give two clear days' notice of the motion (Ord. 52, rr. 1,5).
492 Arbitration.
Sect. 3. has been entered (n), it would seem necessary to move within the
Keferences same time as after a trial with a jmy (o). An affidavit should be
for Trial, produced as to what took place at the trial (p).
A reference for trial to a Master pursuant to Ord. 14, r. 7, is a
reference under sect. 14 of the Arbitration Act, and an appeal lies
from the decision of the Master to the Divisional Court (q) .
From the decision of the Divisional Court or a judge of the

Chancery Division an appeal lies as of right to the Court of
Appeal (?•), and thence to the House of Lords.
Part III. — References under Act of

Parliament.
Arbitration 5 1014. There are many statutes which provide for the settlement
compulsory,
disputed questions by arbitration. In some cases arbitration is
the only method of procedure, in others it is an optional method.
Arbitration is compulsory for the settlement of certain disputes
in connection with the following matters —
agricultural holdings (a),
:
factories and workshops housing of the working classes (c), light

railways {d), local government (c), tramways {d), and workmen's
compensation (/).
Arbitration Provisions for arbitration at the option of the parties or one of
optional. them exist with regard to certain disputes arising in connection
—
with the following matters: building societies ((/), companies (fi),
electric lighting etc. (i), friendly societies {k), gasworks (I), industrial
and provident societies (?«), local government (e), lunatic asylums (c),
the compulsory purchase of land {j:)), public health (c), railways (q),
telegraphs and telephones (?•), tramways (d), and waterworks (l).
{n)Froudfoot v. Hart (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 42, 4;-}.

(0)Forrest Y. Todd (1897), 76 L. T. 500. There the motion was for a new-
trial, but it is- submitted that the decision applies generally to a motion to set
aside or vary or remit a report. If not, there appears to be no limit of time for
such a motion.
(p)Stnlhs Y. Boyle (1876), 2 Q. B. D. 124.
Iq) v. Fraser, [1905] 1 K. B. 368.
Fraser See generally as to such references,
Yearly Practice, 1907, p. 385 title Practice and Procedure.
;
(r) Munday v. Norton, [1892] 1 Q. B. 403 ;

Wynne-Finch v. Chaytor, [1903]
2 Oh. 475.
(a) See title Agriculture, p. 264, ante,
(h) See title Factories and Workshops.
(c) See title Public Health.
(d) See title Tramways and Light Eailways.
(e) See title Local Government.
(/) See title Master and Servant.

(g) See title Building Societies.
(h) See title Companies.
{i) See title Electric Lighting, Traction and Power.
(k) See title Friendly Societies.
(1) See title Gas and Water.
(m) See title Industrial, Provident and Similar Societies.
Ip) See title Compulsory Purchase and Compensation.
(q) See title Eailways and Canals.
-
(r) See title Telegraphs and Telephones.

—
Part III. References under Act of Parliament. 49B
The provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, apply to every Part hi.
statutory arbitration, as if it were a reference by consent out of References
Court, except in so far as that Act is inconsistent with the special under Act of
Act regulating the arbitration, or with any rules or procedure Parliam ent,
authorised or recognised by such Act (s). Sometimes the Act where special
which regulates the arbitration expressly provides that the Arbitra- Act is incon-
tion Act, 1889, shall not be applicable {t). "^^^^
^ f^^^^
Sometimes only a part of the Arbitration Act, 1889, is expressly ^^.^^^^^^1^^^"
excluded And frequently the Act which regulates the arbitra- ^^t 1889,
tion, although it does not expressly exclude any of the provisions only partly
excluded,
of the Arbitration Act, 1889, contains provisions which are incon-
sistent with, and override, those of that Act for example, provisions
;
with regard to the appointment of the arbitrator.

But the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, are not incon-
sistent with provisions as to the same subject-matter contained in
the Act regulating the arbitration if they can be read together
without any conflict (x).
Where the Act regulating the arbitration neither excludes nor is Where no
inconsistent with the Arbitration Act, 1889, a statutory arbitration
e^-g^^'g'''*^"''^
resembles a reference by consent out of Court. The arbitrator has
power to administer oaths, to state a case for the opinion of the
High Court (?/), to call for the production of documents, to obtain
professional assistance in drawing his award (z), and to correct any
clerical mistake or error arising from an accidental slip or omission
in an award ;and the Court has power to secure the attendance of
witnesses by subpoena or habeas corpus, to order the statement of a
special case, to set aside the award or remit it to the arbitrator for
reconsideration, to enlarge the time for making an award, and to
remove an arbitrator for misconduct.
(s) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), b. 24: "This Act shall apply
to every arbitration under any Act passed before or after the commencement of
this Act as if the arbitration were pursuant to a submission, except in so far as
this Act is inconsistent with, the Act regulating the arbitration or with any rules
or procedure authorised or recognised by that Act." It has been held that the
Act applies to arbitrations under previous statutes unless the inconsistency is
such as to render the earlier statute unworkable see Be Kniylit and Tabernacle
;
Permanent Building Society, [1891] 2 Q. B. 63 ; Baxter v. Midland Bailway

(1905), 93 L. T. 538; Be Gollings and Tradesmen's Friendly Society, Betei^boroiig'h
(1891), 64 L. T. 775; HotulettY. Mayor etc. of Maidstone, [1891] 2 Q. B. 110;
Be Soiuerhy Urban District Council and Mytholmroyd Urban District Council
(1896), 74L. T. 313; Hodson v. Baihuay Passengers' Assurance Co., [1904] 2
K. B. 833.
it) The Conciliation Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 30), and the Workmen's Com-
pensation Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 58), contain provisions to that effect.
ill) Thus the Building Societies Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Yict. c. 47), and the
Eriendly Societies Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Yict. c. 25), expressly exclude the pro-
visions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, which empower the Court to order the
statement of a special case.
[x) Be Kniglit and Tabernacle Permanent Building Society, supra, and,
on appeal, [1892] A. 0. 298. In that case the special statute gave the arbitrator
a discretionary power to state a case, and it was held by the House of Lords
that the Court could exercise the power given by sect. 19 of the Arbitration Act,
1889, to order a case to be stated.
[y) See Be Gonty and Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Bail. Co., [1896}
2 Q. B. 439.
K
(z) See Be Coily er- Br i stow & Co., [1901] 2 B. 839.
—
( 494 )
ARCHES,
Court of. See Courts; Ecclesiastical Law.
ARCHITECT.
See Builders, Building Contracts, Engineers and Architects.
ARMORIAL BEARINGS.
See Name, Change of ; Kevenue ; Wills.
ARMY.
See Constitutional Law.
ARRANGEMENT WITH CREDITORS.

See Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
ARREST.
—— —
( 495 )
ARSON.
ARTICLES,
Of Apprenticeship. See Infants ; Master and Servant ;
Solicitors.
Of Association. See Companies.
Thirty-Nine. See Ecclesiastical Law.
ARTISANS' DWELLINGS.
See Public Health.
ASSAULT.
ASSEMBLY.
See Constitutional Law; Criminal Law and Procedure.
— ——— —
( 496 )
ASSESSMENT.
See Landlord and Tenant ; Poor Law ; Eates and Eating.
ASSETS,
Of Deceased Persons. See Executors and Administrators.
Of Insolvent Persons. See Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
ASSIGNMENT,
Of Choses in Action. See Choses in Action.
Of Leaseholds. See Landlord and Tenant ; Sale of Land.

For Benefit of Creditors. See Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
ASSIZES.
See Criminal Law and Procedure ; Courts.
ASSOCIATIONS.
See Building Societies ; Friendly Societies Industrial,
Clubs ; ;
Provident and Similar Societies; Loan Societies; Trade

AND Trade Unions.
— —
( 497 )
ASYLUMS.
See Chakities ; Lunatics and Persons of Unsound Mind ;
Public Health.
ATTACHMENT,
Of Person. See Contempt and Attachment.
Of Debts. See Bankruptcy and Insolvency; Execution

ATTAINDER.
ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT CRIME.

H.L. — I. K K
—
( 498 )
ATTESTATION.
ATTORNEY.
See Solicitors.
Power of. See Agency.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
See Charities ; Constitutional Law ; Criminal Law and
Procedure ; Public Authorities and Public Officers.
ATTORNMENT.
See Landlord and Tenant ; Mortgage ; Sale of Goods.
( 499 )
AUCTION AND AUCTIONEERS.
Part I. DEFINITIONS --------- PAGE

500
Part II. AUCTIONEER'S LICENCE - - - - - - 500
Part III.
Sect.
Sect.
AUTHOEITY OF AUCTIONEER
1.
2.
As Agent for the Vendor -----
- -
To sign Contract or Note or Memorandum thereof

- - - 502
502
504
Part TV. CONDUCT OF THE SALE ------ 506

Sect.
Sect.
1
2.
Time and Place
Statutory Regulations ------
Sales Subject to a Reserve and Vendor's Right
506
506
Sect. 3.
-- -- -- --
Sect.
Sect.
4.
5.
TO Bid -
Advertisement oe Auction
Particulars and Conditions of Sale
-----
_ - -
508
509
509
Sect. 6. Verbal Statements by Auctioneer - - - - 510
Sect. 7. Bidding - - - - - - - - -510
Sect. Damping the Sale 512
----------
8. - - - - - - -
Part V. DEPOSIT 512
Part VI. . INTERPLEADER AND PAYMENT INTO COURT - 513
Part VII. AUCTIONEER'S RIGHTS AND DUTIES IN

RELATION TO THE VENDOR - - - - 514
Sect. 1. Duty G-enerally - - - - - - - 514
Sect. 2.Duties in respect of Ooods - - - - - 514
Sub-sect. 1. Custody of Goods - - - - - - 514
Sub-sect. 2. Parting with Groods - - - - - 514
Sub-sect. 3. Redelivery of Goods - - - _ _ 515
Sect. 3. Duty to make a Binding Contract - - - - 515
Sect. 4. Purchase by Auctioneer - - - - - - 515
Sect. 5. Duty to Account - - - - - _ - 515
Sect. 6. Remuneration - 515
Sect. 7. Lien - 5^7
Sect. 8. Indemnity - - - - - - _ _ - 517
Part VIII. AUCTIONEER'S RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES IN

RELATION TO PURCHASERS - - - - 518
Sect. 1. Action by Purchaser against Auctioneer - - 518
Sect. 2, Action by Auctioneer for Price - - - - 519
K K 2
.
mo Auction and Auctioneers.
PAGE
Paet IX. AUCTIONEEE'S EIG-HTS AND LIABILITIES IN
EELATION TO THIED PEESONS- - - - 520
Sect.
Sect.
Sect.
1.
2.
3, Conversion-
------
Eight to Possession of Goods
--------
Privilege feom Distress
- - - - _
-
520
520
520
Sect. 4. Executorship de son tort - . - _ - 521
Sect. 5. Partnership Bills - - - - - - -521
For Agency, generally - - See Agency.

Appraisers - - - Valuers and Appraisers.
Contracts, generally - - Contract.
Haivkers - - - - Markets and Pairs.
House Agents - - - Agency Sale of Land
; ; Valuers
AND Appraisers.
Licences, generally - - Eevenue.
Necessity of Sale by Auction
in certain Cases - - ,, Trust and Trustees; Wills; and
other titles passim.
Sales hy Order of Court - Admiralty; County Courts; Prac-
tice AND Procedure Sale of ;
Land.
Sales i)i general- - - Sale of G-oods Sale of Land.
;
Valuers - - - - Valuers and Appraisers.
Auction. 1015. An auction is a manner of selling or letting property by

bids, and usually to the highest bidder by public competition.
Auctioneer. An auctioneer is one who sells goods or other property by auction.
Part I! —Auctioneer's Licence.

Who must 1016. A licence (a), upon which a duty of £10 is charged, must,
Subject to certain exceptions (b), be .taken out by every person who
ikjence^*
carries on the business of an auctioneer, or who acts in such capacity
at any sale, or who sells or offers for sale any real or personal
property at any sale conducted by means of bids, whether increasing
or decreasing, or by any other mode of sale by competition (c)
(a) Por form of licence, see Encyclopaedia of Eorms, Vol. 11. p. 457. ,
(b) See p. '501, post.

(c) Auctioneers Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 15), s. 4. As to what sales are within
- the Act, see A.-G. v. Taylor (1824), 13 Price, 636 (decided under the earlier
statute, 19 G-eo. 3, c. 56, ss. 3, 4).
—
Part II. Auctioneer's Licence. 501
The licence is an excise licence (d) and is an annual one (e). It 1*^1^^ 11.
runs from the 5th of July in each year, and must be renewed (/) Auctioneer's
at least ten days before that day (e) .
Licence.
Any person acting as an auctioneer without taking out a licence Nature of
as prescribed is liable to a fine of £100 (e). licence.
The licence can be obtained by application in writing, at Somerset
House or at the Inland Eevenue Office for the district in which the
applicant resides (g).
A
person of either sex may obtain a licence (h).
The licence is personal, and therefore every member of a firm of
auctioneers must take out an individual licence if he himself sells.
In addition to the right to act as auctioneer, an auctioneer's licence Effect of
entitles the licensee to act as an appraiser (i) or as a house-agent ii^^^^^-
without any further licence (k),
1017. A licence is not required by the auctioneer on a sale under When licence
a warrant of distress for non-payment of rent or tithes for less than required.
£'20 (l), or by the officer of any Court selling under process of the
Court for less than £20 if exempted by any Act in force at the
date of the passing of the Auctioneers Act, 1845 (m), or on a sale
under an order of the Chancery Division {n), or on a sale of fish at
the place where it is first landed (0), or on a sale by the bailiff
under the authority of a county court (p).
{d) Auctioneers Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Yict. c. 15), s. 3. Therefore under the
Excise Licences Act, 1825 (6 Geo. 4, c. 81), s. 25, the holder must put up over
his premises his name and the word " licensed," under a penalty of £20.
(e) Auctioneers Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Yict. c. 15), s. 4.
(/) For form of notice of intention to renew, see Encyclopaedia of Forms,

Vol. 11. , p. 458.
(g) of application, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Yol. II., p. 457.
For form
Wcd~ker v. Advocate-General (1813), 1 Dow, 111 (decided on the earlier
(h)
Acts, 17 Geo. 3, c. 50, and 19 Geo. 3, c. 56).
(?) Eevenue Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Yict. c. 76), s. 1. For appraisers, see titles
Eeveisûe; Yaluers Am> Appraisers.
(/t) Eevenue Act, 1861(24 & 25 Yict. c. 21), s. 13. For the licence required
by house agents, see title Eevenue. An auctioneer who advances money on
bills of sale with the view of obtaining business, and not with the primary object
of lending money, does not require registration as a moneylender under the
Moneylenders Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Yict. c. 51) see Furber v. Fieldmgs, Ltd. (1907),
;
23 T. L. E. 362 ; and see title Money and Money Lending.

(Z) Auctioneers Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Yict. c. 15), s. 5.
(m) 8 & 9 Yict. c. 15, passed on May 8th, 1845.

(n) Court of Chancery Act, 1852 (15 & 16 Yict. c. 87), s. 42.
Customs and Inland Eevenue Act, 1870 (33 & 84 Vict. c. 32), s. 5.
(o)
Ip) County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 159. Under the
instructions relative to licences issued by the Board of Inland Eevenue in 1893,
the following persons are declared exempt from the necessity of taking out
licences (1) Officers of Inland Eevenue selling seizures
: (2) Customs officers
;
conducting sales under the direction of the Board of Customs (3) Officers of ;
ordnance conducting sales under the authority of the Surveyor- General ;
(4) Clerks authorized by the Admiralty to sell public stores (5) the trustees of
;
any tolls or their clerk letting such tolls to farm (6) any person holding an
;
auction for letting lands or any interest therein (7) any person conducting a
;
sale "by ticket" of mineral ore; (8) receivers of wreck or deputy receivers
appointed under the Merchant Shipping Act, whether officers of customs or not,
when employed in their official capacities in selling public property for the benefit
of the Crown; (9) non-commissioned officers and soldiers selling under the
directions of the Secretary for War the effects of officers and soldiersdying in
. —
502 Auction and Auctioneers.
Part II. A person hawking (q) goods from place to place for sale by auction
Auctioneer's must take out a hawker's licence in addition to an auctioneer's
Licence, licence (r).
Hawker's 1018. The licence granted to an auctioneer will not authorise
licence.
him to sell, either on his own or any other person's behalf, any
Excisable
articles.
commodities for which an excise licence is required except (a) upon
premises in respect of which the owner of the commodities has a
proper and subsisting licence or (b) in the case of sales by sample (s)
in the same town or place (f) in which the owner has a licence or
(c) at sales authorised by the Commissioners of Inland Eevenue
where they are satisfied that the commodities are the property of a
private person and are not sold for profit or by way of trade (t).
Part III. —Authority of Auctioneer.

Sect. 1. As Agent for the Vendor.
Agency of 1019. An auctioneer may sell property of his own as principal,

auctioneer. and need not disclose the fact that he is so selling {a) but, when ;
selling as agent, he is the agent of the vendor only, except for the
purpose of signing the contract or a memorandum of the contract,
for which purpose he is also the agent of the purchaser (b).
Contract There are no special rules affecting the form of contract between
between the vendor and the auctioneer, and, subject to the ordinary exceptions
vendor and
auctioneer.
common to all forms of agency, the contract may be either verbal
or in writing (c).
Extent of The implied authority of the auctioneer, apart from express

authority. instructions narrowing or amplifying it, is a general authority to
sell {d), and extends to selling and dealing with the subject-matter
of the sale in the way usual and customary amongst auctioneers (e).
Delegation. The agency of the auctioneer is personal and cannot be
delegated (/)
Sale below 1020. Where a reserve has been fixed by the vendor, there is no
reserve price, implied authority to sell without reserve even though the auctioneer
service or the effects of deserters, when the proceeds are to be accounted for to the
public. But a person declaring the purchase on a sale by tender must be licensed.
{q) See titles Markets and Fairs Eevenue. For definition of "hawker,"
;
see the Hawkers Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Yict. c. 33), s. 2.

(r) Hawkers Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Yict. c. 33), s. 3 ; Dean qui tamy. King (1821),
4 B.& Aid. 517 R. v. Turner (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 510 MansonY. Hope (1862),
; ;
2 B. & S. 498 Hudson v. Shooter (1891), 55 J. P. 325. And contrast B. v.

;
Faraday (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 275.

(s) As to what constitutes a sale "in the same town or place," see Casey v.
Rose (1900), 82 L. T. 616.
it) The Eevenue (No. 2) Act, 1864 (27 & 28 Yict. c. 56), s. 14.
(a) Fli7it V. Woodin (1852), 9 Hare, 618.
(6) See p. 504, post.
(c) Seetitle Agency, pp. 153 et seq., ante ; Coles v. Trecothick (1804), 9 Yes.
234. For forms of auctioneer's aj)pointment, see Encyclopaedia of Forms,
Yol. II., pp. 458—460.
. {d)Hoiuard v. Braithwaite (1812), 1 Yes. & B. at p. 210
(e)Collen v. Gardner (1856), 21 Beav. 540.
(/) Coles Y. Trecothick, supra.
— .
Part III. Authority of Auctioneer. 603
has ostensibly so sold and if, in breach of his instructions, the

; Sect. i.
auctioneer sells without reserve, a sale below the reserve price will As Agent
not give the purchaser any right to enforce the contract against for the
the vendor {g). Vendor.
1021. The implied agency of the auctioneer extends to receiving Authority to

receive
the deposit on sales both of land and goods (/i), and to receiving the
payment.
purchase-money on sales of goods (i), but not on sales of land (k) ;
but this implied agency may be excluded by the express terms of

the conditions of sale {I).
The auctioneer has authority to receive payment of the deposit by Mode of
cheque {m), but is not compellable so to do (n). payment.
This authority is confined to cheques presently payable, and does

not extend to receiving payment of the deposit by bill of exchange
or post dated cheque (<>)
The auctioneer has, however, no right in the absence of express
instructions to take payment of the purchase-money otherwise than
in cash (p).
In cases where the auctioneer has received payment by cheque or
bill of exchange without or in excess of any authority, express or
implied, the vendor is not bound by such payment. The purchaser
still remains liable (q) and the auctioneer may be sued by the vendor
,
for any damages sustained by him (r),
1022. An auctioneer
has no authority, except by express instruc- Authority to
tions, to give a warranty at the auction and an unauthorised warrant,

;
warranty will not bind the vendor, although it may render the
auctioneer personally liable to the purchaser for breach of warranty
of authority (s).
1023. The agency of the auctioneer is an agency for sale by auction Termination
only(0, and therefore when the property has been knocked down of authority,
the auctioneer's authority is at an end except for the purpose of
carrying out the contract made at the auction. He cannot rescind
that contract (a), nor can he introduce into it any stipulations as to
title (6).
{g) McManus v. Fortesme, [1907] 2 K. B. 1, disapproving on this point

Rainhow Howhins, [1904] 2
v. K
B. 322. If, however, the vendor's instructions
are to carry out a sale subject to a secret reserve and so to act as agent in
effecting a fraud, the auctioneer will not be liable to the vendor for disregarding
such instructions {Bexivell v. Christie (1776), 1 Cowp. 395).
(/?) Sijkes V. Giles (1839), 5 M. & W. 645.
(/) Williams v. MilUngton (1788), 1 Hy. Bl. 81.
{k) Mynn v. Joliffe (1834), 1 Mood. & E. 326.
(/) Sykes V. Giles, supra.

(m) tarrer v. Lacy, Hartland & Co. (1885), 31 Ch. D. 42.
[n) Johnston Y. Boyes, [1899] 2 Ch. 73.
(o) Williams v. JEvans (1866), L. E. 1 Q. B. 352 Pape v. Westacott, [1894] 1
;
Q. B. 272.
(p) Earl of Ferrers v. Bobins (1835), 2 Cr. M. & E. 152 Sykes y. Giles, supra.
;
(q) Sykes v. Giles, supra.

(r) Earl of Ferrers v. Bobins, supra.
(s) Payne v. Lord Leconfield (1882), 51 L. J. (q. B.) 642.
[t) Seton V. Slade (1802), 7 Yes. 265, per Lord Eldon, L.C., at p. 276. And
see Blackburn v. Scholes (1810), 2 Camp. 341.
(a) Nelson y. Aldridye (1818), 2 Stark. 435 ; and contrast Stevens v. Leyh (1853),
2 C. L. E. 251.
(&) Seto7i V. Slade, supra.
—
Sect. 1. 1024.He cannot conclude a sale by private contract (c), although

As Agent if the vendor accept a purchaser introduced by the auctioneer, and
for the himself conclude a sale to such purchaser by private treaty, the
Vendor. auctioneer has a right to claim remuneration (d).
Sale by- In some cases, where property has not reached its reserve and
private has been bought in, and immediately afterwards the auctioneer
contract.
has sold the property at the reserve price to a person present at
the biddings, this sale has been held good as in effect a sale by
auction {e).
Eevocation of 1025. Up to the time of the conclusion of the sale, and until the
authority. property is finally knocked down, the auctioneer's authority is
revocable either expressly or in any of the events which ordinarily
determine agencies (/), unless the contract is such as to give the
auctioneer an authority coupled with an interest (g).
The authority can be withdrawn even though the auctioneer has
advertised the property for sale (h) and incurred expenses {i) The .
auctioneer will be liable in trespass if, after the determination of

his authority, he insists on entering the vendor's premises for
the purpose of effecting a sale(i).
If the authority has in fact been revoked, the auctioneer can give
the highest bidder no right to the property, even though the bidder
is unaware of the revocation (/^).
Sect. 2. Authority to sign Contract or Note or Memorandum

thereof.
Authority 1026. The auctioneer, in the absence of special circumstances, is,

implied and by virtue of his employment, impliedly the agent of both the vendor
irrevocable.
and the purchaser (Q to sign the contract or a note or memo-
randum thereof to satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds
in the case of land, and of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, in the case
of goods both of which statutes apply to sales by auction (o).
(c) Marsh v. Jtlf (1862), 3 F. & F. 234.
{d) Greenv. Bartlett (1863), 14 C. B. (n. s.) 681. See p. 516, post.
(e) Else V. Barnard, Ex
'parte Courtauld (1860), 29 L. J. (cH.) 729; Bousfield v.
Hodges (1863), 33 Beav. 90.
(/) Warlow V. Harrison (1859), 1 E. & E. 295, 309. See title Agency,
pp. 228—236, ante.
[g) For example,if an auctioneer is intrusted with goods for sale to repay
previous advances, the authority is irrevocable. See Charlesworth v. Mills,
[1892] A. C. 231, at p. 243. See title Agency, p. 228, a7ite.
[h) Warlow v. Harrison, supra ; Taplin v. Florence (1851), 10 C. B. 744.
[i) Taplin v. Florence, supra. But the auctioneer does not lose his right to
be indemnified against expenses incurred; see p. 516, post.
Manser v. Back (1848), 6 Hare, 443.
[k)
If the purchaser bids through an agent, the auctioneer may sign the name
{I)
either of the principal (Emmerson v. Heelis (1809), 2 Taunt. 38), or of the agent,
at least if the principal is present and acquiesces ( White v. Proctor (1811), 4 Taunt.
209).
(m) For form of contract, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. II., p. 462.
{n) Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3), s. 4 Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57
;
Yict. c.71), s. 4; Simony. Metivier or Motivos (1766), 1 Wm. Bl. 599 Kemeys v. ;
Proctor (1813), 3 Ves. & B. 57 Emmerson y. Heelis, supra; White v. Proctor, supra;
;
Shelton v. Livius (1832), 2 Cr. & J. 411 Beer v. London and Paris Hotel Co.
;
(1875), L. E. 20 Eq. 412.

-
(o) Walker v. ConstaUe (1798), 1 Bos. & P. 306; Blagdeny. Bradhear (1806),
12 Yes. 466; Kenworthy v. Bchojield (1824), 2 B. & C. 945.

— .
Part III. Authority of Auctioneer. 505
This implied authority cannot be revoked after the conclusion of Sect. 2.
the bidding either by the vendor or by the purchaser {q). Authority to

It must, however, be exercised at the time of the sale, and the sign Con-
auctioneer has no authority to sign on a subsequent day or on a tract etc.
sale other^Yise than by auction (r). Time for

The authority to bind the purchaser is personal to the auctioneer, exercise of
authority.
and does not extend to his clerk (s), unless the purchaser has
Auctioneer's
specially, either by words or conduct, authorised the clerk to act
clerk.
as his agent for this purpose {t).
If the auctioneer is himself the vendor, he cannot sign as the Auctioneer
vendor.
agent of the purchaser {u)
1027. The sufficiency of the note or memorandum is subject to Note or

memorandum
the ordinary rules {a) affecting notes or memoranda under the required.
statutes mentioned. It must therefore contain (1) the names of
the parties or a description sufficient to identify them (h) (2) a ;
statement of the subject-matter (c) (3) a full and complete state-

;
ment of the terms of the contract ((/), (4) the signature of the person
against whom the contract is to be enforced (e); but the auctioneer's
signature is sufficient to bind even an undisclosed principal (/).
Similarly the necessity for a memorandum may be obviated by
acts of part performance in accordance with the ordinary rules (g).
On a sale in lots the agreement to purchase each lot is in law, in Sale in lots.
the absence of special circumstances, a separate contract, and there-
fore a note or memorandum will not be necessary to prove the sale
of goods in a lot under the value of ^10, even though the purchaser
has bought goods in various lots of a larger aggregate value than
£10 Qi).
(p) Day Jur. (n. s.) 1004

V. Wells (1861), 7 Bell v. Balls, [1897] 1 Ch. 663.
;
{q) Van Praagh Everidge, [1902] 2 Ch. 266.

v.
(r) Mews v. Carr (1856), 1 H. & N. 484.
{s) Bell V. Balls, supra.
[t] Bird V. Boidter (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 443 Sims v. Landray, [1894] 2 Ch. 318.
;
\iC) Buckmaster v. Harrop (1802), 7 Ves. 341, (1807) 13 Yes. 456; Wright y.
Dannah (1809), 2 Camp. 203.
(a) See title Contract.
{h) Sale V. Lambert (1874), L. E. 18 Eq. 1 Hood v. Lord Barrington (1868), L. E.
;
6 Eq. 218 ; Commins v. Scott (1875), L. E. 20 Eq. 11 Catling v. King (1877), 5

;
Ch. D. 660. But a term like " vendor " is not sufficient {Jarrett v. Hunter (1886),
34 Ch. D. 182; Potter v. Duffield (1874), L. E. 18 Eq. 4; see also Battle v.
Anstruther (1893), 69 L. T. 175).
(c) Pkmt V. Bourne, [1897] 2 Ch. 281 Pose v. Cunyngliame (1805), 11 Yes.
;
550 Owen v. Thomas (1834), 3 My. & K. 353 Bleakley v. Smith (1840), 11 Sim. 150.
; ;
As to when the statement may be supplemented by parol evidence, see title

Contract.
{d) Peshton v. Whatmore (1878), 8 Ch. D. 467 Peirce v. Cor/ (1874), L. E. 9
;
Q. B. 210; Kenworthy v. Schofield (1824), 2 B. & C. 945; Hinde v. Whitehouse

(1806), 7 East, 558. As to the connection of separate documents to form a
complete statement, see M'Midlen v. Hellerg (1879), 6 L. E. Ir. 463 Blagden v. ;
Bradhear (1806), 12 Yes. 466, 471.

(e) Phillimore v. Barry (1808), 1 Camp. 513 Wood v. Midgley {1854:), 2 Sm. &
;
Giff. 115 ; Bohell v. Hutchinson (1835), 3 A. & E. 355.

(/) Beer v. London and Paris Hotel Co. (1875), L. E. 20 Eq. 412.
{g) See titles Contract ; Sale of Goods ; Sale of Land ; and compare
Phillips V. BistolU (1824), 2 B. & C. 511 ; Hinde v. Whitehouse, supra.
{h) Sale of Goods Act, 1803 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 71), s. 58 (1). Emmerson v.
HeeUs (1809), 2 Taunt. 38 ; Roots v. Lord Dormer (1832), 4 B. & Ad. 77.
— —
Sect. 2. 1028. The contracts signed by auctioneers are subject to the

Authority to ordinary law as to stamps (i) ; and for stamp purposes also the sale
sign Con- of each lot must be treated as a separate contract (j).
tract etc.
1029. Where possession of goods is not given under the contract
Stamps.
memorandum signed by the auctioneer, the document may
or
Memorandum
of contract
amount to a bill of sale and require registration (k).
a bill of sale.
Part IV.— Conduct of the Sale.

Sect. 1. Ti7ne and Place.
1030. There are no special restrictions affecting the time and
place when and where a sale by auction may be held (/).
A sale by auction should not be held on a Sunday (m), or at any
place in contravention of the legal rights of another, e.g., in a
house in respect of which restrictive covenants against sales by
auction exist (n), or under such circumstances as to constitute an
infringement of market rights (o).
Any
place at which a public auction is held, even though a private
house, is for the time being a "place of public resort" for the
purposes of the criminal law (^9).
Sect. 2. Statutory Regulations (q).
Exposure of 1031. Before an auction is commenced a ticket or board bearing

name and
address.
the auctioneer's full christian and surname and his residence painted,
written, or printed thereon in letters large enough to be publicly
visible must be placed in some conspicuous part of the auction
rooms and kept there during the continuance of the auction (r).
The penalty for a contravention of this provision is a fine
of £20 (s).
(0 See title Eevexue.

(/) Boots Y. Lord Dormer {1832), 4: B. & Ad. 77; Watliny v. Horwood (1847),
12 Jul-. 48.
Re Boherts (1887), 36 Ch. D. 196.
{k) See Charlesworth y. Mills, [1892J A. 0.
23i, where an authority given to an auctioneer to sell for repayment of advances
was unsuccessfully alleged to be a bill of sale. See, generally, title Bills or Sale.
(1) Keith V. Beid (1870), L. E. 2 Sc. App. 39.
(m) Fennell v. Bidler (1826), 5 B. & C. 406. See title Time.
{n) Toleman v. Porthury (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B. 344.
(0) Elwes Y. Payne {1819), 12 (Jh. D. 468. See also Abergavenny Improvement
Commissioners v.Straker (1889), 60 L. T. 756,
(_p) Seivell Y. Taylor (1859), 7 C. B. (n. s.) 160. See, further, title Criminal
Law and Procedure.
In addition to the regulations dealt with in this title, see other titles:
(5)
Sale of Land for sales by the Chancery Division Bankruptcy and Insol- ;
vency for sales under the Bankruptcy Coui-t Distress for sales under a distress
; ;
Companies for sales in the winding up of companies Execution for sales by ;
the sheriff Mortgage and Eeal Property and Chattels Eeal for sales by
;
mortgagees; Trusts and Trustees for sales of trust property; Executors and
Administrators for sales by personal representatives.
-
(r) Auctioneers Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 15), s. 7.
(s) Ihid.
— .
Part IV. Conduct of the Sale. 507
1032. Every person who acts as auctioneer at a sale for which Sect. 2,
a Hcence required, must, on a demand made at the time of the

is Statutory
sale by any officer of excise or customs or of stamps and taxes, Regula-
produce and show a valid and current licence to such officer, or tions.
deposit with him the sum of £10 (t). Production of

In default of so doing, any officer of the peace may arrest licence.
the auctioneer before or after the termination of the sale and
bring him before a justice of the peace for the county or place
where the sale was held, and on proof of the offence the offender
may be committed to prison for a period not exceeding one
month {u).
The liability to imprisonment is in addition to the liability to the
£10 penalty for acting as auctioneer without a licence (iv).
If a deposit has been made on demand, the auctioneer can recover
itfrom the officer receiving it on production to such officer, within
seven days, of a valid licence current at the date of the sale,
otherwise the officer must account for the deposit to the excise
authorities or their agents (x).
1033. Before selling unredeemed pledges above the value of 10s. Catalogue of
on behalf pawnbroker, the auctioneer must publish catalogues of sale of
of a
unredeemed
the pledges stating the pawnbroker's name and place of business, pledges.
the month in which each pledge was pawned, and the number of
each pledge as entered at the time of pawning in the pledge-book,
and the pledges of each pawnbroker in the catalogue must be sepa-
rate from those of any other pawnbroker (y)
The auctioneer must also insert in some public newspaper an Advertise-
advertisement giving notice of the sale, and stating the pawnbroker's ment.
name and place of business and the months in which the pledges
were pawned (a). This advertisement must be inserted in the
same newspaper on two days, the last day to be at least three clear
days before the first day of the sale (h).
Certain unredeemed pledges, viz., pictures, prints, books, bronzes, Works of
art etc.
statues, busts, carvings in wood and marble, cameos, intaglios, and
musical, mathematical, and philosophical instruments, must not be
sold at a sale when other unredeemed pledges are sold, and can
only be sold on the first Monday in January, April, July, and
October, or on the following day or days if the sale exceeds one
day (c).
At the sale the auctioneer must expose all pledges to public Purchase by-
pawnbroker.
view ((/)• If the pawnbroker bids at the sale, as he is entitled to
do (e), the auctioneer must not take his bidding otherwise than he
takes biddings from other persons at the sale, and if a lot is knocked
(t) Auctioneers Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 15), s. 8.

(u) Ibid,
(lu) Ibid.
(x) Ibid.
[ij) Pawnbrokers Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 93), Scked. V. (2) and (3).
As to pledges generally, see title Pawnbrokers and Pledges.
(rt) Ibid., Sched. y. (4).
{b) Ibid., Sched. y. (5).

(c) Ibid., Sched. y. (6).
Id) Ibid., Sched. v. (1).

(e) Ibid., s. 20.
—
Sect. 2. down pawnbroker, the auctioneer must audibly declare the

to a
Statutory name pawnbroker as the purchaser (/).
of the
Regula- After the sale the auctioneer must within fourteen days deliver
tions.
to the pawnbroker a signed copy of the catalogue, or of as much as
Signed relates to any individual pawnbroker's pledges, showing the amount
catalogue realised for each pledge, and the pawnbroker must preserve this for
showing
amounts
three years at least after the auction (g).
realised. If the auctioneer fails to comply with these regulations, he is liable
to a fine of £10 {h).
Sale of cattle
1034. Unless exempted by order of the Board of Agriculture
in mart.
and Fisheries, an auctioneer must not sell cattle {i) at any
mart where cattle are habitually or periodically sold, unless
such facilities for weighing cattle are provided at the mart as
are required in the case of a sale of cattle at a market or fair
to which the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act,
1887 (k), or the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act,
1891 (l), applies (7?i).
Eeturns of When an any mart in a place from which
auctioneer sells cattle at
cattle sold.
by these Acts returns must be made by a market authority, he must,
unless exempted by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, make
the like returns with respect to the cattle entered, weighed, and sold
at the mart, and is subject to the like penalties for false or
fraudulent returns (n).
Penalty. Default in complying with these requirements renders the
auctioneer or his employer, if he is employed by any person, liable
on summary conviction to a fine of £'20, or, if the ofience is con-
tinuing, of i 10 a day (o).
Sect. 3. Sales subject to a Reserve and Vendor's Right to Bid.

Notification
of reserve
1035. When the goods
subject to a reserve price,
sale of land or is
and of right or when the vendor reserves a right to bid or to employ persons to
of vendor to bid on his behalf, the fact must be notified before the sale, and in a
bid.
sale of land it must be expressly notified in the particulars and
conditions of sale whether the sale is with or without reserve, or
whether such right to bid is reserved {p).
Unless such notification is made (5-), it is illegal for the vendor
(/) Pawnbrokers Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Yict. c. 93), Sched. Y. (7).
{q) 2 hid., Sched. Y. (8) and (9).
(h) Ibid., ss. 19, 20, 45.
(i) For definition of cattle, see Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act,
1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 27), s, 3. As to cattle generally, see title Animals, and as
to markets and fairs, see title Markets and Fairs.
(k) 50 & 51 Yict. c. 27.
(l) 54 & 55 Yict. c. 70.
(m) Ibid., s. 4.
(n) Ibid. See sect. 3 as to returns and the schedule as to places from which
returns must be made.
(0) Ibid., s. 3 (3).
(p) Sale of Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Yict. c. 48), s. 5; Sale of
Land by Auction
Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 71), s. 58.
{q) Notification of a reserve price is not in itself a reservation of the right
to
bid {GiUiat v. GilUat (1869), L. E. 9 Eq. 60; Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57
Yict. c. 71), s. 58).
. — — .
Part IV. Conduct of the Sale. 509
or anyone on his behalf (?•) to make a bid, or for the auctioneer Sect. 3.
knowingly to take such a bid, and as against a purchaser the sale Sales sub-
will be treated as fraudulent and invalid (s). ject to a
Where the vendor reserves a right to bid, he or any one person, and Reserve etc.
no more, may bid at the auction (t) and the conditions announced Extent of
;
as governing his right must be strictly complied with (u). right to bid.
Fictitious bids made by a third person without the privity of
the vendor or the auctioneer do not invalidate the sale, nor do they
affect the vendor's right to specific performance (x).
If two or more persons take part in a mock auction, by means of Mock
sham bidders and bidding, to induce persons to buy at excessive ^^^tions.
prices, they are guilty of a criminal conspiracy {a).
Sect. 4. Advertisement of Auction,

1036. The advertisement of an auction is merely an intimation Property
of an intention to sell, and therefore, in the absence of fraud, withdrawn.
intending purchasers who attend an auction have no right of action

if the property is not put up for sale (b).
When, however, the advertisement amounts to a representation of Misrepre-

sentation as
fact that the auctioneer is authorised to sell, and this representation
to authority.
is fraudulent, persons incurring expense on the faith of it can sue
the auctioneer in tort (c)
Sect. 5. Particulars and Conditions of Sale.

1037. It is customary for an auctioneer to settle the particulars When settled
and conditions of sale (d) on sales of goods, but not on sales of real by auctioneer.
property (e).
When he undertakes to settle the conditions, he must do so wdth Omission of

the skill and knowledge of a properly qualified auctioneer and if usual ;
conditions.
he sells without imposing conditions which are usual and prudent
for the protection of the vendor, he may, even in the case of the
sale of real property, be held liable for negligence by the vendor (/).
The conditions of sale will generally be held to have been suffi- Communica-
ciently communicated to bidders if they are exhibited legibly in the tion to
bidders.
auction room (g)
(r) See Parnell v. Tyler (1833), 2 L. J. (CH.) 195, where it was held that even
the employment by a third person of the clerk to the vendor's solicitor invalidated
(s) Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 71), s. 58 (3).
[t) Sale of Land by Auction Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Yict. c. 48), s. 2 Sale of Goods
;
.Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 71), s, 58. Fov form of appointment of person to
bid on vendor's behalf, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Yol. II., p. 460.
{u) Parfitt V. Jepson (1877), 46 L. J. (c. P.) 529, where the vendor reserved a
right to bid once, and the sale was set aside because the vendor bid three times.
(x) Union Bank v. Munster (1887), 37 Ch. D. 51.
(a) R. V. Lewis (1869), 11 Cox, 0. 0. 404; see title Criminal Law and
Phocedtjue
(6) Harris v. Nicktrson (1873), L. E. 8 Q. B. 286.
(c) Richardson v. Silvester (1873), L. E. 9 Q. B. 34.
\d) See titles Sale of Land Sale of Goods. For forms of conditions on
;
a sale of goods by auction, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. XL, pp. 575 et seq.;
for forms on sale of land, see ibid., Vol. XII.
(e) Pike v. Wilson (1854), 1 Jur. (n. s.) 59.
(/) Deneiu v. Daverell (1813), 3 Camp, 451.

{g) Mesnard v. Aldridge (1801), 3 Esp. 271 Bytuater v. Richardson (1834), 1
;
Ad. & E. 508 Freme v. Wright (1819), 4 Madd. 364; and compare Torrance v.
;
Bolton (1872), 8 Ch. App. 118.

— —
Sect. 6.
Sect. 6. Verbal Statements by Auctioneer.
Verbal
Statements 1038. The verbal statements made by the auctioneer may or
by may not be part of the contract of sale.
Auctioneer. When they are not part of the contract, they will, if material
misrepresentations of fact, avoid the contract on the gromid of mis-
When not
part of representation, and, in case of fraud, give the purchaser a cause of
contract. action for damages against the auctioneer, or against the vendor if
a party to the fraud Qi).
When part If such statements do in fact form part of the real contract of
of contract. sale, their effect varies according to the nature of the property
sold.
Verbal When is of a kind
the property e.g., goods under the value of £10
contract. —the which can be proved without written evidence, and there
sale of
is no written contract excluding the verbal terms introduced at the
auction, the auctioneer can verbally depart from the catalogue or
conditions of sale and make a valid parol contract {i).
Written In general, however, the contract is such as to necessitate evidence
contract. in writing and purports to be contained in the particulars and con-
ditions of sale. In such cases, if the real contract made by the
auctioneer at the time of the sale contained terms at variance with
the written contract, verbal evidence of such variance is inadmissible
for the purpose of enforcing these terms {j). They may, however,
be relied on for purposes of defence as showing that the true terms
of the contract are not those set out in writing, and that the pro-
visions of the Statute of Frauds have not been complied with {k), or
that the contract is void for mistake (l) .
Corrections Verbal corrections at the time of the sale of misdescriptions in

of misde- the particulars may defeat the purchaser's right to enforce specific
scriptions.
performance with compensation (m).
Misstate- Misstatements by the auctioneer may render him liable to an
ments. action for negligence by the vendor for any loss sustained (n), or to
an action by the purchaser for breach of warranty of authority (o).
Sect. 7. Bidding.
Eegulation. 1039. The method of bidding and the amount of the bids are
usually regulated by the conditions of sale.
Bid may be Until the property is actually knocked down there is no complete
retracted.
{h) If the representations are made in good faith, no action lies against the
auctioneer after the completion of the purchase {Brett v. Clowser (1880), 5 C. P. D.
376). As to what statements are and are not part of the contract, see titles
Contract Sale of Goods Sale op Land.
; ;
(i) Eden v. Blake (1845), 13 M. & W. 614.
[j) Qunnis v. Erhart (1789), 1 Hy. Bl. 289 Shelton

; v. Livius (1832), 2 Cr. & J.
411 ;
Ogilvie v. Foljambe (1817), 3 Mer. 53; Higginson v. Clowes (1808), 15 Ves.
516; Clowes v. Higginson (1813), 1 Yes. & B. 524; Winch y. Winchester (1812),
1 Ves. & B. 375 Anson v. Towgood (1820), 1 Jac. & W. 637.
;
(k) Hussey v. Home-Payne (1879), 4 App. Cas. 311.
(0 Swaisland v. Dearsley (1861), 30 L. J. (CH.) 652 Winchy. Winchester, supra ;

;
Manser Y. Back (1848), 6 Hare, 443 Re Hare and O'More, [1901] 1 Oh. 93.
;
{m) Be Hare and &More, supra.

Parker v. Farebrother (1853), 1 C. L. E. 323.
{n)
(o) Anderson v. Groall & Sons (1903), 41 Sc. L. E. 95 Catton v. Bennett (1884),
'
;
26 Ch. D. 161.
Part IV. — Conduct of the Sale. 511
contract of sale (|)). A bid is a mere offer, and can be retracted Sect. 7.
by the bidder at any time before the auctioneer announces the com- Bidding,
pletion of the sale until that time the vendor may also withdraw withdrawal
;
the property from the auction provided that the sale is subject of property,
to a reserve which has not been reached (q) Where the sale is not
.
subject to a reserve price and the property has been withdrawn

during the auction, it has been suggested that the vendor or the
auctioneer, if the latter has not disclosed his principal, is liable to
an action for damages by the highest bidder on an implied under-
taking that the sale shall be without reserve, but the point is not
free from doubt (r).
1040. a sale has been actually completed the purchaser has a Vendor
If
right of action against the vendor for preventing the auctioneer from preventing
signing a contract of sale, and this is a right of action independent conteacrby
of an action on the contract. It can therefore be maintained auctioneer,
against the vendor without any written contract or memorandum of
the sale (s).
1041. Where a sale is by its conditions a sale subject to a reserve Bids under
price,no contract is concluded, even when the property is knocked reserve price,
down to the highest bidder, if the highest bid is lower than the
reserve price, and the highest bidder has no right of action in such
a case (t).
{p) Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 71), s. 58 (2).
{(j) McManus v. Fortescue, [1907] 2 K. B. 1.
(r) The view tliat an action will lie for breach of such implied undertaking is
supported by the judgment of the majority of the Exchequer Chamber in Warlow
V. Harrison (1859), 1 E. & E. 309. See also, ior dicta somewhat in favour of this
view, Harris v. Nicl-erson (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. at p. 288 ;
Spencer v. Harding
(1870), L. E. 5 C. P. at p. 563 Be Agra and Masterman^s Bank, Hx parte Asiatic
;
Banking Corporation (1867), 2 Ch. App. 391, at p. 397 and Johnston v. Boyes,
;
[1899] 2 Ch. 73, at p. 77. Notwithstanding these opinions it seems difficult to

answer the ratio decidendi of the Court in Fenwick v. Macdonald, Fraser & Co.^
Ltd. (1904), 6 E. (Ct. of Sess.), 850, viz., that, since the bidder has a right to
retract his bid until the completion of the sale, there can be no complete
contract, and therefore neither the vendor nor the purchaser is bound until
that time. The opposite view is founded on the assumption that the case is
indistinguishable from such cases as Denton v. Great Northern Rail. Co. (1856),
5 E. & B. 860 (see judgment in Warloiv v. Harrison, supra), Williams v.
Carivardine (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 621 (see Be Agra and Masterman^s Bank, Ex parte
Asiatic Banking Corporation, supra), and Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.,
[1893] 1 Q. B. 256 (see Johnston v. Boyes, supra), where an offer addressed to a
number of persons has been held to give contractual rights to any one of those
. persons complying with the conditions of the offer. The analogy would appear
to be questionable. In those cases there was a complete contract on the con-
ditions being complied with. In the case of the highest bidder there is none
until the sale is completed. The judgment of the minority of the Court in
Warloio V. Harrison [supra) confines the liability of the vendor or auctioneer
to cases where an action for false representation can be brought, and negatives
the existence of any implied undertaking or right of action in contract; see
also dicta in Mainprice v. Westley (1865), 6 B. & S. 420. In most cases the
withdrawal by the vendor or the auctioneer would probably amount to an
attempt to sell by reserve, and the distinction would merely affect the form of
action but there are certainly conceivable cases where property might be
;
withdrawn hond fide from a sale after the auction had begun for reasons
irrespective of the amount of the bidding, and the difference might also be
important in determining the personal liability of the auctioneer.
(s) Johnston v. Boyes, supra.
{t) McManus v. Fortescue, supra.

—
Sect. 8. Sect. 8. Damping the Sale.

Damping
1042. Improper or fraudulent acts, which are likely to prevent
the Sale.
the property put up from realising its fair value and to " damp "
Damping." the sale, will invalidate any purchase by persons guilty of or privy
to such acts, and will justify the auctioneer in withdrawing the
property {u) .
An agreement between two or more persons not to bid against

Knock-out.
each other at an auction, even if amounting to what is popularly
known as a " knock-out," would not seem to be illegal or to invalidate
the sale (a).
Part V. — Deposit.
Auctioneer 1043. In the absence of special agreement, the auctioneer

as stake- receives the deposit as stakeholder for the vendor and the pur-
holder.
chaser (b) ; and it is his duty to hold it until the completion or
rescission of the contract, and to pay it to the party ultimately
entitled (c).
Premature If the auctioneer pays the money prematurely to either vendor (d)
payment to or purchaser, and it turns out that the person paid was not entitled
wrong party.
to it, the auctioneer is liable to make good the money to the party
to the contract eventually held to be entitled (e).
Purchaser Where the purchaser is entitled to the return of the deposit, the
entitled.
auctioneer can set up the purchaser's right to the money in answer
to any claim to it made by the vendor (/).
Loss of 1044. Although the auctioneer is a stakeholder, he is so far

deposit falls
upon vendor. the vendor's agent that the loss of the deposit sustained by
{n) v. Morrice (1788), 2 Bro. Ch. Cas. 326; Mason v. Armitage {l^m),
Twining
13 Yes. 25 Fuller v. Ahrahams (1821), 6 Moo. 0. P. 316.
;
(a) The dictum in. Levi v. Levi (1833), 6 C. & P. 239, suggesting that such an
agreement is an unlawful conspiracy, does not seem to be based on any sound
principle or to be good law, though it has been adopted in a number of text-books.
See Dooluhdass v. BamloJl (1850), 15 Jur. 257 Galton v. Emuss (1844), 13
;
L. J. (OH.) 388 Be Careiu's Estate Act (1858), 28 L. J. (cH.) 218 ; Heffer v.

;
ILartijn (1867), 36 L. J. (cH.) 372.

{b) Harington v. Hoggart (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 577. See Edwards v. Hodding
(1814), 5 Taunt. 815, where it was held that a solicitor who was also auctioneer
received the purchase-money as auctioneer and not as solicitor and agent for the
vendor. As to receipt of a cheque by the auctioneer in payment of deposit, see
p. 503, ante.
(c) Gray v. Gutteridge (1827), 3 0. & P. -40; Yates v. Farehrother (1819), 4
Madd. 239; Edivards v. Hodding, supra; Burrough v. Skinner (1770), 5 Burr.
2639 Furtado v. Lumley (1890), 54 J. P. 407 Spurrier v. Elderton (1803), 5
; ;
Esp. 1 Spittle v. Lavender (1821), 2 Brod. & Bing. 452 Berry v. Young (1788),
; ;
2 Esp. 640 (n.) Stevens v. Legh (1853), 2 C. L. E. 251.

; The auctioneer may pay
over to the vendor even when the latter is in insolvent circumstances {White v.
Bartlett (1832), 9 Bing. 378).
{d) Eor form of indemnity in such a case, see Encyclopaedia of Eorms, Vol. II.,
p. 462.
(e) Burrough v. Skinner, supra; Furtado v. Luniley, supra; Edivards v.
Hodding, supjra.
(/) Stevens v. Legh, supra; Murray v. Mann (1848), 2 Excb. 538.
.
Part Y. —Deposit. 513
the auctioneer's insolvency or misconduct will fall on the Part V.

vendor (g). Deposit.
Where a sale is effected by a mortgagor and the sale is adopted
by the mortgagee, the mortgagee is liable as between himself and
the purchaser for the loss of the deposit whilst in the hands of the
auctioneer (//) but as between mortgagor and mortgagee the loss
;
will fall on the mortgagor if the auctioneer was the agent of the
mortgagor @
1045. The auctioneer should be ready at any time to account for Auctioneer
the deposit (k), but he is not liable to pay interest on it for the liable to
pay deposit
period during which he rightfully holds it as stakeholder, nor until at any time
demand for repayment has been made by some person entitled to without
interest.
receive it ®.
Part VI. — Interpleader and Payment into

Court.
1046. Where adverse claims are made to goods or money in the Interpleader
hands of an auctioneer, he may interplead (m), subject to the by auctioneer.
ordinary rules governing interpleader (n) .
In the application for, and on, the interpleader proceedings the Auctioneer's
Court has power to provide for the costs and charges of the costs and
charges.
auctioneer, and the claim for such costs and charges does not bar
the auctioneer of his right to interplead as being interested in the
subject-matter, even when he is entitled to them against one of the
claimants only (o).
The Court has also a discretionary power to allow the auctioneer Auctioneer's
to deduct from the deposit his costs of obtaining the interpleader costs of
interpleader.
order {p).
(g) Smith v. Jackson and Lloyd (1816), 1 Madd. 618 Bowe v. Maij (1854), 18
;
Beav. 613 Annesley v. Muggridge (1816), 1 Madd. 593. As to the right to follow
;
the deposit money which has been paid into the auctioneer's banking account,
see Marten v. Hocke, Eyton & Co. (1885), 53 L. T. 946.
(h) Roiue V. May (1854), 18 Beav. 613.
{i) Barrow v. White (1862), 2 Jo. & H. 580.
[k] Brown v. Staton (1816), 2 Chitt. 353; Orosskey v. Mills (1834), 1 C. M. & E.
'298.
(0 Lee V. (1817), 8 Taunt. 45; Harington v. Hoggart (1830j, 1 B. & Ad.
Munn
577 ;
GalyDriver (1828), 2 Y. & J. 549.
v.
(m) E. S. 0., Ord. 57, r. 1.
{n) See title Lstterpleader. See, for application to auctioneers of the ordinary
rules as to identity of the property claimed, Wright v. Freeman (1879), 48 L. J.
(c. p.) 276 ; Hoggart y, Cutts (1841), 1 Or. & Ph. 197 and see, as to collusion,
;
Thompson v. Wright (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 632.

(o) BestY. Hayes (1863), 1 H. & 0. 718, followed in Tanner v. Huropean Bank
(1866), L. E. 1 Exch. 261 see also Attenhorough v. St. Katharine's Bock Co.
;
(1878), L. E. 3 0. P. D. 373, and, on appeal, 450 Be Rothschild v. Morrison,

;
Kekewich & Co. (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 750 Ex parte Mersey Bocks and

;
Harbour Board, [1899] 1 Q. B. 546 ; Martinius v. Helmuth and Schmidt

(1815), Coop. 245.
(p) Bitchers v. Edney (1838), 4 Bing. (n. c.) 721 Better v. Brickett (1850), 15
;
Q. B. 1081.
H.L. — I. L L
. — ———
Paet yi. 1047. If the auctioneer is made a defendant to an action for

Interpleader specific performance or rescission {q), he will in general be dismissed
and Pay- from the action on paying the balance of the deposit into Com't after
ment into deducting his charges (?•) but he will not be so dismissed if relief
;
Court.
be claimed against him personally on some ground other than the
Auctioneer mere fact that he holds the deposit, e.g., on the ground of his
defendant misconduct at the auction (s).
to action
on contract. 1048. If two auctioneers claim commission in respect of the sale
No inter- of the same property, the purchaser cannot, as a rule, interplead (t).
pleader by
purchaser
where two
auctioneers
claim
commission. Part VII. — Auctioneer's Rights and Duties
in Relation to the Vendor.
Sect. 1. Duty Generally.
Skill and 1049. An auctioneer, being a person who professes to carry on a
knowledge.
business requiring skill and knowledge, must display such skill and
knowledge in acting for his vendor as is reasonably to be expected
from competent auctioneers, and must follow the course of business
ordinarily recognised by custom (a) or prescribed .by statute (6).
He will be liable for a breach of any duty in damages, either
nominal where no material injury results (c), or substantial and of
an amount to compensate the vendor for any actual loss sustained
through the negligence of the auctioneer (cZ), or of persons employed
by him (e)
Sect. 2. Duties in respect of Goods.

Sub -Sect. 1. Custody of Goods,
Duty as 1050. Since the auctioneer is a bailee for reward, he must exercise
bailee for
ordinary care and diligence in keeping the goods intrusted to
reward.
him(/).
Sub-Sect. 2. Farting with Goods.
Duty to 1051. In the absence of authority from the vendor, it is the duty
retain till of the auctioneer not to part with possession of the goods until the
price paid.
{q) See as to joining auctioneers as defendants in such cases, Earl of Egmont

V. ISmith (1877), 6 Ch. D. 469.
(r) Annesley v. Muygridge (1816), 1 Madd. 593 Yates v. Farehrother (1819), 4
;
Madd. 239.
Beatley v. Newton (1881), 19 Ch. D. 326.
(s)
Greatorex v. Shackle, [1895] 2 Q. B. 249.

(t)
(a) Fussell v. Hankey (1794), 6 Term Eep. 12.

{h) Coppen v. Moore (No. 2), [1898] 2 Q. B. 306 ; Christie, Hanson and Woods
V. Cooper, [1900] 2 Q. B. 522.
(c) HiUert v. Bayley (1860), 2 F. & F. 48.
{d) Farker v. Farehrother (1853), 1 0. L. E. 323.
(e) Lord North's Case (1558), 2 Dyer, 161 a.
(/) See title Bailment, p. 560.. post. The dictum inMalthy v. Christie (1795),
1 Esp. 340, to the effect that an auctioneer is only liable for such care as he
would take in the case of his own goods, would not seem on principle to be good
law. See Coggs v. Bernard (1704), 2 Ld. Eaym. 909, per Lord Holt, at p. 917.
— — ——
Part YII. —Auctioneer's Rights and Duties to Vendor. 515
purchaser has paid the price. If the auctioneer does so and the Sect. 2,
purchaser fails to pay, the auctioneer will be liable to the vendor Duties in
for the price {n). respect of
Sub -Sect. 3.— Redelivery of Goods.
Goods.
1052. An auctioneer must redeliver goods to the vendor on Redelivery to

demand, except where his right of lien, exists, either before sale if vendor.
the authority to sell is revoked, or after sale if the goods are unsold.
Like other bailees, he is estopped from setting up the title of a justertii.
third person against the bailor, unless the bailment is determined
by w^hat is equivalent to an eviction by title paramount, and the
auctioneer defends upon the right and title and by the authority of
such third person (A). Even with such authority he cannot set
up the jus tertii if he 'was aware of the adverse claim at the time
when he accepted his employment (i).
Sect. 3. Duty to make a Binding Contract.
1053. the duty of the auctioneer to sign a proper contract (j)
It is
binding the purchaser and, if he omits to do so, he is liable to the
;
vendor for any damages sustained in consequence of his neglect {k).

Sect. 4. Purchase by Auctioneer.
1054. A purchase by the auctioneer himself without the vendor's
consent is voidable, and will be set aside at the instance of the
vendor, even after a long lapse of time, unless there is evidence of
acquiescence (l).
Sect. 5. Duty to Account.
1055. An auctioneer must account for any moneys received by Trustee of
him on the vendor's behalf, and be ready to pay them over to him.
He is in a fiduciary position in respect of such moneys, and an vendor,
order to pay can be made against him as trustee, which, if
disobeyed, renders him liable to attachment (m).
Payment should in general be made to the vendor, and not to Payment to
bis solicitors except by his express directions (n). vendor
^ ^ ^ personally..
Sect. 6. Remuneration.
1056. The remuneration payable to an auctioneer by a private By agree-
vendor may be fixed by express agreement as to both its amount
and the events on which it is to be paid (o).
((/) Brown Y. Staton (1816), 2 Chitt. 353.
{h) Biddle v. Borid (1865), 6 B. & S. 225 ; Thome v. Tilbury (1858), 3 H. &
534, 537.
{i) Ex parte
Bavies, Be Sadler (1881), 19 Ch. D. 86.
Ij) Eor form of contract, see Encyclopsedia of Forms, Vol. II., p. 462.
(k) Beirce v. Corf (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 210.
(/) Oliver v. Court (1820), 8 Price, 127; Salomons v. Bender (1865), 3 H. &
639 and see Ex parte Lacey (1802), 6 Ves. 625 Sanderson v. Walker (1807), 13-
; ;
Yes. 601 Boiv7ies v. Grazehrook (1817), 3 Mer. 200.

;
(to) Croiutlier v. Elgood (1887), 34 Oh. D. 691. See title Contempt and
Attachment.
(n) Broiun v. Farehrother (1888), 59 L. T. 822. See, as to paj^ment in sales by
the Court, title Sale of Land.
{o) Be Bage (No. 3) (1863), 32 Beav. 487; Beningfield y. Kynaston (1887), 3'
T. L. E. 279; Beacock v. Freeman (1888), 4 T. L. E. 541. See title Agency,
pp. 193 —
196, ante, for general rules and construction of contracts as to payment
of commission.
L L 2
.
Sect. 6. In the absence of express agreement, the remuneration is

Remunera- determined by custom, or, failing custom applicable to the parti-
tion. cular circumstances, the auctioneer will be entitled to a fair and
By custom. reasonable amount.
In most instances, where the services of the auctioneer have
been fully performed, a customary rate of payment calculated by
percentage will be adopted as the measure of such amount (p)
Commission The auctioneer may be entitled to commission on a sale to a
where no purchaser introduced by the auctioneer even where no sale by
sale by-
auction. auction has been actually effected (q).
Scale fixed The scale of payments to auctioneers is fixed by law in the case
by law. of a sale under a distress (r), sales under the Bankruptcy Acts (s),
sales in the winding up of companies (t), and sales by the sheriff
under a writ of fieri facias (a).
Auctioneer An auctioneer who is also a trustee cannot make a profit out of
trustee. the execution of the trust, unless authorised by the terms of the
trust so to do, and therefore, in the absence of such authorisation,
cannot in general claim remuneration for the sale of trust property
of which either he or his partner is trustee (5).
Loss of The right to claim commission may be lost by the auctioneer's
right to negligence (c) or misconduct (d).
commission.
Where 1057. If an auctioneer's authority is revoked before the sale, or
authority the vendor, after the expenses of the sale have been incurred,
revoked. insists on a prohibitive reserve, the auctioneer has, except
under a special agreement, a claim against the vendor for
expenses and for reasonable remuneration for the services already
rendered (e).
In addition he would seem to be entitled to damages where the
(p) The scale of fees of tlie Institute of Estate and House Agents (see
Encyclopsedia of Forms, Yol. II., p. 454) is that usually followed, but this scale
may be varied by proof of special local custom.
(g) Green v. Barthtt (1863), 14 C. B. (n. s.) 681. See also Bayley v. Chadim'ck
(1878), 39 L. T. 429; Clark v. Smythies (I860), 2 F. & F. 83. The question
whether the sale is the result of the auctioneer's intervention is in each case a
question of fact. See Lumley v. Nicholson (1886), 34 W. E. 716.
(r) Distress for Eent Eules (Law of Distress Amendment Act, 1888 (51 & 52
Vict. c. 21), s. 8), rr. 15 —
17, Appendix II. See Encyclopsedia of Forms, Vol. II.,
p. 456.
(s) Eules under the Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), and 1890
(53 & 54 Vict. c. 71), r. 112 and Appendix, See Encyclopsedia of Forms, Vol. II.,
p. 455.
{t) Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 63), and Companies
(Winding-up) Eules, 1903, rr. 159, 166, 170 (2).

(a) Sheriffs Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 55), Order as to Fees of August 31,
1888. See Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. II., pp. 455, 456.
(&) Matthison v. Clar'ke (1854), 3 Drew. 3, in which case the auctioneer was
merely a mortgagee with a power of sale. See also Salomons v. Pender (1865),
3 H. & C. 639 Broad v. Selfe (1863), 9 Jur. (isr. s.) 885 Kirhman v. Booth
; ;
(1848), 11 Beav. 273. See, further, title Trusts Am) Trustees.

(c) Denew v. Daverell (1813), 3 Camp. 451 ; Duncan v. Blundell (1820), 3 Stark.
6; Jones v. Nonney (1824), 13 Price, 76.
{d) White Y: Chapman (1815), 1 Stark. 113 ;
see, further, title AGENCY, p. 196,
(e) Chinnock v. Sainshiiry (1860), 30 L. J. (cH.) 409. The remuneration may

even be based on a percentage if a binding custom to that effect can be proved.
See Eainy v. Vernon (1840), 9 0. & P. 559.
— . —— ;
Part VII. Auctioneer's Rights and Duties to Vendor. 517
right of revocation is not expressly given by the terms of his ^^
employment (/). Remunera-

tion.
Sect. 7. Lien.
1058. Auctioneers have a lien, by the custom of their business, Extent of
on goods intrusted to them for sale and on the deposit and l^^^-
purchase-money, for their charges and remuneration (^).

This lien attaches to goods whether they are sold at the
auctioneer's premises or at those of the vendor (h). It is a charge
on the proceeds of sale in priority to any assignment by the vendor,
and the auctioneer cannot be compelled to marshal the proceeds of
several sales in order to give effect to the rights of an assignee of
the purchase-money of certain of the sales (i).
Sect. 8. Indemnity.
1059. The vendor is bound to indemnify the auctioneer ( j) for any Extent of
expenses incurred or damages sustained by the auctioneer in the
ordinary course of his employment, and as the natural consequence ^^^^ ^*
of the contract of agency {k)
This duty extends to a case where property for sale has been Claim of
received by an auctioneer in good faith from a principal who was person
Property,
not the true owner, and the auctioneer has been held liable for
conversion (/), but it does not extend to cases where the auctioneer
has been sued and damages recovered from him for some act which
is not a wrongful act done in pursuance of his employment, unless
the auctioneer defends with the express or implied authority
of the principal {in). The judgment against the auctioneer creates
no estoppel against the principal unless he had such authority (n).
(/) There is no express authority for this proposition; but it is submitted

that the employment of an auctioneer is a contract to allow the auctioneer to
carry out the sale, and differs from such agencies as those of house agents, in
whicb the principal may revoke the authority at any time without giving the
agent any right to compensation. See Simpson v. Lamb (1856), 17 0. B. 603,
where the two classes of agency are differentiated as general and qualified
employment.
((/) Williams v. Millington (1788), 1 Hy. Bl. 81. See title Agency, pp. 197—199,
ante.
(h) Ibid.
(i) Webb V. Smith (1885), 30 Ch. D. 192.
Ij) For an agent's right of indemnity in general, see title Agency,
pp. 196, 197, ante. For the form of an express indemnity, see Encyclopaedia
of Forms, Vol. II., p. 462.
(k) Amongst the expenses properly incurred are moneys paid to protect the
goods from a distress as long as the goods remain the property of the vendor
but moneys paid after the sale, and when the property has passed, are not charge-
able against the vendor {Sweeting v. Turner (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B. 310).
(Z) Spurrier v. Elderton (1803), 5 Esp. 1 Adamson v. Jarvis (1827), 4Bing. 66.
;
On a sale on behalf of the sheriff an auctioneer is not entitled to indemnity

against the sheriff {Farebr other v. Ansley (1808), 1 Camp. 343).
{m) Halbronn v. International Horse Agency and Exchange, Ltd., [1903] 1 K. B.
270; Frixione v. Tagliaferro (1856), 10 Moo. P. C. 0. 175, 200.
{n) Ibid.
— ;
Sect.
Action by
1.
Part VIII. — Auctioneer's Rights and
Purchaser Liabilities in Relation to Purchasers.
against
Auctioneer.
Sect. 1. Action hy Purchaser against Auctioneer.
Principal 1060. Where an auctioneer sells for an undisclosed principal, he
undisclosed.
is personally liable on the contract (o).
The extent of his liability and the nature of his obligations,
e.g., as to warranty of title or delivery of the property sold, must in
each case depend on the contract of sale and the circumstances of
the case {p).
Principal An auctioneer selling on behalf of a disclosed principal is in
disclosed.
general not liable on the contract unless by its terms he contracts
personally but in the case of the sale of goods, when he is in posses-
;
sion, he may be liable for non-delivery under some circumstances {q).

When sued personally the auctioneer may avail himself of the
defence that there is no written evidence of the contract under the
Statute of Frauds or the Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (r).
Action for 1061. If the property has been knocked down, the purchaser
failing to
sign binding
may perhaps have a right of action against the auctioneer for
contract. failing to sign a binding contract (s) in cases where, but for such
failure, the purchaser might have had an enforceable contract with
the vendor but no such right exists where there is no real contract
;
between the vendor and purchaser, e.g.^ where the property is

advertised to be sold with a reserve, and the bid of the highest
bidder, to whom the property is knocked down, does not reach the
reserve price {t).
(o) Hanson v. Roberdeau (1792), Peake, 163 ; Franklyn v. Lamond (1847), 4

C. B. 637 ; Evans v. Evans (1835), 3 A. & E. 132. There are di'cta in Main-
price V. Westley (1865), 6 B. & S. 420, suggesting that the auctioneer may escape
liability by contracting merely as agent without disclosing his principal's name
but there is no express decision going to this length.
(p) Wood V. Baxter (1883), 49 L. T. 45 Payne v. Elsden (1900), 17 T. L. E.
;
161 ; Salter v. Woollams (1841), 2 Man. & G-. 650.

((/) See the judgment m
Rainhoiu v. HowMns, [1904] 2 K. B. 322, at p. 325,
preferring WooJfe v. Home (1877), 2 Q,. B. D. 355, to Mainprice v. Westley,
supra. "We are of opinion on the authority of Woolfe v. Home, which is a
more recent decision than Mainprice v. Westley, that an action for wrongful
refusal to deliver a chattel sold at public auction may in some circumstances
successfuUj^ be brought against the auctioneer, although the principal's name is
disclosed to the buyer at the time of the sale." The Court did not define
the circumstances, and it is only possible to state the proposition in the form
in the text.
(r) Rainhoiu v. Hoiuliins, supra.
[s) The point was left open in Rainbow v. Hoiukins, supra, but on principle
the purchaser's right of action would seem to follow from the fact that the
auctioneer becomes the purchaser's agent to sign after the contract is (joncluded.
This would not be so, however, where the purchaser had signed the contract and
the auctioneer refused to sign on the vendor's behalf, for, apart from fraud, an
agreement to put into writing and sign a contract for the sale of land or of
goods exceeding £10 in value cannot be enforced see TFood v. Midgley (1854),
;
5 De G-. M. & G. 41, 45 Johnston v. Boyes (1898), 42 Sol. Jour. 610', and, on
;
further proceedings, [1899] 2 Ch. 73.

[t) McManus v. Fortescue, [1907] 2 K. B. 1.
. — .
Part YIII. —Rights and Liabilities to Purchasers. 519
1062. Where an auctioneer sells property without or in excess of Skct. 1.
his authority,he is, like other agents, liable to the purchaser for Action by
breach of warranty of authority (a) Purchaser
The purchaser is entitled to sue the auctioneer personally for any against
fraud to which the auctioneer is privy {h). Auctioneer.
Breach of
warranty of
Sect. 2. Action hy Auctioneer for Price. authority.
Fraud.
1063. An
auctioneer may, by reason of his lien on or special
property in goods, maintain an action in his own name for the price
When
auctioneer
of goods sold and delivered by him even where he sells and delivers may sue in
as agent for a disclosed principal (c), but this right does not extend, own name.
in the absence of special contract, to suing for the purchase-
money of land if he sells as agent for a disclosed principal (d), or
for the use and occupation of land let by him by auction {e).
This right to sue continues as long as the auctioneer's lien on When right
the proceeds of the sale exists, and cannot be affected by any settle- afEected by
settlement
ment or set-off between the vendor and purchaser (/), unless the between
auctioneer has expressly or impliedly assented to such settle- vendor and
ment ig), or unless it was a term of the original contract that the purchaser.
price should be paid or satisfied in some way other than by pay-

ment to the auctioneer (Ii).
If, however, the auctioneer's charges have been satisfied, his
claim can be met by any set-off which would be valid against the
vendor (i)
1064. Where the goods sold are not the property of the vendor, No right
and are claimed by the true owner before payment by the pur- where goods
claimed by
chaser, the auctioneer cannot maintain an action for the price even true owner.
though the purchaser has taken away the goods under an express
promise to pay (j).
1065. The auctioneer's power of suing is further subject to the Where con-
limitation that though he is the agent of the purchaser to sign a tract signed
by auctioneer
written contract or memorandum of the contract as between vendor on purchaser's
and purchaser, yet when he sues personally he cannot rely on such behalf.
contract or memorandum if signed by himself, and cannot enforce
(a) & Sons, Ltd. (1904), 6 P. (Ot. of Sess.) 153.

Anderso7i v. Oroall
(&) Heathy v. Newton
(1881), 19 Ch. D. 326.
(c) Williams v. Millington (1788), 1 Hy. Bl. 81. ^qq Freeman v. Farrow (1886),
^
2 T. L. E. 547, where an auctioneer was held entitled to sue even where the sale
was effected by the owner himself on the auctioneer's premises. See also Cleave
V. Moors (1857), 3 Jur. (n. s.) 48; Hodgens v. Keon, [1894] 2 Ir. E. 657, where an
auctioneer who had taken an I.O.U. in respect of a deposit on the sale of land
was allowed to sue the purchaser but the ratio decidendi was that by so doing
;
the auctioneer had in fact advanced the money to the purchaser.

{d) Cherry v. Anderson (1876), 10 Ir. E. C. L. 204.
(e) Fvans v. Fvans (1835), 3 A. & E. 132 Fisher v. Marsh (1865), 6 B. & S.
;
411.
(/) RoUnson v. Rutter (1855), 4 E. & B. 954.
{g) Coppin v. Walker (1816), 7 Taunt. 237 Coppin v. Craig (1816), 7 Taunt. 243.
;
(h) Bartlett v. Furnell (1836), 4 A. & E. 792; Grice v. Kenrick (1870), L. E. 5

Q. B. 340.
{%) Holmes v. Tutton (1855), 5 E. & B. 65.
Ij) Dickenson v. Naul (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 638.

—— —
Sect. 2. the contract unless other evidence satisfying the statutory require-
Action by ments can be given {k).
Auctioneer
for Price.
Part IX. —Auctioneer's Rights and Liabilities
in Relation to Third Persons.
Sect. 1. Right to Possession of Goods.
Auctioneer 1066. An auctioneer by virtue of his lien and special property

may sue in can maintain an action of trespass or trover against persons
trespass or
trover. wrongfully interfering with or converting goods (Z) He has, how- .
ever, no such property in, or right of action in respect of, unsevered

fixtures (m) .
Sect. 2. Privilege from Distress.
Goods 1067 Goods delivered to an auctioneer for sale are privileged

delivered to
from distress whilst on the auctioneer's premises, as being chattels
auctioneer.
delivered to a person exercising a public trade to be dealt with in
the way of his trade or employ (w). The privilege attaches to the
goods either at the auctioneer's ordinary place of business or on
premises temporarily hired for the auction, and even though the
auctioneer's occupation of the premises is not lawful (o). It also
extends to goods in the yard of a house (p). It does not, however,
cover goods which are on the owner's premises, and such goods will
remain liable to distraint although the subject-matter of a sale by
auction {q).
Sect. 3. Conversion,
Auctioneer 1068. An action for conversion lies against an auctioneer who
liable.
with or without knowledge of the true ownership has, in cases not
covered by the Factors Act, 1889 (?•)> dealt with the property in and
possession of goods without the consent or authority of the true
owner (s).
V^hat A mere advertisement without an actual sale, or even
for sale
amounts to
a contract of sale which affects neither thepossession nor the
conversion.
property, does not constitute a conversion {t). To render an
auctioneer liable who has no notice of the true ownership, and who
{k) Farebrother v. Simmons (1822), 5 B. «& Aid. 333

(Z) Williams v. Millington (1788), 1 Hy. BI. 81, per Heath, J., at p. 85; Roh'nson
V. Butter (1855), 4 E. & B. 954.
(w) Davis V. Danhs (1849), 3 Exch. 435.
{n) See title Distress Adams v. Grane (1833), 1 Or. & M. 380.
;
(o) Broivn v. Arundell (1850), 10 C. B. 54.
[p) Williams v. Holmes (1853), 8 Exch. 861.

{q) Lyons v. Elliott (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 210.
(r) 52 & 53 Vict. c. 45. See title Agency, p. 205, ante.
(s) Barker y. Furlong, [1891] 2 Cli. 172; Consolidated Co. v. Curtis & Sov,
[1892] 1 Q. B. 495 Brotun v. Hickinhotham (1881), 50 L. J. (q. b.) 426; Feather-
;
stonhaugh v. Jolinston (1818), 8 Taunt. 237; Adamson v. Jarvis (1827), 4 Bing. 66;
Cochrane v. Bymill (1879), 40 L. T. 744 Hardacre v. Steivart (1804), 5 Esp. 103.
;
See, further, title Trover and Conversion.

{t) Lancashire Waggon Co. v. FitzHugh (1861), 6 H. & N. 502.
— ——
Part IX. Rights and Liabilities to Third Persons. 521
merely acts in the ordinary course of bis business, he must deal Sect. 3.
or purport to deal both with the possession and with the property. Conversion.
Thus if the auctioneer has the goods in his possession for sale,
but the contract of sale is in fact arranged privately by the vendor,
and the goods are delivered to the purchaser by the auctioneer in
pursuance of this contract, this is not a dealing with the property,
but a mere ministerial act, and does not amount to a conversion .
Nor is it a conversion when, without any physical interference with

the goods, the auctioneer merely arranges the price, and the goods
are delivered by the vendor (a).
When goods are delivered to an auctioneer by a mercantile agent Goods
acting in the course of his ordinary business, or by a buyer or delivered to
seller, if such agent or buyer or seller is in possession of such goods by^factor

with the consent of the true owner, the auctioneer is not liable for or buyer or
seller,
dealing with the goods, provided such dealing is in good faith and
without notice of the claim of the true owner (6).
If the auctioneer has notice of the adverse claim of the true
owner, he is thereafter liable for the value, not only of goods sold by
him, but of those unsold by him and returned to his principal (c).
The measure of damages, when the auctioneer's liability is Measure of
established, is the true value of the goods, and not merely the sum damages,
realised at the auction (d).
A
place where public auctions are habitually held, and to which Auction
the public are admitted, is not thereby made a market overt, and ^^^^
does not give the auctioneer the protection of such market (e). market overt.
Sect. 4. Executorship de son tort,
1069. If an auctioneer intermeddles with the estate of a deceased When

person without the authority of a properly constituted executor, he âbie^°^^^
may render himself liable as an executor de son tort (/).
Sect. 5. Partnership Bills,
1070. It has been held that a firm of auctioneers is not a trading Firm of
partnership, and therefore a member of the firm has no implied auctioneers.
authority to bind his partners by giving a bill of exchange in the
firm name {g).
National Mercantile Bank v. Rymill (1881), 44 L. T. 767. Probably Turner

[u)
V. Hockey (1887), 56 L. J. (Q. B.) 301, is to be explained on this ground. See
observations in Consolidated Co, v. Curtis <& Son, [1892] 1 Q. B. 495, at pp. 502,
503.
(a) Cochrane v. By mill (1879), 40 L. T. 744, at p. 746; Barker y. Furlong,
[1891] 2 Ch. 172.
(6) See title Agency Factors Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 45) Shenstone &
; ;
Co. V. Hilton, [1894] 2 Q. B. 452.

(c) Davis V. Artingstall (1880), 49 L. J. (cH.) 609.
(d) Ibid., at p. 610.

. Lee v. Bayes and Rohinson (1856), 18 C. B. 599.
(e)
(/) See title Execijtoes and Administratohs Nulty v. Fagan (1888), 22

;
L. E. Ir. Q. B. 604.
{g) See title Partnership; Wheatley v. Smithers, [1906] 2 K. B. 321. The
decision in this case was reversed on appeal on the facts ( (1907), 23 T. L. E. 585).
but the Court of Appeal declined to decide the question of principle which, is
stated in the text, and on which the judgments of the Divisional Court were
based.
( 522 )
AUTREFOIS ACQUIT AND AUTREFOIS

CONVICT.
See Ckiminal Law and Pkocedure.
AVERAGE.
See Insurance ; Shipping and Navigation.
BAIL
See Admiralty ; Criminal Law and Procedure ; Magistrates.
BAILIFF.
See Copyholds; Sheriffs and Bailiffs.
( 523 )
BAILMENT.
PAGE
Part I. DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION - - - - 524
Part II. GEATUITOUS BAILMENT 526

Sect. 1. Deposit 526
Sub-sect. 2. Special Ejnds of Deposit 527
Sub-sect. 3. Finding of Chattels 528
Sub-sect. 4. Obligations of the Bailee 531
Sub-sect. 5. User of Chattel - - - - - - - 534
Sect. 2. Mandate - - 535
Sub-sect. 2. Obligations of the Mandatary
Sub-sect. 3. Delegation by Mandatary
Sub-sect. 4. Obligations of the Mandator
----- .
-
.
-
-
-
.
-
535
537
537
Sect. 3. Gratuitous Loak for Use
Sub-sect. 1. In General -------
Sub-sect. 2. Obligations of the Borrower
- - ,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
537
537
538
Sub-sect. 3. Obligations of the Lender 539
Sub-sect. 4. User of Chattel lent 540
Sect. 4. Gratuitous Quasi-bailment 540
Sub-sect. 1. Mutuum 540
Sub-sect. 2. Pro-mutuuni - 541
Sub-sect. 3. Intermixture of Chattels 542
Part III. BAILMENT FOE VALUABLE CONSIDERATION - 543

Sect. 1. Hire op Custody 543
Sub-sect. 1 Nature of the Contract
.
Sub-sect. 2. Obligations of the Bailee ----- 543

544
Sub-sect. 3. Liability to Distress
Sub-sect. 4. Lien of the Bailee
Sub-sect. 5. Eailway Cloak-rooms
------ - .
- - - -
546
547
549
Sect. 2. Hire of Chattels 550
Sub-sect. 1. In General - 550
Sub-sect. 2.
Sub-sect. 3.
Sub-sect. 4.
Obligations of the Owner
Obligations of the Hirer -----
Eesponsibility for Negligence of Servant - -
550
552
553
Sub-sect. 5. Measure of Damages 553
Sect. 3. Hire-Purchase 554
Sub -sect. 2. Eights of Owner 555
Sect. 4. Hire of Work and Labour 556
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
Sub-sect.
1.
2.
3.
In General
Obligations of the Hirer
Obligations of the Workman
-----
... -
556
557
559
Sub-sect. 4. Delegation 560
Sub-sect. 5. Lien of Workman - 561
Sect. 5. Pledge 562
524 Bailment.
pabt iy. considerations common to all classes oe

bailment .562
Sect. 1
Sect. 2.
Estoppel of Bailee -
Rights and Obligations as regards Third Persons

- - ..... .
5(32
56^
Statute of Limitations
Sect.
Sect.
3.
4. Joint Bailors and Joint Bailees .... 565

505.
For Agency generally See title AGENCY.

Contracts for Work and Labour ,, Work and Labour.
Larceny by Bailee Criminal Law and
Limitation of Actions .... Procedure.

Limitation of
Negligence, generally ....
Position, as Bailees, of Agisters of Cattle -
,,
Actions.
Negligence.
Animals.
Auctioneers - . Auction and Auc-
tioneers.
Bankers Bankers and Bank-
ing.
Carriers Carriers.
Factors - Agency.
Lnnkeepers ,, Inns and Inn-
keepers.
Pawnbrokers -
„ Pawnbrokers and
Pledges.
Printers and Pub-
lishers ,
, Press and Printing.
Railway Companies Carriers.
Receivers of Goods on
Approval - Sale of Goods.
Servants intrusted
luith Masters' Goods Master and Ser-
vant.
Sheriffs - Sheriffs and
Bailiffs.
Solicitors Solicitors.
Part I. — Definition and Classification.

Definition. 1071. A bailment, properly so called, is a delivery of personal
chattels in trust, on a contract, express or implied, that the trust
shall be duly executed, and the chattels redelivered in either their
original or an altered form, as soon as the time or use for which they
were bailed shall have elapsed or been performed (a). A bailment is
thus distinguishable from a sale (b), the latter being effected wherever
chattels are delivered on a contract for an equivalent in money or
money's worth, and not for the return of the identical chattels in
their original or an altered form (c). To constitute, therefore, a
(a) Bac. Abr. tit. "Bailment." See also 2 Bl. Com. c. 30, s. 2 Jones on Bail- ;
ments, 4th ed. pp. 1, 117 Redfiekl on Eailways, 3rd ed. Vol. I., p. 2, note (7)
; ;
Story on Bailments, c. 1, s. 2 2 Kent's Com., Part V., s. 559 ; 1 Bell's Com.

;
lib. 2, Part 3, c. 2, art. 2. As to contracts, see title Contract.

(&) See title Sale of Goods.
- (c) South Australian Insurance Co. v. Randell (1869), L. R. 3 P. C. 101, at
pp. 108, 113, approving 2 Kent's Com. s. 589, p. 781 [llth ed.].
—
Part I. Definition and Classification, 525
contract of bailment (which derives its name from the old French Part I.
word deliver or put into the hands of), the actual or

hailler, to Definition
constructive possession of a specilic chattel must be transferred by its and
Classifica-
owner or possessor (the bailor), or his agent duly authorised for
tion.
that purpose, to another person (the bailee) in order that the latter
may perform some act in connection therewith, for which such
actual or constructive possession of the chattel is necessary (d).
No branch of our jurisprudence is more largely founded on the
Eoman law than that which relates to bailment, and for this reason
the works of great foreign jurists belonging to countries whose laws
are based on those of Rome, and especially of Pothier and Domat,
are often cited as more or less authoritative.
1072. At one period in the juridical history of this country, the Classification,
exact nature of this contract and the law relating thereto were
alike indeterminate, but in the year 1704 the judgment of Lord
Holt in the case of Coggs v. Bernard (e) was so clear and authorita-
tive a pronouncement of the general principles governing it, that
all subsequent inquiries have related rather to the application of
particular rules to particular cases, than to any fresh declaration
of the law respecting the actual nature of the contract or the
character of the obligation resulting therefrom. Lord Holt in Lord Holt,
his judgment stated the law of England very much as it is to
be found in the Digest and Institutes of Justinian (/), using, with
slight variations, the terminology there given to describe the
different kinds of bailments. These he divided into six classes,
which were reduced to five by Sir William Jones (^). Story con- Sir W.Jones,
sidered that they might be reduced to three (h), while Chancellor
Kent adhered to the system of Sir William Jones (i).
The five classes are as follows: (1) depositum, or the de'posit oi Five classes of
a chattel with the bailee, who is simply to keep it for the bailor bailment,
without reward (2) mandatum, where the bailee has, without
;
reward, to do something for the bailor to or with the chattel bailed ;
(3) commodatum, where the bailor, without recompense, lends

a chattel to the bailee for him to use (4) pignus, sometimes
;
called vadium, or pawn, where the bailee holds the chattel confided
to him as a security for a loan or debt, or the fulfilment of an
obligation and (5) locatio conductio, where chattels or services are
;
hired for reward. Some of these five classes are generally sub-
divided, especially locatio or hiring, of which there are four sorts :
(1) locatio rei,- the hiring of a chattel for use (2) locatio operis
;
faciendi, the hiring of a man's work or labour on or with regard to a

chattel (3) locatio custodies, the hiring of services in and about the
;
(d) South Australian Insurance Co. v. Eandell (1869), L. R. 3 P. C. 101.

(e) 2 Ld. Raym. 909, 1 Sm. L. C, lllh ed., 173.
(/) Inst. lib. 3, tit. 14, 24.
(g) Jones on Bailments, 1st ed. p. 36.
(h) Story on Bailments, c. 1, s. 3, where he divides bailments into the following
classes :
—
(1) those in which the trust is exclusively for the benefit of the bailor
or of a third person (2) those in which the trust is exclusively for the benefit
;
of the bailee and (3) those in which the trust is for the benefit of both parties
;
or of both or one of them and a third party. Story in his treatise nevertheless
adheres to Sir William Jones's classification.
(i) 2 Kent's Com., Part V., s. 559.
——
526 Bailment.
Part I. keeping of a chattel and (4) locatio operis mercium vehendarum, the
;
Definition hire of the carriage of chattels.

and Bailments may also be classified as being (1) gratuitous, or (2) for
Classifica- reward thus the first three classes above mentioned, being without
;
tion.
recompense, are designated gratuitous bailments the others are
;
Gratuitous bailments for reward, or for valuable consideration. Of the three

and for kinds of gratuitous bailments, it will be noticed that the first two
reward.
are wholly for the benefit of the bailor, and the third wholly for the
benefit of the bailee.
Classification This classification is the one adopted herein the general law of
;
followed bailment being alone dealt with, and not particular forms of bail-
herein.
ment, for which reference should be made to other titles (j).
Care and 1073. Of the various rights and duties of bailors and bailees, that
diligence. most discussed is the degree of care and diligence required of the
bailee in each kind of bailment, and that degree has, from the time
of the Koman empire till now, been held to vary according to the
benefits derived from the bailment by the bailor and the bailee
respectively, and corresponds with the degree of negligence for
which the bailee is responsible (k). An ordinary degree of care and
skill usually is required where both benefit from the transaction,
slight diligence where the benefit is wholly that of the bailor (as in
depositiim and mandatum), and great diligence where the benefit
accrues only to the bailee (as in cominodatum). It may perhaps
be stated with equal truth and brevity that the bailee is required in
every case to take that degree of care which may reasonably be
looked for, having regard to all the circumstances, e.g., if you
confide a casket of jewels to the custody of a yokel, you cannot
expect him to take the same care of it that a banker would {I).
Part II. — Gratuitous Bailment.
Sect. 1. Deposit.
Sub -Sect. 1. In General.
Definition of 1074. The contract of deposit (depositum) may be defined as a

deposit.
bailment of a chattel, to> be kept for the bailor, and returned upon
demand without a recompense (ni). This definition is sufficient for
most purposes, and is complete, if it be understood that a return
to the bailor covers delivery over to his nominee, for in some cases
(y) See list of cross references on p. 524, ante,

(k) Gihlin v. McMullen (1868), L. K 2 P. C. 317.
[1) Sir William Jones cites as an example of this proposition the following
illustration from Mahomedan law (Jones on Bailments, 4tli ed. p. 100) ": A
man
who had a disorder in his eyes called on a farrier for a remedy, and he applied to
them a medicine commonly used for his patients ; the man lost his sight, and
brought an action for damages, but the judge said, ' No action lies, for, if the com-
"
plainant had not himself been an ass, he would never have employed a, farrier.^
(m) 2 Bl. Com. 451.
——
Part II. Gratuitous Bailment. 527
the primary object of the bailment may be, that the bailee deliver Sect. i.
over the chattel upon demand to a third party, and not to the Deposit,
actual bailor himself. This kind of bailment must always relate to
a specific chattel (n).
As the bailee is to receive no reward for his services, there can Not binding
never be an executory contract of deposit, for the maxim Ex nudo ^^^^ executed.
pacta uon oritur actio applies, and until there is actual delivery and
acceptance of the subject-matter of the trust, there is no obligation
on the part of the bailee to carry out his promise (o). As soon,
however, as the bailee actually accepts the chattel, he becomes in
some degree responsible for it whilst it remains in his posses-
sion or under his control, and is also bound, upon demand, to
redeliver it to the true owner or his nominee, unless he has
good excuse legally for not doing so {p).
Sub-Sect. 2. Sjêdal Kinds of Deposit.
1075. A necessary deposit is one which is made under peculiar Necessary

stress of circumstances, such as fire, flood, shipwreck, civil riot, or deposit,
other unforeseen disaster. If, under such conditions, an owner of
a chattel intrusts it to the care of a bystander or neighbour, and

that person accepts it, it has been suggested that the confidence
of the owner in the recipient, and the acceptance by him, constitute
an obligation which can only be satisfied by a very strict measure
of care on the part of the bailee but it is conceived that according
;
to our law his duties are merely those of an ordinary depositary (g).
Consequently the owner would probably recover damages only in
the event of the depositary being guilty of negligence or bad faith
whilst the chattel was in his custody (?').
1076. So again if a man who is mentally incapable of appreciating Deposit by

what he is doing, or is under a mistake as to the identity of the mistake,
person with whom he is dealing, intrusts another with a chattel,

the recipient becomes a bailee (s).
1077. Another kind of deposit is that in which a chattel, through Accidental

circumstances over which neither owner nor recipient has any ^^P^^^^-
{n) Pothier, Vol. IV., Contrat de D6p6t, c. 1, s. 2.

(o) Pothier, Vol. IV., Contrat de Depot, c. 1, s. 7.
Goggs v. Bernard (1704), 2 Ld. Eaym. 909 Phipps v. New Glaridge's Hotel,
;
Ltd. (1905), 22 T. L. K. 49, where the plaintiff handed over to one of the defen-
dants' servants his dog, which could not be found when wanted, and the
defendants were held liable. See also the similar decision in Ultzen v. Nicols,
[1894] 1 Q. B. 92, where a diner at a restaurant handed his coat to a waiter, and
it was gone when sought for. The same rule appears to apply to all kinds of
bailment. If the chattels bailed are not forthcoming, the onus is in the first
place upon the bailee to show circumstances negativing negligence on his part ;
see note (2), p. 545, post. But he need not account for the loss or prove that he
knows how it happened {Bullen v. Swan Electric Engraving Co. (1907), 23 T. L. R.
258 ; Phipps v. New Olaridge's Hotel, Ltd., supra).
{q) Jones on Bailments, 4th ed. p. 48 ;
Story on Bailments, s. 83.
(r) Ibid.
(s) R. V. Beeves (1859), 5 Jur. (N. s.) 716, where a man who was lying on the
ground partially tipsy, permitted a person with whom he was acquainted, to take
his watch out of his pocket without any effort on his part to prevent liim, upon
the supposition that his acquaintance was actuated by a friendly motive, and
—
528 Bailment.
Sect. 1. immediate control, is deposited upon the land or the premises of

Deposit. another. For example, timber carried by the tide in a navigable
river and left at low water on the towing path {t), fruit dropped on
a neighbour's garden, or a tree which has fallen on the field of an
adjacent proprietor. In such cases, so long as the involuntary
depositary does no overt act to the chattel thus deposited on his
land, he incurs no responsibility to the true owner in respect
thereof. But, if he interferes with it, an implied contract of bail-
ment is created, with all its obligations and responsibilities, and
if he not only interferes with it, but uses it for his own purposes,
such user amounts to a conversion, and a fortiori this is the case,

if he intentionally misuses it (u).
Involuntary 1078. Where a chattel is sent, without request or arrange-

deposit.
ment, by one person to another, who does not hold himself out to
receive it, the person to whom it is sent is under no liability
to the sender for its safe custody or protection (v); but he must,
not use it or otherwise convert it to his own use(w).
of course,
Conversely, it has been suggested that where a man without
previous request from the owner offers to take charge of a chattel,
such an offer constitutes an inducement to the bailor to part with
the possession of the chattel, and binds the bailee to exercise
special care in its custody (x).
Sub-Sect. 3. Finding of Chattels,
When finder 1079. In the case of a casual finding of a lost chattel in a public
of a chattel there is no obliojation on the finder to take charpje
place, ^ of it
IS a bailee. ^ ^
it was held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the person of the statutory
oftence of larceny as a bailee,
{t) Nicholson v. Chapman (1793), 2 Hy. Bl, 254, ^gr Eyre, C.J., at p. 257, where
timber moored in a navigable river, within the flux and reflux of the tide, floated
from the place where it was deposited, till the tide fell and left it again upon the
banks of the river, and it was thence voluntarily conveyed by a person to a
place of safety it was held that such person had no lien on the timber for any
;
expense he incurred in so removing it, but was liable to an action of trover

unless he delivered it up to the owner on demand compare Binstead v. Buck ;
(1777), 2 Wm. Bl. 1117. Qwcere whether he could have maintained an action
against the owner for compensation semhle he could not.
;
(u) Mulgrave v. Ogden (1591), Cro. (Eliz.) 219 IsaacJc v. Clark (1613), 2 Bulst.
;
306.
(v) Howard v. Harris (1884), 1 Cab. & El. 253, where the plaintiff, an author,
being asked by the defendant, the lessee of a theatre, to send him a sketch or synopsis
of his play, sent the whole manuscript, which the defendant lost, and it was held
that no duty of any kind was cast on the defendant by sending him something he
had not asked for (see per Williams, J., at p. 254). This decision accords
with that in Lethbridge v. Phillips (1819), 2 Stark. 544, where a picture was
without defendant's knowledge or request sent to defendant's house, and was there
injured.
{w) This seems to follow on principle compare the cases cited in note {t),
;
supra, and the analogous principles governing the buyer's acceptance of goods
not in accordance with the contract, for which see Grimoldby v. Wells (1875),
L. E. 10 0. P. 391 Humor v. Groves (1855), 15 C. B. 667; Chapman v.
;
Morton (1843), 11 M. & W. 534, now embodied in Sale of Goods Act, 1893,
(56 & 57 Vict. c. 71), s. 35.
- (x) Jones on Bailments, 4th ed. pp. 47, 121, following Pothier and the
Roman lawyers. Contra, Story on Bailments, s. 82.
—
at all. If, however, the finder actually takes it into his custody, Sect. i.
he is regarded as a depositary, unless he can show that he had good Deposit,

ground for believing that the owner intended to divest himself of
his property in the lost chattel (?/).
If, however, when he finds the chattel, he really believes that the When owner,
true owner cannot be ascertained, or has intentionally parted with

the property in it, his duties as bailee towards the true owner
become merged in his own possessory rights as finder (z).
The finder of a chattel is guilty of larceny if he takes it meaning When thief.
to appropriate it to himself, knowing or having reasonable grounds
for believing that the owner can be found. But if, when he takes it,
he has reason to believe that the owner has abandoned it or that he
cannot be found, a subsequent conversion of it after discovery of
the owner is not larceny (a).
If a bailee intrusted with a chattel for a specific purpose, such as Finding by
bailee.
its reparation or alteration, finds concealed therein some property
the presence of which therein was unknown to the true owner at the
time when he delivered the chattel over, such property belongs
to the owmer of the chattel and not to the bailee (b). And if the
bailee commits some act in regard to the concealed property not
warranted by the purpose for which the chattel was delivered to
him, such unwarranted act amounts to a conversion {b).
So, if a person purchase a chattel, such as a writing desk or By purchaser,
bureau, and subsequently to the purchase find concealed therein
property the existence of which was unknown to both buyer and
seller at the time of the purchase, such property as a rule belongs
to the seller of the chattel and not to the buyer, who is merely
a bailee of it (c). But in each case the actual rights of the parties
to the property are questions of fact to be deduced from the condi-
tions or circumstances attendant on the sale and an important;
factor in determining the question is the honest belief of the

purchaser as to what was to be conveyed to him at the time he
made the bargain (c).
(y) Isaack v. Glark (1609), 2 Biilst. 306, per Lord Coke, at p. 312. Compare
Story on Bailments, ss. 85 87. —
[z) " If one is possessed of a jewel, and casts it into the sea or a public
highway, this is such an express dereliction, that a property will be vested
in the first fortunate finder that will seize it to his own use. But if he loses or
drops it by accident, it cannot be collected from thence that he designed to quit
the possession, and therefore in such a case the property still remains in the loser,
who may claim it again of the tinder " (2 Bl. Com. 9).
{a) B. V. Thurborn (1849), 1 Den. C. C. 387, 396 B. v. Glyde (1868), L. R.
;
1 C. C. E. 139, per Cockburn, C.J., at p. 144 B. v. Deaves (1869), 3 Ir. K.

;
C. L. 306, and cases referred to therein. See also title Criminal Law and
Procedure.
(6) Cartiuright y. Green (1803), 8 Ves. 405, per Lord Eldon, at p. 409: ''If
a pocket-book containing bank notes was left in the pocket of a coat sent to be
mended, and the tailor took the pocket-book out of the pocket, and the notes
out of the pocket-book, there is not the least doubt that is a felony. So if
the pocket-book were left in a hackney coach, if ten people were in the coach in
the course of the day, and the coachman did not know to which of them it
belonged, he acr[uires it by finding it, certainly, but not being intrusted with
it for the purpose of opening it, that is a felony according to the modern
cases."
(c) Merry v. Green (1841), 7 M. & W. 623, where a person purchased, at a
H.L. — I. MM
630 Bailment.
Sect. 1. ^ fortiori the general rule stated

above applies if at the time
Deposit. of the purchase the existence of the concealed property was known
to the buyer, but not to the seller, whilst, on the other hand, if its
existence was known to the seller, but not to the buyer, the property
belongs to the buyer and not to the seller, the knowledge of the
seller raising a presumption in law that he intended to pass to
the buyer his entire interest in the property, and not merely his
interest in that portion of it which the buyer suppo .ed he was
purchasing (f?).
Eights of 1080. As against everyone save the true owner, the property
^ chattel found in a public or quasi--p-ah\iG place vests in the
tMrd^ artieT^
finder (e). And the finder can successfully maintain an action
against any person, except the true owner, who may dispossess
him of it. A
person possessed of a chattel has a good title
as against every stranger, and anyone who takes it from the
possessor, having no title in himself, is a wrongdoer, and cannot
defend himself by showing that the real title was in some third
person (/). Consequently a finder in actual possession of a chattel,
the property of another, can recover its value in an action
of trover against a wrongdoer who takes it from him (g).
Moreover, as against the wrongdoer who dispossesses the actual
finder, a jury may make every possible inference (h) not only as
to the property in the chattel, but also as to its value ; therefore,
the presumption being, in the absence of the production of the
chattel by the tort-feasor, that the property converted was of
the finest quality, the damages may be assessed by the jury on
that basis (i).
public auction, a secretary in which he afterwards discovered, in a secret drawer,

a purse containing money, which he appropriated to his own use. At the time of
the sale neither the buyer nor the seller knew that the bureau contained any-
thing whatever, and it was held by Parke, B., at p. 631, that, "though there
was a delivery of the secretar}^, and a lawful property in it thereby vested in the
j)laintiff, there was no delivery so as to give a lawful possession of the purse and
money."
(d) Merry v. Gh-een (1841), 7 M. & W. 623.
(e) Bridges v. Hawkesworth (1851), 21 L. J. (q. b.) 75, where it was held that a
-
person who found on the floor of a shop a packet of banknotes which had been
accidentally dropped there by a stranger, who could not be found, was entitled to
them as against everyone except the true owner, on the ground that the shop was
a gwasz-public place. But chattels found in the sea, whether j'etsam, that is, sunk
under water; flotsam, afloat on the surface of the water; or ligan, sunk under
water, but tied to a buoy or chattels cast ashore by shipwreck, belong to the
;
Crown if the true owner fails to appear, unless the right to them has been granted
to a subject. The same principle applies to the finding of whales or sturgeon,
whether in the sea or cast ashore (1 Bl. Com. '290). See, further, titles Admiralty ;
Shipping and Navigation.

(/) Jeffries Y. Great Western Bail. Co. (1856), 5 E. & B. 802, j3er Lord Campbell,
C.J., at p. 805.
(g) Ibid., 'per Crompton, J., at p. 807 ; Armory v. Delamirie (1722), 1
Str.
505, and 1 Sm. L. C. (Uth ed.) 356. As to the right to sue in trover, see title
Trover and Conversion.
Mortimer Y. Cradock (1843), 12 L. J. (c. P.) 166, per Tindal, C.J., at p. 167.
(/i)
(i)See Mortimer v. Cradock, supra, and Armory v. Delamirie, supra. As

to cases where the maxim "Omnia prsesumuntur contra spoliatorem " shifts
-
the onus of proof, see Williamson v. Rover Cycle Co., [1901] 2 Ir. K189, at
p. 202, affirmed, [1901] 2 Ir. R. 615.
——
1081. Where chattels, other than treasure-trove {j), waifs (k), and Sect. i.
estrays (l), are found on private property, the owner of the property, Deposit,
and not the finder, whether he is the servant of such owner or a ^1^^^^^^
stranger, is entitled to them and can maintain an action in detinue found on
for their possession {m). private
property.
Sub-Sect 4, OhJigations of the Bailee^
1082. The measure of dilipjence demanded of a gratuitous Measure of

depositary is a rule that degree of diligence which men of diligence,
as
common prudence generally exercise about their own affairs {n).
In order, therefore, to maintain an action, in the case of a gratuitous
deposit, the plaintiff must show that the defendant has been guilty
of either a breach of orders, gross negligence, or fraud (o). As a
general rule, the fact that he keeps chattels deposited with him in
the same manner as he keeps his own is not sufficient to exempt a
gratuitous bailee from liability, though this degree of care may be
sufficient to repel the presumption of gross negligence {p). If,
however, the subject-matter of the bailment is injured or destroyed
" Treasure-trove, is where any gold or silver in coin, plate, or bullion is found
( j)
concealed in a house, or in the earth or other private place, the owner thereof
being unknown, in which case the treasure belongs to the King or his grantee,
having the franchise of treasure-trove. ... If the owner, instead of hiding the
treasure, casually lost it, or purposely parted with it in such a manner that it is
evident he intended to abandon the property altogether, and did not purpose to
resume it on another occasion, or if he threw it on the ground, or other public
place, or in the sea, the tirst finder is entitled to the property as against every one
but the owner, and the King's prerogative does not in this respect obtain. So that
it is the hiding, and not the abandonment of the property that entitles the King
to it." Chitty on Prerogatives, p. 152, cited by Farwell, J., in A.-G. v.
Tntstees of British Museum, [1903] 2 Ch. 598, at p. 608. The right only passes
to a subject by express grant, ibid. See also A.-G. v. Moore, [1893] 1 Gh. 676.
See Constitutional Law Coroners.
titles ;
(k) That is, goods stolen and thrown away by the thief in his flight. They
belong to the owner, unless he is guilty of default in pursuing the thief, when
they belong to the Crown. But if they are not thrown away by the thief in his
flight, but are hidden or left anywhere by him, they are not waifs, and belong in
any case to the owner, 1 Bl. Com. 297.
(l) That is, animals found wandering in any manor or lordship, their owner
being unknown. The}^ belong to the Crown, or to the lord by special grant,
unless claimed by their owner within a year and a day, 1 Bl. Com. 297 see title
;
Animals.
(m) South Staffordshire Water Go. v. Sharman, [1896] 2 Q. B. 44. Where the
property on which the chattels are found is in the occupation of a lessee, they
belong to the lessor, and not to the lessee, if they were there at the time the lease
was granted, unless the terms of the lease are wide enough to cover them [ElwesY.
Brigg Gas Go. (1886), 33 Ch. D. 562). But if they were not on the property at
the time of the lease, they would seem to belong to the lessee on the principle
laid down in South Staffordshire Water Go. v. Sharman, supra.
(n) Gihlin v. McMullen (1869), L. R. 2 P. C. 317, per Lord Chelmsford, at
p. 337 ;Bullen v. Swan Electric Engraving Go. (1907), 23 T. L. R. 258.
(o) v. Mourgue (1776), 2 Cowp. 479
Moore see per Lord Mansfield, at p. 480.
;
{p) Gihlin v. McMullen, supra, per Lord Chelmsford, at p. 339. Compare

Boorman v. Jenkins (1834), 2 A. & E. 256, in which case defendant, a coff'ee-house
keeper, accepted from plaintiff the deposit of a sum of £32 105. wherewith to
take up a bill which would be presented there for payment, and placed it with
money of his own to a much larger amount in a cash-box, which box he kept in
the taproom, whence it was stolen on a Sunday, a day on which the room was
open to the public while the rest of the house was closed; the jury were told by
Lord Denman " that it did not follow from the defendant's having lost his own
MM 2
—
532 Bailment.
Sect. 1. whilst in the custody of the bailee, although similar chattels

Deposit. belonging to him sustain no damage, it is conceived that the onus
of proof lies on the ba,ilee to show that he has not unduly
favoured his own chattels
Modified by The amount of diligence which is required may also be affected
locality. by the particular locality in which the bailment is effected. Thus
in agricultural districts it is usual to leave barns, in which horses
and other cattle are kept, unlocked at night but in cities it would
;
be deemed a great want of caution to act in the same manner (?•).

Or "by If the bailee be notoriously either a dissipated, negligent, or
character
imprudent man (s), and the bailor was aware of the fact, a pre-
of bailee.
sumption might be raised that the bailor only expected of him such
lax amount of care as the bailee was in the habit of bestowing on
his own chattels of a similar nature (s).
Or by nature In every case it is Court to decide whether there is
for the
of chattels.
any evidence of breach of duty on the part of the bailee, and if
there is evidence of such breach of duty, the jury, after con-
sidering all the circumstances of the case, the nature, portability,
value and character of the chattel, must decide whether such
evidence is sufficient to justify the charge of negligence (i). The
fact that the chattelwas lost or injured whilst in the possession of
the bailee raises a prima facie presumption against him, but he
may rebut it by proving that he was not to blame for the loss or
injury, even if unable to show how it happened (it).
Acts of third Except by special agreement, a gratuitous depositary is not

parties. liable to his bailor for the misfeasances of third parties, whereby the
chattel bailed is damaged or stolen, unless it can be shown that
he was guilty of such negligence in its conduct or custody as to
amount to gross negligence or fraud (v) .
Effect of 1083. As in every other contract, a gratuitous bailee may, by

special special agreement, either limit or enlarge his legal liability for loss
contract.
money at the same time as the plaintiff's that he had taken such care of the
plaintiff's moneyas a reasonable man would ordinarily take of his own," and that
the fact relied upon Avas no answer to the action if they believed that the loss had
occurred from gross negligence, at the same time expressing his own opinion that
it had not. The jury found for the plaintiff, and the verdict was upheld by the
Court in banc. Lord Denman's direction was expressly approved by tlie Privy
Council in Gihlin v. McMullen (1869), L. E. 2 P. C. 317, at p. 339, in which case,
however, the Court said the plaintiff (Giblin) should have been nonsuited. See
also Nelson v. Macintosh (1816), 1 Stark. 237 Dartnall v. Hoivard (1825), 4
;
B. & C. 345.
{q) Pothier, Pret a Usage, s. 56.
(r) Story on Bailments, s. 13.
(s) The William (1806), 6 Ch. Bob. 316. See also Coggs v. Bernard (1703), 2
Ld. Baym. 909, per Lord Holt, at p. 914, who says, " Suppose the bailee is an
idle, careless, drunken fellow, and comes home drunk and leaves all his doors open,
and by reason thereof the goods happen to be stolen with his own yet he shall
;
not be charged, because it is the bailor's own folly to trust such an idle fellow "
a dictum requiring the qualification given in the text.
{t) Gihlin v. McMullen, supra. See also Ryder v. Womhivell (1868), L. B. 4 Exch.
32, at pp. 38 and 39.
{u) See note (_p), p. 527, ante.
{v) Coggs v. Bernard, supra, at p. 913 ; Nelson v. Macintosh, supra, at p. 238 ;
Gihlin v. McMidlen, supra ; Jones on Bailments, pp. 46, 47 ; Scott v. National

Bank of Chester Valley (1874), 10 Canada L. J. (n. s.) 182.
—
î^gt. i.
or damage to the chattel with which he has been intrusted by its
owner. His liability then depends upon the terms of the contract (x). Deposit.
Consequently, if the bailee, in assuming possession of the chattel,
expressly undertakes to keep it safely, he enlarges the measure
of his responsibility, and by virtue of his express agreement may
even make himself an insurer of it (a). Yet such a bailee's
responsibility is limited in some respects. For though his under-
taking to keep the chattel intrusted to him safely binds him to
keep it safely against all perils and answer for accidents or
theft (6), yet he will not be liable in the case of casualties happen-
ing by an act of God, such as fire or tempest, or by the King's
enemies (e), and it is immaterial whether the contract is verbal or
in writing {d) .
1084. The bailee must return the chattel bailed to the bailor on Return of
demand, otherwise he may be sued in detinue or trover, and he is ^^^^^

further liable for damages occasioned by loss of use during the
period for which it is detained (e). He is equally responsible for
it, notwithstanding it is no longer in his possession or custody, or
in that of anyone over whom he can exercise control, if he parted

with it without just cause (/). But he is excused if his failure to
return it arises from its loss or destruction without any default on
his part {g).
1085. Where a customer leaves valuables with his bankers (li) Deposits with
^^^^^^^^
any other trader to retain
for safe custody, or allows a printer or
his plates or chattels, upon which the trader may have worked,
it is not always easy to say whether the bailment is gratuitous
(depositum) or one for reward to the bailee (locatio custodice).

Although no specific charge for keeping is made, it may well be
that the custodian gets indirectly some consideration for the
service, either in being allowed to continue to keep the customer's
account, or in the prospect of future work (i). As a general rule,
(x) Trefftz v. Canelli (1872), L. R. 4 P. C. 277, 281 ; Kettle v. Bromsall (1738),

Willes, 118, 121.
(a) Jones on Bailments, p. 43, where Southcote^s Case (1601), 4 Co. Rep. 83 b, is
discussed.
(6) Kettle v. Bromsall, supra.
(c) Coggs v. Bernard (1703), 2 Ld. Raym. 909, at p. 918.
{d) Ibid, at p. 915.
(e) Nyherg v. Handelaar, [1892] 2 Q. B. 202 ; Granch v. White (1835), 1 Bing.
(N. c.) 414, 420 ; Cullen v. Barclaij (1881), 10 L. R. Ir. 224.
(/) Jones V. Dowle (1841), 9 M. & W. 19, per Parke, B., at p. 20 Wilkinson
;
V. Verity (1871), L. R. 6 C. P. 206.
{g) Taylor v. Caldwell (1863), 3 B. & S. 826, per Blackburn, J., at p. 838.
(h) Gihlin v. McMullen (1869), L. R. 2 P. C. 317, where bankers with whom the
plaintiff's testator had deposited for safe custody a box (of which he kept the key)
containing railway debentures, which were stolen hj the bankers' cashier, who
had the keys of the strong room, were found to be gratuitous bailees, as were the
bankers in Scott v. National Bank of Chester Valley (1874), 10 Canada L. J. (n. s.)
182 while those in Re United Service Co., Johnston's Cla,im (1871), 6 Ch. App. 212,
;
were held to be bailees for reward. See also title Bankers and Banking,
pp. 627 et seq., post. For forms applicable to deposit of valuables with bankers,
yee Encyclopsedia of Forms, Vol. II., p. 471.
(i) Bullen v. Swan Electric Engraving Co. (1906), 22 T. L. R. 275, êr Walton, J.,
at p. 277, affirmed (1907), 23 T. L. R. 258. See also title Press and Printing.
534 Bailment.
Sect. 1. however, it appears that such persons are to be considered as

Deposit, gratuitous bailees, on whom the duty hes of taking such care
as a reasonable owner would take of his own property of a similar
kind(y).
Sub-Sect, 5. — User of Chattel
Effect of 1086. The bailee is precluded from using the chattel bailed for
nsins: chattel.
his own personal advantage in any manner whatsoever without the
consent of the bailor, express or implied, unless such use is needful
for its preservation (k). Apart from such necessary use, if the
bailee apply the chattel to any purpose other than that of bare
custody he becomes responsible for any loss or damage resulting
from his breach of good faith (Z), except where the cause of the loss
or damage is independent of his acts and is inherent in the chattel
itself iin). The act of the bailee in doing something inconsistent
with the terms of the contract terminates the bailment, causing
the possessory title to revert to the bailor, and entitling him to
maintain an action of trover {n).
A fortiori this rule applies when the unwarranted action of
the bailee results either in the destruction or permanent alteration
in character of the thing bailed (o).
Opening of If the chattel deposited is contained in a sealed or locked receptacle,
receptacle. the depository has no right to open it, and it is a breach of the con-
fidential relation on which this contract is based if he does so
unnecessarily {p).
Consequence 1087. If a bailee deals with the chattels intrusted to him in a

of breach of
duty.
way not authorised by the bailor, he takes upon himself the risk
of so doing.
Place of If, therefore, the bailee without necessity, and without the per-
deposit. mission of the bailor, fails to keep the chattel intrusted to him in the
place where he has undertaken to keej) it, that is, apart from express
agreement, in the place where he himself usually keeps his own
chattels of a similar description, he becomes by reason of his breach
of duty an insurer .of the chattel, and is liable to the bailor
for any loss or damage caused thereby (5), unless he can show that
such loss or damage did not arise out of his breach of duty, but
must have taken place as inevitably at the one place as at the
other (?•).
(y) Bullen V. Swan Electric Engraving Co. (1906), 22 T. L. R. 275, affirmed

(1907), 23 T. L. R. 258.
{k) Re Tidd, [1893] 3 Ch. 154, where money was handed to be taken care of,
but with the intention that the bailee might use it. North, J., held (p. 156) that
it " was received, not as a loan, but as a trust for safe custody."
(I) Pothier, Contrat de Depot, ss. 34, 35.
(m) Lilley v. DouUeday (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 510, yer Grove, J., at p. 511.
{n) Fenn v. Bittleston (1851), 21 L. -T. (ex.) 41.
(0) Wilkinson v. Verity (1871), L. E. 6 C. P. 206.
Pothier, Contrat de Depot, s. 38. See also R. v. Rohson {imi\ 31 L. J.
{jp)
(m. c.) 22.
.
(q) Ibid. ; Mytton v. Cock (1738), 2 Str. 1099.
(r) Lilley v. Boubleday, supra, at p. 511 ; Davis v. Garrett (1830), 6 Bing. 716,
per TiNDAL, C.J., at p. 724.
—
— —
Part 11. Gratuitous Bailment. 535
Sect. 2. Mandate, Sect. 2.
Sub.Sect. 1.—7;^ General Mandate.
1088. Mandate, or mandatum, is another species of gratuitous Definition of

bailment. It may be defined as a bailment of a specific chattel mandate.
in regard to which the bailee engages to do some act without
reward (s) Here the safe custody of the chattel deposited is ancillary
.
to an undertaking by the bailee to do some act to it, or to perform

some service in connection with it (t). Thus the great distinction
between mandate and deposit is that the former lies in feasance and
the latter in custody
In this form of bailment confidence in the capacity, skill, and Considera-
honour of the bailee duly to perform the act or employment under-
taken by him, and not merely or chiefly his promise to safeguard
the chattels while in his charge, constitutes the consideration
moving the owner to deliver it over into his custody {x).
An executory contract of mandate is not enforceable by law, for
a person undertaking to })erform a vohmtary act is not liable if he
neglects to perform it at all {a).
1089. If the contract of mandate is contained in a written Ambiguous

contract,
instrument which is expressed in ambiguous terms, and the bailee
is in fact misled and adopts one interpretation when the bailor
intended him to follow^ the other, then the bailor will be bound,
and the bailee will be exonerated {h).
In the case of impossible undertakings the bailee is not liable, impossibility
The impossibility must be absolute and not relative, mere difficulty or difficulty
contract,
in execution or the violation of trade custom not being sufficient
ground for excusing non-performance when once the employment
is entered upon (c).
Acontract of mandate for the performance of an immoral or illegality,
illegal act cannot be enforced, as no Court will enforce an illegal

contract or allow itself to be made the instrument of enforcing
obligations alleged to arise out of a contract or transaction which is
illegal. And it is immaterial whether or not the defendant has
pleaded the illegality {d).
Sub-Sect. 2. OUigations of the Mandatary.
1090. The mandatary, equally with the depositary, is responsible Obligations,

to the bailor for any loss or damage to the chattel intrusted to
Story on Bailments, s. 137.

{s) And see Heinec, Pand., par. 3, lib. 17,
s. where Heinecciiis thus defines the contract " Mandatum (â manus datione
230, :
dictum), quod est contractus consensualis, bonse fidei quo alteri negotium gratis
gerendum, comraittitur, et ab altero suscipitur."
{t) Coggs V. Bernard (1703), 2 Ld. Kaym. 909, 918.
(it) Jones on Bailments, p. 53.
(x) Coggs v. Bernard, supra, at p. 919, and see Story on Bailments, s, 140 ;
Pothier, Contrat de Mandat, c. 1.

{a) Skeltonv. London and North Western Rail. Go. (1867), L. R. 2 C. P. 6'31,per
WiLLES, J., at p. 636 Msee v. Gatward (1793), 5 Term Rep. 143, per Lord
;
Kenyon, C.J., at p. 148 and see Goggs^y. Bernard, supra, at p. 919.

;
(6) Story on Agency, s. 74.

(c) Tufnell v. Gonstahle (1838), 7 A. & E. 798.
{d) Scott V. Broivn, Doermg, McNab S Go., [1892] 2 Q. B. 724, per Lindley,
L.J., at p. 728, citing Holman v. Johnson (1775), Cowp. 341.
636 Bailment.
Sect. 2. him any breach of duty on his part in respect of

arising out of
Mandate. its custody (e).
safe Further, apart from special contract, he
must act prudently and honourably, and exercise reasonable care
and diligence in the conduct of the employment which he has under-
taken he must use such care and diligence as persons ordinarily
;
use in their own affairs, and such skill as he possesses (/).

Representa- If a mandatary holds himself out as possessing exceptional skill
tion of skill.
by reason of his profession or occupation, and is in consequence
trusted by the mandator for a particular task, he is liable for
negligence if he fail to use such skill (g) .
The publicprofession of an art is a representation that the

professor possesses the requisite skill and ability. When, therefore,
a skilled labourer, artisan, or artist is employed, he warrants
impliedly that he is possessed of sufficient skill to perform the task
that he undertakes, even if the undertaking be without reward (h).
Duty to
account.
1091. A
mandatary who receives moneys or chattels on account
of bound to account for them (i)
his principal is and if he ;
deposits them in his own name, with other chattels of his own of
a like nature, in the hands of a third party, he is liable to his
principal for any loss or damage to them during the existence of
such deposit, even if his principal was aware of his course of
procedure, but did not assent to it (i).
When the return of the chattel bailed constitutes part of the
obligation of the mandatary, he is bound to restore not only the
chattel itself, but also all increments profits and earnings
immediately derived from it (k). If, however, the mandate be to
put out money at interest, the specific coins delivered to the
mandatary are not to be returned, but he is bound to return their
equivalent in value and interest thereon (Z).
No secret The mandatary is also liable to account to the bailor for any secret
profits.
profits which he may have received in respect of the conduct or
management of the business which he has undertaken gratuitously
to perform (m) .
Misuse of 1092. When a mandatary does some act to the chattel bailed
chattel bailed.
unauthorised by the agreement made between himself and the

(/) Beauchamp v. Powley (1831), 1 Mood. & lil. 38 ; Beal v. South Devon Rail.
Co. (1864), 3 H. & C. 337, per Crompton, J., at p. 342 ; Shiellsv. Blachhurne (1789),
1 Hy. Bl. 159.
[g] Shiells v. Blachhurne, supra, per Heath, J., at p. 162. See Bourne v. Biggies
(1814), 2 Chitt. 311 ; O'Hanlon v. Murray (1860), 12 Ir. C. L. R. 161 ; and Wilson
V. Brett (1843), 11 M. & W. 113, where a skilled horseman riding gratuitously a
horse to show it to a purchaser on behalf of the owner was held liable for
injuring it by riding it on improper ground.
Qh) Harmer v. Cornelius (1858), 5 C. B. (n. s.) 236 ; Shiells v. Blackhurne,
supra.
(i) Massey
v. Banner (1820), 4 Madd. 413.
Pothier, Contrat de Mandat, ss. 58
(k) 60 —
" Thus if animals are to be
:
restored, their young also belong to the bailor. ... If a vehicle has been
delivered to be let for hire, the mandatary must account for the hire earned, as
well as for the vehicle " (Story on Bailments, s. 194).
.{I) Pothier, Contrat de Mandat, s. 59. Compare the case of mutuum, p. 5^0, post.
(m) See Kimber v. Barher (1872), 8 Ch. App. 56, and title Agency, p. 189, ante.
———— — . .
bailor, lie becomes responsible for any subsequent loss or damage Sect. 2.
which may be caused to such chattel by his unwarranted act (n). Mandate.
1093. As a general rule, a mandatary is bound to redeliver to Duty to

his principal the chattel intrusted to him upon the fulfilment of letum.
the purpose for which he received it but if it has been destroyed ;
or damaged without any default on his part, he will in the absence

of special contract or some positive rule of law be exempt from any
claim for damage or non-delivery (o).
Sub-Sect. 3. Delegation hy Mandatary,
1094. There is, as a general rule, no power of delegation in the Delegation,

contract of mandate, the legal presumption being that the under-
taking is personal to the mandatary and cannot be by him handed
over to another But where in the ordinary course of business
the custody wôuld naturally devolve upon, or the acts be performed
by, some servant or agent of the mandatary, delegation is per-
missible {q). And in such a case the bailee is not liable if any loss
or damage happens to the chattel during the period of delegation,
without any negligence on the part of his substitute (r).
Sub-Sect, 4. Obligations of the Mandator.
1095. A mandatary is entitled to his actual disbursements and Reimburse-

out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the service, as otherwise ^^nt.
a gratuitous act would become a burden (s)
Sect. 3. Gratuitous Loan for Use.
1096. In depositum and mandatum the bailor has all the advan- Commodatum.
tage of the bailment. In commodatum, however, the reverse is the
case. Commodatum is a bailment where a chattel is lent by its
owner to the bailee for the express purpose of conferring a benefit
upon the latter, without any corresponding advantage to its owner.
By our law this contract is confined to goods, chattels, or personal contract con-
property, and does not, as under the civil law, extend to real fined to
estate {t). The loan of the use of real estate or chattels real is no ^hatS^
more than a licence beneficially to occupy a tenement or other
hereditament belonging to the licensor for a particular or indeter-
minate period (u). Consequently there can be no bailment of a
structure affixed to real property (x)
(n) Nelson v. Macintosh (1816), 1 Stark. 237 ; Milesv. Cattle (1830), 4 Moo. & P.
630.
(o) Story on Bailments, s. 25.
(p) Bringloe v. Morrice (1676), 1 Mod. Rep. 210.
{q) Lord Camoys v. Scurr (1840), 9 C. & P. 383, where defendant, having
received a mare to try, was held, per Coleridge, J., at p. 386, entitled to put a
competent person on the mare to try her. See also title Agency, p. 170, ante.
(r) Ibid.
(s) Story on Bailments, s. 154.
(t) Ibid., s. 223.
(u) Williams v. Jones (1865), 11 Jur. (n. s.) 483.
(x) Quarman v. Burnett (1840), 6 M. & W. 499 per Parke, B., p. 511.
—
538 Bailment.
Sect. 3. Sub-Sect. 2. OUigations of the Borrower.

Gratuitous
1097. The lender must be taken to lend for the purpose of a
Loan
for Use.
beneficial use by the borrower. The borrower, therefore, is not
responsible for reasonable wear and tear (t/). But as he alone
Obligations receives benefit from the contract, he is liable for negligence, how-
of borrower.
ever slight and he is bound to exercise the utmost degree of care
;
in regard to the chattel bailed {£) and anything that is accessory

thereto {a).
Modified by What proper diligence, and what constitutes neglect, in a

is
circum- borrowêr, his custody of the chattel lent, depends upon the
in
stances.
circumstances of each particular case, the nature of the chattel
lent, and the character and occupation of the borrower {h).
Exceptions. As a general rule, however, he is not liable if, without any
default on his part, the performance of his contract becomes an
absolute impossibility, or for loss or injury arising from the
wrongful act person which could not be reasonably fore-
of a third
seen or prevented, or from the results of external and irresistible
violence (c). Consequently, if the borrower's house be destroyed by
fire, and, owing to his exertions in saving his own chattels, he be
unable to save the chattel borrowed by him, it is extremely doubtful
whether he must compensate the owner for its destruction merely
because he preferred his own property to that which had been lent
to him for his benefit {cl). A borrower, however, is usually liable
{y) Blakemore v. Rail. Co. (1858), 8 E. & B.

Bristol and Exeter 1035, ^êr
Coleridge, J., at p. Pomfret v. Ricroft (1669), 1 Saimd. 321, 323.
1051 ;
(z) Coggs v. Bernard (1703), 2 Ld. Raym. 909, at p. 915, per Holt. C.J, "The :
borrower is "bound to the strictest care and diligence to keep the goods so as to
restore them to the lender, because the bailee has a benefit by the use of them,
so if the bailee be guilty of the least neglect lie will be answerable. If the . . .
bailee [of a horse] put the horse in his stable, and he were stolen from thence^
the bailee shall not be answerable for him but if he or his servant leave the ;
house or stable doors open, and the thieves take the opportunity of that and steal
the horse, he will be chargeable because the neglect gave the thieves the occasion to
steal the horse, but yet he shall not be chargeable where there is such a force
. . .
as he cannot resist " see also Vaughan v. Menlove (1837), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 468, per
;
TiNDAL, C.J., at p. 475 Jones on Bailments, p. 64. This view of the measure of
;
the responsibility of the borrower is also taken by Pothier, who says that it is-
not sufficient for the borrower to exert the same ordinary care which fathers of
families are accustomed to use about their own affairs, but that he ought to exert
all possible care, such as the most careful persons apply to their own affairs, and
that he is liable, not only for a slight fault, but also for the slightest fault ; that
is, he is bound to bring to the custody all possible care (Pothier, Pret a Usage, s. 48)»
This superlative degree of carefulness (the exactissima diligentia of the Roman

law) has, however, been doubted by some jurists, one of whom states, " The
commodatory, or person to whom the thing is lent, is not obliged to answer for
any uncontrollable force, or for the loss or damage of the thing which happens by
any fortuitous cause, provided such accident does not intervene through his fault
or neglect, though it is necessary that he should take the same care of the thing
as every prudent man would take of his own goods, since this contract is entered
into for his sake " (Aylifie, Pand., book 4, tit. 16, p. 517).
(a) Jones on Bailments, 4th ed., p. 66.
{h) Wherever a hirer is responsible (as to which see post, p. 552), d fortiori
a borrower is, and. he may be rei?ponsible w^here a hirer is not, seeing that greater
diligence is required of him.
(c) Pothier, Pret a Usage, ss. 38 —
55, 56, and see note {z), supra.
-
{d) Pothier, Pret a Usage, s. 56 Pothier, basing himself upon the Roman
;
law, takes the view that he must compensate the owner, and Sir William Jone&
——
Pakt II. Gratuitous Bailment. 539
to the lender for any loss or damage, if he borrowed the chattel ^^ct. 3.
from its owner merely for the pm*pose of saving his own chattels Gratuitous
from risk of damage or destruction. But he may be exempt if he Loan
can prove that he had previously disclosed to its owner that his forJJse.
object in borrowing it was to enable him to avoid hazarding his
own property (t^).
1098. The borrower's liability, however, is qualified where a Where loan

special contract is substituted for that imposed by the common Q^gj,^^^^
law, and possibly also where there has been an ofi'er of the chattel
by the lender to the borrower, though the diminution of liability in
this latter case has been denied (/).
The borrower is liable if he detains the chattel from its owner Detention,
after demand, or after the time agreed upon between them for its
return has expired (g) .
1099. If in his use of what is lent the borrower is put to any Expenses,
ordinary expense, such as feeding or shoeing a horse, inasmuch as
it is he who derives advantage from the user, such expenditure
must in the absence of agreement be borne by him (Ji).

As regards extraordinary expenses incurred by the borrower
in the preservation of the chattel lent, whether arising from inherent
defect, or viciousness peculiar to the chattel itself, or from circum-
stances altogether bejônd his control, such as the tortious acts of
third parties, it is doubtful whether they are to be paid by the
lender and whether the borrower has a lien on the chattel for the
amount of such charges if paid by him (i).
Sub-Sect. 3. Ohliyations of the Lender.
1100. If the lender is aware of any defect in the chattel which Obligations
o^^^^^^®^-
renders it unfit for the purpose for which it is lent, and fails
to communicate the who in consequence is
fact to the borrower,
injured borrower can recover against the lender
thereby, the
damages for any injuries so caused (j). So if the chattel lent has
been put on one side and not used for years, and is then lent with-
out any intimation to the borrower of this fact, and in consequence
of its being out of repair, injury is caused to the borrower, he can
recover in an action against the lender {k). In order to fix the
lender with liability, the use must be of a kind contemplated by
accedes to this doctrine (Jones on Bailments, p. 69), but it is very doubtful if it

is law in England. Compare Story on Bailments, ss. 245 et seq.
(e) Jones on Bailments, p. 70.
(/) Pothier, Pret a Usage, s. 52. Compare note {x), p. 528, ante,
(g) Jones on Bailments, p. 70,
{h) Handforcl v. Palmer (1820), 2 Brod. & Bing. 359 1 Domat, book 1, tit. 5,;
s. 3, art. 4.
{i) The French ss. 81 83 1 Domat, book 1,
jurists (Pothier, Pret a Usage, — ;
tit. 5, s. and Sir William Jones say that the lender must pay such
3, art. 4)
expenses (Jones on Bailments, p. 65). But it is thought that this is not the law
of England. Compare Story on Bailments, ss. 273, 274.
(y> Blahemore v. Bristol and Exeter Rail. Co. (1858), 8 E. & B. 1035, per
Coleridge, J., at p. 1051; Cmighlin y. Gillison, [1899] 1 Q. B. 145, 2)er A. L.
Smith, L.J., at p. 147 MacCarthy v. Young (1861), 6 H. & N. 329.
;
(Jc) Ooughlin v. Gillison, svpra, per Rigby, L. J., at p. 148.

. . — — —
540 Bailment.
Sect. 3. hijîat the time of lending, or subsequently authorised by him (l).

Gratuitous Further, he is not liable for injuries occasioned by defects'^ of which
Loan unaware ^(m)
for Use.
Sub-Sect. 4. User of Chattel lent.
Use of chattel. 1101.The borrower must use the chattel only for the par-
ticular purpose for which it was lent to him, and if he uses it
for any materially different purpose he becomes liable as an
insurer (n)
Use must be Generally speaking, the permission accorded by the owner of
personal.
a chattel to a borrower to use it is purely personal, and
cannot, except by the express consent of the owner, be extended
to a third party (o). The reason for this limitation is obvious.
The chattel is lent by the owner to a person with whose capacity and
honesty he is presumably familiar. Should the borrower therefore
license a third party to use it, the bailment is thereby determined,
and the borrower becomes responsible for any accident that may
happen (p).
Exceptions. When, however, the actual user by a third party is necessary for
the reasonable enjoyment of the chattel lent, the mere fact of its
being lent for use implies a limited power of delegation in the
borrower (q). Thus the loan of a traction engine, a threshing
machine, or some other piece of machinery, must, in the majority
of cases, of necessity imply both superintendence and use by some
person other than the actual and responsible borrower (r).
Sect. 4. Gratuitous Quasi-h ailment,

Sub-Sect. 1. Mutuum.
Mutuum 1102. Mutuum. is the loan of something which is not to be returned
distinguished
from
in specie, but which is to be replaced by something similar and
commodatum. equivalent (s). The contract of mutuum differs from that of
commodatum, in that in the latter a bare possession of the chattel
lent, as distinguished from the property in it, vests in the
(l) Blakemore v. Bristol and Exeter Rail. Co. (1858), 8 E. & B. 1035, 'per
Coleridge, J., at p. 1051.

{m) MacCarthy v. Young (1861), 6 H. & N. 329 Coughlin v.
;
Gillison, [1899]
1 Q. B. 145.
(?i) Bac. Abr. Bailment, C ; Potliier, Pret a Usage, s. 21. See also
Coggs V. Bernard (1703), 2 Ld. Raym. 909, jjer Holt, C.J., at p. 915, "if a man
should lend another a horse to go westward or for a month, if the bailee go
northward or keep the horse above a month, if any accident happen to the horse
in the northern journey, or after the expiration of the month, the bailee will be
chargeable."
The French rule is the same (Code Civil, art. 1881).
(o) Story on Bailments, s. 234.
(p) Bringloe v. Morrice (1676), 1 Mod. Rep. 219 and see Gwilliam v. Twist,
;
[1895] 2 a
B. 84.
{q) Story on Bailments, s. 234. Story says that if A. lends his horse to B. to
make a certain ride, B. alone may ride him, but that if he lends his horses and
carriage to B. for a month the user of them by B.'s family may be fairly presumed
to be contemplated by A., and without doubt B.'s servants could ride or drive the
horses for properly exercising them.
(r) See Lord Camoys v. Scurr (1840), 9 C. & P. 383, where the defendant was
held entitled to put up a groom to ride a mare lent to defendant for trial.
(s) Justin. Inst. lib. 3, tit. 14.
— —
borrower, the true ownership m

it still remaining in the lender Sect. 4. ;
whereas in mutuinn the absolute property in the chattel passes from Gratuitous
the lender to the borrowêr. Quasi-
Mutuum is confined to such chattels as are intended to be con- bailment.
sumed in the using and are capable of being estimated by number, Consumable
weight, or measure, such as corn, wine, or money (O- chattels.
The essence of the contract in the case of such loans is, not that
the borrower should return to the lender the identical chattels lent
— for such specific return would ordinarily render the loan valueless
— but that upon demand or at a fixed date the lender should receive
from the borrower an equivalent quantity of the chattels lent.
Thus, if mone}^ be advanced, its value in money must be returned,
if corn or wine be lent, then similar corn or wine of an equivalent
amount nor wall an enhancement in the commercial value of the

;
commodity lent justify the borrower in tendering a less quantity

than he actually received {u).
It is not, however, a contract of mutuum if a bargain is made Barter,
by which an equivalent value of wine is to be returned for
oil, or flesh for corn, such an exchange constituting a contract
of barter, and therefore coming within a different category

altogether (v).
1103. As a necessary consequence of the absolute transfer of the Obligations

borrower,
property in, as wêll as the custody of, the chattel lent, the borrower
is not, by reason of its accidental loss or destruction, released
from his obligation to return to the owner its equivalent in kind
upon demand, for it is the borrower's property, and the rule is
Ejus est periculum, cujus est dominium (jv).
An actual demand is, however, a condition precedent to an action Demand for
for the non-delivery of the equivalent just as where a man deposits equivalent,
;
money in the hands of another, to be kept for his use, the possession
of the bailee is deemed the possession of the owner until an appli-
cation and refusal, or other denial of the right. The Statute of
Limitations runs from the date of such demand only (x).
Sub-Sect. 2. Pro-mutuum.
1104. Whenever a person, acting under a misapprehension as to Pro-mutuum.

an existing fact or state of facts, delivers to another a chattel which
cannot be restored in specie, there arises the îtasi-contract of pro-
mutuum, which imposes upon the recipient the obligation to restore
its equivalent. Pro-mutuum differs from mutuum in that this
obligation is imposed by law, whereas in mutuum it arises out of
the voluntary agreement between the lender and the borrower it ;
resembles mutuum in that the subject-matter to which it relates
it) Domat, book 1, tit. 6, s. 1 Story on Bailments, s. 283.

1 ;
(it) Domat, book 1, tit. 6, s. 1, art. 9.

1
{v) 1 Domat, book 1, tit. 6, s. 1, art. 10 Jones on Bailments, pp. 64, 102. As
;
to barter, see titles Personal Property Sale op Goods.

;
{iv) Story on Bailments, s. 283 Doctor and Student, ed. by Murcliall, edition
;
1815, 2nd dial, chap, xxxviii.

{x) Re Tidcl, [1893] 3 Ch. 154, fer North, J., at p. 156, approving Pothier
on the Law of Obligations, ed. by Evans, Vol. II., p. 126 and see South
;
Australian Insurance Co. v. Bandell (1869), L. E. 3 P. C. 101, and, generally, title-

Limitation of Actions.
—
542 Bailment.
Sect. 4. must always consist ofmoney or fungibles, i.e., chattels which,

Gratuitous owing to their being consumed in the using, cannot be restored in
Quasi- specie.
bailment. The liability only arises out of an actual delivery of such chattels
by one person to another, and the repayment of the obligation in
chattels answering to the generic description of those advanced will
always satisfy it. Thus if one man owe another twenty bushels of
wheat, and by a mistake as to the amount of his indebtedness, pay
to his creditor thirty bushels in satisfaction of the supposed liability,
the recipient is a bailee to his quondam debtor of the ten bushels so
overpaid, and, as such, is bound to account to him for the surplus.
And a similar liability arises if a man discharge a debt twice over,
or pay the debt of another under a mistaken assumption in point of
fact as to his liability (y) the general rule in such cases being that
;
where money is paid to another under a mistake of fact, an action

will lie to recover it back(^). As, however, the original cause of
the obligation is the mistake of the payer, the recipient is, as a rule,
bound only to repay to him the actual amount overpaid, without
interest (a).
A demand, moreover, is a condition precedent to an action (6).
Sub-Sect, 3. Intermixture of Chattels.
Intermixture 1105. Where the chattels of two persons are intermixed by

by agreement, consent or agreement (c), so that the several portions can be no
longer distinguished, the proprietors have an interest in common
in proportion to their respective shares {d).
By fraud. But if one man wilfully intermixes his chattels with those of
another without the approbation or knowledge of the latter, the law,
to guard against fraud, refuses to allow him any interest in the
result of the intermixture and gives the whole to the latter (e).
By accident. Where, however, a bailee, by accident or inadvertence, mixes the
chattels confided to him by the bailor with his own, or where the
accidental intermixture results from the act of God or of an
unknown third party (/), the mixture, if it is composed of sub-
stances similar in kind and quality, belongs to the bailor and bailee
as tenants in common, in proportion as each contributed to the
(y) Pothier, Contrat de Pret de Consoraption, ss. 132 —

134, and see Gox v.
Prentice (1815), 3 M. & S. 344 Newall v. Tomlison (1871), L. K. 6 C. P. 405
; ;
Milnes v. Duncan (1827), 6 B. & C. 671.

(z) Kelly V. Solari (1841), 9 M. & W. 54, per Parke, B., at p. 58.
(a) Pothier, Contrat de Pret de Consomption, s. 138.

(h) Kelly v. Solaris supra.
(c) Justin. Inst., lib. 2, tit. 1, s. 28.
(d) 2 Bl. Com. 405.
(e) Luptonv. IFhite (1808), 15 Ves. 432, per Lord Eldon, at p. 440 2 Bl. Com.,
;
supra Golwill v. Reeves (1811), 2 Camp. 575, per Lord Ellenborough, at p. 576:
;
" If a man puts corn into my
bag, in which there is before some corn, the
whole is mine, because it is impossible to distinguish what was mine from what
was his ; but it is impossible that articles of furniture can be blended together
so as to create the same difficulty."
(/) Smurthivaite v. Hannay, [1894] A. C. 494, per Lord Russell of Killowen,
approving Spence v. Union Marine Insurance Co. (1868), L.
C.J., at p. 505, 3 C. P. R
427. See also Mackeldey's Modern Civil Law (special part), book 1, s. 270.
. . —— ; —;
combination, an}^ cost attendant on its separation into shares being Sect, 4.
borne by the bailee (//). Gratuitous

But if there be a diversity in quality in the substances so Quasi-
intermixed, the whole heap should be divided and a greater allowance b ailment.
made to the owner wdiose substance is better or finer than that of
the other (It).
Part III. — Bailment for Valuable

Consideration.
Sect. 1. Hire of Custody.
SrB-SECT. 1. Nature of the Contract.
1106. The hire of custody (locatio custodice) is a contract analogous Hire of

to that of deposit (i) custody dis-
tinguished
The two contracts, however, materially differ in that whilst in from deposit.
deposit there is no reciprocity of advantage, all the benefit being
conferred on the bailor, in the contract of hire of custody there
is a mutual advantage to both the ow^ner of the chattel and the
person who undertakes
to keep it safely for reward (j) .
The contract custody for reward, which is consensual and need

of its features,
not be evidenced by writing, necessitates for its inception the con-

currence of the four following conditions :
(1) The subject-matter must be a chattel

(2) The possession of the chattel must be capable of transference
from one party to the other
(3) The custody of the chattel must be the object of the
transference of possession ;
(4) The transference of the custody must be temporary and not

permanent {k).
Given these conditions, the obligation of the custodian for hire
commences as soon as he by any overt act evidences an intention of
exercising responsibility over the chattel intrusted to him. Such,
for instance, would be the act of applying a crane to raise goods
into a warehouse (l)
{g) Buckley v. Gross (1863), 3 B. & S. 566, per Blackburn, J., at p. 575; Jones
V. Moore (1841), 4 Y. & C. (ex.) 351.
(h) Aylitfe, Pand., book 3, tit. 3, p. 291.
_
Innkeepers stand on a different footing from ordinary bailees, and their

(^)
responsibility amounts to an insurance of safety. See title Inns and
Innkeepers.
(./) Story on Bailments, s. 442*
The reward need not be money, it may be
money's worth, and there need not be a specitic reward for the custod}^ if there is
a reward for services which in fact cover the custody.
(k) Pothier, Contrat de Louage,
s. 6 {mutatis mutandis).
[1) Chapman Great Western Rail. Co. (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 278

v. Cailiff v. ;
Danvers (1792), Peake, 155 Mitchell v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Rail Go

;
(1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 256 Thomas v. Day ;(1803), 4 Esp. 262.

—
544 Bailment.
Sect. 1. Sub-Sect, 2. OUigations of the Bailee.

Hire of
Custody. 1107. The contract implies, in the absence of a special agreement,
that the custodian will use due care and diligence in keeping the
Obligations
of bailee.
chattel, in return for a reasonable compensation to be paid by the
owner (in).
But the common law liability of the custodian may be enlarged
or diminished by the conditions contained in a special contract
entered into by the parties. Such conditions will be construed
strictly, and the bailee will be liable for any substantial deviation
therefrom resulting in injury to the chattel (î).
If the custodian in either case deals with the chattel intrusted
to him in a way not authorised by the bailor, he takes upon himself
the risk of so doing, and is- liable for any loss or damage except
such as arises from causes independent of his acts and inherent in
the chattel itself (o).
The effect of the payment for the accommodation afforded
imposes upon the bailee obligations more stringent in their
character than those raised where the custody is a purely
gratuitous one {p).
Apart from special contract, a custodian for reward (^) is not
an insurer of the chattel confided to him. Consequently the
care to be exercised by such a person in its custody is no more
than that which a careful and vigilant man would exercise in
the custody of his own chattels of a similar description and
character (r).
A custodian is therefore bound to see that the chattel intrusted
to him is in proper custody (s) and properly kept(0, and if it
(m) Buxton v. Baughan (1834), 6 C. & P. 674.

Harris v. Great Western Rail. Co. (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 515, êr Blackburn, J.,
{n)
at p. 530 Van Toll v. South Eastern Bail. Co. (1862), 12 C. B. (n. s.) 75, per
;
Erle, C.J., at p. 84.

Douhleda^j (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 510, per Grove, J., at p. 511 ; Streetery.
(o) Lilleij V.
Horlock (1822), 1 Bing. 34. In Lilley v. Douhleday the defendant contracted to
warehouse certain goods for the plaintiff at a particular place, but, contrary to the
terms of his agreement, he warehoused a part of them at another place, where,
without any negligence on his part, they were destroyed. The Court held the
defendant liable, and the damage not too remote.
Co. v. King, [1895] A. C. 632; Searle v. LavericJc (1874),
Ip) See Brahant
L. E. 9 Q. B. 122.
(q) Amongst such
custodians are included agisters of cattle, warehousemen,
forwarding merchants and wharfingers (Story on Bailments, s. 442).
(r) Garside v. Proprietors of Trent and Mersey Navigation (1792), 4 Term
"Rep. 581 Finucane v. Small (1795), 1 Esp. 315
;
Smith v. Cook (1875), 1
;
Q. B. D. 79 Coggs v. Bernard (1703), 2 Ld. Kaym. 909, per Lord Holt at

;
p. 918,
" He is only to do the best he can. And if he be robbed it is a good
account. If he receives money and keeps it locked up with reasonable care
he shall not be answerable for it though it be stolen " Searle v. Laverick,;
supra.
(s) Quiggan v. Duff (1836), 1 M. &
W. 174, per Lord Abinger, C.B., at
p. 180. Compare Re United Service Co., Johnston's Claim (1871), 6 Ch. App.
212.
{t) Brahant <h Co. v. King, supra, where custodians of chattels for reward
'
stored them at such a level that on a flood coming they were destroyed.
See per Lord Watson at p. 640 the bailees " were under a legal obligation
:
to exercise the same degree of care towards the preservation of the goods
—
Part III. Bailment for Valuable Consideration. 545
isinjured through his neghgence, he will not be excused on the ground Sect. i.
that it has subsequently been destroyed by inevitable mischance (u). Hire of

Custody.
1108. He is further responsible to the owner of the chattel
intrusted to him not only for the negligence of his agents or Acts of
servants,
servants (r), but also for their acts of fraud or intentional malice (w),
provided that such acts were committed by them within the apparent
scope of their authority, either in the supposed interest of their
principal or master or in the course of their employment (x). But
such a custodian incurs no responsibility where an act of fraud or
negligence is committed by a servant or agent not in the course of
his employment or outside the scope of his authority (y).
1109. When a chattel intrusted to a custodian is lost, injured, Onus of proof,
or destroyed, the onus of proof is on the custodian to show that

the injury did not happen in consequence of his neglect to use such
care and diligence as a prudent or careful man would exercise in
relation to his own property {z). If he succeeds in showing
this, he is not bound to show how or when the loss or damage
occurred {a). But where a custodian declines either to produce
the chattel intrusted to him, when required to do so by the owner,
or to explain how it has disappeared, such refusal amounts ])rimd
facie to evidence of breach of duty on his part, and throws on him
the onus of showing that he exercised due care in the custody of
the chattel and in the selection of the servants employed by him in
the warehousing {m).
Apart from special contract, a custodian is not responsible to the Fire and
insurance,
owner of the chattel intrusted to him in case of its destruction
by fire (h), although if he insures it he has such an insurable
intrusted to them from injury which might reasonably be expected from a skilled
storekeeper acquainted with the risks to be apprehended either from the character
of the storehouse itself or of its locality, and that obligation included not only
the duty of taking all reasonable precautions to obviate these risks, but the duty
of taking all proper measures for the protection of the chattels when such risks
were imminent or had actually occurred." But if the bailee provide a reasonably
fit place for storing the chattels he is not responsible for such place proving defective,
under exceptional and unlooked-for stress [Searle v. Laverick (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B.

122 Broadwater v. Blot (1817), Holt, N. P. 547).
;
(u) Story on Bailments, s. 450 a.

(v) Randleson v. Murray (1838), 8 A. & E. 109.
(w) Barwick v. English Joint Stock Bank (1867), L. R. 2 Exch. 259, 265 Mackay;
V. Commercial Bank of New Brunswick (1874), L. R. 5 P. C. 394 ;

Dyer v. Munday,
[1895] 1 Q. B. 742 Coppen v. Moore (No. 2), [1898] 2 Q. B. 306.
;
(x) Ibid. ; Beard v. London General Omnibus Co., [1900] 2 Q. B. 530.

{y) Ibid. J Sanderson v. Collins, [1904] 1 K. B. 628 (plaintiff while repairing
defendant's carriage lent him another to use, and defendant's coachman
took the carriage out for his own purposes and without his master's knowledge,
and through his negligence it was injured, and it was held that defendant was
not responsible). See also titles Agency, pp. 211, 212, ante, and Master and
Servant.
Mackenzie v. Cox (1840), 9 0. & P. 632 Reeve \. Palmer (1858), 5 C. B. (n. s.)
{z) ;
84 Phipps V. New Claridge's Hotel, Ltd. (1905), 22 T. L. R. 49.

;
{a) Bullen v. Swan Electric Engraving Co. (1907), 23 T. L. R. 258.

(m) Piatt V. Hibbard (1827), 7 Cowen, 497, per Walworth, J., at p. 500 (an
American case). See also note (p), p. 527 ante.
(6) Sidaways v. Todd (1818), 2 Stark. 400, _per Abbott, J., at p. 401 Maving v.
;
Todd (1815), 4 Camp. 225.

H.L. — I. NN
—
Bailment.
interest in it as against the insurers, he is entitled to

that,
recover its value (c).
full A custodian who recovers insurance
money occupies the position of a trustee to the owner of the chattel
covered by the insurance for its value, less his agreed or reason-
able charges for warehousing and after demand by the owner and
;
refusal by the custodian to account for the proceeds, an action will

lie against him at the suit of the owner for money had and
received (cl).
mo. Frequently the obligations of the custodian in the ordinary

course of business are varied and enhanced by the addition of a
contract on his part to perform some act in connection with the
chattel whereby its character is altered or improved (e). This
additional undertaking raises a series of obligations between the
owner of the chattel and the bailee which are collateral to the bare
obligation of safe custody. In such cases a further undertaking on
the part of the bailee will be implied to exercise capacity and
fidelity in the conduct of the particular employment for which it
was intrusted to him. For when a person undertakes for reward
to perform any work, he must be considered as bound to use a
degree of diligence adequate to the performance of it (/).
1111. In an action against a custodian for negligence (g) a

plaintiff cannot, apart from special contract, recover damages
beyond the actual value of the chattel lost. There is no implied
undertaking on the part of a mere custodian to be answerable for
consequential damages and the simple deposit of chattels with
;
him in the ordinary course of business raises no such notice by

implication as will render him liable to their owner for damages for
loss of market or other similar contingencies (It).
Sub-Sect. 3. Liability to Distress.
1112- Chattels received for custody by a person who does not

carry on a business in which receiving such chattels is usual, are
liable to be distrained for the rent of the premises on which they are
stored, but chattels received in the course of a particular trade to be
dealt with, wrought, or managed, in accordance with that trade
by a tenant of premises, are exempted from distress (i) the ;
(c) Waters v. Monarch Life Assurance Co. (1856), 5 El. & Bl. 870. See also Ex
parte Bateman, Re Eoutledge (1856), 8 De G. M. & G. 263. But the chattels
destroyed must be covered by the terms of the policy {North British and Mercantile
Insurance Co. v. Moffatt (1871), L. R. 7 C. P. 25). See, further, title Insuhance.
(d) Sidaways v. Todd (1818), 2 Stark. 400.
(e) As in Sevan v. Waters (1828), 3 C. & P. 520; Forth v. Simpson (1849), la
Q. B. 680.
(/) Jones on Bailments, 4th ed. pp. 98, 99.
(g) Such action is an action founded on tort within the meaning of the County
Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 116 {Turner v. Stallibrass, [1898] 1
Q. B. 56).
{h) Anderson v. North Eastern Bail. Co. (1861), 4 L. T. 216. Compare
the liability of a common carrier who may be liable for loss of market or other
consequential damage {Simpson v. London and North Western Bail. Co. (1876), I
Q. B. D. 274) ; see title Carriers.
{i) Swire v. Leach (1865), 18 C. B. (n. s.) 479. See also title Distress.
— —
general principle being that when the trade or business could not ^^gt. i.
be carried on unless the chattels were privileged from distress, then Hire of
they are exempt (j). Custody.
Sub-Sect. 4. Lien of the Bailee.
1113. As a general rule, a custodian for reward has, in the Lien,

absence of some special agreement, no lien {k) for his charges upon
the chattel intrusted to him for safe custody alone (Z), though he
acquires a lien if he agrees, in addition, to expend labour and skill
upon it(m), unless the terms of the contract exclude such \ien(n).
But by implication of law w^harfingers (o), and possibly warehouse-
men (p), have a general lien {k) for their charges upon the chattels
of their bailors, but in the case of wharfingers, in any particular
district this implication may be rebutted by local usage (q). This
general lien takes precedence of claims by the Crown (r), and the
costs of defending it may be added to the security (s).
In the case of factors, bankers and stockbrokers, in the absence General lien,
of a special contract (^), which is always construed strictly against

the claimant (it) a general lien is presumed; consequently such
>
bailees may retain chattels or securities deposited with them, not
( j)
Miles V. Furher (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 77, per Archibald, J., at p. 83. Chattels
of bailors have been held privileged from distress when held in the course of
business by warehousemen and wharfingers {Miles v. Furher, supra ; Thompson v.
Mashiter (1823), 1 Bing. 283) ; factors or agents for sale {Gilman v. Elton (1821),
3 Brod. & Bing. 75 Findonw, McLaren (1845), 6 Q. B. 891) auctioneers, if on their
; ;
own premises {Williams Holmes (1853), 8 Exch. 861), otherwise not {Lyons v.
v.
Elliott (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 210) and tradesmen who have to do work on the
;
goods {Simpson v. Hartopp (1744), Willes, 512, 1 Smith, L. C. (11th ed.), p. 437 ;
Muspratt v. Gregory (1838), 3 M. & W. 677). Agisters and livery stable-keepers

are probably on the same footing as warehousemen {Parsons v, Gingell (1847), 4 C. B.
545, deciding against the privilege, being disapproved in Miles v. Furber, supra).
Live stock taken in to be agisted by a tenant are privileged from distress beyond
the amount of the agreed price remaining due to the tenant (Agricultural Holdings
(England) Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 61), s. 45, and compare London and Yorkshire
Bank v. Belton (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 457, with Masters v. Green (1888), 20 Q. B. D.
807 see title Animals, p. 384, ante).
;
{k) See also p. 561, post.

{I) Jackson v. Cummins (1839), 5 M. & W. 342 Smith v. Dearlove (1848), 6
;
C B 132
*(m) Sevan v. Waters (1828), 3 C. & P. 520 Scarfe v. Morgan (1838), 4 M. & W.
;
270.
•
Simpson (1849), 13 Q. B. 680.
{n) Forth v.
Jones V. Peppercorne (1858), 1 John. 430, approved in Be London and
(o)
Globe Finance Corporation, [1902] 2 Ch. 416. See also Eushforth v. Hadfield
(1806), 7 East, 224 Bock v. Gorrissen (1860), 2 De G. F. & J. 434, per Lord
;
Campbell, L.C, at p. 443.

(p) R. V. Humphery (1825), McL. &
Y. 173; but see Leuckhart v. Cooper
(1836), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 99. There arestatutory definitions of the expressions
warehouseman, wharfinger, warehouse, and wharf, which will be found under
titles Revenue ; Sale of Goods ; Shipping and Navigation.
Holderness v. Collinson (1827), 7 B. & C. 212.
{q) See also title Sale of Goods,
and, for proof of usages, see title Evidence.
{r) E. V. Humphery, supra.
(s) Moet V. Pickering (1878), 8 Ch. D. 372, per Cotton, L.J., at p. 376.
{t) Bock V. Gorrissen, supra. See titles Agency ; Bankers and Banking ;
Stock Exchange.
{u) Kinnear v. Midland Bail. Co. (1868), 19 L. T. 387.
N N 2
.
548 Bailment.
Sect. 1. only as security for the particular loan in respect of which they
Hire of were so deposited, but also for a general balance of account (v) A .
Custody, similar rule to the above also prevails, as part of the law merchant,
in certain other trades, although in all such cases, the custom
establishing the existence of a general lien must be strictly
proved {ic).
Particular In the absence of a particular trade custom (x), a specific lien on
lien. a particular chattel cannot be enlarged so as to include a general
/
balance of account (y). (And if in such a case after demand by the
bailor for the particular chattel, coupled with tender of the specific
I
i
amount due thereon, the bailee refuse to re-deliver, not only is his
\
lien gone (z) but he is also liable to the true owner in an action of
,
trover (a)] The mere demand by the bailee of a sum in excess of

that which is really due to him does not usually dispense with the
necessity of a tender by the bailor of the amount actually due,
especially if the bailee particularises his demand, and claims to hold
the chattel for the correct sum to which he is entitled as well as for
the excessive one (b).
Expense of A
bailee who keeps a chattel to enforce his lien on it cannot
keeping. charge for keeping it (c)
Eaiiway A railway company has a lien on all chattels deposited with it
company. for safe custody (d) for the amount of its reasonable charges. This
lien applies not only against the person who actually deposited the
chattel, but also against the true owner of the chattel, or a third
party, even although they may not have had any privity with the
original contracting parties (e).
Loss of lien. 1114, The lien is irretrievably gone

possession of the chattel be
if
lost to the bailee (/), or if he do anythingamounting to a waiver (g),

or if the identity of the chattel be lost byintermixture or confusion
with otber chattels of a like nature belonging to a different owner (h).
And the assertion by the bailee of a right to retain the chattel
{v) Re London and Globe Finance Corporation, [1902] 2 Ch. 416 Jones v. ;
Peppercorne (1858), 1 John. 430.

{w) Be Spotten cfc Co., Ex parte The Provincial Bank (1877), Ir. R. 11 Eq.
412. For cases where bankruptcy avoids a general lien by contract, see
Ex parte Great Western Rail. Co., Re Bushell (1882), 22 Ch. D. 470 ; Wiltshire
Iron Co. V. Great Western Rail. Co. (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 776 ; and see generally
title Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
(x) Re Spotten ch Co. Ex parte Tke. Provincial Bank, supra
,
Bock v. Gorrissen
;
(1860), 2 De G. F. & J. 434 Leuckhart v. Cooper (1836), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 99.
;
(y) Jones v. Tarleton (1842), 9 M. & W. 675.

(z) Dirks v. Richards (1842), 4 Man. & G. 574 ; but see Scarfe v. Morgan (1838),
4 M. & W. 270.
The Norway (1865), 3 Moo. P. C. C. (n. s.) 245.
(a)
(h) Scarfe v. Morgan, supra, a very instructive case on liens.
(c) Somes v. British Empire Shipping Co. (1860), 8 H. L. Cas. 338.
{d) See p. 549, post.

\e) Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Tjondon and South Western Rail.Co., [1894] 1
Q. B. 833, per Collins, J., at p. 837.

(
f) Button V. Bragg (1816), 7 Taunt. 14. Compare Dicas v. Stockley (1836), 7
&
'
C. P. 587.
(g) Mulliner v. Florence (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 484, where the bailee sold
the goods
-
and thereby lost his lien.
{h) Grant v. Humphery (1862), 3 F. & F. 162.
. — —
otherwise than by way of Hen may operate as a waiver of the ^•
lien (/). Hire of

As a general rule, a right of lien confers no right to sell the Custody-
chattel (./ ) unless such right is expressly conferred by statute, and Right of sale,
sale without right causes loss of the lien (k).
J Sub-Sect. 5. Railway Cloah-rooms.
1115. Railway companies receiving passengers' luggage or other Railway

chattels in the cloak-rooms of railway stations become responsible cloak-rooms,
to the owners of the chattels deposited as warehousemen only,
and not as carriers (Z). Consequently they are not insurers, and,
apart from special contract, they undertake no further obligation by
such receipt than to take proper care that the chattels are safely kept
from loss or injury (/«). In the absence of any conditions limiting
liability or of contributory negligence on the part of the bailor, the
bailees are responsible for the entire value of the chattels {n),
but not for consequential damages resulting from the loss (o).
If the bailor and bailee agree that the chattels shall be de- Special
contracts,
posited on terms other than those implied by law, the duty of
the bailee is determined by the terms on which both parties have
agreed {p)
Conditions limiting liability may be contained in the ticket given
as a receipt to a bailor when depositing a chattel for safe custody, or
may be otherwise agreed. In order, however, that a railway company
may thus limit its liability, it is necessary for it to show not only that
when the bailor entered into the contract he was aware that the
ticket was not given to him merely as a receipt for the chattel,
but also that it was intended to convey to him the knowledge of
the terms of the special contract upon which the company agreed to
receive it (q). And the onus of proof is on the company to show
that the bailor was aware of such intention on its part at the time
when he accepted the ticket, and that he accepted it as notice of such
terms (r) .
(i) White V. Gainer (1824), 2 Bing. 23, per Best, C.J., at p. 24 ; Weeks v. Goode
(1859), 6 C. B. (n. s.) 367 ; Boardman v. Gill (1808), Camp. 410, n. ; Dubs v.
Richards (1842), 4 Man. & G. 574.
(,/) Pothonier v. Dawson (1816), Holt (n. p.), 383, per Gibbs, C.J., at p. 385.
(k) Compare Mulliner v. Florence (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 484, where an innkeeper
was held not to have a right to sell his guest's horses over which he had a lien. The
law on this point is now altered by the Innkeepers Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict,
c. 38), as to which see title Inns and Innkeepers. Some liens can be enforced
by sale by means of an action asking for such relief (Story, Commentaries on
Equity Jurisprudence, 13th ed., s. 1217).
{I) 'Van Toll v. South Eastern Rail. Go. (1862), 12 C. B. (n. s.) 75 Pratt v. ;
South Eastern Rail. Co., [1897] 1 Q. B. 718. For the position of railway companies
as carriers, see title Carriers.
(m) Van
Toll v. South Eastern Rail. Co., supra, per Erle, C. J., at pp. 82, 83.
(n) Roche v. Cork, Blackrock and Passage Rail. Co. (1889), 24 L. R. Ir. 250.
(o) A7iderson v. North Eastern Rail. Co. (1861), 4 L. T. 216.
(p) Harris v. Great Western Rail. Co. (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 515, per Blackburn,
J., at pp. 529, 530.
(g) Richardson, Spence ci* Co. v. Rowntree, [1894] A. C. 217, and cases cited
note (r), infra.
(r) Parker v. South Eastern Rail. Co. (1877), 2 C. P. D. 416 ; see especially the
—— —
550 Bailment.
Sect. 2.
Sect. 2. Hire of Chattels.
Hire of
Chattels. Sub-Sect. 1. In Oeiieral.
Hire of 1116. This class of bailment (locatio conductio rei) is a contract by

•chattels. which the hirer obtains a right to use the chattel hired, in return
for the payment of the price of the hiring to the owner (s). The
proprietary interest in the chattel is not changed, but remains in
the owner (t). But, upon delivery, the hirer becomes legally pos-
sessed of the chattel hired, so that if it be lent for a time certain,
even the true owner debarred during that time from resuming
is
possession against the will of the hirer, and, should he do so, becomes
liable in damages for the wrongful seizure (u).
The contract must not be based on an immoral or illegal con-
sideration, nor must it conduce to immorality or illegality, the maxim
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio applying in this as in any other
contract {iv).
Sub-Sect. 2. Obligations of the Owner.
Obligations 1117. The owner of a chattel which he lets out for hire is under
of owner.
an obligation to ascertain that the chattel so let out by him is
reasonably fit and suitable for the purpose for which it is expressly
let out or for which, from its character, he must be aware it is
intended to be used his deHvery of it to the hirer amounts to
;
Fitness. an implied warranty that the chattel is in fact as fit and suit-
able for that purpose as reasonable care and skill can make it (a).
Therefore if damage or loss is caused to the hirer by reason of
some defect of which the owner was or ought to have been aware
in the fitness or adaptability of the chattel, the owner is liable not
only for the immediate results of his lack of care, but also for any
other consequences which may reasonably be supposed to have been
within the contemplation of the parties ih).
The owner of a chattel is not relieved from liability under
his implied warranty that the chattel is reasonably fit for the
judgment of Bag G allay, L.J., at pp. —

424 426. Compare Richardson, Spence
<fc Go. V. Eowntree, [1894] A. C. 217 ; Acton v. Castle Mail Packets Co. (1895), 73
L. T. 158 Stephen v. International Sleeping-Car Co. (1903), 19 T. L. R. 621.
;
(s) Jones on Bailments, 4th ed. p. 86 Pothier, Contrat de Louage, Part I.,
;
Chap. I., s. 1 " Louage ... est un contrat par lequel I'un donne a I'autre la
:
jouissance ou I'usage d'une chose pendant quelque temps pour un certain

. . .
prix" (Domat, book 1, tit. 4, s. 1, art. 1). For forms of agreement to hire goods,
see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. VI., pp. 440 et seq.
(t) Story on Bailments, s, 370 a.
(u) Bac. Abr. Bailment, C Lee v. Atkinson and Brook (1610), Yelv. 172.
;
(w) Pearce v. Brooks (1866), L. R. 1 Exch. 213, êr Pollock, C.B., at p. 217.
{a) " The nature of the contract is such, that an obligation is imposed on the
party letting for hire to furnish that which is proper for the hirer's accommoda-
tion " {Sutton V. Temple (1843), 12 M. & W. 52, per Lord Abinger, at p. 60 ;
Ma.cCarthy v. Young (1861), 6 H. & N. 329 ; Mowhray v. Merryweather, [1895]

2 Q. B. 640 Vogan cfc Co. v. Oulton (1899), 81 L. T. 435).
;
(6) Mowbray v. Merryweather, supra, per Lord Esher, at p. 643 ; Vogan d; Co.
V. Oulton, supra, In both these cases the defendant hired out tackle to the
plaintiffs, whose workmen were injured by the unfitness thereof, and the plaintiffs
liad to compensate them for their injuries, and they recovered from the defendant
wh'at they had had to pay. Compare The Moorcock (1889), 14 P. D. 64.
—
particular purpose for which it was hired, merely by the fact Sect. 2.
that he has allowed the hirer a preliminary inspection of the Hire of
chattel (c). Chattels.
It is negligence in anyone to let out to hire a carriage to
convey a number of people or a quantity of merchandise without
previously taking care that the carriage is reasonably safe (d). And
where a horse jobber lets out a horse, there is an implied warranty
on his part that the animal is of sufficient capacity and docility for
the particular purpose for which it was hired (e). A similar
warrant}^ of fitness extends to a servant of the bailor who accom-
panies a chattel, and whose services are necessary for the proper
use and enjoyment of the chattel by the hirer (/), though in this
case the warranty of the bailor extends only to those acts of his
servant which are within the scope of his employment (g).
The implied warranty will not extend to a case where the Hidden
immediate cause of an accident is a hidden defect in the chattel defects,
let out on hire which no reasonable amount of care on the part of
the bailor could have discovered (h). In such, cases the pi'iDid facie
evidence of negligence is rebutted, and it is for the ag^^rieved party
to show that the resultant injury is one for which the bailor is
legally liable in damages (i).
1118. The mere fact of an owner entering into an engagement to Quiet enjoy-
let a chattel implies a promise or condition on his part to put the ment.
hirer into peaceable possession of the chattel hired by him, and to
permit him to remain in custody thereof for the purpose of the
particular service in respect of which the contract was entered
into {k). But where the hirer so conducts himself as to hinder the
performance of the contract by the owner, or to subject the owner, if
he duly perform the contract, to an action at the suit of some third
party, no action will lie against the owner for the non-performance
of his agreement (Z),
Where the owner has agreed with the hirer to keep the chattel Eepair of
hired chattel.
lent in proper repair (rn), the owner is entitled to resume possession
(c) Jones V. Page (1867), 15 L. T. 619.

(d) Jones v. Page, supra, per Kelly, C.B., at p. 620. A jobmaster who
lets out a carriage for hire impliedly warrants that it is as fit for use as care and
skill can make it {Hyman v. Nye (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 685).
(e) Fowler v. Lock (1872), L. R. 7 C. P. 272, per Byles, J., at p. 282 Chew v. ;
Jones (1847), 10 L. T. (o. s.) 231.

(/) Abraham v. Bullock (1902), 86 L. T. 796.
{g) Compare Sanderson v. Collins, [1^04] 1 K. B. 628; Cheshire v. Bailey, [1905]
1 K. B. 237 ; in the latter case the servant supplied (a coachmau) aided
and abetted a theft of the bailee's goods, and the bailor was held not liable
therefor.
{h) Readhead v. Midland Rail. Co. (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 412, per Mellor, J.,
at p. 428 Christie v. Griggs (1809), 2 Camp. 79.
;
{i) Readhead v. Midland Rail. Co., supra,
(k) Stoiy on Bailments, s. 385.
{1} European and Australian Royal Mail Co. v. Royal Mail Steam Packet Co.
(1861), 30 L, J. (c. p.) 247. See also Pothier, Contrat de Depot, s. 55 see also ;
Civil Code of France, art. 1726.

(m) This is often to be implied from the nature of the contract {Sutton v. Temple
(1843), 12 M. & W. 52, per Lord Abinger, at p. 60. " If a carriage be let for hire,
and it break down on the journey, the letter of it is liable, and not the party who
— ;
552 Bailment.
Sect. 2, of the chattel for the Hmited purpose of executing such repairs (n).
Hire of But said that the hirer, if actually inconvenienced thereby, is
it is
Chattels. entitled to an allowance or reduction from the rent for the period
during which he has been deprived of the use of the chattel
hired (o), though this probably depends on the nature of the thing
itself and the inferences to be drawn from the terms of the contract
and the surrounding circumstances.
Sub-Sect. 3. Obligations of the Hirer.
To pay rent 1119. The hirer must pay the rent agreed upon for the use of
the chattel hired and if the hiring be for a definite period, he is
;
not discharged from his obligation to pay the price for the full
period, by returning the chattel to its owner before the expiration
of that period (p). But if the owner on receiving the chattels back
acquiesces in their return as ending the contract, he cannot after-
wards maintain an action against the hirer upon the agreement
the voluntary reception amounting to rescission of the contract,
unless a fresh agreement to pay for such use as has been enjoyed
by the hirer can be implied {p).
To take 1120. The hirer is, as a general rule, under an obligation to take
reasonable reasonable care only of the chattel hired, and is not liable for loss
care.
or injury happening to it, unless caused by his negligence, or that
of his servants (q). His liability, however, may be extended or
diminished by the terms of a special contract, which, however, will
be construed with reference to the age and condition of the
particular chattel at the time of the hiring (?•)•
Apart from special contract, the hirer is not responsible for fair
wear and tear (s), nor is he under any obligation to do any
repairs (t) except such as are naturally incidental to the due per-
formance of his obligation to take reasonable care (a). If he should
exceed his duty, and execute repairs for which he is not responsible,
it is doubtful whether he has any right to claim to be reimbursed by
hired it." But the cost of feeding a hired horse usually falls on the hirer (Story
on Bailments, s. 393).
(n) Story on Bailments, s. 385.
(o) Pothier, Contrat de Louage, s. 77 ; Domat, book 1, tit. 4, s. 3, art. 7.
(j>) Wright v. Melville (1828), 3 C. & P. 542.

(q) Sanderson v. Collins, [1904] 1 K. B. 628 Bray v. Mayne (1818), Gow, 1
; ;
Handford v. Palmer (1820), 2 Brod. & Bing. 359 ; Dean v. Keate (1811). 3 Camp.^
4, where the hirer of a horse prescribed for it himself when it fell sick instead of
calling in a veterinary surgeon. The fact that the chattel is injured whilst in the
hirer's possession raises a prima facie presumption against him. See Dollar v.
Greenfield, Times, May 19, 1905, per Lord Halsbury, L.C., and the cases cited in
note '{%), p. 545, ante, the principle of which would seem to apply here. Contra^
Cooper V. Barton (1810), 3 Camp. 5, n.
(r) Schroder v. Ward (1863), 13 C. B. (n. s.) 410.
(s) See Pomfret v. Ricroft (1770), 1 Saund. 321 ; Blakemore v. Bristol and Exeter
Rail. Co. (1858), 8 E. & B. 1035, cases of gratuitous loan, but the principle seems
to apply here.
[t) SuttonTemple (1843), 12 M. & W. 52, per Lord Abinger, C.B., at p. 60 ;
v.,
Hyman v. Nye
(1881), 6 Q. B. D. 685. For a case of special contract excluding
such repairs, see Reading v. Menham (1832), 1 Mood. & K. 234.
'
(a) E.g., feeding a hired horse ; see Story on Bailments, s. 393.
— — —
the owner, even though the repah's are necessary and the expendi- Sect. 2.
ture reasonable, and therefore it is advisable for him not to execute Hire of
them without first consulting the owner (h). Chattels.
If, however, it is a term of the contract between the parties that
the hirer shall keep the chattel from injury, such a condition
amounts, by implication, to an authority from the owner to the
hirer to do all acts necessary for preserving the thing hired, and,
as against the owner, a third party can acquire a lien on the chattel
for the cost of repairing it at the request of the hirer (c).
1121. The hirer must not use the chattel hired for any purpose Use of chattel
—
other than that for which it was hired thus, a horse hired as a for purpose
not contem-
hack and not for hunting or driving, must be used as a hack only, plated.
and the hirer will be responsible in case of damage arising from its
use for any other purpose (d) .
He must also return the chattel hired at the expiration of the Keturn of
agreed term (e). But if the performance of his contract to return the chattel hired.
chattel becomes impossible because it has perished, this impossibility
(if not arising from the fault of the hirer or from some risk which
he has taken upon himself) excuses him (/).

Sub-Sect. 4. ResponsiMUty for Negligence of Servant.
1122. The negligence within the Negligence

of the servant of a hirer, acting of
^^'^^^^ •
scope of his employment, is the negligence of the master, even

though the servant be doing something he has been told not to
do, if he does it in the ordinary course of service and for the
apparent benefit of his master {g). But if a servant use the hired
chattel for his own purposes outside the scope of his employment,
or if he wilfully injure it, the hirer is not responsible Qi).
Sub-Sect. 5. Measure of Damages.
1123. If the chattel is injured by the negligence of the hirer, Measure of

damages,
the owner can recover against the hirer, not only the actual loss
sustained by reason of the permanent depreciation in value of the
chattel injured, but also all reasonable sums paid by him for its
reparation. Thus, in the case of an animal which is injured, the
amount of damages recoverable will include not only the farrier's
bill for keep and treatment, but also the difference between the
animal's original and subsequent value {a).
(6) See Story on Bailments, s. 392.

(c) Keene v.^Thomas, [1905] 1 K. B. 136.
{d) Burnard v. Haggis (1863), 14 C. B. (n. s.) 45.
(e) Mills V. (1804), 1 Bos. & P. (n. r.) 140, per Mansfield, C.J., at
Graham
p. 145. This and the last cited case are cases of infant hirers, who cannot be sued
upon the contract of bailment (unless the thing hired is a necessary), but may
be sued upon torts arising out of it. See title Infants.
(/) Taylor v. Caldwell (1863), 3 B. & S. 826, per Blackburn, J., at p. 838.
Ig) Limpus v. London General Omnibus Go. (1862), 1 H. & C. 526
TVard r.
;
General Omnihus Go. (1873), 42 L. J. (c. P.) 265. See also titles Agency, p. 212, ante,
and Master and Servant.
(h) Sanderson v. Gollins, [1904] 1 K. B. 628, distinguishing Coupe Co. v. Maddick,
[1891] 2 Q. B. 413 Cheshire y. Bailey, [1905] 1 K. B. 237, ^êr Collins, M.R., at
;
p. 240 ;Ward v. General Omnihus Co., supra.

(a) Hughes v. Quentin (1838), 8 C. & P. 703.
— —
554 Bailment.
Sect. 2.
The owner is also entitled to compensation for the loss caused
Hire of to him bydeprivation of the use of a chattel during the period
Chattels. necessary for its reparation or recovery; and the fact that he has not
been compelled temporarily to hire or substitute another chattel for
that under repair will not necessarily disentitle him to consequential
damages {b).
Sect. 3. Hire -Pur chase.

Sub-Sect 1. Li General.
Hire- 1124. The contract of hire-purchase, or, more accurately, the

purchase. contract of hire with an option of purchase, is one under which an
owner of a chattel lets it out on hire and undertakes to sell it to,
or that it shall become the property of, the hirer, conditionally
on his making a certain number of payments (c). Until the
making, however, of the last payment, no property in the chattel
passes (d).
Distinguished Where the contract between the parties amounts to an absolute
from sale. agreement to sell and buy, whether the instrument be called a
hire-purchase agreement or not (e), the property in the chattel
passes upon delivery, provided that such was the intention of the
parties (J). And even where the property has not passed, the so-
called hirer, being really a purchaser, can give a good title to a
purchaser or pledgee dealing with him in good faith and without
notice of the rights of the original owner (g).
Eegistration A written contract for the hire of a chattel with an option of
unnecessary. purchase does not require registration as a bill of sale, because no
property is conveyed thereby to the person in possession of the
chattel during its effective existence (h).
The difference between a contract of sale at a price payable by
instalments and a contract of hire-purchase is that in the former
the purchaser has no option of terminating the contract and
{b) See Owners of Steamship Mediana v. Owners, Master and Crew of Lightship
Comet, The Mediana, [1900] A. C. 113, where, a harbour board's lightship being
damaged by collision, the board put in its place a reserve lightship, and were
nevertheless held entitled to substantial damages.
(c) Helhy v. Matthews, [1895] A. C. 471 Be Davis (h Co., Ex parte Bawlings
;
(1888), 22 Q. B. D. 193.
{d) Cramer v. Giles (1883), 1 Cab. & El. 151. For forms of Hire-Purchase
Agreements, see Encyclopsedia of Forms, Vol. VI., pp. 453 et seq.
(e) It is for the Court to determine the effect of the agreement {McEntire v.
Crossley Brothers, [1895] A. C. 457, per Lord Watson, at p. 467 Helby v.
;
Matthews, supra, per Lord Herschell, at p. 475). For the general principles of
construction, see title Contract.
(/) McEntire v. Crossley Brothers, supra, per Lord Herschell, at pp. 462,
463.
(g) The contract between the original purchaser (by instalments) and the person
to whom he disposes of the chattel being a valid one within the meaning of the
Factors Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 45), s. 9 {Lee v. Butler, [1893] 2 Q. B. 318 ;
Wylde V. Legge (1901), 84 L. T. 121 Hull Bopes Co., Ltd. v. Adams (1895), 65
;
L. J. (q. b.) 114 ; Thompson and Shackell, Ltd. v. Veale (1896), 74 L. T. 130).
Qi) Horsley v. Style (1893), 69 L. T. 222 and see McEntire v. Crossley Brothers,
;
supra. Yet what in form seems a sale and subsequent letting may be held to be
a-borrowîng on mortgage and within the Bills of Sale Acts {Maas v. Bepper, [1905]
A. C. 102). See title Bills of Sale.
— —
returning the chattel, whereas in the latter the hirer has (i). In the Sect. 3.
former there is an agreement to purchase, whereas in the latter Hire-

there is none (i). In each case the substance of the transaction or Purchase,
the agreement must be looked at and not the mere words (^).
Sub-Sect. 2. RigJds of Oiuner.
1125. The agreement usually provides that if default is made in Possession on

default in
payment of any instalment the owner may resume possession.
payment of
This provision is enforceable if the agreement be in fact as well instalment.
as in form a true agreement for hire {j). But if the agreement,
though in form a contract for hire, is really a sale, the provision
is not enforceable unless the agreement is registered as a bill of
sale, and, in the absence of registration, any seizure may subject
the owner and his agents to an action of trespass {k). Equity will
not relieve the hirer against a forfeiture occasioned by default in
the punctual payments of the instalments as they accrue (Z), the
proviso not being in the nature of a penalty (m) .
1126. The owner's right to seize is subordinate to that of the Distress and
landlord of the premises in which the chattel is housed, should he execution.
distrain for rent {n) upon it, and it would seem that a sheriff who
seizes chattels let on a hire-purchase agreement under an execution
against the hirer may sell to a third person the qualified interest
of the hirer therein (o) and therefore all well-drawn hire-purchase
;
agreements give power to the owner to resume possession if the

chattel is seized by a sheriff or is distrained.
There is no legal presumption that a chattel hired under a hire- Bankruptcy.
purchase agreement, for private purposes, is in the order or dis-
position of the hirer so as to pass the property in it to his
trustee in bankruptcy (p) The contrary is the case where the
.
chattel let on such an agreement is in the possession of a trader

in the way of his trade (g), although the presumption may be
rebutted by proof of a custom of a particular trade or calling
for the trader to have in his possession, or apparently under his
control, chattels which are not in fact his own property (?^).
(i) Helhy v. Matthews, [1895] A. C. 471 Lee v. Butler, [1893] 2 Q. B. 318

;
Maas V.Pepper, [1905] A. C. 102.

(j) Ex parte Whittaher, Re Gelder, [1880] W. N. 171, affirmed sub nom.
Ex parte Sergeant, Re Gelder, [1881] W. N. 37 ; Leman v, Yorkshire Railway
JVaggon Go. (1881), 50 L. J. (ch.) 293.
(k) Beckett v. Tower Assets Co., [1891] 1 Q. B. 638.
(0 Cramer v. Giles (1883), 1 Cab. & El. 151.
(m) Sterne v. Beck (1863), 1 De G. J. & Sm. 595.
(n) See Lyons v. Elliott (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 210, per Lush, J., at p. 215, and
cases cited, note (,/), p. 547, ante.
(o) Dean v. JVhittaker (1824), 1 C. & P. 347 Lancashire Waggon Co. v. Fitzhugh
;
(1861), .30 L. J. (ex.) 231.

{pi) Ex parte Emerson, Re Hawkins (1871), 41 L. J. (bcy.) 20. See title
Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
{q) Sect. 44 (3) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 &
47 Vict. c. 52), provides that
all goods being at the commencement of the bankruptcy, in the possession, order,
or disposition of the bankrupt, in his trade or business, by the consent and
permission of the true owner, under such circumstances that he is the reputed
owner thereof, shall pass to his trustee in bankruptcy.
(r) Ex parte Watkins, Re Couston (1873), 8 Ch. App. 520 see also Re William
;
Watson (& Co., Ex parte Atkin Brothers, [1904] 2 K. B. 753. See title Bankruptcy
— —
556 Bailment.
Sect. 3. 1127. The owner on a hire-purchase agree-

of a chattel let out
Hire- ment may assign interest in it, and all rights and
all his
Purchase. liabilities connected therewith, to a third party. The transferee,
Assignment. upon notice in writing of the assignment being given to the
hirer, will become entitled to receive the instalments of rent
from the hirer as they accrue, and the hirer cannot set up such
transfer as an excuse for refusing to pay further instalments
under the agreement (s). Such an assignment does not operate
as a bill of sale within the meaning of sect. 4 of the Bills of Sale
Act, 1878 (0.
A licence by the hirer to the original letter to enter and take
possession of the chattel upon default of payment of any instal-
ment, is not capable of assignment to a third party {u).
In order to perfect an assignment of an owner's interest in a hire-
purchase agreement to a third party, it is necessary that the transfer
should be accompanied by the same formalities as are essential to
making the original security effective (a).
Conversion 1128. the hirer of a chattel under a hire-purchase agreement
If
by hirer.
delivers over to an auctioneer for the purpose of sale, and so
it
determines the bailment and converts it to his own use, the true
owner is entitled to recover damages for the conversion from the
auctioneer if he refuses to deliver it up or sells it {b). He is
similarly entitled as against a purchaser (c), a pledgee (rf), or an
equitable mortgagee (e) from the hirer, even though the chattel
may have been received in good faith and without notice.
Sect. 4. Hire of Work and Labour,
Hire of work 1129. This class of bailment (locatio operis faciendi) is a contract
and labour.
in which one of the two contracting parties undertakes to do some-
thing to a chattel, e.g., to carry it or to repair it, in consideration
of a price to be paid to him (/).
It is essential to constitute a valid contract of this description
that there should be some work to be performed in connection with
a specified chattel, and that money should be agreed to be paid as
the price of the labour (g).
AND Insolveis^cy ; Re Tliackrah, Ex parte Hughes and Kimber (1888), 5 Morr.

235.
(s) British Waggon Co. v. Lea cfc Co. (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 149.
(t) Re Davis dc Co., Ex parte Rawlings (1888), 22 Q. B. D. 193 Re Isaacson,
;
Ex parte Mason, [1895] 1 Q. B. 333 Neidove v. Shreivsbury (1888), 21 Q. B. D.

;
41.
(u) Re Davis (k Co., Ex parte Rawlings, supra,
(a) Jarvis v. Jarvis (1893), 63 L. J. (cH.) 10.
(6) Consolidated Co. v. Curtis cfc Son, [1892] 1 Q. B. 495 ;Cochrane v. Rymill
(1879), 40 L. T. 744 : Loeschman v. Machin (1818), 2 Stark. 311.
(c) Cooper v. Willomatt (1845), 14 L. J. (c. P.) 219 ; Marner v. Bankes (1867),
16 W. E. 62.
{d) Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Clark (1879), 5 Ex. D. 37.
(e) Re Samuel Allen cfc Sons, Ltd., [1907] 1 Ch. 575.
(/) Jones on Bailments, 4th ed. pp. 90, 91. As to work and labour in
general, see title Wokk and Labour ; as to carriers, see title Carriers.
. (g) Pothier. Contrat du Louage d'Ouvrage, ss. 397—402 ;
Keys v. Harwood
(1846), 2 C. B. 905.
— " —
The between this contract and that of sale lies in the

distinction Sect. 4.
fact that the work and labour results in nothing which can properly Hire of
be deemed the subject of a sale, inasmuch as the chattel upon Work and
which the work is performed, or the materials out of which the Labour,
chattel delivered to the hirer is made, are already the property Distinguished
of the hirer, and do not, as in the case of sale, become his property from sale,
by virtue of the contract (li). The contract is none the less one of
work and labour, where, though the principal materials belong to
the hirer, the workman furnishes accessories or ornaments, as in
the case of a tailor, who is employed to make up the hirer's cloth,
and who supplies his own buttons and thread (^).
Sub-Sect. 2. Ohligations of the Hirer.
1130. The hirer of labour must, at the time or times and in the Obligations
manner appointed, pay the workman the agreed price, or, if no hirer,
price has been agreed upon, a reasonable remuneration for his

expenditure of time, labour and skill (/c).
The acceptance of services does not in all cases necessarily imply
that such services are to be remunerated. Eemuneration cannot
be successfully claimed for services voluntarily performed without
request {k). But employment of a man, whose trade it is to do the
work in question, prima facie implies a contract by the employer to
pay him a fair and reasonable price for his work. A person called
in to do work of a class which he holds himself out as qualified
to do, and which will be useful only if effective, and which he is left
to do in his own way, can recover nothing if it proves ineffective,
and the employer gets no benefit from it (I).
The hirer must also pay for all materials employed by To pay for
the workman in the manufacture, alteration, or reparation

^^^^^.^^^g
of the chattel which is the subject of the contract, provided they
are necessary for the completion of the work, and were either
specifically or impliedly ordered (in). And where the work is
not completed, whether through the fault of the workman (n) or
(h) Lee v. Griffin (1861), 1 B. & S. 272, per Blackburn, J., at p. 277. See also
Clay V. Yates (1856), 1 H. & K73 Grafton v. Armitage (1845), 2 C. B. 336 ;
;
Atkinson v. Bell (1828), 8 B. & G. 277 Applehy v. Myers (1867), L.

;
2 C. P. K
651 ; Adlard v. Booth (1835), 7 C. & P. 108 Gillett v. Mawman (1808), 1 Tanrit.
;
137, as to the effect of usage of trade. See also p. 524, ante, and title Sale of
Goods.
{%) Story on Bailments, s. 423.
{k) Sunipter v. Hedges, [1898] 1 Q. B. 673. Compare Taylor v. Laird (1856), 25
L. J. (ex.) 329, per Pollock, C.B,, at p. 332: " Suppose I clean your property
without your knowledge, have I then a claim on you for payment ? One cleans
another's shoes ;what can the other do but put them on ? Is that evidence of a
contract to pay for the cleaning ?
(I) Farnswortli v. Garrard (1807), 1 Camp. 38, per Lord Ellenborough, at
p. 39, who says
" If there has been no beneficial service there shall be no pay,
:
but if some benefit has been derived, though not to the extent expected, this
shall go to the amount of the plaintiff's demand; . the claim shall be co-
. .
extensive with the benefit." Compare Duncan v. Blundell (1820), 3 Stark. 6, per
Bayley, J., at p. 7.
(m) Story on Bailments, s. 425 Wilmot v. Smith (1828), 3 C.
; & P. 453.
(V) Boherts v. Havelock (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 404.
558 Bailment.
Sect. 4. otherwise (o), in the absence of a contract to complete it the hirer

Hire of may nevertheless have to pay for the work actually done and for
Work and the materials supplied (p) .
L abour. workman who engages to do specified work in connection

with a chattel for an agreed sum to be paid on completion, and
fails to complete the work in accordance with the specification, is
not entitled to recover the price agreed upon, nor even the actual
value of the work he has done on a qioantum meruit (q), unless the
failure to complete is due to the hirer's default (r).
Yet if a new contract is made to pay for the work actually
done (s), the workman is entitled to recover the price agreed upon
less a deduction, and the measure of that deduction is generally the
sum which it would take to alter or complete the work so as to
make it correspond with the specification (t).
Where the hirer is under no obligation to pay for the work done,
he incurs no additional obligation by reason of the fact that the
workman has incorporated his own materials with those of the
hirer (u).
Extras. 1131. If the workman without any order or request does more
work than was originally stipulated for in the contract, and
there is on the part of the hirer no acquiescence in the change,
although the extra work is essential to the proper performance of
the contract, the hirer, in the absence of bad faith or conceal-
ment {v), is not bound to pay more than the sum originally agreed
upon by him (?/;). So, a workman, employed to do specified work
on a chattel for an agreed sum, who instead of doing the specified
work does different or better work, can recover from the hirer
neither the agreed sum under the special contract, nor the
value of the work done on a quantum meruit^ unless the hirer
has sanctioned or acquiesced in the change. The mere fact
that the hirer has received the chattel on which the work has
been done and has sold it at an enhanced price does not amount to
acquiescence {x).
But where during the course of the work the extras have been
ordered or assented to by the hirer, such extra work must be
paid for on a quantum meruit. In such cases, the contract is
(o) Menetone v. Athawes (1764), 3 Burr. 1592.
Ip) Appleby v. Myers (1867), L. K. 2 C. P. 651, per Blackbukn-, J., at

p. 660.
(q) Sinclair v. Bowles (1829), 9 B. & C. 92. Compare Roberts v. HavelocJc
(1832), 3 B. & Ad. 404. See also Sumpter v. Hedges, [1898] 1 Q. B. 673, Munro
V. Butt (1858), 8 E. & B. 738 ; Ellis v. Hamlen -(ISIO), 3 Taunt. 52.
(r) Appleby v. Myers, supra, per Blackbukn, J., at p. 658.
(s) Appleby v. Myers, supra, per Blackburn, J., at p. 661.
(t) Thornton v. Place (1832), 1 Mood. & E., per Parke, J., at p. 219 ; Ranger
V. Great Western Rail. Co. (1854), 5 H. L. Cas. 72.
(u) Sinclair v. Bowles, supra.
(v) Story on Bailments, s. 425.
(w) Brown v. Rollo (1832), 10 Sh., Gt. of Sess. 667 ; Wilmot v. Smith (1828),
3 C. & P. 453.
(x) Forman cfc Co. Proprietary v. The Liddesdale, [1900] A. C. 190. Compare
Monro v. Butt, supra.
— —
Paet III. Bailment for Valuable Consideration. 559
binding so far as it can be traced, and the quantum meruit applies Sect. 4.
to the remainder (y). Hire of

Work and
1132. A further obhgation on the part of the hirer is to afford Labour.
the ^Yorkman every reasonable facility for entering upon and
completing the contract which he has undertaken to perform (z). jjôbstract
If the hirer, after the contract has once been entered upon, wilfully workman,
obstruct the workman, and thereby retard him in his employment,
or intervene without just cause so as to prevent its completion, he
is liable to the workman for the loss actually caused by his inter-
ference {m). A similar duty and liability in case of default is
imposed upon the hirer, if it be one of the terms of the bargain
that he will supply the workman with the requisite materials for
the employment undertaken (a) . .
Sub-Sect. 3. Ohligations of the Workman,
1133. The first obligation of the workman is to perform his To do the

undertaking (b), unless the performance is rendered impossible by
circumstances beyond his control, as where the chattel upon which
the work is to be performed is destroyed by an accidental fire (c).
But he is responsible if the impossibility should have been foreseen
by him, and the hirer has acted in good faith {d).
1134. The general rule as to all workmen is Spondet peritiam To exercise
artis. The acceptance by a person of work of a class which he
holds himself out as qualified to do amounts to a warranty on his
part that he possesses the requisite skill and ability to do that
work (e). But where there is neither a general nor a particular
representation of skill and ability, a workman undertakes no
responsibility in respect of his want of either. If, for instance,
one man should employ another who is known to have never done
anything but sweep a crossing to clean or mend his watch, the
employer probably would be held to have incurred all risks him-
self (/). Moreover, the public profession of an art or craft amounts
only to a representation that the artificer or craftsman is reason-
ably competent to carry out any work of the class he professes to
(y) Napier v. Lang (1834), 12 Sli., Ct. of Sess. 523 ;

Shipton v. Casson (1826),
5 B. & C. 378.
(z) JVells V. Army and Navy Co-operative Society, Ltd. (1902), 86 L. T. 764 ;
Prickett v. Badger (1856), 1 C. B. (n. s.) 296 ; Gh-eenv. Lucas (1876), 33 L. T. 584 ;
Russell Y. da Bandeira (1862), 13 C. B. (n. s.) 149 ; Oourtnay v. Waterford and
Central Ireland Rail. Co. (1878), 4 L. Ir. 11. K
(m) Mackay v. Dick (1881), 6 App. Cas. 251. And see Lilley v. Barnsley
(1844), 2 Mood. & R. 548.
(a) Pothier, Contrat de Louage d'Ouvrage, s. 410.
(6) Story on Bailments, s. 428.
(c) Menetone v. Athaiues (1764), 3 Burr. 1592. And see Appleby v. Myers
(1867), L. R. 2 C. P. 651.
(d) Comhe v. Simmonds (1853), 1 W. R. 289 ; Pearce v. Tucker (1862), 3 F. & F.
136.
(e) Duncan v. Blundell (1820), 3 Stark. 6 Harmer v. Cornelius (1858), 5 C. B.
;
{n. s.), per WiLLES, J., at p. 246 1 Bell's Com., book 3, part 1, c. 3, tit.
;
"Skill."
(/) Jones on Bailments, p. 100 ; Harmer v. Cornelius, supra, per AVilles, J.,
at p. 246.
—
560 Bailment.
Sect. 4. do, and does not make him an insurer he contracts only to ;
Hire of display sufficient skill and knowledge of his calling to perform

Work and all ordinary duties connected therewith (^jr) When through negli- .
Labour. gence or lack of skill the workman fails to perform the work he
has undertaken in a workmanlike manner, he forfeits all claim
to remuneration (h), and, in addition, becomes liable to the hirer
for the loss sustained in consequence of his breach of duty (i).
But acceptance by the hirer of the labour after a slight and
unimportant breach of the contract may amount to a waiver of
such a breach (j).
Exercise of 1135. As the workman is entitled to a reward, either by express

care. agreement or by implication, he is also obliged not only to perform
his work in a workmanlike manner, but also to take ordinary care
of the chattel intrusted to him (k), and to restore it to the hirer at
the expiration of the period for which it was intrusted to him. If,
therefore, he detains it beyond the proper period, he is guilty of a
breach of duty, the measure of damages for which is prima facie
the sum which would have been earned in the ordinary course of
employment of the chattel during the period of its detention (l).
Where, however, it is lost or injured whilst in the workman's
custody, he will be responsible for the full amount of the damage
sustained, unless he can show {m) that the loss or injury is attribut-
able to inevitable accident, inherent vice, or some other extraneous
cause and not to any want of care on his part (o).
Sub-Sect. 4. Delegation.
Delegation. 1136. Where it is a condition of the contract that the work is to be

done personally by a particular workman, that workman cannot
delegate the work to another (p) But in many cases the nature of the
.
work is such that delegation or sub-contracting is permissible {p).

Where without the sanction of the hirer there is a transference
of the contractfrom the original workman to a third party, there
being no privity between the hirer and the actual workman, the
latter cannot recover from the former any compensation for his
services {q).
But if the hirer, after receiving notice that the contract has
been transferred to a third party, allow the assignee to proceed
(g) Lanphier v. Phipos (1838), 8 C. & P. 475, per Tindal, C.J., at p. 479.
(h) Cousins v. Paddon
(1835), 2 Cr. M. & E. 547.
(^) Story on Bailments, s. 431.
(./) Lucas V. Godwin (1837), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 737.
(k) Jones on Bailments, p. 91 Lecky. Maestaer (1807),
; 1 Camp. 138 ; Clarke v.
Earnshaw (1818), Gow, 30.
{I) Re Trent and Humher Co., Ex parte Cambrian Steam Packet Co. (1868), 4
Ch. App. 112, per Lord Cairns, L.C., at p. 117.
(m) See note (q), p. 552, ante.
(n) Story on Bailments, s. 437.
(o) Leek V. Maestaer, supra; Clarke v. Earnshaw, supra. Compare Wilson v.
Powis (1826), 11 Moo. C. P. 543; Jobson v. Palmer, [1893] 1 Ch. 71 ; BuUen v.
Swan Electric Engraving Co. (1907), 23 T. L. R. 258.
(p) See title Agency, pp. 169, 170, ante.
(q) Schmaling v. Thomlinson (1815), 6 Taunt. 147 ; and see Cull v. Backhouse
(1793), 6 Taunt. 148, note (a).
— — ;
s^^^t. 4.
with the work, there is a novation, and the assignee is entitled to sue
the employer for the value of the work done by him {r). Hire of
Work and
Sub-Sect. 5. Lien of Worhman. Labour.
1137. Everyone to whom a chattel is delivered in order that he Lien,

may, for reward, do work upon it, and who does work upon it, has
by the common law a lien on the chattel for the amount of the
remuneration due to him for the work done, and therefore is not
bound to restore it until his remuneration is paid (s), unless such
lien is excluded by express agreement or is otherwise inconsistent
with the express or implied terms of the contract (^). But if a
chattel is bailed to a workman for the sole purpose of his working
with it, and not upon it, no lien attaches (?0-
This lien applies, apart from agreement, only to the sum actually
due to the workman for materials and labour expended by him
in connection with the reparation or alteration of the chattel,
and does not extend to charges for warehousing {v). Nor will
the fact that the owner of the chattel is aware that an additional
charge will be made for each day during which his property
is detained in the valid exercise of the lien suffice to render him
liable for such charges. Thus the owner of a ship, who knew
that he must pay for dock room while the vessel was being
repaired, was held to have made no implied promise to pay any
additional charge for the period during which his vessel was
detained as security for the shipwright's charges, although he had
received notice that such charges would be made (iv).
Should the owner of the chattel bailed sell it, the workman's lien
attaches only for the amount of the debt due to him at the time
when he has notice of the sale, and not for any after-accruing debt(ic).
When a bailee of goods expressly agrees with his bailor to keep
the chattel bailed from injury, and this term in the agreement
necessarily implies its repair by a third party, the third party who
actually executes the repairs has an effective lien on the chattel
against the owner, although there may have been no privity of
contract between the owner and himself (2/).
(r) v. London and North Western Rail. Co. (1853), 11 Hare, 325 ; Old-
Aspinall
field V. Loive (1829), 9 B. & C. 73. As to the rights of the assignor against the
assignee, see Humphreys v. Jones (1850), 5 Exch. 952.
(s) Lx loarte Ockenden Re Mattheivs (1754), 1 Atk. 235 Franklin v. Hosier
;
(1821), 4 B. & Aid. 341. Hollis v. Glaridge (1813), 4 Taunt. 807 ; Scarfe v. Morgan
(1838), 4 M. & W. 270 ; Blake v. Nicholson (1814), 3 M. & S. 167 ; Ghase v.
Westmore (1816), 5 M. & S. 180; Story on Bailments, s. 440. See also, for
equitable liens, title Lien.
(t) Raitt V, Mitchell (1815), 4 Camp. 146 ; Ghase v. Westmore, supra, per Lord
Ellenborough, C.J., at p. 186 ; Scarfe v. Morgan, supra, per Parke, B., at
p. 283 ; Forth v. Simpson (1849), 13 Q. B. 680 ; and contvsi&t Ex parte Willoughhy,
Re Westlake (1881), 16 Ch. D. 604.
{u) Steadman v. Hockley (1846), 15 M. & W. 553, per Pollock, C.B., at p. 556
Bleaden v. Hancock (1829), 4 C. & P. 152.
{v) Somes v. British Empire Shipping Go. (1860), 8 H, L. Cas. 338 ; Bruce v.
Everson (1883), 1 Cab. & El. 18 Hartley v. Hitchcock (1816), 1 Stark. 408.
;
{w) Somes v. British Empire Shipping Co., supra.

(x) Barry v. Longmore (1840), 4 P. & D. 344.
(y) Keene v, Thomas, [1905] 1 K. B. 136 ; Singer Manufacturing Go. v.
London and South Western Rail. Co., [1894] 1 Q. B. 833.
H.L. — I. O O
— . ;
562 Bailment.
Sect. 4. The lien is lost by a relinquishment of possession on the part

Hire of of the workman (z),or by any act or agreement amounting to
Work and waiver (a).
Labour. Sect. 5.—Pledge.
Pledge. 1138. The remaining class of bailment for valuable consideration
ispledge {pignus), whereby a chattel is delivered to a bailee to be
held by him as security for money advanced to the bailor (6). The
subject of pledge will be separately treated at length in another
part of this work (c).
Part IV. — Considerations Common to All

Classes of Bailment.
Sect. 1. Estoppel of Bailee.
Estoppel of 1139. As a rule a bailee is estopped from setting up against his

bailee.
bailor's demand for a redelivery of the chattel bailed the right or
title of a third person to the property in it (d)
Justertii. But this estoppel ceases when the bailment on which it is
founded is determined by what is equivalent to an eviction by title
paramount (e) and the bailee is thereby discharged from all
;
liability to the bailor (/), unless there be a special contract, or the

bailee be in some way to blame for the eviction (g). But it is not
enough that the bailee has become aware of the title of a third
person, or that an adverse claim has been made upon him(/i).
Unless he has been actually evicted he can only set up the title
of a third person where he does so on behalf and on the express
authority of such third person {i).
Interrogatories may not be administered by a bailee to his bailor
for the purpose of showing that the latter has parted with his title
in the chattel to a third person, unless the bailee justifies his
detention of it by setting up the title of such third person with his
consent (k).
Jacobs V. Latour (1828), 5 Bing. 130

{z) Hartley v. Hitchcock (1816), 1 Stark.
;
408 Legg v. Evans (1840), 6 M. & W. 36, per Parke, B., at p. 42.
;
{a) White v. Gainer (1824), 2 Bing. 23.

\h) Goggs v. Bernard (1703), 2 Ld. Raym. 909, per Lord Holt, C.J., at p. 913
Jones on Bailments, 4tli ed. p. 36 Story on Bailments, s. 286.
;
See title Pawnbrokers and Pledges.

(c)
(d) Biddle v. Bond (1865), 6 B. & S. 225 Betteley v. Reed (1843), 4 Q. B. 511
; ;
Ex parte Davies, Re Sadler (1881), 19 Gh. D. 86 Leese v. Martin (1873), L. R.

;
17 Eq. 224.
{e) Biddle v. Bond, supra, per Blackburn, J., at p. 234.
(/) Ross V. Edwards d; Go. (1895), 73 L. T. 100, per Lord Macnaghten, at

p. 101.
(g) Ross V. Edwards & Go., supra.
(h) Betteley v. Reed, supra, per Lord Denman, C.J., at p. 517 ; Leese v. Martin,
supra.
(i) Rogers c& Go. v. Lambert cfc Go., [1891] 1 Q. B. 318, per Lord Esher, M.R.,
at p. 325. See also Thorne v. Tilbury (1858), 3 H. & N. 534.
{k) Rogers <& Go. v. Lambert cfc Go., supra.
— .
Part IY. — Considerations Common to all Classes of Bailment. 563
1140. If a third person chiim the chattel and threaten the bailee Sect. i.
with proceedings, and the bailor nevertheless insist on his title, the Estoppel of
bailee may interplead (/). Bailee.
A
bailee who forbears to interplead makes himself a party to a interpleader,
possibly wrongful detention by retaining the chattel for the bailor,
and he must then stand or fall by the bailor's title (m).
1141. Where a bailee in possession of a chattel attorns to a third Attornment,
person, he is estopped from subsequently denying the title of such
third person, even though the person to whom he has attorned
obtained a transfer of the property from the original bailor by
fraudulent misrepresentation (u)
And this rule applies even if the chattel reaches the hands of the
bailee subsequently to his agreement to attorn; for though an
attornment made by a person out of possession has no immediate
application, yet it applies when he obtains possession (o).
As a general rule, in order to perfect his attornment to a third
person, the chattel must be specific, or there must be a specific
appropriation so as to make the chattel specific (p). On a sale of
goods, when the seller has once recognised the right of the buyer
to dispose of goods remaining in the seller's possession, he cannot
subsequently defeat the right of a third person claiming under the
purchase, upon the ground that no property passed to the latter by
reason of the want of a specific appropriation of the goods (q). In
the event of a conversion of a chattel by the bailee after his attorn-
ment, the parties injured thereby are entitled to damages, which in
such a case would be estimated at the market value of the chattel
at the time of its conversion (r).
Sect. 2. Rights and Obligations as regards Third Persons.
1142. The owner of a chattel bailed, although formerly not Rights of

^îôi"-
entitled to sue in trover for its conversion (s), has sufficient property
in it to maintain an action against a third person for its loss or
permanent injury whilst in the bailee's hands, because he has a
reversionary interest in the chattel upon the termination of the
hailment(0.
Further, where the bailee, by a wrongful dealing with the chattel,
has determined the bailment, all third persons, however innocent,
(1) Interpleader proceedings are now taken under R. S. C, Ord. 57, or the
corresponding provisions under the County Courts Act, 1883. See title
Interpleader.
(m) Wilson v. Anderton (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 450, per Lord Tenterden, C.J., at
p). 456.
(n) Henderson <& Go. v. Williams, [1895] 1 Q. B. 521, êr Lord Halsbury, at
p. 529.
(o) Roll V. Griffin (1833), 10 Bing. 246, per Tindal, C.J., at p. 248.
(p) Uniuin v. Adams (1858), 1 F. F. 312 & ; Tannery. Scovell (1845), 14 M. &
y^. 28.
Woodley v. Goventry (1863), 32 L. J. (ex.) 185.
(q)
Henderson cfc Go. v. Williams, supra, per Lord Halsbury, at p. 530.
(r)
(s) Gordon v. Harper (1796), 7 Term Rep. 9.
{t) Mears v. London and South Western Rail. Go. (1862), 11 C. B. (n. s.) 850
;
Hall V. Pickard (1812), 3 Camp. 187 Meux v. Great Eastern Rail. Go., [1895] 2
;
^Q. B. 387.
o o 2
. ;
1
564 Bailment.
Sect. 2. who purport in any way to deal with the property in the chattel (a),
Rights and are guilty of conversion and liable to the bailor (h).
Obligations The bailee of a chattel is also entitled, while it continues in
as regards his possession, to maintain trover in his own name against any
Third person who may dispossess him of it (c), or to sue for damages if
Persons.
the chattel be injured. The fact that he is under no responsibility
Eights of to his bailor for the damage resulting from the negligence of a third
bailee.
person, will not avoid his right of action against the tort-feasor (<i).
He can recover not only the full value of the chattel bailed, for which
amount he is a trustee to the true owner (e), but also any further
damages which he may personally sustain through deprivation of
the use of the chattel owing to its damaged condition (/)
Eights of 1143. Where the bailee personally assumes the conduct and
third persons. custody of the chattel bailed, he is solely responsible to a third
person for any injury which the latter may sustain by reason of the
negligent handling of the chattel {g). But if the chattel is in charge
of his servant at the time of the injury, the bailee is only responsible
if the tortious act was committed while the servant was acting
within the scope of his employment (h).

Where the bailor not only lets out a chattel, but also provides
servants to manage it during the term of the hiring, the bailee is
not responsible to a third person for injuries which may be caused
by the negligence of such servants, provided that there is no inter-
ference by the bailee with such management. In that case the
bailor is responsible, provided that the servants are acting in the
course of their employment or within the scope of the authority
delegated to them (^).
But the bailor will not be responsible merely because his name is
inscribed upon the chattel (j). He will be exempt if he can prove that
at the time of the accident he had let out the chattel to a hirer,
and that such hirer, or his agent, had control over it to the exclusion
(a) Furlong, [1891] 2 Ch. 172.

Barker v.
(6) Willomatt (1845), 1 C. B. 672 Loeschman v. Machin (1818), 2

Cooper v. ;
Stark. 311 unless the transaction is protected by the Factors Act, 1889 (52 & 53
;
Vict. c. 45), s. 2, see Ojjpenheimer v. Attenborough (b Son, [1907] 1 K. B. 510

Oppenlieimer v. Frazer and Wyatt, [1907] 2 K. B. 50 and see title Agency.
;
(c) Burton v. Hughes (1824), 2 Bing. IIZ, per Best, C..J., at p. 175; Rootli v.
Wilson (1817), 1 B. & Aid. 59,; Croft v. Alison (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 590 Raynor
;
V. Childs (1862), 2 F. & F. 775 Sutton v. Buck (1810), 2 Taunt. 302.

;
{d) Tlie Winkfield, [1902] P. 42 (overruling Claridge v. South Staffordshire

Tramway Co., [1892] 1 Q. B. 422).
(e) lUd.
If) As to the measure of damages recoverable, see The Greta Holme, [1897]
4. C 596
'(^f) Jones V. Scullard, [1898] 2 Q. B. 565.
As to "scope of employment," see Beard v. London General Omnibus Co.,
Qi)
[1900] 2 Q. B. 530 Giâcey v. Belfast Tramway Co., [1901] 2 Ir. 322 ; Limpus
;
V. London General Omnibus Co. (1862), 1 H. & C. 526. 'See titles Agency ;
Master and Servant.
{%) Jones y: Corporation of Liverpool (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 890 ;
Quarman v.
Burnett (1840), 6 M. & W. 499; Dalyell v. Tyrer (1858), E. B. & E. 899
Eourke v. White Moss Colliery Co. (1877), 2 C. P. D. 205 Waldoch v. Winfield,
;
[1901] 2 K. B. 596 Union Steamship Co. v. Claridge, [1894] A. C. 185.

;
( j)
Smith v. Bailei/, [1891] 2 Q. B. 403.
— —
Part TV. — Considerations Common to all Classes of Bailment. 565
of all interference with the working or management either by the Sect. 2.
bailor or his agents (/b). Rights and

Obligations
Sect. 3. Statute of Limitations.
as regards
1144. No action will lie against a bailee for a refusal to redeliver Third
the chattel bailed to the bailor (l) until after a demand has been Persons.
made by the bailor for its return (7?i). In order to succeed in statute of
such an action the bailor must prove that he is entitled to the Limitations.
delivery of the chattel, and that the bailee is wrongfully detaining
it {n). In such cases the Statute of Limitations runs against the
bailor from the date of the demand and refusal to redeliver, and
not from the date of the conversion, even though the bailment was
determined and a complete cause of action raised by a wrongful sale
or other tortious act of the bailee committed more than six years
before the date of the demand (o).
Sect. 4. Joint Bailors and Joint Bailees.
1145. Where chattels belonging to co-owners are delivered to a Joint bailors,

bailee, he is bound to redeliver them to any of the co-owners on
demand (jj), unless it is a term in the contract that he shall deliver
up possession only upon the demand of all the co-owners. In the
latter case he is justified in refusing to redeliver the chattels on the
demand of one or some of them only, and detinue will not lie against
him for such a refusal {q). But, in such a case, if he delivers up the
chattels to one of the co-owners upon his sole request, no action
will lie against him for so doing, unless all the bailors join for that
purpose and as the person to whom they were actually redelivered
;
cannot join with his co-owners in maintaining an action for a

breach occasioned by his own act, no action for detinue will lie
against the bailee {r). As, however, the bailee would be a trustee
of the chattels for all the co-owners, he would be held liable in
equity to those who were injured by his breach of trust (s).
1146. Where a chattel is bailed to two or more bailees, each is Joint bailees,
responsible for the acts and defaults of his co-bailees done or made
within the scope of their authority (t). Probably, however, he is
not responsible if the act or default is not negligence in the
performance of the contract, but something wholly outside it (u).
(k) Smith V. Bailey, [1891] 2 Q. B. 403 ; Nicholson v. Harrison (1856), 4 W. R.
459.
(l) Or, in the case of mutuum, their equivalent (Ee Tidd, [1893] 3 Ch. 154).
(m) Cullen v. Barclaij (1881), L. R. 10 Ir. 224.

(n) Gledstane v. Hewitt (1831), 1 Or. & J. 565, jper Bayley, B., at p. 570.
(o) Wilkinson v. Verity (1871), L. E. 6 C. P. 206 ; Philpott v. Kelley (1835),
3 A. & E. 106. See title Limitation of Actions.
ip) Broadbent v. Ledivard (1839), 11 A. & E. 209.
(g) Atwood V. Ernest (1853), 13 C. B. 881; May v. Harvey (1811), 13 East,
197.
(r)Brandon v. & B. 234.
Scott (1857), 7 E.
(s)Brandon v. supra, per Lord Campbell, C.J., at p. 237.
Scott, See also
Harper v. Godsell (1870), L. R. 5 Q. B. 422.
(^) Daveij v. Chamberlain (1803), 4 Esp. 229 ; Coupe Co. v. Maddick, [1891]
2 B. 413, per Cave, J., at p. 415 ; Story on Bailments, s. 116.
(u) Story on Bailments, s. 116. This would seem to follow upon principle
from the analogous cases of a bailee's responsibility for his servants. See pp. 553,
564, ante.
( 566 )
BAKEHOUSES.
See Factoeies and Workshops.
BALLOT.
See Elections.
( 567 )
BANKERS AND BANKING.
Part I.DEFINITIONS --------- PAGE

568
Part II. CONSTITUTION OF BANKS
Sect. 1. The Bank or England
Sub-sect. 1.
------
Constitution -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
-
570
570
570
Sub-sect. 2. Note Issue - - - - - - - 570
Sect.
Sub-sect.
2.
3.
Bank Notes generally ------

Eestriction on Note Issue
-----
- - - - 571
574
Sect.
Sect.
Sect.
3.
4.
5.
Bank of Ireland -------
Banks of Issue in Scotland
Trustee Savings Banks - - - - - -

575
575
576 '
Sect.
Sect.
6.
7. -----
Seamen's and Nayal and Military Savings Banks 578
-------
Post Office Savings Banks 579
Sect.
Sect.
8.
9.
Joint Stock Banks
Private Banks -------
-----
Foreign and Colonial Banks
-
581
583
Part
Sect. 10.
III.
Sect.
BUSINESS OF BANKING ------
1. Eeceipt of Money on Current Account
583
- -
583
583
Sect. 3. Collection of Cheques ------

Sect. 2. Eeceipt of Money on Deposit Account -
-------
- - 588
590
Sect.
Sub-sect.
Sub- sect.
4.
1.
2.
Generally
------
Crossed Cheques
Collection of Bills of Exchange - - - -
590
593
598
Sect. 5.
Sub-sect. 1.
Sub-sect. 2.
-----
Collection of other Documents
-----
Orders for Payment
Dividend Warrants
- - - - 599
599
600
Sect.
Sub-sect. 3.
Sub-sect. 4.
6. Payment of Cheques
------
Post Office Money Orders
------
Bankers' Drafts
- - - - 601
602
602
Sect. 7.
Sub-sect.
Sub -sect.
1.
2.
------
Protection to Bankers paying Cheques
Bearer Cheques
Order Cheques - - - - -
- -
-
608
608
609
Sub-sect. 3.
Sub-sect. 4.
Sub-sect. 5.
_____
Crossed Cheques
Drafts on a Banker
- - - -
Payment of Orders with Eeceipt attached

- -
-
610
612
613
Sect. 8. Payment of Bills accepted payable at a Banker's 614
Sect. 9. Forged or Altered Cheques - - - - - 615
Sect. 10. Eecovery of Money paid on Forged Documents - 617
Sect. 11.
Sect. 12.
The Pass-book -
The Banker's Lien
- -
-------
- - - - -619
620
;
568 Bankers and Banking.
Part III. BUSINESS OF BANKING— continued. page

Sect. 13. Letters of Credit and Documentary Bills - - 623
Sect.
Sect.
14. Circular Notes
15. Safe Custody oe Valuables -----

-------
626
627
Sect.
Sect.
16. Discounting Bills
17. Advances by Bankers

--
------
-- --
629
630
Sub-sect. 1. Loan
Sub-sect. 2.
Sect. 18. Securities for

-
Overdraft
Advances
-------
------
- 630
630
632
Sub-sect. 1. Legal Mortgages
Sub-sect. 2. Equitable Mortgages
Sub-sect. 3. Bills and Notes
-
-----
-
------
- - - - 632
632
634
Sub-sect. 5. Stock and Shares ------

Sub-sect. 4. Other Negotiable Securities
Sub-sect. 6. Policies of Life Assurance

-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
635
635
637
Sub-sect. 7. Documents of Title to Goods - - - - 638
Sect. 19. Guarantees - - - - - - - -639
Sect. 20. Charges and Commissions - _ _ _ _ 643
Sect. 21. Banker's Obligation to Secrecy - - - - 643
Sect. 22. Production, Inspection etc. of Bankers' Books - 644
For Bills of Exchange and Negotiahle Instruments generally, see title BiLLS OF
Exchange, Promissory Notes and Negotiable Instruments.
Bank. 1147. A bank is a corporation, partnership or individual carrying

on the business of banking.
Banker. A banker is such individual or a member of such partnership
but for some purposes the term " banker" includes corporations or
partnerships carrying on the business of banking {a).
Clearing Clearing banks are such as are entitled to the privileges of the
bank.
London Clearing House (6).
Banking 1148. The business of banking, strictly speaking, is the receipt of

business.
money from or on account of a customer (c), to be repaid on demand
or when drawn on by cheque {d). In the case of banks lawfully
issuing bank notes such issue is a part of banking business.
(a) See Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46- Vict. c. 61), s. 2.
(6) Asto the practice of the London Clearing House, see Boddington v
Schlenker (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 752, and the Clearing House Rules, 1902. What is
known as the country clearing is the department of the London Clearing House
which deals with country cheques. There are local clearing houses at many
provincial centres.
(c) As to what constitutes a customer, see pp. 595, 596, 'post,
{d) Foley^ v. Hill (1848), 2 H. L. Cas. 28, at p. 43. The collection of crossed
cheques, being a, statutory necessity, is part of the business of banking, but is
included in the above definition. The numerous other functions undertaken by
modern bankers, such as payment of domiciled bills, custody of valuables, and
discounting bills, do not come within the strict definition of banking business.
—
The judicial recognition of the banker's lien (e) implies the Pî^t I.
inclusion in banking business of the making of advances or the Definitions,

granting of overdrafts to customers.
1149. A cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a banker, payable Cheque,

on demand (/).
A bearer cheque is one expressed to be payable to a particular
person or bearer (g), or to bearer (Ii).
An order cheque is one which is expressed to be so payable, or
w^hich is expressed to be payable to a particular person or body
and does not contain words prohibiting transfer or indicating an
intention that it should not be transferable (i). A cheque payable
to the order of a particular person, and not to him or his order, is
nevertheless payable to him or his order at his option (j).
A crossed cheque is a cheque which bears across the face of it Crossed
(a) two parallel transverse lines, with or without the words and
company " or any abbreviation thereof between them, and either with
or without the words " not negotiable," such a cheque is crossed
generally (b) an addition of the name of a banker, either with or
;
wîthout the words "not negotiable," such a cheque is crossed

specially to that banker {k).
A bank note is a bill or note for the payment of money to the Bank note,
bearer on demand issued by a bank (l).
(e) Brandao v. Barnett (1846), 12 CI. & F. 787. See p. 620, 2^081.
If) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 73. It is not necessarily
drawn by a customer {Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240, at
p. 250, where drafts drawn by a branch on the head office of the same bank were
accorded the protection of the Stamp Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 59), s. 19, whicli
uses the words " draft or order drawn upon a banker"). For form of cheque, see
Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. II., p. 515.
((/) For cheques made payable to a particular object, e.g., "wages," see p. 608,
jpost.
{h) An order cheque on which the only or last indorsement is an indorsement
in blank isequally payable to bearer (Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict,
c. 61), s. 8 (3) ).
(t) s. 8 (4).
Ibid., The addition of the words " account payee " does not prohibit
transfer or indicate such intention {National Bank v. Silke, [1891] 1 Q. B. 435).
It is a question whether a cheque m.ade payable to "order" can be made non-
transferable (ibid.). I'he judgments in this case have been read as implying that
the " not negotiable " crossing prohibited transfer. Such is clearly not the case ;
compare Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 81, which limits
negotiability, not transferability Great Western Rail. Co. v. London and County
;
Bank, [1901] A. C. 414.

(./) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 8 (5).
{k) Ibid., s. 76. Transverse parallel lines are not necessary in a specially
crossed cheque. The words not negotiable" by themselves do not constitute a
crossing (see p. Qll, post). For forms of crossing, see Encyclopaedia of Forms,
Vol. II., pp. 515, 516.
[1) See Bank Charter Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 32), s. 28 Stamp Act, 1854 ;
(17 & 18 Vict. c. 83), s, 11, qucere, however, as to the meaning of "holder" in that
section. The payee of an order cheque or draft is a " holder," though not bearer
(see Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 2 Day v. Lonqhurst,
;
[1893] W. N.. 3 Lloyd's Bank, Ltd. v. Cooke, [1907] 1 K. B. 794, per Fletcher
;
MouLTON, L.J., at p. 807). See note (r), p. 572, post.

— —
Part II. — Constitution of Banks.
Sect. 1. Sect. 1. The Bank of England.

The Bank Sub-Sect. 1. Constitution.
of England.
1150. In 1694, by Act of Parliament (m) and letters patent
Grovernor and
authorised thereby {n), the subscribers and contributors to a Govern-
Company of
the Bank of ment loan of dBl, 200,000, their heirs, successors, and assigns, were
England. constituted a body corporate and politic by the name of the Governor
and Company of the Bank of England, with perpetual succession
and a common seal.
Capital etc. The annual sum of dGlOOjOOO charged on Government revenues
was appropriated to the benefit of such corporation, being 8 per
cent, on the amount subscribed and ^£4,000 a year for manage-
ment (o). Additional capital has from time to time been authorised,
and the total now amounts to i>14, 553,000, the proprietors of which
constitute the corporation. The internal affairs of the corpora-
tion are now governed by charter granted under parliamentary
powers (j:>).
Transfers in Consols and most Government stocks are transferred by means

books of the of the books of the Bank of England {q).
Bank.
Branches. 1151. The Bank of England has statutory power to establish
branches in any part of England, provided notes issued at such
branch are made payable there as well as in London {r).
Sub-Sect. 2. Note Issue.
Circulation of 1152. The notes of the Bank

legal tender in
of England are
notes. England and Wales except when tendered by the
for sums over i:5,
Bank itself or a branch thereof, so long as the Bank continues to
pay its notes in legal issue on demand (s). They are not legal
tender in Scotland (^) or Ireland (a), but their circulation is not
forbidden in either case. A Bank of England note is part of the
currency of the country (b). The liability of the Bank on its notes
is not affected by any lapse of time (c). All notes, whether issued
by the Bank of England itself or by a branch bank, are payable at
the Bank of England in London, but not at any of its branches
(m) Bank of England Act, 1694 (5 W. & M. c. 20), s. 19.

ill) Dated July 27, 1694.
(o) Bank of England Act, 1694 (5 W. & M. c. 20), s. 17, and charter,
(jo) Bank
Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 48). -
(g) As to
liability to the Bank by presentation of forged power of attorney,
see Starkey v. Bank of England, [1903] A. C. 114; by stockbroker identifying
the wrong person as transferor, Bank of England v. Cutler, [1907] 1 K. B. 889.
(r) Country Bankers Act, 1826 (7 Geo. 4, c. 46), s. 15.
(s) Bank of England Act, 1833 (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 98), s. 6.
(0 Bank Notes Issue Eegulation (Scotland) Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 38),
s. 15.
(a) Bankers (Ireland) Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 37), s. 6.
(&) SufellV. Bank of England (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 555, at p. 563.
- (c) See Bank Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 48), s. 6, the reason assigned being that
they are part of the actual currency of the country.
——
Pakt 11. Constitution of Banks. 571
unless specially made payable there (d). Any person is entitled to Sect. i.
demand from the Bank notes in exchange for bullion at the rate of The Bank
£o 17s. 9(/. per ounce, but the melting and assaying are at the of England,
expense of the person tendering the gold (e).
The amount of notes which the Bank of England may issue is Amount of
governed by the amount of securities and gold and silver bullion
appropriated to the issue department (/). The securities and issue
may, under Order in Council, be increased by two-thirds of the
authorised issue of any bank ceasing to issue its own notes (c/).
Where notes have not been presented for payment within forty
years after issue, the amount may be written off the authorised
issue, but this does not affect the liability of the Bank on such notes
if subsequently presented (//).
1153. A
holder with no title or a defective title cannot compel Rights of
payment of a note by the Bank (i), but any person taking such note holder.
honestly and for value acquires a good independent title thereto and
can enforce payment (A;).
A material alteration in a bank note invalidates it, even in the Alteration
hands of a holder in due course. An alteration of the number is iio^.
a material alteration (/).
1154. The Bank of England has periodically to publish a state- Periodical

ment of the amountand of the gold
of notes issued and silver statement,
bullion and securities in the issue department (m).
1155. The notes of the Bank of England are exempt from all Exempti:ion
stamp duty {n) .
from stamp
Sub-Sect. 3. Restriction on Note Issue.
1156. The Bank

of England has exclusive and restrictive rights Banks issuing
notes.
England and Wales.
as to note issue in
Within the city of London and a three-mile radius, measured
from the Eoyal Exchange, it has the monopoly (o).
Outside that radius and within a radius of sixty-five miles
from London the right is shared with banks of six or less persons
{d) Bank of England Act, 1833 (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 98), s. 6.
{e) Bank Charter Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 32), s. 4.
(/) lUd., s. 2.
[q] Ibid., s. 5.
(h) Bank Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 48), s. 6.
(i) Raphael v. Bank of England (1855), 17 C. B. 161, is not really an exception
to the proposition that bank notes are currency. Honest acquisition is a condition
of right, even to coin.
{k) la Chaumette v. Bank of England (1829), 9 B. & C. 208.
De Compare Siiffell v.
Bank of England (1882), 9 Q, B. D. 555, at p. 567 Ransted v. Bank of England ;
(1900), Journal of Institute of Bankers, Vol. XXL, p. 157.

{I) Suffell V. Bank of England, supra, which is not affected by the proviso to sect. 64
of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61). See Leeds Bank v. Walker
(1883), 11 Q. B. D. 84, 90.
(m) Bank Charter Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 32), s. 6, and Sched. A.
(n) Ibid., s. 7 Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39), Sched. I., Bills of
;
Exchange, Exemption 1. See title Eevenue,

(o) Bank Notes Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 23), s. 1 Capital and Counties Bank v. ;
Bank of England (1889), 61 L. T. blQ,per Bowen, L.J., at p. 517 Bank Charter ;
Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 32), ss. 10, 11. It is theoretically lawful for a bank of not
more than six partners lawfully issuing notes within these limits on May 6, 1844,
to continue doing so, but apparently there was none such at that date.
572 Bankees and Banking.
Sect. established before May 6, 1844, and lawfully issuing their own
1.
The Bank notes at that date (p).

of England. Outside the sixty-five mile radius the right of the Bank of
England to issue notes is shared with all banks established before
May 6, 1844, and then lawfully issuing their own notes, which have
not since lost the privilege (q).
Prohibition A bank not entitled to issue notes is prohibited from attaining
upon note the same end by drawing, accepting, making, or issuing any bill
issue.
of exchange or promissory note payable to bearer on demand, or
by borrowing, owing, or taking up money on such bills or notes (r).
Loss of right 1157. A bank loses its right to issue notes by bankruptcy, giving
to issue notes.
up business, or ceasing to issue bank notes (s) and it may relinquish
;
the right in return for an annual compensation payable by the

Bank of England {t). Where the individual existence of a note-
issuing bank is lost through its absorption by a non-issuing bank,
no manipulation will continue the right of issue to the absorbing
bank (a). But where two or more banks, each consisting of not
more than six persons, and each possessing the privilege of issuing
notes, unite, they may apply to the Commissioners of Inland
Kevenue to certify the aggregate of the amounts of bank notes each
was previously authorised to issue, and the united bank may issue
notes up to that amount so long as the number of partners in such
united bank shall not exceed six (h). Moreover, where a bank has
the right to issue independent of numbers, its absorption of other
banks, issuing or not issuing, will not affect its right (c).
(^j) Bank of England Act, 1833 (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 98), s. 2 {Capital and Counties
Bank v. Ba7ik of England (1889), 61 L. T. 516) Bank Charter Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict,
;
c. 32), s. 11. It has been laid down by some writers that this limit of six has been
enlarged to ten by the Joint Stock Banking Companies Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict,
c. 49),12, repealed and re-enacted by the Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89),
s.
R. Third Schedule, Part II. This is not so. These Acts and the Joint Stock
205,
Banks Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 113), which fixed the limit at six, apart from letters
patent, are simply Acts regulating the formation of new companies for banking
business, a term which, afier the Bank Charter Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 32),
acquired the meaning of deposit apart from issue business. Sect. 19 of the Joint
Stock Banking Companies Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 49), expressly enacted that
nothing therein contained shoukl atiect the provisions of the Bank Charter Act,
1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 32), which enacted by sect. 11 that it should not be lawful tor
any company or partnership then consisting of six or less persons to issue bank notes
at any time after tlie number of partners therein should exceed six in the whole.
{q) Country Bankers Act, 1S26 (7 Geo. 4, c. 46) Bank Notes Act, 1828
;
(9 Geo. 4, c. 23) Bank of England Act, 1833 (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 98) Bank
; ;
Charter Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 32), ss. 10, 11 {Capital andCounties Bankv. Bank
of England, supra).
(r) Bank Charter Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 32), s. 11. See also definition of
bank note, Stamp Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 83), s. 11, where "holder" must,
however, be read as equivalent to ''bearer." Compare Bank Charter Act, 1844
(7 & 8 Vict. c. 32), s. 26, which gives special power to draw, accept, or indorse
bills not being payable to bearer on demand. See note {I), p. 569, ante.
(s) Bank Charter Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 32), s. 12.
(0 Ihid., s. 24 Bankers' Compositions Act, 1856 (19 & 20 Vict. c. 20).

;
{a) A.-G. V. Birkbeck (1884), 12 Q. B. D.. 605.

(h) Bank Charter Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 32), s. 16.
(c) Compare Capital and Counties Bank v. Bank of England, supra, a case of
recovering compensation for ceasing to issue, but the principle is the same, the
identity of the bank not being lost.
—
Part II. Constitution of Banks. 57B
Similarly the right to the annual compensation which the Bank Sect. i.
of England has to pay to banks which have voluntarily surrendered The Bank
their right to issue notes is lost by the absorption of the compensated of England,
bank, but not by its absorption of others (c?).
1158. Banks issuing notes have to render weekly statements statement of
showing the notes in circulation each day and the average circala- note issue,
tion in the week. Every four weeks the statement must further
show the average in circulation during that period, and the
authorised issue (e) The average circulation on the four weeks
.
must not exceed the certified amount of the authorised issue, under
a penalty equal to the excess (/).
1159. Bankers, other than the Bank of England, issuing notes Licence for
must, on or before October the 10th in every year, take out a licence, issue of notes,
costing £Q0. The licence may be for the issue of stamped notes
only for sums not exceeding £100 (g) or for the issue of unstamped
notes {h), the stamp duty being compounded for at 8s. 6d. the ^BlOO
of note value, but tlie banker must give security by bond for the due
performance of certain conditions (i). If a banker holding a licence
of the former class obtains one of the latter class, his right to issue
stamped notes is not extinguished (/.;), but is covered by the one
licence. The licence is issued by the Commissioners of Inland
Kevenue (l), A separate licence must be taken out in respect of
each town or place where notes are issued, but bankers who on
May 6, 1844, held four licences, need not take out more than four
in respect of the number of places at which they were at that date
issuing notes {m). Names and addresses of the partners, or the
proper name and description of the corporation to which a licence is
granted, with other particulars, are to be set out in the licence (n), but
where a partnership consists of more than six persons, particulars
need only be specified as to six (o).
A bank note issued duly stamped or issued unstamped by a banker stamps,
duly licensed to issue unstamped notes may be from time to time
re-issued without being liable to fresh stamp duty {jj). The licence
is not affected by a change during its currency in the composition of
the partnership {q), but a new bond must be entered into for payment
of the composition, unless the co-partnership exceeds six in number (/•).
{d) Capital and Counties Banh v. Bank of England (1889), 61 L. T. 516 (absorp-
tion by compensated bank) Prescott, Dimsdale <& Co, v. Bank of England, [1894]
;
1 Q. B. 351 (absorption of compensated bank).

(g) Bank Charter Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 32), s. 18.
(/) Ibid., s. 17.

(g) Stamp Act, 1815 (55 Geo. 3, c. 184), s. 24
(/i) Bank Notes Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 23), s. 1
{i) Ibid., s. 7.
{k) Ibid., s. 5.
(0 Ibid., 2 Inland Revenue Board Act, 1849 (12

s. ; & 13 Vict. c. 1), s. 3.
(m) Bank Notes Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 23), s. 3 ; Bank Charter Act, 1844
(7 & 8 Vict. c. 32), s. 22.
(n) Bank Notes Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 23). The particulars are to be those
required by the Country Bankers Act, 1826 (7 Geo. 4, c. 46), s. 4.
(o) Revenue (No. 2) Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 91), s. 35.
(p) Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39), s. 30.

(q) Bank Notes Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 23), s. 4.
(r) Ibid., s. 10.
—
Sect. 2.
Sect. 2. Bank Notes generally,
Bank Notes
generally. 1160. Bank cannot be issued for sums less than £5 in
notes (s)
England (t), sums

less than £1 in Scotland (a) or Ireland (b).
or for
Eestriction
on amount of
Bank notes may be re-issued after payment (c), but in practice the
note. Bank of England never re-issues any notes. The circulation of Scotch
or Irish notes for sums under £5 in England is prohibited (d),
Tender of 1161. Apart from Bank of England notes, which are legal
country note
tender (e), the notes of an English bank are good tender for money,
in payment.
if not objected to at the time (/). They may be so objected to
even by the banker who issued them, if tendered to him in
payment (g).
Half notes. 1162. Bank notes are frequently cut in halves for purposes of
transmission or otherwise, and the practice is recognised as
legitimate (li). In case of loss of one half, the Bank of England
pays the other half on indemnity (i). It has been held, however,
that a half bank note may be sued on without indemnity (k).
"Whether a Court has power to treat the matter as loss of a bill or
negotiable instrument on indemnity being given would seem
doubtful (l). But when the whole note is lost, the Court can allow
the action to proceed on indemnity being given im).
Effect of 1163. If a bank note be given in payment for value received at

payment by the time, the payment is complete, and in the event of dishonour of
country note
the note, no recourse can be had against the transferor either on the
note or the consideration for it {n). But a note given for a pre-exist-
ing debt has been held to be only payment conditional on its being
paid when presented (o). A note, however, must be presented or
circulated within a reasonable time, otherwise, in the event of the
bank failing, the loss will fall on the transferee And in the
(s) For definition of a bank note, see p. 569, ante.

(t) Bank Notes Act, 1826 (7 Geo. 4, c. 6), s. 3 ; and by terms of licence, Bank
Notes Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 23), s. 1.
(a) Bank Notes (Scotland) Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Yict. c. 38), s. 16.
(b) Bankers (Ireland) Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 37), s. 15.
(c) Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39), s. 30.
(d) Bank Notes (No. 2) Act, 1828 (9 Geo. 4, c. 65), s. 1.
(e)See p. 570, ante.

If) Wright v. Reed (1790), 3 Term Rep. 554, per Buller, J., in which case
Bank of England notes prior to their being made legal tender were objected to.
(g) Forster v. Wilson (1843), 12 M. & W. 191.
(h) Williams v. Smith (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 496 ;
Redmayne v. Burton (1860), 2
L. T. 324.
{i) Redmayne v. Burton, supra. For a form of indemnity, see Encyclopaedia of
Forms, Vol. IL, p. 502.
(k) Ibid. See, however, Mayor v. Johnson (1813), 3 Camp. 324.
[l)Common Law Procedure Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 125), s. 87, as amended
by Statute Law Revision Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. c. 19), s. 1, sched. Bills of ;
Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 70. The question is whether half a
note is a negotiable instrument " or a " bill." As to indemnity, see title
Guarantee.
(m) See statutes cited in last note.
{n) Camidge v. Allenby (1827), 6 B. & C. 373.
(©) Ibid., per Bayley, J., at p. 382. But the doctrine is not fully established.
Ip) Guardians of Lichfield v. Greene (1857), 26 L. J. (ex.) 140.
—— —
Part II. Constitution of Banks. 575
event of the bank faihng, or the note being dishonoured, the trans- 8-egt. 2.
feree, in order to preserve his right as against the transferor, must Bank Notes
give him notice and offer to return the note (q). generally.
Payment in forged or materially altered notes is in any case of no
effect whatever, and the amount may be recovered (?'). And notes
of a bank which, unknown to either party, had actually stopped
payment, would stand on the same footing (s).
1164. Interest is payable on a bank note, if payment is refused, interest,
from the date of demand, and in the case of a joint stock bank,
which is being wound up, having stopped payment, a claim on the
liquidator is a sufficient demand (t).
Sect. 3. Banks of Issue in Scotland.
1165. There is no
individual bank in Scotland possessing Note issue in
exclusive rights of issuing bank notes like the Bank of England Scotland,
and Bank of Ireland. In 1845 all bankers claiming to issue notes
in Scotland were required to give notice to the Commissioners of
Stamps and Taxes in London of such claim. The Commissioners
instituted inquiries whether such banker was lawfully issuing his
own notes during the period from May 6, 1844, to May 1, 1845.
If so, the Commissioners ascertained the average amount of notes
of such bank in circulation during that period and certified that
amount, and such banker was authorised to continue issuing
to that amount plus the amount of gold and silver coin held at
the head office or principal place of issue, subject to certain regula-
tions {lb). It was further enacted that after December 6, 1845, no
banker should make or issue bank notes in Scotland except bankers
who had obtained such certificate of their right to issue {a).
1166. There is no statutory provision making Scotch bank notes Points of
legal tender in that country, nor would a bank of issue appear to difference,
lose its right to issue notes by ceasing to exercise it for a time.

The law as to licences is the same in Scotland as in England (&).
Sect. 4. Bank of Ireland.

1167. The Bank of Ireland was established in 1781. The Act ôte issue in
incorporating it prohibited the issue in Ireland of bank notes by

any other company or partnership of more than six persons (c).
In 1821 banking partnerships of any number of persons carrying
on business not less than fifty miles from Dublin were authorised to
issue bills or notes payable to bearer on demand {d). In 1825 the
(g) Guardians of Lichfield^ v. Greene (1857), 26 L. J. (ex.) 140.

(r) Jones v. Ryde (1814), 5 Taunt. 488, at p. 494. Compare Leeds and County
Bank v. Walker (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 84, at p. 88. The Bills of Exchange Act, 1882
(45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 58, probably constitutes transfer a warranty that the
note is genuine.
(s) Compare Timmins v. Gibhins (1852), 18 Q. B. 722.
{t) Re East of England Banking Go. (1868), 4 Ch. App. 14.
{u) Bank Notes (Scotland) Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 38).

{a) Ibid.
(b) 55 Geo. 3, c. 184, s. 24 24 & 25 Vict. c. 91, s. 35.
;
(c) Statute 21 & 22 Geo. 3, c. 16 (Irish), s. 14.

(d) Bank of Ireland Act, 1821 (1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 72), s. 6.
—
Sect. 4.
number of partners was increased indefinitely so long as they had
Bank of no establishment or place of business less than fifty miles from
Ireland. Dublin (e). In 1845 it was enacted that no person, other than a
banker who on May 6, 1844, was lawfully issuing his own notes,
should issue bank notes in Ireland (/). Means were prescribed for
ascertaining what banks were so entitled and certifying the same,
and for fixing the amount of their authorised issue.
Points of 1168. There appearto be no statutory provisions making notes
difference.
of the Bank of Ireland legal tender, nor would Irish banks of
issue appear to be subject to the rule affecting similar English
banks that they lose the right by merely ceasing to issue (f/).
Bankers, other than the Bank of Ireland, issuing notes, must take
out an annual £30 licence (li).
Sect. 5. Trustee Savings Banks.

Trustee 1169. These are institutions established for the receipt of moneys
savings banks.
from depositors without any benefit accruing to the trustees or
organisers {i). No bank formed after July 28, 1863, can obtain
the benefits of the system unless its formation be sanctioned and
approved by the Commissioners for the Keduction of the National
Debt, or by the Comptroller-General or assistant Comptroller acting
on their behalf (j).
Eules and All rales and regulations and any alteration thereof have to be
regulations.
submitted Friendly Societies,
to the central office of the Kegistrar of
who they are in conformity with law, and they then
certifies that
become binding on the trustees, managers and depositors (k).
Eestriction on 1170. Depositors can only use one bank at a time, and may not
number of
have two accounts at the same bank(Q. Any breach of this rule
accounts.
involves forfeiture of any amount illegally deposited, or of so much
thereof as the National Debt Commissioners may think fit (m).
Exception is made in case of deposits by friendly societies (?^).
Kestrictions With regard to ordinary deposits, not more than £50 can be
on amount deposited by any depositor within any one savings bank year,
deposited.
whether any sum has been previously withdrawn or not (o), nor
can any deposit be received which would bring the aggregate
amount over £200 (p). Apparently, however, interest or dividends
on money standing to a depositor's credit or on Government stock
or special investments standing to his credit in the bank may be
Bankers (Ireland) Act, 1825 (6 Geo. 4, c. 42), s. 2.

(e)
(/) Bankers (Ireland) Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 37), s. 8.

(g) There are no sections in the above Act corresponding to those in the Bank
Charter Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 32).
{h) Bankers' Composition (Ireland) Act, 1828, (9 Geo. 4, c. 80), ss. 1, 2.
(^) Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 87), s. 2.
(./) Ihid.
(k) Ibid., s. 4 ;
Savings Banks (Barrister) Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 52),
s. 2.
(l)Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 87), s. 38.
(m) Savings Banks Act, 3891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 21), s. 12.
(ri) Ibid.
(o) Savings Banks Act, ]893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 69), s. 1.
(p) Savings Banks Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 21), s. 11.
—
added to his deposit notwithstanding that such addition raises the Sect. 5.
amount above £200 (q). Trustee

Deposits may be received from and repaid to infants (?) or Savings
married women (s). Banks.
1171. The trustees must invest all money deposited, except Infants and
married
that actually required for necessary expenses, in the Bank of women.
England in the names of the Commissioners (t), who invest it Application
in authorised Government stocks and securities. The sums invested of deposits by-
by the trustees with the Commissioners carry interest at 2| per trustees.
cent, per annum, and the interest payable to depositors is not to

exceed 2^ per cent, per annum (a). Increased stock and property
may be ordered by the Commissioners to be ascertained, certified,
and paid over (b), and any sums so paid over carry interest and are
credited to a separate surplus fund for such bank. This fund may
be drawn on by the trustees for necessary purposes upon a certificate
authorised by the Commissioners (c), and if the application for such
payment be sanctioned by the inspection committee (d).
The trustees have power, with the consent of the Commissioners, Dealing by
trustees with
to purchase land or to erect buildings for the purposes of the bank,
land or
and for such purposes to apply money from their separate surplus buildings.
fund, and, with the like consent, to sell, exchange, or lease lands
or buildings acquired by them for the purposes of the bank,
but must account for the money thereby received and pay over
the balance, after deducting the necessary expenses, to the Commis-
sioners to be carried to the credit of the separate surplus fund {e).
1172. Depositors can through the bank invest their deposits or Investment
any part thereof in Government stock (/). The amount of Govern- of deposits.
ment stock credited to a depositor in any savings bank year is not

to exceed ^200, whether any stock has been previously sold or not, and
the whole amount credited is not to exceed £500 at any one time (g).
" Special investments " may be made by depositors through the Special
trustees of the savings bank (li), as distinguished from investments investments.
out of the deposit at request of the depositor. " Special invest-

ments " cannot be made unless the person requiring them is a
depositor for not less than £50. Such special investments must
(q) Savings Banks Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 68), s. 4 Savings Banks Act,
;
1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 8), s. 8. Compare Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863 (26 & 27
Vict. c. 87), s. 39.
(r) Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 87), s. 30.
(s) Ibid., s. 31 Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 75), s. 6.
;
(t) Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 87), s. 15.
(a) National Debt (Supplemental) Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 15), s. 5.
(6) Savings Banks Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 36), s. 6. Compare Trustee Savings
Banks Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 87), s. 29.
(c) Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 87), s. 29.
(fZ) Savings Banks Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 21), s. 5 (2). The inspection
committee of trustee savings banks is appointed under the scheme established
by s. 2 of this Act.
(e) Savings Banks Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 8), s. 4.
(/) Savings Banks Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 36), s. 3. Government stock is
defined in the Savings Banks Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 69), s. 5 (2) and Sched. I.
{g) Savings Banks Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 69), s. 2.
(h) Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863 (26& 27 Vict. c. 87), s. 16 Savings Banks. ;
Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 21), s. 10.
H.L. — I. P P
—
Sect. 5. not exceed £500 in the aggregate. The money must be invested
Trustee in securities authorised by law for the time being as trustees'
Savings securities, and not on mortgage of land or any interest in land (i).
Banks. It may, however, be invested in securities issued under the Local
Loans Act, 1875 (k), or in loans secured on any local rate levied
under authority of Parliament by a local authority authorised to
borrow money on that security (I). Special investments cannot be
made by a bank which was not exercising the power before June 1,
1891, except on the recommendation of the committee of inspec-
tion and on the authority of the National Debt Commissioners, who
must be satisfied on certain points as to the standing of the bank {m).
Any bank making special investments must insert in all pass-books
used for special investments a printed notice that the security of
any special investment is not guaranteed by Government (n).
Death of 1173. Where the deposit of a deceased depositor is below no
depositor.
stamp duty is chargeable on probate or letters of administration in
respect thereof (o). Kegulations may be made and altered by the
Treasury for, among other things, the nomination by a depositor
over sixteen years of age of a person or persons to whom any sum
not exceeding i^lOO payable to such depositor on his decease shall
be paid, and for the revocation of such nomination (p).
Keturns and 1174. Weekly returns have to be transmitted by the trustees
accounts by- and manager to the Commissioners showing the week's transactions
trustees.
and the cash balances in hand, and yearly accounts of all moneys
invested by them in the Bank of England, and moneys due to the
depositors (g). Such yearly accounts are to be in the prescribed form,
and must also be sent to the inspection committee (r).
Auditor. 1175. An auditor is to be appointed for a term not exceeding
one year, but is eligible for re-appointment (s).
Settlement of 1176. No action can be brought by any depositor against the

disputes. bank, its trustees or officers, all disputes being settled by the
arbitration of the central office of the Registrar of Friendly Societies,
whose award is final and conclusive (0-
Sect. 6. Seamen's and Naval and Military Savings Banks.

Seamen's 1177. The Board of Trade have power to establish and main-
savings tain a central seamen's savings bank in London, and branches
banks.
in such ports and places in the United Kingdom as they think fit,
and to receive there deposits from or on account of seamen of the
(i) Savings Banks Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 21), s. 10.
{k) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 83.
(l) Savings Banks Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 8), s. 6 (2).
(m) Ibid.,s. 6 (1).
{71} Ibid., s. 6 (4).
(o) Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 87), ss. 41, 42.
(jj) Savings Banks Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 40), s. 3.
(q) Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 87), ss. 7, 55.
(r) Savings Banks Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 21), s. 8.
(s) Savings 'Banks Act, 1904 (4 Edw. 7, c. 8), s. 1.
(t) Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 87), ss. 48, 49;
Savings
Banks (Barrister) Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 52), s. 2. As to such arbitrations,
see title Eriendly Societies.
—— .
Koyal Navy (a) and merchant or other sea service, their wives, widows, Sect. 6.
or children The amount of such deposits must not at any one Seamen's
(/)).
time exceed .^200. The National Debt Commissioners, on the request and Naval
of the Board of Trade, may receive from and repay to the account of and Military
the Board money paid as deposit in such banks (c). The money is Savings
invested in the same manner as that received from trustee savings Banks.
banks, and interest paid thereon in the same way (d). Sums due from
the Board of Trade to the estate of any deceased person on account
of any such deposit are paid and applied by the Board of Trade as if
they were the property of a deceased seaman received by the Board (e).
An annual account of all deposits received and repaid and the
interest thereon both Houses of Parliament (/).
is laid before
1178. The Admiralty has power to establish savings banks (^), Naval
for the receipt of deposits from petty officers and seamen on the savings
banks.
books of His Majesty's vessels, and from non-commissioned officers
and privates of the royal marines and regulations for the manage- ;
ment of such banks may be made by Crder in Council. Subject

to any regulations, deposits may be transferred to other savings
banks, and any deposits may be invested in the names of the
National Debt Commissioners in certain approved stocks and
securities and the interest so obtained, which is not subject to
;
any tax or deductions, may also be similarly invested (/i)

1179. Military or regimental savings banks may be established Military
under regulations made by the Secretary of State for War, with the savings
concurrence of the Treasury, for the purpose of receiving deposits

from non-commissioned officers and soldiers employed at home or
abroad (except in India), or deposits of funds raised or paid for
purposes connected with non-commissioned officers and soldiers (i).
Sect. 7. Post Office Savings Banks.

1180. The Postmaster-General, with the consent of the Treasury, Post Office
may authorise and direct any of his officers to receive deposits for ^^^^^^
^'
remittance to the principal office, and to repay the same, subject to
such regulations as he, with the concurrence of the Treasury, may
prescribe (j).
Deposits, which cannot be of less than a shilling, are duly entered Amount of
^^po^^*-
in the depositor's book, and if of more than £1 are acknowledged by
the Postmaster- General through an officer appointed by him (k).
(a) Merchant Skipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 148.
(b) Ibid.
(c) Ibid., s. 149 (1).
(d) Ibid., s. 149 (2). See p. 577, ante.
(e) Ibid., s. 150.
(/) Ibid., s. 152.
These banks are not savings banks viîthin the Trustee Savings Banks Act,
(g)
1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 87), s. 38, or any Act relating to savings banks prior to
June 28, 1866 see Naval Savings Bank Act, 1866 (29 & 30 Vict. c. 43), s. 7.
;
(h) Naval Savings Bank Act, 1866 (29 & 30 Vict. c. 43), ss. 8, 9.
(^) Military Savings Bank Act, 1859 (22 & 23 Vict. c. 20). Apparently no fresh
account has been opened, and no new bank established, since 1897.
(i) Post Office Savings Banks Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 14), s. 1. A Post
Offiice savings bank is now available in every town and in many villages.
{k) Ibid., s. 2. The limit of £1 was fixed by the Savings Banks Act, 1904
(4 Edw. 7, c. 8), s. 11.
p p 2
Sect. 7. 1181. Moneys

received by the Postmaster-General are paid over
Post Office to the NationalDebt Commissioners and invested. Deficiencies in
Savings the investments are to be reported to the Treasury, and are met out
Banks. of the Consolidated Fund (l).
Application 1182. Eegulations for the conduct of business have been made
of deposits.
by the Postmaster-General with the consent of the Treasury, and
Eegulations.
have statutory authority (m).
Eestrictions By such regulations (71) a depositor may not deposit more than
on amount of £50 in one year (December 31 to December 31), but may pay in
deposit.
one or more sums to replace one previous withdrawal in the same
year. The aggregate limit for deposit is £200, but if reduced by
investment, transfer, or withdrawal, a further ordinary deposit may
be made, bringing it up to £200, subject to the rule as to not more
than ^£50 being deposited in one year. The depositor's book should
be sent in yearly on the anniversary of the first deposit.
Interest. The interest paid to depositors is 2J per cent, per annum.
Infants and Deposits may be made and withdrawn by anyone over seven
married years old, including married women (0).
women.
A depositor may make or withdraw deposits at any Post Office
Withdrawal
transacting savings bank business, without change of deposit book.
of deposit.
Special facilities are afforded for repayment of sums not exceed-
Death of
depositor. in<::^ £100 on death, and for the nomination by depositors over
sixteen of a person or persons to receive not more than £100 out of
the deposit on the depositor's death.
Investment Investments may be made out of the deposit at the depositor's
of deposit. request in Government stock up to a total of £500 stock. If such
stock is reduced by sale, it may be made up to the same amount.
Not more than £200 stock is to be bought in one year, but addi-
tional stock may be bought to replace any sold in the same year.
The minimum limit of stock is one shilling.
Annuities and There is of " special investment " in Post Office savings
no system
insurance. banks, but annuities can be purchased and life insurance effected
by depositors through them.
Restriction 1183. Money cannot be deposited in two Post Office savings
on number of banks, or in a Post Office savings bank and a trustee savings
accounts.
bank. A declaration has to be made on opening the account that
such is not the case, and breach of the rule renders the depositor
liable to forfeiture of all sums illegally deposited (p).
Protection 1184. Deposits in Post Office savings banks are not liable to
against attachment for judgment debts of the depositor (q).
attachment.
Settlement 1185. Claims by depositors are settled in the same way as in
of disputes. the case of trustee savings banks (r).
(/) Post Office Savings Banks Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 14), ss. 5, 6.
(m) Ihid., s. 11 Savings Banks Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 40), s. 1.
;
(n) See Post Office Guide.

(0) See also Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 75), s. 6.
Ip) Savings Banks Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 40), s. 1 (2), and regulations
printed in Post Office Guide.
(g) So stated in regulations, presumably because the deposits are debts due
from the Government. As to attachment of other deposits, see p. 588, post ; and
as to attachment of debts generally, see title Execution.
(r) See p. 578, ante.
——
Sect. 8. Joint Stock Banks. Sect. 8.
1186. The earliest development of joint stock banks (s) was in

^^g^^nks^^^
1826, when corporate bodies or co-partnerships, unlimited in
number, were authorised to carry on banking business, both deposit Joint stock
and issue, outside the sixty-five-mile radius from London (^). In co^n^ry^
1833 banking other than issue business was recognised as permis- London
sible within London and the sixty-five-mile radius by corporations,
companies, or partnerships, irrespective of the number of members {u).
In 1837 powers were given to the Crown to grant charters of
incorporation to trading companies, including banking companies (x),
and such charters may now be renewed or extended (a).
In 1844 a system of constituting banks of more than six persons Effect of
by letters patent was instituted. Pre-existing banks under the legislation of
legislation of 1826 and 1833 were given the option of coming under
the new system by petitioning for letters patent, but if in operation
prior to May 6, 1844, were not compelled to do so (h).
The powers and privileges of banks formed within the sixty-five-
mile radius in 1833 were assimilated to those formed outside it
under the legislation of 1826, except with regard to the right to
issue notes (c).
In 1857 the limit of ten members was imposed on all unregistered Limit on
partnerships for banking business (d), but partnerships of not more pmbers
than ten were authorised to carry on banking business in all 1357^^^^
respects as any partnership of not more than six could then do {e).
By the same Act all banks formed under the 1844 legislation were
compelled to register with unlimited liabiUty (/), but those of the
earlier joint stock banks or companies which had merely availed
themselves of the privileges of the 1844 scheme were not affected,
(s) For the general law as to joint stock companies, see title Companies. For
the powers and duties of directors and managers, and the company's hability for
their acts, see title Companies. As to statutory requirements in a contract for
the sale of shares, stock, or interest in a joint stock banking company, see title
Stock Exchange.
(0 Country Bankers Act, 1826 (7 Geo. 4, c. 46).
(u) Bank of England Act, 1833 (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 98).
(x) Chartered Companies Act, 1837 (7 Will. 4 & 1 Yict. c. 73).
(a) Chartered Companies Act, 1884 (47 & 48 Vict. c. 56).
(&) Joint Stock Banks Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 113), ss. 1—45.
(c) lUd.^ s. 47.
(d) It isnot clear whether the restriction applies only to combinations formed
for the exclusive purpose of banking, or whether it would include combinations
carrying on banking business as part of their undertaking, or what precisely
constitutes banking business. See Ex parte Coe (1861), 3 De G. F. & J. 335,
where a society formed to receive deposits and conduct emigration operations was
held not a banking company within the Joint Stock Banking Companies Acts and ;
contrast O'Connor v. Bradshaw (1850), 5 Exch. 882, where a company formed for
the purpose of buying land and receiving deposits to be so utilised was held illegal
under the Bank Charter Act, 1 844 (7 & 8 Aîct. c. 32). Probably the real test is the
receiving money to be withdrawn by cheque.
(e) Joint Stock Companies Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 49). This does not, as
before stated, appear to permit a partnership of not more than six, issuing notes
at that date by virtue of not being more than six, to increase its number of
members to ten without prejudice to the right of issuing notes. See p. 572,
note (p), ante.
(/) Joint Stock Companies Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Yict. c. 49), s. 4.
.
Sect. 8. nor were any of the banks existing prior to 1844 which had merely
Joint Stock stood on their rights. Any of such banks, however, if consisting
Banks. of more than seven members, or any new coaKtion of more than
seven persons, was entitled to register as a banking company with
unlimited liability (g).
In 1858 banking companies, whether registered under the last-
mentioned provisions or newly formed, were permitted to register
with limited liability, save as to note issue, if any {h)
Effect of All banks formed or registered under the above-mentioned legis-
company
lation of 1857 and 1858 were made subject to the company legis-
legislation of
1862. lation of 1862, as though registered thereunder. This legislation,
with the subsequent amending enactments, governs their constitu-
tion and that of all banks of more than ten persons founded since
1862, otherwise than by royal charter or special Act of Parliament.
Restrictions Banks came into the new system as limited or unlimited according
on limitation
to their previous constitution (i), but no existing or new bank could
of liability.
by registering with limited liability preclude the liability of its
shareholders being unlimited with regard to note issue, if
any (/t). In 1879 banking companies registered as unlimited were
afforded the opportunity of registering as limited, and the liability
of shareholders in a limited company issuing notes was reformed
by providing that in case of winding up they are liable to the
note-holders and are further to pay, if required, towards the general
debts of the company, a sum equal to that received by the note-
holders out of the general assets (I).
Annual 1187. Banks other than those affected by the legislation of 1862
returns.
and subsequent legislation have to make yearly returns to the
Commissioners of Inland Eevenue of the names and residences of
the members, and of the name of the firm and the places at which
business is carried on (m), but the Commissioners are not obliged
to publish them (n).
The companies within the 1862 and subsequent legislation have
only to furnish to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies the annual
list and summary required of all joint stock companies, with the
addition of the names of the places where business is carried on(o).
Audit of 1188. The accounts of stock banking company
every joint
accounts.
registered since August a limited company, must
15, 1879, as
be examined at least once a year by an auditor or auditors,
annually appointed by the company in general meeting. Such
auditors are to have access to the books and accounts, and may
examine the directors or any other officer of the company in relation
Joint Stock Companies Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 49), ss. 6, 13.
{g)
Joint Stock Companies Act, 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. c. 91), s. 1.
(h)
(i) Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), ss. 175, 176.
(k) Ibid., s. 182. It is believed, however, that certain companies, although

registered as limited, have obtained special powers relieving shareholders of
liability for notes.
(I) Companies Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 76), s. 6.
(m) Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 32), s. 21.

Bank Charter
{n) Inland Revenue Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 20), s. 57.
(o) Eevenue, Friendly Societies, and National Debt Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict,
c. 72), s. 11.
— —— —
thereto. They have to report to the members on the accounts and Sect. 8.
on every balance-sheet laid before the company, stating particularly Joint Stock
whether, in their opinion, the balance-sheet is a full and fair one, Banks.
exhibiting the then state of the company's accounts, as shown by
the books {p).
1189. On the first Monday in February and the first Monday Half-yearly
statement.
in August in each year a statement, showing the capital of the
company, the amount of the shares, the number issued, the amount
of the calls thereon and the receipts under such calls, and the
liabilities and assets of the company on January 1 (or July 1)
preceding, must be made, and a copy put up in a conspicuous place
in the registered office of the company and in every branch, under
a penalty of ^5 a day during default (q).
Private Banks.
Sect. 9.
1190. Apart from issue business, any number of persons not Private
exceeding ten may, without incorporation, carry on banking business banks.
in any part of England or Wales (?)•
Yearly returns have to be made to theCommissioners of Inland Annual

Eevenue of the names of the partners and places where business is returns.
carried on (s).
Sect. 10. Foreign and Colonial Banks.

1191. Banks may be
registered under the Companies Acts for the Foreign and
purpose of carrying on business abroad or in the Colonies. But a Colonial
banks.
banking corporation legally established in a recognised foreign state
cannot be registered here(^). It may, however, carry on business
here without preliminary formalities (u), and the liabilities of its
members will be regulated by the law of its domicile (x).
Part III. — Business of Banking.

Sect. 1. Receipt of Monexj on Current Account.
1192. Save as regards the following of trust funds into his hands, Effect of
receipt.
(p) Companies Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 76), s. 7. The Companies Act, 1900
(63 & 64 Vict. c. 48), contains similar provisions with regard to all joint stock
—
companies (ss. 21 23). It is presumed that both apply to a joint stock limited
banking company registered since 1879. After July 1st, 1908, such audits will
be governed by the Companies Act, 1907 (7 Edvv. 7, c. 50), s. 19, replacing
Companies Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 76), s. 7, and Companies Act, 1900 (63 & 64
Vict. c. 48), s. 23. See further, on this point, title Companies.
(g) Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 44, and Sched. I., Form D.
and Sched. III., Part 2. It is not clear that a partnership of more
(r) Ibid., s. 4,
than ten, if carrying on business prior to the Country Bankers Act, 1826 (7 Geo. 4,
c. 46), might not continue to do dej)osit business with numbers over that figure,
but it is probable that no such partnership exists. Private Imnks established
before that time would keep their numbers down to six, so as to be able to issue
notes. The number was raised from six to ten by the Companies Act, 1862
(25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 4.
(s) Bank Charter Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 32), s. 21.
{t) Bulkeley v. Schutz (1871), L. R. 3 P. C. 764 ; Bateman v. Service (1881), 6

App. Cas. 385, 392.
(u) Until July 1st, 1908, when such a company will have to comply with the
requirements of the Companies Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 50), s. 35. See further,
as to foreign corporations carrying on business in England, title Companies.
(x) Bateman v. Service, supra, at p. 389.
Sect. 1. the receipt of money (a) by a banker from or on account of his

Receipt of customer constitutes him merely the debtor of the customer (6)0
Money on He is not a trustee for the customer, and the latter has no right
Current to inquire into or question the use made of the money by the
Account. banker (c).
Customer's 1193. In the absence of notice, express or implied, the banker

title to money is not concerned to question the customer's title to money paid in
paid in.
by him {d).
If money afterwards prove to be that of another person,
the
it cannot be recovered as a general rule by such person from the
banker, if he be under a binding contract to repay it to the person
who paid it in (e). Bond ^c/e transactions on the part of the banker
prior to the intervention of the real owner will not be disturbed
to the prejudice of the former (/).
Notice of But the banker is not at liberty to disregard intimations con-
trust.
veyed to him by the title or character in which the account is
opened, or otherwise (cj). He cannot retain any benefit to himself
from wrongful dealing with any fund he knows to be affected with
a trust where such benefit has been designed or stipulated for
by him (//). A banker cannot assert his lien over an account
known to be a trust account, whether so described or not (i). But
a banker may refuse to accept an account in any form which implies
that it is affectedby a trust {k). Apart from benefit to himself, the
banker is not, as a rule, entitled to question operations on a trust
{a) In so far as the receipt of rnone)'' on current account consists in the collection
of cheques and similar instruments, see pp. 590 et seq.,post.
(b) Foley v. Hill (1848), 2 H. L. Oas. 28.
(c) Ibid. ; Re Agra and Masterman's Bank, Ex parte Waring (1866), 36 L. J.
(CH.) 151.
{d) Bodenham v. Hosh'ns (1852), 21 L. J. (cH.) 864 ; Thomson v. Clydesdale Banky
[1893] A. C. 282 ; Tassell v. Cooper (1850), 9 C. B. 509. Qumre whether a banker
should accept payments in by or on behalf of an undischarged bankrupt, the
moneys so j)aid in heincr prima facie the property of the trustee.
(e) Compare Calland v. Loyd (1840), 6 M. & W. 26 ; Tassell v. Cooper, supra;
and compare Pinto v. Santos (1814), 5 Taunt. 447.
In the case of Healey v. Bank of New South Wales, November 28, 1900, not
reported, the Judicial Committee rejected the claim of the depositor to moneys he
had paid into the bank, such moneys being the proceeds of Iraud on the Govern-
ment, for which he had been convicted and punished, treating such moneys as
payable to the Government.
(/) Re Montague (1897), 76 L. T. 203, which does not appear to have been
decided with reference to the Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46
Vict. c. 75), but on general principles.
[g) Bodenham v. Hoskins, supra j Ex parte Adair, Re Gross (1871), 24 L. T. 198 ;
Bridgman v. Gill (1857), 24 Beav. 302. Compare Baîk of New South Wales v.
Goulburn Valley Butter Co. Proprietary, Ltd., [1902] A. C. 543.
(h) Gray v. Johnston (1868), L. K. 3 H. L. 1. In one cdse, Foxtonv. Manchester
and Liverpool District Banking Co. (1881), 44 L. T. 406, Fry, J. appears to have
held that the fact that the bank indirectly derived benefit from such dealing
invalidated the transaction. In Coleman v. Bucks and Oxon Union Bank, [1897]
2 Ch. 243, Byrne, J. shows that, to come within Gray v. Johnston, there must at
least be an ascertained debt due to the bank, which on pressure by the bank is
satisfied or reduced by payment from the trust account. Compare Shields v. Bank
of Ireland, [1901] 1 Ir. R. 222.
(i) Union Bank of Australia v. Murray -Aynsley, [1898] A. C. 693 ; Bank of
W
New South ales v. Goulburn Valley Butter Co. Proprietary, Ltd., supra.
{k) Ex parte Kingston, Re Gross (1871), 6 Ch. App. 632, per Mellish, L.J., at
p. 640.
—
Part III. Business of Banking. 585
account, or to set up the right of any person other than his Sect. 1.
customer (/). But where moneys obviously in the hands of a Receipt of

Government official in that capacity are paid into a private Money on
account and drawn out by him, it seems possible that the banker Current
might be called upon by the Crown, not only to hand over any Account.
existing balance, but also to make good any wrongful drawings
out (;;0-
1194. Money may be paid into a customer's current account by a Payment in

third person, and, in ordinary cases, the banker is bound to accept by third
persons.
it. But where a cheque for an amount larger than the available
balance is presented, the banker should not allow the holder to pay
in the deficit, and then pay the cheque (n).
1195. The banker's lien applies to money paid in on current Lien,

account (o).
1196. Money oncurrent account is subject to the legal incidents Dispositions

under a bequest by the customer of " moneys
It passes customer,
of a debt.
owing to me at the time of my decease " (p), though it equally falls
within a bequest of " ready money " (q). It is payable to the legal
representatives of a deceased customer on production of probate or
letters of administration (?•). It is repayable on demand, the
drawing of a cheque not being a condition precedent (s). It may
be legally assigned (a), but probably only as a whole, by a
single assignment {h). In England a cheque is not an assign-
ment (c). On the bankruptcy of the customer any balance to his
credit passes to his trustee in bankruptcy, and the banker may be
summarily compelled to pay it over (c^-
On the service of a garnishee order nisi, made on a judgment Garnishee
against the customer, the whole credit balance on current account o^"^^^'-
is impounded, irrespective of the relative amounts of such balance
and the judgment debt, and the banker cannot diminish the balance
(/) Gh-ay v. Jolmdon (1868), L. E. 3 H. L. 1 Backhouse v. Charlton (1878), 8

;
Ch. D. 444.
(m) Re West London Commercial Bank (1888), 38 Ch. D. 364.
(n) Foster v. Ba7ik of London (1862), 3 F. & F. 214. Apart from its being a
disclosure of a customer's account, such a proceeding is regarded by bankers as
improper.
(o) Misa V. Currie (1876), 1 App. Cas. 5.54. InRoxhurghe v. Cox (1881), 17 Ch. D.
520, the Court of Appeal, while not disputing this, preferred to base their
judgment on the ground of set-off.
( j?)
Re Derbyshire, [1906] 1 Ch. 135.
(q) Stein v. Ritherdon (1868), 37 L. J. (ch.) 369.
(r) Tarn v. Commercial Bank of Sydney (1884), '12 Q. B. D. 294.
{s) Foley v. Hill (1848), 2 H. L. Cas. 28, at pp. 36, 43 Fott v. Clegcj (1847), ;
16 .M. & W. 321 ;Walker v. Bradford Old Bank (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 511 Rc ;
Tidd, [1893] 3 Ch. 154.

(a) Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 25 (6) Walker v. ;
Bradford Old Bank, suiora. See, further, title Choses in Action.

(b) Durham Brothers v. Robertson, [1898] 1 Q. B. 765 Jones v. Humphreys,;
[1902] 1 K. B. 10 Hughes v. Pum'p House Hotel Co., [1902] 2 K. B. 190, jper

;
Mathew, L.J., at p. 195.

(c) Exchange Act, 1882 (45
Bills of & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 53 (1).
id) Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 50 (6).
Sect. 1.
by paying out of it even cheques drawn prior to service of the
Receipt of order (e).
Money on The Statute of Limitations (/) applies to a balance left untouched
Current for six years without payment of interest or sufficient acknowledg-
Account.
ment (^). On a current account, however, the earlier drawings out
Appro- are, in the absence of appropriation, attributed to the earlier payments
priation of in (//) and where the moneys of several beneficiaries have been
;
payments.
wrongfully mixed with a private account, their respective rights in
any balance will be adjusted in accordance with this rule (i).
There are, however, exceptions to this rule thus, where a trustee
;
or other person in a fiduciary position has mixed trust moneys

with his private account, all drawings out are attributed to his own
money so far as it will go (k). Although in ordinary cases the
right of appropriation, unless exercised by the debtor at the time
of payment, remains in the creditor until finally exercised by
him (/), it would seem that in a current account the attribution of
earlier payments in to earlier drawings out cannot be rebutted

save by agreement between the parties or by evidence of intention
amounting to such agreement (?»)• Moneys paid into current
account to meet a particular bill or cheque must be applied
accordingly (n).
Appro- 1197. In the absence of special agreement, a guarantor has no

priationwhen right to control the appropriation by customer or banker of moneys
account
guaranteed. paid in (o). The banker is bound, however, to deal with the
accounts in the ordinary way of business. Payments in may be
appropriated to a pre-existing debt which is not covered by the
security, and of which the surety had no knowledge On the
termination of the guarantee the account may be closed, and a
new one opened, to which all payments in may be carried (q).
But the banker is not entitled, where an account is guaranteed to
a limited extent, to split that account during the continuance of
the guarantee and attribute all payments in to the unsecured
balance (r). So long as an account is unbroken, a surety ought
not to be prejudiced by any departure from the rule of appropria-
tion of items in order of date, unless his consent to such departure
(e) Rogers v. Whiteley, [1892] A. C. 118 ; Yates v. Terry, [1901] 1 K. B. 102

(county court order).
(/) 21 Jac. 1, c. 16. See title Limitation of Actions.
Ig) Pott V. Clegg (1847), 16 M. & W. 321 and see Atkinson v. Bradford Third
;
Equitable Benefit Building Society (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 377, per Lord Esher, M.E.,
at p. 380, and Be Tidd, [1893] 3 Ch. 154, jêr North, J., at p. 156.
(h) Clayton's Case (1816), 1 Mer. 572, 608.
{i) Be Stefining, [1895] 2 Ch. 433.
{k) Re HalletVs Estate (1879), 13 Ch. D. 696. See, further, title Trusts and
TitTJSTEES
{I) Gory Brothers v. Oumers of Steamship Mecca, [1897] A. C. 286, 294 :
Smith V. Betty, [1903] 2 K. B. 317 Seymour y. Pickett, [1905] 1 K. B. 715.

;
(m) Gory Brothers v. Owners of Steamship Mecca, supra; Gity Discount Co. v.
McLean (1874), L. B. 9 C. P. 692.
{n) Farley v., Turner (1857), 26 L. J. (ch.) 710.
(o) Re Sherry, London and County Banking Go. v. Terry (1884), 25 Ch. I>. 692.
As to a guarantor's rights generally, see title Guarantee.
{p) WilliarriS v. Raiolinson (1825), 3 Bing. 71.
(q) Re Sherry, London and County Banking Co. v. Terry, supra.
(r) Ibid.
—
be expressed, or can be implied from the character of his ^^ct. i.
engagement (s). Receipt of

Money on
1198. Unless precluded by agreement, express or implied from Current
the course of business, the banker is entitled to combine different Account,
accounts kept by the customer in his own right, even though at
combination
different branches of the same bank, and to treat the balance, if any, of different
as the only amount really standing to his credit {t). The customer, accounts,
however, has not the equivalent right, and cannot utilise a credit
balance at one branch for the purpose of drawing cheques on
another branch where he has no account or where his account is
overdrawn (a).
1199. A banker not entitled arbitrarily to close a current

is Closing of
account in credit He must give the customer reasonable
(b). account,
notice (c) and make satisfactory provision for outstanding

cheques (d).
1200. A current account may be opened with a married woman Married

in her own name (e). Opening it constitutes a binding contract women,
with the married woman, whether she have separate property at
the time or not (/). She has power to draw cheques and give a
sufficient discharge (g) and bond fide dealings with the account
;
cannot subsequently be questioned to the prejudice of the

banker (//).
1201. A current account may be opened with an infant so long Infants,
as it is not allowed to be overdrawn; for an infant may be a
creditor (?). A cheque drawn by an infant entitles the holder to
receive payment, and so constitutes a discharge (k). An infant
cannot claim again money paid out to him or others on his
cheques {I).
Cory Brothers
{s) Owners of Steamship Mecca, [1897] A. C. 286, at p. 295.
Compare Citij Discount Go. v. McLean (1874), L. E. 9 C. P. 692.
{t) Garnett v. AI'Kewan (1872), L. R. 8 Exch. 10 Buckingham v. London and ;
Midland Bank (1895), 12 T. L. E. 70 (where the banker was precluded by the

course of business).
(a) Garnett v. M^Kewan, supra; see p. 606, jjosi.
Buckingham v. London and Midland Bank, supra ; Agra and Masterman's
(b)
Bank, Ltd. v. Hoffman (1864), 34 L. J. (ch.) 285 Thomas y. Hoivell {1874:),L. E.
;
18 Eq. 198, per Malins, V.-C, at p. 202 and compare Gumming v. Shand
;
(I860), 5 H. & N. 95.

(c) See cases cited in last note, and Berry v. Halifax Commercial Banking Co.,
[1901] 1 Ch. 188.
{d) For form of notice to customer closing account, see Encyclopaedia of Eorms,
Vol. II., p. 476.
(e) Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 75), ss. 6, 7. The
wording, which specifies deposits in a bank, must be taken to cover a current
account. See generally title Husband and Wife.
(/) Married Women's Property Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 63).
(g) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 22 (1).
(h) Re Montague (1897), 76 L. T. 203.
(i) Compare Nottingham Permanent Benefit Building Society v. Thurstan, [1903]
A. C. 6 and see title Infants.

;
(k)- Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), ss. 22 (2), 73.
(l) "The disability of infancy goes no further than is necessary for the pro-
tection of the infant " [Burnahy v. Equitable Reversionary Interest Society (1885), 28
Ch. D. 416, per Pearson, J., at p. 424 Valentini v. Canali (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 166).
;
—
Sect. 1. 1202. Current accounts may be opened with corporations,

Eeceipt of whether trading or non-trading, and they have inherent power to
Money on draw vaHd cheques apart from special authority {m).
Current
Account.
Sect. '2. Receipt of Money on Deposit Account,
Corporations.
Deposit
1203. The receipt of money on deposit account constitutes
account. the banker a debtor to the depositor, but not a trustee thereof
for him (n). The debt is repayable either on demand or on
conditions usually expressed on the receipt. Specified notice may
be stipulated for, and the return of the receipt made a condition of
repayment, or the deposit may be for a fixed period. If the return
of the deposit receipt be a condition precedent, no actual debt arises
until its return (o). In case of the loss of the receipt, however, a
Court would exercise its equitable jurisdiction, and not allow
the absence of the receipt to stand in the way of the depositor
reclaiming his money (p). Nor would the Court require the
depositor to give an indemnity, a deposit receipt not being a
negotiable instrument {q).
Garnishee 1204. Whether a particular deposit account is attached by a

order.
garnishee order 7iisi depends on the terms on which it is held at
the time of service of the order. To be affected by the order, it
must be a debt " due or accruing due," that is, due or accruing due
at a definite and certain approaching date (r). The following seem
not attachable (1) a deposit account repayable only on production
:
of the receipt (2) a deposit account repayable on fixed notice,

;
which has not been given. The following are attachable (1) a :
deposit account repayable on demand (2) a deposit account

;
repayable on fixed notice, which has been given (3) a deposit

;
account repayable at a fixed future date, or after the lapse of

a specified time. When the account is attached, the whole
amount is impounded irrespective of the sum recovered by the
judgment (s).
Drawing 1205. It is doubtful whether valid cheques can be drawn against

against
deposit
a deposit account at call {t). Bankers usually honour such cheques,
account.
(m) Serrell v. Derbyshire Bail. Go. (1850), 9 C. B. 811 Bateman v. Mid-Wales

;
Rail Co. (1866), L. E. 1 C. P. 499, at p. 506 (distinguishing cheques from bills) ;
see generally title Corporations.

[n) Pearce v. Cresivick (1843), 2 Hare, 286 Re Head (No. 1), [1893] 3 Ch. 426
; ;
Re Head (No. 2), [1894] 2 Ch. 236.

(o) Compare AtJcinson v. Bradford Third Equitable Benefit Building Society
(1890), 25 Q. B. D. 377 Re Tidd, [1893] 3 Ch. 154 ; Re Dillon (1890), 44 Ch. D.

;
76, at p. 81.
{p) Re Dillon, supra, per Cotton, L.J., at p. 81.
(g) Even if the deposit receipt had combined with it a form
of cheque, and
this were filled up and signed by the depositor before the loss, it is apprehended
that, as the banker could not be sued on the cheque, he would not be entitled to
an indemnity.
(r) Jones v. Thompson (1858), 27 L. J. (q. b.) 234 ; TVebb v. Stenton (1883), U
Q. B. D. 518.
(s) Rogers v. JVhiteley, [1892] A. C. 118.
-{t) The view expressed bv Malins, V.-C, in
,
favour of their validity

.
m
.
Hopkins v. Abbott (1875), L. K

19 Eq. 222, at p. 228, and /Stem v. Rither don [1868),
—
relying on lien or set-off, either of which applies to a deposit Sect. 2.
account (a). Receipt of

_ _ Money on
1206. A
.
T .
deposit account, being a chose

,
action, may be
. ,
m
. . ,
Deposit
assigned as a whole under the Judicature Act, 1873 (b), but the Account,
mere transfer of a deposit receipt does not constitute such an ^
, , V
^ Assimment.
assignment (c).
A if in terms it is expressed to be transfer-

deposit receipt, even Transfer of
able, has never been recognised as a negotiable instrument, or as ^^P^î*
^^^^^^'
giving the transferee a right to sue in his own name (d). Possibly
a bank, having issued the document in a transferable form, might
be estopped from disputing its character as such. A form of
cheque is sometimes indorsed on a deposit receipt. In such case,
if any conditions imposed, such as previous notice, have been
fulfilled, the bank cannot, as between itself and the depositor, refuse
to pay the holder (<?). Payment to a person wrongfully dealing with
even a signed deposit receipt is no discharge to the bank, unless the
depositor is estopped by his conduct from disputing such payment (/).
A deposit receipt may be the subject of a donatio mortis causa, Donatio
mortis causa.
and the Court will compel the legal representatives of the deceased
to facilitate the receipt of the money by the donee (ry). Where a
document combining the features of a deposit receipt and a cheque
is so given, the validity of the gift will depend on which is the pre-
dominant characteristic {h).
1207. A deposit receipt is exempt from stamp duty (i) as an stamp duty,
agreement or otherwise {k). The exemption holds good though a

time- be fixed for repayment (/), nor does provision for payment of
interest afiect the question {m) .
37 L. J. (CH.) 369, seems inconsistent with the reasoning in i?e ifmc? (No. 2), [1894]
2 Ch. 236. Compare also Re Tidd, [1893j 3 Ch. 154, per North, J., at p. 156.
(a) See p. 622, post.
(6) 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, s. 25 (6).
(c) Moore v. Ulster Bank (1877), 11 Jr. R. C. L. 512, though it maybe a
good equitable assignment {Re Griffin, [1899] 1 Ch. 408).
(d) Re Dillon (1890), 44 Ch. D. 76 Moore v. Ulster Bank, supra.
;
(e) Re Mead (1880), 15 Ch. D. 651 Re Dillon, supra. ;
(/) Evans v. National Provincial Bank of England (1897), 13 T. L. R. 429 ;

and see Pearce v. Creswick (1843), 2 Hare, 286.
(g) Re Mead, supra ; Re Dillon, supra.
(h) See Re Dillon, supra.
- (i) Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39), Sched. I., Receipt, Exemp-
tion (1).
(k) Home v. Redfearn (1838), 4 Bing. (n. c.) 433, where the Court stated that the
document, which they held to be an agreement, would have been exempt as a
deposit receipt if given by a banker.
(1) Thomson v. Bell (1894), 22 Ct. Sess. Cas., 4th series, 16, at p. 18. Compare
Home V. Redfearn, supra ; Mortgage Insurance Corporation v. Commissioners of
Inland Revenue (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 352. It is not a promise to pay within
sect. 33 of the Stamp Act, 1891, but merely a recognition of legal obligation
resulting from the loan of which it is evidence.
(m) In Bank of Scotland v. Watson (1813), 1 Dow, 40, the House of Lords
declined to express an opinion on the point. The Stamp Act, 1815 (55 Geo. 3, c. 184),
made bankers' receipts containing any agreement or memorandum that interest
should be paid for the money deposited chargeable with stamp duty as promissory
notes, but that statute is repealed, and there is no such provision in the Stamp
Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39).
— —
Sect. 2. 1208. A deposit account may be opened with a married

Receipt of woman (n) or with an infant (o). A person having a deposit
Money on account is a " customer " within sect. 82 of the Bills of Exchange
Deposit Act, 1882
Account.
Married
Sect. 3. Collection oj Cheques.
women and Sub-Sect. 1. Generally.
infants.
Collection of 1209. Collection, strictly speaking, is the conduct of a banker
cheques.
who acts as a mere agent or conduit pipe to receive payment of the
cheque from the banker on whom it is drawn and hold the proceeds
at the disposal of his customer.
Presentment As such agent, he is bound to exercise diligence in the
forpayment.
presentation of the cheque for payment. He fulfils his duty if,
when the cheque is drawn on a bank in the same place, he
presents it the day after receipt (q), or, when on a bank in another
place, if he either presents it or forwards it on the day following
receipt (r). The forwarding may be to another branch or to an agent
of the bank (s), who has the same time after receipt in which to
present. A non-clearing bank may so utilise a clearing bank. But
in any case the bank which has received the cheque from its
customer remains liable to him for default of its agent (t). Present-
ment through a recognised clearing house is equivalent to present-
ment to the bank on which the cheque is drawn (a). Presentment
by post is sufficient (h), and it would appear that when a bank
forwards by post a cheque to the bank on which it is drawn the
latter receives it as agent for presentment to itself (c), and in that
capacity can hold it till the day after receipt.
Where a cheque drawn by one customer of a bank is received from
another customer, it is a question of fact whether it was presented
for payment or paid in for collection. If the latter, the bank has
(n) Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 75), ss. 6, 7. See
title Husband and Wife.
(o) "The disability of infancy goes no further than is necessary for the pro-
tection of the infant'' (Burnahy y. Equitable Reversionary Interest Society (1885),
28 Ch. I). 416, per Pearson, J., at p. 424). The contract is beneficial to the
infant, and so binding on the banker. The infant could never recover moneys
withdrawn by him. Compare Valentini v. Canali (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 166. See
title Infants.
,
(^) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 61 Great Western Rail. Go. v. London and County Bank,
;
[1901] A. C. 414, per Lord Davey, at p. 421.

{q) Alexander v. Burchfield (1842), 7 Man. & G. 1061 Rickford v. Ridge (1810),
;
2 Camp. 537 ; Forman v. Bank of England (1902), 18 T. L. E. 339 and compare ;
Boddinqton v. Schlencker (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 752.

(r) Hare v. Henty (1861), 10 C. B. (n. s.) 65 Prideaux v. Gtiiddle (1869), L. R.
;
4 Q. B. 455 Heywood v. Pickering (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 428 and contrast

; ;
Moide V. Brown (1838), 4 Bing. (n. c.) 266 Bailey v. Bodenham (1864), 16 0. B.
;
(n. s.) 288.

Prideaux v. Griddle, supra.
(s)
Mackersy v. Ramsays (1843), 9 CI. & F. 818.
{t)
(ft) Reynolds v. Ghettle (1811), 2 Camp. 596.
(6) Prideaux v. Griddle, supra, at p. 461 compare Bills of Exchange Act, 1882
;
(45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 45 (8). It is the usage to treat presentment by post by
one bank to another as sufficient, but not presentment by letter by an ostensible
payee requesting remittance by post.
(c) Bailey v. Bodenham, suptra, per Erle, C. J., at p. 296.
—
Part III. Businhjss of Banking. 591
the usual time of an agent for giving notice of dishonour (d), but Sect. 3.
must pay it in preference to a debt due to itself from the drawing Collection
customer (e) .
of Cheques.
If the banker fail to present the cheque within the allotted time failure to
after reaches him, he is liable to his customer for loss arising
it present,
from the delay (/). The indorsers, if any, are discharged (g), and
the drawer is discharged to the extent of any actual damage he may
have suffered by the failure of the bank on which the cheque was
drawn subsequent to the time when the cheque should have been
presented {h).
1210. If a cheque be dishonoured on presentment, the banker can Notice of

debit the customer's account with the amount (i)- He must give dishonour,
due notice of dishonour (k) either to the parties liable on the cheque,
or to his customer (/). The latter is the usual course. Keturn of
the cheque to the customer is deemed sufficient notice of dishonour,
if the customer have indorsed it(m). Branches of the same bank
are held to be separate persons for the transmission of notice of
dishonour (n). A bank may apparently give notice of dishonour by
telegram (o).
^^ here a cheque drawn by one customer of a bank is paid in
for collection by another customer, and there are not sufficient
funds to meet it, the banker still has till the next day in which to
return it (p).
Where a cheque is sent by post to a bank in the dual capacity of
agent for collection and paying bank, it is bound to return it the
next day after receipt, if unpaid {q).
1211. Where cheques are collected, the banker has a reasonable When cheque
time, consistent with ordinary book-keeping, in which to pass the
^^înst^^^^^
^^^^^
proceeds to current account before they are available for drawing
against (?•) Where uncrossed cheques are credited as cash prior to
.
(d) Boyd V. (1834), 2 A. & E. 184.

Emmerson
(e) Williams (1822), 5 B. & Aid. 815.
Kilshij V.
(/) Lubbock V. Tribe (1838), 3 M. & W. 607, per Lord Abinger, C.B., at
p. 612.
(g) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 45.
(li) Ibid., s. 74, differentiating drawer of cheque from drawer of an ordinary
bill under sect. 45.
(i) The universal custom of bankers, apparently recognised l)y Lord Lindley in
Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240, at p. 248 ; Ee Mills,
Bawtree (h Co., Ex parte Stannard (1892), 10 Morr. 193.
(k) For the general rules relating to notice of dishonour, see title Bills op
Exchange etc.
(l) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 49 (13).
(m) Ibid., s. 49 (6). The section does not appear to cover the case of a bearer
cheque.
(n) Clode v. Bayleij (1843), 12 M, & W. 51 Prince v. Oriental Bank Corporation
;
(1878), 3 App. Cas. 325 ; Fielding v. Corry, [1898] 1 Q. B. 268.

(o) Fielding v. Corry, supra, per A. L. Smith, L.J., at p. 271.
{p) See Boyd v. Emmerson (1834), 2 A. & E. 184.

(g) There is no direct legal authority for this proposition, but it represents the
accepted practice of bankers. The case of a cheque sent for payment through the
country clearing, which must be returned direct, if unpaid, by the next post,
must be distinguished. Compare Parr's Bank, Ltd. v. Ashby (1898), 14 T. L. R.
563.
(r) Marzetti v. Williams (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 415.
Sect. 3. receipt of payment, ifc would appear that the customer is at once
Collection entitled to draw on them (s). But if the cheque is dishonoured, the
of Cheques. banker is still entitled to debit the customer's account (t).
Defective 1212. There is no protection for the banker collecting uncrossed

title of
cheques [u) and therefore, if the customer have no title, or a
;
customer.
defective title, the banker is liable to the true owner for conversion
or for money had and received to the face value of the cheque
But where conversion will not lie, as where the collection has been
for a customer having a revocable title unrevoked at the time the
money was received and handed over, the banker will be protected
as an innocent agent who has parted with the money to his principal
before notice (a).
Bank holding Where no question of forged indorsement precludes him, the
in its own
banker may, in the case of both crossed and uncrossed cheques,
right.
escape liability if he can establish an independent title as holder in
due course, except where the cheque is crossed " not negotiable" (h).
The position of holder for value can be set up by the bank where
cash has been given for the cheque over the counter where the ;
cheque is paid in in reduction of an overdraft (c) where the cheque is

;
paid in on express condition of being at once drawn against, and is so

drawn against (fZ) where the cheque is subject to a lien(e), or, in
;
the case of an uncrossed cheque, if it is credited as cash at once (/).

Where the banker, by any of the above-mentioned methods,
becomes holder in due course of a cheque paid in, he has all the
rights of such holder, including that of suing the parties to it in his
own name (g).
(s) Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240, per Lord Lindley,
at p. 249 ; and compare Eyles v, Ellis (1827), 4 Bing. 112. Channell, J., in
Bevan The National Bank (1906), 23 T. L. E. 65, doubts this.
v. As to this
right being precluded by previous agreement, see Akrokerri (Atlantic) Mines, Ltd.
V. Economic Bank, [1904] 2 K. B. 465.
it) Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, supra, per Lord Lindley at p. 248 and
;
see Bavins, junr. and SimsY. London and South Western Bank, [1900] 1 Q. B. 270.
(u) For the protection of the banker collecting crossed cheques, see p. 593, post.
{x) Fine Art Society v. Union Bank of London (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 705; Great
Western Rail Co. v. London and County Banking Co, [1899] 2 Q. B. 172, [1901] A. C.
414 Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, supra. As to recovering the face value,
;
see Bavins, junr. and Sims v. London and South Western Bank, supra.
(a) Holland v. Russell (1863), 4 B. & S. 14 Tate v. Wilts, and Dorset Bank
;
(1890), Journal of the Institute of Bankers, Vol. XX., p. 376 Bavins, junr. and
;
Sims V. London and South Western Bank, supra.

(6) Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, supra (bearer cheques, bank protected) ;
Great Western Rail. Co. v. London and County Banking Co, supra (cheques crossed
"not negotiable," bank not protected).
(c) London and County Bank v. Groome (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 288.
{d) National Bank v. Silke, [1891] 1 Q. B. 435, per Bowen, L.J., at p. 439.
\e) See pp. 620 et seq., post.
if) Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, supra. But see the doubts expressed
as to the result of that case by Bigham, J., in Akrokerri {Atlantic) Mines,
Ltd. V. Economic Bank, supra, and by Channell, J., in Bevan v. The National
Bank, supra. As to whether this course is available in the case of crossed cheques
since the Bills of Exchange (Crossed Cheques) Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 17), see
p. 597, post.
[g) London and County Bank v. Groome, supra (paid in in reduction of over-
draft) ; Ex parte Richdale, Re Palmer (1882), 19 Ch. D. 409; Royal Bank of
Scotland v. Tottenham, [1894] 2 Q. B. 715 (placing at once to credit).
— — .
The banker may perhaps also escape liabiliiy, if he can show ^^ct. 3.
tliatthe proceeds of the cheque have in fact reached the hands of Collection
the true owner, or been applied for his benefit (/i). of Cheques.
1213. The banker to whom an uncrossed cheque is paid in for -Right to
collection a holder, and may cross it generally or specially (i)

is
He may cross it specially to himself (k), but does not thereby obtain
any protection under sect. 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 [1).
1214. A banker has a lien over cheques paid in for collection (m). Lien.
Sub-Sect. 2. Crossed Cheques.
1215. The fact that a cheque is crossed in no way affects the Collection of
banker's duties as to presentation and notice of dishonour. Besides crossed
cheques.
the usual rights of a holder with regard to crossing, a banker to
whom a cheque is crossed specially may again cross it specially
to another banker for collection (ii). Where a cheque crossed
generally is sent to a banker for collection he may cross it specially
to himself (o).
1216. Subject to certain conditions, the banker is protected in Protection to

^^îker.
the collection of crossed cheques against liability to the true
owner (p) The cheque must be crossed when he receives it, for
.
a banker crossing an uncrossed cheque specially to himself (q)

acquires no protection (r).
Where an uncrossed cheque is crossed by a person having

no power do so, e.g., one innocently in possession of it under a
to
forged indorsement, who is not a holder, it is doubtful whether
such crossing protects the collecting banker (s).
Where the protection attaches, it covers the receipt of the Extent of
protection,
cheque and every step taken in the ordinary course of business and
intended to lead up to the receipt of payment {a), such, for instance,
(h) Eeid v. Righy, [1894] 2 Q. B. 40 Bevan v. The National Bank (1906),

;
23 T. L. E. 65.
(i) Ahrokerri {Atlantic) Mines, Ltd. v. Economic Bank, [1904] 2 K. B. 465 ;
Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 77 (2).

(k) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 77 (6). The words
"sent to a banker" presumably include "brought," i.e. by the customer himself.
(Z) Bissell V. Fox (1884), 51 L. T. 663; Capital and Counties Bank y. Gordon,
[1903] A. C. 240. See note (2?), infra.
(m) Thompson Y. Giles (1824), 2 B. & C. 422 Misa v. Currie (1876), 1 App. Cas.
;
554, at pp. 565, 569, 573. Compare Great Western Rail. Co. v. London and County
Banking Co. in C. A., [1900] 2 Q. B. 464. In Akrokerri (Atlantic) Mines, Ltd. v.
Economic Bank, supra, Bigham, J., treats collection as a special purpose excluding
lien, but the above authorities, it is submitted, must prevail.
{n) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 77 (5). For forms of
crossings, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. II., pp. 515, 516.
(0) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 77 (6).
[p) Ibid., s. 82.

Iq) Under s. 77 (6), ihid.
Fox (1885), 53 L. T. 193 Gordon v. London City and Midland
(r) Bissell v. ;
Bank, [1902] 1 K. B. 242, affirmed sub nom. Capital and Counties Bank v.
Gordon, supra.
(s) If so held, it would have to be on a wide construction of the words " bears
across its face" insect. 76 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61).
Compare Simmons v. Taylor (1858), 4 C. B. (n. s.) 463, 467 (case of paying banker).
(a) Cap)ital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, supra, per Lord Macnaghten, at
p. 244.
H.L.- Q Q
;
Sect. 3. as stamping the bank identification stamp on the cheque {h) It .
Collection has been suggested (c) that the protection does not extend to cheques
of Cheques. obtained by larceny or analogous felony, but it is submitted this is
not the case [d).
Conditions of 1217. The banker's dealings throughout must be in good faith
protection.
and without negligence {e). The alternative liability arising from
negligence renders the question of good faith practically superfluous
and it is seldom, if ever, raised. Negligence in this connection is
breach of a statutory duty to the possible true owner, not the
customer, the duty being not to disregard the interests of such true
owner (/). It binds the banker to inquiry when there is anything
to raise suspicion that the cheque is being wrongfully dealt with in
being paid into the customer's account.
Per ])ro. A per pro. indorsement puts the banker on inquiry as to the
indorsement.
authority of the person so indorsing, and disregard of this intima-
tion constitutes negligence (g) And the inquiry must include not
.
only the authority to indorse, but the authority to deal with the
indorsed cheque in the manner proposed (h). The words '^per pro."
are not essential. Any cheque purporting to be indorsed in a
representative capacity stands on the same footing (i). Where the
indorsement is authorised, the banker is not affected by the existence
of unfulfilled conditions (k) and where the indorsement and
;
application are authorised, he is not liable for misapplication of the

proceeds in the absence of any ground of suspicion (Z).
Cheques Apart from a procuration signature, any indication that the
payable to
officials.
customer is using for his own benefit a document prima facie
created for the benefit of, and being the property of, another person
should put the banker on inquiry (m). Under this head would
come cheques payable to rate-collectors, secretaries of companies
or charitable institutions, and the like, under their official denomina-
tions, cheques payable to a partnership and indorsed by one partner
paying in to his private account (w). Apart from the fact that the
(6) Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240.

(c) Dicta of Lord Halsbury and Lord Brampton in Great Western Rail. Co. v.
London and County Banking Co., [1901] A. C. 414, have been taken to imply this.
{d) The customer cannot have less than no title, the contingency against which
the banker is protected under sect. 82.
(e) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 82. The section only
specifically mentions the receipt of the money, but negligence in taking the cheque
has always been held to preclude protection as necessarily involving the subsequent
receipt.
(/) Bissell V. Fox (1885), 53 L. T. 193.
{g) Bissell v. Alexander v. Mackenzie (1848), 6 C. B. 766
Fox, supra ; ;
Bills of
Exchange Act, 1882 (45 k
46 Vict. c. 61), 25. s.'
{h) Gompertz v. Cook (1903), 20 T. L. R. 106.

[i) Balfour v. Ernest (1859), 5 C. B. (n. s.) 601.
[k) Re Land Credit Co. (1869), 4 Ch. App. 460.

[l) Bank of Bengal v. Macleod (1849), 7 Moo. P. C. C. 35 ;
Bryant d; Co. v. Quebec
Bank, [1893] A. C. 170 Hambro v. Biirnand, [1904] 2 K. B. 10.
;
{m) Hannan's Lake View Central, Ltd. v. Armstrong dh Co. (1900), 16 T. L. R.

236, where tbe secretary of a company indorsed a cheque payable to the company
and paid it into a private account.
(?i) Bevan v. The National Bank (1906)_, 23 T. L. R. 65. The position would
seem to differ from that of a partner drawing on a partnership account and paying
into a private account, as to which see Backhouse v. Ciiarlton (1878), 8 Ch. D. 445.
—
Crown is not bound by the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, since it is Sect. 3.
not specially named therein (o), it would be negligence for a banker Collection
to take for private account cheques payable to tax-collectors, excise of Cheques,
officials, and the like under their official denominations. So perhaps
it would be negligence to take for the private account of one executor
a cheque payable to executors as such (p). The fact that cheques

paid in by a stockbroker may possibly represent money of his
clients in his hands has no effect on the collecting banker (q).
The omission to detect an irregularity in the indorsement or
to notice that it does not ostensibly conform to what would be
the proper indorsement would constitute negligence (r).
It has been suggested that the fact that a cheque is crossed
" not negotiable " of itself puts the banker on inquiry (s) but it ;
is submitted that such is not the case(^).
1218. The crossing to a particular account, as "account payee" Crossing

or account of A. B.," has no warrant or recognition in the Bills of "account
Exchange Act, 1882 (a). It does not affect the transferability of the ^^•^^^*
cheque (b). Nor, it is submitted, does it affect its negotiability (c).
This particular crossing has been in use too long for it to be dis-
regarded, and it must be taken to convey an intimation to the
collecting banker that the proceeds of the cheque are only to be
placed to the specified account (d) It is therefore the custom of
.
most banks to decline to take the cheque for any other account, and
a disregard of the intimation would probably be deemed negligence.
1219. To entitle the banker to protection he must only receive Receipt for
payment for a customer {e). A customer is a person having customer.
(o) As to the extent to which the Crown is bound by statute, see title
Statutes.
{p) Compare, however, Shields v. Bank of Ireland, [1901] L. E, 1 Ir. 222, where
the Court appears to have seen nothing^ irregular in an executor paying executor-
ship money into his private account.
(q) TJiomson v. Clydesdale Bank, [1893] A. C. 282.
(r) Bavins, junr. and Sims v. London and South Western Bank, [1900] 1 Q. B. 270.
{s) Great Western Rail. Go. v. London and Gounty Banking Go., [1901] A. C. 414,
per Lord Brampton, at p. 422. Compare Bevan v. The National Bank (1906), 23
T. L. R. 65, per Channell, J., at p. 67.
(t) These words being merely part of the crossing, negligence in respect of a
crossed cheque must be something outside the crossing. This particular crossing
being for the protection of the public, the banker is entitled to correlative pro-
tection. In Gapital and Gounties Bank v. Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240, Lord
Brampton's view (note (s), supra) was either not pressed or not adopted.
Compare that case in the Court of Appeal, [1902] 1 K. B. 242, at p. 275.
(a) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 61.
{b) National Bank v. Silke, [1891] 1 Q. B. 435.
(c) If it did, it would have the effect of " not negotiable " without statutory
sanction ;
compare National Bank v. Silke, supra. The word " account " points
to the banker, not a transferee.
{d) Akrokerri {Atlantic) Mines, Ltd. v. Economic Bank, [1904] 2 K. B. 465 ;
Bevan v. The National Bank, supra.

(e) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61),' s. 82. " The protection
conferred by sect. 82. is conferred only on a banker who receives payment for a
customer, that is, who receives payment as a mere agent for collection." The
bank should be " a mere conduit pipe for conveying the cheque to the bank on
which it is drawn and receiving tlie money from that bank for their customer"
[Gapital and Gounties Bank v. Gordon, supra, per Lord Macnaghten, at pp. 245,
246).
Q Q 2
Sect. 3. habitual dealings with the banker in the nature of ordinary

Collection banking business. There must be use and habit (/). A single
of Cheq ues, isolated transaction does not constitute a customer (g), nor does the
continued cashing of crossed cheques over the counter from which
the bank derived no direct benefit
Having a current account constitutes a person a customer (i),
so also having a deposit account (k). Habitual discounting of bills
with a bank would probably constitute a customer. A first trans-
action, e.g., paying in a cheque to open an account, even though
followed by other transactions, would probably not be protected (/).
If a man is not a customer, his drawing a counter-cheque for the
amount, or the entry of the transaction in the banker's books under
such a heading as " Sundry Customers," is of no avail {m). A man
may be a customer although his account is overdrawn (?^).
Where a crossed cheque drawn on a head office or a branch is paid
in by a customer at another branch, and paid or allowed in account,
the bank is protected either as a collecting or as a paying bank (o),
When bank 1220. As above mentioned, the receipt of payment must be

becomes Save in the case of crediting
exclusively for the customer (jj).
transferee.
crossed cheques as cash before receipt of payment (q), a banker
who becomes the transferee of a crossed cheque, or so acts with
regard to it that but for a forged indorsement he would become the
transferee of it, does not subsequently receive the proceeds for the
customer, but for himself (7-). The iDanker becomes a transferee,
if he gives cash for it over the counter, or if the cheque is paid in on
(/) Matthews v. Brown

cfe Go. (1894), 10 T. L. R. 386
; Lacave dh Go. v. Gredit
Lyonnais, [1897] Q. B. 148
1 Great Western Rail. Go. v. London and Gounty
;
Banking Go., [1901] A. C. 414.

(g) KleiniDort v.
Gomptoir d'Escompte, [1894] 2 Q. B. 157 ; Matthews v. Brown
& Go., supra ; Lacave d Go. v. Gredit Lyonnais, supra.
{h) Great Western Bail. Go. v. London and Gounty Banking Go., supra.
{i) Lacave cfe Co. v. Gredit Lyonnais, supra.
{k) Great Western Rail. Go. v. London and Gounty Banking Go., supra, per Lord
Davey, at p. 421.
(J)
He was not a customer at the moment, but he was going to become a
customer if the cheque was collected " {Tate v. Wilts and Dorset Bank (1899),
Journal of Institute of Bankers, Vol. XX., p. 376, per Darling, J.).
(m) Matthews v. Brown ch Go., supra; Great Western Rail. Go. v. London and
County Banking Go., supra.
{n) Glarke v. London and Gounty Bank, [1897] 1 Q. B. 552, criticised by Lord
LiNDLEY in Great Western Rail. Go. v. London and Gounty Banking Go., supra;
but the doubt was whether the bank received only for the customer, not whether
he was one. Compare Hardij v. Veaseij (1868), L. R. 3 Exch. 107.
(0) Gordon v. Gajntal and
Gounties Bank, [1902] 1 K. B. at p. 274, where the
cheque was to order and bore a forged indorsement (not included in appeal to House
of Lords). But the protection would also apply in the case of a bearer checûe ;
see p. 608, post.
(p) See note (e), p. 595, ante.
Provided for by the Bills of Exchange (Crossed Cheques) Act, 1906
{q)
(6 Edw. 7, c. 17). See note (e), p. 597, post.
(r) Gapital and Gounties Bank v. Gordo7i, [1903] A. C. 240, per Lord Macnaghten,
at p. 245: "It is impossible, I think, to say that a banker is merely receiving
payment for his customer and a mere agent for collection when he receives
.payment of a cheque of which he is the holder for value." The person in pos-
session of an order cheque under a forged indorsement could never be a holder
;for value, so that these words must be read in the extended sense given in the
text.
—
the express understanding that it may be drawn against at once, Sect. 3.
and it is so drawn against (s). So probably if the cheque is received Collection

on that footing, whether it is in fact drawn against or not {a), or is of Cheques,
paid in in express reduction of an overdraft (5). But the mere
existence of an overdraft, though the banker's lien in respect
thereof constitutes him for certain purposes a holder for value
to the extent of that lien (c), would not appear to preclude the
protection (d).
1221. The mere fact that the banker has credited the cheque Crediting as
as cash before receiving the proceeds does not prevent his

subsequently receiving them for the customer, or deprive him of
protection (f).
But it would appear that the other incidents
of crediting as cash
still apply in the case of crossed cheques (/).
If so credited the customer can therefore draw against the cheque
at once (g), unless by special agreement or course of business he is
precluded from so doing {It) The banker can, in the absence of a
.
forged indorsement, sue upon a crossed cheque in his own name

as a holder in due course, unless the cheque is crossed " not
negotiable " (i), and may debit the customer if the cheque is dis-
honoured (j) He may apparently set up the position of holder
.
for value as against the person claiming as true owner, except

where the indorsement is forged or the cheque is marked "not
negotiable."
1222. Where a cheque is crossed "not negotiable" the banker "Notnego-

cannot avail himself of the defence that he dealt with the cheque liable"
crossmg.
pendmg revocation of a voidable title in the customer (k).
(s) National Bank v. Silke, [1891] 1 Q. B. 435, per Bowen, L.J., at p. 439.
(a) Roijal Bank of Scotland v. Tottenham, [1894] 2 Q. B. 715.
(6) Compare London and Comity Bank v. Groome (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 288.
(c) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 27 (3).
(rf) Clarke v. London aiid County Bank, [1897] 1 Q. B. 552. The banker might
be said to have waived his lien on the cheque, presented it on behalf of the
customer, and retained the proceeds by virtue of his right of set-off. Compare
Great Western Rail. Co. v. London and County Banking Co., [1900] 2 Q. B. 46i, per
RoMER, L.J., at p. 476 the same case, [1901] A. C. 414, per Lord Lindley, at
;
p. 424. Where Lord Macnaghten, as i)reviously quoted (note (r), p. 596, ante),
spoke of " holder for value," it is suggested that he meant " transleree for value."
(e) Bills of Exchange (Crossed Cheques) Act, 1906 (6 Bdw. 7, c. 17). Doubts
have been expressed whether this was not the case even apart from the Act by
BiGHAM, J., in Akrokerri (Atlantic) Mines, Ltd. v. Economic Bank, [1904] 2 K. B.
465, and Channell, J., in Bevan v. The National Bank (1906), 23 T. L. B. 65. But
see Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240, in consequence of which
the Act was passed. The Act is not retrospective, and does not affect transactions
prior to its coming into operation. See Bevan v. The National Bank, supra.
(/) The Bills of Exchange (Crossed Cheques) Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 17), is by its
terms confined to the protection of the banker against the true owner.
(g) Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, supra, per Lord Lindley, at p. 249.
(/i) Compare Akrokerri (Atlantic) Mines, Ltd. v. Economic Bank, supra.
(i) Royal Bank of Scotland v. Tottenham, supra.
(j) Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, supra, per Lord Lindley, at p, 248.
(k) As to this defence in the case of other cheques, see Tate v. Wilts and Dorset
Bank (1899), Journal of Institute of Bankers, Vol. XX., p. 376. As to its exclusion
by non-negotiable crossing, compare Great Western Rail. Co. v. London and County
Banking Co., [1901] A. C. 414.
—
Sect. 4. Sect. 4. Collection of Bills of Exchange.

Collection
of Bills of
1223. If a banker undertakes the collection of bills (l) for a
Exchange. customer he is bound to present them for acceptance and payment
in accordance with the provisions of the Bills of Exchange Act,
Collection
of bills of
1882 (m), and must give notice of dishonour to his customer if they
exchange. are dishonoured (n) .
Sub-agents. If he employs a sub-agent, he is responsible to the customer

for negligence on the part of such sub-agent (o), but has a remedy
over against the sub-agent.
Money received on a bill by a sub-agent is in law received
by the banker, apart from any question of account between him
and the sub-agent (p). A banker receiving bills for collection from
another banker is agent for the remitting banker, not for that
banker's customer unless, therefore, the banker has distinct notice
;
that the bills are the property of the customer, they may be treated
as the property of the remitting banker (q), and are subject to a lien
for any balance due from the latter (r).
Lien. A banker has a lien on a bill handed to him by a customer
for collection, if the customer be or become indebted to him (s).
If the customer has indorsed the bill, the banker has a remedy
on it against the customer to the extent of such indebtedness (i).
Mere indorsement for collection, without indebtedness, gives no
such right (a), nor does indorsement necessarily imply parting
with the entire property in the bill (b). Whether the customer
parts with the entire property depends on the nature of the dealing
between him and the banker. Entering as cash before receipt
of the money has been held evidence only of the banker's having
taken the bill in his own right (c). Whether it has greater effect
[1) For forms of bill of exchange, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. II.,
pp. 510, 511.

& 46 Vict. c. 61. See, further, title Bills of Exchange etc.
(m) 45
Compare Bank of Van Diemen^s Land v. Bank of Victoria (1871), L. E.
(n)
3 P. C. 526 Bank of Scotland v. Dominion Bank {Toronto), [1891] A. C. 592.
;
(o) Mackersy v. Ramsays (1843), 9 CI. & F. 818 Prince v. Oriental Bank
;
Corporation (1878), 3 App. Cas. 325. And see, further, title Agency, p. 193,
ante. For form of acknowledgment excluding this liability, see Encyclopaedia of
(p) Mackersy v. Ramsays, supra.
(q) Johnson v. Robarts (1875), 10 Ch. App. 505. Compare Ex parte Armitstead,
Re Dikvorth (1828), 2 Gl. & J. 371.
(r) Ex parte Froggatt, Re Barker (1843), 3 Mont. D. & De G. 322. Compare
Prince v. Oriental Bank Corporation, supra, at p. 335 ; Ex parte Sargeant, Re
Burrough (1810), 1 Rose, 153.
(s) Giles V. Perkins (1807), 9 East, 12; Ex parte Schofield, Re Firth (1879), 12
Ch. D. 337 Daivson v. Isle, [1906] 1 Ch. 633
; Ex parte Barkworth, Re Harrison
;
(1858), 2 G. & J. 194.

De
{t) Compare Giles v. Perkins, supra, at p. 14.
(a) There being no consideration (Ex parte Schofield, Re Firth, supra, per
Brett, L.J., at p. 343).
(6) Ex parte Re Firth, supra; Ex parte Barkworth, Re Harrison,
Schofield,
supra. It may
be merely by way of additional security.
.(c) Giles V. Perkins, supra ; Ex parte Barkworth, Re Harrison, supra (bills
not due) Thompson v. Giles (1824), 2 B. & C. 422.
;
Compare Gaden v. New-
foundland Savings Bank, [1899] A. C. 281, at p. 286 ; Dawson v. Isle, supra.
— ——
now is doubtful (d). It would seem to constitute an undertaking by Sect. 4.
the banker to honour cheques to the amount of the bills (e). Collection
A banker is not justified in negotiating bills, whether indorsed of Bills of
by the customer or not, which have been paid in for collection (/), Exchange,
at any rate unless the state of the customer's account renders it a Negotiation
reasonable thing to do so (g). by banker.
^
A banker who collects a bill to which his customer has no No protection
title_ is hable to the true owner in trover or for money had and
^^^j. has
received to the face value of the bill, and has no statutory nTtitle.^^
protection whatever (Ii).
Sect. 5. Collection of other Documents.
Sub-Sect. 1. Orders for Payment.
1224. An order for payment drawn by a customer on his banker Orders for
payable conditionally on the payee's signing a specified attached payment,
receipt is not a cheque (i).
Such documents are not negotiable, and if the collecting banker
has received the amount payable under any of such documents
in circumstances constituting conversion of the document he is
liable to the true owner for the face value (k).
The crossing on such documents has generally been regarded Crossing,
as aftbrding both collecting and paying bankers the same protection
as the crossing on cheques, and as imposing the same duties on the
latter. This would appear to be the case {I) except that a collecting
(d) The doctrine that crediting cheques as cash makes the banker holder for
value ipso facto, applied to cheques in Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, [1903]
A. C. 240, lias never yet been applied to bills not due.
{e) Thompson v. Giles (1824), 2 B. & C. 422, at pp. 429, 431.
(/) Thompson v. Giles, supra; Collins v. Martin (1797), 1 Bos. & P. 648, at p. 649
;
Ex parte Barkiui<rth, Be Harrison (1858), 2 De G. & J. 194.

(g) Negotiation in some such circumstances is clearly contemplated in Thomp)-
son V. Giles, supra, ^qq per Bayley, J., at p. 429: "The banker could only be
justified in negotiating them when that was rendered a reasonable course by the
state of the customer's account." See also per Holroyd, J., at p. 432 and compare
;
Ex parte Barhworth, Re Harrison, supra. But it is submitted that the right only
arises when there has been agreement, express or implied, that the bills may be so
dealt with on contingencies which have arisen. The proper course is to hold and
collect the bills wiien due and retain the proceeds by virtue of set-off.
(/i) Arnold v. Cheque Bank (1876), 1 C. P. D. 578, at p. 585. The suggestion
there of handing over the money to the customer cannot be supported in view of
the later cases, e.g., Fine Art Society v. Union Bank of London (1886), 17 Q. B. D.
705 ;
Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240.
{i) Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, supra, at p. 252 (instruments in class 8)
;
Bavins, junr. and Sims v. London and South Western Bank, [1900] 1 Q. B. 270.
(/;;) Bavins, junr. and Sims v. London and South Western Bank, supra ; Capital
and Counties Bank v. Gordon, supra. Compare Bevenue Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict,
c. 55), s. 17
:
" Provided that nothing in this Act shall be deemed to render any
such document a negotiable instrument." See also Gordon v. London City and
Midland Bank, [1902] 1 K. B. 242, per Collins, M.R., at p. 275.
{I) Revenue Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 55), s. 17. See Bavins, junr. and Sims
V. London and South Western Bank, supra ; Gordo7i v. London City and Midland
Bank, supra, at pp. 275, 282. Certain expressions used by Lord Lindley in the
latter case, [1903] A. C. at p. 252, and concurred in by the other law lords, might
seem to imply that the Revenue Act, 1883, s. 17, does not apply to these documents
—
Sect. 5. banker would not be protected if the documents were credited as
Collection cash before receipt of the money (in).

of other It would seem not to be regarded as negligence in a banker to
Documents. take these documents for collection for a party other than the
named payee (n). Beyond this, their transferability would seem
doubtful.
Sub-Sect. 2. Dividend Warrants.
Dividend 1225. With regard to dividend warrants which are strictly in

warrants. cheque form, the banker's duties, liabilities, and protection are the
same as with regard to other cheques.
But dividend warrants payment of which is made conditional,
e.g., on signature and production of an annexed receipt (o) or on
presentation within a specified period, are not cheques.
As to such dividend warrants, the rules as to presentation and
notice of dishonour applicable to cheques are not binding. It is,
however, the duty of the banker to present them in reasonable time
and return them to the customer if not paid on presentation. The
usage of bankers to require only one indorsement on a dividend
warrant payable to several holders is preserved by the Bills of
Exchange Act, 1882
Crossing. The crossed cheque sections of that Act((;) apply to dividend
by reason of their not being drawn on the bank which collects them. It is
submitted form of such documents is clearly within the section, Lord
that, as the
LiisiDLEY meant that, though the documents were effectively crossed by virtue of
the Revenue Act, 1883, s. 17, and the crossed cheque sections incorporated
thereby, the protection w as lost by reason of the documents having been credited
as cash and not being negotiable, or that by reason of a forged indorsement no
independent title was possible.
(m) Sect. 17 of the Eevenue Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 55), merely enacts that
sects. 76 to 82 inclusive of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, shall extend to any
such document, and shall so extend in like manner as it the said document were a
cheque. It does not make such documents cheques, and the amending Bills of
Exchange (Crossed Cheques) Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 17), refers only to " cheques,"
and does not state that it is to be read as one Act with the Bills of Exchange Act,
1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61).
(n) Both in Bavins, junr. and Sims v. London and South Western Bank, [1900]
1 Q. B. 270, and Gordon v. London City and Midland Bank, [1902] 1 K. B. 242,
the documents were taken from a third party, and no objection on this ground
appears in the arguments or judgments. The words of the Revenue Act, 1883
(46 & 47 Vict, c. 55), s. 17, "intended to enable any person or body corporate
to obtain payment from such banker of the sum mentioned in such document,"
might well be read as confining the operation of the section to dealings with the
immediate payee. The exaction of the payee's receipt points in the same direction,
thougli such receipt was not regarded as incompatible with a third party subse-
quently obtaining payment of a dividend warrant in Partridge v. Bank of England
(1846), 9 Q. B.'396. The proviso to sect. 17 of the Revenue Act, 1883, that
nothing therein contained is to be deemied to make such document a negotiable
instrument, appears to use " negotiable " in the sense of transferable, as in sect, 8
of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61). It is difficult to
conceive a transferable but not negotiable document other than a cheque crossed
"not negotiable," which is purely a statutory creation.
(o) Compare Ga^ntal and Counties Bank v. Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240. bill A
or cheque must be unconditional (Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict,
c. 61), s. 3).
(,2?) 45 & 46 Vict, c, 61, s. 97 (3) (d).
(g) lUd., ss. 76—82.
——
warrants (r). But it would appear that the Bills of Exchange Sect. 5.
(Crossed Cheques) Amendment Act, 1906 (s), does not apply to Collection
dividend warrants, which are not cheques (a). of other
A forged indorsement or the " not negotiable " crossing precludes Doc ume nts,
the banker from setting up an independent title. Whether he can Negotiability,
do so in other cases, or is justified in taking them for collection
from anyone other than the payee, depends on the negotiability
of a dividend warrant, which has never been judicially recognised (/;).
Where the amount of a dividend warrant has been received in
circumstances constituting conversion of the document, the damages
recoverable by the true owner would be the face value, independent
of any question of negotiability (c).
A warrant for interest as distinguished from dividend if interest ,
susceptible of effective crossing, can be so only either as a cheque

or as an order on a banker issued by the customer (e).
Sub-Sect. 3. Post Office Money Orders.
1226. These are not cheques, being drawn by one branch or Post Office
agency of the Post Office on another. They are outside the ordinary money orders,
crossed cheques legislation. They may, however, be crossed gene-
rally or specially, and will only be paid in accordance with such
crossing (/). But a banker collecting postal money orders for his
customer is absolutely protected whether they be crossed or not,
and even if he has been negligent (r/). The collection must be for
the customer, so that the banker would lose protection by taking
them for value or crediting them as cash. And as they are not
negotiable (/<), he could not set up an independent title.
(r) Bills of Excliange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 95. Interest warrants, if
distinguishable from cheques or dividend warrants, would not seem to come within
the provisions of this section.
(4 6 Edw. 7, c. 17.
[a) The Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 95, does not make
dividend warrants cheques it merely applies to them specilic sections of the Act
;
itself. The amending Act of 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 17) does not enact that it is to
be read as one Act with the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882. In its terms it applies
only to cheques.
(6) Compare Partridge v. Bank of England (1846), 9 Q. B. 396,_per Tindal, C.J.,
at p. 424, doubted in Goodioin v, Eobarts (1875), L. R. 10 Exch. 337, at p. 354.
Possibly a custom of merchants could be proved at the present day making
dividend warrants negotiable if payable to bearer or order. The Bills of Exchange
Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 97 (3) (cl), is not sufficient to confer
negotiability.
(c) Compare Bavins, junr. and Sims v. London and South Westerti Bank, [1900] 1
Q. B. 270.
{d) The Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 95, specifies a
warrant for the payment of "dividend,"
(e) See Revenue Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 55), s. 17.
(/) Post Office (Money Orders) Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 58), s. 1 and
Sched. I. Post Office (Money Orders) Act, 1880 (43 & 44 Vict. c. 33), s. 3.
;
{g) Post Office (Money Orders) Act, 1880, supra, proviso to sect. 3. The proviso,
which has the force of a substantive enactment (see Matthiessen v. London and
County Bank (1879;, 5 C. P. D. 7, and see title Statutes), is not in its terms con-
fined to crossed postal money orders, and makes no reterence to negligence or
good faith, as does sect. 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61).
This proviso was not set up in Fine Art Society v. Union Bank of London (1886),
17 Q. B. D. 705, but a defence based upon it appears sound.
ill) Fine Art Society v. Union Bank of London, supra.
— —
Sect. 5.
Stjb-Sect. 4. Bankers' Drafts,
Collection
of other 1227. Drafts payable on demand drawn by a branch office on
Documents. the head office of the same bank, or vice versa, are not cheques (i).
They are, however, presumably negotiable {k). A banker receiving
Bankers'
drafts.
payment in circumstances amounting to conversion is liable to
the true owner for the face value. They are not susceptible of effec-
tive crossing {I), and ostensible crossing affords no protection to the
collecting banker. If, however, collected by the bank on which they
are drawn, the bank as a whole is protected if it has paid them on a

forged indorsement {m), whether the draft be inland or foreign {n).
A draft drawn by one bank on another is a cheque, and may be
crossed and dealt with as such.
Sect. 6. Payment of Cheques.

Payment of 1228. A banker is bound to pay cheques drawn on him by a
cheques.
customer in legal form provided he has in his hands at the time
sufficient and available funds for the purpose (o). He must either
pay them or refuse payment at once a request to re-present
;
amounts to dishonour
Post-dated Post-dated cheques are not invalid {q), but the banker should
cheques.
not pay such a cheque if presented before its ostensible date (r). So
[i] Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240 ; Bills of Exchange
Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), ss. 3, 73.
{k) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, s. 5 (2). So that, in the absence of a forged
indorsement, an independent title may be set up where circumstances admit.
(Z) Qucere whether this is implied by Lord Lindley in Capital and Counties
Bank v. Gordon, supra, at p. 250. Only " cheques " can be crossed under the
Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, and "cheque" is defined as a bill in sect. 73,
differing from previous crossed cheques legislation, which applied to " draft or
order drawn on a banker." There is no statutory provision for applying to them
the crossed cheques sections.
(m) Stamp Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 59), s. 19 ;
Capital and Counties Bank
V. Gordon, supra, at p. 250.
(n) It has been contended that the section, occurring in a Stamp Act, can only
apply to inland drafts, but the enactment, though in the form of a proviso, is
perfectly general in its terms. The fact that it is a proviso does not prevent its
being a substantive enactment ( Matthiessen v, London and County Bank (1879),
5 C. P. D. 7). The Court of Chancery (Funds) Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 44),
s. 11, refers to this enactment as relating to "the indorsement of drafts or orders
drawn upon bankers for the payment of money," without specifying inland drafts.
In Broivn, Brough Co. v. National Bank of India (1902), 18 T. L. R. 669,
BiGHAM, J., clearly thought it applied to foreign drafts, and his ruling was not
dissented from by the House of Lords in Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon,
supra, see p. 251.
(o) Foley v. Hill (1848), 2 H. L. Cas. 28 Whitaker v. Bank of England (1835),
;
1 Cr. M. & K at p. 750

; Marzetti v. Williams (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 415). As to
funds available, see p. 605, post.
(p) Bank of England v. Vagliano, [1891] A. C. 107, see per Lord Bramwell at
p. 141, per Lord Macnaghten at p. 157, dissenting from dictum of Madle, J., in
Roharts v. Tucker (1851), 16 Q. B. 560, at p. 578.
{q) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 13 (2), even in the
hands of a holder who has taken a post-dated cheque before the ostensible date
{Carpenter v. Street (1890), 6 T. L. R. 410).
. Nor can an objection to the sufficiency
of the stamp prevail if action is brought after the ostensible date {Royal Bank of
Scotland v. Tottenham, [1894] 2 Q. B. 715).
'(r) Da Silva v. Fuller (1776), unreported, see Sel. Cas. MS. 238 ; Morley v.
Culverwell (1840), 7 M. & W. 174, per Parke, B., at p. 178.

—
if a cheque dated on a Sunday is presented on the previous Saturday, Sect. 6.
it should be returned with the answer ''Post-dated " (s). A post- Payment of
dated cheque, however, if presented at or after its ostensible date, Cheques.
should be paid though the banker knows it to be post-dated, and
even if it has been presented before date and refused payment {t).
A banker must not pay an unstamped cheque, but he may affix Unstamped
and cancel an adhesive penny stamp and pay the cheque, deducting cheque.
the penny from the amount or charging it against the drawer (z^).
If a cheque is presented for payment with an adhesive stamp
affixed, but not cancelled, the banker must refuse payment and
return the cheque, unless satisfied and prepared to prove that the
stamp was affixed by the drawer (a).
A banker is justified in refusing payment of a cheque which Irregular
is ambiguous in form or irregular in execution (b). cheque.
It is submitted that a banker should not pay a cheque to a payee Payee bank-
he knows to be an undischarged bankrupt (c). The validity of rupt or
infant,
payment to an infant payee has never been questioned (d).
Bankers habitually refuse payment of "stale" cheques, i.e., " Stale "
cheques which have been outstanding for a period varying from cheques.
six months in some banks to twelve in others but the practice ;
has never received judicial sanction (e).
(s) A
cheque dated on Sunday is not invalid (Bills of Exchange Act, 1882
(45 &46 Vict. c. 61), s. 13 (2)). Sect. 14 of the Act only applies to bills not
payable on demand.
(t) In Emanuel v. Robarts (1868), 9 B. & S. 121, the bankers were held
justified under a custom of London bankers in refusing payment of a post-dated
cheque so re-presented. The ground of decision was the then existing doubt as to
the legality of post-dated cheques. That legality is now established, as shown above,
and the custom could not obtain at the present day. Possibly the person drawing
and issuing a post-dated cheque is liable to a penalty under sect. 5 of the Stamp
Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39).
{u) Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39), s. 38 (2).
(a) Sect. 38 (2), ihid., only empowers the banker to "affix and cancel" the
stamp where the cheque is presented " unstamped." Where a cheque is drawn in
the United Kingdom, and an adhesive stamp is used, the drawer must cancel it
before he delivers it out of his hands (ibid., s. 34), under a penalty of £10 {ibid.,
s. 8 (3) ). No intermediate holder can affix or cancel the stamp {Hobbs v.
Cathie (1890), 6 T. L. E. 292). A
cheque with an adhesive stamp is not "duly
stamped" unless the stamp is cancelled by the drawer, or unless it is otherwise
proved that the stamp was affixed at the proper time {ibid., s. 8 (I) ). Any person
paying a bill not duly stamped incurs a fine of ^10 {ibid., s. 38). Sect. 35 only
applies to bills drawn out of the United Kingdom.
(b) His only responsibility is to his customer. He is not bound to decide legal
questions, or to run unusual risks. Compare Emanuel v. Robarts, supra ; Bank of
England v. Vagliano, [1891] A. C. 107.
(c) This question has been much discussed, and there is no direct authority on
the point. It is the banker's duty, as far as possible, to obtain a good discharge
for his customer. This prima facie the bankrupt cannot give. The banker
cannot possibly know whether or not the cheque represents after-acquired property,
and, even if it does, payment of it is not a privileged transaction or dealing with
the bankrupt. See Gohen v. Mitchell (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 262 Re Clark, Ex parte
;
Beardmore, [1891] 2 Q. B. 393 Re Bennett, Ex parte the Official Receiver, [1907]

;
1 See, further, title Bankruptcy and Insolvency.

K. B. 149.
the extent of disability of infancy, p. 587, ante.
(d) See, as to
(e) Save in case of damage by non-presentation within a reasonable time, the
drawer remains liable until discharged by the Statute of Limitations {Robinson v.

Hawksford (1846), 15 L. J. (q.b.) 377 ; Laios v. Rand (1857), 3 C. B. (n. s.) 442).
See title Limitation of Actions. In the notes to Serle v. Norton (1841), 2
Sect. 6.
Bankers usually refuse payment of an undated cheque, or one on
Payment of which the date is incomplete, e.g., December 1, 190-. The practice
Cheques. is of doubtful validity (/), but any alteration of the date of a.
Undated cheque appears to be a material alteration {g) and a banker should ,
cheques. therefore refuse to pay a cheque on which the date appears to have
been altered.
Authority to 1229. The cheque must be drawn by a person having authority
draw.
express or implied {h). And a jper pro. signature, or one of like
import, puts the banker on inquiry as to the authority of the
person so signing (i). ^Yhere the account is not a simply individual
one, the parties to draw and form of drawing are generally arranged
on opening the account, and such arrangement must be strictly
observed.
Joint Apart from agreement {k), cheques on ordinary joint accounts
accounts.
should be drawn by all the parties in whose name the account
stands (l). But the banker is justified, in case of death, in allowing
the survivor to draw any balance standing to the joint account,
even as between husband and wife, whether both or either one is
entitled to draw.
Partnership During a partnership, and in the absence of instructions to the
accounts.
contrary {m), any partner has the right to draw on the partnership
account in the firm name The death of one or more partners
does not preclude the surviving partner or partners from drawing
on the firm account (o), but the modern and preferable method is
that, where to the knowledge of the banker a partner dies, the old
Mood. & E. 401, it is suggested that the practice is justified by the custom of
bankers. In any event, the customer's credit would not be damaged by the
cheque being returned marked with, this ground of refusal.
(/) A bill is not invalid by reason of its being undated (Bills of Exchange
Act,
1882 (45 & 46 Yict, c. 61), s. 3 (4) (a) ). It has been suggested that the holder can
till in the date, but sect. 12 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, does not apply to
cheques. The date of a cheque would not seem a material particular " within
s. 20. If it is, the banker is not holder for value and so, to make the cheque
;
effectual against the drawer, the date would have to be inserted in reasonable
time and in strict accordance with authority, of neither of which the banker is in
a position to j udge.
(g) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 64 (2), not confined to
bills pa)'able after date.
{h) Theoretically a cheque need not be drawn by a customer. Compare Capital
and Counties Bank v. Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240. Prr-tection was there awarded under
the JStamp Act, 1853 (16 & ] 7 Vict. c. 59), s. 19, to bankers' drafts, as being " drawn
upon a banker," which words occur in the definition of a cheque contained in the
Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 A^ct. c. 61), s. 73. But a cheque drawn other-
wise than by a customer would not come within any practical rules of banking law.
There can be no obligation to pav where there are'^no funds out of which to pay.
(^) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 25. E.g., an executor
cannot as a rule delegate his powers, and a cheque signed per pro. an executor
ought not to be paid without inquiry and satisfactory explanation.
(k) For an example, see Marshal v. Cruttwell (1875), L. 20 Eq. 328. K
[l) Hushand v. Davis (1851), 10 C. B. 645,_per Maule, J., at p. 650, and
compare
Brandon v. Scott (1857), 7 E. & B. 234.
(m) For an example of the effect of such instructions, see Twihell v. London
Suburban Bank, [1869] W. N. 127.
{n) Partnership Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 39), ss. 5, 8. Opening an account
in the firm name is evidence of authority in each partner to draw.
(o) Backhouse v. Charlton (1878), 8 Ch. D. 444.
—
account should be operated on only for the purpose of winding up Sect. 6.

the partnership, and arrangements should be made for a new Payment of
account, carrying over to it any balance remaining {p). The C hequ es,
bankruptcy of one partner does not interfere with the other partners
or partner drawing on the firm account.
In the absence of special arrangement, one of several executors Administra
tion and trust
or administrators can draw on an account opened with the deceased,
accounts.
or with them as executors or administrators (q) but one trustee ;
cannot draw on a trust account in which others than he are

named as trustees (r).
1230. Subject to questions of statutory protection, estoppel, or Payment

adoption, a banker who has paid a cheque drawn without authority
or has paid one in contravention of his customer's orders (s), or,
probably, negligently (t), cannot debit the customer's account with
the amount.
1231. There must be sufficient funds to cover the whole amount Funds
of the cheque presented. For there is in England no obUgation ^â^l^^l^-
on the banker to pay any part of a cheque for an amount exceeding
the available balance {a), save under instructions. Cheques must
be paid in the order in which they are presented, whether by post
or otherwise (b). If two cheques are presented simultaneously, e.g.,
by the same mail or through the same clearing, and there are only
funds sufficient to pay one, it is doubtful whether both may be
returned (c).
The funds must not only be sufficient, but available. Even Time when
available,
in the case of notes or gold, the banker is entitled to reasonable
time between the paying in and drawing against in which to carry
out the necessary book-keeping entries (d). In the case of cheques
and other documents, he is entitled to a reasonable time for clearing
or collection according to their respective nature (e).
ip) See the Partnership Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 39); Re Bourne, [1906]
2 Ch. 427. The rights intei^ se of partners and the representatives of a deceased
partner do not seem directly to affect the banker, but it is questionable whether
•
he is entitled to ignore them,
(q) For administration of a deceased's estate generally, see title Executors
AND Administrators.
(r) See, further, title Trusts and Trustees.
(s) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 75 ; Twibell v. London
Suburban Bank, [1869] W. N. 127.
{t) See Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 80, "without negli-
gence" Bellamy v. Marjoribanks (1852), 7 Exch. 389 Carlon v. Ireland (1856),

; ;
5 E. & Crompton, J., at p. 770.

B. 765, per
(a) A cheque is not an assignment of funds in the banker's hands (Bills of
Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 53 (1) ). The banker only contracts
with the customer to honour cheques wdien he has sufficient " funds iu hand.
See Garew Duckworth (1869), L. R. 4 Exch. 313.
v.
(6) Kilsby Williams (1822), 5 B. & Aid. 815.
V.
(c) Unnecessary damage would be caused to the customer's credit.
{d) Marzetti v. Williams (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 415 Whitaker v. Bank of England
;
(1835), 1 Cr. M. & R. 744, at pp. 749, 750 Bransbij v. East London Bank (1866),
;
14 L. T. 403.
(e) Forrnan v. Bank of England (1902), 18 T. L. R. 339, where a city cheque
was passed through the country clearing and was not credited in time to meet a
cheque drawn against it.
606 Bankeks and Banking.
Sect. 6. If^ however, the amount is credited as cash, whether received or

Payment of not, the customer is at once entitled to draw against it (/), unless
C hequ es, precluded from doing so by agreement or course of business (g).
Fundsîiot 1232. A balance at one branch of a bank does not entitle a
customer to draw on another branch where he has no account or is
overdrawn (h). If the customer has, in the same capacity, accounts
at two or more branches, the bank is entitled to combine them in
the absence of agreement or course of business, and treat the
ultimate credit balance, if any, as alone available for drawing
purposes (i).
A garnishee order nisi founded on a judgment against the
customer and served on the banker prevents any credit balance
being available irrespective of the relative amounts of the judgment
and the balance (k).
Bills discounted for the customer not yet due do not render
a credit balance on current account not available (l).
If a banker has marked cheques (m) at the instance of the customer,
he is entitled to retain funds to meet them.
Lien, set-off, or the Statute of Limitations may render moneys not
available.
A receiving order against, or notice of an available act of bank-
ruptcy on the part of, the customer renders moneys standing to his
credit at the time not available (n),
Breach of It is not the banker's business or right to set up the title

1233.
trust.
of persons other than his customer, and mere suspicion that a
breach of trust is involved or intended in the drawing of a cheque
on trust funds is not sufficient (o). But it is hardly conceivable
that a Court would award damages against the banker to a customer
(/) Capital and Counties Bank

Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240, per Lord Lindley,
v.
by the Bills of Exchange (Crossed Cheques)
at p. 249, is apparently not att'ected
Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 17), even in the case of crossed cheques. That Act only
touches relations between the banker and the true owner.
(g) Akrokerri (Atlantic) Mines, Ltd. v. Economic Bank, [1904] 2 K. B. 465 ;
compare Bevan v. The National Bank (1906), 23 T. L. R. 65.
(/i) Woodland v. Fear (1857), 7 E. & B. 519 compare Garnett v. M'Kewan
;
(1872), L. R. 8 Exch. 10; Union Bank of Australia v. Murray- Ay nsley, [1898]

A. C. 693.
Garnett v. M^Kewan, supra j Buckingham <& Co. v. London and Midland
(i)
Bank (1895), 12 T. L. R. 70 (course of business precluding combination).

{k) Rogers v. Whiteley, [1892] A. C. 118 Yates v. Terry, [1901] 1 K. B. 102
;
(county court order). See p. 585, ante.

(l) Bower v. Foreign and Colonial Gas Co. (1874), 22 W. R. 740, distinguishing
Bolland v.Bygrave (1825), 1 Ry. & M. 271, which had previously been doubted iu
Barnett v. Brandao (1843), 6 Man. & G. at p. 654 Jeffryes v. Agra and Master-
;
man's Bank (1866), L. R. 2 Eq. 674. In the event of a customer's bankruptcy,

apart from any determination of the authority to pay cheques, the banker could
probably hold a credit balance as against such bills. See Bankruptcy Act, 1883
(46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 38 Alsager v. Currie (1844), 12 M. & W. 751.
;
(m) Cheques are sometimes marked by bankers as a warrant to persons taking

them that the bankers hold sufficient funds on the drawer's account to meet the
cheques. See note {u), p. 607, post.
(n) Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), ss. 9, 49.
(o) j9erLord Westbury, at p. 14 Bank
Gray v. Johnston (1868), L. R. 3 H. L. 1, ;
of New South Wales v. Goulhurn Valley Butter Co. Proprietary, Ltd., [1902] A. C.
543 ; Coleman v. Bucks and Oxon Union Bank, [1897] 2 Ch. 243.
——
who had to admit, or against whom it was proved, that he drew the Sect. 6.
cheque for the purpose of defrauding the trust (^). A banker should Payment of
not pay a cheque drawn on trust funds in his own favour in circum- Cheques,
stances which would in law render him accessory to a fraud, e.g.,
where there has been a balance struck against a trustee on his
private account and pressure for payment, followed by the drawing
of a cheque on the trust account for the amount due (g).
1234. The duty and authority to pay a cheque drawn by a Determina-

customer are determined tion of
authority to
(1) By countermand
of payment {r), commonly known as stopping pay.
a cheque. Stopping by telegram is sufficient (s). One partner has Counter-
power to stop a cheque issued in the firm name one executor has mand.
;
power to stop a cheque signed by another {t). Where a banker

has marked a cheque at the instance of the customer, the customer
cannot countermand payment of the cheque after issue {u).
(2) By notice of the customer's death {x).
Where one of two or more partners or customers on joint Death,
account dies, the survivors or survivor can still draw on the
account {a). But on the death of one of several trustees the banker
must not honour cheques on the trust account drawn by the
survivor or survivors unless satisfied of his or their power so to
draw under terms of the trust.
(3) By a receiving order made against the customer or notice of Bankruptcy
an available act of bankruptcy on his part (&).
Notice of intention to commit an act of bankruptcy has not the
same eftect (c). If a banker chooses to open a new account with the
bankrupt after adjudication, he cannot refuse to honour cheques
drawn on it, unless the trustee intervene {cl).
If the banker were served with an injunction not to pay, he Injunction.
Gray v. Johnston (1868), L. R. 3 H. L. 1, per Lord Cairns, at p. 11 Hunt

(p) ;
V.Maniere (1864), 34 Beav. 157.

{q) Ghây v. Johnston, supra, and cases cited, note (h), p. 584, ante.
(r) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 75. As to payment
contrary to instructions, see Twibell v. London Suburban Bank, [1869] W. N.
127.
{s) Curtice v. London City and Midland Bank (1907), 23 T. L. R. 594, where the
Court agreed that there might be a countermand by telegram, but differed as to

whether there had been a sufficient communication of the countermand.
{t) G-mmt V. Taylor (1843), 2 Hare, 413.
{u) By so marking (see note (m),p. 606, ante), the banker becomes bound to pay
to any other banker presenting it. Compare Groodwin v. Robarts (1876), L. R. 10
Exch. at p. 351 Gaden v. Newfoundland Savings Bank, [1899] A. C. 281
; ;
Imperial Bank of Canada v. Bank of Hamilton, [1903] A. C. 49. Sect. 75 of the

Act does not include the case as an exception, but the banker is in the position of
an agent with interest, for which see, further, title Agency, p. 228, ante. Even if
the cheque is not crossed, it might be presented through a banker, or be subse-
quently crossed.
{x) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 75.
[a) See p. 604, ante.
(6) The right and duty to refuse payment in such case arises, not so much from
the actual determination of the customer's authority as from the fact of the
relation back of the trustee's title in the event of adjudication, which renders the
funds not available. See p. 585, ante.
(c) Re Wright, Ex parte Arnold (1876), 3 Ch. D. 70 Trustee of Lord Hill v.
;
Rowlands, [1896] 2 Q. B. 124.

{d) See, as to after-acquired property, note {d), p. 584, ante.
— —
Sect. 6.
would have to obey it, but such an injunction ought not to be
Payment of granted (e).
Cheques.
1235. If a banker without justification dishonour his customer's
Wrongful
cheque, he is Hable to the customer in damages for injury to
dishonour.
credit (/). Actual proof of injury is not necessary to warrant
substantialdamages (g).
The holder has no remedy against the banker, unless the banker
has admitted to him that he holds money specially to meet the
particular cheque (//).
Sect. 7. Protection to Bankers paying Cheques.

Sub-Sect. 1. Bearer Cheques.
Bearer 1236. A of which the payee is a fictitious or non-existing

cheque
cheques.
person may be
treated by the banker as payable to bearer (i), though
Fictitious
ostensibly payable to such payee or order (k). It would appear that
payee.
documents made payable to an impersonal payee or order, e.g.,
" Wages or order," " Petty cash or order," are not within the above
rule (l). Nor is a person fictitious or non-existing within the rule
where he is a real person known to the drawer and intended by him
to have the benefit of the cheque, although the drawer is induced
to insert the name and draw by fraudulent representations of a
third party, and the ostensible payee could never have enforced
payment of the cheque (m). But in such case the paying banker would
usually be protected as having paid on a forged indorsement (n).
Absence of A banker who in good faith and without negligence (o) pays a
negligence.
bearer cheque on presentation is free from all liability (p), and
can debit his customer (q) though the holder had no title or a
(e) Fontaine- Besso7i v. Parr's Banhing Co. and Alliance Bank (1895), 12 T. L. K.
121. As to crarnisliee order against customer, see p. 585, ante.
(/) Marzetti v. Williams (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 415.
(g) Bolin v. Steivard (1854), 14 C. B. 595 Summers v. City Bank (1874), L. E.
;
9 d P. 580.
(h)Boyd V. Emmerson (1834), 2 A. & E. 184.
(i)For definition of a bearer cheque, see p. 569, ante. Bills of Exchange Act,
1882 (45 & 46 Aîct. c. 61), s. 8 (3).
. {k) Ibid., s. 7 (3) Bank of England v. Vagliano, [1891] A. C. 107.
;
(l) Grant v. Vaughan (1764), 3 Burr. ]5l6,per Lord Mansfield, at p. 1523,

" There was no person originally named as tlie payee. It runs, Pay to ship
'
Fortune or bearer'"; ibid.,per Wilmot, J., at p. 1528, " No person at all is named.
It is, Pay to ship Fortune or bearer.'" Compare Bills of Exchange Act, 1882
'
(45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 2 (definition of person ") Bank of England v. Vagliano,
;
supra., per Lord Selborne, at p. 129. Compare, however. Lord Herschell, at

p. 153. The Council of the Institute of Bankers have decided that such cheques
cannot safely be treated as payable to bearer, see " Questions on Banking
Practice," No. 1938, Journal of Institute of Bankers, March, 1904.
(m) Vinden v. Hughes, [1905] 1 K. B. 795, distinguishing Bank of England
V. Vagliano, supra, and Clutton v. Attenhorough, [1897] A. C. 90 Macbeth v. ;
North and South Wales Bank, [1906] 2 K. B. 718.

{n)See p. 609, post.
(o)Bellamy v. Marjoribanks (1852), 7 Exch. 389 Carlon v. Ireland (1856), 5
;
E. & B. 765. See Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 80,
as to crossed cheques paid in good faith and without negligence.
true
(p) Charles v. Blackwell (1877), 2 C. P. D. 151, at p. 163 (not liable to
owner).
(q) Charles v. Blackwell, supra, at p. 158.
—
defective title to the cheque (y)- If the cheque had reached the Sect. 7.
payee actually or constructively, the customer is discharged both Protection

on the cheque and consideration (s). to Bankers
paying
Sub-Sect. 2.— Order Cheques. Cheques.
1237. A banker who in good faith and in the ordinary course of q^^~^
business pays a cheque payable to order (t) drawn on him, to cheques,
which the person in possession has no title, by reason of the indorse- Forged
ment being forged, is protected from liability, and can debit his indorsement,
customer with the amount so paid {a). A thing is done in good
faith if it is done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not (6).
Apart from the crossed cheques sections, payment contrary to Ordinary
the crossing would not be in the ordinary course of business (c).
ûSes?
Omission to ascertain that the ostensible indorsement was in
proper form, e.g., where one indorsement is "Placed to account of
payee," wôuld be a departure from the ordinary course of business.
Payment over the counter of a cheque for a large amount to a
suspicious-looking person might be such a departure (d).
To send notes by post in response to a request by letter inclosing
an order cheque ostensibly indorsed by the payee would probably
be held not in the ordinary course of business (e) but absence of the
;
collecting banker's stamp would not seem to prevent payment being

in the ordinary course of business (/).
Payment need not be in actual cash to the person presenting (g).
1238. It would appear that the cheque need not necessarily Cheque not
be drawn by a customer (/i). But whether payment of a cheque drawn by
1 1_1 1_ customer.
(r) Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 59. "Holder" includes
Bills of
•'bearer" {ibid., s. 2). "Bearer" is the person in possession, without reference
to title {ibid.).
(s) Charles v. Blachwell (1877), 2 C. P. D. 151, at p. 158.
{t) For
definition of order cheque, see p. 569, ante.
{a) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 60. This section does
not apply to drafts between branch and head banks, for which see p. Ql% 'post,
or to documents payment of which is made conditional on the signature of an
annexed receipt, or presentation within a limited time, for which see p. 613, post
[Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240).
(6) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 90.
(c) Smith V. Union Bank of London (1875), 1 Q, B. D. 31, at p. 35.
(d) Compare jBcmA; of Enfjlandx. Vagliano, [1891] A. C. 107, per Lord Halsbcry,
at p. 117. But the banker must payor dishonour at once, and refusal, if it proves
unfounded, will subject him to liability to his customer.
(e) " Where authorised by agreement or usage a presentment through the post
office is sufficient" (Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 45 (8));
but the practice of most bankers is to return such cheques unless they come from
another banker and it may be assumed that presentment by post by a private
;
person is not authorised by usage. The banker might possibly consider himself
agent for presentment (see ante, p. 590), and hold the cheque for a day, during
which he could communicate with his customer for instructions.
(/) See Questions on Banking Practice, 5th ed., No. 410.
(g)
" Payment " within the meaning of the Act is broadly interpreted (see
Glasscock v. Balls (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 13, per Lord Esher, at p. 16). A cheque
drawn on one branch of a bank, paid in at another, and appearing as an item in
balancing accounts between the branches, has been held to be paid [Bissell cfc Co.
V. Fox Brothers & Co. (1885), 53 L. T. 193 Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon,
;
[1903] A. C. 240).
(h) See Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, supra, where protection was
accorded to bankers' drafts (see p. 612, p>ost) under the Stamp Act, 1853
H.L- — I. RR
— ;
Sect. 7. otherwise drawn would be in the ordinary course of business appears

Protection more than doubtful. But the protection extends to a 2:>er jpro.
to Bankers indorsement {i).
paying Wherea person claims payment of an open order cheque over
Cheques. the counter, alleging that he is the payee thereof, and only signs
Indorsement his name on the back at the insistent request of the banker, it is
at request of submitted that the banker does not obtain protection (k).
banker.
Stjb-Sect, 3. Crossed Cheques.
Payment in 1239. The Bills of Exchange

does not, as the Act, 3 882 {I),
contravention
earlier crossed cheques legislation did, directly prohibit
a banker's
of the
crossing. paying in contravention of the crossing, except in the case of a
cheque crossed to more than one banker, none of whom is an
agent for collection. But a banker so doing is liable to the
true owner for any loss the latter may sustain thereby (m). In
the case of a forged indorsement he would also lose the protection
of sect. 60, snch payment not being in the ordinary course of
business {n).
Notwithstanding the absence of the direct prohibition, a banker
cannot charge his customer with the amount of a crossed cheque
paid in contravention of the crossing (o), even, it would seem,
though payment were made to the true owner (j:>).
(16 & 17 Vict. c. 59), s. 19, in which the words " drawn on a banker are the same as
in s. 60 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 61). Consider, how-
ever, the history of the legislation given in Charles v. Blackwell (1877), 2 C. P. D.
151, at p. 156, and in Caôital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240,
"
Lord LiNDLET, at p. 250. There is nothing about " ordinary conrse of business
in s. 19 of the Stamp Act, 1853.
{i) Charles v. Blackicell, supra, decided on the Stamp Act, 1853 (16 & 17
Yict. c. 59), s. 19, but applicable to the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46
Yict. c. 61), s. 60.
"Indorsement" means an indorsement completed by delivery (Bills of
(k)
Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 61), s. 2). There can be no delivery to the
drawee. The terms of sect. 60 as to "indorsement of the payee or any subsequent
indorsement " point to the indorsement being for negotiation, or at least collection
and those as to the banker being deemed to have paid the bill in due course, not-
withstanding the forged indorsement, imply payment made to an ostensible
holder under the indorsement {Keene v. Beard (1860), 8 C. B. (n. s.) 372, at
p. 382, where Byles, J., held such signature a receipt, not an indorsement.
Compare the Finance Act, 1895 (58 Yict. c. 16), s. 9, treating such signature as a
receipt. The words of Cockburn, C.J., in Charles v. Blackwell, supra, at p. 157,
may be read to the contrary effect). Quaere, whether payment in such circum-
stances is " in good faith and in the ordinary course of business " for the purposes
of the section.
(0 45 & 46 Yict. c. 61.
1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 61), s. 79 (2).
(m) Bills of Exchange Act,
Smith v. Union Bank of London (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 31, 35.
{n)
(o) Smith V. Union Bank of London, supra, in which case there was a direct
prohibition but the disability to debit the customer was apparently based on
;
disobedience to mandate (Bohbett v. Pinkett (1876), 1 Ex. D. 369). Such payment

would clearly be made negligently, as to which see p. 608, ante. See also proviso
to Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 61), s. 79. "Shall not be
questioned" implies that the customer may repudiate payment contrary to the
crossing.
Payment had been made to the true owner, the bond fide holder, in Smith
(p)
Y. Union Bank of London, supra. Possibly, however, the Court would apply the
doctrine laid down in Reid v. Rigby Co., [1894] 2 Q. B. 40 Bevan v. The National ;
—
Paet III. Business of Banking. 611
The fact that a crossed cheque has been refused payment does ^'
not make it an open cheque for the purpose of re-presentation (^). Protection
to Bankers
1240. A banker
protected if he pay a cheque in accordance
is paying
with its ostensible crossing, if any, notwithstanding the same may Cheques,
have been obhterated, added to, or altered otherwise than as
authorised by the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (r). "Addition" accordance
must mean a material addition, effective under the crossed cheques with the
^Ô'^^^^g-
sections; the addition of a memorandum such as "Account payee"
would not justify the banker in refusing to pay the cheque, or in
itself deprive him of protection in paying (s); nor does such addition
have any direct effect on the paying banker {a). The " opening " a
crossing, i.e., writing " Pay cash " and initialling, is a patent
alteration not authorised by the Act, and a banker pays such a
cheque over the counter at his own risk should the opening prove
unauthorised. No right accrues to the true owner by the use of
such wwds under sect. 79 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 {b).
A banker paying a crossed cheque in good faith, without negii- Extent of
gence, and in accordance with the crossing, is protected, and can Protection,
debit his customer, notwithstanding any defect of title in the
collecting banker or the person from whom he received it (c). If
the cheque had come to the hands of the payee (d), the drawer is
discharged both on the cheque and on the consideration (e).
Protection under the crossed cheques sections might be doubt-
ful in the case of an open cheque crossed by a person having
no authority to cross, e.g., an innocent person in possession
under a forged indorsement, but the banker would be otherwise
protected (/).
The addition of " not negotiable " to the crossing has no effect
whatever on the paying banker. " Not negotiable " by itself,
however, does not constitute a crossing {g).
The banker's identification stamp may or may not be a crossing.
If impressed on an open cheque by the collecting banker, it probably
Bank (1906), 23 T. L. R. 65, as to adoption of a payment by taking the benefit

thereof.
(q) It remains a crossed cheque ;
compare Questions on Banking Practice,
No. 432.
(r) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 79, proviso. The proviso
is defectively drawn. " To have been added to or altered" etc., grammatically refers
to the cheque, not the crossing, but the v^ôrds are intended to apply to the latter.
(s) See Ahrokerri {Atlantic) Mines, Ltd. v. Economic Bank, [1904] 2 K. B. 465,
'per BiGHAM, J., at p. 472.
[a) Ihid» ; and see p. 595, ante. The paying banker could, as a rule, have no
knowledge for whose account the cheque was being collected. The only doubtful
case would be where the cheque bore several indorsements after that of the payee,
and one was forged. Qucere, whether payment in such case would be "in
the ordinary course of business " or " without negligence."
(6) The section only mentions definite recognised crossings.
(c) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 80.
[d) It is presumed that "constructive" coming to payee's hands would be

sufficient.
(g) Exchange Act, 1882
Bills of (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 80.
(/) Compare Simmons v. Taylor 528, j9e?-CRESSWELL, J.,afc
(1857), 2 C. B. (n. s.)
p. 539 ; affirmed, 4 C. B. (n. s.) 463. Bat if the cheque is an order cheque, the
banker is protected under sect. 60, if a bearer cheque, by having paid to bearer.
(g) See definitions in Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 76.
R R 2
—
Sect. 7. is (h). So, again, the collecting banker's stamp on a cheque crossed
Protection generally would probably constitute it a cheque crossed specially to
to Bankers that banker.
paying A banker paying a document ostensibly a crossed cheque to
Cheques. which his customer's name is forged as drawer is not protected (i).
Forged
cheques. Sub-Sect. 4. Drafts on a Banker.
Drafts on a 1241. A draft drawn by a branch on another branch or head

banker. office ofthe same bank, or vice versa, is not a bill, since the drawer
and the drawee are in law the same person, and so not a cheque (A:).
Extent of But it is " a draft or order drawn on a banker," and if payable
protection.
to order on demand the banker is protected if he pay it in good
faith, notwithstanding there may be a forged indorsement (I) or an
unauthorised per pro. indorsement (m). The protection seems to
apply to foreign as well as inland drafts {n). Payment, when
within the protection, operates as a discharge of the draft or
order (o).
Drafts
between 1242. Drafts between two branches or a branch and head office of
offices of same the same bank cannot be issued payable to bearer on demand,
bank. except by banks having power to issue their own bank notes
Drafts of the above nature payable to order on demand cannot
be crossed (5). The protection against forged indorsements would,
however, generally be sufficient for the bank in paying (r).
If such a draft bearing an ostensible crossing, but otherwise in
order, be presented for payment across the counter, the banker
(Ji) Acollecting banker may specially cross to himself (Bills of Exchange Act,
1882 (45 & 4'i Vict. c. 61), s. 77 (6)). Transverse lines are not necessary to con-
stitute crossing where a banker's name is put across the face of the cheque {ihid.,
s. 76 (2)). Bankers habitually stamp all cheques collected by them, whether
"
crossed or not, and the stamp is frequently horizontal, not transverse or " across
the face of the cheque. The latter point would probably not be considered material.
{i) It is not a cheque, but a mere piece of paper [Imperial Bank of Canada v.
Ba7ik of Hamilton, [1903] A. C. 49).
{k) Hence it is not within the protection of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882
(45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 60 {Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, [1903]
A. C. 240).
il) Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, sujora ; Stamp Act, 1853 (16 & 17
Vict. 39), s. 19.
c. The section does not state that the payment must be in good
faith, or in the ordinary course of business, but good faith is clearly a condition of
protection. See Smith v. Union Bank of London (1875), L. E,. 10 Q. B. 291,
2Jer Blackburn, J., at p. 296.
(m) Charles v. Blackwell (1877), 2 C. P. D. 151.
{n) See note (?i), p. 602, ante.
(0) Halifax Union v. Wheehoright (1875), L. R. 10 E.\ch. 183, at p. 194.
Ip) Bank Charter Act, 1844 (7 & 8 Vict. c. 32), ss. 10 and 11 Stamp Act, 1854
;
(17 & 18 Vict. c. 83), s. 11. The words "bearer or holder" in the latter section
must be read as synonymous with "bearer." See note(^), p. 569, ante.
(g) They could have been crossed under the Grossed Cheques Act, 1876 (39 &
40
Aîct. c. 81), where a cheque is defined as "draft or order drawn on a banker pay-
able to bearer or to order on demand," but the definition was altered in the Bills of
Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 73, to "bill of exchange drawn on
a banker payable on demand." Compare Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon,
supra, per Lord Lindley, at p. 250. They are not within the Revenue Act, 1883
(46 & 47 Vict. c. 55), s. 17, not being issued by a customer of the banker, but by
the bank itself {Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, supra).
(r) See note (l), supra.
— —
appears to have no alternative but to pay it. If payment be refused Sect. 7.
on the ground of the crossing or otherwise, the holder could sue Protection
the bank either as drawer of a bill or maker of a promissory to Bankers
note (s).
paying
Cheques.
1243. Drafts drawn by one bank on another are merely cheques, Drafts by one
and may in all respects be dealt with as such. bank on
another
Sfb-Sect. 5. Payvient of Orders xvith Receipt attached.
1244. Documents made payable conditionally on a specific Orders with

attached receipt being signed by the payee are not cheques ij). In receipt
attached.
paying them tiie banker is not protected by any of the legislation
directly affecting cheques, nor, unless they are crossed, does
the banker appear to be otherwise protected in case the signature
of the receipt is a forgery {u). If the receipt is not signed by the
payee the banker has paid away his customer's money without
authority, and cannot debit him.
Similarly, where documents are made payable conditionally on
presentation within a limited time, the banker is not protected if
he pays them on a forged indorsement {x).
Subject to the slight doubt alrealy expressed (a), these documents
are, however, capable of being effectively crossed (6), and the banker
paying in good faith and without negligence, and in accordance
with the crossing, would be protected.
(s) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 5 (2) ;
Gapitcd and
Counties Bank Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240, per Lord Lindley, at p. 250.
v.
Apparently no stamp objection could be raised, though a promissory note on
demand requires an ad valorem stamp. The provisions of any Stamp Act in
force for the time being are recognised by sect. 97 (3) of the Bills of Exchange
Act, 1882, but that cannot take away the express right to sue as on a promissory
note given by sect. 5 (2). Possibly the explanation is that stamp objections only
apply to the document as it appears on its face (see Royal Bank of Scotland v.
Tottenham, [1894] 2 Q. B. 715), and the document purports to be a bill. In any
case, the holder could sue the bank as drawer of a bill.
{t) Bavins, junr. and Sims v. London and South Western Bank, [1900] 1 Q. B. 270 ;
Capital and Counties Bank v, Gordon, supra, per Lord Lindley, at p. 252. For
forms of such documents see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. XL, pp. 517, 518.
{u) They are not within the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61),
s. 60, because they are not bills, nor are they apparently within the Stamp Act,
1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 59), s. 19, even if ostensibly payable to order and indorsed,
since they are not payable " on demand "; a further condition being attached, viz.,
the signing of a specific receipt. Further, the last cited section would appear
from its terms to apply only to negotiable instruments, which these are not. See
Kevenue Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 55), s. 17 Gordon v. Capital and Counties
;
Bank, [1902] 1 K. B. 242, -per Collins, M.R., at p. 275. In tlia.t case, on appeal.
Lord Lindley says ([1903] A. C. at pp. 250, 251) that sect. 19 of the Stamp Act,
1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 59), applies to documents which are not bills or cheques,
and (at p. 252), " Nor do they {i.e., orders wath receipts attached) come within sect. 19
of the Stamp Act of 1853, which, as I have already observed, applies only to
banks which are drawees." It is submitted that this does not amount to a
decision that such documents entitle the banker on whom they are drawn to
the protecti<m of this section.
{x) They are not payable on demand because of the limitation attaehed, and for
the same reason are not negotiable. Hence the reasoning in note (u), supra^
applies.
{a) See pp. 599, 600, ante.
(h) Revenue Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 55), s. 17.
— —
614 Bankers and Banking,
Sect. 7. It is not unusual for bankers to take indemnities (c) from

Protection customers with regard to paying these documents, which, not being
to Bankers cheques, they are under no primary obUgation to honour.
paying
Cheques
leques.
Sect. 8. Payment of Bills accepted payable at a Banker'
Bills accepted 1245- Where a customer accepts a bill payable at his banker's (d),
payable at a
it constitutes an authority to the banker to pay it at maturity (e),
banker's.
and if no funds are available, amounts to a request for an overdraft to
the amount, but in the absence of previous arrangement, the banker
is under no obligation to pay the bill, even though he have sufficient
funds in hand (/).
Bearer bills. A banker who in good faith and without negligence pays a bill
payable to bearer so accepted to the bearer thereof can charge his
customer with the amount (g).
Forged A banker who has paid a bill on a forged acceptance cannot
acceptance.
charge his customer with the amount unless the customer is
precluded from disputing his signature by estoppel or adoption (h).
Forged A banker who has paid a bill on a forged indorsement cannot
indorsement.
charge his customer unless the customer is estopped from disputing
the payment (i). Negligence on the part of the customer directly
leading to or enabling the loss, or a representation made to the
banker by the customer on a material point on which the banker
acted by paying money which he would not otherwise have paid,
might constitute such estoppel {k). But acceptance of a bill on
which the payee's indorsement has been forged does not estop the
customer from refusing to be debited (Z).
If, however, the payee is a fictitious or non-existing person, the
banker may treat the bill as payable to bearer and so charge
his customer, notwithstanding the forged indorsement.
Liability to Where a banker has paid a bill on a forged indorsement, he is
true owner.
(c) For form,

of indemnity, see Encyclopsedia of Forms, Vol. II., p. 501.
{d) For form
of such acceptance, see Encyclopsedia of Forms, Vol. II., p. 502.
(e) Kymer v. Laurie (1849), 18 L. J. (q. b.) 218.
(/) Robarts v. Tucker- (1851), 16 Q. B. 560, at p. 579 Bank of England v.

;
Vagliano, [1891] A. C. 107, per Lord Macnaghten, at p. 157.

(g) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), ss. 2, 8 (3), 59.
(h) Bank of England v. Vagliano, siipra, per Lord Selborne, at p. 124.
(i) Robarts v. Tucker, supra ; Bank of England v. Vagliano, supra. There is no
protection in such case for the banker similar to that given by sect. 60 of the
Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), with regard to cheques, or
by sect. 19 of the Stamp Act, 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 59), with regard to drafts or
orders payable to order or demand drawn on a banker. See also Bills of
Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 24. As to what may constitute
such estoppel, see Bank of England v. Vagliano, supra, particularly at pp. 114
124.
[k) See Bank of England v. Vagliano, supra. The banker acts as agent for the
customer in paying domiciled bills, and as such is entitled to the protection and
consideration usually accorded to an agent.
(l) Robarts v. Tucker, supra.
(m) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 7 (3). " The bill may
be treated etc.," i.e., by anyone to whose interest it is so to treat it, which includes
the paying banker (Bank of England v. Vagliano, supra). As to when the payee
«omes within this definition, see, further, Vinden v. Hughes, [1905] 1 K. B. 795 ;
Macbeth v. North and South Wales Bank, [1906] 2 K. B. 718, and note {m), p. 608,
ante.
——
liable for theamount to the true owner in conversion or for money êct. 8.
had and received {ii). Payment of
The banker must, if the bill be ostensibly in order, pay or refuse Bills
to pay at once. He is not entitled to time in which to verify the accepted

indorsements (o) Where, however, presentment is made through payable at
.
anêr s.
the clearing house, the banker is entitled to the time allowed by ^
the rules of that establishment for deciding whether to pay or not, Time of
i.e., up to three minutes to 5 p.m. of the same day.
payment.
Sect. 9. Forged or Altered Cheques.

1246. A document in cheque form to which the customer's name Forgery of
as drawer is forged is not a cheque, but a mere nullity (p). Unless drawer's
the banker can establish adoption or estoppel, he cannot debit the signature,
customer with any payment made on such document (q).
Whether a material alteration of a cheque precludes the Forgery by
banker from debiting his customer with the whole or part of the fraudulent
cheque appears to depend on the character and effect of the altera-

tion {)). If, despite the alteration, the customer's mandate has been
substantially complied with, it is submitted that the banker can
charge the customer (s). If the alteration is in the amount, it
(n) Smith V. Union Bank of London (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. at p. 295 ; affirmed,

1 Q. B. D. 31, at p. 35 (a case of a cheque, but the same principle applies,
only there is no protection). Qucere, however, whether the banker could not escape
this liability by returning the bill, if still in his possession, to the true owner, the
cancellation of the acceptance being treated as made under a mistake (Bills of
Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 4G Vict. c. 61), s. 63 (3)). See Castriquev. ImHe (1870),
L. R. 4 H. L. 414, at p. 435, per Blackburn", J., referring to Novelli v. Rossi
(1831), 2 B. & Ad. 757. This course seems suggested by Charles y. Blachwell [1877 ),
2 C. P. D. 151. The acceptor would still be liable to the true owner, the bill not
being discharged by the payuient to the person wrongfully in possession of it.
(o) Bank of England v. Vagliano, [1891] A. C. 101, per Lord Magna ghten, at
p. 157, dissenting from dictum of Maule, J., in Roharts v. Tucker (1851), 16 Q. B.

560, at pp. 577, 578.
( p)
Imperial Bank of Canada v. Bank of Hamilton, [1903] A. C. 49.
{q) The disability is frequently referred to a supposed obligation on the part of
the iDanker to know his customer's signature and detect an imitation {e.g., Smith
V. Mercer (1815), 6 Taunt. 76). The real ground, however, is that of having paid
away money without the authority of the customer. See London and River Plate
Bank v. Bank of Liverpool, [1896] 1 Q. B. 7.
(r) The cases are somewhat contradictory. Simmons v. Taylor (1857), 2 C. B.
(N. s.) 528, at pp. 539, 541 affirmed (1858), 4 C. B. (n. s.) 463, implies that any
;
material alteration would absolutely debar the banker from debiting, for the
cheque must be the customer's cheque in all respects. Hall v. Fuller (1826),
5 B. & C. 750 (date and amount altered) ;
Young v. Grote (1827), 4 Bing. 253
(amount altered) ;
Halifax Union v. Wheelwright (1875), L. R. 10 Exch. 183 ;
Imperial Bank of Canada v. Bank of Hamilton, supra (amount altered),
point the other way, as only the excess amount seems to have been treated as
disputable. In the last-mentioned case the cheque is referred to as good for the
original amount.
(s)The banker, not being a holder, cannot avail himself of the proviso to
sect. 64 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61). It is submitted
that that section only avoids the bill as between the parties. Compare the limita-
tion of the common law rule by Brett, J., in Suffell v. Bank of England (1882),
9 Q. B. D. 555, at p. 568, to a party suing on the bill or setting it up as a direct
defence. This is not the banker's position. He sets it up as an authority, not a
bill. The ground alleged for the rule, viz., that the bill must have been altered
with the privity or by the neglect of the holder (see Davidson v. Cooper (1843), 11
M. & W. 778, at p. 799), is inapplicable to the banker. Alteration of the date of
a cheque is a material alteration (Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Viet.
Sect. 9. would seem that the banker is entitled to debit the customer with
Forged or the amount originally inserted {t).
Altered There is a duty owing by the customer to the banker with regard
Cheques. to the filling up of cheques, but it has never been defined (w).
Customer's Leaving blank spaces which can be, and are, fraudulently utilised
duty. to raise the amount of the cheque is no breach of this duty and the ;
banker cannot debit his customer with, at any rate, the excess (a).
Estoppel. 1247. The doctrine that a forgery cannot be ratified probably
only applies to criminal law [h). A man may by conduct be estopped
from denying his signature or held to have adopted the forged
instrument. If he consciously pays a cheque to which his name has
been forged, he is not estopped from disputing a subsequent forgery
by the same hand unless the repetition of such payment establishes a
course of business authorising the use of his name (c).
Any conduct on the part of the customer directly leading the
banker to pay a cheque on which the customer's name had been
forged, or which had been fraudulently altered, would estop the
customer from subsequently questioning the payment (<i).
Adoption. If a man knows, or has reasonable ground for believing, that his
signature has been forged to a cheque, and that it is about to be
presented to his banker for payment, he is bound to warn the banker of
the fact. If he fails to do so within reasonable time, and the banker's
position is thereby altered, he is held to have adopted the cheque (e).
The duty does not indeed seem confined to a customer of the
banker, but to extend to any person who knows that a document
bearing a forged signature 23ui'poi^"ting to be his is about to be
presented to a banker for payment (/).
c.61), s. 64 (2); Vance y. Lowther (1876), 1 Ex. D. 176), but it would be unreason-
able if the alteration to an earlier date debarred the banker from debiting the
customer, if paid after the original date.
(t) See cases cited note (r), p. 615, ante.
(u) Colonial Bank of Australasia v. Marshall, [1906] A. C. 559, at p. 567 ;
Scholfiekl V. Earl of Londeshorough, [1896] A. C. 514 (where there was not the
relation of mandator and mandatary) ; Lewes Sanitary Steam Laundry Co. v.
Barclay t£- Co. (1906), 11 Com. Cas. 255 ; and compare Young v. Grote (1827),
4 Bing. 253, which, however, cannot now be treated as authority.
(a) Colonial Bank of Australasia v. Marshall, supra ; Scholjield v. Larl of Londes-
horough, supra; Societe Generale v. Metropolitan Bank (1873), 27 L. T. 849.
"People are not supposed to commit forgery, and the protection against forgery is
not the vigilance of parties excluding the possibility of committing forgery, but
the law of the land " ( j3«r Bovill, C. J., at p. 856). Young v. Grote, supra, and Mar-
cussen v. Birkheck Bank (1889), 5 T. L. E. 179, 463 (Divisional Court), 646 (Court
of Appeal) (see also Journal of Institute of Bankers, Vol. XI., p. 403), are overruled.
(b) See M'Kenzie v. British Linen Co. (1881), 6 App. Cas. 82, _per Lord Black-
burn, at p. 99. Compare, however, Brook v. Hook (1871), L. R. 6 Exch. 89.
(c) Morris v. Bethell (1869), L. R. 5 C. P. 47.
{d) See further on this point, title Estoppel.
(e) M'Kenzie v. British Linen Co., supra, specially at pp. 91, 109, reason-
able ground for believing," ;per Lord Selborne, at pp. 92, 95 ; Ogilvie v. West
Australian Mortgage and Agency Corporation, [1896] A. C. 257, specially at p. 270.
In Cairncross v. Lorimer (1860), 3 Macq. H. L. 827, at p. 830, Lord Campbell
appears to consider actual knowledge necessary for adoption.
(/) M'-Kenzie v. British Linen Co., supra, was not in fact the case of a
customer, but of a stranger, as appears from the report. It is, however, treated as
the case of a customer and explained on that ground in Ogilvie v. West Australian
Mortgage and Agency Corporation, supra. In Ewing v. Dominion Bank (1904),
— —
Mere silence, without resulting injury to the banker, does not êct. 9.
work estoppel or constitute adoption (a). Forged or

The alteration in the position of the banker necessary to support Altered
adoption is not confined to payment of the cheque. Loss of C hequ es,
opportunity of protecting himself against subsequent forgeries,
if any, by the same person, loss of the chance of taking proceedings,
civil or criminal, against the forger, as by his escaping out of the
jurisdiction, constitute sufficient alteration in the position of and
prejudice to the banker (li). It appears immaterial whether civil
proceedings against the forger would have resulted in recovering
any money or not (i).
Where this principle of adoption applies, it covers all previous
forgeries by the same person (k).
Sect. 10. Recovery of Money paid on Forged Documents.

1248. Where the money has been received maid fide, it may be Eecovery of
recovered by the payer (?«). Where the payment is to a person
^^^^^J^^^g^^
o^gery.
who, though without title, receives the money bond fide (e.^., an
innocent person in possession under a forged indorsement), the case
is compHcated, and depends on the nature of the documents and of
the forgery. The payment is made under a mistake of fact in the
transaction common to both parties, and consequently the money
is ])rimd facie recoverable.
Where the forgery is that of the customer's name, it has been Forged
held that a banker being bound to know his customer's signature and signatures,
to detect an imitation of it, his not doing so is negligence, and
that in such a case the banker cannot recover from an innocent
person the money he has once paid him (n). This doctrine, how-
ever, has been questioned, and the basis of the cases above referred
to has been slated to be the necessity of upholding negotiability (o).
Supreme Court of Canada Eeports, Vol. XXXV., p. 133, the Supreme Court of
Canada by a majority expressly extended the doctrine to the case of a business
man, not a customer, on the ground of moral and commercial oblijâtion. Special
leave to appeal was refused by the Judicial Committee on the ground that no
important question of law was involved, and that the question was one essentially
for the colonial Courts (S.C., [1904] A. C. 806). The judgment of the Supreme
Court of the United States of America in Leather Manufacturers^ Bank v. Morgan
(1886), 117 U. S. 96, may be consulted on this question.
{g) M'Kenzie v. British Linen Co. (1881), 6 App. Cas. 82.
(h) Ogilvie v. West Australian Mortgage and Agency Corporation, [1906] A. C.
257, at p. 270, and the Scotch cases quoted in M'-Kenzie v. British Linen Co., supra,
at p. 110.
(i) Cases cited in note (h), supra. Compare K7iights v. Wifen (1870), L. E,. 5 Q. B.
660. See, however, Imperial Bank of Canada v. Bank of Hamilton, [1903] A. C,
49, at p. 57 (apparently only a dictum).
(k) If notified on the last occasion when the customer or other person had
knowledge of the ibr>.',ery, tlie bank might have taken steps to recover from
the forger all moneys previously obtained by him.
(m) Kendal v. JVood (1871), L. E. 6 Exch. 243.
(n) Smith V. Mercer (1816), 6 Taunt. 76 ; Cocks v. Masterman (1829), 9 B. & C.
902 ; Hart v. Frontino Gold Mining Go. (1870), L. E. 5 Exch. 1 1 1, êr Eramwell,B.,
at p. 115 ; Simm v. Anglo-American Telegraph Co. (1879), 5 Q. B. D. 188, per
LiNDLEY, J., at p. 196 Sheffield Corporation v. Barclay, [1903] 2 K. B. 580, per
;
Vaughan Williams, L.J., at p. 590.

(o) London and River Plate Bank v. Bank of Liverpool, [1896] 1 Q. B. 7.
The forgery might be so adroit that detection might be impossible, and in that
Sect, 10. If the preservation of negotiability be the ratio decidendi, the banker
Recovery might recover the money where the document was a mere counterfeit
of Money throughout, e.g., a bearer cheque with drawer's name forged (p).
paid on Where the document is a real bill or cheque, it has been held
Forged that the fact that the person who was paid was not really a
Documents.
holder, and would have had no remedy on the bill or cheque if
Forged dishonoured, was immaterial, and that if he had had the money in
indorsement his possession for such a period that his position might have been
and altera-
tion.
altered, it would not be recovered from him by the payer {q). This
view has been characterised as too sweeping by the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council, who would confine the right to
retain the money to payees of negotiable instruments on the dis-
honour of which notice has to be given to someone who would be
discharged from liability unless such notice were given in proper
time (r). Even this latter view would include bills or cheques held
under genuine indorsements following forged ones, since the
holder's remedy against the indorsers subsequent to the forgery
is on the instrument by estoppel and dependent on giving notice of
dishonour in due time (s) Where a person holds immediately
.
under a forged indorsement, the view taken by the Judicial Com-

mittee would entitle the banker to recover the money from him if
demanded within a reasonable time after payment.
It is somewhat difficult to see how, when the instrument has in
the first instance been paid, the right to give notice of dishonour
could accrue until repayment was at any rate demanded (t), or why
delay in not giving it prior to that date is not, in the circumstances,
excused (a).
case there would be no negligence. Lex non cogit ad impossibilia. It is

suggested that the real ground why the banker cannot charge the customer is the
payment without authority. In any case the supposed duty could only extend
to the customer, not to third parties, and where there is no duty there can be no
negligence.
{p) Compare Imperial Bank of Canada y. Bank of Hamilton, [1903]
A. C. 49.
An instrument which is a mere forgery has none of the attributes of negotiability.
(g) London and River Plate Bank v. Bank of Liverpool, [1896] 1 Q.
B. 7, where the
bill was held under a forged indorsement succeeded by genuine indorsements.
(r) Imperial Bank of Canada v. Bank of Hamilton, supra, at p. 58.
(s) Not on warranty, which only applies to a transferor by delivery (Bills of
Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 58). See ihid., s. 55 (2) (b), for
tlie estoppel of the indorser from denying the genuineness of previous indorse-
ments ; s. 55 (2) (a), for his. liability to compensate the holder, subject to
notice of dishonour being duly given. Although the person in possession is
not strictly a holder in due course or even a holder, he is so by estoppel against
indorsers subsequent to the forgery.
{t) " The defendants, while the bill continued paid, could not have given notice
to the indorser, for the bill was not dishonoured " {Smith v. Mercer (1816), 6
Taunt. 76, per Gibbs, C.J., at p. 87).
(a) See Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 50 (1). It may be
noticed that in the leading case Cocks v. Masterman (1829). 9 B. & C. 902, on
which the cases referred to above professed to be based, the prejudice to the
holder was defined as being the loss of his right to take steps against other parties
to the bill the same day as it is dishonoured. This must refer to his immediate
right of recourse on dishonour (Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict,
c. 61), s. 47 (2)), or the equally immediate right to give notice {ihid., s. 49 (12)).
There is no right of action until the next day [Kennedy v. Thomas, [1894] 2 Q. B.
759), and the right to give notice would hardly ever be lost until the next day
——
1249. A collecting banker is not precluded from debiting his SECT. 10.
customer with money he has paid him as the proceeds of a negoti- Eecovery
able instrument should the banker have to account for them to the of Money
true owner (b). paid on
Forged
1250. A payment is made under a mistake of fact if so made Documents.
honestly, notwithstanding the payer had means of knowing the
Collecting
true facts of which he did not avail himself (c). A misapprehension bankers.
of fact confined to the party paying, but for which he would not
Mistake of
have paid the money, is not sufficient (<i). The property in the fact.
money given in payment of a cheque passes, and the payment is
complete, as soon as the money is placed on the bank counter (e).
Sect. 11. The Pass-book,

1251. Entries in the pass-book to the credit of the customer are, The pass-
when the book is delivered to him, prima facie evidence against the book as
evidence.
banker when the book is returned by the customer without objec-
;
tion, entries to his debit are prima facie evidence against him (/).
Where credits appear by mistake in the pass-book for money Erroneous
not really received, and the customer alters his position in reliance entries.
thereon, the bank cannot afterwards debit the account with the
amount {g) but, in the absence of any change of position, credits
;
mistakenly entered may be rectified within reasonable time(/i).

A bank, however, wôuld not be permitted to retain moneys paid in,
but omitted to be credited, even if the customer had not noticed
their omission in the pass-book.
1252. Where a periodical or other balance has been struck in EfEect of

balance being
the pass-book, and the pass-book is returned by the customer
struck.
without comment, this has been treated as constituting evidence of
a stated and settled account {i). Elsewhere the matter has been
regarded as one still requiring evidence of implied contract between
banker and customer (/i:).
Assuming the return of the pass-book without comment to

constitute a stated and settled account, it appears doubtful whether
the customer is estopped from subsequently disputing debits shown
therein to the prejudice of the bank, i.e., from reopening the
(Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45& 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 49 (12) ). Tliis would seem
to point to deprivation of the immediate right, not loss of the power to give notice,
as the test.
(6) Bavins, junr. and Sims v. Loudon and South Western Bank, [19 JO] 1 Q. B.
270, where the instrument was treated as negotiable.
(c) Kelhj V. Solari (1841), 9 M. & W. 54 Imperial Bank of Canada v. Bank of
;
Hamilton, [1903] A. C. 49, at p. 56.

(d) Chambers v. Miller (1862), 13 C. B. (n. s.) 125, in which case the banker
had mistaken the condition of the customer's account and paid the cheque.
(e) , Chambers v. Miller, supra.
(/) As to the history of the pass-book, see Devaijnes v. Noble (Claifton^s Case)
(1816), 1 Mer. 530, 535 Commercial Bank of Scotland v. Ehind {I860), 3'Macq. 643.
;
(g) Skyring v. Greenwood (1825), 4 B. & C. 281.

(/i) Commercial Bank of Scotland v. Rhind, supra, at p. 653.
{%) Blackburn Building Society v. Cunlife Brooks (h Co. (1882), 22 Gh. D. 61, at
pp. 71, 72.
{k) Vagliano v. Bank of England (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 243, at p. 263.
—
Sect. 11. account on proof of error. The question usually arises with
The reference to cheques to which the customer's signature has been
Pass-book. forged, or the amount of which has been fraudulently raised. The
estoppel depends mainly on whether there is or is not a duty on the
part of the customer to examine the pass-book and paid cheques,
if returned with it, and to communicate to the banker within
reasonable time all debits which he does not admit, on which point
the authorities are conflicting®. It might further be contended
that means of knowledge was equivalent to knowledge or reasonable
grounds of belief, so as to fix the customer with adoption or ratifica-
tion of the cheques {m), or that, the customer's claim not to be debited
being in effect one for money had and received, it is not ex cequo et
bono that he should not bear a loss occasioned by his neglect of
ordinary business precautions
Sect. 12. TJie Banker's Lien.

Banker's lien. 1253. The general lien of bankers is part of the law merchant
as judicially recognised (o), and attaches to all securities deposited
with them as bankers by a customer, or by a third person on a
customer's account, and to money paid in by, or to the account of,
a customer (/>), unless there be a contract, express or implied,
(l) The existence of the duty is recognised in Spencer v. Wakefield (1887), 4
T. L. R. 194 (where the customer's acquiescence in charges and commission was

deduced from the return of the pass-book without comment) ; Bank of England
V. Vagliano, [1891] A. C. 107, yer Lord Halsbury, at p. 116: "Was not the
customer hound to know the contents of his own pass-book ?" See also pp. 115,
128 and on appeal (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 243. at p. 263, where it was treated as a
;
question of evidence. "There was no evidence to show . that, having regard

. .
to the ordinary course of dealing between a banker and his customers, the plaintiff
had done anything which can be considered a neglect of his duty to the
bank or negligence on his part." The highest American Court has fully recog-
nised the duty {Leather Manufacturers^ Bank v. Morgan (1886), 117 U. S. 96
(Supreme Court of United States) ; Gritten v. Chemical National Bank (1902),
N. Y. Reports, 171 (Supreme Court of New York). For the contrary view, see
Ghatterton v. London and Gounty Bank, reported only in the Miller newspaper
November 3, 1890, p. 394, where Lord Esher distinctly denied the existence of
any obligation on the customer to look at the pass-book, though he had sent for
it weekly. "He is not bound to look at it. You must not put a burden on
people the law never placed on them you are putting on them the burden of
;
saying, '
Look through the pass-book.' " No formal judgment was delivered,
the appeal of the bank being dismissed. At the new trial, reported in the
Times newspajter January 1, 1891, the Miller February 2, 1891, Mathew, J., in
summing up, said that there was no contract between the bank and its customer
with regard to the pass-book. Plaintiif was entitled to conduct his business his
own way, and might have deputed the examination of the pass-book and com-
parison with returned cheques to the clerk who was supposed to have forged the
cheques. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff.
(m) See M'Kenzie v. British Linen Co. (1881), 6 App. Cas. 82 (particularly at
p. 92), and p. 616, ante ; Jacobs v. Morris, [1902] 1 Ch. 816, at pp. 830, 831.
{n) See Jacobs v. Morris, supra, per Vaughan Williams, L.J., at p. 831 ; per
Stirling, L.J., at p. 833. Qucere, however, whether the omission is sufficiently
the primarv cause.
(o) Brandao v. Barnett (1846), 12 CI. & F. 787 ; Misa v. Currie (1876), 1
App. Cas. 554, per Lord Hatherley, at p. 569.
{p) Eoxburghe v. Cox (1880), 17 Cii. D. 52; Misa v. Currie, supra. Money is,
however, not usually the subject of lien, not being capable of being earmarked,
and the banker's claim in such cases is probably more rightly referred to set-off.
See Roxburghe v. Cox, supra.
—
inconsistent with the Hen(^/). The Ken is not hmited to fully Sect. 12.
negotiable securities (r), but has been held to cover share certifi- The
cates (s), an order to pay a particular person a sum of money (f), Banker's
a policy of insurance {a), and a lease (b). Lien.
1254. Whatever the nature of the securities, the lien only When lien
attaches when they have come to the banker's hands, qua banker, attaches,
in the wây of his business (c) .
Either because the receipt of securities or valuables for safe Safe custody,
custody is not part of the ordinary business of banking, or because
receipt for such purposes involves an implied contract inconsistent
wdth the assertion of lien, the lien never attaches to securities or
articles in the banker's hands for safe custody (d). Nor does the
lien attach to any money or security known to the banker
to be affected by a trust or not to be the actual property of the
customer {e). Where securities are deposited which involve the
collection of coupons or interest, the question is which component
part is received for safe custody, which for the exercise thereon
of the banker's business (/').
Bills or money paid in to meet specific cheques or bills accepted Specific
payable at the banker's are not subject to the lien (g). Whether P^^^'pose.
securities deposited to cover a specific advance, and, after repa}^-
ment of that advance, remaining in the banker's hands, are subject
to a general lien for a balance due to the banker, seems somewhat
doubtful {h).
Where, however, the security has been realised and produces
(g) Brandao v. Barrett (1846), 12 CI. & F. 787, jjer Lord Campbell, at p. 806 ;
Bock V. Gorrissen (1860), 30 L. J. (CH.) 39.

(r) JVylde v. Radford (1863), 33 L. J. (ch.) 51, per Ktndersley, V.-C, at p. 53.
(s) Re United ISerrice Co., Johnston's Claim (1871), 6 Ch. App. 212, jêr James,
L.J., at p. 217.
(t) Misa V. Currie (1876), 1 App. Cas. 564.
(a) Re Bowes (1886). 33 Ch. D. 586.,

(6) Mutton V. Peat. [1900] 2 Cli. 79.
(c) Brandao v. Barnett, supra, per Lord Campbei>l, at p. 803 ; Lucas v. Bornen
(1817), 7 Taunt. 279.
(d) Brandao v. Barnett, supra; Leese v. Martin (1873), L. R. 17 Eq. 225. For
forms relating to custody by bank oi" valuables or documents, see Encyclopsedia of
Forms, YoL II., p. 471.
(e) Ex parte Kingston, Re Gross (1871), 6 Ch. App. 632.
(/) See Questions on Banking Practice, 5th ed., Question and Answer 999.
Where bonds are deposited with a banker for him to cut off the coupons and
collect them, the Hen probably attaches to the bonds and coupons. But if the
bonds and coupons are deposited merely for safe keeping and the customer cuts
off the coupons and hands them to the banker to collect, the lien attaches to the
coupons when handed to the banker, but not to the bonds.
[g) See note {n), p. 586, ante.
{%) Doubted in Jones v. Peppercorne (1858), 28 L. J. (cH.) 158; in Willdnson v.
London and County Banking Co. (1884), 1 T. L. R. 63, the House of Lords assumed
that the customer was entitled to have back the securities in such a case
independent of the state of account. In Re Bowes, supra, North, J., held an
agreement that a policy of insurance was to be security for £2,000 inconsistent
with a general lien for a further balance of £1,000. But in Re London and
Glohe Finance Corporation, [1902] 2 Ch. 416, Buckley, J., held that securities
deposited as cover for specified advances after discharge remaining in a banker's
hands were liable to general lien. Compare JVolstenholme v. Sheffield Union
Banking Co. (1886), 54 L. T. 746.
Sect. 12. more than enough to cover the specific advance, the banker's lien
The attaches on the surplus proceeds (?).
Banker's The banker's lien extends to bills and cheques paid in for
Lien. collection, and even to bills of a customer of another bank trans-
Bills and mitted by that bank for collection, unless the receiving banker
cheques has notice that the bills are the property of such customer (j).
received for
collection.
Where bills, notes, or cheques pass from a customer to a banker,
a question of fact arises v^hether the banker takes them for
Whether collection subject to the lien, or as transferee, so as to become
banker holds
for collection absolute holder for value (k). Where he takes them for collection
or as trans- the banker is, however, holder for value to the extent of the lien (l),
feree.
and has full beneficial interest to that extent (m), and can sue for the
full amount, holding any surplus over the customer's indebtedness
as trustee for him. Where he holds as transferee, lien is excluded,
but he has the ordinary rights of a holder for value, and can sue
for the full amount irrespective of the customer's indebtedness,
and without having to account for any balance received by him in
excess of such indebtedness (n).
Duty in 1255. The fact that the banker holds bills, notes, or cheques
respect of
under a lien does not afi:'ect his duty to present them for acceptance
bills etc.
where necessary, and for payment in due course, and to give notice
of dishonour (o). Although, as before stated (p), there is some
authority for saying that a banker who holds indorsed bills under
a lien is entitled to negotiate them when the state of the customer's
account renders such a course reasonable, it would be very unusual
to do so iq).
Combination 1256. Unless precluded by agreement or course of business, a

of accounts. banker is entitled to combine all accounts kept in the same right
by the customer, whether deposit or current, and whether at the
same branch or different branches, and to exercise his lien for
the resulting balance (r). He may, in the absence of agreement
or course of business, and either by right of lien or set-off, retain
enough of an account in credit to satisfy a debit on another kept
in the same right.
Sale by virtue 1257. The banker's lien is something more than an ordinary
of lien.
lien it is an implied pledge
; (s). The distinction is not material in
[i) Jones V. Peppercorne (1858), 28 L. 158 Be Boives (1886), 33 Ch.D. 586.

J. (CH.) ;
where the right is attributed to set-off. Compare Inman v. Clare (1858), J ohn. 769.
(j) See p. 598, ante.
m —
ante, and cases there cited.
See pp. 596 598,
(l) Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 61), s. 27 (3).
Bills of
(m) See judgment of Court of Appeal in Great Western Rail. Co. v. London and
County Banking Co., [1900] 2 Q. B. 464 (not affected on this point by its reversal
in the House of Lords).
{n) See Great Western Rail. Co. v. London and County Banking Co., supra, per
Yau'ghan Williams, L.J., at p. 473.
(o) This course is equally obligatory on him either as agent or holder for value.
Ip) See note {g), p. 599, ante.

{q) But if he holds them as transferee, he can of course deal with them in any
way he likes.
(r) See p. 587, ante.
{s) See Brandao v. Barnett (1846), 12 CI. & E. 787, per Lord Campbell, at
p. 806. As to pledge, see title Pawnbrokers and Pledges.
— —
the case of bills, notes, and cheques, the position of holder for value Sect: 12.
enabling the banker to realise these when due but in the case of
; The
other negotiable instruments, e.g., bearer bonds, coming into the Banker's
banker's hands in circumstances rendering them liable to the lien, Lien.
the character of pledgee enables the banker to sell on default if a
fixed time is appointed for repayment of the advance, or, where no
time is fixed, after request for repayment and reasonable notice of
intention to sell (0-
1258. No lien arises in respect of an advance of a specified When lien

amount made for a definite period until the arrival of the due date, ^^c™®^-
as there no debt owing till then nor can the banker retain
is ;
moneys customer against bills discounted by him for the

of the
customer, but not yet due, except perhaps in the case of the
.
customer's bankruptcy (a).
Sect. 13. Letters of Credit and Documentary Bills.
1259. Apart from previous arrangement, a banker is of course Letters of

c^^^^*^-
not bound to accept bills dra,wn on him by or for his customer,
When he does so, it is usually in pursuance of a letter of credit (/>).
A letter of credit may be either general (or open), i.e., addressed to
anybody to whom it may be presented, or special, i.e., addressed
to a specified person, requesting him to make payments or advances
or extend credit to the person to whom the letter is granted (c).
Where the banker grants to a customer a letter of credit, it usually
authorises the customer to draw on the banker to a specified
amount against shipments of goods, bills of lading, or other docu-
ments of title, undertaking to accept such bills, provided the docu-
ments are transmitted with them (c?). Such letters are given for
the purpose of being shown to third parties, and create a binding
contract to accept the bills on the specified conditions, enforceable
against the banker by any person to whom the letter has been
shown by the grantee, and who has acted on the faith of it (e).
Similarly when the letter requests payments to be made or money
advanced apart from acceptance of bills, and such payments or
advances are made to the grantee on production of the letter, the
banker becomes liable to the party making them (/).
{t) Burdich v. Sewell (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 159, per Bowen, L.J., at p. 174 ; Ex

parte Official Receiver, Re Morritt (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 222, at p. 232 Re Richard-
;
son (1885), 30 Ch. D. 396, per Fry, L.J., at p. 403 Deverges v. Sandeman, Clark
;
d; Co., [1902] 1 Ch. 579. It is desirable to give notice of intention to sell, even
when a time is fixed for repayment. The expression used by Lord Herschell in
North Western Bank v. Poynter, Son and Macdonalds, [1895] A. C. 56, at p. 69,
must either have reference to Scotch law, or to the absolute and immediate right
of sale given in that case.
{a) See note {I), p. 606, ante.
(6) For forms of letter of credit and notice of letter of credit, see Encyclopaedia
of Forms, Vol. II., p. 473.
(c)See Union Bank of Canada v. Cole (1877). 47 L. J. (c. p.) 100, at p. 109.
{d) See Re Barned's Banking Co. (1871), L. E. 5 H. L. 157.
(e) Maitland v. Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London, and China (1869),
38 L. J. (ch.) 363 ;Union Bank of Canada v. Cole, supra; Re Agra and Master-
man'' s Bank, Ex parte Asiatic Banking Corporation (1867), 2 Ch. App. 391.
(/) See Morgan v. Lariviere (1875), L. R. 7 H. L. 423.
Sect. 13. In every case the party claiming must act strictly within the
Letters of terms and limitations of the letter (g), and possession of the letter is
Credit and not sufficient evidence that the person presenting is the grantee (h).
Documen-
tary Bills. 1260. Letters of credit are not negotiable. If a person, on the
faith of the letter of credit, pays or advances money to a person
In wrong
hands. other than the grantee, the banker who granted the letter of credit
will not be liable to the person who advanced or paid such money.
the grantee of a letter of credit has paid or deposited money
If
in respect thereof, and the letter, having got into wrong hands, is
utilised, and money obtained, in fraud of the grantee, he will be
entitled to recover the amount against the banker, and the return
of the letter of credit is not a condition precedent to such claim (h).
Mode of 1261. The sums agreed to be advanced or paid to the grantee

using.
on a letter of credit may be obtained from the banker granting it
by means of a cheque or by a demand of cash according as provided
by the letter (i), but the drawing of documentary bills is the more
usual course. To ensure acceptance the prescribed documents
must accompany the bill or reach the bankers before or at the time
they are called upon to accept the bill.
Documentary A which prescribes the forwarding of documents

letter of credit
bills.
as a condition of acceptance, shown to a person and acted on by
him, does not confer on such person or other holder of the bill any
right to the goods. The provision as to documents is for the
protection of the banker or acceptor (k).
Non- If the banker do not accept the bill of exchange, he has no right
acceptance.
to retain any documents {e.g., bills of lading) sent in respect thereof,
and no property in the goods represented thereby passes to him (1).
Acceptance. If he accept the bill on the undertaking to forward bills of lading
without actually having received them, the banker acquires an
equitable claim to the bills of lading, valid against the customer's
trustee in bankruptcy (m) but not against a third person who took
;
them bond fide, and for value (n).

EfPect of On the banker's accepting the bill and the documents coming to
acceptance.
his hands he acquires a lien over and qualified property in the
goods they represent (o). If he has to pay the acceptance, he can
realise the goods, but it is advisable to apply to the customer for
(g) Brazilum and Portuguese Bank v.

British and American Exchange Banking
Corporation (1868), 18 L. T. 82.3 Union Bank of Canada v. Cole (1877), 47 L. J.
;
(c. P.) 100 and compare Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China, v. Macfadyen
;
<k Co. (1895), 1 Cora. Cas. 1.

ill) Orr V. Union Bank of Scotland (1854), 1 Macq. 513 ; British Linen Co. v.
Caledonian Insurance Co. (1861), 4 Macq. 107.
ii) Morgan V. Lariviere (1875), L. "R. 7 H. L. 423, at p. 432.
{k) Re Barned's Banking Co. (1 871), L. R. 5 H. L. 157, at p. 167; and see Ex parte
Dever, Re Suse (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 766.
(1) Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 71), s. 19 (3). Compare Cahn v.
Pocketfs Bristol Channel Steam Packet Co., [1899] I Q. B. 643.
(m) Lutscher v, Comptoir d'Escompte de Paris (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 709.
(n) See further on this point title Sale of Goods.
(o) Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 71), s. 19. He does not acquire
absolute property in them, but a sufficient interest and right of disposition to
constitute them sufficient security for his acceptance. See Re Barned's Banking
Co., supra ; Ex parte Brett, Re Howe (1871), 6 Ch. App. 838, at p. 841.
—
reimbursement and give him notice intention to sell if the

of ^^gt. 13.
application is not complied with {p). But, in the absence of special Letters of
agreement, he is not entitled to sell before the due date in order to Credit and
put himself in funds to meet the bill((/). The statement on the
tarymlls.
face of a bill that it is drawn against specific cargo, goods, or
credit, however minutely the same may be described, does not,
without the documents of title, create any charge over or claim to
the goods in favour of a holder in the event of the dishonour of the
bill (r). Nor would it appear that such a statement on the bill
conveys any right to the acceptor over the goods apart from the
documents of title (s).
A banker who has accepted bills in this form is in no sense
a trustee for the holder of the bill with respect to the goods or
documents of title, and the bill holders have no right to question
the bank's dealings wîth such goods or securities (t).
1262. The drawer may by formal agreement, apart from the bill, Rights of
transfer his residuary rights in the goods to a third person, whether drawer.
holder of the bill or not, so long as by so doing he does not interfere
with the rights of the acceptor who holds the documents of
title (a).
The holder may acquire rights to the goods if they are in the Rights of
hands of one of two insolvent parties to the bill, both of whom holder.
are liable to the holder, and whose estates are being judicially
administered (b).
Though the holder of the bill of exchange may have the docu-
ments of title with it, he will not be able to claim appropriation of
the goods to it, if he took the bill and documents with notice of the
acceptor's right to have the documents on acceptance. Such notice
may be conveyed by the letter of credit, the terms of the bill, or
otherwise (c).
1263. If a bill is accepted conditionally payable on delivery of Stipulation

documents, the acceptor is not liable unless the documents are tender of
documents.
(p) See Re Barned's Banking Go. (1871), L. R. 5 H. L. 157.

(q) Be Barned's Banking Go., supra, is not an authority to the contrary. There
was in that case an undertaking by the drawers that the bankers should be kept
out of cash advances. See per Lord Hatherley, at p. 167.
(r) Inman v. Glare (1858), John. 769, at p. 776 Robey dh Go.'s Perseverance
;
Ironworks v. Oilier (1872), 7 Ch. App. 695, 698; Ex parte 'jDever, Re Suse (1884),
13 Q. B. D. 766, per Lindley, L.J., at p. 777. Compare Brown, Shipley & Go.
V. Kough (1885), 29 Ch. D. 848.
(s) See Phelps, Stokes <h Go. v. Gomher (1885), 29 Ch. D. 813, per Cotton, L.J.,
at p. 819.
{t) Re Barned's Banking Go., supra, per Lord Hatherley, at p. 168.
(a) Ranken v. Alfaro (1877), 5 Ch. D. 786. Such an agreement is really only
a transfer of the drawer's right to have the goods specifically applied to the pay-
ment of the bill, and an assignment of his right to any surplus proceeds which
the acceptor is not entitled to retain.
(6) Ex parte JVaring (1815), 19 Ves. 345. See title Bankruptcy and Insol-
vency.
(c) See Ex parte Dever, Re Suse, supra, where a letter of credit which provided
that bills of lading were to accompany bills of exchange, and to be surrendered to
the acceptor on acceptance, was referred to on the bills of exchange.
H.L. — I.
—
626 Bankers Am Banking.
Sect. 13. tendered him before or on presentment for payment (t^). Such
Letters of acceptance is, however, a qualified one (e), and a banker would only
Credit and be warranted in so accepting where he was fully empowered to do
Documen- so by the letter of credit.
tary Bills.
Unless strictly stipulated in the acceptance, the acceptor is not
discharged by the documents not being tendered to him before or on
the due date of the bill(/), though payment cannot be demanded
without such tender.
Sect. 14. Circular Notes.
Circular 1264. Where circular notes (g), accompanied by a letter of indica-

notes.
tion, are issuedby a bank to a customer or other person, it is not
incumbent on that person to cash all or any of such notes. He
may return them or any of them unused to the banker provided he
at the same time returns the letter of indication, and may claim to
be reimbursed or credited the amount of the unused notes (Ji). But
the return of the letter of indication alone, without the notes, will
not entitle the customer or other person who took them out to any
return of the money unless a satisfactory indemnity be given to
the bank [i).
The conditions or terms on which circular notes are issued
constitute a contract between the bank and the person receiving
the notes, though he may not be a regular customer, and breach of
such conditions or terms may preclude him from claiming return
of any of the money from the bank, where he might otherwise have
done so (k).
Xietter of 1265. The production of the letter of indication to the corre-

indication.
spondent bank is not in ordinary cases a condition precedent to
payment of the circular note, or to the right of the correspondent
(d) Ex parte Brett, Re Howe (1871), 6 Gh. App. 838, 841. The acceptor thus
gets security on the goods for his acceptance, while the bill is more readily
negotiated by being accompanied by the documents, and the holder has security
in case of dishonour.
(e) Smith V. Vertue (1860), 30 L. J. (c. P.) 56.
(/) Ihid.
{g) For form of circular notes and notices of circular notes, see Encyclopsedia
of Forms, Vol. II., pp. 474—476.
{h) Gonfians Quarry Go. v. Parher (1867), L. R. 3 C. P. 1.
(i) Gonfians Quarry Go. v. Parker, supra. In that case the name inserted in the
circular notes as the person to present was that of a third party, but it is sub-
mitted that this can make no difference. The party taking out the notes might
equally present them, if fraudulent.
{k) Rhodes Y. London and Gounty Bank (1880), Journal of Institute of Bankers,
Vol. I., p. 779, where the circular notes were payable to order of " the bearer
named in the letter of indication." A notice was printed on the letter as to the
necessity of keeping letter and notes apart, but the plaintiff did not do so, and
lost the letter and notes by theft or accident. The notes were cashed by a person
who forged the plaintiff's name, and it was held by Pollock, B., that the condi-
tion of keeping letter and notes separate was a reasonable one, and a material part
of the contract, and that, the breach of it having led to the loss, the plaintiff
>could not recover. The plaintiff was not a customer, but had deposited the
amount of the notes. See also Hume-Dick v. Herries, Farquhar Go. (1888), 4
T. L. R. 541, which, on a similar condition and similar facts. Pollock, B., held
inot distinguishable from Rhodes v. London and Gounty Bank, supra, and gave
judgment for defendants.
——
to recover the aroount paid from the banker who issued the note (Z). Sect. 14.
The liabiUty of the issuing bank to reimburse the correspondent Circular

must rest on the request to cash the draft of the bearer. As Notes.
drawer or payee of such draft, the bearer of the circular note could
not sue the issuing bank on it, or convey the right to do so.
If the holder's name has been forged to a circular note, the
correspondent cannot recover from the issuing bank any money paid
thereon, notwithstanding that the letter of indication, genuinely
signed by the holder, was produced to him (m).
1266. Circular notes are not negotiable in themselves. When Negotiability,

the draft on the back is filled in and signed, the whole document
then becomes a bill or cheque (n).
Sect. 15. Safe Custody of Valuables.

1267. Unless undertaking the care of valuable property (o), when Banker's
required, be made a condition of opening an account or offered as position,
an inducement to do so, the position of the banker as regards any

property deposited with him for custody is that of a gratuitous
bailee (^). As such he is to take the same care of the Degree
bound of
property intrusted to him as a reasonably prudent and careful man care,
may fairly be expected to take of his own property of the like
description (g). It is submitted that this involves the employment
of all the facilities at the banker's command (r) and in view of
;
the facilities usually existing, the question whether the banker is a

gratuitous bailee or a bailee for value does not seem material (s).
The banker's knowledge or ignorance of the nature of the goods
intrusted to him does not appear to affect the question of his
liability {t). If, however, the customer mislead the banker as to
the nature or value of the goods, he would presumably not be
entitled to hold the banker to a greater degree of care or to a
{I) Gonfians Quarry Co. v. Parker (1867), L. R. 3 C. P. 1, at p. 12.

Ihicl.
{n) Ibid., at p. 13.
(o) For form of request to bank to take charge of valuables and of banker's
acknowledgment of deposit, see Eneyclopsedia of Forms, Vol. II., p. 471.
{p) Giblin v. McMuUen (1868), L. R. 2 P. C. 317 ; Be United Services Co.,
Johnston's Glaim (1871), 6 Ch. App. 212 Leesev. Martin {1873), L. P. 17 Eq. 222,
;
235. The dictum of Lord Campbell in Brandaov. Barnett (1846), 12 CI. & F. 787,
at p. 809, " A charge might be made by the bankers, if they were not otherwise
remunerated for their trouble," is somewhat to the contrary, but too indirect.
The view expressed above in the text is that adopted by the Central Association
of Bankers (Journal of Institute of Bankers, Vol. XVII., p. 455). For a full
discussion of the position of a gratuitous bailee, see title Bailment.
(g) Giblin v. McMullen, supra, at p. 339.
(r) The utilisation of available means of securing safety must be part of the
care a reasonable man would take.
(s) A bailee for value is bound to adopt at his own expense all reasonable safe-
guards. A gratuitous bailee is bound to do his best wîth what he has got, using
the best facilities at his command, but not more. A banker invariably lias safes,
strong-rooms etc. See title Bailment.
[t] The rule as above stated was laid down in Giblin y. McMullen, supra, without
qualification as to knowledge. The facts in that case appear to point to ignorance

on the part of the banker as to the n£j,ture of the goods. The presumption is
that they are valuable.
S S 2
Sect. 15. larger compensation than was consistent with his own representa-
tions. An acknowledgment that the goods are received " for safe
Custody of custody" does not increase the liability of the banker (a).
Valuables. The bank is not liable for loss by the felonious act of members of
Felony of its own staff which there was no ground for anticipating (6).
servant.
Delivery to
1268. Where the bank delivers the goods to the wrong person,
wrong person. whereby they are lost to the owner, the liability of the bank is
absolute, though there be no element of negligence, as where
delivery is obtained by means of an artfully forged order (c). It
is, however, theoretically practicable for the banker to contract
himself out of this liability.
If the banker has suspicions as to the identity or authority of the
person requiring delivery of the valuables or the genuineness of any
written order produced by such person, the banker may retain the
goods for a reasonable time in order to satisfy himself on these
points, or, it is submitted, may decline to deliver them to the
applicant, stating that he would himself send them to the owner,
and doing so within a reasonable time (d).
(a) Boss V, Hill (1846), 2 C. B. 877. An undertaking in such terms must be

interpreted in the light of the legal consequences resulting from the relation
between the parties.
(b) Such an act would not be within the scope of the employment. Compare
Cheshire v. Bailey, [1905] 1 K. B. 237, and see, further, title Agency, p. 202, ante.
(c) Delivery was obtained by such means in Langtry v. Union Bank (1896),
Journal of Institute of Bankers, Vol. XVII., p. 338, but the case was settled by judg-
ment by consent for the plaintiff for £10,000, counsel for the bank stating that
they did not admit negligence. It was in consequence of this case that the
memorandum of the Central Association of Bankers, referred to in note {p), p. 627,
ante, was issued. It is there stated, " It is necessary to distinguish between cases in
which valuables are by mistake delivered to the wrong person, as in Mrs. Langtry's
case, and cases in which they are destroyed, lost, stolen, or fraudulently abstracted,
whether by an officer of the bank or by some other person. The best legal
opinion appears to be that, in the former case, the question of the negligence of a
bailee does not arise that the case is one of wrongful conversion of the goods,
;
and that the bank is liable for this wrongful conversion, apart from any question
of negligence." This view is supported by the following authorities: Youl v.
Harbottle (1791), Peake, 68 Stephenson v. Hart (1828), 4 Bing. 476, "from the
;
cases which have been cited it is clear that trover lies against a carrier for mis-
feasance in delivering a parcel to a wrong person, " per Park, J., at p. 482 ; "for
delivery to a wrong person a carrier is no doubt responsible in trover," per
Gaselee, J., at p. 488 M'Kean v. M'lvor (1870), L.
; R 6 Exch. 36, " I assume
that a misdelivery would have been a conversion," per Bramwell, B., at p. 41 ;
Hiort v. London and North Western Rail. Co. (1879), 4 Ex. D., 'per Bram-
well, L.J., at p. 194 Glyn v. Edst and West India Dock Co. (1880), 6 Q. B. D., per
;
Bramwell, L.J., at p. 493 Bristol and West of England Bank v. Midland Rail.
;
Co., [1891] 2 Q. B. 653, "delivery to a wrong person would be conversion," ^^^r

Lopes, L.J., at p. 657. The cases of Stephenson v. Hart, supra, Duffy. Budd
(1822), 3 Brod. & Bing. 177, and Heugh v. London and North Western Rail. Co.
(1870), L. E. 5 Exch. 51, which have been supposed to support the contrary con-
tention, are distinguishable on the ground that in each of them there had been
a refusal to accept the goods or a failure to discover the consignee. The bailee was
therefore in the position of an involuntary bailee, who has the implied authority
of the real owner to deal with the goods in any reasonable manner, and is therefore
only liable for negligence. See those cases explained and distinguished on this
ground by Bramwell, L.J., in Hiort v. Bott (1874), L. K. 9 Exch'. 86, at p. 90.
{d) Such retention would not be conversion, as it involves no disregard of or
interference with the owner's title. Compare Hollins v. Fowler (1875), L. R.
7 H. L. 757, per Blackburn, J., at p. 766.
——
1269. A
banker who receives goods for custody at his bank is Sect. 15.
not in removing them elsewhere for safe keeping, and
jiistitied Safe
would be liable for any loss occurring while deposited elsewhere {e). Custody oi
Valuables.
Sect. 16. Discounting Bills, Removal.
1270. A banker discounts a bill, as opposed to taking it for Discounting

collection or as security for advances, when he takes it definitely bills.
and at once as transferee for value. It does not matter that the
amount of the bill, less discount, is carried to current account. In
the case of a customer that is the usual course. Whether the bill
is taken from a customer for collection or as security, or dis-
counted for him, is a question of fact (/).
The presumption in favour of a negotiated bill being taken by
way of absolute transfer rather than of pledge or security is not so
appropriate in the case of banker and customer as in other cases.
Indorsement of a specially indorsed bill is as necessary for
collection as for absolute transfer. Even indorsement by the
customer of a bill indorsed generally is consistent with his merely
putting his name on it as extra security (g).
Subject to doubts raised by a recent decision (h), the entry of the
amount of such bills, less discount, as cash in the banker's books
would only be evidence of the banker having taken them as
transferee. Possibly inferences might be drawn from whether the
bank held itself out as a discounting bank or not (i). Where the
transaction is really one of discounting, the banker is of course at
liberty to deal with the bill as he pleases, rediscounting or trans-
ferring it.
1271. Where the banker has the customer's indorsement on the Eemedies of
bill, he has the remedies of an indorsee against him; where he banker
against
has not got the customer's indorsement on the bill, he only has customer.
against him the remedies of a transferee by delivery {k). Mere dis-
honour of a bill not indorsed by the customer gives no right to debit
the customer's account or to proceed against him on the bill (Q.
Instead of indorsing each bill for discount separately, the
customer sometimes gives to the banker a general guarantee of all
bills discounted for him, which has the same operation as specific
indorsement in each case {m).
The fact that bills have been discounted by the banker for a Eemedies
customer, which bills are still running, gives the banker no right against
customer's
to retain moneys due to the customer as a provision against account.
such bills {n), except perhaps in the event of the customer's
(e) See Lilley v. Douhleday (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 510.
(/) See p. 622, ante.
ig) See Ex parte Schojield, Re Firth (1879), 12 Ch. D. 337.
(h) Cajjital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240 ;
compare Dawson
V. Isle,[1906] 1 C^h. 636.
(i?) See Gaden v. Newfoundland Savings Bank, [1899] A. C. 281.
(k) See title Bills of Exchange etc.

{I) The dicta as to debiting a dishonoured cheque, though credited as cash, in
Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, supra, at p. 248, could not be applied to a
discounted bill.
(m) Ex parte Bishop, Re Fox, Walker dc Co. (1880), 15 Ch. D. 400.
(n) Bowen v. Foreign and Colonial Gas Co. (1874), 22 W. R. 740. For form of
— ——
Sect. 16. bankruptcy (o). Where the bill is dishonoured, the banker, if he
Discounting has the customer's indorsement on it, can, after giving due notice of
Bills. dishonour, debit the account (p).
Sect. 17. Advances by Bankers.

Sub- Sect. 1. Loan.
Advances by 1272. Where a banker makes a definite advance to his customer,

banker.
though the amount be carried to current account, the loan {q) is a
matter of contract and arrangement, and presents no special feature
by reason of the lender being a banker, except that, when and so
long as money is actually due and payable to the banker in respect
thereof, his lien attaches for the amount.
Sub-Sect. 2. Overdraft.
Overdraft. 1273. In the absence of agreement, express or implied from

course of business, a banker is not bound to let his customer
overdraw (?•). Such agreement must be supported by good
consideration (s).
Drawing a cheque or accepting a bill payable at the banker's
where there are not funds sufficient to meet it amounts to a request
for an overdraft (t).
Corporations. Overdraft is a loan (a), and cannot be recovered against a corpora-
tion which has no borrowing powers, or where the overdraft is in
excess of those powers (h). But the banker who has permitted
such an overdraft is entitled to be subrogated to those creditors of
the corporation who have been paid out of the overdraft, and to
recover the amounts so paid against the corporation (c).
undertaking giving the banker this right, see Encyclopsedia of Forms, Vol. II.,
p. 487.
(o) Asa mutual dealing on credit (Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52),
s. 38).
The banker, as holder, being entitled to set off his liquidated claim. As
to his remedies on unindorsed bills, see p.
629, ante.
(q) For forms relating to equitable mortgages to a bank, see Encyclopaedia of
—
Forms, Vol. II., pp. 478 486. For loans generally, see title Mortgage.
(r) Gunliffe Brooks <& Co. v. Blackburn and District Benefit Building Society
(1884), 9 App. Cas. 857, ])er Lord Blackburn, at p. 864 ; Gumming v. Shand
(I860), 29 L. J. (ex.) 129 (course of business entitling to overdraw). Circum-
stances may justify a bank in withdrawing the right to overdraw (Parkinson v.
Wakefield <& Co. (1889), 5 T. L. R
646 (security disturbed by customer)).
(s) Fleming v. Bank of New Zealand, [1900] A. C. 577. Implied contract to pay
interest would be sufficient consideration.
{t) Eaton V. Bell (1821), 5 B. & Aid. 34 Forster v. Clements (1809), 2 Camp.
;
17 Cunliffe Brooks d; Co. v. Blackburn and District Benefit Building Society, supra,
;
at p. 864. London Chartered Bank of Australia v. McMillan, [1892] A. C. 292, is

distinguishable, as the overdrai't arose from the unauthorised act of an agent, and
the circumstances should have put the bank on inquiry.
(a) Cunliffe Brooks <h Co. v. Blackburn and District Benefit Building Society, supra.
(6) Lbid., and see A.-G. v. De Winton, [1906] 2 Ch. 106. As to borrowing
powers of corporations, see titles Corporations Local Government.
;
(c) Lhid. Baroness Wenlock v. River Dee Company (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 155, 165.
;
It is not confined to debts existing at the time of the overdraft. The test is
whether the liabilities of the corporation are increased by the borrowing.
— .
Power to overdraw being commensurate with power to borrow, Sect. 17.
the banker's remedy in each case depends on the existence and Advances
extent of the authority to borrow, express or impHed e.g., an over-
;
by Bankers.
draft could not be recovered against an infant. As against a married Infants and
woman, recourse could only be had to her separate estate not subject married
to restraint on anticipation {d). women.
If accounts are opened in the name of a fund, an unincorporated Unincor-
porated
charitable or scientific institution, or the like, they should never be societies.
allowed to be overdrawn without the personal liability of substantial
persons {e).
Where a banker has the security of substantial customers, strong Novation,

evidence required to establish, as against the banker, a novation
is
or transfer of the liability for existing or future advances to a
newly formed corporation (/)
1274. By the universal custom of bankers, a banker has the right Interest,
to charge simple interest at a reasonable rate on all overdrafts (g).
An unusual rate of interest, interest with periodical rests, or
compound interest can only be justified, in the absence of express
agreement, where the customer is shown or must be taken to have
acquiesced in the account being kept on that basis (li). Whether
such acquiescence can be assumed from the return without comment
of the pass-book showing interest so charged is doubtful (i).
Acquiescence in such charges only justifies them so long as the
relation of banker and customer exists with respect to the advance.
If the relation is altered into that of mortgagee and mortgagor
by the taking of a mortgage {j), interest must be calculated
according to the terms of the mortgage, or according to the new
relation {k).
The taking a mortgage to secure a fluctuating, as opposed to
the ascertained, balance of an overdrawn account, is not, how-
ever, inconsistent with the relation of banker and customer, so
as to displace a previously accrued right to charge compound
interest {I).
(d) See further on this point titles Infants Husband and Wife. As to
;
partnerships, see title Partnership. As to companies, see title Companies.

(e) Eaton v. Bell (1821), 5 B. & Aid. 34. If cheques were drawn in a form
precluding personal liability, it might be contended that the banker looked
merely to funds of the undertaking. The doctrine of Kelner v. Baxter (1866),
L. R. 2 C. P. 174, or of TFest London Commercial Bank v. Kitson{l88'k), 13 Q. B. D.
360, as to the personal liability of the person contracting on behalf of a non-
existent principal, is hardly applicable.
(/) Coiitts & Go. V. The Irish Exhibition in London (1891), 7 T. L. R. 313.
{g) Crosskill v. Bower (1863), 32 L. J. (CH.) 540, at p. 544 ;
Gioyn v. Godhij
(1812), 4 Taunt. 346.
{h) Fergusson v. Fyffe (1840), 8 CI. & F. 121 Spencer v. JVakefield (1887), 4
;
T. L. R. 194 ; London Chartered Bank of Australia v. White (1879), 4 App. Cas.

413.
(i) See pp. 619, 620, ante.
( /)
For form of mortgage to secure overdraft, see Encyclopaedia of Forms,
Vol. VIII., p. 608a.
(k) Fergusson v. Fyffe, supra; Williamson v. Williamson (1869), L. R. 7 Eq.
542 London Chartered Bank of Australia v. White, supra.
;
(I) National Bank of Australasia v. United Hand in Hand and Band of Hope,
Co. (1879), 4 App. Cas. at p. 409.

— —— .
Sect. 18. Sect. 18. Securities for Advances.

Securities Sub-Sect. 1. Legal Mortgages.
for
Advances. 1275. In the case of a banker taking a legal mortgage (m) there
is nothing in his position differing from that of any other mortgagee.
Effect of
mortgage.
The taking, however, of a legal mortgage for a definite amount
terminates the relation of banker and customer as to that amount.
The banker's lien would not operate by virtue of it, as the effect is
to constitute a loan account to be kept distinct from current account,
and any incidents arising from previous acquiescence in a system
of dealing with it, such as charging interest thereon with periodical
rests, would come to an end. Where a mortgage, however, is
taken to secure a floating balance, this is not the case, as the
relation of banker and customer still continues (n).
A banker holding a mortgage of any sort must not advance
advances.
further moneys upon it after notice of assignment of or further
charge on the equity of redemption (o), even where the banker's
assignment, though in fact by way of security only, purports to be
absolute (p). Any such subsequent advances will be postponed to
the later charge of which the banker had notice.
Nor does the fact that the banker had agreed to make advances
on the security up to a limit which was not reached at the time he
had notice of the subsequent charge or assignment affect this rule.
The agreement being to make the further advances on the security
of the property as it then stood, the mortgagor, having by his
own act deprived himself of the power to give the stipulated security,
could not proceed against the banker for damages (^). Specific per-
formance will not be decreed of an agreement for a loan(r). If the
banker makes the further advances, he acts voluntarily, and cannot
claim priority over the subsequent charge or assignment (r).
Sub-Sect. 2. EqultaUe Mortgages.

Change of 1276. If securities are deposited with an unincorporated
parties.
organisation, e.g., a private bank, for advances made by them,
any change in the constitution of that organisation, e.g., the retire-
ment of one partner and admission of another, would render the
securities useless as cover for future advances {s).
So a security may cease to be effectual as cover for future advances
by reason of a change in the personality of the borrower, e.g., change
in the constitution of the firm originally depositing {t)
(m) For the general law of legal mortgage, see title Mortgage. As to registra-
tion nnder the Land Transfer Acts, see title Real Property and Chattels
Real. As to remedy by foreclosure or sale, see title Mortgage. For forms
of legal mortgage, see Encyclopeeclia of Forms, Vol. VIII., pp. 443, 661 et seq.
(n) See p. 631, ante, and note {I), ibid.
(o) Hoi^kinson. v. Roll (1861), 9 H. L. Cas. 514 Union Bank oj Scotland v.
;
National Bank of Scotland (1886), 12 App. Cas. 53.

{jp) Union Bank of Scotland v. National Bank of Scotland, supra.
{q) West V. WilUams, [1899] 1 Ch. 132, particularly 'per Lindley, M.R., at
p. 143, and Chitty, L.J., at p. 146.
(r) South African Territories, Ltd. v. Wallington, [1898] A. C. 309 ; Larios v.
Gurety (1873), L. R. 5 P. C. 346.
(s) Ex parte Kensington (1813), 2 Ves. & B. 79, 83 and see title Partnership.
;
(t) Bank of Scotland v. Christie (1,840), 8 Cl. & F. 214 ; Ex parte MacKenna
—
But an equitable mortgage by deposit may be readily extended, Sect. 18.

even by parol, so as to be an effectual security on the happening of Securities
such contingencies, or they may be provided for by a memorandum for
of deposit in anticipation {a). Advanc es.
1277. Land, freehold or leasehold, may be equitably mortgaged (6) Mode of

by deposit of the title-deeds, with or without a memorandum. A °ôrtgagmg.
memorandum is usually taken (c). The possession of the title-deeds
would, in ordinary cases, preclude a subsequent legal mortgagee
from obtaining priority for an advance (d) .
In registry counties (e), however, if a memorandum be taken Where

it is a " conveyance," and registration is necessary to secure
ê?eâry°^
priority (/). Letters from an intending mortgagor, if they amount
to an undertaking to deposit deeds as security, may constitute a
" conveyance " and so require registration but deposit of deeds
(g) ;
wîthout memorandum or anything equivalent is not a " convey-

ance " (/<). In the Yorkshire Kegistry district, however, an equitable
mortgage by mere deposit is inoperative as against a subsequent
registered assurance, unless a specified memorandum is signed by
the mortgagor and registered (i).
Title-deeds of land not being negotiable securities, the banker
can, as a rule, acquire no better title to them than the person who
deposits them had. Title may in some cases, however, be gained
by estoppel {k). The existence of an equitable mortgage by deposit
gives the right to call for a legal mortgage, or can be enforced by
application to the Court for foreclosure or sale {I), or a power to sell
may be given by an accompanying memorandum.
(1861), 3 De G. F. & J. 629, where a person deposited title-deeds for advances to

be made to him, and it was held that the security did not cover advances made
to him and others whom he took into partnership.
As to changes in the constitution of joint
(a) stock or other corporations in
this relation, see title Guarantee.
(6) For the general law as to equitable mortgages of land, see title Mortgage.
For forms of memorandum of deposit, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. II.,
pp. 478—486.
(c) If the title-deeds are not actually deposited, a memorandum is essential
(Ex loarte Hall, Be Whitting (1878), 10 Oh. D. 615 ; Ex parte Broderick, Be
Beetham (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 766).
(d) Oliver v. Hinton, [1899] 2 Ch. 264 ; Jared v. Clements, [1903] 1 Ch. 428.
(e) For these see title Keal Property and Chattels Real.
(/) Credland v. Potter (1874), 10 Ch. App. 8. Compare Be Calcott and Elvin,
[1898] 2 Ch. 460.
{g) Fullerton v. Provincial Bank of Ireland, [1903] A. C. 309,
iji) Sumpter v. Cooper (1831), 2 B. & Ad. 223 Be Burke (1881), L. R. 9 Ir. 24.
;
Recognised as law in Fullerton v. Provincial Bank of Ireland, supra ; see per Lord
Davey, at p. 314.
(i) Battison v. Holson, [1896] 2 Ch. 403 ; Yorkshire Registries Act, 1884 (47 &
48 Vict. c. 54).
Brocklesby v. Temperance Permanent Building Society, [1895] A. C. 173 ;
(k)
Bimmer v. Wehster, [1902] 2 Ch. 163. E.g., a person intrusts another with title-
deeds lor the purpose of raising money on them for the principal's benefit. He
is estopped Irom disputing the title of anyone who honestly lends on the security,
though the agent borrows money on the deeds on his own account and exceeds a
limit imposed by the principal ; compare Lloyd's Bank v. Cooke, [1907] 1 K. B.
794. For full treatment of this subject, see title Agency, pp. 201 et seq., ante.
(l) York Union Banking Co. v. Artley (1879), 11 Ch. D. 205 ; TFade v. JVilson
(1882), 22 Ch. 1). 235.

— ;
Sect. 18. 1278. A

partner has implied authority to deposit title-deeds
Securities of property, whether real or personal, belonging to the firm, as
for security for advances to the firm and when the partnership is
;
Advances. terminated by the death of the last surviving partner but one, the
Deposit by- banker is entitled to treat a subsequent deposit of such deeds as
partner. being in the course of winding up the partnership affairs and so
legitimate (m).
Sub-Sect. 3. Bills and Notes.
Banker's
1279. Where bills or notes are deposited (n) as security, and not
remedies
on bills or absolutely transferred in consideration of the advance, the banker's
notes. position is that of pledgee, analogous to that which he holds by
virtue of his lien (o). If he took the bill or note without notice of
any defect in the customer's title, he can in any event sue all
parties to it to the extent of his advance (p). If the customer had
a good title, the banker can sue all parties for the full amount,
holding the balance, if any, beyond the advance as trustee for the
customer (q).
Eight to If the banker hold the customer's indorsement on the bill or
negotiate.
note, he can sue the customer thereon to the extent of the advance
but the property in the bills or notes remains in the borrower.
Though, as before stated (r), there are dicta to the effect
that, in certain states of the account, a banker may negotiate bills
or notes of a customer in his hands, it would certainly not be a
reasonable course to adopt where the instruments are security for
an advance repayable at a definite period which has not arrived, or
where the security is for existing or future overdrafts, without
previous request for payment. The usual and proper course is to
keep the documents and present them for payment at maturity, and
set off the proceeds against the advance. If instruments at a fixed
date are not duly presented, the banker will have to bear any
loss incurred by the omission (s).
Collateral Where a bill or note is given strictly as collateral security,
security. it does not, even while current, suspend the remedy on the debt,
and in theory the banker might sue for the advance pending the
currency of the bill or note(0, but it would be very unusual to do
so. And where a bill or note is strictly collateral security,
satisfaction of the debt does not necessarily discharge the bill or
note (a).
(m) Ee Bourne, [1906] 2 Ch. 427, and see generally title Partnership.
(n) For form of memorandum of deposit, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. II.,
p. 489.
(o) Banker's lien being an implied pledge. See p. 622, ante.
(p) Compare Bills of Exchange Act, 1882- (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), s. 27 (3).
(q) See Great Western Rail. Co. v. London and County Banking Co., [1900]
2 Q. B. 464. It would appear, however, that the banker could retain such
surplus to meet any further existing indebtedness of the customer (see Jones v.
Peppercorne (1858), John, 430 Inman v. Clare, ibid. 769
; Ee London and Globe
;
Finance Corporation, [] 902] 2 Ch. 416), also by right of set-off {Ee Bowes (1886),
33 Ch. D. 586).
(r) See note {g), p. 599, ante.
(s) Peacock'v. Purssell (1863), 32 L. J. (c. P.) 266.
(0 Ibid.
-(a) JenUns v. Tongue (I860), 29 L. J. (ex.) 147 Glasscock v. Balls (1889), 24
;
Q. B. D. 13. In both cases discharge of the debt was obtained by the holder of
—— —
Sub-Sect. 4. Other Negotiahh Securities. Sect. 18.
1280. AYliere a banker bond fide takes fully negotiable securities (6) Securities
as cover for an advance or overdraft, he is entitled to retain them

vance .
until his debt is satisfied, notwithstanding that the borrower had no
property in and was wrongfully dealing with the securities (c). Deposit of
negotiable
Knowledge that the customer is a stockbroker or occupies a
fiduciar}^ position, and that so the securities may possibly not be his
own, does not put the banker on inquiry, if he have no reason to
doubt the honesty of the person tendering them as security, and
the latter purport to deal with them as his own property (tZ).
Where the banker takes fully negotiable securities in the above
circumstances, he is entitled either to have them redeemed by the
true owner, or to satisfy his advances by means of them on default,
or, where no time is fixed for repayment, on giving reasonable notice
to the depositor (c).
1281. If a principal intrust his agent with securities which. Dispositions

agent,
though not fully negotiable, purport on the face of them to convey
all rights by mere transfer, especially if he hold out the agent as
clothed with authority to transfer them as negotiable, such principal
will be estopped from disputing the title of a banker who has
taken the securities honci fide and for value from such agent,
though the agent be acting for his own ends and in fraud of his
principal (/) In each case the test is whether the possession
.
by the agent and the terms of the document combined amount to

a representation that the agent is invested with disposing power of
a professedly negotiable instrument {g).
Stjb-Sect. 5. and Shares.

Stock
1282. Stock and shares may be utilised as security by being Advances on

transferred to the banker {li) . The method of transfer depend's on the g^^res^'''^
the security. There was jio direct payment by the borrower, but this does not seem
to affect the princif>le. In Jenkins v. Tongue (1860), 29 L. J. (ex.) 147, the note
was being enforced by the payee, but it is doubtful whether the effect is not con-
fined to a hond fide holder from the payee ; see Glasscock v. Balls (1889), 24
Q. B, D. 13. It would be inequitable that the payee, having satisfied himself,
should still be able to sue on the security.
(6) As to what securities other than bills, notes, and cheques are fully
negotiable, so as to come within this doctrine, see title Bills of Exchange etc.
(c) London Joint Stock Bank v. Simmons, [1892] A. C. 201 ; Bentinck v.
London Joint Stock Bank, [1893] 2 Ch. 120 Sheffield v. London Joint Stock Bank
;
(1888), 13 App. Cas. 333, explained and distinguished in London Joint Stock Bank
V. Simmons, supra.
(d) London Joint Stock Bank v. Simmons, supra.
(e) Deverges v. Sandeman, Clark & Co., [1902] 1 Ch. 579.
(/) Goodwin v. Robarts (1876), 1 App. Cas. 476, 489 ; Easton v. London Joint
Stock Bank (1886), 34 Ch. D. 95, per Bowen, L.J., at pp. 113, 114 ; Colonial Bank
V. Gady (1890), 15 App. Cas. 267, per Lord Herschell, at p. 285 " If the owner
:
of a chose in action clothes a third party with the apparent ownership and
right of disposition of it, he is estopped from asserting his title as against a jjerson
to whom such third party has disposed of it, and who has received it in good faith
and for value." See also Lloyd's Bank, Ltd. v. Cooke, [1907] 1 K. B. 794.
(g) Colonial Bank v. Cady, supra, per Lord Halsbury, at p. 273 Farquhar-
;
son Y. King, [1902] A. C. 325, per Lord Halsbury, at p. 330. For full treatment
of this matter, see title Agency, pp. 201 et seq., ante.
(h) For forms of memorandum of deposit, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. II.,
pp. 484—487.
Sect. 18. nature of the stock or shares. In order to avoid the danger of the
Securities person transferring being in a fiduciary position and not beneficial
for owner, it is essential that the banker should not only take the
Advances. stock or shares bond fide and for value, but also acquire the legal
estate (i).
Blank Where stock or shares can only be transferred by deed(/c), a

transfers.
blank transfer will not carry the legal estate {I). Such a blank
transfer may be validated by redelivery after the blanks are filled
up, but an agent cannot effect such redelivery unless himself
authorised bydeed(7?i)- Where the transfer is not necessarily by
deed, a blank transfer operates as an authority to the transferee to
fill up all necessary blanks, and, when so filled up, operates as an
effective transfer without redelivery (n). But, to preclude the rights

of third parties, the transfer must in its then condition purport to
carry to any person taking it in good faith and for value a full
immediate and absolute the subject-matter (o).
title to
Deposit of The mere deposit share certificates only
of stock certificates or
certificates.
constitutes an equitable mortgage of the stock or shares which the
Court will enforce by order for transfer and foreclosure (jo). Such
remedy is not barred by reason of the debt not being recoverable
by virtue of the Statute of Limitations {q).
Power of Where stock or shares have been effectually transferred to a
sale.
banker as security, even though not by deed, he has an implied
power of sale on default. If no time is fixed for repayment, he
must give the borrower reasonable notice of his intention to sell
unless repaid. A month's notice would be sufficient (r).
Kegistration. 1283. In addition to actual transfer, registration is necessary to
render the banker's title indefeasible or good against parties other
(i) For the effect of notice on the legal estate, see Bank of Montreal v. Sweeny
(1887), 56 L. T. 897 and contrast Bentinck v. London Joint Stock Bank, [1893]
;
2 Ch. 120. See, further, title Mortgage.

{k) The Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 22, provides that transfer
shall be in the manner provided by the regulations of the company. These may or
may not provide that transfer shall be by cleed {Re Tahiti Cotton Go. (1873), L. E. 17
Eq. 273). The stock or shares of corporations governed by the Companies Clauses
Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 16), are only transferable by deed (s. 14).
(/) HihUewUte v. McMorine (1840), 6 M. & W. 200 ; Swan v. North Britiah
Australasian Co. (1863), 32 L. J. (ex.) 273 ; "We
all know that both at common
law and under these statutes, if you execute a transfer in blank, that instrument
with the blanks is not a deed " {Powell v. London and Provincial Bank, [1893]
2 Ch. 555, jper Lindley, L.J., at p. 560). See titles Companies ; Deeds and
Documents.
(m) Powell V, London and Provincial Bank, supra, at p. 565 ; Societe Generale
de Paris v. Walker (1885), 11 App. Cas. 20.
{n) Ireland v. Hart, [1902] 1 Cii. 522, 527.
(o) Colonial Bank v. Cadij (1890), 15 App. Cas. 267.
(p) Such certificates are not negotiable, and are merely evidence of the title as
against the company of the specified person to whom they are issued. Their
object is to facilitate dealings with the stock or shares, not to effectuate them.
As to the remedy, see Harrold v. Plenty, [1901] 2 Ch. 314. The equitable mortgagee
may obtain an injunction against transfer in fraud of his rights {Societe Generale
de Paris v. Tramways Union Co., Ltd. (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 424, per Lindley, L.J.,
at J). 453). This decision was affirmed in Societe Generale de Paris v. Walker
supra, but this particular point was not mentioned.
.
{q) London and Midland Bank v. Mitchell, [1899] 2 Ch. 161.
(r) Deuerges v. Sandeman, Clark dh Co., [1902] 1 Ch. 579.
—— ;
than the pledgor who have beneficial interests therein (s), or, Sect. 18..
failing registration, the transferee mast have acquired a present Securities

absolute and unconditional right to be registered before he is fo^
affected with notice of the prior equitable title {t). Ad vanc es.
Registration does not perfect a transfer which is in itself
inoperative (a).
1284. If a transfer to a banker prove to have been forged, the Forged

banker has no title to the stock or shares, his name will be ^^^^^^^^s-
removed from the register and that of the original holder restored,
and he will be liable to refund to the company all dividends
received.
If the banker has parted with the stock or shares, and his transferee Banker's
has been registered and had certificates issued to him, the banker is liability,
liable to indemnify the company, who are estopped from disputing
the title of such transferee. The company would be obliged to
restore the original holders to the register and their rights, possibly
having to buy stock or shares in order to do so. In the latter case
the price of the stock purchased, if higher than at the date of the
original holder's name being removed from the register, together
with back dividends since that date, would be the measure of the
banker's liability {h).
The liability being based on indemnity, though the sending in Statute of
the transfer for registration by the company may also import

warranty, the cause of action against the banker does not arise
until the company is compelled to reinstate the original holder
and the banker may accordingly be sued any time within six
years of that date (c). His having retransferred the shares is of
course immaterial. Neither is it any defence that the company on
registration of the transfer issued certificates to him (d).
Sub-Sect. 6. Policies of Life Assurance.
1285. A banker may take out a policy of assurance (e) on the life Banker's
insurable
of a person indebted to him.
^ interest m
debtor's
1286. A
policy on his own life effected by the debtor may be
life,
deposited as security for advances. Notice of the assignment

^^J'ôfJcies^
should be given to the company. If no notice is given,
(s) Shropshire Union Railways and Canal Go. v. The Queen (1875), L. E. 7 H. L.
496.
(t) Walker (1885), 11 App. Cas. 20, at pp. 29 41
Societe Generale de Paris v. — ;
Moore North Western Bank, [1891] 2 Cli. 599; Ireland y. Hart, [1902] 1 Ch.
Y.
522, at p. 529. No Court has ever defined what constitutes such right, and it
would not be safe to rely on its existence apart from registration.
(a) Powell V. London and Provincial Bank, [1893] 2 Ch. 555, at p. 566.
Corporation of Sheffield v. Barclay (k Co., [1905] A. C. 392. Compare Bank
(&)
of Englandv. Cutler, [1907] 1 K. B. 889.
(c) Corporation of Sheffield v. Barclay cfc Co., supra.
(d) Certificates had been issued to the banker in Corporation of Sheffield v.
Barclay <& Co, supra. Compare A.-G. v. Odell, [1906] 2 Ch. 47. The banker
cannot claim an estoppel produced by his own misrepresentation. As to whether
the same liabilities would attach to a banker sending in a forged transfer on
behalf of a customer, see Starkey v. Bank of England, [1903] A. C. 114.
(e) For the general law of life assurance, see title Insurance.
—
Sect. 18. payment by the company before notice is good as against the
Securities assignee (/).
for The mere depositof a policy as cover gives the banker the
Advances. rights of an equitable mortgagee (^).
Where a policy has been so deposited, even without a memo-
randum, and the depositor becomes bankrupt, his trustee cannot
claim it without satisfying the debt to the banker (h).
Sub -Sect. 7. Documents of Title to Goods.
Advances on 1287. A banker may advance money on the security of documents

documents of title to goods (i) otherwise than by the acceptance of documentary
of title.
bills (k).
Pledge. If his customer be the real owner of the goods and entitled
to the documents he pledges, the transaction amounts to hypothe-
cation of the goods, with the resulting rights of a pledgee (l).
Neither goods nor documents of title thereto (m) being negotiable,
the banker's title at common law must depend on that of the pledgor.
Where title In cases, however, of defective title in the borrower, a large
defective.
measure of statutory protection is accorded to the banker, subject
to certain conditions (n).
Protection to In order to entitle the banker to such protection the goods or docu-
banker. ments of title thereto must be in the possession of an unpaid
vendor, a vendee who has not paid for them, or a " mercantile
agent" within the broad definition affixed to that term by the
legislation in question (o). Moreover, the goods or the documents
of title must have originally remained in or come into the posses-
sion of the person with whom the banker is dealing with the consent
of the real owner (j^). The fact that such possession and consent
have been obtained by fraud is immaterial (q). But where the
fraud amounts to larceny by a trick, different considerations would
seem to apply (?•). In the case of a mercantile agent a pledge of
(/) Policies of Assurance Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 144), s. 3.

For forms of mortLâge of such policies, see Encyclopsedia of Fornis^ Vol. VIII.,
pp. 681 et seq.
(g) Spencer v. Clark (1878), 9 Ch. D. 137. See title Mortgage.
(h) Re Wallis, [1902] 1 K. B. 719.
{i) For forms of memorandum of deposit, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. II.,
pp. 479—484.
{k) See p. 624, ante.
{I) See title Pawnbrokers and Pledges.
(m) With the possible exception of bills of lading, see Lickharrow v. Mason (1794),
5 Term Eep. 683. " The words of the special verdict in Lickharrow v. Mason
admittedly overstate the law " (Burdick v. Sewell (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 159,. per
BowEN, L.J., at p. 173). See Sewell v. Burdick (1884), 10 App. Cas., per Lord
Blackburn, at p. 98. If fully negotiable there would have been no reason for
including bills of lading with other documents of title in the Factors Act, 1889,
and the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, whereas they are so included. See further on
this point title SmppiNG and Navigation.
(n) Factors Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 45) ; Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57
Vict. c. 71).
(o) Factors Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 45), s. 1.
(p) Hid. ; Cahn v. Pockett's Bristol Channel Steam Backet Co., [1899] 1 Q. B.
643, 658.
(q) Ibid.
(r) Ibid., per Collins, L. J., at p. 659 ;
Oppenheimer v. Frazer and Wyatt, [1907]
'2
K. B. 50, per Fletcher Moulton and Kennedy, L, JJ., at pp. 70, 77, though
— —
the documents for an antecedent debt would entitle the pledgee to Sect. 18.
acquire such rights onl}^ as the pledgor could have enforced at the Securities
time of the pledge (s). The same rule applies probably to vendees for
or persons who have agreed to purchase (t). In such case the Advances,
securit}^ would not be effective (a).
Sect. 19. Guarantees.
1288. The position and rights of a banker under a guarantee Bankers

obviously must depend on the character and form of such guarantee rights,
and the parties thereto (b).
Certain general principles may, however, be laid down.
Where there is an unbroken account, and the guarantee is not Appropria-
strictly a continuing one, payments in must be attributed to the ^^^^
earlier items of the account in relief of the surety, unless there are P^^^^^^^-
exceptional circumstances indicating an intention that the guarantee
should not be exhausted by such process .(<?).
Where the guarantee is a really continuing one, the surety has
no right to control the appropriation of payments in (d) so long
as the banker deals with the accounts in the ordinary way of
business {e) .
Payments in may be appropriated to a pre-existing debt of which

the surety had no notice or knowledge (/) but it would be
;
contrary to ordinary business and good faith to open a new account

during the currency of the guaranteed one, and carry all payments
in to the new account (g) But on the determination of the guarantee
.
the banker may close the account and open a new one, to which he
may carry all payments in. leaving any debit on the old one to be
covered by the guarantee (h).
1289. A pre-existing debt is not a good consideration for a Considera-
guarantee. Where in a guarantee no stipulation for future advances
is made, the consideration must be supplied by forbearance to sue
the Court of Appeal, in reversin*^ the judgment of Channell, J., reported

[1907] 1 K. B. 519, held that the facts did not show larceny by a trick.
(s) The Factors Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 45), s. 3, makes a pledge of the docu-
ments equivalent to a pledge of the goods themselves.
(t) See Cahn v. PockeWs Bristol Channel Steam Packet Co., [1899] 1 Q. B.
643, jper A. L. Smith, L.J., at p. 654.
(a) As to the Factors Acts generally, see titles Agency Sale op Goods.
;
As to the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, see title Sale of Goods.

(&) For the general law of guarantees, see title Guarantee. For forms of
—
guarantees to a l3ank, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. II., pp. 491 501.
(c) Cory Brothers v. Owners of Steamship Mecca, [1897] A. 0. 286, 295 ;
City
Discount Co. v. McLean (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 692. It is practically necessary to
show that ordinary appropriation would nullify the guarantee. Compare Com-
mercial Bank of Australia v. Official Assignee of Wilson (fc Co., [1893] A. C. 181,
where money on suspense account in lieu of guarantor's liability was held not
equivalent to payment.
(d) Williams v. Rawlinson (1825), 3 Bing. 11 ; Be Sherry (1884), 25 Ch. D. 692.
(e) Re Sherry, supra.
{f) Williams v. Rawlinson, supra; compare Hamilton v. Watson (1845), 12
CI. & F. 109.
((/) Re Sherry, supra, per Cotton, L.J., at p. 706 compare Mutton v. Peat,
;
[1900] 2 Ch. 79, 85, where it was said that the method of book-keeping was not
to prejudice the real rights of the surety.
(h) Re Sherry, supra.
Sect. 19. for the existing debt at the request of the guarantor. This may be
Guarantees. implied from the nature of the transaction as between business men
and the fact of forbearance (^). Forbearance for a definite period
is not essential (k). If one only of several accounts is to be covered
by a particular guarantee, this must be clearly expressed. The
term " ultimate balance " by itself signifies the ultimate balance
owing, combining all existing accounts (I).
Disclosure, A banker is not bound to volunteer to an intending guarantor
information as to the state of the account or whether the customer
was or was not in the habit of overdrawing. If asked by the
intending guarantor, however, he must give the information, this
being sufficient reason for disclosing the customer's account (m).
During the continuance of a guarantee for an overdraft the banker
is bound, on request, at any time to acquaint the guarantor with
the amount of his then liability, but not to give further information
as to the account or to allow inspection of it (n).
Guarantee 1290. Where the guarantor's liability is limited to a specified

limited in sum, it depends on the wording of the guarantee whether the
amount.
surety is surety for the whole debt with the specified limitation
to his total liability, or whether he is surety only for part of the
debt. The difference becomes material in case of the bankruptcy of
the principal debtor (o), but is generally neutralised by special terms.
Determina- 1291. A guarantor is, in general, entitled to determine the
tion of
guarantee as to future advances by giving notice and paying what
guarantee.
is then due (p). Where the guarantee is under seal this right
appears to exist in equity (q), and would possibly be recognised even
though the guarantee were expressed to be for a definite period, if
the banker were not under contract with the principal debtor to
make further advances to him (?•)•
Continuing But it would appear that a continuing guarantee could not be
guarantee.
revoked so as to exclude outstanding liabilities properly undertaken
(i) Fullerton v. Provincial Bank of Ireland, [1903] A. C. 309, 316. Compare

Miles V. New Zealand Alford Estate Co. (1886), 32 Ch. D. 266, jper Bowen, L.J., at
p. 290.
(k) Ihid. It is, however, advisable to have such consideration expressed in the
guarantee.
[1] Mutton V. Peat, [1900] 2 Ch. 79.
(m) Hamilton v. Watson (1845), 12 CI. & F. 109 Welton v. Somes (1889), 5
;
T. L. R. 184 and contrast Stone v. Compton (1838), 5 Bing. (n.c.) 142. See also
;
Seaton v. Burnand, [1900] A. C. 135, and p. QAZ, post.

{n) This view is adopted by the Institute of Bankers, see Questions on Banking
Practice, 5th ed., Nos. 938, 939. See Hardy v. Veasey (1868), L. R. 3 Exch. 107.
(o) Midland Banking Go. v. Chambers (1869), 4 Ch. App. 398 Ex parte National
;
Provincial Bank of England (1881), 17 Ch. D. 98 and see Ex parte Hope (1844), 3
;
Mont. D. & De G. 720. These cases recognise the principle as to a surety for
part of the debt, but in each case the surety had by the guarantee contracted him-
self out of his rights. See also Re Sass, [1896] 2 Q. B. 12, where the security was
for the whole debt, but the surety had also contracted out.
(^) Beckett & Co. v. Addyman (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 783, 791 Lloyd's v. Harper
;
(1880), 16 Ch. D. 290, per Lush, L.J., at p. 319.

(g) Re Crace, [1902] 1 Ch. 733,738 and see Lloyd's v. Harper, supra.
;
(r) No direct authority but see Lloyd's v. Harper, supra, per James, L.J., at
;
p. 314. It would not be equitable to determine the guarantee if the banker was
bound to make further advances to the principal debtor. He is not released from
such obligation by the withdrawal of the guarantee by the third party.
—
Part III. Business of BxInking. 641
by the banker on the faith of it, e.g., bills accepted by him current Sect. 19.
at the time of notice of revocation (s) but without special words, Guarantees,
;
where the guarantee is for a specified period, it would not cover

obUgations undertaken, but not dischargeable, within that period (t).
Whether a continuing guarantee is determined as to subsequent Death of
advances by the mere fact of the death of the guarantor has never s^^^^^ôv.
been finally decided (a). Probably it is not. Where there is no
provision for giving notice of termination by representatives in
the event of death, it may be taken that actual notice of the death
given by a responsible person, such as an executor or adminis-
trator, terminates the guarantee so far as subsequent advances are
concerned (h). Whether constructive notice of death is equivalent
to actual notice is doubtful (c).
Where there is specific provision for notice of revocation by the

guarantor or his representatives, notice of his death by executors or
administrators will not terminate the guarantee. The notice must
be one of revocation (d).
W^hether the death of one joint surety terminates the liability of
the other for subsequent advances is also doubtful (e) But where the .
guarantee is joint and several, the death of one guarantor does not
affect the liability of the survivor for subsequent advances (/).
If a guarantee is joint only, judgment against one guarantor. Joint
g>iarantors.
even though unsatisfied (g), operates as a bar to any action against
the other or others (/i), but not where the guarantee is several, or
joint and several (^).
(s) v. Teed (1848), 7 Hare, 50, where a guarantee given to a bank

See Hollond
for advances and bills honoured, though terminated by the death of a partner in
the bank, was held to apply to bills accepted by the bank, and current at his death.
{t) Hollond V. Teed^ supra, at p, 54.
(a) Bradbury v. Morgan (1862), 31 L. J. (ex.) 462, where the guarantee was held
not determined by death Harriss v. Fawcett (1873), 8 Ch. App. 860, per
;
Mellish, L.J., at p. 869 "As mere matter of law, ... I am of opinion that
:
this guarantee was not determined by the death. If one were to suppose a case,
which might very easily happen, where a bank holding such a guarantee was not
aware of the death, I should think it very hard upon the bank that a guarantee
worded like this was terminated by the death of the guarantor" Be Sherry, ;
(1884), 25 Ch. D. 692 (where the question was treated as undecided). Compare
Goulthart v. Glementson (1879), 5 Q. B. D. 42 Be Silvester, [1895] 1 Ch. 573 Be
; ;
Grace, [1902] 1 Ch. 733 (all cases dealing with questions as to notice of death,
but not decid.ing the effect of death by itself).
(6) See Goulthart v. Glementson, supra; Be Silvester, supra j Be Grace, supra,
discussing the effect of constructive notice, bu.t assuming that actual notice would
be sufficient. It would be hard if death involved unlimited liability on the
estate.
(c) Goulthart v. Glementson, supra (Yes, per Bowen, J.) ; Be Silvester, supra
(No, per RoMER, J.) Be Grace, supra (No, per Joyce, J.).
;
(d) Be Silvester, supra.

(e) Be Sherry, supra, at pp. 703 — 705.
(/) Beckett Addyman (1882), 9
dc Co. v. Q. B. D. 783.
Ig) Except under R. S. C, Ord. 14, 5, or Ord. 13, r. 4, in default of
r.
appearance, or under Ord. 27, r. 3, in default of defence.

(Ii) Kendall v. Hamilton (1879), 4 Apjj. Cas. 504 McLeod v. Poioer, [1898J
;
2 Ch. 295.
{i) King v. Uoare (1844), 13 M. & W. 494 Blyth v. Fladgate, [1891] 1 Ch. 337.
;
Morel Brothers v. Earl of Westmorland, [1904] A. C. 11, is not an authority

against this there the liability was alternative, and judgment against one
;
operated as an election.
H.L. — I. T T
Sect. 19. 1292. In the absence agreement to the contrary, any change
of
Guarantees, in the constitution of the firm forwhich a guarantee is given puts
Chan~e^n
guarantee (k). So in the case of a private bank
^
firml^^^ any change in the partners of the bank would nullify the guarantee
as to future advances (l) Where either the bank or the guaranteed
.
party is a corporate body, joint stock or otherwise, internal change

by transfer of shares, issue of new capital, change of directors, or
the like has no effect (m).
Absorption Where guarantees are given to a corporate bank, its absorbing
or amaigama- another bank would not affect the guarantees (n). But guarantees
given to the absorbed bank would not enure for the benefit of the
absorbing one (o) In the case of amalgamation as distinguished
.
from absorption, guarantees given to either bank would probably

be determined (p).
Interest on 1293. Where a guarantee provides for payment of interest on

bankruptcy. <<
money remaining due " from the principal debtor, no claim can
be maintained for interest accruing after the bankruptcy of the prin-
cipal debtor (g). But it is otherwise where the words are ''until
repayment" (r).
Eemedies of 1294. The banker is not obliged to resort to securities in his

banker. bands before proceeding against the surety (s).
Where a continuing guarantee is given for a running account,
it is doubtful at what time a cause of action accrues. In one case
it has been held that a cause of action arises as soon as any
(k) Partnership Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 30), s. 18, " absence of agreement
to the contrary," stronger words than sect. 4 of the Mercantile Law Amendment
Act, 1856 (19 & 20 Vict. c. 97), repealed by Partnership Act, 1890, " necessary
implication from the nature of the tirm or otherwise."

{I) Ihid.
(m) The Partnership Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 39), only applies to "firms,"
i.e., partnerships. Corporations remain the same entity notwithstanding any
change in their component parts.
{n) See Capital and Counties Bank v. Bank of England (1889), 61 L. T. 516.
(o) Prescott, Dimsdale cfc Co. v. Bank of England, [1894] 1 Q. B. 351.
(p) Ibid.
" An amalgamation between two banks need not necessarily cause
the business thereafter carried on to be the same as was theretofore carried on by
either," per A. L. Smith, L.J., at pp. 364, 365 London, Brighton, and South
;
Coast Rail. Co. v. Goodivin (1849), 3 Exch. 320 Eastern Union Rail. Co. v. Coch-
;
rane (1853), 9 Exch. 197. Guarantees are not discharged by the amalgamation,
but only by virtue of the provisions of the Partnership Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict,
c. 39).
Re Moss, [1905] 2 K. B. 307, Bankruptcy prevents the debt being recover-
{q)
able against the bankrupt, so that it is not due and owing. Qucere whether the
result would not be the same if the same words were used with regard to the
principal sum.
(r) Re FitzGeorge, [1905] 1 K. B. 462.
(s) Ex parte Brett (1871), 6 Ch. App. 838, 841 (laying down the rule that
the surety has no right or interest in the securities until he has paid the debt) ;
Ewart V. Latta (1865), 4 Macq. 983, per Lord Westbtjry, at pp. 987, 989;
Duncan Fox <h Go. v. North and South Wales Bank (1880), 6 App. Cas. 1, per
Lord Selborne, at pp. 10, 14 per Lord Blackburn, at pp. 18, 20.
;
The
remarks of Lord Watson at p. 22 {ihid.) are explainable, inasmuch as the contest
was not between the holder of the securities and the surety. As to the discharge
of the surety by dealings with the principal, and as to the right of the surety
to securities on payment of the debt, see title Guarantee.
— —— ;
advance has been made, and that each item would be barred when *'êct. 19.
six years had elapsed (t) but in another the mere existence of a Guarantees,
;
debt, without balance struck or demand made on the guarantor,

was held not to make the Statute of Limitations run from that
date(»)-
Sect. 20. Charges and Cojiwiissions,

1295. The right of a banker to charges and commissions would Eight to
seem, in the absence of an express agreement by the customer to charges and
pay them, to depend on the universal custom of bankers, as in the ô^^î^^^^^^s.
case of his right to charge interest on overdrafts {a). For it is
doubtful whether the right can be based on acquiescence in the
charges and commissions as disclosed in the pass-book, in view of
the doubts cast on the existence of any obligation on the part of the
customer to examine his pass-book (b).
Sect. 21. Bankers Obligation to Secrecy.
1296. A
banker is bound not to disclose the state of a customer's Obligation to
account, whether the same be in credit or overdrawn, except on ^^^^^^7-
reasonable and proper occasion, as when answering inquiries by a

proposing guarantor [c), or under compulsion of law(<i). Where an
overdraft is guaranteed, it would seem that the guarantor has a
right to be informed of the extent of his liability, and that the
banker is justified in disclosing to him the condition of the
customer's account so far as is necessary for this purpose (e).
Production, supplying copies, or affording inspection of books
under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act is either done on reasonable
and proper occasion or under compulsion of law (/).
A banker is justified in answering inquiries regarding his Inquiries,
customer's general position and character put to him by a person
contemplating business relations with that customer (g).
But, even where the answers are intentionally false, the banker
cannot be held responsible for any loss or damage sustained in
(t) Parr's Banking Co., Ltd. v. Yates, [1898] 2 Q. B. 460.

(u) Hartland v. Jukes (1863), 32 L. J. (ex.) 162, See Bousev. Bradford Banking
Co., Ltd., [1894] A. C. 586, per Lord Herschell, at p. 596, as to the unreasonable-
ness of a bank granting an overdraft and immediately proceeding to sue for it.
The difficulty may be avoided by taking a new guarantee before the end of the
six years, or by specifying in the guarantee the liability of the surety to be to pay
a certain time after demand. See generally title Limitatio^t op Actions.
(b) See pp. 619, 620, ante.
(c) See p. 640, a7ite.
(d) Hardy v. Veasey (1868), L. R. 3 Exch. 107 ; Clarke v. London and County
Banking Co., [1897] 1 Q. B. 552, holding a person a customer though overdrawn
Loyd V. Freshfield (1826), 2 C. & P. 325 (compulsion of law) Foster v. Bank
;
of London (1862), 3 F.' & F. 214. It is not clear whether the obligation is a
strictly legal one, see Tassell v. Cooper (1850), 9 C. B. 509.
(/) See pp. 644— 647, pos^.

(g) Rohshaw v. Smith (1878), 38 L. T. 423, where the exhibition of a libellous
anonymous letter was held privileged. For form of letter of inquiry as to financial
position of customer and banker's reply thereto, see Encyclopsedia of Forms, Vol. II.,
pp. 467, 468.
T T 2
— ;
Sect. 21. consequence, unless such answers were put into writing, and signed
Banker's by the banker himself, signature by an agent not being suffi-
Obligation cient (h). Where the banker can be held responsible, it is imma-
to Secrecy. terial whether he gave the information direct to the person acting
on it, or to another banker in order that it might be communicated
to him (^).
Sect. 22. Production, Inspection etc, of Bankers' Books.

Copies of 1297. In all legal proceedings, a copy of any entry in a banker's
entries are books (k), that is to say, in the ledgers, day-books, cash-books,
evidence.
account books, and all other books used in the ordinary business of
a bank {I), is received as prima facie evidence {m) not only of such
entry, but of the matters, transactions, and accounts therein
recorded {n), provided that it is first proved by a partner or officer
Conditions of the bank either orally or by affidavit that the book was at the
of admissi- time of making the entry one of the ordinary books of the bank,
bility.
that the entry was made in the usual and^ ordinary course of
business, and that the book is in the custody or control of the
bank(o) or of the successors to the bank in whose custody or
control it was when the entry was made {p). It must also be
proved in the same manner that the copy has been examined with
the original and is correct {q).
Company in 1298. A banker may be ordered to produce any books and

compulso]'y documents in his possession relating to the account of a person
liquidation.
known or suspected to have in his |)ossession any of the estate
or effects of a company which is being wound up under an order of
the Court, or who is supposed to be indebted to such a company
and the fact that such person's account has been closed is
immaterial {r).
Production 1299. Where the bank is a party to the litigation, the bank can
of originals. stillbe made to produce the books under the ordinary subpoena
duces tecum ; but no banker or officer of a bank, in any legal pro-
ceedings to which the bank is not a party, is compellable to produce
any book the contents of which can be proved as above, or to appear
(/i) Statute of Frauds Amendment Act, 1829 (9 Geo. 4, c. 14), s. 6 i:iwift v. ;
Jeivshury (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 301 ; Williams v. Mason (1873) 28 L. T. 232. A

banking company cannot be held responsible, as a company cannot sign {Hirst
T. West Riding Union Banking Co., [1901] 2 K. B. 560), but the agent signing is
personally responsible {Swift v. Jewsbury, supra).
(i) Hosegood v. Bull (1876), 36 L. T. 617.
{k) Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879 (42 Vict. c. 11, s. 3).
(1) Ibid., s. 9. The expression " used in the ordinary business " does not mean
that the books must be in use every day it is sufficient if the banker keeps a
;
book to refer to if necessary {Asylum for Idiots v. Handysides (1906), 22 T. L. E.

573).
(m) The Act makes copies of such entries evidence against any one ; thus the
entries in a defendant's bankers' books are made evidence against the plaintiff
{Harding v. Williams (1880) 14 Ch. D. 197).
(n) Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879 (42 Yict. c. 11), s. 3.
(o) Ibid., s. 4.
Asylum for Idiots v. Handysides, supra,
(p)
Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879 (42 Vict. c. 11), s. 5.
(q)
Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), s. 115 ; Ee Contract Corporation,
(r)
Druitt's Case (1872), L. R. 14 Eq. 6.
— ;
as a witness to prove the matters and transactions and accounts Sect. 22.
recorded, unless by order of a judge made for special cause (s). Production,
To obtain, however, the benefit of this relief from attendance Inspection
etc. of
and production, the banker or officer must have furnished, or have
Bankers'
been willing to furnish, verified copies of the required entries (t),
Books.
1300. Any party to a legal proceeding (a) who, prior to the Right to
passing of the Act, could have sued out a subpoena duces tecum apply for
order of
in such proceeding (b), may apply for an order that the applicant
inspection
be at liberty to inspect and take copies of any entries in a etc.
banker's book for the purposes of such proceeding (c).
The application for leave to inspect and take copies should Procedure on
application.
be made to a master at chambers. It may be made ex parte (d)
but as a rule it should be made by a summons or a notice
under the summons for directions (e), and if made ex parte
the master will generally order a summons to issue. In ordinary
cases the application, at all events if made ex parte, should be
supported by an affidavit showing what entries it is desired to
inspect and the materiality of the inspection, and that the appli-
cation is made bond fide. But an affidavit is not essential (/), and
where the application is made by summons or on notice and the
materiality of the inspection appears from the pleadings, or
otherwise, it is not necessary (cj). The party whose account is
sought to be inspected may oj)pose the application on any ground
on which mspection of ordinary documents could be resisted (/i).
1301. The main object of these provisions is to enable evidence Object of

to be procured and given (^), and to relieve bankers from the necessity legislation,
for attending and producing their books {k). They enable a party
who formerly had the right to issue a subpoena duces tecum to
compel bankers to produce their books and to attend and be
examined on them, to obtain an order for leave to inspect and take
copies of the books {I). They do not give any new power of
discovery (m), or alter the principles of law or the practice with
regard to discovery or take away any previously existing ground
(s) Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879 (42 Vict. c. 11), s. 6.

(t) Emmott V. Star Newspaper (1892), 62 L. J. (q. b.) 77.
(a) This includes an arbitration (Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879 (42 Vict,
c. 11), s. 10).
Re Marshfield (1886), 32 Ch. D. 499.
(6)
(c) Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879 (42 Vict. c. 11), ss. 7, 10. The order
may be made on a bank in Scotland or Ireland [Kissam v. Link, [1896] 1 Q. B. 574).
{d) v. Hayes (1887), 36 Ch. D. 731.
Arnott
(e) Davies v. White (1884), 53"L. J.
Ibid. ; (q. b.) 275.
(/) Arnott V. Hayes, supra.
(g) Ibid., Sit p. 736.
(h) See notes (m) —
(r), m/m. As to inspection generally, see title Discovery,
Inspection and Interrogatories.
Arnott v. Hayes, supra, at p. 737 Emmott v. Star Newspaper Co., supra.
(i) ;
Parnell v. Wood, [1892] P. 137; Emmott v. Star Newspaper Co., supra;

{k)
Pollock V. Garle, [1898] 1 Ch. 1, at p. 4.
[l) Re Marshfield, supra.
(m) Arnott v. Hayes, supra, per Cotton, L.J., at p. 737 ; but consider Perry v.
Phosphor Bronze Co. (1894), 71 L. T. 854.
{71) Pollock V. Garle, supra, per Lindley, M.R., at p. 4.
Sect. 22. of privilege (o). Nor do they enable a party to get discovery, before
Production, the trial, of entries which would be privileged or protected from
Inspection production (o), or which are, or are sworn to be, irrelevant (p), or
etc. of which are not the subject of discovery apart from the Act {q).
Bankers'
Where, therefore, a party swears that the entries sought to be
Books.
inspected are irrelevant, his affidavit is conclusive, and no order for
inspection should be made before the trial (r).
When The power to order inspection is a discretionary power (s), and
application will be exercised with great caution (a), and on sufficient grounds
granted.
only (b) and the order, if made, should be limited to relevant
;
entries (c) The order will only be made where the entries of
.
which inspection is sought will be admissible in evidence at the

trial (d).
Accounts of It would appear that there
is jurisdiction to order inspection
third persons.
of the accounts of persons who are not parties to the litigation {e) ;
but this power will seldom, if ever, be exercised (/), except where
the account sought to be inspected is in form or substance really
the account of a party to the litigation or is kept on his behalf, so
that the entries in it would be evidence against him at the trial (g),
and then only on notice to the third party (h) and to the bank (i) .
Where, therefore, the plaintiff brought an action to rescind a

contract for the purchase from the defendant of shares in a company,
on the ground of misrepresentation by the defendant as to the
company's finances, leave to inspect the company's banking account
was refused (j).
Pass-book The fact that the plaintiff has scheduled his pass-book in his
exhibited.
affidavit of documents does not necessarily debar the defendant
from getting an order to inspect the banker's book, and in a fit
case an order will be made (A;).
Service of The order must be served on the bank three clear days before it
order.
is to be obeyed unless otherwise directed {I).
Costs. The costs of the application and of anything done or to be done
under the order are in the discretion of the Court, and the whole
or any part of such costs may be ordered to be paid to any party by
(o) South Staffordshire Go. v. Mbsmith, [1895] 2 Q. B. 669, per Kay, L.J.,
at p. 676 Parnell v. JVood, [1892] P. 137, per Lindlby, L.J., at p. 139.
;
(p) Parnell v. JVood, supra.

.
iq) Pollock V. Garle, [1898] 1 Ch. 1.
(r) South Staffordshire Co. v. Ehbsmith, supra.
(s) Emmott v. Star Newspaper Go. (1892), 62 L. J. (q. b.) 77.
[a) Arnott v.(1887), 36 ,Ch. D. 731, jjer Bowen, L.J., at p. 738; South
Hayes
Staffordshire Go. v. Ebhsmith, supra, per Loid Esher, M.K., at p. 674.
(6) Perry v. Phosphor Bronze Go. (1894), 71 L. T. 854.
(c) Arnott v. Hayes, supra. Where a defendant applied for inspection to assist
him to justify a libel imputing pecuniary embarrassment inspection was refused
{Emmott V. Star Newspaper Co., supra).
(d) Howard 1, per Mathew, J., at p. 2.
v. Beall (1889), 23 Q. B. D.
{e) Hoioard supra.
v. Beall,
(/) Pollock V. Garle, supra, per Lindley, M.R., at p. 5.
{g) South Staffordshire Go. v. Ebhsmith, supra ; Pollock v. Garle, supra.
{h) South Staffordshire Co. v. Ebhsmith, supra, per Kay, L.J., at p. 677.
{i) UAmie v. Wilson, [1907] 2 Ir. R. 130.
.
(./) Pollock Y. Garle, supra,

(ji) Perry v. Phosphor Bronze Co., supra.
{I) Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879 (42 Vict. c. 11), s. 7.

—
the bank, where the same have been occasioned by any default or Sect. 22.
delay on the part of the bank. Any such order against a bank may Production,
be enforced as if the bank was a party to the proceeding (in). Inspection
etc. of
1302. The privileges of the Act extend to all banks having duly Bankers'
made a return to the Commissioners of Inland Kevenue, to savings Books,
banks duly certified, and to Post Office savings banks (n) but if the ;
^^^^^
bank is a company registered under the Companies Acts, it must included,
have duly furnished to the Eegistrar of Joint Stock Companies the
prescribed list and summary, with the addition of a statement of
the name of the several places where it carries on business, and
produce his certificate that such is the case (0).
(m) Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879 (42 Vict. c. 11), s. 8.

(n) Ibid., s. 9.
(0) Revenue Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 72), s. 11. See p. 582, ante.
END OF VOL. I.
INDEX.
ABANDONMENT OF CHATTEL. See Bailment, 529. See also Personal

Property ; Shipping and Navigation.
ABATEMENT, of action. See Practice and Procedure.
of legacy. See Wills.
"
of nuisance. See Nuisance.
ABDUCTION. See Action, 43. See also Criminal Law and Procedure.
ABOETION. See Criminal Law and Procedure.
ABSTEACT OF TITLE. See Sale of Land.
ACCEPTANCE. See Bills of Exchange etc. ; Contract ; Sale op Goods.
of title. See Sale op Land.
ACCESSION TO PKOPERTY. See Real Property and Chattels Real ;
Personal Property.
ACCIDENT. See Negligence.
inevitable. See Bailment, 545, 560.
insurance. See Insurance.
ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. See Contract.

ACCOUNT. See Action, Agency
36, Bailment, 536
37 ; Bankers and ;
Banking, 583 — 647. See also Contract Executors and Adm inistrators
;
; ;
Money and Money Lending Partnership Trusts and Trustees.

; ;
ACCOUNTS AND INQUIRIES. See Arbitration, 484, 487. See also Practice
AND Procedure.
ACCUMULATIONS. See Perpetuities.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT. See Evidpjnce ; Limitation of Actions.

See
certificates of. Real Property and Chattels Real ;
Sale of Land.
ACQUIESCENCE. See Bailments, 558, 559. See also Equity.
ACT OF PARLIAMENT. See Action, 14. See also Constitutional Law ;
Statutes.
ACT OF STATE. See Action, 14
ACTION,
abduction, old action of replevin for, 43
Act of Parliament, act authorised by, 14
act of state, 14
Admiralty, action t/i rem, 47
cause, when not an action, 4
See Admiralty, 80 107 —
agisted horse, action for injuries to, founded on tort, 49
aliens, 17, 20
See Aliens, 308
arbitration, award as to amount may be condition precedent to enforcement of
claim, 22, 27
enforcement of, 475
suspension of rights of action, 27
assumpsit, 36
Attorney-General, action by, for infringement of public right, 9
( 1 )
5 6
Index.
ACT101^—cojiti7ivfid.
Attorney-General, consent before action necessary in certain cases, 23
information by, 3
auctioneer, against, for resale in error, action founded on tort, 49
See AucTiOK and Auctioneees.
bankruptcy, cause of action vesting in trustee, 21, 55
convict, of, effect on application of Forfeiture Act, 1870... 30
defence to provable debt, 21
motion by trustee, when not an action, 5
petition, presumption of damage, 13
trustee's right of action for felonious torts against bankrupt, 29
barratry, 52
Board of Trade, action against, for detaining ships, 18 {^)
carrier, against, for delivery after notice to stop in transitu, 49
special assumpsit lay formerly, 37
cause of action, 6
meaning within Common Law Procedure Act, 1852...
champerty, 53
Charity Commissioners, leave of, to sue, when necessary, 23
charity as excuse for maintenance, 53
conditions precedent to action, 22 26 —
consent before action necessary in certain cases, 22
conspiracy, old action for, 41
constable's warrant, demand for inspection of, 26
consuls, no diplomatic privilege, 20
contract and tort, importance and mode of distinction, 48 50 —
conversion, when demand necessary, 23
convicts, subject to Forfeiture Act, 1870. ..29
costs, decree in matrimonial cause, order for payment of costs not a final ju
ment, 3
execution, of, not "costs of action," 5 (.?)
" extra costs " from unfounded legal proceedings not natural damage, 14
libel action, of, agreement to indemnify against, 54
security for, by plaintift: in High Court without visible means, 48
solicitors' agreement to charge nothing for, not maintenance, 54
solicitors' bill of, delivered one month before suing on it, 23
counterclaim against foreign Sovereign, 19
when treated as an "action," 4
county court, remission of actions from High Court, 48
what actions cannot be commenced in, 49 {k)
Crown, no action against, 17
except in certain colonies, 18
set-off against, 18
servants, 18
damage, presumption by bankruptcy petition, 13
of,
by criminal charge, 13
proof of, unnecessary where private right infringed, 7
remoteness of, 16
when essential for cause of action, 9
damnum alsque injuria, 10 16 —
act of state, 14
Act of Parliament, act authorised by, 14
common peril, defence against, 12
defamatory statements, privileged, 12
fatal injuries, 12
legal proceedings without malice, 13
seduction, 11
trade rivalry, 11
use of name, 11
user of land, 10
defamatory statements, privilege, "absolute" and "qualified," 12
definitions, 2
statutory, 3 —
demand before action necessary in certain cases, 23
de minimis non curat lex, 16
detinue, old form of action, 41, 44
when demand necessary, 23
diplomatic ofiicers, privilege of, 19
embracery, old action of decies tantum, 41
error, old action of, 45
( 2 )
Index.
ACTION— cant huied.

extinction of right of action, 31
felonious torts, 27 29 —
foreign land, equitable jurisdiction, 51
real actions as to, no jurisdiction of English Courts, 50
Sovereigns and Governments, 18
counterclaim against, 19
garnishee order, when not a "decision in the action," 5
Government department, remedy by petition of right, 18 (q)
guardian ad litem, 22
infants, 17, 21
specific performance at suit of or against, 21
injuria absque damno, 9
innkeeper, action for loss of property " founded on contract," 49
in rem, judgment, absolute title transferred to purchaser, 47
i7i and i/i personam, 17
rem,
See Admiralty, 80 107—
interpleader issue, technically not an " action," 4
judgment hi re:7i gives absolute title, 48
old action of false judgment, 45
jurisdiction of Enîlish Courts in actions relating to foreign land, 50
jury, old action of attaint for false verdict, 38
decies ta/itum for embracery, 41
libel, agreement for indemnity against possible costs of, not enforceable, 54
publisher has no right of action against circulator, 14
"local" and '"transitory" actions, 50
local authorities, notice of action against, 25
lunatics, 22
maintenance, 51 55 —
agreements to assist litigation, 54
assignment of debt, 55
charity, 53
common interest, 53
criminal proceedings, 52
landlord and tenant, 53
purchase of company's shares, 55
interest in litigation, 54
solicitors, 54, 55
married woman, 17
master and servant, exception to rule of maintenance, 53
matrimonial cause, not an action, 3
merger of cause of action, 31
mistake, money paid under, 23
mixed actions, 34
modern actions, 47 51 —
money counts in old actions of debt, 38
motion by trustee in bankruptcy, w^hen not an action, 5
negotiable instrument, payable on demand, 23
suspension of right of action during currency of, 27
" next friend," 21
^ notice of action, v^^here required by statute, 24 26 —
novelty no bar, 7 (r), 40
nuisance, old action of, 34
on the case for, 34, 39, 40
old forms of action, 31 47 —
abolition of, 45 — 47
account, 36
annuity, 36
assumpsits, "common " and " special," 36
attaint, 38
audita querela, 39
case, 39— 41
champerty, 41
" common counts " and " money counts," 38
conspiracy, 41
covenant, 37
debt, 37
deceit, on the case for, 40
decies tantuni, 41
detinue, 41, 44
( 3 )
—
Index.
ACTIOl^— continued.
old forms of action continued.
dower, right of, 33, 45
dower unde nihil hahet, 33, 45
ejectment, 34, 44, 46
entry, 33, 34
entry, forcible, 42
error, 45
ex contractu. 35 38—
—
ex delicto, 35, 38 45
false judgment, 45
formedon, 33
injunction, 42
in withernam 43,
mandamus, 42
nuisance, 34
on the case, 34, 40
personal, 35 —
45
quare claumm fregit, and ac etiam^ 44
quare impedit, 33, 46
replevin, 43
right in their nature, 33
proper, 33 '
,
trespass, 43
distinguished from trover, 45
on the case, 40
trover, 44
waste, 34 _
on the case for, 34, 41
originating summons, proceeding by. when not an "action," 4
—
personal actions, old forms of, 35 45, 48 (<?)
lêrsonalis actio,'" old " personal action" and " Q.Q,tioTi in personam,,'''' distinguished,
48 (.)
petition, a pleading for purposes of Judicature Act, 1873...5
of right, remedy against Government department, 18
pleading no longer technical, 47
petition, includes, under Judicature Act, 1873. ..5
"Pollock's Act," 1842. ..24
presumption of damage by bankruptcy petition, 13
criminal charge, 13
private right infringed, proof of damage unnecessary, 7
privileged defamatory statements, 12
privilege of diplomatic officers, 19
" proceeding," when it includes " action," 5
public right infringed, particular damage necessary, 9
railway, injury of passenger, tort, 49
loss of goods carried, contract, 49
real actions, 32 — 35
release of " all actions " and of " all suits," 6
replevin, old form of action, 43
rights, absolute or qualified, 9
salvage, action does not lie against Crown, 17 Qi)
scire facias, old writ of, 38
set-ofE against action by Ci'own, 18
claim reduced to £100 by, remission to county court, 48
when treated as an "action," 4
solicitor, agreement to charge nothing for costs, 54
delivery of bill of costs one month before action, 23
mortgage of subject-matter of suit to, 55
specific performance not granted to or against infants, 21
of contracts for sale etc. of foreign land, 51
Statute of Limitations not altered by abolition of old forms of action, 47
statutory remedy, effect of, on right of action, 8
"step in proceedings " under Arbitration Act, 1889. ..453
" suit," 3
summons, writ of, 45
surgeon, old form of action against, 37, 39
suspension of right of action, 27 —30
convicts, 29
felonious torts, 27 29 —
( 4 )
—
Index.
ACT102î—oi>?irnmed.
suspension of right of action continued.
negotiable instrument, receipt of, 27
Vexatious Actions Act, 1896... 30
termination of action, 5
title, absolute, by judgment in rem, 48
to foreign land, no jurisdiction of English courts, 50
tort, "founded on," 49
trade union cannot be sued for tort, 17 (6')
"transitory" and "local," 50
trespass, old form of action of, 40, 43
on land without injury, 8
trover, old form of action of, 44
uhijus ibi remedium , 7
venues, local, abolished, 50
Vexatious Actions Act, 1896... 30
volenti non jit ijijurin, 15
who may sue and be sued, 17 22 —
warranty, old form of action on, 37
waste, old form of action of, 34, 41
voluntary, old action of trespass, 44
writ, capias, 46
de cuvsu, 32
dower, 46
dower unde Jiihil habet, 46
ejectment, 46
error, 45
in luitliernam, 43
magistral, 32
quare clanmni fregit, 44
quare iinpedit, 46
scire facias, 38, 41
summons, 45
trespass, 43
See old forms of action, 31 47 —
ADEMPTION. See Wills.
ADJOINING OWN EES. See Boundaries and Fences ; Easements and

Profits a Prendre Highways, Streets, Footpaths and Bridges
;
;
Mines, Minerals and Quarries Waters and Water Courses. ;
ADMINISTRATION OF ASSETS. See Bankruptcy and Insolvency ; Com-

panies ; Executors and Administrators.
ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSONS. See Executors
AND Administrators.
ADMIRALTY,
action, bottomry. See bottomry, action of.
contested, hearing of, 100
judgment in, 122 124 —
in personam, amount recoverable in, 62
commencement of, 105, 106'
counterclaim by, to action in rem, 95
in county court, 128, 129
origin, 61, 62
procedure in, on default, 107
proceedings by, in particular cases, 67, 69—73
reference of, to Registrar, 117
in rem, commencement of, 80, 81
does not against King's ship, 71
lie
in county court, 128
intervention by parties interested in, 87
origin of, 61
procedure in, as to appearance, 87
decree, 103
hearing, 99—103
interlocutory proceedings, 97, 98
judgment by default, 99, 100
( 5 )
Index.
ADMinAluTY—conHnved.
action, in rem^ procedure in, as to payment into Court, 96
pleadings, 94, 95
writ, issue of, 80
service of, 86
security for costs on appeal in, 125
resijondentia^ 65, 66
transfer of. See transfer of action.
Admiralty Kegistrar, 79
admission of liability, 134
advertisement, order for, in action to limit liability, 110
agreement, jurisdiction conferred on county court by, 127
not to appeal, effect of, 114
v^hen equivalent to decree, 103
appeal from Admiralty Division, 63
Cinque Ports, 139
—
City of London Court, 112 115. See appeal from Inferior Courts.
Colonial Courts of Admiralty, 141
—
county courts, 112 115. Se.e appeal from Inferior Courts.
Court of Appeal, 63
Divisional Court, 111, 112
Inferior Courts, 111— 117
agreement not to appeal, effect of, 114
costs of, 114
in shipping casualty, 117
evidence on, 113, 114
fresh, 114
in case of interlocutory matter, 112
investigation in shipping casualty, 115
" instrument of appeal," 113
leave to, when required, 111, 112
lies to Divisional Court, 111
notice of, and of grounds of, 115
service of, 115, 116
procedure on, 114
remission of cause, 114
report of, to Board of Trade, 116
security for costs of, 112, 113
in case of shipping casualty, 116
time for, 112
warrant of arrest pending, 114
where less than £50 involved, 113
Naval Courts, 117
Kegistrar's Eeport, 121
Salvage Commissioners of Cinque Ports, 140
leave to, when required, 111, 112
to Court of Appeal, 63, 125—127
application for stay pending, 126
assessors on, 125, 126
costs of, 125, 126
evidence on, 125, 126
notice of, 125
reference by Court of Appeal on, 127
Court of Cinque Ports, 139
Divisional Court, 111
House of Lords, 63, 126
appearance after time limited by writ, 87, 88
entering, 87
in action to limit liability, 109
judgment in default of, 99
persons entitled to enter, 87
under protest, 87
appraiser, fees to, 1 38
appraisement, commission of, 89 — 92, 123
apprentice, action in I'em by, for wages, 69
arms and munitions of war, forfeiture of, 78
arrest, caveat against, 83
( 6 )
Index.
AmilTxALTY— continued.
arrest, early power of Court to order, 60, 61
effect or cross-claim or counterclaim on, 95
persons entitled to, 67, 68, 92
release from, in county court, 132
on bail, 88
when suit dismissed, 123
sale of property under. See sale of property under arrest,
warrant of. See warrant of arrest,
assessors. See Trinity Masters,
with Registrar, 119
attachment of party entering caveat warrant, 84
person breaking arrest, 86
solicitor, 85
bail, amount of, 90, 91
before whom taken, 90
default in, after caveat warrant, 100
inherent jurisdiction to require, 63
release on, 88
bail bond, cancellation of, 63
signing, 90
sureties to, 91
Board of Trade, jurisdiction of, in shipping casualty, 115
over droits of Admiralty, 76
order against, to pay costs, 117
rehearing of shipping investigation required by, 117
report of appeal sent to, 116
booty of war, 78
bottomry, action of, 65, 66
reference of, to registrar, 118
warrant of arrest in, 82
where no maritime risk or interest, 66, 67
bond, 65, 66
translation of, 82
British waters, meaning of, 74
cargo, damage to, 73
reference of action for, to Registrar, 118
hypothecation of, for loan, 66
suit by owners of, 81
warrant of arrest of, service of, 85
caveat payment, 91, 92, 122, 123
release, 88, 89
warrant, 83, 84
default in bail after, 100
service of, 85, 86
certificate of registry, delivery up of, 65
Cinque Ports, jurisdiction of, 139, 140
City of London Court, jurisdiction of, 127
claim, statement of. See pleadings,
collision, damage by, 70 — 72
Colonial Courts of Admiralty, jurisdiction of, 141
colours of merchant ships, 77
commission for examination of witness, 98
commission of appraisement. See appraisement,
compulsory pilotage, defence of, in county court, 133
co-owners, actions between, 64, 118
powers of minority of, 64
consolidation of actions, 93, 108
consul, notice to, before action against foreign ship, 130
costs, acceptance of payment into county court, effect of, on, 134, 135
compulsory pilotage, of, 104
contribution to, in salvage, 105
issues, no division of, 103, 104
no order as to, cases in which, 104
of appeal, 114
( 7 )
Index.
ABM.mX'LTY— continued.
costs, ofappraisement of value in salvage, 90
of reference to Eegistrar, 120, 121
of salvors, 104, 105
payment into Court and tender, effect of, on, 96
security for, in discovery, 97
on appeal. See security for costs on appeal,
taxation of, in registry, 124, 125
in Vice- Admiralty Courts, 79
tender before action, effect of, on, 96
counsel, appearance by separate, in consolidated action, 93
attending reference, 120
counterclaim, effect of, on arrest and security, 95
counterclaim in 2)ersonam, to action in rem, 95, 96
county courts, 127 139—
admission of liability, 134
appeal from, 128
appearance, 131
assessors, 136
bail, 131, 132
commencement of proceedings, 129, 180
consolidation, 134
costs, 138
decree, 137
hearing, 135, 136
intervention, 131 ,
judgment, enforcement of, 137

jurisdiction of, 127—129
no right to jury, 136
offer to pay costs, 135
pleadings, 133
default of, 1 34
yrcEcipe^ 130
preliminary act, 133
release of property, 132
setting down, 134
summons, 130
tender, 134, 135
warrant of arrest, 130, 131
Court, payment into. See payment into Court,
out of, 135
Court of Passage, Liverpool, jurisdiction of, 140
cross action, effect of, on arrest and security, 95
Crown property, loss of, 111
damage by collision, 71, 72
filing preliminary act in, 93
damage to cargo, 73
damages, assessment of, by Eegistrar, 117, 118
not made in Court, 102, 103
dangerous goods, forfeiture of, 78
decree in action in rei)i, 103
action to limit liability, 110
county court, 137
of possession, 123
default in county court, of appearance, 131
pleading, 134
High Court, of appearance and pleading, 99, 107
in bail after caveat warrant, 84
default actions in iiersonam, 107
in rem, 99
defence. See pleadings,
derelict, disputes as to, 76
detention of ship, 71, 72
disbursements, 68 70 —
discovery, 97
under reference to Eegistrar, 119
dismissal, wrongful, claim for, 69
( 8 )
.
Index.
ABM.mAl,TY— continued.
District Kegistrar, hearing of reference by, 122
removal of action from, 88
Divisional Court, appeal to, 111
droits of Admiralty, 76, 77
engineer, appeal by, in shipping casualty, 115
evidence b}'' affidavit, before Registrar, 119
examination of witness before trial, 97, 98
expert, 116
extracts from lighthouse logs, as, 99
fresh. See fresh evidence,
on appeal from county court, 113, 114
Registrar's report, 121, 122
to Court of Appeal, 125, 126
reference, 118, 119
shorthand note of, 102
execution, 124
extracts from lighthouse logs, 99
flag, tines for improper use of, 77
flotsam, disputes as to, 76
foreign ship, affidavit before arrest of, 81, 82
jurisdiction of Admiralty Division over, 64, 70 — 73
county court over, 129
notice to consul in proceedings against, 130
order in council relating to Prussian, 74
foreign waters, collisions in, 71
forfeiture, 77, 78
fresh evidence on appeal, from county court, 114
Registrar's report, 121, 122
to Court of Appeal, 126
goods, forfeiture of dangerous, 78
grounds of appeal, notice of, must be given, 115
Gruernsey, Admiralty jurisdiction in, 141, 142
hearing in county court, 135
of action in i-em, 99 103 —
reference to Registrar, 119
history of Admiralty jurisdiction, 59 62 —
House of Lords, appeal to, 126
hypothecation of cargo for loan, 66
illegal acts, forfeiture for, 77
in pej'sonam, actions. See action in jjcvsonavi
in rem, actions. See action in rem.
inevitable accident, effect of, on costs, 104
inferior Courts, appeals from. See appeals from inferior Courts,
inspection by Trinity Masters, 102
instrument of appeal, 113
interlocutory order, appeal from, only by leave, 112
interlocutory proceedings. 97, 98
interrogatories, 97
intervene, persons entitled to, in Admiralty action, 87
county court, 131
Isle of Man, Admiralty jurisdiction in, 142
issues in action, costs of, not divided, 103, 104
Jersey, Admiralty jurisdiction in, 141, 142
jetsam, disputes as to, 76
judgment, enforcement of, in county court, 137
in default, effect of other claims on, 99
in action in personam, 107
in rem, 99
jurisdiction, 59 62 —
of county court, 127
jury, no right to, in county court, 136
no transfer of action where question to be tried by, 107, 108
King's ships, no action in rem against, 71
laches, effect of, on maritime lien, 72
H.L. — I. U 17
Index.
AI>M.mAIjTY—Gontimed.
letters of request, 98
liability, action for limitation of. See limitation of liability.
admission of, 134
lien, maritime. See maritime lien.
possessory, intervention by holder of, 87
statutory, 68
life salvage, 74, 75
ligan, disputes as to, 76
lighthouse logs, use of extracts from, in evidence, 99
limitation of liability, action of, 108 —
111
decree, 110
evidence, 110
persons entitled to appear, 109
pleadings, 109
stay of other proceedings, 110
writ and service, 109
Liverpool Court of Passage, jurisdiction of, 140
mail ship, exemption of, from arrest on giving security, 82, 83
mails, loss of. 111
Man, Isle of, Admiralty jurisdiction in, 142
maritime lien, claimant for necessaries does not possess, 67
definition of, 61
extent of, 61
for damage by collision, 72
salvage, 74
wages and disbursements, 69
intervention by holder of competing, 87
loss of, by laches, 72, 74
negligence or delay, 69
pilots, of, 69
remedy in rem in case of damage to cargo does not confer,
73
time for claims of, 72
marshal, fees payable to, 124 (//)
master of ship, appeal by, 115
removal and appoiatment of, 65
mate, appeal by, 115
mercantile assessors, 136
merchant seamen entering navy, 79
merchants, Eegistrar assisted by, 117, 118
minute of decree, 103
misconduct, forfeiture of wages for, 70
mistake, rehearing on proof of, 103
mortgagee, intervention by, in Admiralty action, 87
motion, notice of, 97
nautical assessors in county court, 136
Court of Appeal, 126
naval courts, 117
necessaries, actions for, in county court, 127
jurisdiction of High Court over, 67
reference of, to Eegistrar, 118
notice before proceedings against foreign ship, 130
sale of ship where owners unknown, 138
of appeal and grounds thereof to be given, 115
appearance in county court, 131
defence of compulsory pilotage, 133
motion, 97
payment into county court, 134
sale of property under arrest, 137
tender and payment into Court, 96
tender in county court, 134
trial, 101
stamp on, 101
objection to Registrar's report, 121
Order in Council referring certain questions to Court, 78
ownership, question of, in bottomry action, 67
payment, caveat, 91, 92, 122, 123
into Court, effect of, upon costs, 96
( 10 )
)
Index.
ABM.lB.AljTY—c^fitinf/ed
payment, into court, in county court, effect of acceptance, 134, 135
release of property by, 132
lieu of bail, 91
notice of, 96
of proceeds of sale, 138
on judgment, 122
out of court, 135
petition in objection to Registrar's report, 121
petition of right, 78
pilot, claims by, 69
pilotage, compulsory, costs where defence of, lOi
notice of, in county court, 133
High Court, 91
pirates, goods 77
of, 76,
pleadings in action In perso?iam, 106, 107
rem., 94, 95
copies of, required at trial, 102
on appeal, 125
to limit liability, 109
trial without, 133
possession, decree of, 123
disputes as to, 63, 64
preliminary act, 93, 94
prize of war, 78
procedure at trial, 99, 100
on reference to Registrar, 117—119
proceedings, commencement of^ 129, 130
proofs, filing, 98, 99
property, salvage of, 75, 76
Prussian ships. Order in Council relating to, 74
purchaser, position of, in case of forfeiture, 77
purser, remedy of, for wages, 69
receiver of wreck, jurisdiction of, 76
rectification of mistakes in register, 64
reference to Registrar, 117 —
122, 136, 137
assessors at, 119
cases in which ordered, 117, 118
counsel, attendance of, at, 120
costs of, 120, 121
discovery under, 119
hearing, 119
procedure on, 118
report under, 120 122—
appeal from, 121
referring back, 122
special case stated under, 120
tender under, 120
Registrar, reference to. See reference to Registrar,
registration of British ships, 64
re-hearing of shipping investigation, 117
on proof of mistake, 103
release, caveat, 88, 89
from arrest in county court, 132
on bail, 88
dismissal of suit, 123
remission of cause to lower Court, 114
removal of action. See transfer of action.
property under arrest, 86
reply. See pleadings,
report to Board of Trade as to shipping casualty appeal, ] 16
respondentia^ action of, 65, 66
restraint on dealing with ship, 64, 65
royal fish, 76
sale of property under arrest, "account of sale" in, 124
after judgment, 123
before judgment, 92
( 11 u
Index.
A'DMmALTY—conti7ined.
sale of property under arrest, co-owners, by minority of, 64
salvage, actions of, appraisement of value in, 89, 90
consolidation of, 93
costs of, 101, 105
claims of King's ships, 75, 76
life, 7i, 75
maritime lien conferred by, 74
property, 75, 76
Salvage Commissioners of Cinque Ports, 139, 140'
seamen, remedy of, for wages, 69
security, collateral, for bottomry bond, 66
effect of cross-action or coanterclaim on giving, 95>
for costs of discovery, 97
on appeal from county court, 112, 113
to Court of Appeal, 125
service of warrant of arrest, 85, 86
writ, 84, 85
effect of, 100
verification of, 86, 87
severance of consolidated actions, 93
ship, caveat against arrest of, 83
dealing with share in, prohibition of, 65
foreign. Sê foreign ship,
forfeiture of, for various acts, 77, 78
in distress, towage of, 68
King's, claims for salvage by, 75, 76
no action in rem against, 71
loss of, effect of, on bottomry bond, 66
mail, exempt from arrest on giving security, 82, 83>
master of, removal and appointment of, 65
Prussian, order in council relating to, 74
release of, from arrest, 88
sale of, at instance of minority of co-owners, 64
warrant of arrest of, 80
ship keeper, interfering with, 86
shi[) owner, appeal by, in shipping casualty, 115
shorthand note, 102, 119
use of, in Court of Appeal, 125
writer, fees payable to, 102 (g)
slave trade. Admiralty jurisdiction over, 78
special case stated by Registrar, 120
stamp not required on agreement not to appeal, 114
on notice of trial, 101
statement of claim. See pleadings.
stay of proceedings bv decree in action to limit liability, 110>
stewardess, remedy of, for wages, 69
subpoena, 98
summons, interlocutory, 97
surety for bail, 90, 91
surgeon, ship's, remedy of, for wages, 69
taxation of costs in Registry, 124, 125
Vice-Admiralty Courts, 79'
telegram, detainer of vessel by, 85
tender in county court, 134, 135
High Court, 96
under reference, 120
tidal waters, towage in, 68
title, questions of, 63, 64
time for appeal, 112
claims for maritime lien, 72
wages, 69
towage, actions of, 68
transfer of action, effect of, 108
from county court, 131
( 12 >
Index.
ADM.m ALT Y— CO Hthiued.

transfer of action, from district registry, 88
grounds
for, 107, 108
trial before Registrar. See reference to Registrar,
High Court, 99—103
notice of, 101
without pleadings, 133
Trinity Masters, duties of, 101
fees to, 101 102
inspection by, 102
presence of, at appeal from Registrar's report, 121
reference to Registrar, 119
generally, 100
trustee in bankruptcy, intervention by, 87
undertaking by solicitor in case of caveat warrant, 83, 84
attachment for breach of, 85
underwriters, intervention by, in action i/i rem, 87
value, affidavit of, in salvage, 89
appraisement of, in salvage, 89, 90
Vice-Admiralty Courts, establishment of, 141
taxation in, 79
wages, actions of, 69, 70
affidavit in, 82
reference uf, to Registrar, 1 18
application for repayment of excess, 79
maritime lien for, persons having, 69
war, booty of, 78
warrant of arrest, 80 82 —
incounty court, 130
mail ships exempt from, on giving security, 82, 83
pending appeal. Hi
service of, 84, 85
caveat. See caveat warrant,
witnesses, examination of, before trial, 97, 98
wreck, jurisdiction over, of Admiralty Division, 76
county court, 127
writ of summons in action in lyermnam, 105, 106
111 rem, 80, 81
service of, 84, 86, 87

to limit liability, 109
wrongful dismissal, action for, 69
ADMISSIONS, See Copyholds; Criminal Law and Procedure; Evidence;

ADOPTION. See Infants.
ADULTERATION. See Agriculture, 285—292. See also Food and Drugs.

ADULTERY. See Husband and Wipe.
ADVANCEMENT. See Descent and Distribution ; Infants ; Trusts and
Trustees ; Wills.
ADVERSE POSSESSION. See Real Property and Chattels Real.
ADVERTISEMENTS. See Companies; Contracts; Criminal Law and Pro-
cedure Trade Marks and Designs.
;
of reward. See Animals, 405

ADVOWSON. See Ecclesiastical Law.
AFFIDAVIT. See Evidence ; Practice and Procedure.
AFFILIATION. See Bastardy.
AFFIRMATION. See Evidence.
AFFREIGHTMENT. See Shipping and Navigation.
( 13 )
Index.
AGENCY, 147—236
abandonment of lien by agent, 199
accounts, duty of agent to keep, 186
right of agent to, 200
principal to, 188
settled, reopening of, on proof of fraud etc., 188
acquiescence, ratification by, 179, 180
act of bankruptcy, effect of principal's, on agent's authority, 234
act of parties, termination by, 230
admission of agent, principal not generally bound by, 215
adoption, ratification by, 178
agent, admission by, 215
and principal, relations between, 181 200 —
third persons, relations between, 219 227 —
appointment of, by deed, 154 156 —
parol, 156
for purchase or sale, 148
signature of contract, 152, 157
informal, 156, 157
attachment of, 192, 193
—
authority of, 160 169. See authority of agent,
bribery of, 216, 217
competency to act as, 151
contracts by. See contracts by agent.
default of, 197
definition of, 147
"
disclosure by, 189
duties of. See duties of agent,
fraud of, 201
lien of, 197
misrepresentations by, principal's liability for, 214
notice to, imputed to principal in certain cases, 215, 216
persons incompetent to employ, 148, 149
personal liability of. See personal liability of agent.
rights of, against third parties, 226, 227
special qualifications for certain classes of, 151
tort of, liability of infant for, 150
alien enemy, incompetency of, to be principal, 149
ambiguous authority, construction of, 164
apparent owner, liability of principal intrusting property to agent as, 204
appointment of. See agent, appointment of.
assignment by principal of mone}' in agent's hands, 224
attachment of agent, 192, 193
attorney, power of. See power of attorney.
auctioneer, agency of, 153
definition of, 153
licence of, 151
See aho Auction and Auctioneers.
authority of agent, 160 — 169
breach of warranty of, 221 —223
construction of, in case of power of attorney, 161 — 163
controlled by recitals, 161
incidental powers implied in, 162, 163
strictness of, 161, 162
where general words, 161, 162
verbal authority, 164
written authority, 163
delegation of. See delegation,
deiivation of, 160
estoppel, arising from, 201
.
exercise of, 168
/express, 201
extent of, 160, 161
general, 201
implied, 164 — 168. See implied authority,
limitation of, 161
bailiff, certificate of; 152
implied authority of, 167
banker^ employment of, by trustee, 171
receiving payment of crossed cheque for customer, not conversion, 225
( 14 )
Index.
AGENCY— conthmed.
bankruptcy of agent, principal's rights on, 203, 204
termination of agency by, 235
principal, agent's liability on, 224, 235
lien on, 198, 235
right of bet-off on, where mutual credits, 235
termination of agency by, 234
barrister, remuneration of, 193 (n)
barter, factor has no authority to, 167
bill of exchange, agent's signature to, 208, 209
authority to sign, on part of executrix, 163
manager, 162, 163
steward, 167
liability ofagent signing, in own name, 221
principal where agent signs, 169, 208
notification of notice of dishonour, 175
bill of sale, agent to make, appointed by deed, 154
breach of faith, loss of agent's right to remuneration by, 196
breach of trust by agent, 226
bribe, agent cannot sue for, 227
may not take, 190, 217
remedies of principal where agent has taken, 191, 216, 217
termination of agency where agent has taken, 230
broker, definition of, 153
care skill and diligence, duty of agent to use, 185
charge by principal on money in agent's hands, effect of, 224
in favour of principal on agent's mixed fund, 204
classes of agents, 152, 153
co-agents, appointment of, 159
authority given to quorum of, 160
defaults of, 193
liability of, 160, 193
commission, agent taking bribe forfeits, 191
from third party, 190, 191
secret. See bribe,
committee, exercise of authority through, not delegation, 172, 173'
company can only contract through agent, 151
ratification by, 174, 176
competency of parties, 148 152 —
compulsory pilotage, shipowner not liable in case of, 214
conduct of parties, authority implied from, 160
construction of authority. See authority, construction of.
contracts by agent,
as ostensible principal, 210, 211
bills of exchange, in case of, 208
custom, incorporation of, in, 182, 207, 208
duties of agent in negotiating, 186
enforcement of, 206, 207
estoppel, on principal by, 207
for foreign principal, 209
liability of agent upon, 184
principal upon, exclusion of, 209
in general, 206, 207
settlement bv third person with agent, effect of,
210
rescission of, by third party, 211
settlement between agent and third person, 210, 211
signature by agent, 152, 207
under seal, 208
contract of agency, fiduciary nature of, 182
formation of, 153 160—
contractor, independent, not agent, 147
conversion by agent, 225, 226
convict, incompetency of, to be principal, 149
co-agents, 159
co-principals, 159
corporation, appointment of agents of, 154 —
156
competency of, to contract, 151
liability of, for holding out an agent, 156
tort of agent, 213
( 15 )
Index.
AGENCY— co7itinued.
corporation, part performance by, 155, 156
ratification by, of acts ult7'a vires, 174
corruption of agent, remedies of principal, 216, 217
'Country solicitor, employment of town agent by, 170
jurisdiction of Court over town agent of, 172
creation of, 153, 154
credit, representations as to, by agent, liability of principal for, 214
criminal liability of agent for acceptance of bribe, 191
misappropriation, 193 Qd)
principal, 217, 218
third party bribing agent, 217
Crown not liable for tort of public agent, 213
ratification by, 181
custody, implied authority to give into, 165, 166
test of, 165, 166
custom, delegation by, 170 .
general lien by, 198

implied authority to act in accordance with reasonable, 167, 168
incorporation of, in contract by professional agent, 207
express contract of agency, 182
implied contract of agency, 182
personal liability of agent on contract by reason of, to principal, 184
~ third person, 220
principal's ignorance of, 168
reasonableness of, 168
remuneration of professional agent regulated by, where no express
contract, 194
rights and liabilities of principal under agent's contract not excluded by,
209
time for termination of agency may be fixed by, 232
to reimburse and indemnify agent, 197
iin reason able, 182, 208
damages, measure of. Sf.e measure of damages,
death of agent, termination of agency by, 234
principal, termination of agency by, 233
deed, agent executing in own name, 208, 221
—
appointment by, 154 156
execution of, by agent, 154, 155
under power of attorney, 168, 169
ratification of, 178
definition of, 147
del credere agency, 153, 184
delegation, 169— 173
acquiescence of principal in, 170
by custom, 170
directors of companies, 169
trustees, 171
general rule against, 169
meaning of, 169
ministerial acts, in case of, 170
on emergency, 171
i-ight of implied, 170
Delegatus non potest delegare, application of maxim, 169, 170
diligence, duty of agent to use, 185
directors under Companies Acts, delegation by, 169
disclosure, duty of agent as to, 189
discovery, third person's right of, against principal, 227
discretion of agent in absence of directions, 183
case of written authority, 163
dismissal of agent, 191, 230
disposition by agent of goods etc., 203, 204
title-deeds, 205
under Factors Act, 205, 206
distress on goods intrusted to agent, 206
drunkard, competency of, to be principal, 150 •
—
duration, 228 236. See termination,
duties of agent to principal as to accounts, 186
bribery, 190
care etc., 185
( 1(5 )
—
Index.
AGENCY continued.
duties of agent to principal as to delegation, 169 —
173, See delegation.
disclosure, 189
negotiation of concract, 18(i
obedience, 183
payment, 187
property, 187, 189
secret profit, 189
use of information acquired, 184
third persons. See liabilities of agent towards third parties,
duties of principal towards agent as to account, 200
indemnity, 193, 196, 197
—
remuneration, 193 195
third persons. See liabilities of principal towards
third parties.
election by third person to look to agent exclusively, 209
efSuxion of time, termination by, 232
emergency, delegation in case of, 171
enemy, alien, incompetency of, to be principal, 149
estate agent, implied authority of, 166
estoppel, person holding out agent bound by, 158, 201
purporting to act as agent bound by, 192
principal bound by, from pleading ignorance, 215, 216
on contract or act of agent, 207
unauthorised agent, 203
ratification by, 179
test of agency by, 159
exercise of authority, revocation of authority not available after, 230, 231
existence of third party essential, 148
existence of principal, agent's liability to disclose, 169
express agenc}^ creation of, 153, 154
express authorit}^, principal bound by acts of agent within, 201
factor, autliority of, not irrevocable, 229
definition of, 152
implied authority of, 167
Factors Act, disposition of goods by agent under, 205, 206
effect of principal's consent to agent's possession under, 205, 206
pledge under, 206
fiduciary nature of contract of, 182
following propert}'-, principal's right of, 203, 204
foreign principal, agent's liability for, 220
personal rights and liabilities of, 209
forgery, no ratification of, 174
formal acts, authority to do, not revoked by bankruptcy of principal or agent,
234, 235
—
formation of contract of, 153 160
fraud of agent against principal, effect of, 216
immaterial to principal's liability to third party where otherwise
bound, 201
rescission of contract by third party for, 211
settled account, reopening on proof of, 188
gaming transactions, agent's rights in respect of, 196, 197, 229
general agent, 152
authority, liability of principal where agent has, 201
—
goods etc. intrusted to agent, disposition of, 203 205
under Factors Act, 205, 206
gratuitous agent, standard of care, skill and diligence required from, 185
holding out, agency by, 158
liability of corporation for, 156
ostensible authority sole test of, 159
house agent,

Halsburys Laws of England - Volume 1 - Action To Bankers and Banking

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Halsburys Laws of England - Volume 1 - Action To Bankers and Banking

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Halsburys Laws of England - Volume 1 - Action To Bankers and Banking

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digitized by the Internet Archive

A COMPLETE STATEMENT OF THE WHOLE

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE

AND OTHER LAWYERS.

HIS MOST CxRACIOUS MAJESTY

BY HIS MAJESTY'S GRACIOUS

For Equity and Chancery Titles

The Hon. Sir CHAKLES SWINFEN EADY,

T. H. CAESON, Esq., KC.

AETHUK UNDEKHILL, Esq., M.A., LL.D.,

For Common Law Titles and Practice and Procedure :

T. WILLES CHITTY, Esq.,

For Local Government Titles and Licensing :

WILLIAM MACKENZIE, Esq., M.A.,

Assistant /iftaiiaGing Bt)itor*

HUMPHKEY H. KING, Esq., B.A., LL.B.,

Aubrey J. Spencer, Esq., M.A. Sidney W. Clarke, Esq.

The Titles in this Volume have been contributed by the

INTEODUCTION . The Ei,2:htlion, the Eael of IIalsbury, a Member

ACTION . George Albert Bonner, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, a

ADMIRALTY The Eight Hon. Sir Gainsfohd Bruce, a Member of

B.C.L., Barrister-at-Law and Edward Stanley ;

AGENCY His Honour Judge Evans, assisted by Montague E.

His Honour Judge Austin and J. Brooke Little,

ALIENS . William Ernst-Browning, Esq., late one of His

ALLOTMENTS Alexander Macmorran, Esq., one of His Majesty's

His Honour Judge Baugh-Allen C. Willougiiby ;

Williams, Esq., B.A., and E. Thornton H. Lawes,

tne Jiioii. iviALUOLM ivi. i\xAOJN aghixjjn jjaiiisLei-au- ,

AUCTION AND His Honour Judge Tindal Atkinson and Henry

BAILMENT . Arthur Powell, Esq., one of His Majesty's Counsel

BANKEES AND Sir John E. Paget, Bart., one of His Majesty's

The Law is stated as at September ist, 1907*

AcHAM, E. Bernard. Andrews, Alexander W.

Bailey, George William, Inner Beal, James.

BiSHOPSGATE Institute, London. Brennand, W. a. B.

BuRDEKiN, Harold P. Carter, Egbeet Samuel.

Clench, Sidney A. Costeker, Charles.

David, George & Evans. Dixon, J. A., B.CL.

Edmundson & Parkes. FiNDLAY & TaiT.

Gamble, Philip A. Goss, Edgar O.

Guthrie & Guthrie. Harvey, A. W. H.

HoDDiNG, Jones & Clark. Inder, William Francis.

Jones, R. O., & Davies. King, Humphrey H., LL.B.,

Lefeoy, Franklin G. Lynch, E. Lloyd.

Maingot, Ferdinand J. Maxwell, F. M.

MoPviARTY, John F., K.C. Nelson, A. E., Middle Temple.

Nathan, Manfred. Norman, R. R. G.

NoTTMAN, John. Payne, R. H.

Porterfield-Eynd, J. A. Rattigan, H. a. B., Lincoln's

EoBiNsoN, Francis George. Samble, Read.

Shaw, His Honour Judge, Southern & Fullalove.

SuDPARDs, Fred. Thorne, H. U. H.

Sussex Law Society, Temple.

Underhill, Arthur, LL.D., Warner, George, Lincoln's Inn.

WictAN, The County Borough Winkfield, J., Lincoln's Inn,

It is hoped to print a Supplementary List at the end of the last volume.

Table of Statutes Ixxv

Table of Cases ----- ciii