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
  • 极简左传

    极简左传

    作者张守春把《左传》白话成这一本书,尽量用现代人所能理解的方式,呈现当时的历史社会人物故事,除了极少的一些琐碎事件,这部《极简左传》,可以看作是白话版的《左传》全文。
  • 英雄联盟之挂逼系统

    英雄联盟之挂逼系统

    叶寻进入塑料组,得到‘挂逼系统’,开启万界联盟。dopa:“拳头,老子要举报,有个玩家在召唤师峡谷扔炸弹!”faker:“拳头,这游戏没法玩了,有个玩家在我们韩服开坦克,炮轰防御塔!”小智:“举报,有个玩家开挂,在召唤师峡谷打cf!”小苍:“呜呜……举报,有个玩家在河道卖肉松饼,不买就xx我!”两局游戏之后,叶寻开始从万界召唤大能老祖,强制要求他们与自己打lol,输了就留下宝物。
  • 依寒允晴的甜美爱恋

    依寒允晴的甜美爱恋

    两个天才美少女因为家里的缘故转学来到了风岚学院,她们与两个美男子的爱恋就此展开,中间他们遇到很多波折……“苏依依我不会放过你的!……”贵族之间的爱恋是最波折的,就像他们一样。
  • 伊人得君心

    伊人得君心

    话说,君心何以得?知却王情薄如纸,奈何伊人痴情笑?再怎么执子之手,与子偕老,再怎么愿得一人心白首不相离,到最后还不是楼兰花香,伊人独醉?爱情不可信,友情不可信,难道只能靠自己吗?薄情王爷说,从未心动谈何喜欢?现代才女说,休了我,或则杀了我。薄情王爷会如何抉择?现代才女又会有怎样的命运呢?快来猜猜现代才女如何大战薄情王爷呢?
  • 终极魂域

    终极魂域

    这是一本不按套路出牌书,有点血腥,有点暴力,十八岁以下谢绝观看。
  • 霸天帝祖

    霸天帝祖

    强可独霸天下,弱则忍气吞声。在这强者为尊,弱者为凌的世界里。成为武者,追逐巅峰,迎风挥击,独霸天下,是每一个热血少年的梦想。秦浩原本只是荒山边下小村庄的普通少年,某日醒来,发现自己成为一个惊奇骨骼,天赋异禀的绝顶天才…他凭借超凡天赋,用最直接的方式,碾压各路天才、一路高歌踏上武道巅峰…
  • 娇媚小女,夫君请矜持

    娇媚小女,夫君请矜持

    她是这条街里有名的,却在一次群架之中穿越了!怎么回事,一向做事‘一不言合就开打’的穆倾,变成了人们说的千金大家小姐!这算什么?重点是还有一个长的超帅的乞丐缠着她!可这些。。。。。。
  • 中国近代历史大事详解:经济革命卷(1953-1960)

    中国近代历史大事详解:经济革命卷(1953-1960)

    《中国近代历史大事详解:经济革命卷(1953-1960)》本书分为“高、饶事件”、五四立宪、建立国际新秩序等部分。
  • 张扬都市

    张扬都市

    张扬为躲避家里安排的婚姻,来到陌生的城市。却因为自己的善良的性格卷入到一场阴谋当中......看他如何翻手云雨笑傲都市......
  • 开场

    开场

    故事刚开始,其实有些偶然。这一年,正阳县门宣乡八代沟的小姑娘陈望姣,高考落榜了。时间是2012年6月初,夏天。那时,麦子已出齐了穗,豌豆的豆荚胀得鼓鼓的,放眼望去,山上到处都是深深浅浅的绿色。村里杏树上的果子结得一骨嘟儿一骨嘟儿的。母亲说,“麦子眼看就要黄了。等麦子收完再走不行吗?”但陈望姣却一天也等不及了。