AN INDEX TO THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS. ACTION. See ASSUMPSIT. ACTION ON THE CASE. See SHIP, 1. AFFIDAVIT. See FINE, 2. JURY, 1. NEW TRIAL, 5. WARRANT OF ATTORNEY, 1. If a bail bond has been irregularly stance; and the affidavits to set Page 600 AGENT AND PRINCIPAL. See ANNUITY, 3, 4. 1. Although where an agent has 527 AGREEMENT. See AGENT, 1. ASSUMPSIT, 3. BAIL, 4. EXECUTORS. USE AND OCCUPATION, 1. 1. Where the plaintiff's attorney, having received a sum of money from the defendant for the plaintiff in the progress of the cause, entered into an agreement to secure it to the latter, in which was contained a proviso, that the agreement should be made a rule of Court ;-Held, that the Court had no authority to direct it to be done, as the statute 9 & 10 Will. 3, c. 15, is confined to cases of submissions to arbitration; and as the plaintiff's attorney was no party to the original suit: and that the plaintiff's only remedy was by action for the breach of the agreement. H. 3 & 4 G. 4. Page 466 AMENDMENT. See RECOVERY. VARIANCE, 5. 1. Where, on the dissolution of a partnership between the plaintiff and defendant, the latter pleaded, that after the making of the indenture by which the partnership was dissolved, and before the commencement of the suit, a claim or demand was made on him in respect of a debt of 2001. by one J. H., as being a debt contracted by the plaintiff on account of or on the credit of the partnership since its dissolution: such plea was held bad on special demurrer, assigning for cause, that it did not appear that the claim was made on the defendant in respect of any debt actually contracted by the plaintiff on account of such part nership:-And the Court, after argument, refused to allow the plea to be amended; although it was stated that the demand was Want made for a bond file debt. v. Reece, T. 3 G. 4. Page 244 2. Where a declaration in trespass contained two counts, the first for assaulting the plaintiff and destroying a scraper affixed to his house; and the second for destroying the scraper; and the jury found a general verdict for him, damages two shillings: Held, that he was entitled to his full costs, and the Court would not allow the postea to be amended, by entering a verdict for the defendant on the first count. Reece v. Lee, M. 3 G. 4. 269 3. Where the defendant was in custody under an extent, and a capias was issued against him at the suit of the plaintiff, and delivered to the sheriff, who returned, that "he had taken the defendant, whose body remained in prison under his custody:" the Court refused to allow the return to be amended by striking it out and making another according to the fact. The King v. Worcestershire (Sheriff), in a cause of Ibbotson v. Tyndall, H. 3 & 4 G. 4. ANNUITY. See INSOLVENT Debtors, 2. 552 1. On an application to set aside an annuity, on the grounds that the consideration money did not belong to the grantee, and that part of it was retained at the time the annuity was granted; the grantor must make an affidavit of the circumstances attending the original transaction. Dartnall v. Wellesley (Marquis), E. 3 G. 4. 63 2. By the statute 53 Geo. 3, c. 141, 1 s. 2, and schedule therein contained, it is required, that the witnesses shall be described in the memorial of an annuity, as E. F., of, and G. H., of ; and where the witnesses to the deeds for securing the payment of an annuity were attornies' clerks : Held, that they were properly described as E. F. and G. H., clerks to J. G., of C. street, in the county of M., being the place where the latter carried on his business as an attorney; and that it was not necessary to describe them as of their residence or place of abode. St. John v. Champneys, (Bart.), M. 3 G. 4 Page 382 3. Where the defendant, as surety for the grantor of an annuity, executed a warrant of attorney to confess judgment, as a collateral security for the due and regular payment of the annuity, subject to a defeasance, that after any default should be made by the grantor in payment of the annuity, the grantee might sue out execution upon such judgment against the defendant, for such part of the annuity as should be then due :-and the annuity being in arrear, and the rents of the estates of the grantor, on which it was originally secured, being unpaid, the agent and trustee of the estates, who negociated the annuity as between the grantor and grantee, advanced to the latter a sum of money in anticipation of the accruing rents, and deducted and retained the usual commission charged by him on the receipt and payment of annuities : Held, that such advance must be considered as a payment made on account of the grantor, as the principal; and that on the insolvency of the latter, and the rents of his estates proving insufficient to satisfy the amount, the grantee VOL. VII. 4. 2 T could not resort to the defendant as his surety, to recover the whole of the arrears of the annuity then due; as whatever sum he had received from the agent on account of the annuity, operated to that extent to the extinguishment of the liability of the surety :-Where, therefore, an execution was issued against the defendant, as such surety, for the whole of the arrears due from his principal (the grantor), and under which he was detained in custody, the Court ordered him to be discharged on payment into court of the balance due, after giving credit for the advance; the amount of which balance was to be ascertained by the Prothonotary. Williamson v. Goold, (Bart.), H. 3 & 4 G. 4. Page 579 So, where, upon the grant of an annuity, the agent who negociated it as between the grantor and grantee was appointed trustee and receiver of the rents of the estate on which it was charged, and afterwards advanced money to the grantee out of his own funds, in anticipation of the receipt of the arrears from the estate of the grantor, and debited the grantee with the usual commisson charged by him on the annuity payments;-Held, that upon the eventual failure of the securities and insolvency of the grantor, the agent could not treat such an advance as a mere loan; but that it must be taken as a payment made to the grantee in liquidation of the arrears of the annuity; and that the latter could only issue execution against the grantor for the amount of the arrears actually due, after deducting the sum advanced and received by him from such agent. Carroll v. Goold, (Bart.), H. 3 & 4 G. 4. 621 APPROPRIATION. See AGENT. ARBITRATION. See AGREEMENT, 1. AWARD. COSTS. NEW TRIAL, 4. ARREST. See BAIL, 2. BANKRUPT, 2. 1. Where the defendant, on being arrested, deposited certain goods in the hands of the officer who arrested him, in lieu of bail, and afterwards surrendered himself;two days after which, the officer deposited with the Prothonotary the amount of the original debt, and 101. for costs: Held, that the defendant was entitled to have those sums paid over to him, as if they had been paid in under the statute 43 Geo. 3. c. 46, he would be entitled to them on his render; and if not, they must be taken to have been paid into Court by mistake. Hill v. Ching, M. 3 G. 4. 432 Quare. Whether the depositing goods with the officer on an arrest, instead of money, is a coinpliance with the terms of that statute ? Id ibid. And see Offley v. Weaver, post, tit. Costs. ASSAULT. See AMENDMENT, 2. NEW TRIAL. ASSIGNEES. See BANKRUPT. GUARANTIE 1. ASSUMPSIT. See VARIANCE, 5. 1. An action of assumpsit cannot be maintained against the Secretary at War, by a retired clerk of the War Office, for his retired allow. ance, although such allowance was included in the yearly esti mates drawn for by such Secretary, and received by him as applicable to such specific allowance; on the ground, that the Secretary is only chargeable in his public and official character; and that an action cannot be maintained against him as such, for any thing done by him in that character, although it may amount to a breach of employment, as it would tend to expose him to an infinite number of actions, to be brought by any persons who might suppose themselves aggrieved. Gidley v. Palmerston (Lord.) E. 3 G. Page 91 2. Where the plaintiff declared in assumpsit for work and labour, in healing and curing the defendant's horses, within the jurisdiction of a county court, and for divers potions and medicines administered and applied on those occasions:-On a writ of false judgment, assigning that it did not appear that the potions, &c. were supplied by the plaintiff on the occasions therein mentioned, within the jurisdiction of the court, and that the consideration for the promises was not stated to have arisen there:-Held, that it was sufficiently alleged in the declaration, that the potions were administered within the jurisdiction. Dunn v. Crump, E. 3 G. 4. 137 4. 3. Where G. S. being in partnership with J. S. signed an agreement on behalf of both, to pay the plaintiff |