(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"

ncroft-WhitneyCo. 

PUBLISHERS 




AND SELLERS OF 

.AW BOOKS 

SAN FRANCISCO 







THE LIBRARY 

OF 

THE UNIVERSITY 

OF CALIFORNIA 

LOS ANGELES 

SCHOOL OF LAW 



PLEADING AND PRACTICE 



HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. 



Vol. I. 



PLEADING AND PRACTICE 



OF THE 



HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. 



BY THE LATE 



EDMUND ROBERT DANIELL, 



BARKISTER-AT-LAW. 



<&txtj) American lEUttion, 

WITH NOTES AND REFERENCES TO AMERICAN DECISIONS; AN APPENDIX OF 

PRECEDENTS ; AND OTHER ADDITIONS 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. 

By 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, ETC. 



IN THREE VOLUMES. 

Vol. I. 



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, <fc CO., 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington. 

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



t 



The University Pbebs, Cambridge, Mass., U. S. A. 






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 English 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," 2 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 v. Butler, 16 Q. B. D. 374, 377. 

a 6 7^36 



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. 

1 la Thomson v. Wooster, 114 U. S. 104. 



PREFACE 

TO THE FIFTH AMERICAN EDITION. 



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 have 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 be 
obtained except the " learned and accurate " treatise of Mr. Daniell, 
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 lias 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 



Vlll 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. R. as a prefix, and has invariably used R. as the 
abbreviation of railroad, and Ry. 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. 

Nashville, Tenn. 
Sept. 6. 1879. 



CONTENTS. 



VOLUME I. 



PAGB 

TABLE OF CASES CITED xiii 



CHAPTER I. 

THE COMMENCEMENT OF A SUIT 1-4 

CHAPTER II. 

PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY BE INSTITUTED. 

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

II. Foreign Governments and States 17-20 

III. Corporations, Joint-Stock Companies, and Partnerships 20-26 

IV. Persons residing out of the jurisdiction 27-36 

V. Paupers 37-44 

CHAPTER III. 

SUITS BY PERSONS WHO ARE UNDER DISABILITY. 

Sect. I. Generally 45 

II. Aliens 45-53 

III. Persons attainted or convicted 53-58 

IV. Bankrupts 58-66 

V. Infants 66-82 

VI. 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. I. Generally 129-130 

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

III. 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 

VII. 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 



X CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER V. 

PARTIES TO A SUIT. 

PAGE 

Sect. I. 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 



CHAFIER VI. 

THE BELL. 

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

II. The authority to file the bill 306-311 

III. Bv 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 bill 401-427 



CHAPTER VII. 

PROCESS BY SERVICE OF 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 LN DEFAULT OF, 
APPEARANCE. 

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

II. Proceeding 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. il 



CHAPTER X. 



PROCESS TO COMPEL, AND PROCEEDINGS IN DEFAULT OF, 

ANSWER. 

PAGE 

Sect. I. Against defendants not privileged, nor subject to disability .... 48 ^" 4 ^ 6 

II. Against particular defendants tn t - - 

III. Effect of a contempt upon the proceedings in the cause . . . . . 504-dO* 

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

discharged 5K~H2 

V. Process by filing a traversing answer or traversing note au-oio 



CHAPTER XI. 

TAKING BILLS PRO CONFESSO. 

Sect. I. Preliminary order toI~^o 

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 

III. 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 

III. 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 

VIII. Overruling pleas 701-703 

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

CHAPTER XVI. 

DISCLAIMERS 706-710 



xii CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER XVII. 

ANSWERS. 

PAGE 

Sect. I. General nature of answers 711-729 

II. Form of answers 729-738 

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

IV. Exceptions to answers 758-774 

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

VI. Amending answers — supplemental answers 777-784 

VII. Taking answers off the file 784-786 

VIII. From what time answer deemed sufficient 786 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

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 XX. 

MOTION FOR A DECREE 819-827 

CHAPTER XXI. 

REPLICATION 828-835 

CHAPTER XXII. 

EVIDENCE. 

Sect. L Admissions 836-849 

II. The onus proband i 849-852 

III. 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 

VIII. 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. Viva voce evidence . 903-919 

XII. Interrogatories 920-926 

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

XIV. Examination of witnesses de bene esse 932-941 

XV. Demurrers by witnesses 942-945 

XVI. Publication. . . 945-950 

XVII. Suppression of depositions 950-951 

XVIII. Re-examination of witnesses 952-955 

XIX. Examination of witnesses after publication 955-961 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[the references are to the star paging.] 



A. 



A. v. B. 540 

Abadom v. Abadom 801 

Abbey v. The R. L. Stevens 630, 

1427 

Abbot v. Allen 1653 

v. Johnson 334, 335, 346 

Abbott v. Bayley 88 

v. Edgerton 1661 

v. Foote 1621 

v. Middleton 1503 

v. Monti 1073 

v Parsons 1127 

v. Sworder 990, 1400 

Abby v. Gilford 1202, 1798 

Abel v. Nodes 1307 

Abell v Heathcote 1316 

v. Schreech 1213 

Abels v. Mobile R. E Co. 1551 

Aberaman Ironworks Co. v. 

Wickens 230, 279, 1469 

Aberavon Tin Plate Co. , lie 27 

Aberdeen v. Chitty 1734 

Abergavenny, Lady v. Aber- 
gavenny, Lady 354 
Abergavenny, Lord v. Powell 952, 
954, 1574 
v. Thomas 1164 
Aberystwith, &c. Ry. Co. v. 

Pierey 335 

Abingdon, Lord v Thornhill 397 
Abouloffw Oppenheimer 287,664 
Abraham v. Bubb 1630, 1634 

v. Hannay 243 

v. Newcombe 96 

Abram v. Ward 431 

Abrams v. Winshup 858 

Abrey v. Newman 203, 1514 

Abud v. Riches 508, 1045 

Accidental and Marine Ins. Co. 

v. Gibbon 1553 

v Mercati 26, 27 

Accumulator Co. v. Consolidated 

E S. Co. 1069 

Acerro v. Petroni 920 

Acherley v. Roe 560, 561, 640, 641 
Acheson v. Stevenson 1638 

Acker, Re 1705 

v. Leland 1071 

Ackerson v. Lodi Branch R. 

Co. 215 

Acklin v Paschall 1158 

Ackroyd v. Briggs 207, 208, 245 

v. Suiithson 1430 

Acland v. Gravener 1725 

Acme CopyingCo. v. McLuro 1172 
Acomb v. Landed Estate Co. 1821 
Acquacknock Water Co. v. Wat- 
son 1639 
Acraman v. Bristol Dock Co. 1667 
v. Price 1081 
Acres v. Little 79 
Acton v Market 1672 
Adair v. Adair 1238 



Adair v. Barrington 


809 


v. New River Co. 


274, 276 


v. Shaw 


1423 


v. Winchester 


197, 19!t 


v. Young 


• 261 


Adair County v. Ownby 


1756 


Adames v. H.illett 


1423 


Adams, Ex parte 


86 



v. Adams 354, 726,844, 991, 1229 
v. Bankart 1104 

v. Barry 224 

v. Batley 567 

v. Bradley 200, 223 

v. Bridgewater Iron Co. 759, 828 
v. Brown 999, 1224, 1232, 1244, 
1247, 1248, 1208 
v. Claxton 1310, 1337 

v. Clifton 1418 

v. Colthurst 32 

v. Crittenden 1663 

v. Dixon 1560, 1561 

v. Evans 1074 

v. Fisher 1717, 1829 

v. Haskell 1747 

v. Heathcote 1776 

v Holbrook 255, 259 

v. Howard 559, 590, 1381, 1642 
v. Hudson Co. Bank 1676 

v. Johnson 2300 

v. Kehlor Milling Co. 860 

v. Lockwood 1591 

v. Mevrose 314 

v. Michael 1635, 1636 

v. Munter 1073 

v. Myers 1305 

v. Nixon 1561 

v. Paynter 431 

v. Peirce 92 

v. Phillips 418 

v Porter 372, 563, 564, 579, 

1457, 1557 
v. Russell 950 

v Sharon 1120 

v. Shelby 837 

V. Soule 1147 

v. Stevens 151,290,518, 

1507, 1071 
v. Valentine 1551 

v. Waller 644, 1210 

v. Whitcomb 1704 

t' Woods 1733,1749 

Adams County v Burlington & 

M. R. R. Co 402 

Adamson v. Adamson 38 

v. Blackstock 465 

v Hull 813, 1512, 1543, 1679 

v. Hull 813, 1543 

v. Wilson 1666 

Adamson's Appeal 1461 

Adcock v. Peters 236, 645 

Adderly v. Smith 32 

Addis v. Campbell 1823, 1828 

Addison v. Hindmarsh 1485 



Addison?;. Williamson 1131 

Addleman v. Masterson 906 

Aderholt v. Henry 1290 

Ad^er v. Pringle 790 

Adkins v. Bliss 1044, 1064, 1793 

Adkisson v. Dent 1168, 1320 

Aduey v. Flood 413 

Adreveno v. Mutual Reserve F. 

L. Ass'n. 576 

Advocate, Lord v. Douglas, Lord 1464 
v Dunglas 1495 

Adye v. Hanna 563 

iEtna Ins. Co. v. Tyler 1241 

African Co. v. Parish 565 

African Meth. Ep. Church v. 

Conover 388, 1614 

African Soc v. Varick 22 

Agabeg v. Hartwell 1400 

Agar v. Fairfax 1150, 1152, 1162 

v. Gurney 769, 1208 

v. Macklew 670 

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

718, 1078, 1686 

Agar-Ellis, lie 70, 108 

Agens v. Agens 560 

Ager v. Blacklock & Co. 731 

Aggas v. Pickerell 559 

Aglionby ti James 1147 

Agnew v. Bank of Gettysburg 25 

v. Dorman 630, 1427 

v. McGill 840 

v. Whitney 1302 

Agriculturist Cattle Ins. Co., 

lie 1327, 1328. 1330, 1738 

Aguilar v. Aguilar 102, 104, 106 

Aholtz v. Durfee 1120, 1580 

Ahrend v Odiorne 365, 552, 561 

Ahronfeldt v. Ahrenfeldt 1350 

Aiekles's Case 878 

Aiken v. Kilburne 571 

v. Smith 678 

Aikin r. Ballard 360, 361, 373 

v. Harrington 532, 1484 

Ails v. Sublit 033 

Ainsley v. Sims 30, 63, 411, 413, 426, 

427 

Ain«lie v. Medlicott 109, 182 

v. Sims 601, 791 

Ainsworth v. Bentley 1654 

v. Roe 1388 

v. Starkie 1557 

v. Walmsley 1649 

Airey v Hall 1826 

Aislabie v. Rice 1403 

Aitchison v Lohre 1503 

Alabama Gold Life Ins. Co. , Ex 

parte 815 

v. Lott 1661 

Alabama G. S Ry. Co. v. Hill 1566 
Alabama Iron & Ry. Co. v An- 

niston Loan & T. Co. 1743 

Alabama Warehouse Co. v. 
Jones 418 



XIV 



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



Alan v. Jourdan 843 

Alardea p. Campbell '"" 

Albany, &c Mln. Co. v. Au- 
ditor-General 1661 
Albany Bank v Schermerhorn 174'2 
Albeer. Carpenter 90,117 
Albert V Perry 1353, 1354 
Albert, Prince v. Strange 39, 155, 
911, 1647 
Albert Average Ass'n, Re 1739 
Albion Steel & Wire Co. v. Mar- 
tin 1381 
Albrecht v. St. Paul 1675 
H Sussman 50. 51, 54 1 
Albritton V. Bird 1621, 1624 
Alciuous v. Nigren 49, 61, 53 
Alcock v. Alcock 113 
Alcott v. Avery 1608 
Aldborough, Lord v. Burton 2« 
Alden t>. Beckley 147 
v Foster 1000, 1224 
v. Trubee 1624 
Alderman v. Bannister 1543 
Alderson v. Biggars 642 
v. Harris 292 
v. Henderson 801 
Aldinger v. Pugh 1685 
Aldred v. Halliwell 1104 
Aldrich v. Sharp 1255 
v. Wilcox 328 
Aldridge v. Dunn 1539 
v. Menser 1568, 1569, 1570 
v Thompson 1565, 15' 9 
r. Westbrook 730, 1390, 1413 
Aldworth v. Robinson 972 
Alexander v. Adams 633 
v. Alexander 110, 1136 
v. Barker 1126 
v. Berney 21, 143 
V. Cana 220, 279 
v. Colcord 1081 
r Easten 1594 
v. Gibson 1101 
v Hoffman 231,279 
v. Katte 26 
..Lee 2f 
v. Markham }°<° 
»■ Miller iM J""i 
v. Mills 1282, 1401 
v. Mortgage Co '*" 
v. Moye 597 
v. Nurse »92 
v. Osborne %* 
v. Pendleton 6(5, 1682 
v. Searcy 2 V. 
v. Taylor 361, 41( 
v. United States 5(8 
r. Wallace 844 
r. Wellington, Duke of 1485 
v Williams 840 
v. Wolley 1168 
Alexandria Palace Co., Re 14o 
Alford v. McCormac 8J4 
Alikeni' Howell 1133 
Alison, Re , Johnson V. Mounsey 652 
Allan v. Allan 317,1572,1573 
v Copeland °4( 
v. Hoffman 15"8 
v. Houlden 599 
v United Kingdom Tel. Co. 1028 
A Hard v. Carleton 303 
Allay v. Hutchins 1100 
Allrard v. Skinner 560 
Allcrofti' Farnan 226 
AlMav v Fletcher 1485 
Alleghany & K. B. Co. v. We>- 

denfeld 1661 

Allegre v. Maryland Ins. Co 6/1 

Allen Re 1449, 1847 

v. Allen 91, 637, 830, 1048, 1314, 

1549, 1650 

v. Annesley 936 

v. Archer »* 

r. Bahcock ™' 

v. Barksdale ™ 

V Baugus . 643 'i^ 

v. Belcher I* 3 * 



Allen v Blunt 1002, 1146,^1147 

v Bone am'Rffl 

V. Bonnett 8bb uV? 

v. Central R. Co. \g* 

v. Chosen Freeholders 163b 

v. Coffman 3(9 

v Crobcroft lbb » 

v. Crocket J97 
v. Curtis 26, 144, 242 

v. Davidson 68 

v. Demarest &■* 

iZS" 1282.S 

v. Forbes 95 

•■ Gille,te ilift 

v. Harding 16b" 

v. Hawley 16<< 

v. Hilton 16o8 

v. Houlden n f6( 

■v. Hyde l' 1 ^ 

v. Jarvis 1235, 1442, 1474 

v. Kennett 10(2 

t>. Knight 224 

v Lemoyne tuw 

t> Lewis 1381 

v. Lloyd 1734 

v. Loder 4o9 

». McNew no? 

t>. Macpherson 40, 552, 664 

„ Miller 344 ', 3 oa 

». Minor 1680 

v. Montgomery 59 

i). Montgomery R. Co. 341 

v. New York 517 

v. 0" Donald 723, 840 

v. Poole 281 

D. Rand 906 

V. Randolph 603, 661, 669 

v. Robbins 1233, 1245 

v. Boll 220, 1550 

v. Saul paw 1" '3 
v Seckham 674, 1080, 1638, 1663 

v. Shanks 1309 

v, Simons !'?( 

v. Smith 294, 406, 624 

v. Spring 426, 1515 

,. State Bank 395,892 

„. Taylor 894 

v. Tritch 1548 

v. Turner 26, 246, 287, 289 

v Watt , 633 

v. Wilkins 90, 114, ,117 

v. Williams W51 

v. Wilson I"} 9 

v. Winstandly °\° 

v. Woodruff f, 14 

v . Woolley 644 

r Woonsocket Co. Jig" 

Allender ». Trinity Church U30 

Aller v. .lones tbb( 

Alley • Carroll 1546 

v. Quintcr „ 390, £31 

Allfrevr. Allfrey 34E I, 66( ,668, 
771, 840, 1185, 1186, 1230, 1268. 
148( 

Allgood i' Merrybent & D Ry- 

Co. 1'°" 

Allhusen r Ubouchere 354 

Alliance Milling Co 0. Eaton (1-J 

Allin ». Hall 296 

Ailing i.. Ailing 641 

Allis, Re 888, J33 

v Bnrkstaff „ " W \?„i 

v. Stowell 314, 782, 829, 1069 

Allison Re 1346 

" Drake 280, 1580, 1584 

v. Herring 1845 

Alloway Creek (S. P. Inhab. of) 

v. Strong 22 

Allsup r. Allsup 251 

Allyn v. Davis 443 

Alma o. I.oehr lobl 

Almack v Moore 68 

Almond v Wilson 334 

Almony v. Hicks 648, 652, 1624 

Almyv Daniels 659 

v. Pycroft «w 



Alpena r. Kelley 1650 

Alpha v. Payman 779 

Alsager v. Johnson 724, 728 

v Rowley 323 

Alsop v. Bell 1428, 1527, 1542 

v. Oxford, Lord 1440, 1449 

Alston v. Alston 1358, 1551 

v. Boyd 

v. Jones HO 

v. Trollope 643, 644, 1211 
Alt v. Banholzer 605 
Althause v. Radde 1150 
Altman v. Royal Aquarium So- 
ciety 1653 
Alton v. Harrison 1057 
Altree v. Horden 402, 796, 797 

v. Sherwin 



Alvanley, Lord v. Kinnaird 1169, 
1276, 1283, 1844 
Alven v. Bond 1752 

Alviue v Bond 1271 

Alvord v. Stone 1463 

Alwood v. Mansfield 1666 

Ambler v. Macon 1358 

Ambrose v. Dunmow Union 1399 
v. Nott 815 

Ambrosio v. Francia 959 

Ambury v. Jones 547, 1557 

Amelung v. Seekamp 1631, 1669 

America Life Ass. v. Boogher 1642 
American Academy of Arts and 
Sciences v. Harvard College 

2182, 2207, 2208 

American Bell Tel Co v. Brown 

Tel. Co. 1642 

v Globe Tel. Co. 1642 

v. McKeesport Tel. Co. 1642 

v. Pan Electric Tel. Co. 149 

v. Southern Tel. Co. 314 

American Bible Society V. Price 417 

American Box M. Co. v. Cros- 

man 1411 

American Carpet Linen Co. v 

Chipman _ 843 

American Diamond Drill Co v 

Sullivan M. Co 1408 

American Diamond R. B. Co v. 

Sheldons 1120 

American Dock & Imp. Co. v 

Public School Trustees 1073 
Ameiican E. Co. v. Fuller 378, 974 
American Exchange, Re 887 

American Exchange Bankr. An- 
drews 1516 
V. Inloes 386 
American File Co. v. Garrett 843 
American F L. M. Co. v. Ben- 
son 149 
v. Sewell 545, 586 
American Freehold L. & M. Co. 

v. Jefferson 385 

American Ins. Co. v. Oakley 533, 

1272, 1284, 1286, 1290, 1470 

American Life Ins. & Trust Co. 

v. Bayard 777, 1534 

r. Sackett 886 

American Loan & Trust Co. v. 

East & West Ry Co. 766 

American Middling Purifier Co. 
v. Atlantic Milling Co. 1640 

v. Christian 1640 

American Mortgage Co. v. 

O'Harra 843 

American Refrigerating, &c. Co 

r. Linn *» 

American R. P Co v. Knopp 314 
American Solid Leather Button 
Co v. Empire State Nail 
Co. 314 

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

Venner l°b<J 

American Wine Co v Brasher 386 
American ZylnniteCo v. Cellu- 

loid Manuf Co. ' "i«(5 

Amerman v. Deane 1654 

Ames v. Ames *"" 



Ames v. Birkenhead Docks 173L 

v. Brooks _ ^ 

v Chicago, &c. Ry. Co. m 

v. Commyns 110 ° 

::S a3 374,377,1648,1650 
Ames Iron Works v. West 157 

Amey v. bong „ n 

Amherst and Belchertown R. «• 

t-. Watson A »* 

Amhurstv. King '^ 

Ammant v. New Alexandria, 



&c. Tump. Co 
Amon w. Bobbett 
Amory v. Brodrick 

v- Brown 

v. Fairbanks 

v. Fellows 

v. Francis 

v Lawrence 

v. Lowell 
Amos v. Chadwick 

v Heme Bay Pavilion Prome- 
nade Co. 145, 195, 

t;. Hughes 
Amsinck v. Barklay 



1051 

1548 

817 

327, 1643 

284 

906, 918, 929 

284 

737 

1411, 2021, 2282 

797, 1120 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Andrews v. City Permanent 

Benefit Building Society ila 

v Cole RO 110 

v. Cradock 69 110 

v. Emerson *f°° 

v. Essex Ins. Co. !££ 

v. Farnham <**> 

v Ford 1450 

v. Oilman 782,1548,1550 

v. Glenville Woollen Co. ™ 

v. Hobson 1549 

v. Huckabee <?°* 

■ti Kihbec AuuU 

v . Lorkwood 604, 1527, 1543 

v. McGuffog \ 6 

v. Merchant Tailors' Co. 



Anon v. Anon. 
3Atk. 567 
3 " 672 
3 " 644 
3 " 691 
3 " 809 
1 Barb. Ch. 73 
5 Beav 92 
3 " 420 



1093 

1700. 1701, 

1707, 1712 

Amv v. Manning 726, 1743 

Sot E.parle 1689,1690,1693 

Anderson v. Anderson MOD 

v. Bank n , . . \ 8 4* 

v Bank of British Columbia bit, 

<22 

V. Baxter 652 

v. Brown ^ 

v. Caraway "i™ 

v. Carr jji* 

v. Caunter j^O 

v. Cramer 852, 10kJ 

v. De Soer 3,8 

v. Dow ling io-i 

f Dwv6r i^uo 

r. Foulke 1061, 1283, 1284, 1286, 

v. George 

v. Guichard 

v. Henderson 

v. Irvine 

v. Jacksonville R. Co 

v. Kissam 



934, 940 

1358, 1359 

1743 

108 

1286, 1481 

576 

652 

797, 1640 

1734 

215 

16 

462, 1019, 1610 

363 



1132, 1138 | 

811, 1725 I 

1320 

165, 997 

287 

720 

447, 448, 652, 1674 

1579 

201 

864 

1467 

1642 

1320 

1503 

686, 1618 

1672 

216, 852 

1601 

1705, 1712 



, Lewis 

v. McNeal 

v. McRoberts 

v. May 

v. Moberly 

v. Monroe 

v. Moore 

v Morice 

v. Mullenix 

v. Noble 

v. Northrop 

v Palmer 

V. Stamp 

v. Stather 151, 162, 449, 452, 515, 

746, 897 

v. Titmas 113* 

v. Ward 1551 

v. Watts »7 

v. Wells 1»° 

v. Wilkinson 1561 

v Wilson 390 

v. Yates 71, 80, 980, 1008, 1599 

Andover v. Merrimac Co. 115, 116 

Andrew v. Aitken 1507, 1539 

v. Andrew 1218, 1318 

v. Raeburn JM 

v. Spurr 1973 

v. Wrigley 641 

Andrewes v. Walton 1069, 1453, 1492 

Andrews, In re 1352, 1364 

Andrews, Re, Edwards v. 

Dewar 100 

Andrews v. Barnes 1408, 1563 

v. Bishop 1560, 2010, 2199 

v. Bohannon 1028 

v. Brown 642, 685, 964, 1081 



v. Palmer 

v. Partington 

v. Paschen 

v. Salt " 

v. Scotton 

v Solomon 

v. Sparhawk 

v. Spears 

v. Stanton 

v. Stelle' 

v. Trinity Hall 

v. Walton 

v. Williams 
Androscoggin & Kennebec R 
Co. v. Androscoggin R. Co 
4 50R, 1046, 1683, 1684, 2150 
Angel v. Smith 1056, 1057 1058, 
1715,1717,1718,1743,1-44 

Angell, Ex parte 1*» 

Angell v. Angell Jdi* 

v. Davis 1463,14641465 

v. Hadden 1206, 1560, 1564, lo65, 

15b9 

v. McLellan 
V. Penn. R. Co. 
v. Smith 
V- Stone 
v. Westcombe 
Angerstein V. Hunt 
Angier v May 
I v. Stannard 

v. Webber 
1 Anglo- African Steamship Co., 

lie 149,447 

Anglo Californian Gold Mining 

Co , Re 146 1 

Anclo-Danubian Co. v. Roger- 

son 26, 817, 1082, 1666 

Anglo-Greek Nav Co , He 1610 

Anglo-Italian Bank v. Davies 1035, 

ft 1037, 1063, 1716 

Anglo-MoravianH.J. Ry.^,^ 

Angus v. Clifford 26 

v. Robinson 645,653,815 

Annesley v Ashurst 

Annin V. Annin 



1360 

402, 779 

42 

197 

547, 1557 

1683, 1685 

1676 

1412 

1654 



Anning V. La vers 
Anon Amb. 237 
" 252 
v. Anon. 



XV 



512, 536, 1684 
235 
298 
1539 
660 
982 
947, 940 
872, 1574 



v. Bridgewater Canal Co. 1671 

IBro.C C.376 1699,1702 

2Cha. Ca. 161 6(6, 6i9 

2 " 163 160, 1055 

2 " 164 331 

2 Chit. 425 113 » 

1 Clarke. 423 1299, 1300 

1 Col 273 " 8 

1 C. P. Coop, t Cott. 61, n. 1489 
IDeG. &S. 321 429 

4 " 547 

1 Desaus. 124 

2 Dick. 775 
1 D. & L. 725 
1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 11 
1 
1 
2 
2 



1 Atk, 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 



89 
491 
521 
670 
1 

14 
113 
210 
469 
471 
607 
17 
70 
129 
219 
277 
350 
485 
524 
630 



346 
1266 
1573 
928 
564 
1540 
90 
1698, 1702 
37, 111 
643 
1398 
1671 
1699 
887 
1069 
469 
393, 552, 673 
666, 684 
815 
1070 
139 
1626 
1678 
1189 
600 



75 
80 

66, pi. 
166, pi. 



1073 
31 
1139 
1231 
328 
1560 

: 181 

219, 
228,272 

2 " 166, pi. 27 272 

in the Duchy, 2 Eq Cas 

Abr. 594, pi. 3 
Freem. 22, pi. 20 

2 Freem. 62 

1 Hare, 317 n. 
10 " App. 27 

1 Hayw. 347 

1 Hayw. 144 

1 Hill (s. a), 251, 258, 259 

Hopk. 27 
" 101 

1 John. 143 

Uur. N.S. 973, V. C. W. 



260 
652 
668 
430 
160 
1047 
23 
960 



■ Jur. 1038 



324, 
839, 
588, 
385, 
1124, 



U " 28, L. C. 

11 " 258, V. C 

17 " 435 

17 " 827, V. C 

18 " 770 
2 J. & W. 553 

L I. Hall, 16 July, 1816, 



E 
W. 



1605 

1594 

1030 

177, 444 

95, 100 

520 

1801 

96 

1139 

515 

69 

972 

1606 

161 

733 



MS. 
23 L. J. Ch. 24 
9L T. N. S. 674, M. R. 
1M. &C. 78 
1 Mad. 657 



395 

246 

494 

252 

253 

271 

276 

461 

463 

494 
10 

6 " 276 
9 Mod. 43 
Mos. 6 
" 66 
» 68 
» 86 
■< 175 
" 238 
" 304 

1 Newl. 573 

2 Pick. 165 
Pree. Ch. 331 

9 Price, 210 

1 P. Wms. 301 

2 " 68 



1775 
945 
152, 521 
348 
695 
817 
1320 
1286, 1287 
351 
1115 
974 
1408 
78 
910, 927 
1287 
1652 
1706, 1709 
1652 
81, 1429 
167, 172 
39 
37 
32 
752 
691 
1115 
921 
469, 1047 
1204 
842, 843 
1112, 1114, 1115 



XVI 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 
[The references are to the star paging.] 



Anon r. A 


non. 


2 P. V> 


ms. 283 


2 


464 


2 


481 


lSulk 


152 


1 " 


153 


1 " 


405 


2 " 


645 


2 " 


649 


3 " 


81 


4 Sim 


359 


8 " 


346 


12 " 


202 


2 Sim. 


N. S. 54 


3 Swan. 139 


1 Tenn. Ch. 2 


2 Ventr. 361, N 


1 Vern. 45 



60 
104 
116 
131 
253 
261 
283 
318 
351 
707 



1 Yes. Jr. 66 
1 " 93 



6 
8 
9 
V' 
11 
11 
12 
11 
16 
V, 
V, 
19 



140 
410 
453 
286 
332 
335 
336 
515 
148 
656 
287 

288 
612 
613 
573 
69 
341 
287 
169 
170 
4 
207 
169 
174 
300 
321 



1577 
690 
508 
1095 
1095 
1109, 1110 
1131 
1126 
10i>3 
1773, 1781 
1353 
33, 1605 
1349 
208 
497, 740 
. 2 677 

1239 
387 
815 
791 
1027 
932, 950 
254 
1227, 1231 
281,635 
1560, 1571 
118 
1786 
974, 1472, 1576, 
1653 
1662 
37, 28, 74 
1286, 1288 
1291 
179, 182 
1275 
1281 
1732 
1286 
347, S54 
1057, 1717, 1718, 
1744 
1058 
1291 
1291 
934 
1458, 1559 
1169 
30 
793, 806, 811 
1046 
1722 
1455 
1371 
609, 806 
934 
936 
1025 
653, 1556 
1707 



Anthony o. Leftwicb 361 

v. Rogers 1239 

r Savage 894 

v. State 190 

Antoine i'. Morshead 50 

Antrobus v. East India Co. 1112 



Apollinaris Co.'s Trade Marks, 

In re 27. 28, 197, 1648 

Apollinaris Co. v. Wilson 28 

Apperly v. Page 240, 243, 544 

Appleby v. Duke 160, 216, 710 

Appleton v. Donovan 149 

v. Horton 844 

v. Sturgis 710 

Appold v. Prospect Building 

Ass'n 1509 

Apps v. Day 1130 

Apthoro v. Comstock 1073, 10.6, 
'1077,1112,1114,1124,1135, 
1136, 1677, 1830 
Arabin, Re 98 

Archbold v. Commissioners 328, 382 



1 Ves. Sr. 326 

2 " 451 
2 " 489 
2 " 497 
2 " 520 
2 " 631 

2 " 661 
5 '* 656 
1 Wila. 22 

W. N. (1876)219 

3 V. & B. 94 

1 Y. & C. Ex 331 

2 " 310 
v. Bailey 

v Bridge water Canal 
r Bromley 
v. Cooper 
v. Davies 
v. Jolland 

Ans.l.'ll v. Ansdell 1079, 1122 

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

988,1220 
Anstey r. Ilobson 
Anstice, lie 
Anstruther v. Adair 

v. Roberts 
Anthony v. Cowper 

v. Dunlop 



1713 
1241, 1719 
103 

1467 
552 
663 
877 
286 



1716 

91 

915 

1437 

'1071 

30 

605 



1070 

347. a54 

1256 

354 

1129 

1605 

960 

1061 

726 

1780 

696 

135,156 

127 

687. 688 

1755, 1756 



521 

642 

95 

688 
620 
1628 



Archboll v. Barrell 
Archdeacon v. Bowes 
Archer o. Gardner 
v . Hudson 
v Meadows 
v. Mosse 
v Slater 
Archibald v. Means 
Arcot, Nabob of r. East India 

Co. 628, 629, 658, 683, 704 

Arden v. Arden 560, 652, 1040 

v. Patterson 1961 

V. Tucker 1104 

v. Walden 444 

Ardley v. Guardians of St. Pan- 
eras 1639 
Arendell v. Blackwell 217, 288. 
405 
Argall r. Pitts 
Argenbright v. Campbell 
Argo, The 
Aria v. Emmanuel 
Arkansas Yalley L. & C. Co 

Mann 

Arkwright v. Newbold 

Armengaud v. Coudert 

Armistead v. Bozman 829, 834 

v. Durham 421, 598, 802, 1672. 

1673 

Armitage v. \Yadsworth 605, 628, 

1558 

Armour v. Walker 915 

Armsby v. Wood 885 

Armstrong v. Armstrong, 633, 986, 

1119, 1147, 1170, 1653, 1750, 

2088 

v. Athens Co. 344 

v. Beaty 1046 

v. Blake 1397 

v. Burrows 918 

v. Campbell 560, 644, 1259, 

1260 

v. Chemical National Bank _ 1551 

v. Cooper 973, 974 

v. Crocker 720 

v. Hickman 1680 

v. Lear 1355 

r. McClure 1277 

r. Milburn 645 

v. Potts 1668 

v. Pratt 1550 

v. Ross 418 

t>. Savannah Soap Works 145 

v. Scott 737, 846 

v, Stockham 1801 

v. Storer 244, 284, 790, 1390, 

1424 

v. Syracuse Screw Co. 109 

t>. Wilson 974, 1019, 1548 



Arnett v Paulett 

v. Welch 
Arnlieim v. Finster 
Arnold v. Arnold 
v. Bainbrigge 
v. Blencowe 
v. Cheseborough 
t\ Congreve 
v. Dixon 
v. Foot 
v. Heaford 
v. Mayor of Poole 
v. Middletown 
v. Patuxet Yalley Water Co. 

579, 1817 
v. Slaughter 737, 759, 1309 

v. Thompson 
v. Yoorhies 
Arnot v. Biscoe 
Arnott v. Hayes 
Arnoux v. Steinvrenner 
Arlington v. Liscom 

v. Yarborough 

Arrowsmith o. Hill 

Arthur v. Case 

?•. Hughes 

v. Lamb 

Artisans 1 Bank v. Treadwell 1741 

Arundel v. Arundel 546. 930 

Corp. oiv. Holmes 1556 

v. Pitt 952 

Arundell, Lady v. Phipps 1624,1652 

Arzbacher v. Mayer 545 

Asbach v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. 

Co. 601 

Asbee v. Shipley 954, 1522 

Ascough v. Townshend 1683 

Asevado r. Orr 586 

Ash v. Cummings 1638 

v. Daggy 619 

Ashbee v. Cowell 1291 

Ashburnham v. Thompson 1396, 
1416 
Ashburton, Lord, v. Ashburton, 

Lady 1365 

Ashby v. Ashby 119 

v. Bates 1096 

v. Bell 1031 

v. Kiger 1463 

v. Power 869 

Ashford v. London, C. & D. Ry. 

Co. 1774 

v. Patten 1580 

Ashlev i'. Ashley 1129, 1205, 1208 



1120 

782 

1642 

334,338 

214 

251 

782, 888, 2391 

2182 

1264 

1245 

605 

307 

1661 



995 
165 
846 
866 

792, 1382 
378 
121 
611 
303 
250 

1630, 1726 



v. Zane 
Armstrong's Foundry 
Armytage v. Haley 
A maud v. Grigg 
Arndt t>. Griggs 
Arnett v. Finney 



1412 
57 
1130 

i, 782 
149 
660 



r. Baillie 


675 


v. Little Rock 


334, 1071 


V. Taylor 


536, 1513, 1534 


Ashlin v. Lee 


657 


Ashmall v. Wood 


202, 203, 204, 




1188, 1339 


Ashmead, Re 


224 


v. Colby 250, 


200,1232,1248, 
1298, 1315, 1317 




Ashmore v. Evans 


657 


Ashton v. Ashton 


922 


v. Atlantic Bank 


200, 220, 222, 




257, 327 


v. Shorrack 


1597 


v. Stock 


1632 


v. Wood 


1321 


Ashton Charity, Re 


1855 


Ashuelot R. Co. v. 


Cheshire R. 


Co. 


1517 


Ashurst t>. McKenzk 


1164, 1638 


Ashwell, Re 


653 


v. Lomi 


852 


Ashworth v. Lord 


1241, 1385 


v. Munn 


1794 


r. Outram 


1686 


v. Roberts 


720, 1556 


v. Wrigley 


1699 


Asiatic Banking Co 


. v. Ander- 


son 


448 


Askew v. Booth 


229, 266 


v. Millington 


796, 1588 


v. Peddle 


1030, 1178 


v. Poulterers' Co. 


867, 870, 1682 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XV11 



Askew o. Townsend 1544, 1683 

Asp v. Warren 1320 

Aspden V. Seddon 1448, 1453, 1629 
Aspen Mining & Smelting Co 

v Billings 313, J 120 

Aspinalls to Powell 1082 

Aspinwall v. Balch 1270 

v Bourne 1312 

Astley v. Fountain 286, 288, 091) 

w. Micklethwait 1430 

v. Powis 1D33, 1259 

Aston, lie 942, 944, 945 

v Ashton 676, 1633 

v. Curzon 678 

v. Exeter, Lord 579, 1558 

v. Galloway 399 

v. Meredith 1157 

Astor v Turner 1719 

Atchesou v. Atcheson 92 

Atchison v Murfree 1287 

Atchison Street Ry. Co. v. Nave 3()3 

Atchley v Sprigg 851 

Athenaeum Life Assurance Soc. 

v. Pooley 552 

Atherton v. British Nation Ass. 

Co. 1470 

v. Newhall 365 

v. Nowell 103 

Athol, Earl of v. Derby, Earl of 

1060 
Atkins, lie 1611 

Atkins v. Billings 231 

v Chilson 1638, 1656 

v. Cooke 27, 30, 31, 33, 359, 

1605 
v. Faulkner 525, 526, 531 

v. Hatton 713, 1164 

v Palmer 383,935 

v. Volmer 283 

v. Wabash &c. Ry. Co. 1734 

Atkinson, Ex parte 1087 

Atkinson, lie 40 

v. Abbott 307 

v. Beckett 1069 

v. Bedel 1713 

v. Farmer 1283 

v. Flannigan 1561 

v. Foster 843, 844 

v. Hanway 583 

v. Henshaw 251, 1725 

v. Leonard 1698, 1699, 1700, 

1703, 1704, 1708, 1713 
v. Macreth 269, 448 

v Mauks 973, 974, 994, 1459, 

1560, '561, 1562. 1563, 
1568, 1569 
v. Marks 1570 

v. Parker 1525, 2059 

v. Smith 1765 

Atkison t» Murfree 1286 

Atkyns v. Willoughby, Lord 370, 
713 
v. Wright 1818, 1822, 1828, 1832, 
1833 
Atlanta Mills v. Mason 1110, 1168, 
1548 
Atlanta Real Estate Co. V- At- 
lanta National Bank 26 
Atlantic De Laiue Co. V- Tre- 

di.k 1651 

Atlautic Insurance Co. v. Le- 

mar 601 

v. Wilson 840 

Atlantic R Co. v Speer 1663 

Atlantic Trust Co. v. Cons. El. 

Storage Co. 369 

Atlas Bank v. Nahant Bank 244, 

794, 1056, 1613, 1741, 1748 

Attaquin )\ Fish 1631 

Attenborough v. St. Katharine's 

Dock Co 1560, 1561 

Atterbury v. Gill 23^8 

v. Wallis 675 

Attorney General v. Acton Local 

Board 10, 1637 

v. Akers 10 

v. Alford 1259, 2061 



[The references are to the star paging.] 

Attorney-General v. Algonquin 
Club 1654 

v Ancaster 1619 

v. Ashburnham 16, 140 

v. Aspinall 596 

v Attwood 1232 

v. Avon, Portreeve of 401, 407, 

1515 
v. Backhouse 676 

v. Bank of Columbia 395, 1733, 

1738 
v. Barker 6, 10, 981 

v. Basingstoke 10, 13, 1637 

v. Berkeley 1834 

v Bermondsey Vestry 299 

v. Berry 15 

v. Birmingham 245, 406, 417, 

1525, 1636, 1638 
v. Birmingham, &c. Board 1586, 

1683 
v Birmingham, &c. Ry. Co. 10 
v. Bishop of Worcester 16 

v. Bolton 15 

v. Boston 1483 

v Boston Wharf Co. 10 

v. Boucherett 12, 16 

v. Bouwens 250 

v Boyle 1008, 1620, 

1681 
v. Bradford Canal 1636, 1638 

v. Bradlaugh 10, 735. 886 

v. Brandreth 1799 

v Brecon 1620 

v. Brereton 13 

v. Brewers' Co. 15, 1397, 1415 

v. Brickdale 1800 

v. Bristol, Mayor of 140 

v Brooke 12, 1475, 1478 

v. Brookshank 2095 

v. Brown 8, 10, 273, 547, 584, 

599, 1637 
v. Buck nail 13 

v. Bulpit 1101 

v. Burch 810, 1558 

v. Burridge 10 

v. Burrows 1678 

v. Butcher 1466 

v. Butler 12 

v. Cambridge 10 

v. Cambridge Consumers' Gas 
Co. 13, 407, 417, 826, 1636, 

1637 
v. Carmarthen, Corp. of 342 

v. Carriugton 510, 1440, 

1449 
v. Carte 15, 1436, 1437 

v. Carver 517, 625 

v. Catherine Hall, The Master 

and Fellows of 2280 

v. Chamberlaine 10 

v. Chambers 10, 983 

v. Chester 16, 1407, 1436 

v. Chesterfield, Earl of 247, 323 
v. Chicago, &c R. Co. 1650 

v Christ Church 2182 

v. Churchill 6 

v. Clack 1342 

v. Clapham 1004, 1S25 

v. Clare Hall 1854 

v. Cleaver 1620, 1636 

v. Clements 10 

V. Clergy Society 8 

v. Clerkenwell Vestry 10, 1637 

v. Cockermouth Local Board 10, 
11, 13 
v. Cohoes 10 

v. Colney Hatch Asylum 13. 983, 
1635, 1637, 1638, 1640, 1650 
v. Compton 8 

v Constable 6, 10 

v. Consumer's Gas Co 10 

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

583, 805 
v Cornthwaite 235 

v. Coventry, Mayor of 1058 

v. Cox 1503 



Attorney-General v. Cradock 336, 
337, 689 
v. Crofts 10 

v. Crossman 6, 16 

v. Cuming 1413, 1436, 1652 

v. Day 657, 1283, 1733, 1738 

v. Dean & Canons of Manchester 
311 
v. Delaware, &c. R. Co. 1620 

v. Detroit 10 

v. Devonshire 7 

v. Dew 951 

v. Dounington Hospital 430, 748 
v. Dorking Guardians 10, 287, 1637 
v. Drapers' Co. 16, 144o, 1449 

v. Du Plessis 5, 564, 565, 568 

v. Durham, Earl of 342 

v. Dyson 1263 

v. East Dereham Corn Ex- 
change 14.5 
v. East India Co. 11 
v. Eastlake 8, 1620, 1629, 1640, 

1663 
v. East Retford 146, 724. 1419 

v. Edmunds 6, 134, 727, 731, 

1400 
v. Ellison 1830 

v. Ely, &c. Ry. Co. 1640 

v. Etheridge 757, 758 

v. Evart Booming Co. 10, 12, 

1639 
l'. Exeter, Mavor, &c. of 1472 

v. Fea 1861 

v. Federal Street Meeting 

House 10 

v. Fellows 311, 422 

v. Finch 807 

v. Fishmongers' Co. 15, 16, 415, 
1436, 1534 
t>. Flint 1111 

v. Forbes 1636 

v. Foster 1519, 1532 

v Fox 1 I 

v Fullerton 1164, 1165 

v. Galway, Mayor of 1370, 1734 
v Gardiner 10 

v . Garrison 10 

v. Gas Light and Coke Co. 10 

v Gaskill 1650 

v. Gaunt 261 

v. Gee 1733 

v. Gibbs 1417, 1420, 1424, 1426, 

1485 
v. Goldsmith's Co. 342 

v. Gould 1653 

v. Gower 678 

v. Great Eastern Ry. Co. 10, 13 
V. Great Northern Ry. Co. 10, 2328 
v. Great Western &c. Ry. Co. 10, 

2328 
v. Green 261 

r. Greenhill 13, 1031 

v. Haberdashers' Co. 10, 14 

1383, 1436 
v. Hackney Local Board 1636 

v. Halifax 837, 1378, 1394 

v. Hallett 6 

v. Hailing 6, 134 

v Hamilton 1152 

v. Hane 10 

v. Hanmer 16, 1458 

v. Hardy 386 

v. Hartley . 16 

v Harvey 14 

v. Heath 12 

v. Heelis 239, 242 

v. Henderson 748 

v. Hewitt 1861 

v. Hill 291 

v Hitchcock 1101 

v. Hobert 1417,1418 

v. Horner 10 

v. Howe 9 

v. Hudson 743, 744, 748 

v. Hullett 134 

v. Hunter 1680 

v. Hurst 1427, 1430, 1536 



VOL. I. 



XV111 



Attorney-General v Ilchester 2207 
V I re :i mongers' Co. 15, 140 

v Jackson 276,288,627 

r. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct 10 

f Jeanes 13, 384 

V. Johnson 10, 1636 

v. Kerr 15, 16, 1436 

V. Kingston 6, 134 

v . Kiugston-on-Thames, 

Mayor of 13, 1636, 1650 

V. Knight 16 

v. Kohler 1513 

v Lambe 7, 16 

v. Lauibirth 169 

v Lawes 1411, 1431, 1432 

V. Leathersellers' Co. 1069 

v Leeds 10, 1636, 1637 

r. Leicester 248, 268 

v Le«is 16,140,899 

V. Lichfield 8 

v Life & Fire Ins. Co. 1748 

V. Liverpool, Corp. of 1663 

v. Logan 10 

V. London 6, 10, 16, 134, 415, 579, 
601, 761, 1411, 1557, 1829, 1831, 
1832 
v. London & N W. Ry. Co., 542, 
1591 
r. Lonsdale, Earl 1802 

v. Lubbock 1222 

r Lucas 10, 105, 568, 717 

v. Lutou Board of Health 

1638, 1663, 1681 
v. Manchester 15, 1638 

v. Manchester & Leeds Ry. Co. 

1008, 1620, 
v. Marlborough, Duke of 1634 
v. Marsh 424, 597, 1675 

r. Mayor of Gal way 12 

v Mercers' Co. 16, 145, 1406, 1821 
t'. Merchant Tailors' Co. 289, 

343, 559 
v. Merrimack Manuf. Co. 10 

v. Metropolitan Board of 

Works 13, 1650 

v. Metropolitan District Ry. Co. 6 
V. Middleton 12 

v. Mid-Kent Ry. Co. 10 

v. Mid Kent Ry. Co. & South- 

Eastern Ry. Co. 1613, 1657, 
1662, 2323 
v. Milward 871, 872 

V. Molitar 10 

» Monro 1469 

v. Montgomery 1112, 1125, 1136 
r. Moses 239, 336 

v. Mullay 10, 105 

V. Monro 1440, 1653 

V. Murdoch 1417, 1653 

v Murray 13, 69, 86, 110, 307 

li. Naylor 276 

v. Nethercoat 413, 952, 1450 

n. Newark, Corp. of 1276 

v. Newcombe 405 

II. New York, &c. R. Co. 1479 

v. Nicbol 1636, 1637, 1665 

«. North America Life Ins. 

Co. 1756 

II. North Met. Tramways Co. 720 
j; Norwich 8, 1233, 1620 

v. Norwood 1629 

« Oglender 12, 15, 1405 

II Owen 1405 

v. Oxford &c. Ry. Co. 10 

V. Parker 12, 13, 14 

v. Parkhust 9, 83 

li. Parmenter 10 

v. Parnther 852 

li. Payne 1825 

* . Pearson 268, 540, 883 

f. Penruddocke 1164 

v Phimtree 14 

v Plymouth 16 

v Plymouth, Mayor of 6 

v. Poole 288, 337, 558, 2089 

li. Pretyman 1174 

r. Ray 872, 873, 940, 1574 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Attorney-General v. Read 10 

v. Rees 485, 724 

v. Kevere Copper Co. 10 

v Reynolds 568 

v. Richards 10, 1636 

ti. Richmond 13, 1638 

v. Rickards 156, 349, 630 

v Rumford Chemical Works 8 
v. Hyder 663 

v. St. Aubyn 6, 7, 16 

ii. St. Cross 1174 

v. St. Cross Hospital 342 

v. St. Helens 1620 

v. St. John's Hospital 16 

v Salem 10 

v. Sands 53 

v. Scott 1502 

v. Severne 10, 105 

v. Sheffield 1640 

v. Sheffield Gas Consumers' 

Co 1635, 1637, 1663 

li. Shelly 276 

v. Sherbourne Grammar 

School 10, 12 

v. Shield 506, 508, 592, 784 

v. Shore 1174,1175 

li. Shrewsbury 8, 1853 

v. Shrewsbury Bridge Co. 3,6, 10, 
1H37 
v. Sidney Sussex College 660 

», Sittingbourne & Sheerness 

Rv. Co. 16,231,278,1222 

li. Skinners' Co. 13, 15, 16, 1069 
». Smart 12, 14 

v. Southampton, Guardians of 8, 
1620 
v. Southampton, Mayor 1635 

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

li. Stephens 209, 873, 1163 

v Steward 1668 

v. Stewart 16 

v. Sudell 549, 563 

v. Sutton 662 

v Swansey, &c. Co. 1470 

v. Tarr 10 

li Tarrington 16, 230 

v Taylor 15 

li. Teather 10 

». Terry 10, 1636, 1639 

i>. Thames River, Conserva- 
tors of 1024, 1025, 1026 
v. Thetford 1039 
ii. Thompson 579, 1817, 1828, 1829 
v. Thurnall 858 
v. Tomline 10, 427, 974, 1031, 1639 
ii. Tonna 1383 
v. Tudor Ice Co. 10 
v. Tunstall Local Board 1636 
li. Twisden 200, 249 
t>. Tyler 9, 12, 16 
v. U. K. Elec. Tel. Co. 1635, 1636 
v Utica Ins. Co. 10, 16*55 
ii. Vernon 5, 10 
v. Vigor 1750 
v. Vincent 387 
ii. Vint 1799 
v. Vivian 10, 11, 13 
v. Wakeman 415 
v. Walthamstow Local Board 1637 
v. Wareing 10 
ii. Warren 137 
n. West Hartlepool Imp. 

Com'rs 8, 1620 

v. Whiieley 12, 1368 

v. Whorwood 377, 483, 484 

v. Wigan, Mayor ol 8, 1021, 1620, 
1670 
v. Wilkins 675 

v. Williams 10 

v. Williamson 10, 12 

v. Wilson 13, 22, 143, 193, !»7 
v. Wiltshire 10, 13 

». Winchelsea 1427, 1430 

v. Windsor, Dean and Canons 
of 140, 1502, 1503 



Attorney-General ;». Woolrich 9. 10, 

83. 84 

ti. Worcester 21, 143, 731, 778, 783 

v. Worcester, Bishop of 1579, 

1854, 1855, 1856 

v. Wright 10. lf.95 

v Wy burgh 276,627 

v. Wyggeston's Hospital 16 

v. Wvnne 200, 249 

». Wyville 730, 1413 

Attleboro Nat. Bank v. Wendell 1407 

Attrill v. Rockaway Beach Imp. 

Co. 1765 

Attwood v. 407 

Atwood ii. Banks 1626, 1655 

» Hawkins 288 

v. Small 299, 841 

Atwater v Fowler 641 

i'. Kinman 3!*2 

li. Russell 1411 

v Townsend 48 

Atwell ii Fowles 1254 

A twill v. Ferrett 547, 557, 585 

Atwood ii Chichester 178, 186 

li. Portland 314 

ii. Shenandoah V. R. Co 1517,1530 
li. Small 1491 

Atwoo) v. Ferrier 347 

v Merry weather 26, 243 

Atwyn v. Perkins 671 

Aubrey v. Brown 2001 

v. Hoper 1447 

Auburn Button Co. v. Syl- 
vester 1051 
Audenreid ?'. Railroad Co. 1662 
Auditor, The v Johnson 197 
Auditor-General v. Smith 1029 
Audsley v. Horn 214, 271 
Augusta Ice Co. v Gray 1734 
Augusta Nat. Bank v. Printup 6^1 
Aultman v. Steinan 324 
Aurora, &c. R. Co. v. Lawrence- 
burgh 1650 
Austen v. Bird 406 
v. Gibbs 1138 
li. Oilman 1540 
v. Nicholas 867 
Auster v. Haines 229, 1524 
Austerberry i'. Oldham 1654 
Austin v. Austin 1004, 1862 
ii. Bainter 1147 
ii Bank of England 148 
v. Chambers 855 
v. Evans 1133 
ii. Jackson 1376 
v. Jones 1542 
r. Raiford 334 
t» Ramsey 327 
li. Riley 517, 1031 
». Rutland R. Co. 60 
Australasia Nat. Bank ii. United 

Hand in-Hand. &c. Co. 214 

Australian Steam Co. v. Flem- 
ing 26, 27, 34 
Austria, Emperor of v. Day 18, 1648, 
1670, 1881 
Automatic W. M. Co. ti. Com- 
bined W. M. Co. 1409 
Autothrepic Steam Boiler Co. 

lie 1440 

Avarne v. Brown 1220 

Avegno v. Schmidt 283 

Aveline v. Melhuish 1358 

Aveling v. Martin 492 

Averill v. Longfellow 1845 

ii. Taylor 543 

Avery v. Fitch 330 

v. Griffin 995, 1081 

ii Holland 602, 987 

v. Kellogg 346,347 

r. Osborne 1419 

n. Wilson 1600 

n. Wood 1434 

Avory v. Andrews 1684,1685 

Axers v. Mussulman 318 

Axmand v. Lund 1643 

Ayer v. Ayer 108 



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



Ayer v. Messer 


737 


Ayers v. Chicago 


1548 


v. Valentine 


424 


v Wright 


197, 296, 344 


Ayles v. Cox 


1280 


Aylesford, Earl of v 


Morris 1386 


v Poulett 


1044 



Aylesworth v. Brown 
Ay let v DoJd 

v. Easy 
Aylett v. Ashton 


406 
1655 
1552 

186 


v Lowe 
Ayliffe v Murray 
Aylmer v Aylmer 


1129 
894 
1256 



Aylmer v. Winterbottom 
Ay 1 ward v Lewis 
Aymer v. Gault 
Aynsley v Glover 
Ayres v. Carver 

v Wiswall 
Ayscough v. Bullar 



XIX 



1416. 1420 
215, 283 
1568, 1569 
1080 
1553 
259 
405 



B. 



Baas v. Pain 1556 

Babb v. Lindley 231 

Babbitt v. Dotten 328 

v. Savoy 1661 

Babcock v New Jersey Stock- 
yard Co. 1638, 1661 



1272 
737 



779 

51 

815 

1621 

312 

1638, 1665 

901 

165 

871 

1027 

1320 

1002 

1259 

402, 524 



v. Perry 
v Smith 
Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Pio- 
neer Iron Works 
Baby v. Dubois 
Bach v Tuch 
Bachelder v Bean 
Bachman ?>. Einhorn 
Back v. Stacy 
Backhouse v. Alcock 
v. Hornsey 
v. Middleton 
v. Wilde 
Bacon v. Abbott 
v. Childs 
v. Clerk 
v. Griffith 
v. Jones 1079, 1642, 1663, 1681 
v. Robertson 26 

v. Rogers 1188 

v. Spottiswoode 1681 

Baddeley v. Bailey 888 

v. Curwen 722 

v. Harding 32 

Badeau v. Rogers 1560, 1561, 1562. 
1567, 1568, 1569, 1570 
V. Tylee 1565 

Badeley v. Consolidated Bank 269 
Badenx' Trust, Re 193 

Badgeley v Bruce 1165 

Badger v. Badger 327, 371, 560, 659 
v. McNamara 547 

v. Titcomb 331 

Badische A. & E. Fabrick v. 

Schott 984, 1655 

Baesh v. Moore 
Baggett v. Beard 

v Meux 
Baggott v. Henry 

v. Sawyer 
Baglehole, Ex parte 
Bagley v. Searle 
Baguall v. Carlton 



1504 

1081 

100 

764 

1290 

50 

819 

387, 1039, 1400, 

1408 

v. Davies 1654 

v. Villar 1630 

Bagot?; Bagot 1465, 1630, 1705, 

1733 

v. Easton 334, 346, 384 

v Legge 1433 

Bagshaw v. Batson 837 

v. Buxton Local Board 1639 

v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co. 26, 

199, 206, 241 



v. Newton 

v. Winter 
Bahin v. Hughes 
Baile v. Baile 
Bailey, Re 

v. Adams 

v iEtna Ins. Co. 



1427 

101, 102, 108 

189 

1846 

277, 10&5 

1780 

606, 640 

313 

i' American Cent. Ins. Co. 1622 
v. Bailey 508, 861, 874, 1614 

v Benton 379 

v. Birkenhead Ry. Co. 333, 544, 
658 



Bailey v. Blanchard 
v. Burchall 
v. Burton 
v Cadwell 
v Collett 
v Collius 
v Crane 
v. Devereux 
v Dunkerley 
v. Forbes 
v. Ford 
v. Gundry 
v. Holden 
v. Holson 
v. Inglee 
v- Lambert 
v. Landingham 
v. Leal 
v. LeRoy 
v. Macaulay 
v. Maule 
v. Morgan 
v. Myrick 



1228, 1231 

1847 

328 

1699 

1277, 1801 

1654 

646 

511 

1820 

784 

1599 

27, 33. 358. 359 

601 

1630 

149, 224, 247 

709, 792 

1120 

1260 

603 

1093 

1492 

288 

213, 260, 287, 886, 

1180, 1237, 1300 

839 



v. O'Bannon 
v. Robinson 

v. Ryder 314, 326 

v Sewell 1111 

v. Sisson 1150 

v. Smith 58 

v Tindall 1805 

v. Todd 1308 

v. Vincent 157 

v Wilson 722 
Bailey Washing Machine Co. v. 

Young 732 

Baile v. Baile 78, 81 

Bailis v. Cochran 918 

Baillie v. Baillie 1627, 1628 

v Blanchet 447 

v. Jackson 153, 170. 1264, 2291 

v. Sibbald 619, 639, 646 



Treharne 

Baily v Baily 
v Bruton 
v Haines 
v. Macau ley 
v Taylor 
v Worrall 

Bain v. Att -Gen. 
v Fothergill 

Bainbridgo, Re 
v. Burton 
v Pinhorn 
v. Wilcocks 

Baiubrigge, Re 



122 

1270 

303 

1126 

1128, 1131 

1642, 1643, 1681 

230 

1573 

1082 

157 

237, 242 

255 

371, 667, 668, 1259 

1186 

Baddely 413, 421 , 582, 598, 802 

1467, 1536, 1579, 1722, 1725 



v. Blair 
v. Moss 



v. Orton 
Baines v. Babcock 

v Baker 

v Bromley 

v. Geary 

v. Lumley 

v McGee 

v. Ridge 

i'. Story 
Bains v. Perry 
Baird v. Baird 



159 1234, 1414 1512, 
1737, 1741, 1764, 1765 
35, 36, 360, 423. 594, 
731,1448 



358, 680 
269 
1636 
1407 
1655 
653 
314 
441 
269 
1640 
281 



Baird v Goodrich 1653 

v. Jackson 334 

v. Powers 1^)3 

v. Turnpike Co. 994 

v. Wells 332, 1653 

Baisley v Baisley 149, 536 

Baker, Re gg 

Baker v. Athill 370 

Backus 1716, 1722, 1729, 1733 
228 
106 
371, 555, 641, 667, 668 
697 
545 
1122 
2001 
327, 328, 852 
547, 1557 



v Baker 

v Bayldon 

v. Biddle 

v. Bird 

v. Booker 

v. Boon 

v Boyldon 

v. Bradley 

v. Bramah 

v. Brown 

v Carter 

v. Clarke Institution 

v. Commonwealth 

v. Dean 

v Dumaresque 

v. Farmer 

v. Grundy 

v. Haily 

v. Hart 



1130, 1561 
1419 
1411 
1841 

520 
1704 
1346 

645 
17( 



1002, 1070, 1112, 1137, 
1139 
v. Harwood 218, 320 

v. Henderson 1842 

v Herts & Essex W. Co. 1731 
v. Holmes j is 

v. JeSeries 1714 

v. Keen 513 

«• King 1118, 1119, 1135 

■v- Lee 1502, 1503 

v. Loader '298 

v. Mayo 1253 

v Mellish 300,583,584,592,597, 
1660 
v. Mo Pac. Ry. Co. 313 

v. Morgan 1276 

v. Morris 1254 

v. Pritchard 563, 570 

t\ Redd 1625 

v. Sebright 1633 

v. Shy 1218 

v. Sowter 168 

v. Taylor 1668 

v Wetton 370 

V. Whiting 560, 644, 1463, 1472 
1479, 1530, 1575, 1581, 2169 
v Williamson 1229 

v Wind 1392 

v. Wood 1395 

v Young 1031 

Balch v. Smith 1350 

v. Symes 1830, 1843 

v. Tucker 1078 

v. Wastall 8. 135, 156 

Balchen v. Crawford 1564, 1568 

Balcolm v N. Y. Life Ins. and 
Trust Co. 678, 679, 759 



Balcom v. Terwilliger 
Baldwin v. Baldwin 

v. Bank of Newbury 

v . Canfield 

v. Darner 

v- Hale 

v. Lawrence 

v. Mackown 

v. Miles 



1381 

107, 116 

458 

190 

809 

458 

245 

1535 

1461 



XX 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 
[The references are to the star paging.] 



Baldwin v. Salter 

,. Tucker tool 

r Useful Knowledge Society 1656 
Balfour v. Cooper l-l? 

Balguy u Broadhurst 5<8, (17, I°£! 

v. Chorley 
Ball v. Ball 

i . Coutts 

« Etches 

». Harris 

». Kemp-Welch 

v. Mabry 

v. Mannin 

v. Montgomery 

v. Oliver 

v Kay 

v. Sawyer 

v. Tompkins 



102 

1166 

108 

425. 510 

166 

1163 

1743 1 

83 

104, 107, 1415 

251,1725, 1726 

1635, 1637 

737 

553 

BaTl ^"Socket Fastener Co. v. 

Kraetzer * 

Ballard v. Catling 39, 41, 1590 

V Eckman "*g 

* McCluskey 888,912,1463,2391 

r. White 9bl > 1 * J "' 

Balientine 17. Beall 23b 

Ballin 17. Ferst ^ a 

Ballou v. Chicago & N. W. *y 

Co 14 b3 

,, Hopkinton 303, 1413, 1639 

Balls ». Margrave 581, 680, 1558 

» Strutt „ nl ™- 4- 

Bally v. Kenrick .24, 72o, W< 

v. Williams 31J, i-ft 

Baltic Co v. Simpson 983 

Baltimore v. Ohio R. Co 1561, lobrf 
BaUimore &c R Co v. Adams 

Express Co 314 

Baltimore & Ohio R Co. v. 

Arthur lobl 

V Fitzpatrick 6» 

u. Wheeling, City of, 26, 144 

146, 73o, 846 
Baltimore R. Co. v Strauss 1639 
Baltimore & O Tel. Co v. In- 

terstate Tel. Co. 334, 81 1 

Baltzel V. Hall &£> 

Ban.ford ». Bamford 116., 119. 

,• Watts 13.2, 1600, 1610 

Bampfield ». Vaugban <£<$ 

Bamptont. Birchall ^ 560 ' 1 ^ 

Bampton & Longtown Ry Co 1 



989 i Bank of England 

v. Moffat 

v. Morice 

v. Parsons 
Hindustan v. Hodgson 

r. Robinson 
Kentucky v. Gay 
Marietta v Pindall 
Metropolis v Guttschlick 
Michigan v. Williams 



Lunn 147, 148 I Bardwell v. Ames 



v. Baker 
v. Barker 



Mobile T Planters' and Merch- I v Nash 

ants' Bank 837, 1796 | Barker, Re 

Monroe v Schermerhorn 16.6, 

lb. I 

Niagara, Matter of 1234, 1414, 

B 1i4i 

Ogdensburg v. Arnold 284, 1717, 

Ontario v. Strong 444 

Orleans v. Skinner 20, 395, 1619, 
1669 
St Marv v. St John 525 

Scotland v Kerr 24 

Statesville v, Foote 14W 

Tenn v Burke jj 

United States r. Magill 



1639 

659 

883, 1679 

1654, 1683 

159 

303 

810 

1321 

1490 

1269 

209; 321. 362, 1163 

560, 1264, 1346, 1365, 

1841 

1074 

1577 

„' Belknap 659, 1484, 1549, 1550, 

1553 



148 ' v Baird 
1615 Barfield v. Kelly 
148 v Nicholson 
397 Barger v Buckland 
397 Barham v. Hostetter 
1624 i v Longman 
24 Baring and Doulton, Re 
652 ! Baring v. Harris 
24 661 ! v Moore 



v Ritchie 
v. Schultz 
v Weisiger 
v. White 
Utica v. Messere 



69, 160, 997 

361 I 

1016 1 

1597,2379 

574, 576, 720, 

721, 758 

"Virginia v. Craig 130* 

Washtenaw v. Montgomery lA 

Waterville v W. W. Back 2j 

Banker's Case, The 133 

Banker r. Walters ,„„,.,£?« 

Bankhart v. Houghton 1635, lb4U 
Bankheadt' Alloway bbi 

Bankier v. Poole 44. 

Banks v. American Tract Society 1638 

l.gS" 287,1291,1292, 732 



Banbury i 

Peerage Case 
Bancroft v Sawin 
v Wardour 
v Wentworth 
Band v Randle 
Banda, Re 
Banert v Day 
Bangs v Hall 

v. Strong 
Banigan v. Worcester 
Banister v. Bigge 

v Way 
Bank, The v. Butler 

v. Carrollton Railroad 

t; Cowan 

v Dugan 

v Farques 

v. l.abitut 

v. Rose 

v. Simonton 

v. Trapier 




560, 646 

617 

313 

1639 

153, 232, 1283 

458 

217 

1099 

617 

884 

1019 

792, 793 

21.24 

1233 



.. Booth 
v Caitwright 
v Gibson 
v. Goodfellow 
v. Judah 
v. Klein 
1). Long 
v. Manchester 
v. ParKer 
v. Walker 
Bannatyne v. Leader 
Banner, Ex parte 

v Berridge 
Bannon v. Comegys 
Banta v. Calhoon 
v. Moore 
„ Banwen Iron Co., Re 
133 Banyster v. Trussell 
951 Baptist Church v. Uetfield 



1073, 1074 
1231 

1649, 1660 
1385 
560 



1580 

542, 843 

1624 

339 

1832, 1835 

1209 

642 

1517 

161, 167 

547, 584 

1597 

156 

1765 



323 
1029 
547 
849 
815 
986 
1259 
1277, 1278 
1409 
977, 1508 
107 
27 
1731 
447, 449, 809, 1413 
1029 
293 
683, 1124 
1290 
815 
1562 
991, 1584 
1404 
1794 
191, 244, 385 
1423, 1437 
982 
Barkhampstead v. Parsons 22 

Barklay v. Reay, Lord 431 539, lwM, 

Barksdaie v Butler 
Barkwell v. Swan 
Barkworth V. Young 
Barlee v. Barlee 



v Birch 

v. Craig 

v. Dacie 

v. Dixie 

v. Dumaresque 

v. Flagg 

v Gregory 

v. Harper 

v Hemming 

v. Johnson 

v. Lea 

v Lidwell 

v Mariott 

v. Piele 

v. Purvis 

v. Railton 

v. Ray 

v Richardson 

v Smark 

V. Swain 

v Todd 

v Venables 

v. Vogan 

v. Walters 

v Wardle 

v. Wyld 



601 

378 

365, 561, 2086 

112, 113 

732 

1637 

100 

1393, 1734, 1735 

295. 403, 426 



Barber, lie 1368, 1414 

Barber, Re, Burgess v. \inm- 

come "J° 

Dardier » Chapman 1 ' 

Barber v Barber 549,586,588,602 

041 

560, 645 

362 

328, 991, 1260, 1581 

1638 

115, 117 

201 

589 



v Houston 
V Hunter 
v Mackrell 
v Pen ley 
v Slade 
v. Walker 
Birbey's Appeal 



BankartV Tennant 324, 1407. 1408 
Bank Commissioners v. Bank of 

Buffalo 30- 

Bank of Hindustan, Re 944 

Bank of Alexandria v. Patton lb» 

Augusta v. Earle *& 

Bellows Falls v. Ru tland „„ & ,^o D 

Bur R. Co. 555, 628, 1628 

Bethel v. Pahquioque Bank 1.41 

Danville v. Travers J50 

Edwardsville v. Simpson i» 



Barbon v Searle 15'9 

Barbour v. Watts 8b. 

v Whitlock iYl 

Barclay v. Bank of New South 
Wales 

v. Bowen 

v. Brown 

r Culver 

v Plant 

v Russell 
Bard v Bingham 
Barden v. Briscoe 



Barley v Pearson 
Barlow v Bailey 

v. Devany 

v. Gains 

v. Osborne ay i285, 1286"," 1288, 'iKh 

v. Scott ]°8} 

Barnaby v. Tassell }-oji 

Barnam V McDaniels io.o 

Barnard, Re, Barnard v. White 108j 

Barnard, Re, Edwards v. Bar- 

nard 2 - 9 

Barnard V. Adams 1411 

v- Bartholomew 1253, 1^58 

». Darling '46, .48 

v Ford bb 

r. Ford, Carrick v Ford 66, 92 
v. Hunter 485, 621, 716, 760, 

v. Lea 
v. Wallis 
v. Wieland 
Barnardiston r Gibbon 
Barnardo r. Mcllugh 
Barndt v. Frederick 
Barne, Re 
669 ! Barnebee .'. Beckley 
1476 | Barned V. Barned 
1002. 14!>3 V Laing 

1.385 i Barnegat City Beach Association 
1491 v. Buzby J™ 

17, 20, 136, 472 Barnes, Re 

1727 I Barnes r Abram 
1463 1 v Addy 



1624 

838 

1611 

68 

815 

1368 

13i >9 

652 

i, 1705 



947 



Barnes v. Chicago, &c. Ry. Co. 991 

v. Dewey 1578 

v Dickinson 413 

V. Dowling 1628 

v. Harris 576 

v. Hathorn 1635 

v. Mays 1290 

v Offer 1577 

v. liacster 1390 

v. Ridgway 410, 440 

v. Robinson 92 

v. Saxby 354 

v. Taylor 585, 586. 1845, 2087 

v. Trenton Gas Light Co 545 

V. Tweddell 784, 1451 

v. West 354 

v Wilson 1026, 1027 

Barneslv v. Powel 664, 184 i 

Barnett V Cline 1624 

v. Grafton 420 

v. Leuchars 1649 

v. Montgomery 443 

v Noble 419 

v. I'eople's Bank 594 

v. Spencer 1600 

v. Watson 930 

v. Woods 314 

Baruey v. Baltimore 149, 190 

v. Luckett 1661 

v Puck 334 

V Saunders 1369 

Barnhaui v Roberts 573 

Barnhardt v. Smith 933 

Barnsdale v. Lowe 1574 

Barnsley Canal Co. v. Twibell 1678 

Barnwell v. Ironmonger 1411 

Baron v. Korn 630 

Barr p. Barr 1726 

v. Carter 251 

v. Clayton 314 

v Ilarding 1387 

v Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co 1395 

Barr's Trust, Re 846 

Barrack v. McCulloch 822, 843 

Barraclough v. Greenhough 877 

Barraque ?». Manual 327 

v Siter 713 

Barre National Bank v. Hing- 

ham Manuf Co. 334 

Barrel v Benjamin 48 

v. Joy 1259 

Barrere v. Barrere 2289 

Barret v Oliver 169 

Barrett v. Brown 193. 200 

v. Buck 992, 1430 

v. Burke 1658 

v Carter 1461 

v. Day S54, 1618 

v. Doughty 109, 589 

v. Gaines 989 

v Hartley 1391 

v. Long 1091,1092 

v McAllister 365 

v. Oliver 68 

v. Pardow 917 

v. Pearson 1658 

v. Power 32 

v Sirgeant 852 

v. Short 790 
v. Stockton and Darlington 

Ry. Co. 327 

v Watson 905,918 

v. Wheeler 860 

v. White 1524 

Baxribeare v Brant 1538 

Barriclo v. Trenton Mut. Life 

and Fire Ins. Co. 1523, 1531, 

1535 

Barringer v. Andrews 392 

Barrington, He 160, 1607 

v Brien 1581 

v Tristram 1427 

Barritt v. Barritt 489, 742 

v. Tidswell 785 

Barron v Barron 117 

v. Gvillard 184, 591 

v. Lancefield 1389 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Barron v. Robinson 1122 

Barrow t). Barrow 102,104,106,107. 

2001 

v. Isaacs 1660 

v Manning 92 

v. Rhinelauder 667, 884, 1468, 1578 

v Richards 1654 

v. Wadkin 47 

Barrs v. Fewkes 320, 1470 

v. Jackson 6G3 

Barry, Ex parte 1069 

v. Abbott 542, 758 

v. Barry 334, 1026 

V. Briggs 1463 1491 

V Cane 180, 181, 499, 500 

v Croskey 446, 539, 599, 1556 

v. Jenkius 33 

v. Missouri, K & T. Ry Co 149, 

215 

v Stevens 551 

v. Wrey 1389 

Barstow v. Smith 5S4 

Barteau v. Barteau 324 

Bartee v. Tompkins 335. S45 

Bartels v. Schnell 659 

Barter v Dubeux 659 

Bartholomew /•. Harwinton 1576 

Bartle v. Wilkin 1387 

Bartles v Gibson 639 

Bartlett, Ex parte 1863 

Re ' 2203 

Bartlett,/??, Newman ;\ Hook 294 

v. Bartlett 316, 1696, 1789 

v. Fifield 10o2, 1576, 1577 

B. Gale 737,760,839,846 

v. Gillard 839 

v Harton 809, 811, 970, 1601 

v Johnson 1386, 1391 

17. Marshall 1257 

v Parks 191, 297, 551, 1929 

v. Pickersgill 196 

V. Smith 1098 

v. The Sultan 1561 

v. West Met'n T. Co 1731 

v. Wood 1008,1381,1411 

Bartley v. Bartley 1837 

Barton v. Barbour 1743 

v Barton 234, 304, 793. 811, 843, 

1371, 1402 

v. Beatty 1002 

V. Beer 87 

v Chambers 1597 

v. Cooke 1429, 1431 

v Latour 1279, 1373. 1610 

V. Moss 844 

v North Staffordshire Piv. 

Co. 644, 933 

V. Rock 811, 1458 

v Tattersall 643, 21 Si! 

v. Trent 15"6 

v. Whitcombe 459, 832 

Barwell v. Corbin 76 

v. Parker 1257, 1258 

Basanquet v Marsham 4o9 

Basey v. Gallagher 313, 594, 1147 

Bastaam, Re 1409, 1411 

Baskett r Cafe 056,2117 

Basore v. Henkel 1628 

Bass i'. Bass 641 

Bassard v Lester 793 

Basset v Nosworthy 677 

Bassett V. Bratton 1699 

v. Johnson 1110,1111,1111, 

1119, 1124 

t;. Leslie 1561 

v. Salisbury M.nnuf. Co. 686,689, 

696, 699, 700, 1031, 1636, 1688. 

1640 

Basse vi v. Serra 1432 

Basslord v. Blakesley 1830, 1838 

Bastard V Page 1009 

t'. Smith 1102,1104 

Bastin r. Bidwell 1417 

v. Carew H 199 

Bastow i' Bradshaw 324 

Basye v. Beard 1567 

Batchelder, Petitioner 1561 



XXI 



Batchelor, Re 90 

D Mi.ldleton 1387 

Bate H Bate 1819, 1&20 

v Hooper 1370. 1416, 2060 

Bate Refrigerator Co. V Gillett 

1197, 1320, 1642 

Bateman v Bateman 14. 6 



v Cook 


744 


v Foster 


2292 


v Margerison 


225, 295, 1367 


v. Murray 


1658 


v. Snoddy 


630 


v AViatt 


1673, 1685 


v. Willoe 


1621 


Bateman's Trust, 


Re 55 


Bates v. Babcock 


365, 601 


V. Bates 


407 


v. Bonnor 


1287, 1288, 1292 


v. Brothers 


803, 1719, 1730 


v. Christ's College 


v. Dandy 


124, 125, 126, 127 


v. Delavan 


867, 1018 


v. Eley 


1225 


v. Gage 


1147 


v. Graves 


1125 


v. Great Western Tel. Co. 1576 


v. Loomis 


1600 


v. Plonsky 


334 


v. Preble 


1108 


v. Sabin 


1299 


v. Wheeler 


385 


Bateson v Choate 


385, 1051 


Bath, Earl of i: Abney 124 



v. Bradford 1258, 1314, 1321 

v. Sherwin 1682 

Bath, Lord, v. Sherwin 1661 

Bathe, Re 83 

ii. Bank of England 87, 111, 179, 

253 

Bather ?' Kearsley 403 

Bathurst, Earl v. Burden 1655 

Batre v. Auze 458 

Batt v Birch 954 

v. Proctor 149 

Battaile v. Maryland Insane 

Hospital 986 

Battel 1 v. Matot 85, 634 

Battelle v. Youngstown Rolling 

Mill 633 

Batten v Dartmouth Harbor 

Com'rs 1411, 1424 

v. Earnley 1256 

v Gedhye 553, 630 

v Wedgwood Coal & Iron Co 1765 

Battenhauaen v. Bullock 1003 

Batterman v. Albright 212 

Batterson v. Ferguson 720 

Batthyany b Walford 354 

Batthyny, Re 542 

Battle'?' Bering 1033 

v. Davis 1751 

v (iriffin 1409 

v. Street 659 

Batty v. Hill 1649 

I Bauer, Ri' 576 

i Bauer's Estate 418 

Bauer v. Mitford 16, 1469 

Baugfa c. Uainsey 849 

v. Reed 1427 

Baughei- r. Eichelberger 860 

Bauknight o. Sloan 334 

Bauin, Ex parte 157 

Bauman !• Matthews 1081 

Baumgarten V Broadway 1654 

Bawtree 0. Watson 1455, 1842, 

1845, 1846 

Bax r. Whitbread 1004 

Baxendale v Mi-Murray 827 

v. Weft Midland Ry. Co. 602 

>■. West.. lint urn R. W. Co. 543 

Baxter v. Abbott 851, 852 

r Blodgett 1809 

v. Conoly 2265 

v Knollvs 1150 

v. New York, T & M. Ry 

Co 839 

v Nurse 1135 



xxn 



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



Baxter v. Portsmouth, Earl of 

v. West 
Bayard's Appeal 
Bayes v Hogg 
Bayless v. Orue 
Bay ley, lie 
v Adams 
c. Cass 

v. De Walkiers 
r. Edwards 
ti. l«ominster 
v Mansell 
t> Powell 
Baylies v. Baylies 

v Payson 
Ba\ lis v Lawrence 
ii Lucas 

v Watkins 876,1071,1317,1642 
Bayly v. Bayly 501, 503 

v Muehe f™» 

v Powell 1410 

Baynard V. Woolley 223, 2116 

Bayue's Goods, lie 251 

Bay ties v. Ridge 453 

Baynham v Guy's Hospital J 
Bay State Iron Co. v. Goodall 
Ba'vzor v. Adams 



83 

1727 

1051 

46 

26 

1440 

618, 700 

890 

734,737 

633 

1658 

1263 

1415 

1749 

1001,2182, 2260 

1M7 

1001, 1092 



Beatty v. Leacy 
Beaty V Bcaty 

v. .ludy 

v M'Corkle 

v. Veon 



351 

1626 

303 

886 
1286 



T. > trvii _ eon 

Beauchauip V. Gibbs 419, 54 J, 589, 



r. Huntley, Marquis 
?>. Putnam 
?>. Winn 
Beaufort v. Morris 
Duke of v. Berty 
v. Morris 
Phillips 



800 
1552 
1510 
2309 
1352, 1364 
1112, 1113, 1683 
1030 



Beach v. Beach 

v. Bradley 

v. Fulton Bank 

v. Mupgrove 

v. Shaw 

v. Sleddon 

v White 
Beaching v Gower 
Beadel v Perry 

Beadles v. BurcU 
Beadon V King 
Beaird v. Foreman 
Beat v Gibson 
Beale v. Beale 

v Hayes 

v. Seiveley 

v Thompson 
Beales v Spencer 
Beall v. Shaull 

v. Smith 
Beals v. Cobb 



1961 

334 

584 

249 

778, 952, 1462 

149, 259, 1580 

978 

111 

197 

1098 

1613, 1638, 1662, 

1663, 1682, 2323 

378 

578, 645 

295 

1672, 1675 

1168 

543 

989 

946 

178 

559 

83 

190, 256, 259, 260, 

261. 28" 



v. Guernsey 

v. Illinois, &e. R. Co 
Beaman r. Elliot 
Beamon r Ellice 
Bean v Clark 

v Griffiths 

v. Heath 

V Morgan 

v. Qnimby 

v. Smith 
Beane v Morgan 
Beaney v. Elliot 
Bear, Re 

v Smith 
Bearblock v. Taylor 
Tyler 



1118 

694, 843 

2099 

1101 

694, 830 

398, 964, 985 

1060 

179 

576. 916 

2276 

88 

1368 

779 

1367, 1801 

1149 

1114, 1123, 1137 



Duke of v. Taylor 1822 

Beaumont v. Bouftbee 378,383,bb< 

v. Carty ™* 

v. Meredith 243. U <•-• 

Beayan v. Burgess ,'Sg'-?g£r 

v. Carpenter 810 , 14o8 , 15o3, 

v. Mornington 1019, 1021, 1028. 

v. Oxford, Earl of 
v. Waterhouse 
Bebb v. Bunny 
Bechtel v. Sheafer 
Beck v. Allison 
v. Beck 
v. Henderson 
v. Pierce 
Becke. lie 

Beckenbridge v. Churchill 
Beckett v. Attwood 
v. Bilbrough 
v. Buckley 
Beck ford v. Hood 
v. Kemble 
v. Wade 
V. Wildman 
Beckhaus v. Ladner 
Beckwith v. Butler 
v. Carroll 
v. Smith 
v. Wood 
Peckworth v. Butler 
Bectiye, Countess of v. Hodgson 

1502, 1503 

Beddall v. Maitland 154, 1081, 1407. 

1548 

v. Page 
Beddinger v. Smith 
Beddingfield v Zouch 
Beddington v Beddington 
ISeddow v. Beddow 
Bedell v. Bedell 



1034 

760 

1278 

1561 

1660, 1663 

1548 

1003 

189, 642 

1841 

560 

1461 

329 

1037 

366 

1627 

559, 560 

1830, 1838 

843 

840, 1302 

1753 

1698 

15 12 

1230 



469 

68 

1050 

154 

1613 

592, 739 



Beets v. State 
Beevor v Lawson 

r. Luck 
Beford y. Crane 
Begbie v. Fenwick 
Beggs, Matter of 
Behr v. Willard 
Behrens v. Pauli 

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

v. Ffrench 
Belcher v. Belcher 

v. M'Intosh 

v. Whitmore 

v. Williams 
Belchier v. Butler 
I Belden v. Dayis 
I Belding v. Willard 
Belew v. Jones 
Belfast, Earl of v. Chichester 



1099 

2222 

213 

845 

1449 

1463 

230 

663 

633, 637, 663 

87, 109, 111 

228 

945 

1479 

1842 

800, 1169 

1096 

992 

730. 1163 

1390 



838 
1276 
1029 
317, 
1573 

Belford V. Scribner 1643 

Belknap v. Belknap 1639, 1680 

v Stone 305,311,314,374,389, 

402, 408 

v. Trimble 1076, 1639 

Bell, Re 1°°9 

Bell, lie, Carter v. Stadden 



Bell, lie, Lake v. Bell 
V. Alexander 
v. Antwerp Line 
v. Bell 
v. Bird 
V. Cade 
v. Chapman 
v. Cunningham 
v Dayidson 
v. Donohue 
v. Dunmore 
v. Farmers' Deposit 

Bank 
v. Gittere 
v Gordon 
v Hastings 
v. Hunt 
ik Hyde 
v. Johnson 



Bearcroft v Berkeley 119 

Beard V. Bowler 692 

v Heide "lb 

v Powis, Earl 1543, 1799 

Beardmore v. Gregory 108. 109, 201, 

251,319,401,407,1515 



v. Lead well 
Beardsell r Schwann 
Beare v. Prior 
Beart v. Hewitt 
Beasley v. Kenyon 

v. MaGrath 
Beasney, Re 
Beatniffr Gardner 
Beatrice, The 
Beattie v. Johnstone 

Beatty V Beatty 
ii De Forrest 
v Hinckley 
v. Kurtz 



1635 

2316 

1239 

2314 

250 

841 

1795 

609 

18 

1348, 1352, 

1353 

1669 

1062 

334 

239 



Hoffman 15G0, 1570, 1571 

Bedford Charities, Re 12, 1855 

Bedford v Bedford no J°J?, 

v. Leigh 2m \?^l 

Earl of r. Romney, Earl of 19,3 

Bedingfield, Re J414 

Bedminster Charities, Re lbUo 

Bedsole v. Monroe ^ 

Bedwell v. Prudence 823, 0-4 

Bed win v. Asprey *g 

Beebe v. Guinault Mod 

v. Louisville, &c. R. Co. 3J3 

v. Morris 212 

Beech v. Haynes 711, 839, 840, 843, 

v. Woodyard 797 

Beecher v. Anderson 145 

v. Marquette Mill Co 1461 

Beeching v. Lloyd 234, 240, 303 

Beekman v. Peck 978, 1030 

V Saratoga and Schen. R. R. 
Co. W76 

Beeler v. Bullitt 165, 997 

v . Dunn 251, 1359 

Beem v. Newaygo Circuit Judge 

Beer v. Tapp 1421 

Beerfield v Petne 113-i 

Beers v. Botsford 856, 1002 

v. Broome _ 986 

Beeson v. Beeson 571, 1081 



641 

202 

149 

807, 1540 

6) 

1001 

49,52 

1624 

951 

26 

780, 781 

Nat'l 

843 

313 

1003 

429 

1560 

179, 445 

560, 867, 885, 896, 

1580 

v. Mexborough, Lord 1484 

v Moon °43 

v. Morrison 91:j 

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

v Read 1224 

ti Rees 1668 

v Shrock 19' 

r Singer Manuf Co. lb2U 

v. Stocker 189 

v. Thompson «8o 

v. Tinney , J>7 

v Turner 892,1264 

v United States Stamping 

Co 23 *> 

v. Von Dadelszen * ? 

v. Walker „„ 1 n„'J 

v. Waudby 402, 830 

ii Wilson „ _ "J! 

v Woodward 342, 346, 34 1, 611, 
683, 700, 703, 1111, 1H2, UlO; 

Bellaby v. Grant M4g 

Bellamy, In re, Elder v. Pearson U. 
Bellamy v. Bellamy 

r. Brickenden 

v Cockle 

v. Debenham 

»;£ 280, 281, 2927400, '418 
VSSb 
Bellchamber v Giani 39, 1380. 1602 
Belle v. Thompson ll»i 

Bellenger v. People, The oui 

Bellerophon, The &£1 

Bellew V. Bellew 438, 1428 



710, 1425 

1266 

364,989 

933,936,937 



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



XX111 



Bellingham v. Norrish 

v Pearson 
Belloat v. Morse 
Bellona Co's Case 
Bellows v. Bellows 

v Sowles 



2265 
1117 

31:» 
1669 
1071 

238 



v. Stone 403, 406, 408, 579, 580, 

581, 615, 724, 725, 829. 844, 845, 

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

1230, 1248, 1531, 1623 

Bellwood v. Wetberell 579 

Beluiont Nail Co. v. Columbia 

Iron & Steel Co. 236 

Belmonte !'. Aynard 29, 32 

Behnore, Lord v. Anderson 747,918, 
929 
Belohradsky v Kuhn 1651 

Belshami) Percival 1009,1017,1544. 
1833 
Belt, R<- 99 

v. Bowie 334, 517 

v Lawes 1130 

Bel ton v Smith 1468 

v. Williams 197 

Beltzhoover v. Blackstock 572, 573 
Bemis v I'pham 303, 1638, 1639 
Benand, Re 1347 

Beabow v. Davies 528,710 

», Low 324, 579, 720, 785, 855 

Bencraft v. Rich 1778 

B ndey v. Townsend 2398 

lien. 1. she, Re 94,1608 

Benedick v. Lynch 369 

Benedict v. Williams 318 

Benefit Life Ass. Co. v. Super- 
visors 1661 
Benfie.d v. Solomons 59,61. 62, 323, 
324, 1549 
Bengley v. Wheeler 243 
Ben ham, Re 1795 
v Ro.ve 1239,1247 
Benicia Agr. Works v. Creighton 669 
Bentaoo v. Wortley 161 
Betiner v. Kendall 1638 
Be, meson v Bill 1732 
Bennet College v. Carey 1376 
Bennet » Bennet 1360 
v. Davis 59 
v Lee 170, 174, 175, 1577 
v Leigh 170 
v Kunyon 873 
v Vade 384,552,063 
r. Whitehead 1362 
Bennett's Trusts, Re 62 
Bennett v. Allcock 1130 
v Attkins 1396, 1416, 1419 
v Baxter 1170, 1814 
V Bennett 128 
v. Biddies 1611 
v. Bury 1120 
v Butterworth 313 
v. Chudleigh 39, 155 
v Colley 1724 
v. Edwards 167 
v. Fenton 149 
v. Gamgee 63 
v Glossop 1831 
v. Going 1416, 1422, 1423 
v Hamill 164, 174, 1276 
v. Hamlin 759 
v. Harfoot 168 
v. Hoefner 1031 
v . Honeywood 421 
v Leeds Manuf. Co. 354 
v. Lytton 1207 
v. Moore 1002, 1866 
v Neale 713, 1078 
v. Oliver 1505 
v. Pardini 1675 
v. Partridge 1387 
v, Rees 1216 
v. Robins 1748 
v. Skeffington 262 
v Van Sykel 1463 
v. Walker 569, 675 
v Waller 392 
v Williams 1002 



Bennett v. Winfield 109 

v. Winter 1028, 1030 

v. Wood 438, 1213 

Bennington Iron Co. v Camp- 
bell 422, 770, 776 

Bennison «/. Jervison 11' 5 

Benscotter v. Green 

Benson v. Frederick 
v. Cutler 
v. Glastonbury Canal Co 



v. Hadfield 
v. Joues 
v. Leroy 
v. Olive 
v. Vernon 
v. Woolverton 

v. Wright 
Bensusan v. Nehemias 
Bent v. Birch 

v. Smith 

v. Yardley 

v. Young 
Benthani v. Haincourt 
Bentley, Re 

v. Bentley 

v. Cowman 

v. Craven 

v. Fleming 

v. Long Dock Co. 

v. Mercer 

v Robinson 



790 

1130 

1400 

861, 

1775 

337, 599, 715 

607 

885, 1180, 1615 

869 

1026 

844, 1016, 1539, 

1545 

68 

1394 

991 

844 

335 

562, 1556 

1237 

1355 

1213 

706 

1202 

1109, 1128 

1160 

8«)3 

162, 177, 475, 476, 

498 

Bentlif v. London, &c. F. Co. 149 

Benton v. Gibson 1669 

Bentsen v Taylor 32 

Benyon v . Amphlett 180 i 

v. Nettleford 564 

Benzein v. Kobinett 383, 1361) 

Benzien v. Lovelass 419 

Berdanatti ;>. Saxton 1576 

Berdoe v. Dawson 13S6 

Beresford, Ex parte 105 

v. Batthany 561 I 

Lady v. Driver 1829 

Berg v. Radcliffe 2197 

Berger v Armstrong 1654 

o. Jones 1587 

Bergholtz v. Ruckman 1580 

Bergmann v. McMillan 216 

Berjce v. Harris 342 

Berkeley, lie 433 

v. King's College 1730 

v. Standard Discount Co. 145 

Berkhampstead Free School, Ec 

parte 1854 

Berkley v Ryder 782, 1550 

Berks and D mphin Co v. Myers 22 

Berlin v. Melhorn 1274 

Bermes v. Frick 559 

Bermingham v. Tuite 1565 

Bernal r. Donegal, Marquis of 1703 

Bernall v Donegal, Lord 885 

Bernard v. Papineau 961 

Lord, Case of 1633 

v. Toplitz l!il8 

Bernaseoni v. Farebrother 1134 

Berndston v Churchill 792 

Berne v. Eyre 1384 

City off. Bank of England 17, 18 

Bernett V Taylor 875, 1116 

Bernev v. Chambers 778 

v Eyre 1148, 1149, 1383, 1384 

v. Harvey 1077 

v. Sewell 1716, 1719, 1724 

Bernheim v. Bernheim 313 

Bernie v. Vandever 1170 

Berrey v. Small 1237 

Berridge v Bellew 1449 

Berrigan v. Fleming 1540, 1546 

Berrington v. Evans 1211 I 

Berrow v. Morris 1530, 1537, 2060 j 

Berry, Re 1361 

v Armistead 2269 

v. Attorney General 1461, 1480 | 

v. Clements 67 , 



Berry r. Gibbons 
v. Hebblethwaite 
v. Johnson 
v Jones 
v. Rogers 
v. Sawyer 



280, 1342 
1390 
1276 
1732 
175, 556 
723, 810 
Berrvhill v. M'Kee 987, 14o2 

v. Wells 1255 

Berryman v. Graham 1548 

Bertel v. Neveux 364 

Bertie v. Abington, Lord 1752 

r. Falkland, lx>rd 1017, 1543 

Bertiue v. Varian 560, 641, 645 

Bertolacci v. Johnstone 415 

Berwick, Mayor of v. Murray 207, 
350, 351, 837, 895, 1394, 1830 
Besant v. Wood ln9 

Besemeres v. Besemeres 1670 

Besley, Ex parte 1475 

v. Besley 4ti5 

Bessant v. Noble 203 

Bessey v. Windham 1126 

Best v Applegate 9'J9 

v. Drake 1632 

v. Stampford 125 

v. Stouehewer 1170,1203,1405,1428 
Betagh ;;. Concannon 1771, 1781 

Bethea v. Call 68 

Bethel v Abraham 1342 

v. Wilson 217 

Bethell v. Casson 579, 1826 

Bethia v M'Kay 793 

Bethuue )» Bateman 414, 770, 776 
v Farebrother 195, 196 

v. Kennedy 10U7 

Bettes?). Dana 15<*9 

Bettison v. Farringdon 1818, 1833 
Betton, Re 125 

Betts v. Barton 453, 536, 790 

v. Cleaver 1440, 1149 

v Clifford 1379, 1440, 1681 

ti De Vitre 143, 145, 147, 1081 
r. Gallais 1081, 1643 

v. Menzies 578 

v. Neilson 1080, 1081, 1643 

v. Rimmel 398, 774 

v Thompson 23!t, 243 

Betty ». Taylor 844 

Bevau v. Bevan 1279 

Kevau and Whitting, Re 184.3 

Bevaus j' Diugman's Turnpike 145 
Beveridge v. Ohetlain 861 

Beverley v. Miller 161 

v. Walden 844, 1073, 1116 

Bevin v. Powell 1071, 1551 

Bewick v. Alpena Harbor Co. 1168 
Bewicke r. Graham 617, 1829 

Bewley v. Ottinger S97 

v. Seymour 307 

Bevnon v. Cook 1386 

Bianca, The 406 

Bibb v. Htiwley 212 

Bibby v. Naylor 1525 

Bick v. Matley 1299 

v. Motley 1311, 1367 

Bickel's Appeal 560 

Biekerton v. Burrell 197 

Bickett V. Morris 1639, 1662 

Bickl'ord v Skeeves (or Skewes) 444, 
506,507, 1114 
Bickham v. Cross 999 

Bickley r Dorrington 323 

Bicknell !'. Bicknell 79 

v Field 1627 

v. Gough 612, 655 

Bicycle Stepladder Co. v. Gor- 
don 542 
Bidder v. Bridges 314, 546, 579,717, 
933 
v McLean 586 
r. Trinidad P. Co. 1656 
Biddinger V. Wiland 68 
Biddis v. James 863 
Biddle, Re 1389 
v Mason 1716 
v. Ramsey 1658, 1682 
Biddies v. Jackson 96 



XXIV 



Biddulph, Re 1798 

t'. Camoys, Lord 177, 451, 452, 

476, 766, 872, 939, 1574 

v. Dayrell 177, 476 



v Fitzgerald 


1169 


v. St. George, Vestry of 


1650 


t>. St. John 


847 


Bidlack v. Mason 


1751 


Itidulph v. Bidulph 


1383 


Bidwell v. Paul 


1716 


Biel, Re 


852 


Bierue v. Ray 


843 


V Wads worth 


801 


Bilicld v. Taylor 220, 222, 257 


Bige!ow v. Bigelow 560 


644, 1772 


v Oassedy 


212 


v. Hartford Bridge Co. 


1637 


v. Magee 


235 


v. Morong 1411, 


1427, 1431 


v. Winsor 994 


, 995, 2356 


Biggleston v. Grubb 


1402 


Biggs v. Kowns 


1562, 1564 


v. Penn 


268 


Bigler v. Reyber 


573 


Bignal v. Brereton 


1256 


Bignell, Re 


1361 


v. Atkins 


1509, 1533 


v. Chapman 


1732 


Biguold v. Audland 394, 1561, 1562, 


1563, 1564, 


2003, 2158 


v. Cobbold 


481 


Bigsby v. Dickinson 


858, 1488 


Biles's Appeal 


1163 


Bill v- Cureton 


230 


v Sierra Nevada Co. 


1620 


v. W U. Tel. Co. 


26 


Billing v. Brooksbank 


875 


v. Flight 604 


, 612, 2095 


Biilings v. Aspen Mining 


& S. 


Co. 


257, 560 


v Mann 


552, 586 


Billingslea v Gilbert 


736, 1675 


v Ward 


656 


Billout v. Morse 


407 


Billson v. Scott 


168, 2291 


Bilmver v Sherman 


209, 236 


Bilston, Re 


1589 


Bilton v. Bennett 


523, 524 


Binfield v. Lambert 


875 


Bin ford v Bawden 


93,99 


v Dommett 


1125 


Bingham v. Bingham 


1622 


v Cabot 314, 358, 3 


v. Clanmorris 166, 


1226, 1227 


v. Dawson 


1581 


v. King 


1390 


v. Yeomans 


417, 736 


Binglev v. Marshall 


1666 


Bingley School, Re 


1852 


Binkert v. Wabash Ry. Cc 


402 


Binks v. Binks 


1516, 1585 


Binney v. Plumley 


22 


Binuey : s Case 20, 26 


468, 729, 
732, 733 




Binnington v. Harwood 


1393 


Binns v. Mount 


1776 


V. Parr 


1781 


Binsted v. Barefoot 


1611 


Birce v. Bletchley 


365 


Birch, Re 


1610 


Birch v. Birch 


1053 


v. Corpin 


147 


v. .loy 


1500 


v. Sumner 


1359 


v. Williams 


979 



Birchall, Re, Wilson v. Birchall 

Birchel, Ex parte 

Birchett v. Balling 

Bird, Re 

Bird v. Appleton 

v. Bird 

v. Brancker 

v. Butler 

v. Davis 

v. Gill 

v. Harris 

v. Heath 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Bird v. Hustler 413 

v. Inslee 561 

v. Kerr 1123 

v. Lake 840, 884, 1598, 1599, 1670 

v. Littlehales 1055, 1056, 1057, 

1058 

v. Styles 844 

Bird-all o. Colie 1727 

v. Hewlett 1253,1431 

Birdseye v. Heilner 694 

Birdsong v. Birdsong 190, 259, 287, 

1505 

Birkenhead Docks v. Laird 826, 1001 

1484, 2182 

Birkett, In re 1770 

Birks v. Micklethwait 1413 

Birley v. Kennedy 1(77 

Birmingham v. Gallagher 243 

Birmingham Brewing Co., Re 1172, 

1767 

Birmingham Estates Co. v. Smith 

561 
Birmingham W. & E. Co. v. 

Eivtou Land Co. 545 

Birnbaum t>. Solomon 1675 

Birne v. Hartpole 1584 

Biron v. Edwards 1120 

v. Scott 200 

Birrell v. Dryer 546 

Birt v. Leigh 1096 

Bisbee v. Kvans 560 

Bischof^beim v. Baltzer 888, 933, 

1573, 23! H 

v. Brown 1838 

Bischoffshein v. Taaks 888 

Biscoe v. Brett 793, 806, 1216 

v. Great Eastern Ry. Co. 1080 

v. Jackson 13 

v. Land Bank, Undertakers of 274 

v. Waring 360 

v. Wilks 1402 

Bishop, Ex parte 271, 1257, 1448, 

1453 

Re 1347 

v. Abom 1019 

v. Balkis Cons. Co. 26 

v. Bishop £61, 374, 1791 

v. Chichester 713 

v. Church 953 

v. Godfrey 1033 

v. Jones 52 

v. Lewis 996 

v. Little 645 

v. McGillis 815 

v. Williams 1168 

v. Willis 732, 1472, 1611 

v. Wood 402 

Bisbopp v. Colebrook 119 

Bishop's Waltham R. Co., Re 1037 

Bishopsgate, Re 1770 

Bissell v Briggs 458 

v. Heath 1743 

v. Kellogg 1624 

Bisset v. Burgess 1437 

Bithray, Re 1037 

Bitzer v. Hahn 1253 

Biven v. Bostwick 860 

Bixby v. Bent 986 

Bizzey v Flight 1432 

Black v. Black 587, 603 

v. Blakely 1260, 1418 

v. Bordelon 256 

v. Caruthers 1634, 1666 

v. Creighton 1780 

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

1650 

1346 v. Enrich 1643 

1046 v. Henry G. Allen Co. 1643 

1233 v. Huggins 26, 1664 

1138 v. Jones 1126 

83 v. Lamb 848, 1075, 1110, 1111, 

749 1115, 1116, 1117, 1124, 1139, 1463 

876 v. O'Brien 1381 

109, 498, 886 v. Scott 149 

1238 v. Shreve 1077, 1110, 1112. 1115, 

307,437 1116,1117,1119,1121,1124 

1030, 1843 Blackbeard v. Liudigren 1282 



Blackborough v Ravenhill 1735 

Blackburn v. Caiue 998 

v. Gregson 1147 

v. Jep.on 22, 1077, 1475, 1489 

v. Selma R. Co. 1286, 23i9 

v. State 1774 

v. Warwick 1252 

Blacker v Phepoe 855 

Blacket v. Finney 369 

Blackett v. Bates 1663 

v. Black 553 

v. Blackett 201, 318, 1722 

Blackford v. Davis 1221, 1232, 1233, 
1236, 1388 
Blackhall v. Coombs 1622 

Blackham v. Sutton Coldfield 239 
Blackie v. Osmaston 542 

Blacklock v. Barnes 1240 

v. Small 1427 

Blackman r. Cornish 1025 

Blackmore v. Barker 1281. 1492 

v. Edwards 423, 427 

v. Glamorganshire Canal Nav- 
igation 893, 1663 
v. Howlett 162, 476 
v. Smith 159, 808, 815 
Blackwell v. Blackwell 254, 407 
v. Harper 366 
Blackwood, Re 1607 

r. 1665 

Blagden v. Bradbear 656, 657 

Blagrave v. 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, 302, 645, 880 

v. Cordner 354, 1847 

v. Drew 641 

v. Johnson 553 

v. Lippincott Glass Co. 197 

v. Ormoud 236 

v. Porter 1560, 1562 

v Reading 790 

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

v. Toppitt 175S 

Blaisdell v. Bowers 715, 844 

v. Stevens 417, 760 

Blake, Re 68 

v. Albion Life Ass. Co. 348, 349 

v. Alluian 256 

v. Barnes 313, 790 

v. Blake, 5, 45, 87, 421, 629, 630, 

804, 1589, 1726, 1771 

v. Cox 819, 828 

v. Foster 1581 

v. Gale 1214 

v Garwood 1561 

v. Hey ward 986 

v. Heywood 1033 

v. Hinkle 361 

v. Jones 206 

v. Smith 86 

v. Veysie 860 

Blakeley Ordnance Co., Re 1038 

v. Blakeley 1261 

Blakemore v. Allen 734 

v Glamorganshire Canal Co. 1661 

Blakeney v. Dufaur 29, 31, 1728, 

1732 

v Ferguson 842 

Blakeslee v. Murphy 1625 

Blakesley v. Pegg 1209 

Blakewell V. Tagart 1213 

Blakey v. Johnson 1079 

v. Latham 1409 

Blaksley's Trusts, Re 1691 

Blanc v. Paymaster Mining Co. 206 

Blauchard, Re 1841 

v. Hawthorne 1685,1730 

v. Cooke 158,517,1071, 

1110 

v. Detroit R. Co. 1663 

v. Hill 1649 

Bland v. Bland 40 

v. Daniel 438, 1213, 1383, 1428 



TABLF OF CASES CITED. 
[The references are to the star paging.] 



XXV 



Bland v. Davison 429, 1507, 1522, 

1527, 1542 

v. Fleeman 100 

•>>. Dawes 100 

v. Lamb 40, 14-i2 

v. Warren 1131 

v. Winter 267 

v. Wyatt 204 

Blandheir v. Moore llln 

Blandin, Re 109 

Blaney v. Hendricks 1257 

v. Sargeant 850 

Blann v. Bell 1213, 1430, 1472 

Blanshard v. Drew 159, 808 

Blantru v. Brackett 844 

v. Hall 296 

Blatch v. Archer 467 

Blatchford v Chicago Dredging 

Co. 1663 

Blatherwick v. Carey 843 

Blauvelt v. Ackerman 1296 

v. Smith 1062 

Blaxland V. Blaxland 1328 

Blaydes v Calvert 1702 

Blease V. Garlington 1003, 1504, 2391 

Bleckley v Rymer 719 

Bledsoe v Carr 1576 

Bleeker v. Bingham 557 

Bleight v. M'llroy 1577 

Bleniel v. Shattuck 1591 

Blenkarne v Jennens 675 

Blenkhorn v. Penrose 418 

Bleukinsop v. Foster 1423, 1437 

Bleukinsopp v. Blenkinsopp 449, 

451, 452, 1055, 1824, 1834 

Blennerhassett v. Day 644 

Blessing v. Galveston 1661 

v. John Trageser 8. C. Works 314 

Blest v Brown 1394, 1399, 1407 

Bleuett v Jessop 1424 

Blevins i> Sympson 1416, 1417 

Blewett v. Blewett 1548 

Blewittu Blewitt 672 

Blewit v. Thomas 319 

v. Tregonning 1104 

Bleyer v. Blum 1699 

Bliffi.is v. Wilson 1299 

Bligh, Re 85 

Bligh v. Benson 580 

v. Darnley, Lord 1033 

v. O'Connell 86 

v. Trodgett 110, 307, 309, 454 

Blight v. Banks 842, 1381 

Bliley v. Taylor 1728 

Blind School v Goven 1796 

Blinkehorne v. Feast 1385 

Bliss V. Collins 806, 1675 

v. Little 1463 

v. Putnam 202, 1527 

Blithman, Re 61 

Block » Atchison, T. & S. F. R 

Co 149 

Blockett v. Bates 1485 

Blodget v. Hobart 841, 1548 

Blogg v. Johnson 3S3, 1256 

Blois v. Betts 1766 

Blouifield v. Eyre 388, 13-32, 1614, 

1682 

Bloodgood v. Clark 898. 1505, 1598, 

1720, 1734 

v. Kane 618 

Bloomar, Re 166, 1162 

Bloomstein V. Brien 296, 1624 

v . Clees 542 

Blore v. Ashby 406 

Blossom v. Railroad Co. 1492 

Blount v Bestland 90 

v. Burrow 227, 1229 

v. Garen 549, 584 

v, Kimpton 576 

v O'Connor 1370 

v. Winterton 259 

Blower v. Morrets 1558 

Bloxam !•. Chichester 756 

v. Hopkinson 1040 

v Metropolitan Ry. Co. 26, 241, 

244, 245, 899, 1598 



Bloxsome v. Chichester 
Bloxton v Drewit 
Bluck v. Colnaghi 

v. Elliot 

v. Galsworthy 
Bludworth v. Take 
Blue v. Watson 
Blue Ridge Clay Co. t 

Jones 
Bluestone Coal Co. v. Bell 
Bluett v. Jessop 
Blum v. Goldman 



756 

882, 883 

793,896, 811 

6t33 

578, 1834 

652 

1562, 1563 

. Floyd- 

830 
1660 
1214 
1511 



Blumenthal v. Brainerd 1743, 1752 

Blundell, Re 14H 

Bluudell v. Blundell 2 l J8 

Blundeu v. De»art 1842 

Blunt, Re 1694, 16'J6 

v. Clitherow 1750 

v. Cumyus 1402 

v Gee 1165 

Blyth v. Green 178 

v. Lafone 1862 

Blythe v. Fladgate 217, 223, 269, 2116 

v. Peters 1025 

Board man v. Davidson 380 

■ Jackson 1228, 1229 

v. Meriden Britannia Co. 1649 

Board way v. Scott 1381 

Boatwright v Boatwright 648 

Bobb v. Bobb 334 

Bobbctt v. South Eastern Ry 

Co. 649 

Bock v. Bock 1507 

Bod lam V. Riley 1258 

Boddington v. Rees 354 

v Woodley 40, 43, 894 

Boddy v. Kent 814, 1511, 1542, 1589 
Bode, Baron de, Re 133 

Boden v Dill 1081, 1666 

Bodeu's Trust, Re 193 

Bodger v. Bodger 824, 9.14 

Bodicoate v. Steers 1151, 1157 

Bodington o Harris 1134 

Bodkin u Fitzpatrick l'J4 

Bodman v. Lake Fork Drainage 

District 630 

Bodmin, Lady v Vandenbendy 677 
Bodwell v. Wilcox 1591 

Boehm v De Tastet 508 

v. Wood 1700, 1701, 1702, 1708, 
1710, 1711, 1713, 1729, 1741 
Boeve « Skipwith 1533 

Bofil v. Fisher 228 

Bogacki v. Welch 1679 

Bogirdus v. Rosendale Manuf. 

Co. 26 

v. Trinity Church 607. 615. 617, 
625, 654, 694, 695, 697 
Boger, Re 1685 

Bogert v City of Elizabeth 1661 

v II light 395, 1619 

Bogg ti. Midland Ry. Co 10'>1 

Boggs v. Brown 
Bogle v. Bogle 
Bo^ue v. Hnulston 
Bogwell v. Elliot 
Bohman v Lohinan 
Boileau v. Ratlin 
Boils v. Boils 
Bointon v. Parkinson 
Boisgerard V. Wall 
Bolander v. Peterson 
Bolckow ;>. Fisher 
Bol len v. Nicholay 
Bolders v Saunders 
Holding v. Lane 
Bolgiano v. Cooke 
Holland, Er parte 
Bolles c. Bolles 
Boiling v. Turner 
Bollinger v. Chouteau 
Bolman V Lohman 
Bolster v Catterlin 
Bolton, Re 



v. Bolton 
V. Bull 



1765 
1551, 1655 
367, 1643 

874 
304 

s:;s 

1673 
461 
190 
1648 
329, 720 
187 
727 
653 
363 
157 
334 
83 
1244, 1246 
402 
1631 
108 
1560 
409, 906, 937 
1612 



Bolton v. Dickens 561, 602 

v. Flournoy 1'iTi 

v Gardner 40, 617, 618, 669, 685, 

723,787, L462 

v. Lambert 196,561 

v. Liverpool 571, 572, 579, 943, 

1831, 1834 

V. Powell 324 

V. Ridsdale 407, 1515 

c Salmon 259 

v. SUnnard 222 

v. Williams 1569 

Bolion, Duke of v. Williams 1564 

Bol ware V Craig 378 

Bomar v. Hagler 9:il 

v. Means 303 

v. Parker 790 

Bombay Civil Fund Act, Re 1395 

Bonaparte v. Camden, Jtc. R. Co 46 

Bond, Ex parte 1360 

Re 1346 

v Barnes 70, 398, 798 

v. Bell 1401 

v. Conway 113 

V. Graham 250 

v. Green 996 

V. Greeuwald 1019, 1468, 1618 

v. Hendricks 286, 390 

v. Hopkins 559, 1660 

v Ma\ or of Newark 1661 

v. Simmons 114 

Bonelli, Re 864 

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

Bones v Angier 447 

Bontield v Grant 161,176,177,476 

Boiitil V. Purchas 1510 

Bon ham c. Newcomb 10U3 

Bonithon v Hockniore 1246 

Bonnard v. Perryman 1620 

Bonnardet v. Taylor 1837 

Bounell v. Griswold 545 

v. Lewis 1003 

Bonner v. Illinois Land Co. 1507 

v. Johnston 1775 

v. Worthington 1710 1711 

v. Young 889 

Bonnewell v. Jenkins 1096, 1105 

Bonny v. Bonny 216 

Bouser v. Bradshaw 81, 1079, 1725. 

1847 

v. Cox 1505 

Bonus r. Flack 1183, 1184 

Bookless c Crummack 1617 

Boon v. Colingwood 1713 

v McGuckea 1069 

v Pierpont 390, 586, 890 

r. Rahl 536 

Boone r. Chiles 361,569,678 

Boone County v. Burlington & 

M. R. Co. 1584 

Booracm r North Hudson 

County R. Co. 1637 

v Wells 287 

Bnosey ». Fairlie 46 

Booth v Booth 815,837,1391,21ir, 
V.Clark 1742,1751 

v. Coulton 1256, 1735 

v Leicester 791, 800, 1256, 1553, 
1614. 1626, i628 
V Milns 1096 

v. Penser 1309 

v. Rich 167 

v Smith 354, 759, 760 

v Stamper 341, 601 

v Thompson 1502 

v. Turle 655, 657 

v. Wiley 660 

v. 793 

Boothby v. Walker l-i"> 

Bootle v. Blundell 875, 876. 1014, 
1116, 1124, 1135 
Boovev v. SutclifTe 1710 

Borah v. Archers 208,1158 

Borden r. -Curtis 208 

Bordierti. Burrell 1071 

Boreham v. Bignall 430, 432, 1405, 
1427 



xxvl 



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



Boren v. Billington 402 

Borer v. Chapman 553, 1933 

Borland v. Haveu 313 

B. Thornton 1621, 1640 

Borneo Company v. Robinson 654, 
670 
Borough v. Whichcote 867 

Borrowscale v. Tuttle 994, 995 

Bors i> Preston 45 

Borthwick v. Evening Post 1648 

Borton v. Dunbar 1490 

Bosauquet v. Marsham 682, 1531 
v. Shortridge 1126 

Bosehetti v. Power 462, 749, 1780 
Bosher v Richmond & 11. L. 

(.o. 303 

Bosley v. M'Kiin 550 

v. Phillips 233, 313, 408 

v. Susquehanna Canal 1683 

Bostic v Love 845 

Bostock v. N. Staff. Ry Co. 1635, 

2307 

Boston v. Boylston 251 

Boston Bank v. Skillings, &c. 

Lumber Co. 1561 

Boston Diatite Co v. Florence 

Manuf Co. 1620, 1642, 1644 

Boston Iron Co. v. King 1232, 1244, 
1248, 1251 
Boston Rubber Shoe Co. V. Bos- 
ton ll ubber Co. 10, 1648 
Boston Water Power Co. v Bos- 
ton & Worcester R. R. 549, 
1637 
Boston Woven Hose Co. v. Star 

Rubber Co. 197 

Boston & Lowell R. Co. v. Salem 

& L. R Co. 1623, 1635, 1640 
Bostou & Prov. R. Co v. New 

York & N E. E. Co. 1719 

Bostwi* k v Menek 1742, 1751 

Bosville v. Brander 92, 122, 125 

v. Van Voorhis 542 

Boswell v. Coaks 68, 164, 307, 1381, 

1440 

v. Otis 457 

Boswortb, lie 1411 

Boteler v. Allington 569 

Bothomley v Squires 324,598,599, 

602, 803, 965 

Bothomly V. Fairfax 1740 

Bothwell ». Bonshell 86 

Botifeur v. Weyman 641,667 

Botsford v. Botsford 1407 

v Burr 196,374 

Botten v Codd 87,179 

Bottle Seal Co v De La Vergne 

B. & S. Co. 314 

Bottoms?). Corley 109 

Bottorf v Conner 650, 601 

Bntts r. Patton 249 

Bouche v. Ryan 37, 74 

Boucher v Boucher 1 120 

Bouchier v. Dillon 1497 

Boucicault r. Delafield 63, 64, 814, 
1009, 1017. 1544 
Bouck v. Bouck S23, 335, 336 

v. Wilber 671 

Bodinot r. Small 324 

Bouldenr. Lanahan 280,1056 

Bouldin ». Baltimore 1668 

Boulter v. Mut. Loan Ass'n 1652 
Boulton v. Beard 1418 

v. Pritchard 1129 

Boulo v. New Orleans, &c R. 

Co 1631 

Bound V. Wells 512, 536 

Bourbaud v. Bourbaud 6.3, 814, 

1588, 1675 

Bourdillon v. Adair 95 

V. Baddeley 823 

Bourdin v. Oreenwood 646 

Bourdon v. Martin 1591, 1743, 1756 

Bourgeois v. Schrage 1461 

Bourke v Callanan 1073 

v Davis 749. 892 

v. Donoghue 1387 



Bourke v Kelly 

v Nicol 
Bourn v. Bourn 
Bourne, Ex parte 

v Brickton 

v. Coulter 



630 
354 

1287 
152 

1470 
402, 423 



v Hall 1551, 1552 

i'. Mole 1772 

Bourton v. Williams 993 

Bousfield v. Hodges 1293 

v. Mould 834 

Bouslog v. Garrett 371 

Bousquet v. Bent 1008 

Boussmaker, Ex parte 51, 52 

Bouton v Dement 236 

Bovill v. Bird 911 

v. Clark 781 

v Cowan 943, 1826 

v. Crate 1663 

v. Goodier 1139, 1525, 1652, 

1643 

v. Hitchcock 1071, 1080 

v. Smith 579 

Bowden, lie 250 

v Crow 324 

v. Parrish 1290 

V. Russell 1( 70 

Bowditch v. Banuelos 2030, 2031 

v. Soltyk 1411, 1427, 156u 

Bowdon v. Allen 564 

Bowen, He 1043 

Bowen, lie, Andrew v. Cooper 200 

v. Brecon Ry. Co. 1743 

v. Cross 402, 778, 780 

v. Evans 675 

v. Fairman 1772 

v. Gilleylen 1461 

v. Idley 71, 294, 403, 406, 409, 

776 

v. Pearson 1825 

v. Price 374, 480 

Bower v. Baxter 1661 

v Cooper 1063 

v. Morris 1260 

v. Sockte des Affreteurs du 

Great Eastern 217 , 324 , 602 

v. Swadlin 609 

Bower Barff R. L. Co. v. Wells 

R I. Co. 759 

Bowers v. Keesecher 334,341 

v. Smith 68, 170, 1001 

Bowersbank v Colasseau 1738,1739 

Bowes, lie 171 8 

v. Bute, Marquis of 1163 

t;. Farrar 732 

v. Fernie 1824 

v. Heapes 1386 

v. Law 1081, 1654 

Bowie v. Ailsa 40, 1462 

v. Minter 302, 1518 

Bowker v Nickson 13o3, 1311 

Bowland v. Sprauls 418 

Bowles' Case 1633 

Bowles v Drayton 1369 

v Rump 1151, 1161 

v. Stewart 298, 378 

v. Weeks 1263 

Bowling v. Scales 1722, 1845 

Bowling Green, &c. v. Todd 1841 

Bowman v Ash 369 

v. Bell 1734 

v. Bowman 1099 

v Burnley 302 

v. Chicago, &c. Ry. Co. 779 

v. Floyd 1648, 1650 

V. Griffith 674 

v. Lygon 689 

v Marshall . 701 

v Middleton 1073 

v. O'Reilly 860 

v. Ilodwell 944 

ii. Wathen 560 

Bown, lie 100 

v. Child 933, 935, 936 

v. Stenson 989 

Browne v. Ritter 1281 

Bowra v. Wright 73, 166, 1162 



Bowser v. Colby 882, 884, 1111, 

1658 

v. Hughes 62 

Bowsher v. Watkins 200. 324 

Bowyer v. Beamish 604, 1527 

v. Bright 1473, 1535, 1537 

v Covert 252, 290 

v. Griffin 1411 

v. Pritchard 1568 

v. Woodman 102, 653 

Box v Jackson 119 

Boxy v . McKay 245 

Boyce v. Grundy 630 

v. Wheeler 1159 

Boyd, Ex parte 1556 

v. Alabama 659 

v. Boyd 68 

v. Brookes 1425 

v. Eby 852 

v . Gill 193 

v. Hamilton 1073 

v. Heinzelman 816 

v. Higginson 643 

v. Hoyt 303, 334, 338, 340, 346, 

559 

v Jaga 824,825 

v. Jones 212 

v. Mills 590, 601, 760 

v. Moyle 344, 368. 429 

v Murry 1722 

v. Petrie 1003, 1209 

v. Royal Ins Co. 1743 

v State 1614 

v Stewart 1120 

v. Vanderkemp296, 526, 1476, 1580 

v. Wiley 560, 1290 

Boydell v. Manby 1266 

Boyden v Partridge 193, 200, 222 

Boyer?'. BlackweU 1288 

v. Clark 1845 

B03 es v. Cook 973 

Boyle v. Brettws Llantwit C 

Co. 1732 

v. Hardy 1253 

v. Lysaght 1658 

v Sacker 1474 

v. Smithman 1835 

v Wiseman 1103, 1105, 1125 

v. Zacharie 1 

Boynton r. Barstow 314 

v. Boynton 64, 1422, 1507, 1538 

11. Brastow 2061 

v. Djer 1369 

v. Kneeseville E. L. Co. 536 

v. Richardson 1417 

Boys v. Morgan 1477 

BoVse, Re 1627 

B03 se. He, Crofton v. Crofton 915 

v. Cokell 766, 820, 1821 

v. Colclough 664,890,1148 

v Rossborough 552, 876, 1074, 

1075 

Bozon v. Bolland 540, 1842, 1845 

v. Williams 674 

Brace v. Blick 883 

v. Harrington 199 

v. Marlborough, Duchess of 678, 

1390, 1424 

v Ormond 1432 

v. Ta\ lor 329 

v. Wehnert 1660 

Bracebridge »> Buckley 1658, 1659 

Bracey v Sandiford 77 

Bracken v. Kennedy 690 

Brackenbury v Brackenbury 10i'9 

Brackett v. Tillot^on ll'Bfl 

Bracton v. Morris 1481 

Bradberry v Brooke 40,1482 

Bradhurv Butler 313 

V. Dickens 1648, loon 

v. Sharp l fi 4 ,J ! 

v. Shawe 607, 79, 

Bradby v. Whitchurch 1417 

Bradford Allen 1381 

v. Bradford 597, 1-134 

ik Central Kansas L. & T 

Co. 1842 



Bradford v. Felder 407, 1507 

v. Geixs 238:1 

v. Hamilton 1292 

v. Nettleship 1800 

v. Peckhain 1614, 1677 

v. Young 205, 553, 663, 1469, 

1794 
Bradford School of Industry, 

lie 16 

Bradish v. Ellamea 1267 

v Gee ' 973, 974, 1585 

v. Gibbs 

v . Oruut 

Bradlaugh v. Clarke 

v Newdegate 
Bradley v. Amidon 
v. Bevington 
v. Borlase 
v Chase 
v. Converse 
v. Crackenthorp 
v. Dibrell 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
[The references are to the star paging.] 
Brandred v. Paterson Machine 



XXV11 



v. Emerson 
v Hitchcock 
v. McKenna 
v. Morgan 
v. Richardson 
v. Riches 
v Root 
V. Snyder 
V. Stelfox 
v. Webb 



100, 186 

402 

10 

1558 

69 

987, 1072, 1078 

710 

1397 

860 

939 

402, 1536 

87, 90 

1387 

122 

197 

1623 

674 

885. 886 

1243 

798 

844 



Shop 395 

Braudreth v. Lance 1644 

Brandt v. Klein 944 

Bran ford v. Branford 564 

Branger v. Chevalier 1310 

Branham v. Commonwealth li£5 
Branksea Island Co., lie 669 

Branscomb v. Gillian 1157 

Brantley v. Gunn 1315 

Brasbridge v. W'oodroffe 1427 

Brasfield v. French 597 

Brasher v. Cortlandt 286, 538 

v. Macey 208, 1630 

v. Van Cortlandt 83,175, 100, 390 
Brass & Iron Works v. Payne 552, 
1648 
Brassey v. Chalmers 

v New York, &c. R, Co. 
Brassington v. Brassington 
Brasted v. Sutton 
Brattle v. Waterman 
Braund v. Devon, Earl of 
Braunstein v. Lewis 
Brawell v. Reed 



Bradley & H M Co v. Charles 

Parker Co. 1642 

Bradshaw v. Bradshaw 907, 909, 943, 

1353, 1778, 1780 

v Outram 283 

Bradstock v. Whalley 765 

v. Whatley 291, 352, 461, 763 

Bradstreet v. Baldwin 915 

v. Supervisors, &c. 46 

Bradt v. Kirkpatrick 328, 329, 558 
Brad well v. Weeks 49, 51, 538 

Brady v Brady 



Hamlett 

v. McCosker 

v. Waldron 

v. Weeks 
Bragg v. Lyon 
Braham v. Bustard 
Brain v. Brain 
lira man I v. Jones 

v Moss 
Braithwaite, lip. 



1180 
1019 
298, 1520, 1546 
1030 
303, 34. 
1157 
1649 

399 
1254 
1578 

433 



Braxton v. Lee 
v. Willing 
Bray, lie 

v Akers 

v. Creekmore 

v. Fromont 

v. Laird 

v. Thatcher 

v. West 
Wood ran 



209 

1734 

1842 

1717 

410 

311 

100 

1723 

997 

1077 

1803 

180, 181, 182 

418 

219 

1491 

345 

1436 

969 



1347 

26, 334 

1576, 1581 

974, 993, 1460 

1267 

1258 

1469, 1471 

324 

1841 

1111 

586 

325 

162, 475 

1257 

905, 918 



Braithwaite, Re, Braithwaite v. 

Wallis I779 

Braithwaite v. Kearns 891, 914 

r Robinson 232 

Braker v Devereaux 208 

Braman v. Wilkinson 1551 

Bramblett f>. Pickett 1030 

Bramley v. Teal I775 

Brampton v. Barker 678 

Bramston v. Carter 421, 802 

Bramwell v Halcomb 1645, 1646 
Branch, Ex parte 985 

Branch r;. Booker 219 

v. Browne I345 

i'. Dawson ttq 

Branch Turnp Co v. Yuba 
Brande r. Gilchrist 

v. Grace 
Branden v. Cabiness 
Branilett v. Lance 
Brandford v. Freeman 
Brandling v. Humble 
Brandlyn )'. Ord 
Brandon, Ex parte 
Brandon v Brandon 



Bray Electric Tramway, lie 1378 
Braybrooke v Attorney-General 

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

Drayton v. Smith 1711 1713 

Brazier Fortune 571 

Brazil, Emperor of v. Robinson 18 
Breach, Ec parte 1795, 1815 

v. Casterton 1131 

Breadalbane, Marquis of v. 

Chandos 664, 1626 

Brearcliff v. Dorrington 1040 

Brechen v. Hussell 
Breck ?'. Smith 
Breckenridge v. Brooks 



v Crouch 
v. Curling 
v Mullenix 
v. Xesbitt 
Sands 



1631 

313, 1551 

1660 

280, 856 

1647 

1128 

1800, 1801 

659, 674 

149 

281, 1476, 

1525, 1749, 1768 

987, 1599 

52 

917, 950 

51 

547, 548 



Brandon Man. Co. v. Prime- 601 

1548 



Brecton v. Russell 
Bree v. Marescaux 
Breed v. Lynn 

v. Pratt 
Breeding i' Finley 
Breedlove v. Nicolet 
Breeze v. English 
Brend v. Brend 
Brendle v. Herren 
Brennan v. Preston 
' v. Vogt 

Brenner ». Bigelow 
Brent, lie 

v Dold 

v. Maryland 
Brentwood Brick and Coal Co 

In re 
Brereton v. Edwards 

V. Gamul 
Breslauer r. Brown 
Bresler n. Pitts 
Bressemlen v. Decreets 



418 

1698 

551, 1247, 

1259, 1260 

417 

449 

1168 

851 

27 

45 

411, 423,992 

1003 



Brewer, Ex parte 

v. Boston Theatre 

D Bowman 

v. Connecticut 

v. Squire 

v. Tyringham 

v . Yorke 

Brewis v. Lawson 

Brewster, Matter of 

v. Bours 

v. Hatch 

v. Luut 

v. Thorpe 

v Wakefield 

Breyfogle v. Beckley 

Briaut, In re, Poulterti. Shackel 90, 

92 

v. Dennett 1797 

v. Reed 15C0, 1562, 1564 

v. Thomas 334 

Brice v. Banister 1:9 

v. Mallett 632 

r. Miller 113 

Brick v. Staten Island Ry. Co. 1642 

Brickhouse v. Hunter 1250 

Brickill v Baltimore 560 

v. New York 1195, 13n4 

Brickwood v. Harvey 523 

Bridge v. Bridge 953, 955 

v. Brown 1359 

v. Burns 964 

v. Eddows I077 

v. Johnson 1502 

Bridesburg Manufacturing Co.'s 

Appeal 1561 

Bridger v. Parfold 1288 

v. Thrasher 303, 314 

Bridges v. Canfield 27 



v. Hinxmau 

v. Longman 

v. McKenna 

v. Mitchell 

v. Robinson 

v. Sheldon 

v. Sperry 
Bridewell Hospital, lie 
Bridget v. Hamer 



232 

1408 
109 
641 

1653 
1299,1381,1440 

1158 

1847 
223 



Bridgewater v. DeWinton 726, 

774, 1835 
Bridguian v. St. Johnsbury & 

L C. R. Co. 190 

Bridgwood v. Wynn 1131 

Bridson v. Benecke 1642 



1029 
905 
546 
1624 
1799 
1073 
1841 

1653 
1040 



Bressler v. McCune 
Breton v. Mockett 
Brett, Re 

v. Carmichael 



677, 679, 700 

157 

1164 

283, 288, 

289, 419 

1468 

973 

1615 

1203 



v. East India & London Ship 



ping Co. 

v. Forcer 

v. Imperial Gas Co. 
Brevard v. Summar 
Brevoort ?>. Brevoort 

v. Detroit 

v. McJimsey 



1657 
92 

1666 
797, 1003 
228 
146.8 
16B0 



v. M'Alpine 
Brien v Buttorff 

v. Harriman 

v. Jordan 

v. Paul 
BrJerly v. Ward 
Brieseh ». M'Cauley 



1642 
543 
1732 

700 

1588, 1743, 1744 

526, 528 

1622 



Brings r. Beale 416, 804. 809 
v French 1615, 1627, 1965, 2274 
v. Law 1623 

V liirhmond 2^1 
v. Shaw 1R23 

V Smith 1040 
v. Wilson 643, 644,646. 1211 

Brigham v. Luddington 149, 191 

1743 

v Wheeler 1352 

V. While 1677 

Brighouse >< Margetson 536, 1600 

Bright, Ex parte 157 

Bright v. Boyd 2219 

v Bright 1271 

v. Eynon 1129 

V. Legerton 1003 

v. Rowe 2182 

v. Spratt 1599 

v. Tvndall 1001 

Brignall v. Whitehead 1510, 1690 

Brigstocke ?>. Roch SlO, 1573 

Brill v Styles 542 

Brink V Morton 1111 

Brinkerhoffr. Brown 303, 334, &38, 

588, 982, 1290 

V. Franklin 1026, 1550 



XXVIU 



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



Brinkerhoffti. Lansing 1392,1399, 

v. Thalhiuier 284 

Ki80 

Brinklcv v. Att.-Gen. 1573 

c Avery 48 

Brinson v. Halden 1765 

Briuton v. Birch 2u3 

Brisco v. Kenrick 214 

Bristed v. Wilkins 1039, 1H41 

Bristol v. Morgan 194 

Bristol Hydraulic Co. v. Boyer 1639 

Bristol. &c. Co v. Maggs 364 

Bristow v. Towers 50 

v. Whitmore 1001,2182 

Bristowe v. Needham 5<l4, 1747, 

1750, 1755 

Britain v. Cowen 161, 445 

British Dynamite Co. v. Krebs 1014, 

1503 

British Empire Shipping Co v. 

Somes 552, 1556, 1557, 1625 

Britisli Equitable Ass. Co v. 

Vale of Neath By. Co. 1513 

British Imperial Co , Re 1596 

British Mut. lnv. Co. v. Cob- 
bold 1841 
British South Africa Co. v. 

Conipanhia de Mozambique 629 
British & Foreign Gas Co., lie 1611 
Britnell v. Walton 508 

Briton Medical Life Ass. Ass'n, 

lie 1620, 1658 

Briton Medical & G. L. Ass. Co. 

v. Jones 1120 

Briton v. South Wales Ry. Co. 1130 

Brittain v. Dickson 1508 

Britten v. Britten 95 

Brlttin v. Crabtree 843 

Brittlebank, He 1358 

v. Goodwin 644, 1420 

v. Smith 892 

Brittou v. Brewster 328 

v. Johnson 993 

Broad v. Wickham 1743 

Broadbent ?'. Imperial Gas Co. 1635, 

1637 

Broadhead v. Marshall 1134 

Broadhurst v. Tunnicliff 1019, 1492 

Broadwood, Re 9!) 

Brocas v. Lloyd 905, 908 

Brock v. North Western Fuel Co. 357 

Brocken V. Martin 816 

Brocker v. Hamilton 1699 

Brocklebank, Ex parte 68,84 

V. East London By. Co. 1744, 1752 

r. King's Lynn Steamship Co. 26, 

Si 

Brorklesby v. Munn 1661 

Brocksopp v. Barnes 1233 

Brockway r.Copp 547,721,837,1042 

v. Wells 1392 

Broder v. Saillard 211, 261, 4"6, 

1168, 1637 

Broderlck's Will 552 

Broderick v. Broderick 1622 

Brodie r Barry 1723 

v. Bolton 1437, 1438 

v. Johnson 1144 

v. St Paul 1388, 1404 

v. Skelton 457 

Brograve v. Watts 1050 

Brokaw r. Brokaw 200, 314 

V. McDougall 1159 

Bromage v. Davies 1284 

Bromberg v. Heyer 368, 545, 707 

Bromfield V Chichester 508 

Bromilow v. Phillips 887, 1069 

Bromley. Re 187 

v. Hnlland 197,247,552,1680 

v. Kelly 316, 1779 

v. Smith 135, 156, 243, 1386 

r. Williams 241 

Bronson's Case 1069 

v. Keokuk 149, 191 

v. Kinzie 1241 

v. La Crosse, &c. R. Co. 26, 287, 

1463, 1548 



Bronson v. R. R. Co. 


994 


Brooch v. Kelly 


940 


Brook, Re 


1168 


v. Alcock 


39 


v. Archer 


1081 


v. Biddall 


908 


v. Smith 


166, 1345 


Brook, Lord v. Hertford, Lord 72, 73 


Brooke, Ex parte 


157 


v. 


1219 


v. Brooke 


1525 


V. Clarke 


1679 


V. Hewitt 


543 


v. Hickes 


92, 105 


v. Mosn n 67, 68, 16E 


,801,1584 


v. Tarbell 


K'76 


v. Todd 


977 


Brooke, Lord v. Warwick 


Earl 


of 


1489 


Brooker, Ex parte 


157 


Re 


1616 


v. Brooker 


1616, 1734 


v. Collier 


1268 


v. Smith 


449 


Brookes v. Boucher 


380. 721 


v Burt 


152 


v. Wbitworth, Lord 


335, 346 


Brookfield v. Bradley 


1029, lf.24 


*'. Williams 


1156-1158 



Brooking v. Maudslay 349, 354, 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 723, 760, 1377, 1381, 1405 
v. Cannon 



v. Carpentier 
v. Bias 
v. fJibbons 
v. Gillis 
v. Greathed 

v. Hamilton 
r. Howard 
r. Jones 
v. Kelly 
V. Lewis 
v. M'Kean 
v. Martin 
v. Mead 
v. Miller 
v. Mills County 
V. Moody 
v. Morison 
l<. O'Hara 
v. Purton 



325 

1631 

587, 588 

844 

1057, 1058, 1717, 

1718, 1744 

324 

1120 

1507 

1274, 1551 

295 

905, 918 

154S 

829 

378, 1642 

634 

777 

452 

314, 659, 1663 

690. 702, 706. 1590. 

1624, 1675, 2129 

v. Railroad Co. 1019, 1120 

v. Reynolds 236, 250, 1207, 1615 

v. Silver *43 

v. Snaith 1287 

v. Spann 418 

v Sutton 669, 700 

v. Taylor 807 

r. Wigg 888 

Brooksbank v Higginbottom 795 

v. Smith 645 

Broome, E.r parte 1727 

Brophy v. Bellamy 1342, 1359 

v. Holmes 1467, 1477 

Brotherton v. Chance 774 

v. Hatt 675 

Brougham, Lord v. Poulett, 

Lord 1428 

Broughton v Broughton 1234, 1235, 

1413, 1414 

V. Lashmar 791 

v. Martvn 507 

IV Fitch'ford 1778 

Broward r. Hoeg 214 

Browder v Jackson 190 

Brower i' Cothran 1120 

Brown's Appeal 1657 

Brown, Ex parte 168, 553, 907, 

1120, 1756, 1854 



Brown, Re 70, 191, 494, 571, 1048,- 
1407, 1449, 1798, 1874 
r. Armistead 997 

v. Ashley 1639 

v. Aspden 1472 

v. Bark ham 1259 

v. Bigley 1846 

v. Brown 79,553, 713, 846, 847, 
1029, 1228, 1320, 1626, 
2012 
v. Bruce 732 

v. Buck 334 

v. Bulkley 737, 844, 845, 951 

v. Burdett 1213, 1411, 1528 

v. Burke 1076 

v. Butter 802 

v Byrne 1168 

V.Chambers 856,875 

v. Clark 85, 102 

v. Clarke 1138 

V. Collins 108 

v. Commonwealth 1624 

v. Concord 1661 

v. County of Buena Vista 561 
v. Crane 989 

v Crowe 447 

v. Dailey 1299 

v. Dawson 41, 43 

v. Desmond 629 

v. De Tastet 219, 1232, 1250, 1318, 
1782, 2242, 2279 
v. Douglas 599 

v. Dowthwaite 255 

v Duluth, &c. R. Co. 26 

v. Easton 1081, 1666 

v Edsall 548 

v. Elton 92 

v. Frost 1284 

v. Fuller 1667, 1677 

v. Gellatley 1448 

v Gilmer 1288 

v. Guarantee Trust Co 334 

v. Half 1663, 1699, 1702 

v. Hammond 658 

v. Haskins 1678 

v. Hay ward 185, 876 

v. Higgs 1475 

v. Home 518, 526, 528 

v. How 1417 

v. Hull 68 

v. Johnson 197, 199, 260, 287 

v. Jones 1081 

v J. Wayland Kimball Co. 552 
v. Kahnweiler 844 

v Kalamazoo Circuit Judge 1071 
v. Keating 764, 2124 

v. Kelty 1775 

v. Lake 244, 779, 1170, 1206, 1540 
v. Lake Superior Iron Co. 517, 
560, 1734 
v. Lamphear 1973 

V. Launan 874 

v Lee 471,507,741 

v. Lexington and Danville K. R. 

Co 633,659,800 

v. McDonald 379 

v. Marzyck 1062 

v. Mathews 1481 

v. Metropolitan Gas Light Co. 1661 
v. Miner 378, 1003, 1073 

v. Minis 17 

v. Newall 1553 

v. North 113 

v. Oakshott 1290, 1834 

v. Pay son 571 

v. Perkins 670, 1250, 1827 

v. Pickard 839 

v Pierce 837,2389 

v Piper 314 

v. Pitman 251 

v. Porter 643 

v. Pringle 1795 

v. Rentfro 974 

v. Bbinehart 418 

v. Ricketts 217, 225,238, 415, 417, 
692, 828, 834, 1598 
v. Riggin 255 






Brown v. Robertson 


1594 


v, Rogers 


63,417 


v. Runals 


887 


v. Rye 


1391 


v. Sawyer 


4u3 


If. Seidel 


1646 


v. Severson 


1576 


if. Sen ell 


380, 1440 



v. Simons 1237, 1239, 1243, 1245, 
1246, 1247, 1258, 13./1, 1392 
v. Smith 1353, 1358, 1361 

v , South Boston Savings Bank 

1385, 1918 
If Stanton 452 

if. Stead 259 

v. Stewart 1677 

if. Storey 1127 

if. Story 39, 154 

v. Swann 1556 

v. Thomas 1517 

v. Thornton 1557 

if Trotman 1041, 1206 

v. Troup 1551 

if. Trustees 1620 

if. Turner 1157 

if. Vandermeuleu 1716 

if. Vand} ke 371, 667, 668 

v. Wales 342, 1558 

if. Walker 249 

v. Wallace 1061, 1276, 1283 

v Warner 1544 

v. Weatherby 232 

if. Weatherhead 79 

If. Weldon 313 

v. White 409, 991, 1576, 1580, 

2382 
if. Williams 1299 

if. Winans 1677 

if. Wincoop 986 

if. Winehill 1440 

v. Wood 457, 875 

Browne, Matter of 1S41 

v Blount 151, 1718 

v. Browne 598 

V. Collins 1225, 1413 

v Groombridge 1428, 1528 

v Huggins 229 

v. Lockhart 972, 1378, 1601, 1835 
* McClintock 1120, 1121, 1139 
v. Monmouthshire Ry. and 

Canal Co. 243 

v. Murray 1097 

v. Radford 649, 650 

if. Savage 881, 981 

v. Smith 978 

Browne's Hospital, Re, v. Stam- 
ford 13, 16 
Brownell 17, Brownell 371, 667, 668 
v Curtis 548, 563, 691 
Browning v. Barker 1192 
V. Barton 1192 
V. Bettis 1720 
v- Pratt 327 
v. Sloman 783 
v. Watkins 1561, 1562 
Brownlee v. Lockwood 251 
v. Martin 1071 
v Warmack 1548 
Brownsword v. Edwards 315, 542, 
549, 563, 587, 602, 615, 697 
Browse, lie 1589 
Broyles v. Arnold 1841 
Brine v. Allen 592 
v. Bainbridge 1408 
v. Bonney 1961, 2281 
v Gale 1381 
v. Kinloek 1600, 1610 
v. Manchester & Keene R Co. 1743 
v. Prebendary of Deer 1503 
v. Rawlins " 1130 
Bruen v. Crane 197 
Bruere v. Wharton 999 
Bruff v. Cobbold 894, 1026, 1460 
Bruin v. Knott 1360, 1415 
Bruiton if. Birch 203 
Brumagmi v. Chew 1462, 1472, 147'1, 
1479 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Brumfit v. Hart 821, 823 

Brumley v. Westchester Co. 

Mauuf. Soc. 145, 146, 735 

Brundage v Goodfellow 1307 

BruuUige v Morrison 1285 

v. Rutherford 216 

Brundred v. Paterson Machine 

Co. 1668 

Bruner v Battell 1031 

17. Planters' Bank 1622 

v Threadgill 1385 

Brungger v. Smith 576 

Brunker, Ex parte 1698,1699,1700, 

1705 

Brunsdon v Allard 1846 

Brunskill v. Giles 1093, 1094 

Brunswick v. Lamb 790 

Brunswick, Duke of v. Cambridge, 

Duke of 726, 764 

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

141. 142 

Brurton v. Rutland 1151 

Brufclike v. Der Nord Chicago 

Schuetzen V'erein 691. 1580 

Brush Electric Co. v. Brush-Swan 

E L. Co. 1548 

v. California Electric Light Co. 197 

Bryan, lie, Godfrey i> Bryan 92 

v. Bl} the 334, 342, 346, 347, 559 



v. Bryan 

v. Connick 

v. Kales 

v. Kennett 

v McGee 

v. Mansion 

v. Morgan 

v. Parker 

v. Reed 

v Rooks 

v. Sanderson 

v. Spruill 

v. Truman 

v. Twigg 

v. Wastell 
Bryant, Ite 

v. Blackwell 

v. Bull 

v. Bu^k 

v. Erskine 

v. Leland 

v. Livi-rmore 

v. Packett 

v. Puekett 

V Reading 

v. Russell 

v. Tracy 
Brydges v Hatch 
Brygger v Schweitzer 
Brynier v. Buchanan 
Bryou v Metropolitan Saloon 

Omnibus Co. 1064,1408 

Bryson v Nichols 1235 

v. Petty 388, 1042, 1480, 1705 

v. Warwick and Birmingham 
Canal Co. 398, 910 

v. Whitehead 2265 

Bubb v. Yelverton 1633 

Buccleugh v. Cowan 334 

Buccleugh, Duke of v. Metro- 
politan Board of Works 1860 
Buchanan v. Berkshire Life Ins. 



91 

1717, 1744 

553. 560 

1584 

251 

1805 

1168 

1111 

980 

114 

1062 

121, 122, 324, 545 

783 

176, 1525 

410 

1673, 1684 

1390 

1037, 1453 

1402 

261 

155 i 

68 

644 

89 

1326 

1381 

68 

933 

1029 

1570 



XXIX 



Buck v. Webb 991 

Buckell v. Blenkhorn 2198 

Buckeridge v. Whalley 909, 1252, 

1253. 1478, 1479 

Buckingham v. Buckingham 1682 

v. Corning 1517, 1523, 1537, 1579, 

1584 

v. Peddicord 524 

v. Wesson 1548 

Buckles v. Chicago, M. & St P 



Ry. Co 
Buckley, lie 

v. Baldwin 

v. Cooke 

v. Corse 

v Cross 

v. Howe 

v Howell 

v. Lyttle 

v. Puckeridge 

v. Royal N. L. V. Ass'n 
Buckmaster v. Buckmaster 



1576 

1814 

1716 

9U6 

412 

4D6 

411 

1874 

52 

79 

1731 

108, 

1753 

1487 

145,296 

1558 

1580 

1022 

1358 

1594 

858 

68 



207 



Co. 


1716 


v. (lurry 


51 


v Deslmn 


46 


t; Green way 


710, 1224 


v. Hodgson 


691, 1831 


v Lloyd 


1411 


v. .Malins 


1510 


v. 01 well 


1653 


Buchard v Boyce 


216, 240 


Buck v Brown 


53 


v. Dowley 


380 


V. Evans 


1548 


v Fawcett 


1460 


v. Lodge 


1775 


v. McCaughtry 


361 


v. Smith 


1663 



v Harrop 
Buckner v. Abrahams 

v. Ferguson 
Bucknor v. Forker 
Bucks, Duchess of !'. Sheffield 
Buckworth ('. Buckwo/th 
Budd, Ex parte 

v. Davison 

v Rutherford 
Budden v. Wilkinson 579, 1829 

Budding v. Murdock 384, 406, 417, 
418 
Buildington v. Woodley 411 

Budeke v Rattermau 1222, 1250 

Buden if. Dore 579 

Budge ». Budge 796, 1409, 1457 

Budgeu if. Sage 797, 800 

Buehler v. Cheuvront 1461 

Buel v. Street 1462 

Buenos Ayres Ry Co. v North- 
ern Ry. Co 629, 1070 
Buerk v. Imhaeuser 378, 547, 559, 
726, 2385 
Buffalo ». Pocahontas 334 
Buffalo Stone Co. v. Delaware, 

&c. R. Co. 630 

BufTalow v BufTalow 347 

Buffiugton v. Harvey 256. 1463, 

1479, 1575, 1577 
Buffum's Case 1032, 1056, 1686 

Buford 17. Holley 1071 

v. Kucker 735. 986 

v Keokuk. &c. Packet Co losi 
Bugbee's Appeal 1320 

Bugbee 17. Sargent 287, 334, 341 

B ugden v Smith 1829 

Bugg 17. Franklin 122 

Buie v. Mechanics' Building 

Ass'n 216 

Bulkeley if. Dunbar 298, 707, 708 

if. Eglinton, Earl of 1436 

Bulkley if. Jones 2308 

v. Van Wyck 68, 169, 737, 753 



Bull 17. Bell 

17. Bull 

v. Falkner 

If. Griffin 

v. Jones 

If. Loveland 

v. Nims 

v Withey 
B u lien 17. Michel 

v. Ovey 
Buller c. Walker 
Bui ley V. Bulley 
Bullinger v. Mackey 
Bullniore if. Wynter 
Bullock, Ex parte 

Ite 

v. Adams 

v. Boyd 

v. Brown 

v- Chapman 



846 
590 

324,1161 

602, 1065 

312, 733 

1611 

907 

1031 

188, v. *'.* 

875,1116 

1686 

366 

1847 

829 

87 

53 

83 

378 

668 

1551 

1622 



XXX 



Bullock v. Corry 

v. Holds 

v. Gordon 

V. Knox 

v. Menzies 

r. Perkins 

v. Kiehardson 

v Sadlier 

a Wheatley 
Buluier o Allison 
Buloid V. Miller 
Bulow v W'itte 
Bulstrode v. Bradley 
Bum pass v. Morrison 
Bumpus v Platner 



673 

53, 55, 58 

1076 

3:34, 851 

102, 104 

42b' 

484 

t>77 

1418 

1278 

1463, 1465 

105 

1224 

1051 

675, 1653 



Buubury v. Buubury 5( (, 5i».i-£< ' 
1731, 1834 
Bundine v. Shelton 1| 7 ' 

Bunford V. Steele f** 

Buun, Ex parte «* 

v. Buun 717, 1835 

Bunnell's Appeal J<»' 

Buuuett, lie 1610 

t; Foster 1 *^ 

Buutain ». Wood °*^ 

Buutin V Lagow M* 

Buuvau ». Mortimer 181, loo, 44o, 

4! 19 

Burbauk v Burbauk , D „. 1 ^' Q 12 

Burbridge » Robinson 1824, 18i< 

Bun-h v. Coney 232, 586 

i' Rich *"" 

»! Scott 1018, 1019, 1030 

Burcliard o. Macfarlane 581 

v. Phillips 1205 

Burdell v. Denig «« 

». Hay 1*0 

Burden v. M'Elmoyle <<» 

v Stein lb40 

Burdett v Hay 328, 1619 

v. Norwood 115 , 

v Rockley 1057, 1059, 1060 

Burdick v. Garrick 90, 304, 551, 641 

644, 12a9 

Bnrditt v. Grew Pi 8 ',^* 

Burdoine » Shelton 1002, Ion 

Burdon ». Dean 10o, I-- 

"»£» 309,1234,1414 

e. Burns **" 

Burger v. Potter ^l 

Burgess, Re *j° 

i> Bennett 8 ™ 

v Bottomley 68 

D Burgess J Y™ 

». C. Aultman & Co. i« 

v. Graffam 2g 4 l» 

r hSSST 795, 1380, 1395 

I Hills 79 5 ; 1380, 1395 

v Ungley 1 J*J 

*• 8mith 1<K 1TC 

t; Wheate 135, 1* 

•. Wilkinson 1197, 1198, 1296, 

Burgh « Kenny 13< • 

Burgin v. Giberson (80 

Burgoine v. Taylor 9,9 

Burk v. Brown 5*, lob, obi) 

Burke, lie 86, 1361 

»• Vurke mB _ Jj»J 

v. Crosbie 187, 12ib 

v. Daly If ii 

v. Fuller 1«*« 

D. Jones 64- 

v Lidwell 37 

Burkett v. Griffith 313 

v. Randall 10(8 

v Spray 1433,1457,1465 

v Wall 1632 

Burkitt I) Ransom 143 1 

Burland's Trade Mark, /Jl re 149 

Burlen v Shannon 1«7 

Buries t>. Popplewell 1616 

Burleson ». MoDermott 2 

Burlew v II ill man 138 1 

v. Quarrier 844 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Burling r. Tompkins 357 

Burlingaine V HoODS dUd, I»i» 

Burlington bank W. Cottin 44d 

Burlington, &c. R. Co. v. York 

County \]>*'\ 

Burliugtou v Carpenter 1UM 

Burmesler v. Baron Von Stenz 2o, 
813, lold 
Burn r Bowes . B . l Vt\ 

Burnaby v. Baillie 56 *',^i 

r. Griffin "02 

Burnaud r. Kodocanacni Ado 

Burn. i p v Haskins Steam-En 

giue Co. 
Burnbly v Stainton 
Burne v. Breen 
Burnell, He 

v. Wellington, Duke of 
Burnet v. Claghry 

v Denni-ton 

v. Theobald 
Burnetts Anderson 



V. Boyd 

v. Chetwood 

V. Craig 

V. Kinnaston 

v. Lester 

v. Nicholson 

v. Sanders 

v. Tate 
Burney v. Macdonald 

V. Morgan 
Burnham v. Bennett 

v Bailing 712, 797. 852, 1016, 1408 

v. Kempton 303, 1637, 1639, lb' 

v. Rangely 
Burnhisel v Firman 
Burnley v Jeffersonville 
Burns v. Beck Co. 
v. Cushing 




641 
13l1 
£92 
630, 1624 
991 
1099 
583, 586 
851 
430 
417 
461 
383, 1577 
321 
1639 
1C33 
1649 
1732 
851, 1077 
378, 844 
1168 
1576 
149, 447 
728 
702 
68. 630 
1576, 1578 
874 
v Trowbridge Waterworks Co 

v. United States 1580 

v Watk ins l obi 

Bushby v. Munday 800, 1626, 1628 

Bushel v. Commonwealth Ins. 



Burton v. Dickinson 
V. Fort 

v. Galveston &c Ry. Co 
v. Gleason 
II Perry 
v. Plummer 
V. Robertson 
v. Scott 
v Shaw 
v. Shildbach 
v. Tebbutt 
Burts v Beard 
Burwell v. Coates 
v. llobson 

v. Vance County Com'rs 
Bury v Bedford 
v. Newport 
v. Phillpot 
Busby v. Littlefield 

v. Mitchell 
Buscher v Knapp 
Busfield, lie 
Bush v. Adams 
v Bush 
v Linthicum 
v Madeira 
v. Sheldon 



142 

1257 

716 

334 

843 

1029 

1228 

569, 584 

311, 392 

1576, 1777, 2237 

295 



Edgefield 

v. Fay 

v. llobbs 

v. Lynde 

v. Rosenstein 
Burpee v Smith 
Burr's Trial 
Burr v. Burton 

v Sherwood 

v Wilson 

v. Wimbledon Local Board 
Burrall v Eames 

v. Kaineteaux 
Burrard v. Calisher 
Burras v Looker 
Burrell, lie 
Burrell v. Andrews 

v. Delevante 

v. Hatkley 

v. Nicholson 
v. Smith 
Burris v. Adams 
Burrough v. Martin 
Burroughs v. Booth 
v. Elton 
v. M'Neill 
V. Oakley 



144 

183 499 

' 361 

1698 

1680 

31 

220 

1020, 1949 

317 

1411 

974 



907 

759 

117 

1351 

230 

1 

592, 739 

1168, 1366 

417, 736 

1437 

946 

1406 

6°4, 830 

2, 580, 1831 

706 

324 

1099 

915 

1209 

1298 

989, 1774, 1775 



Co. 
Bushell v. Bushell 
Bushnell v. Avery 
v. Bushnell 
v. Hartford 
Busk v. Beetham 
Busney v. Spear 
Butchardt v. Dresser 
Butcher v. Jackson 

v. Pooler 
Butchers' Ass'n v. Boston 
Butchers' Slaughtering Ass 

Boston . 

Butchers" Union Co. v. Howell lb«5 
Bute, Marquess of v. James 888 

Bute, Marquis of v. Glamorgan 

shire Canal Co. 182J, l»d<5 

Bute, Marquis of v. Stuart "4<, 

1348, 1627 

Butler, Ex parte 59 

v. He *£ 

v. Ball !642 

v Borton l°" 

v. Butler 109, 223, 407, 1358, 170| 



659 



Burrow v Greenough 

v Ragland 
Burrowes v. Forrest 

v Gore 

v Lock 
Burrows v. Jemineau 

v. Stryker 

v Unwin 

v. Wene 
Burrv Port Co. V. Bowser 
Bursill v. Tanner 5(3, 6(b, J4d 

Burson v. Dosser 1&H 

Burstall v. Beyfus , r ^\^i 

v Fearon 433, 438, 1507, 1540 

Burt v. British National Life 
Ass Ass'n 244 

v. Dennett «' 

v Ryner . }"J» 

Burton v. Darnley, Earl of ldoo 



657 
552 

1861 
323 

1398 
664 
200 

1108 

1120 
43 



563,844 

295 

457 

718 

187 

1518 

1259 

1347 

42, 43, 1600 

465, 1048 

989 



v Catlin 
v. Clark 

v. Cooper 

v. Cot ting 

v Cumpston 

v. Cunningham 

v. Duncomb 

v. Freeman 

v. Gardener 

v. Matthews 

v. O'Hear 

v Rashfield 

v. Rashleigh 

v. St Louis Life Ins. Co. 

v. Spann 

r. Wearing 

v Withers 
Butler's Trusts, Hughes v. An- 

derson, In re jjj 

Butler Wharf Co., Re t ™-\ 

Butlin v. Arnold J^if 

v. Masters 1082, 1120, 146,, 14(6, 
1642 
Butman v. Ritchie 951 

Butt, Re „ 1( ^5 

v. Imperial Gas Co. 16d8 

Butterfield v. Macomber ** 

Butters, Ec parte ™ 

Butterworth v. Bailey 408, low 



473 
473 
865 
335 
1055 
1790 



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



XXXI 



Butterworth v. Robinson 1845, 

1646 

Buttler v. Mathews 620, 521, 522 

BuMon <;. Price 1504 

Buttrk-k i' llolden 845,982 

Butts v. Genung 282 

Buxton v. Buxton 2080 

v. James 46, 1640, 1643, 1863 

v Lister 1405 

v Maidin 1134 

v. Monkhouse 1725 



Buzard v Houston 830 

v McAnulty 839, 1071 

Byain v. Stevens 45 

v. Sutton 203, 1809 

Byde v. Masterman 349, 352, 728 

Byers v. Kranklin Coal Co. 1019 

Byfield v. Provis 1475 

Byington v. Call 1591 

v. Wood 1302, 13i)3 

Byue, Ex parte 1069 

v. Potter 969 



Byng v Clark 742 

Bvnum r. Ewart 545 

Byrd v Nunn 785 

Byrne v. Brown 406 

v. Byrne 1515, 1661 

v. Frere 811, 869, 952, 953 

v. Love 1350 

v. Norcott 1421 

v. Romaine 407 

Byron, Lord i<. Johnston 1665, 1669 

Bywater's Estate, In re 1734, 2127 



c. 



C v. D. 

Cabburn, Re 
Cabeen v. Gordon 
Cabel, Re 

Cabell v. Megginson 
Cable ?'. Alvord 

V, Ellis 
Cabrera, Ex parte 
Cadbury v. Smith 
Gaddick v. Masson 
Cadigan v Brown 
Cadle ft Fowle 
Cadogan v. Kennett 
Cadwell's Rank, Re 
Cady v. Whaling 



1570 

1412 

292, 294 

1802 

392 
171(1 
1120 

142 

652 
64, 814 

3(13 
1472 
1652 
1417 

221 



Caermarthen, Marquis of v 

Uawson 1054, 1060 

Cafe v. Bent 1342 

Caffrey v. Darby 1417 

Cage v Courts 916 

Cigill v. Wooldridge 1751 

C iliala v. Monroe 557 

Ciben, Ex parte 83 

Cahill v. Cahill 92, 109 

v Shepherd 52 

Cahoon v. Utica Bank 334 

Cahoone Barnett Manuf. Co. v. 

Rubber & Celluloid Harness 

Co. 298, 1642 

Caillard v. Caillard 1735 

Caillaud's Co v. Caillaud 26 

Cain v. Worford 1463, 1491 

Caincs v. Fisher 497, 519, 524, 530 

Caird v Moss 645 

v. Sime 1643, 1647 

Cairnes v Chabert 1724 

Cairo & Fulton R. Co. v. Titus 1123 

Cake's Appeal 1299 

Cakraft v. Gibbs 1126 

r Thompson 1081 

Caldecott v. Caldecott 217 

r Harrison 96 

Calder v. Henderson 1029 

Caldicott v. Baker 38, 87, 110, 111, 

179 

Caldwell v. Albany, Mayor, &c. 

of 1493 

v. Karnest 812 

v. Fellowes 126, 1432 

v. Hawkins 287 

v Hodsden 1491, 1494 

v King 402, 545 

v. Knott 550, 1629 

v. Leiber 1460 

i'. Montgomery 560 

v. Pagham Harbour Reel. Co. 

10, 408, 561 

v Stirewalt 1663 

v. Taggart 190 

v. Vanvlissengen 1642, 2315 

Cale v Shaw 1274 

Caledonian Rv. Co. v. Solway 

Junction Ry. Co. 1620 

Caley v. Caley 81 

Calhoun v. Powell 657 

California &c. Co. v. Cheney El. 

Light Co. 339 

California Electrical Works v. 
Finck 559, 850 



California Fig Syrup Co. v. Im- 
proved Fig Syrup Co. 145, 1648 
Calkins v. Evans 986 

Call v Ewing 318 

Callaghan v. Callaghan 1504 

v. Myers 1643 

v Rochfort 959, 960 

Callahan v. Jennings 1459 

Callanan v. Shaw 1463 

Calland v. Conway 1150 

Callendar v. Teasdale 1892 

Callender v Colgrove 1226 

Caller v Dade 318 

v. Shields 1576, 1579 

Calley v. Richards 576, 1834 

Callow v. Callow 102 

v. Howie 185 

v. Mince 1193 

Calloway v. Dobson 402 

Calltim v Emanuel 284 

Calmady v. Calmady 1163 

Calne Ry. Co., Re 1037 

Calverly v. Phelp 220, 222, 257 

v. Williams 1402, 1549 

Calvert v. Adams 1726 

v. Day 27 

v. Godfrey 166, 168, 1261, 1275, 
1278 
Calvit v. Markham 371, 688 

Calwell v. Boyer 841 

Camac v. Grant 36 

Cambefort v. Chapman 269 

Camblosv. Philadelphia R Co. 1662 
Cambottie ?>. Ingate 53 

Cambridge University, hi re 1858 
Cambridge Water-works v. 
Somerville Dyeing, &c. Co. 

334, 342 

Camden v. Mayhew 1285 

v. Stuart 1302, 1320 

Camden and Ambov R.R Co. v. 

Stewart 326. 327, 347, 349, 350, 

361, 362, 363, 790, 856, 1463, 

1492, 1676 

Camden, &c. v. Rower 21 

Camden Rolling Mill Co. v. 

Swede Iron Co. 149 

Cameron v. Abbott 360 

v. Cameron 449 

v. San Francisco 639 

Cameron's Coalbrook, &c Rail- 
way Co., Re 574, 909, 1842 
Camille v Donato 1004, 1440 
Cammack v. Johnson 1715 
Cammann v. Traphagan 662 
Cammell v. Sewell 664 
Cammeyer v. United German 

Lutheran Churches 302 

Camp " Bates 1259, 1628 

v. Mills 334 

v. Simon 843 

v. Taylor 26 

v. Waring 418 

Campana v. Webb 899, 1669 

Campbell, In re 83 

v. Allen 552 

v. Allgood 1633 

v. Andrews 358 

v. Attorney-General 908,934, 1574 



Campbell v Bainbridge 1120 

v. Baker 1283, 1285 

v. Beaufoy 604, 608 

V- Bowles 860 

v. Bowne 1508. 1515 

v Braxton 1770 

v Brown 365, 1841 

v. Campbell 70, 857, 992, 1236, 
1419, 1425, 1503 
v. Compagnie Generale 1716 

v. Crutcher 1028 

v. Dalhousie, Earl of 1574 

v. Dickens 293 

v. Foster 582, 1551 

v French 95, 97 

v. Gardner 1284, 1286, 1289, 

1290, 1291 
v. Graham 2182 

v. Hall 986 

v. Harding 93, 96, 1795 

v. Holy land 16 >0 

v. Home 1412 

v Im Thurm 157 

W.Joyce 158,411,696,812 

v. Lloyd's Bank 1716 

v. Mackay 335, 336, 337, 340, 544, 
545 1 355 
v. Macomb 284,' 1242 

v. Mesier 1016 

v. Morrison 386, 395, 1619, 1669 
v. Moxhav 1266 

v. New York 1120, 1517 

v. Paris, &c. R. Co. 360 

v. Patterson 843 

v. Powers 314, 417, 986 

v. Price 1579 

v. Railroad Co. 257 

v. Richards 1100 

v Runyon 1675 

t'. Scholfleld 1644 

v. Scott 1642 

v Scougal 925 

v . Seaman 1635 

v Seeley 830 

v Sheldon 201, 251, 392, 395, 555 
v. Sloane 860 

v. Snlomans 1559 

v. Taul 351, 759 

v. Tousey 251 

v. Walker 1271 

v. Wallace 201,251.553 

v. Watson 222. 257 

v. West 1508 

v. Western 671 

Campden Charities, Re 13 

Campe v. Sanrier 1285 

Campian v. Kille 546, 778, 780, 864, 
1142 
Camps v. Marshall 177 

Canal Co. v. Clark 1648 

Canal Company v. Railway Com- 
pany 863 
Canby r. Ridgeway 194. 986 
Candler v. Pettit 406, 1316, 1515, 
1531 
Cane v. Martin 1*44 
Canedy v. Marcy 1973 
Caney v Bond 2060 
Canneld t'. Andrew 1638 



XXXll 



Carifield v. Sterling 1569, 1570 

Canham v. Fiske 1138 

v Jones lb48 

v Neale 799, 1617 

Cann » Cann 940, 1070 

v. Wilson 2b' 

Cannell v Beeby 1433, 1456 

Canning v. Canning 1158, 1160 

Cannock v. Jauncey 1832, 1835 

Cannon v. Beely 1456 

v. Beggs 1257 

v. Cannon 564 

v. Collins 852 

v. Hemphill 997, 1023 

v. McNabb 1556, 1557 

v. Norton 287, 841 

v. Trask 26 

Canterbury, Archbishop of, Ex 

parte 1799 

Canterbury, Viscount, Re 133 

u. Attorney-General 133 

Canton v. McGraw 334, 885 

Canton Steel R Co. v. Kanne- 

berg 1642 

Canton Warehouse Co. v. Potts 586. 
601 
Cant's Estate, Re 1004, 1464 

Cape v. Adams 90 

Cape Breton Co v. Fenn 26 

Cape Fear Bank v. Stiuemetz 24 

Cape May, &c. R. Co. v. John- 
son 1614 
Capehart v. Huey 1382 
Capel v. Butler 153, 539 
v. MeCollum 361 
Capell v. Landano 991 
Cape Sable Co.'s Case 1676 
Capes v. Brewer 448 
Caplinger v. Sullivan 99 
Capner v Flemington Co. 395 
Capon v. Miles 665 
Cappeau v. Baker 916 
Capps v. Capps 229, 1524 
Caproni v. Alberti 1643 
Capt v. Stubbs 1424 
Capwell v. Sipe 887 
Carberry v. German Ins. Co. 1842 
Cardale v. Watkins 1557 
Cardell » Hawke 236, 1209 
Cardiff, Mayor of v. Cardiff 

Water-works Co. 1640 

Cardot v. Burney 1752 

Cardross, Re 96 

Cardwell v Cheatman 676 

v. Molyneux 1630 

v. Tomlinson 83 

Carett v. Elubbell 1281 

Carew, Ex parte 157 

Carew, fie 1291 1851 

v. Cooper 974, 1053, 1730 

v. Davis 1836 

v. Johnston 173, 372 

Carej » Brown 223, 243, 1459 

v Hatch 312 

v. Hillhouse 286 

v Hoxey 290 

v. Smith 402. 424, 425 

v Williams 857, 992, 1599 

Cargile V- Itagan 1274 

Cargill v. Bower 26 

v. Kountze 1556 

Carleton v. Leighton 62 

v. L'Estrange 420 

v. M'Enzie 182 

v Rugg 1638, 1663 

Carlisle v. Cooper 815, 1073, 16&5 

v. Foster 1075, 1115 

v. South Eastern Railway Co. 

241, 242 

V. Stevenson 1631, 1602 

v. Tindall 1624 

v United States 57 

Countess v. Berkley, Lord 1737 

v. Carlisl , Earl 1737 

Earl of v. Goble 1584 

Carll v. Snyder 1655 

Carlon v. Farlar 1037 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Carlos v. Brook 960 

Carlsbad v. Tibbetts 357, 390, 551, 
1648 
Carlyle v. Carlyle Water Co. 608 
Carmarthen, Mayor, &c. of v. 

Evans 1095 

Carmichael v Bowder 342 

v. Carmichael 655, 1252 

v. Hughes 1358 

v. School Lands, Trustees of 25 

v. Wilson 1234, 1414 

Caruace v. Grant 27 

Carnan v. Bowles 1646 

Carnatic, Nabob of the v. East 

India Co. 17, 628, 629, 658, 

704 

Carue o. Braucker 1081, 1343, 1366 

v. Nicholl 1089, 1128 

Carueal v. Banks 1003 

v. Day 626 

v. Streshley 526, 538 

v Wilson 718 

Carnegie v. Carnegie 100 

Carnes v. Piatt 573 

v. Polk 1459 

Carney v. Emmons 986 

v. Hadley 1638, 1663 

Carnick v. McKesson 843 

Carnochan v. Christie 1550 

Caro v. Maxwell 1461 

Carow v. Mowatt 281, 287, 1515, 

1516 

Carpenter v Aldrich 30 

v. Cincinnati R. Co. 212 

v. Cushman 1299 

v. Eastern and Amboy R. 

Co. 1148 

v. Edwards 840 

v. Gray 1548 

v. Groff 1118 

v Hoboken 298 

v. Muchmore 1030, 1031 

v. Providence Ins. Co. 1241 

v. Reynolds 1461 

v. Ritchie 830 

v. Robinson 256 

v. Snelling 881 

v. Talbot 149 

v. Wall 1101 

Carpmael v. Carvell 1403 

v Powis 574, 943, 1834 

Carr, Re 92, 1800 

v. Appleyard 947 

v. Callagban 249 

v. Eastabrooke 104, 107, 1801 

v. Henderson 1390, 1423 

v. Inglehart 329, 558 

v. Living 1347, 1361 

v. Morlce 899, 1619, 1669 

v. Taylor 90, 105 

v. United States 129, 141 

v. Weld 729, 1676 

Carrick v. Ford 66, 92 

v. Prater 840 

v. Wigan Tramways Co. 1411 

v. Young 815, 817, 818, 969 

Carrington o. 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, 

1116 

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

Carrodus v. Sharp 990, 14H8 

Carrol v Connel 12 : 13 

Carroll v. Brown 1624 

v. Kerschner 214 

v. Parran 1579 

v. Parsons 739 

v. Richardson 1548 

v. Koosevelt 334 

v. Sand 1624 

v. Waring 603, 639, 686 

Carron Co. v. Maclaren 1615, 1627, 

1674 



Carrow v. Adams 982 

v. Ferrior 1683, 1720, 1725 

Carskadon v. Minke 334 

Carson v. Dunham 1618 

v. Hughes 1157 

v. Pickersgill 42. 155 

v. Richardson 980, 1018 

Carta Para Mining Co., Re 32 

Carte v. Ball 230, 380. 714 

Cartee v. Spence 586, 972, 1 1 78 

Carter, In re 1755 

v. Balfour 336 

v Barnard 1440 

v. Bennett 1677 

v. Bentall 431 

v. Bosanquet 784 

v. Campbell 1147 

v. Carter 314, 1073, 1254, 1381, 

1432 

v. Colrain, Lord 1228 

v. Draper 925 

v. Ewing 892 

v. Green 1436 

v. Ingraham 378, 390, 991 

v. Jones 193 

v. Mills 230. 231 

v. Montgomery 160, 161, 1382, 

1457 

v. New Orleans 149 

v Pritchard 676 

v. Privatt 987 

v. Roundtree 1274 

v Sanders 230, 233, 304 

v. Silber 122 

v. Sleeper 844 

v. Taggart 104, 108, 2001 

v. Thorn 1254 

v. Torrance 523. 978 

v. Treadwell 334, 2087, 2094, 

2(197 

v. United Ins. Co. 197, 199 

v. Wollschlager 329 

Carteret, Lord v. Paschal 125, 127, 

1585 

Carthaus v. Ferrers 1249 

Carthew v. Barclay 972, 1601 

Cartier v. Carlile 1649 

Cartwright, Re 1610, 1628 

v. Cartwright 171. 864 

v. Clark 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551, 

1552 

v. Green 184, 563. 564 

v. Hateley 145, 632 

v. Last 983 

v M'Gown 1150 

v. Shepheard 1526 

v. Wise 68 

Cartwright's Case 1069, 1765 

Caruthers v. Hartsfield 1680 

Carver v. Leite 579 

v. 1'eck 236, 629 

v. Richards 1403 

Carwardine V Wishlade 445 

Cary v. Bertie 1362 

v. Cary 1699 

v. Domestic S B. Co. 1675 

v. Faden 1646 

v. Hamilton 1381 

v. Herrin 124S, 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 133 

Casborne v. Bersham 1114 

Case v Abeel 1185, 1186, 1305 

v. Blood 940 

v. James 1693 

v. Midland Ry. Co. 983, 1635, 

2307 

v. Minot 627, 630 

v. Potter 1228 

v. Towle 1486 

Casey v. Arnott 454 

v. Cincinnati Typog. Union 1642 

v Goodinire 1772 

Cash v. Belcher 215, 709, 710 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
[The references are to the star pagiug.] 



XX. till 



Cashell v. Kelly 
Casliin B I'radock 
CaskaJJou v. Kennedy 
Cason V. Round 
Cas* v. Higeubutaui 
Cassady v Woodbury 
Cassedy v. liigelow 
Cassell v. .Stiff 
Cassels v. Stewart 
Cassiday V McDauiel 
Cassidy v. Mc Far land 
c. Sliimuiiu 



302, 715 

350, L827 

231 

678 

1770 

379, 3S0 

1472, 1491 

46, 320, 1643 

219 

193, 247, 286 

1221 

149, 154, 191 



Cassoux i». Great Luxembourg 



364 

908, 1209. 1600 

553, 1664 

149 

778 

1450 

325, 328 

1009 

64 

190 

549, 584 

Fanshaw, 

643 

1459 

664 

1648 

1653 

27 

1643 

1412 

236, 1071 

661 

445 

199 

1568 

929 

876, 

1071 

415, 914, 1004 

13^6, 1440, 1449, 1450 

1104 



Ky. Co. 
Cast v. Poyser 
Castelli v. Cook 
Castello v. Castello 
Caster v. Wood 
Castle, Re 
Castle v. Bader 
Castle's Case 

Castle Mail Co., Ex parte 
Castlemau v Berry 

v. Veitcli 
Castleton, Lord v 

Lord 
Caston v. Caston 
Castrique ;», Itnrie 
Caswell v Davis 

v. Gibbs 
Catchcart v Hewson 
Ca'e v. Devon, &c Co. 
Cater, Re 
Cates v. Allen 

v. Loftus 

v Woodson 
Cathcart v Lewis 
Catherall v. Davies 
Catherine Dock Co. v. Mantzgu 
Catholic Publishing Co., He 



v. Wyman 
Catlin, Re 

v. Barker 

v. Harned 1394, 1424 

Catling v. King 365, 561 

v. Valentine 1635 

Cato v. Easly 161, 997 

Caton v. Caton 1377 

v Coles 393, 1558 

v. Lewis 1824 

v Kidout 1230 

v Willis 371 

Cator v. Butler 232 

v. Croydon Canal Co. 206, li>99 

v Reeves 1265, 1266 

Catt v. Tourle 485, 760 

Cattell v. I.owry 1661 

v Simons 507,1205,1207,1408, 

1842 

Catterall v. Hindle 1127 

v. Purchase 1577 

Catterina Chiazzare, The 633 



C. B. Keog Mauuf. Co. v. Wins- 
ton 1716 
Cecil v. Cecil 843 
v. Salisbury, Lord 170 
Cecil Natioual Bank v. Thur- 

ber 2047 

Celluloid Manuf Co. v. Arling- 
ton Manuf. Co. 911 
v. Cellonite Manuf. Co. 1302 
v. Goodyear Dental Co. 10, 1644 
v. Russell 888 
Central Co. v. Cushman 1654 
Central Georgia Bank v Iver- 

son 1585 

Central Georgian R Co. v. 

Mitchell 629 

Central Mauuf Co. v. Harts- 
home 20, 440 
Central National Bank v Con- 
necticut M. L. Ins Co. 686, 830 
Central Pacific R Co. v Dyer 334 
Central Railroad & Banking 

Co. v Pettus 1411 

Central R. Co. v. Central Trust 

Co. 1576, 2379, 2398 

v Cincinnati, J. &M. Ry. Co 1746 
v Kast Tennessee, V. & G. 

Ry. Co. 1743 

v. Grant L. Works 1580, 1584 

v. Hiawassee Co. 986 

v. Marietta & N G. Ry. Co. 1029 
v. St. Louis, &c Ry Co. 1743 

v. Saeffield, &c Ry. Co. 1743 

v. Southern Inland Nav. & 

Imp. Co 1683 

v. Texas, &c. R. Co 320, 740, 991 
v Virginia Steel and Iron 

Co 1120 

t; Wabash, &c Ry. Co. 1209, 

1299, 1716, 1743, 1746 

Central Ry. Co. v Kisch 1502 

Cerveny v. Chicago Daily News 



Cattley v Arnold 
Catton v Banks 

v. Carlisle 

v. Wyld 
Cauley );. Lawson 
Causton v. Holdich 
Cauty v. Houlditch 
Cavanaugh v. Scott 
Cave v. C ive 

v. Cork 

v. Saunders 



1157 

1163 

1531, 1535 

1081 

344 

1423, 1437 

1598 

1542 

674, 2345 

1509, 1538, 1540 

641 



Cavender v. Bulteel 1488 

v Cavender "26, 828, 855 

Cavendish v. Fleming 1234 

v. Mercer 1308, 1358, 1360 

Caverly v. McOwen 1841 

Cavil v. Smith 1054 

Cawley v Leonard 1026 

Cawthorn v. Chalie 588 

Cayce v Powell 87 
Cay ley v. Sandycroft Brick 

Co. 720 

Cazenove v. Cutler 1243,1245,1247 

v. Pil king ton 2270 

VOL. I. — c 



Co. 

Chace v. Holmes 
Chadbourne v. Coe 
Chadoin v. Magee 
Chadwell, Re 

v. Jones 

v Jordan 

v. Winston 
Chadwick, Ex parte 



545 

417, 736 

256 

1623 

1567 

815 

1614, 1623, 1624 

989 

506 



Broadwood 420, 615, 667, 702, 

704 

v. Chadwick 15:H) 

v. Holt 1036, 10.39 

v Island Beach Co. 1062 



v. Maden 

v. Pubble 

v. Turner 
Chaffen v. Wills 
Chaffers v Baker 

v. Headlam 
Chaffin v Hull 

v. Kimball 

v. St. Louis 



230,231,279 

1S21 

780, 782, 1485 

1107 

520, 1592, 15"4 

203, 204, 1771 

550 

326, 327, 526, 85'! 

1627 



Chaffraixv. Board of Liquidation 197 


Chalfant v. Monroe 




170 


Chalk v Raine 829, 881, 8! 


982, 






1720 


«>. Thompson 


1183, 


use 


v. Wyatt 




1639 


Challenger v. Royle 


1640, 


1642 


Challie v. Gwynne 


795, 


1601 


Challnor v. Murhall 




318 


Chalmer v. Bradley 




725 


Chalmers v. Chambers 


378, 3' 


v. Laurie 




434 


Chalon v. Webster 




251 


Chamberlain, Ex parte 




1743 


lie 




1798 


v. Ager 




657 


V. Almy 




1561 


o. Chamberlain 




1328 


v. Gallup 




1461 


v. Juppiers 




1110 


v. Knapp 




570 


v. Thacker 




223 



Chamberlayne v. Brockett 1491 

v. Dummer 1633,2306 

Chamberlin v. Estey 1418 

Chambers, Ex parte 1359 

v. Baptist Edu. Society 20 

v. Bicknell 202, 252 

v. Bull 180 

v. Caulfield 1130 

v. Chalmers 361, 379 

v Chambers 658 

v. Goldwin 194, 260, 261, 668, 

1719, 1769 

v. Penland 1625 

v. Robinson 1135 

v. Smith 837, 857, 1233, 1394 

v. Toy u bee 1594 

v. Warren 844 

v. Wright 288 

Chambless v. Taber 1621 

Chainbliss v. Smith 841 

Cbamley, Lord v. Dunsany, Lord 

842, 86S, 1370 

Champ v. Moody 1368 

Chanipernowne v. Scott 1299, 1843 

Champion, Ex parte 1258,1259 

v. Brown 285 

V. Parish 318 

Champliu v McLeod 1653 

v. New York, Corp. of 735 

v. Parish 254.365 

Champueys v. Buchan 417, 834, 

2369 

Chancey v. Fenhoulet - 568 

». May 25, 238 

Chaurellor v. Gummere 1284 

v. Morecraft 223, 268 

Chandler, He 1840 

v. Brainard 916 

v. Goodrich 1156 

v. Herrick 852 

v. Home 1101 

v. Jenks 986 

v. Pettit 1315 

v. Siddle 1742 

Chandos, Duke oft'. Talbot 183 

Chant v. Broyvn 577 

Chapeaurouge v Carteaux 1707 

Chapin v Coleman 618, 626, 842 

v. Mann 2342 

v. Perrin 1459 

v. Sears 334 

v. Walker 1551 

Chaplin, He 1611 

v. Chaplin 163 

Chapline r. Beatty 734 

v. Betty 1676 

v Chapiine 1061, 1277 

v. Moore 1358 

Chapman, Re 1770 

v. Banker & Tradesman Pub 

Co. 236, 312, 329 

i'. Barney 402 

v. Beach 1727 

v. Brown 1020 

v. Butler 560 

v. Chapman 379, 381, 859 

v. Corpe 652 

v. Farmer 1237 

v. Ferry 567 

v. Forbes 559 

v. Fowler 1286, 1292 

v Hamilton 287,288 

v . Hammersley 1462 

v. Hunt 212, 314, 368 

v. Lee 1556 

v. Lipscomb 313 

v McMillan 1299 

v. Midland Ry. Co. 1444 

v. Partridge 1138 

v. Pittsburg & S. R. Co 208, 390, 
1221 
v. Real Property Trust, Lim'd. 

9S5, 1589 
v. Robertson 1238 

v. Smith 1111, 1112. 1248 

D. Tibbits 1363, 1364 

v. Toy Ling 1632 



XXXIV 



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



1385 
660 
819 

lu20 



Chappedelaine v Dcchenaux665,668 

Chappellv Davidson lbbb 

v Gregory 1463, 14b4 

v. Griffith *»* 

v. Purday "o4 

v. Rees £«" 

Chappie v. Cadell *» 

Charitable Asso. v. Baldwin ^ -& 

Charitable Donations, Comm'rs 

of v. Hunter "id 

Charkieh, The **1 

Charles w. Dunbar -,« So- 

». Fiuchley Local Board IV,. «° 
r. Jones 
D. Kowley 
v. Shepherd 
Charles Lafitte & Co., Be 
Charles River Bridge v Warren 

Bridge 945, 961, 1042, lOib, 

1079,1110,1629,1635 
Charleston Ins. Co. ». Hotter bdO 
Charleston Ins. & Tr. Co. v. 

Sebrig ZD 

Chariotte, Columbia, &c. R. ^°- 

m. J'' iin' 10 id 

Charlton v. Charlton 1450, 1840 

v. Coombes 578, 943, 1834 

v. Scoville 
v. West 

Charman v. Charman 

Charnock v. Dewing 

Charras v. Pickering 

Charter, Ex parte 
Charter 



Chennell, Re, Jones V. Chennell 

80, o5o 

v. Martin 1179,1181,1182,1185, 

119 1 

Chenowith v. Smith 1492 

Chepstow Bobbiu Mills Co., Re 31 

Cheraw, &c R. Co v. Marshall 

150i 

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 129 

Cherry v. Belcher 90 

v. Clements «« 

v. Monro 

v. Stein 

Chesapeake & Ohio Co. •■ 

Young !6dl 

Chesapeake &c. Canal Co. v. B. 

& O. R. R Co. 16i5, 16.6 

Chesapeake, &c. R Co. i». Huse 395 
Cheshire Iron Works v. Gay 



Child v. Comber 

v. Gibson 

v Godolphin 

v. Mann 
• v Stenning 
Childers v. Dean 
Childress v. Harrison 

v. Hurt 

v. Vance 
Childs v Horr 



655 

m 

655 

1560, 1566, 1569 

334, 385, 406 

1260 

12*7 

1281, 1-90 

1278 

829, 982 



Chase, lie 
v. Cannon 
t> Chase 
v. Dunham 
v. Heaney 
tr. Joiner 
v. Kenniston 
v. Lincoln 
v. Locherman 
v. Manhardt 
v. Minot 
Palmer 



779 

177, 476 

1026 

1102 

36 

1182, 1319 

1411 

1381 

334 

634, 1621 

413, 414 

1841 

1285 

920 

875 

1411 

841, 1668, 1771 

1638 

90,314 



Cheshunt College, He 
Chess v. Chess 
Chester v Apperson 
v. Canfield 
v Chester 
v Halliard 
v. Life Association 
v Me'vopolitan Ry. Co. 
Chester Iron Co. v. Beach 
Cheswell v. Chapman 
Chesworth V Hunt 
Chetham v. lloare 
Chetwood v Brittan 

v. Coffin 
Chetwynd v. Lindon 



1852 

1118 

386 

749 

1540 



v. Searls 334, 335. 338, 341, 588 



v. Springvale Mills Co 
v. Tuttle 
v. Vanderbilt 
v. Winans 
Wooster 



940 
1642 

145 
1071 
1642 



Cheuvete v. Mason 

Chevet v. Jones 

Chew v. Bank of Baltimore 

v. Hyman 
Chewett v. Moran 
Chibnall v. Paul 
Chicago v. Cameron _ 

v. Wright 1620, 16o0 

Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Union __ 
Rolling Mill Co ' 

Chicago & A. R. Ferry Co v. 
Wiggins Ferry Co 

" » -n New 

1657 




1742 

58 

1620 

129, 130 

1425, 1778 

1459 

324 

137 

959 

4<-2 

1653 



15H f 15^1532; 1533 Chicago & A R Co. .. New 

1 ?. 1 ^! l °- 1 ' ' cin i Vnrk &c R. Co. 



Keokuk 

1 

Union 



1743 



Chase's Case 584 590 617, 787, 

1047,1166, Iil5. lilb 
Chatfield v. Berchtoldt 441, 453 

Chattanooga Medicine Co. v. 

Thedford 1548 

Chatteris v. Isaacson &o- 

v Young laoi, ld>d 

Chatterton v. Thomas 409, 505 

v Young 18 " 

Chauncey v. Tahonrden 568 

Chav tor v. Trinity College 239 

Chealefl Kenward 1J"'- 

Cheatham v. Audley, Lord 1236 

v Grugeon 128b, l ^ 

v. Huff ■>". 

v . Morrison ££ 

v . Pearce bl ',£a 

Cheavinw Walker lb4H 

Chedworth, Lord V. Edwards 1652 

Cheek v. Tilley 16" 

Cheeseborough v. Wn g h * 4 ^ 4 ^J 

Cheesman, Re 1*40 

v Thorne ***&» 

Cheever v. Perley 64 652 

t> R. & B. R R Co 4, 1021, 

1639, 1716, 1724, 1736 

Cheltenham & S. Ry Carriage 

and W. Co., lie 10 1 

Cheney v. Belcher »w 

„. Glea.son 986, 1168, 1470 

r. Patton 65° 

»i Straube 54- 

Chenuel v Churchman 



York. &c R. Co 
Chicago. S.c. R. Co. v 

&c Packet Co. 
Chicago. &c R. Co. .. 

R M. Co. 1548 

Chicago & S. E. R Co. v. Cason 

lilb, lido 
Chicago, &c. R Co V. Frary 1061 
Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Ot- , 

tawa lbM 

Chicago Artesian Well Co. V. 

Conn Mutual Ute Ins. Co. 1 

lOOd 

Chicago Building Society r.^^ 

Chicago & Calumet R M. Co ^^ 

v Scully 9 , 9 

Chicago Land Co. v. Peck ^ 

Chicago, m. & st. P. Ry • 

Third Nat. Bank 1548 

Chicago Mun. G. & F. Co. v. 

Lake „ 

Chicago P S Exchange v. Mc- 

Claughrv H*" 

Thicarro St L. & N. R Co 
Chl Macomb 178, 388, 543, 586 
590, io» 
Chichester v Chichester 



B Kansas City, &c. R Co. 15 I 
B Chiles v. Boon 458, 513 

1638 | Chillingworth v. Chillingworth 

Chils v. Gronlund J';43 

Chilton ». Campbell 156i, 1664 

■K.London 239, 3bl,83i 

Chinn v. Caldwell ^"O 

Chinnock v Ely, Marchioness 
of lu 

v Sainsbnry 1081 

Chion, Ex parte oJ 

Chipman v. Hartford, City of 
, v Sabbaton 
303 Chippendale v Tomlinson 
287, 1533 Chisholm v. Adams 
795, 1394 v. Georgia, State of 
1553 Chissum v. Dewes 

Chittenden v Brewster 
Chitty v. Bray 

v. Parker 
Chivers v. Bax 
Chlein v. Rabat 
Choate v. Tighe 
Cholmley v. Oxford, Counters ^ 

Cholmondeley v. Clinton 200, "212, 

213 216, 229, 230, 233, 234 266, 

41 5, 408, 420,559, 577.672 1237, 

1461,1559,1619,1650 

Earl v. Oxford, Earl j33 

Chorltonf. Dickie 970 9^9 

Choteau v. Rice 368, 82b, (Ml, ibdb 

Chowick ». Dimes old, 104* 

Chownev Bajlis oo 

Christian r. Anderson Wis 

«. Atlantic &N.C. R. Co. 133 

v Cabell 

v Crocker 

v. Devereux 

v. Foster 

v State 

v. Taylor 

v Wrenn 

Christiansborg, The 

Christie, He 

v. Cameron 

v Christie 

I v. Craig 

v. Gosling 

v Griffing 

i Christ Church, Ex parte 

! Christ-Church Inclosure 

i fie 

I Christmas v. Campbell 

Christopher v. 

v Cleghorn 
Christophers v. Spaike 
v. White 



794 



302 

206, 250, 319 

1432 

560 

724 

868, 1553 

633 

1358 

162, 476 

347, 34 !» 

16c3 

1503 

1677 

1611 

Act, 

239 
1670 
897 
431 
284 
1235, 1414 



Christ's College v. Widdrington 843 
Christ's Hospital, Exgorte^^ 



v, Donegal, Marquis of 

v. Hunter 
Chick v. Nicholls 
Chickering, Re 

v Fullerton 
Chicot V. Ivequesne 
Chicot County w Sherwood 
rhidwick v. Prehble 
Child v. Brabson 



858, 875, 

883, 912 

722, 769, 

1829 

813 

1423 

212, 236 

197 

297, 892 

545 

1821 

508 



13, 415, 1459 
i. Attorney- 

138 

1157 

618 

1202 

169 

113, 187, 1411 

421. 506. 509 804, 

1031, 1589, 1591 

Chugg v Chugg 382, 1369 

Church v. Holcomb « . < 

v. Ide " ' ]071 

^S 39,41,42,1590 



v Grainger 

Governors of 
General 
Christy's Appeal 
Christy v. Christy 
Chubb v. Carter 

v Griffiths 

v. Stretch 
Chuck v. Cremer 



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



XXXV 



Churchill v. Bank of England 1042 

v Collier 830 

v. Lauer 303 

Churchward v. The Queen 133 

Churton v. Douglas 1649, 1654, 

1655 

v. Frewen 577, 781, 1834 

Chute v. Dacre, Lady 778 

Cincinnati v. Cameron 355 

Cincinnati R. Co. v. Sloan 1463, 

1491 

Citizens Coach Co. v. Camden 

Horse R. Co. 1664, 1669 

Citizen's National Bank v. Day- 
ton 221 
Citizens' Street Ry. Co. v. 

Spahr 314 

City Bank v. Bangs 842, 1470, 1481, 

1563, 1564, 1567, 1568, 1569, 1571 

v. Bartlett 334 

t> Skclton 1565 

City of lierlin. The 149i) 

City of Glasgow Bank, Re 1069 

City of London Brewery Co. v. 

Tennant 1631 

City of Moscow Gas Co. v. Int'l 

Financial Society 26 

Citv National Bank v. Hunter 1461 

Clack v. Carlon 1235, 1414 

Claflin v. Bennett 417 

v. Gordon 23-5 

v Hamlin 161S 

v Hopkinton 1661 

Clagett, lie 1212 

v. Phillips 572, 1834 

v. Worthington 271 

Clancarty v. Latouche 666 

Clancy v. Craine 585 

Clanricarde, Marquis of v. Hen- 

ning 1397 

Claparede v Commercial Union 

Association 417, 785 

Clapp v. Balch 30 

v. Bromagham 1151 

t; Dittman 313 

v. Shephard 317 

v. Sherman 1299, 1309 

v. Stoughron 89, 128 

v. Thaxter 1002, 1018, 1019, 1020, 
1030, 1475, 1575, 1579 
Clarbrough v. Toothill 1860 

Clare v. Clare 1411 

v. Wood 884, 1037 

Clare County v. Auditor-Gen- 
eral 1381 
Clarendon, Earl of v. Hornby 1156, 
1157 
Claridge v. Hoare 563, 564, 610 
Clark's Appeal 1661 
Clark, Re. 99 
v. Abington, Lord 1254 
v Ball 1004 
v. Bell 1270 
v . Blair 659 
v. Brown 1120 
v. Burgh 125 
v. Carlton 1168 
v. Clapp 1618 
v. Clark 98, 109, 389, 491, 1481, 
1648, 1699 
v. Congregational Society 1112. 
1116, 2337 
v. Cort 2043 
v. Covenant, &c. Ins. Co. 1624 
v. Crout 68 
v. Davis 395, 557 
v. Dew 505, 1721, 1725 
v. Dibble 033 
v. Fergusson 28, 1643 
v. Fisher 852 
v. Flint 550, 630, 1902 
v. Freeman 1648 
v . Ganz 1661 
v. Garrett 15W1 
v Gill 908,911 
V. Oirdwood 298. 1416, 1433 
V. Ha.l 1013, 1028, 1029, 1030 



Clark v. Harwood 




360 


v. Hershey 




1168 


v. Hezekiah 




109 


v. Hull 




1531 


v. Hunt 




846 


v. Jacques 




1600 


v. Jeffersonville R. Co 


354, 1631 


v . Keene 


1530 


1532, 163o 


v. London School Hoard 1081, 






1380, 1401 


v. Long 




287, 292 


v. Malpas 822, 889 


, 912, 1028, 




1083 


1440, 1554 


v. Molyneux 




1126 


v. Oakley 




844 


v. Patterson 




634 


v. Phelps 


547, J 


v. Piatt 




68 


v. Raymond 




1716 


v. Reed 1376, 


1381, 


1386, 13:t!>, 
1400. 1448 


v. Reyburn 


1,256 


998, 2214, 
2215 

4, 360, 38 •> 


v. Rivers, Lord 


322, £ 


v. Robbin 




1246 


v. Saginaw City Bank 


617 


v. Sawyer 




1411 


v. Simpson 




1610 


v. Slay ton 




2 


v. Smith 197 


, 1242, 


1345, 1246 


v. Soc. in Keene 


403 


406, 1076. 


1120 


, 1121, 


1125, 1147 


v. Spears 




837 


v. Stephenson 




1159 


v Taylor 




1551 


v. Turnbull 




354 


v. Wardwell 


246, 


1661, 2323 


v. Waters 




448 


v. Webb 




253 


v. Willis 




1221 


v. Willoughby 




987 


t>. Wilson 




325, 979 


v. Wood 




1490 


v. Wray 




418 


v. Wright 




878 


Clarke, Ex parte 




511, 1069 


Clarke, Re 


70, S 


v. Abingdon 




1254 


v. Batters 




1653 


v. Birley 




322 


v. Brad la ugh 




154, 886 


v. Bridge 




1484 


v. Byne 




1565 


v. Callow 




561 


v Calvert 




58 


v. Clark 




1638 


v. Clarke 




424, 434 


v. Clayton 




1151, 1161 


v. Cookson 




1071 


v. Dunn 




964, 96S 


v. Klliott 




1774, 1775 


v. Hart 




L377, 150.3 


v. .Jennings 




956 


v. Law 




889 


v Morey 




49 


v. Ormond, Earl of 388 


.666,667, 


669, 1615, 


1616, 1617 


J' Ormonde 




1626 


v. Periam 




348, 853 


v. Price 




1654 


v. Rawlins 




710 


». Siffery 




920, 1099 


v. Sampson 




1411, 1413 


V Seton 




1254 


V. Sibley 




1239 1 


v Thornton 




1737 


V. Tinsley 




951 


v. Tipping 


63, 385, 4.1 






814, 1928 


v. Toleman 




710 


t>. Turton 




852 


V. Van Reimsdyk 


841 


, 842, 843, 
846 


v. White 




844 


v. Wilmot 




160. 710 


O. Wilson 




195, 1774 


t\ Woodward 




95 



Clarke v Wyburn 40, 1482 

v Yorke 418 

Clarke's Charity, Re 1854 

Clarkson v. De Peyster 237, 2U5, 

301, 303, 315, 557, 559. 1253, 

1369, 1770, 1771, 1778 

v. Dunning 159 

v. Edge 1072,1081,1654 

v. Elbridge 460 

v. Read 1281, 1282 

v. Scrogins 793 

Clason v. Lawrence 301 

v- Morris 524, 532 

Clavey v. Lord 1071 

Clay v. EJgerton 313 

v. Gurley 3:34 

v. Pennington 1359, 1360 

v. Richardson 1382 

v. Ruflbrd 245 

v. Towle 737 

Clay and Tetley, Re 251 

Clay brook v Wade 532 

Clayton v. Anthony 1624 

v Chichester 525 

v. Clarke 71. 80 

v Finch 1053 

v. Glover 1284 

v. Gresham 98, 18o9 

v. Martin 1666 

v. Meadows 703. 705 

v. Nugent 111!) 

v. Thompson 842 

v. Yarrington 1121, 1136 

Clayton Mills Manuf Co., Re 1476, 

Claxton, Ex parte 74, 112 

v. Claxton • 68 

Clearke v. Angier, Lord 90 

Cleaver v. Smith 801 

v. Younger 1705 

Cleaves v. Foss 365 

Cleeve v. Gascoigne 1121, 1123, 1137 

V. Mahaney 1635 

Clegg v. Clegg 170 

v. Kdmondson 722 

v. Fishwick 200, 1728, 1729 

i'. Hands 324, 1654 

». Rowland 250 

?'. Varnell 335 

Cleland, Ex parte 1846 

v. Casgrain 334 

v Cleland 201, 251, 319 

Clement v. Langthorn 63 

v. Maddick 1648. 2314 

». Scott 1845 

Clement Manuf. Co. i\ Upton & 

Hart Co. 197 

Clements, Re 1069 

v. Bowes £34, 303, 304, 1514 

J' Breresford 1756 

v. Clifford 792 

r. Greenwell 418 

v. Gri lith 899, 1598 

v Lumpkin 418 

v. Moore 737, 828, 840, 844, 1229 

v. Welles 1654 

Clemons v Elder 256 

Cletnonston v. Blessig 49. 51 

Clench v. Dooley 1569 

Chphane v. Lord Provost 1503 

Clerihew v. Lascelles 073 

Clerk b. Udall 11.35 

v. Wright 655 

Gierke v. Anglesey, Lord 90 

C'erkson v. Bowyer 221 

Cleveland ;\ Burnham 1463 

v. Chambliss 1548 

v. Citizens' Gas Light Co. 1636 

Cleveland F. & B. Co. v. United 

States R. S Co. 1642 

Cleveland Target Co. v. U. S. 

Pigeon Co. 852 

Cleveland's Harte Estates. Duke 

of, Re 160, 1607, 1694 

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

City of 632, 6-33 

Cleveland, &c. Ry. Co. v. Jewett 

1735 



XXXVI 



Cleverly v. Cleverly 1617 

Clews r. Brunswick 418 

t;. Woodstock Iron Co. 149. 536 

Click v. Hums 1284 

Cliff i'. Bull 907,909 

v. Wadsworth 1392 

Cliffe v. Wilkinson 34, &5 

Clifford v. Coleuian 829, 833 

v. Turrill 1015,1843,2117 

Clilton r. Anderson 1621 

v. ISeutall 354. 785 

v. Cnckuurn 1622 

v. Haig 201, 252, 292, 294, 417, 

419 

v. Orchard 13s*8 

v Robinson 1664 

Ciiuon lro.i Co. i: Dye 1638 

Clinan v Cooke 1407 

Clinch v. Financial Corp. 26, 241. 

243,244,1399,1821,1826 

Clinton, Re 1800 

v. Webster 1777 

Clippendale v. Masson 1097 

Clive v. Beaumont 321, 372, 1897 



p. Carew 


185, 187 


Cloake, Re 


895 


Clodfelter v. Hulett 


324 


Cloete. He 


142 


Clogstoun 0. Walcott 


1355 


Clotwortby r Mellista 


772 


Cloud v. Gresley 


629 


v. Hamilton 


214, 1265 


V. Whiteman 


378, 991, 1003 


Clough, He 


1030 


v. Adams 


417,418 


v. Cross 


471 


v Lambert 


1934 


Clouston v. Shearer 


1961 , 2040 


Clowes v. Beck 


1397 


V. Dickenson 1459, 1467, 1489 


v. Hilliard 


316, 405 


Clum v. Brewer 


1676 


Clutton v. Lee 


280 



v. Pardon 1368, 1376, 1448, 1611, 
1843 

C'.vburn r. Reynolds 991, 1734 

Clyde v. Richmond & D. R. 
Co 1743 

Clvmer v. James 292 

v. Shaw 1562 

Coaks v. Boswell 68, 164 

Coal E Gas Co., Re, Grover's 

case 890 

Coale r. Chase 735 

v. Garrison 1629 

v. Mildred 199 

Coann r. Atlanta Cotton Factory 
Co. 243,2386 

Coast Line R Co. r. Cohen 1637 

Coates >■. Cunningham 1716 

v. Day 279 

v. Lashley 1272 

v Legard 334 

v. McK.-e 186 

r. Merrick Thread Co. 888, 1648 
v. Pearson 976, 1552 

Coats r Chadwick 1069 

v. Elliott 1054 

v. Holbrnok 45 

Cobb* Baxter 1548 

v. Covenant M B. Ass. 1110 

v. Jamison 1168 

V. Rice 1018, 1411, 1561 

Cobbett v. Iludson 1101 

Cobbev v. Knapp 
' Wright 

Cohden v Maynard 

Cobham r. Dal ton 

Coburn r. Ames 
v. Cedar Valley Land Co, 



Coch v. Allcock & Co. 
Cochran v. American 
Co. 

v. Goodell 

v. Lynch 

v. Miller 



830 
830 

1267 
157 

1765 
1517. 

16:-7 

9a5 

Opera 

243 
212 
1314 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Cochrane, Ex parte 1743, 1744 

v. Fearon 27, 154, 1605 

v. O'Brien 147, 1560, 1568, 1570 

v Phillips 1525 

r. Willis 315, 542, 602 

Cock v. Evans 285, 402, 424, 778, 781 

v. Rivie 1702 

Cockburn v. Edwards 1082, 1407 

r. I'eel 17'il 

r. Riphael 13,969,1440,1731, 

1737 

v. Thompson 25, 217, 243, 291 

Cockcroft. Ex parte 1464 

Cockcroft, lie, Broadbent v. 

Groves 68 

Cocke r. Gilpin 987, 1507 

v. Trotter 844, 1553 

v. Opshaw 11)73 

Cockel v. Phipps 106 

Cockell v Taylor 1392 

Cockerell v. Barber 1236 

v. Cholnieley 954 

Cockes v. Sherman 214, 277 

Cocking v. Pratt 672, 1622 

Cockle r. Joyce 970, 979 

Cockney v. Anderson 447. 449, 549 

550 

Cockran v. Lynch 1321 

Cockrane v. Cockrane 1286 

Cockrell v Cockrell 1350 

v. Gurley 371 

v. Warren 1549 

Cockrill v. Maney 281 

v. Sparke 647 

Cocks v. Chandler 1649 

v. Foley 329 

v. Gray 1388 

v. Purday 1601 

v. Stanley 777 

v. \arney 334 

Cockshott v. London General 

Cab Co. 970, 979 

Codd v. Wooden 1624 

Coddington v. Idell 1381 

Coddrington v. Webb 1122 

Codington v. Mott 403, 406,415,425 

Codman r. Rodgers 641 

Codner v. Hersey 737 

Codrington v. Codrington 122. 718 

v. Johnstone 170, 175, 1742, 1748, 

1769 

v. Lindsay 122 

v. Parker 1241,1719 

v. Shelburn, Earl of 185 

Codwise v. Gelston 1587 

v Taylor 284. 1004 

Coe v. Beckwith 236, 288 

v Louisville & N R. Co. 298 

V. Turner 341, 559 

Coeur d'Alene C. & M. Co v. 

Miners' Union 1620, 1663 

Coffee v. Norwood 254 

Coffeen v. Brnnton 1648 

Coffev v. Norwood 256 

Coffin v. Chattanooga W. & P. 

Co. 283 

v Cooper 347, 351, 1218 

r Easton 1110 

v. Heath 68, 165, 167 

v. Jones 916 

r. Morrill 117 

v. Murphy 887 

Coffman o Allin 778 

v Langston 418 

Cogan v. Duffield 115 

v. Ebden 1109 

V. Stephens 991 

Cogdell v. Cogdell 1253 

Coger r. Coger 168 

('oglan v. Requeneau 1672 

Cogswell v. Bull 26 

p. Dolliver 1228 

Coham v. Coham 1350 

Coheen v Gordon 249 

Cohen, Ex parte 1686 

V- Alcan 449 

v Ellis 1290 



Cohen v. Goldsboro 1650 

v. L'Engle 1614 

v. Me > era 1463 

v. Mitchell 58, 157 

v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. 51 

v. Poland 1661 

v. Sharp 1624 

*. Shyer 37, 1359 

v. Waley 1791 

v. Wolff 303 

v. Woollard 1543, 1653 

Cohens r. Virginia 129 

Cohn ». Loui ville, N. 0. & T. R. 

Co. 357 

Coiron v. Millaudon 149, 191 

Coke v. Fountain 868, 869 

v. Gilbert 819 

r. Wilcocks 679, 700 

Coker, Ex parte 157 

v. Dawkins 1286 

v. Farewell 1112, 11'8 

Colheck, Re, Hall v. Colbeck 405 

Colburn v. Barrett 722 

v. Bronghton 341 

v. Duncombe 320, 1644 

v. Simms 1381, 1395, 1654, 

1681 

Colchester, Mayor and Aldermen 

of v 301. 315 

Colclough v. Bolger 709 

r. Boyse 876 

v. Ev^s 1523, 1534 

v. Sterum 1275, 1276 

Colcock ?>. Furguson 1680 

Colden v. Haskins 76 

Colding v. Badger 1295, 1298 

Coldwell v. Giles 1019 

Cole v. Bean 1071, 1073 

v. Burgess 1617 

v. Cole 1252 

v. Cunningham 629, 1618 

v. Duke 1661 

v. Eaton 1360 

v. Flitrraft 633,634 

v. Gray 184 

v. Lake Co. 197 

v. M'Glathry 645. 649 

v. Miller 165, 997, 1575 

v. Oil-Well Srpply Co. 1743 

v. Peyson 1629 

v. Sands 16 ;9 

v Savage 386 

v. Scott 1459 

v. Sewell 1152, 1162 

v. Shetterly 843 

v. Trnll " 1258 

Cole Silver Mining Co. v. Vir- 
ginia, etc. Water Co. 1662 
Colebourne v. Colebourne 1734 
Colebrook p. Jones 28 
Colebrooke, Er parte 133 
r. Attorney-General 133, 134, 139 
v. Clarke 1291 
Cole County v. Angney 601 
Colegrave v. Juson 1122 
V Manley 1844 
Coleman, Re 86, 576, 1361, 
1814 
v. Barnes 276, 338, 345 
v Colgate 920 
v. Flavel 1648 
v. Franklin 1472 
v. Gage 1676 
t. Hudspeth 1668 
v. Hutchinson 1150 
v . Llewellin 999 
v. Lvne 526 
r. Martin 287, 2391 
v. Mawby 1141 
v. Mellersh 667, 1232 
v. Moore 1377, 1553 
v. I'inkard 233, 408 
v. Ross 845 
v . Ryan 1845 
v. West Hartlepool Ry. Co. 1070, 
1837 
Colerick v. Hooper 197 



Coles v. Barrow 58 

v. Booue 365 

v. Buchanan 361 

v Bullman 1137 

v. Coles 1103 

v. Forrest 257, 13*7 

v. Gurney 448 

v. Morris 821, 823, 888, 1599 

v Sims 324, 1640, 1654, 1657, 1603 

v Trecothick S81, 981 

Coley v. Coley 956 

Colgate v. Compagnie Francaise 145, 

1556 

v. Western U. T. Co. 1120, 1580 

Collard v. Allison 1642 

v. Cooper 1667 

v. Groom 997 

v Hare 1454 

v. Marshall 1620 

t;. Roe 1464 

v. Smith 181, 182, 498, 524, 733, 

754, 784 

Collas v. Ilesse 205 

College v Pike 1120 

Collet v Wollaston 157, 255 

Collett v. Collett 1426 

v Dickenson 186, 187 

v. Hover 231 

v. Maule 1814 

v. Preston 415, 1409 

Collette v. Goode 785 

Collier v. Bank of Newbern 1544 

v. Chapman 841 

v. Gray 1257 

v. Nokes 1102, 1103 

v. Whipple 1280, 1290 

Collinge v. 1408 

Collings v City of CamJen 1661 

Colliugwood v Russell 315, 543, 

602 

Collins, lie 1840 

Collins, Matter of 177 

v. Barksdale 395 

v. Burton 1490 

v. Carey 1414 

v. Casey 1235 

v. Castle 1654 

v. Collins 1633, 1699, 1859 

v. Collyer 518 

v. Elliot 915 

v Greaves 793, 806, 811, 1216 
V. Gresley 579 

v. Griffith 267 

v. Ins. Co. 2 

v Knight 334, 385 

v. Lamport 1653 

v. Locke 670 

v. Loftus 200, 997 

v. North British & M. Ins. Co 843 
v. North side Pub. Co. 723 

V. Saurey 1073 

v. Shirley 157, 215 

v Sinclair 1081 

v Stix 334 

v. Stuteley 1081 

V. Taylor 244, 794, 1027 

v. Walker 2318 

Collins Co. v. Brown 24, 1649 

v. Walker 1380, 1395 

Collins Manuf. Co. v. Ferguson 149 

Collinson v 389, 1705, 1706, 

1707, 1708 

v. Jackson 417 

v. Lister 1009, 1017, 1485, 1544, 

2061 

Collis v. Collis 792, 1773 

v. Swayne 54" 

Colliss v. Hector 203, 204 

Colloway v. Dobson 780 

Collyer v. Fallon 1053. 1730 

Oilman v Crump ' 1648 

v Eastern Counties Ry. Co. 26, 

241, 242. 245 

v. Northcote 163, 183. 498, 7">4 

v. Sarell 1029, 1410 

v. Turner 792, 1197 

Colmer v Colmer 103 J 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Colmer v Ede 1843 

Colmore v. North 1737 

Colue Valley & Halstead Rail- 
way, lie 1791 
Colonial Bank v. Hepworth 855 
Colonial Life As.-uiauce Co. v. 

Home & Colonial Co. 1649 

Colonial & U. S. Mortgage Co V 

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

United States 8 

Colorado Manuf. Co V. McDon- 
ald 295 
Colpoys v Colpoys 2182 
Col^uhoun, He 1448, 1449, 14Jl 
Colson v. Willi ims 1^71 
Colston v. Gardiner 1050, 1054, 1055 
Colstrum v. Minneapolis & St. 

L. Ry Co 334 

Colt i- Colt 68, 991, 1584, 2397 

v Cornwell 16*25 

v Lesnier 240, 291, :s92 

Coltart v Him ltiOd 

Colton ». Ross 378, 379, 384, 1073, 

1074 

v. Ward 989 

Columbia Bank v Black 846 

Columbia County v. Bryson 1620 

Columbian Book Co v. De Gol- 

yer 1734 

Columbian Gov"t v. Rothschild 18, 
19,20, 141,385 
Columbine v. Chichester 314, 549, 
550 
Columbus las. Co. v Humphries 334 
Columbus, etc. R. Co. v. Ellis 830 
Columbus & W. Ry. Co. v. With- 

erow 1675 

Colverson v. Bloomfield 1702 



Colvin, In re 

v. Campion 

v. Cor win 
Colder v Colyer 

v. Finch 
Combe v. Hughe3 
v London, Corp. of 572, 580,' 1832 
1834 
Combs v Buswell 

v. Tarlton 
Comer v Himes 
Comfort v. McTeer 
Comfort, The 
Comley V Hendricks 
Commercial Bank v Buckner 
v. Corbett 
v. French 

v. New York State Bank 
Commercial Bank Co.. Re 201, 664 
Commercial Bank of India and 

the East, Re 250 

Commercial Mut. Ins Co. v Mc- 

Loon 344, 347, 1961, 1966 

Commercial Wharf Co. v. Win- 

sor li)7, 1654 

Commerell v Bell 407, 1509, 1529, 

153-1, 1531 

v. Hall 407, 1509, 1529, 1530 

v. Poynton 1844 

Commina v. Brownfield 730 

", Scott 602 

Commissioners v. Andrews 10 

Commissioners of Sewers t>. Gel- 

latly 243, 272, 406 

v Glasse 239, 272, 345, 579, 597, 

873, 1381, 1675 

Commonwealth v. Andre 46 



1715, 1741 

1114 

330 

433, 437, 1213, 

1526, 1825 

675 

1430, 1433 



846 

197, 815 

1579 

287 

1019, 1120 

1K5 

545 

1734 

22 

1553 



v. Arrison 

v. Boston, &c. R Co. 

v. Buzzell 

v. Desmond 

v Drake 

v. Eagle Fire Ins. Co. 

v. Eddy 

v. Franklin Ing Co 

v. Gould 



10 
10 
886 i 
546 
&34, 576 | 
1733, 1745, 
1751, 1755 
851 
1743 I 
1766, 



xxxvii 



Commonwealth v. Hawkins 1101 

v Hide in Leather Ins Co. 1734 ' 

v. Hill 886 

v. Ins. Co 1298 

v. Jetfiies 907 

v. Kneeland 546 

v McLaughlin 1323 

v. Mauley 116, 123 

v. Mechanics' Ins Co. 1411 

v . Perkins 720 

v. Roby llu7 

v. Sumner 2 

Compagnie du Senegal v. Woods 671, 

1718 

Compauia de Mozambique v 

British South Africa Co. 629 

Couiptou c Bearcroft 1734 

v Blox-ham 877 

v. Grey, Earl 579 

Comstock v. Frederickson 1743 

v. Hadhme 852 

v. Herron 360, 843 

v. Rayiord 334 

Couacher v , Couacher 1597 

Coualley v. Peck 418 

Conally v Cruger 1678 

Conant i>. Joues 1548 

v. Kendall 13u0 

v. Warren 87,547 

Couard v Atlantic Ins. Co 1241 

Concaunou v. Cruise 876 

Concha u. Concha 664,914, 1495, 1507 



G L. Ins 



Harts- 



1561 
737 
1600 
1053 
1003 
1377 
1260 

457 



Murrieta 1495, 1507 

Concklin v. Coddington 1386, 1392 

v. Hall 160 

Concord v. Norton 514 

Condict v King 1569 

Conethard v. Hasted 949 

Coney, Re 1734 

Cong Ion v Aylesworth 579, 737 

Conger v. Cotton 843 

Congregational Church, Re 1855 
Congreve, hi re 1310, 1449 

Coningsby, Lord, v. Jekyll 419, 597 
Conington v Gilliat 102, 1096, 1105 
Conley v Alabama 
Co. 

v Nailor 
Conlon t>. Prior 
Conn v. Garland 

v. Penn 
Connable v Bucklin 
Connecticut v Jackson 

Central Manuf. Co 
home 
Connecticut & P. R. R. Co 

Hendee 790, 794 

Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. Kav- 

anagh 328 

Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v 

SchaetTer 573, 576 

v. Smith 417 

V. Union Trust Co. 576 

Connecticut River Lumber Co 

Olcott Falls Co. 
Connell, Re 
Connelly v. Carlin 

v Fisher 

Connelly Manuf. Co v. Wattles 1663, 
1675 
Conner »> Armstrong 

v. Chase 

v. Smith 
ConnitTc Kahn 
Connolly »'. Connolly 

v. M'Dermot 

v. Pardon 

ti. Wells 
Connop i'. Hayward 
Connor v. Board of Education 

D Connor 
Connors v Connors 
Conolan V Leyland 
Conover v Conover 

V Sealy 

v. Wailing 1282, 1284, 1286, 1289 
Conrad v Buck 536 



1164 
1038 

846 
852 



1559 

841 

402 

1459 

1576 

360 

1411 

149, 193, 208 

840, 1253 

557 

1726 

371 

87 

634, 639, 644 

334 



XXXV111 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
[The references are to the star pagiog.] 



Conrad v. Mullison 287 

Conro f. Port Henry Iron Co 235 
Couroy v. Oregon Construction 

Co. ^ 542 

Conseuua v. Fanning 371,377,666, 
608, 1221, 1232, 1258, llbl, 
148«J, 21«J3 
Conserva, The 141 

Consett V Bell 324 

Cousociated Pres. Co. of Green's 

Farms v. Staples 1562 

Consolidated B A. Co. v. Amer- 
ican P. F. Co 790 
Consolidated Coal 1.0. Schniis- 

seur 1654 

Consolidated El S Co v. Atlan- 
tic Trust Co. 1586 
Consolidated E. L. Co. v. Crush- 
Swan E L. Co. 334 
Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v 

Strong i.379 

Consols Insurance Co , Official 

Manager of, v. Wood 808 

Const v Barr 780, 1049, 1050, 16d3 

v. Ebers 510 

v. Harris 596,598,1671,1727 

Constable v Angel 1114 

v Ho « iik 1000, 1224 

Constance V. Brain 1102 

Constitution, The 141 

Consumers' Gas Trust Co. v. 

Harless 1770 

Contee v *>awson 191, 671, 736, 829 
v. Lyons 1580 

v Pratt 1580 

Continental Ins. Co. v Webb 570, 
1548, 1553 
Continental Life Ins. Co. v Cur- 
rier 1621 
Continental Trust Co. v. Wet- 
more 1051, 1743 
Contois v. Carpentier 48 
Contract and Agency Co., In re 27 
Contract Co v. Tottenham & H 

J Ry. Co W. N. 1731 

Converse v Hood 1648 

v. Johnson 648 

v Michigan Diary Co. 559 

v Meyer 920 

v Ware S Bank 1503 

Conway v Alexander 1244 

v. Felton 1233 

v Stroud 200 

Conybeare v. Lewis 272 

Conyers v. Abergavenny, Lord 1682 
v. Gray 1699 

School, Re 1857 

Cood v. Cood 1627, 1628 

Coogan v McCarron 1548 

Cook »• Arnham 1583 

v. Bam6eld 1577 

« Bath , Mayor & Corp of 1637 
v Bay 993, 1125 

v. Beardsall 1131 

V. Bee 781 

V. Blunt 230 

v. Bolton 1170, 1540 

v. Brooinhead 948, 1552 

v. Butt 262 

v Catchpole 1861, 1862 

v. Collingridge 1232, 1250, 2279 
v Cook 1196 

v. Detroit & M. R Co 1735 

v. Dews 732, 733 

v. Dey 448 

f. Dorsey 1877 

v Enchmarch 1072 

v. Forbes 1637 

v. Fowler 1257 

v. French 1031, 1576 

i! Had ley 191 

v Hall 938 

v. Hart 1390 

v Hath way 64, 160, 1422 

v. Hilliard 215 

v. Houston County Commis- 
sioners 1169 



235 

280, 281, 379, 695 

326, 378, S'i'J, 383 

1638 

14ll 

lo71 

1637 

1561, 1565, 

1570 

61 

873 

1516 

58 

560, 644 

452 

1608 

1576, 1J83 

1355 

1132, 1134 

1596, 1661, 1662 

1074 

843 

195,671,703, 1439 

802 

1340 

1081, 1635 

70, 110 

87, 179 

201,251,319.631 

1654 

993, 1366 

852 

1113, 1557 

1743 

534 

243 

568, 716, 1074, 

1440 

689, 732 

744. 892 

973, 1226, 1731, 

_ 173ii 

Cooksey v. Haynes 1107, 1131 

Cookson v. Bingham 1429 

v. Ellison 300 

v. Lee 162, 177, 476, 498, 

1476 
Cool v. Higgins 225 

Coolev >'. Harris 1551 

v. State 838 

Conmbe r Hughes 1433 

v. Stewart 9!l9 

Coombs r Brooks 1082 

v. Smith 1743 

t/. Warren 547, 550 

Coon 7' Abbott 890 

Coondo r. Mookerjee 563 

Coop r Dr. Savage P D Insti- 
tute 314, 843 
Coope r. Caiter 1370 
v. Cresswell 658, 839, 1717, 172(1 
Cooper, He 160, 611, 674, 1406, 16o7 



Cook v. Ligon 
v. Maucius 
t». Marty u 
v. Miller 
v. Muuu 

v. New York C M. Co. 
v. North, &c R. Co. 
V- Uosslyu, Earl of 

v. Sturgis 
v Torton 
v. 'full 
ii. Whellock 
v. Williams 
V. Wood 
v Woodbury 
Cooke v bamneld 
v Beale 
v Berry 
iv Chilcott 
v. Choluiondeley 
v Clayworth 
v. Cooke 
v Da vies 
v. Dealey 
V. Forbes 
v. Fryer 
v Fuller 
v. Gettings 
v. Gilbert 
v (iwyn 
v. Lamotte 
v Marsh 
v. Orange 
v. Richards 
v. Smith 
v. Turner 

v. Westall 
v Wilby 
Cookes v. Cookes 



Blisset 
v. Brown 
v. Cooper 
v Crabtree 
v. Dcnne 
v. Doild 
v. Eggington 
v. Green 
v. Hubbuck 
v Knox 
v. Lewis 



230 
Ms"> 

1199. 1471, 1503 

211, 329, 1033 

989 

1068 

1096 

444 

1638. 1663 

1589, 1590 

602, 701, 1590 



London, &e. Ry. Co. 1387, 1 
v. Macdonald 100, 906, 1203 

v. McNeil 1434 

v. Martin 194 

v. New Haven Steamboat Co. 630, 
1427 
v Pitcher 1405, 1427 

v. Powi--, Earl 588 

v. Pnrton 30, 30 

v. Reilly 1730 

v. Scott 1464, 1482 

v. Uttoexeter Burial Board 779, 
7^0 
v. Vesey 195 



Cooper v. Webb 243 

v. Whittingham 1381 

v. Wood 448 

Coosaw Mining Co. v. South 

Carolina 10 

Coote v. Ingram 1071 

v Whittington 201, 319 

Cooth v. Jackson 607, 656, 699, 813, 

1405 

Cope v. Cope 319, 1809 

v. De La Warr, Earl 1020 

v District Fire Ass'n 1650 

r. Parry 195, 689, 732 

v. Russell 459 

v Thames Haven Dock Co. 1102, 

1106 

Copeland ». Crane 845, 846, 1180, 

1223, 1226, 1249, 1250, 1302 

v Granger 110, 182 

v. Mape 1059 

v. Stanton 904, 930 

v. Webb 1071 

v. Wheeler 169 

Copis c Middleton 279 

Copley v. Smithson 153 

Coppard v. Allen 248, 268 

Coppeard r Mayhew 312, 399 

Copper v Wells 670 

Coppin v. 118 

v. Coppin 1404 

v Gray 643 

Coppinger v Gubbins 1630 

v Shekleton 1419 

Coppring v. Cooke 1237 

Coquillard v. Suydam 365 

Corbet v Davenant 1160 

v Tottenham 1358 

Corbett v. Corbett 39, 43, 940, 1118, 

1457 

v. Jonas 1638 

Corbin v Emerson 197 

Corbus v. Teed 834, 843 

Corbyn ». Birch 474 

Corcoran v Chesapeake, &c Co. 1370 



v Witt 
Cordner v Guedalla 
Cordwell, Re 
Core v. Bell 

v. Stickler 
Corey v Moore 

v. Voorhies 
Cork, Earl of?/. Russell 
Cork v- \\ illock 
Corker v. Jones 
Corley v. Corley 



1378, 1379 

1440 

102 

1628 

1576 

1120, 1309 

1667, 1675 

277, 1035 

640 

68 

91 



Corliss v. E. W. Walker Co. 



1643 



Cormack v. Beisly 1846 

Cormick v- Ronayne 1846 

Cornell v. Green ' 314, 545 

v. Hudson 647 

v. McCam 1264 

v. Utica &c. R. Co. 1663 

Cornelius v Post 1631, 1668 

Cornet v Bertelsmann 843 

Cornill v. Hudson 652 

Corning v. Baxter 457, 458 

v. Cooper 974 

t\ Lowerre 1637 

v. Smith 277, 339 

v. Troy Iron & Nail Factory 1459, 

1639 

Cornish v. Gest 208,263,1163 

v Tanner 1561 

Cornwall, Re 28 

v. Hoyt 88 

v. Saurin 243 

Cornwell »' Lee 346 

Corn well Manuf. Co. r. Swift 303 

Corpening v. Worthington 542 

Corradine v. O'Connor 517 

Torrance r. Corrance 113 

Correspondent Newspaper Co. v. 

Saunders 1648 

Corrie v Allen 406 

v Clarke 1801 

Corry v. Curlewis 805 

v. Trist 23 1 






Corsellis, Re 68, 178, 1414 

v. Corsellis 1863 

Cort v. Lassard 1657 

Cortes Co. v Tannhauser 933 

Cortleyeu v. Ilathaway 1717 

Corwin v. Campbell 1631 

Cory v. Gertcken 169, 530 

v. Hamilton 1463 

v. Jacobsen 449 

v. Thames Iron Works 1398 

v. Yarmouth & Norwich Ry 

Co. 1678 

Cosby v. Wickliffe 282, 360 

Cosens v Cognor Ry. Co. 1656 

Cosgrove v. Fisk 324 

Cosine o. Graham 365, 604 

Coslake v. Till 2265 

Cossey v. London & Brighton 

Ry. Co. 573 

Costabadie v Costabadie 1342 

Costa Rica v Strousberg 1058 

Costeker v Horrox 1777 

Coster v. Bank of Georgia 457 

v. Clarke 1459 

v. Coster 101, 102, 1202 

v. Merest 1132 

v. Murray 560, 641, 642, 644, 702 

Cotching v. Bassett 1638 

Cotes v. Turner 601, 761 

Cotham v. West 1182, 1252, 2298 

Cother v. Midland Railway Co. 1672 

Cottain v. Partridge 2095 

Cotten v. Fidelity &c. Co. 779 

Cotterell v. Stratton 1388, 1393, 

1411, 1443 

Cottier v. Stimson 843 

Cottiugham v. Shrewsbury , Lord 

842, 1370 

Cottington o. Fletcher 655 

Cottle v. Harrold 1663 

v. Kremeutz 694, 830 

Cotton, Re 1440 

v. Banks 11*53 

v. Clark 1409, 1412, 1416 

v. Harvey 1177 

v. Manering 628 

v. Parker . 1478 

t; Penrose 1431 

v. Scott 1548 

v. Trefusis 175 

Cotton Plantation Co., Re 1705 

Cottrell, Re 1360 

v. .Stua Life Ins. Co. 586 

v Finney 1387, 1393 

Cottrill v. Cramer 354 

Coughliu v. N Y Cent. R Co. 563 

Coulburn v. Carshaw 448 

Coulson, Re 1*00 

v. Graham 508 

v. Walton 560 

v. White 1'538 

Coulstingfl. Coulsting 38, 40, 111 

Coulston z. Gardiner 1055, 1057 

Coulthurst v. Coulthurst 1548 

Coulton, Re, Uamling v. Elliott 

1594 
Counce v. Persons Unknown 11 (3 
Council If lull's v. Stewart 1638 

Count de Wall's Case 48 

County Attorney v. Mav 10, 137 

County Life Ass. Co., Re 1844 

Coupous v. Kauffman 178 

Courage v. Wardell 521 

Courand v. Hanner 1411, 1747, 

1748 
Courier, The 1440 

Course v. Humphrey 730, 1413 

Court v. Jeffery 226 

Court of <Hi«ncery, The Suitors 

of the, Re 1441 

Courtecn v. Touse 1093 

Courtcnay r. Hoskins 930, 931, 1193 
Courthope v. Mapplesden 1632 

Courtney v. Stock 978 

v. Turner 45 

Courtois, Re 1605 

Courtoy v. Vincent 1040, 1694 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging ] 

Cousens v. Cousens 1440 

v . Rose 334. 346 

Cousins v. Smith 596, 1671 

t; Vasey 821,823,842 

Coutts v. Acworth 852 

Covell v Chadwiek 1620 

Covenhoven v Shuler 301 

Coventry v. Coventry 1163, 1528 

v. Loudon, Brighton, & South 

Coast Railway Co. 715 

Coveny v. Athill 936, 1573 

Coverdale v Eastwood 14-1 

Covington v Gilliat 108 

Cowan v. Anderson 161, 445 

Coward v. Chadwiek 152, 1718 

v. Coward 1228 

v. I urn hi 1404 

Coward & Adams, Re 87, 123 

Cowart v. Perrine 641, 644 

Oowbridge Railway Co , Re 1"35 

Cowdin v. Crani 1700, 1702, 1713 

Cowdray v Cross 469, 1047 

Cowdrey v. Railroad Co. 1309, 1731, 

1752, 1845 

Cowdry v. Cheshire 247 

v. Day 1392, 13l»9 

Cowell v. Lippitt 1281 

v. Simpson 1843, 1845 

v. Taylor 32, 64 

Cowen v. Alsop 837 

Cowgill v. Rhodes 1071, 1075, 1384 

Cowin, Re, Cowin v. Gravett 1827 

Cowlan v Williams 1565 

Cowles v. Carter 726 

ti Whitman 1376, 1377, 1381 

Cowley v Cowley 302 

Cowls v. Cowls 1350 

Cowman v. Lovett 402 

Cowper v. Scott 1464 

v. Taylor 1054 

Earl v. Baker 1632 

Cowslad v. Cely 150, 252, 271, 2:»0 

Cowslade v. Cornish 1181 

Cowtan v. Williams 1565, 1570 

Cox i). Allingham 838, 858, 953, 955 

v. Baunister 449 

v. Barker 346, 1001 

v Barnard 223 

v. Bennett 13 

v. Bockett 859 

v. Chamberlain 1402 

v. Colley 1573 

v. Cox 1073, 1163 

v. Dolman 644. 653 

v. Hart 1276 

v. James 68 

v. Kitchin 1126 

v. Land and Water Journal 

Co. 1645, 1727 

v. Lynn 1580 

v. McLaughlin 860 

r. Mitchell 633 

r Mobile, &c. R. Co. 1625 

V. Paxtous 1652 

v Peters 1727 

v. Pierce 815, 1195. 1320 

v. Roome 254 

v. Scott 16fl9, 1702, 1710 

v. Sprode 28> 

v. Stephens 203, 269, 270, 292, 

891,914 

v. Taylor 2<i.3 

v. Wheeler '^S+ 

v. Wills Mil 

i;. Worthington 922 

v. Wright 68. 78, 1595 

Coxer. Hilsted 1269, 1270, 1272, 1608 

v. Smith 1151 

v. Phillips 354 

Coykendall v. Robinson 354 

Coyle v. Alleyne 353, 354, 508, 524, 

765 

Cozine v. Graham 365, 561, 655, 657 

Crabb v. Orth 536 

v. Tnomas 425 

Crabbe v. Moubery ltil 

Crabtree v. I. .inks 1548 



XXXIX 



Crackelt v Bethune 1417 

Cracknall v. Janson 213, 348, 351, 

894, 895, 1407, 1449, 1490 

Craddock, Re 102 

v. Shirley 989 

Cradock v. Cradock 920, 921 

v. Owen 1029, 1321 

v. Piper 1234, 1235, 1414, 

1490 



Craft j>. Russell 
v. Thompson 


569 


544, 1625 


Cragg v. Alexander 


1386 


v, Taylor 


1039 


Craggs v. Gray 


1339 


Cragin r. Lovell 


1584 


Craig v. Barbour 


294 


v. Bolton 


28,30 


v. Briggs 


891 


v. Craig 


1258, 1302 


v. Fenn 


1093 


v. Johnson 


197 


t>. Leipe 


612, 676 


v. People 


1636 


v. Phillips 


1399 


v. Sebrell 


1002 


v. Smith 


243 


v. Steamer Hartford 


994 


Craige r. Craige 


852 


Craighead v. Bank 


642 


Crain v. Parker 


169 


v. Prather 


560 


C raker v. Parrott 


226 


Cramer, Ex parte 


203 


v. Bird 


241 


v Bode 


517 


v. Clouah 


1548 


v . Morton 


226, 227, 251 


v. Watson 


334 


Crammer v. Atlantic 


City Gas 


Co. 


72^,843 


Cranborne, Viscountess v. Dal- 


mahoy 


113 


Cranbourne, Lady v. Crispe 272 


Cranch v. Brissett 


1405 


Crandall v Dare 


659 


r. Gallup 


986 


v. Slaid 


37, 74, 79 


Crane v. Brigham 


1608 


v Bunnell 


1623 


v. Decamp 


1484, 1491 


v. DemiDg 


287, 558 


v Ely 


1551 


v. Fairchild 


334,335 


v Jullion 


448 


v. Kilpin 


1253 


v. McDonald 


1561 


v. Powell 


619 


v. Prather 


645 



Crane Bros. Manuf. Co B Morse 354 
Cranford v. Tyrrell 1638 

Cranston p. Smith 365, 561, 656 

Cninstown, Lord v. Johnston 629, 
843, 855, 1392, 1627 
Crapo «•. Kelly 1743 

Crapp v. Dodd 1511 

Orary v. Sprague 111-8 

Crass v. Memphis & Charleston 

R. Co 1561 

Craven v Shair 1228 

D. Tickell ' 1257 

V. Traill 1469 

v. Wright 1201 

Cravens v. Dyer lnl 

c Harrison 951 

Crawcour v. Salter 1462 

Crawford v. JEtt\n Life Ins. Co 51 

v. Attorney-General 133.139 

v. Chorlev *17 

t). Crawford 37, 1622 

v Fisher 1560, 1564, 1570 

v. Forshaw 254 

v. Harvey 386 

v. Hornsea Steam Brick Co. A080 

v. Liddel 641 

v. Moore 860 

v. Nral 1320 

-. l'.-u» 49,50 



xl 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 
[The references are to the star paging. ] 



Crawford v. Protestant Insane 

Hospital 1636 

v. Ross 1663, 1734 

Crawley v. Clarke 10(56 

Crawshaw v Thornton 1565 

Orawshay, Re 1409 

v. Collins 1250, 1860, 1861 

v Thornton 1561, 1564, 1566, 1610 

Creak v. Capell 1781, 1782 

Crease v. Babcock 256 

v. Barrett 1126 

Creasor v. Kobinson 201, 251, 310 

death v. Smith 1580 

Credit Co , Re 885, 896 

v. Arkausas Central R Co. 325, 

714 

Credits Gerundeuse v. Van Weede 150 

Creed v. lir\ ne 443 

v. Fisher 1091, 1130 

v. Lancaster Bank 1577 

v Perry 119 

v. Railway 256 

v Scruggs 1625 

Creely v. Bay State Brick Co 555, 



1631, 1662 
1379 
1677 

380 
1451 

287 



Creen v. Wright 
Cregar v. Creamer 
Creigh v. Boggs 
Creuietti v. Croin 
Crenshaw v. Ullman 
Crenver Mining Co. v. Willyams 214 
Crerar v. Sodo 1106 

Cresap v. Keuible 369 

Crescent City L. S. Co. v. Butch- 
ers' U L S. Co. 543, 634, 2383 
Cresset v. Mitton 
Cresswell, Ex parte 

v. Bateman 

v. Cheslyn 

v. Haines 

v. Jackson 

v. Parker 

'■. Smith 
Creswick v. Creswick 
Cresy v. Beavan 

v. Bevau 
Creuze v. Hunter 



v London, Bishop of 

v. Lowth 
Creveling v. Moore 
Crew v. Jolliff 
Crewe* Lord v. Edleston 
Crews v. Burcham 
Crick v. Hewlett 
Crickett v Dolby 



368, 370 

1019 

229, 266, 1520 

1430 

1404 

1577 

628 

719, 1037 

948, 1552 

1619, 1678 

409, 583 

1255, 1256, 1259, 

1368, 1369 

1738, 1739 

1256, 1369 

1031 

1148, 1383 

1731 

210 

801 

1253, 1254 



Cridland v. De Mauley, Lord 



Crighton v. Daluner 
Crim v. Handley 
Crippen v Hermauce 

v Ingersoll 
Cripps v. Wood 
Crips v. Talvande 
Crisman v Hiederer 
Crisp v. Platel 
Crispin v. Cumano 

v. Miller 
Criterion Gold M. Co., Re 
Crittenden, Ex parte 
Canfield 



421, 
1825 

1620 
1625 
1400 
1600 
1152 



1548 

1830, 1835 

1052, 1053 

1507 

27 

993 

68 

v. Field 1075, 1076, 1077, 1463, 1639 

v. Posey 119 

Crocker v. Collin3 542 



v. Craig 

v. Dillon 

v Higgins 

v. Loweiithal 

v. Rogers 

v. Whitney 
Crocket v. Lee 
Crockett v. Bishton 

v. Drew 

v. Sexton 



Crcckford v Alexander 
Croft ?i Arthur 
v. Graham 



230, 245 

630 

190, 195, 324, 361 

1489 

314 

363 

327, 361, 1003 

894 

161 

1281 



1632 

1645 
371 



Croft v. Waterton 
Crofton v. Ilsley 
Crofts v. Middleton 

v Oldfield 

v. Wortley 
Croggan v. Allen 
CroggOD v Symons 
Crognan v Minor 



201 

1235 

915 

1056, 1057 

633,638 

1411 

1561, 1567 

339 



Cromack v Heath coate 574 

Crompton v. Anthony 235 

v Lea 1639 

v. Wombwell 1523, 1534 

Cromwell v. County of Sac 659 

Crone v. O'Dell 12^1 

Cronin v. Watkins 602 

(Jronise v. Carper 991 

Cronkright v. liaulenbeck 1103 

Crook c. Brown 191 

v Crook 895 

v. Turpin 1507 

Crooker i' Houghton 1576 

Crookes v. Whitworth 113 

Crooks v. Whittord 197 

Cropper v Burton 837 

v. Coburn 333 

v Mellersh 215 

v. Smith 402 

Crosbie, Ex parte 157 

Crosbv v. Hetherington 546 

v. Stephan 1381 

v. Wickliffe 235 

Croskey v. Bank of Wales 243 

v. European and American 
Shipping Co 551, 552. 771. 

1186, 1525, 1526, 1625 
Crosley v. Marriot 1699 

Cross, Re 560, 1693 

v. Bean 230 

v Cross 69, 80, 814 

v. De Valle 1001 1548 

v. Eglice 370 

v. Keunington 1437 

v. Morgan 779 

v Thomas 461, 538. 1510, 1525 
Crosse v. Bedingfield 392, 395, 842, 
1246, 1254, 1558 
v. Crosse 459 

v General Reversionary Co. 1390 
Crosseing v Honor 322 

Crosskill v. Bower 1234, 1257, 1413 
Crossley j> Crowther 307 

v. Glasgow Life Ass. Society 251, 
1405 
v. Lightowler 16*5, 1638, 1639 

v. Maycock 199, 203, 561 

v. Parker 1440 

v Stewart 774 

v. Tomey 579 

Crossman v Card 1253 

Crothers v. Lee 860 

Croton Tump, v Rider 1623 

Crotty i». Eagle 68 

Crouch v. Credit Foncierof Eng- 
land 18 
v. Hickin 589, 788 
v. Kerr 542 
v. Waller 38, 39, 40, 111, 187, 
1482 
Croughton, Re 100 
Crow?; Blythe 1008 
v. Cross 335 
V. Owensboro & N. R. Co 378 
v. Tyrell 408, 548, 619, 1558, 1559 
v. Wood 1058, 1737 
Crowder v Moore 1716 
v. Searcy 713 
v. Stewart. 1425 
Crowe v. Del Ris 1556 
v. Price 1053 
Crowell v. Botsford 441 
v. Keene 1003 
Crowfoot v. Mander 429, 1522 
Crowley's Case 98 
Crowley v. Page llnl 
Cnwn Bank, Re 887 
Crowningshield v. Crowning- 
bhield 851, 852 



Crowther v. Appleby 907 

Croxon v. Lever 168 

Croxton v. May 108, 1795 

Cruger v. Haliday 314 

Cruikshauk v. Dutlin 1401 

v Neath & Brecon Ry. Co. 1735 
Cruin v. Moore 1*519 

Crumb, Ex parte 1352,1364 

Crumlish v. Shenandoah Valley 

R. Co. 334, 402 

Crump, Re 98, 100 

v. Baker 1233 

v. Ingersoll 630 

v Lambert 1635, 1637, 2307 

v. Perkins 1523 

Crutchneld r, Stewart 1029 

Crutchley v. Jerningham 1775, 

1780 

Cudahy v. Rhinehardt 1120 

Cuddon v Hubert 156 

v. Morley 1681, 2309 

v Tite 367, 544 

Cudworth v. Thompson 1358 

Cuff v. Platell 197, 301, 302, 315, 

557 

Culbertson v. Luckey 846 

Cullen, Re 1841 

v. Dawson 1561 

v. Queensberry, Duke of 190. 216, 

238,272 

Culley v. Ilickling 1672 

Cullison v. Bossom 579 

Culloway v. Dobson 778 

Culver v McKeown 1381 

Culverhouse 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. Mary port Co. 1267 

Cumming, In re 177 

v. Fraser 251 

v. Roebuck 58 

v. Slater 797 

v. Waggoner 1190 

Cummings v. Barrett 328, 329, 1639 
v. Burleson 10nl 

v. Coleman 675, 677, 714 

v. Cummings 378 

v. Parker 1580 

v. Stone 546 

v. White 551 

Cummins v. Adams 1004 

v Bennett 632, 659, 793, 796 

V. Bromfield 1413 

r. Cummius 227, 840, 1357 

r. Fletcher 213 

v. Little 1270 

v. Nutt 1160 

v. White 630 

Cundell v. Pratt 1103 

Cuningham v. Antrobus 116, 117 
Cunliffe v. Manchester and Bol- 
ton Canal Co. 26, 144 
Cunningham v. Butler 629 
v Campbell 702 
v. Ferry 846 
v. Foot 654 
v. Freeborn 713, 844, 847 
v. Hall 940 
v. McGrady 1845 
v. Pell 223, 402, 539 
v. Rogers 1536 
v. Rome R.R. Co. 1637 
v. Schley 974 
v. Steele 526 
v. Wegg 628 
v. Williams 1281 
Cunvngham v. Cunyngnam 1475, 
1478, 1486 
Cupples v. Strahan 405 
Curd v. Curd 992, 1824 
v Davis 1653 
v. Lewis 632 
Cureton ?'. Taylor 1381 
Curlewis v. Carter 876, 1071 






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



xli 



Curlewis v Whidborne 398 

Curling v. Austin 1261, 1366, 1368, 

1369, 1375 

v. Flight 1218 

v. Townsheud, Marquis 738, 781, 

1717 

Curran v. Arkansas 141 

v Craig 1743 

» St. Charles Car Co. 197, 1548 

Curie v, Bowyer 1617 

Currev, Re, Gibson V. Way 100 

Currie v Lewiston 634 

v. Pye 1333, 1436, 1437 

Currier v. Howard 197 

v. Studley 641 

v. Webster 1240, 1245. 1386, 

1392 



Curriers' Co v Corbett 


1081, 1082, 




11338 


Curry v. Lloyd 


378 


v. McCauley 


60, 630 


v. Peebles 


1576 


v. Stokes 


1461 


Curteis v Candler 


1411, 1412 


Curtess v Smalridge 


1122 



Curteuius v Grant 


Rapids K 




Cushing v Smith 




844 


Co. 






1650 


Cushman v. Bonfield 




860 


Curtis v Curtis 




1165 


1 16 J 


Cussen v. O'Connor 




1655 


v. Fulbrook 






919 


Cust v. Boode 




592, 593 


v Goodenow 






418 


v Southee 




680 


v Gooding 






212 


distance v. Cunningham 


1668 


v. Lloyd 






793 


Cutfield D. Richards 




1390 


v. Luun 






675 


Cuth! ert v. Chauvet 




68 


v. March 






1131 


v. Creasy 




560 


v. Master 






658 


v. Ediuborough 




371 


v. Muudy 




74, 


1824 


v. Purrier 




1795 


v. Piedmont Co. 






634 


v \\ estwood 




262, 274 


v. Piatt 






1139 


!'. Wharniby 




1204 


v. Price 






1276 


Cutler, In re 97 


101 


102, 2001 


o. Robinson 






1417 


v. Creuier 




950 


v Sheffield 1507, 


1527 


1583. 


1584 


II Simons 




1775 


v. Williams 




1561, 


1562 


v. Tuttle 




190 287 


Curtiss i>. Grant 






449 


Catting, Ex parte 




1461, 1463 


v Liviugstou 






545 


V- Dana 




550, 555 


Curtius v Caledonian Ins 


Co. 


203 


v. Florida Ry. Co 




1299 


Curts n. Bardstown 






994 


v. Gilbert 




303 


Curwen v. Milburn 






646 


Cutts v. Pickering 




575 


Curzon, Ex parte 




1440, 


1450 


v. Thodi'y 




196, 231 


v De la Zouch 


506,; 


592 


Cu.. ler v. Bogert 


71 


". 720, 758 


v. Lyster 1153, 


1155, 


1158, 


1159 


v. Morelaud 


338, 347, 1461 



D. 



Dabbs v. Dabbs 987, 1077, 1080 

v. Nugent 551 

Da Costa v. Da Costa 71, 1248, 1298, 

1321 

Dade v. Alexinder 121 

v. Madison 841 

Didswell ,'. Jacobs 1825 

Daggett v. Pratt 1257 

Dagley v. Kentish 1841 

Dagly v. Crump 779 

Dahlman v. Jacobs 630 

Dailey v Kinsler 190, 256, 674 

Daily v. Litchfield 246 

Daiuese v. Hale 864 

v Kendall 1029 

Daintree v. Haynes 42, 43 

Dak in v Cope 2265 

v Union Pacific Ry. Co. 590 

Daking v. Whimper 230 

Dakins v. Garratt 481, 1379, 1601 

Dalby v Pullen 1267 

Dale r. D lie 1163 

v. Griffith 407 

v. Hamilton 1267 

v. Kent 1463 

v. M'Kvers 845, 982 

v Rosevelt 868, 986, 1073, 1075 

1485, 1486, 1489 



Daley v. Russ 
Dalgiish v Jarvio 



411 

1588, 1593, 1664, 
1672, 1675, 1678 
1555 



Dallas v Glyn 
Dallimore v O^ilby 
Dally v. Worham 
D.ilmer v. Dashwood 
Dalrymple v. Lamb 
Dalston v. Coatsworth 
D'AHeyrac v Long 
Dalton v Angus 
i v. Carr 

v. Fulham 
' v Hayter 

v. Midland Riilway 

v Roach 

v West End Street Ry. Co 
Daly v. Amberg 

v Duggan 

v. Kelly 

v. Kirwan 

v. Toole 
Dalzell v. Dueber W. C. M Co 
Darner v Portarlington, Lord 
Dameron v. Jameson 
Dan v Brown 
Dana v Nelson 



1796 

774 

1717 

37,74 

1075 

1056 

1502 

1552 

1070 

386, 833 

197 

1003 

974 

1685 

740 

281, 1652 

588 

784 

700 

794 

256 

875 

881 



Dana v. Valentine 301, 1629, 1631, 
1637 
D.inbury v Robinson 1385, 1337 
Danby v. Danby 1770 
v. Poole 877 
Dancer v Evett 1583 
v. Hastings 1748, 1749 
Dando v Dando 1202 
Dandridge v Washington 254 
Dane v. Allen 117, -!27 
v. Walker 1411, 1561 
Danell i'. Page 771 
Danford v Cameron 1045, 1452 
v. McAnulty 674 
Dan forth » Bangor 933 
v. Dinforth 1517 
v. Morrical 1624 
v. Phila. &c. Ry. Co. 663 
v Smith 379 
Dangar's Trusts, Re 1791 
Dangar v. Stewart 85, 525 
Dangerfield v. Claiborne 524, 951 
D'Angibau, Re, Andrews v. An- 
dre ws 96 
Daniel v. Boullard 841, 842 
v. Brown 16 3 
v. Ferguson 1665 
v. Hanagan 68, 161 
v. Metropolitan Ry Co 1105 



Mitchell 

tt Morrison 

v. Sinclair 

v. Stewart 
Daniel I v. Skipwith 
Daniels v Benedict 

v. Davison 

v. Taggart 



844, 1479, 2273 

341, 1548, 1549 

668 

1624 

284 

2027 

860 

666, 695, 697. 829 

.1462 

Danner v Danner 249 

Danner Land Co. v. Stonewall 

Ins. Co. 855 

Dansey v Richardson 1139 

D'Aranda v. Whittingham 251, 283. 
288 
Darbey v Whitaker 670 

Darbv w. Oilligan 1756 

v. Ouselev 1096, 1102, 1106 



Darkiu v. Marye 1274, 1278 

Darlev v Darley 1358 

v. Nicholson 389, 898, 1706, 1714 
Darling, Re 85 

v. Hammer 334 

v Osborue 1381 

v. Stauiford 953 

Darlington's Appeal 418 

Darlington. Earl v. Bowes 1124, 1137 
Darlow v. Simlock 520 

v. Sinnock 620, 528 

Darnell v. Reyny 691 

Darn ley, Lord v. London, Chat- 
ham, and Dover Ry. Co. 418 
Darrah v. Boyce 586 

Darrel v. Elen 1^60 

Darrell v Pritchard 1072, 1081, 1638, 
1641, 1662 
Darrington v. Borland 161, 1270 

Darrow v H R Home Produce Co 543 
Darst v Brockway 1651, 1665 

v. Gale 1081 

Darston v. Oxford, Earl of 1228 

Dart v. Palmer 293 

Darthez v. Clemens 360, 368 

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

Re 1800 

Dartmouth Harbour Com'rs v. 



32 
150, 272, 290 
1828 
1790 
1918 
830 
1487 
1440 
1255 
1319 
1. 53 



v. Richardson 
Dareh v. Toyer 

»'. Tozer 
D'Arey v. Blake 
Darcy t' Kelley 
Darden v Burns 
Dare Vallev R Co., 
Darey v. Whittaker 



Be 



161 
1106 
1126 
1165 
13 
1571 
1860 

113 



Dartmouth 
Darwent ?' Walton 
Darwin v. Clarke 

i'. Darwin 
Dary r. Kane 
Dascomb V Marston 
Dashwood v Bulkeley, Lord 

v. Magniac 
Daub v Martin 
Daubeney r. Coghlan 
Dauhignv V. Davallon 
Daubney v. Leake 438, 1213, 1428 

v. Shnttleworth 1594 

Daubuz v. Peel 291 

Daugars v. Rivaz 143, 1653, 1686 
Daugberty v. De-.rdorf 259 

Daunmeyer w Coleman 26 

Dauntley v. Hvde 1128 

Dausman v. Hooe 1581 

D'Auxy, Duchesse r Porter 149 

Davenport ?> Auditor General 843 

v. Davenport 37. 39, 74. 77 165, 
354,1226, 1632. 1671,2286 

v. Dows 26. 144 

v. Goldberg 906, 1071, 1072, 1075, 
1079, 1080, 1643 



xlii 



avenport v. Uarbert 


1081 


V .1. -lines! 


212 


v. Jepson 


1071 


v. Lamson 


1156 


v. Phillips 


1080 


v Powell 


1787 


v. Receivers 


1752 



V. Ky lands 972, 1081 

v. Sniffen 592, 739 

v Stafford 383, 974, 1003, 1013, 

1014, 1369, 1478 

v. Whitmore 2088 

Davers v. Davers 885, 896 

Davev V. Bennett 113 

v. burrant 505, 796, 908, 1380, 

1602 

v. Plestow 1617 

David r Frowd 1206, 1208 

v. Williams 1201 

Davidson, Re 61 

v. Bowden 72, 164, 165 

t> Burke 378 

v. Butler 1542 

v. Cooper 273 

t; Foley 1515, 1520 

v. Hastings, Marchioness of 444, 

449, 453, 456, 512, 536, 1066 

v. Isbam 1635 

v. Leslie 454 

v Stanley 1107 

Davies, Re 1069, 16:3 

v. 687 

v. Boulcott 202, 204 

v. Bush 1846 

v. Clough 1651 

v . Cracraft 1755 

v. Davies 170, 217, 281, 324, 859, 

1009, 1017, 1544, 1635 

v. Dodd 207 

v. Getty 1621 

v Jenkins 186, 187 

v. I^eo 1669 

v. Marshall 487, 801 1440, 1605, 

1638, 1681 

v. Nixon ,500, 1049. 1454 

v. Otty 365, 385, 561, 657, 891 

v. Racer 1654 

v. Spurling 371, 669, 840 

v. Whitehead 110 

v. Williams 227, 582. 588 

Davile 17. Peacock 1673 

Davis, Re 60, 135, 649, 892, 1846 

Davis, The 141 

Davis's Trusts, Re 13,_56 

Davis v. Amer 1729 

j». American & F C. Union 1548 

V Angel 316, 317, 660 
v Ashwin 1264 

V Ballenden 186 
r. Barrett 1594 
v. Battine 669, 815 
v Bay State League 243, 1411 
v Bean 1238 
v. Bluck 1537. 1577, 1578, 1579 
t; Chanter 201, 202, 598, 1459, 

1460 
v Chicago 1661 

v. Clayton 841 

v. Combermere 1173, 1256 

v Cook 1548 

v. Cripps 344, 352, 759 

v Davis 31 1 . 312. 313, 431 . 524, 
760,777,973, 1031, 1052, 
1055, 1102, 1120, 1317, 
1511, 1675 
ti Dean 235 

v. Delaware Poor Overseer 1621 
v. Dendey 1246 

v. Dowding 168 

v. Duncan 1743 

v Dver 1071 

v. Dysart, Earl ol 316, 768, 1440. 
1447 
v. Estey 251 

v. Franklin 1001, 1590 

v. Fulton 1669 

v. Qalmoye 464 



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

Davis v. Gray 1482, 1743, 1751, 1752 
v. Guiltord 860 

v. Hall 556, 669 

v. Hardy 1129 

v. Harrington 1380 

j'. Hart 1675 

v. Headley 664 

v. Hemingway 221, 256, 257 

v. Hole 478 

v. Hooper 288 

v. James 354 

v Logan 1166 

v. Lowndes 1135 

v. McNeil 1448 

v. Mapes 718,721,723,724 

v. Marlborough, Duke of 1717, 
1719, 1729, 1731, 1734, 
1741, 1764 
v. May 1241, 1251 

v. Miller 334, 346 

v. Morris 147 

v Morton 633 

v. Newton 90, 91. 102, 122 

v. Parker 629, 2072, 2259 

v. Phelps 13i)3 

v. Prout 108, 109, 430, !i60 

v Read 815 

v. Reaves 1551 

v. Reed 1631, 1637, 1667 

v. Reid 944 

v. Rogers 287 

v. St- Louis & S. F Ry. Co. 1120, 
1168 
t>. Sigourney 878 

z;. Simpson 296 

v. Smith 641 

v Snell 59, 157 

v. Speiden 597, 1031, 1576 

v. Stevens 843 

v. Sullivan 281 

v. Symonds 1398 

v. Taylor 1128, 1131 

v. Tollemache 742 

v. Turvey 1163 

v. Whiffen 595, 1590 

v. Whitmore 710 

Davis S M. Co. v Dunbar 1580, 

1584 

Davison v. Attorney-General 139, 760 
v Johnson 607, 613, 632, 670. 

694, 695 
v. Rake 254 

v. Kobiuson 867, 879, 1020 

v. Schemerhorn 655, 684 

v. White 11(56 

Davoue v Fanning 217, 342. 526, 
660, 1019, 2296 

Davy, Re ^3 

v. Garrett 313, 324, 350, 855 

r. Morgan 881 

v. Seys 1422, 1423, 1474 

Davys v. Richardson 1794 

Daw v. Eley 579, 580, 1070, 1096 

Dawes v. Benn 230 

v. Betts 1218, 1219 

v Head 251 

r Howard 1358, 1360 

v Taylor 1427 

Dawkins r. Antrobus 332, 1653 

v. Mortan 821, 823, 842, 1317, 

1327 

v. Penrhyn 560, 639 

B. Simonetti 800, 1627 

Dawson, Re 1318,1350 

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

v. Clark 1512 

v. Dawson 371, 664, 668, 1278, 

17<i2 
r. Drake 1239 

v. Ellis 843, 1380 

v. Fitzgerald 671 

v. Harris 1138 

v Jay 1348, 1350, 1600 

j\ Joy 2293 

v Lepper 560 

v. Newsome 796, 1588 



Dawson v. Parrot 


1416 


v. Parsons 


1716 


v. Pilling 


605, 628 


v. Prince 


1487 


v. Princeps 


1619 


v. Raynes 


1756, 1763, 1767 


v. Sadler 


590, 1621 


v. Scriven 


1017, 1033 


v. Shepherd 


406 



v. Yates 1720, 1729, 1736 

Day, Ex parte 1618 

v. Allaire 1120 

v. Argus Printing Co. 1029 

v. Arundle 676, 677 

r;. Batty 433, 437, 1174, 1428 

v Brownrigg 546, 1648 

t; Croft 1172, 1610, 1695, 1726, 

1746 

v. Cummings 197 

v. Day 1040, 1265, 1696 

v. Drake 262 

v. Edwards 1129 

r. Essex County Bank 144 

r Cudgen 710 

v. Holloway 1130 

v Kerr 161 

v Merry 1634 

v. Perkins 844 

v Postal Telegraph Co 1120, 1733 

v. Snee 806, 1682 

v. Walker 991 

v. Whittaker 1346 

Dayrell » Champness 1630 

Dayton ?-. Dayton 216, 378 

v. Dusenbury 1653 

v. Melick ' 1550, 1653 

Dazet v. Landry 1286 

Deacon r. Deacon 709 

Deaderick v. Smith 1061, 1281, 1283, 

1567 

r Wilson 334 

Deakin's Case 468 

Dealty v. Murphy 361 

Dean, Re, Dean v. Wright 1490 

v. Abel 978 

v. Allen 1207 

v. Crall 2101 

v. Dean 655, 657 

v. Emerson 1298,1317,1321 

v. Lethbridge 455 

v Madison 1961 

V Richmond 88 

v. Smith 1698 

v. State 851 

v Williams 1260 

v. Wilson 1070, 1169 

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

parte 1017 

Deane v. Hamber 815 

v House for Aged Colored 

Women 1427 

Deans r. Wilcoxon 334 

Dear v Sworder 1548 

v Webster 632, 700 

Dearden i>. Villiers 62 

Deare v. Attornev-General 134, 139, 

140 

ti. Soutten 103 

Dearfield v. Nims 26 

Dearin v Fitzpatrick 122 

Dearman v. Wye he 652, 655, 656, 

1024, 2095 

Dearsley v Middleweek 1448 

Dearth v. Hide and Leather 

National Bank 630, 778 

Deas r. Harvie 580 

c Thorne 280,281 

Dea^e r. Moody 844 

Deaver r. ISeynolds 1282 

Deaville v. Deaville 912 

De Balinhard v Bullock 434 

De Baun v New York 1661 

De Bay v. Griffin 1846 

Debazin v. Debazin 1714 

De Beaumont, Er parte 1801 

De Be;iuvoir v. Benyon 1479 

v Owen 639 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star pagiDg.J 



xl 



111 



DeBeauvoir v Rhodes 

Debeuhain v. Ox 

Debenture Co. v. De Murrietta 

De Beruardy v Hardiug 

De Biel Gray v. Waruer 

De Bode V. Reg. 

De lirassac v. Martyn 

De Brito v. Hillel 

Delirox's Case 

De Burgh V Clarke 

De Burgh Lawson, Re 

De Carriere v. De Callone 

Decarters v. La Farge 
Decker v Caskey 

v. Miller 

v Ruckman 
De Coster v. La Farge 
Decouche ». Savetier 
Dederick v. Farquhar 

v. Fox 

v. Hoysradt 
Deegan v. Capner 
Deeks v. Stanhope 



707 
1398 
406 

my 

14148 I 

133 

972 \ 

915, »19 

951 I 

1491, 14:)3 

100 

i, 49, 1698, 

li99, 1704 

974, 1479 

1072, 1073, 1148 

1411, 1414, 1772 

1484, 1491 

1459 

644 

418 

630 

1567 

243 

240, 243, 598, 

1511, 1527 

157 

1631, 1641 

1029 

1448 

983 

1475 

2010 

1120 

555 



Deere, Re 

v. Guest 

v. Nelson 

v. Robinson 
Deerburst V. Jones 

v. St. Albans, Duke of 
Deering v. 'fucker 

v. Winona H. Works 
Deery v. McClintock 
Deeny v. Mazarine, Duchess of 178, 
179 
Deeves v. Met'n Realty Co. 1071 

De Feucheres v. Dawes 1590 

Defflis v. Goldschtuidt 1795 

De Florez v. Raynolds 1029 

De Francesco v. Barnum 1657 

Defiles, Re 867 

v. Creed 1744 

De (Jaillon o. L'Aigle 1141 

De Geer v. Stone 47 

De Geneve v. llannam 804, 806 

De Go ley v. De Godey 1678 

]»e Golls v. Ward 157, 225, 295 



De Giaffenreid v. Brunswick, 

&c. R. Co. 
De Greiff v. Wilson 
De Greuchy v. Wills 
De (iroot v. Jay 
De Hart v. Baird 

v. Stevenson 
De lloghton v Money 
Dehou v. Foster 



1743 

405 

189 

1743, 1757 

844 

645 

230 

I, 629, 630, 

1032, 1613, 1615, 1627, 

1628, 1995 



Deignan v. Deignan 
Deiniel v. Brown 
De .lough v Newman 
Delahere v. Norwood 
Delabigarre v. Bush 
De la Borde v Otlion 
De Lacy v. Adams 

v H urst 
Delafield v. Anderson 

v. Colden 

i'. Guanabeus 

v Illinois, State of 
De la Garde v Lempriere 
Delahanty v. Warner 
Delahay v McConnel 
Delaucey v. Seymour 
Delancy v Wallis 
Delany v Mansfield 
Delap v. Hunter 
Delapl line i». Lawrence 
De la Rue v. Dickinson 
De la Salle v Moorat 
De Lashmutt v. Sellwood 
De la Torre ?'. Bernales 
Delauney v. Mitchell 
Delavan V Duncan 
De la Vega v Vianna 
De la Vergne v. Evertson 



840, 843, 850 

819 

214, 279 

284 

1742 

1660 

407,418 

341 

1 + 12 

1665 

17.24 

92 106 

1650 

1476 

1073 

1674 

1716 

987,994 

1492 

722, 2316 

797 

214 

762 

1096 

989 

48 

237 



De la Warr, Karl V Miles 1137. 1575 
Delaware, &c. R. Co. v. Erie R 

Co. 1731 

Del & Rar Canal, &c. and \. 
R. & T Co v. Bar. & Del. 
Bay R. Co. 1618, 1H23. 1639. 

1640, 1050, 1662, 1668, 1678 
Delaware L &c. R To )). Central 

Stock-yard & T. Co. 1662, 1663 
He Leou l>. Hubbard 892 

Delevaute, Re 1366, 1367, 1370. 
1374 
v Child 1366, 1367, 1370. 1374 
Delfe v. Delamotte 2314 

Dell B Barlow 1482 

v. Griffits 401 

v. Hale 548 

Delondre v. Shaw 46, 302, 315 

Deloraiue v Brown 1580 

v. Browne 559 

Deloiue V lL)llingsworth 320 

De Louis v Meek 324 

Del Pout v. Tastet 349 

Delta, The 633 

Delta County Com'rs v. Gunni- 
son County Com'rs 1621 
Delves v. Bagot, Lord 922 
v. Delves 129J 
De Manneville v De Manneville 74, 
453, 1045, 1350, 1705 
Demaree v. Driskill 829 
Demarest v. Berry 1237, 1239 
v. Hardham 303 
v. Wyukoop 186, 221, 569, 640, 
675, 1395 
Demartin v. Albert 313 
De Mattos v. Gibson 1653, 16o6 
Demill c. Moffat 1381 
De Minckwitz v. Udney 606, 69 I 
Deiuing v. James 1661 
De Montmorency v Devereux 371. 
667, 668 
D. M Osborne & Co. v Missouri 

Pac. R. Co 1638 

De Mott v Starkey 678 

Deuipsey v. Deuipsey 1278 

Den c. Farley 915 

v Pidcock 1381 

v. Tellers 1269 

v. Wood 946 

Dence v. Mason 58, 63, 157, 160 

Deudel v. Sutton 215, 255 

Deudy v Cross 1830 

v. Dendy 266, 1526 

Denis i». Rochussen 481, 485, 761, 776 

Deuison Paper Manuf. Co v. 

Robinson Manut Co 630 

Deniston v. Little 292, 384, 408, 

8^0, 861 

Denn v Barnard 1129 

V. Spinning 221 

Deuuer v. Chicago, &c Ry. Co 313, 

630 

Dennerlein v Dennerlein 1282 

Dennett v. Codman 2222 

v Dennett 1479 

Denning v. Henderson 1278 

v. Smith 678 

Dennis, Re 1491 

v. Dennis 371 

v. Perry 26 

v. Riley 1457 

Dennisou v. Bassford 524, 733, 737, 

784 

v Lee 1258 

v. Yost 564 

Denniston v. Chicago, &c. R. 

Co 1741 

Dennv i'. Denny 83 

v. Filmer 158:^ 

v Oilman 560 

v. Hancock 1004 

v Mars 35 

Densem v. El worthy 222 

Denson v Denson 1577 

Denston v. Ashton 'i4 

Dent v Auction Mart Co. 1638 



815 
1060 
lto66 
555, 



156 

1491 

26 

630 

1101 

1566 

570 

147, 1564 

575, 944 

1054, 10.55 

646 

346 



Dent v. Dent 1053, 1177, 1826 

v. Hertford Hundred of 1131 

v. London Tramways Co '^41 

v. Turpin 208, 1649 

V. Wardel 4^6 

Denton v. Denton 1699, 1703, 1704 

v Jackson 930, 953 

Denver & R. G. Ry. Co v. Deu- 

ver &c. R. Co. 1548 

Denver R. L. & C. Co. v. Union 

Pacific Ry. Co. 586 

Deuys v. Locock 615, 617, 620, 656, 
20.5 
De Penny v Christie 149 

De Pereda v De Mancha 1347 

De Peyster v. Golden 881 

v. Graves 1675, 1676, I6s5 

Depue v. Sergent 782 

De fuy v Wabash 
Derby v Ancram 

Bank v. Heath 

Earl of v. Athol, Duke of 

611, 629, 1556 
Derbyshire, &c Ry. Co. v. Baiu- 

brigge 1037 

v. Serrell 1621 

De Kivafinoli v. Corsetti 1699, 1700, 
1702 
De Rothschild v. Morrison 
Derrick «'. l^imar 
Derry v. Peck 

v. Ross 
De Sailly v. Morgan 
Desboro v. Harris 
Desborough v. Curlewis 

v Harris 

v. Rawlins 
Desbrow v Crommie 
Deshon v. Eaton 
Desilla v Schunck 
Des Moines & M. R Co. v Alley 385 
Des Moines Gas Co. v. Des Moines 

1650 

v. West 1717 

De Sorbien v Bland 1"68 

Despau v. Swindler 546 

Desplaces v. Goris 347, 352, 721, 

728 
De Tastet v Bordenave 10' 

v. Bordieu 

v. Lopez 

v Sharpe 

v. Tavern ier 
De Teissier Settled Estates, Re 1233 
Detillin v. Gale 1385, 1391 

Detroit v Dean 26 

v Detroit City Ry. Co. 790 

V. Wayne Circuit Judge 1675 

Detroit Bank ?>. E. G. Barnum 

Wire Works 1765 

Detroit, &c. Fire Ins. Co. v. 

Rentz 491 

Detroit, &c. Ry. Co. v. Detroit 1638 
Detweiler v. Holderbaum 149 

De Uprev v. De Uprey 1157 

Devall v. Scales 1625 

Devaucene v. Devaucene 1056, 1062 
De Vaughn V Hustead 1073 

Devavnes v Morris 813, 1539 

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

Devenish?' Devenish 461 

Devereaux v. Cooper 722, 723 

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

De Visme v. De Vi-me 1278 

De Visser v. Blackstone 1743 

De Vitre v. Betts 1503 

Devlin r Commonwealth 1508 

v, Chester 614 

De Voe r Ithaca & Oswego R.R 

Co ^ 1053 

Devousher v Newenham 265. 581, 

585,600, 1661, 1682 

Devonshire, Re 1610 

Dew v. Clark 155, 936 



1083 
1729 
776 
658 
324 



xliv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
[The leferences are to the star paging.] 



1726 



Dew v Clarke 

De Wall's Count, Case 47 

Dewberry v Shannon 334 

Dewduey , Ex parte 559, 643, 646 

v Palmer 1098 

Dewees v. Dewees 1553 

De Weever v Kochport 1350,1361, 

2294 

v Rockport 2294 

Dewell, A'e, Edgar v. Reynolds 2o2 

Dewey v St. Albans Trust Co. 991 

Dewing v. Perdicaries 26 

De Whelpdale v. Milbirn 262 

De Wiutou v. Brecon. Mayor of 

1731, 1744 
De Witt v. Hayes 1631 

De Wolf V. A. & W. Sprague 

Mauuf. Co. 334 

v. De Wolf 219, 237, 288 

v. Johnson 157, 885 

v. Long 837, 845 

v. Mallett 286, 445 

Dexter v Arnold 221,284,285,64(1, 

764, 841. 1062, 1019, 1030, 1240, 

1241, 1242, 1315, 1317, 1575, 

1576, 1577, 1578, 1579, 15,^0, 

1581, 1584 

v Codnian 1110 

v. Providence Aqueduct Co 1639 

Dey v. Dunham 855, 1902 

V. Walton 1497 

Deybel's Case 546 

De Zouche v Garrison 1561 

Duegetoft v. Loudon Assurance 

Co. 197 

D"Hornuisgee v. Grey 28 

Dial v. Gary 1019 

v. Reynolds 277, 339, 1627 

Dias v Bouchaud 272, 287, 557 

v. Merle 1523, 1578, 1580 

Dibbs v. Goren 152 

Dicas v. Lord Brougham 2 

Dice v. McCauley 1164 

Dick v Dick 334 

v. Muuder 28, 358 

v Oil Well Supply Co. 314 

v. Strut hers 1743 

v. Swintou 1700, 1704, 1706, 1713 

Dickenson v. Blake 1128, 1134 

v Fisher 1122 

v. Grand Junction Canal 1657, 

1681, 1682 

v. Lockyer 1404 

j) Teasdale 649, 608 

Dicker v Clarke 447, 449, 460. 461 

v. Popham 1080 

Dickerson v. Ilodges 710 

v. Stoll H''4 

v. Talbot 1294 

« Winslow 334, 545 

Dickev v. Allen 844 

v. Reed 1683 

Dickins v Harris 205, li22 

Dickinson v. Davis 3<>2 

v Lamoille Co. Nat. Bank 215 

v Legare 1257 

V Railroad Co. 841 
v Seaver 1440 

V Shee 1102 
Dicks v Brooks 858, 890, 1620 

v. Yates 1377 

Dickson v. Harrison 195 

Didier v. Davison 609 

Dierden v Villiers 62 

Dierdon, lie 880 

Dietrich v. Northwestern Ry. 

Co. 1639 

Dietrichsen v. Cabburn 1656 

Diffenderffer v. Winder 1369 

Digby v. Boycatt 1202, 1798 

v. Browne 1287 

Lord v. Meech 320 

Diggens v Gordon 1503 

Diggle v. Boulden 1062 

Diggs o. Wolcott 1627 

Dighton v. Withers 284, 1390. 1424 
Dike v. Greene 545, 557 



Dill v. Shahan 1548, 1553 

Dillard v. Harris 261, 853 

v. Krise 1209 

v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co. 51 

Dillon v. Ashwin 710 

v Barnard 545 

v. Davis 409, 1536 

v. Francis 312 

t>. Mount Cashell, Lady 1722 

Lord v. Alvaies 6ii3 

Dills v. Doebler 1655, 1663 

Dilly v. Barnard 844 

v. Doig 339, 1644 

v Heckrott 361 

Dilmau v Schultz 45 

Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal 

Co. 1023 

v. Steinberg 251, 664 

DiuiUioch v Atkinson 97 

Dimmock v. Bixby 237. 341. 549, 

559, 684 

Dinckle v Tiuirod 1150 

Dines v. Scott 1181, 1187, 1230 

Dingle v. Rowe 950 

Dingwall v. Heming 1458, 1565, 1558 

Diusuiore v Crossmau 392,395, 1556, 

1558 

v. Hazelton 

v. Westtott 

Diuwiddie v Bailey 

v. Bell 
Dios v. Merle 
Diplock v. Hammond 



Dipper v. Durant 
Di Savini v. Lousada 
Lisbrow v. Heushaw 

v Johnson 
Disney, lie 
Di Sora v Phillipps 
District Attorney v. Lynn 

Boston R. Co. 
Dix v. Briggs 
Dixon, lie 

v. Atley 

v. Buell 

v. Dawson 

v. Dixon 

v. Donaldson 

v. Eaton 

v. Enoch 

v. tarrer 

v. Krazer 

v Gay fere 

v. Higgius 

v. Holden 



722 

441 

561 

1157 

1177 

1560. 1561, 

1566, 1567 

413 

1346 

1497 

881, 981, 1031 

102 



Dod v. Paul 


659 


Dodd, Ex parte 


228 


v. Bellows 


1565 


v. Beuthal 


378 


v- Cook 


1965 


V- Flavel 


1081 


v. Ghiselin 


74 


v. Hartford 


1661 


v. Holbrook 


1069 


v. Neal 


1138 


v. Webber 


449 


v. Wilkinson 


349 


Dodder v Bank of 


England 136 


Dodge v. Briggs 


334 


v. Dodge 


1530 


v Essex Ins. Co 


645 


v. Fuller 


281, 287 



864 



& 

10 

329 

1488, 1603 

1774, 1775 

197 

1433 

1298 

286 

1558 

1556 

6,10 

720 

649 

890 

1620, 1648 

133 

686 

657, 961, 1405 

790, <9l 

1267 

1057 

801, 804 

970 

1058 

.. Sumner County ConTrs 26 

v. Wilkinson 1341 

v. Wyatt 1522, 1523, 1524, 1531, 

1540 

Dobbs v. Protho 16-5 

Dobede v. Edwards 804, 809, 1593 

Doboy & Union Tel Co. v. De 



v Loudon Small Arms Co. 

v. Olmiu8 

v. Parker 

v. Parks 

V, Pyuer 

v. Rowe 

v. Rutherford 

v. Shuui 

v. Smith 



Mngathias 
D'Obree, Ex parte 
Dobree v. Nicholson 
Dobson v. Bowness 

c. Dobson 

v. Faithwaite 

v. Festi 

v. Grahiim 

v Hartford Carpet Co. 

v. Land 

V, Leadbeater 

v Pattinson 

r Pearce 
Docker v. Horner 
Dockray v. Mason 



26 

67 

707 

1136 

1493 

1526 

149 

1556 

517, 1408 

1246 

622, 677 

1417 

1615,1627 

1809 

256 



v. Gri.-wold 1073, 1076,1120, 1123, 

1147, 1453 

v Israel 924 

v. Northrop 1584 

v. Pei kins 314, 358, 374, 555, 656, 

628, 1258 

v. Strong 1621 

v. Tulleys 200 

v Woolsey 26 

Dodgson, lie 1809 

Dodslej v Kinnersley 1642 

Dodsou v. Bishop 1271 

v Lomax 295, 1566 

v. McKelvey 417 

v. Scammell 974, 1459 

Dodsworth, lie, Spence v. Dods- 

worth 894 

Doe c. Andrews 575 

v. Burdett 873 

V. Childress 159 

v. Deakin 873 

v. Doe 406, 1631 

v. Green 347, 1450 

v. Horniblea 46 

v. Perkins 1099 

t>. Robertson 46 

v. Roe 28, 313, 1097, 1135, 1675 
v Sanger 660 

v. Vallejo 1121 

v. Warren 1259 

v. Wolley 873 

Doe d. Bather v. Brayne 1128 

Fox v. Bromley 1097 

Gilbert v. Ross 1127, 1138, 1139 
Goslee v. Goslee 1106 

Lewis v Barter 1109 

Mason v Mason 1129 

Norton v. Webster 1098 

Phillips v. Benjamin 1127 

RowcliHe*'. Egreuiont, Earl of 1105 
Strickland v. Strickland 1127 

Tathamv Wright 1125,1126 

Tindalf Roe 1132 

Tynham v. Tyler 1126 

Walsh v. Langfield 1126 

Wildgoose ti. Pearce 1098 

Worcester Trustees v. Row- 
lands 1096 
Doechsner v. Scott 39, 111, 112 
Doggett v Eastern Counties Ry. 

Co 1528 

Doherty r. Allman 1628 

v Holiday 243 

v. Stevenson 109, 286, 390 

Dolder v Bank of England 17, 18, 

764, 780 

v Huntingfield, Lord 17, 18, 53, 

300, 546, 592 

Dole v. Wooldredge 

Dollard V. Taylor 

Dolling v Evans 

Dollman v Collier 

Dolly v Challin 

Dolman, lie 

v. Cook 
Dominicetti v Latti 
Dommett v. Bedford 
Domville t>. Barriugton 

v. Solly 
Don ti. Lippman 



1071, 1110 

1463 

561 

1299 

414, 421 

33 

P.38 

1175 

1399 

1267, 1271 

1777, 1780 

48 



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



Donahue v. Flackler 


1279 


Donald v. Bather 


201, 262 


Donaldson v. Fairfax 


1103 


v Johnson 


1312 


Done's Case 


1703, 1705 


Done v Read 


689, 732, 783 



Donerail, Lord v. Donerail, Lady 853 

Donne v. Hart 124 

v. Lewis 1017 

Donnell v Bennett 15, 96 

v Columbian Ins Co 130'* 

v King 612, 674,677 



v. Parrott 
Donnellan v. Hardy 
Donnelly v Ewart 
Donner v Quartermaa 
Donohoe V Mariposa Min Co 
Donohue ?>. Chase 
Donovan v. Dunning 

v Finn 

v Fricker 
Dooby v. Watson 
Doody, Re, Fisher v. Doody 



1623 
867 
411 
1511 
1553 
1299 
334 
1037 
1251 
642 
1235, 
1414 

v. Higzins 97, 191, 222, 225 

v. Pierce 215, 260, 829, 834, 887, 

1180, 1226, 1237, 1241 

Dooley v. Potter 1253 

Doolittle v. Gooking 845 

v. Lewis 251 

v. Walton 1689 

Doon v. Bayer 846 

Doran v Everitt 1564 

v. Simpson 323 

Dore Gallery, Re 911 

Dorft;. Walter 1556 

Dorin v Dorin 1503 

Dorian v. Guie 1642 

Dormer v. Fortescue 393, 602, 611, 

987,1362,1532,1533,1558 

Dorn v Bayer 734, 737 

Dornford v Dornford 13-39 

Dorr v. Harrian 1*554 

v. Tremont National Bank 1071, 

1110 

865 

648, 

1572 

291 

1061, 1277 

1845 

52 

334 

1400 

52 



Dorrett v. Meux 

Dorset, Duke of v. Girdler 

Dorsett v. Dorsett 
Dorsey v. Campbell 
v. Corn 
v. Kyle 
v Lake 
v Smith 
v. Thompson 
Dorsheimer v. Rorback 83,249, 1029, 
1368 
Doss v. Tyack 974 

v. Secretary of State for India 

18,629,1558 
719 
560 
117 
721 
517 
1027 
1610 
1158 
385 
1242 
1576 
417 

llul 



Dos Santos V. Frietas 
Dossee v. Mookerjee 
Doswell v. Earle 
Dott v Hoyes 
Dotterer v. Freeman 
Doubleday v. Sherman 
Doubtfire v. Elworthy 
Doughaday v. Crowell 
Dougherty v. Humpson 

v. M'Colgan 

v. Morgan 

v. Murphy 

v. Shown 
Doughty v. West, B 

Manuf. Co. 
Douglas v. Andrews 

v. Archbutt 



& C 

2396 

1360 

858, 890, 1234, 1414, 

1601 

v. Butler 109 

v. Clay 250, 1207 

v. Horsfall 221, 245, 273 

t>. Terry 1704 

v. Walbridge 334 

Douglass v. Baker County 1675 

v. Cline 1734 

v. Culverwell 1399 

v. Douglass 560 



Douglass v Evans 


525 


v. Harrisville 


1661 


v Joyner 


1567 


v. M'Chesney 


1073 


v. Merceles 


13U9 


v. Phenix Ins. Co. 


604 


v Sherman 


1507, 15H8 


v. Thompson 


1677 


Dougrey v. Topping 


737, 1677 


Douthit v. Hipp 


214 


Douthwaite v. Spensley 


1782 


Douw v. Sheldon 


328, 558 


Dovenby Hospital, Re 


1611 


Dover v- Uarrell 


674 


v. Portsmouth Bridge 


1637 


Dover Harbor, Warden, 


&c. of 


v. London, Chatham, & 


Dover Ry Co 


1640 


Dovey v. Hobson 


1092, 1128 


Dow v Berry 


630 


v. Dickinson 


1137 


V. Eley 


1554 


v. Jewell 68, 163, 164, 165, 167, 


169, 170, 171, 997 


1530, 1533 


Dowdall v. Lennox 


1381 


Dowden v Hook 


38, 111 


v Junker 


1069 


Dowdeswell v. Dowdeswel 


201, 249, 


292,! 


Dowell v Applegate 


597 


v. Covenhoven 


108, 110 


ti. Mitchell 


630, 659 


t». Tuffnell 


■ 1285 


Dowle v. Lucy 


1293 


Dowley v. Winfield 


1795 


Dowling v. Falmouth 


U. S 


Board 


1829 


v Hudson 152 


1718, 1735 


v. Legh 


838 


Down v. Yearley 


897 


Downer v. Dana 


1021 


v. Wilson 


1515 


Downes v. East India Co 


595 


v. Friel 


1019 


Downey v. Bullock 


1359 


Dowuie v. Nettleton 


579, 1556 


Downing, Re 


58, 157 


v Palmateer 284 


1628, 1630 


v Pickeu 


1801 



Downing College Case 1440 

Downshire v. Tyrrell 1735 

Downshire, Marquis of v. San- 
dys, Lady 1634 
Dows v McMichael 695, 697, 704 
Dowson v Hirdcastle 1570 
v Solomon 964 
Doyle, petitioner 1120 
v. Muntz 302, 419, 699 
v San Diego Land & Town 

Co. 145 

v. Wiley 938 

v Wisconsin 1467 

Dozier v Edwards 216 

v. Sprouse 992 

Drage )». Hartopp 149 

Drake r Brooki.jg 139 i 

v Delliker 216 

V. Drake 722, 984, 1003, 1577 

v Goodridge 287,406 

v. Syrnes 403, 485, 724, 776 

Dranquet v. Prudhomrne 850 

Drant r. Vause 161 

Draper ?>. Buxton 14^2 

v Clarendon, Lord 277 

v. Crowther 628, 629 

v. Jennings 214 

v. Manchester & Sheffield Ry. 

Co 1837 

Drapers' Company v. Davis 1256 

Dravo v F'avel 551, 737 

Drax v. Somerset & Dorset Ry. 

Co. 278 

Drayton v Logan 1076 

v. Wells 1U8 

Drennan o. Andrew 32, 40, 1482 

v. Huskey 1003 

Dresser v. Morton 40, 519, 528 



xlv 



Drever v. Maudesley 27. 53, 1205, 

1291. 1752 

Drevon v. Drevon 892, 915 

Drew v Beard 1299, 418, 1296. 

131 < 

v Drew 6)5, 684, 721 

V. Ilarman 259 

v. Long 825 

v. Norbury, Earl of 280 

v. O'Hara 280 

v. Power 66S 

Drewer. , Re 1814 

Drewiy v. Barnes 1731 

v. Thacker 1615, 1617, 1684, 

1686 

Drexel v. Berney 378, 1618 

Dreyfus v. Peruvian Guano Co. ;<62, 

1556 

Drickle v. Timrod 1166 

Driggs v. Daniels 14ti3 

v. Rockwell 944 

Drinan v. Mannix 36. Ill, 112 

Dringer v. Erie Ry. Receiver 1584 

v. Jewett 1029, 1584 

Drioli v Sedgwick 809 

Driver v. Cobb 1625 

v Fortner 325,378,379 

Drogheda v. Malone 603, 612, 674 

Dromgoolei). Spence 657 

Drope V. Miller 2335 

Drought V. Redford 1321 

Droullard v. Baxter 368, 411 

Drover v Beyer 389, 1699, 1706 

Druce v. Denison 105, 1809 

Druiffy Parker, Lord 1961 

Drummond v Drummond 449 

v. Magruder 418 

v. St Albans, Duke of 641 

v. Tillinghurst 29 

v Westervelt 543 

Drury v. Bonner 630, 845, 846, 

847 

v Molins 1656, 1672 

Drybutter v. Bartholomew 1404 

Dryden v. Foster 798 

v. Froat 1388 

v Robinson 670 

Du Barre v. Livette 576 

Duberley v. Day 119, 127 

Dubless v. Flint 1780, 1782 

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

tery 1503 

Dubois v. Dubois 874 

j>. Hole 179,181,445,499 

Duboll v Field 1461 

Dubourg de St. Colombe v 

United States 857, 1221 

Dubout v. Macpherson 406, 447, 
1596 
Duchess of Westminster Silver 

Ore Co , Re 1490 

Duekcri). Wood 1130 

Duckett v Gover 26, 242, 3i>8, 

599 

Duckworth v Duckworth 360, 361 

v. Trafford 1734 

Ducoign v. Schreppel 1-127 

Dudgeon v Corley 730 

v. Thomson 1492. 161 Q 

v. Watson 83. i;:;o 

Dudley v Bachelder 365, 661, 655 

v. Balch 37 

t\ Burgen 123S 

v. Congregation 378 

v Facer 13*1 

v Grayson 46 

v. Witter 2*1 

Dues v. Smith 95 

Dufaur, Re 1044 

v. Sigel 1405 

Duff?> Barrier 1029 

v. Duff 630 

v. First National Bans 328, 560 

v. McDonough 

Duffield v. Denny 1203 

v. Elwes 1044, 1742, 1793 

tJ. Greaves 586 



xlvi 



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



Duffield l) Robeson 851, 852 

V ^turges 819. 828 
Dutfort v. ArrowsmMi 70. 799 
Duffy, lie li'4 

v. Jovce 27 

V Moran 1074 
Dufour v. Kious 13S1 

v. Long 1029 

v Sigell 350, 759 

Dugau V Gittings 845 

Dugdale v Dugdale 1431 

v Johnson 1600 

v Robertson 2309 

Dnggan, He 1610 

Duhamuiel r Pickering 50 

Duke v Barnett 988 

r Harper 563 

V Palmer 122 
Duke of Newcastle, lit 1035, 1037 
Duke of Somerset, lie 87 
Dula v. Seagle 1281 
Dulwich College, Re 15 
Dumford v. Duniford 632 
Duuimer v Chippenham 143, 145, 

297, 378, 566 

v Pitcher 117 

Dumond v. Magee 90, 734, 2285 

Dumont v Fry 322, 630, 1168 

Dumoussay v. Delevit 48 

Duuphy v. Kleinsmith 1076 

Dumville v Ashbrooke 1731 

Dunball v. Walters 1638 

Dunbar v. Boldero 1609 

e Johnson 371 

v. Woodcock 986, 1259 

Duncalfu. Blake 611 

Duncan v Campan 1463 

v Campbell 104. 107 

v. Chesapeake, &c. R Co. 1734 

v Dixon 122 

v. Dodd 1286 

v Ewing 1257 

v Findlater 1752 

v Greenwalt 313 

v. Haves 1635 

v. King 1110 

v. Luntley 197 

v Lvon 551 

v. M Calmont 1626 

v. Varty 1137, 1139, 1148, 1149 

v. Vereker 348 

r Wiekliffe 285 

Duncomb v. Daniel 1096 

Duncombe, Ex parte 1699 

v. Davis 761 

v Greenacre 92, 101, 102, 108 

v. Hansley 283 

v Levy 431 

v Lewis 413 

Dundas v. Dutens 307, 309, 1037, 

1053 

Dungannon, Lord v Skinner 886 

Dungey v Angove 1560, 1561, 1562, 

1563, 1564, 1565, 1567, 1570 

Dunham v. Gates 842, 843, 847 



Dunham v Hyde Park 549 

v Jackson 847, 1702, 1705 

Miiiard 1061, 1283 

v. Ramsey 267 

v. State 1070 

v Wiuans 930, 147y 

Dunklev v. Dunkley 102 

v Scribnor 1055 

v. Van Buren 815 

Dunklin v Harvey 986, 1584 

Duulap r Clibbs 559 

V M'Elvoy 458 

v. Stetson 1624 

V. Wilson 844 

Dunlevy v Dunlevy 1580 

Dunlop v Hubbard 1569, 1570 

Dunn, Ez parte 129 

v. Barnum 674 

v. Campbell 1561 

v Clarke 447 

v. Coates 553, 1556 

v. Dunn 79, 81. 336,345, 443, 449, 

539, 844, 1111, 1121, 1S39, 

1842 

v. Ferrior 412. 423 

v. Graham 846 

v. Keegin 686 

v. McEvoy 32 

r Snowden 17!<5 

v Whitney 1228 

v. Wolf 256 

Dunne v. Dunne 2198 

v. Engiish 852, 1782 

Dunnell v. Henderson 1317 

Dunning v Hards 1214 

v Stanton 457 

Duunock v. Dunnock 630 

Dunny v Filmore 1580, 1583 

Duuphy v. Traveller Newspaper 

Association 334 

Dunsany v Shaw 697 

Duusback v. Collar 369 

Dunscomb v Dunscomb 1412 

v. Ualtz 12s2 

Dunshee v. Parmelee 1259 

Dunstan v Patterson 1387 

Dunster v. Mitford 1467, 1468 

Dunthorne v. Bunbury 1380 

Dupignac v Van Buskirk 1591 

Du Plessisv Attorney-General 5 

Dupont v. Johnson 1358, 1404, 1415. 

1417 

v. Ward 508 

Duponti v Massey 407, 828, 2385 

Dupuy t\ Gorman 1286 

v Strong 208 

r Welsford 68, 75 

Durand v Hutchinson 635 



Durant v. Bacot 




1973 


v. Crowell 




1734 


v Kssex Co. 


659, 


790, 994 


v. Moore 




1685 


Durbaine v. Knight 




188 


Durburow v Niehoff 




243 


Durdant v. Redman 




588 



Durell v. Pritchard 1072, 1080, 1081, 

1638, 1641, 1661 

Durfee v. Durfee 878 

v. McClurg 737,846 

v. Old Colony, &c. R R Co 26 

Durham v Brackles 98, 710 

v. Jackson 389 

v Legard 1526 

v. Taylor 448 

Durkee v Stringham 1484 

Durr v. Bowyer 91, 122 

Durrand, Ex parte 133 

Dursley v. Berkley 316 

Lord, v Fitzhardinge 317, 1572, 

1573 

Duryee v. Lingheimer 1550 

Dustin v. Newcomer 14ol 

Dutch Church, &c. v Mott 989 

ti Smock 1320 

Dutch West India Co. t' Van 

Moyses 24 

Dutton i'. Thomas 1734 

Du Val v. Marshall 1722 

Duval v. Mount 1278 

Dtivall v. Farmers' Bank 90. 91, 122 

v Speed 272 

v. Waters 1629, 1634, 1669 

Du Vigier v Lee 652 

Du Wahl v. Brauue 89 

Dux Bucks v. Gayer 1237 

Duxbury v. Isherwood 150 

Dwight Central Vermont R. Co 590, 

603, 634 

v. Humphreys 311,312 

v. Northern, &c R Co. 1081 

v Pomeroy 849, 832 

v Smith 369 

Dwinal v Smith 716 

Dwyer v. Olivari 216 

v. St. Louis & S. F R Co 1071 

Dyckman v. Kernochan 1567, 1623 

I Dyer, Re, Dyer v. Paynter 1157 

v Clark 1950 

v Kearsley 1615, 1616 

v. Lincoln 658 

v Potter 1382, 1401 

v. Pulteney 279 

V. Shurtleff 1381 

v. Vinton 1157 

Dyers Co v. King 1638 

Dvett v N. A. Coal Co. 443, 445 

Dyke v. Cannell 1168 

v Stephens 7, 68 

Dykes v. Taylor 1264, 1657 

Dymond v. Croft 448, 1175, 1596 

Dvnevor Duffryn Collieries Co., 

Re 1611 

DyotttJ Anderton 1186 

v Dyott 31 

Dvson v. Benson 592 

v. Hornby 61, 225, 1277 

v. Morris 227, 252, 540. 857, 980, 

1510, 1533 

Dzialynski v. Jacksonville Bank 584, 



E. 



Eado t'. Jacobs 579 : 

v. Lingood 868 

Eadem v Lutman 1141 

Eaden v. Firth 876, 1071. 1072, 1080, 

1640,1641,1643 

Endes v. Harris 152, 281, 302, 1517 

Eadie v. Addison 364 

Eady v Watson 1798 

Eager, Re Eager v. Johnstone 449 

v Price 1523, 1535, 1537 

r Wiswall 1825, 1833 

Eagle v Beard 558, 586 

v Le Breton 426 

Eagle Bank v. Chapin 25 

Eagle fire Ins Co v. Cammet 194,228 



Eagle Ins Co v. Lent 389 

v Pell 1246 

Eagle Iron Works, Matter of 173:) 

Eagle Manuf. Co. t>. Miller 2 19 

Eakin V. Herbert 1275 

Eames v. Eames 987, 1079, 1080, 

1110 

v. Hacon 201, 202, 224, 250, 254 

v Smith 1126 

Eardley B Knight 1381 

Eardy ». Headford 30 

Earl r Beadleston 1639 

v De Hart 1637, 1662 

v. Ferris 109, 179, 182, 754 

v. Matheny 1621 



Earl's Trust, Re 892 

Earle v Holt 207 

v. Pickin 1192, 1193 

v. Sidebottom 322, 336, 1169 

v U'ood 1885 

Eirles » Earles 801 

Earp v. Lloyd 580, 725, 726, 774, 

1831 

Easlev v Tarkington 853 

Eastr East 334.1229 

v. Ryal 1418 

East Anglian Railway Co v. 

Goodwin 912, 913 

Eastburn v. Kirk 1381, 1463, 1668. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



xivil 



[The references are to the star paging.] 



Eastern Counties Ry. Co., Re 1860 
East India Co. v. Atkius 565 



V. 


Bjizett 


1123, 1124, list 


V. 


BoJdain 


1475, 1478 


V. 


Campbell 


563, 564, 7u2, 7o4 


V. 


Coles 


287, 559 


V. 


Donald 


713, 848 


V. 


Edwards 1561 


, 1563, 1564, 1565 


V. 


Ekines 


1393 


V. 


Henchman 


370, 506, 544 


V. 


Keighley 


1188, 1236, 1318 


V. 


Naish 


935 


V 


Neave 


565 


V. 


Kumbold 


444 


V 


Vincent 


1.338 



Edee v Strunk 
Edelin v. Lyon 

Edelsteu v. Edelsten 



1661 

770 



324 



East Lancashire Ry Co v. Hat- 

tersley 1598, 1631, 1671 

East Llangynog Lead Mining Co , 

Re 28 

East Saginaw S. Ry. Co 

Wiidman 
East St Louis v Trustees 
East St. Louis C. R. Co v. 

People 

Eastman v. Amoskeag Manuf. 

Co. 1631, 1634, 1635, 1337, 1638, 

1639, 1640, 1641 

v. Batehelder 1546 

v. McAlpice 844 

v. Plumer 385, 1889 

v Savings Bank 334 

v Simpson 380, 1082 

Eastman Co v Reichenbach 1650 

Easton v. Houston & T. Ry. 

Co 1746 

r Houston & T. C. R. Co. 986, 

1019, 1770 

v. London Joint Stock Bank 1440, 

1449 

v. New York, &c. R Co 1029, 

1665 

East Pant United L. M. Co. v. 

Merryweather 241, 306 

East Tennessee R. Co v. Atlanta 

R Co. 1743 

East & West India Docks v. 

Littledale 151, 1564, 1566, 1568 
1728 
1611 
1081 
844 
1683 
1576 
631 
1677 

lass 

1247 

987 

1463 



Eastwick v. Conningsby 
Eastwood v. Glenton 

v. Lever 
Eaton's Appeal 
Eaton, Re 

v. Dickinson 

v. Eaton 

v. Jenkins 

v. Lyon 

v Simonds 

v, Truesdail 
Eaton R. Co. v. Varnum 
Eatough & Co. Lim'd, Ex 

parte 630 

Eaves v Hickson 1418, 1421 

Ebb* v Boulnois 62, 157 

Eberhart v Gilchrist 1291 

Eberly v. Gross 3f4 

Eborn v. Zimpelman 879 

Ebrard v. Gassier 28 

Ecaubert v. Appleton 354 

Ecclcs v. Liverpool Borough 

Bank 1601 

v Timmons 128 

Ecclesall, Overseers of, Re 1855 

Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 

Ex parte 1610 

v. Marshall 280 

v. North Eastern Ry. Co. 560, 649 
Eehliff!;. Baldwin 1652, 1665 

Eckrrt v. Binkley 779 

v Wilson 1258 

Eckford v. Dekay 885 

v. Eckford 1411 

Eckleman v Miller 1639 

Eddleston v Collins 125 

Eddowes v. Argentine Loan Co. 894 
Eddy, Ex parte 1743 

v. Caprin 334 

v Lafayette 1621 



1716 

610 

13S1. 1394, 

1648, 1649 

720 

1504 

1250 

1031, 1568 

1611 



Edelston v. Russell 
Edeu v. Bute, Karl 
V. Linireut'elter 
v Naish 
v. Thompson 
Eden borough v Canterbury, 

Archbishop of 1435, 1436, 1653 
Eden.-or v. Roberts 1570 

Kdevain v. Cohen 417, 659, 785 

Edgar v. Cleveuger 1516 

v. Reynolds 133 

Edgcumbe v. Carpenter 1618 

Ed^ell v Francis 1130 

v. Haywood 237, 559, 1037 

v. Lowell 917 

Edgerv. Knapp 1134,1137 

Edgertou v. Muse 1029 

Edge's Parent, Re 1071 

Edgett v Douglass 630 

Edgill v Brown 15-8 

Edgson v. Edgson 171. 429, 442 

Edichal Bullion Co v. Columbia 

G M. Co. 860 

Edie v. East India Co 1132 

Edinboro Normal School v 

Cooper 1381 

Edington v. Banham 429, 1522 

Edison Electric Light Co v. 
United States Electric Light- 
ing Co. 578, 581 
Edison & S Electric Light Co. 

v. Holland 406 

Edlesten v. Vick 2319 

Edm.inds v. Brougham, Lord 348, 

355 

195 

2313 

1826 

461 

1517 

125, 246 

508 

1126 

418 

1169 

1725 

911 

157, 663 

703 

974 

856, 858 

295 

147 

394,395 



Edmond v. Caldwell 
Edmonds v. Benhow 

v. Foley, Lord 

v. Nichol 

v. Robinson 
Edmond>on v Harris 
Edmonson V Ueyton 

v. Machell 
Edmund's Appeal 
Edmunds v. Acland 

v. Bird 

v. Brougham 

v Waugh 
Edmundson v. Hartley 
Edney v Edney 

v. Jewell 

v King 
Edridge v. Ed ridge 
Edriugton v. Allsbrooks 
Edsall v. Vandemark 
Edsell v. Buchanan 370, 587, 640, 
650 
S69 
100, 109 



Edson v. Girvan 

Edward v. Cheyne 

Edward Barr Co. v. New York 



&c. Co. 
Edwardes v. Burke 
Edwards, Ex parte 
Ed war, Is, Re 

v. Abrey 

v. Banksmith 

V. Batley 

v . Boiline 

v. Carroll 

v Chilton 

v. Coombe 

V Cunliffe 

v Davies 

v. Dignum 

v Drake 

v. Edwards 



v. Evans 
v Gill 
v. Goodwin 
v . Harvey 



v. Hope 



1642 

29,31 

1353, 1584 

108, 1348, 1765 

86 

281 

1526 

1663 

1580 

1653 

157 

1000 

ss 

1182 

542 

283, 811, 173*. 1741, 

1771, 1780 

1126 

1274 

1181 

224, 1382. 1400, 1408, 

1421, 1795 

1447 



Edwards v. Jones 1823, 1829 

v Lowther 406 

tf M'Lear 780 

v. MXeay 7-1 

v. Massey 361, 1047, 1698, 1699 

v. Matthews 11^8 

V Maupiu 1274 

v. Morgan 948, lo52 

v Poole 1(>44 

v. Rogers 860 

v Sartor 334 

v Scott 1138 

v Spaight 915 

v . Tuck 1795 

Edwards-Wood v Baldwin 561 

Edwardson v. Maseby 1576, 1577 

Edwick v. Hawkes 1082 

Edwiu v. Thomas 1124, 1137 

Eedes v. Eedes lU4, lu7 

Effingham, Lady v. Napier, 

Sir J . 73 

Egan v. Baldwin 1424 

Egbert v. Greenwalt 851 

v. Woods 217, 303 

Egerton v. Egerton 1417 

v. Jones 1218 

Egg v Devey 793, 811 

Eggiutou v Burton lo2 

Eggleston v Boardman 1845 

Kglin v. Dryden 100 

v. Saudtr>on 1419 

Eglington, Earl of v. Lamb 1144, 1825 

Egmout v. Darell 876, 10* J , 1072, 

1U74 

v Smith 195 

Egremout v. Cowell 360, 595 

v. Egremout 161 

v Thompson 229, 266 

Earl of v. Hamilton 1542 

Eidam v Fiunegan 68 

Eigleburger v. Kibler 645 

Eillert v Craps 888, 947 

Ela v. Ela 560, 641 

Elam v . Barnes 556 

v Donald 1290 

v Garrard 237 

Elborne v. Goode 1427, 1430, 1432 

Elcock v . Glegg 171 

Elder v Bradley 353 

v. Carter 1825 

v. First National Bank 314 

v Harris 779 

v. Maclean 1696 

El lerkiu v. Elderkin 68 

v. Fitch 793 

v. Shultz 197, 199 

Elders v Johnston 14vl 

Elderton, Re 70 

V. Lack 1112,1113 

Eldridge v. Burgess 63, 977, 979 

v Hill 1681, 1682, 2'>40 

v. Howell 1476, 1481 

i' Porter 1599 

n Wiirhtman 1031 

Electric Telegraph Co , Re 944, 1594 

v Nott 1598 

Electrical Accumulator Co. v. 

Brush Electric Co 794 

v. Julien Electric Co. 1120 

Electrolibration Co v. Jack 

son 314, 594 

Eley, Re 1847 

?) Positive Ass. Co 307 

Elgce v Lovell 52 

Elias r Suowden Slate Quarries 

Co. 1632 

Elibank, Lady v. Montolieu 92, 105, 
106 
Elizabethtown Gaslight Co v 

Green 630 

Elkart Car Works v. Ellis 1743 

El lame, Re 1267 

Ellcr i: Bergling 190 

Ellerbe, Re 909 

Ellerton v Thirsk 1671, 1684, 

1686 
Ellice v. Goodson 201, 409, 583 



xlviii 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 
[The references are to the star paging ] 



EUice v. Roupell 681,1572, 1573, 1575 

v. Walmsley 505 

Ellicott v. Nichols 64o 

v. Warlord 17-11 

Ellington 0. Clark 1444 

Elliugwuotl V. Stevenson 504 

Elliot v. Cochran 1029, 1308 

ii Halinarack 106y, 1W70 

v. Sinclair WOG 

v. touth Devon Railway Co. 1127 

v. Van Voorst 131 

v. Waring 122, 199 

Elliott r Amazon Ins. Co. 860 

v. Balcoiu 1575, 1577, 1578. 1579, 

1582, 1584 

1794 

98 

37, 110, 111, 187, 1111 

1141 



Elton v. Elton 

v. Larkius 
Elvy v. Norwood 
Elwell v Crowther 
Klwes v. Payne 
Elworthy v. Billing 
Elwyn v. Williams 
Ely v. Early 

v. Edwards 

v. Gay ford 



1162| 
1100 

331,653 
1638 
1663 
1271 

119, 125 

1073 

407 

202, 204, 1514 



v Elliott 
v. Hooper 
v I nee 
v. Nicklin 
II Osborne 
v. Pell 

v. Kemmington 
v Trahern 
Ellis, Ex parte 
Re 

v Atkinson 

v. Boston, &c R. Co. 

v Bowman 

v. Davis 

v. Deane 

t; Ellis 

v. Essex M. Bridge 

v. Fletcher 

v Foster 

v Griffiths 

v. King 

v. Mi Henry 

V Maxwell 

v Medlicott 

v. No Pacific R. Co. 

v. Reynolds 

v. Saul 

v. Silber 

v. Stewart 

v. Vernon Ice Co. 
v. Wait 

v. Walmsley 

v. Woods 

v. Wren 
Ellison, Ex parte 
Re 

v. Burgess 
v. El win 
v Kittridge 
v. Salem C. & M. Co 
v Sharp 
v. Thomas 
V. Wright 
Elliston v. Morrison 
Ellsworth 0. Curtis 
Ellwand ti McDonnell 
Ellzey 0. Lane 
Elmendor ll Delancy 
Elmendorfr. Taylor 
Elmer v. Creasy 

Elmhirst » Spencer 1636. 1637, 1638 
El Modello C M Co v. Gato 586 
Elms v. Hughes 115 

Elm^lie v Beresford *>Z 

v. Boursier 

Delaware and Schuylkill 



1673 
1005, 1370, 1550 | 
95 I 
830 
59 
100 
97 
1734 
1114 
533 
882 
87. 1413 
1364 
1381 
1278 
1224 
964 
631 
1321 
878 
334, 659 
149 
713, 783 
60,553 
37 
1743 
1440 
505 
678 
1638 
99, 1802 
706 
354 
119, 125 
1424 
1548 
1528 
438, 1460 
1388 
1639 
707, 708 
724 
1575 
286, 390 
149, 558. 560 
30ii, 720 
220, 418 



v. New Mexico & A. R. Co. 369 
630 
v. Stewart 922 

v. Warren 861, 941 

v. Wilcox 1624 

Eniack v. Kane 1642 

Emans v. Emans 303, 331, 335, 339. 
340, 346. 347, 559, 5c-3, 598 

Embury v Bergamini 1027 

v. Klemm 1029. 1580 

Emden !'. Carte 

Emeric v Alvarado 

Emerick v Armstron 

Emeris v Woodward 

Emerson 0. Atkinson 
v. Atwater 



Enochs v. Harrelson 
Enos v. Capps 
Enraght v. Fitzgerald 
Ensign v. Kellogg 
Ensminger v. Powers 
Ensworth v. Card 



590 

163 

1027, 1215 

197, 199 

1580 

1427 



Badger 
v. Berkley 

v Davies 

v. Emerson 

v. UarlanJ 

v. Sims 

V. Udall 

r. Walker Township 
Emery's Trusts, Re 
limery v. Bidwell 

v. Downing 

v. Erskine 

v. Mason 

v. Newsou 

v. P.irrot 

v Van Sickle 



59, 406 

1461, 1716 

1461, 1485 

1031 

385, 1918 

1300 

1649 

882, 884 

1478, 1479, 2334 

805, 809 

622, 2095 

378 

1623 

314 

123, 179 

547 

524, 525, 529, 740 

303 

1168 

169, 516 

176 

1622 



v. Lambert 194, 294, 1532, 1533 
Enthoven v. Cobb 1834 

Episcopal Church v Leroy 619 

Equestrian & P. B. Co., Re 27 

Equitable Life Ass. Soc. v. Laird 

402. 458 
v. Patterson 190, 334, 589 

Equitable Reversionary Interest 

Society v Fuller 1791 

Erhardt v. Boaro 1628, 1638 

Erickson v. Nesmith 144, 149, 150, 

152, 267, 271, 272, 273, 282, 290, 

458, 1935 

v. Smith 443 

Erie Ry. Co. v. Heath _ 2394 

v. Ramsey 1557, 1567, 1568 

Erie Tel. Co. v. Grimes 586 

Ernest v. Govett 796, 801, 806 

v. Partridge 590, 595, 796, 1440 

Weiss 26, 315, 542, 868, 1394 



Errat v. Barlow 

Errington v. Attorney-General 



Emigrant Industrial S Bank v. 

Goldman 214 

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

New York 607 

v Grant 157 

v. New York Emma S M. Co. 

1168 
Emmerson, Re 

v. Ind 
Emmet v. Tottenham 



v. Aynesly 
Erskine, Re 

v. Bize 

v. Garthshore 

v. Henry 
Ervin v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. 

Co. 
Erwin v. Davenport 

v Lowry 

v. Meyrose 

v Oldham 

v. Reese 

v. Vint 
Esdaile ;•. La Nauze 

v Molineux 



1358 
139, 
1562 
1660 

106 
1828 

347 
1481 



1686 
1835 
259, 1386, 
1391 
610 
1824 
1517 



Emmott v- Mitchell 

v. Walters 
Emory v. Keighan 
Empire Loau & B. Ass'n v. At 

lanta 1663 

Empress Engineering Co., Re 323 
Empringham v. Short 1059, 1304 



Canal Co 

r. M'Aulay 
Elridge r Smith 
Elritigton >■ Elrington 
Elrod ;• Myers 
Elsam v. Allcock 
Elsev v. Adams 
Elsom, He, Thomas t 
Elston v Blanchard 

r Elston 

v Wood 
Elt v Burial Board 
Kiting B. Dayton 
El toft I) Brown 
Elton f Curteis 



1614 

322,323 

552 

95 

1360 

39 

791. 898, 1669 

Elsora 71 

324 

9«5 

185 

396 

418 

1175 

999, 1259 



Empson v. Bowley 

v. Fairfax 
Emslie v Wildman 
Endicott v. Mathis 
Endo v Caleham 
Endter v Le-mon 
Engel e Scheuerman 
Engelhardt, Ex parte 
England, Re 

v. Codrington 

v Curling 

v. Downs 

v. Ventham 



1309, 1453 

4S1 

1109 

1132 

1664, 1684 

665 

1618 

1627 

157 

1349, 1359 

1392 

2236 

109, 1191, 1416 

1510 



England Bank, East of, Re 1041, 

1048 

Engleback r Nixon 157 

Engleheart v. Ordell 1740 

English v. Baring 1253, 2194 

v. Foxall 378, 379 

v Hayman 1540 

«. Smock 1637 

v Tottie 573 

Ennorr Barwell 1599,2309 

v. Galena 1120 

Eno 0. Tatam 1491 



26 

1752 

1468 

1576 

1037 

587 

1026, 1030 

1651 

681,701,764, 766, 

2124 

r\ Peacock 1407 

0. Stephenson 1218, 1219, 1220 
Eshhach 0. Slonaker 149 

Espey v. Lake 1651 

E'pin v. Pemberton 675 

E>pinola v Blasco 378 

Essex Co. v. Lawrence Machine 

Shop 1935 

Essex Freeholders v. Newark City 

Nafl Bank 630 

Essex Paper Co. v Greacen 586 

Estcourt v. Estccurt's H E. Co. 

1397, 1650 

0. Ewington 181, 182, 500 

Este 0. Strong 986 

Estep v. Wat kins 361, 847, 994 

Esterbrook Steel Pen Manuf. Co 

0. A hern 159 

Estes r. Belford 149 

v. Worthington 269, 634 

Estill v. Clay 
E.-tis v Patton 
Estwick Conningsby 
Etches v Lance 



286 
1625 
1728 
1670, 1704, 1707, 
1708 



Etna, The 
Etting 0. Marx 
Etty 0. Bridges 
Eubank 0. Wright 
Eubanks v. Leveridge 
European Bank, Re 
European Central Ry. Co., Re 
Eustace r. Lloyd 
Evan 0. Avon 
Evans, Ex parte 



Re 

v. Bacon 
V Bagshaw 
v Benyon 
v. Bicknell 
v. Bremridge 



560 

1693 

1599 

652 

1603 

1255 

1627 

8,547 

1037, 1063, 1585, 

1733, 1736 

70 505,1168 

1584, 1585, 2069 

401,407 

1491 

324. 843 

553,1625 



Evans v. Brown 
v Buck 

v. Caiman 
v. Carrington 
v. Cassidy 
v. Chism 
v. Clement 
v. Cleveland 
v. Cogan 



v. Coventry 234, 304, 1671, 1728 

v. Davies 1064 

v. Davis 387, 1398 

v De Lay 109 

v. Dillingham 1743 

v Eaton 915 

v. Evans 200, 315, 542, 602, 868, 
970,1157, 1297,1300,1713 

v. Gage 1661 

v. Goodwin 630 

v Harris 603,619,620 

v. Jones 1429 

v. Lewis 630 

v. Mathias 1743, 1748 

v. Parrott 1575 

v. Richard 1818, 1833 

v. Kobinson 1138 

t> Schafer 378 

v. Sheldon 790 

v. Smallcombe 1-5' »3 

v. Staples 1553 

v. Tatein 251 

v. Taylor 1618 

v Twredy 642 

v. Union Pacific Ry. Co. 2398 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

58 Evans v. Van Hall 504 

334 v. Williams 516, 1035 

189 Evans's Estate, lie 1411 
179, 553 Evansville R. Co. v. Maddux 542 
5, 45, 87 Evarts v. Beeker 457, 458, 518 

190. 292 v. Nason 1268 

1576 Evartson v. Tappan 1369 

1542 Eveland v. Stepheusou 312 

185 Eveleth v. Wilson 849 

Evelyn v. Chippendale 28 

v. Evelyn 320 

v. Lewis 1(43 

Everard v. Warren 1227 
Everest v. Buffalo L. O. Co. 1122, 
1403, 1642 

Everett v. Backhouse 14U4 

v. Paxton 100 
v. Prythergch 348, 354, 507 

v. Winn 197, 424 

v. Yowells 1107 

Everhart v. Everhart 553 

v. Huntsville College 357 

Everitt v. Watts 615, 620 

Evershed v. Evershed 1585 

Everson v. Matthews 38 

Evitt v. Price 1650 

Evory « Candee 2397 

Ewart v. Chubb 87, 179 

v. Williams 1232 

Ewer v. Ambrose 1100 

Swing v. Armstrong 997 

v. Duncan 360 

v. Handley 121 

v Highbee 161 



xlix 



Ewing v. Maury 


635 


v Nickle 


1625 


v. Orr Ewing 


S57, 629 


v. Shaunahan 


644 


Ewings v. Waite 


1292 


Ewins v. Gordon 


385 



Exchange Banking Co ,Re 644 

Exeter Bank v. Sullivan 646 

Exeter College v. Rowland 345 

Exeter and Crediton Railway Co. 

v Buller 241, 306 

Expo.-ito v. Bowdea 51 

Exton v. Greaves 1244 

v. Turner 1122 

Evkyn, Re 117 

Eyles p. Ward 1178, 1590, 1592 

Eyre f. Barrow 1069 

V. Bret 1525, 1526 

». Cox 236, 645 

v. Dolphin 679, 698, 850 

v. Guiding 1254 

V. Hughes 1550 

v. M'DoweU 1503 

V. Marsden 1428-1430. 1465 

v. Potter 328, 382 

v. Rogers 579 

v. Shaftesbury, Countess of 1347, 

1350, 1352, 1354 

*'. Smith 157, 553 

Eyster v. Gaff 159, 197 

Eyton v. Denbigh 1744 

v. Eyton 185, 1475 



F. 



Fabre v. Colden 90 

Fabrilius v. Cock 1133 

Facer v. Midvale 8. W. Co. 1642 

Fackler v. Worth 1056, 1062 

Fadden v. McFadden 1586 

Fadelle v. Bernard 68, 164 

Fagau v. Strong 27 

Fagg v. James 710 

Fahie v. Lindsay 1562 

Fahs v. Roberts 1517 

Failey v. Talbee 1743 

Fairbank v. Cudworth 1630 
Fairbanks v. Amoskeag Bank 10U3 



v. Belknap 
Fairbrothf r v. Pratteut 



1561, 1565 
151, 1560, 
1568 
Fairburn v. Pearson 1727 

Fiirchild v. Hunt 1400 

F lircloth, He 36 

Fairfield v. Weston 1744 

Fairham, &c. Co. v. Adams 1636 
Fairlie v I) •ut.ou 1104 

Fairly v Priest 344 

Fairmao v. Green 1358 

Fairthorne v Weston 333. 722 

Fait i v. M'Intyre 1106 

Faithful v Hunt 257 

Faithful! V Ewen 1040, 1847 

F.ilcke '■. Scottish Imperial Ins. 

Co 1580, 2064 

Falk v. Gast Lithograph Co. 1643 

v Howell 1643 

v. Janes 1743 

v. Turner 844 

Falkland Islands Co. v. Lafone 396, 

397, 731, 1548 

Fdk'and. Lady v. Cheney, Lord 1475 

Faikner v. Equitable Reversion 



Falls of Neuse Manuf. Co. v. 

Georgia Home Ins Co. 1120 

Falmouth, Earl of v. Roberts 1128 

Fane v Fane 1405 

v. Richards 1525 

Fanning v. Dunham 386, 1602 

v Fly 1003 

v. Foley 164 

v Pritchett 841,842 

Fanshaw v. Fanshaw 629 

Fanshawe v. Tracy 1614, 1683 

Fant v. Miller 843, 1116 

Farabow v. Green 1628 

Farebrother v. Welchmau 1625 

Fargo v. Southeastern Ry. Co 1427 

Farhall v. Farhall 1842 

Farina v. Silverlock 995, 1649, 

2319 



Farington, Re 
Farland V. Wood 
Farley v. Blood 



850,895 

369 

1560-1562. 1564, 

1565, 1568-1570 

1476 

604, 689, 830, 843 

1287 



ary Soc. 


1276 


t; Grace 


983 


Fill P. 


53,57 


p Elkins 


1726 


Fallon v. Railroad Co 


1663 


Fallo.ves v. Williamson 


1509, 1511. 




1538, 1541 


Billow* v. Dillon. Lord 


1367 


VOL. I. — d 





t). Farley 
v. Kittson 

Farlow v Wieldon 

Farmer v Curtis 214, 215 

v Dean 127 1 

v. National Life Ass. 149 

v. Rogers 334 

Farmers' Bank v. Beasten 1744 

v. Haunon 190 

Farmers', &o. Bank v. Ruse 1622 
v. Vanmeter 1621, 1622 

Farmers' and Planters' Bank v. 

Martin 1283 

Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. 

Bankers' & M. Tel. Co 1517 
v. Burlington & S. W. Ry. 

Co 1743 

f Central R. Co. 1168, 1467, 1743, 
1746 
v. Green Bay R. Co. 1580 

v. Hoffman House 1734 

v. Kansas City R. Co. 1716 

v Northern Pac. R. Co. 1743 

v. Reed 163 



Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. 

Seymour 1508, 154 

v. Texas Western Ry Co. 517 

V. Toledo & S. H. R. Go. 1561 

v. WateTman 1461 

Farmers' Loan Co. v. Central 

Iowa R. Co. 1168 

v San Diego Street Car Co. 339 

Fanners' National Bank v. Llovd 214 

Farnam v. Brooks 324, 372, 560, 
641,644,645, 649,667 

Farnham v. Campbell 237, 559, 

1716 

v. Clements 365, 558, 561, 655 

Farnell v. Bowman 133 

Farnsworth v. Cole 1166 

v. Fowler 1673, 1684 

Farnum v. Blackstone Canal 

Corp. 2312 

v Boutelle 284 

v. Burnett 844 

v. Pitcher 1110 

Farquharson v. Balfour 725, 771, 

772, 773, 1439, 1828 

v. Pitcher 806. 1380, 1601, 1621 

v. Seton 664, 842, 868, 1370 

Farr t». Scott 989 

0. Sheriffe 730, 1413, 1432 

Farrall r Davenport 1728 

Farrand v. Yorkshire Banking 
Co. 674 

Farrant r. Lee 1630 

0. Lovel 1630 

Farrar v. Barraclough 2116 

v. Cooper 671 

v Farrars 1271 

Farrel p. 856 

Farrell v. Smith 250, 1207 

Farrer v, Clark ia53 

)■ Hutchinson 1780 

f Lacy 32 

v. Sykes 899 

Farrindon i>. Lee 641 

Farrington v. Chute 670 

v. Harrison 843 

v. Parker 1412 



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



Farris v. Houston 1675 

Farrow v. Austin 1425 

v. Kees 1394 

Farwell v Sturdivant 1241, 1252, 

1259, 1260 

Faulconberg, Lord v. Peirce 1121 

Faulder v. Stuart 300, 483, 720 

Faulk v. Fau.k 1076 

Faulkland v. Stanion 52 

Famkner, lie 18l7 

v. Bolton 1001 

i v Daniel 201,291,292,1731 

v . Llewellyn 815 

Fauquier v. Tynte 877, 919 

Faure v. Winans 124*3 

Faussett v. Oruisby 1478 

Favershani Charities, lie 1797, 1852 

Faviel v. Eastern Counties Ry. 

Co. 307 

Fawrett v. Lawrie 241 

Fawcus v. Charlton 543 

Fawkner v. Watts 1358 

Fawkes v. Pratt 390 

Fay v. Bradley 1255 

V. Howe 1369 

v. Jones 584 

Fay lor v. Brice 565 

Fear v. Cattle 189 

Fearev v Hayes 402, 417 

Fearns v. Young 81, 1233 

Fearusjde v Flint 650 

Fearon v Desbrisay 1031 

Fearv v. Stephenson 1510, 1533 

Feather V Reg. 133 

Featherstonaugh v. Lee Moor 

Clay Co 1650 

Feather-tone v. Cooke 332, 1728 

v. Ormonde Cycle Co. 1642 

Feaver v. Williams 578, 1834, 1835 

Fechheimer v. Baum 313, 1381 

Feehter v. Montgomery 1654 

Feckhan v. Buffum ' 860 

Feehan v. Maudeville 407 

Feemster v. Markham 1507 

Feilden v. Slater 1657 

Feise v. Parkinson 1132, 1133 

Feiscel v. King's College 1678, 1694, 

1697, 1730 

Felch v. Hooper 287, 292, 629, 841 

Fell man v Gamble 850 

Felkin v. Herbert, Lord 131, 462, 

536, 887, 1070, 1832 

V. Lewis 1602 

Fell v. Brown 149, 151, 152. 194, 

214, 283, 997 

v. Christ's College 351, 539 

v. Jones 1801 j 

v. Lutwidge 318, 1409 

Fellingham v Sparror 10!)8 

Fellow r. Jermyn 134*3 

Fellows v. Barrett 37, 74 j 

v. Deere 34, 403 j 

v. Fellows 334, 338, 341, I'll!) 

v Muller 354 ; 

Felstead v. Gray 972, 973 I 

Felthamt; Clark 291 

V Turner 881 
Felthouse v. Bailey 910 
Felts v. Mayor of Memphis 23, 1512 
Felty v Calhoon 1576 
Female Orphan Asylum v. 

Waterlow 1081 

Fenrott v. Clarke 885, 896, 1827 

Fendall v. Nash ia58 

v O'Connell 354 

Fcnelev v. Mahonev 37, 75 

Fcnhouletr' Passavant 348,349,354 
Fenn v Edmonds 1564 

v. Holme 313 

Fennall v. Brown 891, 1669 

Fenner v. Agutter 1299 

V London & South Eastern 

Ry. Co. 573 

* Taylor 106,107,1437 

i'. WTson 1642 j 

Feonessy v Clark 720 | 

v D .y 1395 | 



Fennings v. Humphrey 


815 


817, 
1589 
425 


Fenno v. Coulter 




Feutiman v. Feutiman 


1359, 


22: i2 


Feutou v. Browne 




1399 


v. Clayton 




429 


v. Crickett 


1310, 


1449 


V Cumberlege 




901 


v. Hughes 145, 


157, 296, 3( 


v. Lowther 




10.33 



v. Lumberman's Bank 1591 

v. Queen's Ferry Wire Rope 

Co. 157, 225, 307 

v. Wills 1430 

Fenwiek v. Bell 1100 

v. Bulman 230,2,9 

v. James 1112 

v. Macey 640 

v. lieed 299, 873, 1825, 1827 

Ferebeu v. Proctor 254 

Fergus v. Gore 642, 12t»0 

Ferguson v. Applenhite 



v. Beavan 




2126 


v. Dent 




39 


v. Ferguson 




227,1069 


v. Fisk 




292 


v. Gibson 




1437 


v. Kimball 




1489 


v. Miller 




658, 661 


v. O Harra 




717. 788 


v. Smith 


182,' 


v. Tadman 




1471 1814 


v. Wilson 


912, 1081 


13bl, 1488 



Fernandez, Ex parte 1)42, 1103 

t> Corbiu 449, 1452 

Fernie v. Young 1071. 1080, 1087, 

1120, 1149, 1502 

Fernyhough v Naylor 897 

Ferraby v. Hobsou 328, 381 

Ferrand v. Bradford 397 

v. Hamer 424, 698, 1675 

v. Milligan 1126 

v. Pelham 739 

Ferrar v. Ferrar 347 

Ferrer v. Barrett 267 

Ferrers v. Cherry 1542 

Countess of v. Ferrers, Eirl 1256 

Ferrier v. Atwool 579, 1832 

Ferrior, In re 17i0 

Ferris v. Hard 843, 850 

v. Streeper 14*37 

Ferriss v. Lewis 266, 457, 1150, 1157 

Ferry v. Fisher 929 

v. Laible 334 

Festiug v . Allen 1383 

Fetherly v . Waggoner 873 

Fettiplaee ». Gorges 186 

Feucheres, Baron de v. Dawes 748 

F'eutchwanger v. M'Cool 354, 749 

Few v. Guppy 581, 1113, 1557 

Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Shenandoah 

Iron Co. 1168, 1312, 1408 

Fidelity Ins Co.'s Appeal 1163 

Fidelity Title & Trust Co. v. 

Weitzel 843 

Fidelity Trust Co. v. Gill Car Co. 60 

Fidelity Trust & S. V. Co v. 

Mobile St. Ry. Co. 243, 1548, 

1743 

Fidel le v. Evans 791 

Field, Ex parte 1689, 1690 

v. Ashley 565 

v Beaumont 1558 

v. Great Western Ry. Co. 1138 



r. Hitchcock 




1231 


v. Holland 


841 


1077, 1221 


v. Holzman 




334 


v Hopkins 




1414 


v. Hutchinson 




561 


v. Jones 




1715, 1741 


v. Maghee 




197 


v Moore 




108 


v Op|>enstein 




1381 


v. Robinson 




794 


v. Ross 




993 



v. Schieffelin 948, 1364, 1479, 1549, 
1550 



Field v. Seward 1214 

v. Sowle 186, 850 

v. Titmus 236, 1209, 1210 

v. Wilbur 813 

v. Williamson 165, 167 

Fielde v. Cage 838 

Fielden v. Blackburn, Corp. of 1638 

v. lioscheu 888 

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

V. Slater 842, 891 S19, 1654 

Fieldtrv Fielder 1288 

v Higgiusou 1400,1408 

Fields v. Helms &34 

v. Hur.-t 1168 

v. Wheatley 284 

Fiery v. Knimert 26, 334, 345 

Fieske v. Buller 451 

Fife v. Clayton 380, 3«5, 1551 

Filth National Bank v. Long 131 

Fifty Associates v. Tudor 1638 

Fiider v. Bellingham l'i92 

Fildes v. Hooker 1219 

Fi.kin v. Hill 418 

Finance Co. v. Charleston &c. 

R Co. 1734 

Financial Corporation v. Bristol 

and North Somerset Ry. Co. 785 

Finch v Brown 1252 

v. Finch 153, 227, 565, 643 

v. Hoi linger 1625 

v Shaw 676, 999, 1000, 1469 

v. Westrope 426 

v. Wincuelsea, Lord 1538, 1539, 

1544, 1799 

Finden v. Stephens 316, 1378, 1379, 

1602 

Findlay v. Lawrence 805, 808 

Findley v. Hinde 392, 395 

Fingal v. Blake 1074, 1720, 1725, 

1732 

Finks, lie 1770 

Fiuley v. Bank of U. S. 194. 214, 

1207 

v. Harrison 344 

V. Lynch 989 

v. Taylor 1580, 1584 

Finn's Case 1118 

Finney v. Bedford Ins. Co. 195, 325 

v. Godfrey 351 

v Hinde 1041 

Finska A. A v. Brown 1385 

Firkins v. Low 579 

Firuiin ;;. Pulham 1417 

First Congregational Society v. 

Trustees of the Fund, &c. 550 
First National Bank, Be 1507 

v. Bininger 1566 

v. Bohne 659 

v. Douglass County 16*31 

v. Forest 133 

v. Houts 1051 

V. Kingsley 546 

v. Moore 334 

v Navarro 1663 

v. Salem Capitol Flour Mills 

.Co 214, 1553 

v. Smith 542 

r. Stephenson 860 

v Taylor 1639 

v West River R. Co. 1569 

First Universalist Society v. 

Fitch 2030 

Firth v. Bush 449 

v. Ridley 418 

v. Slingsby 642, 646 

v. The Queen 133 

Fischers. Blank 1648 

v. Hayes 314, 829, 890, 1168, 2391 

v. Laack '03 

v. O'Shaugnessey 314 

v. Wilson 829, 830 

Fish v Dodge 1635 

v. Howland 193, 220, k38 

v. Miller 614, 669, 695, 697, 829 

Fishback v. State 1069 

v. Weaver 991 

Fishburn v, Sanders 1255 



Fishel v. Lueckel 
Fisher, Re 

v. Board 

v. Brierley 

v. Bunbury 

v Carroll 



1643 
1770 
1653 
1503 
28 
1072 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging] 

Flegg v. Prentia 1036 

Fleischauer v. Dittenhoefer 1743 

Fleming v. Armstrong 1103 

v- Collins 1634 

V. East 1317, 1366, 1374 



li 



v. Charter Oak Life Ins. Co. 550 
v. Coffey 893 

v. Essex Bank 148 

v. Fair 1120 

v. Fisher 63, 740, 814, 1544 

v. Holden 1517 

v H ipper 1150 

v. Hubbell 216 

v. Kay 285 

v. Keane 332, 1(363 

v London Offices Co. 309 

v. Mee 691, 816 

v. Melles 83, 86 

v. Moog 349, 378, 737 

v. Owen 347. 579 

v. Porch 1073 

v Price 722 

v Quick 791 

v. Stovall 794 

v. Tucker 644 

fishmongers' Co. v. East India 

Co. 1637 

Fisk, Ex parte 1556, 1573 

Fisler v. Porch 844, 1073, 1076, 

1230 
Fitch v. Brower 1561 

v. Chapman 681 

v Fitch 68 

v. Minshall 1274 

v. Richardson 1713 

v. Weber 47 

Fittou's Estate, Re 1366 

Fitton v. Macclesfield 39, 1576, 1583 
v. Phoenix Ass Co. 1071 

Fitzgerald, He 1433 

v. Bult 810, 1558, 1625, 1672 

v. Caldwell 1255 

V. Chapman 123, 179 

v. Cummings 584 

v. Deshler 1663 

v. Fitzgerald 123, 661, 1174 

v. Gray 1698 

v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. 357 

v. O' Flaherty 839,855 

v. Priugle 1416, 1419 

Fitzgerald & M. C. Co. v. Fitz- 
gerald 149 
Fitzgibbon v. Barry 243 
Fitzherbert v. Fitzherbert 875, 876 
Fitzhugh V Everingham 1720 
v Fitzhugh 1120, 1147 
v. Lee 935 
v. McPherson 518, 539. 844 
Fitzmaurice v. Sadlier 617 
Fitzpatrick v Domingo 2388 
v M Donald 1817 
v. Mahony 1252 
v. Power 422 
v. Smith 671 
Fitzsimmons v Ogden 669 
Fitzwater, Re 170 
v Waterhouse 170 
Flack v Holm 49, 1703, 1704, 1712, 
1713 
Fladong v Winter 1209 
Flagg v. Bonnell 632, 697 
v. Mann 657, 844, 2254 
Flamang's Ca«e 1632 
Flanagan v Nolan 1419, 1421 
Flanders v. Chamberlain 378 
v. Hall 659 
Flaunagan v. Kips 1629 
Flannery v. Flannery 1381 
Flash v. Wilkerson 236, 313 
Flavel v. Harrison 1649 
Flavell v. Flavell 918, 930 
Fleece v. Russell 601 
Fleet v. Perrina 89, 118 
Fleetwood v. Dorsey Machine 
Co 860 
v. Green 988 



v Gilmer 
v. Grafton 
v. Nunn 
Fletcher v. Beatey 
v Coleman 
v. Crosbie 
v. Dodd 
v. Gibbon 
v. Green 
v. Holmes 
v. Moore 



248 

235 

1618 

1638 

214 

1105 

1755, 1756 

268 

842, 1370 

230, 245, 1550 

70, 411 



v. New Orleans, N. E. R Co 313, 

565, 1654 

v. Pollard 1250 

v. Reed 1195 

v. Rodgers 1627, 1628 

v Rogers 1001 

v. Wier 841, 886 

Flewellen v. Crane 545 

Flight v. Bolland 68.69 

v. Couiao 1278 

v. Cook 1652 

v. Marriott 1491 

p. Robinson 578, 1834 

v. Thomas 1501 

Fliudt v. Waters 51 

Flint v. Brandon 1660 

v Field 3i0 

v Hutchinson S B Co 1620 

Flint River Steamboat Co. v. 

Roberts 1071 

Fliut.jffy Uaynes 1212 

Flippin v. Knaffle 1619. 1664, 1675 

Flockton v. Peake 551, 912, 1440, 

1144, 1799, 18:56 

v Slee 1526 

Flood v Patterson 648 

Flora v. Rogers 778 

Florence v. Mallinson 1381 

Florence Gas Co v Hanby 1743 

Florence Sewing Machine Co v. 

Grover & Baker Sewing 

Machine Co. 149 

v Singer Manuf. Co. 149 

Florida v Georgia 135, 441 

Florida Central R. Co. v. Bisbee 991 

Flour City Nat. Bank v Wech- 

selberg 26 

Flower v. Baker 449 

v Klumbach 615 

v. Bright 491 

v Buller 113, 186, 206 

v Gedye 971. 978 

V. London, Brighton, and 

South Coast Ry. Co 1650 

v. Lloyd 438, 1504, 1575, 1584 



v Rose 


149 


v. Walker 


1217 


Flowerday v. Collet 


930 


Flowers v. Barker 


212 


Floyd v Barker 


1411 


v Jones 


860 


v. Nangle 


512, 536 


v Ritter 


361, 407, 1567 


Fludyer v Cocker 


1402 


Flu^d v. Fluid 


1791 


Fluker v. Taylor 


551, 1929 


Flux v. Best 


1403 



Flynn, Re, Guy v McCarthy 



Foakes v. Webb 
Foden v Finney 
Fodringham v. Chomeley 
Fogg v. Blair 

v Merrill 

v Nevada C O. Ry. Co 

v Order of the Golden Lion 

v Price 

v Rogers 

v Union Bank 418 1504 

Foley v. Hill 551, 655. 678. 679, 

1929, 2095 



237, 

1437 

573, 578 

97 

1671 
545 
517 
303 

17.33 
560 
338 



Foley D Maillardet 449, 452 , 453, 536, 

550 

v. Smith 505, 796, 1787 

Foliguo, Re 1412 

Foliugo v Martin 1221, 1282 

Folland v. Lamotte 1595 

Follett v Delany 1663 

v .lefferyes 577, 1651 

Folley v City of Passaic 1650 

Folsom v Marsh 1646, 1647, 1973, 

2314 

Fonda v. Burton 1320 

v Sage lb"24 

Fongay v. Conrad 996 

Fontelieu v . Gates 1461 

Fooks, Re 1203 

v Wilts Ry. Co. 1631 

Foote v Cuuard Mining Co. 26 

v. Despain 1625 

v Gibbs 659, S94, 995 

v tlayne 576 

*; Mass Benefit Ass'n 536 

V Sewall 1381 

v Van Ranst 1311 

Footman v Pray 190, 252, 253, 296 

Footner e Figes 1136 

Fopping v. Van Pelt 157 

Forbes v Forbes 933 

Memphis, &c R. Co. 287, 531 



v. Uverby 
v. Peacock 
v. Phipps 
v. Preston 
v. Skelton 
v. Stevens 
v. Tanner 
v. Taylor 
v Tucker 
v. Tuckerman 
v Whitlock 

Force v. Martin 

Ford, Re 



560 

1182, 1196 

119 

322, 802, 807, 808 

612, 625. 2095 

405, 407, 416, 418 

718. 1829 

1404, 1427 

602 

87, 986, 1018 

584 

1100 

102, 103 

v 877 

v. Bartlett 441 

v. Boucher 29 

v. Chesterfield 160, 708, 710 1390, 

1411, 1424, 1425 

v De Pontes 1834 

v Dolphin 1827 

v Ford 960 

v. Gardner 1113, 1120 

v. Kansas City, &c. R Co. 1716 

v Kurtz 1396 

v. Lacy 1127 

v Peering 320, 546 

v. Philpot 1244 

v. Rosenthal 236 

v. Tennant 190,574,578,902 943 

v. Tynte 983, 133", 1633 

v. Wastell 998, 999 1028 

v. White 61, 1*30, 216 

Ford's Charity, Re 1852, 1856 

Forderi). Wade 877 

Fordyce v. Beecher 1765 

v. Bridges 265 

v. Ford 988 

Fore v. Fore 1491 

v . Foster 197 

Foreign Bondholders v. Pastor 142 

Fore Street Warehouse Co v 

Durrant 444 

Foreman r. Cooper 18 J7 

v South wood 797 

Forgay v. Conrad 994, 996, 1461, 

1463, 1491, 1492 

Fornian v Blake 797 

v. Homfray 332 

Forniquet V. Forstall 345 

Fornshill v Murray 1076 

Forrest v. Elwes 1769 

v. Forrest 1698. 1707 

v. Manchester, &c. Ry. Co. 26, 246 

e. Robinson 601 

v. Warrington 115 

Forrester v. Helme 885. 896 

v. Read 1399 

v. Vason 860 



lii 



Forrester v. Waller 

v. Wilson 
Forrester's Casi- 
Forsaith Machine Co 

Mills L. Co. 
Forshaw, Re 
v. Mot train 
Forster v. Abraham 
v. Davies 
v. Hale 
v. M'Kenzie 
v. Menzies 
r Patterson 
v. Thompson 
Forsyth, Re 
v. Clark 
v Ellice 
Forsythe v. McCreight 

v. McMurty 
Fort v. Battle 
v. GarUide 
v Groves 
v Orudorf 
v. Ragusin 
Fortescue V. Hallett 
Forth v. Xenia 
Fort Smith v. Brogan 
Fosbrook v. Woodcock 
Fosdick V. Schall 
Foss v. Crisp 
v Harbottle 
v. Haynes 
v. Waguer 
Foster, Re 
Foster v. Ballenberg 
v. Bell 
v. Bonner 
B Bowman 
v. Bradford 
t>. Burem 
V. Cautley 
v. Cockerel! 
V. Coleman 
v Cooke 
v Crossin 
v Dawber 
v. Deacon 
V Donald 
v. Elsworth 
V . Everard 
Usher 



1647 
1625 
1647 
Hope 

1663 

1844 

60 

1282 

1434, 1440 

365 

643, 1211 

448, 461, 538, 1510 

651 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging ] 

Foulkes v. Davies 230, 233, 335, 40 



643 

1841 

846, 1230 

857, 939 

1621 

790 

68 

1860 

1631, 1636 

325 

936 

472,491,519 

1081 

1517 

1667 

1731, 1741 

46 

26, 241, 243, 549 

341 

29, 1127 

38, 40, 111 

1637 

1755 

1526 

1003 

1283 

1461 

160, 161, 176 

1492 

1661 

379, 385 

1642 

706, 1418 

281, 1517 

1777 

1548 

88 

789 



. Jones 691 

Fountain v. Caine 173 

v. Ware 920 

v. Young 576 

Fournier v Kent, Duchess of 1273 
Fourniquet v. Perkins 987,13'58, 1371 

Fourth Nat. Bank v. Frauklyn 546 

Fouty v. Poar ' '9 

Fowke v. Draycott 64& 

Fowkes v. Chadd 1135 

v Pascoe 

Fowle v. Laurason 551 

v. Torrey 217 
Fowler, Re, Fowler v. Odell 



v Foster 438, 553, 618. 630, 694. 
857, 1261, 1264, 1346, 1522 
v Gladstoue 



v. Barstow 
v Bayldon 
V. Davies 
v. Down 
v Fowler 
v. James 
v. Lee 
v Lewis 
v. Liles 
v. Osborne 
v Keynal 
v Reynolds 
v. Roberts 
v Roe 
v. Scott 
i\ Sunderland 
v Ward 
Fowlet v Lewis 
Fowlkes v. Webber 
Fowley v. Palmer 
Fox v. Abbott 

v. Bearblock 

v. Birch 

v. Blew 

v. Charlton 

v. Evans 

v. Ford 

v. Frost 

v Garrett 

v Hill 

v Hudson 

v. Mackreth 

v.. Morewood 

v. Scard 

v Suwerkrop 

v. Yates 



452, 628 , 

203, 222, 1514 | 

38, 43 

58 

1842 

228 

1564, 1567, 1571 

287, 986 

401 

852 

268, 302, 859, 1367 

975 

1616 

1676 

1264 

860 

1775, 1776 

68 

460,536 

1246 

1511 

894 

1775 

27 

1031 1381 

875 

1073 

329 

1425 

1625 

1666 

1479, 1781 

805 

1654 

71, 1347 

604, 608, 688, 6h2 



v. Goddard 
v. Gressett 

* Hall 

* Harvey 
v Hawden 
v Hill 
v Hodgson 
t' Kenosha 
v. Knowles 
v. Mansfield, C 

Co 

v Mayer 

V Menzies 

v. McGregor 

v Parker 

v Roberts 

v State 
• v Steele 

v. Sutton 

v. Swasey 

t;. Townsend 

v Trowbridge 

v. Tyler 

v Vassall 

V. Watson 
. v Woodfin 
Foster's Trusts, Re 
Foteaux v. Lepage 



1309, 1316, 2196 

1315 

90, 571, 572. 573 576 

749, 892, 1266 

1108 



& h 



314 

559, 560 

16H1 

417 

M. R 

26, 1584 

1770 

448, 1510 

1815 

166, 167 

1386 

6 

1135 

951 

550,555 

1841 

212 

1461. 1481, 1485 

629, 633, 637, 684 

550 

1017 

905 

law 



Foxcroft v. Devonshire 1129 

Foxen v. Foxen 1432 

Foxon v. Gascoigne 1846, 1847 

Foxwell v. Bostock 398 

v. Greatorex 65, 160, 1382. 1540 
v Webster 339, 797, 801. 16- 

Foy i> Foy 

Foye v Patch 

Fozier v Audrews 

Fradella J'. Weller 

Fraedrich v. Flieth 

Frampton v. Stephens 
v. Webb 



Francis, The 

v Bailey 

v. Brooking 

v. Browne 

v. Castleuian 

v. Flinn 

n. Francis 

r. G rover 

v Harrison 

v. Hay ward 

v. Wigzell 

v. Wilson 
Francklyn v. Colhoun 

v Fern 



1576 

659 

1416 

1380 

1071 

1165 

177, 178 

50 

1685 

102,20111 

412, 964, 985 

1257 

1620 

1842 

654 

200, 212, 215, 257 

1662 

183, 186, 719 

1254 

1052 

1391 



Fotherby V. Hartridge 652 

Fothergill v Kendrick 1(40 

v. Rowland 599, 1596, 1663 

Fougeres v Murbarger 334, 1620 
Poulds v. Midgley 941, 1458, 15.4 



Franco v Bolton 564 

v Franco 104, 223, 224 

v. Meyer 809 

Francome v. Francome 394, 891, 
1562, 1669, 1709 

Frank v Basnett 817 

r Brunneman 165jj 

v. Denver, &c Ry. Co. 1738 

v. Frank 98, 1096 



Frank v. Humphreys 1073 

v Morrison 743 

Frankland v. Overend 780 

Frankle v. Jackson 1743 

Franklin v. Bank of England 148 
v Beamish 1370 

v. Franklin 2u4 

v. Frith 1417 

v. Greene 379, 1076, 1147 

v. Hersch 815 

v. Keeler 350, 759, 1315. 1316 

v. Meyer 985, 1168 

v Osgood 379 

Frauklin S. Bank v. Taylor 1576, 
1584 
Franklin Tel Co v. Harrison 630 
Frauklinski V Ball 1081 

Franklyn v. Colquhoun 1052, 1)94 
Franks, Ex parte 88 

v Weaver 1649 

Frantzius, Carl Von, Re 133 

Fraser v Charleston 255, 865 

v. Cooper, Hall & Co. 243 

v Fraser 1795 

v. Hoyt 324 

v Kershaw 1729 

v. Palmer 1414 

v. Thompson 162, 177, 475, 1457 
v. Whaley 1678 

v Whalley 241 

Fray v Drew 1024, 1025, 1026 

Frazer v Gordon 15"1 

v. Jones 1387 

v. Palmer 28, 1234 

v. Sypert 1575 

Frazier v. Barnum 1715 

v. Hall 1286 

v, Pankey 232 

v Swain 1302 

v. Tubb 1491 

Freake v. Cranfelt 560, 642 

v. Horsey 221 

Fream r Dickinson 930 

Frearson v. Loe 1642 

Frede e Pflugradt 1551 

Frederick v. Aynscombe 877 

v David 471 

v. Frederick 1364 

Free v. Buckingham 279, 334 

v. Hinde 1J20 

Freebody r. Perry 1775 

Freehold Land and Brick-making 

Co v . Spargo 26 

Freehc44 Mut. Loan Ass. v 

Brown "32 

Freeholders v. State Bank 1733, 1742 
Freel v. Market St. Cable Ry. 

Co 576 

Freeland B Cocke 1228, 1229 

v. Heron 666 

b Johnson 606, 669, 702, 704 

r. Stansfeld 1729. 1948 

v. Wright 1110, 1299 

Freeman v Arkell 1126 

v. Butler 1835, 1836 

v. Carpenter 1618 

B Clay 1580 

B. Cox 1780 

b. Elniendorf 1624 

b. Fairlie 106, 306, 580, 1250, 

1773, 1777, 1779, 1828 

b. Freeman 228 

b. Howe 1553 

B Ledbetter 532 

v. Pennington 1525 

v Scofield 981 

v. Staats H47 

v. Stephenson 10il 

v Tatham 839. 12-9 

b. Tottenham and Hampstead 

Railway Co. 1071, 10^0. 

' 1641 

v. Whitbread 1512, 1524 

Freeman's Bank v. Vose l!'71 

Freer?. Hesse 1401,1408,1484 

v. Rimner 10^4 

Freese v. Swayze 606 



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



liii 



Freeston v. Clay don 807 

Freichnecht v. Meyer 1073 

Freidlander v. Pollock 536 

Freight Money v. Monadnock 292 

Frelinghuysen v. Golden 1719 

v. Nugent '90 

Fremont v. Merced Mining Co. 555 

French, Ex parte 66 

v. Baron 232, 1246 

v . Chittenden 1476, 1480 

v. Dmchy 1765 

v. Dear 312 

v. Dickey 549 

v First National Bank 145 

v. French 659 

V. Gibbs 1168 

v. Griffen 1550 

v. Hay 1531 

v Jacko 727 

v Riiney 300, 720, 722 

v. Robrchard 1561 

v Scully 166 

v Shoemaker 994 

v. Shotwell 611. 700, 721, 974, 

1459 

v. Windsor 1234 

Frere v. Green 934, 936. 937, 939 

Frese v. Bachof 407,1648 

Freston, Re l'»69 

Fretz v. Stover 1540, 1546 

Frewen, Re, Frewen v. Frewen 200, 

250 

Frey v. Demarest 551 , 552, 553 

v. Frey 1369 

v. Lowden 303 

v Owens 402 

Frey tag v Hoeland 845 

Frick w Christian County 554 

Fricker v. Peters & C. Co. 1734 

Friedlander v Ehrenworth 1675 

v. London Ass. Co. 1099 

Friedman v. Fennell 545 

Friend v. Solly 1440, 1449 

Frierson v. Alexander 794, 985 

r'ries v. Watson 1255 

Frietas v. Dos Sandos 362 

Friley v. Hendricks 1579 

Frink v. Adams 843 

v. Stewart 1638 

Fripp v. Chard Railway Co. 1725, 

1727, 1731 

Frisbie v. Bateman 1716 

Frisby, Re, Allison v. Frisby 649 

v. Balauee 1381 



Friswell v. King 


1844 


Frith v. Lawrence 


1302 


17. Lewis 


98 


v. Wallaston 


631 


Frits, Matter of 


68,71 



Fritz v. Hobson 972, 996, 1030, logo, 

1140, 1366, 1368, 1491, 1639 

Frodsham v. Frodsham 1323 

Fromew, Re 1791 

Frost v. Beekman 678 

v. Belmont 1411, 1434, 1453, 1661, 

2191, 2323 

t>. Brunson l'-15 

v. Hamilton 992 

v. Hilton 970, 979 

v. Koon 214 

v . Spitley 557, 2040 

v. Ward 70, 799 

v. Warren 13J9 

v Wood 799, 800 

Frotherstone v. Jolland 1756 

Frow v. De La Vega 532 

F'rowd v. Baker 799 

v. Lawrence 511, 1618 

Fry, Ex parte 39 

v Ernest 505 

v. Feanister 1299 

c Fry 91, 101, 104, 122, 13 S 

v. Hardy 1108 

v. Lane 328 

v. Mantell 732. 78 «, 784 

v. Martel 732, 783, 784 

v. Moore 149 

v. Noble 1167 

v Penn 547 

c Richardson 630, 698 

v. Street 1286 

Fryer, Re 1261 

t\ Davies 1027 

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

Fry rear v. Lawrence 714 

Fuentes v. Gaines 1567 

Fulcher v. Howell 160 

Fulham v. M'Cartliy 206, 230 

Fullagar v. Clark 1079 

Fuller v. Benjamin 150, 216 

v. Cadwell 1621, 1623 

v. Daniels 303 

v. Fuller 1253 

v. Green 1424 

v Hovey 989 

v. Ingram 553, 1557, 1625, 1664 

v Knapp 601,715,759,2385 

v. Lance 84 



Fuller v. Melrose 1640, 1661 

v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 972 

v. Montague 42 

v. Redman 644, 646, 1211 

v. Smith 68 

v. Taylor 1664 

v. Townsley-Myrick D. G.Co. 1621 

v. Willis 1474, 1475 

Fullerton v. Jackson 328, 558 

o. Martin 266, 1524, 2059 

Fulton v. Davidson 1234, 1414 

v. Gilmore 778, 780, 781, 782 

v Golden 633, 635, 951 

v. Greacen 1517 

«■. Rosevelt 33, 37, 71, 74 

r. Woodman 844 

Bank v Beach 182, 386, 512, 

733, 734. 736, 754, 784, 1494 

v. N. Y & Sharon Canal Co. 146, 

735. 886, 1457, 1458, 1476, 1535, 

1677 

Fulweiler v. Hog's Back Cons. 

M. Co. 737 

Fuhvider v. Ingels 314 

Fulwood v Fulwood 1640, 1681 

Fund v. Bossieux 1493 

Funk v. M'Keoun 997 

v. Rentchler 545 

Furber v. Furber 710 

t>. King 448 

Furlong v. Riley 560 

Furman v. Clark 1676 

t\ Edwards 782 

v. North 417 

Furneaux, Ex parte 1258 

Furuess v. Booth 13i0 

v. Caterham Railway Co. 1731 

Furnival !■ Bogle 974 

»>. Brooke 177 

Furrer r. Ferris 1299 

Furtailo v. Furtado 78, 1595 

Furze v. Asker 1106 

v. Hennet 799, 973 

v. Sharwood 291 

Fussel t>. Downing 316 

t;. Elwin 269, 291, 975 

Futcher v. Callow 561 

v. Futcher 365, 561, 657 

Futvoye v. Kennard 505, 506, 507, 

797,806,9 

Fvfe's Case 202, 203 

Fyfe v. Arbuthnot 1416 

Fyler v. Fyler 1030 

Fynn, Re 1348, 1349, 1863 



G. 



G , Re 


68,108 


Gabbett v Cavendish 


1822 


Gabriel v. Sturgia 


710 


Ga.ld. Re 


1342 


v. Worrall 


1619 


G affne v » Hevey 


1436 


Gafney v. Reeves 


881 


Gagan, Re 


576 


Gage v. Arndt 


1221 


v. Billings 


1624 


v. Brewster 


1245 


v. Brown 


402 


v. Bulkeley 


664 


v. Chapman 


1624 


v. Ewing 


59 


v. Graham 


1661 


v Harbert 


604 


v. Hunter 


956 


v. Kaufman 


557, 630 


v Mayer 


1548 


v . Parker 


1517 


v. Parmele 


668 


v. Rohrback 


1624 


v. Smith 


604, 1716 


v. Stafford 


33,635 


Gaines v. Agnelly 


722, 2384 



Gaines v. Brockerhoff 1320 
v. Chew 335, 345, 552 

v. Fuentes 552 

v Hale 1613 

v. Kennedy 1624 

v. Mau.sseaux .'£{4 

it. Miller 630 

v. New Orleans 313, 1302, 1550 

Gainsborough, Countess of t>. 

Gilford 778, 1621 

Gainsford v. Blachford 1131 

v. Gammer 848 

Gait v. Osbaldeston 640, 1559 

Galatian v. Erwin 674, 678, 1548, 

1549 

Gale v. Abbot 1681 

v. Clark 458 

v. Michie 1491 

v. Niekerson 329 

Gallagher v. Roberts 694, 695 

Gallagher's Appeal 1051 

Galland v. Galland 1686 

Gallatian v. Cunningham 612, 674 

Gallemore v. Gill 978 

Galley v. Baker 173 

Galloway v. Barr 1401 



Galloway v. Galloway 


378 


v Hamilton 


658, 660 


v. Jenkins 


303 



v. London, Mayor of 1468, 1469, 

1660 

v. Mackersey 1152 

v. Perry 1309 

Galluchat, Er parte 1722 

Galphin v. M' Kinney 249, 254 

Gal pin r. Page 1841 

Galsworthy v. Durrant 61 

Gait v. Carter 1073, 1076 

Galton v. Emass 1291 

v. Hancock 282 

Galveston R Co. v. Cowdrey 287 

Gamage v Harris 630 

Gambert >■. Hart 1M1 

Gambie v. Atlee 111 

Gamble j> Gibson 1320 

t;. Johnson 290, 837. 848 

v. Loof 1624 

Games v. Bonnor 989 

(i tmewell Fire-Alarm Tel Co. v. 

Brooklyn 314 

v. Chillieothe 334 

v. Mayor 313, 717 



liv 



TABLE OF CASES CTTED. 
[The references are to the star paging.] 



Gammon v. Stone 1396 

Ganahl v. Bleisner 1320 

Gandee v. Stansfield 1832 

Ganderton v. Ganderton 1299 

Gandv ■ r. Gandy 193,322 

Gann v. Gregory 877 

v. Johnson 1502 

Gaus v Harmison 1120 

v. Reoshaw 989 

Gansev.>ort v. Limn 46 

Gant v. Alenloglu 2310 

Ganvill, Re 39 

Garard v. Garard 542 

Garcias v. Ricardo 664, 1468 

Gardener v. Crossman 779 

?■. Enuor 1399 

Gardiner v. Griffith 658 

v Mason 447, 448, 1552 

v. Miles 986 

v. Rowe 1078 

v. Simmons 1504 

v. Tyler 1753 

Gardner v. 1600 

v Mane 1352 

v. Broadbent 1643 

v. Dangerfield 1824, 1836 

v. Dering 1028, 1029 

v. Field 1322 

v. Gardner 186. 187, 642, 1076, 

1415, 1417, 1679 

v. Garret 1616, 1617 

v. Hooper 91 

v Irvin 1835 

v Kelso 254 

v. Landcraft 529 

v. London, &c. R. Co. 1035, 

1731 

v. Marshall 102, 1378 

v Newburgh 303, 1639 

v. Parker 1425 

v, Raisbeck 860 

v Schermerhorn 1284, 1286 

t>. Sharpe 1735 

v. Smith 1750 

v. Tapling 170 

v Terry 1621 

Garey v. Whirtingham 180, 181, 499, 

730, 1404, 1432, 1610 

Garforth v. Bradley 89, 114, 118 

Gariss v. Gariss 1678 

Garland?' Garland 1733, 1738, 

1739 

v. Littlewood 1370,2061 

v Living 168 

v Oram 579 

v. Riordan 307 

v. Scott 571 

Garle v. Robinsnn 1556 

Gar ick r. Jackson 1224 

v. Lawson 1001 

r McArthur 844 

v Strong 110, 402, 419, 588 

Garling v. Royds 1078 

Garlington v. Copeland 418, 986 

Garner v. Hriggs 1036 

t>. Garner 1846 

e Moore 1342 

Garnett, Re, Gandy v. Macauley 667 

Garnett » Bradley 28, 30, 42, 1503 

t; Mason 986, 989 

Gamier, Re 61, 85, 86 

Garnum r. Marshall 448 

Garr v. Bright 145, 296 

v. Drake 68, 72 

v. Gower 63 

Garrard v. Dinorben, Lord 1257 

v. Edge 354, 1817 

v. Frankel 1973 

v. Webb 987, 994 

Garratt, Re 655 

v Niblock 1588, 1796 

Garraud !). Lindley 1642 

Garretson v. Clark 2306 

v. Cole 1056 

v. Weaver 1728 

Garrett v. Bansted & Epsom 

Downs Railway Co. 1664 



Garrett t». Lancefield 




1524 


Geake v. Ross 1257 


v Lynch 




1676 


Geary v. Norton 1395 


r. Miss ssippi & Alabama R 




Geast v. Belfast, Lord lb65 


Co 




345 


Geddes, Ex parte 97 


v. New York Transit Co 




605. 


Gedge v. Traill 324 






2398 


Gedye v. Matson 270 


Garrick v. Ford 




92 


v. Montrose, Duke of 815 


Garrison v. Atlanta 




1620 


Gee v. Bell 1734 


Garrod v Holdeu 


501 


,503 


v. Cottle 180, 181, 445, 498, 499, 
500,523 


Garrold. Re 




1841 


Garrow v. Carpenter 




713 


v. Gee 75 


Garstone v. Edwards 




1287 


v. Gurnev 1003 


Garth v. Cotton 1630, 


1631, 


1634 


v Mahood 1214, 1427 


v. Townsend 


1405 


1427 


v. Pritchard 1620, 1648 


v. Ward 




280 


v. Swan 1107, 110s, 1128 


Gartland v. Nunn 293, 297 


298, 


Geer v. Winds 1156, 1160 






302 


Geldand v Randall 1271 


Gartside v. Gartside 




216 


Cell v. Hayward 370 


v. Isherwood 


1022 


1581 


v Watson 1775 


v. Outram 


565, 


1651 


Gelpeke v. Milwaukee, &c, R. 


Garvey v. Hibbert 




8ii2 


Co. 1062 


Garvin v Luttrell 




1505 


Geltson ?• Hoyt 978 


»'. Watkins 




517 


General Exchange Bank, Re 1070 


Garwood v. Curteis 48' 


. 482 


1551 


General Hospital v. State Mot. 


v Eld ridge 


1073 


1076 


Life Ins. Co. 555 


Gary v. Burnett 




892 


General Ins. Co. v. Benson 550 


v. May 




283 


?'. Kuhner 1713 


v Mickler 




985 


Genet v. Delaware & H. Canal 


Gascoygne's Case 




1069 


Co. 1073 


Gascoyne v. Chandler 


834 


1626 


Genett v Tallmadge 1364 


v. Lamb 




859 


Gent, Re 1069 


Gaskell v Chambers 


445, 


1772. 


v. Harris 102, 108, 2001 




1777 


1834 


Gentil v Arnaud 1631 


v. Durdin 




280 


Grorge v. Dean 1661 


v. Gaskell 




209 


v. Goldsby 121 


Gaskill v Sine 




845 


v. Johnson 641 


Gaskin v. Balls 324, 1654, 1661, 


1662, 


v. Pilcher 1568 






1663 


v. Reed 403 


Gason v. Wordsworth 




939 


v. St. Louis Cable <S W. Ry. 


Gasquet v. Crescent City B 




Co. 236 


Co. 




1312 


v. Smith 1648 


Gass, Re 




1801 


v. Whitmore 987, 1072. 1079 


v. Arnold 




843 


Geo. A. Macbeth Co. v. Lip- 


v. Mason 1077 


1079 


1147 


pencott Glass Co. 1642 


v- Stinson 


959, 960 


George's Creek To v Detmold 311 


Gassett v. Grout 




91 


Georgia v. Brailsford 1619, 1670 


Gaston v. Frank um 372, 989 


1897 


Georgia, Governor of v. Ala- 


Gas Works Const. Co. v 


Moe 


- 


drago 17 


heimer 




1542 


Georgia Lumber Co. v. Bissell 


v. Standard G. L. Co. 




1542 


1705 


Gaters v. Madeley 




114 


Gephart v. Starrett 1744 


Gates v. Boomer 




230 


Gerard v. Penswick 1824 


v. Buckland 


89 


',898 


Geraty v. Druiding 1621 


V. Gates 




1809 


Gerber v. Grabel 1638 


v. Jacob 




640 


Gere v. New York Central Co. 


Gatewood v. Leak 


790 


1591 


1675 


Gathercole v. Wilkinson 




448 


German v. Chapman 1657 


Gatti r. Webster 




1366 


v. German 15"'5 


Gatty ?'. Farquharson 




1130 


v. Machin 350 


Gaudet Freres, Re 




1031 


German-American Seminary v. 


Gaugh v Da vies 




58 


Saenger 1540 


Gaullaherr. Gaullaher 




657 


German-American Title & T. Co. 


Gault v. Goldthwaite 




1081 


r. Shallcross 659 


v. Hoagland 




531 


German Reformed Church v. 


v. Wallis 




1620 


Von Puechelstein 358 


Gaunt v. Froelicb 




586 


Gernoe v. Boccaline 395, 695, 1703, 


v Johnson 


249, 4; 


1707 


v. Taylor 730, 1207, 


1255, 


1413, 


Gerrard v. Dawes 1845 




142!i, 


1424 


Gerrish v. Black 410, 414, 986, 1239, 


Gause v Knapp 




542 


1247 


Ganther v. Meinertzhaageu 


447 


v. Bragg 1548 


Gavin v. Osborne 




435 


v. Hunt 1621 


Oawthorpe v. Gawthorpe 




1722 


v. Mason 851 


Gawtry v Leland 




1654 


v. Towne 343, 385, 846 


Gay v. Brierfield Coal 


& 1 




Gerry v. Stimson 1624 


Co. 




' 634 


Gest v. Packwood 569 


v Gilmore 




630 


Gething v. Keighley 371, 668 


v. Skeen 




588 


v Vigurs 558 


Gayle v. Johnson 


243 


1411 


Getman v. Beardsley 1413, 1417 


v. Singleton 




1004 


Gerzler v. Saroni 1576 


Gaylord v. Beardsley 




354 


Geyer v. Douglass 1584 


Gaylords v. Kelshaw 




256 


Giacometti v. Prodgers 92, 102, 104, 


Gayner v. Wilkinson 




120 


106 


Gay nor v. Blewett 




1716 


Giant Powder Co. v. California 


Gaynor's Goods, Re 




252 


Powder Works 601, 1120, 


Gaytes v. Franklin Sav. Bank 


1625 


1591 


Geach v. Ingall 


1096, 


1128 


v Safety Nitro Powder Co. 703 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



IV 



[The references are to the star paging ] 

Gilbert v. Gilbert 28, 29, 30, 33 

v. Guignon 1449 

v, James 295 

v. Lee 1417 

v. Lewis 157, 158, 299, 324, 656, 
578, 589 

v. McEachen 1359 

v. Mosier 846 

v. Nantucket Bank 30 

v. Schwenck 13'54 

t;. Showerman 1635 

v. Sutliff 287 

v. Tomlinson 1525, 1526 

v. Van Arman 945, 2392 

v. Wetherell 1187 

Gilbertson v. Gilberts 1428, 1528 
Gilchrist, Ex parte 157, 1488 

v. Cannon 1491, 1507, 1509 

v. Oator 102 

v Stevenson 193 

Gildart v. Moss 1307 

Gile v Devens 1710 

v. Eaton 755 

v. Giles 778, 1536 

v. Powell 1104 

Gill v. Continental Union Gas 

Co. 1038 

v. Eyton 1835 

v. Fleming 61 

v. Gilbard 895 

v. Rayner 410, 416, 819 

Gillam v Tavlor 1433 

Gillespie ». Alexander 1206, 1207, 

1208 

v. Cummings 334 

Gillett » Hall 1532, 1536 

v. Robbins 843 

Gillette v. Wiley 560 

Gilliam v. Spence 233 

Gillian v. Allen 1675 

Gilliland v Cullum 991, l"3l 

Gillis v. Hall 1678 

Gillon v. Turnbull 1253 

Gillot v. Kettle 1648 

Gillott v. Esterbrook 1649 

Gills, Re 108 

Gilnian v. Cairnes 288, 290 

v. Sheboygan 1650 

Gilmer v. Slorris 659 

v. Wallace 860 

Gilmore v. Anderson 378. 1642 

v. Gilmore 1046, 1150, 1180, 1188, 
13C0 

v McClure 542 

v Patterson 842 

v. Sapp 517 

Gilpatriek ;• Glidden 402. 1019 

Gilpin v. Southampton, Lady 1617 
Gilpin County Mining Co v. 

Drake 313 

Gilpins v Consequa 918, 919, 929 
Gilroy*s Appeal 1614 

Gilson v. Hutchinson 1168 

Giltenan v. Lamert 1624 

Gingell v. Home 552, 664 

Girard Life Ins. Co. v Cooper 

1299 
Girdlestone ,' Lavender 1266 

Girod v. Michoud 993 

Gisborne v. Qisborne 1503 

Gist v. Cattel 644 

V. Frazier 1284 

!J Gist 1234 

Githcrs v Clarke 1511 

Sittings t> Dew 1629 

Giveans v McMurtrv 886 

Givens v. M'Calmont 1240, 1242, 
1244 
t'. 'j'idmore 845 

Gladdon v. Stonemin 1723 v. Houston 

Gl.idson v Whitne" 232 

Gladstone v. Musurus Bey 141,142, v. Locke 
1631 147 »•. Thorpe 

395, 1703 v. Ottoman Bank 18, 142, 599 Gobe v Carlisle 

1246, 1746 Gladwin v Gladwin 2360 I Goble v Andruss 

675,895,974,1031, Giaenzer v Wiederer 1642 I v. Gale 

1045, 1793 Glaister v Hewer 101 I v. Grant 



Gibbes v. Greenville, &c. R. 

Co. 1743 

Gibbins v. Howell 1291, 1749 

v Mainwaring 1718. 1735 

v North Eastern Metropol- 
tan Asylum District 990 

Gibbon's Appeal 1172 

Gibbons v Bressler 1625 

v. Caunt 1306 

v. Kibbey 95, 98 

v. Ogdeu 1828 

v. Waterloo Bridge Co. 145, 842 

Gibhs?' Bryant 1253 

v. Churton 1542 

t;. Clagett 346, 347, 559 

v. Daniel 1470 

v David 1724, 1729, 1734 

v Gihbs 396, 1443, 1562, 1570 

v Guild 560,645,649 

v. Hodge 216 

v. Hooper 1121, 1122, 1137 

v. La SociiHe Industrielle 631 

v. Meraud 1700, 1702 

v Parkinson 634, 815 

v Philhpson 1069 

v Pike 1127,1137 

t\ Ross 577 

v. Tunaley 1130 

Gibby c. Hall 1677 

Gibert v. Colt 1698, 1704, 1705, 

1707, 1709, 1710, 1713 

Gibney r Clayton 1837 

Gibraltar v. Malta Banking 
Co. 1603 

Gibson, Re 86 

v American Loan & T. Co. 243 
v- Black 830 

v Broadfoot 1320 

v Burgess 629, 974 

v. Carson 361 

v. Charters 1678 

v. Clarke 1774, 1775 

t>. Compton 1459 

i; Cranley, Lord 795, 977, 1380 
v. Crehore 1013, 1028, 1234, 1247, 
1252, 1259 



v Fifer 


645 


v. Goldsmid 


385 


v Goldthwaite 


1561, 1562, 1564, 




1565 


v. Green 


1579 


v. Hewett 


1836 


V. Ingo 


295, 403, 417, 455 


v. Jayne 


584 


v. Kinven 


1004 


v M'Cormick 


378, 379 


v. McCarty 


43 


v Marshall 


1062 


v Martin 


17*5 


v. Moore 


1621 


v. Muskett 


1129, 1135 


v. Nicol 


710, 1387 


t; Peters 


1743 


v Randolph 


1462 


v. Reese 


425, 1371 


v Scevengton 


518 


ti Seagrim 


2213 


r. Smith 


1670 


v. Tilton 


734, 735, 1676 



v Trowbridge Furniture Co. 

236, 303 

v Whitacre 629 

»'. Whitehead 609 

v Wills 202. 203 

v. Wollard 1328 

Gidding's Appeal 1051 

Giddings (> Giddings 35.36 

Giffard v. Hort 228, 259, 265. 1276, 

1461,1478,1521,1584 

v. Williams 123C 

GifTord v. Thorn 986 

Gilbert, Ex parte 564 

v Arnold 

v Colt 

v. Deneley 

v. Endean 



Glann v. Younglove 115 

Glanvil v. Trelawney 262 

Glanvill, Re, Ellis v. John- 
son 110, 113, 187 
Glascott v. Lang 328, 382, 1619, 
1626, 1678 
Glasuer v. Weisberg 1561 
Glass v. Beach 1118 
v. Hulbert 380, 847 
v. Oxenham 2)0 
Glasscott v. Coppe" Miners' Co. 

145, 585, 1678 

Glassington v. Thwaites 707, 708, 

761, 7J5, 1736 

Glasson, Re 1366 

Glazbrook i> Gilatt 1604 

Glaze v. Drayton 997 

Glazier v. ISailey 1624 

v. Rolls No 1, 26 

Gleason v. Bisby 1698, 1699. 1702. 

1713 

v Clisby 1709 

v. Cook 630 

v. Smith 1461 

Gleaves v. Ferguson 1264, 1302 

o. Morrow 347, 349, 715, 722, 724, 

758, 759, 764 

v. Payne 91 

Gledhill v. Hunter 1072 

Glee v. Manhattan Co. 640 

Glegg v. Legh 569, 579, 584, 597. 

606 

Gleghorne r. Gleghorne 843 

Glen v. Fisher 90, 1395 

v. Hall 1648 

Glen Iron Works, Re 1579 

Glengall, Earl of v. Frazer 724, 

1822 

Glenn v. Blackford 1278 

v. Clapp 1291 

v Clark 1548 

v. Cockey 383 

v. Dimmock 1019, 1120 

v. Doyle 281 

v. Fowler 1623 

v. Hebb 829 

v. Maguire 642, P525 

t\ Marbury 1741 

v. Noonan 1019 

v. Wotten 1270 

Glenny t\ Smith 1049 

Glenton v. Clover 1712 

Glines v. Supreme Sitting 

Order 1718 

Globe Ins. Co. v. Boyle 334 

c. Lansing 284 

Globe Ins. Co., Receivers of the. 

In re 1715 

Glos v. Randolph 2119 

Glossop V. Heston Local Board 

10, 1637 
Glossup v. Harrison 1767 

Gloucester, Mayor and Corp. of 

v. Wood 1469, 1470 

Glover v. Dauheny I486 

v. Greenback Alkali Co. 898 

r. Hall 1557, 1830, 1832, 1833 

r Hembree 542. 1299 

i'. Hodges 1489 

v. Millings 918 

v. Rogers 710 

v. Webber 77 

r. Weedon 108. 700 

Glyn v. Caulfield 578, 1825, 1826, 

1834 

v. Duesbury 1560, 1564 

v. Soarcs 301 

Glynn v. Bank of England 843, 



565, 1129, 1556, 
1557 
1560, 1569, 1570 
1740 
221 
323, 544. 545 
269 
852 



lvi 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 
[The references are to the star paging.] 



Godbold v Ellis 
Godbolt v. Watts 
Goddard v. Cox 

v. Haslam 

v. Jobnsoo 

v. Keeble 

v. May 

v Ordway 

v. Parr 
Godfrey v. Chadwell 

17. Furzo 

v. Littel 

v. Maw 

v. Tucker 



1276, 1316, 1317 

203 

90, 116 

369 

1561 

1467 

354, 785, 894 

214, 277, 278 

59 

1163, 1164 

797 

315. 401,407,542, 

1037, 1394, 1515 

1558 

1242, 1245, 1246 

1150, 1381 

113 

449 

1501 

Railway 

390 

1017 

946 

887, 1103 

819 

137 

1777 

642 



417, 834 i Goodday v Sleigh 791 
386 I Goodden v. Coles 190, 212 

Goodell v. Blumer 1624 

Goodenough v. Alway 866 

V Goodenough 1166 

v Powell 1077 

Goodess v. Williams 266 

Goodfellow v. Prince 1648 



V. Turner 
v. Watson 
v White 
Godkin v. Ferrers, Earl 
Godson v. Orok 

v. Hale 
Goebel v. American 

Supply Co. 

Goelct v Lansing 

Goff ». Goff 

Goffln ?•. Donnelly 

Gohegan v. Barlow 

Goiug v. Emery 

Gold v. Canham 

V- Whitcomb 

Goldberser v. Manhattan R. Co. 1321 

Golden v. Maupin 1166 

v. Newton 528 

t>. The Morning News 149 

Golden Fleece Co. v. Cable, &c, 

Co. 46, 865 

Golder v. Golder 797, 799 

Goldey v. Beeker 328 

GoMhawk o. Duane 1254 

Goldicut v. Beagin 1128 

Goldman « Page 217 

Goldmark v. Kreling 1675 

v. Rosenfeld 1461 

Goldsby v. Goldsby 1580 

Goldsmid v. Tunbridge Wells 
Improvement Commission- 
ers 1638 
v. Stonehewer 200 
Goldsmith v. American P. C. Co. 197 
v. Gilliland 60, 149, 
314, 627 
40, 42, 478, 495, 
1051, 1054, 1055 
1918 
59, 156, 1438 
215, 222, 257 
Wells Imp. 

1687 
1624 
1347 
385, 1551 
817 
674 
576 
1608 
1413 
675 
1744 
940 
349, 505, 510, 728 
1413 
1625 
378 
586, 1584 
1744 
1044, 1674, 1683. 
1684 
25, 216, 239, 405, 
1203, 1206, 1369 
Goodacre v Skinner 
Goodale v Gawthorne 

v. Goodale 
Goodall's Trade-mark 
Goolall v. Harris 
v Little 
v Skerratt 



Goodford v. Stonehouse & Nails- 
worth Railway Co. 231 
Goodhand v. Ayseough 1-143 
Goodhue v. Churchman 1575 
Goodier v. Ashton 167 
Goodloe v. Dean 843 
Goodman v. Barbour 287 

v. Jones 

v. Kine 

t. Niblack 

r. Sayers 

v. Whitcomb 1727 

Goodlier v. Browning 
Goodrich v. Marsh 

v . Pendleton 



1300 

1014, 1630 

149 

1700 

1728, 1736 

1228 

215, 222, 257 

27, 30. 603, 607, 

618, 645, 700, 702, 13S2, 1412 



v. Goldsmith 

v. Osborne 

v. Russell 

v. Stonehewer 

v. Tunbridge 
Com'rs 
Goldstein v. Kelly 
Goldsworthy, Re 
Goldthwait v. Day 
' v. Lynch 
Goleborn v Alcock 
Gnltra v. Wolcott 
Gr>mbault, Re 
Gomley v. Wood 
Gomm v. Parrott 
Gomme v. West 
Gompertz v. Ansdell 

v. Best 

v. Kensit 

v. Pooley 
Gonzales v. Hukil 
Gooch v. Green 

v. Haworth 
r Marshall 

Good i'. Blewitt 



T. Roilnev 

v. Shotbolt 
Goodright v. Sanl 
Goodson v. Ellison 

v. Richardson 
Goodwin, lie 

v. Archer 

v. Bell 

v. Bishop 

v. Clarke 
v. Gibbons 
v. Goodwin 



70, 944 
1663 
1648 
1347, 1352 
576, 578, 1829, 1834 
1510 



347, 349, 363 

1571 

1138 

219 

1631 

162, 1285 

32 

430 

639, 759, 1253, 

2124 

1700, 1701 

1135 

255, 294, 405, 410, 

416, 1530, 1532 

845 



Gorely r. Gorely 1601 

Gorham v. Gorham 9, 83, 208 

v- Toomey 1628 

Gorham Co. v. White 1648 

Gorman v. M'Culloch 15F3 

v Russell 272 

Gormley v. Bunyan 608, !*33 

v. Clark lub2 

Gornall, lie 351,1353 

Gorrell v. Gates 
Gort, Viscountess v. Clark 
Goslin v. Corry 

v. Wilcock 
Gosling v. Gosling 
Gosman, lie 
Gosnell v. Bishop 
Goss, Re 

v. Simpson 

V. Singleton 
Gossett v. Kent 
Gossom v Donaldson 
Gossop j'. Wright 
Gut ». Cook 
Gottfried u.CresceDt Brewing (^o. 

1309, 1320 

v. Miller 
Goucher v. Clayton 
Gough v. Crane 

v. Herbert 

v. Offley 
Gould r. Dnmmett 



v. Hammond 
v. Jones 
v. Miller 
v. Moore 

v. New York R. Co. 
v. Robarts 
Goodyear v Day 
v. Providence Rubber Co. 



251 



99 
1650 
18 
1643 
1079, 
2397 
Goodyear Dental V. Co. v. White 

1507, 1542 
Goodyear Rubber M Co. v. 

Goodyear Rubber Co. 1648 

Goodyere v. Lake 1368, 1486 

Goold v. Great Western Deep 

Dean Coal Co. 1650 

v. O'Keeffe 885 

Goose v. Bedford 385 

Gordon v. Bell 844 

v. Cheltenham Railway Co. 1663 

v. Gordon 326, 852, 941. 1004, 

1117, 1119 

243 

724 

1221, 1240, 1296, 1920, 

1926, 2193, 2229 

406 

214 

630 

v. Jesson 65, 159, 1510. 1512, 1525 
v. Lewis 1231, 1240, 1241, 1242, 
1243, 1244, 1252, 1296, 1302 



v . Green 
v. Hammell 
v. Hobart 

v. Holland 

r Horsfall 

James 



v. Moore 

T. Pym 

v. Rockafellow 

V Ross 

r. Rothley 

v. St. Paul H Works 

v Shaw 

v. Simpkinson 

v Sims 



17 

240 

678 

1584 

1781, 1782 

334 

624, 678 

262, 547 



Godchild v. Terrett 



232 



844, 1061, 1281, 1282, 

1284, 1286, 1290 

v. Stevens 1166 

Gore Langton, Re 1610 

Gore v. Bowser 574, 943 

v. Harris 574, 943 

v. I'urdnn 1022, 1476 

r. Stacpoole 266, 1501 

Go.ee v. Clements 860 



10«1 
1127 
1129 
1001 

133 

1600 

8:3 

840 

986, 989 

302 

1276 

418 

161, 1457 



197 

511, 153 I 

630 

1558 

581,1833 

1443 



v. Elgin City Banking Co. 1195 
v. Gould 645, 844, 1997 



v. Granger 

v. Hayes 

v. Head 

v . Kemp 

v. Norfolk Lead Co. 

v. Spencer 

17. Stanton 

v. Tancred 

v. Twine 

v. Wheeler 

p. Williamson 
Goulder v. Camm 
Gourand v. Trust 



1463 

225, 23 T 

26 

147 

1101 

443, 488 

986 

1251, 1577, 1583 

507 

259 

843, 844, 847 

191 

1649 



Gourkey v. Toledo & Ohio K?. 

Co. 1168 

Gonroud v. Edison & G. Tel. Co. 26 
Gout v. Aleploglu 1649 

Gouthwaite v. Rippon 424, 1602, 
1671 
Gouvernenr v Elmendorf 948, 1549 



v Titus 
Gove v. Lyford 

v. Pettis 
Gover v. Christie 

t\ Lucas 
Stilwell 



1680 

994, 995, 1515 

562 

197 

924 

1379, 1798 



Governesses' Benevolent Institu- 
tion v. Rusbridger 316, 1431, 
1779 
Governors of Grey-Coat Hospital 

v. Westminster Imp. Com'rs 277 
Govet v. Armitage 59 

Gowan, Re, Gowan v. Gowan 108 
Gowan r Broughton 1430 

v. Jefferies 1718 

Gower v Gower 12; 

Gowing v. Mowberry 710 

Gowland v. De Faria 13Sti 

Gozman v. Cruger 1st; 

Grabenheimer v Blum 1517 

Graces. Hunt 111 

v. Neel 15 1 ; 

v. Nesbit ■ • ■ 

v. Terrington 217, 13. 4 

Graff v Barnum 140'2 

Gratham v. Turnbull 554, 670, 1-' 8 
Grafton V Hilliard 1635 

v. Watson 1043 

Graham, Re 1347. 1790 

v. Berryman 378, 844, 886, 1550, 
1961 

v. Birkenhead Railway Co. 241 

r. Boston H. & E R. Co. 560, 

1584 



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



lvii 



Graham v Campbell 1466, 1652, 1678 

v Carter 216,221 

v. Coape 707, 708 

v Dahlonega Gold M. Co. 334, 

1038 

v Davidson 667 

a Elmore 562, 590 

v Fitch 183, 445, 499 

v. Geneva Lake C M Co. 197 

v. Graham 1233, 1299, 1338, 1342 

v Hardin 994 

v Horn 1392 

v. Ingleby 897 

v Maxwell 800, 1615, 1617, 1627 

v. Minneapolis 190 

v Nelson 561, 654 

v. Newcastle-upon-Tyne 1638 

v. Oliver 856 

v Railroad Co. 1003, 2193 

v. Sublett 161, 841 

v. Tankersley 782, 1548 

v. Torrance 641 

v Wick ham 1233, 1438 

v. Williams 1258 

v. Wiuterson 60 

Grainge v. Warner 1696 

Grainger v Slingsby 1485 

Granard, Karl of v. Dunkin 1648 

Granberry v. Granberry 1247 

Grandin v Leroy 650 

Gi-aud Juuction Canal Co v. 

Dimes 1614 

Grand Rapids v Weiden 1638 

Grand Rapids & I R. Co. v. 

Sparrow 1071 

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

Brodie 808 

Grand U. Order v. Merklin 314 

Grane v. Cooper 1836 

Granely v. Barnard 1654 

Granger v. Bassett 912 

v. Batchelder 974 

Grangers' Business Ass'n v. 

Clark 2120 

Grannis v. Clark 363 

Grant, Re 103, 205 

?> Anderson 445 

v Bryant 1745 

v Davenport 1737 

v. Dexter 1745 

v East & West R. Co. 986, 1029 

v. Easton 664 

v. Grant 424, 1699, 1712, 1714, 

1798 

v. Ingram 36 

t\ Lathrop 1624 

v Mills 113 

v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 334, 617, 1029, 

1720 

v Schmidt 300, 303 

v. Thompson 83 

v . Van Schoonhoven 109, 160, 

161, 191 

Grant's Cases 1042, 1359 

Granville v. Betts 585 

Earl v. M'Neill 254 

Lady v. Ramsden 582, 660 

Grassman o Bonn 267 

Grassmeyer v. Beeson 1161 

Grattan v. Appleton 2025, 2205 

v. Wiggins 284 

Gravatt v Tann 71 

Grave, In re 1297 

Gravel v. Clough 1385 

Gravely v. Barnard 1672 

Gravenor r>. Miles 1292 

v Woodhouse 1126 

Graves v. Alden 846 

v Blondell 604 

v. Budgel 884 

f. Corbin 33-4 

v. Downey 649, 684 

v Fresh 559 

v. Pinchback 249 



Graves v. Short 1108 

v Wright 1209, 1210 

Gray, Re 307 

v. Adamson 710 

v. Barnard 166, 168, 228 

v Bateman 920 

v Beck 630 

v Bell 73, 166 

v Brignardello 999, 1017 

v Campbell 425, 508, 510 

v. Chaplain 25, 242 

v. Chaplin 1724 

v. Chicago R Co. 1614, 1683, 2897 
v. Chiswell 236 

V. Faris 844 

v. Gaither 1722 

v Gray 1282, 1377 

c Haig 403, 1250, 1552 

V Hays 419, 549 
v. Lewis 26, 244, 1743 
v Murray 930, 952 
v National Steamship Co. 191 
v. Ohio <& Pennsylvania R 

Co 1640 

v. Parke 68 

v. Paul 1558 

u.- Pent land 907 

v Russell 1646 

v. Sherman 2012 

c. Smith 365 

v. Thompson 1418 

v. Washington 667 

v, Wilson 671 

Graydon v Church 1751 

V Graydon 1157 
Grays, lie 108 
Grayson y Atkinson 875 

v. Moncure 1165 

v Virginia 446 

Grazbrook v. Giliatt 1696 

Greames v. Stritho 1699 

Greasby, He 1705 

Greason v. Keteltas 671 

Great Australian Gold M. Co v. 

Martin 452, 628 

Great Eastern Railway Com- 
pany, Ex parte 1028 
Great Eastern Ry Co., Re 1030 
Great Falls Manuf. Co. v. 

Henry 1623 

v. Worster 1032, 1628, 1639 

Great Luxemburg Rv Co v 

Magnay "300, 721, 1397 

Great Northern Copper M. Co., 

Re 1027 

Great Northern Ry. v Man- 
chester, Sheffield, & Lin- 
colnshire Ry. 1656 
Greatrex v. Greatrex 1663 
Great Western Colliery Co v. 

Tucker "3^0, 720, 722 

Great Western Compound Co 

v Etna Ins Co. 302 

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

v Cripps 1622 

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

1663, 1678 
v. Oxford, &c. 1640 

v. Rushout 1620 

Great Western Ry of Canada v. 

Braid 1127 

Great wool v. Sims 1138 

Greaves, He 176, 643, 1607 

v Atkinson 669,674 

17 Gouge 26 

v. Greaves 626 

v. Griffith 1699 

v. Smith 434 

v. Tofleld 675 

Greece, King of v. Wright 18 

Greedup v Franklin County 1661 

Greedy v. Lavender 104, 107, 73o 

1432 

Greele v. Emery 1290 



Greeley v. Provident Bank 1716 

Green, Ex parte 1359 

r. Arnold 279 

v. Badley 69, 160, 1370 

v. Bostwick 1742 

v. Branton Imj 

v. Briggs 1440 

v. Charnock 28, 29, i3 

v Coleby 973 

i; Covillaud 385 

v. Creighton 553, 630 

v. Crockett 974 

v. Dodge 546 

v. Gascoyne 1430 

v Grant 243 

v. Green 109, 867, 974 

v. Harrison 37, 13, 1 

v. Huey 1081 

v. Humphreys fr4o 

v . .i.-iikms 1576, 1577, 1579, 

1583 
v. Lanier 1297 

v. Low 825, 1600, 1671 

v. Lowes 1652 

v. Lyon 187 

v McKenney 286 

v Mc Kinney 457 

V. Massie 1568 

; Measures 1175 

Monks 1217 

v. Morris 1973 

v Mumford 1560, 1565 

t;. Neal 633, 635, 637 

v. Otte 106 

17. Pallas 1668 

v. Phila Freestone & Granite 

Co. 1081 

v. Pledger 449, 456, 842, 1335, 
1370, 1596, 1615 
v. Poole 282 

v. Pulsford 1675 

v. Richards 334, 346, 9S9 

v Robinson 544 

v. Rutherforth 629 

v. Sevin 384, 785 

v. Snead 655, 657, 712, 821 

v. Tanner 844 

v Terwilliger 714 

v. Thomson 508 

v Tippah County Super- 
visors 418 
v. Vaughan 844 
v. Weaver 566 
v. Wheeler 932 
v. Winter 1233, 1467, 1468, 
22! 17 
v. Wright 1138 
Green, Re, Green v. Pratt 83 
Greenaway v. Adams 1103 
v Rotheram 112 
Greencastle v. Hazelett 1638 
Greene v. Canny 303 
v. Greene 1165 
v. Harris 2, 615, 617, 624, 666, 
667. 703 
r. Mumford 1560, 1661 
v. Sisson 237, 290, 292 
v. United States Dealers' Ass'n 

1643 
Greenfield v Frierson 1625 

Greenhalgh r. Manchester & 
Birmingham Railway Co. 

1631,1663 

v Rumney 1525, 1526 

Greenhouse, Ex parte 1191, 1851 

Grecnin v. Hoey 1675 

Greening v Beckford 1696 

r. Greening 512 

Greenlaw v Greenlaw 1284 

v. Kernahan 161, 1625 

v. King 571 

Greenleafr Queen 288,1515 

Greenlee v. McDowell 1567, 1578 

Greenough v. Eccles 1100 

v. Gaskell 571, 672, 6 7 4, 575, 576, 

943. 1834 

v. Shorrock 113, 187 



lviii 



Greenslade v Dare 676 

Greenwalt v. Duncan 1548 

Greenway v. Bromfield 653 

Greenwell v. Greenweil 1308, 135* 

Greenwich Bank v. Loom is 1575 

Greenwood v. Atkinson 282, 781, 

1533 

v. Churchill 346 

v. Firth 284 

v. Greenwood 1824, 1832 

v. Hornsey 1662 

v. Parsons 956 

v Percy 1151 

v. Kothwell 1835 

v. Sutcliffe 1395 

v Sutherland 1001 

v Taylor 284 

Gree v. Laws 364 

v. Turner 1517, 1580 

v Willis 1120 

Gregg, Re 892, 1044, 1840 

v Garrett 614 

v. Massachusetts Med Soc. 

1653 

r Slater 1393 

v. Taylor 1082, 1212, 1319 

Gregor v. Molesworth 659. 1583 

Gregory v. Boston Safe Deposit 

Co 1770 

v. Dodge 1467, 1481 

v. Forrester 200 

v Gardiner 1056 

v. Molesworth 72, 73, 997 

v. Paul 88 

v. Pierce 88 

v. Pike 154S 

v. Power 10U3 

v. Spencer 793, 806, 811 

v. Stetson 149, 190 

v. Swift 149 

v. Weaver 747 

v. West 1367 

Gregson, Re 642, 1465, 1488, 1842 

v Oswald 1544, 1545 

Gr< ig v. Somerville 1206, 1208 

Grenfell v. Windsor, Dean of 1730 

Grepe v. Loam 354 

Gresham V. Luke 2190 

v. Peterson 1698 

v Price 1416, 1417 

Greshold v Markham 214 

Gresley v, Adderley 1717, 1718 

v Mousley 577, 1822 

Gretton v Mees 1395 

Greville r Greville 1338 

Grew v Breed 477, 1042, 1053, 

1585, 1691 

Grey, Re 100 

v fliiswell 1033 

v. Dickenson 1013 

v. Northumberland, Duke of 

1633, 1675 
Grey's Brewery Co., Re 1847 

Grey Coat Hospital v. West- 
minster Impr. Commission- 
ers 1531 
Grey de Wilton, Lord v. Saxon 

1655, 1672 

Grider v. Apperson 633 

G Hells v. Gansell 953 

Grier v Wilt 314 

Grierson v Eyre 1634 

Grimes v. Grimes 1163 

Griffin v. Archer 157 

v Brady 664, 1380 

v. Merrill 339 

v Morgan 1508, 1524, 2359 

v. Pickett 1624 

v . Spence 254 

v. State Bank 735 

v Wilson 281. 1516 

Griffing v. Gibb 544, 639 

Griffith v. Augusta & K. R 

Co 545 

r Bateman 200, 249 

v Hronaugh 1539 

0. Coleman 90 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging] 

Griffith v. Griffith 612, 675, 678, 

1147, 1713, 1741,1765,1766 

V. Hadley 1272, 1291 

v. Hilliard 1638 

v. Hood 109, 110 

B Lewis 329 

v. Merritt 1549 

v. Pound 200, 212, 243 

v. Kicketts 317, 357, 358, 909, 

1097 

v Segar 334 

v. Vanheythuvsen 230, 301 

Griffiths, Ex parte 62 

v. Cow per 1045 

v. Crvstal Palace, &c. Co. 1774 

v Griffiths 1844, 1848 

v Hamilton 663 

v Hatchard 1280 

v Jones 1273 

v. Wood 732 

Griffy v. Enders 1159 

Giigg V Landis 369 

v. Sturgis 710 

Grigg's Case 629 

Griggs v. Gear 1576, 1582, 1583 

v. Gibson 1359 

v. Staplee 230, 301, 384, 751, 

1400 

v Thompson 1562 

Grignon v. Astor 222 

Grigsby v. Weaver 1073, 1136 

Grillion v. Rotch 1525 

Grim v Walbert 138 

v Wheeler 715 

Grimes v. French 326, 378, 379, 

380 

v Grimes 586, 1584 

v Harrison 1444 

V March 1395 

Grimmett's Trusts, Re 83, 85 

Grimsby v. Webster 1696 

Griniston v. Timm 1463 

Grimwood v. Shave 40, 1482 

Grinnell v. Merchants' Ins. Co 

1205, 1207 
Grissell v. Peto 1284 

Grist v. Forehand 1355 

Gnswold v. Central Vermont R. 

Co 634 

v. Griswold 906 

v. Hazard 1312, 1580 

V. I ii man 805 

v. Jackson 9S6 

v McMillan 59 

v Simmons 1552 

v Waddington 49 

Grocev Field 1580 

Groch v. Stenger 1017 

GrofTs Appeal 1650 

Groom, Re 1862 

r. Attorney-General 497. 523 

v. Stinton 1024, 1483 

Groome v. Sporne 541 

Gross c George W. Scott Man uf 

Co. 149, 2386 

v. Pearcy 1281, 1282 

Grosvenor V Allen 237, 559 

v White 542 

Grote v. Bing 1735 

Grotenkemper v. Carver 1546 

Grove, Re 102, 103 

v. Bastard 1001, 1408 

v Fresh 346. 347. 1249 

v. Rentch 324. 328, .341, 363 

v. Young 933, 935, 936, 937, 1148, 

1384 

Grover v. Stilwell 1611 

Grover & Baker Sewing Machine 

Co. v Millard 519. 526 

v. Radcliffe 664 

Groves v. Clarke 106, 1516 

v. Gordon 46 

v. Groves 1209, 1795, 

1836 
v Lane 201,203 

v. Levi 201, 203 

V. Perkins 106 



Groves v. Webber 




1624 


Grubb v. Browder 




1459 


v. Kolb 




1625 


v. Lockabill 




231 


Gruber v. Baker 




324 


Grugeon v. Gerrard 




1073 


Gruggen v. Cochrane 




1256 


Grumbrecht v. Parry 




720 


Grundy v. Grice 




2214 


Gruning v Prioleau 452, 53 


•,591 


Grunwell v Garner 


229 


1524 


Guadalupe County v Johnston 368 


Guaga Iron Co. V Dawson 


24 


Guavus v. Fontaine 




1050 


Gubbins t' Creed 




1242 


Gude v. Mumford 




354 


Gudger V. Western N. C. 


R. Co 






269. 31 


Guebelle v. Epley 




1683 


Guernsey r. American Ins Co. 


334 


v Carver 




330 


Guest c. Brooklyn 




1624 


v. Cuwbridge Ry. Co 




1035 


v. Honifray 




1398 


v. Sims 




165 


v. Smythe 895, 


1271 


1285 


Guilbert v. Hawles 




793 


Guild v. Phillips 




1584 


Guilden Sutton, Ex parte 


1323 


Guilford, Mayor of v. Clark 


546 


Guill v. Pierce 




1511 


Guillam v. Holland 




1253 


Guillon v. Rotch 




1526 


Guinness v. Land Co 




1650 


Guion r. Liverpool, &c 


Ins 




Co 




1461 


Gulf, C. & S. F. R. 


Co. v 




Nelson 




'1556 


v Washington 


324 


,601 


Gullan v. Trimbey 




100 


Gullett v Housh 


1576. 


1580 


Gully's Case 




58 


Gully v. Remy 




1257 


Gultenberger v. Woods 




1639 


Guuby v. Thompson 




1716 


Gunn v Bolckow 




1770 


v Mason 




1505 


v. Prior 


605,6! 


Gunnell v. Bird 




843 


v. Whitear 




1413 


Gunther v. Liverpool, L 


& G 




Ins. Co 




1440 


Gunton r Zantzinger 




1282 


Guppy v Brown 




916 


Gurden V. Badcock 


1751, 


1757 


Gurish v Donovan 




409 


Gurney, Re 




224 


v Ford 




860 


v Jackson 


no, 


1425 



Gurnev, Re, Mason v Mercer 560 

Guthrie r. Kahle 1240 

v. Morrell 256 

v Quinn 736 

v. Walrond 1526 

Guy v. Churchill 1517 

v Doak 1733 

v. Guy 70, 71, 78, 79, 1595 

t). Hernance 1961 

v. Pearkes 103 

Guyot v Hilton 1556 

Gwatkin v. Campbell 245, 304, 417 

Gwillim v 

Gwilt v. Crawley 

Gwin v. Harris 

Gwinett v. Bannister 

Gwinn v Whitaker 

Gwjer v. Peterson 

Gwynn v. Butler 
v. Dorsey 
v Leth bridge 
v. Lethbrigge 

Gwvnne v. Ldwards 



v. Gell 
Gwyon v. Gwyon 
Gyles v Wilcox 
Gynn v- Gilbard 



734, 737 

1131 

1031 

1621 

1255 

797 

417 

1235 

1467, 1468, 1470 

380 

1461, 1476, 

1480 

560 

819, 1535 

1645 

68.1347 



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



11X 



H. 



H , /?e 1840 

H's Estate, Re 1719 

Haas v Chicago Building Soc. 1719, 
1734 
Haase v . Roehrschied 1368 

Haberdashers' Company v. At- 
torney-General 1417, 1418 
Habcrghani v. Ridehalgh 1433 
v. Stansfield llHo 
v. Vincent 416 
Hack v. Leonard 1659 
Hacker v. Mid Kent Railway Co. 279 



Hackett V Baiss 
Hack ley v Draper 

v. Mack 
Hackney v. Vawter 
Hackwith v Damron 
Hackwood v. Lockerby 



1638 
1743 
1551 
1650 
287 
453, 460, 
462, 540 
930, 952 
390 
803 
645 
1127 
Tr. 

144 



Haddix v. Haddix 

Haddoch v. Thomlinson 

Had Ion v. Peeler 

Hadix v. Davison 

Hadley v. Baxendale 
v. Freeduian's Sav. 

Co. 

v. London Bank of Scotland 1652, 
1664 
v. McDougall 1826 

v. Pethcal 1600 

v Russell 267, 273 282 

Haffey v. Haffey 1702 

Hagaman v. Cloud County 1661 



Hagan v. Blindell 

v Buck 

v. Patterson 

v. Walker 
Hagar v. Whitraore 
Hagell v. Currie 



1620 

198 

313 

214, 253, 3^3 

779 

1772, 1774, 

1780 

Hagenhach v. Howard 1661 

Hagerstown Turnpike v. Creeger 22 

Hagerty v Lee 1663 

llagewisch v. Silver 1736 

Haggard v Benson 37 

V. Pelieier Frferes 354 

Haggarty v. Pittman 1720, 1723 

Haggett v. Welsh 1860 

Haggin v. Comptoir d'Escompte 

de Paris 149. 445 

v Raymond 1071 

Haggitt v. Iuiff 744, 892 

Hagthorp v. Elook 374, 614, 

675,717,720, 758,844,1239, 

1242, 1245, 1462 

Hague v Wheeler . 1638 

Hal id v. Concordia Society 1654 

Haig v Gray 216 

v. Homan 1576 

Haljrh, Re 1858 

v. Dixon 430 

v Grattan 1747 

v. Haigh 186, 979 

v .laggar 1632 

v Kaye 619, 657 

Haunt v. Burr 1716 

v. Case 1668 

v. Lucia 1676 

v. Morris Aqueduct, Prop, of 735, 

845, 891 

Haikman v. Fernie 

Haine v. Taylor 



Haines v. Beach 

v Carpenter 

v Hewitt 

v . Oatman 

v Taylor 
Hair v. Avery 
Hake t> Brown 
Hakell r. Wright 
Hake well, In re 

v Webber 



1128 

16&5. 1636 

194, 277 

834, 1627 

1159 

68 

1637, 1640 

119 

1120 

1654 

111 

978 



Hakewill, Ex parte 38,39,1863 
Re 39 

Halcomb v, Halcomb 1315 

v. Kelly 418 

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

Haldane v. Eckford 505, 1526, 1825 

Halldeuby v Spofforth 1411, 14--3 

Hale V. Boustead 157 

v. Continental Life Ins. Co 519, 
735, 759 
0. Cove 1108, 1138 

v. Duncan 1743 

v. Hale 991, 1584, 1728 

v. Lewis 979 

v. Nashua & Lowell R. Co 334 
v. Point Pleasant & R R. 

Co 1663 

v Saloon Omnibus Co. 1566, 1570 
e Sheldrake 99 

v Thomas 1684 

Hales v. Pomfret 245, 262, 839 

v. Shaftoe 1053, 1054 

Haley v. Bagley 260 

v Bannister 

Halfhide r. Kenning 
v. Robinson 

Halifax Joint Stock B. Co 
Gledhill 



1360 

671 

83 

' 675 
v. Sowerby Bridge T. H Co. 323 



Hall, Re 
v. Austin 
v Baldwin 
V Barrows 
v. Bennett 
v. Bodley 
; Bushill 
v. Byron 
v. Claggett 
v. Clive 
v. Craig 
v. Dana 
v. Dodge 
v Doran 
v Eve 
v. Ewin 
v. Kowlkes 
v Hall 



880, 1794. 1840 

251, 252, 268, 272 

1561 

1G48, 1649 

309 

723 

1404 

850 

737 

1524, 1525, 1526, 2059 

1565 

1042 

994 

1111 

371 

1654 

380, 582, 1548 

155,333, 059,852,1159, 



1660, 1727, 1728, 1771. 1 
Hallett 1251, 1419 



v. Harris 

v. Hoddesdon 

v. Hugonin 

v Jenkiuson 

v. Jones 

v. Lack 

v. Lamb 

v Laver 

v. Law 

v. Lay ton 

v. Linn 

v Macdonald 

v. Mcl'herson 

v. Maltby 

v. Morris 

v . Muiliner 

v. Noyes 

v. Paulet 

v Pierce 

v Radcliffe 

V. Roche 

v. School District No 4 

v. Stone 

v. Stothard 

v. Stout 

v. Taylor 

v. Truman 

v. Turner 

v. Urquhart 

v Warren 

)'. Westcott 

t 1 . Whiston 



220, 1551 

548, 871, 1573 

119 

1729, 1774 

1354 

404 

1031 , 1492 

309. 1S45 

1151 

1076 

1071 

1425, 1778 

793, 1614 

327, 852, 856 

279 

1307 

605, 615 

39 

378 

539, 1510 

466 

418 

1130 

1134 

933 

1168 

485, 760, 889 

590 

1291 

852 

1302 

1961, 2274 



Hall v. Wood 722, 723 

v. Young 115, 117 

Hall's Charity, Re 1854, 1855 

Hall Dore's Contract, Re 1282 

Hall's Estate, Re 865 

Hallack v. Loft 659, 15*4 

Hallady v. Johnson 1550 

Hallett v. Cousins llol 

v. Cumpton 551 

v. Furze 214 

v. Hallett 190, 217, 225. 236, 238, 

240, 303, 1177, 1507 

Hal lev v. Webster 852 

Halliday, Re 1863 

v. Temple 1820 

Halliley v. Henderson 1205 

Halliwell v. Phillipps 1633 

Hal lock v. Bacon 1317 

v. Smith 214, 215, 930, 952 



234, 243, 303, 

915 

181, 499 

726 

852, 1620 

1467, 1498 

1727 



Hallows v. Fernie 

Halsam, Ex parte 
Halsey v. Ball 

v Brotherhood 

v. Van Auiringe 

r. Windham 
Halstead v. Commissioners of 

Lake ' 46 

v Shepard 345 

Halstead United Charities, Re 1610 
Halsted v. Meeker 378 

v. Tyng 1226 

Haly v . Barry 1039, 1041 

v Goodson Di53 

Ham v Schuyler 1624 

Hambly v. Trott 1634 

Uamblyn v. Ley 1055, 1057, 1058 
Hambrick v. Jones 1029, 1031 

Hambridge v De la Crouee 307 

Hambrook v Smith 568. 764 

Hamburger v. Poetting 27, 28 

Uamer-ley v. Brown 948 

v Lambert 50, 51, 52, 947, 948, 
949, 956, 1578 



Hamerton V. Rogers 
Hamilton v. Arrowsmith 

v. Bankin 

ti Brewster 

v. Buckmaster 

v. Cummings 

v. Davies 

r Denny 

v. Dobbs 

v. Eaton 

v Gilman 

v Girdlestone 

v. Hamilton 

v. Hibbert 

v. Houghton 

v Littlejohn 

v. Lyster 

r Marks 

v Morris 
t' Nott 



13!»2 
95 
297 
1766 
1328 
1961 
448 
1245 
1622 
51 
163 
1722, 1733 
100, 122 
691 
1258, 1276, 158 i 
1501 
679 
394, 395, 1562, 1563, 
1567, 1667 
1151 
673 
Savannah, F. & W Uy. Co. 149 
v Sheppard 645 

v. Southern Nevada M. Co. 402, 
991, 1221 
v. Whitridge 1637 

v. Williford 674 

v Wood 640, 1675 

V. Worsefold 1632 

v. Wvnne 1723 

Duke" of p. Meynal 939 

Hamilton Loan & T.Co V.Gor- 
don 843 
Hainley v. Gilbert 2182 
Hamlin v. Bridge 178 
v. Stephenson 67 
« Wright 1742, 1751 
Ilaiimi v Stevens 290 



Ik 



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



Hammersch!ag Manuf. Co. v. 

Judd 888 ' 

H.iinmerslaugh v Farrior 892 j 

Hauiuierslev v. barker 791 

v. Wyckoli 395, 1619 | 

Hauimertou v. Honey 1004, 1106 

Hammond v Attwood 59 

v. Fuller 1662 

v Hammond 486, 1253 

r. Maundrell 16S9 

V. Messenger 198, 199, 550, 2043. 
20b9 

v Michigan Bank 

v. Neame 

v. Puller 

v Schofield 

v. Taylor 

V Winchester 

v. Wordsworth 
Uamond 8 

v Bradley 

v. Walker 

Hamond's Case 

II s 1 1 1 1 > v Hamp 

v. Robinson 



335 

147, 1431 

1639 

269 

467 

1663 

919 

932 

168 

223,447,1771. 

1779 

951 

1079 

252,253,288,337, 

371, 598, 1675, 1734 

1075 

1780 

1417 

1133 

1425, 1426 



Hanon v. Weil 1716 

Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v Brown 

830 
Hanover, King of v. Wheatley 17, 
18, 925 
Hanover Nat Bank v Klein 842 

Hansard r Hardy 650, 999 

Hans-ell v Hansell 709 

Hansen v Miller 116, 117 

Hanslip v. Kitton 895, 1821, 1825 
Hansom Cab Co. v. Verkes 26 



Hanson, He 

v. Bean 

v. Gardiner 

v. Keating 

v Lake 

u Murray 

v. Patterson 

v. Reece 
Hansucker V. Walker 
Hapgood w. Houghton 
Haralson v. George 
Harbeu V. Phillips 



1856, 1857 

576 

1631, 1668, 1670 

91,124,385 

1404 

1790 

1002 

1846 

1286 

90,117 

1274, 1282 

26, 241, 244, 

1650 

1234, 1414 

1433 



Hampden v. Hampden 

v Wallis 
Hampshire v. Bradley 

v. Harris 
Hampsou v. Brandwood 

v. Hampson 1077, 1082, 1124 

Hampton v Coddington 312, 732 

v Holman 1001 

v. Nicholson 418 

v. Pool 1701 

v Quayle 418 

Hanbury r. Hussey 1157 

v. Litchfield 380 

r. Ward 539, 1510 

Hanby v Henritze 1517 

Hanchett v Briscoe 119 

Hancock, He 653 

v. Attorney-General 156 

v. Carlton 612, 697, 699 

v. Hancock 166, 641 

v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co. 51 

v. Rollison 807 

v Toledo, &c. R. Co. 1734 

v Walsh 1614 

v Wooten 236 

Hancocks v. Lablache 178, 631 

Haud B Dexter 558 

v. King 807 

v. Savannah & C. R. Co. 1411 

v Weidner 843 

Handford v. Handford 1003. 1189 

v Storie 243, 790, 793, 794 

Handler v Billings 1197 

r Davies 1427 

r. Heflin 1556 

v. Metcalf 1785 

Handly v Munsell 1548 

Hands v Hands 1699 

Ilandv V. Cleveland & M. R. 

Co. 1765 

v. Scott 1299 

Haney, Re 1596, 1607 

Hanger v. Fowler 1846 

Hankey v. Simpson 667 

V. Vernon 1621 

Hankin v Middleditch 933 

Hanlon r. Doherty 576 

v. Primrose 314 

Hanly v. Levin 68 

Hantnan v. Riley 215,257 

Hanmer v. Chance 861 

Hannah r. Hodgson 1551 

Hannam v South London Water 

Works Co 809, 1659 

Hannas v Hannas 991 

Hannay v. McEntire 1670, 1700. 

1707 

Hannibal. &c. R Co. v. Shipley 

1666 

Hano v Bigelow 1654 



Harbin v Darby 

v. Masterman 
Harborough, Earl v Shardlow 1139 
Harborough, Lord v. Wartnaby 

1274, 1307, 1592, 1594, 1685 
Hardcastle o. Smithson 274 

Hardee v. Gibbs 1512 

» Wilson 1029 

Hardeman v. Harris 718 

Harden v. Hays 852 

Hardenburgh v. Blair ld37 

Harder v. Harder 294, 302 

Hardey v. Baley 
Hardie !». Bulger 
Hardiman, lie, Pragnell V 

Batten . 
Hardin v. Boyd 

v Swoope 
Harding v Cox 

v Durand 

v. Egin 

v. Glover 



418 



1157 

4< 2 
334 
416, 418 
560 
657, 590, 788 
1728 



v Handy 149, 285, 324, 361, 1226 

131 '< 

v. Harding 734, 1282 

v Hardrett 675 

v. Hawkins 843 

v. Tingey 419, 425, 480, 598, 

1602 

v. Wheaton 2279 

v. Wick ham 654, t.70 

v. Williams 866 

v Yarbrough 1282 

Hardingham v. Nicholls 677 

Uardman v El lames 609, 615, 620, 

622, 624, 673, 678, 682, 1822, 1833, 

2095 

Hardt V. Liberty Hill C M. Co 

1675 
Hardwick v. Bassett 526, 837, 978, 



v. Wright 
Hardy v Beaty 
v. Caley 
v Dartnell 
v Eckersley 
v. Hardy 
v Heard 
Hull 



1231, 1825 

1381 

298 

814 

1398 

807, 810 

837 

429. 1449, 1522 



v Reeves 560, 561, 640, 650, 679 



1668 
875 
North Western 

190 

1173. 1411 

217, 219 

771 

900, 1408 

1829 

911 



Summers 
Hare v- Hare 
v London & 

Ry. Co 

v. Rose 

Hares v. Stringer 

Harford v. Lloyd 

v. Purrier 

v. Rees 

v Reeves 

Hargrave » Harerare 68, 851, 1015, 

1026, 1027, 1034, 1112, 1114, 1115, 

1137, 1456, 1726 



Hargrave v. Kettlewell 1794 

v. Tindal 164 

Hargraves v. White 972 

Hargreaves, He 236, 989 

v. Michell 642, 654 

v Wright 344 

Haring v. Kauffman 1684 

Harker, Ex parte 1698 

Harkinson's Appeal 1654 

Harlan v. Barnes 997 

Harland v. Bankers & M. Tel 

Co 1427, 1743 

v Emerson 615, 619, 620 

v. Garbutt 85 

v. Person 334,542 

Harlock v. Ashberry 652, 1072 

v. Smith 1440 

Harloe v Harloe 1213, 1528 

Harlow v. Mister 193 

Harman v Davis 1584 

v. Easton 1666 

v Foster 1755 

v. Jones 1640 

v. Lewis 1120 

v Wagner 1716 

Harmer v. Gooding 367, 544 

v. Harris 1409,1449 

v. Plane 1642 

v. Priestly 2230 

Harmon v. Byram 281 

v Campbell 525, 531 

v. Kentucky Coal Co. 1716 

Harner v. Price 1621 

Harnett v. Yielding 1405 

Harnish v Bramer 1621 

Harnsberger i' Cochran 1168 

Harp v. Osgood 195, 325 

Harper v Elberton 1071 

v. Hayes 1285 

v. Hendricks 559 

v. McElroy 1638 

v. Munday 1420, 1421 

v. (VBrien 633 

v. Uaveuhill 319 

v. Vaughan 1461 

Harpham v. Shacklock 674 

Harrald, He 1447 

Harrell v Wilson 1-90 

Harries v. Kees 298, 1778 

Harrigan v. Bacon 417 

Harrington v. Becker 814, 1539, 

1541 

v. Chastel 1680 

v. Du Chatel 16S0 

v. Harrington 547,868,1221,1469, 

1614 

r. Slade 1532, 1536 

Harris, Ex parte 1750 

He 98, 893, 1608, 1847 

v. Brisco 563, 1558 

v Butterley 1138 

v.- Carter 286,287 

v. Clap 1254 

v. Collett 1556, 1625, 1672 

v. Collins 844, 1073 

v Cornell 231 

v De Tastet 1178 

v. Dietrich 522 

v Edmondson 1577 

v. Fleming 452, 536 

v. Fly 992, 1221, 1296, 

1599 

v. Gamble 785 

v. Gaudy 799 

v. Hamlyn 162, 177, 475, 1387 

v. Harris 70, 168, 620, 622, 749, 

1167, 1551, 1832 

v. Hess 1770 

v. Billiard 996, 1378 

v Hines 790 

v. Hooper 214 

v Ingledew 232,679, 695,697,875, 

883 

v. James 261, 732 

v. Jenkins 347 

v. Knickerbacker 408, 860 

v. Lee 103 



Harris v. Lewis 
v Lightfoot 
v. Macintosh. 
v. Milburn 
v. Mills 

v. Mutual Life Ins Co. 
v Pepperell 
v- Pollard 
v. Quine 
v . Rich 
t; Roth well 
v. Schryock 
i;. Start, 




TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging. J 

1596 Hart v. Coffee 267 

800 v. Colley 1648 

1110 v. Denham 1723, 1768 

201 ?■. (iranger 378 633 

560, 639, 640 v. Hannibal, &c R. Co. 1663 

v. Il.irt 880, 9S1, 1542 

v. Henderson 418 

n. Herwig 1663 

v. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct 10 

v. McKeese 314 

v. Mallet 630 

v. Montefiore 1825 

v. Phillips 637 

v. Roberts 801, 964 

v. Sanderson 617 



ki 



v. Andrews 
v Arniitage 
v Borwell 
v Coydell 
V Crewster 
v. Crown 
v. Buckle 
v. Cage 
v. Cockerell 
v. Coppard 
v. Delinont 
v. Eldridge 
v. Every 
v Fane 
t'. Farnsworth 
v. Farrington 
V. Forth 
v Gibson 
v. Good 
v. Guest 
v. Gurney 
v- Hall 
v Harrison 
v. Hart 
v. Hogg 



41 

1973 

1610 

643 

1543 

328 

1650 

15!»0 

542, 1629 

1102, 1104 

59 

283, 561, 652, 815 

321 

236 

165, 167, 997 

1233 

721 

122 

332, 1728 

712, 1805 

1755 



v. Johnson 

v. Kennedy 

v. Lane 

v. Leutner 

v. Lynes 

v. MeMennomy 

v, Masselin 

V. Mexican Ry. Co 

r Morton 

v. Nettleship 

t>. Nixon 

r. 1'ennell 

t*. Pryse 

v Ray 

r. Richards 

v Righter 

f. Rowan 

v. Rumsey 

v. St. Mark 



1551 
26 
92 

1129 

1667 

13! )9 

733, 783 

1165 

1203 

1129 

994 

608, 726 

675 

641 

1636 

328, 382 

800, 1626 

1479 

76,77, 1132, 11&3 

2231 

303, 339, 340, 365, 366. 

588 

842,886,887 

187 



796, 1588 

1443 

815 

1382 

1323 

599 

287 

663, 1621 

361 

277 

247 

2027 

1169, 1342 

200, 323, 324 

175, 288, 290, 556 

973 

Church 1635 



v. Southampton, Corp. of 1020 
r. Southampton, Mayor of 1474 
v. Southcote 563, 569, 607, 611. 
676, 1385 
v. Stewardson 225. 237, 257, 277. 
521 
1649 
1440 
1675 
1741 
107S 
55, 56 
230 
1392 
645 



v. Taylor 
v. Wearing 
i'. Yerby 

Harrisson v. Duignan 

Harrod v. Harrod 

Harrop, Re 

Harry v. Davey 

Harryman v. Collins 

Harsell v. Kelley 

Hart v. Albany, Mayor, &c. of 1629, 

1631 

v. Bleight 1284 

v. Brand 1401 

v. Carpenter 844 



v. Scruggs 891 

v. Small 1593 

v. Stephens 114 

v. Ten Eyck 284, 839. 840, 843, 

844, 1176, 1180, 1229, 1230 

v. Tims 1720 

v. Tulk 403 448, 454. 1012. 1015. 

1510, 1597, 1734, 1738, 2059 

v. Wingate 997 

Hartell v. Van Buren 632, 635 

Harter v Colman 213 

Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Bonner 

M. Co. 303, 334 

Hartga v. Bank of England 148 

Hartland v Dancocks 1114 

Lady v. Atcherley 176 

Hartley, Re 1734 

v. Boynton 536 

v. Gilbert 85 

v. Matthews 385, 842 

v. Russell 557, 563 

v. Swayne 1563 

llai-tinan i'. Dowdel 120 

Hartmann i< Hartmann 1150 

Hartridge, Ex parte 1620 

v. Rockwell 1640, 1664 

Hartshorn v. Eames 590. 787, 



Hartshorne v. Hartshorne 



v. Watson 
Hartt v. Harvey 
Hartwell v. Colvin 

v. Townsend 

v. Whitman 
Hartwright v. Badham 
Hartz v. Schrader 
Harvard College v. Soc. for Pro- 
moting Theolog Education 10, 
137, 138 



1150, 
1165 

1098 
1619 
1205 
1583 
845, 846 
1131 
1729 



Harvey, Re 
v. Ashley 
v. Beck with 
v. Bignold 
v. Bradley 
v. Branson 
v. Clayton 
v. Cooke 
v Coxwell 
v. Crawford 



187,1841 
100 
145 
243 
743, 1370, 1581 
9! 13 
576 
294 
70, 799 
1260 



v. Croyden Union R. S. Au- 
thority 973, 1031 
v. E-ist India Co. 391 



Hall 
Harvey 



412, 1675, 1685 
225, 1045, 1055, 1069, 
1213. 1527 



V. Hewitt 
v. Jacob 
v. Lord 
v. Lovekin 
v. Mitchell 
r. Morris 
v. Mount 
r. Mountague 
i». Murrell 
v. Renon 
v. Tebbutt 
v. Towle 
v. Tyler 
r. Varney 
v. Wilde 
Uarvie v. Banks 



1237 



1131 
32 
407 
564 
1106 
570 
1394 
1683 
1578 
522 
1392 
967 
628 
1743 
1209 
1246 



Harwell v. Lehman 214, 550 

v Potts 17.33 

Harwood V Kirby 279 

V Railroad Co. 1640 

Hasbiouck v. Shuster 1516 

Haskell l>. Haskell 57J 

v. Hilton 197 291,557 

v- New Bedtord 1638 

v Raoul 994. 1578 

Haskius v. Rose 1684 

Ha<lar t> Ho; lis 781 

Hasluck 17. Stewart 449 

Hassall v. Wright 1643 

Hassan !'. City of Rochester 1661 
Hassel) v. Van Houten 295 

Ilastie v. Hastie 858, 890, 1019 

Hastings (Lady), Re, Uallett v- 

Hastings 109, 642 

v. Belden 589, 1618 

v. Cropper 1561, 15<>3 

v. Ivall 163J. 1832 

v. Palmer 806 

v. Wiswall 1259 

Lord, v. Beavan 1039, 1040, 1694 
Haston v Castner 235 

Hatch v , H83, 1781 

v. Calvert l<i0 

V. Dana 269 

v. Eustaphieve 311, 395, 733 

v. Indianapolis & S. R. Co. 1304, 
2395 
v. Searles 1213 

v. Spoffbrd 633 

v. The Newport 1120 

v. Wallamet I B. Co. 1675 

v. White 284 

Hatcher v. Chambersburg Nat. 

Bank 1120 

v. Hatcher 385, 1584 

v Massey 190 

Hatchett v. Cremome 1322 

Hatfield v Montgomery 640 

Hathaway v. Baldwin 351 

v. Crocker 1101 

v. Hagan 790, 1298, 1299, 1548, 

1551 

v Russell 1168 

0. Scott 746 

Hathornthwaite v. Russel 1722 

Hat-Sweat M. Co. v. Davis S M. 

Co. 790, 1642 

Hatton, Re 157 

v. Harris 1029 

?•. Haywood 1037, 1054 

Haughwort v. Murphy 281 

Haulenbeck v. Cronkr'ight 1156,1321 

Hauser v. Roth 1079, 1298, 1310 

Ilausmeister v. Porter 630 

Hautton v. Hager 42 

Havelock, lie 1610 

v. Havelock 1358 

Haverfield v. Pyman 1828, 1829 

Haverhill Loan Fund Assoc, v. 

Cronin 284 

Havers v . Havers 1722 

Haverstick v. Sipe 1638 

Haviland ». Bloom 90, 102, 105 

Hawv Vickers 202 

Hawarden )• Dunlop 452, 456 

Hawes v. Bamford 893, 1671 

r. Draeger 851 

V. Johnson 39 

?•. Oakland 26 

r. State 573 

Hawke, Re 1797 

?• Kemp 1595 

Hawker v. Himcombe 1029, 1030 

llaukes v. Barrett 800 

?'. Hawkes 1163 

v. Holland 1735, 1741 

v Kennebeck 546 

Hawkesley V. Gowan 1694 

Hawkesworth v. Chaffey 561 

v. Dewsnap 879 

Hawkins 7'. Blake 405 

v. Craig 225 237 

v. Crook 518, 523, 1059, 1061 



Ixii 



Hawkins v. Day 1314 

v D d 1801 

v- Gardiner ' ! 'l 

v. Gathercole 460, 578, 1730, 1743, 
1834 

v. Hale 

V. Hall 

v. Ha»kins 

v. Holmes 

0. Lusconibe 

r. Pearson 

v. Smith 

V. Watts 
Hawkshaw v Parkins 
Hawkswortb, lie 

v Hawksworth 
Hawley v. Bennett 



v. Cramer 

f Donnelly 

v. James 

v. Steele 

V Wolverton 
Haworth v. Bostock 
Hawse v Moody 
Hawtayue v Bourne 
Hawthorne, He, Graham v 



443 

1452. 1453 

38, 217, 218, 370 

655 

74, 170 

418 

1841 

1359 

1652 

1794 

108 

1543, 1544, 

1686 

269, 551 

893 

1001, 1489 

133, 211, 261, 1639 

349, 373, 759 

841 

334 



Massey 
Hay v Bowen 

v. Estell 

v. State 

v- Willoughby 
Haycock v. Haycock 
Hay den V. BuckliQ 

o. Marmaduke 

v. Thrasher 
Hajes, He 

v Bickelhoupt 

v. Billings 

v. Brotzman 



629 

1405, 1411 

1150, 1151 

892 

983 

208*, 211, 255 

281 

2H4 

1675 

99, 1802 

1424 

1675 

1751 



v. Dayton 334, 543, 601, 2383, 2384 

v. Hayes 197 

v. Johnson _ 1560 

v. Leguin 747, 784 

v. Miles 1588 

Hayes's Appeal 334 

Haygarth v. Wearing 1386 

Hayllar v. Sherwood 58 

Havman v Rugby School 



Ha_\ mes v. Cooper 
Hayne t'. Gould 

v Hayne 
Hayner v. Stanly 
Haynes V Ball 



1040, 1696, 1846 

1157 

607, 1075, 1550 

659 

493, 508, 509, 512, 

526 

681,1611 

1795 



v. Barton 
v. Haynes 

v. Hazlerige 1664 

Hayney v. Coyne 563 

Havnie v. Hail 645 

Hays, Ex parte 135!» 

v. Carr 860 

v. Cornelius 214 

v. Harmony Grove Cemetery 989 

v. Hays 1296 

v. Humphreys 283 

v. Jackson 1772 

v. State 546 

Hayter, Ex parte 1589 

Havward V Andrews 197 

v. Carroll 841 

v. East London Waterworks 

Co 16«2 
t'. French 1180 
v Pry 8, 136. 156 
v. tlray 1180 
v. Havward 771, 772, 773, 1327 
v. National Bank 378, 379 
t;. Pile 203, 1527 
t>. Price 1327 
v. Roberts 732 
v. Stephens 893 
v. Stillingfleet 1630 
Havwarden, Viscountess v. Dun- 
lop 1596 
Haywood v. Brunswick P. B. 
Society 1654 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Haywood v. Hutchins 551 | 

v Lincoln Lumber Co. 1734 i 

v. Marsh 645, 1475, 1476 | 

0. Miner 12'j6, 1317 

v. Ovey 271 

Hajzlett V McMillan 161 i 

Hazard v. Dillon 303. 334 

v Durant 26. 149. 235, 489, 505, 
507, 526, 531, 608, 1743 
v. Griswold 314, 324 

v Hidden 974 

Hazeldine v. Grove H2i 

Hazelhurstt; Sea Isle City Hotel 

Co 843 

Hazeu v Durliug 236, 1615 

v Thurber 1166 

Hazleton V. Bright 1069 

Hazzard v. Credit Mobilier 26 

Heacock v. Stoddard 916 

Head II. Egerton 676 

v. Godlee 1473, 1581 

v Head 76, 851, 1578 

v Teyuhani, Lord 206 

Heald v. Hay 448, 1674 

Healey, He 887 

v. J agger 834, 952 

v. Simp.-ou 542 

Heanley v. Abraham 805, 830 

Heap v. Hartley 197 

v. Jones 1436 

Heaps v Commissioners of 

Churches 40 

Heard v. Borgwardt 406 

v. March 1522 

v. Pilley 196, 365, 561 

Hearle v. Greenbank 97 

Hearn v. Way 593 

v. Tennant 1673, 1683, 1684 

Hearne v. Ogilvie 525 

v. Stowell 1127 

Heartt v Corning 603,614,685, 
686, 689, 690, 699, 1250 
Heath v. Ashley 997 

v. Bucknall 1637, 1638 

v. Chadwick 59 

t\ Chapman 1530 

v. Crealock 362, 674, 878, 907, 
909 
v. Ellis 26, 242, 296 

v. Erie Ry. Co. 193, 1556 

v. Fisher 1264 

v. Griswold H68 

v. Heath 90, 91 

v. Lewis 87, 107, 123. 179, 407, 
513, 832, 1512, 1530, 1531 
v. Percival 21 0, 250 

,.. Pugh 649, 652. 1072 

v Vrelan 149- 

Heathcote v Edwards 1588, 1796 
v- North Staffordshire Rail- 
way Co 1620, 1663 
Heather v Waterman 495 
Heathley t> Thomas 187 
Heatlev v Finster 678 
v. Newton 195, 14 1 4 
Heaton J'. Dearden 209 
Heavner v. Morgan 860 
Hebbard v. Haughian 574 
Hechmer v Giliigan 1561 
Heck v. Buckley 1687 
v. Vollmer 109, 1676 
Heckman v Mackey 41 
Hecksher v Crosley 28 
Hedges v. Bowen 861 
v Cardonnel 1318, 1486 
I Heeman v. Midland 1828 
Hftfield Waterworks v. Yeomans 543 
Hffflmi v. Bowers 1675 
Heffron v. Gage B'62 
| v Gore 559 
Hefner v. Hesse 1081 
Heggie v. Hill 334 
Heidritter v. Oil-cloth Co. 1743 
Heighington v. Grant 668, 1252, 
1260, 1416, 1420, 1421, 1432, 
1449, 1464 
Heineman v. Hale 149 



Heinlen v. Cross 
Heinrich, The 

Heinrich v. Sutton 
llciii>lir v Friedman 
1 1 . iron. Re 
Ilea- > . liexley. Lord 

v. Ogle 
Heller v. Royal Ins. Co. 
Hellnian, Re 
Helm i- Hardin 
Helmetag v. Frank 
Helmick v. Davidson 
Helms v. Franciscus 
Heniberow v. Frost 
Heming v Archer 

v. Dingwall 

t\ Leilchild 



1675 
1S46 
307 

907 

1064, 1066 

202,204,643 

520 

590 

1798 

220, 256, 1505 

860 

790 

76, 90, 91 

852 

1279 

1555, 1558, 2047 

1399, 1449 



v Swinnerton 554, 1621, 1857, 

1858 

Hemings o Pugh 551 

Hemming, Ex parte 62, 157 

v Dingwall 414, 770, 776, 1458 

v. Maddick 
Hemphill v. M'Kenna 

r. Miller 
Hemry V. Macdonald 
Hemsley v. Myers 
Hendee v. Howe 



1'iukt-rton 
Henderson, He 
v. Alloway 
t;. Atkins 
v. Campbell 
v. Carbondale Coal & 

Co. 
v. Cook 



415, 1102 
1664 
951 
1417 
1620 
1381 
146 
555,664 
1639 



v. Dennison 
t'. Dodds 
v- Henderson 
v. Henshall 
v. Hopper 
v. Jones 
v. M'lver 
v Mathews 
v Meggs 
v Meyers 
v. Moss 
v. Phillipson 
v Runcorn 

Co. 
v. Sherman 
v- Underwriting & A. Ass 

v Walker 
Hendruk v. Robinson 

v Wood 
Hendricks v. Craig 

v McLean 
Hcndriks v. Montngu 



447 

Coke 

387. 1019 

582, 587, 589, 1579, 

1580 

601 

1423, 1437 

555. 664, 1628 

1029 

443 

2319 

1235 

736.801 

518 

417 

1770 

905 

& Alkali 

1079 



Soap 



334 

39, 

1556 

1752 

1028 

629 

915 

997 

328, 1648 

560 



Uendrickson v. Uendrickson 

v. Hinckley 1625 

v. Wallace 659 

Hendrig v. Clay 1528 

Ileneage v Aikin 1600 

Henley v Brooke 1044 

v. H. nley 542 

v. Phillips 1412. 1415 

v. Stone 280, 681, 742 

Henly v Gore 

Henman v Lester 

Helm v Walsh 

Itencegal 0. Evance 

Hennessee v. Ford 

Hennessey v. White 

Hennessy v. Wright 

Hennet o. Luard 

Hennewinkle v. Georgetown 1661 

Henniker r Chafy 1611 

Henuing v. Raymond 743 

v Samuel H32 

v. Willis 200, 210, 367, 1395 

Henuinger r. Heald 334. 659 

Hennings v. Conner 7^8 

Henrick v. Blair 671 

Heurie r- Johnson 1157 

I Henry v. Armstrong 852 



1103, 1126 
1727, 1728 
909 
632 
87 
581 
794, 795 



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



lxiii 



Henry v. Blackburn 
v. Browu 

v. (J lark 
V- Costello 
v. Doctor 
v. Ellis 



187 
406 

2227 
784 

10.33 

lutiy 



v. Great Northern Railway 

Co. 1652 

v. Gregory 312, 732 

v. Lee 1099 

v McKittrick 334 

v- Ogle 91 

v Suttle Sol) 

v Travellers 7 Ins. Co. 417, 1029. 
1290, 1461, 1523, 1825 
v. Tapper 1624 

v. United States 1381 

County v. Winnebago Drain- 
ing Co. 560 
Henr. Clay and Bock & Co. Re 1648 
Henshaw v. People's Mutual N. 
G Co. 1638 
v. Wells 1370, 1716, 1734 
Hensley v. Whiffin 214 
Hen>loe's Case 227 
Hen wood v Jarvis 1623, 1678 
Hepburn v. Auld 989 
v. Dunlap 989 
v. Durand 726 
v- Lordan 1635, lb'38 
Hepburn's Case 49 
Hepworth v. Uenshall 888 
v. Heslop 1265, 1278, 1390 
Herbert v. Hedges 1163 
v Herbert 324, 500 
v. Kowles 52 
V. Sayers 58 
v. Torball 67 
v. Wren 1105 
Lord v. Pusey 7*54 
Hercy v. Ballard 644 
v. Diuwoody 1&J7 
v. Ferrers 581 
Herd v. Lupton 809 
Herdsman ;;. Lewis 1071, 1073 
Hereford, Bishop of v. Adams 1437 
Herefordshire Banking Co., Re 1253 
Her^el v. Laitenberger 287, 1548 
Herle v. Greeubank 1308 
Herman v- Duuba.r 1610, 1741, 1705 
Herndon v. Gibson 1290 
v. Hurter 1746 
Herr p. Bierbower 1031 
Herrell v. 11 iimum 1037 
Herrett v. Reynolds 507, 509, 800 
Herrkk v. Belknap 1195, 1294, 1298, 
1300, 1301, 1309 
v Racine Warehouse Co. 1493 
Herring v. Bischoffsheiin 350 
v. Clobery 574, 1468, 1487 
v. Goodson 851 
v. Polley 1019 
v. Swain 707 
v. Wickham 675 
v. Yeo 228 
Herrington v. Hubbard 287 
v. Robertson 1381 
Hersey v. Veazie 26, 144 
Hershberger v. Blewett 790 
1 Hershee v. Hershey 974 
1 Hershy v. Baer ' 1017 

Hersou v. Chicago & Alton R. 
1 Co. 1463 

Hertford, Borough of v. Hert- 
ford, Poor of 1419 
Marquis of, Re 1089. 1090, 
1691, 1693 
v. Boore 309 
v. Suisse 446, 461, 1590 
t) Zichi, Count de 255 
Hertford Charities, Re 1610 
Hertz v Union Bank 1019 
Hervey v. Beckwith 272 
v. Fitzoatrick 1722 
v. Smith 1635, 1002 
v. Talbutt 1457 
Hesing v. Attorney-General 12, 146 



Hesketh, The 32 | 

Heslop v. Metcalfe 1844 

Hess v. Lowrey 1511 | 

v. Vose 60, 1150 

Hester v. Hester 307, 074 

v. Thorn. -uu 1-21 

V. Weston 589, 590 

Hettihewage Siman Appu v. 

Queen s Advocate 141 

Heugh v. Kail ot Abergavenny 298 



v. (Jairett 
0. Scard 
Heusner ? 
Co. 



579, 720 
1417 
Mutual Life Ins. 

1561 

553 

983 

1187 

250. 326,403, 



Heu.^tis V. Johnson 
Heward v. Wheatley 
Hewes v. Hewes 
llewett V- Adams 

406, 425, 853, 971, 1716, 1732, 

1733 

v. Foster 1416, 1420 

Hewitson v. Sherwin 355 

p. Todhunter 202, 203, 204, 896 



Hewitt, Re 


193 


v. Campbell 


843 


v. Dement 


418 


v. Hewitt 


611, 618, 704 


v. Loosemore 


674 


v. M'Cartney 


505 


v. Montclair 


287 


v. Nanson 


1266, 1207 


v. Prime 


576 


v. v\ hite 


396 


Hewitt's Case 


176, 1149 


Hewlett v. Cruchley 


1132 


v. Davis 


1273, 1282 


v. Miller 


380 


Hextv. Walker 


296 


Hey v. Schooley 


993 


Heyer v. Bromberg 


334 


v Pruyn 


652 


Heygate v. Annesley 


118 


v. Thompson 


182, 031 


Hey man, Ex parte 


897 


v. Landers 


1607 


v. Uhlman 


536,829 


Heyn v. Heyn 


1175 


Hey s v. Ashley 


657 


Hey wood v. City of Buffalo 


v. Miner 


1112 


v. Wait 


L594, 1673, 1684 


Hiatt v. Brooks 


68 


Hibbard V. Eastman 


1621,1022, 




1023 


v. Morrison 


1021 


Hibbert v. Durant 


726 


v. Hibbert 


1737 


Hiberuia S. & L. Co. 


t>. Jones 145, 




417,418, 779 


Hicheus i>. Congreve 


240, 295, 403, 
1772 

193 


v Kelly 


Hick v. Lockwood 


1733 


Hie key, Ex parte 


1009 


v. Stone 


801 


Hickman v. Cooke 


347 


v. Upsall 


652,850 


Hickok v. Farmers' and Mecha- 


nics' Bank 


906, 928, 929 


Hickox v. Elliott 


200 


Hicks v. Blanchard 


576 


v. Campbell 


190. 338, 598 


v. Chadwell 


1249, 1300 


r. Ferdinand 


1120, 1580 


o. Hastings 


1103 


v. Hicks 


1750 


v. Hogan 


1108 


v. Jackson 


559 


v. Oliver 


418 


D. Raincock 


5*6 


v. Wrench 


1412 


Hickson /'. Aylward 


007 


r. Lombard 


328, 382 


v. Mobley 


709 


»'. Rucker 


12«2 


Hidden v. Jordan 1240, 12 




1246 



Hiddingh v. Denyssen 1120 

Hide v. Haywood 1410 

v. Petit 1050 

Hiern v. Mill 379, 380, 075 

Higbee v Bacon 1230 

v. Brown lcilO 

v. Camden & Amboy R. Co 1601," 

1677 

Higdon v. Higdon 851. 9S0 

v. Thomas 195 

Higginbotiiam v. Burnet 547, 584 

Higgins !■. Crawfurd 0-.2 

e. Krankis 710 

v. Hoppock 590 

v Mills 1480 

v. New York 1508 

v Shaw 1642 

v. Woodward 1669, 1676, 1085 

Higgin.-on v. Adir 17i:9 

v. Blockley 704, 21^4 

v. Hall ' 68, 83, 18^5 

v Wilson 182,031 

High v. Batte 283, 612, 074, 077, 

678, 726 

v Worley 237 

Higham, Ex parte 90 

Highstone v. Franks 314, 639 

High ton v. Treherue 980 

Hightour v. Rush 1067 

Hightower v. Mustian 288 

v. Smith 1377 

Hilary, Re 1347 

Hildebraud v. Beasley 1518 

Hildreth v. Skillenger lo77 

Hildyard v . Cressy 408, 624, 681, 

694, 729, 1559 

Hiles v. Case 1743 

i' Moore 1734, 1735 

Hill v. Adams 261 

v. Barclay 1658, 1659 

v. Billingsley 1623 

v. Biuuey 840 

v. Bonner 204 

v. Bowers 1003 

v. Bush 843 

v. Bute, Earl ot 737, 738, 760 

v. Campbell 534 

v. Challinor 1528 

v. Chapman 1360, 1486, 1489, 

1801 

v. Cooper 87 

v. Crarv 720 

v. Curtis 319, 1027 

v. Davison 1653 

v. Durand 200 

v. Eyre 418 

v. Fulbrook 1103 

?'. Gaunt 813 

v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 380 

v. Greenwood 1108 

r. Hart-Davis 454, 895, 1020 

v. Hibbit 868, 940, 1440 

v. Hill 334, 418, 885, 1530 

v. Hoare 1079 

v. Hoover 986 

v. King 983, 1330 

v. Lewis 250 

v. Managers 10 

v- Maury 1580 

v. Newman 204 

v. Proctor 149, 191, 1164 

v. Keardon 28, 315, 542, 1394 

v. Reno 1150 

v. Rimell 1594, 1596, 1607, 1735 

v. Saylea 1638, 1639 

v. Smith 243, 1408 

v. South Staffordshire Ry. Co. 

1027, 1028. 1257 
t». Thompson 1642, 1644, 1070 

v. Tollit 744 

v. Townley 283, 50* 

v. Townsend 121 

v. Turner 1551,1624 

v. Walker 643, 1425 

v. Ward 1075 

v. Williams 844 

v. Yates 1092, 1128 



lxiv 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 
[The references are to the star paging.] 



Hill v. Young 1157 

Uillearv, Re 1440 

v. Hurdle 379 

v. Thompson 1003 

Hiller v. Collins 1675 

Uilliard v. Eiffe 328, 382 

v. Fulford 1426 

v. 1 1 1 1 i - 1 1 n 1570 

v. Mutual Ben. Life Ins. 

Co. 51 

v. Smyth 140 

Hilligoss v. (irinslade 1620 

llilluianr. Hurley 1638 

Hillsr Barnard 243 

v. Croll 1656 

v. Evans 1081 

v. Hills 73 

ti. M'Rae 216, 269,324 

v. Nash 216, 2ly 

v. Parker 1743 

v. Putnam 243 

v. Reeves 1743 

v. Springett 266, 407 

Hilton v. Fowler 1130 

v. Granville, Earl 1640, 1663, 1664 

v. Guvot 664 

v. Lawson 629, 1586 

v. Lothrop 87, 260, 285,392,305, 

1556, 1558 

v. Woods 1381 

Hi me v. Dale 1645 

Hinchman v. Kelley 560 

v. Paterson Horse R. Co. 303, 

1635 

Hinckley v. Gilman, &c. R. Co. 

1461, 1492 

v, Pfister 385, 1120 

Hiucks, lie 307 

Hincks v. Nelthorpe 570 

Hind v. Whitmore 36, 74, 111, 796, 

811, 1378 

Hinde v. Blake 1043 

v. Morton 813, 1511, 1512, 1526, 

1527 

v. SkeUon 631 

v. Vattier 873 

Hinder v. Streeten 1404 

Hindle v. Birch 1131 

v. Dakin 1278 

Hindley v. Emery 1080, 1641, 1656 

Hindman v. Aledo 712 

v. Taylor 640. 1559 

Hindmarsh v. Southgate 164, 174 

Hinds v. Keith 1120 

Hindson v. Weatherell 664, 913, 

1488 

Hine v. Dodd 843, 846 

r. New Haven 556, 630, 801 

Hiues v. North Carolina, State 

of 17, 24 

v. Spruill 642 

Hinings v. Hinings 1802 

Hinkley v. Moreau 48 

Hinrichs v. Berndes 1620 

Hinsdale D. G. Co. v. Tilley 236 

Hinson v. Adrian 214 

v. Pickett 1479 

Hinton v. citizens' Mutual Ins. 

Co. 779 

v. Galli 1731, 2127, 235.3 

v. Winsor 1461 

Hiorns v. Holtom 710, 1266 

v. Holton 1425 

Hipkins ». Hipkins 1065 

Hipp v. Babin 556, 630 

Hippesley v. Horner 1111 

v. Spencer 1630 

Hirsch v. Im Thura 1861 

v. Whitehead 1618 

Hirst, Re 1267 

v Procter 895 

HHop v. Wvkeham 1610 

Hitch v. Walls 1124 

v. Wells 162, 476 

Hitchcock r. Carew 883 

t>. Caruthers 601 

v. Clendiuen 95 



Hitchcock v. Giddings 

v . Jacques 

v. Rhodes 

v. Skinner 

v. Tremaine 
Hitchen v. Kirks 
Hitchens v. Congreve 

V. Lauder 
Hitehman v. Stewart 
Hite v. Hite 

v. Salter 
Hitner v. Suckley 
Hix i'. Gosling 

v. Whittemore 
Ilixon v. Eastwood 
Hoagland v. Titus 
Hoare, A'e 

lie, Hoare v. Owen 

v. Breniridge 

v. Contencin 

v. Dickson 

v. Hoare 



1400 

410 ! 

763 

961, 1151, 1158 

1479 

251, 1720, 1725 

26,160 

605,658 

271, 2250 

1254 

1112 

447 

186, 402 

852 

214 

1675, 1677 

1347 

1716 

1624 

550 

39 

13 



v. Niblett 
v. Parker 
v. Peck 
v Silverlock 
Uobart v. Abbot 
o. Andrews 



v Johnstone 841, 1188, 1315, 1339 

269 

614, 683 

550, 560 

1132 

194, 215, 261 

197, 199, 260. 365, 

668, 860 

v. Frisbie 361 

v. Stone 1772 

Hobarts v. 1263 

Hobbs, Re, Hobbs v. Wade 651 

v. Dane Manut. Co. 63 

i'. McLean 1411 

v. Memphis R. Co. 549, 864 

v. Reid 203 

t>. Wayet 477 

Hobday v. Peters 187 

Hobhouse v. Courtney 447, 448 

v. Hollcombe 1742, 1743 

Hobler, Re 974 

Hoboken Savings Bank v. Beck- 



man 
Hobson, Re 

v. Bagnall 

v. Doe 

v. M'Arthur 

v- Shearwood 

v Sherwood 
Hoby v. Hitchcock 
Hock v. Hock 
Hoddel v. Pugh 
Hodder v. Rufnn 
Hodgden !'. Hodgden 
Hodgdon r. Farrell 

v Heidnian 

v. White 
Hodge v. Hawkins 

?'. Holmes 
Rexworthy 



726 

1063 

1616 

1118 

379 

1694, 1845 

1152. 1743, 1748 

29, 31, 32, 53 

875 

1384 

1281, 1283, 1285 

1255 

1269 

283 

630 

1369 

284 

1308 



Hodgen v. Guttery 1624 

Hodgens r. Hodgens 106 

Hodges, Re 1323, 1347, 1606, 1797 
v. Ancrum 1106 

V. Beverley 116 

v. Bowen 861 

v. Don 1 ton 890 

v. Fincham 1623 

r. Hodges 598, 690 

v. Millikiu 1578, 1579 

v. Mullikin 1005, 1031 

v- New England Screw Co. 26 

v. Patrick 975 

v. Pingree 1112, 1150, 2027, 2325 



v. Salomons 




1315 


v. Screw Co. 




144 


v. Seaboard & R. R. 




1638 


v. Smith 


1568, 


1569 


v. Welsh 




1646 


v. Williams 




186 


v. Wise 




445 


Hodges's Trust, Re 




68 


Hodgkin v. Longden 


547 


,548 


Uodgkinson v. National 


Live 




Stock Ins. Co. 




243 



Hodgman v. Chicago, &c. R. 

Co. 1661 

Hodgson, Re 217 

Re, Beckett v. Ramsdale 269 

v. Barvis 1138 

v. Butterfield 764 

v. Cash 1413 

v. Clarke 1427 

v. Duce 1638, 1661, 1682 

v. Espinasse 360, 3(59 

v. Farrell 1289 

v. Forster 311, 1129 

v. Hodgson 462,465,521, 

1048 
v. Merest 858 

v. Powis, East 1640 

v. Shaw 1279 

v. Smithson 1461 

v. Thornton 712 

v. Williamson 187, 642 

Hodle v. Healey 640 

Hodson v. 877 

v. Ball 1370, 1536, 1537, 1579, 

1581, 2060 

v. Cash 730 

v. Coppard 1683 

v. Warrington, Earl of 885. 896 

v. Watson 1731 

Hoe t>. Wilson 287 

Hoffman v. Duncan 1732 

v. Knox 986, 1576 

v. Livingston 1591, 1669 

v. McMorran 860 

v. Pearson 974 

v. Postel 1083 

v. Savage 1156 

v. Schoyer 517 

v. Skinner 1402, 1450 

v. Smith 1147 

v. Van Dieman 1770 

Hoffmann v. Postill 579, 580, 716, 

718, 719, 720, 764, 1020, 1554 

Hofiick v Reynolds 593, 598 

Hogan , Re 749, 891 

D. Branch Bank ol Decatur 735 

v. Burnett 324 

v- Kavanaugh 553 

v. McFarland 418 

v. Short 195 

v. Walker 279, 290, 292 

Hogarth v. Miller 1503 

Hoge r. Fisher 851 

v Penn 1801 

Hogencamp ?>. Ackerman 718 

Hogg v. Kirby 1642, 1648 

v. Price 592 

v. Scott 1641, 1681 

Hoggart v Cutts 1560, 1564, 1565 

v. Scott 989 

Hoggat v. McCrory 551, 552 

Hogge v. Burgess 1503, I860 

Hoghton, Re 174, 1370 

Re, Hoghton v. Fiddey 1580 

v. Fiddey 1578 

v Hoghton 852, 855, 1367 

Hogue v. Curtis 817 

Holiorst v. Howard 1507 

Hoitt v. Burleigh 1076, 1078, 1079, 

1110. 2334 

Holabird v. Burr 1224, 1240, 1248, 

1298, 1299, 1317 

Holbecke v. Sylvester 1310, 1449 

Holbrook v. Henderson 142 

Holbrooke v. Cracroft 1457 

Holcomb v. Mosher 369 

Holcombe v. Antrobus 1590 

v. Holcombe 868, 1235, 1461, 1485. 

1745, 1746, 1747 

v. Trotter 813 

Holden, Ex parte 1033 

Re 99, 1802 

v. Gilbert 1238 

v. Hearn 68, 170. K59 

v. Holden 156, 580, 884 

v. Hoyt 1743 

v. Kvnaston 236, 794, 795, 1395 

v. McMakin 1463 



Holden v. Silkstone, &c. Co. 1120 

v. Stickuey 246 

v. Upton 1743 

v. Waterlow 113 

Holder v. Durbin 1263 

Holderman 0. Jones 1120 

Holderness v. Lamport 1653 

lloldemesse v. Hankin 843, 1560 

Holderstaffe v. Saunders 1620 

Holding, Ex parte 985 

v. Barton 655, 657, 712, 2115 

Holdrege v Gwynne 305, 1619, 1677 

Holdsworth v. Dartmouth (May 



1100 

2 92 

1643 

674 

1643 

270, 271 

1411 

909 

1548 

1416, 1430 

68 

403, 702 

723 

257, 277 

1071 

1601 

477, 1386 

1157 

116 

252 

2095 

1720 

956 

1353 

1169 

503 

410 

1061 

1666 

1707 

1501 

1411 

171 

1542, 1543 

887, 1069 

1385 

v. McDonald 1576, 1577, 1578 

v. Shakeshaft 315, 317, 383, 542. 

1369, 1394 

Hollington, Re 1064 

Hollinrake v. Truswell 1643 

llollins v. Brierfield Coal & Iron 

Co. 1734 

Hollis v. Bulpett 386 

v. Burton 782 

v. Shaffer 1648 

Hollis's Case 214, 279. 642 

Hollister v. Barkley 844, 1180, 1222, 

1230, 1256, 1257, 1250, 

1676, 1677 

v. Lefevre 1561 

v. Stewart 634 

Holloway, lie 573 

v. Cheston 1474 

v. Holloway 1651 

v. Millard 327 

v. Phillips 398, 964, 985 

Holly v. Bass 517, 1031 

Holly Manuf. Co. v. New Ches 

ter Water Co. 
Hollyford Copper M. Co., Re 
Holman v Bank of Norfolk 
v. Kimball 



or) 

v. Holdsworth 

v. McCrea 

v Shannon 
Hole v Bradbury 

v Harrison 
Ilolfnrd v. Phipps 

v Yate 
Holgate v. Eiton 

v. Haworth 
Holker v. Parker 
Holkirk !». Holkirk 
Holladay Case, The 
Holland v Baker 

v. Challen 

v Craft 

v. Cruft 

v. Holland 

v. Moody 

v. Prior 

v. Sproule 
Hollenbeck v. Donnell 
Holies v. Carr 
Holley v. Chamberlain 

v. Glober 

v. Younge 
Holliday v. Biordon 

v. Bruner 

v. Meyers 

v Riodan 
Hollier v. Eyre 
Hollinger v. Syms 
Hollings v. Kirkby 
Hollingshead's Case 
Hollingsworth V. Duane 

v. Koon 



". Riddle 

v. Vallejo 
Holme v. Brown 

v. Guy 

v. Pringle 
Holmes, Re 

v. Arundel, Corp. of 



214 

1069 
342 
576 

1577 

860 

1624, 1625 

311 

1501 
100, 1&3, 629 

1313 



v. Baddeley 572, 

v. Bell 
v. Chester 

VOL. I. — e 



740, 1551, 1S19. 

1S34 

1718, 1726 

296 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Holmes v. Eastern Counties 

Railway 1307 

v. Field 69 

v. George 1677 

v. Holmes 114, 547, 548, 12y8. 

129y, 1300, 1726 

v. Penney 178 

v. Remsen 994 

v. Shaver 1282 

v. Sherwood 145 

v Turner 2217 

v. Upton 1631 

v. Weaver 1081 

Holroyd v. Wyatt 1278, 1285, 1286 

Holsuian v Boiling Springs 

Bleaching Co. 1635, 1637, 1638, 

1639 

Holstcomb v. Rivers 1230 

Holt, He 160, 898, 1049, 1671, 1675 

v. Daniel 590 

v Holt 12!i0 

v. Jesse 1031 

v. Mill 214 

v. Weld 83 i 

Uolworthy v. Allen 1409 

V. Mortloek 1622 

Holyoake v. Shrewsbury & B 

Ry. Co. 1637 

Holvoke v. South Hadley Falls 

Ice Co. 887 

Homan v Moore 1565 

Home v. Fish 645 

v. Jobs 1677 

v. Patrick 183, 499 

v. Wallis 880 

Home Assurance Ass., Re 26, 31, 

1605 

Home Ins. Co v. Atchison &c 

R Co 313 

v Howell 1627 

Hone v. Van Schaick 1461, 1489 

Honeyman v- Lewis 1133 

v. Marryat 1501 

Honeywood v. Selwin 717 

Honner#. Morton 119, 125 

Honore v. Colmesnil 668, 951, 1320 

Hony v. Honv 559, 612, 624, 646, 

617 

Hooberrv v. Harding 1037 

Hood v. Aston 1651, 1665 

v. Burlton 97 

v. Clapham 1370 

». Cooper 1013 

v Green 1580 

v- Hood 286 

v. Inman 349, 361, 728 

v. Irwin 313 

v. Lynn 1661 

v. Marquess 1(173 

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

v- North Eastern Ry. Co. 1394, 

1400 

v. Oglander 988 

v. Phillips 307, 308, 300 

v. Pimm 858, 1487 

v. Wilson 1437 

Hooe v Marquess 1073 

Hook v. Dorman 395, 588, 683, 1558 

v. Ross 471 

Hooker v. Olmstead 284 

Hookham v. Pottage 1648 

Hooks v. Sellers 1311,1314 

Hoole v. Great Western Railway 

Co. 241, 244 

v. Roberts 1610, 1694, 1696 

v. Smith 322 

Hoolcv ?'. Hatton 851 

Hooper, Re 1317 

v Brodrick 1656, 1662 

v. Campbell 015 

v. Goodwin 12«>I 

v. Gumm 576, 1021, 1834, 1836 

v- Hooper 1417 

v. Lane 1069 

v. Paver 1590 

v. Winston 1713, 1742, 1749. 1751. 

1762 



lxv 



Hooper v. Yonge 1062 

Hoover v . Donnally 230 

v. Montclair. &c. R. Co. 1731 

v. Mo. Pac Ry Co 890 

v. Rawlings 892 

Hope v. Atkins 1132 

v. Carnegie 180, 182, 186, 448, 

409, 1463, 1627, 1683, 1684 

v. Fiddell 868, 883, 900, 912, 943, 

1827, 1842 

v. Fox 109 

v. Hope 447, 448, 935. 936, 937, 

938, 1147, 1348, 1360. 2129, 2293 

V. Threlfall b90, 913, 1488 

Hopewell v. Barnes 1040 

Hopkiu v. Hopkin 749. 891, 17o9 

Hupkius, Re, Dowd v. Hawtiu 1169, 

1722 

v. Clay brook 457 

v. Counel 1752 

v De Kobeck 142 

v. Gilman 671 

v. Hopkins 229, 266 

v- Lee 986 

v Medley 1150 

v. Ito.-eclare Land Co. 279 

v- Snedaker 385 

v. Spurlock 840 

v. Stephenson 1242 

v. Strump 871 

v. Walker 2346 

v. Worcester & B. Canal 1727 

v. Young 3o3 

Hopkiusou v. Bagster 1182 

v. Burghley, Lord 1647, 1837 

v. Ellis 1432, 1433 

v. Rolt 1503 

v. St. James 1444 

Hopkirk v. Bell 51 

v. Page 190 

Hopper v. Fisher 161 

v. Hopper 713 

Hoppock v. Cray 378, 153) 

Hopson v . Harrell 298 

Hopwood v Derby, Earl of 1075, 

1079, 1112 

Horan v. Wooloughan 1389 

Horbach v Hill 233 

Hord v. Colfert 1073 

Hore v. Becher 123 

Horford ;■ Wilson 1126 

Horlock v. Priestley 1422 

v. Smith 1252, 1389, 1841 

v. Wilson 515 

Horlor v. Carpenter 1127 

Horn v Coleman 1464 

v. Detroit Dry- Dock Co. 986 

v Kilkenny Railway Co. 1615 

Hornby v. Cardwell 406 

v Holmes 447 

v. Matcham 2215 

Hornet'. Barton 1473,1476 

v. Home 1437 

i). McKenzie 1090 

v 1'ountain 85 

V Shepherd 1411 
Horner v Horner 318, 630 

v. Ovler 1443 

V Wheelwright 895 
Hornor v. Hanks 1548 
Hornsby v. Eddy 1743 

v. Lee 119 

Hornum Patent Man. Co. v. 

Brooklyn R. Co 334 

Horrellr. Witts 1726 

Horry v. Calder 429 

Horseburg v. Baker 1528 

Horsley v. Bell 273 

v. Chaloner 1417 

v. Cox 1440 

v. Fawcett 223, 421 

Horton, Re 362 

v. Baptist Church and 

Society 1560, 1569 

v. Bassett 659 

v. Brorklehurst 416, 417, «34 

v. Sayer 671 



lxvi 



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



Horton v. Thompson 582, 1531 

Horwood, Be 894 

v. Schmedes 987,991,1539 

Ho.sack v. Rogers 1053, 1411, 1412, 

1771 

Hosford v. Nichols 1260 

HosUen v. Sincock 1391, 1394, 1395 

Ho.-king v. Terry 1577, 157rf 

Hoskins, lie 86, 226 

v. Campbell 798 

V. Cole 639 

v. Lloyd 609 

V. White 68 

Hospes v. Northwestern Manuf. 

Co. 1051, 2048 

Hoste V. Pratt 1359 

Hotchkiss v. Trustees, &c. 20 

llotten v. Arthur 1645 

Hottenstein v. Conrad 1734 

Houck v. Bridwell 68 

v. Camplin 121 

Hough v Oanby 169 

v. Doyle 169 

v. Lawrence 918 

D. Martin 1669, 1818 

v. Richardson 645, 844 

v. Ryley 95 

v. Williams 1191, 1196 

Hougham v. Sandys 1194 

Houghton v. Bankart I860 

v. Barney 1448 

v. Davis 197 

v Godschall 1543 

t; Kendall 1560, 1569, 1572 

v. Reynolds 360, 370 

v. Sowles 1163 

v. West 1577 

Houlditch v. Donegal, The Mar- 
quis of 635, 855, 1522, 1731 
Hou.se, Ex parte 1584 
Be 659 
V. Dexter 285 
v. Lockwood 1551 
V. Mullen 334, 559, 659 
V. Walker 1291 
Houseman v. Houseman 1411 
House Property Co. v. H. P. 

Horse Nail Co. 211 

Houseworth v. Hendrickson 1712 

Hously v. Lindsay 1283 

Houston v Blackman 254, 261, 405 

v. Briscoe 812, 1512 

v Levy 243 

v. Mossman 1255 

v. Sadler 816 

v Sledge 830 

v Sligo 659 

Hovelman v. Kansas City H. 

R Co. 1650 

Hovenden ?> Anneslev, Lord 135, 
136, 543, 559, 560, 644, 645 
Hovey v McDonald 1743 

V Rubber Tip Pencil Co. 1081 

How, Be 1799 

v . Best 146, 296 

v. Hall 878 

v. Jones 1461 

v. Strode 1126 

Howard, Matter of 1205 

Re 1851 

v. Barnwell 1151,1152,1161 

V. Bond 1062 

v. Chaffers 1366, 1374 

r. Gossett 1096 

v. Gunn 1647 

v. Howard 28 

v. Lowell Machine Co. 1073, 1765 
v. Milwaukee &c. R. Co. 1062 

t; Moffatt 90, 101 

V. Newman 507 

V. Okeover 561 

v. Palmer 1734 

V. Papera 1722 

«. Prince 319, 1604 

v. Rhodes 1416 

V. Robinson 18*5 

v. -Salisbury, Earl of 1362 



Howard v. Scott 1298, 1299 

v. Smith 1411 

v. ft Paul Plow Works 1642 

v Stephenson 1168 

v. Thompson 1643 

v. Warfield 1624 

Howard Man. Co v. Water Lot 

Co 367 

Howarth, Be 166 

Howuen v. Rogers 1700, 1703 

Howe v. Duppa 586, 673 

v. Grey 505, 810 

v Harvey 358, 562 

v Hunt 1081 

v. Jones 1750 

v. Lemon 1062 

v M'Kernan 721 

v. Nickerson 554 

v Robius 390 

v Russell 777, 778, 780, 1232, 

1248, 1298, 1300, 13*1, 1322 

v South Park Com'rs 1461 

v. Willard 399, 439, 441. 457, 539, 

1618, 1667, 1675, 1684 

Howe Sewing Machine Co., Be 27 

Howel v. Howel 1475 

Howell v. Arkmore 145 

v. Ashmore 146, 569, 570- 579 

v. City of Buffalo 334 

■v. Coningsby, Lord 1055 

v Foster 190 

*. George 843, 1380 

v Harding 1845 

v. Kightley 1312 

v. Lewis 83 

v. Sebring 324, 327, 402, 415, 1289 

v. Tyler 1440 

v. Waldron 633 

v. West 346 

v Western R. Co. 284 

Howell's Estate 888 

Howells v. Wilson 1550 

Howerton v. Sprague 1678 

Howes, Matter of 1457 

v. Chester 52 

v Downing 737 

v Patterson 418 

Howkins v. Bennett 448, 710 

v. Howkins 389, 1701, 1702, 1703, 

1705 

Howland v. Fish 225 

v Kenosha County 586 

Rowland's, Sir R , Case 67 

llowlett v. Central Carolina 

Und Co 1743 

Howling v. Butler 701 

Howorth v. Samuel 1137 

Howse v. Chapman 1427. 1429, 1430 

Howthv Owens 193,208,627,1567 

Hoxey v. Carey 295, 801 

Hoxiev Carr 190,289 

?' Scott 740 

Hoxsey ik New Jersey M. R. Co 560 

Ho\al v. Brvson 837 

Hoye v. Penn 443, 1460 

Hoyland S C. Co , Be 1738 

Hoyle v Livesey 972 

v. Moore 390 

Hoyt v Clarkson 371 

V- Gelston 1463 

V. Hellen 1352 

v. Hilton 68 

v Hovt 328, 382, 630, 1648 

v. Jesse 973, 974 

v Smith 402 

Hubbard. Be 1449 

v. Borden 195 

v. Burrell 256 

v. Epps 642, 1211 

v. Gorham 354 

v. Hewlett 1186 

v. Hubbard 851, 1163 

v. Johnson 230 

v Latham 438, 1213, 1428 

v. McNaughton 324 

v. Town 1638 

v. Turner 682, 1551 



Hubbell v Currier 1901 

V. De Laud 701, 8i3 

v. Merchants' Bank 256 

v. Von Schoening 9e9 

v. Warren 244, 245, 1169 



tluber v. Myers S Depot 




197 


Hubertson v Goold 






1511 


Huble v Clark 






878 


liuckenstine's Appeal 






1635 


Huddleston v. Briscoe 






981 


lluddlestone v. Uuddlestone 


1166 


Uudgins v Kemp 






1302 


llutlnit v Nash 




214, 


1265 


Hudson v. Allison 






974 


•c Heunett 


795, 


1380, 


1395 


v Brown 






1"96 


v. Buck 






561 


v Dungworth 






430 


v Eiseiunayer Milling Co 


236 


v. Fernvhough 






418 


v. Grenifell 485 


,716 


760, 


1819 


v. Hudson 






1553 


v. Maddison 


303 


344, 


1678 


v. Majoribanks 






11: .8 


v. Temple 






1624 


v Trenton, &c, Manuf 


Co. 


857, 


1004, 


1221, 


1232 


Hue v. Richards 






1*29 


Huerstal v. Muir 






1461 


Huffv Miller 






1461 


v Ri pley 






552 


Huffard v. Gottberg 






284 


Huffman v Barkley 






933 


v Hummer 






778 


Huger v. Huger 






168 


v S Carolina 






446 


Hugg v. City of Camden 




1662 


Huggins v York Buildings Co. 


611, 




636, 


1262 


1538 


Hughes v. Biddulph 


571 


572, 


1824 


* Blackwell 






844 


v. Blake 661, 695, 82 


v. Bloomer 




771 


,781 


v Boone 






576 


v. Budd 






1131 


v. Came 






1517 


v. Chester and Holyhead Ry 




Co 






' 983 


v. Clerk 




774 


1559 


v. C«iok 






342 


v. Devlin 






1150 


v Dunlap 






1071 


v. Eades 




152, 8i 


v Edwards 






640 


v Empson 






2060 


v Evans 






108 


V- Garner 6' 


8, 846, t 


t> Garth 






677 


v Hamilton 






1286 


!'. Hatchett 






1716 


v. Hughes 559, 1135 


1359, 


1300, 






1743 


1748 


v Jones 556. 826 


,978 


979, 


1029, 


10ai, 1123, 1124, 


1368 


1577 


15H0 


v- Key 






1413 


v Lewis 






805 


V. Lipscombe 






1282 


v London &c Assurance Co 


836 


v Millikin 






1584 


v. More 






196 


v. Phelps 






881 


v Science 






1347 


v- Smith 






1369 


v. Spittal 


913, 


1189 


1339 


v. Stickney 






1576 


v. Tennison 






338 


v. Thomas 






767 


v. Washington 






1017 


v Wells 






187 


v. Wheeler 






1724 


v Williams 749, 


1182 


1235 


,1244 


v. Wynne 




642 


, 1254 


Hughey v. Bratton 






1548 


Hughson v. Cnokson 






211 


Hugill v. Wilkinson 






652 


Hugonin v. Baseley 
Huguenin v. Basely 




1720 


, 1721 
1470 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 
[The references are to the star paging] 



lxvii 



Hugunin v. Thatcher 28 

Huish v. Sheldon 1133 

Hukill v. Guffey 565 

II ulbe't v. Douglas 1561 

v. McKay 1209, 17U7 

Hulett v. Stockwell 1071 

Hulfish v. O'Brien 1653 

Huliug v. Farwell 1221 

Hulkes v. Day 1040, 1694, 1695, l>i96 
Hull v. Oaughy 1461 

v. Falconer 1205, 1206, 1208 

v. Noble 369 

Hull & Hornsea Ry. Co., Re 1035, 
1037 
Huilett v. Spain, King of 17, 141 
Hulley v. Security Trust Co. 1630 
Hulni & Lewis, Re 1069 

Hulme v. Shreve 1639 

v. Tenant 186 

Hulsted v. Meeker 383 

Hulton v Sandys 885 

Humber Iron Works Co , Re 1474 
Humberd v. Kerr 190 

Humberston v. Humberston 135 

Humbert v. Trinity Church, Rec- 
tor, &c. 560 
Humble v Humble 1278 
v. McDonough 840 
v. Shore 280 
Hume v. Babington 539 
v. Commercial Bank 715, 971, 
1467 
v. Pocock 418, 1487 
v. Scott 960 
Humes v. Scruggs 659, 828 
1 1 uin page v. Rowley 1114 
Humphrey v. Archibald 581 
v Browning 1845 
v. Foster 987, 989 
v. Hollis 230 
v. Morse 1383 
Humphreys v. Atlantic Milling 
Co. 630 
v. Blevins 1116, 1124, 1147 
v. Cousins 211 
v. Harrison 1630 
v. Hopkins 1743 
v. Humphreys 318, 407, 691, 1671 
v. Incledon 318, 1510 
v. Pensam 868 
V. Tate 321 
Humphries v. Roberts 1291 
V. Taylor Drug Co. 1556 
Humphrys v. Moore 1422 
Hungarian Hill O. M. Co. v. 

Moses 1551 

Hungate v. Gascoigne 674 

v. Gascoyue 1537, 1577, 1578 

Hungerfor'd v. Cushing 341. 1734 

v. Jagoe 1137 

Hungerford's Case 1461 

Hunham v Llewellyn 560 

Hunn v. Norton 1259, 1381, 1415. 

1417 

Hunnewell v. Goodrich 2361 

Hunnings v. Williamson 354, 564 

Hunt v. Acre 233 

v. Anderson 553, 1557 

v. Andover 1427 

v. Blackburn 578 

v. Booth 38, 109 

v. Chicago Horse Ry. Co. 10 

v. Clarke 887 

v . Columbian Ins. Co. 1751 

v. Ellison 1003 

v. Elmes 679, 1831, 1832 

v. Fisher 1286 

d. Fownes 1387 



Hunt v. Gookin 


717, 721 


v. Hayt 


365 


v , Holland 


409, 422 


v. Hunt 


108, 553, 1626 


v. Johnson 


619 


v. Lever 


448 


v. Lewin 


998, 1377, 1463 


v. McClanahan 


1846 


v. Nevers 


1258 


v Niblett 


515 


v. Peacock 


219 


v. Penrice 


617, 619, 701 


v. Priest 


1058, 1718 


v. Pullen 


914 


v. Rooney 


190, 194 


v. liousmaniere 


419, 846, 2357 


v. Strong 


1460 


v. Terril 


663 


v. Van Derveer 


216 


v. Wallis 


739 


v. Wickliffe 


287, 295, 457 




1044, 1452, 1590 
692 


v. Ayre 


v. Belcher 


551, 1459 


v. Daniel 


1529 


v. Dash wood 


1382 


v. Dublin &c Ry. 


Co. 881, 1817 


v. Fletcher 


917 


v. Hallett 


117, 124 


i'. Hutton 


986 


v. Jones 


837 


v. Kennedy 


1120 


v. Lawrence 


1364 


v. McCoy 


378 


v. Macklew 


214 


v. Marlboro 


1463 


v. Myatt 


2214 



v. Nockolds 653, 690, 692, 702, 
741, 1397 
v. Potts 61 

v. Robbins 523 

v. Spotswood 645 

v. Stewart 664 

v. Walters 675 

v. Wortley 1528 

v. Young 250 

Huntingdon, Trustees of v. 

Nicoll 1462 

Huntington v. Allen 1624 

v. Little Rock &c Ry. Co. 991,1580 
v. Palmer 26 

v. Saunders 319, 737 

Huntingtower, Lord v. Sherbom 63. 
813, 814. 1451 
Hunton v. Equitable Life Assur- 
ance Society 313 
Huntress v. Epsom 14-34 
Hurd v. Aschernian 334, 843 
v. Case 1548 
v. City of Elizabeth 1742, 1751 
v. Everett 402, 40B 
v. Haines 739 
''. Simpson 559 
Hurlhatt v Harnett 1168 
Hurlburd v. Freelove 1473, 1478 
Hurlburt v. Britain 829 
v. Hurlburt 576 
Hurlbut v. Hutton 972 
Hurlbutt v. N. W. Spaulding 

Saw Co. 313 

Hurley v. Coleman 1653 

v. Murrell 1205 

Hursell v. Bird 236 

Hurst v. Coe 26 

v. Everett 634 

v. Hurst 168, 285, 447, 1265, 1266, 

1430 

v. Jones 839 



Hurst v. Padwick 28 

Hurt !•. Stull 1267 

v. Long 165, 1576, 1580 

Husband, hire 894 

v. Aldrich 1150 

Huse v. Washburn 1073 

Husham v. Dixon 462 

Husley v. Robinson 1019 

Huson v. McKenzie 217 

Hussey v. Dole 190, 287, 292 

v. Home Payne 364. 561 

Huston v. Cassidy 1318 

v. M'Ciarty 285, 286, 287, 289, 

295, 3:h) 

v. Noble 285 

Hutcheon v. Mannington 892 

Hutcheson v. smith 1250 

Hutchings, lie 100 

v. Smith 119 

Hutchins v Childless 842 

Hutchinson, Re 1169 

V- Ay res 559 

v. Blumberg 1643, 1648 

v. Brock 49, 52 

v. Freeman 438, 1213, 1374, 1428 

v. Hampton 1753 

v. Haslam 553 

v Horner 1594 

v. Hutchinson 1786 

17. Massarene 1715, 1741 

v. Mershon 334 

v. Norwood 68 

v. Piper 1134 

v. Reed 294, 406, 709 

v. Sinclair 846, 847 

v. Stephens 972 

v. Swift 358, 1474 

v. Tindall 1230 

Hutson v. Sadler 1294 

Hutton v. Beeton 1754 

v. Hepworth 1600 

v. Mansell 1277, 1278 

v. Mayne 166 

v. Rossiter 236, 1225 

v. Scarborough Cliff Hotel Co. 1650 

v. Sealy 1265 

v. Smith 441, 511 

Hutts v. Martin 1163 

Huxham v Llewellyn 598 

Hyam v. Terry 1468 

Hyatt, Re 1075 

Hyde v. Edwards 366, 1349 

v. Forster 1059, 1545 

v. Greenhill 1059, 1060 

i'. Hyde 113, 893, 1048 

v. Lamherson 1580 

v. Lodge 1175 

v Price 1255 

v. Warden 1729 

v. Warren 1563 

v. Whitfield 1704, 1707, 

1712 

Hyer?> Caro 1523 

v. Deaves 1267 

v. Little 737 

Hygeia Water Ice Co. v. New 

York H. I. Co 1648 

Hyliard v. White 681 

Hylton i'. Morgan 1661 

Hyman v. Devereux 1081 

v. Helm 633, 800 

v. Smith 1274, 1575 

v. Wheeler 33t 

Hynam v. Dunn 1638, 1663 

Hynson v. Voshell 844 

Hyre )>. Lambert 314 

Hyslop v. Powers 1461 

Hythe, Mayor of, v. East 1081, 1082 



lxviii 



TABLE OK CASES CITED. 
[The references are to the star paging.] 



I. 



laege v. Bossieux 1302 

Iasigi v. lirown 2178 

v. Chicago, B & Q R. Co. 1417 
Ibbetson, Ex parte 157 

Ibbottson v. Rhodes 848 

Idaho & Oregon Land Imp. Co. 

v. Bradbury 1071 

Ide v. Ball Engine Co. 1548, 1642 
Idley v Bowen 1461, 1489 

lglehart v. Bierce 221 

v. Vail 188!) 

Ihl v St. Joseph Bank 933 

Ihlee v Henshaw 197 

Ilchester, Earl of, Ex parte 1004, 
1350, 1351, 1352 
Her v. Roath 1076, 1576 

lies v Flower 40 

v. Turner 1128, 1135 

Illiugworth !'. Rowe 1561 

Illinois v. Illinois Central R. Co. 6 
Illinois Laud Co. v. Speyer 586 

lllsley v. Jewett 646 

llsley v. Nichols 1710 

Inolay v. Carpentier 1622 

Imperial Bank of India v. Bank 

of Hindustan 26, 27 

Imperial Fire Ins. Co v. Gun- 
ning 1682 
Imperial Gas Co v. Broadbent 1637 
Imperial Mercantile Credit As- 
sociation, lie 1038 
Imperial Refining Co v. Wyman 405, 
418 
Importers' Bank v. Littell 1556 
Improvement Commissioners v. 

N. J. Midland R. Co. 1637 

Inby v. M"Crea 652 

Ince's Case 907 

Inchbald v Barrington 1629, 1635, 
1639, 1641 
v. Robinson 1071, 1635, 1639 

Inchiquin r. French 1619 

Inchley v Alsop 244, 1540 

Incledon ?>• Northcote 124 

Incorporated Society v. Rich- 
ards 1252 
Ind, Coope & Co. v. Emmerson 674, 
675 
India Mutual Tns Co. v. Bigler 1573 
Indianapolis Land Trust v. Hoff- 
man 630 
Indianapolis Nat. Gas Co. v. 

Kibby 1638 

Indianapolis Water Co. v. Am- 
erican Strawboard Co. 1638 
India Rubber Comb Co. v. 

Phelps 2389 



Indigo Co v. Ogilvy 149 

Indurated Fibre I. Co. v Grace 314 
Inebriates' Home v. Kaplan 1517 
Ingalls v. Lord 
lngate v. Lloyd Austriaco 
Iugersoll v. Ingersoll 

v. Stjger 
Ingham v. Bickerdike 

v. Ingham 



Waskett 

Iugilby v. Shafto 

Iugle v. Partridge 

v. Richards 
Inglee v. Coolidge 
luglessi v. Spartali 
lnglis v Campbell 

v. Haigh 
Ingraham v. Dunnell 

v. Hall 
v. Postell 
Ingram, lie 
v. Little 
v. Mitchell 
v. Morgan 
v. Sherard 
v Smith 
v. Stiff 



1576 

449 

68, 532 

843 

1352 

775 

1525 

579, 722, 1556 

808, 809 

643 

630 

724 

529, 1452 

2095 

263, 1629, 

1637, 1610 

330 

1253 

1791 

178, 841 

953 

1653 

642 

842, 1370 

1648, 1666 



Inhabitants, &c. v. Seymour 1620 



Inloesi* Harvey 
Inman v. Wearing 

v. Whitley 
Innes v. Evans 
v. Jackson 
V. Lansing 
v Mitchell 



1056 

337, 3S5, 386, 

587, 1928 

725 

615, 620 

292 

635, 1727 

298, 345, 449, 

452 

87, 122, 179 

633 

1751 



Insole, lie 

Insurance Co. v. Bnme 
v. Needles 

International & G. N. By Co. 
v. Smith 
V- Williams 

International Trust Co. r. In- 
ternational Loan & T. Co 

Interstate Land Co. v. Maxwell 
Land Grant Co. 

Investment Co v Ohio & N. 
W. R. Co. 

Inwood v. Twyne 

Iowa Barb Steel Wire Co v. 
Southern Barbed Wire Co. 



1591 
27 



1648 
545 



1743 

1365 



Ipswich Co v- Story 
Irby v. Irby 
i. M'Crea 



145, 
1642 
1772 
1282, 1433 
1256 



Ireland v. Abbott 


1248, 1252 


v. Eade 


1741, 1752 


v. Trembath 


95 


Ireson v. Denn 


213 


Ireton v. Lewis 


216 


Iron Age Pub. Co. v 


Western 


Union Tel. Co. 


543 


Irons v, Crist 


161,538 


Irvin v. Clark 


1276 


o. Ellis 


1051 


v. Gregory 


2, 305 


Irvine i' McRee 


1062 


v Sullivan 


952, 1078, 1413 


v. Viana 


762 


v . Young 


666 


Irving, He 


157 


v. DeKay 1426 


v. Dunscomb 


1495 


v Pearson 


266 


Irwin v. Dearman 


1130 


v. Drake 


1551 


v. Everson 


1728 


v. Grey 


133 


v. Lewis 


1624 


v. Meyrose 


890 


v. Reed 


1118 


v. Vint 


1030 


Isaac, lie, Jacob v. Isaac 


v Gompertz 


1798 


v. Humpage 


1621, 1668 


Isaacs v Boyd 


68 


v. Clark 


323 


v. Cooper 


1643 


v. Steele 


378 


v Weatherhouse 


1779 


Isenberg v. East India House 


Estate Co. 


1081, 1638, 




1663 


Isham v. Miller 


707 


Isle of Wight Ferry Co., Re 10*5, 


Isle of Wight Ry. Co. 


v. Tahour- 


din 


26 


Ismoord v. Claypool 


999 


Isnard v. Cazeaux 3S 


, 41, 1593, 1598 


Israel v. Jackson 


1071 


Iverson v Saulsbury 


985 


Ives v. Ashelby 


790 


v. Hazard 


844 


v. Medcalfe 


839 


v. Sumner 


641 


Iveson v. Harris 


1619 


Ivory, lie, Hunkin v. 


Turner 1726 


Ivy J'. Clawson 
v. Kekewick 


1071 
579 



Izard v. Bodine 857, 1221. 1248, 

1298, 1321 



J. 



Jacklin v. Wilkins 1594, 1596, 
Jackman v. Mitchell 
Jackson, lie 

v. Adams 

v. Ashton 314, 327, 357, 358, 
374, 407, 

v. Bailey 

v. Barry 

v. Benson 200, 210, 

v. Betta 

v. Blanshan 

!>. Brighton Aquarium Co. 

v. Britton 

v. Cartwright 

i). Cassidy 898, 

v. Catliu 

v. Cator 324, 



16R7 


Jackson v Christman 


873 


Jackson v. Innes 125 


1398 


v. Cutright 




778 


v. Ivimey 806 


323 


v. Davenport 




29, 1527 


v. Jackson 161, 980, 1018, 1180, 


46 


v Denison 




907 


1181, 1184, 1185, 1297, 1299, 


361, 


?'. Duchaire 




1138 


1300, 1317, 1358, 1546, 1576, 


, 556 


v. Edwards 




266, 1283 


1579, 1580, 1663 


1118 


v. Ewer 




569 


v. Jones 1677 


1075 


V. Forrest 




334 


v. King 851 


,367 


v. French 




576 


v Kruger 405 


875 


v. Freyer 




1507 


v. La Grange 875 


873 


v. Given 




675 


v. Leaf 388, 799, 1615, 1617 


1070 


v. G\o* 




559 


v. Lever 1277 


46 


v. Grant 


1548, 


1549, 1553 


v. Lingan 1215 


361 


v. Hankey 




2294 


v. Mawby 508 


1669 


v. Haworth 


183, 499, ', 


v. McChesney 569, 675 


53 


v. Henry 




569, 675 


v. Newcastle, Duke of 1081, 1638 


1670 


v. Hull 




830 


v. North Eastern Ry. Co. 63 



Jackson v. North Wales Rv. Co. 369. 
601 
149, 16a 
603, 1394 
656, 657, 712, 714, 
840 
780, 782 
1433 
1698, 1700, 1703, 1706, 
1707 
10, 137, 138, 2207 
809 
189, 267 
324 

v. Riga Railway 63, 814, 1525 

v. Rowe 612, 674, 675, 676, 677, 
679, 704, 2095 



v. Norton 

v. Ogg 

v. Oglander 

v. Parish 
v. Pease 
v. Petrie 

v. Phillips 
v. Puruell 
v. Rawlins 
v. Itceve 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
[The references are to the star pacing J 

Jamison v. Burlington & W. R. 
Co. 1120 

v. May 1622 

Janes's Appeal 1381 

Janney v. Boyd 860 

Jauson v. Rauy 846 

v Solarte " 719 

Jaques v. Esler 1(353 

V. Hall 1516 

v. Method. Epis. Church 9«7, 

1317, 1371, 1491 

Jaquet v. Jaquet 1312, 1317, 1366, 

1595 

v. Saunders 295 

Jarmain v. Chatterton 1461 



I XIX 



v. Rowell 
v. Saunders 
v Scauher 
v. Shanks 
v Stevenson 
v Stiles 
v Strong 
v. Turner 
v. Turnley 
v. Van Dusen 
v. Vandyke 
v. Ward 
v. Woolley 



324 

1658 

254 

447 

1654 

1594 

408, 1559 

167, 9'17 

1001, 2182 

851, 852 

875 

266, 1525, 1526 

647 



Jacksonville Ry Co. v. Ameri- 
can Const. Co. 1411 
Jacob o. Hall 

v. Lorenz 

v. Lucas 
Jacob i v. Schloss 
Jacobs v Hooper 

v. Laybourn 

v. Richards 

v. Tarleton 

v. Turpin 
Jacobsou v. Blackhurst 
Jacoby v Qoetter 

v. Kiesling 

v Whitinore 
Jacoway v. McGarrah 
Jacques v. Miller 
Jacquet v. Jacquet 
J affray p. Raab 
Jaffrey v. Brown 



James, Ex parte 
v. Ash ton 

V, Atlanta Street R. Co 
v. Atlantic Delaine Co 
v. Bion 
v. Brooks 
v. Center 
v. Cresswicke 
v. Crow 
v Despott 
v Dore 
v. Downes 
v. Fisk 
v. Gwynne 
v. Harding 
v Herriott 



1517 

230 

1491 

594 

1098 

852 

1106 

1489 

1560 

1675 

1732, 1734 

1655 

1549 

1082 

654 

1746 

313, 1290, 1299, 

1320 

1622 

201, 203 

586 

256, 815 

806 

1076, 1120 

1461 

523 

970, 979 

149 

39, 518 

1683, 1685 

1576 

1331 

1517, 1525 

547, 1557 



v James 169, 170, 218, 406, 410, 
753, 1383 

v Jefferson 1672 

v. Kerr 564 

v. Lawrence 330 

v McKernon 327, 377, 852 

v McPhee 843 

v. North 1714 

v. Owens 1673 

v- Parnell 875,1116 

v- Philips 511 

v. Prichard 1566 

v. Rice 528 

v . Sadgrove 626 

v Sams 1561 

v. Smith 196, 365 

Jameson v. Brick & Stone Co. 58 

v. Deshields 288,295 

v. Moseley 997 

Jamieson v. Teague 1395, 1655 



Jarman v. Wiswall 
Jarrett v. Jarrett 

V White 
Jarrold v. Houlston 



260, 1029 

1077 

1151 

1645, 1646, 

2314 

553, 1621, 1626 

590, 684, 700 

34 

1852, 1856 

663, 664 

1642 

880 



Jennet v. Bishopp 


554 


Jenuey v. Bell 


60 


v. Mackintosh 


629 


Jenning v. Smith 


1819 


Jennings v. Beale 


1618 


v Uevey 


456 


v. Dolan 


1299 


v. Durham 


1071 


v. Foster 


1163 


V. Johnson 


197 



Jarvis v. Chandler 

v Palmer 

v. Shand 
Jarvis' Charity, Re 
Jauncy v Sealey 
Jay v. Ladler 
Jearrard v. Tracy 
Jebb v Tugwell 170, 266, 1512, 1524, 
2059 
Jeff Davis, The 
Jefferies v. Harrison 
Jeffers v. Forbes 
Jefferson v. Cullis 

v Dawson 

v. Durham, Bishop of 

v. Gaines 

B. Hamilton 

v Jefferson 
Jeffery v. Bowles 

v. Fitch 

V Stephens 
Jeffery s v. Boosey 

v. Dickson 

v Smith 
Jeffreys v. Marshall 

v Yarborough 
Jeffries v. Jeffries 
Jeffria ». Whittuck 
Jeff ryes v Agra, &c Bank 



Jegon v Vivian 
Jellard, lie 

Jencks v Probate Court 
Jenkin v. Vaughan 
Jenkins, Re 

v. Bennett 

v. Briant 

v. Bryant 

v. Bushby 

v. Cross 

v. Eldredge 



1846 

1422 

303 

703 

688 

8 

334 

1614 

790, 1003 

1646 

1120 

380 

46, 1643 

280 

1727, 1768, 1800 

1417 

1301 

417 

922 

1397, 

1398 

881 

1794 

852 

832, 969 

116, 205 

1835 

1296, 1757 

454, 1256, 1847 

1071, 1079, 1829 

1537 

659, 856. 957, 9(30, 



v. Jordan 212, 213, 215, 257, 280 

v. Merton College 780 

v Moore 675 

v. Nugent 1568 

v. Paterson 255, 1207 

v. Pearce 596, 692 

v. Philadelphia & R R. Co. 1.16 

v Pierce 7<J0 

v- Rigby 1035 

v . Springs 403 

Jennison v. Hapgood 1234, 1236 

Jeuour v. Jenour 1004, 1431, 1464, 

1466, 1528, --181 

Jensen, Re 1765 

Jepson v. Greenaway 935 

Jerard v. Sauders 678 

Jerdein v. Bright 307, 308, 314, 323, 

336 

640 

1686 

457, 458 

1559 

1346 

96 

180 

392, 394, 1562 



Jeremy v. Best 
Jermain v. Chatterton 

v. Langdon 
Jermy v. Best 

V. Preston 
Jernegan v. Baxter 

v. Glasse 
Jerome ». Jerome 



994, 1029, 1030, 1191, 1194, 1472 
1479, 1186, 1523, 1533, 1537, 
1575. 1577. 1578, 1583, 2101 



v Greenwald 
t> f l.-i II II.-IU 

v Hiles 

v. Intern'l Bank 

v Jackson 

v Jones 

v. Morris 

v. Noel 

v- Parkinson 

v Prewit 

v Rees 

?\ Van Schaack 

t\ Waller 

v. Wild 
Jenkinson v. Royston 

t' Vermillion 
Jenkyus v Bushby 
Jenner v. Jenner 



8S5, 886, 2394 
630 



1517 

1408, 1638 

658 

852, 1123, 1126 

46 

1699, 1701 

1578 

354, 418 

1150, 1151 

1675 

1476 

713 

369 

571, 1834 

1001, 1071, I072, 

1622 

v. Morris 103, 1189, 1&39, 1381. 

1408, 1485, 1839 

V. Traeey 5fil) 

Jenness i> Smith 217 



v. McCarter 214, 1731 

v. Ro^s lt>31 

Jerrard v. Saunders 569, 673, 715, 
1661 
Jersey City G. L. Co. v. Con- 
sumers' Gas Co. 1663 
Jervis v. Berridge 280, 385, 1929 
v. Uenwood 1660 
v. White 872, 1777, 1782 
v. Wolferstan 1233. 1438 
Jervoise, Me 1785, 1794 
v. Clark 1526 
v. Clarke 1268 
v. Northumberland, Duke of 877 
v Silk 1358 
Jesse v. Bennett 218, 222, 224, 226 
269 
v. Lloyd 1233 
Jessel v. Chaplin 1641 
Jesson v. Brewer 1017 
Jessop v. King 1658 
Jessup v. Hill 1712 
v. Illinois Central R. Co. 190, 1548 
Jesus' College v Bloom 1634 
v. Gibbs 713, 714. 7h3 
Jeudwine v. Agate 1169, 1212, 1254 
v. Alcock 1218 
Jew v. Wood 1564, 1565, 1567 
Jewell v. Rock River Paper Co 1309 
Jewett v . Bowman 651, 1683 



v. Cunard 
v- Dringer 
v . Miller 
v. Palmer 
v. Scott 
v. Tucker 

Jewin V. Taylor 

Jewitt, Re 



1^39 

1468 

1284 

612, 674. 677, 678 

1156, 1160 

243. 250 

354. 7S5 

1069, 1843 



.lewson v. Moulson 90, 92, 101, 102, 
124 
Jeyes v. Foreman 1591 

Jinks )>. Banner Lodge 630 

J. L. Mott Iron Works r. Stand- 
ard Manuf Co. 888 
■load ?'. Ripley 1796 
Job, Rv 1046 
v. Banister 1659 
v. Job 1260, 1370, 1581 
Joberns v. Couch 1525 
Jochumsen v. Suffolk Savings 

Bank 1507 



lxx 



Joddrell v. Joddrell 
Jodiell n. Jodrell 

v. Slauey 
Johu v. Brown 

v. Jones 

r. Lloyd 
Johnassou v. Bonhote 
Johues v. Clauguton 
Johns v Harper 



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



355 
1361 

726 
1536 

»al 

422 
602 
1058 
1584 



Johnson v. Slawsen 
v. Story 
v. Swain 
v. Telford 
v. Thomas 



v. James " 226, 579 

e Johns 1734, 1735 

v. Keardon 214 

Johnson, Ex parte 894,1047 
lit 1069, 1366, 1734 

Re, Sly v. Blake 654 

Re, Steele v . Cobham 1722 

v. Ames 560 

v. Arnwine 932 

v. Aston 1772 

v Atkinson 1561, 1565 

v. Atlantic Ave R. Co. 1221 
v Barnes 453, 455, 536, 537 

v. Board ot Education 1463 

i;. Bower 632 

v. Branch 1120 

v. Britt 1161 

v Brooklyn & C. R Co. 1642 

ii. Br»wu 338 

v. Burgess 1036,1054 

v. Candage 237,257, 2i2 

v. Cherokee Land Co. 324 

v. Chippindall 1052, 1057 

V. Christian 256 

t; Clendenin 1608, 1711 

v. Compton 236, 300 

v. Cooper 548 

v. Corey 1677 

v. Crippen 843 

v Curtis 138, 371, 666 

v Desiuineere 518 

v Donnell 617,998 

v. Drumniond 303 

v. Durner 418 

v Edge 1642 

v. Everett 987, 993 

v. Faruum 1716 

v. Hesseuuieyer 3i9 

v. Fitzhugh 607, 1508 

v Florida Transit Co. 1517 

v. Foster 259 

v. Freer 403, 1552 

v. Gallagher 113, 187, 1D03 

v. Gardiner 1385 

v Garrett . 1269, 1272 

v. Gere 1653 

v Gillett 1491 

v. Goldswaine 1655 

v. Hainesworth 1079 

v. Hammersley 244, 1170, 1525, 
1540 

v. Harrison 51, 630 

v . Helmstaedter 224, 361 

v. Hines 1276 

v. Horlock 813 

v. Hunter 37 
v. Johnson 104, 106, 444, 1166, 
1461, 1485, 1584 

v. Kelly 1031 

v. Lander 122 

v. Leake 1528 

v. Lindsay, No 2 40 

v. Lusk 117 

v. McCabe 68 

v. Mantz 378 

v. Mever 216, 1195 

v. Na'gle 443 

v. Northey 1585 

V. I'urkiuson 334 

V Peck 1528 

t'. Petrie 1032 

v. Pierson 844 

v. Pinney 504, 1591 

v. Prendergast 382, 1369 

v Rankin 192, 1505 

17. Richardson 843 

t-. St. Louis, &c. Ry. Co. 1618 

v. Shepard 793 



844 
1845 
779 
1235 
281, 1166, 1517, 1527 
1542 

v. Todd 1082, 1118, 1405 

v. Tomlinson 1031 

v- Touchet 126 

v. Tucker 350, 352. 431, 759, 760, 
707, 831, 1716, 1718, 1719, 
1835 
V. Tulare C. S. Court 1039 



v. Turner 
v. Vail 



86 



108,109,110, 111, llll, 
1903 

v. Walker 1061 

v. Waters 236, 418, 536, 1019 

v. Wilcox & Giblis S. M. Co. 542 
v. Wyatt 1071, 1081, 1666, 1681 

Johnson R. S. Co. v. Union S. k 

S. Co 1548 

Johnson Steel Street-Rail Co. v . 

Northbranch Steel Co. 1817 

Johnston v. Glenn 1660 

v. Hanuer 1575 

v. Hvde 1631 

v. Johnston 117, 585, 586, 1468 
v. Keener 1743 

v. McArthur 1624 

v. Macconuell 443 

v. Markle Paper Co. 236 

v. Reardon 1300 

v. Roe 560 

v. Salvage Association 851 

v. Standard Min. Co. 560 

v. Todd 1113, 1114, 1124, 1136, 
1427, 1432, 1433, 1595 
v. Trade Ins. Co. 43 

V. Ure 1184 

Johnstone v. Baber 1151, 1157 

v. Beattie 1348, 1350, 1352. 

1355 
v. Browne 1*9 

v Cox 674, 14!!l 

v. Hall 1638 

v. Hamilton 437 

v. Royal Courts Co. 1661 

Joint Stock Discount Co , lie 202, 
203 



v Brown 


202, 407, 1529 


Joley v Stockley 


1669 


Joliet Street Ry. Co 


v. Call 1556 


Joliffe v. Baker 


328 


v. Hector 


1236 


v. Twyford 


1428 


Jolland v. 


1732, 1755, 1756 


Jolliffe v. East 


1427, 142U 


v. Mundy 


1137 


v. Pitt 


641, 648 


Jolly v . Arbuthnot 
v. Carter 


707, 1370 
347, 729 


Joly v. Swift 


883 


Jones, Ex parte 


58,61,1070 


Re 61, 109, 


1213, 1286, 1328, 
1389, 1428, 1802 


1362 


Re, Calver v. Laxton lu34, 1425 


v. Abraham 


843 


v. Adair 


165 


v Alephsin 


1700, 1707, 1712 


v- Andrews 


1829 


v. Bailey 


1266 


v Barker 


314 


v. Barrett 


208 


v Bartholomew 


1597 


v. Basset 


1518 


v. Batten 


399, 1379,. 1600 


v. Beet 


844 


v Belt 


844 


v. Beverley 


532 


v Binns 


158, 420, 698 


v. Bolles 


328 


v. Boston Mill Corp 477. 1042, 

IKO.1 


v. Brain 


1617 


v. Brandon 


449, 522 


v- Brent 


172 j 



ones v. Brinker 361 

v. Brittan 829 

v. Cargill 447 

v. Chappell 211, 1628 

v. Charleuiont 588, 804, 1590 

v Commissioners 1650 

.". Com. Bank of Columbus 1672 
v Couoway 645 

v Cowles 300 

v. Davenport 417, 1576, 1578 

v. Davids 315, 542, 1S94 

v. Da vies 125 

v. Davis 497, 531, 605. 619, 630 
v Dr.-.ke 161, 445 

v. Evans 1425 

v. Ewing 1687 

v Farrell 199, 1564 

v. Fawcett 37, 111, 112 

v. Fa^ erweather 1579 

v. Foster 334 

v. Foulkes 203, 18n9 

v. Foxall 855 

v. Frost 588, 607, 1847 

v. Fulghum 539, 1653 

v. Gale 646 

v. Garcia del Rio 242, 243, 344 

v. Geddes 452, 1626, 1628 

v. Gilham 1567,1568,1569 

v. Goodchild 135. 224 

v. Goodrich 1725 

v. Graham 1508 

v. Gregory 552, 1479 

v. Griffith 829, 881, 883, 982 

v . Hardesty *41 

v. Harris 166 

v. Hart 197,296 

v. Heavens 1654 

v. Holliday 1463 

v. Hough 1133 

v. How 223, 225, 255 

v. Howell 819 

v. Howells 319, 1510, 1533. 1809 
v. James 220, 226 

v. Jones 247, 292, 362, 379. 593, 
679, 690, 756, 807 810, 841, 
844, 846,940,984, 1117, 
1228, 1229. 1382, 1421, 
1516, 1523, 1533, 1558, 
1617, 1632, 1685, 1861 
v. Keen 116, 555, 630, 1745 

v. Kennicott 1705 

v Kenrick 1583 

v. Kirkpatrick 221 

v. Lamar 1299 

v. Langham 354 

v. Lansing 793, 794 

v. Leadville Bank 1734 

v Lewis 740, 1142, 1382, 1406, 
1417, 1604 
v. Little Rock 1637 

v. Lloyd 83 

v. Lucas 920 

v. Magill 1676 

v Mason 444, 845, 1402 

v Massey 1169, 1544, 1679 

v MrKenna 1507, 1539 

i>. McPhillips 402, 407 

v. Mitchell 1433 

v. Morehead 1407 

v. Morgan 809 

v. Morrall 1368, 1370, 2061 

v. Newhall 652 

v. Nixon 659, 661 

v. North 1709 

v. Payne 68 

v Pengree 641 

v. Perrott 807 

v. Pickslav 710 

v. Planters' Bank 353 

v. Powell 72, 80, 1178, 1179, 1309, 
1347, 1352, 1353, 1510, 
1542, 1787 
v. Pugh 1720 

r. Reese 418 

v. Reid 334 

v. Richards 578 

v. Richardson 90, 114, 111 



Jones v. Ricketts 




1399 


v. Roberts 


1587 


1591 


v. Robinson 




1162 


v. Rose 


404 


1069 


v. Sampson 




1700 


v. Schall 




1735 


v. Scott 




642 


v Searle 




1410 



v. Segueira 637, 661, 695, 097 

v. Shepherd 394, 1502 

v. Skipwith 430 

v. Skipworth 002 

v. Sims 1507 

v SI tin son 334 

v. Smith 213, 249, 331, 922, 1543, 
1550, 1765 

v. Spencer 347, 351, 700, 951 

v. Stoekett 1253 
17. Strafford, Earl of 590, 690, 810 

v. Stroud 1099 

o. Taylor 596, 1671 

v. T hacker 1548 

Thomas 678, 1560 

v. Thome 1463 

v. Tinney 795 

v. Totty 1156, 1159 

v. Tuberville 652, 841 

v Turnbull 893, 1608 

v Turner 986 

v. Van Doren 378, 418 

v. Wadsworth 417, 1381 
v. Ward 1260, 1351, 1352, 1364 

v Wattier 692, 694 

v Wedgewood 1861 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Jones v. Welling 418 

v. Williams 631,1138,1543 

v. Wilson 987, 994, 1491 

v. Wood Street Warehouse Co. 9U5 

v. Zollicoffer 1575 

Jones's Mortgage, In re lol 

Jones's Settled Estates, Re 1329 

J ope v. Mor.-head 1152 

Jopling v. Stuart 402, 524 

Jopp v. (Jeering 1528 

v. Wood 230, 1460, 1461, 1473. 

1480, 1581 

Jopp's Case 1770 

Jordan, Ex parte 287, 1401 

v. Agawam Woollen Co. 980 

v. Clarke 378, 379 

v. Cummings 87, 88 

v. Jones 186 

v. Jordan 758 

v. Sawkins 656 

v. Seifert 659 

v. Thomas 1621 

V. Williams 1623 

Jorden v. Money 847 

Jordon v. Trumbo 386 

Jortin v. South Eastern Ry. Co. 2115 

Joseph v. Doubleday 1676 

v. Goode 1169 

v. Macowsky 1648 

v. Mott 1033 

v. Perry 1085 

v. Turkey 62 

v. Webster, lie 1603 

Josey v. Rogers 1548, 1549 



lxxi 



Joslin v. Wheeler 553, 638 

Jossaume v. Abbot 318 

Jourueay v. Brown 1403 

Jourolmon v. Massengill 059 

Jowett v. Broad 1321 

Joy v. St Louis 629 
v. Wirtz 149, 151, 190, 2y4 



Joyce />• De Moleyns 




675 


v Gunnels 




617 


V. Rawlins 




1526 


Judah v. Chiles 




1687 


Judd v. Bushnell 




328 


v. Hatch 




1677 


v. Lawrence 




45 


v. Plum 




1443 


v. Seaver 


386,841 


,842 


v. Wartnaby 




742 


v. Wilson 




332 


Judkius, Re 




1203 


v. Lovelace 




334 


Judson i'. li kiln- hard 




68 


t'. Courier Co 


256, 418, 


2396 


?'. Emanuel 




194 


v. Gibbons 




227 


v. Toulmin 


334 


, 345 


Julia Fisher, The 




154 


Julian v. Reynolds 




251 


v. State 




10 


Jumpson v. Pitchers 




1220 


Jupp, Re 




109 


Justice v. McBroom 


1544, 


1683 


Justices v. Cosby 




395 


v Croft 


1660, 


1663 


of Coventry, Re 


1610, 


1797 



K. 



aehler v. Dobberpuhl 


1675 


V. Halpin 


1614 


aighn v. Fuller 


1677 


ain o. Ross 


801 


alorania, The 


815 



Kamm v. Stark 1613, 1062 

Kauipf v. Jones 1413 

Kanawha Lodge v. Swann 1548 

Valley Bank v. Wilson 1576 

Kane v. Bloodgood 560, 644, 652 

v. Hamilton 16o8 

v. Huggins Cracker Co. 1642 

v. Maule 16 

v. Reynolds 16, 1513 

v. Vanderburgh 1629, 1630, 1633 

v. Van Vranker 833, 1398, 1600 

v. Whitman 993 

v. Whittick 987, 993, 1400 

Kankakee &c. R Co. v. Horan 839 

Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Atchison 367 

v Bayles 1743 

Kaolatvpe Engraving Co v. 

Hoke 314 

Karr v. Karr 457, 1369 

Kase v. Greenough 991 

Kauffman v. Griesmer 2o4 

o. Walker 1269, 1274 

Kivanagh v. Wall 456, 1735 

Kay v. Fowler 1171, 1221, 12i»6 

v. Hargreaves 570 

v Johnson 1081 

v. Jones 303,341,344 

d, Marshall 609, 690, 1499, 1642, 

2ii95 

v. Scates 1961 

v. Smith 889, 1020, 1823 

v. Watson 1580 

Kaye, In re 1346, 1858 

v Bank of Louisville 1377 

v. Cunningham 1058 

v Fosbrooke 59, 225 

v. Wall 722, 761 

Kean v. Johnson 26, 287 

v Lathrop 793, 794 

Keane, Re 1070 

Kearley, Re 61, 157 



Kearney v. Harrell 

v. Jackson 

v. Macomb 

v. Smith 
Kearsley v. Phillips 
Keates v. Burton 

V. Lyon 
Keating v. Sparrow 
Keats v Hugo 
Kebel v. Philpot 
Keck «'. Allender 
Kedive, The 
Keeler v. Green 

v. Keeler 
Keen, Re 

v. Breckenridge 

v. Stanley 
Keenan v. Keenan 
Keene V. Johnston 

f. Kimball 

i\ Price 
Keener 11. Moss 
Keeper, Lord v. Wyld 
Kehoe v. Carville 
Keiffer v. Barney 
Keighley r. Brown 
Keil v. West 



1073 

1468 

2010 

1625 

578 

254 

324, 1654 

1658 

1638 

1114 

1576 

1470 

1657 

225,237 

1010 

1743 

783 

249 

100 

1643 

1184 

1157 

2, 357, 675 

740 

1002 

797 

1031, 1062 



Keisselbrack v. Livingston 1401 

Keith v. Day 999 

v. Keith 334 

v Trapier lli;c> 

Keithley r. Keithley 1071, 1073 

Kekewich v. Langston 1358, 2292 

v. Marker 1633 

Kelk v. Archer 798, 800 

v Pearson 893, 1637 

Kellam v. Sayer 287 

Kellar v. Beelor 217, 1507 

Kellaway p. Bury 354 

»'. Johnson 268, 272 

Keller v. Stolzenbach 659, 829, 2384 

Kelletfv. Kellett 1459, 1496, 1502 

Kelley v Bradford 989 

v. Greenleaf 1950, 2246, 2290 

v- Kelley 630, 1122 

v. McKinney 1120 



Kelley v. Ypsilanti Stay M. Co. 1642 

Kellner v. Mutual Life Ins Co. 694 

Kellock, Re 307, 1847 

Kcllock's Case 284 

Kellogg, Matter of 1745 

v. New Britain 324 

v. Rockwell 1240 

v. Wood 855 

Kellom v. Easley 1679 

Kelly, Matter of 1841 

v Crapo 1743 

v. Eckford 1553, 1819 

v. Hooper 1380, 1395, 1681 

v. Hutton 1694, 1646, 1727, 1837 

v. Israel 215 

v. Jackson 298, 617 

v. Kershaw 417 

V. Leunon 1476 

v Rogers 298, 308 

v. Sherlock 1130 

v. Wallace 324 

Kelminster V Pratt 64 

Kelner v. Baxter 238, 269 

Kelsall 0. Hennet 678 

v. Kelsall 170, 174. 175 

v. Minton 1800 

Kelsey v Kelsey 1724 

v. Snvder 906 

v. Weston 1459, 1467 

Kelso v. Jessop 1282, 1294 

v. Taber 186 

Kelson v. Kelson 1323 

Keltv v. High 1019 

Kemball r. Walduck 159, 808, 815 

Kemble v. Kean 1654, 1656 

Kemp i' Bird 1654 

v. Burn 1417, 1419 

v. Latter 628 

v. Lyon 974 

v. Mackrell 1123, 1528, 1549. 1622 

v. Pryor 651. 552 

v. Squire 1026 

v. Tucker 650, 1621 

v. Waddingham 1034 

v. Wade 1177, 1179, 1188, 1309, 

1339 



lxxii 



Kemp v. Westbrooke 
Keuipgon b Ashbee 
Keuiptou v. Burgess 
Kenan v. Miller 
Kendall v. Beckett 

t;. Granger 

v. Hamilton 217, 269, 288 (527 

v. Hovey 1165, 1166 

v. Mawters 387, 996. 1410 

Kendall ville Refrigerator Co v 

Davis 1556 

Kendig v. Dean 149, 790 

Keudrick v. Whitfield 555 

t;. Whitney 1476 

Kenebel v. Scrafton 1390, 1424 

Keniston v. Keniston 1168 

Kenmare v. Casey 354 

Kenn v. Neek 1127 

Kenuard v Christie 1280 

v. George 1971, 1972 

Kennaway v. Tripp 29, 31 

Kennebec Railroad v. Portland 

R-tilroad 334 

Kennebec & Port. R. R. Co. v. 
Port & Kennebec R. R. Co. 
22, 145, 261, 296, 314, 334, 335, 
338, 344 



Kennedy v. Ball 
V. Baylor 
V. Bell 
v. Brown 
v. Cassillis 
v. Creswell 
v. Daly 
v. Davis 
v. Edwards 
v. George 
V- Green 



v. Indianapolis &c. R. Co 



1576, 1577, 1678 

845 

1579 

563 

1626 

695 

187, 1584 

197 

36,598,797,806 

1836 

675, 1830 



1071, 

1743 

249, 344, 1294, 1548 

424, 1675 

658, 717, 943 



v . Kennedy 

v. Lewis 

v. Lyell 

v Meredith 

v. Sedgwick 1795 

v. St. Paul R. Co 1731 

v. Thorp 1742 

v. Wakefield 364, 579 

v. Winn 560 

Keuner v Hard 1544 

v . Smith 1577 

Kennerty v. Etiwan Phosphate 
Co 418 

Kenney v Consumers' Gas Co. 10 
v. Kelliher 1591 

v. Ranuey 1743 

Keunon v Dickins 1259 

Kenny v. Gillet 1648 

v. Cdall 90, 101, 102, 121, 122 

Kenrick v. Clayton 592, 690 

v. Danube C. & M Co. 1644 

v. Wood 110, 1450, 1595 

Kensington v Inglis • 51 

Kensington, Lord P. Bouverie 328 
v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 1395 

Kensit v. Great Eastern Ry. Co. 1639 

Kent r Burgess 1079 

v. Freehold Land and Brick- 
making Co 1459 
v. Jacobs 429 
v. Kent 1539 
v. Lake Superior Ship Canal 

Co 545, 660 

v. Lee 342 

v. Owensboro Bank 545 

v. Pickering 1616 

v. Ricards 1625 

Kenton Furnace R. & M. Co. v. 

McAlpin 313 

Kentucky & Indiana Bridge Co. 

v. Krieger 1069 

Kentucky S. M Co. v. Day 357 

Kenyon v Clarke 1624 

f. Kenyon 70, 1165 

v. Worthington 250, 1207 

Keogh, lie 10H9 

Keogh Manuf. Co. v. Whlston 1716 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

2231 I Keokuk N. L. Packet Co. v. Da- ) 

852 vidson 1765 : 

659, 79U I Kepley v. Carter 830 

298 Keppell v. Bailey 308 i 

421 i Ker v. Cloberry 1303, 1312 

1853 Kerchuer v. Kempton 108, 185, 187 

v. McEachern !i74 

Kern V. llazierigg 280 

v. Strausberger 1625 

v. Wyatt 1580 

Keruagliau v. Williams 241, 243, 

244 

Keruick v. Kernick 102, 104, 107, 

354, 785, 894 

Kernot v Critchley 426, 1399 

v. Potter 551 

Kerou v. Coon 1677 

Kerr v. Campbell 815 

v. Freemau 850 

v Gillespie 27, 28, 31, 358, 359, 

402, 577 

v. Lansing 3 '3 

v- Love 1258 

v- Munster, Duchess of 28 

v. Preston 1620 

v. Hew 1558 

v. South Park Com'rs 1017 , 1(173 

Kerrick v. Brausby 552, 663 

v. Saffery 215 

Kerrison v Stewart 200, 256 

Kershaw, lit, Whittaker v 

179, 187 



Kershaw 
v. Kelsey 
v. Matthews 
v. Thompson 
Kessinger v. Whittaker 



1729. 1736 

1042, 1056 
1063 



Ketchaui v. Brazil B. C. Co 



l."i;5 



Ketchum v. Breed 1120, 1580 

v Driggs 556 

Kettle v. Crary 217, 238 

v. Van Dyck 260, 261 

Kettlewell v. Barstow 320, 674, 692, 

812, 1826 

Kevan v Crawford 180, 355, 892, 

996. 1001, 1370, 1409 

Key v. Snow 109 

Keyesr. Pueblo S.& R Co. 1073, 1H63 

Keymer v. Pering 931 

Keys v. Bush 1723 

v . Keys 1731 

v. Mathes 3u3 

Keyser v. Renner 314, 405, 1517 

Keystone Manganese and Iron 



Co v. Martin 
Keyworth, In re 
Kibler r. Whiteman 
Kidd, Ex parte 

v, Cheyue 

v. Hiirry 

p. Mauley 
Kiddie r. Debrutz 
Kitldill v. Farnell 
Kidger v. Worswick 



Kidney v. Cockburn 

Kiff r. Roberts (No. 2) 

Kihlholz v. Wolff 

Ki bee v. Sneyd 

Kilbey o. Haviland 

Kilbourn v. 8underland 

Kilbourne v. Allyn 

Kilbreth v. Root 

Kilby v. Stanton 

Kilcrease v Blythe 

Kildare. F^irl of v. Eustace 

Kilgore o, Hair 

Kilgour v. New Orleans Gas 
Liirht Co. 149, 191, 334. 384 

Killian v. Ebbinghaus 630, 1071, 
1561 

Killinger ?'. Hartman 407 

Killock r Gregg 319 

Kilminster r. Pratt 814 

Kilmorey, Lord v. Thackeray 1655 

Kimball v Brown 642 

v New Hampshire Bible Soc- 
iety 1111 



1029 

1778 

379, 385 

1581 

438, 1460, 1581 

1620 

852 

837 

1801 

485, 621, 760, 

1819 

1124 

39 

1019 

1317 

1080 

217, 630 

1061 

830, 1551 

227 

161. 538 

1050 

1734 



Kimball v. Ward 


733 


Kimber v. Emsworth 


2(2 


v. Press Ass'n 


KfiO 


Kimberley v. Fox 


1961 


v. Jennings 


1656 



Kimberly v. Arms 1320, 1576, 15S0, 

1584 

v. Sells 547, 549, 584 

Kimble v. Seal 1517 

Kimmel v. Kimmel 960 

Kimpton v. Eve 1656, 1673. 1685 

Kinahan v. Kinahan 149 

Kiucaid, Re 97, 101, 102, 103 

Kincart v Sanders 1507 

Kindell v. Titus 108, 161 

Kinder v. Forbes 448 

v. Jones 1633 

King, lie 1416, 1417, 1648 

v. Alberton 1134 

V. Allen 548 

v. Arundel, Countess Dowager 

of 5 

v. Baldwin 551 

v Bardeau 2'^59 

v. Barnes 986, 10fi9 

v. Bill 11162 

v Brigham 1164 

v. Bryant 506, 528, 1175, 1424 

v. Burr 1398 

v. Carr 781 

v. Clark 1457 

v. Corke 328, 384, 417, 861 

v. Davis 324 

v. Dundee Mortgage, &c. Co. 1576, 

1579 

v. Enterprise Ins Co. 1550 

v. Galloway 295 

V. Heniing 626 

v Higgins 1624 

v. Holcombe 700 

v. Howard 670 

v. Isaacson lt-02 

v. King 68, 393, 1379, 1411 , 1490, 

1558, 1617, 1725 

v. Little 128 

v. Lucas 113 

v. McVickar 715 

v Malcott 643 

r Martin 158,256 

v. Morris and Essex R. Co. 1637, 

1650 

v. Noel 807 

v. Pratt 894 

v. Ray 723, 726 

v. Rossett 379 

v. Ruckman 1029, 1472 

v. Sandeman 979 

v. Savery 1029, 1442 

v. Smith 284, 1614, 1630, 1699 

v. t-tate Mutual Fire Ins Co 1239, 

1241, 1246 

v Stewart 215 

v. Strong 1426. 1427 

v Taylor 1431, 1433 

v. Townshend 2040 

v Trice 368 

v. Turner 424 

v. Williamson 1097 

v. Wooten P69 

Kingdom v. Boakes 843 

Kinglake v. Bevis 1127 

Kingley v. Young 296 

Kingman v. Maisey 1618 

Kingsbury v. Buckner 68. 1548, 

1580 

t' Flowers 216,334 

Kingsford v. Poile 457, ! 98 

Kingsland r. Roberts 641 

Kingsley, Re 87, 179 

v. Young 197, 247 

Kingsman v. Kingsman 111 

Kingston v. Corker 324 

j Cowbridge Ry Co. 1731 

v . Tappen 930 

Kingston"s, Duchess of, Case 576, 

664 

Kingwood Bank v. Jarvis 1294 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
[The references are to the star pagiug ] 



Kinlock ». Meyer 254 

Kinmonth v. Brigham 144, 2200 

Kinnaird v. Trollope 815 

Lord i). Christie 12S0 

Kinnan v. 42d St., &c. R. Co. 60 

Kinuesley (' Simpson 605 

Kinney v. Cous'd Va. M- Co. 385 

v. Crocker 1743 

v. Ensign 1772 

v. Pierce 1298 

Kino v. Rudkin 280, 1096, lluo, 

1517, 163l 

Kinsey, Re 1340 

v. Grimes 848 

v. Howard 334 

v. Kinsey 660 

Kinsliela v. Lee 992 

Kinsler v. Clark 1668 

Kinsman v. Barker 1253 

Kinzie v. Penrose 665 

Kipp v. llanna 407, 499 

Kirby v. Barton U>18 

v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co 145, 

217 

v. Tavlor 694, 700 

Kireton Coal Co., Ex parte 1459 

Kirk v. Bromley Union 1544 

v. Clark 205, 220 

v. Du Bois 378, 1507 

v. Jones 1278 

v. Kirk 953, 954 

v. Milwaukee D. C. Manuf Co. 

1070 
v. Morrow 314 

v. Keg. 133 

Kirk by Ravensworth Hospital, 

Ex parte 1853 

Kirkham v. Smith 1391 

Kirkneaton Local Board v 

Ainley 1638 

Kirkland v. Telling 1003 

Kirkley v. Burton 312, 422 

Kirkman v Andrews 684 

v. Booth 1230, 1414 

v. Handy 1629 

v. Honnor 1674 

v. Jervis 1096 

v Vanlier 1222 

Kirkpatrick v Buford 295 

v. Corning 222, 243, 34:t 

v. Love 1229 

v. Meers 490 

v. Peshine 1654 

v White _ 611 

Kirksey v. Means 378, 379 

Kirkwood v. Lloyd 989 

v. Webster 1440 

Kirsch v Derby 542 

Kirtland v Moore 1561 

Kirwan v. Daniel 151, 2!»1 

v. Kirwan 444 

v. Latour 58 

Kisor v. Stancifer 377 

Kitcat v. Sharp 887, 1070 

Kitchen v. Himble 1525 

v. Itavburn 314 

Kitcherside v. Mvers 630 

Kitchin V Himble 1510 

v. Hughes 522 

Kitching v. Kitching 1072 



Kitchins v. Harrall 
Kittle v. De Graaf 

!•. De Lamater 

v. Kogers 

v Van Dyck 
Kittlewell v. Barstow 
Kitto, Re 



192 
314 
1081 
1642 
194 
411 
1411 



Kittredge v. Claremont Bank 630, 

722, 723, 724, 735. 759, 769 

v. McLaughlin 1259, 1391 

Klaus v State 68 

Klein v. Fleetford 1675 

v . Horiue 425 

v. Jewett 1752 

Klepper V Powell 692 

Kline v. Baker 864 

c. L'Auioureux 1360 

Klock v. Robinson 1255 

Kloebe, lie 47, 202 

Klumpp v. Gardner 15i*l 

Knapman, lie 1409 

Knapp v. Buruaby 1254 

v. Burnham 1238 

v. Douglass Axe Co. 1613, 1639, 

1662, 2323 

v. Marshall 987 

v. Snyder 1623 

v. White 1317 

v. Williams 1/31 

Knapping v. Tomlinson 99 

Knatchbull v. Fearnhead 1411 

v. Fowle 68, 74, 86, 112, 163, 164, 

178 

v . Hallett 357 

Knebell v. White 386, 1928 

Kneeland v. Brass Foundry 1743 

v. Luce 
Knibb 8. Dixon 
Knickerbocker v De Freest 



v. Harris 
Knierim v. Schmauss 
Knight, Be 

v. Atkisson 

v. Bowyer 

v. Brawner 

v. Bulkley 

v. Cawthron 

v. Corv 

f. De Blaquiere 

c. Duplessi 



1743 

1073 
161, 
163 
846 

1205 
901 
561, 659, 994, 1579 
387 
118 

1053 

431 

28, 358 

27,3i 

1725 



v. Houghtalling 1062 

v. Knight 70, 92, 109. 282, 283 

1054, 1202, 1T*>8 

v. Maclean 1254 

v. Marjoribanks 594, 1291 

v. Martin 1U2 

v. Mosely 8 

v. Plimouth, Lord 1751 

v. Pocock 212, 226, 257, 277, 433 

v. Pursell 1449 

v Sampson 576 

v. Watts 1708 

?) Weiskopf 1461 

v. Yarborough 1562 

v Young 530, 1026 

Brothers v. Ogden 797 

Knight's Trusts Re 1411, 1412 

Knoblauch B Minneapolis 1675 

Knoop v. Bohmricb. 26 



Knott, Re 
v. Coitee 
v. Cottee 



v. Morgan 
v. Stearns 
Knowles, Re 
v. Chapman 
v. Greeuhill 
Haughton 



lxxiii 



1416 

1051 

1252, 1267, 1416, 1420, 

2295 

2319 

1365 

1809 

1245, 1251, 1^52 

14T9 

332 



v. Rhydydefed Colliery Com- 



pauy 

v. Roberts 

v. S pence 
Kuowltou v. Hanbury 
Knox v. Brown 

v- Columbia L. I. Co, 



v. Gye 



v, Hayman 

V. M;i_\0 

v. Mo.-er 
v- Picket 
i'. Smith 
v. Symmonds 



810, 1591 
354 
969 
1548 
158, 791 
986 1019, 
1120, 1576 
313, 315, 418, 560, 561, 
641,649 
26 
1163 
974, 1020 
1411, 1412, 1418 
361 
414, 770, 7J6 



Knox County v Harshmau 



2398 



Knye v. Moore 206, 345 

Kobbi v. Underhill 550 

Koeber v. Sturgis 102 

Koehler v. Farmers & Drovers 

Nat. Bank 1684 

Kohn v. McXulta 1071 

Koons v. Blanton 1071 

Kooutz e. Northern Bank 1749 

Kopper v. Dyer 517, 1548, 1918 

Koppiuger v. O'Donnell 
Korue v. Korne 
Kornegay v. Carroway 
Kortjohn v. Seimers 
Kortright v. Cady 



Kraker v. By rum 
Krapt v. Wickey 
Krehl v. Burrell 



1561, 1562 
334 
378 
1501 
1243, 1246 
1360 

ia>5 

986, 987, 1080, 
1140, 1662 
1368, 1376 
1621 
790 
314, 369 
287 
656 
1548 
1320 
1680 
418, 1677 
855 



v. Park 
Kreichbaum v. Bridges 
Kreider v. Mehaffy 
Krick v. Jansen 
Krippendorf v. Hyde 
Kronheim v. Johnson 
Krueger r. Ferry 
Krumbhaar v. Griffiths 
Kruson v. Kruson 
Kuhl v Martin 
Kuhliger v. Bailev 
Kunkel p. Markell 214, 341, 361, 368 
Kuntz r. White Co. 1675 

Kurtz v. Spence 418 

Kuttner v. Haines 1580 

Kutz's Appeal 1299 

Kuyper b. Reformed Dutch 
Church 584,588,590,601,694, 
718,720,721,761 
Kyle v. McKenzie 1548 

v. Perdue 1548 

v. Riley 788 

Kynaston v. East India Co. 166 

v- Perry 797 



L. 



Labadie v. Hewitt 346, 559 


1150 


Lacon v. Mertins 


1245 


Labouchere !> Dawson 




1655 


Lacroix v. Lyons 


313 


v. Wharncliffe 




1653 


j'. May 


590 


Lacassagne B. Chapuis 




790 


Lacy !■. Burchnall 


70 


Lacey, Ex parte 




157 


v. Hill 


1174 


v. Baker 




1461 


v. Rnckett 


63 


v. Forrester 




1129 


v. Wilson 


675 


Lachlan V. Reynolds 


1276 


1284 


Ladbroke v. Sloane 797, 


799, Dil- 


Lackett v. Rumbaugh 


636 


1770 


Ladbrooke v. Bleadou 


798 


Lackey v. Curtis 




29C 


Ladd o. Chase 


1561 



Ladd r Harvey 

r. Putnam 1238 
Ladies Benevolent Soc. v. Bene- 
volent Soc. 1662 
Ladner v. Ogden 1548 
Lafavour r. Justice 601 
Lafayette v. Fowler 1661 
Co v. Neely 324, 328, 2398 
Ins Co, v. French 357 
Lafferty v. Turley 64S 



lxxiv 



Lafitte, Re 1440 

Latitte's Claim 1440 

Lafoue v. Falkland Islands Co. 413, 
577, 786, 1651, 1552. 1555, 1821, 
1824, 1834, 1838 
Laforest, Re 62 

La Grange, &c. R. Co. V- Mem- 
phis, &c. K. Co. 1370, 1550, 
1577 
Laidlev v. Merrifield 987, 1491 

Laiglit v. Morgan 893, 394, 547 

v. Cell 1284, 1290 

Laiug v Kaine 848 

v. Zeden 1566, 1569, 1618 

Lainhart v. Reilly 287 

Luiuson v. Lainson 1256, 1257 

Laird v. Boyle 378 

v. Briggs 384, 401, 782, 10u3 

Lake v. 734, 737 

v. Austwick 1546 

v. Causfield 877 

v. Deer 1129 

v Haseltine 154 

v. Hayes 643 

v Meares 1050 

v. Peisley 866, 868 

v. Skinner 882, 883 

Lake Krie & W. R. Co. V. Hatch 546 
Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Brown 

1286, 1507 
Lake's Trusts, Re 649, 650 

Lakeman v. Agua Fria Gold M. 

Co. 683 

Lakens v Fielden 592, 739, 748 

Lakin, Ex parte 1357 

Lamar v. Micou 546 

Lamare V- Dixon 1889 

Lamb v. Beaumont Temperance 

Hall Co. 1051 

V. Evaus 1650 

V- Jeffrey 597 

v. Munster 564, 717 

Lambe v. Orton 1312, 1366, 1477, 
1487, 1795, 1823 
Lambert v. Addison 332 

v Fisher 1137 

v. Hill 1594, 1971 

v. Hutchinson 1040, 1041 

v. Jones 425 

v. Lambert 281, 601, 1549, 1550 
v. Lomas 482 

v. Lyddon 1138 

v Maris 892 

v Neuchatel Asphalt Co 26, 1650 
v. Newark 1606, 1797 

v. Northern Railway of Bu- 
enos Ay res 243 
v People 563, 567 
v. Peyton 1004 
v Rogers 581 
v. Turner 162, 476 
Lambie v . Lambie 1798 
LaMert V. Stanhope 809 
Laming v. Gee 438, 1370, 1577, 1581, 
1584 
Lamon v. McKee 1069, 1770 
Lampton p. Lampton 844 
Lamson v. Drake 378, 1309 
Lanahan v. Gahan 1631 
Lancashire v. Lancashire 1079, 1465, 
1600, 1721, 1725 
and Yorkshire Ry. 
Co. r. Evans 791, 808, 810 
Lancashire, &c. Bank v. Tee 187 
Lancaster, Re 38, 40, 111 
v. Choate 1626,2284,2349 
v. DeTrafford 1081 
v. Evors 300, 720, 722, 1829 
v. Lair 811 
v. Lancaster 1573 
v. Roberts 586 
v. Thornton 77 
v. Ward 848, 1079, 1116 
Lancaster and Carlisle Ry. Co 

v. North-Western Ry. Co 1620 
Lancaster Mills v. Merchants' 
Cottonpress Co. 517 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

1209, 1407, 
1423 
548 
1515 
1364 
1475, 1479 
Canada v. 

1817 



Lancefield l>. Iggulden 

Lancy !'. Randlett 
Land v. Cowan 
v. Land 
v. Wick nam 
Corporation of 

Pules ton 
Credit Co. v. Fermoy 193, 

1029, 1064, 1678 
Credit Society of Ireland, Re 

943 
Landars v. Allen 1001 

Landed Estates Co. v. W*eediug_ 138 J 



Lander v. lngersoll 

v. Parr 

v. Weston 
Landis v Olds 
Landou v. -Morris 

v. Ready 
Lane, Re 

v. Crombie 

v. Ellzey 

v. Hardwicke 

v. Hobbs 

v. Jackson 

v. Lane 



6 

27,111 
.19 

378, 381 

1721 

402, 530 

892, 1359, 1360 

850 

504,658, 1591 

162, 169. 448, 476 

1029, 1030 

675, 1040 

1738 



v. Loudou Bank of Scotland 732 
v. Newdigate 1639, 1662, 1663, 



v. Oliver 
v. Paul 
v. Schouip 
V. Smith 
v. Sterne 



Li7l 
1061 
763, 1821 
1637 
62, 63, 158, 606, 631 
1743 



Lanesborough v. Kilmaine 676, 677 
Laufranchi v. Mackenzie 



247 



Lang, Ex parte 

v. Brown 

v. Griffith 

v. Superior Court 

v. Waring 

v. Whiddon 
Langdale v. Briggs 

v. Gill 

v. Langdale 

Lady v. Briggs 
Langdon v. Branch 

v. Goddard 

v. Pickering 
v. Potter 
v. Roane 
Lange 0. Jones 
Langell V. Langell 
Langen v. Tate 
Langford, Re 
v. May 
v. Pitt 
v. Wray 
Langham v. Great Northern Ry 

Co 795, 1380, 1667 

Langhorne v. Harland 1397 

Langley, Ex parte 1665. 1673, 

6 ' 1684, 1686 

1057 

1060 

856, 945, 964. 1399 

1723 

2r5 

1062 

1003 

1246 

1560, 1563, 

1564 

1425. 1778 

1571 

12ft5, 1390 

386, 774 

1274 



157 

1298 

1697 

1591 

216, 9! 4 

83 

1001, 2182 

1530 

792 

1001 

303 

720, 728, 759, 844. 

852. 1997 

349, 350, 729, 759 

318 

1003 

277 

545 

915 

1743, 1791 

913 

989 

1488 



v Bredon 

v. Breydon 

v Fisher 

v. Hawk 

v. Oxford, Earl of 

v. Voll 
Langmaid v. Reed 
Langstaffe V. Fenwick 
Langston r. Boylston 

Langton v. Higgs 
o.'Horton 

V'. Langton 

v. Wait* 
Langyher v. Patterson 
Lanham v. Pirie 191, 832, 967, 2042 
Lanier v. Alison 1628 

v Hill 407 

Lankford v. Jackson 1284 

Lann v. Church 1845 

Lanning v. Heath 412. 424 

Lanoy v. Athol 97, 105, 1360 



Lansdale v. Smith 660 

Lansdown v. Elderton 690 

Lausdowue, Marquis of v. Lans- 
dowue, Marchioness Dow- 
ager of 1634 
Lansiug v. Albany Ins. Co. 1576, 
1676, 1578 
v. Easton 1683, 1686 
v. Goelet ^84 
v. Mcpherson 1026, 1286 
v. Pine 562, 567 
v. Russell 1120, 1124, 1125 
Lanum v. Steele 518 
Lapev Taylor 1417 
Lapej ra v. United States 67 
Lapham v. Green 195 
Lapresse V. Falls 1073. 1076 
Laprimaudaye v. Teissier 116, 1778, 
1785, 1794 
Lapton v. Almy 1277 
Larabrie v. Brown 394, 1563 
Larcom r. Olin 1620 
Lardner v Ogden 1548, 1551 
Lareau V. Davignon 46 
Largan v. Bowen 1615 
Large v. De Ferre 77 
v. Van Doren 212, 220, 259 
I^argeu v. Bowen 1764 
Larimore v. Wells &J4 
Larkin v. Mann 526, 1073, 1163, 
1154, 1166. 1158 
Larkins v. Biddle 334, 340, 402 
ci Murphy 12:i5 
v. Pax ton 1423. 1437 
Larmuth v. Simmons 1624 
Laroche V. Wakeman 58 
Larrqbee v. Grant 1120 
Larrison, v. Peoria, &c. R. Co. 

733 
Larrowe v. Beame 676 

Larsen v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. 

Co. 830 

Larsh v. Brown 846 

Larue v. Larue 994 

Lasell v. Powell 1272 

Lash ». McCormick 1671 

v. Miller 159, 1510, 1524, 1525, 

2059 

Lashlev v. Hogg 793, 1205 

Laslett v. Cdffe 1266 

Lasseur v. Tyrconnel 1809 

Lataillade r. Orena £45 

LaUh v. Latch 226, 251, 433, 438 

Latham v. Chafee 634, 1734 

i'. Kenrick 64 

v. Wiswall 424 

Lathbury v. Brown 1130 

Lathrop v Knapp 1751 

v Nelson 1277 

v. Sn.alley 1417 

v Stewart 546 

Latimer, Ex parte 1440 

v Ayletbury, itc. Ry. Co. 1656, 

1730, 1731 

v. Neate 1830, 1833, 1835 

Latouch v. Dunsany 1549 

Latouche r. Sampson 768 

Latour v. Bland 1644 

Latta Ex parte 28. 1605 

V. Kilbourn 1029 

Latter v. Da^hwood 1252 

Latting v. Hall 881 

v. Latting 339, 340 

Laud v. Cowan 326 

v Sargent 604 

Lauderdale Co r Foster 60 

Laughlin r. President, &c. 1631 

Laugh ton V. Atkins 874 

v. Harden 266, 584 

Laura Jane v. Hagen 652 

Laurence ;\ Maule 868 

Lauri v. Renad 46 

Laurie v. Burn 515 

v. Crush 1525, 1526 

v. Laurie 1673 

Lautour v. Attorney-General 315, 

643,602 



Lautour v. Holcombe 27, 34, 796, 810 

Lautz v. Gordon 1548 

La Vega v. Lapsley 2391) 

Laverty v. Moore 1029 

Lavihart v. Reilly 390 

Law, Re 86, 1 61 

v. Ford 1718, 1727, 1728 

f . Garrett 671 

v Hunter 857, 1189 

v Law 324, 94b 

v. London Indisputable Co 485, 

621,716,760,1819,1820 

v. Philby 283 

v Rigby 561, 633 

v. Scott 111 7 

Liwes v Gibson 1397, 1398, 1403 



Lawtord v. Spicer 
Lawlesx v. Mansfield 
Lawley v llalpeu 

v. Waldon 
Lawrance v. Norreys 
Lawrell v. Titchborne 
Lawrence, Re 

v- Austin 



1008, 1070 
371 
112 
209 
324, 354, 392 
949 
1841 
1081, 1638. 1641, 
1661, 1663 
v. Bank of the Republic 256 

v. Berney 1580 

v. Bolton 1523, 1535 

t'. Bowie 1421 

v. Campbell 577, 1834 

r Cornell 1028 

u Derby 354 

v. Hester 860 

v. Horton 1638. lfWil 

V. Lane 280 281 

v. Lawrence 37, 38, 713, 845 ' 

v. Maule 870 I 

t;. Philpot 1677 

v Pool 694 

v Remington 633 

v. Richmond 1017 

v. Rokes 149, 150, 151, 216, 219, 
290, 641 
v. Smith 1642, 1645 

t> Traner 545 

Lawrence Manuf. Co v. Janes 

ville Cotton Mills 
Lawrenson v. Butler 
Lawne v. Lees 
Lawry v. Houston 
Lawson v. Barker 
V. Drake 
v. Jordan 
v. Menasha W. Co. 
v. Stoddart 



Wright 
Lawton v. Green 

f Lawton 

v Price 
Lay v Brown 
Layton v. Ivans 

»'. Mortimore 
Lazarus v. Mozley 
Lea v. Parker 

r Keed 

V. Robeson 

v Sax by 
Vanbibber 



1586 

1405 

1339 

121 

254 

1300 

1566 

1639 

908, 1336 

270 

1666 

161 7 

908, 944, 1225 

91 

424 

156. 502 

1822 

32 

666 

645 

720 

402, 524 



Lea Conservancy Board !'. Tot- 
tenham Local Board 1638 
Lea's Trust, Re 193 
Leach v Fobes 844, 1902, 2264, 2338 
v. Jones 1019 
v. Leach 13eJ[ 
Leacraft o. Demprey 590, 617, 668 
682, 694, 700, 703, 788, 789 



Leaoroft v Maynani 
Leadhetter v. , 

Leadbitter, Re 
Leader, The 
Leader v. Moody 
Leah, Re 
Xeahy v. Arthur 
Leake v Bundy 

v. Cordeaux 

v. Leake 

v. Smith 



1384, 143: 
1646 

59,61,157 
1846 
1654 
1843 
1719 
1508 
1929 
1699 
1663 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging J 

Leauian v. Brown 451, 452, 4S0, 481 

Learned v. Castle 1638 

v. Tillotson lo71 

V. Walton 1051 

Learoyd u. Halifax Joint Stock 

B Co, 571, 573, 1835 

Leary v Long 659 

Leather Cloth Co. v American 

Leather Cloth Co 164', 1649 

v. Bressey 426 

v. Hirschfield 852, 1082 

v. Lorsont 1649, 1654 

Leathes v. Newit 262 

Leatuley v. McAndrew 20, 26 

Leavenworth ;;. Pepper 360 

Leavitt v Cruger 180, 182, 445, 476, 
498, 499, 524, 538, 733, 754, 784 
v. Fisher 1569 

Leavy v. Leavy 255 

Leaycraft v. Deuipsey 361, 371, 668 
v Heddeu 186 

Le Baron v. Cronibie 1118 

Lechuiere v. Brasier 165, 858, 859, 
1276. 1276 
v. Brazier 1214, 1218, 1423, 1806 
v Brotheridge 100 

»' Clamp 832, 969, 998 

v. Clapp 820 

Lechmere Bank v. Boynton 2152 
Lechuiere Charlton's Case 1070 

Le Clea v Trot 17 13 

Leddel v Starr 1550, 1716 

Leduc v. Ward 190 

Ledwich, Ex parte 1069 

Ledwith v. Jacksonville 1517, 1620 
2048 
Lee, Ex parte 52 

v. Angas 907. 909, 1097 

v. Beatty 1073, 1076, 1124 

v. Bickley 1406 

v. Blackstone 417 i 

v. Boutwell 378 I 

v Braxton 997 | 

v. Brown 1398, 1427 1 

v. Cargill 1667, 1675 I 

v. Cone 380 

v Delane 1405, 1426, 1427 

v Dennistoun 65, 835 

v. Gibbings 1620, 1643 

v Haley 1649 

p. Hammerton 945 

v Lee 63, 64, 1234, 1530. 1544 

v . Melendez 2329 1 

V. Milner 1636 | 

v. Pain 851 j 

v Park 1615, 1616 I 

r Pmdle 383, 1368. 1381 ' 

r Read 564, 741 

i'- Rogers 52 | 

v Kuggles 1624 | 

I 1 Ryder 177 

v. Saogster 65 \ 

v Shaw 992 j 

* Shore 1129, 1135 

'•• Stig-:r fa; ; 

v Stone 331 | 

11 Walker 1402 ; 

v. WiKock 1298 ■ 

v. Wilmot 646 

Leech i' Bailey 713 

v. Bolland 889 

v. State ]614 

v Trollop 570, 675 

Leedham v, Cbauner 1423 

Leeds v Lewis 1327 

v. Mar Ins. Co. 841 

Duke of r Amherst, Earl of 649 
v. Amherst, Lord 1634 

v Strafford. Earl of 1164 

Leeds Estate Co v. Shepherd 26 27 
Leeming. Re 1354 

Lees i). Jones 1727 

v. Lees 893 1457 

v. Nuttall 1484 1611 

II Patterson 1704, 1705. 1712, 1714 
Leese v. Knight 160. 162, 163 177, 
460, 476, 533, 538 



lxxv 



Leeson v Smith 1130 

Leet v. Gersham Life Insurance 

Society 1096, 1128 

v. Jenkins 14>;0 

Leete v. Jenkins 14;1 

Lefevre v. Laraway 1286, 1290, 12.(1 

Leffingwell v Chave 1667 

Le Fort v. Delafield 72 

Lefroy v Lefroy 1286, 1287 

Leftwick v. Hamilton 469, 1625 

Legal v. Miller 380 

Legard v. Daly 1123, 1136, 1139 

v Hodges 1799 

v. Sheffield 829 

Le Gendre v. Byrnes 56 J 

Legg i>. Mackrell 1416 

Legge v. Edmonds 564 

Leggett v. Dubois 1544 

11 Postley 563, 564, 721, • 1557 

v Sellon 169 

Leggo v. Richards 2060 

Leggott v. Barrett 1665 

Legh r. HaVerfield 380, 860 

v. Hewitt 1655 

v. Holloway 1148 

Le Grand v- Hampden Sidney 

College 20 

r. Whitehead 1368 

Le Grange v. McAndrew 3d 

Le Heup, Ex parte 347 

Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co. 

v. Central R Co. 1743 

Lehigh R Co. v McFarlan 361, 

797, 1682 



Lehman 11 Dozier 

v. Ford 
Lehmann v. McArthur 
Lehmans v Ford 
Lehuoti v. Fisher 
Leicester, Ex parte 

v. Leicester 



1551 
1548 
1081, 1889 
1553 
1591 
1825 
816 



Earl ol v. Perry 606, 1558 

I Leigb, Re 1594 

Re, Leigh v. Leigh 108 

I »' Birch 720, 721, 722 

I »• Boyd 880 

v. Clark 1676 

» Everhart 563 

!'• Leigh 369, 1660 

v Macaulay 1774, 1776 

v. Thomas 236, 24o 

v. Turner 637, 638, 697, 1312 

Leighton v Lelghton 1427,1661, 

1682 

v Merrill 13«1 

v Orr 852 

» Young 313. 1621 

Leitch v Abbott 324, 328 666 

v Cumpston 1029, 1602 

v Wells 281 

11 Wentworth 1661 

Leite v Johnston 801 

v Vicmi 627 819 

Leitendorfer 11 King 310 

Leitn, He 1769 

Lei t ham 11 Cuoick 1631 

Leland v. Griffith 1287 

Leman v. Alie 1385, 1405 

v Newnham 465 

Lemaster r Burkhart 361, 849, 862 

Lemheek v Nye 1638 

Leinmon r Dunn 256 

Lemoine v. Garston 1648 

Lemon, Re 68 

v Yorkshire Waggon Co. 405 

Lcnaghan v. Smith 181, 183, 217, 

219 

Lenders v. Anderson 449 

Le Neve r. Le Neve 675 

V. Norris 1576 

Leng v. Hodges 1795 

Lengsfield v. Richardson 673 

Lennon v Napper 1658 

v Porter 261 

Lenoir v Winn 418 

Lenox v. Mitchell 1469 

v Netrebe 169 



lxxvi 



Lent v. Padelford 
Lentilhon 0. Moffat 
Lenton v Brudenel 
Lenz v. Prescott 
Leo v Lambert 
v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. 

Leonard v. Atwell 

v. Cook 

v. Groome 

v Jamison 

v. Ozark Land Co. 

v. White 

v. Wildes 
Leon N Bank v Gill 
Leopard v People 
Leroy v. Dickinson 
Le Roy v Servis 

V. \ eeder 
Leslie v. Baillie 

v. Cave 

v. Leslie 
Lespinasse v. Bell 
Lesquire v. Lesquire 
Lester v Archdale 

v. Bond 

v- Garland 

v Mathews 



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



363 
303 
1209 
334 
1713 
26, 314, 
1614, 2398 
1686 
1517 
214 
1568 
2398 
1551 
1260 
1461 
1556 
1669 
547 
392, 547 
128 
579 
349, 728 
1738 
282 
809 
449 
67 
974, 1584, 1585 
Le Texier u. Auspach, Margrave 

of 184 

v Anspach, Margrave and 

Margravine of 145 

v. Anspach, Margravine of 15 



Lewis, Re 
v. Allenby 
v. Armstrong 
V. Baird 
Baldwin 



Letliem V. Hall 
Lethley v. Taylor 
Lett, lie 

v. Morris 

v. Parry 

v Randall 
Leucke v. Tredway 
Leuty v. Hillas 
Levan v. Patton 
Le Ya.-seur v Scratton 
Levenson v Elson 
Lever v. Goodwin 

v. Heritage 
Leverich v Adams 
Leverick v. Meigs 
Leveridge v. Marsh 
Levert V Redwood 



loi, 
299.378 
1355 
181 
1446 



Levett v Letteney 
Levi v Evans 
v Heritage 



385, 722 

527 

559 

231 

1625 

119 

1730 

1648, 1649 

808, 810, 815 

1355 

325 

214 

526, 881, 1296, 

1314 

1046 

536, 630 

159, 808, 810, 

815 

513 

52,68 

178, 841 

863 

868 



l> Ward 

Levine v, Taylor 

Levmg v. Caverly 

Levisay v Delp 

Leviston v French 

Levitt v. Levitt 8!>3 

Levv, Re, Levin v. Levin 894 

v. Baillie 1130 

t Uvy 163. 1075 

v. Milne 1129 

v. ?.hrevpport 1661 

v Stfinbach 1625 

r Wa.ker 1655, 1660 

I^wark v Carter 1282 

Lewarne t'. Mexican Int'l Imp 

Oo 559, 2398 

Lewellin v. Cobbold 431 

n Mackworth 1581, 1584 

Lewen v Stone 1961 

l#wer Earl of v Barnett 157 

Lewers v. Shaftsbury, Earl of 1081, 
1889 



v. Bank of Kentucky 
v. Brass 
v. Campau 
v Clewes 
v Clowes 



I/ewes, Re 

> Morgan 
Lewin, lie 

v. Allen 

v. Guest 

V Jones 

V. Moline 

v Wilson 
Lewin's Trust, Inre 



850, 1389, 1795 

1255, 1684 

41 

268 

1220, 1408 

710 

972 

652 

104, 107, 2001 



61, 94,299 

993, 1436, 1588 

1380, 1602 

617,716 

452, 453, 536 



24 
561 
1463 
640 
980 



Cocks 552, 556, 630, 1071, 1699 



v Cooper 
v. Darling 
v. Davies 
v. Duncombe 
v. Dwight 
r Edmund 
v. Evans 
v. Fielding 
v. Fullarton 
v. Glass 
v. Godman 
V- Hawkins 
v. Herndon 
v. Hiuton 
v. James 
v King 
v_ Lewis 



602 

232, 287, 418 

1835 

653 

1254 

336 

1453 

679 

1642, 1645, 1646 

1551 

1195 

278, 815 

989 

1027 

889, 1776 

1772 

372, 974, 1302 

1817 



Londesborough, Earl of 
Loper 



334 
Loxham 1405 

v Maris 875 

o. Marshall 641 

v. Mason 843 

v Matthews 438, 1428 

v. Mew 281 

v. Mohr 545 

v. Morland 468 

v. Nangle 216 

v Nobbs 68, 69 

v Outlaw 171, 839, 1509, 1540, 
1546 
v. Owen 841, 844, 92.5 

v Pennington 575 

v. Pleasants 1580 

V- Providence 1650 

v. St Albans Iron Works 334 

v. Shainwald 389 

v Simonton 740, 1031 

v Smith 1466, 1600, 1651, 1676 
1661 



v Spencer 

v Thomas 1079 

n. Trask 1411 

v. Webber 1391 

v. Wilson 1463 

v Zouche, Lord 1738 

Lewis's v. Goodbody 1648 

v Lewis 974 

Lewisburg Bank v. Sheffey 1019 

Lewi.-ton Falls Manuf Co. v. 

Franklin Co 388 

Lexington Natl Bank v. Guynn 1661 

Trustees of v. McConnell 20 

Ley t>. Cox 1157 

v. Ley 1"38 

Leycester v Logan 1626 

v. Norris 203, 152 1 

Levland V. Ley land 417, 1524 

Lh'oneux v. Hong Kong & S 

Banking Co. 27 

Libby v. Hodgdon 144 

v Norris 243 

ji Scherman 860 

Lichfield, Earl of v. Bond 717. 763 

Lichtenauer v. Cheney 314, 409, 41 1 , 

2382 

Lick v Ray }624 

Lidbetter v Long 598, 14H0 

v. Smith 1275 

Liddall v Nicholson 893, 1801 

Liddell, lie, Liddell v. Liddell 168 

v. Liddell 1726 

l, MVickar 1231, 1235 

Lidney & Wigpool Iron Co. 

v Bird 27, 1444, 1794 

Liebig's Cocoa Works Limited, 
lie 149 



Liebig's Extract of Meat Co. B 

Hanbury 1649 

Liebmann v. McGraw 418 

Liebstein v. Mayor of Newark 1661, 

1677 

Life Association v. Boogher 1644 

Ligan v. Henderson 314 

'.i^gett r. Glenn 576, 634 

Liggon r Smith 778 

Light v Governor 933 

v. Light 9, 83, 86 

Lightbourne v Holyday 116 

Lightburn r. Swift 1276 

Lightfoot v Bass 186 

v. Price 1260 

Like v Beresford 104. 1599 

Lillard v. Porter 4<>3 

Lilley. Re 1605 

v. Allen 1775 

Li Hie v Legh 1490 

v Lillie 27, 28, 29 

LMiendahl v. Detwiller 334 

Lillienthal !■ Washburn 689,843 

Lima& H F. Ry Co., Re 1591 

Limehouse Works Co., Re 1026 

Lincoln » Bassett 58, 60 

v. Purcell 549 

v Rut. & Bur R. R Co. 1560, 

1561 

v. Windsor 1234, 12&5, 1413, 1414 

v. Wright 655, 657, 712, 921, 

922, 1001, 1590 

Bishop of v Ellis 869 

Lind v Isle of Wight Ferry Co 

1650, 1831 

Linder v. Lewis 224, 517 

Lindesay v. Lindesay 1573 

Lindlev v. Cravens 288 

v. Russell 334 

Lindsay, Ex parte 1069 

v. American M Co. 1716 

v Eth ridge 1668 

v. Gibbon 1166 

v. Homerton 1235 

v. Lindsay 652 

v. Lynch 384, 408, 847, 860, 861 

ii. Rankin 675 

v. Tyrrell 37, 39, 75, 1474, 1483 

Petroleum Co v. Hurd 850 

Lindsey v. 1731 

v Stevens 740 

v Western Mutual Aid Society 378 
Lindsley v. James 145 

v. Personette 586 

Liney v . Wetherley 9 

Linford v. Cooke 1796 

Ling v. Colman 248, 253 

Lingan v Henderson 182, 379, 385, 
457, 532, 618, 734, 885, 933, 1005 
Lingen v Simpson 1829 

Lingood v. Croucher 297, 298 

Lingwood r. Stowmarket Paper- 
Making Co. 1639, 1672, 2308 
Link v. Jarvis 417 
Linley I) Taylor 1428, 1528 
Linn v. Carson 408 
v. Green 324 
v Wheeler 1675 
Linnell v Battey 1624 
Linton v Denham 1677 
v. Mayor of Athens 1661 
Linwood v Andrews 1069 
Linzee v Mixor 1654 
Lippencott v. Ridgway 837 
Lippiat 1' Holley 796 
Liupincott v. Shaw Carriage Co. 

1411 
Lippitt v American Wood 

Paper Co. 1051 

Lipscomb v. Palmer 1861 

Lisbon Steam Tramways Co., Re 905 
Lishey v Lishey 

v. Smith 550 

Listen ?■ Reave 197, 325 

List's Case 1069 

List Pub. Co v Kellel 1643 

Lister v , Bell 1336 






Lister v Leather 

v Lister 

v. Meadowcroft 

V Muudell 

v Sherringham 

v Thompson 

v Wood 
Lister's Hospital, Re 
Litch v Clinch 
Litchfield v. Ballou 

v Jones 
Lithgow !> Lyon 



Little, Re, Harrison v. Harrison 

100 

v. Archer 584 

v Buie 295 

v. Cooper 548 

t< Dusenberry 1743 

v. Knox 1556 

v. Merrell 1249, 1550 

v. Parkfield C. Co. 1650 

v Price 1640 

v. Stephens 694, 830 

Littlehales v Gascoyne 1418 

Littlejohn V. Attrill 1638 

v. Muun 733, 784 

Littler v. Thomson 887, 1070 

Littlewood i». Collins 798, 79:) 

Litton i> Armstead 312 

v Litton _ 1256 

Liverpool v Chippendall 771, 784 

& G. \V Steam Co. v Pboeuix 

Ins Co. 546 

Household Stores Ass'n v. 

Smith 1613 

Marine Credit Co v. Hunter 47 

Mayor, &c, of v Chorley 

Waterworks Co 1636 

Livesay v. Feamster 1675 

Livesey v. Harding 1265. 1696 

v. Livesey 171, 1316, 1522 

v. Wilson 781 

Livey v. Winton 402, 1551 

Livingston v. Kreelaud 1522 

v. Gibbons 536, 828 

v. Harris 563, 564, 721 

v. Hayes 418 

v. Hubbs 1577, 1578, 1579, 1581, 

1582, 1583 
v. Kane 634, 815, 816 
v Livingston 392, 547. 549. 

555, 760, 1631, 1676 
v Lvnch 24 

v Marshall 418 

v Maryland Ins. Co 50 

v Met El. Ry. Co 1320 

v Noe 164, 1276, 1577, 1578, 

1583, 15"<4 
v Story 313, 547, 628, 787 
v. Tompkins 563, 1657 
v Van Ingen 1613, 1613 

Living-tone v Cooke 510 

Llanelly Ry. Co. v. London & 

N W Ry Co. 671 

Llangynog Lead Mining Co , 

Re 26 

Llanover v Homfray 868, 870 

Llewellyn v. Badeley 1824 

Lloyd, Re 1041 

Re, Allen v Lloyd 75, 1732 

v. Adams 1556, 1557, 1624, 1625, 

1664 

v Attwood 675 

v. Brewster 379, 381, 385, 402, 408, 

424, 426, 1450 

v. Cheetham 1053, 1730 

v Cross 436, 437 

v. Davies 75 

v Dimmack 267,269 

t; Griffith 1262 

v. Gurdon 1651, 1665 

v. Hicks 986 

v Johnes 228, 229, 265, 266, 1276, 

1519, 1520, 1521 

v .Jones 3*3 

v. Kirkwood 1584 

v Lauder 157, 255 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

791, 1599 Lloyd v. Lloyd 431, 1233, 1423 

1047 1157 v Loaring 24, 25, 236, 238, 239, 

289 245, 289, 405. 419, 597 

1133 v- London, Chatham, and Do- 

1426 ver Ry Co. 1650, 1654. 1657 

720 v. Maheam 403 

2315 v. Mason 106, 1742, 1846, 2001 

311, 1852 i>. Mytton 183 

850, 1548 v. Passingham 1103, 1720, 1721 

328 v Pennie 888 

578 ! v. Pughe 117 

1257 v. Purves 1831 

v. Smith 223, 267, 606, 669 

v. Solicitors and General Life 

Assurance Co 593, 690, 756, 831 

V. Spillet 1415 

v Trimleston 1725 

v. Waring 58, 65, 1512 

v. Whitty 15li9 

v Williams 106, 1258 

Loader v. Price 1528 

Loames v. Edge 1889 

Lock v. Armstrong 668 

v Bagley 403, 405 

v Foote 171,839 

v. Lomas 710 

v. vvilson 646 

Locke v. Bennett 551 

v. Colman 1121, 1122, 1124, 1139 

v. Sioux, &c Ky. Co 879 

Lockett v. Cary 1827 

v Lockett 722, 724, 727, 857 

v Rumbough 236 

Lockey v. Lockey 641 

Lockhard v. Brodie 573 

Lockhart v Cameron 115 

v City of Troy 1669, 1677 

v. Gee 123:» 

v. Reilly 2116 

Lockier v Smith 1772 

Locking v Parker 649, 652 

Lockley v Pye 1130 

Loekman v Reilly 214 

Lockwood v. Cleveland 1029, 1551, 

1576 

v Fenton 1350 

v. Kitteringham 1624 

v. London <& North Western 

Railway Co 1081 

v. Nye 633 

Loder o Whelpley 576 

Lodge v Pritchard 1232, 1250, 1419 

v. Twell 1029 

Loeb v. Willis 659 

Loeustein v. Biernbaum 1699 

Lofland v. Coward 797, 1120 

Loftus v. Swift 1237, 1385, 1391, 1393 

Logan v. Coorg, Princess of 1731 

v. Fairlie 201,250, 1*50 

v Grant 497, 531 

v Greenlaw 634 

v. McCall Pub. Co. 2127 

V. Steele 906 

v. Troutman 1234 

v Weinholt 1254 

Login v Coorg, Princess of 1144 

Loinsworth v Rowley 825 

Loker v. Rolle 370, 545, 547, 552 

Lomas v. Wright 1934 

Lomax v. Hide 214, 277, 278, 1245, 

1388. 1389 

Lombard v Morse 68, 83, 109, 405 

Inv. Co v Carter 1770 

Lomerson v. Vroom 243 

London v. Att.-Gen. 12 

v. London 1165 

v Mitford 1)358 

v. Nash 1660 

V.Perkins 274,341,870 

v. Pugh 1655 

v Richmond 207. 257 

v Thomson 1819 

v Wilmington 1661 

Bishop of v Fytche 564 

v. Nicholls 84, 208 

Corp. of v. Liverpool, Corp. 

of 607 



lxxvii 



London, Corp. of v. Southgate 1080 
Mayor of i>. Ainsiey 563 

v. Bolt 1665 

v. Hedger 1656 

v. Levy 566, 583, 584, 611, 1558 
Association v Londou & In- 
dia Docks Joint Committee 12 
Ast>uiaiice t' East ludia Co. 590, 
601 
&c. R. Co v Lancashire, &c 

R. Co. 1631 

&c. Ry. Co. v Imperial Mer- 
cantile Credit Association 602 
»; Kirk 573 

Bank v. Hart 888- 915 

Birmingham & Bucks Rail- 
way, Re 1440, 14-50 
& Birmingham Ry. Co v. 
Grand J unction Canal Co 1008, 
1070 
v. Winter 380, 853, 861 
& Blackwall Ry Co. v Cross 211, 
354 
v. Limehouse Board of Works 424, 
1379, 1602, 1671 
Brewery Co v. Teuueut 1080 
Brighton, and South Coast 

Ry. Co , Re 1852, 1855 1856 

& C. B Co. v Lewis 1651 

Chartered Bank of Australia 

v Lempriere 100, 187, 328, 

3s2 

and Chatham Ry Co., Ex 

parte 1800 

C. &. D. Ry Co. v. Land Fi- 
nanciers 1775 
Chatham, and Dover Ry Co. 
v Imperial Mercantile Credit 
Assoc 596, 1671 
Chatham, & Dover Ry v 
South-Eastern Ry. 542, 671, 
1378 
and Colonial Co. v Elworthy 807 
and County Assurance Co., 

Re 1327 

and County Banking Co. v. 

Bray 87 

& County B. Co. v. Dover 1264 
Flour Co , Re 1070 

Gas Light Co )'. Spottiswoode 269 
Joint Stock Bank i> Mayor 

of London 391 

& Lancashire Paper Mills Co , 

Re 942 

Monetary Advance Co. v. 

Bean 528 

Monetary Advance and As- 
surance Co v Brown 998 
& N. W. Ry. Co., Ex parte 1794 
t; Evans 1632 
and North-Western Railway 

v. Lancaster, Corp. of 1774 

& P. Bank v. Bogle 187, 189 

& Prov Ins. Co. v Seymour 664 
Road Car Co v. Kellv 39 

Steam Dyeing Co. v. Digby 1008, 
1395 
& S. W. Ry. Co Ex parte 1610 
& S. W. Bank v Facey 1735 

Syndicate v Lord 1781 

v Love 1777 

Tilbury, & S. Ry. Co. v- 

Kirk 720 

Waterworks Co , Ex parte 1610 

& Y Bank v Pritt 1655 

Londonderry, Lady, v Baker 5!»8, 

659, 661 

t' Bramwell 821 

Londonderry and Enniskillen 

Ry. Co t» Leishman 554 

Lonergan v. Illinois Cent. R Co. 357 
Long, Re 161 1 

vBilke 1182,1133 

v. Bowring -- 1 ' 

v. Bullard H20 

v. Burton 403, 1552 

t' Crossley 406, 1534 



lxxviii 



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



Long v. Dickinson 190 

v Dupuy 270 

r Grauberry 1542,1577,1578, 

1579 

r Ilitclicock 11"1 

r. Jarratt 1274 

ii Kee 1051 

v Long 1031, 12.54, 1255. 1276 

V McGregor 385 

v. Majestre 322, 323.324 

v. Smith 1625 

v. Stone 1514 

i>. Storie 202, 204, 632, 637. 796, 

797, 811 

v Tampico, The 141 

o. Tardy 30 

v- Totteuham 30 

v Welter 1282 

v. White 108, 847 

n Yonge 243 

Dock Co v. Bentley 1618 

Longbottoui v. Pearee 96 

Longboume v. Fisher 1169 

LougJeudale Cotton Spinning 

Co., Re 798 

Long.ellow v Longfellow 993 

Longinotto v Morss 1404 

Longman v Winchester 1645, 1646 
Longmire v Fain 1320 

Lougwood Valley R Co v 

Baker 1662 

Longworth v Bellamy 182, 445, 452 

v Flagg 995 

v. Hunt 645 

v Taylor 280,406,422,539 

Lonsdale v. Moies 1296 

Earl of v. Wordsworth 1226 

Lord v. Littledale 297 

Lookout Bank v. Susong 417 

Loonies v Stotherd 1423, 1424, 1425 

Loomis » Fay 840 

Lopez, Ex parte 157 

v Deacon 1826 

Lord, Re 1225, 1859 

v. Bigelow 24 

v. Colvin 885, 891, 896. 919, 977, 

1144, 1469, 1470, 1845, 2130 

v Copper Miners, Gov. & Co. 

ot 242. 243 

v. Kellett 306, 533 

v. Lord 1214, 1225 

v Purchas 1722 

v Thornton 354 

v. Underdunck 230, 287 

v Wardle 1126, 1138 

v Wormleighton 1616, 1843 

Lorentz v. Lorentz 1580 

Lorenz v. Jacobs 1157 

Lorillard ;• Coster 287, 1001 

Lorimer p. Lorimer 805, 811 

Loring v. Marsh 634 

v. Salisbury Mills 197 

v. Steinman 850 

v. Thomdike 1560, 2334 

Lorton V Kingston 429 

v Seaman 1590 

Lorwall v. Gridley 405 

Lorway v. Lousada 629 

Los Angeles ?\ Signoret 367 

Loscombe V Russell 332 

Loskey v Reid 1355 

Lothbury v Brown 1142 

Lothrop c Commercial Bank 24 

Lottery Co. v Clark 1378 

Lottinier r Lord 1715 

Lou bier v Cross 1582 

Loud v Holden 2220 

v Sargent 604 

Louis v Meek 302 

Louisiana National Bank V New 

Orleans 1661 

State Lottery Co. v Clark 1561 

Savings Bank Co , Re 1765 

Louisville, N. O &c. R. Co v 

R. an 1029 

Louisville and R R Co v Stet- 
son 314, 374 



Louisville, Trustees of v. Gray 1680 

Louisville Underwriters v. Pence 779 

Loundes v. Miller 1461 

Louusbun V Purdy l!)61 

Lousada v. Tempter 408, 548, 1559 

Louvall v Gridley 216 

Louvallev Menard 1158 

Love v. Allison 1778 

v Baker 1626 

v. Blewit 1576, 1577, 1578, 1579 

v Braxton 843, 847, 1147 

v. J acorn b 254 

v Keowne 334 

v Morrill 1164 

v. White 641 

Lovedeu v Milford 937 

Luvejoy i' Chapman 1381 

v. Irelan 246, 256 

Lovelaud (,' Garner 840 

Lovell v Andrew 242 

v. Cragin 1548 

v. Farrington 191. 327. 361, 365 

v. Galloway 1458, 1556, 1557, 

1559, 1614, 1625, 1672. 2047, 

2126 

e. Hicks 1486, 1487 

Lovering v King 283 

Loves; v Smith 256, 405 

Lovett, Re, Ambler v. Lindsay 201, 

227, 319 

v. Longmire o'.>0 

v Lovett 106, 107, 1112, 

1114 

r Steam Saw Mill Ass 845 

Loving v Marsh 633 

Lowr Bouverie 26,1398 

v. Carter 1412, 1419 

v Innes 1638, 1672 

t- Mills 1029, 1031 

v. Mussey 633, 659, 800, 994 

V. Rou Hedge 46, 1643 

ti Ward 46, 1646 

Lowden v. Blakey 573 

Lowdon v Hierons 1129 

Lowe v. 1565 

v. Baker 1626 

v. Blake 507 

v Burke 586 

v Farlie 250 

v Firkins 948 1552 

v. Fox 8 1 

v. Holme 1407 

v .lolliffe HOI 

v Lowe 987, 1752 

v- Lucey 1669 

v Morgan 211,212 

v Peacock 633, 1557 

v Richardson 1565 

v Thompson 354 

v Travnor 1147 

v Watson 266. 1526 

v Williams 349,352,593,690, 

727, 756, 765 

Lowell v. Leland 284 

Lowenbein v Fuldner 1657 

Lowenstein )'■ Biernbaum 1381 

V Glidewell 1548, 1553 

Lowery v Craig 123 

Lowes v Lowes 1540 

Lowndes, Re 68 

v. Bettle 1632, 1633, 1682 

v. Chisolm 1242 

v. Collens 1257 

v Cornford 1561 

v. Garnett and Mo=eley Gold 

Mining Co. 590, 610, 617, 618, 



Lowson v Copeland 
Lowten v Colchester 

Lowther v. Andover 

v Carlton 

t'. Heaver 
Loy i' Duckett 
Loyd v. Cardy 

v. Freshfield 

v Hicks 

v Malone 

v Mansell 

v. Spillet 

» Wuittey 
Lozear v Shields 
Lozier v Van Saun 
Lubiere v- Genou 

Lucas ?• Arnold 
i . Bank of Darien 



v. Norton 

v Robertson 

v Taylor 
Lownds v Williams 
Lowry v Armstrong 

v Jackson 

v. Morrison 

V Tew 

v. Williams 
Lows, Ex parte 



1633 

35 

59,225 

1207 

845 

354 

1542 

678 

1463 

970, 979 



v. Bank of Georgia 

v Calcraft 

v. Commerford 

v. Dixon 

v. Evans 

v. Harris 

v Hickman 

v. Holder 

v. King 

v. Lucas 

v. Moore 

v Morse 

v. Oliver 



1418 

477, 1053, 

1528 

999 

675 

417, 1660 

224, 1795 

1700, 1704. 1706 

576 

1029 

164. 174, 1580 

172, 173, 1584 

1415 

1266 

1392, 146.5 

1560, 1564 

868,871, 1189, 

1553 

264 

149, 236, 286, 

844 

24 

1166, 1167 

1660 

365 

568 

1053, 1734 

1698, 1699, 1700 

637 

1151 

169 

1286 

1381 

360 



Peacock 1440, 1449, 1696, 1845 

v Rickerich 128 

v Seale 227 

v. Siggers 634 

?>. Temple 1310, 1449 

v Williams 881 

Bank v. King 1163 

Luce v. Graham 409. 422 

Lucena v Barnewall 2205 

Luckett v. White 346, 347 

Lucknow v. Brown 1358 

Lucton Free School v Smith 4U5 

Luddy's Trustee v. Peard _60 

Ludgater v Cliannell 1757 

Ludlow v. Greenhouse 1461, 1853, 

1854, 1856 

1002, 1577 

1042, 1056 

62 

550, 551 

77 

382, 1399 

329 

407 



v. Kidd 

v. Lansing 

v Ramsey 

v. Simond 
Ludolph v Saxby 
Luff v. Lord 
Lufkin v Galveston 
Luft v. Gossrau 
Luke v 
Co 
Luker v Dennis 
Lull v. Clark 
Lumb 17. Beaumont 

V. Milnes 
Lumley v. Desborough 

v Hughes 

v. Timms 

v. Wagner 
Lumsden v. Fraser 
Lun v Johnson 
Lund v Blanchard 



outh Kensington Hotel 

212, 223 

1596, 1654 

1320 

354, 1817 

122 



28 

230 

1654, 1656, 1663 

287, 289, 569 

837 

25, 268, 288, 

289, 336, 599 

V. Skanes Enskilda Bank 1548 

Lunt v. Stephens ^ 1516 

Lupton v Lupton 76,2012 

v. Stephenson 1732 

v. White 1231, 1241 

Lury v. Pearson 1861, 1862 

Lush, Re 122 

Lush's Trust, Re 92 

Lushington v. Boldero 1630, 1634 

v. Sewell 162, 177 

Lusk v. Thatcher 559 

Luthwich V Attorney-General 133 

Lutterel's Case 67, 1630 

Lutwych v Winford 1275 

Lux t\ Haggin 1639 



Luxton v . Stephens 1383 

Luyties v Holleuder 164S 

Lyall v. Fluker t>5l 

Lydall V. Martinson 292, 9.6 

Lyddon v Ellison 1795 

Lyde v. Eastern Bengal Ry. Co. i43 

Lyell v. Kennedy 59, .354. 408, 571, 

57a, 5/y, bl7, 1556 

Lygon v. Coventry, Lord 1360 

Lyle v. Bradford 280, 390 

v. Ell wood 892 

v. Scarth 1393 

v Yarborough, Earl of 99U 

Lyles v. Hatton 1624 

v. Lyles 1463 

Lyman v. Bonney 26, 144 

Lynch to Chance 1440 

v Hartford Fire Ins. Co. 633, 815 

v. Johnson 342 

v. Lecesne 785, 2129 

v. Macdonald 1071 

v. Morse 881 

v. St. John 1461 

v. Willard 392, 550 



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

Lynchburg Iron Co v. Tayloe 197 

Lvnde v Columbus &c Ry. Co. 

2101 
v. Eastern Bengal Ry. Co. 1620 

Lyndon National Bank v. Wells 

River Manuf Co. 298 

Lyndsay v. Lynch 995 

Lyne v. Lockwood 87!) 

v. Lyne 1163, 1366, 1370 

v. Pennell 1610, 1571 

v. Willis 167 

Lynn v. Beaver 1405, 1426. 1427 

v Bradley 119, 122 

v Buck 1183 

Lyon v Baker 1414 

v. Clark 1254 

v. Colville 642 

v. Oreenbay Ry. Co. 186 

v. Home 852, 1397 

v. Hunt 846 

v. McKenna 1422 

v. McLaughlin 1637 

v. Mercer 176 

v. Park 1542 



Ixxix 



Lyon v Perin & Gaff Manuf. Co. 986 
v. Powell 2b3 

v Saudford 194, 277 

v. Tallmadge 401, 417, 659, 660, 
828, 852, 1019 
v . Tevis 296, 2U8 

v. Tweddell 324, 579, 720 

Lyons, lie 2, 1346 

v. Bienkin 70, 1349 

v. Brooks 713 

v. McCurdy 334 

v. Piper __ 1508 

v. Read 732, 783 

v Van Riper 1546 

Lys v. Lee 1512, 1530, 1540 

v. Lys 1157 

Lysagiit v. Clark 144 

v. Edwards 286 

Lyse v. Kingdon 1411, 1417 

Lyster v. Stickuey 790,1517 

Lyttou v. Great Northern Rail- 
way Co. 1660 
v. Lytton 1580 
v. Steward 1636, 1669, 1677 



M. 



M., Re 

Maber v . Hobbs 

v Maber 
Maberly v. Turton 
Maberry v. Neely 
Mabry v. Churchwell 



508 
883 
646 
1358 
186 
790, 1286 



McCampbell v Brown 

v. Henderson 
M'Campbell v. Gill 
MeCatuy v. Key 
M'Canu v. Beere 



217 

1542 

837, 846 

283 
1825 



McAllister v. Bishop of Roches- 
ter 406 

v. Clopton 837, 846 

M'AUister v. M'Allister 319 

v. Olmstead 1350 

McAlpin v. Jones 1751 

M'Andrew v. Bassett 1380, 1394, 
1395, 1649 
M'Anslan v. Green 1233 

Macarmick v. Buller 98 

M' Arthur V- Dudgeon 1225 

v Kelly 1670 

McArthur v. Matthewson 1638 



v. Scott 

v. Williamson 
Macartney v. Garbutt 

v. Graham 
Macarty v. Gibson 
Macaulay v. Phillips 



200, 216 

2542, 1507 

142 

207, 1394 

1755 

101, 104, 

107 

v. Shackell 565, 566, 1556 

Macauley v Collier 1597 

v. White Sewing Machine Co. 629, 

1507 

McBean v. Chandler 1661 

Macbeath V. Ellis 1132 

Macbeth v. Haldeman 133 

McBride v. Commissioners 1628 

v. Gwynn 1276, 1302 

v. Lindsay 273 

v. Mclntyre 195 

M' Bride v. .Malcomson 1163 

M'Broom v. Somerville 811 

Macbryde v Eykyn 109 

McBurney v. Carson 149 

McCabe v Bank of Ireland 39 

v. Bellowes 214, 216, 334, 

347 

1505 

1517 

121, 191 

1113, 1578 



Maccabe v. Hussey 

McCaffrey v. Benson 

McCaleb v. Crichfleld 

McCall v. Graham 
v. Harrison 
v. McCall 1001 

v. McCurdy 1576 

v. Yard 259, 292 

Maccallum v. Turton 563, 564 

M'Calmont v. Rankin 151, 152, 382, 
1490 

M'Camber v. Oilman 1242, 1245 



McCann v. Borradaile 39, 111, 112 

v South Nashville Street R. 

Co. 1663 

McCarren v. Coosan 790 

McCarron v. Cassidy 1243, 1244 

McOarcer's Estate, Re 1418 

McCarthy, Re 576 

M'Carthy v. Goold 1053, 1730 

McCartin v. Trephagen 249 

McCartney v, Calhoun 341 

v Cassidy 1675 

McCarty v Chalfant 1302 

McCasker v. Brady 1538 

v Golden 114 

McCauley v. Kellogg 1661 

v. Sears 1561 

v. Six 216, 15ii8 

McClanahan v. Davis 547 

v. Henderson 1158 

v. Ware 1677 

v. West 630 

McClane v. Shepherd 669, 830 

McCla^key v. Barr 759 

t; O'Brien 322,127:* 

McClean, Re 74 

McClellan v. McClellan 73 

McClenny v. Ward 517 

Macclesfield, Earl of v. Blake 1292 

v. Bradley 1134, 1138 

McCloskey v. Barr 604, 608 

McClungt). Sueed 560 

v. Steen 790 

McClure v. Farthing 68 

v Harris 989 

M'Comb v. Armstrong 588 

v. Wright 989, 1215, 2261 

McComb v. Chicago, St Louis 

&c. R. Co. 145 

v. Lobdell 860 

v. Spangler 339 

McConihay v. Wright 313 

McConnaughty v Pennoyer 30.3 

McConnel v. Hodson 1550 

v. Holobush 1243, 1244, 1246 

v. Smith 1017, 1541, 

1551 

M'Connell v. Hector 60 

v. M'Connell 190, 314, 384, 1382, 

1407 

M'Connico v. Curzen 1258 

McConomy v. Reed 1299 



McConville v. Gilmour 149 

McCorkle v. Breni 1677 

McCormack v. James 1168, 2394 

McCormick v. Chamberlin 700, 760 

v. Garnett 95, 864 

v. Grogan 1503 

v. Hilbrook 186 

McCormick Harvesting M Co. 

v. Schneider 536 

M'Corquodale v. Bell 573 

M'Coun v. Delauy 9y4 

McCoy v. Allen 322, 991 

v. Boley 212, 686 

v. Broderick 37 

v. Nelson 314 

v. Rhodes 1229 

McCrackan Valentine 1180, 1188 

McOracken v Finley 1578, lo79 

McCrady v. Davie 780 

v. Jones 782, 1299 

McCray v. Lowry 1029 

McOrea v. New York El. R. Co. 208 

M'Crea v. Purmort 373 

M'Cready v. Thomson 1638 

McCredie v. Senior 1462, 1683 

M'Creery v. AUender 46 

McCreery v. Cobb 145, 1556 

McCreight v. Foster 197, 279 

Maccubbin v Matthews 918 

McCulla v. Beadleston 360, 547 

McCullen v. Metropolitan Life 

Ins Co. 1561 

M'Cullochs, He 1347, 1352 

M'Cullnck v. Cotbatch 1286 

v. Dawes 643 

v. Gregory 1284 

McCullough t) Barr 843 

v. Merchants' Loan and Tr 

Co. 1733 

MeCully v. Peel 843 

Mr Daniel James 1579 

r. Marvgold 1147 

McDanieis V. Cutler 1841 

v Harbour 1298 

M'Daniells v. Barnum 386, 844 

McDermot v Blois 68 S 

McDermott v. French 178 

v . Kealy 1023, 1028 

v. Thompson 162 

M'Dermutt v. Strong 236 

Macdonald v. Macfarlane 1525 

v. Shepard 1381 

McDonald v. Asay 1517 

v Burke 1440 

v. Crockett 550 

v. Des Moines Valley R. Co. 991 



lxxx 



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



McDonald v. M'Cleod 844 

v. M Donald 68,844 

v. Mc.Mahon 1507 

v. Mobile Life Ins. Co. 526, 531, 

li)03 

v. Murphee 1661 

v Rehrer 630 

v. S.ilcui Capital F. M. Co. 605 

v. Unaka Timber Co. 1381 

v. Weir 68 

v. Whitney 1580 

v. Willis 892 

v. Yungbluth 1551 

M'Donnel v. Evans 1102 

McDonnell v Eaton 109, 216, 334 

v. Mc.Mahon 1385 

MacDouough v. Gaynor 1699. 1700, 

1703, 1704," 1706, 1708, 1709. 

1712, 1713 

v. O'Flaherty 154 

Macdougal v Purrie: 782 

McDougaid v Dougherty 295, 406, 

424, 1076, 1182, 1298, 1321 

v. Gardiner 26, 242 

v U'illiford 401, 418 

Macdougall v. Gardner 26, 242 

w. Jersey Imperial Hotel Co 243 

McDowell's Appeal 1381 

Mc Dowel, v. Bank of W. & B. 1073 

v. Heath 560 

v. McDowell 1621 

v. Morrell 1580 

v. Perrine 1120, 1580 

M'Dowl v. Charles 113, 118, 560, 

721 

McDufl v. Beauchamp 1512 

M'Elhattan V Howell 91 

McElrath v Pittsburgh, &c. R. 

Co. 1627 

McElroy v. Ludlum 842 

v. Swope 1320 

McElwain v Willis 288, 329, 402, 

408, 419, 558, 1535 

M'Elwee v. Sutton 392, 393, 1457 

M'Evers v. Lawrence 1750 

McEvoy v. Leonard 334 

McEwan v. Crombie 1411 

McEwen v. Broadhead 613, 636, 

637, 695, 697 

v. Butts 1286 

». Zimmer 149 

Macey v Childress 365, 561, 633, 

635, 637, 1548, 1615 

v. Metropolitan Board of Works 

1650 

McFadden 8 Schill 559 

McFarlan v. Rolt 578, 1834 

McFarlai.d, Re 1411 

v. McDowell 1676. 1677 

Marfarlane, Re 1361 

M'Farlane, Re 86 

M'Gachen v. Dew 268 

McGahee v. Gold 1625 

M'Gahee v. Sneed 678 

McGan v. O'Neil 1071 

M'Gnrel v. Moon 485, 716 

M'G.irrah v. Prather 1563 

McGavock v. Bell 164, 1293 

v. Elliott 526 

M'Gee v. Davie 284 

v. McGee 1706, 1707, 1711 

u. Smith 1004, 1631, 1675 

McGehee v. Lehman 1031 

v. Mott 974 

v. Polk 1707, 1708, 1709 

McGillin v. Claflin 536 

M'Gilldowney v- Pemberton 109 

McGillvray v. Moser 1777 

McGinnis v. Erie County 560 

McGlaughlin v O'Rourke 1550 

McGlothlin v. Hemery 378 

McGoldrick r. McGoldrick 213 

M'Gowan v. Hall 784 

v. .'ones 1076 

McGowan v. Middleton 1548 

McGowen v. Young 838, 844, 845 

McGown v. Sandfori 1284 



McGown v. Yerks 


1532 


1533 


v. Yorks 


1:4, 215 


McGrath, Re 


68, 108 


M'Gregor, Ex parte 




1271 


v. Bainbrigge 




1122 


v. Comstock 




1845 


v. McGregor 


227 


1550 


v. Shaw 




29 


v. Topnam 1021,1112, 


1116, 


1124, 


1137, 1139, 


1147, 


1469 


Macgregor v. Cunningham 


1676 


MacGregor v. East India Co. 


622, 




640 


1559 


McGuffey v. McCain 




334 


Mcduffie i'. Planters' Bank 


840 


McGuire v. Circuit Judge 




1548 


)'. Wright 




1^99 


McHan );. Ordway 




324 


M'Hardy v. Hitchcock 


800, 


1780, 
1829 


Macheca v Panesi 




1320 


MacHenry v Daviet 


113, li 


Mc Henry, Re 


157 


1490 


v. Lewis 24c 


,633 


1628 


i . Moore 




1317 



v. New York, P. & 0. R. Co. 26 
Macher v. Foundling Hospital 1656 
Machinists' National Bank v. 

Field 378 

McHugh v. Astrophe 32 

I Mcllvoy v Alsop . 163, 538 

Mcintosh v. Alexander 346 

v. Great Western Ry. Co. 145, 

414 724, 842. 871. 933, 9:35, 

936,938, 939. 1257, 1300. 

1369, 1470, 1822, 1833 

v Ogilvie 1615, 1703 

v. Stewart 1068 

Macintosh v. Townsend 1475 

Mclntvre v. Connell 267, 599, 1038 

v. McDonald 1381 

v. Maucius 564, 1557 

v. Storey 1661 

v. Thomson 2333 

v. Union College, Trustees of 145, 

349, 718, 729, 759, 764 



v. Wright 


360 


Mclver v. Clarke 


385 


M'lver v. Wattles 


630 


Mack v. Spencer 


1642 


Mackall v. Casilear 


378 


v. Mackall 


1580 


v. Richards 


1539, 1676 


v. West 


334 


Mackay v. Dick 


5H1 


McKay v Broad 


230 


v. McKay 


411, 779, 782 


v . Wakefield 


221 


M'Kay v. Smith 


314 


M'Kenire v. Fraser 


873, 875 


M'Kenna v. Everett 


183, 9&5, 936, 




937 


v. George 


270 


v Everitt 


2129, 21H7 


Mackenzie v. Childers 


1654 


v. Coulson 


1966 


v Flannery 


1551 


v. Fox 


334 



v. Mackenzie 893, 1047, 1842 

v. Powis, Marquis of 474, 1057 
v. Taylor 1426 

McKenzie ?'." Ward well 1845 

Mackerell v Fisher 421 

Mackett v. Heme Bay Commis- 
sioners 1070 
M'Keverakin v. Cort 177, 476 
McKewan v. Sanderson 702, 1398 
Mackey v. Bell 994, 1575 
Mackie t> Cairnes 1424 
o. Darling 1771 
McKillop r. Taylor 1686 
McKim v. Odoin 145, 418, 458, 477, 
497. 1067 
v. Thompson 778, 782, 841, 1460. 
1462, 1770, 1771 
v. Voorhes 1627 
McKinley v. Irvine 247 



McKinney v Kuhn 1561 

v Pierce 1248, 1300 

M'Kinnie v. Rutherford 199 

McKiunon v. McDonald 1425 

o. Wolfenden 1461 

Mackintosh, Ex parte 39 

v. Flint & P. M R. Co. 1517 

MeKinzie v. Mathews 1081 

McKleroy v Tulane 385 

Macklin v Richardson 1681 

McKnight v. Walsh 1358, 1369 

McKomb v. Kankey 1061, 1275 

McKusick v. Seymour 1051 

Mackworth v. Briggs 1201 

v. Marshall 158 

v. Penrose 868 

v. Thomas 1254 

McLachlan v. Lord 890 

McLane v. Manning 325 

McLaren, Ex parte 157 

M'Laren v. Charrier 891 

v. Steapp 584 

Maclaren v. Stainton 800, 1596, 

1615, 1627, 1664 

Maclary v. Reznor 1675 

McLaughlin, Re 149, 1596 

M'Laughlin v. Daniel 361 

r. Gilmore 576 

McLaurin r. Wilson 933 

Maclean v. Dawson 201, 203, 449, 

452, 453, 536 

v. Jones 579, 1829 

McLean v. Fleming 1648, 1663 

v. Lafayette Bank 334 

v. McKay 1654 

v. Presley 284 

McLear v. Hunsicker 864, 1250 

M' Lellan v. Crofton 641 

v. Osborne 339, 406 

McLennan v. Johnson 243 

r. Kansas City &c R. Co. 894 

M'Leod v. Annesley 218, 220, 226, 

280 

v Lyttleton 403 

v. Phelps 1741 

Macleod v. Buchanan 1696 

MLin v. M'Namara 399, 857, 971, 

992, 1599 

?•. Robinson 1623 

McLure v. Colclough 784 

McMahon v Burchell 327, 855, 856, 

984, 1003. 1929 

v Rawlings 318 

v. Rooney 324. 517 

v. Sisson 807 

McMaken v. McMaken 233, 287 

McMann v. Westcott 418 

McManus v. Cooke 365, 847 

M'Mechen v. Story 413 

Mc.Michael v. Brennan 779 

McMicken v. Perin 1019, 1175, 1302 

McMillan B Baxley 559 

v Lauer 1638 

v. N. Y. Waterproof Paper 

Co. 1961 

V. Otis 860 

v. Richards 652 

M'Millan v. Eldridge 1463 

McMillin v. St. Louis & M. V. 

T.Co. 314 

McMinn )' Phipps 1291 

McMinnville, Sue. R. Co. If. Hug- 
gins 1613, 1662 
McMish v. Richardson 547 
M'Morris v. Elliot 728 
Mc Mullen v. Richie 664, 1553 
Mc.Murray v. Van Gilder 303 
Macnab v. Mensal 490 
Macnaghten v, Boehm 1470 
McNair v. Pope 1734 
t'. Toler 52 
McNairy v. Eastland 378 
v. Mayor of Nashville 1491 
M'Namara v. Arthur 995 
v. Dwyer 254, 1704, 1707, 1709 
1713 
v Irwin 1668 



Macnamara v. Sweetman 361 

M'Naughtan v. Hasker 795, 1380 

M'Naughten's Case lloO 

McNaugntou v. Osgood 1110 

McNeil v. OaU 1258, 1391, 1392 

V. Garratt 1673, 1686 

v. Magee 569, 847 

M'Neill v. Cahill 994 

v. Masterson 216 

Macnet v. Macnet 1350 

M'.Vew v. Toby 329 

McNitt v. Logan 675 

McNultat) Lockridge 1743 

MePhee v. Veal 1663 

McPherson v. Cox 563, 1845 

v. Horsel 444 

v. Israel 1234 

v. Rathbone 907 

v. Rockwell 1491 

v. Watt 852, 1841 

McPike v. Pen 1624 

v. Wells 149, 191 

M'Queen v. Farquhar 675, 1402. 

1403 

MoQuigan v. Delaware L. & W. 

R. Co. 1556 

Maequire v. O'Reilly 328 

McRae, Re 254, 324, 1342 

v. London, Brighton, and 

South Coast Ry. Co, 1080,1081 

Macrae, Re, Foster v. Davis 1722 

v. KUerton 1390 

v. Smith 800, 1615 

Mac Kite v. Holdsworth 1643 

v. McRea 251 

v. Wood 1125 

McRea, Re, Norden v. McRea 237 

v Atlantic, &c. R. R. Co. 1619 

v David 779, 781 

McReightti. Aitken 83 

Macreth v. Nicholson 443, 453, 536 

McSween v. McCown 1168 

Mactier v. Osborn 565 

McTighe v. Dean 1780 

McVeagh, Re, McVeagh v. Cro- 

all 1177, 1209, 1474, 1825 

McVeigh v United States 62 

McVey v. Rrendel 1648 

M'Vicar v. Wolcott 1463 

McWhirtertf. Halsted 1561 

McWhorter v. McMahan 860 

v. Standifer 986 

Mc Williams v. Morgan 1666 

MeWorterv Benson 1233 

Mad Plank Road Co. v. Wat. 

Plank Road Co 611 

Maddeford v. Austwick 1231 

Maddisoa i>. Alderson 655, 847 

v Chapman 1428 

V. Pye 1430 

Maddox v Apperson 1584 

v Maddox 675 

Madeley v. White 1381 

Maden v. Catanach 887 

v. Veevers 678 

Maderias v Cutlett 194 

Madgwick v. Wimble 1729 

Madison Avenue Baptist Church 

v. Oliver Street Baptist Church 

1239 

Madison University v. White 1073 

Madox v- Jackson 203, 267, 271, 

282 

Madrazzo, Ex parte 130 

Magan v. Magan 398, 496, 1589 

Magarity v. Shipman 1320, 1381 

Magbee V. Kennedy 8!K) 

Magdalen College v Athill 342 

v. Sibthorp 292 

Magee p. Magee 630 

Magennis v. Parkhurst 1686 

Maggi. Re 1257 

He, Winehouse v. Winehouse 1034 

Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City 

Co. 570, 1320 

Magill, lie 1069 

v. Kauffman 1118 

VOL. I. f 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Magill v. Mercantile Trust Co. 790 

Maguay p. Davidson 203 

v. Knight 1133 

v. Mines Royal Co. 1614, H25 

Magnus v. National Bank 05y, 1685 

Magnusson v. Charleson 1168 

Magrane v. Archbold 1658 

Magrath v. Muskerry, Lord 1658 

Maguire v. Allen 1718 

v. Maddiu 14ti6 

v. Maguire 186 

Mahalm v. M'Cullagh Life Ass. 

Co. 1440 

Mahan v. Brown 1638 

v Cavender 10 Tl 

Mahaney v. Lozier 734, 737 

Mahaska County State Bank v 

Christ 402, 1551 

Mahler v. Schmidt 334 

Mahuke v. Neale 1073 

Mahon, Re 864 

v. Crothers 1719 

Mahoney v. Frasi 1135, 1139 

Mahony v. Widows' Assurance 

Fund 573 

Mahurin v. Bickford 1255 

Mail Co. v. Flanders 1459 

Main v. Main 1029 

Maine Wharf v. Custom-house 

Wharf 1639 

Mainland v. Upjohn 260 

Mai u price v. Pearson 53 

Mair v. Himalaya Tea Co. 1667 

Maitland v. Backhouse 1651, 1672 

v. Rodger 492, 525 

v. Wilson 677 

Major v. Aruott 359, 724 

v. Auckland 59 

v. Fickiin 737 

6. Major 1014, 1411, 1600 

Makepeace v. Haythorne 197, 301, 

302, 305 

v Rogers 551 

v. Romieux 354, 785 

Makepeice v. Dillon 469 

Makings v. Makings 1422 

Malan v. Young 984 

Malcolm v. Andrews 1698 

v. Montgomery 1734 

v O'Caliaghan 1745, 1747 

v. Scott 855, 856, 1491 

Maiden v. Fyson 1403 

Malev v. Shattuck 50 

Mali Ivo, The 633 

Malin v. Malin 86, 193, 220, 294 

v. Tavlor 1127 

Mating 'v. Hill 1403 

Matins v. Greenway 308, 1527, 

15'J9 

v. Price 1137, 1148, 1440 

Mallabar v. Mallabar 1419 

Mai lack v. Galton 167, 1S7 

Mallett v Dexter 1997 

Mallory Manuf. Co. v. Fox 1434, 

2396 

Mallow v. Hinde 149, 151, 216, 290 

v. Kelley 852 

Malmesbury Ry. Co. v. Budd 671, 

1862 

Malone v. Malone 1119 

v, Morris 951 

Maloney v. Dewey 1620 

Malony, Re 224 

v. Kernan 612 

v. Kourke 212 

Malpas v. Ackland 249 

Malthis v. Town of Cameron 1661 

Man v. Rickets 58, 65. 159.398. 873, 

876, 985, 1075, 1275, 1283, 

1383, 1407, 1502, 1503, 1504, 

1512 

Manatt v Starr R43 

Manaudes » Mann 560 

Manbv, lie 307, 809 

v. Bewicke 28, 358, 579, 866, 867, 

889,1003,1004 1822, 

1823, 1831 



lxxxi 



Manby v. Manby 


643 


v. Owen 


1681 


v. Robinson 


1562, 1567 


Manchester v. Day 


1677 


v. Dey 


1669 


v Mathewson 


1546 



Manchester College v. Isher- 

wood 797 

Manchester, Duke of v. Bon- 
ham 1431 
Manchester Fire Ass. Co v. Stock- 
ton C. H. & A. Works 145, 547 
v Wykes 1558 
Manchester & L. R. Co. v. Con- 
cord R. Co 564 
Manchester and Leeds Ry. Co., 

Re 1605 

Manchester New College, Re 1854, 
1855, 1856 
Manchester Railway v. Worksop 

Board 1635 

Manchester and Sheffield Ry. 
Co. v. Worksop Board of 
Health 741, 769, 770, 775, 1638 
Manchester & Stafford Ry. Co. 

v. How 448 

Mandell v. Green 1411 

Mandeno v. Mandeno 1264, 1433, 
1456 
Mander v. Falcke 1654, 1685 

Manderson v. Commercial Bank 26, 
144 
Mandeville r. Harman 1655 

v. Mandeville 1722 

v. Reynolds 861 

v. Riggs 190, 273 

v. Wilson 641 

Maugan t. Met. E. S. Co. 1071, 

1463 
Manhattan Co. v. Evertson 678, 

1171 
v. Wood 1648 

Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v War- 
wick 51 
Manhattan Man & Fert. Co. v. 

N. J. Stockyard Co. 1662 

v. Van Keuren 1662 

Maniere v. Leicester 516, 819 

Manigalt v. Deas 1576 

Manion v. Fahey 987, 1575 

v. Titsworth 123 

Manisty v. Kenealy 628, 1072 

Mankel v. Belscamper 385 

Mauks v. Holroyd 394 

Mauleverer v. Warren 178 

Manley v. Robinson 1563 

v Slason 1032 

Manlove v. Ball 1245 

r. Burger 1751 

Manly v. Bewicke 2114 

Mann t>. Appel 328, 552 

0. Bruce 255 

v. Butler 190, 238 

t>. Edwards 860 

v. Flower 1618 

v. Higgins 120, 334 

V. Richardson 633, 999, 1224, 

1248 

v. Ricketts 1017, 1022 

t'. Stennett 1767 

i'. Stephens 324 

v. Utica 1624 

r Ward 885 

v. Wilkinson 2310 

v. Young 1591 

Manners r. Charlesworth 1156, 1159 

v. Furze 1291, 1722, 

1737 

0. Johnson 1654, 1662 

?'. Manners 1151 

v. Mew 674 

Manning v Gloucester 301, 315 

v. Klein 243 

v. Lechmere 862, 1230 

v. Manning 726, 1238 

v. Pursell 877 

v. Thesiger 226, 238 



lxxxii 



Marios v. De Tastet 390 

Mausel v Clauricarde 901 

Mansell v. Feeuey 327, 356, 485, 

590, 618, 620, 624, 701, 716, 788, 

1822, 1823, 1824, 1829 

Manser v. Dix 572, 578, 1834, 

v. Jenner 1669 

Mansfield v. Gambril 720 

v. Green 1801 

v Shaw 1665 

v. Shi up 1562 

v. Whatcum First Nat Bank 

1770 
Mansfield, C. & L. M. Ry Co. 

v Swan 1427 

Mansfield, Earl of v. Ogle 1036, 1266 
Mauson v Burton 815 

Mansony v. Bank 1463 

Mansur v. Pratt 68, 161 

Mansy v. Mason 856 

Mant v. Leith 1418 

Mantle v. Noyes 2081 

Mauton v. Bates 1130 

v Man ton 1052 

v. Hoe 236, 794 

Many v. Beekman Iron Co 145, 334 
Mapes v. Coffin 1459, 1489, 1401 



TABLE OF CASES CTTED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Marling 1>. Stonehouse & Nails- 
worth Ky. Co. 231, 279, 1731 



Maple v. Shrewsbury 
Mapleson v. Bentham 

v. Massini 
Marasco I). Bolton 
Marble Co. v. Ripley 
March v. Davison 

t). Eastern R. Co. 



Marlow v. Barlow 186 

Marouey v. O'Dea 1240 

Marquis of Londonderry t>. 

Rhoswydol Lead M. Co. 406 

Marr v. Littlewood 1726 

v. Southwick 1258, 125'J 

Marriage v. Skiggs 1400, 1615 

Marrigauld v. beas 986 

.Marnot v. Marriot 664 

Marriott v Anchor Reversionary 

Company 944, 945 

v. Chamberlain 576. 579 

v. Kirkham 215, 1266 

v Marriott 347, 1384 

Marrow, Be 1389, 1610 

Marryatt v. Marryatt 316, 1779 

Marsack v. Reeves 

Marsden, Be 

v. Blundell 

v. Bound 

Marselis v. Morris Canal, &c. 



Martin, Be 
v. Atkinson 
v. Baldwin 
v. Beauchamp 
v D'Arcy 
v. Dwelly 
v. Foley 
v. Fust 
v. Gilleylen 
v. Gleasou 
v. Graves 
v. Greene 
v Hadlow 



1794 

1654 

154 

1667 

1663 

563, 566, 570, 

1557 

26, 238, 245, 

670, 1628, 2185, 2196 

v. Head 105 

v. Ludlum 573 

Marchaut v Marchant 1739 

Marco v. Low 1627, 1628 

Marcos v. Pebrer 336 

Marcus Sayre Co. v. Bernz 196 

Marder v. Wright 378 

Mare v. Earle 1398 

v. Lewis 1841 

V Malachy 240 

v. Sandford 1398 

v . Warner 1398 

Margetson v. Wright 1643 

Margetts v. Perks 336 

Margrave v. Le Hook 213, 330 

Maria v. Hall 49 

Maries v. Maries 307 

Marine Bank v Biays 1245 

Marine Ins Co. v. Hodgson 1621, 

1623 

v St Louis, &c. Ry Co. 197 

Marine Inv Co. v. Haviside 881 

Marine Mansions Co., Be 

Marine & Fire Ins., &c. t 

Early 

Marine & R. P. &c. Co. v. Brad- 
ley 553 
Marion v. Titswortb. 121 
Marke v. Locke 430, 431 
Markell v. Kasson 1548 
Marker v Marker 1633 
Markham, Be 1461 
v . Augier 1625 
v. Howell 1628 
v. Middleton 1130, 1141 
v. Smith 2K2 
v Townsend 1296 
Markle v. Markle 178, 500 
Marks v Beyfua 581 
v. Fox 1320 
v. Jaffa 1643 
v Murphy °8 fi 
Marks A W. C. Co v. Wilson 1381 
Maikwell, Be 1852 
Mark wick v Hardingham 651 
v Pawson 793 
Marlatt v. Smith 1311 
t; Warwick 886, 1180, 1289, 1540. 
1545 
Marlborough, Duchess of v. 

Wheat 1299 



13S1 

y?o 

939 
341, 
684 
221 
2 
1743 
550, 555 
785 
385, 485, 716, 719, 722, 
943 
1027 
214 
395, 564, 587, 597 
v. Mayor of Pontefract 350 

v. Mitchell 782, 839, 853 



Marsh v. Austin 
v. Crawford 
v Goodall 
v Haywood 
v. Hunter 
v. Keith 



v. Lasher 
v. Lee 
v Marsh 



378 



v. Oliver 
v. Parks 
v. Railroad 
v Sibbald 
v. Supervisors 
v. Whituiore 
Marshal v. Crutwell 
Marshall, Be 
v Anderson 
v. Cave 
v. Cliff 
v. Colman 
v. Conrad 
v. Cooper 
v. Dudley 
v. Fowler 
v. Frislde 
v. Gilliard 
v. Gil man 
v. Hills 

v Holloway 

v- Lewis 

v. Lockett 

v. Love lass 

v. McAravey 

V. Marshall 

v. Means 

v Meech 

v. Mellersh 

v, Minter 

v Olds 

v. Otto 

r. Rench 

v. Ross 

v. Sladden 2E 

v. Smith 

t>. Thompson 

v. Turnbull 

v. Watson 

v. Wheeler 
Marshall!, Be 
Marshfield, Re 

v. Weston 
Marshman v. Conkling 
Mars ton V. Brackett 



227, 560 

1411 

1299, 2185, 2106 

1113 



1661 

560 

117 

438 

1166 

1242 

849 

332 

46 

1845 

1255 

102 

916 

334, 336 
324 
998 

1233, 1414 

123, 124 

1743 

419 

284 

149,1073,1648 

335. 344 
1845 

728, 1593 
1081 
418 
1765 
1150 
1649, 1087 
,382. 1400, 1417 
653 
1073, 1076 
368, 629, 1618 
1660 
1279 
1805 
653, 1817 
1227 
186 
, 918, 1075, 
1076, 1079, 1115 
Martano v. Mann 30, 111 

Martelli v. Holloway 1503 

Marten v Wichelo 859 

Marter v Marter 826 

Martigny v. Smith 515 



v. Headon 
v. Iteming 
v. Hewitt 
v. Holgate 
v. Kerridge 
v. Kilbourn 
v. Lutkewitte 
v. McBryde 
v. Martin 



83,1840 

782 

634 

39 

1501 

1463 

1168 

424, 1602, 1671 

1580 

1038 

1961 

846 

1264, 1510, 1524, 

1526 

1638 

2047 



v. Mayberry 
v. Meyer 
v Mitchell 
v. Morris 
v. Murphy 
v. Norman 
v. Nutkin 
v. Parsons 
v. Patching 
v Peck 
v Pond 
v. Powning 
v. Price 
v. Purnell 



1503 

494, 1048 

1481 

382 

290, 368 

91, 104, 122, 345, 586, 

645, 1033, 1615, 1746 

1567 

149 

106 

259 

1655 

514 

1653 

1625 

540 

251 

149 

60,634 

1638 

1510, 

1526 

913, 1044, 1488, 1490 

30 



v. Py croft 

v. Russell 

v. Smith 1151 

v . Spicer 482 

v. Spiers 551 

v. Thraster 1249 

v. Travellers' Ins. Co. 1100 

v. Tyree 1542 

v. Van Schaick 1727, 1728 

v. Weil 354 

v. Whichelo 859 

v. White 1305 

v. Whitmore 38, 39 

v. Willis 1057 

v Wright 1648 

Martindale v. Brown 1492 

v. Picquot 1261 

Martine v. Lowenstein 1463 

Martinius v Helmuth 151, 1567 

Marty n v. Blake 1256 

v Podger 1134 

Martyr v. Lawrence 14*2 

Marvel v. Ortlip 1675 

Marvin v. Elwood 1561 

v. Stew 1772 

Marx v. Heidenheimer 920 

Mary, The 564,717 

Marye v Dyche 584 

Maryland and New York Coal 

and Iron Co. v. Wingert 845 
Manet v. Pittsburgh 



Mason. In re 
v Bogg 
v Brentini 
v. Broadbent 
v. Codwise 
v. Cotton 
v. Crosby 
v, Daly 
V- Debow 
v. Eakle 
v. Foster 
v. Franklin 
v. Gardiner 
v. Gardner 
v. Goodburn 
v. Haddon 
v Hamilton 



406, 1842 

284 

1407 

653 

1214, 1423, 2191 

1639 

1322 

1003, 1317 

170, 753, 778 

1255 

361 

291, 295, 339 

1549 

31, 386 

1572 

1862 

1569, 1570 



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



lxx 



Xlll 



Mason v. Harper's Ferry Bridge 
Co 1675 

Harris 26, 241 

V. Hartford, &c. R. Co. 830, 1517, 
1542, 23S5 
v. Hoyle 303 

v. Lake 387, 419 

v. La Society des Metaux 26 

v McGirr 1550 

v. McGore 845 

v. Mason 349, 759, 1073 

v. Murray 424 

v. Peck 844 

v Pelletier 867 

v. Ponieroy 236 

V. Rollins 1636, 1637 

v. Roosevelt 1363 

v. Sanborn 1629 

v. Sanford 1542 

v. Spurlnck 323 

v. Supreme Court 1716 

v. Wakeman 722, 2114 

v. York and Cumberland R. 
R Co. 197, 23S, 403, 793, 1293, 
1300, 1516, 1518, 1536 
Massa v. Cutting 329 

Massachusetts General Hospital 
v. State Mut. Life Ins. Co 555, 
630 
Massachusetts Mutual L. Ins. 
Co v. Chicago & A R. Co. 149, 
641 
Massam v. Thorley's C. F Co. 1681 
Massereene, Lord, Re 1803 

Massey v Allen 26, 32, 942 

v Gillelan 27, 33 

v. Gorton 236 

v. Goyder 1097 

v. Massey 328, 1370 

Massie v. Donaldson 170, 444. 526 
v. Graham 1576, 1577, 1578, 1579, 
1580, 1582 
v. Watts 1032, 1615, 1627 

Massou v. Anderson 797, 1548 

Massy v. Batwell 280 

v. Massy 885 

v. Rowen 1503 

Master v Hamilton 1115 

v Hansard 324, 1654 

Masterman v. Lenin 1568 

v. Lewis 1676 

v Midland Railway of Ireland 414 
v Price 843, 1467 

Masters r Barnes 248,252 

v. Barnwell 1131 

v Beckett 1548 

v Braban 1077 

v. Rossie Galena Lead Mining 
Co 145 

Masterson v Finnegan 328 

v. Herndon 1461, 14H5 

v. Howard 52 

Mastin v Hallev 1663 

Mather, Ex parte 386 

v. Lay 1626 

v. Nesbit 1743 

v. Shelmerdine 42 

Mathews v. Bishop of Bath 1150 
v. Jones 1652 

v Tripp 1071 

Mathias v Witts Nav Co 1620 

v. Yetts 298 

Matson v. Melchor 852 

v Swift 1265, 1610 

Mattel v. Conant 634 

Matthaei v. Galitzin 629 

Matthew v. Northern Assurance 

Co. 1770 

Matthewman, Ex parte 187 

Matthews v. Bagshaw 1236 

v Chichester 37 593, 594, 690, 

756 

v. Copeland 128 

v. Herdtfelder 933 

v. Hoagland 576, 578 

v Lalance & G. M. Co. 700, 843 

v. Lloyd 256 



Matthews v. Matthew, 
v Mears 
v. Mu nster 
v Palmer 
v. Roberts 
v Smith 
v Stubbs 
v Swallow 
v. Walwvn 
v. Whittle 



1150 

1507 

974 

797 

632, 637, 986 

1070 

1285 

2255 

260, 667, 668, 1253 

189, 371 



Matthewsou v. Stockdale 1645, 1646 



Matthias v Warrington 
Matthison v Clarke 
Mattocks v. Tremaine 



378 
12^4, 1414 
395, 1705, 
1707, 1708 
1469 
345 
430 
1610 
1642 
318, 4ti5 
1099 
278 



Mattos v Gibson 
Maud v Acklom 
Maude v. Copeland 

r. Maude 
Mauger v Dick 
Maughan V Blake 

v Hubbard 
Maule v. Beaufort, Duke of 

v Bruce 8b/, St>8 

Mauley v. Shaw 1110 

Maultsby v. Carty 2 

Maund v. Allies 948, 949, 1836 

Maunder v Lloyd b'29 

Maundrell v. Maundrell 1661 

Mauusell v. Egan 1766 

v. Midland Great Western 
Railway Co 1650 

Maupin v Daniel 1298 

Maurice v. Wainewright 1277 

Mauricet v. Brecknock 1130 

Maury v Lewis 361, 407, 847, 

1296 

ii. Mason 714. 721, 1003 

Maury County v. Lewis County 22 
Mavor v. Dry 406, 426 

Maw v. Pearson 63, 248, 323, 551, 
1525 
Mawe v. Heaviside 98 

Mawer v Mawer 518 

Mawer's Case 1705 

Mawhood v. Labouchere 430 

v Milbanke 1806, 1841 

Mawman v. Tegg 1646 

Maxfield v. Burton 674, 679 

Maxim Nonlenfelt Guns Co. v. 



Nordenfelt 




1655 


Maxwell c Cochran 




236 


v. Finnie 




246 


v. H.igg 




1648, 1649 


v. Johnson 




843 


v. Maxwell 




1426, 1503 


v. Stewart 




1625 


v. Wettenhall 




1213, 1258 


v. Wightwick 




710 


Maxwell L. G. & 


R. 


Co. v. 


Thompson 




1579 


May v. Armstrong 




101, 1549 


V. Bisgendeu 




912, 1397 


t>. Darden 




1463 


v Eastin 




1391 


v Goodwin 




550 


v Head 




979 


v. Hook 




511 


v. May 




1168 


v. Newton 




243 


v. Parker 




314, 555 


v Prinsep 




893 


v Roper 




97 


v. Selby 223, 236, 291, 292, 360 


v. Skey 




103 


v Sloan 




656 


v Thomson 




364 


Mayberry.f. Brooking 


154,291. 




1008 


1473, 1475 


Maybury v. Grady 




1411 


Mayburry v. Brien 




1165 


Mayd v. Field 




187, 1432 


Mayer v. Claretie 




149 


t'. Denver, &c. R 


Co. 


26, 334 


v. Frith 




766 


D Galluchat 


719 


1234, 1414 


v Journeymen S. 


C. A 


-s'n 1620 



Mayer v. Mayer 1581 

v. Murray 328, 652, 1239, 1260 
v. Speuce 1599, 1U44, 1670 

v. Tyson 524 

v. Woodhall 1623 

Mayes v. Hendry 740 

v. Mayes 1209 

Mayfair Property Co. v. John- 
ston 1161 
Mayfield v. Wadsley 1127 
May her v. W Va. Oil Co. 1274 
Mayhew, lie 1411, 1842 
v. Maxwell 1683, 2314 
Maynard v. Bond 1744 
v Esher 1638 
v. Green 1517 
v. Moseley 1004 
v. Pomfret 1052 
v. Tilden 407 
Mayne v Butler 892 
v. Butter 893, 1801 
v. Griswold 379 
v. Hawkey 1844 
v Hochin 413, 414, 770, 776 
r Macartney 1287 
Mayo v. Foster 1630 
v. Harding 853, 1286 
v. Jones 852 
v. Murchie 302 
Mayor v. Coffin 1120 
v Collins 717, 1824 
v . Cooper 630, 1427 
v. Murray 1370 
Mayor of Bristol v. Cox 573 
Mayor of Lyons v Advocate- 
General of Bengal 13 
Mayor of N. Y. v. N Y Ferry 

Co. 1683 

Mayre v. Root 545 

Mays v. Wherry 1580, 1715 

Mayse v. Biggs 801 

Mazarredo v. Maitland 596, 694, 

720, 761, 776 

Meach v Chappell 894 

v. Perry 655 

v. Stone 365, 561 

Meachain v Cooper 906, 1225 

v. Williams 341 

Meacher v. Young 1359, 2292 

Mead v Arms 1030, 1479, 1575, 1576 

v Ask-w 850 

v. Combs 860 

v Day 837, 850 

v. Merritt 554, 1032, 1627 

v. Orrery, Lord 1736, 1737 

v. Piatt 630 

t>. Raymond 860 

r. Stirling 369, 1620 

v. Walker 1071 

Meadbury v. Isdall 885 

Meade, Re 157 

v. Norbury 1468 

Meaden v Sealey 1734, 1735 

Meader v. M'Cready 1394 

Meades v. Guedalla 202 

Meadors v Askew 361, 860 

Meadow Valley Mining Co. t\ 

Dodds 1463 

Meadows v. Kingston, Duchess 

of 614, 663, 664, 679 

Meagher t;. Minnesota T. M. 

Co. 1461 

Meagoe v. Simmons 1106 

Mealea v. Meales 90 

Mealor v. Talbot, Lord 1564, 1565 
Means v. Dowd 653, 1995 

Meara v Holbrook 1752 

Mears v. Best 168, 1266 

r. Dole 417. 1320 

Mebane t> Mebane 371 , 668 

Mechanics' Bank v Bank of N. 

Brunswick 1307, 1311, 1312 

v Goodwin 24 

v. Landauer 217, 1765 

v. Levy 361, 373, 377, 715, 718, 721 
v. Setons '-95 

Mechanics' Foundry v. Ryall 1663 



lxxxiv 



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



Meddowcroft v. Campbell 59, 109, 
290 
M.-der v. Birt 678 

Medler v. Albuquerque Hotel 

Co. 1299 

Med lock r Cogburn 1567 

Medow, Re 1610 

Medsker »>. Bonebrake 1320 

Medway Cotton Manuf. v. Adams 22 

Meek v. Burnley 25 

v. Carter 1659 

v. Chamberlain 1-5 

„ Kaly 1507 

v. McCall 1073 

v. Mathis 987, 994, 1492 

v. Ward 820, 898 

v. Witherington 5^9 

Meeker v Evans 1272 

v Marsh 607, 677, 695, 700, 703 

v Sprague 1716 

v. W'inttarop Iron Co 26 

Meggot v. Meggot 1166, 1167 

Meggy v Imperial Discount Co. 157 

Mehan v. Chicago, &c. R Co. 1122 

Meier v. Kansas Pac Ry Co. 1765 

Meigs v. Lister 1635 

Meiklam v. Elmore 63, 64, 808, 814 

Meiklau v. Campbell 452 

Meinertzhagen v Davis 992 

Meiuuai'd v Youngblood 295, 1120, 

1614 

Meissner v. Buek 1548 

Meldrum v. Hayes 75, 1413 

v. Scorer 200, 254 

Melford v. Peters 1191 

Melhado v Watson 157 

Melhuish v Collier 1100, 1101 

Melin v Taylor 1129 

Meliorucchi v. Royal Exchange ____ 

Assurance Co 177 1 

Meliorucchy v Meliorucchy 30, 53 

Melien v Banning 216 

v Moline Iron Works 149 

Mellersh v Brown 652 

Mellick i). President, &c. of the 

Asylum 2182 

Mellingr Bird 1611 

v. Melliug "6 

Mellish o. Williams 1576 

Mellor r Hall 592, 691 

v. Porter 73, 165 

t> Thompson 984 

Mellows i\ Bannister 448 

Melsheimer v Hommel 559 

Melton v. Withers 1515 

Meluish v. Milton 663 

Melville v. Matthewson 1591 

Memphis Appeal Pub. Co v. Pike 148 
Memphis Bank v. Oldham 10(3 

Memphis City v. Dean 26 

Memphis Gayoso Gas Co. v. Wil- 
liamson 26 
Memphis and Charleston R. Co. 

v. Gaines 1661 

Memphis & V. R. Co. v. Owens 596 
Mendenhall v. Hall 283 

Mendes v. Guedalla 109, 204, 820 
ii Mendes 1351 

Mendham v. Robinson 65, 159, 1512 
Mendizabel v Hullett 413,414 

v Machado 640, 155!) 

Meneely v Meneely 1649 

Meneudez r Holt 1648 

Menier v. Hooper's Tel. Works 26 
Menifee v. Menifee 844 

Menude v. Delaire 659 

Menzies v Connor 797 

Mercantile Bank v. Carpenter 411 
Mercantile Ins &c. Co. v. River 

Plate, &c Co. 629 

Mercantile S. D. Co. v. Dimon 1561 

Mercantile Trust Co. v. Kanawha 

& Ry. Co. 314, 1743 

v. Missouri, &c. Rv. Co. 283 

v Missouri, K. &T. Ry. Co 1120 

v. Portland & O. R. Co 149, 215 

v. Rhode Island H T. Co. 586 



Mercartuey v. Crittenden 790 

Mercers' Co., Ex parte 30, 42 

v. Great Northern Ry. Co 889,1598 

Merchant v. Bowyer 779 

Merchants' Bank V. McLeod 1743 

v. Masonic Hall Trustees 407 

v. Moulton 1071. 1073, 1110 

v. Stevenson 235, 41H, 257 

Merchants' Detective Ass'n v. 

Detective M. Agency 1648, 1659 
Merchants' Int'l S. B. Co. v. 

Lyon 634 

Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Chat- 
tanooga Construction Co. 



Co 



Hogle 
v. Sabin 
v. Trustees 
Merchant Tailors 

Gen. 
Merchants' Trading Co 

ner 
Mercier v Lewis 

v. Pepperell 
Meredith, Re 

v. Johns 
Meredyth v. Hughes 
Merest v Harvey 

v. Hodgson 
Meriden Britania Co. 

ker 
Meridian News Co. v. 

Wing Paper Co 
Meriel v. Wymoudsold 
Merithew v. Sampson 
Meriwether v. Booker 
Merklein v. Trapnell 
Merlin v. Blagrave 



586 
1556 
547 
v. Att - 

599, 1436 
v. Ban- 

1596 

1549 

1860 

1051 

1625 

1448, 1453 

1130 

185 

v. Par- 

1649 
Diem & 

1716 
272 
1930 
121, 124 
1157 
34, 1405, 142 



Metcalfe, Re 
Re, Hicks v. May 
v. Beckwith 
v. Brown 
v. Metcalfe 



5, 45, 87 
1205 
1165 
589 

318, 1541 



. I'ulvertoft 280, 1720, 1734 

M. E Church v. Jaques 100, 186, 
374, 715, 717, 720, 758 1228, 
1302, 1377, 1381, 1543, 1800 
Methodist P. Church v. Balti- 
more. Mayor, &c. of 1622 
Metier v. Metier 184, 1!"5, 498, 547, 
562, 570, 584, 886, 1556, 1557 
Metropolitan Bank, Re 942 
v Offord 157, 158, 314, 420, 698 
v. Pooley 354 
Metropolitan Board of Works v. 

Sant 1072 

Metropolitan Coal Consumers' 



St. 



560 



Merrewether v. Mellish 626, 682,703 



Merriam v. Barton 

v Baxter 

v Goodlett 

v Goss 

v. Holloway Pub Co 

v Smith 
Merrifield v. Ingersoll 

v. Jones 

v. Lombard 
Merrill, Re 

v. Elam 

v. Houghton 

v. Humphrey 

v. Lake 

v. Merrill 

v. Plaintield 

V. Washburn 
Merrimack Mauuf. 

ner 
Merriman, Re 

v Can no van 

v Goodman 

v Polk 
Merritt v. Brown 

v Hughes 
Merry v Freeman 

v. Nickalls 
Merryfield v Jones 
Merr.vweafher v Mellish 

v. Moore 
Mersey Docks Trustees v. Gihhs 

1635, 1752 
Mersey Railwav, fn re 1733 

Mersey Steel Co. v. Nay I or 2^4 

Merteus v Haigh 4i'3, 1555, 1828, 

Merwin v. Smith 1269, 1272, 1668, 
1669, 1676, 1677 
Messchaert v Kennedy 



1240, 1463 

1248, 1298 

385 

1244, 1385 

586 

197 

1029 

1666 

1638 

1294 

1716, 1734, 2127 

530 

1661 

303 

349 

545, 2323 

324 

Co. v. Gar- 

1648 

102 

561. 642 

152, 528 

1624 

369, 844 

2027 

256 

1471 

1666, 23 4 

1843 

1650 



402 
1847 
1129 



Messenger, In re 
Messer v. Boyle 

v Storer 
Messervey v. Barelli 
Messonier v. Kauman 
Metcalfi'. Cady 

V. Hervey 

V. Hoopingardner 

v. Metcalf 

V. Putnam 



1842,184 

1266 

545 

242 

1467, 1468 

334, 335 

584, 1561, 1562 

277,1158 

1071 

1961 



Ass'n, Re 
Metropolitan Nat Bank v 

Louis Dispatch Co. 
Metropolitan Ry Co., Re 

v. Wright 
Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Tona 

wanda, &c. R. Co. 214 

Wletzv Wood 418 

Metzger v. Metropolitan El. Ry. 

Co. 840 

Metzler v Wood 1096, 1105, 1648 
Meule v. Goddard 1138 

Meurer's Will 1411 

Meux v. Bell 1297, 1563, 1570 

v. Maltby 
v Watkius 
Mewshaw v. Mewshaw 
Mexborough, Earl of v Bower 
Mexican Central Ry. Co. 

Pinkney 
Mexican Ore Co. l> 

M Co 

Mey v Gulliman 

Meyer ?>. Campbell 

v. Gateus 

v. Herrera 

v. Johnston 

v. Meyer 

v. Moutriore 

v Montriou 

Meyers v. Busby 

v Dittmar 

v Scott 

Meymott v. Meymott 

Mey rick, Re 

v James 

v. Laws 1339 1341, 1605, 1851 

Meysinberg v. Schleiper 1081 

Michael v Fripp 1578, 1580 

Michel v. Bullen 1448, 1453 

Michell v. Harris 671 

v. Michell 100 

Michelmore v. Mudge 119, 121 

Michielsv The Empire Palace 28 

Michigan State Bank v. Gardner 190, 

191,223 

v. Hustings 129 

Miehoud v Girod 994,997 

Mickle v. Maxfield 1028, 1120, 1579 

Mickles v Dillaye 1243, 1244, 1245 

v. Thayer 659. 994 

Micklethwait t/. Micklethwait 1633, 

1671 

v. Moore 579. 1819 

Micklethwaite v. Atkinson 178, 841 

v. Winstanley 254, 340. 1207 

Micou v Ashurst 334, 385 

v Davis 1284 

Middaugh v. Fox 560 

Middlebrook v. Bromley 561,687 

Middlecomer Marlow 92 

Middleditch v Sharland 66< 

r Williams 68 

Middlemas v. Wilson 351, 894, 1003 

Middlesex Bank v Minot 284 

Middleton, Re 1433 

v Bankers' Tel. Co. 1304 

v Barned 1104,1127 



756 
371 
670 

536 
Mexican G. 

1661, 1687 
838 
933 
1548 
45 
1731 
1712 
1188 
1339 
314 
1492 
334 
983, 1330 
1852 
919 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 
[The references are to the star paging.] 



lxxxv 



Middleton v. Chichester 820 

v. Dodswell 1665, 1722, 1734 



v. Flat River Co, 
v. Franklin 
V. Greenwood 
v. Magnay 

v. Middleton 
v. Poole 
v. Selby 
v. Sherburne 

v. Spicer 
v. Younger 
Lord v. Eliot 



303 

1637 

1082 

1081, KI82 

1149, 1384 

1778 

1551 

1074, 1079, 1721, 

1725, 1734 

135 

1801 

1392 



Miller v. Furse 
v. Gow 
v. Gregory 
V. Hall 
v. Harris 
v. Henderson 
v. Howard 
v. Huddlestone 
v. Jackson 



Middletown S. Bank v. Bach- 

arach 283 

Midland Counties Benefit Build- 
ing Society, Re 1479 
Midland, &c. Ferry Co. v. Wil- 
son 1637 
Midland Ry Co., Re 1797 
v. Brown 1440 
v. London & North-Western 
Ry Co. 1650 
Midleton, Lord v. Power 387 
Midiner v. Midmer 418, 860 
Miers v. Zanesville & Maysviile 

Turnpike Co. 635 

Milan Steam Mills v. Hickey 1663 



Milbank v. Revett 




1726, 1728 


Mildniay v. Methuen 




1257 


v Miidmay 




677 


v. Quieke 




1163 


Mildred v. Austin 




277, 10&5 


v. Robinson 




1033 


Miles v Boyden 




68 


v . Davis 




224 


v Durnford 




230, 233. 3)3 


v. Harrison 




1428 


t>. Hawkins 




203 


v. Kaigler 




68 


v. Knight 




1338, 1795 
758, 843, 844 


v. Miles 374, 722, 


v. New Zealand A. 


E 


Co. 365 


v. O'Hara 




1118 


V Presland 


1039, 


V. Stanley 




671 


V. Strong 




418 


v Williams 




7 


Milhan v. Sharp 




1637 


Milk v. Moore 




1075, 1076 


Milkman v. Ordway 




380 


Mill v. Mill 




957, 958 


Mill's Estate, Re 




1451 


Mt Han v. Hood 




601 


Millar v. Craig 




1230 


v. El win 




620, 521 


v. Harper 




1720 


Millard v. Burroughes 


1450 


V Mairor 


• 


328 


Millard's Case 




677 


Mill-dam Foundry v 


Hovey 146, 



35 
Mill River Loan Fund Ass. v. 

Clatlin 591 

Miller, Re 354, 1694 

v. Avery 737, 846, 884, 1653 

v. Baltimore C M. Co. 334 



v. Bear 




197 


?>. Beverleys 




1231 


v. Buchanan 




349 


v. Cabell 




68 


v. Cameron 




231 


v Campbell 




102 


v. Caruthers 




875 


v. Chittenden 




1150 


V- Clark 




1576 


v. Cook 


402 


986, 1517 


v. Cotten 




S26 


v. Davidson 




236 


v ■ District of Columbia 


840 


v. Dorsey 




643 


v- Dows 




627 


V. Fasse 




590 


v. Fenton 




607, 1550 


v. Ford 




547 


V. Foree 




843 



787 

840,843 

711, 1550 

256, 457 

334, 336 

197, 215 

1317 

223, 1051, 1052 

860 



v. Jamison 302, 337, 380, 557, 587 

('.Justice 986 

v. Kershaw 194 

v. Lincoln 1239, 1386, 1393, 1448 

v. Lord 378 

v. M'Can 292, 295, 403, 4i in 

v. MoCarr 1623 

t>. Mackenzie 1742, 1751 

v. M'Crea 287, 289 

v . McDougal 1677 

V. M Intyre 560, 639 

v. Miller 1048, 1157, 1712, 1771, 

2289 

v. Palmer 1622 

v. Pine Mining Co. 357 

v. Powell 798 

v. Pridden 218, 859, 991, 1409, 

1694 

v. Rushforth 1031, 1322 

v. Russell 1118 

t\ Saunders 715 

v. Scammon 552 

v. Sherry 1276, 1280 

v. Smith 403 

v. Taylor 402, 1129 

v. Thatcher 361 

v. Tobin 972 

v. Tolleson 843 

v. Wack 840, 844, 1073, 1076 

u. Warmington 135, 209, 1161 

i\ Wheatley 762 

v. Whittaker 247, 409 

v. Whittier 287, 294, 1241, 1245, 

1302 

v. Wright 529 

Miller-Magce Co. v. Carpenter 542. 

551 

MiUican v. Vaoderplank 1275, 1294 

Milligan v. Milledge 149, 150, 219, 

290, 390, 603 

v. Mitchell 240, 245, 292, 295, 

403, 405, 416, 417, 582, 715, 1579, 

1653 

Milliken v. Barrow 1743 

Millington v. Fox 1376, 1380, 1381, 

1394, 1395, 1649, 1681 

v. Loring 348 

Mills v. Bally 700 

v. Banks 1475, 1476 

v. Barlow 114 

v. Bowyers' Co. 1860 

v . Brown 544, 545 

v Cobby 1686 

v. Dennis 68, 163, 165, 167, 168, 169, 

170, 753, 997 

v. Dudgeon 813 

v. Dunham 1655 

v. Farmer 16, 140, 1436 

t\ Finlay 1843 

v. Fox 108 

e Fry 815, 817 

t'. Gleason 1661 

v. Gore 841 

v. Hanson 1780, 1781, 1797 

v. Hoag 993, 1461, 1516, 1518- 

v. Hurd 334 

«; Jennings 200,212,213,215, 

257 

v. Knapp 630 

v. Mason 1549 

t> Metcalf 314 

v. Northern Railway of Buenos 

Avres Co. 243 

v. Parkhurst 815 

v. Pitman 828 

v. Scott 417 

v. Townsend 147 

v. Wayne Circuit Judge 1675 



Millsaps v. Pfeiffer 1537, 1556 

Millspaugh v. M' Bride 978, 1026, 

1030, 1284 

Milltown, Lord v. Stuart 826, 970, 

1597. 1609, l»»l 

Milly v. Harrison ' 1429, 1459 

Milner v. Colmer 92, 97 

v. Harewood, Lord 170 

v. Meek 1489 

t). Milner 1515 

Milner's Settlement, Re 100 

Milues v. Busk 100 

V. Davisou 1396 

v. Gery 671 

Milsingtown, Lord v. Portmore, 

Earl of 1667 

Milson v. Carter 1029 

Miltenberger v. Loginsport Ry. 

Co. 1716, 1738, 1743 

Milward v. Oldfield 406 

Mil. & Chil. Turnpike Co. v. 

Brush 22 

Milwaukee i>. Sullivan 354 

&c R. Co. v. Soutter 1463, 1491, 

1715, 1731 

Mims v. Mims 214, 837 

Miner v. Caples 1164 

v. Smith 259 

Minet v. Hyde 95, 97 

v. Morgan 573, 575, 1832 

Mineve v. Row 950 

Minirie v. Railway Passengers 

Ass. Co. 671 

Mining Co. v Delany 1684 

Miuke v. Hopeman 1635 

Minn v. Stant 295 

Minneapolis, &c. Ry. Co. v. Mil- 
ner 1620 
Minnesota Bank v. Hayes 1770 
Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co. 1517, 
1553 
Mining's Appeal 1631 
Minor, Ex parte 1275 
Minors v. Battison 1342,1503 
Minot v. Curtis 20 
Minshaw v. Jordan 1680 
Minter, lie 1043, 1170 
Minthnrne v. Tomkins 1018, 1042 
Minturn v. Seymour 1668, 1672. 1675 
Minuse v. Cox 14.3 
Mireliouse v. Herbert 1260, 1397 
Mississippi Mills v. Cohn 630 
Miss. R. Co. v. Gaster 24 
Mississippi and Mobile R Co. v. 

Cromwell 1889, 1902 

Missouri K. & T. Rv. Co. v. El- 
liott 630 
Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Mc- 

Cartv 1508 

v. Texas & P Ry. Co. f.nr,, 12li9, 
1299, 1309, 1743 
v. Tex. Pac. Ry. Co 1743 

Missouri R. Co v. Commission- 
ers 1650 
Mitchel v. Manchester, Duke of 

1743, 1748 
Mitchell, Re 1327, 1337, 1850 

Re, Wavell v. Mitchell 215 

/•. Bailey 291 

V. Berry 1268, 1290, 1577, 1578, 
1580 
v Bunre 633, 1032 

v. Bunch 1627, 1698, 1699, 1700, 
1704, 1713 
v. Cline 1157 

i\ Commissioners 1661 

v Condy 1070, 1765 

0. Dors 1032 

v. Draper 1054 

r Green 547, 570, 584 

v. Harris 671 

v. Hayne 1560, 1565, 1671 

V. Homfray 852 

v. Kingman 83 

t'. Koecker 563 

v. Lenox 287, 292, 642, 558, 604, 
1486 



lxxxvi 



Mitchell v. Lowndes 

V. Miii 5 . 1 1 1 

V. Oakley 

v. SehouQover 

v Smart 

v. Smith 

v. Thome 

v. Tighe 

V. Walker 

t>. Wiuslow 
Mitchell's Case 



Mitford v. Mitford 120, 122, 125, 127 
v Reynolds 1318,1436 

Mittens v. Foreman 354 

Mix v. Hotchkiss 341, 344, 1246 

Moat v. Holbien 1673, 1684, 1685 
Mobile Savings Bank v. Board 
of S u pervisors 324 , 334 

v. Burke 334 

Moblev i . Dubuque, &c. Co. 841 
v. Hamit 904, 918, 930 

Mocatta v. Lousada 1432 

v Murgatroyd 1392 

Moch v Virginia Fire Ins. Co. 664 
Mockett, He 14!'l 

Moelle v. Sherwood 674, 1019, 1120 
Moenich v. Fenestre 1655 

Moet v. Couston 1394, 1395, 1600, 
1649, 1679 
Moffat v Buruie 1202 

v. United States 8 

Moffats v. Farquharson 238 

Moffatt v. Barnes 1254 

v Farquharson 216,238,269 

Moftvt r. Claberts 856 

Mogg v. Mogg 1619, 1632 

Moegridge v. Hall 938, 1574 

t, Thackwell 16, 140, 1436 

v. Thomas 1594, 1596, 1667 

Mogul Steamship Co. v. Mc- 
Gregor 1620, 1664 
Mohawk" Bank v. Atwater 886, 1272 
Bridge Case 1151 
and Hudson R. Co. v. Ant- 

cher 1637 

v Clute 1561,1562,1563,1564, 

1565, 1571 

Mohler v. Wiltberger 793 

Mohun V. Mohun 143b 

Moiru Mudie 1844 

Mold v. Wheatcroft 1082, 2321 

Mole v. Mansfield H5< 

v. Smith 188, 339, 974, 1307, 2182, 

2265 

Molesworth, Re 1357 

v. Howard 72. 

v. Rolibins *°« 

v Snead 825, 972, 1373 

v Lord Vernev 801 

MollfU *•. Enequist 1556, 1621. 1625, 

1669, 1672, 1675 

Mollineux V. Powell 227, 1630 

Moloney u. Smith 28 

Molonv v. Kernan 675,677 

Molyneux lie 1161,1169 

Moncaster, Lord V. Braithwaite 783, 

784 

Monck v. Tankerville, Earl of 427 

Monrkton r Attorney-General 131 

Mondey V. Mondey 163, 167 

Monell r. Lawrence 1459 

Money, Re „ 39 

v. Jordan 847, 1676, 16*3 

Monil v. Lawson 13i 

Monk v. Pomfret 323 

Monkhouse v. Bedfo-d, Corp. of 

1000, 1470, 1478 
Monmouth v. Leeds 1381 

Monnett V Turpie 629 

Monnins v. Monnins 568 

Monro v. Taylor 990, 1400 

Monroe v. James 

V. Lewald 1120 

Monroe's Will, Re 576 

Monroe Cattle Co. v. Becker 843 

Monroy c Monroy 728 

MoDtague v. 778 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
[Tho references are to the star paging.] 

8"4 Montague v. Boston & Albany 
361,837 R. Co. 1309 

1623 v. Flockton 1654, 1657 

1507 v. Lobdell 197, 199 

1567 v. Selb 780 

61,562,1556 v. Turpin 271 

303, 320 Lord v. Dudman 570, 1556, 1620 
328, 558 Montara v. Hall 1314, 13*30 

1301 Montefiore v. Behrens 1039 

120 Mouteith v. Taylor 158, 159, 808 
576 Montesquieu !•. Sandys 327 

Montgomerie v. Bath, Marquis 

of 212 

Montgomery, Re 1747 

v. Attoiney-GeDeral 1122 



v. Calland" 1252, 1391, 1393 

v Chadwick 1240, 1243 

v. Floyd 253 

v. 01 Well 1548,1551 

v. Itich 986 

v. Whitworth 296, 1567 

Monti r. Bishop 1551 

Moutitiori v. Browne 1205 

Mom penny v. 424, 1602, 1671 

v. Deriug 170, lo20, 1021 

v. Monypenny 1470, 1503 

Mooar v. Harvey 648 

Moodalay v Morton 145, 331, 1557 

Moodie v. Bainbridge 1808 

v. Baunister 152, 290, 644, 658, 

1211 



Moore v. Langford 
v. Lipscombe 
v. Lockett 
v. Lyttle 
v. McClintock 
v. McGaha 
v. M Nauiara 
v. Meynell 
v. Mitchell 
r. Moberly 
v. Moore 



1182 

1463 

837 

328, 558 

846 

1621 

280 

180 

378 

270 

91,120,302.469,511, 

1047, 1577, 1581 

202 

214 

552 

177, 476 

1669, 1676 

1009, 1016 

1003 

350, 351, 895 



Moody v. Fry 


233 


v. Gay 


149, 150 


v llebberd 


1594, 1597 


v. Learning 


947 


v. Metcalf 


844 


v. Payne 


946, 949 


v. Rowell 


920 


v Steggles 


1639 


Mooers v. White 


641 


Moon v Trask 


652 


Mooney v. Cooledge 


1631 


Moons v. De Bernales 


857. 865, 1079 


Moor v. Anglo-Italian Bank 629. 




1627, 1628 


v. Somerset 


629 


v. Veazie 


197, 240 


v. Welsh Copper Co 


632. 635 


Moore, lie 


1069, 1694 


v. Alden 


1411 


v. Anderson 


286 


V. Armstrong 


682, 601 


v. Barnheisel 


1561 


v. Beaman 


1120 


V. Beauchamp 


219 


v. Blagrave 


200, 249 


v. Booth 


1069 


v. Bray 


573 


v. Bruce 1172 


v. Cabel 


1240 


v. Cable 1242, 1244, 12 


v. Cord 


1624 


v. Craven 


579, 717 


v. Crawford 


560. 860 


v. Deakin 


1071 


v. Degraw 


1237, 1240 


v. Dixon 


1432 


v. Edwards 


656, 657 


v. Fountleroy 


1381 


v. Frowd 


1234, 1413 


v. Gamble 


1623 


v. Gennett 


149, 443, 449 


v. Gentry 


100 


v. Gleaton 


225, 1707 


v. Granger 


1463 


t>. Green 


517 


t>. Greene 


324 


v. Hallum 


1624 


V. Harper 321, 868 


871, 891, 1553 


v Hood 


251 


v. Holt 


633. 635. 695 


f. Hudson 180, 


389, 1705, 1706 


v. Hunter 


737 


v Huntington 


1576 


v. Hylton 


1676, 1677 


v. Knight 


298, 645 


v. Lake Co. 


860 



v. Morris 

v. Morton 

v Munn 

v. Platel 

v. Reed 

v. Robinson 

v. School Trustees 

v. Smith 

v. Stevenson 

v. Taylor 1734 

v. Titman 1170 

v. Tuckwell 1126,1127 

v. Osher 1560, 1561 

v. Walker 1644 

v. Walter 1339 

V. Wright 458 

v Zabriskie 1236 

Moore's Appeal 1777 

Moores v. Moores 348, 852, 853 

Moors v. Moors 87, 712, 843 

v. Washburn 1381 

Moran v. Hays 249 

v Johnston 1716, 1734 

v. Palmer 360 

v. Pellifant 197 

Morant, Re 1607 

Mordaunt v. Benwell 1346 

v. Hooper 1725 

Mordue v. Palmer 1408^1861 

More II, Mayhow 677, 678 

Moreau v. Edwards 1655 

v. Polley 1696 

V. Saffarans 346 

Moredock v. Williams 1668, 1677 

Morehouse v. Jackson 12^8 

it. Newton 1250 

Moreland v. Richardson 1632 

Morenhout p. Higuera 1150 

Mores v. Mores 150, 152 

Moreton v. Chandler 645 

v. Harrison 607, 618, 829 

Morewood v. Currey 236 

v. Hall 1152 

Morey v. Forsyth 19" 

v. Vandenbergh 824 

Morford V Hamner 1716. 1720, 1730 

Morgan, Ex parte 987, 1147, 1149 

Re . 349,674 

v . 1586 

v. Bovne 235 
v. Davey 595, 599, 602, 730, 731, 808 

v. Day 540 

v. Elam 186 

v. Elford 1471 

v. Elstob 1213 

v. Fuller 1078, 1083 

v. Graham 1661 

r. Great Eastern Ry. Co. 795, 1380 

v. Harris 548 

v. H.tchell 1338, ia50 

v. Higgins 1232 

v. Huggins 1411 

v. Jones 177, 444 

v. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. 26 
v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. 1164 

v. Lariviere 18, 142 

v. Lewis 1190 

V. M'Adam 1649 

ii. Marsack 1566 

v Meuth 378 

v. Morgan 163, 230, 285, 461. 661, 
989, 1362, 1368, 1459, 
1536, 1716 
v. New York and Albany R. 

Co. 239,406 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



Ixxxvn 



Morgan v. Palmer 






1638 


v. 


Railway Co. 






149 


v. 


Scudauiore 




1527, 


1528 


v. 


Shaw 


575, 


943, 944 


1774 


V 


Shepherd 






334 


v. 


Smith 






321 


V 


Thorne 






68 


v. 


Tifdon 






844 


v. 


Tipton 






1551) 


V 


Turner 






1061 


V 


Worthington 






365 


Morgan's La.,&c. 


Co. 


v. Texas 


Hot 


Central Ky. Cc 
iarty v. Mason 


. 


1019, 


154S, 
1553 

?yo 



Morire p. Durham, Bishop of 1290 
Monson v. Morison 72, 163, 505, 543 
v. Tumour 619 

Moritz v. Splitt 378 

Morley V. Bridges 1393 

v. Ulavering 1043, 1220, 17:»3 

v. Green 290 

v. Morley 212, 226, 257, 259, 891 
v. Rennoldson 150 

v. White 200, 409, 630 

Morniug Journal Ass'n v. Ru- 
therford 1029 
Moruington v. Keen 42 
Moruiugton 573, 578, 1834 



Earl of v. Smith 


807, 809 


Lord v. Keane 


1830 


Morocco Co v. Fry 


542, 13'.)4 


Morphett v. Jones 


847, 1668 


Morrall v. Pritchard 


1370, 1577, 




1578, 1594 


Morrell v Dickey 


1355, 1412 


v. Fisher 


1428 


v. Kelley 


1320 


v. Pearson 


1683 


t>. Wootten 


1825 


Murret v. Westerne 


214,277,278, 




660 


Morrice v. Bank of England 1033, 




1615 


v. Swaby 


1824, 1825 


Morrill v. Morrill 


778, 1150, 1157, 




1158 


Morris v. Ashbee 


1645, 1646 


v. Barclay 


287 


v. Barker 


726 


v. Bull 


1278 


v. Caonan 


1382 


v. Clarkson 


1270 


v. Cleasby 


1129 


v. Colinan 


1654, 1727 


V. Davies 


974, 1137, 1460 


v. Dillingham 


1256 


v. Edwards 


485, 579, 889 


v. Elme 


1750, 1768 


v. Fort 


363 


v Hay ward 


468 


v. inn 


1683 


v. Honeycombe 


743 


v. Howell 


1817 


r;. Hoyt 


846 


v Islip 


1393 


v. Kelly 


320, 1644 



v. Llanelly Ry. and Dock Co. 

983, 1330 
v. M'Neil 1700 

v. Merritt 1073 

v. Morris 86, 170, 243, 349, 1573, 

1633, 1860 
v. Morris & C. D. Co. 855 



v Mowatt 


1061, 1209, 1282 


v Nixon 


841 


v Owen 


1590 


v Parker 


721, 723. 724 


v. Peyton 


974, 1019 


v. Richardson 


987, 1484, 1491 


v. Robinson 


87 


v. Ross 


671 


v Smith 


1049 



v. Taylor 1, 963, 1168, 1296, 1314 
v. Timmins 1163 

t>. Vivian 1107,1108.1131 

v. White 843, 1584 



[The references are to the star paging.] 

Morris v. Williams 943 

v. Wilson 990 

v. Wright 1643, 1645 

Canal, &c, Co. v. Biddlet 1675 
v. Central Ry. Co. 1631, 1637, 

1669 
v. Dennis 1621 

V. Fagan 1631, 1677 

v. Fagin 1613 

v. Jersey City 1661, 1668 

and Essex R. Co. v. Hudson 

Tunnel R. Co. 1631 

v. Pruddeu 303, 1661 

Morris Wilsou & Co. v. Coventry 

M. Co. 1643 

Morrish v. Murray 1127 

Morrison, He 1361, 1801 

v. Arnold 1673, 1574 

v Barrow 987, 1072, 1079, 1148, 

. 2338 

v. Beckwith 1653 

v. Bowman 378 

v. Coleman 1675 

v. Durr 843 

v. Hart 361, 849, 862 

v. M'Leod 1240 

v . Marquardt 1638 

v. Mayer 782 

v. Moat 1070, 1651, 2319 

v. Morrison 1423, 1470, 1471, 

1548, 1768, 1769 

v. Searight 1530, 1536, 1549 

v. Stewart 843 

Morrisse v. Inglis 1276, 1286 

Morrissey v. Broomal 1071 

Morrit v. Walton 1526, 2059 

Morrow v. Fossick 1533 

v. Lawrence 247, 296 

v. Wessell 1282 

Morse v. Buckworth 565 

v. Earl 89 

v. Hill 560, 844, 1320 

v. Hovey 191, 737 

v. Lyman 255 

v- Machine Water Power Co. 287 

v Roach 877 

v. Royal 842 

v. Sadler 225 

v. Slason 851 

v. Smith 997, 1459 

v. Stearns 1411, 1561 

v. Worcester 1638 

Morshead v. Frederick 1284 

v. Reynolds 1213 

Morss v. Domestic S. M. Co. 1686 

Mortgage Co. v Jefferson 385 

Mortimer v. Cipsey 4~>7 

v. Cottrell 1632 

v. Fraser 546, 599 

^.Hartley 315, 542, 6o2 

v. M'Callon 1126 

v. Mortimer 202, 203, 204 

v. Orchard 380, 843, 860, 861, 

14H6 

v. Picton 1791 

« West 69, 685 

M >rtimore v. Soares 818 

Mortland v. Mortland 552, 1302 

Mortlock v. Buller 989, 995 

v. Leathes 1772 

v. Mortlock 399 

Morton, lie 98 

v. Great Eastern Ry. Co. 1775 

v. Grenada Academies 549, 557, 

71< 

v. Miller 1175, 1596 

v. New Orleans &c Ky. Co. 402 

v. Palmer 39, 5"5 

v. Weil 338 

v White 881 

Mosbv v. Haskins 1623 

v. Withers 1286 

Moscatti r. Lawson 1105 

Moseby ?'. Partee 1676 

Moseley V. Armstrong S4l 

v. Brush 197, 19!) 

v- Cocke 9S6 



Moseley v. Cresseys Co. 240, 241, 242 
v. Gassett 837 

v Hankinson 1276 

v. Moseley 1617 

v . Victoria Rubber Co. 576 



v. Ward 
Mosely v. Mosely 

v. Virgin 
Moser r. Marsden 
Moses v. Brodie 

v. Mayor, <&c. 

v. Murgatroyd 

i\ Wooster 
Mosier v. Beale 
Moiw, lie 



1416, 1417 

951 

1404, 1660 

406 

367 

1620 

1412 

1507 

87 

1844 



v. Anglo-Egyptian Nav. Co. 561, 
661, 1548, ,545) 

v. Bainbrigge 324, 1008 

v. Baldock 1475 

v. Buckley 615 

v. Dunlop 96 

v. McCall 1003 

v. Syers 397. 1601 

Most} d v. Brooke 164, 1584 

v. Emmanuel 1525 

v. Vabrigas 643 

v. Mostyn 1276 

Motion !\ King 1539 

v. Moojen 58 

Motley v. Downman 1*>49 

Mott v. Black wall Ry. Co. 1111 

v . Carter 221 

V. Hall 760 
v. Harrington 



1248, 1298, 1299. 

1301) 

940 

211, 1080, 1407 

284 

London Assurance 

197 
403 
1129 
144 
904, 918, 930 
230 



v. Ramsey 

v. Shoolbred 

v. Shreve 
Motteux v. 
Co. 

t>. Mackreth 
Mould v. Griffiths 
Moulin v Ins. Co 
Moulson v. Hargrave 
Moulton 17. Chaffee 

v. Edmonds 1218 

v. Reid 1492 

v. Richardson 1081 

Mounce v. Byars 780, 1075 

Mound Citv Life Ins. Co v. 

Harding 1286, 12?9 

Moundsville v Ohio River R. Co. 312, 

1662 

Mounsey v. Burnham 

i v. Earl of Lonsdale 



Mounson r. West 
Mount v. Manhattan Co. 
v. Potts 



426 
1378, 1379, 
1600 
1107 
682 
842. 1370 



Mount Carbon Coal Co. v. Blanch- 



ard 

Mountcastle r Moore 
Mountford, Ex parte 

r. Scott 

v. Taylor 
Mountfort, Ex parte 



331 
1284 
1&54 
675 
726 
1349. 1357, 
1603 
Mount Hope Iron Co. v. Dear- 
den 1157 
Mountnorris, Earl of r. White 1658 
Mount Olivet Cemetery v. Budcke 

'410, 412, 1675 
Mountstuart v. Mountstuart 1355 
Mount Vernon Bank v. Stone 328 
Mourilyan, Re 1044. 1590 

Mouseley v. Basnett 816, 817 

Mowatt v. Graham 942 

Mower v. Kip 1254 

Mowrev v. lad. and Cinn. R. 

Co. 1614 

Mowrv v. Baraboo Bank 1381 

v. Bishop 1259, 1260 

Davenport 1120 

r. Hill 313 

V Whitney 10 

Moxhay V Inderwick 1^54 

Moxon v. Bright 551 



lxxxviii 



Moxon v. Payne 328 

Moye v. Bateman 1848 

Hoyezs v. Coiner 175(5 

Mozeley t'. Cowie 328, 417 

Mozley v. Alston 26, 240, 242, 243 

v. (Jowie 284 

Mrzena v. Brucker 349, 728, 75!) 

M. Schandler B. Co. v. Welch 1620 

Muckleston v. Brown 483, 647 

Mudd v. Suckermore 1147 

Mudgett v. Gager 149, 150. 191 , 

216, 219, 290 

Muggeridge, Re 1491 

Muir v. Howell 1663 

Muirhead v. Evans 1090 

Muldoon v. Muldoon 1561 

Muldrow v. Du Bose 792, 793, 794 

Mulford v. Reilly 1031 

Mulbearo v. Press Pub. Co. 887 

Mulholland v Hendrick 856 

Mullakin v. Mullakin 830 

Mul an v. United States 8 

Mullen v. Strieker 1638 

Mulleue v Hussey 1285 

Muller v. Dows 357 

v. Henry 1683 

Mullett v. Christmas 28 

Muliikiu v. Mullikiu 1282 

Mullins v. Aiken 1003 

v. Howell 1603 

v. Hussey 385 

v. Towushend 1276 

Mullock v. Jenkins 242 

Mullows f. Bannister 448 

Mulloy v, Paul 715, 971 

v. Young 861 

Mulock v. Mulock 559, 956, 1076, 

1124, 1678 

Mulvey v. Gibbons 215 

Mum ford v. Muniford 49 

v. Murray 90, 122, 2297 

v. Stohwasser 1398 

Munch v. Cockerell 247, 248, 268 

v. Shabell 418 

Munchus v. Harris 860 

Munday v. Knight 324, 360, 370 

v. Shatzell 392 

v. Vail 853 

Mundv v. Howe, Earl 1359 

v. JollitTe 38 

v Mundy 1150,1165,1166 

Mundy's Landing Co. v Hardin 

378 
Munn v. Marsh 283 

Munns v. Isle of Wight Ry. Co. 1222 
Munor o. De Tartel 152 

Munro v Meech 659 

v. Smith 1643 



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

Munro v. Wivenhoe & Bright- 
lingsea Ry. Co. 1598, 1664, 1671 

Muuroeff. Tousey 1643 

Mudsoi) v Bowen 334 

v. Curtis 1381 

v. Reed 1073, 1076 

Munster v. Lamb 887, 1103 

Munt v. tih lies 88 

v. Shrewsbury and Chester Ry. 
Co. 1620 

Murch v. Concord Railroad 545 

Murdock v. Ratcliffe 346 

I v. Walker 1620 

Murdoek's Case 780, 781, 1630, 

1639, 1664 

Murfree v Carmack 67 

v. Leeper 27 

Murkle V. Murkle 754 

Murphev v. Amer. Life Ins. and 

Trust Co. 1460 

Murphy v. Clark 314, 385 

v. Conway 1501 

v. Gibbs 418 

v. Jackson 235, 247, 258, 270, 779 
v. Lincoln 590, 1638 

V. Murphy 1468 

v. New York Central R. Co. 940 
v. New York Police Board 1620 
v. Oldis 41, 43, 154 

v. Savannah 1585 

v. Smith 13*0 

v. Spaulding 1468 

v. Vincent 889 

v. Work 918 

Murray , Re 1299, 1841 , 1846 

v. Ballou 678, 679, 1382 

v. Barlee 113 

v. Barlow 280 

v. Blatchford 844, 1013, 1028, 

1029, 1594 
v. Bogue 1646 

v. Bush 1503 

v. Butler 1096 

v. Clayton 1686 

v. Cockerell 1726 

v. Coster 560. 720, 721 

v. Dehon 1263, 1603 

v. De Rottenham 2220 

v. Elibank, Lord 96, 101, 106, 

107, 1516 
v. Elston 907, 1676 

v. Finster 678 

v. Hay 302,303,341,345 

v. Lylburn 280 

v. Newbon 114 

v. Phillips 1382 

v. Schooner Betsey 50 

v. Shadwell 634 



Murray v. Toland 666, 668 

v. Vipart 447 

v. Walter 1825, 1826 

Murrell v. Clapham 37, 74 

Murriet v. Lvon 180 

Murrow v. Wilson 30, 31 

Muscott v. Halhed 355 

Muse v. Egerton 113 

Musgrave, Ex parte 60 

v. Medex 310, 1712 

v. Nevinson 1129 

v. Parry 67 

v. Pulido 17, 628 

v. Stevens 1072 

Musgrove v. Flood 96 

v. Lusk 164, 974, 1296, 1317, 1575 

v. Nash 1754 

v. Staylor 1679 

Muskerry v. Skerrington 1411 

Mussel v. Morgan 1584 

Mussell v. Cooke 655 

Musselman *>. Stohl 1508 

Musselwhite v. Spicer 1654 

Mussina v. Bartlett 462, 5i'4 

Musters v. Wright 226 

Mutrie v. Binney 354, 555, 633, 664 

Mutter v. Chauvel 1516, 1523 

v. Eastern & M. Ry. Co. 26 

v. Hudson 1261 

Muttleburv v. Haywood 1849 

Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Balch 1275 

v. Cokefair 759 

v. Sturges 524, 1286 

Mutual Society, Re 1438 

Mycock v. Beatson 552 

Myer v. Hart 1381 

Myers v. Bradford 1313 

v. Daniels 1463 

t». Dorr 695 

v. Farrington 302 

v. Fenn 287 

v. Gemmel 1638 

v. Hanlon 645 

v. Kin/.ie 844 

v. McGahagan 601 

v. Murray 357 

v. Myers" 68, 90, 91, 1253, 1259, 

1260, 1358, 1369 

v. Pickett 1580 

v. Raymond 1282 

v. Trimble 1686 

v. United Guaranty, &c. Co. 276. 

338 

Myles v. Burton 100 

Mynatttf. Hubbs 1131 

Mynd v. Francis 586 

Mynn v. Hart 29 

Myrick v. Adams 458 



N. 



N. v. N. 162 

N. & W. R. Co. v. Nunnally 634 

Nacoochee, &c. Co. v. Davis 1468 

Naddo v. Bardon 560 

Nadin v. Bassett 915 

Nagle c. Edwards 713 

Nagle-Gillman v. Christopher 108, 



Nail v. Mobley 334 

v. Punter 319 

Naish v. Browne 
Nalder v. Hawkins 6 

Nalle v. Austin 
Namee v. Groot 
Nanney !'. Martin 

v. Vaughan 

v. Williams 
Napier r Bullwinkle 

v. Daniel 

v. Effingham 73, 173, 



v. Elam 



840, 1229, 



,341 

,780 
1106 
3,71 

314 
1021 

118 
lfi78 
1362 
1638 
1109 
174, 

175 
1553 



Napier v. Napier 101, 102, 106, 784 

r. Routledge 2304 

v Staples 1223,1225 

Nash » Dillon 1422 

v. Evangelical Lutheran 

Church, Rector of 144 

v. Hunt 1302 

v. Nash 116 

v New England Life Ins. Co. 303 
v. Smith 287, 289. 294. 394, 585, 
586, 1561, 1562, 1563, 1566, 1567 
v. Suinburn 1131 

Nashua & Lowell R. Co. v. Bos- 
ton & L. R. Co. 1221 
Nashville &c. R. Co. v. Conk 313 
Nasom r. Clarkson 1251 
Nathan r. Tompkins 542, 1675 
Manuf. Co. v. Craig 314 
Newman & Co., Re 149, 447 
Nation v Cameron 314 
National Association v. Carstairs 

449, 452, 453, 536, 889 



National Bank v. Bryant 
v. Carpenter 
v. Garlingame 
v. Goddard 
v. Insurance Co. 
v. National Bank 



867 
2384 
186 
295 
830 
907 



v. Sprague 1281, 1296, 1299, 1316, 
1492, 1550 
v. United Hand in Hand Co. 

1393 
of Commerce v. Smith 418 

& P. Bank v. Thomas 187 

Bolivian Nav. Co. v. Wilson 1438 
Cash R. Co. v. Boston Cash I. 

& R. Co. 1642 

Furnace Co. v. Moline M. I. 

Works 842 

Hotel Co. v. Crane Brothers 

Manuf. Co. 790 

Life Ins. Co. v. Pingrey 1561 

Manuf. Co. v. Meyers 314 

Park Bank v. Halle 545 



National Permanent M. B. B. 

Society v. Raper 1224 

Provincial Bank v. Evans 170 

v. Jackson 674 

Provincial Plate Glass Ins. Co. 

v. Prudential Ass. Co. 1080, 

1398, 1638 

S. S. Co. v Tugman 357 

Trust Co. v. Murphy 1742 

Union Bank v Reed 324 

Natz v. M'Phersou 678 

Naudain v. Ormes 545 

Naumberg v. Hyatt 313 

Navulshaw v. Brownrigg 551 

Naylor, Ex parte 1205 

v. Bvland 170 

v. Middleton 1678 

v. Smith 1169 

v. Wright 422 

Neaderhouser v. State 546 

Neafie v. Neafie 635, 659, 660, 094 

1019 

Neal, Re, Weston v. Neal 39, 797 

v. Foster 1548, 1553 

v. Keel 1258 

v. Ogden 846 

v. Rathell 334 

v. Robinson 861, 1230 

Neale, Re 1347 

v. Bealing 1055, 1749 

v. Cripps 1632 

V. Hagthorp 254, 715, 837, 992, 

1239, 1243, 1245, 1599 

v. Neale 1622 

v Neales 417, 418, 23'.)8 

v. Pink 1741 

v. Ute 287 

Neary v. Jones 11*54 

Neate v. Dennian 628 

v Latimer 1830,1835 

t'. Marlborough, Duke of 1037 

Neave v Douglas 1745 

Nebraska v. Iowa 13S1 

Neck v. Gains 420, 692, 696, 699, 

780 

Needham v. Needham 512, 1030, 

1043, 1703 

v. Smith 176, 1487 

Needier v. Deeble 214, 277 

v. Kendall 1583 

Needles v. Needles 114, 118, 121, 

_ 123 

Neely v. Anderson 287, 288 

Neep »'. Abbot 884 

Neeson v. Clamp 914 

Neilson v Betts 1080, 1503 

V. Churchill 192 

v. Dickinson 846 

v. Frv 313 

v. M 'Donald 2278 

Neininger v. State 777 

Nell v. Snowden 1125 

Nellis v. Pennock Manuf. Co. 107, 

334, 402 

Nelms v. Clark 1463 

Nels v. Yocum 542 

Nelson, Ex parte 1054, 1055, 1057 

v. Barter 394, 1560, 1563, 1566 

v. Becker 576 

v. Booth 1232, 1251, 1252, 1259, 

1261 

v. Dubois 365 

v. Duncombe 86 

v. Dunn 1549 

v. Ferdinand 109, 385 

v. Hill 346 

v. Hubbard 1734 

v . Oldfield 663 

v. Pastorino 149, 536 

v. Pinegar 836, 837 

v. Ponsford 723 

v. Seaman 206. 976 

v. United States 951 

Earl v. Bridport, Lord 864, 1200, 

1381 

Nelthorpe v. Holgate 197 

r. Pennyman 1285 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 

[The reterences are to the star paging.] 

Nephi Irrigation Co. v. Jenkins 

1168 
Neptune Ins. Co. v. Dorsey 1245 

Neror v. Hurnand 1468, 1470 

Nesbit v. St. Patrick's Church 497, 
520 
Nesbitt v. Berridge 315, 542, 544, 
1386, 13:i4 
736, 784, 785 
361,881 
2027 
1463 
1638 
325 
824 
635, 1211 
870 
1386 
844. 886 
829,881,982 
1477 
9! 14 
1973 
726 
1234, 1413 
176 
1638 
1400 



lxxxix 



?'. Dallam 
Nesmith v. Calvert 

V. Dinsmore 
Nestor v. Swift 
Nethery v Payne 
Neuman v. Godfrey 
Neve v. Pennell 

v. Weston 
Nevil v Johnson 
Nevill v. Snelling 
Neville v. Demeritt 

v. Fitzgerald 
Nevinson v. Stables 
Nevitt v. Bacon 
Nevius w. Dunlap 
New v. Barne 

v. Jones 

v. New 
New Albany v. White 
Newall v. Smith 

t 1 . Telegraph Construction Co 

485,1824 

v. Wilson 1643 

v. Wright ' 284 

Newark Aqueduct Board v. Pas- 
saic 1636 

and N Y R. Co. v. Mayor of 

Newark 1, 1076, 1077 

Plank Road Co v. Elmer 993, 

1684 

Savings Inst. v. Jones 200 

Newavgo County Manuf Co v. 

Stevens 843 

Newbegin v. Bell 1424, 1437 

Newberry, Re 108 

v. Alexander 1120 

v. Iilatchford 10, 1548 

v. Stuart 1320 

Newbery, Re 226, 1862 

v. James 1651 

Newbiggin by the Sea Gas Co. r. 
Armstrong 307, 308 



Newbigging v. Adam 


552 


Newbold. Re 


436 


v. Ridgeway 


1166 


Newbould r. Smith 


652 


New Braintree v Southworth 190 


New Brunswick & Canada Rail- 


way Co. r. Conybeare 


1399 


Newhurgh u Bickerstaffe 


1362 


Earl of v. Newburgh, Count- 


ess of 


1111 


&c, Turnpike V Miller 


1623, 




1680 


Newbury v Marten 


167 


Lnrd v. Wren 


636 


Newhy v. Harrison 


1666, 1678 


v. Highway Com'rs 


1638 


v. Sharpe 


384, 401 


Newcastle. Duke of, Re 


1349 


v. Broxtowe, Inhab. of 


1126 


Newcastle-upon-Tyne V. 


Att- 


Gen 


1650 


Newcomb v. Clark 


195, 325 


v. Horton 230, 240, 344 


v. White 


790 


Newcombe v Chicago N. W. Ry 


Co 


334 


Newcomen r Coulson 


1666 1678 


Newdigate v. Johnson 


629 


V. Newdigate 


1536, 1537 


Newell v. Burbank 


329 


v. Newton 


546 


v Nichols 


850 


v. Sass 


1661 


v. Smith 


1752 


v- West 


1299 


v. Wheeler 


1624 


Newen v. Wetten 


1262 



New England Bank v. Lewis 615, 

726, 844 

&c , Bank v. Newport 

Steam Factory 216,262, 260, 

282, 335 

New England M. S Co. v Powel. 3S5 

Newenham v. Pemberton 443, 444 

Newgong Tea Co , Re 945 

Newhall v Hobbs 715, 720, 721 

V Kastens 1560, 1561 

Newhouse v Mitford 1029 

New Jersey v. New York 17, 129, 

446, 536, 543 

&c. Co. v. Ames 220 

Mut. Life Ins Co v. Corbin 1434 

Patent Tauning Co. v. Turner 658 

Protection and Lombard Bank 

v. Thorp 24 

Zinc Co. v. N. Y. Franklinite 

Co. 1472, 1476, 1479, 1519, 

1521, 1538 

Newkirk v. Willett 570 

Newland v. Champion 324 

v. Gaines 1017 

v. Gentry 68 

v. Glenn 1019 

v. Horseman 664, 056 

v. Rogers 334, 341 

v. Steer 907, 1177, 1209, 1820, L825 

New Loudon Bank v. Lee ^36, 202, 

294, 550 

Newlove v. Callaghan 726 

Newman v. Alford 1648 

v. Auling 1255 

v. Davenport 1743 

v. De Lorimer 652 

v. Godfrey 146, 197, 296. 300 

v. Hatch 1437 

v. Hodgson 318, 1809 

v. Hutton 684 

v. James 845 

v. Kendall 930, 052 

v. Landrine 27, 30. 31 

w.Moody 590,857,2397 

v. Morris 1625 

w. Norris 1209 

v. Selfe 161. 176, 178, 1266 

v. Wallis 605. 627, 703. 704 

v. White 690, 741 

New Mexico Land Co. v. Elkins 

206, 418 
New Orleans v. Gaines 1296, 1302 
r. Paine 1620 

v. Peake 1029, 1716 

G. L & B. Co. v. Dudley 658, 

1073, 1079, 1110, 1125 
M. & C. R Co. t'. New Orleans 

659. 1003 
Nat. Bank w. Bohne 630 

N. B. Ass v. Le Breton 255 

& N. E. R. Co. v Mississippi 

&c. R. Co. 1663 

R. Co. v. Dunn 1661 

Railroad v. Morgan 1491 

Newport, &c Bridge Co. w. Doug- 
lass 1719 
Newry v. Kilmorey 486, 776 
Newsham v. Gray 791 
Newxom v. Bowyer 89 
v. Shearman 1448 
Newton, Re 894 
w. Askew 1069, 1604 
w. Baker 1320 
v Bennett 1360, 1420 
v. Chorlton 1597, 1600, 1667 
w. Curzon _ 1359 
v- Dimes 719, 774 
w. Dousilass 1567 
v Egmont, Earl of 257, 258, 270. 
277 
j'. Egmont, Lord 289, 699 
r. Grand Junction Ry. Co 1450 
0. Lucas 13^3 
v. Metropolitan Ry. Co 31 S 
w. Newton 63'l 
v Ricketts 506, 805,981, 1601. 
1726 



xc 



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



Newton v. Swasey 365, 657 

B. Taylor I860 

v. Terry 779 

v. Thayer 589, 603, 694, 828, 829, 
830 
v Thomson 1847 

v. Willis 1213 

New Westminster Brewery v. 

Hannah 405 

New York v. Connecticut 17 

New York & B. C. P. Co. v. 

New York C P. Co. 8, 933, 1573 
New York B. & P Co. v. Ma- 

gowan 1642 

New York Chem. Co. v. Flowers 

180, 524, 754, 784 
New York Co. v. Water Co. 630 

New York Drv Dock Co. v. Amer- 
ican Life' Ins. & Trust Co. 1621 
New York Filter Co v Schwartz- 

walder 1642 

New York Fire Ins. Co. v. Ely 24 
v. 'looker 402 

New York Guaranty Co. V. Mem- 
phis Water Co 197 
New York Ice Co. v. N. W. Ins. 

Co. 385 

New York Life Ins Co. v. Clop- 
ton 51 
v. Statham 51 
New York, <Xrc. R. Co. v. Haws 1625 



v. Robinson 
N Y. & N. H. 

Schuyler 
New York, N. H. 

Martin 



830 
R. R. Co. v. 

585 
& H. R. Co. v. 

974, 1840 



New York &c. Pol. Co. v. New 
York C P. Co. 10 

New York Printing Co. v. Fitch 

1631, 1664 

New York P. & R. Co. v New 

York, L. E. & W. R. Co. 1743 

New York & W. U. Tel. Co. v. 

Jewett 1765 

Nias v. Adamson 157 

v. Northern and Eastern Ry. 
Co. 572, 578 

Nihertt). Baghurst 1621, Lo75 

Niblett v. Daniel 883 

Nice v. Purcell 1073, 1"76 

Nichol v. Bestwick 1130 

v. Davidson County 726 

v. Ridley 657, 867 

v. Steger 1360 

v Vaughan 1077 

Nicholas v. Murray 586 

Nicholl v. Boyd 1765 

v. Jones 571, 803, 809, 889, 1823, 

1834 

v. Wheeler 485, 579, 889 

Nicholls, Re 1611 

v. Dowding 1098 

v. E'.ford 795, 977 

v. Haslam 1440 

v. Ibbetson 912, 1670 

v. Kearsly 1666 

v. Nichols 1209, 1210 

v. Perry Patent Arm Co 1715 

v. Roe 554, 1621, 1858 

v. Ward 180, 181, 182, 500 

Nichols, Ex parte 199 

v. t'olville 1467 

v. Eaton 1037 

V. Ela 1110, 1299 

v Levy 1037 

to Nixey 157 

v. Pitman 1643, 1647 

v. Rogers 324, 407 

v. Scranton Steel Co. 418 

v. Williams 231 

Nicholson, Re 83, 1610 

v Carline 92, 102 

v. Drury Estate Building Co. 87, 

123 

1413, 1422 



Nicholson v. Knapp 

v. Norton 

v. Patterson 

v. Peile 

v. Pirn 

v. Squire 

v Wilborn 
Nickersou v. Atchison 

Co. 
Nickle v. Stewart 
Nicklin v. Hobin 

v. Patten 
Nickolson v. Knowles 
Nickson v. Richardson 
Nicol v. Vaughan 
Nicoll v Boyd 

v. Huntington 

v. Roosevelt 
Niell v. Motley 
Niemann v. Harris 
Nightingale J>. Dodd 

v Lawson 
Niles, Matter of 

v. Anderson 

v. Williams 
Nimmo v Commonwealth 
Nims v. Nims 
Nisbett v Murray 
Nix v. Winter 
Nixon v. Albion Marine Ins. Co. 

849, 881, 981 

v. Richardson - 1609, 1700 

v. Sheldon 32 

Noad v. Backhouse 1730 

Noake, Re 108 

Nobel's Explosives Co. v. Jones 298, 
"j,41" 
Nobkissen v. Hastin; 
Noble v. Edwardes 

v. Garland 

v. Kennoway 

v. Martin 

v. Meymott 

v. Moses 

v. School Directors 

v. Stow 



1652 
1409, 1845 
1625 
421 
555 
1588 
1351 
;c. R. 

313 

1576, 1584 

1618 

765, 766 

1561 

1698 

851, 1077, 1082 

1765 

1382, 1400, 1680 

1541 

85 

899, 1669 

885 

1233 

1841 

544. 545 

556, 630 

1234 

1221 

1427, 1429 

360 



607, 703 

989 

548 

1130 

1118 

1411 

349 

1029 



1373, 1525, 1540, 1579, 

1778, 1785, 1794. 1795 

v. Wilson 1315, 1316, 1676, 1677 

Nobles v. Hogg 1172 

Nodine r Greenfield 194, 229 

Noe v. Gibson 1743 

v. Noe 617 

Noel v Fitzgerald 952 

v. King 403, 740, 1551, 1552 

v. Noel 182, 986, 1120, 1824 

v. Robinson 1475 



316, 681 

314, 1659 

908, 16n0, 1659 



v. Ward 
Nokes v Fish 

v. Gibbon 

v Seppings 1772, 1773 

Nolan v. Shannon 930 

Noland v. Turner 217 

v. Ormston 1580 

Nolen v. Woods 378 

Nonmagnetic Watch Co. v. As- 
sociation Horlogere Suisse 149, 
517 
Noonan v. Bradlev 1472 

v. Caledonia Gold M. Co. 402 

v. Lee 1042 

v Orton 887, 888 

Norbury e. Calbeck 1419 

v. Meade 1459, 1467, 1496, 

1498 

Lord v. Kitohin 1662 

Norcom ». Rogers 8, 9, 10, 83, 84. 

86 

Norden v. Defries 573 

Norfolk, Duke oft'. Worthy 195 

& W. R. Co. v. Postal Tel 



Falkner 
Gibb 
J eyes 



1530 
1329, 1344 



Cable Co. 
Trust Co. v. Marye 
Norman, Re 
v. Beaumont 
v. Huddleston 
v. Johnson 
v. Stiby 



579, 1556 
1661 
•27, 31, 34 
1092, 1128 
1550 
1406 
602 



Norman v. Villain 88, 179 

Norman Scott-Russed v. London, 

Chatham and Dover Ry. 1682 

Normandie, The 933 

Normauville v. Stauning 1599, 1670 

Norris v. Bean 236 

v. Chambres 629 

v. Cotterill 449, 452 

v. Freeman 1129 

v. Haggin 334, 560 

v. Harris ia50 

v. Hassler 216 

v. Jackson 336, 1081, 1660 

v. Lake 1716 

v, Leman 243 

v. Le Neve 1165, 1576 

v. McLam 314 

v. Norris 1410 

v. Ormond 1660 

v. Scott 324 

v. Wright 268 

Nortclitfe v. Warburton 280, 400, 

1034 

North v. Great Northern Ry. 

Co. 1380 

v. Great Western Ry. Co. 795, 

796 

v. Perrow 1677 

v. Peters 295 

v. Stafford, Earl of 584 

North American Coal Co. e. 

Dyett 402, 1476, 1480, 

1533^ 

North Australian Territory Co. , 

Re 720, 942 

North Carolina Gold Amalg 
Co. v. N. C. Ore Dressing 
Co. 1666 

North Carolina R. Co. v. Drew 888 
North-Eastern Ry. Co. v. Mar- 
tin 551 
North London Ry. Co. V- Great 

Northern Ry. Co. 211,671, 

1858 
North, Lord v. Gray, Lord 1573 

North Penn. Coal Co. v Snow- 
den 1071 
North River Bank v. Rogers 424 
North River Ins. Co. v. Holmes 

1286 
North Staffordshire Steel Co. v. 

Camoise 1660 

North Western Bank v. Nelson 601 
North Wheal Exmouth Min Co., 

Re 915, 1333 

North Whitehall v. Kellar 974 

Northam, Ex parte 39 

Northampton Coal Co. v. Mid- 
land Waggon Co. 27, 1474 
Northampton National Bank v. 

Crafts 200 

Northcote v. Duke 1658 

r. Northcote 764 

Northern Counties Ins. Co v. 

Whipp 674 

Northern Counties Union Ry. 

t>. North-Eastern Ry. 1775 

Northern Illinois C. & I. Co. v. 

Young 1584 

Northern Pacific R. Co. v. 

Amacker 2040 

v. Cannon 1618 

r Herbert 1120 

v Paine 313, 850 

v. Roberts 586 

v. Walker 334 

v. Whalen 1638 

Northern R. Co. v. Ogdensburg, 

&c. R. Co. 1551 

Northern Transportation Co v. 

Chicago 1635 

Northey v . Northey 255 

v. Pearce 1661 

Northfleet Brick Co , Re 1610 

Northman v. Liverpool, &c. Ins. 

Co. 63, 355, 1508, 1518 

Northop v Wright 873 



Northumberland, Duke of v. 

Bowman 649 

v. Todd 749, 892 

Northup v. Hatch 563, 564, 567 

Northy v. Northy 1238 

Norton, Ex parte 116, 1029 

v. Berlin Iron Bridge Co. 149 

v. Cooper 307, 309, 1244, 1393, 
1464, 2213 
v. Florence Land Co. 629, 633 

v. Grover 1734 

v. Hepworth 448, 454 

v. Hixon • 1031 

v. Meador 186 

v. Nichols 1643, 1679, 1681 

t;. Pritchard 1051 

v. Russell 1408 

v. Steinkopf 820, 826, 1420 

t>. Talmadge 1033 

v. Turvill 642. 714 

v. Walsh 1120 

v. Warner 722, 723 

v. White 813, 814, 1512 

v. Woods 146, 759, 1409 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Norvall v. Pascoe 800 

Norway v. Norway 1436 

v. Kowe 349. 728, 1201, 1631, 

1717, 1727,1768 

Norwich v. Brown 243 

Norwood v. Manning 1255 

v Norwood 674, 846, 12-2 

Nothard v. Proctor 173.1 

Notley v. Palmer 1359, 1524 

Nottidge v . Priehard 1503 

v. Prince 852 

Nottingham Union Guardians 

v. Tomkinson 849 

Nottley v. Palmer 99, 1802, 205:> 

Nourse v Finch 1426 

Novosielski v. Wakefield 1001,2222 
Nowell, Re 1040, 1694, 1697 



XC1 



v Whitaker 
Nowgong Tea Co , Re 
Nowland v. Glenn 
Noyes v. Crawley 

v. Hall 

v. Inland & S. C. Co 



41, 156 

945 

1014 

560, 641 

215 

840 



v. Rich 



1736, 1742, 1750 



Noyes v. Sawyer 


194, 212 


,405 


v. Willard 


607 


,608 


Noysomhed, The Danish Ship 


553 


Nudd o. Powers 




560 


Nugent v. Jenkinson 




803 


v Vetzera 


1346, 


1348 


Nultou's Appeal 




8*3 


Nulton v. Isaacs 




334 


Nuneaton Local Board 


v. Gen 




eral Sewage Co. 




10 


Nunn v. Barlow 




1425 


v. D'Albuquerque 




1649 


v. Hancock 




1004 


v. Harvey 




1358 


v. Nunn 




1299 


Nurse v. Bunn 




839 


v. Durnford 


86 


.307 


Nushaum v. Stein 




1734 


Nussbaum v. Heilbron 




1556 


Nutting U. Hebdin 




632 


Nye v Maule 


43, 


1082 


Nyse wander v. Low man 




815 



o. 



Oakes v. Turquand 
Oakey v Dal ton 
Oakley V. O'Neill 

v. Patterson Bank 

V- Trustees 
Oats v. Chapman 
O'Bannon v Myer 
Ober v. Gallagher 

v. Planting Co 
Oberle v. Lerch 
Obert v. Obert 
O'Brian v. Fry 
O'Brien v. Bowes 

v. Creig 

IT. Klli >t 

v Heeney 

v Hulfish 



1600 

1507 

497, 520 

1715 

1624 

599 

844 

149, 191 

1735 

1365 

1151 

844 

1072, 1079 

1624 

844 

287 

1550 



v. Lewis 1042, 1065, 1485, 1486 

v Mahon 1538 

v Maitland 162, 476 

v Manders 497 

v. Obrien 1633 

v Stephens 1032 

v. Tyssen 542 

O'Bryne v. O'Bryne 1147 

O'Callaghan v. Barnad 1670 

v. Cooper 1416, 1421 

v. Murphy 93'J 

Occleston v. Fullalove 229 

Ocean Ins. Co. v. Bigler 1573 

v. Field 563, 564 

Ochsenbein v. Papelier 664, 1621 

O'Counell v M'Namara 1586 

V. The Queen 1091 

O'Conner v Sierra Nevada Co. 30, 

35.36 

v. Wilson 1624 

O'Connor v. Cook 1075, 1123 

v. Cooke 1076 

v. Debraine 1713 

v. Delaney 8'i0 

V. Malone 1119,1137,113 1 

v. Mechanics' Bank 1746 

v. Richards 1287 

O'Dayt). Bowker 1029 

Odd Fellows J. 8. Ass'n v. 

Merklin 190 

Oddie t>. Hrown 1430 

v. Woodford 14fi9 

Odell v. Hart 504 

Odiorne v. Seavey 1154 

Odom v. Owen 582, 1548, 1551 

Odorless Excavating Co v. Lau- 

man 1642 

Oelrichs v. Spain 630, 1081, 1666 
O'Farrel v. O'Farrel 937 



O'Ferrall, Ex parte 103 

Offeley v. Morgan 586 

Otfen v Harman 1408 

Official Manager v. Carstairs 449, 
452, 453, 889 
Official Receiver, Ex parte 576 

Offley v. Jenney 
Ogden v. Battams 

v. Davidson 

v. Fossick 

v. Gibbons 

v. Kip 

v. Moore 

v . Ogden 

v. Thornton 

v. Walker 
Ogg v. Leinart 
Ogilby v. Gregory 
Ogilvie. Re 

v. Hearne 

v. .leaffreson 

v. Knox Ins. Co. 
Oglander ?> Baston 

v. Oglander 
Ogle v. Bell 

v. Brandling 

v. Cook 

v. Ege 

v. Koerner 
Oglesby v. Attrill 
O'Grady v. Barry 
Oijshury v. La Farge 
O'llagao, Ex parte 
O'Halloran v. King 
O'Hara v. Eiliott 

v- McConnell 



226. 227, 252 
1232 
1276 
1657 
406,23')8 
1664 
4H 
720 

417, 418 
1661 
1376 

905 

1035 

33, 37, 530 

677 

274, 287 

89. 118 

1263 

1463 

9S4 

875, 1116 

1613 

790 

418, 659 
402, 406 

9' 14 

1847 

100 

1440 

163, 189, 1467 

2379 

1536, 1587 

868,828 



v. Shepherd 
O'Hare v Downing 
Ohio v Ellis 303, 344, 346, 34 

Ohio Central R. Co. v Central 

Trust Co. 1042 

Ohio, &c. R Co. v. Fitch 1742 

Ohio & Miss. R. Co. v. Anderson 

1743 
Ohling v. Lnitjens 550, 860 

Ohlsen v. Terrero 906, 1100 

Ohm v. San Francisco 545 

Ohrlv v. Jenkins 710 

Oil Run Petroleum Co. v. Gale 

1567 
O'Keefe v. Cannon 369 

V Casey 1352 

O'KelleyV Oholston 1290 

O'Kelly v. Bodkin 1211 

Olcott v. Bynum 284 



Old v. Old 1680 

Oldaker v. Hunt 1635, 1638 

Oidalev. Whitcher 28 

Oldfield v. Cobbett 38, 39, 155, 

491, 505, 509, 796, 813, 1049, 

1454, 1683 

Old Folks' Society v. Millard 991 

Oldham v. Collins 90, 217 

v. Kboral 1547, 1585 

v Hughes 97 

v. Oldham 1707, 1708 

v. Stonehouse 1481), 1491 

Old Hickory Distilling Co. v. 

Bleyer 594, 985 

Olding v. Poulter 324 

Olin v. Hungerford 1033 

Oliva v. Bunaforza 334, 559 

Oliver v. Bank of Tennessee 916 

v. Burt 1796 

Cunningham 215, 659 



1727. 



?». Hamilton 

v, Hunting 

v. Look 

v. Memphis, &c R. Co 

v Moore 

v. Mut Comm. Mar. Ins. Co 1966 

V. Oliver 108, 1004 

v. Palmer 190, 385 

v. Piatt 334, 335, 346 347 



1728 
655 
314 

1661 

886 



v. Richardson 

v Wright 
Ollendorff?' Black 
Ollerenshaw v. Harrop 

Olley v. Fisher 
Olmstead v Loomis 
Olnev t> Eaton 
Olwell v Montgomery 



1166 

912 

46, 1643 

1019,1021, 

1027 

315 

303, 1637 

1033 

637 



Olvphant v. St. Louis Ore & 

Steel Co. 214 

Omaha S Rv. Co. v. Beeson 287 

O'Mahonev v. Belmont 1715, 1743 

V. Burdett 1503 

v. Lucke 1743 

O'Malley v. Blease 1413 

Omaly v Owen 284 

O'Mealey v Wilson 50 

Omerod v. Hardman 988, 989, 1475 

Omvchund v. Barker 891 

Omierdonk v. Gray 1237, 1550 

O'Neal v. Boone 860 

Oneida Countv Bank v. Bonney 634 

ONeil v Hamill 1191 

v. Jones 1658 

v. Kansas City, S. & M. R. 

Co. 1434 



xcu 



Onge v. Truelock 
Ong.ey v. Hill 
O'Niell v. Walker 
Ouioiis 17. Cohen 

v. Naish 

v. Tyrer 
Only v. Walker 
Onslow, lit 



796, 1457 
906 
1051 

385, 1400 
1131 
1004 



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

O'Rourke v. Cleveland 608 Ottey v. Pensam 

17. Commissioner for Railways 1860 

v. Elsbree 1492 

Orphan Asylum v. McCartee 793, 
1715, 1722 



99 
1630, 1656 
v. Wallis 1485 

Ontario Bank v. Mumford 197, 199 
v. Hoot 365, 657 

v. Schermerhorn 411 

v. Strong 457 

Onward Building Society v. 

Smithson 645 

Onyon v. W'ashbourne 1744 

Ooddeen v Oakeley 1672, 1675 

Oppeuheini v. Leo Wolf 1561 

v. Martin 877 

Oram v. Dennison 457, 524, 529 

Orange v. Pickford 849, 873, 881, 
981, 2190 
Co. Bank v. Worden 1691 

Orchard's Case 1069 

v Hughes 1042 

Orcutt v. Orms 700 

Ord v Fawcett 1829 

v. Huddleston 630, 697 

v. Noel 1576, 1578 

v Smith 650 

Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Gates 1618 
v. Swinburne 726 

& T. R. Co. v. Northern Paci- 
fic R. Co. 1517 
Oregonian Ry. Co v. Oregon Ry 

& Nav. Co. 26, 354, 630 

O'Reilly v. Brady 1315, 1316 

Orendorf v. Budlong 543 

Orford, Earl of v. Churchill 1426 
Orgain v. Ramsey 1076 

Organ v- Gardiner 1585 

v. Memphis & L. R. Co. 1150 

Orger v. Sparke 1162 

Orient Steam Nav. Co v. Ocean 

Marine Ins. Co. 1770 

Oriental Bank v. Nicholson 652, 

1565, 1571 

Steam Co. ». Briggs 598, 1490 

Original Hartlepool C. Co. v. 

Gibbs 10S1 

Orkey v. Bend 296 

Orme, Re, Evans v. Maxwell 1425 

Ormerod v. Bleasdale 1488 

Ormes ?>. Beadel 712 

Ormond.Lady v. Hutchinson 839, 1559 

Marquis of v, Kynnersley 1860 

Ormsby, Re 1747 

v. Bakewell 886 

v. Palmer 739 

v. Union Pacific Ry. Co. 542 

O'Rourke v. Central City Soap 

Co. 1648 



Orr v. Bowles 
v. Diaper 
v. Dickinson 
v. Littlefield 

v Merrill 



28 

1556, 1557, 1558 
1653 

1642, 1643, 1676, 
1677 

1676 



Orr W. D. Co. v Larcombe 1561 

Orrell v. Busch 634 

Orrell General Colliery, &c Co., 

A'e 659 

Orrock v. Binney 224 

Orser v. Hoag 46 

Orthwein v. Thomas 851 

Ortigosa v. Brown 674 

Ortley v. Messere 83 

Orton v. Baiuurigge 794 

v. Smith 552, 1624 

Orwell v. Hincbinbrooke, Lord 1213 
Osbaldeston v. Askew 1217 

Osbaldiston v. Crowther 177 

Osborn v Heyer 1734, 1735 

v. London Dock Co. 2047 



v Morgan 
v. Thompson 
v. U. S Bank 
Osborue, Re 
v. Barge 
v. Denne 
v. Foreman 
v. Harvey 



2001 

1096 

129, 1651, 1661 

109, 1004 

214, 1548, 1553 

15, 81, 1437 

223, 1285, 1288 

1729, 1734 



v. Jullion 585, 586, 591, 592, 593, 

598, 789, 2087 

v. Lawrence 363 

v. London Dock Co 942, 1103 

v. Morgan 92, 98 

to Rowlett 1401 

v. Taylor 225 

v. Usher 1461 

v. Van horn 1358 

r. Williams 668, 1675 

v. Wisconsin Central R. Co. 303 

Osbourn v Fallows 257, 259 

Osgood v. Breed 874 

O'Shea v. O'Shea 1069, 1835 

O'Sheehy v. O'Sheehy 448 

Osmaston v. Land Financiers 894 

Osmond v. Tindall 350, 951 

Ostell v. LePage 664, 800 

Osterberg v. Union Trust Co. 1283 

Ostle v. Christian 1611 

Ostrander ■;;. Webber 630 

Oswald, Re 1144 

v Kampmann 149 

Oteri v. Scalzo 552, 1320, 1660 

Other v. Smurthwaite 324, 381, 911 

Otis v. Lindsay 1259 

v. Shants 542 

v. Wells 457 



1304, 1305, 1307, 
1308, 1309, 1310 
1423, 1427 
1469, 1470 
113, 499 



Ottley v. Gilby 
Otto v. Lindford 
Ottway v. Wing 

Ousley v. Anstruther 1278 

Outhwaite v. Outhwaite 1167 

Outland v. Outland 334 

Outlaw v. Cherry 1517 

Outram v. Outram 1102 

Outwell v. Van Winkle 120 

Outwin, Re 1604 

Overend & Gurney Co. r. Gibb 26 
Ovenugtou v. Ward 201, 318, 1722 
Overly v. Tipton 243 

Overman v. Overman 1525 

Wheel Co v. Elliott Hickory 



Cycle Co. 




314 


Overstreet v. Bate 




560, 644 


v. Thompson 




926 


Overton v. Bauister 




684 


v. Bigelow 




1475, 1476 


v. Bolton 




1257 


v. Memphis, &c. R 


Co. 


1734 


Overy v. Leighton 




761 



Ovey, Re, Broadbent v. Barrow 13 
Ovington v. Smith 1081 

Owden v. Apel 1571 

v. Bankhead 402, 1017 

v. Campbell 109 

v. Cooper 1579 

v. Fields 1639 

v. Ford 1662 

v. Foulks 1292 

v. Griffith 1393, 1397, 1463, 1464 
v. Homan 1715, 1717 

v. Jones 838 

v. Nodin 344 

v. State 129 

v. Thomas 849, 881. 981 

v. Warburton 1131 

v. Wynn 1829 

Owens v Dawson 838 

v. Dickenson 186, 226, 236, 1209, 
1210 
v. Emmens 894 

v. Hanney 52 

Owing's Case 292, 1004, 1507, 1724 
Owings v Norwood 917 

v. Owings 1476 

v. Rhodes 1561 

v. Worthington 1463 

Oxburgh v. Fincham 1540 

Oxenden v. Cropper 32 

Oxenham v. Esdaile 706 

Oxford v. Reid 100 

and Cambridge, the Univer- 
sities of v Kichardson 1642, 
1643 
Oyster v. Oyster 659 

Oystermouth Ry. & T. Co. v. 

Morris ■ 241 

Ozark Land Co. v. Leonard 713, 1031 



P. 



Pace v. Bartles 720 

v. Marsden 168 

v. Potter 536 

Pacific Hotel Co v. Lieb 1661 

Nat. Bank 17. Mixter 1561 

Ry. Co. v. Atlantic & P. R. 

Co. 216, 334, 560 

v. Cutting 991, 1548 

v. Ketchum 1504, 1716 

v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. 1584 

v. Wade 1071 

Steam Co. v. Gibbs 26, 1666 

Packer v. Packer 96 

17. Wyndham 115, 124, 125 

Packham v. Newman 1132 

Packington's Case 1633 

Packington v. Packington 1678 



Pack wood v Maddison 
Paddock v. Lance 
Paddon v. Winch 
Padgett ». Baker 
Padley v. Lincoln Waterworks 
Co. 297,671,721, 

Padwick v. Hurst 360, 651. " 

r. Piatt 206, 

Page v. Bennett 

v. Foster 1243, 

17. Lever 

v. Olcott 

v. Page 

v. Townsend 301, 302, 

v. Webster 

v. Whidden 

v. Young 



798 


Page Woven-Wire Fence Co. v. 


860 


Land 




1642 


1444 


Paget v. Ecte 




629 


1565 


v. Foley 




653 




Paige v. Smith 




1743, 1752 


,722 


v. Willett 




850 


1929 


Pain v. 




180, 681 


,302 


Paine v. Edwards 




795, 1265 


1659 


v. Hutchinson 




2255 


1245 


v. Noelke 




864 


677 


v. Schenectady Ins. 


Co 


324, 633, 


327 






864 


1184 


v Slocum 




517 


,315 


v Warren 




1556 


1150 


Pakington v. Benbow 




1406 


334 


Pale v Mitchell 




124 


630 


Palk, Re 




224 



Palk v. Clinton, Lord 213, 214, 295, 

379,383 

Palmer, Re 970, 979 

V. Aylesbury, Lord 934, 940, 1117 

v. Carlisle, Karl of 212, 259 

v. Flower 1524 

v. Goren 1275 

v. Joues 1233, 1411 

v. Locke 324, 1040, 1401 

v. McCorinick 149 

v. Mallet 212, 1»355 

v. Merrill 1461 

v. Oakley 1353 

v. Palmer 369, 445 

v. Perry 1368 

v. Ranken 1381 

v. Scriven 1743 

v. Stevens 219 

v. Travers 1620 

v. Trower 1101 

v. Truby 1770 

v. Van Doren 885, 886, 1699 

v. Vaughan 1730 

v. Walesby 83, 86, 307, 308 

v. Wright 1723. 1825 

Palo Alto Banking Co. v. Mabar 1620 

Pankey v Raum 1075 

Panueil v. Uurley 1538 

v. Tayler 1704, 1710 

v. Taylor 180 

Pante v. Bethel 998 

Pan ton v Labertouche 35 

v. Tefft 843 

v. Williams 1107 

Paper Bottle Co., lie 27 

Paper Staining Co., Ex parte 157 

Parailice v. Sheppard 37, 38 

Paragon & Spero Mining Co , 

Re 1041, 1044 

Paramore v. Greenslade 1275 

Paray v. Hodgson 1363 

Parberry v. Gorarn 294 

Pardee V De Cola 855 

v. Steward 214 

Pardo v. Bingham 647, 652, 1459, 

1462 

Pare v. Clegg 241, 419, 1734 

Paredes v. Lizardi 985 

Parfit v. Lawless 852 

Pariente v. Bensusan 414, 770, 776 

Paris v Gilham 1560, 1564, 1565, 

15H9 

v Hughes 1194 

Parish v. Poole 1440 

v Sloan 341 

Park » Ballentine 406 

v. Johuson 986, 989, 990, 995, 

1013 

v Meek 994 

v. New York, &c. R. Co. 1743 

v Wiley 1770 

Parke v. Brown 1031 

v. Christy 735, 750 

Parker, Re 1734, 1794 

v. Alcock 667, 669, 692, 20: 15 

v Ausell 1135 

v- Ash 652 

v. Backus 1734 

v Baker 8m 

v. Barker 1561, 1562, 1563, 1566 

v. Beavans 326 

v- Blighton 1845 

v. Blythmore 697 

v- Britt 1567, 1625 

v. Browning 1743, 1748, 1750 

v. Carter 373, 576 

v. Concord 830 

v. Dacres 1918 

v. Dawson 506 

v. Dee 1027 

v- Downing 1021, 1026 

v. Dunn 1741, 1752 

v. Fairlie 727 

v- Flagg 597 

v. Foote 1638 

v ■ Ford 408, 1559 

v. Francis 1594 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Parker v. Fuller 214 I 

v. Grant 402, 424, 524, 529, 1026 
v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 1667 
v. Great Western Ry. Co. 1129 

v. Hayes 917, 951 



XC1U 



Hutchinson 
v. Lech mere 
v. Lloyd 
v. Logan 
v. McKeuna 
v. M' William 
v. Marco 
v. May 
v. Moore 
v. Morrell 

v. Newland 
v. Nickersou 



v. Nickson 
v. Nightiu" 



1257 
117 
449 
986 
1399 
1101 
887 
7, 9. 10 
1720 
842, 984, 1003, 1082, 
1467, 1476, 1491, 2336 
1576 
630, 1071, 1073, 
1302, 1320 
368, 426 
1654, 2313 



He 



v. Parker 1411, 1510, 1703, 17 1 

v. Partlow 1283 

v. Peters 228 

v. Phetteplace 843 

v Riugham 1615 

v. Simpson 796 

v. Small 215 

v. Thornton 1095, 1128 j 

v. Watkins 1389 ! 

v Williams 1667, 1673 I 

v. Wiunipiseogee Lake Co. 550, 630 

Parkersburg v. Brown 328 

Parkes v. Gorton 840 

v. Stevens 1148 

v. White 1407, 1417 

Parkes' Charity, Re l->55 

Parkhurst v. Cory 1241 

v. Kinsman 1537, 1577, 1579, 

1715, 1722, 2388 

v. Lowten 563, 565, 567, 577, 879, 

942, 943, 944 

v. Race 1003 

v. Van Cortlandt 2278 

Parkin v. Moore 920 

Parkins v Hawkshaw 576 

Parkinson v. Chambers 38, 33, 485, 

1822, 1831 

v. Francis 865 

v. Hanbury 41, 42. 43, 371, 666. 

792, 981, 1440, 1479 

v. Ingram 1196, 1197 

v. Lee rag 663 

v. Lucas 1331, 1542 

v Potter 142 

v. Trousdale 758, 1676, 1677 

v. Wentworth 49, 52 

Parkman v. Aicardi 290 

v. Welch 846 

Parks v. Doty 159 

v. Jackson 1571 

v. Parks 1584 

v. Rucker 641 

Parlement Beige, The 141 

Parlett ?» Guggenheimer 1648 

Parley's Park S. M. Co. v. Kerr 314 

Parmalee r. Lewis 1^77 

Parmelee v. Kgan 237, 243. 559 

Parmiter r. Coupland 1107 

v. Parmiter 1460, 1461, 1480 

Parmley v. St Louis, &c. R. Co 1661 

Paniell v. Kingston 191 

v. Price 1369 

v. Wood 896, 1S17 

Parr v Att -Gen 887 

v. Jewell 382 

v. London, Chatham & Dover 

Ry Co 573 

v. Lovegrove 989, 9S10 

Parrill v. McKinley 425 

Parrot v. Paulet 828 

v. Treby 1396, 14 ID 

Parrott, lie, Walter v. Parrott 108 

v. Quernan 1014 

v. Shellaud 554, 670 

Parry, Re 1611 

v. Ashley 1776 



Parry v. Owen 851, 553 

v. Rogers 1573 

Parsous, Re, Stockley v. Parsons 316 
Parsons v. Dunne 95,97 

v. Greenville R. Co. 633 

v. Groome 1041, 16! 6 

v. Hardy 782 

v. Heston 324, 852 

v. Howard 149, 191, 216 

v. Neville 216 

v. Parsons 91, 120 

v. Robertson 1824 

v. Robiuson 1029 

v. Spoouer 2.3 

Parsons Water Co. v. Hill 418 

Partee v. Kortrecht 545 

v. Thomas 143. 314 

Partington v. Att -Gen. 201, 250 
v- Bailey 199, 808 

v. Booth 1683, 16S6 

v. Reynolds 26, 27, 33, 39, 359, 
796, 1260, 1370, 1578. 1579, 
1581, 1605 
Partridge v. Foster 1037 

v. Haycraft 326, 356, 378, 414, 

761, 764, 770, 771, 776 
v. Jackson 312 

v. Perkius 1576 

v. Usborne 1578, 1582 

Pascall v. Scott 948, 1552 

Pascault v. Cochran 1716 

Paschall, In re 1845 

v. Thurston 1585 

Pascoe v. Pascoe 127 

Pashler v. Vincent 157 

Pasley v. McConnell 1051 

Pasman v. Montague 860 

Pasmore, Re 33, 1605 

Passiugham v. Sherborn 1368 

Passmore v. Moore 165, 1286 

Passumpsic Savings Bank v. Na- 
tional Bank 1551 
Patch v. Dalton 230 
v. Gray 1031 
v. Ward 173, 373, 280, 1002, 1021, 
1381, 1399, 1584, 1832 
1835, 2069 
Patching v. Barnett 1433 
v. Dubbins 1654, 1681 
v. Gubbins 1654 
Patent Type Co. v Walter 1642, 2315 
Paterson v. Long 230 
v. Scott 1480 
r. Zachariah 1096 
& Hud. R. R. Co. v. Jersey 
City 368, 545 
Patman v. Harland 674 
Paton c. Langley 256 
v. Majors 328, 1556 
V. Rogers 990, 1219 
Patrick, Re 1432 
r. Andrews 178 
v. Blackwell 725, 726 
v. Clay 1257 
v. Harrison 1651, 1665 
v. Isenhart 378. 590 
v. Jackson 1667 
v. Joyner 1618 
v. McManus 354 
v. Warner 1042 
V. White 295 
Pattee V Harrington 114 
Patten r. Cilley 1029 
r. Moor 576 
Patten Paper Co v. Kaukauna 

Waterpower Co 303, &34 

Patterson r. Baugs 1558 

v. Bloomer 1081 

v. Clark 1716 

V. Cobb 643 

v. Eakin 1120 

v. Gaines 846 

v. Kellogg 334 

r. Kingland 1081 

v- Lvnde 26 

v. Miller 1613, 1619 

v. Patterson 563, 564, 906 



XC1V 



Patterson v. Read 1120 

t'. Scott 843 

v. Slaughter 674, 778, 1578 

r. Stapler 197 

Pattison v. Hull 1550 

Patton v. Ashley 844 

v. Bencini 237 

v. Cone 668, 857 

v. Glatz 334, 552 

v. J. M, Brunswick & Balke 

Co. 737 

v. Overton 251 

Paty v. Simpson 414, 770, 776 

Patty r. Middleton 674 

Paul v. Baltimore & 0. & C. R. 

Co. 357 

v. Paul 1115,1147 

v. York 1365 

Pauli r. Von Melle 1563 

Paulison v. Van Iderstein 109 

Paull ». Mortimer 1722 

Paulling v. Creagh 1548 

v. Sturgis 845 

Pauncefort v. Lincoln, Lord 3 8 

Pavie v. Acourt 180, 500, 681 

Pawiet v. Delavel 100 

v. Lincoln, Bishop of 210, 293 

Pawson v. Smith 708 

Paxton v. Bell 32 

v. Douglas 236, 388, 564, 565, 

1182, 1615, 1617 

v. Wood 191 

Payne, Be, Randle v. Payne 37, 

111, 796 

v. Baxter 1743 

v. Beech 62, 159, 606, 1577 

v. Berry 302, 543, 547, 557 

v. Bullard 1556 

v. Coles 868 

v. Collier 1773, 1774 

v. Compton 270, 569 

v. Cowan 1667 

v. Dicker 68, 59, 598, 1463 

v. Evens 1416 

v. Hathaway 645 

v. Hook 149, 313 

v. Ibbotson 1100 

v. Kansas, &c. Rv. Co. 630, 1638 

v. Little 35, 36, 69, 110, 112, 415, 

905, 1438 

v. Long 1795 

v. O'Shea 1621 

v. Parker 223, 1417, 1420 

v. Richardson 287 

Paynes v. Coles 1230 

Paynter v. Carew 794, 795, 1754 

v. Houston 1212, 1298 

Pavson v. Lamson 630, 1618 

P. Caland, The 1503 

Pea v. Waggoner 643 

Peabody v. Flint 22, 26, 144, 238, 

1640 

v. Hamilton 45 

v. Kendall 1003, 1073 

v. Norfolk 1650, 1987, 2064 

v. Tarbell 1081 

Peace, Re 1847 

Peace & Waller, Re 87. 186 

Peaoham v. Daw 1774 

Peachie v. Twyecrosse 586 

Peacock, Ex parte 157 

Peacock, Re 109 

v. Bedford, Duke of 776, 778, 783 

v. Colling 243 3t6 

v. Evans 1380 

v. Lowe 1557 

v. Monk 235, 1211 

v. Peacock 1727, 1728 

v. Penson 230 

v. Saggers 224 

v. Sievier 804 

Peacock's Case 928 

Peake v Highfield 1077 

v. Ledger 223, 224 

v. Peake 1071 

t>. Young 1279 

Pearce. Ex parte 157 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Pearce Re 1799 

v. Boggs 1U73 

v. Crutchfield 1660, 1085 

v. Foster 573 

v. Gray 663, 1001, 1590 

v. Grove 779 

v. Lindsay 1025, 1026, 1027, 1441), 

1483 

v. Morris 1385 

v. Newlyn 13'.'8 

r. Nix 840 

v. Pearce 81, 1^85 

» Piper 25 

v. Rice 594,694 

r. Watts 1394 

v. Wrighton 809, 813 

Pearcy v. B\bee 1104 

Peareth v. Peareth 561 

I'earl v. Nashville 551 

Pearne v. Lisle 1699, 1703 

Pears v. Laing 657 

Pearse, Ex parte 1382, 1457 

v. Brooks 1042 

v. Cole 111, 15:i5 

v. Dobinson 660, 700, 769, 1019, 

1584 

v. Green 1369 

v. Laing »,52 

v. Pearse 348, 354, 577, 

1834 

Pearson, Re 149 

v. Bank of England 148 

V. Belchier 41, 43 

v Belsher 42 

i>. Cardon 1561,1565 

v- Carr 1029 

v. Darrington 1191 

v. Knapp 1182, 1315 

v. Northern R. Co. 780 

v- Pearson 1427 

i'. Rowland 955 

v. Tower 645 

v. Ward 933, 937, 938 

v. Wilcox 893 

v Wolfe 42 

Peart, Ex parte 1606 

v. Taylor 392, 393 

Pease v. Benson 1386 

v. Cheesbrough 236, 248, 253 

v. Fletcher 1719 

v. Pattinson 13 

v 1'ea.se 570 

Peaslee v. Barrey 1028 

Pea.- ley, Re 564 

v. Barney 365 

Peatfield v. Benn 1342 

v. Barlow 1486 

v Barrow 1846 

Peay v. Duncan 6H7 

v. Shenck 1725 

Peck v. Ashley 570, 1557 

v. Burgess 669 

v. Crane 1618 

v. Elder 303, 1035 

v. Gaither 1889 

v. Hamlin 11^3 

v. Henderson 254 

v. Hozier 48 

v. Hunter 850 

v. Mallows 321 

v. Peck 378, 379, 732 

t>. Sexton 552 

v. Stimpson 1411 

v. Trinsmaran Iron Co. 1727 

Peckettv Short 1136 

Peckam v Haverhill, North 

Parish in 144 

v. Peckham 1352 

Pedder v. Pedder 880, 1525 

Pedrick v. White 1523, 1524, 1531 , 
1535 

Peek v. Boone 576 

v. Gurney 1503 

D. Matthews 1654 

v. Spencer, Earl 405, 940 

Peel, Re 83 

Peeler v. Lathrop 843 



Peer v. Cookerow 1461, 1467, 1476, 

1485, 1507, 1508, 1527, 1539, 

1540, 1542, 1545, 1546 

Peerce o Alley 1666 

t>. Atney 1081 

Peers v. Ceeley 1388 

v. Needham 1156, 1157, 1159 

Pegg v. Capp 444 

v. Davis 524, 525 

r. Wisden 1276 

Pegce v. Burnell 940 

Peile v. Stoddart 412, 421, 1832, 

2114 

Peirce v. Graham 1580 

v. Watkin 877 

v Young 1136 

Pelhani v. Edelmeyer 314, 843 

v Gregory 264 

Lord v. Harley, Lord 1061 

v. Newcastle, Duchess of 1053, 

1056, 1057, 1059 

Pell v Elliott 1507 

Northampton Ry. Co. 1731 



Pellatt v. Nichols 
Pellet r. Shephard 

Pel lew v. 

Polling r. Goddard 
Pells v. Brown 

v. Coon 
Pelly v- Wathen 



Pel ton v. Harrison 
Pember v. Mathers 
Pemberton, Ex parte 
Re 

Langmore 



824, 1599 

1961 

760 

1770 

266 

813 

387, 1389, 1842, 

2218 

100, 187, 1408 

843, 846, 848 

1842 

1459 

431 



v. MGill 187, 445, 707, 774 

V. Marriott 97 

v. Pemberton 876, 1124, 1125, 1371 

v. Popham 236 

v. Riddle 199 

v. Topham 794 

Pence », Pence 190 

Pender v. Lushington 26, 241, 242 

Pendergast v. Greenfield 1071 

Penderil v. Penderil 953 

Pendlehury v. Walker 588 

Pendleton v. Bank of Kentucky 24 

v. Dalton 659, 860. .663 

v. Eaton 1400 

v. Evans 518,525.526 

v. Fay 1509, 1523. 1537, 1546. 

1577, 1578, 1579, 1580, 15X1 



v. Rooth 


264,151 


v. Russell 


1743 


Penedo v. Johnson 


20 


Penfoid v. Kelly 152, 429, 453 


v ■ Mould 


97 


v. Nunn 


207 


v. Ramsbottom 


596 


Peninsular Bank, 7?e 


1471 


v Darther 


1625 


Peninsular Iron Co. v. Stone 1427 


Penkethman v. White 


1827 


Penn v. Baltimore, Lord 


20, 136, 




262, 1627 


o. Bibby 1081, 1120, 


1121. 1127, 




1643 


v. Craig 


1272 


v. Jack 1081, 1105 


1107, 1643 


v. Tolleson 1270 


1286, 1290 


Pern Bank's Estate 


1320 


Pennefather v Short 


1068, 1069 


Pennell r. Davison 


913 


v. Deffell 


59 


r. Home 


65,835 


v- Roy 


1615, 1628 


Penney v Goode 


1826, 1827 


v Todd 


1741 


Pennie v. Reis 


545 


Penniman v Hill 


1102 


v. Hollis 


264, 266 


v. Norton 


1508. 1522 


Pennington v. Alvin 37, 111. 112 


v. Beechey 


678. 2i"i95 


v Brins..p Hall Coal Co 


1637,1638 


v Buckley 


224, 1431 



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



XCV 



Pennington v. Gittings 846 

v. Governor 392 

v. McVVhirter 200 

v. Muncaster, Lord 1302, 1311 

Pennock v. Ela 369, 379, 383 

v Freeman 645, 916 

Pennoyer v. Neff 149, 458, 029 

Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Bridge 

Co. 10, 1576, 1662 

Pennsylvania Ins. Co. v Bauerle 

216. 255 
v. Jacksonville R, Co. 1743 

Pennsylvania R Co v. Allegh- 
eny R. Co. 551 
v. Davenport 634 
v Thompson 1687 
Penny v. Beavan 236, 794 
v. Francis 800 
v. Hoper 321 
v. Jackson 324 
V Parker 1614 
V. Penny 268, 1528 
v. Pretor 1345 
v. Watts 201, 251, 675, 1117, 2089 
Penrice v. Parker 563 
v. Williams 996, 1366 
Pen roth v. Penroth 72 
Penruddock v. Hammond 578 
Pensermeau v. Pensenneau 385 
Pensotti v. Pensotti 1463 
Pensou v. Lee 1096 
Pentlarge v. Kirby 630, 1427 
v. Pentlarge 702 
Peutney v. Lynn Paving Comm'rs 

1081, 1619, 1650 
Penvill i) Luscombe 663 

Peop.e v. Albany & Vt. R. Co. 

1663 
v. Allison 1841 

v. Auditor-General 1381 

v. Ballard 10 

v. Barnes 1687 

v- Barton 1699 

v. Beaudry 10 

v. Bennett 1042 

V, Berry 354 

v. Houcbard 1614 

v. Brooklyn, &c. Ry. Co. 10 

v. B rower 1590 

v. Buffalo Common Council 1461 
v . Canal Board 1650 

v. Chee Kee 646 

v. Clark 12 

v. Cole 1841 

v Conklin 46 

v. Cooper 645 

v. Craft 443 

v. Davis 961 

v. Donohue 1508 

v. Dwyer 1461 

v. Elmer 470 

v Globe M. Ins. Co. 1282 

v. Goodrick 1841 

v Harris 676, 578 

v. Huron Circuit Judge 1576 

v. Ingersoll 10 

v. Jacob 12 

v . I ones 1755 

v. Kirkpatrick 1381 

v. Leary 1841 

1 v. Lindsay 1461 

( v. McC umber 354 

3 v. McKenna 324 

, v McLain 1150 

v. Mahon 573 

v. .Marine Court Justices 1508 

V. Mather 564, 960 

v. Mercien 1350 

v. Met Tel Co. 10 

v. Morrill 335, 341 

v. Mutual Benefit Associates 1746 
v Mut. Union Tel. Co. 10 

v. North San Francisco Home- 
stead Ass. 12 
V. Norton I735 
V . Pfeiffer 1461 
V. Purviance 12 



People v. Rice 1461 

v. Rogers 1047 

v. Simouson 10 

v. Sliuev 676 

v. Spalding 891 

v. Spauldiug 1686 

v Stapleton 1069 

v. Sturtevant 1684 

v. Swift 728 

v. Tweed 10 

v. Van Buren . 1685 

v. Wheeler 470 

v. Wilson 1069 

v. Wong Wang 545 

v. Wood 646 

People's Bank v. Fancher 1734 

Gas Co. v. Tyner 1620 

Savings Bank v. Bates 569 

3. Bank v. Look 1561 

Peoria Ry. Co. v. Mitchell 1463 

v. Shertz 1650 



Peper v Fordyce 
Pepper v. Green 

v. Henzell 

v. Pepper 
Peppitt, Re 



193, 1427 
145 

62, 158, 631 
1028, 1030 
192 



Perceval v. Perceval 1432 

Percival v. Caney 178,781, 841 

v. Dunn 199 

v. Stamp 1710 

Lord and Lady v. Phipps 1648 

Percy v. Percy 112 

Perdue v. Brooks 1168, 1385 

Periue v. Dunn 659, 9!)4, 998, 

2222, 2225 

v. Swaine 182, 754, 784, 951 

Pering, Re 133 

Perianal v. Squire 43 

Perkin v Bradley 291 

v. Proctor 58 

Perkins v. Bradley 65, 56, 140, 147 

v. Brock 843 

v. Collins 395, 1619 

v. Ede 1276 

v. Elliott 186 

v. Fourniquet 987, 989, 1492 

v. Guy 574 

v. Hays 418 

v. Hendryx 313, 536, 779, 986, 

1122 

v. McGavock 1381 

v. Nichols 843, 982 

v. Partridge 1578, 1579 

v Perkins 1457, 1846 

I'erkinson v. Trousdale 720 

Perks v. Stothert 1463 

v. Stottart 908 

v. Wycombe Ry. Co. 138Q 

Perkyns v Baynton 1259 

Perls v. Saalfeld 1655 

Perot v. Cooper 669 

Perpetual Curate, Ex parte 1408 

Penin v. Lebus 1279 

v. Lepper 195, H68 

Perrine v. Cooley 861 

Perring v Tucker 1097 

Perrot v. Perrot 1630 

Perry, lie 86 

v. Barker 284 

v. Carr 361 

v . Dorset 1707 

v. Hamilton I860 

v. Jenkins I542 

v. Knott 219, 268, 272 

v. Littlefield 586 

v. Marston 650 

v. Merchants" M. Ins. Co. 659 

v. Michaux 1677 

v. Oriental Hotel Co. 1716 

v. Parker 1629, 1637, 1664 

v. Perry 165 402 

v. Phelips 1473, 1576, 1577, 1580, 

1581, 1615 

v. Phillips 1014 

v. Shipway 11,53 

V. Truefitt 1649 

v. Turpin 435, 716 



Perry v Walker 40, 41, 42, 43, 1594, 

1626 

v. Weller 1^7 

Perry, &c Iron Mining Co., lie 154 

Perryclear v. Jacobs 1^2 

Person v. Merrick 214 

v. Nevitt 15K4 

Pertou, Re 851 

Peru. Republic of v Weguelin 20 

Peruvian Guano Co. v. Bock- 

woldt 633 

Pesbeller v. Uammett 593 

Pestel v . Primm 1548 

Petch v. Dalton 230, 262 

Peter v. Thomas-Peter 160, 229 

Peterborough v. Norfolk 868 

Peters v. Delaplaine 939 

v. Grote 1361 

v. Lilly 39 

v. Neely 390 

v. Rosseter 1ij02 

v. Rule 1072, 1080 

v. Van Lear 341 

Petersburg Savings Co. v. Man- 
hattan Fire Ins Co. 920 
Peterson v. Bailiff 68 
v. Peterson 1261 
v. Poignard 294 
v. Simpkins 890, 1642 
Petit c. Chevelier 2319 
Petley v. Eastern Counties Rail- 
way Co 1667 
Peto v. Attorney General 523 
v. Brighton, Uckfield, & Tun- 
bridge Wells Railway Co. 1650 
v. Hammond 278 
Petrakion v. Arbeely 13S1 
Petre v. Duncombe 230, 279 
»■ Petre 675, 1526, 2059 
Lord, Ex parte 1360 
Pettes v. Bingham 851, 852 
Pettibone v. Derringer 918 
v. Hamilton 303 
v. Stevens 1233 
Pettit v. Baird 190 
v. Candler 726 
v. Cooper 991 
v. Hope 545 
v. Shepherd 1624 
Pettit's Estate, Re 61. 157 
Petty v. Daniel 1598 
v. Fogle 334 
v. Hannum 53^ 
v. Lonsdale 489, 804 
v. Malier 87 
V. Petty 1796 
v. Taylor 843 
Peugh v. Porter \\\ 
Pewabic Mining Co. v. Mason 1271 
1312 
Peyton v. Bond 75 
v. GreeYi 1230 
v. McDowell 1882 
v. Smith 1232, 1350 
Pfanschmidt v. Kelly M. Co. 1120, 
1580 
Pfeaff v. Jones 1019 
Pfeiffer v. Kiehn 1147 
PtVltz v. Pfeltz 1018, 1577 
Pfingst v Senn 1638 
Pflster v. Wade 1561 
Pfohl v. Simpson 243, 3<i3 
Phelan, Re 1791 
».'. Ganebin 1743 
Phelps v. Elliott 60, 313, 402, 700 
v . Garrow 604 
v. Green 1151, 1163, 1166 
v Harding 1624 
v. Hartwell 850, 851 
v. McDonald 629 
v. Olive 725 
v. Peabody 1640 
v. Phelps 444 
v. Prothero 384, 779, 780, 781 
817, 1490, 1491, 1618, 1625, 1634 
v. Sproule 252, 667, 68.0, 2n:i5 
PhemTs Trusts, Re 850, 1795 



XCV1 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 
[The references are to the star paging. ] 



Philadelphia R. Co. v. Cooper 163S 

& Trenton K. Co. v. Simpson 2397 

Puilaiutnopic Society v. Hobson 1422 

Plnlhower v. Tod 406 

Pliiiipps v. Clark 1522 

Philips v. Atkiuson 172!l 

v. Darbie 1545 

v. Gibbons 690 

v. Philipps 320, 321, 326, 360, 

363, 368, 1411 

v. Turner 1250 

Phillipo v. Munnings 652 

Phillipott's Charity, Re 1854 

Phillips Ex parte 1365 

He 108 

v. Allen 1929 

V. Barbaroux 1395 

v. Beal 644 

v. Belden 668 

v. Benson 1271, 1274 

v. Board man 1639 

17. Carew 394, 934, 1573 

v. Chamberlaine 877 

v. Davies 1407 

v. Earner 1102 

v. Eiland 1716, 1720 

v. Evans 1835 

ti. Ford 850 

v. Furber 60 

v. Goding 415 

v. Gutteridge 1266 

v. Hassell 91 

v. H afield 1130,1137 

v. Hudson 239, 1490 

v. Hunter 61 

v. Kearney 537 

v. Kingfield 960 

v Langhorn 698 

v. Leavitt 215 

v. Library Co. 149 

v. Martin 1129 

v. Mullings 852 

v. Negley 1584 

v. Phillips 42, 551 674. 675, 680, 

712, 1003, 1483, 1929, 2246 

v. Prentice 894 

v. Prevost 720, 721 

v Prichard 1664 

v. Richardson 846 

v. Royal Niagara Hotel Co. 378 

v. Rudle 1482 

v. Schooley 360 

v. Sinclair 561, 640 

V Sylvester 1653 

v. Symes 309 

v Thomas 1961 

v. Thompson 952, 986, 1151, 2335 

r Warde 890 

v. Wesson 287 

V. Willetts 1105 

Phillipson v. Gatty 218, 220 

v Gibbon 988, 992, 1395 

Philps, Re 86 

Phinizv i'. Augusta & K R Co. 1765 

Phippen v. Brown 1510, 1524 

Phipps v. Bishop of Bath and 

Wells 1716 

r. Henderson 1201 

v Jackson 1657 

v Kelly 60 

v. Sedgwick 186 

Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Abbott 236 

v. Day 586 

M. L. Ins. Co. v. Ilinesley 860 

Nat. Bank e Cleveland Co 313 

Phosphate Sewage Co. v. Hart- 

mont 298 

v. Molleson 633, 634 

Piatt v. Oliver 603, 615, 617, 683, 

702 

Picard v Hine 110, 187, 1411, 1903, 

2289 

Pickatice, Re 893, 1608 

Pickard v. Mattheson 1029, 1030 

v Roberts 98 

Pickel r. Isgrigg 542 

Pickens v. Kuisely 378, 418 



Pickens v. McCoy 1073 

Pickering v. Cape Town Ry. Co. 1469 



Dawson 

i'. Day 

v. Ely, Bishop of 

v. Hanson 

v. Pickering 

v. Rigby 

v. Stephenson 

v. Williams 
Picket v. Merchants' Bank 
Pickett v Chilton 

v. Ferguson 

v. Hewlings 

v. Loggan 
Pickford v. Brown 



1134 

843 

1656 

424 

369. 667 

1819 

26, 243 

241 

1840 

829, 997 

1618 

1320 

796, 1026, 1457 

266, 1428, 1433. 

1512, 1524, 2059 

307 

633, 635, 660, 797 

154 

418 

287, 443 

2086, 2088 

177 

1649, 1663 

1184 

176 

78, 1595 



v. Ervington 
v. Hunter 

Pickle v Pickle 

Picquet v. Augusta 
v Swan 

Pictou v. Lockett 

Piduocke v. Boultbee 

Pidding v. How 

Piddock v. Brown 

Piddocke v. Smith 

Pidduck v. Boultbee 

Piedmont, &c Ins. Co. v Maury 287 

Pierce v. Beattie 1235 

v. Brady 1579 

v. Burnham 89 

v. Equitable Life Ass. Society 1621 
v. Faunce 190, 246, 287, 1240, 

1242, 1243, 1245. 1246, 1248, 
1252, 1260, 1298, 1971 
v Fesigans 634 

v. Franks 1399 

v. Gates 844 

v Hammond 1317 

v. Lamson 1961 

v. McClellan 714 

v. Nichols 989 

v. Thornly 120 

v Union Pac. Ry Co. 1556 



v. West 

v. Wilson 
Piercy v. Adams 

v. Beckett 
Pieri v. Shieldsboro' 
Pierpont v. Fowle 

v. Harrisville 
Piers v. Piers 
Piersou v Barclay 

v. Catlin 

v. Clayes 

v. Cutler 

v. David 

v. Ivey 

v. Meaux 

v. Robinson 

v. Ryersoa 

v. Smith 
Pierstoff r. Jorges 
Pieters v. Thompson 
Pietroni V Transatlantic Co 
Piety v. Stace 
Piffard v Beeby 75, 485 

Pigg v Corder 
Piggin v. Cheetham 
Piggott v Croxhall 

v. Stewart 
Pigot v Stace 
Pigott, Re 

v. Pigott 

v. Stratton 

v. Young 
Pigue v. Young 
Pike v. Bates 

v. Dickinson 

r. Fitzgibbon 

v. Frank 

v. Hoare 

t>. Keene 

v. Nicholas 



422, 829, 834 

1484 

365 

1517 

589 

550, 555, 589, 

1151 

1650 

1503 

267 

847 

843, 844 

843 

230, 517, 560 

644 

722, 837 

269 

840 

118 

659 

32, 815 

398 

1417 

760, 1045, 

1819 

10r>3 

993 

959, 960 

206 

691 

1694 

12\ 222 

1654 

797, 1402 

617 

1675 

60 

113, 187 

147 

1075 

20,26 

1643, 1645 



Pilcher, Re 1072 

v Arden 1843, 1847 

Pile o. McBratney 457 

Pilkington v Baker 1732 

v. Himsworth 743, 748. *<98 

Pilkintou v. Cotten 1298 

v. Wignall 1515, 1534 

Pillan v. Thompson 905, 910 

Piller v. Roberts 406 

Pillers, Ex parte 1055 

Pilley v. Robinson 406, 559, 627 

Pilling v. Aruiitage 847 

v Pilling 1267, 2346 

Pillow v. Pillow 379 

v. Sentelle 1548 

v. Shannon 678, 951, 1505 

v. Thompson 1640 

Pillsbury r. Dugan 997 

Pillsworth v. Hopton 1632 

Pirn v. Wilson 1626, 1655 

Pimbley v. Molyneux 794 

Pimm v. Insall 1293 

Pince v. Beattie 1413, 1414 

Pincers V Robertson 746 

Piuch v. Anthony 407, 1515, 1523, 

1524 

Pinchin v. London and Black- 



wall Ry. Co. 
Pindall v. Trevor 
Pindar v. Pindar 

v. Smith 
Pine, Re 

v. Ellis 

t» Shannon 



985, 1663, 1664 

257 

1526 

1113, 1119 

1177. 1209, 1825 

1177, 1209, 1825 

212 



13l»7 



Pine Lake Iron Co. v La Fayette 

Car Works 1756 

Pineo v . HefTelfinger 1675 

Pinfold v. Bouch 1417 

v. Piulold 808 

Pingree v. Coffin 152, 197, 378, 886, 

887, 917, 927, 961, 1013, 

1028, 1081, 1181, 1299, 1317, 

1368, 1484, 15H8, 1509, 1511, 

1524, 2181, 2185. 2186, 2196, 

2222, 2226, 2229, 2252, 2367, 

2372 

v. Hodges 1119 

Pink v. Trade and Labor Unions 

1620 
Pinkard V. Smith 121 

Pinkers v. Peters 1510 

Pinkerton v. Barnsley Canal Co 892 
Pinkett v. Wright 1468 

Pinkum v. Eau Claire 586 

Pinkus v. Peters 267, 1533 

Pinneo v. Goodspeed 1320 

Pinner v. Knights 307, 308, 309 

Pinney v. Hunt 205, 663, 877, 1726 
Pinnock v. Clough 1400 

Pinson ». Williams 852 

Pioneer Gold Mining Co v. 

Baker 
Pioneer Manuf. Co v. Phoenix 

Ass. Co 
Pioneer Wood Pulp Co. v. Bens 

ley 
Pipe v. B:i reman 
Piper v Gittens 
v . Piper 

v. St Paul Trust Co 
Pisani v. Attorney-General 

v. Lawson 

Pit it. Cholmondelev 668 

Pitcher v. Helliar 1718, 1734, 1735 

Pitman v. Thornton 1019 

Pitt o. Arglass, Earl of 1580, 1583 

v. Bonner 

v Brewster 

v. Lord Dacre 

v. Hill 

v. Hunt 

v. Maclew 

v. Mackreth 

v . Page 

v. Pitt 

v. Snowden 

Pitt man v. McClellan 



145 

372 

1637 

190 

805 

1628 

1381 

74, 852 

45 



1754 

253 
1438 

663 
124, 125 

312 
131) 
1466 
178, 180 
1748 

526 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 



XCVll 



itts v Hooper 


722, 758 


v. La Fontaine 


64 


v. Mower 


195 


v. Powledge 


1550 


v. Short 


589 


v. Tilden 


1254 



Pittsburgh Co. 's Appeal 630 

Pittsburgh, &c. Ry. Co v. Bal- 
timore & 0. R. Co. 1157 
Pittsford v. Chittenden 851 
Pixley v. Roai oke Nay. Co. 630 
Place v. Provideuce 726, 843 
Plants. Barclay 1491, 1624 
v. Kendrick 1826 
v Pearman 280 
Plant Seed Co. v. Michel Plant 

Co. 1381 

Planters' Bank v. Fowlkes l*i79 

v Laucheimer 1675 

Planters' Ins. Co. v. Selma Sav- 
ings Bank 418 
Plasket v. Beeby 164 
Platel v. Craddock 109 
PlatiDg Co. v. Farquharson 8-7, 
1070 
Piatt v. Button 1643 
v. Gilchrist 1653 
v. Judson 525 
v. Mead 324 
v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. 1716, 
173o 
v Routh 1610 
v. Squire 194, 208, 212, 415, 425, 
1386, 1407, 1408 
v. Walter 398 
Platts v. Button 1643 
Plaut v. Plaut 390 
Player v Anderson 27, 358 
Playford v. Hoare 1402 
Pleasanton v. Raughley 842 
Pleasants v. Glasscock 334, 379, 3"*5, 
551 
v. Kortrecht 1845 
v Logan 406, 1533 
v. Ross 671, 1123 
P. & M. Bank v. Dundas 1577 
Pledge v. Bass 1399 
Plestow v. Johnson 35, 1737 
Pleydell v. Dorchester, Earl of 1130 
Plimpton v. Spiller 1663 
v. Winslow 149 
Plintoffu Haynes 1369 
Plitt, Ex parte 1214 
Piomer v. Macdonough 1069 
Plomley, Re 70 
v. Felton 1U5 
Plowden v Campbell 28 
Plowes v. Bossey 564, 851 
Plowman v. Williams 67 
Piumbev Plumbe 321 
Plume v. Beale 663 
Plumer v. Gregory 269 
v Macdonald 1(169 
v McDonald Lumber Co. 1507 
Plummer v. Doughty 221 
v. May 296, 299, 632 
Plunket v. Joyce 72, 404, 418 
v. Penson 283, 290, 613 
Plunkett v. Cavendish 623, 662 
v. Cobbett 1096 
v. Lewis 797, 1314 
Plymouth v. Russell Mills 1585 
Plymouth, Countess of v. Bladon 659, 
817 
Pocock v. Att.-Gen. 13 
v. Reddington 1420 
Podmore v. Gunning 1721 
v. Skipwith 781, 782 
Pogson v. Owen 191 
Pohl v. Pontier 365 
Poindexter v. Blackburn 117 
v. Jeffries 90, 105 
Pointon v. Pointon 334 
Poirier v. Fetter 1650 
Pole v. Joel 1488, 1603 
v. Leask 1501 
Polhemus v. Emson 385, 1158 
VOL. I. — g 



Polini v. Gray 1469 

Polk v. Gallant 197 

v. Plummer 23 

Pollard v. Doyle 808, 1234, 1413. 

1591 
v. Photographic Co. 1643 

v. Yoder 1257 

Pollock v, Birmingham, Wolver- 
hampton, and S. Valley Ry. 
Co. 99, 1802 

v Boyd 1618 

v. Braiuerd 1395 

v. Buie 68 

v. Hester 2307 

v. Lester 303, 345, 1635 

v. Rabbits 1654 

Pomeroy v. Baddeley 1102 

v. Fullerton 385 

v. Manin 2397 

v. Winship 1073 

Pomfret, Earl v. Windsor, Lord 646, 
882 
Pond v Allen 1051 

v. Clark 197 

v. Cook 1743, 1751 

v. Sib'ey 149 

v. Vermont Valley R. Co. 801 

Ponder v. Cox 1621 

Pondir v. New York,&c. R. Co. 1765 
Ponsardin v. Peto 1649 

v. Stear 801 , 806 

Ponsford v. Hankey 321, 322 

v. Hartley 236, 360 

v. Swaine 298, 671 

v. Walton 880 

Pontchartrain R. Co. v. New Or- 
leans & Carrollton R. Co. 1640 
Pool v. Dial 1320 

v. Gramling 1299 

v. Horton 1463 

v. Lloyd 548 

v. Morris 101 

v. Pool 1378 

v. Sacheverell 1070 

Poole v. Franks 64, 1421, 1448, 1453 
v Gordon 773 

v. Larkins 1236 

v Lloyd 547 

v. Marsh 209 

v. Pass 1411, 1436 

v. Poole 642 

v. Shergold 12 1 7 

Pooley, Re 1414 

v. Bosanquet 280 

v. Driver 1444 

v. Quilter 1490 

v. Ray 250, 1207 

Pooley's Trustee v. Whetham, 32, 64 
Poor v. Carleton 1668, 1669, 1672, 
1675, 1676, 1677, 1995 
v Hazleton 120 

v. Robinson 1250 

Poor's Lands Charity, In re 13 

Poore v. Clark 210 

Pope, Re 98, 1035 

v. Al'.is 838, 840, 860 

v. Bell 1675 

V. Bish 703 

v. Briggs 1511 

v Curl 1647,1648,2314 

v Duncannon 1621 

v. Erdman 1282 

v Great Eastern Ry. Co. 1775, 
1776 
v. Gwyn 164 

v. Lem aster 997 

v. Leonard 26 334 

v Melone 209 

v. Salamanca Oil Co. 312, 334 

V. Stansbury 584 

Poplar & Blackwall Free School, 

Re 13 

Poplin v. Hawke 874 

Poppers v. Meagher 1527 

Popple v. Henson 13S3, 1407 

Porch v. Fries 1351, 1352 

Porous Plaster Co. v. Seabury 313 



Porrett v. White 1780 

Portarlington v. Damer 1469 

Earl of v. Damer 797, 798, 799 

1591, 1615 

Lord v. Graham 1674 

v. Soulby 618, 714, 721, 1627, 

1628, 1651,21)95 

Port Clinton R. Co. v. Cleveland 

R. Co. 1663 

Portal v. Hine 1050 

Porter v. Bank of Rutland 841 

v. Bauks 1320 

v. Burton 1460 

v. Cooper 1142 

v. Cox 64, 814 

v Frenchman's Bay, &c. Co. 545 

v Hill 646 

v. Jennings 840 

v. Kingman 1734 

v. Lopez 1163, 1726 

v. Neckervis 20 

v. Porter 83, 1731 

v. Sabin 1743 

v. Sherman Countv B. Co. 559 

v. Spencer 395, '551, 1698, 1699, 

1702 

v. Vaughan 811 

v- Young 334 

Porter's Trusts, Re 865 

Portis v. Fall 1620 

Portland, Countess of v Prod- 

gers 89, 178, 179 

Portlington v. Tarbock 1586 

Portman v. Mill 1218 

Portoues v. Holmes 1320 

Port Royal Railroad Co. v. Ham- 
mond 629 
Portsmouth, Earl of v Fellows 348 
Portsmouth, Lord v. Effingham, 

Lord 1577, 1578 

Portsmouth Livery Co v. Wat- 
son 24, 25 
Portugal, Queen of v. Glyn 658 
Portz v. Schantz 1381 
Post v Boardman 146 
v. Kimberly 551 
v . Lee 1269 
v. Leet 1286, 1290 
v Mackall 176, 214 
v. Marsh 1400 
v Stevens 1416 
v. Toledo, &c. Railroad 145, 562, 
1556 
Postal Tel. Cable Co v. Norfolk 

& W R. Co 1683 

Postell?' Skirving 96 

Postgate r. Barnes 92, 110, 149, 152 
Postmaster-General, Ex parte 58, 
61, 157 
Postlethwaite, Re 576, 678 

v. Howes 249,287 

v. Maryport Harbour Trus- 
tees 1727, 1731 
v. Travers 521 
Poston v. Eubank 194 
Pott v Gallini 7«l7 
Potter, Re 110 
v. Baker 1481 
v. Barclay 1536 
V. Beal 1029,1178 
v. Chapman 1672 
v. Gardner 232 
v. Hiseox 1355 
v. Holden 287, 289, 294 
v. Hoi lister 629 
i>. Potter 840, 858, 1819 
v. Waller 387, 720 
Webb 1254 
V. Whitney 1642 
Potter Land & W. Co. v. Bas- 

kin 149 

Potts v. Britten 153 

v. Butler 1672 

v. Hahn 334 

i> Leighton 1747, 1754, 1755 

i>. Smith 1638 

v. Thames Haven & Dock Co 223 



XCV111 



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



Potts v Trotter 1311, 1312 

v. Turts 953 

v. Warwick, &c. Canal Co. 1731, 
1744 
v. Whitmore 415, 421, 492, 493, 
500 
Pouder v. Tate 1517 

Poulson v. Collier 881 

Poultney v La Fayette 2397 

Pountain, In re 83 

Poupardtf. Fardell 890 

Powden v. Johnson 885 

Powell, Re 1049 

t;. Aiken 2309 

t\ Bernard 28 

v. Calloway 972 

v Cleaver 875, 1116, 1350 

t'. Clement 1463 

v. Cockerell 303,346,431,432,583, 
1600 
v. Davton, &c. R. Co. 303 

v. Dowdle 1551 

v. Elliott 1376 

r. Hall 1549 

v. Heather 1538 

v. Hopson 1468 

v Jewesbury 409,583 

v. Kane 347, 894, 895, 1598 

v. Knight 272 

v. Lovegrove 1490 

v. Hanson 844, 1116, 1117, 1124 
i». Martin 968, 970 

v. Martyr 1402 

v. Mayo 418 

v. Merrett 96 

v. Monson Manuf. Co. 1165, 1905, 
2288 
v. Pacific R. Co. 666 

v. Phillips 229 

v . Powell 109, 813, 814, 1264, 

1276, 1327, 1417, 1512 
v Powis, Earl of 345 

v. Prentice 180, 183 

v. Robins 165, 168 

v. Sanger 1654 

v Sims 1638 

v. Sonnett 1109 

v Thomas 324 

v. Trotter 1245, 1391, 1392, 

1393 
v. Wallworth 1169 

v Williams 1071 

v Wood 1114 

v. Wright 149, 150. 280, 1652 

v. Young 378 

Powell, &c. Coal Co. v. Taff 1663 
Power v Barham 1104 

v. Holman 61 

v. Keeder 551 

v Reeves 1466 

v. Walker 1644 

Powers v. Heery 1628, 1631, 1669 
v. Large 1071 

t>. McKenzie 639 

v Raymond 1071, 1110 

Powlet, Earl v. Herbert 1418 

Powley v. Walker 1655 

Powys v Blaerave 757, 1634, 1732 
b. "Mansfield 327, 852 

v Shrewsbury Potteries Ry. 
Co 1513 

Poyer v. Des Plainea 1620 

Poynes v. Creagh 303 

Poyser v Minor 979 

Praed i> Graham 1130 

Prall v Hunt 1591 

Prance, lie 892 

v. Sympson 560 

Pratt i'. Archer 424 

v Bacon 406, 425, 828, 1448 

v Bank of Windsor 443 

v. Barker 294, 406, 410 

v Boston & Albany Rail- 
road 197 
v. Brett 1630, 1656 
v. Bull 1033 
v California Mining Co. 560 



Pratt p. Inman 


1059 


v. Jenner 


179, 1802 


v. Keith 


288, 589 


v. Lamson 


1299 


v. Northam 


1997 


f. Pond 


1961, 2274 


v. Rathbun 


1205 


v Koseland Ry. Co. 


1638 


v. Taunton Copper Co. 


197 


. v. Taylor 


628,687 


v. Tenner 


87 


v. Walker 


1600 


Preble v. Longfello 


1359 


Preece r. Corrie 


127 


v. Seale 


1407 


Prees v. Coke 


998, 1386 


Prendergast v. Lusbington 153, 

ldfiQ 


v. Prendergast 


1502, 1503 


Prentice v. Kimball 


287 


v. Phillips 


1836 


v. Prentice 


191 


Prentiss v. Paisley 


1576 


Preschbaker r. Freeman 


847 


Prescott v. Everts 


368, 371 


v. Hubbell 


402 


Presley v. Davis 


1358 


Pressley v. Harrison 


1733 


Prestall's Case 


156 


Prestidge v. Pendleton 


371 


Prestney v Colchester 


1602 


Preston v. Aston 


197 


v Barker 


1286, 1292 


v. Carr 


571 


v Carter 


236 


v. Collett 


412,801 


v Dickinson 


451, 452 


v. Fitch 


1511 



v. Grand Collier Dock Co. 241 

v. Guyon 241 

v. Lamont 628 

v. Luck 1663 

v. Smith 545,547,1556,1620,1628, 
1638 
v. Walsh 230, 560 

v Wilson 60, 553 

Preston Corp. v. Fullwood Local 

Board 402 

Preteca v Maxwell Land Grant 

Co. 630 

Prevost o. Benett 860, 1407 

v. Gorrell &3S 

Prewit v. Graves 378 

Prewitt v. Lambert 855 

Price, Ex parte 1846 

Re 1433, 1440 

v. Berrington 85,328,813 1078 

v. Carter 165 

v. Carver 165, 166, 167, 168, 

2217 

v. Clavenger 1676 

v. Coleman 314, 334 

v. Copner 650 

v. Dewey 659 

v Dewhurst 1470,1480,1481, 

1627 

v Evans 1616 

v. Gardiner 985 

v Gardner 398, 964 

v. Hobbs 1166 

v. Hutchison 456, 1069 

v .lames 547 

v Lawton 1653 

v Loaden 1417 

r Lvtton 840, 1183 

v M'Beth 1234. 1413 

r Manning 920. 1099 

v. Mavo 578 

v Meth. Epis. Church 1669 

r. Minot 26, 334,342, 

1001 

v. Moxon 1290 

v. Nesbit 987, 1491, 1492 

v. North 1169 

v. Price 679, 1288, 1381, 1392, 

1600 

v Rickards 63,64 



Price v. Salusbury 
j'. Sanders 
v. Severne 
v. Shaw 
v. Thompson 
v. Tyson 
v, Upshaw 



415, 1469 
216 
1130 
1226 
1271 
728 
642 



v. Webb 422, 455, 512, 536, 537, 
1590 
v. White 1745 

v. Williams 670, 1141, 1717 

v. Winter 68 

Price's Candle Co. v. Bauwens 

Candle Co. 1642 

Prichard v. Gee 936 

i'. Littlejohn 1551 

v Murray 719 

v. Norris 1203 

Prichittr Kirkman 1001 

Prickett r. Tuller 1676 

Pride v. Budd 100 

v. Fooks 1420 

Prideaux v Prideaux 1288 

Priest v. Hamilton 69 

v. Perrott 1003 

Priestley's Appeal 1580, 1584 

Priestly v. Wilkinson 1386 

Priestman v. Thomas 553 

Prigmore v. Shelton 1276 

Prime o Titmarsh 1129 

Prime's Estate, He 1120 

Primm v. Raboteau 378 

Primrose, Tie 1412 

Prince v. Boston 10 

v. Cooper 1264 

v Farrell 1551 

v. Gundaway 536 

v. Hevlin 644 

v. Hine 730, 731, 1356, 1359, 

1413 

v. Howard 1013 

r. Samo 1104 

v. Smith 1228 

Prince Henry, He 892 

Prince Manuf. Co. v. Prince's 

Metallic Paiut Co. 1648 

Prince of Wales Assoc, v. Pal- 
mer 204 
Princeton r. Adams 2012 
Pring, Re 1611 
Pringle v. Gloag 1408,1447, 1846 
r. Hodgson 102 
v Pringle 116, 117 
Printup v. Patton 838 
v. Rome Land Co. 586 
Prioleau v. United States 17, 20, 24, 
141, 145, 296 
Prior v. Bagster 1746 
Priors v. White 30 
Pritchard r. Draper 1370, 1515, 
1520 
v Fleetwood 1724 
r. Foulkes 923 
v. Hicks 217, 254, 1412 
v. Roberts 81 
Privett v Calloway 1463 
Probasco V. Probasco 1734 
Probate, Judge of v. Heydock 1254 
Proctor v. Bayley 554, 1380, 1395 
v Cheshire City Council 406 
v. Cooper 1035 
v. Farnam 1285 
v. Ferebee 1032 
r. National Bank of the Re- 
public 629 
v. Reynel 1060 
v. Smiles 576 
v. Webber 22 
Produce Bank v. Morton 1463 
Prole v. Soady 87, 116, 119, 122, 179, 
893 
Proper v. Monmouthshire Canal 

Co. 1503 

Proskauer v. People's 9. Bank 349 

Prosser r Bank of England 865 

v. Northern Pac. R. Co. 1639 

Protheroe v. Forman 663, 1621, 1624 






Proud v. Bates 
Proudfit v. Pickett 
Proudfoot v. Hume 
Prout v. Underwood 
Providence Bank v. Wilkinson 

v Wilson 
Providence Institution v. Barr 



1449 

536 
1780 
726 
1565 
1560 
605, 
608 

Providence Rubber Co. v. Good- 
year 1580 
Provident Institution v. White 1060 
Provincial Bank v. Brocklebank 686 
Provincial Banking Co. v. Til- 

lett • 159 

Provost v. Gratz 1479 

Prowett v. Mortimer 1648 

Prudential Ass. Co.?'. Edmonds 1503 
v. Knott 1620, 1644. 1648 

v. Thomas 1567, 1568, 1623 

Prussia, King of v. Kuepper 18 

Prutzman r. Pitesell 753 

Prver v Gribble 796, 1031, 1588 

Pryor v. Hill 104, 122 

Pryse v. Cambrian Ry. Co. 1775 

v. Pryse 316, 552 

Prytherch, Re, Prytherchf .Wil- 
liams 1716 
Pudge v. Pitt 813 
Pugh, Ex parte 102, 2001 
lie 113 
v. Arton 1390 
v. Bell 645 
v. Currie 216 
v. Golden Valley Ry. Co. 1650 



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

Pugh v. Heath 649 

v Holt 994 

v. Vaughan 1631 

v. Winona, &c. R. Co. 1461 

Pugsley v. Freedniau'a Sav. & 

Tr. Co 460, 536 

Pulbrook, Ex parte 1014, 1015 

r. Richmond Cons. M Co. 244 

Pulhani v. McCarthy 302 

Pullan v. Cincinnati, &c, R. Co 281, 

1619 

v. Rawlins 878 

Pullen v. Baker 395 

v. Pullen 1120 

v. Ready 1622 

v. Smith 718 

v Snelus 655, 656 

v. White 1106 

Pulley v Hilton 1113 

Pulliam v. Christian 987, 1492 

o. Pulliam 857, 1252, 1305, 23l»5 



XC1X 



Pullman v. Baltimore & Ohio 

R. Co. 1642 

v. Stebbins 256, 334 

Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Cen- 
tral Trans. Co. 790, 1548, 1621 
v. Missouri P. Ry Co. 545 

Pulteuey v Shelton 448, 1655. 

1685 
v. Warren 1362, 1634, 1660 

Pulver v Harris 1845 

Punchard v. Tomkins 1040 

Punderson O. Dixon 1013 

Purcell v. Blennerhassett 643 



Purcellr. M'Namara959, 1171, 1181, 

1185, 1196 

v Manning 1581 

v. Miner 1580 

v. Purcell 844 

Purdew v. Jackson 119, 125 

Purdy v. Henslee 790 

Purefoy v. Purefoy 213, 330 

Pure Spirit Co v. Fowler 27 

Purkis v Date 892 

Purser v. Darby 1377, 1404 

Pusey v. Clenison 1235, 1772 

v Desbouvie 605, 700, 1622 

v. Wright 843, 844, 850 

Puterbaugh v. Elliott 601 

Putnam v. Clark 850, 1576 

v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. 1299 

v. Day 1577 

v. Hollender 314, 334 

v. I.yon 418 

v Putnam 1386, 1507 

v. Ritchie 1364 

v. Sweet 26, 239, 303 

v Valentine 1631 

Pybus, Re 1847 

Pycroft v Williams 1044 

Pyke v Holcombe 113 

t'. North wood 1774 

r. Waddingham 989 

Pyle v. Cravens 90 

v. Price 288, 588 

Pym v. Pym 1365, 1731 

Pyncent v. Pyncent228, 675, 922, 951 

Pyrah v. Woodcock 33d, 649 



Q. 



Quaokenboss, Ex parte 1588 

Quackenbush v. Leonard 994, 1169, 

1543 

v. Van Riper 1677 

Quantot-k v. Bullen 170,406,410. 859 

Quarles v. Quarles 1005 

Quarman v. Williams 1040, l'i41, 

1695 

Quarrell v Beckford 1241, 1244, 

1251, 1368, 1370, 1376, 1448, 

1719, 1780 

Quarrier v. Carter 1002, 1576 

v. Colston 1651 

Quartz Hill C. G M. Co. v. 

Beall 1620, 1643, 1670 



Queade's Trusts, lie 




100, 123 


Quinby v. Carhart 


850 


Queen, The (See R) 






v. Conlan 


1071 


Queen's Case 


1102 


1103, 1104 


Quince v Quince 


253 


Queen's Benefit B. 


3ocie 


ty, Re 


Quincy v. Sharpe 


646 






1611 


v. Steel 


26, 313 


Queensberry, Duke 


off. 


Sheb- 


Quincy, &c. R. Co. 


f. Hum- 


beare 




1647 


phrevs 


1734, 1743 


Queen's College, Ex 


parte 


Quin Ian v. Reiser 


668 


v. Darby 




1620 


Quinn v. Brittain 


1242 


Quitter v. Heatly 




896 


v Leake 


360, 557, 801 


V. Mapleson 




1488 


Quintz v. Quintz 


1320 


Quin v. Britham 




1719 


Quirolo i\ Ardito 


314 


v. Green 




1562, 1566 


Quitman County v. Stritze 


v. Patton 




1566 






v. Ratcliff 




1822, 1831 







R. 



R I 


. Abingdon, 


Earl of 




1106 


V 


Adey 








1105 


V. 


Ashwell 








564 


V. 


Aspinall 








546 


V 


Ball 








1101 


V. 


Ball de Bewdley 






1112 


V. 


Uarber 








1105 


V 


Barthwick 








874 


V. 


Bell 








1106 


V. 


Bignold 








1106 


V 


Boyes 




717 


,942 


1103 


V 


Brooke 








1102 


V. 


Burdett 








1108 


V. 


Burridgo 








1092 


V. 


Castro 








1070 


V. 


Chapman 








920 


V. 


Colley 








1101 


V. 


Cox 








578 


V 


Cumberland Justices 




307 


V 

v. 


Despard 
Doutre 






1087 


1092 
133 


V. 


Duncombe 








1102 


V 


Edmonds 






1091 


1095 



R. v. Edwards 


1108 


v . Fitzwater, Lord 


1108 


v Fowler 8 


135,156, 1108 


v. Grant 


1127, 1137 


t> Grosvenor 


1636 


v. Hancock 


17->:J 


r. Hart 


1"86 


v. Hilditch 


1106 


v. Hill 


1098 


t'. Home 


Him; 


v. Hughes 


1094 


v. Johnson 


1092, 1109 


v. Jordan 


1069 


0, Kin near 


1108, 1131 


i'. Mainwaring 


865 


v. Marsden 


1106 


V. Martin 


1108 


v. Millis 


1501 


v. Murphy 


1108 


v. Newman 


1102 


v. Norwich 


1650 


v. Ramsden 


1100 


v . Richardson 


1131 



R. v. St. George 


1101 


v. Sealhert 


1108 


r. Staffordshire County Court 


Judge 


1069 


v Teal 


1126 


i Truro, Lord 


744 


v. Watklnson 


575 


r. Watson 


1103, 1104 


v. Weaver 


865 


v. Webb 


1102 


V. Whitehead 


1098 


v. Wooller 


1109, 1131 


V. Wylde 


1101 


V. Wyndham 


146 


Rabberman v. House 


860 


Rnhheth r Squire 


732, 783 


Babbitts ''• Woodward 


1051 


Rabe v Dunlip 


26 


Raby v Ridehalgh 


1370 


Rackham r Siddall 


706, 1484 


Radam v. Capital M D. 


Co. 779 


Radcliff v. Corrothers 


15*1 


v. Rowley 


645 



-TABLE OP CASES CITED. 
[The references are to the star paging.] 



Radcliffe, Re 134, 895, 2191 
v. Eccles 1345 
t>. Kursuian 672, 584 
v. Portland, Duke of 163* 
v. Varuer 1023 
Radclyffe. Re 1417 
Radu- v. Yeargin 1221 
Radford v Folsom 634, 659, 1750 
j>. in nes 1675 
v. Roberts 461 
v. Wills 1403 
v. Wilson 678 
Ridley !> Ingram 2191 
R.ie v. Mayor, &c. 1463 
Raeburu V Andrews 28 
Rifalsky v. Boehm 542 
R.ttierty v. Central Traction Co 3(i3 
Ratfety v. King 302, 715 
Rigau v. Echols 885 
Raggett, ite, Ex parte Williams 213 
Ragland v. Broaduax 1548, 1553 
Ragsdale v. Holmes 334 
Raguec «. Roll 1238 
Raiker v Pike 2238 
Railroad Co., Ex parte 281, 1548. 
1553 
v. Bradley 1491 
v. Duraut 861 
V. Harris 144 
v. Neal 1625 
v Orr 243 
v. Smith 1743 
v. Soutter 1491 
Railway Co. v. McCarthy 1650 
Railway Sleepers Supply Co., Re 67 
Raincock v. Simpson 1748 
v Young 780, 782 
Raine v. Wilson 177, 444 
Rainey v. Rainey 737, 1677 
Rains v. Rainey 1214 
Rainsdon, Re 111 
Rainsdon's Trusts, Re 87. 179 
Rainwater v. Elmore 1101 
Raistrick v. Elsworth 784, 8u2 
Rajah Salig Ram v. Secretary 18 
Rakes v. Brown 1508 
Ralli v. Universal Marine As- 
surance Co. 1470 
v. UniversalMarine Insurance 
Co. 1490 
Ralph v. Carrick 1431 
Ralphs v. Hensler 546 
Ralston v. Sharon 1584 
Ram. Ex parte 224 
Ramey v. Green 1536 
Ramkissenseat v. Barker 45, 736, 
750, 891, 948, 1552 
Ramon v. Ramon 1356 
Ramsbotham v Senior 1355 
Ramsbottom v. Freeman 1667, 1735 
Ramsdall v. Craighill 1673 
Ramsden v. Brearley 87 
v. Dyson 1660 
v. Hylton 1622 
v. Langley 1245, 1388 
Ramsey v. Brailsford 989 
v. Temple 546 
Ramshaw v Greenhill 1059 
Ramv v Kir 892 
R-mcliffe v Parkyns 873 
Rand v. Cutler 1385 
v. Macmahon 876, 878 

V Redington 1623 
v. Walker 200 

Randall v. Chesapeake, &c. 

Canal Co. 671 

v. Christianson 407, 418 

v. Morgan 365 
v. Mumford 63, 64, 1508, 1679 
v. Pavne 986, 1017, 1576, 1584 

v Peckham 1021, 1476 

v. Phillips 844 

v Pryor 1062 

V Randall 1320 
v. Richardson 1638 
v. Riehford 954 
v. Sanderson 1638 



Randall v. Songer 1002 

v. Venabie 2391 

Raudell, In re, Randell v. Dixon 13 
Handheld v. Randrield 1742, 1743, 
1744 
Randie v Adams 1160 

v Boyd 986 

Randolph v. Daly 269, 338, 344, 368 
v Dickenson 110, 1507, 1546 

v. Glos 850 

v. N. J West Line R. Co. 1961 
v Rmdolph 641, 1578 

v Rosser 1377, 1463 

Randolph's Appeal 982, 1552 

Randon v. Cartwright 1580 

Rands v. Pushmau 1318 

Raney v. Kirk 892 

Ranger v. Champion Cotton- 
Press Co 26, 559 
v. Great Western Rv. Co 145, 
582, 671, 1534, 1535, 1537, 1821 
Rangley v Webster 458 
Ranken v East and West India 
Docks R'way Co. 1662, 1663 
v. Harwood 1615 
Rankin V Harwood 1615 
v. Hnskisson 1654, 1663 
v. Maxwell 838 
Ranking, Re 202, 203, 1611 
Ranning v Reeves 1081 
Ransom v Davis 1301 
v. Geer 191, 227, 390, 991 
v. Stonington Savings Bank 146, 



735 
1359 

lfiSO 
378 

1128 
760 



Ransome v. Burgess 
Rantzen v. Rothschild 
Raper t». Sanders 
Raphael v Bank of England 
v. Birdwood 
V. Boehm 1251, 1260, 1420 

2'. Ongley 448 

v Thames Valley R. Co. 1657 

Rapier v. Gulf City Paper Co. 340, 
860 
Rar & Del, Bay R. Co. v. Del. 
& Rar. Canal & C. & A. R. 
and T. Cos. 2323 

Rasbotham v. Shropshire Union 

Rv. Co. 720 

Rushleigh v. Dayman 972, 973 

Rashley v Masters 1383, 1411, 1414 

Ratcliff v Roper 455 

v. 8tretch 369 

Ratcliffe v. Winch 1616, 1617,2060 

Rathbone v. Eckford 796 

v. Warner 1680 

Rather v Young 1029 

Ratteubury v. Fenton 660, 1482 

Rattison v. Hull l'J95 

Rattray v. Bishop 1673, 1683 

v . Darley 1552 

v. George 42 

Ratzer r Hatzer 633, 1470 

Rau v Robertson 1461 

v Von Zedlitz 236, 1548 

Raub v. Masonic M. R. Ass'n 1461 

Raupman v. Evausville 1081 

Raven r Kerl 71, 1347 

Rawlings v. Lambert 201 , 318, 385, 

419, 425, 598, 1602 

v Rawlings 1576 

Rawlins r Desborough 1104 

v. M'Mahon 203, 1809 

v. Powel 779, 1489 

v. Wickham 905, 915, 1400. 2237 

Rawlinson v. Moss 1844. 1848 

v. Stringer 1051, 1059 

Rawnsley v. Trenton Mut. Ins. 

Co. 1715 

Raworth v. Parker 824, 826 

Rawson, Ex parte 1584 

v. Copland 1238 

v. Samuel 972 

Rawstone v. Preston Corporation 571 
Rawstorne v. Bentley 1658 

Ray r. 1055 

v. Conner 1030, 1602 



Ray v. Conners 

v. Doughty 

v. Feu wick 

v. Lines 

v. Oliver 

v. Walton 

v. Womble 
Rayl v. Hammond 
Rayley v. Best 



1591 

1(>76 
199 

1638 

1269 
906 
408 

1381 
209, 1164 



Raymond v . Boston Woven Hose 



Co. 

v Brown 

v . Came 

v. Isham 

v. Lakeman 

v. Russell 

v, Simonson 

v. State 

v . Tapson 
Rayner, Re 

v. Castlee 

v. Jones 

v. Julian 

v . Koehler 

t>. Oastler 

v. Pearsall 

v . Stone 
Raynes v. Wyse 



1642 

884,912 

1249 

1258 

1288, 1291, 1450 

573 

542,641,692 

129 

901 

160 

640 

1120 

335,586 

319 

650 

641 

1660 

1700, 1701 



Raynham Congregational Society 
v. Raynham Fund 630 



Raynor v. Mintzer 
Rea v. Longstreet 

v. Rea 
Reab v. M'AUister 
Read, Re 

v. Barton 

v. Consequa 

v. Cramer 

v. Dews 

v. Fite 

v. Patterson 

v. Prest 

v. Read 

v. Wotton 
Read's, Sir Thomas, Case 
Readdy v. Pendergast 
Reade v Bentley 

v. Lacy 

v Sparkes 

v Woodroffe 

Reading v. Ford 

v. Stover 

Dispensary, Re 
Ready v. Munday 

v. Scott 
Reagan v. Bishop 

v. Evans 



256 

1624 

894 

1253 

1317 

592, 785, 1439 

413, 748, 1672 

378, 379, 382 

1670, 1672, 1683 

1795 

243 

222, 980 

1165 

334 

1050 

852 

1443 

2314 

1406, 1413 

300, 621, 720, 727, 

760 

829 

586 

1854 

666 

582 

1290 

418 



Real Estate Associates v. San 

F'raucisco Supr. Court 1735 
Real P. A. Co. v. McCarthy 1449 

Rearden v. Minter 1134 

Reay, Re 880 

v. Raynor 407 

Reckefus v. Lyon 334 

Rector v. Fitzgerald 1580 

v. Mark 1253 

v. Rector 842 

Redding v. Wilkes 365 

v Wright 933 

Reddington v. Lanahan 1556 

Redeeker v. Bowen 1163 

Redfearn v . Sowerby 1844 
Redfern v. Redfern 564, 717, 1824 
Redfield v. Genesee Co., Super- 



visors of 

v Gleason 
Redin v. Branhan 
Red Jacket Tribe v. Hofl 
Redman v. Forman 
Redmond v. Dana 

v. Dickerson 
Redondo v. Chaytor 
Reece, Re 



1565 
380 
557 
589 

1638 

346 

545 

28, 53, 359 

1443 



J?e, Gould V. Dummett 1012 

v. Reece 1013, 1136, 1470 

v. Taylor 1037, 1039. 1041 



Reece v. Trye 578, 1834 

Reed v. Bauk of Newbury 550 

v. Barton 449, 1U45 

v. Brooks 1284 

v. Clark 84!) 

v. Clarke 550 

v. Conococheque Bank 24 

v. Cumberland, &c. Canal Co. 10 

v. Cumberland M. F. Ins. Co. 590, 

726, 759 

v. Dews 1640 

v. Don Pedro Mining Co. 992 

v. Holliday 1643 

v. Jones 1222, 1236, 1250, 1300, 

1301, 1315 

v. Kemp 1553 

v Lawrence 1120 

v Noe 989 

v. O'Brien 368 

v. Prest 905, 906 

v. Reed 216, 334, 845, 1232, 1242, 

1243, 1244, 1245, 1248, 1252, 

1259, 12H8 

v Rens. Glass Manuf. Co 1253 

v. Warner 736 

Reeder v. Machen 1461 

Reeks, Re 188 

Rees, Ex parte 1854, 1 56 

Re 438, 1593 

v. Bradley 448 

v Evans 347 

v. Lawless 838 

v. Metropolitan Board of 

Works 1233 

v. Peltzer 1666 

v. Richmond 243 

v. Smith 10!)7 

v. Waters 90 

Reese v. Copeland 1286 

v. Kinkead 324 

v. Reese 586 

Reese Kiver Silver Mining Co. 

v. At well 59, 225, 405 

v. Smith 1503 

Reeve, lie 1213, 1428 

v Attorney-General 131, 133 

v. Dalby 108, 636 

v. Gibson 1434 

v. Goodwin 1771 

v. Hodson 506, 865, 872, 1115, 1559 

v. Parkins 1652 

v. Reeve 1261 

v. Richer 223 

v. Whitmore 1228 

Reeves ». Adams 296 

v. Baker 348, 814 

v. Cooper 1623 

v. Glastonbury Canal Co. 993 

v. Greenwich Tanning Co. 543 

v. Neville 1765 

v People 106:) 

v. Reeves 1158 

Reformed Dutch Church v. Fox 1003 

Hegeustein i'. Pearstein 1777 

Regiua (See R.) 

Regla v. Martin 174 

Re hden v Wesley 821 , 823 , 824 

Rehkopf v. Kuhland 1168 

Reichel v. Magratb. 354, 728 

Reid, Ec parte 360 

v. Atlanta 1638 

v. Barton 1439, 2129 

v. Bead 584 

v. Explosives Co. 1743 

v. Gilford 203, 1639, 1676 

v. Huff 1209 

v. Langlois 576, 577, 944, 

1825, 1834 

v. McCallister 843 

v- Middleton 1742, 1743 

v. Morton 1274 

v. Reid 102 

v. Steam 1567 

v. Stuart 1507, 2056 

v. Vanderheyden 217, 1461 

Reifsnider v. American Imp. P. 

Co. 149, 536 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Reilly v Reilly 659, 790 

Reimers v. Druce 664 

Reinbeek, The 633 

Reiner v. Marquis of Salisbury 51, 
133, 629, 1556, 1558 
Reinhardt v. Meutasti 261, 1638 

Reiustadler v. Reeves 636 

lieissner v. Anuess 607 

Remer v Mackay 149 

v. McKay 1548 

Remingtou v. Foster 630 

Remington Paper Co. v. La. 

Printing Co. 1743 

Remnant v. Hood 730, 1376, 143-' 
Remsen v. Remsen 857, 1171, 118 >, 
1191, ll94, 1195, 1221, 1222, 
1227, 1296, 13 il 
Renals v. Cowlishaw 324, 1654 

Reoard V. Livinstein 1670 

Rend v. Venture Oil Co. 1638 

Rendall v. CrystalPalace Co. 1650 
v. Rendall 1725, 1726 

Rendell v. Carpenter 642 

Rendle v. Metropolitan & Pro- 
vincial Bank 888, 944 
v. Rendle 1648 
Renfro v. Goetter 1548 
Renick v. Ludington 991 
Rennell v Kimball 1300, 1317 
Reno v. Hale 1271 
Renshaw v Taylor 283 
Rentfroe v. Dickinson 967, 1675 
Renton v. Chaplin 1727 
Renvoize v. Cooper 194, 216, 221, 
1000 
Renwick v. Macomb 194, 277 
v Wilson 402, 412, 413, 424 
Repplier v. Buck 379 
Republic of Chili v. Rothschild 20 
Republic of Costa Rica v. Er- 

langer 18, 19, 20, 27, 32, 

141 

v. Strousberg 1661 

Kepulilie of Honduras?'. Soto 18 

Republic of Liberia v Imperial 

Bank IS, 19, 507, 801 

v. Roye 19, 20, 26, 141, 507 

Republic of Paraguay, Ex 

parte 1025 

v. Lynch 1070 

Republic of Peru v Dreyfus 18, 

567 

v. Peruvian Guano Co. 18, 354, 

542 

t\ Ruzo 868 

v. Weguelin 19, 141, 1471 

Requa v Rea 1281, 1286, 1290 

Res pass v. Breckenrid^e 1158 

v. McClanahan 1576, 1578, 157!) 

v. Morton 1505 

Rt-spulilica v. De Longchamps 142 

Rettig c. Newman 782 

Retzer v. Wood 560 

Reuben v Thompson 454 

Reubens v. .loel 313 

Revell v. Rlake 66 

Revere v. Boston Copper Co. 26, 

144 

v. Boston Cotton Co. 1661 

Revill, He 1366 

Revolk v. Kraemer 1628 

Rex (See R.) 

Reyburn v Mitchell 407 

Reynell v. Sprve 298, 388, 578, 1 166, 

1614, 1682, 1824, 1828, 1829, 

1834 

Reynes ?\ Dumont 1621 

Reynolds, Ex parte 60, 553, 564, 

717, 942, 1103 

Re . 99, 1047, 1451 

v. Rank 1071 

v. Blake 1276 

v. Bullock 1660 

v. Crawfordsville Bank 642, 829 

v. Everett 1679 

v First Nat. Bank 794 

v. Godlee 578, 1827, 1837 



CI 



Reynolds v. Hennessy 659, 790 

v. Howell 308,309, 851 

v. Jones 747, 897 

v. Lewis 1615 

v. McMillan 1845 

v. Morris 860 

v. Nelson 805 

v. Pharr 846 

v. Pitt 1658, 1659 

v. Reynolds 851, 1576 

v. Stockton 1743, 1765 

Reynoldson v. Perkins 264, 265, 
998 

Rhea v. Allison 676 

v. Puryear 418 

v. Rhenner 88 

Rheinstein v. Bixby 1734 

Rlioads v. Rhoads 68 

Rhode Island v. Massachusetts 2, 
17, 604, 607, 695 

Rhodes, Re 850 

In re, Rhodes v. Rhodes 85 

v. Buckland 1652 

v. Cousins 1698, 1699, 1700, 1702, 
1707, 1708 
v. Dawson 26, 29, 32, 1571 

v. Dunbar 1635 

v. Hayne 810 

v Mostyn, Lord 1717, 1718 

v. Moxhay 284 

v. Rhodes 868, 1189, 1327 

v. Swithenbank 68 

v. Williams 994 

Rhymney Railway v Rhymney 
Iron Co. 383 

Ricardo v. Cooper 417 

v . Garcias 664 

Ricards, Ex parte 1357 

Rice, He 1841 

v. First Division, &c. R. Co. 

1461 
v. Gordon 1835 

v. Hale 395, 1698, 1699, 1703, 1707, 
1709, 1711, 2103, 2329 
v. Hosiery Co. 360 

v. Howard 1099 

v. Hunt 293. 298 

v. Merrimack Hosiery Co. 314, 
843 
v. Orgies 1423 

v. Peet 83 

v. Rice 1178 

v. Tobias 1675 

v. Yakima & P. C. R. Co. 586 

Rich v. Austin 844 

v. Brav 553 

v. f'ockell 100 

v. Thomas 1668 

Richards, Ex parte 1389 

Re 674 

v. Allis 790, 986 

v. Barlow 1409 

v. Butcher 1648 

v. Butler 316, 1556 

v. Chambers 98, 186 

v. Chave 1725 

v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. 

1733 
v. Cooper 214 

V. Curlewis 822, 890 

v. Dadley 533 

v. Davies 332 

v. Evans 370 

v. Griffith 674 

v. Jackson 571 

v. Mackall 560 

v. Millett 109 

v. Morris Canal, &c. Co. 1213, 
1309,1310 1811 
v. Perkins 1722, 1723 

v. Pierce 334, 338, 341 

v. Platel 1477, 1482, 1612. 1843 
v. Revitt 1657 

v. Richards 114, 220, 365, 1752 
v. Rose 1136 

v. Salter 1563, 1564, 1568, 158U, 
2004 



cii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging. ] 



Richards v. Scarborough Market 
Co. 404, 1847 

v. Swan 1364 

v. S vines 1112,1123 

v. Todd V6M, 1548 

v. Travellers' Ins Co. 843 

v. Watkms 1823, 1824, 1825 

v. West lti 1 3 

v. Wood 1027, 1481 

Richardson, Re 143i 

v. Allan 1101 

v. bank of England 1777, 1780, 
1781, 1782 
v. Brooks 334 

v. Davidson 1018 

v. Douehoo 759 

v. Eyton 796, 1588 

v. Keary 1103 

v. Fisher 1133 

v. Gilbert 320, 367 

v. Golden 924, 951 

v. Hadsall 212 

v. Hastings 190, 237, 240, 243, 
591, 600, 1827, 1837, 2086 
v. Horton 1303, 1306 

v. Huluert 247 

v. Jenkins 1437 

v. Jones 1042, 1061, 1462 

v. Larpent 239, 241, 243 

v. Leake 645 

v. Lightfoot 1677 

v. M'Kinson 334 

v. Miller 71 

v. Peacock 1654 

v. Richardson 42, 43, 409, 647 

v. Rusbridger 1431 

v. Scott 1661 

v. Wallace 779, 782 

v. Wallis 1239 

v. Ward 1261, 1321, 1764, 1765 
v. Younge 651 

Riches v. Owen 60 

Richmond v. Adams Nat Bank 83 
v. Gray 369. 989, 1031 

v. Dubuque R Co. 1682 

v. Irons 236, 402, 405, 407, 418, 
1210 
v. Richmond 848, 961, 1116 

v. Tayleur 164, 165, 173, 174, 

1584 
v. White 1425, 1778 

v. Yates 1720 

Richmond, Duke of v. Miln 46 

Richmond Enquirer v. Robin- 
son 1625 
Richter v. Jerome 933 
v. Union Trust Co. 933 
Richwiuev. Presbyterian Church 

1517 

Rickard v. Talbird 1166 

Rickards v. Attorney-General 349, 

1463, 1492, 1503 

t>. Hough 919 

v. Murdork 1100 

v. Rickards 1163 

Rickcord v. Nedriff 447 

Ricker v. Alsop 224 

v. Brooks 334 

v. Powell 1584 

Ricketson V. Merrill 1411 

Rirkett v. Johnson 1628 

Ricketts v. Lewis 15"] 

v. Martin 1025 

v. Mornington 505 980 

V. Turquand 876, 1075, 1383 

Ricks v. Baskett 557 

Rico v. Gualtier 1702, 170.3 

Ridabock v. Lew 1481 

Riddell v. Errington 98 

Riddle v Bowman 1245 

r. Motley 584,1515,1531 

v. Whitehill 641 

Rideout, fie 564. 849 

Rider v. Bngley 1716 

v. Kidder 453, 1045 

Ridgeley v. Warfield 607 

Ridgely v. Bond 235, 363, 1527, 1528 



Ridgeway v. Darwin 1229 

v. Toram 1580 

Ridgley v. Riggs 363 

Ridgway v. Bank of Teun. 1625 

r. Clare 194li 

v. Edwards 156 

v. Ewbauk 1096 

v. Gray 1283 

v Kyunersley 710 

v. Newstead 1474 

v Phillips 1097 

v. Roberts 1079, 1640 

v Wharton 657 

Ridifer v O'Brien 1226, 1317 

Riding V. Hawkins 417 

Ridings v. Johnson 283, 313, 630 

Ridler v. Ridler 9, 83 

Ridley v. Obee 780 

v. Ridley 891,914,1316 

v. Tiplady 1331 

Ridout v. Plymouth, Earl of 

1737 
Ridsdale Allanbee v. Great 

Western Ry. Co. 448 

Riegel v. American Life Ins. 

Co 713 

Rigby v. Connol 1652, 1653 

v. Great Western Ry. Co. 1148, 

1640 

v. Macnamara 1285, 1292 

v. Rigby 516, 624, 731, 777, 1829 

v. Strangways 432, 797 

Rigdon v. Conley 720 

Rigg v. Hancock 378, 1614 

v. Wall 968, 970, 979 

Riggs v. Dickinson 1156 

r Huffman 1579 

v. Murray 1468 

Riley, Re 1029 

v. Carter 324 

v. Croydon 791 

v. Lyons 634. 683 

v. Western Union Tel Co. 1661 

Riudskopf, Re 933 

v. Platto 1556 

Rinehart v. Long 334 

v Rinehart 227 

Ringgold v. Jones 898, 951. 1073 

v. Ringgold 1003, 1253. 1259, 

1260, 1369 

v. Stone 324, 702 

Ringgold's Case 1459, 1460, 1468 

Ringo v. Woodruff 1548 

Ringold v. Jones 1250 

Ringrose v. Todd 1124 

Ringwalt v. Ahl 1117 

Rio Grande R Co. v Scanlan 1661 

Riopelle v Doellner 1550, 1557 

Ripley v Moysey 1428 

V. Sawyer 170 

v. Warren 546 

v. Waterworth 261 

v. Woods 122 

Ripon v Hobart 1629 

Rippe r. Stogdill 334 

Rippon v. Priest 877 

Risca Coal Co., lie 807, 980, 1016. 

1473 

Riselev V. Sheppard 865, 1543 

Rishton v. Grissell 771, 1221, 1250. 

1296 

Ri-t v. Hobson 365 

Ritchie v. Aylwin 607 

v. Howsfie'ld 1134 

v Broadbent 98 

v Humberstone 797 

v. Williams 1772 

Ritter's Appeal 643 

Rirtson v. Stordy 47 

River Steamer Co., Re 646 

Rivers v Gregg 1360 

Roach v. Garvan 887, 1069, 1861, 

ia52 

V. Hillings 312 

v Rutherford 989 

Rnake v. Kidd 989 

Roane v. Pickett 271 



Roanoke Gas Co. v. Roanoke 860 

Roath v. Driscoll 1639 

v. Smith 221 

Robarts v. Buee 1408, 1846 

V. L lay ton 1561 

Robb v. Carnegie 1638 

Robbins v, Abrahams 182 

v. Arnold 2511 

v. Codman 850 

v. Cooper 2' 37 

v. Goldingham 1844 

v. Robbius 169 

v. Sand Creek T. Co. 334 

Roberdeau v. Rous 543, 555, 584 

Robert V. Brice 1265 

Robert Gere Bank v. Innian 340 

Roberts, Re 101, 1254, 1411, 1482, 

1616, 1745, 1798 

v. Anderson 868, 1669, 1677 

v. Ball 1042, 1065, 1455 

v. Birgess 844, 10^7 

V. Chamberlain 256 

v. Clayton 321, 589 

v. Collett 96, 97 

v. Eberhardt 332, 1727, 1728 

V. Evans 87, 109 

v. Hartley 612, 690 

v. Hodges 1675 

v. Hughes 710, 1128, 1131, 1282 

v. Johns 1168 

V. Jones 696 

v. Kelly 847 

v. Kendall 933 

v. Kerslake 1149, 1384 

v. Kuights 45, 48, 629 

v. Kuffin 668 

v. Le Hir 700 

v. Lloyd 42 

v. Madocks 319, 6"5 

v. Marchant 286, 1484 

v. Moreton 61 

v. Morgan 1791 

V. Oppenheim 573, 1838 

v. Peavey 1549 

v. Quincv, 0. & K. R Co 815 

v. Roberts 228, 316, 795,850, 977. 

1290, 1380, 1652 

v. Russell 135 

v. Salisbury 844, 846, 1462 

v. Scoones 1384 

v. Stanton 161 

v. Starke 334 

v. Stower 1051 

v. Tennell 837 

v. Totty 1468 

v. Tunstali 269 

v. Walker 56, 58, 1430, 2182 

v. Walley 579 

v. White 1081 

v. Williams 370, 1307, 1391 

Robertshaw v. Bray 1775 

Robertson, Re 1847 

v. Archer 1228 

v. Armstrong 248 

V Barbour 874 

v. Biugley 547, 617, 787, 987, 1462 

v. Campbell 1635 

v. Carson 149 

v. Crawford 518 

v. Great Western Ry Co. 230 

v. Howard 543 

v. Kemble 202, 204 

r. Londonderry, Lord 583 

r. Lubbock ' 702 

v Miller 524, 526, 529, 1026, 1027 

V. Nnrris 1225 

v. Quiddington 1660 

v. Robertson 37, 38. 39 

v. Scott 316. 1779 

v. Shewell 1828 

v. Skelton 1275. 1282 

v. Southgate 159, 230, 1525, 1527, 

1529 

v. Stevens 341,342 

v. Wilkie 48, 1703 

v. Winch 1697 

v. Winchester 1029, 1553 



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



cm 



Robeson v. Pittinger 1638 

Robin, The 1444 

Robins, lie 99 

v. Hodgson 283 

Robinson, Ex parte 1019, 1841 

Re 113 

Re, Robinson v. Robinson 92 

v. Allison 190 

v, Anderson 1073 

v. Aston 162, 177, 475 

v Atlantic Ry. Co. 1743 

v. Bailey 1542 

v Battle House Co. 855 

v. Baugh 303 

v. Belt 1029 

v. Bingley 589 

v Bland 1224 

v. Brown 867 

v Brutton 36 

v. Byron, Lord 1631. 1632, 1639, 
1662, 1668, 1672, 1683, 1687 
v. Campbell 1 

v. Cook 1126, 1127 

v. Cooper 171. 839 

v. Cropsey 1381 

v. Cross 334, 335 

v. Cumming 1228, 1251, 1256 

v. Dart 186 

v. Davies 919 

v Dhuleep Singh 245, 867 

v. Dix 559 

v. Dolores Land Co. 324 

v. Drakes 1491 

v. Elliott 1424 

v. Frainpton 1524 

v Galland 1053 

v. Gallier 850 

v. Govers 1540 

v. Guild 334, 342, 344, 584 

v. Iladley 1734 

v. Hardin 847 

v. Harrison 1610 

v. Hiutrager 217 

v Hook 560 

v. India Chartered Bank 602 

v. International Life Ins. Co. 51 
v. Jenkins 1561 

v Joplin 1624 

v. Kitchin 566 

v. Lewis 1475 

v. Litton 67, 1630 

v. Lowater 826 

v. Mandell 840 

v. Manuelle 1015 

v. Missisquoi R. Co. 4u2 

v. Nash 512, 536 

v. Newdick 1024, 1026 

v. Norton 63, 64, 814, 1542 

v. Pett 12*3, 1234, 1413 

v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. 679, 
855 
v. Pickering 186, 187 

v. Preswick 1630 

v. Reid 1625 

v. Reynolds 88, 179 

v. Robinson 220, 334, 1586, 2262 
v. Rokeby, Lord 442, 445 

v. Rosher 71) 1 

v. Rudkins 1019 

v. Sampson 841, 1479, 1575 

v Satterlee 2391 

V Scotney 1229 

v. Simmons 1320 

v. Smith 26, 190 287, 290. 292, 
558, 564, 588, 604 
v. Springfield Co. 197, 334 

v. Stewart 843, 847 

v. Stigleman 844 

v. Taylor 1473, 1483. 1734 

K Thompson 581,586 

v. Townsend 525 

v. Wall 1458, 1555, 1559 

v. Wheeler 1621, 1625 

v. Williamson 1126 

v. Wood 1306, lt;94 

t>. Woodgafe 726 

Robinson's Trusts, Re 1030 



Robinson Tobacco Co. v. Phil- 
lips 855 
Robsou, Re 133 
v. Cranwell 11)26 
v. Devon, Earl of 159, 521, 808, 
815, 1397 
v. Dodds 240, 245, 399, 1070 
v. Flight 721.843 
v. Wnittinghain 995, 1072, 1081. 
1638 
Roby i'. Cossitt 544 
v. Scholes 1044 
Roch v. Callen 1422 
Rochdale Caoal Co v. King 3^4, 
485, 760, 1657, 1678, 1819, 1822 
Roche v. Morgell 378. 381, 611, 613, 
616, 619, 669, 670 
Rochester, Re 1770 
i\ Anderson 381 
v. Lee 790 
Rochester, Corp of v. Lee 21, 9!i5, 
1137, 1148. 1149, 1464 
Rochester, Major, &c, of v 

Curtiss 1664, 1670 

Rochester Distilling Co. v. Dev- 

endorf 817 

Rochester, H. & L R. Co. v. 

New York, &c. R. Co. 1684 

Rochester R. Co v. Robinson 313 
Rochfort c. Battersby 59, 157, 1496 
Rock v. Cook 1064, 1744 

v. Mathews 1G68 

Rock Portland Cement Co. v. 

Wilson 1082 

Rocke v. Hart 1416 

Rockwell ik Folsom 933, !»37 

V. Morgan 347, 1202 

Rodlaui o Hetherington 81, 17o4, 

1706, 1707, 1713 

v. Morley 658 

Roderigas v. East River Savings 

Institution 1507 

Rodes v Blythe 1260 

Rodgers t>. Dibrell 1576 

v. Ellison 444 

v. Jones 418 

v. Nowill 1112, 1113, 1136, 1147, 

1642, 1649, 1681 

v Rodgers 406, 1677 

Rodick v. Gandell 1827 

Hodman v. Forline 1492 

Rodney v. Hare 829. 834, 983 

Roe v. Davies 384, 861, 890, 1058, 

1451 

v. Gudgeon 1781 

Roemer v. Neumann 517. 1019, 1031 

v. Simon 1019. 1504 

Roffey, Ex parte 642 

v Bent 1089 

v. Miller 63, 1525 

Rogers, Ex parte 1051 

v. Abbott 1643 

v. Acaster 119, 123, 127 

v. Blackwell 334 

v. Burton 1099 

v. Challis 1081 

v. Cincinnati 1627 

v. Clark D55 

v. Cruger 169, 734, 753, 1497 

v. Danforth 1668 

v. De Forrest 424 

v. Duhart 313 

v. Fryer 412 

v. Goore 970 

v. Gore 834 

v. Holly 1403 

v. Hooper 38, 830 

v. Horn 110, 307, 973, 974, 1"31 

v Hosack 141)3 

v. Hull Dock Co. 1650 

v. Jones 203, 1444 

v. King 635 

r. Kirkpatrick 493 

v. Lambert 1561 

v. Linton 150, 219 

v. M'Maeham 1550 

v. Maddocks 1655 



Rogers v. Marshall 870 

v. Mitchell 829, 844, 845, 982 

v. N. Y. & T L. Co. 313, 378 

v. Parker 1625 

v. I'aterson 504, 1481, 1591 

v. Rathbuu 386 

v. Reissner 1120 

v. Rogers 257, 294, 401, 402. 415, 

418. 424, 552, 1008, 1018, 

1028, 1080, 1074, 1369, 137'), 

1460, 1600, 177'.', 1793 

v. Ross 1426, 1427. 1724 

v. Saunders 369 

v. Solomons 407, 1530 

v. Thomas 851 

v . Traders' Ins Co. 198 

v . Van Nortwick 26 

v. Vosburgh 354, 634, 815, 816, 

1618 

v. Ward 187, 361, 368, 1903 

Rogers Locomotive and Machine 

Works v. Erie It. Co. 1662 

Rogers T. Co. v. Mergenthaler L. 

Co. 1642 

Rolfe v. Gregory 560 

v. Harris 1659 

v. Peterson 1(555 

v Rolfe K557 

Hollestot. v. Morton 277 

Rollins v. Forbes 557 

v Henry 1720, 1725 

v. Hinks 1643 

luv. Co. v. George 298 

Rolls v Miller 1662 

v. Yate 195 

Rolt, Re 133 

v. Somerville, Lord 584 

V. White 199 

Romaine v. Hendrickson 243, 374, 

430 

Rome Bank v. Haselson 236 

Rome, &c R. Co. v. Rochester 1663 

Romilly v. Grint 42 

Romine v. State 1381 

c. Vance 992 

Romney v. 750 

Rondanez v. Mayor of New 

Orleans I650 

Rooke v Kensington, Lord 1001, 

2182 

Rookes v. Rookes 1318 

Roome v Nicholson 354 

Hooper v. Harrison 832 

Roosevelt v. Crommelin 45 

V. Ellithorp 1382 

Root v Lake Shore Ry. Co. 630 

v Paine 1062 

v. Ry. Co. 6.TI 

v. Wood worth 1517 

v Woolworth 1584 

Rootham v Dawson 393 

Roots v. Mason City S & M 

Co. ir>51 

Koper, Re, Roper v. Doncaster 109, 

179 

Rr, Taylor v. Bland 1368 

v. Lencion 671 

v. Wren 1258 

Lumber Co v Wallace 313 

Ropes v. Upton 1654 

Roscarrick v. Barton 214 264 

Rose V Blakemore 1103 

v. Brown '.171, 1506 

v. Calland 988, 1401, 1402 

v Clark 197 

v. Clarke 2043 

v. Gannel 547,548,1557, 1572 

!'. King 419 

v. Mvnatt 361, 407, 861 

v. Page 214, 279 

v Rolls 95 

v. West 555 

v. Woodruff 617, 518 

Rosenberg r. Lind ) 1355 

Rosehorough r Rosohorough 1359 

Rosenbaum v. Couucil Bluffs Ins. 

Co. 313 



CIV 



Rosenbaum v. Foss 


674 


Rosenkrans v. Snover 


1158 


Rosenthal v. McMaun 


659 


v. Reynolds 


1648 


Roskell v. Whitworth 


1071,1079, 


1080 


1637, 1639 


Ross, Ex parte 


643 


v. Aglionby 


1077 


v. Boswell 


546 


v. Butler 


1635, 1636 


v. Carpenter 406, 420, 2382 


v Colville 


1047 


v. Crary 


217 


v. Ewer 


186 


v. Gibbs 


573, 577 


v. Gutteriuge 


157 


v. Harper 1486, 


1623, 2305 


v New England Ins. Co. 1110 


t;. Page 


1631 


v. Koss 


316, 1779 


v. Shearer 


147, 1689 


t'. Tatham 


1207 


v. Union Pacific R. Co. 


1663 


v. Wharton 


117 


V. Williams 


1766 


v. Woodford 


892 


v. Woods 


1625 


Rosse v. Rust 


994 


Rossiter v. Miller 


655, 990 


* Pitt 


859 


Ro-well's Case 


1630 


Rotherham v. Battson 


1404 


Rothschild v. Portugal, Queen of '20 


v. Whitman 


542 


Rothwell v. Benshall 


178 


v. King 


576 


v. Rothwell 


1172, 1773, 




1780 


Rouche v. Williamson 


46 


Roudabush v. Miller 


1286 


Rough v Simmons 


314 


Roulston v Ralston 


351 


Round v . Bell 


653 


Roundell v. Breary 


1003 


v. Currer 


1543, 1799 


Roundlett v. Jordan 


841 


Roundtree v. Gordon 


846 


Rourke, Re 


135 


Rouse v Jones 


1615, 1616 


Rouskulp v Kershner 


542,694 


Routh v. Kinder 


248 


v Peach 


371 


v. Webster 


1648 


Routledge v. Low 


46, 1643 


Roveray v. Grayson 


151 


Row, lie 


99 


v. Row 


1429, 1430 


Rowan v. Bowles 


326, 361 


v. Mercer 


214 


v. State Bank 


1298 


Rowbotham t». Jones 


303 


Rowe v. 


933,938 


v. Brenton 


1106 


v Granite Bridge 


1637 


v. Gudgeon 


769 


v. Jackson 


106 


V. London School Board 1082 


v. Patterson 


324 


v. Phillips 


658 


v. Teed 


607, 656 


17. Tonkin 


583, 591 


v. White 


2040 


v. Wood 607, 670, 671 


, 672. 1239, 


1624 


1719, 1768 


Rowell v. Jewett 


314 


v. St. Louis 


1115 


Rovt land v. Evans 


203, 1267 


v. Garman 


294 


v. Miller 


1654 


t;. Oakley 


95 


v. Sturgis 829, 881, 


Rowlands v. Tucker 


1437 


Rowlandson v. Fenton 


1097 


Rowlatt v. Cattell 


1594 


Rowley v Adams 1189, 


1192. 1193, 


1198, 1280, 1373, 


1468,1477, 




1610 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Rowley v. Benthuysen 987 

v. Burgess 1202 

v. Eccles 358, 600, 603. 680, 702 

v. Ridley 495, 953, 1055 

v. Scales 2 

v. Van Benthuysen 1460, 1462,1463 

v. Williams 694 

Rowley's Appeal 843 

Rownaon, tie, Fields. White 643 

Roworth v. Wilkes 366 

Rowsell v. Morris 201, 280, 288, 292, 

319 

Rowth v Howell 1751 

Rowtou v. Rowton 657 

Roy v. Gibbon 1772, 1773 

Rot al v. Johnson 9!l4 

Royal Mail Packet Co. v. Braham 449 

Royall v. McKenzie 1315 

Royce v. Tarrant 287. 289 

Royds v. Royds 1416, 1419 

Royle, Re, Fryer v. Royle 236, 645 

v. Wynne 816 

Rubber Co. v. Goodyear 536, 1224 

Rubery v. Grant 348 

v. Morris 155 

Ruby *;.Abyssinian Society 1242, 1243 

v. Strother 175 

Rucker v. Howard 1395 

v Scholefield 203, 1009, 1017 

Ruckman v. Astor 1237, 124S 

v. Cory 560 

v. Decker 561, 714, 993, 1017, 

1018 1366 

v. Palisade Land Co. 68, 74 

v. Stephens 87. 215 

Rudd v. Darling 1069 

v. Rowe 794 

v. Speare 176 

Ruddy, Be 205 

Rude v. Whitchurch 839, 1229 

Rudge v. Weedon 87, 179, 181, 538, 

1526 

Rudow v. Great Britain M. L. 

Ass. Society 1406 

Rue v. Meirs 68 

Ruegger i<. Indianapolis R. Co. 634 

Ruffles v. Alston 92 

Ruffner v. Hewitt 190, 1370 

Rufford v Bishop 1297 

Rugan v. Sabiu 560 

Ruge v. Apalachicola 0- C. Co. 1663 

Ruirgles v. Eddy 782 

Ruhling v. Hackett 1971 

Rulluff, Ex parte 232 

Rumbly r. Staiuton 790 

Rumbold v Cowl 670 

v. Forteath 579, 673, 694, 812, 

1337, 1319, 1822, 1831 

Rumney v. Maud 200 

v. Mead 24'J 

v. Walter 1070 

v. Willis 1396 

Rump v. Greenhill 335, 336, 589, 

797, 2086 

Rumsey v. Rumsey 1329 

Rundell v. Marquis of Donegal 214 

v. Murray 1643 

v. Rivers, Lord 1210 

Rundle v Foster 574, 943, 'J44 

v. Rundle 69 

Runge v. Schleicher 852 

Runk v St. John 1751 

Rush, Re 1054, 1555 

v. Higgs 236, 1015 

v. Smith 1102 

Rushbrooke v. Farley 418 

Rushing v. Thompson 1031 

Rushout v. Turner 822 

Rushworth v. Pembroke, Countess 

of 869 

v. Smith 1743 

Rusling v. Bray 1320 

v Rusling 1071 

Ruspini v. Vickery 590 

Russ v. Wilson 1640 

Russell v. Ashby 1699, 1700, 1707, 

1713 



Russell v. Atkinson 


958 


v. Austin 


1166 


V. Ball 


1092 


v. Barstow 


630 


v. Blake 


1242 


v. Buchanan 


1319 



v Cambefort 140, 147, 14!), 445 
v. Chicago Trust & S. Bank 1120 
v Clark 652 

v. Clarke 149, 151, 289 

v. Copp 646 

v. Craig 1508 

v. Di' keschied 1556 

v. East Anglian Rv. Co. 1057, 

1058, 1683/1731, 1743, 1744 
v Ely 652 

v. Fanning 1147 

v. Garrett 334 

v. Gregg 779 

v. Jackson 573, 576, 577, 578, 

1834 
v Lamb 790, 1548 

v. Lath roo 986 

v. London, Chatham and 

Dover Ry. Co. 1618, 1682 

v. Loring 550, 630 

v. McLellan 1176, 1573 

v. Moffit 845 

v. Pellegrini 1861 

v. Place 659 

v. Plaice 1344 

v Russell 332, 671, 1463 

v. Sharp 75, 76, 163 

v. Shenton 211 

v. Skipwith 49 

v. Smithies 1240, 1242 

v. Southard 1239, 1241 

v. Tapping 1017 

v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. 1752 

v. Wakefield Waterworks Co. 26, 

241, 243 

Russia Cement Co. v. Le Page 1648 

Rust v. Mansfield 8il 

v. Rust 1150 

v. Victoria Graving Dock Co. 211 

Rustomjee v. Reg. 133 

Ruston v. Tobiu 26, 888 

Rutgers v. Hunter 2259 

v Kingsland 1961 

Rutherford, Re 560, 1462 

v. Dawson 1771 

v. Douglas 1726 

v. Metcalf 504, 1662, 1664, 1683, 

1684 

v. Miller 159 

v Nelson 904,918.930 

v. Wilkinson 1768, 1769 

Rutland v. Paige 1548 

Rutley v. Gill 1278 

Rutter v Baldwin 184 

v Marriott 1278 

v. Tallis 1744 

v. Tregent 785 

Rutty v. Person 1073 

Rutzen, Baron de v. Farr 1125, 1126 

Ryan v Anderson 200, 302 

v Anglesea R. Co. 2124 

v Ashton 1841 

v. Blount 967 

v. Lamson 1561 

v. McLeod 986 

v. Mutual Tontine W C. 

Ass'n 1654. 1660 

v. Nesbitt 1411, 1421 

v Ring 27 

v. Shawneetown 334 

Rychman v. Parkins 1733 

Ryder v Bentham 1638, 1602 

v. Gower 1290, 1461 

v. Inverarity 986 

v Topping 216, 334 

Rye, Re 1323 

Ryes v. Wellington, Duke of 131 

Rylandsv. Latouche 1538, 1547, 1585 

Rymer v. Cook 1106 

Ryves v. Coleman 1368 

v. Ryves 370, 547, 552 



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



CV 



S. 



S. v. h. 

Sabin v. Gilman 
Sablicich v. Russell 
Sachs v. Speiluian 
Sackett v. Hill 



508 
1355 

553 

328, 666 

1068 



Sackett's Harbor Bank v. Blake 26 
Sackvill v. A.yleworth 316, 1573 

Saddingtou v. Kinsman 120, 122 
Sadler v. Glover 686 

v- Green 1481 

v. Lovett 1516 

Safety Fund Bank v. Westlake 860 
Safford v. People 1058, 1752 

Saffron Waldeu S. B. B. Society 

v. Rayner 307, 674 

Sage v. Central R. Co. 1460, 1485, 
1492 
v. Memphis &. L. R. Co. 1734 

Sagory v. Bay less 1018, 1022 

Sahlgaard 8 Kennedy 100, 1584 

Sainstry v. G rammer 207 

St. Albans, Duke of v. Skipwith 1630 
St. Albyn v. Harding 1386 

St. Aubvn v. Smart 269 

St. Clair v. Smith 161 

Sainter v. Ferguson 1654, 1657 

St. Felix v. Rankin 1158 

St. George, Re 1852 

v. St. George 726 

St. Giles, lie 1852 

St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tip- 
ping 1635 
St. John ». Besborough, Earl of 37 
Lord v. St. John, Lady 348 
v. Harrison 435 
St. John's College v. Carter 1683, 
1686 
v. Pratt 1683, 1686 
St. Joseph R. Co. v. Smith 1752 
St. Joseph & St. Louis R. Co. v. 

Humphreys 1743 

St. Katherine Dock Co. v. 

Mautzgu "47 

St. Lazaire, He 1368 

St. Louis Life Ins. Co. v. Alliance, 

&c. Life Ins. Co. 1568 

St Louis Perpetual Ins. Co. v. 

Cohen 144 

St. Louis &e. Ry. Co. v. Wilson 26 
St. Luke's v. St. Leonard's 1104 

St. Mary Magdalen College, 

Pres. of v. Sibthorp 408, 418. 
1490 
St. Nazaire Co., Re 401 

St. Paul's. Minor Canons of v. 

Crickctt 659 

St. Paul's, Warden and Minor 

Canons of v. Kettle 1078 

v. Morris 1124, 1125 

St. Sepulchre, Vicar of, Re 1014 

St. Stephens, Re 13 

St. Victor v. Devereux 38, 43, 1590, 

1779, 1780 

Sale r. Kitson 215, 257 

v. McLean 552, 1548, 1549 

v. Meggett 1073 

v. Sale 71, 1347 

v. Saunders 127 

Salem, City of v. Eastern R. R 

Co. 1640 

Salem National Bank v. Salem 

Co. 1548 

Sales v. Lusk 1716 

Saleski v. Bovd 974, 1459 

Salfield v. Sutter County Land 

Imp Co. 313 

Salisbury v. Baggot 662 

v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 241, 245 
Bishop of v Phillips 1157 

Earl of v. Cecil 580 

Earl of v. Newton 122 



Salisbury Mills v. Townsend 197, 1561 

Salkeld v. Johnston 1491 

v. Phillips 583 

v Science 685, 670, 676, 680 

Sallee v. Duncan 846 

Salmina v. Juri 1381 

Salmon v. Anderson 1785, 1794 

v. Clagett 374, 720, 734. 758, 

843, 845 

v. Dean 611, 618 

v. Green 429 

v. Osborn I860 

v. Smith 842 

v. Wooton 633 

Salomon v. Hertz 1650 

Salomons v. Knight 1620 

v Laing 144, 241 

Saloy v. Block 2u8 

Salsbury v. Falk 324 

Salt v. Cooper 1037, 1585, 1733, 1734 

Salter, Ex parte 1603 

v. Hradshaw 1386 

v. Kreuger 256 

v. Scarborough 547 

v. Tildt-sley 795, 799, 800 

V- Tobias 654 

Saltmarsh v. Hockett 709 

Saltus v. Tobias 607, 609 

Salvidge v. Fulton 893 

17. Hyde 336, 337, 346 

Salvin v. North Brancepeth Coal 

Co. 1635 

Salway v. Salway 1751 

Same v. Sackett 777, 1534 

Samis v. King 26 

Sammes v. Rickman 1368, 1419 

Sammis v. Bennett 1459 

v. L'Kugle 1561 

v. Wightman 200 

Sammon v Bennett 576 

Sample v. Frost 576 

v. Sample 349 

Samples v. Bank 722, 2384 

Sampson v. Appleyard 1129 

v. Hunt 1002 

v. Mudge 1622 

v. Smith 1636 

v. Swettenham 579 

& Wall, Re 108 

Samsinego v. Stiles 197 

Samson v. Samson 234 

Samuda v. Furtado 664 

v Lawford 1660 

Samuel v. Jones 1409, 1411, 1412 

v. Rogers 449, 550 

v. Samuel 255, 1174 

v. Wiley 161)8 

Sanborn v. Adair 334, 346, 837 

v. Dwineli 334 

v Kittredge 361, 844 

v. Perry 14ti3 

v Rogers 365 

v. Sanborn 406, 425 

Sanchez v. Newman 1461 

Sanders, Re 226 

v. Benson 315, 603, 1394 

v. Gate wood 986, 1031 

v. Godley 444 

v. Gray 1283 

v. Howe 915 

v. Kelsey 345 

v. King 605, 615, 619, 620, 669, 

2095 

v. Miller 1428, 1432, 1433 

?'. Murney 691 

v Page 124 

v. Peck 1385 

v. Plunkett 1675 

v. Pope 165!) 

v. Sanders 651 

v. Wilson 1239 



Sanders v. Yonkers 2040 

Sanderson, Re 1443 

v. Chadwick 1404 

v. Cockermouth Railway Co. 

1660 

v. Sanderson 334, 591 

v. Stoddart 14L'3 

v. Walker 1420, 1610 

Sandeford v. Lewis 790 

San Diego v. Allison 1624 

Sand ford v. 1193 

v. Ballard 1726 

v. Biddulph 1197 

v. Clarke 1408 

v. Head 1019,1031,1584 

v. McLean 1166 

v. Morrice 842. 1370 

v. Remington 575, 951 

v. Sandford 75 

Sandilauds v. Innes 217 

Saudon v. Hooper 1242, 1243, 2213, 

2223 

Sands v. Beardsley 1073 

v. Champlin 1997 

v. Codwise 1459 

v. Hildreth 978 

v. Thompson 649 

Sandys v. Long 358 

v. Watson 1419 

Saner v. Bilton 1407. 1630 

v. Deaven 813, 977 

Sanford v. Sinclair 1735 

Sangar v. Gardiner 1453 

Sanger v. Newton 418 

v. Nightingale 639 

v. Wood 634, 815 

Sangosa v. East India Co. 290 

Sanitary District v. Cullerton 1108 

Sauquirico v. Benedetti 1654, 1657 

Sansoni v. Sansom 1053 

Sanxary v. Hunger 1624 

Sanxter v. Foster 1640, 1642 

Sapp v. Phelps 334, 1386 

Sapphire, The 18 

Sapte v. Ward 153, 188, 253, 539 

Sarah, The 1395 

Saratoga County Supervisors v. 

Seabury 1561 

Sargant v. Read 1727, 1732, 1734, 

1735 

Sargeant v. First National Bank 836 

v. Howley 1508 

Sargent v. Johnson 1734 

v. Sargent 1411 

v. Wilson 214 

Sarsfield v. Van Vaughner 328 

Sartwell v. Fields 1463, 1491 

Satrerfield v. Malone 569 

Satterley V. Robinson 671 

Satterwhite v. Davenport 768 

Saul v. Met'n Ry. Co. 1686 

Saull v. Browne 300, 720, 1»'20 

Sauls c. Freeman 16>>3 

Saum r. Stingley 369, 1577 

Saumarez v. Saumarez 230, 1740 

Saunders v. Allen 844 

v. Druce 200, 324, 604, 608, 612, 

1474 

v. Frost 1, 406, 411, 638, 123 ', 

1243, 1246, 1252, 1376, 1381, 

1385, 1386, 1391, 1392, 1400, 

1515 

v. Gatling 

v. Gray 1282 

v. Gregory 1401 

v. Hord 560 

v. Jones 324, 579, 720, 855 

v. Leslie 698, 850 

v. Prunty 1299 

v. Saunders 295. 1435 

v. Smith 1643, 1645 



CV1 



Saunders v. Soutter 
v. Tottenham,(&c. Ry. Co 



V. Walter 

v. Warton 

v. Wiel 
Sauza v. Belcher 
Savage, Ite 

v. Aiken 

v. Brocksopp 

V. Carrol 

v . Carter 

v. Lane 

v. Merriain 

v. Suialebroke 

v. Snell 
Savery v. King 
Savile v. Bruce 

v. Savile 
Saville, lie 

v. Tancred 
Savin, Ex parte 
Savings Bank v. Benton 

v. Holt 



1327, 1367 
55 
567 
547 
307, 309, 1611 
830 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

313 Schenck v- Peay 447, 1553 

1774 Schennerhorn v. Barhydt 233 

v. Maliaffie 974 

Schermerhorne v, Schermer- 
horne 2293 
Schettler v. Fort Howard 1661 



175, 1078 

1553 

236 

318 

590 

1524 

1503 

1001 

1284, 1285 

1611 

223 

1069 

1111 

1385 



Savings, &c. Society v. Austin 1661 
Savory v. Dyer 388, 1614 

Sawtelle v. Rollins 68, 63 

Saw\er. He 16*3 

i'. Baldwin 90,91,96,1427 

v. Birchmore 944, 945, 1206, 1208 



417 



'09, 782 

1576 

1973 

1648 

795 

334, 330 

189, 518 

1642 

216 

933 

1620 



Schmidt v. Dietericht 

v. Limehouse 

v. Miller 
Schmitten v. Faulks 
Schneider v. Batt 

v. Brown 

v. Foote 

v. Lizardi 



v. Campbell 

v. Davis 

V- Hovey 

v. Kellogg 

v. Mills 

v. Noble 

v. Sawyer 

Spindle Co v. Turner 
Sawyers o. Bakers 
Sax v. Davis 
Saxby v. Easterbrook 

v. Manchester &c S. Rv. Co. 261 

v. Saxby 1592, 1594, 1685 

Saxon v. Barksdale 588, 590 

Saxton v. Davis 60, 340, 553 

Say v. Creed 218 

Sayer v. Austin 1255 

v. Bradley 1503 

v Devore 314 

v. Wagstaff 200 

Sayers v. Collyer 1080, 1654 

Sayles v. Tibbitts 206, 287, 325, 659, 
994 
Saylor t>. Mockbie 504 

Saylors v. Saylors 259 

Sayre v. Elyton Land Co. 1274 

v Fredericks 847 

Scaffold v. Hampton 799, 973 

Scaife v. Scaife 1140, 1385 



40, 1485, 1486 

70, 108 

1260 

1640 

713 

1501 

46 

1376 

327 



Si-ales v. Nicliols 529 
Scan Ian, fte 

v. Houston 

V. Howe 

v. Scanlan 

v. Usher 

v. Wright 
Scarborough v. Burton 
Scarf v Soulby 
Scarisbrick v. Skelmersdale, 

Lord 1476, 1580 

Scarpellini »>. Ateheson 114 

Scarry v. Eldridge 259 

Scarth v. Cotton 165 

Scatchmer v. Foulkard 42 

Scattergood v. Harrison 1233 

v Keeley 1390 

Scawin v. Scawin 296 

Schalkt'. Schmidt 1619, 1675 

Schauer v. Field _ 1643 

Scheetz's Appeal 1076, 1631 

Seheiffelin v. Weatherred 1551 

Schi'lcamp v. Schrader 1631 

Schell v. Schroder 1772 

Schelmardine v. Harrop 193 

Schenck v. Conover 1275, 1467, 

1468, 1470 

v. Ellingwood 220 

v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. 313 



Schieffelin v. Stewart 1253, 1369 

Schindel v. Gates 646 

Sclijott v. Schjott 68, 110, 308 

Schlecht's Appeal 17'20 

Schlesinger v. Turner 1395, 1643 
Schlettor v. Smith 371 

Schley v. Dixon 26, 144 

Schluderberg v. Robertson 1463 

Schluter v. Harvey 1665 

Schmemann v. Rothfus 1377 

Schniid v. Scovill Manuf. Co. 

1381 

302 

1257 

1304 

1664 

406 

1638 

313 

20,597,598,599,6i2, 

1675 

v. Seibert 1008 

Schnur j>. Hickcox 1770 

SchoefTer v. Hunnewell 1463 

Scholefield v. Heafield 166, 168, 269, 
1345 
Scholes v. Brook 26 

Scholey v. Central Railway 1469 

Schomp v. Schenck 563 

School Commissioners v. Tuller 

1676 

School District v. Blaisdell 24 

v. Brown 1461 

v. Price 1164 

v. Weston 1568 

Schoole v. Sail 193, 815 

Schoonmaker v. Gillet 1683, 1684 

Schoonover v. Bright 1638 

Schotsmans v. Lancashire & 

Yorkshire Ry. Co. 1080 

Scho.-e v. Schmincke 1643 

Schram v. Baker 1543 

Schreffler v. Nadelhoffer 830 

Schroederu-Cleugh 1450 

v. Loeber 60 

Schroeppel v. Redfield 328, 329, 558 
Schroers v. Fisk 313 

Schubkagel v- Dierstein 576 

Schulenberg-Boeckeler Lumber 

Co. v. Hay ward 329 

Schulenburg. Ex parte 1069 

Schultzr. Third Ave. R. Co. 

v. Winter 
Schumacher v. Schwencke 



Scott v. Broadwood 
v Carter 
v. Clarkson 
v. Cons. Ban 1 ; 
v. Crawford 
v. Cumberland 
v. Dunbar 
v. Duucombe 
v. Fenhoulett 
v. Fenwick 
v. Fleming 
v. Hancock 
v. Hastings, Lord 
v. Homer 
v. Jackman 
v. Jailer 
v. Jones 
v. Lalor 

v. Liverpool, Corp. of 
v. Liverpool, Mayor of 
v. McOann 
v. Macfarland 
v. Malcolm 



803 

1643, 
1648 

Schuyler v Curtis 1*543 

v. Hoyle 90, 117, 121, 123 

v. Pelissier 1564, 1567 

v. Schlicht 1556 

Schuyler's Steam T. Co , He 1743 

Schwab v. City of Madison 1620 

v. Mabley 901 

Schwabacher v. Becker _95 

Schwartz v. Keystone Oil Co. 1756 

v. Wechler 559 

Schwarz v. Wendell 666 

Schwoerer v. Boylston Market 

Assoc. 208,287,302 

Sclater v. Cottam 1234, 1387, 1413 



Scofield v. Bokkelen 

v. Stoddard 
Sconce v. Whitney 
Scoones v. Morrell 
Score v. Ford 
Scott. /?<- 

v. Allett 

i'. Allgood 

v. Ames 

v. Armstrong 

v. Avery 

v. Becher 



1619 

1195 

163 

990, 14 8 

1779 

1069, 1851 

785 

370 

1676 

1743 

670, 671 

1722, 1723 



640, 1559 

781 

829 

68 

1463 

1430 

1397, 1399 

229 

261 

860 

1844 

643 

1040 

1327 

1280 

1042 

642 

1550, 1551 

671 

890 

891 

221 

855 



v. Mansfield, &c. R. Co. 287 

v. Maxwell 1169 

v. Miller 563 569, ft" 

v Neely 1071, 1556 

v. Nesbitt 386, 1286 

v. Nicholl 193 

v. Nixon 989 

v. Onderdonk 1961 

v. Padwick 973 

v. Pinkerton 1249 

v. Platel 1755 

v. Porter 445 

v. Rand 633 

v. Rayment 995, 1081 

v. Rowland 1551 

v. Royal Wax Candle Co. 449 

v. Sampson 852 

v. Scott 1404 

v. Spashett 102, 2001 

v. Stanford 1646 

v. Streatham 221 

v. Walker 865 

v Wharton 1629, 1630 

v. Wheeler 454, 515, 1510, 1828 
Scottish Union Ins. Co. v. 

Steele 895 

Scottish Widows' Fund v. Craig 190 
Scottof. Stone 70S 

Scotts v. Hume 722 

Scouren v. Bender 1516 

S C. Railroad Co. v. Toomer 1119 
ScrafTord v. Gladwin County 

Supervisors 1381 

Scranton v. Stewart 576 

Screven v. Clark 1751 

Screwmen v. Smith 1120 

Screw Mower v. Mettler 1621 

Scribner t;. Henry G. Allen Co. 

1643 

v. Williams I486 

Scrimeger v. Buchannon 341 

Scriven, He 803 

v. Tapley 106 

Scrivener, Ex parte 386 

Scruby v. Payne 229 

Scrujrgs v. Driver 251 

Scrutton v. Pattillo 117 

Scuddem. Bogert 729 

v. Trenton Delaware Falls Co. 

10J6 
Scullv v. Lord Dundonald 974, 
} 1589 

Sculthorpev. Tipper 1420 

Scurrah ». Scurrah 1213, 1726 

Scurry v. Morse 252 

Scutt v. Freeman 984 

Seabright v. Seabright 894 

Seabury v. Grosvenor 1648 

Sea, Fire, and Life Assurance 

Company, Re 1°20 

Seager v. Aston 647 

Seaeers, Ex parte 18o6 

Seagram v. Tuck 642, 1755, 1757 

Seagrove v. Parks 149 



Sea Ins. Co. v. Day 833 

v Stebbins 894, 1717, 1719, 

1748 

Seal v. Brownton 1385 

Sealey v. Gaston 87, 110, li'o 

Seals V. Phfeiffer 334, 418 

Sealy v. Laird 17' '5 

Seauian, In re 1755 

i;. Hicks 12(59, 1282 

v. Ne'herclift OS 7. Uu3 

v. Itisrgiua 1286 

v. Slater 1511 

v. Stoughton 63 

Se, miens v. Kiggins 1289 

Se.ir.h v. Search 314, 360 

Searey v . Morgan 165 

Searight v. Payne 611, *> LT 

Searing v. Searing 117, 118 

Searle v. Colt 652 

v. Cooke 1164 

v. Fairbanks 1381 

v. Lane 1033 

v. Matthews 1570 

Searles v. Jacksonville R. Co. 287, 

1715 

Searls v. Bouton 843 

Sears v. Barnum 86(1 

v. Bellingham 875 

v. Carrier 341, 345, 634 

V. Hardy 243 

v. Hyer 732 

v. Jackson 659, 1457 

v. Powell 291 

Seat v Knight 1748 

Seaton v. Clarke 149 

v. Uraut 26, 245, 317, 329, 399, 

7-45, 790 

t> Seaton 108, 122 

Seaver v. Phelps 83 

Seay v. Fergus.in 402 

v. Hughes 1625 

Seborn v. Beckwith 418 

Sebring v. Mersereau 279 

v. Sebring 560, 801 

Seccomb v. Allyn 2148 

Secconibe v, Fitzgerald 1077 

Sechler v. Stark 1381 

Secombe v. Campbell 674, 843 

Second Cong. Society v. First 

Cong. Society 885 

Secoru. Singleton 312. 590, 1517 
Secretary of State for War v. 

Chubb 16 

Bedden t;. Connell 26 

Seddon v. Bolton Bank 1417 

v. Virginia, &c. Co. 145 

Sedgwick v Cleveland 63. 159, 197, 

280, 281, 1508, 1518, 1520. 1522, 

1534, 1540 

v. Watkins 1704, 1705 

Seear v. Home Property & Inv. 

Co. 278 

v. Lawson 63, 1517. 1525, 1545 

v. Webb 801,826,970 

Seebor v. Hess 639, 1600, 1607, 

1686 

Seeley v. Mahew 11.33 

Seely v. Hills 314 

Seelye v. Boehm 407 

Secrle v. Richardson 940 

Seers v. Hind 1416 

Sefton, Lord v. Salisbury, Lord 

1682 
Segee v. Thomas 339 

Segram v. Tuck 1711 

Seguiu v. Maverick 1575, 1576, 

1577, 1584 
Seibert v. Minneapolis, &c. R. 

Co. 212 

Seibert C. O. C. Co. v. Newark 

L. Man. Co. 779 

Seibert 0. O. Co. v. Phillips 

L Co. 197 

Seideubach v. Denklespeil 1765 

Seidentopf V. Annabil 1491 

Sei.ller, Ex parte 27, 31, 1605 

Seifred v. People's Bank 617 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star pacing.] 

Seifreid v. People's Bank 512, 615, 

7S4 

Seighortuer v. Weisseuboin 1727 



Seigle v. Seigle 


1320 


Seilaz v. Hausou 


3-. 53 


Seinieus v. Sellers 


•J 10 


Seitz v. Mitchell 


843, 844 


Seixas v. King 


629 


Seixo v. Piovezeude 


lo49 


Selby v. Crew 


563 


V. Nettlefold 


l<i39 


v. I'ouifret 


213 


v. Powis 


1129 


v. Selby 


1682 


Selchow v. Baker 


1663 


Selden v. Preston 


52 


v. Vermil,>a 


1675 


Self v. Jeukins 


1650 


v. Madox 


1056 


Selfe v. Pare 


1540 


Seligman v. Real Estate 


Trust 


Co. 


579 


Sellars v. D.iwson 


1542 


Sellaa v. Dawson 64 


814, 1542 


Sellers v. Dawson 


64, 814 


?». Phoenix Ins. Co. 


26 


Sellon v. Lewen 


700 


Sells v. Hubbell 


249, 255 


Selway v. Chappell 


955 


Selwyn v. Garfit 


372 



CV11 



Seymour v. Hazard 395, 1699, 1702 



Long Dock Co. 
v. Sevuiour 
Shackelford v. Shackelford 
Shaik.e v. Baker 
Shackleford '•. Helm 
Shacklett 0. Polk 
Shadden v. Patrick 
Saaetler V Chambers 



Selyard, Lady v. Harris, Ex- 
ecutors of 248, 271 
Semmens v. Walters 035 
Semmes v. Boykin 424 

v. Mutt 803 

Semple v. Holland 803 

v. London & Birmingham Ry. 

Co. 58 

Semrow v. Semrow 1069 

Seneca Falls, Village of v. Mat- 
thews 1668, 1669, 1676 
Senft v. Manhattan R. Co. 1517 
Sen house v. Earl 570, 660, 675 

v. Hall 1485 

Senior v. Armytage 1656 

v. Pawson "1081, 1613 1619, 1635, 

1638, 1:540, 1662,2038. 

2312, 2323 

v. Pritchard 1614, 1625, 1672 

Sentance v. Porter 1395 

Senter v. Mitchell 60 

Serff V. Acton Local Board 196 

Sergeson v. Sealey 1365 

Sergison v. Beavan 447, 1025 

Sergrove v. Mayhew 62, 158, 606, 





632 


, 669, 703 


Serle v Fardell 




1168 


v St. Eloy 




77, 4H 


Scries v, Cromer 




9S6 


Seroka r. Kattenburg 




180 


Servi e v. Castaneda 




142 


Servis v. lieatty 




676 


Sessions v. Romadka 




843 


Seton v. Slade 


369 


, 709. 99(1 


Settled Estates Act, Re 


12S5 


Setzer ?>. Beale 




1073 


Severn V. Fletrher 




408, 1559 


Sevier )' Given way 




1301 


Sevin v. Deslandes 




1C5:5 


Sewall e. Robbins 




040 


v. Sewall 




1395 


Sewel v. Freeston 




1122 


Sewell v Ashley 




22(5 


v. Bridge 




666 


v. Gadden 




446, 4(51 


v. Johnson 




1284 


v. Moxcy 




2043 


Sewing Machine Co. v 


Dunbar 1'jSo 


Sexsmitb v Smith 




1661 


Sexton, Ex parte 




1791 


V. Henderson 




1401 


v. Smith 




SIT 


Seybert v. Rol)inson 




848 


Seymer v. Noswnrthy 




677 


Seymour r. Bailey 




52 


V . Delancey 


989, 


1073, 22(5(5 


V. Edwards 




216 



1 

5)0 

17(55 

]>,.,;, 

13S1 

186 

11^7 

1239, 1242, 

lzdl. 1252 

334 



Shafer r. O'Brien 

Siiafer Iron Co. v. Iron Circuit 

Judge 149 

Shaffer v. Fetty 334 

Shalt i>. Pheuix Mut. Life Ins. 

Co. 1587 

Shaftesbury, Earl of v. Marl- 
borough, Duke of 1731 
Shaitesbury, Lady v. Arrow- 
smith 570, 1831 
Shafto v. Bolchow 210, aj4 
Shaftoe v. Shaftoe 1705 
Shaft-bury 's, Earl of, Case 1351 
Shaftsbury, Lord !'. Haunam 1351 
Shainwald v. Lewis 140, 3S9, 1051, 
1584. 169J, 1732 
Shakel v. Marlborough, Duke of 1720 
v. Roche 1620 
Shakels v. Richardson 232 
Shakopee Manuf. Co., Re 1734 
Shallcross v. Hibber-on 1286 
Shales r. Barrington 1385, 1404 
Shampeau v. Connecticut R. L 

149, 830 



Co. 

Shaud v. Kidd 
Shann v. Jones 
Shannon v. Bradstreet 

v. Davis 

v. Erwin 

v. Fechheimer 

v. Hanks 

v. Marselis 

v. Speers 
Shapherd, Re 
Shapiro v. Burns 
Shapland, Re 
Shapleigh v. Chester Electric 

Light & P. Co. 
Shard, Re 

Shardlow v Cotterill 
Sharon v. Hill 634, 829, 2392 

v. Terry 1507 

Sharon Canal Co v. Fulton Bank 20 
Sharp v. Ashton 424 



1281 
126 
1734 
378, 380 
418 
1734 
1653 
2222 
1037 
1482 
1059 



39 
661 



Brice 
u. Carter 
v. Hesa 
v. Hullett 
v. Lu-Oi 4 

v. McHenry 
v. Morrow 
c Kcissner 
V. Roalule 
v. Runk 
v. St. Siuveur 
v. Scarborough, Earl of 
/■ Taylor 

V \\ ilife-il.ie 

V. Wright 
Sharps » Allen 

V. lilondeau 

r Foy 

r. i !:imon 

v. Sin Paulo R. Co. 

r Sharps 
Sharpies v. Sharpies 
Shirro.l v. Winfield 
Sharxhaw v (Jibo< 
Sbattock B Shattock 
Shattuck ?•. (Larson 
Shaver v. Brain ird 

r. Lawrenre County 

v. Williams 
Shaw. E.r parte 

V. Abbott 

v. Beck 



1130 

563, 1741 

1282, 1461, 1402 

(53. si 4 

, 1174, 1225, 1528 

60 

857, 1232 

843 

1402 

886 

47 

1254 

389, 1705. 2185 

313 

144S, 1752 

985 

4 51, 158 

113, 122, [87 
225 
200, 226, 325 
lisr, 
1426 
1(517 
1608 
1^7 
1961 
2S7 
298 
155(1 

1827 

1918 
444 

lou7 



CV111 



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



Shaw v. Bill 1532 

v. Chase 586 

v. Chiug 300, 182U 

v. Colwell Lead Co. 843 

v. Coster 394, 1560, 1561, 156a, 
1563, 1564, 1566, 1570 



v. Dwight 

v. Earl of Jersey 

V. Forrest 

v. Foster 

v. Hardingham 

i>. lloadley 

v. Jolinsou 

v. Lindsay 

V. Lindsey 

v. Millsaps 

v. Neale 



1624 

lb58 

1601 

197, 279 

222 

259 

653, 1413 

449, 9z9, 952 

593 

1548 

1036, 1846 



v. Norfolk Countv R R Co, 220, 

222, 25"7, 273, 1076, 2220 

v. Patterson 602, 987, 1371 

v . Pickthall 1431 

v. Hhodes 1754 

v. Simpson 1268 

v. Smith 1817, 1838 

v. Stanton 1641 

v. Wier 1668 

V.Wright 1052,1054,1055,1059, 

1741 

Shaw's Claim (No. 2), Re 10(4 

Shay 47. Pettes 1973 

Shea v. Knoxville, &c. R. Co. 314 

Sheafe v. Sheafe 1961 

Shealy v. Toole 542 

Shearman v. Christian 1481 

v. Findley 449 

Shedd v. Garfield 374, 584, 658 

SUedden v. Patrick 1074, 1080, 1122, 

1127, 1502 

Shee v. Harris 1734 

Sheehan v. Great Eastern Rv. 

Co. 208, 287, 406. 559 

Sheeler v. Speer 920 

Sheffield v. Buckingham, Duchess 
of 165, 474, 1022 

v. Buckinghamshire, Duchess 

of 1624, 1626 

v. Sheffield 1463 

Sheffield & B. Coal Co. v. Gor- 
don 1221, l'i99 
Sheffield Canal Co. v. Sheffield 

& Rotherham Ry. Co. 1824 

Sheffield Furnace Co. v. With- 

erow 590 

Sheffield and Rotherham Ry. Co., 

Re 1341 

Sheffield Water Works v. Yeo- 

mans 274, 602, 1682 

Sheidley v Auttman 894 

Shelberry v. Briggs 188 

Shelburne, Countess of v. Inchi- 

quin, Lord 77 

Shelby v. Shelby 642, 645, 856 

Shelden v. Walbridge 1556 

Sheldon v. Fortescue 173, 1492 

v. KenkukNo Line P. Co 303,559 

v. Rockwell 1639, 1640, 1663 



v. Weldman 


642 


Shelley V. 


936, 937 


Shelly v. Pelham 


1748 


v. Shelly 


1601 


Shellman v. Scott 


1677 


Shelton v Johnson 


281 


v. Van Kleeck 


1576, 15S0 


v. Watson 


2182 


Shenandoah Valley 


R. Co. v. 


Dunlnp 


378 


v. Griffith 


418 


Shepard v. Aker8 


1257, 1366, 1369 


v. Brown 


551, 552 


v. Ford 


734 


v. Manhattan Ry. 


Co. 208 


v. Shepard 


123, 361 


v. Taylor 


1120 


Shephard, Re, Atkins v. Shep- 


hard 


1507 


v. Guernsey 


236 


v. Merrill 


406, 671, 1532 



Shephard v. Ross 1032 

Shepherd v. Churchiil 166, 1151, 

1162, 1163 

v. Groff 1657 

v. Gwinnett 280 

v. Hirsh, Pritchard, & Co. 147, 

445 

v. Hughes 1540 

v. Jones 394, 1562 

v. Lloyd 589 

v. McClain 1180, 1382 

v. Morris 1819 

v. Pepper 1720 

v. Ross County 1062 

v Thompson 915 

v. Titley _ 1586 

v. Towgood 1537. 2061 

Sheppard v. Akers 383, 737, 760 

v. Duke 653 

v. Elliott 1251 

v. Gilmore 324, 1071 

v. Harris 162. 475 

v. Lane 1580 

v. Nixon 630 

r. Oxenford 1728 

v. Sheppard 1410, 1433, 1795, 1803 

v.Smith 1417,1419 

v. Starke 217, 302, 1029 

v. Yocum 1461 

Shepperd (». Murdock 640 

She' atz )'. Nicodemus 327 

Sherburne v. Middleton 1501 

Sheridan v. Andrews 281 

v. Cameron 390 

v Colvin 1620 

Sheriff v. Axe 1234 

v. Oil Co. 334 

Sherin v. Smith 987, 1371 

Sherlock v. Barned 1138 

Sherman v. American Stove Co. 303 

v. Ballou 1363 

v. Beale 671 

v. Burnham 109 

v. Cox 277 

v. Elder 100 

v. Fitch 1961 

v. Partridge 1569 

v. Reigart 121 

v. Sherman 666, 1702, 1707 

v. Withers 641 

Sherratt v Bentley 1436 

v Mountford 1487 

v. Sherratt 108, 113 

Sherrill v. Harrell 1677 

Sherrington v. Smith 1580, 1583 

Sherrit v. Birch, 217, 266 

Sherry v. Perkins 1638 

v. Smith 588 

Sherwiu v. Shakespear 1004, 1020. 

1400, 1489 

Sherwood, Re 1234, 1413 

v Beveridge 1003,1276,1291 

v. Clark 590 

v. Rivers 430 

v. Smith 1360 

v. Sutton 641, 645 

v. White 1672 

Sheward v. Citizens' Water Co. 542 

v. Sheward 1574 

Shewell v. Jonefc 1449 

v. Shewell 1202 

Shewen v. Vanderhorst 643, 644, 

794. 1210 

Shickle v. South St. Louis 

Foundry Co. 334 

Shickle Iron Co. v. S. L. Wiley 

C. Co. 149 

Shield v. Anderson 645 

Shields v. Arndt 1639 

v. Barrow 149, 287, 290, 293, 294, 

334, 384, 385, 425, 1548 

*. Boucher 1122. 1137 

v. Bryant 161, 165 

v. McClung 1625, 1675 

v. Sniff 2K3 

v. Thomas 207, 345 

| Shiers, Re 157 



Shillaber v. Robinson 193 

ShillKu v. Collett 92, 1863 

Shiilitoe o Claridge 1138 

Shinier v. Morris Cana , &c. Co 

1631 

Shine v. Boiling 985 

v. Gough 1207 

Shiukie v. Covington 1620 

Ship v. Crosskill 1399 

Shipbrooke, Lord v. Hinchin- 

brook, Lord 1368, 1588, 

1799 

Shiphard v. Lutwidge 164 

Shipley v. Johns 1542 

v. Reasoner 402 

Shipman v. Holt 1648 

Shipton v. Rawlins 268, 272 

Shipwav r. Ball 96 

Shirk o. Covle 1508 

Shirley v. Ferrers, Earl 933, 936, 

1176, 1258, 1306. 1474, 1573 

t\ Hugar 68 

v Matthews 1127 

Shirt v. Westby 1258 

Shittler v Shittler 1383, 1437 

Shobev Carr 1253 

Shoecraft v. Beard 1385 

Shoemaker r National Bank 1614 

v. South Bend S. A Co. 1642 

Shoe & Leather Rep. Ass'n v. 

Bailey 579 

Shoesmith v. Byerly 1639 

Shone v. City of London Real 

Property Co. 1638 

Shore v. Shore 1745 

v. Wilson 12 

Short v. Downer 518 

v Kieffer 369 

v. Lee 1075 

v. Macaulay 2338 

Shorthill v. Ferguson 417 

Shortley v. Selby 1214 

Shortridge, lie 887 984 

Shotbolt v. Biscow 1560 

Shotts v. Bovd 586 

Shotwell v. Smith 1717, 1719 

v. Taliaferro 282 

Shovelton v Shovelton 1413 

Showell r. Winkup 316, 405 

Shrader v. Walker 295 

Shrapnel v. Gamgee 744 

v. Laing 1385 

Shrewsbury, Earl of v. North 

Staffordshire Ry. Co. 602, 

1531 
v. Trappes 398, 1440, 1471 

Shrewsbury Hospital, Ex parte 

1800 
Shrewsbury R. Co. v. London 

Rv. Co. 987, 1491 

Shrewsbury School, Re 1611, 1854, 
1855 
Shrewsbury & B. Ry. f. Stour 

Valley Ry. 2328 

Shrewsbury & Chester Ry. Co. 
v. Shrewsbury & Birming- 
ham Ry. Co. 1652, 1661, 
1663 
Shrimpton v. Laight 1649 
Shropshire r. Lvle 569 
Shropshire U. R. & C. Co. v. 

Reg. 674 

Shrubsole v. Schneider 1084, 1114, 
1463 
Shubrick v. Guerrard 1628 

Shuee v. Shuee 385 

Shuff v ■ Holdaway 1749,1766 

Shugart r Thompson 3.1 

Shull v. Kennon 1156 

Shulties v- Reiser 1461 

Shuman r. Shuman 851 

Shurmer v. Hodge 1596, 1G07 

Shurts v. Howell 235 

Shute v. Gustin 974 

v. Hogee 119 

Shuttloworth v. Bristow 1225 

v. Howarth 217, 438, 1213, 1428 



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



Shuttleworth v. Uowatt 

v. Laycock 

v. Lonsdale, Earl of 

v. Lowtlier 

v. Nicholson 

v. Noyes 
Shye v Llewellen 



1213 
331 
1066 

1391 

1105 

116 

1460 



Sibbald v Lowrie 413, 786, 1552, 

1555, 1821 

Sibbering 17. Balcarras, Earl of 27, 

357, 358 

Sibert v. McAvoy 1147 

Sibley v. Saffel 1861 

v. Simonton 262 

Sicard o. Whale 48 

Sichell v. Raphael 1707,1712, 1713, 

1714 

Sichler v. Look 214 

Sickell v. Raphael 2330 

Sickles v. Gloucester Co. 2391 

Siddcn v. Forster 1183 

v. Lediard 709 

Sidebothani 8. Barrington 1400, 

1408 

Sidebottom v. Adkins 489, 717, 

942 

v. Barrington 1219 

v. Sidebottom 398 

Sidener v. White 1625 

Sides v Scharff 256 

Sidgiert). Tyte 524 

Sidingham, Re 1354 

Sidney v. Perry 663, 691 

v. Ranger 1267, 1271 

v. Sidney 883, 1652 

v. Wilnier 1610, 1611 

Sieveking v. Behrens 1563, 1564, 

1567 

Sifflun v. Davis 168, 215, 1266 

Signiau v. Lundy 1548 

Sikes v. Truitt 547 

Silber Light Co. v. Silber 26, 68, 

242 

Silberberg v. Pearson 586 

Silcock, Re _ 99 

v. Roynon 707, 710 

Silk v. Osborne 58 

Sill v. Worswick 61 

Sillibourne v. Newport 1342 

Sillman v. Bowen 1166 

Silloway v. Columbian Ins. Co. 144, 

235, 1938 

Sills i'. Brown 1100 

Silsbee v. Lucas 1081 

Silva. lie 83, 85 

v. Garcia 1628 

Silver i' Campbell 1282 

v. Kendrick 303 

v. Norwich, Bishop of 1718, 

1730 

r.Stein 201,203,1514 

Silver Lake Bank v. North 24, 1245 

Silver Spring Co. v Wansuck 

Co 1638 

Simmonds, Re 1426 

V. Du Barre 747 

v. Great Eastern Ry. Co. 1015 
v. Kinnaird, Lord 495, 1053 

v. Palles 526 

Simmons v. Bates 176 

v. Baynard 68,165,1163 

v. Gutteridge 1181, 1182 

v. Hanover 193 

v. Heaviside 1607 

v. Ingram 216 

D.Jacobs 1168,1171,1221,1296, 
1300, 2185, 2198 
v. Rose 1736, 1767 

v Saul 55:5 

v. Shirley 1237 

v. Simmons 830, 869 

v. Stover 1449 

v Tongue 1282 

v. Wood 498, 516, 1749 

Simms v Guthrie 149 

V. Lloyd 1401 

v. Richardson 287 



Simms v. Thompson 
SiuioD v. Ash 

v. State 

v. Townsend 
Simons, Re 

v. Bagnell 

v. McAdam 

v Milman 
Simplot?' Simplot 
Simpson, Ex parte 

v. Alexander 

v. Barton 

v. Bathurst 



1019 

1825 

851 

1677 

991 

794. 1109 

1391 

319, 030 

378, 856, 860 

347.351,354 

68, 69, 72 

492 

63 

v. Brewster 632, 793, 796, 1409 
v. Brown 677, 1834 

v. Burton 3o8 

v. Carson 1770 

v. Chapman 1654 

v. Dennison 1620 

v. Denny 215, 257 

v. Downs 1575 

v. Fogo 645, 664 

v. Hart 1463 

v. Holliday 1120 

v. Howden, Lord 1621. 1680 

v. Malherbe 914, 1439 

v. Ritchie 1163 

v. Sadd 818, 989, 2257 

v Savage 211 

v. South Staffordshire Water- 
works Co. 1650 
v. Terry 1221 
v. Wallace 334 
v Watts 1577 
v. Westminster Palace Hotel 
Co. 241, 1503, 1650 
Sims v Adams 334 
v. Bonner 27 
v. Burk 1548 
v Cross 1004 
v. Laws 1468 
v. Lyle 603, 614, 617 
V Ridge 1169 
Sinclair v. Commissioners 1661 
v. Jackson 331, 652, 653 
v. Price 1135, 1136 
i\ Sinclair 68 
v. Stevenson 1100 
Singer v. Audsley 1599 
v. Steele 1299 
Singer Man. Co. v. Domestic 

Sewing Machine Co. 1642, 

1644 
Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. 

Button Hole Co. 1657 

Singer Sewing Machine Manuf. 

Co. v. Wilson 891, 914, 1003, 
1642, 1648 
Singleton v. Cox 215 

v Gale 526 

v. Gayle 287, 841 

v. Hopkins 166, 227, 265, 1162, 
1103 
v. O'Blenis 197 

v. Scott 860 

v. Selwyn 340, 561 

v. Singleton 1575, 1578, 1579, 

15*1 
v. Tomlinson 1382 

Sinnett r. Herbert 1491 

v. Moles 1676 

Sinnickson v Bruere 1248, 1298, 
1321 
Sioux City, kc. Rv. Co. v. Chi- 
cago, &c. Ry Co. 295 
Sird-field v Thacker 1008 
Siter v. Jordan 121 
Sitlington r Brown 735, 743 
Sitwell r. Millersh 1280 
r. Sitwell 1273, 1274 
Sivell v Abraham 794, 795, 13*0 
Skarf v. Soulby 991 
Skeats v Hurst 906 
Ske.4 v Spraker 276, 838 
Skeene v. I'epper 1213 
Skeet v. Lindsay 646 
Skeetes, lie 1862 



C1X 



448, 1044 
1479 
895 
1490, 1615 
1854, 1855 
328, 301 
1159 
926, 1057 
Great Northern Ry. Co. 573 

Judson 564, 567,721 

M'Douall 365, 656 



Skegg v. Simpson 
Skeggs, Re 
Skidmore, Re 
Skiggs, Re 
Skiuuer, Ex parte 

V. Bailey 

v. Carter 

v. Dayton 



v Shew 
V. Todd 
Skinners" Co. v Irish Society 



1642 

187 

1599, 

1724 

Skip, Ex parte 386 

v. Harwood 1684, 1715, 1716, 1728 

Skipp v. Wyatt 1389 

Skipwonh v Westfield 1555, 1558 

Skirrett v. Athy 1397 

Skirrow v. Skirrow 1432 

Skrine v. Powell 1458, k"74 

Skrymsher v. Northcote 1029, 1030. 

1430, 1432 

Slack v. Black 561, 2103 

v. Evans 349, 728 

v. Midland Ry. Co. 1082 

v. Walcott * 1508 

v. Wood 1622 

Slade, Re, Slade v. Hulme 1053 

v. Rigg 259, 2231 

Slagle v Bodmer 987 

Slaney v. Sidney 1564, 1566 

v. Wade 1124, 1137 

Slason v Wright 845, 1548, 1553 

Slater v. Banwell 715, 1556 

v Canada Central R. W. Co. 378 

v. Cobb 1548 

v Slater 1794 

v. Smith 365 

Slatter v. Carroll 251 

Slee v. Bloom 1314, 1320 

v. Manhattan Co. 1385, 1391, 1392 

Sleech v Thorington 1<_>2 

Sleeman v. Sleeman 171 

V Wilson 560 

Sleght v. Kade 53 

Sleight b Lawson 328, 1232 

Slessinger v Buckingham 843 

Slevin, Re, Slevin v. Hepburn 13 



Slingsby v. Boulton 


1566 


v. Hale 


1583 


v. Moulton 


1561 


Sloan v. Little 


722, 723 


v Sloan 


1580, 1584 


Sloggett v. Collins 


403 


v Viant 


29, 359, 1553 


Sloman v. Kelley 


564 


r New Zealand 


20, 142, 445 


V Walter 


1657 


Sloop Chester Case 


50 


Small v. Attwood 196 


243, 301, 403, 
684, 719 




v. Boudinot 


324 


v. Small 


1071 


Smallcombe's case 


660 


Smalley v Clark 


1846 


v. Corliss 


1315, 1316 


Smallwood v. Lewin 


754,781,782 


V Butter 


70 


Smart v Bradstock 


225. 237 


v Flood 


1736 


v. Hunt 


050 


v. M'Lellan 


1283 


v Tranter 


663 


Smedburg v Mark 


1699, 1707 


Smedes v. Umightalin 


g 1254 



Smedlev V Hill 1125 

Smets v Williams 328, 329, 558, 004 
Smiley v. Bell 197, 199 

v. Jones 549 

Smilie v. Siler 

Smilie's Estate 121 

Smith, Ex parte 1584, 1846 

Re 61, 62, 10r», 102. 108. 157. 043. 
653, 1504, 1002, 1073, 1844 

Re, Williams v. Frere 909, 1825 



ex 



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



Smith r. A< ton 1015 

v. Allen 544, 1025 

V. Altuus 11S7, 1189, 1191 

v . Amer. Ins. & Tr. Co 1567 

r. Audrews 222, 1932 

v Armitage 328 

r. -Armstrong 1312, 13o0 

v. Atkinson 190 

v. Attorney-General 316 

v. Aykwell 1651 

v. Babcock 402, 703, 778, 781 

v. Badbani 64 

v. Bailey 1391 

v Baker 823, 842, 901, 913, 1370 
v. Baldwin 294 

v Ballantyne 601 

v. Barber 1156 

v. Barnes 419, 597, 1832, 1835 

r. Bartholomew 292 

v Bate 1352 

v. Beaufort, Duke of 580, 1S29, 1 31 
v. Betty 848, 10i3, 1147 

v. Bicknell 135 

v. Biggs 9^2 

v. Black 1271, 1286 

v. Blackman 858, 875 

v. Blake 1663 

v. Blivens 1638 

v. Biofield 509 

v. Bolden 224, 1417 

v. Boston, C. & M. R. Co. 670 

v. Bourbon County 630 

v. Bricker 815 

v. Britain 1283 

v. Brittenham 197, 517, 790 

v. Britton 237, 287 

v. Brooksbank 200, 249 

v. Brownlow, Earl 239, 243, 341,873 
v. Brush 1224, 1248 

v. Bryon 585, 777 

v. Buller 915, 1378, 1440, 1449 
v. Burnham 1, 83, 374, 406, 856 
v. Butler Co , Conim. of 7 

v. Capron 321, 369 

v. Castles 30 ,'31 

v. Chambers 837, 857, 1233, 1394 
V. Chandos 1250 

V. Chapman 277 

v Charter Oak Life Ins Co. 51 
r. Chichester 1842 

v. Clark 374, 844 

v. Clarke 853, 1666 

v. Clay 561 

v. Coffin 887 

v. Coleman 418 

v Collyer 1629, 1 33 

v. Cook 991, 1686 

v. Cooke 1634 

v. Copleston 1254 

v. Cornfoot 358 

v. Cowell 986, 1037, 1585, 1733 
v. Creagh 319 

v. Creasy 1520 

v Cremer 1416 

v Croom 1076, 1110, 1478 

v. Cunningham 532 

v. Dale 1410 

v Daniell 575, 1832 

v. Daniel ly 542 

v. Davidson 833 

v Davies 893, 998 

v. Day 1446,1661,1662 

V Dearmer 1149, 1384 

v. Dixon 424, 1602 

v. Dorn 559 

v. Dowling 1829 

v Drake 645 

v. East India Co. 581 

r. Edwards 152 

v Effingham 1147, 1440, 1468, 

1474, 1488. 1738. 1744 
v Etches 28,37,38,109, 111 

v. Eustis 1165 

v. Everett 552. 1660 

v Ewing 843, 850 

v. Fisher 721 

v. Floyd 37, 74 



Smith v. Fly 




645 


v. Ford 




991 


v. Fox 


560 


1558 


v. Gage 




190 


v. Gale 




287 


v Gauilen 




785 


v. Godbold 


383, 


1369 


v. Goldsworthy 




273 


v. Gooch 




216 


v. Graham 




1193 



v Great Western Rv. Co. 1503 

v. Green 298, 1391 

v. Grim 256 

v. Giiswold 552 

v. Guy 797, 798, 800 

v. Hadley 402, 418 
v. Hammond 29, 1409, 1565, 1571 

v. Harley 197 

v. Harrigan 1271 

v. Harris 1765 

v. Hartley 781 

v. Harwood 1610 

v Ilaitwell 1651, 1665 

V. Henley 880, 981 

v. Hibernian Mine Co. 150 

v. Hill 652, 653 

v. Holmes 1467 
v. Horsfall 812, 1511, 1512, 1526, 
1527 

v. Huntington 906 

v. Hurst 236, 1037 

t'. Jackson 1774 

v. J eyes 1727, 1728 

v. Jones 330 

v Kane 122 

v. Kay 562 

v. Kelley 590, 787, 788 

r. King 1638 

v. Kirk patrick 929 

v Lakeman 1070 

«'. Lampson 1253 

v. Lard 1619 

v. Lasher 723, 726 

v. Lathrop 633 

v. Lawrence 227 

v. Leathart 238, 245 

v. Leveaux 551 

v. Lloyd 1774, 1775 
v. London and South Western 

l!y. Co. 1642 

v. Long 128 

v. Lowe 1727 

v. Lowry 1622 

v Lyon 149 

v Lrster 1764 

v. McDonald 165 
v. McLain 334, 1567, 1625 

v. McNeal 659 

v Manchester 1650 

V. Manning 1507 

v. Marable 1097 

v. Marshall 448 

v. Martin 1073 

v. Massie 1824 

v. Matthews 91, 329 

V. Mitchell 287 

v. Moff.tt 68, 59, 60, 61 

v. Moore 194 

v Morchead 550 

V. Morpnn 1034, 1099 

v Mules 1654 

v. Nelson 1276 

v. Nethersole 1704 

v Northumberland 725 

v. O'Grady 1411 

v Owen 1638 

v. Palmer 161 

v. Parke 443 

r. Patton 334, 1120 

v Pawson 39, 41 

v. Payne 197 

v. Pearce 1621 

r. Pearman 999 

v. People 1069 

V. Peters 1662 

v. Pettingill 1631, 1632 

v Pierce 1381 



Smith v. Pilgrim 858, 890 

v. Pilkiuton 1241, 1252 

v. Pouifret, Earl of 857, 15!'9 

v. Ponath 892 

v. Poor 26 

v. Portland 200 

v. Potter 737, 837, 846 

v Poyas 1634 

v. Head 569 

v. Republic Life Ins. Co. 395 

v. Richnell 193 

v. Kobinson 1266 

V. Rock 630, 1169 

v. Rowe 313 

v. Rvan 1621 

v. Sackett 191 

v. St. Louis Mut. Life Ins. Co. 

145, 402, 524, 712. 737, 760, 837, 

1531, 1533, 1567, 1615 

v. Schwed 1621 

v. Serle /29, 785 

v. Shaffer 1381 

v. Shane 846 

v. Sherman 417 

v. Smacksmen Ins. Co. 1136 

v. Smith 68, 102, 303, a25, 358, 

381, 383, 426, 680, 780, 793. 916, 

1003, 1080, 1158, 1301, 1314, 

1369, 1426, 1427, 1476, 1493, 

1517, 1624, 1638, 1641, 1662, 

1663, 1681, 1718, 1722, 1723 

v . Snow 217, 219 

v Spence 100 

v. Spinolla 48 

v. Standard L M. Co. 269 

v. Steen 1210 

v. Swansea Dock Co 1599, 1671 

v. Sweet 100 

v Swormstedt 238, 239. 241 

v Target 1565 

v Tebbitt 852 

v. Thomas 1818 

v. Thompson 465 

v Todd 1255 

v. Trimble 517,531,1004 

v. Turner 321, 974, 1575, 1583 

v. Turrentine 294 

v. A'anderhurst 1255 

v Weguelin 18, 141, 448 

v. Wells 904, 968 

r. West 249, 829, 834 

v. Wheatcroft 380, 861, 1551 

v. Whitmore 554, 670, 1020 

v. Wigton 402 

v Wilkinson 1232 

v. Williams 2-13, 329 

v. Wilson 576 

v Winter 1845,1847 

v. Wood 324, 560 

v Woodfolk 405,986 

v Worthington 1274 

v. Wycoff 262 

v Yell 575 

Smith's Case 1109 

Estate 119 

Goods, lie 251 

Smith, Knight & Co , Re 905 

Smitha e Flournoy 546 

Smith-Barrv v. Dawson 1685 

Smithbv v. Stinton 200 

Smithefs V Fitch 1638 

Smithly r Hinfon 252 

Smoot v Strauss 860 

Smyth, lie 178,1575,1578 

v Balch 1625 

V. Carter 1633 

v. McKernan 1320 

v Myers 109 

v. N" O C & B. Co. 630 

Smythe v Clay 1580 

v Fitzsimmons 1576 

v Henrv 653 

Snaggr. Frizell 1393 

Snapp v Purcell 381 

Snavely v. Harkrader 346 

Snead v. Green 655, 657, 712, 821 

v. M'Coull 425 



Sneed v. Atherton 1158 

v. Ewing _ _ 1074 

Snelgrove v. Snelgrove 676, 677, 678 

Snell, In re 1842 

v. De Land 1221 

v Dwight 986 

v. Fewell . 2120 

v. Harrison lod 

v. Hyat 176 

v. Mitehel) 1889 

v. Timbrel! 1132 

Snelling v. Boyd 197 

v. Watrous 507 

Snodgrass v. Butler 1565 

Snook Pearsall 559 

v Sutton 1364 

v. Watts 176 

Snoutfer v Hansbrough 1120 

Snow v. Alley 815 

v. Bolton 1045, 1051, 1451 

v. Booth 653 

v. Boston Blank Book Manuf. 

Co. 560, 714 

v Oounselman 683 

v. Hole 69, 160, 170 

v. Teed 1463 

Snowball v. Dixon 39, 155 

Suowden v. Snowden 4.38 

v. Tyler 630 

Snowdon v Metropolitan Rail- 
way Co. 1474 
Snowhill v. Snowhill 113, 115, 117 
Snowman ». Harford 369 
Snyder v. Botkin 1576 
v. Cabell 211 
v. Hopkins 1628 
v. Martin 830 
v. Pharo 1071 
v Seeman 1675 
v. Snyder 1159 
v. Summers 1497 
Soames v. Edge 1080, 1660 
Sobernheimer v. Wheeler 236 
Sobey v. Sobey 1702, 1705, 1713 
SocitHe Fonciere v. Milliken 149 
Society Generate v. Dreyfus 

Brothers 452 

Society for Prop. Gosp. v. Hart- 
land 190 
v. New Haven 24 
v. Wheeler 24, 50 
v. Young 24 
Socola v. Grant 314, 586 
Soden V. Soden 378 
Soffe v. Prince 938 
Sohier ?>. Burr 1561 
v. Williams 227, 229 
Solicitor, A, Re 1555, 1685, IU17 
Sol ley v. Wood 307 
Sollory v. Leaver 1724 
Solly v. Greathead 1046 
Solomon v. Hritton 1129 
v Fitzgerald 216 
v. Solomon 2S1, 286, 1517 
v. Stalman lo')4, 1597 
Soltau v. De Held 1597, 1635, 1«37 
Somerby v. Buntin 589 
Somers v. Torrey 347, 729 
Somerset, Re 68 
Somerset County Bank v. Veghte 655 
Somerville v Mackay 1818, 1829 
v. Mayes 1666 
Somes v. Martin 1610 
Somner v. Charlton 1286 
Sonnet v. Powell 1190 
Sonsmith v. J. P. Donaldson, 

The 518 

Soper v. Manning 314 

Sorchan v. Mayo 1765 

Sorden v. Conton 1127 

Soria v. Stowe 1031 

Sorrel v. Proctor 1418 

Sortwell i". Montpelier & W. R. 

R. Co. 1253 

Sotheran v. Smear 92, 103 

Soudon v. Hooper 1240 

Soulby v. Pickford 1104 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Soule v. Corning 816 

South «'. Leavy 1^58 

South & North Alabama R. Co. 

v. H'il.-on 860 

Southall !'. British Mutual Life 

Assurance Co. 780 

v. McKeand 1136 

Southampton Co. v. Southamp- 
ton Board 551 
Southampton &c., Co. v. Pinnock 26 
v. Rawlins 26, 485, 807, 809 



CXI 



Southard v. Rexford 564 

v. Russell 15*0 

v. Sutler 212 

v . Sutton 280 

Southbrijge Savings Bank v. 

Mason 1320 

South Carolina v Georgia 1576 

South Carolina Bank v. Case 24 

Southeastern Ry. Co., lie 99, 1802 
Southeastern Ry. Co v. Brogden 551 
v London. Brighton, & South 

Coast Ry. Co. 1775 

v. Martin 551 

v. Submarine Telegraph Co 547, 

810, 1557. 1558, 2047 

Southern Express Co. v. Western 

N.C. R. Co. 1743 

So. Life Ins & Trust Co. v. 

Lanier 302 

Southern Marble Co. v. Stegall 324 
Southern Medical College v. 

Thompson 1648 

Southern Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trear 861 
Southern Pacific Co. v. Denton 551 
Southern Pacific R Co. v. Oak- 
land 1663 
Southern Ry. News Co v Russell 564 
Southern Steam Packet Co. v. 

Roger 443 

Southey v. Nash 1101 

v. Sherwood 1645, 1647 

Southmayd v. McLaughlin 1631 

South Molton v. Attorney-Gen- 
eral 13 
South Ottawa v. Perkins 863 
South Park Com'ra v Kerr 361 
South Platte Land Co. v. Buf- 
falo County 1601 
South Sea Co. v. Bumsted 505 
v. Doliffe 576 
v. Wymondsell 645, 648, 655 
South Staffordshire Ry. Co. v. 

Hill 791. 808, 810 

South Wales Ry. Co. V. Wythes 1668 
Southwestern L. & D. Co. v. 

Robertson 10.39 

Snuthwick, Matter of 1846 

Southwort.h v. Taylor 1666 

Soutter v. Milwaukee, &c. R. 

Co 1517 

Souverhye v Arden 22s3 

Souzer w De Meyer 589, 612, 615, 

617, 652, 653, 674, 694, 700, 704, 

787 

Soward v. Leggatt 

Sowdon v. Marriott 

Sowerhy I) Fryer 

* Lockerby 

v. Warder 

Sowle ?). Champion 

Sowles v. First Nat. Bank 

v. Witters 
Sowry v. Sowry 
Sowton r Cutler 
Bpaddacinl v. Treaey 
Spain, King oft'. Hullett 



1006 

1401 

1630 

11 29 

506 

1291 

553 

1743 

99, 1802 

1686 

894 

20, 164, 

421 

v Machado 17, 18, 197, 301. 802, 

315, 557, 1468, 1469, 1881 

v. Mendazahel 17 

Spain, Queen of v. Parr 20 

Spalding v. Dodge 357 

v. Ruding 2231 

Spang v. Robinson 1395 

Spanish General Agency Co. f . 

Spanish Co. 1675 



Spann v. Spann 1029 

Sparenburgh v. Bannatyne 49 

Spargur w. Heard 87, 109 

Sparhawk v. Buel 67, 14S9 

v. Wills 1-32, 1238, 1239, 1243, 

1248, 1298, 13o0, 1317,2-^3 

Spark v. Long 13 >9 

Sparke v. Ivatt 1112 

Sparkes v. Barrett 1097 

Sparks, lie 14u4 

v Farmers' Bank 1073 

)• Liverpool Water Works Co. 1058 

Sparling V B re re ton 533 

Sparrow v. E»ing 9b9 

v. Fiend 1150, 1157 

v Hill 1407, 14-19 

Spartali v. Constantionide 209 

Spaulding v. Farwell 349, 728, 759 

v. Keeley 1069 

v. Warner 1150 

Speak v. Metcalf 177, 444 

v. Ranso.n 1588, 1668, 1673, 1675 

Spearing V Lynn 1030 

Special Bank Commissioner v. 

Cranston Savings Bank 1304 

v. Franklin Sav. Inst. 1745 

Special Reference, lie 1009 

Speedlove v. Speedlove 1725 

Speer v. Crawter 209, 547, 1163. 

1164 

Speering's Appeal 26 

Sueidall v. Jervis 801 

Speidel v. Ilenrici 560, 860 

Speller v Bristol Steam Nav. Co. 449 

Spence, lie 1348 

v Allen 952 

v. Armour 1281, li91 

v. Dodd 843 

v. Hanford 1737 

v. Hogg 231 

». McDonough 1638 

v Simis 1221 

Spenceley v. De Willott 1102 

Spencer, Re 298,323, 1809 

Re, Thomas v. Spencer 100 

v. Allen 1065 

v. Armstrong 235 

v. Boyes 164 

v Bryan 692 

v. Bryant 43. 156 

v. De Willott 1132 

v. Fortescue 850 

v. Lee 216 

v. London & Birmingham Ry. 

Co. 1636, 1663 

v. Luttrell 576 

v. Pee 1573 

v. Shaw 201,318,1722 

v. Stearns 1463 

v Van Duzen 407 

v. Ward 1422, 1432 

Spendler v. Potter 262 

Spensley, Re 14'23 

Sperling v. Rochfort 93, 96, 100. 186 

Sperrj v Miller 550 

Speyers v. Desjardins 3^5 

Spicer v Dawson 907 

V. Hoop 1619, 1054 

v. Martin 324, 1654 

v. Taylor 559 

Spickernell v. Hotham 1075 

Spies v Chicago. &c. R Co 193 328 

Spike v Harding 1151, 1163, 1104 

Spill v. Celluloid Manuf Co. 1580 

Spillane t' Missouri Pac. Rv. 

Co. 001,630 

Spiller, Re 1861, 1491 

v. Spiller lii47 

Spink v. Francis 1620,1686 

Spires v Sowell 796, 797 

Spirett r. Willows 103, 105, 108 

Spitley v. Frost &59 

Spin e v. Hughes 913, 1189, 1339 

V. WaltOTi 897, 1098 

Spivey v. Frazee 784 

v. .Jenkins 290 

Spofford r. Manning 590, 708, 787 



CX 11 



Spokes v. Banbury Board of 

Health 1638, 168 

Spong v. Hogg 
Spoonor, He 

v. McConnel 

v. Payne 
Sporle v . Barnaby 
Sporrer v. Eitler 
Spottiswoode v. Clarke 



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



1134 

1320 

1670 

521, 1053 

97 

S81 

1640, 1645, 

1663, 167s 

59, 61, 224 

1553 

1386 

1029 

2397 

1133 

557, 1635 

457 

760 

1561 



Spragg v. Binkes 

v. Corner 
Sprague v. Graham 
v Joues 
v. Litherberry 
v. Mitchell 
V- Rliodes 
v. Sprague 
d. Tyson 
v. Wesc 
A. & W. Sprague Manuf. Co. v. 

Hoyt 60 

Spring v. Albin 361 

Spring v. Domestic S. M. Co. 630 

v. Gray 641, 642 

v Jenkins 294 

v. Sandford 12S3 

v South Car. Ins. Co. 1563, 1565, 

156U 

v. Woodworth 1360 

Springer ». Austin 971 

v. Yanderpool 249, 255 

Spriugett v. Dashwood 1417, 141'.' 

Springfield v Hurst 262 

r Ollett 1405 

Springhead Spinning Co. v. Riley 

1620, 1648 
Sproull's Appeal 1298 

Spiunt v. Hugh 1033, 1C51, 1755 
Spr\e o. Reynell 796 

Spurgeon v. Hooker 1664 

Spurlock v. Fulks 15'15 

Spurr v Benedict 1624, 1961 

v Scoville 149,151,458, 629 

Spurrier v Fitzgerald 619 

v. Spurrier 1801 

Squibb v. McFarland 1461 

Squier v. Shaw 785 

Squire, Ex parte 880 

v Hewlett 630 

v Lincoln 236 

v 1'ardoe 13S5 

v Pershall 1466 

Squirrel v. Squirrel 37, 74 

S S. White Dental Co. v. Sib- 
ley 1643 
Stables, Re 86 
Stace v. Gage 222, 257 
v. Mabbot 1121,1124 
Stacey v. Southey 1202 
v. Spratley 1075, 1148, 1384 
Stack, lie 1744 
Stackhouse v. Barnston 559, 560, 
561, 639, 642 
v. Jersey, Countess 676 
Staekpole v. Beaumont 105 
v. Curtis 1061 
Stackpoole v. Callaghan 28 
Stadler v. Hertz 732 
Stafford v. American Mills Co. 1743 
V- Anglesey, Earl of 135 
v. Brown 373, 467, 488. 531, 760. 
763, 893, 1590 
v. Bryan 560, 844, 123n, 1378. 
1379, 1579, 1600 
v. Burn 497 
v. Coxen 1082 
V Fi.ldon 1369 
V. Hiiiginbotham 42 
v. Howlett 406, 407, 1515, 1531 , 
1534, 1535 
v London, City of 208 
v Mott 1255 
v. Rogers 1313, 1319 
Stafford, Earl Df v. Buckley 7 
Stafford Charities, Re 1432 
Stafford Nat Bank v. Sprague 313 



Staffurth v. Pott 
Stagg v. Beekman 

V. Kuowles 
Stagoll, lie 
Stahl v. Gotzenberger 
Stahle v. Winter 



710 
1772 

8u8 
1611 
1147 

1525 



Stahlschmidt v. Lett 159, 643, 969, 

137a, 1425, 1446, 1525 

Staight v. Burn 1638 

Staines v. Giffard 1801 

v. Maddox 37, 79, 80, 81, 1455, 

1457 

v. Morris 1381, 1400, 1402 

v. Kudlm 1266 

Staiutou v Carron Co 200, 324, 

800, 1004, 1253, 1723 

v. Chadwick 579, 1469, 1832 

Staley v. Barrett 2115 

v. Murphy lti2l 

Stalling r. Goodloe 1583 

Stamford, Re lb7* 

Stamford, Earl of v. Dawson 1444 

Stamford v. Stamford Horse R. 

Co. 659 

Stamper v. Barker 119, 122 

Stamps v. Birmingham k Stour 

Valley Railway Co. 780 

Standard Bank v. Stokes 163!' 

Standen v. Edwards 1123,1137, 1148 

Staudering v. Hall 99 

Standewicke v. Watkins 1131 

Standish v. Liverpool 1640 

v. Parker 633 

v. Radley 1576, 15M 

v. Whitwell 13y9 

Standley v. Roberts 1561 

Stanes v. Parker 1234 

Stanford v Murphy 402 

Stanger Leathes v. Stanger Leatbes 

1730 
Stanhope v. Nott 576 

v. Stanhope 87 

Staniar v. Evans 298, 1029, 1414 

Staniland v. Staniland 7u, 71 

r. Willott 1399 

Stanley, Re 98 

v. Bond 526, 1039, 1041, 1678 

v. Coulthurst 1765 

v. Kean 874 

v. Mather 283 

v. Risse 1071 

v. Robinson 712 

v. Sullivan 1062 

v. Wrigley 1151 

Stanley, Lady v. Earl of Shrews- 
bury 1080 
Stannard v. Graves 1120 
r. Harrison H73 
v. St. Giles Vestry 1670 
Stanney v. Walmsley 954. 955 
Stansbury v. Arkwright 362. 371 
Stan.-field v. Habergham 1630, 1631, 
li,33 
v. Hobson 211, 212, 257, 259 651 
Stanton v. Ala., &c. R. Co 1316, 
1320, 1731, 1743, 1752 
v. Embrey 633, 634 
v. Hatfield 1437, 1438 
v. Knight 642 
v. Percival 178, 829, 841 
Stan way, Re 1794 
Stamford v. Tudor 1182 
Stapilton v. Stapilton 74, 384 
Stapler t'. Hardeman 1029 
Staples v. Staples 1120 
v. Turner 1624 
Stapleton, Ex parte 64 
v. Conway 1256 
Stapylton v. Peill 1713 
Starbuck v. Mitchell 86 
Stark v. Cheathem 214, 1265 
v. Hunton 644 
v. Starr 659 
v. Thompson 974 
Starkie, Ex parte 1358, 1363 
v Richmond 1639, 1662 
Starks v. Redfield 1375 



Star N. Co. v. O'Connor 1655 

Starue v. Farr lb3 

Staines v. Newson 550, 555, 1081, 
1663 
Starr v. Maidstone 1380 

Starr's Estate 855 

Starteu v. Bartholomew 70, 71, 1347 
State v. Allen 552, 1073 

v- Anderson 10 

v. Bank of Tennessee 129 

v. Benniugham 10 

v. Black Kivcr Phosphate Co. 321 
v. Blakemore 1254, 1766 

v. Boswell 960 

v. Brown 334, 1463 

v. Buck 1069 

v. Butler 1756 

v. Calloway 1650, 1661 

v. Central R. Co. 21 

v. Churchill 1071 

v. Civil District Judge 1620 

v. Clark 67, 1:359 

v. Columbia 842 

v. County Court 1637, 1650, 1661 
v. Cross 864 

v. Cutler 1683, 1G84 

v. Davis 1069 

v. Dayton & S. E. R. Co. 10 

v. De Wolf 886 

v. District Court 536 

v. District Judge 1675 

v. Durein 16£3 

v. Fagan 1637 

v. Farish 1119 

v. Farmers' L. & T. Co. 10 

v. Foot 236, 334 

v- Frew 887, 1069 

v. Gooch 1756 

v. Hannibal, &c. R. Co. 1120 

i'. Hardie 6 

r. Hemingway 794 

V. Henthorn 1069 

v. Hill 123 

v. Hopkins 879 

v. Horner 536 

v. Hyde 1309 

v. Jacksonville, &c. R. Co. 1742 
v. Johnson 1463 

v. Kennedy 10 

v. King 1716 

v. Knight 1069 

v. Kolsem 1576 

v. Lewis 1381 

v. Levy 904 

v. Litchfield 907 

v. Lon.-dale 944 

v. Mclutire 1168, 1170, 1171, 

1298, 1317 
v. Mariou County Com'rs 10 

v. Maury 566 

v. Mayes 10 

v. Mead 21 

v. Mewberter 574 

V. Nashville Savings Bank 894 
v. New Orleans, &c. R. Co 634 
r. Northern, &c. Ry. Co. 1716 

v. Paris Ry. Co. 10 

v. Pierce 1683 

v. Roanoke Nav. Co. 1286 

v. Rush County Com'rs 1614 

v. Rust 1686 

v. St. Louis, &c. Ry. Co. 354 

v. Samuels 881 

v. Saunders 1620 

v. Schwtickardt 1620 

v. Spartanburg, &c. R. Co. 1492 
v . Sturgis 1744 

r. Temple 133 

v. Turner 190 

v. Ward 129 

v. Wavman 1254 

v. White 572 

v. White's Creek Turnpike Co. 10 
v. Williams 324 

v. Wolfenden 1661 

v. Wormick 1434 

State Bank v. Bell 1608 



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



State Bauk v Edwards 845 

v. Reeder 422 

State las Co. v. Gennett 147, 994, 

1561, 1570 

v Sax 148 

State ot Ohio v. Hinchin 864 

State Railroad Tax Cases 1661 

Statham v llall 1564 

Staunton v Harris 1278, 1283 

Stead, Re 652, 653 

v Course 1-72 

v. Stead 798 

Steam Gauge & L. Co v. Mey- 

rose 659 

Steam Stone Cutter Co v Sears 1051 

Stearns v. Hubbard 657 

v. Page 617, 788, 1997 

v. Reidy 860 

v. Stearns 843 

Stebbing v. Atlee 9J5 

Stebbins b. St. Aune 303, 331 

v Savage 1461 

Steed v. Cragh 126 

Steedman v. Marsh 369 

v. Poole 805 

Steeds v. Steeds 669 

Steel v. Cobb 176, 178 

v Chester 1846 

v Matthews 645 

v. Parsons 445 

r. Preece 1264 

Steele v. Cobham 1734 

v. Gordon 461 

v. Uutchina 16s6 

v Lewis 289, 2:i5 

V. Maunder 259 

v. Mi Hand Ry. Co. 426 

v. Mott 43 

v North Met R Co. 1620 

v. Plomer 452, 476, 498, 512, 784 

v. Savory 9i 19 

v Smirt 453 

v. Stewart 577, 1834 

v. Stuart 449, 452 

ti. Taylor 281, 287 

v. White 1461 

Steer u Steer 201,318, 917, 1722 

Stees v. Kranz 1675 

Sreff v. Andrews 612 

Stegner v. Blake 933 

Steiger i». Heidelberger 843 

v. Hillen 1166 

Stein v Benedict 589 

v. Bienville W. S. Co. 1637 

v. Bowman 917 

v. Hauck 1638 

v. Kobertson 385 

Steinau v. Gas Co. 1657 

Steinbach e Hill 329 

o. Relief Fire Ins. Co. 1961, 1966 

Steinberg v. Tyler 365 

Steines v. Franklin County 1463, 

1479 

Steinhauser v. Mason 1540 

v Spraul 418 

Steinkeller v Newton 1099 

Steinmetz v. Halthin 103, 106, 122 

Steinriede B. Tegge 417 

Steinway v Steinway 852 

Stent B. Wickens 774 

Su-nton v. Jerome 371 

Stephen, Re 1485, 1608 

v B all 186, 212 

v Diniels 1661 

v. Yandle 644 

Stephens, Re 642 

v. Berry 628, 629 

v. Biehnell 617, 531 

v. Biney 866 

v Frost 295 

v. Giylord 1772 

v. Heathcote 821, 822. 823. 842 

v. James 1350, 2294 

v Lawry I860 

v. Louch 486 

v Monongahela Nat. Bank 634 

v. Neale 465, 489 

VOL. I. — A 



Stephens v Newboroug'n 1440 

v. Orman 844 

v. Overstolz 586 

v. Porter 83, 108 

v. Totty 123 

v Wanklin 911 

v Whitehead 334 

v. Workman 1687 

Stephenson v. Austin 190 

v. Biney 868 

v. Davis 144, 149, 305, 314, 440, 
458, 549, 555, 1032 
v Houlditch 1586 

v. Mackay 8U9 

v. Stephenson 68, 79, 169, 170, 737, 
753 
v. Strutt 88, 179 

v Wilson 1622 

Stephenton v Gardiner 592, 663 
Stepp v. National Life Associa- 
tion 850 
Steptoe v Pollard 1003 
Sterl v. Sterl 1549 
Sterling, Ex parte 1842, 1843 
v. Ashton 1931 
v. Thompson 1314 
Sterm v Drinker 365 
Stern v. Sedden 441 
Sternberger v. McGovern 313 
Sterndale v. Hankinson 643, 1211 
Sterrick v Pugsley 357 
Sterry v. Arden 952, 1549 
Steuart v Gladstone 839, 855, 859. 
976, 1660 
Stevens, Ex parte 1611 
v Beals 90, 116 
v. Beekman 1631 
v Benning 1644 
v. Brett 795 
v. Coffeen 1008 
v. Cooper 655, 849 
v. Davison 1731 
v Dewey 1578 
v. Guppy 378, 381, 384, 995, 
1027 
v. Hayden 360 
v. Hey 1577, 1578 
v Keating 812, 1379, 1640, 1642 
v Lock wood 330 
v Melcher 1508 
v. Miner 1298 
v. Ni*bet 1770 
v Pell 1142 
v. Pillen 1423 
v Post 713, 737, 840, 846 
v. Praed 804, 809, 9.»5 
V. Railroads 794 
v. Smith 11 a> 
v South Devon Railway Co. 243, 
1620 
v. Stevens 70, 139, 1548, 1549. 
1553 
tt Trevor-Garrick 100 
v. Van Cleve 8">1 
v. Warren 1560 
V. Williams 37, 111 
Stevenson v Abington 438 
v. Anderson 150, 151. 1560. 1562, 
1565. 1567, 200.3 
v. Austin 237, 257, 272 
v. Buxton 385 
r Hano 1395 
Steward v. Bank of England 142 
v. East India Co. 145, 297 
v. Gordon K60 
v. North Met. Tramways Co. 418, 
785 
v Roe 403, 15£2 
v Steward 1700 
Stewart, In re 1514, 1*02 
v. Barry 1676 
v. Beard 1026 
v Beebe 1751 
v. Chesapeake & O. Canal 

Co. 149, 659 

v. Clark 999, 1224. 1248 

v. Crane 1309 



Stewart v. Dunn 
v. Duvall 
v Fauiler 
v Flint 
v. Flowers 



CX111 



273 

169, 406 

1407 

586, 601 
1816 



v Forbes 973, 1013, 1029, U5:i, 

14ii3 

D.Graham 1704.1705,1708,1713 

v. Great Western Ry. Co. 553, 

1625 

v. Hoare 1846 

v Huntington 815 

c lnglehart 1073 

v. Jackson 221 

v. Johnson 1677 

v Lay 1752 

v Lispenard 851 ' 

v Meuzies 1503 

v. Noble 1258 

v Nurse 1443 

v. Pollard 1232 

v. Smithson 1648 

v. Stewart 29,30,31,334,426 

v Townsend 779 

v. Turner 1168 

v U. S Ins Co. 24 

v. Wilson 1253 

Stickland v. Aldridge 657 

Stifle v. Everitt 98, 104. 123 

Stiles v. Allen 1188 

v Donaldson 641 

Still v. Reading 197,314 

Stilphen V Read 1120 

Stilson v. Leeman 1381 

Stilt v. Hilton 1677 

Stilwell v Adams 367 

v. M'Neely 220, 588 

v Wilkius 1721 

Stimpson v. Green 1258, 1298 

v. Putnam 1046, 1683, 1684, 

2150 

Stimson v. Lewis 272 

v. Meade 1281 

Stinson v. Ashley 100 

v. Hil.Jrup 312 

V. Pickering 68 

Stinton v. Taylor 807, 809, 830, 831 , 

833 

Stirrat v Excelsior Manuf Co. 314, 

349 

Stitt r. Hilton 1675 

Stitwell B. Williams 1721 

Stobart v Todd 906 

Stock v Vining 1433 

Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Cone 

Iron Works 305, 1086, 1440 

v. Hudson Iron Co 1071, 1076, 

lllo, 1675 

Stocken r Stocken 1359, 1485 

Blocker v Heggerty 1562 

V. Planet R. Society 1660 

v. Wedderhun 1656 

Stock ley r Rowley 550 

v. Stock lev 1580, 1622 

Stockman B Wallis 1716 

Stockport District Water Works 

Co b. Jowett 1672 

Stockton v. Anderson 193 

V Briggs 1619 
v. Lockwood 2040 
r Williams 1031 

Stockton & Darlington Ry. Co. 

V. Hrown 1650 

Stockton & Hartlepool Ry. Co. 
v. Leeds & Thirsk Ry Co. 

1620 
Stoddard v. McLane 320 

v. Sloan 894 

Stoever v Stoever 59 

Stogden v. Lee 100 

Stoke v. Robson 193 

Stokes v Citv Offices Company 

983, 1330, 1638 
v. Clendon 270 

V Edmeades 1072 
v. Heron 1.503 
v. Holdcn 56, 135 



CX1V 



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



Stokes v. Taylor 232 

Stokoe v. Rob.-on _ 1&*2 

Stuue V. Anderson 372. 37'J, 443 

V Bartlett 212,261, 1*39, 1245 

v. Blackburn 1098 

r. Boston & Maine Railroad 58 

v Buckner 279 

, v City of London Real Prop 

trty Co 1638 

V. Damon 851 

v Davies 422 

v Dennis 671 

v Duncan 518, 532 

v Hobart 1613,1021 

v Hyde 1845 

v Lickorish 1235, 1414 

v Lidderdale 1053. 1730 

*• Locke 212, 809, 1259, 1377, 1381. 
1463, 1466, 1926 
542, 692, 713, 758, 845 
63 
1561 
1107 
60,553.630 
1169 
1650, 173> 



v. Moore 

v Parks 

v. Reed 

v State 

V. Thomas 

v Van Heythusen 

v. \\ etuiore 



Straker v. Ewing 1399 

v. Graham 1131 

Strange v. Bell 1560 

v. Collins 378, 384, 782 

v Harris 1771 

v. Thouias 1182 

!■ Watson 378, 3:4 

Strangeways, Ex parte 182 

Strangford v Green 1249 

Strattord v Baker 1540, 1594, 161 H I 
v. Boswortb 1399 

Strathmore v. Bowes 1633 

Strattou v. Davidson 151, 171s, 

1729 

v. Hernon 

v Physio-Medical College 
v. Reisdorph 

Straughan r. Hallwood 
v. Wright 

Strauss v. Goldschmidt 

Stray er v Stone 

Street v. Auderton 
v. Maryland Cent. Ry Co. 



v Wishart 75, 1732 

Stouemetz Printers' M Co v. 

Brown Folding M. Co. 334, 349, 
1548 
Stoney V. Saunders 1017 

Stouington Savings Bank v 

Davis 1221, 1246, 2193 

Stooke v Vincent 109, 636 

Stopturd v. Canterbury. Lord 

1360 
Storer v. Great Western Ry 

Co. 4?4 

v Jackson 1678 

t; Johnson 1840 

Storev v Lennox 620 

v People 1069 

Storm v Davenport 159, 249, 280 

« Mann 1629, 1669 

Stormout?" Wickens 1167 

Storms v . Storms 828 

Storr v, Pannell 161 

Storrs v. Barker 2271 

v Benbow 1476 

v. Payne 1566 

v. Wallace 334 

Storry v. Walsh 1277 

Story, Ex parte 1H9 

. v Brown 1222 

v Hawkins 9j4 

v. .lerscv City and Bergen 

Point Plank Road Co. 1620 
v. Johnson 1156, 1158, 1486 

v Livingston 100,191,287.302, 
1180, 1195. 1222. 
1302, 1316 
v Odin 1638 

v Official Manager 



v. Rigby 
Streeten v Whitmore 
Strelley V Pearson 
Stretch v Gowdey 

v. Stretch 

Strettou v. 

Stribling v. Hart 
Strickland v. Strickland 
426, 607 

V Weldon 
Strike v. McDonald 
Strike's Case 
Striker v Mott 
Stringer, lie 

v Harper 
Stringer's Case 
Strode r Blackburne 

v. Little 
Strohuieyer v Zeppenfeld 
Strong, lie 

v. Blanchard 



v Shultz 

v. Tonge 

v Vermont 

V. Windsor, Lord 

Stotesbury v. Vail 
Stothart v Burnet 
Stntt v Meanock 
Stoughton v. Lynch 

Stonrton v Stourton 
Stout » Cook 

l> Curry 

v Seabrook 
Stoutenburgh v. Peck 
BcovrII b Banks 
Stow /•. Russell 
Stowell v Waddingham 

I.i.l y p Cole 
Stracy p. Blake 
Btrader v Byrd 

v. Graham 
Btradley v. Circuit Judge 
Str.iit v. National Harrow Co. 1642 



1240 

99 

1553 

662. 676, 677, 

678,1725, 1727 

748, 1676 

551 

164. 174. 13H7 

668, 1250, 

1257 

10S 

630 
1628 

560 
1676 
14«i2 

545 
1628 
1539 
1126 
658, 1002 

630 
1031 



v. Carlyle Press 

v Moore 

v. Smith 

v. Sproul 

v Strong 
Strother r. Dutton 
Stroud v Deacon 
Stroughill v. Gulliver 
Strousberg v. Republic of Costa 

Rica 141 

Strudt v. Roberts 1126 

Strudwick v. Pargiter 



552 

1411 

214 

1517 

1151 

406 

13M 

172 . 

1743. 

1765 

671 

1 b3 

1661 

1745, 1755 

287 

1278 

1031 

252, 406, 

, 947, 1513 

12 

918, 1476 

945 

209 

544 

1428, 1433 

26 

677, 1163 

629 

1407 

64 

1237, 1239, 1241. 

1244 

1461 

434, 436 

115. 117 

354 

268, 1611 

992 

579 

1474 



StuUtf Goode 781 

Stulz v. Stulz 879 

Stumui v. Dixon 1169 

Stump v Beattv 458,513 

Stuuz v. Stuuz 1150 

Stupart v. Arrowsmith 234, 3U4 

Sturch v. Young 1600, 1724 

Sturge, lit re 1361 

v. Dimsdale 1440, 1450, 1608 

v Eastern Union Ry Co. 1652 

v. Starr 247 

Sturgeon r. Burrall 334 

v Booker '.'73, 1474, 1593, lot '3 

Sturgcs v Knapp 1255 

r Longworth 457 

Sturgess v. Cary 1930 

I Sturgis, lie, M P. Syndicate 27 

v Cary 



2252 
v. Champneys 91, 92 

v Corp 100, 186 

v Morse 891, 919, 1484 

Sturla v. Freccia 32 

Sturoc, lie 1069 

Sturt v Hellish 641, 648 

Sturtevant v Jaques 989 

r Waterbury 846, 847 

Sttirz v. De la Rue 1644, 1670 

Stutz v Handiey 236 

Stuyvesant v New York, Mayor, 
&c , of 

Style o. Martin 

Styles v Shipton 

Suher v Allen 

Sublette v. Tinney 

Sublicich v. Russell 

Suckling v. Gabb 

Suess v. Noble 

Suffern v. Butler 
v Johnson 

Suffield, Lord e Bond 
and Watts, Re 

Suffolk, Earl of v Green 



i84 

1584 

792 

334 

560 

1567 

1770 

1620 

1677 

284 

352, 756 

1040 

584, 611, 

1573 

v Howard 1385 

Sugden r Hull 469, 470, 1047 

v. Lord St. Leonards 1462 

Suggt' Silber H'71 

v Thornton 536 

Suggitt. Re 102, 103, 108 

Sui>se v Lowther, Lord 1470 

Sulger, Ex parte 1055 

Sullings v. Goodyear Dental Vul- 



Stuart, lie 
v Ancell 
v. Barrowes 
r. Boulware 
v Bute, Lord 
v. Colter 
v. Gay 

v. Hendricks 
v. Lloyd 
v. Moore 

v. Welsh 

r. Worrall 
Stubbings v. McGregor 
Stubbs. Re, Hanson v. Stubbs 

v. Burwell 

v Dunsany 

V be:ivitt 
• v Leigh 

v Sargon 
Stucker r. Stucker 
Stucky v. Stuckv 
Studabaker v. Markley 
Studd v Acton 
Studdert v. Grosvenor 

V. Von Steiglitz 
Studholme v. Hodgson 



1389 

1679 
15S8 

1746, 1756 

724 

341, 1151,1163 

1286 

1299 

415, 2168 

68, 1347, 1348, 1-350. 

1627 

1560, 1561 

2225 

1600 

1034 

951 

978 

1622 

1518 

96, 1177, 1485, 1595 

194, 212 



canite Co. 
Sullivan V Bevan 
v. Iron S M. Co. 
v. Jacob 
v. Jennings 
v Judah 
r Latimer 
r O Conner 
r I'lii;lips 
li Portland, &c. R Co 



633 

1424 

313, 545 

1488 

1^82 

1673, 11384 

1172 

1120 

303, 1638 

560, 561, 

630, 714 

v. Rcdfield 1643 

v Sullivan 69 

r Winthrop 1254 

Sullivant v. Weaver 518 

Sully v Drennan 26 

Sultan v. Providence Tool Co 630 
Suizbacher v. Shoe & Leather 

Bank 1563 

Sulzer r. Watson 10il 

Summerfield v. Prichard IS 

Summerlin v. Fronterina S. M. 



328 
1463 
468 
26 
837 
1426. 1427 
Studwell v. Palmer 1003, 1481, 1504. 
1505 



Co. 
Summers v. City Bank 

v. Dame 

li Farish 

v. Moseley 

r Murray 
Summersett v. Jarvis 
Sumner B. Sessoms 

r Thorpe 

v Waugh 
Snmsinn V Crutwell 
Sunderland, Freemen, 
Ex parte 



303 

87 

890, PS6 

1673 

1102 

617, 682, 789 

58 

1286 

665 

281 

1719 

&c, of, 

1121 



Supervisors v. Deyoe 1682 

v. Durant 1017 

n Keuuieott 14rfl 

v. Mineral Point R. Co _378 

&c. v. Mississippi, &c R. Co 733, 

759, 784, 838 

Supreme Council V. Bennett 1561 

Supreme Sitting of Order v. 

Baker 1716, 1734 

Surget v. Byers 852 

Surr v. Walmsley 905 

Sussex, Earl of v. Temple 86'J 

Sussex I'eerage Case 864 

Sutcliffe, Re 720 

Suter v Matthews 552 

Sutherland v De Virenne 202, 2n3, 

201 

v. Lake Canal Co. 211 

v Straw 281 

v. Young 9> 

Sutphen v. Fowler 1032, 13-12, 

1457 

Sutton, Re 199 

v. Dog.-ett 1437, 1433 

v. Downing 23 il 

v. Furniss 1566 

v. Gatewood 601 

v. .(ones 1732 

V. Mashiter 1617 

v. Rees 1745 

v Scarborough, Lord 655 

v. Schonwald 1284 

n Stone 264, 1054 

v. Sutton 650 

Sutton Pit. t Parish v Cole 22 

Sutton Harbour Co. v. Hitchens7'»l, 

14,2, 1405 

Suydam v Truesdale 780 

Swabey v. Dovey 482 

v. Sutton 720, 721, 722 

Swaby v. Dickon 1747, 1750 

Swain, lie 560 

v. Follows 32, 111 

v Hall 1129 

Swaine v. Great Northern Ry. 

Co. 1072, 1650 

v. Maryott 8.50 

v Perine 1165, 1166 

v. Wilson 1652 

Swale v. Milner 1424 

v. Swale 798, 799, 1723 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Swallow o. Binns l'Jl, 202, 203, 204, 

1514 

v. Day 780, 781 

Swau, Inre 1713 

v. Castleman 544 

v Clark 292 

v. Dent 13W 

v Horton 161 

v. Swan 279 

v. Webb 1264 

v. Wheeler 1231 

Swan Land & Cattle Co v. Frank 

26 
Swan's Settlement, Re 101 

Swanholm v. Reeser 843 

Swann v. Swann 110. 307 

Swansea v. Quirk 573 

Swansea Shipping Co v. Duncan 

lo'.tf 
Swansea Vale Ry. Co. v. Budd 1837 
Swauston v. Lishniau 1838 

v. Twickenham Local Board 

1468 
Swanzy v. Swanzy 30, 31, 53, 359 
Swart v. Central Trust Co. 1770 

S vartz v. Chickering 8>»9 

Swayne v. Swayne 1696 

v Lyon 186 

Swayze v. Swayze 335, 347 

Swearingen v Pendleton 251 

Swedesborough Church v. Shivers 

328, 329 

Sweeny v. Coffin 460, 536 

v. Hull 4<>3 

v. Williams 630 

Sweet ?'. Converse 559 

v. Meredith 1220, 1282 

v. Parker 222. 737 

v. Southcote 569, 675 

v. Syracuse 1 '34 

Sweetzer v. Buchanan 1556 

Sweny v. Smith 241 

Swepson v. Exchange & D. Bank 

334 

v. Rouse 63 

Swett v. Stark 569 

Swift, Re 95 

E.r parte 1359 

v. Eckford 334, 339, 342, 402 

424 

v. Edson 259 



cxv 



Swift v. Grazebrook 79, 1469, 1470 
v. Jenks 1637 

v. Meyers 149 

V. Munn 1126 

v. State Lumber Co. 190 

v Stebbius 200,222,457 

v. Swift 724, 1213, 14^8, 1862 

V. Wiley 875 

Swinbanks, Ex parte 630 

Swiuborne V. Nelson 300, 720. 721. 
1829, 2114 
Swindall v. Bradley 1668, 1669 

Swindell v Birmingham Syn- 
dicate 1071 
Swine, Re, Mellor v. Swine 1029 
Swiuteu v. Swinfen 974, 1121, 1124, 
114H, 1385 
Swinnerton v. Stafford, Marquis 

of 1129, 1135 

Switzer v McCulloch 1638 

v Skiles 365, 655 

Sword v Allen 1663 

Syckel r. Emery 1629, 1630, 1676 



Sydney v. S> dney 




1726 


Sydolph v. Moukston 




764 


Sykes, Re 




18,7 


v. Dyson 




1061 


V. Hastings 




1732 


v. Sacerdotti 




154 


v. Schofield 




1157 


V. Sykes 




1648 


S. kes' Trusts, Re 




914 


Sylvester v. Craig 




601 


r Hall 




1097 


V. Jerome 




780 


Sylvis v. Svlvis 




313 


Sym's Case 




126 


Syme v. Johnson 




1481 


Symes v. Glynn 


236, 248. 2 


v. Magnay 


1564 


1570 


Symmes v. Strong 


73 


',842 


Symonds n. City Bank 




324 


v. Cumberland, Duchess of 


510 


v. Jenkins 




1779 


v. \ ilkes 




100 


S} mons Re, Luke v. Tomkin 


328, 




1260, 


1581 


f. De Barros 




508 


v. Mnlkern 




674 


Sympsnn v Prothero 


1845, 


1846 


Syz B Redfield 




1309 



T. 



Tabbernor v. Tabbernor 308 

Tabele v. Tabele 1425 

Tabor v. Cunningham 328,383,139) 
Tabuteau v. W irburtou 1600 

Taendsticksfabriks A. Vulcan v. 

Myers 1648 

Taft !>. Taft 860 

Tagg v. South Devon Ry. Co. 1837 

Xasgart v. Boldin 117 

Tainter v. Clark 845, 982 

v. Morristown, Mayor of 1677 

Tait v Jenkins 1723 

v - N. Y Life Ins Co. 51 

r. Northwick, Lord 1286 

Taite v Gosling 324, 1654 

v. Pallas li)4 

Talbot v Bowen 657 

v. Braddill 1244 

v. Cruger 817 

v. Frere 652, 1392 

v. Keay 810 

v. Kemshead 710 

v. M'Gee 1550 

v. Marshfleld 1342, 1362. 1417. 

1420, 1771, 1824, 1834. 1836 

v. Radnor, Lord 401, 407 

v. Rutledge 1229 

v Shrewsbury, Earl of 1.352, 1355 

v. Staniforth 1386, 1622 



Talbot v. Talbot 76, 77 

»'. Todd 993,994 

Earlr Hope Scott 1632.1721, 

1723, 1725 

Taliaferro v. Branch Bank 1621 

v. Foot 361, 392 

v. Minor 1234 

Talleyraud V Boulanger 48. 1704 

Tallmadge v. Lovett 561, 588 

Tally v Tally 1588 

Talmadge r. Bell 1552 

Talmage v. Pell 286, 302, 780 

Tamarra v. Southern Illinois 

University 1^81 

Tampier v. Ingle 421, 1600 

TampUn v James 1080, 1082 

Tarn worth, Lord v Ferrers, 

Lord 1633, 1672 

Taner r. Ivie 37, 72, 80, 13^8 

Tanev v. Woodmansee 1381 

Tanfield r. Davenport 92 

p. Irvine 152, 1718, 1734 

Tangve r Stott 1080 

Tanker-lv v. Pettis 1576 

Tann, AV 1"426 

Tanner, Re 70 

v. Carter 1488, 1490, 1603 

v. Dancey 1423 

v. Heard 1393 



I Tanner v. Strutton 770 

J Tanuueray ti Bowles 794 1380 

Tansev v. McDonnell 63 1 1553 

Tanswell v Scurrab 811.914 

1 Tantlinger v Sullivan 1638 

Tapley v Goodsell 1507 

Tapling v. Jones 1638 

Tappan v. Evans 542, 603. 1072, 

1075 1110,1528, 1941,2384 

v. Smith 1616, 1517, 1518 

v. Western & A. R Co. 41S 

Tappen v Norman 72, 161 

Tnppln v. Heath 671 

Taprell v. Tavlor 43 

Tarbell v. Dnrant 378 

Tarbuck v. Tarbuck 309, 1001, 

1590 

V Woodcock 698. 730 

Tardrew V Howell 13«3. 1437 

Tarleton v. Barnes 687, 661 

ti. Dver 170,421 

v. Bfornbv 59, 60, 553, 606, 659 

Tarratt p. Lloyd 202, 203, 204. 

2127 

Tarver v. Tarver 5.72, 874 

Tasburgh, Re 94 

Tash l) Adams 1640, 1661 

Tasker v Small 230, 1459, 1485, 

1489 



CXV1 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging ] 



Tassell v. Smith 213 

Tate v. Goff 1150 

v. Leithead 1524, 1526 

v. Ohio & Miss R. Co. 303, 334 

Tateui v. Gilpin 1002 

Tatham v. Parker 1059 

v. Wright 876, 1117, 1124, 1149, 

1385 

Taton !>. National Standard Land 

M. & I. Co. 1220 

Tattcrsall v. Groote 670 

Tattershall v. Crampton 5ol 

Tattou » London and Lanca- 
shire Fire Ins. Co. 979, 1079 
Tatuni v. Hines 1003 

v Walker 378, 407 

Taunton v. Morris 92, 102, 104 

v l J epler 669 

Tavenuer v. Barrett 195 

Tawell v. State Co. 1072 

Tayleur, In re 316, 1573 

Tayloe v. Bond 1001 

Taylor, Ex parte 193 

lie 13, 69, 86, 438, 1213, 1428, 
1361, 1842, 1851 
1862, 1863 
r. Allen 253, 1722 

v. Ans.'ey 162, 476 

v. Aditon 1126 

v. B&iUj 601.789 

v Baker 1385, 1392 

». Bank of Alexandria 24 

r. Bank of Illinois 24 

v Barclay 19, 546 

V. Bate 286 

v. Bay City Street Ry. Co. 303 
v. Best 142 

r. Boardman 1743 

v. Bogert 778 

r. Bogg 1430 

r. Bouehier 40 

v. Boyd 1062, 1250 

r. Brown 1074 

v. Brownfield 1081 

f. Carpenter 45, 1648, 1649, 1087, 
2318 
V. Central R. & B Co. 1120 

v. Charter Oak Life Ins. Co 1580 
v. Coates 993 

v. Colgate 1061, 1277 

v. Columbian Ins Co. 1751 

v. Commonwealth 
v. Cooper 



D'Egville 
V. Dodd 
v. Dowlen 
r. Duckett 
V. Duncanson 
v. Eckersley 
v. Fisher 
r. Foster 
v. Glanville 
t>. Gooch 
v. Gordon 
r. Grange 
r. Hall 
v. Haylin 

Heming 



867 
1277 
1312 



1465 

973 

617. 666 

1729, 1744 

390, 489, 490, 742 

576 

1412 

779 

443 

1487 

1396 

371,666 

740, 1819 



v Holmes 109, 145, 545, 560, 1622 



t\ Jardine 

v Johnston 

v. Keily 

v. Kilgore 

v. King 

V. Leiteh 

v. Life Ass'n. 

v. Luther 

»'. Ma\ rant 

»'. Meads 

r Midland Ry. Co. 

v. Milner 

f. Mitchell 

r. Morton 

v. Neate 

?'. Obee 

v. Oldham 

v. Pearson 



1063 

852 

894 

1302, 13-0 

334 

1707 

313 

722, 723, 2227 

1135, 1136 

100. 186 

197, 1470 

592,690 

563 

1624 

1728 

780 

70, 1732 

1583 



Taylor v. Pede 
v. Person 
v. Philips 
v. Phillips 
l\ Pophaui 

v. Portington 
v. Read 



v. Robertson 

v. Roe 

V. Ruudell 

v. Russell 

v. Salmon 

V. Satti rthwaite 

v. Scrivens 

v. Sharp 

v. Shaw 

v Sheppard 

v. Smith 

v. Soper 

V. Southgate 

v. Tabrum 

v. Taylor 



177 

1076 
73, 166 
443 
1409, 1464, 1473, 
1474 
1660 
994, 1317, 1319, 1491, 
1494 
1296 
1051 
724, 1826, 1827 
674 
240, 508, 1837 
1561 
1806 
1575, 1577, 1579 
420, 699, 789 
1(21 
334,338 
1737 
797, 1465 
381, 1421 
183. 324, 499, 505, 
1256, 1536, 1582, 2060 
v. Titus 780 

v. Tompkins 
V. Topham 
v. Waters 
V. Webb 
v. W'emyss 
v. Wood 
v. Wrench 
Taylor's Estate, lie 



551 
1409 
1799 
256,287, 1131 
630, 6*8 
942 
762 
402 
Taylor County v. Standley 815 

Taylor, McBean, & Co. v. Chan- 
dler 1661 
Tazewell v. Saunders 1254 
Tazewell County v. Fanners' L. 

& T. Co. 1584 

Tea Co r. Jones 157 

Teaff v., Hewitt 986 

Teague v. Dendy 729 

v. Richards 992, 1616 

Teal r. Wood worth 175 

Teale ». Teale 1572, 1574 

Teall v. Slaven 560 

? . Watts 1157 

Tebbs r Carpenter 1416, 1420 

Tebbutt r Potter 796 

Tedder ?•. Stiles 402 

Tediowe v. Esher 951 

Teed v. Carruthers 706. 7 10 

i. Marvin 1407 

v. Reese 1208 

Tehama County v. Bryan 313 

Tekait Doorga Persad Singh r. 

Tekaitni Doorga Konwari 659 

Telegraph Co v. Davenport 19" 

Tel'ord r Met' n Board 1620 

v. Ruskin 724 

Tempest v. Camoys, Lord 319, 631, 

700, 1342 

r. Ord 1750, 1764 

Templar r. Sweat 12!il 

Temple r Baltinglass, Lady 663 

v. Bank of England 147, 1663 

r. Foster 628 

v Lawson 1376, 1410 

?•. London and Birmingham 

Railway Co 59 

v. Scott 216 

Temple Bar, The 1i»ti 

Templeman v Warrington 1610 

Tenant V Ellis 30 

v. Grav 1254 

v. Hamilton 1101 

Tench v. Cheese 352, 728, 729, 759, 

1697 

Tenham, Lord v. Herhert 16S2 

Tennant ;•. Trtnchard 1"13 

v. Wilsmore "81 

Tennent v. Battey 235 

t'. Patton 993 

Tennessee Hospital r. Fuqua 1361 

Tenney v. Bell 553 

Tenney's Case 1070 



Tentle v Muncy 123 

Terhune v. Colton 1484, 1489 

v. Midland Ry. Co. 1601 

Terrell, lie 1443 

v. Higgs 1625 

v. Iugersoll 1461 

v Souch 511 

Terre Haute & L. R. Co. v. 

Sherwood 601 

Terrewest v. Featherby 1616 

'1'errill v. Higgs 552 

Terry, Ex parte 1478 

He 1069 

v. Abrahams 1461 

v. Brunson 123 

v Cape Fear Bank 991, 1209 

v. Commercial Bank 974, 1584, 

1585 

v. Murtin 1756 

v. Munger 815 

v. Rosell 385, 652 

v. Sharon 1507 

v. Stukeley 1481 

Terwit v. Gresham 869 

Tetley v. Giidith 113 

Tetraultr Labbe 634 

Tevis v. Richardson 90, 91, 457 

Tew r. Winterton, Earl of 1254, 1256 

Tewart v. Lawson 1765 

Texas v. Hardenberg 378 

Texas Cent. Rv Co. v. Stewart 68 

Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Cox 1743 

v. Boyd 1743 

v Johnson 1743 

Texas Trunk R Co v Lewis 1765 

Texeire v. Da Costa 1728 

Teynham, Lady v. Lennard 1352 

Thacker v. Key 1427 

Thackeray r. Parker 11-3 

Thames and Medwav Canal Co. 

v. Nash 1568 

Thames & Mersey M. Ins. Co. 

v. Continental Ins. Co 780 

Thames Haven Co. v. Hall 307 

Than v Smith 175, 177 

Thanet, Earl of r. Patersou 1663 

Thannhauser v Cortes Co 28 

Tharp, He 1768 

Tharpe v. Stallwood 1133 

r. Tharpe 1738, 1739 

Thatcher r. Lambert 778 

Thayer r. Holland 1385 

v. Lane 1150 

v. Mann 652, 1233 

D. Smith 1961 

v. Tha\er 1157 

r. Turner 385 

Theed v. Debenham 1638 

Thellusson v. Rendlesham, Lord 1503 

r. W'oodfnrd 1731, 2197. 2344 

Therry r. Henderson 71^8, "99 

Theurer v. Brogan 216 

Tbewlis v. Farrar 85, 1525 

Thexton v. Edmonston 858, 889, 

890 

Thever v. Tombs 1399 

Thickuesse v. Acton 183, 499 

Thiedemann v. Goldschmidt 1651 

1 hielman v. Carr 1 r .5 1 

Third v Goodier 1131 

Third Avenue R Co. r. Mayor 1682 

Third Avenue Sav. Bank v. 

Din.ock 780 

Third Burnt Tree Building So- 
ciety, Re 1610 
Third National Bank r Skillings 

Lumber Co. 1561 

Thistlethwaite ;•. Gamier 1524 

Thomas, Ex parte 1488 

Re 286, 894, 912 

r. Adams 287, 289, 294 

v. Atherton 1249, 1400 

v Beals 385 

r Bernard 417, 426. 826 

v. Bibb 1071 

t\ Boswell 190 

v. Brashear 542, 692, 1624, 1680 



i 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging. ] 



CXVll 



Thomas v. Burt 1580 

v. Buxton 1539 

v. Cole 1481 

v. Cross 1035, 1037, 1040, 1696 
v. Davidson 1282 

v. Davies 318, 1734, 1WJS 

v. Dawkin 1 i38. 1739 

v. De Baum 1062, 1275, 1283 

v. Dike 69 

v. Doub 341, 782 

v. Dougty 32 

v. Dunning 212,225,272- 

v. Eastwood 1399 

v. Ellis 43 

v. Elson 1474 

»\ Finlayson 

v. Griffith 1207, 1208, 1212 

v. G wynne 166 

v. Bail 1046 

f Harvie 1577,1579,1580 

v. Hawkins 1662 

v. Hite 3i9 

v. Hobler 242, 385 

v. Horn 1677 

v James 1631 

v. Jersey 444, 474 

v. Jones 1437, 1438, 1801, 2309 
v. Lloyd 1400 

v. Marshall 645 

v. Merchants' Bank 144 

v. Montgomery 1202 

v. Nokes 1044 

v. Oakley 1632, 1633 

v. Paliu 1743, 1793 

V. Parry 9n8 

v. Phillips 13:i9 

v. Powell 1279 

v. i 'rice lo0 

v. Puddlesbury 1393 

v. Rawlings 770, 774, 943, 1559, 
1576, 1577, 1579 
v. Rees 336, 345 

v. Reg. 133 

V. Roberts 1349 

r Safe Deposit Co. 1411 

v- Selby 429 

u. Sellman 334 

v. Sheppard 101 

v. Stokes 1463 

v. Taylor 423 

v Thomas 162, 475, 793, 1795 

V Townsend 1402 

v. Tyler 602 

v. Visitors of Frederick Co. 
School 402, 409, 781. 784, 828, 
1407, 1532 
v. Walker 1349 

v. Warner 361, 4 "7 

v. Western Car Co. 1756 

v. White 644 

v. Williams 1350, 1620 

v. Wilson 1255 

Thomas Huston El. Co. v. Sperry 

El Co 334 

Thomason v. Moses 1405, 1 427 

v. Neeley _ 1553 

v . Smithson 378, 379 

Thomasson v. Kennedy 1124 

v. Tucker 841 

Thoinlinson v. Dixon 1080 

Thomond, Lord, Case of 1565 

Thompson, Ex parte 386 

Re 56, 57, 87, 100 

He, Stevens v. Thompson 111 

v. Allen 1676 

j; Andrus 1657 

v. Baskerville 214 

v. Boyle 1845 

v. Brown 236, 986, 1033, 1615, 

2246, 2294, 2297 

v. Butler 123 

V. Catlett 1299 

v. Childress 1234 

v. Clark 843, 855 

v. Clay 294 

v. Clive 1408, 1426, 1427 

v. Cooper 1214, 1424 



Thompson v. Corrie 410 

v. Derham 1626 

v. Dimond 1282 

v. Donaldson 865 

v. Dunn 720, 721, 1829 

v. Ebbetts 1571 

v. Falk 677, 1-34 

v. Geary ltji6 

v. German Valley R. Co. 907 

v. Goulding 980, lul6, 1018, 1019, 
1028, 1030, 1110, 1475, 1575 
v Graham 227 

v. Griffin 1358, 1359 

r. Hall 1679 

v. Harrison 885 

v. Hawley 380 

v. Hey wood 378 

v. Hill 814, 1507, 1515, 1544 

v. Hudson 710 j 

v. Jones 162, 448, 476 

p. Judge 416 | 

v. Knight 795 I 

v. Lake 23> I 

v. Lambe 840, 1229, 1230 

v. London, University of 54:», 

589, 699, 1854 



197 
974, 1575, 1580 
1624 
72ii 
1642 
1444 
372 
890 I 
801 
293, 986 
v. Pennsylvania R Co. 106'J, 1683 
v. Phoenix Ins Co. 560, 1743 

v. Planet Building Society 599 

t'. Railroad Cos. 313, 630 

v. Reno Savings Bank 



v. McDonald 
v. Maxwell 
o. Mebane 
v. Mills 

v. Montgomery 
V. Moore 
v. Moxey 
v. Partridge 
v. Paul 
v. Peebles 



t>. Scott 
v. Seiby 
v. Smith 
r. Stanhope 
v. Symonds 
v. Thompson 
v. Todd 
v. Tompkins 
ii. Trotter 
v. Turner 

v. Union Elevator Co. 
v. Waithman 
v. Walker 
v. Watson 
v. Webster 
p. Wild 
t>. Woodfine 
>. Wooldridge 



1743, 1752, 1984 

691. 1734 

1653, 1703 

1647 

336 

12, 88. 790, 856 

657 

1696, 1778 

1175 

1073 

1380 

647 

1035 

12 

849, 881, 9 a l. 1400 

701, 7n3 

1106 

830 



360 

919 

14'H 

328, 357, 642, 652. 

653 

19 

653,14*3 

517, 1576 

1417 



Thompson's Appeal 
Thompson's Case 
Thomson p. Dean 
V. Eastwood 

v. Powles 
v. Thomson 
P. Woo st or 
Tliorby r. Yeates 
Thorley's Cattle Food Co V. Mas 

sam 162<\ 1648 

Thorn v. Germand 406, 415, 417, 

692 

v. Smith 175,444 

r Sweeney 1631 

Thorndlkev Hunt 1697, 1797, 1840 

p. Thorndike 1627 

Thome p. Halsey 395, 1703, 1707 

v- Mosher 353 

v. Newman 1240, 1242 

v. Sweeney 1668 

v. Towanda Tanning Co- 631 

Thorneloe p Hill 1648 

Thornewell v. Johnson 674 

Thornevcroft v. Crockett 1244 

Thomh'ill p. Manning 999, 1028 

v. Milbank 1802 

v. Thornhill 1286, 1750 



Thornley v. Thornley 122 

Thornton V Fairfax 281 

V. Finch 1035 

v. Grant 1639, 1640 

r. Henry 655, 657 

v. Highland Ave. R. Co. 1461 

t;. Hi^li tower 2,3 

ti. Houtze 559 

v. M'Kewan 1625 

v. Ramsden 324 

r. Roll 1638 

v Stewart 392 

v. Washington S. Bank 1716 

Thorp e Farquer 195 

r. Holdsworth 7»5 

v Minor 68 

v. Pettit 1676 

Thorpe v. Freer 1403 

v. Ja.kson 269 

v. Macauley 564, 584, 597, 600, 

720 

v. Mattingley 1503, 1507 

Thorson v. Peterson 546 

Thouron v. East Tennessee, &c. 

R. Co. 1770 

Three Towns Banking Co. v. 

Maddever 560 

Threldkeld v Dobbins 371 

Threlfell i: Harrison 12b5 

v. Wilson 113 

Thrifts B Fritz 659 

Thring v. EJgar 605, 615, 619, 620, 

621,624,678 

Throckmorton v. Crowley 737, 1403 

v. Throckmorton 838 

Thropp v. Field 1683 

Thrupp v. Goodrich 112. 113 

Thnrgood v. Cane 528 

Thurlow v. Tr.eby 459 

Lord, Case of 1291 

Thurman v Morgan 1765 

r. Shelton 334, 346, 347, 559 

Thurmand ;■. Clark 418 

Thurmond v. Durham 1558 

Thurston v. Arnold 1889 

i\ Ma^tcrton 873 

Thurston County v. Scammel 1381 

Thurtell v. Beaumont 1133, 1134 

Thwaites v. Sainsbury 1139 

Thvnne p. Cary 6<;2 

v. Shove 552, 1660 

r. St. Maur 87 

Tibballs v. Bidwell 296 

v Sargeant 1734, 1735 

Tibbetts v. Perkins 1079 

Tib'.its v. Tibbits 1163 

Tibbitts v. Phillips 1727 

Tibbs, Re 1359 

Tice v. School-district No. 18 560 

Tichborno v. Mostyn 887, 1070 

v. Tichborne 204, 251, 1070, 

1726 

Ticke! r. Short 666 

Tickner v. Smith 1417 

Tidd P. Clare 589 

i Lister 92, 104, 118. 123 

Tidman p. Trego 179 

Tidswell. Re 1860 

p Bowyer 780 

Tidwell p. Ariel 1405 

Tirl, /.■,. 1030 

Tieman v Austin 1961 

Tiernan p. Wilson 1269, 1272, 14 IS 

Tiernay v Klein 1842 

Tiffin P. Parker 398 

Ti.-ard !• Moffitt 1638 

Tighlman p. Proctor 1830 

Tilden P, Green 13 

Tildesley v. Harper 402, 406, 417, 

785. 861 

Tilghman v. Camden 1320 

r. Werk 1576, 1680 

Till. E.r parte 1735 

Tillett, Re 1828 

r. Pearson 
Tilley v. Bridges 12S2 

v. Thomas 989 



CXV111 



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



Tillinghast V Champlin 328, 778, ' 

780, 1715, 1741 | 

Tillman v Reynolds 1845 

v. Thonias 586 

Tiliotsou r. Hargrave 74, 163, 1190 | 

v. Mitchell 890 | 

Tillott, lie, Lee v. Wilson 18a' 

TilMone, Ke 1785, 1794, 179 



Tilly v. Wharton 
T ilunn v. Cannon 
Tilton tf. Barrell 

V. Cofield 

tf. Tilton 
Timberlake v. Cobbs 
Tiuims tf. Shannon 



1122 
106 i I 
659 
281, 1"25 
406, 1531 
842 
361 



Timp.-ou t'. Loudon & N. Y. R. 

Co. 85 

Tinison tf. Wilson 1071 

Tindal v. Cobham 1776 

Tindallr. Castle 1654 

Tink tf. Rundle 1743 

Tinkler If. liiudmarsh 1727 

v. Rowland 1109. 1127 

v. Swaynie 212, 216 

Tinsley tf. Penniman 860 

Tippiu If- Coleman 349 

Tipping v. Clarke 722, 725. 726 

It. Power 284, 710, 1390, 1423, 1778 

V. St. Helen's Smelting Co 1637 

Tippins v. t oates 943, 944 

Tipton !'. Wcrtham 334 

Tipton G. C. Co. v. Tipton M. 

C. Co 1388 

Tison v. Tison 1551 

Tittensen It. Peat 605, 670 

Titterton it. Osborne 309 

Titus v. Hobart 48 

Tobey v. Bristol, County of 671 [ 

v. Foreman 1549 i 

v. Leonard 844 I 

Tobin tf. Dixon 121 

v. Queen, The 133, 511 

v. Reg 131, 133 ; 

v. Walkinshaw 190. 844 j 

v. Wilson 394, 1562 

Tod tf Baylor 1166 

v. Tod 1465 

Todd. Re 95 

v. Bishop 920 

v. Dowd 1281 

v. Em by 1133 

v. Fisk 1621 

v. Gee 548, 584 

v. Lackey 1576 



v. Minn. & St. L. Ry. Co. 



196 



v. Muu.-on 576 

v. Rich 1732 

v. Sterrett 225, 295 

v. Stewart 157 

v. Studholme 1208 

v. Taft 1902 

Toder v. Sansam 973 

Toker v. Tokei 852 

Toland if. Sprague 641 

Tolderly v. Colt 1721, 1725 

Toledo, &c. R. Co. v. Detroit, 

&c. R Co. 1663 

v. Pennsylvania Co. 1620 

Toledo Tie & L. Co. v. Thomas 689 

Tiller v Carteret 629, 1627 

Tolman v. .lohnstone 1101 

Tolson if. Dykes 1047 

v. Jervis 1016 

Tomkin v. Lethbridge 592,785 

Tomkins v. Harrison 936, 938 

v. Lane 1800 

Tomkinson v. Balkis Cons. Co. 26 

tf. South Eastern Ry. Co. 340, 354 



Tomliuson if. Harrison 1704, 1708 
r. Laud and Finance Co. 32 

v. Lymer 579 

t>. Swinnerton 788 

V. Tomlinson 1486 

v. Ward 1377, 1381, 1734. 1736 
Tomliuson & VV, M. Co. v. Shatto 

1734 

Tommey v. Sprang 1502 

v. White 1576 

Tompkins v. Anthon 694 

it. Halleck 1643 

v. Hollister 699 

v, Stephens 1073 

v. Tompkins 874 

Tompkyns v. Ladbroke 105 

Tompson v. Bank of Redemption 545 

v. Knights 1380 

Tomson ». Judge 1515 

Tung v. Oliver 1676, 1677 

Tonkin v. Lethbridge 1515, 1520, 

1534, 1547 

Tonvbee v. Ducknell 1-79 

Toofn Foley 149,536 

Tooke v. Hartley 284 

Tooley v. Kane 1274 

Tonmer v. Rhodes 1001 

Toosey v. Burchell 281, 1174, 1175, 

1517 

Tootal v. Spicer 1437 

Tooth v. Canterbury, Dean and 

Chapter of 210,230,262,579 

Topham v. Lightbody 992 

v. M'Gregor 1099 

v. Portland 1144 1471 

Topliffiv Jackson 2, 1250, 1297 

v. Topliff 1302 

Topp r. I'ollard 1368, 1371 

v. White 629, 1653 

v. Williams 1I''>4 

Toppan v. Evans 1532 

Topping ?>. Searson 454, 1848 

Tori .<K'k v. Laing 1128 

v. Lamy 1109 

Tcrkington, Ex parte 894 

Torpedo Co. v Clarendon 1620 

Torr v. Torr 521. 527 

Torrance v. Bolton 1395 

Torre ». Brown 1256, 1503 

Torrence !». Davidson 1461 

Torrent tf. Booming Co. 1624 

v. Hamilton 334 

tf. Rogers 314 

Torre\ v. Camden, &c. R Co. 1640 

v Shaw 12-^1 

Totten v. Nance 1031 

Tottenham if. Barry 536, 628 

v. Emmet 259, 13S6, 1391 

Totty v. Ingleby 461 

Touline v. Clark 844 

Toulmin v Copland 1250, 1536, 1537, 

1578, 1579, 1777 

v- Hamilton 3'>2 

r. Hedley 1126 

o. Keid 385, 1561, 1563, 1564, 

1568 

Tourton if. Flower 288, 318, 599 

Towend If. Toker 1526 

Tower Manuf. Co. tf. Thompson 236, 



Towle v. American Building So- 
ciety 1716, 
It. Bannister 
v. Janvrin 
v Pierce 150,216,219,288, 



Tomlin If. Budd 

v. Luce 

it. M 'Chord 

v Tomlin 
Tomline tf. Reg. 
Tomlins v. Palk 
Tomlinson v. Claywell 

t'. Greenfield 

v. Gregg 



1403 

1271 

989 

236, 857 

133 

1029. 1030 

342 

646 

1392 



v. Swasey 

tf. Towle 
Town tf. Needham 
Towne if. Bonnin 

v. Smith 
Town ley v Bed well 

v Deare 

v. Jones 
Townsend, Re 

v. Bogert 

v. Carpenter 



616 

1079, 
313, 



1734 

284 

552 

290, 

361 

1411 

1666 

840 

.740 

844 

1476 

1569 

1131 

13S9 

1556 

197 



Townsend v. Champernowne 285, 




1403, 1408 


v. Graves 


1073, 1076 


v. Griggs 


444 


v. Hargraves 


365 


v. Ives 


1116 


v. Kendall 


1347, 1355 


v. Mcintosh 


845 


v. Parton 


314 


v. Simon 


1282 


v. Smith 978, 1479, 1492 


v. Townsend 1120 


1476, 1493 


v. Tuttle 


235 


v. Williams 


905 


Townshend v. Duncan 


361, : 79 


tf. Ives 


875 


v. Norwich, Bishop of 


1436 


v Townshend 639, 644, 702, 852 


Marquis off Stangroom 1399 


Towsey v Groves 


71,76 


Trabue V. B'ankhead 


281, 1534 


tf. Holt 


443 


Tracewell v. Boggs 


779 


Tracy v Tracy 


1630 


Trade-mark Cases 


1648 


Tradesmens' Bank r. Hyatt 722 


Trafford V. Blanc 


417 


v. Wilkinson 


602 


v Young 


874 


Traill v. Baring 


382 


Transatlantic Co. t; Pietroni 31, 




1720 


Trant, Re 


1731 


Traphagen v. Jersey City 


1663 


v. Voorhees 


1579 


Trapier tf. Waldo 


283 


Trappes 1). Meredith 


418, 1144 


Trash v. White 


661,640 


Trask v. Stone 


69 


Traver If. Purdy 


850 


Travera v. Buckly 


476, 499 



if. Ross 542, 603, 692, 758, 760, 
785 
v. Townsend 1370, 1421 

Traverse City, &c. R. Co. v. Sey- 
mour 1614 
Travis v. Challenor 869 
v Milne 200. 324 
v. Waters 987, 994, 1377, 1381, 
1410, 1463, 1472, 1476, 1479, 
1491,1527 
Trayer v. Reeder 861 
Trayhern v. Mechanics' Bank 1019 
Treadwell tf Brown 334, 379, 584, 
1557 
if. Cleaveland 617, 518, 716 
v. Lennig 737, 843 
v. Patterson 329 

Trecothick tf. 1391 

r. Austin 197. 560. 644 

Tredegar, Lord if. Windus 817, 1618, 
1625, 1634 
Tredwell r. Byrch 37, 244 

Trefusis v. Clinton 1277, 1292 

v. Cotton 174 

Trefz tf. Knickerbocker Life Ins. 

Co. 664 

Treiber v. Shafer 68 

Trelawney tf. Thomas 1138 

tf. Williams 554 

Treleaven ». Bray 230 

Tremaine tf. Tremaine 354, 785 

Tremolo Patent 418 

Tremper v. Brooks 1743 

Trench If. Semple 1510 

Trenchard r. Warner 1003 

Trentham If. Deverill 1099 

Trenton Banking Co. v. Rossell 1119, 
1124 
». Woodruff 1075, 1110, 1716 



Trescott If. Smith 
Trethewy v. Helyar 

Trevanian v. Mosse 
Trevelyan v. Charter 
Trevet v. Creath 
Trevillian tf. Knight 



270 
1213, 1428, 
1430 
677 
1029 
68 
1026 



Trevor v Bluck 1770 

Trewick v. Paramore 13i3 

Trezevant v. Broi'ghton 113, 1538 
v. Frazer 1196, 1215, 1311, 1319, 
1695 
Tribble V. Tribble 
Triebert v. Burgess 
Triggc. Trigg 



Trilly r. Keefe 
Trim v. Baker 

v. Barker 
Trimble v. Dodd 

Trimleston v. Hamill 

v. Kemmis 

Lord v. D'Alton 

v. Hauiil 

v. Lloyd 
Trimmer v. Todd 
Trinity House v. Burge 
Triplett v. Jameson 

v. Wilson 
Tripp v. Cook 



90 

395, 17:35 

1154, 13n2 

528 

601 

739 

857. 992. 1236, 

1358, 1599 

1239, 1240 

815 

1119 

1393 

1119 

1507 

567 

1234 

1576 

1284, 1290, 14<X), 

1462, 1463 

v. Gifford 68 

v. Vincent 327, 978, 1026, 1463 

Tritt v. Caldwell 115 

v. Cohvell 121 

Trollope v. Routledge 14 (2 

Trotter v. Heckscher 1548, 1603 

v. Maclean 639, 1395, 1632 

v. Trotter 463, 1197, 1198 

v. Walmesley 992 

Troughton v Binkes 323 

v. Gettey 301, 315 

v. Gilley 157 

v. Hill 88 

Troup v. Haight 668,901,930, 1238, 

1550, 1551 

v. Ricardo 61, 312 

v. Sherwood 957, 959, 960 

v. Troup 1009, 1017, 1528 



v. Wood 1965, 


2273 


Trousdale v. Maxwell 




1675 


Trout y. Emmons 




845 


Trow v. Berry 




1320 


Troward v. Attwood 


792, 7! 


v. Bingham 




1422 


Trowbridge v. Caulkins 




1157 


Trow City D. Co. v. Curtin 




565 


Trowell v- Shenton 




602 


Troy & Greenfield Railroad 


v. 




Commonwealth 




141 


Troy Iron and Nail Factory 


V. 




Corning 




2356 


Trubody v. Brain 




1138 


Trueheart v. Price 




1680 


Trufort, Re 


417, 6' 


Truitt v. Truitt 




281 



Trull v. Rice 1294 

Trulock v. Uobey 214, 1003, 1240, 
1241, 1576, 1926, 2223 
Truman v. McCollum 313 

v. Redgrave 1657, 1663, 1725 

Trumbull v. Gibbons 734. 736, 748, 
784, 785, 951 
Trust and Fire Ins. Co. v. Jen- 
kins 402, 409, 524, 776 



Trustees v. Field 


1031 


v. Greenough 


1411 


v. Proctor 


1053 


Try v. Try 


1744 


Tryatt v- Lindo 


735 


Tryon v. National 


Provident 


Inst. 


287, 405 


Tsclieider v. Biddle 


671, 1658, 1861 


Tubb v- Fort 


630 


Tubbs, Re 


102. 103. 108 


Tubman v. Wason Manuf. Co. 2048 


Tuck v. Manning 


1770 



v. Rayment 767 

v. Silver 1642, 1666 

Tucker v. Andrews 90. 91 

v. Bean 165 

v. Buffuin 1240, 1244, 1247, 1258 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Tucker v. Cheshire R. Co. 758, 759, 

764 

t>. Collinson 41 

v. Dabbs 68 

r. Heruainan 157 

v. Kenniston 1961, 2040 

v Sanger 1073 1075 

v. Tucker 341,345, 

13*3 

v. Welsh llol 

v. Wilkins 1528 

v. Wilsun 68, 1525 

v. Zimmerman 200 

Tuckley v. Thompson 284, 13:0 

Tuder v Morris 215 

Tudway v Jones 59, 407, 420, 699, 

1530 

Tuer's Will Trusts, Re 85 

Tufuell, Re 133 

«. Constable l!'34 

Tufton V H.irdinge 1566 

Tnfts b Little 1716 

Tugwell ?' Hooper 431, 577, 578, 

lr34 

Tulk v. Moxhay 1654, 1662 

Tullar v. Baxter 559 

Tullett v. Armstrong 15 9 

Tullit v. Tullit 1365 

Tulloch v. Hartley 1163 

v. Tulloch 1264 

Tullock v. Belleville P. & S. 

Works 394 

Tune v. Cooper 121 

Tunnard tf- Littell 110 

Tunno v. Edwards 58 

Tunstall v Boothby 1730 

v. Pollard 251 

Tupper v. Powell 386 

Turbot v. 950 

Turley v Turley 1299 

Turnbull, hire 893 

v. Janson 908 

v. Prentiss Lumber Co. 1734 

Turner, Re 1826 

v. Alabama Mining Co. 26 

v . Baptist Missionary Union 335, 
34o, 1624 
v. Berry 190, 1580, 1583 

v- Burkinshaw 1820 

v. Burleigh 882, 926, 930 

v. Clifford 1054 

v. Cole 1544, 1679 

v. Collins _ 852, 1435 

v. Conant 334 

v. Correy 1230 

v. Cuthrell 1675 

v. Davis 815 

v. Debell 624 

v. Dorgan 505 

v. Doubleday 336 

v. Frampton 1427 

v. Gowdon 1432 

v. Hancock 1411, 1416 

v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. 1793 
v. Highway Board 1631 

v. Hill 1551 

v. Hind 223 

v. Hodgson 1028 

V. Holman 842, 847 

V. Hughes 1222, 1250 

v. Indianapolis, &c. Ry. Co. 1286, 
1743 
v. Johnson 1385 

v Letts 81, 1842, 1843 

V. London & 3 W. Ry. Co. 1009, 
1016, 1544 
v. Major 1660 

0. Marriott 1551, 2256, 2266 

v. Maule 1117 

v. Mirfield 1681 

v. Mitchell fill 

v. Morgan 1157 

v. Moy 241, 243 

v. Mullineux 1412 

v Muskegon Co. 1440 



CX1X 



Turner v. Nicholls 631 

v. Pearte 10h8 

v. Pierce 334, 1004 

v. Robinson 62, 158, 336, 606, 631 

v. Rutledge 1003 

v. Scott 1»>72 

v. Snowdon 162, 452, 476 

v. Sowden 162, 449, 452. 176 

v. Spooney 1638 

v. Tepper 15»I 

v. Trelawny 953, 954 

v. Turner 37, 74, 78, 108. 382, 524, 

908, <J74, 1259, 1320. 1321, 

1369 1386, 1437, 1449, 1-450, 

1476, 1478, 1484, 1487, 1602, 

1743, I8ti0 

v. Wight 1652 

v. Wright 1624. L633 

Turner Coal Co. v. Glover 586, 830 

Turner's Sir E , Case 124, 1^5 

Turney v. Bay ley 1829, 1830 

Turnham v. Turnham 191 

Turuipseed v. Hawkins 875 

Turnley v. Hanua 940 

Turnock v. Satoris 1440 

Turquand v. Dawson 1132,1138 

v. Kirby 26 

v. Knight 576 

v. Marshall 26, 243, 1397 

Turrill v. Muzzy 644 

Turton v Barber 573 

v. Turton 1648 

Tussaud t'. Tussaud 1648 

Tuthill v. Scott 1383 

Tutin, He 102 

Tuttle v. Church 1630 

v. Dewey 997 

v. Fowler 121 

Tutton v. Andrews 1125 

Tutwiler v- Dunlap 259 

v- Tuskaloosa Coal Co. 334 

Tuxbury's Appeal 1460 

Tweddell v. Tweddell 1622 

Tweed ile, Re 95, 13 17 

Tweedie v. Phelps 1045 

Tweedy, Re 1(305 

Twenty man v. Barnes 1113 

Twigg v. Fifield 1277 

v. Potts 1126 

Twiggs v. Chambers 1845, 18 16 

Twistleton v. Thelwel 1422 

Twognod v. Swanston 668 

Two Sicilies, King of v. Wilcox 17, 

18, 567, 1881 

Twycross v. Drevfus 18 

Twytord v. Traill 251, 1316 

Twynam v. Porter 2n.'f, 1846 

Tylden, Re 99, 1802 

Tylee v Tylee 1731, 1737 

Tyler, Re 99, 1743 

Re. Tyler 0. Tvler 13 

v. Bell 250, 289, 598 

' v. Connolly 1069 

v Drayton 579, 580, 1818, 1824, 

1829. 1^30 

o.Galloway 209. 1 18 

v. Savage 630 

v Simmons 1295,1309,1176, 

1481 

v. Thomas 280, 281, 4<H) 

v. Toms 1279 

v. Tyler 576 

Tyndale r. Warre 1286 

Tvng r. Thaver 1188.12 49 

Tyntet'. Hodge 29,33, 34, .358. 1537, 

1553, 1582 

Tyree v. Bingham 12 

v. Williams 989 

Tvron v. Sutton 116 

Tysen v. Wabash Ry. Co. 1716 

Tvson. E.r parte 53 

v. Applegate 200, 212 

t>. Cox 1467 

r. Fairclough 1726 

v Pole 560 



cxx 



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



IT. 



Udall v. Kenney 91 

Uhle v. Buruham 933 

Uhlfelder v. Levy 16^8 

Uhlmanu v. Arnholt & S. B. Co. 

737, 838 

Uhthoff v. Huntlngfield, Lord 713, 

860 

Ulbricht v. Eufaula Water Co. 303 

Urufreville v. Johnson 211, 303 

Uinpleby v. Waveney Valley 

Railway Co. 14(55, 1510, 1527, 

1529 

Underdown v. Stannard 893 

Underhill, Re 911 

v. Mobile Fire D. Ins. Co. 560 

v. Van Cortlandt 550, 555, 671, 

852, 906, 947, 948, 949, 951, 1524 

Underwood v. Dugan 5:30 

v. Frost 1731 

v. Gerber 417 

v. Hatton 1207 

V. Hitchcox 1405 

v. Jee 797 

r. Pack 1284 

v . Secretary of State for India 

1823 

v. Trower 1417 

Underwood's Case 1684, 1686 

Ungar v. Sugg 1642 

Ungless v. Tuff 1791 

Union Bank v. Crine 313 

v. Geary 737, 845, 846 

v. Kent 674 

v. Kerr 388, 1561 

v. Knapp 641, 1228 

Union Branch R. R. Co. v. East 

Tenn. & Georgia R. R. Co. 603 
Union Fire Ins Co. v. Osgood 21 
Union Ins. Co. v Benit 1463 

v. Van Rensselaer 1392, 1457 

Union M. E. Church v. Wilkinson 216 
Union Mut. Ins Co. v. Commer- 
cial Mut. Mar. Ins. Co. 1897, 
2265 
v. Kellogg 717 

Mut Life Ins. Co. v. Chicago 

& W. I. R. Co. 1770 

v. Slee 1172 

Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Balti- 
more 1556 
v. Botsford 1556 
i'. Cheyenne 303 
v. Chicago &c. Ry Co. 629 
v. Hall 1663 
v. Harmon 986 
v. Lincoln County 1650 
V. McShane 1661 
v. Mertes 39, 797 
v. Reese 933 
Union Passenger Ry. Co. v. 

Baltimore 630 

Union Sugar Refinery v. Ma- 

thiesson 1, 978, 1028, 1322 

Union Trust Co. v. Illinois Mid- 
land Ry. Co. 1743 
v. St. Louis R. Co. 1731 
v. Souther 1743 
t;. Walker 1743 
United Horse-shoe Co. v. Stewart 

1081 
United Lines Tel. Co. v. Boston 

Safe Deposit Co. 1276 

v. Grant 630, 1620 

v. Stevens 974, 1019, 1584 

United Merthyr &c. Collieries 

Co., Re 12.33, 1632 

United Nickel Co. v. Worthing- 

ton 269 

United Ports and General Ins. 

Co., Re, Brown's Case 1020 

United R. Co. v . Hoppock 548, 1558 



United Railroad & Canal Com- 
panies v. Long Dock Co. 782 

United Security Life Ins. Co. v. 

Vandergrift 283 

United States v. Alexandria 560 

V. American Bell Telephone 
Co. 8, 149, 313, 334, 402, 779, 
888 
v. Arnold 1254 

v. Babcock 907 

v. Bank of the Metropolis 129 

v. Barney 129 

v Beebe 8, 560 

v. Bell Telephone Co. 608 

V. Benner 142 

v. Blight 17 

v. Budd 843 

v. California Land Co. 604, 674 
v. Cameron 933, 1573 

v. Central Pacific R. Co. 190 

v. Clarke 129, 141 

v. Colgate 8 

v. Curtner 334 

v. Dal es Military Road Co. 697 
v. Des Moines Nav. Ry. Co. 545 



Duluth 

Emerson 

Ferguson 

Gillespie 

Gomez 

Green 

Gunning 

Hancock 

Hawkins 

Holmes 

Horn Hing 

Hutton 

Iron Silver M Co 

Jeffers 

Lafontaine 

Loughrey 

Lyman 

Mc Daniel 

McElroy 

McGraw 

McLaughlin 

McRea 1 



1614 

1069 

815, 843. 850 

217, 559, 2384 

1003, 1017 

1350 

8, 10, 890 

8 

129 

1070 

933 

1556 



142 

1422 

536 

10 

129 

560 

8 

354, 759, 1556 

18.20,387,56" 



611,626, 680,696, 864, 1881 
Marshall Silver M. Co. 8 

Masich 1716 

Maxwell Land Grant Co. 8 

Memphis & L. R R Co. 1687 
Minor 8 



Morris 

Parniele 

Parrott 

Patterson 

Pereheman 

Peters 

Pings 



780 

195, 325 

190, 1628, 1677 

10»;9 

17 

17 

933 



Pittsburgh &c. R. Co. 10 

Pratt Coal Co. 87, 334, a", 

2380 
17, 18, 20, 141, 1881 
129 
129 



Prioleau 

Ringgold 

Robeson 

Rose 

Samperyac 



San Jacinto Tin Co. 

Smith 

Southern Pacific R. Co. 



1076, 1147, 1576, 

1578, 1580 

8,10 

906 

586, 

1381 

. Throckmorton 8 

. Tichenor 8, 560 

. Tilden 933 

. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass. 855 
. Treadwell 630, 1427 

. Trinidad Coal & C. Co. 8 

. Twenty-Eight Packages, 
&c. ' 563, 564 



United States v. Union Pac. R. 
Co. 
t\ Wagner 



v. Wells 
v. Wentz 
v. White 
v- Wilder 
v. Wilkins 



10 
17, 18. 19, 141, 145, 
296, 1881 
129 



129 



V. Workingmen's Am Council 

737, 1620, 1663 
United States, Pres. of v. Drum- 

mond 20 

United States C. S. Co. v. Am- 
erican C. I. Co 314 
United States Ins. Co. v. Central 

Bank 712 

United States Mutual Ace. Ins. 

Co. r Rei.-inger 1621 

United States Trust Co. v. Roche 

222 

v. Wabash W. Ry. Co. 1743 

United Tel. Co. v. Patterson 1378 

United Telephone Co. v. Bassano 64, 

157 

v. Don oboe 850 

Univer.-ity v. Cambreling 443 

v. Finch 52 

v. Miller 46 

University of Aberdeen v. Irvine 

1503 
University College v. Foxcroft 1059, 
1060, 1510 
University of Glasgow v. Balliol 

College 149 

University of Oxf. & Camb. v. 

Richardson 1C29 

University Life Ass. Co. r. Metro- 
politan Railway Co. 1650 
Unsworth, Re 1391 
v. Woodcock 1818, 1829 
Untereiner v. Miller 1493 
Untermeyer v. Freund 1642 
Updike?;. Bartles 1457 
v. Doyle 244, 643, 794, 1221. 1296, 
1298, 1309, 1615 
Upfull,7?e 1814 
Upham v. Brooks 1241 
v. Draper 726 
Upington v. Oviatt 303 
Upjohn v. Upjohn 993 
Upman v. Elkan 1649 
Upmann v. Forrester 261 
Upperton v. Harrison 1390 
v. Nickolson 1339 
Upton v. Brown 1225, 1227, WZ, 



v. Ferrers, Lord 

v. Lowten 

v Sow ten 

v. Tribilcock 

v. Vanner 
Upton, Warren, Re 
Ure v. Lord 
Urey v. Urey 
Urlin v. Hudson 
Urmston v. Singleton 
Urner v. Kayton 
Urquhart, Re. 

v. Butterfield 
Usborne v. Usborne 
Usher v. Jouitt 

v. Martin 
Utica Ins. Co. v. Lynch 

Utley v . Fee 
Utten v. Utten 
Utterson v. Mair 
Uvedale v. Uvedale 
Uxbridge, Earl of, Ex parte 1841 
Lord v. Staveland 322, 360, 387 



174S 

1257 

732 

732 

274 

304 

1854, 1856 

1526, 1527 

1411 

636, 638, 688 

1043, 1220 

1381 

447 

864 

1630 

1425 

1561 

718, 720. 

723 

991 

1712 

323, 543, 1723 

164, 1422 



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



CXXi 



V. 



Vaccaro v. Cicalla 1411 

Vacuum Oil Co. v. Buffalo L. 0. 

Co. 1642 

Vacy v. Vacy 2<i3 

Vadala v Lawea 6*54 

Vaiden v. Stubblefield 292 

Vaigneur v. Kirk 1073 

Vail v. Central R Co. 543 

Vail Ian t v. Dodemead 576, 944 

Vaise v. Delaval 1131 

Vale v. Bayle 113S 

v. Davenport 1285 

v. Merideth 707, 710 

v. Oppert 1842 

Valensin v. Valensin 109 

Valentine v. Ford 88 

v. Teller 1056, 1002 

Vallance v. Birmingham &c. Inv. 

Co. 406 

Vallence v. Weldon 1311, 1312, 1320 

Van v . Corpe 1194 

v. Price 1070 

Van Allen, In re 1716 

Van Alstw. Hunter 1074, 1124, 1130 

Van Benschooten v. Lawson 1260 

Van Bergen v. Van Bergen 1639, 

1602 

Vanbibher v. Beirne 313 

Van ISokkelen v. Cook 190 

v. Tinges 200 

Van Huren v. Olmstead 13!l2 

Vanbussum v. Maloney 1270, 1270 

Vance, Re 1909 

v. Edwards 1370 

v. Lancaster 330 

v. Vance 847 

Vancleave v. Beam 233 

Vancleef v. Sickles 303 

Vancouver v. Bliss 843, 1380, 1381, 

1403 

Vandant v. Allmon 37? 

Vandegrift v. Herbert 844, 845 

Vandemark v. Schoonmaker 1631 

Vamlenburg v. Van Rensselaer 1596 

Vanderbeck v. Peck 422 

Vanderbilt v. Central R. Co 1743 

Vanderhaise v. Hugues 1238, 1247 

Vanderheyden v. Vanderheyden 

1235, 1745 
Vanderpoel v. Van Valkenburgh 233 
Vanderveer v. Holcombe 1548 

Vandervere v. Reading 777, 778, 780, 
781 
Vandervoort v. Williams 167) 

Van Deventer " Stiger 529 

Van Doren v. Robinson 220, 256, 292 
v. Van Doren 1279 

Van Dresser v. Oregon R & N 

Co. 149 

Van Duzen v Van Duzen 91, 108 

Vand\keu. Brown 371 

Vandyne v. Vandyne 1270, 1272 

v. Vreeland 657 

Vane v. Barnard, Lord 1633 

v. Cobbold 1127 

v. Cockermouth Railway Co I860 

v. Vane 83, 88, 650, 3574 

Earl v. Rigden 200, 324 

Van Epps v. Van Deusen 91, 101, 

120, 122, 287,294 

Van Every v. Adams 1843 

Van Gelder v. Sowerby Bridge 

Flour Society 405 

Van Giesen v. Van Houten 1257 

Vangilder v. Hoffman 1073 

Van Hook v. Pendleton 901 

v. Throckmorton 280, 1062, 1516, 

1518 

v. Whitlock 500, 607, 609, 721 

Van Horn v. Pendleton 2391 

v. sfniith 920 



Van Houten v. Van Winkle 334 

Van Keuip v. Bell 1300 

Van Kuren v. Trenton, &c, 

Manuf Co. 1677, 2319 

Van Leonard v. Stocks 295 

Van Mater v Couover 1652 

v. Sickler 340 

Vanmeter v. Borden 1002 

Vann v. Barnett 1734, 1782 

Van Namee v. Groot 951 

Vauner v Frost 300 

Vannerson v. Cord 1282 

v. Leverett 630 

Van Ness v. Van Ness 1172, 1320 

Van Oulen v Van Ohlen 1845 

Van L'elt v. Chattanooga R. Co. 68 

Van Reimsdyke v. Kane 149, 842 

Vanrenen v. Piffard 798 

Van Rensselaer v. Brice 728, 729, 

704 

v Bruce 759 

Van Rhyn v. Vincent 644 

Van Saudau, Ex parte 511, 1070 

He 1684 

i>. Moore 25, 26, 242, 243, 730 

v. Rose 1673, 10S5 

Van Sehaak v. Saunders 283 

Vansciver v. Bryan 853 

Vansittart v. Collier 1274 

v. Vansittart 1404 

Van Tyne v. Bunce 329, 558 

Van Valtenburg v. A 1 berry 734, 1551 

Van Vechten ?\ Terry 273 

Van Vleet v Sledge 560 

Van Vorst, Ex /» rte 1794, 1796 

Van Vronkerv. Eastman 1247, 1248, 

1252 

Van Walters v Marion County 

Board 920 

Van Weel v. Winston 324 

Van Wert v Boyes 1517 

Van VVt-zel v. Van Wezel 1481 

Van Wych v. Seward 663. 1073 

Vanzandt v. Argentine M Co. 1675 

V'anzeller v. Vanzeller 1703, 1704, 

1708 

Vardon's Trusts, Re 122 

Varick v. Briggs 569, 675 

v. Dodge 604 

v. Smith 334, 589 

Varley,J?e 891,1608 

Varner v. Young 804 

Varney v. Bartlett 197 

v Pope 1039 

Varnon's Trusts, Re 100 

Varrian v. Berrian 1501 

Vartcg Chapel, Re 893, 1608 

Vass v. Arrington 1274 

Va-sar ». Hill 740 

Vattier v. Hinde 509 

Vaughan v. Central Pac. R. Co. 570 

v. Cutrer 1570 

v. East Tenn. & Va R Co. 570 

v. Fitzgerald 548, 871, 1383, 1573, 

1574 

v. Gooch 1294 

v. IIi<*gins 1401 

v. Llovd 1192 

v. Martin 1099 

v. Parr 106, 114 

v. Rogers 528 

v. Thurston 1419 

v. Vanderstegen 187, 1843. 1844 

r Vaughan 1616, 1740, 1700 

v. Welsh 691, 816 

v. Williams 495 

v Wilson 113 

v. Worrall 954, 955, 1098 

Vaughn v Fuller 1621 

v HalHday 1459 

v. Uann 1578 



Vaughn v. Vaughn 
Vauu v. Hargett 
Vavasseur v. Krupp 
Veach v. Schaup 
Veal v. Veal 



1846 
341 
141 

1246 
95 



Veazie v. Williams 196, 302, 1523, 

1530 

Veeder v. Fonda 1269 

v. Moritz 395 

Veghte v. Raritan Water Power 

Co. 346, 347 

Veile v. Blodgett 843, 846 

Veitch r. Irving 34 

Venable v. Smith 1003 

Venables v. Schweitzer 942, 944 

Venderhaise v. Hugues 1246 

Venner v Atchison, T. & S F. 

R Co 547 

Venning v. Loyd 635, 800, 1027, 

1770 
Vent v. Paeey 571, 572, 808 

Ventilation and Sanitary Im- 
provement Company v. Ed- 
elston 791 

Vent nor Harbor Company, Re 1035, 
1037 
Venus, The 50 

Verdier v Foster 719 

Vere v. Glynn 4'2 

Vereker v. Gort 1309 

Veret v. Duprez 204, 251 , 1726 

Verity v. Wylde 1842, 1845 

Vermillion v Bailey 1298 

Vermilye v. Verniilye 1401 

Vermilyea v. Fulton Bank 145, 146, 
735 
v. Odell 415, 806, 833 

Vermont Copper Mining Co v. 

Barnard 1397 

Vermont R Co. v. Vermont, &c 

R Co. 1731 

Verney, Earl v. Macnamara 779 

v Thomas 1548 

Vernon, JBe 674 

Re, Ewens, & Co. 298 

v. <'holmondcley 1257 

v Croft 1794 

v. Cue 412 

v. Hal lam 1055 

v. Hunkey 1134 

v. St .lames's Vestry 1637 

V. Thellu.-son 1016 1617 

v. Vawdry 667, 668 

v. Vernon 368, 558, 1070 

»'. Wright 14:>6 

Verplanck v. Caine? 543, 584. 1715 

v. Mercantile Ins Co. 286, 390, 

401, 402, 400,. 407, 424, 425, 1735, 

1748 

Verree v. Hughes 1255 

Vesev ». El worthy 1274 

Vestris v. Hooper 63.814 

Vetten v. Wallace 851 

Vctter v Schreiher 573 

Vetterlein v. Barker 1680, 1684 

V. Barnes 200 

Vial!, He 1389 

Vialle v. O'Reilly 1735 

Vibart v. Vihart 281 

Vicar of St Sepulchre, Re 1014 

Vicarv P. Farthing 1108 

r. \Vidgcr 1567 

Vice v. Thomas 652 

Vickercy !• London, &c. Ry. 

Co. 1141 

Vickers v. Bell 227, 252 

v. Vickers 1397 

Vickshurg &c. R. Co. v. Phil- 
lips 236 
Victor Scale Co v. Shurtleff 1701 
\ idler v. Parrott 1791, 1795 



CXX11 



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



Vigel v. Hopp 843 


Viney v. Bignold 


671 


Vigere v. Audley, Lord 406, 445, 


v. Chaplin 1030, 1031, 1410 


1491 


5U8, 592, 1532, 1534 


Vint v. Padget 


213 


Vigrass v. Binfield 1773 


Viutun v King 


1238 


Village of Nunda v. Crystal 


Yirden v. Needles 


991 


Lake 1661 


Virginia v Dunaway 


1621 


Yillard v. Chorin 13 j9 


Virginia Manuf. Co. v Hale 


145, 


Villavaso v. Barthet 634 




547 


Vinal ti Continental C & I. Co. 26 


Virtue v. Miller 


68 


Vinee !■ Walsh 2360 


Vivian v. Kennelly 


78 


Vincent, lie 236 


v. Little 


1817 


Re, Parhani v Vincent 645 


Vliet v. Lowmasou 


1676 


v. Godson 1615 


v. Sherwood 


1618 


v. Going 652, 1281 


v. Wyckoff 


1395 


r. Hunter ' 29, 359, 1553 


Voak v National Inv. Co. 


779 


v. Matthews 974 


Vogler v. Montgomery 


1624 


r Spicer 1633,2307 


Voigtlander v. Brotze 


1062 


v. Watts 429 


Ycifljn v. Commercial M. In* 


. 


Viue, Ex parte ' 58,157 


Co. 


852 



Volans o. Carr 1361 

Voorhees v. De Myer 197, 989 

v. Polbenius 68 

v. Voorhees 844 

Voorheez v. Bonesteel 382 

Vorlev r. Jerram 884 

Vose v. Philbrook 149, 216, 219 

269, 314, 374 

V. Trustees 1467 

Voshell v. Hynson 1715, 1716, 1734 

Vowles p. Young 504 

Vredenburg r. Johnson 328,558 

Yreeland r Bramhall 850 

v. N. J. Stone Co. 1677 

r. Yreeland 334 

Vroom v. Ditmas 658, 1017, 1385, 

1392 

Vyse v. Foster 269, 1233, 1474 

Yyvyan v. Vyvyan 1562, 1563 



w. 



Wabash and Erie Canal 


Co. v. 


Walburn v. Ingilby 199 


320, 1468, 


Walker v. Kendall 


1255 


Beers 


990 






I4t;9. !<•>>■< 


v. Kennedy 


1821 , 1822 


Wabash &c Ry. Co. v. Central 


Walcot r. Walcot 




428, 429 


v. Locke 365, 547, 561. 619, 655, 


Trust Co. 


214, 1120 


v Walker 




1645 


1557 


2095,2103 


Wabash Ry. Co. v. Dykeman 1716 


Walcott v Lyons 




405 


r. Main 


973 


Waddilove v. Taylor 


454, 1389, 


v Melick 




loas 


v. Micklethwait 511 


, 553. 1063. 


1696 


1801, 1848 


V. Watson 




843 




1614, 1625 


Wade v. Amer. Col. Soc 


1463 


Walden v Chambers 


115, 118 


t Morris 


1276 


v. Boxly 


121 


Waldo V- Caley 


1467, 


1469, 1471, 


v Mottram 


K355 


V. Keefe 


162 






1475 


v Needham 


1127 


v. Ordway 


1131 


Waldron, Ex parte 


1350 


v. Page 


165 


v. Pulsifer 


559, 590 


v. Frances 




1437 


v Poole 


894 


r. Stanley 


309 


Waldy v- Gray 




878 


v. Powers 


303, 334 


v Ward 


1390 


Waletf. Salter 




37 


v. Seligmann 


438 


Wadeer v. East India Co. 


145, 5S1 


Wales o. Bank of Michigan 


V S breve 


1625 


Wadeson v. Rudge 


236, 24S 


v. Newbould 




347 


v. Siggers 


972 


Wadtiam V. Rigg 


1327 


r. Wales 




1745 


v. Simpson 


1777 


Wadhams v. Gay 


1586 


Wales, Prince of 


• Lamb 


1832 


r. Smalwood 


280 


Wad ley, Re 


1591 


Princess of v 


.iverpoo 


, Earl 


v. Smith 


852 


Wadman v. Birch 


1201 


of 16, 364, 


579. 740 


796. 1818, 


v. Stevens 


1841 


Wadsworth v. Spain, Queen of 




1819, 


1826, 1833 


v. Stone 


1675 


Wafer v. Mocato 


1659 


Wales Associatior 


, Prince of t'. 


r. Symonds 268 


1486, 2116 


Waffle v. Yanderheyden 


£39, 1667 


Palmer 




204 


v Taylor 


74 


Waggoner v. Gray 


1228, 1229, 


Walford v. 




197, 279 


v. Wainwright 


1626 




1250 


Walker, Re 


106,108 


851, 1433. 


v Walker 118,323,726 


, 1342. 1660 


t\ Wolf 


1120 






1608 


v. Ware, &c, R. Co 


1221 


Wagner v. Cohen 


1277 


v. Armstrong 




418 


v. Wheeler 


1657 


v. Mears 


41, 43 


v. Beanlands 




1844 


v. Wild 


1763, 1767 


v. Railway Co. 


1614 


v. Berry 




840 


v. Wildman 


575 


Wagstaff v. Bryan 


352, 729 


v. Blackmore 




159 


v. Wingfield 


1303, 1312 


v. Read 


677 


v. Blakeman 




63 


r. Wocdward 


857, 1189 


Waine v Crocker 


561 


v Bradford Old Bank 


199 


v. Zorn 


1624 


Wainford v Heyl 


187 


r. Brewster 


261, 


1635, 1637 


Walklin r. Johns 


28 


Wainwright v. SeweJl 


795. 1395 


v Brooks 




197, 1654 


Walkup v. Zehring 


341 


Waite r Bingley 


877, 1157 


v. Brown 




1556 


Wall o. Bushby 74, 


v Morland 


123, 179 


v Bunke'.l 




1168 


v. Cockerell 


2270 


v. Semple 


1212 


v. Burchnall 




1716 


v. Fairley 


191 


t\ Tern pier 


218 


v. Campbell 




737 


v. Livezay 


850 


v. Waite 


1213 


V. Carey 




1003 


v. Rogers 


67, 68, 119 


t\ Wingate 


790 


v Chicago Cou 


■ier Co. 


1030 


v. Stubbs 658, 686, 68 


7, 688, 732, 


Wakalee v. Davis 


560 


v Christian 




1704, 1714 




733 


Wake v. Conyers 


1164 


v. Clarke 




1642 


v. Thomas 


149 


v Parker 


108, 109 


v. Crowder 




75 


Wallace v. Auldjo 


92. 106 


Wakefield v. Buccleugh, 


Duke 


v Crystal Palace D. G 


Po 1440 


v. Castle 


1468 


of 


16«6 


v. Devereaux 


385, 


388, 1614, 


v. Clark 


2379, 2397 


V. Childs 


1166 






1618 


r. Greenwood 


1346 


v. Llanelly Railway and 


Dock 


v. Drury 




102 


v Holmes 


292 


Co. 


654, 670 


r. Duncan 




860 


v. Loomis 


860, 1731 


v. Marr 


165 


v. Easterby 




28 


r Mease 


915 


r Newton 


1842 


v. Ferrin 




68 


v. Pat ton 


1503 


Wakeham ;• Lome 


168 


p. Fletcher 




394, 1562 


r Railroad Co. 


359 


Wakelin v. Walthal 


843 


v. Gilbert 




1531 


v. Sortor 


329, 1561 


Wakeman v. Bailey 


299 


t; Grady 




1073 


v. Taliaferro 


115 


v Gillespy 


1676. 1677 


v. Hallett 


145, 161 


. 286. 457, 


v. Wallace 


737. 760 


v. Grover 214, 2 






1299, 1457 


r. Wilson 


1062 




844 


v. Hill 




737 


v. York 


1081 


v. Kingsland 


1561 


v. Hull 




68 


Wallack v. Society, &c 


1620 


v. Rutland, Duchess of 


1262 


v. Hurst 




461 


Wallamet Iron Bridge 


Co. e 


Walbanke v. Sparks 


1567 


v. Jefferies 




294 


Hatch 


l.'SO 


Walbridge v English 


215 


v. Jones 




1663 


Wallasey Local Board v. Gracey 12 



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



CXX111 



Wallaston v. Tribe 
Walleu v. Williams 
Waller v. Bassett 

v. Demint 

v. Hanger 

v. Harris 

v. Pedlington 

v. .shannon 

v. Taylor 

v. Turner 
Walley v. Walley 
Walling v Beers 



852 

1042, 1056 

1207 

560 

14 

999, 1619, 2222 

804, 805 

334 

334 

1034 

150 

629 



Wallingford v. Mutual Society 

324, 371 
Wallis, Re 

v. Dai by 

v. Frazier 

V. Hirsch 

v. HoJ;son 

V Ho Ison 

V. Morris 

V. Portland, Duke of 

V. Portland 



1414 
515 
365 

1862 

858, 875 

67 

277 

563 

1558 

1277 

1029, 1030 

794, 808, 1395 

1665 

508 

42 

392, 1558 

1476 

1250 



V Sarel 
v Thomas 
V. Wallis 
v Willis 

Wallop v. Brown 

v. Warburton 

Walmsley !', Child 

v. Foxhall 

v Walnislev 

Wallworth v Holt 26, 239, 241. 332 

Wallwyn V Lee 676, 677 

Walpole v. Cooper 354 

Walrond v. Parker 1452 

v Walrond 1404 

Walser v. Seligman 26 

Walsh, Re 108 

v. Gilmer 383 

v. Ma«on lu41 

v. Memphis &c. R. Co. 26 

v. Smyth 402, 406, 422, 1479 

V Trevannion 170 
v. United States 10 
v. Walsh 68, 73, 1355, 1359, 

1802 
v. Wason \i<h 

v Wright 860 

Walsham v Stainton 337,571,577, 
1834 

Walsingham, Lord v Goodrieke 572 
578, 943, 1834 

Walter v Baltimore Bank 1461 

v. Fow'er 354 

v. Glanville 625, 669 

v. MeNabb 840 

v. Maunde 1433 

v Patey 13 >6 

V. Riehl 214 

v. Rutter 909 

v. Saunders 124 

v Selfe 1635,2307 

v. Steinkopff 1381, 1643 

Walters, In re Moore v. Bemrose 

1434 
Re, Neison v. Walters 838 

v. Anglo-American M. & T. Co 

1738 
v Northern Coal M. Co. 708 

v. Upton 1775 

v. Walters 216, 1425 

v. Webb 649', 1448 

v. Woodbridge 68, 1233 

Walthall v. Riyes 314 

Waltham, Ex parte 1611 

v. Broughton 1378 

Waltham Bank v. Waltham 1241 

Walton )> B.oadbent 354, 785 

v. Cody 371 

v. Coulson 170, 2»7 

v. Detroit C. & B. R. Mills 1561 
V. Herbert 441 

v Hill 1771 

v. Hobbs 840 

v. Johnson 1614, 1743 

v. Perkins 378 



Walton v United States 129 

v Van Mater 980 

v Walton 845 

v Westwood 360, 545 

v. Withingion 1Z42 

Wambaugh c. Gates 1276 

Wainburzee v. Kennedy 417,419,644, 

645 

Wamesit Power Co. v. Sterling 

Mills H50 

Wampler v. Wolfinger 52 i 

Wand v. Docker 1036 

Wandsworth, &c Co v. Wright 241 
Wankford v. Wankford 1772 

Wanklyn v. Wilson 1780 

Wanmaker v Van Buskirk 644, 844 
Wanneker v Hitchcock 553 

Wanner v. Sisson 868 

Warbass v. Armstrong 1417 

Warbritton v. Demorett 545 

Warburton v. Kdge 1843 

v. Hill 1039, 1040, 1694, 1616 

v. London and Blackwall Rail- 
way Co. 424,593,1675 



Ward, Re 

v. Alton 
v. Amory 
v. Arch 
v Arredondo 
v. Bassett 
v. Booth 



v. Cartwright 
v Clay 
v. Cooke 
v. Cornwall 
V- Davidson 
v. Eyre 
v Gamgee 
v. Higgs 
v. Hill 



160, 1361, 1607, 1736, 
1814 
1181 
93, 96, 97 
653 
149, 1032, 1627 
223 
401, 407, 1055, 105 



v Hollins 
v. Jewett 
v. Kent 
v. Longsden 
v. Lowndes 
v. Macliinlay 
v. Meath 



538, 1510, 1529 

588 

346, 1291 

1059 

1381 

1257 

744 

1072 

1073, 1076, 1077, lo80, 

1463 

257, 1276 

1296, 1318 

1576 

476 

1271 

1265, 1390, 1424 

185 



v. Northumberland, Duke of 310 
v Paducah & M R. Co. 1168 

v. Parlin 417 

v. Patton 418 

v Peck 547 

v. St Paul ' 1352 

v Sebring 447 

v Seymour 280 

v. Shakeshaft 236,710,1036,1425, 
1525 

V Sheffield 4^8 

v. Sittingbourne &c. Ry. Co 26, 
5S5. 5! '9 
P. Society of Attorneys 1050 

v. Swift 454,455, 1741, 1743, 

1750, 1755 
r. Trathen 1276 

V. Van Bokkelin 107, 1877 

v. Ward 37, 38, 64, 75. 7''. 32 

■3 17.300,807,814, 1320, 1411 



P. Waterman 
v. Whitfield 
v. Woodcock 
v. Wyld 

V Yates 
Ward's Case 
Warde, Re 

V Dickson 
v. Warde 



230 

402 
503 
1408 
102, 103, 108, 1432 
156 
1791 
826, 1276 
576, 578, 1«34. 
1863 
Warden v. Borts 1412 

Wardlaw v Erskine 1172 

Wan lie v Carter 1027 

v. Claxton 596, 1671 

Wardman v Belliouse 1127 

Wards v Billups 1883 

Wardsboro v. Whittingham 1625 
Wardwell v. Wardwell 1350 



Ware v. Cumberlege 16 

"• Curry 334, 559 

v. Galveston City Co 560 

v. Grand Junction Water 

Works Co 1020 

v. Horwood 1022 

v Supreme Sitting Order 1743 

v. Watson 1286, I288 

Warfield v Banks 7^9 

v Fisk 83 

Waring?; Crane 71,78 

v. Lockett 808 

v. Robinson 794 

v. Tnrton 2<mj 

Waringtou v Wheatstone 1561, 

1562, 1563, 1567 

Warman r Zeal 996,1028 

Warne v. Routledge 187. 1644 

Warner, Re Kyi 

v Armstrong 1380, 1602 

v. Baynes H57 

v. Burton 14S4 

v. Daniels 550, {'Ah 

v. De Witt County Bank 214 

v. Gouveruour 1717 

v Hare 1299 

v. Jacob 644. 652 

v. McMillin 1621 

v. United States Land Co. 364 

v. Warner 109, 1120, 1580 

Warnig v. Manchester, Sheffield, 

& Lincolnshire Railway Co. 1600 

Warren, Re 100 

v. Buck 109 

v. Burton 214 

v. Fursteuheim 1507 

v Hofer 13,55 

v. Hoi brook 564 

v. Howard 200 

v. Marcy 281 

v. Moody 409 

v. Postlethwaite 430, 1432 

r. Swiuburi.e 892 

v. Twilley 982 

v. Warren 334, 335, 341, 

711 

v. Williams 1159 

Warrick v. Hull 1548 

v. Queen's College i'39, 

243, 398, 984, 985, 1817, 1827 

Warring v. Freear 1073 

Warrington v Sadler 208 

Warter v Anderson 1417 

Warthen v. Brantley 302, 337 

Warthy r Shields " 1073 

Wartman v. Swindell 329 

Wartnaby v. Wartnaby 86 

Warwick v. Bruce 1133 

v. ('<>x 798 

Earl of v Beaufort, Duke of 806 

Charities, /,', 1855, 1856 

Wash v Beard 458 

Washburn V Great Western Ins. 

Co. 1981 

Washburn >K" Mncn Manuf Co 

v Chicago G W F. Co. 230 

V. Patterson g2 

Washineton v Emery 1613, 1619 
v. Parks 1624 

Washington Bank V Eccleston 1031 
Washington Sc G. R. Co. v. Dis- 
trict of Columbia ]820 
Washington &c. K. Co. v. Brad- 
leys 830 23«2 
Wasliington Bridge Co. r Stewart 9^6 
Washington City, &c. R. Co v. 

Southern Md It Co. 1461 

Washington Ins Co v Slee 1513 
Washington University 0. (ireen 

1613, 1677 
Washoe Mining Co. v Ferguson 

26, 29, 82, 1553 

Waska V Klaisner 1221 

Wasney V. Tempest 579. 580, 1832 

Wason v. Sanborn 1613, 1631,1635, 

1637, 1689, 1640 

v Westminster Imp. Com'rs 157S 



CXXIV 



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



Wastell v. Leslie 1440, 1525, 1697, 
1745,1753, 1797 
Waterhouse v. Comer 1743 

v. Wilkinson 1285, 1291 

v. Worsnop 83 

Waterlow v Bacon 553, 1623 

v. Burt 1213, 1428 

v. Stiarp 1723 

Waterman v. Banks 1320 

v. buck 715, 1168, 1221, 1517 

v. Clark 565 

r. Curtis 1247 

v. Dutton 1075, 1079, 1110, 

1111 
V. Shipman 1716 

Waters v. Barton 1743 

v. Chambers 691 

v. Couily 1076 

v. Creagh 846 

v. Glanville 625 

v. Mayhew 688, 703 

v. Perkins 559 

v. Shaftsbury, Earl of 563, 857, 
1835 
v Taylor 332, 508, 1727, 1728, 
1S41 
v. Travis 1495 

v. Waters 448, 1121, 1124, 1275 
Waters P. O. Co v. Little Kock 1620 
Waterton v. Burt 1428 

v. Croft 447, 448, 601, 740, 1551 
Watertown o Cowen 302, 930 

Watford Burial Board, Re 1852 

Wattord & Rickmansworth Rail- 
way Co. r. London & North- 
Western Railway Co. 551, 671 
Watkin v. Parker 501, 503 

Watkins v. Atchison 910, 1117, 1574 
v. Brent 251, 1725, 1726 

v. Bush 597 

v. Carlton 1120 

t». Harwood 639 

v. Hatchet 676 

v. Jerman 1062 

v. Law ton 1576 

V. Maule 1213 

v. Scottish Imperial Ins. Co. 149 
v. Stockett 361,843 

v. Stone 607, 662, 683, 703 

v. Washington 190 

Watkyns v. Watkyns 104, 107 

Watlington v. llowley 281 

Watmore V. Dickson 959 

Watney v. Trist 332, 1660 

Watson, Re 99, 1802 

Ex parte 157 

». Bennett 1860 

v. Birch 1211, 1289, 1290 

v. Bvrd 544 

v. Cave 245, 1461 

v. Citizens' Sav. Bank 1841 

r. ('leaver 822, 870, 890 

v. Cox 341 

v Dennis 119 

v. Ferrell 1638 

v. Fuller 1255 

v. Great Western Ry. Co 1137 

t>. Hawkins 583 

v. Holliday 157 

v. Life 414 

v. Lion Brewing Co. 190 

v. Loveday 1525 

v. Lvon 1843, 1845 

v. Manhattan Ry. Co. 1071 

v. Marshall 97, 101, 102, 108 

V- Murray 368 

V Northumberland, Duke of 

1152, 1154, 1159, 1160 
v. Palmer 846 

v. Parker 984, 1003, 1558, 1934 
v. Reeve 1131 

v. Renwick 1828 

t> . Rodwell 354, 880, 1003, 1841 
v. Row 1409, 1410, 1449 

v. Smith 974 

v Stevens 1576 

v Stockett 846 



Watson r. Sutro 2027 

v. Olbricht 1284 

v. Waruock 1350 

v. Wells 328 

V. Whitmore 1127 

v Wigginton 1551 

v. Williams 986 

Watt v. Barnett 447 

v. Cobb 1622 

v. Crawford 1533 

v. Leach 83 

v. Watt 758 

Watteu v. Billam 29, 30, 359, 1553 

Watters v Jones 215 

Watts, lie 1393, 1589 

Re, Smith v. Watts 1327 

v Adler 630 

v. Eglinton, Lord 418, 588, 598 

v Gayle 271 

v Hughes 448 

v. H\de 292,384,418 

v. Jefferyes 1040. 1041, 1694 

v Kelly 28, 358, 359 

v. Lawrence 1829 

v. Martin 1287, 1288, 1290 

v. Overstreet 1051 

v. Penny 1458, 1555, 1559 

v. Porter 1040 

v. Steele 1358 

v. Sweeney 1548 

v. Svmes 213, 1489 

v. Thomas 127 

v. Tittabawassee Boom Co. 1381 

o. Waddle 989, 1032, 1033 

v. Watts 899, 1520 

Waugelin v Goe 1661,1679 

Waugh, Re 110 

v. Riley 46 

v- Schlenk 517 

v. Wren 189 

Wauters v. Van Vorst 1714 

Wavell v. Mitchell 200 

v. Watson 1638, 1661, 1C63 

Way v Bragaw 237, 338, 559, 632, 

633,634 

v. Fov 1468, 1470 

t;. Mullett 1918 

Way land v. Tysen 354 

Wayn v. Lewis 285, 1266 

Wayne County S Bankr. Airey 1561 

Wead ?'. Cantwell 68 

Weak v. Calloway 1134 

Weakley v Pearce 1003 

Weale v. West Middlesex Water 

Works 243 

Wearing v. Ellis 60, 62 

Weatherhead v. Blackburn 581, 586 
Weatherley V Ross 1638 

Weatherspoon v. Carmichael 324 
Weaver v Alter 1548 

v. Field 634 

v. Livingston 402, 524 

r. Miss Boom Co. 1638 

v. Poyer 1625 

Webh v. Bvng 1001 

v. Claverden 552,1148,1149, 

1383, 1384, 1385 
v. Crawford 860 

v. De Bcauvoisin 1428 

v. Direct London and Ports- 
mouth Railway Co 1020 
v. East 5fi4. 879, 943 
v. England 315, 542, 1394 
v. Foster 354 
v. Fox 58 
v. Fuller 639 
V Hunt 1638 
v. Kirbv 202 252 
v. Pell "841, 1576, 1577, 1579, 1583 
v. Plummer 1656 
v. Portland Manuf. Co. 303, 1639 
v. Robbins 860 
v. Rose 1647 
v. Salmon 448 
v. Shaftesbury, Earl of 1263, 
1342, 1366 
v. Shaw 1320 



Webb v. Vermont Central R. Co 193 



v. Ward 
v. Wardle 
v. Webb 

v. York 
Webb's Appeal 

Ca-e 
Webber o. Gage 

v. Hunt 



v Randall 

v. Taylor 

v. Webber 
Weber v. Weitling 
Webster, Re 
Armstrong 



58 

407, 1509, 1530 

730, 974, 995, 1234, 

1413, 1575 

1244 

119, 121 

1647 

317, 1637 

1013, 1251, 

1252 

1029 

247, 287 

1795 

1289, 1305 

1840 

659 



British Empire Assurance 



Co. 

v. Diamond 

v. Dillon 

v. Friedeberg 

v. Guy 

v. Hall 

v. Harwinton 

v. Higgins 

v. Hill 

r. Hitchcock 

v. Leigh Hunt 

v. McDaniel 

v. Manby 

v. Peet 
Power 



203, 1257 
1584 

1654, 1656 

1129 

37 

1561 



1274 

993, 1516, 1523 

1843, 1844 

1564 

812, 1378, 1379, 

1450 

860, 1628 

324,325 



v. South-Eastern Railway Co. 1631 

v. Taylor 1063 

v. Thompson 801 

v. Threlfall 313, 719 

v. Webster 615, 648, 1648 

v. Whewall 885, 896 

v. Woodford 83 

Webster Loom Co v. Higgins 1120 

Weddall v. Nixon 1402 

Wedderbum v. Wedderburn 95, 800, 

817, 1250, 1614, 1618, 1628 

Wedderburne v. Llewellyn 1597, 

1601, 1602 

v Thomas 519 

Wedgwood v Adams 995, 1405, 

1423, 1427 

Wedlake v. Hutton 683 

Wedmore v. Bristol, Mayor of 1081, 

1650 

Weed v. Small 665, 667, 668, 1548, 

1551 

v Mutual Ben. Life Ins Co. 852 

Weeding v Mason 1142 

Weeding 398, 1803 



Weeks v Cole 

v. Evans 

v Heward 

v Milwaukee, &c. R. Co 

v Stourton 

v. Weeks 
Weems v. Brewer 
Weeuer v. Brayton 
Weguelin v. Lawson 
Wehle v Loewy 
Weide r. Porter 
Weider v Clark 
Weigel v. Walsh 
Weighley v Coffman 
Weightman v. Powell 
Weil v Lehmayer 
Weinberg r Weinberg 
Weinreich v. Weinreich 
Wei.% Blatter of 

v. Goetter 
Weise v Wardle 



31 
233 
h 13 
669 



Weisman v. Heron Mining Co. 

v. Smith 
Weiss v Dill 
Wekett v. Raby 
Welby v Still 
Welch v Barber 

v. Bunce 



1150 

1283 

1648 

1045 

354 

196 

837 

1631 

790 

410, 425, 522 

1411 

815 

216 

177 

1734 

157, 256 



626. 
717 
1550 
1235 
1466 
1069 
1069 



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



cxxv 



Welch v. Knott 


1649 


v. Lewis 


1546 


v. Welch 


430 


Welchman, Re 


102 


Weld v. Bon ham 


237, 544 


Weldhen 8. Scattergood 


111 


Weldon v. Gounod 


150 


v. Neal 


418 


v. Riviere 


87 


v. Winslow 


87 


Welford V. Daniell 


501 


v. Liddel 


641 


v. Stainthorpe 


1833 


Wellbeloved V. Jones 


137, 138 



Wellborn s. Tiller 346, 559, 586 

Welter v. Fifzhugh 1413 

Wellesley v. Beaufort 2293 

v. Beaufort, Duke of 1346, 1347, 

1348, 1349 

v. Mornington 38, 39, 111, 16!l4, 

1760 

v. Wellesley 37, 38, 42. Ill, 588, 

598, 1019, 1021, 1061, 1346, 1347, 

1349, 1483, 1633 

Lord v. Mornington, Earl of 

523, 1673, 1683, 1685, 2127 
Wellesley's Case 1070 

Welling v. La B au 1120, 1320 

Wellington 8. Mackintosh 671 

Wellman v. Howland C. & I. 

Works 26 

Wells, Ex parte 57 

Re 37 

v. Beall 1151, 11 >5 

v. Bridgeport, &c. Co. 344, 360 

v. Cooper 10! 12 

v Dayton 1661 

v. Fish 645, 915 

v. Gibbs 1039, 1409, 1694 

v. Glen 1176 

v Houston 844 

v. Kilpin 1037, 1718 

v. London, T. & S. Ry. Co 1639 

v. Malbon 87, 123, 179, 1113 

v. Miner 1561 

v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co. 349 

v. Partri Ige 334 

v Roloson 1771 

v. Sewell's Point Guano Co. 334, 

559 

v Smith 68, 369, 538 

v. Strange 190, 216, 269, 342, 385 

v. Stratton 731, 841 

v- Vermont R Co. 1675 

v. Wales 1753 

v. Wood 778, 780, 782 

Wells. Fargo, & Co l\ Miner 60 

v Oregon Ry & Nav. Co. 1683 

Wells' Will Case 874 

Weltnan v Welman 852 

Welsh v. Solenberger 517 

Welton c. Dickson 16^0 

Weltzler v Shaunman 12K4 

Wendell, Matter of 2337 

v French 1234, H14 

v Highstone 890 

v. Lewis 1448, 14S6 

v. Van Rensselaer 190, 238, 2271 

Wenham, He, Hunt v. Wenham 

643 

v. Bowman 1047 

v. Switzer 8!K) 

Wenman, Lord v Osbaldiston 504 

Wenn v. Wenn 1362 

Wenner v. Thornton 991 

Wentworth v. Lloyd 919, 943, 1440, 

1503, 1504 

Werdermann 8. Societe Generale 

d'Electricite" 287, 559 

Werner v. Reinhardt 991 

Wernwagg v. Brown 1002, 1255 

Wesket V. Carnevali 1672 

Wesling v. Schrass 611 

WesselU v. Wessells 857, 992, 1599 
Wesson v. Washburn Iron Co. 1635 
West, In re 65 

v. Chamberlain 284 



West w Coke 


424 


v. Davis 


9 


v. Duncan 


l!)0 


v. Hall 


361 


v. Jones 


1392, 1399 


v. McMullan 


601 


v. Ma) or of New York 


1620 


v. Miller 


212 


v. Paige 


1,961 



v. Randall 149. 190, 200, 217, 

219, 224, 236, 238, 239, 240, 2ft6, 

334, 342 

v. Shaw 1576 

v. Skip 1249, 1586 

v. Smith 290, 443, 643, 1603, 

1611, 1667, 1675 

v. Swan 1734 

v. Swinburne 799, 1617 

v. Tvlor 313 

l'. Utica 1381 

p. Vincent 1292 

v. Walker 1639 

v. Weaver 1716 

v. White 1071, 1114 

West Boylston Manuf. Co. v. 

Searle 195 

Westbrook Manuf. Co. v. Warren 1639 
Westbrook's Trusts 1610 

Westbury-on-Severn Rural Sani- 
tary Authority B Meredith 329 
Westby v. Westby 70, 77, 1039, 1722 
Westcott » Cady 1546 

v. Culliford 1405 

West Devon Great Consols Mine, 

He 974 

Westerfield v. Bried 748 

Western v. Macdermott 324, 1654 
Western Benefit Building Soci- 
ety, Re 891 
Western of Canada Oil Lands 
Co., In re 903,906,942 
v. Walker 26 
Western Division R Co v. Drew 

2391, 2392, 2395 
Western Ins. Co v. Eagle Fire 

Ins. Co. 214 

Western Land Co. v. Guinault 

334, 559 
Western National Bank v. Perez 149 
Western Pacific R Co. v. United 

States 8 

Western Ry. v. McCall 418 

Western Reserve Bank v. Potter 215 
v. Stryker 778, 780 

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Am- 
erican Bell Tel Co. 790 
v. Western & A. R Co. 1618 
Westf ill v. Scott 296 
Westfield b. Skipwith 1555, 1558 
West Hartlepool Ry. Co. v. 

Jackson 1513 

Westhead v. Riley 1716 

v. Sale 965 

Westinghouse Air-Brake Co. v. 

Carpenter 1642 

Westlake v. Farrow 334 

W'estley B. Williamson 1382, 1421 
Westmeath b. Salisbury 1003 

West Midland Railway Co. v 

Nixon 230 

Westminster & Brymbo Colliery 

Co. v. Clayton 1824 

Dean of ;» Cross 689 

v Willard 601 

Westmoreland B. Martin 1168 

Westmoreland Co. v. F'ielden 60 

West of England Bank v. Can- 
ton Ins Co. 1556 
v Nickolls 720 
Weston v. Berkeley 678 
v Bowes 262 
v Clowes 1437 
v Empire Assurance Co. 327, 829, 
855. 859 
v Haggerston 1031, 1321 
V. Hunt 23 
v. Jay 1186 



Weston v Keighley 2C3 

v Watts 1746 

Weston's Case 1485 

Westover B, Chapman 1411 

West Portlaud H. Ass'n t. Lowns- 

dale 639 

West Retford Church Lands, Re 

1854 

W. Va Oil Co. v. Vinal 1548 

Westwood, lie 1356 

Wetenhall B. Dennis 1423. 1437 

Wetherell B. Collins 259, 260, 1387 

Wetmore v. Dyer 458 

B. Fiske 1548 

v. Harper lul9 

v St Paul & P R. Co. 1584 

Wetteuhall r. Davis 1423, 1437 

Weymouth v. Boyer 219, 382. 885_, 



v. Lambert 
Whalan v. Cook 
Whale v. Griffiths 
Whalen v. Olmstead 
Whaley v Braucker 

v. Dawson 

v. Norton 
Whalley v Ramage 

v. Suffield, Lord 

v. Whalley 
Wham v. Love 
Wharam )\ Broughton 



1407, 1467 
448 
1576 
743 

108 

1632, 1666 

33!". 1161 

348, 852 

1410 

795, 977, 1380 

645, 1848 

1233 

172, 188, 



1032, 1(154. 1U58, 1059, 1060, 1543 
Wharton b. May 1032, 1626, 1627 



B. Stoutenburgh 

v. Swann 

?> Wharton 
Whatton v. Craddock 
Wheat v . Graham 7! 

v. Griffin 
Wheatcraft, In re 
Wheatcroft V Hickman 
Wheatley, Re 

v. Bastow 



1461 
413 
726 

1259 
J, 742, 769. 

1837 
328 

1849 

1503 
123 

1840 



v. Westminster Brymbo Col- 



liery Co 
Wheaton v. 
Co. 



1663. 1741. 1861 
Atlantic Powder 

411 
13!'l 
1638 
1646 
87 



v. Graham 

v. Maple 

t;. Peters 

v. Phillips 
Wheeler, Re 

v Alderman 

v. Bartlett 

v Bedford 

v. Gill 

v. Howell 

v. Le Marchant 

v. Matins 

V. Perry 

v. Piper 

v. Trotter 

v. United Kingdom Tel. Co. 

v. West 

Wheeler, &c. Man. Co. v. Shakes- 
peare 1649 
Wheelhouse v. Calvert 800 
Wlieelock, Re 1718 

B. Lee K'71 

Wlielan B. Cook 1578 

V. Sullivan 182,426 

Wheldaleo. Partridge 1405 

Whelplev v. Van Epps 745 

Whereattu Ellis 1168, 1461 

Whetley Brick & P. Co., He 1756 
Whetstone o. Daviefl 1072 

Whicherley r Whicherlev 122 

Whicker v Hume 1383, 1436, 143 



1299 
441 
659 

1253 

652 

573 

63, 64, 814. 1679 

2010 
615 

a53 

354 

339 



Whipple r. Brown 

?'. Dow 

V. Fair Haven 

V. Whitman 
Whistler, The 

v. Ay 1 ward 

v. Newman 

v. Webb 



11 <-8 

1358, 1360 

378 

974 

759 

1044 

1418 

250 



CXXV1 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 
[The references are to the star paging. ] 



Whistler v. Wigney 724 

Whitaker, In re 85, 1351 

v. Dillard lt*>l 

v Forhes 629 

t'. Leach 1027 

v. Newman 1075 

v. Thurston 1175 

v. Wi.ker.sham 1621 

v Wright 1192, 1194, 1209, 1210, 

1615 

Whitbeck v. Edgar 337, 557, 1548 

Wuitbread v. Gurney 578 

v. Lyall 997 

r. Roberts 1266 

Whitby, Be 86 

Whitchurch, Ex parte 467 

v. Bevis 365, 619, 657 

r. Golding 392, 393, 1558 

Whitcomb v. Minchin 160, 1534, 

1540 

White, Re 192 

972 

313 



r. Allatt 
i'. Baker 
r. Bank of U. S. 
t' Barker 
v. Bartlett 
v. Barton 
v. Baugh 
v. Bigelow 
v. Bower 
v. Boyce 
v. Bromige 
Brown 



658 
724 
214 
1772 
1751 
334 
1551 
552 
36, 39, 423. 598 
999, 1000, 1241, 1246 
v. Buccleugh, Duke of 1503 

v. Buloid 1548, 1549, 1550, 1552, 
1553 
1029 
• 371 
555 
222 
109, 1635, 1637, 1638 



v. Butcher 

v. Campbell 

v. Carpenter 

v. Chitty 

v. Cohen 

v. Cox 

v. Curtis 287, 288, 342 

v. Davis 390 

v. Delschneider 293 

V. Duvernay 

v Eastern Union Railway 

Company 
v. Empire Assoc. Co. 
V. Fitzhugh 



1085 

368 

1544 

1401 

350, 922, 951. 959, 

1486 

1052, 1053 

778, 783 

1&59 

29,30 

1390 

153. 604 

734, 737, 778, 844, 

846, 1042, 1298, 1315, 1317, 1318 

Hayward 1059, 1060 

96, 98, 100 

893 

177, 405 

214 

592, 785 

1077 

1416. 1419 

1748 

211, 261 

798, 1302. 1314, 1320. 

1322 

f. Jones 1655 

V. Kennedy 269 

V. Kibling 1118 

v. Lee 843 

v. Lisle 1082, 1119, 1137, 1139, 
1149, 1379, 1467, 1476 



v. Foljambe 
v. Fussell 

v. Geraerdt 

v. Godbold 

v. Grane 

v. Greathead 

t'. Gudgeon 

v. Ball 

v. Hampton 



v Herrick 
v. Hess 
v. Hinton 
v. Holman 
v. Howard 
v. Hussy 
v. Jackson 
v. James 
v. Jameson 
v. Johnson 



v. Lowgher 

t'. North West Stage Co. 

v. Okisco Co. 

v. Owen 

t>. Park 

V. Parnther 

v. Pearce 



629 
1491 
1317 
195 
286 
1586 
1846 



White v. Peterborough, Bishop 
of 1390, 1424, 1719, 1730 

v. Robinson 68 

v Secor 221 

v. Smale 322, 360, 1725, 1748 

v. Soto 402 

17. Steinwacks 1678 

v. Steward 433, 1517 

v. Story 115J 

v. Taylor 923 

v. Tommey lu29 

v. Utlev 1461 

v. Walker 1031, 1296, 13»1 

v. Warner 1659 

v. White 339, 346, 559, 779, 1263, 
1551, 2320 
v. Williams 724, Vs31, 1238 

v. Wilson 852, 1124. 1149, 1287, 
1290, 1383, 1384 
v. Yaw 361 

White's Creek Turnpike Co. v. 

Davidsou County 1637 

White Star C G. M. Co., Re 417 
Whiteaves r. Melville 204 

Whitebread v. Brockhurst 365, 607, 
608, 656 
Whitecotton v. Simpson 328 

Whitehall Lumber Co. v. Ed- 
mans 354 
Whitehaven Bank v. Thompson 448 
Whitehead v Bellamv 1166 
v. Bennett 1703, 1705, 1749 
v. Cunliffe 783 
v- Eutwhistle 1071 
v. Kitson 1620, 1642, 1644 
v. Lvnes 611, 1063, 1755 
v. North 1O30 
v. Shattuck 1071 
Whitehouse v. Hemmant 1127 
f. Partridge 1702, 17o5, 
1712 
Whitehurst v. Coleen 1071 
Whitelegg v Whitelegg 1669 
Whiteley, Re, Whiteley v. Lea- 
royd 1035 
v. Davis 1505 
Whiteley & Roberts, Re 1860 
Whitelocke v. Baker 43 
Wbiteman's Estate 1282 
Whitenach v. Stryker 852 
Whiteside v. Puiliam 1170, 1175, 
1317 
Whitesides v. Dorris 90 
v Lafferty 570, 1741, 1752 
White Water Valley Canal Co. 

?• Comegvs 1565 

Whitfield, Ex parte 1354, 1364 

v. Aland 1099 

v. Evans 334 

v. Lequeutre 1276 

v Priekett 1040, 1042, 1694 

v. Roberts 999, 1266 

Whitford v. Clark County 932 

Whiting v. Bank of V. S. 190. 294, 

994, 996, 998, 1019, 1575, 

1576, 1577, 1579 

v. Bassett 95, 893 

r. Hollister 3'i 

v. Rush 707 

)•. White 650 

v. Whiting 1150.2037 

Whitley v Honeywell 445, 448 

v Martin 855 

Whitlock B Marriot 312 

r. Willord 1461 

Whitman v. Abernathy 277 

V. Brotherton I486 

r. Fisher 553 

Whitmarsh v. Campbell 350, 402, 

406, 424, 759 

v Robertson 123, 1411 

Whitmore v. Francis 386 

v. Oxborrow 63, 814 

v. Rvan 449. 452 

v. Turquand 1770, 1780 

Whitney v. Belden 720, WXt, 1008, 



Whitney i\ Bigelow 


646 


v. Cotton 


216 


V. Cowan 


1560 


v. Demiug 


1386 


v. Fairbanks 


334 


v. Goddard 


647 



v. Leimiiuster Savings Bank 1320 
v. M'Kiuney 194, 197, 260 

p. Mayo 190,191,239,241,272 
v New York, Mayor &c. of 806 
v. Preston 830 

v. Sauche 546 

v. Smith 217, 280, 438 

v- Stearns 165 

v. Union Railway Co. 347, 1654 
v. Whitney 342 

Whitridge v. Whitridge 560 

Whitsett r. City Building As- 
sociation 1214,1411,1437 
Whittaker v. Fox . 398 
?'. Howe 1663 
r. Marlar 79, 80 
v Whittaker 1218 
Whittemore, Re 1716 
r. Ad;ims 48 
v. Amoskeag Nat. Bank 2398 
v. Cowell 256 
r Fisher 1320 
Whitten v. Jennings 1643, 1644, 
1670 
V. Sawyer 107 
v. Whitten 339 
Whittenton Manuf Co. v. Mem- 
phis & R. P. Co. 313 
Whitthorue v. St. Louis Mut. 

Life Ins. Co. 615, 682 

Whittingham, Re 122 

r. Burgoyne 587 

v. Wooler 1643, 1645, 1646, 

1681 
Whittingham's Trusts, Re 87, 179 
Whittingstall r. King »>" 

Whittington p. Edwards 244, 513, 
797,804 
v. Gooding 203, 253 

Whittle v. Artis 536 

v Henning 99, 119, 123 1225 

Whitton v. Jennings 1343, 1644, 
1670 
v. Wass 648 

v Whitton 279, 1150 

Whitwood v. Kellogg 1386, 1391, 
1393 
Whitwood Chemical Co v. Hard- 
man 1657 
Whitworth v. Davis 157 
v. Gaugain 1720 
v. Whyddon 251, 1485, 1488, 
1603. 1725 
Whopham v. Wingfield 81, 1429 
Whyman v. Legh 547 
Whvte v. Ahrens 666 
v. Whyte 851 
Wice ?'." Commercial Fire Ins. 

Co. 37 

Wich v. Parker 485, 761, 776 

Wichalse v. Short 1584 

Wiche'8 Case 125 

Wickenden r. Rayson 1025, 1027, 
1265, 1266 
Wickens r Townsend, Mar- 
chioness of 182, 1748 
Wickersham v. Crittenden 334 
v. Denman 1163 
Wickham, Re, Marony v. Tay- 
lor 354, 505, 797, 980, 1069, 
1453 
v. Evered 1774 
v. Hardy 1861 
r. Nicholson 1266 
Wickliffe r. Breckenridpe 281 
v. Clav 293, 1480, 1550 
Wick« v. Clutterbuck 1126 
v. Hunt 1081 
Widgery v. Tepper 117. 123. 438, 
1039, 1579, 1584 
Wiegleb v. Thomsen 1029 



Wier v Simmons 

V. Tucker 
Wier's Appeal 
Wigan v. Kowlaud 
Wiggin v. Heywood 



200 

722, 1720 

1696 

877 
236 



Wiggingtou v. Pateman 70U, 792 

Wiggins r. Bethune 74 

i° Peppin 307, 533, 1449 

v. Pryor 905,915 918. 930 

Wiggle c. Owen 994, 1492 

Wigglesworth v. Dallison 1656 

Wigham v. Measor 1263 

Wiglit v. Prescott 844 

Wightinan !'. Brown 1028 

v. Whieltou 821, 822, 823, 1070, 

2126 

Wigram v. Rowland 824 

Wike v. Lig'.itner 900 

Wilber e. Seldcn 1118 

Wilherforce b Hearfield 1103 

Wilbur v Collier 406 

v Tobey 40 

Wilcher V Robertson 1270 

Wilcocks v. Carter 1620 

v. Wlkocks 1054 

Wilcox v. Badger 659 

v. Davis 324 

v. Drake 1349 

v. Henry 49 

v. M Lean 1587 

V. Pratt 197 

v Saunders 313 

v Sturt 663 

v. Wheeler 1637, 1640 

v. Wilcox 4, 1352, 1478 

v. Wilkinson 1475 

Wilcoxon v. Wilkins 449, 401 

Wild v. Bauning 1205 

V.Gladstone 686,688 

v. Hobson 39, 796, 797, 1457 

v Murray 29, 359, 1553 

v. Wells 1166 

Wilde v. Gibson 328,382 

v. Jenkins 666, 668 

v. Lock hart 1390 

V. Walford 1409 

v. Wilde 795, 1380 

Wilder v Boynton 793 

v. Ember 68 

v. Keeler 1204, 1516, 1517 

v. Pigott 83 

Wildes !'. Dudlow 1200 

Wilding v. Andrews 1277, 1775 

v. Bean 149 

Wildman v. Lade 1027 

Wiles v. Cooper 730, 1413 

v. Hiles 101 

Wiley v Angel 284 

v. Pistor 885, 890 

Wilford v Beaseley 1552 

Wilbelm v. Byles 230 

Wilhelm'a Appeal 560 

Wilheui v. Keynolds 824 

Wilboit V. CunTiingham 313 

Wilkes v. Rogers 1316, 13">8 

v. Saunion 1'_'33 

v. Smith 214 

Wilkes's Case 7 

Wilkin v. Nainby 507, 508, 519, 

529, 1590 

v. Wilkin 379, 1151, 1106 

Wilkins o Aikin 1645, 1646 

v. Fry 227 

v. Kirkbride 277, 339 

v. May 8i5 

v Reeves 215 

v. Shalcroft 629 

V. Sibley 1691 

v Stevens 1319, 1589 

v Wilkins 526 

v. Williams 1738, 1739 

v Woodfln 846, 847 

Wilkinson, Re 1010 

v. Bauerle 542 

v. Beal 152, 170, 378. 379 

v . Belsher 37,40,42,301,406, 

414, 792 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Wilkinson /•. Bewick 1752 

v. Brewer 1436 

v. Castle 1103 

v. Charlesworth 92. 105. 113, 813 

v. Clements 1596, 1600, lo63 

v. Dobbie 233, 313, 349, 385 

v Dodd 349 

v. Fowkes 282, 982, 1531, 1533, 

1535 

w.Gibson 87,122, 179,349 

v. Hartley 990, 1408 

i;. Henderson 324 

v. Hensiiaw 1379, MX) 

v. Hull &c Dock Co. 1491 

v. Joberns 1103 

v. Letch 1301 

v. Lewis 29 

v. Lindgren 1427 

v- Malin 1138 

v. Oliver 165, 997 

v. Parish 1577 

v. Payne 1129 

v. Perrin 254, 1507 

v. Rutherford 1743 

v. Schneider 95 

v. rearcy 1561 

v. Stringer 912 

v. Trustees 1110 

v. Turner 520 

v. Wilkinson 997, 1235 

Wilks v. Fitzpitrick 98, 104 

Willan, lie 161 

v. Willan 956, 1189, 1196, 1197, 

1215, 1467, 1471, 1578, 1579 

Willard v. Fiske 1380, 1393 

v Sperry 330 

v. Willard 2027 

v. Wood 1071 

Willats v. Bushby 150 

v. Cay 96 

Willbauks v. Duncan 1680 

Willcock v. Terrell 1033, 1053 

Willcocks v. Butcher 1256 

Willcox v Bellaers 14"1 

Willenhall Chapel, Re 1852 

Willes v. Levett 815 

Willesford v Watson 671 

Willett v. Thiselton 1824 

v Woodharns 388 

Wm. Braufoot, The v. Hamilton 

1440, 1444 
William Rogers Manuf. Co. v. 

Rogers 1657 

Williams, Ex parte 1358,1658 

He 1844 

Re, Williams v . Williams 1034 
v. Adkyns 1434 

V. Allen 86, 201, 202, 218, 226,269 
1361, 1802 
v. Attenborough 1271, 1278, 1280, 
1292 
v. Attorney-General 811, 1725 

v. Ayrault 1027 

v. Baily 553 

v. Bank of M. 25 

v. Bankhead 149, 190, 191 

v- Hegnon 14^3 

v. Benet 1120 

c. Benton 1215 

v- Berry 328, 1070 

v. Bevnon 1466 

v. Bishop 1147 

v. Blakey 1073 

v. Bolton, Duke of 1630 

v. Brisco 561 

v. Broadhead 866, 870 

r. Butcher 14^5 

v. Carle 114 1552 

v. Carmarthen & Cardigan Ry 

Co. 1028," 1030 

v. Cassady 1434 

v Chard 1169, 1540 

v. Close 1024 

v. Cooke 1539 

v. Corwin 525 

v. Coward 87, 178 

v. Crosling 32 



CXXV11 



Williams v. Currie 1130 

v. D.ivies 763, 1097, 1624, 1609 
v. Day 194 

v. De Boiuville 1594 

v. Douglas 351 

v. Dunn 272 

v. Farrington 567 

v. First Presby't Society 324 

v. Gibbea 1206, 1207, 1208 

v. Gleuton 1471 

v. Goodchild I486, 1488, 1490, 

16H3 
v. Grant County Court 303 

V- Gray 838 

v. Great Western Railway 

Company 1093,1128 

v. Gue.-t 1U77, 1082 

v. Halbert 1505 

v. Hall 1676, 1677 

v. Headland 1207 

v. Hilton 1243, 1246 

v. Hintermeister 1716 

v. Hodgson 842 

v. Hollingsworth 678, 986 

v. Uoughtaling 1200 

v. Hubbard 271 

v. Jacksou 407, 1509, 1522, 1530 
v. Jenkins 17a6, 17^:9, 1734 

v. Jersey 324, 1654, 1663 

v. Johns 1069 

v. Johnson 1048 

v. Jones 210, 236, 367, 380, 707, 

1411 
v. Kinder 1508 

v. Knipe 859 

v. Lee 663, 664, 665 

v Llanelly Ry & Dock Co 266 

V- Llewellyn 852 

v. Longfellow 708 

v. M'Namara 1633 

V. Maitland 886 

v- Matthews 1561 

v. Mattocks 1395 

v. Mellish 1582 

v. Morgan 1746 

v. Neel 334, 345 

v. Neil 974 

v. Newton 493 

v. Nolan 1719 
v. Page 201, 203, 304, 809. 810, 
812, 994, 1021, 1022. 1027, 
1397, 1407 

v. Palmer 1459 

v. Parkinson 501 

v. Poole 203 

v- Pouns 1468 

v. Powell 1420 

v. Preston 1490 

v.Price 230,1074,1239 
v. Prince of Wales Life Co 1837 

v. Raggett 1032 

v. Rhodes 1276 

v. Roberts 1624 

v. Rome 314 

v. Rowland 807 

V Russell 190 

v. St. George's Harbor Co 1476 

v. Salmnnd 234, 242, 243, 94 

v- Savage Manuf Co 778, 779 

v. Sexton 314 

v. Shaw 380 

v. Smith 215, 200 

v- Sorrell 1391, 1395 

v. Starke 425 

v. Starr 860 

it. Steward 547 

v. Stewart 280, 1623 

v. Svmonds 1694, 1697 

v. Thomas 855, 1896 

v. Thompson 623. 5'24 

v. Thorn 1°37 

v. Unitea States 8, 328. 1120 

v. Vreeland 886. 951 

v. Wager 1299 

v. Walker 1668 

v. Ware 1794 



CXXV111 



Williams v. Watkina 
v. West 
V. Wheaton 
v. Whingates 
v. Wilcox 
v WilKins 



644 
341 
334 
232 
1127 
42 



v. Williams 248,251,252,266,679, 

823, 824, 843, 868, 870, 876, 

891, 9U6, 936, 1071, 1075, 

1163, 1384, 1484, 1485, 1525, 

1526, 1634, 1654, 1665 

v. Winans 280, 281, 1515, 1517. 

1531 

v. Woodruff 1290 

v Wright 1563 

v. Young 575 

Williamson v Barbour 371, 667 

v. Beckham 186 

v Belsher 38 

v. Dale 1284, 1286, 

1290 

v. Gordon 167 

v. Ha> cock 333. 841 

v. Hyer 1462 

v. Jeffreys 1005, 1517, 1525 

v. Johnson 997 

v. London & N. W. Ry. Co. 830 

v. Lonsdale 230,262 

v. M'Clintock 354 

v. Montgomery 1079 

V. More 951 

V. Naylor 1205 

v. New Albany R. Co. 1733 

v. New Jersey Southern R 

Co 220 

v. North Staffordshire Ry. Co 

1444 

V Seaber 2061 

v. Selden 256 

v. Smoot 24 

v. Swindle 1167 

V. Sykes 524,529 

v. Wilson 794, 1715, 1716, 1727, 

1728, 1745, 1747, 1764 

Willie v Lugg 213 

Williman r Holmes 266 

Willimautic Linen Co v. Clark 

Thread Co. 378, 1580 

Willimott v. Ogilby 1017 

Willing v. Consequa 48, 916 

Willingale v. Maitland 239 

Willingham v. King 369 

Willis v. Baddeley 1556, 1825 

v. Beauchamp 354 

V. Childe 774 

v. Corlies 1734 

v. Cowper 1033 

v- Evans 422 

v. Farrer 1122 

v. Garbutt 32 

V. Henderson 190, 238, 252 

v. Hiscox 1419 

t;. Howe, Earl 650 

v. Jernegan 666, 667 

v Parkinson 1029, 1164 

v Willis 170 

Williston v. Mich Southern and 

Northern Ind R. It. Co 

144, 190, 23S, 403 
v. Salmon 1561 

Willitts v Waite 1751 

Willmer v. Kidd 1744 

Willmott v. Barber 324. 1377, 1395 
Willoughby v Chicago Junction 

Railways &c. Co. 635 

v. Lawrence 1654 

v. Storer 13 

v. Willoughby 1726 

Wills, Re 37, 111, 351. 

1404 
v. Dunn 253 

v. Luff 999, 1037 

v. Mc Kinney 840 

v. Pauly 87, 109 

v. Pugh 807 

V. Slade 209 

V. Whitmore 281 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging ] 

Willson, Re, Att.-Gen. v Wood 

hall 406 

Willway, Re 1874 

Willyauis v Hodge 178 

Wilu.er r R/tilroad Co 1731, 1743 

Wilmington M. Co v. Allen 388, 

1614 

Wilinot v. Freehold H P Co 32, 

354,639 

v. Hellaby 1074 

v. Kellaby 1074 

v. Maccabe 566 

Wilson, Re 102, 1342, 2001 

v. Allen 990, 1408 

v. Augers 1279 

v. Applegarth 992 

v. Balcarres B. S. Co, 406 

f>. Itanium 1115 

v. Bates 605, 506, 507, 

797 
v. Beadle 402 

v. Beddard 1124. 1137 

v. Bellows 279, 559 

v. Bird 387 

v. Biscoe 279 

v. Blanco 142 

v. Brownsmith 1427 

v. Bull 1156 

v. Carver 837 

v. Chickering 197 

v. Church 19, 145, 272, 

406, 1469 
v. City Bank 290, 292 

v. City of Mineral Point 1631 

v. Clifton 897 

v. Cluer 1252 

v. Davidson County 197 

v. Davis 1463 

v. De Coulon 916 

v. Donaldson 887 

v. Doran 1770 

v. Eifltr 287, 1481 

v. Emmett 1844 

v. Ferrand 633, 800 

V. Forster 579 

v. Ginger 1114 

v. Grace 738 

v. Gray 398 

v. Green 1157 

v Greenwood 1727, 1728, 1729, 
1732, 1948 
v Gutteridge 1841 

v. Haecker 1081 

v. Hall 601 

v Hammonds 356, 620, 630 

n. Hart 1164, 1654 

v. Hayward 277 

v. Heaton 1428 

v. Hicks 1130 

v. Hill 586 

v. Hillyer 678 

v. Holcomb 846 

v. Hooil 1847 

v. Horr 378 

v. Hyatt 1624 

v. Kilcannon 652 

v. Lynt 346, 347 

v. McCullough 1624 

v. Marsh 1255 

v. Martin-Wilson A F. A. Co 149 
v. Me ne-ohas 68 

v. Metnilfe 506, 1052, 1148, 1241, 
1251,1319, 1369, 1370, 1393, 
1542 
V. Mitchell 91S 

v. Moore 200, 269 

v. New York, Mayor of 1661 

v. Northampton, &c R Co 573, 
578, 1080, 1834 
v. O'Leary 851 

v. Parker 834 

v. Polk County 369 

v. Rastall 575, 576 

v. Rhodes 268 

v. Riddle 797, 1073 

v. Roach 1364 

v Robertson 1627 



Mlson v Rockwell 


1638 


v. Round 


1847 


v. Kusling 


801 


v. Scruggs 


702 


v. Shawe 


497 


v. Shively 


12 


v. Smith 


892 


v Squire 


1427, 1431 


v. Stanhope 


243, 544, 602 


v. Stolley 


2385 


v. Thomson 


1406, 1448 


v. Thornbury 


884. 1077 


v. Todd 


1536, 1537, 




2060 


v. Towle 


737, 846 


v. Troup 


573 


V. Turner 


1361 


v. Union Bank 


21 


v. Watermau 


517 


v. Webb 


1577 


v Webber 


579, 1554 


t>. Welch 


1736, 1743 



v. West Hartlepool Ry. Co 1469, 
1470 
v. Weatherherd 817 

v. Wilson 307, 308, 553, 694, 810, 
936,1234, 1247, 1311 1481, 
1527, 1723, 1377 
v Win term ute 782 

Wilton » Clifton 746 

v. Hill 37,67,68,111,112,1779 
v. Jones 223, 257 

v. Rum ball 432 

Wiltshire, Re 1261 

v. Marshall 85, 908 

Wiltshire Iron Co., Re 1486 

Wil ts Railway Co , Re 1347 

Wimberg v. Schwegeman 1663 

Wimbleton Local Board v Croy- 
den Rural Sanitary Author- 
ity 1675 
Winans v Winans 844, 1271 
Winbourn.iJe 1743 
Winch v. Page 92 
Wincham Shipbuilding Co , Re 26 
Wiucliell v Coney 334 
Wiucbelsea v Garretty 1695 
r Wauchope 1124 
Winchelsea, Earl of v. Garettv 1077, 
1078, 1082, 1462 
Winchester v. Browne 830 
v. Evans 1627 
v. Jackson 664, 842, 1627 
v. Loud 149 
v. Winchester 165, 974, 1120, 
1439, 1576 1577 
Winchester, Bishop of v Beavor 

167, 194, 261, 278 

v. Bowker 1825, 1829 

v. Knight 1634 

v Mid Hants Ry Co 230, 231, 

278, 1U21 

v. Paine 281, 999, 1402 

Winder v Diffcnderffer 942 

Windham v. Cooper 810, 1556 

v. Giuhilei 1742 

v. Graham 1405, 1426 

Windley v. Bradway 891 

Windrin v Philadelphia 1662 

Windsors. Cross 1029 

v. McVeigh 853 

v Windsor 286, 390 

Windsor & Annapolis Ry. Co. v. 

Keg. 133 

Winfield v Bacon 1565 

Wing v. Angrave 850, 1503 

v. Davis 194, 212 

v. De La Rionda 1508 

v. Fairhaven 1620, 1640, 1641, 

1664, 1668, 1669, 1675 

v Goodman 1548, 1551 

v. Morrell 230 

v. Sherrer 552 

v. Spaulding 1561 

v. Tottenham, &c R. Co 1221 

v. Wing 660 

Wingard v. Jameson 1584 



Wingate v. Haywood 1623 

Wingfield, Ex parte 157 

Wingo v. Hardy 545, 726 

Wingrove v. Thompson 202 

Wioham v. Crutcher 325, 531 

Wiukworth v Wiakworth 096, 1796 

Winn v. Albert 1515, 1523 

v. Bowles 197 

v. Bull 561 

v. Fletcher 630 

v. Patterson 873 

Winue v. Reynolds 1108 

Winnebrenner v Colder 327 

Winninghoff v Wittig 1120 

Winnipissiogee Lake Co v. Perley 

1971, 1972, 

v. Worster 287. 292, 358, 374, 

1613, 1631,1637, 1639 

v Young 20, 25, 325, 358, 

546, 561 

Winooski Turnp. Co. v. Ridley 915 

Winpenny v. Courtney 1197 

Winscom, Re 1863 

Wiuship v. Bass 1772 

v Pitts 1634 

v. Waterman 1309 

Winslow e. Ancratn 1255 

v. Collins 1463, 1464, 1405 

v Dousman 341 

v. M. & P. R. Co. 257 

v Nason 378, 1069, 1684 

Winsor v. Bailey 334, 737 

v. Pettis 338 

Winston v. Campbell 165, 170, 753 

v. Mitchell 418 

v. Tennessee and Pac R. Co. 1650 

Winter v. Butt 1100 

v. City Council 1461 

v. Dancie 919 

V. Innes 1298, 1588 

• v. Mobile Savings Bank 830 

v. Quarles 5*2 

v. Smith 334 

Winterbottom v. Ingham 1215 

Winterfield i\ Bradnum 154 

Winters v. Claitor 542 

Winthrop v. Elderton 688 

v. Ethel 1029, 1461 

v. Farrar 403, 405, 1512 

v. Murray 413, 707, 792, 808, 1407 

v. Royal Exch. Ass Co. 28 

v. Winthrop 796, 1588 

Winthrop Iron Co. v. Meeker 1716 

Wintle, Re 865 

Wintle v. Bristol and South 

Wales Railway Co 1663 

Wirdman » Kent 1403, 1466 

Wirt ». Hicks 314 

Wisconsin i». Pelican Ins. Co. 357 

Wisden » Wisden 903 

Wise, Re 1606 

v Grand Ave. R Co. 314 

v. Lamb 1073 

v. Williams 357 

Wiser v. Bliehly 254, 282, 1030, 

1478, 1575, 1570, 1577, 1578, 

1579, 1581, 1582 

Wisewold, Re 1044, 1590 

Wisner v Barnet 559, 644 

v. Grant 2897 

Wistar's Appeal 1889 

Wiswall v. Sampson 1207 

Wiswell v Starr 149, 790, 1732, 

1733, 1735 

Witby v. Norton 1017 

Witham v Bland 1050, 1055, 1057 

v. Salim 430 

Wither v. Winchester, D and C. 

of 8 

Witherell i;. Wiberg 652 

Witherington v Banks 1240 

Withers v. Morrell 1653 

v. Sims 334 

v. Warner 21 

Witney v Haigh 1601 

Withrow v. Smithson 177 

Withy v Mangles 1499 

VOL. I. — i 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

Witkowski v. Hern 418 

Wits v. Polehampton 1130, 1134 

Witt v. Corcoran 1086, 1403 

v Ellis 692 

Wittenbrock v. Bellmer 1461 

Witters v. Foster 15n7 

v Sowles 2, 630, 1019, 1120, 1320 
Wittrnau v. Oppenneim 1643 

Witts v. Campbell 112, 403 

Witty r. Marshall 1352 

W J Johnson Co. v. Hunt 1657 
Woddrop v. Price 986, 1033 

Woffeuden v. Woffenden 
Wolcote v Robbins 
Wolf v. Wolf 

v Underwood 
Wolfe v. Birch 

v. Burke 

v. Matthews 
Wollaston v. Hakewell 
Wollen3ak t' Reiher 

V Sargent 
Wollet v. Roberts 
Wolley v. Brownhill 
Wollstonecraft, Ex parte 



CXX1X 



1164 
563, 564 
1556 
1630 
1620 
1652 
1098 
500 
1642 
839 
713, 841 
1350, 
2293 
Wolmershausen v. Wolmers- 

hausen 1642 

Wolverhampton & Staffordshire 

Banking Co. v. Bond 447, 448 
Wolverhampton & W Rv Co i\ 

London & N.W.Ry. Co. 671, 1596 
Woman's Union Miss. Society v. 

Mead 1411 

Womerslev, Re 1040 

v. Church 1638 

v. Merritt 24. 25, 26, 239, 405 

Wonham v. Machiu 1265, 1390, 1424 

Wontner, Re, Brown v. White 868 

Wood, Re 99, 100. 974 

v. Ainley 1394 

v. Anderston Foundry Co. 149 



v. Ay 1 ward 




364 


v. Barker 




1398 


v. Barnicott 




1168 


v. Beadell 




388, 1614 


v Boosey 




46 


v. Boucher 




1610 


v. Bradell 




388 


v. Braxton 




1628 


v. Brewer 




1463 


v. Briant 




652, 1253 


v. Brush 




780 


v. Carpenter 




560 


v. Chart 




46 


v. Cole 




916 


v. Cooper 




1099, 1459 


V. Currey 




555 


v. Downes 




1777,1781 


v. Dummer 




272 


v. Edwards 




1775 


v. Farthing 




1467 


v. Freeman 




1061 


v. Gregory 




1157 


v Griffith 1460, 1468 


1477. 1473, 






1480 


v. Hammerton 




959 


v, Harpur 




749, 891 


v. Hitchings 570, 


"17, 


1725. 1726, 
1750 


v. Hubbard 




997 


v. Hudson 60, 


551 


1286, 1556 


v. Hurd 




1129 


v. Keyes 




1017 


v. King Mauuf. Co 




545 


v. Lambirtta 




1311 


V. Lee 




1166, 1234 


v. Lenox 




1621 


V. Lillies 




671 


t>. Logsden 




162, 498 


v. Lyne 


394 


, 1562, 1563 


?• Mackinson 




1102 


v. Majoribanks 




1406 



v. Mann 349, 569, 676. 728, 729, 

948, 949, 952, 956, 957, 959. 960, 

1061, 1275, 1277. 1281, 1284, 

1623, 1577, 1578 



Wood v. Met'n Life Ins. Co. 418 

v. Midgley 365, 561, 588, 2086 

V. Miluer 1468 

v. Oregon Dev. Co. 1734 

v. Robson 671 

v. Rowcliffe 1652 

v. Rowe 607, 671, 672 

v. Silcock 561 

v. Skelton 2095 

v. Stane 858, 876 

v. Strickland 615, 697, 704, 879 
v. Sutcliffe 1637. 1663 

v. Taunton 1860 

v. Taylor 709 

v. Thompson 599 

v. Vincent 1040, 1041, 1695 

v. Warner 1032 

v. Westborough 630 

v. White 230, 231 

?•. Williams 193 

v. Wood 46, 109, 110, 329, 1678 
Woodall v. Holliday 58 

v. Moore 1580 

Woodard v. Eastern Counties 

Ry. Co. 855 

Woodburn v Woodburn 1120 

Woodburn's Trusts, lie 1412 

Woodbury v. Luddy 2259 

Woodcock v. Bennet 377, 1229 

v. King 810, 1558 

v. Oxford, Worcester, & Wol- 
verhampton Railway Co. 1601 
Wooden v. Wooden 1676 

Woodfin, Re 1585 

v. Anderson 236, 643 

v. Phoebus 553 

Woodford v. Eades 1130 

Woodgate v Field 236, 1209, 1210 
Woodger v Crumpter 783 

Woodhatch v Freeland 840, 894, 
1822 
Woodhouse ». Woodhouse 201 

Wondhull v. Neafie 1282 

Wooding v Bradley 1309 

Woodley v. Johnson 1115 

Woodman v. Coolbroth 921 

v. Freeman 630 

v. Saltonstall 1961 

Woodroffe v. Daniel 424, 764, 1836, 
2124 
v. Titterton 1191 

v. Wood 1075 

Woodroft v. Soys 139.3 

Woodruff v Brown 1653 

v. Depue 1258 

V. Dubuque &c. R Co. 737 

v. North Bloomfield G. M. Co. 3*5 
v. Straw 1168 

r. Woodruff 231 

r. Young 303 

Woodrum v Kirkpatrick 1553 

Wo.. a- v. Dike 657 

v. 1'itz 546 

v. M' Innes 452 

r. Monell 1271 

V. Morrell 340. 347, 349, 722, 723. 
726, 728, 729, 759, 760, 768 
v. Oliver 1225 

v. Rankin 1259 

v. Sowerby 236, 336, 360. 645 

V. Svmmes 1707 

v. Woods 571. 578, 730, 834. 1026, 
1413, 1^:J4 
Woodside r Morgan 1120 

v. Woodside 994, 1492 

Woodson v. Palmer 1381 

V. Smith 1215 

Woodstoek Bank v Lawson 1245, 
1246 
Woodward v. Astley 354 

v. Brace 1304 

v. Conebear 181,493,1453 

v. Donally 1864 

?'. Dromgoole 1621 

v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co. 1395 
v. Oylea 1655 

v. Hall 191, 334 



cxxx 



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



Woodward v. King 1674, 1683, 1687 
V. Lincoln, Earl 1074, 1683 



v. I'liillips 
v. Pratt 
v. Roberta 
r. Schatzell 
V, Twinaine 
V. Williamson 

I Wood 

r Woodward 

Woodworth >■ Campbell 

v. Edwards 

r Spring 

v. Van Buskirk 
Woodyard v. I'olsley 
Woodyatt v. Gresley 
Woodyear v. Schaefer 
Wool.' Matter of 

i . Tow nsley 
Wooley !■. Drew > 
Woolf v. Pemberton 
Woolfryes v Woolfryes 
Woollam v Hearn 



1244, 1245, 13S6 

'.15 

881 

1699, 1704 

509, 784 



212,220,287 
109, 1407, 1533 

2i>ll 

392, 395 

1355 

1021 

1209 

1724, 1734 

1638 

1841 

1590 

1580 

68, 69, 70 

84 

408, 860, 861, 

995 

v. Ratcliff 1649 

Woollauds v. Crowther 96, 98 

Woollaston v. Wright 245 

Woollatt v Woollatt 1425 

Woolley v Colman 1159, 1267 

v. North London Ry. Co. 573 

Woolley's Trusts, Re 868, 893 

Woolman v. Ilearn 384 

Woolridge v McKenna 74 

Wools v. Walley 387 

Woolwich v Forrest 22 

Woolv v. Drag 1245 

Wooster v. Blake 700, 2383 

p.Clark 890,945,2392 

r. Gumbirnner 1171, 11S0, 2394 

v. Handy 2397 

v. Muser 694 

V. Plvniouth 1071 

v. Woodhull 524, 529, 1026 

Wooten v. Smith 1668, 1677 

Woots /•. Tucker 1583 

\\ ooten v. Wooten 1405 

Wootten v. Burch 545, 718 

Worcester v. Truman 1683 

Worden v. Ellers 1662 

v. Searls 1029 

Wordsworth v. Dayrell 100 

,■ Parkins 1520 

Worgan v Rvder 1167 

Work v. McCoy 779 

Working-Men's Mutual Society, 

Re 911 

Wormald » De Lisle 368 

Worman V. Worman 555, 659 

Worms r. De Valdor 5 

Worruser v. Merchants' Nat 

Bank 1716 

Wormslev. R» 286, 351, 1449 

/,'. . Haines )•. Wormsley 8P5 



Worsham v. Goar 916 

v. Gove 915 

Worsley ?'. Watson 570 

Worssam. Re 852 

Worswick, Re, Robson v. Wors- 

wick 571, 1835 

Worth v. M'Kenzie 176 

Wortham v. Dacre, Lord 1377, 1404 

v. Pemberton 91, 110, 111 

Wortheu v Badgett 1061 

Worthington, lie 99, 1802 

v. Batty 1643 

v. Charter Oak Life Ins. Co. 51 

v. Dublin &c. Ry. Co. 573 



v. Hiss 
v. Lee 
v M'Craer 
v. Scribner 
v. Ware 
Wortlcy, Re 
v. Birkhead 



1320 

215, 708, 1018 

1359 

581 

1620 

798 

173, 582, 660. 1581 



V Start 
Worraker v. Pryer 
Worral v. Miller 

v. Nicholls 
Worrall v. Harford 

v, .Johnson 

r. Marlar 

v White 
Worrell v. Wade 
Worrill v. Coker 



1225 

236, 245 

1395 

13D6 

1845 

1842, 1S45 

102 

36 

1548, 1553, 1556 

1716 



Wotherspoon v. Currie 


1648 


Wotton v. Copeland 


209 


Woven Tape Skirt Co., 


Re 1746 


Wragg, Re 


1280 


v. Morley 438, 


Wray, Re 


1069 


r. Hutchinson 


715 


v. Jamison 


1751 


v. May 


1117 


v. Thorn 


1128 


v. Thornes 


1092 


Wren v. Kirton 


1277, 1752 


Wrench v. Wynne 


1041 


Wright, Re 


100, 1798 


v. Angle 593, 690 


, 756, 805, 831 


v. Arnold 


97 


v. Atkyns 388, 1614, 1630 


v. Barlow 


299. 301, 791 


v. Bates 


845 


v. Black 


29 


v. Bourdon 


369 


r. Bundy 


214, 220 


v. Campbell 


783 


v. Cantzou 


1287 


v. Castle 


307, 3"8, 533 


v. Chard 


180, 187, 1409 


v. Clifford 


979 


v. Cornelius 


270 


v. Dame 145, 146 


, 361, 547, 588 


V. Dorset 


1511 


v. Dufield 


1^40 


v. Dunklin 


985 


v. Eaton 


1623 


v. Edwards 


822 


v. Everard 


28 


v. Frank 


1548 


v. Gay 


1584 


r. Howard 


303, 13li9 


r. Hunter 


1404 


v. Irving 


398 


r. King 


101, 454, 1847 


v. Kirby 


1390, 1424 


v. Larnmth 


905, 1213 


r. Lukes 


1781 


v. Lvnde 


1397 


v. McKean 


857 


v. Maidstone, Lord 


3! «2 


r. Mayer 


574, 1825 


v. Mayo 


571 


v. Meek 


607, 1517 



Wright v. Miller 165. 1019 

v. Mills 18, 196, 581 

v. Mitchell 1799 

v. Mudie 1409 

v. Navlor 1347 

v. Phillips 991, 1567 

v. Phipps 1517 

v. Plumptree 545 

v. Robotham 1162 

r. Rutter 97 

v. Santa Clara Mining Asso- 
ciation 296 
v. Smith 1403 
v. Strother 986 
v. Tatham 810, 1458, 1573, 1574 
v. Vanderplank 1358 
v. Vernon 1158, 1535, 1734, 1831 
v. Wellesley 1051 
v. Wilkin 385, 756, 906, 945, 1725 
v. Willcox 1097, 1105 
v. Wright 88. 311, 312, 389, 408, 
1061,1119, 1148. 1232,1234, 
1260, 1277, 1369, 1384, 1412, 
1845 
Wrixon v. Vize 652, 1741 
Wroe v. Clayton 463, 1453 
v. Seed 1417, 1418 
Wrottrs Case 133 
Wrotteslev r. Bendish 169, 183, 568 



v. Methodist Episcopal Church. 
Trustees of 



S, 



1827 

1437 

1386 

994 

561 

1069 

1169 

1551 

1120 

1350 

182 

644 

144, 296, 842 

1675 

1221 

Wycombe Railway Co v. Don- 

nington Hospital 995, 1081 

Wye Valley Ry. Co r. Hawes 243 
Wyersdale" School, Re 1857 

Wvkes v. Ringleberg 179 

Wvkliam v. Wykham 1405 

w'\Mr. Ward 10n3 

Wj Hie v Ellice 29, 30, 31, 33, 409, 
583, 681, 1362, 1590 
v. Green 1047 

Wylly A. Trustees v. Sanford 334 



Wroughton v. Barclay 

v. Colquhoun 
Wyatt v. Cook 

v. Garlington 

v. Luton 

v. People 

v. Sadler 

v. Sweet 

v. Thompson 

v. Wood 
Wybourn v Blount 
Wych r. East India Co 

v. Meal 
Wyckoff v Cochran 
AVycoff v. Combs 



Wylson v. Dunn 
AVyman v Babcock 

v. Knight 

v. Southward 

r. Wilcox 
Wymer v. Dodds 
Wyndham v Ennismore 

v. Ennismore, Lord 
Wynkoop v. Van Beuren 
Wvnn v. Morgan 98 

Wynne v. Callander 

v. Edwards 

v Griffith 

i: Hughes 

r. Humberston 

r. Newborough, Lord 



364 

1923, 2227, 

2228 

1062 

48 

418 

406 

221 '4 

1355 

1675 

), 990, 1408 

346 

1003 

1220 

70S 

1825, 1S34 

173:-!, 1738, 

1739, 1749 



Y. 



Yalden, Ex parte 
Vale v. Baum 

'■. hoderer 
Yancy v Batte 

V Ken wick 
Yard v. Ocean Beach Ass'n 



1843 
1679 
186 
1158 
361 
1317, 
1395 



Yardley '•. Arnold 

v. Holland 
Yare v Harrison 
Yarnall v. Rose 
Varrington v Robinson 
Yate v. Lighthead 
Yates v Compton 



1098 


Yates >•. Crewe 


167 


640 


v. Farebrother 


1772 


771, 1781 


v. Hambly 


260, 1251, 1252 


701 


v. Hardy 


763. 1184 


243 


?'. Jack 


1638 


396, 1526 


v. Law 


334 


227, 254 


v. Madden 


2182 



Fates v. Mouroe 296, 1123 

v. Plumbe 1328 

i Sherrington 116, 117 

v. Tiadale 1564 

v. University College 1459 

Tattoo v. Loudon & L. F. Ins. 

Co. .1071 

Yauger v. Skinner 85, 366 

Yeager v. Wallace 1743 

Yearsley v. Uudgett 519, 521 

i). Yearsley 1379, 1589, 1590 

Yearwood's Trusts, Jit 349 

Yeatman v. Belluiaiu S8 ; 189 

v Mou-ley 440 

8 Read 1012 

v Yeatman 200,251,324 

Ye it'in v Lenox 303 

Vi o ! Krere 1316 

Yeoui ins v Haynes 1213 

v Kilvington 1683 

Yerbury, Re, Ker v. Dent 1035 

Yescombe v. Landor 1037 

Yetts v Biles 1601 

v Norfolk Ry. Co 242, 243 

v. Palmer 1722, 1725 

Yewens v. Robinson 59 

Yick Wo v. Crowley 1620 

Yingling v Hesson 1117 

Yoke v. Barnet 91 

Yonge v. McCormick 1677 

Yongus » Billups 1622 

York v. Brown 1234, 1413 

v. Pilkington 1164 

v. White 244. 794 

York, Archbishop ofv. Stapleton 582, 

1182 

York Buildings Co., Case of 6, 1.33 

York, Mayor of v. Pilkington 272, 

341, 1620. 1682 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

[The references are to the star paging.] 

York Mauuf. Co. v. Cutts 544 

York and North Midland Ry. 8. 

Hudson 742. 1513 

Yorke r Fry 605, 615, 619, 620 

v. Yorke 536 

Yorkshire Banking Co. 8. Mul- 

lau 418, 1650, 1716 

Yorkshire Waggon Co. v. New- 
port Coal Co. 406 
Yosi v. Aldersou 1031 
8. Devault 1081 
Youde 8. Cloud 1416 
Youl, Re . 1611 
Youle v. Richards 711, > s 44 
Young, Ex parte 147 
Ex parte, lit Quartz Hill 

Co. 889 

v. Aronson 60 

v. Bank of Alexandria So:; 

v. Brassey 1669 

v. Buckett 1728 

v. Bush 793 

v. Butler 1653 

v. Clarendon Township 560 

v. Clarksville Man. Co. 732 

8. Cusliing 149 

8. Davis 67 

8. Dearborn 1845 

8. Edwards 1163 

v. Emery 1620 

v. English 1843 '• 

8. Everest 1374, 1422, 1437 i 

8. Fernie 876, 1071, 1642 \ 

8 Gentis 830 j 

8. Goodson 1591 i 

v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. 1120 

8. Grundy 837 

v. Henderson 986, 1576 

8. Hodges 334 I 



cxxxi 



Young v. Hopkins 


846 


8. Keighly 


1576, 1577, 1578 


v. Leamington 




v. Lillard 


989 


8. Lyons 


267,271,341 


v Macrae 


1049 



i. Montgomery & Eufaula R. 

Co. 2U,743 

8. Quincey B05, B 7 

v. Rathbone 369, 989, 1218 



v. Key uolds 


1227 


r. Rodes 


199 


v. Rondout & K G. L. 


Co. 1675 


v State 


57.; 


V. Sutton 


1163 


r. Teague 


1286, 1291 


v. Tliomas 


1381. 1463 


V. Ward 


215 


r Waterpark, Lord 


653 


v. Wheeler 




r. White 609, 617, 61! 


8. Wiight 


848 


r. Young 


815, 1157 


Youngblood 8. Schamp 


395. 11 -. 




1668, 1669 


v. Youngblood 


552 


Younge v. Cocker 


73 


v. Cooper 


1161 


r. Duncouibe 


1774 


8 Pate 


1255 


Youngs, Re, Doggett 8. Revett 39, 




797, 14^-0 


Yourie v. Nelson 3* 


, 177 1233. 




1457, 1846 


Yovatt v Winyard 


1650 


Yow 8. Townsend 


1031 


Yuengling 8. Johnson 


1614 


Yule 8. Yule 1699 


17o4. 1706, 




1707, 1708 



z. 



Zabel v Harshman 

Z ibriskie v. .Jersey City & 1 

It. R. Co. 
7. imbaco v. Cassavetti 
Zane v. Cawley 

v Kink 
Zearing v. Ruber 
Zecharie v. Bowers 



590 


Zeininger r Schnitzler 


860 




Zell's Appeal 


641 


1637 


Zelle v. Workingmen's B. Co. 


190 


764 


Ziegler 8. Chapin 


1071 


844 


Zieverink v. Kemper 


2 


197 


Zihlman v. Zihlman 


1561 


1654 


Zimmer v. Miller 


1401 


458 


Zimmerman 8. Huber 


1301 



Zimmerman 8. Willard 324 

Ziou Church 8. St. Peter's Church 

25 

Zivi v. Einstein 840 

Zulueta 8. Vincent 446, 461 . 462, 

520, 711 

Zunkel v. Litchfield 920, 1168 



ADDENDA. 



Dawson >' Whitehaven Bank 125 
De Stacpoole v. De Stacpoole 108 
Driskill v. Cobb 1621 



General Share Trust Co. v. Chap- 
man 1842 



Howard v. Shrewsbury, Earl 



THE PRACTICE 



OF THE 



HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY. 



* CHAPTER I. 

THE COMMENCEMENT OF A SUIT. 



*1 



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 to its equitable jurisdiction. 2 



t " Ancient and uniform practice consti- 
tutes the law of the Court, as much as a positive 
order," per Lord Eldon, 2 Mer. 2. " 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 rind 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. 

2 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 ». Zacharie, 6 Pet. 658; 
Clark v. Reyburn, 8 Wall. 323 ; Smith v. 
Burnham, 2 Sumner, 612, 625. And by Rule 
90 of the Rules of Practice, prescribed in 

VOL. I. — 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 o. 
Paige, 1 Stockt. 203, Morris v. Taylor, 23 N.J. 
Eq. 131, 134; Newark and N Y. R. Co r. Mayor 
of Newark, id. 515, 517; Bur rail v. Karnes, 
5 Wis. 260. "Not," as said by Wilde J. in 
Saunders t>. Frost, 5 Pick. 272, " indiscrimi- 
nately, but only as they appear reasonable and 
comformable to the spirit of nur 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 



*3 



THE 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, 2 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. 3 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. Han-is, 11 
R. I. 5, citing Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 
14 Pet. 210, 257; Rowlev v. Scales, 1 S. & S. 
511; In re Lyons, 1 Dr. & W. 327, 333; Dicas 
v. Lord Brougham, 6 C. & P. 249; Burrell ». 
Nicholson, 6 Sim. 212. See also Marsh v. 
Crawford, 1 Swan, 116, and compare Maultsby 
v. Carty, 11 Hum. 361. 

1 As to the value of the subject-matter, see 
Cons. Ord. IX. 1. (b) 

2 As to the procedure on the common-law 
side of the Court, see 12 & 13 Vic. c. 109; 
Orders of 29 Dec., 1848, and 3 Aug., 1849, 
Chitty's Arch., 1741 ; and post, Chap. XXXIX. 
§ 7, Receivers. 

3 See Ld. Red. 8: 1 Spence, Eq. Jur. 368; 
Story, Eq. PI. § 7. There are some bills in 
early 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 seq. In the United States, suits are 
commenced by bill or petition addressed to 
tire Chancellor, Judge, or Judges presiding in 



the particular Court, either by name or official 
designation. Infra, 357, n. 1; Story, Eq. PL 
§ 26; Barb. Ch. Pr. 35. 

5 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, &c.,'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, 565; 
Irvin r. Gregory, 13 Gray, 215. 

7 Ld. Red. 7. 

8 Ld. Red. 22; Story, Eq. PL § 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. 
Slayton, 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 S. W. 
2 



Rep. 222; Zieverink r. Kemper (Ohio), 34 N. 
E. Rep. 250. The time when judicial proceed- 
ings were begun to avoid the bar of a statute 
may be proved by parol evidence. Witters v. 
Sowles, 32 Fed. Rep. 765. 

(b) The Chancery Consolidated General 
Orders of 1860 were repealed by the Rules of 
the Supreme Court, 1883. 



THE COMMENCEMENT OP 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 Rolls, 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. 3 

Again, under Lord Justice Turner's Act, 4 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 tipon 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 in England, the proceedings being by 
waj' of action and commenced by writ of 
summons. Att.-Gen. v. Shrewsbury Bridge 
Co. W N. (1880) 23; 42 L. T. 79^ and see 
K. S. C. Ord. I. 1. 

2 15 & 16 Vic. c. 86, §§ 45,47. This Act, 
being either obsolete, superseded, or repro- 
duced by the R. S. C. 1883, was repealed by 
46 & 47 Vic. c. 49, § 4. Sched. 

3 See post, Chap. XXIX. § 2, Proceedings 
in the Judges' Chambers (Infants). 

* 13 & 14 Vic. c. 35, §§ 1-18. 

5 Infra, Chap. Xl.IV. General Equity juris- 
diction in Massachusetts was conferred upon 
the Supreme Judicial 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 v. Wilcox, 14 N. Y. 575. 

In regard to the jurisdiction of the Court 
of Chancery in Vermont, see Cheever v. R. & 
B. R. R. Co. 39 Vt. 654. In Maine, see 



Androscoggin & Kennebec R R. Co. v. An- 
droscoggin 1!. It. Co. 49 Maine, 392. 

By the " Supreme Court of" Judicature Act " 
of 1873 it was provided in England that all 
suirs previously commenced by bill or informa- 
tion in the High Court of Chancery shall he 
instituted in the tligh 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 
proeeedingcommeneed 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 piuceeding be- 
tween a plaintiff and a defendant, and any 
criminal proceeding by the Crown; and "mat- 
ter" shall include every proceeding in the 
Court not in a cause. L. R. 8 Stat. 349,350. 
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. 



*5 * CHAPTER II. 

PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY BE INSTITUTED. 

Section I. — 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 impedit 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 

l As to a person under disability suing in 2 Du Plessis v. Att.-Gen., 1 Bro. P. C. ed. 

a foreign country, see Worms v. De Valdor, Toml. 415, 419. 

W. N. (1880) 16; 28 W. R. 346, Fry J. As 3 Att.-Gen. v. Du Plessis, 2 Ves. 286. As 

to disabilities arising from (1) outlawry in a to office found, see now 22 & 23 Vic. c. 21, § 25. 

civ 1 action abolished by the Civil Procedure 4 n R ep . 68b; ib. 75 a; Plowden, 236, 240, 

Acts, Repeal Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vic. c. 59, 244. 

§ 3), and 1 Dan. Ch. Prac. (5th ed.) pp. 52- « 11 Rep- 68 b 

54; (2) excommunication was abolished by 6 The King r. Arundel, Hob 109 ; Att.-Gen. 

53 Geo III. c. 127, § 3, and popish recusancy v. Vernon, 1 Vern. 2(7, 370; 2 Ch. K. 353; 

was virtually abolished bv 31 Geo. III. c. 32; 1 Eq. Cas. Ab. 75, pi. 1; 133, pi 16; and see 

(3) as to duress and civil" status of a nun, see the cases cited 8 Beav. 283, and the Judg. 

Re Metcalfe, 2 De G. J. & S. 122; 10 Jur. ment, p. 287. 
N S 224, 287; Evans v. Cassidy, 11 Ir. Eq. 
243; Blake v. Blake, 4 lr. Ch. 349. 
4 



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 Crown, 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. 



i Att.-Gen. to the Prince of Wales v. Sir J. 
St. Aubyn, Wightw. 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 tills statute Lord Langdaie, 
M. R., in Att.-Gen. v. London, 8 Beav. 285, 
said he 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, had, 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- 



(a) It is for the officers of the Crown to 
make out clearly the prerogative in an}- 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. 
Att.-Gen. v. Churchill, 8 M. & W. 171; Att.- 
Gen. to the Prince of Wales v. Grossman, L. R. 
1 Ex. 381, 386; Dixon v. Farrer, 56 L. J. Q. B. 
63, affirming 55 id. 497; 17 Q. B. D. 658. 



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.-Gen. v. Hailing, 15 M. & W. 687, 700 ; Att.- 
Gen. v. 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 03* " The Crown Suits Act, 
1865 " (28 & 29 Vic. c. 104), and Reg. Gen. 
Exch. 14th March, 1866; L. R. I Ex. 389; 
12 Jur. N. S. Pt. II. 182. The power of that 
Court over revenues is now possessed by the 
Queen's Bench Division, Sup. Ct. of .Fud. 
Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vic. 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 an 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. 



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 t\ 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 
33 Fed. Rep. 721. 



* 8 PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY BE INSTITUTED. 

*7 * In 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, 2 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. Red. 7, 21, 22: Wilkes's case, 4 
Burr. 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. Grossman, L. R 1 Ex. 381; 12 Jur. N. S. 
712; Att.-Gen. v. Devonshire, 14 Q. B. I). 
195; Dyke v. 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. Rights 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 Attornev-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 &,Iton 
Co. v. United States, 123 U. S. 307; United 
States v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61; United 
States v. Marshall Silver M. Co. 129 U. S. 



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. 

2 Dwyer, 1 PI. 7, 8; Keilw. 169; 5 Bac. 
Ab. tit. Prerog. F. 3; Miles v. Wi'liams, 1 P. 
Wins. 249, 252; Earl of Stafford v. Buckley, 
2 Ves. Sr. 170, 181. 

i Balch v. Wastall, 1 P. Wins. 445; Hay- 
ward v. Fry, id. 446 ; see also Rex 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. 
Rep. 415; United States v. McGraw, id. 449 ; 
United States v. White, 17 id. 561; United 
States r. Rose, 24 id. 196. The same rule 
applies to a patent obtained by mistake which 
prejudices the rights of the government or the 
public. United Mates v. San Jacinto Tin Co. 
125 U. S. 273; Western Pacific R. Co. v. United 
Siates, 108 U. S. 510; Williams v. United 
States, 138 U. S. 541; 30 Fed. Rep. 3u9. Such 
fraud or mistake must be specifically averred 
and clearly proved. United States v. 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. 2 

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 patrice : such as the objects of general charities, 3 
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. 5 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." 6 

* 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 



2 See Knight v. Mosely, Amb. 176 ; Wither 
v. D. & C. of Winchester, 3 Mer. 421,427; 
Jefferson v. Bishop of Durham, 1 Bos. & Pull. 
129, 131. 

3 See Att.-Gen. v. Clergy Society, 8 Rich. 
Eq. (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. 

5 Att.-Gen. v. Brown, 1 Swanst. 265; Att.- 
Gen. c. Shrewsbury, 6 Beav. 220, 227 ; Evan 
v. Avon, 29 Beav. 144; 33 Beav. 67; 6 Jur. 
N. S. 1361; 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, supra ; Same t. Wentz, 34 
Fed. Rep. 154. The bill need not offer to re- 
pay the purchase money. Moffat v. United 
States, supra ; United States r. 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; Att.- 
Gen. v. West Hartlepool Imp. Commissioners, 
L. R. 10 Eq. 152. 

6 Per Sir J. L. Knight Bruce V. C. in Att.- 
Gen. v. 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. 11. 202; and Code of Ten- 
nessee, § 3409, tt seq. 



United States v. Gunning, 18 id. 511; New 
York & B. C P. Co. r. 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, 32 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 BY WHOM A SUIT MAY BE INSTITUTED. 

been exhibited on their behalf by the Attorney-General, as the officer 
of the Crown ; ! 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. 2 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. 3 

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. 5 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 bouud 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. 7 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 

1 SeeAtt.-Gen. v. Parkhurst, 1 Ch. Cas. 1 Att.-Gen. v. Woolrich, 1 Ch. Cas. 153; 
112; Att.-Gen.tr. Woolrich, id. 153; Att.-Gen. and see post. Chap. III. § 7, Idiots and Luna- 
v. Tyler, 1 Dick. 378: 2 Eden, 230; Norcom v. tics (Plaintiffs). The powers conferred upon 
Rogers, 16 N. J. Eq. 484. the Attorney-General and Commissioners by 

2 Att.-Gen. v. Howe, Ld. Red. 30, n (m). 59 Geo. III. c. 91, continued by 2 & 3 Will. IV. 

3 Liney v. Wetherley, Ld. Red. 30, n. (n); c. 57, § 11, to institute proceedings concerning 
Light v. Light, 25 Beav. 248; West v. Davis, charities, were practically superseded by ''The 
Rolls, 1863, W. No. 83: and see post, Chap. Charitable Trusts Acts. 1853 to 1869," 16 & 17 
III. § 7, Idiots and Lunatics (Plaintiffs). Vie. c. 137; 18 & 19 Vic. c. 124; 23 & 24 Vic. 
Infra, 86, n. 1. c. 136: 25 & 26 Vic. c. 112; 32 & 33 Vic. c. 

* Att.-Gen. v. Tyler, 1 Dick. 378; 2 Eden, 110. See post, Chap. XXXVIII. As tothemar- 
230; Ridler v. Ridler, Eq. Cas. Ab. 279. See riage laws of England and proceedings there- 
Story Eq. PI. § 64; Gorham v. Gorham, 3 Barb, under, see 4 Geo. IV. c. 76; 6 & 7 Will. IV.c.85; 
Ch. R. 24. 1 Vic. c. 22; 3 & 4 Vic. c. 72 ; 19 & 20 Vic. c. 

6 Att.-Gen. v. Parkhurst, 1 Ch. Cas. 112; 119; 12 & 13 Vic. c. 68, § 15; 24 & 25 Vic. c. 

Att.-Gen. v. Woolrich, id. 153. 100, § 53; 36 & 37 Vic. c. 66, § 34 (2); R. S. C. 

6 Ridler v. Ridler, 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 279, pi. 5; Ord. 1. 1 ; Att.-Gen. v. Willshire, W. N. (1875) 

and see Tothill, 130. See infra 83. 182; Same v. Severne, 1 Col. 313 ; 8 Jur. 595; 

1 Norcom v. Rogers, 16 N. J. Eq. 484. 9 .Tur. 574; Same v. Lucas, 2 Hare, 566; 2 

Under the 16 & 17 Vic. c. 70, the custody of Phil. 753; Same v. Teather, 29 W. R. 347; 

the estate is usually committed to the commit- Same v. Wareing, 28 W. R. 623 ; Same v. 

tee by an order of the Lord Chancellor or Akers, W. N. (1872) 45; 2 Seton. 768; Same 

Lords Justices, which, however, by § 63, has v. Clements, L. R. 12 Eq. 32; Same v. Read, 

the same force and validity as a grant under id 38; Same v. Mullay, 4 Russ. 329; 7 Beav. 

the Great Seal. For form of order, see Elmer's 351. 
Prac. 126. 

8 



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;' 2 (a) but where the suit does not iinniedi- 



2 Ld. Red. 22, Att.-Gen. v. Vernon, 1 Vern. 
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 purprestures, 
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. Cbamberlaine, 
4 K. & J. 292; Glossop ?;. Heston Local Board, 
12 Ch. D. 102; A.-G. v. Tomline, id. 214; Same 
v. Shrewsbury Bridge Co. 21 Ch. D. 752; Same 
v. 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, Eq. 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 
has 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- 
sance or endanger public interests. Agar v. 
Regent's Canal Co. Cooper temp. Eldon, 77; 
Att.-Gen. v. Great Northern Ry. 1 Dr. & Sm. 
154; Att.-Gen. v. Mid-Kent Ry. L R. 3 Ch. 
100; Att.-Gen. v. Leeds Corp. L. R. 5 Ch. 583; 
Att.-Gen. v. Great Eastern Ry. 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 
v. 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. S. 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, 133 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 (18SU), 
2 Q. B*. 100: 65 L. T. 162; Hart v. Jamaica 
Pond Aqueduct, 133 Mass. 488. The Attor- 
ney-General, when suing, either ex 'j/iciu 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 injury from the 
act complain' d of. Att.-Gen. v. Cockermoutb 
Local Board, L. R. 18 Eq. 173. See Same v. 
Oxford &c. Ry. Co. 2 VV. 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. v. 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 ; 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 v. 



10 



PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY 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 - 
Gen v Cambridge, id. 247; Att. -Gen v. Boston 
Wharf Co. 12 Gray, 553; Att.-Gen. v. Tudor 
Ice Co. 104 Mass. 239; Att.-Gen. v Tarr, 148 
Mass. 309. See Att.-Gen. v. Gardiner, 117 
Mass. 329; Att.-Gen. v. 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 III. 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. v Jamaica Pond Aqueduct, 133 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 v. Paris Ry. Co. 
55 Texas, 76. In cases of public nuisai ce, the 
Attorney-General ma}' 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. v. Logan (1891), 2 Q. B.'lOO. 

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 Cush. 
336; Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 539; Att.- 
Gen. B Garrison, 101 Mass. 223. 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. Y. 1), see Att.-Gen. v. Detroit, 26 Mich. 
263 ; 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. E. 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. 13 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 v. 
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. 
341. 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 v. Consumers' Gas Co. 
142 Mass. 417, Boston Rubber Shoe Co. v. 
Boston Rubber Co. 149 Mass. 436; Att.-Gen. v. 
Salem, 103 Mass. 138; Att.-Gen, v. Tudor Ice 
Co. 104 Mass. 239; Reed v. 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. B. 
Utica Ins. Co. 2 John. Ch. 471; 20 Cin'n. 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. v. Gas Light and Coke Co. 7 Ch. D. 
217; Same*. Acton Local Boa>d, 22 Ch. D. 221; 
Charles v. Finch ley Local Board, 23 Ch. D. 
767; Att.-Gen. v. Clerkenwell Vestry (1891), 3 
Ch. 527; 05 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. ah 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 ike. 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'rs, 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 QUEEN'S 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. 5 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. 2 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. 3 

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 

3 Ld. Red. 22; 1 Ves. .Jr. 247. n. See Att.- 6 Att.-Gen. v. Wright, 3 Beav. 447; and see 

Gen. v. Proprietors of the Federal-street Meet- Att.-Gen. v. Haberdashers' Co. 15 Beav. 397; 

in^-house, 3 Gray, 1; Att.-Gen. v. Merrimack Att.-Gen v. Wyggeston's Hospital, 16 Beav 

Manuf. Co. 14 Gray, 580; Att.-Gen. v. Con- 313; Att -Gen. v Sherborne Grammar School, 

sumers' Gas Co. 142 Mass 417. 18 Beav. 256; 18 Jur. 636; Parker v. May, 5 

* Ld. Red. 22; Att.-Gen. v. Vivian, 1 Russ. Cush. 336, 337. 
226, 236. 7 Att.-Gen. v. Barker. 4M. & C. 262. 

s Parker v. May, 5 Cnsh. 337, per Shaw 1 See Att.-Gen. v. Cockermouth Local 

C. J.; see Commissioners e. Andrews, 10 Rich. Board, L. R. 18 Eq. 172. 

Eq. (S. C.)4; State v. White's Creek Turn- 2 Att.-Gen. v. Vivian, 1 Russ. 226, 233, 

pike Co. 3 Tenn. Ch. 163. As to the reten- 235; 2 Swnnst. 215. 

tion of former procedure under the Sup. Ct. of 3 Att.-Gen. v. East India Co. 11 Sim. 380, 

Jud. Act, see 36 & 37 Vic. c. 66, § 23 ; 38 & 386. 
39 Vic. c. 77. 



defendant. Harvard College v. Society, 3 General need not be a party when trustees of a 
Gray, 280; Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 539, chanty are appointed by the donor. Newberry 
579. In Illinois it is held that the Attorney- v. Blatchford, 106 111. 584. 

11 



12 



PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY BE INSTITUTED. 



officers towards the defendant, in order that the Court migh f , 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 BI. Com. 400; 2 Mad. Prin. & Pr. 
Ch. (3d Loud, 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. (//), where their expenses almost 
equalled the value of the property. 

1 See Re Bedford Charity, 2 Swanst. 520; see 
contra, Att.-Gen. v. Oglender, 1 Ves. 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-General, 
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 v. 
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 
suit had been determined, the Crown could 

12 



Ves. Sr. 72; Att.-Gen. v. Middleton, 2 Ves. 
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 ft Wilson, 9 
Ch. & Fin. 355. The objection that there is 
an adequate remedy at law has been held 
inapplicable to an information tiled 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 
Ves. 72: Att.-Gen. v. Middleton, 2 Ves 327; 
Att.-Gen. v. Whiteley, 14 Ves. 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 ; * but a written authority, signed by 
hiin, permitting his name to be used, must be filed with the information. 2 
A corporate body may be a relator 8 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 ; 6 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) 



2 Att.-Gen. v. Tyler, 2 Eden, 230; Ld. Red. 
29, n. (1); and see S. C. at hearing, 1 Dick. 
378. 

i Smith Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 99. 

2 15 & 16 Vic. c. 86, § 11 ; see now R S. C. 
1883, Ord. XVI. 20. For form of authority, 
see Vol. III. 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, § 2 5; 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). 

3 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. t'. Colney Hatch Asylum, L. R. 4 Ch. 



149; Att.-Gen. v. Basingstoke, 45 L. J. Ch. 
726. 

4 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. Greenhill, 33 
Beav. 193; 9 Jur. N. S. 1307, Att.-Gen. v. 
Mayor of Kingston-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. 

o 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. Jennes, 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. v. Brereton, id. 
425; Att.-Gen. v. Mayor of Stamford, 2 Swanst. 
591 ; Att.-Gen. v. Parker, 1 Ves. Sr. 43; 3 Atk. 
576. 



(a) Re St. Stephens, 39 Ch D 492; Hoare 
v. Hoare, 56 L. T. 147, Biscoe v. Jackson, 35 
Ch. I). 460; Re Ovey, Broadbent v. Barrow, 29 
Ch. D 560; Darcy v. Kelley, 153 Mass. 433. 
The mode of administration or execution is not 
strictly of the substance of the gift. Biscoe v. 
Jackson, 35 Ch. D. 460. The jurisdiction to 
act on the cy prh doctrine upon the failure of a 
specific charitable bequest arises whether the 
residue is given to a charity or not, unless a 
direction 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. 
P. 342; Biscoe V Jackson. 35 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 chantv in the 

13 



*14 



PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY 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. 2 
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. 8 

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 Redesdale's Treatise, 4 it appears 

i Waller r. Hanger, 2 Bulst. 134; Ld Red. 1 Jur. N. S. 1062, Att.-Gen. v. Plumtree, 5 
100. See R. S. C. Ord. L. Mad. 452; 2 Mad. Prin. & Pr. Ch. (3d Lond. 

2 Ld. Red. 100, Att.-Gen. v. Haberdashers' 
Co. 15 Beav. 397, 16 Jur. 717. 

3 Ld. Red 100, n. (e) Att.-Gen. v. Harvey, 



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 v. 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 pros. In 
re Tavlor, Martin r. Freeman, 58 L T. 538; 
Re White's Trust. 33 Ch. D. 449. In New 
York, the doctrine of cy pres, upholding chari- 
table gifts when no beneficiary is named, is not 
recognized. Tilden v. Green, 130 N. Y. 29. 
After a formal application once made for a 
scheme, under the English Charitable Trust 
Act of 1860, 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 cypres application 
of charity funds by trustees, though long-con- 
tinued, is no ground of objection to a new au- 
thorized application Re Campden Charities, 
18 Ch 1). 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 a- maintaining a school, the funds of one 
charity 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 r. Grainger. 1 Mac. 
& G. 460: In re Tyler. Tyler v. Tyler (1891), 
3 Ch. 252; 65 L. f. 367; In re Randell. Ran- 
dell v. Dixon, 38 Ch. D. 213. An advowson is 
not an exception to the general law as to 
charitable trusts Re St. Stephen's, 39 Ch. D. 
492. considering the dicta in Att -Gen. v. 
Parker, supra. 



THE QUEEN'S ATTORNEY GENERAL. * 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, 5 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/ 
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. 2 

Where relators conduct themselves properly, and their conduct has 
been beneficial to the charity, they are usually allowed their costs ; 8 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. 5 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 

5 Ante, p. 9. Ves. 424; see also id. 425; Att.-Gen. v. Carte, 

6 Ante, p. 12. 1 Dick. 113; Reames on Costs, App. No 2. 

7 Att.-Gen. v. Smart, 1 Ves. Sr. 72; Att- 22!); Moggridge V. Thackwell, 7 Ves. 311, 88; 
Gen. v. Parker, 3 Atk. 570, 576; 1 Ves. Sr. 43. affirmed by H. L., see 13 Ves. 416 ; but see Att - 

1 Att.-Gen. v. Oglender, 1 Ves. Jr. 246. Gen. v. Fishmongers' Co. 1 Keen, 492. where 

2 Att.-Gen. v. Bolton, 3 Anst. 820; see Att.- party and party costs only were allowed For 
Gen. v. Hartley, 2 J. & W. 353. form of order for costs, see 1 Seton, 554, 555. 

3 Beames on Costs, 14; Att.-Gen. v. Brewers' 5 Att.-Gen. v. Kerr, 4 Beav. 297, 303; Re 
Co. 1 P. Wins. 376. Dulwich College, L. B. 15 Eq. 294, M. R.; but 

4 Att.-Gen. v. Kerr, 4 Beav. 297, 303; Att.- see Att.-Gen. v. Skinners' Co. Jac. 629; Att.- 
Gen. v. Taylor, cited in Osborne ». Denne, 7 Gen. v. Manchester, 3 L. J. Ch. 64. 

15 



* 16 PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY BE INSTITUTED. 

actually out of pocket ; 6 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. 2 (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, 8 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 Crown 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 

s Att-Gen. v. Ironmongers' Co. 10 Beav. 36, 88; affirmed by H L., 13 Ves 416; Mills 

194 196 v. Farmer, 19 Ves. 490; 1 Mer. 104; Att.-Gen. 

7 Att.-Gen. v. Berry, 11 Jur. 114; see Re v. Lord Ashburnham, 1 S. & S. 394. 
Poplar & Blackwall Free School, 8 Ch. D. 543. 4 Re Dulwich College, L. R 15 Eq. 294, 

i Att.-Gen. v. Tyler, 2 Eden, 230; see also M. R.; and see Att.-Gen. v. Kerr, 4 Beav. 297, 

Att.-Gen. v. Knight", 3 M. & C. 154. It is pre- 303. For form of orders, see 1 Seton, 554, 

sumed that the same rules, for determining Nos. 11, 12. 

who is a " person of substance," apply here as 6 For form of order for costs of Attorney- 

in the case of next friends of married women ; General appearing separately from relators, see 

as to whom, see post, Chap. HI. § 8. There Att.-Gen. v. Wyggeston Hospital, 2 June, 1855, 

is a reported case in which a relator was re- A. 1024; 1 Seton (3d ed.), 351, No. 13. 
quired to give security for costs, see Att.-Gen. 6 Moggridge v. Thackwell, 7 Ves. 36, 88; 

t>. Skinners' Co. C. P. Coop. 1, 5; and see Mills v. Farmer, 19 Ves. 483,490; I Mer. 55, 

Att.-Gen. r. Knight, 3 M. & C. 154. 104 ; Att.-Gen. v. Lewis, 8 Beav. 179. 

2 In the Court of Exchequer the order was 7 See Att.-Gen. v. Lord Ashburnham, 1 S. 
that the defendant may go without a day, upon & S. 394, 397; See, however, Burney v. Mac- 
paying his costs to be taxed. 1 Fowler, 104. donald, 15 Sim. 6, 16. 

3 Moggridge v. Thackwell, 1 Ves. 475 ; 7 Ves. 

(a) As to the power of the Attorney-General of the Attorney-General, or with his consent, 

to compromise suits relating to charities, see alter the scheme of a charity as settled by its 

Att.-Gen. v. Boucherett, 25 Beav. 116; Att.- previous decree. Att.-Gen. v. Bishop of Wor- 

Gen. v. Fishmongers' Co. C. P. C. 85; An- cester, 9 Hare, 328; Att.-Gen. v. St. John's 

drews v. Merchant Tailors' Co. 7 Ves. 223; Hospital, L. R. 1 Ch. 92; Re Browne's Hos- 

S. C. nam. Andrews v. Trinity Hall, 9 Ves. pital v. Stamford, 60 L. T 288; Att.-Gen. v. 

525. Upon substantial grounds the Court Stewart, L. R. 14 Eq. 17; see Re Bradford 

may, from time to time, upon the application School of Industry, W. N. (1893) 60. 

16 



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 as 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. 12 



♦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 



8 Att.-Gen. v. London, 2 M'N. & G. 247, 
269, 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, 
nom. Kane v. Reynolds, 4 De G. M. & G. 565, 
569 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 148. 

9 40 & 41 Vic. c. 13, § 5. 

w Att.-Gen. v. Hanmer, 4 De G. & J. 205; 
5 Jur. N. S. 693; Att.-Gen. o. 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, in 
cases as to succession duty. 

n Att.-Gen. v. Chester, 14 Beav. 338; Att.- 
Gen. v. Mercers' Co. 18 W. R. 448, V. C. J. 

i 2 Secretary of State for War v. 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 & 37 Vic. c. 66, § 23; 38 & 39 Vic. c. 77, 
§ 21. As to a Queen Dowager, see Att.-Gen. 
v. Tarrington, Hardres, 219. As to the Attor- 
ney-General to the Prince of Wales, see Att.- 
Gen. v. St. Aubyn, Wightw. 167; Att.-Gen. 

VOL. I. — 2 



v. Plymouth, id. 134; Att.-Gen. v. Lambe, 11 
Beav. 213; Att.-Gen. v. Crossman, L. R. 1 Ex. 
38H 12 Jur. N.S.712. The Princess of Wales 
may sue, during coverture, by her next friend. 
Princess of Wales v. Lord Liverpool, 1 Swanst. 
114. 

1 King of Spain v. Machado, 4 Russ. 225, 
236; Hullett v. King of Spain, 2 Bligh, 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 Huntingfield, 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. 
3 Eq. 724; S. C. L. R. 2 Ch. 582; Prioleau v. 
United States, L. R. 2 Eq. 659; United States 
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 Beav. 1; 2 H. L. 
Cas. 1; King of Hanover v. 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 allirm- 

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 not 
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. 3 

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 v. 
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; King of Spain r. Mendaz- 
abel. 5 Sim. 596; Edwards. Parties in Eq. 3:?. 34, 
35; Calvert on Parties, c, 3, § 27, pp. 310, 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 appe;ir 
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 v. Peters, 5 Cranch, 115; 
United States v. Blight, 3 Hall, Law Journ. 
197; United States v. Percheman, 7 Peters, 51; 
New York r. Connecticut, 4 Dallas, 1; New 
Jersey v. New York, 5 Peters, 284; Rhode 



Island v. Massachusetts, 13 Peters, 23; S. C. 
14 Peters, 210, 3 Story, Const. U. S- §§ 1675- 
1683; Nabob of the Carnatic v. East India Co. 

I Sumner's Ves. 371, note («). 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 Buss. 225, 
560, 2 Bligh, N. S. 60; see also Columbian 
Government v Rothschild, 1 Sim. 94; King of 
Hanover r. Wheat ley, 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 post, Chap. IV. § 4, 
on the liability of foreign States to be sued. 

2 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. 

8 Republic of Liberia v. Imperial Bank, 25 
L. T. N S. 866. 



(a) A suit lies by a foreign soveieign 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 r. 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. App. 
Sup. 119, 126. The Court of Chancery may 
18 



proceed to administer a trust fund in its 
custody, although a foreign sovereign who 
is interested in it may not think fit to come 
before the Court in a suit relating thereto. 
Morgan r. 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 r. Mills, 
63 L. T. 186. See Gladstone v. 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. Wegueliu, L. R. 8 
Eq. 212 ; Goodwin v. Robarts, 1 App. Cas. 
476 ; L. R. 10 Ex. 76, 337. A suit cannot be 
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. 2 

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; 3 but the proceedings may be 

4 Emperor of Austria v. Day, 2 GifT. 628; the government, or to join as co-plaintiff any 
7 Jur. N. S. 483; 3 De G. F. & J. 217; 7 Jur. such officer on whom process may be served, 
N. S- 639. and who may be called upon to give discovery 

5 9 Ves. 347; and see Dolder v. Bank of upon a cross-bill ; reversing the order of Sir W. 
England, 10 Ves. 353; Dolder v. Lord Hunt- Page Wood (Lord Hatherley) in S. C. L. R. 3 
ingfield, 11 Ves. 283. Eq 724. In the above case" (L. R. 2 Ch. 589, 

1 Taylor v. Barclay, 2 Sim. 213, 220. 5!)2), Lord Justice Turner said: " In the cases 

2 Thomson v. Powles, 2 Sim. 194, 210. referred to, the form of government was mon- 
8 In United States v. Wagner, L. R. 2 Ch. archical; and I take it that, in such cases, the 

582, it was held that a foreign sovereign State public property of the State, so far as it is 
adopting the republican form of government is not by the Constitution of the State otherwise 
not bound to sue in the name of any officer of destined, vests in the sovereign, subject to a 



(b) If a revolutionary or de facto govern- Ch. D. 348. See Republic of Peru v. Peruvian 

ment is overthrown by the previously existing Guano Co. 36 Ch. D. 489. Probably al=o if 

government after its recognition by a foreign there has been no international recognition, 

State, the restored government cannot repu- property acquired under such contracts can- 

diate contracts made by it with a subject of not be recovered abroad in violation of 

such foreign State, but in litigation thereon such contracts. Ibid.; The Beatrice, 36 L J. 

merely takes the rights of the recognized Adm. 9. 
government. Republic of Peru v. Drevfus, 38 

19 



* 20 PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY 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, 2 and a bill filed by it may be dis- 
missed with costs. 3 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 has existence ; 6 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. 7 

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 his subjects; and when he sues in L. R. 16 Eq. 179, V. C. M. ; L. R. 9 Ch. 569, 

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. Cas. 139, H. L. (E); Republic 

person in whom the property is vested for the of Costa Rica v 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.; post, p. 141. 

State, and the State, therefore, and not any J Rothschild v. Queen of Portugal, 3 Y. & 

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. 359; 1 CI. & Fin. 333; and cases ante, 

Lord Chancellor and Lord Cairns in the same 17, n 

case. See United States v. Drummond, 33 2 Republic of Costa Rica r. Erlanger, W. N. 

Beav. 449. Wilson v. Church, 9 Ch. D. 552. (1876) 210. 225; 24 W. R. 880, 955. 

But the Court may stay proceedings in the 3 See United States v. McRae, L R. 8 Eq 

original suit until the means of discovery are 69, 77, V. C. L; Queen of Spain v. Parr, 39 L. 

secured 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- 4 Schneider v. Lizardi, 9 Beav. 461, 466; 

cellor and Lord Cairns, L J. ; Republic of Columbian Government v. Rothschild. 1 Sim. 

Peru r. 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. 

obeyed. Republic of Liberia v. Rove, 1 App. 6 Penedo v. Johnson, 29 L. T. N. S. 452; 

Cas. 139. But the complainant will not be 22 W. R. 103. 

allowed to select the officer of the foreign 6 Barclay v. Russell, 3 Ves. 424, 434; and 

government to be made co-defendant with a see Sloman v. New Zealand, 1 C. P. D.563, C A. 

view to discovery, and to stay proceedings 7 Penn v. Lord Baltimore, 1 Ves. Sr. 444, 

until such person has appeared and answered. 446, 2 L. C in Eq. (4th ed.) 939. 

Republic of Costa Rica c. Erlanger, 1 Ch. D. 171. 8 1 Bla. Com. 475; Hotchkiss v. 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. 2 

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. 3 

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. Mon. 216; Le Grand v. Hampden Sidney- 
College, 5 Munf. 324; Trustees of Lexington v. 
M'Connell, 3 A. K. Marsh. 224 ; Central Manuf. 
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. XVL 14, 15; Ord. 
VII. 2; Ex parte Blain, 12 Ch. D. 522, 533; 
Leathley v. McAndrew, W. N. (1875) 259; 
Pike v. Keene, W. N. (1876) 36; 24 W. R. 
322; Republic of Liberia v. Rove, 1 App. Cas. 
139. 

9 A corporation can be called upon to answer 
only by its proper name. Biriney'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. 
Young, 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 
it 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 i'. 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, I Duer, 
707; State v. Mead, 27 Vt. 722; State v. Cen- 
tral Railroad Co. 28 Vt. 584; State v. Same, 28 
Vt. 583; Camden &<\ 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. 

1 44 Ed. HI. 35; 1 Kvd'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. r. Worcester, 2 Phil. 3; 1 
Coop. temp. Cott. 18. 

» See 9 Ed. IV. 21: 13 Hen. VII. 14: 16 
Hen. VII. 1; and 21 Hen. VI. 4, which last 
seems contra. 
a 2 Salk. 451. 



21 



* 23 PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY 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 transactions 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. 2 

A corporation aggregate, whicli 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 town may sue by the description of A & 

A declaration, upon a promissory note, that it B, and the rest of the inhabitants of such town, 

was made to the Medway Cotton Manufactory, instead of using; the corporate name merely, 

a corporation, &c, by the name of K. 31. & Co., Barkhampstead v. Parsons, 3 Conn. 1. And a 

was held good on demurrer. Medway Cotton county in Tennessee may sue in the name of t 1 e 

Manufactory r. Adams, 10 3Iass. 360. See Justices composing the County Court. 3Iaury 

Charitable Association v. Baldwin, 1 3Iet. 359: County r. Lewis County, ] Swan, 236. 
Commercial Bank i\ French, 21 Pick. 586. If, 2 Att.-Gen. v. Wilson, C. & P. 1, 21, 24. 

in a contract with a corporation, its name be so 3 2 Bae. Ab. tit. Corp. E. 2. 

given as to distinguish it from other corpora- 4 1 Kyd on Corp 281. 

tions, it is sufficient to support an action in the 5 2 Inst. 666. The corporation's " property 

true corporate name. Hagerstown Turnpike v. is legally vested in itself, and not in its stock- 

Creeger, 5 Har. & J. 122; S. P. Inhabitants of holders. As individuals they cannot, even by 

Alloway Creek r. Strong, 5 Halst. 323; Berks joining together unanimously, convey a title to 

and Dauphin Co. v. 3Iyers, 6 S. & R- 16; Wool- it, or maintain an action at law for its posses- 

wich v. Forrest, Penning. 11: First Parish in sion, or for damages done to if. Nor can they 

Sutton v. Cole. 3 Pick. 232; Mil. and Chil. make a contract that shall bind it, orenforce by 

Turnpike Co. t. Brush, 10 Ohio, 111. action a contract that has been made with it." 

A misnomer of a corporation in a grant or Chapman J. in Peabody v. Flint, 6 Allen, 55, 

obligation will not prevent a recovery in the 56. See Kennebec & Port. R. R. Co. r. Port. & 

true name, the latter being shown by proper Kennebec R. R. Co. 54 3Iaine, 173. Hence, in 

averments. Bank of Tenn. v. Burke, 1 Coldw. Chancery, a suit by members in their corpo- 

623. rate capacity does not become defective by the 

Contracts made by mere servants or agents death of some of them. Blackburn v. Jepson. 

of corporations may be sued in the name of the 3 Swanst 132, 138. 

corporations. Binney v. Plumley. 5 Vt. 500. 1 2 Bac. Ab. tit. Corp. E. 2; Weston r. 

See Proctor v. Webber, 1 Chip." 371; African Hunt, 2 Mass. 500. 
Society v. Varick, 13 John. 38. 2 Ibid. 

22 



CORPORATIONS AND JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES. * 24 

by him, although instituted in his corporate capacity, becomes abated, 3 
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." 2 

8 But see contra, Polk v. Plummer 2 Humph. Rank v. Simontor., 2 Texas, 531. See Mech- 

500; Felts v. Mayor of Memphis, 2 He:i<l, 650; anics' Bank v. Goodwin, 2 Green, 439. A 

Ezell v. Justices, 3 Head, 586; Anon. 1 Hayw. corporation chartered in one State may sue in 

144. the Courts of another State. Williamson v. 

4 1 Kyd on Corp. 77. Smoot, 7 Martin (La.), 31; Lucas v. Bank of 

5 1 Kyd on Corp. 78. Georgia, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 147; New York Fire 

1 Story, Eq. PI. § 497; see Livingston v. Ins. Co. v. Ely, 5 Conn. 560; Cape Fear Bank 
Lynch, 4 John. Ch. 573, 596. P. Stinemetz, 1 Hill, 44; Hank of Michigan ''• 

2 Lloyd v. Loaring, 6 Ves. 773; Womersley Williams, 5 Wend. 478; 7 Wend. 53'.i : Ports- 
v. Merritt, L. R. 4 Eq. 695. A foreign corpo- mouth Livery Co. r. Watson, 10 M;i*s. 91 
ration may sue in its corporate name in Chan- Taylor t'. Bank of Alexandria, 5 Leigh, 471 
eery, as well as at Law. Silver Lake Bank v. Bank of Edwardsville v Simpson, 1 Mo. 184 
North, 4 John. Ch. 372; Story Eq. PL § 55; Lothrop v. Commercial Bank of Scioto, 8 
Society for Propagating the Gospel v Wheeler, Dana, 114; New Jersey Pro'ection Bank v. 
2 Gall. 105; Society for Propagating the Thorp, 6 Cowen, 46; Pendleton ?•. Bmk of 
Gospel v. New Haven, 8 Wheat. 464; South Kentucky, 1 Monroe, 171; Taylor p. Bank or 
Carolina Bank »>. Case, 8 B. & C. 427; Bank Illinois, 7 Monroe, 584; Bank of Marietta v. 
of Scotland v. Kerr, 8 Sim. 246; Collins Co. Pindall, 2 Rand. 465; Reed v. Conococheqne 
v. Brown, 3 K. & J. 423; 3 Jur. N. S. 929; Bank, 5 Rand. 326; Bank of Augusta V. Earle, 
Prioleau v. United State, L. R. 2 Eq. 668; The 13 Peters, 519; Stewart v. 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, iu 
must prove that by the law of the foreign country it was effectually 

incorporated. 5 
* 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. 2 

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. 3 

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. 
455; B:ink of Washtenaw v. Montgomery, 2 
Scam. 422; Guaga Iron Co. v. Dawson, 
4 Blackf. 202; Mechanics' Bank v. Goodwin, 
2 Green, 239; Lewis v. Bank of Kentucky, 
12 Ohio, 132. A State is a corporation, and 
may sue as such in another State. Delafield v. 
Illinois, 2 Hill (N. Y.), 159, S. C. 8 Paige, 
527; Hines v. North Carolina, 10 Sm. & M. 
529. 

3 See preceding note. 

4 Angell & Ames, Corp. § 632. 

5 Dutch West India Co. v. Van Moyses, 
2 Ld. Ray. 1535; 1 Strange, 612. As to the 
necessity of proving the corporate existence of 
a foreign corporation, see School District r. 
Blaisdell, 6 N. H. 198; Lord r. Bigelow, 8 Vt. 
445; Society &c. v. Young, 2 N. H. 310; The 
Guaga Iron Co. v. Dawson. 4 Blackf. 203; 
Portsmouth Livery Co. v. Watson, 10 Mass. 
92; Bank v. 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 
State. Lewis v. Bank of Kentucky, 12 Ohio, 
132; see Agnew v. Bank of Gettysburg, 2 Har. 
& G. 478; Portsmouth Liverv Co. v. Watson, 

24 



10 Mass. 92; Eagle Bank of New Haven v. 
Chapin, 3 Pick. 180; Carmichael r. Trustees of 
School Lands, 3 How. (Miss.) 84; Wil iams 
v. Bank of Michigan, 7 AVend. 539; Bank of 
Waterville v. W. W. Bk. 13 How. Pr. 270; 
Zion Church v. St. Peter's Church, 5 W. & 
S. 215; Winnipiseogee Lake Co. v. Young, 40 
N. H. 420, 428. 

1 Lloyd v. Loaring, 6 Ves. 779; Womersley 
v. Merritt, L. R. 4 Eq. 695. 

2 See Chancey v. May, Prec. in Ch. 592; 
Good v. Blewitt, 13 Ves. 397; Cockburn v. 
Thompson, 16 Ves. 321, 325 ; Pearce v. Piper, 17 
Ves. l;BIain v Agar,] Sim. 37, 43; 2 Sim. 289; 
Gray v. Chaplain, 2 S. & S. 267, 272; 2 Russ. 
126; Van Samlau r. Moore, 1 Russ. 441; Lund 
v. Blanchard, 4 Hare, 290, 292; Womersley v. 
Merritt, L. R. 4 Eq. 695, V. C. M.; and see 
pout. Chap. V. § 1, Purties; R. S. C. Ord. 
XVI. 9. 

3 For the history of such companies, and of 
the provisions regulating them, see Van San- 
dan r. 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. 32. For form of order to 
substitute a new officer, see Meek v. Burnley, 
M. R. 12 Jan., 1863, Reg. Lib. B. 6; and 2 
Seton, 1528, No. 5. 



CORPORATIONS AND JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES. 



26 



as themselves, they may maintain such a suit 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. 562; Wall- 
worth v. Holt, 4 M. & C. 619, 635; Colman v. 
Eastern Counties Ry. Co. 10 Beav. 1'; Bag- 
sliaw v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co. 7 Hare, 114; 
2 M. N. & G. 389; Heath v. Ellis, 12 Met. 
601; Allen v. Curtis, 26 Conn. 456; Putnam v. 
Sweet, 1 Chand. (Wis.) 286; Saekett's Harbor 
Bank v. Blake, 3 Rich. Eq. 225; Cunliffe v. 
Manchester and Bolton Canal Co. 1 M. & R. 
131, note; Manderson v. Commercial Bank, 28 
Penn. 379; Bait. & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Wheel- 
ing, 13 Gratt. 40. 

Peabody v- Flint, 6 Allen, 52; Robinson v. 



(a) Lambert v. Neuchatel Asphalt Co. 51 
L. J. Ch. 882; Pickering v. Stephenson, L. R. 
14 Eq. 322; Ward v. Sittintfbourne &c. Ry. 
Co. L. R. 9 Ch. 488; Isle of Wight Ry. Co. v. 
Tahourdin, 25 Ch. D. 320; Studdert y."Grosve- 
nor, 33 Ch. D. 528; Sellers v. Phcunix Ins. 
Co. 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 
vires, when he really sues by direction of a 
rival company and to protect its interests. 
Forrest r. Manchester &c. Ry. Co. 9 W. R. 
818, affirming 30 Beav. 40; Seaton v. Grant, 
36 L. J. Ch. 638; L. R. 2 Ch. 465. See Russell 
v. Wakefield Waterworks Co. L. R. 20 Eq. 
474. But it has since been held that the share- 
holder, though chargeable with mala Jides, was 
entitled to have his right enforced. Bloxom 
v. Met. Ry. Co. L. R. 3 Ch. 337; Mutter v. 
Eastern & M. Ry. Co. 38 Ch. D. 92. As to 
the use of the company's name as plaintiff by 
a member or the directors, see Pender o. Lush- 
ington, 6 Ch. D. 70; Duckett v. Gover, id. 82; 
Mason v. Harris, 11 Ch. I). 97; Harben v. 
Phillips, 23 Ch. D. 14; Ruston v. Tobin, W N. 
(1880) 19; post, p. 242: Cape Breton Co. v 
b'enn, 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. R. 427. See Hawes v. Oakland, 104 U. S. 
450; Detroit v. 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 funds of the company Gouroud v. 
Edison & G. Tel. Co. 57 L. J. Ch. 498. 

The directors of a public company are trus- 



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 v. Boston Copper Co. 15 Pick. 
351, see Durfee v. Old Colony R. 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) Foss v. Harbottle, 
2 Hare, 461; Mozley v. Alston, 1 Phil. 790; 
McDougaU v. Gardiner, 1 Ch. D 14; infra, 
p. 243. But if the action of the corpora- 



tees of their powers for the shareholders, but 
not for the creditors. Re 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 v De Magathias, 25 Fed. Rep. 
697. 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 Ry. Co. v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co. 
23 Fed Rep. 232. 

Rule 94 of the U. S. Supreme Court (zee post, 
Vol. III.) requires that a bill by a shareholder 
against the corporation, founded upon a right 
which it may assert, shall specify the plaintiffs 
efforts to obtain its action, and the reasons of 
his failure. See Leo v Union Pac. Ry. Co. 
17 Fed. Rep. 273; McHenry v. New York, P. 
& O. R. Co. 22 id. 130; Ranger v. Champion 
Cotton-Press Co. 52 id. 611, and see Quincv 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; Daun- 
meyer v Coleman, 8 Sawyer, 51 ; 11 Fed Rep. 
97; Morgan v. Kansas Pac. Ry Co. 15 id 55; 
Bill v, W. U. Tel. Co. 16 id. 14;"Foote ». Cunard 
Mining Co. 17 id. 46 ; Foster v. Mansfield &C. R. 
Co. 36 id. 627: see Hansom Cab Co. v. Verkes, 
141 III. 320; Alexander v. Searcy, 81 Ga. 536; 
Knoop v. Bohmrich, 49 N. J. Fq. 82; Hazard r. 
Durant, 19 Fed. Rep. 471. If the suit is suc- 
cessful, and the conduct of the corporation is 

25 



26 



PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY 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 is 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. 
Merryweather, 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. 5 Eq. 450; S. 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 the 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 r. 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 v. 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. v. Frank, 
148 U. S. 603; 39 Fed. Rep. 456; St. Louis&c. 
Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 114 U. S. 60; Sully i\ 
Drennan, 113 U. S. 287; Davenport v. Dows, 
18 Wall. 626; Dewing v. Perdicaries, 96 U. S. 
193; Wellman v. Howland O. & 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 v. Wechsel- 
berg, 45 id. 547, Rogers v. Van Nortwick, id. 
513 ; Vinal v. Continental C. & I. Co. 35 id. 
673; 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 ;1 
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 corpora'ion, one 
stockholder may sue for himself and others 
where he has first rmde 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. 28 5; 
Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331; Memphis 

field v. Nims, 110 Mass. 115; Lyman i\ Bonney, 
101 Mass. 562; Pope v. Leonard, 115 Mass 286. 
See Bogardus v. Rosendale Manuf. Co. 7 N. Y. 
147, 151 : Patterson v. Lynde, 112 III. 196 ; 
Turner V. Alabama Mining Co. 25 111. App. 
144; Atlanta Real Estate Co. v. Atlanta 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 o. Taylor (N. J.), 19 Atl. 968; Allen 
i'. Turner, 11 Gray, 436; Samis r. King, 40 
Conn. 298. The 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 parly, if no charges are 
made against it. Dennis r. 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. Roll< No. 
1, 42 Ch. D. 436. See Bishop v. Balkis Cons. 
Co. 25 Q. B. D. 77, 512; Low v. Bouverie, 
[1891] 3Ch 82; 65 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. T. 137; Tomkinson v. Balkis Cons. Co. 
[1891] 2 Q. B. 614; 64 L. T. 816; Cann w. 
Willson, 39 Ch. D. 39. 



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. 2 

The Statute 7 & 8 Vic. c. 110 was, from the year 1844 until the 
passing of "The Joint-Stock Companies' Act, 1856," 3 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 uutil the 
passing of "The Companies' Act, 1862, " 6 which repealed these Acts, 
but consolidated and re-enacted them; and this last-mentioned Act has 
been amended by "The Companies' Acts, 1867, 1877, 1879, and 1880. 7 
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 Gal. 320; Charleston Ins. 
& Tr. Co. V. Sebrig, 5 Rich. Eq. 342 ; Bayless 
v. Orne, 1 Freem. Ch. 173. Sec also, for cases 
in which bills by shareholders have been sus- 
tained under 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 general 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 aboard 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 Speering'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 r. 
Credit Mobilier, 7 Rep. 360, U. S. C. C. Pa. 

2 See Harrison r. Rrown, 5 De G. & S. 728; 
and see Sedden v. Connell, 10 Sim. 58, 76. 

8 19 & 20 Vic. c. 47. 

4 This Act did not apply to banking and 
insurance companies. See § 2. 



s See Womerslev v. Merritt, L. R. 4 Eq. 
695. 

6 25 & 26 Vic. c. 89. 

' 30 & 31 Vic. c. 131: 40 & 41 Vic. c. 26; 
42 & 43 Vic. c. 76: 43 Vic. c. 19. 

8 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 mav lie re- 
quired to give security for costs. See Australian 
Steam Co. o Fleming, 4 K. & J. 407; Caillaud's 
Co. v. Caillaud, 26 Beav. 427: 5 .Tur. 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 company being in a course of winding-up, 
the suit is by the official liquidator. Freehold 
Land & Brickmaking 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. i\ Mercati, L. R. 3 
Eq. 200, V. C. W. The security is not con- 
fined to £100, I ut 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 o. Bank of Hindustan, L. R 1 
Ch. 437: 12 Jur. N. S. 493, L. J.I., overruling 
Australian Steam Company t\ Fleming, ubi 
supra ; and see pott, p. 33. See R. S. ('. I,V. 2 
(Ord. Feb., 1876, n. 7); Western of Canada 
Oil Lands & Works Co. v. Walker, L. R. 10 
Ch.628; W. N. (1875) 209, T.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 
case of a petition, from being defeated of his right to costs, it is a rule, 
that if the plaintiff ' 2 or his next friend, 3 or the petitioner 4 (a) if he is not 



bank r. King's Lynn Steamship Co. 3 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-Dan u- 
bian Co. v. Rogerson, 10 Jur. N. S. 87, M. R. ; 
Pacific Steamship Co. v. 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. 
5, 20. See Ex parte Blain, In re Sawyer, 12 
Ch 522, 533; Leathley v. McAndrew, W. N. 
(1875) 259; Republic of Liberia i". Rove, 1 
A pp. Cas. 139 ; Pike v. 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, 



(ti) A petit'oner 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. 5. See 
Re Sturiris, 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 Eneland 
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. See 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 
security for costs may be lost by laches. See 
28 



M. R.; L. R. 4 Ch. 376, 382, L. C; 11 & 
12 Vic. c. 45, §§ 50, 52. 53, 60; Ernest ». 
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 Soctete' des Metaux, 37 
W. R. 735 (foreign company's property); 1 
Dan. Ch. Prac. (6th Eng. ed.) p. 310. 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. ' 
i Story Eq. PI. §§ 51-54. 

2 Though suing as executor or administrator, 
Knight v. De Blaquiere, Sau. & S. 648 ; Mur- 
free v. Leeper, 1 Overt. 1. 

3 Kerr v. Gillespie, 7 Beav. 269. 

4 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. 307 ; Re 
Llangynog Lead "Mining Co. 23 W. R. 587; 
Re Home Assurance Ass. L. R. 12 Eq. 112. 



Ibid.; Sims v. Bonner, 16 N. Y. S- 800; Fagan 
v. Strong, 11 id. 766; International & G. N. 
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 costs, by a company, or upon a petition 
for winding up a company, are: Northampton 
Coal Co. v. Midland Waggon Co. 7 Ch. D. 
500; Re Aberavon Tin Plate Co. 59 L T. 498; 
Lydney & Wigpool Iron Ore Co. v. Bird, 23 
Ch. D. 358; Pure Spirit Co. v. Fowler, 25 
Q. B. D. 235 ; Leeds Estate Co. v. 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. 52; Re 
Equestrian & P. B Co. 1 Meg. 166; Ryan 
v. Ring, 25 L. R. Ir. 186. 



PERSONS RESIDING OUT OF THE JURISDICTION. 



*28 



a party to the cause, 5 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; 6 and such an order may be made where a 
foreign government is the plaintiff. 7 *A plaintiff resident in *28 
Ireland 1 or Scotland may, it seems, be ordered to give security 
for costs. 2 (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 ; 3 and where the plaintiff is abroad as a land or sea officer in the 



6 Cochrane v. Fearon, 18 Jur. 568. 

6 Fox v. Blew, 5 Mad. 147; Lillie v. Lillie, 
2 M. & K. 404; Lautour v. Holcombe, 1 Phil. 
202, 204; Newman v. Landrine, 14 N. J. Eq. 
291 ; Barker v. Lidwell, 1 Jones & Lat. 703. 
And it lias been h»ld that in default of the 
plaintiff giving security for costs when ordered, 
his bill should be dismissed. Carnac v. Grant, 
1 Sim. 348; Massey v. Gillelan, 1 Paige, 644; 
Breeding v. Finley, 1 Dam, 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 v. 
Pendleton, 3 John. Ch. 520: Catchcart v. Hew- 
son, 1 Hayes, 173. Especially after plea, 3 
John. Ch. 520. As to giving security where all 
the plaintiffs are out of, but the next friend is 
within, the jurisdiction, see Lander v. Parr, 16 
L. J. Ch. 269, L. C. 

7 Republic of Costa Rica v. Erlanger, 3 Ch. 
D. 62. Where a plaintiff appears to have no 
permanent residence, he will be made to give 
security for costs. Bailey v. Gundry, 1 Keen, 
53; Flayer v. Anderson, 15 Sim. 104; 10 Jur. 
169 ; and see Calvert v. Day, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 
217 ; Sibbering v. Earl of Balcarras, 1 De G. & 
S. 683; 12 Jur. 108; Hurst v. Padwick, 12 
Jur. 21; Liimley v. Hughes, 2 W R. 112; 
Manby v. Bewicke, 8 De G. M. & G. 468 ; 2 



(a) A foreigner who usually resides abroad, 
but resides temporarily in England in order 
to enforce a claim by action, cannot be required 
to give security for costs. Redondo v. Chaytor, 
4 Q. B. D. 453. And in Ebrard v. Gassier, 28 
Ch. D. 232, following this decision, it was held 
that, where one of the plaintiffs, who were 
par ners, 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 v. 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 (i891), 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 v. Whitcher, 5 Jur. 
N S. 84, V. C. K., Knight v. Cory. 9 id. 491, 
V. C. W.; Dick v. Munder, 11 id. 819; 13 W. 
R. 1013, M. R. The rule extends to the next 
friend of a plaintiff. See Kerr v. Gillespie, 7 
Beav. 269 ; Watts v. Kelly, 6 W. R. 206. 

1 Hill v. Reardon, 6 Mad. 46; Moloney r. 
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 v. Christmas, 2 Ball & B. 422; Stack- 
poole «. Callaghan, 1 Ball & B. 566. 

2 Kerr r. Duchess of Minister, Bunb. 35; Ex 
parte Latta, 3 De G. & S. 186. See 31 & 
32 Vic c. 54, § 5; Raeburn v. Andrews, L. R. 
9 Q. B. 118; Re East Llangvnog Lead Mining 
Co. W. N. (1875) 81 ; 23 W. R. 587, M. R. See 
also R. S. C. Ord. LV.; Garnett v. Bradlev, 3 
App. Cas. 944; 2 Ex. D. 349. 

8 Winthrop v. Royal Exch. Ass. Co. 1 Dick. 
282; Walker v. Easterby, 6 Ves. 612; Green 
v. Charnock, 1 Sumner's Ves. 396, and note 
(a); D'Hormusgee v. Grey, 10 Q. B. D. 13; 
Orr v. Bowles, 1 Hodges, 23: Doe v. Roe, id. 
315; Gilbert v. Gilbert, 2 Paige, 603; Burgess 
v. 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 v. 
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 v Crosley (1891), Q. B. 224: 39 
W. R. 211 ; Walklin v. Johns, 7 T. L. R. 181. 
See generally, Michiels v. The Empire Palace, 
60 L. T. 132; Howard v. Howard. 30 L. R. Ir. 
340; Thannhauser v. Cortes Co. 9 Fed. Rep. 
225; Hugunin v. 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. 
Frazer o. Palmer, 3 Y. & C Ex. 279. As to a 
foreign claimant coming in, see Apollinaris Co. 
v. Wilson, 31 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 ; 4 and so 
where he is resident abroad upon public service, as an ambassador or 
consul, he cannot -be called upon to give security. 5 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 county. 6 And 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 

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 ; x 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 Common Law is so far a defen- 
sive proceeding as to exempt the plaintiff in Equity from the liabil- 
ity to give security for costs; 3 but 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 costs ; 4 and so also, a defend- 
ant who had obtained the. conduct of the cause has been required to 
give security. 5 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 v. Shaw, 2 De G & S. 360; Sloggett v. Viant, 

the State. Pub. Stats, c. 161, § 24. 13 Sim. 187; Wild v. Murray, 18 Jur. 892; 

* Evelyn v. Chippendale, 9 Sim. 497; Clark Tynte v. Hodge, 2 J. & H. 692; 8 Jur. N. S. 

v. Fergusson, 1 Giff. 184; 5 Jur. N. S. 1155; 1226; Washoe Mining Co. v. Ferguson, L. R. 2 

Fisher v. Bunbury, Sau. & S. 625; Wright v. Eq. 371. 
Evcrard, Sau. & S. 651. 2 Sloggett r. Viant, 13 Sim. 187; see post, 

5 Colebrook v. Jones, 1 Dick. 154; Beames p. 154, note («). 

on Costs, 123. As to ambassadors resident here 3 Watteeu v. Billam, 3 De G. & S 516; 14 

and their servants, seepost, p 141. The Court Jur. 165; Wilkinson v. Lewis, 3 Giff. 394; 8 

of Queen's Bench has required a Judge in the Jur. N. S. 908. 

East India Company's service to give security. 4 Smith r. Hammond, 6 Sim. 10, 15. But see 

Plowden v. Campbell, 18 Jur. 910, Q. B. ; see Belmonte ». Aynard, 4 C. P. D. 221, 352; 

Powell r. Bernhard, 1 Hogan, 144. Rhodes v. Dawson, 16 id. 548. 

6 Lord Aldborough v. Burton, 2 M. & K. 5 Mynn v. Hart, 9 Jur. 860, V. C. K. B. 
401, 403. 6 Jackson v. Davenport, 29 Beav. 212; 7 

1 Lillie v. Lillie, 2 M. & K. 404. As to secu- Jur. N. S 1224. 
rity by a limited company, see ante, p. 26, 7 Wyllie v. Ellice, 11 Beav. 99; 12 Jur 711; 

n. (8). and see Stewart v. Stewart, 30 Beav. 322. 

l Vincent v. Hunter, 5 Hare, 320; M'Gregor 

30 



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 rale. 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; 1 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. 8 Filing a 



8 Green v. Charnock, 3 Bro. C. C. 371 ; 2 
Cox, 284; 1 Ves. Jr. 39G; Hoby v. Hitchcock, 
5 Ves. 699; Edwardes v. Burke, 9 L. T. N. S. 
406. 

a Blakeney v. Dufaur, 16 Beav. 292; 2 De 
G M. & G. 771 ; 17 Jur. 98 ; and see Kennaway 
v. Tripp, 11 Beav. 588: Drunimond v. Tilling- 
hurst, 15 Jur. 384, Q. B. ; Stewart v Stewart, 
20 Keav. 322; Wyllie v. Ellice, 11 Beav. 99; 12 
Jur. 711; White v. 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 Cambottie v. Inngate, 1 W. R. 533, V. 
C. W.; Swanzy v. Swanzy, 4 K. & J. 237; 4 
Jur. N. S. 1013". 

2 O'Connor v. Sierra Nevada Co. 24 Beav. 
435. 



(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. 



3 Meliorucchy v. Meliorucchy, 2 Ves. S 24; 

1 Dick. 147; Craig v. Bolton, 2 Bro. C. C. 609; 
Anon., 10 Ves. 287 ; and see Swanzy v. Swanzy, 
4 K. & J. 237; 4 Jur. N. S. 1013*; Murrow v. 
Wilson, 12 Beav. 497; Cooper v. Purton, 8 \V\ 
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 v. 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, §24; yet the defend- 
ant must make the objection at the first term, 
or he will be held to have waived it. Carpenter 
v. Aldrich, 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. 



Martanot'. 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. 

01 



31 



PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY 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. 6 

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 2 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. 3 

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 



* Watteeu v. Billam, 3 De G. & S. 516; 14 
Jur. 165; Goodrich v. Pendleton, 3 John. Ch. 
520; Priors v. White, 2 Moll. 361; Eardy v. 
Headford, 4 Moll. 464. 

5 Wyllie v. Ellice, 11 Beav. 99; 12 Jur. 
911; and see Stewart v. Stewart, 20 Beav. 
322. 

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, — 
it w:is 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 v. Ellice, 11 Beav. 99; 
Smith v. Castles, 1 Gray, 108. 

2 Ex parte Seidler, 12 Sim. 106. See also 
Re Home Assurance Ass. L. R. 12 Eq. 112, V. 

32 



C. M.; Re Norman, 11 Beav. 401; Re Chepstow 
Bobbin Mills Co. 36 Ch. D. 563. 

3 See, however, Atkins v. Cook, 3 Drew. 
694; 3 Jur. N. S. 283. 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 v. Dyott, 1 
Mad. 187; and as to laches, see Wyllie v. 
Ellice, 11 Beav. 99; 12 Jur. 711: Swanzy v. 
Swanzy, 4 K. & J. 237; 4 Jur. N. S. 1013; 
Murrow v. Wilson, 12 Beav. 497. 

4 Anon. 2 Dick. 775; Hoby v. Hitchcock, 5 
Ves. 699; Weeks v. Cole, 14 Ves. 518; Busk v. 
Beetham, 2 Beav. 537; Kerr v. Gillespie, 7 Beav. 
269; Kennaway v. Tripp, 11 Beav. 588; Stewart 
o. Stewart, 20 Beav. 323 ; Edwardes v. Burke, 
9 L. T. N. S. 406, V. 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 State, 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, c. 129, § 29; Pub. Stats, c. 167, 
§ 30 ; Smith v. Castles, 1 Gray, 108. 



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. 5 

* 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. 8 



« 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. 

i Adams v. Colthurst, 2 Anst. 552 ; Willis 
v. Garbutt, 1 Y. & J. 511; 1 Barb. Ch. Pr. 103; 
Hoby v. Hitchcock, 5 Ves. 699. 



(o) 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. Brockiebank & Co. v. 
King's Lynn Steamship Co. 3 C. P. D. 365, 
overruling Oxenden v. Cropper, 4 Dowl. 574; 
Massey v. 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 
v. 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, 
supra; 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 
costs of appeal, see also Pooley's Trustee v. 

VOL. I. 3 



2 Seilaz v. 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,! B. & Aid. 159; 
Barrett v. Power, 9 Exch. 338 ; 18 Jur. 156 ; 
Dunn v. M'Evoy, 1 Hogan, 355. 

3 Anon. Mos. 175; Goodwin v. Archer, 2 P. 
Wms. 452; Adderly v. Smith, 1 Dick. 355. 



Wetham, 33 Ch. D. 76; 28 id. 38; Re Clough, 
35 Ch. D. 7; Ellis v. Stewart, id. 459; Farrer 
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; Wilniot 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'rs r. 
Dartmouth, L. J. 55 Q. B. 483. The rule that 
a defendant cannot be required to give security 
for costs does not 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, 3 C. B. 957; Tomlinson v. 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. Y. S. 877. As to increase at 
chambers, see Bentsen v. Taylor, [18D3] 2 Q. B. 
193. 



33 



* 33 PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY 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 £100.^ 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 8 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 Rolls, 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 5 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, 9 

l Gage v. Ladv Stafford, 2 Ves. 557; Cons. * Wyllie v. Ellice, 11 Beav. 99; 12 Jur. 711. 

Ord. XL. 6. See R. S. C. LV. 2 (Ord. Feb., s Tynte v. Hodge, 2 J. & H. 692. 

1876, r. 7); and 2 Seton, 1643, for forms. The 6 For forms of notice and summons, see 

order applies to the case of a plaintiff, with- Vol. III. 

in the jurisdiction, ordered to give security. " See Cons. Ord. I. 38. As to the form of 

Bailey v. Gundry, 1 Keen, 53. The Court re- the order for security and service, see 2 Seton, 

fused to increase, upon an interlocutory appli- 1269; Tilsley's Digest, 218; 1 Smith's Pr. 866; 

cation, the amount of security; Barry v. Jen- Braithwaite's Pr. 534. 

kins, 19 L. T. N. S. 276, V. C. M. It seems, » For forms of orders, see Seton, 1269, 1270. 
however, that in the case of a petition, the 9 The bond is in the following form : — 
amount is still only £40. Atkins v. Cooke, 3 " Know all men by these presents, that we, 
Jur. N. S. 283, V. C. K.; Partington v. Rey- A B, of the city of London, merchant, and 
nolds, 6 W. R. 307, V. C. K. In New C D, of the same place, merchant, are held 
York, the penalty of the bond was required to and firmly bound to , Esq., 
be at least $250 ; but the Court in a proper in the penal sum of , for 
case might enlarge it, and might either fix the which payment to be well and faithfully made ; 
amount itself or refer it to a Master. 2 Rev. we bind ourselves and each of us, our, and each 
Stats. N. Y. 620, § 4; Fulton v. Rosevelt, 1 of our heirs, executors, and administrators, firm- 
Paige, 179; Massey v. Gillelan, 1 Paige, 644; ly by these presents. Sealed with our seals, &c. 
Gilbert v. Gilbert, 2 Paige, 603. " Whereas L R, plaintiff, has lately ex- 

2 Ibid.; Ogilvie v. Hearne, 11 Ves. 599; hibited his bill of complaint in her Majesty's 
Anon. 12 Sim. 262; see also Re Passmore, 1 High Court of Chancery against R S, defend- 
Beav. 94; Re Dolman, 11 Jur. 1095, M. R. ant, touching the matter therein contained: 

3 What is stated in the text as to a bill suit Now the condition of this obligation is such, 
will apply, mutatis mutandis, to a summons that if the above bounden A B and C D, or 
suit, petition, or other proceeding in which either of them, their heirs, executors, or admin- 
security is directed to be given. istrators, do and shall well and truly pay, or 

34 



PERSONS RESIDING OUT OP THE JURISDICTION. * 35 

* engrosses it on paper bearing a 2s. 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 and on the same day serves notice 
thereof 3 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. 5 (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, 9 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; n 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 12 of the sole, or sole surviving, obligor, the 
defendant is entitled to apply by special motion, 13 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 ; x 

cause to be paid, all such costs as the Law Fellows v. Deere, 3 Beav. 353; Re Norman, 11 

Court shall think fit to award to the defendant Beav. 401. 

on the hearing of the said cause or otherwise, 9 Jarvis v. Shflnd, V. C. W. at Chambers, 

then this obligation to be void, or else to re- 30 Jan., 1804; Reff. Lib. A. 164; Merlin v. 

main in full force and virtue. Sealed and de- Blagrave, Seton, 1270. For forms of notice of 

livered, &c." motion and summons, see Vol, III. 

1 If the bond is for a larger sum than £100, 1° Cliffe v. Wilkinson, 4 Sim. 123. 

an increased stamp of Is. 3d. for each additional » See Cliffe n, Wilkinson, ubi supra ; Austra- 

£50 is payable ; see Tilsley's Digest, 218. lian Co. v. Fleming, 4K.& J. 407. In the case 

2 The bond should be indorsed with the of a petition it is presumed £60 would be suffi- 
short title of the cause or matter, the words cient. 

"Bond for Security for Costs," and the name, * 2 Transatlantic Co. V. Pietroni, cited Seton, 

&c, of the solicitor leaving it. 1269; Cliffe v. Wilkinson, 4 Sim. 122. 

3 For form of notice see Vol. III. 13 Latour v. Holcombe, 1 Phil. 262; and see 

4 Braithwaite's Pr. 534. Veifch v. Irving, 11 Sim. 122. 

5 Ibid - 14 Tynte v. Hodge, 2 J. & H. 602. For forms 

6 For form of notice, see Vol. III. of notice of motion and summons, see Vol. III. 

7 Braithwaite's Pr. 533. l See Lowndes v. Robertson, 4 Mad. 465; 

8 Cliffe v. Wilkinson, 4 Sim. 122; and see and see Ord. I. 38. 

35 



* 36 PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY BE INSTITUTED. 

and that a separate bond or bonds cannot afterwards be required. 2 
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. 5 

The defendant, on receiving notice that a bond has been lodged in 
the hrst 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, that 
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 : 12 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 13 in double the sum for which he is to be bound; " 
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. 15 

If the plaintiff fails to comply with the order to give security, the 
defendant may apply by special motion, or summons, 16 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 

2 See, however, 1 Smith's Pr. 866: Braith- in lieu of, or in addition to, the persons pro- 
waite's Pr. 532. posed. It is conceived, however, that the usual 

3 Lowndes v. Rohertson, 4 Mad. 465. practice is, as stated in the text, to notify the 

4 Panton v. Labertouche, 1 Phil. 265; 7 Jur. objection to the plaintiff before applying to the 
589. Court. For form of notice of objection, see Vol. 

5 Plestow v. Johnson, 1 Sm. & G. App. 20; of Forms. 

2 W. R. 3. 13 For form, see Vol. III. 

6 Panton v. I/tbertouche, 1 Phil. 265; 7 Jur. M See 1 Turn. & Ven. 764; 1 Grant, 444. 
589. I 5 The bond was formerly put in suit in the 

7 For forms of notice of motion and sum- Petty Bag Office, the procedure in which was 
mons. see Vol. III. regulated by 12 & 13 Vic. c. 109. 

8 Giddings 0. Giddings, 10 Beav. 29, and 16 For forms of notice of motion and sum- 
the cases collected, ib. 31; and see Denny v. mons. see Vol. III. 

Mars, Seton, 1279, where the order is given; 1 Cooper v. Purton, 1 N. R. 468, V. C. W.; 

Payne v. Little, 14 Beav. 647; O'Connor v. and see Giddings v. Giddings, 10 Beav. 20, 

Sierra Nevada Co. 23 Beav. 608. and cases collected 10 Beav. 31; Knight v. 

9 See form in Vol. III. De Blaquiere, Sail. & S. 648; Payne v. Little, 
1° See 1 Turn. & Ven. 764; 1 Grant, 444. 14 Beav. 647; O'Connor v. Sierra Nevada Co. 
U Bainbrigge v. Moss, 3 Jur. N. S. 107, 23 Beav. 608; Kennedy v. Edwards, 11 Jur. 

V. C. \V. N. S. 153, V. C W.; see also Camac v. Grant, 

12 See, however, Cliffe v. Wilkinson, 4 Sim. 1 Sim. 348; 2 Sim. 570; White r. Bromige, 26 

122, where the defendant moved on notice that W. R. 312. Charras v. Pickering, 39 L. J. Ch. 

the plaintiff might be ordered to give security 190, Le Grange v. McAndrew, 4 Q. B. D. 210- 

36 



PAUPERS. * 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. 2 If it 
becomes necessary for the defendant to put the bond in suit, he must 
obtain an order, 8 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. 5 

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, 6 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 apply, 
on special motion or summons, 7 that the order may be discharged; but 
he must pay the costs of the application. 8 



* Section V. — Paupers. * 37 

It has been before stated * 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 5 Braithwaite's Pr. 535. 536. For forms of 

security was extended, see Grant v. Ingram, 20 receipt and undertaking, see Vol. III. 

L. T. N. S. 70, V. C. M. For form of order, see 6 For form of summons, see Vol. III. 

2 Seton, 1541, No. 4. 7 For forms of notice of motion and sum- 

2 Cons. Ord. XXXVII. 14; see Henderson mons, see Vol. III. 
v. Atkins, 7 W. R. 318, V. C. K.; Drinan v. 8 O'Connor v. Sierra Nevada Co. 24 Beav. 

Mannix, 3 Dr. & \V. 154. For the time al 435; Mathews v. Chichester, 30 Beav. 135. 

lowed for making the defence, see R. S. C. For more on the subject of security for costs, 

Ord. XXII. 1-3. see post, Chap. III. § 2. Alien; Chap. VI. § 5, 

8 Robinson v. Brutton, 6 Beav. 147; Bain- The Bill; Ogilvie v. Hearn, 11 Ves. 600; Wor- 
brigge v. Mo<s, 3 Jur. N. S. 107, V. C. W.; Reg. rail v. White, 3 Jo. & Lat. 513; Hind r. Whit- 
Lib. 1857, A. 283. more, 2 K. & J. 458, 462; Drinan v. Mannix, 

4 For forms of notice and summons, see 3 Dr. & W. 154. 
Vol. III. l Ante, p. 5. 

37 



37 



PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY 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. 2 This liberality is extended to the 
case of the next friends of infants ; 3 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 a, 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 ; 6 because a married 



2 Such is the law of Massachusetts, Feneley 
v. Mahoney, 21 Pick. 212; and Tennessee, 
Dudley v. Baleh, 4 Hay. 192, Code of Tenn. 
§ 3192. This right must not be abused; 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 r. White, 
3 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. 476. 

3 The next friend of a minor plaintiff can- 
not be compelled to give security for costs. 
St. John v. Earl of Besborough, 1 Hogan, 41 , 
Fellows v. Barrett, 1 Keen, 119; Murrell i'. 
Clapham, 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 Ves. 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. Kosevelt, 1 Paige, 178. See Dal- 
rymple v. Lamb, 3 Wend. 424; Wice t\ Com- 
mercial Fire Ins. Co. 2 Abb. N. Cas. 325. 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 Ves. Jr. 409; Green v. Har- 
rison, 3 Sneed, 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 
v. 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 
v. 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, 3 
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 
v. Caley, 25 W. R. 528; Taner v. Fire, 2 Ves. 
466; Smith v. Floyd, 1 Pick. 275; Feneley v. 
Mahoney, 21 Pick. 212; Bradford v. French, 
110 Mass. 365; Bouche v. Ryan, 3 Blackf. 472; 
Yourie v. NeLon, 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 Ves. Jr. p. 410; Squirrel v. 
Squirrel, 2 Dick. 765; 2 P. Wms. 297, n.; Dav- 
enport v. Davenport, IS & S. 101; Murrell v. 
Clapham, 8 Sim. 74; Fellows t\ Bairett, 1 Keen, 
119. See preceding note. 

5 Anon. 1 Atk. 570; Pennington v. Alvin, 



PAUPERS. * 38 

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 was 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. 2 

The privilege is not extended to a plaintiff or a defendant suing or 
being sued in a representative character, as executor or administrator; 8 
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 pauperis, for the 
single purpose of clearing a contempt incurred in the cause. 5 

It is said, that a person filling the character of next friend cannot 
sue in forma pauperis, 6 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 Phil. 278; Part IV. 22-31. The Act 11 Hen. VII. c. 12, 

Stevens v. Williams, 1 Sim. N. S. 545; Wilton was repealed by 4G & 47 Vic. c. 49, § 4 Sched. 
v. Hill, 2 De G. M. & G. 807-809; Hind v. 3 Paradice v. Sheppard, 1 Dick. 136 ; 

Whitmore,2K. & J.458; Re Wills,9 Jur. N. S. Beames on Costs, 79 App. No. 21; Oldlield 

1225; 12 W. R. 97, V. C. S.; Elliott v. Ince, 7 v. Cobbett, 1 Phil. 613 ; 2 Beav. 446 ; 3 Bear. 

De G. M. & G. 475; 3 Jur. N. S. 597; Smith 432 ; 10 Jur. 2 ; Fowler v. Davies, 16 Sim. 

v. Etches, 1 H. & M. 711; 10 Jur. N. S. 124; 182; 12 Jur. 321 ; St. Victor v. Devereux, 6 

Re Payne, 23 Ch. D. 288; and see post, Femes Beav. 584 ; 8 Jur. 26. 
Covert Plaintiffs. 4 Thompson v. Thompson, H. T. 1824, 

Where the same person was the next friend cited 1 Turn. & Ven. 513 ,- and see Rogers v. 
of an infant plaintiff and of a married woman Hooper, 1 W. R. 474, V. C. K. ; Everson r. 
plaintiff, Lord St. Leonards stayed the proceed- Matthews, 3 W. R. 159, V. C. W. ; Parkin- 
ings in the cause until the next friend of the son v. Chambers, lb. 34, V. C. W. As to the 
feme plaintiff was changed or gave security for affidavit in such a case, see Martin v. Whit- 
costs. Drinan v. Mannix, 2 Dru. & War. 154. more, W. N\ (1869) 42 ; 17 W. R. 809, L. C. 

6 Beames on Costs, 72. 6 Oldfield v Cobbett, 1 Coll. 169. 

1 See Story, Eq. PI. §50; 1 Harr. Ch. Pr. by 6 Anon. 1 Ves. Jr. 410. The reason is, 
Newl. 389, 390; 1 Hoff. Ch. Pr. 67, et seq. ; that the privilege of suing in forma pauperis 
Isnard v. Cazeaux, 1 Paige, 39. is personal Williamson v. Belsher, 2 Bro. 

2 See post, Chap. IV. § 7, P'tuper Defend- C. C. 272 ; Robertson v. Robertson, 3 Paige, 
ants. In England this practice has been adopted 387 So of the next friend of a married 
in the Chancery Division of the High Court of woman. Lawrence v Lawrence, 3 Paige, 267. 
Justice. Sup. Ct. of Jud. Act, 1873 (36 & 37 See ante, 37, n 3. 

Vic. c. 66), § 23; id. of 1876 (38 & 39 Vic. 7 See Dowden v. Hook, 8 Beav. 299. 

c. 77), § 21. See R. S. C. 1883, Ord. XVI. 

39 



39 



PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY BE INSTITUTED. 



but now she may, on an ex parte motion, 8 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 alter decree; * or to appeal 2 

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. 8 (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. h 

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; 8 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. 

9 For form of affidavit, see Vol. III. 

1° Re Foster, 18 Beav. 525 ; Wellesley v. 
Wellesley, 16 Sim. 1 ; 1 De G 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 G. & 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. R. 457 ; Adamson v. Adamson, 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, Coulsting 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. Borradaile, 37 L. J. Ch. 124 ; Re 
Ganvill, 31 Ch D. 532. 

2 Crouch v. Waller, 4 De G. & J. 43 ; 5 
Jur. N. S 326 ; and see Martin v. Whitmore, 
W. N. (1869) 42; 17 W. R. 809, L. C. ; R. S. 
C. Ord. XVI. 8. 

3 Lindsay v. Tyrrell, 2 De G. & J. 7; 24 
Beav. 124 ; *3 Jur. N. S 1014. 

4 Pitt v. Pitt, 1 Sm. & G. App. 14 ; 17 Jur. 
571. 

5 James v. Dore, 2 Dick 788. 

6 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 & 
37 Vic. c. 12) ; and see post, 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. III. 

10 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 bj r 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). For those courts, see 27 U. S. Stat, at L. 252. 

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. 12 

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; 13 (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 ; 2 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; s 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 Jur. 552 ; Re 
Barnes, 1*0 W. K. 464, V. C. S 

n Mos. 68 ; and see Ballard v. Catling, 2 
Keen. 606 ; Church v. Marsh, 2 Hare, 652 ; 8 
Jur. 54 ; Smith v. Pawson, 2 De G. & S. 490 ; 
Prince Albert v. Strange, id. 652, 718 ; 13 Jur. 
507. 

12 Davenport v. Davenport, 1 Phil. 124 ; 
Brown v. Story, 1 Paige, 588. See, however, 
Bennett v. Chudleigh, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 164 ; 
Snowball v. Dixon, 5 De G. & S. 9. 

13 Corbett v. Corbett, 16 Ves. 407, 410, 412 ; 
Brook v. Alcock, 20 March, 1834, V. C. E., 
cited 1 Smith's Ch. Pr. 555; but see Fitton 
v. Earl Macclesfield, 1 Vern. 264; and see Chit- 
ty's Arch. 1292 ; Hawes v. Johnson, 1 Y. & 
J 30. 

" Wild v. Hobson, 2 V. & B. 105. 112 ; see 
Brook v. Alcock, and Elsam v. Alcock, cited 1 



(b) In such case a Judge, in his 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, 31 Ch D. 437 ; Re Youngs, 
Doggett v. Revett (No. 2). id. 239: Henderson 
v. Underwriting & 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. 

i Bland v. Lamb, 2 J. & W. 402 ; contra, 
Taylor v. Bouchier, 2 Dick. 504 ; Bolton v. 
Gardner, 3 Paige, 273 ; and see post, 1482. 

2 Drennanu. Andrew, L. R. 1 Ch. 300, L C.j 
and see cases cited, ib. 301, n. (7). 

3 2 Seton, 1646 ; see also Clarke i\ Wyburn, 
12 Jur. 167, L. C. ; Heaps v. Commissioners of 
Churches, ib. n. ; L. R. 1 Ch. 301, n. (7); 
Brad berry v. Brooke, 25 L. J. Ch. 576 ; 4 W. 
R 699, L. JJ. ; Crouch v. Waller, 4 De G. & J. 
43 ; 5 Jur N. S. 326 ; 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. 

* 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 v Bromige, 
26 W. R. 312 ; Peters v. Lilly, 11 P. D. 145. 
The same rule is acted upon by the Law Courts. 
Hoare v. Dickson, 7 C. B. 164 ; Morton v. 
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 v. Freehold H. F. 
Co. 52 L. T. 743. If the order is obtained by 
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 MAY 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 Rolls, 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 8 
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 suit 
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. 1 " 2 

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- 

5 R. S. C. 1883, Ord. XVI. 23. debts of the plaintiff, as appears at one time 

6 Now to the High Court of Justice. to have been allowed per Sir J. L Knight 

7 But a plaintiff feme covert cannot obtain Bruce, V. C, in Perry v. Walke-, 1 Coll 233; 
the order as of course, and it must therefore Beanies on Costs, 80, and see fomi of affidavit, 
be applied for on an ex parte motion in the Vol. III. 

Court to which the cause is attached. Coul- U Dresser v. Morton, 2 Phil. 286; and see, 

sting v Counting, 8 Beav. 463; Be Lancaster, as to the poverty which entitles a person to 

18 Jur. 229, L. C. & L. JJ.; Re Foster, 18 sue in forma pauperis, Allen v. McPherson, 5 

Beav. 525. Now, the order seems to be as of Beav. 469, 485; Boddington v. Woodley, id. 

course in the case of a married woman. See 555; Goldsmith i>. Goldsmith, 5 Hare, 125; 

45 & 46 Vic. c. 75, §1; R. S C. 1883, Ord. Perry v. Walker, 1 Coll. 233, 236. 

XVI. 16. For form of motion paper, see 12 Wilkinson r. Belsher. 2 Bro C. C. 2T2. 

Vol. III. 1 For form of order, see 2 Seton, 1271. Where 

8 As to the duty of counsel for a pauper, an order had been obtained on an ex parte 
see lies v Flower, 6 L. T. N. S. 843, L. C. application that the plaintiff be permitted to 

9 Cons. Ord VII. 8; R. S. C. 1883, Ord. XVI. prosecute in forma pauperis, the same was 
24. see Re Atkinson, 23 L R. Ir. 509. For forms vacated with costs. Isnard v. Cazeaux, 1 
of petition, certificate, and affidavit, see Vol. III. Paige, 39 

10 The affidavit must not except the just 



(a) The rules of R. S. C. 1883, Ord. XVI. to obtaining leave by summons in Chambers, 

do not oblige a party having leave to sue in see Re Lewin. 33 W R 128. A non-resident 

forma pauperis to "have counsel or solicitor plaintiff may be allowed to sue in forma pav- 

assigned to him; and where they are not as- peris in a proper case. Heckmani'. Mackey. 32 

•igned, he may appear in person. Tucker v. Fed. Rep 574; Harris v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. 

Collinson, 16 Q. B. D. 562, 54 L. T. 128, 263. As 13 N. Y. S. 718. 
42 



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. 8 
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. 6 

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. 7 

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 

2 Ballard v Catling, 2 Keen. 606; see also 655; 4 Beav. 452; and see Cons. Ord. III. 10; 
Smith v. Pawson. 2 De G. & S. 490. Brown r. Dawson, 2 HoL'an, 76, as to the lia- 

3 Church v. Marsh, 2 Hare, 652: 8 Jur. 54. bilities of a pauper"* solicitor. 

4 Braithwaite's Pr. 563. The ord :r is now m Hannaford v. Hanna, W. N. (1871) 37; 
lodged at the Central Office of the Court. 19 W. K. 429, V. C. S. For form of order, see 

6 See Nowell v. Whitaker, 6 Beav. 407. 1 Seton, 637, No. 2. 

6 Cons. Ord. VII. 9. 10; See now R. S. C. 1 Although in Pearson v. Belsher, 3 Bro. 
1883, Ord. XXVI.-XXVIII. C. C. 87, it is stated that the dismissal is 

7 Ibid. only to be made on payment of costs, the order 

8 Parkinson v. Hanbury, 4 De G. M. & G. was drawn up without costs; see Reg. Lib. 
508. 1789, B. 524, entered Pearson v. Wolfe; 3 Bro. 

9 Cons. Ord. VII. 11 ; R. S. C. 1883, Ord. C. C. 87, ed. Belt, n. 1; Beames on Costs, 88. 
XVI. 29, 30; Perry v. Walker, 2 Y. & C.C.C. 

43 



* 43 PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY BE INSTITUTED. 

the motion must not be made ex parte; 2 and a pauper cannot amend 
his bill by striking out defendants, except on payment of their costs. 8 
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; 8 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. 7 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. 8 

A pauper may 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; * so also where a plaintiff had offered by her bill to redeem a 

2 Parkinson v. Hanbury, 4 De G. M. & G. order, Wellesley v. Wellesley, 1 De G. M. & 
508; and see Wilkinson v. Belsher, 2 Bro. C. G. 501; Mornington v. Keen, 3 W. R. 429 ; 24 
C. 272. L. J. Ch. 400, V. C W.; Phillips v. Phillips, 

3 Wilkinson v. Belsher, 2 Bro. C. C. 272. 4 De G. F. & J. 208, 220; 8 Jar. N. S. 145, 

4 Har. 391. L. C. If a party, suing in forma pauperis, 

5 Angell r. Smith, Prec. Cha. 220; see amends his bill after answer under the common 
Williams v. Wilkins, 3 John. Ch. 65. order, it must be upon the payment of costs, as 

6 Scatchmer ?>. Foulkard, 1 Eq. Cas. Ab. inordinary suits; and if he has a meritorious 
125, pi. 3; Hautton r. Hager, cited in Angell claim to amend without costs, he must apply 
v. Smith, Prec. Cha. 220; Wallop v. War- to the Court by special motion upon affidavit 
burton, 2 Cox, 409; Rattray v. George, 16 Ves. and notice to the adverse party. Richardson 
233; Church v. Marsh. 2 Hare, 655; 8 Jur. 54; v. Richardson, 5 Paige, 58. 

Roberts v. Lloyd, 2 Beav. 376; Stafford v. 8 Phillips v. Phillips, 4 De G. F. & J. 208, 

Hig S inbotham,"2 Keen, 147. And see R. S. C. 220; 8 Jur. N. S. 145, L. C. 

Ord. I.V.; Garnett v. Bradley, 3 App. Cas. 944, 9 Per Lord Eldon, in Rattray v. George, 16 

H. L.; Ex parte Mercers' Co. 10 Ch. D. 481, Ves. 234; Tothill, 237. 

M. R. A plaintiff suing in forma pauperis, and ln Romillv v. Grint, 2 Beav. 186; Mather 
recovering a legacy against executors, when v. Shelmerdine, 7 Beav. 267; Butler v. Gar- 
there was no unreasonable delav on their part, dener, 12 Beav. 525; Ferry v. Walker, 1 Coll. 
ought not to recover dives costs, but only the 229, 236; 8 Jur. 680; Goldsmith v. Goldsmith, 
actual expenses of the suit, to be paid by the 5 Hare, 125; Daintree v. Haynes, 12 Jur. 594, 
executors out of the assets. Williams v. Wil- V. C. E. 
kins, 3 John. Ch. 65. > Wyatt's P. R. 321 . See Spencer v. Bryant, 

7 Cons. Ord. XL. 5 ; R. S. C. 1883, Ord. XVI. 11 Ves." 49 : see also Taprell v. Taylor, 9 Beav. 
31; see Beames on Costs, 77; forcases since the 493; Butler v. Gardener, 12 Beav. 525. 



(a) Under the English S. C. Rules of 1883 tion to his solicitor or fees of counsel. Carson 

a successful plaintiff in an action in forma pan- v, Pickersgill, 14 Q. B. D. 859. See post, p. 155, 

pen's tried before a Judge and jury is entitled to n. (a). As to appeals by infant paupers, see 

costs out of pocket onlv, and not to remunera- Fuller v. Montague, 53 Fed. Rep. 206. 

44 



PAUPERS. * 44 

mortgage if anything should be found due on it, she was ordered to 
be dispaupered; 2 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. 8 The application to dis- 
pauper is made by special motion on notice, 4 and should be made 
without delay. 5 

At Common Law, if a pauper act vexatiously or improperly in the 
conduct of the action, the Court will order him to be dispaupered; 6 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 ; 8 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. 12 

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. 2 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, 8 to a person 

2 Fowler v. Davis, 16 Sim. 182; 12 Jur. 321. son v. Richardson, 5 Paige, 58. A pauper's 

8 Boddington v. Woodley, 5 Beav. 555. solicitor may be made to pay the costs of any 

4 For form of notice, see Vol. III. irregular proceeding. Brown v. Dawson, 2 

6 See St. Victor v. Devereux, 9 Jur. 519, L. Hogan, 76. 

C. ; Parkinson v. Hanbury, 4 De G. M. & G. 9 Pearson v. Belchier, 4 Ves. 627, 630. 

508. 10 Corbett v. Corbett, 16 Ves. 407, 412. 

« 2 Chitty's Arch. 1280. n Gibson v. McCarty, Cas. temp. Hardwicke, 

1 Wagner v. Mears, 3 Sim. 127; and see 311. 

Perry v. Walker. 1 Coll. 229; 8 Jur. 680. 12 Perishal v. Squire, 1 Dick. 31; Beanies 

8 Whitelocke v. Baker, 13 Ves. 511; Wag- on Costs, 76; App. 22; but see Nye v. Maule, 

ner v. Mears, 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. v. as to fees already due when order obtained. 

Bowser, 5 VV. R. 325, V. C. K.; Steele v. > Braithwaite's Pr. 563; and see Wyatt'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 2 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 as other suitors. Richard- 8 Rules 3, 4, and 5 of the 36th Gen Order 

45 



* 44 PERSONS BY WHOM A SUIT MAY 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. 5 

relate to copies of documents not made or de- 4 Regul. to Ord. Part IV. 2. 

livered by the officers of the Court, but by the 5 Regul. to Ord. Part IV. 2, 3. For more on 

solicitors of other parties in the cause. the subject of Paupers, see post, Chap. IV. § 7. 

46 



* CHAPTER III. *45 

SUITS BY PERSONS WHO ARE 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. 2 (a) It was at one time doubtful to what extent the * copy- *46 

1 Outlawry in civil proceedings was abol- cited, and Evans v. Cassidy, 11 Irish Eq.243; 

ished by 42 & 43 Vic. c. 59, § 3. The disabili- Blake v. Blake, 4 Irish Eq. 349. 

tiesof outlawry and excommunication are either 2 Ramkissenseat v. Barker, 1 Atk. 51; see 

wholly unknown in America, or, if known at also Pisani v. Lawson, 6 Bing. N. C. 90; 

all, are of very limited local existence. Story, Story, Eq. PI. §§ 51, 52. An alien friend is 

Eq. PI. § 51. See Roosevelt v Urommelin, 18 entitled to the benefit, and subject to the 

John. 253; Dilman v. Schultz, 5 S. &R 36. It action, of the insolvent laws of the State 

has lately been held in England, that a nun is where he resides. Judd v. Lawrence, 1 Cush. 

neither civilly dead, nor under any disability 3. In the Courts of the United States he is 

arising from duress or undue influence. Re entitled to claim the same protection of his 

Metcalfe, 2 De G. J. & S. 122; 10 Jur. N. S. rights as a citizen is. Taylor v. Carpenter, 3 

287, L. JJ.; ib. 224, M. R.; and see as to civil Story, 453; S. C. 2 Wood". & M. 1 ; Coats v. 

death, and the status of a nun, the cases there Holbrook, 2 Sandf. Ch. 586; Byam v. Stevens, 



(a) In the United States, one alien may sue Hamilton, 106 Mass. 217. Under the Act of 

another in a State Court, when both are tran- Congress of Aug. 13, 1888 (25 Stat, at Large, 

siently present, upon a contract made abroad. 434), a U. S. Circuit Court has no jurisdiction 

Roberts v. Knights, 7 Allen, 449; Johnston v. of a suit by a citizen of the district against an 

Trade Ins. Co. 132 Mass. 432. So an absent alien who is temporarily in the district. Meyer 

foreigner may there maintain a transitory action v. Herrera, 41 Fed. Rep 65. A foreign consul 

against a citizen of another State, although is not presumed to be an alien. Bors v. Preston, 

service of process was made on a foreign mail- 111 U. S. 252. 
steamer before reaching her dock. Peabodj' v. 

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, 2 or any part of the British dominions, 8 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, 5 because, though in amity, 

*47 he was incapable of holding real property. 6 * Now, by the 

" Naturalization Act, 1870," 1 real and personal property of every 



4 Edw. Ch. 119. An alien does not lose his 
right to sue in the Courts of the United States, 
by residing in one of the States of the Union. 
Breedlove v. Nicolet, 7 Peters, 413. 
i Delondre v Shaw, 2 Sim. 237. 

2 Jefferys v. Boosey, 4 H. L. Cas. 815; 1 
Jur. N. S* 615, overruling S. C. 4 Exch. 145; 
in Exch Ch. 6 Exch 580. 

3 Low v. Routledge, L. R. 1 Ch. 42, 11 Jur 
N S. 939 ; affirmed, nom. Routledge v. Low, 
L. R. 3 H. L. 100; Low v. Ward, L. R. 6 Eq. 
415, V. C. G. 

4 7 & 8 Vic. c. 12. and 15 & 16 Vic c. 12 , 25 
& 2G Vic. c 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. 340 , 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 w. 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 v. Renad (1892), 3 Ch. 402. 

6 Co. Litt. 129 b. 

6 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 
v. 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 v. Homib)ea, 2 Hayw. 37; Buchanan v. 
Deshon, 1 Har. & G. 280, Scanlan v. Wright, 
13 Pick. 523; Jenkins v. Noel, 3 Stew 60; Doe 
v. Robertson, 11 Wheat. 322; Dudley v. Gray- 
s n, 6 Monroe, 260; Jackson v. Adams, 7 
Wend. 367; Bradstreet v Supervisors &c. 13 
Wend. 546; Wilbur v. Tob^y. 16 Pick. 179; 
Foss v. Crisp, 20 Pick. 124, Waugh v Riley, 8 
Met. 295; People v. Conklm, 2 Hill, 67; Hal- 
stead v. Commissioners of Lake, 56 Ind. 363. 
An alien will be protected in the possession of 

48 



public lands against trespassers. Courtney v. 
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, he 
may maintain trespass, quart clausum /regit. 
Bayes v. 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 v. Allender, 4 Har. & 
M'H. 409. Bradstreet v. Supervisors &c. 13 
Wend. 546; Waugh v. Riley, 8 Met. 295; see 
also Scanlan v. Wright. 13 Pick. 523, Jackson 
v. Britton, 4 Wend- 507; Jackson ex dem. 
Culverhouse v. Beach, 1 John. Cas. 399, Ganse- 
voort v. Lunn, 3 id 109; Orser v Hoag, 3 Hill, 
79. See Lareau v. 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 v. Camden &c. Rail- 
road Co. 1 Bald. 316; see Commonwealth v. 
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 
bv § 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 v. 
Wadkin, 24 Beav. 327; Rittson v. Stordy, 3 Sm. 
& G. 230; 1 Jur N. S 771 ; 2 id 410; De Geer 
v. 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. 2 

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 ; 8 and upon the same principle a writ ne exeat 

i This was the 12th of Ma}', 1870. Story Conf. Laws, § 270. et seq. ; De La Vega 

2 This section is not retrospective. Sharp v. Vianna, 1 B. & Ad. 284; Liverpool Marine 

t. St. Sauveur, L. R. 7 Ch. 343, L. C. Credit Co. v. Hunter, L. R. 3 Ch. 479; In re 

8 Talleyrand v. Boulanger, 3 Ves. 447, 450. Kloebe, 28 Ch. D. 175. But the remedy will 

Suits are maintainable, and are constantly be applied according to the law of the place 

maintained, between foreigners where either where it is pursued. A controversy between 

of them is within the territory of the State in two foreigners, who are private citizens, is not 

which the suit is brought, both in England and cognizable in the Courts of the United States 

America. Story Conf. Laws, § 542. under the Constitution. See Barrell v. Benja- 

In Bnnley v. Avery, Kirby, 25, it was held min, 15 Mass. 357. 
that a plea in abatement that both parties are In De La Vega v. Vianna, 1 B. & Ad. 284, 

aliens, and that the contract declared on was it was held that one foreigner may arrest an- 

made in a foreign country, and was to have other in England for a debt which accrued in 

been performed there, is good ; and in Dumous- Portugal while both resided there, though the 

say v. Delevit, 3 Har. & J. 151, an action of Portuguese law does not allow of arrest for 

replevin was held abatable, on a plea that both debt; and Lord Tenterden C. J. remarked, that 

parties were aliens, and the Court therefore had a person suing in England must take the law 

not jurisdiction. But in Barrell v. Benjamin, as he finds it,- he cannot, by virtue of any regu- 

15 Mass. 354, the Court were inclined to the lation in his own country, enjoy greater advan- 

opinion that one foreigner may sue another, tages than other suitors in England, and he 

who is transiently within the jurisdiction of ought not, therefore, to be deprived of any 

the Courts of a State, upon a contract made superior advantage which the law of this coun- 

between them in a foreign country. And see try may confer. He is to have the same rights 

Roberts v. Knight, 7 Allen, 449. In construing which all British subjects are entitled to. The 

such contracts, the law of the place where the}' remedy upon contracts is governed by the law 

are made will be administered. lb. p. 357; of the place where the parties pursue it. See 
vol. i. — 4 49 



* 50 SUITS BY PERSONS WHO ARE 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 ; 2 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. 5 It seems, also, that a 
prisoner of war may sue upon a contract entered into by him during the 

time of his captivity. 6 
*50 * 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. Adams 2 Cowen, 626; Will- Exch. 135, 141, note ; Dean v Nelson, 10 Wall. 

mg v. Consequa, 1 Peters C. C. 317; Contois 158; 10 Am. Law Reg. N S. 221, and note. 

v. Carpentier, 1 Wash. C. C. 376; Wyman v. 3 Co. Litt. by Harg. & But. 129 b. n. 2. 

Southward, 10 Wheat. 1; Don v. Lippman, 5 4 Co. Litt. by Harg. & But. 129 b n 3. 

CI. & Fin. 1; Hinkley v. Moreau, 3 Mason, 5 Wyatt's P. R. 327; Story, Eq. PI. § 52, 

88; Titus v. Hobart, 5 Mason, 378, Atwater Bradwell v. Weeks. 1 John. Ch. 208; Russell v. 

v. Townsend. 4 Conn. 47; Story, Conf. Laws, Skipwith, 6 Binn. 241. 

§§ 568-571. The same doctrine was maintained 6 Sparenburgh v. Bannatyne, 1 Bos. & P- 

in Smith v. Spinolla, 2 John. 198. See also 163; Maria ». Hall, 2 Bos. & P. 236; 1 Taunt. 

Peck v. Hozier, 14 John. 346; Sicard v. Whale, 33; Crawford v. The William Penn, 3 Wash. 

11 John. 194; Talleyrand v. Boulanger, 3 Sum- C. C. 484. 

ner's Ves. 447 note (t). In many cases an alien enemy is entitled 

4 Robertson v. Wilkie, Amb. 177; and see even to sue for his own rights; as when he 

De Carriere v. De Calonne, 4 Ves 590, as to is permitted to remain in the country, or is 

granting a writ of ne exeat regno against for- brought here as a prisoner of war. He is rec- 

eigners. ognized in our Courts in his character as execu- 

i Flack v. Holm, 1 J. & W. 405, 413, 418. tor; and in all cases his property is protected 

2 Co. Litt. 129 b.; 6 T. R. 23; 1 Bos. & P. and held in trust for him until the return of 

163; 3 Bos. & P. 113; Alcinous v. Nigren, 4 El. peace. Bradwell V. Weeks, 1 John. Ch 208, 

& Bl. 217; S. C. nom. Alcenius v. Nygren, 1 Bell v. Chapman, 10 John. 183; Clark <c. Morey, 

Jur. N. S. 16; Story, Eq. PI. §§ 51-54 ; Mum- 10 John. 69; Hutchinson v. Brock, 11 Mass. 

ford v. Mumford, 1 Gall. 366; Bradwell v. 119; Parkinson v. Wentworth, 11 Mass. 26; 

Weeks, 1 John. Ch. 208; Crawford v. Wm. Russell v. Skipwith. 6 Binn. 241. 

Penn, 1 Peters C. C. 106; Wilcox v. Henry, 1 i 1 Kent, 76, et seq. ; Case of the Sloop 

Dall. 69: Bell r. Chapman, 10 John. 183; Hep- Chester, 2 Dallas, 41; Murray v. Schooner 

burn's case, 3 Bland, 95; Griswold v. Wadding- Betsey, 2 Cranch, 64; Maley v. Shattuck, 3 

ton, 16 John. 438; Clemonston v. Blessig, 11 Cranch, 488; Livingston v. Maryland Ins. Co. 

50 



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. 2 
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 ; 8 
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 : 4 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. 2 

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. 8 

7 Cranch, 506; The Venus, 8 Cranch, 253; The specified articles to this country, were to use 
Francis, 8 Cranch, 363; Society v. Wheeler, 2 such license beyond its expression, for the pur- 
Gall. 105. pose of dealing in articles to which it has no 

2 Albrecht v. Sussman, 2 V. & B. 323. relation, he cannot maintain that such dealing 

8 M'Connell v. Hector, 3 Bos. & P. 113; is not an enemy's dealing. Ex parte Bagle- 

O'Mealey v. Wilson, 1 Camp. 482. But he hole, 18 Ves. 529. 

may lawfully provide for the necessities of 6 Crawford v. The William Penn, 1 Peters 

Englishmen detained abroad, and may, on the C C. 106. It is no objection, after the war, 

return of peace, enforce contracts made for that the suit was originally brought by the 

such purposes. Antoine v. Morshead, 6 Taunt, plaintiff as trustee for an alien enemy. Haiu- 

237; Duhammel v. Pickering, 2 Stark. 92. ersiey v. Lambert, 2 John. Ch. 508. 

* Ex parte Baglehole, 18 Ves. 525, 528. * Bristow v. Towers, 6 T. R. 35. 

6 Ex parte Baglehole, 18 Ves. 529 ; see l Brandon v. Nesbitt. 6 T. R. 23. 

Crawford v. The William Penn, 3 Wash. C. C. 2 Kensington 8. Inglis, 8 East, 273. 

48-1. If a person having a license to reside in 8 Daubigny v. Davallon, 2 Anst. 462; but 

a hostile country, and to export com or other see Albrecht v. Sussman, 2 V. & B. 324, 326, 

51 



52 



SUITS BY PERSONS WHO ARE 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 made before the 
war broke out, was admitted, reserving the dividend. 8 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. 6 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 mav maintain a bill for Courts held that the contract was merely sus- 



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. 

4 Alcinous v. Nigren, 4 El. & Bl. 217 ; S. C. 
nom. Alcenius v. Nygren, 1 Jur. N. S. 16; 
Flindt t\ Waters, 15 East, 280; Hamilton v. 
Eaton, 2 Marsh. C. 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. 
Gen. 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 ;*. 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 Ga. 171; Tait v. N. Y. 
Life Ins. Co. 1 Flippin, 288; 4 Rig. 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. Y. 610; Manhattan Life 
Ins. Co. v. Warwick, 20 Graft. 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. S. 103; 4 Big. Cas. 
488 (Va.), 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, 93 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 v. ./Etna Life Ins. Co. (5 
Cent. L. J. 100, and note) the Supreme Court 
of Tennessee allowed the assured the value of a 
paid-up policy on the day of the involuntary 
cessation of payments. 

5 Ex parte Boussmaker, 13 Ves. 71. 

6 Ibid.; see Exposito v. Bowden, in Ex. Ch. 
7 El. & Bl. 779; 5 W R. 732, as to the dissolu- 
tion of contracts by a declaration of war. 

i Ex parte Lee, 13 Ves. 64. The principle 
upon which this case was decided is fully 
stated by Lord Ellenborough 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. 2 

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, 3 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. 2 

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. 8 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 

3 ?!;"* ' S p Phe S ^ VeS ' 335< 8fter jUdsment ' the Co » rt ™" n^ on motion, 

Gilb. For. Bom 53 stay or set aside the execution. Buckley v. 

« Story Eq. PI. § 54. If the pla.nt.ff be- Lyttle, 10 John. 117. See Owens v. Haniiev, 

comes an alien enemy after the commencement 9 Cranch 180 " 

of the suit, the defendant may plead it. Bell 1 Dau'bigny v. Davallon, 2 Anst. 462, 468. 

£ Chapman, 10 John. 18-3. But as the d.sa- 2 DoIder „ Lord Hunt ; n ' gfield> „ y^ 20 ,. 

bility is merely temporary, if the suit is not and Bee Alcinoua r. Ni-ren 4 El & Bl 217- 

abated during the war it is no objection S . C. nam. Alcenius v. Nvgren. 1 Jn'r. N. S. 17.' 
afte. the war that the plaintiff was an alien 8 Meliorucchvr. Meliorucchv 2 Ves Sr 24 ; 

enemy when the suit was brought. Ham- Green ,. Charnock, 1 Ves. Jr. 396: Hobv • 

ereleyr. Lambert, 2 John. Ch. 508. The effect Hitchcock H V- mo. Q -i w "°'\\'- 

„f n,„ „i „ t 1: • j r niuncock, & Ves. 699 Seilaz v. Hanson, lb. 

of the plea of alien enemy ,s not to defeat the 261 . Drever , MaiulpsIev & Ruga n 
process , entirely, but to suspend it. Hutchin- 4 S ee ante, pp. 27-37." 

son v. Brock, 11 Mass. 119; Parkinson v. Went- 5p .„, m ' . , ,. ... .. 

w-nrth 11 Mo «, o« t„ ■ t 1 ''°r m'Te as to trading with alien enemies, 

worth. 11 Ma-^s. 26 Levine v. Tavlor, 12 Mass. co „ ti,« n™~ t. a . t % ■»* t -,- 

o 11 1 1 ui .. a. t- l Vv, see "'e Hoop, ludor s L. C. Merc. Law, 787- 

8; llamersleyt'. Lambert, 2 John. Ch. 508. g 13 ■ ' 

Where the plaintiff becomes an alien enemy 6 Cambottie ?•. Inngate, 1 W. R. 533 V. C. 

{(i) In such case, the proceedings should be Howard, 18 Wall. 99; McNair r Toler 21 

continued, and not dismissed. Ex parte Bouss- Minn. 175. He mav be bound, like' other non- 

"T 1 " ^f 8 ' U > Faulkland v. Stanion, 12 residents, hv notice bv publication. University 

Mod. 400; Elgee v. Lovell, 1 Woolw. 102; v. Finch, 18 Wall. 'l06; Lee v Rogers 2 

Levine o.Taylor, 12 Mass. 8 ; Kershaw v. Kelsey, Sawyer, 549 ; Sevmour v. Railev, 06 111 288 ; 

100 Mass. 561, 563 ; Bishop r. Jones. 28 Texas, Selden v. Preston, 1 1 Bush. 191 j see Ludlow v. 

294; cmtra, Howes v. Chester, 33 Ga. 89. An Ramsey, 11 Wall. 581; Horsey v. Thompson, 

al.en enemy may be sued, and is entitled to all 37 Md 25 He cannot defend; on the pround 

he usual means of defence. McVeigh v. that he is an alien enemv. Horsey v. Kyle, 30 

united States, 11 Wall. 259; Masterson v. Md. 512; see Herbert v. Rowles. 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 2 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 ; 6 but 

\V. ; Redondo v. Chaytor, 4 Q. B. D. 453, son, W. N. (1871) 161; 25 W. R. 768, 

C. A.; and see Ainsley v. Sims, 17 Beav. 57; V. C H. 

17 Jur. 657; Swanzy v. Swanzy, 4 K.& J. 237; in Bullock v. Dodds, 2 B. & Aid. 277. 

4 Juv. N. S. 1013. u The date on which ttie 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23 

' 4 Bla. Com. 381. received the royal assent. 

8 See as to pleading convictions, Ld. Red. l 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23, § 1. 

229 ; Buck v. Brown, 2 Atk. 399; Fall r. , 2 The word "convict" means any person 

May, 1782, Ld. Red. 233. against whom, after the passing of the Act 

9 Ex parte Bullock, 14 Ves. 452. 464. A (i. e., 4th July, 1870). judgment of death, or of 
person attainted under the Act of New York, penal servitude, has been pronounced or re- 
1799, is considered as civiliter mortuus. Jack- corded by any Court of competent jurisdiction 
son r. Catlin, 2 John. 248. One attainted un- in England, Wales, or Ireland, upon any charge 
der the Act cannot sustain an action for rent of treason or felony. 33 & 34 Vic c. 23, § 6. 
due to him previous to the passing of the Act, 8 The convict ceases to be subject to the 
or make it a set-off in an action by his lessee, operation of the Act when he dies or becomes 
Sleglit v. Kade, 2 John. 236. bankrupt, or has suffered any punishment to 

A plea of attainder is of rare occurrence, and which sentence of death pronounced or re- 
a plea of this sort in Equity would probably corded against him has been lawfully com- 
be construed with the same strictness as the muted, or has undergone the full term of penal 
like plea is at Law. Story, Eq. PI. § 723. In servitude for which judgment has been pro- 
England, he was not disqualified from holding nounced or recorded against him, or such other 
such land, stock, or choses in action as he holds punishment as may have been duly substituted 
as a trustee or mortgagee; see 13 & 14 Vic. for such full term, or has received a pardon for 
c. 60, § 46; and see, before the Act, Ex parte the treason or felony of which he has been con- 
Tyson, 1 Jur. 472 ; nor lands of which he victed. 33 & 34 V.c. c. 23, § 7. 
is' only equitable owner. Att.-Gen. v. Sands, * 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23, §§ 8, 30. 
Hardres. 488; Tudor, R. Prop. 760-796. A 6 4 Bla. Com. 381. Descent maybe traced 
power of revocation imperfectly executed by through a person attainted since 1833; see 3& 
a felon has been aided Mainprice v Pear- 4 Will. IV. c. 106. § 10. 

54 



PERSONS ATTAINTED OR CONVICTED. * 55 

with respect to the attainder for felony, the 54 Geo. III. c. 145 enacted 
that, except in cases 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. 7 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 ; 2 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. 5 (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 ; 6 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, 7 
and restored the offender to his civil rights, on the determination of the 
period of punishment. 8 



« 54 Geo. III. c. 14a. All copyhold estates Dodds, 2 B. & Aid. 258; Chowne v. Baylis, 31 

were forfeited to the lord, and not to the Crown, Beav. 351; Saunders v. Warton, 9 Jur. N. S. 

unless there was an Act of Parliament or an 570, V. C. S. 

express custom to the contrary, 1 Watk. on 2 Office found was aholished hy 22 & 23 Vic. 

Copy. 326, 1 Cruise's Dig 307; and the for- c. 21, § 25. 

feiture in such case did not accrue upon mere 8 Bullock p. Dodds, 2 B. & Aid. 258. 

conviction, but only on complete attainder, * 4 Bla. Com. 387; Perkins v. Bradley, 1 

3 B. & Aid. 510, 2 Vent. 38; unless by special Hare, 219. 

custom to the contrary. 5 4 Bla. Com. 387; see also 33 & 34 Vic. c. 

7 4 Bla. Com. 381-6; Tudor, R. Prop. 792. 23, § 1. 

1 4 Bla. Com. 387; Perkins P. Bradley, 1 6 Ld. Red. 232. 

Hare, 219, 228. But a colorable alienation to 7 9 Geo. IV. c. 32, § 3. 

avoid a forfeiture would be void as against the 8 See Williams, Pers. Prop. 44; and post, 

Crown. S. C. 1 Hare, 227; and see Bullock v. p. 58. 



(a) A conviction in New South Wales causes a forfeiture of the felon's property in England. 
Re Bateman's Trust, L. R. 15 Eq. 355. 

5o 



57 



SUITS BY PERSONS WHO ARE UNDER DISABILITY. 



Forfeiture of land only arose on attainder ; 9 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. 11 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, 2 including 
personal property held in trust for him, 3 and a vested interest, 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 ; 5 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 choses 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 s ), 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 
*57 appointed, *and from time to time removed j 1 and all judgments 

and orders for payment of money may be executed against the 



9 See Re Harrap, 3 Drew. 726. 

10 Lewin on Trusts, 27. 

n 1 Jarm. Wills, 33, 2 Prideaux, Conv. 268. 
i No forfeiture, however, followed conviction 
under the 10 & 11 Vic. c. 82, § 12; 13 & 14 
Vic. c. 37; or 18 & 19 Vie. 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. 

3 Lewin on Trusts, 695. 

4 Re Thompson, 22 Beav. 506. 

5 Stokes v. Holden, 1 Keen, 145, 153: Re 
Davis's Trusts, 27 L. T. 477. 

6 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 



7 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23, § 9. 

8 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23, § 30. 

9 33 & 34 Vic. c 23, § 10. 

1° 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 hands 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). 

11 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23, § 17. 

12 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. 

i 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23, §§ 21-26. 



PERSONS ATTAINTED OR 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; 2 and all judgments or orders may be executed by writ of scire 
facias or otherwise against property vested in the administrator. 8 

Proceedings may be taken by summons to make any administrator 
or interim curator account, before the property reverts to the convict ; * 
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. 5 

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 ; 8 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 

2 As to enforcing decrees and orders, see case of a capital felony, enduring the punish- 
post. Chap. XXVI. ment did not have the effect of a pardon ; see 

3 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23, § 27. See 2 Chitty's 9 Geo. IV. c. 32, § 3. See, as to effect of 
Arch. 934, 935. pardon, Armstrong's Foundry, 6 Wall. 766; 

i 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23, § 28. Lapeyra v. United States, 17 Wall. 191 ; Car- 

5 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23, § 29. lisle v. United States, 16 Wall. 147. Pardon 

6 Ld. Red. 229 ; and see Burk v. Brown, 2 may be conditional. Ex parte Wells, 18 How. 
Atk. 397. 307*. 

7 Fall v. , May, 1782, Ld. Red. 233. i° 6 Geo. IV. c. 25, § 1 ; 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 

8 4 Bla. Com. 393." 28, § 13. 

9 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23, § 7 ; see Leyman v. « 4 Bla. Com. 402. 

Latimer, 3 Ex. D. 15, 352. Formerly in the 12 1 Com. Dig. Abatement, E. 3. 

57 



*58 



SUITS BY PERSONS WHO ARE UNDER DISABILITY. 



who had been sentenced to transportation 1 was not restored to his civil 
rights until the term of his transportation had expired, 2 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 Crown. 3 

Sectiox 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, 5 (a) — as, for instance, to restrain a nuisance, 



i Under 8 Geo. III. c. 15. 

2 Bullock v. Dodds, 2 B. & Aid. 258 ; and 
9ee 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. 
Davies, 2 K. & J. 623 ; and as to remission by 
colonial governors, see now 6 & 7 Vic. c. 7. 

s 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. 
c. 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. A9 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 ». 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, though the bill 
charges fraud against all the defendants, in- 
cluding the creditors' assignee. See Smith v. 
Mnffatt, L. R. 1 Eq. 397 ; Payne v. 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 parte Postmaster-General, 
He Bonham, 10 Ch. D. 595. As to his recovery 
58 



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. 

6 See Herbert v. Saver, 5 Q. B. 965, 978 ; 
Calvert on Parties, 199, et seq. ; 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 
Perkin 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 Doug. 318 ; 1 Cooke's B. L. 428; Silk v. 
Osborne, 2 Esp. 140 ; see Selwyn, N. P. Sup 
323 ; Evans v. Brown, 1 Esp. 170 ; Fowler v. 
Down, 1 Bos. & P. 44 ; Laroche v. Wakeman, 
Peake, 190; Webb v. Ward, 7 T. R. 296; Webb 
v. Fox, 7 T. 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; dimming v. Roebuck, 1 
Holt, N. P. 172 ; Lincoln v. Bassett, 9 Gray, 
355 ; 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 impecuniosity of 
the defendant making application in the suit. 
He Barber, Burgess v. Vinnicoine (No. 2), 55 L. 
J. Ch. 624; 54 L. T. 728. 



1 



BANKRUPTS. * 59 

or the infliction of any injury of a private or particular nature, without 
making his assignees parties ; 6 or to recover damages for any per- 
sonal wrong ; 7 and where sued at Law upon * a bond or note, he has *59 
been allowed to tile 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. 2 
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. 8 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, 106 ; Tunno v. Edwards, 3 Brev. 510 ; 2 Lowndes v. Taylor, 1 Mad. 423. This 

Kirwan v. Latour, 5 H. & John. 289 ; Hayllar decision was afterwards affirmed on appeal. 

v. Sherwood, 2 Nev. & M. 401. The bankrupt 1 Mad. 425; 2 Rose, 432; and see Govet v. 

has the exclusive right to sue for a trespass Armitage, 2 Anst. 412; Kaye v. Fosbrooke, 8 

upon exempt property committed prior to the Sim. 28. 

proceedings in bankruptcy. Seiling v. Gunder- 8 Emden r. Carte, 17 Ch. D. 169, Fry J ; 

man, 35 Texas, 545. And see, where the plain- ib. 708, C. A., q. v. also (pp. 11, 172, 173) for 

tiff has been declared a bankrupt after the the distinction between a cause of action ac- 

commencement of suit, Woodall v. Holliday, cruing before and one accruing after bank- 

44 Ga. 18. A claim for an injury done to a ruptcv. 

party by the negligence of another did not pass 4 f he Bankruptcy Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vic. 

by an assignment of his estate under the insol- c. 71), § 45. The Bankruptcy Repeal and In- 

vency laws of Massachusetts before the recovery solvent Courts Act of 1869 (32 & 33 Vic. c. 83, 

of judgment. Stone v. Boston and Maine Rail- § 20) was repealed by 46 & 47 Vic. c. 39, § 1, 

road, 7 Gray, 539. Dut without reviving the former practice. 

« Semple v. London & Birmingham Ry. Co. 6 Tarleton v. Hornby, 1 Y. & C. Ex. 172. An 

» >. im. 209. assignment under a commission of bankruptcy 

7 Ex parte Vine, In re Wilson, 8 Ch. D. does not pass property belonging to the bank- 

364, C. A.; Dence v. Mason, W. N. (1879) nipt as factor, executor, or trustee. Vide Co k's 

177, C. A. As to earnings of personal labor of B. L. c. 8, §§ 15, 16, 17; 1 Deacon's B. L. c. 9, 

bankrupt, see Re Downing, Ex parte Banks, 4 §§ 10. 222; Archhold's Bankruptcy, 328-333 ; 32 

Ch. D. 689. & 33 Vice. 71, §15; .£z parte Ellis, 1 Atk.101; 

1 Balls v. Strutt, 1 Hare, 146 ; Meddowcroft Bennet v. Davis, 2 P. Wins. 816; Ex parte 

v. Campbell, 13 Beav. 184. Butler, Amb. 74; Ex parte Chion. 3 P. Wms. 

59 



*60 



SUITS BY PERSONS WHO ARE 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 ; 1 (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 
Lewin on Trusts, 218-223; 12 & 13 Vic. c. 106, 
§ 130. 

s Hammond v. Attwood, 3 Mad. 158; see 
also Yewens v. Robinson, 11 Sim. 105, 120; 
Payne v. Dicken, L. R. 6 Ch. 578 ; lie 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; Benfield v. Solomons. 9 Ves. 77, 82; Smith 
v. Moffatt, L. R. 1 Eq. 397; 12 Jur. N. S. 22, 

V. c. w. 

• Heath v. Chadwick, 2 Phil. 649; and see 
Major v. 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. 
Battersbv, 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; Jenneya. Bell. 2 Ch. D. 
547; Ex pnrte Musgrave, 10 Ch. D. 94; West- 
moreland Co. i'. Fielden, [1891] 3 Ch. 15, 27; 
see Ex parte Reynolds, 15 Q. B. D. 169; Sharp 
v. McHenry, 55 L. T. 747; Curry v. McCau- 
Iey, 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 v. Rutland R. Co. 17 id. 446: Hess v. 
Vose, 52 111. 472; Phipps v. Kelly, 12 Oregon, 
213; Kinnan v. 42d St. &c. R. Co. 21 N. Y. S. 
789. See Dehon r. 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. (18G8) 158, 
V. C. G. ; L. R. 3 Ch. 820, L. JJ.; Bell v. Bird, 
L. R. 6 Eq. 635, V. C. G. ; Martin v. Powning, 
L. R. 4 Ch. 356, L. JJ. ; Stone v. Thomas, L. R. 
5 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 
r. 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 v. Wilson, 5 Hare, 185; Wear- 
ing ». Ellis, 6 De G. M. & G. 596 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 
204, 1149 ; Luddy's Trustee v. Peard, 33 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 v. 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. 2 

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 ; 3 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 *G2 
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. 2 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 ; 3 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 v. Holman, 
2 Watts, 218. As to disclaimer by the assign- 
ees in a foreclosure suit, see Ford v. White, 

16 Beav. 120. 

1 Sill v. Worswick, 1 H. Bl. 665; Hunter v. 
Potts, 4 T. R. 182 ; Phillips v. Hunter, 2 H. Bl. 
402; Bentield v. Solomons, 9 Ves. 77, and see 
Re Blithman, L. R. 2 Eq. 23, M. R.; 35 Beav. 
219; Re Davidson, L. R. 15 Eq. 383. 

* Re Leadbitter, 10 Ch. D. 388. 

8 Gill v. Fleming, 1 Ridg. P. C. 431; Spragg 
v. Biukes, 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 v. 
Moffatt, L. R 1 Eq. 397; 12 Jur. N. S. 22, V. 

C. W.; Roberts v. More ton, 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 DeG. & J 506 , 5 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. 

5 The Bankruptcy Act, 1869, 32 & 33 Vic. c. 
76, § 125 (5) & (6); Ex parte Postmaster Gen- 
eral, Re Bonham, 10 Ch. D. 595. 

6 Ex parte Jones, Re Jones, L. R. 10 Ch. 
663, 665; Re Lewis, 3 Ch. D. 113; Re Kearlev, 
7 Ch. D. 615. 

i 32 & 33 Vic. c. 71. §§ 15, 47; In re Petit 's 
Estate, 1 Ch. D. 478, V. C. B. 

2 32 & 33 Vic. c. 71, §§ 48, 49; Ebbs r. Boul- 
nois, L. R. 10 Ch. 479, L. JJ.; In re Bennetts 
Trusts, id. 490; Ex parte Hemming, 13 Ch. D. 
163; Re Smith, 24 Ch. D. 672. 

3 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 Laforest, 9 Jur. N. S. 851; 11 W. R. 738, 
L. C. 



61 



* 63 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. 5 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; 6 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 ; 1 or, according to Lord Eldon, 2 
" 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." 8 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. 5 
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. 6 Upon the 
non-prosecution of a suit in which the plaintiff has become bankrupt, 

* Benfieldr. Solomons, 9 Ves. 77, 82: Story, 1 Lee v. Lee, 1 Hare, 621; see 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, 319; 

S. C. nom. Dierden v. Villiers, 37 L. J. Ch. Swepson v. Rouse, 65 N. C. 34. 

482, overruling Joseph v. Tuckev, 2 Cox, 44. 2 Randall v. Mumford, 18 Ves. 427. 

See Ebbs v. Boulnois, L. R. 10 Ch. 479. 3 Jackson v. North Eastern Ry. Co. 5 Ch. D. 

5 In England it mav be pleaded, although it 844; Eldridge o. 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. 

6 Bowser v. Hughes, 1 Anst. 101. See Sawtelle v. Rollins, 23 Maine, 196; Hilliard, 
1 Turner v. Robinson, 1 S. & S. 3; Sergrove B. & I. 397, et seq. 

v Mavhew, 2 M'N. & G. 97; Lane t>. 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. 

8 Carleton v. Leighton, 3 Mer. 667, 671; 5 See note 3 above; R S. C. Ord. L. 3, 4; 
Lane v. Smith. 14 Beav. 49. Seear v. Lawson, 16 Ch. D. 121; Jackson v. 

9 See Pepper v. Henzell. 2 H. & M. 486: and Riga Railway. 28 Beav. 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 6 Bennett v. Gamgee, 2 Ex. D. 11; W. JS. 

Beav. 49; see Lacy v. Rockett, 11 Ala. 100; (1877) 20; 25 W. R. 293. 
Seaman v. Stoughton. 3 Barb. Ch. 344; Stone 
v. Par^ 1 Chand. 60. 

62 



BANKRUPTS. 



64 



the defendant, if he wishes to get rid of the suit entirely, must 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 ; s 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. 2 (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 

7 Whitmore v. 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. 

i Porter v. Cox, 5 Mad. 80. 

2 Wheeler v. Malins, 4 Mad. 171; Lee v. 
Lee, 1 Hare, 621; Meiklam v. Elmore, 4 De 
G. & J. 208; 5 Jur. N. S. 904; Boucicault v. 
Delafield, supra. 

s Boucicault v. Delafield, 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. 



5 Wheeler v. Malins, 4 Mad. 171; Lord 
Huntingtower v. Sherborn, 5 Beav. 380; Robin- 
son v. 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 v. Bathurst, L. R. 5 Ch. 193, L. C. 

6 See Story, Eq. PI. § 349, and note; Sedg- 
wick v. Cleveland, 7 Paige, 287, 290; Garr v. 
Gower, 9 Wend. 649; 2 Barb. Ch. Pr. 65, 66. 
This is the course before decree; after decree, 
the motion should ask to stay all further pro- 
ceedings; Clarke v. Tipping, 16 Beav. 12 ; and 
see 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. 

(a) In Ex parte Castle Mail Co. 35 W. R. 
83, 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. Bassano, 31 Ch. D. 630; Re Strong (No. 
2), id. 273; Pooley's Trustee v. Whetham (No. 



2), 33 Ch. D. 76; Smith v. 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 
v. Taylor, 31 Ch. D. 34. 



63 



* 65 SUITS BY PERSONS WHO ARE 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. 2 

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 



6 Caddick v. Masson, 1 Sim. 501 ; Latham v. ton, Re Nathan, 10 Ch. D. 586. Dismissing 

Kenrick, 1 Sim. 502; Kelminster v. Pratt, 1 Bills and Slaying Proceedings. 

Hare, 632; but see Ward v. Ward, 8 Bea%\ 379 ; > 12 & 13 Vic. c. 106, § 157. This section 

11 Beav. 159; 12 Jur. 592. applies only to the case of trustees suing as 

6 Randall v. Mumford, 16 Ves. 424, 428; plaintiffs, see Gordon v. Jesson, 16 Beav. 440; 
Wheeler v. Malins, 4 Mad. 171. It would seem the practice with respect to trustees as defend- 
that under the present practice the trustee ants will be stated in the next chapter; and see 
should be served with notice of the motion. Man c. Rickets, 1 Phil. 617; Mendham v. Robin- 

» Poole v. Franks, 1 Moll. 78. See Boynton son, 1 M. & K. 217, Lloyd v. Waring, 1 Coll. 

v. Boynton, 9 Ch. D. 250; 4 App. Cas. 733; Pitts 536. 

r. La Fontaine, 6 App. Cas. 482. 2 For forms of motion paper and petition, 

8 Cook v. Hathway, L. R. 8 Eq. 612, V. C. see Vol. III. 
M. ; and see Chap. XIX. § 1. Ex parte Staple- 

64 



INFANTS. * 67 

from recovering a just debt due to the bankrupt's estate. To provide in 
some measure for this evil, it was enacted, 3 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. 2 

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. 3 



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 cestuis que trust who * are under disability ; *67 
and therefore has power to compromise such rights or claims. 1 

8 12 & 13 Vic. c. 108, § 233; Taylor on J This was decided by Sir John Leach 

Evid. §§ 1477, 1556. V. C. in the case of Bell v. Tinney, 4 Mad ;J7-'. 

* In re West, 3 De G. M. & G. 198. By in which a bill was riled by the assignees of 

12 & 13 Vic. c. 106, §§ 234, 235, it was also a bankrupt to set aside a settlement which had 

enacted, that in any action or suit, other than been made by the bankrupt upon his wife and 

an action or suit brought by the assignees for children. 

any debt or demand for which the bankrupt - And it is now provided that the pro- 
might have sustained an action had he not been duction of a copy of the " London Gazette," 
adjudged bankrupt, and whether at the suit of containing a copy of the order of the Court of 
or against the assignees, no proof shall be Bankruptcy adjudging the debtor to be a bank- 
required of the petitioning creditor's debt, or nipt, is conclusive evidence in all legal pro- 
of the tea ling, or act of bankruptcy, respect- ceedings of the debtor having been duly 
ively, unless notice be given that these matters adjudged a bankrupt and of the date of the 
will be disputed. See Taylor on Evid. §§ 1556, adjudication. The Bankruptcy Act, 1809 (32 & 
A. 1559; l'ennell v. Home, 3 Drew. 337 ; and 33 Vic. c. 71). § 10. See Bevel! v. Blake, 
see Lee v. Dennistoun, -21) Beav. 465, where Sir L. R. 7 C. P. 300; 8 id. 533; Ex parte French, 
John Rom illy fid. K. held the provisions to be 52 L. J. Ch. 48. 

inapplicable to the present practice in Chan- 3 Barnard v. Ford, Carrick v. Ford, L. R. 4 

eery; but, in exercise of the general jurisdic- Ch. 247, L. JJ. 

tion which the Court possesses over pleadings, J Brooke v. Lord Mostyn, 2 Pe G. J. & S. 

gave the defendants ten days from the date of 373, 415; 10 Jur N. S. 1114, 1116: and see 

the application, within which to give notice of Wilton t. Hill, 25 L. J. Ch. 156. V. C. K.; 

the intention to d Bpute. Wall v. Rogers, L. R. 9 Eq. 58. M. R. 

vol. i. — 5 bj 



68 



SUITS BY PERSONS WHO ARE 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. 2 

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. 8 

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. 5 In Robinson v. Litton, 6 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 



2 Jacob's 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 ». Duel, 9 Vt. 41. 

8 Salk. 44, 025 ; Sir R. Rowland'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 Harring. 557; Hamlin v. 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 
Ves. 83, note (a); Lester v. Garland, 15 id. 248; 
note (3) ; Ee Railwav Sleepers Supply Co. 29 

66 



Ch. D. 204; Murfree v. Carmack, 4 Yer. 270; 
Berry v. Clements, 9 Hum. 312; S C. on 
appeal, 11 How. 398, Plowman v. Williams, 3 
Tenn. Ch. 181. 

4 See Wallis v. Hodson, 2 Atk. 117. 

6 See Musgrave v. Parry, 2 Vern. 710; Story, 
Eq. PI. § 59, note. 

6 3 Atk. 209, 211; see also Wallis v. Hod- 
son, 2 Atk. 117. 

i Lutterel's case cited Prec Ch. 50. 

J Flight V. Bolland, 4 Russ. 298; Hargrave 
v. Hargrave. 12 Boa v. 408; but Bee 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. 2 Such person is called the next friend of the infant ; (a) 



2 R. S. C. Ord. XVI. 8: Hoyt v. Hi'ton, 2 
Edw. Ch. 202. There must be a next friend 
for everv application on behalf of an infant, 
Cox v. Wright, 9 Jur. N. S. 981; 11 W. K. 
870, V. C. K. ; see also Stuart v. Moore, 9 
II. L. Cas. 440; 4 Maeq. H. L. 1, 36, n. ; 7 Jur. 
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 
v. Gilbard, 1 Dr. &*S 356; 7 Jur N. S.91; 
and see Stuart v. Moore, 9 H. L. Cas. 440; 
4 Macq. H. L. 1, 30, 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 as an hi/an', 
infancy is a material allegation, and must be 
proved, or admitted by the answer. Boyd v. 



(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 v. Thorne, 7 M. & W. 
400. An infant's next friend may prosecute 
the suit without previous authority from the 
Court. Judson v. Blanchard, 3 Conn. 579 ; 
Klaus v. State, 54 Miss. 644 ; Bcthea v. Call, 3 
Ala. 449. As his power commences with the 
suit, he cannot make a special previous demand 
necessary for its prosecution. Miles r. Boyden, 
3 Rick. 213. A next friend can institute a suit 
on behalf of a married woman only by her 
authority. Schjott v. Schjott, 45 L. T. 333. 
An infant married woman, whose adult husband 
is joined as a co-plaintiff with her, need not sue 
by next friend. Welch r. Bunce, 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, Burgess 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 p. 
Pemberton, C Ch. D. 19 ; Rue v. Meirs, 43 N. 

J. Eq. 377; see Re G , [1892] l Ch. 292 ; 

49 & 50 Vic. c. 27 ; Re McGrath, [1892] 2 Ch. 
496 ; Wilson v. Me-ue-chas, 40 Kansas, 648. 
Where a father, after authorizing a stranger to 
art 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 v. 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 T revet 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 
v. 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 v. Rutherford (Ind.), 30 N. E. 1111. As 
to an illegitimate child, see Barnardo r. Me- 
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- 
sellis, 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 ; Price v. Winter, 15 Fla. G6 ; Treiber v. 
Shafer, 18 Iowa, 29; Rhoads v. Rhoads. 43 III. 
239 ; Myers r. Myers, 6 W. Va. 369; Daniel I). 
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. (id : 
Stiison V. Pickering, 70 Maine. 273 : Wells r. 
Smith. 44 Miss. 290 ; Miller v. Cabell. 81 Ky. 
178 ; Wead V. Cantwell. 3b Hun, 528 ; Peter- 
son v. liailiif (Minn.), 54 N. W. Rep. 185 An 
infant cannot sue without a next friend or 

67 



68 



SUITS BY PERSONS WHO ARE 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 his 
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 n<t 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. Re Lowndes, 3 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 
Myl. & 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 ?;. 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 v. Hall, 10 Ch. D. 235; Knack- 
bull v. Fowle, 1 Ch. D. 604 ; Dupuy v. Wels- 
ford, 42 L. T. 730 ; Kingsbury v. Buckner, 134 
U. S. 650 ; Beddinger v. Smith (Ark.), 13 S. 
W. 734 ; Walker v. Ferrin, 4 Vt. 53 ; Pollock 
v. Buie, 43 Miss. 140; Biddinger v. Wiland, 67 
Md. 359 ; Walker r. 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 v Stephens, 30 Ch. D. 189; Scott v. Con3. 
iBank, 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; Ruckman v Palisade 
Land Co. 1 Fed. Rep. 367; Brown v. Hull, 16 
Vt. 673 ; Brvant v. Livermore, 20 Minn. 313, 
68 



342, McDonald v. 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; pod, 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 lev 
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 Thome, 7 M. & W. 
400; Holden v. Heani, 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 v. Gifford, 155 Mass. 108 , Claxton 
v. Claxton, 56 Mich. 557 ; Cartwnght v. 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 all wance therefor may 
be made by the Court. M. E. Church 0. 
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 It. 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 Cranch, 496 ; Clark 
v. (rout (S. C), 13 S. E. Rep. 602; see Walsh 
»■ Walsh. 116 Mass. 377; Brooke v. Mostyn, 2 
DeG. 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 after wards' discovered that he was an infant at the 
time of tiling 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. 3 

When an infant claims a right, or suffers an injury, on account of 
winch 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 • * 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: 2 and 
whoever thus acts the part which the nearest relation ought to take, is 



3 Flight v. Bolland, 4 Russ 298. 
i See Bank of the United States v. Ritchie, 
8 Peters, 128. 

2 Andrews v Cradock, Prec.Ch. 376, 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 v. Little, 13 Beav. 114; Anon. 11 Jur. 



258, V. C. E.; unless he is wholly without 
interest in the subject-matter. He Taylor, W. 
X. (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 o. 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 he is unsuccessful will be reimbursed 
to him. Voorhees v. Polhemus, 30 N. J. Eq. 
456, and note. See Walters v. Woodbridge, 7 
Ch. D. 504. He is liable for his negligent 
management causing injury to the infant. 
Knickerbocker v. De Freest, 2 Paige, 304. And 
if he officiously procured his appointment, or 
lias mismanaged the case or shown bad faith, 
lie may be taxed with costs, though not strictly 
a party to the suit. lit Blake, 29 Ch. D. 913 ; 
Smith v. Smith, 108 N % . C. 365. A guardian 
is