ACTION. ADMINISTRATOR. See COPYHOLD. FRIENDLY SOCIETY. AFFIDAVIT. See COMMON LAW PROCEDURE ACTS, To set aside Judgment by default. nature of the defence, is not re- An affidavit in answer to such AGREEMENT. See LANDLORD AND TENANT, (2), (3). By agreement between the plain- ment by a certain notice; and that the defendant would not, for the space of twenty-one years, notwithstanding the decease of the plaintiff, reside in the parish of T., or within twenty-one miles thereof, or carry on therein or within the distance aforesaid, during the period of twenty-one years, any business of the description of that carried on under the agreement:-Held, per Pollock, C. B., Alderson, B., and Platt, B., that the restriction was not unreasonable and was good in law; per Martin, B., that the agreement was valid, for if the restriction as to residence was void, that as to not carrying on business was good. A declaration on the above agreement alleged as a breach, that, after its determination, the defendant resided in the parish of T., and during the said period of twenty-one years carried on business in the said parish of the description of that carried on under the agreement.-Plea to first breach that, although the defendant resided in the parish of T., yet he did not so reside for the purpose or with the intention of carrying on business of the description of that carried on under the agreement:— Held, that, whether the allegation in the declaration was to be read as one or two distinct breaches, the plea was bad. Dendy v. Henderson, ALIEN ENEMY. 194 A declaration stated, that S., who carried on business at Odessa, had given the plaintiff an order for goods, to be delivered by the plaintiff to a carrier to be forwarded for shipment; and thereupon, in consideration that the plaintiff would execute such order, and would pay the defendants one and a quarter per cent. on the invoice price of the goods, and would permit the defendant to debit S. with the price of the goods, and would deliver the carrier's receipt for the goods to the defendants, the defendants promised the plaintiff to accept his draft at four months date for the invoice amount of the goods, on the plaintiff's delivering to the defendants the carrier's receipt.-Averment of performance of conditions precedent.-Breach: non-acceptance by the defendants of the plaintiff's draft : |--Plea: that S., at the time of the agreement, was an alien, resident at Odessa in the empire of Russia; and that, after the making of the agreement, and before any breach by the defendants, and before and at the time when the plaintiff was to have dispatched the goods in execution of the order, S. became, and still is, an enemy of the Queen; by reason whereof, the plaintiff could not lawfully dispatch the goods to S. in execution of the said order.-Replication that, in the declaration of war against the Emperor of Russia, her Majesty waived her right of seizing enemies' property on board a neutral vessel; and by an Order in Council, it was ordered, that Russian merchant vessels, in any ports or places in her Majesty's dominions, should be allowed six weeks for loading their cargoes and departing; and that such Russian merchant vessels, if met at sea by any of her Majesty's ships, should be permitted to continue their voyage, if, upon examination of their papers, it should appear that their cargoes were taken on board before the expiration of the above period.-Averments, that the goods in the declaration mentioned were, long before the expiration of the said space of six weeks, delivered by the plaintiff to the carrier to be forwarded for shipment, and the same could have been shipped, pursuant to the Order in Council, within the said space of six weeks. On At sixty days after sight of this our first bill of exchange (second and third of the same tenor and date not paid), We promise to pay, on account of the proprietors of the Union Bank of Calcutta, to the order of C. L. & Co., the sum of company's rupees ten thousand. Value received. (Signed), J. R., W. G., directors." By their deed of settlement, the business of the company was to consist in issuing promissory notes, payable to bearer on demand, for any sum not less than eight company's rupees, and not exceeding one thousand, and bills of exchange payable, at such time after date or sight as the directors should fix, to parties who should require the same and deposit the amount of such bills in the bank, and in all other branches of business usually transacted by bankers in Calcutta. It was also provided, that no promissory notes or bills of exchange should be issued otherwise than of the description and in the manner above mentioned. In an action by an indorsee of the above instrument against a shareholder in the bank -Held, first, that the directors had power to bind the shareholders by issuing instruments of that description; secondly, that they were in a form which bound the shareholders; thirdly, that they were substantially made in the name of the partnership firm. Semble, that such instruments may be declared on, either as promissory notes or bills of exchange. Forbes v. Marshall, 166 BANKRUPT. See JOINT STOCK COMPANY, (1). (1). Protection during Suspension of Certificate. The protection from arrest granted to a bankrupt during the suspension of his certificate, does not protect him from arrest in respect of debts contracted since his bankruptcy. 424 Grace v. Bishop, (2). Assignment for Benefit of In October, 1852, E., a trader, as signed to the plaintiff all his house hold furniture and effects then on his premises, as a security for money lent, with a power, in default of payment, to seize and take possession of the property thereby assigned, and all other goods, chattels, and effects which might be found on the premises. In January, 1855, E assigned all his estate and effects to trustees, for the benefit of his creditors. In the following February, the plaintiff seized the goods, &c., then on the premises of E.; and in March a fiat in bankruptcy issued against E., the act of bankruptcy being the above assignment of his estate and effects to trustees. In an action by the plaintiff against the assignees for selling the goods so seized by him:-Held, that though the assignment by E. of his estate and effects to trustees was void as against creditors, yet it operated to transfer to the assignees the property not included in the assignment to the plaintiff, and so defeated his title, which would otherwise have been valid by the seizure. Carr v. Aera566 man, (4). Fraudulent Transfer. A sale by a trader of his goods at prices considerably below their market value, is not of itself a fraudulent transfer within the 67th section of the Bankrupt Act, 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106. To render the transaction fraudulent within that Act, the seller must have intended by such sale to defeat or delay his creditors, and the purchaser must have had reason to know that such was the object of the seller. Therefore, where a trader, from time to time, during several months sold his goods to the defendant at prices from 40l. to 50l. per cent. less than he paid for them, and afterwards became bankrupt-Held, in the Exchequer Chamber, that it was properly left to the jury to say whether the dealings between the defendant and the bankrupt were real sales by the bankrupt to the defendant, each endeavouring to make the best bargain he could for himself; and, if so, such sales were not an act of bankruptcy as fraudulent transfers. Lee v. Hart, 880 BANK POST BILL. See BANKING COPARTNERSHIP. BILL OF EXCHANGE. INSOLVENT DEBTOR, (1). SUMMARY PROCEDURE ON BILLS Parol Acceptance of Foreign Bill. The defendant's agent at Cameroons in Africa made and delivered to the plaintiff an instrument in the form of a foreign bill of exchange, payable at sight. The bill was not addressed to any one, but across it the defendant's agent wrote the word "accepted," and the defendant's name and address. The plaintiff presented the bill to the defendant, and requested its payment, when the defendant denied that he owed the amount, but admitted the signature to be that of his agent. The plaintiff then said, "As you acknowledge the signature, you had better pay the bill." The defendant replied, "I'll pay the bill, but I cannot pay it now: I'll give you a bill at three months." The plaintiff then said, "There is something suspicious about it; it is almost a forgery; you had better pay it at once. The defendant replied, "I'll pay the bill; I cannot pay it now, but I will give my note or bill for it at three months:"-Held, in the Exchequer Chamber (assuming the instrument to be a bill of exchange), that there was no evidence of an acceptance of it. Reynolds v. Peto, BILL OF LADING. See CARRIER, (4). BOND. 418 See COMMON LAW PROCEDURE Acts, (4), 2. (1). Illegal Contract. The resignation for a pecuniary consideration of the position of major in a regiment in the East India Company's service is illegal by the 49 Geo. 3, c. 126, s. 4, and security for the payment of the money is void: Per Pollock, C. B., Alderson, B., and Martin, B.; Platt, B., dubitante. Græme v. Wroughton, 146 (2). Liability of Surety. The defendant as surety became bound to the guardians of a poor law union by bond, conditioned (inter alia) that the treasurer of the union should discharge the duties of |