ΤΟ

1. Under an attachment issued in pur-
suance of the act against abscond-
ing and absent debtors, the sheriff
may take and sell property of which
the absconding debtor is a tenant
in common with another, though it
be in the possession of his co-tenant.
Mersereau v. Norton,
179
2. But the sheriff can sell only the un-
divided moiety or interest of the
debtor, and the purchaser at such
sale becomes a tenant in common
with the other co-tenant, who can-
not, therefore, maintain trespass or
trover against him, the tenancy in
common not being severed or de-
stroyed by the sale.

ib.

THE

leed by feme covert, vide COLONIAL
LAWS, 3. DEED, I. 1, 2, 3.

ACTION.

1. Where the plaintiff has an entire de-
mand, he cannot divide it into dis-
tinct parts, and bring separate ac-

tions for each; as, on an entire
contract of sale of goods, he cannot
maintain an action for one part of
the goods sold, and another action
for another part. Smith v. Jones,
229

2. So, where there has been a trespass
or conversion by any single indi-
visible act, in relation to several
chattels, the plaintiff cannot split
his claim for damages, by bringing
separate actions of trespass, or tro-
ver, for each particular article
seised or converted; and a recovery
for one part or parcel is a bar to an
action for another part or parcel.
Farrington and Smith v. Payne,

432

3. An action on the case against a

sheriff for a false return, is within
the provisions of the act for the
more easy pleading in certain suits,
(March 21st, 1801, sess. 24. c. 47.
s. 4. 1 N. R. L. 155.) and the
plaintiff is bound to show that the
cause of action arose within the
county where he has laid his venue.
Seeley v. Birdsall,
267
4. There is a distinction between acts
done colore officii and virtute officii:
in the former case, the act being of
such a nature, that his office gives
him no authority to do it, the sheriff
is not protected by the statute; but
where, in doing an act within the
limits of his authority, he exercises
his authority improperly, or abuses
the confidence which the law re-

AGENT.

1. An agent who makes a contract in
behalf of his principal, whose name
he discloses, at the time, to the per-
son with whom he contracts, is not
personally liable. Rathbon v. Bud-
long,

.

1

ib.

2. There is no difference in this re-
spect between an agent for govern-
ment and an individual.
3. The principal is liable for the acts
of a general agent, acting within the
general scope of his authority; and
a third person cannot be affected
by any private instructions from the
principal to his agent. Munn v.
The Commission Company;

44
4. But the principal is not bound by
the acts of a special agent beyond
his authority.
ib.

5. A company incorporated for the
purpose of selling goods on commis-
sion, is bound by the acceptance
of its general agent of a bill drawn
on the company, on account of
goods stipulated to be deposited
with the company, for sale on com-
mission.

ib.

to receive a passport from the cap-
tor, to protect the vessel from
another capture.
ib

3. In an agreement for the sale and
conveyance of land, the vendor cov-
enanted to convey the land, which
was to be surveyed, free of encum-
brances, by the first of January.
The land was not surveyed in time,
and the vendee declared that he
would take no advantage on ac-
count of the vendor's not conveying
on the precise day mentioned in the
agreement. It was held, that the
vendee, by enlarging the time, did
not waive his right to recover a sum
which was fixed and liquidated by
the agreement, as the amount of
damages to be recovered by the
party failing in performance, even
admitting that his consent to extend
the time amounted to an agree-
ment; for such subsequent agree-
ment by parol, was void by the
statute of frauds, and could not
alter, revoke, or modify the previous
valid contract. Hasbrouck v. Tap-
200
4. A mere extension of the time of
performance of an agreement, is
not a waiver of any of its stipula-
tions. S. C. Per Thompson, Ch. J.

-

.

pen,

204

5. In an action to recover the amount
of a promissory note, delivered by
the plaintiff to the defendant, in
pursuance of an agreement between
them, of which note the defendant
had received payment, the plaintiff
may show that he was, at the time
of making the agreement and de-
livering the note, insane, and inca-
pable of contracting. Rice v. Peet,
503

Agreement avoided by fraudulent mis-
representations, vide ASSUMPSIT
FOR GOODS SOLD.

Illegal agreement, vide SHERIFF, 1.

Vide COVENANT, 4, 5. DEED, . 7.
465

AMENDMENT.

1. Where one count in a declaration
is good, and the others bad, if the
judge will certify that the evidence
applied solely to that count, or that
all the evidence given would prop-
erly apply to that count, as well as
the others, the verdict may be
amended by applying it to the good
count; and if the evidence did not
particularly apply to the bad count,
the verdict may also be amended.
Cooper v. Bissel,
318
2. Where a Court of C. P.. refused
leave to amend a general verdict,
by applying the evidence to one
count, and to enter a nol. pros. as
to the other, this Court, on a writ
of error, judgment having been en-
tered on the verdict below, cannot
grant leave to amend the record.

ib.
3. It seems, that a Court of errors
cannot grant an amendment by in-
quiry into facts dehors the record.
ib.

APPEAL.

From order of removal, vide EVIDENCE,
VI. 18.

ARREST OF JUDGMENT.

Vide JUDGMENT, 2.

ASSETS.

Vide FRAUDULENT SALES AND CONVEY-
ANCES, 1.

ASSIGNMENT.

Where an assignee recovers a judgment
in the name of his assignor, and
takes out a ca. sa., giving the sheriff
notice of his equitable interest, and
the sheriff, having arrested the de-
fendant, suffers him to escape, the
assignee my maintain an action

against the sheriff, for the escape,
in the name of the assignor, which
the sheriff cannot defeat by taking
a release from the nominal plaintiff.
Martin v. Hawks,
405

Assignment by debtor in trust to pay
debts, vide FRAUDULENT SALES
AND CONVEYANCES, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

ASSUMPSIT.
ASSUM

1. Where a party in a suit becomes
entitled to costs from the opposite
party, for opposing a motion, who
(the costs having been taxed)
promises to pay the bill, the promise
is founded on sufficient considera-
tion, and will support an action.
Warner v. Booge,
233
2. Where an ejectment cause was re-
ferred by consent of the parties,
and the land in question surveyed,
it was held, that the party succeed-
ing in the cause, who had paid ex-
penses attending the survey, was
entitled to recover half of these ex-
penses from the opposite party, there
being some evidence of an agree-
ment that they should be borne
equally, and such expenses not
being admissible in the taxation
of the costs of the suit. Low v.
Vrooman,

238
3. Where a person has, at the request
of an overseer of the poor, and on
his promise that he would see him
paid, boarded a pauper, and fur-
nished him with necessaries, he
may maintain an action of assump-
sit against the overseer, although no
order had ever been made for the
relief of the pauper. King v. But-
ler,
281
4. A declaration in assumpsit stated
a promise from the plaintiffs to the
defendant not to require the pay-
ment of a certain note, endorsed by
the defendant to the plaintiffs, in
consideration whereof the defend-
ant promised the plaintiffs to in-
demnify them from one third of all
loss which they might sustain in