Page images
PDF
EPUB

151

WIOS

[ocr errors]

Mo

....... 149

219

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

297

136

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Page 1

Page

Hammond v. Mather ......

Mason o. Wythe ......

153

Harrington v. Binns ....... | Melia v. Neate and Others.... 757

Harrison v. Cant......... 277 Meyer and Another v. Barnett

- - v. Universal Insurance

and Another.............. 696

Company ............vo.

190 Mildred v. Weaver .......... 30

Hartland v. Jukes ......

Morley v. Baker ........... 146

Hattersley v. Hatton ... 116 — v. Midland Railway

Hawkins v. Hill ..... .. 262

Company ..........

Henderson o. Lloyd ....

- et Uxorv. Midland
Herschfeld v. Brown ...

Railway Company .. 961
Hirst v. Goodwin .......

Morrison v. Belcher .......
Hiscock v. Hollings ...

| Moss v. Tribe ......

Holmes v. Clark ............ 336 Norbury (Lord) v. Kitchin. 292

Houlder v. The General Steam Ogden v. Rummens

751
Navigation Company

...... 170
Oxenham v. Smythe

85
Hudson v. Slade ............ 390 Paget v. Birkbeck ... 683
Hughes v. Græme and Another 885 Painter v. Abel ......... 518
Hunt v. Allgood ....... 155 Pearce v. Tucker.......
v. Gunn .......

223 | Perez v. Alsop ...... 188
Hurrell v. Bullard ..... 445 Pickernell v. Jauberry

217
Irwin v. Grey .....

Pool v. Whitcombe ...
Jardine v. Leathley ...

Quilter v. Jorss .........
Jones v. Green.......
41 Reed v. Fairless

958
Jordan v. Gibbon ....

607

Reg. v. Aldridge ....... 781

Kahnweiler v. Dobson.

- v. Brown..

Kelly v. Lawrence ...... 826 v. Burton
Ker v. Bullard......... 438 · v. Cobden

833
Key v. Mathias ..

279 v. Colucci.....
King v. Viscountess Forbes 41

v. Cradock

837

Konig v. Ritchie....... 413

v. Crawley ...

109

Laing v. Smith...

v, Croucher

285
Lane v. Panton .....

v. Davis .......

Lansdowne v. Somerville

v. Day........

526

Lascaridi v. Gurney

- 0. Dennis ......

Lee v. Dixon ...........

744

v. Garner
Leverson v. Lane.
221 v. Green.

274
- v. Schwabacher ... 117

v. Heaton

819
Lewis v. Cole ........

17
0, Hore

315
Lienard v. Dresslar..........

- v. Horsey

287

Lindsay and Another v. Leath-

v. Hurrell

271

ley .........

902
v. Jarvis.

108

Line v. Taylor..............

v. Luck

483

Longhurst v. Elworthy ......

v. Marsh

523

Longman and Others v. The

· v. Menage ..

310
Grand Junction Canal Com-

v. Mick
pany ..........

736 0. Murton ..

Lovatt o. Tribe ........

-0. Paget .....

Luff v. Horner.............. 480 - v. Quin ..

Marsh v. Jelf .............. 234

- v. Richardson.... 693

Mason v. Clifton, Bart. ...

— v. Ridgway....... 838

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Page

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Page
Reg. 1. Salt.....

834 Seymour v. Butterworth...... 372
- o. Smith ..........123, 504 Smith v. Allen ........ 156, 157
v. Spencer ........854, 857 - - v. Dowell ......

238

v. Stevenson .......... 106 - 0. Rudhall .... 143

v. Thompson and Another 824

v. Torr .......

505

v. Townley ............ 839 Sowerby v. Wadsworth ...

v. Train .........

We 22 Spanton v. Hinves ....

o. United Kingdom Tele Stuckey v. Bailey

graph Company .... Swaby v. Vallez ......... 230
- v. Vamplew .......... 520 Symn v. Fraser and Another .. 859
- 0. Vyse ..............

Tamvaco v. Lucas ....

- v. Wardell ....

82 | Taylor v. Dalton ......

- v. Welsh ......

275

v. Smith .....

-- 0. Wilson ...... 19 Thompson v. Clark..

Rich v. Pierpoint......

35 Topping v. Healey ....

Richardson v. Neaves and An-

Turner v. Barlow

946

other ..............

815

r. Owen ......

176

Rippon v. Priest and Others .. 614 Walker v. Sheerman .

259
Roberts v. Richards ........ 507 Wallis v. Robinson ....
Roupell and Others v. Waite.. 511 Walton v. Burton ...

- and Another v. Haws Watts v. Ainsworth....

and Others ......

• 784 | Westbrook v. Kerrick ... 59

Rucker and Another v, Lunt .. 959 Wilson v. Hollings .....
Sack v. Ford .....

209 Witherley v. Regent's Canal

Schweir v. Thorns .....

.. 243 Company ................ 61

Schweitzer r. Long .......... 687 i

.... 687 | Wood v. Woods ....... 214

Scott v. Wakem ............ 328 Woodward v. Peto .......... 389

307

278

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

1862.

ing

STUCKEY v. BAILEY.

Spring Assizes. THE first count stated that the defendant, by falsely A contract by

r. parol, or by warranting that a ship was sound, sold it to the plaintiff'; letter whereas it was not sound.

been entered

into for the sale Second count, on a false representation.

of a ship, with Pleas: denying the warranty, the breach, and, to the subsequent bill

of sale, not second count (on which nothing turned), not guilty.

containing any

contract of M. Smith and Cole for the plaintiff.

destroy the Karslake and Kingdon for the defendant.

previous war ranty, sup

posing there is The parties lived at a distance from each other, and no evidence

that the parties there had been some letters between them in February and did not intend March, in which the contract was concluded, and which

warranty, does not necessarily

"continue. VOL. III,

hat it should

F.F.

1862.

STUCKEY

BAILEY.

went to show a warranty in the terms stated. The plaintiff' saw the vessel, and oral communications had passed between him and the master.

On the 23rd of April, 1860, the bill of sale was executed and registered, as required by the Merchant Shipping Act (a). And it contained no warranty.

It turned out that the masts were unsound.

Evidence was offered on the part of the defendant that, after the first of the letters, the plaintiff had seen the ship, and that he had been told that if he desired to be satisfied as to the masts, he must have them examined. And it was contended that the bill of sale precluded the action.

Byles, J. (after consulting BLACKBURN, J.), rejected the evidence (6), and held that the letters amounted to a warranty; and that it mattered not that the plaintiff might possibly have found out the defects. The only question was, whether there had been a breach of the warranty (c).

(a) In Duncun v. Tindal, 13 Com. B. Rep. 258, it was held that even an executory contract for the sale of a ship is not valid unless registered as a bill of sale. But, though this shows that a contract cannot be without a bill of sale, it does not show that there can be no contract except what is in the bill of sale; and in Chapman v. Callis (Vol. II., p. 161) the contrary was held. And though that case went into banc (9 C. B., N. S. 769), it was not overruled on that point.

(6) The learned Judge, in effect, ruled not to reject evidence that the plaintiff did not complete the purchase relying on the warranty (Incledon v. Watson, Vol. II., p. 841); but that the mere fact that the plaintiff might, by inspection, have found out the defect, was not an answer; Ferrier v. Pea

cock, Vol. II., p. 717. And Willes, J., seemed to approve of the ruling, and cited Harris v. Ricketts, 4 H. & N. I, and Myers v. Willis, 17 C. B. 77, in support of it.

(c) This, of course, implied that there might be a warranty by the previous letters, although the bill of sale did not embody it. That would be in accordance with the ruling in Chapman v. Callis (Vol. II., p. 161), and with the authorities and analogies. In the case of a mortgage, there is no merger of the previous simple contract to repay the money, unless there is a covenant to repay it. See Aston v. Yates, 4 Q. B. Rep. 182. And under the Merchant Shipping Act the bill of sale is not necessarily a contract at all; it is alio intuitu. See Liverpool Borough Bank v. Turner, 30 L. J., Ch. 379.

« PreviousContinue »