pleadings it could not be held, from the state of the record, that the demandant had given her consent before a judge to be barred of her dower according to law. Huffman v. Askin, 423. ADVERSE POSSESSION. See LANDLORD AND TENANT, 1.LIMITATIONS (STATUTE OF.) AGENT. See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. AGREEMENT. See ASSUMPSIT, 1.- CARRIERS. dant from afterwards disputing the correspondence of the wheat delivered with the sample. Stephenson v. Ranney, 196. AMENDMENT. See RECORD (NISI PRIUS), 2, 3. ASSIGNMENT OF GOODS. ASSUMPSIT. See EVIDENCE-MARRIAGE (BREACH Special agreement annulled Quantum meruit.]-1. A., under a Agreement to manufacture wheat special agreement dated the 7th of into flour.]-The plaintiff having pur- July 1851, contracted with B. to finish chased a quantity of wheat entered a house and barn on or before the 10th into an agreement with the defendant of August then next, under a penalty that, on condition of the plaintiff deliv-of 57. a day after that day, &c. A. ering to the defendant wheat of the did about two-thirds of the work, but same quality as the sample previously did not finish it by the 10th of August shewn to defendant, to be ground into or at any time afterwards. B. after deflour, the defendant agreed to manu- fault, took possession of the buildings, facture the said wheat into flour, and did work on them towards their comfor every four bushels and forty pounds pletion, and paid a large portion of the of wheat, of the quality and according price. Held, that the special agreement to the sample, rece ved he would de- was annulled by the default of A. and the possession taken by, and the subsequent conduct of, B.; and that there was an implied promise from B. to A. Hamilton v. Raymond, 392. to pay what the work was worth. liver one barrel of flour which should pass inspection as superfine at Montreal. Held, that the contract was not a contract for the sale of the wheat, but an agreement to manufacture for the plaintiff the identical wheat delivered; into flour: that it was a condition precedent, on the plaintiff's part, that the wheat delivered should be of the same quality as the sample: that an accep. tance of the wheat by the defendant, and his manufacturing it into flour, did not cause the rules prevailing between vendor and vendee to apply with equal force in this case as in the case of an absolute sale, to conclude the defen Damages.]-2. In an action against the vendee, upon a contract to accept a deed of conveyance of a vessel, and to give a mortgage security upon it for the purchase money, the declaration, which shewed a delivery of the vessel by the plaintiff to the defendant under the contract, alleged as a breach the refusal of the defendant to accept such deed; and averred that by means thereof the vessel and its price had as proved went to the foundation of been lost to the plaintiff. At the trial the agreement and the liability conthe jury assessed plaintiff's damages sequent thereupon, and exempted the at the whole value of the vessel, and defendant from any damage or liability the court refused to disturb the ver- in respect of the contract. Stevenson dict. Phillips v. Merritt, 513. et al. v. Gildersleeve, 495. BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND See PLEADING, 11. CASE (ACTION ON THE). See MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. SLANDER. Action under 10 & 11 Vic. ch. 6, Bill-Liability of joint acceptors.] by an administratrix-Duty to repair A joint acceptor of a bill of exchange walls-Evidence.]-In an action on cannot be heard to say (as between the case under the provincial statute himself and the plaintiff) that he was 10 & 11 Vic. ch. 6, brought by an surety for the other acceptor, and is on administratrix for negligently causing that account discharged by time (with- the death of the plaintiff's intestate, out his assent) having been given to the declaration stated that at the times his principal. Nafis et al. v. Soules et al. 412. BONDS. See COMMON SCHOOLS, 2. BY-LAWS. when, &c., the defendant was possessed of a close, and one T. A. was possessed of another close, adjoining the defendant's: that upon defendant's close a wall was standing, which before and at the times when, &c., was to the knowledge of the defendant in a dilapidated and dangerous state, and leaning towards the close of T. A.; by reason whereof it became the duty of See MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ACTS, 2, 6, the defendant to take reasonable pre 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. CARRIERS. cautions to prevent the wall from falling; but that, well knowing the premises, he wrongfully permitted the wall to remain in that state, and that afterwards, by reason of such neglect, and while, &c., the said wall fell upon the close of T. A., and in falling killed the intestate, who was then lawfully in the said close of T. A. The defendant pleaded" not guilty." Upon the trial the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and the court discharged a rule nisi for a new trial-holding that the declaration disclosed a legal lia. bility in the defendant, and that the evidence (which is set out in the report) warranted the conclusion to which the jury had come. See PLEADING, 10. Qualification of agreement.]-Declaration-Special assumpsit upon an alleged special contract to carry safely for hire certain goods of the plaintiffs, the dangers of the navigation excepted, and for breach assigned damage to the goods through the negligence of the defendant and his servants, and not by reason, of the dangers of the naviga. tion. Plea-Non-assumpsit. On the defence the defendant proved that although he undertook to carry for hire, he so undertook at the plaintiff's risk; and the evidence having been left to Semble, that, under this issue, the the jury, they found on this point for defendant was at liberty to shew that defendant. Held, that the qualification the accident was caused, either wholly or in part, by the negligence of the Payment of monies collectedintestate, or of others, for whom the Bond.]-2. The plaintiff sued on a defendant was not responsible, and that bond made by defendant to recover a reasonable time for repairing the monies collected by Styles under a bywall had not elapsed before the occur-law of the District of Huron Munici rence: and that, supposing the state pal Council passed to collect the sum of the wall, as alleged in the declara- of 251. within school section No. 8, to tion, to be admitted in the pleadings, build a school house therein: the conyet the defendant might, nevertheless, dition of the bond being that the defenin evidence, shew its actual condition, dant Styles was bound to collect all as bearing upon the question of negli- the taxes due to the treasurer of the gence. Kinney, Administratrix, v. Huron District from the township of Morley, 226. Blanshard for the year 1849, and pay over the same to the plaintiff, as treasurer, &c. Held, that all monies collected for the erection of school houses under any by-law of the District Municipal Council were payable not to the superintendent but to the district treasurer, who alone, under the late act, was authorized to take security from collectors for the payment of monies collected for public purposes; and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover on the bond. Brown v. Styles et al. 346. CERTIFICATES. Under 43 Eliz. ch. 6, sec. 9.]-See "Costs." Of discharge of mortgages.]-2. See "Mortgage." CHATTELS. Under what circumstances the property of chattels vests in the vendee by the contract of sale.]-1. See "Vendor and Purchaser." Assignments good though by parol.] -2 See "Composition." Machinery of a saw mill not trade fixtures 1-3. See Fixtures." COMMISSION TO EXAMINE Commission not returned as order COMPOSITION. Parol assignment of goods-Accord and satisfaction.]-The defendants admit the plaintiff's demand, but set up as a bar to the further continuance of the action an agreement, which they allege was entered into between them and their creditors, the plaintiff being ed.]—An objection taken at Nisi Prius one, by which the creditors agreed to to the admission of evidence taken in which the defendants were interesttake certain property and contracts under a commission, on the grounded, which were to be managed by that the commission was not returned to the office of the deputy clerk of the crown pursuant to the judge's order was held bad. Stevenson v. Rae, 406. COMMON SCHOOLS. Levying rates on non-residents only, illegal.]-1. See" Munici; al Council Acts," 10. assignees appointed by the creditors: that they were ready and willing to make such assignment, but that at the time of pleading sufficient time had not been allowed to complete the same. The plaintiff, taking this plea as good, replies, that he and the other creditors did not mutually agree with each other and with the defendants to take the assignment, &c., therein mentioned, 551 as a composition for, or a satisfaction ch. 6.]-To a declaration in trespass of their respective debts, nor was it the defendant pleaded not possessed, agreed between them that the plaintiff which was held bad on demurrer, was not to proceed against the defen- and plaintiff obtained a verdict, with dants for the recovery of his said debt. 1s. damages. A certificate, under the Held, per SULLIVAN, J., that a compo- statute 43 Eliz. ch. 6, sec. 9, was sition, where lands are not concerned, obtained by defendant, after judgment or an assignment of goods, which would entered and costs taxed, that damages not fall within the Statute of Frauds,, were under 40s. On motion for revi. is valid by parol: that it is no objection sion of taxation of costs; Held, that to the accord set up in this case that the plaintiff was entitled to costs on the satisfaction had not been given at the ground that the judge who tried the time of the plea pleaded: that an the cause could have had no opporagreement as an accord, to which all tunity of certifying that the title was the creditors are parties, is good, if in question under the plea of not posthere be no other fatal objections, not- sessed, after its being held bad on withstanding that it is by parol, and demurrer; and that the certificate notwithstanding that acceptance is not under the stat. 43. Eliz. was too late. shewn, there being no default on the Kain v. McGill, 151. part of the debtors: that the plea after verdict must be held good, because it is in the nature of the circumstances that the mutual promises were (provisionally) a satisfaction for the debt. Brunskill v. Metcalf et al. 431. CONSIGNOR AND CONSIGNEE. CONTRACT. CHASER. CORPORATIONS. See MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ACTS. COSTS. See MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ACTS, 10, 11. Certificate depriving plaintiff of full costs-22 & 23 Car. II. ch. 9-43 Eliz. CUSTOM. See PLEADING, 10. CUSTOMS (COLLECTOR OF.) Liability for defalcations of deputy.]-A. having been appointed collector of customs, gave a bond to her Majesty, conditioned that he should in all things well and truly discharge his duty as collector, and account for and pay over all monies which should come into his hands; and having re. ceived written instructions that all entries were to be made by him, all permits were to be granted and signed only by him, and payment of all duties to be made to him, except under certain circumstances. Held per Cur., that having permitted the deputy collector rightfully to assume and perform duties entrusted to him alone, he was responsible under his bond for defalca. tions of the said deputy collector. The Queen v. Stanton, 18. DAMAGES. See ASSUMPSIT, 2. DEBENTURES. in an action for dower, White v. See MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ACTS, 4. Laing, 186. DEED. See MORTGAGE. Priority of registry.]—A. being the patentee of a lot of land, conveyed it in 1838 to B.: B. in 1840 conveyed it to C. without registering the deed from the patentee to himself, which was not registered until April 1843: C., not having registered his deed from B. until May 1845, in September 1847 conveyed to the defendant: in May 1844 B. executed another con Widow of naturalized alien.]-2. The widow of an alien who has been naturalized is entitled to dower. Ib. DURESS. See MONEY HAD AND RECEIved, 3. EJECTMENT. See RECORD (NISI PRIUS), 1, 2. ELECTIONS. ESTOPPEL. See AGREEMENT.-LANDLORD AND veyance of the property he had already See MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ACTS, 1. conveyed to C. to the lessors of the plaintiff, who registered their deed in February 1845, thus gaining priority of registry over C., who did not register his deed until May 1845. Held, that it was not necessary that the deed should be registered to pass the title from the patentee to B., and from B. to C., and that the defendant shewed either a prima facie title in himself, or that no estate vested in the lessors of the plaintiff. Doe dem. Shibley v. Maldron, 189. DE INJURIA. See MARRIAGE (BREACH OF PROMISE) DOWER. Sheriff's vendee.]-The lessor of the plaintiff having previously recover. ed judgment against the defendant, in an action brought on the covenants for the payment of money contained in two several mortgages on which this action of ejectment was brought, in which prior action the defendant had pleaded usury, and the issue thereon having been found for the plaintiff, an execution issued against the lands of the defendant, and the premises contained in the mortgages were, under See ADMISSIONS, 2.-PLEADING, 2, the stat. 12 Vic. ch. 73, sold to the 3, 4, 5. defendant, who at the time of the Exchange of lands.-1. A deman. trial of this action was in possession, dant of dower is not entitled to dower claiming to hold under a deed from the out of land of which her husband died sheriff. Held, that there was a suffiseized, and likewise out of other land cient privity of estate between the pur. of which the husband was seized in chaser at the sheriff's sale, (the defenhis lifetime, and which he had given dant in this suit), under the execution in exchange for the land of which against the judgment debtor, to enable he died seized. The widow is entitled the lessor of the plaintiff to estop the to elect out of which property she defendants from setting up the same will take her dower. Such election defence of usury unsuccessfully set must be pleaded by a party defending up by the judgment debtor, under |