登陆注册
26229900000126

第126章 LECTURE XI.(17)

180/3 Nugent v. Smith, 1 C.P. D. 423, Cockburn, C. J., at p. 428.

181/1 Moore, 462; Owen, 57.

181/2 Dial. 2, ch. 38, A.D. 1530.

182/1 Keilway, 160, pl. 2 (2 Hen. VIII.); cf. ib. 77b (21 Hen.

VII.).

182/2 Y.B. 33 Hen. VI. 1, pl. 3.

182/3 4 Co. Rep. 83 b; Cro. Eliz. 815.

183/1 Keilway, 160, pl. 2.

183/2 Y.B. 19 Hen. VI. 49, ad fin. Cf. Mulgrave v. Ogden, Cro.

Eliz. 219; S.C., Owen, 141, 1 Leon. 224; with Isaack v. Clark, 2Bulstr. 306, at p. 312, Coke, J.

183/3 See Lecture VII.

184/1 Paston, J., in Y.B. 19 Hen. VI. 49. See, also, Rogers v.

Head, Cro. Jac. 262; Rich v. Kneeland, Cro. Jac. 330, which will be mentioned again. An innkeeper must be a common innkeeper, Y.B.

11 Hen. IV. 45. See further, 3 Bl. Comm. 165, where "the transition from status to contract" will be found to have taken place.

184/2 F. N. B. 94 D; infra, p. 203.

184/3 Y.B. 7 Hen. IV. 14; 12 Ed. IV. 13, pl. 9, 10; Dyer, 22 b.

184/4 The process may be traced by reading, in the following order, Y.B. 2 Hen. VII. 11; Keilway, 77 b, ad fin. (21 Hen.

VII.); ib. 160, pl. 2 (2 Hen. VIII.); Drake v. Royman, Savile, 133, 134 (36 Eliz.); Mosley v. Fosset, Moore, 543 (40 Eliz.); 1Roll. Abr. 4, F, pl. 5; Rich v. Kneeland, Cro. Jac. 330 (11 Jac.

I.).

185/1 Cro. Jac. 262 (8 Jac. I.). Compare Maynard's argument in Williams v. Hide, Palmer, 548; Symons v. Darknoll, ib. 523, and other cases below; 1 Roll. Abr. 4, F, pl. 3. Mosley v, Fosset, Moore, 543 (40 Eliz.); an obscurely reported case, seems to have been assumpsit against an agistor, for a horse stolen while in his charge, and asserts obiter that "without such special assumpsit the action does not lie." This must have reference to the form of the action, as the judges who decided Southcote's Case took part in the decision. See, further, Evans v. Yeoman, Clayton, 33.

186/1 See Symons v. Darknoll, and the second count in Morse v.

Slue infra. (The latter case shows the averment of negligence to have been mere form.) Cf. I Salk. 18, top.

187/1 Supra, p. 179.

187/2 Boson v. Sandford, Shower, 101; Coggs v. Bernard, infra.

187/3 Symons v. Darknoll, infra.

188/1 Reg. Brev. 92b, 95a, 98a, 100b, 104a; cf. Y.B. 19 Ed. II.

624; 30 Ed. III. 25, 26; 2 Hen. IV. 18, pl. 6; 22 Hen. VI. 21, pl. 38; 32 & 33 Ed. I., Int., xxxiii.; Brunner, Schwurgerichte, 177; id. Franzosische, Inhaberpapier, 9, n. 1.

188/2 12 Co. Rep. 64.

188/3 See, besides the following cases, the declaration in Chamberlain v. Cooke, 2 Ventris, 75 (1 W. & M.), and note especially the variations of statement in Morse v. Slue, set forth below, in the text.

189/1 Hobart, 17; Cro. Jac. 330. See also George v. Wiburn, 1Roll. Abr. 6, pl. 4 (A.D. 1638).

190/1 The use which has been made of this case in later times shows the extreme difficulty in distinguishing between principles of substantive law and rules relating only to procedure, in the older books.

190/2 Y.B. 22 Hen. VI. 21, pl. 38; supra, p. 188, n. 1.

191/1 Palmer, 523.

191/2 Palmer, 548.

191/3 Aleyn, 93.

191/4 1 Sid. 36.

192/1 1 Sid. 244. Cf. Dalston v. Janson, 1 Ld. Raym. 58.

192/2 2 Keb. 866; 3 id. 72, 112, 135; 2 Lev. 69; I Vent. 190, 238; 1 Mod. 85; Sir T. Raym. 220.

193/1 2 Keb. 866. See 3 Keb. 74; 1 Mod. 85; Sir T. Raym. 220.

193/2 2 Keb. 72.

193/3 Y.B. 33 Hen. VI. 1; supra, p. 177.

193/4 3 Keble, 73. This is the main point mentioned by Sir T.

Raymond and Levinz.

193/5 Cf. 1 Mod. 85.

194/1 1 Ventris, 238, citing Southcote's Case in the margin. Cf.

3 Keble, 135.

194/2 Aleyn, 93; supra, p. 191.

194/3 See also 1 Hale, P.C. 512, 513.

195/1 King v. Viscount Hertford, 2 Shower, 172, pl. 164; cf.

Woodlife's Case, supra.

195/2 Boson v. Sandford, 1 Shower, 101 (2 W. & M.). See above, pp. 183,185; below, p. 197. Modern illustrations of the doctrine will be found in "Fleming v. Manchester, Sheffield, &Lincolnshire Railway Co., 4 Q.B.D. 81, and cases cited. In Boorman v. Brown, 3 Q.B.511, 526, the reader the primitive assumpsit, which was the inducement to a declaration in tort, interpreted as meaning contract in the modern sense. It will seen directly that Lord Holt took a different view. Note the mode of dealing with the Marshal's case, 33 Hen; VI. 1, in Aleyn, 27.

196/1 See Lovett v. Hobbs, 2 Shower, 127 (32 Car. II.);Chamberlain v. Cooke, 2 Ventris, 75 (1 W. & M.); Boson v.

Sandford, 1 Shower, 101, citing Southcote's Case (2 W. & M.);Upshare v. Aidee, 1 Comyns, 25 (8 W. III.); Middleton v. Fowler, I Salk. 288 (10 W. III.).

196/2 12 Mod. 472.

196/3 2 Ld. Raym. 909.

197/1 Powtuary v. Walton, 1 Roll. Abr. 10, pl. 5 (39 Eliz.). Cf.

Keilway, 160.

197/2 2 Ld. Raym. 919. See Lecture VII. How little Lord Holt meant to adopt the modern view, that delivery, being a detriment to the owner, was a consideration, may be further seen by examining the cases put and agreed to by him from the Year Books.

199/1 2 Kent, 598; 1 C.P. D. 429.

199/2 Palmer, 523. See too Keilway, 77 b, and 160, pl. 2, where the encroachment of case on detinue, and the corresponding confusion in principle, may be pretty clearly seen taking place.

But see p. 175, supra.

200/1 2 Kent, 597; Forward v. _Pittard, 1 T. R. 27.

200/2 Cf. Y.B. 7 Hen. IV. 14; 2 Hen. VII. 11; Keilway, 77 b, 160, pl. 2, and other cases already cited.

200/3 Y.B. 41 Ed. III. 3, pl. 8.

200/4 Y.B. 33 Hen. YI. 1, pl. 3.

200/5 Reg. Brev. 107 a, 108 a, 110 a, b; entries cited 1 T. R.

29.

200/6 See above, pp. 167, 175 et seq.; 12 Am. Law Rev. 692, 693;Y.B. 42 Ed. III. 11, pl. 13; 42 Ass., pl. 17.

201/1 1 Wilson, 282; cf. 2 Kent (12th ed.), 596, n. 1, b.

201/2 Y.B. 33 Hen. VI. 1, pl. 3.

202/1 Mouse's Case, 12 Co. Rep. 63.

202/2 Bird v. Astcock, 2 Bulstr. 280; cf. Dyer, 33 a, pl. 10;Keighley's Case, 10 Co. Rep. 139 b, 140.

202/3 Y.B. 40 Ed. III. 5, 6, pl. 11; see also Willams v. Hide, Palmer, 548; Shep. Touchst. 173.

203/1 See Safe Delcosit Company of Pittsburgh v. Pollock, 85Penn. 391.

203/2 Paston, J., in Y.B. 21 Hen. VI. 55; Keilway, 50 a, pl. 4;Hardres, 163.

203/3 Lane v. Cotton, 1 Ld. Raym. 646, 654; 1 Salk. 18; 12 Mod.

484.

204/1 Forward v. Pittard, 1 T. R. 27, 83.

205/1 Printing and Numerical Registering Co. v. Sampson, L.R. 19Eq. 462, 465.

207/1 Possession, Section 6, Eng. tr., pp. 27, 28.

207/2 R. d. Besitzes, 487.

同类推荐
  • 暑门

    暑门

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。
  • 上清三元玉检三元布经

    上清三元玉检三元布经

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。
  • 金箓晚朝仪

    金箓晚朝仪

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。
  • 经幄管见

    经幄管见

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。
  • Poems of Henry Timrod

    Poems of Henry Timrod

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。
热门推荐
  • 道术师前传

    道术师前传

    已经岌岌可危的大清江山已是风雨飘渺了,但在这危急的时刻让原本快灭绝的道术师们活了过来。
  • 印度,去十次都不够

    印度,去十次都不够

    用眼睛看《印度,去十次都不够》的人,会看到印度各地的异域风情,待人接物的淳朴风气和细微之处的奇趣风物;用头脑看《印度,去十次都不够》的人,会看到各国的角色陆续登场,分享传奇经历,不吝给予我友情、亲情和爱,交织生命轨迹;用心看《印度,去十次都不够》的人,只有你们可以读懂书中的密语,发现自己内心里的那一点点蠢动的萌芽,它已经在生长,沉睡中的你睫毛颤动。时机到了,你会真正地醒过来……
  • 湮世界

    湮世界

    这是我的世界,我叫做“湮”,伴随着黑暗而生,伴随着黑暗消亡。你或许见过我,因为我一直是你身边看不见的一部分。
  • 逆天嫡女绝世重生

    逆天嫡女绝世重生

    全世界的猎人都在捕猎三个魔神之子的时候,猎人学院的第一名唯安已经猎杀了前两个,杀了前两个后……我擦,第三个是光明神!然后,我擦!穿越了!
  • 再见曾经安然现在

    再见曾经安然现在

    曾经以为没了你,就活不来原本以为你就是那个对的人,我倾尽所有,遍体鳞伤谢谢你们的离开,让我遇到了他,一个改变我一生的男人谢谢你们的离开,才有现在的我很感谢你们以过客的身份来过,但不遗憾你们的离开回首曾经,谁无过往。我的挚爱——冯墨轩
  • 孤胆少年行

    孤胆少年行

    一本奇书,几经风雨,误入平凡少年手,一段人生,历经坎坷,终至康庄大道旁。亲情,爱情,友情,当我们无奈的失去它们时,我们又该何去何从?是在痛苦的仇恨中走向灭亡,还是在繁华的名城中迷失自我........
  • 月剑星河

    月剑星河

    从洪荒而生,从寰宇而来,月圆之时,即我天下!
  • 九重天传说

    九重天传说

    诸神至佛,天道轮回。这是一个少年,穿梭在九重天之间的传奇故事;那些年,万族一起走过的日子;那些年,烟花爆炸般的不同文明史;那些年,神与神之间不能说的秘密;那些年,天上宫阙地上人间的相爱相杀;那些年,一段段可歌可泣的英雄草莽史;我这一生,不信神不羡仙,敢问天敢叫地,只愿做那世间最潇洒的逍遥佛!——苏擎
  • 乱世之陌上花开

    乱世之陌上花开

    一夜之间,天下大变。最强的门派——惬衣谷掌门却被重伤,天女失踪。门派四大顶柱下山来寻找天女,殊不知山下的天下已是危机重重。当他的剑插入她的心脏,碎的又是谁的心?魔仙两争,死的是魂,还是心?究竟变的是天下,还是人心?【求推荐求点击求书评】
  • 六祖坛经浅析

    六祖坛经浅析

    《六祖坛经浅析》相传为慧能所说,除大梵寺说法,弟子的问答机缘,都是晚年所说,由门人法海记录而成。这是一部由我国僧人六祖慧能大师的传教记录,而破例地被尊之为“经”者,这不仅是中国佛教史,亦是世界佛教史上绝无仅有的事,足见其在佛教史上的地位。《六祖坛经浅析》除逐段注释外,另加“提示”。所提示的内容可加深读者对《六祖坛经浅析》的认识外,更显示出从宗教实践的角度去阅读、体验《六祖坛经浅析》,是《六祖坛经浅析》的特色。