taken, and for injunction to restrain action. De-
murrer to bill for want of equity overruled. Rheam
v. Smith, 97

Partnership (continued) - Memorandum in which
defendant agrees to pay plaintiff 100l. per annum,
in consideration of his general services in busi-
ness; and in addition to this plaintiff is to receive
one-fifth of net profits on all new business entered
into through plaintiff, including also net profits of
insurance, constitutes a partnership, and plaintiff
entitled to a receiver. Katsch v. Schenck, 386
Patent Attorney General conducts action of scire
facias according to his own judgment and discretion,
and may stay proceedings therein, or enter a nolle
prosequi, subject only to responsibility to which
every public servant is liable in discharge of his
duty. The sci. fa. is not granted as of course;
if application to Attorney General to stay proceed-
ings or enter nolle prosequi unsuccessful, Court
of Chancery no jurisdiction to interfere.
Chancellor acting as Judge in Court of Chancery,
either on common law or equity side, no authority
in matters which depend on discretionary exercise
of Royal prerogative. Semble-Crown would not
forbear to direct necessary process to be taken,
because information given by alien, or person who
had no direct interest, or was actuated by improper
motive. Practice of taking security in cases of this
kind, introduced by Attorney General alone, almost
within living memory, and no instance of Court in-
terfering upon the subject; but if it could be shewn
to Attorney General that security had become or
was insufficient, he would stay process till it was
made good. R. v. Prosser, 35

Lord

Patentee, by deed, granted exclusive licence
to A, who covenanted to work patent in par-
ticular mode; A. then contracted to sell all his
interest in patent to B, C, and D. On bill filed
by patentee to restrain B, C, and D. from violating
covenants and conditions of deed of licence, they,
by their answer, denied validity of patent, and
alleged they had discontinued use of it; and motion
for injunction ordered to stand over, with liberty
to plaintiff to bring action at law. Plaintiff not
entitled to any admission from defendants as to
validity of patent, or as to their being licensees. Pid-
ding v. Franks, 295

Pauper-If plaintiff obtain order to dismiss bill as
against pauper defendant, defendant entitled to
pauper costs only, and not full costs. Rubery v.
Morris, 72

Plaintiff having obtained order to dismiss his
bill as against pauper defendant, defendant entitled
to dives costs. Prior report of this case, ante, p. 72,
corrected. Rubery v. Morris, 444

Pawnbroker-not disqualified from lending sum ex-
ceeding 101. upon deposit of goods upon terms as to
interest allowed by 2 & 3 Vict. c. 37. Fitch v. Roch-
fort, 458

Payment of Money into and out of Court-Costs of,
under stat. 10 & 11 Vict. c. 96, for better securing
trust funds paid by executor out of testator's estate.
Cawthorne, in re, 116

All parties interested in fund must be before
Court, and undertaking by plaintiff to make them
parties not sufficient, except perhaps in cases of
administration or creditors' suits; as to which,
quære. Marriage v. Royal Exchange, 216

General authority from party out of jurisdiction
to his solicitors to take necessary proceedings for
obtaining payment of his share of fund in suit out
of court, not authorize payment of it to solicitors.
Waddilove v. Taylor, 406

Money paid into court upon purchase of certain
land by railway company, whose act provided for

costs of obtaining money out of court. That rail-
way incorporated with second railway, and act of
first railway repealed. Act of second railway not
provide for costs. Second railway amalgamated
with third railway, and both previous acts repealed;
but it was provided that money paid into court by
either of dissolved companies, upon purchase of
lands, be held and disposed of, pursuant to act
under which same paid, and provisions in such act
relating to money so paid should remain in full
force. Costs of obtaining money out of court pay-
able by third railway company. Chetwode, ex parte,

418

Certain land, belonging partly to infants, having
been taken by company, money paid into court.
Persons entitled to fund, having attained their
majority, petitioned for payment of money to them.
Company to pay costs of petition. Slater's De-
visees, ex parle, 431

See Vendor and Purchaser.

Petty Bag Office. See Orders of December 29, 1848.
Pleading-Defendants to suit in same interest ought
to join in answering; but no rule of court exists
which compels them to do so, and it is left entirely
to honour of counsel and discretion of solicitors.
Greedy v. Lavender, 62

Bill by assignee of lease for specific perform-
ance of agreement to accept assignment, set forth
lessee's covenant not to assign without licence, but
did not state lease contained any proviso for re-
entry on breach or non-performance. Demurrer,
on ground that bill did not aver that licence would
be obtained, overruled. Smith v. Capron, 135

Defendants, admitting verbal agreement, bound
to answer allegations in bill relating to it, notwith-
standing they suggested some transactions inquired
after were unlawful, and discovery would subject
them to penalties. 38th General Order of August
1841 not exempt defendants from answering because
bill open to demurrer. Fisher v. Price, 235

Defendant demurred to supplemental bill con-
taining statements and charges, which, if answered,
would subject him to penalties: demurrer allowed,
and under leave, plaintiff amended bill by striking
out interrogatories, and leaving statements and
charges upon which they were made: defendant
took exceptions to amended bill for impertinence,
which Master overruled. Upon exceptions to Mas-
ter's report, statements and charges not imper-
tinent, and plaintiff, though not entitled to dis-
covery from defendant, not precluded from proving
charges. In answering interrogatory about books
and papers, defendant may except those which
might subject him to penalties. Mitchell v. Koecker,
294

In suit in respect of alleged breaches of trust,
not merely administration suit, bill filed against all
executors, jointly and severally liable. After cause at
issue, one of executors became bankrupt. Plaintiff
having elected to proceed originally against all exe-
cutors, could not at hearing avail himself of 32nd
General Order of 26th of August 1841, and elect to
take decree against some only of defendants; but
assignees of bankrupt necessary parties, and must be
brought before Court by supplemental bill. Fussell
v. Elwin, 349

Defendant, who by answer set out 7 Geo. 2. c. 8.
s. 8, and stated he was a stockbroker, and that
answers to interrogatories would tend to subject
him to penalties of act, and declined to answer
them, protected. Short v. Mercier, 490

See Discovery. Parties.

Power-5,000l. stock settled upon A. for life, with
remainder for her children as she should by deed
or will appoint, and in default, for her children

equally. A. had two children, E. R. an unmarried
lady, and M. S. wife of R. S. By deed dated in June
1839, A. appointed 4,8007. stock to E. R. absolutely;
and by deed dated following day, E. R. settled 2,3007.
on M. S. and her children. Latter deed not com-
municated to M. S. until 1845, and evidence given
that former deed executed with understanding that
E. R. should execute latter. In suit instituted by
R. S, both deeds set aside, as fraudulent upon the
power. Salmon v. Gibbs, 177

1,000. given, by will, to trustees, upon trust
(after life interest to A.) for such persons as A.
should by will appoint. A made will, whereby she
gave legacies amounting exactly to 1,000., without
noticing either power or property subject to it, and
had no property of her own at date of her will or at
her death. Will not an execution of power. Davies
v. Thorns, 212

If intention to exercise a power be clearly shewn,
equity will, in favour of charity, give effect to in-
formal or defective execution of power. Innes v.
Sayer, 274

Testatrix, in exercise of power, directed and
appointed her trustees to pay, assign, or transfer
500l. unto A. B. upon trust for his daughter, to be
vested in her, on attaining twenty-one years or
day of marriage, which should first happen; and
directed interest and dividends to accumulate for
her benefit, and be paid to her with principal there-
of, at time before mentioned. Daughter of A. B.
died under twenty-one, and unmarried. Repre-
sentatives of daughter took neither principal nor
accumulations, and fund went as if no appointment
made. Thruston's Estate, 437

Power in settlement to appoint new trustees
became inoperative by death of both, and in suit
for appointment of new trustees, it was asked that
power be extended to authorize executors or admi-
nistrators of surviving trustee to appoint new trus-
tees. Ordinary reference to Master could alone be
made. Holder v. Durbin, 479

See Settlement. Trust and Trustee. Will.
Practice as to defendants in same interest joining in
their answers. Greedy v. Lavender, 62
--as to costs in dispute, upon motion by defendant
to dismiss upon payment of debt and costs. Kenny
v. Beavan, 64

After warrant issued on preparing Master's re-
port defendant W, who was in default, brought in
his discharges, to receipt of which plaintiff con-
sented, although in strictness he was entitled to ex-
clude them. During prosecution of proceedings
relating to defendant's discharges, plaintiff dis-
covered material evidence whereby to charge co-
defendant B. jointly with W. with monies received
by W, and carried in charges before Master arising
thereout, &c. and a state of facts. Master having,
on objection of B, declined to receive further evi-
dence on part of plaintiff, with reference to charges
and state of facts, ordered, that notwithstanding
issuing of warrant on preparing report, plaintiff be
at liberty to continue proceedings before Master
directed by decree. Shallcross v. Wright, 119

Original bill filed for relief, and cross bill
of discovery filed by defendant in aid of defence to
original bill, which was heard in another branch of
court and dismissed, without costs, before answer to
cross bill filed. Order for taxation of costs of cross
bill obtained as of course, and without reference to
original bill, after answer to cross bill put in, irre-
gular, and dismissed, without costs. Waits v. Penny,
150

Orders of course correctly drawn up may be
passed without notice to other side. Order may be
varied in discretion of Court, on motion ex parte, if

Quare, whether in suit not concerning lands,
stocks, or shares within 2 Will 4. c. 33, and 4 & 5
Will. 4. c. 82, Court empowered either by those
statutes or 33rd Order of May 1845, to order service
of letter missive on defendant out of jurisdiction.
Anonymous, 229

After bill filed and appearance entered, defen-
dant became bankrupt, and plaintiff shortly after-
wards obtained common injunction for want of
answer. No proceedings taken in suit for two years,
when defendant having been declared entitled to
certificate, but not having taken it up, put in answer,
and moved to dismiss for want of prosecution. De-
fendant entitled to order dismissing bill, with costs.
Blackmore v. Smith, 271

Plaintiff

Plaintiff and defendant co-executors.
being indebted to testator in sum of 3007. upon bond,
filed bill against co-executor for account and dis-
tribuiton of testator's estate, and prayed for receiver.
Upon answer coming in plaintiff found there was
no outstanding estate, and debt of 300l. due from
him alone remained unapplied. Plaintiff allowed
matters to rest, but defendant gave notice of motion,
asking for appointment of receiver as prayed by
bill. Application refused, without costs. Robinson
v. Hadley, 428

If, upon appeal, Court of opinion it is proper to
send case for opinion of court of law, regular course
is, to reverse order of Court below, and then direct
case; and, therefore, cause remitted in its subse-
quent stages to Court below. Salkeld v. Johnson, 493

See Appearance. Contempt. Counsel and
Client. Mortgage. Payment of Money into Court.
Witness.

Prescription. See Discovery.

Principal and Agent. See Baron and Feme.
Priority. See Mortgage.
Privilege. See Arrest.

Pro Confesso. See Amendment.

Production of Documents-By general reference in
former part of answer, whole of documents made
part of answer; and subsequent reservation of some
on ground of privilege not protect them from pro-
duction. Mackintosh v. Great Western Railway, 169

In suit in equity to obtain evidence in aid of
action of ejectment by plaintiff against defendant,
clerk of records and writs, upon motion for produc-
tion of deeds admitted by defendant's answer to be
in her custody, ordered upon affidavit of service to
produce them at any trial at law between parties.
Smith v. Stone, 233

Railway-Engineer of railway company informed
contractor by letter, that his tender for certain
railway works was accepted by company, but no
document executed by company, who afterwards
repudiated contract. Contractor filed bill, seeking
to make company liable, or obtain execution of
contract, and alleged that company held monies for
purpose of paying him, and were trustees thereof for
his benefit, under written instrument. Demurrer for
want of equity allowed. Jackson v. North Wales
Railway, 91

Bill stated that A. had contracted with railway
company to perform certain works, and that com-
pany agreed to pay for them in specified manner,
with proviso, that unless engineer of company should
give his certificate, works should not be considered
as completed; that works had been completed pro-
perly, but that engineer, acting under direction of,
and in collusion with company, refused certificate;

and bill prayed declaration that such refusal a fraud
upon A, and for account and payment of sums due
to him.-Demurrers by company, secretary, and
engineer, overruled. Mackintosh v. Great Western
Railway, 94

Railway (continued) - Demurrer to bill by holder of
scrip and registered shareholder of railway stock, on
behalf of himself and others, holders of like scrip or
stock, to restrain company and directors from apply-
ing to general purposes funds authorized to be raised
for specific purposes, on grounds of want of equity,
no right of suit, inconsistency of relief, and want of
parties, overruled. Where bill alleged intended
misapplication of two specific funds, misapplication
of one only gave plaintiff right in equity to restrain
such misapplication. Where plaintiff had pur-
chased two scrip certificates, upon which he had
paid calls, and in respect of one of which had since
become registered holder of the shares represented
by them in certain new stock created by company,
interest which both scripholders and registered
shareholders had in stock entitled them to sue in
equity in respect of it: company properly made
party; rights and liabilities of scripholder not so
conflicting with those of shareholder of stock as to
render relief prayed by plaintiff in one character
inconsistent with that sought by him in other; and
original subscriber for scrip or vendor of it to plain-
tiff not necessary party. Bagshaw v. Eastern Union
Railway, 193

Laches of railway company in not following up
notice that they required lands not preclude them
taking advantage of 85th section of Lands Clauses
Consolidation Act by procuring valuation, &c.
Where railway company have taken possession
under 85th section, when, in consequence of unin-
tentional error, they were not entitled so to do,
Court will authorize their continuing in possession
upon afterwards complying with requisitions of
statute. If railway company treat with claimant as
party interested in land, it is sufficient that bond
to be given under 85th section secures payment of
compensation money to "the claimant, his execu-
tors," &c, without referring to "the parties inter-
ested in the premises." Willey v. South-Eastern
Railway, 201

An association, provisionally registered, for pur-
pose of obtaining act of parliament for formation of
railway, whether intention of association be to use
railway for conveyance of passengers and goods in
their own carriages, or to let it out to others for
that purpose, an association "for a commercial or
trading purpose;" and as such, though project after-
wards abandoned, within operation of Winding-up
Act. Barber, ex parte, 242

Payment of or security for compensation in re-
spect of damage consequential upon execution of
works by railway company, not condition prece-
dent to commencement of works, under Railways
Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. Therefore, com-
pany having, in lawful execution of its powers,
commenced works, by which enjoyment of ease-
ment by neighbouring occupier of land interrupted,
and damage sustained, bill by occupier to restrain
by injunction further progress of works until pro-
spective damage ascertained, and amount paid or
secured by company, pursuant to Lands Clauses
Consolidation Act, 1845, dismissed, with costs.
Hutton v. London and South-Western Railway, 345

Remedy given by 68th section of Lands Clauses
Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 Vict. c. 18), of proceeding
at law by writ of mandamus or action not oust juris-
diction of court of equity. Onus of offering price
for land required, and of taking first step for sum-
moning jury under section 68. thrown upon com-

pany-semble. Adams v. London and Blackwall
Railway, 357

Companies differ from partnerships for general
trading purposes, being established for public bene-
fits; and they cannot resolve to apply capital to be
raised for completion of an entire work to completion
of part. Such resolution illegal against landowners
and also against shareholders. Shareholders not
bound by determination to perform part of work
only, when powers of act of parliament given for
completion of whole, and there may be a right to
relief in equity. Cohen v. Wilkinson, 378

Recital of plans deposited not incorporate them
into special act so as to preclude company from
exercising power of altering level of streets, &c.
given by 16th section of Railways Clauses Consoli-
dation Act. Also, plans deposited referred to as
shewing datum line and level of railway itself, and
constituted no contract between parties, except so
far as they were incorporated into act. Words
"other engineering works," in section 14. of Lands
Clauses Consolidation Act, refer to engineering
works ejusdem generis, that is, in formation of rail-
way itself. Beardmer v. London and North-Western
Railway, 432

See Company. Injunction. Mortmain. Pay-
ment of Money out of Court. Will.
Real Securities. See Will.

Receipt-Joint and several receipt for purchase-money
by three, only one of whom had power to give
receipt, valid by the one who had power. Miller v.
Priddon, 226

Receiver-In case of urgency, Court will appoint
receiver on motion of plaintiff before defendant has
appeared, and even where injunction not asked
against him. Meaden v. Sealey, 168

It being admitted that estate of intestate insuffi-
cient to pay in full demand of specialty creditor,
latter entitled to have receiver appointed. Chalk
v. Raine, 472

See Practice.

Release-Obligee on bond for securing 1,000Z., with
interest, advanced to him by his brother-in-law, to
establish him in business, promised latter, at time of
his insolvency, to forego debt and give up bond to
be cancelled; bond mislaid, and not given up; and
obligee, in his will dated after insolvency, specified
debt as being then due, but made no application
either for principal or interest in his lifetime.
This a mere declaration of intention insufficient to
release debt either at law or in equity, and obligor
and sureties liable on bond. Cross v. Sprigg, 204
Remoteness. See Accumulations. Devise.
Rent-Charge. See Devise.

Revivor, Bill of. See Specific Performance.
School-Relationship in ordinary case of trustee and
cestui que trust not exist between dean and chapter
of cathedral church and head master of grammar
school attached to it, where both cathedral and
school governed by statutes of founder and subject
to jurisdiction of special visitor, and head master
paid out of common funds of endowment; and
Court refused to interfere by injunction, either du-
rante lite or otherwise, to restrain dean and chapter
from removing head master from his office or ap-
pointing another in his stead. Whiston v. Rochester,
473

licy of assurance for benefit of female with whom
he cohabited, he being then largely indebted, void
against creditors. Skriff v. Soulby, 8

A sum of 2,0001, stock was vested in trustees for
A. for life, after his decease,, for his wife for life,
and after decease of survivor for their only child.
Husband and child executed surrender of their
estates to wife, and those three joined in petition
that trust fund might be transferred to the son,
praying transfer accordingly, or such other order as
case required. Dismissal of petition affirmed upon
appeal. Latchom v. Vincent and Hall v. Hugonin
overruled. Whittle v. Henning, 51

In settlement executed under Court in pursuance
of section 23. of Marriage Act, terms were, that if
wife died before her husband, leaving children,
whole was to go to children; if no children she
was to have power of appointment, by will only in
lifetime of her husband, but by deed or will after
his death; if she survived her husband and there
were children, she was to have power of appoint-
ment over one-third, rest to be settled on her chil-
dren. Attorney General v. Lucas, 100

Declaration of trust as to sum of stock proceed-
ing upon clear mistake of title, as recited in deed,
not affect rights of party really interested, even
though he executed deed; there not appearing
any intention to part with his interest in or to
deal otherwise with stock than to join in declaring
trust thereof according to then presumed state of
title. Ashurst v. Mill, 129

Surviving trustee power to nominate sole trustee
to act in his place, and appointment by recital good,
where settlement contained proviso that in case
either of trustees should die or become unwilling to
act it should be lawful for acting trustees or trustee,
or executors or administrators of surviving trustee,
to nominate any fit person to supply his or their
place or places so dying or becoming unwilling to
Miller v. Priddon, 226

act.

By marriage settlement, trustees directed to pay
income of certain trust funds to husband and
wife for their lives, and, after death of survivor, to
divide such funds between children and issue of
marriage to be transferred and paid unto sons at
twenty-one, and to daughters at twenty-one or
marriage; and there were three children of mar-
riage, one of whom attained twenty-one and died
in lifetime of tenants for life, leaving children and
grand-children, another attained twenty-one and
died in lifetime of tenants for life, without children,
and the others attained twenty-one, survived parents,
and had children. Trust funds vested in children of
marriage, as they attained twenty-one, and sur-
viving child and representatives of deceased chil-
dren entitled to them. Gordon v. Hope, 228

Under bequest to husband, his wife, and chil-
dren, husband and wife entitled to one share.
Under like bequest in same will, wife not entitled
to settlement out of whole share, as husband not
entitled to whole in her right; their interest was
joint tenancy, modified so as to make their rights
contingent; not payable to husband during life of
wife, or to wife during life of husband; and whole
share to be carried over to joint account of husband
and wife, and dividends to be paid to husband
during joint lives, with liberty for parties interested
to apply. Atcheson v. Atcheson, 230

By marriage settlement certain policies of assu-
rance effected by husband upon his life assigned to
trustees upon trust to pay proceeds to wife for life
and then to divide capital between children of mar-
riage. Settlement contained covenant on part of
husband to pay premiums, and hand over receipts to
trustee, and there was power for husband and wife
jointly to appoint new trustees, with proviso that on

such appointment old trustees should convey to new
trustees. Husband and wife having jointly executed
power of appointing new trustees, old trustees re-
fused to execute conveyance of trust property, upon
which bill filed to compel them to do so. Nothing
vested in old trustees, consequently nothing for
them to do, or for Court to direct. and bill dismissed
with costs. Dodson v. Powell, 237

Under marriage settlement certain property
conveyed to trustees for benefit of husband and
wife for life, and afterwards for children of mar-
riage. Powers of sale and exchange given to trus-
tees, with consent of husband and wife, and hus-
band alienated his life interest in property. His
power of consenting to sale by trustees not extin-
guished. Warburton v. Farn, 312

Upon marriage 5,000l. consols vested in trustees,
to pay dividends to husband for life, and, after his
decease, to transfer principal to wife, her executors
and administrators, or as she or they should appoint;
but in case wife (should depart this life in lifetime
of husband, leaving issue one or more child or chil-
dren then living, then, after decease of husband,
upon trust for all and every child and children of
marriage as wife should by deed or will appoint;
and if there should be no issue of marriage living
at her death, upon trust for such person as wife
should by deed or will appoint, with remainder,
in default of appointment, to husband absolutely.
Seven children of marriage, two of whom died under
age of twenty-one years, in lifetime of wife, who
never executed power of appointment; another
child attained twenty-one, and died in lifetime of
husband. Upon bill filed to determine interest of chil-
dren under settlement, held, in reference to power,
that five children living at death of wife entitled to
5,000. consols, by implication, and no implied gift
for benefit of all children. Winn v. Fenwick, 337

In March, Mr. W. was engaged to be married to
Miss J. In July, Miss J. settled her property on
herself and her relations, no benefit being given to
Mr. W. In August, they were married. Three
years afterwards Mr. W. filed bill to upset settle-
ment, on ground of its being fraudulent on his
marital rights. Evidence given on part of defen-
dants that Mr. W. had, before marriage, reason to
believe settlement intended and made. Plaintiff
not entitled to relief. Wrigley v. Swainson, 396

J. B. I. and E. B. having property upon their
marriage, entered into articles of settlement by
which it was agreed that all property which E. B.
was then or might thereafter become entitled to
should be settled for such purposes as E. B. should
appoint, and in default of appointment for her sepa-
rate use for life, with remainder to her husband for
life, with remainder to children of marriage; and
it was agreed that settlement should contain cove-
nant by husband, that all property which he or his
wife should thereafter become entitled to, should be
settled upon similar trusts. At that time husband
greatly indebted, and a short time afterwards took
benefit of Insolvent Debtors Act. His brother after-
wards died, and as his heir-at-law, and one of next-
of-kin, husband became entitled to real and perso-
nal estate of considerable value. Property, to which
husband became entitled from his brother, subject
to provisions in articles, and though in hands of
assignee, not liable to pay creditors of husband.
Hardy v. Green, 480

See Accumulation. Power. Receipt.
Ship and Shipping-In suit by some of several regis-
tered part owners of vessel, seeking account against
master (part owner), and not raising any dispute as
to shares, injunction to restrain sailing of vessel
refused; and plaintiffs left to proceed in Court of
Admiralty. Castelli v. Cook, 148

Solicitor-without notice of incumbrance either
legal or equitable prior to his possession of title
deeds of property affected by it, no right of lien
on deeds as against incumbrancer. Where so-
licitor, under such circumstances, also mortgagee
of property, with priority over another incum-
brancer, right of lien not extend beyond claim as
mortgagee. Existing right of lien not destroyed by
entering of solicitor into partnership. Costs of in-
cumbrancer unsuccessfully contesting with solicitors
of mortgagor their right of lien on title deeds re-
lating to mortgaged property to be added to the
mortgage debt. Pelly v. Wathen, 281

Suit compromised between plaintiff and defen-
dant by payment by latter to former of certain sum.
Defendant had notice of lien of plaintiff's solicitors
for costs of suit. Ordered, on petition of solicitors,
that plaintiff and defendant, or one of them, should
pay solicitors their taxed costs of suit and of peti-
tion, not exceeding sum paid on compromise. White
v. Pearce, 462

- One of several co-plaintiffs gave notice to their
solicitor that he was desirous of discontinuing suit.
Further proceedings being taken, plaintiff not en-
titled to indemnity from solicitor against costs of any
subsequent proceedings. Winthrop v. Murray, 484
See Lien.

Specific Performance - Bill filed for specific perfor-
mance of agreement by which plaintiff to receive
a per-centage upon a certain number of bottles
of mineral water, imported by defend int from
Nassau, in consideration of personal services ren-
dered by him to defendant, for procuring right
of exportation; and deed to be executed to carry
out agreement. Defendant appeared to bill, and
applied for extension of time to answer; and
died. Upon bill of revivor and supplement filed
against his personal representative general de-
murrer put in. Court might direct execution of
deed for carrying out agreement of this nature, but
demurrer could not be sustained, since original
defendant had applied for further time to answer,
and his representative was bound by that act,
and precluded from demurring. Granville v.
Betts, 32

A, owner of building land, a small portion
of which was held under lease for ninety-nine
years, sold greater part to P. Before conveyance
executed by A. to P, both joined in putting up
all the land in lots for sale by public auction,
and printed and circulated particulars and con-
ditions, accompanied by plan, from which it ap-
peared that to each lot roads would be secured.
Plaintiff purchased one lot, being portion of land
belonging to P; and after sale it was discovered by P.
that one of projected new roads would pass across
leasehold piece of land, whereby risk of forfeiture
thereof by P. would be incurred. Plaintiff filed bill
seeking specific performance of contract in all re-
spects.-Plaintiff entitled to specific performance of
contract in accordance with plan; but as making
of road would incur risk of forfeiture, defendant
could not be required by plaintiff to make it. A. not
being party to contract entered into with plaintiff,
but only having joined with P. in sale of their
respective lands, improperly made party to suit,
and dismissed, with costs. Plaintiff entitled as
against P. to specific performance of contract, save
as to road, and as to that plaintiff entitled to refer-
ence to Master to ascertain damages arising to
plaintiff thereout. Plaintiff not entitled to any costs
against P. up to hearing, but if in lieu of taking
decree to extent already stated against P, plaintiff
preferred bringing action at law for damages, bill
must be dismissed against P, without costs. As
against W, who had subsequently to filing of ori-
ginal bill by plaintiff, purchased of P. lot contracted

to be purchased by plaintiff, and also leasehold piece
of land across which new road projected, and who
was made defendant by supplemental bill, bill dis-
missed with costs. Peacock v. Penson, 57

On treaty for under-lease of a house, agent for
plaintiff tendered unconditional agreement for sig-
nature of defendant. Latter signed his name and
initials in pencil, and added also in pencil his ap-
proval of agreement, subject to condition that there
was nothing unusual in covenants in original lease.
Pending settling of draft of under-lease, defendant
discovered nuisance, which would prevent occupa-
tion of house, and thereupon abandoned treaty.
Existence of nuisance unknown to plaintiff. In
suit for specific performance of defendant's agree-
ment, Court tried case strictly between parties, and
held, in absence of actual evidence of agent having
direct or implied authority to accede to pencil addi-
tions, he could not bind plaintiff; and until latter
had assented to alterations, agreement only a pro-
posal, and might be abandoned by defendant: bill
dismissed, with costs. Lucas v. James, 329

See Pleading.

Statute-Rules by which Court guided in putting
construction upon two sections of statute appa-
rently inconsistent. Beardmer v. London and North-
Western Railway, 432

See Corporation.

Statutes-9 Geo. 2. c. 36, 288

39 & 40 Geo. 3. c. 98, 191
4 Geo. 4. c. 76. s. 23, 100

1 Will. 4. c. 60, 152, 153
2 Will. 4. c. 33, 229

3 & 4 Will. 4. cc. 27, 42, 407

3 & 4 Will. 4. c. 94. s. 13, 392

4 & 5 Will. 4. c. 82. 229

1 Vict. c. 26, 46, 269

1 & 2 Vict. c. 110. s. 18, 404

7 & 8 Vict. c. 96. ss. 19, 21, 279
7 & 8 Vict. c. 110. s. 29,

8 Vict. c. 18. s. 85, 201
10 & 11 Vict. c. 96, 116
11 & 12 Vict. c. 45,

179, 242 to 265

177

71, 81, 110, 112, 139, 147,

11 & 12 Vict. c. 45. s. 58, 390
See Corporation.

Staying Proceedings-One of defendants in suit in-
dicted plaintiff for perjury and conspiracy. At trial,
verdicts of not guilty taken by consent, and all
matters in dispute agreed to be referred to arbitra-
tion, and order of reference made rule of court.
Plaintiff, before award and without leave of Court,
revoked his submission to arbitration, proceeded
with suit, and obtained order in Chancery for com-
mission to examine witnesses. Defendant, who had
preferred indictments, moved to restrain execution
of commission, and stay further proceedings pend-
ing reference to arbitration. Liberty to defendant
to proceed at law as he should be advised against
plaintiff for his alleged contempt of Court, and com-
mission not to be executed in mean time. Hardy
v. Dartnell, 467

Subpoena-Suit instituted against three trustees, who
all appeared by same solicitor. After decree, sole
plaintiff died, and bill of revivor filed. One of de-
fendants could not be found, being supposed to have
gone to America; but no evidence of his having
absconded to avoid service, and place of residence
not ascertained. Substituted service of subpœna
to appear in revived suit upon his solicitor in ori-
ginal suit, ordered. Norton v. Hepworth, 172

Substituted service of subpoena for defendants,
out of jurisdiction of Court, to appear and answer
bill of revivor and supplement, made on their
solicitors in original suit. Hart v. Tulk, 336
Substituted Service. See Subpoena. Traversing Note.
Suppressing Depositions. See Witness.