(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Pleading and practice of the High court of chancery"

Google 



This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for general ions on library shelves before il was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

Il has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often diflicult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parlies, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the plus We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a b<x>k is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 

countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means il can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's hooks while helping authors ami publishers reach new audiences. You can search through I lie lull text of this book on I lie web 
at |http : //books . qooqle . com/| 



r 



jr— 1 



*M 



r_-v 



AVI 



J 



r 



PLEADING AND PRACTICE 



OF THE 



HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. 



Vol. I. 



PLEADING AND PRACTICE 



OF THE 



HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. 



BY THE LATE 



EDMUND ROBERT DANIELL, 

BARRISTBR-AT-LAW. 



7 



&t%tfj American UMtum, 

WITH NOTES AND REFERENCES TO AMERICAN DECISIONS; AN APPENDIX OF 
PRECEDENTS ', AND OTHER ADDITION8 AND IMPROVEMENTS, 
ADAPTING THE WORK TO THE DEMANDS OF 

AMERICAN PRACTICE IN CHANCERY. 

Based on the Sixth English Edition, and the Fourth 
and Fifth American Editions. 

Br J. C. PERKINS, LL.D. and W. F. COOPER, LL.D. 



By JOHN M. GOULD, Ph.D. 

author of " the law of waters," joint author of "notes on the revised 

statutes," editor of story's "commentaries on equity 

pleadings," tenth edition, Era 



IN THREE VOLUMES. 

Vol. L 



BOSTON: 

LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY. 

1894. 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by 

J. C. PERKINS, 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1879, by 

LITTLE, BROWN, A CO., 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington. 

Copyright, 1894, 
By Little, Brown, & Co. 



University Press: 
John Wilson and Son, Cam bridge. 



PREFACE 



TO THE SIXTH AMERICAN EDITION. 



Several years after the publication of Judge Cooper's learned 
and carefully prepared edition of this classic treatise, the elaborate 
Sixth Unglish Edition appeared, which combined with a review of 
the new procedure under the Judicature Acts a more exhaustive 
collection of the English decisions upon the subject than had pre- 
viously been attempted. This edition, to which Lord Esher has 
since referred as " a text-book of great accuracy," 1 has been made, 
so far as applicable to American practice, the basis of this edition ; 
and the text and notes of the editions of Judge Cooper and Mr. 
Perkins have all been carefully compared therewith and corrected 
or amplified therefrom. In order to secure space for the notes 
of the present editor, which are usually indicated by letters at the 
foot of the pages, though very many additions of decisions and 
statements have also been added to the old notes, the plan adopted 
in the last English edition, of stating the principles with their 
limitations in the text, and transferring the illustrations thereof 
to the old notes, has in general been followed. All, however, that 
has heretofore made this treatise so valuable and conclusive upon 
all questions of equity procedure has been retained in the text or 
the accompanying notes. 

Three years of nearly constant research and investigation have 
now been devoted to the task of making this edition complete and 
fully abreast of the times. Special attention has been given to the 
latest decisions, both English and American, and to the equity side 
of the Code procedure, now in force in a majority of the States ; and 

1 Butler u. Butler, 16 Q. B. D. 374, 877. 



VI PREFACE. 

while the details of local practice have not been neglected, it is 
believed that few, if any, decisions upon matters of general interest 
have failed of notice. The constant aim has been to preserve unity 
of system and to make the book useful and exhaustive as an 
encyclopaedia. The citations now added nearly double those of the 
last American edition, and the new cases number fully ten thousand. 
The paging indicated by stars, in the margin, is that of the Fourth 
American Edition. 

The late Mr. Justice Bradley has referred 1 to Daniell as the 
leading authoritative commentary upon the equity practice of the 
Federal Courts ; and as this work has been so intimately connected 
with the history and development of equity in those courts, the 
uniformity of whose procedure, and whose great increase of decisions 
in recent years, render them of first importance, the most careful 
attention has been devoted to their growth and development of 
practice, and their relation to State practice. The equity rules of 
the United States Supreme Court and their amendments are now, 
for the first time, annotated, with all the Federal decisions relat- 
ing to their construction. 

The hope is indulged that so vast a labor will be of good service 
in its completed form to a profession which, as a whole, rarely errs 
in accuracy of judgment. 

J. M. GOULD. 

Newton, Mass., July 1, 1894. 

i In Thomson v. Wooster, 114 U. & 104. 



PREFACE 



TO THE FIFTH AMERICAN ED1TIOX. 



The work, a new edition of which is now offered to the public, 
has an established reputation, and fills a place in the professional 
library, occupied by no other book. It contains, it is true, much 
that is purely local to the practice of the English High Court of 
Chancery, and even more based on recent British legislation and 
Orders of Court, all of which may be said to hare little or no 
application to the American equity system. But it is precisely 
because the work is thus complete, giving us the old English prac- 
tice in Chancery, with the modern changes, that it is indispensable 
to the Judge, the practitioner, and the diligent student. It is impos- 
sible to thoroughly master a difficult point of practice, or even to 
apply with intelligence a well-settled point, without understanding 
its origin, and tracing it through all its changes, legislative and 
judicial. From no other work can the necessary information \\e 
obtained except the " learned and accurate" treatise of Mr. Daniel 1, 
as adapted to the American practice by the late Judge Perkins. 

The main duty of the present editor has been to bring the anno- 
tations down to the present day by a citation of the English and 
American authorities since the publication of the last edition. To 
do this thoroughly, he has been compelled to examine nearly a 
thousand volumes of reports, and has digested and cited about 
twenty-five hundred cases. The Chancery reports proper, both 
English and American, have generally been examined case by case. 
He has particularly directed his attention to questions of practice 
which have come into prominence within the last decade, such as 
those relating to injunctions, especially in tax and bond cases, 
receivers, cross-bills, consolidation of causes, etc. He has aimed 



• •• 



V1U PREFACE. 

to make the citations complete and accurate, with such a statement 
of the ruling as, not only to illustrate the subject under considera- 
tion, but to enable the reader to see at once whether any particular 
case bears upon the point he is investigating. He has recast the 
old notes in many instances with a view to the recent decisions, 
and to bring out clearly the points ruled. Of course, in so volumi- 
nous a work, prepared in the intervals of active judicial duty, there 
will be errors of omission and commission, and the editor can only 
hope that, as these defects cannot mar the original work nor the 
labors of his predecessor, they will not be found sufficient to 
seriously interfere with the practical utility of the additions. 

Perhaps he should add that he has cited the English decisions 
since the Judicature Act of 1873 went into effect without using 
the letters L. B. as a prefix, and has invariably used B. as the 
abbreviation of railroad, and By. for railway. He has also, occa- 
sionally, for the benefit of students, called attention to the fact that 
particular chapters, or parts of chapters, were local or statutory, 
and not applicable to the American Chancery practice. The table 
of cases and the indexes have been revised so as to cover all 
additions. The side paging, and the numbering of the notes follow 
the last edition, with which the profession have become familiar, 
and are always referred to. 

W. F. C. 

Kabhyillb, Tbnn. 
Sept. 6, 1879. 



CONTENTS. 



VOLUME L 



PAG1 

TABLE OF CA8E8 CITED xiii 



CHAPTER I. 

THE COMMENCEMENT OP A 8UIT 1-4 

CHAPTER II. 
PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY BE INSTITUTED. 

Sect. I. The Queen's Attorney-General 5-16 

IL Foreign Governments and States 17-20 

IIL Corporations, Joint-Stock Companies, and Partnerships 20-26 

IV. Persons residing out of the jurisdiction 27-36 

V. Paupers 37-44 

CHAPTER HI. 

SUIT8 BY PERSONS WHO ARE UNDER DISABILITY. 

Sect. L Generally 45 

IL Aliens 45-53 

m. Persons attainted or convicted 53-58 

IV. Bankrupts 58-66 

Y. Infants 66-82 

VL Idiots, lunatics, and persons of unsound or weak mind 82-86 

VII. Married women 87-128 



CHAPTER IV. 
PERSONS AGAINST WHOM A SUIT MAY BE INSTITUTED. 

Sect. L Generally *. 129-130 

IL The Queen's Attorney-General and 'Solicitor-General 130-140 

IIL Foreign Sovereigns, States, and Ambassadors 141-142 

IV. Corporations, Joint-Stock Companies, and Partnerships 143-148 

V. Persons out of the jurisdiction of the Court 149-154 

VI. Paupers 154-156 

VTX Persons attainted or convicted 156 

VIII. Bankrupts 157-160 

IX. Infants 160-175 

X Idiots, lunatics, and persons of unsound or weak mind 175-178 

XI. Married women 178-189 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER V. 
PARTIES TO A SUIT. 

PAOB 

Sect. L Necessary parties, in respect of the concurrence of their interests 

with that of the plaintiff 190-245 

II. Parties to a suit, in respect of their interest in resisting the demands 

of the plaintiff 246-286 

IIL Objections for want of parties 286-295 

IV. Joinder of uninterested parties 295-304 



CHAPTER VI. 
THE BELL. 

Sect. I. The different sort of bills 305-306 

II. The authority to file the bill 306-311 

III. By whom prepared 311-313 

IV. The matter of the bill 313-355 

V. The form of the bill 355-391 

Generally 355-357 

1. Address of the bill 357 

2. Names and addresses of the plaintiffs 357-360 

3. Stating part . . .' 360-372 

4. Charge of confederacy 372 

. 5. Changing part 372-374 

6. Interrogating part 374-377 

7. The prayer for relief 377-389 

8. Prayer for process 389-391 

VI. In what cases the bill must be accompanied by an affidavit .... 392-396 

VII. Printing and filing the bill 396-401 

VIII. Amending the biff 401-427 

% 

CHAPTER VIL 

PROCESS BY SERVICE OP A COPY OF THE BILL ON FORMAL DE- 
FENDANTS, AND PROCEEDINGS BY SERVICE OF NOTICE OF THE 
DECREE. 

Sect. I. Process by service of a copy of the bill on formal defendants . . . 428-432 

II. Proceedings by service of notice of the decree 432-438 



CHAPTER VIII. 

PROCESS TO COMPEL, AND PROCEEDINGS IN DEFAULT OF, 

APPEARANCE. 

Sect. I. Service of the copy of the bill 439-456 

II. Proceedings where no service of a copy of the bill can be effected . . 456-460 

III. Proceedings by the plaintiff, where service of the copy of the bill has 

been effected 460-472 

IV. Against particular defendants 472-479 



CHAPTER IX. 

INTERROGATORIES FOR THE EXAMINATION OF THE DE- 
FENDANTS IN ANSWER TO THE BILL 480-487 



CONTENTS. XI 



CHAPTER X. 

PROCESS TO COMPEL, AND PROCEEDINGS IN DEFAULT OP, 

ANSWER. 

PAGE 

Sect. L Against defendants not privileged, nor subject to disability .... 488-496 

IL Against particular defendants 496-504 

IIL Effect of a contempt upon the proceedings in the cause 504-507 

IV. In what manner contempts in process may be cleared, waived, or 

discharged 507-513 

V. Process by filing a traversing answer or traversing note 513-516 



CHAPTER XI. 

TAKING BILLS PRO CONFESSO. 

Sect. I. Preliminary order 517-525 

II. Hearing, decree, and subsequent proceedings 525-532 



CHAPTER XII. 

THE DEFENCE TO A SUIT 533-535 

CHAPTER XIII. 

APPEARANCE 536-541 

» 

CHAPTER XIV. 

DEMURRERS. 

Sect. I. The general nature of demurrers 542-546 

II. The different grounds of demurrer 547-584 

KL The form of demurrers 585-591 

IV. Filing, setting down, and hearing demurrers 591-597 

V. The effect of allowing demurrers 597-599 

VI. The effect of overruling demurrers 600-602 

CHAPTER XV. 

PLEAS. 

Sect. I The general nature of pleas 603-625 

II. The different grounds of pleas 625-681 

IIL Form of pleas 681-689 

IV. Swearing, filing, setting down, and arguing pleas 689-696 

V. Allowing pleas 696-699 

VI. Saving the benefit of a plea to the hearing 699-700 

VII. Ordering a plea to stand for answer 700-701 

Vlll. Overruling pleas ' 701-703 

IX. Amending pleas, and pleading de novo 703-705 

CHAPTER XVI. 

DISCLAIMERS 706-710 



• • 



Xll CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER XVIL 
ANSWERS. 

PAGE 

Sect. I. General nature of answers 711-729 

II. Form of answers 729-738 

III. Swearing, filing, and printing answere 738-758 

IV. Exceptions to answers 758-774 

V. Further answers — answers to amended bills 775-777 

VI. Amending answers — supplemental answere 777-784 

VII. Taking answere off the file 784-786 

VIIL From what time answer deemed sufficient 786 



CHAPTER XVIH. 

. THE JOINDER OF SEVERAL DEFENCES 787-789 

CHAPTER XIX. 

DISMISSING BILLS, OTHERWISE THAN AT THE HEARING, AND 

STAYING PROCEEDINGS. 

Sect. I. Generally 790-801 

II. For want of prosecution 801-812 

III. Where the suit has abated, or become otherwise defective .... 812-815 

IV. Cases of election 815-818 

CHAPTER £X. 

MOTION FOR A DECREE 819-827 

CHAPTER XXI. 

REPLICATION 82S-835 

CHAPTER XXIL 

EVIDENCE. 

Sect. L Admissions 836-849 

II. The onus probandi 849-852 

in. Confined to matters in issue 852-860 

IV. Of the effect of a variance 860-862 

V. Documentary evidence which proves itself 862-874 

VI. Documentary evidence which does not prove itself 874-881 

VII. Proving exhibits at the hearing under an order 881-885 

VIIL Who may be witnesses 885-887 

IX. Manner of, and time for, taking evidence 887-891 

X. Affidavits, and ex-parte examinations before an examiner 891-903 

XI. Vxv& voce evidence 903-919 

XII. Interrogatories 920-926 

XIII. Examination of witnesses by the examiner on interrogatories . . . 926-932 

XIV. Examination of witnesses at bene esse 932-941 

XV. Demurrers by witnesses 942-945 

XVI. Publication 945-950 

XVII. Suppression of depositions 950-951 

XVIII. Re-examination ot witnesses *..«... 952-955 

XIX. Examination of witnesses after publication 955-961 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[m minon abb to thi stab nana.] 



A. 



A. 9. B. 640 

Absdom v. Abedom 881 

Abbey v. The R. L. Stevens 680. 

1427 



Abbot *. Alien 

v. Johnson 
Abbott «. Bayley 

•• Alger ton 

«. Foote 

». MJddteton 

». Mooa 

v Parsons 



1668 

884, aoDi 946 

88 
1061 
1621 
1608 
1078 
1127 
990 1400 
Abby v. Gilford 1202' 1798 

Abel v. Nodes 1807 

Absll v. Heatheote 1316 

v. Sebreeeh 1218 

Abeb 9. Mobile R. E Co. 1661 

Aberaman Ironwork* Go. v. 

Wickene 280,279,1469 

AberaTon Tin Plate Co., Re 27 

Aberdeen v. Chitty 1784 

Abergavenny, Lady 9. Aber- 
gavenny, Lady 864 
Abergavenny. Lord v. Powell 962. 

964,1674 

«. Thomas 1164 

AberystwUh, ftc. By. Go. ». 

Pierey 

Abingdon, Lord v ThornhiD 897 
Aboaloffv Oppenhehner 287. 664 
Abraham v. Bubb 
r. Hannay 
v. N ewoombe 
Abram*. Ward 
Abtams v. Wlnahnp 
Abrey v. Newman 
Abud v. Bfches 

Accidental and Marine Ins. Go. 
v. Gibbon 1668 

v Mereati 26,27 

Accumulator Go. e. Consolidated 

B 8. Go. 1069 

Aeerro v. Petroni 920 

Acherley 9. Roe 660, 661, 640, 641 
Aeneson v. Stevenson 1688 

Aefcer, Re 1796 

v. Letend 1071 

Ackarson 9. Lodi Branch R. 

Co. 216 

AeUin ». PaeehaU 1168 

Aekroyd v. Brlggs 207, 208. 246 
v. Smithson 1480 

Aeland 9. Gravener 1726 

Acme Copying Co. v. MeLore 1172 
Aeomb 9. Landed Estate Co. 1821 
Acquaeknock Water Go. ». Wat- 
son 1689 
Aeraman v. Bristol Dock Go. 1667 
r Price 1061 
Aerei •>. Little 79 
Acton 9. Market 1672 
Adair v Adair 1288 



1680,^1684 

248 

96 

481 

868 

208,1614 

608,1046 



Adair v. Barrington 

v. New River Co. 

v. 8haw 

v. Winchester 

v. Toang 
Adair County v. Ownby 
Adames v. Hallett 
Adams, Ex parte 



809 

274,276 

1428 

197,199 

261 

1766 

1428 

v. Adams 864,726,844.991,1229 
v. Bankart 1104 

v. Barry 224 

v. Batley 667 

v. Bradley 200, 228 

v. Brldgewater Iron Go. 769, 828 
v. Brown 999, 1224, 1282, 1244, 
1247, 1248, 1298 
v. Claxton 1810, 1867 

v. Clifton 1418 

v. Colthurst 82 

v. Crittenden 1668 

v. Dixon 1660, 1561 

v. Evans 1074 

v. Fisher 1717, 1829 

v. Haskell 1747 

v. Heatheote 1776 

v Holbrook 266, 269 

v. Howard 669, 690, 1881, 1642 
v. Hudson Co. Bank 1676 

o. Johnson 2800 

v. Kehlor Milling Co. 860 

v. Lookwood 1691 

v. Meyrose 814 

v. Michael 1686, 1638 

v. Mooter 1078 

v. Myers 1895 

v. Nixon 1661 

v. Pavnter 481 

v. Peirce 92 

v. Phillips 418 

v Porter 872,668.664,679, 

1467, 1667 
v Russell 960 

v 8haron 1120 

v. Shelby 887 

v. Soule 1147 

9. Stevens 161, 290, 618, 

1607,1971 
v. Valentine 1661 

v. Waller 644, 1210 

v. Whiteomb 1704 

v Woods 1788,1749 

Adams County v Burlington ft 

M. R. R. Co 402 

Adamson v. Adamson - 88 

v. Blackstock 466 

v. Hall 818, 1612, 1648, 1679 

V. Hull 813, 1648 

v. Wilson 1666 

Adamson 'b Appeal 1461 

Adeock v. Peters 286, 646 

Adderly v. 9ml th 82 

Addis v. Campbell 1828, 1828 

Addison v. Hindmarsh 1486 



Addison 9. Williamson 1181 

Addleman v. Mastersoo 908 

Aderholt v. Henry 1290 

Adger v. Pringle 790 

Adkins 9. Bliss 1044, 1064, 1798 
Adkisson *. Dent 1168, 1820 

Adney v. Flood 418 

Adreveno v. Mutual Baser ve F. 

L. Ass'n. 676 

Advocate, Lord v. Douglas, Lord 1464 
v. Dunglas 1496 

Adye v. Banna 668 

jBtna Ins. Co. 9. Tyler 1241 

African Co. v. Pariah 666 

African Meth. Ep. Church 9. 

Conover 888, 1614 

African 8oe. 9. Variok 22 

Agabeg 9. Hartwell 1490 

Agar v. Fairfax 1160, 1162, 1162 

v. Gurney 769, 1298 

v. Macklew 670 

v. Regent's Canal Co. 10, 717, 

718, 1078. 1686 

Agar-Ellis, lie 70, 108 

Agens v. Agent 660 

Ager v. Blacklock ft Go. 781 

Aggas v. Ptckerell 669 

Aglionby «. James 1147 

Agnew 9. Bank of Gettysburg 26 

v. Dorman 630, 1427 

9. McGill 840 

9. Whitney 1802 

Agriculturist Cattle Ins. Co., 

Re 1827,1828.1880,1786 

Aguilar 9. Agullar 102, 104, 106 
Aholts 9. Durfea 1120, 1680 

Ahrendv Odiorne 866,662,661 
Ahrenfeldt v. Ahrenfeldt I860 

Afckles*s Case 878 

Aiken v. Kilburne 671 

v. Smith 678 

Alkin v. Ballard 860, 861, 878 

v. Harrington 682, 1484 

Ails 9. Sublit 988 • 

Ainsley v. Sims 80, 68, 411, 418, 426. 

427 

Ainille 9. Medllcott 109, 182 : 

v. Sims 601, 791 

Alnsworth v. Bentley 1664 

9. Roe 1888 

v. 8tarkle 1667 

v. Walmsley 1649 

Airey v Hall 1826 

Alslable v. Rice 1408 

Aitohlson 9 Lohre 1608 

Alabama Gold Life Ins. Co., Ex 

parte 816 

9. Lott 1661 

Alabama G. S. Ry. Go. e. Hill 1666 
Alabama Iron & Ry. Co. v. An- 

nlston Loan & T. Co. 1748 

Alabama Warehouse Go. v. 
Jones 418 



XIV 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[The reference* are to the star paging.] 



Alan v. Jourdan 848 

Alardes 9. Campbell 700 

Albany, Jtc. Min. Co. v. Au- 
ditor-General 1661 
Albany Bank v. gchormerhoru 1742 
Albee e. Carpenter 90.117 
Albert e. Perry 1868, 1864 
Albert, Prince v. Strange 89, 155, 

911, 1647 
Albert Average Ass'n, Be 1789 

Albion Steel A Wire Co. 9. Mar- 
tin 1881 
Albrecht v. St Paul 1676 
v. Sussmau 00. 61, 547 
Albritton v. Bird 1621, 1624 
Alcinona v. Nlgren 49, 61, 58 
Alcock v. Aloock 118 
Alcott v. Arery 1508 
Aldborough, Lord v. Barton 28 
Alden v. Beekley 147 
v. Foster 1000, 1224 
v. Trabee 1624 
Alderman v. Bannister 1548 
Alderson v. Biggara 542 
e. Harris 292 
•>. Henderson 801 
Aldinger v. Pugh 1685 
Aldred v. HalliweU 1104 
Aldrich v. Sharp 1265 
e\ Wilcox 828 
Aldridge v. Dunn 1589 
v. Menaer 1568, 1569, 1670 
v Thompson 1565, 15*9 
9. Westbrook 780, 1890, 1418 
Aldworth v. Robinson 972 
Alexander v. Adams 688 
v. Alexander 110, 1186 
e. Barker 1126 
v. Berney 21, 143 
f>. Can* 220, 279 
v. Colcord 1081 
v. Easten 1694 
v. Gibson 1101 
e. Hoffman 281, 279 
v. Katte 26 
e.Lee 296 
v. Markham 1676 
9. Miller 1001 
v. Mills 1282, 1401 
«. Mortgage Co 720 
9 Moye 597 
9. Nuroe 892 
*. Osborne 528 
9. Pendleton 676, 1682 
e. Searcy 26 
9. Taylor 861, 417 
v. United States 678 
e. Wallace 844 
«. Wellington, Duke of 1485 
9. Williams 840 

* Wolley 1168 
Alexandria Palace Co., Re 145 
Alford v. McCormac 894 
Allken*. Howell 1188 
Alison, Re. Johnson v. Mouneey 652 
Allan v. Allen 817, 1572, 1578 

v Copeland 547 

». Hoffman 1508 

v. Honlden 599 

* United Kingdom Tel Co. 1028 
AUard v. Carleton 808 
Allay v. Hutehlns 1100 
Allcard v. Skinner 560 
Allcroft v. Farnan 226 
Alldaye Fletcher 1486 
Allegheny fc K. R. Co. 9. Wei- 

denfeld 1661 

Allegro v. Maryland Ins. Co 671 

Allen, Re 1449, 1847 

v. Allen 91, 687, 880, 1048. 1814, 

1549,1550 
v. Annesley 986 

9- Archer 964 

v. Rabcoek 920 

v. Barkfdale 1019 

v Bangui 548,1870 

v. Belcher 1462 



Allen v. Blunt 1002, 1146. 1147 

v Bone 807,808 

v. Bonnett 866.868 

v. Central R. Co. 1748 

v. Chosen Freeholders 1636 

v. Ooffman 879 

v. Croberoft 1668 

v. Crocket 197 

v. Curtis 26, 144, 242 

9. Davidson 68 

v. Demarest 829 

v. Dunlap 1628 

v. Bast 1282, 1286 

9. Forbes 96 

9. Gillette 1271 

9. Harding 1660 

9. Hawley 1677 

9. Hilton 1658 

v. Houlden 267 

v. Hyde 1712 

9. Jarris 1285, 1442, 1474 

9. Kennett 1072 

9. Knight 224 

9 Lemoyne 1008 

9. Lewis 1881 

9. Lloyd 1784 

v. Loder 469 

v. McNew 1559 

9. Macpherson 40, 552, 664 

9. Miller 844, 846 

v. Minor 1680 

9. Montgomery 59 

9. Montgomery R. Co. 841 

9. New York 517 

9. O'Donald 728, 840 

9. Poole 281 

t>.Rand 906 

9. Randolph 608, 661, 669 

v. Bobbins 1288, 1245 

9. Roll 220, 1550 

9. Saulpaw 1078 
9. Seckham 674,1080,1688,1668 

9. Shanks 1809 

9. Simons 1997 

9. Smith 294, 406, 524 

9. Spring 426, 1616 

9. State Bank 895, 892 

9. Taylor 894 

9. Tritch 1548 

v. Turner 26, 240, 287, 289 

9. Watt 688 

9. Wilkins 90, 114, 117 

9. Williams 1061 

9. Wilson 1019 

9. Wlnstandly 818 

9. Woodruff 214 

9. Weolley 644 

9. Woonsocket Co 1120 

Allender v. Trinity Church 1280 

Alter 9. Jones 1667 

Alley v. Carroll 1546 

9. Quinter 890, 1081 

Allfrey 9. AUfrey 849, 667, 668, 
771, 840, 1185, 1186, 1280, 1258, 

' 1487 
Aligned v. Merrybent A D By. 

Co. 1780 

Allhusen « Laboochere 854 

Alliance Milling Co. v. Eaton 713 

Allln v. Hall 296 

Ailing v. Ailing 641 

Atlls, Re 888, 988 

9. Buckets* 779, 848 

t». Stowell 814, 782, 829, 1069 

Allison, Re 1846 

9. Drake 280, 1580, 1584 

9. Herring 1845 

Alloway Creek (8 P. Inhah. of) 

v. Strong 22 

Allsop 9. Alteap 251 

Allyn v. Deris 448 

Alma 9. Loehr 1661 

Almack v Moore 68 

Almond e. Wilson 884 

Ahnony v. Hicks 548, 552, 1624 

Almyv Daniels 659 
9. Py croft 



1650 

779 

724,728 



Alpena 9. Kelley 
Alpha v. Payman 
Alsager v. Johnson 

9 Rowley 
Alsop 9. Bell 1428, 1527, 1542 

9. Oxford, Lord 1440, 1449 

Alston 9. Alston 1858, 1551 

9. Boyd 88 

9. Jones 110 

v. Trollone 648, 644, 1211 

Alt e. Banholser 606 

Althause v. Radde 1159 

Altman 9. Royal Aquarium So- 
ciety 1658 
Alton 9. Harrison 1067 
Altree v. Horden 402, 796, 797 
9. Sherwin 905 
AJranley, Lord v. Kinnaird 1169, 

1276, 1288, 1844 
Alren 9. Bond 1752 

Alviue v. Bond 1271 

Alrord 9. Stone 1468 

Alwood 9. Mansfield 1666 

Ambler e. Macon 1858 

Ambrose 9. Dunmow Union 1899 
v. Nott 815 

Ambroslo 9. Francla 959 

Ambury 9. Jones 547, 1657 

Amelnng v. Seekamp 1681, 1689 
America Lisa Ass. v. Boogber 1642 
American Academy of Arte and 
Sciences v. Harvard College 

2182,2207,2208 

American Bell Tel. Co. v. Brown 

Tel. Co. 1642 

9. Globe Tel. Co. 1642 

9. McKeesport Tel. Co. 1642 

9. Pan Electric Tel Co. 149 

9. Southern Tel. Co. 814 

American Bible Society t. Price 417 

American Box M. Co. v. Cros- 

man 1411 

American Carpet Linen Co. v 

Chtpman 848 

American Diamond Drill Co. 9 

Sulllran M. Co. 1408 

American Diamond R. B. Co e. 

Sheldons 1120 

American Dock A Imp. Co. • 

Public School Trustees 1078 
Ameiiean E. Co. 9. Fuller 878, 974 
American Exchange, Re 887 

American Exchange Bank v. An- 
drews 1516 
9. Inloes 885 
American File Co. t. Garrett 848 
American F L. M. Co. v. Ben- 
son 149 
9. Sewell 545, 686 
American Freehold L. A M. Co. 

885 

Ins. Co. 9. Oakley 588, 

12*2, 1284, 1286, 1290, 1479 

American Life Ins. A Trust Co. 

v. Bayard 777, 1684 

9. Beckett 886 

American Loan A Trust Co. 9. 

East k West Ry Co. 766 

American Middling Purifier Co. 
9. Atlantic Milling Co. 1640 
9. Christian 1640 

American Mortgage Co. 9. 

O'Harra 848 

American Refrigerating, &c. Co 

v. Linn 

American R. P Co. v. Knopp 814 
American Solid Leather Button 
Co v. Empire State Nail 
Co. 814 

American Tobacco Co. v Guest 1648 
American Water Works Co. «. 

Venner 1668 

American Wine Co. 9 Brasher 885 
American Zylonite Co v. Cellu- 
loid Manuf Co. 790, 794 
v. Deane 1664 



Ames v. Ames 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XV 



[The 



ate to the iter paging.] 



». Birkenhead Books 1781, 

1748 

•. Brooks 660 

» Chicago, «*& Ry. Oo. 140 

t. Commyns 1156 

v. Kansas 6 

•.King 874,877,1648,1660 

Asm Iron Works v. Wart 157 

Amey «. Long 907 

Amherst and Belehartown R. R. 

•. Watson 1664 

Anmnrst •. King 728 

Aiwut v. New Alexandria, 

ita. Tump. Oo. 1061 

Anon «. Bobbett 1548 

Amery •. Brodriek 817 

v. Brown 887, 1648 

•.Fairbanks 284 

•. Fellows 906, 918, 980 

r. Francis 384 

v Lawrence 787 

•. Lowell 1411, 2081, 2382 

Anus «. Chadwtek 797, 1120 

«. Harna Bay Pavilion Prome- 

nadaOo. 146,196,296 

9. Hughes 100 i 

Anslnok v. BarUay 1700, 1701. 

1707, 1713 

Amy*. Manning 726,1748 

Ajoyot, Ex parte 1689, 1680, 1(03 

Anderson v. Anderson 1406 

9. Bank 1884 

• Bank of British Colombia 678, 

723 
•.Baxter 662 

v. Brown 216 

v. Caraway 1399 

v. Carr 974 

v. Cannier 360 

•. Cramer 863, 1078 

v. Do Soer 878 

v. Bowling 1621 

•- Dwyer 1266 

•. Fonnxe 1061, 1988, 1381, 1286. 

1290 
•. George 1182, 1188 

•. Ookhard 811, 1735 

•. Henderson 1820 

v. Irvine 166, 997 

e. Jacksonville R. Co. 287 

«. Klsnun 730 

•.Lewis 447,448,663,1674 

•.MeNeal 1679 

v. MeRobertt 801 

•.May 864 

•.Moberry 1467 

•. Monroe 1642 

v. Moore 1820 

• Morles 1508 
v. Moilenix 686, 1618 
•. Nobis 1672 
v. Northrop 216, 863 

• Pahner 1601 
v. 8tamp 1706, 1712 
•.Slather 161,162,449,452.616, 

446, 897 

s. Titans* 1184 

v. Ward 1561 

•.Watts 87 

9. Wells 198 

v. Wilkinson 1561 

v. Wilson 890 

•.Tales 71, 80, 980, 1008, 1699 

Aodever v. Merrtmao Co. 116, 116 

Andrew v. Altken 1607, 1589 

v. Andrew 1318, 1818 

•. Rastrarn 984 

v. Bpurr 1978 

•. Wrigley 641 

Andsswes v. Walton 1069, 1468, 1493 

Andrews, /» re 1352, 1864 

Andrews. Re, Bdwards v. 

Dewar 10C 

Andrews v. Barnes 1406, 1668 

t. Bishop 1560, 3010, 2199 

•- Bohannon 1028 

•. Brown 613, 686, 964, 1061 



Andrews v. City Permanent 
Benefit Building Society 318 
• Cole 617 

e. Cradook 69, 110 

v. Bmerson 1386 

v. Bassx Ins. Co. 1978 

•. Farnham 860 

v. Ford 1460 

v. Gllman 783, 1548, 1660 

v. GlenTilla Woollen Co. 1061 
v. Hobeon 1549 

v. Hoekabee 664 

v. Kibbee 1660 

v. Lockwood 604, 1537, 1648 

9. MoGuftbg 18 

v. Merchant Tailors' Co. 16 

v. Palmer 964,940 

v. Partington 1868, 1869 

•. Pasehen 1743 

v. Salt 106 

•. Seotton 1286, 1481 

e. Solomon 676 

•. Sparbawk 663 

e. Spears 797, 1640 

v. Stanton 1784 

v. Stelle 216 

v. Trinity Hall 16 

v. Walton 463, 1019, 1610 

v. Williams 868 

Androscoggin A Kennebee R. 
Oo. v. Androscoggin R. Co. 
4, 506, 1046, 1688, 1684, 2160 

Angsl e. Smith 1066. 1067. 1068. 
1715, 1717, 1716, 1748, 1744 

Angell, Ex parte 1868 

Angell v. Angell 1674 

•.Davis 1468,1464,1466 

v. Hadden 1306, 1560, 1564, 1565. 

v. McLellan I860 

v. Penn. R. Oo. 402, 779 

v. Smith 48 

v. Stone 197 

v. Westoombe 647, 1657 

Angerstein v. Hnnt 1688, 1685 

Angler v. May 1676 

v. Stannard 1413 

v. Webber 1654 

Anglo-African Steamship Co., 

He 149, 447 

Anglo-CaUfornian Gold Mining 

Oo, Tfe 1461 

Anglo-Danubian Co. v. Roger- 
son 26,817.1088,1666 
Anglo-Greek Nav Co , fie 1610 
Anglo-Italian Bank •. Davlea 1085, 

1037, 1068. 1716 
Anglo-Moravian H J. Ry. Co , 

Re 806,1828 

Angus v. Clifford 26 

p. Robinson 545, 568, *16 

Annesley v Ashurst 1292 

Annln r. Annln 846 

Anning v. Levers 1266 

Anon. Amb. 287 1573 

"262 928 

v. Anon. 564 

lAtk. 89 1540 

1 " 491 90 

1 " 631 1696,1702 

1 •• 670 87,111 

2 " 1 648 
2 " 14 1898 

2 •• 118 16H 
8 •« 310 1699 

3 » 469 887 
3 " 471 1069 
3 •« 607 469 
8 " 17 898,552,673 
3 " 70 666,684 
8 " 139 815 
8 " 319 1070 
3 " 377 189 
8 " 850 1626 
8 4i 486 1678 
8 " 524 1189 
8 •• 680 600 



Anon •. Anon. 
SAtk. 667 
8 " 673 
8 " 644 
8 " 691 
8 M 809 
1 Barb. Ch. 78 
6 Bear. 92 
8 " 420 



613,686,1684 
385 



1689 

660 

963 

947,949 

872, 1574 



o. Bridgewater Canal Co. 1671 
IBro. C. C.876 1699,1708 



8 Cha. Ce. 161 
3 " 168 
8 " 164 

3 Chit. 426 
1 Clarke, 428 
1 Col. 278 
1 0. P. Coop. t. Cott. 61, n. 

1 De G. A 8. 821 

4 " 647 
IDesaos. 124 

2 Dick. 776 
1 D. A I*. 726 
1 Bo. Cas. Abr. 11 
1 
1 
8 



14 



It 



3 



it 



«i 



676, 679 

160,1066 

881 

113 » 

1299,1806 

966 

1489 

429 

1708 

1078 

81 

1189 

1281 

828 

1660 

181 

219, 



2 

7 



76 
80 

66, pi. 
166, pi. 

228,273 

166, pi. 27 373 
In the Duchy, 3 feq Cas. 

Abr. 594, pi. 8 260 

Freem. 22, pi. 20 663 

3 Freem. 63 668 

1 Hare, 817 n. 480 

10 " App. 27 160 

1 Hay w. 347 1047 

1 Hayw. 144 28 

1 Hill (s. o.), 261, 358, 259 960 



Hnpk. 27 
,v 101 
1 John. 148 
1 Jar. N. S. 
2 
8 
4 
6 
6 
7 Jar. 1088 



it 
it 



ii 



it 



780 
1606 
1604 
978, V. 0. W. 1080 



824, 
889, 
£88, 
886, 
1134, 



11 
11 
17 
17 
18 



t« 
<t 
it 

14 



28. L. C. 

358, Y. C. B. 

485 

827, V. C. W. 

770 

8 J. A W. 658 
L, I. Hall, 16 Jaiy, 1816, 

MS. 1776 

38 L. J. Ch. 34 945 

9 L. T. N. 8. 674,M. R. 152, 621 



177,444 

96,100 

620 

1601 

96 

1189 

615 

69 

972 

1606 

161 

788 



1 M. A C. 78 
1 Mad. 567 



2 
8 
8 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
6 
6 



it 



it 



ti 



it 
it 



it 
tt 



895 
246 
494 
252 
258 
271 
276 
461 
468 
494 
10 
276 



9 Mod. 48 
Mos. 6 
" 66 



tt 



ti 



86 
176 
•' 288 
•• 804 

1 Newl. 678 

2 Pick. 165 
Preo. Ch. 831 

9 Price, 210 

1 P. Wms. 801 

2 " 68 



848 

695 

817 

1820 

1286,1287 

861 

1115 

974 

1408 

78 

910,927 

1287 

1653 

1706, 1709 

1652 

81,1429 

167, 172 

89 

87 

82 

753 

691 

1115 

931 

469, 1047 

1204 

842,848 

1112, 1114, 1116 



XVI 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[The reference* are to the star paging.] 



Anon 


v. Anon. 




2 P. Wme. 288 


1677 


2 


c< 


464 


690 


2 


<( 


481 


608 


lSalk.152 


1096 


1 


" ] 


168 


1096 


1 


" 1- 


106 


1109, 1110 


2 


" ( 


M6 


1181 


2 


» < 


m 


1126 


3 


it 


81 


1098 


4 Sim. 860 


1778, 1781 


8 


" 846 


1858 


U 


<» 262 


88,1606 


2 Sim. N. 8. 64 


1819 


3 Swan. 


189 


208 


1 Tenn. 


Ch2 


497,740 


2 Ventr. 


861, No. 2 


677 


1 Vera. 


46 


1289 


1 


»i 


60 


887 


1 


<> 


104 


816 


1 


(4 


116 


791 


1 


tl 


181 


1027 


1 


It 


258 


982,960 


1 


11 


261 


264 


1 


*t 


188 


1227,1281 


1 


II 


318 


281,685 


1 


tl 


861 


1660, 1571 


2 


if 


707 


118 


1 Vet. Jr. 66 


1786 


1 


tt 


98 974, 1472, 1676^ 


1 


ft 


140 


1662 


1 


u 


410 


87,38,74 
1286,1288 


1 


tl 


468 


2 


tl 


286 


1291 


2 


II 


882 


179, 182 


2 


If 


886 


1275 


2 


II 


886 


1281 


8 


If 


616 


1782 


6 


1* 


148 


1286 


6 


II 


666 


847.854 


« 


l» 


287 1067, 1717, 1718, 
1744 


6 


• t 


288 


1058 


6 


If 


612 


1291 


6 


tl 


618 


1291 


6 


la 


678 


934 


8 


It 


69 


1468,1669 


9 


41 


841 


1169 


10 


t« 


287 


80 


11 


II 


169 


798,806,811 


11 


If 


170 


1046 


12 


II 


4 


1722 


14 


II 


207 


1456 


16 


(I 


169 


1871 


15 


II 


174 


609,806 


16 


II 


300 


984 


19 


tl 


821 


986 


1 Vet. Sr. 826 


1025 


2 
2 


• 1 
II 


461 

489 


668,1566 
1707 


2 


II 


497 


989 


2 


II 


620 


1070 


2 


• 1 


681 


847.854 


2 


t< 


661 


1256 


6 


II 


666 


854 


lWlls. 


22 


1129 


W. 


N. (1876) 219 


1606 


8 V. k B. 94 


980 


1 Y. k C. Bx. 881 


1061 


2 


ii 


810 


726 


v. Bailey 




1780 


v Bridgewater Canal 


696 


v Bromley 


186,166 


r. Cooper 


127 


p. Daviei 


i 


687.688 


p. Jolland 


1756, 1756 



Anthony «. Leftwfcb 

v. Rogers 

v Savage 

e. State 
Antolne v. Monhead 
Antrobus v. Bast India Co. 



Anndell v. Ansdell 1079, 1122 

Anson v. Towgood 797, 1275, 1277 
Anspech, Margravine of v. Noel 

988,1220 
Anstey v. Hobson 621 

Anstioe, Re 642 

Anstrather v. Adair 96 

v. Roberts 688 

Anthony r. Cowper 620 

v. Dnnlop 1628 



861 

1289 

894 

190 

60 

1112 

ApoUtnarls Co.'s Trade Marks, 

In re 27, 28, 197, 1648 

Apollinaris Co. v. Wilson 28 

Apperly v. Page 240, 248, 644 

Appleby v. Duke 160, 216, 710 

Appleton v. Donovan 149 

v. Horton 844 

v. Stargis 710 

Appold v. Prospect Building 

Ass'n 1609 

Apps v. Day 1180 

Apthorp v. Comstoek 1073, 1076, 

1077, 1112, 1114. 1124, 1185. 

1186, 1677, 1880 

Arabin, Re 98 

Arehbold v. Commissioners 828, 882 

Arehboll v. Barrell 1718 

Archdeacon v. Bowes 1241, 1719 

Archer v. Gardner 106 

v. Hudson 1467 

v. Meadows 662 

v. Mosse 668 

p. Slater 877 

Archibald v. Means 286 

Arcot, Nabob of v. Bast India 

Co. 628,629,668,688,704 

Arden v. Arden 660, 662, 1040 

v. Patterson 1961 

v. Tucker 1104 

v. Walden 444 

Ardley v. Guardians of St. Pan- 
eras 1689 
Arendell v. Blackwell 217, 288. 

406 
Argall v. Pitts 1716 

Argenbrlght v. Campbell 91 

Argo, The 915 

Am v. Emmanuel 1487 

Arkansas Valley L. A C. Co. e. 

Mann 1071 

Arkwright v. Newbold 80 

Armengaud v. Coodert 606 

Armistead v. Bosnian 829. 884 

v. Durham 421, 698, 802, 1672. 

1678 
Armitage v. Wadsworth 606, 628. 

1658 

Armour v. Walker 916 

Armsby e. Wood 886 

Armstrong v. Armstrong, 688, 986, 

1119, 1147, 1170, 165871760 



v. Athens Co. 844 

v. Beaty 1046 

v. Blake 1897 

v. Burrows 918 

v. Campbell 660. 644, 1259. 

1266 
e. Chemical National Bank 1651 
v. Cooper 978, 974 

v. Crocker 720 

v. Hickman 1680 

v. Lear 1855 

v. McClure 1277 

v. Mllburn 645 

v. Potts 1668 

v. Pratt 1650 

v. Ross 418 

v. Savannah Soap Works 146 

v. Scott 787, 846 

v. 8tockham 1801 

v. Storer 244, 284, 790, 1390, 

1424 

v. SyracuM Screw Co. 109 

v. Wilson 974, 1019, 1648 

v. Zane 1412 

Armstrong's Foundry 67 

Armytage v. Haley 1130 

Arnaud v. Grigg 780, 782 

Arndt v. Grigs* 149 

Arnett v. Finney 660 



Arnetttr PaoJett 

v. Welch 
Arnheim v. Finster 
Arnold v. Arnold 

v. Bsinbrigge 

v. Blencowe 



1129 

1642 

884, 888 

214 

261 



v. Cheseborough 782, 888, 2891 
v. Congreve 2182 

v. Dixon 1284 

v. Foot 1245 

e. Heaford 606 

v. Mayor of Poole 807 

v. Middletown 1661 

v. Patuzet Valley Water Co. 

679, 1817 

«. Slaughter 787, 769, 1809 

v. Thompson 995 

v. Voorhies 166 

Arnot v. Biscoe 846 

Arnott «*. Hayes 866 

Arnoux v. Stein vrenner 792, 1882 

Arlington v. Liscom 878 

v. xarbnroogh 121 

Arrowsmith v. Hill 611 

Arthur v. Case 808 

v. Hughes 260 

v. Lamb 1680, 1728 

Artisans 1 Bank v. TreadweU 1741 

Arundel v Arundel 646,980 

Corp. of v. Holmes 1666 

v. Pitt 961 

Arundell, Lady v. Phipps 1624, 1668 

Arsbacher v. Mayer 646 

Asbach v. Chicago, B. ft Q. B. 

Co, 601 

Asbee v. Shipley 964, 1622 

Asoough v, Townshend 1688 

Asevado e. Orr 686 

Ash v Cummings 1688 

v. Daggy 619 

Ashbee v. Cowell 1291 

Ashburnham v. Thompson 1896, 

1416 
Ashburton, Lord, v. Ashburton, 

Lady 1865 

Ashby v. Ashby 119 

v. Bates 1096 

v. Bell 1081 

v. Kiger 1468 

v. Power 869 

Asbibrd v. London, 0. & D. By. 

Co. 1774 

v. Patten 1580 

Ashley v. Ashley 1129, 1206, 1206 

v. Baillle 675 

p. Little Bock 884, 1071 

v. Taylor 686, 1618, 1684 

Ashlln v. Lee 657 

Ashmall v. Wood 202. 208, 204, 

1188,1889 

Ashmead, Re 224 

v. Colby 260, 290, 1282. 1248, 

1298, 1816, 1817 

Ashmore v. Bvans 667 

Ashton r. Ashton 922 

e. Atlantic Bank 200, 220, 222, 

257,827 

v. Shorrack 1597 

v. Stock 1682 

v. Wood 1821 

Ashton Charity, Re 1866 

Ashuelot K. Co. v. Cheshire R. 

Co. 1617 

Ashurst v. McKensle 1164, 1688 
Ashwell, Re 658 

v. Loml 852 

Ashworth v. Lord 1241, 1886 

v. Munn 1794 

v. Outrani 1686 

v. Roberts 720, 1556 

v. Wrigley 1699 

Asiatic Banking Co. v. Ander- 
son 448 
Askew v. Booth 229, 266 
v. MUlington 706, 1688 
v. Peddlo 1080, 1178 
v. Poulterers' Co. 837, 870, 1682 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XVU 



Askew 9. Townaend 1644, 1688 

Asp t. Warren 1320 

Afpden v. Seddon 1448, 1468, 1629 
Aspen Mining fc Smelting Co. 



[The referaneei are to the star paging.] 
Attorney-General 0. Algonquin 



v. Billings 
Afpfnalla to Powell 
Afpinwall v. Baden 

r Bonrne 
Astiey v. Fountain 

e. Mfcklethwait 

v. Powis 
Afton, Re 

v Ashton 

v. Cnraon 

v. Exeter, Lord 

e. Galloway 

9. Meredith 



313, 1120 

1082 

1276 

1312 

286,288,699 

1430 

1033,1259 

942. 944, 946 

676,1633 

678 

579,1568 

899 

1157 

1719 

92 

1287 



Altar? Turner 

Atcbeeon v. Atcheson 

Atchison v Murfree 

Atchison Street Ry. Go. v. Nave 303 

Atchieyv Sprigg 851 

Athenaeum Lib Aatnranee 800. 
9. Pooley 562 

Atherton 0. British Nation Am. 
Go. 1470 

9. Newhall 865 

v. Nowell 108 

AthoL Sari of 0. Derby, Earl of 

1060 

Atkins, Re 1611 

Atkins v. Billings 281 



v Chilson 
9. Cooke 



1638,1656 
27, 80, 81, 33, 359. 
1606 
526, 626, 581 
713, 1164 



v. Faulkner 
v. Hatton 

9 Palmer 383,935 

0. Yolmer 283 

9. Wabash Ac. Ry. Co. 1734 

Atkinson, Ex parte 1067 

Atkinson, Re 40 

v. Abbott 807 

9. Beckett 1069 

v. Bedel 1713 

9. Farmer 1283 

v. Flannlgan 1561 

v. Foster 848, 844 

v. Hanway 683 

9. Henshaw 261, 1726 

v. Leonard 1698, 1699. 1700. 

1708, 1704, 1708, 1713 

v. Macreth 269, 448 

Mauks 973, 974, 994, 1459, 

1560, 1661, 156& 1563, 

v. Marks 1570 

v. Parker 1628, 2069 

v. Smith 1766 

Atkison 0. Murfree 1286 

Atkyne 0. Willoughby, Lord 870, 

713 
0. Wright 1818,1822,1828,1832. 

Atlanta Mills 0. Mason 1110, 1168. 

Atlanta Real Estate Co. 0. At- 

lanta National Bank 26 

AtiantSe De Laine Co. v Tre- 

dkrk 1661 

Atlantic Insurance Co. v. Le- 

mar 601 

0. Wilson 840 

Atlantic R Co. Speer 1663 

Atlantic Trust Co. 0. Cons. EL 

Storage Co. 869 

Atlas Bank 0. Nahant Bank 244, 

794, 1066, 1613, 1741, 1748 

Attaqnin 0. Fish 1681 

Attenborough 0. St. Katharine's 

Dock Go 1660, 1561 

Atterbury 0. Gill 2388 

0. Wallis 675 

Attorney General 0. Aeton Local 

Board 10, 1637 

0. Akers 10 

9. AHbrd 1259, 2061 



Club 
v Aneaster 
v. Ashburnham 
v Asplnall 
9 Attwood 
0. Avon, Portreere of 

0. Backhouse 

0. Bank of Columbia 

0. Barker 

0. Basingstoke 

0. Berkeley 

Bermondsey Vestry 

0. Berry 

0. Birmingham 



1664 
1619 
16,140 
696 
1232 
401, 407, 
1615 
676 
896, 1733. 
1738 
6, 10, 981 
10, 13, 1637 
1834 
299 
15 
246, 408, 417, 
1526, 1636, 1638 
0. Birmingham, &c. Board 1586, 

1683 
0. Birmingham, Ac. Ry. Co. 10 
0. Bishop of Worcester 16 

0. Bolton 15 

0. Boston 1483 

Boston Wharf Co. 10 

0. Boucherett 12, 16 

0. Bouwens 250 

Boyle 1008,1620, 

1681 
1686,1638 
10, 735, 886 
1799 
1620 
13 
16, 1397, 1415 
1800 
140 
12, 1476, 1478 
2095 



0. Bradford Canal 
0. Bradlangh 
0. Brandreth 
Brecon 
0. Brereton 
0. Brewers' Co. 
0. Brickdale 
0. Bristol, Mayor of 
0. Brooke 
0. Brookshank 
0. Brown 8, 10, 278, 647, 684. 

699,1687 
0. Bucknall 18 

0. Bulpit 1101 

0. Bnrch 810, 1658 

0. Burridge 10 

0. Burrows 1673 

0. Butcher 1466 

0. Butler 12 

0. Cambridge 10 

0. Cambridge Consumers' Gas 
Co. 13, 407, 417, 826, 1686, 

1637 
0. Carmarthen, Corp. of 342 

0. Carrington 510, 1440. 

0. Carte 15,1486,1437 

0. Carver 6I1, 6*5 

0. Catherine Hall, The Master 

and Fellows of 2280 

0. Chamberlaine 10 

0. Chambers 10, 983 

0. Chester 16, 1407, 1436 

0. Chesterfield, Earl of 247, 323 
0. Chicago, Ac R. Co. 
Christ Church 
0. Churchill 



1650 

2182 

6 

1842 

1004, 1825 

1854 

1620,1636 

10 

8 

10,1637 



0. Clack 
0. Clapbam 
0. Clare Hall 
0. Clearer 
0. Clements 
0. Clergy Society 
0. Clerkenwell Vestry 
0. Coekennouth Local Board 10, 

11,13 
0. Cohoes 10 

0. Colney Hatch Asylum 13. 983, 
1635, 1687, 1638, 1640, 1650 
0. Compton 8 

Constable 6, 10 

0. Consumer's Gas Co 10 

0. Continental Life Ins. Co. 10 
0. Cooper 404, 409, 426, 427, 

583,805 
Cornthwalte 285 

0. Coventry, Mayor of 1058 

0. Cos 1603 



Attorney-General 0. Cradook 886. 

887, 689 
0. Crofts 10 

0. Crossman 6, 16 

0. Cuming 1413, 1436, 1662 

0. Day 667, 1283. 1783, 1738 

0. Dean & Canons of Manchester 

311 
0. Delaware, &0.R.C0. 1620 

0. Detroit 10 

0. Devonshire 7 

0. Dew 961 

0. Donnington Hospital 480, 748 
0. Dorking Guardians 10. 287, 1687 
0. Drapers* Co. 16, 1440, 1449 

0. Dn Plessis 6, 664, 666, 668 

0. Durham, Earl of 342 

0. Dyson 1268 

0. East Dereham Corn Ex- 
change 140 
0. East India Co. 11 
0. Eaatlake 8, 1620, 1629, 1640. 



Exeter, Mayor, <fcc of 1472 
Fea 1861 

Federal Street Meeting 



House 

Fellows 
Finch 
Fishmongers' Co. 



10 

811,422 

807 

16,16,415. 

1436,1684 

1111 

1636 

1619,1532 

11 

1164,1166 

1870,1784 

10 



0. Bast Retford 146, 724, 1419 
0. Edmunds 6, 134, 727, 781, 

1400 
0. Ellison 1880 

0. Ely, Ac. Ry. Co. 1640 

0. Etheridge 757, 758 

0. Brant Booming Co. 10, 12, 



0. 

0. 
0. 

0. 
0. 
0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 





0. 



0. 

0. 



0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 
0. 
0. 

v. 
0. 
0. 

0. 
0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 



0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

V. 

0. 



0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 



Flint 
Forbes 
Foster 
Fox 

Fullerton 
Galway, Mayor of 
Gardiner 
Garrison 10 

Gas Light and Coke Co. 10 • 

Gaskill 1660' 

Gaunt 261 

Gee 1788 

Glbbs 1417, 1420, 1424, 1426, 

I486- 
Goldsmith's Co. 842 . 

Gould 1668 

Gower 678 

Great Eastern Ry. Co. 10, 18- 
Great Northern Ry. Co. 10,2828 
Great Western &o. Ry. Co. 10. 



Green 

Greenhill 

Haberdashers' 



Hackney Local 

Halifax 

Hallett 

Hailing 

Hamilton 

Hane 

Hanmer 

Hardy 

Hartley 

Harvey 

Heath 

Heelis 

Henderson 

Hewitt 

Hill 

Hitchcock 

Hobert 

Homer 

Howe 

Hudson 

Hullett 

Hunter 

Hurst 



261 

18,1031 

Co. 10, 14 

1383,1436 

Board 1686 

837, 1378, 1394 

6' 

6,134 

1152 

10 

16, 1468 

886 

15 

14 

12 

289,242 

748 

1861 

291 

1101 

1417, 1418 

10 

9 

748, 744, 748 

184 

1680 

1427, 1480, 1686 



VOL, I. — 5 



• •• 

XV111 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[The 



an to the iter paging.] 



Attorney-General v. Itabaiter 2307 

• Ironmongers' Go. 16, 140 
v Jackson 276,288,827 
v. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct 10 
v. Jeanes 18, 884 
w. Johnson 10, 1686 
*. Kerr 16, 16. I486 
w. Kingston 6, 134 
». Kingston-on-Thames, 

Mayor of 18, 1636, 1660 

V. Knight 16 

v. Kohler 1618 

9. Lambe 7, 16 

9. Lambirtu 169 

9- Urns 1411, 1481, 1432 

w. LeatheweUers' Oo. 1068 

• Leeds 10, 1686, 1687 
«. Leicester 248, 268 
v. Lewis 16, 140, 889 
v. Lichfield 8 
v Life & Fire Ins. Oo. 1748 
9. Liverpool, Corp. of 1668 
.v. Logan 10 
9. London 6, 10. 16, 184, 416, 679, 

601, 761, 1411, 1667, 1829, 1881. 

9. London & N. W. By. Co., 642, 

1691 
v. Lonsdale, Burl 1802 

e. Lubbock • 1222 

9. Lucas 10, 106, 668, 717 

9. Luton Board of Health 

1688, 1663, 1681 
9. Manchester 16, 1688 

v. Manchester & Leeds By. Co. 

1008, 1620, 
9. Marlborough, Duke of 1684 
9. Marsh 424, 697, 1675 

v. Mayor of Gal way 12 

v. Mercers' Oo. 16, 146, 1406, 1821 
«. Merchant Tailors' Co. 289, 

848,659 
9. Merrimack Mannf .' Go. 10 

«. Metropolitan Board of 

Works 13, 1650 

9. Metropolitan District By. Co. 6 
9. Middleton 12 

9. Mid- Kent By. Oo. 10 

V. Mid-Kent Ry. Co. & South- 

Eastern By. Oo. 1618. 1667. 

1662,2823 
9. Mtlward 871, 872 

v. Molitar 10 

9. Monro 1469 

9. Montgomery 1112, 1126. 1186 
9. Moses 289, 886 

9. Mullay 10, 105 

9. Munro 1440, 1663 

9. Murdoch 1417. 1658 

9 Murray 18,69,86,110,307 
9. Naylor 276 

t>. Netherooat 418, 962, 1450 

v. Newark, Corp. of 1276 

9. Newcombe 405 

9. New York, Ao. B. Oo. 1479 
9. Nlebol 1636, 1687, 1665 

v. North America Life Ins. 

Co. 1766 

«. North Met. Tramways Go. 720 
9. Norwich 8, 1288, 1620 

v. Norwood 1629 

9 Oglender 12, 16, 1406 

9. Owen 1406 

9. Oxford fce. By. Co. 10 

9. Parker 12, 18, 14 

9. Parkbont 9, 88 

9. Pannenter 10 

9. Parntber 862 

9. Payne 1825 

9. Pearson 268, 640, 883 

9. Penruddocka 1164 

v Plumtree 14 

9. Plymouth 16 

9. Plymouth, Mayor of 6 

v.Poole 288. 887, 668, 2089 

9. Pretyman 1174 

9. Bay 872, 878, 940, 1674 



Attorney-General «. Bead 10 

v. Bees 486, 724 

9. Kerere Copper Co. 10 

v Beynolda 668 

v. Richards 10, 1686 

v. Richmond 18, 1688 

9. Bickarda 166, 849, 680 

v. Romford Chemical Works 8 
v. Ryder 668 

9. St. Aubyn 6,7.16 

v. 8t. Croat 1174 

v. St. Cross Hospital 842 

9. St. Helena 1620 

v. St. John's Hospital 16 

9. Salem 10 

9. Sands 63 

9. Scott 1602 

v. Severn* 10, 105 

9. Sheffield 1640 

v. Sheffield Gas Consumers' 

Co. 1686, 1687, 1668 

v. Shelly 276 

v. Sherbourne Grammar 

School 10, 12 

v. Shield 606, 608, 692, 784 

9. Shore 1174, 1175 

9. Shrewsbury 8, 1853 

9. Shrewsbury Bridge Co. 8,6, 10, 

9. Sidney Sussex College 660 

9. Slttingbourne & Sheerneei 

By. Co. 16.281,278,1222 

v. Skinners 1 Co. 13, 16, 16, 1069 
9. Smart 12, 14 

v. Southampton, Guardians of 8. 

9. Southampton, Mayor 1685 

9. Staffordshire Copper Co. 1636 
9. Stamford 444, 474, 980, 1856 
9. Stamford, Mayor of 13 

9. Stephens 209, 873, 1168 

v. Steward 1668 

9, Stewart 16 

9. Sudell 649, 663 

v. Sutton 662 

v. Swansey, Jtc. Co. 1470 

9. Tarr 10 

9 Tarrington 16,230 

9- Taylor 15 

9. Teather 10 

9. Terry 10, 1686, 1689 

v. Thames River, Conserva- 
tors of 1024, 1025, 1026 
9. Thetford 1039 
9. Thompson 679, 1817, 1828, 1829 
v. ThurnaU 858 
9. Tomline 10, 427, 974, 1031, 1639 
9. Tonna 1383 
9. Tudor Ice Go. 10 
v. Tunstall Local Board 1636 
9. Twieden 200,249 
9. Tyler 9, 12, 16 
9. U. K. Elee. Tel. Go. 1685, 1636 
9. Utica Ins. Co. 10, 1665 
9. Vernon 6, 10 
9. Vigor 1750 
9. Vincent 887 
9. Vint 1799 
9. Vivian 10, 11, 13 
9. Wakeman 415 
9. Walthamstow Looal Board 1637 
9. Wareing 10 
v. Warren 137 
9. West Hartlepool Imp. 

Com'rs 8, 1620 

9. Whireley 12. 1368 

9. Whorwood 877, 483, 484 

9. Wlgan, Mayor of 8, 1021, 1620. 

1670 
v. Wilklns 675 

v. Williams 10 

9. Williamson 10, 12 

v. Wilson 18, 22, 148, 198. 907 
v. Wiltshire 10. 13 

9. Wlnchelsea 1427, 1430 

9. Windsor, Damn and Canons 
of 140, 1602, 1608 



Attorney-General v. Woolrich 9. 10, 

88,84 
9. Worcester 21 148, 731, 778, 788 
9. Worcester, Bishop of 1579, 
1864, 1856, 1866 
9. Wright 10. 1696 

9. Wyburgh 276, 627 

«■ Wyggeston'a Hospital 16 



9. Wynne 




200,249 


9. Wyville 




730. 1418 


Attleboro Nat. Bank v. 


Wendell 1407 


Attrill 9. Bockaway Beach Imp. 


Co. 




1766 


Atrwood 9. — — 




407 


Atwood v. Banks 




1626,1666 


9. Hawkins 




288 


9. Small 




289,841 


Atwater v Fowler 




641 


9. Kinman 




888 


v. Russell 




1411 


9. Townsend 




48 


Atwell 9. Fowles 




1264 


AtwUl 9. Ferrett 


647, 667, 685 


Atwood 9 Chichester 




178,186 


9. Portland 




814 


9. Shenandoah V. B.Co. 


1617,1530 


9. Small 




1491 


Atwool v. Ferrier 




847 


9 Merryweather 




26,248 


Atwyn v. Perkins 




671 


Aubrey v. Brown 




2001 


9. Hoper 




1447 


Auburn Button Co. 


9. 


8yl- 


vester 




1061 


Audenreid v. Railroad Co. 


1662 


Auditor, The v Johnson 


197 


Auditor-General v. Smith 


1029 


Audsley v. Horn 


t 


214, 271 



Augusta Ice Co. v. Gray 1784 

Augusta Nat. Bank v. Printop 601 
A u It man v. Steioan 334 

Aurora, &o. B. Co. 9. Lawrence* 

burgh 1660 

Austen v. Bird 406 

9. Gibbs 1138 

v. Oilman 1640 

9. Nicholas 867 

Auster v. Haines 229, 1624 

Austerberry v. Oldham 1654 

Austin 9. Austin 1004, 1862 

9. Bainter 1147 

9 Bank of England 148 

9. Chambers 856 

9. Evans 1188 

9. Jackson 1376 

9. Jones • 1642 

v. Raiford 834 

9. Ramsey 827 

9. Riley 617, 1081 

9. Rutland R. Go. 60 

Australasia Nat. Bank 9. United 

Hand-in-IIand. Ac. Co. 214 

Australian Steam Co. v. Flem- 
ing 26, 27, 84 
Austria, Emperor of v. Day 18.1648, 

1670, 1881 
Automatic W. M. Go. v. Com- 
bined W. M. Co. 1409 
Autothrepk Steam Boiler Oo. 

Re 1440 

Avarnev. Brown 1220 

Avegno v. 8chmldt 288 

Aveline v. Melhuish 1858 

Aveling v. Martin 492 

Averill v. Longfellow 1846 



9. Taylor 


648 


Avery v. Fitch 


880 


«. Griffin 


906,1081 


9. Holland 


602,987 


9. Kellogg 


846,847 


v. Osborne 


1419 


9. Wilson 


1600 


9. Wood 


1484 


Avory 9. Andrews 


1684,1685 


Axsrs 9. Mussulman 


818 


Azmand v. Lund 


1648 


Ayer v. Ayer 


108 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XIX 



Ajar* 

Ayers r. Chicago 

v. Valentine 

9 Wright 
Ayleee. Cox 
Aylesford, Barl of * Morris 

9 Poolett 



187 

1548 

434 

1886 
1044 



Toe references eve to the star j 


■gtag. 


Ayleswerth «. Brown 


406 


Aytotv Dodd 


1656 


v. Easy 


1552 


Aylett v. Ashton 


186 


9 Lowe 


1129 


Ayllfflev Murray 


894 


Aylmerv Aylmer 


1956 



Aylmer v. Wlnterbottoai 1416, 1490 

Aylwardr Lewis 215,288 

Aymer v. (Halt 1568, 1569 

Aynsley v Glorer. 1080 

Ayres 9. Carver 1550 

9 Wiswall 269 

Aysoough v. Bulla* 405 



B. 



v. Pain 1556 

Bebb v. Lrodley 281 

Babbitt 9. Dotten 828 

*. SaToy 1061 

Babeoek « New Jersey Stock- 
yard Co. 1688, 1661 

9. Perry 1272 

v Smith 787 

Babeoek A Wilcox Co. 9. Pio- 
neer Iron Works 779 
Baby e>. Dubois 61 
Bach v. Toeh 815 
Baeholderv Bean 1621 
Bftfhman «. Einhorn 812 
Back 9. Stacy 1688, 1665 
Backhonee v. Alooek 901 
9. Hornaey 166 
w. ftflddtoton 871 
». WUde 1027 
Baean w. Abbott 1820 
9. Chlldi 1002 
w. Clerk 1259 
». Griffith 402, 524 
«. Joaea 1079, 1642, 1668, 1681 
v. Robertson 26 
9. Roger* 1188 
9. Spottftrwoode 1681 
Baddcley 9. Bailey 888 
«. Curwen 722 
w.Harding 82 
Bawaeuw. Rogers 1660.1661,1562. 
1567, 1568, 1569, 1570 
9. Tylee 1565 
Badeley v. Consolidated Bank 269 
Badens' Trost, Re 193 
Badgeley «. Brace 1165 
Badger v. Badger 837, 871, 560, 659 
9. MeNamara 547 
9. Titcomb 881 
Badiashe A. * E. Fabric* 9. 

Sehott 984, 1655 

Baeah w. Moore 1504 

Baggett 9. Beard 1061 

9. Meux 100 

Baggott v. Henry 764 

9. Sawyer 1290 

Baclebole, £*sxirYe 60 

Bagley 9. Bearle 819 

Bagnall w.Carlton 887,1089,1400. 

1406 

9. DaTfes 1654 

9. Vlllar 1680 

Bagot 9. Bagot 1465, 1680, 1706. 

9. Beaton 884, 846, 884 

« Legge 1488 

Bagshew 9. Bateon 887 

9. Bnxton Local Board 1689 

9. Eastern Counties Ry. Co. 26. 

199, 206, 241 

9. Newton 1427 

9. Winter 101, 102, 106 

Bahin 9. Hnghat 189 

Bafle v. Balle 1846 

Bailey, Be 277, 1085 

9. - 1780 

9. Adama 606, 640 

v Jftna Ins. Co. 818 



* American Cent. Inf. Co. 
9. Bailey 608, 861, 874, 1614 

9 Benton 879 

9. Birkenhead Ry. Co. 868, 644. 



1228,1231 

1847 

828 

1699 

1277,1801 

1654 

646 

611 

1820 

784 

1699 

27,88,868.859 

601 

1680 

149. 224, 247 

709,792 

1120 

1260 

603 

1098 

1492 



Bailer w. Blaochard 
9. Burchall 
9, Barton 
9 Cadwell 
9 Collett 
9 Collina 
9 Crane 
9. Derereux 
9 Dunkerley 
v. Forbes 
9. Ford 
v. Gundry 
v. Holden 
9. Holson 
v. Inglee 
9. Lambert 
9. I And Ingham 
9. Leal 
9. LeRoy 
9. Macaulay 
9. Mauls 
9, Morgan 
9. Myrick 818. 260, 287, 886, 

1180, 1287, 1800 

9. O'Bannon 889 

9. Robinson 966 

9. Ryder 814, 826 

9. SeweU 1111 

9. Sisson 1150 

9. Smith 58 

9. Tindall 1805 

9. Todd 1808 

9. Vincent 157 

9. Wilson 722 

Bailey Washing Machine Co. v. 

Young 782 

Balle v. Bails 78, 81 

Ballis v. Cochran 918 

BailHe v. Balllle 1627, 1628 

v Blanehet 447 
v. Jackson 158, 170. 1264, 2291 

9. Slbbald 819, 689, 646 

v Treharne 122 

Bally v Bally 1270 

v. Brvton 803 

9 Haines 1126 

9. Macauley 1128, 1181 

9. Taylor 1642, 1643, 1681 

v Worrell 280 

Bain 9. Att.-Gen. 1578 

9. Fothergtll 1082 

Bainbridge, Re 157 

9. Burton 237, 242 

9 Pinhorn 255 
9. Wikocks 871, 667, 668, 1259 

Bainbrigge. Re 1186 

9 Baddely 413.481,582.698,802, 

1467, 1536, 1579, 1722, 1726 

9. Blair 169. 1284. 1414. 1612, 

1787, 1741, 1764, 17«5 

9. Moss 85,86,800,423.694. 

781,1448 

9. Orton 868, 680 

Baines v. Babeoek 269 

v Baker 1636 

v. Bromley 1407 

9. Geary 1655 

v. Lumley 653 

v. McGee 814 

9. Ridge 441 

w.Story 269 

Bains 9. Perry 1640 

Bated* Baird 



Balrd 9. Goodrich 

9. Jackson 

v. Powers 

«. Turnpike Co. 

v. Wells 
Balsleyv Balsley 
Baker, Re 
Baker v. AthUl 



1668 
884 

1003 

994 

832,1668 

149,586 

86 

370 



v. Backus 1716. 1722, 1729, 1788 
9 Baker 228 

9 Bayldon 106 

9. Biddle 871, 566, 641, 667, 668 
9. Bird 697 

9. Booker 545 

9. Boon 1122 

9 Boyldon 2001 

v. Bradley 897, 828, 862 

v. Bramah 647, 1557 

9. Brown 1180, 1561 

9 Carter 1419 

9. Clarke Institution 1411 

v. Commonwealth 1841 

9. Dean 620 

9 Domaresque 1704 

v. Farmer 1346 

v. Grundy 645 

9. Haily 1706 

v Hart 1002, 1070, 1112, 1137. 

1189 
9. Harwood 218, 320 

9. Henderson 1842 

9 Herts It Essex W. Co. 1731 
9. Holmes 448 

v. Jefleries 1714 

9. Keen 618 

9. King 1118, 1119, 1136 

9. Lee 1502, 1508 

v. Loader 296 

v. Mayo 1253 

9 Melllsh 800, 688, 684, 592, 597, 



9. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. 


313 


v. Morgan 


1276 


9. Morris 


1264 


9. Pritchard 


668,670 


v. Redd 


1626 


9. Sebright 


1688 


v. Shy 


1218 


9. Sowter 


168 


v. Taylor 


1668 


v. Wetton 


370 


9. Whiting 560, 644, 


1468. 1472, 
, 1581, 2169 


1479, 1530, 1576 


9 Williamson 


1229 


9 Wind 


1392 


9. Wood 


1395 


v Toung 


1081 


Balch 9. Smith 


1850 


9. Symes 


1830,1843 


9. Tucker 


1078 


9. Wastall 


8. 136, 166 


Balchen v. Crawford 


1564,1568 



Balcolm v. N. T. Lift Ins. and 

Trust Co. 678, 679, 759 

Relcom v. Terwilliger 1381 

Baldwin v. Baldwin 107, 116 

9. Bank of Newbury 468 

9. Canfleld 190 

9. Damer 809 

v. Hale 458 

v. Lawrence 245 

9. Mackown 1585 

9. Miles 1461 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Baldwin v. Salter 

v. Tucker 1661 

v. Useful Knowledge Society 1666 

Balfour 9. Cooper 1314 

Balguy v. Broadhurst 678, 717, 1886 

v. Chorley 1027 

Ball v. Ball 1166 

v. Coutts 108 

v. Etches 486, 610 

v. Harris 166 

v. Kemp-Welch 1168 

v. Mabry 1748 

9. Hannin 88 

v. Montgomery 104, 107, 1416 

v. Oliver 261, 1726, 1726 

v. Kay 1686^ 1687 

*. Sawyer 787 

v. Tompkins 663 

Ball & Socket Fastener Go. v. 

Kraetaer 1895 

Ballard v. Catling 89, 41, 1600 

v. Eckman 1663 

9. Fuller 1619 

•. McCluskey 888,912,1468,2391 

v. Searls 1684 

9. White 981, 1316 

Ballentine v. Beall 286 

Ballin v. Ferst 299 

Ballou v. Chicago fc N. W. By. 

Co 1468 

«. Hopkintoa 806, 1463, 1689 

e Wood 1628 

Balls v. Margrare 681, 680, 1668 

v. Strutt 69 

Bally v. Kenrick 724, 726, 727 

v. William* 849, 728 

Baltic Co v. Simpson 988 

Baltimore v. Ohio R. Co 1661, 1668 

Baltimore &c B Co. v. Adams 

Express Co 814 

Baltimore & Ohio B Co. v. 
Arthur 1661 

v. Fitspatrick 68 

v. Wheeling, City of, 26. 144, 

146, 786, 846 
Baltimore R. Co. v. Strauss 1689 
Baltimore & O. Tel. Co. v. In- 
terstate TeL Co. 884, 817 
Baltse) v. Hall 626 
Bamford v. Bamford 1167, 1197 
« Watts 1872, 1600, 1610 
Bampfleld v. Vaaghan 283 
Bamptonv Blrchall 560,609 
Bampton & Longtown Ry. Co 1004 

Banbury v 1468, 1659 

Peerage Cane 860 

Bancroft v Sawin 648 

v. Wardour 682 

v Went worth 764 

Band* Randle 203 

Banda, Re 183 

Baoert v. Day 961 

Bangs v Hall 660,646 

v. Strong 617 

Banigan v. Worcester 813 

Banister v. Bigge 1689 

v Way 168,282,1283 

Bank, The v. Butler 468 

v. Carrollton Railroad 217 

t> Cowan 1099 

v. Dugan 617 

v Farques 884 

f Ubitut 1019 

v. Roue 792, 793 

v. Slmonton 21. 24 

v. Trapier 1238 

Bankartf Tennant 824, 1407, 1408 

Bank Commissioners 9. Bank of 

Buffalo 807 

Bank of Hindustan, lie 944 

Bank of Alexandria v. Patton 169 

Augurta v. Barle 24 

Bellows Falls 9. Rutland & 

Bur. R. Co. 666, 628, 1628 
Bethel v. Pahquioque Bank 1741 
Danrllle v. Trams 960 

Bdwardsrille v. Simpson 24 



[The references are to the star paging.) 

Bank of England v. Lunn 147 , 148 
v. Moflat 148 

v. Moriee 1616 

v. Parsons 148 

Hindustan v. Hodgson 897 

v. Robinson 897 

Kentucky v. Gay 1624 

Marietta v Pindall 24 

Metropolis v Guttschlick 662 

Michigan v. Williams 24, 661 

Mobile v Planters 1 and Merch- 
ants' Bank 887, 1796 
Monroe v Schermerhorn 1676. 

1677 
Niagara. Matter of 1284, 1414, 

1747 
Ogdensburg v. Arnold 284, 1717, 

1719 
Ontario v. Strong 444 

Orleans v. Skinner 20, 896, 1619. 



St. Mary v. St John 
Scotland v. Kerr 
Statesrille tr, Foote 
Tenn. v Burke 
United States v. Magill 



626 
24 

1463 
22 

1264 



v Ritchie 69, 160, 997 

*. SchulU 861 

v Weisiger 1016 

v. White 1697, 2879 

Utfca v. Messere i 674, 676, 720, 

721,768 

Virginia*. Craig 18G4 

Washtenaw v. Montgomery 24 

Waterrille v W. W. Bank 26 

Banker's Case, The 188 

Banker v. Walters 669 

Bankhart v. Houghton 1686, 1640 

Bankheadv Alloway 667 

Bankler v. Poole 447 

Banks r. American Tract Society 1688 

v Anderson 1676 

v Banks 287, 1291, 1292, 1782 

«. Booth 1078, 1074 

v. Cartwright 1231 

v Gibson 1649,1660 

v. Goodfellow 1886 

». Judah 660 

v. Klein 888 

v. Long 1680 

v. Manchester 642, 843 

v. Parker 1624 

v. Walker 889 

Bannatyne v. Leader 1882, 1886 

Banner, Ex parte 1209 

v. Berridge 642 

Bannon v. Comegys 1617 

Banta v. Calhoon 161, 167 

v. Moore 647, 684 

Ban wen Iron Co., Re 1697 

Banyster v. Trussell 166 

Baptist Church v. Hetfleld 1766 

Barber, Re 1868. 1414 

Barber, Re, Burgess 9. Vlnni- 

come 68 

Dardierv Chapman 117 

Barber v. Barber 649, 686, 688, 602. 

641 

v Houston 660, 646 

v Hunter 3ti2 

v. MackreU 828, 991, 1260, 1581 

v. Penley 1688 

v Slade 116, 117 

v. Walker 201 

Barbey's Appeal 689 

Ba.rbon v Searle 1679 

Barbour v. Watts 867 

v Whitlock 217 

Barclay v. Bank of New South 

Wales 669 

v. Bowen 1476 

v. Brown 1002, 1493 

v. Culver 1386 

v Plant 1491 

v Russell 17, 20, 186, 472 

Bardv Bingham 1727 

Barden *. Briscoe 1468 



Bat-dwell v. Ames 


1689 


v Baird 


669 


Barfleld *. Kelly 


888,1679 


v Nicholson 


1654,1683 


Barger v Buckland 


169 


Barham v. Hostetter 


808 


v Longman 


810 


Baring and Doulton, Re 


1821 


Baring v. Harris 
9 Moore 


1490 


1269 



9. Nash 209. 821, 862, 1168 

Barker, Re 660, 1264, 1846, 1866. 

v. Baker 1074 

v. Barker 1677 

v. Belknap 669, 1484, 1649, 1660, 

1658 
v Birch 323 

v. Craig 1029 

v. Dacle 647 

v. Dixie 849 

v. Dumareeqoe 815 

v. Flagg 966 

v Gregory 1259 

v. Harper 1277, 1278 

v. Hemming 1409 

*. Johnson 977, 1608 

v.Lea 107 

v Lidwell 27 

v Mariott 1731 

v. Piele 447, 449, 809, 1413 

v. Purris 1029 

v. Railton 298 

v. Ray 688, 1124 

9 Richardson 1290 

9 Smark 816 

v. Swain 1662 

v Todd 991,1684 

v Yenables 1404 

9. Vogan 1794 

v. Walters 191, 244, 886 

9 Wardle 1428,1487 

9. Wyld 982 

Barkhampstead 9. Parsons 22 

Barklay v. Reay, Lord 431 639, 1722. 

1731 

Barksdaiev Butler 601 

Barkwell 9. Swan 878 

Barkworth v. Toung 866, 661, 2088 

Barlee v. Barlee 112, 113 

Barley v. Pearson 782 

Barlow 9 Bailey 1687 

v. Devany 100 

9. Gains 1893, 1784, 1786 

v. M Murray 296. 408, 426 

v. Osborne 1286,1286,1288,1461, 

1492 

v. Scott 1081 

Barnaby v. Tassell 1524 

Barnaul McDanlels 1576 

Barnard, Re, Barnard v. White 108, 

217 
Barnard, Re, Edwards v. Bar- 
nard 269 
Barnard v. Adams 1411 
v- Bartholomew 1268, 1268 
v. Blum 920 
v. Darling 746, 748 
9. Ford 66 
9. Ford, Carrlck v. Ford 66, 92 
v. Hunter 486, 621, 716, 760. 

1819 

v.Lea 989 

o. Wallls 1624 

v. Wieland 838 

Barnardlston v Gibbon 1611 

Bernardo v. McHugu 68 

Barndt v. Frederick 816 

Barna, Re 1868 

Barnebee v. Berkley 1809 

Barned 9. Barned 662 

v. Laing 889, 1705 

Barnegat City Beach Association 

v. Busby 780 

Barnes, Re 88, 89, 111 

Barnes v Abram 947 

v Addy 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
[The reference* are to the star pacing.] 



XXI 



1 0. Chicago, fee. By. Go. 901 

v. Dewey 1678 

r Dickinson 418 

x. Dowttug 1628 

0. Harria 676 

0. Haihorn 1686 

0. Maya 1290 

r Offer 1677 

9. Racafer 1890 

9. Ridsway 410, 440 



«\ 

r. Saxby 864 

«. Taylor 686, 686, 1846, 2087 

0. Trenton Gaa Light Go. 646 

0. Tweddell 784, 1461 

0. West 864 

v WUaon 1026, 1027 

Rarnesly 0. Powel 064, 1846 

Bamett0 Gline 1624 

0. Grafton 420 

0. Lenchara 1649 

0. Montgomery 448 

Noble 419 

0. People's Bank 694 

0. Spencer 1600 

0. Watson 990 

0. Woods 814 

Barney v. Baltimore 149, 190 

r. Lockett 1661 

Peck 834 

Saunders 1869 

Barnham v Roberts 678 

Bernhardt v. Smith 933 

Barnsdale r. Lowe 1674 

Bamsley Canal Co. 0. Twibell 1678 

Barnwell 0. Ironmonger 1411 

Baron 0. Korn 680 

Barr r. Barr 1726 

0. Carter 261 

0. Clayton 814 

Harding 1887 

Pittsburgh Plate Glass Go 1895 

Barr's Trust, Re 846 

Barrack v. MeCulloeh 822, 843 

Barnelough v. Greenhoogh 877 

Barraqne v. Manual 827 

v Siter 713 

Barr* National Bank 0. Hing- 

ham Manuf. Go. 884 

Barrel Benjamin 48 

0. Joy ^^ 1269 

Barren 0. Barters 2289 

Barret 0. Oliver 169 

Barrett 0. Brown 193. 200 

0. Bock 992, 1430 

0. Burke 1668 

Carter 1461 

0. Day 864. 1618 

0. Doughty 109, 589 

0. Gaines 989 

Hartley 1891 

v. Long 1091, 1092 

McAllister 865 

c Oliver 68 

0. Pardow 917 

0. Pearson 1658 

r. Power 82 

0. Sergeant 852 

0. Short 790 
0. Stockton and Darlington 

Ry. Co. 827 

Watson 906,918 

0. Wheeler 860 

r. White 1524 

Barribeare 0. Brant 1588 

Barrklo 0. Trenton Mnt life 

and Fire Ins. Co. 1628, 1581, 

1535 

Barringer 0. Andrews 892 

Harrington, Re 160, 1607 

O'Brien 1581 

0. Tristram 1427 

Barritt 0. Barrttt 489, 742 

0. Tidswell 785 

Barron 0. Barron 117 

Grillard 184, 591 

0. Lancefield 1889 



Barron 0. Robinson 1122 

Barrow 0. Barrow 102, 104, 106, 107, 

2001 
0. Isaaes 1660 

Manning 92 

0. Rhlnelander 667, 884, 1468, 1678 
0. Richards 1664 

0. Wadkin 47 

Barn 0. Fewkes 820, 1470 

0. Jackson 668 

Barry, Ex parte 1069 

0. Abbott 642, 758 

0. Barry 884, 1026 

0. Brlggs 1468. 1491 

Cane 180,181,499,500 

Groskey 446, 689, 599, 1556 
0. Jenkins 83 

0. Missouri, K A T. Ry. Co 149, 

216 

Stevens 561 

0. Wrey 1889 

Barstow 0. Smith 584 

Bartean 0. Barteau 824 

Bartee 0. Tompkins 885, 846 

Battels 0. Schnell 669 

Barter 0. Dubeux 659 

Bartholomew v. Harwinton 1576 

Bertie 0. Wilkin 1387 

Bartles Gibson 689 

Bartlett, Ex parte 1868 

R* 2298 

Bartlett,/?*, Newman p. Hook 294 

0. Bartlett 816, 1696, 1789 

0. Fifield 10u2, 1676, 1677 

0. Gale 787, 760, 889, 846 

0. Gillard 889 

Harton 809,811.970,1601 

Johnson 1386, 1891 

0. Marshall 1257 

0. Parks 191, 297, 551, 1929 

0. Pickenglll 196 

0. 8mith 1098 

0. The Sultan 1561 

0. West Met'n T. Co 1731 

0. Wood 1008, 1881, 141 1 

Hartley Bartley 1837 

Barton 0. Barbour 1748 

Barton 284,804,798.811,848. 

1371,1402 
0. Beatty 1062 

0. Beer 87 

0. Chambers 1697 

0. Cooke 1429, 1481 

0. Latour 1279, 1878, 1610 

0. Moss 844 

0. North Staffordshire Ry. 

Co. 644,983 

0. Rock 811, 1458 

Tattenall 643,2182 

0. Trent 16"5 

0. Whitcombe 459, 882 

Barwetl 0. Corbln 76 

0. Parker 1267, 1258 

Basanquet Marsham 409 

Basey 0. Gallagher 813, 594, 1147 

Basham, Re 1409, 1411 

Baskett 0. Cafe 656, 2117 

Basore 0. Henkel 1628 

Bass 0. Bass 641 

Barnard r Lester 798 

Basset Nosworthy 677 

Bassett 0. Bratton 1699 

0. Johnson 1110, 1111, 1114, 

1119, 1124 

0. Leolle 1561 

0. Salisbury Manuf. Co. 686. 689, 

696, 699, 700, 1631, 1636, 1638, 

1640 
BasseTi 0. Serra 1432 

Basstord 0. Blakesley 1880, 1838 
Bastard Page 1009 

0. Smith 1102, 1104 

Bastln v. BldweU 1417 

0. Carew 1099 

Bastow0 Bradshaw 824 

Basye 0. Beard 1567 

Batchelder, Petitioner 1661 



Batchelor, Re 90 

0. Mlddleton 1887 

Bate* Bate 1819,1890 

Hooper 1870,1416,2060 

Bate Refrigerator Co. 0. Gillett 

1197, 1320, 1642 

Bateman 0. Batsman 1426 

0. Cook 744 

Foster 2292 

0. Margerison 226, 286, 1867 

0. Murray 1668 

0. Snoddy 680 

Wiatt 1678,1685 

0. Willoe 1621 

Bateman's Trust, Re 55 

Bates 0. Babeock 866, 601 

0. Bates 407 

0. Bonnor 1287, 1288, 1292 

0. Brothers 808, 1719, 1730 

0. Christ's College ?J2. 2114 

0. Dandy 124, 126, 126, 127 

0. Delavan 867, 1018 

0. Kley 1226 

0. Gage 1147 

0. Graves 1126 

0. Great Western Tel. Co. 1576 

0. Loomis 1600 

0. Plonsky 884 

0. Preble 1108 

0. Sabin 1299 

0. Wheeler 885 

Bateson v Choate 885, 1051 

Bath, Earl of 0. Abney 124 

0. Bradford 1253, 1814, 1821 

0. Sherwin 1682 

Bath, Lord, 0. Sherwin 1661 

Bathe, Re . 88 

0. Bank of England 87,111,179, 

253 
Bather 0. Kearsley 408 

Bathurst, Earl 0. Burden 1666 

Batre 0. Ause 458 

Batt0 Birch 964 

0. Proctor 149 

Battalia 0. Maryland Insane 

Hospital 986 

Battell v. Matot 66, 684 

Battelle 0. Youngstown Rolling 

Mill 688 

Batten 0. Dartmouth Harbor 

Com'rs 1411, 1424 

0. Earnley 1266 

0. Gedhye 558, 680 

t>. Wedgwood Coal & Iron Co 1766 

Batteuhausen 0. Bullock 1008 

Battermau 0. Albright 212 

Batterson 0. Ferguson 720 

Batthyany0 Walford 854 

Batthyny, Re 542 

Battle 0. Bering 1038 

0. Davis 1751 

0. Griffin 1409 

0. Street 659 

Baity 0. Hill 1649 

Bauer. Re 676 

Bauer's Estate 418 

Bauer 0. Mitford 16, 1469 

Baugh 0. Ramsey 849 

0. Reed 1427 

Baugher v. Elchelberger 860 

Bauknight 0. Sloan 834 

Baum , Ex parte 167 

Bauman 0. Matthews 1081 

Baumgarten 0. Broadway 1664 

Bawtree v. Watson 14.">5, 1842, 

1845, 1846 

Bax v. Whitbread 1004 

Baxendale v. McMurray 827 

0. West Midland Ry. Co. 602 

0. Westminturn R. W. Co. 543 

Baxter 0. Abbott 851, 852 

0. Blodgett 1309 

0. Conoly 2265 

Knollya 1150 

0. New York, T & M. Ry. 

Co 839 

0. Nurse 1186 



XXU 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[The 



<*■»*• to th* *« ptgiBr] 



Baxter «. Portsmouth, Earl of 86 

w. West 1727 

Bayard's Appeal 1061 

Bayes v Hogg 46 

Bayless v. Orne 26 

Bayley, i2e 1440 

v Adams 618, 700 

v. Cass 890 

v. De Walkiera 784, 787 

v, Edwards 633 

v. Leominster 1658 

v Mansell 1263 

v Powell 1416 

Baylies v. Baylies 1749 

v Payson 1001,2182,2260 

Bay list) Lawrence 1107 

v. Lucas 1091, 1092 

v Watklns 876,1071,1817.1642 

Bayly v. Bayly 601, 603 

v. Muehe 288 

v Powell 1416 

Baynard v. Woolley 228, 2116 

Bayne's Goods, Re 261 

Baynes v. Ridge 463 

Baynhamv Guy's Hospital 1668 

Bay State Iron Go. v. Goodall 1961 

Bayzor v. Adams 834 

Beach v. Beach 684 

v. Bradley 249 

v. Fulton Bank 778, 968, 1462 

v. Mwgrove 149, 269, 1680 

v. Shaw 978 

v. Sleddon 111 

v White 197 

Beaching v Gower 1098 

Beadel v. Perry 1618, 1688, 1662, 

1668, 1682, 2823 

Beadles v. Burch 878 

Beadon v. King 678, 646 

Beaird v. Foreman 296 

Beal v. Gibson 1672, 1676 

Beak v. Beale 1168 

v. Hayes 643 



v. Seiveley 
v. Thompson 
Beales v. Spenoer 
Beall v. Shaull 

v. Smith 
Beals v. Cobb 



989 

946 

178 

669 

88 

190,266,269,260, 

261,287 

v. Guernsey 1118 

v. Illinois, Ac. R. Co. 694, 843 

Beaman v. Elliot 2099 

Beamoni; Ellice 1101 

Bean v Clark 694, 880 

v Griffiths 898,964,986 

v. Heath 1666 

v. Morgan 179 

v. Quimby 676, 916 

v. Smith 2276 

Beanev Morgan 88 

Beaney v. Elliot 1868 

Bear, Re 779 

v. Smith 1867, 1801 

Bear block v. Taylor 1149 

v Tyler 1114, 1128, 1137 

Bearcroft v Berkeley 1197 

Beard v. Bowler 692 

v. Heide 916 

v Powis, Earl 1648, 1799 

Beardmore v. Gregory 108, 109, 201, 

261, 819, 401, 407, 1615 

v. Lead well 1636 

Beardsell v Schwann 2316 

Beare v. Prior 1239 

Beart v. Hewitt 2314 

Beatley r. Kenyon 260 

v. MaGrath 841 

Beaftney, Re 1795 

Beatniffv Gardner 669 

Beatrice, The 18 

Beattie v. Johnstone 1848, 1862, 

1853 

Beatty v Beatty 1669 

it De Forrest 1062 

v Hinckley 334 

v. Kurta 289 



Beatty v. Leaey 
Beaty v. Beaty 
«. Judy 

v M'Corkle 
v. Veon 



864 

1626 
808 
886 

1286 



Beauchamp v. Gibbs 419, 647, 689, 

787 
800 



v. Huntley, Marquis 



v. Putnam 
v. Winn 
Beaufort v. Morris 
Duke of v. Berty 
v. Morris 

17 Phillips 



1662 
1610 
2809 
1852,1864 
1112, 1118, 1683 
1086 



Duke of v. Taylor 
Beaumont v. Booltbee 

v. Carty 

v. Meredith 
Beavan v. Burgess 



1822 

878,888,667 

101 

248, 1773 

766, 1809 



v. Carpenter' 810, 1468, 1663, 

1674 
«. Mornington 1019, 1021. 1028. 

v. Oxford, Earl of ' 1084 

v. Waterhouse 760 

Bebb v. Bunny 1278 

Bechtel v. Sbeafer 1661 

Beck v. Allison 1660, 1668 

v. Beck 1648 

t>. Henderson 1003 

v. Pierce 189. 642 

Becke. Re 1841 

Beckenbrldge v. Churchill 660 

Beckett v. Attwood 1461 

v. Bilbrough 829 

v. Buckley 1087 

Beck ford v. Hood 866 

v. Kemble 1627 

v. Wade 669, 660 



v. Wildman 


1880,1838 


Beckhaus v. Ladner 


843 


Beckwith v. Butler 


840,1302 


v. Carroll 


1763 


v. Smith 


1698 


v. Wood 


15*2 


Beckworth v. Butler 


1230 



Bective, Countess of e. Hodgson 

1602, 1608 
Beddall v. Maitland 164, 1081, 1407. 

1648 

v. Page 469 

Beddinger v. Smith 68 

Beddingfleld t». Zouch 1060 

Beddington v Beddlngton 154 

Beddow v. Beddow 1613 

Bedell v. Bedell 592, 789 

v. Hoffman 1660, 1670, 1571 

Bedford Charities, Re 12, 1865 

Bedford v Bedford 1626 

v. Leigh 286, 360 

Earl of v. Romney, Earl of 1978 

Bedingfield, Re 1414 

Bedminster Charities, Re 1605 

Bedsole v. Monroe 834 

BedweU v. Prudence 828, 824 

Bedwin«. Asprey 75 

Beebe v. Guinault 1463 

v. Louisville, &c R. Co. 313 

v. Morris 212 

Beech v. Haynes 711, 889, 840, 843. 

v. Woodyard 797 

Beecher v. Anderson 145 

v. Marquette Mill Co 1461 

Beeching v. Lloyd 284, 240, 303 

Beekman v. Peck 978, 1030 

v. Saratoga and Scben. R. R. 
Co. 1076 

Beeler t\ Bullitt 166, 997 

v. Dunn 261, 1359 

Beem v. Newaygo Circuit Judge 

1881 
Beer r. Tapp 1421 

Beerfleld v. Petrie 1133 

Been v. Botsford 866, 1002 

v. Broome 986 

Beeson v. Beeson 671, 1081 



Beets 94 State 
Beerorv Lawson 

v. Luck 
Beibrd v. Crane 
Begble v. Fenwick 
Beggs, Matter of 
Behr v. Wlllard 
Behrens v. Pauli 

v. Sieve King 
Bein v. Heath 
Beioley v. Carter 
Beirne v. Wadsworth 
Belaney v. Belaney 

v. Ffrench 
Belcher v. Belcher 

«. M'Intosh 

v. Whftmore 

v. Williams 
Belchler v. Butler 
Belden v. Davis 
Balding v. Willard 
Belew v. Jones 



1099 



218 

846 

1449 

1468 

280 

668 

688,687,668 

87, 109, 111 

228 

946 

1479 

1842 

800,1169 

1096 

992 

780, 1168 

1390 

888 

1276 

1029 



Ballast, Earl of v. Chichester 817, 

1673 

Belford v. Scribner 1643 

Belknap v. Belknap 1639, 1680 

v. 8tone 806, 311, 814, 874, 889. 

402 408 
v. Trimble 1076. 1659 

Bell, Re 1689 

Bell, Re, Carter v. Btadden 1040 
BeU, Re, Lake v. Bell 641 

v. Alexander 202 

v. Antwerp Line 149 

0. Bell 807, 1640 

v. Bird 60 

v. Cade 1001 

v. Chapman 49, 62 

v. Cunningham 1624 

v Davidson 961 

v. Donohue 26 

v. Dunmore 780, 781 

v. Farmers' Deposit Nat'l 

Bank 848 

v. Gittere 818 

v Gordon 1008 

v Hastings 429 

v. Hunt 1660 

v. Hyde 179, 445 

v. Johnson 660, 867, 886, 896, 

1680 
v. Mexborough, Lord 1484 

v Moon 848 

v. Morrison 915 

v. New York, Mayor of 1240, 1242 
v. Pate 1440 

v. Read 1224 

v Rees 1068 

v Shrock 197 

v Singer Manof Go. 1620 

v. Stocker 189 

v. Thompson 886 

v. Tinney 66 

v Turner 892,1264 

v United States Stamping 

Co 2895 

v. Von Dadelsaen 4"6 

v. Walker 1646 

V. Waudby 402, 830 

v Wilson 836 

v. Woodward 842, 846, 847, 611, 
688, 700, 708, UU, 1112, 1116. 

1117 

Rrllaby t>. Grant 1(45 

Bellamy, In re, Elder v. Pearson 127 

Bellamy v. Bellamy 967 

v. Brickenden 710, 1425 

v Cockle 1266 

v. Debenham 864, 989 

v. Jones 988, 936, 937 

v.Sabine 280,281,292,400,418. 

1622 
Bellchamber v Giant 89,1880,1602 
Belle v. Thompson 1183 

Bellenger v. People, The 664 

Bellurophon, The 681 

Bellow v. Bellew 488, 1428 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



xxm 



[The 



are to the star paging*) 



Bsfflogham w. Norriah 

v Pearson 1117 

Belloat 0. Mors* 819 

Bdlona Oo't Case 1088 

Bellows v. Bellows 1071 

r Bowies 288 

0. Stone 408, 406, 408, 679, 680, 

581, 616, 724. TA. 829, 844, 846, 

846, 860, 861. 1190, 1222, 1227. 

120), 1248, 1681, 1628 

Bellwood e. Wetherell 679 

Belmont Nail Co. v. Colombia 

Iron & Steel Co. 286 

Belmoute 0. Aynard 29, 32 

Beituore, Lord v. Anderson 747*918. 

Bclohraddky Kuhn 1651 

Belaham v. Percival 1009, 1017, 1644, 

1883 
Brit, Re 99 

0. Bowie 884, 617 

r Lawns 1130 

Belton v Smith 1468 

r. Williams 197 

Beltzhoover v. Blackstoek 672, 578 
Berni* o. Opham 808, 1688, 1639 
Benand, Re 1847 

Beubow v. Davie* 628, 710 

r. Low 824, 679, 720, 786, 856 
Bencraft 0. Rich 1778 

Bendey v. Townsend 2398 

Hemlt nhe, Re 94, 1608 

Benedick v. Lynch 869 

Benedict v. Williams 818 

Benefit Life Am. Co. e. Super- 
visors 1661 
Benfield r. Solomons 69, 61, 62, 323. 

824,1549 

Bengley 0. Wheeler 243 

Benbam, Re 1795 

r Rowe 1289, 1247 

BenktaAgr. Works tr. Oreighton 669 

Benfoon v. Wortley 161 

Beoner r. KendaU 1688 

Benneson v Bill 1732 

Bennct College 0. Carey 1376 

Beonetr Bennet 1360 

v. Davie 69 

* Lee 170,174,176,1577 

r Leigh 170 

e. Ranyon 873 

r Vade 884,662,668 

v. Whitehead 1862 

Bennett's Trusts, Re 62 

Bennett v. Alloock 1130 

r Attkins 1896,1416,1419 

v Baxter 1170, 1844 

v Bennett 128 

0. Biddies 16! I 

v. Bury 1120 

v. Butterworth 813 

e. ChudleJgh 89, 165 

Colley 1724 

Edwards 167 

0. Fenton 149 

0. Gaingee 63 

0. Glossop 1831 

0. Going 1416, 1422, 1428 

HamiU 164,174,1276 

0. Hamlin 759 

0. Harfoot 168 

0. Hoefner 1031 

0. Honeywood 421 

Ueds Manuf. Co. 854 

e. Lytton 1207 

0. Moore 1002, 1866 

Neale 718, 1078 

0. Oliver 1606 

0. Pardinl 1676 

Partridge 1387 

0. Bees 1216 

v Robins 1748 

0. Skefflngton 262 

Van Sykel 146S 

0. Walker 669, 675 

Waller 392 

0. Wllbeme 1062 



Bennett 0. Winfield 
0. Winter 
0. Wood 



109 
1028,1080 
488,1218 
Bennington Iron Co. « Camp- 
bell 422, 770, 776 
Bennlson 0. Jervison IK'6 
Benseottor 0. Green 790 
Benson v. Frederick 1130 
0. Cutler 1400 
0. Glastonbury Canal Co. 861, 

1775 
0. Hadfleld 887, 699, 715 

0. Jones 607 

0. Leroy 886, 1180, 1615 

0. Olive 869 

0. Vernon 1026 

0. Woolverton 844, 1016, 1589, 

1646 

0. Wright 68 

Bensusan 0. NehemJas 1894 

Bent0. Birch 991 

v. Smith 844 

0. Tardley 885 

0. Young 662, 1556 

Bentham 0. Hainoourt 1287 

Bentley, Re 1855 

0. Bentley 1213 

0. Cowman 706 

0. Craven 1202 

0. Fleming 1109, 1128 

0. Long Dock Co. lleo 

0. Mercer 803 

0. Robinson 162, 177, 475, 476 



Bentlif 0. London, &c. V. Co. 149 

Benton 0. Gibson 1669 

Beuteen Taylor 82 

Benyon 0. Amphlett 180 J 

0. Nettleford 564 

Bensein v. Roblnett 888, 1369 

Bensien 0. Loveless 419 

Berdanatti 0. Saxton 1676 

Berdoe r. Dawson 13*6 

Beresford, Ex parte 105 

0. Battbany 661 

Lady0. Driver 1829 

Berg 0. Radclifle 2197 

Berger 0. Armstrong 1654 

0. Jones 1587 

Bergholts 0. Ruckman 1580 

Bergmann 0. McMillan 216 

Bedce 0. Harris 842 

Berkeley, Re 433 

0. King's College 1780 

0. Standard Discount Co. 146 

Berk bam pstead Free School, Ex 

parte 1854 

Berkley Ryder 782, 1550 

Berks and Dauphin Co 0. Myers 22 

Berlin 0. Melhorn 1274 

Bermes 0. Prick 559 

Bermingham 0. Tulte 15H5 

Bernal 0. Donegal, Marquis of 1703 

Bernall Donegal, Lord 8S5 

Bernard 0. Papineau 951 

Lord. Case of 1633 

0. Topliti 1918 

Bernawonl 0. Farebrother 1134 

Berndston 0. Churchill 792 

Berne 0. Byre 1384 

City of 0. Bank of England 17, 18 

Bernett Taylor 876, 1116 

Berney 0. Chambers 778 

Byre 1148,1149,1388,1384 

0. Harvey 1077 

0. Sewell 1716, 1719, 1724 

Bernheim 0. Bernheim 813 

Bernie 0. Vandever 1170 

Berrey 0. Small 1287 

Berrldgev Bellew 1449 

Berrigan 0. Fleming 1640, 1546 

Berrington 0. Evans 1211 

Borrow 0. Morris 1530, 1587, 2060 

Berry, Re 1*361 

Armistesd 2269 

0. Attorney-General 1461, 1480 

0. Clements 67 



Berry 0. Gibbons 


280,1844 


0. Hebbleth waits 


1880 


v. Johnson 


1276 


Jones 


1782 


0. Rogers 


175,666 


0. Sawyer 
Berry hill 0. M'Kee 


728,840 


987,1462 


0. Wells 


1266 


Berryman 0. Graham 


1548 


Bertel 0. Neveuz 


864 



Bertie v. Abington, Lord 1762 

0. Falkland, Lord 1017. 1548 

Bertine 0. Varian 660, 641, 645 

Bertolacci 0. Johnstone 416 

Berwick. Mayor of 0. Murray 267, 

350. 851, 887, 895, 1*94, 1836 

Besant 0. Wood 109 

Besemeres 0. Beeemeres 1670 

Beeley, Ex parte 1475 

0. Besley 405 

Beasant 0. Noble 208 

j Bessey 0. Windham 1126 

; Best* Applegate 999 

0. Drake 1632 

0. 8tampford 126 

0. Stouehewer 1170,1203,1406,1428 

Betagh 0. Concannon 1771, 1781 

Betnea 0. Call 68 

Bethel Abraham 1342 

0. Wilson 217 

Bethell v. Casson 579, 1826 

Bethia0 M'Kay 798 

Bethune 0. Bateman 414, 770, 776 

Farebrother 195, 196 

0. Kennedy 1697 

Bettes 0. Dana 1509 

Bettison 0. Farringdoa 1818, 1838 

Betton, Re 126 

Bette Barton 468, 586, 790 

I 0. Cleaver 1440, 1449 

I 0. Clifford 1379, 1440, 1681 

I 0. De Vltre 148, 146, 147, 1081 

! 0. Gallais 1061, 1643 

I 0. Mensies 578 

I 0. Nellson 1080,1081.1643 

I 0. Rimmel 898, 774 

Thompson 239, 248 

Betty 0. Taylor 844 

Bevan 0. Bevan 1279 

Bevan and Whltting, Re 1848 

Bevans 0. Dingman's Turnpike 146 

Beveridge 0. Chetlain 861 

Beverley 0. Miller 161 

0. Walden 844, 1078, 1116 

Bevin 0. Powell 1071, 1561 

Bewick v. Alpena Harbor Co. 1168 

Bewicke 0. Graham 617, 1829 

Bewley 0. Ottinger 897 

0. Seymour 307 

Beynoo 0. Cook 1386 

Bianca, The 406 

Bibb 0. Hawley 212 

Bibby 0. Naylor 1526 

Blck 0. Matley 1299 

0. Motley 1811, 1367 

Bickel's Appeal 560 

Bickerton 0. Bunnell 197 

Bickett 0. Morris 1639, 1662 

Bickford Skeeves (or Skewes) 444, 

506, 507, 1114 
Bickham 0. Cross 999 

Birkley 0. Dorrington 328 

Bicknell 0. Bicknell 79 

0. Field 1627 

0. Gough 612, 656 

Bicycle Stepladder Co. v. Gor- 
don 542 
Bidder 0. Bridges 314, 646, 579, 717. 



0. McLean 


586 


0. Trinidad P. Co. 


1656 


Rlddinger 0. Wiland 


68 


Biddta 0. James 


863 


Biddle, Re 


1389 


Mason 


1716 


0. Ramsey 


1658,1682 


Biddies 0. Jackson 


96 



XXIV 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[The references are to tho iter paging.] 



Biddulph, Re 1796 

v. Camoys, lord 177, 461, 462. 

478, T66, 872, 889, 1574 

r.Dayrell 177.476 

v. Fitsgvrald 1109 

«. St. George, Vettry of 1660 

v. St. John 847 

Bidlack v. Mason 1751 

Bldulph v. Bidulph 1888 

Bidwell v. Paul 1716 

Biel. Re 862 

Bierne v. Ray 848 

v Wadsworth 801 

Bifield v. Taylor 220, 222, 257 

Bigelow v. Bigelow 660, 644, 1772 

v. Cassedy 212 

v. Hartford Bridge Co. 1637 

v. Hagee 285 

v. Morong 1411, 1427, 1431 

v. Wlnsor 994, 996, 2856 

Biggleston v. Grubb 1402 

Biggs v. Kowns 1662, 1564 

v. Penn 268 

Blgler v. Reyher 673 

Bignal v. Breroton 1256 

Bignell, Re 1361 

v. Atkins 1500, 1533 

v. Chapman 1732 

Bignold v. Audland 394, 1561, 1562, 

1663, 1664,2003,2158 

v. Cobbold 48 1 

Bigeby v. Dickinson 868, 148S 

Biles'* Appeal 1163 

Bill v. Cureton 230 

v. Sierra Nevada Co. 1620 

v. W. U. Tel. Co. 26 

Billing v. Brooksbank 675 

v. Flight 604, 612, 2095 

Billings v. Aspen Mining & 8. 

Co. 267, 560 

v. Hann 652, 586 

Billingslea v. Gilbert 786, 1675 

v Ward 656 

Billout v. Morse 407 

Billson v. Scott 168, 2291 

Bllmyer v. Sherman 209, 236 

Bilston, Re 1580 

Bilton v. Bennett 628, 624 

Binfield v. Lambert 875 

Binford v Bawden 93, 99 

« Dommett 1126 

Bingham v. Bingham 1622 

v Cabot 814, 858, 874, 656 

v. Clanmorris 166, 1226, 1227 

v. Dawson ' 1581 

v. King 1390 

v. Teomans 417, 736 

Blngley v. Marshall 1666 

Bingley School, Re 1852 

Binkert v. Wabash Ry. Co. 402 

Binks v. Blnks 1516, 1585 

Binney v. Plumley 22 

Binneys Case 20, 26, 468. 729, 

782, 733 

Binnlngton v. Harwood 1393 

Binns v. Mount 1776 

v. Parr 1781 

Blnsted v. Barefoot 1611 

Bircev. Bletchley 865 

Birch, Re 1610 

Birch v. Birch 1053 

v. Corptn 147 

v. Joy 1500 

v. Sumner 1859 

v. Williams 979 

Blrchall, Re, Wilson v. BirchaU 68 

Birchel, Ex parte 1846 

Birchettv. Balling 1046 

Bird, Re 1233 

Bird v. Apple ton 1188 

v. Bird 83 

v. Brancker 749 

v. Butler 876 

v. Davis 109, 498, 886 

v. Gill 1238 

v. Harris 807, 437 

v. Heath 1030, 1848 



Bird v. Hustler 418 

v. Inslee 661 

v. Kerr 1128 

v. Lake 840,884,1696,1599,1670 
v. Littlehales 1066, 1066, 1057. 

v. Styles 844 

Blrdsall v. Colle 1727 

v. Hewlett 1268, 1481 

Birdseye v. Heilner 694 

Birdaong v. Blrdsong 190, 269, 287, 

1606 
Birkenhead Docks v. Laird 826, 1001 

1484, 2182 
Birkett, In re 1770 

Birks v. Micklethwalt 1413 

Birley v. Kennedy 1777 

Birmingham v. Gallagher 248 

Birmingham Browing Co., Re 1172, 

1767 
Birmingham Estates Co. v. Smith 

661 
Birmingham W. & B. Co. v. 

Elvton Land Co. 645 

Birnbaum v. 8olomon 1676 

Birne v. Hartpole 1584 

Blron v. Edwards 1120 

v. Scott 200 

Birrell v. Dryer 546 

Birt v. Leigh 1096 

BlBbee v. trans 560 

Bischoflbbeim v. Baltser 888, 983, 

1578, 2391 

v. Brown 1838 

Bischoffshein v. Tasks 888 

Btooe v. Brett 798, 806, 1216 

v. Great Eastern Ry. Co. 1080 

v. Jackson 13 

v. Land Bank, Undertakers of 274 

v. Waring 860 

v. Wilks 1402 

Bishop, Ex parte 271, 1257, 1448, 

1453 

Re 1347 

t<. Aborn 1019 

v. Balkis Cons. Co. 26 

v. Binhop 861,874,1791 

v. Chichester 718 

v. Church 953 

v. Godfrey 1033 

v. Jones 52 

v. Lewis 996 

v. Little 645 

v. McGillis 815 

v. Williams 1168 

v. Willis 782, 1472, 1611 

v. Wood 402 

Bishopp v. Colebrook 119 

Bishop's Waltham R. Co., Re 1037 

Bishopsgate, Re 1770 

Bisseli v Briggs 458 

v Heath 1743 

v. Kellogg 1624 

Bisset v. Burgess 1487 

Blthray, Re 1037 

Bitxer v. Hahn 1253 

BWen v. Bostwick 860 

Bixby v. Bent 986 

Bhsey v. Flight 1432 

Black t- Black 687, 603 

v. Blakety 1260, 1418 

v. Bordelon 256 

v. Caruthers 1634, 1666 

v. Creighton 1780 

v. Delaware, &c. Canal Co. 418, 

1650 

v. Enrich 1643 

v. Henry G. Allen Co. 1643 

v. Huggina 26, 1664 

v. Jones 1126 

v. Lainb 848, 1075, 1110. 1111, 

1115, 1116, 1117, 1124, 1139, 1463 

v. O'Brien 1381 

v. Scott 149 

v. Shrove 1077, 1110, 1112. 1115, 

1116,1117,1119,1121,1124 

Blackboard v. Lindlgren 1282 



Blackborough v. Ravenhill 1785 

Blackburn v. Caine 998 

v. Gregson 1147 

*. Jepson 22, 1077, 1476, 1489 

v. Selma R. Co. 1286, 2879 

t\ Stace 1774 

v. Warwick 1262 

Blacker v. Phepoe 866 

Blacket v. Finney 869 

Blackett v. Bates 1668 

v. Black 668 

v. Blackett 201. 818, 1722 

Blackford v. Davis 1221,1282,1233. 

1286,1388 
Blackball v. Coombs 1622 

Blackham v. Sutton Coldfleld 289 
Blackie v. Osmaston 642 

Blacklock v. Barnes 1240 

v. Small 1427 

Blackman v. Cornish 1026 

Blackmore v. Barker 1281, 1492 
v. Edwards 423, 427 

v. Glamorganshire Canal Nav- 
igation 893. 1668 
v. Howlett 162, 476 
v. Smith 169, 808, 815 
Blackwell v. BlackweU 264, 407 
v. Harper 866 
Blackwood, Re 1607 

v. 1686 

Blagden v. Bradbear 656, 657 

Blagrave r. Blagrave 868, 870 

Blaiberg v. Parke 894 

Blain , Ex parte 20, 26, 147 

v. Agar 25, 243 

Blair v. Boggs Township School 

District 1667 

v. Bromley 200, 802, 645, 880 

v. Cordner 854, 1847 

v. Drew 641 

v. Johnson , 653 

v. Lippincott Glass Co. 197 

v. Ormond 286 

v. Porter 1560, 1562 

v. Reading 790 

v. St. Louis H. & K. R. Co. 324 

v. Toppltt 1768 

Blaisdell v. Bowers 715, 844 

v. Stevens 417, 760 

Blake, Re 68 

v. Albion Life Ass. Co. 848, 849 

v. Allman 266 

v. Barnes 818, 790 

v.Blake, 6,46,87,421.629,680, 

804, 1689, 1726. 1771 

v. Cox 819, 828 

v. Foster 1581 

v. Gale 1214 

v Garwood 1561 

v. Hey ward 986 

v. Hey wood 1083 

v. Hlnkle 861 

v. Jones 206 

v. Smith 86 

v. Veysie 860 

Blakeley Ordnance Co., Re 1088 

v. Blakeley 1261 

Blakemore v. Allen 734 

v Glamorganshire Canal Co. 1661 

Blakeney v. Du&ur 29, 81, 1728, 

1732 

v. Ferguson 842 

Blakeslee v. Murphy 1626 

Blakesley v. Pegg 1209 

Blakewell v. Tagart 1218 

Blakey v. Johnson 1079 

v. Latham 1409 

Blaksley's Trusts, Re 1691 

Blanc v. Paymaster Mining Co. 256 

Blanchard, Re 1841 

v. Hawthorne 1685, 1780 

v. Cooke 158, 517, 1071. 

1110 

v. Detroit R. Co. 1668 

v. Hill 1649 

Bland v. Bland 40 

«. Daniel 488, 1213, 1888, 1428 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XXV 



[The reference an to the star paging.] 



Bland •. Davison 



429, 1607, 1622. 
1427,1642 
100 
100 
40,1432 
1181 
207 
2M 
17L«> 
109 
1257 
860 



9. 

•.Dai 
9. Lamb 
«. Warren 
9. Winter 
«•. Wyatt 
Blaadheir v. Moore 
Blandra, Re 
Blaney v. Hendricks 

v. Sergeant 
Blaan v. Bell 1218, 1480. 1472 

Blanshard v. Drew 169, 808 

Blantcn 9. Brackett 844 

v. Hall 296 

Blatch v. Archer 467 

Blatchfbniti Chicago Dredging 

Co. 1663 

Blatherwick v. Carey 848 

Blauvelt v. Ackerman 1296 

e. Smith 1062 

Bhxlaud v. Bbuciand 1828 

Blaydest? Calvert 1702 

Blease r. Garlington 1008, 1604, 2891 

Bleckley v Rymer 719 

Bledsoe 9 Carr 1674 

Bleekerr. Bingham 667 

Bleight r. M'llroy 1677 

Blemel v. Shaituck 1691 

Blenkarne r Jennens 675 

Blenkhorn v. Penrose 418 

BlenkJnsop v. Foster 1428, 1437 

Blenkinsopp v. Blenkinsopp 449. 

461, 462, 1066, 1824, 1834 

Blennerhaswtt v. Day 644 

Blessing c. Galveston 1661 

v. John Trageser S. C. Works 814 

Blest v Broirn 1894,1399,1407 

Bleuettv Jessop 1424 

Blevins v Symp*on 1416, 1417 

Blewett c. Blewett 1648 

Blewittr. Blewitt 672 

Blewit v. Thomas 819 

r. Tregonning 1104 

Bleyere. Blum 189J 

Bllftna v. Wilson 1299 

Bligh, Re 86 

BUgh v. Benson 680 

9. Darnley, Lord 1033 

v. O'ConneU 86 

v. Trodgett 110, 807, 809. 464 

Blight v. Banks 842, 1881 

BOley v. Taylor 1728 

BUnd School v. Goven 1796 

Blinkehorne v. Feast 1886 

Bliss v. Collins 806, 1676 

«. Little 1463 

v. Putnam 202, 1627 

BHthraan, Re 61 

Block v Atchison, T. k 8. F. R 

Co 149 

Blockett v. Bates 1485 

Blodget r. Hobart 841, 1648 

Blogg v. Johnson 888, 1266 

Blob r. Betts 1766 

Blomfleld v. Byre 888, 1332, 1614, 

1682 
Bloodgood v. Clark 898,1606.1598, 

1720, 1734 

v. Kane 618 

Bloomar, Re 166. 1192 

Bloomstein v. Brian 296, 1624 

v. Glees 542 

Blere v. Ashby 406 

Blossom v. Railroad Co. 1492 

Blount v Bestland 90 

9 Barrow 227,1229 

c Garen 649, 684 

v. Kimpton 678 

« O'Connor 1870 

*. Wlnterton 259 

Blower ». Horrets 1568 

Bloxam v. Chicbester 766 

v. Hopkinson 1040 

9 Metropolitan Rv. Co. 26, 241, 

244,246,899,1698 



Blozsome v. Chichester 766 

Bloxtonv Drewit 882,883 

Bluck v. Colnaghi 798, 806, 811 
9. Elliot 668 

v. Galsworthy 678, 1884 

Bludworth v. Take 662 

Blue 9. Watson 1662. 1668 

Blue Ridge Clay Co. v. Floyd- 
Jones 880 
Blnestone Coal Co. v. BeU 1660 
Bluett v. Jessop 1214 
Blum tr. Goldman 1611 
Blumenthal 9. Brainerd 1748,1762 
Blundell, Re 1411 
Blundell 9. Blundell 298 
Blunden 9. Desert 1842 
Blunt, Re 1694, 1696 
9. Clitherow 1760 
9. Cumyns 1402 
9 Gee 1166 
filyth 9. Green 178 
9. Lalbne 1862 
Bly tbe v. Fladgate 217, 228, 269, 2116 
v Peters 1626 
Boardman v. Davidson 880 
9. Jackson 1228, 1229 
« Meriden Britannia Co. 1649 
Boardway v. Scott 1381 
Boatwrigbt tr. Boatwright 648 
Bobb v. Bobb 884 
Bobbett 9. South Eastern Ry 

Co. 649 

Bock v. Bock 1507 

Boddam 9. Riley 1258 

Boddington v. Rees 854 

r Woodley 40, 43, 894 

Boddy v. Kent 814, 1611, 1642, 1589 
Bode, Baron de, Re 138 

Bodenv Dill 1081,1666 

Boden's Trust, Re li»8 

Bodger v. Bodger 824, 904 

Bodfcoate 9. Steers 1161, 1157 

Boding too v. Harris 1131 

Bodkin f. FItspatrick 194 

Bodman v. Lake Fork Drainage 

District 630 

Bodmin, Lady v. Vandenbendy 677 
BodweU v. Wilcox 1694 

Boehmv De Tastet 608 

9. Wood 1700, 1701. 1702, 1708. 
m0, 1711, 1713, 1729, 1741 
Boeve v Skipwith 1638 

Bofll v. Fisher 228 ' 

Bogackl v. Welch 1679 

Bogardus v. Rosendale Manuf. 
Co. 26 

v. Trinity Church 607, 616, 617, 
626,654,694,695,697 
Boger, Re 1685 

Bogert v City of Elisabeth 1661 
v Haight 896, 1619 

Bogg 9. Midland Ry. Co 1001 

Boggs v. Brown 1765 

Bogle v. Bogle 1651, 1555 ' 

Boicue 9. Houlston 867, 1643 

Bogwell v. Elliot 874 

Bob man v. Lohman 804 

Bolleau v. Rutlln 888 

Boils v. Boils 1673 

Bointon t\ Parkinson 461 

Boisgerard v. Wall 190 

Bolander v. Peterson 1648 

Bolckow v. Fiflher 829, 720 

Boldeo v. Nicholay 187 

Solders v. Saunders 727 

Holding v. Lane 653 

Bolgiano v. Cooke 363 

Bolland, Er parte 157 

Bollcs v. Bolles 884 

Boiling v. Turner 83 

Bollinger v. Chouteau 1244, 1246 
Bolman v. Lohman 402 

Bolster v Catterlin 1631 

Bolton, Re 108 

v 1660 

v. Bolton 409, 906, 937 

v. Bull 1642 



Bolton v. Dickens 661, 602 

v. Flournoy 1077 

v. Gardner 40, 617, 618, 669, 686, 

728,787,1462 
v. Lambert 196,661 

v. Liverpool 671, 672. 679, 948. 

1881,1884 

v. Powell 824 

v. Ridsdale 407, 1615 

v. Salmon 269 

v. 8tannard 222 

v. Williams 1669 

Bolton, Duke of v. Williams 1664 

Bolwarev Craig 878 

Bomar v. Haglar 991 

v. Means 803 

v. Parker 790 

Bombay Civil Fund Act. Re 1896 

Bonaparte 9. Camden, Ac R. Co. 46 

Bond, Ex parte 1860 

Re 1346 

v Barnes 70,898,798 

17. BeU 1401 

9. Conway 118 

v. Graham 250 

p. Green 996 

v. Greenwald 1019, 1468, 1618 

V. Hendricks 286, 890 

v. Hopkins 659, 1680 

9. Mayor of Newark 1661 

9. Simmons 114 

Bonelli, Re 864 

Bonelli's El. Tel. Co., Re 1607 

Bones v. Angier 447 

Boufleldp Grant 161,176,177,476 

Bonfll v. Purchas 1510 

Bon ham v. Newcomb 1003 

Bonlthon 9. Hockmore 1246 

Bonnard v. Ferryman 1620 

Bonnardet v. Taylor 1837 

Bonnell v. Griswold 646 

v. Lewis 1008 

Bonner v. Illinois Land Co. 1507 

v. Johnston 1776 

9. Worthington 1710, 171 1 

v. Young 889 

Bonnewell v. Jenkins 1096, 1106 

Bonny p. Bonny 216 

Bonser 9. Bradahaw 81, 1079, 1726. 

1847 

v. Coz 1695 

Bonus v. Flack 1188, 1184 

Bookless 9. Crummack 1617 

Boon v. Colingwood 1718 

v McGucken 1069 

v Pierpont 890,686,890 

9. Rahf 586 

Boone 9. Chiles 861, 569, 678 

Boone County v. Burlington & 

M. R. Co. 1684 

Booraeui 9. North Hudson 

County R. Co. 1687 

9 Wells 287 

Boosey v. Fairlle 46 

Booth v Booth 815, 887, 1394, 2116 

9. Clark 1742, 1761 

v. Coulton 1256, 1786 

9 Leycester 791,800,1256,1558, 

1614, 1626, >628 

v MHns 1096 

v. Penaer 1309 

9. Rich 167 

9. Smith 854, 759, 760 

v Stamper 841,601 

v Thompson 1502 

v. Turle 665. 657 

9. Wiley 660 

v. 798 

Boothby 9. Walker 1775 

Bootle 9. Blundell 875, 876, 1014, 

1116, 1124, 1185 
Boovey v. Sutclifle . 1710 

Borah 9. Archers 208, 1158 

Borden v. Curtis 208 

Bordler v. Burrell 1071 

Boreham v. Blgnall 430, 482, 1406, 
^ 1427 



xxvl 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[The 



are to the star paging.] 



Boren v. Btllingtoa 402 

Borer v. Chapman 668, 1988 

Borland v. Haven 818 

v. Thornton 1821, 1640 

Borneo Company v. Robinson 664, 

670 
Borough v. Whkhcote 867 

Borrowscale v. Tuttle 804, 995 

Bon e. Preston 46 

Borthwick v. Evening Pott 1648 
Borton v. Dunbar 1480 

Bosanquet v. Maniham 682, 1681 
v. Shortridge 1126 

Boschetti v. Power 462. 749, 1780 
Bosher v. Richmond & H. L. 

Co. 808 

Bosley v. M'Kim 660 

v. Phillips 288, 818, 408 

v. Susquehanna Canal 1688 

Bostic «. Love 846 

Bostook t>. N. Staff. Ry Co. 1686, 

2807 
Boston v. Boylston 261 

Boston Bank v. 8kUlings, &o. 

Lumber Co. 1661 

Boston Diatite Co. v. Florence 

Manuf. Co. 1620, 1642, 1644 
Boston Iron Co. v. King 1282.1244, 

1248,1261 
Boston Rubber Bboe Co. v. Bos- 
ton Rubber Co. 10, 1648 
Boston Water Power Co. v. Bos- 
ton & Worcester R. R. 649, 

1687 
Boston Woven Hose Co. v. Star 

Rubber Co. 197 

Boston & Lowell R. Co. v. Salem 

& L. R Co. 1628, 1686, 1640 
Boston & ProT. R. Co v. New 

York & N B. R. Co. 1719 

Bostwkkv Menck 1742.1761 

Bosville v. Brander 92, 122, 125 

v. Van Voorhis 642 

Boswell v. Coaks 68,164,807,1881. 

v. Otto 467 

Bosworth, He 1411 

Boteler v. Allington 669 

Bothomley v Squires 824, 698, 699, 

602, 808, 966 
Bothomly v. Fairfax 1740 

Bothwell v. Bonshell 86 

Botifeur v. Weyman 641, 667 

Botsford v. Botsfbrd 1407 

v. Burr 196,874 

Bottenv Codd 87,179 

Bottle Seal Co. v De La Vergne 

B. & 8. Co. 814 

Bottoms v. Corley 109 

Bottorf v. Conner 660, 601 

Botts v. Patton 249 

Bouche v. Ryan 87, 74 

Boucher v Boucher 1120 

Bouchler v. Dillon 1497 

Boucicault v. Delafleld 68, 64, 814, 

1009, 1017. 1644 
Bouck v. Bouck 828, 886, 836 

v. Wilber 671 

Bodlnot v. Small 824 

Bouldenn Lanahan 280,1056 

Bouldin v. Baltimore 1668 

Boulter v. Mnt. Loan Aas*n 1652 
Boulton v. Beard 1418 

v. Prltchard 1129 

Book) v. New Orleans, kc R. 

Co 1681 

Bound v. Wells 612, 686 

Bourbaud v. Bonrbaud 63, 814, 

1688,1675 
Bourdtllnn v. Adair 96 

v. Baddeley 828 

Bourdin v. Greenwood 646 

Bourdon v. Martin 1691, 1748, 1756 
Bourgeois v. Schrage 1461 

Bourke v. Callanan 1073 

v Davis 749,892 

w. Donoghue 1887 



Bourktt v. Kelly 


690 


v. Nlool 


854 


Bourn v. Bourn 


1287 


Bourne. Ex parte 
v. Rrickton 


162 

1470 


v. Coulter 


402,428 


v Hall 


1661,1662 


v. Mole 


1772 


Bourton v. Williams 


998 


Bousfleld v. Hodges 


1298 


v. Mould 


884 


Bouslog v. Garrett 


871 


Bousquet v. Bent 


1008 


Boussmaker, Ex parte 


61,62 


Bouton v. Dement 


286 


BoyM v. Bird 


911 


v. Clark 


781 


v. Cowan 


948,1826 


v. Crate 


1668 


v. Goodier 1189, 


1071, 1080 


v. Hitchcock 


o. Smith 


679 


Bowden, Re 


260 


v. Crow 


824 


v. Parriah 


1290 


v. Kufpell 


11.70 



Bowdlteh v. Banuelos 2080, 2081 

v. Soltyk 1411, 1427, 1660 

Bowdon v. Allen 664 

Bowen, Re 1043 

Bo wen, Re t Andrew v. Cooper 200 

v. Brecon Ry. Co. 1748 

v. Cross 402, 778, 780 

v. Evans 676 

v. Fairman 1772 

v. GiUeylen 1461 

v.Idley 71,294,408,406,409. 

776 

v. Pearson 1826 

v. Price 874, 480 

Bower v. Baxter 1661 

v. Cooper 1063 

v. Morris 1260 
v. Socicte das Aflreteurs dn 

Great Eastern 217, 824, 602 

v. Swadlin 669 

Bower Barff R. L. Co. v. Wells 

R. 1. Co. 769 

Bowers v. Keeaecher 884. 841 

v. Smith 68, 170, 1001 

Bowersbankv. Colassaau 1788,1739 

Bowes, Re 171* 

v. Bute, Marquis of 1168 

v. Farrar 782 

v. Fernie 1824 

v. Heapes 13S6 

v. Law 1081, 1654 

Bowie v. Ailsa 40, 1462 

t\ Minter 802, 1618 

Bowkerc Nickson 1808,1811 

Bowland v. Sprauls 418 

Bowie).' Case 1633 

Bowie* t>. Drayton 1869 

v Rump 1161, 1161 

v. Stewart 298, 878 

v. Weeks 1263 

Bowling v. Scales 1722, 1846 

Bowling Green, &c. v. Todd 1841 

Bowman v. Ash 869 

v. Bell 1734 

«. Bowman 1099 

v Burnley 802 

v. Chicago, fco. Ry. Co. , 779 

v. Flovd 1648, 1650 

v. Griffith 674 

v. Lygon 589 

v Marshall 701 

v Middleton 1<>73 

• . O'Reilly 860 

v. Rod well 944 

v. Wathen 660 

Bown, Re 100 

v. Child 988, 986, 936 

v. Stenson 989 

Browne v. Bitter 1281 

Bowra v. Wright 78, 166, 1162 



Bowser*. Colby 882,884,11^ 

v. Hughes 82 

Bowsher v. Watkina 200, 824 

Bowyer v. Beamish 604, 1627 

v. Bright 1478, 1686. 1687 

e. Covert 262, 290 

v. Griffin 1411 

v. Prltchard 1668 

v. Woodman 102, 658 

Boxv Jackson 119 

Boxy v. McKay 246 

Boyce «. Grundy 680 

v. Wheeler 1169 

Boyd, Ex parte 1666 

v. Alabama 669 

v. Boyd 68 

v. Brookes 1425 

v. Eby 862 

v. Gill . 198 

v. Hamilton 1078 

v. Helnselman 816 

v. Higglnson 648 

v. Hoyt 808, 884, 888, 840, 846. 

669 

v Jaga 824,825 

v. Jones 212 

v. Mills 690, 601, 760 

v. Moyle 844, 868, 429 

v Murry 1722 

v. Petrie 1008, 1209 

v. Royal Ins Co. 1748 

v State 1614 

v Stewart 1120 

v. Vanderkemp 296, 626, 1476, 1680 

v. Wiley 660, 1290 

Boydell v. Manby 1266 

Boy den v. Partridge 198, 200, 222 

Boyerv. Blackwell 1288 

v. Clark 1845 

Boyes v. Cook 978 

Boyle v. Brettws Llantwit C- 

Co. 1782 

v. Hardy 1268 

v. Lysaght 1668 

v Backer 1474 

v. Smithman 1885 

v Wiseman 1106,1106,1126 

v. Zacharie 1 

Boynton v. Barstow 814 

r. Boynton 64, 1422, 1607, 1638 

v. Brastow 2061 

v. Dyer 1369 

v. Kneeserille B. L. Oo, 686 

f7. Richardson 1417 

Boys v. Morgan 1477 

Boyse, Re 1627 

Bo>se, Re, Crofton v. Crofton 915 

v. Cokell 766, 820, 1821 

v. Colclough 664, 890, 1148 

v Rossborough 152, 876, 1074, 

Boson v. Bolland 640, 1842, 1846 

v. Williams 674 

Brace v. Blick 888 

v. Harrington 199 

v. Marlborough, Duchess of 678, 

1390,1424 

v. Ormond 1482 

v. Tax lor 329 

v. Wehnert 1660 

Bracebridge r Buckley 1668, 1669 

Bracey v Sandiford 77 

Bracken r. Kennedy 690 

Brackenbury v Brackenbury 1029 

Brackettv. Tillotson 1286 

Bracton v. Morris 1481 

Bradberry v. Brooke 40 , 1482 

Bradbury v Butler 813 

r. Dickens 1648, 1660 

v. Sharp 1643 

v. Shawe 607, 797 

Brad by v. Whitchurch 1417 

Bradford r Alien 1381 

r. Bradford 697, 1484 

v. Central Kansas L. & T. 

Co. 1842 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The r efe renc es an to Um iter paging] 



xxvii 



v. Folder 
•.Gabs 
t. Hamilton 
* Nettieshlp 
e. Peekham 
v. Young 



407 t lfi07 



1292 
1800 
1614,1677 



School 



Bradford 

Re 
Bradish v. Ellames 

v Gee 

v. Gibbs 

v. Grant 



206,663,663,1469. 

of Industry, 

16 

1207 

978, 974, 1685 

100,186 

402 



Bradlaugh v. Clarke 10 

v Newdegate 1658 

Bradley v. Amidon 69 
v. Berington 987, 1072, 1078 

c Borlase 710 

v Chase 1897 

« Convene 860 

* Crackenthorp 939 
9. Dibrell ^BjJ 636 
9, Bmenon 87,90 
v Hiteheoek 1887 
*. McKenn* 122 
9. Morgan 197 
it. Richardson 1628 
v. Richea 674 
v Root 886.886 
v. Snyder 1248 
v. Stelfox 798 
«. Webb 844 

Bradley & H. M Go. *. Charles 

Parker Co. 1642 

Bndsbaw v. Bradahaw 907. 909, 943, 

1858, 1778, 1780 

v. Ontram 283 

Bradstock v. Whalley 765 

v Whatley 291, 352, 461, 763 

Bradstreet v. Baldwin 915 

«. Supervisors, Jte. 46 

Bradt v. Kirkpatrick 328. 829, 558 

Bndwell v. Weeks 4$, 61, 538 

Bndyr Brady 1180 

9. Hamlett 1019 

v. McCosker 296, 1520, 1546 

« Waldron 1630 

v. Weeks 803, 845 

Bragg r. Lyon 1157 

Brabam r. Bastard 1649 

Brain v. Brain 899 

Btainard p. Jones 1254 

t Moss 1578 

Braithwaite, Re 433 
Braitbwaite, As, Braithwaite v. 

WaJlis 1779 

Braithwaite v. Kearns 891, 914 

9. Robinson 282 

Braker* Devereaux 208 

Braman r. Wilkinson 1551 

Bramblett v. Pickett 1030 

Bramley v. Teal 1775 

Brampton v. Barker 678 

Bramston v. Carter 421, 802 

Bramwellv Haicomb 1645,1646 

Branch, Ex parte 985 

Branch v. Booker 219 

v. Browne 1845 

* Dawson 779 
Branch Tump. Co v. Yuba 1631 
Brande r. Gilchrist 818, 1551 

c Grace 1660 

Branden v. Cabiness 280, 856 

Brandett r. Lance 1647 

Brandford v. Freeman 1129 

Brandling v. Humble 1800, 1801 

Brandlyn v. Ord 659, 674 

Brandon, Ex parte 149 

Brandon v Brandon 281, 1476, 

1525, 1749, 1768 

9 Cronch 987, 1599 

9. Curling 52 

9. Mutlenlx 917, 950 

9. Nesbltt 51 

r. Sands 547, 548 
Brandon Man. Co. *. Prime 601. 

1648 



Brandred v. Peterson Machine 

Shop 896 

Brandreth v. Lance 1644 

Brandt v. Klein 944 

Branford v. Branlbrd 664 

Branger 9. Chevalier 1810 

Branham v. Commonwealth 1285 
Branksea Island Co., He 669 

Branscomb v. Gillian 1157 

Brantley 9. Gunn 1815 

Brasbridge 9. Woodrofle 1427 

Brasfield v. French 597 

Brasher v. Cortlandt 286, 538 

v. Macey 208. 1630 

9. Van Cortlandt 88, 175, 190, 390 
Brass & Iron Works v. Payne 552, 

1648 

Brassey 9. Chalmers 209 

9. New York, &c. R, Co. 1734 

Brassington v. Bnsaington 1842 

Brasted v. Sutton 1717 

Brattle v. Waterman 410 

Braund v. Devon, Earl of 811 

Braunstein v. Lewis 100 

Brawell v. Reed 1723 

Braxton v. Lee 997 

v. Willing 1077 

Bray, Re 1803 

v. Akers 180, 181, 182 

9. Creekmore 418 

9. Promont 219 

v. Laird 1491 

v. Thatcher 345 

9. West 1436 

9. Woodran 969 

Bray Electric Tramway, Re 1878 

Braybrooke 9. Attorney-General 

1501 
Braybrooke, Lord v. Inskip 1220 
Braye, Re 1611 

Brayton v. Smith 1711, 1713 

Brasier v. Fortune 671 

Brazil, Emperor of 9. Robinson 18 
Breach, Ex parte 1795, 1815 

9. Casterton 1131 

Breadalbane, Marquis of 9. 

Chandos 664, 1626 

Brearcliff v. Dorrington 1040 

Brechen v. Russell 418 

Brack v. Smith 1698 

Breckenridge 9, Brooks 561, 1247, 

1269,1260 

Brecton v. Russell 417 

Brae v. Maresoanx 449 

Breed 9. Lynn 1168 

9. Pratt 851 

Breeding v. Finley 27 

Breedlore v. Nicoiet 45 

Breese v. English 411, 428, 992 

Brand v. Bread 1003 

Brendle v. Herren 1029 

Brannan v. Preston 905 

*. Vogt 646 

Brenner v. Blgelow 1624 

Brent, Re 1799 

9. Dold 1073 

9. Maryland 1841 

Brentwood Brick and Coal Co , 

In re 1653 

Brareton v. Edwards 1040 

9. Gamul 677, 679, 700 

Brealaner t*. Brown 157 

Bresler v. Pitts 1164 

Bressenden u Decreets 283, 288, 

289,419 
Brassier v. McCune 1468 

Breton v. Moekett 973 

Brett, Re 1615 

f. Carmlchael 1203 

9. East India & London Ship- 
ping Co. 1657 
9. Forcer 92 
9. Imperial Gas Co. 1666 
Brevard v. Sum mar 797, 1003 
Brevoort v. Brevoort 228 
9. Detroit 1468 
9, MoJimssy 1680 



Brewer, Bx parte 

9. Boston Theatre 

9. Bowman 

v. Connecticut 

9. Squire 

9. Tyriugham 

9. Yorke 
Brewis v. Lawson 
Brewster, Matter of 

9. Bours 

v. Hatch 

v. Lunt 

9. Thorpe 

9 Wakefield 



1847 

26,884 

1576, 1581 

974, 998, 1460 

1267 

1268 

1469, 1471 

824 

1841 

11 J I 

586 

826 

162, 475 

1257 

Breyfbgle 9. Beekley 906, 918 

Brlant, In re, Poulter 9. Shackel 90. 

9. Dennett 1797 

v. Reed 1660, 1562, 1564 

9. Thomas 834 

Brice v. Banister 109 

9. Mallett 682 

v. Miller 113 

Brick v. Staten Island Ry. Co. 1642 

Brickhouse v. Hunter 1250 

Brickill 9. Baltimore 560 

New York 1195, 1304 



Brlckwood v. Harvey 
Bridge 9. Bridge 

9. Brown 

9. Burns 

9. Eddows 

9. Johnson 



628 

968,955 

1359 

964 

1077 
1508 



Bridesburg Manufacturing Co.'s 

Appeal 1561 

Bridger v. Parfold 1288 

9. Thrasher 808, 314 

Bridges v. Canfield 27 

v. Hinxman 282 

9. Longman 1408 

v. McKenna 109 

v. Mitchell 641 

9. Robinson 1653 

9. Sheldon 1299, 1881, 1440 

9. Sparry 1158 

Bridewell Hospital, lie 1847 

Bridget v. Hamer 223 

Bridgewater v. DeWlnton 726, 727. 

774, 1836 
Bridgman 9. St Johnsbury & 

L. C. R. Co. 190 

Bridgwood 9. Wynn 1131 

Bridson v. Benecke 1642 

9. M' Alpine ' 1642 

Brian* Buttorff 543 

9. Harriman 1732 

9. Jordan 700 

v. Paul 1588, 1743, 1744 

Brierly v. Ward 626, 528 

Briesch v. M'Cauley 1622 

Briggs v. Beale 416, 804, 809 

v. French 1615, 1627, 1965, 2274 

9. Law 1623 

9. Richmond 284 



1628 

1640 

648, 644, 646. 1211 



9. Shaw 
9. Smith 

9. Wilson ___, 

Brigham 9. Lnddington 149, 191. 

1743 

9 Wheeler 1352 

9. White 1677 

Brlghouee v. Margcteoa 586, 1600 

Bright, Ex parte 157 

Bright v. Boyd 2219 

9 Bright 1271 

9. Eynon 1129 

9. Legerton 1003 

9. Rows 2182 

9. Spratt 1599 

9. Tyndall 1001 

Brignall 9. Whitehead 1610, 1590 

Brigstocke v. Roch 810, 1573 

Brill 9. Styles 542 

Brink 9. Morton 1111 

Brinkerhoff v. Brown 803, 834, 838. 

688,082,1290 
v. Franklin 1026, 1550 



XXV111 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
[The references an to the star paging.] 



Brinkerhoffv. Lansing 1892, 1890, 
v. Thalhimer 284 

168U 
Brinkley v. Att.-6en. 1673 

v. Avery 48 

Brinson v. Hadden 1766 

Brinton v. Birch 203 

Brisco v. Kenrick 214 

Bristed v. Wilkin* 1089, 1041 

Bristol v. Morgan 194 

Bristol Hydraulic Co. v. Boyer 1689 
Bristol. &c. Co v. Maggs 864 

Bristow v. Towers 60 

v. Whitmore 1001, 2182 

Bristowe v. Needham 604, 1747, 

1760, 1766 
Britain v. Cowon 161. 446 

British Dynamite Co. v. Krebe 1014. 

1603 
British Empire Shipping Co v. 

Somes 662, 1666. 1667, 1626 
British Equitable Am. Co. v. 

Vale of Neath Ry. Co. 1613 

British Imperial Co , Re 1696 

British Mut. lnr. Co. v. Cob- 
bold 1841 
British Sooth Africa Co. v. 

Companhia de Mozambique 629 
British & Foreign Gas Co., Re 1611 
Bricnell v. Walton 608 

Briton Medical Life Ass. Ass'n, 

lie 1620, 1666 

Briton Medical A G. L. Aas. Co. 

v. Jones 1120 

Briton v. South Wales Ry. Co. 1130 

Brittain v. Dickson 1608 

Britten v. Britten 96 

Brlttin v. Crabtree 843 

Brittlebank, Re 1858 

v. Goodwin 644, 1420 

v. Smith 892 

Britton v. Brewster 828 

v. Johnson 993 

Broad v. Wlckham 1748 

Broadbent v. Imperial Oas Co. 1686, 

1637 
Broadhead v. Marshall 1134 

Broadhurst v. Tunnicllff 1019, 1492 
Broadwood, Re 99 

Brocas r. Lloyd 906, 908 

Brock v. North Western Fuel Co. 357 
Brocken v. Martin 816 

Brocker v. Hamilton 1699 

Brocklebank, Ex parte 68,84 

v. East London Ry. Co. 1744, 1762 
v. KiDg'a Lynn Steamship Co. 26, 

Bi 
Brocklesby v. Munn 1661 

Brocksopp v. Barnes 1233 

Brockway v.Copp 647, 721, 887,1042 
v. Wells 1892 

Broder v. Saillard 211, 261, 406, 

1168, 1637 

Broderick's Will 662 

Broderick v. Broderick 1622 

Brodle v. Barry 1723 

v. Bolton 1487, 1438 

v. Johnson 1144 

t>. St. Paul 1888, 1404 

v. Skejtou 467 

Brograve v. Watts 1050 

Brokaw v. Brokaw 200, 314 

v. McDougall 1169 

Bromage v. Daries 1284 

Bromberg v. Heyer 868, 646, 707 

Bromfleld v Chichester 608 

Bromilow v. Phillips 887, 1069 

Bromley, Re 187 

v. Holland 197, 247, 662. 1680 

«. Kelly 816, 1779 

v. Smith 136, 166. 243, 1386 

v. Williams 241 

Bronton'R Case 1069 

v. Krokuk 149, 191 

v. Kinsie 1241 

v. La Crosse, fro. R. Co. 26, 287. 

1463,1648 



Bronson v. R. R. Co. 


994 


Brooch v. Kelly 


940 


brook, Re 


1168 


v. Alcock 


89 


v. Archer 


1081 


«. Biddall 


908 


v. Smith 


166.1846 


Brook, Lord v. Hertford, Lord 72, 78 


Brooke, Ex parte 


167 


v. 


1219 


o. Brooke 


1626 


v. Clarke 


1679 


v. Hewitt 


648 


v. Hickes 


92.106 


v. Mostyn 67, 68, 168, 801, 1684 


v. Tarbell 


1076 


v. Todd 


977 


Brooke. Lord v. Warwick 


.Earl 


of 


1489 


Brooker, Ex parte 


167 


Re 


1616 


v. Brooker 


1616, 1734 


v. Collier 


1268 


v. Smith 


449 


Brookes v. Boucher 


880,721 


v Burt 


152 


t». Whitworth, Lord 


886,346 


Brookfk'ld v. Bradley 


lu29, 1624 


t-. William* 


1156-1168 



Brooking v. Maudslay 849, 864, 1573 
v. Skewis 1387 

Brooklyn White Lead Co. v. 

Masury 1648, 1649 

Brookman, Re 1608 

Brooks v. Barrett 851 

v. Brooks 110, 179 

v. Byam 728, 760, 1377, 1381, 1406 



v. Cannon 




868 


v. Carpentier 




825 


v. Dias 




1631 


v. Gibbons 




587,688 


v. Gillis 




844 


v. Greathed 


1067, 


1068. 1717, 
1718, 1744 






v. Hamilton 




324 


v. Howard 




1120 


v. Jones 




1607 


v. Kelly 
v. Lewis 




1274, 1661 




295 


v. M'Kean 




906,918 


v. Martin 




1648 


v. Mead 




829 


v. Miller 




878,1642 


v. Mills County 




634 


v. Moody 




777 


9. Morison 




462 


v. O Hara 


814 


I, 669, 1668 


v. Purton 690. 702 


, 7G6. 1590, 




1624 


, 1675, 2129 


«. Railroad Co. 




1019, 1120 


v. Reynolds 286, 260 


, 1207, 1615 


v. Silver 




843 


v. Snaith 




1287 


v. Spann 




418 


v Sutton 




669,700 


«. Taylor 




867 


v. Wigg 




888 


Brooksbank v. Higginbottom 795 


v. Smith 




645 


Broome, Ex parte 




1727 


Brophy v. Bellamy 




1842,1359 


v. Holmes 




1467. 1477 


Brotherton v. Chance 


774 


v. Hatt 




676 


Brougham, Lord v. 


Ponlett, 


Lord 




1428 


, Broughton v Brooghton 


1284, 1286, 
1413, 1414 


v. Lashmar 




791 


v. Marty n 




607 


v. Fitchford 




1778 


Broward r. Hoeg 




214 


, Browder v. Jackson 




190 


Brower v. Cothran 




1120 


Brown's Appeal 




1657 


Brown, Ex parte 


168,663,907, 




1120, 


1766,1864 



Brown, Re 70, 191, 494, 671. 1048. 
1407, 1449, 1796, 1874 
v. Armlstead 997 

v. Ashley 1689 

v. Aspden 1472 

v. Barkham 1269 

v. Bigley 1846 

v. Brown 79. 668. 718. 846, 847, 
1029, 1228, 1820, 1626, 
2012 
v. Brace 782 

v. Buck 884 

v. Bulkley 787,844,846,961 

v. Burdett 1218, 1411, 1628 

v. Burke 1076 

v. Butter 802 

v Byrne 1168 

v. Chambers 866,875 

v. Clark 86, 102 

v. Clarke 1188 

v. Collins 108 

v. Commonwealth 1624 

v. Concord 1661 

v. County of Buena Vista 661 
v. Crane 989 

v. Crowe 447 

v. Dailey* 1299 

v. Dawson 41, 43 

v. Desmond 629 

v. DeTastet 219, 1232, 1260, 1318, 
1782, 2242, 2279 
v. Douglas 699 

«. Dowthwaite 256 

v Duluth, fcc. R. Co. 26 

v. Euton 1081, 1666 

v Edsall 648 

v. Elton 92 

v. Frost 1284 

v. Fuller 1667, 1677 

v. Gellatley 1448 

v Gilmer 1288 

v. Guarantee Trust Co 384 

v. HafT 1668, 1699, 1702 

v. Hammond 668 

v. Haskins 1678 

f. Ha> ward 186,876 

v. Higgs 1476 

v. Home 618, 526, 626 

v. How 1417 

v. Hull 68 

v. Johnson 197, 199, 260, 287 

v. Jones 1081 

v J. Wayland Kimball Co. 662 
t\ Kahnweller 844 

v Kalamatoo Circuit Judge 1071 
v Keating 764. 2124 

r. Kelty 1776 

v. Lake 244, 779, 1170, 1206, 1640 
v. Lake Superior Iron Co. 617, 

660,1784 
v. Lamphear 1978 

v. Lannan 874 

v Lee 471,607,741 

v. Lexington and Danrille R. R. 

Co 683,669,800 

v. McDonald 879 

v. Marsyck 1062 

v. Mathews 1481 

v. Metropolitan Gas Light Co 1661 
v. Miner 878, 1008, 1073 

v. Minis 17 

v. Newall 1668 

v. North 113 

v. Oakshott 1290, 1834 

v. Payson 671 

v. Perkins 670, 1260, 1827 

v. Pickard 889 

V Pierce 887, 2889 

v Piper 314 

v. Pitman 261 

v. Porter 648 

v. Pringle 1796 

v. Rentfro 974 

v. Rhlnehart 418 

v. Ricketts 217, 226,288, 416, 417. 
692, 828, 884, 1698 
tt Rlggin 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 
(The references are to the itar paging.] 



XXIX 



firown 9. Roberteon 
9. Rogers 
e. Runaia 
». Rye 
e. Sawyer 
v. Sefelel 
*. Sererson 
v. Se«eU 



1694 

68,417 

887 

1891 

408 

1646 

1676 

880.1440 



v. Sinxraa 1287, 1289, 1248. 1246. 
1246. 1247, 1268, 13s#l, 1392 
«. Smith 1353, 1358, 1361 

9. Sooth Boston Saving! Bank 

1385, 1918 
9 Stanton 462 

*.8t*ad 269 

r. Stewart 1677 

9. Storey 1127 

9. Story 89, 164 

9. Swann 1666 

v. Thomas 1617 

9. Thornton 1667 

v. Trotman 1041, 12U6 

9. Troup 1661 

9. Trustees 1620 

9. Turner 1167 

9. Vandermeulen 1716 

9. Vandyke 871, 667, 668 

9. Wales 842, 1668 

«. Walker 249 

r. Wallace 1061, 1276, 1283 

9 Warner 1644 

9. Weatherby 282 

9. Weatherhead 79 

9. Weldon 813 

9. White 409, 991, 1676, 1680 

9. Williams 1299 

9. Winans 1677 

9. Wineoop 986 

v. WinehiU 1440 

9. Wood 467, 875 

Browne, Hatter of 1841 

v. Blount 161, 1718 

9. Browne 698 

9. Collins 1226. 1413 

9. Groombridge 1428. 1628 

r Muggins 229 

9. Lockhart 972,1878,1601,1886 
9 HcClintock 1120, 1121, 1189 
v. Monmouthshire By. and 

Canal Co. 248 

9. Murray 1097 

r. Radford 649, 660 

r. Savage 881, 981 

v. Smith 978 

Browne's Hospital, Re, v. Stam- 
ford 18, 16 
Browne!! v. Brownell 371 , 667, 668 
r Curtis 648,663,691 
Browning v. Barker 1192 
v. Barton 1192 
v. Betti* 1720 
9 Pratt 827 
9. Sloman 788 
*. Watkina 1661, 1662 
Brownlee v. Lockwood 261 
v. Martin 1071 
r Warmaek 1648 
Brownsword v. Edwards 816, 642, 
649,663,687,602,616,697 
Browse, Re 1689 
Broyles v. Arnold 1841 
Bruce v. Allen 692 
r Bainbridge 1406 
v. Bonney 1961, 2281 
r. Gale 1881 
e. Kinlock 1600, 1610 
r. Manchester A KeeneR Co. 1748 
w. Prebendary of Deer 1603 
9. Rawlins 1180 
Braen •. Crane 197 
Braere 9. Wharton 999 
Bruff v. Cobbold 894, 1026, 1460 
Bruin 9. Knott * I860, 1415 
Bruiton e. Birch 208 
Brumasjim ». Chew 1468. 1472, 1476, 



Brumflt v. Hart 821, 828 

Brumley v. Westchester Co. 

Manuf. Soc 146, 146, 736 

Brundage v. Goodfellow 1807 

Brundige v. Morrison 1286 

9. Rutherford 216 

Brundred v. Peterson Machine 

Co. 1668 

Bruner v Battell 1081 

9. Planters* Bank 1622 

9 Threadgill 1386 

Brungger e. Smith 676 

Brunker, Ex parte 1698,1699,1700, 

1706 
Brunsdon v. Allard 1846 

Brunskill 9. Giles 1098, 1094 

Brunswick v. Lamb 790 

Brunswick, Duke of e. Cambridge, 
Duke of 726, 764 

v. Hanover, King of 17, 18, 20. 

141. 142 
Brurton v. Rutland 1161 

Bruschke v. Der Nord Chicago 

Schuetsen Vereln 601, 1680 

Brash Electric Co. v. Brush-Swan 

E L. Co. 1648 

v. California Electric Light Co. 197 

Bryan, Re, Godfrey v Bryan 92 

v. BIythe 884, 842, 846, 847, 669 

v. Bryan 91 

v. Cormkk 1717, 1744 

v. Kales 668,660 

v. Kennett 1684 

v McGee 261 

v. Mansion 1806 

9. Morgan 1168 

9. Parker 1111 

9. Reed 980 

v Rooks 114 

v. Sanderson 1062 

9. Sprulll 121, 122, 824, 646 

v. Truman 788 

v. Twigg 176, 1625 

9. WasteU 410 

Bryant, Jle 1678, 1684 

v. BlackweU 13iK> 

v. Bull 1087, 1453 

9. Busk 1402 

9. Brskfne 261 

v. Leland 165 

v. Lirermore 68 

v. Packett 644 

9. Puckett 89 

v. Reading 1326 

v. Russell 287, 1381 

r. Tracy 68 

Brydgesv Hatch 983 

Brygger v Scbwoltser 1029 

Brymer v. Buchanan 1670 

Bryon v. Metropolitan Saloon 

Omnibus Co. 1064, 1408 

Bryson r. Nichols 1285 

9. Petty 888, 1042, 1480, 1706 

v. Warwick and Birmingham 

Canal Co. 898, 910 

9. Whitehead 2266 

Bubb v. Yelverton 1633 

Buccleugh v. Cowan 884 

Bueckugh, Duke of v. Metro- 
politan Board of Works 1860 
Buchanan 9. Berkshire Life Ins. 
Co. 1716 

v. Curry 61 

v Deshon 46 

v. Greenway 710, 1224 

9. Hodgson 691, 1881 

9. Lloyd 1411 

v. Mallns 1510 

v. Olwell 1663 

Buchard v. Boyce 216, 240 

Buck v Brown 68 

9. Dowley 880 

v. Brans 1648 

v. Fawcett 1460 

v. Lodge 1775 

9. McCaughtry 861 

9. Smith 1668 



Bock 9. Webb 991 

Buckell v. Blenkborn 2198 

Buckeridge v. Whalley 909, 1262, 

1258, 1478, 1479 

Buckingham v. Buckingham 1682 

9. Corning 1617, 1628, 1637, 1679. 

v. Peddicord 624 

v. Wesson 1648 

Buckles 9. Chicago, M, & St P 

Ry. Co. 1676 

Buckley, He 1814 

v. Baldwin 1716 

9. Cooke 906 

9. Corse 412 

9 Cross 406 

v. Howe 411 

v Howell 1874 

v. Lyttle 62 

v. Puckeridge 79 

9. Royal nTL. T. Ass'n 1781 

Buekmaster v. Buckmaster 108, 

1763 

9 Harrop 1487 

Buckner v. Abrahams 146.296 

v. Ferguson 1658 

Bucknor v. Forker 1680 

Bucks, Duchess of v. Sheffield 1022 

Buokworth v. Buckwo.th 1368 

Budd, Ex parte 1694 

9. Davison 868 

v Rutherford 68 

Budden 9. Wilkinson 679, 1829 

Budding v. Murdock 884,406,417, 

Buddlngton e. Woodley 411 

Budekep Ratterman 1222,1260 
Buden 9. Dore 579 

Budge 9. Budge 796, 1409, 1467 

Budgen v. Sage 797, 800 

Buehler v. CheuTront 1461 

Buel 9. Street 1462 

Buenos Ay res Ry. Co. v North- 
ern Ry. Co. 629, 1070 
Buerk v. fmhaenser 378, 647. 669, 

726,2386 
Buflalo 9. Pocahontas 834 

Buffalo Stone Co. v. Delaware, 

Ac. R. Co. 630 

Buffalo* v Buflalow 847 

Bumngton v. Harrey 266. 1468, 

1479, 1576, 1577 
Bnffum's Case 1082, 1066, 1686 

Buford v. Holley 1071 

v. Kucker 785, 986 

v Keokuk. Ac. Packet Co 1081 
Bugbee's Appeal 1320 

Bugbee v. Sargent 287, 834, 341 
Bugdenv Smith 1829 

Bugg v. Franklin 122 

Buie 9. Mechanics' Building 

Ass'n 216 

Bulkeley v. Dunbar 298, 707, 708 

v. Egllnton, Earl of 1436 

Bulkley v. Jones 2308 

9. Van Wyck 68, 169, 787, 763. 

Bull 9. Bell 690 

9. Bull 824, 1161 

9. Falkner 602, 1065 

v. Griffin 812, 733 

9. Jones 1611 

9. Loreland 907 

v. Nims 1081 

9. Withey 188, 499 

Bullen v. Michel 876, 1116 

9. Ovey 1686 

Buller 9. Walker 866 

Bulley v. Bulley 1847 

Bullinger v. Mackey 829 

Bullmore v. Wynter 87 

Bullock, Ex parte 68 

Re 83 

v. Adams 878 

v. Boyd 668 

v. Brown 1661 

9. Chapman 1622 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[Ths 



to the s*s# paging.] 



Bullock v. Cony 

v. Doddfl 

v. Gordon 

9. Knox 

9. IfeniiM 

9. Perkins • s - 

v. Richardson 1# 

«. Sadlier 

a Wbeatley 
Buhner v Allison 
Buloid v. Miller 
Bulow v. Wltte 
Bulstrode v. Bradley 
Bumpass v. Morrison 
Bumpusv Platner 



678 

68,65,68 

1076 

834,861 

108,104 

426 

484 

877 

1418 

1278 

1488,1465 

166 

1224 

1061 

676,1668 



Banbury 9. Banbury 677. 678,1627. 

'1781, 1884 
Bundine v. Shelton 1677 

Bunford v. Steele 884 

Buna, Ex parte 044 

v. Bunn 717, 1885 

Bunnell's Appeal 1687 

Bunnett, Re 1610 

v Foster 1483 

Buntain v. Wood 846 

Buntin v. Lagow 642 

Banyan v. Mortimer 181. 188, 446, 

499 

Burbank v Burbank 10, 12 

Burbridge v. Robinson 1824. 1827 

Burch v. Coney 282, 686 

v. Rich 818 

v. Scott 1018, 1019, 1080 

Burchard v. Ms/Jsrlane 581 

v. Phillips 1206 

Burdell v. Deaig 880 

9. Hay 1880 

Burden v. M'Elmoylo 778 

v. Stein 1640 

Burdett v Hay 828, 1619 

v, Norwood 1167 

v. Rockley 1067, 1069, 1060 

Burdick v. Garrick 90, 804, 661, 641. 

644.1259 

Burditt v. Grew 648, 684 

Burdoinev Shelton 1002,1577 

Burdon v. Dean 106, 122 

Burge, Re 664 

v. Brutton 809, 1284, 1414 

v. Burns 964 

Burger v. Potter 281 

Burgess, Re 68 

v Bennett 896 

v Bottomley 68 

9. Burgess 1649 

9. C. Aultman ss Go. 149 

V. Graffam 418 

v. Gregory 28, 80 

v Hately 796. 1880, 1896 

v Hills 796,1880,1896 

v. Laagley 1131 

v. Smith 662 

v. Wheat* 186, 188 

v. Wilkinson 1197. 1196. 1296, 

1801 

Burgh u Kenny 1877 

Burgin v. Qiberson 780 

Burgoine v. Taylor 979 

Burk v. Brown 67, 186, 665 

Burke, Re 86, 1361 

v. Burke 1071 

v. Crosbie 187. 1276 

v. Daly 1271 

9. Fuller 1777 

9. Jones 642 

v. Udwell 87 

Burkett v. Griffith 818 

9. Randall 1078 

9. Spray 1488, 1467, 1466 

9. Wall 1682 

Barklttc Ransom 1487 

Borland's Trade Mark, In re 149 

Burlen v. Shannon 1147 

Buries v. Popplewell 1616 

Burleoon v. McDermott 2 

Burlewv Hillmaa 1887 

9, Quarrier 844 



Burling 9. Tompkins 867 

Burlingamev Hobos 808,1919 

Burlington Bank v. CottJn 448 

Burlington, Ac. R. Co. v. York 

County 1661 

Burlingtou v Carpenter 1044 

Burmester 9. Baron Von Stem 26, 

818, 1613 
Burn 9. Bowes 1781 

Burnaby v. Bailliw 664, 861 

v. Griffin 1402 

Burnand v. Rodocanaehl 188 

Burnap v. Haskins 8teasa-Bn- 

gine Co. 269 

Burnbly v. Stainton 669 

Burns v. Breen 1884 

Burnell, Re 1610 

v. Wellington, Duks of 814 

Burnet v. Claghry 1287 

9. Dennlston 1918, 2229 

9. Theobald 1026 

Burnett v Anderson 1660, 1664, 

1667 

9. Boyd . 878 

9. Chetwood 1646 

v. Craig 1620 

tj. Kinnaston 126 

V.Lester 884 

9. Nicholson 1061 

v. Sanders 1467 

9. Tate 1620 

Burney v. Macdonald 16 

v. Morgan 1611 

Burnham v. Bennett 116, 117 

9. Dalliog 712, 797. 862, 1016, 1408 

9. Kempton 808,1687,1689,1641 

v. Rangely 1427 

Burnhtael v Firman 1267 

Burnley v Jeflersouyille 716 

Burns v. Beck Co. 884 

v. Cushlng 843 

v Edgefield 1029 

9. Fay 1228 

9. Hobbs 669, 684 

9. Lynde 811, 892 

v. Rosensteln 1676, 1777, 2287 

Burpee « Smith 295 

Burr's Trial 907 

Burr 9. Burton 769 

9 Sherwood 117 

v. Wilson 1861 

*. Wimbledon Local Board 280 

Burrall v Eames 1 

v. Raineteauz 592, 789 

Burrard 9. Calisher 1168, 1866 

Burnt 9. Looker 417, 786 

Bunnell, Re 1487 

Burrell v. Andrews 946 

v. Delevante 1406 

9. Hackley 694, 830 

9. Nicholson 2, 680, 1831 

9. Smith 706 

Burris v. Adams 824 

Burrough v. Martin 1099 

Burroughs v. Booth 915 

v. Elton 1209 

9. M'Nelll 1298 

9. Oakley 989, 1774, 1776 

Burrow 9 Greenough 667 

v. Ragland 652 

Burrow* v. Forrest 1861 

9. Gore 828 

9. Lock 1896 

Burrows v. Jeminean 664 

9. Suryker 200 

v. Unwin 1108 

9. Wene 1120 

Burrv Port Co. v. Bowser 48 

Bursill 9. Tanner 678,576,948 

Bunion v. Dosser 1577 

BurstaU 9. Beyfus 298, 542 

9. Fearon 488, 488, 1607, 1640 

Burt v. British National Life 

Ass. Ass'n 244 

v. Dennett 247 

« Ryner 1076 

Burton v. Darnley, Earl of 1866 



Barton v. Dickinson 


641 


9. Fort 




1881 


9. Galveston Ac. 


Rj. 


Co. 892 


9. Gleason 




680,1624 


• Perry 




991 


v. Plummer 




1099 


9. Robertson 




688,686 


9. Scott 




861 


« Shaw 




480 


9. Shildbach 




417 


9. Tebbutt 




461 


Burts 9. Beard 




888,1577 


Burwell «. Coates 




821 


9. Hobson 




1689 



9. Vance County Oom'rs 1686 

Bury* Bedford 1649 

9. Newport 1782 

9. Phlllpot 861, 1077 

Busby v. Littlefield 378, 844 

v. Mitchell 1168 

Buseher 9. Knapp 1676 

Busfleld, Re 149, 447 

Bush v. Adams 728 

9. Bush 70S 

9. Linthicum 68, 680 

9. Madeira 1578, 1678 

v. Sheldon 674 

v. Trowbridge Waterworks Co. 

1394 

«. United States 1580 

9. Watkins 1867 

Bushby v. Munday 800, 1626, 1628 

Bushel «. Commonwealth Ins, 

Co. 144 

Busbell 9. BttsheU 188, 499 

Bushnell v. Avery 861 

v. Bushnell 1696 

v. Hartford 1680 

Busk v. Beetham 81 

Busney v. Spear 220 

Butchsrdt v. Dresser 1020, 1949 

Butcher 9. Jackson 81? 

v. Pooler 1411 

Butchers 1 Ass'n v. Boston 974 

Butchers* Slaughtering Ass. 9. 

Boston 669 

Butchers' Union Co. 9. Howell 1676 
Bute, Marquess of «. James 888 
Bute, Marquis of 9. Glamorgan* 

shire Canal Co. 1829, 1882 

Bute, Marquis of 9. Stuart 1847. 

1848,1627 
Butler, Ex parte 60 

9. Re 99 

ti Ball 1642 

v. Borton 159 

v. Butler 109, 228, 407, 1868, 1702. 

v Catlin 568,844 
9. Clark 296 
9, Cooper 467 
*. Cotting 718 
9 Cumpston 187 
9. Cunningham 1518 
v. Duneomb 1259 
9. Freeman 1847 
9. Gardener 42, 48, 1600 
v. Matthews 465, 1048 
9. O'Hear 989 
v Rashfleld 478 
v. Rashlelgh 478 
v. St Louis Lift Ins. Co. 866 
9. Spann 836 
9. Wearing 1056 
9. Withers 1790 
Butler's Trusts, Hughes v. An- 
derson, In re 122 
Butler Wharf Co., Re 1474 
Butlin 9. Arnold 408. 465 
«. Masters 1082, 1120, 14677l476. 

Busman 9. Ritchie 951 

Butt, Re 101 

9. Imperial Gas Co. 1688 

Butterfield v. Macomber 854 

Butters, Ex parte 689 

Butterworth 9. Bailey 406, 1569 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



(TtM 



am to the star paging.] 



BVUSTWOlUl •• BfltnMHH 



Battler e Mathews 
Burton v. Price 
Buttrfck v. Holden 
Butts e Genung 
n. Buxton 



1645. 

1646 
690,581,692 

846,962 
282 

2060 



*. Jame* 
tr Lister 
• Mardhi 
V. 



40, 1640, 1648, 1668 
1406 
1184 
1726 



Busard v. Houston 

v. McAnulty 
Byam v. Stevens 

v. 8utton 
Byde v. Mastermen 
Byers v. Frankliu Coal Co. 
Byfleld v. Previa 
Byington v. Call 

«. Wood 
Byne, Ex parte 

v. « 



680 

880,1071 

46 

208.1809 

840, 862, 728 

1019 

1476 

1691 

1802,1808 

1060 

960 



Byng 9 Clark 
Bynum v. Ewart 
Byrd v. Nunn 
Byrne v. Brown 

v. Byrne 

v. Frere 

v. Love 

v. Noroott 

v. Romaine 
Byron, Lord if. Johnston 1666, 1669 
Bywater*s Batata, In re 1784,2127 



XXXI 



742 
646 

786 

406 

1616.1661 

811, 869, 902, 968 

1860 

1421 

407 



C. 



Cf.H 1670 

Cabburn, JU 1412 

Oabeen v. Gordon 292, 294 

Cabel, Re 1802 

Cabell v. Megglnson 892 

Cable v. Afrord 1701 

a Hlis 1120 

Cabrera, Ex parte 142 

Gadbary v. Smith 662 

Oaddick «. Maason 64, 814 

Gediganv Brown 808 

Cadle c Fowl* 1472 

Cadogan v. Kennett 1662 

CadwelTs Bank, Re 1417 

Oady v. Whaling 224 

Oaermarthen. Marquis of v 

Hawaon 1064, 1060 

Cafe v. Bent 1842 

Cefirey v. Darby 1417 

Cage 9. Courts 916 

CagU] r. Wooldridge 1761 

Cabala v. Monroe 667 

Cahia, Ex parte 83 

Cabill r. CahiU 92, 100 

9. Shepherd 62 

Gaboon v. Utfca Bank 834 

Canoone Barnett Mannf. Co. 9. 

Rubber & Celluloid Harness 

Co. 296, 1642 

Cafllard r. Caillard 1786 

CaiUaod's Co. v. CaiUaod 26 

Cain «. Worford 1468, 1491 

Gaines 9. Fisher 497, 619, 624, 680 

Caird r. Moss 646 

9. Sime 1648, 1647 

Cairnes e. Chabert 1724 

Cairo & Fulton R. Co. v. Titus 1128 

Cake's Appeal 1299 

Cakraft v. Gibbs 1128 

9 Thompson 1081 

Caldeeott v. Caldeoott 217 

9. Harrison 96 

CaMer v. Henderson 1029 

CakHeott 9. Baker 38, 87, 110, HI, 

179 
Caldwell 9. Albany, Mayor, fee. 
of 1408 

w. Earnest 812 

9. Fellowes 126, 1432 

9. Hawkins 287 

9 Hodsden 1491.1494 

r King 402.646 

v. Knott 660, 1629 

9. Leiber 1400 

9. Montgomery 660 

w. Pagham Harbour Reel. Co. 

10,408, Wl 

9 Stirewalt 1668 

x. Taggart 190 

w. Vanvlissengen 1642, 2316 

Calee Shaw 1274 

Caledonian Ry. Co. v. Solway 

Junction Ry. Co. 1620 

Caley «. Caley 81 

Calboon v. Powell 667 

OaBfornia Ac. Co. v. Cheney H. 

Light Co. 889 

OaUferoJa Electrical Works 9. 

669,860 



California Fig Syrup Go. 9. Im- 
proved Fig Syrup Co. 146, 1648 
Calkins v. Brans 986 

Callv Swing 818 

Callagban v. Callaghan 1604 

9. Myers 1648 

v Roebfort 969, 960 

Callahan v. Jennings 1469 

Callauan v. Shaw 1468 

Caliand v. Conway 1160 

Callendar v. Teasdato 1802 

Calienderv Colgrove 1226 

Caller v Bade 818 

v. Shields 1676, 1579 

Galley v. Richards 676. 1884 

Callow v. Callow 102 

9. Howie 186 

v. Minoe 1198 

Calloway v. Dobson 402 

Callnmt; Emanuel 284 

Calmady v. Calmady 1168 

Calne Ry. Co., Re 1067 

Carrerly v. Phelp 120, 222, 267 

v. Williams 1402, 1649 

Calvert v. Adams 1726 

9. Day 27 

9. Godfrey 166, 168, 1261, 1276, 

1276 
CalTit 9. Markham 871, 068 

Calwell v. Boyer 841 

Camac v. Grant 86 

Cambefort v. Chapman 269 

Camblos v. Philadelphia R Go. 1662 
Cambottiev. Ingate 68 

Cambridge University, 7n re 1868 
Cambridge Water-works 9. 
Someirille Dyeing, fro. Co. 

884,842 

Camden v. Maybew 1285 

9. Stuart 1802, 1820 

Camden and Ambov R.R Co. v. 

Stewart 326.827,347,349,360, 

861, 862, 868, 790, 866. 1463. 

Camden, &c. «. Rower 21 

Camden Rolling Mill Co. v. 

Swede Iron Co. 149 

Cameron v. Abbott 880 

9. Cameron 449 

9. San Francisco 689 

Cameron's Coalbrook, kc. Rail- 
way Co., Re 674, 909, 1842 
Canaille 9. Donato 1004, 1440 
Cammack v. Johnson 1716 
Cammann 9. Traphagan 662 
Cammell v. Sewell 664 
Cammeyer w. United German 

Lutheran Churches 802 

Gamp v. Bates 12S9, 1628 

9. Mills 884 

9. Simon 843 

9. Taylor 26 

«. Waring 418 

Campana v. Webb 899, 1669 

Campbell, In re 83 

9. Allen 652 

v. Allgood 1633 

9. Andrews * 868 

9. Attorney-General 908,984,1674 | 



Campbell 9. Bainbridge 1420 

9. Baker 1288. 1286 

9. Beaufoy 604, 608 

9. Bowles 860 

v. Bowne 1606, 1616 

v. Braxton 1770 

v Brown 866, 1841 

v. Campbell 70, 867, 992, 1286, 
1419, 1426, 1608 
v. Compagnie Generals 1716 

v. Crutcher 1028 

v. Dalhooste, Earl of 1674 

9. Diokans 293 

v. Foster 682, 1651 

9. French 96, 97 

9. Gardner 1284, 1286, 1289. 

1290, 1291 
v. Graham 2D32 

9. Hall 986 

v.Harding 98,96,1796 

9. Holyland 1600 

9. Home 1412 

9. Im Thurm 157 

9. Joyce 168, 411, 696, 812 

9. Lloyd's Bank 1716 

e.Mackay 836,886,887,840,644. 

645,1366 
v. Macomb 284, 1242 

v. Mesier 1016 

9. Morrison 886, 896, 1619, 1669 
9. Mozhay 1266 

9. New York 1120, 1517 

9. Paris, &C.R.OO. 360 

v. Patterson 848 

9. Powers 814,417,986 

«. Price 1679 

v. Railroad Co. 257 

v. Richards 1100 

v. Runyon 1676 

v. Scholfield 1644 

v. Scott 1642 

9. Scongal 925 

9. Seaman 1636 

v Seeley 830 

9. Sheldon 201, 261, 882, 896, 666 
v. Sloan© 860 

v. Solomans 1559 

9. Taul 861, 769 

9. Tourny 261 

9. Walker 1271 

v. Wallace 201, 261, 553 

9. Watson 222, 257 

9. West 1508 

v. Western 671 

Campden Charities, Be 13 

Campe v. Sancier 1286 

Campian 9. Rille 646,778,780,864, 

1142 
Camps 9. Marshall 177 

Canal Co. e. Clark 1648 

Canal Company v. Railway Com- 
pany 863 
Canby v. Ridgeway 194, 966 
Candler v. Pettit 406, 1816, 1516. 

1531 
Cane v. Martin 1844 

Canedy 9. Marcy 1973 

Caney v. Bond 2060 

Canfleld v. Andrew 1688 



xxxli 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
[The references are to the iter paging.) 



Canlleld v. Sterling 1569, 1570 

Graham v. Flake 1138 

v. Jones 1648 

v Neale 799,1617 

Gann v. Cann 940, 1070 

v. Wilson 26 

Cannellv Beeby 1488,1456 

Canning v. Canning 1158, 1160 

Cannock v. Jauncey 1883, 1835 

Cannon v. Beely 1456 

v. Beggs 1257 

v. Cannon 664 

v. Collins 852 

». Hemphill 907, 1028 

v. McNabb 1556,1657 

v. Norton 267, 841 

v. Traak 26 

Canterbury, Archbishop of, Ex 

parte 1799 

Canterbury, Viscount, Re 188 

v. Attorney-General 188 

Canton v. HcOraw 884, 886 

Canton 8teel B Co. v. Kanne- 

berg 1642 

Canton Warehouse Co. v. Potts 586, 

601 
Cant's Estate, Re 1004, 1464 

Cape v. Adams 90 

Gape Breton Co v. Fenn 26 

Cape Fear Bank v. Stinemeta 24 
Cape May, &c. R. Co. v. John- 
son 1614 
Capebart v. Hney 1382 
Capel v. Butler 158, 539 
v. McCollum 361 
Capell r. Landano 991 
Cape Sable Co.'s Case 1676 
Capes v. Brewer 448 
Caplinger «. 8ulHvan 99 
Capner v. Flemlngton Co. 895 
Capon «. Miles 666 
Cappeau v. Baker 916 
Capps «. Capps 229, 1524 
Caproni v. Albertt 1648 
Capt v. Stubbs 1424 
Capwell v. Slpe 887 
Carberry v. German Ins. Co. 1842 
Cardale v. Watklns 1657 
Cardell v. Hawke 286, 1209 
Cardiff, Mayor of v. Cardiff 

Water-works Co. 1640 

Cardot v. Burney 1752 

Cardross, Re 96 

Card well v Cheatman 676 

v. Molyneuz 1680 

v. Tomlinson 83 

Carett v. Hubbell 1281 

Carew, Ex parte 167 

Carew Re 1291, 1861 

v. Cooper 974, 1068, 1730 

v.-Dari* 1886 

v. Johnston 178, 372 

Carey v. Brown 228, 248, 1459 

v. Hatch 812 

v. nuthouse 286 

v. Hoxey 290 

v. Smith 402,424,425 

v. Williams 867, 992, 1699 

Cargile v. Kagan 1274 

Cargill ». Bower 26 

v. Kountse 1666 

Carleton v. Leighton 62 

v. L'E*trange 420 

v. M'Enste 182 

«. Rugg 1688, 1663 

Carlisle t>. Cooper 815, 1073, 1685 

v. Foster 1076, 1116 

v. South Eastern Railway Co. 

241,242 

«. Sterenson 1681, 1662 

v. Tlndall 1624 

v. United States 67 

Countess v. Berkley, Lord 1737 

v. Carlls' Earl 1737 

Earlofv. Goble 1584 

Carll v. Snyder 1665 

Carton v. Farlar 1087 



Carlos v. Brook 980 

Carlsbad v. Tibbett* 857, 890, 561. 

Carlyle v. Carlyle Water Co. 608 
Carmarthen, Mayor, fro. of v. 

Evans 1095 

Carmichael v. Bowder 842 

v. Carmichael 665, 1252 

v. Hughes 1858 

v. School Lands, Trustees of 25 

v. Wilson 1284, 1414 

Camace v. Grant 27 

Carnan v. Bowles 1646 

Carnatlc, Nabob of the v. East 

India Co. 17, 628, 629, 658. 

Carne v. Brancker 1081, 1843, 1866 
v. Nicholl 1089, 1128 

Carneal r. Banks 1008 

v. Day 626 

v. Streshley 626, 688 

v Wilton 718 

Carnegie v. Carnegie 100 

Carnes v. Piatt 673 

v. Polk 1459 

Carney v. Emmons 986 

v. Hadley 1688, 1668 

Carnick v. McKesson 848 

Carnochan v. Christie 1550 

Caro v. Maxwell 1461 

Carow v. Mowatt 281, 287, 1615, 

1616 

Carpenter v. Aldrlch 90 

v. Cincinnati R. Co. 212 

v. Cusbman 1299 

«. Eastern and Amboy R. 

Co. 1148 

v. Edwards 840 

v. Gray 1648 

v. Groff 1118 

v. Hoboken 2U8 

v. Muchmore 1080, 1081 

v. Providence Ins. Co. 1241 

v. Reynolds 1461 

v. Ritchie 830 

v. Robinson 256 

v. Snelllng 881 

v. Talbot 149 

v. Wall 1101 

Carpmael v. Carroll 1408 

v. Powis 574, 943, 1834 

Carr, Re 92, 1800 

v. Appleyard 947 

v. Callaghan 249 

v. Eastabrooke 104, 107, 1801 
v. Henderson 1890, 1423 

e. Inglehart 829, 558 

v. Uring 1847, 1361 

v. Morlce 899, 1619, 1669 

v. Taylor 90, 106 

v. United Stetos 129, 141 

v. Weld 729, 1676 

Carrlck v. Ford 66, 92 

v. Prater 840 

v. Wlgan Tramways Co. 1411 

v. Toung 815, 817, 818, 969 

Carrington v. Brents 161, 1032, 1033 
v. Cantillon 448 

v. Cornock 870 

v. Holly 793, 794 

v. Pell 881, 981 

v. Sweeney 1468 

Carrington, Lord v. Payne 875. 

Carrltt v. Real & P. A. Co. 674 

Carrodus v. Sharp 990, 1408 

Carrol v. Connel 1238 

Carroll v. Brown 1624 

v. Kerschner 214 

v. Parran 1679 

v. Parsons 739 

v. Richardson 1648 

v. Roosevelt 334 

v. Sand 1624 

v. Waring 608, 639. 686 

Carron Co. v. Maelarea 1616, 1«27, 

1674 



Carrowe. Adams 

v. Ferrior 1688, 1720, 1725 

Carekadon v. Minke 884 

Carson v. Dunham 1618 

v. Hughes 1157 

v. Pkkengill 42, 166 

e. Richardson 980, 1018 

Carta Para Mining Co., Re 82 

Carte v. Ball 280, 880, 714 

Cartee v. Spence 686, 972, 1178 

Carter, In re 1766 

v. Balfour 886 

v Barnard 1440 

v. Bennett 1677 

v. Bentall 431 

v. Bosanquet 784 

v. Campbell 1147 

v. Career 814, 1078, 1264, 1381. 

v. Colrain, Lord 1228 

v. Draper 925 

v. Ewing 892 

v. Green 1438 

v. Ingraham 878, 890, 991 

v. Jones 198 

v. Mills 280, 231 

v. Montgomery 160, 161, 1382. 

1457 
v. New Orleans 149 

v Pritchard 676 

v. PriTatt 987 

* v. Roundtree 1274 

v. Sanders 230, 283, 904 

v. 811ber 122 

v. Sleeper 844 

v. Taggart 104, 108, 2001 

v. Thorn 1254 

v. Torrance 628, 978 

v. Treadwell 884, 2087, 2094, 

2097 

v. United Ins. Co. 197, 199 

v. Wollschlager 929 

Carteret, Lord v. Paschal 125, 127, 

1686 
Carthans v. Ferrers 1249 

Carthew v. Barclay 972, 1601 

Cartier v. Carlile 1649 

Cartwright, Re 1610, 1628 

v. Cartwright 171. 864 

v. Clark 1648, 1649, 1650, 1561. 

1552 

v. Green 184, 668. 564 

v. Hateley 146, 682 

v. Last 988 

v M'Gown 1160 

v. Shepheard 1626 

v. Wise 68 

Cartwright'f Cam 1069, 1766 

C&ruthers r. Hartfifleld 1680 

Carver p. Lelte 679 

v. Peck 286, 629 

v. Richards 1408 

Carwardine v. Wishlade 446 

Cary v. Bertie 1362 

v. Cary 1699 

v. Domestic 8 B. Co. 1675 

v. Faden 1646 

v. Hamilton 1381 

v. Herrin 1248, 1298, 1300, 1322 

v. Hills 201, 319 

v. Knowles 1370 

Cary Manuf. Co. v. De Haven 1642 

Casamajor v. Strode 1614, 1619 

Casberd v. Attorney -General 138 

Casborne v. Bersham 1114 

Casev Abeel 1186,1186,1306 

v. Blood 940 

v. James 1693 

v. Midland Ry. Co. 968, 1G35, 

2307 
v. Mlnot 627, 690 

v. Potter 1228 

v. Towle 1486 

Casey v. Arnott 464 

v. Cincinnati Typog. Union 1642 
v. Goodinge 1772 

Cash v. Belcher 215, 709, 710 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XXX 111 



[The references are to the star paging.] 



Gaeheu v. Kelly 
Oaahin v Cradock 
Caskeddon v. Kennedy 
Gum r. Round 
Cass v. fligepbotam 
Gundy r Woodbury 
Caisedy *. Bigelow 



808.715 

ISO, 1827 

381 

978 

1770 

879,380 

1472, 1491 

»Ut. Stiff 46, 320, 1643 

v. Stewart 219 

Caanday v. McDanial 108, 2*7, 286 

Csssidy r. MeFarland 1221 

e. Shiinuiia 148, 154, 191 

Geasonx v. Great Luxembourg 

Ry. Go. 864 

Cast r. Poyaer 906, 1209. 1600 

Castelli v. Cook 668, 1664 

Cestello v. Castello 149 

Caster v. Wood 778 

Cutie, Be 1460 

Oaatle v. Bader 825, 828 

Cattle's Case 1069 

Cattle Mail Co., £x parte 64 

Cattleman v Berry 190 

v. Veicch 649, 684 

Castleton, Lord *. Fansbaw, 

Lord 648 

Garton «. Caaton 1469 

Castriqoe v, Imrie 664 

Caswell e Darts 1648 

9. Gibba 1668 

Gateheart v. Hewson 27 

Gate r. Deron, kc Co. 1648 

Cater, Re 1412 

Gates v. Allen 286, 1071 

v. Loftoa 661 

e Woodson 445 

Cathoartv Lewis 199 

CatheraU e. Darles 1668 

Catherine Dock Co. v. Mantsgu 929 

Catholic Publishing Co., Re 876. 

1071 

«. Wymnn 415, 914, 1004 

Oatlin, Re 1836, 1440, 1449, 1460 

v. Barker 1104 

9. Harned 1894, 1424 

CatHag v. King 866, 661 

9. Valentine 1686 

Oato v. Easly 161, 997 

Gaton r. Caton 1377 

9. Colea 898,1668 

•.Lewie 1824 

9. Ridoat 1280 

9 Willis 871 

Gator v. Butler 282 

v. Croydon Canal Co. 906, 1099 

v. Beerea 1266, 1266 

Catt v. Tourie 485, 760 

Cattail* Lowry 1661 

v Simons 607, 1306, 1207, 1408, 

1842 

CatteraU v. Hlndle 1127 

9. Purchase 1677 

CaUerioa Chlazsare, The 638 

Oattley e Arnold 1157 

Osttou v Banks 1168 

9. Carlisle 1581, 1535 

v. Wyld 1081 

Gauley v. Lawson 844 

Causton v. Holdleh 1428, 1487 

Canty e. Houlditch 1698 

Cavanaogh v. Scott 1542 

Gave 9. Cave 674, 2345 

9. Cork 1509, 1588, 1540 

v. Saunders 641 

Cevender v. Bolteel 1488 

9 Garender 726,828,866 

Cavendish r. Fleming 1284 

v.Mereer 1808,1858,1860 

GaTerty w. McOwen 1841 

Cavil v. Smith 1054 

Oawley v Leonard 1026 

Cawthoro v. Chalie 688 

Gaycer Powell 87 

Cayley c Saodycroft Brick 

Co. 720 

Gasenore 9. Cutler 1248,1245,1247 

9. Pilkington 2270 

YOL. I. — C 



C. B. Keog Manuf. Co. v. Whit- 
ton 1716 
Cecil v. Cecil 848 
v. Salisbury, Lord 170 
Cecil National Bank v. Thar* 

ber 2047 

Celluloid Manuf. Co. 9. Arling- 
ton Manuf. Co. 911 
9. CeUonite Manuf. Co. 1802 
v. Goodyear Dental Co. 10, 1644 
v. Russell 888 
Central Co. 9. Cushman 1654 
Central Georgia Bank v. Iver- 

son 1586 

Central Georgian R. Co. «. 

Mitchell 629 

Central Manuf. Co. v. Harts- 
horn© 20, 440 
Central National Bank v Con- 
necticut M. L. Ins Co. 686, 880 
Central Pacific R Co. v Dyer 884 
Central Railroad k Banking 

Co. v Pettus 1411 

Central R. Co. v. Central Trust 

Co. 1576,2879,2898 

9. Cincinnati, J. AM. Ry. Co 1746 
v. Bast Tennessee, V. & G. 

Ry. Co. 1748 

v. Grant L. Works 1680, 1584 
9. Hlawaseee Co. 986 

9. Marietta & N. G. Ry. Co. 1029 
9. St. Louis, fee. Ry. Co. 1748 
v. Sheffield, &o Ry. Co. 1748 

v. Southern Inland NaT. & 

Imp. Co 1688 

v. Texan, Ac. R. Co. 320, 740, 991 
v Virginia Steel and Iron 

Co 1120 

9. Wabash, fee. Ry. Co. 1209. 

1299, 1716, 1748, 1746 

Central Ry. Co. v Ktsch 1502 

Cerreny v. Chicago Daily News 

Co. 545 

Chace v. Holmes 417, 786 

Chadbourne v. Cos 266 

Chadoin v. Magee 1628 

Chadwell, Re 1567 

v. Jones 816 

9 Jordan 1614,1628,1624 

9. Winston 989 

Chadwick. Ex parte 606 

9. Broadwood 420, 616, 667, 702. 

704 

9. Chadwick 16'JO 

v. Holt 1086, 1039 

9. Island Beach Co. 1062 

v. Maden 230,281,279 

9. Pubble 1821 

9. Turner 780, 782, 1486 

Chaflen v. Wills 1197 

Chaffers v. Baker 620. 1692, 1504 

v. Headlam 208, 204, 1771 

Chaffin v Hull 559 

9. Kimball 826, 827, 526, 856 

9. St. Louis 1627 

Chafrraixv. Board of Liquidation 197 

Chalmut v. Monroe 170 

Chalk v Raine 829. 881, 888, 982, 

1720 

9. Thompson 1188, 11*6 

9. Wyatt 1639 

Challenger v. Royle 1640, 1642 

Challie v. Gwynne 796, 1601 

Challnorv. Murhall 818 

Chalmer v. Bradley 725 

Chalmers v. Chambers 878, 879 

9. Laurie 434 

Chalon v. Webster 251 

Chamberlain, Ex parte 1743 

Re 1798 

9. Agar 667 

v. Almy 1661 

v. Chamberlain 1328 

v. Gallup 1461 

v. Juppiers 1110 

v. Knapp 670 

9. Thacker 228 



Chamberlayne v. Brookeit 1491 
9. Dummer 1688,2806 

Chamberlin 9. Bstey 1418 

Chambers, Ex parte 1369 

9. Baptist Bdu. Society 20 

9. Bicknell 202, 262 

9. Bull 180 

v. Caulfield 1180 

v. Chalmers 861, 879 

v Chambers 668 

9. Goldwin 194, 260, 261, 668, 

1719, 1760 

9. Penland 1625 

9. Robinson 1186 

9. Smith 887, 857, 1238, 1394 

9. Toynbee 1694 

v. Warren 844 

9. Wright 288 

Chambles* v. Taber 1621 

Chauibliss c. Smith 841 

Chamley, Lord v. Dunaany, Lord 

842,866,1370 

Champ 9. Moody 1368 

Champernowne v. Scott 1299, 1848 

Champion, Ex parte 1268, 1269 

9. Brown 286 

9. Parish 818 

Champlin v. McLsod 1668 

v. New York, Corp. of 785 

9. Parish 254.866 

Champneys v. Buohan 417, 



Chancey v. Fenhoulet 


668 


9. May 


26,288 
1284 


Chancellor r. Gummere 


9. Moreoraft 
Chandler, Re 


228,268 
1840 


9. Bralnard 


916 


9. Goodrich 


1156 


v. Herrick 


852 


v. Home 


1101 


v. Jenks 


986 


v. Pettlt 


1315 


9. Slddle 


1742 



Ghandoa, Duke of v. Talbot 188 

Chant 9. Brown 577 

Chapeaurouge 9 Carteaux 1707 

Chapln v Coleman 618, 626, 842 

9. Mann 2842 

v. Perrin 1459 

v. Sears 384 

9, Walker 1551 

Chaplin, Re 1611 

9. Chaplin 163 

Chapllne v. Beatty 784 

9. Betty 1676 

9. ChapUne 1061, 1277 

v. Moore 1858 

Chapman, Re 1770' 

9. Banker & Tradesman Pnb. 

Co. 236,812,829 

v. Barney * 402 

9. Beach 1727 

v. Brown 1020 • 

v. Butler 560 

v. Chapman 879, 881, 859 

9. Corpe 662 

9. Farmer 1237 

9. Ferry 667 

9. Forbes 660* 

v. Fowler 1286, 1292 

9 Hamilton 287, 288 

9. Hammersley 1462 

v. Hunt 212, 314, 368 

v. Lee 1556 

v. Lipscomb 318 

9 McMillan 1299 

v. Midland Ry. Co. 1444 

9. Partridge 1138 

9. Pittsburg & 8. B. Co 208, 890. 

1221 
v. Real Property Trust, Lim'd. 

986,1m 
v. Robertson 12Jsjr 

v. Smith 1111, 1112, 1248 

v. Tibblts 1868, 1864 

v. Toy Ling 



ZXZ1V 



Chappedelaine v Deohenaux 665, 008 

Chappell «. Daridson 1666 

v Gregory 1468,1464 

tr. Griffith 662 

tr. Purday 1464 

tr. Rest 280 

Chappie v. Cedell 882 

Charitable Asso. tr. Baldwin i2 

Charitable Donations, Comm'rs 

of tr. Hunter 1478 

Charkieh, The 141 

Charles tr. Dunbar 1287 

tr. FInchley Local Board 10, 287 

tr. Jones 1886 

tr. Rowley 660 

tr. Shepherd 819 

Charles Lafltte ft Co., Re 1020 

Charles River Bridge tr. Warren 

Bridge 946, 961. 1042. 1076, 

1079, 1110, 1629, 1685 

Charleston Ins. Co. v. Potter 680 

Charleston Ins. ft Tr. Co. tr. 

Sebrig 26 

Charlotte, Colombia, ftc. R. Co. 

tr. Earle 1078 

Charlton tr. Charlton 1460, 1846 

«. Coombes 578, 948, 1884 

tr. ScoTllle 779 

tr. West 177,476 

Charman tr. Charman 1026 

Charnoek v. Dewing 1102 

Charrastr. Pickering 86 

Charter, Ex parte 1182,1819 

v Charter 1411 

Chase. Re 1881 

v. Cannon 884 

v. Chase 684, 1621 

9. Dunham 418, 414 

v. Heaney 1841 

v. Joiner 1286 

tr. Kenniston 920 

tr. Lincoln 876 

v. Looherman 1411 

v. Manhardt 841, 1668, 1771 

tr. Hinot 1688 

9. Palmer 90, 814 

tr. Searls 884, 886. 888, 841, 688. 

1619, 1521, 1682, 1588 

v. Springrale Mills Co. 940 

9. Tattle 1642 

9. VanderbUt 145 

tr. Winans 1071 

tr. Wooster 1642 

Chase's Case 584, 590. 617, 787, 

1047, 1166, 1716. 1716 

Chatfield tr. Berehtoldt 441, 458 

Chattanooga Medicine Co. tr. 

Thedford 1548 

Chatteris v. Isaacson 552 

v. Tonng 1852. 1858 

Chatterton v. Thomas 409, 505 

tr. Young 186 

Chaunoey tr. Tahonrden 568 

Chaytor tr. Trinity College 289 

Cheale v. Ken ward 1902 

Cheatham tr. Andley, Lord 1286 

v. Grugeon 1286, 1288 

tr. Huff 96 

tr. Morrison 684 

tr. Pearee 617, 828 

Chearln tr. Walker 1648 

Ched worth, Lord v. Edwards 1652 

Cheek v. Title/ 1677 

Cheeseborough tr. Wright 410, 480, 

689,592,740 

Chessman, Re 1840 

tr Thorne 1150 

CheeTwr tr. Perley 640, 652 

tr. R. ft B. R. R. Co 4, 1021, 

1689, 1716, 1724, 1786 

Cheltenham AS. Ry. Carriage 

and W. Co. . Re 1070 

eney tr. Belcher 845 

v. Glcason 986, 1168, 1470 

tr. Patton 659 

v 8tranbe 542 

Channel tr Churchman 1680 



+1 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Chennell, Re, Jones tr. Chennell 

80 858 
v. Martin 1179, 1181, 1182, ll85, 

Chenowith v. Smith 1492 

Chepstow Bobbin Mills Co., Re 81 
Cberaw, fte R. Co. tr. Marshall 

1507 

Cherokee Nation tr. Georgia 129 

Cherry tr. Belcher 90 

v. Clements 682 

tr. Monro 286, 802 

tr. Stein 1688 

Chesapeake & Ohio Co. tr. 

Young 1681 

Chesapeake ftc. Canal Co. tr. B. 

& O. R. R. Co. 1676, 1676 

Chesapeake, Ac. R Co. tr. Hum 885 

Cheshire Iron Works tr. Gay 285 

Cheshnnt College, Re 1852 

Chess tr. Chess 1118 

Chester v. Apperson 386 

v. Canfleld 749 

v Chester 1540 

9 Halliard 808 

tr. Life Association 287, 1583 

v Metropolitan Ry. Co. 795, 1894 

Chester Iron Co. tr. Beach 1558 

Cheswell «. Chapman 1166 

Chesworth tr. Hunt 218 

Chetham v. Hoare 660, 650 

Chetwoodtr Brlttan 1676,1667 

9. Coffin 1716 

Chetwynd v. Lindon 668. 565, 681 

586 
ChenTete v. Mason 597, 848 

Chevet tr. Jones 848 

Chew tr. Bank of Baltimore 847 

tr. Hyman 215, 282 

Chewett tr. Moran 262 

Chibnall tr. Paul 1688 

Chicago tr. Cameron 680, 659 

tr. Wright 1620, 1660 

Chicago ft Alton R. Co. v. Union 

RolUng Mill Co. 794 

Chicago & A. R. Ferry Co. tr. 

Wiggins Ferry Co. 546 

Chicago & A. R Co. 9. New 

York, ftc. R. Co. 1667 

Chicago, 8co. R. Co. v. Keokuk 

ftc. Packet Co. 1748 

Chicago, Ac. R. Co. tr. Union 

R. M. Co. 1548 

Chicago & 8. K. R. Co. v. Canon 

1716, 1785 
Chicago, ftc. R Co. tr. Frary 1661 
Chicago, B. ft Q. B, Co. r. Ot- 
tawa 1620 
Chicago Artesian Well Co. tr. 
Conn Mutual Life Ins. Co. 

1558 
Chicago Building Society tr. 

Chicago ft Calumet R M. Co 

v Scully 
Chicago Land Co. tr. Peck 212 

Chicago. M. ft St. P. Ry tr 

Third Nat. Bank 1548 

Chicago Mun. G. & F. Co. tr. 

Lake 1667 

Chicago P 8 Exchange tr. Mc- 

Claughry 1620 

Chicago. St L. ft N. O R Co. 
tr. Macomb 178, 888, 548, 586, 

590,759 
Chichester tr Chichester 858.875. 

888,912 
9. Donegal, Marquis of 722, 769, 

1829 
v. Hunter 818 

Chick v. Nlcbolls 1428 

Chlokerlng, Re 212, 286 

v Fullerton 197 

Chicot tr. Lequesne 297, 892 

Chicot County tr. Sherwood 546 
Chtdwlck tr. Prebble 1821 

Child tr. Brabson 608 



Child ». Comber 
v. Gibson 
9. Godolphin 
tr. Mann 
tr. Stennlng 

Childers tr. Dean 



661 

1560,1566,1569 
884,885,406 
1260 



Childress tr. Harrison 1287 

tr. Hurt 1281, 1290 

9. Vance 1278 

Chllds tr Horr 829, 983 

tr. Kansas City, Ad. R Co. 1617 

Chiles v. Boon 458, 613 

ChilUngworth t. Chflllngworth 

1172, 1275 

Chits tr. Gronlund 1648 

Chilton tr. Campbell 1557, 1664 

tr. London 289, 861, 887 

Chlnn tr. Caldwell 255 

Chlnnock v. Ely, Marchioness 

of 1082 

tr. Salnsbury 1081 

Chion, Ex parte 59 

Chipman tr. Hartford, City of 292 

tr. Sabbaton 1742 

Chippendale e Tomllnson 68 

Chlsholm tr. Adams 1620 

v. Georgia, State of 129, 180 

Chissum tr. Dewes 1425, 1778 

Chittenden v. Brewster 1469 

Chltty tr. Bray 824 

tr. Parker 187 

Chirers v. Baz 959 

Chleln tr. Rabat 402 

Choate tr. Tlghe 1668 

Cholmley tr. Oxford, Countess 

of . 280,989 

Cholmondeley tr. Clinton 200, 212. 

218. 216, 229, 280, 288, 284, 266, 

405, 408, 420.559,677,672,1287. 

1461, 1559, 1619, 1650 

Earl v. Oxford, Karl 1-38 

Chorlton tr. Dickie 970. 97V 

Chotoan tr. Rice 868, 828, 881, 1586 

Chowick tr. Dimes 818, 1544 

Cbownetr Baylls 66 

Christian tr. Anderson 1419 

tr. Atlantic ft N. C. R. Co. 188 

tr Cabell 989 

9 Crocker 802 

c. Derereux 208, 250, 819 

tr. Foster 1432 

tr. State 560 

tr. Taylor 724 

9. Wrenn 868, 1568 

Christlansborg, The 688 

Christie, Re 1858 

v. Cameron 162, 476 

tr. Christie 847, 849 

tr. Craig 1658 

tr. GonUng 1608 

tr. Griding 1677 

Christ Church, Ex parte 1611 

Christ-Church Inciosure Act, 

Re 289 

Christmas v. Campbell 1676 

Christopher tr. — 897 

9 Cleghorn 481 

Christophers tr. Sparke 284 

tr. White 1285, 1414 

Christ's College r.Wlddrlngton 848 
Christ's Hospital, Ex parte 1889, 

1840.1841.1842 
tr Grainger 18,416,1469 

Gorernors of tr. Attorney- 
General 188 
Christy's Appeal 1157 
Christy tr. Christy 618 
Chubb v. Carter 1208 
tr Griffiths 169 
tr. Stretch 118. 187. 1411 
Chuck tr. Cramer 421, 506. 509. 804. 

1081, 1589, 1691 

Chugg v Chugg 882, 1809 

Church tr. Holcomb 417 

9. Ide 828, 829 

9. Kelsey 1071 

r. Marsh 89,41,42,1690 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XXXV 



[Th« references an to the star paging.] 



Chmtfcm ». Bank of England 1042 

v Collier 880 

•. Unar 806 

Churchward v. The Queen 188 

Chaiton v. Douglas 1649, 1664, 

r. Frewcn 677, 781, 1834 

Chute 9. Deere, Lady 778 

Cincinnati v. Cameron 855 

Cincinnati R. Co. v. 81oan 1468. 

1491 
CHssas Coach Co. c Camden 

Hone R. Co. 1664, 1669 

Cltiaen's National Bank «. Day- 

ton 221 

ddrns' 8 treat By. Co. 9. 

Spahr 814 

CKy Bank v. Bangs 842,1470,1481, 

1568, 1564, 1567, 1568, 1669, 1571 

v. Bartlett 884 

v. Skelton 1565 

City of Berlin, The 1490 

City of Glasgow Bank, Re 1069 

City of London Brewery Co. v. 

. Tennant 1631 

City of Moscow Gas Co. e. Int'l 

Financial Society 26 

City National Bank v. Hunter 1461 

Clack v. Carton 1286, 1414 

Claflin v. Bennett 417 

*. Gordon 286 

9 Hamlin 1618 

* Hopkinton 1661 

Oagett, Re 1212 

9. Phillips 672, 1884 

9. Wortbingbm • 271 

Clanearty 9. Latoncha 666 

Clancy 9. Craine 686 

Claniiearde, Marqols of v. Hen- 

nlng 1897 

Clapsrede v. Commerciai Union 

Association 417, 786 

Clapp 9. Baleh 80 

9. Bromagham 1151 

9 Dittman 818 

9. Shepherd 817 

9. Sherman 1299, 1809 

9. Stonghton 89, 128 

w.Thaxtar 1002,1018,1019,1020, 

1080, 1476, 1575, 1579 

Ctobrongh v. ToothUl 1860 

Clare r. Clare 1411 

9. Wood 884, 1067 

Clare County «. Audltor-Gen- 

eral 1881 

Clarendon, Fori of v. Hornby 1166, 

115f 

Cmrldge v. Hoare 668, 664, 610 

Clark's Appeal 1661 

Clark, Re 99 

9. Abington, Lord 1264 

r Ball 1004 

9. BeU 1270 

9. Blair 669 

9. Brown 1120 

9. Burgh 126 

v. Carlton 1168 

w. Clapp 1618 

9. Clark 98, 109, 889, 491 . 1481. 

1648,1699 
9. <3oogregattonal Society 1112. 

1116,2887 
v.Cott 2048 

«. Covenant, An. Ins. Co. 1624 
9. Croat 68 

v. Davis 896, 667 

•.Dew 606,1721,1726 

v. Dibble 988 

v. Vergnsjon 28, 1648 

v. Fisher 862 

x. FHnt 660,680,1902 

9. Freeman 1648 

9. Gans 1661 

v.Garrett 15«¥) 

v Gill 908,911 

v. Glrdwood 298, 1416. 1488 

v. Hail 1018, 1028, 1029, 1080 



Clark v. Harwood 


860 


v. Henhey 


1168 


9. Hesetiah 


109 


9. Hull 


1681 


v. Hunt 


QAO 

OvO 


v. Jacques 


1600 


9. JeffersonrtUe R. Co. 


864,1681 



9. Keene 1580, 1532, 1586 

v. London School Board 1081, 

1880,1401 
9. Long 287, 292 

v. Malpas 822, 889, 912, 1028, 
1088, 1440, 1564 
v. Molyneux 1126 

v. Oakley 844 

v. Patterson 684 

9. Phelps 647, 689, 787 

9. Piatt 68 

v. Raymond 1716 

v. Beed 1876, 1881, 1886. 1899. 

1400, 1448 
«. Reyburn 1, 266, 998, 2214. 

2215 
v. Riven, Lord 822, 834, 860, 885 
v. Bobbin 1246 

9. Saginaw City Bank 617 

v. 8awyer 1411 

v. Simpson 1610 

v. Slayton 2 

v. Smith 197, 1242, 1846, 1246 
9. Soo. in Keene 408, 406, 1076. 
1120, 1121, 1126, 1147 
9. Spears 887 

v. Stephenson 1159 

v. Taj lor 1651 

9. TurnbnU 854 

9. WardweU 246, 1661, 2828 

9. Waters 448 

v. Webb 268 

«. Willis 1221 

9. Willooghby 987 

v. Wilson 826. 979 

9. Wood 1490 

9. Wray 418 

9. Wright 878 

Clarke, Sx parte 611, 1069 

Clarke, Re 70, 99, 1802 

v. Abingdon 1264 

9. Batters 1658 

«. Birley 822 

9. Bradlaugh 154, 886 

v. Bridge 1484 

v. Byne 1666 

v. Callow 661 

9 Calvert 68 

v. Clark 1638 

9. Clarke 424, 434 

v.Clayton 1161,1161 

v. Cookson 1071 

f . Dunn 964, 96* 

9. RlUott 1774,1775 

* Hart 1877, 1503 

9. Jennings 966 

v. Law 889 

v. Horey 49 

v. Ormond, Earl of 888,666.667, 
669,1615,1616,1617 
9. Ormonde 1626 

v. Perlam 848, 858 

9. Price 1664 

9. Rawftn* 710 

v. Saflery 920, 1099 

v. Sampson 1411, 1418 

« 8eton 1254 

9. Sibley 1289 

'«. Thornton 1787 

«. Ttnsley 951 

9. Tipping 68, 886, 481, 667, 

814, 1928 
9, Toleman 710 

9. Turton 862 

9. Van Reimsdyk 841, 842, 843. 

846 
9. White 844 

9. Wilmot 160. 710 

9. Wilson 196, 1774 

9. Woodward 96 



Clarke v Wybura 40,1482 

v. Yorke 418 

Clarke's Charity, Re 1864 

Clarkson v. De Peyster 287, 296, 

801, 808, 815, 557. 669, 1268. 

1369, 1770, 1771, 1778 

v. Dunning 169 

9. Edge 1072,1081,1664 

v. Blbridge 460 

V. Read 1281, 1282 

v. 8crogios 798 

Glason v. Lawrence 801 

9. Morris 624, 632 

Olavey v. Lord 1071 

Clay 9. Bdgerton 818 

v. Gurley 884 

v. Pennington 1869, 1360 

v. Richardson 1882 

9. Rufford 245 

v. Towle 787 

Clay and Tetley, Re 261 

Claybrookv Wade 532 

Clayton v. Anthony 1624 

v. Chichester 626 

v. Clarke 71. 80 

9. Finch 1068 

9. Glover 1284 

9. tiresham 98, 1809 

9. Martin 1666 

9. Meadows 708, 706 

9. Nugent 1119 

v. Thompson 842 

9. Tarrington 1121, 1186 

Clayton Mills Manuf. Co., Re 1476. 

Clazton, Ex parte 74, 112 

v. Clazton 68 

Clearke v. Angler, Lord 90 

Cleaver v. Smith 801 

9. Younger 1706 

Clearest?. Foes 866 

Clearer. Gaeootgne 1121,1128,1187 

9. Mahaney 1686 

Clegg v. Clegg 170 

9. Rdtnondsou 722 

9. Fishwick 200, 1728, 1729 

9. Hands 824, 1664 

9. Rowland 260 

9. Yarnell 836 

Cleland, Ex parte 1846 

v. Casgrain 884 

9. Cleland 201, 261, 819 

Clement v. Langthorn 68 

v. Maddick 1648, 2314 

«>. Scott 1846 

Clement Manuf Co. v. Upton & 

Hart Co. 197 

Clements, Re 1069 

v. Bowes £84, 80S, 804, 1514 

v. Breresford 1756 

v. Clifford 792 

9. Greenwell 418 

9. Grl tith 899, 1698 

9. Lampkin 418 

9. Moore 787, 828, 840, 844, 1229 

9. Welles 1654 

demons v. Elder 266 

Clemonston v. Blessig 49, 51 

Clench v. Dooley 1669 

Ciephane v. Lord Provost 1506 

Clerihew v. Lsscelies 978 

Clerk v. Udall 1185 

«. Wright 636 

Clerke e. Anglesey, Lord 90 

Clerkson v. Bowyer 221 

Cleveland v. Burnham 1468 

9. Chambliss 1548 

v. Cltisens' Gas Light Co. 1686 

Cleveland F. A B. Co. e. United 

States R. S. Co. 1642 

Cleveland Target Co. 9. U. 8. 

Pigeon Co. 862 

Cleveland's Harte Bstates, Duke 

of, Re 160, 1607, 1694 

Cleveland, &e. R. Co. v. Erie. 

City of 632, 638 

Cleveland, Ac. Ry. Co. 9. Jewett 

1786 



ZXXV1 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[The references are to the star paging.] 



Cleverly 9. Cleverly 1617 

Clews v. Brunswick 418 

v. Woodstock Iron Oo. 118, 636 

Click v. Burris 1284 

Cliff «. Boll 907,909 

v. Wadsworth 1892 

CUffe «. Wilkinson 84, 85 

Clifford v. Coleman 829, 888 

v. Turrill 1015, 1848, 2117 

Clifton v. Anderson 1621 

v. Bentall 864, 785 

v. Coekburn 1622 

v. Haig 201, 262, 292, 294, 417, 



v. Orchard 

v. Robinson 
Clifton Iron Co. v. Dye 
Clinan v. Cooke 



Clinch 9. Financial Corp. 

t, 1899, 1821, 1826 



1398 
1664 
1638 
1407 
26, 241. 

248*244 — "~ — " 

Clinton, Re 1800 

v. Webster 1777 

Clippendale v. Masson 1097 

Clive v. Beaumont 821, 872, 1897 

v. Careir 185, 187 

Cloake, Re 895 

Clodfelter v. Huktt 824 

Cloete, Re 142 

Clogstoan v. Walcott 1856 

Clotworthy v. Hellish 772 

Cloud v. Greeley 629 

v. Hamilton 214, 1265 

v. Whiteman 878, 991, 1008 

Clough, Re 1080 

9. Adams 417, 418 

v. Cross 471 

9. Lambert 1984 

Clouston v. Shearer 1961 , 2040 

Clowes v. Book 1897 

9. Dickenson 1459, 1467, 1489 

9. Hmiard 816, 406 

Glum v. Brewer 1676 

Glutton v. Lee 280 

v. Pardon 1868,1876,1448,1611, 

1843 
Clyburn 9. Reynolds 991, 1784 

Clyde v. Richmond A D. R. 

Co. 1748 

Clyiner 9. James 292 

v. 8haw 1562 

Coakfl v. Boswell 68, 164 

Coal E. Gas Co., Re, Graver's 

case 890 

Coale v. Chase 785 

v. Garrison 1629 

9. Mildred 199 

Coann v. Atlanta Cotton Factory 

Co. 248,2886 

Coast Line R. Co. v. Cohen 1687 

Coates v. Cunningham 1716 

9. Day 279 

9. Lashley 1272 

v.Legard 884 

v. McKee 186 

v. Merrick Thread Co. 888, 1648 

v. Pearson 976, 1552 

Coats v. Chadwlck 1069 

9. Elliott 1054 

v. Holbrook 45 

Cobb v. Baxter 1548 

9. Covenant M B. Ass. 1110 

v. Jamison 1168 

v Rice 1018,1411,1561 

Cobbett v. Hudson 1101 

Cobber v. Knapp 830 

r Wright 830 

Cobden v. Maynard 1267 

Cobham v. Dalton 157 

Coburn v. Ames 1765 

9. Cedar Valley Land Oo. 1517, 

16*7 

Oooh v. Alloock ft Oo. 985 

Cochran 9. American Opera 

Co. 248 

v. Goodell 212 

v. Lynch 1814 

9. Miller 986 



Cochrane, Ex parte 1748, 1744 
v. Fearon 27, 154, 1606 

v. O'Brien 147, 1660, 1668, 1670 
v. Phillips 1626 

9. Willis 816, 642, 602 

Cock v. Brans 286, 408,424, 778,781 
v. Ravie 1702 

Coekburn 9. Edwards 1082, 1407 
9. Peel 1731 

v. Raphael 13,969, 1440, 1781. 

178/ 
v. Thompson 26, 217, 248, 291 
Corkcroft, Ex parte 1464 

Cockcroft, Re, Broadbent 9. 

Groves 68 

Cocke v. Gilpin 987, 1507 

v. Trotter 844, 1558 

9. Cpshaw 1078 

Cockel v. Pblpps 106 

Cockell 9. Taylor 1892 

CockereU v. Barber 1286 

v. Cholmeley 954 

Cockes 9. Sherman 214, 277 

Cocking 9. Pratt 672,1622 

Cockle 9. Joyce 970, 979 

Cockney 9. Anderson 447, 449, 649 

660 

Coekran v. Lynch 1821 

Cockrane 9. Cockrane 1286 

Cockrell v. CookreU 1850 

v. Gnrley 871 

v. Warren 1549 

Oockrlll v. Maney 281 

v. Sparke 647 

Cocks v. Chandler 1649 

v. Foley 829 

v. Gray 1888 

9. Pnrday 1601 

v. Stanley 777 

v. Varney 884 

Cockshott v. London General 

Cab Co. 970, 979 

Codd v. Wooden 1624 

Coddington v. Idell 1881 

Coddrington v. Webb 1122 

Codington v. Mott 408, 406,416,426 
Codman v. Rodgers 641 

Codner 9. Heresy 787 

Codrington v. Codrington 122, 718 
9. Johnstone 170, 176, 1742, 1748 



122 
1241,1719 

185 

1687 

284,1004 

286,288 



v. Lindsay 
v. Parker 

v. Shelburn, Rarl of 
Codwlse 9. Golston 

v. Taylor 
Coe v. Beckwtth 

v. Louisville & N. R. Oo. 298 

v. Turner 841,659 
Coeur d'Alene C. ft M. Co v. 

Miners' Union 1620,1668 

Coflee v. Norwood 264 

Coffeen v. Brnnton 1648 

Coffey v. Norwood 256 

Coffin r. Chattanooga W. & P. 

Co. 288 

v. Cooper 847, 861, 1218 

v. Easton 1110 

v. Heath 68, 165, 167 

«. Jones 916 

v. Morrill 117 

v. Murphy 887 

Coffman v. Allln 778 

v Langston 418 

Cogan v. Duffleld 115 

v. Kbden 1109 

v. Stephens 991 

Cogdell v. Cogdell 1268 

Coffer v. Coger 168 

Coglan v. Requeneau 1672 

Cogswell v. Bull 26 

v. Dolllver 1228 

Coham v. Coham I860 

Coheen 9. Gordon 249 

Cohen, Ex parte 1686 

v. Alcan 449 

v. Ellis 1290 



16W 

1614 

146S 

68,157 

61 

1661 

1624 

87,1859 

1791 

803 

1649,1663 

129 



Cohen 9. Goldsboto 
9. L'Rngle 
9. Me \ era 
9. Mitchell 

9. Mutual lift) Ins. Oo. 
v. Poland 
v. Sharp 
v. Shyer 
v. Water 
9. Wolff 
9. Woollard 
Cohens v. Virginia 
Cohn v. LouleTille, N. O.AT.R, 

Co. 867 

Coiron v. Mlllaudon 149, 191 

Coke 9. Fountain 868, 869 

9. Gilbert 819 

v. Wilcocks 679, 706 

Coker, Ex parte 157 

9. Dawklns 12*6 

v. Farewell 1112, 1178 

Colbeck, Re, Hall v. Colbeck 405 

Colburn v. Barrett 722 

v. B rough too 341 

v. Duncombe 820, 1644 

v. Slmms 1881, 1895, 1664, 

1681 
Colchester, Mayor and Aldermen 

off 801.815 

Colclongh v. Bolger 709 

9. Boyse 876 

9. Brans 1628, 1684 

9. Sterum 1276, 1276 

Colcock 9. Forgusoa 1680 

Colden 9. Hasklns 76 

Coldlng 9. Badger 1296, 1296 

ColdweU 9. Giles 1019 

Cole 9. Bean 1071, 1078 

9. Burgess 1617 

9. Cole 1262 

9. Cunningham 629, 1618 

9. Duke 1661 

9. Baton 1860 

9. Flltoraft 688, 634 

9. Gray 184 

9. Lake Oo. 197 

9. MGlathry 646, 649 

9. Miller 166, 997, 1576 

9. OiUWell Srpply Oo. 1748 

9. Peyson 1629 

9. Sands 1679 

9. Savage 886 

9. Scott 1459 

9. Sewell 1162, 1162 

9. Shetterly 848 

9. Trull 1258 

Cole Silver Mining Oo. 9. Vir- 
ginia, etc. Water Co. 1662 
Colebonrne 9. Coleboume 1784 
Colebrook 9. Jones 28 
Colebrooke, Ex parte 188 
9. Attorney-General 188, 184, 189 
9. Clarke 1291 
Cole County 9. Angney 601 
Colegrave 9. Jason 1122 
9. Manley 1844 
Coleman, Re 86, 676, 1861, 

1814 
9. Barnes 276, 888, 845 

9 Colgate 920 

9. Flavel 1648 

9. Franklin 1473 

9. Gage 1676 

9. Hudspeth 1668 

v. Hutchinson 1150 

9. LlewelUn 999 

9. Lyne 626 

9. Martin 287, 2891 

9. Mswby 1141 

9. Mellersh 667, 1282 

9. Moore 1377, 1558 

9. Plnkard 283, 408 

9. Ross 846 

9. Ryan 1846 

9. West Hartlepool Ry. Oo. 1070. 

1887 
Colerlck 9. Hooper 197 



TABLE OF CA8ES CITED. 



xxxvil 



[The references are to the star paging.] 



Coles v. Berroi 



v Balknu 
9. Coles 
v. Forrest 

9. OOTIMJ 

«. Morris 



58 
866 

861 

1187 

1163 

257,1887 

448 

821, 828, 888, 1698 



v Sims 824, 1640, 1654, 1657. 1663 
« Treeotniek 881, 881 

Ooley v. Coley 966 

Colgate v. CompagnieFranoalae 145. 

e. Western U. T. Go. 1120, 1680 

OoOard «. Allison 1642 

9. Cooper 1667 

e. Groom 897 

* Hare 1454 

*. Marshall 1620 

e. Roe 1464 
e. Smith 181, 182, 498, 624. 788. 

Collss v. Hems ' 206 

CoUcdgee Pike 1120 

Collet e Wollaston 167,265 

CoUett r. Collect 1426 

e. Dickenson 186, 187 

e. Hover 281 

v. Manle 1814 

v. Preston 415, 1409 

Collette v. Goods 785 

Collier e. Bank of Newborn 1544 

e. Chapman 841 

e. Graj 1257 

e. Xokes 1102, 1103 

•. Whipple 1280, 1290 

Colling* 9. 1408 

Couingsv City of Camden 1661 

Colliogwood v. Russell 816, 648, 



Collins, Re 
Collins, Matter of 

*. Barksdale 

v. Burton 

r. Carey 

e Casey 

a Castle 

v. Collins 

«. Collyer 

«. Billot 



1840 
177 
895 
1490 
1414 
1285 
1654 
1688, 1699, 1859 
518 
915 
9 Greaves 798, 806, 811, 1218 
e Greeley 679 

9. Grittth 267 

». Ins. Co. 2 

*. Knight 834, 885 

m. Lamport 1653 

« Locke 670 

ft Loftus 200, 997 

9. North British k M. Ins. Co 848 
9. North Side Pub. Co. 723 

9. Saurey 1078 

*. Shirley 157, 215 

9 Sinclair 1081 

9 SUz 834 

•; Stutetey 1081 

9. Taylor 244, 794, 1027 

*. Walker 2318 

Collins Co. 9. Brown 24, 1649 

9. Walker 1380, 1395 

CoOina Maoaf. Co. v. Ferguson 149 

Coilinsonv 889,1706,1706, 

1707, 1708 
9. Jackson 417 

v. Lister 1009, 1017, 1485, 1644. 



CoUis v. Colli* 

r. Swayne 
Collies v. Hector 
Coiloway v. Dobson 
Collyerv. Fallon 
Column « . Crnmp 



792,1773 

647 

203,204 

780 

1058, 1730 

1648 



ft Eastern Counties Ry. Co. 26, 

241, 242, 245 

9. Northcoto 168, 188, 498, 754 

9. Sarell 1029, 1410 

s. Turner 792, 1197 

Colmerv Colxner 108 



Colmerv Ede 1848 

Colmore v. North 1787 

Colne Valley & HsJstead Bail- 

way, Re 1791 

Colonial Bank ft. Hepworth 865 

Colonial Life Assurance Co. v. 

Home k Colonial Co. 1649 

Colonial k C. 8. Mortgage Co. « 

Hutchinson Mortgage Co. 145 
Colorado Coal A Iron Co. v. 

United States 8 

Colorado ManoX Co. v. McDon- 
ald 295 
Colpoys 9. Colpoys 2182 
Colquhonn, Re 1448, 1449, 14*1 
Colson v. Williams 1*71 
Colston v. Gardiner 1060, 1054, 1055 
Colstrum v. Minneapolis k St. 

L. Ry. Co. 884 

Colt r. Colt 68, 991, 1584, 2897 

v CornweU 1625 

tr Lesnier 240,291,292 

Coltartv Ham 1066 

Colton v. Ross 878, 879, 884, 1073, 

1074 

v. Ward 989 

Columbia Bank v. Black 846 

Columbia County v. Bryson 1620 

Columbian Book Co tr. De Gol- 

yer 1734 

Columbian Gor't ft. Rothschild 18, 

19,20, 141,885 
Columbine v. Chichester 814, 549, 

550 
Columbus Ins. Co. ft. Humphries 334 
Columbus, etc. R. Co. ft. Bills 880 
Columbus & W. Ry. Co. v. With- 

erow 1675 

ColTerson ft. Bloomfleld 1702 

ColTin, In re 1715, 1741 

ft. Campion 1114 

v. Corwin 830 

Col>er v Colyer 438, 487, 1213, 

1626,1825 

v. Finch 675 

Combe ft. Hughes 1480, 1433 

v. London, Corp. of 672,680, 1882, 

1834 

Combs ft. Buswell 846 

v. Tarlton 197, 815 

Comer v Himes 1679 

Comfort v. McTeer 287 

Comfort, The 1019, 1120 

Comley v Hendricks 1*6 

Commercial Bank v. Buckner 546 

v. Corbett 1734 

v. French 22 

v. New York State Bank 1653 

Commercial Bank Co., Re 201, 664 

Commercial Bank of India and 

the Bast. Re 250 

Commercial Mut. Ins Co. v. Mc- 

Loon 844, 847, 1961, 1966 

Commercial Wharf Co. ft. Win- 

sor 197, 1654 

Commerell v. Bell 407, 1509, 1529, 

1581), 1531 

v. Hall 407, 1609, 1529, 1530 

v. Poynton 1844 

Commlns v. Brownfleld 730 

ft, Scott 602 

Commissioners v. Andrews 10 

Commissioners of Sewer* v. Gel- 

latly 243, 272, 406 

v Glasss 289,272,345.579,697, 

873, 1881, 1675 
Commonwealth v. Andre 46 

v. Arrison 10 

v. Boston, kc R. Co. 10 

v. Bussell 886 

v. Desmond 646 

ft Drake 884,676 

v. Eagle Fire Ins. Co. 1788, 1746, 

1751, 1755 
u Eddy 851 

v. Franklin Ins Co. 1743 

v. Qould 1766 



Commonwealth ft. Hawkins 1101 
ft Hide * Leather Ins. Co. 1784 
v. UiU 886 

ft. Ins. Co 1298 

n Jeffries 907 

e. Kneeland 646 

ft McLaughlin 1828 

ft Mauley 116, 128 

v. Mechanics' Ins. Co. 1411 

v. Perkins 720 

v. Roby 1107 

v. Sumner 2 

Compagnie dn Senegal v. Woods 671, 

1718 
Compania de Mocambique v 

British South Africa Co. 
Compton ft. Bearcroft 1784 

v Bioxbam 877 

v. Grey, Earl 679 

Comstockv. Frederickson 1748 

v. Hadlyme b52 

ft. Herron 860, 848 

v. Rayford 884 

Couaoher ft. Conacher 1697 

Conalley v. Peck 418 

Conallyft Cruger 1678 

Conant v. Jones 1648 

v. Kendall I860 

v. Warren 87,547 

Conardo Atlantic Ins. Co 1241 

Concannon v. Cruise 876 

Concha ft. Concha 664, 914, 1495, 1507 
t; Murrieta 1495,1507 

Concklin o. Coddington 1386, 1392 
v. liall 160 

Concord f. Norton 614 

Condictv King 1569 

Conethard v. Hasted 949 

Coney, Re 1784 

Congdon ft Aylesworth 679, 787 
Conger v. Cotton 848 

Congregational Church, Re 1866 
Congrere, In re 1810,1449 

Coningsby, Lord, ft. Jekyll 419, 597 
Coolngton ft. Gllllat 102, 1096, 1105 
Conley v. Alabama G L. Ins. 
Co. 1561 

ft. Nallor 787 

Con Ion v. Prior 1600 

Conn ft. Garland 1058 

v. Penn 1008 

Connable v. Bncklin 1877 

Connecticut ft Jackson 1260 

Central Manuf. Co. Harts- 
horns 467 
Connecticut A P. R. R. Co. v 

Hendee 790, 794 

Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. ft. Kar- 

anagh 828 

Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. ft. 

Schaefler 673, 576 

ft. Smith 417 

ft. Union Trust Co. 676 

Connecticut Rlrer Lumber Co. v. 

Olcott Fall* Co. 1164 

Connell, Re 1038 

Connelly v. Carlin 846 

ft Fteher 852 

Connelly Manuf. Co. v. Wattles 1668, 

1676 

Conner v Armstrong 1559 

v. Chase 841 

n Smith 402 

Coonlffr Kahn 1459 

Connolly v. Connolly 1676 

v. M'Dennot 860 

ft. Parton 1411 

v. Wells 149, 198, 208 

Connop v. Hayward 840, 1268 

Connor v. Board of Education 567 

v. Connor 1726 

Connors v Connors 871 

Conolan v. Leyland 87 

Conorer o. ConoTer 684, 639, 644 

v Sealy 334 

v. Wailing 1282, 1284, 1286, 1289 

Conrad v Back 686 



XXXV1U 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[The references are to the iter paging.] 



Oonnd v. Mulllson 287 

Conro v. Port Henry Iron Co. 285 
Conroy v. Oregon Construction 

Co. 542 

Oonsequa v. Fanning 371, 377, 666, 
668, 1221,1282, 1268, 1481, 
148V, 21U8 
Conserve, The 141 

Consette Ball 824 

Cousociated Free. Co. of Green's 

Farms v. Staple* 1662 

Consolidated B. A. Co. v. Amer- 
ican P. F. Co. 790 
Consolidated Coal Co. Schmis. 

seur 1664 

Consolidated El 8 Co v. Atlan- 
tic Trust Co. 1686 
Consolidated K. L. Co. *. Crash- 
Swan B L. Co. 884 
Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v 

Strong 2879 

Consols Insurance Co , Official 

Manager of, v. Wood 808 

Const e. Barr 780, 1049, 1060, 1608 

v. Ebers 610 

v. Harris 696, 696, 1671, 1727 

Constable v. Angel 1114 

v Howick 1000, 1224 

Constance v. Brain 1102 

Constitution, The 141 

Consumers' Gas Trust Co. v. 

Harless 1770 

Contee v. Dawson 191, 671, 786, 829 

v. Lyons 1680 

v. Pratt 1680 

Continental Ins. Co. v Webb 670, 

1648,1663 
Continental Life Ins. Co. v Cur- 
rier 1621 
Continental Trust Co. v. Wet- 
more 1061, 1748 
Contois v. Carpentier 48 
Contract and Agency Co., In re 27 
Contract Co v. Tottenham &H 

J Ry. Co W. N. 1781 

Convene v Hood 1648 

v. Johnson 648 

e Michigan Diary Co. 669 

v. Meyer 920 

v Ware 8 Bank 1663 

Conway v Alexander 1244 

e. Felton 1283 

v Stroud 200 

Conybeare v. Lewis 272 

Conyers v. Abergavenny, Lord 1682 
v. Gray 1699 

School, Re 1867 

Cood v. Cood 1627, 1628 

Coogan v. McCarron 1648 

Cooke Arnham 1683 

v. BamBeld 1677 

u Bath, Mayor k Corp. of 1637 
v Bay 998,1126 

v. Beardsall 1131 

v. Bee 781 

v. Blunt 230 

v. Bolton 1170, 1640 

« Broombead 948, 1652 

v. Butt 262 

v Catchpole 1861, 1862 

v. Colllngridge 1282, 1260, 2279 
v Cook 1196 

ti Detroit * M. B. Co. 1786 

« Dews 782,738 

v. Dey 448 

v. Dornej 1877 

v Bnchmarch 1072 

v. Forbes 1637 

v. Fowler 1257 

v. French 1081, 1576 

« Hadley 191 

v Hall 938 

v. Hart 1890 

v Hathway 64,160,1422 

v. Hllliard 216 

v. Houston County Commis- 
sioners 1169 



Cook v. Ligon 
v. Manclus 280, 281, 879, 696 

v. Martyn 826, 878, 379, 888 

v. Miller 1638 

v. Munn 1411 

v. New York C M. Co. Iu71 

v. North, <£e. R. Co. 1637 

v. Kosslyn, Earl of 1661, 1566, 

1670 
v. Sturgis 61 

v Torton 878 

v. Tull 1616 

v. Whellock 68 

v. Williams 660, 644 

v. Wood 452 

v Woodbury 1608 

Cooke v Bamfleld 1676,1688 

v. Beale 1366 

v Berry 1182,1134 

v. Chllcott 1696, 1661, 1662 

v. Cholmondeley 1074 

v. Clayworth 843 

v. Cooke 196, 671, 703, 1439 

v DaTles 802 

v. Dealey 1346 

v. Forbes 1081, 1635 

v. Fryer 79, 110 

v Fuller 87,179 

v. Gettlngs 201, 251, 819, 631 

v. Gilbert 1664 

v Gwyn 998,1866 

v. Lamotte 862 

v Marsh 1118, 1667 

v. Orange 1748 

v. Richards 634 

v. Smith 243 

v. Turner 568, 716, 1074, 

1440 
v. Westall 689, 782 

v Wilby 744,892 

Cookes v. Cookes 978, 1226, 1731, 

1739 

Cooksey v. Haynes 1107, 1131 

Cookson v. Bingham 1429 

v. Ellison 800 

v. Lee 162, 177, 476, 498, 

1476 

Cool v. Higgins 226 

Cooley v. Harris 1661 

v. State 838 

Coombe v. Hughes 1438 

v. Stewart 999 

Coombs t» Brooks 1082 

v. Smith 1748 

v. Warren 547, 650 

Coon v Abbott 890 

Coondo r. Mookerjee 668 

Coop v Dr. SaTage P. D Insti- 
tute 814, 848 

Coope v. Carter 1870 

v. Cresswell 668, 839, 1717, 1720 

Cooper, He 160, 611, 674, 1406, 1607 
v. BliMet 236 

v. Brown 885 

v. Cooper 1199, 1471, 1503 

v. Crabtree 211, 829, 1633 

v. Denne 989 

e. Dodd 1068 

v. Kggington 1096 

v. Green 444 

v. II ubbuck 1638, 1663 

v Knox 1589, 1590 

v.Lewls 602,791,1590 

v. London, Ac. Ry. Co. 1387, 1775 
v. Macdonald 100, 906, 1263 

v. McNeil 1434 

v. Martin 194 

v. New Haven Steamboat Co. 630, 

142" 
v. Pitcher 1405, 1427 

v. Powb, Earl 688 

v. Purton 80, 36 

v. Reilly 1790 

v. Scott 1464, 1482 

v. Uttoexeter Burial Board 779, 

780 
v. Vesey 196 



Cooper *. Webb 
v. Whluingham 1881 

v. Wood 448 

Coosaw Mining Co. v. South 

Carolina 10 

Coote v. Ingram 1071 

v. Whlttington 301, 319 

Cooth v. Jackson 607,656,699,843, 

1406 
Cope v. Cope 819, 1809 

v. De La Warr, Earl 1020 

v. District Fire Ass'n 1660 

it Parry 196,689,732 

v. Russell 469 

v Thames Haven Dock Co. 1102, 

1106 

Copeland v. Crane 845, 846. 1180. 

1228, 1226, 1249, 1260, 1302 

v. Granger 110, 182 

v. Mape 1069 

v. Stanton 904, 930 

v. Webb 1071 

v. Wheeler 169 

Copls v Mlddleton 279 

Copley v. Smitbson 153 

Coppard v. Allen 248, 268 

Coppeard v Mayhew 812, 399 

Copper v. Wells 670 

Coppln v. — — 118 

e. Coppln 1404 

v Gray 648 

Coppinger v. Gabbini 1680 

v Shekleton 1419 

Coppring v. Cooke 1287 

Coqaillard v. 8uydam 865 

Corbet v Davenant 1160 

v Tottenham 1358 

Corbett v. Corbett 89, 43, 940. 1118, 

1457 

v, Jonas 1633 

Corblo v Emerson 197 

Corbus v. Teed 884, 848 

Corbyn v. Birch 474 

Corcoran v Chesapeake, ke Co. 1870 

v Witt 1878, 1379 

Cordnerv Goedalla 1440 

Cord we 11, Re 102 

Core v. Bell 1828 

v. Stickler 1576 

Corey v Moore 1120,1309 

v. Voorhles 1(567, 1676 

Cork, Earl of e. Russell 277, 1035 

Cork v. Willock 640 

Corker v. Jones* 68 

Corley v. Corley 91 

Corliss v. E. W. Walker Co, 1648 

Cormack v. Beisly 1846 

Cormick v. Ronayne 1846 

Cornell v. Green 814, 545 

v. Hudson 647 

«. McCam 1264 

v. Utlca Ac. R. Co. 1668 

Cornelius r. Post 1681, 1068 

Cornet v Bertelsmann 843 

Cornlll v. Hudson 662 

Corning v. Baxter 467, 468 

v. Cooper 974 

v. Lowerre 1687 

v. Smith 277. 839 

v. Troy Iron h Nail Factory 1459, 

1639 



Cornish v. Gest 

v. Tanner 
Cornwall, Be 

v. Hoyt 

v. Saurin 
Corn well r. Lee 
Corn well Manuf Co. v. Swift 
Corpeningv. Worthington 
Corradine v. O'Connor 
Corrance r. Corranoe 
Correspondent Newspaper Co. 9. 

Saunders 1648 

Corriev Allen 406 

v Clarke 1801 

Corry v. Curlewls 805 

v.Trist 237 



208, 268, 1168 

1561 

28 

88 

243 

346 

803 

542 

617 

113 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XXXIX 



[The references are to the star paging.] 



CorseUis, Be 68, 178, 1414 

v.ConeUfc 1868 

Gott *. Lasserd 1667 

Cartas Co. v Tannhanaar 988 

Oortieyeu w. Hathaway 1717 

Corwin e. Campbell ltSSl 

Cory v. Gertcken 169, 680 

9. Hamilton 1408 

r. Jacobsen 449 

v. Thames Iron Workf 18U8 

v. Yarmouth h Norwich By. 

Co. 1678 

Goabj v. Wkkllfle 282, 860 

Cossnae Cognor Ry. Co. 1656 

Oosgrove *. »ak 824 

Conine ». Graham 866, 604 

Coalake v. TU1 2266 

*. London & Brighton 

Ry. Co. 678 

Costabadie 9. Coatabadia 1842 

Oorta Rica r Stroosberg 1068 

Cotteker r. Horrox 1777 

Coster v. Bank of Georgia 467 

9. Clarke 1460 

9. Coeter 101, 102, 1202 

v. Merest 1182 

v. Murray 660, 641, 642, 644, 702 

Coaching r. Bassett 1688 

Cotes v. Turner 601, 761 

Cotham v. West 1182, 1252, 2296 

Gother 9. Midland Railway Co. 1672 

Cottam v. Partridge 2086 

Gotten 9. Fidelity &e. Co. 779 

CottereU 9. Stratton 1888. 1893. 

1411,1448 
Cottier 9. Stimaon 848 

Cottinjcham v. Shrewsbury, Lord 

842,1870 

Cottington v. Fletcher 666 

Cottle 9. Harrold 1663 

9. Krementa 604, 880 

Cotton, Re 1440 

9. Banks 1168 

v. Clark 1409, 1412, 1416 

v. Harvey 1177 

9. Manering 628 

•. Parker 1478 

9. Penrose 1481 

v. Scott 1648 

9. Trefuets 176 

Cotton Plantation Co., Re 1706 

Cottrell, Re 1860 

9. Jttna Life Ins, Co. 686 

9. Finney 1887, 1893 

CottriU v. Cramer 854 

Conghlln «r. N. Y. Cent. R. Co. 668 

Coolburn v. Carshaw 44S 

Coulaon, Re 1H00 

w. Graham 608 

9. Walton 660 

9. White 1688 

Conlstiog 0. Coulsting 88, 40, 111 

Conlston -„. Gardiner 1066, 1057 

Coulthurst v. Coulthurst 1648 

Gonlton, Re, Hamling 9. Elliott 

1694 
Counea v. Persons Unknown 1163 
Council Blufla v. Stewart 163S 

Count de Wall's Case 48 

County Attorney v. May 10, 137 
County Life Ass. Co., Re 1844 

Coupous 9. Kauflman 178 

Courage 9. Wardell 621 

Courand v. Hanner 1411, 1747, 

174S 
Courier, The 1440 

Course v. Humphrey 780, 1413 

Court v. Jeffery 226 

Court of Chancery, The Suitors 

of the, Re 1441 

Coorteen v. Touse 1093 

Courteuay r. Hosklns 980, 931, 1193 
Courthope r. Mapplesden 1682 

Courtney v. Stoca. 978 

v. Turner 46 

Courtols, He 1605 

Courtoy v. Vincent 1040, 1694 



Cousens v. Cousena 

v. Rose 
Cousins v. Smith 

9 Yassy 
Coutts 9. Aeworth 
Covell v. Chadwick 
CoTenhoren v Shuler 
Coventry v. Coventry 



1440 

884,846 

696.1671 

821. 823, 842 

862 

163) 

801 

1168,1628 



9. London, Brighton, A South 

Coast Hallway Co. 716 

Coreny v. Athill 986, 1673 

Goverdalev Eastwood 1421 

Covington 0. Gilliat 108 

Cowan v. Anderson 161, 446 

Coward v. Chadwick 162, 1718 

9. Coward 1228 

9. Inman 1404 

Coward & Adams, Re 87, 123 

Cowart 9. Perrine 641, 644 

Cowbridge Railway Co . rte 1035 

Cowdln v. Cram 1700, 1702, 1718 

Cowdray 9. Cross 469, 1047 

Cowdrey r. Railroad Co. 1809.1731. 

1762, 1846 

Cowdry v. Cheshire 247 

9. Day 1892, 1399 

Cowell v. Lippltt 1281 

9. Simpson 1848, 1846 

9. Taylor 82, 64 

Cowen v. Alsop 887 

Cowgill 9. Rhodes 1071. 1075, 1884 

Cowln, Re. Cowln v. Gravett 1827 

Cowlan 9. Williams 1566 

Cowles 9. Carter 726 

9. Whitman 1376, 1377, 1881 

Cowley 9 Cowley 802 

Cowls v. Cowls 1860 

Cowman v. Lovett 402 

Cowper 9. Scott 1464 

v. Taylor 1054 

Earl v. Baker 1632 

Cowslad v. Cely 160, 252, 271, 2U0 

Cowslade v. Cornish 1181 

Cowtan 9. Williams 1666. 1570 

Cox v. Allingham 888,868,968,955 

9. Bannister 449 

9. Barker 846, 1001 

9. Barnard 228 

9. Bennett 13 

9. Beckett 859 

v. Chamberlain 1402 

v. CoUey 1573 

v. Cox 1078, 1163 

9. Dolman 644, 653 

r. Hart 1276 

9. James 68 

v. Kitohln 1126 

9. Land and Water Journal 

Co. 1646, 1727 

9. Lynn 1580 

9. McLaughlin 860 

v. Mitchell 633 

v Mobile, &o. R. Co. 1625 

v. Paxtons 1652 

v. Peters 1727 

v. Pierce 815, 1195, 1820 

v. Roome 254 

9. Scott 1699, 1702, 1710 

v. Sprode 28-5 

9. Stephens 203, 269, 270, 292, 

891, 914 

9. Taylor 208 

v. Wheeler 284 

v.Witls Mil 

9. Worthlngton 922 

v. Wright 68. 78, 1595 

Coxev. Halsted 1269, 1270, 1272, 1608 

9. Smith 1151 

v. Phillips 854 

Coykendall v. Robinson 854 

Coyle 9. Alleyne 858,854,608,624, 

Cosine 9. Graham 866, 661, 666, 667 
Crabb 9. Orth 586 

9. Thomas 425 

Crabbe v. Monbery 161 

Orabtrea v. Banks 1548 



Crackelte Bethune 1417 

Oraoknall v. Jauson 218. 348, 861. 
894, 896, 1407, 1449, 1490 

Craddock, Re 102 

9. Shirley 989 

Cradock v. Oradock 920, 921 

9. Owen 1029, 1821 

9. Piper 1284, 1235, 1414. 




659 

644,1626 

1886 

1089 

1889 

1684 

294 

28,30 

891 

1268,1802 

1098 

197 

612,676 

1686 

1899 

1002 

248 

994 

852 

642 

169 

660 

226 

208 

241 

617 

1548 

226,227,261 

884 



Craft*. Russell 

9. Thompson 
Cragg 9. Alexander 

:r Taylor 
v. Gray 
v. Lovell 
Barbour 
iton 

9. Briggs 

v. Craig 

9. Fenn 

9. Johnson 

9. Leipe 

9. People 

v. Phillips 

v. Sebrell 

*. Smith 

v. Steamer Hertford 
Craige v. Craige 
Craighead v. Bank 
Crain v. Parker 

9. Prattler 
Craker v. Parrott 
Cramer, Ex parte 

9. Bird 

9. Bode 

v. Clough 

v. Morton 

9. Watson 
Crammer v. Atlantic City Gas ■ 

Co. 728,848 

Cranborne, Viscountess v. Dal- 

mahoy 118 

Cranbourne, Lady 9. Crisps 272 
Cranch v. Brissett 1406 

Crandallv Dare 669 

9. Gallup 986 

v. Slaid 87, 74, 79 

Crane v. Brigham 1608 

v. Bunnell 1628 

9. Decamp 1484,1491 

v. Doming 287, 558 

v. Ely 1551 

9. Fairchild 884, 885 

9. Jullion 448 

9. Kilpin 1258 

9. McDonald 1561 

9. Powell 619 

v. Prather 646 

Crane Bros. Manut Co v Morse 854 
Cranford 9. Tyrrell 1688 

Cranston v. Smith 866, 561, 666 
Cranstown, Lord v. Johnston 629, 

848,855,1892,1627 
Crapo 9. Kelly 1748 

Orapp v. Dodd 1511 

Crary v. 8prague 1118 

Crass v. Memphis A Charleston 

R. Co. 1561 

Craven v Shair 1228 

v. Tickell 1257 

9. Traill 1469 

9. Wright 1201 

Cravens v. Dyer 161 

v. Harrison 951 

Crawcour v. Salter 1462 

Crawford v. JStna Life Ins. Co 61 

9. Attorney-General IS), 139 

9. Chorley 887 

9. Crawford 37, 1622 

9. Fisher 1660, 1564, 1570 

9. Forshaw 254 

v. Harvey 886 

9. Hornsea Steam Brick Co. 1080 

9. Llddel 641 



9. Moore 
9. Nral 
v. P«nn 



860 

1820 

19,50 



xl 



TABLE OF CA8ES CITED. 



[The references are to the gUr paging.] 



Crawford v. Protestant I 

Hospital 1686 

v. Boss 1668, 1734 

Crawley v. Clarke 1066 

Orawshaw* Thornton 1565 

Crawshay, Be 1409 

v. Collins 1250, I860, 1861 

v Thornton 1661, 1564, 1566, 1610 

Creak v. CapeU 1781, 1782 

Crease v. Babooek 256 

v. Barrett 1126 

Oreaeor v. Robinion 201, 261, 819 

Creath v. Smith 1680 

Credit Co., Be 885, 896 

«. Arkansas Central R. Co. 825, 

714 

Credits Gerundeuse v. Van Weede 150 

Creed v. Bryne 443 

v. Flaher 1091, 1130 

v. Lancaster Bank 1677 

v. Perry 119 

v. Railway 256 

v. Scruggs 1625 

Creely v. Bay State Brick Co 556, 

1631,1662 
Creen v. Wright 1379 

Cregar v. Creamer 1677 

Crelgh v. Boggs 8S0 

Cremetti v. Crom 1461 

Crenshaw v. Ullman 287 

Crenrer Mining Co. v. Willyams 214 
Crerar v. Sodo 1106 

Cresap v. Kemble 369 

Crescent City L. S. Co. v. Butch- 
ers' U. L S. Co. 548, 634, 2383 
Cresset v. Mitton 368, 870 

Cresswell, Ex parte 1019 

v. Bateman 229. 266, 1520 

v. Cheslyn 1430 

v. Haines 1404 

v. Jackson 1577 

v. Parker 628 

v. Smith 719, 1087 

Creswick v. Creswick 948, 1652 

Cresy v. Bearan 1619, 1678 

v. Bevan 409, 683 

Creuxe v. Hunter 1255, 1256, 1259, 

1368,1869 
v. London, Bishop of 1788, 1739 
v. Lowth 1256, 1369 

Crevellng v. Moore 1031 

Crew v. JoUlff 1148, 1883 

Crewe, Lord v. Edleaton 1731 

Crews v. Burcham 210 

Crick v. Hewlett 801 

Crkkett v. Dolby 1258, 1254 

Cridland v. De Mauley, Lord 421, 

1825 

Crighton v. Daloner 1620 

Crim v. Handley 1625 

Crlppenv Hennanoe 1400 

v Ingersoll 1600 

Cripps v. Wood 1162 

Crips v. Talrande 830 

Crisman v Hlederer 1548 

Crisp v. Platel 1880, 1836 

Crispin v. Cumano 1052, 1068 

v. Miller 1607 

Criterion Gold M. Co., Be 27 

Crittenden, Ex parte 993 

v. CanBeld 68 

v. Field 1075, 1076, 1077, 1468, 1639 

«. Posey 119 

Crocker v. CoUlna 542 

v. Craig 280, 245 

v. Dillon 630 

v Higglns 190, 195, 824, 361 

v. Lowenthal 1489 

v. Rogers 814 

v. Whitney 863 

Crocket v. Lee 827, 861, 1003 

Crockett v. Bishton 894 

v. Drew 161 

v. Sexton 1281 

Crockford v Alexander 1682 

Croft v Arthur 1646 

v. Graham 871 



Croft v. Waterton 901 

Crofton v. Ilsley 1285 

Crofts v. Middleton 916 

v Oldfleld 1066,1057 

v. Wortley 683, 688 

Croggan v. Allen 1411 

Croggon v. Symons 1561, 1567 

Crogtianv Minor 889 

Cromaek v. Heatheoate 574 

Crompton v. Anthony 285 

v.Lea 1689 

v. WombweJl 1528, 1684 

Cromwell v. County of Sao 669 

Crone v. O'Dell 1221 

Cronin v. Watklns 602 

Cronise v. Carper 991 

Cronkright v. Haulenbeck 1168 

Crook v. Brown 191 

v. Crook 895 

v. Turpln 1607 

Crooker v Houghton 1676 

Crookes v. Whitwoith 118 

Crooks v. Whitford 197 

Cropper v. Burton 837 

v. Coburn 888 

v Mellersh 215 

v. Smith 402 

Crosbie, Ex parte 167 

Crosby v. Hetherington 546 

v. Stephan 1881 

v. Wicklifle 236 

Croskey v. Bank of Wales 243 

v. European and American 

Shipping Co. 651, 562, 771, 

1186, 1525, 1626, 1626 



Crosley v. Marriot 
Cross, Be 

Bean 

Cross 

De Valle 

Egllce 

Kennington 

Morgan 



1699 
560,1693 
280 
69, 80, 814 
1001,1648 
870 
1437 
779 



v. 

V. 
V. 
V. 

V. 

v. Thomas 461. 588. 1510, 1525 
Crosse v. Bedingfield 892, 895, 842, 

1246,1264,1558 

v. Crosse 469 

v. General Reversionary Co. 1390 
Crosselng v Honor 322 

Crosskill v. Bower 1284, 1257, 1413 
Crowley v. Crowther 807 

v. Glasgow Life Ass. Society 251, 

1406 



v. Lightowler 

v. Maycock 

v. Parker 

v Stewart 

v. Tomey 
Crossman v Card 
Crothers v. Lee 



1635.1688.1689 

199, 2U3, 561 

1440 

774 

679 

1263 

860 



Croton Turnp. v Rider 1623 

Crotty t>. Eagle 68 

Crouch v. Credit Fonelerof Eng- 
land 18 
v. Hickin 689, 788 
v. Kerr 642 
v. Waller 88, 89, 40, HI, 187, 

1482 

Croughtnn, Re 

Crow r Blythe 
v. Cross 

v. Owensboro & N. R. Co 
v. Tvrell 408, 648, 619, 1558, 1559 
v. Wood 1068, 1737 

Crowder v. Moore 
v. 8earcy 
v. Stewart 

Crowe t>. Del Rls 
v. Price 

Crowell v. Botsford 
v. Keene 

Crowfoot v. Mander 

Crowley's Case 

Crowley v. Page 

Crown Bank, Re 

Crowningshield v. 



shield 



100 

1008 

835 

878 



1716 

713 

1425 

1656 

1063 

441 

1008 

429,1622 

98 

1101 

887 

Crownlng- 



Crowtber v. Appleby 907 

Croxon v. Lever 168 

Croxton v. May 108, 1796 

Cruger v. Haliday 814 

Oruikshank v. Dnffln 1401 

v. Neath & Brecon By. Co. 1785 
Cram v. Moore 1619 

Crumb, Ex parte 1362, 1364 

Crunilish v. Shenandoah Valley 

R. Co. 334, 402 

Crump, Be 98, 100 

v. Baker 1288 

v. Ingersoll 680 

v Lambert 1685,1687.2307 

v. Perkins 1628 

Crutchfield c. 8tewart 1028 

Crutchley v. Jerningham 1776. 

1780 
Cudahy v. Rhioehardt 1120 

Cuddonv Hubert 166 

v. Morley 1681, 2809 

v Tite 867,544 

Cudworth v. Thompson 1868 

Cuff v. Platell 197, 301, 802, 816, 

Culbertson v. Lackey 846 

Cullen, Be 1841 

v. Dawson 1561 

v. Queensberry, Duke of 190, 216, 

288,272 
Culley v. HickUng 1672 

Cull iron v. Bossom 679 

Culloway v. Dobson 778 

CuWerv McKeown 1881 

CuWerhoufte v Beach 46 

Culvert v. Godfrey 1284 

Cumberland v. Copeland 1644 

Cumberland TeL Co. v. United 

El. Ry. Co. 1650 

Cumberland Union Banking Co. 

v. Maryport Co. 1267 

Cumming, In re 177 

v. Fraser 251 

v. Roebuck 58 

v. 81ater 797 

v. Waggoner 1190 

Cummings v. Barrett 828, 829, 1639 
v. Burleson 1081 

«. Coleman 675, 677, 714 

v. Cummings 378 

v. Parker 1680 

v. Stone 646 

«. White 561 

Cummins v. Adams 1004 

v. Bennett 682, 659, 798, 796 

v. Bromfleld 1418 

v. Cummins 227, 840, 1867 

v. Fletcher 218 

v. Little 1270 

v. Nutt 1160 

v.White 630 

CundeU «. Pratt 1108 

Cuningham v. Antrobus 116, 117 
CunliSe v. Manchester and Bol- 
ton Canal Co. 26, 144 
Cunningham v. Butler 629 
v. Campbell 702 
v. Ferry 846 
v. Foot 654 
v. Freeborn 718, 844, 847 
v. Hall 
v. McGrady 
v. Pell 
v. Rogers 
v. Rome R.R. Co. 
v. Schley 
v. Steele 
v. Wegg 
«>. Williams 
Cunyngham v. Cunyngnam 



851,852 



Cupples v. Strahan 
Curd v. Curd 

v. Davis 

v. Lewis 
Cureton v. Taylor 
Curlewis v. Carter 



940 

1845 

228, 402. 589 

1637 

974 

526 

628 

1281 

n 1476. 

1478, 1486 

405 

992, 1824 

1668 



1881 
876,1071 



Curfewisv Wbldborne 

Curling v. Austin 1281, 1809, 1868, 

^ 1889, 187o 

*. Flight 1218 

« Townshend, Marquis 738, 781, 

Curran v. AifeuuH 141 

v Crate 1748 

• St. Charles Car Co. 197, 1548 
Com ft, Bowyer 1617 
Currey, 22e, Gibson v. Way 100 
Currier Lewfeton 684 

v. Pya 1883, I486, 1487 

Currier v. Howard 197 

• Studlej 641 
9. Webster 1240, 1245, 1886, 

, 1892 

Curriers' Co. v Corbett 1081, 1082. 



Carry v. Lloyd 


878 


*. McCarthy 


60,680 


9. Peebles 


1676 


v. Stokes 


1461 


Cartels « Candler 


1411. 1412 


Curtessv Smalridge 


1122 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
[The references are to the ttar paging.] 

Curtenlus v Grand Rapids B. 

Co. 1660 

Curtis v Curtis 1165, 1166 

v. Fulbrook 919 

« Goodenow 418 

v Gooding 212 

v. Lloyd 798 

v. Lunn 676 

v. March 1131 

9. Master 668 

9. Mundy 74, 1824 

9. Piedmont Co. 684 

v. Piatt 1189 

9. Price 1276 

9. Robinson 1417 

9. Sheffield 1607,1527,1583,1684 

v. Williams 1661, 1562 

Curtis* v. Grant 449 

9 Livingston 645 

Curtius v. Caledonian Ins. Co. 2u3 

Curts 9. Bardstown 994 

Curwen t>. Milbura 646 

Cunon, Ex parte 1440,1450 

9 De la Zouch 506, 508 692 

v. Lyster 1158, 1155, 1168, 1169 



Cushlnge Smith 
Cushman v. Bonfleld 
Cussen ». O'Connor 
Cust v. Boode 
* 9. Southee 
Custance v. Cunningham 
Cntfleld 9. Richards 
Cuthbert v. Ohauret 

9. Creasy 

«. Kdinborough 

9. Punier 



9 West wood 
9. Wharmby 
Cutler, In re 
9. Cremer 

U Simons 
9. TuUle 



xli 



844 

860 

1666 

592,698 

680 

1668 

1890 

68 

660 

871 
1795 



Cutting, Ex parte 

9. Dana 

v. Florida Ry. Co. 

* Gilbert 
Cuttsu Pickering 

9. Thodey 
Culler 9. Bogert 

v. Moreland 



262,274 

1204 

97, 101, 102, 2001 

950 

1776 

190,287 



1461, 1468 

650,665 

1299 

803 

675 

196,231 

717, 720, 768 

888, 847, 1461 



D. 



Dabbs v. Dabbs 987, 1077, 1080 

r. Nugent 561 

Da Costa v. Ba Costa 71, 1248, 1293, 

1821 

Bade r. Alexander 121 

v. Madison 841 



Badswell * Jacobs 
Baggett 9. Pratt 
Bagley v. Kentish 
Bagly v. Crump 
Bahlman r. Jacobs 
Bailey v. Ktnsler 
Baily v. Litchfield 
Bainese 9. Hale 

v.Kendall 
Baintree v. Haynes 
Dakin 9. Cope 



1825 

1257 

1811 
779 
680 
190, 266, 674 
246 
864 

1029 
42,43 

2266 



9. Union Pacific Ry. Co. 690 

Baking «l Whimper 230 

Bakins v. Garratt 481, 1879, 1601 
Baiby tr. Pulton 1267 

Bale n Bale 1163 

9. Griffith 407 



9. Hamilton 
v. Kent 
v. M 'Brers 
9. Roserelt 



1267 
1463 
845,982 
868, 986, 1078, 1076 
1486, 1486, 1489 
Daley v. Russ 411 

Balgliah v Jarrie 1588,1598,1664, 

1672, 1675, 1678 

Dallas 9. Glyn 1555 

Beilimorer OgUby 1798 

Bally p. Worham 774 

Balmer v. Daahwood 1717 

Balrymple v. Lamb 87, 74 

Balston r. Coatsworth 1075 

D*Alteyrae v. Long 1056 

Balton v Angus 1602 

9. Carr 16-^2 

«. Pulbam 1070 

9 Uayter 386,833 

v. Midland Rillway 197 

v. Roach 1003 

9 Went End Street Ry. Co. 974 

Baly 9. Amberg 1685 

9. Duggan 740 

0. Kelly 281, 1652 

9. Kirwan 588 

9. Toole 784 

Balsell 9. Dueber W. C. M. Co 700 

Bamer v Portarilngton, Lord 794 

Dameron v. Jameson 256 

Baa 9 Brown 875 

Dana 9. Nelson 881 



Dana 9. Valentine 



801, 1629, 1631, 
1637 



Banbury 9. Robinson 
Danby v. Danby 

9. POOM 

Dancer v Brett 

v. Hastings 
Dando v Dando 



1885,1387 

1770 

877 

1588 

1748, 1749 
1202 



Dandridgetr Washington 254 

Dane v. Allen 117, '227 

v. Walker 1411, 1561 

Danell v. Page 771 

Danford v Cameron 1045, 1452 

9. McAnulty 674 

Danforthv Bangor 988 

9. Dan forth 1517 

9. Morrleal 1624 

9. Pnila. *c. Ry. Co. 663 

v. Smith 879 

Bangar's Trusts, Be 1794 

Dangar 9. Stewart 86, 625 

Dangerfleld 9. Claiborne 524, 961 
D'Angibau, Re t Andrews w. An- 
drews 96 
Daniel v. Boullard 841, 842 
9. Brown 1663 
9. Ferguson 1666 
9. Hanagan 68, 161 
9. Metropolitan Ry. Co 1106 
9. Mitchell 844, 1479, 2278 
n Morrison 841, 1648, 1549 
9. Sinclair 668 
9. 8tewart 1624 
Daniel I v. Skipwtth 284 
Daniels 9 Benedict 9027 
9. Davison 860 
9. Taggart 666, 695, 697. H29 

14«2 
Banner v. Danner 249 

Danner Land Co. 9. Stonewall 

Ins. Co. 855 

Dansey v Richardson 1139 

D'Aranda v. Whlttingham 251, 2«3. 

288 

Darbey 9. Whltaker 670 

Darbv 9. GUligan 1756 

v. Ouseley 1096, 1102, 1106 

v. Richardson 161 

Daren v. Toyer 1106 

v. Tomer 1126 

D'Arcy v. Blake 1165 

Darcy v. Kelley 13 

Darden v. Burns 1571 

Dare Valley R Co. , Re 1860 

Barey v. Whlttaker 118 



Barkln 9. Marye 1274, 1278 

Barley v Dariey 1858 

9. Nicholson 889, 898, 1706, 1714 
Darling, Re 85 

v. Hammer 884 

9. Gsboroe 1881 

9. Staniford 953 

Darlington's Appeal 418 

Darlington, Earl 9. Bowes 1124, 1137 
Darlow 9. Slmlock 520 

9. Sinnook 620, 628 

Darnell 9. Reyny 691 

Darnley, Lord 9. London, Chat- 
ham, and Dorer Ry. Co. 418 
Darrah v. Boyce 586 

Darrel v. Eden 1260 

Derrell 9 Pritchard 1072, 1081. 1688. 

1641, 1662 
Dariington 9. Borland 161, 1270 
Darrow 9 H R Horne Produce Co.648 
Darstv Brookway 1661,1665 

9. Gale 1081 

Darston 9. Oxford, Earl of 1228 
Dart v. Palmer 298 

Dartbes v. Clemens 860, 868 

Dartmouth, Lady v. Roberts 869 
Dartmouth and Torbay Ry. Co., 

Re 1800 

Dartmouth Harbour Com'rs 9. 

Dartmouth 82 

Darweot v. Walton 150, 272, 290 
Darwin v. Clarke 1828 

9. Darwin 1790 

Dary 9. Kane 1918 

Dsseomb v. Marston 830 

Dashwood v Bulkeley, Lord 1487 

v. Magniae 1440 

Daub* Martin 1255 

Diiubeney v. Coghlan 1819 

Dnubijrny v. Daralloo 51, 58 

Daabney v. Leake 438, 1213, 1428 

v. Shuttleworth 1594 

Dnubui 9. Peel 291 

Daugars v. Riras 148, 1658, 1686 
Daugberty v. Deirdorf 259 

Daunmeyer p. Coleman 26 

Dauntley v. Hyde 1128 

DauRman v. Hnoe 1681 

D'Auxy, Due b esse v. Porter 149 

Daren port v. Auditor-General 848 

n Darenport 87. 89. 74, 77. 166. 
864,1226,1682,1671,2286 

n Dows 26, 144 

u Goldberg 906, 1071, 1072, 1075. 
1079, 1080, 1648 



xia 



Davenport v. Hubert 
v. James 
v. Jepson 
v. Lamson 
v. Phillip* 
v. Powell 
v. Receivers 
v. Rylands 
v. Sniffen 
v Stafford 



1061 
212 

1071 

1166 

1080 

1787 

1762 

972,1081 

602,789 

888, 974. 1003. 1013, 

1014, 1360, 1478 

v. Whltmore 2088 

Davers v. Daren 886, 896 

Dare? v. Bennett 118 

v. Durrant 606, 796, 906, 1380. 

1602 

v. Plestow 1617 

David v Frowd 1206,1208 

v. Williams 1201 

Davidson, Re 61 

v. Bowden 72,164,166 

v. Burke 878 

v. Butler 1642 

v. Cooper 278 

v. Foley 1616, 1620 

v. Hastings, Marchioness of 444, 

4497468, 456, 612, 686, 1066 

v. Isham 1636 

v. Leslie ' 464 

v Stanley 1107 

Davies, Re 1069, 1693 

v. 687 

v. Boulcott 202, 204 

v. Bush 1846 

v. Clough 1661 

v. Cracraft 1766 

v. Darles 170, 217. 281. 824, 869, 
1009, l6l7, 1644, 1636 
v. Dodd 207 

v. Getty 1621 

v Jenkins 186,187 

v. Leo 1669 

v. Marshall 487, 801, 1440. 1606. 

16%, 1681 

v. Nixon 600, 1049, 1464 

v. Otty 866, 886, 661, 657, 891 

v. Racer 1664 

v. Spurllng 871, 669, 840 

v. Whitehead 110 

v. Williams 227, 682, 688 

Davile v. Peacock 1678 

Davis, Re 60, 185, 649, 892, 1846 

Davis, The Ml 

Davis's Trusts, Re 18, 66 

Saris v. Amer 1729 

v. American & F. 0. Union 1648 

v. Angel 816,817,660 

v. Ashwin 1264 

v. Ballenden 186 

v. Barrett 1694 

v. Battine 689, 816 

t>. Bay State League 243, 1411 

v. Bean 1288 

* Bluck 1687, 1677, 1578, 1679 

v. Chanter 201, 202, 698, 1459. 

v. Chicago 1661 

v. Clayton 841 

v. Combennere 1178, 1256 

v Cook 1«48 

v. Cripps 344, 852, 759 

v. DavlT 811 , 312. 818, 431, 524, 
760, 777, 973, ia31, 1052, 
1066, il02, 1120. 1817, 
1611, 1675 
ft Dean 235 

v. Delaware Poor Overseer 1621 
v. Dendey 1246 

v. Dowding 168 

v. Duncan 1743 

v. Dyer 1071 

v. Dysart, Earl of 316, 768, 1440. 

1447 
v. Batey 251 

v. Franklin 1001, 1590 

v. Fulton 1669 

v. Galmoye 464 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Daris v. Gray 1482, 1748, 1751, 1762 
v. Guilford 860 

*. Hall 666, 669 

v. Hardy 1129 

v. Harrington 1880 

v. Hart 1676 

v. Headley 664 

v. Hemingway 221, 256, 267 

v. Hole 478 

v. Hooper 288 

v. James 854 

v Logan 1166 

v. Lowndes 1135 

v. McNeil 1448 

v. Mapes 718, 721, 723. 721 

v. Marlborough, Duke of 1717, 
1719, 1729, 1781, 1734, 
1741, 1764 



v. May 

v. Miller 
v. Morris 
v Morton 
v. Newton 
v. Parker 
v. Phelps 
v. Prout 
v Read 
v. Reaves 
v. Reed 
v. Reid 
v. Rogers 



1241, 1261 

884,846 

147 

633 

90, 91, 102, 122 

629,2072,2251) 

13<J3 

108, 109, 430, 969 

615 

1551 

1681, 1687, 1667 

944 

287 



v. St. Louis A 8. F Ry. Co. 1120, 

1168 
v. 8igourney 878 

v. Simpson 296 

v. Smith 641 

v Snell 69,157 

v. Spelden 697, 1031, 1676 

v. Stevens 843 

v. Sullivan 281 

v. Symonds 1398 

v. Taylor 1128, 1131 

v. Tollemache 742 

v. Turvey 1163 

v. Whiffen 696, 1690 

v. Whltmore 710 

Davis 8 M. Co. v Dunbar 1580, 

1584 

Davison v. Attorney-General 189, 760 
v. Johnson 607, 618, 632, 670, 

694,696 
v. Rake 254 

v. Robinson 867, 879, 1020 

v. Schemerhorn 665, 684 

v. White 1166 

Davoue v. Fanning 217, 342, 626, 

660, 1019, 2296 

Davy. Re 83 

v.Garrett 818,824,360,855 

v. Morgan 881 

v. Seys 1422, 1428, 1474 

Davys v. Richardson 1794 

Daw v. Eley 679, 680, 1070, 1096 

Dawes v. Bonn 230 

«. Betto 1218, 1219 

v Head 25* 

v. Howard 1868, 1860 

v. Taylor 1427 

Dawkins v. Antrobus 332, 1653 

v. Mortan 821,823,842,1317, 

1327 
v. Penrhyn 660, 639 

v. Slmonetti 800, 1627 

Dawson, Re 13*8, I&tO 

Dawson, Re, Johnston v. Hill 176 
v. Amey 790, 1548 

v. Clark 1512 

«. Dawson 871, 664, 668, 1278, 

1702 

v. Drake 1239 

v. Ellis 843, 1380 

v. Fitsgerald 671 

v. Harris H38 
v. Jay 1848, 1350, 1600 

v. Joy 2293 

v Lepper 660 

v. Newsome 796, 1688 



Dawson v. Parrot 

v. Parsons 

v. Pilling 

v. Prince 

v. Prinoeps 

v. Raynes 

v. Sadler 

©. 8criven 

v. Shepherd 

v. Yates 
Day, Ex parte 

v. Allaire 



1416 

1716 

605,628 

1487 

1619 

175A 1768, 1767 

690,1621 

1017, 1088 

406 

1720, 1729, 1786 

1618 

1120 



v. Argus Printing Co. 1029 

v. Arundle 676, 677 
v. Batty 488, 437, 1174, 1428 

v. Brownrigg 646, 1648 
v Croft ~172, 1610, 1696, 1728. 

v. Cummings 197 

v. Day 1040, 1266, 1696 

v. Drake 262 

v Edwards 1129 

v. Essex County Bank 144 

v Gudgen 710 

v. Holloway 1180 

v. Kerr 161 

v Merry 1684 

v. Perkins 844 

v. Postal Telegraph Co 1120, 1788 

v. Snee 806, 1682 

v. Walker 991 

v. Whittaker 1846 

Dayrell v. Champness 1680 

Dayton t. Dayton 216, 878 

v. Dusenbury 1668 

«. Melick 1660, 1668 

Dasetv. Landry 1286 

Deacon v. Deacon 700 

Deaderick v. Smith 1061, 1281, 1288, 

1667 

v. Wilson 384 

Deakln'e Case 468 

Dealty v. Murphy 861 

Dean, Re, Dean v. Wright 1490 

v. Abel 978 

v. Allen 1207 

v. Crall 2101 



v. Dean 
v. Emerson 
v. Lethbridge 
v. Madison 
v. Richmond 
v. Smith 
v. State 
v Williams 
v. Wilson 



665,667 

1298,1817,1821 

466 

1961 

88 

1698 

861 

1260 

1070, U69 



Dean, &c. of St. Paul's, Ex 

parte 1017 

Deane v. Hamber 815 

v. House for Aged Colored 

Women 1427 

Deans v. Wilcoxon 834 

Dearv Sworder 1548 

v Webster 682, 700 

Dearden v. VUIlers 62 

Deare v. Attorney-General 134, 189, 

140 



v. Foutten 
Dearfleld v. Nlms 
Dearin v Fitapatrick 
Dearman v. Wyche 



108 
26 
122 
662,655,656, 
1024,2096 
Dearsley v. Middleweek 1448 

Dearth v. Hide and Leather 

National Bank 680, 778 

Deas v. Harvie 680 

v Thome 280,281 

Dease v. Moody 844 

Denver v. Reynolds 1282 

DeavlUe v. Deaville 912 

De Balinhard v Bullock 434 

De Baun v New York 1661 

De Bay v. Griffin 1846 

De basin v. Debaxin 1714 

De Beaumont, Ex parte 1801 

De Beauvolr v. Benyon 1479 

v Owen 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



zliii 



[The references an to the star paging.] 



DtBeeuvoir *. Rhodes 707 

Debeaham v. Oz 1386 

Debenture Co.v.De Murrietta 406 

De Boraardy v. Harding 1138 

De BM Gray v. Warner 1428 

De Bode r. Reg. 133 

De Brasaae v. Bfartjn 972 

De Brito v. Hiliel 916, 91» 

Debrox's Case 961 

De Burgh 9. Clarke 1491, 1498 

De Burgh Lawson, Be 100 

De Carrier© v. De Callone48 f 49, 1698, 

1699, 1704 

Dcearters v. La Farge 974, 1479 

Decker v Caskey 1072, 1073, 1148 

v. MiUer 1411, 1414, 1772 

* Raekmao 1484, 1491 

De Coster v. La Fargo 1469 

Decooche v. Savetier 644 

Dedertek v. Farqohar 418 

w. Fox 630 

v. Hoyeradt 1667 

Deegaa v. Gapner 248 

v. SUnhope 240.248,696, 

1611,1627 

Re 167 

e. Guest 1631, 1641 

9. Nelson 1029 

v. Robinson 1448 

Deerhunt v. Jones 983 

v. St. Albans, Duke of 1476 

Deering v. Tucker 2010 

v. Winona H. Works 1120 

Deery r. McClintock 656 

Deerly t. Masarine, Duchess of 178. 

179 
Deem r. Met'n Realty Co, 1071 
De Feucheres v. Dawes 1690 

Defflis v. Goldschmidt 1796 

De Flores v. Raynolds 1029 

De Francesco v. Barnom 1657 

DefHes, Re 867 

9. Creed 1744 

De Gaillon v. L'Algle 1141 

Be Gear v. Stone 47 

De Geneve v. Hannam 804. 806 

De Godey v. De Godey 1678 

De GoUs 9. Ward 167, 226, 296 

De Graflenreid v. Brunswick, 

fcc. R. Co. 1743 

DeQreiff v. Wilson 405 

De Grouchy v. Wills 189 

De Groot 9. Jay 1748, 1757 

De Hart v. Baird 844 

r. Stevenson 646 

De Uognton v. Honey 230 

Debon 9. Foster 60, 629, 680, 

1082, 1618, 1616, 1627, 
1628,1996 
Deignan 9. Deignan 98 

Deimel v. Brown 840, 848, 860 

De Joogh 9 Newman 819 

Delabere r. Norwood 214, 279 

Delabignrre 9. Bush 284 

Del* Border Othon 1742 

De Lacy v. Adams 1660 

r Hurst 407,418 

Delafield v. Anderson 341 

9. Colden 1412 

9. Guanabeus 1666 

9 Illinois, State of 17,24 

De la Garde 9 Lemprfere 92,106 
Delahanty 9. Warner 1660 

Delahay v McConnel 1476 

DeUncey 9. Seymour 1073 

Delancyv Wallls 1674 

Delany 9. Mansfield 1716 

Delap 9. Hunter 987, 994 

DetapUlneo. Lawrence 1492 

Ds la Rue 9. Dickinson 722, 2816 
De la Salle v Hoorat 797 

De Lasbmutt 9. 8*11 wood 214 

De la Torre v. Bemales 762 

Delauney 9. Mitchell 1096 

Delavan r. Duncan 989 

DelaVegatr Vlsmna 48 

De la Vergne v. Evertson 287 



De la Warr. Earl v Miles 1187, 1675 
Delaware. Ac R. Co. v. Srie R. 

Co. 1781 

DeL & Rar Canal, &e. and A. 
R. k T Co 9. Kar. & Del. 
Bay R. Co. 1618, 1628, 1689. 
1640, 1650, 1662, 1668, 1678 
Delaware L. &c. R. Co v. Central 

Stock-yard & T. Co. 1662, 1668 
De Leon v. Hubbard 8U2 

Dekrante, Re 1866, 1867, 1870. 

1874 
v Child 1366, 1367, 1370. 1374 
Delfe 9. Delamotte 2814 

Dell v Barlow 1482 

9. Grifflts 401 

v. Hale 648 

Delondre 9. Shaw 46, 802, 816 

Detoraioev Brown 1680 

9. Browne 659 

Delorne 9. Uollingsworth 820 

De Louis 9. Meek 824 

Del Pont 9. Tastet 349 

Delta, The 688 

Delta County Com'rs 9. Gunni- 
son County Com'rs 1621 
Delres v. Bagot, Lord 922 
9. Delres 1290 
De Mannerille v De Manner! He 74, 
468, 1046, 1360, 1706 
Demaree 9. Driskill 829 
Demarest v. Berry 1237, 1239 
v. Hardham 308 
9. Wynkoop 186, 221, 669, 640, 

675,1395 
Demartin v. Albert 318 

De Mattos v. Gibson 1658, 1666 

Demill 9. Moflat 1381 

De Minckwits 9. Udney 606, 690 
Deming 9. James 1661 

De Montmorency 9 Devereux 87 L 

667, era 
D. M. Osborne & Co. 9 Missouri 

Pac R. Co. 1688 

DeMottv Starkey 678 

Dempsey 9. Dempsey 1278 

Den v. Farley 916 

9 Pidcock 1881 

9. Tellers 1269 

9. Wood 946 

Dence 9. Mason 68, 68, 167, 160 

Dendel v. Sutton 216, 255 

Dendy 9. Cross 1830 

v. Dendy 266, 1626 

Denis e. Roohussen 481, 485, 761, 776 

Denton Paper Manuf. Co. v. 

Robinson Manuf Co. 680 

Deniston v. Little 292, 881 408, 

860,861 

Demur Barnard 1129 

9. Spinning 221 

Denner v. Chicago, fro. Ry. Co. 818, 

680 

Dennerlein v Dennerlein 1282 

Dennett v. Codman ***» 

9 Dennett 1479 

Denning v. Henderson 1278 

9. Smith 678 

Dennis, Re 1491 

9. Dennis 371 

v. Perry 26 

9. Riley 1467 

Dennison 9. Bassford 624, 788, 737, 

784 
vTm 1258 

9. Tost 564 

Denniston 9. Chicago, fro. R. 

Co 1741 

Denny 9. Denny 83 

v. Filmer 1688 

v Oilman 660 

9. Hancock 1004 

9. Mars 86 

Densem v. Blworthy 222 

Denson 9. Denson 1677 

Denston 9. Ashton 64 

Dent v. Auction Mart Co. 1688 



Dent 9. Dent 1068, 1177, 1825 

v. Hertford, Hundred of 1181 
9. London Tramways Co. 241 

9. Turpin 208, 1649 

e. Wardel 426 

Denton v. Denton 1699, 1708, 1704 
9. Jackson 980, 958 

Denver & R. G. Ry. Co. v. Den- 
ver &c. R. Co. 1648 
Denver R. L. h C. Co. 9. Union 

Pacific Ry. Co. 686 

Denys 9. Locook 616, 617, 620, 666, 

20U6 

De Penny 9 Christie 149 

De Pereda 9. De Mancha 1347 

De Peyster 9. Golden 881 

v. Graves 1675, 1676, 1686 

Depue 9. Sergent 782 

De Puy 0. Wabash 816 

Derby 9 Ancram 1060 

Bank v. Heath 1666 

Earl of v. Athol, Duke of 655, 

611, 629, 1666 

Derbyshire, &o. Ry. Co. 9. Bain- 

brigge 1067 

v. Serrell 1621 

De Rivaflnoll v. Corsetti 1699,1700. 

1702 

De Rothschild v. Morrison 156 

Derrick 9. Lamar 1491 

Derry v. Peck 26 

v. Ross 680 

De Sailly 9. Morgan 1101 

Desboro 9. Harris 1666 

Desborough v. Curlewis 670 

9 Harris 147, 1564 

9. Rawlins 675, 944 

Desbrow v. Crommle 1064, 1055 

Deshon v. Baton 646 

Desilla v. Schunck 346 

Des Moines & M. R Co. v Alley 886 

Des Moines Gas Co. v. Des Moines 

1660 

9. West 1717 

De Sorbien v. Bland 1U68 

Despau 9. Swindler 646 

Desplaces 9. Goris 847, 852, 721. 

728 

De Tastet 9. Bordenave 1078, 1083 

v. Bordieti 1729 

v. Lopes 776 

9 Sharp© 658 

9. Tavernier 824 

De Teissier Settled Estates, Re 1283 

DetilUn v. Gale 1385, 1391 

Detroit 9 Dean 26 

9 Detroit City Ry. Co. 790 

9. Wayne Circuit Judge 1675 

Detroit Bank 9. E. G. Barnum 

Wire Works 1765 

Detroit, fro. Fire Ins. Co. 9. 

Rents 491 

Detroit, fro. Ry. Co. 9. Detroit 1638 
Detweiler v. Holderbaum 149 

De Uprey 9. De Uprey 1157 

Devall 9. Scales 1625 

Devaucene 9. Devaucene 1066, 1062 
De Vaughn 9. Hustead 1078 

Devaynes v Morris 813, 1539 

v. Robinson 201, 268, 271, 1834 
De Veney 9. Gallagher 1631 

Devenish 9. Deveuish 461 

Devereaux 9. Cooper 722, 723 

Devey v. Thornton 1367, 1411, 1418 
Devie v. Brownlow, Lord 636, 1139 
Devine 9. Harkness 1290 

De Visme v. De Vkme 1278 

De Visser v. Blackstone 1743 

De Vitrei Betts 1508 

Devlin v. Commonwealth 1608 

v. Chester 614 

De Voe v. Ithaca & Oswego R.R. 

Co 1058 

Devonsher v. Newenbam 265, 581, 

686,600,1661,1682 

Devonshire, Re 1610 

Dew v. Clark 155, 986 



xliv 



TABLE OF CASE8 CITED. 



[TO» references an to the iter paging.] 



Dew 0. Clarke 1796 

De Wall's Count, Case 47 

Dewberry Shannon 884 

Dewdney , Ex parte 669, 648, 646 
v Palmer 1098 

Dewees v. Deweas 1668 

De Weeper v Rochport 1860,1861, 

2294 
v Roekport 2294 

Dewell, Be, Edgar t>. Reynolds 262 
Dewey St. Albans Trust Co. 991 
Dewing 0. Perdkarles 26 

De Whelpdale 0. Milburn 262 

De Winton v. Brecon. Mayor of 

1781, 1744 

De Witt 0. Hayes 1681 

De Wolf 0. A. h W. Sprague 

Manuf. Co. 884 

0. De Wolf 219, 287, 288 

0. Johnson 167, 886 

0. Long 887, 845 

0. Mallett 286, 446 

Dexter Arnold 221,284.286,640, 

764. 841, 1002, 1019, 1080, 1240, 

1241, 1242, 1816, 1317, 1576, 

1676, 1577, 1678, 1679. 15!*), 

1681,1584 

0. Codman 1110 

v. Providence Aqueduct Co. 1689 

Dey 0. Dunham 856, 1002 

v. Walton 1497 

Deybel's Case 646 

De Zouche v Garrison 1561 

Dhegetoft 0. London Assurance 

Co. 197 

D'Hormusgee 0. Grey 28 

Dial v. Gary 1019 

v. Reynolds 277, 889, 1627 

Diaef Bouchaud 272,287,667 

0. Merle 1628,1678,1580 

Dibbs 0. Goren 152 

Dicas 0. Lord Brougham 2 

Dice v. McCauley 1164 

Dickv Dick 884 

0. Munder 28, 358 

Oil Well Supply Co. 814 

0. Struthers 1748 

0. Swinton 1700,1704,1706,1713 

Dickenson 0. Blake 1128. 1134 

Fisher 1122 

v. Grand Junction Canal 1657, 

1681, 1682 

0. Lockyer 1404 

v. Teasdale 649, 658 

Dicker v Clarke 447,449,460,461 

0. Popham 1080 

Dickenon 0. Hodges 710 

0. StoU 1164 

0. Talbot 1294 

v Winslow 884, 546 

Dickey 0. Allen 844 

0. Reed 1683 

Dickins v Harris 206, 1722 

Dickinson 0. Daris 302 

0. Lamoille Co. Nat. Bank 215 

0. Legare 1257 

Railroad Co. 841 

o Seaver 1440 

8hee 1102 

Dicks v. Brooks 868, 890, 1620 

v. Yates 1377 

Dickson v. Harrison 195 

Didier 0. Davison 609 

Dierdenv Villiers 62 

Dierdon, Be 880 

Dietrich 0. Northwestern Ry. 

Co. 1639 

Dletrichsen 0. Cabbnrn 1656 

Diffenderfler 0. Winder 1869 

Digby 0. Boycatt 1202, 1798 

0. Browne 1287 

Lord 0. Meeeh 820 

Dlggensv Gordon 1503 

Diggle 0. Boulden 1062 

Digg* v. Wolcott 1627 

Dighton 0. Withers 284, 1890, 1424 
Dike v. Greene 646, 567 



Dill 0. Shahan 1648. 1668 

Dillard 0. Harris 261, 868 

0. Krise 1209 

v. Manhattan Lin Ins. Co, 61 

Dillon 0. Ashwin 710 

0. Barnard 646 

0. Davis 409, 1686 

0. Francis 812 

0. Mount Cashell, Lady 1722 

Lord v. Alvares 688 

Dills 0. Doebler 1666, 1668 

Dllly 0. Barnard 844 

0. Doig 889, 1644 

0. Heckrott 8ttl 

Dilmao 0. Schulta 46 

Dimes 0. Grand Junction Canal 

Co. 1028 

0. Steinberg 261, 664 

Diuimoch 0. Atkinson 97 

Dimmook 0. Bizby 287, 841, 649, 

659,684 
Dincklev Timrod 1150 

Dines 0. Scott 1181, 1187, 1280 

Diugle 0. Rowe 950 

Diugwall 0. Heming 1468. 1555, 1558 
DinAuiorev Crossman 892, 895, 1556, 

1558 

0. Haselton 722 

0. Westcott 441 

Dinwiddle Bailey 661 

0. Bell 1167 

Dios 0. Merle 1177 

Diplock 0. Hammond 1660, 1561, 

1566, 166/ 
Dipper 0. Durant 413 

Dl Savini v. Lousada 1846 

Disbrow v. Henahaw 1497 

v Johnson 881, 961, 1031 

Dkney, Re 102 

DiSoruv PhilUpps 864 

District Attorney v. Lynn & 

Boston R. Co. 10 

Dix 0. Briggs 829 

Dixon, Be 1488, 1603 

0. Atley 1774, 1776 

v. Buell 197 

v. Dawson 1488 

v. Dixon 1298 

0. Donaldson 286 

0. Baton 1658 

0. Enoch 1666 

v. Farrer 6, 10 

0. Frazer 720 

Gayfcre 649 

0. Higgins 890 

v. Holden 1620, 1648 

London Small Arms Co. 188 
v. Olmius 686 

v. Parker 667, 961. 1406 

v. Parks 790, 791 

0. Pyner 1267 

0. Rowe 1057 

0. Rutherford 801, 804 

0. Shum 970 

0. Smith 1068 

, v. Sumner County Com'rs 26 

0. Wilkinson 1841 

e. Wyatt 1622, 1628, 1624, 1581, 

1540 
Dobbs v. Protho 1625 

Dobede 0. Edwards 804, 809, 1698 
Doboy & Union Tel . Co. v. De 

Magathias 26 

D'Obree, Ex parte 67 

Dobree 0. Nicholson 707 

Dobson 0. Bowneas 1136 

0. Dobson 1493 

0. Faithwaite 1526 

v. Festi 149 

0. Graham 1656 

Hartford Carpet Co. 617,1408 

0. Land 1246 

0. Leadbeater 622, 677 

Pattinson 1417 

v. Pearce 1616, 1627 

Docker 0. Horner 1809 

Dockray v. Mason 266 



Dod v. Paul 669 

Dodd, Ex parte 228 

v. Bellows 1666 

v. Beothal 878 

0. Cook 1966 

9. Flavel 1081 

v. Ghisettn 74 

v. Hartford 1661 

0. Holbrook 1060 

v. Neal 1188 

0. Webber 449 

0. Wilkinson 849 

Dodder 0. Bank of England 186 
Dodge 0. Briggs 884 

0. Dodge 1680 

Essex Ins. Co. 646 

0. Fuller 281, 287 

0. Grlswold 1078, 1076,1120, 1128, 

1147, 1468 
Israel 924 

0. Northrop 1584 

0. Perkins 814, 868, 874, 666, 666. 

628,1268 

0. Strong 1621 

0. Tulleys 200 

0. Woolsey 26 

Dodgson, Be 1809 

Dodsley 0. Kinnersley 1642 

Dodroo 0. Bishop 1271 

0. Lomax 296, 1666 

v. McKelvey 417 

0. ScammeU 974, 1469 

Dodsworth, Re, Spence 0. Doda- 

worth 894 

Doe v. Andrews 575 

v. Burdett 878 

V. Childress 169 

0. Deakln 878 

v. Doe 406, 1631 

0. Green 847, 1460 

0. Hornibtea 46 

0. Perkins 1099 

0. Robertson 46 

0. Roe 28, 318, 1097, 1186, 1676 
0. Sanger 660 

v. Vallejo 1121 

0. Warren 1269 

0. Wolley 878 

Doe d. Bather 0. Brayne 1128 

Fox 0. Bromley 1097 

Gilbert 0. Ross 1127, 1188, 1189 
Goslee 0. Goalee 1108 

Lewis Barter 1109 

Mason 0. Mason 1129 

Norton 0. Webster 1096 

Phillips 0. Benjamin 1127 

Rowcliffev. Egremont, Earl of 1106 
Strickland 0. Strickland 1127 

Tathame Wright 1126,1126. 
Tindal0 Roe 1182 

Tynham 0. Tyler 1 126 

Walsh v. Langfleld 1126 

Wlldgoose 0. Pearce 1098 

Worcester Trustees 0. Row- 
lands 1096 
Doechsner 0. Scott 89, 111, 112 
Doggetto Eastern Counties Ry. 

Co. 1628 

Doherty 0. Allman 16*8 

Holiday 243 

0. Stevenson 109, 286, 390 

Bolder Bank of England 17, 18, 

764,780 
Huntingfleld, Lord 17, 18, 68, 

800,546,592 
Dole 0. Wooldredge 1071, 1110 

Do! lard 0. Taylor 1463 

Dolling 0. Evans 661 

Dollman0 Collier 1299 

Dolly 0. Challin 414, 421 

Dolman, Be 88 

0. Cook 1288 

DominlcettI . Lata 1 176 

Dommett 0. Bedford 1899 

Domville 0. Harrington 1267, 1271 
0. Solly 1777, 1780 

Don 0. Iippman 48 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



xlv 



[The reference* are to the iter paging .] 



Donahue r. FlaeUer 


1279 


Donald «. Bather 


301,262 


Donaldeon v. Fairfax 


1168 


r Johnson 


1812 


Dene's Com 


1708,1706 


Donee Bead 


689, 782, 788 



Donerail, Lord v. Donerail, Lady 868 

Donne v. Hart 124 

r. Lewis 1017 

Donnell v. Bennett 16, 96 

r. Columbian Ina Co 1800 

v King 612,674,677 

r. Parrott 1628 

Donnellan v. Hardy 867 

Donnelly v Bwart 411 

Donner v Qoartennaa 1611 

Donohoe r. Maripoaa Min Co. 1658 

Donohne v. Chase 1299 

Donovan r. Donning 834 

t Finn 1087 

r. Frieker 1261 

Dooby v. Watson 642 

Doody. Be, Fisher v. Doody 1236, 

1414 

e. Hlgsjnf 97, 191, 222, 226 

9. Pierce 216, 260, 829. 884, 887. 

1190, 1226, 1287, 1241 

Doofoj 9. Potter 1268 

Doolittie 9. Gooking 846 

9. Lewis 261 

v. Walton 1689 

Doon v. Bayer 846 

Doran v Bveritt 1664 

9. Simpson 828 

Dor* Gallery, Re 911 

Dorf r. Walter 1666 

Dorin r Dorin 1603 

Dorian r. Quia 1642 

Dormer v. Forteaene 898. 602, 611, 

987, 1862, 1582, 1688, 1568 

Dora v Bayer 781, 787 

Dornford v. DornJbrd 1869 

Dorr 9. Harrian 1664 

9. Tremont National Bank 1071, 

1110 
Dorrett v. Menz 866 

Dorset. Duke of v. Glrdler 648, 

1672 

Dorsett 9. Dorsett 291 

Doney tr. CampbeU 1061, 1277 

v. Corn 1846 

v.Kyle 62 

v.Lake 834 

v Smith 1400 

v. Thompson 62 

Dorsheimer v. Borback 88,249, 1029, 



Doss v. Tyaek 974 

v. Secretary of State for India 

18,629,1668 

Dos Santos v. Prletas 719 

Doatee v. Mookerjsa 660 

Doswell v. Earle 117 

Doit 9. Hoyes, 721 

Dotterer v. Freeman 617 

Donbleday v. 8berman 1027 

Donbtfire v. Xlworthy 1610 

Doughaday v. Crowell 1168 

Dougherty v. Hompson 886 

v. M'Colgan 1242 

v. Morgan 1576 

v. Murphy . 417 

v. 8hown 1101 

Doughty v. West, B. A 

Hanoi Co. 2896 

Douglas v. Andrews 1890 

v. Arehbutt 868, 890, 1284, 1414, 

1601 
v. Butler 109 

v.Clay 260.1207 

v.HorsmQ 221,245,273 

v. Terry 1704 

v. Walbridge 884 

Douglass v. Baker County 1676 
v. Cllne 1784 

v. Culvenreil 1899 

«. Douglass 660 



Douglass v Brans 626 

v. UarrlsTilie 1661 

v Joyner 1667 

o. M'Cbesney 1078 

v. Merceles 13l>9 

v. Phenix Ins. Co. 604 

v. Sherman 1607, 1606 

v. Thompson 1677 

Dougrey v. Topping 787, 1677 

Douthit v. Hipp 214 

Douthwaite v. Bpensley 1782 

Doow v. Sheldon 828, 668 

Dovenby Hospital, Re 1611 

Dover v. HarreU 674 

v. Portsmouth Bridge 1637 

Dover Harbor, Warden, Ac of 

v. London, Chatham, & 

Dover By Co 1640 

Dovey v. Hobson 1092, 1128 

Dowv Berry 630 

v. Dickinson 1187 

v. Kley 1664 

v. Jewell 68, 168, 164, 166, 167, 

169, 170, 171, 997, 1630, 1683 

Dowdall v. Lennox 1881 

Dowdenv Hook 88, 111 

v. Junker 1069 

DowdesweU v. Dowdeswell 201,249, 

292,819,976 
Dowell v Applegate 697 

v. Covenhoven 106, 110 

v. Mitchell 680, 669 

v. Tuftnell 1286 

Dowle v. Luoy 1298 

Dowley v. Winfleld 1796 

Dowliog v. Falmouth U. 8 
Board 1829 

v. Hudson 162, 1718, 1785 

v. Legh 888 

Down v. Yearley 897 

Downer v. Dana 1021 

v. Wilson 1616 

Downes v. Bast India Co. 696 

v. Vriel 1019 

Downey v. Bollock 1859 

Downie v. Nettleton 679,1656 

Downing, Re 68, 167 

v. Palmateer 284, 1628, 1630 

v Picken 1801 

Downing College Case 1440 

DownshTrev. Tyrrell 1786 

Downshlre, Marquis of v. San- 
dys, Lady 1634 
Dows v. McMichael 696, 697, 704 
Dowsonv Hardcastle 1670 
v. Solomon 964 
Doyle, petitioner 1120 
v. Moats 802, 419, 699 
v San Diego Land & Town 

Co. 145 

v. Wiley 988 

v Wisconsin 1407 

DosJer v. Edwards 216 

v. Sprouse 992 

Drags v. Hartopp 149 

Drake v Brooking 1396 

v Delliker 216 

v. Drake 722, 984, 1008, 1577 

v. Ooodrldge 287, 406 

v. Symes 403, 485, 724, 776 

Dranquet v. Prudhomme 860 

Drantv. Vause 161 

Draper v. Buxton 1482 

v. Clarendon, Lord 277 

v. Crowther 628, 629 

v. Jennings 214 

v. Manchester & 8heffleld Ry. 

Co 1837 

Drapers' Company v. DsyIs 1256 

Dravo v. Favel 661, 787 

Drax v. Somerset h Dorset By. 

Co. 278 

Drayton v. Logan 1076 

v. Wells 1118 

Dreonan v. Andrew 82, 40, 1482 

v. Huskey 1008 

Dresser v. Morton 40, 619, 628 



Drover v. Maudesley 27, 68, 1206, 

1294,1752 
Drevon v. Drevon 892, 916 

Drew v. Beard 1299, 418, 1296, 

1817 
v Drew 636, 684, Til 

v. Herman 269 

v. Long 825 

v. Norbury, Earl of 280 

v. O'Hara 280 

v. Power 863 

Drewery, Re 1814 

Drewry v. Barnes 1731 

v. Thicker 1615, 1617, 168t 

Drexel v. Berney 878, 1618 

Dreyfus v. Peruvian Guano Co. 



Driekle v. Tlmrod 1166 

Driggsv. Daniels 1468 

v. Rockwell 944 

Drtnan * Mannlx 86, 111, 112 

Dringer v. Brie Bij. Receiver 1684 

v. Jewett 1029. 1684 

Drioll o. Sedgwick 8u0 

Driver v. Cobb 1626 

v Fortner 826, 878, 879 

Drogheda v. Malone 608, 612, 674 

Dromgoolev. Spenoe 667 

Drope v. Miller 2886 

Drought v. Bedford 1821 

Droullard v. Baxter 868, 411 

Drover v Beyer 889, 1699, 1706 

Drue* v. Denlson 106, 1809 

Drulffv. Parker, Lord 1961 

Drummond v Drummond 449 

v. Magruder 418 

v. St Albans, Duke of 641 

v. TiUinghurst 29 

v. Westervelt 648 

Drury v. Bonner 680, 846, 846, 

v Mollns 1666, 1672 

Drybutter V.Bartholomew 1404 

Drydenv. Foster 798 

v.Frost 1888 

v. Robinson 670 

Du Barre v. Livette 676 

Duberley v. Day 119, 127 

Dubless v. Flint 1780, 1782 

Dublin, &o. Ry. Co. v. Slat- 

tery 1608 

Dubois v. Dubois 874 

v. Hole 179,181,446,499 

Duboll v. Field 1461 

Dubourg de St. Colombo v 

United States 867, 1221 

Dubout v. Macpherson 406, 447. 

Duchess of Westminster Silver 

Ore Co , Re 1490 

Ducker v. Wood 1180 

Duckett v Gover 28, 242, 808, 



Duckworth v Duckworth 860,861 

v. Trafford 1734 

Ducoign v. Schreppel 1227 

Dudgeon v Corley 730 

v. Thomson 1492, 1602 

v. Watson 83, 630 

Dudley v. Baehelder 866, 661, 665 

v. Balch 87 

v. Burgen 1288 

v. Congregation 878 

v Facer 1881 

v. Grayson 46 

v. Witter 281 

Daesv. Smith 96 

Dufkur, Re 1044 

v. Sigel 1406 

Duffv. Barrier 1029 

v. Duff 680 
v. First National Bank 828, 660 

v. McDonough 2 

Duffleld v. Denny 1208 
v. Blwen 1044, 1742, 1798 

v. Greaves 686 



advi 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[The references are to the iter paging] 



Duffleld v Robeson 


861,868 


e. Sturges 


819,828 


Dnflbrt v. Arrowsmi+h 


70,799 


Dnfly, Re 


104 


0. Joyce 


27 


v. Moran 


1074 


Do/our v. Klonj 


1381 


0. Long 


1029 


v. 81gell 


850,769 


Dugan 0. Otttlngi 


845 


Dugdale v. Dugdale 


1481 


v Johnson 


1600 


0. Robertson 


2309 


Duggan, Re 


1610 


Duhammel Pickering 


50 


Duke v. Barnett 


Qfifl 

BOO 


0. Harper 


563 


« Palmer 


122 



Duke of Newcastle, Re 1086, 1087 
Duke of Somerset. Re 87 

Dula v. Beagle 1281 

Dulwich College, Re 15 

Dumford v. Dumford 682 

Dummer v. Chippenham 148, 145, 

297, 878, 566 

v Pitcher 117 

Dumond v. Magee 90, 734, 2285 

Dumontv Fry 822,680,1168 

Dumoussay 0. Delerit 48 

Dumphjr 0. Kleinsmith 1076 

Dtimville 0. Ashbrooke 1781 

Dunball v. Walters 1688 

Dunbar v. Boldero 1609 

v Johnson 871 

«. Woodcock 986, 1259 

Duncalf v. Blake 611 

Duncan v Campan 1468 

v. Campbell 104, 107 

v. Chesapeake, Ac. R Co. 1784 

v. Dixon 122 

v. Dodd 1286 

v Swing 1257 

v Findlater 1752 

v Greenwalt 813 

v. Hayes 1685 

0. Ring 1110 

v. Luntley 197 

v Lyon 651 

0. M'Calmont 1626 

v. Varty 1187, 1139, 1148, 1149 

0. Vereker 848 

v. Wickliflb 286 

Duncomb v. Daniel 1096 

Duncombe, Ex parte 1699 

«. Davis 761 

v. Oreenacre 92, 101, 102, 108 

v. Hansley 283 

Levy 431 

v. Lewis 413 

Dundas v. Dutens 807, 809, 1037, 

1053 

Dungannon, Lord v. Skinner 886 

Dungey v Aogove 1560, 1661, 1562, 

1563, 1564, 1565, 1567, 1570 

Dunham v. Gates 842, 843, 847 



Dunham v. Hyde Park 649 
0. Jackson 847, 1702, 1706 

v. Minard 1061, 1283 

0. Ramsey 267 

0. State 1070 

v Winans 900,1479 

Dunkley v. Dunkley 102 

v. Scribnor 1055 

v. Van Buren 816 

Dunklin v. Harvey 986, 1584 

Dunlapv Gibbs 559 

v M'Elvoy 458 

0. Stetson 1624 

v. Wilson 844 



Dunlevyv Dunlevy 
Dunlop v. Hubbard 
Dunn, Sx parte 

v. Barnum 

v. Campbell 

« Clarke 

v. Coates 



1580 
1569,1570 
129 
674 
1561 
447 
658,1556 
v.Dunn 79,81,886.845,443,449, 
589,844,1111,1121,1889. 

v. Ferrior * 412, 428 

v. Graham 846 

0. Keegin 686 

v. McRvoy 82 

v. Snowden 1795 

v Whitney 1228 

«. Wolf 256 

Dunne 0. Dunne 2198 

v. English 832, 1782 

Dunnell v. Henderson 1817 

Dunning v. Hards 1214 

v Stanton 457 

Dunnock v. Dunnock 680 

Dunny v Fllmore 1580, 1688 

Dunphy v. Traveller Newspaper 

Association 884 

Dunsany v Shaw 697 

Dunsback v. Collar 869 

Dunscomb v Dunseomb 1412 

v. Halts 1282 

Dunsbee v. Pannelee 1269 

Dunstan v Patterson 1887 

Dunster v. Mitfbrd 1467, 1468 

Dunthorne 0. Bunbury 1880 

Dupignac v. Van Buaklrk 1591 

Du Plestis v. Attorney-General 6 
Dupont v. Johnson 1358, 1404, 1415, 

1417 

v.Ward 508 

Duponti v. Massey 407, 828, 2885 

Dupuy v. Gorman 1286 

v Strong 208 

v. Welsford 68, 76 

Durand v. Hutchinson 635 

Durant v. Bacot 1978 

e. Crowell 1734 

v. Essex Co. 659, 790, 994 



v. Moore 
Dnrbalnev. Knight 
Durburow v Niehoff 
Durdant v. Redman 



1685 
188 
248 
688 



Dorell 0. Pritchard 1072. 1080, 1081, 

1688, 1641, 1661 

Durfce 0. Dnrfee 878 

v. McClurg 787,846 

v. Old Colony, Ac. R.R Co 26 

Durham 0. Brackles 92, 710 

0. Jackson 889 

v Legard 1626 

0. Taylor 448 

Durkee v. Stringham 1484 

Durr v. Bowyer 91, 122 

Durrand, Ex parte 183 

Dursley 0. Berkley 816 

Lord, Fitshardinge 817. 1672, 

1678 
Duryee v. Lingheimer 1660 

Dustin 0. Newcomer 1401 

Dutch Church, Ac. Mott . 989 
Smock 1320 

Dutch West India Co. 0. Van 

Moyses 24 

Button 0. Thomas 1734 

Du Val 0. Marshall 1722 

Duval 0. Mount 1278 

Duvall 0. Farmers' Bank 90, 91, 122 
0. Speed 272 

0. Waters 1629, 1684, 1669 

DuVigierv Lee 662 

Du Wahl 0. Braune 89 

Dux Bucks 0. Gayer 1287 

Duxbury 0. Isherwood 160 

Dwight Central Vermont R. Co. 590. 

603,684 

0. Humphreys 311, 812 

0. Northern, &c B. Co. 1061 

Pomeroy . 849,832 

v 8mith 869 

Dwioalv Smith 716 

Dwyer 0. Olivari 216 

0. St. Louis & 8. F. R Co. 1071 

Dyckman 0. Kernoohan 1567, 1628 

Dyer, Re. Dyer 0. Paynter 1167 

v.Clark 1960 

Keanuey 1616,1616 

0. Lincoln 668 

Potter 1882,1401 

v. Pulteney 279 

0. Shurtleff 1381 

0. Vinton, 1167 

Dyers Co 0. King 1688 

Dyett v N. A. Coal Co. 448, 446 

Dyke 0. Cannell 1168 

0. Stephens 7, 68 

Dykes 0. Taylor 1264, 1667 

Dymond 0. Croft 448, 1176, 1596 

Dynevor Duffryn Collieries Co., 

Re 1611 

Dyott 0. Anderton 1186 

Dyott 81 

Dyson 0. Benson 692 

v. Hornby 61, 226, 1277 

0. Morris 227, 262, 640. 857, 980. 

1610, 1588 
Dsialynski v. Jacksonville Bank 584. 



E. 



Bade v. Jacobs 679 

0. Lingood 868 

Badem v Lutman 1141 

Baden 0. Firth 876, 1071, 1072, 1060, 

1640.1641,1643 

Bades 0. Harris 152, 281, 302, 1517 

Badle 0. Addison 864 

Eady0 Watson 1798 

Eager, Re, Eager v. Johnstone 449 

Price 1528,1685,1537 

0. Wiswall 1826. 1883 

Bagle 0. Beard 668, 6S6 

v Le Breton 426 

Bagle Bank 0. Chapin 26 

Eagle Fire Ins Co v. Cammet 194,228 



Bagle Ins Co. 0. Lent 889 

Pell 1246 

Bagle Iron Works, Matter of 1789 
Eagle Manuf. Co. 0. Miller 269 

Eakin v. Herbert 1275 

Eames v. Barnes 987, 1079, 1080, 

1110 

0. Hacon 201, 202, 224, 260, 254 

Smith 1126 

Bardleyv Knight 1381 

Eardy v. Headford 80 

Earl 0. Beadleston 1639 

0. DeHart 1687.1662 

0. Ferris 109, 179, 182, 754 

0. Matheny 1621 



Burl's Trust, Re 
Baiie0 Holt 

0. Pickin 

0. Sidebottom 

0. Wood 
Eftrles0 Barles 



207 

1192,1198 

822,386,1169 

1885 

801 



Earp v. Lloyd 680, 726, 726, 774. 

Basleyv Tarkington 858 

Bast0 East 884,1229 

0. Ryal 1418 

Bast Anglian Railway Co. 0. 

Goodwin 912, 918 

Bastburn 0. Kirk 1881, 1463, 1608. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



xlvii 



[The references are to the star paging.] 



Counties Ry. Co. , Re 1860 

Bast Indk Co, v. Atkins 666 

•. Basett 1128, 1124, 1137 

v. Boddam 1476. 1478 

v. Campbell 668, 664, 702, 744 

• Coles 287, 559 
v Donald 713,848 

• Edwards 1661, 1663, 1664, 16ti6 
r. BUnea 1393 
9 Henchman 870,606,644 
r.Keightoy 1188,1286,1818 
v. NaUh 985 
v Neave 665 
v. Rumbold 444 
9 Vincent 1688 

bat Lancashire Ry Co 9. Hat- 

tenia j 1698, 1681, 1671 

Bast Llaogynog Lead Mining Co , 

Be 28 

Bast Saginaw 8. Ry. Co. v. 

Wlidman 1661 

Bast St Louia v. Trustees 779 

Bast St. Louis C. R. Co *. 

People 824 

Bastmaa ». Amoakaag Manuf. 

Co. 1681. 1684, 1636, 1687. 1688. 

1689, 1640, 1641 

w. Batehelder 1646 

«. McAlpiee 844 

9. Plnmer 885, 1889 

v Savings Bank 834 

r. Simpson 880, 1082 

Eastman Co v. Reichenbaeh 1660 

Bastou v. Houston & T. By. 

Co 1746 

9. Houston AT.C.R. Co. 966, 

1019, 1770 
9. London Joint Stock Bank 1440, 

1449 
9. Hew York, tee. R. Co. 1029. 

East Pant United L, M. Co. v. 

Merrywcather 241, 806 

Bast Tennessee B. Co 9. Atlanta 

E. Co. 1748 

Bast & West India Docks 9. 

UttledaJe 151,1664,1666,1668 

Rastwfek 9. Conningsby 1728 

Eastwood 9. Glenton 1611 

v. Lever 1081 

Eaton's Appeal 844 

Eaton. Re 1683 

9. Dickinson 1676 

v. Baton 684 

9. Jenkins 1677 

*. Lyon 1668 

9 Shnonds 1247 

v. Truesdsil 987 

Eaton R. Co. v. Yarnnm 1468 

Batongh & Co. Lim'd, Ex 

parte 680 

Eaves 9 Hickeoo 1418. 1421 

' Ebbs 9 Bonlnois 62, 167 

Bberbart v. Gilchrist 1291 

Eberly v. Groas 874 

Eborn r. Smpelman 879 

Bbrard v. Gassier 28 

Eeaobert e. Appleton 864 

Eeeks v. Liverpool Borough 

Bank 1601 

r Timmons 128 

Eeelesali. Overseers of. Re 1866 

Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 

Ex parte 1610 

v. Marshall 280 

v. North Bastern Ry. Co. 660, 649 

Behliffe. Baldwin 1662, 1666 

Etkert 9. Binkley 779 

9. Wilson 1268 

Btkforde. Dekay 885 

v Bckford 1411 

Eekfemanv Miller 1689 

Bddleston v Collins 126 

Bddowea v. Argentine Loan Co. 894 

Eddy. Ex parte 1748 

9. Ceprin 884 

9 Laayette 1621 



Edee v. 8trnnk 


1716 


Edelin 9. Lyon 


610 


Kdelsten 9. Eilelsten 


1381,1844. 
1648,1649 


Edelston v. Russell 


721) 


Kdeo v. Bute, Karl 


1604 


v. Lingenfclter 


1260 


9 Nalsh 


1061,1658 


9. Thompson 


1611 



Eden borough v. Canterbury. 

Archbishop of 1486,1486,1668 
Edeoaor v. Roberta 1670 

Edevain v. Cohen 417, 669, 786 

Edgar 9. Clevenger 1616 

v. Reynolds 188 

Edgcuinbe v. Carpenter 1618 

Edgell* Francis 1180 

v. Haywood 287, 669, 1087 

v. Lowell 917 

Edgere. Knapp 1184,1137 

Edgertoo o. Muse 1029 

Edge's Patent, Re 1071 

Kdgettv Douglass 680 

Edgill v. Brown 16^8 

Rdgaon v. Edgson 171. 429, 442 

Edichal Bullion Co 9. Columbia 

G. M. Co. 860 

Edie v. East India Co. 1182 

Kdinboro Normal School v 

Cooper 1881 

Edlngton 9. Banham 429, 1622 

Edison Electric Light Co. v. 
United States Electric Light- 
ing Co. 678, 681 
Edison & 8. Electric Light Co, 

9. Holland 406 

Edlesten v. Vick 2819 

Edmands 9. Brougham, Lord 848, 

865 

Bdmond v. Caldwell 196 

Edmonds v. Ben how 2818 

e. Foley. Lord 1826 

v. Nlchol 461 

v. Robinson 1517 

Edmondsone Harris 126,246 

Edmonson v Heyton 606 

v. MacheU 1126 

Edmund's Appeal 418 

Edmunds v. Acland 1169 

v. Bird 1726 

e. Brougham 911 

9 Waugh 167,663 

Bdmnndson v. Hartley 708 

Edney 9. Edney 974 

v. Jewell 866, 868 

e King 296 

Bdridge *. Edridge 147 

Edriugton v. Allsbrooks 894, 896 

Edsall v. Vandemark 68 

Bdsell v. Buchanan 870, 687, 640, 

660 
Bdson 9. Girvan 869 

Edward 9. Cheyne 100, 109 

Edward Barr Co. v. New York 

Ac. Co. 1642 

Edwardes v. Burke 29, 81 

Edwards, Ex parte 1868, 1684 

Edwards, Re 106, 1848, 1766 

v. Abrey 86 

v. Banksmith 281 

9. Batley 1626 

v. Bodine 1663 

9. Carroll 1680 

9. Chilton 1663 

9. Coombe 167 

9 CunUffe 1000 

9 Davies 88 

v. Dlgnum 1132 

9 Drake 642 

9. Edwards 288, 811, 1788, 1744, 

1771, 1780 
v. Evans 1126 

9 GiU 1274 

9. Goodwin 1181 

v. Harvey 224, 1882, 1400. 1406, 

1421, 179o 
*. Hope 1447 



Edwards v. Jones 1828, 1829 

v. Lowther 406 

9. M'Lear 780 

9. M'Leay 781 

9. Massey 861, 1047, 1698, 1699 

9. Matthews 1128 

9 Maupln 1274 

9. Morgan 948, 1662 

9 Poole 1044 

9. Rogers 860 

9 Sartor 884 

9 8oott 11J8 

v Speight 916 

9. Tuck 1796 

Edwards-Wood 9. Baldwin 651 

Edwardson v. Maseby 1676, 1677 

Edwick 9. Hawkes 1082 

Edwin v. Thomas 1124. 1187 

Eedes «. Eedes 104, 107 

Effingham, Lady v. Napier, 

Sir J. 78 

Egan 9. Baldwin 1424 

Egbert 9. Greenwalt 861 

9. Woods 217, 808 

Egerton v. Egerton 1417 

v. Jones 1218 

Egg 9. Devey 798, 811 

Egginton v Burton 162 

Eggleston v. Boardmaa 1846 

Eglin v. Dryden 160 

v. Sanderson 1419 

Egllngton, Earl of v. Lamb 1144, 1826 

Egmont 9. Derail 876, 1071, 1072, 

1074 
9 Smith 196 

Egremont v. Oowell 860, 696 

9. Egremont 161 

9. Thompson 229, 266 

Earl of v. Hamilton 1642 

Eidam 9. Flnnegan 68 

Elglebnrger v. KJbler 646 

Eillert 9. Craps 888, 947 

Ela e. Ela 660, 641 

Elam 9. Barnes 686 

9. Donald 1290 

9 Garrard 287 

Blborne v. Goods 1427, 1480, 1482 
Elcock 9. Glegg 171 

Elder v Bradley 868 

9. Carter 1826 

v. First National Bank - 814 
v. Harris 779 

v. Maclean 1696 

El Jerkin v. Elderkin 68 

v. Fitch 798 

9. Shults 197, 199 

Elders v Johnston 1491 

Elderton, Re 70 

9. Lack • 1112.1113 

Eldridge v. Burgees 68, 977, 979 
v. Hill 1681,1682, 2040 

9. Howell 1476, 1481 

9. Porter 1699 

v. Wlghtman 1081 

Electric Telegraph Co , Re 944, 1694 
9. Nott 1698 

Electrical Accumulator Co. v. 
Brush Electric Co 794 

9. Julian Electric Co. 1120 

Electrolibration Co. v. Jack- 
son 814, 594 
Bley, Re 1847 
9 Positive Ass. Co 307 
Rlgrev Lovell 62 
Ellas 9 Snowden Slate Quarries 

Co. 1682 

EUbank,Ladyv.MontoIieu 92.106, 

106 
Ellsabethtown Gaslight Co v. 

Green 680 

Elkart Car Works v. Ellis 1748 

Ellame, Re 1267 

Bller v. Bergling 190 

Ellerbe, Re 909 

Ellerton e Think 1671, 1684. 



Eluce 9. Goodson 



201,409,688 



xlviii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
[The references an to tins iter paging ] 



BUIce*. RoapeU 681,1573, 1578, 1575 

v. Walmsley 606 

Bllicott v. Nichols 646 

v. Warford 1741 

Ellington v. Clark 1444 

BUingwood v. Stevenson 604 

Elliot v. Cochran 1029, 1868 

v HalmaracsT 1069, 1U70 

v. Sinclair 1706 

v. Booth Devon Railway Co. 1127 

v. Van Voorst 181 

v. Waring 122, 199 

Elliott v Amazon Ins. Co. 860 

v. Balcom 1675, 1577, 1578. 1679^ 

v. BlUott ' 1794 

v. Hooper 98 
v Ince 87, 110, 111, 187. 1111 

v. Nicklin 1141 

v. Osborne 1678 

v. Pell 1005, 1870, 1550 

v. Kemmington 96 

v Trahern 880 

Elite, Ex parte 69 

Re 100 

v. Atkinson 97 



v. Boston, &c. R. Go. 

v. Bowman 

v. Davis 

v. Deano 

v Ellis 

v. Essex H. Bridge 

v. Fletcher 

v Foster 

v Griffiths 

v. King 

v. McHenry 

v Maxwell 

v Medllcott 

v. No Pacific R. Co. 

v. Reynolds . 

v. Saul 

«. Bilber 

v. Stewart 

v. Vernon lee Co. 

v. Wait 

v. Walmsley 

v. Woods 

v. Wren 
Ellison, Ex parte 

Re 

v. Burgess 

v. Elwin 

v. Kittridge 

v. Salem 0. k M. Co. 

v. Sharp 

v. Thomas 

v. Wright 
EUlston v. Morrison 
Ellsworth v. Curtis 
Ellwand v McDonnell 
Ellsey v. Lane 
Elmendorv Delancy 
Elmendorf v. Taylor 
Elmer v. Creasy 

v. Loper 
Elmhlrat v. Spencer 1636, 1687, 1688 
El Modello C M. Co. v. Gato 686 
Elms v. Hughes U6 

Klmriie «. Beresford 832 

v. Boursier 1643 

v. Delaware and Schuylkill 
Canal Co. 1614 

v. M'Aulay 822, 828 

Elridge v. Smith 562 

Ellington v Ellington 96 

Elrodr Myers 1860 

Blsam v. Allcock 89 

Blsey v. Adams 791. 898, 1669 

Blsom, Re, Thomas v. Blsom 71 
Blston v. Blanchard 824 

v Elston 966 

v Wood 186 



1784 

1114 

688 

882 

87,1418 

1864 

1881 

1278 

1224 

964 

681 

1821 

878 

884,669 

149 

718,788 

60,568 

87 

1748 

1440 

606 

678 

1688 

99,1802 

706 

864 

119,126 

1424 

1548 

1628 

488,1460 

1888 

1689 

707, 708 

724 

1576 

286,890 

149, 668, 660 

800,720 

220,418 



Elton v. Elton 

v. Larkins 
Elvy v. Norwood 
Klwell v. Crowther 
Elwes v. Payne 
Elworthy v. Billing 
Elwyn v. Williams 
Ely v. Early 

v. Edwards 

v. Gayford 



1162 

1100 

881,668 



1668 

1271 

119,125 

1078 

407 

202, 204, 1614 



v. New Mexico ft A. R, Co. 869 



v. Stewart 
v. Warren 
t>. Wilcox 
Emack v. Kane 
Rmans v. Emans 



Bit v. Burial Board 
Biting v. Dayton 
Eltoftv Brown 
Elton v. Curteis 



896 

418 

1175 

999,1269 



922 

861,941 

1624 

1642 

803,884,885,889. 

840, 846, 847, 659, 688, 698 

Embury v Bergamini 1027 

v. Klemm 1029, 1680 

Emden v. Carte 69, 406 

Emeric v. Alvarado 1461, 1716 

Emerick v Armstrong 1461, I486 

Emeriav Woodward 1031 

Emerson v. Atkinson 885, 1918 

v. Atwator 1300 

v. Badger 1649 

v. Berkley 882, 884 

v. Davies 1478,1479,2884 

«. Emerson 806, 809 

v. Harland 622,2096 

v. 81ms 878 

v. TJdall 1628 

v. Walker Township 814 

Emery's Trusts, Re 128, 179 

Emery v. Bid well 647 

v. Downing 624, 625, 629, 740 

v. Erskine 808 

v. Mason 1168 

v. Newson 169, 616 

v. Parrot 176 

v Van Sickle 1622 

Emigrant Industrial S Bank v. 

Goldman 214 

Bmma Silver Mining Co., Re 909 
v. Emma Silver Mining Co. of 

New York 607 

v Grant 167 

v. New York Bmma S. M. Co. 

1168 

Bmmerson, Be 1686 

v. Ind 1886 

Emmet v. Tottenham 269, 1886, 

1891 
Emmott v. Mitchell 610 

v. Walters 1824 

Emory v. Kelghan 1617 

Empire Loan h B. Ass'n v. At- 
lanta 1668 
Empress Engineering Co., Re 828 
Empringham v. Short 1069. 18U4. 

1909,1468 

Empaon v. Bowley 481 

v. Fairfax 1109 

Emslie v. Wildman 1182 

Endicott v. Mathis 1664, 1684 

Endov Caleham 666 

Endter v. Lennon 1618 

Engel v Scbeuerman 1627 

Engelhardt, Ex parte 157 

England, Re 1849, 1369 

v. Codrlngton 1392 

v. Curling 2286 

v. Downs 109, 1191, 1416 

v. Ventham 1610 

England Bank, Bast o£ Be 1041, 

1048 

Englebackv Nixon 157 

Bngleheart v. Ordell 1740 

English v. Baring 1268. 2194 

v. Foxall 878, 879 

v. Hayman 1540 

v. Smock 1637 

v Tottle 678 

Bnnor v. Barwell 1599, 2809 

v. Galena 1120 

Eno v. Tatam 1491 



» 



Enochs v. Harrelson 

Bnos v. Capps 

Bnraghtv. Fitsgerald 1027. 1215 

Ensign v. Kellogg 197, 199 

Ensminger v. Powers 1689 

Ensworth v. Card 1427 

v. Lambert 194, 294, 1582, 1538 
Eothoven v. Cobb 1834 

Episcopal Church v Leroy 619 

Equestrian & P. B. Co., Re 27 

Equitable Life Ass. Boo. v. Laird 

402,458 

x. Patterson 190, 884, 589 

Equitable Reversionary Interest 

Society v Fuller 1791 

Brhardt v. Boaro 1628, 1688 

Brickson v. Nesmlth 144, .149, 150. 

152, 267, 271, 272, 278, 282, 290, 

458, 1986 

v. Smith 448 

Erie Ry. Co. v. Heath 2894 

v. Ramsey 1567, 1667, 1568 

Erie Tel. Co. v. Grimes 586 

Ernest v. Go?ett 796, 801, 806 

v. Partridge 690, 696, 796, 1440 

v. Weiss 26, 815, 542, 868, 1894 
Brrat v. Barlow 1868 

Brrington v. Attorney -General 189. 

1562 



v. Aynesly 


1660 


Erskine, Re 


106 


v. Bias 


1828 


v. Garthshoro 


847 


v. Henry 


1481 



Errin v. Oregon Ry. A Nay. 

Co. as 

Brwin v. Davenport 1762 

v Lowry 1468 

v. Meyrose 1676 

v. Oldham 1087 

v.Reese 587 

v. Vint 1026, 1080 

Esdaile v. La Name 1651 
«. Mollneux 661, 701, 764, 76CL 

v. Peacock 1407 

v. 8tephenson 1218, 1219, 1220 
Eshbach v. Slonaker 148 

Espey v. Lake 1661 

Espin v. Pemberton 675 

E»pinolav Blasoo 878 

Essex Co. v. Lawrence Machine 

Shop 1985 

Essex Freeholders v. Newark City 

Nat'l Bank 680 

Basex Paper Co. v. Greaoen 586 

Estcourt v. Estcourt's H. & Co. 

1897,1660 

v. Ewtngton 181, 182, 600 

Este v. Strong 986 

Bstep v. Watkina 861, 847, 994 

Esterbrook Steel Pen Manul Co 

v. A hern 150 

Bstes v. Belford 149 

v. Worthington 269, 684 

BsdU v. Clay 286 

Efitis v Patton 1625 

Est wick f Conningsbr 1728 

Etches v Lance 1670,1704,1707, 

1708 
Etna, The 68 

Etting v. Marx 660 

Etty v. Bridges 1698 

Eubank v. Wright 1509 

Eubanks v. Lereridge 652 

European Bank, Re 1608 

European Central Ry. Co., Re 1266 
Eustace v. Lloyd 1627 

Evan v. Avon 8, 547 

Evans, Ex parte 1087, 1068, 1685, 

1788,1786 
Re 70, 606, 1168 

v.Bacon 1584,1585.2069 

v. Bagshaw 401, 407 

v. Benyon 1491 

v. Bicknell 824, 843 

v. Bremridge 668, 1626 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



xlix 



[The 



an to the star paging.] 



v. 

r Book 
9. Cakean 
9. Carrington 
r. Otendy 
9. China 
r. dement 
9. Cleveland 
r. Cogan 



68 

884 

188 

179,668 

6,45,87 

190.292 

1676 

1642 

186 



9. Coventry 284, 804, 1671, 1728 
e. Devtes 1064 

v. Davis 887, 1898 

9 De Ley 109 

9. Dillingham 1748 

r Baton 916 

r. Brans 200, 816, 642, 602, 888. 
970,1157,1297,1800,1718 
v. Gege 1661 

p. Goodwin 680 

9 Hmrtfe 608,619,620 

9. Jones 1429 

V.Lewis 690 

v. Matnies 1748, 1748 

r. Pmrrott 1676 

*. Richard 1818, 1888 

9. Robinson 1188 

9 Schafer 878 

9. 8beldon 790 

v. SmaUoombe 1608 

9. Staples 1668 

9. Tatem 261 

9. Taylor 1618 

v Tweedy 642 

v. Union Pacific By. Co. 2898 



Brans e. Van Hall 604 

9. Williams 616, 1086 

Brans's Estate, Re 1411 

Evansrllle B. Go. v. Maddux 642 

Starts 9. Beekar 467, 468, 618 

v. Nason 1268 

Bvartson 9. Tappan 1889 

Bveland v. Stephenson 812 

Breleth v. Wilson 849 

Evelyn 9. Chippendale 28 

9. Evelyn 820 

9. Lewis 1748 

Everard v. Warren 1227 

Everest v. Buffalo L. O. Co. 1122. 

1408, 1642 

Everett v. Backhoose 1404 

v. Pazton 1U0 

9. Prythergch 848, 864, 607 

v. Winn 197, 424 

v. Towells 1107 

Sverhert 9. Brerhart 668 

9. HontsTille College 867 

Bverltt v. Watts 616, 620 

Bverahed v. Bvershed 1686 

Everson v. Matthews 88 

Bvitt v. Pries 1660 

Bvory 9. Oandee 2897 

Swart 9. Chubb 87,179 

v. Williams 1282 

Ewer 9. Ambrose 1100 

Swing 9. Armstrong 997 

9. Duncan 860 

v. Handley 121 

9 Hlghbee 161 



1626 

867,629 

644 



Swing 9. Maory 
9. Nlekie 
9. Orr Bwing 
9. Shannahan 
Swings 9. Waits 
Bwins 9. Qordon 
Exchange Banking Co., Re 644 

Exeter Bank v. 8ullivan 646 

Exeter College v. Rowland 846 

Exeter and Credi ton Railway Oo. 

9. Buller 241, 806 

Bxposlto 9. Bowden 61 

Bxton 9. Greaves 1244 

9. Tomer 1122 

Bykyn, Re 117 

Eyles v. Ward 1178, 1690, 1692 

Byre 9. Barrow 1069 

9. Bret 1626, 1626 

9. Cox 286, 646 

v. Dolphin 679, 698, 860 

9. Golding 1264 

9. Hughes 1660 

9. M' Do well 1608 

9. Marsden 1428-1480, 1466 

9. Potter 828, 882 

9. Rogers 679 

9. Shaftesbury. Countess of 1847. 

1860,1862,1864 

9. Smith 167, 668 

Bystsre. Gaff 169,197 

Eyton 9. Denbigh 1744 

9.Byton 186,1476 



F. 



Fibre 9. Colden 90 

FabrlUus 9. Cock 1188 

facer 9. Mdvale 8. W. Oo. 1642 

Faokler 9. Worth 1069, 1062 

ladden «. MeFadden 1686 

Fadelle 9. Bernard 68, 164 

Fagane. Strong 27 

ffagg 9. James 710 

Fable 9. Lindsay 1662 

Fab* 9. Roberts 1617 

Fatiey 9. Talbee 1748 

FsJrbank 9. Codworth 1680 
Fairbanks 9. Amosksag Bank 1008 



9. BeJknap 
Fatrbrothar v. 



Prattent 



1661,1666 

161,1660. 

1668 

Fatrbora 9. Pearson 1727 

FsJrchild 9. Hunt 1400 

Felreloth, Re 96 

Fairfield 9. Weston 1744 

ffsirham, Ac. Co. 9. Adams 1686 
lairlie 9. Denton 1104 

Fairly* Priest 844 

Falrman 9. Green 1868 

Falrthoroer Weston 888,722 

faith 9. M'lntyre 1106 

Faithful v. Hani 267 

Feithfull 9. Ewen 1040, 1847 

fsieke 9. Scottish Imperial Ins. 

Co. 1680,2064 

fUk 9. Oast lithograph Co. 1648 

9. Howell 1648 

9. Janes 1748 

9. Tamer 844 

Falkland Islands Co. v. Laftme 898. 

897, 781, 1648 
FauVand, Lady 9. Cheney, Lord 1476 
Faikner 9. Bqoitable Reversion- 
ary Soe. 1276 
9. Grace 988 

Kul 9. 68, 67 

9 ElkJns 1726 

Fallon 9. Railroad Co 1668 

Fallowes 9. Williamson 1609. 1611, 

1688,1641 
Fallows w. Dillon. Lord 1867 

TOL. I. — d 



falls of Nenss Manaf. 

Georgia Home Ins. Co. 
Falmouth, Sari of 9. Roberts 
Fane 9. Fane 

9. Richards 
Fanning 9. Dunham 

9 Fly 

9. Foley 

9 Pritchett 
Fanshaw 9. Fanshaw 
Fanshawe 9. Tracy 
Fant 9. Miller 
Farabow 9. Green 
Farebrother 9. Welchman 
Fargo 9. Southeastern Ry. 
Farhall 9. Farhall 
Farina 9. Silverlock 



00. 9. 

1120 

1128 

1406 

1626 

886,1602 

1008 

164 

841,842 

629 

1614, 1688 

848, 1116 

1628 

1626 

Co 1427 

1842 

996,1649, 

2819 

850,896 

869 

1660-1662. 1664. 

1666,1668-1670 

1476 

604,689,880,848 

1287 

214, 216 

1271 



Farington, Re 
Farland 9. Wood 
Farley 9. Blood 

9. Farley 
9. Kittson 

Farlow9 Wleldon 

Farmer 9. Curtis 
9. Dean 

9. National Life Ass. 149 

9. Rogers 884 

Fanners' Bank 9. Beatten 1744 

9. Hannon 190 

farmers 1 , &c. Bank 9. Ruse 1622 
9. Vanmeter 1621, 1622 

farmers' and Planters' Bank 9. 
Martin 1288 

farmers' Loan & Trust Co. 9. 

Buikers' A M. TeL Co. 1617 
9. Burlington A 8. W. Ry. 

Co. 1748 

9. Central R. Oo. 1168, 1467, 1748. 

1746 
9. Green Bay R, Oo. 1680 

9. Hoffman House 1784 

9. Kansas City R. Co. 1716 

9 Northern Pac R. Co. 1748 
9. Reed 168 



Farmers' Loan k Trust Oo. 9. 

Seymour 1608,164 

9. Texas Western Ry. Oo. 617 

9. Toledo k 8. H. R. Co. 1661 

9. Waterman 1461 

farmers' Loan Co. e. Central 

Iowa R, Co. 1168 

9 San Diego Street Car Oo. 889 

Farmers' National Bank 9. Lloyd 214 

Farnam 9. Brooks 824, 872, 660, 

641. 644, 646, 649, 667 

Farnham 9. Campbell 287, 669, 

1716 
9. Clements 866, 668, 661, 666 
Farnell 9. Bowman 188 • 

Farnsworth 9. Cole 1166 • 

9. Fowler 1678, 1684 

Farnum 9. Blackstone Canal 

Corp. 2812 

9 Boutelle 284 

9. Burnett 844 

e. Pitcher 1110 

Farquharson 9. Balfour 726, 771, 

772,778,1489,1828 

806. 1880. 1601, 1621 

664,842,868,1870' 

989 

780, 1418, 1482 

Farrall 9. Davenport 1528 

Farrand 9. Yorkshire Banking 

Co. 674 

Farrant 9. Lea 1680 

9. Lovel 1680 

f arrar 9. Barraclough 2116 

9. Cooper 671 

9 Farrars 1271 

farrel 9. — 866 

Farrell 9. Smith 260, 1207 

Ferrer 9. Clark 1868 

9. Hutchinson 1780 

9. Lacy 82 

9. Sykes 899 

Farrlndon 9. Lee 641 

f Harrington 9. Chute 670 

9. Harrison 848 

9. Parker 1412 



9. Pitcher 
9. Seton 
farr 9. Scott 
9. Sheriffs 



1 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[The references ere to the star pacing.] 



Farris v. Houston 1875 

Farrow 0. Austin 1426 

*>. Rees 1894 

Harwell 0. Btardivant 1341. 1*262, 

1260.1280 

Fankonberg, Lord v. Peiree 1121 

Faulder 0. Stuart 800, 483, ?-» 

Faulk v. Fauik 1076 

Paulkland 0. Stanion 62 

Faulkner, Re 1847 

0. Bolton 1001 

v. Daniel 901, 291, 292, 1731 

9. Llewellyn 815 

Fauquier 0. Tynto 877, 919 

Faare 0. Wlnani 1246 

Faussett «. Ormsby 1478 

PaTersham Charities, Re 1797, 1862 

Farlal v. Eastern Counties By. 

Co. 807 

Faweett 0. Lawrie 241 

Fawous v. Charlton 548 

Fawkner 0. Watts 1368 

Fawkes v. Pratt 890 

Fay 0. Bradley 1266 

v. Howe 1869 

v. Jones 684 

Faylor 0. Briee 666 

Fear 0. Castle 189 

Fearey 0. Hayes 402, 417 

Pearns 0. Young 81, 1288 

Fearnslde 0. Flint 660 

Fearon 0. Desbrisay 1081 

Feary 0. Stephenson 1610, 1688 

Feather 0. Beg, 188 

Featherstonaugh 0. Lee Moor 

Clay Co 1660 

Featherstone 0. Cooke 882, 1728 
0. Ormonde Cyole Co. 1642 

Fearer 0. Williams 678, 1884, 1886 
Fechhelmer 0. Baum 818, 1881 

Fechter 0. Montgomery 1664 

Feckhan 0. Buffum 860 

Feehan 0. Mauderille 407 

Feemster 0. Mark ham 1607 

Fellden 0. Slater 1667 

Feise 0. Parkinson 1182, 1188 

Feistel *. King's College 1678.1694, 

1697. 1780 
Feleh 0. Hooper 287, 292, 629, 841 
Feldman 0. Gamble 860 

Felkin 0. Herbert, Lord 181, 462, 
586, 8S7, 1070, 1832 
v.Lewls 1602 

Fall v. Brown 149, 161. 152. 194, 

214, 28*3, 997 

0. Christ's College 861, 689 

0. Jones 1801 

0. Lutwidge 818, 1409 

Felllngham0. 8parror 1098 

Fellow 0. Jermyn 1846 

Fellows 0. Barrett 87, 74 

v. Deere 84, 406 

«. Fellows 884, 888, 841, 1619 

0. Mailer 864 

Felsteed 0. Gray 972, 978 

Feltham0 Clark 291 

0. Turner 881 

Felthouse 0. Bailey 910 

Felts 0. Mayor of Memphis 28, 1612 

Felty 0. Calhoon 1576 

Female Orphan Asylum 0. 

Waterlow 1081 

Fencott 0. Clarke 886, 896, 1827 

Fendall 0. Nash 1368 

0. O'Connell 864 

Feneley 0. Mahoner 87, 75 

Fenhoaletr.PatsaTant 848,849.854 

Fenn 0. Edmonds 1564 

0. Holme 818 

Fennall 0. Brown 891, 1669 

Fenner 0. Agntter 1299 

London h South Batten 

By. Co. 678 

0. Taylor 106, 107, 1487 

*. Wilson 1642 

Fennessyv Clark 720 

v.Day 1896 



Fennings v. Humphrey 816, 817. 



426 

1869, 22U2 

1899 

429 

1810,1449 

901 

146,167,296,800 

1068 



Fenno e. Coulter 
Fentlman 0. Fenthnan 
Fenton 0. Browne 
0. Clayton 
0. Crickett 
Cumberlege 
0. Hughes 
v. Lowther 
0. Lumberman's Bank 1691 

0. Queen's Ferry Wire Rope 

Co. 167,226,907 

•. Wills 1480 

Fenwick 0. Bell 1100 

0. Bulman 280,279 

0. James 1112 

v. Macey 640 

0. Keed 299, 878, 1825, 1827 

Ferebee 0. Proctor 254 

Fergus 0. Gore 642, 1290 

Ferguson 0. Applenhito 222 

0. Bea>\n 2126 

v. Dent 89 

0. Ferguson 227, 1069 

«. Fisk 292 

v. Gibson 1437 

v. Kimball 1489 

v. Miller 668, 661 

0. O'Harra 717, 788 

0. Smith 182,445,498 

0. Tadman 1471. 1814 

0. WU«on 912, 1061, 1881, 1488 

Fernandes, Ex parte 942, 1103 

0. Corbln 449, 1462 

Ferule 0. Young 1071, 1080. 1087. 

1120,1149,1502 

Fernyhoughe Naylor 897 

Ferraby 0. Hobeon 828, 881 

Ferrand 0. Bradford 897 

0. Hamer 424, 698, 1676 

v. Milligan 1126 

0. Pelham 789 

Ferrar v. Ferrar 847 

Ferrer 0. Barrett 267 

Ferrers 0. Cherry 1642 

Countess of 0. Ferrers, Sari 1266 

Ferrier v. Atwool 679, 1882 

Ferrlor, In re 1720 

Ferris 0. Hard 848,850 

0. Streeper 1467 

Ferries 0. Lewis 266,467,1160,1167 

Ferry 0. Fisher 929 

0. LsJble 884 

Posting 0. Allen 1888 

Fetheriy 0. Waggoner 878 

Fettiplaoe 0. Gorges 186 

Peucheres, Baron de 0. Dawes 748 

Feutehwanger v. M'Cool 864, 749 

Few 0. Gappy 681, 1118, 1567 

Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Shenandoah 

Iron Co. 1168, 1812, 1408 

Fidelity Ins. Co.'s Appeal 1168 

Fidelity Title & Trust Co. v. 

Weitsel 848 

Fidelity Trust Co. 0. GUI Car Co. 60 
Fidelity Trust & S. V. Co. 0. 
Mobile St. By. Co. 248, 1548, 

1748 
Fidelia v. Evans 791 

Field, Ex parte 1689, 1690 

0. Ashley 665 

0. Beaumont 1568 

0. Great Western By. Co. 1138 
0. Hitchcock 1281 

v. Holland 841, 1077, 1221 

0. Holzman 884 

0. Hopkins 1414 

0. Hutchinson 561 

0. Jones 1716, 1741 

0. Maghee 197 

0. Moore 108 

Oppenstem 1881 

0. Robinson 794 

0. Ross 998 

0. SchlenVUn 948, 1864, 1479, 1649. 

1660 



1214 

186,860 

186,120971210 

848 

166, 167 



Field v. Seward 

0. Bowie 

0. TUmus 

0. Wilbur 

v. Williamson 

Fielde 0. Cage 

Fielden 0. Blackburn, Corp. of 1688 

0. Goschen 888 

0. Northern Ry. of B. A Co. 611 

0. Slater 842,891 919,1664 

Fielder 0. Fielder 1288 

Higglnson 1400,1408 

Fields 0. Helms 884 

0. Hurst 1168 

0. Wheatley 284 

Fiery 0. Emmert 26, 884, 846 

Fieske 0. BulLer 451 

File 0. Clayton 880, 885, 1561 

Fifth National Bank 0. Long 131 

Fifty Associate* 0. Tudor 1688 

Filder v. Belllngham 1292 

FUdes 0. Hooker 1219 

Filkin 0. Hill 418 

Finance Co. 0. Charleston &c. 

R.C0. 1784 

Financial Corporation 0. Bristol 

and North Somerset Ry. Co. 786 
Finch Brown 1262 

0. Finch 168, 227, 666, 648 

0. Hollinger 1626 

v. Shaw 676, 999, 1000, 1469 

0. Westrope 426 

0. Winchelsea, Lord 1688, 1589, 

1544,1790 
Finden v. Stephens 816, 1878, 1879, 

Findlay v. Lawrence 806, 808 

Findley 0. Hinde 892. 896 

Fingal 0. Blake 1074, 1720, 1725. 

Finks, Re 1770 

Finley v. Bank of U. & 194. 214, 

1207 

v. Harrison 844 

0. Lynch 989 

0. Taylor 1680, 1684 

Finn's Care 1118 

Finney 0. Bedford Ins. Co. 196,826 

0. Godfrey 851 

0. Hinde 1041 

Finska A. A. v. Brown 1886 

Firkins 0. Low 679 

Firmln 0. Pulham 1417 

First Congregational Society v. 

Trustees of the Fund, fro. 660 
First National Bank, Re 1607 

0. Binlnger 1666 

0. Bonne 660 

0. Douglass County 1661 

v. Forest 688 

v. Houts 1061 

0. Klngsley 646 

0. Moore 884 

v. NaTarro 1668 

v. Salem Capitol Flour Mills 

Co. 214, 1668 

v. Smith 642 

0. 8tephenson 860 

Taylor 1680 

West River R. Co. 1660 

First UnlTersalist Society 0. 

Fitch 2080 

Firth 0. Bush 440 

0. Ridley 418 

0. Slingsby 642, 646 

v. The Queen 188 

FlMber0. Blank 1648 

0. Hayes 814,829,890,1168,2891 

v. Laack 408 

0. 0'Shaugnessey 314 

0. Wilson 829, 880 

Flshe Dodge 1636 

0. Howiand 198,220,288 

0. Miller 614, 669, 695, 697, 820 

Flshback 0. State 1060 

v. Weaver 991 

Fishburn 0. Sanders 1966 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Ii 



Fisher, Ae 
9. Board 
9. Brieriery 
v. Banbury 
*. Carroll 



1618 

1770 
1668 
1608 
28 
1072 



r. Charter Oak lift Ins. Co. 660 



888 

148 

1120 

68, 740, 814, 1544 

1617 

1160 

216 

285 

882,1668 

899 

691,816 



9. Coffey 

p. baa 

v. Pur 

v. Fisher 

9. HoMm 

v Hnpper 

v. HnbbeU 

*. Kay 

«. Keane 

v London Omens Co. 

v. Mee ^..w.v 

v. MeUe* 88, 86 

• Moos 849.878,787 
v. Owen 847. 679 
v. Porch 1078 

• Price 722 

• Quick 791 
v. Stoemll 794 
e. Tucker 644 

Fishmongers' Co. v. But India 

Go. 1687 

Ik*. Ex parte 1666, 1678 

FUer v. Porch 844, 1078, 1076. 

1280 

F)tah v. Brower 1661 

v. Chapman 681 

v Fitch 68 

•. Minehall 1274 

v. Richardaon 1718 

9. Weber 47 

Fttton'P Estate, Re 1866 

Plttou v. Macclesfield 89. 1676, 1688 

v. Phoenix Am. Co. 1071 

Htsgerald, Re 1488 

9. Bnlt 810. 1666, 1626. 1672 

9. Caldwell 1266 

9. Chapman 128, 179 

9. Cnmmingg 684 

9. Deahler 1663 

9. Fltagerald 128, 661, 1174 

9. Gray 1698 

9. Missouri Padfle Ry. Co. 867 

9. O'Flaherty 889, 866 

9. Pringle 1416, 1419 

PifageraldJc H C. Co. 9. Fita- 

gerald 149 

Ptandbbou 9. Barry 248 

FiUherbert v. FiUherbert 875, 876 

Ftoahngh v. Sferingnam 1729 

v. Fitahngh 1120, 1147 

v.Lee 936 

9. McPherson 618, 689, 844 

617 

2888 

1817 

1252 

422 

671 

669 

170 

170 



v. Bedlier 
9 Domingo 

e.M'ltooald 

v. Mahony 

9. Power 

v. Smitb 
fitasimmon* v. Ogden 
Pitswater, Re 

9. Waterhonse 
Flack r Holm 49,1708,1704,1712. 

1718 
Fbdongv Winter 1209 

Flags; v. Bonnell 682, 697 

p. Mann 667, 844, 2264 

Flainang"s Case 1682 

Flanagan*. Nolan 
Flanders v. Chamberlain 

v. Hall 
Plannagan e. Kips 
Piannery v. Flannery 
Plash v. WUkerson 
Flare* 9. Harriaon 
Flarell 9. Flavell 
Fleece 9. Unwell ■ 
Fleet 9. Perrine 



Co. 
t. Oroen 



1419, 1421 
878 
669 
1629 
1881 
286,813 
1649 
918,980 
601 
89,118 
Machine 

860 
988 



[The reference! are to the star paging.] 

Flegg*. Prentie 1086 

Flebehaner 9. Dittenhoefer 1748 

Fleming v. Armstrong 1168 

9. ColUna 1684 
9. Fast 1817, 1866, 1874 

9 Gilmer 248 

v. Grafton 286 



v. Nunn 


1618 


Fletcher v. Beatey 


1688 


v Coleman 


214 


9. Crosbie 


1106 


9. Dodd 


1766, 1766 


9, Gibbon 


268 


9. Green 


842,1870 


9. Holmes 


280,246.1660 


9. Moore 


70, 411 



v. New Orleans, H. IR.Co 813, 

666,1664 

9. Pollard 1260 

9. Reed 1196 

9. Rodgers 1627, 1628 

9. Rogers 1001 

9. Wler 841, 886 

Flewellen 9. Crane 646 

Flight v. BolJand 68,89 

9. Comae 1278 

9. Cook 1662 

v. Marriott 1491 

9. Robinson 678, 1834 

v. Thomas 1601 

Flindt e. Waters 61 

Flint v. Brandon 1660 

v Field 860 

9. Hutchinson 8. B. Co. 1620 

Flint River Steamboat Co. 9. 

Roberts 1071 

Flintoffv Haynes 1212 

Fllppin 9. Knaffie 1619. 1664, 1676 
Flockton v. Peake 661, 912, 1440, 

1144, 1799, 1836 
v. Slee 1626 

Flood 9. Patterson 648 

Flora 9. Rogers 778 

Florence v. Mallinson 1881 

Florence Gas Co 9. Hanby 1748 
Florence Sewing Machine Co 9. 
GroTer & Baker Sewing 
Machine Co. 149 

v. Singer Manvf. Co. 149 

Florida e Georgia 186,441 

Florida Central R. Co. v. Blsbee 991 
Flour City Nat. Bank v Weoh- 

selberg 26 

Flower v. Baker 449 

9. Blumbaeh 616 

9. Bright 491 

9. Buller 118, 186, 206 

9 Gedye 971. 978 

v. London, Brighton, and 

South Coast Ry. Co 1660 

v. Lloyd 438, 1604, 1676, 1684 
v. Rose 149 

9. Walker 1217 



Flowerday v. Collet 
Flowers v. Barker 
Floyd v. Barker 

9. Jones 

v. Nangle 

9 Rltter 
Fludyer v Cocker 
Fluid v. Fluid 
Fluker v. Taylor 
Fluxv. Best 



930 

212 

1411 

860 

612,636 

861, 407, 1667 

1402 

1791 

661, 1929 

1403 



Flynn, Re, Gny v McCarthy 237, 

1487 

Foakes v. Webb 678, 678 

Foden v Finney 97 

Fodringham v. Chomeley 1671 

Fogg 9. Blair 646 

9 Merrill 617 

9. Neyada C O. Ry. Co 803 

9. Order of the Golden Lion 1733 

v. Price 660 

9. Rogers 888 

9. Union Bank 418. 1604 

Foley 9. Hill 661, 666. 678, 679, 

1929,2096 



Foley e Maillardet449,462,468,686. 

660 



9. Smith 
Foligno, Re 
Folingo v Martin 
Follaod v. Lamotte 
Follett 9 Delany 

v. Jefleryes 



606, 796, 1787 

1412 

1221,1282 

1696 

1668 

677, 1661 



Folley 9 City of Passalo 1660 

Folsom 9 Marsh 1646. 1647, 1978. 

2814 

Fonda e. Barton 1820 

9 Sage 1624 

Fongay 9. Conrad 996 

Fontellen *. Gates 1461 

Fooks. Re 1203 

v Wilts Ry. Co. 1681 

Foote 9. Cunard Mining Co. 26 

9. Despain 1626 

v Gibbs 669, 994, 996 

9. Hayne 676 

« Mass Benefit Ass'n 686 

V. Sewall 1381 

v. Van Ranst 1811 

Footman v Pray 190, 262, 268, z98 

Pootner* Figes 1186 

Popping 9. Van Pelt 167 

Forbes v. Forbes 988 

v. Memphis, fcc R. Co. 287, 681 

v. Orerby 660 

v. Peacock 1182, 1196 

«. Phipps 119 

9. Preston 822, 802, 807, 808 

9. Skelton 612, 626, 2096 

v. Stereos 406, 407, 416, 418 

9. Tanner 718, 1829 

9. Taylor 1404, 1427 

9 Tucker 602 

9. Tuckerman 87, 986, 1018 

9 Whitlock 684 

Force v. Martin 1100 

Ford, Re 102, 108 

9 877 

v. Bartlett 441 

v. Boucher 29 

9. Chesterfield 160, 708, 710, 1890, 

1411, 1424, 1426 

9 Be Pontes 1884 

v Dolphin 1827 

9. Ford 960 

9. Gardner 1118, 1120 

9. Kansas City. Ac. R Co. 1716 

9 Kurta 1896 

v. Lacy 1127 

9 Peering 820,646 

v. Philpot 1244 

9. Rosenthal 236 

9. Tennant 190,674,678,902,948 

9. Tynte 983. 139i, 1638 

9. Wastell 998, 999, 1028 

9. White 61, 160, 216 

Ford's Charity, Re 1862, 1866 

Porderv. Wade 877 

Fordyce v. Beecher 1766 

9. Bridges 266 

9. Ford 988 

Fore 9. Fore 1491 

9. Foster 197 

Foreign Bondholders v. Pastor 142 

Fore Street Warehouse Co. v 

Durrant 444 

Foreman v. Cooper 1827 

v. South wood 797 

Forgay v. Conrad 994, 996, 1461, 

1463, 1491, 1492 

Formanv Blake 797 

v. Homfray 882 

Forniquet v. Forstall 846 

Pornshill 9. Murray 1076 

Forrest v. Elwes 1769 

9. Forrest 1698. 1707 

9. Manchester, Ac. Ry. Co. 26, 246 

9. Robinson 601 

9. Warrington 116 

Forrester v. Helme 886, 896 

9. Read 1399 

9. Yason 



lii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Forrester •. Walter 1647 

v. Wilson 1826 

Forrester's Cast' 16*7 

Fonaitb Machine Co. v. Hope 

Mills L. Go. 1668 

Forshaw, Re 1844 

v. Mottram 60 

Forster v. Abraham 1282 

9. DaTles 1484, 1440 

s. Hale 866 

v. M'Kenste 648, 1211 

9. Mensies 448, 461, 688, 1610 

w. Patterson 661 

t>. Thompson 643 

Forsyth, Re 1841 

v. Clark 846, 1280 

v BUice 867,939 

Forsythe v. McOmlght • 1621 

o. McMurty 790 

Fort e. Battle 68 

v. Oartside 1860 

v. OroTes 1681, 1686 

v Orndorf 826 

v. Ragusin 986 

Fortescue v. Haltett 472. 491, 619 

Forth v. Xenla 1081 

Fort Smith v. Brogan 1617 

Foebrook v. Woodcock 1467 

Foscttck v. SchaU 1781, 1741 

Fobs e. Crisp 46 

• Harbottle 26, 241,248,649 
v. Haynes 841 
•. Wagner 29. 1127 

Foster, Be 88, 40, 111 

Foster v. Baltenberg 1687 

v. Bell 1766 

v. Bonner 1626 

v. Bowman 1008 

v. Bradford 1283 

v. Burem 1461 

v. Cautley 160. 161, 176 

v. Cockerell 1492 

v. Coleman 1661 

v Cooke 879,886 

v CrossJn 1642 

v Dawber 706,1418 

v. Deacon 281, 1617 

V Donald 1777 

v. Elsworth 1648 

v. RTerard 88 

v Fisher 789 

v Foster 488,668,618,680,694, 
867, 1261V1264, 1346, 1622 
v Gladstone 919 

v. Ooddard 1809, 1816, 2196 

v. Gressett 1316 

v Hall 90, 671, 672, 678, 676 

v Uarrey 749,892,1266 

v. Hawden 1108 

v. Hill 814 

v Hodgson 669,660 

v Kenosha 1661 

v. Knowles 417 

v. Mansfield, C. A L- M. R. 

Co 26, 1684 

v Mayer 1770 

v. Mensies 448, 1610 

v. McGregor 1816 

v. Parker 166, 167 

v Roberts 1886 

v. 8tate 6 

v. Steele 1186 

v. Sutton 961 

v. Swasey 660, 666 

v. Towpsend 1841 

* Trowbridge 212 
«. Tyler 146t 1481, 1486 
v. Vassall 629, 688, 687, 684 
v. Watson 660 
v. Woodfln 1017 

Foster's Trusts, Re 906 

Foteaax v. Lepage 1869 

Fotherby v. Hartridge 662 

FothergUl v Kendrick 1740 

v. Rowland 609, 1696, 1668 

Fongeres v Mnrbarger 884, 1620 
Foalds v. Mldgley 941, 1468, 1674 



[The references are to the star paging ] 

Foulkes v. Da?les 280,288,886,407 

v Jones 691 

Fountain v. Cains 173 

9. Ware 920 

v. Young 676 

Fonrnier v Kent, Dachess of 1278 

Foarniquet v. Perkins 987,1868, 1871 

Fourth Nat. Bank v. Franklyn 646 

Fouty v. Pear 779 

Fowke v. Drayeott 649 

Fowkes v. Chadd 1186 

v Pascoe 117 

Fowle v. Lanrason 661 

v. Torrey 217 

Fowler, Re, Fowler «. OdeU 1H28 

v. Barstow 462, 628 

v Bayldon 308,2227 1614 

v. Darles 88, 48 

v. Down 68 

v Fowler 1842 

v. James 228 

v. Lee 1664, 1667, 1671 

v Lewis 287, 986 

v. Liles 401 

v. Osborne 862 

v. Reynal 268, 802, 869. 1867 

v. Reynolds 976 

v. Roberts 1616 

v. Roe 1676 

v. Scott 1294 

v. Sunderland 860 

v. Ward 1776, 1776 

Fowletv Lewis 68 

Fowlkes v. Webber 400, 686 

Fowley v. Palmer 1246 

Fox v. Abbott 1611 

v. Bearblock 894 

v. Birch 1776 

v. Blew 27 

v. Charlton 1081, 1881 

v. Erans 876 

v. Ford 1078 

v. Frost 829 

v. Garrett 1426 

v Hill 1626 

v Hudson 1666 

e. Mackreth 1479, 1781 

v. Morewood 806 

v. Beard 1664 

v Suwerkrop 71,1847 

v. Yates 604, 608, 688, 692 

Foxcroft v, DeTonshlre 1129 

Foxen v. Foxen 1432 

Foxon v. Gascolgne 1846, 1847 

Foxwell v. Bostock 898 

v. Greatorex 66, 160, 1882, 1640 

v. Webster 889, 797, 801, 1644 

Foy v. Foy 1676 

Foye v- Patch 669 

Foster v. Andrews 1416 

Fradella v. Welter 1880 

Fraedrich v. Flieth 1071 

Frampton v. Stephens 1166 

v. Webb 177, 178 

Francfo, The 60 

v Bailey 1686 

v. Brooking 102, 2001 

v.Browne 412,964,966 

v. Castleman 1267 

v. Flinn 1620 

v. Francis 1842 

v. GroTer 664 

v. Harrison 200, 212, 216, 267 

v. Hayward 1662 

v. Wigsell 188, 186, 719 

v. Wilson 1264 

Francklyn v. Colhoun 1062 

v. Fern 1891 

Franco v. Bolton 664 

v. Franco 104, 228, 224 

v. Meyer 809 

Francome v. Franeome 894, 891, 

1662,1069,1709 

Frank v. Basnets 817 

v. Brunneman 1666 

v. Denver, &o Rj. Co. 1788 

v. Frank 98, 1096 



Frank v. Hamphrsys 1038 

v Morrison 748 

Frankland v. Orerend 780 

Frankte «*. Jackson 1743 

Franklin v. Bank of England 148 

v Beamish 1870 

t. Franklin 294 

v. Frith 1417 

v. Greene 879, 1076, 1147 

v. Hench 816 

v. Keeter 860, 769, 1816, 1316 

v. Meyer 986, 1168 

v Osgood 879 

Franklin 8. Bank v. Taylor 1676. 

1684 

Franklin Tel. Co. v. Harrison 680 

Frankllnski v. Ball 1061 

Franklyn v. Colquhonn 1062, 1194 

Franks, Ex parte 88 

v Wearer 1649 

Frantslus, Carl Von, Re 188 

Fraser v. Charleston 266, 866 

v. Cooper, Hall ft Co. 248 

v. Fraser 1796 

v. Hoyt 824 

« Kershaw 1729 

v. Palmer 1414 

v. Thompson 162, 177, 476, 1467 

v. Whatey 1678 

v Whalley 241 

Fray v. Drew 1024, 1026, 1026 



1601 
1887 
28,1284 
1676 
1715 
1286 



Fraser «. Gordon 

v. Jones 

v. Palmer 

v. Sypert 
Frasier v. Barnnm 

v. Hall 

v, Pankej 

v. Swain 

v. Tubb 
Freake v. Cranftlt 

v. Horsey 
Fream v. Dickinson 
Frearson v. Loe 
Fredev Pflugradt 
Frederick t>. Aynscombe 

v DaTid 

v. Frederick 
Free v. Buckingham 

v. Hinde 
Freebody v. Perry 
Freehold Land and Brick-making 

Co. v. Spargo 26 

Freehold Mat Loan Ass. • 

Brown 782 

Freeholders v. State Bank 1788,1742 
Freel v. Market St. Cable Ry. 

Co. 676 

Freelandv Cocke 1228,1229 

v. Heron 668 

v. Johnson 606, 669, 702, 704 



1808 

1491 

660,642 

221 

980 

1642 

1651 

877 

471 

1864 

279,884 

1720 

1775 



v. Stansfeld 
v. Wright 
Freeman v. Arkell 
v. Butler 
v. Carpenter 
v. Clay 
«. Cox 
v. Elmendorf 



1729.1948 
1110, 1299 
1126 
1886,1886 
1618 
1680 
1780 
1624 



v. Fairlte 106, 806, 680. 1260. 

1778, 1777, 1779, 1828 
v. Freeman 228 

v. Howe 1553 

v Ledbetter 682 

«. Pennington 1625 

v. Scofield 981 

v. Staats 1147 

v. Stephenson 1071 

v Tatham 839.12^9 

v. Tottenham and Hsmpstead 
Railway Co. lOTl, 1080, 

1641 

v. Whitbread 1612, 1624 

Freeman's Bank v. Toss 1971 

Freer v Hesse 1401, 1408, 1484 

v. Rimner 10»4 

Freess v. Swayse 608 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



liii 



(The 



are to the star paging-] 



v. Claydon 807 

Frefchaeeht v. Meyer 1078 

FreMJaader r. Polloefc 68$ 

Fidght Money v. Monadnoek 398 

Fhrfngbuysan v. Golden 1719 

«. Nugent 790 

Fremont r. Merced Mining Go. 656 

French, Bx parte 86 

9. Baron SB, 1246 

9. Chittenden 1476, 1480 

«. Dsuchy 1766 

«. Dear 812 

e.Dfckey 649 

« Pint National Bank 146 

r, French 6G9 

v. Gibbe 1168 

e.Grlffan 1560 

«. Hay 1631 

v Jacko 727 

«. Rainey 800, 790, 722 

*. Robrehard 1661 

v. Scully 166 

v Shoemaker 994 

«. Snotweil 611, 700, 721, 974. 

liS 
«. Windsor 1284 

Frerer. Green 984,986,987,939 
Fren v. Baehof 407, 1648 

Fnsion, Re 1069 

Freci v. Stover 1640, 1546 

Frewen, Re. Frewen •• Frewen 200. 

250 

Prey r. Demarest 661, 662, 658 

*. Prey 1869 

«. Lowden 308 

v Owens 402 

Fraytag r. Hoeland 846 

Prick t Christian Connty 664 

Pricker v. Peters * 0. Co. 1784 

Friedlander v Ehrenworth 1676 

*. London Ass. Co. 1099 

Friedman v. Fennell 546 

Friend v. 8olly 1440, 1449 

Priemoo *. Alexander 794, 986 

Priei r. Watson 1266 

Friatae r. Doe Sandoa 862 

Priley v. Hendrleks 1679 

Prink v. Adama 848 

v. Stewart 1688 

Fripp 9. Chard BaJlwaj Co. 1726, 

1727,1781 

e. Bateman 1716 

r, Be, Allison v. Prisby 649 

v. balance 1881 



Frlswelle. King 
Frith v. Lawrenoe 

v. Lewie 

v. Wallaeton 
Frits, Matter of 



1844 

1802 

98 

681 

68,71 



Frits v. Hobson 972, 996, 1080, lfcb, 
1140, 1886, 1868, 1491, 16$ 
Frodsham v. Prodshaw 1828 

Promew, Be 1791 

Frost v. Beekman 678 

9. Belmont 1411, 1484, 1468. MM. 

v. •Branson 1216 

e. Hamilton 992 

9. Hilton 970, 979 

v. Koon 214 

v. Spltley 667. 2040 

e. ward 70, 799 

v. Warren 1859 

v. Wood 799, 800 

Frotherstone v. JoUand 1766 

Prow e. De La Vega 682 

Prowd v. Baker 799 

611, 1618 



fry, Ex parte 89 

v Ernest 606 

v. Feamster 1299 

v Fry 91, 101, 104, 122, 1869 

v. Hardy 1108 

v. Lane 828 

v. ManteU 782, 781, 784 

v. Martel 782, 788, 784 

v. Moore 149 

v. Nobis 1167 

v. Penn 647 

v Richardson 680, 696 

v. Street 1286 

Fryer, Re 1261 

v. Davies 1027 

v. Wiseman 74, 86, 112, 164, 178 

Fryrear v. Lawrenoe 714 

Faentes v. Gaines 1667 

Fulcher v. Howell 160 

Folham v. M'Carthy 206, 280 

Follagar v. Clark 1079 

Falter v. Benjamin 160, 216 

v. Cadwell 1621, 1628 

v. Daniels 808 

v. Fuller 1258 

v. Green 1424 

e Horey 989 

v. Ingram 668. 1667, 1625, 1664 

v. Knapp 601, 716, 769, 2886 

v. Lance 84 



Fuller v. Melrose - 1640, 1661 

v. Metropolitan Lift Ins. Co. 972 

v. Montague 42 

9. Redman 644,646,1211 

v. Smith 68 

v. Taylor 1664 

v. Townsley-MyriekD. G. Co. 1621 

v. Willis 1474, 1476 

Fnllerton v. Jackson 828, 668 

v.Martin 266,1624,2069 

Fulton v. Davidson 1284, 1414 

v. Gilmore 778, 780, 781, 782 

v Golden 688, 685, 961 

v. Greaosn 1617 

v. RossTelt 88, 87, 71, 74 

v. Woodman 844 

Bank v. Beach 182, 886, 612, 

788, 784, 786, 764, 784, 1494 

v. N. T. A Sharon Canal Co. 146, 

785. 886, 1467, 1468, 1476, 1686. 

1677 
Fulweiler v. Hog's Back Cons. 

M. Co. 787 

Fulwider v. Ingels 814 

Fulwoodv Fulwood 1640,1681 

Fund 9. Bossieux 1498 

Funk 9. M'Keoun 997 

v. Rentchler 646 

Furber 9. Furber 710 

9. King 448 

Furlong v. Riley 660 

Furman v. Clark 1676 

9. Edwards 782 

v. North 417 

Furneaux, Bx parte 1268 

Furnees 9. Booth 1870 

9. Caterham Railway Co. 1781 

Furniral v. Bogle 974 

9. Brooke 177 

Furrer v. Ferris 1299 

Furtado 9. Furtado 78, 1695 

Furze v. Asker 1106 

v. Hennet 799, 978 

9. Sharwood 291 

Fussel 9. Downing 816 

9. Elwin 269, 291, 976 

Futcher v. Callow 661 

v. Futcher 866, 661, 657 

FutToyo 9. Kennard 606, 606. 607, 

797, 806, 980 
Fyie*s Case 202, 208 

Fyfe v. Arbuthnot 1416 

Fyler 9. Fyler 1080 

Fynn, Be 1848, 1849, 1868 



G. 



G , Re 68, 108 

Gabbattv Cavendish 1822 

Gabriel v. Stnrgls 710 

Oadd, Re 1842 

r. Worrell 1619 

Qaflbey* Hevey 1486 

Qafeey v. Beeves 881 

Gagan, Re 676 

Gage r. Arndt 1221 

v. Billings 1624 

9. Brewster 1246 

9. Brown 402 

9. Balkeley 664 

9. Chapman 1624 

v. Bwing 69 

9. Graham 1861 

v Herbert 604 

«. Hunter 966 

9. Kaufman 667, 680 

9 Mayer 1648 

9. Parker 1617 

9. Parmele 668 

r. Roorback 1624 

9. 8mith 604, 1716 

9. 8taflbrd 88, 686 

9. AgneHy 722, 2884 



Gaines v. Brockerhofl 1820 
v. Chew 886, 846, 652 

9. Fuentes 652 

9 Hale 1618 

9. Kennedy 1624 

9. MAusseaux 884 

9. Miller 680 

9. New Orleans 818, 1802, 1560 

Gainsborough, Countess of v. 

Gifford 778, 1621 

Gainsford v. Blackford 1181 

9. Gammer 848 

Gait 9. Osbaldeston 640, 1569 

Galatlan v. Erwin 674, 678, 1648, 

1549 

Gale 9. Abbot 1681 

9. Clark 468 

9. Mkshie 1491 

9. Nickerson 829 

Gallagher v. Roberts 694, 696 

Gallagher's Appeal 1051 

Galland v. Galland 1686 

Galladan 9. Cunningham 612, 674 

Gallemore 9. Gill 978 

Galley v. Baker 178 

Galloway v. Ban 1401 



Galloway v. Galloway 878 

v. Hamilton 658, 660 

9. Jenkins 808 

v. London, Mayor of 1468, 1469, 

1650 

v. Mackerssy 1152 

v. Perry 1809 

Galluchat, Bx parte 1722 

Galphln v. M'Klnney 249, 254 

Gal pin v. Page 1841 

Galsworthy 9. Durrant 61 

Gait v. Carter 1078, 1076 

Galton v. Emass 1291 

9. Hancock 283 

Galveston R Co. v. Cowdrey 287 

Gamage 9. Harris 680 

Gambert v. Hart 1841 

Gamble v. Atlee 111 

Gamble v. Gibson 1820 

9. Johnson 290, 887, 848 

9. Loof 1624 

Games v. Bonnor 969 

Gamewell Fire-Alarm Tel. Co. e. 

Brooklyn 814 

9. Chlllicothe 884 

v. Mayor 818, 717 



Uv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[The references are to the iter paging.] 



Oammon v. Stone 
Ganahl v. Blekner 
Gaudee v. Scansfleld 
Ganderton v. Ganderton 
Gaudy v. Gandy 
Gann v. Gregory 

v. Johnson 
Gans v. Harmlson 

v. Renshaw 
GanseToort v. Luon 
Gant v. Aleplogla 
GanYlll, Re 
Guard v. Gerard 
Garcia* v. Blcardo 
Gardener v. Croeaman 

v. Bnnor 
Gardiner v. Griffith 

v Mason 

v. Miles 

v. Rove 

v. Simmons 

v. Tyler 
Gardner v. — 

v. Blane 

v. Broadbent 

v. Dangerfield 

v. Dering 

v. Field 

v. Gardner 

v. Garret 
v. Hooper 
v. lrrin 
v. Kelao 
v. Landcraft 



1898 

1820 

1883 

1289 

198,822 

877 

1602 

1120 

989 

46 

2819 

89 

542 

664,1468 

779 

1899 

668 

447, 448, 1662 

986 

1078 

1604 

1768 

1699 

1862 

1648 

1824,1886 

1028,1029 

1822 

186, 187, 642, 1076, 

1416, 1417, 1679 

1616, 1617 

91 

1886 

264 

629 



v. London, &c R. Go. 



«. Marshall 

v. Newburgh 

v. Parker 

9. Raisbeek 

9 Schennerhorn 

v. Sharps 

v. Smith 

v. Tapllng 

v. Terry 

Garey v. Whlttlnghain 180, 181, 499. 
780.1404.1482,1610 
Garforth v. Bradley 89, 114, 118 
Garles v. Garbs 
Garland *. Garland 



1086. 
1781 
102, 1378 
808,1689 
1425 
860 
1284,1286 
1735 
1760 
170 
1621 



v. Littlewood 

v. Liring 

v. Oram 

v. Rlordan 

v. Scott 
Garle v. Robinson 
Garlick t». Jackson 

v. Lawson 

v McArthor 

v. Strong 
Garling v. Royds 



1678 

1788, 1788, 

1789 

1870,2061 

168 

679 

897 

671 

1666 

1224 

1001 

844 

110, 402, 419, 688 

1078 



Garlington v. Copeland 418, 986 

Garner v. Briggs 1086 

v. Garner 1846 

v. Moore 1842 

Garnett, Re, Gandy v. Macauley 667 

Garnett v. Bradley 28, 80, 42, 1608 

v.Mason 986,989 

Gamier, Re 61, 86, 86 

Garnum v. Marshall 448 

Garr v. Bright 146. 296 

9. Drake 68, 72 

v. Gower 63 

Garrard v. Dinorben, Lord 1257 

9. Edge 864, 1817 

v. Frankel 1978 

v. Webb 987, 994 

Qarratt, Re 656 

v. Nlblock 1688, 1796 

Garraud v. Lindley 1642 

Qarretson v. Clark 2896 

v. Cole 1056 

v. Wearer 1728 

Garrett v. Bansted fc Bpsom 

Downs Railway Co. 1664 



Garrett v. LanoafteM 1624 

v. Lynch 1676 

v. Mississippi * Alabama R. 

Co. 846 

v. New York Transit Co. 606. 

2898 
Garriek v. Ford 92 

Garrison v. Atlanta 1620 

Garrodv Holden 601.608 

Garrold, Re 1841 

Garrow v. Carpenter 718 

Garstone v. Kdwards 1287 

Garth 9. Cotton 1680, 1681, 1684 
9. Townsend 1406,1427 

9. Ward 280 

Gartland v. Nnnn 286, 297, 298, 

802 

Gartside v. Gartslds 216 

v. Isherwood 1022, 1681 

9. Ontram 666, 1661 

Garvey v. Hibbert 892 

Garvin 9. Luttrell 1506 

v. Watkins 617 

Garwood v. Cartels 481, 482, 1661 

9. Eldridge 1078, 1076 

Gary v. Burnett 892 

v. May 288 

9. Miokler 986 

Gascoygne*s Case 1069 

Gaseoyne v. Chandler 884, 1626 

9. Lamb 869 

Gaskell 9. Chambers 446, 1772, 

1777,1884 

9. Durdin 280 

9. Gaskell 209 

GasklU 9. Sine 846 

Gaskin v. Balls 824, 1664, 1661, 1662 



Gason v. Wordsworth 989 

Gasquet 9. Cresoent City B. 

Co. 1812 

Gass, Re 1801 

9. Arnold 848 

9. Mason 1077, 1079. 1147 

v. Stinson 968, 960 

Gassett v. Grout 91 

Gaston v. Franknm 872, 989, 1897 

Gas Works Const. Co. 9. Mon- 

heimer 1642 

9. Standard G. L. Oo. 1642 

Gaters v. Madeley 114 

Gates v. Boomer 280 

9. Buckland 897, 898 

9. Gates 1809 

v. Jacob 640 

Gatewood v. Leak 790, 1691 

Gathercolev Wilkinson 448 

Gertie. Webster 1866 

Gatty v. Farquharson 1180 

Gaudet Fibres, Re 1081 

Gangh v. Davies 58 

Ganllaher v. Gaullaher 667 

Gault v. Goldthwaite 1081 

9. Hoagland 581 

9. Wallis 1620 

Gaunt 9. Froeuoh 686 

9 Johnson 249,431 

v. Taylor 780, 1207, 1266, 1413, 

1422,1424 
Gaumv Knapp 642 

Gauther v. Meinertshaagen 447 
Ga?in v. Oaborne 435 

Gawthorpe v. Gawthorpe 1722 

Gawtry 9. Leland 1664 

Gay 9. Brlerfleld Coal St I. 

Co. 684 

9. Gllmore 630 

9. Skeen 688 

Gayle v. Johnson 248, 1411 

9. Singleton 1004 

Gaylord v. Beardsley 854 

Gaylords v. Kelshaw 256 

Gayner v. Wilkinson 120 

Gaynor r. Blewett 1716 

Gaynor's Goods, Re 252 

Gaytes v. Franklin 8a?. Bank 1625 

Geach v. IngaU 1096, 1128 



Geake 9. Ross 1267 

Geary v. Norton 1806 

Geast 9. Belfast, Lord 1665 

Geddee, Ex parte 97 

Gedgev. Trail 824 

Gedye v. Matson 270 

v. Montrose, Duke of 816 

Gee 9. BeU 1784 

«. Cottle 180, 181, 446, 498, 499. 

600,628 

v. Gee 76 

9. Gurney 1008 

9. Mahood 1214, 1427 

v. Prltehard 1620, 1648 

v. Swan 1107, 1108, 1128 

Gear v. Winds 1166, 1160 

Geldand v. Randall 1271 

Gell 9. Hayward 870 

9. Wataon 1776 

Gelpeke e. Milwaukee, fee., R. 

Co. 1062 

Geltson v. Hoyt 978 

General Exchange Bank, Re 1070 
General Hospital v. State Mnt. 

Life Ins. Co. 666 

General Ins. Co. v. Benson 660 

v. Knhner 1713 

Genet v. Delaware 4 H. Canal 

Co. 1073 

Genett v . Tallmadge 1364 

Gent, Re 1069 

9. Harris 102, 106, 2001 

Gen til v Arnand 1681 

Gvorgev. Dean 1661 

9. Goldsby 121 

9. Johnson ' 641 

9. Pilcher 1668 

9. Reed 408 

9. St Lonls Cable St W. Ry. 

Co. 286 

9. 8mlth 1648 

9. Whltmore 987, 1072, 1079 

Geo. A. Macbeth Co. v. Llp- 

pencott Glass Co. 1642 

George's Creek Co. v. Detmold 811 
Georgia 9. Brailsford 1619. 1670 
Georgia, Gorernor of v. Ala- 

drago 17 

Georgia Lumber Co. 9. Biasell 

1706 
Gephart v. Starrett 1744 

Gerard v. Penswick 1824 

Geraty 9. Drniding 1621 

Gerber 9. Grabel 1688 

Gere v. New York Central Co. 

1675 

German v. Chapman 1667 

9. German 1606 

9. Machln 860 

German-American Seminary 9. 

Saenger 1640 

German-American Title St T. Go. 

v. ShallcrosB 659 

German Reformed Church v. 

Von Puechelsteln 868 

Gernoe v. Boecaline 896, 696, 1703. 

1707 
Gerrardv. Dawes 1846 

Gerrish v. Black 410, 414, 986, 1289. 

1247 

v. Bragg 1648 

9. Hunt 1621 

v. Mason 861 

v. Towne 843, 886, 846 

Gerry 9. Sthnson 1624 

Gest r. Packwood 669 

Gething v. Keighley 871, 668 

9. Vigors 668 

Getman 9. Beardsley 1418, 1417 

Gecsler v. Saronl 1676 

Geyer v. Douglass 1684 

Giacometti v. Prodgers 92.102,104. 

106 
Giant Powder Co. e. California 

Powder Works 601, 1120, 

1691 
9. Safety Nltro Powder Co. 708 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



IT 



Global « Greenville, fee. B. 
Co. 1748 

GOMas v. Howell 1391, 1749 

9 Maluwartng 1718,1736 

v. North Eastern Metropolf- 
tan Asylum District 990 

Gibbon's Appeal 1172 

Gibbons* Breaslsr 1026 

v. Oeont 1806 

«. Klbbey 96, 98 

e. Ogden 1828 

v. Waterloo Bridge Co. 146, 842 

Gibbsw. Bryant 1268 

v. Chnrton 16421 

v.Clagett 816,847,669 

v. Daniel 1470 

9 David 1724,1720,17*4 

9 Glbbs 898, 1448, 1662, 1670 
v Guild 660,646,649 

v. Hodge 216 

9. Hooper 1121, 1122, 1137 

9. La Soeiete Industrftelle 681 

v. Maraud 1700, 1702 

v Parkinson 684,816 

v Phillipson 1069 

t Pike 1127,1187 

9. Ross 677 

v Tunafey 1180 

Oibby r. Hall 1677 

Gibsrt 9. Colt 1698, 1704, 1705, 

1707,1709,1710, 1718 

Gibneytr Clayton 1887 

Gibraltar «. Malta Banking 
Co. 1603 

Gibson, Re 86 

v American Loan ft T. Co. 248 
v. Black 880 

v. Broadfoot 1820 

v Burgess 029,974 

9. Carson 861 

*. Charters 1678 

v. Clarke 1774, 1776 

v. Oompton 1469 

9 Cranley, Lord 796, 977, 1880 
*. dehor* 1018,1028,1234.1247. 

v.FUer ' 646 

9. Goldsmld 886 

.<***«* a«.a«. tt 



9. Green 
v. Hewett 
e. Ingo 
*. Jayne 
9. Kinven 
r M'Cormisk 
V.McOarty 
• Marshall 
e Martin 
v.Moore 
9. Muskett 
9. Nlcol 
9. Peters 
9 Randolph 

9. 



1679 
1886 
296,406,417,466 
684 
1004 
878,879 
48 
1062 
1736 
1621 
1129, 1185 
710,1887 
1748 
1462 
426,1871 
C18 
9 Beagrim 2218 

v. Smith 1670 

9. TUton 784, 786, 1676 

* Trowbridge Furniture Co. 

286,806 

9 Whitacre 629 

v. Whitehead 609 

v Wills 202,203 

v. Wollard 1828 

Gldding's Appeal 1061 

GWdlngsp Okidings 86.86 

Giflard v. Hort 228. 289, 266, 1276, 

1461, 1478, 1621, 1684 

v. Williams 1280 

Gilford v. Thorn 986 

Gilbert, Ex parte 664 

v Arnold 1681 

• Colt 896, 1706 
9. Deoeley 1246, 1746 
v. Bndeaa 676,896, 974. 1081. 



[The r efe rences are to the star paging.] 

Gilbert v. Gilbert 28, 29, 80, 88 

9. Guignon 1449 

•.James 296 

9. Lee 1417 

9. Lewis 167, 168, 299, 824. 666, 

678, 684 

9. McBaehen 1869 

9. Mosier 846 

v. Nantueket Bank 80 

v. Schwenck 1884 

v. Showerman 1686 

9. Sutliff 287 

v. Tomlinson 1526, 1626 

«. Van Annan 946,2892 

v. WetbereU 1187 

Gilbertson v. Gilbertaon 1428, 1628 

Gilchrist, Ex parte 167, 1488 

v. Cannon 1491, 1607, 1509 

v. Cator 102 

v Stevenson 198 

Glldart v. Moss 1807 

Guev Detent 1710 

«. Bston 766 

9. Giles 778, 1686 

v. Powell 1104 

GUI v. Continental Union Gas 

Co. 1088 

v. Byton 1886 

9. Fleming 61 

v. Gilberd 896 

v. Bayoer 410,416,819 

Glllamv Taylor 1438 

Gillespie v. Alexander 1206, 1207. 

1208 

9. Cammlngs 834 

Gillette Hall 1682,1686 

v. Bobbins 848 

Gillette v. Wiley 660 

Gilliam v. Spenoe 288 

Gillian v. Allen 1676 

Gilliland e. Cullum 991, 1081 

Gillis 9. Hall 1678 

Gillon v. TurnbuU 1268 

Gillot v. Kettle 1648 

Glllott v. Bstsrbrook 1649 

Gills, Re 108 

GUman v. Cairnes 288, 290 

v. Sheboygan 1660 

Gilmer e. Morris 669 

9. Wallace 860 

Gilmore v. Anderson 878, 1642 

tf.Gumore 1046,1160,1180,1188, 

1800 

9. McClure 642 

v Patterson 842 

v. Sapp 617 

Gilpatriekv Glldden 402.1019 

Gilpin 0. Southampton, Lady 1617 

Gilpin County Mining Co. v. 

Drake 818 

Gilpin* 9. Consequa 918, 919, 929 
Gllroy's Appeal 1614 

Gllson 9. Hutohinson 1168 

Glltenan v. Lamert 1624 

Glngell v. Home 662, 664 

Girard Life Ins. Co. v. Cooper 

1299 
Glrdlestonev Lavender 1266 

Glrod v. Mlehoud 998 

Giftborne v. Gisborne 1603 

Gist v. Cattei 644 

9. Frasler 1284 

v Gist 1234 

Githerov Clarke 1611 

Glttlngsv Dew 1629 

GiTeans v. MeMurtry 886 

Given* v. M'Oalmont 1240. 1242, 

1244 

v. Tidmore 846 

Gladdon 9. Sronemon 1728 

Gladson 9. Whitney 282 

Gladstone v. Musurus Bey 141,142, 

147 

9. Ottoman Bank 18, 142, 699 

Gladwin v Gladwin 2860 

Glaenserv Wlederer 1642 

Glalster v. Hewer 101 



Glann «. YoungloTe 116 

Glanvll v. Trelawney 262 

GlanrUl, Me, BUis 9. John- 
son 110, 118. 1ST 
Glasoott v. Lang 828, 882. 1619. 

Gleaner v. Webberg ' 1661 

Glass v. Beach 1118 

•. Holbert 880, 847 

9. Ozenham 250 

Glssseott 9. Copper* Miners' Co. 

146,686.1678 
Glassington v. Thwaites 70/, 708, 

761, 716, 1786 
Glasson, Re 1866 

Glssbrook v. Gliatt 1604 

Glsse v. Drayton 997 

Glasler 9. BaUey 1624 

v. Bolls No. 1, 26 

Gleason v. Blsby 1698, 1609, 1702. 

1718 
v. Clisby 1709 

e. Cook 680 

9. Smith 1461 

GleaTes v. Ferguson 1264, 1802 

v. Morrow 847, 849, 716. 722. 724. 

768, 760, 764 

9. Payne 91 

Gledhill v. Hunter 1072 

Glee 9. Manhattan Co. 640 

Gleggv. Legh 669,679,684,697 



Gtoghorne v. Glaghorne 848 

Glen v. Fisher 90, 1896 

v. Hall 1648 

Glen Iron Works, He ' 1679 

Glengall, Earl of v. Frassr 724. 

1822 

Glenn v. Blackford 1278 

9. Clapp 1291 

9 Clark 1648 

9. Cocksy 888 

9. Dimmook 1019, 1120 

v. Doyle 281 

v. Fowler 1628 

9. Hebb 829 

v. Magnire 642, 1626 

9. Marbury 1741 

v. Noonan 1019 

9. Wotten 1270 

Gkrany v. Smith 1649 

Glenton v. Clover 1712 

Glines v. Supreme Sitting 

Order 1718 

Globe Ins. Co. v. Boyle 884 

v. Lansing 284 

Globe Ins. Co., Receivers of the, 

In re 1716 

Gloe 9. Randolph 2119 

Glossop 9. Helton Local Board 

10,1687 
Glossup r. Harrison 1767 

Gloucester, Mayor and Corp. of 

9. Wood 1469, 1470 

Glorerv. Daubeny I486 

9. Greenback Alkali Co. 898 

v. Hall 1667, 1880, 1882, 1888 
v. Hembree 642, 1299 

v. Hodges 1489 

9. Millings 918 

9. Rogers 710 

9. Webber 77 

9. Weedoa 108, 700 

Glyn 9. Caulfield 678, 1826, 1826, 

1834 

9. Duesbury 1560, 1664 

v. Soarcs 301 

Glynn v. Bank of England 843. 



9. Houston 

v. Locke 

v. Thorpe 
Gobe 9. Carlisle 
Goble 9. Andruss 

9. Gale 

v. Grant 



666, 1129, 1666, 

1657 

1660, 1669, 1570 

1740 

221 

828,644,646 

269 

862 



lvi 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



(The references are to the star paging.] 



417,884 

886 

1378, 1816, 1817 

208 

90,116 



Godbold v. BIUs 

Godbolt v. Watte 

Goddard v. Cos 

9. Haslam 

v* Johnson 

v. Keeble 

v. May 1661 

v. Ordway 1467 

•. Parr 864, 786, 894 

Godfrey v. Chadwell 214, 277, 278 

v. Furso 69 

v. Llttel 1168, 1164 

•. Maw 797 

•. Tucker 816, 40L 407, 642, 

1087, 18M, 1616 

v. Turner 1668 

•. Watson 1242, 1246, 1246 

v. White 1160, 1881 

Godkfn v. Ferrers. Barl 118 

Godson v. Onok 449 

v.Hale 1601 

Goebel v. American Hallway 

Supply Co. 890 

Goelet v. Lansing 1017 

Goff v. Goff 946 

Goffln v. Donnelly 887, 1108 

Gohegan v. Barlow 819 

Going v. Emery 187 

Gold v. Canham 1777 

v. Whitcomb 642 

Goldberger v. Manhattan B, Co. 1821 

Golden v. Maupin 1166 

v. Newton 628 

v. The Morning News 149 

Golden Fleece Co. v. Cable, ft*., 

Co. 46,866 

Golder v. Colder 797, 799 

Goldey v. Beeker 828 

Goldhawk v. Duane 1254 

Goldlcut v. Beagin 1128 

Goldman * Page 217 

Goldmark v. Krellng 1676 

v. Rosenfcld 1461 

Goldsby v. Goldsbj 1680 

Goldsmtd v. Tunbridge Wells 

Improvement Commlsslon- 

en 1688 

v. Stonehewer 200 

Goldsmith v. American P. 0. Co. 197 

v. Gilliland 60, 149, 

814,627 

v. Goldsmith 40. 42. 478, 496, 

1061, 1064, 1066 

9. Osborne 1918 

9. Russell 69.166.1488 

9. 8touehew«r 216, 222, 267 

9. Tunbridge Wells Imp. 

Com'rs 1687 

Goldstein 9. Kelly 1624 

Goldsworthy, Re 1847 

Goldthwait 0. Day 886, 1661 

9. Lynch 817 

Goleborn v. Aloook 674 

Goltra v. Woleott 676 

Gombault, Re 1608 

Gomley v. Wood 1418 

Gomm 9. Parrott 676 

Gomme v. West 1744 

Gomperts v. Ansdell 940 

v. Best 849,606,610,728 

v. Kensit 1413 

9. Pooley 1626 

Gonsales v. Hukil 878 

Gooch v. Green 686, 1684 

v. Haworth 1744 

9. MarshaU 1044, 1674, 1688, 

1684 
Good 9. Blewitt 26, 216. 289, 406, 

1208,1206,1869 

Goodacrev Skinner 780 

Goodale v. Gawthorne 70, 944 

9. Goodale - 1668 

Goodall's Trade-mark 1648 

Goodall 9. Harris 1347, 1352 

9 Little 676,678,1829,1884 

9. Skerratt 1610 

Goodchlld v. Terrett 282 



Goodday 9. Sleigh 


791 


Goodden 9. Coles 


190,212 


Goodell 9. Blumer 


1624 


Goodenough v. Alway 


BAA 
BOO 


9. Goodenough 


1166 


9 Powell 


1077 


Goodess v. Williams 


286 


Goodfellowv. Prince 


1648 



Goodford v. Stonehouse & Nails- 
worth Railway Co. 281 
Goodhand 9. Ayscough 1448 
Goodhue v. Churchman 1676 
Goodier 9. Ashton 167 
Goodloe 9. Dean 848 
Goodman v. Ba r bour 287 
9. Jones 1800 
v. Klne 1614, 1680 
9. Nlblack 149 
9. Bayers 1700 
9. Whitcomb 1727, 1728, 1786 
Goodner 9. Browning 1228 
Goodrich 9. Marsh 216, 222, 267 
«. Pendleton 27. 80, 608, 607. 
618, 646, 700, 702, 1882, 1412 
9. Rodney 847, 849, 863 
9. Shotbolt 1671 
Goodright v. Saul 1188 
Goodson 9. Ellison 219 
9. Richardson 1631 
Goodwin, Re 162, 1286 
v. Archer 82 
9. BeU 480 
9. Bishop 689, 769, 1268, 

2124 
9. Clarke 1700, 1701 

9. Gibbons 1135 

9. Goodwin 266. 294, 406, 410, 

416, 1680, 1632 
9. Hammond 846 

o. Jones 261 

v. Miller 987 

v. Moore 99 

v. New York R. Co. 1660 

9. Roberts 18 

Goodyear 9 Day 1648 

9. Providence Rubber Co. 1079 



Goodyear Dental V. Co. 9. White 

1607,1642 
Goodyear Rubber M. Co. 9. 

Goodyear Rubber Co. 1648 

Goodyere v. Lake 1868, 1486 

Goold 9. Great Western Deep 

Dean Goal Co. 1660 

9. O'Keefle 886 

Goose 9. Bedford 886 

Gordon 9. Bell 844 

9. Cheltenham Railway Co. 1668 

9. Gordon 826, 862, 941, 1004, 

1117, 1119 

v. Green 243 

9. Hammell 724 

9. Hobart 1221, 1240. 1296, 1920. 

1926, 2198, 2229 

9. Holland 406 

9 HorsfiUl 214 

r. James 630 

9. Jesson 66, 169, 1610, 1612, 1626 

9. Lewis 1281, 1240, 1241, 1242, 

1243, 1244, 1262, 1296, 1802 

9. Moore 1777 

9. Pym 240 

9. Rockafellow 678 

v Rosn 1684 

v. Rothley 1781, 1782 

v. St. Paul H. Works 834 

9 Shaw 624,678 

9. Simpklnson 262, 647 

9 Sims 844,1061,1281.1282, 

1284,1286,1290 

9. Stereos 1166 

Gore Langton, Re 1610 

Gore 9. Bowser 674, 948 

9. Harris 674, 943 

v. Purdon 1022, 1476 

r. Stacponle 266, 15<U 

Goto 9. Clements 860 



Gorely «• Gorely 1801 

Gorham *. Gorham 9, 88, 206 

9. Toomey 1628 

Gorham Co. 9. White 1618 

Gorman v. M'Collooh 1688 

9. Russell 272 

Qormley e. Banyan 008, 988 

9. Clark 1068 

Gornall, Re 861, 1368 

Gorrell 9. Gates 286 

Gort, Viscountess 9. Clark 1061 

Gosltn 9. Corry 1127 

9. Wlloock 1129 

Gosling 9. Gosling 1001 

Gosman, Re 188 

Gosnell 9. Bishop 1600 

Goes, Re 896 

9. Simpson 840 

v. Singleton 886, 969 

Gossett 9. Kent 802 

Gossom 9. Donaldson 1276 

Gossop v. Wright 418 

Gott v. Cook 161, 1467 

Gottfried v.Creeoent Brewing Co. 

1809,1820 

v. Milter 197 

Goucher 9. Clayton 611, 1680 

Gough 9. Crane 680 

9. Herbert 1668 

9. Offley 681, 1886 

Gould 9. Dummett 1448 

v. Elgin City Banking Co. 1196 

t>. Gould 646, 844, 1997 

v. Granger 1468 

9. Hayes 226, 287 

9. Head 26 

9. Kemp 147 

9. Norfolk Lead Co. 1101 

9. Spencer 448, 488 

9. Stanton 966 

v. Tanered 1261, 1677, 1688 

9. Twine 607 

9. Wheeler 269 

9. Williamson 848, 844, 847 

Goulder 9. Camm 191 

Gourand v. Trust 1649 

Gourkey 9. Toledo ft Ohio Ry. 

Co. 1168 

Gouroud v. Edison A G. Tei Go. 26 
Gout 9. Aleploglu 1648 

Gouthwaite v.Rtppon 424, 1602L 

Gouverneurv. Klmendorf 948, 1649 
9. Titus 1680 

Gove 9. Lyford 994, 906, 1616 

o.Pettis 662 

Gorer 9. Christie 197 

9. Lucas 924 

9. Stllwell 1879, 1798 

Governesses 1 Benevolent Institu- 
tion 9. Rusbridger 816, 1481. 

1779 
Governors of Grey -Coat Hospital 

9. Westminster Imp. Com'rs 277 

Govet 9. Armltage 69 

Gowan, Re, Gowan v. Gowan 106 

Gowan 9 Broughton 1480 

9. Jefferies 1728 

Gowerv Gower 1290 

Cowing v. Mowberry 710 

Gowland v. De Faria 1886 

Gosman 9. Cruger 186 

Grabenheimer v. Blum 1617 

Grace c Hunt 221 

9, Neel 1642 

9. Nesbit S<88 

9. Terrington 217, 1874 

Graff v. Barnum 1492 

Gratham 9. Turnbull 664,670,1868 

Grafton 9. Hilllard 1636 

v. Watson 1648 

Graham, Re 1847, 1790 

9. Berryman 878, 844, 886, 1650, 

1961 
9. Birkenhead Railway Co, 24] 
o. Boston H. * E. R. Go. 660, 

163 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



lvii 



[The reference* are to the star paging.] 



Graham v Campbell I486, 1662, 1678 

• Garter 216,221 
«. Coape 707, 708 

* Dahkraega Gold M. Co. 884, 



v Davidson 667 

9. Elmore 662. 690 

• Pitch 188,446,489 

e. Geneva Lake C. M Co. 197 

v. Graham 1288,1299,1388,1842 

v Hardin 994 

v Horn 1892 

v. Ingleby 897 

9 Maxwell 800,1616,1617,1627 

«. Minneapolis 190 

V Nelson 661, 664 

v. Newcastle-upon-Tyne 1688 

v. Oliver 866 

v Railroad Co. 1008.2198 

v. Sublett 161, 841 

*. Tankersley 782, 1648 

«. Torrance 641 

r Wkkham 1283,1488 

v. Williams 1268 

v. Winterson 60 

Grainge v. Warner 1696 

Grainger v Slingsby 1486 

Granard, Karl of v. DnnUn 1648 

Granberry v. Granberry 1247 

Grandin e Leroy 650 

Grand Junction Canal Co. v. 

Dimes 1614 

Grand Rapids v Weiden 1688 

Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. 

Sparrow 1071 

Grand Rapids School Furniture 
Co tr. Haney School furni- 
ture Co. 1642 
Grand Trunk Company v 

Brodle 808 

Grand U. Order v. Merklin 814 

Grane v. Cooper 1886 

Granely v. Barnard 1664 

Granger r. Bassett 912 

v. Batchelder 974 

Grangers' Business Asfn v. 

Clark 2120 

GreuoJs v. Clark 863 

Grant, Be 108, 206 

9. Anderson 446 

v Bryant 1746 

v. Davenport 1787 

v. Dexter 1746 

v Bart * West R. Co. 986,1029 
v Esston 664 

9. Grant 424, 1699, 1712, 1714. 

1798 
86 



9. Lethrop 1624 

v Mills 118 
9. Phoenix Ins. Co. 884, 617, 1029. 

1720 

v Schmidt 800,808 

v. Thompson 83 

9. Van Schoonhoven 109, 160. 

161, 191 

Grant's Cases 1042, 1859 

Granville v. Betts 585 

Ear) v. M'Nelll 254 

Lady v. Ramsden 682, 660 

Grassman e Bonn 267 

Gracemeyer v. Beeso n 1161 

Grattan v. Appleton 2026, 2205 

v. Wiggins 284 

Gravatt v Tann 71 

Grave, In re 1297 

Gravel r. Clough 1885 

Gravely *. Barnard 1672 

Gravenor v. Miles 1292 

9 Woodhouse 1126 

Graves v. A Wen 846 

9 Blondell 604 

v. Budgel 884 

9. Corbin 884 

v. Downey 649, 584 

r Fresh 559 

9. Pinchbeck 249 



Graves 9. Short 
9. Wright 

Gray, Be 
9. Adamson 
9. Barnard 
v Bateman 
9 Beck 
9 Bell 

9 Brignardello 
v Campbell 
v. Chaplain 
9. Chaplin 



1108 

1209, 1210 

807 

no 

106,168,228 

920 

680 

78,165 

999, 1017 

426, 508, 610 

26,242 

1724 



v. Chicago R. Co. 1614,1688,2897 
v. ChisweU 286 

v. Faris 844 

v. Gaithar 1722 

v. Gray 1282, 1877 

v. Haig 408,1260,1552 

v Hays 419,549 

V.Lewis 26,244.1743 

v Murray 980,962 

9. National Steamship Co. 191 
v. Ohio & Pennsylvania R 

Co 1640 

v. Parke 68 

v. Paul 1558 

v. Pentland 907 

v Russell 1646 

v. Sherman 2012 

v. Smith 865 

v. Thompson 1418 

v. Washington 667 

v. Wilson 671 

Graydon v Church 1761 

v. Graydon 1157 

Grays, Be 108 

Grayson v Atkinson 876 

v. Moncure 1165 

v Virginia 446 

Grazbrook v. Gihatt 1696 

Greames v. Strltho 1699 

Greasby, Be 1705 

Greason v. Keteltas 671 

Great Australian Gold M. Co v. 

Martin 452,628 

Great Eastern Railway Com- 
pany, Ex parte 1028 
Great Eastern Rv. Co., Re 1080 
Great Falls Manut Co. v. 

Henry 1628 

v. Worster 1032, 1628, 1689 

Great Luxemburg Ry. Co. v 

Magnay 800. 721, 1897 

Great Northern Copper M. Co., 

Be 1027 

Great Northern Ry. v Man- 
chester, Sheffield, * Lin- 
colnshire Ry. 1666 
Greatrex v. Greatrex 1663 
Great Western Colliery Co. v. 

Tucker 800, 720, 722 

Great Western Compound Co 

v Etna Ins Co. 802 

Great Western Rv. Co. v. Bir- 
mingham « Oxford Ry 
Co 1619,1652,1661 

v Cripps 1622 

9. Oxford, Worcester, and 
Wolverhampton Ry. Co. 

1663, 1678 
9. Oxford, &o. 1640 

9. Ruflhout 1620 

Great Western Ry. of Canada v. 

Braid 1127 

Greatwood v. Sims 1138 

Greaves, Be 176, 643, 1607 

v Atkinson 569,674 

v. Gouge 26 

v. Greaves 526 

v. Griffith 1699 

9. 8mith 484 

v. Tofield 676 

Greece, King of v. Wright 18 

Greedup v. Franklin County 1661 

Greedy v. Lavender 104, 107, 730. 

1432 
Greets v. Emery 1290 



Greeley v. Provident Bank 1716 

Green, Ex parte 1869 

v. Arnold 279 

9. Bedley 69, 160, 1870 

v. Bostwiek 1742 

v. Branton 186 

9. Briggs 1440 

9. Charnock 28, 29, 58 

9. Cokby 978 

v Covillaud 885 

9. Crelghton 668, 680 

9. Crockett 974 

v.Dodge 546 

9. Gascoyne 1480 

9. Grant 248 

9. Green 109, 867, 974 

9. Harrison 87, 1871 

9. Huey 1081 

9. Humphreys 646 

9. Jenkins 1576. 1677, 1679, 

1588 

v.Lanler 1297 

9. Low 826,1600,1671 

v. Lowes 1662 

9. Lyon 187 

v McKenney 286 

9 McKlnney 457 

v. Maesie 1558 

9. Measures 1175 

9. Monks 1217 

9. Morris 1978 

9. Mumford 1560, 1565 

v. Neal 688, 685, 637 

v. Otte 106 

v. Pallas 1668 
9. Phila Freestone A Granite 

Co. 1081 
9. Pledger 449, 456, 842, 1385, 
1870, 1596, 1616 
v. Poole 282 
9. Pulsford 1675 
9. Richards 884, 846, 989 
9. Robinson 544 
9. Rutherforth 629 
9. Sevin 8S4, 786 
9. Snead 655, 667, 712, 821 
9. Tanner 844 
9. Terwilllger 714 
9. Thomson 508 
9. Tippah County Super- 
visors 418 
v. Yaughan 844 
9. Weaver 566 
9. Wheeler 
v. Winter 1288, 1467, 14 



9. Wright 1188 

Green, Re, Green 9. Pratt 88 

Greenaway v. Adams 1198 

v. Rotheram 112 

Greenoastle 9. Haseleit 1688 

Greene v. Canny 308 

9. Greene 1165 

9. Harris 2, 615, 617, 624, 666, 

667, 708 

9. Mumford 1560, 1661 

9. Sisson 237, 290, 292 

v. United States Dealers 1 Ass'n 

1648 
Greenfield v. Frierson 1625 

Greenhalgh v. Manchester & 
Birmingham Railway Co. 

1631,1663 

v. Rumney 1525, 1526 

Greenhouse, Ex parte 1191, 1851 
Greenin v. Hoey 1675 

Greening 9. Beekfbrd 1696 

v. Greening 612 

Greenlaw v Greenlaw 1284 

v. Kernahan 161, 1625 

v. King 571 

Greenleaf v Queen 288, 1616 

Greenlee v. McDowell 1567, 1578 
Greenough v. Eccles 1100 

9. GsskeU 671, 572, 574, 575, 576. 

943, 1884 

9. Shorrock US, 187 



lviii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[The references are to the star paging.] 



Greenslade v Dart 676 

Green wait v. Duncan 1648 

Greenway v. Bromfleld 668 

Greenwell v. Greenwell 1806, 1858 
Greenwich Bank v. Loomis 1676 
Greenwood v. Atkinson 282, 781, 

1638 
v. Churchill 846 

v. Firth 284 

v. Greenwood 1824, 1882 

v. Hornsey 1662 

v. Parsons 966 

v Percy 1161 

v. KothweU 1886 

v. Sutclifie 1896 

v. Sutherland 1001 

v. Taylor 284 

Greer v. Laws 864 

v. Turner 1617, 1680 

v Willis 1120 

Gregg, Re 892, 1044, 1840 

v Garrett 614 

v. Massachusetts Med. 8oe. 

1668 

v. Slater 1893 

v. Taylor 1082, 1212, 1819 

Gregor v. Molesworth 669, 1688 

Gregory v. Boston Safe Deposit 

Co. 1770 

v. Dodge 1467, 1481 

v. Forrester 200 

v. Gardiner 1066 , 

v. Molesworth 72, 78, 997 

v.Paul 88 

v. Pierce 88 

v. Pike 1648 

v. Power 1003 

v. Spencer 798, 806, 811 

v. Stetson 149, 190 

v. Swift 149 

v. Wearer 747 

v. West 1867 

Gregson, Re 642, 1466, 1488, 1842 

v. Oswald 1644, 1646 

Greig v. SomerviUe 1206, 1206 

Grenlell v. Windsor, Dean of 1780 

Grcpe v. Loam 854 

Gresham v. Luke 2190 

v. Peterson 1698 

v Price 1416,1417 

Greshold v Markham 214 

Greeley v. Adderiey 1717, 1718 

v Mousley 677,1822 

Grettonv Mees 1896 

Greville* Grcville 1838 

Grew* Breed 477,1042,1068. 

1686, 1691 

Grey, Re 100 

v. ChUwell 1083 

v. Dickenson 1018 

v. Northumberland, Duke of 

1688,1676 
Grey's Brewery Co., Re 1847 

Grey Coat Hospital v. West- 
minster Impr. Commission- 
ers 1681 
Grey de Wilton, Lord v. Saxon 

1666,1672 

Grlder v. Apperson 638 

Griells v. Gansell 963 

Grierv Wilt 814 

Griersonv Byre 1684 

Grimes v. Grimes 1168 

Griffin v. Archer 157 

v Brady 664,1880 

v. Merrill 889 

v Morgan 1608, 1624, 2859 

v. Pickett 1624 

v. Spence 264 

v. State Bank 736 

v Wilson 281, 1516 

Grifflng v. Gibb 644, 689 

Griffith v. Augusta & K. R 

Co. 646 

v. Bateman 200, 249 

v Bronaugh 1689 

v. Coleman 90 



Griffith v. Griffith 612, 676, 678. 
1147, 1718,17*1, 1766, 1766 
v. Hadley 1272, 1291 

v. Hilliard 1688 

v. Hood 100, 110 

v Lewis 829 

v. Merritt 1649 

v. Pound 200, 212, 248 

v. BJcketts 817, 867, 868, 909, 

1097 

v 8egar 834 

v. Vanheythuysen 280, 801 

Griffiths, Ex parte 62 

v. Cowper 1046 

v. Crystal Palace, fcc. Co. 1774 

v Griffiths 1844,1848 

v Hamilton 668 

v. Hatchaid 1280 

v Jones 1278 

v. Wood 782 

Grifly v. finders 1169 

Grigg v. Landis 869 

v. Sturgis 710 

Grigg's Case 629 

Griggs v. Gear 1676, 1682, 1688 

v. Gibson 1869 

v. Staples 280, 801, 884, 751, 

1400 
v. Thompson 1662 

Grignon v. Astor 282 

Grigsby v. Wearer 1078, 1186 

Grillion v. Botch 1626 

Grime Walbert 188 

v. Wheeler 716 

Grimes v. French 826, 878, 879. 



v Grimes 686, 1684 

v. Harrison 1444 

v. March 1895 

Grimmett's Trusts, Re 88, 86 

Grimsby v. Webster 1696 

Grimston v. Timm 1468 

Grim wood v. Share 40, 1482 

Grinnell e. Merchants* Ins. Co. 

1206,1207 
Grissell v. Peto 1284 

Grist v. Forehand 1856 

Griswold v. Central Vermont B. 

Co. 634 

v. Griswold 906 

v. Hasard 1812, 1680 

v. Inman 806 

v. Jackson 986 

v McMillan 69 

« Simmons 1662 

v Waddington 49 

Groce v Field 1680 

Groch v. Stenger 1017 

GrofTs Appeal 1650 

Groom, Re 1862 

v. Attorney-General 497, 628 

v. Stlnton 1024, 1488 

Groome v. Sporne 641 

Gross v. George W. Scott Manuf 

Co. 149, 2886 

v. Pearcy 1281, 1282 

Grosvenor v. Allen 287, 659 

v White 642 

Grote v. Blng 1785 

Grotenkemper v. Carrer 1546 

Grove, Re 102, 103 

v. Bastard 1001,1408 

v Fresh 846.347.1249 

v. Rentch 824. 828. 361, 863 

v. Young 988, 986, 936, 937, 1148, 

1884 
Grorer v. Stilwell 1611 

Grorer & Baker Sewing Machine 

Co. v. Millard 519, 626 

v. Radcliue 664 

Groves v. Clarke 106, 1516 

v. Gordon 46 

v. Groves 1209, 1796. 

1886 
v Lane 201,208 

V. Levi 201, 203 

9. Perkins 106 



Grovel «. Webber 
Grubb v. Browder 

v. Kolb 

v. LockaMU 
Gruber v. Baker 
Grugeon e. Gerrard 
Gruggen r. Cochrane 
Grumbrecht v. Parry 
Grundy v. Griee 



1621 

1469 

1625 

281 

824 

1078 

1266 

720 

2214 



Gruning* Priolean 462,637,691 
GrunweU v Garner 229, 1624 

Guadalupe County v Johnston 868 
Guaga Iron Co. v. Dawson 24 

Guavus v. Fontaine 1060 

Gubbins v Creed 1242 

Gnde v. Mumfard 864 

Gudger v. Western N. 0. R. Co 

288,818 

Goebelle v. Epley 1688 

Guernsey v. American Ins. Co. 884 

v Carrer 880 

Guest r. Brooklyn 1624 

v. Cowbridge By. Co 1036 

v. Homfray 1398 

v. Sims 166 

v. Smythe 896, 1271, 1285 

Guilbert v. Hawlss 798 

Guild v. Phillips 1684 

Guilden Sutton, Ex parte 1828 

Guilford, Mayor of v. Clark 646 

GuiU v. Pierce 1611 

Guillam v. Holland 1263 

Gutllon v. Botch 1626 

Guinness v. Land Co. 1660 

Guion v. Liverpool, Ac. Ins. 

Co. 1461 

Gulf, C. & 8. F. R. Co. v. 

Nelson 1666 

v. Washington 824, 601 

Gullan v. Trimbey 100 

Gullett v. Houah 1676) 1680 

Gully's Case 68 

Gully v. Bemy 1267 

Gultenberger v. Woods , 1689 

Gunby v. Thompson 1716 

Gunn v Bolokow 1770 

v Mason 1606 

v. Prior 606, 627 

Gunnell v. Bird 848 

v. Whitear 1418 

Gunther v. Liverpool, LAG. 

Ins. Co. 1440 

Guntono Zantsinger 1282 

Guppy v Brown 916 

Gurden v. Badcock 1761, 1757 

G uriah v. Donovan 409 

Gurney, Re 224 

v. Ford 860 

v Jackson 710, 1426 

Gurney, /te.MsMO 9. Mercer 660 

Guthrie v. Kahto 1240 

v. Morrell 266 

v Quinn 786 

v. Wairond 1626 

Guy v. Churchill 1617 

v. Doak 1788 

v. Guy 70, 71, 78, 79, 1606 

v. Heraance 1961 

v. Pearkes 103 

Guyotv Hilton 1666 

Gwatkin v. Campbell 246, 804. 417 

OwiUimv 784,787 

Gwllt v. Crawley 1181 

Gwin v. Harris 1081 

Gwlnett v. Bannister 1621 

Gwlnnr Whitaker 1266 

Gw3 er v. Peterson 797 

Gwynn v. Butler 417 

v. Dorsey 1285 

v Uthbridge 1467,1468,1470 

v. Lethbrlgge 880 

Gwynne v. Edwards 1461, 1476. 

v. Gell 660 

Gwyon v. Gwyon 819, 1686 

Gyles v. Wilcox 1646 

Gynnv. GUbard 68.1347 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
(Tto resercnoss are to the iter paging.] 



lix 



H. 



H.,Jfe 1840 

H?s Estate, Re 1719 

Haas v. Chicago Bafldlng 8oe. 1719. 

Hum s. Roehnehfed 1868 
Haberdashers' Company v. At- 
torney-General 1417, 1418 
Habergham tr. Rirtchalgh 1488 
9. Stananeld 1166 
r. Vincent 416 
Haek v. Leonard 1669 
Backer v. MM Kent Railway Oo. 279 
Haekett v. Bain 1688 
flackleyv Draper 1748 
9. Mack 1661 
Hackney ». Vawtar 1660 
Backwith v. Damroa 287 
flackwood o. Lockerby 408, 460. 

Haddiz v. Haddix 960, 962 

Baddoch v. Thomlinson 890 

Baddon v. Pegler 808 

Badiz v. Davison 646 

BadJey r. BnTcndalo 1127 

r. Preedman's Bar. & Tr. 

Co. 144 

v. London Bank of Scotland 1662, 

1664 

9. McDougall 1826 

e. Pethcal 1600 

v Russell 967,278,282 

Hafley v. Hafley 1702 

Hagaman v. Clond County 1661 

Began v. BllndeU 1620 

». Buck 198 

v. Patterson 818 

r. Walker 214, 268, 828 

Bagar •. Whitaore 779 

BagaU tr. Carrie 1772, 1774. 

1780 

Bagenbeeh «. Howard 1661 

Hagerstown Turnpike t. Greeger 22 

Hagerty v. Lee 1668 

Bagewieeh v. Sifter 1786 

Haggard v Benson 87 

w. Pelfeler Freres 864 

Baggarty «. Pittman 1720, 1T28 

Baggett v. Weiah 1860 

Baggin v. Comptpir d'Escompte 

de Paris 149, 446 

v. Raymond 1071 

Baggitt v. Inlff 744, 892 

Hsgthorp v. Book 874, 614, 

676, 717, 720. 768, 844, 1289. 

1242,1246,1462 

Hague v. Wheeler 1688 

Hahn v. Concordia Society 1664 

Balgv Gray 216 

v. Hainan 1676 

Halgh, Re 1868 

*. Dixon 480 

9 Grattan 1747 

v. Haigh 186, 979 

v Jaggar 1632 

v Kaye 619,667 

Height v. Burr 1716 

v Case 1668 

9. Lucia 1676 

v. Morris Aqueduct, Prop, of 786, 

846,891 

Halkmmn v. Ferule 1128 

Heine v. Taylor 1686, 1686 

Haines 9. Beach 194, 277 

r Carpenter 884,1627 

*. Hewitt 1169 

*. Oatman 68 

* Taylor 1687,1640 

Hair v. Avery 119 

Hake t. Brown 1120 

Hakell v. Wright 1664 

Hakewell. In re 111 

w Webber 978 



Hakewlll, Ex parte 88,89,1868 
Re 89 

Halcomb v. Haloomb 1816 

v. Kelly 418 

v. Managers New Hope D. B. 
Co. 1147 

Haldane v. Bekford 606,1626,1826 

Halldenby v. Spoflbrth 1411, 1428 

Hale v. Boustead 167 

v. Continental Life Ins. Co 619. 

786,769 
r. Cove 1106,1188 

9. Duncan 1748 

9. Hale 991, 1684, 1728 

v. Lewis 979 

9. Nashua & Lowell R. Co 884 
v. Point Pleasant & 0. R. R. 

Co 1668 

9 Saloon Omnibus Co. 1666, 1670 
9. Sheldrake 99 

v Thomas 1684 

Hales v. Pomfret 246, 262, 889 

9. She/toe 1068, 1064 

Haley v. Bagley 260 

9 Bannister 1860 

Halfhide v. Penning 671 

v. Robinson 88 

Hali&x Joint Stock B. Co. 9. 
Gledhill 676 

9. Sowerby Bridge T. H Oo. 828 

Hall, Re 880, 1794. 1840 

9. Austin 261, 262, 268, 272 

9. Baldwin 1661 

v. Barrows 1648, 1649 

9. Bennett 809 

9. Bodley 723 

9. Bushlll 1404 

9. Byron 860 

« Claggett 787 

9. CUre 1624,1626,1626,2069 
9. Craig 1666 

e. Dana 1042 

v.Dodge 994 

9 Doran 1111 

o. Kve 871 

v. Bwin 1664 

v. Powlkes 880,682,1648 

9 Hall 166, 883, 669, 862, 1169, 
1660,1727.1728,1771, 1772 
v. Hallett 1261, 1419 

9. Harris 220, 1661 

9. Hoddesdon 648, 871, 1678 

9. Hugonin 119 

9 Jenkinson 1729,1774 

v. Jones 1864 

v. Lack 404 

9. Lamb 1081, 1492 

9 Law 809, 1846 

9. Law 1151 

9. Layton 1076 

9. Linn 1071 

9. Macdonald 1426, 1778 

9. McPherson 798, 1614 

v. Maltby 827, 862, 866 

9. Morris 279 

tr. Mulliner 1807 

v. Noyes 606, 616 

9. Paulet 89 

9. Pierce 878 

9. RadcliflB 689, 1610 

9. Roche 466 

v. School District No. 4 418 

9. 8tone 1130 

9. Stothard 1134 

9. Stout 983 

9. Taylor 1168 

v. Truman 486, 760, 889 

9. Turner 690 

9. TJrquhart 1291 

v. Warren 852 

9. WestooU 1802 

9. Whkton 1961, 2274 



Hall v. Wood 722, 728 

9. Toung 116, 117 

Hall's Charity, Re IBM, 1866 

Hall Dore's Contract, Be 1282 

Hall's Estate, Re 866 

Hallack v. Loft 669, 1684 

Hallady 9. Johnson 1660 

Hallett v. Cousins 1101 

v. Cumpton 661 

9. Furse 214 

9. Hallett 190,217.226,236,288, 

240, 808, 1177, 1607 

Halley v. Webster 862 

Halliday, Re 1868 

9. Temple 1820 

Halliley v. Henderson 1206 

HaUiwell v. Pbillipps 1688 

Hallock t>. Bacon 1817 

v. Smith 214, 216, 980, 962 

Hallows 9. Fernb 284, 248, 308, 

916 

Halsam, Ex parte 181, 499 

Halsey v. Ball 726 

v. Brotherhood 862, 1620 

v. Van Ami-Inge 1467, 1498 

v. Windham 1727 

Hatofaad v. Commissioners of 

Lake 46 

9 Shepard 846 

Halstead United Charities, Re 1610 

Halsted v. Meeker 878 

v. Tyng 1226 

Haly v. Barry 1089, 1041 

9 Goodson 1668 

Ham v. Schuyler 1624 

Hambly 9. Trott 1684 

Hemblyn v. Ley 1066, 1067, 1068 

Hambrlck 9. Jones 1029, 1081 

Hambridge v. De la Crouee 807 

Hambrook v 8mlth 668, 764 

Hamburger v. Poettlng 27,28 

Hamersley v. Brown 948 

v. Lambert 60, 61. 62, 947, 948. 

949, 966, 1678 
Hamerton 9. Rogers 1392 

Hamilton v. Arrowsmith 96 

v. Bankln 297 

v Brewster 1766 

v. Buckmaster 1828 

v. Cumminga 1961 

v. Davies 448 

*. Denny 1246 

9. Dobbs 1622 

9. Eaton 61 

v Oilman 168 

9. Girdlestone 1722, 1788 

v. Hamilton 100, 122 

9. Hibbert 691 

v. Houghton 1268, 1276, 1686 

9 Littlejohn 1601 

9. Lyster 679 

v. Marks 894, 896, 1662, 1668. 

1667,166f 
9. Morris 1161 

9. Nott 678 

9 Savannah, F. Jt W. By. Co. 149 
9. Sbeppard 646 

9. Southern Nevada M. Co. 402. 

991, 1221 
v. Whitrldge 1637 

v. Wllliford 674 

9. Wood 640, 1676 

9. Woreelbld 1682 

9. Wynne 1728 

Duke of v. Meynal 989 

Hamilton Loan & T. Co. 9. Gor- 
don 848 
Hamley v. Gilbert 2182 
Hamlin v. Bridge 178 
v. Stephenson 67 
9 Wright 1742, 1761 
Hamm 9. Stevens 



Ix 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Hammenehlag Manuf. Go. v. 

Judd 888 

Hammeralaugh v. Farrior 892 

Hammersley v. Barker 791 

v. Wyekoff 896, 1619 

Hammerton v. Hooey 1001, 1106 

Hammond v. Attwood 69 

v. Fuller 1662 

v Hammond 486, 1263 

v. Maundrell 1689 

v. Messenger 198, 199, 660, 2043. 

2089 
v. Michigan Bank 
v. Neame 



9. Puller 
v Schofleld 
v. Taylor 
v. Winchester 
«. Wordsworth 
Hamondv — 
v Bradley 
v.Walker 

Hamond's Case 

Hamp v. Hamp 

v. Robinson 



835 

147, 1431 

1639 

269 

467 

1668 

919 

932 

168 

228, 447, 1771, 

1779 

961 

1079 

262, 263, 288, 837, 

871, 698, 1676, 1784 

Hampden v. Hampden 1075 

v Wallls 1780 

Hampshire v. Bradley 1417 

v. Harris 1133 

Hampson v. Brandwood 1425, 1426 

v. Uampson 1077, 1082. 1124 

gton 812,782 

1001 

418 

1701 

418 

1167 

880 

689,1610 

1517 

119 

653 

156 

612,697,699 

166,641 

61 

807 

1734 

1614 

236 

178,631 

668 

807 

1411 

848 



Hampton v Goddingtoi 

v Holman 

v. Nicholson 

v. Pool 

v Quayle 
Hanbury v. Hussey 

v. Litchfield 

v. Ward 
Hanby v. Henritae 
Hanchett v. Briscoe 
Hancock, Re 

v. Attorney-General 

v. Carlton 

v. Hancock 

v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co. 

v. RoUison 

ft. Toledo, &o. R. Co. 

v. Walsh 

v Wooten 
Hancocks v. Lablache 
Hand v. Dexter 

v.King 

v. Savannah ft C. R. Co. 

v. Weidner 
Handford v. Handford 1008, 1189 

v Storie 248,790,798,794 

Handley v. Billings 1197 

v. Davies 1427 

v. Heflin 1656 

v. Metealf 1786 

Handlyv MnnseU 1548 

Hands v Hands 1699 

Ilandy v. Cleveland & M. R. 

Co, 1766 

v.Scott 1299 

Haney, Re 1696, 1607 

Hanger v. Fowler 1846 

Hankey v. Simpson 667 

v. Vernon 1621 

Hanklnv Mfddledlteh 933 

Hanlon v. Doherty 676 

v. Primrose 814 

Hanly v. Levin 68 

Hanman v. Riley 216, 257 

Hanmer v. Chance 861 

Hannah v, Hodgson 1651 

Hannam v South London Water 

Works Co. 809, 1659 

Hannas v. Hannas 991 

Hannay v. McEntire 1670, 1700. 

1707 
Hannibal, fro. R Co. c. Shipley 

1666 
Hano v. Bigelow 1664 



[The references are to Che star paging*) 

Hanon v. Weil 1716 

Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Brown 

880 
Hanover, King of v. Wheattey 17. 

18, 92o 

Hanovrr Nat Bank v. Klein 842 

Hansard v Hardy 660,999 

Hansell v. Hansell 709 

Hansen «. Miller 116, 117 

Hansllp v. Kitton 896, 1821, 1826 

Hansom Cab Co. v. Yerkes 26 

Hanson, Re 1866, 1867 

v. Bean 576 

v. Gardiner 1681, 1668, 1670 

v. Keating 91, 124, 886 

v Lake 1404 

v Murray 1790 

v. Patterson 1002 

v. Keece 1846 

Hansucker v. Walker 1286 

llapgoodv. Houghton 90,117 

Haralson v. George 1274, 1282 

Harben v. Phillips 26, 241, 244, 

1650 

Harbin v Darby 1234, 1414 

f. Masterman 1483 

Harbo rough, Earl v Shardlow 1139 

Harborough, Lord v. Wartnaby 

1274, 1307, 1692, 1594, 1686 
Hardcaitle v. Smlthson 274 

Hardee v. Glbbs 1612 

v Wilson 1029 

Hardeman v. Harris 718 

Harden v. Hays 862 

Hardenburgh v. Blair 1067 

Harder v. Harder 294, 802 

Hardey v. Baley 298 

Hardie v. Bulger 418 

Hardiman, Re, Pragnell v. 

Batten 1167 

Hardin v. Boyd 402 

v Swoope 884 

Harding v. Cos 416, 418 

v. Durand 560 

r. Egin 667, 690, 788 

v. Glover 1728 

v Handy 149,286,824,861,1226. 

1317 
v. Harding 784, 1282 

v Hardrett 676 

v. Hawkins 843 

v. Tingey 419, 426, 480, 698. 

1602 

v, Wheaton 2279 

v. Wlckham 664, 070 

v. Williams 866 

t». Yarbrough 1282 

Hardingham v. Nlcholls 677 

Iiardman v Ellames 609, 615. 620, 

622, 624, 678, 678, 682, 1822,1833, 

2096 
Hardt v. Liberty Hill C M. Co 

1676 
Hardwick v. Bassett 626, 887, 978. 



v. Wright 


1281,1826 


Hardy v Beatj 


1381 


v. Caley 


298 


v. DartneU 


814 


v. Rckeraley 


1398 


v. Hardy 


807,810 


v. Heard 


887 


v. Hull 


429. 1449, 1622 



v! Reeves 660,661,640,660,679 
v. Summers 1668 

Hare v. Hare 875 

v. London & North Western 

Ry. Co. 190 

v. Rose 1178. 1411 

Hares v. Stringer 217, 219 

Harford v. Lloyd 771 

v. Purrier 900, 1406 

v. Rees 1829 

v. Reeves 911 

Hargrove v Harjrrave 68, 851, 1016. 

1026, 1027, 1084, 1112, 1114. 1116. 

1187,1466,1726 



Hargrove v. Kettlewell 1794 

v. Tindal 164 

Hargraves v. White 972 

Hargreaves, Be 286, 989 

v. Mkhell 642, 654 

v Wright 844 

Haring v. k»"<*"»*^ 1684 

Harker, Ex parte 1698 

Harkinson' s Appeal 1664 

Harlan v. Barnes 997 



Harland v. Bankers ft M. Tel 

Co 1427.1748 

v Emerson 616, 619, 620 

v. Garbutt 86 

v. Person 884, 642 

Harlock v. Ashberry 662, 1072 

v. Smith 1440 

Harloe v Harioe 1218, 1628 

Harlow v. Mister 198 

Harman v. Davis 1684 

v. Easton 1666 

v Foster 1766 

v. Jones 1640 

v. Lewis 1120 

v Wagner 1716 

Harmer v. Gooding 867, 644 

v. Harris 1409, 1449 

v. Plane 1642 

v. Priestly 2280 

Harmon v. Byram 281 

v Campbell 625,681 

v. Kentucky Coal Co. 1716 

Harner v. Price 1621 

Harnett v. Yielding 1406 

Harnish v. Bramer 1621 

Harnsberger v. Cochran 1168 

Harp v. Osgood 196. 826 

Harper v Elberton 1071 

v. Hayes 1286 

v. Hendricks 669 

v. McElroj 1688 

v. Mundaj 1420. 1421 

v. O'Brien 638 

v. Ravenhill 319 

v. Vaughan 1461 

Harpham v. Shackloek 674 

Harrald, Re 1447 

Hsrrell v. Wilson 1290 

Harries v. Rees 298, 1778 

Harrigan v. Bacon 417 

Harrington v. Becker 814, 1689, 

1541 

v. Chastel 1680 

v. Du Chatel 1680 
v. Harrington 647, 868, 1221, 1469. 

1614 

v. Blade 1582, 1686 

HarriB, Ex parte 1760 
Re 98, 898, 1608, 1847 

v. Brisco 668, 1668 

v. Butterley 1138 

v. Carter 286. 287 

v. Clap 1264 
v. Collett 1066, 1626, 1672 

v. Collins 844, 1078 

v Cornell 281 

v. De Tastet 1178 

v. Dietrich 622 

v Edmondson 1577 

v. Fleming 462, 686 
v. Fly 992, 1221, 1296. 

v. Gamble 786 

v. Gandy 799 

v. Hamlyn 162, 177, 475, 1887 
v. Harris 70, 168, 620, 622, 740. 
1167, 1661, 1832 
v. Hess 1770 

v. Hilllard 996, 1878 

v Hines 790 

v. Hooper 214 

v. Ingledew 282,679,696,697,876. 



v. James 


261,782 


v. Jenkins 


847 


v. Knickerbacker 


408,860 


v. Lee 


108 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



lxi 



[The 



am to the iter paging. J 



9. Ugbtfbot 800 

v. Macintosh 1110 

v. Milbura 901 

«. mils 660, 680, MO 

r. Mutual Lift IM. Go. 41 

9. Pepperell 1978 

r. Pollard 1610 

v. Quine 643 

r. Rich 1648 

v Rothwell 828 

v. Schryock 1660 

9. Start 1690 

v. Thomas 642, 1629 

v. Tippet 1102, 1104 

v. Truman 69 

«. Vaughn 288, 661, 662, 816 

9 Warre 821 

v. Watson 286 

9 Yownan 166, 167, 997 

Harrison, Re 1288 

r. 721 

v. Andrews 122 

882, 1728 

712,1806 

1766 

1661 

26 

92 

1129 

1667 

1899 

788.788 

1166 

1206 

1129 

994 

608,726 

676 

641 

1686 

828,882 

800,1626 

1479 

76,77,1182,1188 

2231 



v- 

9. Borwelf 
v. Coydell 
V- Crewster 
9. Crown 
9. Buckle 
9. Cage 
9. Cockerall 
». Coppard 
9. Delmoot 
9. FJdridgs 
9. Bvery 
9. Sane 
9. Farns worth 
9. Farrington ] 
9. Perth 
9. Gibson 
v. Good 
9. Guest 
9. Gurney 
f-Hall 
9. Harrison 
9. Hart 

v.Hogg 808,889,840,866,866. 

688 
9. Johnson 842, 886, 887 

9. Kennedy 187 

9. Lane 796, 1688 

9. Leutner 1448 

9. Lynes 816 

9. MeMeunomj 1882 

9. MassaUn 1823 

9. Mexican By. Co. 699 

9. Morton 287 

«. Netileahlp 668, 1621 

9. Nixon 861 

9. Pennell 277 

9. Pryse 247 

9 Bay 2027 

9. Richards 1180, 1342 

9. Rlghter 200, 828, 824 

v. Rowan 175, 288, 290, 666 

9. Bnmsey 973 

9. 8L Mark's Church 1686 

9. Southampton, Corp. of 1020 
9. Southampton, Mayor of 1474 
9. Sontheote 668, 669, 607, 611, 

676,1886 
9. Stewardson 226* 287, 267, 277. 

621 

9. Taylor 1649 

9. Wearing 1440 

9. Terby 1676 

Harrisson v. Dulgnan 1741 

Hsxrod «. Harrod 1078 

HaiTOp, Re V^l^S 

Harry v. Davey 280 

Harryman v. Collins 1892 

HnrssU 9. Kslley 646 

Hart 9. Albany, Major, fee. of 1629. 

1681 
9. BMght 1284 

w. Brand 1401 

w. Carpenter 844 



Hart 9. Coffee . 267 

v. CoUey 1648 

9. Denham 1728, 1768 

e. Granger 878, 688 

9. Hannibal, Ac. B. Co. 1668 

v.Hart 880,981,1642 

v. Henderson 418 

v. Herwig 1668 

v. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct 10 
v. McKeese 814 

v. Mallet 630 

v. Monteflore 1826 

v. PhiUips 687 

9. Roberts 801, 964 

v. Sanderson 617 

v. Scruggs 891 

v. Small 1693 

v. Stephens 114 

v. Ten By ek 284,889,840,848. 
844, 1176, 1180, 1229, 1280 
9. Tims 1720 

v.Tulk 408.448,464.1012,1016. 
1610, 1697, 1784, 1738, 2059 
v. Wingate 997 

Hartell v. Van Bnren 682, 686 

Harter v. Colman 213 

Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Bonner 

M. Co. 808,884 

Hartga v. Bank of England 148 

Hartland v. Dancocks 1114 

Lady v. AteherJej 176 

Hartley, Re 1784 

v. Boynton 636 

v. Gilbert 86 

v. Matthews 886, 842 

v. Bussell 667, 663 

v. Swayne 1663 

Hartman v. Dowdel 120 

Hartmaon v Hartmann 1160 

Hartridge, Ex parte 1620 

v. Rockwell 1640, 1664 

Hartshorn v. Barnes 690, 787, 

788 
Haxtshome v. Hartshorns 1160, 

1166 
v. Watson 1098 

Hartt v. Harvey 1619 

Hartwell v. Colvin 1206 

v. Townsend 1688 

v. Whitman 846, 846 

Hartwrlght v. Badham 1181 

Harts v. Schrader 1729 

Harvard College v. 8oe. for Pro- 
moting Theolog Education 10, 

187,188 
Harvey. Re 187,1841 

9. Ashley 100 

9. Beckwith 146 

9. Bignold 243 

9. Bradley 743, 1870, 1681 

9. Branson 993 

9. Clayton 676 

9. Cooke 294 

v. Cox well 70, 799 

v. Crawford 1260 

v. Croyden Union B. 8. Au- 
thority 973, 1031 
v. Bast India Co. 891 
v.Hall 412,1676,1686 
v. Harvey 226, 1046, 1066, 1069, 

1213, 1527 
v. Hewitt 1131 

v. Jacob 82 

v. Lord 407 

v. Lovekin 664 

v. Mitchell 1106 

v. Morris 670 

v. Mount 887, 1894 

9. Mountague 1683 

v. Murrell 1678 

9. Renon 622 

9. Tebbutt 1287, 1392 

9. Towle 967 

v. Tyler 628 

v. Varney 1748 

v. Wilde 1209 

Harvle v. Banks 1246 



Harwell v. Lehman 


114,660 


v. Potts 


1788 


Harwood v Kirby 


279 


v. Railroad Co. 


1640 


Hasbrouck v. Shnster 


1616 


Haskell v. Haskell 


679 


v. Hilton 


197.291,667 


9- New Bedford 


1688 


v Raoul 


994. 1678 


Haskina v. Rose 


1684 


Hanlar v. Hollis 


781 


Uasluck v. Stewart 


449 


Hatsall v. Wright 


1643 



Hassan v. City of Rochester 1661 
Hassell v. Van Houten 296 

Hastie v. Battle 868, 800, 1019 

Hasting! (Lady), Rt t HaUstt v. 

Hastings 109, 642 

9. Belden 689, 1618 

9. Cropper 1661, 1663 

v. J *ali 1689, 1882 

v. Palmer 806 

v. Wlswall 1269 

Lord, v. Beavaa 1089, 1040, 1694 
Hasten v Castner 236 

Hatch 9. 1183,1781 

v. Calvert 190 

9. Dana 269 

9. Eustaphieve 811, 896, 733 

9. Indianapolis fc S. B. Co. 1804, 



9. 8earles 


1213 


9. Spofford 
9. The Newport 


683 


1120 


e. Waliamet I. B. Co. 


1676 


9. White 


284 



Hatcher 9. Ohambersburg Nat. ' 

Bank 1120 

9. Hatcher 886, 1684 

9 Massty 190 

Hatchett v. Oremomo 1322 

Hatfield v. Montgomery 640 

Hathaway v. Baldwin 864 

9. Crocker 1101 

9.Hagan 790,1298,1299,1648. 

1661 

9. Russell 1168 

9. Scott 746 

Hathornthwsits 9. Buses! 1722 

Hat-Sweat M. Co. 9. Davis A M. 

Co. 790, 1642 

Hatton, Re 167 

v. Harris 1029 

v. Haywood 1067, 1064 

Haughwort 9. Murphy 281 

Haulenbeck v. Cronkrlgfat 1166, 1321 

Hauser v. Roth 1079, 1298, 1310 

Hansmeister v. Porter 630 

Hautton v. Hager 42 

Harelock, Re 1610 

v. Havelock 1368 

Haverfleld v. Pyman 1828, 1829 

Haverhill Loan Fund Assoc, v. 

Cronin 284 

Havers v. Havers 1722 

Harerstickv. Sips 1638 

Haviland v. Bloom 90, 102, 106 

Haw v. Vkkers 202 

Hawarden 9. Dunlop 462,466 

Hawes v. Bamford 893, 1671 

v. Draeger 861 

v. Johnson 89 

9. Oakland 26 

v. State 673 

Hawke, Re 1797 

v. Kemp 1695 

Hawker v. Buncombe 1029, 1030 

Hawkes r. Barrett 800 

9. Hawkes 1163 

9. Holland 1786, 1741 

9. Kennebeck 646 

Hawkesley v. Gowan 1694 

Hawkesworth 9. Chafley 661 

e. Dewsnap 879 

Hawkins 9. Blake 406 

v. Craig 226, 287 

9. Crook 618, 628, 1069, 1061 



lxii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[The refe 



an to the iter paging.] 



Hawkins •. Day 1814 

r. Dod 1801 

v. Gardiner 791 

v. Gathered* 460,578,1790,1748, 

' 1884 

9. Hale 443 

v. Hail 1462,1468 

v. Hawkins 88, 217, 218, 870 

v. Holmes 666 

t>. Luscombe 74, 170 

v. Pearson 418 

v. Smith 1841 

v. Watte 1860 

Hawksbaw «. Parkins 1662 

Hawksworth, Re 1794 

v Hawksworth 108 

Hawley *. Bennett 1648, 1644. 

1886 

v. Cramer 268, 661 

v Donnelly 893 

e. James 1001, 1489 

v. 8teele 188, 211, 261, 1689 

v. Wolverton 849, 873, 769 

Haworth v. Bostock 841 

Hawse v. Moody 884 

Hawteyne v. Bourne 1139 

Hawthorne, Re, Qraham v. 

Massey 689 

Hayv Bowen 1406,1411 

v. Bstell 1160, 1161 

v. State 892 

v. Wllloughby 983 

Haycock v. Haycock 206, 211, 266 

Hayden v. Bucklln 281 

v. Harmadake 294 

t>. Thrasher 1676 

Hayes. Re 99, 1802 

v. Blckelhoupt 1424 

v. Billings KTT6 

v. Brotsman 1761 

v. Dayton 884, 648, 601, 2888, 2884 

v. Hayes 197 

v. Johnson 1660 

w. Leguin 747, 784 

v. Miles 1688 

Hayes's Appeal 884 

Haygarth v. Wearing 1886 

Hayllar v. Sherwood 68 

Haymanv Rugby School 664 

Haymes v. Cooper 1040, 1698, 1846 

Hayne v. Gould 1167 

v. Hayne 607, 1075, 1660 

Hayner v. 8taoly 669 

Haynes v. Ball 493, 508, 609, 612, 

626 

v. Barton 681, 1611 

v, Haynes 1796 

v. Haslerigg 1664 

Hayney v. Coyne 663 

Haynie v. Hall 646 

Hays, Ex parte 1869 

v. Can 860 

v. Cornelius 214 

v. Harmony Grove Cemetery 989 

9. Hays 1296 

v. Humphreys 288 

w. Jackson 1772 

«. State 646 

Hayter, Ex parte 1689 

Hayward t>. Andrews 197 

v. Carroll 841 

v. Bast London Waterworks 

Co. 1662 

v. French 1180 

9 Fry 8,186,166 

9. Gray . 1180 

9. Hayward 771, 772, 778. 1827 
9. National Bank 878, 379 

9. Pile 208, 1627 

9. Price 1327 

v. Roberts 782 

9. Stephens 898 

9. Sttllingneet 1680 

Raywarden, Viscountess v. Dun- 

lop 1696 

Haywood v. Brunswick P. B. 
Society 1664 



Haywood v. Hntchins 661 1 

9. Lincoln Lumber Co. 1784 

v. Marsh 646, 1476, 1476 

9, Miner 1298, 1317 

9. Ovey 271 

Hayslett v. McMillan 1677 

Hasard v. Dillon 803, 884 

v. Durant 26. 149. 286, 489, 606, 

607, 626, 681, 606, 1748 

9. Grlswold 814, 824 

9. Hidden 974 

Haseldtne v. Grove 1127 

Haselhurst v Sea Isle City Hotel 

Co 848 

Hasen v. Burling 286, 1616 

9 Thurber 1166 

Hasleton v. Bright 1089 

Hassard 9. Credit MobiUsr 26 

Heacock 9. Stoddard 916 

Head t>. Egerton 676 

9. Godlee 1478,1681 

9 Head 76, 861, 1678 

9. Teynham, Lord 206 

Heald 9. Hay 448, 1674 

Healey, Re 887 

9. Jagger 884, 962 

9. Simpson 642 

Heanley v. Abraham 806, 880 

Heap*. Hartley 197 

v. Jones 1486 

Heaps 9. Commissioners of 

Churches 40 

Heard v. Borgwardt 406 

v. March 1622 

9. PiUey 196, 865, 661 

Hearle 9. Greenbank 97 

Hearn 9, Way 693 

9. Tennant 1678, 1688, 1684 

Hearne v. Ogilvto 626 

9. Stowell 1127 

Heartt 9. Corning 608, 614, 686, 

686,689,690,699,1260 

Heath 9. Ashley 997 

9. Bucknall 1687, 1688 

9. Chadwtck 69 

9. Chapman 1680 

9. Crealock 862, 674, 878, 907. 



9. Rills 


26,242,296 


9. Erie Ry. Go. 


198,1666 


v. Fisher 


1264 


9. Grlswold 


1168 


9. Heath 


90,91 


9. Lewis 87, 107. 128, 179, 407. 
618, 832, 1612, 1680, 1581 


9. Percival 


200,260 


v. Pugh 


649,662,1072 


v Vrelan 


1492 


Heathcote v. Edwards 


1688. 1796 


v. North Staffordshire Rail- 


way Co. 


1620,1663 


Heather v. Waterman 


495 


Heathley 9, Thomas 


187 


Heatley v Finster 


678 


v. Newton 


195,1474 


Heaton v. Dearden 


209 


Heavner «. Morgan 


860 


Hebbard 9. Haughlan 


674 


Heehmer v Gilligan 


1661 


Heck v. Buckley 


1687 


v. Vollmer 


109, 1676 


Herkman v. Mackey 


41 


Herksherv Crosley 


28 


Hedges 9. Bowen 


861 


9. Cardonnel 


1818, 1486 


Herman v. Midland 


1828 



Heffleld Waterworks 9. Yeomans 543 

Hefflon 9. Bowers 1676 

Heffron v. Gage 1062 

9. Gore 669 

Heftier v. Hesse 1061 

Heggie 9. Hill 884 

Heidritter 9. Oil-cloth Go. 1743 

Heighington v. Grant 668, 1262, 

1260, 1416, 1420, 1421, 1432, 

1449, 1464 

Helneman •. Halt 149 



Helnlen 9. Cross 
Heinrlch, The 
Heinrich v. 8utton 
Heinsler v. Friedman 
Ufiron, Re 



1678 

1846 

807 

907 

1064.1066 



liele v. BexJey. Lord 202, 204, 648 

v. Ogle 680 

Heller v. Royal Ins. Co. 690 

Hellman. Re 1798 

Helm v. Hardin 220, 256, 1606 

Helmetag 9. Frank 860 

Helmick v. Davidson 790 

Helms 9. Franctaeus 76, 90, 91 

Hemberow v. Frost 862 

Heming v. Archer 1279 

v. Dingwall 1665, 1658, 2047 

9. LeifchUd 1399, 1449 

9. Swinnerton 554, 1621, 1867. 

1858 

Hemlngs e- Pugh 651 

Hemming, Ex parte 62. 157 

9. Dingwall 414, 770, 776, 1458 

9. Maddick 415, 1102 

Hemphill v. M'Kenna 1664 

v. Miller 961 

Hemry v. Macdonald 1417 

Uemsley v. Myers 1620 

Hendee v. Howe 1881 

«. Plnkerton 146 

Henderson, Re 566, 664 

9. Alloway 1689 

v. Atkins 86 

9. Campbell 447 

9. Carbondale Coal & Coke 

Co. 887, 1019 

9. Cook 662, 687, 689, 1679. 

9. Dennlson 601 

v. Dodds 1428, 1487 

9. Henderson 666, 664, 1688 

9. Uenshall 1029 

9. Hopper 448 

v. Jones 2819 

9. Mirer 1285 

v. Mathews 786, 801 

v. Meggs 618 

9. Meyers 417 

v. Moss 1770 

9. PhlUlpson 906 
9. Runcorn Soap & Alkali 

Co. 1079 

9. 8herman 884 
v. Underwriting 4 A. Ass. 89. 

, 9. Walker 1768 

Hendrlck v. Robinson 1028 

9. Wood 



Hendricks v. Craig 916 

9. McLean 997 

Hendriks v. Montagu 828, 1648 

Hendrickson v. Hendrlekson 660 

9. Hinckley 1625 

9. Wallace 669 

Hendrlg v. Clay 1628 

Heneage v. Alkin 1600 

Henley v Brooke 1044 

9. Henley 642 

9. Phillips 1412. 1415 

v. Stone 280, 681, 742 

Henly 9. Gore 68 

Henman 9. Lester 1108. 1126 

Henn 9. Walsh 1727, 1728 

Hennegal v. Evance 909 

Hennessee v. Ford 632 

Hennessey v. White 87 

Hennessy 9. Wright 681 

Hennet 9. Lnard 794, 795 

Hennewinkle v. Georgetown 1661 

Henniker v. Chafy 1611 

Henning v. Raymond 748 

9. Samuel 1182 

v.Willis 200,210,867.1895 



Henninger 9. Heald 
Henniogs v. Conner 
Henrlck 9. Blair 
Henrle v. Johnson 
Henry 9. Armstrong 



884,660 

778 

671 

1157 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



lxiii 



[The references an to Um star paging.] 



v. Brown 
«. Cteik 
«. CoeteU 
v. Doctor 
v. Bilt 
v. Great 

Co. 

x. Gregory 

v. Lee 

v McKlttrkk 

«• Ogle 

v SatUe 

e. Travellers' Ins. Co 



187 
406 

2227 
784 

1088 

ioeo 

Railway 

1662 
812,732 
1099 
884 
91 
800 
i'iiu.uo. 417.1029. 
1290,1461,163b, 1825 
r. Tapper 1624 

*. United States 1881 

County v. Winnebago Drain- 
ing Co. 660 
Henry Clay and Book & Co. Re 1648 
Henshaw *. People's Mutual N. 
O Co. 1688 
t. Weil* 1670, 1716 f 1734 
Henelej v . Whiffln 214 
Hensloe'e Case 227 
Hon wood v Jarrta 1628, 1678 
Hepbnrn v. Anld 969 
9. Danlap 969 
v. Dorand 726 
*. Lordao 1686, 1638 
Hepburn's Cae» 49 
Hepworth 9. HenahaTI 888 
v. Healop 1366, 1278, 1890 
Herbert*. Hedges 1168 
*. Herbert 824, 660 
9. Bowles 62 
v. Bayers 58 
v. Torball 67 
». Wren 1165 
Lord v. Pnssy 764 
Harey v. Ballard 644 
v. binwoody 1607 
9. Ferrers 681 
Hard e. Lapton 809 
Herdsman 9. Lewis 1071, 1073 
Hereford, Bishop of v. Adams 1487 
Herefordshire Banking Co.Jte 1258 
Hergel 9. Laitenberger 287, 1648 
Herle 9. Greenback 1888 
Herman *. Dunbar 1610,1741,1765 
Herndon 9. Gibson 1290 
v. Hurler 1746 
Herr v. Blerbower 1681 
Herreil w. Hannum 1637 
HerreU v. Reynolds 507. 509. 806 
Herrkk v. Belknap 1195. 1294. 1298, 

1300, 1301, 1809 

9. Racine Warehouse Co. 1498 

Herring v. Blschofishelm 350 

9. Clobery 674, 1468, 14S7 

v. Goodeon 861 

9. Polley 1019 

9. Swain 707 

9. Wlekham 675 

9. Teo 228 

Herrtegton w. Hubbard 287 

9. Robertson 1881 

Hereey e. Veasie 26, 144 

Hetvhberger ». Blewett 790 

Herehee v. Hershey 974 

Hereby v. Beer 1017 

Hereon 9. Chicago ft Alton R. 

Co. 1468 

Hertford, Borough of v. Hert- 
ford, Poor of 1419 
Marqois of, Re 1689, 1690. 

1691, 1693 

9. Boore 869 

9. Suisse 446, 461, 1590 

9. Zlehi, Count de 265 

Hertford Charities, Re 1610 

Herti v. Union Bank 1619 

Hervey 9. Beekwith 272 

v. Fltapatrick 1722 

9. Smith 1686, 1662 

9. Taibutt 1467 

9. Attorney-General 12, 146 



Hesketh, The 
Heslop v. Metealfo 
Hess v. Lowrey 

v. Vose 
Hester v. Hester 

v. Thonuou 

v. Wenton 



82 

1844 

1611 

60,1160 

807,674 

1221 

689,690 



Hettihewage Siman Appu e 

Queen's Advocate 141 

Hengh v. Earl of Abergavenny 296 

v. Garrett 679, 720 

v. Scard 1417 

Heusner v. Mntual Life Ins. 

Co. . 1661 

Heustis 9. Johnson 658 

Heward v. WheaUey 988 

Hewes v. Hewes 1187 

Uewett v. Adams 256, 826, 408, 
406, 425, 868, 971, 1716, 1732. 

1788 

v. Foster 1416, 1420 

Hewitson v. Sherwin 855 

9. Todhunter 202, 908, 204, 896 

Hewitt, Re 193 

9. Campbell 848 

9. Dement 418 

v. Hewitt 611, 618, 704 

v. Loommore 674 

v. M'Cartney 606 

9. Montclalr 287 

v. Nanson 1266, 1267 

9. Prime 676 

v. White 896 

Hewitt's Case 176, 1149 

Hewlett v. Cruchley 1182 

9. Davis 1278, 1282 

9. Miller 880 

Hezt v. Walker 296 

Hey v. Schooler 998 

Heyere. Bromberg 884 

v Pruyn 652 

Heygate v. Annesley 118 

v. Thompson 182, 681 

Heyman, Ex parte 897 

v. Landers 1667 

9. Uhlman 686, 829 

Heyn v. Heyn 1176 

Heys 9. Ashley 657 

Hey wood v. City of Buflalo 1661 

9. Miner 1112 

«. Walt 1594, 1678, 1684 

Hlatt 9. Brooks 68 

Hibbard v. Eastman 1621, 1622, 



9. Morrison 1621 

Hibbert v. Darant 726 

9. Hibbert 1787 

Hibernia S. & L. Co. «. Jones 145, 

417, 418, 779 

Hlehens v. Congreve 240, 296, 403. 

1772 
9. Kelly 196 

Hick 9. Lockwood 1788 

Uickey, Ex parte 1069 

v. Stone 801 

Hickman v. Cooke 847 

9. Upsall 602, 860 

Hlckok 9. Farmers* and Mecha- 
nics' Bank 906, 928, 929 

Hlckox 9. Elliott 200 

Hicks v. Blanchard 576 

v. Campbell 190, 888, 596 

9. Chadwell 1249,1800 

9. Ferdinand 1120, 1580 

9. Hastings 1163 

v. Hicks 1756 

9. Hogan 1168 

9. Jackson 559 

9. Oliver 418 

v. Ralncock 586 

9. Wrench 1412 

HlckMn 9. Aylward 667 

9. Lombard 828,882 

9. Mobley 709 

9. Rucker 1282 

Hidden v. Jordan 1240, 1242, 1244, 

1246 



Hiddingh v. Denyssen 


1190 


Hide v. Haywood 


1416 


9. Petit 


1060 


Hlern v. Mill 


879, 880, 676 


Higbee v. Bacon 


1280 


9. Brown 


1816 



9. Camden A Amboy R. Co. 1661, 

Hlgdon 9. Higdon 861, 980 

9. Thomas 196 

Higginbotham v. Burnet 647, 684 

Higginsv. Crawford 662 

v. Frankis 710 

9. Hoppock 690 

9. Mills 1486 

v. New York 1606 

9. Shaw 1642 

9. Woodward 1669, 1676, 1686 

Higginaon v. Adir 1729 

9. Blockley 764, 2124 

9. Hall 68,88,1826 

i>. Wilson 182,681 

High 9. Batte 288, 612, 674. 677, 

678,726 

9. Worley 287 

Higham, Ex parte 96 

Hlghstone v . Franks 814, 689 

Hlghtoo 9. Treherne 966 

Hightour 9. Rush 1667 

Hlghtower e. Musdan 288 

v. Smith 1877 

Hilary, Re 1847 

Uildebrand v. Beasley 1548 

HUdreth v. Skillenger 1077 

Hildyard v. Creasy 408, 624, 681. 

694, 729, 1669 

Hues 9. Case 1748 

v. Moore 1784, 1785 

Hill 9. Adams 261 

9. Barclay 1668, 1659 

9. Billingsley 1628 

v. Blnney 840 

9. Bonner 204 

v. Bowers 1008 

9. Bush 848 

v. Bote, Earl of 787, 788, 760 

9. Campbell 664 

9. Challinor 1528 



9. Chapman 


1860,1486,1489. 


9. Cooper 


XOvX 

87 


9. Crary 
9. Curtis 


720 
819,1027 


v. Davison 


1653 


9. Durand 


200 


9. Eyre 


418 


v. Fulbrook 


1168 


9. Gaunt 


813 



v. Great Northern By. Co. 880 

9. Greenwood 1108 

v. Hart-Davis 864, 896, 1620 

9. Hibbit 868, 940, 1440 

9. Hill 884, 418, 885, 1536 

9. Hoare 1679 

v. Hoover 986 

9. King 988, 1880 

9. Lewis 256 

9. Managers 10 

w. Maury 1580 

9. Newman 204 

9. Proctor 149, 191, 1164 

v. Reardon 28, 816, 542, 1394 

9. Reno 1150 
v. Rlmell 1594, 1596, 1667, 17SH 

9. Sayles 1638, 1639 

9. Smith 243, 1408 
9. South Staffordshire Ry. Co. 

1027, 1028, 1267 

9. Thompson 1642, 1644, 1670 

«. TolUt 744 

9. Townley 283, 508 

t\ Townsend 121 

9. Tamer 1651, 1624 

9. Walker 648, 1425 

9. Ward 1076 

9. Williams 844 

9. Yates 1002, 1128 



Ixiv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[The references are to the star paging.] 



HU1 v. Young 
Hilleary, Re 
v. Hurdle 
v. Thompson 
HlUer o. Collins 
Eilliard v. Eiffo 
v. Fulibrd 
v. Hanson 



1167 
1440 
879 
1008 
1875 
828,883 
1426 
1570 



v. Mutual Ben. Iilb In*. 

Co. 61 

v. Smyth 149 

Hilligots o. Grinslade 1620 

Hillman v. Hurley 1688 

HUlsv Barnard 348 

v. CroU 1656 

v. Evans 1081 

v. Hill* 78 

v. M'Baa 216. 269, 824 

v. Nash 216, 219 

v. Parker 1748 

v. Putnam 248 

v. Reeves 1748 

v. Sprlngett 266, 407 

Hilton v. Fowler 1180 

v. OranTille, Earl 1640, 1668, 1664 

v. Guyot 664 

v. Lawson 629, 1586 

v. Lothrop 87,260,286,882,8%. 

v. Woods ' 1881 

Hlme v. Dale 1645 

Hinchman v. Kelley 560 

v. Patenon Horse R. Co. 808, 



Hinckley v. Gilman, fce. B. Co. 

1461, 1492 

v. Pflster 885, 1120 

Hineks, Re 807 

Hincks v. Nelthorpe 570 

Hind v. Whitmore 86,74,111,796, 

811, 1874 
Hinde v. Blake 1048 

v. Morton 818, 1511, 1612, 1&6, 

1527 

v. Skelton 681 

v. Vattier 878 

Hinder v. Streeten 1404 

Hindle v. Birch 1181 

v. Dakln 1278 

Hlndley v. Emery 1080, 1641, 1656 
HIndman v. Aledo 712 

v. Taylor 640, 1559 

Hindmarsh v. Southgato 164, 174 
Hinds v. Keith 1120 

Hlndson v. Weatherell 664, 918, 

Hlne v. Dodd 848, 846 

v. New Haren 666, 680, 801 
Hines v. North Carolina. State 

of 17, 24 

v. Sprnlll 642 

Hinlngs v. Hlnings 1802 

Hirikley v. Moreau 48 

Hlnrichs v. Berodes 1620 

Hinsdale D. G. Co. v. TiUey 286 

Hinson v. Adrian 214 

v. Pickett 1479 
Hinton v. Cltisens* Mutual Ins. 

Co. 779 

v. Galli 1781, 2127, 2853 

v. Winsor 1431 

Hlorns v. Holtom 710, 1266 

v. Holton 1425 

Hlpkins v. Hlpkins 1065 

Hipp v. Babin 666, 680 

Hippesley v. Horner 1111 

v. Spencer 1680 

Hirsch v. Im Thurn 1861 

«. Whitehead 1618 

Hint. Re 1267 

v. Procter 896 

Hislop v. Wykeham 1610 

Hitch v. Walls 1124 

«. Wells 162, 476 

Hitchcock v. Carew 888 

v. Caruthers 601 

v. Clendinen 96 



Hitchcock v. Giddlngs 1400 

v. Jacques 410 

v. Rhodes 763 

v. Skinner 961, 1161, 1158 

v. Tremaine 1479 

Hitehen v. Birks 201, 1720, 1726 

Hltoheos v. Congrere 26, 160 

v. Lander 605, 658 

Hitchman v. Stewart 271, 2250 

Hite v. Hlte 1254 

v. Salter 1112 

Hitner v. Suckle? 447 

Hix v. Gosling 186, 402 

v. Whittemore 852 

Hixon v. Eastwood 214 

Hoagland v. Titus 1676, 1677 

Hoare, Re 1847 

Re, Hoare v. Owen 1716 

9. Bremridg* 1624 

v. Contenein 650 

v. Dickson 89 

v. Hoare 13 

v.Johnstone 841,1188,1815,1889 

v. Niblett 269 

v. Parker 614, 688 

v. Peek 669, 560 

v. Silverlook 1182 

Hobart v. Abbot 194, 215, 261 

v. Andrews 197, 198, 260 



v. FrUbie 861 

v. Stone 1772 

Hobart* v. 1268 

Hobbs, Re, Hobbs v. Wade 651 

v. Dane Manni. Co. 68 

v. McLean 1411 

v. Memphis R. Co. 649, 864 

v. Reid 208 

v. Wayet 477 

Hobday v. Peters 187 

Hobhoose v. Courtney 447, 448 

v. Hollcombe 1742, 1743 

Hobler, Re 974 

Hoboken Sayings Bank v. Book- 
man 726 
Hobson, Re 1068 
v. Bagnall 1616 
v. Doe 1118 
v. M' Arthur 879 
v. Sbearwood 1694, 1845 
v. Sherwood 1152, 1748. 1748 
Hoby v. Hitchcock 29, 81, 82, 53 
Hock v. Hock 876 
Hoddel v. Pugh 1884 
Hodder v. Ruffln 1281, 1288, 1285 
Hodgden v. Hodgden 1255 
Hodgdon v. Farrell 1269 
v.Heidman 288 
v. White 680 
Hodge v. Hawkins 1869 
v.Holmes 284 
v. Rex worthy 1808 
Hodgen v. Guttery 1624 
Hodgens v. Hodgens 106 
Hodges, Re 1828, 1847, 1606, 1797 
o. Ancrum 1106 
v. Beverley 116 
v. Bowen 861 
v. Doulton 890 
v. Ftncham 1628 
v. Hodges 696. 690 
v. Mlllikin 1578, 1579 
v. Mulllkin 1006, 1081 
v . New England Screw Co. 26 
v. Patrick 975 
v. Pingree 1112,1160,2027,2825 
v. Salomons 1315 
v. Screw Co. 144 
v. Seaboard fc B. R. 1688 
v. Smith 1668, 1569 
v. Welsh 1646 
v. Williams 186 
v. Wise 446 
Hodges's Trust, Re 68 
Hodgkin v. Longden 647, 648 
Hodgklnson v. National Lire 
Stock Ins. Co. 248 



Hodgman v. Chfcoago, fee. R. 

Co. 1661 

Hodgson, Re 217 

Re. Beckett v. Ramsrtale 269 

1138 



v. Barvis 
v. Butterneld 
v. Cash 
v. Clarke 
v. Dace 
v. Espinasse 
v. Farrell 
v. Forster 
v. Hodgson 

v. Merest 

v. Powis, East 

v. Shaw 

v. Smlthson 

v. Thornton 

v. Williamson 
Hodle v. Healey 
Hodson v. 

v. Boll 



764 

1413 

1427 

1688, 1661. 1682 

860,869 

1289 

811, 1129 

402,466,621. 

1048 

858 

1640 

1279 

1461 

712 

187,642 

640 

877 

1870, 1686, 1687. 1579. 

1581,2060 



v. Cash 

v. Coppard 

v. Warrington, Earl of 

v.Watson 
Hoe v. Wilson 
Hoffman v. Duncan 

v. Knox 

«. Livingston 

v. MoMorran 

v. Pearson 

v. Postal 

v. Savage 

v. Bohoyer 

v. Skinner 

v. Smith 

v. VanDieman 

Hoffmann v. PostQl 6? v , «~~, . * w . 

718, 719, 720, 764, 1020, 1554 

Hofllck v. Reynolds 593, 698 

Hogan, Re 749,891 

v. Branch Bank of Decatur 736 



780 

1688 

886,896 

1781 

287 

1782 

966,1676 

1691,1669 

800 

974 

1063 

1166 

617 

1402,1460 

1147 

1770 

679. 680, 716. 



v. Burnett 
v. Kavanaugh 
v. McFarland 
v. Short 
v. Walker 
Hogarth v. Miller 
Hogev. Fisher 
v Penn 



824 
668 

418 

196 

279,290,292 

1608 
861 

1801 



Hogencamp v. Ackennan 718 

Hogg v. Kirby 1642, 1648 

v. Price 692 

v. Scott 1641, 1681 

Hoggart v. Cotts 1660, 1564, 1665 

v. Scott 989 

Hoggat v. McCrory 651, 662 

Hogge v. Burgess 1608, 'I860 

Hoghton, He 174, 1870 

Re, Hoghton v. Flddey 1580 

v. Fiddey 1578 

v Hoghton 862, 855, 1867 

Hogue v. Curtis 817 

Hoborst v. Howard 1507 

Holtt v. Burleigh 1076, 1078. 1079, 

1110, 2384 
Holabird v. Burr 1224, 1240, 1248. 

1296, 1299, 1817 
Holbecke v. Sylvester 1310, 1448 
Holbrook v. Henderson 142 

Holbrooke v. Cracroft 1457 

Holcomb v. Mosher 869 

Holcombev. Antrobus 1500 

v. Holeombe 868, 1285, 1461. i486, 
1745, 1746, 1747 
818 
1033 
99,1802 
1288 
68, 170, 859 
166,686,884 
1748 
«6, 794, 796, 1896 
1408 



v. Trotter 
Holden, Ex parte 
Re 

v. Gilbert 
v. Hearn 
v. Holden 
v. Hoyt 
v. Kynaston 
v. McMakin 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



UV 



l^b* references are to the star paging.) 



Holds* v. SlkitOM, Aft. Go. 1130 
•. Stkkney 346 

*. Upton 1748 

r. Wateriow 113 

Holder v. DurWn 1368 

Holdennan «r. Jones 1130 

Holderneee 9. Lamport 1658 

HoUemcaee v. Rankin 848, 1660 
Holdentaflb 9. Saunders 1630 

Holding, Ex parte 886 

^Barton 666.667,713,8116 

Hoidregev Owjrnne 896,1619,1677 
Hoidsworth «. Dartmouth (Maj- 
or) 1100 
v. Hoidsworth 393 
v. MeCrea 1648 

* Shannon 674 
Bote v. Bradbury 1648 

9 Harriaon 370,371 

HoUbrd e. Phlppf 1411 

• Yate 999 
Holgate 9. Baton 1648 

9. Haworth 1416,1480 

Holker 9. Parker 68 

Holkirk v. Holkirk 406, 793 

Hoiladay Caae, Tho 738 

Holland 9. Baker 367, 377 

9. Chalien 1071 

v. Craft 1691 

v. Craft 477, 1886 

v. Holland 1167 

9. Moody 116 

9. Prior 363 

9. Spronle 9096 

Hollenbeck v. Donnell 1730 

Holies v. Carr 966 

Hoiley 9. Chamberlain 1863 

9. Glober 1169 

9. Yoonge 693 

HoUidmy v. Biordon 419 

9. Brnner 1061 

9. Mayan 1666 

9. Rlodan 1707 

HoUiarv. Byre 1601 

Bollinger v. Sy ms 14 1 1 

HoUhigs 9. Kirkby 171 

BoUingBhead's Caae 1643, 1643 

BoUingsworth 9, Doane 887, 1069 

9. Koon 1886 

9. McDonald 1676, 1677. 1678 

9. Shakeebaft 816, 317, 888, 643. 

1369,1894 
HoQlngton, Re 1064 

HoUinrake 9. Truswell 1643 

Hollina v. BrkrneU Coal at Iron 

Co. 1784 

Hollia w. Bolpett 886 

9. Barton 783 

9. Shaffer 1648 

Hollis's Gate 314. 379. 643 

HoUieter 9. Berkley 844,1180,1333, 
1380,1366,1367.1369, 
1676,1677 
«. Leferre 1661 

v.Stewart 684 

HoUoway, Re 678 

9. Cbeaton 1474 

9. Holloway 1661 

v.Millard 837 

w. Phillips 898, 964, 986 

Holly r. Beat 617,1061 

Holly Manor. Co. v. Najr Chea- 
ter Water Co. 314 
HoUyfbrd Copper M. Co., Re 1069 
Hobnan r Bank of Norfolk 343 
v. Kimball 676 
9. Riddle 1677 
9. Vallejo 860 
Holme 9. Brown 1634, 1636 
v. Gay 811 
9. Priori© 1601 
Holmes, Re 160, 188, 639 
9. Arundel, Corp. of 1313 
9. Baddeley 673,740,1661,1819. 

1884 
9. Ben 1718, 1736 



Holmes v. Baetern Counties 

Railway 1897 

*. Field 69 

v. George 1677 

v. Holmes 114, 647, 648. 1398. 

1299, 1800, 1736 

v. Penney 178 

9. Remaen 994 

v. Shaver 1283 

v. Sherwood 146 

9. Turner 3217 

v. Upton 1681 

v. Wearer 1081 

Holroyd v. Wyatt 1378, 1386, 1386 

Holaman v. Boiling Springs 

Bleaching Co7l685, 1687, 1688, 

1689 

Holstoomb 9. Hirers 1330 

Holt, He 100, 898, 1049, 1671, 1676 

•.Daniel 690 

9. Holt 1299 

*. Jeeae 1031 

p. Mill 314 

9. Weld 83a 

Holworthy v. Alton 1409 

v. If ortlock 1632 

Holyoake 9. Shrewsbury & B. 

Ry. Co. 1687 

Holyoke 9. South Hadley Falls 

lea Co. 887 

Homan v Moors 1665 

Home 9. Fish 646 

9. Jobs 1677 

v. Patrick 188, 499 

v. WalUs 880 

Home Assurance Ass., Re 36, 81, 

1606 

Home Ins. Co. «- Atchison fro 

R Co 818 

9 HoweU 1637 

Hone v. Van Schakk 1461, 1489 

Honeyman •• Lewis 1138 

9. Marryat 1601 

Honeywood v. Selwin 717 

Honnerv. Morton 119, 126 

Honors v. Colmesnll 668, 961. 1320 

Hony 9. Hony 669, 612, 634, 646, 

647 
Hooberry v. Harding 1087 

Hood 9. Aston 1661, 1666 

9. Burlton 97 

9. Clapham 1370 

v. Cooper ' 1013 

9 Green 1680 

v.Hood 286 

9. lnman 849, 861, 738 

9. Irwin 813 

*. Lynn 1661 

v. Marquess 1073 

v. N. Y. * N. H. R. Co. 1628 

». North Eastern Ry. Co. 1394, 

1490 

v. Og lander 988 

v. Phillips 807, 808, 809 

v. Pimm 868, 1487 

v. Wilson 1487 

Hooe v. Marquess 1078 

Hook 9. Dorman 896, 688, 688, 1668 

9. Ross 471 

Hooker v. Olmstead 284 

Hookham v. Pottage 1648 

Hooks v. Sellers 1811, 1314 

Hoole v. Grsat Western Railway 

Co. 241, 244 

9. Roberts 1610, 1694, 1698 

v. Smith 822 

Hooley 9. Hatton 861 

Hooper, Re 1817 

9. Brodriek 1666, 1663 

v. Campbell 916 

9. Goodwin 1286 

v. Gumm 676, 1031, 1884, 1836 

9. Hooper 1417 

9. Lane 1069 

v. Parer 1690 

9. Winston 1716, 1743, 1749, 1751, 

1762 



1731 



Hooper v. Tonga 
Hoover v. Donnally 

9. Montolair, dte. R. Oo. 

9. Mo. Pae Ry Oo 

9. Rawlings 893 

Hope 9. Atkins 1181 

9. Carnegie 180. 183. 186, 448, 
499. 1468. 1637 . 1688, 1684 

•. Flddeli 868, 888, 909. 913, 948. 

9. Vox 109 

v. Hope 447, 448. 986. 986, 987. 

988, 1147, 1848, 1350. 3129, 2398 

v. Threlimll 890, 913, 1488 

Hopewell 9. Barnes 1040 

Hopkin 9. Hopkin 749. 891, 17U8. 

Hopkins, Re, Dowd v. Hawtin 1169. 

1733. 

v. Claybrook 467 

9. Connel 1763 

9. De Kobsek 143 

9. Oilman 671 

9. Hopkins 329, 266 

v.Los 986 

v Medley 1150 

9. KoMclare Land Co. 379 

9. Snedaker 886 

v. Spurloek 840 

9. Stephenson 1343. 

9. Strump 871 

9. Walker 2846 

9. Worcester & B. Canal 1727 

v. Young 868 

Hopkinson v. Bagstsr 1183 

9. Burghlsy, Lord 1647, 1837 

9. Ellis 1432,1433 

9. Rolt 1508 

9. St Jamas 144% 

Hopklrk v. Ball 61 

v. Page 190 

Hopper 9. Fisher 161 

v. Hopper 713 

Hoppock v. Cray 878, 1630 

r Hopson 9. HarreU 398 

Hopwood v. Derby, Barl of 1076. 

1079, Ills 
Horan v. Woolougban 1889 - 

Horhacb v. Hill 286 

Hord 9. Colfrrt 1078 

Hore 9. Becher 138- 

Horford v. Wilson 1126 

Horlock 9. Priestley 1422. 

v. Smith 1363, 1889, 1841 

v. Wilson 515 

Horlor v. Carpenter 1127 

Horn 9. Coleman 1464 

v. Detroit Dry- Dock Co. 986 

9. Kilkenny Railway Co. 1615 • 
Hornby v. Cardwell 406 

9 Holmes 447 

v. Matcham 2315 

Home 9. Barton 1478, 1476 

9. Home 1437 

9. McKensie 1099 • 

9. Pountain 86 

9. Shepherd 1411 

Horner v. Horner 818,680 

v. Ovler 1443: 

9 Wheelwright 896. 

Hornor v. Hanks 1548 

Hornsby 9. Bddy 1748 

9. Lee 119 

Hornum Patent Man. Co. 9. 

Brooklyn R. Co 884 

Horrell v. Witts 1736 

Horry v. Calder 429 

Horseburg v. Baker 1638 

Horsley v. Bell 278 

9. Chaloner 1417 

v. Cox 1440 

9. Faweett 338, 431 

Horton, Re 863 

9. Baptist Church and 

Society 1660, 1669 

9. Basmtt 669 

9. Brocklebnrst 416, 417, 884 

9. Sayer 671 



TOL. i. — e 



Ixvi 



TABLB OP CASES CITED. 



flJfce 



vl 



>n •. Thompson 188, 1631 

Borwood,J2e 894 

o. 8chmedes 187, 991,1489 

tr. Rogers 1068,1411,1412, 

1771 
. Nichols 1280 

env.Hncoek 18M, 1»4, 1396 
ing o. Torrj 1677, 1674 

HoaUnI,Jte 86,226 

«. Campbell 798 

•. Cole 688 

•.Lloyd W9 

•' Whito M 

•• North westuiu ihii t 
Co. 1061, 3048 

Hoste *. Piatt 1860 

HotohkJss •. Trustee*, fco. 90 

Rotten v. Arthur 1646 

Hottensteln v. Conrad 1784 

Hoock v. Brldwell 68 

V. Camplln 121 

Bough v Canby 168 

•.Doyle 168 

«. Lawrence 818 

•. Martin M89, 1818 

«. Richardson 646, 844 

«. Ryley 86 

9. Williams 1181, 1186 

Bo«gham v. Sandys 1184 

aseughton v. Bankart 1860 

9. Barney 1448 

•. Daris 187 

9. Godschall 1648 

9. Kendall 1866, 1688, 1678 

•. Reynold* 880, 870 

9. Sowles 1168 

«. West 1677 

■onldltch v. Donegal, The Mar- 
quis of 686,866,1622,1781 
■House, Ex parte 1684 

Be 668 

«. Dexter ' 886 

•.Loekwood 1661 

v. Mullen 884, 668, 669 

9. Walker 1281 

Houseman v. Houseman 1411 

House Property Co. 9. H. P. 

Horse Nail Co. 211 

Htouseworth v. Hendrieksoa 1712 

Hously 9. Lindsay 1288 

.Houston v Black— 264,261,406 

•.Briscoe 812,1612 

• Levy 243 
9. Moesman 1255 
«. Sadler 816 
•.Sledge 880 

. v SUgo 658 

Hovelman •. Kansas City H. 
R Co. 1660 

HOTendenv Anneeley, Lord 135, 
186, 648, 659, 660, 644, 645 

Bovey o. McDonald 1743 

v. Rubber Tip Pencil Co, 1081 

How, A? 1799 

9. Best 146, 296 

9. Hall 878 

9. Jones 1461 

9. Strode 1120 

. Howard, Matter of 1206 

Be 1861 

t . Barnwell 1161, 1162, 1161 

•. Bond 1062 

v. Chnflera 1886, 1874 

v. Gossett 1096 

9. Gunn 1647 

v. Howard 28 

t . Lowell Machine Co. 1/078, 1766 
9. Milwaukee Ac. ft. Oo. 1062 

• Moflatt 90, 101 
9. Newman 607 
9. Okeorer 661 
v. Palmer 1784 
v. Papa** 1722 
•. Prince 869, 1604 
w. Rhodes 1416 
t . Robinson 1885 
v. Salisbury, Bar 1 of 1862 



Howard v. Scott 1298, 1298 

9. Smith 1411 

v. St Paul Plow Works 1642 

9. Stephenson 1168 

v. Thompson 1848 

9. Warfleld 1824 

Howard Man. Oo. •. Water Let 

Co 867 

Howarth, Be 166 

Howden v. Rogers 1708. 1703 

Howe v. Duppa 686, 678 

•. Grey 606, 810 

9. Harvey 868, 662 

9. Heart 1081 

v. Jones 1766 

•. Lome* 1062 

9. M'Kernan 721 

v. Nickemon 664 

9. Robins 380 

9. Russell 777. 778, 789. 1282, 

1248, 1288, 1800, 1821, 1322 

9. South Park Com'rs 1461 

9. Wlllard 899,488,441,467,688, 

1618.1667,1676.1684 

Howe Sewing Maohine Co,, Be 27 

Howel v. Howel 1476 

Howell 9. Atfcmoaa 146 

9. Ashmore 146, 688, 670- 678 

v. City of Buatlo 884 

9. Coningsby, Lord 1056 

9. Foster 189 

9. George 848, 1889 

• Harding 1845 

9. Kfehtley 1812 

v. Lewis 83 

v. Sebrimr 824, 827, 402, 416, 1289 

•. Tyler 1440 

9. WalAron 688 

9. West 846 



1961 

701,848 

266 



9. Western R. Oo. 


884 


Howell's Estate 


888 


Howell* v. Wilson 


1660 


Howerton v. Sprague 


1678 


Howes, Matter «C 


1467 


v. Chester 


62 


v. Downing 


787 


• Patterson 


418 


Howklns v. Bennett 


448,710 



v.Uowkins 889, 1901, 1702, 1708, 

1706 
Howland «. Fish 225 

«. Kenosha County 686 

Howland's, Sir R , Case 67 

Howlett v. Central Carolina 

Land Co 1748 

Howling v. Butler 701 

Howorth v. Samuel 1137 

Howse v. Chapman 1427. 1429, 1480 
Howth v. Owens 198, 206, 627, 1607 
Hoxey v. Carey 295, 801 

Hoxiev Carr 190,280 

9. Scott 740 

Hoxsey v. New Jersey If. R. Oo. 660 
Hoyal v. Bty&on 837 

Hoye v. Penn 448, 1460 

Hnyland S C. Oo , Be 1788 

Hoyle v. Lrresey 972 

9. Moore 890 

Hoyt v. Clarkson 871 

v. Gelnton 1468 

9. Hellen 1862 



9. Hilton 


68 


9. Hoyt 
9. Jesee 


828,882,680.1648 

878,974 


• Smith 


402 


Hubbard. Be 


1449 


9. Borden 


195 


9. Barrell 


266 


o. «PJ» 


642,1211 


v. Gorbam 


854 


9. Hewlett 


1186 


9. Hubbard 


861, 1168 


9. Johnson 


280 




4®, 1218, 1428 


9. McNaughton 


824 


9. Town 


1688 


9. Turner 


682,1661 



HubtelloCi 

9. De Land 

9. Merchants' Bank 

9. Von Schcening 

•.Warren 244,246,1168 

Huberv. Myers 2 Depot 197 

Huberteon v. Goold 1611 

Hublev Clark 878 

Huckenstine's Appeal 1686 

Hoddleetou v. Briscoe 981 

Huddlestone v. Huddleatone 1186 

Hudginse Kemp 1802 

Hudnitv. Mash 214,1286 

Hudson v. Allison 974 

9. Bennett 196. 1680, 1896 

«. Brown 1096 

v. Buck 661 

9. Dungworth 489 

9. Hsenmayer Muling Co 288 

v. Fernyhough 418 

9. GrenfeU 486, 716, 780, 1819 

v. Hudson 1668 

9. Maddison 808, 844, 1678 

v. Majoribanks 1138 

v. Temple 1824 

v. Trenton, fco- Hanoi Co. 867. 

1004,1281,1288 

Hue 9. Richards 1829 

Huerstal v. Mulr 1461 

Huff «. Miller 1461 

9. Ripley 662 

Huflard v. Gottberg 284 

Hoffman v Berkley 938 

• Hummer 778 

Huger v. Hugor 188 

v. 8. Carolina 448 

Hugg 9. City of Camden 1688 

Hoggins v. York Buildings Co. 611, 

686,1262,1638 
Hughes*. Blddulnm 671,512,1824 
v. Blackwell 844 

•. Blake 661, 686, 829, 848 

•. Bloomer 779, 781 

9. Boone 676 

r. Budd 1181 

9. Came 1617 

v. Chester and Holyhead By. 

Co 
9. Clerk 774, 1669 

•.Cook 842 

•. Devlin 1160 

•. Dnnlap 1071 

v. Bades 162, 868 

•. Edwards 640 



9. Brans 
v. Gamer 
9 Garth 
v, Hamilton 
v. Hatohett 



108 
878,848,866,866 

677 
1288 
1716 



v. Hughes 669, 1186, 1869. 1808, 

174$, 1748 

« Jones 566, 828, 978, 979, 1029, 

1030, 1123, 1124, 1368, 1671, 1680 

«. Key 1418 

v. Lewis 806 

o. Lipscombe 1288 

v London &e. Assuiance Co. 886 

v. Millikln 1584 

v. More 198 

9, Phelps 881 

v Science* 1847 

v. Smith 18B9 

«. Spitul 918, 1189, 1389 

9. Stickney 1696 

9. Tennison 838 

«. Thomas 767 

v. Washington 1017 

• Woks 187 

9. Wheeler 1714 

9. Williams 749,11821,1289,1244 

v. Wyuoo 642, 1264 

Hughey v. Bmctoo, 1648 

Hughson e. Cookson 211 

Hugill v. Wilkinson 662 

Hugonln v. Baseley 1729, 1721 

Hnguenin o. Basely 1470 



TABLE OF CA8BB GITEDt. 



lxY.i 



taretothesawpaaiag.1 



Hogonki v 

Hufeb e. Sheldon 1188 

HukQI *. Galley 666 

Hulbe-t 9. Douglas 1661 

v. tfcKaj 1209, 1797 

MeU a Sfioekwell 1071 

Home* 9. O'Brien 1668 

HuBng v. Parwell 1221 

Holkes ». Day 1040, 1694, 1696, 1696 
Hull 9. Gaoghy 1461 

ftNeoawT 1206,1206,1206 



v. Noble 
Hall* 



By. Co., Be 



869 

%* 

17,141 

1690 

1069 

1689 

186 



HoUett 9. Spain, King of 
Honey v. Security Trust Co. 
Holm ft Lewis, Re 
Holme •. Shrere 

9. Tenant 
Hoisted v. Meeker 
Holton 9. Sandys 
Humber Iron Works Co., Be 
Humberd v. Kerr 
Hnmberston r. Hamberston 
Humbert 9. Trinity Church, Bee- 
tor, *c 660 
Hombletr Humble 1278 

«. McDonoogh 840 

e. Shore 290 

Home v. BaMngton 689 

e. Commercial Beak 715, 971. 

1467 

v. Poooek 4X8, 1487 



886 

1474 

190 

186 



e.Scoct 
Hones*. 

■nmpage v. Eowley 
Homphrey e. Archibald 

9. Browning 

v. Fo ste r 

». Hollfa 

9. Morse 
nphray* t. Atlantic 



900 



fil4 

681 

1916 

967,989 

280 

1388 

Milling 

680 

«. Blerlns 1116, 1124, 1147 

*. Cousin* 211 

9. Harrison 1680 

9. Hopkins 1748 

v. Humphrey* 818, 407, 691, 1671 



v. Inetedon 

9. 



818, 1510 



9. Tate 


821 


Humphries v. Roberts 


1291 


9, Taylor Brag Co. 


1666 


Htsmphrys v. Moore 


1422 


Hungarian Hill 6. M. 
Moses 


Co. •„ 

1561 


Hangate v. Gasoolgne 674 
9. Gaseoyne 1E87, 1577, 1678 


atinigetfora v. Coining 


341,1784 


«. Jagoe 


1187 


Hongesfbtd's Cass 


1461 


Ktmbaat 9. Llewellyn 


660 


Hum 9. Norton 1269, 1881 , 1415. 

•HIT 


Honaewell •. Goodrich 


2861 


Hnnnlngs 9. Williamson 


864,664 


Hants'. Acre 


288 


9. Anderson 


668,1667 


v. Andorer 


1427 


9. Bleekbarn 


678 


9. Booth ^ 88,109 
9. Chicago Horse By. Go. 10 



9. Clarke 887 

9. Colombian Ins. Co. 1761 

«. Bttsoa 1008 

«. Banes 579,1881,1882 

». Plena* 1286 

•.Ibwnes 1887 



Hunt v. Gookin 
v. Hayt 
9. Holland 
9. Hunt 
9. Johnson 
9. Lever 
v. Lewia 
«. McClanahan 
v. Nerers 
9. Nlblett 
9. Peacock 
9. Fenriee 
v. Priest 
9. Pollen 
#. Hooney 

9. 

9. Strong 

v. Terril 

9. Van Derfeer 

9. WalllS 

9. Wfeklllfe 
Hunter t. ■ 

9. Ayre 



717, 721 

866 

409,422 

108, 568, 1626 

619 

448 

998,1877,1468 

1846 

1268 

615 

219 

617,619,701 

1068, 1718 

914 

190,194 

439,846,2857 

1460 

668 

216 

789 

287,296,467 

1044, 1462, 1590 

692 

661,1469 

1529 

1382 



9. Belcher 
9. Daniel 
9. Dashwood 
9. Dublin fee. By. Oa 881, 1817 
v. Fletcher 917 

9. Hallett 117, 124 

9, Hatton 986 

9. Jones 887 

9. Kennedy 1120 

v. Lawrence 1864 

9. McCoy 878 

v. Maeklew 2l4 

s. Marlbere 1468 

9. Hyatt 2214 

9. Nockolds B63, 680, 698, 792. 

741, 1897 
e. Potts 61 

9. Bobbins 628 

9. Spotsweed 646 

9. Stewart 664 

«. Walters 676 

v. Wortley 1628 

9. Young 250 

Huntingdon, Ti us tees of e. 

Nfcou 1462 

Huntington v. Allen 1624 

9. Little Book fte By. Co. 901,1580 

9. Palmer 26 

t. Sanndess 819, 787 

Hontingtower, Lord 9. Sherbnrn 68, 

813, 814, 1451 
Hunton v. Equitable LUe Assox* 

anee Society 818 

Huntress v. Epsom 1434 

Hard 9. Aseherman 884,848 

9. Case 1548 

v. City of Elisabeth 1742, 1751 

v. Everett 402, 406 

9. Haines 789 

9. 8lmpson 659 

Hurlbatt v. Barnett 1168 

Hurlburd v. Freelove 1478, 1478 

Hnrlburt v. Britain 829 

9. Hnrlburt 676 

Hurlbot v. Hotton 972 

Hurlbntt 9. N. W. Spaulding 

Saw Go. 818 

Hurley *. Coleman 1658 

v. Mnrrell 1206 

Horseue. Bird 286 

Hurst v. Cos 26 

9. Everett 684 

w.Hant 168,286,447,1266,1206. 

1430 

9. ~ 



Hurst 9. Padwlek 
Hurt v. StuU 

9. Long 
Husband, In re 

9. Aldrlch 
Hose v. Washburn 
Husham v. Dixon 
Husley v. Boblneoa 
Huson v. McKeasie 
Hussey v. Dole 

9. Home Payne 
Hasten 9. Cassldy 



1267 

166, 1576, 1580 

894 

1160 

1078 

lSS 

^_ »* 
190,287,282 

864,561 

1318 



v. tt'Glarty 286, 286, 287. 289, 



9. Noble 
Hutcheou 9. Maonington 
Hotcheeon v. Smith 
Hatchings, Re 

9. Smith 
Hutcbins v. Childless 
Hutchinson, Re 

9. Ayres 

9. Blumberg 

9. Brock 



9. 

9. Hampton 



892 
1269 

119 
843 

1648,1648 

*aw,u*ir 



9. Haslam 

9. Horner 

9. Hutchinson 

v. Massarene 

9, Hershon 

9. Norwood 

9. Piper 

9. Reed 

v. Sinclair 

9, Stephens 

9. Swift 

9. Tindall 
Hntson v. Sadler 
Hutton 9. Beeton 

9. Hepworth 

v. Mansell 

9. Mayne 

9. RoMtter 



1694 

1789 

1716, 1741 




868,1474 
1280 
1294 
1764 
1600 
1277,1278 

286,122 



v. Scarborough ClnTHotel Co. 1660 



9. Sealy 

9. Smith 
Hutu v. Martin 
Huxham v. Llewellyn 
Hyam v. Terry 
Hyatt, Re 
Hyde v. Edwards 

9. Forster 

9. Greenhill 

9. Hyde 

v. LambeTSOn 

v. Lodge 

9. Price 

v. Warden 

•V Warren 

9. Whitfield 

Hyero Oaro 

9. Deaves 

9. Little 
Hygeia Water Ice Co. v. New 



1266 




146B 

1075 

866,1349 

1059,1546 

1069,1060 

118,898,1048 

1580 

1176 

1266 

1729 

1568 

1704,1707. 

1712 

1528 

1267 

737 



York H. I. Co. 
Hyliard v. White 
Hylton 9. Morgan 
Hyman v. Derereux 

9. Helm 

9. Smith 

9. Wheeler 
Hynam v. Dunn 
Hynson v. Vosheu 
Hyre-v. Lambert 
Hyslop 9. Powers 



1648 

681 

1661 

1061 

688,809 

1274,1676 

1688,1668 
844 
814 
1461 



Hytne, Mayor 0$ «. Bast 1081,1062 



Ixviii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
[The r e fer en c e s an to the iter paging .] 



I. 



Imm v. Boevfeox 1802 

Iasigi v. Brown 2178 

v. Chicago, B ft 0. R. Co. 1417 
Ibbetaon, Ex parte 167 

Ibbottson v. Rhodes 848 

Idaho A Oregon Lund Imp. Go. 

v. Bradbury 1071 

Ida v. Ball Engine Co. 1648, 1642 
Idley v. Bowen 1461, 1489 

Igtohart v. Bieroe 221 

v. Vail 1889 

Ihl «. St. Joaeph Bank 888 

Ihlee v. Hanahaw 197 

Ilohester, Karl of. Ex parte 1004. 

1860, 1851, 1882 
Here. Roath 1076,1676 

Ilea v. Flower 40 

v. Turner 1128, 1186 

Illingworth v. Rowe 1661 

Illinois v. Illinois Central R. Co. 6 
Illinois Land Co. *. Speyer 686 

Illsley v. Jewett 646 

Ilaiey v. Nichols 1710 

Imlaj v. Carpentler 1622 

Imperial Bank of India v. Bank 

of Hindustan 26,27 

Imperial Fire Ins. Co. v. Gun- 
ning 1682 
Imperial Gas Co. v. Broadbent 1687 
Imperial Mercantile Credit As- 

sociatlon, Re 1088 

Imperial Refining Co. v. Wyman 406, 

418 
Importers' Bank v. LltteU 1666 

Improvement Commissioners v. 

N. J. Midland R. Co. 1687 

Inby v. M'Crea 662 

luce's Case 907 

Inehbaldv Berrington 1629,1686. 

1689, 1641 
v. Robinson 1071, 1685, 1689 

Inehiqnin v. French 16i9 

Inchley v. Alsop 244, 1640 

Incledon v. Northcote 124 

Incorporated Society e. Rich- 
ards 1252 
Ind, Coope & Co. v. Bmmerson 674, 

676 
India Mutual Ins. Co. r. Btgler 1678 
Indianapolis Land Trust e. Hoff- 
man 680 
Indianapolis Nat. Gas Co. v. 

Kibby 1688 

Indianapolis Water Co. v. Am- 
erican 8trawboard Co. 1688 
India Rubber Comb Co. v. 
Phelps 



Indigo Co. «. Ogilvy 149 

Indurated Fibre I. Co. v Grace 814 

Inebriates 1 Home v. Kaplan 1617 

Ingalls v. Lord 1676 

Ingate v. Lloyd Auttriaoo 449 

Ingersoll v. Ingersoll 68, 682 

v. 8tiger 848 

Ingham v. Bkkerdike 1862 

9. Ingham 776 

«. Waskett 1626 

Ingilby v. Shafto 679, 722, 1666 

Ingle «. Partridge 808, 809 

v. Richards 648 

Inglee v. Coolidge 680 

Ingleati v. Spartali T2A 

Inglisv Campbell 629,1462 

v. Halgh 2096 

Ingraham v. Dunnell 268, 1629, 

1687,1640 

v. HaU 880 

v. PosteU 1258 

Ingram, Be 1791 

v. Little 178, 841 

v. Mitchell 968 

v. Morgan 1663 

v. Bherard 642 

v. Smith 842, 1870 

e. Stiff 1648, 1666 

Inhabitants, fce. v. Seymour 1620 

Inloes v. Harvey 1056 

Inman v. Wearing 887, 886, 886. 

687,19$ 
v. Whitley 726 

Innes v. Brans 616, 620 

v. Jackson 292 

v. Lansing 685. 1727 

v. Mitchell 298, 846, 449. 

462 

Insole, Re 87, 122, 179 

Insurance Co. v. Brnne 688 

v. Needles 1751 

International A G. N. Ry. Co. 

v. Smith 1691 

«. Williams 27 

International Trust Co. v. In- 
ternational Loan fc T. Co 1648 
Interstate Land Co. v. Maxwell 

Land Grant Co. 646 

Investment Co. v Ohio & N. 

W. R. Co. 1748 

Inwood v. Twyne 1866 

Iowa Barb Steal Wire Co. v. 

Southern Barbed Wire Co. 146. 

1642 

Ipswich Co. v. Story 1772 

Irby v. Irby 1282, 1488 

v. M'Crea 1266 



Ireland v. Abbott 

v. Made 

v. Trembath 
Ireaon v. Denn 
Ireton v. Lewis 



Iron Age Pub. Co. v. Western 
Union Tel. Co. 



1218,1263 

1741, 1762 

96 

218 

216 



648 

161,588 

1276 

1061 

2.806 

1062 

962,1078,1418 

762 



167 

1426, 1427, 1648 

1496 



1180 
1661 
1728 
188 
1624 



1118 

1030 

118 

1798 

1621,1668 



Irons v. Crist 
Irrin v. Clark 

v. Bills 

v. Gregory 
Irrinev MeRee 

v Sulli?an 

v. Vlana 

v. Toung 
Irving, Re 

v. DeKay 

v. Dunscomb 

v Pearson 
Irwin v. Dearman 

v. Drake 

e. Bverson 

v. Grey 

v. Lewis 

v. Meyrose 

v. Reed 

v. Tint 
Isaac, Re, Jacob •. Isaac 

v. Comports 

v. Humpage 
Isaacs v Boyd 

v.Clark 

v. Cooper 1648 

v. 8teele 878 

v. Weatherhonse 1779 

Isenberg v. Bast India House 
Bstate Co. 1081, 1688, 

1668 
Isham v. Miller 707 

Isle of Wight Ferry Co., Re 1085, 

Isle of Wight Ry. Co. «. Tahooc- 

din 26 

Ismoord v. Olsypool 909 

Isnard v. Oaseaux 88, 41, 1698, 1698 

Imel v. Jackson 1071 

iTerson v. 8aulsbory 986 

Ives v. Ashelby 790 

v. Hasard 844 

v. Medcala 889 

v. 8umner 641 

Iveson v. Harris 1619 

Ivory, /?«, Hunkin v. Tomer 1728 

Ivy v. Clawson 1071 

v. Kekewiek 679 

Isard v. Bodlne 867, 1221. 1248. 

1298,1821 



J. 



Jacklin v. Wnkins 1694,1696,1667 

Jacktnan v. Mitchell 1898 

Jacktoo, Re 828 

v. Adams 46 

v. Ashton 814, 827, 857, 868, 861. 

874, 407, 696 
v. Bailey 1118 

v. Barry 1076 

v. Benson 200, 210, 867 

v. Betts 876 

v. Blanshan 873 

v. Brighton Aquarium Co. 1070 
v. Brltton 46 

v. Cartwrlght 861 

v. Casridy 898, 1669 

v. Catlln 68 

v. Cator 824, 1670 



Jackson v Christman 


878 


v. Outright 




778 


v. Davenport 




29,1627 


v. Denlson 




907 


v. Dochaire 




1188 


v. Edwards 




266,1288 


v. Ewer 




669 


v. Forrest 




884 


v. French 




576 


v. Freyer 




1607 


v. Given 




675 


v. Glo* 




669 


v. Grant 


1648, 1649, 1668 


v. Hankey 




2294 


v. Haworth 


188, 499, 740. 764 


v. Henry 




669,675 


V.Hull 




880 



Jackson e. Innes 126 

v. Ivirney 806 

«. Jackson 161. 980, 1018, 1180. 
1181,1184,1186,1297,1299; 
1800, 1817, 1858. 1646. 1676. 
1679,1680,1662 
v. Jones 1677 

v. King 861 

v. Kroger 406 

v. La Grange 876 

v. Leaf 888,799,1616,1617 

v. Lever 1277 

v. Lingan 1216 

v. Mawby 608 

v. McGhesney 669, 676 

v. Newcastle, Dnke of 1061, 1688 
v. North Eastern Ry. Co. 68 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Ixix 



[The 



an to the itar paging J 



». North Wales By. Go. 889, 

601 
«. Norton 149, 152 

•.00 608, 1394 

• OgUnder 666, 657, 712, 714. 

*. Parish 780, 782 

v Pease 1488 

«, Potato 1086, 1700, 1708, 1706, 

v. Phillips 10, 187, 188, 2807 

9. Purnell 809 

9. Rawlins 189, 267 

9. Rem 824 

•. Riga Railway 68, 814, 1526 

v. Howe 612, 674, 676, 676, 677. 

679, 704, 2096 

9. Rowan 824 

v. Saurian 1658 

v Seuber 264 

v. Shank* 447 

9. Stevenson 1664 

• Stiles 1594 
9 Strong 408,1569 
9. Turner 167, 9*7 
9. Turnley 1001, 2182 
«. Tan Doaan 861, 852 
9. Vandyke 875 
•.Ward 266,1626,1526 
v. Woolley 647 

Jacksonville By. Co. 9. Ameri- 
can Const. Co. 1411 
Jacob v. Hall 888 
9. Loreos 1517 
v. Locaa 280 
Jacob! •. Sehloaa 1491 
Jacobs v Hooper 694 
9. Laybourn 1098 
9. Richards 852 
v. Tarleton 1106 
9. Turpin 1489 
Jaeobsoo ' v. Blaekhurst 1560 
Jaeobye Qoattar 1675 
'9. Kiesling 1782, 1784 
9. Whltmore 1655 
Jaeoway •. M eOarrah 1549 
Jacques 9. Millar 1082 
Jaequet 9. Jaeqnet 654 
Jaffray •. Baab 1746 
Jeffrey v. Brown 818, 1290, 1299. 

Janus, Ex parte 1622 

v. Ashton 201, 208 

9. Atlanta Street R. Co. 686 

9. Atlantle Delaine Co. 266, 815 

9. Bkm 806 

v. Brooke 1076, 1120 

9. Center 1461 

9. Creaswfcke 528 

9. Crow 970, 979 

9 Despott 149 

• Dore 89, 518 
9. Downee 1688, 1685 
9. Flak 1576 
•. Owynno 1881 
9. Harding 1517, 1526 
9. Harriott 547. 1657 

• James 169,170, 218, 40*, 410. 

758,1888 

9 Jefferson 1672 

9, Kerr 564 

•.Lawrence 830 

• McKernon 827, 877, 862 

• McPhee 848 
•. North 1714 
v. Owens 1678 
•• ParnoU 875, 1116 
•. Philips 511 
•. PHchard 1666 

• Rice 628 
9. Sadgrove 626 

• Sams 1561 
v. Smith 196, 865 

Jameson v. Brtek Ik Stone Co. 58 
•. Deshfelda 288, 296 

9. Moseley 997 

me. Teagne 1896,1655 



Jamison v. Burlington AW.B. 

Oo. 1120 

v. May 1622 

Janes'B Appeal 1881 

Janney •. Boyd 860 

Janaon •. Bany 846 

v Solarte 719 

Jaques v. Bsler 1658 

v. Hall 1516 

v. Method. Bpie. Church 987, 

1817, 1871, 1491 

Jaqnet v. Jaqnet 1812, 1817, 1366, 

1696 
9. Saunders 295 

Jarmain •. Chatterton 1461 

Jarman v. Wbwell 260, 1029 

Jarrett v. Jazrett lo77 

v. White 1161 

Jarrold v. Hoolston 1645, 1646. 

2814 
Jarvis •. Chandler 568. 1621, 1626 
v. Palmer 690, 684, 700 

v. Shand 84 

Juris' Charity, Re 1862, 1856 

Janney • Sealey 668, 664 

Jay v. Ladler 1642 

Jearrard v. Tracy 880 

Jebb v. Tngwell 170, 266, 1612, 1524. 

2059 

Jeff Davis, The 1846 

Jeflerfes v. Harrison 1422 

Jeffers v. Forbes 808 

Jefferson v. Cullla 708 

9. Dawson 688 

9. Durham, Bishop of 8 

9. Qalnes 884 

9. Hamilton 1614 

v. Jefferson 790, 1008 

Jeflery v. Bowles 1646 

v. Fitch 1120 

• Stephens 880 
Jefferys v. Boosey 46, 1648 

9. Dickson 280 

• Smith 1727,1768,1800 
Jeffreys v. Marshall 1417 

v. Tarboroagh 1801 

Jeffries v. Jeffries 417 

Jeffris v. Whittuck 922 

Jeffryes v Agra, fc*. Bank 1897, 

1896 

Jegon v. Vivian 881 

Jefktrd, Re 1794 

Jeneka v. Probate Court 852 

Jenkin v. Vanghan 882, 969 

Jenkins, Re 116, 206 

9. Bennett 1885 

v. Brlant 1296, 1767 

o. Bryant 464, 1256, 1847 

•. Boshby 1071, 1079, 1829 

v. Cross 1587 

•. Eldredge 669. 856. 957, 960, 

994, 1029, 1080, 1191, 1194, 1472, 

1479, I486, 1628, 1588. 1587. 

1575, 1677, 1578, 1588, 2101 

• Oreenwald 866, 886, 2894 
v. Hannaa 680 
•• Hlles 988 
v. Intern'l Bank 1517 

• Jackson 1408, 1688 
•• Jones 668 
v. Morris 862, 1128, 1126 
•. Noel 46 
v. Parkinson 1699, 1701 
9. Prewit 1678 
v Bees 854, 418 



v. VanSchaaok 


1150,1151 


v. Waller 


1675 


•. Wild 


1476 


Jenkinson •• Royaton 


718 


v. Vermillion 


869 


Jenkynsv Bushby 


671,1884 


Jenner v. Jenner 1001, 


1071, 1072, 


F 


1622 



v. Morris 108, 1189. 1889, 1881, 

1408, 1485, 1889 

v. Tracey 560 

Jennesa v. Smith 217 



1819 

1618 

466 



Jennet v. Blahopp 664 

Jenney v. Bell 60 

•. Mackintosh 
Jenning v. Smith 
Jennings v. Beats 
•. DeTey 
9. Dolan 

v. Durham 1071 

v. Foster 1168 

v. Johnson 197 
•.Jordan 212,218,216,257,280 

•. Merton College 780 

v. Moore 676 

•. Nugent 1668 

v. Paterson 266, 1207 

v. Pearce 696, 692 

v. Philadelphia fc B R. Co. 1716 

o. Pierce 790 

•. Bigby 1086 

v. Springs 408 

Jennlson v. Hapgood 1284, 1288 
Jenour •. Jenour 1004. 1481. 1464, 

1466, 1628, 2181 

Jensen, Re 1766 

Jepson v. Greenaway 986 

Jerard v. Sanders 678 

Jerdein •. Bright 807, 808, 814, 828 



Jeremy v. Beat 
Jermaln v. Chatterton 


640 


1686 


v. Langdon 


457,458 


Jenny v. Beet 
v. Preston 


1659 


1846 


Jernegan v. Baxter 
v. Glaese 


96 


180 



Jerome v. Jerome 892, 894, 1562 

v. McCarter 214, 1781 

v. Row 1681 

Jerrard •. Saunders 669, 678, 716, 

Jersey City G. L. Co. «. Con- 
sumers' Gas Co. 1668 
Jerris •. Berridge 280, 885, 1929 
o. Henwood 1660 
v. White 872, 1777, 1782 
v. Wolferatan 1288, 1488 
Jervoiae, Re 1785, 1794 
v. Clark 1626 
v. Clarke 1268 
v. Northumberland, Duke of 877 
• Silk 1868 
Jesse v.Bennett 218,222,224,226. 

269 

v. Lloyd 1288 

Jeeeel v. Chaplin 1641 

Jesson v. Brewer 1017 

Jessop v. King 1668 

Jeaaup v. Hill 1712 

•. Illinois Central B. Co, 190, 1548 

Jeans' College v. Bloom 1684 

v. Glbbs 718, 714, 788 

Jeudwine v. Agate 1169, 1212, 1254 

v. Alcoek 1218 

Jew v. Wood 1564, 1565, 1567 

Jewell v. Book River Paper Co 1809 

Jewett v. Bowman 661, 1688 

•. Canard 1289 

•• Dringer 1468 

•. Miller 1284 

v. Palmer 612, 674, 677, 678 

•. Scott 1156. 1160 

v. Tucker 248, 250 

Jewin v. Taylor 854. 785 

Jewltt, Re 1069, 1848 

Jewson v. Moulson 90, 92, 101, 102. 

124 
Jeyee o. Foreman 1591 

Jlnka v. Banner Lodge 680 

J. L. Mott Iron Works v. Stand- 
ard Manuf. Co. 888 
Joad v. Ripley 1796 
Job, Re 1046 
v. Banister 1659 
v. Job 1260, 1870, 1581 
Joberna v. Conch 1525 
Jochumaen v. Suffolk Barings 
Bank 1507 



izz 



TABLB OF CASES CITED. 



CW» 



•1 



Jwidrell v. JoddreB 


as 


Johnson v. Slsjwean 844 




Jedrell v. Jodrell 


U61 


v. Story 1846 
9. Swain T79 


9. 


9. 81aney 


726 


9. 


John v. Brown 


1696 


9. Telford 1286 


9. 


».' Jones 


801 


9. Thomas 281, 1166, 1*17, 1627 


9. 


v. Lloyd 


422 


1642 


9 


Jehnasson v. Bonhote 


602 


v.Todd 1082,1118,1406 


9. 


Johnes v. Claughton 


1068 


«. Tomlinson 1A61 


9. 


Johns v. Harper 


1684 


v. Touchet 126 


9. 


v. James 


226,679 


tp. Tucker 860, 862, 484, 769, 760, 


9. 


v John* 


1784. 1786 


767,881,1716,1718,1719, 


9. 


v. Beardon 


214 


1886 


9. 


Johnson. Ex parte 


804,1047 


9. Tulare G. S. Court 1689 


9. 


lie 1060,1986,1784 


v. Turner 86 


9. 


Be, Sly v. Blake 


654 


9. Vail 198, 109, 110, 111, ttjL 


9. 


Re, Steele v. Cobham 


1722 


9. 


v. Awes 


660 


9. Walker 1081 


9. 


•. Arnwine 


862 


9. Waters 286, 418, 686, 1019 
v. Wilcox & GMa 8. M. Co. 642 


9. 


«. Aston 


1772 


9. 


v- Atkinson 


1661,1666 


v. Wyatt 1071, 1081, 1666. 1681 
Johnson R. 8. Co. ». Onion S. ft 


9. 


v. Atlantic An. E. Go. 


1221 


9. 


v Barnes 468,466,688,687 


S. Co. 1648 


9. 


v. Board of Bdocation 


1468 


Johnson 8teel Street-Rail Co. v. 


9. 


v. Bower 


682 


Northbranoh Steel Co. 1817 


9. 


v. Branch 


1120 


Johnston v. Glenn I860 


9. 


v. Britt 


1164 


v. Hanner 1676 


9. 


v. Brooklyn & C. R. Co 


1642 


v. Hyde 1681 


9. 


t». Brown 


888 


9. Johnston 117, 666, 686, 1468 


9. 


v. Burgess 


1086.1064 


v. Keener 1748 


9. 


«. Candage 287.367,272 


v. McArthur 1624 


9. 


v. Cherokee Land Go. 


824 


9. Hacoonnell 448 


9. 


«. ChlppindaU 


1062,1067 


«. Markle Paper Co. 286 


9. 


*. Christian 


266 


9. Reardon 1800 


9. 


v. Clendenin 


1698,1711 

286,860 


v. Roe 660 


9. 


v. Compton, 


9. Salvage Association 861 


9. 


v. Cooper 


648 


9. Standard Min. Co. 660 


9. 


«. Coney 


1677 


9. Todd 1118, 1114. 1124. 1186, 


9. 


v. Crippen 


848 


1427, 1482, 1488, 1696 


9. 


v Curtis 188,871,666 


9. Trade Ins. Co. 48 


9. 


e. Desmineere 


618 


v. Ure 1184 


9. 


«. Donnell 


617,908 


Johnstone v. Baber 1161, 1167 


9. 


v. Drummond 
«. Darner 


808 
418 


9. Beattie 1848, I860, 1862L 


9. 
9. 


«. Edge 


1642 


«. Browne 1«9 


9. 


«. Everett 


987,998 


9. Cox 674, 1491 




•. Farnum 


1716 


9. Hall 1688 




v. Feesenmeyer 


879 


9. Hamilton 487 




9. Fitshogh 


607,1608 


9. Royal Courts Co. 1661 




v. Florida Transit Co. 


1617 


Joint Stock Discount Co., Be 202. 

208 




«. Foster 


269 


9. 


v. Freer 


408,1662 


9 Brown 902,407,1629 


9. 


9. Gallagher US, 187, 1808 


Joley v Stockley 1669 


9. 


v. Gardiner 


1886 


Joliet Street Ry. Co. *. Call 1666 


9. 


9. Garrett 


1269,1272 


Jolifle 9. Baker 828 


9. 


v. Gere 


1668 


9. Hector 1286 


9. 


9 Gillett 


1491 


9. Twyford 1428 


9. 


9. Goldswaine 
fp. Hainesworth 


1666 
1079 


JolUnri « 1782 171ft 17fifi 


m 


Jotllflb t». Bast 1427, 1429 


9 


v. Hammersley 944, 1170, 1686, 


9. Hundy 1187 






1640 


v. Pitt 641, 648 


9. 


9. Harrison 


61,680 


Jolly 9. Arbuthnot 707. 1870 
9. Carter 847, 729 


9. 


e. Helmscaedter 


224,861 


9. 


9. Hines 


1276 


Joly tp. Swift 888 


9. 


9. Horlock 


818 


Jones, Rx parte 68, 61 , 1070 

Be 1u, 109, 1218. 1286, 1828. 

1862, 1889, 1428, 1802 


9. 


«. Hunter 87 
9. Johnson 104. 106, 444, 1166, 


9. 
9. 


1461; 


1486,1684 


Be. Calver 9. Laxton 1084, 1426 
«. Abraham 843 


9. 


9. Kelly 


1081 


9. 


v. Lander 


122 


9. Adair 166 


9. 


9. Leake 


1828 


ip Alephdn 1700, 1707, 1712 
v. Andrews 1829 


9. 


9. Lindsay, No. 2 


40 


9. 


9. Lusk 


117 


v. Bailey 1266 


9. 


v. MeCabe 


68 


9. Barker 814 


9. 


9. Manta 


878 


v. Barrett 208 


9. 


v. Meyer 


216, 1196 


9. Bartholomew 1697 


9. 


9. Naccle 


448 


9. Basset 1618 


9. 


9. Northey 


1686 


9. Batten 899, 1879, 1600 


9. 


v. Parkinson 


834 


v. Beet 844 


9. 


v. Feck 


1628 


v. Belt 844 


9. 


9. Petrie 


1082 


9. Beverley 632 


9. 


v. Pierson 


844 


«. Binns 168, 420, 698 




v. Plnney 


604,1691 


v. Bolles 828 




v. Prendergaft 


882,1869 


v. Boston Mill Corp. 477. 1042. 


9. 


t? Rankin 


192,1606 


tP. 


it. Richardson 


848 


9. Brain 1617 


9. 


r. St. Louis, At. By. Co. 1618 


tP. Brandon 449, 622 


9. 


9. Shepard 


798 


9. Brent 1726 


9. 



ate. 
Brlttan 

Cargill 447 

ChappeU HI. 1628 

Charkvoonft 686, 804, 1690 

Commissioners 1660 
Com. Bank of Columbus 1673 

Conoway 646 

Cowles 860 

Davenport 417, 1676, 1678 

Davids 816, 642, 1894 

Davies 126 
Davis 497,681,606,619,680 



Drake 

Brans 

Bwing 

Farrell 

Faweett 

Fayerweather 

Foster 

Foulkes 

Foxall 

Frost 

Fulghum 

Gale 

Garcia del Rio 

Geddes 

Gilham 

Goodchlld 

Goodrich 

Graham 

Gregory 

Griffith 

Hardesty 

Harris 

Hart 

Heavens 

Holliday 

Hough 

How 

Howell 

Howells 

James 

Jones 



161,446 

1426 

1687 

199,1664 

m, in, 112 

1679 

884 

998,1809 

866 

688,607,1847 

689,1668 

646 

942,248,844 

462,1696,1628 

1687,1668.1669 

186,924 

1726 

1698 

669,1479 

829, 881, 888, 989 

841 

166 

197,298 

1664 

1468 

1188 

928,226,265 

819 

819, 1610, 1688. 1808 

220,996 

247,292,862,879,698, 



679, 690, 766, 807, 810, 84L 

844,846,940,984,1117; 

1228, 1929, 1882, 1421, 

1616, 1628, 1688. 166& 

1617,1^1886,1861 

Keen lie, 666, 680, 1746 

Kennlcott 1706 

Kenrlck 1688 

Klrkpatriek 221 

Lamar 1299 

Langham 864 

Lansing 798. 784 

Leedville Bank 1784 

Lewis 740, 1142, 1882, 1406. 



Little Rock 

Lloyd 

Lucas 

MagUl 

Mason 

Massey 

McKenna 

McPhiUips 

Mitchell 

Morehead 

Morgan 

Morrall 

NewhaU 

Nixon 

North 

Payne 

Pengree 

Perrott 

Plckalay 

Planters 1 Bank 



88 

990 

1676 

444, 846, 1409 

1169, 1644, 1679 

1607,1689 

402,407 

1488 

1407 

809 

1868, 1870, 9061 

662 

669,661 

1709 

68 

841 

807 

710 

868 



Powell 72,80.1178,1179,1809, 
1847, 1869, 1868. 1610. 
1642,1787 
Pugh 1720 

Reese 418 

Rett 884 

Richards 678 

Richardson 90, 114, lit 



TABLE 09 CASE* CITED. 



lxxi 



totWsw^pafltig.} 



Nate. Rfcketti 


wo 


v. Roberta 


mot, urn 


v. Robinson 


1162 


9. Bote 


404,1060 


w. Sampson 


1700 


». SotMtt 


1705 


e. Beott 


642 


* 8a*rle 


1416 


«. 8egueir» 


687. OR, §96, 697 


v. Shepherd 


604,1662 


v. Skip with 


490 


e. Skipworth 


602 


v.Sfcne 


1607 


e\ Blaoson 


891 


«. garnish 218, 


240,881,902,1548, 




1560. 1766 


w. Bpeneer 


847, 861, 760, 961 


9. Btoekett 


1268 


». Strafford, flarl of 110,000,816 


«. Stroud 


1090 


v. Tejrlor 


606,1671 


9. Thicker 


1548 


v. Thomas 


678,1660 


v. Thome 


1468 


«. Tlnney 


795 


w. Totty 


1156,1160 
662,841 


w. Taberrflle 


w Tarnbali 


896,1608 


v. Turner 


966 


9. Yen Doren 


878.418 


9. Wadsworth 


417, 1881 


• Ward 1260,1861,1852,1864 
v. Watder 602, 694 


^m frnTA^eLea^^snaawt^B 

V- weujUJWUSi 


1861 



CTb» 



Jones v. Welttng- 

v. Williams 681 . 1188, 1548 

v. WUaon 087, 964, 1491 

9. Wood Street Warehouse Go. 905 

v. ZoiUeofter 1575 

Jones's Mortgage, At re 161 

Jones's Settled Estates, Re 1399 

Jope v. Morahead 1152 

Joplrag v. Stuart 402, 524 

Jopp v. Ottering 1528 

9. Wood 280, 1460, 1461, 1478, 

1480,1581 

Jopp's Case 1T70 

Jordan, Ex parte 287, 1461 

e. Agawam Woolfte» Go. 986 

9. Clarke 878, 879 

v. Gumming* 87, 88 

v. Jones > 186 

9. Jordan 758 

v. 8awkis* 666 

9. 8elfcrt 650 

9. Thomas 1621 

v. Williams 1628 

Jordan v. Money 847 

Jordonv. Trumbo 886 

Jortm v. Booth Eastern Ry. Oo. 2115 

Joseph v. Boubieday 1676 

«. Goode 1160 

v. Maeowskj 1648 

9. Most 1088 

v. Perry 1085 

9\ Tuekey 62 

9. Webster, Re 1608 

Josey v. Bogers 1648, 1540 



617 



1687 



Jeettn v. Wheelev 580; 608 

Joseaume v. Abbot 

Joumeay v. Broil* 

Jourolmon v. MassengeH 

Jewett 9. Broad 

Joy v. 8c. Louis 

9. Wlrts 140, Ml, 100, 284 

Joyce »• Be Moleyns 

9. Gunnels 

v. Rawlins 
Judah v. Chiles 
Judd v. Bushnell 

9. Hatch 

v. Lawrence 

9. Plum 

v. SeaTer 

p. Wartnaby 

v.Wilson 
Judkins, Re 

9. Lovelace 
Judson v. Blaoohatd 

v. Courier Go 

r. Emanuel 

9. Otbboas 

v. Toulmia 
JeUa Fisher, The 
Julian v. Reynolds 

9. State 
Jnmpson v. Pitchers 
Jopp, Re 

Justice v. MoBroom 
Justices v. Cosby 

9 Croft 

of Oofentry, Re 



16IT 

4ft 

14a 

866,841,848 
742 



1208 



216,418,2808 

104 

2Bf 

884,945 

154 

251 

10 

1220 

160 

1544,1688 

895 

1660,1668 

1610,1787 



K. 



9. Dobberpuhl 
v. Helpte 
Kakjha 9. Fuller 



1675 

1614 

1677 

801 

Kalorama, The 816 

Kamm v. Stark 1618, 1662 

Kampf 9. Jones 1418 

iwha Lodge v. Bwann 1548 

▼alley Bank v. Wilson 1576 

v. Bloodgood 560, 644, 652 

9. Hamilton 1668 

9. Huggins Cracker Co. 1642 

9. MaoJe 16 

v. Reynolds 16, 1518 

v. Vanderburgh 1620, 1680, 1688 

9. Van Vranker 888, 1896, 1600 

9. Whitman 008 

9. Whittfck 087, 908, 1460 

Kankakee to. B, Co. v. Homo 860 

Isnoas Pae. By. Co. v. Atchison 857 

«. Beyles 1748 

KaokUype BngrsTing Go. v. 

Hoke 814 

9. Karr 457, 1860 

v. Qreenoogh 901 

Kanflmen v. Grlesmer 204 

9. Walker 1260, 1274 

Kavanagh 9. Wall 456, 1785 

Kay v. Fowler 1171, 1221, 1206 

9- Hargreares 570 

»• Johnson 1081 

r. Jones 808, 841, 844 

*" - - "m**^ 

w. fls at es 1081 

9. Smith 880, 1020, 1828 

9. Watson 1580 

Kaye, In re 1846, 1858 

9. Bank of Louisville 1877 

9. Cunnlnsjham 1058 

9. Fosbrooke 50, 226 

9. Wall 722, 761 

Keen t». Johnson 26, 267 

9. Lathrop 798, 704 

Keane, Re 1070 

Ksurlsy, Re 61, 157 



Kearney 9. Harm!! 

9. Jackson 

9. Maeomb 

9. Smith 
Kearsley v. Phillips 
Keates v. Burton 

9. Lyon 
Keating v. Sparrow 
Keats 9. Hugo 
Kebel v. Phfipot 
Keek v. AJueader 
Kedto, The 
Keeler v. Green 

v. Keeler 
Keen, Re 

9. Breckenrldge 

9. Stanley 
Keenan e. Keenan 
Keane v. Johnston 

o. Kimball 

c. Price 
Keener v. Moss 



1078 
1468 
2010 
1625 
678 

824,1654 

1658 

1688 

1114 

1576 

1470 

1657 

225,287 

1610 

1748 

788 

248 

100 

1648 

1184 

1157 



Keeper, Lord v. Wyld 2, 867, 676 

Keboe v. CarviUe 740 

Keiffer v. Barney 1002 

Kcighleyp. Brown 707 

Keil v. West 1081, 1062 

Keisselbrack 9. LrrfaifBton 1401 

Keith 9. Day 098 

9. Keith 884 

9. Trapier 1166 

Keithley v. Keithley 1071, 1078 

Kekewich v. Langston 1858, 2202 

v. Marker 1638 

Kelk 9. Archer 708, 800 

v. Pearson 898, 1687 

Keilamv. 8ayer 287 

Keller 9. Beelor 217, 1507 

Kellaway v. Bury 854 

v. Johnson 268, 272 

Keller v. Stolsenbach 660, 820, 2884 

Kellett v. Kellett 1450, 1486, 15^2 

Kelleyv Bradford 988 

9. Greenleaf i960, 2246, 2290 

v. KeUey 680, 1122 

*. McKinney 1120 



KeUey v. TpsUanti Stay M. Go. 1642 

KeUner v. Mutual Lite Ins. Go. 694 

Kellock, Re 807, 1847 

Kellock's Case 264 

Kellogg, Matter of 1745 

9. New Britain 824 

9. Rockwell 1240 

9. Wood 865 

Kellom v. Easley UK) 

Kelly, Matter of 1841 

9. Crapo 1748 

e. Eckford 1558, 1819 

9. Hooper I860, 1805, 1681 

o. Hutton 1594, 1646, 1727, 1887 

9. Israel 215 

9. Jackson 298, 617 

v. Kershaw 417 

V. Lennon 1476 

9. Rogers 298, 868 

9. Sherlock 1180 

v. Wallace 824 

Kelminster v Pratt 64 

Keln«r 9. Baxter 288, 268 

Kelsall 9. Beanet 678 

9. Kelsall 170, 174, 176 

v. Minton 1808 

Kelsey 9. Kekwy 1724 

v. Snyder 906 

9. Weston 1450, 1467 

Kelso v. Jessop 1282, 1204 

v. Taber 186 

Kelson v. Kelson 1328 

Kelty v. High 1019 

Kembeil eTWalduck 150, 808, 815 

Kemble v. Keen 1654, 1656 

Kemp* Bird 1654 

9. Burn 1417, 1419 

9. Latter 528 

9. Lyon 974 

9. Mackren 1128,1528,1540,1622 

v. Pryor 651, 552 

9. Squire 1028 

9. Tucker 650, 1621 

9. Waddlngham 1084 

9. Wade 1177, 1179, 1188, 1800. 



burii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[The 



are to the itar paging.] 



Knap v. Westbrooke 
Kempson v. Ashbee 
Kemptoa v. Burgas 
Kenan v. Miller 
Kendall v. Beckett 
v. Granger 



863 

669,790 

296 

421 

1868 



w. Hamilton 217, 260, 288. 627 
e. Hovey 1166, 1166 

*. Masters 887, 996, 1410 

KendallTille Refrigerator Co. v. 

Davis 1666 

Kendig v. Dean 149. 790 

Kendrick v. Whitfield 665 

«. Whitney 1476 

Kenebel v. Scrafton 1890, 1424 

Keniston v. Keniston 1168 

Kenmare v. Gaaej 864 

Kennv. Neck 1127 

Kennardv Christie 1280 

v. George 1971, 1972 

Kennaway v. Tripp 29, 81 

Kennebeo Railroad v. Portland 

Railroad 884 

Kennebeo & Port. R. R. Oo. v. 
Port & Kennebeo R. R. Co. 
22, 146, 261, 296, 814, 884. 886, 

838,344 



1676, 1677, 1678 

846 

1579 

668 

1626 

686 

187,1684 

197 



86,696,797,806 
1886 



Kennedy v. Ball 
w. Baylor 
9. Bell 

■ v. Brown 
e. Cassilli* 
v. Creewell 
v. Daly 
v. Davis 
v. Edwards 
v. George 
v. Green 676, 1880 

v. Indianapolis Jtc. R. Co. 1071, 

1748 
v. Kennedy 249, 844, 1294, 1648 
v. Lewis 424, 1676 

v. Lyell 668, 717, 948 

e. Meredith 887 

v. Sedgwick 1796 

v. St. Paul R. Co 1781 

v. Thorp 1742 

t>. Wakefield 864, 579 

v. Winn 560 

Keener v. Hard 1544 

v. 8mith 1677 

Kennerty v. Rtiwan Phosphate 
Co. 418 

Kenney v. Consumers' Gas Co. 10 
v. Kelliher 1691 

9. Ranney 1748 

Kennon v Dtekins 1269 

Kenny v. Gillet 1648 

v. Udall 90, 101, 102, 121, 122 

Kenrlck t>. Clayton 692, 690 

'■ v. Danube C. & M. Co. 1644 

v. Wood 110, 1450, 1695 

Kensington v. Inglis 61 

Kensington, Lord v. Bouverie 828 
v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 1895 

Kensit v. Great Eastern Ry. Co. 1639 

Kent v- Burgess 1079 

v. Freehold Land and Brick- 
making Co. 1459 
9. Jacobs 429 
v. Kent 1589 
v. Lake Superior Ship Canal 

Co. 645, 660 

e. Lee 842 

v, Owensboro Bank 545 

9. Pickering 1616 

v. Ricards 1625 

Kenton Furnace R. & M. Oo. v. 
MoAlpin 818 

Kentucky & Indiana Bridge Co. 
v. Krleger 1069 

Kentucky S. M. Co. v. Day 857 

Kenyon v. Clarke 1624 

v. Kenyon 70, 1165 

v. Worthington 250, 1207 

Keogh, Re 1069 

Keogh Manuf. Co. v. Whiston 1716 



Keokuk N. L. Packet Co. e. Da- 
vidson 1766 
Kepley v. Carter 880 
Keppell v. Bailey 80S 
Ker v. Cloberry 1806, 1812 
Kercbner v. Kemptoa 108, 185, 187 
v. MoEachern 974 
Kern v. Haslerigg 280 
v. Strausberger 1625 
v. Wyatt 1580 
Kernaghan v. Williams 241, 248. 

Kernfck v. Kernkk 102, 104, 107, 

864,786,894 

Kernot v. Critchley 426, 1899 

v. Potter 551 

Keron v. Coon 1677 

Kerr v. Campbell 815 

v. Freeman 850 

v. Gillespie 27, 28, 81, 868, 859. 

40i 57* 

v. Lansing 8*Jt8 

v. Love 1258 

v. Munster, Duchess of 28 

v. Preston 1620 

v. Rew 1658 

v. South Park Com'rs 1017 , 1078 

Kerrick v. Bransby 652, 668 

v. Saflery 216 

Kerrison v. Stewart 200, 266 

Kershaw, Re, Whittaker v. 

Kershaw 179, 187 

v. Kelsey 62 

v. Matthews 1729, 1786 

e. Thompson 1042, 1056 

Kessinger v. Whittaker 1068 

Ketcbem v. Braail B. C. Co 1565 

Ketchum v. Breed 1120, 1580 

v Driggs 556 

Kettle v. Crary 217, 288 

v. Van Dyck 260, 261 

KettleweU v. Barstow 820, 674, 692, 

812, 1826 

Reran v. Crawford 180. 865, 892, 

996.1001,1870,1409 

Key v. Snow 109 

Keyes v. Pueblo 8. A R Co. 1073, 1668 

Keymer v. Pering 981 

Keys v. Bush 1728 

e. Keys 1781 

v. Mathes 808 

Keyser v. Renner 814, 406, 1617 

Keystone Manganese and Iron 

Co. v. Martin 1029 

Keyworth, In re 1778 

Kibler v. Whiteman 879, 886 

Kidd, Ex parte 1581 

v. Cheyne 488, 1460, 1681 

9. Horry 1620 

v. Manlev 852 

Kiddie v. Debruti 887 

Kiddill v. Farneir 1801 

Kidger v. Worswick 486, 621, 760, 

1819 
Kidney v. Cockburn 1124 

Kiff v.Roberts (No. 2) 89 

Kihlholi v. Wolff 1019 

Kiibeev. Sneyd 1817 

Kilbey v. Haviland 1080 

KHbourn v. Sunderland 217, 680 
Kilbourne v. Allyn 1661 

Kilbretb v. Root 880, 1551 

Kilby v. 8tanton 227 

KiloreaMV Blythe 161,588 

Kildare, Earl of v. Eustace 1050 
Kilgore v. Hair 1784 

Kllgour v. New Orleans Gas 

Light Co. 149, 191. 884, 884 

Killlan e. Ebbinghans 680, 1071, 

1561 
Killinger v. Hartman 407 

Killock v. Gregg 819 

Kilmlnster v. Pratt 814 

Kilmorey, Lord v. Thackeray 1656 
Kimball v. Brown 642 

v New Hampshire Bible Soc- 
iety 1411 



Kimball v. Ward 


788 


Kimber v. Emsworth 


292 


v. Press Ass'n 


1070 


Kimberley v. Fox 


1961 


v. Jennings 


1666 



Kimberiy ». Anns 1820,1576,1680. 

v. Sells 647, 649, 684 

Kimble v. 8eal 1617 

Kimmel v. Kimmel 960 

Kimpton v. Eve 1666, 1678, 1686 

Kinahan v. Kinahan 149 

Kincaid, Re 97, 101, 102, 108 

Kincart v. Sanders 1607 

Kindell v. Titos 108, 161 

Kinder v. Forbes 448 

v, Jones 1688 

King, Re 1416, 1417, 1648 

v. Alberton 1184 

v. Allen 648 

v. Arundel, Countess Dowager 

of 6 

v. Baldwin 651 

v. Bardeau 2269 

v. Barnes 966, 1069 

v. BUI 1062 

v. Brigham 1164 

v. Bryant 606, 628, 1176, 1424 
v. Burr 1398 

v. Carr 781 

v. Clark 1467 

v. Corke 828, 884, 417, 861 

v. Davis 824 

v. Dundee Mortgage, &c. Co. 1576, 

1579 
v. Enterprise Ins. Co. 1560 

v. Galloway 296 

v. Homing 626 

v. Higgins 1624 

v. Holcombe 700 

v. Howard 670 

v. Isaacson lb02 

v. King 68, 898, 1879. 1411 . 1490, 
1668, 1617, 1726 
v. Little 128 

v. Lucas 118 

v. McVIckar 715 

v. Maloott 648 

v. Martin 168, 266 

9. Morris and Essex R. Oo. 1687, 

1660 
9. Noel 807 

v.Pratt 894 

v. Ray 728, 726 

v. Roasett 879 

v. Ruckmaa 1089, 1472 

v. Sandeman 979 

v. Savery 1029, 1442 

v. Smith 284, 1614, 1680, 1699 
9. State Mutual Fire Ins. Co 1289. 

1241,1246 

v. 8tewart 216 

9. Strong 1426, 1427 

9. Taylor 1481, 1488 

9. Townshend 2040 

9. Trice 868 

9. Turner 424 

v. Williamson 1097 

9. Wooten 1069 

Kingdom v. Boakes 848 

Klnglake v. Bevis 1127 

Kingley v. Young 296 

Kingman v. Maisey 1618 

Kingsbury v. Buckner 66, 1648, 

1580 

9. Flowers 216, 884 

Klngsford v. Polls 457, 998 

Klngsland v. Roberts 641 

Klngsley. Re 87, 179 

v. Young 197, 247 

Kingsman v. Kingsman 111 

Kingston v. Corker 824 

v. Cowbridge Ry. Co. 1781 

v. Tappen 980 

Kingston's, Duchess of, Case 676. 

Kingwood Bank 9. Jarvis 1294 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



lxxiii 



pn» 



an to the star paging.] 



v. Meyer 864 

«. Brigbnm 144, 2300 

Kliuaaird v. Trollops 816 

Lord 9. Christie 1280 

Xmnan v. 42d St., A*. R, Co. 60 

Kinnesley »- flbnpeon 606 

Udimj v. Corned Va. M. Co. 886 

e. Crocker 1748 

«. smalm 177*2 

t>. PtetST 1206 

Kino v. Bodkin 280, 1096, 1106, 

1617,1686 

Kinsey.ite 1840 

9. Grimes 848 

9. Howard 884 

9. KJneey 660 

Kinshclav. Lee 802 

Kinder «. Clark 1668 

Krasntan v. Barker 1258 

Kimde v. Penrose 666 

Klpp 9. Hanna 407, 490 

Kbby v. Barton 1616 

«. Lake Shore A M. 8. R. Co. 146, 

217 
«. Taylor 694, 700 

Kbvtou Coal Co. ,Ex parte 1469 
Kirk 9. Bromley Union 1644 

ft. Clark 206, 220 

9. Da Bote 878, 1607 

9, Jones 1278 

*. Kirk 968, 964 

9. Milwaukee D. a Manut Co. 

1070 
9. Morrow 814 

*. Beg. 188 

Kirkby Rarensworth Hospital, 

Ex parte 1868 

Kirkham w. Smith 1891 

Khkheaton Local Board * 

Ainley 1688 

Ktokmnd*. Totting 1008 

Kirkfay «. Barton 812, 422 

Kirkman v. Andrews 684 

e. Booth 1280, 1414 

9. Handy 1629 

9. Honnor 1674 

9. Jerri* 1096 

9. Tanner 1222 

sTJrkpatrksk 9. Bated 295 

e. Corning 222, 248, 849 

9. Love 1229 

v. Meet* • 490 

9. Peebine 1664 

9. While 611 

Kirksey 9. Meant 878, 879 

Kbkwood 9. Lloyd 969 

9. Webster 1440 

Kbseh 9. Derby 642 

Klrtland v. Moon 1661 

Kirwan v. Darnel 161, 291 

9. Klrwan 444 

«. Latoor 68 

Kiev v. Standfar 877 

Kiccat «. 8harp 887, 1070 

Kitchen v. Hhnbte 1626 

9. Ray burn 814 

Klseheralde v. Myen 680 

Kitehlne Himble 1610 

9. Hughes 622 

KJteUngv. Kitoblng 1072 



Kitchins*. Harrall 
Kittle v. De Graaf 

9. DeLamater 

p. Rogers 

9. Tan Dyok 
KittleweU 9. Barstow 
Kitto, Re 



192 

814 

1081 

1842 

194 

411 

1411 



Kittredge v. Claremont Bank 680, 

722, 728, 724, 786. 769, 769 

9. McLaughlin 1269, 1891 

Klaus v. State 68 

Klein v. Fleetmrd 1676 

9. Horine 426 

9. Jcwett 1762 

Klepper v. Powell 692 

Kline v. Baker 864 

v. L'Amooreux 1860 

Kloek 9. Robinson 1266 

Kloebe, Re 47, 202 

Klampp v. Gardner 1691 

Knapman, Re 1409 

Knapp v. Burnaby 1264 

9. Bornbam 1288 

9. Douglass Axe Co. 1618. 1689, 

16612823 
v. Marshall 987 

9. Snyder 1628 

9. White 1817 

9. Williams 1781 

Knapping v. Tomllnson 99 

Knatchbnll v. Fearnhead 1411 

«. Fowle 68, 74, 86, 112, 168, 164, 

178 
9. Hallett 867 

Knebell v. White 886, 1928 

Kneeland 9. Brass Foundry 1748 
9. Laos 1748 

Knlbb v. Dixon 1078 

Knickerbocker v De Freest 68, 161, 

168 
9. Harris 846 

Knlerim v. Bchmauss 1206 

Knight, Re 901 

v. Atkisson 661, 669, 994, 1679 
9. Bowyer 887 

9. Brawner 118 

9. Bnlkley 1068 

9. Cawthron 481 

9. Cory 28,868 

v. De Blaqnien 27,88 

9. Dnpleesls 1726 

9. HooghtaUing 1062 

9. Knight 70, 92. 109. 282, 288. 
1064, 1202, 1796 
9. Maclean 1264 

9. Marjoribanks 694, 1291 

9. Martin U12 

9. Mosely 8 

«. Plimoatb-l Lord 1761 

«. Pocock 212, 226, 267, 277, 488 
9. Pnrmll 1449 

9. Sampson 676 

9. Watts 1708 

9. Weiskopf 1461 

9. Yarborough 1662 

9. Young 680, 1026 

Brothers v. Ogden 797 

Knight'* Trusts, Re 1411, 1412 

Knoblauch* Minneapolis 1675 

Knoop 9. Bohmxifih 26 



Knott, Jfc 
9. Coitee 
9. Oottee 



9. Morgan 
9. Stearns 
Knowles, Re 
9. Chapman 
9. Greenhill 
9. Haughton 



1416 

1061 

1262,1267,1416,1420, 

2296 

2819 

1366 

1809 

1246, 1261, 1262 

1479 

882 



9. Rhydydeled Colliery Com- 
pany 810, 1691 
9. Roberts 864 
9. 8penee 989 
Know 1 ton v. Hanbnry 1648 
Knox v. Brown 168. 791 
v. Colombia L. L Co. 986, 1019. 

1120,1676 
v.Gye 818, 816, 418, 660. 56L, 

641,649 

9. Hayman 26 

0. Mayo 1168 

9. Mover 974, 1020 

9. Picket 1411, 1412, 1418 

9. Smith 861 

«. Bymmonds 414, 770, 776 

Knox County 9 Harshman 2898 

Knye 9. Moore 206, 846 

KobM 9. Underbill 660 

Koeber 9. Sturgis 102 

Koehler v. Farmers A Drovers 

Nat. Bank 1684 

Kohn v. McNulta 1071 

Koons v. Blanton 1071 

Koonts v. Northern Bank 1749 

Kopper v. Dyer 617, 1648, 1918 

Kopplnger v. O'Donnell 1661, 1662 
Korne 9. Korne 834 

Kornegay v. Carroway 878 

Kortjobn v. Seimen 1661 

Kortrlght 9. Cady 1248, 1246 

Kraker v. By rum 1860 

Krapt v. Wlckey 1855 

Krehl v. Burrell 986, 987. 1080. 

1140, 1662 

9. Park 1868, 1876 

Kreichbaum v. Bridges 1621 

Kreider v. Mehafly 790 

Krlck 9. Jansen 814, 869 

Krippendorf v. Hyde 287 

Kronheim 9. Johnson 666 

Krneger 9. Ferry 1648 

Krnmbhaar v. Griffiths 1820 

Krnson v. Krnson 1680 

Kuhl v. Martin 418, 1677 

Kuhllger v. Bailey 866 

Kunkel v. Markell 214, 841, 861, 868 

Knnts 9. White Co. 1676 

Knrts v. Spence 418 

Knttner v. Haines 1680 

Knts's Appeal 1299 

Kuyper v. Refbrmed Dutch 

Church 684,688.690.601.694, 

718, 720, 721, 761 

Kyle v. McKenaie 1648 

9. Perdne 1648 

9. Riley 788 

Kvnaston 9. But India Co. 166 

9. Perry 797 



L. 



Labadie v. Hewitt 846, 659, 1160 

Labooeherev Dawson 1666 

9. WharneliS* 1668 

v. Chapais 790 

?x parte 167 

9. B aker 1461 

•*• JFO*afs?BsVvO«r X lefiv 

Leehlan 9. Reynolds 1276, 1284 

Lnckett v. Rumbengh 686, 1770 

Lackey 9. Curtis 29C 



Laoon 9. Mertins 


1246 


Lacroix v. Lyons 


813 


v. May 


690 


Lacy v. Bnrehnall 


70 


r. Hill 


1174 


9. Rockett 


68 


9. Wilson 


675 


Ladbroke v. 8Ioane 


797, 799, 1617 


Ladbrooke v. Blesdon 


798 


Laddv. Chase 


1661 



Ladd 9. Harrey 1784 

v. Putnam 1288 
Ladies BeneTolent 800. v. Bene- 

Tolent Soe. 1662 

Ladner v. Ogden 1548 

Lafayour v. Justice 601 

Lafayette v. Fowler 1661 

Co v. Neely 824,828,2898 

Ins. Co, v. French 867 

Laflerty e. Turley 641 



TABLE OF CA8BS CITED, 



cn» 



amtotbe 



1 



UOtUt.Be 1440 

Lafltte's Claim 1440 

Lamne*. Falkland Islands Co, 418, 

677, 786, 1661, 1668, 1666. 1821. 

1824*1884,1888 

Laftrest, J& 62 

La Orange, fro. B. Go. ». Hen* 

phis,<fec.R.Co. 1870,1660, 

1677 

867, 1491 

888,894,647 

1284,1290 

848 

1666, 1669, 1618 

287 

1266,1267 

878 

884, 401, 782, 1008 

734,787 

1646 

877 

1129 

164 

648 

1060 

866,868 

882 888 

Lake Brie & W. R. Co. v. Hatch 646 
Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Brown 

1286.1667 
Lake*s Trust*, Be 649, 660 

Lakeman v. Agua Frla Gold M. 

Co. 688 

Lakens v. Fielden 688, 789, 748 

Lakin, Ex parte 1867 

Lamar v. Miaou 646 

Lamara tr. Dixon 1889 

Lamb v. Beaumont Temperance 



Laidley tr. Herrifield 
Laighttr. Morgan 

tr. Pell 
Laingtr Kaine 

tr. Zeden 
Lalnbart v. Retlly 
Lainsen tr. T^iwn^ 
Laird v. Boyle 

v* Briggs 
Lake p. ■ . 

«. Austwick 

v. Causfleld 

tr. Deer 

v Hassltine 

tr. Hayes 

,e\ Mearee 

tr. Peislay 

tr. Skinner 



Hall Co. 
tr. Brans 
9. JeftVsy 
«. Munster 
Lambe v. Orton 



Lambert tr. Addison 
9. Fisher 
9. Hill 

«. Hutchinson 
tr. Jones 
9. Lambert 
v. Lomas 
9. Lyddon 
9. Maris 



1061 

1660 

697 

664.717 

1812. 1866. 1477, 

1487, 1786, 1828 

832 

1187 

1694,1971 

1040,1041 

426 

281, 601, 1649, 1660 

482 

1188 

892 

9. Neuchatel Asphalt Co 26, 1660 
9. Newark 1606, 1797 

9. Northern Railway of Bu- 
enos Ayres 248 
9. People 668, 667 
tr. Peyton 1004 
v. Rogers 681 
9. Turner 162, 476 
Lambie tr. LaraWe 1798 
LaHert tr. Stanhope 809 
Laming tr. Gee 488, 1870, 1677, 1681. 

Lemon tr. McKee 1069, 1770 

Lampton v. Lampton 844 

Lamson v. Drake 878, 1809 

Lanahan tr. Gahan 1681 

Lancashire v. Lancashire 1079, 1465, 

1600, 1721, 1726 
and Yorkshire Ry. 
Co. v. Evans 791, 808, 810 

Lancashire, Ac. Bank tr. Tee 187 
Lancaster, Be 88, 40, 111 

9, Cboate 1626, 2284, 2849 

v. De Traflbrd 1081 

v. Erors 800, 790, 722, 1829 

811 
1678 
686 
77 
848, 1079, 1116 
Lancaster and Carlisle Ry. Co. 

tr. North- Western Ry. Co. 1620 
Lancaster Mills «. Merchants' 
Gottonpress Co. 617 



v. Lair 

v. 

9. Roberts 

9. Thornton 

9. Ward 



I^Nd.Wi. KMQI 



Lanoy 9. Randlett 
Land tr. Cowan 
v. Land 
9. Wickham 
Corporation of 
Puleston 



648 

1616 

1864 

1475, 1479 

9- 

1817 

Csedst Co. «. Fennoy 198, 

1029. 1064. 1678 
Credit Society of Ireland, Ha 

948 

Landars 9. Allan 1001 

Landed Estates Co. 9. Weeding 1880 

Lander v. lngersoll 76, 76 

v. Parr 27,111 

9. Weston 719 

Laadls v. Olds 878, 881 

Landon v. Morris 1?21 

9. Ready 402,680 

Lane, Be 892, 1869, 1860 

9. Cromble 850 

9. Ellaey 604, 668, 1691 

9. Hardwteke 102, 169, 448, 476 

v. Hobos 1029. 1080 

9. Jackson 676, 1040 

9. Lane 1788 

9. London Bank of Scotland 782 

9. Newdigate 1688, 1662, 1668, 

1671 



v. OliTer 
v. Paul 
9. Schomp 
9. Smith 
9. Sterne 



1061 

768,1821 

1637 

62, 68, 108, 606, 681 

1748 



Lanesborougb 9. Kihaelne 676, 677 

Lanlranchi tr. Mackensie 1868 

Lang, Ex parte 167 

9. Brown 247, 1288 

v. Griffith 1697 

9. Superior Court 1601 

9. Waring 216, 991 

9. Whiddon 88 

Langdvle tr. Briggs 1001, 2182 

9. Gill 1680 

v. Langdale 792 

Lady tr. Briggs 1001 

Langdon 9. Branch 808 

9. Goddard 720, 728, 769, 844, 

862, 1997 

v. Pickering 849, 860, 729, 769 

tr. Potter 818 

v.Roane 1008 

Lange tf. Jones 277 

Langell v. Langell 645 

Langen 9. Tate 915 

Langford, Be 1748, 1791 

v. May 913 

9. Pitt 989 

9. Wray 1488 

Langham tr. Great Northern Ry. 

Co 796, I860, 1667 

Langhorne 9. Harland 1897 

Langley, Ex parte 1666, 1678. 

1od4, looo 

9. Bredon 1057 

v. Breydon 1060 

9. Fisher 866, 946, 964, 1899 

tr. Hawk 1728 

9. Oxford, Earl of 256 

v. Voll 1062 

Tangmaid tr. Reed 1003 

Langstafle tr. Fenwick 1246 

Langston 9. Boylston 1560, 1563. 

Langton v. Higgs 1426, 1778 

v. Horton 1671 

v. Langton 1265, 1890 

9. Waite 886, 774 

Langyher tr. Patterson 1274 

Laoham tr. Pirie 191,882,967,2042 

Lanier v. Alison 1628 

9. Hill 407 

Lankford v. Jackson 1284 

Lann v. Church 1846 

Lanning tr. Heath 412, 424 

Lanoy v. Athol 97, 106, 1860 



fswsdale 9. Smith 

Lanedoem 9. 

Lansdowne, Masojsss of tr. 

downe. Marchioness Dow- 
ager af 

Lansing 9. Albany Inn. Co. 167k 

M76, ret 

tr. Easton 1698, 1666 

9. Goelet 284 

tr. McPherson 1026. 1286 

v.Pine 662,667 

v. Russell 1120, 1124, 1126 

Lanum tr. Steele 618 

Lape v. Taylor 1417 

Lapcyra v. United States 67 

Lapham v. Green 296 

Lapresse v. Falls 1678, 107* 

Laprimaudaye 9. Teissier 116, 1778L 

1786,1791 
Lapton 9. Almy 1277 

Larabrie 9. Brown 894, 1668 

Larcom ». Olin 1628 

Lardner tr. Ogden 1648, 1661 

Lareau tr. Davignon 46 

Largan tr. Bowen 1616 

Large v. De Fern 7T 

9. Van Doren 2*1, 220, 268 

Largen tr. Bowen 1764 

Laximore v. Wells 604 

Larkin tr. Mann 626, 1678. 1168, 

1154,1166,1168 
Larkins tr. BHdle 884, 840, 402 

tr. Murphy 1296 

9. Paxton 1428, 1487 

Larmuth tr. Simmons 1624 

Laroehe 9. Wakeman 68 

Larrabee 9. Grant 1120 

Lanison, v. Peoria, fro. R. Co. 



Larrowe tr. Beama 676 

Larsen 9. Oregon Ry. & New. 

Co. 
Larsh v. Brown 
Larue 9. Larue 994 

Lasell v. Powell 1272 

Lash v. McCormick 1671 

9. Miller 169, 1610, 1624, 1826. 

2069 
Lashley tr. Hogg 798, 1208 

Laslett v. Cttfle 1266 

Laf seur tr. Tyrconnel 1809 

Lataillade v. Orena 646 

Latch 9. Latch 226, 261, 488, 488 
Latham v. Chaise 684, 1784 

9. Kenrick 64 

9. Wiswall 424 

Lathbury v. Brown 1180 

Lathrop tr. Knapp 1761 

9. Nelson 1277 

v. Smalley 1417 

9. Stewart 646 

Latimer, Ex parte 1440 

tr Aylesbury, See. Ry. Co. 1696. 

1780, 1781 

9. Neate 1880, 1888, 1836 

Latouch tr. Dunsany 1049 

Latouche tr. 8ampson 768 

Latour tr. Bland 1644 

Latta Ex parte 28, 1606 

9. Kilbourn KNA 

Latter v. Dathwood 1262 

Letting 9. HaU 881 

v. Letting 889, 840 

Laud v. Cowan 826 

v Sargent 604 

Lauderdale Co. v. Foster 60 

Laughlin r. President, fco. 1681 
Laughton 9. Atkins 874 

v. Harden 266, 684 

Laura Jane v. Hagen 652 

Laurence v. Mania 868 

Lauri v. Renad 46 

Laurie tr. Burn 616 

ev Crush 1626,1626 

9. Laurie 1678 

Laatour tr. Attorney-General 816. 



TABLE OF CASES CTTEB. 



1XXT 



[las 



«ai to theater pogiag J 



1029 

880 

66, Wl 

1718,1727.1728 

671 

867.1189 

824,946 



», 84,794.810 
Lents a. Gordon 1648 

U Vega v. Lapses? 
Lsverty a. Mbont 

Leaihert a. Reiily 
1mm t Be 

a. Ford 

a. Garrett 

v. Hauler 

e. Law 

v. London Indisputable Co 486. 
4M.7M, WO, 1819,1820 

a. Philby 288 

v. Rigby 661, 688 

a. Scott 917 

Lawee v. Gibson 1087, 1898, 1408 
Lawiord v. Spfteer 1006, 1070 

Lawless v. Mansfield 871 

Lnwleye Halpen 112 

v. Waldon 209 

lawman* a. Norreys 834,864,898 
Lewrell a. Tlechbornc 949 

Lawrence, Ac 1841 

a. Austin 1081, 1038, 1641, 

1061, 1068 

a. BeakoftheBaaaalle 266 



a. Barney 


1686 


v. Bottom 


1628,1635 


a. Bowie 


1421 


a. Campbell 


677,1884 


* Cornell 


1028 


e Derby 


864 


v. Hester 


660 


v. Hortaa 


1688.1661 


a. Leae 


280-281 


«. Lawrence 


•7,88,718,846 


a. Maule 


870 


v. Philpot 


1677 


v. Pool 


694 


v Remington 


688 


v. Richmond 


1017 


v. Rokeo 149, 160, 161, 216. 219, 

4DA All 


a. Smith 


1642,1646 


v. Trener 


646 


tarmac* Mural Co. 


a. Jance- 


▼ille Cotton Mills 


1186 


Lewrenaan a. Butler 


1406 


Lewrie v. Lets 


1889 


Lswry a. Hone ton 


121 


Lawson a. Barker 


264 


9. Iw,afcw 


1800 


a. Jordan 


1666 


v. Menasha W. Ca 


1639 


9. Stoddart 


966,1886 


9. Wright 


270 


Lawtea a. Green 


1666 


v Lawton 


161? 


v Friee 


806,944,1226 


Lay 9. Brown 


91 


Laytoo v. Ivans 


421 


v. Morthnore 


166,602 


lasamsr Motley 


1822 


Lav. Parker 


82 


a. Bead 


666 


9. Robeson 


646 


x Sazby 


720 


a. Vaabibber 


402,624 



Lea Conservancy Board a. Tot- 
tenham Local Board 1638 
Lea's Trust, Re 193 
Leech a Fobes 844, 1808. 2264, 2888 
«. Jones 1019 
v. Leach 1861 
Leacraft a. Demprey 600. 617. 668, 
662, 694,700,700, 788, 789 
Leacroft v. Maynard 1884, 1432 
Leadbetcer a. — - 1646 
Loadbitter, Re 69, 61, 157 
Leader, The 1846 
Leader a. Moody 1664 
Leah, Re 1848 
Leahy a. Arthur 1719 
Leake a. Bandy 1606 
e. Corde&ux 1929 
a. Leake 1699 
e. Smith 1663 



Leaven e. Brown 461, 461, 480, 481 

Learued a. Castle 1688 

a. Tilkteon 1071 

v. Walton 1061 

Leareyd a. HalUkx Joint Stock 

B. Co. 671,678,1836 

Leery a Long 669 

Leather Cloth Co. a Aiaeriean 

Leather Cloth Co 1648, 1649 

a. Breesev 426 

a. HimbOeid 862, 1082 

a. Loreont 1649, 1664 

Loathes v. Newit 282 

Leelhley a. MeAndrew 20, 26 

Leavenworth v. Pepper 860 

Levitt v. Cruger 180, 182. 446. 476, 

498,499,624, 688, 788, 764, 784 

a. Fisher 1669 

Lsary v. Leery 265 

Leaycraft v. Dempeey 861, 871, 668 

v. Heddeu 186 

Le Baron v. Crombie 1118 

Lsehmcrc a. Brasier 166, 868, 869. 

1275, 1276 

a. Brasier 1214, 1218, 1428, 1806 

v Brotheridge 100 

a. Clamp 882,969,998 

a. Ciapp 820 

Lechmese Bank a. Boynton 2162 

Leehmere Charlton's Case 1070 

Le Clea v. Trot 1713 

Leddel a. Starr 1660, 1716 

Ledue v. Ward 190 

Ledwfch, Ex parte 1069 

Ledwitav. Jacksonville 1617,1620 

Lee, Ex parte 62 

a. Angas 907, 909, 1097 

a. Beetty 1078, 1076, 1124 

a. Bickley 1406 

a. Blaokstoas 417 

a. BoutweU 878 

a. Braxton 997 

a. Brown 1896, 1427 

a. Cargill 1067, 1675 

a. Cone 880 

a. Delano 1406,1420,1427 

a. Dennistonn 66, 885 

a. Qibbings 1020,1643 

a. Haley 1649 

v. Hammerton 946 

a. Lee 68, 64, 1284, 1660, 1644 
a. Melendes 2829 

a. Uilner 1636 

a. Pain 861 

a. Park 1616, 1616 

a. Pindle 868, 1868. 1881 

a Read 664, 741 

a. Rogers 62 

a. Buggies 1624- 

a Ryder 177 

etSengsser 66 

v. Shaw 992 

a Shore 1129, 1186 

a. Stiger 837 

a. Stone 881 

a. Walker 1402 

a. Willock 1298 

a. Wilmot 646 

Leech v. Bailey 713 

a. BoUand 889 

a. State 1614 

a. Trollop 670, 675 

Leedham a. Chauaor 1428 

Leeds a. Lewis 1827 

v. Mar. Ins. Go. 841 

Duke of v. Amherst, Bui of 649 
a. Amherst, Lord 1684 

a. Strafford, Barl of 1164 

Leeds Bstate Co. a. Shepherd 26,27 
Leeming, Re 1864 

Lees a. Jones 1727 

a. Less 898, 1467 

e.NuUall 1484,1611 

a PaUenon 1704, 1706. 1712, 1714 
Lease a. Knight 160, 162, 168. 177. 
460, 476, 688, 538 



Lesson e Smith 
Last v. Gersham Usb Insurance 
Society 1066, 1128 

v. Jenkins 1460 

Leete a. Jenkins 1461 

Lafrvma. Lanuror 1281,1290,1391 



Lentagwotl v. Chave 
Le Fort v. Delafleld 
Lefroy a. Lefroy 
Leftwick a. Hamilton 
Legal a. Miller 
Legardv. Daly 

v. Hodges 

a. Sheffield 



1667 

72 

1286,1287 

408,1626 

880 

1128, 1186, 1139 

1799 

829 



Le Gendre a. Byrnes 669 

Legg v. MackreU 1416 

Legge v. Bdmonds 664 

Leggett v. Dubois 1644 

a. Postley 668, 664, 721, 1667 

a Sellon 160 

Lefgo v. Richards 2060 

Laggott v. Barrett 1655 

Lsgh v. Heverfleld 880. 860 

v. Hewitt 1666 

a. Holloway 1148 

Le Grand v- Hampden Sidney 

College 20 

a. Whitehead 1868 

Le Grange v. MeAadntw 

" " - He 



Le Heup, Ex 
Lehigh Cool 6 N 

a. Central R Co. 
Lehigh R. Go. a Materia* 

Lehman v. Dosier 

a. Ford 
Lehmann a. McArthur 
Lehmans v. Ford 
Lshnoff v. Fisher 
Leicester, Ex parte 
a. Leicester 
Barl of v. Perry 
Leigh, fie 
Re, Leigh a. 
a. Birch 
Boyd 
Clark 
Ever hart 
Leigh 
Macaulay 
a. Thomas 
a. Turner 



a. 
a. 

a 
a. 

a 



Leighton v I^ghlwn 



847 

Co. 

1748 

861, 

797,1682 

1661 

1648 

1081,1889 

1668 

1691 

1826 

810 

606,1668 

1604 

108 

720,721,722 

880 

1676 

668 

869,1660 

1774, 1770 

236,244 

687, 688. 697, 1312 



a. Morrill 

a Orr 

a. Young 
Leitch a. Abbott 

e. Cumpston 

a. Wells 

a. Wentworth 
Leite v Johnston 

a. Vicini 
Leitendorfer a King 
Leith, Re 
Leithem a Cuskk 
Leland v. Griffith 
Leman v. Alie 

a Newnham 
Lemaaterv Burkhart 
Lembeck a Nye 
Lemmou t>. Dunn 
Lemoine v. Gareten 
Lemon, Re 

a Yorkshire Waggon Co. 406 

Lenaghan v. Smith 181, 188, 217. 

219 
Lenders v. Anderson 449 

Le Neve a. La Neve 676 

a. Norrls 1676 

Lenga. Hodges 1796 

Lengsfleld v. Richardson 673 

Lennone Napper 1668 

v Porter 261 

Lenoir v Winn 418 

Lroox v. MitcheU 1469 

a Netreba 



1427, 1061. 
1682 
1881 
852 
818, 1621 
821,828,660 
1029,1602 
281 
1661 
801 
627.810 
310 
1769 
1631 
1287 
1886,1406 
466 
861, 849, 862 
1638 
256 
1648 
68 



lxxvi 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[The references are to the itar paging.] 



Lent v. Padelford 


868 


Lentilhon 0. Moflai 


808 


Lentoa 9. Brudenel 


1209 


Lens v. Prescott 


884 


Leo 9. Lambert 


1718 


v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. 


26, 814, 
1614,2888 

1686 


Leonard v. Atwell 


v. Cook 


1517 


v. Groome 


214 


9 Jamison 


1668 


v. (bark Land Co. 


2808 


v. White 


1651 


v. Wildes 


1260 


Leon N. Bank 9. GUI 


1461 


Leopard v People 


1556 


Leroy v. Dickinson 


1668 


Le Roy 9 Servis 
v. Veeder 


647 


882,547 


LesUe v. BaUlie 


128 


v. Care 


679 


«. Leslie 


840,728 
1788 


Lespinasse v. Bell 


Lesquire v. Lesquire 


282 


Lester v Arohdale 


. 809 


v. Bond 


449 


9. Garland 


67 



9 Mathews 974, 1584, 1585 

Le Texier v. Anspaeh, Margrave 
of 184 

«. Anspaeh, Margrare and 

Margravine of 145 

v. Anspaeh, MargraTine of 157. 

299, 87^ 

Lethem v. Hall 1866 

Lethley v. Taylor 181 

Lett, He 1446 

v. Morris 838 

v. Parry 886, 722 

v. Randall 527 

Leacke v. Tredway 569 

Leuty v. Hillas 281 

Leran v. Patton 1626 

Le Vasseur v. Scratton 119 

LeTenson v. Bison 1780 

Lerer v. Goodwin 1648, 1649 

v. Heritage 806, 810, 816 

Leverich v. Adams 1866 

Lereriek v. Meigs 825 

Levendge v. Marsh 214 

Levert v. Redwood 526, 881, 1296, 

1814 

Levettv Letteney 1046 

Levi v. Brans 686, 680 

« Heritage 158,808,810, 

816 

v Ward 613 

Levine v. Taylor 62, 68 

Leving v. Carerly 178, 841 

Unsay v. Delp 863 

Levistonv. French 868 

Levitt v. Levitt 898 

Levy, Be, Levin v. Levin 894 

v. BaUlie 1130 

v. Levy 168, 1075 

v. Milne 1129 

v. Shreveport 1661 

v. Steinbach 1626 

v. Waiker 1666, 1660 

Lewark v. Carter 1282 

Lewarne v. Mexican Int'l Imp 

Co 559,2398 

Lewellin v. Cobbold 481 

v. Mackworth 1681, 1684 

Lewen v Stone 1961 

Lewer, Karl of v. Barnett 157 

Lewen v. 8haitsbnry, Bar! of 1081 



Lewes. Re 

v. Morgan 
Lewin. Re 

v. Allen 

«. Guest 

v. Jones 

v. Moline 

9 Wilson 
Lewln's Trust, ifcr* 104,107,2001 



860, 1889, 1795 

1266,1684 

41 

268 

1220,1408 

710 

972 

662 



Lewis, Re 61, 94, 299 

tr. Allenby 998, I486, 1688 

v. Armstrong 1880, 1602 

e. Baird 617,716 

v. Baldwin 452, 458; 586 

v. Bank of Kentucky 24 

9. Brass 661 

v. Campau 1468 

v. Clewes 540 

9. Clowes 980 

*. Cocks 552,556,680,1071,1699 
v Cooper 602 

9. Darling 282, 287, 418 

v. Davies 1885 

9. Duncombe 653 

v. Dwight 1254 

9. Edmund 836 

*. Evans 1458 

v. Fielding 679 

v. Fullarton 1642, 1645, 1646 

v. Glass 1561 

v. Godman 1196 

9. Hawkins 278, 816 

9. Herndon 989 

9. Hinton 1027 

9. James 888, 1776 

v King 1772 

v.Lewis 872,974,1802 

v. Londesboroagh, Earl of 1817 
v. Loper 834 

v Loxham 1406 

v. Marls 876 

v. Marshall 641 

9. Mason 848 

v Matthews 488, 1428 

v. Mew 281 

v. Mohr 645 

v. Norland 468 

v. Nangle 216 

v Nobbs 68,69 

9. Outlaw 171, 889, 1609, 1640, 

1646 
v. Owen 841, 844, 926 

v. Pennington 575 

v. Pleasants 1680 

v. Providence 1650 

v. St Albans Iron Works 834 

v. 8hainwald 889 

v. Simonton 740, 1081 

v. Smith 1466, 1600, 1661, 1676 
v. Spencer 1661 

v. Thomas 1079 

v. Trask 1411 

9. Webber 1891 

v. Wilson 1463 

v Zouche, Lord 1738 

Lewis's v. Goodbody 1648 

v Lewis 974 

Lewisburg Bank v. Bhefiey 1019 

Lewirton Falls Manuf. Co. 0. 
Franklin Co. 888 

Lexington Natl Bank v. Gnynn 1661 
Trustees of 9. McConneU 20 

Ley v. Cox 1167 

v. Ley 1738 

Leycester 9. Logan 1626 

tr. Norris 208, 1627 

Leyland v. Leyland 417, 1524 

Lhoneux v. Hong Kong & 8 
Banking Co. 27 

Libby v. Hodgdon 144 

9 Norm 243 

v Schennan 860 

Lichfield, Earl of v. Bond 717, 768 

Iichtenauer v. Cheney 814, 409, 417, 

2882 

Lickv Ray 1624 

Lidbetter v. Long 696, 1460 

v. Smith 1276 

Llddall v. Nicholson 898, 1801 

Liddell, Re, LlddeU v. Liddell 168 
v. Liddell 1726 

v. M'Vickar 1281, 1235 

Lidney & Wlgpool Iron Co. 

v. Bird 27, 1444, 1794 

Uebig's Cocoa Works Limited, 
Re 149 



Uebig's Extract of Meat Co. v. 

Hanbury 1649 

Liebmann v. McGraw 418 

Liebstein v. Mayor of Newark 1661, 

1677 

Life Association v. Boogher 1644 

Ligan v. Henderson 814 

Liggett v. Glenn 676, 684 

Liggon v. Smith 778 

light v. Governor 988 

v. Light 9, 88, 86 

Lightbourne e. Holyday 118 

Lightbnrn 9. 8wift 1276 

Ligbtfoot v. Bass 186 

9. Price 1260 

Like v. Beresford 104, 1599 

LiJlard 9. Porter 408 

LUley, Re 1605 

9. Allen 1776 

Ullie v. Legh 1490 

9. Ullie 27,28,29 

UUiendahl v. Detwiltor 884 

Lillienthal v. Washburn 689,848 

Lima k H. F. Ry. Co., Re 1591 

Uaiehoase Works Co., Re 1026 

Lincoln v. Baesett 58, 60 

v. Purcell 549 

9. Rut A Bur R. R Co. 1660. 

1561 
9. Windsor 1284,1285,1413,1414 
9. Wright 666. 657. 712, 921, 

922, 1001, 1590 
Bishop of v Ellis 869 

Lind v. Isle of Wight Ferry Co. 

1650, 1881 

Under 9. Lewis 224, 617 

Lindeaay v. Lindesay 1678 

Lindley 9. Cravens 288 

9. Russell 884 

Lindsay, Ex parte 1069 

9. American M. Co. 1716 

v. Ethridge 1668 

9. Gibbon 1166 

9. Homerton 1286 

9. Lindsay 652 

9. Lynch 884, 408, 847, 860, 861 

v. Rankin 675 

v. Tyrrell 87, 89, 75, 1474, 1488 

Petroleum Co. 9. Hurd 660 

Lindsey ». 1781 

9 Stevens 740 

9. Western Mutual Aid Society 878 
Undsley v. James 146 

9. Personette 586 

Llney e. Wetherley 9 

Linford 9. Cooke 1796 

Ling v. Colman 948, 258 

Lingan v Henderson 182, 879, 886. 
457, 582, 618, 784, 885, 963, 1005 
Lingen 9 8impson 1829 

Lingood v. Croucher 297, 288 

Lingwood v. Stowmarket Paper- 
Making Co. 1689, 1672, 2808 
Link 9. Jarvis 417 

Linley v Taylor 1428, 1528 

Linn 9. Carson 408 

v. Green 824 

v Wheeler 1676 

Linnell v. Battey 1624 

Linton e Denham 1677 

9. Mayor of Athens 1661 

Linwoodv Andrews 1089 

Linsee 9 Mixor 1664 

Lippencott t>. Ridgway 887 

Lippiatv Holley 796 

Lippinoott v. Shaw Carriage Co. 

1411 
Lippitt v. American Wood 

Paper Co. 1051 

Lipscomb 9. Palmer 1861 

Lisbon Steam Tramways Co., Re 905 
Lisheyv Lishey 186 

v. Smith 560 

Luwettv Reave 197.325 

List's Case 1068 

List Pub. Co. 9. KeUet 1643 

lister t>. Bell 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



lxxvii 



(The reference* are to the iter paging.] 



IJiter v Leather 


791,1699 


v. lister 


10*7, 1167 


v. Meedoweroft 


289 


• Mundell 


1188 


• Sherringham 


1428 


9. Thompson 


720 


v Wood 


2816 


Lister's Hospital, Re 


811,1853 


Utchv Clinch 


860,1648 


Litchfield v. Ballou 


328 


9 Jones 


678 


Lilhgow r Lyon 


1267 


little. Re, Harrison*. 


Harrison 




100 


9. Archer 


684 


v Boie 


286 


9. Cooper 


648 


9 Dasenberry 


1743 


v. Knox 


1566 


9. Merrell 


1349,1660 


». Parkfield G. Go. 


1650 


e. Prioa 


1640 


v. Stephen* 


694,830 


Littlehaleav Gascoyne 


1418 


Lfctkjohn v. Attrill 


,1638 


9. Mann 


73$, 784 


Littler 9. Thomson 


887, 1070 


Littiewood 9. Collins 


788,799 


Litton v. Armsteed 


312 


9. Littoo- 


1266 


Liverpool v Chippendall 


771, 781 



6 G. W Steam Co. v Phoenix 

Ins. Co. 646 

Household Stores Ass*n e. 

Smith 1648 

Marine Credit Co 9. Hunter 47 

Mayor, Ac, of 9. Cborley 

Waterworks Co 1886 

Uveaay e. Feamster 1675 

Livesey v. Harding 1266. 1096 

9. Livesey 171, 1816, 1622 

9. Wilson 781 

Livey v. Wlnton 402, 1651 

Livingston v. Freeland 1622 

9. Gibbons 686, 828 

v. Harria 668, 664, 721 

9. Hayes 418 

*. Hubbe 1677, 1678, 1679. 1681. 

1682.1683 

9. Kane 684, 816, 818 

9- Livingston 892, 647, 549, 

666, 760, 1631, 1676 

* Lvneh 24 
v Marshall 418 
9 Maryland Ins. Go 60 

• Met B. Ry. Co 1820 
9 Noe 164.1276,1677,1578, 

1683,1684 

9 Story 813,647,628,787 

9. Tompkins 663, 1667 

9 Vanlngen 1613,1643 

Livingstone 9 Cooke 610 

Uanelly Ay. Co. v. London Ik 

N W. Ry Co. 671 

Llangynog Lead Mining Co , 

Re 26 

Hanover p Homfray 868,870 

Llewellyn v. Badeley 1824 

Lloyd, Re 1041 

Re t Allen 9 Lloyd 76,1782 

9. Adams 1666, 1667, 1624, 1626. 

9 Attwood 676 

v. Brewster 379, 384, 385, 402, 408. 

424, 426, 1460 
e. Cheatham 1053, 1730 

9 Cross 436,487 

9. Devies 76 

e Dimmaek 967,269 

9. Griffith 1262 

v. Gordon 1651, 1665 

v. Hicks 986 

v Johnes 228, 229, 966, 966, 1276. 
1619, 1620, 1621 
9 Jones 383 

9. Rirkwood 1684 

v. Lander 167, 256 



Lloyd 9. Lloyd 481, 1283, 1428 

9. Loarlng 24, 26, 236, 288, 239, 
246,289,406,419,697 
9. London, Chatham, and Do- 
ver Ry. Co. 1650, 1654, 1667 
9. Maheam 403 

9. Mason 106, 1742, 1846, 2001 
v. Mytton 783 

e. Passingham 1108, 1720, 1721 
v. Pennio 888 

9. Poghe 117 

v. Purves 1831 

v.Smith 228,267,606,669 

9. Solicitors and General Life 

Assurance Co. 693,690,766,831 

v. Bpillet 1416 

v. Trimleston 1726 

v. Waring 68, 66, 1612 

9. Whitty 1609 

9. Williams 106, 1268 

Loader v. Price 1628 

Loames v. Rdge I860 

Lock v. Armstrong 668 

9. Bagley 408, 406 

9. Foots 171, 839 

9. Lomas 710 

9. Wilson 646 

Locke 9. Bennett 561 

9. Column 1121, 1122, 1124, 1139 

v. Sioux, Ae. Ry. Co. 879 

Lockett v. Cary 1827 

v. Lockett 722, 724, 727, 867 

v. Rumbough 286 

Loekey v. Lockey 641 

Lockhard v. Brodie 673 

Lookhart v. Cameron 116 

9. City of Troy 1669,1677 

9. Gee 1239 

9. ReiUy 2116 

Lockier v. Smith 1772 

Locking v. Parker 649, 662 

Lock ley v Pye 1130 

Lockman v. ReiUy 214 

Lockwood 9. Cleveland 1029, 165L 

1576 
9. Fenton 1350 

9. Kitieringham 1624 

9. London A North- Western 

Railway Co. 1081 

v. Nye 683 

Loder o Wbelpley 576 

Lodge v. Pritehard 1232, 1250, 1419 

v. Twell 1029 

Loeb 9. Willis 659 

Loenstein v. Biernbaum 1699 

Lofiand v. Coward 797, 1120 

Loftus v. Swia 1237, 1386, 1391, 1893 

Logan v. Coorg, Princess of 1731 

9. Fairlle 201,250,1350 

v. Grant 497, 531 

9 Greenlaw 634 

9. McCall Pub. Co. 2127 

v. Steele 906 

v. Troutman 1234 

v Weinholt 1254 

Login 9 Coorg, Princess of 1144 

Loinsworth v Rowley 825 

Loker v. Rolle S70, 645, 647, 562 

Lomas v. Wright 1934 

Lomaxe. Hide 214,277,278,1245, 

1388 1389 

Lombard v. Morse 68, 88, 109, 405 

Inv. Co 9 Carter 1770 

Lomenon v. Vroom 243 

London v. Att-Gen. 12 

v. London 1165 

9. Mltford 1668 

v. Nash 1660 

9. Perkins 274, 841, 870 

9. Pngh 1665 

v Richmond 207, 257 

9. Thomson 1819 

9 Wilmington 1661 

Bishop of v. Fytche 564 

9. NteholU 84, 208 

Corp. of 9. Liverpool, Corp. 

of 607 



London, Corp. of v. Soothgate 1080 
Mayor of v. Ainsiey 668 

9. Bolt 1666 

v. Hedger 1666 

9. Levy 566, 683, 684, 611, 1668 
Association v London & In- 
dia Docks Joint Committee 12 
Assurance t>. East India Co. 590, 

601 
Ac. R. Co. 9. Lancashire, Ae. 

R. Co. 1631 

Ac. Ry. Co. 9. Imperial Mer- 
cantile Credit Association 602 
9. Kirk 673 

Bank v. Hart 888, 916 

Birmingham A Books Rail- 
way, Re 1440, 1460 
A Birmingham Ry. Co. v. 
Grand Junction Canal Co. 1008, 

1070 
9. Winter 880, 863, 861 

A Blackwall Ry- Co. t>. Cross 211, 

354 

9. Limehooss Board of Works 424, 

1879, 1602, 1671 

Brewery Co. v. Tennent 1080 

Brighton, and South Coast 

Ry. Co , Re 1852, 1866 1866 
A 0. B Co. v Lewis 1661 

Chartered Bank of Australia 
v. Lempriere 100, 187, 328, 

362 
and Chatham Ry Co., Ex 

parte 1800 

C. A. D. Ry. Co. 9. Land Fi- 
nanciers 1776 
Chatham, and Dover Ry. Co. 
v. Imperial Mercantile Credit 
Assoc 596, 1671 
Chatham, A Dover Ry. v 
South-Rastern Ry. 642, 671. 

1878 
and Colonial Co. v Elworthy 807 
and County Assurance Co., 

Re 1827 

and County Banking Co. ». 

Bray 87 

A County B. Co. v. Dover 1264 
Flour Co , Re 1070 

Gas Light Co e. Spottiswoode 269 
Joint Stock Bank v Mayor 

of London 891 

& Lancashire Paper Mills Co , 

Re 942 

Monetary Advance Co. v. 

Bean 628 

Monetary Advance and As- 
surance Co. 9 Brown 998 
A N. W. Ry. Co., Ex parte 1794 
v Evans 1632 
and North-Western Railway 

v. Lancaster, Corp. of 1774 

A P. Bank v. Bogle 187, 189 

A Prov. Ins. Co. v. Seymour 664 
Road Car Co v. Kelly 89 

Steam Dyeing Co. e. Digby 1008, 

139o 
A S. W. Ry. Co Ex parte 1610 
ft S. W. Bank v Facey 1786 

Syndicate v Lord 1781 

9. Love 1777 

Tilbury, A S. Ry. Co. v- 

Kirk 720 

Waterworks Co , Ex parte 1610 

A T. Bank v Pritt 1656 

Londonderry, Lady, v Baker 698. 

669, 661 
« Bramwell 821 

Londonderry and Rnnlskillen 

Ry. Co. v. Leishman 664 

Lonergan v. Illinois Cent R Co. 357 
Long, Re 1611 

9. Bilke 1132,1133 

v. Bowrlng 280 

9. Bullard 1120 

v. Burton 403, 1662 

v. Crowley 406, 1684 



* ABLE <*? CASKS CITOD. 



ess to the star pnghnj.] 



«. Dupuy 170 

v. Grauberry 1542, 1577, 1578, 

1579 
9 Hitchcock 1101 

v. Jarratt 1274 

v. Km 1051 

* bong 1M1, 1154, 1»5. 1276 
v McGregor 885 
e.Majeetre 822,828,324 
0. Smith 1625 
v. Stone 1514 
«.Stesle 302,204,989,687,796, 

787, 811 

«. Tamplco, The 141 

«. Tardy SO 

9. Tottenham 80 

v. Welle* 1582 

•. While MS, 847 

v. Tonge 248 

Book Co ». Bentley 1618 

Longbottom v. ftearee 96 

Longbouroe v. Fisher 1169 

Losigdendale Cotton Spinning 

Co., Re 798 

Lohglellow v. Lengtetkiw 998 

Longiootto v. Moras 1404 

Longman v Winchester 1645; 1646 
Leogmire t>. Fain 1820 

Longwood VaUey E Co 9. 

Bator 1662 

Longworth v. Bellamy 182, 445, 462 

v Flagg 995 

9. Hunt 645 

v. Taylor 380 r 106, 432, 589 

Lonsdale v. Moles 1296 

Earl of v. Wordsworth 1226 

Lord*. Uttfedata 297 

Lookout Bank v. Snsong 417 

Loomes v Stotbmd 1428,1424,1425 

Loomis 9. Fay 840 

Lopes, Bx part* 157 

v. Deaeen 1826 

Lord, Re 1226, 1869 

9. Bigelow 24 

«. Colvln 885, 891, 896, 919, 977. 

1144, 1469, 1470, 1845,2180 

9. Copper Mines*, Got. A Co. 

or 242,248 

«. Kettett 806, 683 

9. Lord 1214, 1225 

9. Purchas 1722 

v Thornton 854 

9. Underdone* 280, 287 

9. Wardle 1126, 1138 

9 Worm leigh ton 1616,1843 

Lorentsv. Lorents 1580 

Lorens v. Jacobs 1157 

Lorfilard v Coster 287, 1001 

Lorimer v. Lorimer 806, 811 

Loring 9. Marsh 634 

9. Salisbury Milts 197 

9. Steinman 850 

v. Thorndlke 1569, 2834 

Lertonv Kingston 429 

v. Seaman 1690 

Lorwall v. Gridley 405 

Lorway e. Lousada 629 

Los Angeles v. Signotet 867 

Loseombe v. Russsll 882 

Loskey v. Reld 1856 

Lothburyv Brawn 1142 

Lothropv Commercial Bank 24 

Lottery Co. v. Clack 1878 

Lottimer v. Lord 1715 

Loubiertp Cross 1682 

Load t» Holden 2220 

• Sargent 604 
Louis 9. Meek 802 
Louisiana National Bank w. Sew 

Orfeatos 1661 

State Lottery Co. v Clark 1561 
Savings Bank Co , Re 1765 

Louisville, N. Ac. ft. Co 9. 

Rvan 1029 

LoufcviM* and R R Co e Stat- 

814,374 



Lesnstllts, Trnstees of>. Gray 1660 

Louisville Underwriters •, Pease 779 

Lenndes «. Miller 1461 

Lounsbury *. Psvdy 1961 

Loosed* ». Templer 408, 548, 1559 

LouTall v. Gridley 316 

Loo valle v Menard 1 158 

Love v. Allison 1778 

9. Baker 1626 

e. Blewit 1576, 1577. 1578, 1679 

* Braxton 84*847,1147 

9. Jacomb 254 

«. Keowne 834 

o-Morrttl 1164 

9. White 641 

Lovedenv Mllford 887 

Lovejoy v Chapman 1881 

v. Irelatt Ml, 256 

Loveland v. Garner 840 

LoveU tr Andrew 242 

9. Cragln 1548 

9. Farrington 191, 827, 881, 865 

9. Galloway 1468, 1566, 1667, 

1569, 1614, 1625, 1672, 2047. 

2126 

t. Hicks 1486V 1487 

Levering v King 283 

Lovesy v. Smith 256, 406 

Lo*tott,lfe, Ambler*. Lindsay 291, 

227,819 
9. Longmire 560 

9. Lotett 106, 107, 1112, 

1114 

9. Steam Saw Mill Ass 846 

Loving 9 Marsh 683 

Low v. Bouverie 26, 1898 

9. Carter 1412, 1419 

v. Innes 1688, 1672 

9. Mills 1029, 1031 

9. Massey 688, 669, 800, 994 

v. Routledge 46, 1648 

9 Ward 46,1646 

Lowden v. Blakey 678 

Lowdonv Hkawm 1129 

Lowe v. 1565 

9. Baker 1626 

Blake 607 

686 

250 

948 1652 

87 

1407 

1101 

967,1752 

1669 

211,212 

588,1557 

1566 

854 

1147 

1526 



9. 

9. Borke 
9 Farlie 
v Firkins 
9. Fox 
9. Holme 
* Jollifle 
9. Lowe 
9- Lucey 
v. Morgan 
v Peacock 
9. Richardson 
v Thompson 
9 Traynor 
v. Watson 



266, 



9 WUliams 848,852,593,690, 

727, 756, 765 

Lowell v. Leland 284 

Lowenbein v Foldner 1657 

Lowenstein 9. Bfernbsum 1881 

9. Glidewell 1548, 1558 

Loweryv Craig 123 

Lowes v- Lowes 1540 

Lowndes, Re 68 

t>. Beetle 1682, 1683, 1682 

9. Cblsolm 1242 

v. Collens 1257 

9. Cornford 1561 

v. Garnett and Moscow GoM 

Mining Co. 590, 610, 617, 618 



9. Norton 


1683 


9 Robertson 


85 


v Taylor 


59,225 


Lowndsv Williams 


1207 


Lowry v Armstrong 


845 


9- Jackson 


864 


9. Morrison 


1642 


• Tew 


•78 


v. Williams 


1463 


bom, Export* 


970,979 



Lwwsoti *. Copeland 1418 

Lev/ten v- Colchester 477, 1068. 

Lowtber 9. Andover 999 

• Carlton 676 
v. Heaver 417, 1660 

Loyv Duckett 224,1795 

Loyd v. Cardy 1700, 1704, 1766 

9. Freshfield 578 

9. Hicks 1029 

9. Malone 164. 174, 1580 

9. Mansell 172, 178, 1584 

9. SptMet 1415 

9. Whlttey 1266 

Losear v. Shields 1892, 1463 

Losler v. Van Sann 1560, 1564 

Lubiere v. Genoa 868, 871, 1189, 

1553 

Lucas v Arnold 264 

v. Bank of Darien 149, 286, 286, 

844 

0. Bank of Georgia 24 

* Cakreft 1166, 1167 
9. Commerflkfi 1660 
v.Dixon 866 
9. Brans 668 
•. Harris 1063, 1784 
v. Hickman 1698, 1099, 1706 
9. Holder 687 
9. King 1161 
v. Lucas 169 
9. Moore 1286 
9. Morse 1881 
v. Oliver 860 
9. Peacock 1440, 1449, 1696, 1845 
v. ftiokerich 128 
v Seals 227 
9. Siggers 684 
9. Temple 1810, M49 
9. Williams 881 
Bank 9. King 1168 

Luce v. Graham 409, 422 

Lucenae Barnewall 2266 

Luokett v. Whits 846, 847 

Lucknowo. Brown. 1858 

Locton Free School v Smith 405 
Luddy*s Trustee e. Peard 60 

Lodgaterv Channell 1757 

Ludlow 9. Greenhouse 1461, 1858, 

1854,1856 

9. KfcW 1002, 1677 

v. Lansing 1042, 1056 

v. Ramsey 62 

9. Simond 560, 551 

Lndolph v. Ssxby 77 

Luff v. Lord 888, 1899 

Luf kin v. Galveston 829 

Luft v. Gossrau 407 

Luke v. South Kensington Hotel 

Co 212,228 

Luher 9. Dennis 1596, 1654 

Lull v. Clark 1320 

Lamb v. Bensunont 854, 1817 

9. Mllnes 122 

Lumley v. Dssnorougk 768 

v. Hughes 28 

9. Tiauns 280 

9. Wagner 1854. 1668, 1668 

Lnmsden 9. Frsser 287, 289, 550 

Lnn v. Johnson 687 

Lund tf. Bl&ochard 25, 268, 288. 

289, 88b, 599 

9. Skanes Enskilda Bank 1548 

Lunt 9. Stephens 1516 

Luptone- Lupton 76,2012 

e. Stephenson 1782 

9. White 1281, 1241 

Lury v. Pearson 1861, 1862 

Lush, Re 182 

Lash's Trust, Re 88 

Loshington v. Boldero 1680, 1684 

9. Sewell 162, OT 

Lnsk 9. Thaidher 550 

LuthwJent e. Attorney-General 183 

Loiterers Case 67, 1680 

Lotwych v. Winfbrd 1276 

Lnxs. Heggin 



TABU OF C1SBB CITED. 



kxii 



V. 



Layties * Hollander 


1648 


Lyell *. Plater 


661 


I*4alle MarttaMA 


298,976 


"Lyidone Bllison 


1796 


Lyde v. Rastern Bnttl Ry. Co. 248 

Ly«U r. Kennedy 697864,408,671. 

§78, 679, 617, 1666 


Imoo r. Coventry, Lord I860 
lyfe e. Bradford 288,890 


w. BBwood 


892 


«l South 


1896 


9- Yarboroogja, Wm 


nof 960 


Lyfeev. Hatton 


1634 


v. Lylet 


1463 


Lyman v. Bounty 


96,144 


Lynch to Chance 


1440 


9 Hartford Fin Id 


1. Co. 688,815 


«. Johnson 


8412 


9. Leeeooe 


786,2129 


o.Mardooald 


1071 


«. Mono 


881 


v. St. John 


1461 


* WlUard 


892,660 



!»• 



tynchbnrg Iron Co. v. Tayloe Iff 

Lyndo 9. Cohunbns fro- Ry. 0©. 

2161 
«L Butorn Bengal Ry. Go. 1620 

Lyndon National Bank*. Walla 
RiTer Manuf. Co. 

Lyndaay v. Lynch 906 

Lyne v. Lockwood 879 

«. Lyno 1168, I860, 1870 

v. PonoeJI 1610, 1671 

9. Willi* 167 

Lynn v. Bentnr 1406, MM, 1427 
9 Bradley 119, 122 

9 Bock 1188 

Lyon v Bake* 1414 

9. Clark 1264 

v. Colrllle 642 

o. Groenbay By. Oft. 186 

v. Home 888,1897 

*. Hunt 846 

9. McKonna 1422 

v. MeL&oghlln 1687 

v. Mercer 176 

•. Park 1642 



Lyon 9. Perm fltOatf Mandt Co. 988 
9. Powell 288 

0. Sandfbrd 194, 277 

v.XaUmadfi 4(0,417,609,660. 

828,862,1019 
9. Teris 296, 296 

•. Tweddell 824,67V. 720 

Lyons. He 2, 1846 

9. Blenkin 70, 1840 

9. Brooka 718 

9. HcCurdy 884 

«. Piper 1608 

9. Bead 782, 788 

9. Van Riper 1646 

Lys*. Leo 1612, 1680, 1649 

9. Lys 1167 

Lysaghtv. Cksk 144 

o. Kdwards 286 

Lyss 9. Kingdon 1411, 1417 

Lyster v. Stickney 780, 1617 

Lytton 9. Qnal Northern Rail- 
way do. 1689 
9. Lytton 1680 
». Steward 1686,1669,1677 



M. 



9. Garbutt 
w. Graham 
l in e ar ty r. Gibson 
ly v. PhRfips 



BL, Ae 608 

sambor*. Hobbs 888 

r Maber 646 

Bfaberly ». Turton 1868 

■faberry v. Neely 186 

Mabry*. ChartbwoB 790,1286 

McAllister v, Bis**? of Beanos* 

tar 408 

9. Clopton 887, 846 

BTAllistsr 9. lFAfllstar 819 

o-Oloutcad I860 

McAlpln v. Jonas 1761 

BFAndrew 9. Basset* I860, 1894. 

1896,1649 

BPAnstan*. Groan 1288 

w. BoHsr 96 

r. Dndgaon 1226 

w. Kelly 1670 

BfeArthirr tr. Msllhonsuu 1638 

«. Seott 200,216 

2642,1607 
142 
207,1894 
1766 
101, 104. 
107 
666, 666, 2666 
IJnennleyo OolHsr 1697 

9. White Sewtog Machine Oo. 629, 

1607 

e. Chandler 1661 

tr. Bills 1182 

o. HcHliansn 188 

ride v. Commissioners 1628 

w. Owynn 1276, 1802 

9. Lindsay 278 

9. Mclntyre 196 

RTBrfcte 9. Mnloonwon 1168 

BFBroom tr. Somerrille 811 

Bmebrydeo Bykyn 109 

MeBurnoy v. Carson 140 

VeOabov Bank of Ireland 89 

•.BeUowos 214, 816,884, 

84* 

*. Hussey 1566 

v. Be nson 1617 

MoCaJob v. CrfcnJeM 1», 191 

BMall 9. Gramnn 1118, 1678 

w. Harrison 

w. McCall 

9. McGnrdy 

v Yard 

aWnrjslliiiii 9. Tnrloa 



1001 
1876 



161,168,882. 

1480 
DO, 12*6 



if oCampbtll v. Brown 


sir 


v. Henderson 


1642 


M'Campball v. GUI 


887,846 


McOamy o. Key 


288 


M'Cann v. Basso 


1826 


HoCann v. BorradaUe 


89, 111, 112 



v. South NashriUe Stanst B* 
Co. 1668 

HbCarron o. Coogan 790 

MoCarron v. Cassldy 1918, 1244 

McCarter's Bstate, Re 1418 

McCarthy, Re 676 

BTOarthy v. Gooid 1668, 1780 

MeCartin*. Trephngon 249 

McCartney v. Cnlhonn 841 

9 Cassldy 1676 

MoCarty v. Chalmnt 1808 

McCasker v. Brady 1688 

9. Golden 114 

MoCanley v. Kolkajg 1661 

o. Soars 1661 

9. Six 216,1608 

HoClanahan «. Doris 647 

v. Henderson 1168 

9, Ware 1677 

9. West 660 

MoClane v. Shepherd 669, 860 

MeClaskey v. Barr 769 

o O'Brien 898,1279 

MeCloan, JJe 74 

UoClellan v. MoClollan 78 

MoClenny v. Ward 617 

Macclesfield, Earl of o. Blake 1292 

tr. Bradley 1184.1188 

MeCloskey v. Barr 604, 608 

McCiung v. Sueed 660 

«. Steon 790 

McOlure v. farthing 68 

v Harris 989 

If 'Comb 9. Armstrong 688 

v. Wright 989,1216,2261 

HoComb v. Chicago, 8t Louis 
Ao.E.00. M5 

9. LobdeU 860 

o. Spongier 889 

MoOonihny v. Wright 818 

McGoananghty v. Pennoyer 808 
■eOonnel v. Hodson 1660 

9. Holobnsh 1248, 1244, 1246 

9. Smith 1017, 1641. 

1651 
M'Obnnoll v. Hector 60 

v.M'Ooonefl 190, SU, 864, 1882, 

1407 
WOounfeo o. Cunen 1268 



MoGooTflle «. GUmom? 149 

MeOorkle v. Brom 1677 

MoConnaok 9. Jamas 1168. 2894 
HoCormlck «. Chamborlln 700, 760 

v. Garnett 86,864 

9. Grogan 1608 

tr. HDbrook 186 

HoCormlck Harrestlng M. Co. 

9. Schneider 
M'Corquodale o. Bell 678 

M'Coon «. Bolany 994 

McCoy 9. Alien 822. 991 

9. Boloy 212, 686 

9. Broderiok 87 

9, Nelson 814 

v. Rhodes 1229 

MoOractan v. Valsnsme 1180,1188 
lloCraoken o Ftnley 1678, 1679 

MoCrady v. Davie 780 

«. Jones 782, 1299 

MeOray v. Lowry 1029 

HcQreav. New YorkM. R. Co. 208 
M'Crea v. Pormoit 878 

M'Cready v. Thomson 1688 

MoCredle v. Senior 1462, 1688 

M'Creery v. Allendov 46 

McCreery v. Cobb 145, 1666 

MoOrelght v. Foster 197, 279 

Maocnbbiu v. Matthews 918 

McCulla v. Beadlestou 860, 647 

HoCullen v. MetrosoUtan list 

Ins. Co. 1661 

M'Cullochs, Be 1847, 1862 

M'Cullock v. Cotbaton 1286 

9, Dawes 648 

9. Gregory 
MoOnUongho Barr 

9. Merchants' Loan 
Co. 
McCuUy 9. Peel 
McDanlelv James 

9. Marygold 
■oDanlels v. Cutler 

o Harbour 
VDaniells v. Barnum 
McDermot o. Blosi 
BoDermott v. Fren c h 

9. Kealy 

9. Thompson 
MDermutt tr. Strong 
Mncdonald *. 

9. Shepard 
McDonald o. Assy 

9. Burke 

9. GrooavA 

O.Des Moines 



848 
and Tr. 

1788 

848 

1679 

1147 

1841 

1298 

886,848 

68* 

ITS* 

1888,1028 

168 



1881 

1617 

1440 

660 

aVOo. 891 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[The 



am to the star paging.] 



McDonald v. ITCleod 


844 


e. M'Donald 


6o, 844 


9. McMahon 


1607 


9. Mobile Lift Ins. Go. 


1661 


v. Murphee 


9. Rehrer 


680 


9. Salem Capital F. H. 


Oo. 605 


9. Unaka Timber Oo. 


1881 


e. Weir 


68 


v. Whitney 


1680 


v. Willie 


802 


9. Yungbluth 


1661 


M'Donnel v. Brans 


1102 



McDonnell v . Eaton 109, 216, 884 

v. McMabon 1886 

MacDonough v. Gajnor 1699, 1700, 

1708, 1704, 1706, 1708. 1709. 

1712, 1718 

9. O'Fleherty 164 

Maedongal v. Parrle? 782 

MeDongaldv Dougherty 296,406. 

424, 1076, llSt, 1298, 1821 

9. Gardiner 26, 242 

9. WlIlHbrd 401, 418 

Maodougall v. Gardner 28, 242 

v. Jersey Imperial Hotel Oo. 243 

McDowell's Appeal 1881 

McDowell v. Bank of W. A B. 1078 

9. Heath 660 

v. McDowell 1621 

v. Morrell 1680 

9. Perrine 1129, 1680 

M'Dowl v. Charlei 118, 118, 669, 

721 
McDuff v, Beanehamp 1612 

M'Blhattan 9. Howell 91 

McBlrath 9. Pittsburgh, fro. R. 

Co. 1627 

MoBlroy v. Ladlam 842 

v. Swope 1820 

MoElwain v. Willie 288, 829, 402, 
406, 419, 668, 1686 
M'Blwee v. Batten 892, 898, 1467 
M* Brers v. Lawrence 1760 

McBroy v. Leonard 884 

McBwan v. Cromble 1411 

MoEwen v. Broadhead 618, 686, 

687,696,697 

e. Butte 1286 

«. Zimmer 149 

Maeey 9. Childress 805, 661, 688. 

686, 687, 1648, 1616 

9. Metropolitan Board of Works 

1660 

McFadden v. SchlU 669 

McFarlan v. Rolt 678, 1884 

MeFarland, Re 1411 

v. McDowell 1676, 1677 

Macfarlane, Re 1861 

M'Farlaue, Re 86 

M'Gacben v. Dew 268 

McGahee v. Gold 1625 

M'Gahee v. 3need 678 

McGan v. O'NeU 1071 

M'Garel v. Moon 486, 716 

M'Garrah v. Prather 1668 

McGaTock v. BeU 164, 1298 

v. Elliott 626 

M'Gee v. Derie 284 

v. McGee 1706, 1701, 1711 

9. Smith 1004, 1681, 1675 

MeGehee v. Lehman 1081 

v. Mott 974 

v. Polk 1707, 1708, 1709 

McGlllin v. Claflln 686 

M'Gllldowney 9. Pemberton 109 

McGillyray v. Moaer 1777 

MoGinnls v. Erie County 660 

MeGlanghlin v O'Rourke 1650 

McGlothlin 9. Hemery 878 

MoGoldrick v. McGoldriok 218 

M'Gowan e. Hall 784 

9. Jones 1076 

McGowao'e. Mlddleton 1648 

McGowen 9. Toung 888, 844, 846 

McGown 9. SandJbrd 1284 



McGowue.Yerka 1682.1688 

9. Yorks 194, 216 

MeOrath, Re 68, 108 

M'Gregor, Ex parte 1271 

9. Balnbrigge 1122 

9. Comstock 1845 

9. McGregor 227, 1650 

9. Bhaw 29 

9. Topham 1021,1112,1116,1124, 

1187, 1189, 1147, 1469 

Macgregor e. Cunningham 1676 

MaoGregor e. East India Oo, 622, 

640,1669 
MoGuffey 9. McCain 884 

McGuffle 9. Planters' Bank 840 

McGuire v. Circuit Judge 1648 

9. Wright 1299 

MeHan v. Ordway 824 

M'Hardy v. Hitchcock 800, 1780, 

1829 

Macheoav Panes! 1820 

MaeHenry 9. Darisk 118, 187 

McHenry, Re 167. 1490 

9. Lewis 248,688,1628 

9. Moore 1317 

9. New York, P.AO.R. Co. 26 

Macher v. Foundling Hospital 1666 

Machinists' National Bank v. 

Field 878 

McHugh 9. Aetrophe 82 

MellToy 9. Alsop 168, 688 

Mcintosh 9. Alexander 846 

9. Great Western By. Oo. 146, 

414.724,842,871.988,985, 

986,988,989, 1267. 1800. 

1369, 1470, 1822, 1888 

9 OgiMe 1616, 1708 

9. Stewart 1068 

Macintosh t>. Townsend 1476 

Mclntyre v. Connell 267, 699, 1088 

9. McDonald 1881 

9. Manclu* 664, 1657 

9. Storey 1661 

v. Thomson 2838 

9. Union College, Trustees of 146, 

849, 718, 729, 769, 764 

«. Wright 860 

Mclrer v. Clarke 886 

M'lver v. Wattles 680 

Mack 9. 8penoer 1642 

Maokalle. Casllear 878 

9. Mackall 1680 

9. Richards 1689, 1676 

«. West 884 

Maokay v. Dick 661 

McKay r Broad 280 

9. McKay 411, 779, 782 

v. Wakefield 221 

M'Kay 9. Smith 314 

M'Kenlre-v. Fraser 878, 675 

M'Kenna v. ETerett 188, 985, 936, 

987 
9. George 270 



1661 

1248,1800 



9. Ereritt 


2129,2167 


Mackenzie v. ChUders 


1664 


9. Coulson 


1966 


9. Flannery 


1651 


9. Fox 


884 



v. Mackenzie 898, 1047, 1842 

t>. Powla, Marquis of 474, 1057 
9. Taylor 1426 

McKensle v. Wardwell 1846 

Mackerell v. Fisher 421 

Mackett v. Heme Bay Commis- 
sioners 1070 
M'Kefcrakln v. Oort 177, 476 
MoKewan v. Sanderson 702, 1898 
Mackey v. BeU 994, 1676 
Maekiev Gairnea 1424 
9. Darling 1771 
McKillop v. Taylor 1686 
MoKlmv. Odom 146,418,468,477, 

497, 1067 

«. Thompson T78. 782, 841. 1480, 

1462, 1770, 1771 

9. Voorhes 1627 

MoKlnley v. Irrtae 247 



1461 
89 

1617 
1081 



McKlnney v. Kuhn 

9. Pierce 
M'Klnnie v. Rutherford 
McKinnon v. McDonald 

9. Wolfimden 
Mackintosh, Ex parte 

9. FUnt ftP.BfR.Oo. 
McKlnsfo v. Mathews 
McKleroy v Tulane 

Maokttn e. Richardson 1681 

MeKuight 9. Walsh 1858, 1869 

McKomb v. Kankey 1U61, 1276 

McKusick 9. Seymour 1061 

Maekworth v. Brlggs 1201 

9. Marshall 168 

9. Penrose 868 

9. Thomas 1254 

McLaehlan v. Lord 890 

McLane v. Manning 825 

McLaren, Ex parte 167 

M'Laren 9. Charrier 891 

v. Steapp 684 

Maelaren v. Stalnton 800, 1696, 

1616, 1627, 1664 

Maclary e. Resnor 1676 

McLaughUn, Re 149, 1696 

M'Laughlin 9. Daniel 861 

9. Gilmore 676 

McLaurin 9. Wilson 983 
Maclean e. Dawson 291, 208. 449. 

462, 468,696 

9. Jones 579, 1829 

MeLean v. Fleming 1648, 1668 

9. Lafayette Bank 884 

9. McKay 1664 

9. Presley 284 

McLear 9. HunsJcker 864, 1260 

M'LeUanv.Crofton 641 

v. Osborne 889, 406 

McLennan 9. Johnson 248 

r. Kansas City <&o. R, Co. 894 
M' Leod 9. Annesley 218, 220, 226. 

9 Lyttleton 408 

9. Phelps 1741 

Macleod 9. Buchanan 1696 

M'Lin v. M'Namara 899, 867, 971. 

992,1699 

9. Robinson 1628 

McLure 9. Colcloogh 784 

McMabon v. Burehell 827.865, 866, 

984, 1008. 1929 

9. Rawllngs 818 

9. Rooney 824, 517 

v. Blsson 807 

MoMaken 9. McMaken 288, 287 

McMann v. Westoott 418 

MoManns 9. Cooke 865, 847 

M'Mechen v. Story 418 

McMichael 9. Brennan 779 

McMicken v. Perin 1019, 1175, 1802 

McMillan 9 Baxley 669 

v. Lauer 1638 

9. N. Y. Waterproof Paper 

Co. 1961 

9.00m 860 

9. Richards 662 

M'Mfllan 9. Eldrldge 1468 

McMillin v. St. Louis fc M. V. 

T. Co. 814 

McMlnn 9. Phlpps 1291 

McMlnnTille, &c. B. Oo. v. Hng- 

gins 1613, 1662 

McMlsh v. Bkhardson 647 

M'Morris v. Billot 728 

McMullen 9. Richie 664, 1668 

McMurray 9. Van Gilder 808 

Meenab v. Meneal 490 

Maenaghten v. Boehm 1470 

MeNair v. Pope 1784 

9. Toler 62 

McNalry 9. Eastland 878 

v. Mayor of Nashville 1491 

M'Namara *>. Arthur 996 

9. Dwyer 254, 1704, 1707, 1709. 



9. Irwin 



2668 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
[En* Mfsaanees are >to the star paging.] 



Ixxri 



r. 



M'New 9. Toby 
Mctfiu 9. Logan 
McKulta9 Lookridge 
MePhee v. Veal 
■nPheraon v. Cos 

v. Qonel 

-v. Israel 

•v. Rathbone 

0. Raekwell 

9. Watt 
MePOcee. Pmi 

9. Walla 



v. Bweetman £81 

If Yanghtan v. Hasker 78ft, U80 
M^aughsan's Caee 1100 

McNaurhton v. Osgood 1110 

McJefl v. GaU 1268, 1881, 18W2 

«. Garratt 1672, 1688 

«. Magee J68, 847 

M'JfeiU 9. CabJIl 884 

MaAtersoa 216 

I860 
829 
676 
1748 
1668 
668,1846 
444 
1284 
807 
1491 
810,1841 
1624 
140,191 
876,1402. 
1408 
HeQnigaa v. Delaware LAW. 

rTco. 1666 

Isacquire 0. O'Reilly 828 

aaeIae,Jfe 254,824,1842 

-«. London, Brighton, and 

South Coast Ry. Co, 1080, 1081 

smnerae, Re, Foster 9. Davis 1722 

«. BUerton 1890 

9. Smith SOD, 1616 

IsacRae 9. HoMsworth 1648 

9. McRea 261 

9. Wood 1126 

JftoBea, Re, Norden v. HcRee 287 

9. Atlantic, &e. R. R, Co, 1619 

9 David 

MeBtsghte. Aitkin 

laeereth 9. Nicholson 

Meflween 9. HcGown 

Maetier 9. Osborn 

emcTlgber. Dean 

JfeYaagh, Re, McVeagh v. Cw- 

all 1177,1209, 1474, 1826 

McVeigh 9 United States 62 

JfeVej-9. Brendel 1048 

If 'Vicar 9. Wolcott 1468 

BfcWhirtere. Halsted 1661 

JfeWhorter 9. McMahan 860 

9. Btaadifer 986 



779,781 

88 

448,468,686 

1168 

666 

1780 



^Williams 9. Morgan 
sWovter 9. Benson 

Plank Road Oo. v. Wat 
Plank Road Co 
Maddeford 9. Anetwlok 
rMaddisono. AMaraon 
9. Chapman 
«. Pye 
9 
Maddox 
9. Whits 
Maden9. Catanach 
0. Veetera 



1666 
1288 

611 

1281 

,847 

1426 

1430 

1684 

676 

1881 

887 

678 

184 

1729 



v. Catlett 
9. Wimble 
Madison Avenue Baptist Church 
9. Oliver 8trast Baptist Ohnrch 

1289 
University 
9. Jackson 



, Export* 
9. Masmn 

9. Sbipman 
0. Kennedy 



White 1078 

208,267,271. 

282 

180 

898,486,1689 

1820,1881 

890 

College 9. Athfll 842 

Sibtborp 292 

9. Magee 680 

ntagennis 0. Parkhurst 1686 

Majaji, Re 1267 

Re\ Wlnehonse 9. Wlnehonae 1084 

Raffle Oo. 0. Blm City 

Co. 670, 1820 

M«IH,fe 1069 

9. Kammnan 1118 

TOL. I. — f 



MagW 9. Mercantile JCEeVt Co. 780 

Maguay «. Davidson 208 

9. Knight 1188 

0. Mines Royal Co. 1614, I486 

Magnus «. National Bank 669,1686 

Magnuaeon 0. Charleaon 1168 

Magrane 0. Archbold 1668 

Magrath 9. Muskerry, Lord 1668 

Maguire 0. Allen 1718 

0. Maddin 1446 

0. Maguire 186 

Mahalm 0. M'Cnllagh life Am. 

Co. 1440 

Mahan 0. Brown 1688 

Calender 10 11 

Mahanay 0. LosJer 784, 787 

Mahaska County State Bank 0. 

Chrfct 402,1661 

Mahler 0. Schmidt 884 

Mahnke 9. Neale 1078 

Mahon, Re 864 

0. Crothen 1719 

Mahoney 0. Fmsl 1186, 1188 

Mahony 0. Widows* Aaiaranoe 

Fund 678 

Mahurin 0. Bicklbrd 1266 

MaU Co. 0. Flanders 1469 

Main 0. Main 1029 

Maine Wharf 0. Oustonv-honse 

Wharf 1689 

Mainland 0. Upjohn 260 

Main price 0. Pearson 68 

Mair v. Himalaya Tea Co. 1667 

Malttend «. .Backhouse 1661. 1672 

0. Rodger 498, 626 

0. Wilson 677 

Major 0. Arnott 858, 724 

0. Auckland 69 

0. Ffckiin 787 

0. Major 1014, 1411, 1600 

Makepeace 0. Haythosne 107 ' 801. 

802,806 

Rogers 661 

0. Romleux 864, 786 

Makepeice 0. Dillon 469 

Makings 0. Makings 1422 

Malan 0. Young 984 

Malcolm 0. Andrews 1698 

0. Montgomery 1784 

O'Callaghan 1746. 1747 

0. Scott 866, 866, 1491 

Maiden 0. Fyaon 1403 

Malay 0. Shattuok 60 

Mall Ivo, The 688 

Malin 0. Malia 86, 188, 220, 294 

0. Taylor U27 

Maling 0. H1U 1408 

Malins 9. Greenway 808, 1627, 

1629 
0. Price 1187, 1148, 1440 

Mallabar 0. Mallabar U19 

Mallack 0. Gallon 167, 187 

Mallett Dexter 1997 

Mallory Mannf. Co. 0. Fox 1434, 

2896 

Mallow 0. Hinds 148, 161, 216, 290 

0. Keller 862 

Malmeabury Ry. Co. 0. Budd 671, 

1862 

Malone9. Malona 1119 

0. Morris 961 

Maloney 0. Dewey 1620 

Malony, Re .224 

0. Kernao 612 

0. Rourke 212 

Malpas 0. Ackland * 249 

Mai this 9. Town of Cameron 1661 

Man 0. Rickets 68, 66. 169.898, 878, 

876, 986, 1076, 1276. 1283, 

1888, 1407, 1602, 1608, 1604, 

1612 

Manatt0 Starr 843 

Manaudee 0. Mann 660 

Manby, Re 807, 809 

0. Bewicks 28. 868, 679, 866,867, 

ott,l»8, 1004. 1822. 

1828,1881 



Manby 0. Manby 

9. Owen 

0. Robinson 
Manchester 0. Baj 

0. Dey 

0. Mathewsan 



1681 

1677 
1668 



Manchester College 0. Iaher- 
wood 79F 

•Manchester, Duke of 0. .Ban- 
ham 1481 

Manchester Fire Ass. Co. 0. Stock- 
ton C. H. 4b A. Works 146,647 
Wykes 1668 

Manobestsr & L. R. Co. 9. Con- 
cord R. Co. 664 

Manchester .and Leads Ry. Co., 
Re 1696 

Manchester New College, Me 1864. 

1866.186. 

Manchester Railway «• Worksop 
Board 1686 

Manchester and Sheffield By. 
Co. 0. Worksop Board of 
Health 741,768,770,776,1688 

Manchester & Stafford Ry. Co. 
0. How 448 

Maudell v. Green 1411 

Mandeno 0. Mandano 1264, 148B. 

Mandcr 0. Falcke 1664, 1686 

Manderson 0. Commercial Sank 26. 

id 

Mendevillev. Herman 1666 

0. MandeTiUe 1722. 

0. Reynolds 861 

v. Rjggs 190, 278 

0. Wilson 641 

Mangan 0. Met. B, 8. Co. 10JL 

1468 
Manhattan Co. 0. Brertaoji -678, 

1171 
0. Wood 1QI6 • 

Manhattan Life Ins. Co. 0. War- 
wick 61 
Manhattan Man. & Fart. Co. 9. 

N.J. Stockyard Oo. 1662 

9. Van Kenren 1662 

Meniere 0. Leicester 616, 819 • 

Manigalt 0. Deaa 1670 

Manion 0. Fahey 967, 1676 

Titsworth 128 

Manlsty 0. Kenealy 628, 1078 ■ 

Mankel 0. Belscampar 886 • 

Hanks 0. Holroyd 884 

ManleTererr. warren 178 

Mauley 0. Robinson 1668 

0. Slaaon 1082 

ManloTer. Ball 1246 

0. Burger 1761 

Manly v. Bewfeke 21*4 

Mann v. Appel 828, 662 

0. Bruce 266 

0. Butler 180, 288 

0. Kdwarda 860' 

•0. Flower 1618 

0. HliQTins 120, 884 

0. Richardson 688, 880, 1224, 

1248 
0. Ricketts JL017, 1022 

0. Stennett 1767 

0. Stephens 824 

0. Utica 1624 

0. Ward 886 

0. Wilkinson 2810 

0. Young 1691 

Manners 0. Charlesworth 1166,1168 
0. Form 1291, 1722, 

1737 
0. Jobnaon 1664, 1002 

0. Manners 1161 

0. Mew 674 

Manning 0. Gloucester 801, 816 

0. Klein 248 

0. Leehmese 863, 1280 

0. Manning 
0. Pumell 
9. Thesigar 



726,1288 



lxxxii 



Manos 0. De Tastet 890 

Mansel 0. Clanrfcarde 901 

Mansell 0. Feeney 827, 866, 485, 

590, 618, 620, 624, 701. 716, 788, 



Manser v. Dix 


672 


,678, 


1884, 


v. Jenner 






1609 


Mansfield v. Gambril 






720 


0. Groan 






1801 


v Shaw 






1666 


v. Shipp 






1562 



v. Whatcom First Nat Bank 



1770 
Mansfield, C. & L. M. Ry Co. 

«. Swan 1427 

Mansfield, Earl of if. Ogle 1006, 1256 
Manson 0. Burton 815 

Mansony v. Bank 1468 

Manaur v. Pratt 68, 161 

Mangy v. Mason 866 

Mant 0. Lelth 1418 

Mantle v. Noyes 2081 

Manton v. Bates 1180 

v. Manton 1052 

0. Roe 286, 794 

Many v. Beekman Iron Co. 145,884 
Mapes v. Coffin 1459, 1489, 1491 

Maple v. Shrewsbury 1794 

Mapleson 0. Bentham 1654 

v. Masainl 154 

Marasco 0. Bolton 1667 

Marble Co. v. Ripley 1663 

March v. Davison 668, 566, 670, 

1557 

0. Eastern R. Co. 26.288,245. 

670,1628,2185,2196 

0. Head 105 

v. Ludlum 578 

Merchant v Marchant 1789 

Marco v. Low 1627, 1628 

Marcos v. Pebrer 886 

Marcus Sayre Co. v. Berni 196 

Murder v. Wright 878 

Mare v. Earle 1898 

0. Lewis 1841 

v. Malachy 240 

v. Sandford 1898 

0. Warner 1898 

Margetson v. Wright 1648 

Margetts v. Perks 886 

Margrave v. Le Hook 218, 880 

Maria v. Hall 49 

Maries v. Maries 807 

Marine Bank v. Biays 1245 

Marine Ins. Co. 0. Hodgson 1621, 

1628 

v St Louis. Ac. Ry Co. 197 

Marine In v. Co. v. Hariside 881 

Marine Mansions Co. , Be 1830 

Marine & Fire Ins., fte. v. 

Early 878 

Marine & R. P. Ac. Co. v. Brad- 
ley 658 
Marion v. Tftsworth 121 
Marke v. Locke 480, 481 
Markell v. Kasson 1548 
Marker v Marker 1683 
Markham, Be 1461 
v. Augier 1626 
v. Howell 1628 
v. Middleton 1180, 1141 
v. Smith 262 
Townmnd 1296 
Markle v. Markle 178, 500 
Marks v. Beyfua 681 
0. Fox 1820 
0. Jafla 1643 
v. Murphy 586 
Marks A P C. Co 0. Wilson 1881 
Markwell, Be 1852 
Markwickv Hardingham 661 
v. Pawson 798 
Marlatt v. Smith 1811 
Warwick 886, 1180, 1289, 1640. 

1546 
Marlborough, Duchess of v. 
Wheat 1299 



TABLE OP CASE8 CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Marling 0. 8tonehouse & Nails- 
worth Ry. Co. 281, 279, 1781 
Marlow v. Barlow 186 

Maroney 0. O'Dea 1210 

Marquis of Londonderry v. 

Rhoswydol Lead M. Co. 406 
Marr v. Llttlewood 1726 

v. 8outhwick 1268, 1259 

Marriage 0. Skiggs 1490, 1615 

Marrigauld v. Deus 986 

Harriot v. Marriot 664 

Marriott v. Anchor Reversionary 

Company 944, 946 

0. Chamberlain 576, 679 

v. Kirkham 216, 1266 

v Marriott 847, 1884 

Marrow, Be 1889, 1610 

Marryatt v. Marryatt 816, 1779 

Marsack v. Reeves 1879 

Marsden, Be 1881 

v. Blundell 970 

0. Bound - 989 

Manelis v. Morris Canal, fee. 841, 

684 
Marsh v. Austin 221 

0. Crawford 2 

0. Goodall 1748 

v. Haywood 660, 655 

v. Hunter 785 

0. Keith 886, 485, 716, 719, 



v. Lasher 1027 

v. Lee 214 
v. Marsh 895, 664, 687, 597 

v. Mayor of Pontefract 850 

0. Mitchell 782, 889, 858 

0. Oliver 227, 560 

0. Parks 1411 
0. Railroad 1299, 2185, 2196 

v. Slbbald 1113 

v. Supervisors 1061 

v. Whltmore 660 

Marshal v. Crutwell 117 

Marshall, Be 488 

v. Anderson 1166 

0. Care 1242 

0. Cliff 849 

v. Colman 882 

v. Conrad 46 

0. Cooper 1846 

v. Dudley 1255 

v. Fowler 102 

v. Frisbie 916 

v. Gilliard 884, 886 

v. Gilman 824 

v. Hills 998 

v Holloway 1288,1414 

v. Lewis 128, 124 

v. Lockett 1748 

v. Lorelass 419 

v. McAravey 284 

0. Marshall 149, 1078,1648 

0. Means 885, 844 

v. Meech 1845 

v. Mellersh 728, 1593 

0. Minter 1081 

0. Olds 418 

0. Otto 1765 

v. Ranch 1150 

v. Ross 1649, 1987 
0. Sladden 298, 882, 1400, 141 7 

v. Smith 658 

v. Thompson 1078, 1076 

v. Turnbull 868, 629, 1618 

v. Watson 1660 

v. Wheeler 1279 

Marsbam, Be 1805 

Marshfleld, Re 658, 1817 

v. Weston 1227 

Marshman v. Conkllng 186 

Marston r. Brackett 848,918,1075, 

1076,1079,1115 

Martano «. Mann 80, 111 

Martelll v. Holloway 1508 

Marten v Wlchelo 869 

Marter v. Marter 826 

Martlgny v. Smith 615 



Martin, Re 
v. Atkinson 


88,1840 

782 


v. Baldwin 


684 


0. Beauchamp 


. 89 


0. D'Arcy 


1601 


v. DweUy 


1468 


v. Foley 


1168 


v. Fust 


424, 1602, 1671 


v. Giileylen 


1580 


v. Qleaaon 


1688 


0. Graves 


1961 


v. Greene 


846 


v. Hadlow 


1264, 1610, 1524. 
1688 


v. Headon 


0. Hemlng 


2047 


0. Hewitt 


760 


v. Holgate 


1608 


v. Kerridge 


494,1048 


0. Kilbourn 


1481 



v. Lutkewltte 

0. McBryde 290. 868 
0. Martin 91, 104. 122. 846, 686, 
M ^ 646, 1088T1616, 1746 

0. Mayberry 1667 

v. Meyer U» 

0. Mitchell 106 

v. Morris 269 

0. Murphy 1656 

v. Norman 614 

v. Nutkln 1658 

v. Parsons 1626 

v. Patching 640 

v. Peck 251 

v. Pond 149 

tr. Powning 60, 684 

v. Price 1688 

0. Purnell 1510, 

1626 
0. Pycroft 918, 1044, 1488, 1490 

0. Russell SO 

0. Smith 1161 

0. Spicer 482 

0. 8plers 551 

0. Thraster 1249 

0. Travellers' ins Co. 1100 

0. Tyree 1542 

0. VanSchalck 1727,1728 

0. Well 854 

0. Wblchelo 859 

0. White 1895 

0. Whltmore 88. 89 

0. Willis ib57 

0. Wright 1648 

Martindale 0. Brown 1492 

0. Picquot 1261 

Martloe 0. Lowenstetn 1468 

Martinius0 Helmuth 161,1567 

Martyn 0. Blake 1266 

Podger 1184 

Martyr v. Lawrenoe 1482 

Marvel 0. Ortlip 1675 

Marrln 0, El wood 1561 

0. 8tew 1772 

Marx 0. Heldenhehner 920 

Mary, The 564, 717 

Marye0 Dyche 584 

Maryland and New York Coal 

and Iron Co. 0. Wingert 845 

Marset 0. Pittsburgh 848 

Mason, In re 406, 1842 

* Bogg 284 

Brentinl 1407 

0. Broadbent 668 
0. Codwise 1214, 1428, 2191 

0. Cotton 1689 

0. Crosby 1822 

0. Daly 1008, 1817 
0. Debow 170, 768, 778 

0. Eakle 1265 

0. Foster 861 
0. Franklin 291, 296, 889 

0. Gardiner 1549 

0. Gardner 81, 886 

0. Goodburn 1572 

0. Haddon 1862 

0. Hamilton 1569, 1570 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



lxzxiii 



[The 



arc to the star paging.] 



m «. Harper's ferry Bridge 
Co 1976 

Harrle 98,241 

Hertford, fee. R. Co. 880, 1617, 

1542,2886 
Hoyle 3f»3 

Lake 887, 419 

La Societd dee Meteux 26 

MeOirr 1660 

McQore 846 

Mason 849, 760, 1078 

Murray 424 

»>--«- BAA 

race o** 

Pelletier 867 

Pomeroy 236 

Rollins 1686,1687 

1868 
1629 
1642 
828 
1716 
n HWM , 722.2114 

York and Cumberland R. 
R Co. 197, 288, 408, 798. 1298. 
1800Tl616, 1618, 1698 
e. Catting 829 

tts General Hospital 
v. State Mot LUe Ina. Co. 666 



9. 

9. 

9 

*». 

V 

V. 

*». 

*. 

V. 

9 

V. 

9. 

9. 

9. 

r. 

9. 

9. 
9. 

C 



Sanborn 

Sanford 

Spnrloek 

8a preme Court 



ihusetts Mutual L. Ins. 
Co v. Chicago A A R. Co. 149. 



9. Thorley'e C. F. Co. 1681 
», Lord, Be 1803 

ey v.Allen 26,82,942 

v GiUelan 27,88 

e. Gorton 286 

9. Goyder 1097 

9. Maseey 828. 1870 

Masale v. Donaldson 170, 444. 626 
9. Graham 1676, 1677, 1678, 1679. 

15l», 1682 
9. Watte 1082, 1616, 1627 

Maeaon v. Anderson 797, 1648 

Massy v. BafcweU 280 

v. Massy 886 

e. Rowen 1608 

Master v Hamilton 1116 

9 Hansard 824, 1664 

Mastennan v. Lewin 1668 

v. Lewie 1676 

9 Midland Railway of Ireland 414 
9 Price 848. 1467 

Master* « Bamee 248,262 

9. Barnwell 1181 

9 Beckett 1648 

9 Braban 1077 

9. Roaete Galena Lead Mining 
Co 146 

Maatenon v Flnnegan 828 

v. Herndon 1461, 14^6 

v. Howard 62 

Nastln v HaOey 1668 

Mather, Bx parte 886 

9. Lay 1«26 

9. Nesbit 1748 

9. Sbelmerdine 42 

Maihewe 9. Bishop of Bath 1160 
9. Jonee 1662 

9. Tripp 1071 

Mathiaev Witts NaT Co 1620 

v. Tetta 296 

Matson e. Metehor 862 

9 Swift 1266,1610 

Mattel «■ Oonant 684 

MaUbaei e. Galitsta 629 

Matthew 9. Northern Assurance 
Co. 1770 

MaUhewman, Bx parte 187 

Matthews 9. Bagshaw 1286 

9 Chichester 87 606,694,690. 

766 
9. Copeknd 128 

9. HerdtMder 988 

9. Hoagiand 676, 678 

9 Lalanee A G. M. Co. 700, 848 
v. Lloyd 266 



Matthews v. Matthews 1160 

9. Mean 1607 

9. Muneter 974 

9. Palmer 797 

9. Roberts 682, 687, 966 

v Smith 1070 

9 Stubbs 1286 

9 Swallow 2256 

9. Walwyn 260, 667, 668, 1268 

9. Whittle 189, 871 

Mattheweon v. Stockdale 1646, 1646 

Matthias v Warrington 378 

Matthisonv Clarke 12*4,1414 

Mattocks 9. Tremaine 896, 1706. 

1707, 1708 

Mattes r Gibson 1469 

Maud v. Acklom 846 

Maude v. Copeland 48u 

9. Maude 1610 

Manger v Dick 1642 

Manghanv Blake 818,406 

v. Hubbard 1099 

Maule v. Beaufort, Duke of 278 

9 Bruce 867,868 

Mauley v. Shaw 1110 

Maultsby *. Carty 2 

Maond v. Allies 948, 919, 1836 

Maunder v Lloyd 629 

Maundrell 9. Maundrell 1661 

Maunsel) v. Egan 1766 

v. Midland Great Western 

Railway Co 1660 

Maupinv Daniel 1298 

Maurice v. Wainewrlght 1277 

Maurleet v. Brecknock 1130 

Maury v. Lewie 861, 407, 847, 

1296 

v. Mason 714. 721, 1008 

Maury County v. Lewis County 22 

Maror 9. Dry 406, 426 

Maw 9. Pearson 68, 248, 828, 661. 

1626 
Mawe v. Hearislde 98 

Mawer v Mawer 618 

Mewer's Case 1706 

Mawhoodv. Labouchere 430 

9 Mllbanke 1806,1841 

Mawman v. Tegg 1646 

Maxfleld 9. Burton 674, 679 

Maxim Nordenfelt Guns Co. v. 

Nordenfelt 1666 

Maxwell v Cochran 236 

9. Finnte 246 

v. Hogg 1648, 1649 

9. Johnson 848 

v. Maxwell 1426, 1603 

v. Stewart 1626 

v. WettenhaU 1218, 1258 

v. Wigbtwick 710 

Maxwell L. G. A B. Co. v. 

Thompson 1679 

May v. Armstrong 101, 1649 

v. Biagenden 912, 1397 

v. Darden 1468 

9 Rutin 1891 

9. Goodwin 660 

v Head 979 

if. Hook 611 

9. May 1168 

v. Newton 248 

v. Parker 814, 665 

9 Prinnep 893 

sm ■Cs%v^sass Q & 

9. Selfey 228, 236, 291, 292, 360 
v. Skey 108 

9. Sloan 666 

9 Thomson 364 

Mayberry v. Brooking 164, 291, 

1008, 1478, 1475 

Maybury v. Grady 1411 

Mayburry v. Brian 1166 

Mayd 9. Field 187, 1432 

Mayer v. Claretto 149 

9. Denver, Ac. R Co. 26, 884 

9. Frith 766 

9. Gallnchet 719, 1284, 1414 

9 Journeymen 8. C. Ass'n 1620 



Mayer 9. Mayer 1681 

9. Murray 828, 662, 1289, 1260 
9. Spenoe 1699, 1644, 1670 

v. Tyson 624 

v. Woodhall 1628 

Mayes v. Hendry 740 

v. Mayes 1209 

Maylair Property Co. 9. John- 
ston 1161 
Mayfleld v. Wadsley 1127 
Mayher v. W. Va. Oil Co. 1274 
Mayhew, Re 1411, 1842 
v. Maxwell 1683, 2814 
Maynard v. Bond 1744 
9 B<her 1638 
9. Green 1617 
v. Moseley 1004 
9. Pomfret 1062 
9. Tildeu 407 
Mayne tr Butler 892 
v. Butter 898, 1801 
v. Griswold 879 
v. Hawkey 1844 
v Hochin 418,414,770,776 
v Macartney 1287 
Mayo v. Foster 1680 
9. Herding 863, 1286 
9. Jonee 862 
v. Mnrchie 302 
Mayor v. Coffin 1120 
9 Collins 717,1824 
v. Cooper 680, 1427 
9. Murray 1370 
Mayor of Bristol v. Cox 678 
Mayor of Lyons v. Adroeete* 

General of Bengal 18 

Mayor of N. Y. e. N Y Ferry 

Co. 1688 

Mayre v. Root 645 

Mays v. Wherry 1680, 1716 

Mayse v. Biggs 801 

Masarredo v. Maitland 696, 694. 

720, 761, 776 

Meaohv Chappell 894 

v.Perry 666 

. v. Stone 866, 561 

Meacham v Cooper 906, 1226 

v. Williams 841 

Meacher v. Young 1369, 2292 

Mead v Arms 1030, 1479, 1676, 1576 

v Askew 860 

v. Combs 860 

9 Day 837.850 

v. Merrltt 664, 1032, 1627 

9. Orrery, Lord 1736, 1787 

9. Piatt 630 

9. Raymond 800 

v. Stirling 869, 1620 

9. Walker 1071 

Meadbury v. Isdall 886 

Meade, He 167 

v. Norbury 1468 

Meaden v. Sealey 1734, 1785 

Meader v. M'Cready 1394 

Meades v. Guedalla 202 

Meadors v Askew 861, 860 

Meadow Valley Mining Co. v. 

Dodds 1468 

Meadows v. Kingston, Duchess 

of 614, 663, 664, 679 

Meagher e. Minnesota T. M. 

Co. 1461 

Meagoe v. Simmons 1106 

Meales v. Meales 90 

Mealor v. Talbot, Lord 1664, 1566 

Means v. Dowd 663, 15*95 

Mearav Holbrook 1752 

Mean v. Best 168, 1266 

v. Dole 417, 1820 

Mebanev Mebane 871,668 

Mechanics* Bank e. Bank of N. 

Brunswick 1807, 1311, 1812 

9 Goodwin 24 

v. Landauer 217, 1766 

9. Lery 861,878,877,716,718,721 

9. Setons 295 

Mechanics' Foundry v. Ryall 1663 



lxxxiv 



feeddowcroft 0. Cairtpbell 89, K)6 



tABLE OF CASES CITE*. 



(The 



PM«I-] 



Mederv. Blri 678 

Medler v. Albuquerque Hotel 

Co. 1299 

Medloek 9. Cogburm 1587 

feedow, Re 1610 

Medsket v. Bofcebrfeke 132D 

Medway Cotton Manuf. v. Adam 22 

Meek v. Burnley 25 

«. Carter 1669 

♦. Chamberlain 126 

9 fitly 1607 

». McCall 1078 

v. Mathis 967,994.1492 

*. Ward 820, 81« 

«. Wltberington 679 

lleekerv Brans 1272 

9 Marsh 607,677,606,700,703 

* 8prague 1716 

v. Winthrop Iron Co. 26 

Ifeggot v. Meggot 1166, 1167 

Meggy v Imperial Discount Co. 167 

Mohan v. Chicago, Ac. R Co. 1122 

Meier v. Kansas Pao Ry Oo. 1766 

Meigs v. Lister 1666 

Meiklam v. Elmore 68, 61, 906, 814 

tteiklan v. Campbell 152 

Ifeinertahagen 9 Davis 992 

Veinhard v. Youngbtooi 296, 1120, 

1614 

jftefcsner v. Buek 1648 

Meldrum v. Hayes 76. 1418 

e. Scorer 200, 264 

£elft>rd *. Piters 1191 

elbado v. Watson 167 

Melhutah v Collier H00, 1101 

IfeUne Taylor 1129 

ifeilorucobi v. Royal Sxchange 

Assurance Co 1777 

iteliorucchy 9 MeUornoehy 80, 68 
Mellen v Banning 216 

v Moline Iron Work* 149 

Mellershv. Brown 662 

Metlick v. President, *e. of the 

Asylum 2182 

Helling v Bird 1611 

v. Melling 76 

ttellish v. Williams 1676 

Mellor v. Hall 682, 691 

*. Porter 78, 166 

9 Thompson 984 

Mellows v. Bannister 44S 

Melshetmer 9. Honunel 669 

Melton «. Withers 1615 

Meluish v. Milton 663 

Melville v. Matthewson 1691 

Memphis Appeal Pub. Co. e. Pike 148 
Memphis Bank v. Oldham 1078 

Memphis City v. Dean 26 

Memphis Gajoao Gas Co. 0. Wil- 
liamson 26 
Memphis and Charleston R. Co. 

9. Gaines 1661 

Memphis & V. R. Oo. v. Owens 696 
Mendenhall v. Hall 288 

Mendes v. Gaedalla 108, 204, 820 
v Mendes 1351 

Mendham v. Robinson 66,169,1612 
Mendtmbel v Hullett 418, 414 

v Machado 640, 1669 

Meneelyv Meneely 1649 

Menendesv Holt 1648 

Menler v. Hooper's Tel. Works 26 
Menifee v. Menifee 844 

Menude v. Delalre 669 

Mensiestr Connor 797 

Mercantile Bank v. Carpenter 411 
Mercantile Ins. Ac. Co. v. River 

Plate, Ac Co. 629 

Mercantile 8. D. Oo. v. Dimon 1561 

Mercantile Trust Co. v. Kanawha 

& O. Ry. Co. 814, 1748 

9. Missouri. Ac. Ry. Co. 283 

v. Missouri, K. AT Ry. Co. 1120 

9. Portland & 0. R. Co. 149, 216 

v. Rhode Island H T. Co. 686 



Mercartney 9. Crittenden 785 

Mercers' Co. , Ex parte 80, 42 

V. Great Northern Ry. Ob 888,1696 

Merchant 9, Bowyer 779 

Merchants' Bank v. McLeod 1748 

9. Masonic Hall Trustees 407 

«. Moulton 1071. 1078, 1110 

9, Stevenson -886, 419, 867 

Merchants' Detective Ass'n v. 

Detective M. Agency 1648, 1669 
Merchants' lnt4 C B. Co. v. 

Lyon 684 

Merchants* Nat. Bank t. Oh**> 

tanooga Coaetrnotton Oe. 286 

v. Hogle 686 

v. Sabln 1666 

v. Trustees 647 

Merchant Tailors* Oo. e. Att.- 

Gen. 668, 1436 

Merchants' Trading Oo. v. fJesv 

ner 1686 

Merclere Lewis 1549 

9. Pepperell 1860 

Meredith, Re 1051 

*. Johns 1626 

Meredyth v. Hughes 1448, 1468 

Merest 9 Harvey 1180 

9. Hodgson 186 

Merlden B il sa nl a Co. t. Par- 
ker 1648 
Meridian NvwsOo. v. Diem A 

Wing Paper Co. 1716 

Meriel 9. Wymondsoift 272 

Merithew 9. 'Sampson 1980 

Meriwether v. Booker 121, 124 

Merkteln 9. Trapnell 1167 

Merlin v. Blagrave 84, 1406, 1427 

Merrewether v. Melllsh 616, 682.708 

Merrlam v. Barton 1240, 1468 

t. Baxter 1248, 1296 

v. GoodtsM 886 

v Goss 1244, 1885 

9. Holloway Pub Oo. 686 

9 Smith 197 

Merrifleld e. IngenoU 1089 

v. Jones 1666 

9. Lombard 1688 

Merrill, Re 1284 

». Bfam 1716, 1784, 2127 

v. Houghton 686 

v. Humphrey 1661 

f . Lake 868 

v. Merrill 849 

v. Plainfleld 848, 2823 

9. Washburn 824 

Merrimack Mannf. Oo. e. Oar- 

1648 

102 

661,642 

162,628 

1624 

JMO BAA 

2027 

266 

1471 

1666,2804 



ner 
Merrlman, Re 

9 Cannovan 

9. Goodman 

e Polk 
Menict 9. Brown 

v Hughes 
Merry v Freeman 

V. Nickalls 
Merry field v Jones 



Merryweather v Mellish 1943 

9. Moore 1650 

Mersey Docks Trustees v. Glbbs 

1685, 1752 
Mersey Railway, Tnre 1733 

Mersey Steel Co. v. Nsylor 284 

Mertens v. Haigh 4<«3, 1566, 1828. 

Merwin v. Smith 1289, 1272, 1668, 

1669, 1676, 1677 

Messchaert 9. Kennedy 212 

Messenger, In re 1842, 1848 

Messer «. Boyle 1266 

v. Storer 646 

Meeserrey v. BareHl 242 

Messonler v. Kanmaa 1467, 1468 

Metcalfe. Cady 834,885 

v. Herrey 864, 1661, 1662 

e. Hoopingardner 277, 1158 

V. Metcalf 1071 

v. Putnam 1861 



MetesJft, /» «,46,8T 

Re. Hicks v. May 1206 

v. Beokwith 1165 

9. Brown 689 

«. MecoaUe 818, 1541 

* Pulrertoft 280, 1720, 1734 
M. B Church v. Jaqnes 400, 196, 

874, 716, V17, 180. 758. 1228, 
1802,1877,1881,1648,1800 
Methodist P. Church e. BaiO- 

more. Mayor, &e. of 1622 

Metier e. Metier 184, 186, 498, 647. 

662, 670, 584, 886, 1666, 1657 

Metropolitan Bank, Re M2 

v Oftbrd 167, 158, 814, -420, 698 

v. Pooley 864 

Metropolitan Board of "Works «r. 

Sant 1072 

Metropolitan Coal Cuiwiaun' 

Ass'n, Re 660 

Metropolitan Nat Bank e. Bt. 

Louis Dispatch Co. 402 

Metropolitan Ry Co., He 1847 

e. Wright 1128 

Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Tonsv 

wanda, <fco. R. Co. 214 

Metsv Wood 418 

Metsger e. MetropoUtan SL By. 

Co. 840 

Metsler v. Wood 1688, 1106, 1«B 
Meule 9. Goddasd 1188 

Meurer's Will 1411 

Meuz e. Bell 1887, 1688, 1610 

v. Maltby 278 

v. Watkins 788 

•Mewshaw v. Mewshaw 871 

Mezborough, Earl of v. Bower 670 
Mexican Central Ry. Oo. +. 

Pinkney 686 

Mexican Ore Co. ». Mextesn -61. 

M Co 1861, 1887 

Mey v Gulllman 888 

Meyer v. Campbell 988 

v. Gateus 15C8 

v, Herrera 66 

e. Johnston 1731 

v. Meyer 1712 

v. Montriore 1188 

e. Montrlou 1838 

Meyers v. Busby 811 

v Dittmar 1492 

9 Seott 884 

Meymott v. Meymott 888, 1880 

Meyriek, Re 1862 

* James 919 
9. Laws 1889. 1841, 1605, 1861 

Meysinberg v. Schleiper 1081 

Michael 9. Frlpp 3678, 1680 

Michel v. Bullen 1448, 1453 

Michell v. Harris 671 

9. Miehell 100 

Michelmore v. Mndge 119, 121 

MIobiels v The Bmelie Palace 28 
Michigan State Bank v. Gardner 190, 

191,223 

e. Hustings 129 

Michnud v. Girod 994. 997 

Mlokle v. Maxfleld 1008, 1120, 1670 
Mickles v Dillaye 1243, 1244. 1245 

v. Thayer 668, 994 

Mloklethwiltv.Mleeilsllrwalt 1638, 

1671 

v. Moore 679. 1810 

Micklethwaite v. Atkinson 178, 841 

v. Winstanley 864, 840. 1207 

Micoa v. Ashurst 884, 886 

v Davis 1284 

Middaugh 9. Fox 660 

Middlebrook v. BronBey 561, 687 
Middlecomev Marlow "92 

Middledltchv Sharland 667 

v Williams 68 

Middlemas v. Wilson 851.484. 1008 
Middlesex Bank e. Mkeet 284 

Mfddleton, Re 1488 

9. Bankers' TsL Oo. 1804 

* Barned 4184,1127 



T491E QF CASKS CITED, 

[r^isJ»ienjse*af*Wthntis# ****** ] 



lxxxv 



feDodmU 1666,1738,1784 

9. Flat Riser Co. 898 

«. FnsnkUn 1687 

«. Greenwood 1062 

w. Msgnay 1061, 1082 

«. MMdleton 1140, 1884 

•v Poole 1778 

«. Selby 1661 

at 8herbume 1074, 1019, 1721, 

1186,1784 

«. SpJoer 196 

% Younger 1801 

Lord c7 Riot 1882 

Mlddletown S. Bank v. Beeh- 

amch 288 

MMmad Counties Benefit Build- 
ing Society. Re 1479 
rad, Ac. Feesy Go. 0. WU. 

1687 

Midland By. Co., Re 1787 

«i Brown 1440 

«. London & North- Western 

Rj Co. 1860 

MMlKon, Lord «. Power 887 

Maimer 9. Midmer 418, 880 

MJess v. Zanesrule * Mayerille 

Turnpike Co. 685 

MBan Steam Mills 0. Hfekey 1668 

M Nbank v. Herett 1728, 1728 

MUdnmy *. Uethuom 1267 

* Mlldmey 677 

v. Quicks 1188 

Mildred 0. Austin 277, 1066 

v. Robinson 1083 

Miles e Boyden 68 

a. Darts 224 

v Durnlbrd 288, 288, 808 

v. Harrison 1428 

r. Hawkins 208 

9. Kafeler 68 

«. Knight 1888. 1796 

«. Miles 874, 728, 7B8, 848, 844 

0. New Zealand A. B. Co. 866 

v. O'Hara 1118 

9 ftvsmnd 1089, 1040, 1691 



v. Stanley 




671 


v. Strong 




418 


« William* 




7 


MUhan v. 8hars> 




1687 


Ml* ». Moore 




1076,1076 


Milkman v. Ordwap 




880 


MiU a. Mia 




867,968 


IttU'e Bstaie, As 




1461 


Miluo. Hood 




601 


Mutter e.Oraig 




1280 


a. Hwin 




690,621 


«. Harper 




1720 


Mlttaid*. Buvsoogstf 




1460 


Magor 




828 


Millard's Case 




677 


MW-dam Foundry 0. 


Hoys* 146. 


BBB Rirer Loan fond Ass. «. 


Claflin 




681 


Milkr. Re 




864.1694 


9. ATery 787, P48, 884, 1668 


». BsMnonC M, 


Go. 


884 


0. Bear 




197 


v. Besorlsys 




1284 


9. Buchanan 




849 


0. Cabell 




68 


•. Cameron 




281 


9. Campbell 




102 


9. Oarathers 




876 


v.Chittenden 




1160 


0. Clark 




1676 


v. Oook 


406, 988, 1617 


«l Cotten 




886 


9. Davidson 




286 


«. District of Colombia 


840 


9, Dorsey 




643 


9- Dowa 




627 


9. Pases 




690 


«. Fenton 




607,1560 


9. Psrd 




647 


9. yeses 




848 



787 

840.848 

711,1660 

268,467 

oo4, ooo 

197,216 

1817 

228, 1061, 1062 

860 

v. Jamison 802, 887, 880, 667, 687 
9. Justice 986 

«. Kamhsw 194 

v. Lincoln 1289, 1886, 1898, 1448 
«. Lord 878 

e. M'Oan 298, 296, 408, 4U6 

e.MaOerr 1628 

v. Maekemae 1742, 1761 



Miller e. Bi 

9. OOW 

0, Harris 
9. Henderson 
9. Howard 
s» Huddlestone 
9, Jackson 



v. 



Crea 



287,289 

9. MoDougal 1677 

9. M Intyre 660, 689 

9. Miller 1048, 1167, \712, 177L 

v. Palmer 1622 

v. Pine Mining Oo. 867 

9. PoweU 798 

9. Pridden 218, 869, 991, 1400. 

v. Hoshfesth 1081, 1822 

v. Knssell 1118 

9k Saandasa 716 

v. Scammon 662 

9. Sherry 1276, 1280 

v. Smith 403 

«. Taylor 402, 1129 

v. Thatcher 861 

9. Tobin 972 

v. ToUaaon 843 

v. Wack 840, 844, 1078, 1076 

*. Warmington 186, 209, 1161 
9. Wheatley 7C2 

«. Whlttaker 247. 409 

v. Wbittier 287, 294, 1241, 1246, 

1802 

«. Wright 629 

MlUerJUgee Co. v. Carpenter 642, 

661 
MiUican v. Vanderplank 1276, 1294 
Milttgsji v. MlUedge 149. 160. 219, 

290,890,608 

9. Mitchell 240, 246, 292, 296, 

408, 406, 416, 417, 682, 716, 1679. 

1668 

MiUlken v. Barrow 1748 

MUlmgton v. Fox 1876,1880,1881. 

1894, 1896, 1649, 1681 

9. Losing 848 

Milk v. Bally 700 

9. Banks 1476, 1476 

•.Bestow 1M 

9. Bowyers' Co- 1860 

9. Bjowb 844, 646 

v. Cobby 1686 

v. Bsank68, 168, 166,167,168, 169, 

170, 768, 997 
9* Dudgeon 918 

«. Dttnham 1666 

9. Fanner 16, 140, 1486 

9. Plumy 1848 

v. Fox 108 

*. Fry 816, 817 

9. Gleason 1661 

9. Gore 841 

v. Hanson 1780, 1781, 1797 

9. Hoag 998, 1461, 1616, 1618 

v. Hard 884 

«. Jennings 200, 212, 218, 216, 

267 
9. Knapp 680 

v. MasoQ 1649 

9 Metcalf 814 

v. Northern Railway of Buenos 

AyrwCo. 248 

a. Parkharst 816 

p. Pitman 828 

«. Scott 417 

9. Tawnssnd 147 

9. Wayne Circuit Judge 1676 



MiUaaps v. Pfrlfler 1687, 1669 

Millspangh «. M'Brlde 978, 1026, 

1080 1284 
MiUtown, Lord v. Stuart 82^, 970, 

1697, 1609, 1661 

Milly *. Harrison 1429, 1469 

Milner ». Colmer 92, 97 

9. Harewood, Lord 170 

v. Meek 1489 

v. Milner 1616 

Mlloer'a Settlement, B$ 100 

MUnei v. Busk 109 

9. Davbon 1896 

v. Gery 671 

Milstogtown, Lord v. Portmora, 

Earl of 1667 

Milton v. Carter 1029 

Mllteaberger v. Logansport Ry. 

Co. 1716, 1788, 1748 

Mllward v. Oldiald 406 

Mil. fc Cbii. Turnpike Co. v. 

Brush 28 

Milwaukee v. 8nlllfaa 864 

&c. B. Co. * Souttar 1468.1491. 

1716, 1781 
Mfcas a. Mima 214, 887 

Miner v. Capias 1164 

v. Smith 269 

Minet v. Hyde 96, 97 

v. Morgan 678, 676, 1888 

Minere v. Row 960 

Minifie v. Railway Passengers 

Ass. Co. 671 

Mining Co. e. Delany 1684 

Minke v. Hopsman 1686 

Minn 9. Stent 296 

Minneapolis^ fee. Ry. Co. v. Mil- 
ner 1620 
Minnesota Bank v. Hayes 1770 
Minnesota Oo. v. St. Paul Co. 1617, 

1668 
Mranig*s Appeal 1681 

Minor, Ex parte 1276 

Minors v. Battison 1842, 1608 

Mlnot v. Curtis 20 

Mtnshaw v. Jordan 1680 

Minter, Re 1048, 1170 

Minthorne 9. Tomkms 1018, 1043 
Minium 9. Seymour 1668, 1672, 1676 
Minnas 9. Cox 1428 

Mirehousa v. Herbert 1260, 1897 
Mkesswippi Mills v. Oohn 689 

Miss. R. Oo. v. vaster 24 

Mississippi and Mobile R. Co. v. 

Cromwell 1889, 1998 

Missouri K. ft> T. Ry. Co. * Blr 

liott 680 

Missouri Pas. Ry. Co. r. Mc- 

Garty 1608 

». Texas * P Ry. Go. 606, 1209, 

1299, 1809, 1748 

«. Tex. Pas. Ry. Oo. 1748 

Missouri R. Co. 9. GommissJoay- 

am 1666 

Mltchsl v. Manohester, Duke of 

1748, 1748 

Mitchell, Re 1827, 1837, 1850 

/fa, Wavell v. Mitchell 216 

v. Bailey 291 

v. Berry 1268, 1290, 1677, 1678. 

1680 
9. Bunco 688, 1082 

v. Buneh 1627, 1698, 1699, 1700. 

1704, 1718 
«. Gline 1167 

0. Commiesionem 1661 

0. Condy 1070, 1766 

0. Dors 1682 

a. Draper 1064 

Green 647, 670, 684 

0. Harris 671 

0. Hayne 1660, 1666, 1671 

0. Homfray 862 

v. Kingman 88 

0. Koecker 668 

v. Lenox 287, 292, 642, 668, 604. 



lxxxvi 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Mitchell v. Lowndes 


804 


v. Maupin 


801,887 
1628 


v. Oakley 


v. Schounover 


1607 


v Smart 


1667 


v. Smith 


61,662,1656 
808,320 


v. Thorne 


v. Tighe 


828,658 


v. Walker 


1801 


v. Winslow 


120 


Mitchell's Case 


676 



Mitford v. Mltford 120. 122. 126, 127 

v Reynolds 1818,1486 

Mittens v. Foreman 864 

Mix v. Hotchkiai 841, 844, 1246 

Moat v. Holblen 1678, 1684, 1686 

Mobile SaringB Bank v. Board 

of Supervisors 824, 884 

v. Burke 884 

Mobley v. Dubuque, fro. Co. 841 

v. Hamit 904,018,980 

Moeatta v. Lonsada 1482 

v Murgatroyd 1892 

Moch v. Virginia Fire Ins. Go. 664 

Mockett, Re 1491 

Moelle v. Sherwood 674, 1019, 1120 

Moenich v. Fenestre 1666 

Moet v. Couston 1894, 1896, 1600, 

1649, 1679 

Moflat v. Burnie 1202 

v. United States 8 

288 

1264 

216,288,269 

866 

1619, 1632 

988, 1674 

16, 140, 1486 

1694, 1696, 1667 

Co. v. Mc- 

1620,1664 

886,1272 

1161 



[Tho references are to the star paging.] 

Montague v. Boston At Albany 

R. Co. 1309 

9. Floekton 1664, 1667 

w. Lobdell 197, 199 

w. Selb 780 

v. Turpin 271 

Lord v. Dudman 670, 1666, 1620 

Montara v. Hall 1814, 1860 

Monteflore v. Behrens 1089 

Monteith 0. Taylor 168, 169, 808 

Montesquieu v. Sandys 827 

Montgomerle v. Bath, Marquis 

of 212 

Montgomery, Re 1747 

v. Attorney-General 1122 

9. Calland 1262, 1891, 1898 



Moflats v. Farquharson 
Moflatt v. Barnes 

v Farquharson 
Moflet v. Claberts 
Moggr. Mogg 
Moggridge v. Hall 

9. Thackwell 

v. Thomas 
Mogul Steamship 

Oregor 
Mohawk Bank v. Atwater 

Bridge Case 



and Hudson 

cher 
v. Clute 



B. Co. v. Ant- 

1687 

1661,1562,1668,1664. 

1666,1671 



Mohler v. Wlltberger 793 

Mohan r. Mohun I486 

Moirv. Mudie 1844 

Mold v. Wheatcroft 1082, 2821 

Mole v. MansHeld 1167 

v. Smith 188, 889, 974, 1807, 2182, 



Molesworth. Re 
9. Howard 
9. Robblns 
v. Snead 
v. Lord Verney 



1357 

722 

1842 

826,972,1373 

801 



Mollett v. Enequlst 1666. 1621. 1625, 

1660, 1672, 1675 
Molllneux v. Powell 227, 1680 

Moloney r. Smith 28 

Molony v. Kernan 676, 677 

Molyneux. Re 1161, 1169 

Moncaster, Lord 9. Bnlthwaite 788, 

784 
Monck v. Tankerrille, Earl of 427 
Monckton v Attorney-General 131 
Mondey v. Mondey 168, 167 

Monell v. Lawrence 1459 

Money, Re 89 

v. Jordan 847, 1676, 1683 

Monil v. Lawson 137 

Monk v. Pomfret 823 

Monkhouse v. Bedford, Corp. of 

1000, 1470, 1478 
Monmouth v. Leeds 1381 

Monnettv Turpie 629 

Monnins v. Monnins 568 

Monro v. Taylor 990, 1400 

Monroe v. James 251 

v. Lewald 1120 

Monroe's Will, Re 676 

Monroe Cattle Co. v. Becker 843 
Monroy v. Monroy 728 

Montague v. 778 



v. Chadwick 

v. Floyd 

9. 01 well 

v. hioh 

v. Whitworth 
Monti v. Bishop 
Montiflori 9. Browne 
Mony penny 9. — 



1240,1248 

268 

1648,1661 

986 

296,1667 

1661 

1205 

424, 1602, 1671 

IT A 1/wn 1/101 



v. Dering 170, 1020; 1021 

v. Mony penny 1470, 1608 

Mooar v. Harvey 648 

Moodalay v. Morton 145, 881, 1667 

Moodie v. Bainbrldge 1808 

v. Bannister 162, 290, 644, 668. 

1211 

Moody v. Fry 233 

v . Gay 149, 160 

v. Hebberd 1694, 1597 

v. Learning 947 

v. Metcalf 844 

«• Payne 946,949 

v. Rowell 920 

v. Steggles 1689 

Mooers v. White 641 

Moon v. Trask 662 

Mooney 9. Cooledge 1681 

Moons v. De Bernales 867, 866, 1079 

Moor v. Anglo-Italian Bank 629. 

1627,1628 
9. Somerset 
v. Veaxie 

9. Welsh Copper Go 
Moore, Re 



v. Alden 
9. Anderson 
v- Armstrong 
v. Barnhelsel 
9. Beaman 
v. Beauchamp 
9. Blagra?e 
v. Booth 
v. Bray 
v. Bruce 
v. Cabel 
9. Cable 
v. Cord 
9. Craven 
9. Crawford 
v. Deakin 
v. Degraw 
9. Dixon 
v. Edwards 
v. Fountleroy 
v. Frowd 
9. Gamble 
v. Gennett 
v. Gentry 
v. Gleaton 
9. Granger 
v. Green 
v. Greene 
v. Hallum 



629 

197,240 

682,686 

1069, 1694 

1411 

286 

682,601 

1561 

1120 

219 

200,249 

1069 

678 

1172, 1196, 1221 

1240 

1242, 1244, 1247 

1624 

679, 717 

660,860 

1071 

1287,1240 

1432 

666,657 

1381 

1234, 1418 

1623 

149,443,449 

100 

226,1707 

1463 

517 

324 

1624 



v. Harper 821, 868. 871, 891, 1663 

v. Hood 261 

v. Holt 638. 686, 696 

9. Hudson 180, 889, 1706, 1706 

9. Hunter 737 

9. Huntington 1576 

9. Hylton 1676.1677 

v. Knight 298, 646 

v. Lake Co. 860 



Moore 9. Langford 
v. Llpscombe 
v. Lockett 
9. Lyttle 
v. McCIintook 
v. McGaha 
9. M'Namara 
v. Meynell 
v. Mitchell 
v. Moberly 



0. Moore 

9. Morris 
9. Morton 
v. Munn 
v. Platel 
9. Reed 



1182 

1468 

887 

828,668 

W 

1621 
280 
180 
878 

270 



v. Robinson 

v. School Trustees 

v. Smith 

v. Stevenson 

v. Taylor 

9. Titman 

9. Tuckwell 

9. Usher 

9. Walker 

9. Walter 

9. Wright 

9. ZabrisUe 
Moore's Appeal 
Mooresv. Moores 
Moors v. Moors 

v. Washburn 
Moran p. Hays 

v- Johnston 

v. Palmer 

v. PellUant 
Morant, Re 
Mordaunt 9. BenweU 

v. Hooper 
Mordue v. Palmer 
More v. May how 
Moreau 9. Edwards 

v. Polley 

9. 8a0arans 
Moredocko. Williams 
Morehouse v. Jackson 

v. Newton 



91,120,802,469,611, 

1047, 1677, 1681 

202 

214 

662 

in. 476 

1669, 1676 



1009, 1016 

1008 

860, 861, 896 

88 

1784 

1170 

1126, 1127 

1660,1661 

1644 

1889 

468 

1286 

1777 

o4o, 862, 808 

87,712,848 

1881 

249 

1716, 1734 

860 

197 

1607 

1846 

1726 

1408,1860 

677,678 

1656 

1686 

846 

1668,1677 

1228 

1260 



Moreland v. Richardson 1632 

Morenhout v. Higuem 1160 

Mores 9. Mores 160, 152 

Moreton 9. Chandler 646 

v. Harrison 007,618,829 

Morewood v. Currey 236 

9. Hall 1162 

Morey v. Forsyth 197 

9. YandeDbergh 824 

Morford v. Hamner 1716, 1720, 1730 

Morgan, Ex parte 987, 1147. 1149 

Re 849,674 

v. 1686 

9. Boyne 235 

9. Darey 696, 699, 602, 780, 731, 808 
9. Day 640 

v. Ham 186 

v. Elford 1471 

9. Klrtob 1218 

v. Fuller 1078, 1088 

9. Graham 1661 

9. Great Eastern By. Co. 796, 1380 
9. Harris 648 

v. HxtcheU 1888, 1850 

9. Higglns 1282 

9. Uuggins 1411 

v. Jones 177, 444 

9. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. 26 

9. Lake Shore A M. 8. Ry. Co. 1164 
v. Larirlere 18, 142 

9. Lewis 1190 

v. M'Adam 1649 

v. Marsaok 1560 

9. Meuth 878 

9. Morgan 168, 280, 286, 461, 66L 
989, 1862, 1368. 1459, 
1636, 1716* 
9. New York and Albany R. 
Co. 289,406 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



lxxxvii 



[The references are to the iter paging.] 



Morgan v. Palmar 1688 

r. Railway Co. 149 

9. 8eedainore 1627, 1688 
r.Shew 575,948,944,1774 

v Shepherd 884 

». Smith 821 

r Thome 88 

v. TMUon 844 

v. Tipton 1660 

V. Tamer 1061 

v- Wortbingtoa 806 

Koran's La., fee. Go. v. Texas 

Central By. Co. 1019, 1648. 

Morfarty v. Mason 790 

Morke 0. Durham, Bishop of 1290 
Morteon 9. Morisoa 73, 168, 606, 648 
v. Tarnoar 619 

Morlts v. Splltt 878 

Morley v. Bridges 1898 

9. Clawing 1048, 1220, 1798 

v.Green 299 

r. Morley 212, 228, 267, 269, 891 
9. Bennoldson 160 

v. White 200, 409, 680 

Morning Journal Ass'n 9. Ru- 
therford 1029 
Horoington 0. Keen 42 
v. Mornington 678, 878, 1884 
Earl of vTSmith 807, 809 
Lord v. Keane 1889 
Morocco Co. v. Fry 642, 1894 
Morphea 9. Jones 847, 166S 
Morrsil v. Pritchard 1870, 1677, 

1678,1694 
Morrell v. Dickey 1866, 1412 

v. Fisher 1428 

v. Kelley 1320 

0. Pearson 1688 

9. Wootten 1826 

Morret v. Westerns 214, 277, 278 



Morriee v. Bank of England 1088, 

1616 

9. Swnby 1824, 1823 

Morrill v. Morrfll 778, 1160, 1167. 

Morris 9. Ashbee 1646, 1646 

9. Barclay 287 

v. Barker 726 

9. Boil 1278 

jp. Cannan 1882 

0. Clarkson 1279 

0. Cleasby 1129 

9. Colmen 1664, 1727 

0. Daries 974, 1187, 1460 

0. Dillingham 1266 

9. Edwards 486, 679, 889 

v. Blme 1760, 1768 

v. Port 868 

9 Hayward 468 

9. Hill 1688 

v. Hooeyeombe 748 

9. HoweU 1817 

9. Hoyt 846 

9 IsUp 1898 

9. Kelly 820, 1644 
9. Llanelly By. and Dock Co. 

988,1880 

9. M'Neil 1700 

9. Merrltt 1078 
v.Morris 86,170,248,84^1678. 

e Morris AG. D. Co. ' 856 

v Mowatt 1061, 1209, 1282 

9 Nixon 841 

9 Owen 1690 

v. Parker 721, 728, 724 

v. Peyton 974, 1019 

v. Richardson 987, 1484, 1491 

9. Robinson 87 

v. Ross 671 

r Smith 1049 
v.Taylor 1,988,1168,1296,1314 

9. Timmins 1168 

9. Vivian 1107, 1108, 1181 

9. White 848, 1684 



Morris 9. Williams 948 

v. Wilson 990 

9. Wright 1648, 1646 

Canal, &c, Go. 0. Biddlet 1676 
9. Central Ry. Co. 1681, 1687, 

1889 
v. Dennis 1621 

v. Pagan 1681, 1677 

v. Fagin 1618 

v. Jersey City 1661, 1668 

and Essex R. Go. 0. Hudson 

Tunnel R. Co. 1631 

v. Prudden 808, 1661 

Morris Wilson A Co. 0. Coventry 
M. Co. 1643 

Morrish v. Murray 1127 

Morrison, Re 1861, 1801 

9. Arnold 1678,1674 

v. Barrow 987, 1072, 1079, 1148. 

9. Beekwith 1668 

v. Bowman 878 

9. Coleman 1676 

9. Durr 848 

v.Hart 861,849,862 

9. M'Lsod 1240 

9. Marquardt 1638 

9. Mayer 782 

9. Moat 1070, 1661, 2819 

v. Morrison 1428, 1470. 1471. 

1648, 1768, 1769 

v. Searight 1680, 1686, 1649 

v. Stewart 848 

Morrises 9. IngHs 1276, 1286 

Morrissey 9. Brooms! 1071 

Morrlt v. Walton 1626, 2069 

Morrow 9. Fossick 1683 

9. Lawrence 247, 296 

9. WesseU 1282 

Morse 9. Duckworth 666 

v. Barl 89 

9. Hill 660, 844, 1820 

9. Horey 191, 737 

9. Lyman 266 

9. Machias Water Power Oo. 287 

9. Roach 877 

9. Royal 842 

9. Sadler 226 

9. Slason 861 

9. Smith 997, 1469 

9. Stearns 1411, 1561 

9. Worcester 1688 

Morshead 9. Frederick 1284 

e. Reynolds 1218 

Moras 9. Domestic 8. M. Oo. 1686 

Mortgage Co. 9. Jeflerson 886 

Mortimer 9. Copsey 467 

9. Cottrell 1682 

9. Praser 546, 699 

9. Hartley 816, 642, 602 

v. M'Callon 1126 

9. Mortimer 202, 208, 204 

9. Orchard 880. 848, 860, 861, 

1406 

9. Picton 1791 

9 West 69,686 

Mortimore 9. 8oares 818 

Mortland v. Mortland 662. 1802 

Mortlook 9. Buller 989,996 

0. Loathes 1772 

9. Mortlnek 899 

Morton, Re 98 

9. Great Eastern Ry. Co. 1775 

9. Grenada Academies 649, 667, 

9. Miller 1175, 1596 

9. New Orleans Ac Ry. Co. 402 

9. Palmer 89, 605 

v. Well 388 

9 White 881 

Mosby 9. Raskins 1628 

9. Withers 1286 

Moseatti 9. Lawson 1105 

Moseby 9. Partes 1676 

Moseley 9. Armstrong 841 

*. Brush 197, 199 

9. Cooke 986 



Moseley v. Cresseys Co. 240, 241, 242 

9. Gassett 887 

9. Hankinson 1276 

9. Moseley 1617 

9. Victoria Rubber Co, 676 

9. Ward 1416, 1417 

Mosely 9. Mosely 961 

9. Virgin 1404, 1660 

Moser r. Marsden 408 

Moses 9. Brodie 867 

9. Mayor, Ac. 1620 

9. Murgatroyd 1412 

9. Wooster 1607 

Mosier 9. Basis 87 

Most, As 1844 
9. Anglo-Egyptian Na?. Go. 661, 

661, 1648, 1649 

9. Batnbrigfs 824, 1008 

9. Baldoek 1476 

9. Buckley 616 

9. Dunlop 96 

9. MoOaU 1008 

9. Syers 897. 1601 

Mostyn 9. Brooke 164, 1684 

9. Emmanuel 1626 

9. Vabrigas 648 

9. Mostyn 1276 

Motion 9. King 1689 

9. Moojen 68 

Motley 9. Downman 1649 

Mott 9. BlackwaU Ry. Co. 1111 

9. Carter 221 

v. Hail 760 
9. Harrington 1248, 1298, 1299. 

9. Ramsey 940 

9. Shoolbred 211, 1080, 1407 

9. Shrove 284 

Motteux 9. London Assurance 

Co. 197 

9. Maekreth 408 

Mould 9. Griffiths 1129 

Moulin 9. Ins. Co 144 

Moulson 9. Hargrafe 904, 918, 980 

Moulton 9. Chafe 280 

9. Edmonds 1218 

9. Reid 1492 

9. Richardson 1081 

Mouuce 9. Byars 780, 1076 

Mound City Life Ins. Oo. 9. 

Harding 1286, 1289 

MoundsTille9. Ohio RirerR. Co. 812, 

1662 

Mounssy 9. Burnham 426 

9. Barl of Lonsdale 1878, 1879, 

1600 

Monnson 9. West 1107 

Mount 9. Manhattan Co. 682 

9. Potts 842, 1870 

Mount Carbon Coal Oo. v. BUnch- 

ard 881 

Mountcastle 9. Moore 1284 

Mountford, Ex part* 1864 

9. Scott 676 

9. Taylor 726 

Mountfort, Ex parte 1849, 1867, 

1608 
Mount Hope Iron Co. 9. Dear- 
den 1157 
MountnorrK Earl oft?. White 1668 
Mount Oltret Cemetery v. Budeke 

410, 412, 1676 
Mountstnart 9. Mountetuart 1856 
Mount Vernon Bank v. Stone 828 
Mourilyan, Re 1044. 1690 

Mouseley v. Basnett 816, 817 

Mowatt 9. Graham 942 

Mower 9. Kip 1264 

Mowrey 9. Ind. and Cinn. R. 

Co. 1614 

Mowry 9. Bamboo Bank 1881 

9. Bishop 1269, 1280 

9 Darenport 1120 

0. Hill 818 

9 Whitney 10 

Moxhay 9. Inderwick 1664 

Moxon 9. Bright 661 



IrMviii 



TABLE OR CASES CITED, 



l»» 



aorta- tb» sta* paging,} 



Mvaou v. Payne 
Moye v. Bateman 1848 

■oyer* v. Coiner 176(5 

Hoaeley «. Cowto 08, 417 

Motley 0. Alston 98; MO, 242, 343 
9. Oowfe 284 

Knena v. Brucker 869, 738, 7511 
H. Schandler B. Co. 0. Welch 1020 
Httckleston v. Brow* 468, 647 

Modd v. Suckermore 1147 

■udgett 0. Gager 140,160,101, 

216,219, aw 

Muggerldge, ife 1401 

Mulr ». Howell K»8 

Hub-head v. Brans 1009 

Mufdoon v. Maldoon 1661 

Muldrow v. Da Bote 708. 708. 794 
Hulford «. Bellly 1081 

Mulhearn v. Press Pub. Co. 887 
■ulhotland v. Hendrlok 866 

Mullakin «. Mullakin 880 

MuLan v. United States 8 

Mullen «. Strieker 1688 

Mullens 0. Hussey 1286 

MnMer v. Dows 867 

9. Henry 1683 

Mullett v. Christmas 28 

MuMkin v. Mullikin 1288 

Kullins v. Alkan 10U8 

0. UoweU 1606 

«. Hussey 886 

•. Townshend 1276 

Mullock v. Jenkins 242 

Mallows p. Bannister 448 

Moiloy v. Paul 716, 071 

9. Young 861 

Huloek v. Molock 668, 866. 1076. 

1124,1678 

Mnlrey v. Gibbons 216 

Mttmford v. Mumford 48 

♦.Murray 90,122,2297 

v. 8tohwasser 1886 

Mnnch v. Cockerell 247, 248, 268 

9. ShabeU 418 

Munchus v. Harris 860 

Monday 0. Knight 824, 800, 870 

v. Shatsall 892 

v. Vail 868 

Mundy 0. Howe, Earl 1866 

v. Jolliflw 88 

♦.Mundy 1160,1166,1166 

Moody's Landing Co. v. Hardin 

878 
Mann 9. Marsh 288 

Maun* 9. Isle of Wight By. Co. 1222 
Mnnor v. De Tartel 162 

Bkraro 0. Meeoh 666 

•.Smith 1848 



Monro 0. Wlrenhoe ft Bright- 
Ungsea Ry. Co. 1698, 1684,1671 



Mnnroet. Tousejr 
Monson Bowan 

v. Curtis 

v. Reed 
Monster 0. Lamb 
Hunt 0. Glynes 



1648 

884 

1881 

1078, 1076 

8*7,1103 

88 



v. Shrewsbury and Chester Bj. 
Co. 1620 

Murcn v. Coneord Railroad 646 

Mutdock v. Ratclifls 846 

«. Walker 1620 

Murdock's Cass 780, 781. 1688, 

1689^1664 

Motfreev Oarmaok 67 

0. Leeper 27 

Hackle v. Murkle 764 

Murphey tu Amer. Life Ine. and 
Trust Co. 1460 

Murphy v. Clark 814, 886 

«. Conway 1601 

e. Glbbs 418 

9. Jackson 286,247,268,270,779 
9. Lincoln 660, 1688 

v. Murphy 1468 

«. New York Central R. Co, 940 
«. New York Police Board 1620 
v.Oldto 41,48,164 

9. Savannah 1686 

v. Smith 1880 

v. 8pauldtafc 1468 

v. Vincent 889 

v. Work 818 

Murray. Be 1299. 1841, 1846 

«. Ballon 678, 679, 1882 

v. Barlas 118 

v. Barlow 280 

v. Blatchlbrd 844, 1018. 1028, 

1029,1604 
0. Bogne 1646 

•.Bosh 1608 

v. Butler 1096 

v. Clayton 1686 

«. Cockers* 1726 

9. Coster 660.720. 721 

v. Dehon 1268, 1608 

•. De Rottenham 2220 

9. Elibank, Lord 96, 101, 106, 

107,1616 
v. Htaten 907, 1676 

9. Finster 678 

v. Hay 802,808,841,849 

v. Lylburn 280 

v. Newson 1M 

«. Phillips ' 1882 

9. Schooner Betsey 50 

v. SnadweU 684 



Muaray 9. Toland 666; 668 

v. Vlpart 447 

9. WaUer 1826.1826 

Murrell 9. dapham 87, 74 

Morriet v. Lyon 180 

Marrow v. Wilson 80, 81 

Mascott v. Halhed 866 

Muse v. Bgerton 113 

MuagraTe, Ex parte 60 

v.Medez 810*1712 

v. Nerinsoa 1129 

v. Parry 62 

v. Puiido 17,62? 

w. 8torens 1072 

MusgroTe v. Flood 96 

v.Losk 164,974,1296,1317,1676 

v. Nash 1764 

v. Staylor 1679 

Muakerry v. Skerringtom 1411 

Mossel 0. Morgan 1684 

MosaeU 9. Cooke 666 

Masselman v. Stohl 1606 

MosttlwuitBV.Bpiosr 1664 

Muarfna v. Bartlett 462, 504 

Masters 9. Wright 226 

Mutriev. Binney 864,566,688,664 

Matter v. Chauvel 1616, 1627 

v. Eastern & M, Ry. Co. 28 

9. Hudson 1261 

Muttlebury v. Haywood 1849 

Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Belch 1276 

9. CokeOUr 750 

0~8turges 624,1286 

Mutual Society, JZs 1488 

Myoock 9, Beatson 662 

Myer v. Hart 1881 

Myers v. Bradford 1&T8 

9. Daniels 1468 

v. Dorr 686 

9. Farrlngton 802 

9. Fenn 287 

9. Gemmel 1688 

v. Hankm 646 

9. Kinzle 844 

v. McGahagan 601 

v. Murray 867 

9, Myers 68, 90. 91. 1268, 1269, 

1260.1868.1880 

9. Pickett 1680 

w. Raymond 1282 

v, Trimble 1686 

9. United Guaranty, An. Co. 276. 



Myles v. Burton 


V0 


Myaatt «. Hubbs 


1181 


Mynd 9. Francis 


586 


Mynn 9. Hart 


29 


Myriekf>. ▲dams 


468 



N. 



N. 9. N. 162 

N. * W. R. Co. 9. Nunnally 684 
Naooochee, Ac. Co. v. Dark) 1468 
Neddo 9. Bardon 660 

Nadin 9. Bassett 916 

Nagle 9. Edwards 718 

Nagle-GUhnon 9. Christopher 108, 

984 

Nail 9. Mobley 884, 841 

9. Punter 819, 780 

Naish 9. Browne 1106 

Nalder v. Hawkins 68. 71 

Naile 9. Austin 814 

Namee 9. Groot 1021 

Nanney v. Martin 118 

v. Vaughan 1678 

9. Witlnuns 1862 

Napier 9 BuUwinkle 1688 

v. Daniel 1109 

9. Effingham 78, 178, 174, 

«.Bam 8*0,1229,1568 



Napier 9. Napier 101, 102, 106, 784 

v. Roudedge 2804 

9 Staples 1228, 1226 

Nash 9 Dillon 1422 

9. Evangelical Lutheran 

Church, Rector of 144 

9. Hunt 1802 

9. Nash 116 

9 New England Life Ton. Co. 808 
«. Smith 287. 289. 294. 894, 686, 
686. 1661, 1662, 1668, 1666, 1567 
9. Salnburn 1181 

Nashua & Lowell R. Co. 0. Bos- 
ton & L. R. Co. 1221 
NashTilie &c. R. Co. v. Cook 818 
Nasom 0. Clarkson 1261 
Nathan 0. Tompkins 542, 1676 
Mannf. Co. v. Craig 814 
Newman & Co., Re 149, 447 
Nation Cameron 814 
National Association 0. Carstairs 

449,462,468,586,889 



186 
296 



National Bank 0. Bryant 867 

9* Carpenter 
0. Garlingama 
9. Ooooard 
0. Insurance Co. 
0. National Bank 907 

r.Spragoa 1281, 1296, 12ML IBM. 

9. United Hand in Band Co. 



of Commerce 0. Smith 418 

St P. Bank 0. Thomas 187 

Bolivian NaT. Co. WBson 1488 
Cash R. Co. 0. Boston Cash I. 

A B, Co. 1642 

Furnace Co. 0. Molina M. L 

Works 842 

Hotel Co. 9. Crane Brothers 

Manuf. Co. 790 

Life Ins. Co. 0. Pingrey 1561 

Mannf Co. 0. Meyers 814 

Park Bank 0. Halle 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



pche 



aretettiester 



•J 



Buttons! Poimsnont BL n\ A 
Society v. Raper 
rTOvinoul Bmk «. Iwu 170 
«. Jackson 674 

Pt9*fo«atfPls**GvjssIns.Cb. 
9- Prudential Ass. Co. 1060. 

1898. MSB 

8. 8. Co. 9. Tugman 867 

Trust Co. «. Murphy 1742 

Cafes Bank 9. Reed 884 

Ess v. M'Phersoa 678 

Bsadahiv. Ormes 846 

Essuberge. Hyatt 818 

Sarulshaw v. Brownrigg 661 

Baylor, Ex parte 1906 

e. Byland 179 

r.MWdleton 1678 

t . Smith 1169 

a Wright 422 

Eeadarbonser v. State 646 

Ksaftev. Neafte 686, 668, 666, 994, 

1019 

Beat, Jfe, Weston «. Naal 89. 797 

v. Foster 1648, 1668 

v. Keel 1258 

v.Ogden 846 

9. Rathcll 884 

a Robinson 881,*1280 

lhale. Re 1847 

9. Healing 1066, 1749 

9. Cripps 1682 

9. Hagthorp 264.716.887,992. 

1289, 1248/1246, 1699 

a> Beale 1622 

9. Neales 417,418,2898 

9. Pink 1741 

9. Bte 287 

Ecary 9. Jones 1164 

Heater. Denman 628 

9 Larimer 1880,1886 

9. Marlborough, Duke of 1087 

Nearer Douglas 1746 

Nebraska 9. Iowa 1881 

Back 9. Gains 420,692,696,699. 

789 
Bssduam 9. Needbnm 612, 1080, 

1048, 17U8 

9. Smith 176, 1487 

Baidler 9. Deebte 214, 277 

9. Kendall 1688 

Beetles 9. Needle* 114,118,121. 

Noely v. Anderson 287, 288 

Beep 9. Abbot 884 

fftasun 9. Clamp 914 

Benson 9 Bet* 1080,1608 

9. Churchill 192 

9. THrktnaon 846 

9. Fry 818 

9. McDonald 2278 

BMuinger 9. State 777 

Bell 9. Snowden 1126 

BaOki 9. Fannook Manu£ Co. 197, 

884,402 

Betas 9. Clark 1468 

BefesuYocum 642 

Bebou, Ex parte 1064, 1066, 1067 

9. Barter 894, 1660, 1668, 1666 

9. Backer 676 

9. Booth 1282, 1261, 1262, 1269. 

1261 
9. Dobote 885 

9. Duncombe 86 

9. Dunn 1649 

9 Ferdinand 109,886 

9. Hill 846 

9. Hubbard 1784 

9. Oidfield 668 

9. Pmstotfno 149, 686 

«. Plnegar 886, 887 

9. PonsJbrd 728 

«. Seaman 206, 976 

9. United States 931 

Earl c. Brldport, Lord 864, 1200. 

Beltborpe i». Hdgate 197 

v. 



Nephi Irrigation, Co. 9. Jenkins 

1168 
Neptune Ins. Co. 9. Dorsey 1246 
Nerot 9. Burnand I486, 1470 

Nesbit v. St. Patrick's Church 497. 

Ecsbltt 9. Berridga U5.642, 644. 

9. Dallam 786, 784, 786 

Fesmtth 9. Calvert 861, 881 

9. Dinsmore 2027 

Nestor 9. Swift 1468 

Netaery 9. Payne 1688 

Neuman 9. Godfrey 826 

Neve 9. Pennefl 824 

9. Weston 686, 1211 

Ncvile Johnson 870 

Ncvill 9. Soelliog . 1886 

Neville 9. DemerTtt 844, 886 

9. Pltsgerald 829, 881. 982 

Nevinson 9. Stablat 1477 

Nevitt 9. Bacon 904 

Nevius 9. Dunlap 1978 

New 9. Bams 726 

v. Jones 1284, 1418 

9. New 176 

New Albany 9. White 1688 

Newell 9. Smith 1400 

9. Telegraph Conrtruooon Co. 

486,1891 

9. Wilson 1648 

9. Wright 284 

Newark Aqueduct Board 9. Pas- 
saic 1686 

and N. T. R. Co. 9. Mayor of 

Newark 1, 1676, 1077 

Plank Bead Co 9. Elmer 993, 

1694 

Barings Inst 9. Jones 2U0 

Newaygo County Manuf. Co. 9. 

Stevens 848 

Newbegin 9. Bell MM, 1487 

Newberry, Re 106 

9. Alexander 1120 

9. Blatchford 10, 1648 

9. Stuart 1820 

Ncwbery, Re 226, 1862 

9. Jamas 1661 

Newbiggln by the Sea Gas Co. 9. 

Armstrong 807, 808 

Nwwblgglng v. Adam 662 

Newbold, Re 486 

9. Ridgeway 1166 

NewbouM v. Smith 662 

New Brain tree* South worth 190 
Now Brunswick It Canada Bail- 
way Co. 9. Conybeare 1899 
Newburgfa 9 Blekerstafls- 

Barl of 9. Newburgh, 
ess of 1111 

fee, Turnpike v. Mtttor 1628. 

Newbury 9 Marten 167 

Lord 9. Wren 686 

Newby 9. Harrison 1668, 1678 

9. Highway Cam's* 1688 

9. Sharps 884, 401 

Newcastle. Duke of, Re 1849 

9. Broztowe, Inhab. of 1126 

Newcastle-upon-Tyne 9. Att-- 

Gen 1660 

Newcomb 9. Clark 196, 826 

9. Horton 280. 240, 844 

9. White 790 

Newcombe 9. Chicago N. W. By. 

Co 884 

Nswcomen v Conlson 1666, 1678 

Newdigate 9. Johnson 629 

9. Newdigate 1686, 1687 

Newell 9. Burbank 829 

9. Newton 646 

9. Nichols 860 

9. Bass 16H1 



Nevr England Beak 9. Lewis 616. 

726,844 
ftc, Bank 9. Newport 

216,282,269, 



9. Smith 


1752 


9- West 


1299 


9. Wheeler 


1624 


Newen 9. Wetten 


1262 



New England M. 8. Co. 9. Powell 886 
Newenham 9. Pemberton 448, 444 
NcwgengTonCo.mw 948 

Nee/hall 9. Hobbs 716, 720, 721 

9 Hastens 1660,1661 

Newhousa9 Mltrard 1029 

New Jersey 9. New York 17, 129, 

446,686,648 
fee. Co. 9. Ames 220 

Mat. Urn Ins. Ob. «w Cbrbtn 1484 
Patent Tanning Co. 9. Turner 668 
Protecttea and Lombard Bank 

9. Thorp 24 

Zinc Co. 9. N. T. Franklinite 
Co. 1472, 1476, 1479. 1619. 

1021,1684 

Newkiik 9. Wfflett 678 

Nawland 9. Champion 824 

9. GeJaee 1017 

9. Gentry 68 

9. CaVenn 1018 

9. Horseman 664, 966 

9. Sogers 884.841 

9. Steer 907, 1177, 1209, 1820, 1826 

New London Bank e. Lea 286,292, 

294,660 
Newlore 9. Callaghan 726 

Newman o. Alford 1648 

9. Aullng 1266 

9. Davenport 1748 

9. De Lorimer 662 

9. Godfrey 146V 197, 296, 808 

9. Hatch 1487 

9. Hodgson 818, 1808 

9. Hutton 684 

9. James 846 

9. Kendall 980.962 

9. Landrine 27, 80. 81 

v.Moody 690,867,2897 

9. Morris 1626 

9. Norrte 1209 

9. SeUe 161,176.178.1266 

9. WaMs 606,627,706,704 

9. White 680, 741 

New Merino Land Co. 9. Blkias 

206,418 
New Orleans 9. Gaines 1298, 1802 
9. Paine 1620 

9. Peake 1029, 1716 

<*, L. & B. Co. 9. Dudley 668, 
1078,1079.1110,1128 
M. A 8. B Co. 9. New Orleans 

669,1008 
Nat. Bank 9. Bohne 680 

N. B. Asa 9. Le Breton 266 

* N. B. R. Co. 9. Mississippi 

fce. R. Co. 1668 

R. Co. 9. Dunn 1661 

Railroad 9. Morgan 1491 

Newport, &c BridgeCo.9.Doug- 

Newry a, Kilmorey 486, 776 

Newsham 9. Gray/ 791 

NewHom 9. Bowyer 89 

1448 

894 

1089,1694 

1820 

1869, 1420 

1697, 1600, 1667 

1869 

719, 774 

1667 



9. 
Newton, Re 
9. Askew 
9. Baker 
9 Bennett 
9. Chorlton 
9. Curson 
9* Dimes 
9. Douglass 



9- Egmont, Burl of 267, 268, 270, 

277 
9. Bgmont, Lord 289, 699 

9. Grand Junction By. Co 1460 
9. Lucas 13*8 

9. Metropolitan Ry. Co 818 

9. Newton 680 

9. Rieketts 606, 806, 981, 1601 , 

1726 



xc 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[The 



are co the iter paging.] 



Newton 9. Swasey 866, 667 

v. Taylor I860 

9. Terry 779 

v. Thayer 689,608,694,828,829. 

880 
9 Thomson 1847 

9. Willis 1218 

New Westminster Brewery 9. 

Hannah 406 

New York v. Connecticut 17 

New York ft B. 0. P. Co. v. 

New York P. Go. 8, 988, 1678 
New York B. ft P. Co. v. Ma- 

gowan 1642 

New York Chem. Co. v. Flowers 

180, 624, 764, 784 
New York Co. v. Water Co. 680 

New York Dry Dock Co. 9. Amer- 
ican Life Ins. ft Trust Co. 1621 
New York Filter Co. 9. Schwarts- 

walder 1642 

New York Fire Ins. Co. 9. Ely 24 
v. Tooker 402 

New York Guaranty Co. v. Mem- 
phis Water Co. 197 
New York Ice Co. v. N. W. Ins. 

Co. 886 

New York Life Ins. Co. if. Clop- 
ton 61 
v. Statham 61 
New York, Ac. B. Co. 9. Haws 1626 
v. Bobinson 880 
N. Y. ft N. H. B, R. Co. 9. 

Schuyler 686 

New York, N. H. ft H. R. Co. v. 

Martin 974, 1840 

New York Ac. PoL Co. 9. New 

York C. P. Co. 10 

New York Printing Co. 9. Fitch 

1631, 1664 
New York P. ft 0. B. Co. 9. New 

York, L. B. ft W. B. Co. 1748 
New York ft W. U. Tel. Co. 9. 

Jewett 1766 

Nlas v. Adamson 167 

9. Northern and Eastern By. 

Co. 672, 678 

Nlbert v. Baghurst 1621, 1«76 

Nlblett v. Daniel 888 

Nice v. Purcell 1073, 1076 

Nichol v. Bestwick 1180 

9. Daridson County 726 

9. Ridley 667, 867 

9. Stager 1860 

9 Yaughan 1077 

Nicholas v. Murray 686 

Nicholl v. Boyd • 1766 

9. Jones 671, 808, 800, 889, 1828, 

1884 
v. Wheeler 486,679,889 

Nloholls, Re 1611 

v. Dowdlng 1098 

v. Blford 796, 977 

v. Haslam 1440 

9. Ibbeteon 912, 1670 

v. Kearsly 1666 

9. Nichols 1209, 1210 

v. Perry Patent Arm Co 1716 

9. Roe 664.1621,1868 

v. Ward 180, 181, 182, 600 

Nichols, Ex parte 199 

v. ColrMe 1467 

v. Baton 1087 

9. Bla 1110, 1299 

9. Levy 1087 

to Nixey 167 

v. Pitman 1648. 1647 

v. Rogers 824, 407 

v. Scranton Steel Co. 418 

v. Williams 231 

Nicholson, Re 88. 1610 

v. Carllne 92, 102 

9. Drury Estate Building Co. 87. 

9. Falkner 1418, 1422 

v Glbb 1680 

v. Jeyes 1829, 1844 



Nicholson 9. Knapp 


16G2 


9. Norton 


1409,1846 


v. Patterson 


1626 


9. Pelle 


421 


9. Pirn 


666 


r. Squire 
v. Wilborn 


1688 


1861 



Nlckerson v. Atchison fto. R. 

Co. 818 

Nickle v. Stewart 1676, 1684 

Nicklin v. Hobin 1618 

v. Patten 766, 766 

Nickolmra v. Knowles 1661 

Nickson v. Richardson 1698 

Niool v. Yaughan 861, 1077, 1082 

Ntoolle Boyd 1765 

v. Huntington 1882, 1400, 1680 

v. Roosevelt 1641 

NieU v. Morley 86 

Niemann v. Harris 899, 1669 

Nightingale v. Dodd 886 

v Lawson 1288 

Niles. Matter of 1841 

v. Anderson 644, 646 

v. Williams 666, 680 

Nimmov Commonwealth 1284 

Nuns v. Nuns 1221 

Nlsbett v. Murray 1427, 1429 

Nix e. Winter 860 

Nixon v, Albion Marine Ins. Co. 

849. 881, 981 

v. Richardson 1609, 1700 

v. 8heldon 82 

Noad v. Backhouse 1780 

Noake, lie 108 

Nobel's Explosives Co. 9. Jones 298, 

884, 417 
Nobkissen v. Hastings 607, 703 

Noble v. Bdwardes 989 

v. Garland 648 

9. Kennoway 1180 

v. Martin 1118 

v. Meymott 1411 

v. Moses 849 

v. School Director* 1029 

v. Stow 1878. 1626, 1640. 1679, 
1778, 1786, 1794, 1796 
v. Wilson 1816, 1816, 1676, 1677 
Nobles v.Hogg 1172 

Nodinev Greenfield 194,229 

Noe v. Gibson 1748 

v. Noe 617 

Noel v. Fitagerald 962 

v. King 408, 740, 1661, 1662 

v. Noel 182, 986, 1120, 1824 

v. Bobinson 1476 

9. Ward 816.681 

Nokes v. Fish 814, 1669 

v. Gibbon 906, 1600, 1669 

v Sepplngs 1772,1778 

Nolan v. Shannon 980 

Noland v. Turner 217 

v. Urmston 1680 

Nolen v. Woods 878 

Nonmagnetic Watch Co. v. As- 
sociation Horlogere Suisse 149, 

617 
Noonan v. Bradley 1472 

v. Cajedonia Gold M. Co. 402 

v. Lee 1042 

v Orton 887,888 

Norbury v. Calbeck 1419 

v. Meade 1469, 1467, 1496. 

1498 

Lord v. Kttchin 1662 

Norcom v. Rogers 8, 9, 10, 83, 84. 

86 
Norden v. Defries 673 

Norfolk , Duke of v. Worthy 196 
& W. R. Co. v. Postal Tel. 

Cable Co. 679, 1666 

Trust Co. v. Marye 1661 

Norman, Re 27, 81, 84 

v. Beaumont 1092, 1128 

v. Huddleston 1660 

v. Johnson 1406 

v. Stiby . 602 



Norman «. Yfllars 88, 179 

Norman Soort-Russeil9. London, 

Chatham and Dover By. 1682 

Normandie, The 988 

NormanTille 9. fltannlng 1699, 1670 

Norrls *. Bean 286 

9. Chambres 629 

9. CotterlU 449, 462 

9. Freeman 1129 

9. Haggin 884, 660 

9. Harris I860 

9, H tii 'trier 216 

9. Jackson 886, 1081, 1660 

9. Lake 1716 

v. Leman 248 

v. Le Nere 1166, 1676 

v. McLam 814 

9. Norrls 1410 

«. Ormond 1660 

9. Scott 824 

9. Wright 268 

Nortclifle 9. Warborton 280, 400, 

1UM 
North 9. Great Northern By. 

Co. 1880 

v. Great Western By. Co. 796, 

796 

e. Perrow 1677 

9. Peters 296 

9. Stafford, Earl of 684 

North American Coal Co. 9. 

Dyett 402, 1476, 1480. 

North Australian Territory Co., 
Re 720,942 

North Carolina Gold Amalg. 
Co. 9. N. 0. Ore Dressing 
Co. 1666 

North Carolina R. Co. 9. Drew 888 

North-Eastern Ry. Co. v. Mar- 
tin 661 

North London Ry. Co. 9. Great 
Northern Ry. Co. 211, bi J 

North, Lord v. Gray, Lord 1678 

North Penn. Coal Co. 9. Snow- 
den 1071 
North Rlrer Bank 9. Rogers 424 
North Rlrer Ins. Co. 9. Holmes 

1286 
North Staffordshire Steel Co. 9. 

Camoiae 1660 

North Western Bank 9. Nelson 601 
North Wheal Exmouth Min Co., 

Re 916, 1838 

North Whitehall 9. Kellar 974 

Northam, Ex parte 89 

Northampton Coal Co. 9. Mid- 
land Waggon Co. 27, 1474 
Northampton National Bank 9. 

Crafts 200 

Northcote 9. Duke 1668 

v. Northcote 764 

Northern Counties Ins. Co v. 

Whipp 674 

Northern Counties Union Ry. 

9. North-Eastern Ry. 1776 

Northern Illinois C. ft L Co. 9. 

Young 1684 

Northern Paclflo R. Co. 9. 

Amacker 2040 

9. Cannon 1618 

9 Herbert 1120 

9. Paine 818, 850 

9. Roberts 686 

9. Walker 834 

9. Whalen 1688 

Northern R. Co. 9. Ogdensbnrg, 

ftc. R. Co. 1661 

Northern Transportation Co. 9. 

Chicago 1686 

Northey 9. Northey 266 

9. Pearce 1661 

Northfleet Brick Co. , Re 1610 

Northman 9. Liverpool, ftc. Ins. 

Co. 68, 866, 1608, 1618 

Northop 9. Wright 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



ZCl 



Northumberland, Duke of v. 

Bowman 649 

v. Todd 749, 892 

Northop v. Hatch 688, 664, 667 

Northy v. Northy 1288 

Norton, Ex parte 116, 1029 

v. Berlin Iron Bridge Co. 149 

«. Cooper 807, »9, 1244. 1898, 

v. Florence Land Co, 629, 688 

v. Graver 1784 

v. Hepworth 448, 464 

9. Hiion 1081 

v. Ueador 186 

v. Nichols 1648, 1679, 1681 

9. Pritcbard 1051 

*. Russell 1408 

9. Stdnkopf 820, 826, 1420 

9. Talmadge 1088 

v. TurriU 642, 714 

«. Walsh 1120 

9. Warner 722, 728 

«. White 818,814,1612 

•.Wood* 146,769,1409 



[The references are to the ftar paging. J 

Norvall v. Pasooe 800 

Norway v. Norway 1486 

«. Rowe 849, 728, 1201. 1681, 

1717, 1727, 1768 

Norwich v. Brown 248 

Norwood v. Manning 1266 

v Norwood 674,846,12^2 

Nothard v. Proctor 1789 

Notley v. Palmer 1869, 1624 

Notddge 9. Priohard 1608 

9. Prince 862 

Nottingham Union Guardians 

v. Tomkinson 849 

Nottley v. Palmer 99, 1802, 2069 
Noune v Finch 1426 

Novosielski 9. Wakefield 1001,2222 
NoweU, Be 1040, 1694. 1697 

9. Whitaker 41, 166 

Nowgoog Tea Co. , Re 946 

Nowtend v. Glenn 1014 

Noyes 9. Crawley 060, 641 

v. Hall 216 

9. Inland * 8. C. Co. 840 

v. Rich 1786,1742,1760 



Noyes r.8awyer 194,212,406 
v. WUlard 607, 6U8 
Noysomhed, The Danish Ship 668 
Nudd 9. Powen 660 
Nugent 9. JensJnson 803 
9 Veteera 1846,1848 
Nulton't Appeal 8*8 
Nulton *. laaact 884 
Nuneaton Local Board v. Gen- 
eral Sewage Co. 10 
Nunn v. Barlow 1426 
9. D* Albuquerque 1649 
9. Hancock 1004 
9. Harvey 1858 
9. Nunn 1299 
Nurse v. Bonn 889 
v. Dnrnford 86, 807 
Nusbaum v. Stein 1784 
Nussbaum e. Heilbron 1666 
Nutting 9. Hebdln 682 
Nye v Maule 48, 1082 
Nysewandar ». Lowman 816 



O. 



9. Turquand 
9 Dalton 
Oakley v. O'Neill 
9. Patterson Bank 



Oata 9. Chapman 
O'Bannon r. M yer 
Ober 9. Gallagher 

r. Planting Co. 
Oberle e. Larch 
Obert v. Obert 
CBrinn v. Fry 
O'Brien «. Boi 

9. Creig 

9. Hltut 

9. Heeney 

9 Hulnah 



1600 

1607 

497,620 

1716 

1624 

699 

844 

149,191 

1786 

1866 

1161 

844 

1072, 1079 

1624 

844 

287 

1660 



v. Lewie 

9 Mahon 
9 Haidaod 
9 Manders 
p. Obrien 
v. Stephens 
v. Tyssen 



1042,1066,1486,1486 

1688 

162,476 

497 

1688 

1032 

642 

CBryne v. O'Bryne 1147 

O'Callaghan v. Barnad 1670 

v. Cooper 1416, 1421 

9. Murphy 980 

Oceleston v. Fullalove 229 

Ocean Ine. Co, e. Bigler 1678 

e. Field 663, 664 

Oeheenbein 9. Papelier 664, 1621 

O'Coooellv M'Namaro 1686 

w. The Queen 1091 

O'Connor* Sierra Nevada Co. 80, 

86,86 
v. Wlleon 1624 

O'Connor e. Cook 1076, 1128 

9, Cooke 1076 

9. Debraino 1718 

9. Delaney 840 

9. Malone 1119, 1187, 1189 

v. Mechanics' Bank 1746 

9. Richards 1287 



CDayv. Bowker 
Odd Fellows J. 

Merklin 
Oddiev. Brown 
9 Woodford 
OdeUv. Hart 
Odiorne v. Seevey 
Odom 9. Owen 



1029 
8. Ass'n 9. 

190 

1480 

1469 

604 

1164 

682,1648,1661 



Odorless Excavating Co. v. Lau 



1642 

Oelrkhs v. Spain 680, 1081, 1666 
0»*arrel*. CFarnrt 967 



O'FerraU, Ex parte 108 

Offoley 9, Morgan 686 

Often v. Harman 1408 

OfficUl Manager v. Cantafaa 449. 

462,468,889 

Official Receiver, Ex parte 676 

Offley v. Jenney 226, 227, 262 

Ogden 9. Battama 1282 

9. Davidson 1276 

9. Fossick 1667 

v. Gibbons 406, 2808 

9. Kip 1664 

v. Moore 418 

9. Ogden 720 

9. Thornton 417, 418 

9. Walker 1661 

Ogg v. Lelnart 1876 

OgUby v. Gregory . 906 

Ogilvle. Re 1035 

v. Hearne 88, 87, 680 

9. Jeaflreson 677 

v. Knox Ins. Co. 274, 287 

Oglanderv Baston 89,118 

v. Oglander 1268 

Ogle 9. Bell 1468 

9. Brandling 984 

v. Cook 876, 1116 

9. fige 1648 

9. Koerner 790 

Oglesby v. Attrlll 418, 669 

O'Grady v. Barry 402, 406 

Ogsbury «. La Farge 994 

O'Hagan, Ex parte 1847 

O'Halloran v. King 100 

O'Hara v. Elliott 1440 

9. McConneU 168, 189, 1467 

2879 

v. Shepherd 1688, 1637 

O'Hare 9. Downing 368, 828 

Ohio v Ellis 806, 844, 846, 847 

Ohio Central R. Co. 9. Central 

Trust Co. 1042 

Ohio, Ac R. Co. 9. Fitch 1742 

Ohio A Miss. R, Co. 9. Anderson 

1743 
Ohling 9. Ltritjens 650, 860 

Ohlsen 9. Terrero 906, 1100 

Ohm 9. San Franclsoo 646 

Ohrly 9. Jenkins 710 

Oil Run Petroleum Co. e. Gale 

1667 
O'Kesfc 9. Cannon 869 

9. Casey 1862 

O'Kelley 9. Gholston 1290 

O'Kelly 9. Bodkin 1211 

Oioott 9. Bynum 284 



Old*. Old 1680 

Oldaker v. Hunt 1686, 1688 

Oldalev. Whiteher 28 

Oldfleld 9. Cobbett 88. 89, 166, 

491, 606, 609, 796, 813, 1049. 

1464,1688' 

Old Folks* Society 9. Millard 991 

Oldham 9. Collins 90, 217 

9. Kboral 1647, 1686 

9 Hughes 97 

v. Oldham 1707, 1708 

9. Storehouse 1489, 1491 

Old Hickory Distilling Co. e. 

Bleyer 694, 986 

Olding 9. Poulter 824 

Olin v. Hungerford 1088 

Oliva v. Bunaforxa 884, 669 

Oliver 9. Bank of Tennessee 916 

«. Burt 1796 

9. Cunningham 216, 669 

9. Hamilton 1727, 1728 

v. Hunting 666 

9. Look 814 

9. Memphis, &e. R. Co. 1661 

9. Moore 886 

v. Mut Comm. Mar. Ins. Co. 1966 

9. Oliver 108. 1004 

v. Palmer 190, 885 

v. Piatt 884, 886, 846. 847 

9. Richardson 1166 

9 Wright 912 

Ollendorff 9 Black 46,1648 

OUerenshaw 9. Harrop 1019, 1021, 

1027 
Olley «. Fisher 866 

Olmetead o. Loomis 808, 1637 

Olnev 9. E*ton 1033 

Olwell 9 Montgomery 687 

Olyphant v. St. Louis Ore k 

Steel Co. 214 

Omaha 8 Ry. Co. v. Beeson 287 

O'Mahoney 9. Belmont 1716, 1748 

v. Burdett 1608 

v. Lucke 1748 

O'Malley v. Blease 1418 

Omaly 9. Owen 284 

O'Mealey 9. Wilson 60 

Omerod v. Hardman 988, 989, 1476 

Omychund 9. Barker 891 

Onderdonk v. Gray 1287, 1650 

O'Neal 9. Boone 860 

Oneida County Bank v. Bonney 684 

O'Nell 9. Hamill 1191 

9. Jones 1668 

v. Kansas City, 8. A M. R, 

Co. 1484 



2C11 



TABLE OF CASES: GLTED. 



pfc* 



ej*tov*sfas«pjfls)gJ 



Onge v. Traekwk 
Ongley •. HU1 
O'Niell t: Walker 
Onions v. Cohen 

e.Naish 

v. Tyrer 
Only*. Walker 
Onslow, Jfe 

«.' Wallis 



796,1467 

906 

1061 

886,1400 

1181 

1004 

847 

98 

1888,1666 

1485 



Ontario Bank v. Mumtml 197, 199 

v. Hoot 86% 667 

v. Schermerhorn 411 

w. Strong 467 

Onward Building Society* *. 

Smlthson 648 

Onyoo v, Washbourne 1744 

Ooddeenv Oakeley 1672,1676 

Oppenheim v. Leo Wolf 1661 

t\ Martin 877 

Oram.*. Dennlson 467. 624, 629 

Orange if. PtekfbrJ 849, 878; 881, 

961.2190 

Co. Bank v. Warden 1691 

Orchard's Caw 1069 

v. Hughes 1042 

Orcutt v. Orms 700 

Ordv Fawcett 1829 

9. Huddleston 680. 697 

v. Noel 1676, 1678 

v Smith 660 

Oregon Ry. & Na?. Co. v. Gates 1618 

v. Swinburne 726 

fc T. R, Co. v. Northern Pari- 

•e R, Co. 1617 

Oregonlan Ry. Co t>. Oregon Ry. 

A Nav. Co. 26, 854, 630 

O'Reilly *•. Brady 1816, 1816 

Orendorf v. Budlonr 648 

Orferd, Barl of v. Churchill 1426 
Orgainv. Ramsey 1076 

Organ v. Gardiner 1686 

*. Memphis & L. R. Go. 1160 

Orger 9. Sparke 1162 

Orient Steam NaT. Co v. Oeean 

Marine Ins. Co. 1770 

Oriental Bank v. Nicholson 662, 

1666,1671 
Steam Co. e\ Brlggs 698, 1490 
Original Hartlepool G. Go. v. 

Gibbs 1081 

Orkey e. Bend 296 

Orme, Be, Brans v. Maxwell 1425 
Ormerode. Bleaedale 1488 

Ormes «. Beadel 712 

Oroiond, Lady «. Hutchinson 889, 1669 



Marquis of v. Kymaersfey 
Ormsby, Be 

9. Bakewell 

p. Palmer 

v. Union Pacific Ry. Co. 
0*Rourke v. Central City Bom 
Co. 



1860 

1747 

886 

789 

642 



O'Bourke v. Cleveland 608 

9. Commissioner Jar Railways 1860 

v. RUbree 1492 

Orphan Asylum v. McCartee 793, 

1716,1721 

On v. Bowles 28 

e. Diaper 1658, 1667, 1668 

e. Dickinson 1668 

v. Littlafleld 1642* 1648, 1676. 

1677 

v Merrill 1676 

Onr W. D. Co. e Lnteomb* 1661 

Orrell o. Buach 684 

OrreU Genesml OoUhry, Jkc Co., 

Be 

Oirook e. Binnef 284 

Orserv. Hose 46 

Orthwein v. Thomas 861 

Ordgosa v. Brown 674 

Ortley v. Messere 88 

Orton v. Balnbrigge 794 

*. Smith 664, 1884 

Orwell v. Hinefalnbrookw, Lord 1213 
Osbaldeston v. Askew 1217 

Osbaldiston v. Crowther 177 

Osborne Heyer 1784,1785 

v. London Dock Co. 2047 

v Morgan 2001 



v. Thompson 
*. U. S. Bank 
Osborne, Re 
«. Barge 
v. Denns) 
9. Foreman 
* Harrey 



1096 

129, 1651, 1661 

109,1604 

H4, 1648, 1668 

16,81, 1481 

228,1286,1288 

1729,1784 



r. JuWou 686,686,691,692,698, 

698, 789,2083 

9. Lawrence 868 

*. London Dock Go. 942L 1108 

v. Morgan 92, 98 

to Rowlett 1401 

9. Taylor 225 

9. Usher 1461 

v. Vanhorn 1868 

9. Williams 668, 1676 

v. Wisconsin Central R. Co. 808 

Osbonrnv Fallows 267,269 

Osgood v. Breed 874 

O'Shea 9. Q'Shea 1069. 1886 

O'Sheehy ft OSheehy 448 

Osmaston v. Land Jinsiishiis 894 

Osmond v. Tindall 860, 961 

Ostell «. LsPsge 864, 800 

Osterberg v. Union Trust Co. 1288 

Gutle v. Christian 1611 

Ostrander 9. Webber 680 

Oswald, Be 1144 

9. Kasopmann 149 

Oteri v. Scaiso 662. 1880. 1860 

Other v. Smurthwalte 824, 881, 911 

Otis 9. Lindsay 1269 

9. Shants 642 

*. Wells 467 



Ottey •. Penssj» 1804.1805,1807, 

1908,1809,1810 

OttleyevGUby 1423,14*7 

Otto t, Unttford 1469. 1470 

Ottwayv. Wing lit 490 

Ousteyv. Anstrntber 1278 

Oathwaite v. OuthwaUa • 1167 

Oakland v.. 0uttoa4 854 

Outlaw •.Cherry 1617 

Outran v. Outran) 1102 

Ontwell 9. Van Winkle 120 

Outwit, Re 1604 

Overend & Gurney Co. e. Gibb 28 

OTorington e. Ward 90J, 818, 1722 

Orerly v. Tintoa 248 

Overman v. Overman 1526 

Wheel Co. *. Elliott HJckorr 

Cycle Co. 814 

Ovejrstrcet e. Bate 660, 644 

v. Thompson 926 

Orerton v. Banister 634 

«. Btgelow U76, 1476 

9. Bolton 1267 

e. Memphis, *c. R Co* 1X84 

OTery v. Leighton 761 

OTey, Re, Broadbent v. Barrow 18 

Oringtoo v. Smith 1081 

Owden v. Apel 1671 

v. Bankhead 402, 1017 

v. Campbell 109 

v. Cooper 1579 

v. Fields 1689 

v. Ford 1668 

v. Foalks IS* 

v. Griffith 1388, WW, 1468, 1464 

«. Homan 1716, 1717 

v. Jones 888 

9. Nodln 844 



9. 8tate 
v. Thomas 
sv Warbnrton 
Ik Wynn 
Owens v Dawson 



12ft 

849,881,961 

1181 

1828 

8tt 



«-P*ik«nson 186, 2a&, 286, 1208, 

1210 

9. Bmmens 894 

9. Uanney 62 

Owfag's Case 292, 1004, 1607, 1721 

Owingse Norwood 917 

e. Owings 1476 

9. Rhodes 1661 

9. Worthington 1468 

Oxburgh v. Flneham 1640 

Oxenden e. Cropper 82 

Oxenham v. Bsdaiie 706 

QxJbrd v. Reid 109 

and Cambridge, the Uatrer- 

sWei of e Richardson 1642. 

1648 
Oyster v. Oyster 
Oystermouth 8j. 6* T. Go. «. 

Morris 841 

Oa^ Land Go. tvLec*art718« 1081 



P. 



Pace 9. Bartles 720 

9. Marsden 168 

«. Potter 686 

Pacific Hotel Co v. Ueb 1661 

Nat. Bank v. Mixter 1661 

Ry. Co. 9. Atlantic * P. R. 

Co. 216, 884, 660 

9. Cutting 991, 1648 

v. Ketchum 1504, 1716 

9. Missouri Pan. Ry. Go. 1684 

* Wade 1071 

Steam Co. 9. Gibbs 26, 1666 

Packer 9. Packer 96 

v. Wyndham 116,124,126 

Packham v. Newman 1182 

Packington's Case 1638 

Paeklngton v. Paokington 1678 



Paekwood v. Maddison 716 

Paddock 9. Lance 860 

Paddon v. Winch 1444 

Padgett v. Baker 1666 
Padley if. Lincoln W at er works 

Co. 297,671,721,722 

Padwick 9. Hurst 860. 651, 1929 

v, Piatt 206, 802 

Page v. Bennett 1659 

v. Foster 1248, 1246 

9. Lever 677 

*. Oloott 827 

e. Page 88.1184 

n. Townsend 801, 802, 815 

9. Webster 1160 

v. Wbidden 884 

f . Young 680 



Page Woven* wire Feose 

Land 
Paget e. Bde 

v. Foley 
Paige 9. Smith 

v. Willett 

Palnv. — 
Paine 9. Edwards 

9. Hutchinson v 

v. Noelke 

9. Schenectady Ins. Co. 

* 8toenm 

9. Warren 
PakJngton e. Benbow 
Pale «. sUtaheil 
Palk,iZs 



Co. v. 



1842 



658 

1748, 1762 

869 

180.681 

796,1266 

S66 

864 

617 
1666 
1406 

124 



TABLE OF CA8B8 CITBB. 



(Tna 



in to the eter paging J 



v. da**, Loift 4aMH 



"4.296. 

479,883 



*. Ptevens 
♦. TraTers 
v. Tiuwur 
«. Truby 
«. Van Doran 
«. Vsngaan 
w. Walesby 
«. Wright 



— -*, Re 970, 979 

v. Aylesbury, Lord 484, 940. 1117 
v. CarUale, Earl of 912, ISO 

«. Flower 1624 

1276 
1288, 1411 
•.Locke 821,1040,1401 

*. McCormiek 149 

•. Mallet 212, 1666 

•. Marin 1461 

v. Oakley 1858 

*. Palmer 489,446 

». Perry 1868 

•. Raoken 1881 

1748 
419 
1620 
1101 
1770 

HBO i BOO, IWd 

1780 

88.86,807,806 

1723. 1825 

Palo Alto Banking Go. o. M afaar 1620 

Paakeyr Banm 1076 

PanneU v. Hurley 1688 

w. Tayler 1704, 1710 

». Tfcyter 180 

Panto e. Bethel 998 

Penton v. Lebertonoao 86 

9. Tom 848 

o. Williams 1107 

Paper Bottle Co, Re 27 

Paper Staining Co., Rm parte 167 

Paradise t>. Sbeppard 87, 88 

Inragon & Spero Mining Co , 

Re 1041,1044 

Patamore v. Oreentlade 1276 

Pttray 9. Hodgson 1868 

Ptfrberry v. Qoram 294 

Pardee v. De Cola 866 

•. Steward 214 

Pavdo •. Bingham 647, 462, 1468. 

Pare v. Clegg 241, 419, 1784 

Paredee e. Uaudi 986 

Parat v. Lawless 862 

Parientev. Bensuaan 414, 770. 776 
Pari**. OUham 1660,1664,1566, 



v Hnghes 1194 

Pariah v. Poole 1440 

9 Sloan 841 

Park v. Ballentme 406 

9. Johnson 986, 989,-990, 996, 

1018 

9 Meek 994 

9. New York, ko.*\.4lo. 1748 

9. Wiley 1770 

Parke e. Brown 1081 

9. Christy 786, 760 

Parker, Re 1784, 1794 

9. Aleoek 667, 689, 692, 3095 

9 AnfeU 1186 

e- Ash 662 

9. Backus 1784 

v. Baker 891 
9. Barker 1861, 1662, 1668, 1666 

9. Beavans 826 

9. Blighton 1846 

a. Blyttunore 697 

9. Brltt 1667, 1626 

•.Browning 1748,1748,1760 

9. Garter 478, 676 

9. Concord 880 

v. Daefes 1918 

v.Dawson 606 

•.Bee 1027 

•• Downing 1081, 1098 

•. Dunn 1741, 1762 

». faMie 727 

•.Tlagg 697 

9. Foote 1688 

9. Fort 408, 1669 

9. Franeto 1694 



Anker 9. fuller 214 

*. Grant 402, 424, 624, 52ft, 1026 
9. Great Northern *y. Oo. 1667 
•. Great Western Ry. Co. 1129 
•.Hayes 417,961 

v. Hutchinson 1267 

9. Leehmeia 117 

9. Lloyd 449 

•. Logan 986 

v. MoKenna 1899 

•. M'WiUlam 1101 

9. Marco 887 

9. May 7, 9, 10 

•. Moore 1720 

«. Morrell 842, 984, 1008. 1082, 
1467! 1476, 1491, 2886 
•. Newland 1676 

•. Nickerson 680, 1071, 1078. 

1802.1820 

V. N Mfton 86», 426 

«. Nightingale 1664, 2818 

«. Parker 1411, 1610, 1708, 17 18 

•. Partlow 1283 

v. Refers 228 

*. PheUeplaee 843 

•_ Ringham 1616 

«. Simpson 796 

9. Small 216 

w. Thornton 1096, 1128 

«. Watkins 1889 

• Williams 1667, 1678 

v. Wlnniplseojne Lake Co. 660, 680 

Parkersburg v. Brown 828 

Partus v. Gorton 840 

v. Stevens 1148 

•. White 1407, 1417 

Partes' Charity, Re 1866 

Paskbunt v. Cory 1291 

v. Kinsman 1687377. 1679. 

1716. 1721 2888 

9. Lowten 668, 666, 667, 677, 879, 

942,948,944 

•.Race 1008 

v. Van Cortlandt 2278 

Parkin v. Moore 920 

Parkins v. Hawkshaw 676 

Parktnsoo v. Chambers '88, 88, 486, 

1822,1831 

•. Prencfe 866 

v. Hanbury 41, 42, 48. 871, 666. 

792, 981, 1440, 1479 

9. Ingram 1196, 1197 

9. Lecraa 668 

v. Lucas 1881, 1642 

9. Potter 142 

•. Trousdale 768, 1676, 1677 

v. Wentworth 49, 52 

Parkman •. Aleardl 290 

v. Welch 846 

Parks v. Doty 159 

•. Jaekson 1671 

•. Parks 1684 

v. Backer 641 

Parlement Beige, The 141 

Parlett v. Guggenheimer 1848 

Parley's Park 8. M. Co. •. Kerr 314 

Parmalee v. Lewis 1577 

Parmelee v. Bgan 237, 248. 659 

Parmiter v. Coupland 1107 

•. Parmiter 1460, 1461, 1480 

Parmtey v. 8t. Louis, Ac. R. Co 1661 

Parnell v. Hingston 191 

•.Price 1869 

o. Wood 896, 1817 

Parrv AH -Gen 337 

v. Jewell 382 

v. London, Chatham e\ Dover 

Ry. Co. 678 

v. Lovegrove 999, 999 

Pnrrlllw.Meltmley 425 

Parrot 9. Panlet 828 

9. Treby 1896,1416 

Parrott, Re, Walter v. Parrott 108 

e. Quernan 1044 

•. Shelland 664, 670 

Parry, Re 1611 

*. Ashley 1776 



noiii 



Patry •. Owen 661, 668 

•. Rogers 1678 

Parsons, Re, Stockley «. Parsons 316 
Parsons v. Dunne 96, 97 

*. Greenville R. Co. 688 

•. Groome 1941, 1696 

v. Hardy 782 

•. Heston 824, 862 

v. Howard 149, 191. 216 

•. Neville 216 

w. Parsons 91, 120 

«. Robertson 1824 

9. Robinson 1029 

v. Spooner 278 

Parsons Water Go. v. HU1 418 

Partee v. Kortreoht 646 

•. Thomas 148. 814 

Partington v. Att-Oea. 201, 260 
•. Bailey 199, 808 

v. Booth 1688,1686 

v. Reynolds 96. 27, 88, 89, 869, 
796, 1260, 1870, 1678, 1679, 
1681,1606 
Partridge*. Foster 1087 

•. Hayeraft 426, 866, 878, 414. 
761,764,770,771,776 
v. Jackson 812 

•. Perkins 1676 

v. Usborne 1678, 1582 

Pasoall v. Soost 948, 1652 

Paseault v. Goehran 1716 

Paschall, In re 1846 

v. Thusston 1685 

Paeon* v. Pascoe 127 

Pashler 9. Vincent 167 

Pasleyw. MoConnen 1061 

Pasmane. Montague 860 

Pawnor*, Re 48, 1606 

Passlngham «. Sherborn 1888 

Paasmore v. Moore 166, 1286 

Passumpsio Savings Bank*. Na- 
tional Bank 1661 
Patch 9. Batten 280 
•. Gray 1081 
v. Ward 178, 878, 280, 1002, 1021. 
1881, 1899, 1684, IBS 
1886,2069 
Patching •. Aamett 1433 
9. Dubbins 1664, 1681 
•. Gubbins 1664 
Patent Type Co. • Walter 1642, 2316 
Peterson 9. Long 280 
•. Scott 1480 
9. Zacharlah 1096 
& Hud. R. R. Co. •. Jersey 
City 866,645 
Patman 9. Harland 674 
Paton 9. Langley 266 
•.Majors 828,1666 
v. Rogers 990, 1214 
Patrisk, Re 1483 

9. Andrews 17B 

9. Blackwell 745, 726 

9. Clay 1267 

•. Harrison 1B51, 1666 

9. Isenhart 878. 690 

•. Jackson 1667 

•. Joyner 1618 

9. McManus 864 

v. Warner 1042 

9. White 296 

Pattee 9. Harrington 114 

Patten -•. Oilley 1029 

v. Moor 676 

Patten Paper Co 9. Kaukauna 

Waterpower Co. 808, 834 

Patterson 9. Bang! 1668 

9. Bloomer 1081 

9. Clark T716 

9. Cobb 648 

9. Bakin 1120 

9. Gaines 846 

9. Kellogg 884 

•. Kingland 1061 

•. Lrnde 26 

v. Miller 1618, 1619 

.♦. Patterson 0tt, 664, 996 



XC1V 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[The 



are to tit* star paging.] 



Patterson v. Bead 


1130 


c. Scott 


848 


v. Slaughter 


674, 778, 1578 


«. Stapler 


197 


Pattlson v. Hull 


1660 


Pattern t. Ashley 


844 


v. Benelni 


287 


v. Cone 


888,867 


v. Olata 


884,662 



v. J. M. Brunswick Jt Balke 

Co. 787 

«. Overton 251 

Paty v. Simpson 414, 770, 776 

Patty v. Middleton 674 

Paul v. Baltimore &, 0. & C. R. 

Co. 867 

*. Paul 1115,1147 

v. York 1865 

Pauli v. Von Melle 1568 

Paulison v. Van Iderstein 109 

Panll v. Mortimer 1722 

Panlling v. Creagh 1548 

v. Sturgis 845 

Pauncefort v. Linooln, Lord 888 

Parte v. Aooort 180, 500, 681 

Pawlet v, Deiarel 100 

v. linooln, Bishop of 310, 298 

Paweon v. Smith 708 

Pazton e. Bell 32 

v. Douglas 286. 888. 664, 565, 

1182, 1616, 16lf 

v. Wood 101 

Payne, Ae, Handle v. Payne 87, 

111,796 
v. Baxter 1748 

9. Beeeh 62, 159, 606, 1577 

v. Berry 802,648,547,657 

v. Ballard 1556 

v. Coles 868 

v.Collier 1778,1774 

v. Compton 270, 569 

9. Cowan 1667 

v. Dicker 68,59,698,1468 

v. Brans 1416 

v. Hathaway 645 

v. Hook 149, 813 

v. Ibbotson 1100 

«. Kansas, Ac. Ry. Co. 680, 1688 
v. Little 85, 86, 69, 110, 112, 415, 

905,1428 

v. Long 1795 

v. O'Shea 1621 

v. Parker 228, 1417, 1420 

v. Richardson 287 

Payne* *• Coles 1280 

Paynter v. Carew 794, 796, 1754 

v. Houston 1212, 1298 

Payson v. Lamson 680, 1618 

P. Caland, The 1508 

Pea v. Waggoner 648 

Peabody v. Flint 22, 26, 144, 288, 

1640 

v. Hamilton 45 

v. Kendall 1008, 1078 

9. Norfolk 1660, 1987, 2064 

v. Tarbell 1081 

Peace, Re 1847 

Peace fc Waller, Re 87, 186 

Peacham 9. Daw 1774 

Peaohie v. Twyeerosse 586 

Peacock, Ex parte 157 

Peacock, Re 109 

e. Bedford, Duke of 776, 778, 788 

v. Colling 248. 816 

9. Brans 1886 

v. Lowe 1557 

«. Monk 286, 1211 

v. Peacock 1727, 1728 

v. Penson 280 

«. Saggers 224 

v. Sierier 804 

Peacock's Case 928 

Peakev HlghneJd 1077 

v. Ledger 228, 224 

«, Peake 1071 

v. Toung 1279 

Pearce, Ex parte 167 



Pearce Re 


1798 


v. Boggs 


1078 


v. Crutchfleld 


1660,1686 


v. Foster 


678 


v. Gray 


068, 1001, 1690 


v. Grove 


779 



«. Lindsay 1026,1026,1027,1440, 

1488 

v. Morris 1886 

v. Newlyn 18& 

9. Nix 846 

v. Pearce 81, 1285 

v. Piper 25 

v. Rice 694. 694 

v. Watts 1894 

v. Wrighton 809, 813 

Pearoy v. By bee 1164 

Peareth v. Peareth 661 

Pearl v. Nashrille 651 

Pearne v. Lisle 1699, 1708 

Pears v. Laing 657 

Pearse, Ex parte 1882, 1457 

v. Brooks 1042 

v. Cole 111. 1695 

v.Dobinson 060,700,769,1019, 

1584 

v. Green 1869 

v. Laing 652 

v. Peane 848, 854, 677, 

1884 

Pearson, Re 149 

v. Bank of England 148 

v. Belohier 41, 48 

9. Belabor 42 

9. Cardon 1661,1565 

9. Carr 1029 

9. Darrington 1191 

v. Knapp 1182, 1816 

9. Northern R. Co. 780 

v. Pearson 1427 

v. Rowland 966 

v. Tower 645 

v. Ward 988,987,988 

9. Wilcox 898 

9. Wolfe 42 

Venrt, Bx parte 1008 

9. Taylor 892, 898 

Pease v. Benson 1886 

v. Cheesbrough 286,248,268 

v. Fletcher 1719 

v. Pattinson 13 

v. I'ease 670 

Pear lee v. Barrey 1028 

Peatley, Re 664 

v. Barney 865 

Peatfleld v. Bonn 1842 

v. Barlow 1486 

v. Barrow 1846 

Peay v. Duncan 697 

9. 8hen?k 1725 

Peck 9. Ashley 570, 1557 

■ 9. Burgess 669 

9. Crane 1618 

v. Elder 808, 1635 

9. Gaither 1889 

v. Hamlin 1188 

v. Henderson 254 

9. Hosier 48 

v. Hunter 850 

v. Mallows 821 

9. Peck 878, 879, 782 

9. Sexton 552 

9. Stimpson 1411 

9. Trinsmaran Iron Co. 1727 

Peckettv Short 1186 

Peckam 9. Harerhill, North 

Parish In 144 

v. Peckham 1852 

Pedder v. Pedder 880, 1525 

Pedrkk v. White 1528, 1524, 1581 , 

1585 

Peek 9. Boone 676 

9. Gurney 1508 

9. Matthews 1654 

v. Spencer, Bart 406, 940 

Peel, Re 88 

Peeler 9. Lathrop 848 



Peer v. Cockcrow 1481, 1467, 1470. 

1485, 1607, 1508. 1627. 1689, 

1640, 1642, 1646, 1646 

Peerce v. Alley 1666 

9. Athey 1061 

Peers v. Ceeley 1888 

9. Needham 1166, 1167, 1159 

Peggv. Oapp 444 

v. Daris 634, 626 

9. Wisden 1376 

Pegge «. Burnell 940 

Pefie «. Stoddart 412, 421, 1882, 

2114 

Peircec. Graham 1680 

9. Watkin 877 

9. Young 1186 

Pelham 9. Edelmeyer 814, 848 

9 Gregory 264 

Lord v. Harley, Lord 1061 

9. Newcastle, Dochess of 1068, 

1066, 1067, 1069 

Pen 9. Elliott 1607 

v Northampton Ry. Co. 1781 

Pellatt v. Nichols 824, 1598 

Pellet r. Shepherd 1961 

Pellew «. 780 

Pelling v. Goddard 1770 

Pells v. Brown 386 

9. Coon 818 

Pelly 9. Wathen 887, 1889, 1843. 

2218 

Pelton 9. Harrison 100, 187. 1408 

Pember 9. Mathers 848, 846, 848 

Pemberton, Ex parte 1842 

Re 1469 

9. Langmore 481 

9. M'Gill 187, 446, 707, 774 

v. Marriott 97 

v. Pemberton 876, 1134, 1126, 1871 

v. Popham 286 

9. Riddle 199 

v. Topham 794 

Pence v. Pence 190 

Pender v. Luahlngton 26, 241, 342 

Pendergast v. Greenfield 1071 

Penderfl 9. Penderll 958 

Pendlebury v. Walker 588 

Pendleton 9. Bank of Kentucky 24 

9. Dalton 669, 860, .668 

9. Raton WO 

9. Brans 618. 625, 526 

v. Fay 1609. 1628, 1587, 1546. 

1577, 1678, 1679, 1580, 15X1 

v. Rooth 264. «61 

v. Russell 1743 

Penedo v. Johnson 20 

Penfold v. Kelly 163, 429, 458 

v. Mould 97 

9, Nunn 207 

9. Ramabottom 696 

Peninsular Bank, Re 1471 

v. Darther 1626 

Peninsular Iron Co. v. Stone 1427 

Penkethman v. White 1827 

Penn v. Baltimore, Lord 30, 186, 

362,1627 
9. Blbby 1081, 1120, 1121, 1127. 

1648 

9. Craig 1272 

v. Jack 1081, 1106, 1107, 1648 

9. ToUeson 1270, 1286, 1290 

Penn. Bank's Estate 1820 

Pennefather 9. Short 1068, 1069 

Penneil v. Darison 918 

v. Deflell 69 

v. Home 66, 885 

t?. Roy 1616, 1628 

Penney v. Goode 1836, 1827 

9. Todd 1741 

Pennle v. Reis 645 

Penniman v Hill 1102 

v. Hollis 364, 266 

9. Norton 1608, 1623 

Pennington 9, Alrln 87, 111, 113 

v. Beeehey 678, 8096 

9. Brinsop Hall Coal Co. 1687, 1688 

9 Buckler 224,1431 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XCV 



[The references an to the star paging.] 



Pssralngtoo *. Gittings 



v. MeWhlrtar 
v. Muncaster, Lord 
ennock r. Eat 

*. Neff 



MO 

892 
200 
1302,1811 
369, 879, 883 
646,916 
149, 468, 629 
Pennsylvania e. Wheeling Bridge 

Co. 10, 1676, 1662 

Pennsylvania Ins. Go. v. Beuerle 

216,256 
v. Jacksonville R. Co. 1748 

Pennsylvania R. Go v. Allegh- 
eny A. Co. 661 
w. Davenport 684 

1687 

286,794 

800 

821 

824 

1614 

968,1628 

1846 



Fanny v. Beavan 
v. rands 
v. Hoper 

9. 

9 

9. Penny 
9. Pretor 



9. Watts 901, 261, 676, 1117, 2089 
Pearicev. Parker 668 

9. William 996, 1366 

Peuroth 9. Peuroth 72 

Penraddock v. Hammond 678 

Feneeoneaa v. Ponssnneau 886 

Peneotd ». Pensotti 1468 

Penran v. Lee 1096 

Peatiarge v. Klrby 680, 1427 

9. Pentlarge 702 

Pentney e. Lynn Paving Comm'rs 

1081, 1619, 1660 
Fmrrtll v. Luseombe 668 

People e. Albany & Vl R. Co. 

1668 
9. AUiaon 1841 

9. Auditor-General 1881 

•. Ballard 10 

1687 



9. Barnes 
«. Barton 



9. Bennett 

9. Berry 

9. Bonebard 

v. Brooklyn, ke. By. Co. 

v. Brower 



1699 

10 

1042 

864 

1614 

10 

1690 



9. Buflklo Common Council 1461 
9. Canal Board 1660 
9. Cbee Km 646 
9. Clark 12 
9. Cole 1841 
v Conklia 46 
9. Cooper 646 
9. Craft 443 
9. Davie 961 
9. Donohue 1608 
v. Dwyer 1461 
9. Blmer 470 
9. Globe M. Inf. Co. 1282 
9. Goodriek 1841 
v. Harris 676, 678 
9. Huron Circuit Judge 1676 
e>. IngersoU 10 
9. Jacob 12 
9. Jones 1766 
9. Kirkpatrkk 1881 
v. Leary 1841 
9. Lindsay 1461 
v. MeCmnber 864 
v. MeKenna 824 
9 McLaln 1160 
9, Mahon 673 
v. Marine Court Justfees 1606 
9. Mather 664, 960 
9. M ereien 1860 
9. Met. Tel Co. 10 
9. Morrill 886, 841 
9. Mutual Benefit Aaioeiatat 1746 
9 Mut. Union Tel. Co. 10 
9. North San FrancJseo Home- 
stead Ass. 12 
•>. Norton 1786 
9. PMffer 1461 
•. Purrianos 12 



People 9. Bice 


1461 


v. Rogers 


1047 


v. Blmonson 


10 


e. Slinev 


676 


9. Spalding 


891 


v. Spaulding 


1686 


v Stapleton 


1069 


v. Sturtevant 


1684 


v. 8wlft 


728 


v. Tweed 


10 


e. Van Bursa 


1686 


9. Wheeler 


470 


v. Wilson 


1069 


9. Wong Wang 
v. Wood 


646 

646 


People's Bank v. Paneher 1784 


Gas Co. v. Truer 


1620 


Savings Bank v. Bates 669 


8. Bank v. Look 


1661 


Peoria Ry. Co. v. Mitchell 1468 


v. Sherts 


1660 


Peperv Pordyos 


198, 1427 


Pepper e. Green 


146 


e. Hensell 


62,168,681 


9. Pepper 


1028,1080 


Peppitt, Re 


192 


Perceval v. Perceval 


1482 


Percival v. Caney 


178,781,841 


9. Dunn 


199 


9. Stamp 


1710 



Lord and Lady v. Phlpps 1648 
Percy v. Percy 112 

Perdue v. Brooks 1168, 1886 

Perine v. Dunn 669. 994, 998, 

2222,2226 

9. Swaine 182, 764, 784, 961 

Pering, Re 188 

Perishal v. Squirs 48 

Perkin v. Bradley 291 

v. Proctor 68 

Perkins v. Bradley 66, 66, 140, 147 

9. Brock 848 

9. Collins 896, 1619 

v. Rde 1276 

9. Elliott 186 

v. Poumlquet 987, 989, 1492 

v. Guy 674 

v. Hays 418 

9. Heodryz 818, 686, 779, 986, 

112J 

9. McGavoek 1881 

«. Nichols 848, 982 

9. Partridge 1678, 1679 

v. Perkins 1467, 1846 

Perktnsoo v. Trousdale 720 

Perks v. Stothert 1463 

v. Stottart 908 

v. Wycombe Ry. Co. 13H0 

Perkynse. Baynton 1269 

Perls v. Saalfeld 1666 

Perot v. Cooper 669 

Perpetual Curate, Ex parte 1408 

Perrin v. Lebus 1279 

9. Lepper 196, 1168 

Perrine v. Cooley 861 

Perringv Tucker 1097 

Perrot v. Perrot 1630 

Perry, Re 86 

if. Barker 284 

9. Carr 861 

9. Doniet 1707 

9. Hamilton 1660 

v. Jenklus 1642 

9. Knott 219, 968, 272 

9. Littlefleld 686 

v. Maraton 660 

9. Merchants' M. Ins. Co. 669 

v. Michaux 1677 

9. Oriental Hotel Co. 1716 

9. Parker 1629, 1687, 1664 

v. Perry 166 402 

v. Phelips 1478, 1676, 1377, 1680, 

1631, 1615 
9. Phillips 1014 

9. 8hipway 1163 

V. Truefltt 1649 

9. Turpin 486, 716 



Perry 9. Walker 40, 41, 42, 48, 1694, 

1626 
*. Weller 1667 

Perry, Ac Iron Mining Co., Be 164 
Perryclear v. Jacobs 122 

Person v. Merrick 214 

v. Nevitt 1684 

Perton, He 861 

Peru, Republic of v. Wegnelin 20 
Peruvian Guano Co. v. Bock- 

woldt 688 

Pesheller v. Hammett 698 

Pestel 9. Primm 1648 

Petch 9. Dalton 280, 262 

Peter v. Thomas-Pater 160, 229 

Peterborough 9. Norfolk 868 

Peters e. Delaplains 989 

9. Grote 1861 

9. Lilly 89 

v. Neely 890 

9. Rosseter 1002 

v. Rule 1079, 1060 

v. Van Lear 841 

Petersburg Savings Co. ». Man- 
hattan Fire las Co. 920 
Peterson v. Bailiff 68 
o. Peterson 1261 
v. Poignant 294 
v. Simpkins 890, 1642 
Petit v. Chevelier 2819 
Petley v. Bastern Counties Rail- 

way Co. 1667 

Peto v. Attorney-General 628 

v. Brighton, Uckfleld, & Tun- 
bridge Wells Railway Co. 1660 
9. Hammond 278 

Petrakion v. Arbsely 1381 

Petre v. Duncombe 230, 279 

v. Petre 676, 1626, 2069 

Lord, Ex parte 1860 

Pettes v. Bingham 861, 862 

Pettibone v. Derringer 918 

v. Hamilton 803 

9. 8tevens 1288 

PetUt 9. Balrd 190 

9. Candler 726 

v. Cooper 991 

9. Hope 646 

9. Shepherd 1624 

Petttt'a Estate. Re 61, 167 

Petty v. Daniel 1698 

v. Pogle 834 

9. Hannum 682 

9. Lonsdale 489, 804 

9. Mailer 87 

v. Petty 1798 

v. Taylor 848 

Peogh 9. Porter 141 

Pewabic Mining Co. «. Mason 1271, 

1812 

Peyton v. Bond 76 

9. Green 1230 

v. McDowell 1882 

9. Smith 1282, 1350 

Pmnscbmidt e. Kelly M. Co. 1120, 

1580 

Pfeaff 9. Jones 1019 

Pfeifferv. Rlehn 1147 

Pfrlts 9. Pfelts 1018, 1677 

Pflngstv Senn 1688 

Pflster v. Wade 1561 

Pfohl v. Simpson 248, 808 

Phelan, Re 1791 

9. Ganebin 1748 

Phelps v. Elliott 60, 818, 402, 700 

v. Garrow 604 

9. Green 1161, 1168, 1166 

v Harding 1624 

9. Hartwell 860, 851 

v. McDonald 629 

9. OHve 726 

9. Peabody 1640 

9. Phelps 444 

9. Protbero 884, 779. 780, 781, 

817, 1490, 1491 , 1618, 1626, 1684 

9. Sproule 262, 667, 689, 2095 

Phone's Trusts, Re 860, 1796 



xcvi 



TABLE OF 'CA'SBS CITED. 



Iffha 



> are to the 



fl 



EUteMpUaA. Ott.«.'Ono|Mr UK 

lb Trenton R. Co. 0. Simpson 2897 

Philanthropic Society 0. Hobson 1422 

Philhowar v. Tod 406 

Philippe 0. Clark 1622 

Philipt v. Atkinson 1729 

v. Darble 1546 

47. Gibbons €80 

v. PhUippa 920,821,826,860. 

4188,8118,1111 
v. Turner 1250 

Phlllipo*. Mannings 862 

•Philllpott's Charity, Me 1864 

Phillips, £* parte 1866 

He 108 

v. Allen 1929 

«. Barbaroux 1896 

*. Beal 644 

v. Belden 668 

v. Benson 1271, 1274 

v. Boardman 1689 

v. Cam 894,984,1673 

v. Chamberlaine 677 

0. Davtes 1407 

v. Earner 1102 

0. Biland 1716, 1720 

v. Brans 1886 

0. Ford 860 

0. Vuvber 60 

0. Goding 416 

v. GutterMfi 1266 

e. HasseU 91 

«. Hatfield 1180, 1187 

0. Hudson 289, 1490 

0. Hunter 61 

0. Kearney 687 

v. Kingfield 960 

v. Langhorn 098 

«. Lsavitt 216 

t>. Library Co. 149 

v. Martin 1129 

v. Mulllnga 862 

«. Negley 1684 

o. Phillips 42. 661- 674. 676, 690. 
712, 1008, 1488, 1929, 2246 
0. Prentice 894 

«. Prerost 720, 721 

«. Prichard 1664 

«. Richardson 846 

v. Royal Niagara-Hotel Oo. 878 
v. Rudle 1482 

0. 8chool«y 860 

v. 8inclalr 661, 640 

0. ByWester 1668 

0. Symes 869 

v. Thomas 1961 

v. Thompson 962, 986, 1161, 2886 
0. Warde 890 

v. Wesson 287 

0. WUletts 1106 

Phillipson v. Gatty 918, 220 

v Gibbon 988, 992, 1896 

Phllps, Be 86 

PhioUj*. Augusta &K R Oo. 1766 
Phtppen v. Brown 1610, 1624 

Phipps v. Bishop of Bath and 
Wells 1716 

v. Henderson 1201 

v. Jackson 1667 

v Kelly 60 

v. 8edgw!ck 186 

Phoenix Ins. Co. 0. Abbott 286 

v. Day 686 

M. L. Ins. Co. v. Hlneetey 660 
Nat Bank v. Cleveland Co. 618 
Phosphate Sewage Co. v. Hart- 
moat 298 
«. Molleson 688, 684 
Piatt-*, Olirer 608, 616, 617, 683. 

702 
Pteard v. mne 110, 187, 1411, 1908 



Plekanoe, Re 
Packard 0. MatUsston 

v. Roberts 
Ptekel v. IsgrJgg 
Pickens 0. KnCaty 



PWkens e. McCoy 1878 

Pickering 0. Cape Town Ry. Oo. 1469 

v. Dawson 1184 

v.Day 648 

v. Rly, Bishop of 1666 

«. Hanson 4144 

v. Pickering 869. 667 

«. RIgby 1819 

0. Stephenson 26, 243 

0. Williams 211 

Picket v. Merchants' Bank 1840 

Pickett* Chilton 629.997 

«. Ferguson 1618 

«. Hewlinga 1820 

0. Loggan 796. 1028, 1467 

Pickibrd v. -Brown 286, 1428, 1488. 

1612, 1624, 2069 

0. Krrlngvjn 807 

«. Hunter 688, 685, 660, 797 

Pickle 0. Hftotte 164 

Pkqaet v. Augusta 418 

Swan 287, 448 

Pletou 0. Lockett 2066, 2088 

Pldcocke 0. Booltbee 177 

Pidding 0. How 1649, 1668 

Piddock 0. Brown 1184 

Piddocke 0. Smith 176 

Piddock 0. Boultbee 78, 1696 

Piedmont, fcc. Ins. Co.tr Maury 287 

Pierce 0. Beattie 1286 

0. Brady 1679 

0. Burnham 89 

0. Bquftable life Asa. Society 1621 

0. Faunae 190, 246, 287, 1240, 

1242, 1248, 1246, 1246, 1248. 

1262, 1260, 1298, 1971 

0. Feagans 684 

0. Franks 1899 

0. Gates 844 

0. Hammond 1817 

0. Lemeun 1961 

0. McCleUan 714 

0. Nichols 969 

0. Thornly 120 

Union Pac Ry. Co. 1656 

0. Wast 422, 829, 834 

0. Wilson 1484 

Piarcy 0. Adams 866 

0. Boskott 1617 

Pierl v. Shfeldsboro' 689 



1846, B47 
467 



Plarpont 0. Fowle 


mm. fa 


0. Hanisrille 


A IV A 

1660 


Piers 0. Piers 


1608 


Pkrsone. Daicssy 


267 


0. Catlln 


847 


0. Clayes 


OJO AAA 


0. Cutler 


848 


0. Darid 


280,617,660 


0. Irey 


644 


0. Means 


722,887 


0. Robinson 


269 


0. Ryerson 


840 


0. 8mith 


118 


Pterstoff v. Jorgafl 


659 


Pieter* 0. Thompson 


782,816 



898,1608 

1029,1080 

98 

642 

678,418 



Pietronl v. Transatlantic Co. 898 
Piety 0. 8tace 1417 

Piflardv fieeby 76,486,760,1046, 

1819 

Pigg Corder 1008 

Plggln 0. Cheetham 998 

Piggott 0. CroxhaU 969, 960 

v.Stewart 906 

Pigot 0. Stace 691 

Plgott, Re 1694 

0. Plgott 125, 222 

0. Stratton 1654 

0. Young 797, 1402 

Pigue 0. Young 617 

Pike 0. Bates 1676 

0. Dickinson 60 

0. Fitsglbboa 118, 187 

0. Frank 147 

0. Hoare 1076 

0. Keene 20, 26 

0. Nicholas 1897, 1648, 1646 



748,748.898 



1616.1584 

906,910 

406 



FBcher, Re 

Arden 
Pile 0. McBratney 
PMkington 0. Baker 

0. Ixmieworth 
Ptlkinton 0. Cotton 

0. Wlgnall 
Pillan 0. Thompaon 
Filler 0. Roberts 
Pillars, Ex parte 
Pilley 0. Robinson 406, 669, 627 
Pilling v. Axeajtage 847 

v PUttng 1267,2848 

Pillow 0. Pillow 879 

0. 8entelie 1648 

v. Shannon 678, 661, 1606 

0. Thompson 1649 

Pfllflbury 0. Dugan 997 

Piilsworth 0. Hopton 1682 

Pim 0. Wilson K2B, 1666 

Pimbley 0. Molyneux 794 

Pimm 0. Insall 1193 

Pince 0. Beattie 1418, 1414 

Pincers 0. Robertson 746 

Pinch 0. Anthony -407, 1616, 1MB. 

Ptnchin 0. London wad 'Black- 

wall Ry. Co. 986, 1668, MB* 

Piadall 0. Trevor 267 

Pindar 0. Pindar 1598 

0. Smith 1118, 1119 

Pine, Me 1177, 1909, 1826 

0. EUls 1177. 1909, 1826 

0. "Shannon HI 

Pine Lake Iron Co. La Fayette 

Car Works 1769 

Pineo*0. HesTclfiagcr 1676 

Pinfold 0. Bouch 1417 

0. Pinfold 808 

Pingree 0. Coffln 182, 197, 878, 886, 

887, 917. 927. 961. 1018, 

1028, 1081, 1181, 1299, 1817, 

1868, 1484, 16<«, 1609, 1611, 

1624, 2181, 2186, 2186, 2196, 

2222, 2226, 2229, 2862, 2867, 

2872 
0. Hodges 1119 

Pink 0. Trade aad Labor UoJoae 

1820 
Plokard 0. 8mHh 121 

Pinkers 0. Peters 1610 

Pinkerton 0. Barnslsy Canal Co. 892 
Pinkett 0. Wright 1468 

Ptnkum 0. Jfiau Claire 
Pinkus 0. Peters 987, 

Pinneo 0. Goodepeed 1820 

Pinner 0. Knights 807,806,809 
Pinney 0. Hunt 206, 668, 877, 1726 
Plnnock 0. Cloogh 1400 

Pinson 0. Williams 862 

Pleneer Gold Mining Co. 0. 

Baker 146 

Pioneer Mannt Co. 0. PhosoJx 

Ass. Co 872 

Pioneer Wood Palp Co. 0. Bens- 
ley 1887 
Pipe 0. Bnteman 190 
Piper v. Glttens 906 
0. Piper 1828 
0. St. Paul Trust Co 1881 
Plsani 0. Attorney-GeneMl 74, 862 
0. Lawson 46 
Pit 0. Cholmondeley 668 
Pitcher . Helllar 1718, 1784, 1736 
Pitman 0. Thornton 1019 
Pitt 0. Argiaas r *ert of 1680, 1888 
0. Bonner 1764 
0. Brewster 968 
0. Lord Deere 1488 
0. Hill 868 
0. Hunt 191,125 
0. Maclew 812 
v.Maekreta 1810 
0. Page 1466 
0. Pitt 99,178,180 
0. Snowden 1748 
Httman 0. McCleUan 926 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



xcvii 



{The reJerenoes are to the star paging.] 



Ptttsv Hooper 


732,768 


v. La Fontaine 


64 


r. Mower 


196 


p. Powledge 


1660 


r. Short 


689 


v. TUden 


1264 


Pittsburgh Co.* Appeal 


680 



Pittsburgh, &e. Ry. Co. v. Bel 

Bmore & O. R. Oo. 1167 

Plttaford v. Chittenden 861 

PfxU-y v. Roanoke NaT. Co. 680 

Place v. Providence 726, 8*8 

Plant v. Barclay 1491, 1624 

». Kendrlck 1826 

9 Pearman 280 

Plant 8eed Co. v. Mfchel Plant 

Go. 1881 

Planters* Bank 9. Powlkes 1279 

1676 



Planter*' Ins. Co. v. Selma Bar 

Inge Bank 418 

Flasket 9. Beeby 164 

Plate! 9. Craddoek 109 

Plating Co. 9. Farquharsou 887, 

1070 
Piatt 9. Button 1648 

v. Gilchrist 1668 

9. Jodeon 626 

9 Mi *e d 824 

•! Philadelphia A R.R. Co. 1716, 

178o 
r Routh 1610 

9. Squire 194,208,212,416,425. 

». Walter ' 898 

Platte 9. Button 1648 

Plant 9. Plant 890 

Player 9 Anderson 27,868 

Playfbrd 9. Hoare 1402 

Pleaaanton 9. Raughley 842 

Pleasants v. QIaawoek 884, 879, 8*$, 

661 

v. Kortreeht 1846 

v Logan 406,1638 

v. Roes 671, 1128 

P. & M. Bank v. Dundas 1677 

Pledge 9. Baas 1899 

Ptestow 9. Johnson 86, 1787 

Pleydell v. Dorchester, Barl of 1180 
Plimpton 9. Splller 1668 

9. Wlnslow 149 

PHntoffff Haynaf 1869 

PUtt, Ex parte 1214 

Plomerv. Maedonough 1069 

Ptomley, Re 70 

9. Felton 125 

Pktwden v. Campbell 28 

Plowes v. Bossey 664, 861 

Plowman *. Williams 67 

Plumbev. Plumbe 821 

Plume 9. Beale 668 

Plnmer v. Gregory 269 

9 Maedonald 1069 

9 McDonald Lumber Co. 1607 
Plsmmer 9. Doughty 221 

9. May 296,299,682 

Plonket 9. Joyce 72, 404, 418 

v. Penaon 288, 290, 613 

Plunkett 9. Cavendish 628, 662 

r. Cobbett 1096 

9. Lewis 797,1814 

Plymouth v. Russell Mills 1686 

Plymouth, Countess of v. Bladon 669, 

817 
Pocoek 9. Att.-Gen. 18 

9. Haddington 1420 

Podmore 9. Gunning 1721 

9. Skipwith 781, 782 

Pogson 9. Owen 191 

Pool v. Pootler 865 

Poindexter 9. Blackburn 117 

9. Jeffries 90, 106 

Pointon 9. Pointon 884 

Pelrier 9. Fetter 1650 

Pole 9. Joel 1488,1608 

9. Leask 1601 

Polhamue 9. Bason 886, 1168 

tol. 1. — g 



Polinl 9. Gray 1469 

Polk v. Gallant 197 

9. Plnmmer 28 

Pollard v. Doyle 808, 1284, 1418. 

1694 
9. Photographio Co. 1648 

v. Yoder 1267 

Pollock v. Birmingham, Wolver- 
hampton, and 8. Valley Ry. 
Co. 99,1802 

9. Boyd 1618 

9. Brainerd 1896 

9. Bole 68 

v. Better 2807 

9. Lester 808, 846, 1686 

9. Rabbits 1664 

Pomeroy v. Baddeley 1102 

9. Fullerton 886 

v. Manin 2897 

9. Winshlp 1078 

Pomfret, Barl 9. Windsor, Lord 646 



Pond 9. Alton 1051 

9. Clark 197 

9. Cook 1743, 1751 

9. Sibley 149 

9. Vermont Valley R. Co. 801 

Ponder v. Cox 1621 

Pondir v. New York, Ac R. Co. 1766 
Ponsardin 9. Pete 1649 

9. Steer 801,808 

Ponsford v. Hankey 821, 822 

9. Hartley 286, 860 

v. Swaine 298, 671 

9. Walton 880 

Pontehartrain R. Co. 9. New Or- 
leans & Carrollton R. Co. 1640 
Pool 9. Dial 1820 

9. Gramllng 1299 

9. Horton 1468 

v. Lloyd 648 

9. Morris 101 

v. Pool 1878 

9. Saoheverell 1070 

Poole v. Franks 64,1421,1448,1468 
v Gordon 778 

«. Larkins 1286 

v Lloyd 647 

9. Marsh 209 

9. Pass 1411,1486 

v. Poole 642 

9. Shergold 121 7 

Pooley, Re 1414 

v. Bosanquet 280 

v. Driver 1444 

9. Qoilter 1490 

9. Ray 250, 1207 

Pooley '■ Trustee 9. Whetham, 82, 64 
Poor v. Cartoton 1668, 1669, 1672, 
1676, 1676, 1677, 1996 
v. Hasleton 120 

v. Robinson 1260 

Poor's Lands Charity, In re 18 

Poore v. Clark 210 

Pope, Re 98, 1086 

9. Allls 888, 840, 860 

9. Bell 1676 

v. Bish 708 

v. Briggs 1611 

v Curl 1647, 1648, 2814 

v Dancannon 1621 

v. Brdman 1282 

9 Great Eastern Ry. Oo. 177J 



». Gwyn 

v. Lemaster 

9. Leonard 

* Melone 

v. Salamanca Oil Co. 

v. Stansbury 



1776. 
1776 



164 
997 
26 834 
209 
812,884 
684 



Poplar & Black-wall Free School, 

Re 18 

Poplin 9. Hawke 874 

Poppers 9. Meagher 1527 

Popple 9. Henson 1888, 1407 

Porch 9. Fries 1861, 1862 

Porous Plaster Co. v. Seabury 818 



Porrett 9. White 1780 

Portarllngton v. Darner 1469 

Barl of v. Darner 797, 798, 799 

1591,1615 

Lord v. Graham 1674 

9. Soulby 618, 714, 721. 1627. 

1628, 1661, 2096 

Port Clinton R. Co. v. Cleveland 

R. Co. 1668 

Portal v. Hlne 1660 

Porter v. Bank of Rutland 841 

v. Banks 1820 

9. Burton 1460 

9. Cooper 1142 

9. Cox 64, 814 

«. Frenchman's Bay, eta. Co. 646 
9 Hill 646 

9. Jennings 840 

v. Kingman 1784 

9. Lopes 1168, 1726 

v. Neckervis 20 

v. Porter 88, 1781 

9. Sabin 1748. 

9. Sherman County B. Co. 669' 
». Bpenoer 896, 661, 1698, 1699,. 

1702. 

9. Vaughan 811 

9. Young 884 

Porter's Trusts, Be 865. 

Portis v. Fall 1620* 

Portland, Countess of 9 Prod- 

gers 89, 178, 179- 

Portlington v. Tarbook 1686 

Portman 9. Mill 1218 

Portoues 9. Holmes 1820 - 

Port Royal Railroad Co. «r. Ham- 
mond 

Portsmouth, Barl of 9 Fellows 848 
Portsmouth, Lord v. Effingham, 

Lord 1677,1678. 

Portsmouth Livery Co. 9. Wat- 
eon 24,26- 
Portugal , Queen of v. Glyn 668 
Ports v. Schauta 1881 
Post 9 Boardman 146- 
v. Kimberly 661 
v.Lee 1209* 
9. Leet 1286, 1290 
9. Mackall 176, 214 
9. Marsh 1400' 
9 Stevens 1416* 
9. Toledo, fro. Railroad- 145, 662. 

Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Norfolk 

&WR.C0. 1688; 

Postellv Sklrving 98 

Postgate 9. Barnes 92. 110, 149, 168 
Postmaster-Genera^ Ex parte 68, 

61,167 
PostlethwaKe, Re 676, 678 

9. Howes 249,-287 

v. Maryport Harbour Tfus- 

toes 1727, 1781 

v. Travers 621 

Ponton v. Eubank 194 

Potto Gallinr 797 

Potter, Re 110 • 

9. Baker 1481 

9. Barclay 1588 

9. Beal 1029, 1178 

v. Chapman 1672 

9. Gardner 282 

9. Hisooz 1366 

9. Hnlden 287, 289, 294 

9. Holllstor 629 

9. Potter 840,868,1819 

9. Waller 887, 720 

9. Webb 1264 

9. Whitney 1642 

Potter Land & W. Co. 9. Ras- 
kin 149 
Potts v. Britten 168 
v. Butler 1672 
9. Hahn 884 
v. Lelghton 1747, 1764, 1766 
v. Smith 1688 
v. Thames Haven & Dock Co 228 



fccviii 



TABLE OF OASES CITED. 



(The 



am to the star paging.] 



Mas* Trotter 1811,1212 

«. Turts 868 

a. Warwick, &e. Canal Co. 1781. 

1744 
w.Whltmore 416, 421. 4*8, 448. 



fonder v. Tale 
Poulson v. Collier 
Voultney v. La Fayette 
Fountain, /n re 
Ponpardv. FardeU 
Vowden v. Johnaon 
Powell, Re 

v. Aiken 

«. Bernard 

w. Galloway 



1617 
881 

2897 

88 

880 

886 

1049 

2809 

28 

972 



w Cleaver 
«. Clement 



8716,1116,1850 
1468 



«. GoekereU 808, 846, 481, 432, 688, 

1600 



v. Dayton, fco. R. Co. 

9. Dowdle 

v. Elliott 

a. Hall 

v. Heather 

0. Hopeon 

t». Jewesbnry 



808 
1651 
1876 
1649 
1688 
1468 
400.688 
*. Kane 847,894,896,1698 

v. Knight 272 

•v. Lovegrove 1490 

v. Mansoa 844, 1116, 1117. 1124 
•. Martin 968, 970 

*. Martyr 1402 

v. Mayo 418 

«. Merrett 96 

v. Monaco Hanoi Co, 1166, 1906. 



9. Faelte R. Co. 

«. PhUUpa « 

v. Powell 109. 818, 814, 1264. 

1276,1827,1417,1612 

v Powto.Barlof 846 

180,188 

166,166 

1664 



9. Prentice 
9. Robins 
s9. Sanger 
■9 Slnu 
9. Sonnett 
9. Thomas 
9. Trotter 



v. Wallworth 

9 William* 

* Wood 

v. Wright 

9. Toung 
Powell, &e. Coal Co. 9. laff 
Power v Barham 

v. Holman 

9. Reeder 

9 Reeves 

v. Walker 
Powers t». Heavy 

v. Large 

9. McKenrie 

v Raymond 
Powlet, Earl v. Herbert 
Powley 9. Walker 



1688 

1109 

824 

1246,1891, 

139 
1169 
1071 
1114 
149,160.2B0,1652 > 
878 
1663 
1104 
61 
651 
1466 
1644 
1688, 1681, 1669 
1071 
689 
1071, 1110 
1418 
1666 



Powysv Blagrave 757,1684,1782 
9. Mansfield 827, 862 

« Shrewsbury Potteries Ry. 
Co. 1618 

Poyer v. Dee Plalnee 1620 

Poynesv. Creagh 808 

Poyesre Minor 979 

Praedf Graham 1180 

Prall 9. Hunt 1691 

Pranee, Re 892 

V. Sympeon 660 

Pratt 9. Archer 424 

9 Bacon 408, 426,828,1448 

v Bank of Windsor 448 

v. Barker 294, 406, 410 

■9 Boston fc Albany Rail- 
road 197 
9. Brett 1680, 1666 
v. Boll 1088 
v CkmVrnta Mining Co. .660 



Pratt 9. Inmaa 1060 

9. Jenner 179, 1802 

v. Keith 288, 689 

«. Lamson 1299 

9. Northern 1997 

9. Pond 1961, 2274 

v. Rathbnn 1206 

v Rowland Ry. Co. 1688 

9. Taunton Copper Co. 197 

9. Taylor 628,687 

9. Tenner 87 

9. Walker 1600 

Preble 9. LongfUlo 1369 

Preeee v. Corrlo 127 

v. Seale 1407 

Prees v. Coke 998, 1386 

Prendergast 9. Lashington 168. 

9. Prendergast 1602, 1608 

Prentice 9. Kimball 287 

9. Phillips 1886 

9. Prentice 191 

Prentiss 9. Paisley 1676 

Preeehbaker 9. Freeman 847 

Preaoott 9. Bverts 988, 871 

9. Hnbbell 402 

Presley 9. Davis 1368 

Preesley 9. Harrison 1788 

Prestall'a Case 166 

Prestidge v. Pendleton 871 

Prestneyv Colchester 1602 

Preston 9. Aston 197 

9. Barker 1286, 1292 

9. Carr 671 

9. Carter 286 

9. Collate 412,801 

9. Dickinson 461, 462 

9. Fitch 1511 

9. Grand Collier Dock Co. 241 

9. Gnyon 241 

9. Lamont 628 

9. Luck 1663 

v. Smith 646, 647, 1666, 1620, 1628, 

1688 
9. Walsh 280, 660 

9 Wilson 60, 668 

Preston Corp. 9. Pullwood Local 

Board 402 

Pretecae Maxwell Land Grant 

Co. 680 

Prcvost v. Benett 860, 1407 

v. Oorrell 888 

Prewit 9. Graves 878 

Prewitt v. Lambert 866 

Price, Ex parte 1846 

Re 1488, 1440 

9. Berrlngton 86,828, 818. 1078 

v. Carter 166 

9. Carver 166, 166, 167, 168, 

2217 
9. Clavenger 1676 

9. Coleman 814, 884 

9. Copner 660 

9. Dewey 669 

9 Dewhoiet 1470, 1480, 1481. 

1627 
9 Brans 1616 

9. Gardiner 985 

9. Gardner 888, 964 

9. Hobbs 1168 

9. Hutchison 466, 1069 

9 James 647 

9 Lawton 1653 

9. Loaden 1417 

9. Lytton 840, 1188 

9 M'Beth 1284,1418 

9 Manning 920, 1099 

9. Mayo 678 

* Meth. Bpis. Church 1669 

9. Minot 26,884,842, 

1001 
9. Mozon 1290 

9. Nesblt 987, 1491, 1492 

9. North 1169 

v. Prlee 679, 1288, 1881, 1392. 

1600 
9 Richards 68,64 



Price*, Salusbury 

9. 



416,1469 



a*. Severne H80 

9. Shaw 1296 

v. Thompson 1271 

9. Tyson 728 

v. Ups haw 642 

v.Webb 422,465,612,686,687. 

v. White 1746 

v. Williams 670, 1141, 1717 

9. Winter 68 

Price's Candle Co. 9. Baowens 

Candle Co. 1642 

Prichard v. Gee 988 

9. Llttlejohn 1661 

9 Murray 719 

9. Norris 1208 

Priehitt v. Klrkman 1001 

Prlekcttv. Taller 1676 

Pride 9. Bndd 108 

9. Fooks 1420 

Prldeauxv Prideaoz 1288 

Priest v. Hamilton 60 

9. Perrott 1008 

Priestley's Appeal 1580, 1684 

Priestly 9. Wilkinson 1886 

Priestman v. Thomas 668 

Prigmore v. Sbelton 1276 

Prime v. Tltmarah 1129 

Prime's Estate. Re 1120 

Primm 9. Rabotean 878 

Primrose, Re 1412 

Prince a. Boston 10 

v. Cooper 1264 

9 FarreU 1561 

9. Gundaway 686 

9. Heylln 844 

9. Ulna 780, 781, 1866, 1869, 

1418 

9. Howard 1018 

9. Samo 1104 

9. Smith 1228 

Prince Henry. Re 

Prince Manuf. Co. «. Prince's 

Metelllo Paint Co. 1648 

Prince of Wales Assoc. 9. Pal- 
mar 204 
Princeton a. Adams 2012 
Prmg, Re 1611 
Prlngle v. Gloag 1408, 1447, 1846 
tj. Hodgson 102 
9 Prlngle 116, in 
Printup v. Patton 886 
9. Rome Land Co. 686 
Prioleau 9. United States 17, 90, 24, 

141, 146, 29tE 
Prior 9. Banter 1746 

Prion 9. White 80 

Pritchard 9. Draper 1870. 1616, 

1620 

9. Fleetwood 1724 

v. Foulkes 928 

9. Hicks 217,254, 1412 

9. Roberts 81 

Privets t> Calloway 1468 

Probasoo v. Probasco 1784 

Probate, Judge of v. Heydock 1264 

Proctor 9. Bayley 664, 1880, 1896 

v Cheshire City Council 406 

v. Cooper 1086 

V. Farnam 1286 

9. Ferebee 

v. National Bank of the Re- 
public 

9. Reynel 1080 

9. Smiles 676 

9. Webber 22 

Produce Bank 9. Morton 1463 

Prole 9. Soady 87, 116, 119, 122, 179. 



Proper 9. Monmouthshire Canal 

Co. 1608 

Proskauar 9. People's S. Bank 
Proaaar 9. Bank of Rngland 

9. Northern Pac. R. Co. 1689 
Protharoe v. Forman 668, 1621, 1624 



TAWLE OP CA8E8 CITED. 



:[W» 



mm Id thenar facing J 



lift! 

Proudfit v. Picket* 688 

v. Homo 1780 

v. Underwood 726 

Providence Bank «. Wilkinson 1566 

v WDaon 1660 

Providence Institution v. Ban 606 



Pf ovM—ne Bobber Co. v. Good- 

jaar 1080 

Provident Institution v. White 1560 
Provincial Bank v. BroeUabank 686 
Provincial Banking Go. v. TU- 

fctt 169 

Promt*, feats 1479 

Prowett v. Mortimer 1648 

Prudential Ass. Co. v. Edmonds 1608 
r. Knott 1620, 1644, 1648 

v. Thomae 1667, 1668, 1628 

Prussia, King of v. Knepper 16 

Prutaman v. PiteeaU 768 

Pryer v. Orlbble 796, 1081, 1688 
Pryorw. Hill 104,122 

Prjae v. Cambrian By. Co. 1776 

9. Prjee 816, 662 

Prytherch, Re, Prytheroh v.Wll- 

liame 1716 

Podge v. Pitt 818 

PnjEh, Ex parte 102, 2001 

w. Artom 1380 

v. BeU 646 

v. Carrie 216 

♦. Golden Valley Rgr-Oo. 1669 



Pnghv. Heath 640 

9. Holt 984 

v. Veughan 1681 

v. Winona, *e. B. Co. 1461 

Pugsley v. Preedman's Sar. & 

Tr. Co. 460, 686 

Pulbrook, Ex parte 1014, 1016 

v. JUehnond Cone. M Co. 244 

Pulham v. McCarthy 802 

Pullanv. Cincinnati, Ac.,R. Co 281, 

1619 
v. Rawlins 678 

Pollen 9. Baker 896 

v. Pollen 1120 

v. Beady 1622 

9. Smith 718 

9. Snelua 666, 666 

9. White 1106 

Pulley 9. Hilton 1118 

Pulliam v. Christian 887, 1492 

v. Pulliam 867, 1262, 1806, 2896 
Pullman 9. Baltimore & Ohio 
R.0o. 1642 

9. Stebbins 266, 884 

Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Cen- 
tral Trans. Co. 780, 1648, 1621 
9. Missouri P. By. Co. 646 

Pulteney 9. Shelton 448, 1666. 

1686 
9. Warren 1862. 1684, 1660 

Purvor 9. Harrta 1846 

Pnnehard 9. Tomklns 1040 

Punderson v. Dixon 1018 

Pnreell 9. Blennerhassett 648 



PuroeU v. M"Namai» 969, 1171. 1 



1171.1181. 
118d,1196 



v Manning 

9. Miner 

9. Puroell 
Purdew v. Jackson 
Purdy 9. Henalee 
Pureroy v. Pureiby 
Pure Spirit Co v. Fowler 
Purkis 9. Date 
Purser v. Darby 
Pusey v. Clemsou 

9. Desboovie 

9. Wright 
Poterbaugh v. Hlk>tt 
Putnam «. Clark 

9. Commonwealth Ins 

9. Day 

9. Hollander 

9. Lyon 

9. Putnam 

9. Ritchie 

9. Sweet 

9 Valentine 
Pybus. Be 
Pycroft 9. Williams 
Pyke 9 Holcombe 

9. Northwood 

9. Waddingham 
Pyle v. Cravens 

9. Price 
Pym 9. Pym 

Pyncent 9. Pyneent228,676, 922, 961 
Pyiah v. Woodcock 886, 649 



1681 

1680 

844 

119,186 

790 

218,880 

27 

892 

1877,1404 

1286,1772 

606,700,1622 

843,844,860 

601 

860,1676 

Co. 1299 

1677 

814,884 

418 

1886,1607 

1864 

96,289,808 

1681 

1847 

1044 

118 

1774 

989 

90 

288,688 

1866,1781 



a 



1688 
Qnackenbush v. Leonard 994,1169. 

1648 

•. Van Riper 1677 

Qoantoek v. BwUaa 170,406, 410. 869 

Quso-ke v. Queries 1006 

Quarman 9. Williams 1040, 1041 



1241,1244, 
1261, 1868, 1870, 1876. 1448, 
1719, 1780 
9. Carter 1002,1676 

•. Colston 1661 

Quarts HU1 C. G M. Co. v. 

BsaU 1620, 1648, 1670 



Queede's Vnsts, Re 100, 128 

Queen, The (See R.) 

Queen's Case 1102, 1108, 1104 

Queen's Benefit B. Society, Re 

1611 

Qaocnsberry, Duke of v. Sheb- 
beare 1647 

Queen's College, Ex parte 1610 
v. Darby 1620 

Quilterv. Heatty 896 

9. Mapleson 1488 

Qnln 9. Britham 1719 

v. Green 1662,1666 

«. Patton 1666 

v. BatcUff 1822, 1881 



1071 



Quinby v. Garnart 

9. Oonlan 
Qnlnoe v. Quince 
Quincy v. Sharps 646 

v. Steel 26, 818 

Quincy, fcc. B. Co. v. Hum- 



phreys 


1784, 1748 


Quintan 9. Kaiser 


668 


Quinn v. Brittsin 


1242 


9. Leake 


880, 667, 801 


Quints 9. Quints 


1820 


Qulrolo 9. Ardlto 


8H 



Quitman County v. Strifes 



R. 



B- r. Abingdon, Bar! of 


1106 


TLv. Bdwards 


1108 


9. Adey 




1106 


9. Fitswattr, Lord 


1108 


r. Ash well 




664 


9 Fowler 


8, 186, 166, 1108 


9. Aspinall 




646 


9. Grant 


1127, 1187 


*. Ball 




1101 


9 Grosvenor 


1636 


9. Ball de Bewdley 




1112 


ty* xuuigogk 


1768 


9. Barber 




1106 


v.Hart 


l'«6 


9. Barthwiek 




874 


9. Hildltch 


1106 


v.Bell 




1106 


v.Hill 


1098 


v. Bigaold 




1106 


v. Home 


1106 


v. Boyes 


717,942,1108 


v. Hughes 


1094 


v. Brooke 




1102 


v. Johnson 


1092,1109 


v. Burdett 




1108 


9. Jordan 


1069 


9. Borridge 




1092 


v. Klnnear 


1106, 1181 


v. Castro 




1070 


♦. Main waring 


866 


«, Chapman 




820 


v. Marsden 


1106 


». Colley 




1101 


v. Martin 


1103 


v. Cox 




678 


v. Millie 


1601 


t. Cumberland JanUm 


807 


v. Murphy 


1108 


9. Despnrd 




1087,1082 


v. Newman 


1102 


v. Doutre 




188 


«. Norwich 


1660 


v. Duneombe 




1102 


v. Bamsden 


1100 


r. Bdmonds 




1091,1096 


v. filaherisnn 


1181 



R. v. 8t. George 1101 

v. Scalhert 1108 
v. Staffordshire County Court 

Judge 1069 

v. Teal 1196 

v. Truro, Lord 744 

v. Watkinson 678 

v. Watson 1108, 1104 

9. Wearer 866 

v. Webb 1102 

v. Whitehead 1098 

v. Woollcr 1109, 1181 

v. Wylde 1101 

v. Wyndham 146 

Babberman v. House 860 

Babbeth v. Squire 782, 788 

Babbitts v. Woodward 1061 

Babe v. Dunlap 26 

Babyv Ridehalgh 1870 

Beckham v Slddall 706,1484 

Badam v. Capital M. D. Co. 779 

Badcliffv. Corrothers 1651 

v. Rowley 646 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[The 



are to Um star paging.] 



Radefflfe, Re 184, 896, 2191 

v. Recles 1816 

v. Fursman 672,684 

«. Portland, Duke of 1684 

v. Yarner 1628 

Radelyffe, Re 1417 

Radar «. Yeargin 1221 

Radford v Folaom 684, 668, 1766 

v. loses 1676 

v. Roberta 461 

v. Wills 1408 

«. Wilson 678 

Radley v. Ingram 2191 

Rae 9. Mayor, fee. 1468 

Raeburn 9. Andrews 28 

Ralalsky v. Boehm 642 

Rafferty v. Central Traction Oo. 808 

Raffety v. King 802, 716 

Ragan v. Echols 885 

Raggett, Be, Bx parte Williams 218 

Ragland v. Broadnax 1648, 1663 

Ragsdale v. Holmes 884 

Raguet v. Roll 1288 

Raikerv Pike 2288 

Railroad Co. , Ex parte 281, 1648, 

1568 
9. Bradley 1491 

v. Durant 861 

v.Harrls 144 

v. Neal 1626 

v. Orr 248 

v. Smith 1748 

v. Soutter 1491 

Railway Co. v. McCarthy 1660 

Railway Sleepers Supply Co., Re 67 
Raincock v. Simpson 1744 

v Young 780, 782 

Raine v. Wilson 177, 444 

Rainey v. Rainey 787, 1677 

Rains v. Rainey 1214 

Rainsdon. Re 111 

Rainsdon*s Trusts, Re 87, 179 

Rainwater v. Elmore 1101 

Raistriek v. Elsworth 784, 802 

Rajah Salig Ram v. Secretary 18 
Rakes v. Brown 1608 

Ralli v. Universal Marine As- 
surance Co. 1470 
v. UnlTersalMarine Insurance 
Co. 1400 
Ralph v. Carrlck 1481 
Ralphs v. Henslar 646 
Ralston v. Sharon 1684 
Ram, Ex parte 224 
Ramey v. Green 1596 
Ramkissenseat 9. Barker 46, 786, 
760, 891, 948, 1562 
Ramon v. Ramon 1856 
Ramabotham v. Senior 1355 
Ramsbottom v. Freeman 1667, 1785 
Ramsdall v. Craighill 1678 
Ramsden v. Brearley 87 
v. Dyson 1660 
v. Hylton 1622 
v. Langley 1246, 1888 
Ramsey v, BraUafbrd 989 
v. Temple 546 
Ramshawt* Greenhill 1059 
Ramy v. Kir 892 
Rancllfle v Parkyns 878 
Rand v. Cutler 1885 
v. M&cmahon 876, 878 
v Redington 1623 
v. Walker 200 
Randall v. Chesapeake, Ac 
Canal Co. 671 
v. Christianson 407, 418 
v. Morgan 865 
v. Mumford 68,64,1608,1679 
v. Payne 966, 1017, 1676, 1584 
* Peckham 1021,1476 
v. Phillips 844 
v Pryor 1062 
v. Randall 1820 
v. Richardson 1688 
v. Ricbford 964 
v. Sanderson. 1688 



Randall v. Songer 1002 

v. Venabie 2891 

Randall, In re, RandeU «. Dixon 18 

Randfleld v. Randfield 1742, 1748, 

1744 
Randlev Adams 1160 

v Boyd 986 

Randolph v. Daly 269,888,844,868 
v Dickenson 110,1507,1546 

v. Glos 850 

v. N. J. West Una R. Co. 1961 
v Randolph 641,1678 

v Rosser 1877,1463 

Randolph's Appeal 982, 1552 

Randon v. Cartwrlght 1580 

Rands v. Puahman 1818 

Raney v. Kirk 892 

Ranger v. Champion Cotton- 
Press Co 26, 560 
v. Great Western Ry. Co 145, 
582, 671, 1584. 1686, 1687, 1821 
Rangley v Webster 468 
Ranken v East and West India 
Dorks Rvray Co. 1662, 1668 
v. Harwood 1616 
Rankin v. Harwood 1616 
v. Huskisson 1664, 1668 
v. Maxwell 888 
Ranking, lie 202, 208, 1611 
Ranning v. Reeves 1061 
Ransom v. Davis 1801 
v. Oeer 191, 227, 890, 991 
v. Stonington Sayings Bank 146. 

Ransome •. Burgess 1859 

Rantaen v. Rothschild 1686 

Raper 9. Sanders 878 

Raphael 9. Bank of England 1128 

v. Birdwood 760 

v. Boehm 1261, 1280, 1420 

v. Ongley 448 

v. Thames Valley R. Co. 1667 

Rapier v. Gulf City Paper Co. 840 



Ear h Del. Bay R. Co. v. DeL 
& Ear. Canal A C. A A. R. 
and T. Cos. 
Rasbotham v. Shropshire Union 

Ry. Co. 720 

Raahlelgh v. Dayman 972, 978 

Rashlev v Masters 1888, 1411, 1414 
Ratcliff v. Roper 465 

v. Stretch 869 

Ratclifle v. Winch 1616, 1617, 2060 
Rathbone v. Eckford 796 

v, Warner 1680 

Rather v Young 1029 

Rattenbury v. Kenton 660, 1482 
Rattison v. Hull 1295 

Rattray v. Bishop 1678, 1683 

v. Darley 1662 

v. George 42 

Ratserv Ratser 688,1470 

liau v Robertson 1461 

v VonZ«dlits 286,1648 

Ranb v. Masonic M. R. Ass'n 1461 
Raupman v. Kvansville 1081 

Raven* Kerl 71,1847 

Rawlinga v. Lambert 201 , 818, 885. 
419, 425. 598, 16U2 

9 Rawlings 1576 

Rawlins v Desborongh 1104 

v. M'Mahon 203, 1809 

v. Powel 779, 1489 

v. Wickham 906, 916, 1400, 2287 
Rawlinson v. Moss 1844. 1848 

v. Stringer 1051, 1059 

Rawnsley 9. Trenton Mat. Ins. 

Co, 1716 

Raworth v. Parker 824, 826 

Rawson, Ex parte 1684 

v. Copland 1288 

ft. 8amuel 972 

Rawatonev. Preston Corporation 671 
Rawatorne v. Bentiay 1658 

Ray v. 1065 

v. Connor 1080, 1602 



Ray v. Connors 


1601 


r. Doughty 


1076 


9. Feowiok 


190 


v. Lines 


1688 


v Oliver 


1289 


v. Walton 


906 


v. Womble 


408 


Rayl v. Hammond 


18S1 


Rayley v. Best 


909,1164 



Raymond «. Boston Woven Hose 

Co. 1642 

v Brown 884, 912 

«. Came 1219 

ft. Isham 1268 

9. Lakeman 1288, 1291, 1460 

9. Russell 678 

v. Simonson 642, 641, 692 

v. State 128 

9. Tapson 901 

Rayner, Re 160 

r. Caattee 640 

v. Jones 1120 

v. Julian 886, 688 

v. Koehkr 819 

9. Oastler 650 

9. Pearsall 641 

9. Stone 1660 

Raynes v. Wyse 1700, 1701 

Raynham Congregational Society 

9. Raynham Fond 

Raynor v. Mlntser 268 

Rea 9. Longatreet 1624 

9. Rea 894 

Reab v. M'Allister 1268 

Read, Re 1817 

9. Barton 692, 785, 1489 

9. Consequa 418, 748, 1672 

9. Cramer 878, 879, 882 

9. Dews 1670, 1672, 1688 

9. Fite 1795 

v. Patterson 248 

«. Prast 222,980 

v. Read 1166 

v. Wotton 884 

Read's, Sir Thomas, Can 1060 

Readdy v. Pendergaat 862 

Reader Bentley 1448 

9. Lacy 2814 

9. Sparkes 1406, 1418 

9 Woodrofle 800,621,720,727. 

760 

Reading 9. Ford 829 

9. Stover 686 

Dispensary, Re 1864 

Ready v. Munday 666 

v.Scott 582 

Reagan 9. Bishop 1290 

v. Erana 418 

Real Estate Associates v. San 

Francisco Supr. Court 1786 

Real P. A. Co. v. McCarthy 1449 

Rearden v. Mlntar 1184 

Reay , Re 880 

9. Raynor 407 

Reckefus 9. Lyon 884 

Rector 9. Fltagerald 1680 

v. Mark 1258 

9. Rector 842 

Redding 9. Wilkes 865 

9 Wright 988 

Reddington 9. Lanahan 1666 

Redecker v. Bowen 1168 

Redfearn «. Sowerby 1844 

Redfern v. Redfern 664, 717, 1824 

Redfleld 9. Qenesee Co., Super- 

Tisorsof 1665 

9 Gleaaon 880 

Redln v. Branhan 657 

Red Jacket Tribe v. Hoff 589 

Redman 9. Fonnan 1688 

Redmond 9. Dana 846 

v. Dickenon 646 

Redondo v. Chaytor 28, 68, 869 

Reece, Re 1448 

Re, Gould 9. Dummett 1012 

9. Reeos 1018, 1186, 1470 

v. Taylor 1087, 1089, 1041 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CI 



[The references an to the star paging.] • 



v. Trye 678, 1884 

p. Bankof Sev/bory 660 

v. Barton 449, 1046 

v. Brooks 1284 

v. Clark 849 

r. Clark* 660 

v. Cooocochapna Bank 24 

•. Cumberland, Ac. Canal Co. 10 
o. Ciimbermnd M. V. Int. Co. 590, 

738,759 
•. Dews 1640 

«. Don Pedro Mining Co. 992 

w. HolUday 1048 

«. joooa 1222, 1298, 1200. iaoo . 

1801,1816 
♦. Kemp 1658 

9 Lawrenee 1120 

9 Noo 969 

v. O'Brien 868 

v. Pratt 905, 908 

r. Beed 218,884,846,1282,1242, 
1248, 1244, 1246, 1248. 1M 

• Kens. Gtaai Manuf. Co ' 1268 
9. Warner 786 

Header v. Maehen 1481 

\ % Re 188 

i, Ex parte 1864, 1S56 

Re 488,1698 

9. Bradley 448 

r Evans 847 

•. Lawless 888 

9. Metropolitan Board of 

Worka 1238 

•». Peltavr 1688 

9. Richmond 248 

9. Smith 1097 

9. Waters 90 

Beaae «. Copeland 1286 

9. Kinkead 824 

9. Reese 586 

Reese River Silver Mining Co. 

9. Atwell 69, 226, 406 

9. Smith 1608 

Reeve, Re 1218, 1428 

9 Attorney-General 181, 188 

v. Dalby 108, 688 

9. Gibson 1484 

n Goodwin 1771 

9. Hodsoo 608,865,872,1116,1669 

9. Parkins 1662 

9. Reeve 1261 

w. Richer 228 

9. Wnltmore 1228 

Reeves 9. Adams 296 

9. Baker 848, 814 

v.Cooper 1623 

v. Glastonbury Canal Co. 998 

9. Greenwich Tanning Co. 548 

v. Neville 1765 

9. People 1069 

v. Reeves 1158 

Reformed Dutch Church v. fox 1008 

Kegenstem e. Pearsteln 1777 

Begin* (Bee R.) 

Regta 9. Martin 174 

Rehden «. Wesley 821, 828, 824 

Rehkopf «. Knhland 1168 

Rdehel 9. Magrath 854, 728 

Raid, Ex parte 880 

9. Atlanta 1688 

9. Barton 1489; 2129 

9. Beall 684 

9. Explosives Co. 1748 

9. Gifford 208, 1689, 1876 

9. Huff 1209 

v. Langhns 576, 577, 944, 

1826, 1884 
v. MeCalHster 848 

*. Mlddleton 1742, 1748 

v. Morton 1274 

v. Raid 102 

9. Steam 1667 

v. Stnart 1507, 2056 

v. Yanderheyden 217, 1461 

BoHsuhlar w. American Imp. P. 
Co. 149,688 



Reilly v. Rellly 669, 790 

Reimers v. Droce 6o4 

Reinbeck, The 688 

Reiner 9. MarqeJs of 8aUsbury 61 , 
188, 629, 1566, 1658 
Bernhardt v. Mentasti 261, 1688 

Reinstadlar v. Reeves 586 

Reissner v. Anness 607 

Remerv Mackay 149 

v. McKay 1548 

Remington v. Foster 68U 

Remington Paper Co. t*. La. 

Pnntlng Co. 1748 

Remnant v. Hood 780, 1876, 148a 
Remeen v. Reinaen 857, 1171, 1180, 
1191, 1194, 1195, 1221. 1222. 
1227, 1296, 18ul 
Renals v. OowUshaw 824, 1654 

Renard v. Llvlnstein 1670 

Rend v. Venture Oil Co. 1688 

Rendall v. Crystal Paleoc Co. 1650 

v. Rendall 1725, 1726 

Rendell v. Carpenter 642 

Rendle v. Metropolitan & Pro- 
vincial Bank 888, 944 

e. Rendle 1648 

Rrafro v. Goetter 1548 

Reniok v. Lndington 991 

Rennell v Kimball 1800, 1817 

Reno v. Hale 1271 

Renshaw v. Taylor 288 

Rentfroe v. Dickinson 967, 1675 
Benton 9. Chaplin 1727 

Renvoiae 9. Cooper 194, 216, 221, 

1000 
Renv/iek v. Macomb 194, 277 

v. Wilson 402, 412, 418, 424 

Reppller v. Bock 879 

Republic of Chill v. Rothschild 20 
Republic of Costa Rica v. Rr- 

langer 18, 19, 20, 27, 82, 

v. Strousberg 1661 

Republic of Honduras v. Soto 18 
Republic of Liberia v. Imperial 

Bank 18,19,507,801 

v. Roye 19, 20, 28, 141, 507 

Republic of Paxaguay, Ex 

parte 1026 

*. Lynch 1070 

Republlo of Pern * Dreyfus 18, 

667 

9. Peruvian Guano Co. 18. 864, 

542 

e.Roso 868 

v. Weguelin 19, 141, 1471 

Reqna v. Rea 1281, 1286, 1290 

Respaas v. Breckenrklge 1158 

v. MoClanahan 1576, 1578, 1679 

9. Morton 1505 

Rcspnblien v. De Longohamps 142 
Rettigu Newman 782 

Reiser v. Wood 660 

Reuben v Thompson 454 

Reubens v. Joel 818 

Revell v. Blake 66 

Revere v. Boston Copper Co. 26. 

v. Boston Cotton Co, 1661 

Revill, Re 1866 

Revolk 9. Kraemer 1628 
Rex (See R.) 

Reybnrn v. Mitchell 407 

Reynell v. Sprye 298, 888, 578, 1466, 

1614, 1682, 1824, 1828, 1829, 



Reynes v. Dumont 1621 

Reynolds, Ex parte 60, 558, 564, 

717, 942, 1108 
Re 99,1047,1451 

v. Bank 1071 

9. Blake 1276 

v. Bullock 1660 

v. Crewfordsvllle Bank 542, 829 
v. Rverett 1679 

9. First Nat. Bank 794 

e. Godlee 678, 1827, 1887 



Reynolds v. ITcuuessi 659, 799 

9. Howell 808,809,851 

v. Jones 747, 897 

v. Lewis 1616 

v. McMillan 1846 

v. Morris 860 

v. Nelson 806 

v. Pharr 846 

9. Pitt 1658, 1669 

*. Reynolds 861, 1676 

9. Stockton 1748, 1765 

Rsynoldson v. Parkins 294, 265, 

998 

Rhea v. Allison 676 

v. Puryear 418 

9. Rhenner 88 

Rhelnstein v. Bixby 1784 

Rhoads v. Rhoads 68 

Rhode Island v. Massachusetts 2, 

17,604,607,696 

Rhodes, Re 850 

In re, Rhodes «. Rhodes 86 

9. Buckland 1662 

9. Cousins 1698,1699,1700,1702. 

1707, 1708 



26,29,82,1671 

1685 

810 

1717, 1718 

284 

868, 1189, 1827 



9. Dawson 

9. Dunbar 

v. Uayne 

v Mostyn, Lord 

9. Moxhay 

v. Rhodes 

v. Bwithenbank 

v. Williams 994 

Rhymney Railway 9. Rhymney 

Iron Co. 
Rlcardo v. Cooper 417 

v. Garclas 664 

Rlcards, Ex parte 1867 

Rice, Re 1841 

v. Vint Division, fro. R. Co. 

1461 

v. Gordon 1886 

9. Hale 896, 1696, 1699, 1708. 1707, 
1709, 1711, 2168, 2829 

9. Hosiery Co. 860 

9. Howard 1099 

9. Hunt 298, 296 

v. Merrimack Hosiery Co. 814. 

v. Orgies 1428 

v. Pees 88 

v. Rice 1178 

9. Tobias 1676 

v. Yakima A P. C. R. Co 686 

Rich v. Austin 844 

9. Brav 668 

9. Cookell 100 

v. Thomas 1668 

Richards, Ex parte 1889 

Re 674 

9. Allls 790, 986 

9. Barlow 1409 

v. Butcher 1648 

v. Butler 816, 1556 

9. Chambers 98, 186 

9. Chare 1726 

e. Chesapeake * Ohio R. Co. 

1788 
v. Cooper 214 

v. Curlewls 822, 890 

9. Dadley 588 

9. Davies 889 

9. Rvans 870 

9. Griffith 674 

9. Jackson 671 

9. Mackall 660 

v. Millett 109 

9. Morris Canal, fee. Co. 1218. 
1309, 1810, 1811 
* Perkins 1722. 1728 

9. Pierce 884, 888, 841 

9. Platel 1477, 1482, 1612, 1848 
9. Revitt 1657 

v. Richards 114, 220, 865, 1752 
9. Rose 113>> 

9. Salter 1568, 1564, 1668, 1569. 

2004 



cii 



TABLH Or CASH8 CPFBD. 



[The 



tothestarpagfng.] 



Richards v. Soafttioagfc Mark* 
Co. 454, 1847 

o. Swan 1864 

0. 8}mes 1112, 1128 

v. Todd 18%), 1648 

0. Travellers' Ins. Go. 843 

ft Watkin* 1828, 1824, 1826 

v. West 1678 

v. Wood 1007, 1481 

afchardson, Re 1487 

ft Allan 1101 

o. Bank of ttnghnd 1777. 1780, 

1781,1782 
v. Brooks 884 

•. Davidson 1618 

v. Dooehoo 769 

0. Eyton 796, 1688 

0. Feary 1168 

0. Fisher 1188 

ft Gilbert 820, 867 

». Golden 824, 961 

v. HadsaU 212 

9. Hastings 190. 287, 240, 248. 
691,600,1627.1887,2086 
«. Horton 1806, 1306 

v. Hulbert 247 

ft Jenkins 1487 

v. Jones 1042.1061.1462 

0. Larpent 289, 241, 243 

v.Leake 646 

0. Ughtfoot 1677 

v. M'Kinson 884 

o. HUler 71 

v. Peacock 1664 

«. Richardson 42, 48, 409, 647 
e. Rusbridger 1481 

v. Soott 1661 

p. Wallace 779, 782 

v. Wallis 1289 

v. Ward 1261, 1821, 1764, 1766 
9. Younge 661 

Bfelies v. Owen 60 

Richmond v. Adams Nat. Bank 88 
v. Gray 869, 989, 1081 

9. Dubuque R. Go. 1682 

9. Irons 286, 402, 406, 407, 418. 

1210 
* Richmond, 848, 961, 1116 

v. Tayleor 164, 166, 173, 174, 

1684 
9. White 1426, 1778 

9. Yates 1720 

Richmond, Duke of v. Miln 46 

Richmond Enquirer 9. Robin- 
son 1625 
■fchtertr. Jerome 983 
v. Union Trust Go. 988 
Kiehwine v. Presbyterian Chorea 

1617 
Rlekard v. Talblrd 1166 

Hftskards 0. Attorney-General 849, 

1468, 1492, 1608 

« Hough 919 

9. Mordook 1100 

ft Rfekards 1168 

Rlokcord v. Nedrlff 447 

Bicker v. Alsop 224 

9. Brooks 884 

9. Powell 1684 

Rfcketnon v. Merrill 1411 

Rickett v. Johnson 1628 

Rleketti v Lewis 160] 

v. Martin 1026 

ft Mornlngton 606, 980 

«. Turquand 876, 1076, 1383 

Ricks v. Baskett 657 

Rico 9. Gnaltier 1702, 1708 

RMabock v. Levy 1481 

Rlddell v. Brrlngton 9« 

Riddle v. Bowman 1246 

9. Motley 684,1616,1681 

v. WhltebiU 641 

Hideout, Re 564. 849 

Rider v. Bagtey 1716 

ft Kidder 468, 1046 

Ridgeley v. Warfteld 607 

Ridgely v. Bond 286, 868, 1627, 1628 



Rldgewsy v. Darwin 1229 

9. Toram 1680 

Ridgley v. Riggs 868 

Ridgway v. Bauk of Tenn. 1626 

ft Oiare 1949 

ft Edwards 156 

9. Bwbank 1096 

v. Gray 1288 

9 Kynnersley 710 

9. Newstead 1474 

«. Phillips 1097 

v. Roberts 1079, 1640 

ft Wharton 657 

RSdUer 0. O'Brien 1226, 1817 

Riding 0. Hawkins 417 

Ridings 0. Johnson 288, 818. 680 

Ridlerv. Rldler 9,88 

Ridley 0. Oboe 780 

0. Ridley 891,914,1816 

v. Tiplady 1881 

Ridoat 0. Plymouth, Bad of 

1787 
Ridsdale AUanbee 0. Great 

Western Ry. Go. 448 

Riegel 0. American LHe Ins. 

Co. 718 

Rlgby 0. Gonnol 1652, 1658 

0. Great Western Ry. Go. 1M8. 

1640 

0. Macnamara 1285, 1292 

0. Rigby 616, 624, 781, 777. 1829 

0. 8trangways 482, 797 

Rigdon v. Conley 720 

Rigg 0. Hancock 878, 1614 

0. Wall 968,970,979 

Riggs 0. Dickinson 1156 

0. Huffman 1679 

0. Murray 1468 

Riley, Re 1029 

0. Carter 824 

0. Croydon 791 

0. Lyons 684, 688 

0. Western Union Tel Go. 1661 

Rindskopf, Be 988 

0. Platto 1556 

Rinehart 0. Long 834 

0. Rinehart 227 

Ringgold 0. Jones 896, 951, 1978 

0. Ringgold 1008, 1258, 1259, 

1260:1369 

0. Stone 824, 702 

Ringgold's Gase 1459, 1460, 1468 

Rlngo 0. Woodruff 1648 

Ringold 0. Jones 1260 

Ringrose 0. Todd 1124 

Ringwalt 0. Ahl 1117 

Rio Grande R Go. 0. Scanlan 1661 

Riopelle 0. Doellner 1660, 1557 

Ripley Moysey 1428 

0. Sawyer 170 

0. Warren 546 

0. Waterworth 261 

0. Woods 122 

Ripon 0. Hobart 1629 

Rfppe 0. Stogdtll 884 

Rippon 0. Priest 877 

Rieea Coal Co., Re 807, 960, 1016. 

1478 
Riseley 0. Sheppsrd 865, 1643 

Risbton 0. Grissell 771, 1221, 1250. 

1296 

Rl 1 0. Hobson 865 

Ritchie 0. Aylwla 607 

0. Bowsfleld 1134 

Breadbent 98 

0. Humberstone 797 

0. Willlanis 1772 

Rltter's Appeal 648 

Rlttnon 0. Stordy 47 

River Steamer Co., Re 646 

Rivers Gregg 1860 

Roach 0. Garvan 887, 1069, 1851, 

1852 

0. HoHngs- 812 

Rutherford 989 

Roake 0. Kidd 989 

Roane 0. Pickett 271 



Roanoke Gas Co. 0. Rosoiofte 

Roath 0. Drisoott 1689 

0. Smith 221 

Robarts 0. Bnee 1406, 1846 

0. I lay ton 1561 

Robb 0. Carnegie 1638 

Robbins 0. Abrahams 182 

0. Arnold 259 

v. Godman 850 

0. Cooper 2*_37 

0. Goldingham 1844 

0. Robbins 169 

0. Sand Creek T. Go. 834 

Roberdean 0. Root 648, 655, 584 

Robert 0. Brice 1265 

Robert Gere Bank 0. Inman 840 

Roberts, Re 101, 1254. 1411, 1482. 

1616, 1746, 1796 
v. Anderson 868, 1669, 1677 

v. Ball 1042, 1065, 1456 

0. Birgess 844, 1027 

0. Chamberlain 256 

0. Clayton 821, 589 

0. Collet* 96 97 

0. Eberhardt 882, 1727, 1*28 

0. Evans 87, 10* 

0. Hartley 612, 690 

0. Hodges 1679 

0. Hughes 710, 1128, 1131, 1282 
0. Johns 1168 

0. Jones 696 

0. Kelly 847 

0. Kendall 983 

0. Kerslake 1149,1884 

0. Knights 45, 48, 629 

0. Kuffln 668 

0. Le Hir 700 

0. Lloyd 42 

0. Madocks 819, 605 

0. Marchant 286, 1484 

0. Moreton 61 

0. Morgan 179* 

0. Oppenhelm 678, 1888 

0. Pearey 1549 

0. Quincy, 0. A K. R Co 816 

0. Roberts 228, 816, 795,850, 977. 
1290,1880,1652 
0. Russell 136 

0. Salisbury 844, 846,. 1462 

0. Peoones 1884 

0. Stanton 161 

0. Starke 834 

0. Slower 1051 

0. Tennell 837 

0. Totty 1469 

0. Tunstall 269 

0. Walker 56, 58, 1480, 2182 

0. Walley 679 

0. White 1081 

0. Williams 870, 1807, 1391 

Robertshaw 0. Bray 1775 

Robertson, Re 1847 

0. Archer 1228 

0. Armstrong 248 

Barbour 874 

0. Bingley 647, 617, 787, 967, 1462 
0. Campbell 1685 

0. Carson 149 

0. Crsrwford 618 

0. Great Western Ry Co. 280 

0. Howard 643 

0. Kemble 202,2(4 

0. Londonderry, Lord 588 

0. Lubbock 71*2 

0. Miller 624,626,629,1026,1027 
0. Norris 1225 

0. Quiddington 1880 

0. Robertson 87, 88. 89 

0. Scott 816. 1779 

0. Sbewell 1828 

0. Skelton 1275, 1282 

0.8outhgate 150,230,1525,1627, 

1629 
0. Stevens 841, 842 

0. Wllkie 48, 170ft 

0. Winch 169? 

0. Winchester 1029, 1553 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



• •• 

cut 



[Tito 



are to theses* paging.] 



Robin, The 
Robins, Re 

v. Hodgson 
Robinson, Ex parte 

Re 



1444 

99 

288 

1019, 1841 

118 



Re, Robtnsou ». Robinson 92 

& Allison 190 

r. Anderson 1078 

v. Aston 163, 177, 476 

• Atlantic By. On, 1748 

v. Ballsy 1642 

v Battle House Co. 866 

v. Baagh 808 

9. Belt 1029 

9. Bingtoy 689 

9 Bland 1224 

v. Brown 867 

9- Brutton 86 

v. Byron, Lord 1681, 1682, 1689, 
1662, 1668, 1672, 1688, 1687 
♦. Campbell 1 

v. Cook 1126, 1127 

v. Cooper 171, 889 

c Cropsey 1881 

9. Cross 884, 886 

9. Cmammg 1228, 1261, 12B6 

9. Dart 186 

v. Davtes 919 

r- Dholeep Singh 246, 867 

9. Dix 569 

v. Dolores Land Co. 824 

«. Drakes 1491 

v. Elliott 1424 

9. Frnmpton 1524 

v Galland 1068 

*. Gaffier 860 

v. Oovers 1540 

v. Guild 881,848,814,684 

9. Hadley 1784 

9. Hardin 847 

9. Harrison 1610 

9. Hintrager 217 

9 Hook 660 

9. India Chartered Bank 602 

9. Internationa: Life Ins. Co. 51 
v. Jenkins 1661 

9. Joplln 1024 

r Kltehin 666 

e>. Lewis 1475 

9. Utton 67, 1680 

9. Lowater 826 

9. Kartell 840 

9. Manuelle 1016 

v. MIerijquoi R. Co. 402 

9. Nash 612, 586 

9. Newdiek 1024, 1026 

9. Norton 68, 64, 814, 1642 

v. Pett 1288, 1284, 1418 

r. PhiladelphJa & R R. Co. 579, 

9. Pickering 186, 187 

9. Preswick 1680 

9. Raid 1625 

9. Reynolds 88, 179 
e. Robinson 220, 884, 1586. 2262 

9. Rokeby, Lord 442, 445 

9. Roeher 791 

& Rndkins 1019 

v. Sampson 841, 1479, 1675 

9 Setterlee 2891 

9 Scotney 1229 

a Simmons 1820 
9. Smith 26, 190. 287, 290. 292, 
668, 564, 588, B94 

v. Springfield Co. 197, 884 

v. Stewart 848, 847 

v. Sdgleman 844 

v. Taylor 1478, 1488. 1784 

v. Thompson 681, 586 

e. Towneend 826 

9. Wall 1458, 1555, 1559 

9. Wheeler 1621, 1626 

*. Williamson 1126 

9. Wood 1806,1694 

9. Woodgate 72$ 

Robinson's frosts, Re 1080 



Robinson Tobseeo Co. v, Phil- 
lips 855 

Robson, Rb 188 

9. Cranwell 1026 

v. Devon, Earl of 159, 621, 808, 

816, 1397 
v. Dodds 240, 245, 899. 1070 

e. Flight 721. 848 

v. Whltolngham 995, 1072, 1081. 

1688 

Boby v. Cossttt 544 

v. Wholes 1044 

Roch v. Callen 1422 

Rochdale Canal Co. 9. King 824, 
486. 760, i657, 1678, 1819, 1822 

Roche v. Morgell 878, 881. 611, 616, 
616, 619, 669, 670 

Rochester, Re 1770 

r. Anderson 381 

» Lee 790 

Rochester, Corp- of 9. Lee 21, 996, 
1137, 1148, 1149, 1464 

Rochester, Mayors Ac. of v. 

Curtis* 1664, 1670 

Rochester Distilling Co. 9. Dev- 
endorf 817 

Rochester, H. & L R. Co. 9. 

New York. fcc. R. Co. 1684 

Rochester R. Co. v. Robinson 818 

Rochfort 9. Battersby 59, 157, 1496 

Rock v. Cook 1064, 1744 

e. Mathews 1668 

Rock Portland Cement Co. v 

Wilson 1082 

Rocks e. Hart 1416 

Rockwell e. Folsom 988, 987 

e. Morgan 847, 1202 

Roddam 9. Hetherington 81, 1704, 

1706, 1707, 1713 
9. Motley 658 

Roderlgaa 9. Bast Rife* Savings 
Institution 1507 

Rodesr Births 1260 

Rodgers v. Dibrell 1676 

9. Ellison 444 

9. Jones 418 

9. Nowill 1112, 1118. 1136. 1147, 
1642, 1649, 1681 
9. Rodgers 406, 1677 

Rodick 9. Gandell 1827 

Rodman 9. Forllne 1492 

Rodney 9. Hare 829. 884, 988 

Roe 9. Davies 864, 861, 890, 1058, 

1451 
e. Gudgeon 1781 

Roomer 9. Neumann 517. 1019, 1031 
9. Simon 1019, 1504 

Rofley, Ex parte 642 

9 Bent 1089 

e. Miller 68, 1525 

Rogers, Ex parte 1051 

e. Abbott 1643 

9. Aeaster 119, 128, 127 

9. Biackwell 834 

9. Burton 1099 

9. Challls 1081 

9. Cincinnati 1627 

9. Clark 165 

9. Cruger 169, 784, 758, 1497 

9. Danforth 1668 

9. De Forrest 424 

9. Duhart 813 

9. Fryer 412 

9. Goore 970 

9. Gore 884 

9. Holly 1468 

9. Hooper 88, 830 

9. Horn 110, 807, 978, 974, 1<«1 
9 Hosack 1463 

9. Hnll Dock Co. 1650 

9. Jones 208, 1444 

9. King 685 

e. Kirkpatrick 483 

9. Lambert 1561 

n Linton 150,219 

9. M'Maeham 1550 

9. Maddocke 1655 



Rogers 9. Marshall 87» 

9. Mitchell 829, 844, 845, 9691 

f.N.Y.sT L. Co. 818, 878; 

9. Parker 16K 

9. Peterson 604, 1481, U8I 

9. Rathbun 886 

9. Rsimnsr 1120, 

9. Rogers 257,294,401.402,415, 
418. 424, 552, 1008, 1018, 
1028, 1080, 1074. 1868, 137ft, 
1450, 1600, 1779, 1798 
9. Ross 1426, 1*27. 1724 

9. Saunders 368 

9. Solomons 407, 1580 

9. Thomas 861 

9. Traders 1 Ins. Co. 198 

9. Van Nortwfck 26 

9. Vosbunjh 864, 684, 815, 816. 

16KB 
v. Ward 187, 861 , 868, 1998 

Rogers Locomotive and Machine 
Works v. Brie R. Co. 1662 

Rogers T. Co. e. Mergen thaler L. 
Co. 1662 

Rolfs 9. Gregory 590 

9. Harris 1688 

e. Peterson 1656 

e. Rolfe 1667 

Roltestoc 9. Morton 277 

Rollins 9. Forbes 567 

9 Henry 1720, 1726 

9. Hints 164R 

Inv. Co. e. Gestae 29s\ 

Rolls 9 Miller 1662 

v. Tate 185 

Roll, Re 188 

9. SomecviUe, Lord 684 

v. White 199 

Romalne 9. Hendriokson 248, 874. 

Rome Bank 9. Haselson 289 

Rome, Ac. R. Co. 9. Rochester 166R 
Romilly v. Grlnt 42 

Romlne 9. State 1881 

9. Yanee 982 

Romney v. 750? 

Rondanes v. Mayor of New 

Orleans 1650 

Rookev Kensington, Lord 1001, 

2182 

Rookes 9. Rookes 18181 

Roome v Nicholson 864 

Rooper 9. Harrison 882 

Roosevelt 9. CrommeUi* 46> 

9. Elllthorp 1882 

Root v Lake Shore Ry. Co. 680> 

9. Paloe 1062 

9. Rv. Co. 6301 

9. Woodworth 1517 

9 Woolworth 1684 

Rootham v Dawson 889 

Roots 9. Mason City S & M. 

Co. 1561 

Roper, Re, Roper 9. Donoastot 109, 

179 

Re, Taylor 9. Bland 1368 

9. London 671 

9. Wren 1258 

Lumber Co 9. Wallace 813 

Ropes 9. Upton 1654 

Rosoarrtok v. Barton 214 264 

Rosev Blakemore 11H8 

9. Brown 974, 1505 

« Cailand 988, 1401, 1402 

9. Clark 197 

9. Clarke 2048 

9. Gunnel 547, 548, 1557, 1679 

9. King 419 

9. Mynatt 861, 407, 861 

9. Page 214, 279 

9. Rolls 96 

o. West 566 

9. Woodruff 517, 619 

Rosenberg 9. Lind >• 185fi 

Roseborough v. RosehorougH 1860 

.Rosen banns. GooneU Bloat Ins. 

Co. 818 



civ 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[The 



are to the star paging*] 



Rosenbaum v. Foes 




674 


Rosenkrans v. Snorer 


1168 


Rosenthal v. McMann 


650 


v. Reynolds 




1648 


Roskell v. Whitworth 


1071.107V. 




1080, 1687. 168* 


Ron, Ex parte 




648 


ti Aglionby 




1077 


v. Botwell 




646 


v. Butter 




1686,1686 


v. Carpenter 




406,420,2882 


v ColTllle 




1047 


v. Crary 




217 


v. Bwer 




186 


v. Glbba 




678, 677 


v. Gutterluge 




167 


« Harper 


1486,1628,2806 



v New England In*. Go. 1110 

v. Page 1681 

v. Ron 816, 1779 

v. Shearer 147, 1689 

v. Tatham 1207 

v. Union Pacific R. Go. 1668 

v. Wharton 117 

v. William* 1766 

v. Woodford 892 

v. Woods 1626 

Rouse v. Rnst 994 

Rossiter v. Miller 666, 990 

v. Pitt 869 

RoswelPs Case 1680 

Rotberham v. Rattson 1404 

Rothschild v. Portugal, Queen of 20 

u Whitman 642 

Rothwell v. BenshaU 178 

v. King 676 

v. Rothwell 1172, 1778. 

1780 

Rouche v. Williamson 46 

Roudabush v. Miller 1286 

Rough v. Simmons 814 

Roulston v. Ralston 861 

Round v. Bell 658 

Roundell v. Breary 1008 

v. Currer 1648, 1799 

Roundlett v. Jordan 841 

Roundtree v. Gordon 846 

Rourke, Re 185 

Rouse v.Jones 1616,1616 

Ronskulp v. Kershner 542, 694 

Ronth v. Kinder 248 

v. Peaeh 871 

*. Webster 1648 

Routledge v. Low 46, 1648 

Roreray v. Grayson 161 

Row, Re 99 

v. Row 1429, 1480 

Rowan v. Bowles 826, 861 

v. Mercer 214 

v. State Bank 1298 

Rowbotham v. Jones 808 

Rowev. 988,988 

v. Brenton 1106 

v Granite Bridge 1687 

v. Gudgeon 709 

v. Jackson 106 

v. London School Board 1082 

v. Patterson 824 

v. Phillips 658 

v. Teed 607, 666 

v. Tonkin 688, 591 

v. White 2040 

v. Wood 607, 670, 671, 672. 1239, 

1624, 1719, 1768 

Rowrtl v. Jewett 814 

v. St. Louis 1115 

Row land v. Brans 206, 1267 

v. German 294 

v. Miller 1654 

v. Oakley 95 

v. Sturgis 829, 881, 888, 982 

Rowlands v. Tucker 1487 

Rowlandson v. Fenton 1097 

Rowlatt v. Cattell 1694 

Rowley v. Adams 1189, 1193, 1193, 

1198, 1280, 1878, 1468, 1477. 

1610 



Rowley v. Benthuysen 987 

v. Burgess 1202 

v. Secies 868, 600, 608, 680, 702 

v. Ridley 496, 968, 1065 

v. Scales 2 

v. Van Benthuysen 1460, 1462,1468 

v. Williams 094 

Rowley's Appeal 848 

Rownson, Re, Pield v. White 648 

Roworth v. Wilkes 866 

RowseU v. Morris 201, 280, 288, 292, 

819 

Rowth v. Howell 1751 

Rowton v. Rowton 657 

Roy v. Gibbon 1772, 1778 

Royal v. Johnson 994 

Royal Mail Packet Go. v. Braham 449 

Royall v. McKemle 1815 

Royce v. Tarrant 287, 289 

Royds v. Royds 1416, 1419 

Royle, Re t Fryer v. Boyle 286, 645 

v. Wynne 816 

Rubber Co. v. Goodyear 686, 1224 

Rubery v. Grant 848 

v. Morris 155 

Ruby v.Abytslnian Society 1242, 1218 

v. Strocher 176 

Rueker v. Howard 1895 

v. Scholeueld 208, 1009, 1017 

Ruckman v. Astor 1287, 1248 

v.Cory 560 

v. Decker 661, 714, 998. 1017. 

1013. 1866 

v. Palisade Land Co. 68, 74 

v. Stephens 87, 215 

Rudd v. Darling 1069 

v. Rowe 794 

v. Bpeare 176 

Ruddy, Re 206 

Rude v. Whitchurch 889. 1229 

Rudge v. Weedon 87, 179, 181, 588. 

1526 
Rudow v. Great Britain at L. 

Ass. Society 1406 

Rue v. Meirs 68 

Rocgger v. Indianapolis R, Co. 684 

Rumen v. Alston 92 

Ruffner v. Hewitt 190, 1870 

Ruflbrd v. Bishop 1297 

Rugan v. Sabin 560 

Ruge v. Apalachkola 0. C. Co. 1668 

Rugglas v. Eddy 782 

Ruhllng v. Uackett 1971 

Rulluff, Ex parte 282 

Rumbly v. Stalnton 790 

Rumbold v. Cowl 670 

v. Forteath 679, 678. 694, 812, 

1887, 1879, 1822, 1881 

Rumnty v. Maud 200 

v. Mead 249 

v. Walter 1070 

v. Willis 1898 

Rump v. Greenhill 886, 896, 589, 

797,2066 

Rummy v. Rumsey 1829 

Ru ndell v. Marquis of Donegal 214 

v. Murray 1643 

v. Hirer*, Lord 1210 

Ruodle v Foster 674, 948, 944 

v. Rundle 69 

Range v. Schleicher 802 

Runk v St John 1751 

Rush, Re 1054, 1555 

v. HigKS 286, 1615 

v. Smith 1102 

Rushbrooke v. Farley 418 

Rushing v. Thompson 1081 

Rushout v. Turner 822 

Rushworth v. Pembroke, Countess 

of 869 

v. Smith 1748 

Rusling v. Bray 1820 

v. Rusling 1071 

Ruspini v. Vlckery 590 

Russ v. Wilson 1640 

Russell v. Ashby 1699, 1700, 1707. 

1718 



Russell v. Atkinson 


968 


« Austin 


1166 


v. Ball 


1092 


v. Barstow 


680 


V. Blake 


1242 


v. Buchanan 


1809 



v Cambefort 140, 147, 149, 446 
v. Chicago Trust k S. Bank 1120 
v Clark 562 

v. Clarke 149, 161, 289 

v. Copp 646 

v. Craig 1508 

v. Dlckeschied 1566 

v. Bast Anglian Ry. Co. 1067, 

1058, 1688, 1781, 1748, 1744 
v Bly 668 

v. Fanning 1147 

v. Garrett 884 

v. Gregg 779 

v. Jackson 678, 676, 677, 578, 

1884 
v Lamb 790, 1548 

v. Lathroo 986 

v. London, Chatham and 

Dorer Ry. Co. 1618, 1682 

v. Loring 660. 680 

v. McLellan 1176,1678 

v. Mofflt 846 

v. Pellegrini 1861 

v. Place 669 

v. Plaice 1844 

v Russell 882, 671, 1468 

v. Sharp 76, 76, 168 

v. Shenton 211 

v. Skipwith 49 

v. Smithies 1240, 1242 

v. Southard 1289, 1241 

v. Tapping 1017 

v. Texas & Pae. Ry. Co. 1762 

v. Wakefield Waterworks Co. 26, 

241,243 

Russia Cement Co. v. Ls Page 1648 

Rust v. Mansfield 811 

« Rust 1160 

« Victoria Graying Dock Co. 211 

Rustomjeev. Reg. 188 

Rustoo v. Tobln 26, 888 

Rutgers v. Hunter 2259 

v Kingsland 1961 

Rutherford, Re 660, 1462 

v. Dawson 1771 

v. Douglas 1726 

tx Metcalf 604, 1662; 1664, 1688, 

1684 

v. Miller 169 

v Nelson 904,918.980 

v. Wilkinson 1768, 1769 

Rutland v. Paige 1548 

Rutley v. GUI 1278 

Rutter v. Baldwin 184 

v Marriott 1278 

v. Tallis 1744 

v. Tregent 785 

Rutty v. Person 1078 

Rutean, Baron de v. Fair 1126. 1126 

Ryanv Anderson 200,802 

v Anglesea R. Co. 2124 

v Ashton 1841 

v. Blount 997 

v. Lamson 1661 

v. McLeod 986 

v. Mutual Tontine W G. 

Aks'u 1664. 1660 

v. Nesbitt 1411, 1421 

v Ring 27 

v. Shawneetown 884 

Rychmen v. Parkins 1788 

Ryder v Bentham 1688, 1662 

v. Gower 1290, 1461 

v. IuTerarity 986 

v Topping 216,834 

Rye, Re 1828 

Ryes v. Wellington, Duke of 181 

Ryiandsv. Latouche 1688, 1647, 1686 

Rymer v. Cook 1106 

Byres v. Coleman 1868 

v. Eyres 870, 647, 669 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 
[The nihwanei are to the iter paging.] 



CV 



S. 



8. v. L. 608 

Sawn «. Oilman 1866 

Sahttefeh «. Russell 668 

Sachs w. Spetlman 888, 666 

Beckett v. HU1 1668 

Stckett-i Harbor Bank «r. Blake 96 
SaekrtU 9. Ayfeworth 816, 1673 

Saddlngtoo v. Kinsman 120, 122 
Sadler v. Glow 686 

«. Green 1481 

v Loeett 1616 

Safety Fond Bank v. Westlake 860 
Baflbrd 9. People 1068, 1762 

Saflron Walden S. B. B. Society 
9. Rayner 807, 674 

9. Central B, Go. 1460, I486, 

1482 

9. Memphia A L. R. Co. 1784 

Bagory v. Bayleai 1018, 1022 

Bahlgaard v. Kennedy 190, 1684 
Batnetry v. Grammer 207 

Bt Albans, Duke of v. 8klpwith 1680 
St Albyn v. Harding 1386 

Bt Anbyn v. Smart 268 

St. Clair 9. Smith 161 

Balnter v. Fergoaon 1664, 1667 

St. Felix 9. Rankin 1168 

Bt. George, Re 1862 

9. St. George 726 

St Giles, Re 1862 

St. Helen's 8melting Co. v. Tip- 
ping 1686 
St. John 9. Besborongh, Barl of 87 
Lord v. St. John, Lady 848 
9. Harriaon 486 
St. John'* College v. Carter 1688 



v. Pratt 1688, 1686 

St. Joseph R. Co. 9. Smith 1762 

St. Joseph k St Louis R, Co. 9. 

Humphreys 1748 

St Katharine Dock Co. 9. 

Mantagn 747 

St Lasmlre, Re 1868 

St. Louis Life Ins. Co.*. Alliance, 

Ac Life Ins. Co. 1668 

St Lonla Perpetual Ins. Co. 9, 

Cohen 144 

St Loais Ac. By. Co. 9. Wilson 26 
8t Lake's v. St Leonard's 1164 
St Mary Magdalen College, 

Pre*, of 9. Sibthorp 408, 418, 

1490 
St-NamlreCo, Re 401 

St Paul's, Minor Canons ot 9. 

Crlekett 668 

St Paul's, Warden and Minor 
Canons of *. Kettle 1078 

9. Morris 1124, 1126 

St Sepulchre, Vicar of, Re 1014 
St Stephens, Re 18 

St Victor v. Derereux 88, 48, 1600, 

1779,1790 
Sale v. Kitson 216, 267 

v. McLean 652, 1648, 1649 

v. Meggett 1073 

r. Sale 71, 1847 

v. Saunders 127 

Salem, City of v. Eastern R. R 

Co. 1640 

Salem National Bank v. Salem 

Co. 1648 

Sales r. Lusk 1716 

Saleakl e. Boyd 974, 1469 

Salfleld v. Sutter County Land 

Imp Co. 818 

Salisbury v. Baggot 662 

r. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 241, 246 
Bishop of 9 Phillips 1167 

Earl of v. Cecil 680 

Barl of v. Newton 



Salisbury Mills v. Townsend 197, 1661 

Balkeld v. Johnston 1491 

v. Phillips 683 

*. Science 686, 670, 676, 680 

Bailee v. Duncan 846 

Selminav. Juri 1881 

Salmon e. Anderson 1786, 1794 

9. Clagett 674, 720, 784, 768, 

848,846 
9, Dean 611, 618 

v. Green 429 

9. Osborn 1860 

Smith 842 



9. Wooton 
Salomon v. Herts 
Salomons v. Knight 

9 Laing 
Salov v. Block 
Salsbury e. Falk 



683 

1660 

1620 

144,241 

208 

324 



Salt 9. Cooper 1087, 1686, 1788, 1734 

Baiter, Ex parte 1603 

9. lSradshaw 1886 

v. Kreuger 266 

v. Scarborough 647 

9. Tlldealey 796, 799, 800 

v. Tobias 664 

Saltmarsh v. Hockett 709 

Baltus p. Tobias 607, 609 

SaMdge v. Fulton 893 

9. Hyde 886,837.846 

SaWin 9. North Brancepeth Coal 

Co. 1636 

Salway v. Salway 1761 

Same v. Beckett 777, 1684 

Samis 9. King 26 

Bammes v. Rfekman 1868, 1419 

8ammis v. Bennett 1469 

v. L'Bngle 1661 

v. Wlghtman 200 

8ammon v. Bennett 676 

Sample v. Frost 676 

v. Sample 849 

Samples v. Bank 722, 2884 

Sampson v. Appleyard 1129 

v. Hunt 1002 

9. Madge 1622 

v. Smith 1686 

9. Bwettenham 679 

k Wall, Re 108 

Bamsinego v. Stiles 197 

Samson v. Samson 284 

Samudav. Furtado 684 

v. Lawford 1660 

Samuel v. Jones 1409, 1411. 1412 

v. Rogers 440, 660 

v. Samuel 266, 1174 

9. Wiley 1698 

Sanborn v. Adair 884, 846. 887 

9. Dwinell 884 

v. Kittredge 861, 844 

v. Perry 1468 

v Rogers 866 

v. Sanborn 406, 426 

Sane hex v. Newman 1461 

Sanders, Re 226 

v. Benson 816, 608, 1394 

v. Gatewood 986, 1081 

v. Godley 444 

9. Gray 1283 

v- Howe 916 

v. Kelray 846 

9. King 606, 616, 619, 620, 669. 

9. Miller 1428, 1482, 1488 

v. Murney 691 

9. Page 124 

v. Peck 1886 

9. Plunkett 1676 

v. Pope 1669 

v. Sanders 661 

v, Wilson 1289 



Sanders v. Tonken 


•040 


Sanderson, Re 


1448 


9. Chadwiok 


1404 


v. Cockermouth Railway Co. 




1060 


v. Sanderson 


884,691 


9. Stoddart 


1423 


9. Walker 


1420, 1610 


Bandeford v. Lewis 


790 


Ban Diego v. Allison 
Sandford v. — 


1624 


1198 


v. Ballard 


1726 


9. Blddulph 


1197 


9. Clarke 


1408 


9. Head 1019, 


1081,1684 


9. McLean 


1168 


9. Morrice 


842, 1870 


9. Remington 


676, 961 


9. Sandford 


76 


Sandilandfl v. Innes 


217 



Bandon v. Hooper 1242,1248,2218, 

Sands v. Beardsley 1073 

9. ChampUn 1997 

v. Codwise 1469 

*. Hildreth 978 



9. Thompson 


649 


Sandys v. Long 
v. Watson 


868 
1419 


Saner v. Bllton 


1407.1680 

818,977 

1786 


v. DeaT«n 


Sanford v. Sinclair 


Sanger v. Gardiner 


1468 


Sanger 9. Newton 


418 


*. Nightingale 


689 


9. Wood 


684,816 


Bangosa v. Bast India Co. 


290 



Sanitary District *. Cullerton 1108 
Sanquirico v. Benedetti 1664, 1667 
Sansom *. Bansom 1068 

Banxary e. Hunger 1624 

Sanxter v. Foster 1640, 1642 

Sapp v. Phelps 884, 1386 

Sapphire, The 18 

Bapte 9. Ward 168, 188, 268, 689 
Sarah, The 1896 

Saratoga County Supeirlsors v. 

Seabury 1661 

Bargant v. Read 1727, 1782, 1784. 

1786 

Sergeant v. First National Bank 886 

v. Rowley 1608 

Sargent 9. Johnson 1784 

9. Sargent 1411 

v. Wilton 214 

Barsneld v. Van Vaughner 828 

Sartwell v. Fields 1468, 1491 

Satterfield v. Malone 609 

Satterley v. Robinson 671 

Satterwhite «. Davenport 768 

Saul v. Met'n Ry. Co. 1686 

Saull v. Browne 800, 720, 1*20 

Sauls v. Freeman 1663 

Saum v. SUngley 869, 1577 

Baumares v. Saumares 280, 1740 

8aunders v. Allen 844 

9. Druee 200, 824, 604, 608, 612, 

1474 

v. Frost 1, 406, 411, 638, 128", 

1248, 1246, 1262, 1876, 1881, 

1386, 1886, 1891, 1892, 1400, 

1616 

6 

1282 

1491 

660 

824,679,720,866 

698,860 

1299 

296,1486 

1648,1646 



v. Getting 
9. Gray 
v. Gregory 
v. Hord 
v. Jones 
9. Leslie 
9. Prunty 
v. Saunders 
V. Smith 



GVl 



TABLB OF CASES CITED. 



pEha 



are to she scar paging.] 



Saunders v. Soatter 813 

v. Tottenhani&o. Ry. Go. 1774 

v. Waiter 1827, 1807 

v. Warton 56 

v. Wiel 667 

Sausa v. Belcher 647 

Sewage. Re 807,808,1611 

v. Aiken 880 

«. Brocksopp 848 

v. Carrol 176 r 1078 

9. Garter 1663 

v.Lane 886 

9. Herrlam 818 

v. fimaJebroke 680 

v. Snail 1624 

Savory v. King 1608 

Savile v. Bruce 1001 

v. Savile 1284, 1286 

Seville, Re 1611 

v. Tancred 228 

Savin, Ex parte 1088 

Savings Bank v. Benton 1U1 

v. Holt 1886 

Savings, &c Society v. Austin 1661 

Savory v. Dyer 888, 1614 

Sawtelle v. Rollins 68, 68 

Sawyer. Jfe 1688 

v. Baldwin 90, 91, 96, 1427 

». Birchmore 944,846,1206.1208 

». Campbell 417, 7(0, 782 

v. Davis 1576 

V. Horey 1978 

v. Kellogg 1648 

v. Mills 796 

v. Noble 884, 889 

v. Sawyer 189, 618 

Spindle Co. v. Tomer 1642 

Sawyers v. Bakers 216 

Sax v. Darls 988 

Saxby v. Basterbrook 1620 

v. Manchester &o. 8. By. Co. 261 

•. Saxby 1592,1504.1686 

Saxon v. Barfcadale 688, 690 

Saxton v. Davis 80, 840, 668 

Say v. Creed 218 

flayer v. Austin 1206 

v. Bradley 1508 

v Devon 814 

v. Wagstaff 200 

Bayers v. Collyer 1080, 1654 

SaylasnTibbitta 208,287,826,669 



Baylor evMockbte 604 

Baylors v. Baylors 259 

Sayre e. Elytoo Land Co. 1274 

9. Fredericks 847 

Scaffold v. Hampton 799, 973 

ScaMe v. Scaife 1149, 1866 

Scales v. Nichols 629, 740, 1486, i486 

Scanlan, Re 70, 108 

v. Houston 1260 

9. Howe 1640 

t. Scanlan 718 

v. Usher 1501 

v. Wright 46 

Scarborough v. Barton 1876 

Scarf v Soulby 827 

Scarisbrick v. Skelmendale, 

Lord 1476, 1580 

ScarpelUni v. Atcheson 114 

Scarry v, Eldridge 269 

Scarth v. Cotton 166 

Scatchmer v. Foolkatd 42 

Beattergood v. Harrison 1233 

v Keeley 1890 

Scawin v. Scawln 296 

Schalkff. Schmidt 1619, 1675 

Schauer v. Field 1643 

Soheeti'a Appeal 1076; 1631 

Scheiffelin v. Weatherred 1561 

Schelcamp t>. Schrader 1631 

Schell v. Schroder 1772 

Schelmardine v. Harrop 198 

Schenck v. Conover 1275, 1467, 

1468, 1470 
v. EUingwood 220 

v. Hartford Fire Ins, Co. 818 



Schenck v. Peay 447, 1568 

Sehennerhorn v. Barhydt 288 

v. Mahaffle 974 

Schermerhorne *>. Schermer- 

horne 2293 

Sohettler v. Fort Howard 1661 

SobJefiaun v. Stewart 1268, 1389 
Schlndel v. Gates 646 

Sehjott *. Sehjott 68, U0, 808 

Schleehi's Appeal 1720 

Sehlesingerv. Turner 1896,1648 
Schlatter v. Smith 871 

Schley v. Dixon 26, 144 

SchludeBbarg v. Robertson 1463 
Sohluter v. Harvey 1666 

Schmomann v. Rothfus 1877 

Sohmid v. Seovill Manut Co. 

1881 

Schmidt v. Dietericht 802 

e. Limehouse 1267 

v. Miller 1804 

Schmitteo v. Fatdka 1664 

Schneider v. Bait 406 

«. Brown 1688 

v. Foote 818 

v. Liaardi », 597, 686, 699, 0il2, 

1675 

v. Selbert 1008 

Sehnur v. Hickoox 1770 

Sohoefler v. Hunnewall 1463 

Scholefleld v. Heafleld 166, 168, 269, 

1345 
Scholes v. Brook 26 

SchoJey v. Central Railway 1468 
Schomp v. 8cnenok 668 

School Commisaloners v. Toller 

1676 

School District *. BlaisdeU 24 

v. Brown 1461 

v. Price 1164 

v. Weston 1568 

Schoolae. Sail 198,815 

Sehoonmaker v. GOlet 1688, 1684 

Schoonover v. Bright 1638 

8ehotsinans v. Lancashire ft 

Yorkshire Ry. Go, 1080 

Schore v. Sehmincke 1643 

Schram v. Baker 1643 

Schreffler v. Nadelhoflsr 830 

Schroeder v. Cleugh 1450 

v. Loeber 60 

Schroeppel v. Redfield 888, 829, 668 
Sohroers v. Fisk 818 

Schubkagel v. Dierstein 676 

Sehulenberg-Boeckeler Lumber 

Co. v. Hayward 829 

Schulenburg. Ex part* 1069 

Schultse. Third Ave. R.Go. 1120 

v. Winter 303 

Schumacher «. Sohwcncke 1643, 

1648 

Sohuylexv Curtis 1643 

v. Hoyle 90, 117, 121, 123 

v. Peusetsr 1664, 1567 

v. Schlicht 1566 

Schuyler's Steam T. Go , Re 1743 

Schwab v. City of Madison 1620 

v. Mabley 991 

Schwabaoher v. Becker 96 

Schwarta v. Keystone OH Go. 1756 

v. Weehler 559 

Schwars v. Wendell 666 

Schwoerer v. Boylston Market 

Assoc. 208, 287, 802 

Sclater v. Cottam 1284, 1887, 1413 

Scofleld v. Bokkelen 1619 

v. Stoddard 1195 

Sconce v. Whitney 163 

Scoones v. Morrell 990, 14'*8 

Score e. Ford 1T79 

Scott, Re 1069, 1*51 

v. Allett 785 

v. Allgood 370 

v. Ames 1676 

v. Armstrong 1743 

v. Avery 670, 671 

e. Beooer 1722, 1728 



Scott v. Broadwood 


640,1668 


e Garter 


781 


v. Clarkaon 


829 


v. Cons. Ban*: 


68 


v. Crawford 


1468 


v. Cumberland 


1480 


v. Dunbar 


1897,1898 


v. Duncombe 


229 


v. Fenhoulett 


261 


9. Fen wick 


869 


e. Fleming 
v. Hancock 


1844 
648 


*. Hastings, Lord 


1049 


v. Homer 


1827 


9. Jackman 


128fr 


9. Jailer 


1042 


v. Jones 


842 


9. Lalor 


1660,1661 


«. Liverpool, Corp. of 


671 


v. Liverpool, Mayor of 


880 


9. MoOann 


091 


v. Maeflsrland 


221 


9. Malcolm 


856 



9. Mansfield, Ac. R. Go. 287 

9. Maxwell 1168 

v. Miller 668. 668. 717 

0. Neely 1071, 1566 

9. Nesbitl 886, 1289 

9. Nicholl 198 

v. Nixon 989 

v. Onderdonk 196L 

v. Padwtek 973 

9. Pinkerton 1248 

9. Platel 1756 

9 Porter 446 

9. Rand 638 

9. Rayment 986, 1081 

9. Rowland 1651 

9. Royal Wax Candle Co. 449 

9. Sampson 862 

9. Scott 1404 

9. Spasbets 108,2001 

9. Stanford 1646 

9. Streatham 221 

9, Walker 866 

9. Wharton 1628, 163> 

v. Wheeler 464, 616, 1610, 1828 
Scottish Union Ins. Co, v. 

Steele 896 

Scottish Widows' Fund v. Craig 198* 
Seotto «. Stone- 715 

Seotta v. Hume 722 

Scouten v. Bender 1616 

8. C. Railroad Co. v. Toomer 1119 
Scralford v. Gladwin County 

Supervisors 1881 

Scran ton t>. Stewart 678 

Screven v. Clark 1751 

Screwmen v. Smith 1120 

Screw Mower v. Mettler 162k 

Scribner v. Henry O. Allen Go. 

1648 

9. Williams I486 

Scrimeger v. Bnehannon 841 

Scrivrn, Re 868 

9. Tapley 108 

Scrivener, Ex parte 886 

8cruby v. Payne 228 

Scruggs v. Driver 251 

Scruttoo v. Pattillo 117 

Scudderc. Bogert 729 

9. Trenton Delaware Falls Co. 

1076 
Scully v. Lord Dondonald 974, 

1589 
Soulthorpe v . Tipper 1420 

Scurrah v. Sourrah 1218, H26 

Scurry v. Morse 252 

Scutt v. Freeman 984 

Seabright v. Seabright 894 

Seabury 9. Grosvenor 1)648 

Sea, Fire, and Life Assurance 

Company, Re 1028 

Stager v. Aston 647 

Seajrers, Ex parte 1866 

Seagram e. Tuck 842, 1766, 1757 
Seagrove v. Park* 148 



TABLE OF CASTES CITED* 



cm 



rriia 



are to the saw peeing.? 



Baa Ins. Co. v. Day 

9. 



Seal v. Browntnev 
SsaJey v. Oastoo 
8*»1* v. Phfeiflkr 
Sealy v. Liird 
Baa«uan, /» re 
r Hicks 
r. Sa'harteJt 
r. KiggJns 
v. SUter 
v. itoughton 

v. Rigging 
rch «. Search 
fjsorsy «. Morgan 
9. Payne 
». "~ 
v. Colt 
Cooke 



894,1717,1719. 

1748 

1386 

87, 110, 179 

384,418 

1706 

1766 

1999,1282 

*J<, 1103 

1286 

1511 

68 

1289 

814,360 

166 

611, 617 

117, 118 

668 

1164 

1881 

r. Une 1083 

9. Matthew* 1670 

v. Jacksonville R. Oo. 287, 

1716 
9. Boaton 848 

v. Baroum 860 

9. Beltfngnam 876 

9. Carrier 841,846,634 

9. Hardy 248 

9. Hyer 732 

9. Jackson 668, 1467 

v. Powell 294 

Stmt v. Knight 1748 

Beaton v. Clarke 149 

9. Grant 26, 246, 817, 829, 899, 

786,790 

*». Beaton 108, 122 

Searer v. Phelpe 88 

Beay v. Ferguson 402 

•. Hughes 1625 

Beborn *. Beckwlth 418 

Sabring t>. Menereaa 279 

9. Sabring 660,801 

Baoeomb v. ADyn 2148 

Seccombe v. ntagetald 1077 

Seehler ». Stark 1881 

Seeembe v. OaapbeU 674, 848 

Baeood Cong. Society 9. First 

Cong. Society 886 

Seeor v. SlngleUm 812, 600, 1617 
of State for War *. 
Chubb 16 

Sadden ev Council 26 

Seddon v. Bolton Bank 1417 

v. Virginia. Ice. Co. 146 

Sedgwick v. Cleveland 68, 169. 197, 
280, 281, 1608, 1618, 1520, 1622, 

1684,1648 
v. Wetkins 1704, 1706 

9. House Piufjai Ij & lav. 
Co. 278 

68,1617,1626,1640 
801,826,970 
689, 1600, 1667, 
1686 
1138 
814 
407 
940 
1416 



9. Webb 
Seeker «. Hem . 

Sesley r. Mahew 

Seefy 9. Hills 

Saslye 9. Boehm 

aeerle v. Richardson 

Seers r. Hind 

Sefton, Lord v. Salisbury, Lord 

1682 
889 
1741 
1578, 1676, 
1677,1684 
Seibert v, Minneapolis, <fcc R. 

Co. 212 

Seibert C. 0. C. Oo. v. Newark 

L. Man. Co. 779 

Mont C O. Co. 9. Phillips 

L Co. 197 

MJenbach v. Denklespsil 1766 

SeMeotopf v. Annabil 1491 

Miller, Ex parte 27, 81, 1606 

Betted v. People's Bank 617 



v. Thomas 
SVgrain v. Tuck 
Seguin %. Marerick 



fleifteid 9. People's Beak 612, 616. 

Ssajhostner v. Weissenborn 1727 

Seiglev.Seigle 1820 

8euas v. Hauson 82. 53 

Salmans «. Selkre '&& 

Beits 9. Mitchell 843, 844 

Setxas «. King 629 

SahBo a> Proreseude l&kd 

dt-Jby v. Crew 6*53 

v. Nettlefold 1639 

v. Pomfret 213 

v. Powifl 1129 

v. Selby 1682 

Selchow v. Baker 1668 

Selden v. Preston 62 

9. Vermilya 1676 

Self v. Jenkins 1660 

v. Madox 1066 

Selftv. Pare 1640 

SeHgman v. Beal Estate Trust 

Co. 679 

Setters v. Dawson 1642 

Bellas v. Dawson 64, 814. 1642 

Sailers v. Dawson 64, 814 

9. Phoenix Ins. Go. 26 

Sellon v. Lewen 700 

Sells «. Hubbell 249, 266 

Selway v. Chappell 966 

Sslwyn v. Oarflt 372 

Selyard, Lady 9, Harris, Bx- 

ecutors of 248, 271 

Semmens v . Walters 966 

Ssmmes v. Boykin 424 

9. Mott 803 

Scmple v. Holland 808 

9. London St Birmingham By. 
Co. 68 

Semrow v. Semrow 1069 

Seneca Falls, Village of v. Mat- 
thews 1668, 1669, 1676 
8euft v. Manhattan R. Co. 1617 
Seahouse v, Barl 670, 660, 675 
•.Hall I486 
Senior v. Armytage 1666 
9. Pawson 1081,1613,1619,1686, 
1688, 1646, 1662, 2088. 
2812,2823 
•. Pritehard 1614, 1626, 1672 
Sentence v. Porter 1896 
Senter v. Mitchell 60 
Serf v. Acton Local Board 196 
Sergason «. Sealey 1865 
Sergison v. Bearan 447, 1625 
SergroTs «. Maybe* 62, 168, 606, 

682, 669, 703 

Serb 9. FardeU 1168 

• StBloy 77.41S 

Series v. Cromer 986 

Sereka v. Kattenburg 189 

Service tr. Castaneda 142 

Serris v.Bsetty 676 

Sessions v. Romadka 843 

Setoo «. Slade 869, 709, 990 

Settled Estates Act, Re 12R5 

Setter* Beale 1073 

Severn v. Fletcher 408, 1559 

Sevier v. O reenway 1891 

Serin v. Deslandes 1653 

Bewail v. Bobbins 940 

e. Bewail 1895 

Sewel 9. Fraesam 1122 

8eweU v. Ashley 226 

9. Bridge 6*6 

v. Gadden 446, 461 

v. Johnson 1284 

9. MoxAy 2048 

Sewing Machine Oo. 9. Dunbar 1580 

Sexsmith v Smith 1661 

Sexton, Ex part* 1791 

9. Henderson 1491 

v. Smith 817 

Beybert 9. Robinson 848 

Seymer ev Nosworthy 677 

Seymour v. Bailey 62 

9. DeJancey 988, 1078, 2266 

t . Edwards 216 



149 



1687 
1781 



Seymour v. Hasard 895, 1699, 1701 
9 Long Dock Co. 661 

9. Seymour 670 

Shackelford v. Shackelford 1766 
Shackle v. Baker 1666 

Shackleford v. Helm 1881 

Shack lettv. Polk 186 

Sh«lden v. Patrick. 1127 

Saaeffer «. Chambers 1289, 1242, 

1261, 1*62 
Sh*fer v. O'Brien 884 

Suafer Iron Co. v. Iron Circuit 

Judge 
ShaftVrv. Fetty 
Shaft v. Pheoix Mat Life Ins. 

Co. 
Shaftesbury, Barl of v. Marl- 
borough, Duke of 
Shaftesbury, Lady e. Arrow- 
smith 679, 1881 
Shalto v. Bolchow 210, 854 
Shaftoe v. Shaftoe 1706 
Shaftsbury's, Barl of, Case 1851 
Shaftsbusy, Lord v. Han nam 1851 
Sbainwald v. Lewis 149, 889, 1061. 

1584. 1699. 1782 
Shekel e. Marlborough, Duks of 1720 
v. Roche 1620 

Shekels v. Richardson 282 

Shakopee Manuf. Co., Re 1784 

Shalleross t>. Hibbenon 1286 

Shales v. Harrington 1886, 1404 

Shampeau 9. Connecticut R, L. 

Co. 149, 889 

Shand v. Kidd 96 

Shann 9. /ones 1281 

Shannon *. Bradstrest 126 

9. Davis 1784 

*. Brwin 878, 898 

9. Feohbeamar 418 

9. Hanks 1784 

v. Marsells 1668 

9. Speere 



Shepherd, Re 


1087 


Shapiro v. Buna 


1482 


Shapland, Re 


1069 


Shapleigh v. Chester 


Beotric 


Light * P. Co- 


888 


Shard, As 


89 


Shardlow *. CotteriH 


661 


Sharon v. Hill 


684,829,2892 


9. Terry 


1609 


Sharon Canal Oo. 9. Fulton Bank 20 


Sharp 9. Aahtom 
9. Brlce 


488 
1180 


v. Carter 


668,1741 


9. Hess 1282, 1461, 1492 


9. Hullett 


68,814 


*. Lu.ih .488, 1174, 1226, 1688 


9. McHenry 


60 


9. Morrow 


867,1282 


v. Reiasnar 


848 


9. Roahde 


1408 


9. Runk 


sunt 

eon 


9. St Saureur 


47 


v. Scarborough, Barl of 1254 


9. Taylor 889 r 1706. 21&5 


v. Whirefltae 


818 


*. Wright 


1448, 1762 


Sh&rpe v. Allen 


966 


v. Blondeau 


441, 4741 


9. Foy 


118,122^187 


v. Oamon 


225 


9. San Paulo R. Co. 


900,228,825 


v. Sharpe 


1L86 


Sharpies 9. Sharpies 


1428 


Sharmd v. Winfleld 


1617 


Sharnhaw 9. Oibbs 


W* 


Shattock v. Shattock 


1«7 


Sbattuck v. Carson 


19*1 


Sharer v. Bnunnrd 


287 


v. Lawrence County 


298 


v. Williams 


1660 


Shaw, Export* 


18*7 


9, Abbott 


1918 




444 
1097 


0. Back 



cvm 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[TIm 



are to the iter paging.] 



Shaw «. Bill 1683 

v. Chase 686 

v. Chlng 800, 1839 

v. Colwell Lead Oo. 848 

v. Coster 884. 1660, 166L 1662, 
1668, 1664, 1666, 1670 
v. Dwight 1624 

v. JUrTof Jersey 1668 

0. Forrest 1601 

«. Foster 197, 279 

v. Hardingham 222 

v. Hoadley 269 

v. Johnson 668, 1418 

«. Lindsay 449, 929, 962 

v. Lindsey 698 

v. Millsaps 1648 

v. Neale 1086, 1846 

«. Norfolk County R. B Oo. 220, 
222,267,278.1076,2220 
v. Pmttenon 602,987,1871 

v. Pfckthall 1481 

v. Rhodes 1764 

v. 8impsoo 1268 

v. Smith 1817, 1888 

v. Stanton 1641 

v. Wler 1668 

v. Wright 1062, 1064, 1066,1059. 

1741 
Bhaw's Claim (No. 2), Re 1004 

Shay v. Pettes 1978 

Shea v. KnoxTille, &o. R. Co. 814 
Shesie v. Sheafr 1961 

Bhealy v. Toole 642 

Shearman v. Christian 1481 

v. Findley 449 

Shedd v. Garfield 874. 684, 658 

Bhedden v. Patrick 1074, 1080, 1122. 

1127, 1602 
Shee v. Harris 1784 

Bheehan v. Great Eastern Ry. 

Co. 206,287,406,659 

Bheeler v. 8peer 920 



Sheffield v. Buckingham, Duchess 
of 166, 474, 1022 

v. Bnoklnghamshire, Duchess 

of 1624, 1626 

v. Sheffield 1468 

Sheffield & B. Coal Co. v. Gor- 
don 1221, 1299 
Sheffield Canal Oo. v. Sheffield 

k Rotherham Ry. Oo. 1824 
Sheffield Furnace Oo. v. Wlth- 

erow 690 

Sheffield and Rotherham Ry. Co., 

Re 1841 

Sheffield Water Works v. Yeo- 

mans 274, 602, 1682 

Sheidley v Aultman 894 

Bhelberry v. Briggs 188 

Shelburne, Conntess of v. Inohl- 

qoln, Lord 77 

Shelby v. Shelby 642, 645, 856 

Bhelden v. Walbridge 1556 

Sheldon v. Fortescue 178, 1492 

v. Keokuk No. Line P. Co 806, 559 

«. Rockwell 1689, 1640, 1668 

v. Weldman 642 

Shelley v. . 986, 937 

Shelly v. Pelham 1748 

v. Shelly 1601 

Shellman v. Scott 1677 

Shelton v. Johnson 281 

v. Van Kleeek 1676, 1580 

v. Watson 2182 

Shenandoah Valley R. Co. v. 

Dunlnp 878 

v. Griffith 418 

Shepard v. Akers 1267, 1866, 1869 
v. Brown 661, 662 

v. Ford 784 

v. Manhattan Ry. Co. 208 

v. Shepard 128, 861 

v. Taylor 1120 

Shephard, Re, Atkins v, Shep- 

hard 1507 

r. Guernmy 286 

9. Merrill 406, 671, 1682 



Shephard v. Ross 1082 

Shepherd v. Churchill 166. 1161, 

1162,1168 
v. Groff 1667 

v. Gwinnett 280 

v. Hlrsh, Pritchard, * Co. 147, 

446 

v. Hughes 1640 

v. Jones 894, 1662 

v. Lloyd 689 

v. MoClaln 1180, 1882 

v. Morris 1819 

v. Pepper 1720 

v. Ross County 1062 

v. Thompson 916 

v. Titley 1686 

v. Towgood 1687, 2061 

Bheppard v. Akers 888, 787, 760 

v. Duke 658 

v. Elliott 1251 

v. Gilmore 824, 1071 

v. Harris 162, 475 

v. Lane 1680 

v. Nixon 680 

v. Oxenibrd 1728 

v. Bheppard 1410, 1488, 1796, 1808 

«. Smith 1417, 1419 

v. Starke 217, 802, 1029 

v. Yocum 1461 

8hepperd v. tturdock 640 

Sherata v. Nioodemos 827 

Sherburne v. Mlddleton 1501 

Sheridan v. Andrewi 281 

x. Cameron 890 

v. Colrin 1620 

Sheriff v. Axe 1284 

v. Oil Oo. 884 

Bherin v. Smith 987, 1871 

Sherlock v. Bamed 1188 

Sherman t>. American 8tore Go. 808 

v. Ballon 1868 

v. Beale 671 

v. Burnham 109 

v. Cox 277 

v. Elder 100 

v. Fitch 1961 

v. Partridge 1560 

v. Retgart 121 

v. Sherman 666, 1702, 1707 

v. Withers 641 

Bherratt v. Bentley 1486 

v. Mountfbrd 1487 

v. 8berratt 106, 118 

BherriU v. Harrell 1677 

Sherrington v. Smith 1580, 1688 

Sherrit v. Birch 217, 266 

Sherry v. Perkins 1688 

v. Smith 688 

Sherwin v. Shakespear 1004, 1020. 

1400,1489 

Sherwood, Re 1284, 1418 

v. Bereridge 1008, 1276, 1291 

v. Clark 590 

if. Rivers 480 

v. Smith I860 

v. Sutton 641, 646 

v. White 1672 

Sheward v. dtisans' Water Co. 642 

v. Sheward 1574 

Shewell v. Jonct 1449 

v. Shewell 1202 

Bhewen v. Vanderhorst 648, 644. 

794.1210 
Sbickle v. South St. Louis 

Foundry Co. 884 

Sbickle Iron Co. v. 8. L. Wiley 

C. Co. 149 

Shield v. Anderson 645 

Shields v. Arndt 1689 

v.Barrow 149,287,290,298,294, 

884,884,886,425,1548 

v. Boucher 1122, 1137 

v. Bryant 161, 165 

v. McClung 1626, 1676 

v. 8biff 288 

v. Thomas 207, 845 

Shlers, Re 167 



Shlllaber v. Robinson If* 

BhilUto v. Collet* 92, 1868 

ShiUltoe v. Claridge 1188 

Shinier v. Morris Cana., &e. Co. 

1681 
Shine v. Boiling 986 

v. Gough 1207 

Shinkle v. Covington 1620 

Ship v. Crosskill 1899 

Shlpbrooke, Lord v. Hinchin- 

brook, Lord 1868, 1588. 

1799 
Shiphard v. Lntwldge 164 

Shipley v. Johns 1642 

v. Reasoner 402 

Shipman v. Holt 1648 

8hipton v. Rawlins 268, 272 

Shipwa? v. Ball 96 

Shirk v. Govle 1608 

Shirley v. Ferrers, Barl 988, 986. 
1176, 1268, 1806, 1474, 1678 

v. Hagar 68 

v Matthews 1127 

Shirt v. Westby 1268 

Bhittlerv Shittler 1888,1487 

Shobev Carr 1258 

Shoecraa v. Beard 1885 

Shoemaker v. National Bank 1614 

v. South Bend 8. A. Co. 1642 

Shoe ft Leather Rep. Ass'n v. 

Bailey 679 

Shoesmith v. Byerly 1689 

Shone v. City of London Real 

Property Co. 1688 

Shore v. Shore 1746 

v. Wilson 13 

Short v. Downer 618 

v Klefbr 



417 

1214 

Out . WS4 

1660 

586 

1717, 1719 



1418 
816,406 



v. Lee 1076 

v. Macanlay 
Shorthill v. Ferguson 
Shortley v. Selby 
Shortridge, Re 
Shotbolt v. Biscow 
Shotts v. Boyd 
Shotwell v. Smith 

v. Taliaferro 
ShoTelton v. ShoTelton 
Showell v. Wlnkup 
Shrader v. Walker 
Shrapnel v. Gamgee 744 

v. Laing 1886 

Shrewsbury, Barl of v. North 

Staffordshire Ry. Co. 602, 

1581 

v. Trappes 898, 1440, 1471 

Shrewsbury Hospital, Ex parte 

1800 
Shrewsbury R. Go. v. London 

Ry. Co. 987, 1491 

Shrewsbury School, Re 1611, 1864, 

Shrewsbury & B. Ry. v. Stonr 

Valley Ry. 
Shrewsbury ft Chester Ry. Go. 
v. Shrewsbury lb Birming- 
ham Ry. Oo. 1652, 1661. 

1068 
Shrlmptonv. Lalght 1649 

Shropshire v. Lyle 669 

Shropshire U. R. fc 0. Co. v. 

Reg. 674 

Shrubsole v. Schneider 1084, 1114. 

1468 
Shubrlck v. Guerrard 1628 

Shuee v. Shuee 886 

Shuff «. Holdaway 1749, 1766 

Shugart v. Thompson 871 

Shnll r. Kennon 1156 

Shuttles v. Reiser 1461 

Shuman v. Shuman 861 

Shurmer v. Hodge 1696, 1607 

Shurts v. Howell 286 

Shuts v. Gustln 974 

v. Hoggs 119 

Shnttleworth v. Brlstow 1226 

v. Howarth 217, 488, 1218, 1428 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CIS 



(Thf 



are to the star paging.] 



ShntUeworth v. Howatt 1218 

v. Laycock 881 

r. LonadaJe, Karl of 1066 

p. Lowtbcr 1891 

v. Nicholson 1106 

v. Norea 116 

Shyev. Llewellen 1460 

SIbbald 9. Lowrie 418, 796. 1662. 

1666.1821 
gibbering w. Balcanaa, Karl of 27, 

867,858 
Sftert 9. McAvoy 1147 

Sbler v. Saflel 1861 

v. Simontou 202 

Sirard r. Whale 48 

Sieuell v. Raphael 1707, 1713, 1718, 

1714 
Skhler tr. Look 214 

Sfekell ». Raphael 2880 

Sick lea v. Gloucester Co. 2891 

Bidden v. Forster 1183 

r. Lediard 709 

Sideboinam v. Barrlngton 1400. 

SMebottom r. Adklna 



r. Barrlngtou 

v. Sidebottom 
Sldener 9. White 
8ldee v 8eharff 
Sidgfer v. Tyta 
8M£mrham, Ae 
Sidney r. Perry 

v. Ranger 

r. Sidney 

r. Wllmer 



489, 717, 

942 

1219 

AAA 

1626 
266 
624 
1864 
688,691 
1267,1271 
888,1662 
1610, 1611 
ojerekiog v. Behrana 1668, 1664, 

Siffkio «. Davis 168, 216, 1266 

Ngmaa v. Lnndy 1648 

Sikca r Truitt 647 

SUber Light Co. v. Sllbar 96, 68. 

242 
Sflberberg e. Pearson 586 

8Ucock,J2e 99 

v. Roynon 707,710 

Silk r. Oaborna 68 

Sill v. Worswick 61 

SilHbonrnee. Newport 1842 

Stilman v. Bowen 1166 

Snjoway v. Colombian Ini. Co. 144, 

286,19% 

bTOs v. Brown 1100 

Silsbee v. Lneaa 1061 

Silva. Re 88, 86 

v. Garcia 1628 

Silrerc Campbell 1282 

r. Kendrick 863 

v. Norwich, Bishop of 1718, 

1780 
r. Stain 901,208,1614 

Hirer Lake Bank r. North 24,1246 
SHrer Spring Co. v Wansuck 

Co 1688 

Simmonds, Re 1426 

r. Du Barre 747 

t. Great Raetarn By. Co. 1016 
r. Klnnalrd, Lord 406, 1063 

9. Pallet 696 

Simmons v. Bates 176 

*. Bernard 68,165,1168 

t. Gutteridge 1181, 1182 

v. Hanover - 193 

r. Heartside 1667 

9. Ingram 216 

». Jacobs 1168, 1171, 1221,1296. 
1800, 2186, 2198 
v. Rosa 1786, 1767 

v Saul 653 

9. Shirley 1287 

v. Simmons 880, 859 

v. Storer 1449 

9. Tongue 1282 

s.Wood 496,616,1749 

Shams v. Guthrie 149 

9. Lloyd 1461 

v. Richardson 287 



Simms v. Thompson 


1019 


Simon 9. Ash 


1826 


9. Stale 


861 


v. Townsend 


1677 


Simons, Re 


991 


9. Bagnell 


794,1169 


9. McAdam 


1891 


9 Mllman 


819,680 



Simplot v. Slmplot 878, 866, 860 

Simpson, Ex parte 847, 851. 854 
9. Alexander 68, 69, 7*2 

9. Barton 492 

9. Bathurst 68 

9. Brewster 682, 798, 796, 1409 
9. Brown 677, 1834 

9. Burton 868 

9. Carson 1770 

9. Chapman 1654 

e. Dennlson 1620 

9. Denny 216, 257 

v. Downs 1575 

9. Fogo 646, 664 

v. Hart 1463 

9. HolUday 1120 

9. Howden, Lord 1621, 1680 

9. Malberbe 914, 1439 

9. Ritchie 1163 

9. Sadd 818, 989, 2257 

9 Savage 211 

v. South Stentodshire Water- 
works Co. 1650 
9. Terry 1221 
9. Wallace 834 
9 Watts 1577 
9. Westminster Palace Hotel 
Co. 241, 1508, 1650 

8imsv Adams 334 

v. Bonner 27 

9. Bark 1548 

v Cross 1004 

v. Laws 1468 

9. Lyle 608, 614, 617 

v Ridge 1169 

Sinclair v. Commlasionen 1661 

v. Jackson 881, 662, 653 

«. Price 1186, 1186 

9. Sinclair 68 

v. 8teTeuson 1100 

Singer 9. Andsley 1599 

9. Steele 1299 

Singer Man. Co. «. Domestic 
Sewing Machine Co. 1642, 

1644 

Singer Sewing Machine Co. 9. 
Button Hole Co. 1657 

Singer Sewing Machine Mannf. 
Co. 9. WUson 891, 914, 1003, 

1642, 1648 

Singleton v. Cos 215 

9. Gale 626 

v. Gayle 287. 841 

v. Hopkins 166, 227, 266, 1162. 

v. O'Blenls 197 

v. Scott 860 

v. 8elwyn 840, 661 

9. Singleton 1675, 1578, 1679. 

1581 

9. Tomlinson 1882 

Slnnett v. Herbert 1491 

9. Moles 1676 

Sinnioksonv Bruere 1248,1298, 

1821 
Sioux City, lee. Ry. Co. 9. Chi- 
cago, Ac. Ry Co. 295 
Sirdefteldv Thacker 1008 
Slter «. Jordan 121 
Sltlington v. Brown 786, 743 
81twell v. Millersh 1280 
9. 81twell 1278, 1274 
Sirell 9 Abraham 794, 795, 1380 
8karf 9. Soolby 991 
Skeatsv Hurst 906 
Skeri 9. Spraker 276, 838 
Skeene v. Pepper 1213 
Skeet 9. Lindsay 646 
8koetes,2fe 1852 



Skegg 9. Simpson 


448,1044 


8keggs, J?e 


1479 


Skidmore, Re 


896 


Skiggs, Re 


1490, 1616 


Skiuner, Ex parte 


1864,1865 


9. Bailey 


820,861 


9. Carter 


1159 


v. Dayton 


926, 1657 



v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 673 
v. Judaon 664, 567, 721 

9. M'Douall 865, 656 

v Shew 1642 

«. Todd 187 

Skinners 1 Co. * Irish Society 1599, 

1724 
Skip. Ex parte 886 

e.llarwood 1684,1716,1716,1728 
Sklpp 9. Wyatt 1889 

Bkipwortb* Westneld 1555,1558 
Skirrett v. A thy 1897 

Skirrow v. Skirrow 1432 

Skrine v. Powell 1458, 1674 

Skrymsher v. Nortbeote 1029. 1080, 

1480,1432 

Slack v. Black 561, 2108 

v. Brans 849,728 

9. Midland Ry. Co. 1062 

9. Walcott 1608 

v. Wood 1622 

Slade, Re, Blade e. Holme 1058 

v. Rigg 2S9, 2231 

Single 9. Bodmer 987 

Slaney v. Sidney 1564, 1666 

9. Wade 1124, 1187 

Slason 9 Wright 846, 1548, 1658 

Slater v. Banwell 716, 1656 

v Canada Central R. W. Co. 878 

9. Cobb 1548 

9 Slater 1794 

v. Smith 865 

Blatter v. Carroll 251 

Slee v. Bloom 1814, 1820 

9. Manhattan Co. 1886, 1891, 1892 

Sleech v. Thorington 102 

Sleeman v. Sleeman 171 

9. Wilson 660 

Sleght 9. Kade 58 

Sleight v. Lawson 828, 1282 

81esstngerv Buckingham 843 

SieTin, Re, Slevio v. Hepburn 13 

Sllngsby v. Boulton 1666 

9. Hale 1588 

9. Moulton 1561 

Sloan v. Little 722, 728 

v Sloan 1580, 1584 

Sloggett v. Collins 408 

eViant 29,369,1553 

Sloman v. Kelley 564 

9. New Zealand 90, 142, 446 

9 Walter 1657 

Sloop Chester Case 50 

Small v. Attwood 196, 248, 801. 403. 

v. Boudinot 824 

9. Small 1071 

Smallcombe's case 660 

Smaller* Clark 1846 

9. Corliss 1815, 1816 

Smallwood v. Lewin 754, 781, 782 

9 Rutter 70 

Smart v Bradstock 226, 237 

9 Flood 1736 

9. Hunt 650 

v. M*Lellan 1283 

9. Tranter 668 

Smedburg v Mark 1699, 1707 

Smedes v. Houghtallng 1254 

Smedley v. Hill 1125 

Smets 9. Williams 828, 829, 568, 604 

Smiley v. Bell 197, 199 

9. Jones 549 

Smille v. 8iler 887 

3ml He's Estate 121 

Smith, Ex parte 1584, 1846 

Re 61,62.100,102,108.157,648, 

653, 1504, 1602, 1678, 1844 

ifc, Williams v. Frere 909,1825 



ex 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



(The 



aretoiheetarpt«ing.] 



Smith*. Ac too 101* 

v. Allen 644, 1626 

v. Althus 1187, 1188, 1191 

v. Amer. Ins. ft Tr. Go. 1667 

9. Andrew* 282, 1982 

v. Annltage 828 

v. Armstrong 1812, 1866 

v. Atkinson 190 

«. Attorney-General 816 

v. Aykwell 1661 

v. Babcock 402, 708, 778, 781 

9. Badham 64 

v. Bailey 1891 

9 Baker 828, 842, 901, 918, 1870 
v. Baldwin 294 

v. Ballantyne 601 

Barber 1166 

Barnes 419, 697, 1882, 1886 
Bartholomew 292 

Bate 1362 

Beaufort, Duke of 680, 1829. It8l 
Betty 848, lOtf, 11*7 

fiickneli 186 

Biggs 922 

Black 2271.1286 

Blackman 868, 876 

Blake 1663 

Bliyeni 1638 

Blofleld 609 

Bolden 221, 1417 

Boston, C. ft M. R. Go. 670 
Bourbon County 680 

Bricker 816 

Britain 1283 

Brittenhnm 197, 617, 790 

Brftton 237, 287 

Brooksbank 200, 249 

Brownlow, Earl 289, 248, 841.878 
Brush 1224, 1248 

Bryon 686,777 

Buller 916, 1878, 1440, 1449 
Burnham 1, 88, &i 4, 406, 866 
Butler Co., Oomm. of 7 

Capron 821.869 

Castles 86; 81 

Chambers 887,867,1288,1894 



V. 

9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 

9. 

V. 
9. 
9. 

9. 

V. 

v. 

9. 
9. 

V. 

v. 

9. 

9. 
V. 
V. 
V. 

p. 

V. 

9. 

9. 

9. 

9 

9. 

9. 

9. 

9. 

9. 

9. 

9 

9. 

9. 

9. 

9. 

9. 

9. 

9. 

9 

9 

9. 

9. 

9. 

9. 

9. 

9 

9. 

9. 

9. 

9. 

9. 

9 

9. 

9. 

9 

9 

9. 

9. 

9 

9. 



Chandos 

Chapman 

Charter Oak life Ins. Go. 

Chichester 

Clark 

Clarke 

Clay 

Coffin 

Coleman 

Collyer 

Cook 

Cooke 

Copleston 

Cornfbot 



1260 
277 
61 



Oowell 

Creagh 

Creasy 

Cremer 

Croom 

Cunningham 

Dale 

Danlell 

Danielty 

Daftdson 

Daries 

Day 

Deanner 

Dixon 

Dorn 

Bowling 

Drake 

Rust India Co. 

Bd wards 

Bfflngham 



1842 

874,844 

868,1666 

661 

887 

418 

1629,1 88 

991, 1686 

1684 

1264 

868 

986, 1087, 1686, 1733 

319 

1520 

1416 

1076, 1110, 1478 

632 

1410 

676, 1832 

642 

839 

898,996 

1446, 1661, 1662 

1149, 1384 



424,1602 
659 
1829 
645 
681 
152 
1147. 1440, 1468, 



1474, 1488. 1788. 1744 

Etches 28, 87, W, 109. Ill 

Eiwtk 1166 

Everett 662. 1660 

Rwing 648, 850 

Fisher 721 

JJeyd 87, 74 



Smith 9. fly 646 

9. Ford 991 

•.Pox 600,1668 

9. Gage 190 

e. G«3e 287 

v Qamlen 786 

9. Godbold 888, 1869 

e. Goldsworthy 278 

9. Gooch 216 

9. Graham 1198 
v Great Western Ry. Go. 1603 



9. Green 
9. Grim 
9. Qrlswold 
9. Guy 
9. Hadley 



298,1891 

266 

662 

797, 798, 800 

402,418 



9. Hammond 29,1409,1666,1671 
v. Harley 197 

v. Harrlgan 1271 

9. Harris 1765 

9. Hartley 781 

9. Harwood 1610 

v HartweU 1661.1666 

9. Henley 880, 981 

9. Hibernian Mine Co. 160 

v. Hill 662, 663 

9. Holmes 1467 

v. Horafiul 812, 1611, 1612, 1526. 

906 

286,1087 

1774 

1737,1728 

880 

122 

662 

690, 787, 788 



9. Huntington 
9. Hurst 
9. Jackson 
9. Jeyes 
9. Jones 
9. Kane 
v.Kay 
v. Kelley 
9. King 
9. Klrkpatrkk 
9. Lakeman 
9. Lampson 
v. Lard 
9. Lasher 
v. Lathrop 
9. Lawrence 
tr. Leathart 
9. Lereaux 
9. Lloyd 



929 

1070 

1253 

1619 

728,726 

688 

227 

J, 246 

651 

1774, 1776 



9. London and South Western 



Ry. Co. 
v. Long 
9. Lowe 
9. Lowry 
v Lyon 
9 Lyster 
v. McDonald 
9. McLain 
9. McNeal 
v Manchester 
v. Manning 
9. Marable 
v. Marshall 
9. Martin 
9. Mamie 
9. Matthews 
v. Mitchell 
9. Moflktt 
9. Moore 
v Morehead 
v. Morgan 
9 Mules 
v. Nelson 
9. Nethersnle 
9 Northumberland 
9. O'Grady 
v Owen 
9. Palmer 
9. Parke 
v. Patton 
9 Pawiion 
v. Payne 
v. Pearce 
9. Pearman 
9. People 
9. rVters 
r. Pettingill 
9 Pierce 



1642 

128 
1727 
1622 

149 
1764 

166 
884, 1667, 1625 

659 
1660 
1607 
1097 

448 

1073 

1824 

91,829 

287 
68, 69, 60, 61 

194 

650 

1084.1099 

1654 

1276 

1704 

725 
1411 
1688 

161 

443 

834.1120 

89,41 

197 
1621 

QQQ 
WTO 

1089 

1662 

1681,1682 

1881 



Smith 9. Pilgrim 
9. Pllkinton 
9. Pomfret, Earl of 
9. Ponath 
9. Poor 
v. Portland 
v. Potter 
9. Poyas 
9. Bead 

v. Republic Life Ins. Co. 
9. Riehnell 
9. Robinson 



866,898 

1241,1252 

867,1599 

892 

26 

200 

787,887,846 

1684 

669 

896 

198 

1286 



217,219 

100 

48 

269 

1210 

1699,1671 

100 

288,289,241 

1666 



9. Rock 680, 1169 

9. Rows 818 

9. Ryan 1621 

9. Seekett 191 

9. 8t. Louis Mnt. Life Tns. Co. 
146, 402, 624, 712. 787. 760, 887, 
1681, 1688, 1667, 1616 

9. Schwed 1681 

9. Serle «9, 786 

9. Shaffer 1381 

v. Shane 646 

9. Sherman 417 

9. Bmecksmen Ins. Co. 1186 

9. Smith 68, 102, 808, rfO, 868, 
881. 888, 426, 680. 780, 796. 916, 
1008, 1080, 1168, 1301, 1314, 
1369, 1426, 1427, 1476, 1498, 
1617. 1624, 163B, 1641, 1664. 
1668, 1681, 1718, 1722^1728 

9. Snow 

9 Spence 

v. Spinolla 

9, Standard L M. Co. 

9. Steen 

9. Swansea Deek Co. 

9. Sweet 

9 Swormatedt 

v. Target 

9 Tebbltt 

9. Thomas 

9. Thompson 

9 Todd 

v. Trimble 

9. Turner 

9. Turrentine 

9. Vanderhurst 

9 Weguelia 

v. Wells 

9. West 

9. Wheatcroft 

9. Whltmore 

9. Wlgton 

9 Wilkinson 

9. Williams 

9. Wilson 

9 Winter 

9. Wood 

9 Woodfolk 

9 Worthtngtoo 

9. Wycoff 

v Yell 
Smith's Case 

Estate 

Goods, Re 
8mith, Knight ft Co , Re 
Smiths, e Flourooy 
Smith-Barry v. Dawson 
Smlthby v. Stlnton 
8mfthersv Fitch 
Smithlyv Hinton 
Smoot 9. Strauss 
Smyth, lie 

9. Balch 

9. Carter 

9. McKernan 

9. Mj-«»r* 

v . N O C ft B. Co 
Smyth v v Clay 

t> FUzritnmons 

v Henry 
Snagg v. Frlsell 
Snappv Poroell 
Snavely v. Harkrader 
Snead v. Green 

9. M'Coull 



1818 

465 

1166 

617,681,1804 

821,974,1676,1688 

294 

1265 

18, 141, 448 

964,968 

249,829,884 

880, 861, 1551 

664, 670, 1020 

402 



248,829 

676 

1846,1847 

824.660 

405,986 

1274 



676 

1109 

119 

261 

906 

646 

1686 

200 

1638 

262 

860 

178,1575,1578 

1626 

1688 

1820 

109 

630 

1580 

1576 

668 

1898 

381 

846 

666, 667, 712, 821 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXI 



[The 



are to the star paging.] 



v. Athscton 1158 

«. Swing 1074 
Bpel g rore «. Sneferove 676, 677, 678 

9. De Land 13B81 

r Dwight . W6 

r fewell 2120 

v. Harrison 1072 



v. Hrat 

v. MitcheU 

9. Timbrell 
tolling v. Boyd 

9. Watrous 
Bnodgrass e. Butler 
Bnookw Peerssll 

9 Sutton 

w. Watts 

■p Hansbroogh 
v. Alley 



176 
1889 
1182 

197 

607 
1566 

659 
1864 

176 
1120 

815 



9. Boltoa ' 1046, 1061, 1451 

♦.Booth 668 

v. Boston Blank Book Manuf. 

Co. 660, 714 

9 Coimsmman 688 

9. Hole 69,160,170 

♦.Teed 1468 

Snowball 9. Dixon 89, 155 

Bnowden 9. Snowden 468 

r. Tyler 690 

Bnowdon v Metropolitan RsJl- 

war Co. 1474 

BoowhUl v. Snowhill 118, 116, 117 

Snowman e. Harford 869 

Border 9. Botkln 1676 

9. Cabell 211 

w Hopkins 1628 

w.Martin 880 

w. Pharo 1071 

w Seemau 1675 

9. Snyder 1159 

9. Summers 1497 

Bosoms *. Edge 1080, 1660 

Bobernheimer «. Wheeler 286 

Bobey s. Sober 1702, 1706, 1718 

Boctttt Fonder* v. Milliken 149 

BoeJetd Generals 9. Dreyfus 

Brothers 452 

Society for Prop. Go#p. ». Hart- 
land 190 
w. New Haren M 
w. Wheeler 24,60 
w. Young 24 
Boeola 9. Grant 814, 686 
Soden 9. Soden 878 
Sofia 9. Prince 988 
Bonier v. Burr 1661 
v. Williams 287, 229 
Solicitor, A, Re 1666, 1685, 1817 
Solley v. Wood 807 
Botlory v. Leaver 1724 
Solly v. Oreathead 1046 
Solomon v. Britton 1129 
9 tlcsgerald 216 
v. Solomon 2SL 286, 1617 
v. Staiman 1594, 1597 
Soltao v. De Held 1597, 1686, 1687 
Bomerby v. Ban tin 689 
Somen v. Torrey 847, 729 
Somerset, Re 68 
Bocnerset County Bank 9. Yeghte 666 
Bomerrille v Blackay 1818, 1829 
9. Hayes 1666 
Bosses c. Martin 1610 
Sooner v. Charlton 1286 
Bonnet e. Powell 1190 
Soasmith v. J. P. Donaldson, 

The 618 

Boperv. Maanlog 814 

Borchan e. Mayo 1766 

Borden v. Conton 1127 

Boria v. Stowe 1081 

Sorrel v. Proctor 1418 

Bortwell r. Montpetter & W. R. 

R. Co. 1258 

Botheraa v. Smear 92, 103 

Soodon 9. Hooper 1240 

aVmlby •. Pfckfbrd 1104 



Sonle v. Corning 816 

South 9. Leery 1258 

Sooth A North h*k>— ^ R. Co. 

v. Wilson 860 

Southall v. British Mutual Life 
Assurance Co. 780 

9. MeKeand 1186 

Southampton Co. v. Southamp- 
ton Board 661 
Southampton &o., Co. v. Pinnoek 26 
v. Rawlins 28, 485, 807, 8U9 
Southard v. Rezford 664 
9. Russell 1680 
v. Sutler 212 
9. Sutton 280 
Southbridge Barings Bank v. 

Mason 1820 

Sooth Carolina v Georgia 1676 

South Carolina Bank v. Cass 24 
Southeastern Ry. Co., Re 90, 1802 
Southeastern Ry. Co .v. Brogden 561 
v London, Brighton, & South 

Coast Ry. Co. 1775 

v. Martin 651 

9. Submarine Telegraph Oo 647. 

810, 1667. 1658, 804i 

Southern Express Co. v. Western 

N. C. R. Co. 1748 

So. Life Ins. ft Trust Co. e. 

Lanier 802 

Southern Marble Co. v. Stegall 824 
Southern Medkal College 9. 

Thompson 1648 

Southern Mut. Ins. Co. «. Trsar 861 
Southern Pacific Co. e. Denton 651 
Southern Pacific R. Oo. v. Oak- 
land 1668 
Southern Ry. News Co 9. Russell 664 
Southern Steam Packet Oo. v. 

Roger 448 

Sonthey v. Nash 1101 

v. Sherwood 1646, 1647 

Soathmayd e. McLaughlin 1681 
South Molton e. Attorney-Gen- 
eral 18 
South Ottawa 9. Perkins 868 
South Park Cem'rs v Kerr 861 
South Platte Land Oo. v. Buf- 
falo County 1661 
South Sea Co. v. Bumsted 665 
9. Dollffe 676 
v. WymondseU 646, 648, 666 
South Staffordshire Ry. Co. v. 

Hall 791. 808, 610 

South Wales Ry. Co. v. Wythes 1668 
Southwestern L. & D. Co. *. 

Robertson HB9 

Southwiek, Matter of 1846 

Southworth v. Taylor 1666 

Soutter v. Milwaukee, fce. R. 

Co. 1617 

Sourerbye v Arden 2288 

Souser v. De Meyer 6*9, 612, 616, 

617, 662, 668, 674, 694, 700, 704. 

787 

Soward V. Leggatt 1096 

Sowdon v. Marriott 1491 

Sowerbyv Fryer 1680 

v. Lorkerby 1129 

9. Warder tfti 

flowle v. Champion 1291 

Bowles v. First Nat. Bank 668 

9. Witters 1748 

flowry v. Sowry 98, 1802 

Sowtoo v. Cutler 1584 

Sparidacini v. Treaey 894 

Spain, King of v. Hullstt 20, 164, 

421 

9 Maehado 17, 18, 197, 801. 802, 

815,857,1468,1469,1861 

v. Mendasabel 17 

Spain. Queen of e. Parr 20 

Spalding v. Dodge 857 

9. Ruding 2231 

Spang v. Robinson 1886 

Spanish General Agency Oo. «. 

Spanish Oo. 1676 



8paun v. Bpnm 1029 

Bparenbnrgh v. Bannatrne 49 

Spargur v. Heard 87, 109 

Sparhawk v. Buel 67, 1489 

v. WUis 1282. 1288, 1289, 1248, 

1248, 1298, 1800, 1817, 2228 

Spark v. Long 18** 

Sparke v. Iratt UI2 

Spark es v. Barrett 1097 

Sparks, Re 1404 

v. Farmers 1 Bank 1U78 

9. Liverpool Water Works Co. 1658 

Sparling v Brereton 588 

Sparrow v. Bwing 969 

v. Fiend 1150, 1157 

v. Hill 1407, 1449 

BpartaU v. Constautlonide 269 

Bpaulding v. Farwell 849, 728, 759 

v. Keeley 1669 

v. Warner 1150 

Speak v. Mesealf 177, 444 

v. Ransom 1588, 1668, 1678, 1676 

Spearing v Lyan 1080 

Special Bank Commissioner 9. 

Cranston Barings Bank 1804 

v. Franklin Bar. Inst. 1745 

Special Reference, Re 1069 

Speedlore v. Ss o odlore 1726 

Spser v. Crawter 209, 647, 1168. 

1164 

Sneering'* Appeal 26 

Speidall v. Jerri* 801 

Spsldel v. Henrlei 560, 860 

Speller v. Bristol Steam NaT. Co. 448 

Spence, Re 1848 

9 Allen 962 

9. Armour 1281, 1291 

9. Dodd 848 

9. Haaforu 1787 

9. Hogg 281 

v. McDonough 1688 

v Simls 1221 

Bpenosley v. Ds Wlllott 1102 

Spencer, Re 298, 828, 1809 

Re, Thomas 9. Spenser 100 

9. Allen 1065 

v. Armstrong 286 



v. Boyss 


164 


*. Bryan 


692 


9. Bryant 


43,156 


v. De Wlllott 


1182 


v. Fortescoe 


850 


v. Lee 


216 



v. London A Birmingham Ry. 

Co. 1686, 1668 

9. Luttrell 576 

9. Pee 1678 

9. Shaw 201, 818, 1722 

v. Stearns 1468 

v. Van Dusen 407 

v. Ward 1422, 1482 



Spendler v. Potter 

Spensley, Re 1428 

Sperling v. Rochfort 98, 96, 100, 186 

Sperry v. Miller 660 

Speyen v. Denjardins 866 

Spicerv Dawson 907 

v. Hoop 1619, 1654 

9. Martin 824, 1664 

v. Taylor 559 

Spickemell v. Hotham 1076 

Spies 9. Chicago, &c. R Co. 198 828 

Spike 9 Harding 1151,1163,1164 

Spill v. Celluloid Manuf Co. 1680 

Splllane «. Missouri Pac. Ry. 

Co. 601,680 

Splller, Re 1861, 1491 

v. Splller 1047 

Spink v. Francis 1620. 1686 

Spires v Sewell 796,797 

Spirett v. Willows 108, 105, 108 

Spltley v. Frost 669 

Spttt e v. Hughes 918, 1189, 1389 

v. Walton 897, 1098 

Spirey r. Frame 784 

I v. Jenkins 290 

I Spoflbrd v. Manning 600, 706, 787 



cxn 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



(The 



an to the star paging.] 



Spokes 0. Banbaty Board of 

Health 1688, 1687 

Spong 0. Hogg 1184 

8pooner, lie 1829 

v. McOonnel 1670 

v. Payne 621, 1068 

Sporle 0. Barnaby 97 

Spotter 0. Eifler 881 

SpotUswoode 0. Clarke 1640. 1646, 

1668.167* 

8pragg 0. Binkea 68, 61, 224 

v. Corner 1668 

Spragne 0. Graham 1886 

v. J ones 1029 

v. Litherberry 2897 

o. Mitchell 1188 

0. Rhode* 667, 1686 

v. Spragne 467 

v. Tyson 760 

v. West 1661 

A. ft W. Spragne Mannf. Go. 0. 

Hoyt 60 

Sprigg v. Albin 861 

Spring v. Domestic S. M. Oo. 6ft) 

v. Gray 641, 642 

v Jenkins 294 

v. Sandford 1288 

v South Car. Ins. Co. 1668,1666. 

v. Woodworth I860 

Springer v. Austin 971 

0. Vanderpool 249, 266 

8pringett v. Dashwood 1417, 1419 
Springfield « Hurst 262 

r Ollett 1406 

Springhead Spinning Co. v. Biley 

1690,1648 
8prouH's Appeal 1296 

Sprunt 0. Pugh 1088, 1061, 1766 
Sprye v. Reynell 796 

Spurgeon v. Hooker 1664 

Spurlock v. Folks 1606 

Spurr v. Benedict 1624,1961 

v SooTllle 149,161,468,629 

Spurrier v. Fitsgerakl 619 

v. Spurrier 1801 

Squibb v. MoFarland 1461 

Squier v. Shaw 786 

Squire, Ex parte 880 

v Hewlett 630 

v. Lincoln 286 

Pardoe 1886 

Perthall 1466 

Squirrel v. Squirrel 87, 74 

8 8. White Dental Co. 0. Sib- 
ley 1648 
Stables, Re 86 
Staoe v. Gage 222, 267 
v. Mabbot 1121, 1124 
8tacey v. Souther 1202 
v. Spratley 1076, 1148, 1884 
Stack, Re 1744 
8tackhouse v. Barnston 669, 660, 

661,699,642 

v. Jersey, Countess 676 

Staokpole v. Beaumont 106 

v. Curtis 1061 

Stackpoole v. Callaghan 28 

Stadler v. Herts 782 

Stafford v. American Mills Co. 1748 

v. Anglesey, Earl of 185 

v. Brown 878, 467, 488. 681, 760. 

763, 898, 1690 
tr. Bryan 660, 844. 1280, 1878. 
1879, 1679, 1600 
v. Burn 497 

v. Coxen 1082 

o. FIddon 1869 

v. Higgfnbotham 42 

0. Howlett 406, 407, 1616, 1681, 

1684,1636 

v. London, City of 208 

v Mott 1266 

r. Rogers 1818, 1819 

Stafford, Karl of v. Buckley 7 

Stafford Charities, Re 1482 

Stafford Nat Bank v. Spragne 818 



Staffurth v. Pott 


710 


Stagg v. Beekman 


1772 


v. Knowlas 


808 


Stagoll,Ae 


1611 


Stahl v. Gotseoberger 


1147 


Stable v. Winter 


1626 



Stahlsehmldt v. Lett 169, 648, 969, 

1879, 1426, 1446, 1626 

Stalght v. Burn 1688 

Staines 0. Giffard 1801 

e. Maddox 87, 79, 80, 81, 1466, 

1467 

v. Morris 1881, 1400, 1402 

v. Kudlin 1266 

Stainton v Canon Co. 200, 324, 

800, 1004, 1268, 1723 

v. Chadwiok 679, 1469, 1882 

Stale/ v. Barrett 2116 

v. Murphy 1621 

Stalling v. Goodloe 1688 

Stamford, Re 1878 

Stamford, Earl of 0. Dawson 1444 

8tamford v. Stamford Horse R. 

Oo. 669 

Stamper v. Barker 119, 122 

Stamps v. Birmingham & Stour 

▼alley Railway Co. 780 

Standard Bank v. Stokes 168}) 

Standen v. Edwards 1123,1187, 1148 

Standering v. Hall W» 

Standewlcke v. Watkins ' 1181 

Standish 0. Liverpool 1640 

v. Parker 683 

v. Radley 1676, 1681 

v. Whitwell 1899 

Standley 0. Roberts 1661 

Stance v. Parker 1284 

Stanford v. Murphy 402 

Stanger Loathes v. Stanger Loathes 

1780 
Stanhope v. Nott 676 

v. Stanhope 87 

Staniar v. Brans 298, 1029, 1414 
Staniland 0. Staniland 70, 71 

v. Willott 1899 

Stanley, Re 98 

v. Bond 626, 1089, 1041, 1678 

v. Coulthnnt 1766 

v. Kean 874 

v. Mather 288 

0. Risse 1071 

v. Robinson 712 

v. Sullivan 1062 

v. Wrigley 1161 

Stanley, Lady v. Bart of Shrews- 
bury 1080 
Stannard 0. Graves 1120 
v. Harrison 978 
v. St. Giles Vestry 1670 
Stanney v. Walmsley 954, 966 
8tansbury v. Arkwright 862, 871 
8taosfleld v. Habergham 1680, 1681, 

1688 

v. Hobson 211,212,267,269.661 

Stanton v. Ala.. &c. R. Go 1816. 

1820, 1781, 1748. 1762 

v. Bmbrey 688, 684 

v. Hatfield 1487. 1488 

v. Knight 642 

v. Percival 178, 829, 841 

Stanway, Re 1794 

Stanford v. Tudor 1182 

Stapilton v. Stapilton 74, 884 

Stapler v, Hardeman 1029 

Staples v. Staples 1120 

v. Turner 1624 

Stapleton, Ex parte 64 

v. Conway 1266 

Stapylton v. Peill 1718 

Starbnck v. Mitchell 86 

8tark v. Cheathem 214, 1266 

v. Hunton 644 

v. Starr 669 

v. Thompson 974 

Starkie, Ex parte 1868, 1868 

v. Richmond 1689, 1662 

Starks v. Redfleld 1676 



Star N. Co. 0. O'Connor 1666 

Starne v. Fair 198 

Stames v. Newaon 660, 666, 1061. 

Starr v. Maidstone 1880 

Starr's Estate 866 

Starten v. Bartholomew 70, 71, 1847 
State v. Allen 662, 1078 

0. Anderson 10 

v. Bank of Tennessee 129 

0. Bennlngham 10 

v. Black Hirer Phosphate Co. 821 
v. Blakemore 1264, 1766 

v. Boswell 980 

v. Brown 884, 1468 

0. Buck 1069 

0. Butler 1766 

0. Calloway 1660, 1661 

v. Central R. Co. 21 

v. Churchill 1071 

0. Civil District Judge 1620 

v. Clark 67, 1869 

v. Colombia 842 

v. County Court 1687, 1660, 1661 
0. Cross 8*4 

v. Cutler 1688, 1684 

0. Davis 1069 

v. Dayton & 8. R. R. Co. 10 

0. De Wolf 886 

v. Distriet Court 686 

0. District Judge 1675 

v. Durein 1688 

v. Fagan 1687 

0. Farish 1119 

v. Farmers' L. & T. Co. 10 

0. Foot 286,884 

0. Frew 887, 1069 

0. Gooch 1766 

0. Hannibal, Ac. R. Co. 1120 

0. Hardie 6 

0. Hemingway 794 

0. Henthorn 1069 

0. Hill 129 

0. Hopkins 879 

0. Horner 686 

0. Hyde 1809 

0. Jacksonville, Ac. R. Oo. 1742 
0. Johnson 1468 

0. Kennedy 10 

0. Ring 1716 

0. Knight 1089 

0. Kolsem 1576 

0. Lewis 1881 

0. Levy 004 

0. Litchfield 907 

0. Lonrdale 944 

0. Melntire 1168, 1170. 1171, 

1298, 1317 
0. Marion County Com'ra 10 

e. Maury 668 

0. Mayes 10 

v. Mead 21 

0. Mewhertar 674 

v. Nashville Savings Bank 894 
0. New Orleans, &o. R. Co 684 
0. Northern, &c Ry. Co. 1716 
0. Paris Ry. Co. 10 

0. Pierce 1688 

0. Roanoke Nav. Co. 1286 

0. Rush County Com'rs 1614 

0. Rust 1666 

0. St. Louis, fee. Ry. Co. 864 

0. Samuels 881 

0. Saunders 1620 

0. Schweickardt 1620 

r. Spartanburg, fee. R. Co. 1492 
0. Sturgis 1744 

0. Temple 188 

0. Turner 190 

0. Ward 129 

0. Wayman 1264 

0. White 672 

0. White's Creek Turnpike Co. 10 
0. Williams 824 

v. Wolfenden 1661 

0. Wonnick 1484 

State Bank t. BeU 1606 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CX111 



[The 



an to the star paging.] 



State Bank v Edwards 



v Baxter 



846 
422 

State In*. Co. v. Gannett 147, 894. 

1691,1670 

* Sax 148 

State of Ohio v. Hlocbin 864 

State Railroad Tax Gates 1661 

Statoamv llall 1664 

Staunton v. Harris 1278, 1288 

8cawJ,/fe 662,668 

w Coarse 1272 

r. Stead 796 

Steam Gauge &L0o v. Mey- 

rose 669 

Steam Stone Cotter Go « 8ean 1061 
Seearae v. Habbaid 667 

r. Page 617, 788, 1997 

*. Raidy 860 

w. Stearns 848 

Stabbing v. AUee 946 

Stabbina v. St. Anne 808, 884 

w garage 1461 

Stead v. Ciagh 126 

Steedman v. Marsh 

r. Poole 
Steads v. Steed* 
Steal v Cobb 

v Cheater 

e> Matthew* 

w. Pareooa 

e. Preece 
Steele v. Cobham 

9. Gordon 

«*. Uutchlne 

v Lewis 

w. Maunder 

e. Midland Ry. Go. 

w. Mott 

v. North Met R Co. 

e. Plomer 

e. Savory 

« Smut 

«. Stewart 

e. Stuart 

e. Taylor 

v. White 
Steer v Steer 



806 

609 

176,178 

1846 

646 

446 

1264 

1784 

461 

1646 

289,296 

269 

426 

48 

1620 

408,476,496,612,784 

909 

458 

677.1884 

449,462 

281,287 

1461 

201,818,917,1722 

1676 

612 



848 
1166 

689 
1687 

917 
16S8 

886 
1667 



Staff v. Andrews 
Stegner v. Blake 
Steiger v. Hddeiberger 

e. Hilton 
Stein v Benedict 

v. BSenTille W. 8. Go, 

9. Bowman 

v. Henck 

e. Robertson 
Stoinan v. Gas Go. 
Steinbarh v. Hill 

r. Relief Fire Ins. Co. 1961, 1966 
Steinberg v Tyler 866 

Stelnes r. Franklin County 1468, 

1479 
Steinhauser v. Mason 1640 

v Spranl 418 

StdnkeUere Newton 1099 

Stemmeta v. Halthln 108, 106, 122 
Steinriede v. Tegge 417 

Steiawaj v. Stoinway 862 

Stent v. Wtekens 774 

Stenton v. Jerome 871 



Stephen, Be 


1486,1608 


9 Btall 


186,212 


v Daniels 


1661 


v Tandle 


644 


Stephens, Re 


642 


v. Berry 


628,629 


v. Biehnell 


617, 681 


v. Biney 


866 


v Frost 


296 


v. Gaylord 


1772 


v. Heatboote 


821, 892, 828, 842 


v. James 


1860,2294 


9. Lewry 
*. Loach 


1860 


486 



v.MonongabeJa Nat Bank 684 
9. Neale 466, 489 

.TOL. I. — h 



Stephens « Newborough 1440 

v. Orman 844 

v. Overstoli 686 

v. Porter 88, 108 

v. Totty 128 

v Wanklln 911 

v Whitehead 884 

v. Workman 1687 

Stephenson v. Austin 190 

v. Biney 868 
v BaTis 144, 149, 806, 814, 440, 

466^649, 666, 1062 
v Houlditch 1686 

v. Mackay 809 

v. Stephenson 68, 79, 169, 170, 787. 

768 

v. Strntt 88, 179 

v Wilson 1622 

8tephentonv Gardiner 602,668 

Stepp v. National Life Assoohv 

tlon 860 

Steptoe v. Pollard 1008 

8terl v. Steri 1649 

Sterling, Ex parte 1842, 1848 

v. Ashton 1081 

v. Thompson 1814 

Sterm v. Drinker 866 

Stern v. Sedden 441 

Sternberger v. McGovern 818 

Sterndale v. Hankinson 648, 1211 
Sterriek v. Pngsley 367 

Starry v. Arden 962, 1649 

Steuartv Gladstone 889,866,869, 

976,1660 
Stereos, Ex parte 1611 

v Reals 90,116 

v. Beekmaa 1681 

v. Benning 1644 

e. Brett 796 

v. Cofleen 1006 

e. Cooper 666, 849 

v. Davison 1781 

v Dewey 1678 

v. Guppy 878, SSL 884, 996, 

1027 
v. Hayden 860 

v. Hey 1677, 1678 

v Keating 812, 1879, 1640, 1642 
v Lockwood 880 

v. Meloher 1608 

«. Miner 1298 

v. Nbbet 1770 

v. Pell 1142 

v. Pillen 1428 

v Post 718, 787, 840, 846 

v. Praed 804, 809, 996 

v. Railroads 794 

v. Smith 1163 

v. South Devon Railway Co. 248, 

1620 
9. Stevens 70, 189, 1648, 1649. 

1663 

9 Trevor-Garrlek 100 

e. Van Clare 851 

9. Warren 1660 

v. Williams 87, 111 

Stevenson v. AMngton 488 

9. Anderson 160, 161, 1660, 1662, 

1666.1667,2008 

9. Austin 287, 267, 272 

v. Buxton 886 

v Hano 1896 

Steward v. Bank of England 142 

v. East India Co. 146, 297 

v. Gordon 860 

9. North Met. Tramways Co. 418, 

786 
v Roe 408,1662 

9 8teward 1700 

Stewart, In re 1614, 1802 

v. Barry 1676 

9. Beard 1026 

9 Beebe 1761 

e. Chesapeake St 0. Canal 

Co. 149, 669 

v. Clark 969, 1224. 1248 

• Crane 1809 



Stewart «. Bonn 
9. Duvall 
9 Famler 
v. Flint 
v. Flowers 



278 

169.406 
1407 

686,601 
1846 



v Forbes 978, 1018, 1029, 1469. 

. 9. Graham 1704,1706.1708,1718 

9. Great Western By. Go. 668, 

162d 

9. Hoare 1846 

9 Huntington 816 

v. Inglehart 1078 

9. Jackson 221 

v. Johnson 1677 

9. Lay 1762 

v Lispenard 861 

v Mensies 1608 

9. Noble 1268 

9 Nurse 1448 

v. Pollard 1282 

9. Smlthson 1648 

v.Stewart 29,80,81,884,426 

v Townsend 779 

9. Turner 1168 

9. U. 8 Ins Go. 24 

v. Wilson 1268 

Stickland v. Akuidge 667 

Stifle v. Rreritt 96, 104. 128 

Stiles 9. Allen 1188 

9. Donaldson 641 

Still 9. Beading 197,814 

8tilphen e. Read 1120 

8tilaon 9. Leaman 1881 

Stilt v. Hilton 1677 

Stllwell v Adams 867 

9. M'Nesly 220, 688 

v Wilkins 1721 

Sampson v. Green 1268, 1298 

v. Putnam 1046, 1688, 1684. 

Stlmson 9. Lewis 272 ■ 

v. Meade 1281 

Sanson v. Ashley 100' 

v. Hildrup 812. 

9. Pickering 68 

Stinton 9. Taylor 807,809,880,881, 



Stirrat v Excelsior Manuf. Co. 814, 

849' 
Stttt 9. Hilton 1676 

Stltwell v. Williams 1721 

Stobartv Todd 906 

Stock v Vlniag 1438 

Stockbridge Iron Oo. v. Cone 

Iron Works 806, 1086, 1440* 
9. Hudson Iron Co. 1071, 1076, 

1110, 167ft. 
Stockenv 8tocken 1869,1486. 

Stockerv Heggertv 1662 

v. Planet BiSociety 1660 

9. Wedderbnn 1666 

Stockleyv Rowley 660 

v. Stnckley 1680, 1622 

Stockman v Wallls 1716 

Stockport District Water Works 

Co 9. Jowett 1672' 

Stockton v. Anderson 193: 

9. Briggs 1619 

v. Lockwood 2040 

v. Williams 1081 

Stockton & Darlington Ry. Co. 

v. Brown 1660 

Stockton & Hartlepool Ry. Co. 
9. Leeds & Think Ry. Co. 

1620 
Stoddard «. McLane 820 

v. Sloan 894 

Stoererv Stoerer 69 

Stogden r. Lee 100 

Stoke v. Robson 198 

Stokes 9. City Office* Company 

988,1880,1688 
9. Clendoo 270 

9. Rdmeades 1072 

v. Heron 1608 

9. Holden 66, 186 



CX1V 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
[The nApmim an to the star paging.] 



Btokes v. Taylor 
Stokoe v. Robson 1SU2 

Stone v. Anderson 872, 879, 443 

v. Bartlett 212.381, 1288, 1246 
v. Blackburn 1098 

v. Beaton & Maine Railroad 68 
v Bnckner 279 

v City of London Real Prop- 
erty Go 1688 
9. Damon 861 
v Daviea 422 
v Dennla 671 
v. Duncan 618, 682 
v Hobart 1613,1621 
p. Hyde 1846 
v Llckorlah 1286, 1414 
9. Lidderdale 1063, 1780 
v Locke 212, 809, 1260, 1877, 1881. 
1463.146b. 1926 
v. Moore 642, 682, 713, 768, 846 
v. Parka 68 
v. Reed 1661 
v. State 1107 
v. Thomaa 60, 668, 680 
v VaaHeythoaen 1169 
v. Wetuore 1660, 178) 
« Wlshart 76,1782 
Btonemeta Prlnten* M. Co v. 
Brown Folding M. Co 884,849, 

1648 
Btoney v. Bannden 1017 

Btonington Sayings Rank v 

Davis 1221, 1246. 2198 

Stookev Vincent 109,686 

Btopford v. Canterbury. Lord 

1860 
Btorer v. Great Western By 

Co. 494 

v Jackson 1678 

9 Johnson 1840 

Btorer v. Lennox 620 

v. People 1068 

Storm v Davenport 169. 249, 280 

v Mann 1629, 1669 

Btormoute Wlokens 1167 

Storms v. Storms 828 

Storrv. Pannell 161 

Btorrs v. Barker 2271 

v Benbow 1476 

v. Payne 1666 

v. Wallace 884 

Btorry v. Walsh 1277 

Story, £x parte 1119 

v Brown 1222 

o Hawkins 994 

9. Jersey City and Bergen 

Point Plank Road Co. 1620 
9. Johnson 1166, 1168, 1486 

v Livingston 190,191,287,802, 
1180, 1196. 1222. 
1302,1816 
9 Odin 1688 

9 Official Manager 606, 804 

9. 8hulta 1240 

9. Tonga 99 

9. Vermont 1668 

v. Windsor. Lord 662, 676, 677, 

678,1726, 1727 
Stotesbury 9. Vail 748, 1676 

Stotbartv Burnet 651 

Stott v Meanork 164. 174. 1337 

Stoughton 9. Lynch 668, 1250, 

1257 

Stonrton v Stourton 108 

Stout v Cook 630 

v. Curry 1628 

9 Seabrook 660 

Stoutenburgh v. Peck 1676 

StoTalltJ Banks 1492 

Stow v. Rufwell 64* 

Stowell 9. Waddlngham 1628 

Lady 9. Cole 1639 

Ptracy 9. Blake 1126 

Straderv Byrd 668,1002 

9. Graham 680 

Ptniilley v Circuit Judge 1081 

Strait 9. National Harrow Co. 1612 



Straker 9. Ewing 


1399 


9. Graham 


1131 


8trange v. Bell 


1660 


v. Collins 


878, 884, 782 


9. Harris 


1771 


9. Thomas 


1182 


9 Watson 


878,3*4 



Strangeways, Ex parte 182 

Strangford v. Green 1249 

Stratlord v. Baker 1640, 1694, 1600 

v Bosworth 1899 

Strathmore t\ Bowes 1638 

Stiatton 9. Davidson 161. 1718, 

1729 

v. Hernon 662 

9 Physlo-Medkal College 1411 

v. Reisdorph 214 

8traughan v. Hallwood 1617 

9. Wright 1161 

Strauss v. Goldschmidt 406 

Strayer v. Stone 1381 

Street 9. Anderton 172d 

9. Maryland Cent Ry. Co. 1743. 

1765 

9. RIgby 671 

Streeten v. Whltmora 1068 

Strelley 9. Pearson 1661 

Stretch v Gowdey 1746,1756 

9. Stretch 287 

Stretton v. 1278 

Stribling 9. Hart 1081 

Strickland v. Strickland 262, 406, 

426, 007, 947, 1613 

v. Weldon 12 

Strike v. McDonald 918, 1476 

Strike's Case 946 

Striker 9 Mott 209 

Stringer, Re 644 

9 Harper 1428,1488 

Stringer's Case 26 

Strode v Blackburn* 677, 1163 

9. Little 629 

Strohmeyer 9. Zeppenfeld 1407 

Strong, Re 64 

9. Blanchard 1287, 1289, 124L 

9. Carlyle Press 1461 

9. Moore 484, 436 

9. Smith 116, 117 

9. Sproul 864 

v. Strong 268, 1611 

8trother v. Button 992 

Stroud 9 Deacon 679 

Stroughil) v. Gulliver 1474 

Stroueberg 9. Republic of Costa 

Rica 141 

Strudt 9. Roberts 1126 

Strudwick v. Pargiter 169 

Stuart, lie 1889 

v. Ancell 1679 

9. Barrowea 1538 

v. Boulware 1746, 1756 

9 Bute, Lord 724 

v. Colter 841, 1151, 1163 

v. Gav 1286 

9. Hendricks 1299 

9. Lloyd 416, 2168 

v. Moore 68, 1847, 1848, 1850, 

1627 

9. Welsh 1660, 1561 

9. Worrell 2225 

Stubbing* v. McGregor 1600 

Stubbs, Re, Hanson 9. Stubbs 1034 

9. Hurwell 961 

v DuuMuiy 978 

9. Leavitt 1622 

9 Leigh 1618 

v Sargoir 98,1177,1485,1695 

Stucker v. Stacker 194, 212 

Stuckv v. Stuck y 828 

Studabaker v. Markley 1463 

8tudd 9. Acton 468 

Studdert 9. Grosvenor 26 

v. Von StelgHta 837 

8tudholme e. Hodgson 1426, 1427 

Studwell v. Palmer 1008, 1481, 1504, 

1606 



Stall 9. Goode 
Stalse. Stuls 
Stunun 9. Dixon 
Stump 9. Beatty 
Stuns v. Stuns 
Stupart 9. An© 
Starch v. Young 
Sturge, In re 
9. Dimsdale 



781 

879 

1169 

468,613 

1160 

lth 284,804 

1600,1724 

1861 

1440, 1460, 1608 



9 Eastern Union Ry Co. ' 1662 

9. Starr 247 

Sturgeon v. Bnrrall 884 

9. Hooker 978, 1474, 1593, 1603 

Starrest? Knapp 1266 

v.Longworth 457 

8turgess v. Cary 1980 

Sturgis, Re, M. P. Syndicate 27 

9 Cary 2262 

9. Champneys 91, 92 

v. Corp 100,186 

9. Morse 891,919,1484 

Sturla 9. Freccia 82 

8turoc, Re 1089 

Sturte Mellish 641,648 

Sturtevant v. Jaques 989 

9. Waterbury 846, 847 

Bturs 9. De la Rue 1644, 1670 

Btutsv Handley 286 

Stuyvesant v. New York, Mayor, 

Ac , of 684 

Style 9. Martin 1684 

Styles 9. Shipton 792 

Sober 9 Allen 884 

Sublette v. Tinney 680 

SubUeSch e. Russell 1667 

Suckling v. Gabb 1770 

Sueas v. Noble 1620 

SuftVrn 9. Butler 1677 

9 Johnson 284 

Suffleld, Lord v. Bond 862, 766 

and Watts, Re 1040 

Suffolk, Earl of v Green 684, 611, 

1678 
9. Howard 1886 

Sugden v. Hull 469, 470, 1047 

9. Lord St. Leonards 1462 

Sugg 9. Sllber 1071 

9 Thornton 686 

Suggitt, Re 102, 108, 108 

Suisse 9 Lowther, Lord 1470 

Bulger, Ex parte 1066 

Soilings v. Goodyear Dental Vul- 
canite Co. 
Sullivan v. Bevan 1424 

9. IronS M. Co. 818,646 

v. Jacob 1488 

9. Jennings 1282 

9 Judah 1678,1684 

9. Latimer 1172 

9. O'Connor 1120 

9 Phillips 803,1688 

9. Portland, Ac. R Co 680, 661, 

68d,714 

9. Redfleld 1648 

9. Sullivan 69 

9 Winthrop 1264 

Sullivantv. Wearer 618 

Sully 9 Drennan 26 

Sultan 9. Providence Tool Co 680 

Sulsbacher v. Shoe & Leather 

Bank 1668 

Sulser 9. Wataon 1071 

Summerfleld e. Prlchard 1887 

Summerliu 9. Fronterina 8. M. 

Co. 808 

Summers v. City Bank 87 

v. Darne 890, 986 

9 Parish 1678 

v. Moseley 1102 

v. Murray 617, 682, 789 

Summeraett ». Jarvfs 68 

Sumner v. ftwasomw 1286 

9 Thorpe 666 

9 Waugh 281 

Sumsionv Crutwell 1719 

Sunderland, fr e e man, &*., of. 

Ex parte 1121 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXV 



[The references an to the star paging.] 



i v. Deyoe 1683 

w. Durant 1017 

« Kennleott 1491 

v. Mineral Point B, Go. 878 

Ac «. Mississippi, Ac B. Co. 788. 

760, 784, 888 
8npmM Council v. Bennett 1561 
8upreme Sitting of Order v. 

Baker 1716,1784 

8arget e. B yen 852 

Surr r. Walmsley 906 

Baseex, Barl of ». Temple 869 

Sussex Peerage Cast 864 

SuteUfle, Re 720 

Saterr Matthews 662 

Sutherland v De Ylxenne 202,208, 

204 

v. Lake Canal Co. 214 

v Straw 281 

e>. Young 95 

Sutphen v. Fowler 1082, 1882, 

1457 

Button, Re 199 

v. Doggett 1487, 1488 

9. Downing 2861 

9. Furnbe 1666 

9. Gatewood 601 

9. Jones 1782 

9. Mashiter 1617 

v. Bete 1746 

9. Scarborough, Lord 666 

9. Sehonwald 1284 

« Stone 264, 1064 

e. Sutton 650 

Batton First Parish 9 Cole 22 

Sutton Harbour Co. v. Hitcbens 791. 

1402,1406 

9 Truecdale 780 

Swabey v. Dorej 482 

v. 8otson 720, 721, 722 

Bwaby 9. Dickon 1747, 1750 

Swain, A; 560 

e. Follows 82, 111 

9 Hall 1129 

Bwalne ». Great Northern By. 

Co. 1072, 1650 

9. Maryott 800 

« Ferine 1165,1166 

tt Wilson 1652 

Swale e. MUner 1424 

9. Swale 796, 799, 1728 



Swallow v. Binns 191, 202, 208, 204. 



9. Day 
Swan, In re 


780,781 


1748 


9. Caatleman 


544 


v. Clark 


292 


9. Dent 


1864 


9. Hoiton 


161 


v. Swan 


279 


9. Webb 


\ 1264 


v. Wheeler 


1281 



Swan Land ft Cattle Co. v. Frank 

26 
Swan's Settlement, Re 101 

Swanholm v. Beeser 848 

Swann «. Swann 110, 307 

Swansea v. Quirk 673 

Swansea Shipping Co. v. Duncan 

1596 
Swansea Vale By. Co. v. Budd 1887 
Swanston v. Lishman 1888 

v. Twickenham Local Board 

1468 
Swanay e. Swansy 80, 31, 58, 859 
Swart v. Central Trust Co. 1770 

Swarta «. Chlckerlng 889 

Swayne v. Swayne 1696 

v. Lyon 186 

Swayse v. Swayee 885, 847 

gweartagen v Pendleton 251 

Swedesborough Church v. Shims 

828,829 

Sweeny v. Comn 460, 536 

« HuU 408 

9 Williams 680 

Sweet v. ConTene 559 

9. Meredith 1220,1282 

v. Parker 222. 737 

v. Southcote 569, 675 

9. Syracuse 1484 

Sweetser v. Buchanan 1556 

Sweny v. Smith 241 

Swepeon v. Exchange A D. Bank 

884 

9. Bouse 68 

Swett 9. Stark 569 

Swift, As 96 

Ex parte 1859 

v. Bckford 884, 889, 842, 402 

424 
e. Bdson 259 



Swift v. Graaebrook 79, 1469, 1470 
v. Jenks 1687 

9. Meyers 149 

9. Munn a 1126 

v. State Lumber Co. 190 

v Stebbins 200, 222, 467 

v. Swift 724, 1218, 1428, 1862 

v. Wiley 876 

Swlnbanks, Ex parte 680 

Swinborne 9. Nelson 800, 730, 721, 

1829, 2114 
Swindell v. Bradley 1668, 1669 

Swindell v. Birmingham Syn- 
dicate 1071 
Swine, Re. Mellor 9. Swine 1029 
Swinfen e. Swinfen 974,1121,1124, 

1149, 1865 
Swlnnerton e. Stafford, Marquis 

of 1129, 1186 

Swltser t>. McCuDooh 1688 

9 Skiles 865, 655 

Sword v. Allen 1668 

Syckel v. Bmery 1629, 1680, 1676 

Sydney v. Sydney 1726 

Sydolph v. Monkstou 764 

Sykes, Re 1847 

v. Dyson 1061 

v. Hastings ' 1782 

v. Saoerdottf 154 

v. Schoneld 1157 

v. 8jkes 1648 

Sykes* Trusts, Re 914 

Sylvester v. Craig 601 

v. Hall 1097 

v. Jerome 780 

Srlris v. Sylvls 818 

Sym's Case 128 

Syme v. Johnson 1481 

8ymes v. Glynn 286, 248, 258 

v. Magnay 1564, 1570 

Symmes v. Strong 787, 842 

Symonds v. City Bank 824 

v. Cumberland, Duchess of 510 

v. Jenkins 1779 

*. Wilkes 100 



Symons Re. Luke e. Tomkin «_, 

1260,1581 

v. DeBarros 508 

v. Mulkern 674 

8ympson v. Prothero 1845, 1846 

Sya v. Bedfleld 1809 



T. 



Tabbernorn Tabbernor 808 

Tabele * Tabele 1425 

Tabor 9. Cunningham 828, 888, 1399 
Tabutean v. Warburton 1600 

Taendsttcksmbriks A. Vulcan v. 

Myers 1648 

Tnft*. Taft 860 

Tagg 9. South Devon By. Co. 1887 

Tacpnut v. Boldin 117 

Talnter *. Clark 845, 982 

9. Morrlstown, Mayor of 1677 

Tait 9. Jenkins 1728 

9. N. T. Life Ins. Co. 61 

n. Northwiek, Lord 1286 

Taitee. Gosling 824,1654 

9. Pallas 194 

Talbot 9. Bowen 657 

9. BraddlU 1244 

9. Cruger 817 

9. Frere 652, 1892 

9. Keay 810 

9. Kemsbead 710 

9. M'Goe 1550 

9. Marnhfteld 1842. 1862, 1417, 

1420. 1771, ISM, 1834, 1886 

9. Radnor. Lord 401, 407 

9. BuUedge 1229 

9 Shrewsbury, Barl of 1852, 1855 

». BtanUbrth 1886, 1632 



Talbot 9. Talbot 76, 77 

9. Todd 998, 994 

Barle Hope Scott 1682,1721, 

1728,1726 
Taliaferro 9. Branch Bank 1621 

v. Foot 861. 892 

9. Minor 1284 

Talleyrand 9. Bouianger 48. 1704 
Tallmadge v. LoTett 661, 588 

Tally 9. Tally 1588 

Talmadge v. Bell 1552 

Talmage v. Pell 286, 802, 780 

T&m&rra v. Southern Illinois 

University 1^81 

Tampier v. Ingle 421, 1600 

Tamplin * James 1080, 1082 

Tam worth, Lord v. Ferrers, 

Lord 1688, 1672 

Taner n lew 87, 72, 80, 18R8 

Taney v. Woodmansee 1881 

Tanfield v. DaTenport 92 

9. Irvine 152, 1718, 1784 

Tangye 9. Stott 1080 

Taokerrty v. Pettis 1576 

Tann, Re 1426 

Tanner, Re 70 

. 9. Carter 1488,1490,1608 

9. Daneey 1428 

•.Heard 1898 



Tanner v. 8trutton 770 

Tanquerayv Bowles 794 1880 

Tanney v. McDonnell 631 1558 

Tannwellv Scurrah 891,914 

Tantlingerv Sullivan 1688 

Tapleye Goodmll 1507 

Tapllng 9. Jones 1688 

Tappan v. Even* 542, 608. 1072. 
1076. 1110, 1623, 1961, 2834 
9. Smith 1616, 1517, 1518 

9. Western * A. B Co. 418 

Tappen v. Norman 72, 161 

Tappln v. Heath 671 

Taprell v. Taylor 48 

Tarbell v. Durant 878 

Tarbuok v. Tarbuck 809, 1001, 

1590 

v. Woodcock 698, 780 

Tardrew v Howell 1888, 1487 

Tarleton v. Barnes 687, 661 

9. Dyer 179, 421 

v. Hornby 59, 60, 558, 606, 659 

Tarratt v. Lloyd 902, 203, 204, 

2127 
Tarrer v. Tarrer 552, 874 

Tasburgh, Re 94 

Tashv Adams 1640,1681 

Taiker v Small 230, 1459, 1486, 

1489 



CXV1 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[The references are to the star paging.] 



Tasseil v. 8mlth 218 

Tate v. Goff 1160 

v. Leithead 1524.1626 

v. Ohio & Miss. R. Co. aft, 884 

Tatem v. Gilpin 1662 

Tatham 9. Parker 1060 

v. Wright 876, 1117, 1124, 1149, 

1886 
Taton «. National Standard Land 

M ft I. Co. 1220 

Tattersall v. Groota 670 

Tatterahall v. Crampton 601 

Tacton v London and Lanca- 
shire Fire Ins, Co. 979, 1079 
Tatum v. Hinea 1006 

v. Walker 878, 407 

Taunton v. Morris 92, 102, 104 

v Pepler 669 

Tavenner v. Barrett 196 

Tawell v. State Co. 1072 

Tayleur, In re 816, 1678 

Taylce t\ Bond 1001 

Taylor, Ex parte 198 

Be 18, e9, 86, 488, 1218, 1428, 
1861, 1842, 1861. 
1862,1868 
v. Allen 268. 1722 

v. Analej 162, 476 

v. A*hton 1126 

v. Balky 601, 789 

v Baker 1886, 1892 

e. Bank of Alexandria 24 

v. Bank of Illinois 24 

v Barclay 19,646 

v. Bate 286 

v. Bay City Street By. Go. 808 
v. Beat 142 

v. Boardman 1748 

«. Bogert 778 

c Bogg 1480 

v. Bonehkr 40 

v. Boyd 1062, 1260 

v. Brown 1074 

v. Brownfleld 1061 

c. Carpenter 46, 1648, 1649, 1987, 

2818 
v. Central R. ft B. Co. 1120 

v. Charter Oak Lift Ins. Co. 1680 
v. Coatee 998 

v. Colgate 1061, 1277 

v. Columbian Ins. Co. 1761 

v. Commonwealth 867 

v. Cooper 1277 

v D'Egrille 1812 

v. Dodd 778 

v. Dowlen 1466 

v. Duckett 978 

9. Duncanaon 617. 666 

v. Bckenley 1729, 1744 

r. Fisher 890, 489, 496, 742 

v. Foster 676 

v. QlanriUe 1412 

v. Goooh 779 

v. Gordon 448 

v. Grange 1487 

v. Hall 1896 

v. Haylln 871, 666 

v. Hemlng 740, 1819 

v Holmes 109,146,546,660,1622 
v. Jardine 1068 

v Johnston 862 

v. Kelly 894 

v. Kllgore 1802, 1860 

ft King 884 

v. Leitch 1707 

v. Life Arn'n. 818 

v. Luther 722, 728, 2227 

v. Mayrant 1186, 1138 

ft Meads 100, 186 

9 . Midland By. Go. 197, 1470 

* Mflner 692, 690 

* Mitchell 668 
v. Morton 1624 
v. Neate 1728 
v. Onee 780 
v. Oldham 70, 1782 
v. Pearson 1688 



Taylor v. Pede 
v. Person 
v. Philips 
v. Phillips 
*. Popham 



177 

1076 

78,166 

448 

1409, 1464, 1478, 

1474 

v. Pordngton 1660 

v. Read 994, 1817, 1819, 1491, 

1494 
v. Robertson 1296 

v. Roe 1061 

«. Rundell 724,1826,1827 

v. Russell 674 

v. Salmon 240, 608, 1887 

v. SatUrthwalte 1661 

v. Scrhrens 1806 

v. Sharp 1576, 1677, 1679 

v. Shaw 420, 689, 789 

v Sheppard 1C21 

v. Smith 884, 888 

v. Boper 1787 

v. 8onthgate 797, 1466 

9. Tabrum 881, 1421 

v. Taylor 188, 824, 499, 606, 

1266386, 1582, 2060 
v. Titos 780 

v. Tompkins 661 

9. Topham 1409 

r. Waters 1799 

v. Webb 266, 287, 1181 

v. Wemyss 680, 6S8 

v.Wood 942 

v. Wrench 762 

Taylor's Batata, Re 402 

Taylor County v. Standby 816 

Taylor, McBean, ft Co. v. Chan- 
dler 1661 
Taaewell v. Saunders 1264 
Tasewell County «. farmers' L. 

A T. Co. 1584 

Tea Co. v. Jones 167 

Teaff v. Hewitt 986 

Teague v. Dendy 729 

v. Richards 982, 1616 

Teal v. Woodworth 176 

Teale v. Teale 1672, 1574 

Teall v. Slaven 560 

*. Watts 1157 

Tebbsf Carpenter 1416,1420 

Tebbuttv Potter 796 

Tedder v. Stiles 402 

Tedrowe v. Ether 961 

Teed v. Carruthers 706, 710 

v. Marvin 1407 

v. Reese 1208 

Tehama County v. Bryan 818 

Tekait Doorga Persad Singh v. 

Tekaitnl Doorga Konwari 669 

Telegraph Co. v. Daren port 197 

Telford v. Met'n Board 1620 

c. Raskin 724 

Tempest v. Camoys, Lord 819, 681, 

700,1842 
v. Ord 1760, 1764 

Templar r. Sweat 1291 

Temple v. Baltinglass, Lady 668 

v. Bank of England 147, 1668 
v. Foster 628 

v. Lawson 1876, 1410 

« London and Birmingham 

Railway Co 69 

v. Scott 216 

Temple Bar, The 1071 

Templeman v. Warrington 1610 

Tenant v. Rills 30 

v. Gray 1264 

9. Hamilton 1101 

Tench v. Cheese 862, 728, 729, 769, 



Tenham, Lord v. Herbert 
Tennant v. Trenchard 

v. Wllsmore 
Tannent v. Battsy 

v. Patton 
Tennessee Hospital v. Foqna 
Tenney v. Bell 
Tenney's Cass 



1697! 



1682 

1018 
781 
285 
998 

1861 
568 

1070 



Tentlee Money 
Terhone v. Colton 

v. Midland Ry. Co. 
Terrell. Re 

v. Higgs 

v. IngersoU 

v. Soueh 
Terre Haute & L. 
Sherwood 



128 

1484,1489 

1661 

1448 

1626 

1461 

611 

R. Go. 9. 

601 



Terrewest v. Featherby 1616 

Terrill v. Higgs 562 

Terry , Ex parte 1478 

Be 1069 

9. Abrahams 1461 

9. Branson 128 

9 Cape Fear Bank 991,1209 

9. Commercial Bank 974, 1684, 

1686 

ft Martin 1766 

9. Monger 816 

9. RoseH 885, 662 

v. Sharon 1607 

v. Stokeley 1481 

Terwitv. Gresham 869 

Tetley v. Griffith 118 

Tetraolt v. Labbe 684 

Teris v. Richardson 90, 91, 467 

Tew 9. Wlnterton, Earl of 1264, 1266 

Tewart v. Lawson 1766 

Texas 9. Hardenberg 878 

Texas Cent. Ry Co. 9. Stewart 68 

Texas fc Pao. Ry. Co. 9. Oox 1748 

v. Boyd 1748 

v. Johnson 1748 

Texas Trunk R. Co. e. Lewis 1766 

Texelre v. Da Costa 1728 

Teynham, Lady v. Leonard 1852 

Thacker v. Key 1427 

Thackeray v. Parker 1168 

Thames and Medway Canal Co. 

9. Nash 1568 

Thames & Mersey M. Ins. Co. 

9. Continental Ins. Co 780 

Thames Haven Co. 9. Hall 807 

Than 9. Smith 175, 177 

Thanet, Earl of e. Peterson 1568 

Thannhauser v. Cortes Go. 28 

Tharp, Re 1768 

Tharpe v. Stallwood 1188 

v. Tharpe 1788, 1789 

Thatcher t>. Lambert 778 

Thayer v. Holland 1885 

v. Lane 1150 

9. Mann 652, 1288 

9. Smith 1961 

9. Thayer 1157 

9. Turner 885 

Theed v. Debenham 1688 

Thellusson v. Rendlesham.Lord 1608 

v. Woodford 1781, 2197. 2844 

Therry v. Henderson 796, 799 

Theorer v. Brogan 216 

Tbewlis 9. Farrar 85, 1625 

Thexton 9. Edmonston 858, 889. 



Theyer v. Tombs 1899 

Thlcknessev. Acton 188,499 

Thledemann v. Goldschmldt 1661 
Thielman e. Carr 1651 

Third v. Goodier 1181 

Third Avenue R. Co. v. Mayor 1682 
Third Arenue Bar. Bank 9. 

Dimock 780 

Third Burnt Tree Building So- 
ciety, Re 1610 
Third National Bank v Skllllngs 

Lumber Co. 1561 

Thistlethwaite 9. Gamier 1524 

Thomas, Ex parte 1488 

Be 286,894,912 

«. Adams 287, 289, 294 

v. Atherton 1249, 1400 

v Beals 885 

9. Bernard 417, 426, 826 

v. Bibb 1071 

9. BosweH 190 

9. Brashear 542, 692, 1624, 1680 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXV11 



[The references we to the star paging.] 



r. Burt 
r. Buxton 
cCol* 
v. Cross 
e-Daridson 
e. Dsrles 
v. Dewkin 
v. DeBeum 
v. Dike 
v. Doab 
*. Dougty 
v. Dunning 
r. Eastwood 
t>. Ellis 
v. Elson 
v. Flnlsyson 
v. Griffith 
v.Gwynne 
v.Hall 
r. Harris 
v. Hawkins 
r. Hits 
v. Hobter 
v. Horn 
v James 
e. Jeraej 
«. Jonsa 
v. Lloyd 
v. Marshall 
e. Msrehants' Bank 
v. Montgomery 
*. Nokss 
*. Oakley 
v. Palin 
r. Parry 
v. Phillips 
r. Powell 
v. Price 

Puddlesbury 



1580 

1689 

1481 

1085, 1067, 1040, 1696 

818, 1784, 1809 

1788,1789 

1083, 1276, 1288 

An 

841,782 

82 

212,226,272 



48 
1474 

188 

1207, 1208, 1212 

166 

1046 

1677,1679,1680 

1682 

879 

242,886 

1677 

1681 

444 474 

1487, 1488, 1801, '2809 

1400 

646 

144 

1202 

1044 

1682,1688 

1748, 1796 

908 

1899 

1279 

100 

1898 




Rawlinga 770. 774, 948, 1669, 
1676, 1677, 1679 
886,846 
188 
1849 
1411 
429 
884 
101 
1468 
428 
162, 476, 796, 1706 
1402 
602 
v. Visitors of Frederick Co. 
School 402, 409, 781. 784, 828. 

1407,1632 

1849 

861, *>7 

1766 

644 

1860,1620 

1266 



Ro 

Safe Deposit Co. 
v. Selby 
«. Sellman 
v. Shsppaxd 
v. Stokes 
v. Taylor 
v. Thome 

v. Tyler 



». Walker 

st Warner 

v. Western Car Co. 

v. White 

v. Williams 

v. Wilson 



Thomas Huston B. Co. v. Sperry 

M. Co 884 

Thomason •>. Moaei 1406, 1427 

v. Neeiey 1668 

9. Smlthaon 878, 879 

Thomasson v. Kennedy 1124 

v. Tucker 841 

Thorn Hnson v. Dixon 1080 

Thomond, Lord, Case of 1666 

Thompson, Ex parte 886 

Re 66,67,87,100 

Be. Stevens v. Thompson 111 

9. ADen 1676 

9. Andras 1667 

9. Beakerrflle 214 



9. Boyle 
*. Brown 

9. Butler 
9. CaileU 
v. Childress 
v. Clark 
9. Clay 
9. Clrre 
9. Cooper 



1846 

286,986,1088,1616. 

2246,2294,2297 

128 

1290 

1284 

848,856 

294 

1408, 1426, 1427 

1214,1424 



Thompson t>. Corrie 
9. Derham 
v. Dimond 
v. Donaldson 
v. Dunn 
9. Kbbetts 
v. Falk 
9. Geary 



410 

1626 

1282 

866 

720,721,1829 

1671 

677,1884 

1676 



v. German Valley R. Co. 907 

9. Goalding 960, 1016, 1018, 1019, 
1028, 1060, 1110, 1476, 167o 
v. Graham 227 

9. Griffin 1868, 1869 

V. Hall 1679 

9. Harrison 886 

v. Hawley 880 

9. Heywood 878 

v.Hill 814,1607,1616,1644 

v. Hudson 710 

v. Jonea 162, 448, 476 

v. Judge 416 

v. Knight 796 

9. Lake 286 

v. Lambe 840, 1229, 1280 

9. London, University of 649. 

689, 699, 1864 
v. McDonald 197 

v. Maxwell 974, 1676, 1680 

9. Mebane 1624 

9. Mills 726 

v. Montgomery 1642 

v. Moore 1444 

v. Moxey 872 

9. Partridge 890 

v. Paul 801 

9. Peebles 296, 986 

v. Pennsylvania R Co. 1069, 1688 
v. Phoenix Ins Co. 660, 1748 

9. Planet Building Society 699 
v. Railroad Cos. 818, 680 

9. Reno Sayings Bank 286 

9. Soott 1748, 1762, 1964 

v. Seiby 691, 1784 

v. Smith 1668, 1708 

9. Stanhope 1647 

9. 8ymonds 886 

v. Thompson 12, 88, 790, 866 

9. Todd 667 

v. Tompkins 1096, 1778 

9. Trotter 1176 

9. Turner 1078 

9. Union Elevator Co. 1380 

9. Waithman 647 

v. Walker 1066 

9. Wataon 12 

v. Webster 849, 881, 981, 1400 
9. Wild 701, 703 

9. Woodflne 1106 

9. Wooldridge 880 

Thompson's Appeal 860 

Thompson's Case 919 

Thomson 9. Dean 1491 

v. Eastwood 828, 867, 642, 662. 

668 

v. Powles 19 

9. Thomson 668, 1488 

9. Wooster 617, 1676 

Thorby v. Testes 1417 

Thorley's Cattle Food Co. v. Mas- 

sam 1620, 1648 

Thorn 9. Germand 406, 416, 417 



v. Smith 176, 444 

v. Sweeney 1681 

Thorndikev Hunt 1607,1797,1840 

v. Thorndike 1627 

Thome v. Halsey 896, 1708, 1707 

v. Mosher 868 

v. Newman 1240, 1242 

9. Sweeney 1668 

9. Towanda Tanning Co. 684 

Thorneloe v. Hill 1648 

Thornewell v. Johnson 674 

Thorneycroft 9. Crockett 1244 

Thornhlll v. Manning 999 1028 

9. Mllbank 1802 

9. Thornhlll 1286, 1760 



Thornley v. Thornley 122 

Thornton v. Fairfax 281 

v. Finch 1086 

9. Grant 1689, 1640 

9. Henry 666, 667 

9. Highland Are. R, Co. 1461 
9. Hightower 278 

v. Houtse 669 

9. M'Kewan 1626 

v. Ramadan 824 

v. Roll 1688 

9. Stewart 892 

9. Washington 8. Bank 1716 

Thorp 9. Farqoer 196 

9. Holdsworih 786 

9. Minor 68 

9. Petdt 1676 

Thorpe 9. Freer 1408 

v. Jackson 269 

9. Maoauley 664, 684, 697, 600. 

720 
v. Matting ley 1608, 1607 

Thorson v. Peterson 646 

Thouron v. East Tennessee, eVc. 

R. Co. 1770 

Three Towns Banking Co. e. 

Madderer 660 

Threldkeld v Dobbins 871 

Threlfell v. Harrison 1266 

v. Wilson 118 

Thrifts v. Frits 669 

Thring v. Edgar 606, 616, 619, 620, 

621,624,678 

Throckmorton v. Crowley 787, 1408 

v. Throckmorton 888 

Thropp v. Field 1683 

Thrupp v. Goodrich 112, 113 

Thurgood v. Cane 628 

Thurlow 9. Treeby 469 

Lord, Case of 1291 

Thurman v. Morgan 1766 

9. Shelton 884,846,847,669 

Thurmand v. Clark 418 

Thurmond v. Durham 1668 

Thurston v. Arnold 1889 

v. Masterton 873 

Thurston County v. Scammel 1881 

Tburtell v. Beaumont 1188, 1134 

Thwaltes v. Sainsbury 1 189 

Thynoe v. Gary 662 

v. Shore 662, 1660 

9. St Maur 87 

Tlbballs v. Bldwell 296 

v Sergeant 1784,1786 

Tlbbetts 9. Perkins 1079 

Tlbbits 9. libbltfl 1168 

Tibbitts 9. Phillips 1727 

Tibba, Re 1359 

Tice v. School-district No. 18 660 

Tiehborne v. Mostyn 887, 1070 

v. Tiehborne 204, 261, 1070, 

1726 
Ticket v. Short 666 

Tickner v. Smith 1417 

Tidd v. Clare 689 

v. Lister 92, 104, 118, 123 

Tldman v. Trego 179 

Tldswell, Re 1860 

v Bowyer 780 

Tldwell v. Ariel 1406 

Tlel, Re 1030 

Tieman 9. Austin 1961 

Tiernan v. Wilson 1269, 1272, 1418 
Tlernay v. Klein 1842 

Tiffin v, Parker 898 

Tigard v. Moffltt 1638 

Tighlman v. Proctor 1830 

Tilden v. Green 13 

Tildesley 9. Harper 402,406.417, 

786, 861 

Tilghman v. Camden 1820 

v. Werk 1676, 1680 

Till, Ex parte 1735 

Tillett, Re 1328 

9. Pearson 10o7 

Tilley 9. Bridges 1282 

9. Thomas 989j 



CXV111 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[The reference are to the star paging.] 



Tlliinghast v. Champlm 828. 778. 

780, 1716, 1741 

Tillman v. Reynolds . 1846 

v. Thomas 586 

TilJoteon v. Hargrave 74, 163, 1190 

v. Mitchell 890 

Tillott, Re, Lee o. Wilson 1827 

Tillstone, Re 1785, 1704, 1797 

Tilly v. Wharton 1122 

Tttman v. Cannon 1663 

Tiltoo v. Barrell 659 

v. Coneld 281, 1625 

v. Tflton 406. 1581 

Timberlake v. Gobhs 842 

Tinuns v. Shannon 861 

Timpson v. London & N. Y. R. 

Go. 86 

Timaon v. Wilson 1071 

Tindal v. Cobham 1776 

Tindall*. Castle 1654 

Tink v. Bundle 1748 

Tinkler *. Hindmanh 1?J7 

v. Rowland 1109, 1127 

v. Swaynie 212, 216 

Tlnsley v. Penniman 860 

Tippin v. Coleman 849 

tipping v. Clarke 722, 725, 726 

v. Power 284, 710, 1890, 1428, 1778 

v. St. Helen's Smelting Co. 1687 

Tippins v. Coatee 948, 944 

Tipton v. Wortham 834 

Tipton Q. C. Co. v. Tipton M. 

C. Co. 1888 

Tfcon v. Tlson 1551 

Tittensen v. Peat 606, 670 

Titterton v. Osborne 809 

Titos v. Hobart 48 

Tobey v. Bristol, County of 671 
v. Foreman 1540 

«. Leonard 844 



Tobin v. Dixon 

v. Queen, The 

v. Reg. 

«. Walktnshaw 

v. Wilson 
Tod v. Baylor 

v. Tod 
Todd, Re 

v. Bishop 

v. Dowd 

v. Emby 

v. Fisk 

v. Gee 

v. Lackey 



121 

188,511 

181,188 

190,844 

894,1562 

1166 

1465 

95 

920 

1281 

1188 

1621 

648,684 

1676 



9. Minn.' ft St. L. By. Co. 196 

v. Mnnson 576 

v. Rich 1782 

v. Sterrett 225, 205 

v. Stewart 157 

v. Studholme 1208 

v. Taft 1902 

Toder v. Bansatn 978 

Toker v. Toker 852 

Toland v. Bpragae 641 

Tolderly v. Colt 1721, 1725 

Toledo, &c. R. Co. e. Detroit, 

&c. R Co. 1668 

v. Pennsylvania Co. 1620 

Toledo Tie & L. Co. v. Thomas 689 

Toller v Carteret 629,1627 

Tolman v. Johnstone 1101 

Tolson «. Dykes 1047 

v. Jervis 1016 

Tomkin v. Lethbridge 592, 785 

TornUns «. Harrison 936, 988 

v. Lane 1800 

Tomkinson v. Balkis Cons. Co. 26 

v. South Eastern Ry. Co. 840, 854 

Tomlin «. Budd 14«3 

«. Lace 1271 

v. M'Chord 989 

v. Tomlin 286, 857 

Tomline v. Reg. 188 

Tomlins v. Pafk 1029, 1080 

Tomlinson v. Claywell 842 

v. Greenfield 646 

v.Gregg 1802 



Tomlinson v. Harrison 1704, 1708 
v. Laud and Finance Go. 82 

v. Lymer 670 

v. Swinnerton 788 

v. Tomlinson 1486 

v. Ward 1877, 1881, 1734, 1736 
Tomlinson & W. M. Go. v. Shatto 

1784 

Tommey o. Sprang 1502 

v. White 1676 

Tompkins v. Anthon 694 

v. Halleok 1643 

v. Hollister 699 

v. Stephens 1078 

v. Tompkins 874 

Tompkyns v. Ladbroke 105 

Tompson v. Bank of Redemption 645 

v. Knights 1880 

Tomson v. Judge 1516 

Tong v. Oliver 1676, 1677 

Tonkin v. Lethbridge 1616, 1520, 

1684,1547 
Tonybee v. Ducknell 1279 

Toof v.Foley 149,686 

Tooke v. Hartley 284 

Tooley v. Kane 1274 

Toomer v. Rhodes 1001 

Toosey v. BurcheU 281,1174,1175, 

1617 
Tootal v. 8picer 1487 

Tooth v. Canterbury. Dean and 

Chapter of 210, 280, 262, 579 

Topham v. Llghtbody 992 

v. M'Gregor 1099 

o. Portland 1144, 1471 

Topliff v. Jackson 2, 1260, 1297 

v. Topliff 1802 

Topp v. Pollard 1868, 1871 

v. White 629, 1668 

«. Williams 1164 

Toppan v. Brans 1682 

Topping v. Searson 464, 1848 

Torbock v. Laing 1128 

v. Lamy 1109 

Tcrkington, Ex parte 894 

Torpedo Go. v. Clarendon 1620 

Torr v. Torr 621, 627 

Torrance v. Bolton 1306 

Torre v. Brown 1266, 1608 

Torrenoe v. Davidson 1461 

Torrent v. Booming Co. 1624 

v. Hamilton 884 

v. Rogers 814 

Torrey v. Camden, fro. R. Co. 1640 

v. Shaw 1221 

Totten v. Nance 1081 

Tottenham v. Barry 588, 628 

v. Emmet 269, 1886, 1891 

Totty v. Ingleby 461 

Toulme v. Clark 844 

Toulmin v. Copland 1250. 1686, 1687. 

1678,1670,1777 
«. Hamilton 802 

v. Hedley 1126 

v. Raid 886, 1661, 1668, 1564, 

1568 
Tourton v. Flower 288, 818, 599 
Towend v. Toker 1526 

Tower Manuf . Co. v. Thompson 286. 

803 
Towle v. American Building So- 
ciety 1716, 1784 
c Bannister 284 
V. Janvrin 652 
«. Pierce 150, 216, 210, 288, 290, 

361 

V. Swasey 1411 

V. Towle 1666 

Town v. Needham 840 

Towne v. Bonnin 616, 740 

v. Smith 844 

Townley v. Bedwell 1476 

v. Deare 1079, 1669 

v. Jones 1181 

Townsend, Re 1888 

v. Bogert 818, 1666 

v. Carpenter 197 



Townsend v. Champernowne 286, 

1408,1408 

v. Graves 1078, 1076 

v. Griggs 444 

v. Hargravet 366 

«. Ives 1116 

«. Kendall 1847, 1356 

v. Mcintosh 846 

v. Parton 814 

v. Simon 1282 

v.Smith 978,1479,1492 

r. Townsend 1120, 1476, 1493 

v. Tuttle 285 

v. Williams 906 

Townshend v. Duncan 861, 379 

v. Ires 876 

v. Norwich, Bishop of 1436 

v Townshend 689,644,702,852 

Marquis of v Stangroom 1389 

Towsey v Groves 71, 76 

Trabue v. Bankhead 281, 1634 

v. Holt 448 

Tracewell v. Boggs 779 

Tracy v Tracy 1680 

Trade-mark Cases ' 1648 

Tradesmen*' Bank v. Hyatt 722 

Trafford v. Blanc 417 

v. Wilkinson 602 

v. Tonng 874 

Traill v. Baring 882 

Transatlantic Co. v. Pietroni 31, 

1726 
Trant, Re 1781 

Traphagen v. Jersey City 1668 

v. Voorhees 1679 

Trapler v. Waldo 288 

Trappes v. Meredith 418. 1144 

Trash v. White 661, 640 

Trask v. Stone 69 

Traver v. Purdy 850 

Travera v. Buckly 476, 499 

v. Ross 642,608, 692, 768, 760, 

786 
v. Townsend 1870, 1421 

Traverse City, fro. R. Go. v. Sey- 
mour 1614 
Travis v. Challenor 869 
«. Milne 200, 824 
». Waters 987, 994, 1877, 1381, 
1410, 1468, 1472, 1476, 1479, 
1491, 1627 
Trayer v. Reeder 861 
Tray hern v. Mechanics* Bank 1019 
Treadwell v Brown 884, 879, 584, 

1657 
v. Cleaveland 617, 618, 716 

v. Lennig 787,848 

v. Patterson 829 

Trecothick v. 1391 

v. Austin 197, 660, 644 

Tredegar, Lord v. Windos 817, 1618, 

1626,1684 

Tredwell v. Byrch &7, 244 

Trefusls v. Clinton 1277, 1292 

v. Cotton 174 

Treft v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. 

Co. 664 

Treiber v. Shaffer 68 

Trelawney v. Thomas 1188 

v. Williams 664 

Treleaven v. Bray 280 

Tremaioe v. Tremalne 864, 785 

Tremolo Patent 418 

Tremper v. Brooks 1743 

Trench v. Semple 1610 

Trenchard v. Warner 1006 

Trentham v. Deverill 1099 

Trenton Banking Go. v. Rossell 1119, 

1124 

v. Woodruff 1076, 1110, 1716 

Trescott v. Smith 270 

Trethewy v. Helyar 1213, 1428, 

1480 
Trevanlan v. Mosse 677 

Trevelyan v. Charter 1029 

Trevet v. Creath 68 

Trevilllan v. Knight 1026 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CX1X 



[The 



an to the star paging.] 



Trtfor *. Black 1770 

Trewkk v. Paramore 1878 

Tnssiant 9. BroPghton 118, 1688 

t.tnmt 1196,1216,1811,1819, 

1696 
Tribble* Tribble 90 

Triebert v. Burgess 886, 1786 

Trigg c.Trigg 1164,1802 

Trilly 9. Keen 638 

Mm v. Baker 601 

9. Barker 789 

Trimble ». Dodd 867, 992. 1283, 

1868, 1699 

Mmksttm «. Hamill 1289, 1240 

v. Kemmls 816 

Lord 9. D' Alton 1119 

9. Hamil 1898 

v. Lloyd 1119 

Trimmer 9. Todd 1607 

Trinity Home v. Barge 667 

Triplett v. Jameson 1284 

v. Wilson 1676 

Tripp v. Cook 1284, 1290. 1490. 

v. Oiflbrd ' 68 

v. Vincent 827, 978, 1006, 1468 

Tritt v. Caldwell 116 

v OolweU 121 

Trollope 9. Rontledge 1432 

Trotter 9. Heclueher 1648, 1608 

v. Maclean 689, 1896, 1682 

9. Trotter 46?, 1197, 1198 

v. Walmealey 992 

Trooghton 9. Blnkes 828 

9. Gettey 801,816 

v. Gllley 167 

v. Hill 88 

Troop 9. Height 668,901,980.1288, 

1660.1661 

9. Bicardo 61, 812 

9. Sherwood 967, 969, 960 

9. Troop 1009, 1017, 1628 

9. Wood 1966, 2278 

Tmudale v. Maxwell 1676 

Trout v. Kmmons 846 

Trow 9. Berry 1820 

Troward 9. Attwood 792, 796 

9. Bingham 1422 

Trowbridge w. CaoJkins 1167 

Trow City D. Co. 9. Curtln 666 

Trowell v. Bhenton 602 

Troy A Greenfield Railroad 9. 

Commonwealth 141 

Troy Iron nod Nail factory 9. 

Corning 2866 

Trobody 9. Brain 1188 

Tmeheart v. Pries 1680 

Trulbrt, Re 417, 664 

Traitt 9. Truitt 281 

Troll 9. Rloe 1294 

Troiock 9. Sober 214. 1006, 1240, 
1241, 1676, 1926, 2223 
Truman 9. MeCollam 818 

9 Redgrare 1667, 1668, 1726 

Trumbull v. Gibbons 784,786,748, 

784, 786, 961 
Trust and Firs Ins. Co. 9. Jen- 
kins 402, 409, 624, 776 
Trustees v. Field 1081 
9. Greenongh 1411 
9. Proctor 1668 
Try 9. Try 1744 
Tryact 9. Llndo 786 
Tryon 9. National Provident 

Inst. 287, 406 

Tseheider 9. Biddle 671, 1668, 1861 

Tubb 9. Fort 680 

Tubbs, Re 102. 108, 108 

Tubman 9. Wason Manuf Co. 2048 

Took 9. Manning 1770 

9. Bayment 767 

9. SilTer 1642. 1666 

Tucker 9. Andrews 90. 91 

9. Bean 166 

9. Bofinm 1240, 1244, 1247, 1258 



Tucker 9. Cheshire B. Co. 768, 769. 

41 

68 

167 

1961,2040 

1078. 1076 



9. Collinson 

9. Dabbe 

9. Hernaman 

9. Kenniston 

9. Sanger 

9. Tucker 841, 846. 

18b8 

9. Welsh 1101 

9. Wilkin* 1628 

9. Wilson 68, 1626 

9. Zimmerman 2U0 

Tuokley 9. Thompson 284, 1890 
Tnder9 Morris 216 

Tudway 9. Jones 69, 407, 420, 699. 



Tear's Will Trusts, Re 
Tnrnell, Re 

9. Constable 
Tnfton 9. Hardinge 
Tofts 9. Little 
Togwell9 Hooper 481,677 


86 

188 

1984 

1666 

1716 

'Si 


Talk 9. Moxhay 
Tnllar 9. Baxter 
Tnllett 9. Armstrong 
Tnlllt 9. Tuilit 
Talloeh 9. Hartley 
9. Tulloch 


1664 


, 18d2 
669 
16h0 
1866 
1168 
1264 



Tullock 9. Belleville P. ft S. 

Works 894 

Tone 9. Cooper 121 

Tannard 9. Littell 110 

Tunno9. Edwards 68 

TanstaU9 Boothby 1780 

9. Pollard 261 

Topper 9. Powell 886 

Tarbot9. 960 

Tariey 9. Tnrley 1299 

Tarnball, in re 898 

9. Janson 908 

9. Prentiss Lumber Co. 1784 

Tomer, Re 1826 

9. Alabama Mining Co. 26 

9. Baptist Missionary Union 886, 

840,1624 
9. Berry 190, 1680, 1688 

9. Bnrklnshaw 1820 

9. Burleigh 882, 926, 980 

9. Clifford 1064 

9. Cole 1644, 1679 

9. Collins 862, 1486 

9. Conant 384 

9. Correy 1280 

9. Cnthrell 1676 

9. Davis 816 

9.0ebeU 624 

9. Dorgan 606 

9. Doobleday 886 

9. Frampton 1427 

9. Gowdon 1482 

9. Hancock 1411, 1416 

9. Hannibal ft St J. R. Co. 1798 
9. Highway Board 1681 

9. HiU 1661 

9. Hind 228 

9. Hodgson 1028 

9. Holman 842, 847 

9. Hughes 1222, 1260 

9. Indianapolis, fte, Ry. Co. 1286, 

1743 
9. Johnson 1886 

9- Letts 81, 1842, 1848 

9. London ft 3 W. Ry. Co. 1009, 

1016, 1644 
9. Major 1660 

9. Marriott 1661, 2266, 2266 

9. Manle 1117 

9. Mlrfleld 1681 

9. Mitchell 611 

9. Morgan 1167 

9. Moy 241, 248 

9. MalUnenx - 1412 

9. Muskegon Co. 1440 



Tamer 9. Nlcholls 681 

9. Pearte 1098 

9. lierce 884, 1004 

9. Robinson 62,168,886,606,681 

9. RaUedge 1008 

9. Scott 1672 

9. Snowdon 162, 462, 476 

9. Sowden 102, 449, 462, 476 

9. Spooney 1688 

9. Tepper 1681 

9. Trelawny 968, 964 

9. Turner 87, 74, 78, 308, 882, 624, 

908, 974. 1269, 1820, 1821, 

1869, 1886, 1487, 1449, 1460, 

1476, 1478, 1484, 1487, 16U8. 

1748, I860 

9. Wight 1662 

9. Wright 1624, 1638 

Tamer Coal Co. 9. Glover 686, 880 

Turner's Sir B , Case 124, 126 

Turoey 9. Bay ley 1829, 1889 

Turaham 9. Turnham 191 

Turnipseed 9. Hawkins 876 

Turnley 9. Hanna 940 

Tarnook 9. Satoris 1449 

Turquand 9. Dawson 1182, 1188 

9. Kirby 26 

9. Knight 676 

9. Marshall 26, 248, 1897 

Torrili 9. Mussy 644 

Turton9. Barber 678 

9. Turton 1648 

Tussaud 9. Tnssaod 1648 

Tuthill 9. Scott 1888 

Tntin, Re 102 

Tuttie 9. Church 1680 

9. Dewey 997 

9. Fowler 121 

Tutton 9. Andrews 1126 

Tntwiler 9. Dunlap 269 

9. Tuskaloosa Coal Co. 884 

Tuxbury's Appeal 1460 

Tweddell 9. Twedoell 1622 

Tweedale, Re 96, 1817 

Tweedie v. Phelps 1046 

Tweedy, Re 1606 

Twenty man 9. Barnes 1118 

Twigg9. Fifleld 1277 

9. Potts 1126 

Twiggs 9. Chambers 1846, 1846 

Twistleton v. Thelwel 1422 

Twogood 9. Swanston 668 

Two Sicilies, King of 9. Wilcox 17, 

18, 667, 1881 

Twycross 9. Dreyfus 18 

Twyfbrd 9. Traill 261, 1816 

Twynam 9. Porter 203, 1846 

Tyldeo, Re 99, 1802 

Tylee9 Tylee 1781,1787 

Tyler, Re 99, 1748 

Re. Tyler 9. Tyler 18 

9. Ball 260,289,698 

9. Connolly 1068 

9 Drayton 679, 680, 1818, 1824, 

1829,1880 
9. Galloway 269,418 

9. Savage 680 

9. Simmons 1296, 1809, 1476, 

1481 

9. Thomas 280, 281, 400 

9. Toms 1279 

9. Tyler 676 

Tyndale 9. Warre 1286 

Tyng v. Thayer 1188, 1249 

Tynte 9. Hodge 29, 88, 84, 868, 1687. 

1668,1682 

Tyree 9. Bingham 12 

9. Williams 989 

Tyron 9. Sutton 116 

Tysen 9. Wabash Ry. Co. 1716 

Tyson, Ex parte 68 

9. Applegate 200, 212 

9. Cox 1467 

9. Fairclough 1726 

9. Pole 660 



cx^. 



TABLE OF GASES CITED. 
(The references sre to the star paging.] 



U. 



1417 

1684,1686 

1642 

1791 

818 

787,846,846 

674 

888,1661 

641,1228 



Udell v, Kenney 91 

Uhle v. Burnham 988 

Uhlfeldcr v. Levy 1628 

Uhlmann v, Amholt fr 8. B. Co. 

787,888 
Uhthoff v. Huntlngneld, Lord 718, 

860 

Ulbrlcht v. Bufeala Water Co. 808 

Umfreville v. Johnson 211, 908 

Umpleby v* Waveney Valley 

Railway Co. 1466, 1610, 1627. 

1629 

Underdown v. Stannard 898 

Underbill, Re 911 

v. Mobile Fire D. In*. Co. 660 

v. Van Cortlandt 660, 666, 671, 

862, 906, 947, 9*8, 949, 961, 1624 

Underwood v. Dugan 660 

v. Froet 1781 

p. Gerber 417 

*. Hatton 1207 

v. Hitchooz 1406 

v. Jee 797 

v. Pack 1284 

v. Secretary of State for India 

1828 
v. Trower 
Underwood's Case 
Ungar v. Sugg 
Ungless v. Tuff 
Union Bank v. Crime 
v. Qeary 
v. Kent 
«. Kerr 
v. Knapp 
Union Branch R. R. Co. v. Bast 

Tenn. & Georgia R. R. Co. 608 
Union Fire Ins. Co. e. Osgood 21 
Union Ins. Co. v Benlt 1468 

v. Van Rensselaer 1802, 1467 

Union M. Jfi. Church v. Wilkinson 216 
Union Mat. Ins. Co. v. Commer- 
cial Mat. Mar. Ins. Co. 1897, 

2266 
«. Kellogg 717 

Mat. Life Ins. Co. v. Chicago 

& W. 1. R. Co. 1770 

v. Slee 1172 

Union Pacific Ry. Go. «. Balti- 
more 1666 
v. Botsfbrd 1666 
v. Cheyenne 808 
v. Chicago <&c. Ry Co. 629 
v. Hall 1668 
w. Harmon 986 
v. Lincoln County 1660 
v. McShane 1661 
v. Mertes 89, 797 
v. Reese 
Union Passenger Ry. Co. 9. 

Baltimore 
Union Sugar Refinery v. Ma- 

thiesson 1. 978. 1028. 1822 

Union Trust Co. v. Illinois Mid- 
land Ry. Co. 1748 
t>. St. Louis R. Co. 1781 
9. Souther 1748 
v. Walker 1748 
United Hone-shoo Co. v. 8tewart 

1081 

United Lines Tel Co. v. Boston 

Safe Deposit Co. 1276 

v. Grant 630, 1620 

v. Stevens 974, 1019, 1684 

United Merthyr fro. Collieries 

Co., Re 1288, 1682 

United Nickel Co. ». Worthing- 

ton 269 

United Ports and General Ins. 

Co., Re % Brown's Case 1020 

United R. Co, v. Hoppock 648,1668 



United Railroad ft Canal Com- 
panies v. Long Dock Co. 782 

United Security Life Ins. Co. v. 
Vandergrift 

United States v. Alexandria 660 
«. American Bell Telephone 
Co. 8, 149, 813, 884, 402, 779 



e. 
e. 

v. 
v. 

V. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9, 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
«. 
V. 
9. 
9. 
9, 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9- 
9. 

9, 

9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
V. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 



9. 

9. 
9. 
9. 
9. 

9. 
9. 
9. 



9. 
9. 

9. 

9. 
9. 
9. 



Arnold 

Babeock 

Bank of the Metropolis 

Barney 

Beebe 

Bell Telephone Co. 

Benner 

Blight 

Budd 

California Land Co. 

Cameron 

Central Pacific R, Co. 

Clarke 

Colgate 

Curtner 

Dalles Military Road Co. 

De* Moines NaT- Ry. Co. 

Duluth 



1264 

907 

129 

129 

8,660 

606 

142 

17 

848 

604,674 

988,1678 

190 

129,141 

8 

884 

697 

646 

1614 

1069 

616,848.860 

217, 669, 2884 

1008, 1017 

1860 

8, 10, 890 

8 



Bmerson 
Ferguson 
Gillespie 
Gomes 
Green 
Gunning 
Hancock 

Hawkins 129 

Holmes 1070 

Horn Hing 988 

Hutton 1666 

Iron Silver M Co. 8 

Jeffers 142 

Lafontaine 1422 

Loughrey 686 

Lyman 10 

McDanlal 129 

McRlroy 660 

McGraw 8 
McLaughlin 864, 769, 1566 
McRea 17, 18. 20, 887, 667, 
611, 626, 680, 696, 864, 1881 

Marshall Silver M. Co. 8 

Masich 1716 

Maxwell Land Grant Co. 8 

Memphis fc L. R R Co. 1687 



Minor 

Morris 

Pannele 

Parrott 

Patterson 

Perchetnan 

Peters 

Pings 

Pittsburgh &c. 

Pratt Coal Co. 



8 
780 
196,826 
190, 1628, 1677 
1069 
17 
17 
988 
R. Co. 10 

87,884,867, 
2880 
Prlolean 17,18,20,141,1881 
Ringgold 129 

Robeson 129 

Rose 8 

Samperyac 1076, 1147, 1676, 

1678, 1680 
San Jacinto Tin Co. 8, 10 

Smith 906 

Southern Pacific R, Co. 686, 

1881 
Throckmorton 8 

Ticbenor 8, 660 

Tilden 988 

Trans-Missouri Freight Ass. 866 
treadwell 680, 1427 

Trinidad Coal A C. Co. 8 

Twenty-Bight Packages, 
fro. 668, 664 



United States 9. Union Pac. R. 



10 

17,16,19,141,146. 

296,1881 

129 

8 

8 



Co. 

9. Wagner 

9. Wells 

9. Wenta 

p. White 

9. Wilder 

9. Wilkins 129 

9. Workingmen's Am Council 

787, 1620, 1668 
United States, Pies, of v. Drum- 
mood 20 
United States C. 8. Co. v. Am- 
erican C. I. Co 814 
United States Ins. Co. *. Central 

Bank 712 

United States Mutual Ace. Ins. 

Co. v. Reisinger 1621 

United States Trust Co. v. Roche 



1748 
1878 



v. Wabash W. Ry. Co. 
United TeL Co. v. Patterran 
United Telephone Co. v. Bassano 64, 

167 

9. Donohoe 860 

University v. CambreUng 448 

9. Finch 62 

v.Miller 46 

University of Aberdeen v. Irvine 

1608 
University College v. FoxeroA 1069, 

1060, 1610 
University of Glasgow v. Baliiol 

College 149 

University of Oxf. & Camb- v. 

Richardson * 1G29 

University Life Ass. Co. 9. Metro- 
politan Railway Co. 1660 
Unsworth, Re 1891 

v. Woodcock 1818, 1829 

Untoreiner 9. Miller 1498 

Untermeyerv. Freund 1642 

Updike 9. Bartles 1467 

9. Doyle 244, 648, 794. 1221, 1296, 

129c\ 1809, 1616 

Upfull,Jte 1814 

Upham 9. Brooks 1241 

9. Draper 726 

Upingtone Oviatt 808 

Upjohn 9. Upjohn 998 

Upman 9. Blkan 1649 

Upmann v. Forrester 261 

Upperton v. Harrison 1890 

v. Niokolson 1889 

Upton 9. Brown 1226, 1227, 1827, 

174S 

9. Ferrers, Lord 

v. Lowten 

9 Sowten 

9. Triblleook 

v. Vanner 
Upton, Warren, Re 
Ure v. Lord 
Urev 9. Urey 
Urlln 9. Hudson 
Urmston v. Singleton 
Urner v. Kay ton 
Urquhart, Re 

9. Butterfleld 
Uftborne v. Csborne 
Usher 9. Jouitt 

9. Martin 
Utica Ins. Co. 9. Lynch 



Utley v. Fee 
Utten v. Utten 
Uttemon v. Malr 
Uvedale v. Uvedale 
Uxbrldge, Earl of. Ex parte 1841 
Lord 9. Staveiand 822, 360, 887 



1267 

782 

782 

274 

804 

1864,1866 

1626,1627 

1411 

686,688,688 

1048,1220 

1881 

447 

864 

1680 

1426 

1661 

718,720. 

728 

991 

1712 

,648,1728 

164,1422 



TABLE OF CASE8 CITED. 
[The restrenoss are to the star paging*] 



CXX1 



V. 



Vaocaro 9. ClcaDa 1411 

Vacuum 00 Go. 0. BaflUo L. 0. 

Co. 1642 

Vsey v. Vaey 308 

Vadela 0. Law** 684 

Veiden v. StubbleneU 998 

Yakfneur 9. Kirk 1078 

Tail p. Central R Co. 643 

Yauiant e. Dodemead 076, 944 

Vabe v. Delaral 1181 

Yak v. Bayle 1188 

v. Davenport 1286 

e.Merideth 707,710 

«. Oppert 1842 

Yaleoiin 0. VsJensJn 109 

Valentino 9. Ford 88 

v. Teller 1066, 1062 

Yallanee v. Birmingham fee. Iht. 

Co. 406 

Yallenee e. Weldoo 1811, 1812, 1820 
Van v. Corpe 1194 

0. Prke 1070 

Van Allen. In re 1716 

Van Ala* v. Hunter 1074, 1124. 1186 
Van Beosehooten v. Lawaon 1260 
Yen Bergen 0- Van Bergen 1639, 

Vanbibber 0. Beirne 818 

Van Bokkelen 0. Cook 190 

v. Tinges 200 

VanBarenw. Olmsteed 1892 

Yanbussum w. Maiooey 1270, 1276 

Vane*, Re 1069 

0. Edwards 1370 

0. Lancaster 880 

v. Vance 847 

Yanelearev. Beam 288 

Yancleef 0. Sickles 808 

Vancouver 0. Bum 848, 1880, 1881, 

1403 
Yandant 0. Ailmon 878 

Vandegrtft 0. Herbert 844, 846 

Yandwnnrk 0. Schoonmaker 1681 
Yandenborg 0. Van Rensselaer 1696 
Yanderbeek 0. Peck 422 

Yanderbllt 0. Central R. Co 1748 
Vanderhais* 0. Hugues 1288, 1247 
Yandernerdon 0. Vanderheyden 

1286. 1746 
Yanderpoel v. Van Valkenburgh 288 
Vandenreer 0. Holeombe 1648 

Vanderretw 0. Beading 777, 778, 780, 

781 
Vandervoort 0. Williams 1676 

Van Derenter 0. Stiger 629 

Van Dorra v. Robinson 220, 266, 292 
». Van Doren 1273 

Van Dresser v. Oregon R. ft N 

Co. 149 

Van Doaen 0. Van Damn 91, Kti 

Vandike 0. Brown 371 

YandVne 0. Vandjne 1270, 1272 

0. Vreeland 667 

Vane v. Barnard, Lord 1633 

r. CobboWl 1127 

v. Coekermonth Railway CO 1 J50 

v Vane 88, 86. 650. 1574 

Earl v. Rlgden 200. 324 

Van Kppe v. Van Drawn 91, 101, 

120,122,287,214 
Van Every 0. Adams 1843 

Van Oelder v. Sowerby Bridge 

Floor Society 406 

Van Olesen v. Van Honten 1267 

Vangilder 0. Hoffman 1078 

Van Hook v. Pendleton 901 

0. Throckmorton 280,1062,1*16, 

1618 

Whltlcck 660, 607, 609, 721 

Van Horn r. Pendleton 2891 

*. diuith 920 



Van Honten «. Van Winkle 884 
Van Kemp v. Bell 1866 

Van Kuren v. Trenton, Ac., 

Hanuf. Co. 1677, 2819 

Van Leonard v. Stocks 296 

Van slater v. Conover 1662 

v. Sfekler 840 

Vanmeter v. Borden 1062 

Venn o. Bsrnett 1784, 1782 

Van Names v. Oroot 961 

Vannerv Frost 860 

Vannerson v. Cord 1282 

v. Laverett 680 

Van Ness 0. Van Ness 1172, 1820 
VanOhlene Van Ohlen 1846 

Van Pelt v. Chattanooga R. Co. 68 
Van Reimsdyke 0. Kane 149, 842 
Vanrenen v. Piffard 796 

Van Rensselaer v. Brice 728, 729, 

764 

v. Bruce 769 

Van Rhyn v. Vincent 644 

Van oandau, Ex parte 611 , 1070 

he 1684 

v.Moore 26,26,242,248,780 

v. Rose 1678, 1686 

Van Schaak v. Saunders 288 

Vansclver v. Bryan 868 

Vanaittart 0. Collier 1274 

0. Vanaittart 1404 

Van Tyne 0. Banco 829, 668 

Van Valtenburg 0. Albany 784, 1661 

Van Vechten 0. Terry 278 

Van Vtoet 0. Sledge 660 

Van Vorst, Ex parte 1794, 1796 

Van Vronker* Eastman 1247, 1248, 

1262 
Van Walters Marion County 

Board 920 

Van Weal 0. Winston 824 

Van Wert 0. Boyes 1617 

Van Weael 0. Van Weml 1481 

Van Wych 0. Seward 668. 1078 

Vansandt 0. Argentine M. Co. 1676 
Vanseller 0. Vanseller 1708, 1704, 

1708 

Vardon's Trusts, Re 122 

Varfck 0. Briggs 669, 676 

0. Dodge 604 

0. 8mlth 884, 669 

Variey, Re 891, 1006 

Varner 0. Young 864 

Varney 0. BartleU 197 

0. Pope 1689 

Varnon's Trusts, Re 100 

Varrlan 0. Berrian 1661 

Varteg Chapel, Re 898, 1606 

Vase v. Arrington 1274 

Vaaaar 0. Hill 740 

Vattter 0. Hinde 669 

Vaughan 0. Central Pae. R. Co. 670 

0. Cutrer 1676 

v. Bast Tenn. & Ya R. Co- 670 

0. Fitsgerald 648, 871, 1388, 1678, 

1574 
0. Hooch 1294 

0. Hlggins 14*1 

0. Lloyd 1192 

0. Martin 1099 

0. Parr 106, 114 

v. Rogers 528 

0. Thurston 1419 

0. Vaoderstegen 187, 1848, 1844 
0. Vaughan 1616, 1740. 1706 

0. Welsh 691, 816 

0. Williams 495 

Wllnoo 118 



0. Worrall 
Vaufrhn v Fuller 
Halliday 
0. Hann 



964, 966, 10W 
1621 
1459 
1578 



Vaughn 0. Vaughn 1846 

Vaun 0. Hargett 841 

Vavaeseur 0. Krupp 141 

Veach 0. Sehaup 1246 

Veal 0. Veal 96 

Veaaia 0. Williams 196, 802, 1628, 

1680 
Veedere. Fonda 1269 

0. Morita 896 

Veghte 0. Raritan Water Power 

Co. 846, 847 

Veile 0. Blodgett 843, 846 

Veitch 0. Irving 84 

Venable 0. Smith 1663 

Venables 0. Bchweluwr 942, 944 

Venderhsiss 0. Hugaes 1246 

Venner 0. Atchison, T. ft S. F. 

R-Co 647 

Venning 0. Loyd 



686, 800, 1627. 
1776 



Vent 0. Pacey 671, 672, 806 

Ventilation and Sanitary Im- 
provement Company 0. Bd- 
elston 791 

Ventnor Harbor Company, Re 1086, 

1087 
Venus, The 60 

Verdier0 Foster 719 

Vers 0. Olynn 4<fl 

Vereker 0. Gort 1809 

Yeret 0. Dupres 204, 261 , 1726 

Verity 0. Wylde 1842, 1846 

Vermillion Bailey 1298 

Vermilye 0. Yermilye 1461 

Vermilyea 0. Fulton Bank 146, 146, 

0. Odell 416, 806, 888 

Vermont Copper Mining Co «. 

Barnard 1897 

Vermont R Co. 0. Vermont, Sec 

R. Co. 1731 

Vemey, Earl 0. Macnamara 779 

Thomas 1648 

Vernon. Re 674 

Re, Rwens, fc Co. 298 

0. Cholmondeley 1257 

Croft 1794 

0. Cue 412 

0. Hallam 1666 

0. Hunkey 1134 

0. St. James's Vestry 1687 

0. Thellusson 1616. 1617 

0. Vawdry 667, 668 

0. Vernon 868, 668, 1070 

0. Wright 1496 

Verplanck 0. Caines 643, 684. 1715 

0. Mercantile Ins. Co. 286, 890, 

401, 402, 406 r 407, 424, 425, 1735, 

1748 
Verree 0. Hughes 1256 

Vesey0. Elworthy 1274 

Vettrls v. Hooper 68, 814 

Vrtten 0. Wallace 851 

Vetter0 Schreiber 673 

Vetterlein 0. Barker 1680. 1584 

v. Barnes 200 

Vinll, Re 1389 

Vtalle 0. O'Reilly 1735 

VIbart v. Vlbart 281 

Vicar of St Sepulchre, Re 1014 
Vicary r. Farthing 1108 

0. Widger 1667 

Vice 0. Thomas 652 

Vkkerey r. London, fro. Ry. 

Co. 1141 

Viokers r. Bell 227, 252 

0. Vlckers 1897 

Vlcktburg &o. R. Co. 0. Phil- 
lip* 236 
Victor Scale Co 0. Shurtleff 1701 
Vidler 0. Parrott 1791, 1796 



cxxn 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Vlgel v. Hopp 848 

Vigors v. Audley, Lord 406, 446, 
608, 693, 1582, 1684 
Vlgrass v. Binfleld 1778 

Village of Nunde «. Crystal 

Lake 1661 

VlUard v. Chorin 1839 

VillaTaso v. Barthet 684 

Vinal v. Continental 0. ft I. Go. 26 

Vlncer Walsh 2860 

Vincent, Re 286 

Jte, Parham v. Vinetnt 646 

v. Godson 1616 

v. Going 662, 1281 

v. Hanter 29, 859, 1663 

v. Matthews 974 

v. Spicer 1683, 2807 

v. Watts 429 

Tine, Ex parte 68,167 



[The reference s are to the star paging.] 

Viney v. Bignold 671 

v. Chaplin 1080, 1031, 1410, 1491 
Vint v. Padget 218 

Vinton v. King 1288 

Vlrden v. Needles 991 

Virginia v. Dunaway 1621 

Virginia Manuf. Co. v Hate 146, 

647 

Virtue v. Milter 68 

VManv. Kennelly 78 

v. Little 1817 

VUet v. Lowmason 1676 

v. Sherwood 1618 

v. Wyokoff 1896 

Voakv National In*. Co. 779 

Vogter v. Montgomery 1624 

Vofetlander v. Brotse 1062 

Vdaln v. Commeidal M. Ins. 

Co. 862 



1861 

197,989 

68 

844 



Volans v. Carr 
Voorhees v. De Myer 

v. Polhemus 

v. Voorhees 
Voorhees v. Bonesteel 
Vorley v. Jerrani 884 

Vose v. PhUbrook. 149. 216, 219, 

269, 814, 874 

r. Trustees 1467 

Voshell v. Hynson 1716, 1716, 1784 
Vowles v. Young 604 

Vredenburg v. Johnson 328, 668 
Vreelandv Bramhall 860 

v.N. J. Stone Co. 1677 

v. Vreeland 884 

Vroom v. Ditmaa 668, 1017, 1886 



Vyse v. Foster 969, 1288, 1474 

Vyryan v. Vyryan 1662, 1668 



W. 



Wabash and Erie Canal Co. v. 

Beers 900 

Wabash Ac Ry. Co. v. Central 

Trust Co. 214, 1120 

Wabash Ry. Co. v. Dykeman 1716 
WaddlloTe v. Taylor 464. 1889. 

1696, 1801, 1848 

Wade v. Amer. CoL Boo. 1468 

v. Bozly 121 

v. Keefe 162 

v. Ordway 1181 

«. Pulsiftr 669, 690 

v. Stanley 809 

v Ward 1890 

Wadeer v. Bast India Co. 146, 681 

Wadeson v. Radge 286, 248 

Wadham v. Rigg 1827 

Wadhams v. Gay 1686 

Wadley, Re 1691 

Wadman v. Birch 1201 

Wadsworth v. Spain, Queen of 141 

Wafer v. Mocato 1669 

Waffle v. Vanderheyden 689, 1667 

Waggoner v. Gray 1228, 1229, 

1260 

v. Wolf 1120 

Wagner v. Cohen 1277 

v. Mean 41. 48 

v. Railway Co. 1614 

Wagstalf v.Bryan 86% 729 

v. Read 677 

Walnev Crocker 661 

Wainford v. Heyl 187 

Wainwright v. Bewail 796, 1396 

Walte v Blngley 877. 1167 

v. Morland 128, 179 

v. Bemple 1212 

v. Templer 218 

v. Waite 1213 

v. Wingate 790 

Wakalee v. Daris 660 

Wake v. Conyers 1164 

v Parker 108,109 

Wakefield v. Buccleugh, Duke 

of 1666 

v. Chllds 1166 

v. Llanelly Railway and Dock 

Co. 664, 670 

v. Marr 166 

v Newton 1842 

Wakeham v Lome 168 

Wakelin v. Walthal 843 

Wakeman v. Bailey 299 

v. Glllespy 1676. 1677 

v. Orofer 214, 267, 272. 

844 

v. Kingsland 1661 

v. Rutland, Duchess of 1262 

Walbanke v. Sparks 1667 

Walbridge v. English 216 



Walburn v. IngQby 199, &». 1468. 

Waloot v. Walcot 428, 429 

v. Walker 1646 

Waloottv Lyons 406 

v. Melick 1686 

v. Watson 843 

Walden v. Chambers 116. 118 

Waldo v. Caley 1467, 1469, 1471, 

1476 

Waldron, Kx parte 1860 

v. Frances 1437 

Waldy v. Gray 878 

Walev. Baiter 87 

Wales v. Bank of Michigan 644 

v. Newbould 847 

v. Wales 1746 

Wales, Prinoc of v. Lamb 1882 

Princess of v. Liverpool, Karl 

of 16, 864, 679, 740, 796. 1818, 

1619, 1826, 1888 

Wales Association, Prince of v. 

Palmer 204 

Walford v. 197, 279 

Walker, Re 106408, 861, 1488 



v. 

v. 

V. 

v. 

V. 
V. 
V. 

v. 

V. 
V 

V. 

V. 
V. 
V. 

v. 

V. 

V. 

v. 

V. 

V. 

V. 

V. 

V. 

V. 

V. 

V 

V. 

V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 
V. 



Armstrong 

Beanlands 

Berry 

Blackmore 

Blakeman 

Bradford Old Bank 



418 
1844 
840 
169 
63 
199 



Brewster 

Brooks 

Brown 

Bunkell 

Burchnall 

Campbell 

Carey 



261, 1686, 1687 
197,1664 
1666 
1168 
1716 
787 
1008 



Chicago Courier Co. 1080 

Christian 1704, 1714 

Clarke 1642 

Crowder 76 

Crystal Palace D. G Co 1440 
Derereaux 886, 388, 1614, 

1618 
Drury 102 

Duncan 860 

Rasterby 28 

Ferrln 68 

Fletcher 894, 1662 

Gilbert 1531 

Grady 1073 

Haltett 146, 161. 286, 467, 

1299,1467 
Hill 737 

Hull 68 

Hurst 461 

JenVrles 294 

Jones 1668 



Walker v. Kendall 1266 

v.Kennedy 1821.1822 
v. Locke 866,647,661,619,666, 
1667, 2096, 2108 

v. Main 978 

v. Mlcklethwait 611, 668, 1068. 

1614, 16» 

v. Morris 1276 

v. Mottram 1666 

v. Needham 1127 

v. Page 166 

v. Poole 894 

v. Powers 808,884 

v. Seligmann 488 

v. Shrere 1626 

v. Slggers 972 

v. Simpson 1777 

v. Smalwood 280 

v. Smith 862 

v. Stevens 1841 

v. Stone 1676 

v. Symonds 268, I486, 2116 

v Taylor 74 

v. Wainwright 1626 
v Walker 118,828,726, 1842, 1660 

v. Ware, ftc, R. Co. 1221 

v. Wheeler 1667 

v. Wild 1768, 1767 

v. Wlldmen 676 

v. Wlngfield 1808, 1812 

v. Woodward 867, 1189 

v. Zorn 1624 

Walklin v. Johns 28 

Walkup v . Zehring 811 

Wall v. Bushby 74, 164, 974 

v. Cockerell 2270 

v. Fairley 191 

v. Livesay 860 

v. Rogers 67, 68, 119 
v. Stubbs 668,686,687,688,782, 



v. Thomas 
Wallace v. Auldjo 

v. Castle 

v. Clark 

v. Greenwood 

v. Holmes 

v. Loomls 

v. Mease 

v. Patton 

v Railroad Co. 

v. Sorter 

v. Taliaferro 

v. Wallace 

v. Wilson 

v. York 
Wallack v. Society, fee. 
Wallamet Iron Bridge 

Hatch 
Wallasey Local Board v. 



IBB 

149 

92.106 

1468 

2879,2897 

1846 

292 

860,1781 

916 

1608 

869 

829, 1661 

115 

787,760 

1062 

1081 

1620 

Co. 9 

1680 
Gracey 12 



TABLE OF GASES CITED. 
(The reference* are to the star paging.) 



CXX11I 



WaUeston v. Tribe 
WaUea r. Williams 
If aUer r. Bassett 

v. Demint 

v. Hanger 

v. Harris 

e. Pedlington 

e. Shannon 

p. Taylor 

9. Turner 
Waltoy v. Walley 
Walling v Been 



1042.1066 

1207 

560 

14 

999, 1619, 2222 

804,805 

884 

834 

1064 

150 

629 



Wallingford v. Mutual Society 

824,871 

Wallis, Jfe 1414 

*. Darby 515 

e.Fraaier 885 

9. Hirech 1862 

9. Hodtson. 868, 875 

9 Hodaon 67 

9. Morris 277 

9. Portland, Doke of 568 

9. Portland 1568 

v Sarel 1277 

* Thouws 1029. 1080 
9. WalHe 794, 808, 1896 
v Willis 1665 

Wallop v. Brown 508 

v. Warburton 42 

Wabnaley v. Child 892, 1558 

v. Foxhall 1476 

9 Walmaley 1250 

Wanworthv Holt 26,289,241,882 

Wallwyn v Lee 676, 677 

Walpole v. Cooper 854 

Wabond v. Parker 1452 

9. Walrond 1404 

Walter v. 8eUgman 26 

Walsh, Re 108 

9. Gilmer 863 

9. Maaon 1041 

9. Memphis An. & Go. 26 

9. Smyth 402, 406, 422, 1479 

* Trerannlon 170 
v. United States 10 
9. Walsh 68, 78, 1865, 1859, 

1802 

v. Wason 106 

9 Wright 860 

Walshamv Stalnton 887,671,677. 

Waidngham, Lord 9. Goodricke 672, 

678, 948, 1834 

Walter 9 Baltimore Bank 1461 

v. Fowler 854 

9. Olanrille 026, 069 

9. McNabb 840 

v. Maonde 1488 

v Patey 1396 

9. Riehl 214 

v. Ratter 909 

v. Sunders 124 

9 Selfe 1636,2807 

v. Steinkopff 1881, 1648 

Walters. In re Moore v. Bemrose 

1434 
Re. Nelson 9. Walters 838 

9. Anglo-American M. 6; T. Co 

1788 
9 Northern Coal M. Co. 706 

9. Upton 1775 

9. Walters 216, 1425 

9. Webb 649, 1448 

9. Woodbridge 68, 1238 

Walthall v. Hires 814 

Waltham, Ex parte 1611 

v. Broughton 1878 

Waltham Bank v. Waltham 1241 

Walton v Broadbent 864,785 

9. Cody 871 

v. Conlson 170, 2397 

v. Detroit C. ft B. B. Mills 1561 
9. Herbert 441 

9 Hill 1771 

9. Hobbs 846 

v. Johnson 1614, 1748 

9. Perkins 678 



Walton v United States 129 

v Van Mater 980 

v. Walton 845 

v. Westwood 860, 645 

9. Wlthingion 1242 

Wambaugh v. Gates 1276 

Wambursee v. Kennedy 417,419, 644, 

645 
Wameslt Power Co. v. Sterling 

Mills 1150 

Wampler v. Wolflnger 62 J 

Wand v. Docker 1086 

Wandsworth, fce Co v. Wright 241 
Wankford v. Wankford 1772 

Wanklyn v. Wilson 1780 

Wanmaker v. Van Buskirk 644, 844 
Wanneker v. Hitchcock 658 

Wanner v. Slsson 868 

Warbaes v. Armstrong 1417 

Warbritton v. Demorett 545 

Warburton v. Edge 1843 

v. Hill 1089, 1040, 1694, 1&6 

v. London and Blackwall Kail- 
way Co. 424,593,1675 

Ward, Re 160, 1881, 1607, 1786, 

1814 
9. Alton 1181 

v. Amory 98, 96, 97 

v. Arch 658 

v. Arredondo 149, 1082, 1627 

v. Basset* 223 

v. Booth 401, 407, 1066, 1067 

v. Oartwrlght 088, 1510, 1529 

v. Clay 586 

v. Cooke 846, 1291 

v. Cornwall 1069 

v- Davidson 1881 

v. Eyre 1267 

9. Gamgee 744 

9. Higgs 1072 

v. Hill 1078, 1076, 1077, 1U80. 

1463 
9. Holllns 267, 1276 

v. Jewett 1296, 1818 

v. Kent 1576 

9. Longtden 476 

v. Lowndes 1271 

9. Mackinlay 1286, 1890, 1424 

v. Meatb 185 

e. Northumberland, Duke of 840 
9. Paducah & M. R. Co. 1168 

v. Parlin 417 

v. Patton 418 

v. Peek 647 

v.St Paul 1852 

9. Sabring 447 

*. 8eymour 280 

v. Shakeshaft 266,710,1096,1425. 

1526 
v. Sheffield 408 

v. 8ittlngbourne fcc. Ry. Co 26. 

585,699 
9. Society of Attorneys 1650 

v. Swift 454, 455, 1741 , 1743, 

1760, 1755 

v. Trathen 1270 

9. Van Bokkelin 107. 1677 

9. Ward 37, 88, 64, 75, 76. 92, 

807, 809, 807, 814, 1320, 1411 

v. Waterman 230 

v. Whitfield 402 

9. Woodcock 603 

9. Wyld 1408 

9 Yates 102, 108, 108, 1482 

Ward's Case 156 

Warde, Re 1791 

9. Dickson 826, 1276 

v. Warde 676, 578, 1884. 

1863 
Warden 9. Bnrts 1412 

Wardlaw v. Brskine 1172 

Wardle 9. Carter 1027 

v. Clazton 696, 1671 

Wardmanv Belhoose 1127 

Wards v Btlhips 1688 

Wardsboro v. Whittingham 1626 
Wardwell v. Wardwell 1860 



Ware v. Camberlege 


16 


v. Curry 


884,66ft 


v. GalTeston City Co 


660 


v. Grand Junction 


Water 


Works Co 


1620 


9. Horwood 


1622 



9. Supreme Sitting Order 1748 

v. Wafaioo 1286, 1288 

Warflelde Banks 729 

v Fisk 88 

Waring v Crane 71,78 

v. Lockett 806 

9. Robinson 794 

9. Turton 200 

Warington v. Wheatstone 1661, 

1562,1568,1567 

Warman v. Zeal 996, 1028 

Warne v. Routledge 187, 1644 

Warner, Re 1731 

9 Armstrong 1880,1602 

v. Baynes . 1157 

v. Burton 1484 

v. Daniels 660, 646 

v. De Witt County Bank 214 

v. GouTernour 1717 

v. Hare 1299 

v. Jacob 644, 652 

v. McMilUn 1621 

v. United States Land Co. 854 

v. Warner 109, 1120. 1680 

Warnig v. Manchester, Sheffield, 

& Lincolnshire Railway Co. 1600 
Warren, Re 100 

r. Buck 109 

v. Burton 214 

9. Purstenheim 1507 

v. Hofer 1856 

9. Holbrook 664 

9. Howard 200 

v. Marcy 281 

v. Moody 409 

v. Postlethwaitc 480,1482 

v. Swinburne 892 

9. TwiUey 982 

9. Warren 884,886,841. 

711 

v. Williams 1159 

Warrick v. Hull 1648 

9. Queen's College 289, 

243, 898, 964, 986, 1817, 1827 

Warring v. Freear 1078 

Warrington v Sadler 208 

Waiter v. Anderson 1417 

Warthen v. Brantley 802, 887 

Warthy v Shields 1078 

Wartman v. Swindell 829 

Wartnaby 9. Wartnaby 86 

Warwick v. Bruce 1133 

v. Cox 796 

Earl of v Beaufort, Duke of 806 

Charities, Re 1855, 1856 

Wanh v. Heard 468 

Washburn v. Great Western Ins. 

Co. 1961 

Washburn & Moan Manuf. Co. 
v. Chicago G W F. Co. 280 
v. Patterron 32 

Washington v. Emery 1613, 1619 
v. Parks 1624 

Waflhlngton Bank v Eccleston 1081 
Washington & G. R. Co. 9. Dis- 
trict of Columbia 1620 
Washington <&o. R. Co. v. Brad- 
leys 880 23£2 
Washington Bridge Co. v Stewart 986 
Washington City, Ac. R. Co 9. 

Southern Md. R. Co. 1461 

Washington Tns. Co v. Slee 1643 
Washington University v. Green 

1613, 1677 
Washoe Mining Co. v Ferguson 

26, 29, 82, 1668 
Waakae Klalsner 1221 

Wasney v. Tempest 679, 680, 1R82 
Wason 9. Sanborn 1618,1631,1685, 

1697, 1689, 1640 
9. Westminster Imp. Gom'ra 1678 



CXX1V 



TABLE OF CA8ES CITED. 



[The references are to the star paging.] 



Wastoll v. Leslie 1440, 1625. 1697, 

1746, 1768, 1797 

Waterhouse v. Comer 1748 

v. Wilkinson 1386, 1291 

9. Worsnop 88 

Waterlow v Bacon 668, 1628 

v. Burt 1218, 1428 

v. 8barp 1723 

Waterman v. Banks 1820 

v. Buck 716, 1168, 1221, 1617 

9. Clark 666 

«. Curds 1247 

v. Dutton 1076, 1079, 1110. 

1111 
v. Shipman 1716 

Waters v. Barton 1748 

9. Chambers 691 

v. Comly 1076 

9. Creagh 846 

v. Glanvllle 626 

9. Mayhew 688, 708 

v. Perkins 669 

9. Shaftsbuxy, Earl of 668, 867 , 

1886 
9. Taylor 882, 608, 1727, 1728, 

1841 
9. Travis 1496 

9. Waters 448, 1121, 1124, 1275 
Waters P. O. Co 9. Little Hock 1620 
Waterton v. Burt 1428 

9. Croft 447, 448, 601, 740, 1661 
Watertown 9. Cowen 802, 980 

Watford Burial Board, Re 1862 

Watford &Rickmansworth Bail- 
way Co. v. London & North- 
Western Railway Co. 651, 671 
Watkin 9. Parker 601, 608 

Watkins v. Atchison 910, 1117, 1574 
9. Brent 261, 1726, 1726 

9. Bush 697 

9. Carlton 1120 

9. Harwood 689 

v. Hatchet 676 

v. Jennan 1062 

v. Lawton 1576 

9. Maule 1213 

9. Scottish Imperial Ins. Co. 149 
v. Stockett 861, 848 

«. Stone 607, 662, 688, 708 

9. Washington 190 

Watkyns *. Watkyns 104, 107 

Watlington v. Howley 281 

Watmore 9. Dickson 969 

Watney 9. Trtet 882, 1660 

Watson, Re 99, 1802 

Exparte 167 

9. Bennett 1860 

9. Birch 1211, 1289, 1290 

«. Byrd 644 

v. Care 246, 1461 

9. Cithens' Sav. Bank 1841 

9. Clearer 832, 870, 890 

9. Cox 841 

9 Dennis 119 

9. Ferrell 1638 

9. Fuller 1255 

9. Great Western By. Oo. 1137 
9. Hawkins 583 

9. Holliday 157 

V. Life 414 

v. Lion Brewing Co. 1P0 

v. LoTeday 1525 

9. Lyon 1848, 1845 

9. Manhattan Ry. Co. 1071 

9. Marshall 97, 101, 102, 108 

9. Murray 868 

9. Northumberland, Duke of 

1152,1154,1159,1160 
9. Palmer 846 

9. Parker 984, 1008, 1668, 1934 
9. Reeve 1181 

9. Renwiek 1828 

9. Rodwell 864, 880, 1008, 1841 
9. Row 1409, 1410, 1449 

9. Smith 974 

9 Stevens 1576 

9. Stockett 846 



Watson 9. Sutro 2027 

v. Ulbricht 1284 

9. Warnock 1860 

9. Wells 828 

9. Wbitmoro 1127 

9. Wigginton 1561 

9. Williams 986 

Watt 9. Barnett 447 

v. Cobb 1622 

9. Crawford 1688 

9. Leach 88 

9. Watt 768 

Watteu v. BUIam 29, 80, 869, 1658 

Wattersv Jones 216 

Watts, Re 1898, 1689 

Re, Smith v. Watts 1827 

v. Adler 680 

v. Kglinton, Lord 418, 688, 698 

v Gayle 271 

9 Hughes 448 

9. Hyde 292, 884, 418 

9. Jefferyes 1040. 1041, 1694 

9. Kelly 28, 863, 869 

9. Lawrenos 1829 

9. Martin 1287, 1288, 1290 

v. Overstreet 1051 

9. Penny 1458, 1566, 1559 

v. Porter 1040 

v. Steele 1858 

v. Sweeney 1548 

9. Symes 218, 1489 

9. Thomas 127 

v, Tittabawsssee Boom Co. 1381 

9. Waddle 989, 1082, 1083 

9. Watts 899, 1520 

Waugelinv Goo 1661,1679 

Waugh, Re 110 

9. Riley 46 

9- Schlenk 617 

v. Wren 189 

Wauters 9. Van Vorst 1714 

Wavell 9. Mitchell 200 

v. Watson 1688, 1661, 1668 

Wayv Bragaw 237,888,659.682. 

9. Poy 1468,1470 

v. Mnllett 1918 

Wayland v. Tysen 854 

Wayn v. Lewis 286, 1266 

Wayne County S Bankv.Airey 1661 
Wead v. Cantwell 68 

Weak v. Calloway 1184 

Weakley 9 Pearce 1008 

Weale v. West Middlesex Water 

Works 248 

Wearing v. Ellis 60, 62 

Weatherhead v. Blackburn 681, 586 
Weatherleyv Ross 1688 

Weatherspoon v. Cannichael 824 
Weaver v. Alter 1548 

9. Field 684 

9. Livingston 402, 624 

9. Miss. Boom Co. 1638 

9. Poyer 1625 

Webb 9. Byng 1001 

9. Claverden 662. 1148. 1149, 

1888, 1384, 1386 
9. Crawford 860 

9. De Beauvoisin 1428 

9. Direct London and Ports- 
mouth Railway Co. 1020 
9. Bast 664, 879, 948 
9. England 816, 642, 1394 
9. Foster 854 
9. Fox 58 
v. Fuller 689 
9. Hunt 1638 
9. KIrby 202. 252 
9. Pell 841, 1676, 1677, 1579, 1583 
9. Plummer 1656 
v. Portland Mannf. Co. 808, 1689 
9. Robbins 860 
9. Rose 1647 
9. Salmon 448 
9. Shaftesbury, Karl of 1263, 

1842,1866 
9. Shaw 1820 



Webb 9. Vermont Central B. Oo. 198 
v. Ward 68 

v. Wardle 407, 1609, 1580 

9. Webb 780, 974, 996. 1284, 

1418, 1576 
v.York 1244 

Webb's Appeal 119, 121 

Case 1647 

Webber v. Gage 817, 1687 

v. Hunt 1018, 126L 

9. Randall 1029 

9. Taylor 347, 287 

9. Webber 1796 

Weber v. Weitling 1289, 1806 

Webster, Re 1840 

9. Armstrong 669 

British Empire Assnranoe 



Co. 




308, 1267 


9. Diamond 




1584 


9. Dillon 




1654,1666 


9. Friedeberg 




1129 


9. Guy 
v.Hall 




87 
1561 


v. Harwinton 




808 


9. Higgins 
v. Hill 




778 




1274 


9. Hitchcock 


998, 1616, 1528 


v. Leigh Hunt 




1848,1844 


v. McDaniel 




1664 


9. Manby 


812, 


1878, 1879. 
1460 



9. Peet 860.1628 

9. Power 824, 82$ 

9. South-Bastern Railway Go. 1681 

9. Taylor 1068 

v. Thompson 801 

9. Threlfall 818, 719 

v. Webster 615, 648, 1648 

«. Whewall 886, 896 

9. Woodford 88 

Webster Loom Co 9. Higgins 1120 

Weddall 9. Nixon 1402 

Wedderburn v. Wedderburn 96, 800, 

817, 1250, 1614, 1618, 1«28 

Wedderburne v. Llewellyn 1597, 

1601, 1602 

9 Thomas 619 

Wedgwood v Adams 995,1406. 

1423,142/ 
Wedlake 9. Hutton 683 

Wedmore v. Bristol, Mayor of 1081, 

1660 
Weed r. Small 666,667,668,1548. 

v Mutual Ben. Life Ins Co. 863 

Weeding v Mason 1142 

v. Weeding 896, 1808 

Weeks 9 Cols 81 

9. Evans 283 

v Heward 808 

9 Milwaukee, fro. R. Co. 669 

9. Stourton 998 

9. Weeks 1160 

Weems 9. Brewer 1288 

Weener 9. Brayton 1648 

Weguelin 9. Lawson 1045 

Wehlev Loewy 864 

Weide v. Porter 196 

Welder v. Clark 837 

Welgel 9. Walsh 1681 

Weighleyt? Coflman 790 

Weightman v. Powell 410, 425, 622 

Weil 9. Lehmayer 1411 

Weinberg v. Weinberg 815 

Weinreich 9. Weinreich 216 

Weis, Matter of 177 

9. Goetter 1784 

Wetse 9. Wardle 157, 266 

Weisman 9. Heron Mining Co. 636. 

9. 8mith 1560 

Weiss 9 Dill 1286 

Wekett v. Raby 1466 

Welby 9. Still 887, 1069 

Welch 9. Barber 1069 

9. Bonos 68 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXXV 



[The references an to the star paging.] 



Welch v.Knott 


1049 


«. Lewis 


1646 


9. Welch 


480 


Wefehman, Re 


102 


Weld v. Boabam 


287,644 


Weldhen v. Scetiergood 


111 


Weldon v. Ooanod 


160 


v. Neal 


418 


e.RMere 


87 


«. Wlnslow 


87 


Welford v. DanleR 


601 


9. Lkldel 


841 


v. Steinthorpe 


1888 


WellbeloYed v. Jones 


187,188 



Wellborn v. Tiller 846, 669, 686 

Weller v. Fkshngh 1418 

Wellesley v. Beaufort 2298 

v. Beaufort, Duke of 1846. 1347, 

1848,1349 
*. Mornington 88, 89, 111, 1694, 

1760 

«. Wellesley 87, 88. 42, 111, 688, 

696, 1019, 1021, 1061, 1846, 1847. 

1849, 1488, 1638 

Lord v. Mornington. Barl of 

628, 1678, 1688, 1636, 2127 
Wellesley's Case 1070 

Welling 9. La. Ban 1120, 1820 

Welflngton v. Mackintosh 671 

Wellman w. Howland 0. ft t, 

Work* 26 

Wells, Export* 67 

Re 87 

9. Beall 1161, 1165 

v. Bridgeport, fro. Oo. 844, 860 
v. Cooper 1092 

v. Dayton 1661 

9. Flan 646, 916 

9. Qlbbe 1089, 1409, 1694 

9. Glen 1176 

e. Houston 844 

9. Kilpin 1087, 1718 

«. London, T. & 8. Ry. Co. 1689 
r. Melbon 87, 128, 179, 1418 

9. Miner 1661 

9. Oregon Ry. ft NaT. Co. 849 
9. Partridge 884 

v. Roloson 1771 

9. flewell'a Point Guano Co. 884. 

669 
•.Smith 68,869,688 

• Strange 190,216,269,842,886 
v. Stratum 781, 841 
v. Vermont R Co. 1676 
9. Wake 1768 
9. Wood 778, 780, 782 

Wells, Fargo, ft Co. 9. Miner 60 

* Oregon Ry ft NaT. Co. 1688 
Wells' Will Cam 874 
Welmanv Welman 862 
Welsh v. Solenberger 617 
Welton v. Dickson 1620 
WeUsler v. Shannman 1284 
Wendell, Matter of 2887 

v. French 1284, 1414 

9 HIghstone 890 

9. Lewie 1448, I486 

9. Van Rensselaer 190, 288, 2271 
Weaham, Be, Hunt v. Wenham 

648 
v. Bowman 1047 

9. 8witoer 890 

Wenman, Lord v Osbaldiston 604 
Wenn e. Wenn 1862 

Wenner v. Thornton 991 

Wentworth v. Iioyd 919, 948. 1440. 

Werdermann v. 8ocMte Generate 

d'EJectrieite 287, 669 

Werner r. Reinbardt 991 

Wernwagg v. Brown 1002, 1266 

Weskei v. Carneiali 1672 

Wealing e. Bchraas 611 

Weasells v. Weasel!* 867,992,1699 
Wesson v. Washburn Iron Co. 1686 
Wert, In re 66 

9. Chamberlain 284 



West v Coke 


424 


v. Barls 


9 


9. Duncan 


190 


9. Hail 


861 


v. Jones 


1892,1899 


v. MoMullan 


601 


9. Mayor of New York 
v. Miller 


1620 


212 


v. Paige 


1,961 



9. Randall 149, 190, 200, 217, 

219, 224, 286, 288, 289, 240. 296. 

v. 8haw io76 

v. Skip 1249, 1686 

v. Smith 290.448,648,1608, 

1611, 1667, 1676 
v. Swan 1784 

9. Swinburne 799, 1617 

v. Tylor 818 

v. Utioa 1881 

v. Vincent 1292 

9. Walker 1G89 

9. Wearer 1716 

v. White 1071, 1114 

West Boylston Mannf. Co. v. 

Searle 196 

Westbrook Mannf. Co. v. Warren 1689 
Westbrook'a Trusts 1610 

Westbury-on-Serern Rural Sani- 
tary Authority v. Meredith 829 
Westby v. Westby 70, 77, 1089, 1722 
Westoottv Cady 1646 

v. CulUford 1406 

West Daron Great Consols Mine, 

Re 974 

Westerfleld v. Bried 748 

Western v. Maedermott 824. 1664 
Western Benefit Building Soci- 
ety, Re 891 
Western of Canada Oil Lands 
Co., In re 908,906,942 
v. Walker 28 
Western Division R. Co. 9. Drew 

2891, 2892, 2896 
Western Ins. Co. v. Ragle Fire 

Ins. Co. 214 

Western Land Co. v. Guinault 

884,669 
Western National Bank v. Peres 149 
Western Pacific R. Co. e. United 

8tates 8 

Western Ry. v. MeCall 418 

Western Reserre Bank v. Potter 216 
9. Stryker 778, 780 

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Am- 
erican Bell Tel. Co. 790 
v. Western ft A. R. Co. 1618 
WestflUl v. Scott 296 
Westfield v. Skipwith 1666, 1668 
West Hartlepool By. Co. v. 

Jackson 1618 

Westhead e. Riley 1716 

«. Sale 965 

Weetinghonae Air-Brake Co. v. 

Carpenter 1642 

Westlake 9. Farrow 834 

Westley e. Williamson 1882, 1421 
Westmeath v. Salisbury 1008 

West Midland Railway Co. v 

Nixon 280 

Westminster h Brymbo Colliery 
Co. 9. Clayton 1824 

Dean of v Cross 689 

9 Waiard 601 

Westmoreland v. Martin 1168 

Westmoreland Co. v. Fielden 60 
West of England Bank 9. Can- 
ton Ins. Co. 1666 
v Niekolls 720 
Weston v. Berkeley 678 
v Bowes 262 
9. Clowes 1487 
9. Empire Assaranoe Co. 827, 829, 

866, 869 
* Haggeotea 1081,1821 

9. Hunt 28 

v.Jay 1186 



Weston 9. Keigbiey 90S 

v Watts * 1746 

Weston's Case i486 

Westorer v. Chapman 1411 

West Portland 11. Aas'n «. Lowns- 

dale 689 

West Retford Church Lands, Re 

1854 

W. Va Oil Co. «. Vlnal 1648 

Westwood, Re 1866 

Wetenhall e. Dennis 1428, 1487 

WethereU v. Collins 269, 260, 1887 

Wetniore v. Dyer 468 

9. Flake 1648 

9. Harper 1019 

9. St. Paul ft P R. Co. 1684 

Wettenhall v. Daris 1428, 1487 

Weymouth v. Boyer 219. 882, 886, 

1407, 1467 

9. Lambert 448 

Whalan e. Cook 1676 

Whale 9. Griffiths 748 

Whalen v. Olmstead 108 

Whaley «. Brancker 1682, 1666 

v. Dawson 889, 1161 

9. Norton 848, 862 

Whalleye Ramage 1410 

«. Suffleld, Lord 796, 977, 1810 

v. Whalley 646, 1848 

Wham v. Lore 1288 

Wharam c. Broughton 172, 188, 

1082, 1064, 1068, 1069, 1060, 1648 

Wharton v. May 1082, 1626, 1627 

9. Stoutenbnrgh 1461 

9. Swann 418 

9. Wharton 726 

Whatton v. Craddook 1269 

Wheat v. Graham 789, 742, 769, 

1887 
9. Griffin 828 

Wheatcraft, In re 1849 

Wheatcroftv Hickman 1608 

Wheatley, Re 128 

v. Baetow 1840 

v. Westminster Brymbo Col- 
liery Co 1668. 1741, 1861 
Wheaton 9. Atlantte Powder 
Co. 411 
v. Graham 18P1 
v. Maple 1688 
9. Peters 1646 
9. Phillips 87 
Wheeler, Re 1889 
9. Alderman 1299 
9. Bartlett 441 
v Bedford 669 



v. Gill 


1268 


v. Howell 


662 


9. Le Marehant 


678 


9. Malins 


68, 64, 814, 1679 


v. Perry 


2010 


v. Piper 


615 


v. Trotter 


868 



9. United Kingdom Tel. Co. 864 
9. West 889 

Wheeler, fte. Man. Co. v. Shakes- 
peare 1649 
Wheelhouss v. OalTert 800 
Wheelook, Re 1718 
9. Lee 1071 
Whelan v. Cook 1678 
9. Sullivan 182, 426 
Wheldale v. Partridge 1406 
Whelpley v. Van Epps 746 
Whereatt v. Ellis 1168, 1461 
Whetley Brick ft P. Co., Re 1766 
Whetstone t>. Daries 1072 
Whicherley 9. Whieherley 1227 
Whicker v. Hume 1888, 1486, 1487 
Whipple v. Brown 1168 
9. Dow 1868, 1860 
v. Fair HaTen 878 
v. Whitman 974 
Whistler, The 769 
9. Aylward 1044 
9. Newman 1418 
v. Webb 266 



CXXV1 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Whistler*. Wigney 


724 


Whitaker, In re 


86,1861 


v. Dillard 


1661 


v. Forbes 


629 


v. Leach 


1027 


v. Newman 


1076 


v. Thunton 


1176 


«. Wlckersham 


1621 



v. Wright 1192, 1194, 1200, 1210, 

1616 

Wbitbeck v. Edgar 887, 667, 1648 

Whitbread e. Gorney 678 

v. Ljall 987 

e. Roberts 1266 

Whitby, Re 86 

Whitchurch, Ex parte 467 

v. Bevis 866, 619, 667 

t>. Ooldinf 892, 898, 1668 

Whitoomb «. JfflncbJn 160, 1684. 

1640 
White, Be 192 

v. 972 

v. Allatt 818 

v.Baker 882 

e. Bank of U.S. 668 

9. Barker 724 

«. Bartlett 214 

v. Barton 1772 

v. Baugh 1761 

9. BIgeTow 884 

e. Bower 1661 

v. Boyoe 662 

9. Bromige 86, 89, 428, 698 

v. Brown 999. 1000, 1241, 1246 
v. Buceleugh, Duke of 1608 

v. Baloid 1648, 1649, 1660, 1662, 

1668 
v. Batcher 1029 

v. Campbell 871 

9. Carpenter 666 

9. Ghttty 222 

v. Cohen 109, 1686, 1687, 1688 
t>. Cox 867 

9. Curtis 287, 288, 842 

v. Davis 890 

v. Delschnelder 298 

«. Duvernay 78 

9. Eastern Union Railway 

Company 1066 

v. Empire Assoc. Co. 868 

«. Fitshugh 1644 

9. Fol>unbe 1401 

9. Fnatell 860,922,961,969, 

1486 
v. Geraerdt 1062. 1068 

9. Oodbold 778, 783 

v. Orane 1839 

v. Greathead 29, 80 

v. Gndgeon 1890 

v. Hall 168, 664 

v. Hampton 784, 787. 778, B44. 
846, 1042, 1298, 1816, 1817, 1818 
v. Hay ward 1069. 1060 

v. Herrick 96, 96, 100 

«. Heas 898 

v. Hioton 177, 406 

v. Hotman 214 

f>. Howard 692, 786 

9. Hussy 1077 

v. Jackson 1416, 1419 

v. James 1748 

9. Jameson 211, 261 

*. Johnson 798,1802.1814,1820, 

1822 
v. Jones 1666 

V. Kennedy 269 

v. Kibling 1118 

Vm Lee 843 

v. Lisle 1082. 1119, 1187, 1189, 
1149, 1879, 1467, 1476 
v. Lowgher 629 

v. North West Stage Co. 1491 
v. Okiseo Co. 1317 

v. Owen 196 

v. Park 286 

v. Panther 1686 

•.Pearee 1846 



[The references are to the star paging. ] 



White 9. Peterborough, Bishop 
of 1890, 1424, 1719, 1780 

v. Robinson 68 

v. Secor 221 

t>. Smale 822, 860, 1726, 1748 

v. Soto 402 

v. Steinwaeks 1678 

v. Steward 488, 1617 

v. Story 1166 

v. Taylor 928 

v. Tommey 1029 

v. Utter 1461 

«. Walker 1081, 1296, 1881 

v. Warner 1669 

9. White 889,846,669,779.1268, 

1661, 2320 

9. Williams 724, 1287, 1288 

9. Wilson 862, 1124. 1149, 1287. 

1290, 1888, 1884 

9. Taw 861 

White's Creek Turnpike Co. v. 

Davidson County 1687 

White Star C. G. M. Co., Be 417 
Whlteaves v. Melville 204 

Whitebread v. Brockhurst 866. 607, 

608,666 
Whlteeotton v. 8lmpson 828 

Whitehall Lumber Co. v. Ed- 
mans 864 
Whitehaven Bank t>. Thompson 448 
Whitehead v. Bellamy 1166 
9. Bennett 1706, 1706, 1749 
v. Cunlifle 788 
9. Entwhistle 1071 
9. Kitaon 1620, 1642, 1644 
r. Lynes 611, 1068, 1766 
9. North 1080 
9. Shattnek 1071 
Whitehouse v. Hemmant 1127 
9. Partridge 1702, 1706. 

1712 
Whltehnrst v. Coleen 1071 

Whitelegg 9. Whltelegg 1669 

Whiteley, Be t Whiteley v. Lea- 
royd 1066 

v.Davis 1606 

Whiteley * Roberts, Re 1860 

Whitelocke e. Baker 48 

Whlteman*s Estate 1282 

Whitonaeh 9. Stryker 862 

Whiteside v. Pnlliam 1170, 1176, 

1817 
Whiteeldes 9. Dorrls 90 

v. Laflerty 670, 1741, 1752 

White Water Valley Canal Co. 

v. Comegys 1666 

Whitfield, Ex parte 1864, 1864 

9. Aland 1099 

9. Evans 884 

v. Lequeutre 1276 

v. Prtckett 1040, 1042, 1694 

9. Roberts 999, 1266 

Whitford v. Clark County 932 

Whiting v Bank of CJ. S. 190, 294, 

994,996,996,1019,1675, 

1576,1671,1579 

v. Bassett 96, 898 

9. Holllster 30 

v. Rush 707 

v. White 660 

v. Whiting 1160, 2037 

Whitley 9 Honeywell 446, 448 

9. Martin 856 

Whltlork v. Harriot 312 

it. Wlllard 1461 

Whitman v. Abernathy 277 

9. Brotherton 1486 

9. Fisher 663 

Whitmarsh 9. Campbell 860, 402, 

406,424,769 
v Robertson 128, 1411 

Whitmore v. Francis 886 

v. Oxborrow 68, 814 

v. Ryan 449, 462 

v. Turquand 1770, 1780 

Whitney v. Beldea 730,10054, 1008. 



Whitney v. Bigalow 


646 


v. Cotton 


216 


v. Cowan 


1660 


9. Darning 


1886 


9. Fairbanks 


864 


v. Goddard 


647 



v. Leominster Savings Bank 1820 
9. M'Ktnney 194, 197, 260 

9. Mayo 190, 191, 289, 241, 272 
v. New York, Major &e. of 806 
v. Preston 880 

v. Sauche 646 

9. Smith 217,280,488 

t>. 8tearns 166 

v. Union Railway Co. 847, 1654 
v. Whitney 842 

Whitridge 9. Whitrldge 660 

Whltsett 9. City Building As- 
sociation 1214, 1411, 1487 

Whlttaker v. Fox 896 

v. Howe 1668 

9. Marlar 79, 80 

v. Whlttaker 1218 

Whlttemore, Be 1716 

v. Adams 48 

v. Amoskeag Nat Bank 2898 

9. Cowell 266 

9. Fisher 1820 

Wbitten v. Jennings 1648, 1614, 

v. Sawyer 107 

9. Wbitten 889 

Whhtenton Manuf. Co. v. Mem- 
phis * O R. P. Co. 818 
Whitthorne v. St. Louis Mnt. 

Life Ins. Co. 616, 682 

Whitttngham, Be 122 

9. Burgoyne 687 

v. Wooler 1648, 1646, 1646. 

1681 
Whlttlngham's Trusts, Be 87, 179 
WhittlngstaU v. King 807 

Whittington v. Edwards 244, 618, 

797,804 

v. Gooding 208, 268 

Whittle 9. Arto* 686 

9 Hennlng 99, 119, 128. 1226 

Whitton 9. Jennings 1648. 1644. 

1676 

v. Wass 648 

9. Whitton 279, 1160 

Whltwood v. Kellogg 1886, 1891. 

1898 
Whltwood Chemical Co v. Hard- 
man 1667 
Whltworth 9. Davis 187 
v. Gaugain 1720 
v. Whyddon 261. I486, 14 

1008,1; 

Whopham 9. Wingfleld 81, 1428 
Whyman v. Legh 647 

Whyte v. Ahrens 666 

9. Whyte 861 

Wtee 9. Commercial Fire Ins. 

Co. 87 

WIch 9. Parker 486, 761, 776 

Wkshalee t>. Short 1684 

Wiche's Cass 126 

Wickenden v. Rayson 1026, 1027, 

1266,1266 
Wickens v. Townsend, Mar- 
chioness of 182, 1748 
Wlckersham v. Crittenden 884 
9. Denman 1168 
Wfckhem, Re, Marony e. Tay- 
lor 864, 606, 797, 980, 1069. 

9. Evered 1774 

9. Hardy 1861 

9. Nicholson 1266 

Wlckliffe v. Breckenrldpe 281 

9. Clay 296, 1480, 1660 

Wicks v. Clutterbuck 1126 

9. Hunt 1081 

Wldgery e. Tepper 117. 128. 486, 

1069,1679,1684 

Wiegleb 9. Thomsen 1029 



TABLE OF CA8ES CITED. 



CXXVU 



[The references are to the star paging.) 



Wters Simmons 200 

9. Tueker 723, 1720 

Wfcr't Appeal 1686 

Wigan 9. Rowland 877 

Wiggin v. Hey wood 288 

Wlggington r. P&teman 709, 792 

Wiggins v. Bethune 74 

e.Peppin 807,688.1449 

v. Pryor 906, 916. 91$. 930 

Wiggle e. Owen 994, 1492 

Wi ggle s worih v. Dallison 1666 

Wigham v. Meaaor 1266 

Wight v. Preecott 844 

Wkhtman 9. Brown 1628 

e. Whielton 821. 822, 828, 1670. 

2126 
Wigimmu Rowland 824 

Wlke v. Lightner 960 

Wllber v. Selden 1118 

Wflberfoiccv Hearfteld 1168 

Wilbur v Collier 406 

v Tobcy 46 

WUcher v. Robertson 1276 

WOcorks v. Carter 1626 

v. WHcocks 1064 

v. Badger 669 

Davie 824 

Drake 1849 

Henry 49 

1687 

197 

818 

668 

1687,1640 

4,1862,1478 

1476 

449,461 

1206 

686.688 

89, 796, 797, 1467 

29,869,1668 

1166 

828,882 



w. Pratt 

w- Saunders 

v. Stmt 

v. Wheeler 

w. Wilcox 

v. Wilkinson 
WDeoxon v. Wilkins 
Wild v. Banning 

v. Gladstone 

v. Hobeon 

9. If array 

v. Welle 
Wilde v. Gibson 



9. Jenkins 

«. Loekhart 

w. Walford 

9. Wilde 
Wilder v Boynton 

9. Bmber 

9. Keeler 

v. Pigott 
Wlldee e. Dndlow 



666,668 

1890 

1409 

796,1880 

793 

68 

1204, 1616, 1617 

83 

1260 



Wilding v. Andrews 1277, 1776 

v. Bean 149 

Wlldman v. Lade 1027 

Wiles v. Cooper 780, 1418 

v. WUes 101 

WBeyv Angel 284 

v. Pfetor 886, 896 

Wllford r. Beawtay 1662 

Wlibelm r. Byles 286 

Wllhelm's Appeal 660 

WUbem 9. Reynolds 824 

Wllhoit v. Canningham 818 

Wilkes v. Rogers 1816, 1868 

v. 8aonk>n 1283 

9. Smith 214 

Wilkes's Case 7 



Wilkin v. Nsinby 

v. Wilkin 
Wilkins v. Alkln 

v. Fry 

9. Kirkbride 

v. May 

9 Reeves 

9. Bhaleroft 

9. 81bley 

v Stevens 

9 Wilkins 

v. Williams 

9 Woodfin 
Wilkinson, Re 

v. Bauerle 

9. Beal 



9. Belshsr 



607,608,619. 
629,1690 
879,1151,1166 
1645, 1646 
227 
277,839 
846 
216 
629 
1691 
1819,1689 
626 
1788, 1789 
846,847 
1610 
642 
158, 170, 878, 879 
87,40,42,801,408, 
414,792 



Wilkinson v. Bewiok 1762 

v. Brewer 1486 

9. Castle 1168 

9. Charleswortb 92,105,113,813 
9. Clements 1696, 1660, 1668 

9. Bobble 288, 818, 849, 886 

v. Dodd 849 

v. Fowkes 282, 982, 1681, 1688. 

9. Gibson 87,122,179,849 

9. Hartley 990, 1408 

9. Henderson 824 

e. Henshaw 1879, 16U0 

9. Hall fcc. Dock Co. 1491 

v. Joberns 1163 

9. Letch 1861 

9. Lewis 29 

9. Lindgren 1427 

9. Mulln 1188 

9. Oliver 166, 997 

9. Parish 1677 

9. Payne 1129 

9. Perrln 264,1607 

9. Rutherford 1748 

9. Schneider 96 

9- Searcy 1661 

9. Stringer 912 

9. Trustees 1110 

9. Turner 620 

e. Wilkinson 997, 1236 

WUks 9. Fitspatrlok 98, 104 

Wlllan, Re 161 

9. Willan 966, 1189. 1196. 1197, 

1216, 1467, 147t 1678. 1679 

Wlllard 9. Fiske 1886, 1893 

9- Sperry 830 

9. Wlllard 2027 

9. Wood 1071 

Willats 9. Buahby 160 

9. Cay 96 

Willbanks 9. Duncan 1680 

Wlllcock 9. Terrell 1088, 1063 

Wlllcocks 9. Butcher 1256 

Willcoze Bellaers 1401 

Wlllenball Chapel, Re 1862 

Willes 9. Lerett 815 

Willesford v. Watson 671 

Wlllett 9. Thiselton 1324 

9. Woodbams 888 

Wm. Branlbot, The 9. Hamilton 

1440,1444 

William Rogers Hanoi Co. v. 

Rogers 1657 

Williams, Ex parte 1868, 1658 

Re 1844 
Re, Williams 9. Williams 1084 

9. Adkyns 1434 
9. Allen 86, 201, 202, 218,228, 269 

9. Attenborough 1271, 1278, 'l288. 

1292 

9. Attorney-General 811, 1726 

9. Ayrault 1627 

9. Bally 653 

9. Bank of M. 26 

9. Bankhead 149, 190, 191 

9* Begnon 1463 

9. Benet 1120 

9* Benton 1215 

v- Berry 828, 1676 

9. Beynon 1466 

9. Bishop 1147 

v. Blakey 1078 

v. Bolton, Duke of 1630 

9. Brisco 661 

9. Broadhead 866, 870 

9. Butcher 1486 

v. Carle 114. 1662 
9. Carmarthen & Cardigan Ry. 

Co. 1028, 1080 

9. CJassady 1484 

9 Chard 1169,1640 

v. Olora 1624 

9. Cooke 1689 

9. Corwin 626 

9. Coward 87, 178 

9. Creeling 82 



Williams 9. Currie 1180 

9. Davie* 768, 1007, 1624, 1669 
9. Day 194 

9. De Bomvllle 1694 

9. Douglas 861 

9. Dunn 272 

9. Farrington 667 

9. First Presby't Society 824 

9. Globes 1206, 1207, 1208 

9. Glenton 1471 

9. Goodchild I486, 1488, 1490, 

1608 
9. Grant County Court 808 

9. Gray 888 

w. Great Western Railway 

Company 1098, 1128 

9. Guest 1077, 1062 

9. Halbert 1666 

9. Hall 1676, 1677 

9. Headland 1207 

9. HUton 1248, 1246 

9. Hlntermelster 1716 

9. Hodgson 842 

9. Holungsworth 678. 986 

9. Houghtaling 1260 

9. Hubbard 271 

9. Jaokson 407, 1609, 1622, 1680 
9. Jenkins 1726, 1729, 1784 

e. Jersey 824, 1664, 1668 

9. Johns 1069 

9. Johnson 1648 

9. Jones 210, 286, 867, 880, 707, 

1411 
9. Kinder 1608 

9. Knipe 869 

9. Lee 668, 664, 665 

9. Leech 281 

9. Uanelly Ry. fc Dock Co 266 
9. Llewellyn 862 

9. Longfellow 708 

9. M'Namara 1688 

9. Maitland 886 

9. Matthews 1661 

9. Mattocks 1396 

9. Mellish ' 1682 

9. Morgan 1746 

9. Neel 884, 846 

9. Nell 974 

9. Newton 493 

9. Nolan 1719 

9. Page 201, 208. 804, 809, 810, 
812,994,1021,1022. 1027. 
1897,1407 
9. Palmer 1469 

9. Parkinson 601 

9. Poole 203 

v- Pouns 1468 

9. Powell 1420 

9. Preston 1490 

9. Price 280,1074,1289 

9. Prince of Wales Life Co 1887 
9. Raggett 1632 

9. Rhodes 1276 

«. Roberts 1624 

9. Rome 814 

9. Rowland 807 

9- Russell 190 

9. St. George** Harbor Go. 1476 
9. 8almond 284, 242, 243, 804 

9* Savage Manuf Co. 778, 779 
9. Sexton 814 

9. Shaw 880 

9. 8mith 216, 260 

9. Sorrell 1891, 1396 

9. Starke 425 

9. Starr 860 

9. Steward 647 

9. Stewart 280, 1628 

9. Symonds 1694, 1697 

9. Thomas 865, 13% 

9. Thompson 623, 624 

9. Thorn 1^87 

9. United 8tates 8, 828, 1120 

9. Vreeland 886, 961 

9. Wager 1299 

9. Walker 1668 

9. Ware 1794 



0XXY1U 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[The 



an to the star paging.] 



Williams v. WatUni 


644 


t». West 


841 


9, WheatoD 


884 


». Whlngates 


282 


9. Witeox 


1127 


9. Wllklns 


42 



v. Williams 248,261,282,286,679, 

828, 824. 848, 888. 870, 876, 

881. 906, 986, 1071. 1076, 

1168, 1884, 1484, I486. 1626, 

1626, 1684, 1664, 1666 

v. Winans 280, 281, 1616, 1617. 

1681 
t>. Woodruff 1280 

v. Wright 1668 

v. Young 676 

Williamson* Barbour 871,667 
v. Beckham 186 

v. Belabor 88 

v. Dale V&,W& 



9. Gordon 
v. Haycock 
«• Hyer 
v. Jeffrey* 
v. Johnson 



167 

888,841 

1462 

1006,1617,1626 

897 



v. London & N. W. By. Co. 880 
t>. Lonsdale 280, 262 

V. M'Clintock 864 

v. Montgomery 1079 

9. More 961 

P. Naylor 1206 

v. New Albany B. Co. 1788 

v. New Jersey Southern B 

Co. 220 

v. North Staffordshire Br. Co 

1444 

v. Seaber 2061 

v. Selden 266 

9. Smoot 24 

V. Swindle 1167 

v. By kes 624. 629 

9. Wilson 794, 1716, 1716, 1727, 

1?28, 1746, 1747, 1764 

Willie v. Lugg 218 

Williman v. Holmes 266 

Willimantic Linen Co v. Clark 

Thread Co. 878, 1680 

Wlllimott v. Ogilby 1017 

Willing v. Consequa 48, 916 

WUlingale v. Maftland 289 

Willlngham t>. King 869 

Willi* v. Baddeley 1566, 1826 

v. Beauchamp 864 

9. Childe 774 

v. Corlies 1784 

9. Cowper 1088 

*. Brans 422 

v. Farrer 1122 

9. Oarbutt 82 

9. Henderson 190, 288,262 

v. Hiscox 1419 

9. Howe, Earl 660 

*». Jernegan 666, 667 

9 Parkinson 1029,1164 

v Willis 170 

Williston v. Mich. Southern and 

Northern Ind B> R. Co 

144, 190, 288, 408 
v. Salmon 1661 

Wlllitts v WnJte 1761 

Wlllmer v. Kldd 1744 

Wlllmott v. Barber 824, 1877, 1896 
Willouehby v Chicago Junction 

Bailways &c. Co. 686 

v. Lawrence 1664 

cl Storer 18 

v. Wllloughby 1726 

Wills, Re 87, 111, 861. 

1404 
9. Dunn 268 

9. Luff 999, 1087 

9. McKinney 840 

9. Pauly 87, 109 

9, Pugh 807 

9. Slade 209 

« Whitmore 281 



Willson, Re, Att.-Gen. v Wood- 

hall 406 

Willway, Re 1874 

Willyams v. Hodge 178 

Wllmer* B/rilroadCo. 1781,1748 
Wilmington M. Co. v. Allen 888, 

1614 
Wilmot v. Freehold H P Go 82, 

864,689 
9. Heilaby 1074 

9. Keilaby 1074 

9. Maooabe 666 

Wilson, Re 102, 1842, 2001 

9. Alien 990, 1408 

9. Angers 12i79 

9. Applegarth 992 

«. Balcarres B. S. Co. 406 

9. Barnum 1116 

9. Bates 60S, 606, 607, 

797 
9. Beadle 402 

v. Beddard 1121 1187 

9. Bellows 279, 660 

9. Bird 887 



9, Biscoe 
v. Blanco 
9. Brownsmith 
9. Bull 
9. Carver 
9. Chlckering 
9. Church 



279 
142 
1427 
1166 
887 
197 
19,146,272, 
406.1469 
9. City Bank 290, 292 

9. City of Mineral Point 1681 
9. Clifton 897 

v. Cluer 1262 

9. Davidson County 197 

9. Davis 1468 

ei De Coulon 916 

9. Donaldson 887 

e. Doran 1770 

9. Bitter 287, 1481 

9. Emmett 1844 

9. Ferrand 688, 800 

«. Forster 679 

9. Ginger 1114 

v. Grace 788 

v.Gray 898 

v. Green 1167 

9. Greenwood 1727, 1728, 1729, 

1782,1948 
v. Gutteridge 1841 

9. Haecker 1081 

9. Hall 601 

9. Hammonds 866, 620, 680 

9. Hart 1164, 1664 

9. Hayward 277 

9. Heaton 1428 

v. Hicks 1180 

v. Hill 686 

9. Hlllyer 678 

9. Holcomb 846 

9. Hood 1847 

9, Horr 878 

v. Hyatt 1624 

9. Kilcannon 662 

9. Lynt 846, 847 

9. McCullough 1624 

v. Marsh 1266 

9. Martin-Wilson A. P. A. Co 149 
9. Me-ne-ehas 68 

9. Metmlfe 606, 1062, 1148, 1241, 
1261, 1819, 1869, 1870, 1898, 

1642 
9. Mitchell 918 

9. Moore 200, 269 

9. New York, Mayor of 1661 

9. Northampton, &c. B Co 678, 

678, 1080; 1884 
9. O'Leary 861 

9. Parker 884 

9. Polk County 869 

9. Rastall 675, 676 

9. Rhodes 268 

9. Riddle 797, 1078 

9. Roach 1864 

9 Robertson 1627 



Wilson v- Rockwell 


1688 


9. Round 


1847 


9, Rnsling 


801 


9. Scruggs 


, 702 


9. Shawe 


487 


9. 8hlvely 


12 


v. Smith 


892 


9. 8quire 


1427, 1481 


9. Stanhope 


948,644,602 


9. Stolley 


2886 


9. Thomson 


1406,1448 


v. Thornburr 


884,1077 


v.Todd 


1686,1687, 




2060 


9. Towle 


787,846 


9. Troop 


678 


9. Turner 


1861 


v. Union Bank 


21 


v. Waterman 


617 


v. Webb 


1677 



9. Webber 679, 1664 

9. Welch 1786,1748 

v. West Hartlepool Ry. Co. 1469, 

1470 
9. Weatherherd 817 

«. Wilson 807, 808, 668. 694, 810, 
986, 1284, 1247, 1811. 1481, 
1627, 1728, 1877 
9. Wintermute 782 

Wilton 9. Clifton 746 

9. Hill 87, 67, 68, 111, 112. 1779 
9. Jones 228, 267 

v. Rumbsll 482 

Wiltshire, Re 1261 

ft Marshall 86, 90S 

Wiltshire Iron Co., Re 1488 

Wil ts Railway Co. , Re 1847 

Wunberg 9. Schwegeman 1668 

Wlmbleton Local Board v Croy- 
den Rural Sanitary Author- 
ity 1675 
Winans v Winans 844, 1271 
Winbourn.Jte 1748 
Winch 9. Page 92 
Wincbam Shipbuilding Co , Re 26 
Winchell v Coney 884 
Wincbelseav Oarretty 1695 
v Wauchope 1124 
Wlnchelsea, Earl of v. Garettv 1077, 

1078, 1062, 1462 

Winchester v. Browne 880 

9. Evans 1627 

v. Jackson 664,842,1627 

9. Loud 149 

v. Winchester 166, 974, 1120. 

1489, 1576. 1577 

Winchester, Bishop of v. Bearor 

167,194.261,278 
9. Bowker 1825, 1829 

9. Knigfat 1684 

9. Mid Hants Ry. Co. 280, 281. 

278,1221 

v. Paine 281, 999, 1402 

Winder v Diflenderfler 942 

Windham v. Cooper 810, 1566 

v. Glubilel 1742 

9. Graham 1405, 1426 

Windley v. Bradway 891 

Wlndrlnv Philadelphia 1662 

Windsor* Cross 1029 

e. McVeigh 868 

9. Windsor 286, 890 

Windsor & Annapolis Ry. Co. v. 

Reg. 183 

Winfleld v. Bacon 1666 

Wing 9. Angrave 850, 1603 

v. Davis 184,212 

«.DeU Rtbnda 1508 

9. Fairhaven 1620. 1640, 1641, 

1664, 1668, 1669, 1676 

9 Goodman 1648,1661 

v. Morrell 280 

9, Sherrer 652 

9, Bpaulding 1561 

v. Tottenham, ote- R. Co. 1221 

9. Wing 660 

Wlngard v. Jameson 1584 



T&BLS OP CASES CETBBr. 



■*. Haywood 

_ikL Ex parte 167 

Wfcjgor. Hardy 544,726 

Wiagrore v. Thompson 902 

Wntbam v. Crutcher 825, 681 

Wmkwerthtr Winkworth 986,1796 

Wtan ft Albert 1616, 1628 

a. Bowks 197 

ft Boll 661 

v. Fletcher 680 

v. Patterson 878 

Whine v. Reynolds 1408 

Wainebrenuer ft Colder 827 

Wmninghofft? Witttg 1120 

WmaJpissJogee Lns»Co ft Parley 

197171972, 

a. Worster 287. 292, 85o\ 874, 

1618, 1681,1687, 1089 

v Young 20,25,8S&368. 

Wlaooski Tamp. Co. ft Ridley 915 

Winpenny ft Couitoaj 1197 

Winscom, Re 1863 

Wuship v. Bass 1772 

v Pitts 1684 

v. Waterman 1809 

Wiaskm ft Aneram 1265 

v. Collins 1468, 1464, 1466 

• Dousenan 841 

ft M. * P. R» Co. 257 

» Nason 08,1069.1684 

Whuor v. Bailey 884, 787 

ft Pettis 288 

Winston v. Campbell 166, 179, 768 

ft Mitchell 418 

ft Tennessee and Pao R. Co. 1060 

Whiter ft Butt 1100 

ft City Council 1461 

ft Daucte 919 

ftlnnes 1296,168b 

e. Mobile 8a>Tftaifi Bank 880 

ft Quaiies 682 

v. Smith 884 

Wmterbottom v. Ingham 1216 

Winterfleld v. Bradnum 164 

Winters ft Claitor 642 

Wfathrop v. EMerten 688 

ft Ethel 1029, 1461 

ft Farrar 408, 406, 1612 

ft Murray 418, 707, 792, 806, 1407 

ft Royal Bxeh. An Co. 28 

ft Winthro* 796, 1688 

Wbjthiop Iron Co. 9. Meeker 1716 

Wintle, Re 865 

Wmtle 9. Bristol and South 

Wales Railway Co 1668 

Wirdman v. Kent 1468, 1466 

Wht v. Hicks 814 

Wisconsin v. Pelican In* Co. 857 

Wladenv Wisden 908 

Wise, Re 1606 

t> Grand Ave, R Co. 814 

ft Lamb 1078 

9. Williams 857 

Warn v. Blaehjy 254, 282, 1080, 

1478, 1675, 1676. 1577. 1678. 

1679, 1681, 1682 

Wlsewold, Re 1044. 1690 

Wiener v Barnet 669,644 

v. Grant 2897 

Witfar's Appeal 1889 

WbwaU v. Sampson 1207 

Wiswell 9 Starr 149, 790, 1782, 

1788,1786 

Witby 9. Norton 1017 

Witham v. Bland 1060, 1056, 1067 

9. Salim 480 

Wither v. Winchester, D and C. 

of 8 

WUherellY Wiberg 662 

Wltherlngton v Banks 1240 

Withers ft Morrell 1668 

9. Sins 884 

9. Warner 21 

Wlthey v Haigh 1601 

Withrow r. Smithson 177 

withy v Mangles 1499 

YC4UX. — i 



Wkkowskl v. Hern 418 

Wits v. Polehampton 1180, 1134 

Witt v. Corcoran 1086, 1468 

9 Ellis 692 

WUtonbrsckv. Belhner 1461 

Witters v. Foster 1607 

9 Sowles 2, 680, 1010, 1120, 1320 

Wittmaa ft Onpenheint 1648 

Witts 9. Campbell 112, 408 

Witty 9. Marshall 1862 
W J Johnson Co. v. Hani 1657 

Woddrop v. Price 966, 1088 

Woffenden v. Woflendsn 1614 

Wolcotor Robbins 1164 

Wolf ft Wolf 668,664 

9 Underwood 1666 

Wolfe v. Birch 1680 

v. Burke 1620 

9. Matthews 1652 

Wollaston ft Hakewell 1098 

Wollensake Reiner 660 

v Sargent 1642 

Wollet v. Roberts 889 

WoHey ft BsownhUl 718, 841 
Wollstoneeraft, Ex parte 186% 

Wohnenhanssn v. WoUners- 
hansen 1642 

Wotrerhampton & Staubqdabire 
Banking Co. v. Bond 447, 448 

Wolverhampton & W. Ry. Co. v. 
London & N.W.Ry. Co. 671, 1696 

Woman's Union Miss. Society v. 
Mead 1411 

Womersley. Re KM6 

9. Church 1688 

ft Merritt 24, 25, 26, 289, 405 

Wonhamv. afaehln 1265, 1890* 1424 

Wontnsr, Re, Brown ft White 868 

Wood, Re 99, 109, 974 

9. Ainley 1894 

9. Anderston Foundry Co. 149 
9. Ajtward 864 

v. Barker 1698 

9, Barnicott 1168 

9. BeadeU 888, 1614 

9 Boosey 46 

9. Boucher 1610 

9. Bradell 888 

v. Braxton 1628 

9. Brewer 1468 

ft Briant 652, 1258 

9. Brash 780 

9. Carpenter 660 

9. Chart 46 

9. Cole 916 

ft Cooper 1099, 1469 

9. Currey 655 

ft Downes 1777, 1781 

9, Dummer 272 

9. Edwards 1775 

ft Farthing 1467 

9. Freeman 1061 

9. Gregory 1167 

9 Griffith 1460, 1468, 1477, 1478, 

1480 
v. Hammerton 959 

v. Harpnr 749, 891 

9. Hltohlngs 670, 717, 1725, 1726, 

1750 
ft Habbard 997 

9. Hudson 60, 651, 1286, 1656 
9. Hard 1129 

9. Keyes 1017 

9. King Manuf. Co. 546 

9. Lamblrth 1811 

9. Lee 1166, 1284 

v. Lenox 1621 

9. LllUes 671 

9. Logsden 162, 498 

9. Lyne 894, 1662, 1668 

9. Macktnson 1102 

ft Majerlbanks 1406 

9. Mann 849, 569, 676, 728, 729, 
948, 949,962, 956, 957, 959, 960, 
1061, U76, 1277. 1281, 1284, 
1622, 1677, 1578 



CXXi* 



Wood 9. Metfn Life Ins. Co. 41ft 
9. Midgtey 826,661,588,2066 
9. Milner 1468 

v. Oregon Der. Co. 1784 

ft Robson 671 

v. RowoUfle 1662 

9. Rowe 607, 671, 672 

v. Silcock 661 

ft Skelton 2086 

9. 8tane 868, 876 

v. Strickland 616, 697, 704, 879 
v. Sutcllffe 1687, 1668 

ft Taunton 1860 

v. Taylor 709 

ft Thompson 689 

ft Vincent 1040, 1041, 1696 

v. Warner 1082 

v. Westborough 680 

ft White 280, 281 

ft Williams 198 

v. Wood 46, WO, 110, 829, 1678 
Woodall v. Holiiday 68 

v. Moore 1689 

Woodard 9. Eastern Counties 

Ry. Co. 866 

Woodburn * Woodbura 1120 

Woodburn'e Trusts, Re 1412 

Woodbury v. Luddy 2260 

Woodcock v. Rennet 877, 1289 

v. King 810, 1668 

*. Oxford, Worcester, & Wol- 
verhampton Railway Co. 1601 
Wooden v. Wooden 1676 

Woodfln, Re 1686 

v. Anderson 286, 648 

v. Phoebus 668 

Woodford v. Eades 1180 

Woodgate v Field 286, 1209, 1210 
Woodgere Crmmpssr 783 

Woodhatcho Freeland 840,894, 

1822 
Woodhoun ft Woodhouse 201 

Woodhuilft Neafle 1282 

Wooding v Bradley 1809 

Woodley ft Johnton 1116 

Woodman ft Ooolbroth 921 

9, Freeman 680 

v. Saltonstall 1961 

Woodroffe ft Daniel 424,764,1886. 

ft Tltterton 1191 

ft Wood 1075 

Woodroft v. Soys 1898 

Woodruff v. Brown 1658 

v. Depue 1268 

«. Dubuque &c. R Co. 787 

t. North Bloonueld G. M. Co. 885 
ft Straw 1168 

v. Woodruff 281 

ft Young 803 

Woodrum v Kirkpatrick 1653 

Wood* «. Dike 667 

9. Fits 646 

ft M'Innes 462 

ft Monell 1271 

ft Morrell 840, 847, 819, 722, 728, 
726,728,729,769,760,768 
ft Oliver 1225 

ft Rankin 1259 

v. Sowerby 286, 886, 860. 645 

e. Symmes 1707 

ft Woods 671. 678, 780, 884, 1026, 

1418, 1884 

Woodside v. Morgan 1120 

v. Woodside 994, 1492 

Woodson v. Palmer 1381 

v. Smith 1216 

Woodstock Bank v Lawson 1245, 

1246 

Woodward v. Astley 354 

ft Brace 1804 

ft Conebear 181, 498, 1458 

ft Donally 1364 

ft Drcmgoole 1621 

v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co. 1395 
9. Gyles 1655 

ft Hall 191, 834 



cxxx 



TABLE OP CA8E8 CITED. 



[The 



are to ton star pacing.] 



Woodward 9. King 1074,1688,1687 

9. Lincoln, Karl 1674, 1688 

v. Phillips 1844, 1246, 1886 

9. Pratt 96 

9. Roberta 881 

v. Schatwll 1699. 1704 

9. Twinaina 609, 784 

9. Williamson 779 

v. Wood 812, 820, 887 

v. Woodward 109, 1467, 1688 

Woodworth v. Campbell 809 

v. Edwards 892, 896 

v. Spring 1866 

9. Van Basklrk 1621 

Woodjard v. PoUtay 1809 

Woodyait v. Greeley 1784, 1784 

Woodyear v. Senaenv 1688 

Wool, Matter of 1841 

v. Townsley 1600 

Wooley v. Drew 1680 

Woolf 9. Pemberton 68, 69, 70 

Woolfryes v. Woolfryes 84 

Woollamv Hearn 408,860,861 



9. Rateliff 1649 

Woollaods v. Crowfher 96, 98 

Woollaston v. Wright 246 

Woollattv Woollatt 1426 

Woolleyv Golman 1169,1267 

v. North London Ry. Go. 678 

Woolley's Trusts, Re 868, 898 

Woolman v. Hoarn 884 

Woolridgev. MoKeona 74 

Wools v. Walley 887 

Woolwich v Forrest 23 

Wooly v. Drag 1246 

Wooster v. Blake 700, 2888 

9. Clark 890,946,2892 

9. Gumbirnner 1171, 1180, 2894 

v. Handy 2897 

v. Mnser 694 

9. Plymouth 1071 

v. Woodhull 681, 629, 1026 

Wooten v. Smith 1668, 1677 

Woote p. Tucker 1688 

Wooten v. Wooten 1406 

Wootten v. Bnroh 646, 718 

Worcester v. Truman 1688 

Worden v. Eilers 1662 

v. Searis 1029 

Wordsworth v. Dayrell 100 

9. Parkins 1680 

Worgan v. Ryder 1167 

Work 9. McCoy 779 

Working-Men's Mutual Society, 

R$ 911 

Wormald v. De Lisle 868 

Worman v. Worman 666, 669 

Worms 9. De Valdor 6 

Wormser 9. Merchants' Nat. 

Rank 1716 

Wormsley, Re 286, 861, 1449 

Re. Baines v. Wormsley 805 

9. Start 1226 

Worraker v. Pryer 886, 246 

Worral v. Miller 1896 

9. Nicholls 1896 

Worrall v. Harford 1846 

v. Johnson 1842, 1845 

9. Marlar 102 

9. White 86 

Worrell v. Wade 1648, 1668, 1666 

WorriU v. Cokar 1716 



Worsham v. Goar 916 

9. Goto 916 

Worsley v. Watson 679 

Worssam, Re 868 
Wortwick, Re, Robson 9. Wors- 

wkk 671,1886 

Worth 9. M'Kenale 176 
Wortham 9. Dacre, Lord 1877. 1404 

v. Pemberton 91, 110, 111 

Worthene Badgett 1661 

Worthington, Re 99, 1802 

9. Batty 1648 
v. Charter Oak Liie Ins. Co. 61 

9. Dublin fro. Ry. Co. 678 

9. Hiss 1820 

v. Lee 816, 708, 1618 

9. M'Craer 1869 

9. Scribner 681 

9. Ware 1680 

Wortley, Re 798 
9. Birkhead 178, 688, 660. 1681 

Wotherspoon v. Carrie 1648 

Wotton v. Copeland 209 

WoTen Tape Skirt Co., Re 1746 

Wragg, Re 1280 

v/Morley 4£8, 1218, 1428 

Wray, Re 1069 

v. Hutchinson 716 

9. Jamison 1761 

9. May 1117 

9. Thorn 1128 

9. Tbornes 1092 

Wren v. Kirton 1277, 1762 

Wrench v. Wynne 1041 

Wright, Re 100,1796 
t>. Angle 698, 690, 766, 806, 881 

% v. Arnold 97 

9. Atkyns 888.1614.1680 

9. Barlow 299, 801, 791 

f>. Bates 846 

9. Black 29 

v. Bourdon 889 

9. Bundy 214, 820 

v. Campbell 788 

v. Cantaou 1287 

9. Castle 807,806,688 

v. Chard 180, 187, 1409 

v. Clifford 979 

v. Cornelias 279 
9. Dame 146, 146, 861, 647, 688 

v. Dorset 1511 

9. Dufleld 1846 

9. Dunklin 986 

v. Eaton 1628 

9. Edwards 822 

v. Brerard 28 

9. Prank 1648 

v. Gay 1684 

«. Howard 808, 1899 

9. Hunter 1404 

v. Irving 398 

v. King 101, 464, 1847 

9. Kirby 1890, 1421 

9. Larmuth 906, 1218 

v. Lukes 1781 

9. Lynde 1897 

v. McKean 867 

v. Maidstone, Lord 892 

9. Mayer 674, 1826 

v. Mayo 571 

9. Meek 607, 1617 
9. Methodist Episcopal Church, 

Trustees of 8,9 



Wright r. Millar 
*Mills 
9, Mitchell 
9. Mudle 
9. Naylor 
o. Phillips 
9. Phipps 
v. Plumptree 
v. Robotham 
v. Rutter 



166, 1019 

18,196.681 

1799 

1409 

1847 

991,1667 

1617 

646 

1168 

97 



v. Santa Clara Mining Asso- 
ciation 898 
v. Smith 1468 
v. Strother 986 
v. Tatham 810, 1468, 1678, 1674 
9. Tanderplank 1868 
9. Vernon 1168, 1686, 1784, 1881 
v. Wellesley 1061 
9. Wilkin 886, 766, 906, 946, 1726 
v. Willcox 1097, 1106 
v. Wright 88. 811. 812, 889, 408, 
1061, 1119, 1148. 1282, 1284, 
1890, 1277, 1869, 1884, 1418. 

Wrixon v. Viae 668, 1741 

Wroe v. Clayton 468, 1468 

v. 8eed 1417,1418 

Wroth's Case 188 

Wrottesley v. Bendish 169,188,668 

Wroughton v. Barclay 1827 

9. Colquboun 1487 

Wyatt v. Cook 1886 

9. Garlington 994 

9. Luton 661 

9. People 1069 

9. 8adler . 1169 

9. Sweet 1561 

9. Thompson 1180 

9. Wood 1869 

Wybourn9 Blount 188 

Wych 9. East India Co. 644 

v. Meal 144, 896, 848 

Wyckoff9 Cochran 1675 

Wycoffv. Combs 1281 

Wycombe Railway Co. 9. Don- 

nlngton Hospital 995, 1061 

Wye Valley Ry. Co 9. Hawes 848 
Wyersdale 8chool, Re 1857 

Wykes 9. Rlngleberg 179 

Wykham 9. Wykham 1406 

Wyld v. Ward 1008 

Wyllie 9. Ellfee 89, 80. 81. 88, 409. 
688, 68l, 1862, 1690 
9. Green 1047 

Wylly A. Trustees 9. Banford 884 
Wylson 9. Dunn 864 

Wyman 9. Baboook 1928, 2237, 



9. Knight 

9. Southward 

9. Wilcox 
Wyroerv. Dodos 
Wyndham 9. Bnnismore 

9. Enniflmore, Lord 
Wynkoop v. Van Beuren 
Wynn 9. Morgan 
Wynne 9. OalYandar 

9. Edwards 

9. Griffith 

9. Hughes 

9. Humberston 

9. Newborough, Lord 



1061 

48 

418 

406 



1865 

1676 

>, 990, 1408 

846 

1008 

1230 

798 

1826,1884 

1783, 1788, 

1789, 1749 



Y. 



Talden, Rx parte 
Tale 9. Baum 

9. Doderer 
Taney 9. Batte 

9. Pen wick 
Yard v. Ocean Beach Ass*n 



1848 
1679 

186 
1158 

861 

1817, 

1895 



Tardley 9. Arnold 1098 

v. Holland 649 

Tare 9. Harrison 1771, 1781 

Tarnall 9. Rose 701 

Yarrington9 Robinson 248 

Tate 9. Llghthead 896, 1526 

Yates* Compton 827,264 



Yates 9. Crews 


167 


9. Farebrothor 


1772 


9. Hambly 


260, 1261, 1868 


9. Hardy 


768, 1184 


9. Jack 


1688 


9. Law 


884 


v. Madden 


8188 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXXX1 



Yafene. Monro* 
v. Ptambe 

v. 

V. 

r. UniTereity College 



886,1128 

1328 

116,117 

1564 

1469 



Tattoo 9. London tLI. Int. 

Co. ion 

Yaoger 9. Skinner 85, 866 

Yeager ». Wallace 1748 

Yemraley v. Bodgett 619, 621 

v. Ycanley 1879, 1689, 1590 

Yearwood'a Trusts, Be 849 

Yeatman v. BaUmain 88, 189 

v. Monaky 440 

• Raad 1012 

200,264,824 



Teaton v. Lenox 


808 


Yeov. Frere 


1816 


Yeoman* v. Hajnes 


1218 


V. KllTlogtOQ 


1688 


Ternary, He, Ker v. Dent 


1086 


Yeaoombe v. Landor 


1087 


Yettav. Biles 


1601 


v. Norfolk By. Go. 


242,248 


9. Palmer 


1722,1726 


Yeweaa v. Robinson 


69 


Ytek Wo v. Crowley 


1620 


Tingling v Reason 


1117 


Yoke 9. Baraet 


91 


Yonge 9. McConnfok 


1677 


Yangoe r BMlupa 


1622 


York 9. Brown 


1234,1418 


v. Pilklngton 


1164 


9. While 


244,794 



York,Archbiahop of v. Stapleton 582, 

1182 
York BnOdtnga Co., Gate of 6, 188 
York, Mayor of 9. Pilklngton 272. 

841, 1620, 1682 



[The references are to the ttar paging.] 

York Manuf. Co. v. Cutts 644 

York and North Midland By. v. 

Hodaon 742, 1618 

Yorker Fry 606,616,619,620 

9. Yorke 686 

Yorkshire Banking Co. v. Ital- 
ian 418, 1660, 1716 
Yorkshire Waggon Co. 9. New- 
port Coal Co. 406 
Yost 9. Aldersou 1081 
9. Demit 1081 
Youde 9. Cloud 1416 
Youl, Be 1611 
Yoole v. Richards 711, 844 
Young, Ex parte 147 
Ex parte. Be Qnarta Hill 

Co. 889 

9. Aronson 60 

v. Bank of Alexandria 868 

9. Brassey 1669 

v. Buckett 1728 

v. Bush 798 

9. Butler 1668 

9. Clarendon Township 660 

v. Clarksrille Man. Co. 782 

9, Gushing 149 

9. Davis 67 

v. Dearborn 1846 

9. Edwards 1168 

9. Emery 1<Q0 

v. English 1848 

v. Everest 1874, 1422, 1487 

v. Fernie 876, 1071, 1642 

9. Oentis 880 

9. Goodson 1691 

v. Grand Trunk By. Co. 1120 
9. Grundy 887 

9. Henderson 966, 1676 

9. Hodges 884 



Young v. Hopkins 846 

vTKelghly 1676, 1677, 1678 

9, Irfwnington 1660 

9. Lillard 989 

v. Lyons 267, 271, 841 

v Macrae 1649 

9. Montgomery & Bofivula R. 

Co. 214,748 

9. Quinoey 806, 807 

9. Rathbone 869, 989, 1218 

v. Keynolds 1227 

9. Bodes 199 

9. Rondont fc K. G. L. Co. 1676 
v. State 576 

v. Sutton 1168 

9. Teague 1286, 1291 

v. Thomas 1881, 1468 

9. Ward 216 

v. Waterpark, Lord 668 

v. Wheeler 865 

9. White 609, 617, 619, 698 

9. Wright 848 

9. Young 816, 1167 

Youngblood v. Sehamp 896, 1619, 

1668,1669 
v. Youngblood 562 

Younge v. Cocker 78 

v. Cooper 1161 

9. Duncombe 1774 

9. Pate 1255 

Youngs, Be. Doggett v. Bereft 39, 

797, I486 
Yourle v. Nelson 87, 177, 1288, 

1467,1846 
Yoratt 9. Wlnyard 1660 

Yow 9. Townseod 1081 

Yuengling v. Johnson 1614 

Yule 9. Yule 1699, 1704, 1706. 

1707, 1708 



Z. 



Zabel w. Hamhman 590 
Zshrlskifi 9. Jersey City A Bergen 

R B. Co. 1687 

Sunbaeo 9. CaamTSttl 764 

Bum 9. Cawtey 844 

v. Fink 197 

Searing «. Ruber 1654 

i v. Bowers 458 



Zeiuinger «. Schnitaler 860 

Zell's Appeal 641 
Zelle v. Workingmen's B. Co. 190 

Ziegler v. Chapin 1071 

Qererlnk v. Kemper 2 

Zihlman v. Zlhlman 1661 

Zimmer v. Miller 1461 

Zimmerman v. Hnber 1801 



Zimmerman v. Willard 824 

Zion Church 9. St. Peter's Church 

26 
ZlTi 9. Einstein 840 

Zulueta v. Vincent 446, 461. 462, 

620,741 
Zonkel v. Litchfield 920, 1168 



ADDENDA. 



Dawson v. Whitehaven Bank 125 
De Stacpoole v. De Staepoole 108 
DriaUUv. Cobb 1621 



General Share Trust Co. v. Chap- 



1842 



Howard v. Shrewsbury, Earl of 562 



THE PRACTICE 



OF THE 



HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. 



•CHAPTER L 



THE COMMENCEMENT OF A SUIT. 



The practice of the Court of Chancery, and of its various offices, is 
regulated by rules laid down in Acts of Parliament, in the General Orders 
of the Court passed or promulgated from time to time, in the Regula- 
tions of the Judges for the conduct of business in their chambers and 
of the Registrars of the Court respecting the transaction of business in 
their office, and by custom or usage, to be ascertained generally from 
former decisions of the Court; 1 the decisions of the Court are also 
important in determining the construction to be put upon the Acts of 
Parliament, General Orders, and Regulations. 

It will be the object of this Treatise to explain the practice of the 
Court in reference tp its equitable jurisdiction. 1 



1 "Ancient and uniform practice consti- 
tutes the law of the Court, as much as a positive 
order/' per Lord Eldon, 9 Mer. 3. M Great care 
is necessary," says Mr. Justice Clifford, "in 
Equity suits, in following closely the rules of 
the Court and the settled course of practice; 
otherwise the bar would become confused, and 
the Court find itself involved in difficulties far 
greater than need be if the regular course of 
practice is pursued." Union Sugar Ref. v. 
Mathiesson, 3 Cliff. 146. 

* By the original Judiciary Act, and now 
by the U. S. Rev. Stats. $ 913, the forms and 
modes of proceeding in suits of Equity in 
the U. S. Courts shall be according to the 
principles, rules, and usages which belong to 
Courts of Equity. And the settled doctrine of 
the U. S. Supreme Court is, that the remedies 
in Equity are to be administered according to 
the practice of Courts of Equity in England, the 
parent country from which we derive our 
knowledge of them. Robinson v. Campbell, 3 
Wheat. 222 ; Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 658 ; 
Clark v. Reyburn, 8 Wall. 323 ; Smith v. 
Bnrnham, 2 Sumner, 612, 626. And by Rule 
90 of the Rules of Practice, prescribed in 

VOI* 1. — 1 



1842 by the U. S. Supreme Court for the 
Courts of Equity of the United States, It is 
provided that where those rules or the rules 
of the Court itself do not apply, the practice of 
the Circuit Court shall be regulated by the pres- 
ent practice of the High Court of Chancery in 
England, " so far as the same may reasonably 
be applied consistently with the local circum- 
stances and local convenience of the district 
where the Court is held, not as positive rules, 
but as furnishing just analogies to regulate the 
practice." 

In the States of the Union, the old rules of 
English Chancery practice are recognized as 
the basis of their Chancery practice. West v. 
Paige, 1 Stockt. 208; Morris v. Taylor, 23 N.J. 
Eq. 131, 134; Newark and N Y.R.Co v. Mayor 
of Newark, id. 515, 517; Burrall v. Eames, 
5 Wis. 260. "Not," as said by Wilde J. m 
Saunders v. Frost, 5 Pick. 272, " indiscrimi- 
nately, but only as they appear reasonable and 
comformable to the spirit of our system of juris- 
prudence and general rules of practice." Rules 
of Court are designed for the general guidance 
of suitors; but the Chancellor may make an 
order in a particular case altering or departing 

i 



*3 



THK COMMENCEMENT OF A SUIT. 



* 2 * A suit on the Equity side of the Court of Chancery, on behalf of 

a subject, is ordinarily commenced by preferring a petition, con- 
taining a statement of the plaintiff's case, and praying the relief which 
he considers himself entitled to receive. 1 (a) This petition, when pre- 
ferred by a subject, is called in the old books an English Bill, by way of 
distinction from the proceedings in suits within the ordinary or common- 
law jurisdiction of the Court,* which, till the statute of 4 Geo. II. c. 26, 
were entered and enrolled, more anciently in the French or Norman 
tongue, and afterwards in Latin ; whereas bills in Chancery were, from 
very early times, preferred in the English language.* The bill is ad- 
dressed to the Lord Chancellor, Lord Keeper, or Lords Commissioners, 
for the custody of the Great Seal ; 4 unless the seals are in the Queen's 
hands, or the holder thereof himself is a party, 5 in which case the bill is 
addressed to the Queen herself, in her Court of Chancery. 6 

If the suit is instituted on behalf of the Crown, or of those who 
partake of its prerogative, or whose rights are under its particular pro- 
tection, such as the objects of a public charity, the matter of complaint 
is offered to the Court, not by way of petition, but of information 7 by 
the proper officer, of the rights which the Crown claims on behalf of 
itself or others, and of the invasion or detention of those rights 
*3 for which the suit is instituted. 8 This proceeding *is then 
styled an information. 1 The rules of practice incidental to these 

from a rule of Court. Greene v. Harris, 11 
R. I. 5, citing Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 
14 Pet. 210, 257; Rowley v. Scales, 1 S. & S. 
511; In re Lyons, 1 Dr. & W. 327, 333; Dicas 
v. Lord Brougham, 6 C. & P. 249; Burrell v. 
Nicholson, 6 Sim. 212. See also Marsh v. 
Crawford, 1 Swan, 116, and compare Maultsby 
v. Carty, 11 Hum. 36 L 

1 As to the value of the subject-matter, see 
Cons. Ord. IX. 1. (o) 

9 As to the procedure on the common-law 
side of the Court, see 12 & 13 Vic c. 109; 
Orders of 29 Dec., 1843, and 3 Aug., 1849, 
Chitty's Arch., 1741; And post, Chap. XXXIX. 
§ 7, Receivers. 

* See Ld. Red. 8; 1 Spence, Eq. Jur. 368; 
Story, Eq. PI. § 7. There are some bills in 
carty times in the French language. See Cal. 
Proc. Chan., printed by Public Rec. Com., 
1827, cited Ld. Red. 8,'n. (o). 

4 Ld. Red. 78. As to Lords Commissioners, 
see Hardy's Life of Ld. Langdale, vol 2, p. 
258, et stq. In the United States, suits are 
commenced by bill or petition addressed to 
the Chancellor, Judge, or Judges presiding in 



the particular Court, either by name or official 
designation. Infra, 357, n. 1; Story, Eq. PI. 
§26; Barb. Ch. Pr. 36. 

6 See Lord Keeper v. Wyld, 1 Vera. 139; 
Coop. Eq. PI. 23. 

6 Ld. Red. 7. In Massachusetts, where 
cases in Equity may be commenced by bill 
or petition, with a writ of subpoena, according 
to the usual course of proceedings in Equity, 
or inserted in an original writ of summons, 
or of summons and attachment, ore., see Pub. 
Stats, c. 151 , §§ 6, 7. " Had the statute omitted 
to prescribe any form of process, or to give any 
authority to the Court to make one, the bill as 
used in England in Chancery proceedings, and 
the proceedings under it, as there practised, 
would necessarily have been adopted here." 
Per Parker C. J. in Commonwealth v. Sumner, 
5 Pick. 365, 366. An action of contract, praying 
for relief in Equity, is to be treated as a suit 
in Equity. Topliff v. Jackson, 12 Gray, 566 ; 
Irvin v. Gregory, 13 Gray, 215. 

* Ld. Red. 7. 

s Ld. Red. 22; Story, Eq. PI. § 8. 

i The title " information " is no longer 



(a) The date on which the bill is filed is 
the earliest that can be assigned as the 
commencement of a suit in Equity. Clark v. 
Sbyton, 63 N. H. 402 ; Collins v. Ins. Co. 91 
Tenn. 432. The notice by lis pendens begins 
Only when service is made on the defendant. 
Duff v. McDonough (Penn.), 25 Atl. Rep. 608. 
See Burleson v. McDermott (Ark.), 21 8. W. 

2 



Rep. 222; Zieverink v. Kemper (Ohio), 34 N. 
E. Rep. 260. The time when judicial proceed- 
ings were begun to avoid the bar of a statute 
may be proved by parol evidence. Witters «. 
Sowles, 32 Fed. Rep. 765. 

(6) The Chancery Consolidated General 
Orders of 1860 were repealed by the Rules of 
the Supreme Court, 1883. 



THE COMMENCEMENT OF A SUIT. * 3 

two methods of instituting a suit in Equity are substantially the 
same. 

Where, however, the relief sought to be obtained is the administration 
of the estate of a deceased person, a summary and inexpensive practice 
has been established by the Act to Amend the Practice of the Court 
of Chancery, 2 which provides that, in cases of this description, without 
either formal pleading, or any direct application to the Court itself, 
a summons may at once be obtained at the chambers of the Master of 
the Bolls, or of a Vice-chancellor, and an order be made on the hearing 
thereof to administer the estate. Where, also, it is sought to obtain 
the appointment of a guardian for an infant, or an allowance out of 
his property for his maintenance, the application may be made by 
summons. 8 

Again, under Lord Justice Turner's Act/ a very convenient form of 
application to the Court was provided for cases where the parties, agree- 
ing upon the facts that form the foundation of their claims, are desirous 
of obtaining a judicial decision upon the construction of an instrument, 
or upon almost any point of law resulting from the admitted facts. In 
cases of this description, the parties are enabled, without going through 
any forms of pleadings, at once to submit the case that they have agreed 
upon for the decision of the Court. 

Many Acts of Parliament, under which statutory powers are con- 
ferred upon the Court, point out the particular mode by which relief 
thereunder is to be sought from the Court ; and it may be stated, as a 
general rule, that a person seeking the aid of the statutory jurisdiction 
must apply by a petition, which is not regarded as the commencement 
of a formal suit. 5 



used m England, the proceedings being by 
way of action and commenced by writ of 
fummons. Att.Gen. v. Shrewsbury Bridge 
Co. W. N. (1880) 23; 42 L. T. 79; and see 
R. S. C. Ord. 1. 1. 

* 15 & 16 Tic. c. 86, §§ 45, 47. This Act, 
being either obsolete, superseded, or repro- 
duced by the R. & C 1888, was repealed by 
46 & 47 Tic. c. 49, § 4, Sched. 

8 See pott, Chap. XXIX. § 2, Proceedings 
in ike Judges' Chambers (Infants). 

* 13 & 14 Vic. c. 35, §§ 1-18. 

* lnfra y Chap. XL1V. General Equity juris- 
diction in Massachusetts was conferred upon 
the Supreme Jndicial and Superior Courts 
by Pub. Stats, c. 151 ; Stat, of 1883, c. 223, and 
1891, c. 383. In New York, the jurisdiction 
of Equity, part of which was to exercise its 
powers at all times, devolved upon the Su- 
preme Court. A justice of that Court might 
hear a petition in Chambers in those matters 
where the usage of the Chancellor was so to 
do. Wilcox 9. Wilcox, 14 N. Y. 575. 

In regard to the jurisdiction of the Court 
of Chancery in Vermont, see Cheever v. R. & 
& R. R. Co. 89 Vt. 654. In Maine, see 



Androscoggin & Kennebec R. R. Co. tr. An- 
droscoggin R. R. Co. 49 Maine, 392. 

By the " Supreme Court of judicature Act " 
of 1873 it was provided in England that all 
suits previously commenced by bill or informa- 
tion in the High Court of Chancery shall be 
instituted in the High Court of Justice estab- 
lished by that Act, by a proceeding to be 
called an action; that "suit" shall include 
" action," and " action " shall mean a civil 
proceeding commenced by writ, or in such other 
manner as may be prescribed by rules of Court, 
and shall not include a criminal proceeding by 
the Crown ; that "cause" shall include any 
action, suit, or other original proceeding be- 
tween a plaintiff and a defendant, and any 
criminal proceeding by the Crown; and " mat- 
ter M shall include every proceeding in the 
Court not in a cause. L. R. 8 Stat. 349, 850. 
This Act also provides, in effect, for the ad- 
ministration of equitable relief to either plain- 
tiff or defendant in all cases in which such 
relief would have been given by a Court of 
Equity. Ibid. 317. See 1 Dan. Ch. Prac 
(6th Eng. ed.) Introd. 



•CHAPTER H. 



PERSONS BT WHOM A SUIT MAT BE INSTITUTED. 



Section L — The Queen's Attorney- General. 

It is a general rule, subject to very few exceptions, that there is no 
sort or condition of persons who may not sue in the Court of Chan- 
cery, and this rule extends from the highest person in the State to the 
most distressed pauper. 1 

The Sovereign herself has the same right which a subject has to insti- 
tute proceedings in her own Courts for the assertion of any right claimed 
either on behalf of herself or others; and the same principles which entitle 
a subject to the assistance of the Courts, to enable him to assort his rights, 
are equally applicable to the Sovereign. Thus a suit has been instituted 
on behalf of the Queen to have the benefit of a discovery from persons 
charged to be aliens, of the place of their birth, in order to assist her in 
a commission to inquire into their lands, with the view of seizing them 
into her hands by inquisition. 2 For the same reason, where an office 
cannot be found for the Crown without the aid of a Court of Equity, the 
Court will, at the suit of the Crown, interfere to restrain the commission 
of waste in the mean time. 8 

It has been said that the Queen is not bound to assert her rights in any 
particular Court, but that she may sue in any of her Courts which she 
pleases, without reference to the question whether the subject-matter 
of her suit is such as comes within the peculiar jurisdiction of such 
Court. 4 Thus she may have a quare impedxt in the Queen's Bench, 5 or 
she may elect to sue either in a Court of Common Law or in a Court of 
Equity. 6 Upon an accurate examination, however, of the cases that have 
given rise to these general assertions of the rights of the Crown, it ap- 
pears that equitable grounds were alleged in each case for instituting the 



1 As to a person under disability suing in 
a foreign country, see Worms v. De Valdor, 
W. N. (1880) 16; 28 W. R. 348, Fry J. As 
to disabilities arising from (1) outlawry in a 
civil action abolished by the Civil Procedure 
Acts, Repeal Act, 1879 '(42 & 43 Vic c. 59, 
§ 3), and 1 Dan. Ch. Prac. (5th ed.) pp. 52- 
54; (2) excommunication was abolished by 
53 Geo. 1IL c. 127, § 8, and popish recusancy 
was virtually abolished by 31 Geo. III. c. 32; 
(3) as to duress and civil status of a nun, see 
Re Metcalfe, 2 De G. J. & S. 122; 10 Jur. 
N. S 224, 287; Evans v. Cassidy, 11 Ir. Eq. 
248; Blake v. Blake, 4 lr. Ch. 349. 



* Du Plessis t?. Att.-Gen., 1 Bro. P. C. ed. 
Toml. 415, 419. 

> Att.-Gen. t. Du Plessis, 2 Yes. 286. As 
to office found, see now 22 & 23 Tic. c. 21, § 25. 

« 11 Rep. 68 b; ib. 75 a ; Plowden, 236, 240, 
244. 

> 11 Rep. 68 b. 

« The King v. Arundel, Hob. 109 ; Att-Gen. 
v. Vernon, 1 Vera. 277, 370; 2 Ch. R. 353; 
1 Eq. Cas. Ab. 75, pi. 1; 138, pL 16; and sea 
the cases cited 8 Beav. 283, and the Judg- 
ment, p. 287. 



THE QUEEN'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 



*6 



proceedings in Chancery. It seems, nevertheless, to be true, that 
the Queen may proceed, in questions relating to * the property *6 
to which she is entitled in right of her Grown, either in a Court 
of Law or in a Court of Equity ; and that where she has caused a Court 
of Equity to be informed that an intrusion has been committed on her 
land, although no matter of equitable jurisdiction has been stated, yet 
the information has been entertained : but in such cases, if any ques- 
tion of law arises, the Court will put it in the course of trial by a Court 
of Law, and retain the information till the result of such trial is known. 1 (a) 
In general, however, suits on behalf of the Crown are instituted in the 
Court which, by its constitution, is most properly adapted to the case, 
and the Court of Exchequer being the general Court for all business 
relating to the Queen's revenue or property, the practice has been to insti- 
tute there all proceedings relating to the property of the Crown. 



1 Att-Gen. to the Prince of Wales v. Sir J. 
St. Aubyn, Wight w. 167, and the cases there 
cited ; see also Att.-Gen. r. Mayor of Plymouth, 
id. 134. By the 5 Vic. c. 5, § 1, It is enacted, 
that on Oct. 15, 1841, all the power, authority, 
and jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer at 
Westminster as a Court of Equity, should be 
transferred and given to the High Court of 
Chancery. Upon this statute Lord Langdale, 
H. R., in Att.-Gen. v. London, 8 Beav. 285, 
said be thought " the almost unavoidable con- 
struction of the Act made it so operate as to 
leave to the Court of Exchequer everything that 
was not exercised or exercisible by that Court 
as a Court of Equity, and to transfer to the 
Court of Chancery all that was exercised or 
exercisible by the Court of Exchequer as a 
Court of Equity." Hence, in all matters af- 
fecting the rights, property, and revenue of 
the Crown, the Court of Exchequer, sitting on 
the Equity side, bad, before the Act, a juris- 
diction, notwithstanding the Crown might, in 
the particular cases, have had a legal remedy, 
and that this jurisdiction has by the Act been 
transferred to the Court of Chancery; and 
that, by virtue of that transfer, the Crown is 
now enabled, in matters of revenue depend- 
ent upon legal rights, to sue in the Court of 
Chancery, even though there would be no 
jurisdiction in similar cases between subject 
and subject. This decision was affirmed by 
the House of Lords ; but their lordships care- 



fully avoided determining this question, as to 
which they expressed great doubt. 1 H. L. 
Cas. 440. In whatever way this question may 
be ultimately decided, it has been held by the 
Court of Exchequer that it still retains an 
equitable jurisdiction in matters of revenue. 
Att.-6en. v. Hailing, 15 M. & W. 687, 700 ; Att.- 
Gen. r. Hallett, id. 97; 8 Beav. 288, n. But 
see Att.-Gen. v. Kingston, 6 Jur. 155, Ex; Att.- 
Gen. v. Barker, L. R. 7 Ex. 177. The procedure 
in suits by information in the Court of Ex- 
chequer relating to the revenues of the Crown 
was regulated by "The Crown Suits Act, 
1865 " (28 & 29 Vic. c 104), and Reg. Gen. 
Exch. 14th March, 1866; L. R. 1 Ex. 389; 
12 Jur. K. S. Pt. II. 182. The power of that 
Court over revenues is now possessed by the 
Queen's Bench Division, Sup. Ct. of Jud. 
Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vie. c. 66), as modified 
by order in Council of Jan. 6, 1881. See Att.- 
Gen. v. Metropolitan District Ry. Co. 5 Ex. 
D. 218, C. A.; Att.-Gen. r. Constable, 4 Ex. 
D. 172; Att.-Gen. v. Barker, L. R. 7 Ex. 177; 
Att.-Gen. v. Shrewsbury Bridge Co. W. N. 
(1880) 23, M. R. Where the Court of Chancery 
would have jurisdiction, as between subject 
and subject, it seems clear that the Crown 
may file au information in that Court for an 
account. Att.-Gen. v. Edmunds, L. R. 6 Eq. 
381, 392, V. C. G. : and see Att.-Gen. v. Lon- 
don, 1 H. L. Cas. 440 ; see also the case of 
York Buildings Co. 2 Atk. 56. 



(a) It is for the officers of the Crown to 
make out clearly the prerogative in any case 
where they claim to be on a different footing 
from the subject, as regards procedure in any 
litigation; and in an information in the nature 
of a transitory action, the Attorney-General 
may lay and retain the venue where he pleases. 
AtL-Gen. v. Churchill, 8 M. & W. 171; Att.- 
Gen. to the Prince of Wales v. Crossman, L. R. 
1 Ex. 881, 886 ; Dixon v. Fairer, 56 L. J. Q. B. 
63, affirming 55 id. 497 ; 17 Q. B. D. 658. 



As to criminal and quo warranto infor- 
mations, see Shortt on Informations; 10 Am. 
& Eng. Encl. of Law, 702. An informa- 
tion in the nature of a quo warranto^ though 
a criminal proceeding in form, is a civil 
remedy. State v. Hardie, 1 Ired. (N. C.) 42; 
Saunders v. Gatling, 81 N. C. 298; Ames v. 
Kansas, 111 U. S. 449; Foster v. State, 112 
U. S. 201; Illinois v. Illinois Central R. Co. 
83 Fed. Rep. 721. 



8 



PERSONS BT WHOM A SUIT HAT BE INSTITUTED. 



*7 * la all cases where the rights of the Queen, or of those 

who partake of her prerogative, are the subject of the suit, the 
name of the Sovereign is not made use of as the party complaining ; but 
the matter of complaint is offered to the Court by way of information 
given by the proper officer. That officer, if the information is exhibited 
in any of the Superior Courts at Westminster, is the Attorney-General, 
or if the office of Attorney-General should happen to be vacant, the 
Solicitor-General. 1 

Besides the cases in which the immediate rights of the Crown are 
concerned, the Queen's officers may, in some cases, institute proceed- 
ings on behalf of those who claim under the Crown, by grant or other- 
wise ; or, more correctly speaking, those who claim under the Crown may 
make use of the Queen's name, or of that of her proper officer, for 
the purpose of asserting their right against a third party, 3 or they may 
sue in their own names, but in such case they must make the 
*8 Attorney-General * a party to the suit. 1 (a) 



i Ld. Bed. 7, 21, 22 ; Wilkes's case, 4 
fcunr. 2527; Story, Eq. PI. § 49. The Sover- 
eign also has officers of the same description 
in the county palatine of Lancaster and in 
the Duchy of Lancaster. But the Attorney- 
General in a county palatine, or other like 
jurisdiction, is not recognized as such in 
Westminster Hall: arguendo, Att.-Gen. to 
the Prince of Wales v. St. Aubyn, Wightw. 
178; see Same v. Lambe, 11 Beav. 213; Same 
r.Crossman, L. B. 1 Ex. 381; 12 Jur. N. S. 
712; Att.-Gen. v. Devonshire, 14 Q. B. D. 
195; Dyke ». Stephens (No. 2), W. N. (1885) 
177 ; and 11 Geo. IV.; 1 Will. IV. c. 70; and 6 
& 7 Will. IV. cc. 19, 87, as to the jurisdictions of 
the Bishops of Durham and Ely, and as to Wales 
and Chester. Bights purely public are to be 
enforced in the name of the State, or the officer 
intrusted with the conduct of public suits. 
Smith v. Comm. of Butler County, 6 Ohio, 101. 
While the office of Attorney-General was abol- 



(a) A certified copy of an order from the 
U. S. Attorney-General to a District Attorney, 
directing a suit in Equity to be proceeded 
with, proves that the bill was filed by the for- 
mer's authority. Mullan v. United States, 118 
U. S. 271 ; 10 Fed. Rep. 785. A bill in equity 
lies to annul a patent for land which recites that 
it is brought by the United States by a certain 
U. S. District Attorney, and is signed with the 
name of the Attorney-General by such District 
Attorney. Ibid. When the United States is 
bound to issue a patent to the true owner of 
land, its Attorney-General may sue in equity 
in its name, to annul a patent for the land, issued 
through the patentee's fraud. United States v. 
Beebe, 127 U. S. 338; Colorado Coal & Iron 
Co. v. United States, 123 U. S. 307; United 
States v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61; United 
States «. Marshall Silver M. Co. 129 U. S. 

6 



ished in Massachusetts, most of the duties of 
that officer, which were not required to be per- 
formed by him personally, having been dis- 
tributed among and vested in the District 
Attorneys, as the local prosecuting officers, 
Shaw C. J. said he was " strongly inclined to 
the opinion that the filing of an information 
in Equity was not a duty which the Attorney- 
General was required to do personally; that 
duty would have vested in a Solicitor-General, 
if there had been one; it was necessarily inci- 
dent to the office of Attorney-General, and was 
vested in the District Attorneys in their respec- 
tive districts." Parker v. May, 5 Cush. 340. 

* Dwyer, 1 PI. 7, 8; Keilw. 169; 5 Bac. 
Ab. tit. Prerog. F. 3; Miles v. Williams, 1 P. 
Wms. 249, 252; Earl of Stafford v. Buckley, 
2 Ves. Sr. 170, 181. 

i Balch v. Wastall, 1 P. Wms. 445; Hay- 
ward «. Fry, id. 446; see also Bex v. Fowler, 
Bunb. 38. 



579; United States v. Hancock, 133 U. S. 193; 
United States r. Trinidad Coal & C. Co. 137 
U. S. 160; United States v. Tichenor, 12 Fed. 
Bep. 415; United States v. McGraw, id. 449; 
United States v. White, 17 id. 561; United 
States v. Bose, 24 id. 196. The same rule 
applies to a patent obtained by mistake which 
prejudices the rights of the government or the 
public. United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co. 
125 U. S. 273; Western Pacific B. Co. v. United 
States, 108 U. S. 510; Williams v. United 
States, 138 U. S. 541; 30 Fed. Bep. 309. Such 
fraud or mistake must be specifically averred 
and clearly proved. United States «. Maxwell 
Land Grant Co. 122 U. S. 365; United States 
r. Iron Silver M. Co. 128 U. S. 673. In such 
cases the government is not precluded by fraud 
of its officers in issuing the patent. Moffat v. 
United States, 112 U. S. 24. If not the real 



THE QUEEN'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 



*9 



Informations may also be exhibited by the Attorney-General or 
other proper officer, in support of the rights of those whose protection 
devolves upon the Crown as supreme head of the Church. Thus the 
Queen, as supreme head of the Church, is the proper guardian of the 
temporalities of the bishoprics ; and an information may, therefore, be 
brought by the Attorney-General to stay waste committed by a bishop.* 

In like manner, the Attorney-General may exhibit informations on 
behalf of those who are considered to be under the peculiar protection 
of the crown as parens patricB : such as the objects of general charities, 8 
idiots and lunatics. 4 Moreover, this privilege of the Attorney-General 
is not confined to suits on behalf of charities, strictly so-called, but has 
been held, in many instances, to extend to cases where funds have been 
made applicable to legal and general purposes. 6 The rule in such cases 
appears to be, " that where property affected by a trust for public pur- 
poses is in the hands of those who hold it devoted to that trust, it is 
the privilege of the public that the Crown should be entitled to intervene 
by its officer, for the purpose of asserting, on behalf of the public gen- 
erally, that public interest and that public right which probably no 
individual could be found willing effectually to assert, even if the interest 
were such as to allow it." • 

* Suits on behalf of idiots and lunatics are usually instituted *9 
by the committees of their estates ; but where there has been no 
committee, or where the interest of the committee is likely to clash with 
that of the persons whose estates were under his care, informations have 



* See Knight v. Mosely, Amb. 176 ; Wither 
v. D. & C. of Winchester, 3 Mer. 421,427; 
Jefferson v. Bishop of Durham, 1 Bos. & Poll. 
129, 131. 

* See Att-Gen. v. Clergy Society, 8 Rich. 
Bq. (S. C.) 190; Wright v. Trustees of Meth. 
Epis. Church, 1 Hoff. Ch. R. 202; 2 Kent, 285- 
288, 4 id. 507. 

4 See Norcom v. Rogers, 16 N. J. Eq. 
484. 

* Att.-Gen. v. Brown, 1 Swanst 265; Att.- 
Gen. v. Shrewsbury, 6 Beav. 220, 227 ; Evao 
t. Avon, 29 Beav. 144; 33 Beav. 67; 6 Jur. 
K. S. 1961 ; Att.-Gen. v. Lichfield, 11 Beav. 
120; Att.-Gen. v. Norwich, 16 Sim. 225, 229; 
Att«-Gen. v. Guardians of Southampton, 17 
Sim. 7, 13; Att-Gen. v. Eastlake, 11 Hare, 
205; 17 Jur. 801; Att.-Gen. v. Wigan, Kay, 



party in interest, it is affected by laches on the 
part of those whose interests it supports. United 
States v. Beebe, tupra; Same v. Wentz, 34 
Fed. Rep. 154. The bill need not offer to re- 
pay the purchase money. Moffat v. United 
States, tupra; United States v. Minor, 114 
U. S. 233. 

The United States may also maintain a bill 
in equity to cancel a patent for an invention 
obtained by fraud. United States v. American 
Bell Tel. Co. 128 U. S. 315; 32 Fed. Rep. 591; 



268; 5 De G. M. & G. 52; 18 Jur. 299; Alt- 
Gen, v. West Hartlepool Imp. Commissioners, 
L. R. 10 Eq. 152. 

« Per Sir J. L. Knight Bruce V. C. in Att.- 
Gen. *. Compton, 1 Y. & C. C. 417, 427. In 
Massachusetts under Pub. Stats, c. 17, § 6. the 
Attorney-General is required to enforce the 
due application of funds given or appropriated 
to public charities within the State, and prevent 
breaches of trust in the administration thereof. 
The power of the Attorney-General or public 
prosecutor to institute a proceeding for the 
enforcement of a public charity, is a common- 
law power, incident to the office. Parker v. 
May, 5 Cush. 336, 338, per Shaw C. J. See 
Wright v. The Trustees of the Meth. Epis. 
Church, 1 Hoff. Ch. R. 202; and Code of Ten- 
nessee, § 3409, tt teq. 



United States v. Gunning, 18 id. 511; New 
York & B. C P. Co. v. New York C. P. Co. 
9 id. 587. Such a bill is not maintainable on 
grounds that have already been sustained in a 
suit for infringement of the patent. United 
States v. Colgate, 82 Fed. Rep. 624. The 
Attorney-General cannot, in his own name, 
" as he is the Attorney-General of the United 
States," maintain a bill to repeal a patent for 
an invention. Att.-Gen. v. Rumford Chemical 
Works, 32 Fed. Rep. 608. 

7 



*10 



PERSONS BT WHOM A SUIT MAT BE INSTITUTED. 



been exhibited on their behalf by the Attorney-General, as the officer 
of the Crown ; 1 and in such a suit, if no committee has been appointed, 
the Court will proceed to give directions for the care of the property of 
the lunatic, and for proper proceedings to obtain the appointment of a 
committee. 8 Persons incapable of acting for themselves, whether com- 
ing under the description of idiots or lunatics or not, may sue by their 
next friend, without the intervention of the Attorney-General.* 

It seems that when an information is filed on behalf of a lunatic, he 
must be named as a party to the suit, and that merely naming him as a 
relator will not be sufficient ; 4 a distinction, however, appears to be taken 
between cases where the object of the suit is to avoid some transaction 
of the lunatic, on the ground of his incapacity, and those in which it is 
merely to affirm a contract entered into by him for his benefit, or to 
assert some claim on his behalf/ In the former case it was held, that 
the lunatic ought not to be named as plaintiff, because no man can be 
heard to stultify himself ; if he is named, however, it is no ground for 
demurrer. 6 The reason for making a lunatic a party in proceedings of 
this nature appears to be, that as no person can be bound by a decree in 
a suit to which he, or those under whom he derives title, are not parties, 
and as a lunatic may recover his understanding, the decree will not have 
the effect of binding him unless he is a party ; and upon the same prin- 
ciple it is held, that where a suit is instituted on behalf of the lunatic 
by his committee, the committee must be named as a co-plaintiff, in 
order that the interest of the committee in the lunatic's estate 
•10 may be barred . r The * same reason does not apply to cases of 
idiots, because in contemplation of law they never can acquire 
their senses ; they are, therefore, not considered necessary parties to the 
proceedings on their behalf. 1 



i See Att.-Gen. 0. Parkhurst, 1 Ch. Cas. 
112; Att.-Gen. v. Wool rich, id. 153; Att-Gen. 
9. Tyler, 1 Dick. 378; 2 Eden, 230; Norcom v. 
Rogers, 16 N. J. Eq. 484. 

9 Att-Gen. v. Howe, Ld. Red. 30, n. (m). 

8 Liney v. Wetherley, Ld. Red. 30, n. (n) ; 
Light v. Light, 25 Beav. 248; West v. Davis, 
Rolls, 1863, W. No. 83 ; and see post, Chap. 
III. § 7, Idiots and Lunatic* {Plaintiff*). 
Infra, 86, n. 1. 

« Att.-Gen. v. Tyler, 1 Dick. 378; 2 Eden, 
230; Ridler v. Ridler, Eq. Cas. Ab. 279. See 
Story Eq. PI. § 64; Gorham v. Gorham, 3 Barb. 
Ch. R. 24. 

* Att.-Gen. v. Parkhurst, 1 Ch. Cas. 112; 
Att.-Gen. v. Wool rich, id. 153. 

• Ridler r. Ridler, 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 279, pi. 5; 
and see Totbill, 130. See infra 83. 

t Norcom v. Rogers, 16 N. J. Eq. 484. 
Under the 16 & 17 Vic. c. 70, the custody of 
the estate is usually committed to the commit- 
tee by an order of the Lord Chancellor or 
Lords Justices, which, however, by § 63, has 
the same force and validity as a grant under 
the Great Seal. For form of order, see Elmer's 
Prac. 126. 

8 



* Att.-Gen. v. Woolrich, 1 Ch. Cas. 153; 
and see post, Chap. III. § 7, Idiots and Luna- 
tics (Plaintiffs). The powers conferred upon 
the Attorney-General and Commissioners by 
59 Geo. III. c. 91, continued by 2 & 3 Will. IV. 
c. 57, § 11, to institute proceedings concerning 
charities, were practically superseded by *' The 
Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1869/' 16 & 17 
Vic. c. 137; 18 & 19 Vic. c. 124; 23 & 24 Vic. 
c. 136; 25 & 26 Vic. c. 112; 32 & 33 Vic. c. 
110. See port, Chap. XXXVIII. As to the mar- 
riage laws of England and. proceedings there- 
under, see 4 Geo. IV. c. 76 ; 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 85 ; 
1 Vic. c. 22; 3 & 4 Vic. c. 72 ; 19 & 20 Vic. c. 
119; 12 & 13 Vic. c. 68, $ 15; 24 & 25 Vic. c. 
100, $ 53; 36 & 37 Vic. c. 66, § 34 (2); R. S. C. 
Ord. 1. 1 ; Att.-Gen. v. Willshire, W. N. (1875) 
182; Same v. Severne, 1 Col. 313 ; 8 Jur. 595; 
9 Jur. 574; Same v. Lucas, 2 Hare, 566; 2 
Phil. 753; Same v. Teat her, 29 W. R. 347; 
Same v. Wareing, 28 W. R. 623 ; Same v. 
Akers, W.N. (1872)45; 2 Seton, 768; Same 
v. Clements, L. R. 12 Eq. 32; Same v. Read, 
id. 38; Same v. Mullay, 4 Rosa. 829; 7 Beav. 
351. 



THE QUEEN'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 



10 



In all cases of suits which immediately concern the rights of the 
Crown, its officers proceed upon their own authority, without the inter- 
vention of any other person ; * (a) but where the suit does not immedi- 



* Ld. Red. 22, Att-Gen. v. Vernon, 1 Vera. 
277, 370; Att.-Gen. v. Crofts, 1 Bro. P. C. ed. 
Toml. 136. 

The Attorney-General cannot bring a bill or 
information to redress a private wrong , as, for 
example, to restrain a city council from mak- 
ing a water-rate merely nominal, under a 
statute which required the revenues to be 



(a) As to informations against purprettvres, 
or intrusions and encroachments upon the 
Sovereign's rights in tide lands, and public 
nuisances, see Att.-Gen. v. Richards, 2 Anst 
603; Same v. Burridge, 10 Price, 350; Same v. 
Parmenter, id. 378, 412; Same v. Terry, L. R. 
9 Ch. 423; Same v. London, 18 L. J. Ch. 314; 
Same v. Chambers. 4 De Gex & J. 55 ; Same v. 
Johnson, 2 Wils. Ch. 87 ; Same v. Chamberlaine, 
4 K. & J. 292; Glossop v. Heston Local Board, 
12 Ch. D. 102 ; A.-G. v. Tomline, id. 214; Same 
*. Shrewsbury Bridge Co. 21 Ch. D. 752; Same 
r. Williamson, 60 L. T. 930; Pennsylvania v. 
Wheeling Bridge Co. 18 How. 518; 13 id. 518; 
United States v. Pittsburgh &c. R. Co. 26 Fed. 
Rep. 113; Story, £q. Jur. § 921. As to penalties, 
see Att.-Gen. v. Bradlaugh, 14 Q. B. D. 667. 

In the earlier periods of the English law 
the Sovereign doubtless sued as did the subject, 
by the same writ, " by his attorney," and with 
the same process and incidents; and even at 
the present day, the right of the Crown in 
England is not limited to informations, but 
extends to the bringing of an action in the ordi- 
nary sense. See Bradlaugh v. Clarke, 8 App. 
Cas. 354, 375; Dixon v. Fairer, 17 Q. B. D. 
658. The Exchequer Division in England now 
ha* all the powers formerly possessed by the 
Court of Exchequer respecting the revenue, un- 
affected by the Judicature Acts. Att.-Gen. v. 
Constable, 4 Ex. D. 172. 

The Attorney-General may maintain an in- 
formation in Equity to restrain a corporation, 
exercising the right of eminent domain under 
legislative authority, from so abusing or per- 
verting its powers as to create a public nui- 
aance or endanger public interests. Agar v. 
Regent's Canal Co. Cooper temp. Eld on, 77; 
Att.-Gen. v. Great Northern Ry. 1 Dr. & Sm. 
154; Att.-Gen. v. Mid-Kent Ry. L. R. 3 Ch. 
100; Alt -Gen. v. Leeds Corp. L. R. 5 Ch. 583; 
Att.-Gen. v. Great Eastern Rv. Co. 11 Ch. D. 
449; 5 App. Cas. 473: Att.-Gen. v. Great 
Northern Ry. 4 De G. & Sm. 75; Att-Gen. 
v. Leeds, 18 W. R. 517: Nuneaton Local Board 
9. General Sewage Co. L. R. 20 Eq. 127; 
Att-Gen. v. Shrewsbury Bridge Co. 21 Ch. D. 
752; Coosaw Mining Co. v. South Carolina, 
144 U. 8. 550; People v. Ballard (N. Y.), 32 



appropriated to keep down the interest on the 
debt created for the erection of the waterworks, 
and to the creation of a sinking-fund to meet 
the principal. Att.-Gen. v. Salem, 103 Mass. 
140. Or, to restrain a private trading corpora- 
tion from doing acts not authorized by its 
charter. Att-Gen. v. Tudor Ice Co. 104 Mass. 
239. 



N. E. Rep. 54; Att-Gen. v. Cohoes, 6 Paige, 
133; Att.-Gen. v. Cambridge, 16 Gray, 247; 
Att.-Gen. v. Tudor Ice Co. 104 Mass. 239, 
Att.-Gen. v. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct, 183 Mass. 
361. 

But this remedy does not preclude an 
individual from maintaining a suit at law or 
in Equity founded upon injury to his private 
property. Attorney-General v. Logan (1891), 
2 Q. B. 100: 65 L. T. 162; Hart v. Jamaica 
Pond Aqueduct, 133 Mass. 488. The Attor- 
ney-General, when suing, either ex officio or at 
the relation of a private individual, to restrain 
a railway company or public body from trans- 
gressing . statutory powers, or to enforce the 
terms of an express enactment, is not required 
to prove that the public suffers injur}- from the 
act complained of. Att-Gen. v. Cockermouth 
Local Board, L. R. 18 Eq. 173. See Same t>. 
Oxford &c. Ry. Co. 2 W. R. 330; Same v. 
Great Eastern Ry. Co. 11 Ch. D. 449; 5 App. 
Cas. 473. The information may be granted 
with costs, when such illegal acts tend to 
injure the public, although no evidence of 
actual injury is given. Att.-Gen. *. Shrews- 
bury Bridge Co. 21 Ch. D. 752. As to his 
proceeding to restrain the opening of railways 
ordered to be postponed by the Board of Trade 
in England, see 5 & 6 Vic. c. 55, § 6; 7 & 8 
Vic. c. 85, §§ 17, 18; Att.-Gen. v. Great West- 
ern &c. Ry. Co. 4Ch. D. 735; Same v. Same, 
L. R. 7 Ch. 767, 770; Same v. Birmingham 
&c. Ry. Co. 4 De G. & S. 490 j Same v. Great 
Northern Ry. Co. 1 Dr. & Sm. 154, 162; 6 Jur. 
1006. In England an action may by amend- 
ment be changed to an information and action 
without prejudice to a pending motion in the 
action, the Attorney-General's sanction being 
obtained. Caldwell v. Pagham H. R. Co. 2 
Ch. D 221. 

In Massachusetts informations in Equity in 
the name of the Attorney-General are, apart 
from statute, sustained in only two classes of 
cases : — 

1st. Those of public nuisances which affect 
or endanger the public safety or convenience, 
and require immediate judicial interposition, 
like obstructions of highways, public landings, 
and navigable waters. District Attorney a 

9 



10 



PERSONS BT WHOM A SUIT MAT BE INSTITUTED. 



ately concern the rights of the Crown, they generally depend upon the 
relation of some person whose name is inserted in the information, and 



Lynn & Boston R. Co. 16 Gray, 242; Att- 
G-en. v. Cambridge, id. 247; Att-Gen v. Boston 
Wharf Co. 12 Gray, 558; Att.-Gen. v. Tudor 
Ice Co. 104 Mass. 239; Att.-Gen. v. Tarr, 148 
Mass. 809. See Alt-Gen. v. Gardiner, 117 
Mass. 329; Att-Gen. t>. Williams, 140 Mass. 
329; People v. Beaudry (Cal.), 27 Pac. 610, 
Att.-Gen. v. Brown, 24 N. J. Eq. 89; Hunt v. 
Chicago Horse Ry. Co. 121 111. 638; 20 III. 
App. 282; United States, v. Pittsburgh &c. R. 
Co. 26 Fed. Rep. 113. Such an information 
lies against a quasi public corporation to re- 
strain acts which are ultra vires and illegal, 
impair public rights in waters reserved for 
public uses, and injure the public health. Att- 
Gen. o. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct, 138 Mass. 
361. See Hart v. Same, id. 488; Att-Gen. v. 
Revere Copper Co. 152 Mass. 444; Att.-Gen. 
v. Hane, 50 Mich. 447; State t>. Paris Ry. Co. 
55 Texas, 76. In cases of public nuisance, the 
Attorney-General may proceed at the relation 
of any person, though such person does not reside 
near it and is not interested in the property. 
Att-Gen. r. Basingstoke, 24 W. R. 817. A 
local board may in England act as relators in a 
suit brought by the Attorney-General. Att- 
Gen. t>. Logan (1891), 2 Q. B.100. 

2d. Those of trusts for charitable purposes, 
where the beneficiaries are so numerous and 
indefinite that the breach of trust cannot be 
effectively redressed except by suit in behalf of 
the public. County-Attorney v. May, 5 Cosh. 
886; Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 589; Att- 
Gen. o. Garrison, 101 Mass. 228. In these cases 
the Attorney-General alone, without a relator, 
may represent those beneficially interested. 
Burbank v. Burbank, 152 Mass. 254; State v. 
Benningham (Wis.), 51 N. W. Rep. 724. 

Informations have also been held maintainable 
for other purposes: as to prevent the perversion 
of public funds, People v. Tweed, 13 Abb. Pr. 
N. S. 25, 152 (overruled in People v. Ingersoll, 
58 N. T. 1), see Att.-Gen. v. Detroit, 26 Mich. 
268 ; or to prevent the discontinuance of a public 
market, Att-Gen. v. Detroit, 71 Mich. 92, see 
Att-Gen. v. Horner, 14 Q. B. D. 222, State v. 
Dayton & S. £. R. Co. 36 Ohio St. 434; but 
not apparently to remedy maladministrations 
in office by trustees or executors. People v. 
Simonson, 126 N. Y. 299. 

An Information in the nature of scire facias 
lies by the government to annul letters-patent 
for an invention obtained by fraud : Mowry v. 
Whitney, 14 Wall. 434; Celluloid Manuf. Co. 
v. Goodyear D. V. Co. 18 Blatch. 375 ; New 
York &c. Pol. Co. v. New York C. P. Co. 9 
Fed. Rep. 587 ; United States v. Gunning, 18 id. 
511; or a patent for land so obtained, U. S- *. 
San Jacinto Tin Co. 125 U. S. 273; or in the 

10 



nature of a bill of discovery and account where 
no bond for duties is given, or where such 
bond is lost or destroyed. U. S. v. Lyman, 1 
Mason, 182; Walsh v. U. S. 3 Wood. & M. 
841. Informations in Equity do not lie to 
impeach collaterally the title to office of the 
board of police of a city appointed by the 
Governor, the proper remedy being by an in- 
formation in the nature of a quo warranto, 
Prince v. Boston, 148 Mass. 285; or to restrain a 
private trading corporation from doing acts not 
authorized by its charter, or at the relation of 
an individual to protect his private interests by 
restraining a corporation from further use of its 
powers and the usurpation of public franchises 
not its own: Kenney t>. Consumers* Gas Co. 
142 Mass. 417; Boston Rubber Shoe Co. v. 
Boston Rubber Co. 149 Mass. 486; Att.-Gen. v. 
Salem, 103 Mass. 138; Att.-Gen. v. Tudor lee 
Co. 104 Mass. 239; Reed t>. Cumberland & O. 
Canal Co. 65 Maine, 132; People v. Ingersoll, 
58 N. Y. 1; Com'th v. Arrison, 15 Serg. & 
R. 127; Att.-Gen. v. Moliter, 26 Mich. 444; 
Att.-Gen. v. Great Eastern Ry. Co. 11 Ch. 
D. 449; 5 App. Cas. 473; United States v. 
Union Pac. R. Co. 98 U. S. 569; Att-Gen. v. 
Utica Ins. Co. 2 John. Ch. 471; 20 Cinn. Law 
Bull. 287, 302; or for the redress of private in- 
juries. Ibid.; Att.-Gen. v. Evart Booming Co. 
34 Mich. 462; United States v. San Jacinto Tin 
Co. 125 U. S. 273; People v. Brooklyn &c. Ry. 
Co. 89 N. Y. 75; State v. Farmers' L. & T. 
Co. (Texas) 17 S. W. 60; State v. Kennedy, 
id. 67. An order will not be made upon an 
information to do an impossible act; and, in 
compelling the performance of public duties, if 
existing conditions are to be changed, the Court 
will consider the balance of convenience. Att- 
Gen. v. Dorking Guardians, 20 Ch. D. 595, 
Att.-Gen. t. Gas Light and Coke Co. 7 Ch. D. 
217; Same v. Acton Local Board, 22 Ch. D. 221 ; 
Charles v. Finchley Local Board, 23 Ch. D. 
767; Att-Gen. v. Clerkenwell Vestry (1891), 3 
Ch. 527; 65 L. T. 312; Hill v. Managers, 4 Q. 
B. D. 433. As to the employment of addi- 
tional counsel by the Attorney-General, see 
Julian v. State, 122 Ind. 68; State v. Mayes, 28 
Miss. 706; State v. Anderson, 29 La. An. 774; 
People v. Met Tel. Co. 64 How. Pr. 66; Att.- 
Gen. v. Continental Life Ins. Co. 88 N. Y. 571 ; 
People v. Met Tel. Co. 11 Abb. N. Cas. 304; 
People v. Mut Union Tel. Co. 2 Civ. Proc. Rep. 
295; Commonwealth v. Boston &c. R. Co. 3 
Cush. (Mass.) 25. As to his personal liability 
for the costs of an unsuccessful suit against a 
county, see State v. Marion County Com' re, 85 
Ind. 489. In a suit instituted by the trustees of 
a charity to obtain the instruction of the Court, 
the Attorney-General should be made a party 



THE QUEENS ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 



11 



who is termed the Relator.* This person in reality sustains and directs 
the suit, and he is considered as answerable to the Court and the parties 
for the propriety of the proceedings, and the conduct of them ; 4 but he 
cannot take any step in the cause in his own name, and independently of 
the Attorney-General.* Where, therefore, a notice of motion was given 
on behalf of a relator, it was held that the notice was irregular. 6 And 
where the relator was also plaintiff the Court refused to hear him in 
person on behalf of the Attorney-General. 7 

It sometimes happens that the relator has an interest in the matter in 
dispute, of an injury to which interest he is entitled to complain. In 
this case his personal complaint being joined to and incorporated 
with the information given to the Court by 'the * officer of the *11 
Crown, they form together an information and bill, and are so 
termed. In some respects they are considered as distinct proceedings ; 
and the Court will treat them as such, by dismissing the bill and retain- 
ing the information, even though the relief to be granted is different 
from that prayed. 1 Thus, where the record was both an information for 
a charity and a bill, and the whole of the relief specifically prayed was 
in respect of an alleged interest of the relator in the trust property, 
which he did not succeed in establishing, although the bill was dis- 
missed with costs, the information was retained for the purpose of regu- 
lating the charity.* It is, however, necessary that the person joined 
as plaintiff should have some individual interest in the relief sought ; 
and where persons were made plaintiffs who asked nothing for them- 
selves, and did not show that they were individually entitled to any- 
thing, a demurrer to the whole record was allowed ; but as there 
appeared to be a case for relief, leave to amend, for the purpose of 
converting the suit into an information only, was given, and the Court 
directed that the plaintiffs should remain on the record in the character 
of relators, in order that they might be answerable for costs. 8 

Although it is the general practice, where the suit immediately 
concerns the rights of the Crown, to proceed without a relator, yet 
instances have sometimes occurred where relators have been named. 
In such cases, however, it has been done through the tenderness of the 



* Ld. Red. 92; 1 Ves. Jr. 247, n. See Att- 
Gen. v. Proprietors of the Federal-street Meet- 
ing-house, 3 Gray, 1 ; Att-Gen. v. Merrimack 
Manuf. Co. 14 Gray, 586; Att-Gen. v. Con- 
sumers' Gas Co. 142 Mass. 417. 

* Ld. Red. 22; Att.-Gen. v. Vivian, 1 Ross. 
226,236. 

* Parker v. May, 5 Cosh. 387, per Shaw 
C J. ; see Commissioners v. Andrews, 10 Rich. 
Eq. (S. C.)4; State v. White's Creek Torn- 
pike Co. 3 Tenn. Ch. 163. As to the reten- 
tion of former procedure under the Sup. Ct. of 
Jod. Act, see 36 & 37 Vic. c. 66, § 23 ; 38 & 
39 Vic c. 77. 



defendant. Harvard College v. Society, 3 
Gray, 280; Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 539, 
579. In Illinois it is held that the Attorney- 



• Att.-Gen. v. Wright, 3 Beav. 447; and see 
Att.-Gen. v. Haberdashers' Co. 15 Beav. 397; 
Att.-Gen. v. Wyggeston's Hospital, 16 Beav. 
313; Att-Gen. v. Sherborne Grammar School, 
18 Beav. 256; 18 Jur. 636; Parker v. May, 5 
Cush. 336, 337. 

7 Att-Gen. «. Barker, 4 M. & C. 262. 

1 See Att.-Gen. v. Cockermouth Local 
Board, L. R. 18 Eq. 172. 

8 Att.-Gen. ». Vivian, 1 Ross. 226, 233, 
235; 2Swanst 215. 

• Att.-Gen. v. East India Co. 11 Sim. 380, 
386. 



General need not be a party when trustees of a 
charity are appointed by the donor. Newberry 
9. Blatchford, 106 111. 584. 

11 



12 



PERSONS BT WHOM A SUIT MAT BE INSTITUTED. 



officers towards the defendant, in order that the Court might award 
costs against the relator if the suit should appear to have been improp- 
erly conducted ; it being a prerogative of the Crown, except in 
*12 certain special cases, not to pay costs to a subject. 4 * The intro- 
duction of a relator is, however, in such actions, a mere act of 
favor on the part of the Crown and its officers, which, though usual, may 
be withheld; and upon the whole it seems that, although in cases of 
informations for charities the general and almost universal practice is 
to have a relator for the purpose of answering the costs, yet the rule 
is not imperative ; and the Attorney-General, as the officer of the Crown, 
may, in the exercise of his discretion, bring such an action without a 
relator. 1 (a) 



4 See 3 Bl. Com. 400; 2 Mad. Prin. & Pr. 
Ch. (3d Lond. ed.) 203 and note ; 1 Smith Ch. 
Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 99; Story, Eq. PI. § 8. That 
oppression may thus arise to defendants if no 
relator is named, see Att.-Gen. v. Fox, Ld. 
Red. 23 n. (g) y where their expenses almost 
equalled the value of the property. 

i See Re Bedford Charity, 2Swanst. 520; see 
contra, Att.-Gen. v. Oglender, 1 Yes. Jr. 264; 
Ld. Red. 99 ; and see Att.-Gen. v. Smart, 1 



(a) The relator in an information to enforce 
a charitable trust must pay the costs if his 
case discloses no merits. Strickland v. Wel- 
don, 28 Ch. D. 426; Att.-Gen. v. Butler, 123 
Mass. 504; Burbank v. Burbank, 152 Mass. 
254; post, p. 15. If there is no case for the 
public, the relator cannot have the informa- 
tion retained as a bill. Att.-Gen. v. Evart 
Booming Co. 34 Mich. 462; Wilson v. Shively, 
10 Oregon, 267, 276. See Thompson v. Thomp- 
son, 6 Houst. (Del.) 225. Conversely, if there 
is no private right or special damage, the 
sanction of the Attorney-General is necessary, 
and the suit must be treated as in the nature 
of an information. Wallasey Local Board v. 
Gracey, 36 Ch. D. 593; London Association 
v. London & India Docks Joint Committee 
(1892), 3 Ch. 242. The Attorney-Genera!, 
after assenting to the use of the State's name 
in an information in which the relator's interest 
preponderates, does not control the suit and 
cannot withdraw such assent to the relator's 
prejudice during its pendency. People v. 
North San Francisco Homestead Ass. 38 Cal. 
564; People v. Clark, 72 Cal. 289; People t>. 
Jacob (Cal.), 12 Pac. 222. See Hesing v. 
Att.-Gen. 104 III. 292; People v. Purviance, 
12 Brad. (111.), 216. In Att.-Gen. v. William- 
son, 60 L. T. 930, where, after considerable 
expense was incurred by the defendant to an 
information filed without a relator, he was 
informed that the Attorney-General did not 
intend to proceed, and moved to dismiss the 
information with costs, it was held that, as the 
salt had been determined, the Crown could 

12 



Ves. Sr. 72; Att.-Gen. v. Middleton, 2 Yes. 
Sr. 327; Att.-Gen. of the Duchy of Lancaster 
v. Heath, Prac. in Ch. 13. In proceedings 
under the 59 Geo. III. c 91, and 2 & 3 Will. 
IV. c. 57 (see ante, p. 9, n. 1), it was not the 
practice to have a relator. See also " The 
Charitable Trusts Act, 1853 " (16 & 17 Vic. 
c. 137), §§ 18, 20, 43. See, however Att.-Gen. 
v. Boucherett, 25 Beav. 116. 



not be ordered to pay the defendant's costs. 
A defect of parties, where a town is not joined, 
is not cured by the fact that a committee of 
the town are relators. Att.-Gen. v. Parker, 
126 Mass. 216. When proceedings by quo 
warranto are provided by statute against a 
private charitable corporation for misappro- 
priation of its funds, individual members of 
the association cannot maintain a bill in 
equity for redress and a receiver, although 
the Attorney-General refuses to be a plaintiff 
and is made a defendant. Tyree v. Bingham, 
100 Mo. 451. See Thompson v. Watson, 48 
Ohio St 552. The Attorney-General and re- 
lator will not be permitted to maintain con- 
flicting views on the same side of the case. 
Att.-Gen. v. Sherborne Grammar School, 18 
Beav. 256. But the former may act as counsel 
for defendants upon an information filed in 
his name by relators. Shore u Wilson, 9 
Ch. & Fin. 355. The objection that there is 
an adequate remedy at law has been held 
inapplicable to an information filed by the 
Attorney-General. Att.-Gen. v. Mayor of Gal- 
way, 1 Moll. 95. But see London v. Att.- 
Gen. 1 H. L. Cas. 440. In informations in 
cases of charity, the general prayer is usually 
sufficient to obtain any relief adapted to the 
case. Att.-Gen. v. Brooke, 18 Ves. 319. A 
prayer for the wrong relief will not prevent 
the granting of proper relief, if the Court 
decides to act at all. Att.-Gen. v. Smart. 1 
Yes. 72 ; Att.-Gen. v. Middleton, 2 Ves 327 ; 
Att.-Gen. v. Whiteley, 14 Yes. 241. 



THE QUEEN'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 



13 



With respect to suits by the Attorney -General on behalf of idiots and 
lunatics, it seems that it is not only necessary that the lunatic should be 
a party, but also that there should be a relator who may be responsible 
to the defendant for the costs. Thus where it appeared that the lunatic 
had been made the relator, the Court, on a motion being made that a 
responsible relator should be appointed, directed that all further pro- 
ceedings should be suspended until a proper person should be named as 
relator in his stead. 2 

■ * Any person who is not under any of the legal disabilities after *13 
mentioned may be a relator ; l but a written authority, signed by 
him, permitting his name to be used, must be filed with the information. 2 
A corporate body may be a relator * or a relator and plaintiff. 4 

It has not been deemed necessary that relators should be interested 
in the charities concerning which they institute proceedings ; ft and the 
Court was in the habit, in the times when a much stricter system of 
practice prevailed than at present, of relaxing several of its rules on 
behalf of charities. Thus, where the relief sought was erroneous and 
refused, the Court still took care to make such decree as would best 
answer the purposes of the charities. 6 (a) 



s Att.-Gen. v. Tyler, 2 Eden, 230; Ld. Red. 
29, n. (J); and see S. C. at hearing, 1 Dick. 
378. 

1 Smith Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 99. 

* 15 & 16 Vic. c. 86, § 11; see now R. S. C. 
1883, Ord. XVI. 20. For form of authority, 
see Vol. IIL In an injunction case, the 
authority was allowed to be filed the day 
after the information. Att-Gen. v. Murray, 
13 W. R. 65, V. C. K. Where the solicitor 
had given the relator an indemnity against 
the costs, the information was ordered off the 
file, with costs to be paid by the relator and 
solicitor. Att.-Gen. v. Skinners' Co. C. P. 
Coop. 7. The authority may be dispensed 
with in informations under the 4 Geo. IV. 
c. 76, § 23; Att.-Gen. v. Wiltshire, W. N. 
(1875) 182, V. C H , and see as to retention 
of existing procedure, Sup. Ct. of Judic. Act, 
1873 (36 & 37 Vic. c. 66), § 23, and same of 
1875 (38 & 39 Vic. c. 77, § 21). 

• See Att-Gen. v. Wilson, C. & P. 1; Att.- 
Gen. v. Cambridge Consumers' Gas Co. L. R. 
6 Eq. 282; L. R. 4 Ch. 71; Att-Gen. v. Cocker- 
mouth Local Board, L. R. 18 Eq. 172; Att.- 
Gen. v. Colney Hatch Asylum, L. R. 4 Ch. 



149; Att.-Gen. v. Basingstoke, 45 L. J. Ch. 
726. 

* See Att.-Gen. v. Conservators of the 
Thames, 1 H. & M. 1; 8 Jur. N. S. 1203; 
Att.-Gen. v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 
1 H. & M. 298; Att.-Gen. v. Green hill, 33 
Bear. 193; 9 Jur. N. S. 1307, Att.-Gen. v. 
Mayor of Kiugston-on-Thames, 11 Jur. N. S. 
596; 13 W. R. 880, V. C. W.; Att.-Gen. v. 
Richmond, L. R. 2 Eq. 306; 12 Jur. N. S. 544, 
V. C. W.; Att.-Gen. v. Great Eastern Ry. Co., 
L. R. 6 Ch. 572, L. C. 

* Att-Gen. v. Vivian, 1 Russ. 226, 236. 
See, however, Att.-Gen. v. Bucknall, 2 Atk. 
328; South Molton v. Att.-Gen. 5 H. L. Cas. 
1; Re Poplar & Blackwall Free School, 8 Ch. 
D. 543. 

6 Att.-Gen. v. Jeanes, 1 Atk. 355; Att.- 
Gen. v. Bucknall, 2 Atk. 328; Att.-Gen. v. 
Whiteley, 11 Ves. 241, 247; Att.-Gen. v. 
Oglender, 1 Ves. Jr. 246 ; Att.-Gen. v. Middle- 
ton, 2 Ves. Sr. 327; Att-Gen. r. Brereton, id. 
425; Att-Gen. v. Mayor of Stamford, 2 Swanst. 
591 ; Att-Gen. t>. Parker, 1 Ves. Sr. 43; 3 Atk. 
576. 



(a) Re St. Stephens, 39 Ch. D 492; Hoare 
9. Hoare, 56 L. T. 147 ; Biscoe v. Jackson, 35 
Ch. D. 460; Re Ovey, Broadbent v. Barrow, 29 
Ch. D. 560; Darcyv. Kelley, 153 Mass. 433. 
The mode of administration or execution is not 
strictly of the substance of the gift. Bfscoe v. 
Jackson, 35 Ch. D. 460. The jurisdiction to 
act on the ey prkt doctrine upon the failure of a 
specific charitable bequest arises whether the 
residue is given to a chanty or not, unless a 
can be implied from the will that the 



bequest, if it fails, should go to the charity. 
Mayor of Lyons v. Advocate-General of Bengal, 
1 App. Cas. 91. See Andrews v. McGuffog, 11 
App. Cas. 313; Pocock v. Att.-Gen. 3 Ch. 
D. 342; Biscoe v. Jackson, 85 Ch. D. 460; 
Willoughby v. Storer, 22 L. T. 896. Under 
this doctrine the Court may order a fund, be- 
queathed to be expended for a charity abroad, 
to be paid to a committee resident in the coun- 
try on their undertaking to apply it to the gen 
eral purposes of another similar charity in the 

13 



♦14 



PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAT BE INSTITUTED. 



It appears, on reference to the old cases, that where a relator himself 

claims an interest in the subject-matter of the suit, and proceeds 

♦14 by bill as well as by information, making himself both * plaintiff 

and relator, the suit abates by his death. Where, however, the 

suit is merely an information, the proceedings can only abate by the 

death or determination of interest of the defendant. 1 

If there are several relators, who are also plaintiffs, the death of any 
of them, while there survives one, will not in any degree affect the suit ; 
but if all the relators die, or if there is but one, and that relator dies, the 
suit is not abated. It is, however, irregular for the solicitors of a relator 
to proceed in a charity information after the death of the relators or of 
a sole relator ; and the Court will not permit any further proceedings 
till an order has been obtained for liberty to insert the name of a new 
relator, and such name is inserted accordingly ; otherwise there would 
be no person to pay the costs of the suit, in case the information should 
be deemed improper, or for any other reason should be dismissed. 8 
Where a relator dies, the application for leave to name a new relator 
should be made by the Attorney-General, or with his consent, and 
not by the defendant ; otherwise the defendant might choose his own 
prosecutor.* 

With respect to informations on behalf of idiots and lunatics, it seems 
that it is not only necessary that the lunatic should be a party, but also 
that there should be a relator who may be responsible to the defendant 
for the costs of the suit. Thus, in the case of the Attorney-General v. 
Tyler, mentioned in the note to Lord Bedesdale's Treatise, 4 it appears 



i Waller v. Hanger, 2 Bulst. 134; Ld. Red. 
100. See R. S. C. Ord. L. 

* LcL Red. 100, Att.-Gen. v. Haberdashers' 
Co. 15 Beav. 397, 16 Jur. 717. 

» Ld. Red. 100, n. (e) Att.-Gen. «. Harvey, 



1 Jur. N. S. 1062; AtL-Gen. v. Plumtree, ft 
Mad. 452; 2 Mad. Prin. & Pr. Ch. (3d Lond. 
ed.) 203, 204. 

* Ld. Red. 29; 2 Eden, 230. 



foreign country designated. Re Davis's Trusts, 
61 L. T. 430. If an institution, to which a 
charitable bequest is made, comes to an end 
after the testator's death, and before payment 
of the legacy, there Is no lapse, but the legacy, 
failing to be administered by the Crown, will 
usually be applied to charitable purposes. In 
re Slevin, Slevin «. Hepburn (1891), 2 Ch. 236; 
64 L. T. 311. See Biscoe v. Jackson, 35 Ch. D. 
460, 55 L. T. 607; 35 W. R. 152,- Pease v. 
Pattinson, 32 Ch. D. 154. If the object of a 
charitable bequest is definite and wholly fails, 
the bequest cannot be carried out cy pret. In 
re Taylor, Martin a Freeman, 58 L T. 538; 
Re White's Trust, 33 Ch. D. 449. In New 
York, the doctrine of cy pre*, upholding chari- 
table gifts when no beneficiary is named, is not 
recognized. Tilden v. Green, 130 N. T. 29. 
After a formal application once made for a 
scheme, under the English Charitable Trust 
Act of I860, the jurisdiction of the Charity 
Commissioners attaches absolutely to the charity 
and cannot be ousted by withdrawing the ap- 
plication before the scheme Is completed and 

14 



sealed. In re Poor's Lands Charity (1891), 3 
Ch. 400. An unauthorized cy pre* application 
of charity funds by trustees, though long-con- 
tinued, is no ground of objection to a new au- 
thorized application Rt Campden Charities, 
18 Ch. D. 310; 24 id. 218. See Re Browne's 
Hospital v. Stamford, 60 L. T. 288. If two 
charities are administered for the same object, 
such as maintaining a school, the funds of one 
chanty may be applied under the Court's sanc- 
tion to the discharge of a mortgage upon prop- 
erty belonging to the other charity. Cockburn 
v. Raphael, W N. (1891) 14. The rule against 
perpetuities does not apply to a transfer, in a 
certain event, of property from one charity to 
another Christ's Hospital t>. Grainger. 1 Mac. 
& G. 460; In re Tyler, Tyler •. Tyler (1891), 
8 Ch. 252; 65 L. f. 367; In re Randell, Ran- 
dell v. Dixon, 38 Ch. D. 218. An advowaon is 
not an exception to the general law as te 
charitable trusts. Re St. Stephen's, 89 Ch. D. 
492, considering the dicta in Att-Gen. v. 
Parker, supra. 



THE QUEEN'S ATTOBNEY-GENEBAL. 



15 



that the lunatic had been made the relator, but that on a motion being 
made that a responsible relator should be appointed, Lord Northington 
directed that all further proceedings in the cause should be suspended, 
until a proper person should be named as relator in his stead. This 
appears to be the cause reported in Mr. Dickens's Reports/ in which, 
upon the hearing, it was objected that the lunatic was not a party to 
the suit, although he was named as relator. 

The object in requiring that there should be a relator in informations 
exhibited on the part of the Attorney-General, is, as we have seen, 6 
that there may be some person answerable for the costs, in case they 
should have been improperly filed. Thus, where the information was 
held to have been unnecessary, and in contradiction to the right, 
the costs were ordered to be paid by the relator. 7 But where * the *15 
relator insisted upon a particular construction of the will of the 
person by whom the charity was founded, and in which there was con- 
siderable ambiguity, although he failed in satisfying the Court that his 
construction was the right one, and the information was consequently 
dismissed, the Court did not make him liable to the costs of the defend- 
ant ; it refused, however, to permit the costs to be paid out of the funds 
of the charity. 1 And in general, where an information prays a relief 
which is not granted, but the Court thinks proper to make a decree 
according to the merits, so that the information is shown to have had a 
foundation, the relator will not be ordered to pay the costs. 8 

Where relators conduct themselves properly, and their conduct has 
been beneficial to the charity, they are usually allowed their costs ; * and 
it seems that on the principle that otherwise people would not come 
forward to institute proceedings on behalf of charities, relators, where 
there is nothing to impeach the propriety of the suit, will, upon obtain- 
ing a decree for the charity, be allowed their costs as between solicitor 
and client, the difference between the amount of such costs and the 
amount of the costs which may be recovered by the defendants, being 
charged upon the fund recovered by the information, or on the estate 
which is the subject of the suit ; 4 and that in special cases the relators 
may be allowed their charges and expenses, in addition to the costs of 
the suit as between solicitor and client, but such cases must depend 
upon their peculiar circumstances, which must be brought forward and 
established by evidence. 1 But where they incurred expenses without 
the sanction of the Court or Master, in obtaining information for the 
purpose of preparing a scheme, they were only allowed their expenses 



* Ante, p. 9. 

* Ante, p. 12. 

i Att.-Gen. v. Smart, 1 Yes. Sr. 72; Att- 
Gen. «. Parker, 3 Atk. 570, 576; 1 Ves. Sr. 43. 

* Att.-Gen. v. Oglender, 1 Ves. Jr. 246. 

* Att.-Gen. v. Bolton, 3 AnsU 820; see Att- 
Gen. v. Hartley, 2 J. & W. 353. 

* Beames on Costs, 14; Att.-Gen. v. Brewers* 
Co. 1 P. Wms. 376. 

« Att.-Gen. v. Kerr, 4 Beav. 297, 303; Att- 
Gen. «. Taylor, cited in Osborne v. Denne, 7 



Yes. 424; see also id. 425; Art. -Gen. v. Carte, 
1 Dick. 113; Beames on Costs, App. No. 2. 
229; Moggridge v. Thackwell, 7 Yes. 36, 88; 
affirmed by H. L., see 13 Yes. 416 ; but see Att- 
Gen. v. Fishmongers' Co. 1 Keen, 492, where 
party and party costs only were allowed. For 
form of order for costs, see 1 Seton, 554, 555. 

* Att.-Gen. v. Kerr, 4 Beav. 297, 303; Rt 
Dulwich College, L. B. 15 Eq. 294, M. R.; bat 
see Att.-Gen. v. Skinners' Co. Jac. 629; Att*- 
Gen. 9. Manchester, 3 L. J. Ch. 64. 

15 



♦16 



PERSONS BT WHOM A SUIT MAT BB INSTITUTED. 



actually out of pocket ; fl and where a petition would have done, instead 

of an information, the relators were refused their costs. 7 
# 16 * As the principal object in having a relator is, that he may be 

answerable for the costs of the proceedings, in case the informa- 
tion shall appear to have been improperly instituted or conducted, it 
follows, as a matter of course, that such relator must .be a person of 
substance; and if it is made to appear to the Court that the relator is 
not a responsible person, all further proceedings in the information 
will be stayed, till a proper person shall be named as relator. 1 

An information by the Attorney-General without a relator cannot be 
dismissed for want of prosecution; it is his privilege to proceed in what 
way he thinks proper; but an information in his name by a relator, is 
subject to be dismissed for want of prosecution with costs. *(a) 

It has been said that, as the Sovereign, by reason of his prerogative, 
does not pay costs to a subject, so it is beneath his dignity to receive 
them ; but many instances occur, in the course of practice, in which the 
Attorney -General receives costs. Thus, in the case of successful pro- 
ceedings with respect to charities, the Attorney-General will usually be 
allowed his costs as between solicitor and client,* and in special cases 
his charges and expenses in addition; 4 and where collusion is suspected 
between the defendants and the relators, the Attorney-General attends 
by a distinct solicitor, and always receives his costs. 5 The Attorney- 
General also constantly receives costs where he is made a defendant in 
respect of legacies given to charities ; 6 where he is made a defendant 
in respect of the immediate rights of the Grown in cases of intestacy; 
and in charity suits, costs have been frequently awarded to the Attorney- 
General in interlocutory matters, independently of the relator. 7 And 



• Att-Gen. v. Ironmongers' Co. 10 Beav. 
194, 196. 

7 Att.-Gen. v. Berry, 11 Jar. 114; see Re 
Poplar & Blackwall Free School, 8 Ch. D. 543. 

i Att.-Gen. v. Tyler, 2 Eden, 230; see also 
Att.-Gen. v. Knight, 3 M. & C. 154. It is pre- 
sumed that the same rules, for determining 
who is a " person of substance," apply here as 
in the case of next friends of married women ; 
as to whom, see post, Chap. III. § 8. There 
is a reported case in which a relator was re- 
quired to give security for costs, see Att.-Gen. 
«. Skinners* Co. C. P. Coop. 1, 5; and see 
Att.-Gen. v. Knight, 3M.&C 154. 

a In the Court of Exchequer the order was 
that the defendant may go without a day, upon 
paying his costs to be taxed. 1 Fowler, 104. 

• Moggridge v. Thackwell, 1 Yes. 475 ; 7 Yes. 



36, 88; affirmed by H. L., 13 Yes. 416; Mills 
v. Farmer, 19 Yes. 480; 1 Mer. 104; Att.-Gen. 
o. Lord Ashburnham, 1 S. & S. 394. 

4 Re Dulwich College, L. R. 15 Eq. 294, 
H. R.; and see Att.-Gen. v. Kerr, 4 Beav. 297, 
303. For form of orders, see 1 Seton, 554, 
Nos. 11, 12. 

* For form of order for costs of Attornev- 
General appearing separately from relators, see 
Att.-Gen. v. Wyggeston Hospital, 2 June, 1855, 
A. 1024; 1 Seton (3d ed.), 351, No. 13. 

• Moggridge v. Thackwell, 7 Yes. 36, 88; 
Mills v. Farmer, 19 Yes. 483,490; 1 Mer. 55, 
104; Att.-Gen. v. Lewis, 8 Beav. 179. 

7 See Att.-Gen. v. Lord Ashburnham, 1 S. 
& S. 394, 397 ; See, however, Burney v. Mac- 
donald, 15 Sim. 6, 16. 



(a) As to the power of the Attorney-General 
to compromise suits relating to charities, see 
Att.-Gen. v. Boncherett, 25 Beav. 116; Att.- 
Gen. v. Fishmongers* Co. C. P. C 85 ; An- 
drews o. Merchant Tailors' Co. 7 Yes. 223; 
8. C. nam. Andrews v. Trinity Hall, 9 Yes. 
525. Upon substantial grounds the Court 
may, from time to time, upon the application 

16 



of the Attorney-General, or with his consent, 
alter the scheme of a charity as settled by its 
previous decree. Att-Gen. v. Bishop of Wor- 
cester, 9 Hare, 328; Att.-Gen. v. St. John's 
Hospital, L. R. 1 Ch. 92; Re Browne's Hos- 
pital v. Stamford, 60 L. T. 288; Att.-Gen. v. 
Stewart, L. R. 14 Eq. 17; see Re Bradford 
Sohool of Industry, W. N. (1893) 60. 



FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND STATES. 



18 



it would appear that the principle that the Attorney-General never 
receives or pays costs may be modified in this way, namely, that the 
Attorney -General never receives costs in a contest in which he could 
have been called upon to pay them, had he been a private individual. 8 
Provision was, however, made by the 18 & 19 Vic. c. 90, for the 
payment of costs by or to the Crown, in proceedings instituted, after 
the passing of that Act, on its behalf; and by the Customs Inland 
Revenue and Savings Bank Act, 1877, 9 in all proceedings at the suit 
of the Crown under the Customs Act, the same rule as to costs is to be 
observed as in proceedings between subject and subject in matters 
relating to the revenue. 10 

In an action by the Attorney-General without a relator, costs may be 
ordered to be paid by one defendant to another defendant; and where 
in a charity case some of the defendants supported the contention of 
the Attorney-General, they were allowed their costs ad between solici- 
tor and client, to be taxed and paid out of the fund; such costs as 
between party and party to be repaid by the defendants who opposed 
the proceedings. 11 

In a suit by the Crown to restrain the construction of a tramway, 
the Court refused to grant an interim injunction, except upon the terms 
of the usual undertaking as to damages being given by the Crown. 18 



* Section II. — Foreign Governments and States. 



17 



It is now settled that a foreign sovereign or State can sue in 
the municipal Courts of Great Britain. 1 * It seems, however, that *18 



• Att.-Gen. v. London, 9 M'N. & G. 247, 
869, 271, 273; 12 Beav. 171, M. R., and on 
demurrer in H. L., 1 H. L. Cas. 471, and Lord 
Cottenham's comments on this case, 2 M'N. & 
G. 271; Att.-Gen. v. Drapers' Co. 4 Beav. 305; 
Ware v. Cumberlege, 20 Beav. 510; Kane v. 
Maule, 2 Sm. & G. 331; S. C. on appeal, 
aon. Kane v. Reynolds, 4 De G. M. & G. 565, 
569; 1 Jar. N. S.148. 

• 40 & 41 Vic. c. 13, § 5. 

» Att.-Gen. t>. Hanmer, 4 De G. & J. 205 ; 
5 Jar. N. 8. 693; Att-Gen. v. Sittingbourne 
&c. Ry. Co. 35 Beav. 268, 272; L. R. 1 Eq. 
636, 640 ; and see Bauer v. Mitford, 9 W. R. 
135. For form of order see 1 Seton, 556, 
No. 17; see also 24 & 25 Vic. c. 92, § 1, m 
cases as to succession duty. 

u Att.-Gen. v. Chester, 14 Beav. 338; Att- 
Gen. v. Mercers' Co. 18 W. R. 448, V. C J. 

u Secretary of State for War «. Chubb, 43 
L. T. 83, M. R. As to the Attorney-General 
of the Queen Consort, see 39 & 40 Geo. III. 
c 88, §§ 8, 9 ; 1 Bl. Com. 220; Ld. Red. 24, 99; 
36 & 87 Vic. c. 66, $ 23; 38 & 39 Vic. c. 77, 
f 21. As to a Queen Dowager, see Att.-Gen. 
«. Tarrington, Hardres, 219. As to the Attor- 
ney-General to the Prince of Wales, see Att.- 
Gen. v. St Anbyn, Wightw. 167 ; Att.-Gen. 

TOL. I. — 2 



v. Plymouth, id. 134; Att.-Gen. v. Lambe, 11 
Beav. 213; Att.-Gen. v. Crossman, L. R. 1 Ex. 
381 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 712. The Princess of Wales 
may sue, during coverture, by her next fnend. 
Princess of Wales v. Lord Liverpool, 1 Swanst. 
114. 

1 King of Spain v. Machado, 4 Russ. 225,. 
236; Hullett e. King of Spain, 2 Bligb, N. S. 
31; S C. 7 Bligh, N. S. 359; 1 CI. & Fin. 
333 ; see also City of Berne v. Bank of Eng- 
land, 9 Ves. 347; Dolder v. Bank of England,. 
10 Ves. 352; Dolder v. Lord Hnntingfield, 11 
Ves. 283 ; King of the Two Sicilies v. Willcox, . 
1 Sim. N. S. 301, 332; 15 Jur. 215; United! 
States v. Prioleau, 2 H. & M. 559; 11 Jur.. 
N. S. 792; United States v. Wagner, L. R. 
8 Eq. 724; S. C. L. R. 2 Ch. 582; Prioleau v. 
United States, L. R. 2 Eq. 659; United State* 
v. McRea, L. R. 3 Ch. 79; L. R. 4 Eq. 327. 
See Barclay v. Russell, 3 Ves. Jr. 424, 431 , 
see also Nabob of the Carnatic v. East India* 
Co. 1 Ves. Jr 371 ; 2 id. 56; Duke of Bruns- 
wick v. King of Hanover, 6 Bear. 1; 2 H. L. 
Cas. 1; King of Hanover e. Wheatley, 4 Beav. 
78; Musgrave v. Pulido, 5 App. Cas. 102. 

The doctrine that the sovereign of one State 
may maintain a suit in the Courts of Equity 
of another State, is now established in affinn- 

17 



18 



PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY BE INSTITUTED. 



this right of suit is confined to those cases in which it is sought to 
enforce the private rights of such sovereign or State, or of the subjects 
thereof; 1 and that the infringement of his prerogative rights does riot 
constitute a ground of suit. 2 (a) A subordinate officer of a foreign gov- 
ernment cannot, without its authority, take proceedings in the name of 
his government, against a superior officer in this country. 8 

To entitle a foreign government to sue in the English Courts, it is 



ance of the right, upon very satisfactory 
principles. See Story, Eq. PI. § 55; Brown t?. 
Minis, 1 M'Cord, 80. A foreign sovereign 
State adopting the republican form of govern- 
ment, and recognized by the English govern- 
ment, can sue in the English Courts in its own 
name so recognized. United States v. Wagner, 
L. R. 2 Ch. 582. If a State were to refuse 
permission to a foreign sovereign to sue in its 
Courts, it might become a just cause of war. 
Story, Eq. PI. § 55; Ring of Spain v. Mendaz- 
abel, 5 Sim. 596 ; Edwards. Parties in Eq. 33, 34, 
35: Calvert on Parties, c. 3, § 27, pp. 810, 311 
By the U. S. Constitution, foreign States are 
expressly authorized to sue in the Courts of 
the United States. Const. U. S. Art. III. § 2. 
One of the States of the Union may appeur 
as plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the United 
States, against either another State, or the 
citizens thereof. Const. U. S. Art III. § 2; 
Governor of Georgia v. Aladrago, 1 Peters, 
110; United States ». Peters, 5 Cranch, 115; 
United States v. Blight, 3 Hall, Law Jo urn. 
197; United States v. Percheman, 7 Peters, 51; 
New York r. Connecticut, 4 Dallas, 1; New 
Jersey «. New York, 5 Peters, 284; Rhode 



(a) A suit lies by a foreign sovereign in 
either a Federal or State Court to protect the 
property of his nation; and such suit is not 
abated by his death or deposition while it is 
pending. The Sapphire, 11 Wall. 164; King 
of Prussia v. Kuepper, 23 Mo. 553. A foreign 
sovereign may be required, as a non-resident 
plaintiff, to give security for costs when suing 
upon a commercial 'transaction. Emperor of 
Brazil v. Robinson, 5 Dowl. 522 ; King of 
Greece v. Wright, 6 Dowl. 12; The Beatrice, 
36 L. J. Adm. 10 ; Republic of Costa Rica v. 
Erlanger. 3 Ch. D. 62. In New York, a for- 
eign independent government, which sues as 
a plaintiff there, may be required to give secur- 
ity for costs as a non-resident, under the Code 
of Civil Proc. § 3268. Republic of Honduras 
v. Soto, 112 N Y. 310. 

Municipal Courts have no jurisdiction 
to enforce engagements between sovereigns 
founded upon treaties. Doss v. Secretary 
of State for India, L. R. 19 Eq. 509 ; Rajah 
Salig Ram v. Same, L. R. Ind. A pp. 
Sup. 119, 126. The Court of Chancery may 

18 



Island v. Massachusetts, 13 Peters, 23; S. C. 
14 Peters, 210; 3 Story, Const. U. S. §§ 1675- 
1683; Nabob of the Camatic v. East India Co. 

I Sumner's Ves. 371, note (a). One State, as 
a corporation, may sue In the Courts of another 
State. Delafield v. Illinois, 2 Hill (N. Y.), 
159; S. C. 8 Paige, 527; Hines v. North Caro- 
lina, 10 Sm. & M. 529. 

1 King of Spain v Machado, 4 Russ. 225, 
560; 2 Bligh, N. S. 60; see also Columbian 
Government v. Rothschild, 1 Sim. 94; King of 
Hanover t>. Wheatley, 4 Beav. 78; Duke of 
Brunswick v. King of Hanover, 6 Beav. 1; 2 
H. L. Cas. 1 ; King of the Two Sicilies v. Will- 
cox, 1 Sim. N. S. 301; and port, Chap. IY. § 4, 
on the liability of foreign States to be sued. 

* Emperor of Austria v. Day, 3 De G. F. & 
J. 217, 251, 252; 7 Jur. N. S. 639, 644; see 
also United States v. Pnoleau, 2 H. & M 559: 

II Jur. N. S. 792; 12 id. 724; United States v. 
Wagner, L. R. 3 Eq 724, V. C. W.; L. R. 2 
Ch. Ap. 582, L. C. & L. JJ.; United States v. 
McRae, L. R. 4 Eq. 327, V. C W.; L. R. 3 
Ch. 79, L. C. 

* Republic of Liberia v. Imperial Bank, 25 
L.T.N S.866. 



proceed to administer a trust fund in its 
custody, although a foreign sovereign who 
is interested in it mav not think fit to come 

» 

before the Court in a suit relating thereto. 
Morgan v. Lariviere, L. R. 7 H. L. 423; L. R. 
7 Ch. 550. But the existence of the trust 
must not be in dispute; for if this is denied 
with respect to funds in the possession of an 
agent of the foreign government within the 
jurisdiction, the suit cannot proceed in the 
absence of such government. Wright v. Mills, 
63 L. T. 186. See Gladstone r. Ottoman Bank, 
1 H. & M. 505 ; Twycross v. Dreyfus, 5 Ch. 
D. 605. The negotiation by a government 
of a loan in a foreign country does not intro- 
duce into the contract the peculiar laws of 
such country. Smith r. Weguelin, L. R. 8 
Eq. 212 ; Goodwin r. Robarts, 1 App. Cas. 
476 ; L. R. 10 Ex. 76, 337. A suit cannot he 
maintained in England upon the bonds of a 
foreign government. Ibid.; Crouch v. Credit 
Foncier of England, L. R. 8 Q. B. 374; Twy- 
cross v. Dreyfus, 5 Ch. D. 605. 



FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND STATES. 



19 



necessary that it should have been recognized by the government 
there; and where the foreign State has been recognized, the recogni- 
tion is conclusive, and the Court cannot listen to any objections to its 
title. 4 (b) This point appears to have been first discussed in The City 
of Berne v. The Bank of England,* which arose from the application 
of a person describing himself as a member of the common council 
chamber of the city of Berne, on behalf of himself and of all others 
the members of the common council chamber and the burghers and 
citizens of that city, to restrain the Bank of England and South Sea 
Company from permitting the transfer of certain funds standing in the 
names of trustees, under a purchase by the old government of Berne 
before the revolution : the application was opposed on the ground that 
the existing government of Switzerland, not being acknowledged by 
the government of this country, could not be noticed by the Court ; and 
Lord Eldon refused to make the order, observing that it was extremely 
difficult to say that a judicial Court can take notice of a government 
never recognized by the government of the country in which the Court 
sits, and that whether the foreign government was recognized or not, 
was matter of public notoriety. 

The fact of a foreign State having been or not having been recog- 
nized by the local government must be judicially taken notice * of *19 
by the Court, even though there is an averment introduced into 
the pleadings that the government in question has been recognized. 1 
It has also been held that the Courts in England will not entertain 
a suit for matters arising out of contracts entered into by individuals 
with the governments of foreign countries, which have not been 
acknowledged by the government of that country. 8 

A foreign sovereign or State sues by the name by which he or it has 
been recognized by the government of this country, and is not bound to 
sue in the name of any officer of the government, or to join as co-plaintiff 
any such officer upon whom process may be served, or who may be called 
upon to give discovery upon a cross-bill; 8 but the proceedings may be 



4 Emperor of Austria v. Day, 2 Giff. 628 ; 
7 Jar. N. S. 483; 3 De 6. F. & J. 217; 7 Jar. 
N. S- 639. 

* 9 Ves. 347; and see Dolder v. Bank of 
England, 10 Yes. 353 ; Dolder v. Lord Hunt- 
ingficld, 11 Ves. 283. 

* Taylor v. Barclay, 2 Sim. 213, 220. 

* Thomson v. Powles, 2 Sim. 194, 210. 

* In United States v. Wagner, L. R. 2 Ch. 
583, it was held that a foreign sovereign State 
adopting the republican form of government is 
not bound to sue in the name of any officer of 



the government, or to join as co-plaintiff any 
snch officer on whom process may be served, 
and who may be called upon to give discovery 
upon a cross-bill; reversing the order of Sir W. 
Page Wood (Lord Hatherley) in S. C. L. R. 3 
Eq 724. In the above case (L. R. 2 Ch. 589, 
592). Lord Justice Turner said : " In the cases 
referred to, the form of government was mon- 
archical; and I take it (hat, in such cases, the 
public property of the State, so far as it is 
not bv the Constitution of the State otherwise 
destined, vests in the sovereign, subject to a 



(b) If a revolutionary or de facto govern* 
ment is overthrown by the previously existing 
government after its recognition by a foreign 
State, the restored government cannot repu- 
diate contracts made by it with a subject of 
such foreign State, but in litigation thereon 
merely takes the rights of the recognized 
government. Republic of Peru v. Dreyfus, 38 



Ch. D. 348. See Republic of Peru t\ Peruvian 
Guano Co. 36 Ch. D. 489. Probably al«o if 
there has been no international recognition, 
property acquired under such contracts can- 
not be recovered abroad in violation of 
such contracts. Ibid. ; The Beatrice, 36 L. J. 
Adm. 9. 



19 



* 20 PERSONS BT WHOM A SUIT MAT BE INSTITUTED. 

stayed until the foreign sovereign or State has named a person who can 
give discovery, and if an order for such discovery be not obeyed, the 

Court has power to dismiss the suit. 4 And where a foreign State 
*20 comes voluntarily as a suitor-plaintiff into * a Court of Law or 

Equity in England, it becomes subject, as to all matters connected 
with that suit, to the jurisdiction of the Court. 1 It may therefore be 
ordered to give security for costs, 8 and a bill filed by it may be dis- 
missed with costs.* An ambassador, or minister plenipotentiary, of a 
foreign State, does not properly represent that State in a Court of jus- 
tice, 4 and cannot sue in his own name on behalf of the foreign sovereign 
or State. 5 

It seems that a colonial government, existing by letters-patent, which 
is in some degree similar to a corporation possessing rights in England, 
may sue there, and ought to be regulated by the law of England, under 
which it had existence; 4 thus, a decree was made for the specific per- 
formance of articles executed in England under seal for mutual con- 
siderations respecting the boundaries of the two provinces of Maryland 
and Pennsylvania in North America, although the original jurisdiction, 
in cases relating to boundaries between provinces, was admitted to be 
in the King in council, the jurisdiction of the Courts being founded 
upon the articles which were considered to give jurisdiction to the 
Superior Courts whatever the subject-matter might be. T 

Section III. — Corporations, Joint-Stock Companies, and Partnerships. 

The right to sue is not confined to natural persons. The power to 
sue and be sued in their corporate name is a power inseparably incident 
to every corporation, whether it be sole or aggregate. 8 

moral obligation on his part to apply it for the * Republic of Liberia v. Imperial Bank, 

benefit of bis subjects; and when he sues in L. R. 16 Eq. 179, V. CM.; L. R 9 Ch. 669, 

respect to the public property, he sues, not as L. JJ.; S. C nom. Republic of Liberia v. 

the mere representative of the State, but as the Rove, 1 App. Gas. 139, H. L. (E); Republic 

person in whom the property is vested for the of Costa Rica r Erlanger, 1 Ch. D. 171, C. A. 

benefit of the State. In the case of a republic, See also Republic of Peru v. Weguelin, L. R. 

the public property of a State remains in the 20 Eq. 140, V. C. H.; pott, p. 141. 

State, and the State, therefore, and not any l Rothschild v. Queen of Portugal, 8 T. & 

mere officer of the State, is the proper party to C. Ex. 594 ; King of Spain v. Hullett, 7 Bligh, 

sue for it." Similar remarks were made by the N. S. 369; 1 CI. & Fin. 333; and cases ante, 

Lord Chancellor and Lord Cairns in the tame 17, n 

case. See United States v. Drummond, 33 a Republic of Costa Rica ». Erlanger, W. N. 

Beav. 449. Wilson v. Church, 9 Ch. D. 562. (1876) 210. 225; 24 W. R. 880, 955. 

But the Court may stay proceedings in the * See United States r. McRae, L. R. 8 Eq. 

original suit until the means of discovery are 69, 77, V. C. J.; Queen of Spain «. Parr, 39 L. 

M-cnred in the cross-suit. United States v. J. Ch 73; 18 W. R. 110, 112, V. C. J. 

Wagner, L. R. 2 Ch. Ap. 582, per Lord Chan- * Schneider v. Lizardi, 9 Beav. 461, 466; 

oellor and Lord Cairns, L J. ; Republic of Columbian Government v. Rothschild. 1 Sim. 

Peru v. Weguelin, L. R. 20 Eq. 140 ; and may 94. As to confidential agents, see Republic of 

dismiss the suit if its order be not properly Chili v. Rothschild. W. N. (1891) 138. 

•fayed. Republic of Liberia v. Rove, 1 App. * Penedo v. Johnson, 29 L. T. N. & 452; 

Cas. 139. But the complainant will not be 22 W. R. 103. 

allowed to select the officer of the foreign * Barclay t>. Russell, 3 Yes. 424, 434; and 

government to be made co-defendant with a see Sloman v. New Zealand, 1C. P.D.663, C A. 

view to discovery, and to stay proceedings 7 Penn v. Lord Baltimore, 1 Vea. Sr. 444, 

until such person has appeared and answered. 446; 2 L. C in Eq. (4th ed.) 939. 

Republic of Costa Rica v Erlanger, 1 Ch. D. 171. * 1 Bla. Com. 475; Hotchkiss «. Trustees, 7 

20 



CORPORATIONS AND JOINT- STOCK COMPANIES. 



22 



As corporations must take and grant by the corporate name, so 
by that name they must, in general, sue and be sued; 9 and they 
* may sue by their true name of foundation, though they be better *21 
known by another name. Thus, where the masters and scholars 
of the Hall of Valens Mary, in Cambridge, brought a writ by that name, 
which was the name of their foundation, though they were better 
known by the name of Pembroke Hall, the writ was held good. 1 

When a corporation by prescription has more than one name, it may 
sue by the one name or the other, alleging that it and its predecessors 
have from time immemorial been known, and been accustomed to plead, 
by the one or by the other. 8 

A suit by a corporation aggregate, to recover a thing due to it in its 
corporate right, must not be brought in the name of its head alone, 
but in the full corporate name, unless it appear that the Act of Parlia- 
ment or charter by which it is constituted enables it to sue in the name 
of its head; and though it appear that the head of a corporation is 
enabled to sue in his own name for anything to which the corpora- 
tion is entitled, it will not be precluded from suing by its name of 
incorporation.* 

Where an Act of Parliament grants anything to a corporation, 
the grant shall take effect, though the * true corporate name be *22 
not used, provided the name actually used be a sufficient descrip- 
tion of the corporation; though it may be doubtful whether, in suing 



John. 356; Sharon Canal Co. v. Fulton Bank, 
7 Wend. 412; Chambers v. Bap. Educ. Soc. 1 
B. Hon. 216; Le Grand v. Hampden Sidney 
College, 5 Monf. 324; Trustees of Lexington v. 
M'Connel), 3 A. K. Marsh. 224 ; Central Man of. 
Co. v. Hartshorne, 3 Conn. 199 ; Bank of Or- 
leans v. Skinner, 9 Paige, 305. In England, 
partners may now sue and be sued in their firm 
name. R. S.C. (1883) Ord. XVI. 14,15; Ord. 
VII. 2; Ex parte Blain, 12 Ch. D. 522, 533; 
Leathley v. Mc Andrew, W. N. (1875) 259; 
Pike «. Keene, W. N. (1876) 86; 24 W. R. 
322; Republic of Liberia v. Boye, 1 App. Cas. 
139. 

* A corporation can be called upon to answer 
only by its proper name. Binney's case, 2 
Bland, 99. So a corporation can sue only by 
the name and style given to it by law. Porter 
v. Neckervis, 4 Rand. 359. See Minot v. Curtis, 
7 Mass. 444. In Winnipiseogee Lake Co. v. 
Toting, 40 N. H. 428, Bell C. J. said: "The 
practice, we think, is nearly universal, that a 
corporation is described in its bill by its cor- 
porate name, with the addition of the fact that 
H is a corporation duly established by law in 
such a state, and having its place of business at 
such a place; and a corporation defendant is 
described in the same way. In the case of 
public corporations created by public laws the 
Court is officially to take notice of the cor- 
porate character." See Withers v. Warner, 1 



Str. 309. A law creating a bank, with author- 
ity to issue circulating notes intended to con- 
stitute the currency of the' country, is a public 
law, and need not be given in evidence. Wil- 
liams v. Union Bank, 2 Hum. 339. " But in the 
case of private corporations, created by charters 
or private Acts, the Court is not merely not 
bound to take notice of the corporate names as 
such, but they cannot officially take such notice. 
The party is bound to allege it, as a fact to be 
proved, if he would avail himself of it." See 
also Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Osgood, 1 Duer, 
707; State v. Mead, 27 Vt. 722; State v. Cen- 
tral Railroad Co. 28 Vt. 584; State v. Same, 28 
Vt 583; Camden &c. v. Rower, 4 Barb. 127; 
Bank v. Simonton, 2 Texas, 531. 

A corporation may acquire a name by usage, 
as by retaining its original name after a legisla- 
tive change, and an adjudication in bankruptcy 
made against it by the name so acquired is 
valid. Alexander v. Berney, 28 N. J. Eq. 90. 

» 44 Ed. III. 35; 1 Kyd on Corp. 253; and 
see, as to title by which municipal corporations 
must sue and be sued, Rochester v. Lee, 15 
Sim. 376; Att-Gen. v. Worcester, 2 PhiL 8; 1 
Coop. temp. Cott. 18. 

* See 9 Ed. IV. 21; 18 Hen. VII. 14; 16 
Hen. VII. 1 ; and 21 Hen. VI. 4, which last 
seems conlra. 

« 2 Salk. 451. 



21 



23 



PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAT BE INSTITUTED. 



to enforce its claim under that Act, it can use the name therein 
mentioned. 1 

A corporation, being a body whose identity is continuous, may 
impeach traosactions carried into effect in its own name by its 
former governing body ; for the members of the governing body of the 
corporation, as its agents, are bound to exercise its functions for the 
purposes for which they were given, and to protect its interests and 
property; and if such agents exercise those functions for the purpose 
of injuring its interests, and alienating its property, the corporation is 
not estopped from complaining, although the act done was ostensibly 
an act of the corporation. 8 

A corporation aggregate, which has a head, cannot sue or be sued 
without it, because without it the corporation is incomplete. 3 It is 
not, however, necessary to mention the name of the head; 4 nor is it 
necessary, in the case of corporations aggregate, to name any of the 
individual members by their proper Christian and surnames. 5 
* 23 * A corporation sole, suing for a corporate right, having two 

capacities, a natural and a corporate, must always show in 
what capacity he sues. 1 Thus, a bishop or prebendary, suing for land 
which he claims in right of his bishopric or prebend, must describe 
himself as bishop or prebendary; and if a parson sues for anything 
in right of his parsonage, he ought to describe himself as parson. 
A sole corporation differs in this respect from a corporation aggre- 
gate, because the latter having only»a corporate capacity, a suit in its 
corporate name can be only in that capacity. 2 It also differs from 
corporations aggregate, in that by the death of a corporation sole a suit 



1 10 Mod. 207, 208; 1 Kyd on Corp. 256. 
A declaration, upon a promissory note, that it 
was made to the Med way Cotton Manufactory, 
a corporation, &c, by the name of R. M. & Co., 
was held good on demurrer. Med way Cotton 
Manufactory v. Adams, 10 Mass. 360. See 
Charitable Association v. Baldwin, 1 Met. 359: 
Commercial Bank v. French, 21 Pick. 586. If, 
.<n a contract with a corporation, its name be so 
given as to distinguish it from other corpora- 
tions, it is sufficient to support an action in the 
true corporate name. Hagerstown Turnpike v. 
Creeger, 5 Har. & J. 122; S. P. Inhabitants of 
Alloway Creek ». Strong, 5 Halst. 323; Berks 
and Dauphin Co. v. Myers, 6 S. & R. 16 ; Wool- 
wich v. Forrest, Penning. 11: First Parish in 
Sutton v. Cole, 3 Pick. 232; Mil. and Chit. 
Turnpike Co. r. Brush, 10 Ohio, 111. 

A misnomer of a corporation in a grant or 
obligation will not prevent a recovery in the 
true name, the latter being shown by proper 
averments. Bank of Tenn. v. Burke, 1 Coldw. 
623. 

Contracts made by mere servants or agents 
of corporations may be sued in the name of the 
corporations. Binney v. Plumley, 5 Vt. 500. 
See Proctor *. Webber, 1 Chip/ 371; African 
Society v. Varick, 13 John. 88. 

22 



A town may sue by the description of A & 
B, and the rest of the inhabitants of such town, 
instead of using the corporate name merely. 
Barkhampstead v. Parsons, 8 Conn. 1. And a 
county in Tennessee may sue in the name of the 
Justices composing the County Court. Maury 
County v. Lewis County, 1 Swan, 236. 

* Att.-Gen. *. Wilson, C. & P. 1, 21, 24. 
8 2 Bac. Ab. tit. Corp. £. 2. 

* 1 Kyd on Corp. 281. 

6 2 Inst. 666; The corporation's " property 
is legally vested in itself, and not in its stock- 
holders. As individuals they cannot, even by 
joining together unanimously, convey a title to 
it, or maintain an action at law for its posses- 
sion, or for damages done to it. Nor can they 
make a contract that shall bind it, or enforce by 
action a contract that has been made with it." 
Chapman J. in Peabody v. Flint, 6 Allen, 55, 
56. See Kennebec & Port. R. R. Co. v. Port. & 
Kennebec R. R. Co. 54 Maine, 173. Hence, in 
Chancery, a suit by members in their corpo- 
rate capacity does not become defective by the 
death of some of tbem. Blackburn v. Jepson. 
8 Swanst. 132, 138. 

i 2 Bac. Ab. tit. Corp. R. 9; Weston v. 
Hunt, 2 Mass. 500. 

* Ibid. 



CORPORATIONS AND JOINT -STOCK COMPANIES. 



24 



by him, although instituted in his corporate capacity, becomes abated, * 
which is not the case, as we have seen, with respect to suits by corpo- 
rations aggregate. 

It is to be observed, that upon the death of a corporation sole, there 
is a material distinction with regard to the right to revive. If the 
plaintiff was entitled to the subject-matter of the suit for his own 
benefit, his personal representatives are the parties to revive ; but if he 
was only entitled for the benefit of others, his successor is the person 
who ought to revive. Thus, if the master of a hospital, or any simi- 
lar corporation, institutes proceedings to recover the payment of an 
annuity and dies, his successor shall have the arrears, and not his 
executors, because he is entitled only as a trustee for the benefit of his 
house; but it is otherwise in the case of a parson; there the executors 
are entitled, and not the successor, because he was entitled to the 
annuity for his own benefit. 4 On the same principle, if a rent due to 
a dean and chapter be in arrear, and the dean dies, the rent belongs to 
the succeeding dean and chapter ; but if the rent be due to the dean in 
his sole corporate capacity, it shall go to his executors, and they must 
revive. 5 

Although corporations aggregate are entitled to sue in their cor- 
porate capacity, the Court will not permit parties to assume a 
* corporate character to which they are not entitled ; and where * 24 
it appears sufficiently on the bill that the plaintiffs have assumed 
such a character without being entitled to it, a demurrer will hold. 1 
Thus, where a bill was filed by some of the members of a lodge of Free- 
masons against others, for the delivery up of certain specific chattels, 
in which bill there was great affectation of a corporate character 
in stating their laws and constitutions, and the original charter by 
which they were constituted, a demurrer was allowed "because the 
Court will not permit persons who can only sue as partners, to sue in a 
corporate character; and, upon principles of policy, the Courts of this 
country do not sit to determine upon charters granted by persons who 
have not the prerogative to grant them." * 



* Bat see contra, Polk 0. Plummer 2 Humph. 
500; Felts v. Mayor of Memphis, 2 Head, 650; 
Ezell v. Justices, 3 Head, 686; Anon. 1 Hayw. 
144. 

* 1 Kyd on Corp. 77. 

* 1 Kyd on Corp. 78. 

1 Story, Eq. PI. § 497; see Livingston v. 
Lynch, 4 John. Ch. 573, 596. 

2 Lloyd v. Loarlng, 6 Ves. 773 ; Womersley 
w. Merritt, L. R. 4 Eq. 695. A foreign corpo- 
ration may sue in its corporate name in Chan- 
cery, as well as at Law. Silver Lake Bank v. 
North, 4 John. Ch. 372; Story Eq. PI. § 55; 
Society for Propagating the Gospel v. Wheeler, 
2 Gall. 105; Society for Propagating the 
Gospel v. New Haven, 8 Wheat. 464; South 
Carolina Bank i>. Case, 8 B. & C. 427; Bank 
of Scotland v. Kerr, 8 Sim. 246; Collins Co. 
o. Brown, 3 K. & J. 423; 3 Jur. N. S. 929; 
Prioleau v. United State, L. R 2 Eq. 668; The 



Bank v. Simonton, 2 Texas, 53L See Mech- 
anics' Bank v. Goodwin, 2 Green, 439. A 
corporation chartered in one State may sue in 
the Courts of another State. Williamson v. 
Smoot, 7 Martin (La.), 31; Lucas v. Bank of 
Georgia, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 147; New York Fire 
Ins. Co. v. Ely, 5 Conn. 560; Cape Fear Bank 
r. Stinemetz, 1 Hill, 44 ; Bank of Michigan v. 
Williams, 5 Wend. 478; 7 Wend. 539; Ports- 
mouth Livery Co. r. Watson, 10 Mass. 91; 
Taylor v. Bank of Alexandria, 5 Leigh, 471 ; 
Bank of Edwardsville v. Simpson, 1 Mo. 184; 
Lothrop v. Commercial Bank of Scioto, 8 
Dana, 114; New Jersey Protection Bank v. 
Thorp, 6 Co wen, 46; Pendleton v. Bank of 
Kentucky, 1 Monroe, 171 ; Taylor v. Bank or 
Illinois, 7 Monroe, 584; Bank of Marietta v. 
Pindall, 2 Rand. 465; Reed v. Conococheque 
Bank, 5 Rand. 326; Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 
13 Peters, 519; Stewart *. U. S. Ins. Co. 9 

23 



25 



PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY BE INSTITUTED. 



A suit may be brought in England by a foreign corporation, in its 
corporate name and capacity, 8 and in pleading it is not necessary that 
it should set forth the proper names of the persons who form such cor- 
poration, or show how it was incorporated; 4 though, if it is denied, it 
must prove that by the law of the foreign country it was effectually 

incorporated. 6 
♦25 * Although corporations aggregate are entitled to sue in their 
corporate capacity, the court will not permit suits to be brought 
by persons assuming a corporate character to which they are not 
entitled; 1 when however there are numerous parties having the same 
interest, one or more may sue as individuals on behalf of themselves 
and the other persons interested. 1 

By the 7 Will. IV. & 1 Vic. c. 73, the sovereign is empowered to 
grant letters-patent, establishing companies, and providing that the 
companies so established shall be able to sue and be sued by their 
public officer; and many joint-stock companies or associations for 
insurance, trading, and other purposes, have from time to time been 
established by special Acts of Parliament, which, although they have 
not formed them into corporations, have still conferred upon them 
many privileges, in consequence of which such companies have acquired 
something of a corporate character; amongst other privileges so con- 
ferred, may be reckoned that of suing and being sued in the name of 
their public officer.* 

Where, however, any members of a company, established under 
these Acts, wish to sue the directors or others who are members as well 



Watts, 126; Miss. R. Co. v. Gaster, 20 Ark. 
466; Bank of Washtenaw v. Montgomery, 2 
Scam. 422; Gnaga Iron Co. «. Dawson, 
4 Blackf. 202; Mechanics' Bank v. Goodwin, 
2 Greeu, 239; Lewis v. Bank of Kentucky, 
12 Ohio, 182. A State is a corporation, and 
■lay sue as such in another State. Delafield v. 
Illinois, 2 Hill (N. Y.), 159; S. C. 8 Paige, 
937; Hines v. North Carolina, 10 Sm. & M. 



* 8ee preceding note. 

« Angell & Ames, Corp. § 632. 

* Dutch West India Co. v. Van Moyses, 
2 Ld. Ray. 1635; 1 Strange, 612. As to the 
necessity of proving the corporate existence of 
a foreign corporation, see School District ». 
Blaisdell, 6 N. H. 198; Lord v. Bigelow, 8 Vt. 
445; Society &c. v. Young, 2 N. H. 310; The 
Gaaga Iron Co. «. Dawson. 4 Blackf. 203; 
Portsmouth Livery Co. t. Watson, 10 Mass. 
92; Bank «. Simonton, 2 Texas, 531. 

In case of foreign corporations, the plain- 
tiffs, under the general issue, are bound to 
show their corporate capacity, but the Court 
will take notice, ex officio, of the capacity of 
corporations created in Ohio to sue in that 
8Ute. Lewis «. Bank of Kentucky, 12 Ohio, 
132; see Agnew v. Bank of Gettysburg. 2 Har. 
k G. 478; Portsmouth Livery Co. v. Watson, 

24 



10 Mass. 92; Eagle Bank of New Haven *. 
Chapin, 8 Pick. 180; Carmichael v. Trustees of 
School Lands, 3 How. (Miss.) 84; Williams 
«. Bank of Michigan, 7 Wend. 539 ; Bank of 
Waterville v. W. W. Bk. 13 How. Pr. 270; 
Zion Church v. St Peter's Church, 5W,s 
S. 216; Winnipiseogee Lake Co. v. Young, 40 
N. H. 420, 428. 

1 Lloyd v. Loaring, 6 Yes. 779 ; Womersley 
v. Merritt, L. R. 4 Eq. 695. 

a See Chancey v. May, Prec. in Ch. 692; 
Good v. Blewitt, 13 Yes. 397; Cock bum v. 
Thompson, 16 Yes. 321, 325 ; Pearce v. Piper, 17 
Yes. 1 ; Blain «. Agar, 1 Sim. 37, 43 ; 2 Sim. 289 ; 
Gray *. Chaplain, 2 S. & S. 267, 272; 2 Russ. 
126; Van Sandau v. Moore, 1 Russ. 441; Lund 
v. Blanchard, 4 Hare, 290, 292; Womersley v. 
Merritt, L. R. 4 Eq. 695, Y. C. M.; and see 
port, Chap. Y. § 1, Parties; R. S. C. Ord. 
XVI. 9. 

* For the history of such companies, and of 
the provisions regulating them, see Van San- 
dau v. Moore, 1 Russ. 441, 458. As to abate- 
ment by death of a public officer, see 7 
Geo. IV. c. 46, § 9, and Burmester v. Baron 
von Stenz, 23 Beav. 82. For form of order to 
substitute a new officer, see Meek v. Burnley, 
M. R. 12 Jan., 1863, Reg. Lib. a 6; and 2 
Seton, 1528, No. 5. 



CORPORATIONS AND JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES. 



26 



themselves, they may maintain such a puit in their own individual 
capacities, either suing by themselves, and making the rest of 
the company * defendants, or suing on behalf of themselves and * 26 
the other members of the association. 1 Although the rights and 



1 Hichens v. Congreve, 4 Russ. 662; Wall- 
worth o. Holt, 4 M. & C. 619, 635; Colman v. 
Eastern Counties By. Co. 10 Beav. 1; Bag- 
•haw 9. Eastern Counties By. Co. 7 Hare, 114; 
» M. N. & G. 389; Heath v. Ellis, 12 Met. 
601; Allen v. Curtis, 26 Conn. 456; Putnam v. 
Sweet, 1 Chand. (Wis.) 286; Sackett's Harbor 
Bank v. Blake, 3 Bich. Eq. 225; Cunliffe «. 
Manchester and Bolton Canal Co. 1 M. & B. 
131, note; Manderson v. Commercial Bank, 28 
Peon. 379; Bait. & Ohio B. B. Co. v. Wheel- 
ing, 13 Gratt. 40. 

Peabody v. Flint, 6 Allen, 52 ; Robinson v. 



(a) Lambert 9. Nenchatel Asphalt Co. 51 
L. J. Ch. 882; Pickering v. Stephenson, L. B. 
14 Eq. 322; Ward v. 8ittingbonrne &c. By. 
Co. L. B. 9 Ch. 488; Isle of Wight By. Co. v. 
Tahonrdin, 25 Ch. D. 320; 8tuddert v. Grosve- 
nor, 33 Ch. D. 528; Sellers v. Phoenix Ins. 
Go. 13 Fed. Rep. 20. Formerly it was held 
that a suit in Equity will not be entertained by 
a shareholder of a public company on behalf 
of himself and other shareholders, to restrain 
the directors from acts alleged to be ultra 
sires, when he really sues by direction of a 
rival company and to protect its interests. 
Forrest v. Manchester &c. By. Co. 9 W. B. 
818, affirming 30 Beav. 40; Seaton v. Grant, 
36 L. J. Ch. 638; L. R. 2 Ch. 465. See Bussell 
9. Wakefield Waterworks Co. L. R. 20 Eq. 
474. But it has since been held that the share- 
holder, though chargeable with malajldes, was 
entitled to have his right enforced. Bloxom 
9. Met. By. Co. L. B. 8 Ch. 337; Mutter 9. 
Eastern & M. By. Co. 38 Ch. D. 92. As to 
the use of the company's name as plaintiff by 
a member or the directors, see Pender v. Lush- 
ington, 6 Ch. D. 70; Duckett v. Gover, id. 82; 
Mason 9. Harris, 11 Ch. D. 97; Harben v. 
Phillips, 23 Ch. D. 14; Buston v. Tobin, W. N. 
(1880) 19; port, p. 242; Cape Breton Co. v. 
PeniL, 17 Ch. D. 198. Even when the use of 
the company's name is unauthorized, it may 
be stricken out as plaintiff, and liberty given 
to amend by adding its name as defendant. 
Silber Light Co. v. Silber, 12 Ch. D. 717; 27 
W. B. 427. See Ilawes v. Oakland, 104 U. S. 
450; Detroit 9. Dean, 106 U. S. 537. A share- 
holder who sues the company may obtain dis- 
covery of privileged communications between 
the company and its legal advisers relating to 
the subject-matter of the action, if paid for 
with the fnnds of the company. Gouroud v. 
Edison & G. Tel Co. 57 L. J. Ch. 498. 

The directors of % public company are true- 



Smith, 3 Paige, 222; see Hersey v. Veazie, 24 
Maine, 9; Smith v. Poor, 40 Maine, 415; 
Schley v. Dixon, 24 Ga. 273; Kean v. John- 
son 1 Stockt. 401; Binney's case, 3 Bland, 
142; Revere «. Boston Copper Co. 15 Pick. 
351; see Durfee o. Old Colony B. Co. 5 Allen, 
230. Ordinarily, where the act complained of 
is capable of confirmation by the corporation 
or company, redress should be first sought 
through the company, (a) Foes v. H or bottle, 
2 Hare, 461; Mozley v. Alston, 1 Phil. 790; 
McDougall e. Gardiner, 1 Ch. D- 14; infra, 
p. 243. But if the action of the corpora- 



toss of their powers for the shareholders, but 
not for the creditors. Be Wincham Shipbuild- 
ing Co. 9 Ch. D. 322. They are not necessarily 
liable for the representations of co-directors 
and other officers. Cargill v. Bower, 38 L. T. 
779. 

A suit cannot be maintained by a corpora- 
tion organized under a void charter. Doboy & 
Union Tel. Co. 9. De Magathias, 25 Fed. Bep. 
897. Lack of a corporate existence is plead- 
able in abatement or bar; lack of capacity to 
sue in the particular case, in abatement only. 
Oregonian By. Co. v. Oregon By. & NaT. Co. 
23 Fed. Bep. 232. 

Bule 94 of the U. S. Supreme Conrt (see post, 
Vol. III.) requires that a bill by a shareholder 
against the corporation, founded upon a right 
which it may assert, shall specify the plaintiff's 
efforts to obtain its action, and the reasons of 
his failure. See Leo v. Union Pac. By. Co. 
17 Fed. Bep. 273; McHenry *. New York, P. 
& O. B. Co. 22 id. 130; Banger v. Champion 
Cotton-Press Co. 52 id. 611, and see Quincy v. 
Steel, 120 U. S. 241 ; Bacon v. Robertson, 18 
How. 480. Hence the bill of one stockholder 
on behalf of himself and the other stockholders 
for an accounting must show the use of all 
proper means on his part to induce the corpo- 
ration and stockholders to take action in the 
matter complained of; its financial ability to 
act, or the offer of proper indemnity for legal 
proceedings. Hawes v. Oakland, 104 U. S. 
450; Huntington v. Palmer, id. 482; Dann- 
meyer v. Coleman, 8 Sawyer, 51 ; 11 Fed. Rep. 
97; Morgan v. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. 15 id. 55; 
Bill 9. W. U. Tel. Co. 16 id. 14; Foote ». Cunard 
Mining Co. 17 id. 46 ; Foster 9. Mansfield &c. R. 
Co. 86 id. 627; see Hansom Cab Co. v. Verkes, 
141 III. 320; Alexander v. Searcy, 81 Ga. 536; 
Knoop 9. Bobmrich, 49 N. J. Eq. 82 ; Hazard 9. 
Durant, 19 Fed. Bep. 471. If the suit is suc- 
cessful, and the conduct of the corporation is 

25 



26 



PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAT BE INSTITUTED. 



duties of the public officer are chiefly to sue and be sued on behalf of the 
company, in matters arising between the company on the one hand, 



tion it controlled by stock procured by the 
fraud complained of, the bill by one share- 
holder on behalf of himself and all other 
shareholders will be sustained. Atwool v. 
Merry weather, L. R. 5 Eq. 464, note. And 
see Hodges v. New England Screw Co. 1 R. I. 
312; March v. Eastern R. Co. 40 N. H. 567. 
So if the act complained of is ultra vires of 
the corporate powers, Clinch v. Financial 
Corporation, L. R. 6 Eq. 450; 8. C. 4 Ch. 
117; Gray v. Lewis, L. R. 8 Eq. 526; and see 
infra, 243, note. Or if the act is intended to 
prevent the shareholder from exercising his 
legal right to vote, Cannon v. Trask, L. R, 
20 Eq. 669 ; Pender v. Lushington, 6 Ch. D. 70. 
Or where tbe majority of an incorporated 
company propose to benefit themselves at the 
expense of the minority, Menier v. Hooper's 
Telegraph Works, L. R. 9 Ch. 350. Or 
where the directors so act as to prevent a 



condemned, such stockholder is entitled to be 
reimbursed from the corporate funds, his actual 
expenditures and attorney's fees. Meeker v. 
Winthrop Iron Co. 17 Fed. Rep. 48. Those 
acting in a transaction which violates the rights 
of a minority of the stockholders are proper 
parties to a suit in equity by the minority, 
although the transaction has been ratified by 
the majority. Ervin v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. 
Co. 27 Fed. Rep. 625. An assignee of railroad 
stock, who has not registered it, or been rec- 
ognized as a stockholder, cannot sue in behalf 
of himself and other stockholders to restrain 
ultra vires acts. Brown t>. Duluth &c. R. Co. 
53 Fed. Rep. 889. And even a stockholder 
must act promptly in such case. Rabe v. 
Dunlap (N. J.), 25 AtL Rep. 959. 

The corporation is a necessary party where 
its transactions with others are sought to be set 
aside by such a bill. Bell v. Donohue, 17 Fed. 
Rep. 710. As to non-resident corporations, see 
Walser v. Seligman, 13 Fed. Rep. 415. In 
general, the corporation is a necessary party to 
any suit in Equity which involves its property 
or business interests. See, under different cir- 
cumstances, Swan Land & Cattle Co. «. Frank, 
148 U. S. 603; 39 Fed. Rep. 456; St. Louis&c. 
Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 114 U. a 60; Sully v. 
Drennan, 113 U. S. 287; Davenport v. Dows, 
18 Wall. 626; Dewing v. Perdicaries, 96 U. S. 
193; Wellman v. Howland C. & I. Works, 19 
Fed. Rep. 51; Walsh v. Memphis &c. R. Co. 
id. 152; 6 id. 797; Mayer v. Denver &c. R. Co. 
41 id. 723; Flour City Nat. Bank «. Wechsel- 
berg, 45 id. 547; Rogers v. Tan Nortwick, id. 
513 ; Vinal v. Continental C. & I. Co. 36 id. 
678; 136 U. S. 653; Hazard v. Durant, 11 R. 
1. 195, 207 ; Price v. Minot, 107 Mass. 49; Dear- 

26 



majority of the members from exercising a 
proper control over the affairs of the company. 
McDougall v. Gardiner, L. R. 20 Eq. 383 ;"l 
Ch. D. 13, L. R. 10 Ch. 606. Where the object 
of the suit is to recover damages from an officer 
of a corporation for a fraudulent misappropria- 
tion or conversion of the corporate property, 
the action can only be brought by a stockholder 
after application to and refusal by the corpora- 
tion to sue. Greaves v. Gouge, 69 N. Y. 154; 
Black v. Huggins, 2 Tenn. Ch. 780. And so 
where the suit is against a third person for a 
wrong to the detriment of the corporation, one 
stockholder may sue for himself and others 
where he has first made an application to the 
directors of the company to institute the suit, 
and they have refused. Duckett v. Gover, 6 
Ch. D. 82 ; Memphis v. Dean, 8 Wall. 73 , 
Bronson v. La Crosse R. Co. 2 Wall. 283; 
Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331; Memphis 



field v. Nims, 110 Mass. 115; Lyman v. Bonney, 
101 Mass. 662; Pope v. Leonard, 115 Mass. 286. 
See Bogardus v. Rosendale Manuf. Co. 7 N. Y. 
147, 151; Patterson v. Lynde, 112 111. 196; 
Turner v. Alabama Mining Co. 25 111. App. 
144; Atlanta Real Estate Co. «. Atlauta Na- 
tional Bank, 75 Ga. 40; Dixon v. Sumner 
County Com'rs, 25 Kansas, 519; Fiery v. Em- 
mert, 36 Md.' 464; Hurst v. Coe, 30 W. Ya. 
158; Camp v. Taylor (N. J.), 19 Atl. 968 ; Allen 
v. Turner, 11 Gray, 436; Samis v. King, 40 
Conn. 298. Tbe corporation has been held not 
to be a necessary party to a suit to require its 
officers to register a transfer of its stock. Gould 
v. Head, 41 Fed. Rep. 240. So, upon a bill 
which prays for the reconveyance of shares of 
stock in a bank obtained by conspiracy and 
fraud, and an injunction against their transfer, 
the bank is not a proper party, if no charges are 
made against it. Dennis v. Perry, 12 R. I. 540. 
See Alexander v. Katte, 10 Abb. N. Cas. 443; 
63 How. Pr. 262. 

In a suit for deceit or fraud against the di- 
rectors of a company, proof of a false statement 
made by them carelessly and without reason- 
able ground for believing it true, does not 
establish fraud, although it may be evidence of 
fraud. Deny v. Peck, 14 App. Cas. 337; 61 
L. T. 265; 37 Ch. D. 541; Glazier v. Rolls No. 
1, 42 Ch. D. 436. See Bishop v. Balk is Cons. 
Co. 25 Q. B. D. 77, 512; Low v. Bouverie, 
[1891] 8 Ch 82; 66 L. T. 533; Angus v Clif- 
ford, [1891] 2 Ch. 449; 63 L. T. 684; Scholes 
v. Brook, 63 L. T. 837 ; Knox v. Hayman, 67 
L. X 137; Tomkinson v. Balkis Cons. Co. 
[1891] 2 Q. a 614; 64 L. T. 816; Cann «. 
Willson, 39 Ch. D. 89. 



CORPORATIONS AND JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES. 



26 



and strangers or persons who are not partners on the other, yet it 
seems that the public officer may also institute proceedings against 
certain of the directors, in respect to past transactions, to compel 
them to refund sums alleged to be due from them to the partnership. 8 

The Statute 7 & 8 Vic. c. 110 was, from the year 1844 until the 
passing of "The Joint-Stock Companies' Act, 1856," 8 the statute which 
regulated the constitution and management of almost all joint-stock 
companies; 4 and questions may still occur with reference to companies 
constituted under it ; 5 but it was repealed, as to all future companies, 
by § 107 of the last-mentioned Act ; and that section was repealed and 
re-enacted by the 20 & 21 Vic. c. 14, § 23. The Act of 1856, as modi- 
fied by the Joint-Stock Companies' Acts of 1857 and 1858, regulated 
the constitution and management of joint-stock companies until the 
passing of "The Companies' Act, 1862," e which repealed these Acts, 
but consolidated and re-enacted them ; and this last-mentioned Act has 
been amended by "The Companies' Acts, 18G7, 1877, 1879, and 1880.* 
For the present purpose, however, it is sufficient to observe, that all 
companies constituted under these Acts became and still become, upon 
certificate of incorporation, a body corporate, by the name prescribed 
in the memorandum of association. 8 ' 



Gayoso Gas Co. v. Williamson, 9 Heisk. 314; 
Cogswell v. Bull, 29 Cal. 320; Charleston Ins. 
& Tr. Co. v. Sebrig, 5 Rich. Eq. 342 ; Bayless 
v. Orne, 1 Freera. Ch. 173. See also, for cases 
in which bills by shareholders have been sus- 
tained nnder exceptional circumstances, many 
of the cases cited in the first part of this note, 
and Gray v. Lewis, L. R. 8 Ch. 1035; L. R. 8 
Eq. 526;' Hazard v. Durant, 11 R. I. 195. In 
this last case, the English authorities are 
reviewed, and it is held that a genera] allega- 
tion of " often requested " is a sufficient aver- 
ment of a request of the corporation to sue, as 
a matter of pleading, and that a request made 
to an executive committee of a board of man- 
agers, to whom the authority of the corporation 
had been delegated, sustained the averment. 
And if the bill shows a state of facts from 
which it appears that a request would be una- 
vailing, no request, it seems, is necessary. 
Brewer v. Boston Theatre, 104 Mass. 378, 389. 
And see Spee ring's Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 1. And 
when the same persons were directors in two 
corporations, one of which was indebted to the 
other, and, being more largely interested in the 
debtor corporation, were about to discontinue 
an action on the demand, then barred by the 
Statute of Limitations, a receiver was appointed, 
at the instance of a stockholder of the creditor 
company, to carry on the suit. Hazzard v. 
Credit Mobilier, 7 Rep. 360, U. S. C. a Pa. 

* See Harrison v. Brown, 5 De G. & S. 728; 
and see Sedden v. Connell, 10 Sim. 58, 76. 

* 19 & 20 Vic. c. 47. 

* This Act did not apply to banking and 
insurance companies. See § 9. 



* See Womersley v. Merritt, L. R. 4 Eq. 
695. 

« 25 & 26 Vic. c. 89. 

7 30 & 31 Tic. c. 131; 40 & 41 Vic. c. 26; 
42 & 43 Vic. c. 76; 43 Vic. c. 19. 

■ By 25 & 26 Vic. c. 89, § 69, where there is 
reason to believe that the assets of a limited 
company, suing in Equity, may be insufficient 
for payment of costs, the company may be re- 
quired to give security for costs. See Australian 
Steam Co. v. Fleming, 4 K. & J. 407 ; Caillaud's 
Co. v. Caillaud, 26 Beav. 427; 5 Jur. N. S.259; 
Southampton &c. Co. v. Rawlins, 2 N. R. 544, 
M. R.; 9 Jur. N. S. 887; Southampton &c. Co. 
v. Pinnock, 11 W. R. 978, M. R.; Washoe 
Mining Co. v. Ferguson, L. R. 2 Eq. 371, 
V. C. W. The security must be given where, 
the com pan}' being in a course of winding-up, 
the suit is by the official liquidator. Freehold 
Land & Brick making Co. v. Spargo, W. N. 
(1868) 94, M. R. ; and it may be required 
where the company is plaintiff in a cross-suit. 
City of Moscow Gas Co. v. Int'l Financial 
Society, L. R. 7 Ch. 225; 20 W. R. 196; Acci- 
dental & Marine Ins. Co. v. Mercati, L. R. 3 
Eq. 200, V. C. W. The security is not con- 
fined to £100, but is in the judge's discretion, 
and must usually be for an amount equal to 
the probable amount of costs payable. Imperial 
Bank of India v. Bank of Hindustan, L. R. 1 
Ch. 437; 12 Jur. N. S. 493, L. J J., overruling 
Australian Steam Company v. Fleming, not 
supra ; and see potty p. 33. See R. S. C. LV. 2 
(Ord. Feb., 1876, n. 7) ; Western of Canada 
Oil Lands & Works Co. v. Walker, L. R. 10 
Ch. 628; W. N. (1876) 209, V. C. M. ; Brockle- 

27 



27 



PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY BE INSTITUTED. 



* 27 * Section IV. — Persons residing out of the Jurisdiction. 

' The rule that all persons, not lying under the disabilities after 
pointed out, are entitled to maintain a suit as plaintiffs in the Court of 
Chancery, is not affected by the circumstance of their being resident 
out of the jurisdiction of the • Court, unless they be alien enemies, or 
are resident in the territory of an enemy without a license or authority 
from the government here. 1 

In order, however, to prevent the defendant or respondent, in the 
ease of a petition, from being defeated of his right to costs, it is a rule, 
that if the plaintiff 8 or his next friend, 8 or the petitioner * (a) if he is not 



bank v. King's Lynn Steamship Co. 8 C. P. 
D. 365; costs already incurred, Rhodes v. 
Dawson, 16 Q. B. D. 548. On an application 
for an injunction by a limited company, the 
Court will require an undertaking as to dam- 
ages by some responsible person. Anglo-Danu- 
bian Co. v. Rogerson, 10 Jur. N. S. 87, M. R. ; 
Pacific Steamship Co. *. Gibbs, 14 W. R. 218, 
V. C. W. In England, as to discovery from a 
corporation or company, see R. S. C. Ord. XXI. 
4 ; Massey v. Allen, W. N. (1878) 246, V. C. 
H. Partners may now sue there in the firm 
name, their names and residences being sup- 
plied upon demand. R. S. C. Ord. VII. 2 ; 
Ord. XVI. 10, 11; Ord. XXXI. 21; Ord. XLII. 
6, 20. See Ex parte Blain, In re Sawyer, 12 
Ch. 522, 533; Leatbley t>. McAndrew, W. N. 
(1875) 259; Republic of Liberia v. Rove, 1 
App. Cas. 139 ; Pike ». Keene, W. N. (1876) 
36 ; 24 W. R. 322. As to suits by official man- 
agers under the Winding-up Acts, see 25 & 26 
Vic. c. 89, §§ 95, 133 (7); and see §§ 87, 151, 
195, 202; Turquand v. Kirby, L. R. 4 Eq. 123, 
M. R.; Turquand v. Marshall, L. R. 6 Eq. 112, 



(a) A petitioner in a winding-up petition, 
who was resident abroad, and who had obtained 
judgment in an undefended action against a 
company, was not required to give security for 
costs upon the company's application. In re 
Contract and Agency Co. 57 L. J. Ch. 6. See 
Re Sturyis, M. P. Syndicate, 53 L. T. 715; 34 
W. R. 163. Where it appeared that the plain- 
tiff in a suit had sufficient property in England 
to pay the costs in case he should fail, the Court 
on appeal discharged the order for security. Re 
Howe Sewing Machine, 41 Ch. D. 118. See In 
re Apollinaris Co/s Trade Marks (1891), 1 Ch. 
1. 8ee also Hamburger r. Poetting, 30 W. R. 
769. So if the defendant has in his possession 
money of the plaintiff, or has delayed unreason- 
ably in making his application, and the plaintiff 
has meanwhile incurred expense, an order for 
security for costs will not be made. Duffy v. 
Joyce, '25 L. R. Ir. 42. The right to demand 
seewity lor corts may be lost by lacheft. 8m 

28 



M. R.; L. R. 4 Ch. 376, 382, L. C.;.ll & 
12 Vic. c. 45, §§ 50, 52, 53, 60; Ernest 9. 
Weiss, 2 Dr. & Sm. 561; 9 Jur. N. S. 145; 
Stringer's case, id. 475; Leeds Estate &c. 
Co. v. Shepherd, 36 Ch. D. 787; Overend & 
Gurney Co. v. Gibb, L. R. 5 H. L. 480 ; L. R. 
4 Ch. 701; Mason v. La Sociele* des Metanx, 37 
W. R. 736 (foreign company's property); 1 
Dan. Ch. Prac. (6th Eng. ed.) p. 3101 As to 
suits by liquidators, see 19 & 20 Vic. c 47, 
§§ 90, 102 (7) ; 21 & 22 Vic. c. 60, § 6; Massey 
v. Allen, W. N. (1878) 246, V. C. H. " 
1 Story Eq. PI. $§ 51-54. 

* Though suing as executor or administrator, 
Knight v. De Blaquiere, Sau. & S. 648 ; Mur- 
free v. Leeper, 1 Overt. 1. 

* Kerr v. Gillespie, 7 Beav. 269. 

* Drever v. Maudesley, 5 Russ. 11 ; Ex 
parte Seidler, 12 Sim. 106; Re Norman, 11 
Beav. 401; Atkins v. Cooke, 3 Drew. 694; 
Partington v. Reynolds, 6 W. R. 807 ; Re 
Llangynog Lead Mining Co. 23 W. R. 687; 
Re Home Assurance Ass. L. R. 12 Eq. 112. 



Ibid.; Sims v. Bonner, 16 N. T. S. 800; Fagan 
v. Strong, 11 id. 766; International & G. K. 
Ry. Co. v. Williams, 82 Texas, 342. By 
applying for security for costs a defendant 
waives any objection as to service. Lhoneux 
v. Hong Kong & S. Banking Co. 33 Ch. D. 

446. 

Other recent English cases upon security 
for cost*, by a company, or upon a petition 
for winding up a company, are: Northampton 
Coal Co. v. Midland Waggon Co. 7 Ch. D. 
600; Re Aberavon Tin Plate Co. 59 L. T. 498; 
Lydney & Wigpool Iron Ore Co. *. Bird, 28 
Ch. D. 368; Pure Spirit Co. «. Fowler, 25 
Q. B. D. 235 ; Leeds Estate Co. * Shepherd, 36 
Ch. D. 787; Re Howe Sewing Machine Co. 
41 Ch. D. 118; Re Criterion Gold M. Co. id. 
146; Re Paper Bottle Co. 40 Ch. D. 62; Re 
Equestrian & P. B. Co. 1 Meg. 166; Ryan 
0. Ring, 36 L. R. Ir. 186. 



f 



PERSONS RESIDING OUT OF THE JURISDICTION. 



28 



a party to the cause, * is resident abroad, the Court will, on the appli- 
cation of the defendant, or respondent, order him to give security for 
the costs of the suit or petition, and in the mean time direct all pro- 
ceedings to be stayed; ' and such an order may be made where a 
foreign government is the plaintiff. 7 *A plaintiff resident in # 28 
Ireland l or Scotland may, it seems, be ordered to give security 
for costs.* (a) 

Where there is a co-plaintiff resident in England, the Court will not 
make an order that a plaintiff who is abroad shall give security for 
costs; • and where the plaintiff is abroad as a land or sea officer in the 



* Cochrane «. Fearon, 18 Jar. 668. 

• Fox 9. Blew, 5 Mad. 147; Lillie 9. Lillie, 
2 M. & K. 404; Laotour 9. Holcombe, 1 Phil. 
962, 264; Newman v. Landrine, 14 N. J. Eq. 
991 ; Barker 9. Lidwell, 1 Jones & Lat. 703. 
And it has been held that in default of the 
plaintiff giving security for costs when ordered, 
his bill should be dismissed. Carnac v. Grant, 
1 Sim. 348; Massey 9. Gillelan, 1 Paige, 644; 
Breeding 0. Finley, 1 Dana, 477; Bridges v. 
Canfield, 2 Edw. Ch. 217. But if the non- 
resident plaintiff sues as executor or adminis- 
trator, it has been held, that the defendant 
cannot compel security for costs. Goodrich 9. 
Pendleton, Z John. Ch. 920; Catchcart 9. Hew- 
son, 1 Hayes, 173. Especially after plea, 3 
John. Ch. 620. As to giving security where all 
the plaintiffs are out of, but the next friend is 
within, the jurisdiction, see Lander 9. Parr, 16 
L. J. Ch. 269, L. C. 

7 Republic of Costa Rica 9. Erlanger, 3 Ch. 
D. 62. Where a plaintiff appears to have no 
permanent residence, he will be made to give 
security for costs. Bailey 9. Gundry, 1 Keen, 
53; Player 9. Anderson, 15 Sim. 104; 10 Jur. 
169 ; and see Calvert 9. Day, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 
217 ; Sibbering 9. Earl of Balcarras, 1 De G. & 
8. 683; 12 Jar. 108; Hurst «. Fadwick, 12 
Jar. 21; Lumley 9. Hughes, 2 W. R. 112; 
Manby 9. Bewicke, 8 De G. M. & G. 468 ; 2 



(a) A foreigner who usually resides abroad, 
bat resides temporarily in England in order 
to enforce a claim by action, cannot be required 
to give security for costs. Redondo 9. Chaytor, 
4 Q. B. D. 453. And in Ebrard 9. Gassier, 28 
Ch. D. 232, following this decision, it was held 
that, where one of the plaintiffs, who were 
partners, came to England after an order 
was made, although for a temporary purpose, 
the defendants were not entitled to security for 
costs. See also Hamburger 9. Poetting, 47 
L. T. 249; Re Cornwall, 15 L. R. Ir 144. The 
Order LXIII. r. 15, was made for the purpose 
of overruling Redondo v. Chaytor. See Re 
Apollinaris Co/ s Trade Marks (1891), 1 Ch. 1 ; 
63 L. T. 502, which also holds that, where 
an appellant resides abroad, and it is clear that 



Jur. N. S. 671; Oldale 9. Whitcher, 6 Jur. 
N. S. 84, Y. C. K.; Knight 9. Cory, 9 id. 491, 
Y. C. W.; Dick 9. Munder, 11 id. 819; 13 YY. 
R. 1013, M. R. The rule extends to the next 
friend of a plaintiff. See Kerr 9. Gillespie, 7 
Beav. 269 ; Watts 9. Kelly, 6 W. & 206. 

* Hill «. Reardon, 6 Mad. 46; Moloney v. 
Smith, 1 M'Cl. & Y. 213; and see, as to plain- 
tiff resident in Ireland suing here in other cases, 
Craig v. Bolton, 2 Bro. C. C. 609. See also 
Mullett 9. Christmas, 2 Ball & B. 422; Stack- 
poole 9. Callaghan, 1 Ball & B. 566. 

2 Kerr 9. Duchess of Munster, Bunb. 35; Ex 
parte Latta, 8 De G. & S. 186. See 31 & 
32 Vic c. 54, § 5; Raeburn 9. Andrews, L. R. 
9 Q. B. 118; Re East Llangynog Lead Mining 
Co. W. N. (1875) 81 ; 23 W. R. 587, M. R. See 
also R. S. C. Ord. LV. ; Garnett 9. Bradley, 8 
App. Cas. 944; 2 Ex. D. 349. 

« Winthrop 9. Royal Exch. Ass. Co. 1 Dick. 
282; Walker 9. Easterby, 8 Ves. 612; Green 
9. Charnock, 1 Sumner's yes. 396, and note 
(a); D'Hormusgee 9. Grey, 10 Q. B. D. 13; 
Orr 9. Bowles, 1 Hodges, 23; Doe 9. Roe, id. 
315; Gilbert 9. Gilbert, 2 Paige, 608; Burgess 
9. Gregory, 1 Edw. Ch. 439. This rule does not 
apply where a husband, who has no substantial 
interest, is co-plaintiff with his wife. Smith 9. 
Etches, 1 H. & M. 711 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 124. 
No indorser is required in Massachusetts, where 



the respondent will find within the jurisdiction 
ample assets on which he can levy execution, 
security for costs will not be ordered. As to 
security for costs upon a motion for a new trial, 
see Hecksher 9. Crosley (1891), Q. B. 224: 39 
W. R. 211 ; Walklin 9. Johns, 7 T. L. R. 181. 
See generally, Michiels v. The Empire Palace, 
66 L. T. 132; Howard 9. Howard, 30 L. R. Ir. 
340; Thannhauaer 9. Cortes Co. 9 Fed. Rep. 
225; Hugunin 9. Thatcher, 18 id. 105. A plain- 
tiff who gives a false statement of his residence, 
will be required to give security for costs, 
as he is thus guilty of a fraud upon the Court 
Fraser 9. Palmer, 3 Y. & C. Ex. 279. As to a 
foreign claimant coming in, see ApollinaHs Oo 
9. Wilson, 81 Ch. D. 632. 



29 



♦29 



PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY BE INSTITUTED. 



service of her Majesty he will not be ordered to give security ; * and so 
where he is resident abroad upon public service, as an ambassador or 
consul, he cannot be called upon to give security. 6 Peers of the realm, 
although they are privileged from personal arrest, must, if they reside 
abroad, give security for costs; for, although such costs cannot be 
recovered by personal process, they may by other process, if the plain- 
tiff becomes a resident in this country. 9 ^nd it may be stated gener- 
ally that, wherever a plaintiff is out of the jurisdiction, the defendant 
is entitled to security for costs, unless it is distinctly shown that the 
plaintiff is exempted from his liability. 7 J 

As a general rule, the plaintiff in a cross-suit cannot be called upon 
to give security for costs to the plaintiff in the original suit, on the 
principle that a cross-bill is, in reality, a portion of the defence 
* 29 * to the original bill ; * but his co-defendants to the cross-bill may 
move for such security against their plaintiff; 2 and it has been 
held, that a bill to restrain an action at Gommon Law is so far a defen- 
sive proceeding as to exempt the plaintiff in Equity from the liabil- 
ity to give security for costs; "(tut on the other hand, a defendant in 
an interpleader suit, being out of the jurisdiction, was looked upon as 
plaintiff, and ordered to give security for costsj^ and so also, a defend- 
ant who had obtained the conduct of the cause has been required to 
give security. 6 And where the right to require security for costs from 
a plaintiff out of the jurisdiction had been waived, such waiver did not 
preclude the defendant from requiring security from the representative 
of the original plaintiff, by whom on his death the suit was revived, 
and who was also out of the jurisdiction, 6 or from the plaintiff on 
his amending the bill and stating thereby that he was out of the 
jurisdiction. 7 

A plaintiff cannot be compelled to give security for costs, unless he 
himself states upon his bill that he is resident out of the jurisdiction, 
or unless the fact is established by affidavit ; and the mere circumstance 
of his having gone abroad will not be a sufficient ground on which to 
compel him to give security, unless it is stated by the plaintiff himself, 



one of two or more plaintiffs is an inhabitant of 
the State. Pub. Stats, c. 161, § 24. 

4 Evelyn v. Chippendale, 9 Sim. 497; Clark 
v. Fergusson, 1 Giff. 184; 5 Jur. N. S. 1155; 
Fisher v. Banbury, Sau. & S. 625; Wright v. 
Everard, Sau. & S. 651. 

6 Colebrook v. Jones, 1 Dick. 154; Beames 
on Costs, 123. As to ambassadors resident here 
and their servants, see post, p 141. The Court 
of Queen's Bench has required a Judge in the 
East India Company's service to give security. 
Plowden v. Campbell, 18 Jur. 910, Q. B. ; see 
Powell v. Bernhard, 1 Hogan, 144. 

* Lord Aldborough v. Burton, 2 M. & K. 
401, 403. 

? Lillie v. Lillie, 2 M. & K. 404. As to secu- 
rity by a limited company, see ante, p. 26, 
n. (8).* 

1 Vincent t>. Hunter, 5 Hare, 320; M'Gregor 

30 



v. Shaw, 2 De G & S. 360; Sloggett v. Yiant, 
13 Sim. 187; Wild v. Murray, 18 Jur. 892; 
Tynte v. Hodge, 2 J. & H. 692; 8 Jur. N. S. 
1226 ; Washoe Mining Co. v. Ferguson, L. R. 2 
Eq. 371. 

2 Sloggett v. Yiant, 13 Sim. 187; see post, 
p. 154, note (a). 

« Watteeu v. Billam, 8 De G. & S. 516; 14 
Jur. 165; Wilkinson v. Lewis, 8 Giff. 394; 8 
Jur. N. S. 908. 

4 Smith v. Hammond, 6 Sim. 10, 15. But see 
Belmonte v. Aynard, 4 C. P. D. 221, 352; 
Rhodes v. Dawson, 16 id. 548. 

* Mynn v. Hart, 9 Jur. 860, V. C. K. B. 

* Jackson v. Davenport, 29 Beav. 212; 7 
Jur. N. S. 1224. 

7 Wyllie ». Ellice, 11 Beav. 99; 12 Jur. 711,- 
and see Stewart v. Stewart, 30 Beav. 322. 



PERSONS RESIDING OUT OF THE JURISDICTION, 



*30 



or shown upon affidavit, that he is gone abroad for the purpose of 
residing there. 8 

Whenever security is asked for, the question arises whether the 
party is resident abroad or not within the meaning of the rule. Thus, 
if a plaintiff went abroad, under circumstances rendering it likely that 
he will remain abroad for such a length of time that there is no reason- 
able probability of his being forthcoming, when the defendant might be 
entitled to call upon him to pay costs in the suit, that was held 
sufficient ; 9 and where * a plaintiff, domiciled in Scotland, took * 30 
furnished lodgings in London, and then filed his bill, it was held 
that he must give security for costs ; l and so, where the plaintiff went 
out of the jurisdiction on matters connected with the suit, he was 
ordered to give security; but on his return the order was discharged. 2 (a) 

In order to entitle a defendant to require security for costs from a 
plaintiff, he must make his application at the earliest possible time 
after the fact has come to his knowledge, and before he takes any 
further step in the cause ; (b) therefore, where the fact of the plaintiff 
being resident abroad appears upon the bill, he must apply before he 
puts in his answer, or applies for time to do so : either of which acts 
will be considered as a waiver of his right to the security.* Filing a 



. « Green v. Charnock, 3 Bro. C. C. 371 ; 2 
Cox, 284; 1 Ves. Jr. 396; Hoby v. Hitchcock, 
6 Yes. 699; Edwardes v. Burke, 9 L. T. N. S. 
406. 

• Blakeney v. Dufaur, 16 Beav. 292; 2 De 
6. M. & G. 771 ; 17 Jur. 98 ; and see Ken na way 
v. Tripp, 11 Beav. 588; Drum m on d v. Tilling- 
hnrst, 15 Jar. 384, Q. B. ; Stewart v. Stewart, 
20 Beav. 322; Wyllie v. El lice, 11 Beav. 99; 12 
Jar. 711; White r. Greathead, 15 Ves. 2; 1 
Hoff. Ch. Pr. 200; Ford v. Boucher, 1 Hodges, 
58. It is well settled that, to constitute one a 
resident, his residence must be of a fixed and 
permanent, and not of a mere temporary, char- 
acter. Graham Prac. 505. An absence of 
eighteen months will not be regarded as merely 
temporary, Foss v. Wagner, 2 Dowl. P. C. 
499 ; even though it is sworn that the party is 
soon expected. Wright v. Black, 2 Wend. 
258; Gilbert v. Gilbert, 2 Paige, 603. 

1 Ainsley v. Sims, 17 Beav. 57; 17 Jur. 657; 
and see Cam bo t tie v. Inngate, 1 W. R. 533, V. 
C. W. ; Swanzv v. Swanzv, 4 K. & J. 237 ; 4 
Jar. N. S. 1013". 

* O'Connor v. Sierra Nevada Co. 24 Beav. 
435. 



8 Meliorucchy v. Meliorucchy, 2 Ves. S. 24; 

1 Dick. 147; Craig v. Bolton, 2Bro. C. C. 609; 
Anon., 10 Ves. 287 ; and see Swanzv v. Swanzy, 
4 K. & J. 237; 4 Jur. N. S. 1013*; Murrow v. 
Wilson, 12 Beav. 497; Cooper v. Purton, 8 W. 
R. 702; and see Long v. Tottenham, 1 Ir. Ch. 
Rep. 127; Atkins v. Cooke, 3 Drew. 694; 3 
Jur. N. S. 283 ; Newman v. Landrine, 14 N. J. 
Eq. 291; Long *. Tardy, 1 John. Ch. 202; 
Goodrich v. Pendleton, 3 John. Ch. 520. In 
Massachusetts, though a writ sued out by the 
plaintiff, who is not an inhabitant of the State, 
is not indorsed as is required by Gen. Stats, c. 
123, § 20; Pub. Stats, c. 161 v § 24; yet the defend- 
ant must make the objection at the first term, 
or he will be held to have waived it. Carpenter 
«. Aid rich, 3 Met. 58 ; see Whiting v. Hollister, 

2 Mass. 102; Gilbert v. Nantucket Bank, 5 
Mass. 98 ; Clapp v. Balch, 3 Greenl. 216. The 
practice in New York, under the Act of that 
State authorizing the defendant to require secu- 
rity for costs, allows the application to be made 
at any stage of the cause, if the plaintiff was a 
non-resident at the commencement of the suit, 
and continues so. Burgess v. Gregory, 1 Edw. 
Ch. 449. 



(a) In Martin v. Russell, 21 L. R. Ir. 196, 
the plaintiff, who had no fixed residence and 
was a sea-faring man, but who resided with his 
family in the jurisdiction on his return from 
abroad, was ordered to give security for the 
costs of his suit. 

(6) Under the present English practice, it 
seems that the judge has a judicial discretion to 
direct security for costs to be given at any time. 



Martano v. Mann, 14 Ch. D. 419, where security 
was required from a next friend ; and see Ex 
parte Mercers' Co. 10 Ch. D. 481; Arkwright 
r. Newbold, W. N. (1880) 59. " The case of 
Garnett v. Bradley, 3 App. Cas. 944, decides 
that all Acts of Parliament dealing with costs, 
which are inconsistent with Ord. LV., are gone 
unless they are specially preserved." Tenant 
v. Ellis, 6 Q. B. D. 46. 

31 



31 



PERSONS BT WHOM A SUIT MAT BE INSTITUTED. 



demurrer has, however, been held not to be a waiver; 4 and where the 
plaintiff amended his bill, and stated thereby that he was out of the 
jurisdiction, the defendant was held not to be precluded from requiring 
security for costs, although he had some notice of the plaintiff being 
resident abroad previously to the date of the amendment.* 

If the plaintiff is not described in the bill as resident abroad, and 
the defendant does not become apprised of that fact before he puts in 
his answer, he may make the application after answer; if, however, he 
takes any material step in the cause after he has notice, he can- 
*31 not *then apply. 1 Where in a petition under an Act of Parlia- 
ment, authorizing the Court to make an order in a summary 
manner upon petition, the petitioner was out of the jurisdiction of the 
Court, and the respondent answered the affidavits in support of the 
petition, it was held 8 that he had not thereby lost his right to require 
the petitioner to give security for costs, but that he might make the 
application on the petition coming on to be heard.* 

If a plaintiff, after filing a bill, leaves the kingdom for the purpose 
of settling, and does actually take up his residence in foreign parts, it 
is, in any stage of the cause, ground for an order that he shall give 
security for costs. 4 The application for the order should be made as 
early as possible after the defendant has become apprised of the fact; 
and it is not enough to support such an application to swear that the 



* Watteen v. Billam, 3 De G. & S. 516; 14 
Jar. 165; Goodrich v. Pendleton, 3 John. Ch. 
520; Prion v. White, 2 MolL 861; Eardy v. 
Headford, 4 Moll. 464. 

« Wyllie v. Ellice, 11 Bear. 99; 12 Jar. 
911; and see Stewart «. Stewart, 20 Bear. 
822. 

1 Where the plaintiff was described in the 
original bill as late of the West Indies, but 
then of the city of London, and the defendant, 
having answered, filed a cross-bill against the 
plaintiff, but, exceptions having been taken to 
the answer, put in a further answer, and then 
applied to the Court that the plaintiff in the 
original bill might give security for costs, alle- 
ging in his affidavit, that upon applying to the 
plaintiff's solicitor in the original suit to appear 
for him to the cross-bill, he discovered, for the 
first time, that the plaintiff did not reside in 
London, as alleged in the bill, but in Ireland, — 
k was held, that as the defendant had, in his 
cross-bill, stated the plaintiff to be resident in 
Ireland, and after that had answered the excep- 
tions to his answer to the Original bill, he had 
thereby taken a step in the cause after it was 
evident that he had notice of the plaintiff's 
being out of the jurisdiction, and had thereby 
precluded himself from asking for security for 
costs, and the motion was therefore refused. 
Mason v. Gardner, 2 Bro. C C. ed. Belt, 609, 
notes; and see Wyllie r. Ellice, 11 Beav. 99; 
Smith «. Castles, 1 Gray, 106. 

* Ex part* geidler, 12 Sim. 106. See also 
Re Qome Assurance Ass. L. B. 12 Eq. 112, V. 

32 



C. M. ; Re Norman, 11 Beav. 401; JU Chepstow 
Bobbin Mills Co. 86 Ch. D. 563. 

8 See, however, Atkins v. Cook, 8 Drew. 
694 ; 8 Jur. N. 8. 288. Where the defendant 
had sworn to his answer before he had notice of 
the fact of the plaintiff being resident abroad, 
but, in consequence of some delay in the Six 
Clerks' Office, the answer was not filed till 
after the defendant had been informed of the 
plaintiff's residence, a motion that the plaintiff 
might give security for costs was considered too 
late, although the defendant himself was not 
privy to, or aware of, the delay which had taken 
place in filing his answer. Dyott «. Dyott, 1 
Mad. 187; and as to laches, see Wyllie «. 
Ellice, 11 Beav. 99; 12 Jur. 711; Swanay v. 
Swanay, 4 K. & J. 237; 4 Jur. N. S. 1013; 
Murrow v. Wilson, 12 Beav. 497. 

* Anon. 2 Dick. 775 ; Hoby v. Hitchcock, 5 
Yes. 699; Weeks v. Cole, 14 Yes. 518; Busk v. 
Beetham, 2 Beav. 587; Kerr v. Gillespie, 7 Beav. 
269; Kennaway «. Tripp, 11 Beav. 588; Stewart 
v. Stewart, 20 Beav. 328; Edwardes r. Burke, 
9 L. T. X. S. 406, Y. C. K. See also Busk v. 
Beetham, 2 Beav. 537; Blakeney v. Dufaur, 2 
De G. M. & G. 771; 17 Jur. 98. In Massa- 
chusetts, if a plaintiff in a process at Law or in 
Equity, after its commencement removes from 
the 8tate, the Court where the suit is pending 
shall, on the motion of any other party, require 
the plaintiff to procure a sufficient indorser. 
Gen. Stats, o. 129, § 29 ; Pub. Stats, c. 167, 
| 80 ; Smith ». Castles, 1 Gray, 106. 



PERSONS RESIDING OUT OF THE JURISDICTION. 



32 



plaintiff has merely gone abroad, but the evidence should go on to show 
that he is gone to settle abroad.* 

* To entitle a defendant to an order that the plaintiff may give * 32 
security for costs, it is necessary that the plaintiff should abso- 
lutely be gone abroad: the mere intention to go will not be sufficient. 1 
In a case, however, where the plaintiff, who was an alien enemy, was 
under confinement preparatory to his removal out of the country, upon 
a warrant by the Secretary of State under an Alien Act, the proceed- 
ings were stayed until he gave security for costs, although he was not 
actually gone out of the country. 2 (a) 

From analogy to the course adopted where the plaintiff is resident 
out of the jurisdiction, the Court will, upon application, restrain an 
ambassador's servant, whose person is privileged from arrest by the 
7 Anne,, c. 12, from proceeding with his suit until he has given security 
for costs.* 



* Ibid. ; White v. Greathead, 15 Ves. 2. The 
affidavit should also show clearly that the de- 
fendant did not know of the plaintiff's removal 
before taking the last step in the cause, or the 
application will be denied. Newman v. Land- 
rine, 14 N. J. Eq. 291. 

* Adams v. Colthurst, 2 Aust. 552; Willis 
v. Garbutt, 1 T. & J. 511; 1 Barb. Ch. Pr. 108; 
Hoby v. Hitchcock, 5 Ves. 699. 



(a) In case of the plaintiff's bankruptcy, 
security for costs is not confined to future 
costs, but if promptly applied for, may include 
costs already incurred. Brocklebank & Co. v. 
King's Lynn Steamship Co. 8 C. P. D. 365, 
overruling Oxenden v. Cropper, 4 Dowl. 574 ; 
Massey «. Allen, 12 Ch. D. 807. See Rhodes 
v. Dawson, 16 Q. B. D. 548; Re Carta Para 
Mining Co. 19 Ch. D. 457. In England the 
amount of the reasonable security to which the 
defendant is entitled, and the time, manner, 
and form in which it should be given, are in 
the judge's discretion. It may be increased 
while the proceedings are pending. Republic 
of Costa Rica v. Erlanger, 3 Ch. D. 62; Sturla 
r.Freccia, W. N. (1877) 188; W. N. (1878) 
161; Paxton*. Bell, 24 W. R. 1013; W. N. 
(1876) 221, 249. The English rule now is that, 
poverty being no bar to a litigant, security for 
costs may be required from a nominal plaintiff 
for the benefit of some one else, but not from a 
plaintiff trustee in bankruptcy, even though he 
is insolvent in fact. Ibid. ; Cowell v. Taylor, 
31 Ch. D. 34. In the case of an appeal, "an 
insolvent party is not excluded from the Court, 
but only prevented, if he cannot find security, 
from dragging his opponent from one Court to 
another." Bowen L. J. in Cowell v. Taylor, 
siipra; Swain v. Follows, 18 Q. B. D. 585; 
Drennan v. Andrew, L. R. 1 Ch. 300; Nixon v. 
Sheldon, 53 L. J. Ch. 624. As to security for 
coats of appeal, see also Pooley's Trustee v. 

VOL. I* — 8 



9 Seilaz ©. Hanson, 5 Ves. 261. As to secur- 
ity for costs from persons under sentence of 
transportation, see Baddeley v. Harding, 6 
Mad. 214; Harvey v. Jacob, 1 B. & Aid. 159; 
Barrett v. Power, 9 Exch. 338; 18 Jur. 156; 
Dunn p. M'Evoy, 1 Hogan, 355. 

• Anon. Mos. 175; Goodwin 9. Archer, 2 P. 
Wms. 452; Adderly «. Smith, 1 Dick. 355. 



Wetham, 33 Ch. D. 76; 28 id. 38; Be Clough, 
35 Ch. D. 7; Ellis v. Stewart, id. 459; Ferrer 
v. Lacy, 28 Ch. D. 482; Washburn & Moen 
Manuf. Co. v. Patterson, 29 Ch. D. 48; Smith 
v. Badham, 66 L. T. 822; The Hesketh, [1891] 
A. C. 628; Thomas v. Dougty, W. N. (1887) 
51; Wilmot v. Freehold H. P. Co. W. N. 
(1885) 65. As to " visible means" under 30 
& 31 Vict. c. 142, § 10, see Lea v. Parker, 13 
Q. B. D. 835. A corporation, as plaintiff, can- 
not be required to give security for costs 
because a receiver of its property has been 
appointed. Dartmouth Harbour Com're v. 
Dartmouth, L. J. 55 Q. B. 483. The rule that 
a defendant cannot be required to give security 
for costs does npt apply to a sheriff's inter- 
pleader, where both the plaintiff and the de- 
fendant in the issue are really in the position 
of plaintiffs in an ordinary suit. Williams v. 
Crosling, 8 C. B. 957; Tomlinson «. Land and 
Finance Co. 14 Q. B. D. 539; see Belmonte v. 
Aynard, 4 C. P. D. 221, 352. But in the 
absence of statute, a third person who is 
substituted as defendant in interpleader pro- 
ceedings, and who is a non-resident and 
irresponsible, will not be ordered to give 
security for costs as a condition of being per- 
mitted to prosecute his claim. McHugh v. 
Astrophe, 20 N. T. S. 877. As to increase at 
chambers, see Bentaen v. Taylor, [1893] 2 Q. B. 
193. 



33 



33 



PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAT BE INSTITUTED. 



By the old practice, £40 was the amount of security required to 
answer costs by any plaintiff who was out of the jurisdiction 
* 33 * of the Court, but this sum has been increased to filOO. 1 Where 
a person out of the jurisdiction of the Court presents a petition 
to have his solicitor's bills taxed, it seems that he must give security 
for the costs of the petition, and also for the balance that may be found 
due from him on the taxation. 2 

Where it appears on the bill s that the plaintiff is resident out of the 
jurisdiction, an order that he give security for costs is obtained on 
motion of course, or more usually on petition of course, 4 presented to 
the Master of the Bolls, on production of the stamped copy of the bill 
served on the defendant, or other authenticated copy thereof. 

In other cases, a special application by motion or summons* must be 
made. The notice of motion, or the summons, 6 must be served on the 
plaintiff's solicitor, and the application must be supported by evidence 
of the facts entitling the applicant to the order. 

The order directs the plaintiff to procure some sufficient person on 
his behalf to give security, according to the course of the Court, by 
bond to the Record and Writ Clerk in whose division the cause or 
matter is, 7 in the penalty of £100, conditioned to answer costs, in case 
any shall be awarded to be paid by the plaintiff; and it restrains 
proceedings in the mean time. 8 

When an order of course has been obtained, it must be served on the 
plaintiff or his solicitor; service of a special order, made on notice to 
him, is unnecessary. 

The security is given in one of the following modes: (1) The 
plaintiff's solicitor prepares a bond in the terms of the order,* 



1 Ga^e v. Lady Stafford, 2 Ves. 557; Com. 
Ord. XL. 6. See R. 8. C. LV. 2 (Ord. Feb., 
1876, r. 7); and 2 Seton, 1643, for forms. The 
order applies to the case of a plaintiff, with- 
in the jurisdiction, ordered to give security. 
Bailey v. Gundry, 1 Keen, 53. The Court re- 
fused to increase, upon an interlocutory appli- 
cation, the amount of security; Barry v. Jen- 
kins, 19 L. T. N. S. 276, V. C. M. It seems, 
however, that in the case of a petition, the 
amount is still only £40. Atkins v. Cooke, 8 
Jur. N. S. 283, V. C. K.; Partington v. Rey- 
nolds, 6 W. R. 307, V. C. K. In New 
York, the penalty of the bond was required to 
be at least $250; but the Court in a proper 
case might enlarge it, and might either fix the 
amount itself or refer it to a Master. 2 Rev. 
Stats. N. Y. 620, § 4; Fulton v. Roaevelt, 1 
Paige, 179; Massey v. Gillelan, 1 Paige, 644; 
Gilbert t>. Gilbert, 2 Paige, 603. 

» Ibid.; Ogilvie v. Hearne, 11 Yes. 599; 
Anon. 12 Sim. 262; see also Re Passmore, 1 
Bear. 94; -Be Dolman, 11 Jur. 1095, M. R. 

* What is stated in the text as to a bill suit 
will apply, mutatis mutandit, to a summons 
suit, petition, or other proceeding in which 
jecurity is directed to be given. 

34 



• Wyllie v. Ell ice, 11 Beav. 99; 12 Jur. 711. 

• Tynte *. Hodge, 2 J. & H. 692. 

• For forms of notice and summons, see 
Vol. III. 

• See Cons. Ord. I. 38. As to the form of 
the order for security and service, see 2 Seton, 
1269; Tilsley's Digest, 218; 1 Smith's Pr. 866; 
Braithwaite'a Pr. 534. 

• For forms of orders, see Seton, 1269, 1270. 
9 The bond is in the following form : — 

" Know all men by these presents, that we, 
A B, of the city of London, merchant, and 
C D, of the same place, merchant, are held 
and firmly bound to , Esq., 

in the penal sum of , for 

which payment to be well and faithfully made ; 
we bind ourselves and each of us, our, and each 
of our heirs, executors, and administrators, firm- 
ly by these presents. Sealed with our seals, &c. 

"Whereas L R, plaintiff, has lately ex- 
hibited his bill of complaint in her Majesty's 
High Court of Chancery against R S, defend- 
ant, touching the matter therein contained: 
Now the condition of this obligation is such, 
that if the above bounden A B and C D, or 
either of them, their heirs, executors, or admin- 
istrators, do and shall well and truly pay, or 



PERSONS RESIDING OUT OF THE JURISDICTION. 



85 



* engrosses it on paper bearing a 2«. 6d. inland revenue stamp, 1 *34 
procures it to be executed by the obligor or obligors, lodges it 
with the Record and Writ Clerk, 2 aud on the same day serves notioe 
thereof on the solicitor of the defendant who obtained the order; it is 
also advisable to serve the notice on the solicitor of any co-defendants 
who have not applied for security; 4 and the security is deemed to have 
been given on the day the bond is lodged. 6 (2) The plaintiff, instead 
of giving the bond in the first instance, may serve the defendant's 
solicitor with a notice 6 of the name, address, and description of the 
proposed obligor or obligors; and if no objection be made by him within 
two days thereafter, the bond may be prepared, executed, lodged, and 
notified as above explained. 7 (3) The plaintiff may apply by special 
motion 8 or summons,* that, in lieu of giving a bond, he may pay a sum 
of money into Court, to a separate account, to answer the costs; the 
amount should be sufficient to cover the sum mentioned in the order 
directing the security to be given, and the costs of bringing it into 
Court and getting it out. 10 The usual amount is £120 ; u no evidence in 
support of the application is necessary, beyond the production of the 
former order; the costs of the application are made costs in the cause. 
The order is drawn up and passed by the Registrar, and entered, and 
the money is paid into Court in the manner hereafter explained. 

One obligor is sufficient, but it is prudent to have two or more; as 
on the death or bankruptcy u of the sole, or sole surviving, obligor, the 
defendant is entitled to apply by special motion, 11 or summons, 14 that a 
new security may be given, and for a stay of proceedings in the mean 
time. 

Where one or more of several defendants have obtained an order for 
security, it is advisable to extend the bond to the costs of all the 
defendants, as otherwise the defendants who have not obtained the 
order may afterwards apply for a further bond as to their costs ; 
and it is presumed that, where a bond embracing the * costs of * 35 
all the defendants is lodged with the Record and Writ Clerk, and 
notified to them, he will hold the bond on behalf of all the defendants; l 



erase to be paid, all such costs as the Law 
Court shall think fit to award to the defendant 
on the hearing of the said cause or otherwise, 
then this obligation to be void, or else to re- 
main in full force and virtue. Sealed and de- 
livered, &c" 

1 If the bond is for a larger sum than £100, 
an increased stamp of U. 3d. for each additional 
£50 is payable; see Tilsley's Digest, 218. 

* The bond should be indorsed with the 
short title of the canse or matter, the words 
" Bond for Security for Costs," and the name, 
&c, of the solicitor leaving it. 

* For form of notice see Vol. III. 
« Bratthwaite's Pr. 634. 
•Ibid. 

* For form of notice, see Vol. TH. 

* Braithwaite's Pr. 588. 

* Cliffe p. Wilkinson, 4 Sim. 132; and see 



Fellows v. Deere, 8 Beav. 853 ; Re Norman, 11 
Beav. 401. 

• Jarvis v. Shand, Y. C. W. at Chambers, 
80 Jan., 1864; Reg. Lib. A. 164; Merlin v. 
Blagrave, Seton, 1270. For forms of notice of 
motion and summons, see Vol. III. 

io Cliffe v. Wilkinson, 4 Sim. 123. 

11 See Cliffe v. Wilkinson, ubi tupra ; Austra- 
lian Co. v. Fleming, 4 K. & J. 407. In the case 
of a petition it is presumed £60 would be suffi- 
cient 

i* Transatlantic Co. v. Pietroni, cited Seton, 
1269; Cliffe v. Wilkinson, 4 Sim. 122. 

" Latourv. Holcombe, 1 Phil. 262; and see 
Veitch v. Irving, 11 Sim. 122. % 

i* Tynte v. Hodge, 2 J. & H. 692. For forms 
of notice of motion and summons, see Vol. III. 

1 See Lowndes t. Robertson, 4 Mad. 465; 
and see OnL I. 88. 

95 



36 



PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT HAY BE INSTITUTED. 



and that a separate bond or bonds cannot afterwards be required. 8 
Whatever number of bonds, however, may be given, they all form a 
security for one sum only. 8 A solicitor should not be surety for his 
client. 4 The bond of an incorporated society has been held sufficient.* 

The defendant, on receiving notice that a bond has been lodged in 
the first instance, may, if dissatisfied with the bond, apply by special 
motion, 6 or summons, 7 that in lieu of, or in addition to, such bond, the 
plaintiff may be ordered, within a limited time, to give security for 
costs, according to the course of the Court, or in default thereof, tjhat 
the bill may be dismissed with costs, and that in the mean time all 
proceedings may be stayed. 8 The application should be supported by 
affidavit showing that the obligor is not a solvent person ; and may be 
opposed by his own affidavit, 9 justifying in double the amount named 
in the bond, 10 and by other evidence that he is a person of substance. 
The costs of inquiring into the circumstances of the proposed surety 
have been allowed. 11 

Where the plaintiff in the first instance submits, for approval, the 
name of the proposed obligor, the defendant, if he objects to the person 
proposed, must notify his objection to the plaintiff's solicitor within a 
reasonable time : M otherwise, the plaintiff may complete and lodge the 
bond. The plaintiff, on receiving notice of the defendant's objection, 
must either propose another person, or the person already offered must 
justify by affidavit 18 in double the sum for which he is to be bound; i4 
and in the latter case it is presumed the plaintiff should file the affi- 
davit, and lodge the bond, and give notice thereof to the defendant. u 

If the plaintiff fails to comply with the order to give security, the 
defendant may apply by special motion, or summons, 10 that the plain- 
tiff give security within a limited time, or, in default, that his 
* 36 * bill may be dismissed with costs; -and that proceedings may, in 
the mean time, be stayed. 1 



* See, however, 1 Smith's Pr. 866; Braith- 
waite's Pr. 532. 

8 Lowndes v. Robertson, 4 Mad. 465. 

* Panton v. Labertoache, 1 Phil. 265; 7 Jar. 
589. 

8 Plestow v. Johnson; 1 Sm. & G. App. 20; 
2 W. R. 3. 

8 Panton v. Labertoache, 1 Phil. 265; 7 Jar. 
589. 

7 For forms of notioe of motion and sum- 
mons, see Vol. III. 

8 Giddings v. GiddingB, 10 Beav. 29, and 
the cases collected, ib. 31; and see Denny v. 
Mars, Seton, 1279, where the order is given; 
Payne v. Little, 14 Beav. 647; O'Connor v. 
Sierra Nevada Go. 23 Beav. 608. 

8 See form in Vol. III. 
» See 1 Tarn. & Yen. 764; 1 Grant, 444. 
u Bainbrigge v. Moss, 3 Jnr. N. S. 107, 

V. c. w. 

13 See, however, Cliffe v. Wilkinson, 4 Sim. 
122, where the defendant moved on notice that 
the plaintiff might be ordered to give security 

36 



in lien of, or in addition to, the persons pro- 
posed. It is conceived, however, that the usoal 
practice is, as stated in the text, to notify the 
objection to the plaintiff before applying to the 
Court. For form of notice of objection, see Vol. 
of Forms. 

w For form, see Vol. III. 

i* See 1 Turn. & Ven. 764; 1 Grant, 444. 

16 The bond was formerly put in suit in the 
Petty Bag Office, the procedure in which was 
regulated by 12 & 13 Tic. c. 109. 

18 For forms of notice of motion and sum- 
mons, see Vol. III. 

i Cooper v. Purton, 1 N. R. 468, V. C. W.; 
and see Giddings v. Giddings, 10 Beav. 20, 
and cases collected 10 Beav. 81; Knight v. 
De Blaquiere, Saa. & S. 648; Payne v. Little, 
14 Beav. 647; O'Connor v. Sierra Nevada Co. 
23 Beav. 608; Kennedy v. Edwards, 11 Jar. 
N. S. 158, V. C. W.; see also Camac *. Grant, 
1 Sim. 848; 2 Sim. 570; White r. Bromige, 26 
W. R. 312; Charras v. Pickering, 39 L. J. Ch. 
190; Le Grange «. McAndrew, 4 Q. B. D. 210. 



PAUPEBS. 



37 



The day on which an order that the plaintiff do give security for 
costs is served, and the time thenceforward until, and including, the 
day on which such security is given, is not reckoned in the computation 
of time allowed a defendant to make his defence to the suit. 9 If it 
becomes necessary for the defendant to put the bond in suit, he must 
obtain an order,* on special motion or summons, that he may be at 
liberty to do so, and may have the bond delivered out to him for that 
purpose, and may use the name of the Record and Writ Clerk, the 
obligee, on giving him an indemnity, — such indemnity to be settled by 
the Judge, if the parties differ. The notice of motion or summons 4 
must be served on the plaintiff's solicitor; and the application must be 
supported by production of evidence of the costs having been directed 
to be paid, and of the amount and non-payment thereof. The order on 
such application is drawn up by the Registrar; a plain copy of it is 
lodged with the Record and Writ Clerk, together with a receipt for the 
bond, and an undertaking to indemnify him against the costs of any 
proceedings to be taken thereon in his name; and, if satisfied there- 
with, he will deliver out the bond. The receipt and undertaking are 
required to be signed by the defendant applying, and also by his solici- 
tor, and are usually written at the foot of the copy of the order.* 

Where money has been paid into Court as security for costs, in lieu 
of a bond, an application may be made at chambers, by summons, 9 for 
payment thereout of any costs ordered to be paid by the plaintiff to the 
defendant. The summons must be served on the plaintiff, and on any 
co-defendants interested in the fund, and must be supported by evi- 
dence of such payment having been directed, and of the amount paya- 
ble, and by production of the Accountant-General's certificate of the 
fund being in Court. 

If, subsequently to the order directing security for costs to be given, 
the plaintiff becomes resident within the jurisdiction, he may appty, 
on special motion or summons, 7 that the order may be discharged; but. 
he must pay the costs of the application. 1 



* Section V. — Paupers, 



♦37* 



It has been before stated l to be a general rule, subject to very few 
exceptions, that there is no sort or condition of persons who may not. 



For circumstances under which the time to give 
security was extended, see Grant t>. Ingram, 20 
L. T. N. S. 70, V. C. M. For form of order, see 
2 Seton, 1541, No. 4. 

* Cons. Ord. XXXVII. 14; see Henderson 
». Atkins, 7 W. B. 318, V. C. K.; Drinan «. 
Mannlx, 3 Dr. & W. 154. For the time al 
lowed for making the defence, see R. S. G. 
Ord. XXII. 1-3. 

* Robinson v. Brutton, 6 Bear. 147; Bain- 
brigge v. Mo«s, 3 Jar. N. S. 107, V. C. W. ; Reg. 
Lib. 1857, A. 283. 

4 For forms of notice and summons, see 

Yoi.ni. 



* Braithwaite's Pr. 535, 536. For forms off 
receipt and undertaking, see Vol. III. 

° For form of summons, see Vol. III. 

7 For forms of notice of motion and sum- 
mons, see Vol. IIL 

« O'Connor v. Sierra Nevada Co. 24 Bear. 
435; Mathews v. Chichester, 30 Bear. 135. 
For more on the subject of security for costs, 
see pott, Chap. III. § 2, Alien ; Chap. VI. § 5, 
The Bill; Ogilvie v. Hearn, 11 Yes. 600; Wor- 
rall r. White, 8 Jo. & Lat. 513; Hind r. Whit- 
more, 2 K. & J. 458, 462; Drinan v, Mannix, 
8 Dr. os W. 154. 

1 Ante, p. 5. 

37 



37 



PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAT BE INSTITUTED. 



sue in the Court of Chancery. Amongst the exceptions to this rule, 
those who are in indigent circumstances are not included, and any per- 
son, however poor he may be, being in other respects competent, has 
the same right as another to commence proceedings in the Court of 
Chancery for the assertion of his claims; and that, without being 
required to give any security for the payment of costs to the opposite 
party, in case he fails in his suit. 8 This liberality is extended to the 
case of the next friends of infants; 8 indeed, any other rule would 
amount to a denial of justice to the children of poor persons, who might 
become entitled to property, and yet be precluded from asserting their 
rights, by reason of their inability to procure substantial persons to be 
their next friends. 4 With regard to the next friend of 3. feme covert, 
the rule is different, for it has been held, that the next friend of a 
married woman must be a person of substance;* because a married 



9 Such is the law of Massachusetts, Feneley 
v. Mahone}-, 21 Pick. 212; and Tennessee, 
Dudley v. Balch, 4 Hay. 192, Code of Tenn. 
§ 8192. This right must not be abased; see 
Burke v. Lidwell, 1 Jo. & Lat. 703, where a 
pauper plaintiff was required to give security, 
the person really interested having nominally 
assigned to the pauper, in order to avoid lia- 
bility to costs ; see, however, Worrall v. White, 
8 Jo. & Lat 513, 515. See as to requiring secu- 
rity for costs from insolvent plaintiff in a class 
suit, Tredwell v. Byrch, 1 Y. & C. Ex. 478. 

* The next friend of a minor plaintiff can- 
not be compelled to give security for costs. 
St. John t>. Earl of Besborough, 1 Hogan, 41 ; 
Fellows v. Barrett, 1 Keen, 119; Murrell v. 
Glapham, 8 Sim. 74. Nor would the Court 
enter into any inquiry as to the circumstances 
of a proposed next friend of an infant in place 
of another whom it became important to exam- 
ine as a witness. Davenport v. Davenport, 1 
S. & S. 101. 

The early English cases are, however, uni- 
form that the next friend of an infant should 
be a person of substance, otherwise he may be 
ruled to security. Wale v. Salter, Mos. 47, 
citing Webster v. Guy, decided by the Lord 
Chancellor on the previous day; Anon. Mos. 
86; Anon. 1 Atk. 570; Turner v. Turner, 2 
P. W. 297; see Anon. 1 Yes. 410; Squirrel v. 
Squirrel, 2 Dick. 765. In view of these authori- 
ties, Chancellor Walworth required the insol- 
vent next friend of an infant to give security 
in Fulton v. Rosevelt, 1 Paige, 178. See Dal- 
rymple v. Lamb, 3 Wend. 424 ; Wice v. Com- 
mercial Fire Ins. Co. 2 Abb. N. Cas. 825. And 
where a party is enabled, by rule of court, such 
as the 98th rule of Lord Bacon (Beames*s Or- 
ders, 44), or by statute, to- prosecute a suit as a 
pauper, upon taking a prescribed oath of pov- 
erty, the next friend of an infant cannot sue 
in forma pauperis, the privilege being consid- 
ered as personal. Wilkinson v, Belsher, 2 Bro. 

38 - 



C. C. 272; Anon. 1 Yes. Jr. 409; Green t. Har- 
rison, 8 8need, 131 ; Cohen v. Shyer, 1 Tenn. 
Ch. 192. Nor can the next friend of a married 
woman. Lawrence v. Lawrence, 3 Paige, 287. 
Nor the informer in a qui tarn action. Johnson 
c. Hunter, 1 Leg. Rep. 168. An executor or 
administrator cannot sue in forma pauperis, 
Paradice v. Sheppard, 1 Dick. 136; McCoy v. 
Broderick, 3 Sneed, 203; infra, 38, n. 3. 

But the Court may, upon being satisfied by 
the report of the Master that there is probable 
cause for proceeding, authorize an infant to sue 
by next friend in forma pauperis, Fulton v. 
Rosevelt, 1 Paige, 178. Though the affidavit of 
the infant alone will not sustain the order, Lind- 
say v. Tyrrell, 2 De G. & J. 7. And may, in 
like manner, permit a wife to file a bill against 
the husband in forma pauperis, Robertson v. 
Robertson, 3 Paige, 387. But see contra, Ward 
9. Ward, 2 Dev. Eq. 553. 

The next friend of a married woman may 
be charged with the costs in a proper case, 
Re Wells, 12 W. R. 97. So may the next 
friend of an infant, Haggard v. Benson, 8 
Tenn. Ch. 268, 279; see infra, 79, note. But, 
ordinarily, if the suit be prosecuted in good 
faith, the costs will be paid out of the infant's 
estate. Staines v. Maddox, Mos. 319; Caley 
p. Caley, 25 W. R. 528 ; Taner v. Fire, 2 Yes. 
466; Smith v. Floyd, 1 Pick. 275; Feneley v. 
Mahoney, 21 Pick. 212; Bradford v. French, 
110 Mass. 365; Boucbe v. Ryan, 3 Blackf. 472; 
Yourie v. Nelson, 1 Tenn. Ch. 614. In Massa- 
chusetts, upon a construction of their statutes, 
it has been held that the next friend of an in- 
fant is not chargeable with costs. Crandall v. 
Slaid, 11 Met. 288. 

4 See Anon. 1 Yes. Jr. p. 410; Squirrel v. 
Squirrel, 2 Dick. 765; 2 P. Wms. 297, n.; Dav- 
enport v. Davenport, 1 8. & S. 101; Murrell v. 
Clapham, 8 Sim. 74; Fellows v. Barrett, 1 Keen, 
119. See preceding note. 

* Anon. 1 Atk. 570; Pennington «. Alvin, 



PAUPERS. 



3* 



woman and an infant are differently circumstanced, as the infant can- 
not select his own next friend, but must rely upon the good offices of 
those who are nearest to him in connection, or otherwise his rights 
might go unasserted, but the married woman has the power of select- 
ing: she is, therefore, if she sues by a next friend, required to select a 
person who, if her claim should turn out to be unfounded, can pay to 
the defendant the costs of the proceeding. 

In consequence of the provisions of Stat. 11 Hen. VII. c. 12, 6 
* the Courts of Law admitted all persons to sue in forma pauperis * 38 
who could swear that they were not worth £5, except their 
wearing-apparel, and the subject-matter of the suit. This practice of 
the Courts of Law yas followed by Courts of Equity, although persons 
suing in these Courts do not come within the provisions of the Act of 
Parliament above referred to, 1 and they extended the relief to the case 
of defendants. 3 

The privilege is not extended to a plaintiff or a defendant suing or 
being sued in a representative character, as executor or administrator; * 
but the case of a person sustaining the mixed character of executor and 
beneficiary is an exception to the general rule; although in order to 
prevent any undue practice in suing in forma pauperis, and under color 
of that privilege obtaining dives costs, a special order is necessary. 4 
An exception to the strict application of the rule has, however, been 
made, by allowing an executor to proceed in forma pauper is, for the 
single purpose of clearing a contempt incurred in the cause.* 

It is said, that a person filling the character of next friend cannot 
sue in forma pauperis, 9 although, as we have seen before, the poverty 
of a next friend of an infant is no ground for dismissing him; and 
formerly there was some uncertainty as to the practice, when a married 
woman could not obtain a substantial next friend to sue on her behalf ; 7 



1 S. & S. 264; Jones v. Fawcett, 2 Pbil. 278; 
Stevens v. Williams, 1 Sim. N. S. 645; Wilton 
«. Hill, 2 Do G. It & G. 807-809; Hind v. 
Whitmore, 2 K. & J. 458 ; Re Wills, 9 Jur. N. S. 
1225; 12 W. B. 97, V. C. S.; Elliott v. Ince, 7 
De G. M. & G. 475; 3 Jur. N. S. 597; Smith 
t. Etches, 1 H. & M. 711; 10 Jur. N. S. 124; 
Re Payne, 23 Ch. D. 288; and see post, Femes 
Covert Plaintiff*. 

Where the same person was the next friend 
of an infant plaintiff and of a married woman 
plaintiff, Lord St. Leonards stayed the proceed- 
ings in the cause until the next friend of the 
feme plaintiff was changed or gave security for 
costs. Drinan 9. Mannix, 2 Dru. & War. 154. 

• Beames on Costs, 72. 

i See Story, Eq. PI. § 50 < 1 Harr. Ch. Pr. by 
Newl. 889, 390; 1 Hon!. Ch. Pr. 67, el uq.; 
board v. Cazeaux, 1 Paige, 39. 

« See poet, Chap. IV/§ 7, Pauper Defend- 
ant*. In England this practice has been adopted 
in the Chancery Division of the High Court of 
Justice. Sup. Ct. of Jud. Act, 1873 (36 & 37 
Vic. c. 66), § 23; id. of 1876 (38 & 39 Vie. 
c. 77), § 21. See R. 8. C. 1883, Ord. XVI. 



Part IV. 22-31. The Act 11 Hen. VIL c 12, 
was repealed by 46 & 47 Vic. c. 49, § 4 Sched. 

* Paradice v. Sheppard, 1 Dick. 136 ; 
Beames on Costs, 79 App. No. 21 ; Old field 
v. Cobbett, 1 Phil. 613 ; 2 Beav. 446 ; 3 Beav. 
432 ; 10 Jur. 2 ; Fowler v. Davies, 16 Sim. 
182; 12 Jur. 321 ; St. Victor v. Devereux, 6 
Beav. 584 ; 8 Jur. 26. 

* Thompson v. Thompson, H. T. 1824, 
cited 1 Turn. & Ven. 513 ,• and see Rogers •. 
Hooper, 1 W. R. 474, V. C. K. ; Everson e. 
Matthews, 3 W. R. 159, V. a W. ; Parkin- 
son v. Chambers, ib. 34, V. C. W. As to the 
affidavit in such a case, see Martin v. Whit- 
more, W. N. (1869) 42 ; 17 W. R. 809, L. C. 

* Oldfield v Cobbett, 1 Coll. 169. 

* Anon. 1 Ves. Jr. 410. The reason is, 
that the privilege of suing in forma pauperis 
is personal. Williamson v. Belsher, 2 Bro. 
C. C. 272; Robertson v. Robertson, 3 Paige, 
387. So of the next friend of a married 
woman. Lawrence v Lawrence, 3 Paige, 267. 
See ante, 37, n 3. 

* See Dowden v. Hook, 8 Beav. 299. 



39 



39 



PERSONS BT WHOM A SUIT HAY BE INSTITUTED. 



but now she may, on an ex parte motion/ supported by affidavit that 

she is unable to procure any substantial person to act as her next 

friend, 9 obtain an order authorizing her to institute and prosecute 

*39 a suit} 10 * to carry on proceedings after decree; l or to appeal* 

without a next friend, in forma pauperis. 

It seems also that, in a proper case, an infant will be permitted to 
sue by a next friend in forma pauperis, on an ex parte motion, sup- 
ported by affidavit that the infant cannot procure any substantial person 
to act as next friend. • (a) 

A husband and wife may obtain an order of course to sue in forma 
pauperis, in respect of the wife's reversionary interest; 4 and where a 
woman was ordered to be examined pro interesse suo, respecting a claim 
set up by her to some lands taken under a sequestration, but was unable 
from poverty to make out or support her right, liberty was given to her 
to do so in forma pauperis,* 

Proceedings under the Trustee Relief Act 6 and presumably the 
Infant Custody Act 7 may be prosecuted in forma pauperis ; and so 
also may claims in a suit by persons who are not parties; * but in these 
cases, the order is made on application by an ex parte motion, 9 sup- 
ported by affidavit, and is not of course. 

A plaintiff may be admitted to sue as a pauper upon the usual 
affidavit, at any time after the bill has been filed, or summons issued , 10 



8 For form of motion paper, see Vol. III. 

* For form of affidavit, see Vol. III. 

u Re Foster, 18 Beav. 525 ; Welles ley v. 
Wellesley, 16 Sim. 1 ; 1 De 6 M. & G. 501 ; 
Wellesley v. Mornington, 18 Jur. 552, V. C 
K. ; Re Lancaster, 18 Jur. 229, L. C. & L. JJ.; 
Crouch v. Waller, 4 De 6. & J. 43 ; 5 Jur. 
N. S. 326 » Re Barnes, 10 W. R. 464, V. C. S. ; 
Smith v. Etches, 1 H. & M. 711 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 
124 ; 3 N. B. 457 ; Adamson v. Adamaon, 2 
Seton, 655 \ and see Ex parte Hakewill, 3 De 
G. M. & G. 116. The decision in Page v. 
Page, 16 Beav. 588, where such an order was 
discharged, is overruled by these cases; but see 
Caldicott v. Baker, 13 W. R 449, V. C. K. 
The order is not as of course, Coulstlng v. 
Coulsting, 8 Beav. 463 , 9 Jur. 587 ; and has 
been held not to be allowable where the suit Is 
against the husband. Ward v. Ward, 2 Dev. 
Eq. 553. It has also been held that a wife can- 
not sue her husband by her trustee, but only 
by a next friend. Hunt v Booth, 1 Freem. Ch. 
215. Under the construction of the divorce 
statutes in Tennessee, the wife has been per- 
mitted to sue without a next friend, and in 
forma pauperis. Hawkins v. Hawkins, 4 Sneed, 
105. Upon a proper application, a wife may 
be permitted to file a bill against her husband, 
for a separation, in forma pauperis. But this 
will not be done until the Court has ascertained 
by the report of a Master, that she has probable 



cause for filing such a bill. Robertson v. 
Robertson, 3 Paige, 387. 

i D'Oechsner v. Scott, 24 Beav. 239 ; see 
M'Cann v. Borradalle, 37 L. J. Ch. 124 ; Re 
Ganvill, 31 Ch D. 532. 

* Crouch v. Waller, 4 De G. & J. 43 ; 5 
Jur. N. S. 326 ; and see Martin v. Whitmore, 
W. N. (1869) 42 i 17 W. R. 809, L. C. ; R. S. 
C. Ord. XVI. 8. 

• Lindsay v. Tyrrell, 2 De G. & J. 7; 24 
Beav. 124 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 1014. 

* Pitt v. Pitt, 1 Sm. & G. App. 14 ; 17 Jur 
571. 

8 James v. Done, 2 Dick. 788. 

• Re Money, 13 Beav. 109, the Act is 10 & 
11 Vic. c. 96. 

7 See Re Hakewill, 3 De G. M. & G 116; 
the Act is 2 & 3 Vic. c. 54 (repealed by 36 & 
87 Vic. c. 12) ; and see pott, Vol. II., Infant 
Custody Act. 

8 See Re Shard, Partington v. Reynolds, 
cited 2 Seton, 1646, No. 2, where the order is 
given ; and see in other cases Ex parte Hake- 
will, 3 De G. M. & G. 116 ; Ex parte Fry, 1 
Dr. & S. 318. 

9 Not by petition, see 2 Seton, 1646; for 
form of motion paper, see Vol. HI. 

1° See Parkinson v. Chambers, 3 W. R. 34, 
V. C. W. ; Braithwaite's Pr 562; but a mar- 
ried woman may apply before bill, if the draft 
bill has been settled and signed by counsel. 



(a) In the Federal Courts infants may sue or defend in forma pauperis. Ferguson v. Dent, 
15 Fed. Rep. 771; see infra, p. 42, n. (a). 

40 



PAUPERS. 



♦40 



but he will be liable to all the costs incurred before his admission, 11 
and to costs previously ordered to be paid, without being first 
dispaupered. 14 

It 'seems doubtful whether, after a dismissal of a former suit, a 
plaintiff will be permitted to sue again for the same matter in forma 
pauperis, without paying the costs of the first suit; 1S (b) but the circum- 
stance that the suit is .a second suit for the same matter as a former 
suit, in which the plaintiff had likewise sued as a pauper, is no ground 
of objection to the second suit, unless it can be justly characterized as 
very vexatious. 14 

* A pauper may appeal, 1 (a) and where a party has, in any stage # 40 
of the suit, obtained the common order for his admission as a 
pauper, no special order is required to enable him to appeal; 1 but 
where he has not been already admitted as a pauper, an order which 
can only be made by the Court of Appeal, authorizing the appeal in 
forma pauperis, is necessary;* and it seems that a certificate of coun- 
sel that there are special and strong grounds for the appeal may be 
required. 4 

In order to be permitted to sue in forma pauperis, the plaintiff must 



Wellesley v. Mornington, 18 Jar. 552; Re 
Barnes, 10 W. R. 464, V. C. S. 

" Mos. 68 ; and see Ballard v. Catling, 2 
Keen, 606 ; Church e. Marsh, 2 Hare, 652 ; 8 
Jar. 54 ; Smith v. Pawson, 2 Do G. & & 400 ; 
Prince Albert v. Strange, id. 652, 718 ; 13 Jar. 
507. 

11 Davenport v. Davenport, 1 Phil. 124 ; 
Brown v. Story, 1 Paige, 588. See, however, 
Bennett v. Chudleigh, 2 T. & C. C. C. 164 ; 
Snowball v. Dixon, 5 De G. & S. 9. 

" Corbett v. Corbett, 16 Ves. 407, 410, 412 ; 
Brook v. Alcock, 20 March, 1834, V. C. £., 
cited 1 Smith's Ch. Pr. 555 ; but see Fitton 
». Earl Macclesfield, 1 Vera. 264; and see Chit- 
ty's Arch. 1292 ; Hawes v. Johnson, 1 Y. & 
J 10. 

" Wild v. Hobson, 2 V. & B. 105, 112 ; see 
Brook v. Alcock, and Elsam v. Alcock, cited 1 



(6) In such case a Judge, in bis discretion, 
may properly refuse leave to the plaintiff to sue 
in forma pauperis. McCabe v. Bank of Ireland, 
14 App. Cas. 413 ; Martin v. Beauchamp, 25 Ch. 
D. 12. Courts of Equity, unlike the Law Courts, 
will not always require a plaintiff who can show 
a valid excuse, to pay the costs of his first suit 
before prosecuting a second suit for the same 
cause. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Mertes (Neb.), 
52 N. W. 1099. But, in general, a motion in 
an Equity suit, which has been refused with 
costs, cannot be renewed until those costs are 
paid. See Bellchamber v. Giani, 3 Madd 550; 
Oldfield v. Cobbett, 12 Beav. 91 ; see Re Neal, 
Weston v. Neal, 81 Ch D. 437 ; Re Youngs, 
Doggett v. Revett (No. 2), id. 239: Henderson 
v. Underwriting 6 A. Ass. 65 L. T. 616, 732; 



Smith's Ch. Pr. 874. As to married women, 
see Kiff v Roberts (No. 2), 33 Ch. D. 265. 

1 Bland v. Lamb, 2 J. & W. 402 ; contra, 
Taylor v. Bouchier, 2 Dick. 504 ; Bolton v. 
Gardner, 3 Paige, 273 ; and tee post, 1482. 

* Drennan ». Andrew, L. R. 1 Ch. 800, L C ; 
and see cases cited, ib. 301, n. (7). 

* 2 Seton, 1646 ; see also Clarke v. Wyburn, 
12 Jur. 167, L. C. ; Heaps v. Commissioners of 
Churches, ib. n. ; L. R. 1 Ch. 301, n. (7) ; 
Bradberry v. Brooke, 25 L. J. Ch. 576 ; 4 W. 
R 699, L. JJ. ; Crouch «. Waller, 4 De G. & J. 
43 ; 5 Jur. N. 8. 826 ; Grimwood v. Shave, 5 
W. R. 482, L. C. For form of order, see 2 
Seton, 1646, No. 3. See Bowie v. Ailsa, 13 App. 
Cas. 371. The order is obtainable on ex parte 
motion. 

4 Grimwood v. Shave, 5 W. R. 482, L. C. ; 
and see L. R. 1 Ch. 301, n. (7). 



Hall v. Paulet, 66 L. T. 645 ; White 9 Bromtge, 
26 W. R. 812 ; Peters 9. Lilly, 11 P. D. 145. 
The same rule is acted upon by the Law Courts. 
Hoare 9. Dickson, 7 C. B. 164 ; Morton 9. 
Palmer, 9 Q. B. D. 891; see Ex parte Mackin- 
tosh. 13 Q. B. D. 235. As to ordering security 
for costs, instead of dismissing the suit for want 
of prosecution, see Wilmott 9. Freehold H. F. 
Co. 52 L. T. 743. If the order is obtained br 
the defendant, with stay until given, he may 
still move to dismiss the suit for want of prose- 
cution. London Road Car Co. v. Kelly, 18 L. R. 
Ir. 43. 

(a) As to a pauper appellant's costs on a 
successful appeal to the House of Lords, see 
Johnson v. Lindsay No. 2, [1892] A. C. 210. 



41 



41 



PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT HAT BE INSTITUTED. 



lay a case before counsel for his opinion whether or not he has reason- 
able ground for suing, 6 and must present a petition to the Master of 
the Bolls, 6 containing a short statement of his case, and of the pro- 
ceedings, if any, which have been had in the cause, and praying to be 
admitted to sue in forma pauperis, and that a counsel and a solicitor 
may be assigned him if not an infant. 7 

This petition must be accompanied by the case laid before counsel • 
for his opinion, and his opinion thereon with an affidavit of the party 
or his solicitor, that the case contains a full and true statement of all 
the material facts to the best of his knowledge and belief, 9 and must be 
supported by an affidavit, sworn by the plaintiff, that he is not worth 
the sum of £25, his wearing-apparel and the subject-matter of the s\iit 
only excepted. 10 The meaning of the affidavit is, that the plaintiff has 
not £25 in the world available for the prosecution of the suit-, and if 
he can make an affidavit with truth in that sense, the omission to set 
forth the details of his means, and the circumstances which render 
them unavailable, is not such an omission of material facts as will 
induce the Court, on that ground alone, to discharge the order. 11 

This affidavit must be sworn by the party himself; and in a case in 
which it afterwards appeared that the affidavit had been sworn by a 
third person, the party was dispaupered. 18 

The petition and case for the opinion of counsel, and an office 
* 41 copy of the plaintiff's * affidavit, and usually also a copy of the 
bill, are now lodged at the Chancery Register's office, where, if 
no cause to the contrary is seen, an order is drawn up and entered, by 
which the petitioner is admitted to sue in forma pauperis, and a counsel 
and solicitor are assigned to act on his behalf. 1 (a) 

The order should be served upon the opposite party as soon as possi- 



• R. S. C. 1883, Ord. XVI. 23. 

• Now to the High Court of Justice. 

7 But a plaintiff feme covert cannot obtain 
the order as of course, and it must therefore 
be applied for on an ex parte motion in the 
Court to which the cause is attached. Cool- 
sting v Counting, 8 Bear. 463; Be Lancaster, 
18 Jur. 229, L. C. & L. JJ.; Re Foster, 18 
Beav. 525. Now, the order seems to be as of 
course in the case of a married woman. See 
45 & 46 Vic c 75, $1; R. S- C 1883, Ord. 
XVI. 16. For form of motion paper, see 
Vol. III. 

• As to the duty of counsel for a pauper, 
see lies v Flower, 6 L. T. N. S. 843, L. C. 

• Cons. Ord. VII. 8; R. S. C. 1883, Ord. XVI. 
24; see Be Atkinson, 23 L. R. Ir. 509. For forms 
of petition, certificate, and affidavit, see Vol. III. 

w The affidavit must not except the just 



debts of the plaintiff, as appears at one time 
to have been allowed: per Sir J. L. Knight 
Bruce, V. C, in Perry «. Walke-, 1 Coll. 233; 
Beames on Costs, 80; and see fcim of affidavit, 
Vol. III. 

11 Dresser v. Morton, 2 Phil. 286; and see, 
as to the poverty which entitles a person to 
sue in forma pauperis, Allen v. McPherson, 5 
Beav. 469, 485; Boddington v. Woodley, id. 
555; Goldsmith v. Goldsmith, 5 Hare, 125; 
Perry v. Walker, 1 Coll. 233, 236. 

is Wilkinson v. Belsher, 2 Bro. C. C. 272. 

1 For form of order, see 2 Seton, 127L Where 
an order had been obtained on an ex parte 
application that the plaintiff be permitted to 
prosecute in forma pauperis, the same was 
vacated with costs. Isnard v. Cazeaux, 1 
Paige, 89 



(a) The rules of R. S. C. 1883, Ord. XVI. 
do not oblige a party having leave to sue m 
forma pauperis to have counsel or solicitor 
assigned to him; and where they are not as- 
signed, he may appear in person. Tucker «. 
Collinson, 16 Q. B. D. 562, 54 L. T. 128,268. As 

42 



to obtaining leave by summons in Chambers, 
see Be Lewin, 83 W. R. 128. A non-resident 
plaintiff may be allowed to sue m forma pau- 
peris in a proper case. Heckman t>. Mackey , 32 
Fed. Rep. 574; Harris v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. 
13 N. T. S. 718. 



PAUPERS. 



42 



ble; for a plaintiff admitted to sue in forma pauperis has been ordered 
to pay dives costs to the defendant, in respect of a step in the cause 
taken before service of the order; * it seems, however, that there is a 
discretion in the Court in such cases, and that the order to sue in 
forma pauperis is not necessarily inoperative in all cases until service. 9 
The order should also be lodged with the Record and Writ Clerk, for 
entry in his books ; 4 and must be produced to the officers of the Court 
whenever required by them. 

If an order has been obtained as of course upon a suppression of 
material facts, it will be discharged on an application by motion on 
notice. 5 

After admittance, no fee, profit, or reward is to be taken of the 
pauper by any counsel or solicitor, for the despatch of his business, 
whilst it depends in Court, and he continues in forma pauperis ; nor is 
any agreement to be made for any recompense or reward afterwards; 
and any person offending is to be deemed guilty of a contempt of Court; 
and the party admitted giving any such fee, or making any such agree- 
ment, is to be thenceforth dispaupered, and not be admitted again in 
that suit to sue in forma pauperis.* 

The counsel or solicitor assigned by the Court to assist a person 
admitted in forma pauperis, either to sue or defend, may not refuse so 
to do, unless he satisfies the Judge who granted the admittance with 
some good reason for his refusal.' 

When a pauper has had counsel assigned to him, he cannot be heard 
in person. 8 

No process of contempt will be issued, at the instance of any person 
suing or defending in forma pauperis, until it be signed by his solicitor 
in the suit*, and all notices of motion served, or petitions presented, on 
behalf of any person admitted to sue or defend in forma pauperis 
(except for the discharge of his solicitor) must be signed by his solici- 
tor; and such solicitor should take care that no such process be taken 
out, and that no such notice or petition be served, needlessly, or for 
vexation, but upon just and good grounds. 9 If the solicitor of the 
pauper does not prosecute the suit properly, he will be discharged and 
ordered to deliver up all the papers in the suit to the new solicitor of 
the pauper, subject to his lien for the money which on taxation may be 
found due to him for costs. 10 

* A pauper may move to dismiss his bill without costs, 1 but *42 



* Ballard v. Catling, 2 Keen, 006; see also 
Smith v. Pawson, 2 De G. & S. 400. 

1 Church v. Marsh, 2 Hare, 652; 8 Jar. 54. 

* Braithwalte's Pr. 563. The order is now 
lodged at the Central Office of the Court 

* See Nowell v. Whitaker, 6 Bear. 407. 

• Cons. Ord. VII. 9, 10; See now R. S. C. 
1883, Ord. XXVI.-XXVIII. 

7 Ibid. 

• Parkinson v. Hanbury, 4 De G. M. & G. 
608. 

• Cons. Ord. VII. 11 ; R. S. C. 1883, Ord. 
XVI. 28, 30; Perry «. Walker, 2 T. & C. C. C. 



655; 4 Bear. 452; and see Cons. Ord. III. 10; 
Brown v. Dawson, 2 Hogan, 76, as to the lia- 
bilities of a pauper's solicitor. 

» Hannaford v. Hanna, W. N. (1871) 37; 
19 W. R. 429, V. C. S. For form of order, see 
1 Seton, 637, No. 2. 

i Although in Pearson v. Belsher, 3 Bro. 
C. C. 87, it is stated that the dismissal Is 
only to be made on payment of costs, the order 
was drawn np without costs; see Reg. Lib. 
1789, B. 524, entered Pearson v. Wolfe; 8 Bro. 
C. C. 87, ed. Belt, n. 1; Beames on Costs, 88. 



43 



43 



PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAT BE INSTITUTED. 



the motion must not be made ex parte;* and a pauper cannot amend 
his bill by striking out defendants, except on payment of their costs.* 
If a cause goes against a pauper at the hearing, he is not ordered to 
pay costs to the defendant; it is said, however, that he may be pun- 
ished personally, although the practice of inflicting such punishment 
appears to be now obsolete. 4 

It seems to have been formerly considered, that where a plaintiff 
sues in forma pauperis, and has a decree in his favor with costs, he 
will only be entitled to such costs as he has been actually out of 
pocket; * but it is now settled, that the costs of a successful pauper are 
in the discretion of the Court; 6 (a) and where costs are ordered to be 
paid to a party suing or defending in forma pauperis, such costs are to 
be taxed as in other cases, unless the Court or a Judge otherwise 
directs. T Where an appeal against a decree in favor of a person suing 
in forma pauperis was dismissed without costs, the deposit was ordered 
to be paid out to the pauper.' 

A pauper m&y be ordered to pay the costs occasioned by scandalous 
matter inserted by him in the proceedings. 9 

If, at any time, it is made to appear to the Court that he is of such 
ability that he ought not to be allowed to sue or to continue to sue 
in forma pauperis, the Court will dispauper him ; 10 therefore, where it 
was shown that a pauper was in possession of the property in question, 
he was ordered to be dispaupered, though the defendant had a 
*43 verdict at Law, and might *take a writ of possession at any 
time; x so also where a plaintiff had offered by her bill to redeem a 



* Parkinson t. Hanbury, 4 De G. M. & O. 
508; and see Wilkinson e». Belaher, 2 Bro. C 
C.272. 

* Wilkinson *. Belaher, 2 Bro. C. C. 272. 
< Har. 391. 

s Angell v. Smith, Prec. Cha. 220; see 
Williams v. Wilkins, 3 John. Cb. 65. 

« Seatchmer v. Fonlkard, 1 Eq. Gas. Ab. 
125, pi. 3 { Hantton v. Hager, cited in Angell 
v. Smith, Prec. Cha. 220; Wallop v. War- 
burton, 2 Cox, 409; Rattray v. George, 16 Yes. 
233; Church*. Marsh, 2 Hare, 655; 8 Jar. 54; 
Roberts v. Lloyd, 2 Bear. 376; Stafford «. 
Higginbotham, 2 Keen, 147. And see R. 8. C. 
Ord. LV. ; Garnett v. Bradley, 8 App. Cas. 944, 
H. L.j Ex parte Mercers' Co. 10 Ch. D. 461, 
M. R. A plaintiff suing in forma pauperis, and 
recovering a legacy against executors, when 
there was no unreasonable delay on their part, 
ought not to recover dives costs, but only the 
actual expenses of the suit, to be paid by the 
executors out of the assets. Williams 9. Wil- 
kins, 8 John. Ch. 65. 

* Cons. Ord. XL. 5; R. S. C. 1883, Ord. XVL 
31; see Beames on Costs, 77; forcases since the 



order, Wellesley 9. Wellesley, 1 De G. M. & 
G. 501 ; tfornington v. Keen, 8 W. R. 429 ; 24 
L. J. Ch. 400, V. C W.; Phillip* •. Phillips, 

4 De G. F. & J. 208, 220; 8 Jur. N. S. 146, 
L. C. If a party, suing in forma pauperis, 
amends his bill after answer under the common 
order, It must be upon the payment of costs, as 
inordinary suits; and if he has a meritorious 
claim to amend without costs, he must apply 
to the Court by special motion upon affidavit 
and notice to the adverse party. Richardson 
9. Richardson, 5 Paige, 58. 

« Phillips v. Phillips, 4 De G. F. & J. 208, 
220; 8 Jur. N. S. 145, L. C. 

• Per Lord Eldon, in Rattray v. George, 16 
Ves.234; Tothill,237. 

m Romilly *. Grint, 2 Beav. 186; Mather 
9. Shelmerdine, 7 Beav. 267; Butler v. Gar- 
dener, 12 Beav. 525; Perry r. Walker, IColl. 
229,236; 8 Jur. 680; Goldsmith 9. Goldsmith, 

5 Hare, 125; Daintree v. Haynes, 12 Jur. 594, 

V. C. E. 

i Wyatt'sP.R. 321. See Spencer v. Bryant, 
11 Ves. 49; see also Taprell v. Taylor, 9 Beav. 
498; Butler v. Gardener, 12 Beav. 525. 



(a) Under the English S. C. Rules of 1883 
a successful plaintiff in an action in forma pau- 
peris tried before a Judge and jury is entitled to 
costs ont of pocket onlv, and not to remunera- 

44 



Hon to his solicitor or fees of counsel. Carson 
0. Pickersgill, 14 Q. B. D. 869. See post, p. 155, 
n. (a). As to appeals by infant paupers, see 
Fuller e. Montague, 53 Fed. Rep. 206. 



PAUPERS. * 44 

mortgage if anything should be found due on it, she was ordered to 
be dispaupered; 9 and an officer upon half pay (which is not alienable) 
was not permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, notwithstanding he 
had taken the benefit of the Insolvent Act.* The application to dis- 
pauper is made by special motion on notice, 4 and should be made 
without delay.* 

At Common Law, if a pauper act vexatiously or improperly in the 
conduct of the action, the Court will order him to be dispaupered; e and 
in like manner, in Courts of Equity, if a party who is admitted to sue 
in forma pauperis be guilty of vexatious conduct in the suit, 7 or of vexa- 
tious delays, or make improper motions, he will be dispaupered, though 
the Court always proceeds very tenderly in such points;' and it has 
been said that a pauper is liable to be committed if he files an improper 
bill, as otherwise he might be guilty of great oppression. 9 The fact 
that the pauper has been supplied with money by a charitable subscrip- 
tion for the purpose of assisting him in the conduct of the suit, although 
it may afford ground for impeachment as maintenance, is no ground 
upon which he can be deprived of his right to sue as a pauper. 10 

Where an issue is directed in a pauper's suit, he must be admitted as 
a pauper in the Court in which the issue is to be tried, or otherwise he 
cannot proceed in it, in forma pauperis. 11 In a case, however, where 
the plaintiff, a pauper, claimed as heir-at-law, and the defendant 
claimed under a will and deed, which were disputed, the bill was 
retained with liberty to the plaintiff to bring an action ; and the tenants 
were ordered to pay the plaintiff £150 to enable him to go to trial. 19 

An order admitting a party to sue or defend in forma pauperis, while 
in force, 18 exempts the pauper from the payment of any fees 
* in the offices of the Court, except for office copies made therein; * 44 
for such Copies, a charge of one penny-halfpenny per folio is 
made. 1 Copies of documents which the pauper may himself make will 
be marked as office copies, without charge. 9 The charges for copies of 
pleadings and other proceedings and documents delivered, pursuant to 
the General Orders, by the solicitors of parties to the suit, 9 to a person 

* Fowler v. Davis, 16 Sim. 182; 12 Jar. 321. son v. Richardson, 5 Paige, 58. A pauper's 

* Boddmgton v. Woodley, 5 Beav. 555. solicitor may be made to pay the costs of any 

* For form of notice, see Vol. III. irregular proceeding. Brown v. Dawson, 2 

* See St. Victor o. Devereux, 9 Jur. 519, L. Hogan, 76. 

C. ; Parkinson v. Hanbury, 4 De G. M. & G. * Pearson r. Belehier, 4 Ves. 627, 630. 

508. 10 Corbett v. Corbett, 16 Ves. 407, 412. 

* 2 Chitty's Arch. 1280. u Gibson v. McCarty, Cos. temp. Hardwicke, 
7 Wagner v. Hears, 3 Sim. 127; and see 311. 

Perry «. Walker, 1 Coll. 229; 8 Jur. 680. " Perishal v. Squire, 1 Dick. 31; Beames 

* Whitelocke v. Baker, 13 Ves. 511; Wag- on Costs, 76; App. 22; but see Nye v. Maule, 
ner «. Mean, 3 Sim. 127 ; Daintree v. Haynes, 4 M. & C. 342, 345. 

12 Jur. 594, V. C. E. ; and see Perry v. Walker, " See Thomas v. Ellis, 8 Ch. D. 518, C. A., 

1 Coll. 229, 8 Jur. 680; Burry Port Co. 9. as to fees already due when order obtained. 

Bowser, 5 W. R. 325, V. C. K.; Steele v. 1 Braithwaite's Pr. 563; and see Wj-att's P. 

Mott, 20 Wend. 679. A party suing as a poor R. 320; Beames' s Orders, 216, n. (143); see 

person is chargeable with the costs of setting now R. S. C. 1883, Ord. XVI. 25. 

aside his proceedings for irregularity, or of a 3 Braithwaite's Pr. 563 ; and see Wyatt*s P. 

contempt (Murphy v. Oldis, 2 Moll. 475), or of R. 320; Beames's Orders, 216, n. (143); Order 

expunging Impertinent or scandalous matter, in as to Court Fees, 28 Oct., 1875, r. 5. 

the same manner at other suitors. Richard- * Rules 3, 4, and 5 of the 36th Gen. Order 

45 



•44 PERSONS BT WHOM A SUIT MAT BE INSTITUTED. 

admitted to sue or defend in forma pauperis, or to his solicitor, by or 
on behalf of any other party, are to be at the rate of one penny-half- 
penny per folio; but if such person shall become entitled to receive 
dives costs, the charges for such copies are to be at the rate of four- 
pence per folio; and nothing is to be allowed, on taxation, in respect of 
such charges, until such person, or his solicitor, shall have paid or 
tendered to the solicitor or party by whom such copies were delivered, 
the additional twopence-halfpenny per folio. But this proviso is not 
to apply to any copy which shall have been furnished by the party 
himself who is directed to pay the costs, and not by his solicitor. 4 

The charges for copies delivered by a person admitted to sue or 
defend in forma pauperis, other than those delivered by his solicitor, 
are to be at the rate of one penny-halfpenny per folio.* 

relate to copies of documents not made or de- * BeguL to Ord. Part IV. 2. 

llrered by the officers of the Court, but by the * Regul. to Ord. Part IV. % & For more on 

solicitors of other parties in the cause. the subject of Paupers, see jMrf, Chap. IV. J 7. 

46 



♦CHAPTER in. 



'45 



SUITS BY PERSONS WHO ABE UNDER DISABILITY. 

Section. I. — Generally. 

The disabilities by which a person may be prevented from suing may 
be divided into two sorts, — namely, such as are absolute, and, during 
the time they last, effectually deprive the party of the right to assert 
his claim ; and such as are qualified, and merely deprive him of the 
power of suing without the assistance of some other party to maintain 
the suit on his behalf. Of the first sort are the disabilities which arise 
from Alienage, Outlawry, 1 Attainder, Conviction of Felony, and Bank- 
ruptcy; of the second sort are those which arise from Infancy, Cover- 
ture, Idiocy, and Lunacy. 

Section II. — Aliens. 

By the old law no alien, whether friend or enemy, could sue in the 
Queen's Courts ; but the necessity of trade gradually did away with the 
too rigorous restraints and discouragements which formerly existed, and 
it is now clear that, for a mere personal demand, an alien born, provided 
he be not an alien enemy, may sue in the Courts of this coun- 
try. 1 (a) It was at one time doubtful to what extent the *copy- *46 



1 Outlawry in civil proceedings was abol- 
ished by 42 & 43 Vic. c. 69, § 8. The disabili- 
ties of outlawry and excommunication are either 
wholly unknown in America, or, if known at 
all, are of very limited local existence. Story, 
Eq. PL $ 51. See Roosevelt 9. Crommelin, 18 
John. 253; Dilman •. Schultx, 5 S. & R. 36. It 
baa lately been held in England, that a nun is 
neither civilly dead, nor under any disability 
arising from duress or undue influence. Re 
Metcalfe, 2 De G. J. & 8. 122; 10 Jur. N. & 
287, L. J J. ; ib. 224, M. R. ; and see as to civil 
death, and the status of a nun, the cases there 



(a) In the United States, one alien may sue 
another in a State Court, when both are tran- 
siently present, upon a contract made abroad. 
Roberts v. Knights, 7 Allen, 449; Johustoo v. 
Trade Ins. Co. 132 Mass. 432. So an absent 
foreigner may there maintain a transitory action 
against a citizen of another State, although 
service of process was made on a foreign mail- 
steamer before reaching her dock. Peabody v. 



cited, and Evans v. Cassidy, 11 Irish Eq. 243 ; 
Blake t. Blake, 4 Irish Eq. 849. 

a Ramkissenseat v. Barker, 1 Atk. 51 ; see 
also Pisani v. Lawson, 6 Bing. N. C. 90; 
Story, Eq. PI. $§ 51, 52. An alien friend is 
entitled to the benefit, and subject to the 
action, of the insolvent laws of the State 
where he resides. Judd v. Lawrence, 1 Cush. 
3. In the Courts of the United States he Is 
entitled to claim the same protection of his 
rights as a citizen is. Taylor v. Carpenter, 3 
Story, 458; S. C. 2 Wood. & M. 1; Coats v. 
Holbrook, 2 Sandf. Ch. 586; Byam v. Stevens, 



Hamilton, 106 Mass. 217. Under the Act of 
Congress of Aug. 13, 1888 (25 Stat, at Large, 
434), a U. S. Circuit Court has no jurisdiction 
of a suit by a citizen of the district against an 
alien who is temporarily in the district. Meyer 
v. Herrera, 41 Fed. Rep- 65. A foreign consul 
is not presumed to be an alien. Bora v. Preston, 
111 U. S. 252. 



47 



47 



SUITS BY PERSONS WHO ARE UNDER DISABILITY. 



right of a foreigner would be protected ; * but it was decided that 
where a foreign author owes a temporary allegiance by residence in 
England, 3 or any part of the British dominions, 1 at the time of his first 
publication of the work, and has not previously published it elsewhere, 
he is an author within the protection of the Copyright Acts. By sev- 
eral recent Acts, a system of international copyright has now been 
established. 4 

The right of an alien to sue in the English Courts was, at Common 

Law, confined to cases arising from personal demands ; for although an 

alien might trade, and therefore maintain personal actions, he could not 

maintain either real or mixed actions, * because, though in amity, 

♦47 he was incapable of holding real property.* *Now, by the 

" Naturalization Act, 1870," * real and personal property of every 



4 Edw. Ch. 119. Ad alien does not lose his 
right to sue in the Courts of the United States, 
by raiding in one of the States of the Union. 
Breedlove v. Nicolet, 7 Peters, 413. 
i Delondre v Shaw, 2 Sim. 237. 

* Jefferys v. Boosey, 4 H. L. Cas. 815; 1 
Jur. N. S- 615, overruling S. C. 4 Exch. 145; 
in Exch Ch. 6 Exch 680. 

* Low v. Routledge, L. R. 1 Ch. 42, 11 Jur. 
N. S. 939 ; affirmed, nom. Routledge v. Low, 
LR.3E L. 100; Low v. Ward, L. R. 6 Eq. 
415, V. C. G. 

* 7 & 8 Vic. c. 12, and 15 & 16 Vic c. 12, 25 
& 26 Vic. a 68; 26 U. S. Stats, at Large, 1110, 
§ 13 , Buxton v. James, 5 De G. & S. 80; 16 Jur. 
15 ; Ollendorff v. Black, 4 De G. & S. 209 , 14 Jur. 
1080; Cassell v. Stiff, 2 K. & J, 279; Wood v. 
Boosey, L. R. 2 Q. B. 840 ; affirmed, L. R. 3 Q. 
B. 223, Exch. Ch. ; Wood v. Chart, Wood v. 
Wood, W. N. (1870) 118; L. R. 10 Eq. 193; 
Boosey v. Fairlie, 7 Ch. D. 301 ; and see as to an 
alien's copyright in designs, 24 & 25 Vic. c. 73, 
which was repealed, after Dec. 31, 1883, by 
46 & 47 Vic. c. 57, $ 113, Sched. 3; see 49 & 
50 Vic. c. 33 ; Lauri 9. Renad (1892), 3 Ch. 402. 

' Co. Litt. 129 b. 

* Co. Litt. 2 b. The title of an alien friend 
to land purchased by, or devised to him, is good 
against everybody but the State, and can only 
be divested by office found, or by some act done 
by the State to acquire possession. M'Creery 
o. Allender, 4 Har. & M'H. 409; Groves v. 
Gordon, 1 Conn. Ill; Marshall v. Conrad, 5 
Call, 364; University v. Miller, 3 Dev. 191; 
Doe 9. Horniblea, 2 Hayw. 37; Buchanan *. 
Deshon, 1 Har. & G. 280, Scanlan v. Wright, 
13 Pick. 523; Jenkins v. Noel, 3 Stew. 60; Doe 
9. Robertson, 11 Wheat. 322; Dudley v. Gray- 
son, 6 Monroe, 260; Jackson 9, Adams, 7 
Wend. 367; Bradstreet o Supervisors &c. 18 
Wend. 546; Wilbur v. Tobey, 16 Pick. 179; 
Foss 9. Crisp, 20 Pick. 124 ; Waugh 9. Riley, 8 
Met. 295; People v. Conklin, 2 Hill, 67; Hal- 
stead 9. Commissioners of Lake, 56 Ind. 363. 
An alien will be protected in the possession of 

48 



public lands against trespassers- Courtney 9. 
Turner, 12 Nev. 345. But not against one who 
connects himself with the government title. 
Golden Fleece Co. v. Cable &c. Co. 12 Nev. 312 
The disability of aliens to hold real estate has 
been partially removed in some States, and 
wholly in others. See 2 Kent, 53, 54, note; 
Mass. Gen. Stats, c. 90. § 38; (Pub. Stats, c. 
126, § 1), Rouche v. Williamson, 3 Ired. (N. C.) 
146; Duke of Richmond v. Miln, 17 L. 312. 
In States where an alien cannot hold real 
estate, of course he cannot maintain ejectment; 
but if he is in possession of real property, be 
may maintain trespass, quart clausum f regit. 
Bayes 9. Hogg, 1 Hayw. 485. But an alien's 
right to sustain an action for the recovery of 
land in case of an intrusion by an individual was 
maintained in M'Creery 9. Allender, 4 Har. & 
M'H. 409. Bradstreet 9. Supervisors &c 13 
Wend. 546; Waugh v. Riley, 8 Met. 295; see 
also Scanlan v. Wright, 13 Pick. 523; Jackson 
9. Britton, 4 Wend. 507; Jackson ex dem. 
Culverhouse ». Beach, 1 John. Cas. 399, Ganse- 
voort 9. Lunn, 3 id. 109; Oner v. Hoag, 3 Hill, 
79. See Lareau 9. Davignon, 1 Buff. N. Y. 
Sup. Ct 128. An alien who holds land under 
a special law of a State may maintain a suit in 
the Circuit Court of the United States relating 
to such land. Bonaparte 9. Camden &c. Rail- 
road Co. 1 Bald. 316; see Commonwealth 9. 
Andre, 3 Pick. 224. 

i 33 & 34 Vic c 14, § 2; by § 16 of which Act 
power is given to the legislatures of British pos- 
sessions to give the privileges of naturalization 
within their own limits, by § 12 regulations 
are made as to evidence under the Act; and 
by § 18 the former Alien Acts (7 & 8 Vic. c. 66, 
and 10 & 11 Vic. c. 83) are repealed. See as to 
the rights of descendants of British subjects 
who had settled abroad before the Act, Fitch v. 
Weber, 6 Hare, 51. See also Count De Wall's 
case, 6 Moore P. C 216 ; 12 Jur. 145; Barrow «. 
Wadkin, 24 Beav. 827; Rittson *. Stordy, 3 Sm. 
&G.230;Uur N. S 771; 2 id 410; De Geer 
9. Stone, 22 Ch. D. 243. 



ALIENS. 



48 



description may be taken, acquired, held, and disposed of by an alien in 
the same manner in all respects as by a natural-born British subject : 
and a title to real and personal property of every description may be 
derived through, from, or in succession to an alien, in the same manner 
in all respects as through, from, or in succession to a natural-born 
British subject: subject to the proviso that the enactment (1) shall 
not confer any right on an alien to hold real property situate out of 
the United Kingdom, and shall not qualify an alien for any office or for 
any municipal, parliamentary, or other franchise ; (2) shall not enti- 
tle an alien to any right or privilege as a British subject, except such 
rights and privileges in respect of property as are thereby expressly 
given to him ; (3) shall not qualify an alien to be the owner of a 
British ship ; (4) shall not affect any estate or interest in real or per- 
sonal property to which any person has or may become entitled, 
either mediately * or immediately, in possession or expectancy, in *48 
pursuance of any disposition made before the passing of the Act, 1 
or in pursuance of any devolution by law on the death of any person 
dying before the passing of this Act. 3 

If one alien sues another upon a contract entered into in a foreign 
country, it would be contrary to all the principles which guide the 
Courts of one country in deciding upon contracts made in another, to 
give a greater effect to the contract than it would have by the laws of 
the country where it took place : therefore a French emigrant resident 
in England was not permitted to enforce securities obtained by duress 
from another French emigrant, for the payment of a demand alleged to 
be due from him under an obligation entered into in France as security 
for another, and for which, according to the laws of France, his person, 
could not be affected;* and upon the same principle a writ ne exeat 



i This was the 12th of May, 1870. 

* This section is not retrospective. Sharp 
9. St Sauveur, L. R. 7 Ch. 343, L. G. 

* Talleyrand v. Boulanger, 3 Yes. 447, 450. 
Suits are maintainable, and are constantly 
maintained, between foreigners where either 
of them is within the territory of the State in 
whkh the suit is brought, both in England and 
America. Story Conf. Laws, § 542. 

In Brinley v. Avery, Kirby, 25, it was held 
that a plea in abatement that both parties are 
aliens, and that the contract declared on was 
made in a foreign country, and was to have 
been performed there, is good ; and in Dumous- 
say v. Delevit, 3 Har. & J. 151, an action of 
replevin was held abatable, on a plea that both 
parties were aliens, and the Court therefore had 
not jurisdiction. But in Barrel I 9. Benjamin, 
15 Mass. 354, the Court were inclined to the 
opinion that one foreigner may sue another, 
who is transiently within the jurisdiction of 
the Courts of a State, upon a contract made 
between them in a foreign country. And see 
Roberts v. Knight, 7 Allen, 449. In construing 
such contracts, the law of the place where they 
are made will be administered. lb. p. 357; 

tol. I. — 4 



Story Conf. Laws, § 270, it teq. ; De La Vega* 
v. Vianna, 1 B. & Ad 284; Liverpool Marine 
Credit Co. v. Hunter, L. R. 3 Ch. 479; In re 
Kloebe, 28 Ch. D. 175. But the remedy will, 
be applied according to the law of the place 
where it is pursued. A controversy between* 
two foreigners, who are private citizens, is not 
cognizable in the Courts of the United States 
under the Constitution. See Barrel 1 v. Benja- 
min, 15 Mass. 357. 

In De La Vega v. Vienna, 1 B. & Ad. 284,. 
it was held that one foreigner may arrest an- 
other in England for a debt which accrued hr 
Portugal while both resided there, though the 
Portuguese law does not allow of arrest for 
debt; and Lord Tenterden C. J. remarked, that 
a person suing in England must take the law 
as he finds it ; he cannot, by virtue of any regu- 
lation in his own country, enjoy greater advan- 
tages than other suitors in England, and he 
ought not, therefore, to be deprived of any 
superior advantage which the law of this coun- 
try may confer. He is to have the same rights 
which all British subjects are entitled to. The 
remedy upon contracts is governed by the law 
of the place where the parties pursue it. See 

49 



•60 



SUITS BT PERSONS WHO ABE UNDER DISABILITY. 



regno was not granted, where it appeared that the transactions between 

the parties were entered into upon the faith of having justice 
•49 in the place where they respectively resided. 4 If, * however, one 

of the parties is an Englishman, and they were both resident in 
different countries at the time the contract was entered into, the Court 
will not discharge a ne exeat obtained by the party resident in Eng- 
land, against the other who had casually come there, on the ground 
that, by the law of the country of which the other was a native, he would 
be exempt from arrest for a debt of the same nature. 1 

With respect to alien enemies, it is clear that an alien enemy not resi- 
dent here, or resident here without the permission of the government, 
cannot institute any suit whatever in this country, either for real or per- 
sonal property, until both nations be at peace ; * and it is said that the 
question whether he is in amity or not, should be tried by the record, 
namely, by the production of the proclamation of war. 8 It is to be 
observed that by the proclamation of war subjects of the enemy resident 
here are usually permitted to continue so, so long as they peaceably 
demean themselves, so that such persons are to be deemed in effect alien 
friends ; 4 therefore, where an alien enemy has lived here peaceably a 
long time, or has come here for refuge and protection, the Court will 
discountenance a plea of alienage against him. 6 It seems, also, that a 
prisoner of war may sue upon a contract entered into by him during the 

time of his captivity. 6 
•60 * The mere circumstance of residing in a foreign country, the 

government of which is at war with this country, and of carry- 
ing on trade there, is sufficient to constitute any person an alien enemy, 
even though he would not otherwise be considered in that character. 1 



also Whittemore v. Adam*, 2 Cowen, 626; Will- 
ing o. Consequa, 1 Peter* C. C. 817; Contois 
t. Carpentier, 1 Wash. C. C. 376; Wyman v. 
Southward, 10 Wheat. 1; Don v Lippman, 5 
01. & Fin. 1; Hinkley v. Moreau, 3 Mason, 
88; Titus v. Hobart, 5 Mason, 378, Atwater 
•. Townsend. 4 Conn. 47; Story, Conf. Laws, 
$§ 568-571. The same doctrine waB maintained 
in Smith v. Spinolla, 2 John. 19S. See also 
Peck v. Hozier, 14 John. 346; Sicard «. Whale, 
11 John. 194; Talleyrand «. Boulanger, 8 Sum- 
ner's Ves. 447, note (a). 

* Robertson v. Wilkie, Amb. 177; and see 
De Carriers r. De Calonne, 4 Yes- 690, as to 
granting a writ of ne exeat regno against for- 
eigners. 

1 Flack o. Holm, 1 J. & W. 406, 418, 418. 

* Co. Litt. 129 b.; 6 T. R. 23; 1 Bos. & P. 
163; 3 Bos. & P. 118; Alcinous v. Nigren, 4 El. 
& Bl. 217; S. C. nom. Alcenius v. Nygren, 1 
Jar. N. S. 16; Story, Rq. Pi. ft 61-64; Mam- 
ford v. Mumford, 1 Gall. 866; Brad well v. 
Weeks, 1 John. Ch. 208; Crawford v. Wm. 
Penn, 1 Peters C. C. 106; Wilcox v. Henry, 1 
Dall. 69: Bell v. Chapman, 10 John. 183; Hep- 
burn's case, 3 Bland, 96; Griswold v. Wadding* 
ton, 16 John. 438; Clemontton #. Bleaslg, 11 

50 



Exch. 135, 141, note ; Dean v Nelson, 10 Wall. 
168; 10 Am. Law Reg. N S. 221, and note. 

* Co. Litt. by Harg. & But. 129 b. n. 2. 
< Co. Litt. by Harg. & But. 129 b n. 3. 

* Wyatfs P" R. 327; Story, Eq. PI. § 62; 
Bradwell v. Weeks, 1 John. Ch. 208; Russell v. 
Skipwitb, 6 Binn. 241. 

* Sparenburgh v. Bannatyne, 1 Bos. & P. 
168; Maria «. Hall, 2 Bos. & P. 236; 1 Taunt. 
33; Crawford v. The William Penn, 3 Wash. 
C. C. 484. 

In many cases an alien enemy is entitled 
even to sue for his own rights; as when he 
is permitted to remain in the country, or is 
brought here as a prisoner of war. He is rec- 
ognized in onr Courts in his character as execu- 
tor; and in all cases his property is protected 
and held in trust for him until the return of 
peace. Bradwell v. Weeks, 1 John. Ch 208; 
Bell v. Chapman, 10 John. 183; Clark v. Morey, 
10 John. 69 ; Hutchinson v. Brock, 11 Mass. 
119; Parkinson v. Wentworth, 11 Man. 26; 
Russell «. Sklpwith, 6 Binn. 241. 

i 1 Kent, 76, et $eq. ; Case of the Sloop 
Chester, 2 Dallas, 41; Murray v. Schooner 
Betsey, 2 Cranch, 64; Maley v. Shattnck, 8 
Cranch, 488; Livingston v. Maryland Ins. Co. 



ALIENS. 



51 



Thus, a subject of a neutral State, resident in a hostile State in the 
character of consul of the neutral State, will, if he carry on trade in the 
hostile country, be considered as an alien enemy, and disqualified from 
suing in the Courts of this country ; although, had he merely resided 
there in his diplomatic character, he would not have been disqualified. 9 
And even if a British subject, residing in a foreign State which is at war 
with this country, carries on trade there without a license from the gov- 
ernment of this country, his trading will be considered such an adherence 
to the enemy as to incapacitate him from maintaining a suit here ; s 
and although he be an ambassador, or other representative of the Crown 
residing in a hostile State, yet if he carries on trade in such State with- 
out a license, he will deprive himself of the right to sue in the municipal 
courts of this country, because he is lending himself to the purposes 
of the enemy by furnishing him with resources : * but if a subject of 
this country, residing in a hostile country, has a license from this gov- 
ernment to trade, he will not incur any disability so long as he confines 
himself to the trade authorized by such license. 6 

The disability to maintain a suit on account of alienage extends to 
all cases in which an alien enemy is interested, although his name does 
not appear in the transaction ; 6 thus, it has been held, that an action at 
Law cannot be maintained upon a policy of insurance upon the property 
of an alien enemy, even though the action is brought in the name of an 
English agent, 7 and though it is alleged that the alien is indebted 
to the agent in more money * than the value covered by the *51 
policy. 1 Where, however, a certain trading of an alien enemy 
(namely, for specie and goods to be brought from the enemy's country in 
his ships into our colonial ports) was licensed, it was held, that an insur- 
ance on the enemy's ship, as well as on the cargo, was in furtherance of 
the same policy, which allowed the granting of the licenses to authorize 
the trade ; and that an action by an English agent to recover the amount 
of the insurance on the ship, might be maintained, notwithstanding the 
ship belonged to an enemy; but it was held that the principal could 
not sue in his own name. 1 

The disability to sue under which an alien enemy lies is personal, and 
therefore he cannot, it seems, institute a suit for the purpose of obtain- 
ing a discovery, although he seeks no further relief. 9 

7 Orach, 606; The Venus, 8 Crancb, 263; The 
Francis, 8 Cranch, 363; Society «. Wheeler, 2 
Gall. 105. 

* Albrecbt v. Suasman, 2Y.&B. 323. 

* M'Connell v. Hector, 3 Boa. & P. US; 
O'Mealey v. Wilson, 1 Camp. 482. Bat he 
mar lawfully provide for the necessities of 
Englishmen detained abroad, and may, on the 
return of peace, enforce contracts made for 
such purposes. Antoine v. Morshead, 6 Taunt. 
237; Duhamme) v. Pickering, 2 Stark. 92. 

* Ex parte Baglehole, 18 Yes. 626, 628. 

* Ex part* Baglehole, 18 Yes. 529; see 
Crawford «. The William Penn, 3 Wash. C. C. 
484. If a person having a license to reside in 
a hostile country, and to export corn or other 



specified articles to this country, were to 
such license beyond its expression, for the pur* 
pose of dealing in articles to which it has no 
relation, he cannot maintain that such dealing 
is not an enemy's dealing. Ex parte Bagle- 
hole, 18 Yes. 529. 

« Crawford v. The William Penn, 1 Peters 
C C. 106. It is no objection, after the war, 
that the suit was originally brought by the 
plaintiff as trustee for an alien enemy. Ham- 
ersley v. Lambert, 2 John. Ch. 508. 

7 Bristow v. Towers, 6 T. R. 35. 

- Brandon v. Nesbitt, 6 T. R. 23. 

* Kensington v. Inglis, 8 East, 273. 

* Daubigny «. Davallon, 2 Anst. 462; but 
sea AlbrechtV Suasman, 2 V. & B. 324, 326, 

51 



52 



SUITS BT PERSONS WHO ABE UNDER DISABILITY. 



It is to be observed that the right of an alien to maintain a suit relat- 
ing to a contract is only suspended by war if the contract was entered 
into previously to the commencement of the war, and it may be enforced 
upon the restoration of peace. 4 Upon this principle, in bankruptcy, the 
proof of a debt due to an alien enemy, upon a contract mad*) before the 
war broke out, was admitted, reserving the dividend. 6 But no suit can 
be sustained to enforce an obligation arising upon a contract entered into 
with an alien enemy during war, such contract being absolutely 
*52 void. 8 And where a policy of insurance, * on behalf of French 
subjects was entered into just before the commencement of the 
war ? upon which a loss was sustained in consequence of capture by a 
British ship, after hostilities had commenced, the proof of a debt arising 
from such policy, which had been admitted by the commissioner in bank- 
ruptcy, was ordered to be expunged. 1 

A defence on the ground that the plaintiff is an alien enemy, should 
be made by plea before answer. Thus, where a bill was filed by a 
plaintiff residing in a foreign country at war with this, for a commission 
to examine witnesses there, and the defendant put in an answer, an 
application for an order for the commission was granted ; though it was 
objected that the Court ought not to grant a commission to an enemy's 

327. An alien friend may maintain a bill for Courts held that the contract was merely so*-' 

discovery in aid of a suit in a foreign country, 

2 Story, Eq. Jur. § 1495; Mitchell v. Smith," 1 

Paige, 287; Story, Eq. PI. § 53 in note. But 

see Reimer v. Salisbury, 2 Ch. D. 378. Infra, 

1556, note. 

« Alcinous v. Nigren, 4 El. & Bl. 217 ; S. C. 
noro. Alcenius v. Nygren, 1 Jur. X. S. 16; 
Flindt v. Waters, 15 East, 260; Hamilton v. 
Eaton, 2 Marsh. 0. C. 1; Buchanan v. Curry, 
19 John. 137; Clemontson v. Blessig, 11 Exch. 
135, 141, note ; Hamersley v. Lambert, 2 John. 
Ch. 508; Bradwell v. Weeks, 1 John. Ch. 
206. And in Massachusetts the statutes of 
limitation of personal actions are expressly 
suspended in favor of an alien during war. 
Qen. Stats, c. 155, § 8; Pub. Stats, c. 197, § 10. 
See Hopkirk v. Bell, 3 Cranch, 454. A plea 
that the plaintiff was an alien enemy is suf- 
ficiently answered by a treaty of peace, made 
after the plea was filed. Johnson v. Harrison, 
6 Litt. 226. The Court will take notice of the 
fact, though the plaintiff do not reply to it Ibid. 
Treaties with foreign nations are part of the 
law of the land, of which the Courts are bound 
to take notice. Baby v. Dubois, 1 Blackf. 255. 

The effect of the late Civil War upon con- 
tracts of life insurance came frequently before 
the Courts, and resulted in conflicting decisions. 
Some of the Courts held that the contracts 
between citizens of the rebellious States and 
insurance companies of the loyal States were 
annulled by the war. Dillard v. Manhattan 
Life Ins. Co. 44 6a. 171; Tait p. N. T. 
Life Ins. Co. 1 Flippin, 288; 4 Big. Cas. 
479; Worthington v. Charter Oak Life 
Ins. Co. 41 Conn. 372. A majority of the 

52 



pended by the war. Robinson v. International 
Life Ins. Co. 42 N.Y. 54; Cohen v. Mutual 
Life Ins. Co. 50 N. T. 610; Manhattan Life 
Ins. Co. v. Warwick, 20 Gratt. 614; N. Y. Life 
Ins. Co. v. Clopton, 7 Bush, 174; Hilliard v. 
Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. 37 N. J. L. 
444. In Smith v. Charter Oak Life Ins. Co. 1 
Cent. L. J. 76 (Mo.), and Hancock v. N. Y. Life 
Ins. Co. 13 Am. L. Reg. N. 8. 103 ; 4 Big. Cas. 
488 (Va.) f the assured were allowed the value 
of the policy, at the outbreak of the war, 
subsequent premiums having been tendered to 
an agent in the Confederate States. In New 
York Life Ins. Co. v. Statham, 98 U. S. 24, the 
U. S. Supreme Court held that the contract was 
terminated by the war, but gave the assured 
the equitable value of the policy at that 
date. In Crawford t. .AStna Life Ins. Co. (5 
Cent. L. J. 100, and note) the Supreme Court 
of Tennessee allowed the assured the value of a 
paid-np policy on the day of the involuntary 
cessation of payments. 

* Ex parte BoussmakeT, 13 Ves. 71. 

* Ibid.; see Exposito v. Bow den, in Ex. Ch. 
7 El. & Bl. 779; 5 W. R. 782, as to the dissolu- 
tion of contracts by a declaration of war. 

* Ex parte Lee, 13 Ves. 64. The principle 
upon which this case was decided is fully 
stated by Lord Ellen borough in Brandon v. 
Curling, 4 East, 410, where it is laid down as a 
rule that every insurance on alien property by 
a British subject is with this implied exception, 
" that it shall not extend to cover any loss hap- 
pening during the existence of hostilities be- 
tween the respective countries of the assured 
and assurer.*' 



ALIENS. 



♦53 



country, the Court being, as it seems, of opinion that the objection had 
come too late.* 

It does not appear what would be the effect of a war breaking out 
between the country of the plaintiff and this country, after the com- 
mencement of the suit; but, from analogy to what was formerly the 
practice of the Court with regard to outlawry, namely, that if it is not 
pleaded it may be shown to the Court on the hearing, as a peremptory 
matter against the plaintiff's demands, because it shows the right to the 
thing to be in the Queen,* it is probable that, under such circumstances, 
the proceedings would be stayed. 4 (a) 

It appears to be the essence of a plea that the plaintiff is an alien 
enemy, to state that the plaintiff was born out of the liegance of the 
Queen, and within the liegance of a State at war with us ; and that a 
defence containing words which amount in substance to an allegation of 
these facts, will be sufficient, although they are not averred with 
the same strictness that is required by the rules of * law. 1 *53 

It is to be observed that the Courts here take notice, without 
proof, of a war in which this country is engaged ; but a war between 
foreign countries must be proved. 1 

In all cases where a person is permitted to sue in Equity, if he states 
himself in his bill to be resident abroad, or if it comes to the knowledge 
of the defendant that he is actually so, the defendant may obtain an 
order of the Court that the plaintiff shall give security to answer to the 
defendant the costs of the suit.* The practice with respect to this rule 
has been before stated, 4 and is applicable to aliens and foreigners as well 
as to natural born subjects. 5 It seems that an alien resident in this coun- 
try will not be required to give security for costs, although his residence 
here is merely temporary, and for the purpose of carrying on the suit. 6 

after judgment, the Court will not, on motion, 
stay or set aside the execution. Buckley •. 
Lyttle, 10 John. 117. See Owens v. Hanney, 
9 Cranch, 180. 

1 Daubigny v. Davallon, 2 Anst. 462, 468. 

* Dolder v. Lord Huntingfield. 11 Ves. 292; 
and see Alcinous v. Nigren, 4 EI. & Bl. 217; 
S. C. nom. Alcenius v. Nygren, 1 Jur. N. S. 17. 

8 Meliorucchy t>. Meliorucchy, 2 Ves. Sr. 24 ; 
Green v. Charnock, 1 Ves. Jr. 396; Hoby v. 
Hitchcock, 5 Ves. 699; Seilaz v. Hanson, ib. 
261 ; Drever v. Maudesley, 5 Russ. 11. 

4 See ante, pp. 27-37. 

* For more as to trading with alien enemies, 
see The Hoop, Tudor's L. C. Merc. Law, 787- 
813. 

* Cambottie t>. Inngate, 1 W. R. 533, V. C. 



* Cahill v. Shepherd, 12 Ves. 336. 

* Gilb. For. Rom. 53. 

* Story, Eq. PI. § 54. If the plaintiff be- 
comes an alien enemy after the commencement 
of the suit, the defendant mny plead it Bell 
o. Chapman, 10 John. 183. But as the disa- 
bility is merely temporary, if the suit is not 
abated during the war, it is no objection 
after the war that the plaintiff was an alien 
enemy when the suit was brought. Ham- 
ersley v. Lambert, 2 John. Ch. 508. The effect 
of the plea of alien enemy is not to defeat the 
process entirely, but to suspend it. Hutchin- 
son «. Brock, 11 Mass. 119; Parkinson v. Went- 
worth, 11 Mass. 26; Levine v. Taylor, 12 Mass. 
8; Hamersley v. Lambert, 2 John. Ch. 508. 

Where the plaintiff becomes an alien enemy 



(a) In such case, the proceedings should be 
continued, and not dismissed. Ex parte Bouss- 
maker, 13 Ves. 71 ; Faulk land v. Stanion, 12 
Mod. 400; Elgee v. Lovell, 1 Woolw. 102; 
Levine c. Taylor, 12 Mass. 8; Kershaw v. Kelsey, 
100 Mass. 561, 563 ; Bishop v. Jones, 28 Texas, 
294; contra, Howes v. Chester, 33 Ga. 89. An 
alien enemy may be sued, and is entitled to all 
the usual means of defence. McVeigh v. 
United States, 11 Wall. 259; Mastenon «. 



Howard, 18 Wall. 99; McNair «. Toler, 21 
Minn. 176. He may be bound, like other non- 
residents, by notice by publication. University 
v. Finch, 18 Wall. 106; Lee v. Rogers, 2 
Sawyer, 549; Seymour v. Bailey, 66 111. 288; 
Selden v. Preston, 11 Bush, 191; see Ludlow v. 
Ramsey, 11 Wall. 681 ; Dorsey v. Thompson, 
87 Md. 25. He cannot defend, on the ground 
that he is an alien enemy. Dorsey v. Kyle, 90 
Md. 512 ; see Herbert v. Bowles, id. 271. 

53 



54 



SUITS BY PERSONS WHO ARE UNDER DISABILITY. 



Section III. — Persons attainted or convicted. 

Formerly, after judgment of outlawry, or of death, in a prosecution 
for treason or felony, the criminal was said to be attainted, attinctus, or 
blackened, 7 and became incapable of maintaining a suit in any Court of 
justice, either civil or criminal, 8 unless for the purpose of procuring 
a reversal of his attainder. 9 He also incurred a forfeiture of all his 
property, real and personal, and was disqualified from holding any 
which he might in future acquire, either by descent, purchase, or con- 
tract; 10 but since July 4, 1870, 11 no confession, verdict, inquest, 
♦54 conviction, or judgment, *of or for any treason or felony, or felo 
de se, causes any attainder or corruption of blood, or any forfei- 
ture or escheat ; the law of forfeiture consequent upon outlawry is, 
however, not affected. 1 No suit for the recovery of any property, 
debt, or damage whatsoever can be brought by any convict * against any 
person while he is subject to the operation of the Act, 8 and every con- 
vict is incapable, during such time, of alienating or charging any prop- 
erty, or of making any contract; but these disabilities are suspended 
whilst he may be lawfully at large under any license. 4 

With respect to the forfeiture of real estates by attainder, there was 
a distinction between attainders for treason and for felony. By 
attainder for treason, a man forfeited all estates of inheritance, whether 
fee-simple or fee-tail, and all rights of entry on lands or tenements 
which he had at the time of the offence committed, or at any time after- 
wards, and also the profits of all lands and tenements which he had in 
his own right, for life or years, so long as such interest subsisted ; * but 



W. ; Redondo v. Chaytor, 4 Q. B. D. 463, 
C. A.; and see Ainsley 9. Sims, 17 Beav. 57; 
17 Jar. 657; Swanzy v. Swanzy, 4 K.& J. 237; 
4 Jur. N. S. 1018. 

r 4 Bla. Com. 881. 

8 See as to pleading convictions, Ld. Red. 

929 ; Buck v. Brown, 2 Atk. 399; Fall v. , 

May, 1782, Ld. Red. 233. 

» Ex parte Bullock, 14 Vee. 452, 464. A 
person attainted under the Act of New York, 
1799, is considered as civiliter mortuus. Jack- 
son 9. Catlin, 2 John. 248. One attainted un- 
der the Act cannot sustain an action for rent 
due to him previous to the passing of the Act, 
or make it a set-off in an action by his lessee. 
81eght v. Kade, 2 John. 286. 

A plea of attainder is of rare occurrence, and 
a plea of this sort in Equity would probably 
be construed with the same strictness as the 
like plea is at Law. Story, Eq. PI. § 723. In 
England, he was not disqualified from holding 
such land, stock, or chates in action as he holds 
as a trustee or mortgagee ; see 18 & 14 Vic. 
e. 60, § 46; and see, before the Act, Ex parte 
Tyson, 1 Jar. 472 ; nor lands of . which he 
is only equitable owner. Att.-Gen. v. Sands, 
Hardres, 488 ; Tudor, R. Prop. 760-796. A 
power of revocation imperfectly executed by 
a felon has been aided. Mainprice r Pear- 

54 



son, W. N. (1871) 161; 25 W. B. 768, 
V. C. H. 

i» Bullock v. Dodds, 2 B. & Aid. 277. 

11 The date on which the 33 & 34 Vic. e. 23 
received the royal assent. 

1 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23, § 1. 

8 The word "convict" means any person 
against whom, after the passing of the Act 
(i. e., 4th July, 1870), judgment of death, or of 
penal servitude, has been pronounced or re- 
corded by any Court of competent jurisdiction 
in England, Wales, or Ireland, upon any charge 
of treason or felony. 33 & 84 Vic c. 23, § 6. 

* The convict ceases to be subject to the 
operation of the Act when he dies or becomes 
bankrupt, or has suffered any punishment to 
which sentence of death pronounced or re- 
corded against him has been lawfully com- 
muted, or has undergone the full term of penal 
servitude for which judgment has been pro- 
nounced or recorded" against him, or such other 
punishment as may have been duly substituted 
for such full term, or has received a pardon for 
the treason or felony of which he has been con- 
victed. 33 & 84 Vice. S3, §7. 

* 33 & 34 Vice. 23, $§8, 30. 

* 4 Bla. Com. 381. Descent may be traced 
through a person attainted since 1833; see 8 6 
4 Will. IV. e. 106, § 10. 



PERSONS ATTAINTED OB CONVICTED. 



•55 



with respect to the attainder for felony, the 54 Geo. III. c. 145 enacted 
that, except in oases of high treason, petit treason, and murder or abetting 
the same, no attainder should extend to the disinheriting any heir, or 
to the prejudice of the right or title of any person, except the offender 
during his life only ; and upon the death of the offender, every person to 
whom the right or interest of any lands or tenements should or might, 
after the death of such offender, have appertained, if no such attainder 
had been, might enter thereupon. 6 

The forfeiture of real estate, consequent upon attainder of treason or 
felony, related backwards to the time of the treason or felony com- 
mitted, so as to avoid all intermediate sales or incumbrances, but not 
those before the fact. 1 The forfeiture of goods and chattels 
•had, however, no relation backwards; so that those only which *55 
a man had at the time of conviction were forfeited. 1 But by attain- 
der, not only all the personal property and rights of action which a man 
actually had were forfeited, but all personal property and rights of action 
which accrued to the offender after attainder were forfeited and vested 
in the Crown, without office found ; 3 so that attainder might be well 
pleaded in bar to an action on a bill of exchange indorsed to the plaintiff 
after his attainder. 8 Lands also were forfeited upon attainder, and not 
before; but goods and chattels were forfeited upon conviction. 4 In out- 
lawries for treason or felony, lands were forfeited only by judgment, but 
goods and chattels were forfeited by a man's being put in the exigent. 6 (a) 

If a party claiming a title to property under an attainted person were 
to institute proceedings in a Court of justice relating to that property, 
his claim might be met by pleading the attainder of the person from 
whom his claim was derived ; * and in such case the time when the for- 
feiture accrued might be an important point for consideration. 

With respect to such felonies as were not punishable with death, the 
felon on conviction forfeited his civil rights ; but the punishment endured 
had the like effect and consequences as a pardon under the Great Seal, T 
and restored the offender to his civil rights, on the determination of the 
period of punishment. 8 



• 54 Geo. III. c. 1-to. All copyhold estates 
were forfeited to the lord, and not to the Crown, 
unless there was an Act of Parliament or an 
express custom to the contrary, 1 Watk. on 
Copy. 826, 1 Cruise's Dig 307; and the for- 
feiture in such case did not accrue upon mere 
conviction, but only on complete attainder, 
8 B. & Aid. 610, 2 Vent. 38; unless by special 
custom to the contrary. 

7 4 Bla, Com. 381-6 ; Tudor, R. Prop. 702. 

* 4 Bla. Com. 887; Perkins v. Bradley, 1 
Hare, 219, 228. But a colorable alienation to 
avoid a forfeiture would be void as against the 
down. 8. C. 1 Hare, 227; and see Bullock v. 



Dodds, 2 B. & Aid. 258; Chowne v. Bar lis, 31 
Beav. 851; Saunders v. Warton, 9 Jur. N. 8. 
570, V. C. S. 

* Office found was abolished by 22 & 23 Vic. 
c. 21, § 25. 

• Bullock v. Dodds, 2 B. & Aid. 258. 

« 4 Bla. Com. 887; Perkins v. Bradley, 1 
Hare, 219. 

' 4 Bla. Com. 387; see also 83 & 34 Vio. c. 
23, § 1. 

« Ld. Red. 232. 

7 9 Geo. IV. c. 32, % 8. 

8 See Williams, Pers. Prop. 44; and pod, 
p. 58. 



(a) A conviction in New South Wales causes a forfeiture of the felon's property in England. 
Re Baieman's Trust, L. R. 16 Eq. 855. 

65 



57 



SUITS BY PERSONS WHO ABB UNDER DISABILITY. 



Forfeiture of land only arose on attainder ; * and therefore, in the case 
of a felony not capital, the offender, though convicted, might convey or 

create a valid trust of his real estate, 10 and might dispose thereof 
*56 by will. u But all the personal property possessed by * him at the 

time of his conviction, 1 or which afterwards accrued to him, before 
the term of punishment expired, was forfeited to the Crown, 8 including 
personal property held in trust for him, 8 and a vested iuterest, in remain- 
der, in the proceeds of land actually converted ; 4 but not a contingent 
legacy, where the event on which the contingency depended did not hap- 
pen till after the punishment had been endured ; s nor a vested interest, 
in remainder, in land directed to be, but not actually converted. 6 

An administrator of the property of any convict may be appointed by 
the Crown. The appointment is revocable, and upon his death, or revo- 
cation of his appointment, a new administrator may be appointed, who 
will be the successor in Law of the former administrator ; and all prop- 
erty vested in, and powers given to, the former administrator devolve 
upon and vest in the new administrator, who is bound by all the acts of 
the former administrator. 7 

Upon the appointment of the administrator, all the real and personal 
property, including chases in action, to which the convict is, at the time 
of his conviction, or becomes, whilst subject to the Act, entitled (except 
property acquired by him while at large under any license 8 ), vests in 
the administrator, 9 who has absolute power to deal therewith. 10 The 
convict, or any person claiming an interest in the property, cannot call 
in question any acts bona fide done by the administrator; 11 and, subject 
to the powers and provisions of the Act, the property is to be preserved 
and held in trust by the administrator, and on the convict ceasing to 
be subject to the Act, is to revert to him, his heirs, executors, or 
administrators. 12 If no administrator is appointed, an interim curator, 

who has in general the same power as the administrator, may be 
♦67 appointed, *and from time to time removed ; l and all judgments 

and orders for payment of money may be executed against the 



• See Re Harrop, 8 Drew. 726. 
M Lewin on Trusts, 27. 

" 1 Jarra. Wills, 33, 2 Prideaux, Conv. 268. 

1 No forfeiture, however, followed conviction 
under the 10 & 11 Vic. c. 82, § 12; 13 & 14 
Vic. c. 37; or 18 & 19 Vic. c. 126. By 6 & 7 
Vic. c. 7, § 3, convicts holding tickets of leave 
are enabled to hold personal property, and to 
maintain actions in respect thereof, while their 
tickets remain unrevoked. 

2 4 Bla. Com. 387; Roberts v. Walker, 1 R. 
& M. 752. 

• Lewin on Trusts, 695. 

< Re Thompson, 22 Beav. 506. 

• Stokes t). Holden, 1 Keen, 145, 153; Re 
Davis's Trusts, 27 L. T. 477. 

• Re Thompson, 22 Beav. 506, where land 
having been taken under the powers of a local 
Act, it was held that the felon was entitled to 
the fund representing it as realty. 

56 



I 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23, § 9. 
8 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23, § 30. 
» 33 & 34 Vic. c 23, § 10. 

10 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23, § 12. The administra- 
tor may pay out of the property the costs of 
the prosecution and of executing the Act 
(§ 13), and the debts and liabilities of the con- 
vict, and may deliver any property coming to 
his bunds to any person entitled to it (§ 13); and 
may out of the property make compensation to 
any person defrauded by the criminal or fraudu- 
lent acts of the convict (§ 15). 

II 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23, § 17. 

is 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23, § 18. Unless other- 
wise ordered, the costs as between solicitor and 
client, and the charges and expenses of the 
administrator incurred in reference to the prop- 
erty, are a first charge thereon ; 33 & 34 Vic. c 
23,* §20. 

1 33 & 84 Vic c 23, §§ 21-26. 



PERSONS ATTAINTED OB CONVICTED. 



58 



property in the hands of the interim curator, or of any person who may 
have, without legal authority, taken possession of the property of the 
convict ; * and all judgments or orders may be executed by writ of scire 
facias or otherwise against property vested in the administrator.* 

Proceedings may be taken by summons to make any administrator 
or interim curator account, before the property reverts to the convict ; 4 
and, subject to the provisions of the Act, the administrator or interim 
curator is liable, when the convict ceases to be subject to the Act, to 
account for all property received by him. 6 

Conviction is taken advantage of by plea, and it seems that such a 
plea would be judged with the same strictness as if it were a plea at 
Law. 6 

In order to bar a plaintiff's suit on the ground of an offence committed, 
it is not always necessary to show an attainder or conviction ; for if a 
plea goes to show that, in consequence of an offence committed, no title 
ever vested in the plaintiff, conviction of the offence is not essential to 
the plea. 7 

Where a judgment, pronounced upon a conviction for treason or felony, 
is falsified or reversed, all former proceedings are absolutely set aside ; 
and the party stands as if he had never been accused ; ' he may, there- 
fore, sue in a Court of Equity, in the same manner that he might have 
done if no conviction had taken place. 

The disqualification arising from a conviction may also be obviated 
by the Queen's pardon ; or by enduring the punishment imposed. 9 A 
pardon formerly could only have been granted under the Great Seal; 
but now, a warrant under the Royal sign manual, countersigned by one 
of the Principal Secretaries of State, granting a free pardon and the 
prisoner's discharge under it, or a conditional pardon, and the perform- 
ance of such condition, is as effectual as a pardon under the Great 
Seal. 10 

There is a great difference between the effect of a pardon and of a 
reversal. In the case of a reversal, the party is, as we have seen, in all 
respects replaced in the same condition that he was in before the com- 
mencement of the proceedings ; but a pardon has not that effect. 11 Thus, 
a person who has been convicted and pardoned cannot sue upon any 
right accrued to him before his pardon, although he may for a right 
accrued afterwards. 12 

♦Where a pardon is conditional, the effect of the conviction is *58 
not removed until the condition has been performed ; and a felon 



* As to enforcing decrees and orders, see 
port. Chap. XXVI. 

* 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23, § 27. See 2 Chitty's 
Arch. 934, 935. 

* 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23, § 28. 

* 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23, § 29. 

* Ld. Red. 229 ; and see Burk v. Brown, 2 
Atk. 397. 

7 Fall v. , May, 1782, Ld. Red. 233. 

' 4 Bla. Com. 393. 

9 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23, § 7 ; see Leyman «. 
Latimer, 3 Ex. D. 15, 352. Formerly in the 



case of a capital felony, enduring the punish- 
ment did not have the effect of a pardon ; see 
9 Geo. IV. c. 32, § 3. See, as to effect of 
pardon, Armstrong's Foundry, 6 Wall. 766; 
Lapeyra v. United States, 17 Wall. 191 ; Car- 
lisle v. United States, 16 Wall. 147. Pardon 
may be conditional Ex parte Wells, 18 How. 

807. 

w 6 Geo. IV. c. 25, § 1 ; 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c« 
28, § 13. 

" 4 Bla. Com. 402. 

is 1 Com. Dig. Abatement, £. 8. 

57 



•58 



SUITS BT PERSONS WHO ABE UNDER DISABILITY. 



who had been sentenced to transportation l was not restored to his civil 
rights until the term of his transportation had expired, 8 and therefore it 
was held that personal property which did not belong to a felon at the 
time of his conviction, but which accrued to him afterwards during the 
time of his transportation, was forfeited to the Grown. 8 



Section IV. — Bankrupts and Liquidating and Compounding Debtors. 

The disability to maintain a suit on account of bankruptcy arises from 
a bankrupt not being capable of holding the property which is the object 
of the suit, or rather from the fact that, by the bankruptcy, all the bank- 
rupt's property, whether in possession or action, is vested in the trustee 
of his property ; 4 and a bankrupt, even though undischarged, is not per- 
sonally disqualified from suing, and may, in many cases, sustain suits 
either at Law or in Equity,*(a) — as, for instance, to restrain a nuisance! 



i Under 8 Geo. III. c. 15. 

* Bullock v. Dodds, 2 B. & Aid. 258 ; and 
see 4 Bla. Com. 400; Gully's case, Leach's 
Crown Law, 99. As to the remission of trans- 
portation, see 5 Geo. IV. c. 84, § 26 ; Gough v. 
Da vies, 2 K. & J. 623 ; and as to remission by 
colonial governors, see now 6 & 7 Vic. c. 7. 

' Roberts v. Walker, 1 R. & M. 752, 766. 
Transportation is abolished by 20 & 21 Vic. c. 
3, and penal servitude substituted by 16 & 17 
Vic. c. 99 ; and see 27 & 28 Vic. c. 47. 

* By the Bankrupt Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vic. 
o. 71), § 17, the property of the bankrupt is, 
immediately upon the adjudication, to vest in 
the Registrar, and is, on the appointment of a 
trustee, forthwith to pass to and vest in the 
trustee. As to the appointment of trustee, see 
§ 14. As to release of trustee, see §§ 51-53 ; 
as to death and removal of trustee and suits by 
and against him, see § 83. As to liquidation 
by arrangement, see § 125. As to composition 
with creditors, see §§ 126, 127. See also the 
Liquidation Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vic. c. 68} ; see 
now 46 & 47 Vic. c. 52. As to entering, under 
former Bankrupt Law, a suggestion on the 
death or removal of an assignee plaintiff, see 
Lloyd v. Waring, 1 Coll. 536; Man v. Ricketts, 
7 Beav. 484 ; 9 Jur. 1103; 1 Phil. 617; and see 
16 Beav. 440. As to when the Court of Bank- 



(a) In Motion v. Moojen, L. R. 14 Eq. 202, 
Bacon V. C held that an uncertified bankrupt 
is incapable of suing in Equity, thongh the bill 
charges fraud against all the defendants, in- 
cluding the creditors' assignee. See Smith v. 
Moffatt. L. R. 1 Eq. 397; Payne r. Dicker, L. R. 
6 Ch. 578 ; Bailey v. Smith, 10 R I. 29. A 
compounding debtor is usually entitled to the 
control of his property. Ex parte Jones, L. R. 
10 Ch. 663. See Ex pari* Postmaster-General, 
Re Bonham, 10 Ch. D. 595. As to his recovery 

68 



ruptcy is the proper tribunal for determining 
the assignee's claims, see Ex parte Brown, 11 
Ch. D. 148 ; Ex parte Pannell, 6 Ch. D. 335 ; 
Ex parte Dickens, 8 Ch. D. 377 ; Waddell v. 
Toleman, 9 Ch. D. 212 ; Ex parte Fletcher, id. 
381. 

* See Herbert v. Sayer, 5 Q. B. 965, 978 ; 
Calvert on Parties, 199, et aeq. ; Story, Eq. PI. 
§§ 495, 726; Elderkin v. Elderkin, 1 Root, 139; 
Hilliard, B. & I. 384. For instances in which 
bankrupts have been allowed to sue at law, see 
Perk in v. Proctor, 2 Wils. 382 ; Summersett v. 
Jarvis, 6 Moore, 56; 3 B, & B. 2; Coles v. 
Barrow, 4 Taunt. 754 ; Chippendall v. Tomlin- 
son, 4 Dong. 318 ; 1 Cooke's B. L. 428 ; Silk «. 
Osborne, 2 Esp. 140 ; see Selwyn, N. P. Sup 
823 ; Evans v. Brown, 1 Esp. 170 ; Fowler •. 
Down, 1 Bos. & P. 44 ; Laroche v. Wakeman, 
Peake, 190; Webb v. Ward, 7 T. R. 296; Webb 
t7. Fox, 7T. R. 391; Clarke v. Calvert, 3 Moore 
96 . Jameson v. Brick & Stone Co. L. R. 4 Q. 
B. D. 208; Cook v. Whellock, 24 id. 658; Cohen 
v. Mitchell, 25 id. 262; Cummingv. Roebuck, 1 
Holt, N. P. 172 ; Lincoln v. Bassett, 9 Gray, 
855 ; Merrick's Estate, 5 Watts & S. 1. A 
bankrupt can in his own name maintain a suit 
brought before he was declared a bankrupt, for 
a wrong done, unless his assignee should inter- 
pose an objection. Sawtelle v. Rollins, 23 



for personal labor, see In re Downing. 4 Ch. D. 
689 The fact that the plaintiff is an undis- 
charged bankrupt is not alone sufficient ground 
for requiring him to give security for costs. 
Cook v. Whellock, 24 Q. B. D. 658 ; see 34 Sol. 
J. 521. Nor will security for costs be always 
granted on the ground of the impecuniofity of 
the defendant making application in the suit. 
Re Rarber, Burgess v. Vinnicoine (No. 2), 55 1* 
J. Ch. 624; 54L. T. 728. 



BANKRUPTS. 



•59 



or the infliction of any injury of a private or particular nature, without 
making his assignees parties ; • or to recover damages for any per- 
sonal wrong ; T and where sued at Law upon * a bond or note, he has *59 
been allowed to file a bill of discovery, in order to obtain proof 
that such bond or note was fraudulently procured. The specific relief 
prayed is, however, material in determining whether the assignee is a 
necessary party to the bill ; for where it prayed that the instrument 
upon which an insolvent debtor was sued at Law might be delivered up, 
the assignee was considered a necessary party. 1 Where, also, persons claim- 
ing to be creditors of bankrupts, instead of seeking relief in the bank- 
ruptcy, brought an action against the bankrupts, and the bankrupts filed a 
bill seeking a discovery in aid of their defence to the action, and praying 
that the accounts between them and the plaintiffs at Law might be taken, 
and that the plaintiffs at Law might pay the balance, a plea of bankruptcy 
was overruled; the Court being of opinion that the bankrupts were 
entitled to the discovery and account, although they were not entitled to 
that part of the prayer which sought the payment to them of the balance. 9 
An undischarged bankrupt may maintain an action to recover dam- 
ages for breach of a contract which was entered into by him after adju- 
dication, subject, however, to the right of the trustee to interfere, — which 
he may do even after the commencement of the suit, and may claim to 
be added as a plaintiff to such suit.* In general, however, a bankrupt, 
although entitled to the surplus of his estate which remains after pay- 
ment of his debts, 4 cannot sue for any property which is vested in 
the trustee under the bankruptcy, even though there may be collusion 
between him and the persons possessed of the property. 6 Thus, where 
a bill was filed by a bankrupt to recover property due to his estate, 
stating that the commission against him was invalid, and that there was 
a combination between his assignees and the debtor, to which a demurrer 



Maine, 196 ; Tnnno v, Edward*, 3 Brev. 510 ; 
Kirwan v. Latour, 5 H. & John. 289 ; Hayllar 
v. Sherwood, 2 Nev. & M. 401. The bankrupt 
has the exclusive right to sue for a trespass 
upon exempt property committed prior to the 
proceedings in bankruptcy. Selling v, Gunder- 
man, 35 Tex**, 545. And see, where the plain- 
tiff has been declared a bankrupt after the 
commencement of suit, Woodall v. Holliday, 
44 Ga. IS. A claim for an injur)* done to a 
party by the negligence of another did not pass 
by an assignment of his estate under the insol- 
vency laws of Massachusetts before the recovery 
of judgment Stone v. Boston and Maine Rail- 
road, 7 Gray, 539. 

• Semple v. London & Birmingham By. Co. 
9 Sim. 209. 

* Ex part* Vine, In re Wilson, 8 Ch. D. 
364, C. A. ; Dence v. Mason, W. N. (1879) 
177, C. A. As to earnings of personal labor of 
bankrupt, see Be Downing, Ex parte Banks, 4 
Ch. D. 689. 

i Balls v. Strntt, 1 Hare, 146 ; Meddowcrof t 
v. Campbell, 13 Beav. 184. 



s Lowndes v. Taylor, 1 Mad. 423. This 
decision was afterwards affirmed on appeal. 
1 Mad. 425; 2 Rose, 432; and see Gov*t v. 
Armitage, 2 Anst. 412; Kaye t>. Fosbrooke, 8 
Sim. 28. 

* Emden v. Carte, 17 Ch. D. 169, Fry J.; 
ib. 768, C. A., q. v. ako (pp. 11, 172, 173) for 
the distinction between a cause of action ac- 
cruing before and one accruing after bank- 
ruptcy. 

* The Bankruptcy Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vic 
c. 71), § 45. The Bankruptcy Repeal and In- 
solvent Courts Act of 1869 (32 & 33 Vic. c. 83, 
§ 20) was repealed by 46 & 47 Vic. c. 39, § 1, 
but without reviving the former practice. 

* Tarleton v. Hornby, 1 Y. & C. Ex. 172. An 
assignment under a commission of bankruptcy 
does not pass property belonging to the bank- 
rupt as factor, executor, or trustee. Vide Co< k's 
B. L. c. 8, §§ 15, 16, 17; 1 Deacon's B. L. c. 9, 
§§ 10,222; Archbold's Bankruptcy, 328-333 ; 32 
&33 Vic. c. 71, § 15; Ex parte Ellis, 1 Atk. 101; 
Bennet v. Davis, 2 P. Wma. 316; Ex parte 
Butler, Amb. 74; Ex parte Chion, 3 P. Wma. 

59 



♦60 



SUITS BT PERSONS WHO ABB UNDER DISABILITY. 



was put in, Sir John Leach, V. C, allowed the demurrer, saying that if 
it had been true that the commission was invalid, the plaintiff ought to 
have tried its validity by an action, and could not by bill impeach the 
commission, and that if there were a combination between the debtor 
and his assignees, his proper course was to apply by petition to have 
the assignees removed and new assignees appointed. 6 It also appears 
that the creditors of a bankrupt cannot under such circumstances sue ; 
and further, that there is no distinction in this respect between bank- 
rupts themselves and their creditors, or persons claiming under them, 7 
and that the Court will not in general give relief where it can 
*60 be obtained in * bankruptcy ; l (a) and that if the bankrupt has 



187, n. (a); Godfrey v. Furzo, ib. 185; Harris v. 
Truman, 7 Q. B. D. 340, 356; Pennell v. Deffell, 
4 De G. M. & G. 372, 379; Lyell v. Kennedy, 
14 App. Cas. 437, 459 ; 18 Q. B. D. 796 ; and see 
Lewiu on Trusts, 218-223; 12 & 13 Vic. c. 106, 
§130. 

6 Hammond v. Attwood, 3 Mad. 158; see 
also Yewens v. Robinson, 11 Sim. 105, 120; 
Payne v. Dicken, L. R. 6 Ch. 578; Re Lead- 
bitter, 10 Ch. D. 388. The bankrupt may, in a 
clear case, obtain leave to suit in the name of 
the assignee. See Spagg v. Binkes, 5 Ves. 583, 
589; Ben field v. Solomons, 9 Ves. 77, 82; Smith 
v. Moffatt, L. R. 1 Eq. 397; 12 Jur. N. S. 22, 
V. C. W. 

7 Heath t. Chadwick, 2 Phil. 649; and see 
Major ». Auckland, 3 Hare, 77; Goldsmith 
v. Russell, 5 De G. M & G. 547 ; Reese 
River S. M. Co. v. Atwell, L. R. 7 Eq. 347; 
Tudway v. Jones, 1 K. & J. 691 ; Rochfort v. 
Battereby, 2 H. L. Cas. 403, 409; Davis v. Snell, 
28 Beav. 321; 6 Jur. N. S. 1134; 2 De G. F. 



(a) The established rule now is that the 
jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery is not 
ousted by a bankruptcy act without express 
words in the statute which provides the new 
jurisdiction. Stone v. Thomas, L. R. 5 Ch. 219, 
224; Pike v. Dickinson, L. R. 7 Ch. 61 ; Ellis v. 
Silber, L. R. 8 Ch. 83; Jenney v. Bell, 2 Ch. D. 
547; Ex pnrte Musgrave, 10 Ch. D. 94; West- 
moreland Co. v. Fielden, [1891] 3 Ch. 15, 27; 
see fCx parte Reynolds, 15 Q. B. D. 169; Sharp 
v. McHenry, 55 L. T. 747; Curry v. McCau- 
ley, 20 Fed. Rep. 583. And in general, 
without such express words, a Court of Equity 
is not divested of any matter of equitable 
cognizance by a statute giving to a Court of 
Law power over the same matter. Schroeder 
v. Loeber (Md.), 24 Atl. Rep. 226 ; Fidelity 
Trust Co. v. Gill Car Co. 25 Fed. Rep. 737; 
Austin t7. Rutland R. Co. 17 id. 446: Hess v. 
Vose, 52 III. 472; Phipps v. Kelly, 12 Oregon, 
213; Kinnan v. 42d St. &c. R. Co. 21 N. Y. S. 
789. See Dehon v. Foster, 4 Allen (Mass.), 
545; Wood v. Hudson (Ala.), 11 So. Rep. 530. 

New remedies created by State statutes 

60 



& J. 463. See Stoever v. Stoever, 9 Serg. & R. 
434; Griswold v. McMillan, 11 111. 590; Allen 
v. Montgomery, 48 Miss. 101. 

i See Riches v. Owen, W. N. (1868) 158, 
V. C. G. ; L. R. 3 Ch. 820, L. JJ. ; Bell ». Bird, 
L. R. 6 Eq. 635, V. C. G. ; Martin v. Powning, 
L. R. 4 Ch. 356, L. JJ. ; Stone t>. Thomas, L. R. 
6 Ch. 219, L. C. ; Phillips «. Furber, 18 W. R. 
479, M. R. ; L. R. 5 Ch. 746; see also Forshaw 
v. Mottram, W. N. (1867) 191, V. C. S.; Gra- 
ham v. Winterson, L. R. 16 Eq. 243 ; Saxton 
v. Davis, 18 Ves. 72, 79; Tarleton v. Hornby, 1 
Y. & C. Ex. 172, 188; Smith v. Moffatt, L. R. 
1 Eq. 397; 12 Jur. N. S. 22, V. C. W.; see 
Lincoln v. Bassett, 9 Gray, 355. For special 
circumstances under which relief was given, 
see Preston t\ Wilson, 5 Hare, 185; Wear- 
ing v. Ellis, 6 De G. M. & G. 596 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 
204, 1149 ; Luddy's Trustee v. Peard, 83 Ch. 
D. 500. It has been held that an insolvent 
debtor, who has made a general assignment, 
may on proof of his paying all debts due at the 



enlarging equitable rights may be enforced in 
the Equity Courts of the United States. Gold- 
smith r. Gilliland, 22 Fed. Rep. 865; Wells, 
Fargo & Co. v. Miner, 25 id. 533; A. & W. 
Sprague Manuf. Co. v. Hoyt, 29 id. 421. But 
rights enforceable in the State Courts will not 
be followed in the Federal Courts when con- 
fusion or conflict of interests may result. 
Hence the same receiver appointed in the for- 
mer Court will not necessarily be re-appointed 
in the latter. Young v. Aronson, 27 Fed. Rep. 
241. And the right to setoff a judgment or 
decree of one of these Courts in the other is 
restricted. Lauderdale Co. v. Foster, 23 Fed. 
Rep. 516. A provision in a State Code which 
permits a defendant to demand from the plain* 
tiff more certain and definite statements in his 
complaint does not apply to the Federal Circuit 
Court sitting in equity. Phelps v. Elliott, 26 
Fed. Rep. 881. But supplementary proceed- 
ings allowed by State law for discovery of the 
debtor's property at Law or in Equity, may 
be enforced in the Federal Courts. Senter v. 
Mitchell, 16 Fed. Rep. 206. 



BANKRUPTS. 



62 



property in a foreign country, where the bankrupt laws of England 

do not prevail, still he cannot bring an action with reference to it 

in * England. 1 *61 

The trustee in bankruptcy does not stand in the position of a 
trustee for the bankrupt. 8 

The rules with regard to bankrupts applied, by analogy, to persons 
who had taken the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' Acts, who were 
equally considered as being divested of all right to maintain a suit in 
respect of any surplus to which they might eventually be entitled ; * but 
these provisions are no longer in force. 4 A liquidating debtor is not 
deprived of the control of his property until the passing of the creditors' 
resolution, and the appointment of a trustee. 6 A compounding debtor is 
not generally deprived of control over his property. 6 

* The disability of a bankrupt to maintain a suit does not apply *62 
to a bankrupt who has obtained his order of discharge, where he 
is suing in respect of property acquired after the close of the bank- 
ruptcy, even though the bankrupt has not obtained an order of discharge, 1 
or after the passing of a resolution granting the bankrupt his discharge, 
even though the bankruptcy is not closed. 9 A bankrupt may, as we have 
seen, after his order of discharge has taken effect, become entitled to 
property in the same manner that he might before his bankruptcy ; 8 but 
in the case of an insolvent debtor, his future property was made liable 
to the payment of his debts contracted before his discharge. 



time of his discharge, bring ejectment in his 
own name, for lands assigned by him, without 
any formal reassignment. Power o. Holman, 
2 Watts, 218. As to disclaimer by the assign- 
ees in a foreclosure suit, see Ford v. White, 

16 Beav. 120. 

i Sill v. Worswick, 1 H. Bl. 665; Hunter v. 
Potts, 4 T. R. 182 ; Phillips v. Hunter, 2 H. Bl. 
402; Benfield v. Solomons, 9 Ves. 77, and see 
Re Blithraan, L. R. 2 Eq. 23, M. R.; 35 Beav. 
219; Re Davidson, L. R. 15 Eq. 383. 

* Re Leadbitter, 10 Ch. D. 388. 

* Gill v. Fleming, 1 Ridg. P. C. 431; Spragg 
v. Binkes, 5 Ves. 583 ; Dyson v. Hornby, 7 De 
G. M. & G. 1; Cook v. Sturgis, 3 De G. & J. 
506; 5 Jur. N. S. 475; Troup v. Ricardo, 10 Jur. 
N. S. 859, 1161; 12 W. R. 1135, M. R.; 13 W. 
R. 147; 4 De G. J. & S. 489, L. C.; Smith o. 
Moffatt, L. R. 1 Eq. 897 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 22, V. 

C. W.; Roberts v. Moreton, W. N. (1869) 28; 

17 W. R. 397, V. C. J. As to insolvents under 
5 & 6 Vic. c. 116, see Wearing v. Ellis, 6 De 
G. M. & G. 596; 2 Jur. N. S. 204, 1149. A 
suit for administration of a deceased insolvent's 
estate may be instituted by a scheduled credi- 
tor. Galsworthy v. Durrant. 2 De G. F. & J. 
466; 7 Jur. N. S. 113; 29 Beav. 277; 6 Jur. N. 
S. 743; see Smith v. Moffatt, L. R. 1 Eq. 397; 
12 Jur. N. S. 22, V. C. W.; Re Smith, 24 Ch. 

D. 672. As to suits by assignees of the surplus, 
see Spragg v. Binkes, 5 Ves. 583, 589 ; Cook v. 
Sturgis, 3 De G. & J 506; 6 Jur. N. S. 475; 
see Re Gamier, L. R. 13 Eq. 532. 



4 The Bankruptcy Repeal and Insolvent 
Courts Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vice. 83), $ 20, and 
schedule. All persons, whether traders or non- 
traders, were made subject to the Bankrupt 
Laws by 32 & 33 Vic. c. 71, § 6; c 83, § 20. 

* The Bankruptcy Act, 1869, 32 & 33 Vic. c. 
76, § 125 (5) & (6); Ex parte Postmaster Gen- 
eral, Re Bon ham, 10 Ch. D. 595. 

* Ex parte Jones, Re Jones, L. R. 10 Ch. 
663, 665; Re Lewis, 3 Ch. D. 113; Re Kearley, 
7 Ch. D. 615. 

i 32 & 33 Vic. c. 71, §§ 15, 47; In re Petit's 
Estate, 1 Ch. D. 478, V. C. B. 

* 32 & 33 Vic. c. 71, §§ 48, 49; Ebbs v. Boul- 
nois, L. R. 10 Ch. 479, L. JJ.; In re Bennett's 
Trusts, id. 490; Ex parte Hemming, 13 Ch. D. 
163; Re Smith, 24 Ch. D. 672. 

8 Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, since 
repealed by the 32 & 33 Vic. c. 83, § 20, and 
schedule, the Court might, however, grant the 
order of discharge, subject to any condition 
touching after-acquired property of the bank- 
rupt; see 24 & 25 Vic. c. 134, § 159, rule 3; and 
see Ex parte Griffiths, 10 Jur. N. S. 785, 787, 
L. C. Property coming to the bankrupt, be- 
tween the time of pronouncing the order of 
discharge and the time allowed for appealing 
therefrom, belongs to the bankrupt, when the 
order is not recalled or suspended on appeal. 
Re Lafbrest, 9 Jur. N. S. 851: 11 W. R. 738, 
L. C. 



61 



*68 SUITS BY PERSONS WHO ARE UNDER DISABILITY. 

Where the bankruptcy of the plaintiff has occurred previously to the 
filing of the bill, and the fact appears upon the bill, it may be taken 
advantage of by demurrer ; 4 and if the fact does not so appear, it should 
be pleaded by way of defence. 6 In the case of a plea to a bill by an 
insolvent debtor against his assignees and a debtor to the estate, the 
facts stated in the plea appeared upon the face of the bill, and yet the 
plea was held good ; * and it has been held, that as at law any matter 
which arises between the declaration and the plea may be pleaded, so 
bankruptcy or other matters arising between the bill and plea may be 
pleaded in equity. 7 

In pleading bankruptcy it was the rule that all the facts should be 
stated successively and distinctly, and it was not sufficient to say that a 
commission or fiat of bankruptcy was duly issued against the plaintiff, 
under which he was duly found and declared a bankrupt, and that all 
his estates and effects have been thereupon duly transferred to or become 
vested in the assignees ; 8 a plea of bankruptcy must have stated distinctly 
the trading, the contracting debts, the petitioning creditor's debt, the act 
of bankruptcy, the commission or fiat, and that the plaintiff had been 
found bankrupt ; but it may be doubted how far this rule would now be 

strictly enforced. 9 
*63 * With respect to the bankruptcy of the plaintiff after the com- 

mencement of a suit, or after plea and answer put in, it seems 
that the bankruptcy of a sole plaintiff does not strictly cause an abate- 
ment, but renders the suit defective ; l or, according to Lord Eldon, 1 
" this Court, without saying whether bankruptcy is or is not strictly an 
abatement, has said that, according to the course of the Court, the suit 
is become as defective as if it was abated." a Hence, if the assignees of 
a bankrupt, sole plaintiff, desire to prosecute the suit, they must obtain, 
on motion or petition of course, 4 an order enabling them so to do. 6 
And if they elect not to continue the suit, such election is not a bar to a 
subsequent action by them for the same cause of action. 9 Upon the 
non-prosecution of a suit in which the plaintiff has become bankrupt, 

4 Benfield v. Solomons, 9 Ves. 77, 82 ; Story, l Lee v. Lee, 1 Hare, 621; nee Hobbs v. 

Eq. PI. § 495. The plea need not be put in Dane Manuf. Co. 5 Allen, 581; Northman v. 

under oath. Dearden v. Villiers, 16 W. R. 479 , Insurance Companies, 1 Tenn. Ch. 312, 819; 

S. C. nom. Dierden v. Villiers, 37 L. J. Ch. Swepson v. Rouse, 65 N. C. 34. 

482, overruling Joseph v. Tuckey, 2 Cox, 44. * Randall v. Mumford, 18 Ves. 427. 

See Kbbs v. Boulnois, L. R. 10 Ch. 479. * Jackson v. North Eastern Ry. Co. 5 Ch. D. 

* In England it may be pleaded, although it 844; Eldridge v. Burgess, 7 Ch. D. 441. But 
takes place between the delivery of the state- the bankrupt may appeal against a personal 
ment of claim and the statement of defence. order. Dence v. Mason, W. N. (1879) 177. 

• Bowser v. Hnghes, 1 Anst. 101. See Sawtelle v. Rollins, 23 Maine, 196; Hilliard, 
r Turner v. Robinson, 1 S. & S. 8; Sergrove B. & I. 397, tt seq. 

o. May hew, 2 M'N. & 6. 97; Lane v. Smith, 14 * The latter seems preferable. See 2 Seton, 

Beav.' 49; Payne v. Beech, 2 Tenn. Ch. 708. 1530? Roffey v. Miller, 24 W. R. 109; Walker 

And see infra, p. 606, 607. v. Blakeman, W. N. (1876) 112. 

• Carleton p. Leighton, 8 Mer. 667, 671; • See note 8 above; R. S. C. Ord. L. 8, 4; 
Lane v. Smith, 14 Beav. 49. Seear v. Law son, 16 Ch. D. 121; Jackson *. 

* See Pepper v. Heneell. 2 H. &M. 486; and Riga Railway, 28 Bear. 75; for forms of mo- 
the Bankruptcy Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vic. c. 71), tion paper and petition, see Vol. III. 

§ 10; post, p. 69; but see Lane v. Smith, 14 * Bennett v. Gamgee, 2 Ex. D. 11; W.N. 

Beav. 49; see Lacy v. Rockett, 11 Ala. 100; (1877) 20; 25 W. R.293. 
Seaman v. Stnughton, 8 Barb. Ch. 844; Stone 
v. Parks, 1 Chaud. 60. 

62 



BANKRUPTS. 



64 



the defendant, if he wishes to get rid of the suit entirely, mast adopt 
a course of proceeding analogous to that pursued where the plaintiff 
obtains an injunction and dies, — in which case the defendant may move 
that the injunction be dissolved, unless the representatives of the de- 
ceased plaintiff revive within a certain time ; * he must move that the 
trustee may, within a specified time (usually three weeks) after notice 
of the order, take proper supplemental proceedings for the purpose of 
prosecuting the suit against him, or in default thereof that the plain- 
tiff's bill may stand dismissed. 6 Where the bankruptcy has taken place 
after decree, the motion should be that the trustee may, within a limited 
time, elect whether he will prosecute the suit, or that in default all fur- 
ther proceedings should be stayed. 7 

This is, however, not a motion of course, and the trustee must be 
served with the notice of it. 8 It should also be supported by 
♦an affidavit of the facts; 1 and the dismissal will be without *64 
costs, as a bankrupt cannot be made to pay costs. 8 (a) Where, 
however, the bankruptcy takes place between the hearing and judgment, 
the Court will not, before giving judgment, compel the assignees to 
revive. 8 After the bankruptcy of the plaintiff, the defendant cannot 
make the ordinary motion to dismiss. 4 



* Wheeler v. Malins, 4 Mad. 171; Lord 
Huntingtower t>. Sherbom, 5 Bear. 380; Robin- 
ton «. Norton, 10 Beav. 484; Fisher v. Fisher, 
6 Hare, 628; 2 Phil. 236; Meiklam v. Elmore, 
4 De G. & J. 208; 5 Jur. N. S. 904; Jackson v. 
Riga Railway, 28 Beav. 75; Boucicault v. Dela- 
field, 10 Jur! N. S. 937; 12 W. R. 1025, V. C. 
W.; 10 Jur. N. S. 1063; 13 W. R. 64, L. JJ.; 
Simpson r. Bathurst, L. R. 5 Cb. 193, L. G. 

• See Story, Eq. PI. § 349, and note; Sedg- 
wick v. Cleveland, 7 Paige, 287, 290; Garr a 
Gower, 9 Wend. 649; 2 Barb. Ch. Pr. 65, 66. 
This is the course before decree; alter decree, 
the motion should ask to stay all further pro- 
ceedings; Clarke v. Tipping, 16 Beav. 12 ; and 
tee Whitmore v. Oxborrow, 1 Coll. 91; and 
an application by the defendant for an order 
to revive under 15 & 16 Vic. c. 86, § 52. after 
decree, was refused, Maw v. Pearson, 12 W. R. 
701, M. R. ; where the bankruptcy has occurred 
in a foreign country, see Bourbaud v. Bourbaud, 
12 W. R. 1024, V. C. W. ; Clement v. Langthorn, 
W. N. (1868) 181, 186, V. C. G. For forms of 
notice of motion, see Vol. III. ; and for an order 
in like case, see Seton, 1278. The same practice 
should be followed where the plaintiff has exe- 
cuted a trust deed under the Bankruptcy Act, 
1861 (24 & 25 Vic. c. 134); Price v. Rickards, 
L. R. 9 Eq. 35, V. C. J. 



* Whitmore ». Oxborrow, 1 Coll. 91; Clarke 
v. Tipping, 16 Beav. 12. 

8 The plaintiff need not be served. Brown 
v. Rogers, 22 July, 1869, Reg. Lib. 2168, V. C. 
J., where the order was directed to be drawn up 
without notice to the plaintiff ; and see form of 
order, Seton, 1278, No. 6. See contra, Vestris 
v. Hooper, 8 Sim. 570; see abo Randall v. 
Mumford, 18 Ves. 424, 428; Wheeler v. Malins, 4 
Mad. 171. As to the proper time for making the 
application, see Sharp v. Hullett, 2 S. & S. 496. 

1 Porter v. Cox, 5 Mad. 80. 

* Wheeler v. Malins, 4 Mad. 171; Lee t>. 
Lee, 1 Hare, 621; Meiklam r. Elmore, 4 De 
G. & J. 208; 5 Jur. N. S. 904; Boucicault 9. 
Delafleld, ntpra. 

« Boucicault v. Delafleld, 12 W. R. 8, V. 
C. W. 

4 Lord Thurlow held that such an order, 
pending the bankruptcy of the plaintiff, was a 
nullity, and therefore refused to discharge one 
obtained under such circumstances. Sellas v. 
Dawson, 2 Anst. 458, n.; S. C. nom. Sellers v. 
Dawson, 2 Dick. 738; Robinson v. Norton, 10 
Beav. 484. The motion cannot be made after 
the execution by the plaintiff of a trust deed 
under the Bankruptcy Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vic. 
c. 134); Price v. Rickards, L. R. 9 Eq. 35, V. 
C.J. 



(a) In Ex parte Castle Mail Co. 35 W. R. 
89, it was held that costs may be given against 
an undischarged bankrupt. As to requiring 
security for costs upon proof of a party's in- 
solvency or bankruptcy, see United Telephone 
Co. v. Ba«aano, 31 Ch.D. 630; Re Strong (No. 
2), id. 273; Pooley's Trustee v. Whetham (No. 



2), 33 Ch. D. 76; Smith «. Badham, 66 L. T. 
822. Security for costs will not be required 
from a trustee in liquidation suing for the bene- 
fit of the estate, even though he is insolvent 
Denston v. Ashton, L. R. 4 Q. B. 590; Cowell 
* Taylor, 81 Ch. D. 34. 



63 



65 



SUITS BY PERSONS WHO ABE UNDER DISABILITY. 



The rule of practice, by which a defendant is required to give notice 
to the trustee in the case of the bankruptcy of a plaintiff, is confined to 
the case of a sole plaintiff, who, becoming bankrupt, is supposed to be 
negligent of what is sought by the bill, and the Court, to prevent sur- 
prise and save expense, requires notice to be given to the trustee ; but 
there is no instance where the Court has taken upon itself to interpose 
the rule where there are two plaintiffs, one of whom is solvent and the 
other insolvent ; for it is as competent to the solvent plaintiff as it is to 
the trustee, to rectify the suit. 6 

In the case of an injunction granted at the suit of a plaintiff who after- 
wards becomes bankrupt, the practice which has been adopted is to 
require the bankrupt to bring the trustee before the Court; and the 
Court will make an order to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the bill, 
unless the trustee shall be brought before it within a reasonable time; 
which order, it seems, may be served upon the bankrupt alone, as it is 
supposed that the bankrupt will find the means of giving the trustee 
notice. 6 Such an order will also be without costs. 

When the trustee elects to continue the suit and obtains a supple- 
mental order authorizing him to prosecute it, he becomes liable to the 
costs of the suit from the commencement; 7 and where the plaintiff had, 
previously to his bankruptcy and the supplemental order, been ordered 
to pay the costs of a proceeding, the proceedings in the suit were stayed 

until the payment of such costs. 8 
*65 * A suit does not abate by the death or change of the trustee 

plaintiff, but the Court may, upon the suggestion of such death 
or change, allow the suit to be prosecuted in the name of the surviving 
or new trustee. 1 An order is necessary for this purpose, which may be 
obtained on motion or petition of course. 8 

It was formerly necessary, in all actions where the assignees, either 
as plaintiffs or defendants, claimed property under the bankrupt, to 
prove strictly the three requisites to support the commission, namely, the 
trading, the act of bankruptcy, and the petitioning creditor's debt, as 
well as that the commission was regularly issued, and the assignment 
duly executed to the assignees. Upon failure of proving any one of 
these matters (the proof of which added considerably to the costs of an 
action, and was often difficult to be established by strict rules of evi- 
dence), the assignees were nonsuited, and thus frequently prevented 



* Caddick v. Masson, 1 Sim. 601; Latham e. 
Kenrick, 1 Sim. 502; Kelminster v. Pratt, 1 
Hare, 632; but see Ward v. Ward, 8 Beav. 379 ; 
11 Beav. 159; 12 Jur. 592. 

« Randall v. Mumford, 16 Ves. 424, 428; 
Wheeler v. Malins, 4 Mad. 171. It would seem 
that under the present practice the trustee 
should be served with notice of the motion. 

7 Poole v. Franks, 1 Moll. 78. See Boynton 
r. Boynton, 9 Ch. D. 250; 4 App. Cae. 733; Pitts 
r. La Fontaine, 6 App. Cas. 482. 

a Cook v. Hathway, L. R. 8 Eq. 612, V. C. 
M. ; and see Chap. XIX. { 1. Ex parte Staple- 

64 



ton, Re Nathan, 10 Ch. D. 586. Dismissing 
Bills and Staying Proceedings, 

i 12 & 13 Vic. c. 106, § 157. This section 
applies only to the case of trustees suing as 
plaintiffs, see Gordon v. Jesson, 16 Beav. 440; 
the practice with respect to trustees as defend- 
ants will be stated in the next chapter; and see 
Man p. Rickets, 1 Phil. 617; Mendham v. Robin- 
son, 1M.&E. 217 < Lloyd v. Waring, 1 Coll. 
536. 

8 For forms of motion paper and petition, 
see Vol. III. 



INFANTS. 



67 



from recovering a just debt due to the bankrupt's estate. To provide in 
some measure for this evil, it was enacted, 8 that if the bankrupt do not 
dispute the fiat or petition within certain limited periods, the " London 
Gazette," containing a copy of the order of the Court of Bankruptcy 
adjudging the debtor to be a bankrupt, shall be conclusive evidence of 
the bankruptcy and of the date of the adjudication, as against the bank- 
rupt, and against all persons whom the bankrupt might have sued if not 
adjudged bankrupt ; and even the circumstance that the bankrupt is an 
infant will be held not to prevent the " Gazette " being conclusive. 4 

It was held under the old law, that where the defendants to a suit, 
brought by the assignees of a bankrupt, were infants, they would be 
entitled to dispute the validity of the bankruptcy, without giving 
the notice required by the ♦Act. 1 The words of the present *66 
statute seem to be sufficient to meet such a case, and render it 
clear that, even as against infant defendants, the " Gazette " shall be con- 
clusive evidence of the bankruptcy. 9 

Where a plaintiff, suing under the former practice as assignee in 
bankruptcy, had not been actually appointed assignee at the time of 
filing the bill, but before the hearing he was so appointed as from a 
date antecedent to the filing of the bill, it was held that he was entitled 
to maintain the suit. 9 



Section V. — Infants. 

In consequence of their incapacity, persons under disability are unable 
to compromise their rights or claims : but where these rights and claims 
are merely equitable, the Court of Chancery may, in general, order the 
trust property to be dealt with in whatever mode it may consider 
to be for the benefit of cestui* que trust who * are under disability ; *67 
and therefore has power to compromise such rights or claims. 1 



« 12 & 18 Vic. c. 106, \ 233; Taylor on 
Erid. §§ 1477, 1556. 

* In re West, 8 De 6. H. & G. 198. By 
12 & 13 Vic. c. 106, §§ 234, 235, it was also 
enacted, that in any action or suit, other than 
an action or suit brought by the assignees for 
any debt or demand for which the bankrupt 
might have sustained an action had he not been 
adjudged bankrupt, and whether at the suit of 
or against the assignees, no proof shall be 
required of the petitioning creditor's debt, or 
of the trading, or act of bankruptcy, respect- 
ively, unless notice be given that these matters 
will' be disputed. See Taylor on Evid. §§ 1556, 
A. 1559 ; Pennell v. Home, 3 Drew. 837 ; and 
see Lee v. Dennistoun, 29 Beav. 465, where Sir 
John Romilly M. R. held the provisions to be 
inapplicable to the present practice in Chan- 
cery ; but, in exercise of the general jurisdic- 
tion which the Court possesses over pleadings, 
gave the defendants ten days from the date of 
the application, within which to give notice of 
the intention to dispute. 

YOL. I. — 5 



1 This was decided by Sir John Leach* 
V. C. in the case of Bell v. Tinney, 4 Mad. 372, 
in which a bill was filed by the assignees of 
a bankrupt to set aside a settlement which had 
been made by the bankrupt upon his wife and 
children. 

2 And it is now provided that the pro- 
duction of a copy of the "London Gazette, ,f 
containing a copy of the order of the Court of 
Bankruptcy adjudging the debtor to be a bank- 
rupt, is conclusive evidence in all legal pro- 
ceedings of the debtor having been duly 
adjudged a bankrupt and of the date of the 
adjudication. The Bankruptcy Act, 1869 (32 & 
88 Vic. c. 71), $ 10. See Revell v. Blake, 
L. R. 7 C. P. 300; 8 id. 533; Ex parte French, 
52 L. J. Ch. 48. 

* Barnard v. Ford, Carrick v. Ford, L. R. 4 
Ch. 247, L. JJ. 

* Brooke v. Lord Mostyn, 2 De G. J. & S. 
878, 415; 10 Jur. N. S. 1114, 1116; and see 
Wilton e. Hill, 25 L. J. Ch. 156, V. C. K.; 
Wall «. Rogers, L. R. 9 Eq. 58, M. R. 

65 



68 



SUITS BT PERSONS WHO ABB UNDER DISABILITY. 



The laws and customs of every country have fixed upon particular 
periods, at which persons are presumed to be capable of acting with 
reason and discretion. According to the English law, a person is styled 
an infant until he attains the age of twenty -one years, which is termed 
his full age. 3 

An infant attains his full age on the completion of the day which pre- 
cedes the twenty-first anniversary of his birth ; but, as the law will make 
no fraction of a day, he may do any act which he is entitled to do at full 
age, during any part of such day. Thus, the will of a man born on the 
1st of February, at eleven at night, if made on the last day of Jan- 
uary, in the twenty-first year of his age, at one in the morning, is a 
good will. 1 

Although, for many purposes, an infant is under certain legal inca- 
pacities and disabilities, a suit may be sustained in any Court, either 
of Law or of Equity, for the assertion of his rights, or for the security 
of his property ; and for this purpose a child has been considered to 
have commenced his existence as soon as he is conceived in the 
womb. 4 Under such circumstances, it is termed in law an infant en 
ventre sa mere, and a suit may be sustained on its behalf ; and the Court 
will, upon application in such suit, grant an injunction to restrain waste 
from being committed on his property. 6 In Robinson v. Litton,* Lord 
Hardwicke seems to have considered that the point that a Court of 
Equity would grant an injunction to stay waste at the suit of an infant 
en ventre sa mere, though it had often been said arguendo, had never 
been decided ; but it seems that, though Lord Hardwicke was not aware 
of the circumstance," such an injunction was actually granted by Lord 
Keeper Bridgman. 7 But an infant can do nothing which can bind 
♦68 himself to the performance *of any act; and therefore where 
from the nature of the claim made by the infant it would follow 
that, if the relief sought were granted, the rules of mutuality would 
require something to be done on his part, the suit cannot be maintained. 
Thus, an infant cannot sustain a suit for the specific performance of a 
contract; because, in such cases, it is a general principle of Courts of 
Equity to interpose only where the remedy is mutual, and if specific 
performance were ordered at the suit of the infant, there would be no 
power in the Court to compel him to perform it on his part, either by 
paying the money or executing a conveyance. 1 



* Jacob'* Law Diet. tit. Infant. The age of 
majority of females is fixed by the Constitution 
of Vermont at eighteen years. Young v. 
Davis, Brayt. 124; Sparhawk v. Buel, 9 Vt, 41. 

• Salk. 44, 625 ; Sir R. Howland's case, 
id. 265; 1 Ld. Ray. 480; 2 id. 1096; 1 Bla. 
Com. 463; 1 Jarman on Wills, 29; Herbert v. 
Torball, 1 Sid. 142; S. C Raym. 84; State v. 
Clark, 3 Hairing, 657; Hamlin *. Stephenson, 
4 Dana, 597. As to fractions of a day, and 
when they will and will not be regarded in 
the law, see D'Obree, Ex parte, 8 Sumner's 
Yes. 83, note (a); Lester v. Garland, 15 id. 248; 
note (3); Be Railway Sleepers Supply Co. 29 

66 



Ch. D. 204; Murfree v. Carmack, 4 Ter. 270; 
Berry «. Clements, 9 Hum. 312; S. C. on 
appeal, 11 How. 398; Plowman v. Williams, 3 
Tenn. Ch. 181. 

* See Wallis v. Hodson, 2 Atk. 117. 

* See Musgrave* Parry, 2 Vern. 710; Story, 
Eq. PI. § 59, note. 

« 3 Atk. 209, 211; see also Wallis t>. Hod- 
son, 2 Atk. 117. 

7 Lutterel's case cited Prec. Ch. 50. 

1 Flight v. Bolland, 4 Russ. 298; Hargrave 
«. Hargrave, 12 Beav. 408; but see Allen v. 
Davidson, 16 Ind. 416. 



INFANTS. 



68 



On account of an infant's supposed want of discretion, and his inabil- 
ity to bind himself and make himself liable to the costs, he is incapable 
of bringing a suit without the assistance of some other person, who may 
be responsible to the Court for the propriety of the suit in its institution 
and progress. 1 Such person is called the next friend of the infant ; (<*) 



* R. S. C. Ord. XVI. 8; Hoyt v. Hilton, 2 
Edw. Ch. 202. There must be a next friend 
for even* application on behalf of an infant. 
Cox v. Wright, 9 Jur. N. S. 981 ; 11 W. R. 
870, V. C K.; see also Stuart v. Moore, 9 
H. L. Cas. 440; 4 Macq. H. L. 1, 36, n. ; 7 Jar. 
N. S. 1129; R. S. C. Ord. XVI. 8. In Ex parte 
Brocklebank, 6 Ch. D. 358, it was held that an 
infant creditor may issue a debtor's summons 
in bankruptcy in his own name without a next 
friend. An infant, by being made party to a 
suit, becomes thereby a ward of Court. Gynn 
«. Gilbard, 1 Dr. & S. 356; 7 Jur. N. 8. 91; 
and see Stuart v. Moore, 9 H. L. Cas. 440; 
4 Macq. H. L. 1, 36, n.; 7 Jur. N. S. 1129; Re 
Hodge's Trust, 3 K. & J. 213; 3 Jur. N. S. 
860. Where a plaintiff tiles a bill at an infant, 
infancy is a material allegation, and must be 
proved, or admitted by the answer. Boyd «. 



(a) " Every prochein ami is to be considered 
as an officer of the Court, specially appointed 
by them to look after the interests of the infant." 
Parke B. in Morgan «. Thome, 7 M. & W. 
400. An infant's next friend may prosecute 
the suit without previous authority from the 
Court. Judson v. Blanchard, 3 Conn. 679 ; 
Klaus v. State, 54 Miss. 644 ; Bethea v. Call, 3 
Ala. 449. As his power commences with the 
suit, he cannot make a special previous demand 
necessary for its prosecution. Miles v. Borden, 
3 Pick. 213. A next friend can institute a suit 
on behalf of a married woman only by her 
authority. Scbjott v. Schjott, 45 L. T. 333. 
An infant married woman, whose adult husband 
b joined as a co-plaintiff with her, need not sue 
by next friend. Welch v. Buuce, 83 Ind. 382. 
In McDonald v. Weir, 76 Mich. 243, a co-plain- 
tiff was at the trial appointed next friend of a 
plaintiff then discovered to be an infant. A 
defendant should not be next friend of an infant 
plaintiff. Re Burgess, Burgees v. Bottomley, 
W. N. (1883) 177 ; see Lewis v. Nobbs, 8 Ch. 
D. 591. A father has the first and best right 
to represent his child as next friend. Woolf t>. 
Pemberton, 6 Ch. D. 19 ; Rue v. Meirs, 43 N. 

J. Eq. 377; see Re G , [1892] 1 Ch. 292 ; 

49 & 50 Vic. c. 27 ; Re McGrath, [1892] 2 Ch. 
496 ; Wilson v. Me-ne-chas, 40 Kansas, 648. 
Where a father, after authorizing a stranger to 
act as next friend to his infant children, died, 
and his will appointed his wife, their mother, 
guardian of the children, the mother was held 
to have the right to be substituted as next 
friend. Hutchinson «. Norwood, 31 Ch. D. 



Boyd, 6 Gill & J. 25 ; see Shirley v. Hagar, 3 
Blackf. 228 and note ; Hanly v. Levin, 5 Ham. 
227. 

As to the time for appointing a prochein ami, 
see Wilder v. Ember, 12 Wend. 191; Matter of 
Frits, 2 Paige, 374 ; Fitch v. Fitch, 18 Wend. 
513; Haines v. Oatman, 2 Doug. 430. In 
Massachusetts the next friend will be admitted 
by the Court without any other record than the 
recital in the count. Miles v. Boyden, 3 Pick. 
213. See also Trevet v. Creath, Breese, 12; 
Judson v. Blanchard, 3 Conn. 579. 

"The law knows no distinction between 
infants of tender and of mature years \ and 
as no special authority to sue is requisite 
in the case of an infant just born, so none is 
requisite from an infant on the very eve of 
attaining his majority." Parke B. in Morgan 
«. Thorne, 7 M. & W. 400, 408. 



237. In England it is held that a married 
woman cannot be a next friend. Ibid. ; Re 
Somerset, 34 Ch. D. 465. But in this country 
it has been held that a married woman can be 
an infant's next friend when a judgment for 
the costs of the suit can be collected from her. 
Budd «. Rutherford (Ind.), 30 N. E. 1111. As 
to an illegitimate child, see Barnardo v, Mc- 
Hugh, [1891] A. C 388. The next friend must 
have no personal interest, however remote or 
indirect Re Burgess, 25 Ch. D. 243 ; Re Cor- 
se His, 50 L. T. 703. Without a guardian ad 
litem, there can be no recovery against an infant. 
Thorp v. Minor (N. C), 13 S. E. Rep. 702. 
The appointment of a next friend and his ac- 
ceptance should usually appear of record ; but a 
natural guardian, whose authority does not so 
appear, may be shown by parol to possess It 
Simmons v. Baynard, 30 Fed. Rep. 532; Stin- 
son v. Pickering. 70 Maine, 273; Fuller v. 
Smith, 49 Vt. 253 ; Clark v. Piatt, 30 Conn. 
282 j Price v. Winter, 15 Fla. 66 ; Treiber t>. 
Sbafer, 18 Iowa, 29 ; Rboads v. Rhoads, 43 111. 
239 ; Myers v. Myers, 6 W. Va. 369; Daniel 9. 
Hanagan, 5 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 48. As to a 
widowed mother's authority, see Re Lemon, 
19 L. R. Ir. 575. If there is a general guardian 
and he does not appear, or has an adverse in- 
terest, a guardian ad litem takes his place in 
the suit. Mansur v. Pratt, 101 Mass. 60 ; 
St in son v. Pickenng, 70 Maine, 273 ; Wells v. 
Smith, 44 Miss. 296 ; Miller v. Cabell, 81 Ky. 
178 ; Wead v. Cantwell, 3b Hun, 528 ; Peter- 
son v. Baillif (Minn.), 54 N. W. Rep. 185 An 
infant cannot sue without a next friend or 

67 



68 



SUITS BY PERSONS WHO ABE UNDER DISABILITY. 



and if a bill is filed on behalf of an infant without a next friend, the 
defendant may move to have it dismissed with costs, to be paid by the 



guardian, even when emancipated by bis 
parents. Hoskins v. White (Mont.), 32 Pac. 
Rep. 163. Van Pelt v. Chattanooga K. Co. 
(Ga.) 15 S. E. Rep. 622. The fact that infant 
defendants are represented by a general guar- 
dian, instead of a next friend, as is warranted 
by the practice of a State Court, does not affect 
the conclusiveness of its judgment in a Federal 
Court. Colt v. Colt, 111 U S 566. The lower 
Court of Bankruptcy, from which an appeal is 
taken, is, it seems, the proper tribunal to ap- 
point the guardian ad litem. Be Lowndes, 8 M 
B. R. 216. 

While undue facility should not be given to 
mere volunteers, yet no discouragement will be 
placed in the way of persons suing in good 
faith as next friends. Nalder v. Hawkins, 2 
Hyl. & K. 243. An adult defendant may, it 
seems, waive the benefit of a next friend to an 
infant plaintiff as security for costs. Ex parte 
Brocklebank, 6 Ch. D. 358, 360. No appoint- 
ment or subsequent confirmation by the infant 
party is requisite, whether he is of tender age 
or of years of discretion ; and it is immate- 
rial whether he is cognizant of the proceedings, 
or whether he is in the country or abroad. 
Middleditch v. Williams, 47 N. J* Eq.585. See 
Simpson on Infants (2d ed.), 468 ; Schouler, 
Dom. Rel. (4th ed.) § 449. If an infant on 
coming of age repudiates a suit brought in his 
name, his name should be stricken out as plain* 
tiff and added as a defendant Silber Light 
Co. v Silber, 12 Ch. D. 717, 724. 

The power of a next friend extends to all 
matters properly relating to the conduct and 
prosecution of the suit, and he may therefore 
arrange for hearings, the taking of depositions, 
&C. Higginson *. Hall, 10 Ch. D. 235; Knnck- 
bull v. Fowle, 1 Ch. D. 604 ; Dupuy v. Wels- 
ford, 42 L. T. 730 ; Kingsbury v. Buckner, 134 
U. 8. 650 ; Beddinger v. Smith (Ark.), 13 S. 
W. 734 ; Walker t>. Ferrin, 4 Vt. 53 ; Pollock 
«. Bnie, 48 Miss. 140; Biddinger v. Wiland, 67 
Md. 359 ; Walker v. Ferrin, 4 Vt 523. He may 
employ an attorney at law for the suit, and if 
there is no general guardian, he has authority 
to receive payment of the judgment recovered, 
receipt for it and enter satisfaction thereof. 
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 36 
Md. 619. He is not a " party to the action " 
within the English rules of 1875, so as to be 
compellable to make a discovery of documents. 
Dyke t. Stephens, 30 Ch. D. 189 ; Scott v. Cons. 
Bank, W. N. (1893) 56; Gray v. Parke, 155 
Mass. 433. And he is not in strictness a party 
to the suit for any purpose. Ibid. ; Sinclair v. 
Sinclair, 13 M. & W. 646; Rnckman t>. Palisade 
Land Co. 1 Fed. Rep. 867; Brown v. Hull, 16 
Vt. 673 ; Bryant «. Livermore, 20 Minn. 318, 

68 



342; McDonald r McDonald, 24 Ind. 68. The 
suit is not abated if the next friend dies, or the 
minors reach their majority while it is pending; 
but they may then appear and prosecute the 
suit as adults. Tucker v. Wilson, 68 Miss. 693. 
The answer should properly neither admit nor 
deny the plaintiff's charges, but submit the 
matter to the Court's judgment and protection. 
Dow v. Jewell, 21 N. H. 470 ; Bush v. Linthi- 
cum, 59 Md. 344 ; pott, p. 169. The answer, if 
made and sworn to by next friend, is not evi- 
dence in the suit in the infant's favor. Bulk ley 
v. Van Wyck, 5 Paige, 536 ; Stephenson v. 
Stephenson, 6 Paige, 353; or against the in- 
fant in other suits. Hiatt v. Brooks, 11 Ind. 
508. See Coffin v. Heath, 6 Met. (Mass.) 76 ; 
Benson v. Wright, 4 Md. Ch. 278. But the 
next friend cannot, without the Court's ap- 
proval, vitally affect or impair the infant's 
interests by waivers, admissions, omissions, or 
stipulations. Morgan v. Thorne, 7 M. & W. 
400 ; Holden v. Hearn, 1 Beav. 445 ; Mills v. 
Dennis, 3 John. Ch. 367 ; Bowers v. Smith, 10 
Paige, 193; Bryant v. Tracy, 27 Abb. N. Cas. 
183, and note ; Walsh v. Walsh, 116 Mass. 
377 ; Tripp «. Gifford, 155 Mass. 108 ; CI ax ton 
«. Claxton, 56 Mich. 557 ; Cartwright r. Wise. 
14 111. 417 ; Simpson v. Alexander, 6 Cold. 
(Tenn.) 630 ; McClure v. Farthing, 51 Mo 109; 
Henly v. Gore, 4 Dana (Ky.), 133 ; Ingersoll 
v. Ingersoll, 42 Miss. 155 ; Johnson v. McCabe, 
id. 255. 

The next friend cannot, of his own motion, 
submit the cause to arbitration. Tucker r. 
Dabbs, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 18; Jones v. Payne, 
41 Ga. 23 ; Fort v. Battle, 13 S. & M. (Miss.) 
133. Or bind the infant's estate for attor- 
ney's fees, although an allowance therefor may 
be made by the Court. M. E. Church v. 
Jacques, 3 John. (N. Y.) 1 ; Houck v. Brid- 
well, 28 Mo. App. 644. The attorney acting 
for an infant plaintiff is the attorney of the next 
friend. Almack v. Moore, 2 Ir. L. R. 90. 
Nor can he, without the express sanction of the 
Court, compromise the suit. Cuthbert v. Chau- 
vet, 136N. Y. 332* 32 N. E. Rep. 1088; Edsall 
v. Vandemark, 39 Barb. 589 : Tripp v. Gifford, 
155 Mass. 108, Miles v. Kaigler, 10 Yerg. 
(Tenn.) 10; Crotty v. Eagle (W. Va.), 13 S. 
E Rep. 59 ; Isaacs v. Boyd, 5 Porter (Ala.), 
388 ; Holker v Parker, 7 branch. 496 ; Clark 
t. Crout (S. C), 13 S. E. Rep. 602 ; see Walsh 
i. Walsh, 116 Mass. 377 ; Brooke v. Mostyn, 2 
De G. J. & S 373, 415 ; Wilton v. Hill, 25 
L. J. Ch. 156 ; Wall v. Rogers, L. R. 6 Eq. 58. 
Hence an agreement that, if there is no appeal 
from a judgment of non-suit against an infant 
plaintiff, the defendant will not ask for costs, 
though fairly made, is for the next friend's 



INFANTS. 



69 



solicitor. In a case, however, where a bill was filed by the plantiff as 
an adult, and it was afterwards discovered that he was an infant at the 
time of filing the bill, and still continued so, it was, at the hearing of a 
motion by the defendant that the bill be dismissed, with costs to be paid 
by the plaintiff's solicitor, ordered that the plaintiff should be at liberty 
to amend, by inserting a next friend.* 

When an infant claims a rigbt, or suffers an injury, on account of 
which it is necessary to resort to the Court of Chancery, his near- 
est relation is supposed to be the person who will take him * under *69 
his protection, and institute a suit to assert his rights *, l and it 
is for this reason that the person who institutes a suit on behalf of an 
infant is termed his next friend. But, as it frequently happens that 
the nearest relation of the infant is the person who invades his rights, 
or at least neglects to give that protection to the infant which his con- 
sanguinity or affinity calls upon him to give, the Court, in favor of in- 
fants, will permit any person to institute suits on their behalf ; * and 
whoever thus acts the part which the nearest relation ought to take, is 



» Flight v. Bolland, 4 Rubs. 298. 

* See Bank of the United States v. Ritchie, 
8 Peters, 128. 

9 Andrews v. Cradock, Prec. Ch. 876 , Anon. 
1 Atk. 570; Story, Eq. PI. § 58, note. See 
Cross v. Cross, 8 Beav. 455. A defendant, 
however, may not be a plaintiffs next friend, 
Payne*. Little, 13 Beav. 114; Anon. 11 Jar. 



258, V. C. £.; unless he is wholly without 
Interest in the subject-matter. Be Taylor, W. 
N. (1881) 51, M. R. But when the husband 
was a defendant in right of his wife, and next 
friend of the infant plaintiff, his name was 
stricken out as defendant, and the wife given 
liberty to defend separately. Lewis v. Nobbs, 
8 Ch. D. 591. 



benefit, and not for the infant's, if the latter is 
without property, and is not binding upon the 
infant. Rhodes v. Swithenbank, 22 Q. B. D. 
577. If the next friend acts in good faith and 
with reasonable care, the taxed costs in a suit 
in which be is unsuccessful will be reimbursed 
to him. Voorbees v. Polhemus, 36 N. J. Eq. 
456, and note. See Walters v. Wood bridge, 7 
Ch. D. 504. He is liable for his negligeut 
management causing injury to the infant. 
Knickerbocker v. De Freest, 2 Paige, 304. And 
if he officiously procured his appointment, or 
has mismanaged the case or shown bad faith, 
he may be taxed with costs, though not strictly 
a party to the suit Be Blakft, 29 Ch. D. 913 ; 
Smith v. Smith, 108 N. C. 365. A guardian 
is not responsible for a loss sustained by his 
ward from bis failure to resort to a new and ex- 
traordinary remedy, the scope and effect of 
which are doubtful. White v. Robinson, 64 
N. C. 698. A guardian, having no title or in- 
terest in his ward's estate, cannot maintain a 
bill in Equity in his own name to avoid the 
ward's conveyance of his property. Lombard 
9. Horse, 155 Mass. 136. Even when another 
Court has ordinarily exclusive jurisdiction of 
infants' property rights, a purchase on credit by 
a guardian for his ward, which does not directly 
relate to the latter'a estate, is cognizable in 
Equity. Corker v. Jones, 110 U. S. 317. 
The Court will always Interpose to protect the 



infant against the next friend's misconduct, or 
his collusion with the adverse party. The Etna, 
Ware, 462 ; Crittenden v. Canfield, 87 Mich. 
152; Newland v. Gentry, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 
666 ; Barrett v. Oliver, 7 Gill & J. (Md.j 191 ; 
Fowlet v. Lewis, 36 W. Va. 112 ; Eidam v. 
Finnegan, 48 Minn. 53 ; 16 L. R. A. 507. It 
mav make a reference to a Master to determine 
whether a suit instituted bv next friend is for 
the infant's benefit, Garr «. Drake, 2 John. 
Cb. 542 ; and it may at any time substitute 
another person in place of the next friend. 
Walker v. Hull, 35 Mich. 488 ; Henly v. Gore, 
tupra. It may remove the next friend for other 
causes than misconduct, — such as a refusal to 
appeal. Dupuy v. Welsford, 28 W. R. 762 ; 
42 L. T. 730. It will use great care in sanction- 
ing a compromise of the infant's interests. 
King v. King, 15 111. 187. It cannot, it seems, 
sanction such compromise against the wishes of 
the guardian ad litem, acting under counsel's 
advice. See Be Birchall, Wilson v. Birchall, 
16 Ch. D. 41 ; Wilton v. Hill, 25 L. J. Ch. 156, 
Y. C K. ; Brooke v. Lord Mostyn, 2 De G. J. 
& S. 373, 415; Fadelle v. Bernard, 19 W. R. 
555 ; Re Cockcroft, Broadbent v Groves, 24 Ch. 
D. 94; Coaks v. Bos well, 11 App. Cas. 232, over- 
ruling Boswell v. Coaks, 27 Ch. D. 424 ; ante, 
p. 66. As to the form of a judgment or decree* 
in the infant's favor see Texas Cent Ry. Co. a 
Stewart (Texas), 20 S. W. Rep. 962. 

69 



70 



SUITS BT PERSONS WHO ABE UNDER DISABILITY. 



also styled the next friend of the infant, and is named as such in the 
bill.* And although an infant has had a guardian assigned him by the 
Court, or appointed by will, yet, where the infant is plaintiff, the course 
is not to call the guardian by that name, but to call him the next friend. 
But where the infant is defendant, the guardian is so called; and if 
the guardian be so called where the infant is plaintiff, it is no cause of 
demurrer. 4 

Before the name of any person is used as the next friend of an infant, 
he must sign a written authority to the solicitor for that purpose, which 
authority is filed with the bill. 6 

It frequently occurs that two or more suits for the same purpose are 
instituted in his name, by different persons, each acting as his next 
friend; in such cases the Court will, where no decree has been made in 
any of the suits, direct an inquiry to be made at chambers as to which 
suit is most for his benefit, and when that point is ascertained will 
stay the proceedings in the other suits. 8 Where no decree has been 
made in any of the suits, 7 and they are all attached to the same branch 
of the Court, and none of them are in the paper for hearing, such 
inquiry will be directed on an ex parte motion j 8 the Court being sat- 
isfied, in the first instance, with the allegation that the suits are for 
the same purpose. 9 Where the suits are attached to different 
* 70 branches of the Court, an order * must be obtained, in the first 
instance, for the transfer of one of the suits, so that they may 
both be before the same Judge; 1 and the order for the inquiry is 
obtained on special motion, of which notice must be given to the other 
parties to the suits. * 

The order for the inquiry should be made in both suits, and does not 



* Ld. Red. 25 ; see Snow v. Hole, 15 Sim. 
161; Green v. Badley, 7 Beav. 271. 

* Toth. 173; Wyatt'a P. R. 224; see Holmes 
v. Field, 12 111. 424. An infant may sue by hit 
next friend, notwithstanding he have a guard- 
ian, if the guardian do not dissent. Thomas v. 
Dike, 11 Vt. 273; see Traak v. Stone, 7 Mass. 
241. The general guardian of infants cannot 
file a bill in his own name to obtain possession 
of the property of his wards. But he must 
file it in the name of the infants as their next 
friend. Bradley v. Amidon, 10 Paige, 235. 
And if he sues in their name as their general 
guardian, he will be treated as a next friend. 
Simpson v. Alexander, 6 Coldw. 619. The 
Court never appoints a guardian to prosecute 
for, but only to defend, an infant party. Priest 
v. Hamilton, 2 Tyler, 44. 

« 15 & 16 Vic. c. 86, § 11; see R. S. C. 
1883, Ord. XVI. 20; 46 & 47 Vic. c. 49, § 4, 
Sched.; Cox v. James, 19 Ch. D. 55; as to his 
liability, see Re Flower, 19 W. R. 578, and as 
to costs, see post, p. 79. In an injunction case 
the authority was permitted to be filed the day 
after an information. Att.-Gen. v. Murray, 13 
W. R. 65, V. C. K. For form of authority, 

Vol. Ill 

70 



• Ld. Red. 27; Mortimer v. West, 1 Swanst. 
858; Virtue v. Miller, 19 W. R. 406 < Story, Eq. 
PI. § 60. For forms of the orders, see 2 Seton, 
707, Nos. 8, 9. 

7 Bundle v. Rundle, 11 Beav. 83. 

* For forms of motion paper, and notice of 
special motion, see Vol. III. 

» Sullivan v. Sullivan, 2 Mer. 40. 

1 This was the course pursued in Knight v. 
Knight, L. JJ., and M. R., 29 June, 1859, and 
V. C. Stuart, 29 June, 1859, and 9 Nov., 1859. 
Compare Duffort v. Arrowsmith, 5 De. 6. M. 
& G. 434. The order for transfer is made by 
the L. C. or L. JJ., and the M. R. if transferred 
from or to the M. R. (5 Vic. c. 5, § 80), and by 
the L. C. or L. JJ. alone in other cases ; but 
the order will not be made unless the consent 
of the Judges from and to whom the cause is 
transferred is first obtained. Such consent is 
usually signified, as of course, on the matter 
being mentioned by the counsel of the party 
moving. Formerly, it would seem that the 
order for inquiry might be made by either 
Court, without eiiher of the causes being trans- 
ferred. Starten v. Bartholomew, 5 Beav. 372. 

s See Bond v. Barnes, 2 De G. F. & J. 387. 
For form of notice of motion, see Vol. HI. 



BANKRUPTS. 



71 



of itself stay the proceedings in the suits; * and the amendment of one 
of the bills, pending the inquiry, does not stay the inquiry. 4 When 
the result of the inquiry has been certified, any application that may 
be necessary is made by motion, on notice. Under special circum- 
stances, the Court may, upon motion, on notice, make an order staying 
the suits, without directing an inquiry.' 

If upon the inquiry it appears that, although it would be beneficial 
to the infant to prosecute the first, yet it will be more beneficial to him 
to prosecute a subsequent suit, the Court will stay the first suit, and 
give the next friend his costs. 6 Where a decree has been made in 
any of the suits it is not usual to direct an inquiry; 7 but the other 
suits will be stayed, liberty being given to each of the next friends in 
the stayed suits to apply for the conduct of the suit in which the decree 
was made. 8 When another next friend takes upon himself to file a 
second bill, it is incumbent upon him to show some defect in the first 
suit, or a decided preference in the second; if their merits are only 
equal, the priority must prevail. 9 

As a check to the general license to institute suits on behalf of 
infants, the Court will, upon the application of the defendant, or of 
any person acting as next friend of the plaintiff for the purpose of the 
application, 10 where a strong case is shown that a suit preferred in the 
name of an infant is not for the infant's benefit, or is instituted from 
improper motives, direct an inquiry concerning the propriety of the 
suit; u but an objection at the hearing to the propriety of the 
suit was held too late." (a) If, upon such inquiry, it * appears *71 
that the suit is not for the benefit of the infant, either the pro- 
ceedings will be stayed, 1 or else, if there is no excuse for the fact of the 



» Westby v. Westby, 1 De 6. & S. 410; 11 
Jot. 764. 

* Goodale v. Gawthorne, 1 M'N. & Q. 319, 
923; but it is irregular, in such a case, to obtain 
an order of course to amend. Fletcher v. Moore, 
llBeav 617; lSJnr. 1063. 

* Stanfland t. Stantland, If. R., 21 Jan., 
1864; 2 Seton, 708, No. 10; and see Frost ». 
Ward, 12 W. R. 285, L. JJ.; 2 De G. J. & S. 
70; Harvey v. Coxwell, 32 L. T. N. S. 52. 

* Starten v. Bartholomew, 6 Bear. 143. 

7 Taylor v. Oldham, Jac. 527; but see Har- 
rfc v. Harm, 10 W. R. 31, V. C. K. 

* Ken von v. Kenyon, 35 Beav. 300; and see 
Frost v. Ward, 2 De G. J. & S. 70; Harris v. 
Harris, 10 W. R. 31, V. C. K. 



9 Per Lord Cottenham, Campbell v. Camp- 
bell, 2 M. & C. 80; and see Harris «. Harris, 
10 W. R. 31, V. C. K. 

w Guy •. Guy, 2 Beav. 460. 

11 Stevens «. Stevens, 6 Mad. 97; Lyons •. 
Blenkin, Jac. 245, 259; Small wood v. Rutter, 
9 Hare, 24. For form of notice of motion, sea 
Vol. III. For form of order, see 2 Setoa, 
707, No. 7. 

H Lacy o. Burchnall, 3 N. R. 293. 
1 Ld. Red. 27; see also Da Costa r. Da 
Costa, 3 P. W. 140; Richardson v. Miller, 1 
Sim. 133; Fulton v. Rosevelt, 1 Paige, 178; 
Bowen v. Idley, 1 Edw. Ch. 148 ; Story, Eq. PI. 
§ 60. In Da Costa v. Da Costa, the inquiry 
was directed upon a petition; but the modern 



(a) A child being by birth subject to its 
father, " it is for the general interest of fami- 
lies, and for the general interest of children, 
and really for the interest of the particular in- 
fant, that the Court should not, except in very 
extreme cases, interfere with the discretion of 
the father, but leave him to the responsibility 
of exercising that power which nature has 
given him by the birth of the child." In re 
Agar-Eliis, 24 Ch. D. 317, 334. See also An- 



drews t. Salt, L. R. 8 Ch. 622; Re Clarke, 21 
Ch. D. 817; Re Scanlan, 40 Ch. D. 200; Re 
Plomley, 47 L. T. 283. The father has, there* 
fore, the strongest right to be his child's next 
friend. Woolf v. Pemberton, 6 Ch. D. 19; 
ante, p. 68, note. As to custody, see Re 
Elderton, 25 Ch. D 220; Re Brown, 13 Q. B. 
D. 614. As to advances and maintenance, 
Re Tanner, 53 L. J. Ch. 1108; Re Evans, 
Ch. D. 58. 

71 



L 



72 



SUITS BY PERSONS WHO ABE UNDER DISABILITY. 



suit having been instituted; the bill will be dismissed with costs, to be 
paid by the next friend; * and where it appeared clearly upon affidavits 
that the suit was commenced by the next friend to promote his own 
views, and not for the benefit of the infant, such an order was made 
summarily, and without an inquiry.* Where an application was 
made on behalf of the defendants, that the next friend of the infant 
plaintiff be restrained from further proceeding with the suit, and that 
a new next friend might be appointed to conduct it in his stead, — 
which application was supported by strong affidavits to show that the 
suit had in fact been instituted from improper motives, for the purpose 
of benefiting the solioitor, at whose request the person named as next 
friend (who was a stranger to the family, and had lately held the situa- 
tion of farm servant or bailiff at monthly wages) had consented to act 
as such, — the Master was directed to inquire, not only whether the suit 
was for the benefit of the infant, but whether the next friend was a 
fit and proper person to be continued in that character, and who would 
be the proper person to conduct the suit in case the next friend was 
removed. 4 Where a decree is made in the suit, it is irregular to direct 
an inquiry whether any benefit has accrued to the infant from the suit 
in such a form as to make the answer to that inquiry depend on the 
result of the accounts directed by the decree. 5 

The result of the cases seems to be that the Court exercises a very 
careful discretion e on the one hand, in order to facilitate the proper 
exercise of the right which is given to all persons to file a bill on behalf 
of infants; and on the other, to prevent any abuse of that right and 
any wanton expense to the prejudice of infants. 7 

No inquiry, however, as to the propriety of the suit, will be 
*72 * ordered at the instigation of the next friend himself; because 
the Court considers, that in commencing a suit, the next friend 
undertakes, on his own part, that the suit he has so commenced is for 
the benefit of the infant. 1 This rule, nevertheless, applies only to 
cases where an application is made for such an inquiry in the cause 
itself; if there is another cause pending by which the infant's property 
is subject to the control and disposition of the Court, such an inquiry 
is not only permitted, but is highly proper, when fairly and bona fide 
made, and may have the effect of entitling the next friend to repayment 



practice is to apply to the Court upon motion, of 
which notice is given to the next friend. See, 
however, Anderton v. Yates, 5 De G. & S. 202. 

2 Fox v. Suwerkrop, 1 Beav. 583 ; Re Elsom, 
Thomas v. Elsom, W. N. (1877) 177. 

» Sale v. Sale, 1 Beav. 586 ; see also Guy v. 
Guy, 2 Beav. 460; SUniland v. Staniland, ante, 
p. 70. 

* NaldertJ. Hawkins, 2 M. & K. 243; Tow- 
sey 9. Groves, 9 Jnr. N. 8. 194; 11 W. R. 252, 
V. C. K.; see also Clayton «. Clarke, 2 Giff. 
576; 7 Jur. N. 8. 662; 9 W. R. 718, L. JJ.? 
Raven v. Kerl, 2 Phil. 692; Gravatt v. Tann, 
15 W. R. 383, M. R.; W. N. (1866) 327, 405, 
L. JJ. 

72 



* Clayton v. Clarke, 3 De G. F. & J. 682; 
7 Jur. N. S. 562; 2 Giff. 575; 7 Jur. N. S. 252. 

• Per Lord Langdale M. R. in Starten v. 
Bartholomew, 6 Beav. 144; and see Clayton v. 
Clarke, ttupra. 

t See Matter of Frits, 2 Paige, 374; Waring 
v. Crane, 2 Paige, 79. 

1 Jones v. Powell, 2 Mer. 141. But a refer- 
ence will be directed, as to the propriety of the 
suit, upon the petition and affidavit of the infant 
that the suit was commenced without his knowl- 
edge, and that he believed it to be groundless 
Garr v. Drake, 2 John. Ch. 642. 



INFANTS. 



78 



of his costs out of the infant's estate, even though the suit should turn 
out unfortunate, and the bill be dismissed with costs. 1 

If an infant is made a co-plaintiff with others in a bill, and it appears 
that it will be more for his benefit that he should be made a defendant, 
an order to strike his name out as plaintiff, and to make him a defend- 
ant, may be obtained upon motion or summons, on notice in either 
case; s and an infant heir-at-law, out of whose estate a charge is sought 
to be raised, ought to be made a defendant, and not a plaintiff, although 
he is interested in the charge when raised; and where an infant heir 
had, under such circumstances, been made a co-plaintiff, the cause was 
ordered to stand over, with liberty for the plaintiffs to amend, by mak- 
ing the heir-at-law a defendant instead of plaintiff, and thereupon to 
prove the settlement anew* against him as a defendant. 4 The reason 
given for this practice is, because an infant defendant, where his 
inheritance is concerned, has in general a day given him, after attain- 
ing twenty-one, to show cause, if he can, against the decree, and is in 
some other respects privileged beyond an adult; but an infant plaintiff 
has no such privilege, and is as much bound as one of full age.' In 
amicable suits, however, it is often an advantage to make an infant the 
plaintiff; because he may have such relief as he is entitled to, though 
not prayed for. 6 

An infant is usually bound by a decree in a cause in which he him- 
self is plaintiff, yet there is no instance of the Court binding the inheri- 
tance of an infant by any discretionary act; and from this 
principle it follows, that where an infant * heir is plaintiff, it is * 73 
not the practice to establish the will, or to declare it well 
proved, 1 although, if there be no question raised concerning its validity, 
the Court will in many respects act upon it.* 

In general, where decrees are made in suits by infant plaintiffs, it is 
not usual to give the infant a day to show cause.* (a) When a day is 



* Taner v. I vie, 2 Yes. Sr. 466. It is for tbe 
Judge's discretion whether the inquiry shall be 
granted. Pen roth v. Penroth, W. N. (1874) 
68; 22 W. R. 461, L. JJ. 

* Tappen v. Norman, 11 Yes. 563; see Le 
Fort v. Delafield, 3 Edw. Ch. 32. For forms of 
notice of motion and summons, see Yol. III. 

* Plunket v. Joice, 2 Sch. & Lef. 159. 

* Lord Brook v. Lord Hertford, 2 P. Wms. 
518; Gregory ». Molesworth, 3 Atk. 626; see 
also M orison v. Morison, 4 M. & C. 216; 
Davidson r. Bowden, 5 Sneed, 129; Simpson 
t. Alexander, 6 Coldw. 619. The practice of 
giving infants a day to show cause is now 
nearly obsolete: but the present state of the 
law on this subject will be more suitably stated 
in the future chapter concerning infant defend- 



(a) See Mellor v. Porter, 25 Cb. D. 158; 
Younge v. Cocker. 32 W. R. 359 ; Gray v. Bell, 
46 L. T. 521 ; pott, p. 165. An infant trustee, 
who possesses an interest in the trust estate, 
and also holds the legal title, is entitled to such 



ants; see post, Chap. IY. § 10; and see Seton, 
419, 686-689, and cases there cited. 

• See post, p. 73. A decree against an adult 
as if an Infant, will not bind him. Snow v. 
Hole, 15 Sim. 161; Green v. Badlev, 7 Beav. 
271, 273. 

i Hills v. Hills, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 327; Taylor 
v. Philips, 2 Yes. Sr. 23 ; Belt's Sup. to Yes. 
Sr. 259. 

3 The Court has now power, under the 
Trustee Act, to declare the Infant a trustee, 
and to vest the lands. Bowra v. Wright, 4 De 
G. & S. 265 ; see Seton, 571 ; et seq., and post, 
Chap. XXVIII. § 1. 

1 Gregory «. Molesworth, 3 Atk. 626; but 
see Lady Effingham v. Sir John Napier, 4 Bra 
P. C. ed. Toml. 340; Sir J. Napier v. Lady 



day to show cause, McClellan v. McClellan, 65 
Maine, 500; contra, when the infant is simply 
a trustee, although the trust arises by implica- 
tion of law. Walsh «. Walsh, 116 Mass. 377. 



73 



74 



SUITS BT PERSONS WHO ARE UNDER DISABILITY. 



given to an infant plaintiff to show cause against a decree after he 
comes of age, the proper coarse appears to be to have the cause reheard; 
for which purpose he must, within the period appointed by the decree, 
present a petition of rehearing. 4 

An infant is usually bound by the effect of any suit or proceedings 
instituted on his behalf, and for his benefit; yet if there has been any 
mistake in the form of such suit, or the proceedings under i