cipal, though unknown to the carrier,
cannot recover his lien by stopping
the goods in tranfitu, and procuring
them to be re-delivered to him by vir-
tue of a bill of lading figned by the
carrier in the course of his voyage.
Sweet v. Pym, Mich. 41 Geo. 3. 4
2. Where an English fubje&t in time of
war, who had received orders to
effect an infurance for a neutral fo-
reigner, opened the policy with his
ufual broker in his own name, but in-
forming him at the fame time, that
the property was neutral; this is a
fufficient indication to the broker that
the party acted as agent, and not on
his own account, and therefore the
broker has no lien on the policy fo ef-
fected for his general balance against
fuch agent, as between fuch broker
and the principal. Maans v. Hender-
Jon, Hil. 41 Geo. 3.

335

3. An attorney has a lien upon a fum
awarded in favour of his client, as well
as if recovered by judgment: and if
after notice to the defendant the latter
pay it over to the plaintiff, the plain-
tiff's attorney may compel a re-pay-
ment of it to himself: and he shall not
be prejudiced by a collufive release
from the plaintiff to the defendant.
Ormerod v. Tate, Eaft. 41 Geo. 3. 464
4. Quare, Whether a captain of a thip
parts with his lien on goods for his
freight by depofiting them in the
king's warehouse, purfuant to the re-
quifitions of an act of parliament ?
Ward v. Felton, Trin. 41 Geo. 3. 512
LIME-WORKS.

See POOR RATE, No. 1.

LIMITATION.

1. Cross-remainders cannot be implied
in a deed; and can only be raised by
proper words of limitation; however
plainly expreffed the intention of the
parties may be. Under a limitation
in a marriage fettlement to the use of
all and every the daughter and daugh-
ters of, &c. to be begotten, fhare
and share alike, equally to be divided
between them, and of the heirs of the
body and bodies of all and every fuch
daughter and daughters; and for de-
fault of fuch iffue to the right heirs,
&c. held, that there were no cross-
remainders between the daughters or

2.

their iffue. Doe v. Worley, Eaft.
41. Geo. 3.

A power of appointment under a
416
marriage-fettlement, unto and among
all or any the child or children of the
marriage, for fuch eftates as the huf-
band and wife, or the furvivor of them,
should from time to time, either with
or without power of revocation, direct,
limit, or appoint, may be executed by
the furvivor, after a joint appointment,
referving to them and the furvivor a
power of revocation and appointment.
But under fuch power, if the fecond ap-
pointment be to the daughter of the
marriage for life, remainder to the
eldeft fon for life, remainder to truf-
tees to preserve contingent remain-
ders, remainder to the first and other
fons in tail, &c. remainder to the
daughter in fee; all the limitations
fubfequent to that to the eldest fon for
life are void, as being an excess be-
yond the power; and the ultimate
remainder dependant upon fuch in-
termediate limitations, though made
in favour of one of the objects of the
power, is alfo void; and fhall not be
accelerated by the event of fuch void
intermediate limitations not having
taken effect, for want of iffue male
of the eldest fon, &c. to whom the
appointment was made. For an ap-
pointment not good in its creation,
will not become fo by fubfequent
circumstances. And such an appoint-
ment being by deed, cannot be con-
ftrued cypres, fo as to give the fons
eftates tail, as perhaps might have
been the cafe if the appointment had
been by will. Brudenell v. Elwes,
Eaft. 41 Geo. 3.
3. There may be a limitation to one
unborn for life only, but not to the
iffue of such an one for life. ib.

M
MANDAMUS.

442

452

to a new election under the ftat.
11 Geo. 1. c. 4. S. 2. as if no election
had in fact been made. Rex v. The
Corporation of Bedford, Mich. 41 Geo. 3.

79

114

5. A mandamus was granted to the
feffions to receive an appeal which
was prefented during the next fef-
fions after an order of removal made,
though not presented till after the day
on which, by the practice of that fef-
fions, appeals were required to be en-
tered. Rex v. The Juftices of Leicester,
Eaft. 23 Geo. 3.

A

8.686

MASTER AND SERVANT.
mafter is not liable in trespass for
the wilful act of his fervant, as by
driving his master's carriage against
another, done without the direction
or affent of the mafter. But he is
liable to answer for any damage
arifing to another from the negligence
or unskilfulness of his fervant acting
in his employ. McManus v. Crickett,
Mich. 41 Geo. 3.

MILITARY OFFICER.

2. Though by the ftat. Ann. c. 20.
J. 2. the profecutor of a mandamus
to which there is a return, and iffue
taken on the facts therein, had an
option to try the question in the same
county in which he might have
brought an action for a falfe return;
yet if all the material facts are alleged
in one county, and issue taken there-
on there, he cannot iffue the venire
facias into another county, though
he might originally have alleged the
facts there, and have there brought
his action for a falfe return. Rex v.
The Mayor, &c. of Newcastle, Mich.
41 Geo. 3.
3. The ftat. 35 Geo. 3. c. 101. f. 2. af-
ter enabling juftices to fufpend orders
of removal of poor perfons, and to
order the charges thereby incurred
to be defrayed by the pauper's pa-
rifh, and to direct the charges to be
levied by warrant of distress, enacts,
that if the parties against whom it is
iffued are out of the jurifdiction of
the juftice granting the warrant, it
fhall be indorfed by fome other juftice
within whofe jurifdiction they are:
this is peremptory upon the latter
upon request made. Rex v. Kynafton,
Mich. 41 Geo. 3.
117
4. Where the father and fon were re-
moved from A. to B. by two several
orders of removal; and the parish-
officers of A. and B. agreed that the
removal of the fon fhould follow that
of the father, without the expence of
a feparate appeal; in confequence of
which an appeal was only entered
against the order removing the fa-
ther; and after the feffions had de-
termined that the father was settled
in A., and had quashed that order, A.
refused to take back the fon; B. R.
granted a mandamus to the feffions
to receive and determine the appeal
against the order removing the son,
though at a fubfequent feffions to that
holden next after the order of removal
made; the appeal being directed to be See FORESTALLING.
entered nunc pro tunc with proper
continuances. Rex v. The Juftices of
Wiltshire, Trin. 41 Geo. 3.

106

1. A captain of a troop, during the time
of his abfence, and while another
is in the actual command of it, by
whom the orders for fubfiftence are if-
sued, and the fubfiftence-money is re-
ceived from government, is not liable
to pay for fubfiftence furnished to the
men, though fuch captain was still en-
titled to a profit upon the fum iffued on
that account, and the troop still conti-
nued under his military orders. Myrtle
v. Beaver, Hil. 41 Geo. 3.
135
2. The captain of a troop for which
forage is furnished, by the orders of a
clerk appointed by fuch captain, is
not liable in an action for money had
and received for fuch forage, though
present with the troop at the time; it
not appearing that he had received
any money for this purpose from the
paymafter, to whom it is iffued by go-
vernment, and upon whom the captain
is entitled to draw for a certain fum
regulated by the returns of the pre-
ceding month. Rice v. Chute, Trin.
41 Geo. 3.

3.

579
Aliter if he had in effect received
the money.
Rice v. Everitt, Trin.
41 Geo. 3.

MONOPOLY.

MUTINY ACT.

583

683 See SETTLEMENT. EVIDENCE, No. 1.

By

By the mutiny act the king may make
articles of war and conftitute courts See WAY, No. 1.
martial with power to try and punish
as well in Great Britain, &c. as in
Gibraltar, &c. By a fubfequent claufe
no foldier shall by such articles of war
be fubjected to the punishment of death
or lofs of limb within Great Britain,
&c. (omitting Gibraltar,) for any
crime not expreffed to be fo punish-
able by the act. Then by the articles
of war perfons found guilty by a court
martial at Gibraltar of theft, robbery,

c. or of having used violence, or com-
mitted any offence against the perfons or
property of others, "thall fuffer death

eftate affigned to the plaintiffs: held |
that they are tenant in common with
the folvent partner, and after his de-
ceafe with his reprefentatives, by re-
lation of law from the act of bank-4.
ruptcy, and cannot therefore maintain
trover against the defendant claiming
under fuch folvent partner. Smith v.
Stokes, Eaft. 41 Geo. 3.
363
5. After an act of bankruptcy commit-
ted by one partner, the other delivers
goods of their joint property to a credi-
tor for a joint debt, and dies; and af-
terwards a commiffion iffues against the
furviving partner: held that the cre-
ditor, by virtue of fuch delivery by
the folvent partner, became tenant in
common of the goods with the affig-
nees of the bankrupt, by relation from
the act of bankruptcy, which was in
the lifetime of the folvent partner, and
confequently that the affignees cannot
maintain trover against fuch creditor.
Smith v. Oriell, Eaft. 41 Geo. 3. 368

PATRON.

See RESIGNATION BOND, No. 2.

PLEADING.

See SET OFF. WAY, No. 2, 3.
1. Leave given to amend the declaration
by entitling it of the day on which it
was actually delivered, instead of the
term generally, in order to accord
with an averment therein, that other
defendants named in the writ were
then outlawed. Coutanche v. Le Ruez,
Hil. 41 Geo. 3.

133

212

not vitiate the replication that it un-
neceffarily proceeded farther to give
colour to the defendant. Taylor v.
Eaftrwood, Hil. 41 Geo. 3.
To a plea of fet-off of a fum due un-
der recognizance, and also of an-
other fum upon a fimple contract, it
feems that a replication, protesting
that the plaintiff did not acknow-
ledge, &c. and then pleading that he
was not indebted in manner and form
as the defendant had in pleading al.
ledged, and concluding to the coun-
try, is bad; inafmuch as it refers
matter of record to the cognizance of
a jury. But as it was a fham plea,
the plaintiff had leave to amend with-
out payment of costs. Solomons v. Lyon,
Eaft. 41 Geo. 3.

369
5. To a plea in abatement of misnomer
of plaintiff, replication that the plain-
tiff was known as well by the one
name as the other: upon demurrer
over-ruled, there must be judgment
of refpondeas oufter, and not quod re-
cuperet. Bowen v. Shapcott, Trin.
41 Geo. 3.

542
6. In an action against a returning officer
for refufing a vote at an election of
members to ferve in parliament, ma-
lice must be proved as well as laid.
Semble that charging that the defend-
ant knowing, &c. and wrong fully in-
tending to deprive plaintiff, &c. hin-
dered him from giving his vote, &c.
is a fufficient allegation of malice.
Drewe v. Coulton, Launcefton Spring
affizes, 1787,
(cited) n. 563

7. To a declaration against one upon
joint promifes by him and another
whom he avers to be outlawed, a plea
of nul tiel record of outlawry is in ef-
fect a plea in abatement for want of
parties; and therefore if it conclude
in bar, it is bad on general demurrer,
and the plaintiff is entitled to judg
Nowlan
ment quod recuperet, &c.
v. Geddes, Trin. 41 Geo.
634

2. In an action for the non-delivery of
malt, which the defendant had under-
taken to deliver on requeft at a certain
price, it is fufficient for the plaintiff in
his declaration to aver fuch request,
and that he was ready and willing to
receive the malt and to pay for it ac-
cording to the terms of the fale, but
that the defendant refused to deliver
it; without averring an actual tender
of the price. Rawson v. Johnson, Hill.
41 Geo. 3.
3. In trefpafs for taking and driving See COPYRIGHT.
the plaintiff's cattle, to which there
was a justification, that the defendant
was lawfully poffeffed of a certain clofe,
and that he took the cattle there da-
mage feazant; the plaintiff may spe-
cially reply title in another, by whofe
command he entered, &c. and it does

203

PIRATING.

See REMOVAL.

POOR.

3.

The ftat. 35 Geo. 3. c. 101. § 4. which
provides that after the paffing of the
act, no perfon who all came into any
parifh fhall gain a fettlement by be-

ing

ing rated to any tenement under 10l.
a-year value, extends to persons who
were in the parish at the time of the
paffing of the act.
R. v. The Inha
bitants of Illington, Hil. 41 Geo. 3. 283

POOR RATE.

1. Lime works are rateable in the hands
of the occupier, though there be risk
and expence in the working, and the
profits be uncertain. Rex v. The
Churchwardens, c. of Alberbury,
Trin. 41 Geo. 3.
534
2. The objects of a charitable founda-
tion in the actual occupation of the
alms-house and lands for their own
benefit in the manner prefcribed by
the rules of the inftitution, and liable
to be discharged for any breach of
fuch rules, are rateable in refpect of
fuch occupation. R. v. Munday and
others. Trin. 41 Goo. 3.

POWER,

584

A power of appointment under a mar-
riage-fettlement, unto and among
all or any the child or children of the
marriage, for fuch estates as the huf-
band and wife, or the furvivor of them,
fhould from time to time, either with
or without power of revocation, direct,
limit, or appoint, may be executed by
the furvivor, after a joint appointment,
referving to them and the furvivor a
power of revocation and appointment.
But under fuch power, if the fecond ap-
pointment be to the daughter cf the
marriage for life, remainder to the
eldeft fon for life, remainder to truf-
tees to preferve contingent remain-
ders, remainder to the first and other
fons in tail, Sr. remainder to the
daughter in fee; all the limitations
fubfequent to that to the eldest fon for
life are void, as being an excefs be-
yond the power; and the ultimate
remainder dependant upon fuch in
termediate limitations, though made
in favour of one of the objects of the
power, is alfo void; and shall not be
accelerated by the event of fuch void
intermediate limitations not having
taken effect, for want of iffue male
of the elaet fon, c. to whom the
appointment was made. For an ap-
pointment not good in its creation,
VOL. I.

4.

5.

132
6. Where plaintiff withdraws his re-
cord after entering it for trial, the
defendant may have judgment as in
cafe of nonfuit. Burton v. Harrison,
Hil.
7. Where a fham plea was put in to
41 Geo.
346
which the plaintiff in reply pleaded
ill, he had leave to amend with at
payment of cofts. Solomons v. Lɔn,
Eof. 41 Gec. 3.
369
8 After

U u