登陆注册
15416700000126

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
热门推荐
  • JM的海

    JM的海

    JM,佳茗,菊玫,还有橙,一场关于魔法的战争即将拉开帷幕……
  • 甜心之影舞暗夜

    甜心之影舞暗夜

    在她眼里,朋友,只不过是一种虚假的游戏。爱情,只是一种让人感到心寒的,把戏……
  • 夜月朦胧痛彻心

    夜月朦胧痛彻心

    虐,虐心,痛彻骨髓;厌恶愤恨牵手,相爱却要分手;沦陷情爱的他(她)们该何去何从?谁能够左右脆弱强大的人心...
  • 毕业经年:我要我们在一起

    毕业经年:我要我们在一起

    人虽离开校园,但心却摆脱不了那些情节。注:此小说是原来所写,写的差不多后就没再管。如今反观,心中的感觉怪怪的。【版权所有,剽窃必究】此小说未签约,合作请评论留言
  • 英雄无敌传奇

    英雄无敌传奇

    一代亡灵山德鲁的翻天传奇,剑与魔法的毁灭缔造
  • 透视御医

    透视御医

    隐藏高超医术的小小龙套演员唐萧,偶获医仙传承,天眼透视、上古针法,各种神技信手拈来。从院长助理做起,接触的病人五花八门:富贾权贵、冰山美女董事长、秘史惊人的女明星、具有军方背景大佬、国际财团大老板……凭借自己一身技艺,与各方人马斗智斗勇,在风云突变的利欲场,走上了属于自己的精彩人生。
  • 无极武境

    无极武境

    铭侠侣诗画,共武墨笙箫,任世间风尘烟雨,不惊波澜,自当纵马逍遥。古老的无极世界,退隐侠客与神秘婴儿,诸看官细细瞧来。看看神秘婴儿的成长之路、行侠之路、复仇之路!没有绚烂的魔法,没有绮异的斗技,有的只是朴素的故事。处女作望大家多多关照!收藏哦~收藏哦~收藏哦~
  • 超级无敌板砖帮

    超级无敌板砖帮

    叶双飞一直都坚信,做好事是要遭雷劈的,所以不管是什么时候,只要他做了好事都会到庙宇里面进行一次忏悔,他也从来不管,忏悔的是哪一路的大神....而每当这个时候,认识他的人,都会竖起伟大的中指.....他也一直坚信,板砖,是一个居家旅行杀人越货的必备良器......终于有一天,他很无奈的做了好事,却是来不及忏悔了.....
  • 血色末日

    血色末日

    天降血雨,僵尸现世,人间殇歌,血色末日。踏着敌人与同伴们的尸骨,姬无欢挣扎求存。活着,意味着可以继续活下去;而活着,亦意味着背负上亡者的所有。。。。。。是庆幸,还是无奈?一切尽请期待,血色末日!
  • 逆往吾前

    逆往吾前

    灾难爆发,往日喧闹的城市以不复从前,人类感染病毒变异成僵尸,越来越多僵尸,越来越多的城市沦陷,人类如何面临史上最大危机,后面又是否有黑手操控?可治愈僵尸的血清,可变异僵尸的血液,这一切,又和主角有什么关系?请关注逆往吾前。我是隔离,谢谢大家!