CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME.
ceit cannot be maintained by the
feller of his fhare in a trade, against
the buyer, who has perfuaded him
to fell it at a certain price, by
a reprefentation that certain part-
ners, whofe names he will not dif-
clofe, are to be joint purchafers,
and that they will give no more,
although in truth they had autho-
rized the Defendant to purchafe it,
doing the best he could, and al-
though the Defendant charged
them with a higher price than he
gave. Vernon v. Keyes. Page 488
2. Cafe lics against the landlord of
a houfe demifed by leafe, who, un-
der his contract with his tenaut, em-
ploys workmen to repair the houfe,
for a nufance in the house occafion-
ed by the negligence of his work-
men. Leflie v. Pounds. Page 649
In
for goods that were not fea-damaged,
and that an action lay for the fraud.
Page 847
And though the declaration ftated
also that it was fold as and for pi-
mento of good quality and condi
tion, whereas the famples fhewed
that it was dufty and of inferior qua-
lity, yet the jury having found for
the Plaintiffs, the Court refufed to
set aside the verdict. Jones v. Bow-
den.
3. In cafe, the Plaintiff's caufe of ac-
tion arifes, fo entirely as to retain
the venue, in the county where the in-
jury is fuftained. Williams v. Land.
Page 729
4. Cafe for permiffive wafte in buildings
does not lie against a tenant by leafe,
who has not covenanted to repair.
Herne v. Bembow.
5. If a reprefentation be made before
a fale, of the quality of the thing
fold, with full opportunity for the
purchaser to inspect and examine the 10. In an action in tort against fix, the
truth of the reprefentation, and a
contract of fale be afterwards re-
duced into writing, in which that
representation is not embodied, no
action for a deceit lies against the
vendor on the ground that the ar-
ticle fold is not anfwerable to that
reprefentation.
Plaintiff may recover a verdict against
two. Cooper v. South.
ACTION, LIMITATION OF,
See LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.
779 See INSURANCE, III. 2, 3, 4. Mo-
6. Whether the vendor knew of the
defects,
7. Or not. Pickering v. Dowfon, ib.
8. It being ufual in the fale by auc- See EXECUTOR. ABATEMENT.
tion of drugs, if they are fea-da-
maged, to exprefs it in the broker's
catalogue, and drugs which are re-
packed, or the packages of which
are difcoloured by fea-water, bearing
an inferior price, although not da-
maged, the Defendants, who had
purchased some fea-damaged pimento,
repacked it, and advertised it in ca-
talogues which did not notice that
it was fea-damaged or re-packed,
but referred it to be viewed, with
little facility, however, of viewing
it: they exhibited impartial famples
of the quality, and fold it by auc-
tion. Held that this was equiva-
lent to a fale of the goods, as and
AFFIDAVIT TO HOLD TO
BAIL.
1. An affidavit to hold to bail muft
fhew on what account the debt be-
came due, and the deponent's addi-
tion and place of abode. Polleri v.
De Souza.
It is no objection to an affidavit to
hold to bail, which ftates that the De-
fendant is indebted, and denies a ten-
der in bank-notes, that the Plaintiff re-
fides in a foreign country, and that it
does not appear how the deponent
could know these facts. Andrioni v.
Morgan.
UPON THE CASE, 5.
1. There must be a good confideration
for a promise in writing to pay the
debt of another, as well as for any
other promise.
Page 117
14. A Prómife made, after taking bene-
fit of an infolvent act, to pay an old
debt by inftalments, without fpeci-
fying the amount or time of pay-
ment, will not raise a new affumpfit
to pay the debt. Mucklow v. St.
George.
Page 613
ALIEN ENEMY,
And fee LICENCE TO TRADE, I, 2. 7.
No action will lie on the prothonotary's
allocatur for cofts. Fry v. Malcolm.
2. A count averrring that J. A. made a
biil of fale of goods to the Plain- AMENDMENT OF FINES AND
tiff, in confideration of a debt of
122/. 195., due from J. A. to the
Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff being
about to fell the goods in fatisfaction
of his debt, the Defendant under-
took to pay him 122l. 195. if he
would forbear to fell, does not fhew
that this is a promise to pay the debt
of another with fufficient diftin&tnefs
to bring the cafe within the ftatute
of frauds. Barrell v. Truffel. ib.
3. In order to facilitate the making of
an agreement, for which there was
fufficient confideration between the
Plaintiff and a third perfon, the De-
fendant, who received no benefit to
himself by the agreement, became
party thereto: Held, that as the
agreement was fuch as the Plaintiff
would not have made, unless the De-
fendant had acceded, there was a
fufficient confideration for the De-
fendant's promise. Bailey v. Croft.
See FINES AND RECOVERIES, AMEND-
2. A conceffion to the grantor of an
annuity of a greater facility of re-
demption, made at a time fubfe-
quent to the original grant of the
annuity and enrolment of memorial,
needs not to be memorialized. Booth
v. Druce.
The grantor
of an annuity was re-
quired, for further security, to make
her will and depofit it with the
grantee, and to make an affidavit
that she would not revoke it: a ma-
giftrate refused to let her fwear the
affidavit, but the grantee retained
the will. 10, which had been re-
tained till the grantee fhould make
the affidavit, were then paid to the
grantee. The memorial did not notice
the will. Held that the memorial was
therefore bad, but that the 10l. was
not money retained within f. 4. of
the flat. 17 G. 3. c. 26. Ex parte
Mackenzie.
5. Semble that nothing more is necef
fary to make good the memorial of
an annuity, than a compliance with
the requifites which are prefcribed
in terms by the ftatute 17 G. 3. c. 26.
f1. Horwood v. Underhill. Page 346
6. The grantor of an annuity who is
discharged out of cuftody under the
infolvent at 51 G. 3. c. 125. is dif-
charged both as to his perfon and
property from all future payments of
the annuity; but the act is no dif-
charge of his fureties, or of fpecific
fecurities. Cowley v. Buffell. 460
7. It is fufficient in the memorial of
an annuity to state that the fecurities
were executed" in the prefence of
T. C. of, &c." without expreffing
that he fubfcribed his name as an
attcfting witnefs. Wallis v. Lade.
8. The infolvent act 51 G. 3. c. 125.
is a bar to an execution against the
perfon of the grantor of an annuity,
in covenant for inftalments accruing
after the Defendant's discharge un-
der that act. Mence v. Graves. 854
1. No action can be maintained for har-
bouring an apprentice as fuch, if the
mafter to whom he was bound was
then not an housekeeper, and of the
age of 24 years.
1876
2. Whether in an action by a master
323
for harbouring his apprentice, it is
neceffary for him to prove that he
has made oath that the premium
mentioned in the indentures is the
whole premium he has received,
quare.
4. If the grantor of an annuity fecures
it by a bond, whereby he binds him-
felf, his heirs, &c., it is not necef-
fary that the memorial of the bond
fhould defcribe it as binding his
heirs.
346
And fee MONEY HAD AND RÉCEIVED, I.
1. An action of trefpafs lies for an in-
ferior military officer against his
fuperior officer (both being under
martial law,) who imprisons him for
difobedience to an order made under
colour, but not within the scope of
military authority. Page 67
2. Although the imprisonment be fol-
lowed by a trial by a court-martial.
4. Nor, as it seems, to order them to
attend fchool to learn to read and
write. Warden v. Bailey.
5. A foldier is gifted with all the
rights of other citizens, and is bound
to all the duties of other citizens,
and he is as much bound to prevent
a breach of the peace or a felony as
any other citizen. If it is neceffary
for the purpose of the preventing
mischief, or for the execution of the
law, it is not only the right of fol-
diers, but it is their duty, to exert
themselves in affifting the execution
of a legal procefs, or to prevent any
crime or mischief being committed.
Burdett v. Abbott, 449, 450.
And fee AFFIDAVIT TO HOLD TO BAIL.
ib.
ATTORNEY, I. ESCAPE, I.
1. A plea juftifying an arreft by a
private person, on fufpicion of felony,
|