'iii!i!!!
LIST OF LEADING
CASES
.
--...PAGE
ACRAMAN V. MORRICE (as to when property passes on sale of goods)
ALDOUS V. CORNWELL (alteration of written instrııments)
................
...... 230
ARMORY v. 277 399
19 307
DELAMIRIE (importance of possession as against wrong-doer) .. ARNOLD V.
POOLE (corporations must generany contract under seal)
ASHBY v. WnıTE (action always lies for infringement of a right)
.
290
"""
........
ATCHINSON V. BARER (action for breach of promise of marriage)
....... ......
BALDEY V. PARKER (contract for sale of a number of trifling articles
amounting in aggregate to value of ;blO, must be in writing)
BAXTER V. PORTSMOUTH (lıınatic may sometimes contract)
.
. . ... . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .
86
16
BEAUMONT v. REEVE (mere moral consideration will not support HO
promise).. BEHN v. Bummss (" now in port of Amsterdam" in charterparty, held a
173
warranty)
..
BICKERDIKE
unnecessary)
. . . . . . .., . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . ... . . . ... . 100
..,.
................
vice"
~
v.
75
BOLLMAN
BIRKMYR V.
(notice of dishonour sometimes
DARNELL (" debt, defaıılt, or miscarriage") 210
BLOWER v. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (animal's" proper
93
excuses carrier)
259
BOYDELL V. DRUMMOND (separate documents containing contract cannot be
219
connected by oral evidence) ........... . ..,... .......... ..,... ...... ......
BRICE v. BANNISTER (assignment of chose in action)
BUNCH v. 331
GREAT
WESTERN
RAILWAY
COMPANY
(passengers'
luggage)......
BUTTERFIELD v. FORRESTER (contributory negligence of plaintiff generany
.................................. ......................
....................
disentitles him to complain)
.
.....................................
206
........................
CA.LYE'S CASE (as to the liabilities of innkeepers)
CAPITAL AND COUNTIES BANK V. HENTY (defamation)
...................... .
CARTER V. BOEHM (concealment of material fact vitiates policy of in
surance) ............................................................... ~.. ..
.. i
i
.
CHASEMORE V. RICHARDS (daınnuın sine iny'urid not actionable) ............
406
184
307
:x:ıı
LIST OF
LEADING CASES.
PAGE
CLARK
E V. CUCKFIELD UNION (corporations can sometimes contract without
seal)
............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .12'
....
Cbousv. BK&vABD (baİlments)
................................... ....
199
20
COLLEN
V. WRIGHT (agent who had exceeded authority in granting
CLAYTON v. BLAXEY (effect of leases void under sects. 1 and 2 of Statute of
51
120
taken to have warranted that he had authority). . . . . . . . .. .......... . . . .
3
38
COLLINS v. BLAlITERN (illegality) . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '" . . . ... .
138
lease Frauds) ...................................................................................... ".......... "..".
COOKE V. ÜXLEY (proposal can be retracted any time before
56
34
42
1
8
2
267
194
acceptance)....
CORNFOOT v. FOWKE (liability of principal for representations of agent)
COWAN V. MILBOURNE (atheistical contracts il/egal)
....
.................. ....
Cox V. HWKMAN (participation in profıts not conclusive evidence of part
nership) ......................................................
177
....... . . 182
.
Cox V. MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY (implied authority of agents)
DALDY V. INDIA AND LONDON LIFE INSURAlIOE COMPANY (life insurance is
.
not a contract of indemnity merely)
41
..............................
CREPPS V. DURDEN (conditions of bringing actions against magistrates)
....
DARRELL ıı. TIDDITs. (fire insnrance contract of indemnity merely) ....................... "
CROSBY V. W ADSWORTH (growing grass "an interest in land")
..........
DAVENPORT v. THOMSON (undisclosed principals) ................................... "" ""
CUMBER V. WANE (lesser sum cannot be pleaded in satisfaction of greater)..
DAVIES V. MANN (contributory negligence does not disentitle if defendant
CUTTER v. POWELL (as to when plaintiff can sue on quantuın meruit)
by reasonable care could have averted consequences of plaintiff's negli.
......
146
453
gence) ......................................................................................................................256
332
DENTON V. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY (responsibility of railway
EGERTON
v.
BROWNLOW
(public
policy)
company for not running advertised train) ...............................................................118
223
................................
88
243
DIDSDURY v. THOMAS (hearsay evidence) ................................................................... 443
ELMoRE v. STONE (acceptance under I7th sectiQn of Statute of Frauds)
DIGGLE V. HIGGS (wagering contracts void, and stake may be recovered
.. . from
. stakeholder) .............................................. 459
ELwEs V. MAWE (as to tenant's right to removefixtures) .......... ....
DOVASTON V. PAYNE (as to demcation and repair of highways)........ ......
270
DUMPoR
v.
SYMMS
(waiver
of
forieiture,
&c.)
315
..........................
FABRIGAS V. MOSTYN (as to torts committed and contracts made abroad,
but su ed on here)
..............................................
FINOH V. BROOK (production, unIess dispensed with, essentiaI to valid
tender) .
. . . . . . . . . "" '" . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FLETOHER V. RYLANDS (Iiabilities of persons who bring dangerous sube
stances on their lands)
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . ,... . . . . . . . . .. .. '" . . . . .
;
--
..,
.
--
LIST OF LEADING CASES.
xiii
PAGE
GEORGE V. GLAGETT (set-of!' by purchasers from factors)
45
...
. ... .. . . . . . . .
Goss 'J.
NUGENT (written instrument cannot be varied, but may be waived
............. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . .. .. .. . . ... .. . . . . .
by parol)
HADLEY
155 v. BAXENDALE (measure of damages in contract)
HARRISON v. BUSH (privileged communications)
iii
. . .,.. . . ........
409
,.. . .. . . . . . . . . . 295
177
.. . .
HEEDON v. WEST (life insurance)
...
. , , . . .. . . . . . , . . . . . .. , . . . . . . . .
449
HIGRAM V. RIDGWAY (declarations contrary to interest of deceased persons
adınissible evidence)
............................................
40
2
conversion of goods) ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
29
HOCHSTER V. DE LA TOUR (suing before day of performance has arrived) .
2
HoPKINS v. TANQUERAY (warranty must be part of the contract of sale)
INDERMAUR V. DAMES (person on lawful business may maintain action 167
HILBERY v. HATTON (innocent intention no defence in action for wrongful
.
..
where trespasser or licensee could not)
..... ,. . . .. .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . . 338
TRONS V. SMALLPIECE (delivery or deed necessary to gift) .................... 246
it
JOLLY v. REEs(private arrangement unknown to tradesmen between hus
band and wife may disable latter from pledging former's creilit)
30
.. . .
JONES v. JUST (warranty of quality sometimes implied)
JORDAN v. NORTON (proposal must be accepted İn terms)
................ 170
................ 6
KEECH V. HALL (mortgagee may eject without notice tenant claiming
under lease from mortgagor granted after mortgage and behind mort
gagee's back)............................................................................... ,....
64
KEMBLE v. FARREN (sum described by parties as liquidated damages may be
only a penalty)
................................. ,............. 300
.............................. 471
KıNGSTON, R. V. DUCHEss OF (estoppels)
LAMPLEIGH V. BRATHWAIT (past consideration will supporl a promise if
moved by previous request)
~
. . .. . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . .
108
LANGRIDGE V. LEVY (privity sometimes necessary to action for tort) .......................... 418
LE BLANCHE V. LONDON & NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (lateness of
trains; when one party to a contract fails to fulfil his part of it, the
other may perform it for himself and send in his bill; but he must not
perform it unreasonably or oppressively) .............................................. 225
LEE V. GRIFFIN (Lord Tenterden's Act as to goods not in esse) .................. 91
LWKBARRow v. MASON (right of stoppage in tı'ansitu defeated bynegotiating
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
bill of lailing)
232
LIMPUS V. LONDON GENERAL OMNIBUS COMPANY (master generally
respon
sible for torts of servant committed in course of employment and within
scope of authority) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . , . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
Lopus V. GHANDELOR (warranties and representations) .............................................. 164
xiv
LiST OF LEADING OASES.
PAGE
LOWE v. PEERS (contracts in restraint of marriage contraryto public policy
. and void)
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .
135
LUMLEY v. GYE (damage need not be legal and natural eonsequence of 435
............ .. . . . . .. . . ., . . . . . .
.. . . . . .. .
. .. . . . . . .336. . .
tort)
LYNCH V. NUltDIN (children can be guilty of contributory negligence)
....
MACKINNON v. PENSON (surveyor of highways may be liable for misfeas
ance, but not for nonfeasance)
. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .
343
MANBY v. SCOTT (husband liable on wife's contracts on principles of
......................................................
28
ageney)
MARRIOTT v. HAMPTON (money paid under mİstake of law, or by compulsion
of legal proceedings, cannot generally be recovered)
113
MASTER V. MILLER (material alteration vitiates written instrument)
277
MELLORS V. SHAW (master employing incompetent workmen, or using
defective machinery, may be responsible to servant hurt thereby in
"""" .............. . .
,.....
course of service)
.
..............................................
347
MERRYWEATHER v. NUAN (defendant mulcted in damages in action of tort
cannot sne co-defendant for contribution)
433
. . ... . . . .. ... . .
MILLER v. RACE (bank notes pass, hke cash, on delivery)
. . . . . . . . . . ... . . .
........
MITCHEL V.
96
130
MONTAGU V.
BENEDICT (hnsband not liable for goods not necessaries snp
plied to wHe, nnless affirmative proof of his having anthorized con
29
tract) ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 168
.....................................
68
1foRLEY V. ATTENBOROUGH (implied warranty of title)
REYNOLDS (contracts in total restraint of trade illegal)
..................
MORLEY V. BIRD (joint tenancy) """"" .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MORRITT v. 216
NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY OOMPANY (Oarriers Act protects car
rier where goods are sent by mistake beyond their destination)
64
Moss V. GALLIMORE (mortgagee giying proper notice, entitled to rent dne
......
from mortgagor's tenant admitted before the mortgage)
............
MOUNTSTEPHEN V. LAKEMAN (gnaranty is collateral undertaking to answer
for another person who remains primarily liable)
75
..................
NEPEAN V. DOE (when a man hasnot been heard of, by those who paturally would
have heard of him had he been alive, for seven years, a pre
468
sumption arises that he is dead)
... . ., .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NICHOLS V. MARSLAND (ds maJor may excuse what wonld otherwise
be an
316
actionable tort)
................................................
........... ......
380
PATERSON V. GANDASEQUI (as to when the seller of goods may sne
the un
40
disclosed principal, and when he must stand or fall by the agent)
125
PASLEY V. FREEMAN (frand and deceitfnl representations)
....
PEARCE v. BROOKS (fornicatory contracts illegal)
. .. . .
~
. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
212
PEEK v. NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY OOMPANY (as to what 433
are" just
and reasonable" conilitions within 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31, s. 7).. """"
PERRYMAN V. LISTER (the action for malicious prosecution) """""""
XV
LIST OF LEADING OASES.
PAGE
PETER v. COMPTON (the words" not to be performed" in sect. 4 of Statute
of Frands mean "incapable of performance")
85
.............................. ,... ....
PETERS v. FLEMING (" necessaries " for infants are those things which it is
reasonable that they should have)
........... . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
. . ., ...................................... . .
PIKE v. FITZGIBBON (contracts of married women) .................. ........
10 24
POULTON V. LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (thongh
master is generally responsible for torts of servant committed in course
360
of duty, servant cannot be taken to have authority to do what master
could not have done himself)
PRICE V. TORRINGTON (declarations in course of business of deceased persons 449
....................................
admissible evidence) .... ,,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
..
346
PRIESTLEY V. FOWLER (master not generally responsible to servant for hurt
sustained in service)
............................................
QUA-Rl\!A.N V. BURNETT (person employiDg contractor not generally respon
sible for contractor's negligence)
................................
356
REA-DHEA-D v. MIDLAND RULWAY COMPA-NY (carriers of passengers bound
to use the greatest care, but not insnrers)
.
.. . . . . . .. . . . ... . . ..
325
REEDIE v. LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWA-Y COMPANY (the liabilities
of a person employing a contractor) ........................................................................ 357
RIGGE v. BELL (effect of leases void under sects. 1 and 2 of Statute of 71
Frauds)
......................................................
ROBERTS V. ORCHA-RD (uotice of action)
42
..,... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . 3.
ROE v. TRA-NMARR (coustruction of written agreements)
Roux v. SALVADOR (abandonment to underwriters)
RYDER v. WOMBWELL (" necessaries" for infants)
.............. ......
16
2
187
II
........ . . . . . . . . . . .. ......
......................
SCA-RA.MA-NGAv.
STAMP
(deviation) 190
.................................... SCA-RFE V. MORGAN (illegality of contracts made 143
.
........
SCOTT v. AVERY (illegality of contracts ousting 127
jurisdiction of Law Courts) SCOTT v. SHEPHERD (consequential damages) 321
SEA-TON v. BENEDICT (responsibility of husband on wife's 29
contracts) ...... SEMA-YNE v. GRESHAM (every Englishman's house not his castle) 395
SHA-RP
v.
POWELL
(proxiıiıate
cause) 321
237
on Sunday; lien)
..........................
........
..................................
SIMPSON v. HARTOPP (goods privileged from distress)
.. .
,
.. . . . .. . . . . . .
SMITH V. MA-RMBLE (implied warranty of fitness on letting furnished
house) . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . ................ . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SMırH v. THA-CKERA-II (right to support from neighbouring land)
SMOUT V. !LBERRY (responsibility of husband on "ife's contracts)
. .. . . . . .
........
..
SOLTA-U V. DE HELD (nuisances) ..... . . .....
................................................... . . . . . . .. . . . .
SPENCER v. CLARK (covenants runuing with the land)
.
.
..................
.
175
371
31
374
262
~
xvi
LIST OF LEADING GASES.
PA.GE
TANNER v. SMART (acknowledgment savıng the Statute of Limitations)....
T.A.RLING v. BAXTER (when property passes on sale of goods)
T.A.YLOR t'. CA-LDWELL (impossible contracts)
. . . ....
............
28
.... .. . . . . . . ... . . 022
9
TEMPEST V. FITZGERA.LD (acceptance under 29 Car. II. c. 3, s. 17)
15
........
1
....................................
35
8
THOMA.S v. RHYMNEY RAILW.A.Y OOMPANY (responsibility of company issuing 3
8
through ticket for accident happening ofi' their line) .' . . . . . .. ......... . . 10
37
4
THORNBOROW v. WHITAORE (adequacy of consideration not required)
7
TODD V. FLIGHT (nuisances from ruinous premises).. . . . .. . . . '" . . . . .. . 36
18
5
..
8
28
TURNER
v. MASON (wrongful
dismissal)
. . ..RMLWAY
. . . . . . COMPANY
.. . . . . . . (negligent
. . . . . . .keeping
. .. . ...of fire)
V
AUGHAN
V. TAFF
V ALE
5
367
TWYNE'S
CASE (gifts
defrauding
VAUX
V. NEwMAN
(trespass
ab initio)creditors)
25
392
TYRIE V. FLETOHER (return of premium)
2
WMN V. WARLTERS (consideration of guaranty)
7
WMTE V. NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (contributory negligence;
8
TERRY v. HUTCHINSON (seduction)
......
....
............................
..................................
..............................
.............................. ......
. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. " . . . . . . . . . .
identification)
. . 335
WAUGH V. CARVER (how far sharing in the profits is evidence of partner
ship )
........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 272
413
55
WELLS v. ABRAHAM:S (tort amounting to felony)
283
WHITOHER V. HALL (alteration of terms between creditor and debtor re
leases surety) ...................................... ,................................... 192
WHI'~OOMBE v. WHITING (acknowledgments by joİnt contractors)
........
WHITEOROSS WIRE COMPANY V. SAVlLL (average) .......................... .. ............ ....
WIGGLESWORTH V. DALLISON (evİdence of custom to qualify written con
tract) .......................................................................... , .............................................. 158
WILSON t', BRETT (though gratuitous bailee is bound to slight diligence
YATES V. JACK (ancient lights) ...... "" ............................................... ....
only, heV.must
use(estoppel
special skill
if he possesses
. .. " , .. .. .....
, . . . 31
"..
YOUNG
GROTE
by negligence)
.,.. ........ it).
., .....................
1
WOOD V. LEADBITTER (mere licence İs revocable at pleasure) ...................................47
197
2
200
.
~.