Page images
PDF
EPUB

Law Amendment Society, 90.

Law Reform, Scotland, Article on, 157.

Leading Cases, Notes of,

Equity, 115, 294.

Common Law, 117, 303.

Criminal Law, 122.

Lush's Saunders' Pleading and Evidence, Review of, 256.

Martial Law, Article on, 208.

Memoirs of Lord Moncrieff, 261.

Lord Langdale, 283.

Merchant Law, Codes of, Review of, by L. Levi, Esq., 57.

Middle Temple Lectures, Review of, 265.

Murder Trial, A, in America, Article on, 185.

New Statutes, Article on, 276.

Orders in Chancery, General, 135.

Papal Aggression, Article on, 94.
Publications, New, List of, 142, 318.

Oxford Circuit Cause Lists, Article on, 217.

Readings at the Middle Temple, 265.

Saunders on Pleading and Evidence, Review of, 256.

Scotland, Justice to, Article on, 157.

Scotch Consistorial Law, 61.

Sea Shore, Right to Soil of, Article on, 70.

Short Notes of New Books, 123, 314.

Woods and Forests, Article on, 19.

LONDON:

PRINTED BY C. ROWORTH AND SONS, BELL YARD,

TEMPLE BAR.

Digest of Cases.

COMMON LAW.

Comprising the Common Law Cases (not previously inserted) in the following

11 Queen's Bench, part 5.

12 Queen's Bench, part 3.

7 Common Bench, parts 3 and 5.
8 Common Bench, part 1.
4 Exchequer, parts 1, 3 and 4.

Reports :

1 Queen's Bench Practice, part 4.

6 Queen's Bench Practice, part 4. 19 Law Journal (N. S), parts 11 and 12. 20 Law Journal (N. S.), part 1.

ACTION.-Staying, where a tender is pleaded.-Where a plaintiff sued in a superior court for 91. 10s., and the defendant pleaded, except as to 87. 14s. 6d., never indebted, and to that sum a tender, and the jury found for the plaintiff on the first issue to the extent of 10s., and for the defendant on the plea of tender, the court refused to stay the proceedings in an action brought for a sum under 40s., but left the plaintiff to enter a suggestion under the County Court Act (9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 129). Nurdin v. Fairbanks, 1 Q. B. P. 617.

ADVERSE POSSESSION. - Lands came to M., D. and E. as copartners by devise. M. married; and then M. and her husband and D. suffered a recovery of their portions to the uses respectively of M.'s husband for life, remainder to M. for life, remainder to the heirs and assigns of the survivor, and of D. in fee. Afterwards D. and E. married; and by agreement in 1759, recited to be "for drawing a deed of partition," the three husbands agreed to take the devised property and other premises which had come to the wives as coheiresses at certain specified values, and to share the money arising from the estates by means of that division, share and share alike, and it was declared that that agreement should endure till the deed of partition should be executed. The husbands and wives entered upon the respective portions; and they and persons claiming under them were possessed thereof respectively till ejectment was brought as after mentioned. The husband of E. died in 1798, having devised the estates so held by him (not being part of the first devised lands) to E. and to his son, the rents to be equally divided between them

VOL. XIV. NO. XXVI.-DIG.

В

during E.'s life; after her death, to the son in fee. The widow and son entered and took the rents accordingly. The son died in 1802, leaving T. T. M., his eldest son and heir at law. The widow died in 1818. From that time till 1832, T. T. M. received the rents of the premises held by E. and her son as above stated. In 1832 he brought ejectment for E.'s undivided third part of the original estate. A case was stated for the opinion of the court, with liberty to them to draw inferences as a jury might, the questions being, whether the plaintiff was barred by the partition begun 1759, or by the Statute of Limitations. The above facts were set forth; there was no evidence of fine or recovery, or of any other proceeding, to carry the agreement of 1759 into effect, except that in 1830 the defendant, then holding the lands mentioned in the declaration, had written to T. T. M., the lessor of the plaintiff, requesting him to execute a deed, and go through some legal forms, to which T. T. M.'s wife also was required to be a party. The lands held by the defendant were those appropriated by the agreement to D.'s husband, who had died intestate, and D. surviving him, had devised them to a party who had entered in 1801, and under whom defendant came in: Held, that on the express statements in the case, no adverse possession appeared, and therefore none which, before stat. 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27, could have barred the ejectment. That, even if the court could have presumed the suffering of a recovery from length of possession, that presumption was excluded here by the express evidence of a written agreement; and the court could at most only presume something done which would give effect to that instrument. But that, as no more appeared to be contemplated by the agreement than a deed which would not have barred the estate tail, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment. Doe d. Millett v. Millett, 11 Q. B. 1036.

AFFIDAVIT.-1. To hold to bail.-Upon an application to the court to rescind a judge's order for holding the defendant to bail, under the 3rd sect. of the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, no other affidavits can, in general, be used than those which were before the judge when he made the order. Therefore fresh affidavits cannot be used, on an application of this kind, to show either that the plaintiff had no cause of action, or that the defendant was about to quit the country. But fresh affidavits may be used on an application under the 6th section to discharge the defendant out of custody, although a previous application has been made to a judge at chambers under that section. Where the affidavit on which the order to hold to bail is granted disclosed a cause of action for unliquidated damages only, it should specify the amount of damage sustained by the plaintiff. Semble, where, however, a judge had granted an order to hold to bail upon an affidavit which did not contain such a statement, the court refused to rescind the judge's order, or to discharge the defendant out of custody, as the judge might have been satisfied, upon the facts stated in the affidavit, that the plaintiff had sustained damage to the amount for which he ordered the defendant to be held to bail. An affidavit to hold to bail, in an action for criminal conversation with the plain

« PreviousContinue »