ing her voyage intelligence of the blockade, but nevertheless continue her voyage to the blockaded port, and be taken in an attempt to enter it, a policy of insurance on the ship or her cargo is discharged. Winder v. Wise and Others. Page 238 11. A policy of insurance on goods to a foreign port, effected after notice in the London Gazette that that port is in a state of blockade, though the ship also sail after such notice, is not illegal, if it be part of the agreement that inquiry shall be made as to the continuance of the blockade. Naylor and Others v. Taylor. 240

12. Where a ship, having insured goods on board, was captured for an alleged breach of blockade, and afterwards rescued by the British crew, who brought her back, with the goods, into an English port; and after receiving information of the capture, but before the return of the ship, and before hearing of the rescue, the assured gave notice of abandonment: Held, they were not entitled to recover on the policy as for a total loss. Ibid.

240

L. certain scrip receipts, purporting that L. had paid him 10 per cent. deposit on a certain amount of Neapolitan stock, and entitling the bearer to certificates for that amount of stock, on his paying the balance on a day specified. L. transferred these receipts to H. for a valuable consideration. R., by public advertisement, afterwards offered, on certain conditions, an extended time for payment of the balance, and required that the receipts should be left at his office, to be marked as held under the new conditions. The receipts transferred by L. to H. were accordingly left by him at R.'s office, and there indorsed by R. with the name of H. H. having failed to comply with the conditions on which the time was extended: Held, on error, that he could not recover the deposit of 10 per cent. from R., in an action for money had and received. Hennings.

Rothschild v. Page 290

MERCHANT AND FACTOR. 1. A factor, before the 1st October 1826, pledged East India warrants with a banker as a security. A substitution of new bills for old took place between the factor and banker after the 1st October, and the latter claimed to retain the warrants as a security for a bill of 10,000l. then discounted for the factor, the cash being placed to the factor's account: Held, that this transaction was not within the second section of the 6 G. 4. c. 94. which came into operation on the 1st October 1826. Ross and Others v. Willis and Others. 19 2. Where a factor, under acceptances for his principal, which were provided for by the latter

before they became due, pledged documents for the delivery of goods belonging to his principal, as a security for advances: Held, that the pledgee had no right, under the second section of 4 G. 4. c. 83., and the eighth section of 6 G. 4. c. 94., to retain them against the owner. Blandy v. Allan. Page 22

MONEY HAD AND RE-
CEIVED.

See BILL OF EXCHANGE, 3. CHAR-
TERPARTY, 3. LOAN-CON-

TRACTOR.

MONEY PAID BY MISTAKE.

See BILL OF EXCHANGE, 12.

NOTICE OF DISHONOUR. See BILL OF EXCHANGE, 5, 6. 9, 10. 12.

PARTNERSHIP.

1. A partner in a house in England, trading in America on the partnership account, but transacting all the business in his own name, indorses bills for partnership purposes in his own name only: Held, that on this indorsement the firm was liable. The South Carolina Bank v. Case and Others, Assignees. Beckett and Another v. Same. 103 2. One partner cannot sue another on account of a partnership transaction. Therefore, where a member of a company drew bills expressly on account of the company, and indorsed them to the actuary, who indorsed them over to another member of the company, for a debt due to him from the company; it was held,

that the latter could not sue the drawer on the bills, nor for money had and received, though the drawer had received from the acceptor 10s. in the pound on account of the bills. Teague v. Hubbard. Page 118 3. A partnership debtor is informed of the contemplated dissolution of the firm, and by agreement with the partners gives, in further security for the debt, a warrant of attorney to the single partner who was to continue the business: Held, that payments subsequently made on this warrant to the one partner must be considered as partnership payments; and that, having been made after an act of bankruptcy, the retiring partner, who had survived, was liable to the assignees in an action for money had and received. Biggs and Others, Assignees of Collier, v. Fellows.

121

4. If a partner of one firm collude with a partner of another, in a matter within the regular course of business between the two firms, whereby the other partners in the latter firm sustain an injury, the innocent partners of the person so colluding are liable for damages to the injured firm. Longman and Others v. Sir P. Pole, Bart., and Others. 126 5. Parol evidence held inasmissible of the terms of a partnership, of which a rough sketch had been made in writing by one of the partners, and shown to and approved of by another, although it was intended subsequently to extend it into a formal deed, and that had not been done. Jones v. Hunter and Others. 214 6. Semble, that in an action against three partners, the non-liability of one who had pleaded his bankruptcy and certificate, and as to

1. A broker sells goods for his principal, to be paid for by bill of exchange. Before the bill becomes due, the acceptor stops payment; whereupon the broker, who holds the goods as the agent for the vendee, for the purpose of reselling them, applies to the vendee, on behalf of the vendor, for further security. The vendee accordingly authorizes him to sell the goods, and apply the proceeds to the payment of the bill. The broker does not sell, in consequence of the unfavourable state of the market, but subsequently delivers over the goods to the vendor, the vendee in the

PROMISSORY NOTE. 347

meantime having committed an act of bankruptcy: Held, that the act of the broker being for the benefit of the vendor, must be presumed to have been ratified by him; and, therefore, that the order of the vendee was executed, and could not be revoked by the bankruptcy: Held, also, that the mere delivery of the goods by the broker to the vendor, no demand having been made before their re-delivery to him in the same state, was not such a conversion by either as would sustain trover Bailey, surviving Assignee, v. Culverwell and Others. Page 176 2. Where a party sells goods to another, and debits him with the price, knowing that he is buying as an agent, but not knowing the principal's name, the seller may afterwards resort to the principal for the price, provided the state of account between the principal and agent be not thereby altered to the prejudice of the latter. And the seller is not bound to inquire who is the principal. Thomson v. Davenport and Others. 278

PROMISSORY NOTE.

See STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 1. A promissory note, which was

once a valid instrument, but by reason of a subsequent unexplained erasure not available as a promissory note, is admissible in evidence on the account stated. Bishop v. Chambre. 83 2. A promissory note payable to A. B. or order, on demand, is not within the second class described in the schedule to the stamp act. Moyser and Another, Assignees, v. Whitaker. Armitage v. Berry. 3. A Bank of England note, which

B B

216. 218

was stolen in England in February 1826, was remitted, in May 1827, by a merchant in Paris to the plaintiff, his correspondent in London. On his presenting it at the Bank, it was stopped as a stolen note, and payment of it refused. The foreign merchant, when he remitted it, was indebted to the plaintiff in a sum exceeding its amount; but the plaintiff did not before its stoppage make him any further advance on the credit of it. In trover for the note: Held, that the plaintiff must be considered as the agent of the foreign merchant, and could recover only on his title; Held, secondly, that the plaintiff was bound to show that the foreign merchant gave such value for it as to exempt him from all suspicion of knowing that it had been improperly ob

tained.

3. A new ship made her first voyage

in ballast from Carlisle to London, for the purpose of being fitted up with steam-engines, &c. with the view of being employed as a steam-vessel in the coasting trade between Carlisle and Liverpool. While proceeding up the Thames, having on board a pilot duly licensed and qualified under the pilot act, 6 G. 4. c. 125., she ran foul of and damaged another vessel. Having been fitted up, she took down a cargo to Liverpool, and was afterwards regularly employed in the coasting trade between Carlisle and Liverpool. Held, that she was not, at the time of the injury, a vessel “employed in the regular coasting trade of this kingdom," and therefore exempted by the fifty-ninth section of the pilot act from the obligation of taking on board a licensed pilot; and that, therefore, her owners were not responsible for such injury, since a licensed pilot was on board. Stephenson, Administrator, v. Dixon and Others. 332

STAMP.

1. Where the primary object of an agreement is the sale of goods, the introduction of other matter connected with the sale does

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

not render a stamp necessary. An agreement, therefore, for the sale of a ship, and for procuring her to be chartered (the object of the parties being to earn freight in payment of the price); held to be within the exemption in favour of agreements "for or relating to the sale of goods." Tooke v. Merring. Page 35 2. A promissory note payable to A. B. or order on demand, is not within the second class described in the schedule to the stamp act. Moyser and Another, Assignees, v. Whitaker. Armitage v. Berry.

216. 218.

3. The plaintiff entered into a written agreement, unstamped, to do certain repairs in the defendant's house on specified terms. During the progress of the work the original plan was departed from, and additional work was done, not provided for by the written agreement. Held, that the plaintiff could not sue for the value even of such additional work without producing the agreement, and that, it being stamped, he could not use it to show that that work was not included in it. Vincent v. Coles. 284

4. A jury cannot be permitted to look at an unstamped instrument, in order to assist them in drawing a conclusion of fact. Sweeting v. Hulse.

287

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. In an action upon a joint and several promissory note against the representative of the surety, payment of interest by the principal within six years, and during the lifetime of the surety, is evidence of a joint and several promise to pay on the part of the surety, so as to take the case out of the statute of limitations, although

VENDOR AND VENDEE. 349

in such action the note is necessarily treated as a separate note. Burleigh, Executor, v. Platt, Administratrix of Stott. Page 53

STOCKJOBBING ACT. See BILL OF EXCHANGE, 4.

SURETY.

See EVIDENCE, 2. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

A surety to a bond conditioned for the fidelity of a clerk or other person holding a situation of trust, cannot discharge himself from liability by giving notice to the obligee. Calvert and Another v. Gordon, Executrix. 173

TOTAL LOSS. See INSURANCE, 4. 8. 12.

TROVER.

See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, 1.

UNSTAMPED INSTRUMENT. See STAMP, 3, 4.

VALUED POLICY. See INSURANCE, 3, 4.

VENDOR AND VENDEE. 1. When goods are bought for export, at a port from which goods are ordinarily shipped, if the seller send them to a neighbouring port, he is liable for any loss which may take place up to the time of the shipment from the latter port. Ullock and Others v. Reddelein. 6 2. Notice to a wharfinger, given in the name of the vendor, but by the direction of the vendee, who was insolvent, not to deliver the