MARSHALL] 
 
 CONCISE ^TREATISE 
 
 C8e ilrtnciples 
 
 EQUITY PLEADING: 
 
 PRECEDENTS. 
 
 BV 
 
 C. STEWART DREWRY, ESQ., 
 
 OP THE INNER. TEMPLE, BAaBMTKa-A.I'-LAW. 
 
 LONDON : 
 BUTTERWORTHS, 7, FLEET STREET, 
 
 Uato ^puWfelirtf! to ije ©ueen'ts ttwBt enrtltnt jStajtistg. 
 1858. ,. 
 
 . — . — i . . . 
 
Olnrtipll Ham irlinnl ICtbrarg 
 
 iMaraliaU Sqttttg ainllertt0n 
 
 (itft of 
 
 E. 3. ilatalfaU. 21.21. 1. 1B34 
 
MWi 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tinis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924084257884 
 
CONCISE TREATISE 
 
 Eit ^xintiplt^ 
 
 EQUITY PLEADING: 
 
 PRECEDENTS. 
 
 BY 
 
 C. STEWART DREWRY, ESQ., 
 
 OF THE INKER TEMPLE, BARRISTER- AT- LAW. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 BUTTERWORTHS, 7, FLEET STREET, 
 
 %aia ^vibUeiiexs to tije (Sueen'g most eitelbnt Majtetp,. 
 1858. 
 
}&L^r^-6 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Since the great alterations introduced, by modern 
 reforms, into the system of Equity Pleading, the 
 want has been much felt, especially among the 
 younger members of the profession and students, of 
 a concise exposition of the principles and general 
 rules of Equity Pleading, This want I have en- 
 deavoured to supply. I do not profess to go into 
 the more minute and intricate questions which arise 
 under special circumstances : questions on which, 
 I apprehend, that any text book, however carefully 
 compiled, would, after all, be but a superior sort of 
 index to the authorities : the books must in actual 
 practice be referred to, when any case special in 
 its character arises. 
 
 The work now offered will, therefore, be under- 
 stood to be an Elementary Treatise, intended for 
 the information of Students, and young and inex- 
 perienced Pleaders, and not for the veterans of the 
 outer bar. 
 
 I should, perhaps, not even have attempted thus 
 much, were it not that the recent alterations ia 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 Pleading have rendered a great part of the only 
 work on the subject, Lord Redesdale's masterly 
 Treatise, inapplicable, to the wants of the inex- 
 perienced Pleader, who is likely to become confused 
 rather than enlightened in his ideas of Pleading, by 
 the perusal in that work of so much that he must 
 take care to forget as soon as he has read it. 
 
 I have added a few Forms, intended principally 
 for reference' by way of illustration of the prin- 
 ciples stated in th^ text, and I have therefore 
 selfected rather special Forms. For precedents of 
 the usual Forms of Bills, Answers, Petitions, &c., 
 I must tefer the reader generally to the books pro- 
 fessing to be collections of Forms ; and in parti-, 
 cular to the valuable practical work recently pub- 
 lished by Mr. Tripp. It remains only to add, that, 
 as I profess only to state matter well known to 
 experienced Practitioners, I have not encumbered 
 the text with references to authorities, except in a 
 very limited degree. 
 
CONTEIN^TS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 What Persons are entitled to sue in EauiTY, and 
 -IN WHAT Manner THEY Sue .. .. «• .. 1 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Of the Modes of instituting a Suit in Equity. 
 
 1. Of Bills .. 9 
 
 2. Of Proceedings by Claim . . . . . . . . 2S 
 
 3. Of Proceeditigs by Summons . . . . . . 26 
 
 4. Of Special Cases 29 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 "Of the Defence to Suits. 
 
 ]. Of Demurrers and therein of Parties .. .. 33 
 
 Of Demurrers for want of Parties .. .. ..46 
 
 In Suits by Creditors .. .. .. ..51 
 
 In Suits between Partners .. .. .. S4 
 
 To Suits for Specific Performance . . . . 58 
 
 Suits between Mortgagors and Mortgagees . . 59 
 
 Foreclosure . . . . , .. . , 59 
 
 Redemption and Priority . . . ..60 
 
 Against Trustees . . . . . . . . 63 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Of Pleas 64 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Of Answers 69 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. PJIOB 
 
 Of Amended Bills 82 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 Of Revivor and Supplement, and of Supplemental 
 Bills 86 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 Op Interlocutory Applications .. .. ..92 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Of THE Proceedings on going into Evidence .. .. 97 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 Of Appeals ' 101 
 
 CONCLUSION 103 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Precedents. 
 
 1. Bill by one of the Shareholders in a Banking Company 
 
 incorporated by Charter, on behalf of himself and all 
 other the Shareholders except the Chairman, against 
 the Chairman and the Manager, to set aside a Deed 
 made by the Directors in favour of the Manager .. 109 
 
 2. Bill for S.pecific Performance of an Agreement for the 
 
 Purchase of a Share in a Patent, and for terminating 
 litigation on certain specified terms .. .. .. 120 
 
 3. Bill for Specific Performance of an Agreement for Pur- 
 
 chase of a Patent, and for working it on mutual Terms 132 
 
CONTENTS. Vll 
 
 PAGE 
 
 4. Heads of a Bill by a Judgment Creditor for a Lien on 
 
 the Debtor's Real Estate, and claiming Priority over a 
 Purchaser, alleging himself to be without Notice . . 140 
 
 5. Demurrer for want of Equity and for want of Parties .. 144 
 
 6. Demurrer for want of Equity ; of the Statute of Frauds ; 
 
 and for want of Parties . . . . . . . , . . 145 
 
 7. Plea to a Bill by a Residuary Legatee against an alleged 
 
 Debtor to the Estate, for an Account ; alleging, as 
 ground of Equity, that the Executors had refused to 
 call the Debtor to an account ; and that he was the 
 Solicitor of the Executors ; but not expressly charging 
 collusion .. .. .. .. .. ,. 146 
 
 8. Answer (to the bill, page 132) 148 
 
 9. A Petition by Tenant for Life of a Fund, and of Trustees 
 
 appointed by her, to obtain Payment out of Court to 
 the Trustees, the Fund having been paid in by the 
 then sole Trustee, before the appointment of the Peti- 
 tioners .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 151 
 
 10. Petition in an Administration Suit against the Estate of 
 
 an Intestate, in which the Plaintiff was entitled as his 
 Widow, and the Defendant as his only Child ; (the 
 Widow having a Life Estate in a Fund, determined in 
 another suit to be part of the Intestate's Estate;) for 
 winding it up ; paying the Debts ; paying to the 
 Widow a certain portion by arrangement, so as to 
 have the Estate cleared of her Life Estate ; and for 
 paying the residue to the Defendant . . . . . , 153 
 
 1 1. Notice of Motion to pay Money into Court .. .. 156 
 
 INDEX 157 
 
PRINCIPLES 
 
 CHAI^CEET PLEADING. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 WHAT PERSONS ARE ENTITLED TO SUE IN EQUITV, 
 AND IN WHAT MANNER THEY SUE. 
 
 Every subject of the British Crown, and every 
 person, whether a subject of the British Crown or 
 not, is entitled to sue in equity in his own person, 
 or vicariously, in respect of equitable injury (a) to an 
 equitable right accrued or accruing to the plaintiff' 
 within the jurisdiction of the court ; that is, to lay 
 ground for a suit, there must be in the plaintiff" an 
 equitable right within the jurisdiction, and an equit- 
 able injury done to it; and the person committing 
 the injury must be either within or subject to the 
 
 (a) 'The injury must be equitable, as distinguished from injury 
 purely legal. For instance, a suit cannot be sustained for waste 
 committed by a stranger, for that is trespass, which is a purely 
 legal injury ; but it may for waste by a person having privity of 
 estate, as that is equitable injury. 
 
2 WHO ENTITLED TO SUE IN EQUITY. 
 
 jurisdiction, otherwise the Court of Chancery will 
 not interfere. 
 
 For example: a foreigner, resident or not resident 
 within the jurisdiction, may sue a foreigner in 
 equity, provided the right of the plaintiff be a right 
 arising within the jurisdiction, and provided also 
 the foreigner doing the wrong is personally within 
 the jurisdiction. If he is not, a suit would, it is 
 presumed, not lie, because the court can only act 
 on persons within its jurisdiction, or upon persons 
 over whom, if out of its jurisdiction, it has authority 
 to acquire jurisdiction, by causing them to be served 
 with the process of the court ; and it is presumed 
 that it has no such authority in respect oi& foreigner 
 who is out of the jurisdiction, under the 33rd Order 
 of May, 1845. But a foreigner might, in respect 
 of his equitable right accruing within the jurisdic- 
 tion, sue a subject of the Crown, whether the 
 defendant is in or out of the jurisdiction ; because 
 the court has power to issue its order to serve 
 process on a subject of the Crown out of the juris- 
 diction. 
 
 All persons who are qualified to sue at all, may 
 sue directly in their own names, if they are sui juris; 
 but, if they are not, they must sue in the name of 
 some other person. This rule of pleading is founded 
 on a rule of practicfe, which gives to a defendant a 
 right to have on the record as plaintiff some person 
 sui juris who may be answerable for costs ; and 
 upon the same principle, if a plaintiff is out of the 
 
WHO ENTITLED TO SUE IN EQUITY, 3 
 
 jurisdiction, he must, in general, give security for 
 costs before the suit can proceed. Married women 
 sue (if in respect of their own separate rights) by 
 some other person, who is called their next friend, 
 and who is answerable for the proper conduct of 
 the suit and for costs. Infants sue by their next 
 friend; and lunatics by their committees. The 
 suit, however, of a person not sui juris is, both in 
 substance and in form, by the party actually 
 aggrieved ; and, accordingly, the bill of a married 
 woman, or an infant, will run, not " Humbly com- 
 plaining, showeth A. B., the next friend of the 
 married woman or infant," but, " A. B., the wife 
 of C. D , by X., her next friend," or, "A. B., an 
 infant, by X., his next friend." 
 
 The Crown sues not by, but in the name of, the 
 Attorney-General; that is, the Attorney-General 
 is the actual plaintiff on the record; but the 
 Attorney-'General only sues on the information of 
 some other person, who is termed the relator; 
 generally the person or persons principally in- 
 terested in the right, and aggrieved by the wrong 
 done. This also is a rule of practice rather than 
 of pleading, in order that there may be a person 
 on the record as plaintiflp, who shall be answerable 
 in costs, if the Crown has been wrongly in- 
 formed (a). A bill by the Attorney-General is not 
 
 (o) The reason for this form would seem to have ceased by 
 force of the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 90, which directs that the Crown 
 shall pay and receive costs as a subject would. However, the 
 form of a suit by the Crown has not been altered. 
 
 b2 
 
4 WHO ENTITLED TO SUE IN EQUITY. 
 
 called a bill, but an information. In all substantial 
 respects it does riot differ from a bill. 
 
 Corporations sue in various modes. Some cor- 
 porations are authorized expressly by the Act of 
 Parliament, under which they are incorporated, to 
 sue in the name of a public officer, and then the 
 bill is filed by the public officer in his own name, 
 designating himself as such. Some corporations 
 are authorized to sue in their corporate capacity, 
 and in their name as a company, and then they 
 sue in the name of the company ; as, for instance, 
 
 " Humbly complaining, showeth the Railway 
 
 Company," or the like. Ecclesiastical, collegiate, 
 and municipal corporations sue according to their 
 titular designation, as, "The Dean and Chapter 
 
 of ; " " The Mayor, Burgesses, and Citizens " 
 
 of such a city, &c. The form in which each par- 
 ticular corporation will properly sue, can only be 
 ascertained by ascertaining the titular designation 
 by which it is called, in the instruments by which 
 it is incorporated, or in the deeds to which it is 
 party. 
 
( 5 ) 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 of the modes of instituting a suit in equity. 
 
 Section 1. 
 
 Of Bills. 
 
 A CHANCERY suit is Commenced usually by a hill; 
 it may be also commenced by a claim, or by a 
 summons ; and certain proceedings in the nature of 
 a suit are commenced by a special case. The bill 
 is the most usual and, in general, tlie most com- 
 plete course, and I will treat first of bills. 
 
 Bills are in strictness divisible into bills praying 
 relief, and bills praying only discovery. The latter 
 class of bills was formerly in frequent use; almost 
 exclusively, however, in aid of proceedings at law, 
 for the purpose of obtaining information residing 
 in the breast of the party alone. But since the 
 practice of courts of common law has permitted 
 the parties to an action to be examined as witnesses, 
 bills of discovery have fallen wholly into desuetude, 
 and the only bills known in modern practice are 
 bills for relief, accompanied or not accompanied 
 by discovery. 
 
 A bill is addressed to the Lord Chancellor, and 
 
6 MODES OF INSTITUTING A SUIT IN EQUITY. 
 
 consists of a statement of the facts and documents 
 on which the plaintiff grounds his claim to equitable 
 relief; and of a prayer for the particular relief to 
 which he thinks himself entitled, followed by a 
 prayer for such other relief as the court may think 
 fit to give, which is termed " the prayer for general 
 relief." 
 
 A bill contains — 
 
 I. The address to the Lord Chancellor, under 
 which is written the branch of the court in which it 
 is intended to be heard. II, A statement of the 
 names of the plaintiffs and defendants. III. The 
 name, designation, and address of the plaintiff. 
 IV. It proceeds to set forth the facts and docu- 
 ments, or the material parts of the documents, on 
 svhich the plaintiff relies. V. It prays the particular 
 relief required, and the general relief. VI. It states 
 at the foot of the bill who are the defend9.nts ; and 
 it is signed by the counsel without date or address. 
 
 A bill must show on the face of its allegations 
 that some relief could be granted, if the cause were 
 being heard on proof of those allegations ; for if, 
 on the very statements of the bill, assuming them 
 all to be true, no relief at all could be granted, the 
 bill may be met by demurrer, a form of pleading 
 which, admitting every allegation of fact in the bill 
 to be true, submits to the court that the plaintiff has 
 no title to the relief asked, or to any other relief. 
 
 Thus, to put a clear case by way of example : 
 if a bill stated that the plaintiff and the defendant 
 had entered into an agreement for the purchase, by 
 
OF BILLS. 
 
 the defendant, of the plaintifiF's estate, and prayed 
 specific performance of the agreentent ; and then 
 alleged facts which showed that the plaintiff had 
 no title to the estate ; the biU would he demurrable ; 
 because the court would not compel the defendaqt 
 to take a bad title. 
 
 As the causes of demurrer are very numerous, 
 and upon them depends in a great measure the 
 mode in which a bill must be fraified, it will be 
 convenient to mention here the principal essentials 
 of a bill, although the subject will be further 
 treated in speeiking of demurrers. 
 
 To be entitled to sue for relief in equity, the 
 plaintiff must show, I. That he is the person en- 
 titled to relief, assuming that the facts justify any 
 relief. II. That tbefaJcts entitle him, the plaintiii^ 
 to the relief prayed oyoipsi somefiorfy. HI. That 
 the defendant, or defendants, is or are the person 
 or persons against whom the plaintiff is entitled to 
 relief. IV. (though this matter in effect con- 
 stitutes a bj-anch of the second proposition,) That 
 the Court of Chancery is the tribunal that has 
 jurisdiction to give the relief asked ; that is, either 
 that it has sole jurisdiction, or jurisdiction com- 
 current with that of some other court. 
 
 I. That the plaintjff must show himself to be 
 the person entitled to relief, assuming that relief 
 is grantable to somebody. 
 
 The plaintiff must allege distinctly his title to 
 the subject-matter, in respect of injury to which 
 
8 MODES OF INSTITUTING A SUIT IN EQUITY. 
 
 he asks relief; that is, if the relief is in respect of 
 an equitable injury done to him as owner of any 
 property, he must show that he is the owner, or so 
 far the owner as to have a locus standi for some 
 relief; or if the relief sought, is for equitable injury 
 in respect of any contract, he must show that he 
 is the person with whom the defendants have con- 
 tracted ; or generally if he claims relief in respect of 
 any right, and injury to that right, he, must show 
 on thie face of his bill, that he is the person in 
 whom the right injured is vested, either wholly, or 
 so far as to entitle him to claim the aid of the court 
 in respect of his interest. 
 
 For example : if a person files a bill as equitable 
 owner, or part equitable owner of an estate, against 
 any person holding a fiduciary character in respect 
 of that estate, for an account of his receipts, and 
 in respect of his dealings with the estate, the 
 plaintiff must allege that he is the sole cestui que 
 trust, or one of the cestuis que trust (as the case 
 may be), go, if a bill is filed for specific perform- 
 ance of a contract made by the defendant with 
 the plaintiff to buy the plaintiff's estate, the 
 plaintiff must allege his title to the estate, and, 
 also, that the defendant entered into the contract 
 with him; for both those circumstances are es- 
 sential to the plaintiff's title to relief. If the 
 plaintiff has no title to the estate, it is clear that he 
 cannot enforce a contract to buy it; and if, on the 
 other hand, having title to the estate, there was 
 
OF BILLS. 9 
 
 no contract with the defendant, then it is equally 
 clear that he cannot compel the defendant to buy- 
 it. But if a bill for specific performance were 
 filed by a. purchaser against the vendor, then it 
 would be sufiBcient for the plaintiff to allege the 
 contract with him, because, if there was a contract, 
 he has a locus standi to sue. 
 
 So, if a bOl is filed by a tenant in remainder 
 against a tenant for life,' to restrain him from 
 cutting timber, the bill must allege the title of the 
 plaintiff in remainder as such; for if he is not 
 tenant in remainder, he can have no title to sue at 
 all; and the bill would also allege that the de- 
 fendant is tenant for life subject to impeachment 
 of waste, although that seems at first sight part 
 of the defendant's title ; but it is in effect an in- 
 gredient in the plaintiff's title, for if the defendant 
 is tenant without impeachment of waste, the plaintifi^ 
 although tenant in remainder, would have, no 
 ground for restraining the defendant from cutting 
 timber (except timber planted for ornament). 
 
 Again, suppose a bill filed for the appointment 
 of new trustees under a will or settlement, the 
 plaintiff must show that he has some equitable 
 interest under that will or settlement, for if he has 
 not, he has no title to meddle with the appointment 
 of new trustees. 
 
 It will be perceived, from what has been stated, 
 and from the examples selected, that the question, 
 what title the plaintiff must show, resolves itself, in 
 b5 
 
10 MODES OF INSTITUTING A SUIT IN EQUITY. 
 
 eflFect, into this, what are the equitable rights that 
 attach to his person and status ? And the principle 
 is, that he must in all cases allege enough of his in- 
 dividuality and status to show that he is entitled to 
 the equitable right injured, or to some part of it. 
 
 As to thei form of pleading title in a bill, the 
 general rule is this : the plaintiff must allege the 
 facts from which the court, assuming them to be 
 true, can collect that he has title. He must allege 
 facts, not mere inferences of law. For instance, 
 it would not be good and sufficient pleading in a 
 bill by a tenant in remainder under a deed, against 
 the tenant for life (say for restraining, waste), to 
 allege simply that the plaintiff is tenant in remainder, 
 for whether he is so or not is an inference of law 
 to be drawn from the limitations of the instrument 
 under which he claims. But he should allege that 
 A. made and executed a certain deed, whereby he 
 conveyed to the defendant for his life, and from 
 and after, &c., to the plaintiff and his heirs (or, to 
 the plaintiff for his hfe, &c., as the case may be), 
 setting out the material parts of the limitations. 
 
 So, in a suit by a cestui que trust against his 
 trustees in respect of any breach of trust, it is not 
 sufficient to allege ^lat the plaintiff m entitled to 
 an eguitahle interest under the instrument vesting 
 the legal estate in the trustees; but a properly 
 .drawn bill will set out or state so much of the 
 instrument creating the trust estates, as shows that 
 the plaintiff takes under it an equitable interest. 
 
OF BILLS. 11 
 
 In fine, the allegation of title should consist of 
 allegations of those fads or instruments, or portions 
 of instruments, from which tlie title of the plaintiff 
 appears ; and it is usual, though it is not always 
 necessary, to follow up those allegations by a 
 specific allegation of the legal inference ; that is, for 
 instance, if the title were as tenant for life or in fee 
 under a deed, the bill, after stating the limitations 
 of the deed, would go on to say that the plaintiff 
 is, as such person so designated in the deed, well 
 and sufficiently entitled to an estate for life or in 
 fee to him and his heirs (or whatever his actual 
 estate is) in the hereditaments. Or, if a bill were 
 filed by an executor, after alleging the will and the 
 death of the testator, and the proof of the will, it 
 would go on to allege, that the plaintiff " thereby 
 became and now is the sole legal personal repre- 
 sentative of the testator." 
 
 II. That the facts alleged must show the plain- 
 tiff's title to some relief. 
 
 On this part of a bill, which is its substance, it 
 is to be observed, that the question is always more 
 properly a question of law than of pleading ; being, 
 in reality, whether the facts show an injury to the 
 plaintiff's rights, cognizable and relievable upon 
 equitable doctrines ; so that to pursue- minutely the 
 inquiry into what facts will support a bill, would 
 involve, not a discussion of pleading merely, bi^t 
 an inquiry into equity jurisdiction as a whole. 
 
 The student must therefore bear in mind that, 
 
12 MODES OF INSTITUTING A SUIT IN EQUITY. 
 
 as matter of law, his facts must be such as to lay 
 the foundation of an equitable injury committed 
 by the defendant against an equitable right in the 
 plaintiff (a) ; and, as matter of pleading, he must, 
 in a bill, state those facts shortly and precisely. 
 
 In the modern system of pleading, which has 
 grown up partly under the influence of the Judges, 
 antecedently to the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, and since, 
 under the positive enactments of that act, verbose 
 statements of facts, and unnecessary or prolix set- 
 ting out of instruments, are altogether abandoned 
 in drawing bills in Chancery. The best general 
 rule that can be followed by a young pleader is, 
 that, having first satisfied himself that his facts 
 support an equity, he should draw his bill, as if he 
 were making verbally a short, but very accurate, 
 statement of them, to a very precise and particular 
 person. Every fact, however, necessary to com- 
 plete the chain of title and injury must be stated; 
 and by chain of title and injury is here meant, not 
 merely title to estate, in the sense in which con- 
 veyancers use it ; but title to equitable relief, which 
 comprises title in the conveyancer's sense, and 
 also equitable locus standi, and equitable injury. 
 
 (a) It will not be ihferred from the use of the term" equitable 
 right," that relief can only be had in respect of an equitable 
 estate, as the jurisdiction of equity extends, in many cases, to give 
 equitable relief in respect of a legal estate. I use the term equi- 
 table right, in the sense in which it is used in equity, as desig- 
 Dating such an estate and interest as give a locus standi for 
 equitable relief. 
 
OF BILLS. 13 
 
 To take a familiar example : if a bill were filed 
 to restrain infringement of a patent, or of copy- 
 right, it would not be good pleading to state loosely 
 as to the injury, that the defendant had infringed 
 the plaintiff's patent or copyright ; for, what is in- 
 fringement, may be a question of opinion. But 
 the bill would allege as a fact, that the defendant 
 did make and sell or use a machine, made according 
 to the plaintiff's specification, or being a colourable 
 imitation thereof; or, that he did copy from the 
 plaintiff's work divers passages, or made colourable 
 imitations thereof, and did print and publish the 
 passages so taken and copied, or the passages so 
 colourably altered, in his, the defendant's, work. 
 Or, if the bill were for restraining waste, on the 
 ground, say, not of actual cutting timber, but of 
 threatening and intending to cut it, which would 
 support an equity; the allegation, in a properly 
 drawn bill, would not be simply of threat and in- 
 tention to cut, but that the defendant had, by a 
 letter or verbally, (as the case might be,) stated, 
 that he would cut timber; or, that he had sent a 
 surveyor to mark trees for cutting ; or of some act, 
 from which the court can collect intention to cut. 
 In fact, the allegation should be, in all cases, an 
 allegation of the specific fact, or facts, constituting 
 the equitable injury, and not merely of the equit- 
 able injury resulting from the acts. 
 
 The body of a bill is, under the 15 & 16 Vict. 
 c. 86, divided into paragraphs, numbered ; tho.se 
 
14 MODES OF INSTITUTING A SUIT IN EQUITY. 
 
 paragraphs may be as long or as short as the pleader 
 chooses to make them; but it is usual (in conformity 
 with the indication of intention expressed in the 
 10th section of the Act) to confine each paragraph 
 to a specific fact, or class of facts, and the practice 
 is convenient. 
 
 The stating part of a bill always concludes with 
 an allegation, that the defendant has in his posses- 
 sion or power documents relatipg to the matters in 
 the bill, and that he ought to produce them. It 
 was necessary, before the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, that 
 this allegation should be minute in its terms, as 
 there was then no mode of obtaining inspection 
 of the documents in the defendant's, power, except 
 by an application to the court, grounded on the 
 admissions in the answer. But now, under the 
 
 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 18, the plaintiff may, at any 
 time after the defendant has submitted to the 
 jurisdiction of the couit, (by entering an appear- 
 ance to the bill,) obtain an order for productioi) 
 of documents, which the defendant is obliged to 
 produce, accompanied by an affidavit (of a settled 
 form), verifying them as the only documents that 
 he has or .can procure ; so that now, it is usual in 
 practice to rely principally on production of docu- 
 ments so obtained ; and the allegation of the bill, 
 that the defendant has documents in his possession, 
 is only relied on to ground an application for pro- 
 duction in chambers ; it is still, hojvever, for that 
 purpose, always inserted. 
 
 The rule, that every material fact necessary to 
 
OF BILLS. 15 
 
 the plaintift"s equity must be distinctly alleged in 
 the bill, is founded on this : that the plaintiff can- 
 not strictly be allowed to prove any matter that he 
 has not put in issue ; and, even if the cause comes 
 to a hearing upon evidence of matter not distinctly 
 put in issue, the court will, nevertheless, refuse to 
 make a decree on that evidence for the plaintiff, 
 solely on the ground of pleading, that he has not 
 alleged the case that he proves. Of course, it is 
 not meant, that every individual fact to be proved 
 must be alleged ; but the fact or facts, forming 
 the substantial groundwork of the case on which 
 relief is sought, must be distinctly alleged. 
 
 By way of example : if a bill were filed to set 
 aside a deed on the ground of undue influence, it 
 would not be necessary to allege every fact, show- 
 ing the actual exercise of iindue influence ; but it 
 would be necessary to allege the relation of the 
 parties, and the general fact of undue influence, 
 and some specific instance or instances from which 
 the court could infer undue influence ; and upon 
 those allegations, evidence of a more expansive 
 character might be gone into to establish the alle- 
 gation of undue influence. 
 
 In Champneys v. Buchan, (4 Drew. 104,) the 
 plaintiff filed his bill as rector of Wbitechapel 
 parish, claiming j)ayments in respect of houses in 
 Whitechapel, either as tithes, or in lieu of tithes, 
 or as a rate tithe. The case made on the evidence 
 at the bar was a special customary payment ; but 
 
16 MODES OF INSTITUTING A SUIT IN EQUITY. 
 
 the custom was not distinctly alleged by the bill, 
 and only by inference was a custom alleged at all. 
 On this ground, as well as on the merits, the court 
 dismissed the bill. So in Nokes v. Fish, (3 Drew. 
 735,) the bill alleged, or was assumed to allege, a 
 certain assignment, out of which an ejectment and 
 judgment, causing damage to the plaintiff, arose. 
 The ejectment and judgment appeared by the evi- 
 dence, but were not aljeged in the bill ; and it was 
 held that the bill not alleging the damage, no 
 relief could have been given on the ground of that 
 damage though it did appear by the evidence ; and 
 that the substance of the ground of relief must 
 appear on the bill. 
 
 The judgments in the two cases above cited, are 
 particularly instructive on the point under dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 A bill for an account should, in reference to the 
 account, only allege matter suflBcient to show that 
 the defendant is liaile to account; it should not 
 go into the detail of the subject-matter to be 
 accounted for. The court would not hear evidence, 
 at the preliminary hearing, on the account ; (^Law 
 V. Hunter, 1 Russ. 100.) For instance, in a suit in 
 the nature of an administration suit, or in a suit 
 for an account by principal against agent, it is 
 sufficient to allege, in the first case, that the de- 
 fendant is an executor or trustee, and has received 
 the estate, or large portions of it, and has not 
 accounted for his receipts ; and in the second, that 
 
OF BILLS. 17 
 
 the defendant is and has acted as the plaintiff's 
 agent in divers matters, to wit : in (stating one or 
 two instances), and in many other similar matters ; 
 and has, in the course of such matters, received 
 divers sums from or on account of the plaintiff, for 
 which he has not accounted. In a case of Soun- 
 der V. Druce, (3 Drew. 140,) where the plaintiff by 
 his bill (which was for an account) had gone into 
 minute details of the defendant's transactions, the 
 court expressed great disapprobation of the form 
 of the bill. (See the Judgment, p. 155.) 
 
 The third and fourth ingredients necessary to 
 a bill will be more conveniently dealt with under 
 the head of defence to a bill. 
 
 The statements of the bill being concluded, the 
 next part is the prayer for particular relief. 
 
 The function of the prayer, as its very name 
 implies, is to show to what relief the plaintiff thinks 
 himself entitled ; or, in other words, what is the 
 decree that he seeks to obtain. 
 
 The prayer should be in conformity with the 
 case made by the bill. 
 
 For example: suppose a bill filed praying for 
 the construction of a marriage settlement, and that 
 it may be declared that, on the true construction, 
 the plaintiff is entitled to certain rights. And 
 suppose, that the bill makes on its facts a case 
 for reforming the settlement, on the ground of its 
 having been drawn contrary to instructions. On 
 such a bill the plaintiff could have no relief (assum- 
 
18 MODES OF INSTITUTING A SUIT IN EQUITY. 
 
 ing the decision on the eonstruction to he against 
 hitn), because the prayer would conclude him from 
 obtaining the relief for which he really had laid 
 ground. 
 
 This rule is fcninded on the same principle that 
 requires the allegations of the bill to be distinct, 
 viz., that the defendant has a right to know what 
 is the case that he has to meet, and is not to be 
 left in any doubt about it ; which he would he, if 
 the bill made one case, and the prayer was for a 
 species of relief founded on another case. The 
 rule is, indeed, one of such obvious necessity, and 
 so clearly judicious on the face of it, that it would 
 be almost an affront to the common sense of the 
 reader to state it, were it not that bills are not 
 unfrequently brought into court neglecting com- 
 pliance with the rule. 
 
 Probably the error, when committed, arises 
 (if not from the mere hurry of business) from an 
 inaccurate conception of the effect of the prayer 
 for general relief, which is often supposed to have 
 a much greater effect than it has. 
 
 The extent of effect of the prayer for general relief 
 is this ; that the court will rely upon it, in order to 
 expand the relief specifically sought, if a case is 
 made not only for that specific relief, but for some- 
 thing more, of the same nature ; or, if the specific 
 relief js not precisely the kind of relief that ought 
 to be granted on the case made, but is some relief 
 analogous to it, then, also, the court will act on the 
 
OF BILLS. 19 
 
 prayer for general relief. But the court will not, 
 on the prayer for general relief, give a relief incon- 
 sistent with, or wholly different in its nature fiom, 
 the rehef prayed by the bill. 
 
 The prayer is, like the bill, divided into para- 
 graphs, according to the several kinds of relief 
 asked, as, for instance, — 
 
 1. That the trusts of the will in the pleadings 
 
 mentioned may be carried into effect under 
 the direction of the court 
 
 2. That an account may be taken of the trans- 
 
 actions of the defendants in respect of the 
 estate in question, or for other accounts. 
 
 3. That a receiver may be appointed. 
 
 4. That some of the defendants may be re- 
 
 strained by injunction from doing certain 
 'acts, &c. 
 
 5. That, if necessary, new trustees may be ap- 
 
 pointed. 
 And the last paragraph must always be the prayer 
 for general relief. 
 
 Finally, the names of the defendants are in- 
 serted, and the draft bill is signed by the pleader, 
 as already stated, without date or address. 
 
 A modern bill contains no interrogatories. If 
 the pIainti£P desires (as he does in most hostile 
 cases), to obtain discovery by answer, as to the 
 matters alleged in the bill, he files separate in- 
 terrogatories, which are drawn and signed by 
 counsel. 
 
20 MODES OF INSTITUTING A SUIT IN EQUITY- 
 
 Interrogatories are headed by the title of the 
 suit, thus, — 
 
 In Chancery. 
 
 John Lee and James Styles, plaintiffs, 
 
 Henry Jones defendant. 
 
 Interrogatories for the examination of the above- 
 named defendant, in answer to the plaintiffs' bill 
 of complaint. 
 
 And then the interrogatories follow, divided into 
 paragraphs, which it is convenient to all parties, 
 though it is not compulsory, to number in con- 
 formity with the paragraphs of the bill. 
 
 The only strict rule of pleading, that applies to 
 interrogatories, is that they. must be founded on 
 the allegations ; the plaintiff cannot interrogate as 
 to matters which he has not put in issue, though 
 he may expand his interrogatories, so as to cover 
 every incident of the facts alleged. For the rest, 
 the drawing of interrogatories is merely a matter 
 of common sense and acuteness, and the only 
 material point to be attended to is, that they should 
 be so worded as to make it impracticable for the 
 defendant to evade answering the real question. 
 One example will be sufficient to show the mode 
 of drawing interrogatories (a). 
 
 If an allegation were, that " the defendant had 
 
 (6) Under the old system of equity pleading, when every 
 fact alleged by the bill, however trivial, was made the subject of 
 an interrogatory, interrogatories did not require, or at any rate 
 did not receive, much care from the pleader. It is now the prac- 
 
OP BILLS. 21 
 
 applied lOOZ. of the plaintiff's money in purchasing 
 seven bales of silk," and it were material to know 
 what he had done with the money, if he had not 
 applied it precisely as alleged, an interrogatory 
 " whether he had not applied lOOl. of plaintiff's 
 money in purchasing seven bales of silk," would 
 not meet the object of interrogatories ; for, if the 
 plaintiff had applied 801. in purchasing five bales 
 of silk, and had spent 'the rest on himself, he 
 might put in a direct negative to the whole inter- 
 rogatory (if worded as above) without perjury. 
 A cautiously-drawn interrogatory would be in this 
 form, " Whether the defendant had not applied 
 100/. of the plaintiff's money or some and what 
 part thereof, in the purchase of seven or some other 
 and what number of bales of silk, or whether ornot 
 in the purchase of some and what quantity of 
 some other and what material or materials, or how 
 had he disposed of the plaintiff's money, and 
 every or any part thereof," and such an interro-: 
 gatory would be justified by the allegation of the 
 bill. 
 
 Before concluding the subject of bills, it may 
 not be useless to make a few general remarks on 
 certain forms of pleading, useful if cautiously used, 
 but prejudicial if used rashly. 
 
 It is very usual in drawing a bill, the equity of 
 
 tice only to interrogate as to material allegations, and the in- 
 terrogatories therefore require the pleader's personal attention 
 and skill. 
 
22 MODES OP INSTITUTING A SUIT IN EQUITY. 
 
 which is doubtful, to seek to protect it against 
 demurrer, by an allegation of fraud against the 
 defendants, on the ground that fraud gives a 
 general jurisdiction to the court. But, a mere 
 general allegation of fraud, without an allegation 
 oi specific acts of fraud, will not so protect a bill, 
 and there are instances of demurrers being allowed 
 on that ground; because fraud or no fraud is a 
 question on which the court is to form its opinion 
 on the facts, and not a fact in itself, but rather an 
 inference of law, in the nature of a fact. Specific 
 allegations of specific acts of fraud will, no doubt, 
 in most cases, protect a bill against demurrer ; but 
 if on the answer coming in the fraud is denied, 
 and the plaintiff has no means of proving it ex- 
 cept out of the mouth of the defendant, he is then 
 put to amend his bill, and strike out the allegations 
 of fraud ; for if he conducts the suit to a hearing, 
 with allegations of fraud in the biH, and produces 
 no evidence in support of them, he will certainly, 
 however much in respect of the rest of his bill he 
 might be entitled to a decree with costs, recMve 
 no costs in respect of so much at least of the suit 
 as the allegations of fraud have rendered neces- 
 sary ; and he may find that the decree, if in his 
 favour, will be on that ground only wholly without 
 costs; and if against him,M;j<Acosto. In other words* 
 the court visits allegations of fraud unsupported, 
 with punishment, as an offence. In a recent case 
 (not reported), the plaintiff filed a bill alleging 
 
OF BILLS. 23 
 
 that an instrument executed by the defendants was 
 ultra vires; and, also, that it had been obtained by 
 fraud; and he moved for an injunction to restrain 
 the defendants from making any use of the deed. 
 The evidence did not support this allegation of 
 fraud ; and the court,— deciding nothing, but inti- 
 mating that, in the absence of such allegations, 
 there was enough doubt on the merits to induce 
 it to make no order, but to let the motion abide 
 the result of the cause,— refused the motion with 
 costs, expressly on the ground of the unsupported 
 allegations of fraud. (Wilkins v. ttoebuch, Vice- 
 Chancellor Kindersley, July, 1857.) 
 
 In suits against trustees or executors, for the 
 administration of the estates represented by them, 
 and for an account, it is in general advisable to insert 
 in the original bill an allegation of wilful default; 
 that is, an allegation that they have allowed parts 
 of the estate to remain outstanding and to be lost, 
 which, but for their wilful neglect arid default, 
 might have been got in. And even if the answer 
 negatives the allegation, it should be retained in 
 the bill, unless the plaintiff has good reason to be 
 satisfied that the answer is perfectly true. The 
 reason is this : — It is a rule of the court, that it 
 will not on hearing a cause on further considera- 
 tion, (that is, after the accounts have been taken, 
 and the chief clerk has issued his certificate,) make 
 a decree against trustees or executors, charging 
 
24 MODES OF INSTITUTING A SUIT IN EQUITY. 
 
 them with the consequences of wilful default, un- 
 less either the bill charges wilful default, or the 
 preliminary decree has directed inquiries with a 
 view to wilful default. Now, the common preli- 
 minary decree is usually a mere decree for an 
 account of what has come to the hands of the 
 defendants ; and on the hearing of the cause for 
 making the original decree, the court will not 
 direct inquiries with a view to wilful default, 
 unless it is alleged by the bill, or unless it appears 
 aliunde on the, pleadings, which is of course not 
 probable, if the bill has never alleged it. The 
 result is, that when the account has been taken, 
 and shows that the defendant has in fact been 
 guilty of wilful default, the plaintiflF can obtain no 
 relief. Bills of this class should therefore, as a 
 general rule, in the absence of clear ground for 
 believing it misplaced, contain an allegation of 
 wilful default and neglect in the defendants. 
 
 In a recent case, {Martindale v. Picquot, 3 Kay 
 & John. 3 17,) where the suit had been commenced 
 by summons, (a form of proceeding without bill, 
 and without any specific allegations,) the account 
 taken under the decree showed, that one of the 
 defendants had illegally allowed a sum of money 
 to be retained by a co-trustee ; and he would have 
 been liable for it, if wilful default had been pleaded. 
 But on the cause coming on for further considera- 
 tion, the court, without going into the legal ques- 
 
OF PROCEEDINGS BY CLAIM. 25 
 
 tion of his liability, refused upon the form of the 
 suit to make a decree, declaring him liable. (,See 
 also Jones v. Morrall, 2 Sim. N. S. 241, on this 
 point.) 
 
 Section II. 
 Of Proceedings by Claim. 
 
 It has been stated that a Chancery siiit may also 
 be commenced by claim ; but on that subject I 
 shall not increase the length of this little work by 
 saying much; because the proceeding by claim, in 
 cases of sufficient difficulty to require the skill of 
 a pleader, is in every respect so inferior to the pro- 
 ceeding by bill, that it has, by common consent of 
 the bar, become almost obsolete. 
 
 Claims are of two kinds; common claims and 
 special claims. 
 
 The different kinds of subject-matter, to which 
 common claims are applicable, are pointed out ex- 
 pressly in the General Orders of the Court, of 
 April, 1 850 ; and to those cases claims are in prac- • 
 tice now almost wholly confined. As no question 
 of pleading, properly so called, arises in common 
 claims, I shall dismiss them with a reference to the 
 Orders of 1850. 
 
 All cases not provided for by the orders, are to 
 be dealt with by way of special claim, 
 
 
 
26 MODES OF INSTITUTING A SUIT IN EQUITY. 
 
 A special claim is in its frame neither more nor 
 less than a bill, with a slightly different heading, 
 and is subject to the same rules as to accurate 
 pleading. In its consequences it is something 
 very different from a bill. A plaintiff proceeding 
 by claim cannot call for an answer, nor can he 
 obtain an injunction ; he is therefore deprived of 
 two of the most essential ingredients Of a hostile 
 suit. It seems, also, from the cases of Eccles v. 
 Cheyne, (15 Jur. 744,) and Jacobs v. Richards, 
 (18 Beav. 300,) that the court will not allow claims 
 to be proceeded with in any very intricate case. 
 Their use is, therefore, now so limited, that it 
 would be a waste of space to proceed further in 
 discussing them. 
 
 Section III. 
 Of Proceedings by Summons, 
 
 A suit in Chancery may also be commenced by 
 • a summons in the Judge's chambers. 
 
 This mode of proceeding is entirely the creature 
 of the 16 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 45, et seq. 
 
 By the 45th sect, creditors, or legatees, or next 
 ofUn, may proceed against the executors or ad- 
 ministrators of the estate of a deceased person in 
 respect of personal estate only. And by the 47th 
 
OF PROCEEDINGS BY SUMMONS. 27 
 
 sect, creditors only may proceed against the real 
 estate of the deceased. 
 
 The summons is obtained on an ex parte appli- 
 cation to the Judge, and is granted by the chief 
 clerk. And upon the summons being duly served, 
 (and on the appearance of the defendants,) and 
 upon affidavit being made of such matters, if any, 
 as the Judge requires, he makes an order, which is 
 in fact the same as, or equivalent to, a common 
 decree for accounts. Upon that decree the ac- 
 counts of the estate of the deceased are taken, and 
 any questions of lavy that may arise upon them, 
 not disposed of in chambers, come before the court 
 on the hearing of the cause on further considera- 
 tion. There are no pleadings, properly so called, 
 in a suit commenced by summons ; and junior 
 counsel rarely see or are consulted upon any of the 
 proceedings, before the cause comes on on further 
 consideration ; except, that they are sometimes con- 
 sulted as to whether a suit should be instituted by 
 summons or by bill. It becomes necessary, there- 
 fore, to point out the uses and defects of this mode 
 of proceeding. 
 
 It is useful when the suit is merely and purely 
 for the purpose of taking accounts, in a case not 
 likely to involve any intricate matters of law, and in 
 particular not likely to involve the necessity of any 
 other remedy against the representatives, than 
 obtaining an account and distribution of what has 
 c2 
 
28 MODES OF INSTITUTING A SUIT IN EQUITY. 
 
 come to their hands, or to the hands of other per- 
 sons for their use. 
 
 But in cases not falling within this description, 
 the proceeding by summons is not, in general, 
 advised or advisable. One reason is, that the ab- 
 sence of any pleadings on the record, renders it a 
 matter of doubt, at least, in what mode objects of 
 ancillary relief, if required, are to be obtained. But 
 the principal objection to proceeding by summons 
 is, that no relief can be had in a suit so instituted 
 and completed, against breach of duty in the nature 
 of wilful default ; as the cause, in consequence of 
 there being no pleading by the plaintiff, and of 
 there being no decree except the common decree 
 for accounts, (which only extends to an account of 
 what has come to the hands of the representatives,) 
 necessarily comes before the court on further con- 
 sideration, without the materials required by the 
 court for making a decree on the ground of wilful 
 default. And it has been decided in a case already 
 referred to, of Martindah v. Picquot (a), that you 
 cannot have, in a suit commenced and concluded by 
 summons, a decree for wilful default. If, therefore, 
 by the account taken under a decree made on sum- 
 mons, it appears that there has been, in fact, wilful 
 default, I apprehend the only course to put it in 
 issue would be by filing a bill in aid of the decree, 
 and for such a bill leave would be requisite ; nor 
 is it clear that leave would be granted. I am not, 
 (a) Ante, p. 24. 
 
OF SPECIAL CASES. 29 
 
 at any rate, apprised of any case having occurred 
 of a bill in aid of a decree made on summons. 
 It is true that, by the 20th Order, 16th October, 
 1852, the Judge may, after decree, order further 
 accounts or inquiries to be taken or made ; and it 
 may be that, under that order, the Judge would, in 
 chambers, direct an inquiry as to wilful default, on 
 a sufficient case being made on the merits. But 
 on this point, also, I am not apprised of any 
 authority ; and there is ground for argument, that 
 the order in question does not authorize such a 
 course of proceeding. 
 
 Section 4. 
 
 Of Special Cases. 
 
 There is still another mode, not strictly, of com- 
 mencing a Chancery suit, but of obtaining the 
 opinion of the court upon specific questions arising 
 between parties on equitable grounds ; and this is 
 by what is termed a "special case," under the 
 13 & 14 Vict. c. 35. 
 The following is the form of a special case : — 
 Between A. B. and C, D., plaintiffs ; 
 and 
 E, F., defendant. 
 By certain indentures [stating them, Sfc, and 
 stating all the other material facts and deeds.] 
 
30 MODES OF INSTITUTING A SUIT IN EQUITY. 
 
 The questions submitted for the opinion of the 
 court are as follows : — 
 
 1, Whether [stating the different questions in 
 numbered paragraphs'] (a). 
 
 The order made on a special case is only a 
 declaration of rights, binding as between the par- 
 ties to it, to the same extent as such a declara- 
 tion would have been if contained in a decree 
 made in a suit between the same parties instituted 
 by bill. It is not a decree for relief; and it does 
 not affect any other persons except the parties to 
 the case ; and, as the case does not require, in order 
 to be heard, to have all the parties interested in 
 the estate before the court, but only the parties 
 interested in the questions on which a declaration 
 is sought, it may happen that a special case might 
 be heard, and a declaration made upon it, which 
 should turn out to be of no effect, by reason of 
 persons not parties having an interest, and being 
 competent to insist upon the whole matter being 
 again gone into in a suit, as though the special 
 case had never been heard at all. Such a case 
 has, in fact, happened. (See Evans v., Saunders; 
 Evans V. Evans, 2 Drew. 415 and 654.) 
 
 By reason of this and some other circumstances, 
 viz., the difficulties which attend the framing of a 
 special case, the use of special cases is very 
 limited. 
 
 A special case is entitled, as in a cause between 
 
 (o) See as to the framing of the allegations, Groom v. Booth, 
 1 Drew. 548 j Boulcott v. Boulcott, 2 Drew. 25. 
 
OF SPECIAL CASES. 31 
 
 some of the parties interested (or claiming to be 
 so) as plaintiffs, and the others as defendants. 
 
 Lunatics and infants must be described as such in 
 the title, and their committees or guardians must 
 be named. If a married woman is plaintiff, her 
 husband being a defendant, her next friend must 
 be named in the title. 
 
 The case is drawn very much like a bill, con- 
 taining statements, in paragraphs, of the facts, and 
 of the documents, or parts of documents. It is 
 not necessary to set out documents in full ; if their 
 substance is stated, the court may look at the 
 instrument itself. 
 
 A special case must, however, state how guar- 
 dians, or, in the case of lunatics, how the special 
 guardians, have been constituted. And it must 
 state, as to a married woman having a separate 
 interest, that she concurs in her own right. 
 
 A husband may concur in his own name, and in 
 the name of his wife, in respect of an interest in 
 which they are interested in the same right. And 
 the guardian of an infant may concur in the name 
 and on behalf of the infant. 
 
 A lunatic, so found by inquisition, may be re- 
 presented by his committee ; a lunatic not so found, 
 must be represented by a special guardian, who is 
 appointed by the court on motion or petition. 
 
 Persons sui juris, parties to the special case, are 
 bound by its statements, when the case has been 
 filed, and the defendants have appeared. But 
 
32 MODES OF INSTITUTING A SUIT IN EQUITY. 
 
 persons not sui juris are not bound until the case 
 is set down by leave of the court, which is ob- 
 tained on motion. Tiie statements in the case 
 must be verified by affidavit, if they affect^ the in- 
 terests of persons as parties not sui juris, otherwise 
 the court will not allow the cause to be set down ; 
 and if the court is not satisfied of the truth of the 
 statements, it will direct an inquiry before permit- 
 ting the case to be set down. 
 
 The 14th section of the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 35, 
 declares very clearly what the court will and what 
 it will not do on a special case, viz., it will declare 
 its opinion on the questions submitted to it, and 
 on the rights of the parties ; but it will not proceed 
 to administer relief. And the court is not bound 
 to decide the case (sect. 14) ; whereas in a suit 
 properly constituted, the court must decide. Lastly, 
 the court has only power to decide questions of 
 difficult construction; not disputed questions of 
 fact. (Bailey v. Collett, 23 L. T. 230.) 
 
 An appeal from the decision of the court below 
 on a special case lies as well as from a decree 
 made in a suit. Whether the appeal should be by 
 motion, or by a petition of appeal, the act does not 
 state. It is presumed that it may be by either 
 motion or petition. 
 
 The costs on a special case follow the same rule 
 as in administration suits, they come out of the 
 residue ; and, if there be none, out of the estate 
 specifically bequeathed. (Cookson v. Bingham 
 17 Beav, 262.) 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 OF THE DEFENCE TO SUITS. 
 
 Section 1. 
 Of Demurrers, and therein of Parties, 
 
 ■ A BILL may be met in three modes ; by demurrer, 
 by plea, and by answer. And, firstly, of de- 
 murrers. 
 
 A demurrer may be general, that is, to the 
 whole equity ; or it may be partial, that is, that 
 the suit is not, as to its frame, properly constituted ; 
 and both kinds of demurrer may be combined, 
 that is, a demurrer for want of equity, and to the 
 constitution of the suit. 
 
 The form of a general demurrer will be seen in 
 the Appendix. 
 
 A general demurrer for want of equity admits 
 
 all the facts alleged in the bill to be true ; and so 
 
 admitting them, submits to the judgment of the 
 
 court, that the plaintiff on his own showing has no 
 
 c6 
 
34 OF THE DEFENCE TO SUITS. 
 
 particle of equity. The principle on which a 
 demurrer is heard and decided is this : the court 
 treats it as if the cause were being heard on the 
 bill alone, every allegation of the bill being proved ; 
 and if so treating it as a hearing, the court sees 
 that any relief, however small, might be granted, 
 the demurrer will be overruled ; secus, if the court 
 sees that no relief whatever could be given. In a 
 recent case {Innes v. Mitchell, 4 Drew. 371), where 
 the court thought that, assuming no other relief 
 could be given, a defendant who had demurred 
 might be liable in costs (which were expressly 
 prayed), the demurrer was overruled. 
 
 A demurrer may be bad in point of form, though 
 well founded in substance. It must be strictly 
 confined to submission, that on the matter stated • 
 in the bill there is no equity ; it must not suggest 
 any fact, or any matter not in the bill, for that 
 is the function of a plea or an answer. In 
 other words, it must not rest on proof of any 
 matter contained in itself, but only on the matter 
 alleged in the bill. Thus, if a bill alleged an agree- 
 ment between the plaintiiF and defendant, and 
 prayed specific performance, a demurrer, submitting 
 that the agreement could not be performed, averring 
 in support of that suggestion that it had not been 
 signed, or, that it had been fraudulently obtained, 
 would be bad, as what is technically termed " a 
 speaking demurrer," that is, it would suggest 
 matter either contrary to or not contained in the 
 
OF DEMURRERS, ETC. 35 
 
 allegations of the bill, and requiring proof dehors 
 the bill. 
 
 A demurrer to the whole equity may be founded 
 on several grounds, of which it will be convenient 
 here to point out the most frequent. 
 
 It may be that the plaintiff has no title, in the 
 sense of no estate, that is, admitting that the 
 defendant may be liable to be sued by somebody, 
 that the plaintiff is not the person who has the 
 title. As, for example, if a bill alleging an original 
 title in the plaintiff, showed by its other allegations 
 that he had parted with the whole of his interest 
 absolutely to some other person, the defendant 
 might demur generally, on the ground that what- 
 ever might be the defendant's liability to that other 
 person, he had none to the plaintiff. But in cases 
 of this sort care must be taken to distinguish where 
 the plaintiff has some interest remaining in him, 
 and when he has absolutely none ; for if he has 
 any interest, though it be but small, then a de- 
 murrer would not lie to thfe whole equity, but only 
 for want oi proper parties. 
 
 A demurrer may be to the jurisdiction, that is, 
 admitting that the plaintiff has title in the subject- 
 matter and title to sue, and to sue the particular 
 defendant, yet that the Court of Chancery is not 
 the proper jurisdiction; for instance, if a bill is 
 filed by a contractor against a railroad company 
 for an account and payment, and it appears on the 
 face of the bill that the claim is merely for work 
 
36 OF THE DEFENCE TO SUITS. 
 
 and labour done, without any complicated cross 
 accounts, that might be ground for an action at 
 law, but not for an account in equity, and a general 
 demurrer to the jurisdiction would lie. But if it 
 appeared on the face of the bill that there were 
 cross accounts of a complicated nature ; that is, a 
 demand by the contractor against the company, 
 and, a demand by the company against the con- 
 tractor, and both demands involving intricate 
 accounts; the bill would not be demurrable, beca^ise, 
 although that might be ground for an action, it 
 would also fall within the concurrent jurisdiction 
 of equity. (See as to what species of account is 
 cognisable in equity, the case of Fluher v. Taylor, 
 3 Drew.. 183.) 
 
 A demurrer may be grounded on this, that 
 admitting the plaintiflF's title to sue somebody, the 
 defendant is not the person whom he has such title 
 to sue. As, for instance, if a bill were filed by a 
 creditor of the estate of a deceased person, yet 
 unadministered, against a party beneficially in- 
 terested, instead of against the legal personal re- 
 presentative, the defendant might demur, on the 
 ground that the bill would lie not against him, but 
 against the personal representative. 
 
 A bill is demurrable if it alleges matter and 
 prays relief in respect of matter which, if proved, 
 would expose the defendant to penalties or for- 
 feiture. Thus, if a bill were filed to set aside a 
 deed, on the ground that the defendant had forged 
 
OF DEMURRERS, ETC. 37 
 
 a signature to it ; or, if a bill were filed by a land- 
 lord against his tenant to set aside the lease, on the 
 ground that the tenant had broken a covenant to 
 insure or to repair, the defendant might demur in 
 either of these cases, and the demurrer would be, in 
 effect, to the jurisdiction, because the principle of 
 such a demurrer is, that the Court of Chancery is 
 not the court to try penal questions, or questions of 
 forfeiture. 
 
 A demurrer would also lie to the jurisdiction, 
 if it appears on the bill that the subject-matter is 
 not within the jurisdiction, and that the case is one 
 in which the defendant is only liable in respect of 
 the subject-matter, if it is within the jurisdiction. 
 Thus, if an Englishman dies in an English colony, 
 which has its'own separate jurisdiction, and there 
 leaves personal property, and a local administrator 
 is constituted, and collects the estate and then 
 comes to England; if the English administrator 
 filed a bill for an account of the assets, alleging 
 that the assets were in Ihe colony, the bill would 
 be demurrable, because the court has only juris- 
 diction in such a case over the foreign adminis- 
 trator if he is here with the assets. But if the bill 
 alleged that he had brought the assets with him, 
 and had them within the jurisdiction, it would not 
 be demurrable. (See on this, Hervey v. Fitz- 
 patrich, 1 Kay, 421.) 
 
 The most usual grounds of demurrer are the 
 want of general equity, arising on the facts, or out 
 of the subject-matter of the complaint, whatever it 
 
38 OF THE DEFENCE TO SUITS. 
 
 may be ; and the determination in any case of that 
 class, whether a demurrer will lie, is, in effect, 
 the determination of a question of law. So that 
 to know when a demurrer will lie, the student must 
 make himself master of the law of courts of equity. 
 The selection of a few of the cases in which a 
 demurrer will lie on the merits will not, however, 
 be useless. 
 
 It is a rule of the court that it will never make 
 a decree that it cannot carry into effect. There- 
 fore, a frequent cause of demurrer in suits for 
 specific performance is, thp,t the agreement is one 
 that the court has no power to see performed. If, 
 for instance, A. agrees to buy B.'s patent, partly 
 for a valuable consideration, and partly in consi- 
 deration that B. will serve him for a term, and use 
 Jiis utmost skill for carrying the invention into 
 effect, or words of a similar character, a demurrer 
 would lie, because the court, if it made a decree 
 that B. should use his utmost skill, has no means 
 of ascertaining what that skill is, and no means 
 of compelling him, by its process of contempt, to 
 use it; and the court will not stultify itself by 
 making a decree that it has no practical power to 
 enforce. 
 
 So, if a bill were filed to enforce an agreement, 
 one term of which was, that as to some particular 
 branch of it the parties would leave it to be ■ de- 
 termined by arbitrators to be named ; a demurrer 
 would lie, because the court has no power to force 
 
OF DEMURRERS, ETC. 39 
 
 the parties to agree on arbitrators ; and if it had, 
 could not compel the arbitrators to arbitrate, so 
 that if it made a decree it could not enforce ex- 
 ecution of it. 
 
 A bill seeking to restrain a railroad company 
 from executing given works, and showing on the 
 face of it that by the act incorporating the com- 
 pany, it had powers to execute those works, would 
 be demurrable ; and, accordingly, cases arising on 
 the parliamentaiy powers of railway companies are 
 sometimes conveniently tried by a demurrer, raising 
 on the charges of the bill itself the question of 
 construction of the act of parliament. 
 
 It will be borne in mind, in considering the 
 question of demurrers to the equity, that, as al- 
 ready stated, a bill must allege every material link 
 of the chain on which its equity rests ; if it omits 
 any matter or fact, the absence of which, if such 
 matter or fact really did not exist, would destroy 
 the plaintiff's equity, the bill will be demurrable, 
 because the rule is, to take everything in the 
 strongest manner against the pleader ; in other 
 words, to assume that if he does not state any 
 material matter, that matter has no existence. 
 
 Therefore, if a bill by a patentee, to restrain 
 infringement of his patent and for an account, 
 were to omit stating that he had duly filed a spe- 
 cification pursuant to the terms of the letters- 
 patent, the bill would be demurrable," the filing 
 a specification being an ingredient to complete his 
 
40 OF THE DEFKNCE TO SUITS. 
 
 title, and the court would not presume that he 
 had filed a specification if it was not alleged to 
 have been done. 
 
 So, if in a case of copyright, the plaintiff claim- 
 ing copyright in articles furnished to a periodical, 
 were to omit any of the circumstances required by 
 the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, s. 18, for giving such species 
 of copyright, the bill would be demurrable, though 
 he might have alleged every other material link of 
 the chain of his title. And, in a recent case of 
 Bothomley v. Squire, (3 Drew. 517,) where the 
 plaintiff so alleged his title, that though it was 
 consistent with his allegation that he was the 
 person entitled, yet his allegation did not exclude 
 the possibility of some other person being entitled 
 instead of the plaintiff, the bill was held demur- 
 rable. 
 
 A bill may also be demurrable for what is 
 termed multifariousness; that is, mixing up in 
 one suit several matters of a distinct nature, or 
 combining as against several defendants, matters, 
 with some of which one or more of the defendants 
 have no concern. 
 
 It is an extremely difficult thing to say what is 
 in practice multifariousness, and therefore a de- 
 murrer on that ground is the most dangerous that 
 can be attempted, and there are not many of them 
 in the books. I will endeavour, however, by 
 reference to a few examples, to show what is and 
 what is not multifariousness. 
 
OF DEMURRERS, ETC. 41 
 
 The plainest example of multifariousness is that 
 of a bill filed by a patentee against several separate 
 •infringers, because each separate infringer has no 
 concern whatever with the default or wrong of the 
 other, and, accordingly, the practice is to file a 
 separate bill against each infringer. 
 
 If a bill were filed by a plaintiff, claiming under 
 the will of A., and under a settlement made by B., 
 (the two instruments comprising distinct properties, 
 and with distinct and different trusts,) against the 
 trustees of both, the bill would be multifarious; and 
 probably so, even though the trustees of the two in- 
 struments should be individually the same persons. 
 But, if A. made a settlement of part of his property 
 on C. and D., and then made his will, giving the rest 
 of his property to C. and D., and the trusts of the 
 two portions were the same or similar, and the 
 trustees and executors were the same persons, or 
 even if they were not all the same, a bill by C. and 
 D. against those trustees, in respect of both pro- 
 perties, would not be multifarious. 
 
 A bill was filed by the heir and devisee of A., 
 and the parties claiming his personal estate, against 
 B., the party claiming to be entitled to the real 
 estate, and C. the personal representative ; showing 
 that as to the personal estate, B. had had nothing 
 to do with it; but showing also, that both real and 
 personal estate passed under the same instrument ; 
 that the trusts of both were similar ; and alleging 
 frauds affecting both estates, as being committed 
 
42 OF THE DEFENCE TO SUITS. 
 
 both by B. and C; a demurrer for multifariousness 
 by B.was overruled. {Innes \. Mitchell,^ Drew.57.) 
 
 The true test of multifariousness, so far as a 
 general rule can be stated, seems to be this: — 
 If a defendant can say, " I am called upon to 
 answer a bill, containing two distinct subject-mat- 
 ters, with one of which only I am concerned, and 
 I am associated with other defendants not con- 
 cerned with that issue, and solely concerned with 
 the other," then he may demur for multifariousness. 
 But if the matters are in any material degree 
 blended, so that directly or indirectly they concern 
 all the defendants, the bill is not multifarious. 
 (See on this subject, Campbell v. Mackay, 1 Myl. 
 & Cr. 602 ; and the cases cited in Mr. Smith's 
 notes to his edition of Lord Redesdale.) 
 
 It is a rule that persons having interests in any 
 degree antagonistic cannot be co-plaintiffs ; nor can 
 a plaintiff having no interest whatever, be joined 
 with one who has an interest. Therefore, if a 
 bill was filed by a British subject and an alien, 
 claiming copyright in a matter in which, under 
 the copyright acts, the foreigner could not hold 
 copyright, such a cause could not be carried 
 to a hearing in that state. The defect is what 
 is called "misjoinder," and was a ground of de- 
 murrer if the misjoinder appeared by the bill 
 itself; or if the cause was brought to a hearing 
 in that state, the bill would be dismissed. Under 
 the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s.49, however, if there is mis- 
 
OF DEMURRERS, ETC. 43 
 
 joinder of plaintiffs, the court may direct one of 
 the plaintifiFs to be turned into and treated as a 
 defendant. Still the rule of pleading remains. But 
 I apprehend misjoinder would not now be a good 
 cause of demurrer, because, as the court could 
 order the wrongly joined plaintiff to be treated as 
 a defendant, the very ground of demurrer would fail. 
 At any rate, such a demurrer would be useless. ■ 
 
 A bill may also be dpen to demurrer, if it shows 
 on the face of it that the Statute of Limitations, 
 or any other statute, either bars the right 6r the 
 remedy of the plaintiff in equity. It appears to 
 have been at times doubted in the profession whe- 
 ther the Statute of Limitations could be set up by 
 way of demurrer, or whether the objection must 
 not be taken by plea. But the case of Barkworth • 
 V. Young (4 Drew. 1) has clearly and conclu- 
 sively shown, that an objection arising out of any 
 statute, is as much matter of demurrer as any 
 other matter of law. So that, if on the facts alleged 
 by the bill it appears, that an existing statute bars 
 the plaintiff either of his right, or of his remedy, 
 the objection may be taken by demurrer as well 
 as by plea. 
 
 A bill may also be demurrable if it shows on 
 the face of it, that the claim of the plaintiff is one 
 inconsistent with public policy. For instance, if a 
 bill were filed to set aside a deed of conveyance, 
 showing on the face of it that the deed was given 
 by the plaintiff fraudulently to qualify a member of 
 
44 OF THE DEFENCE TO SUITS, 
 
 Parliament, or to qualify any person fraudulently, 
 in contravention of the policy of the old Game Laws. 
 So, if a bill were filed by an author, to restrain 
 infringement of his copyright, and on the bill itself 
 it appeared that the book was blasphemous, there 
 can be little doubt that a demurrer would lie ; or 
 if a bill were filed to obtain any relief in respect of 
 a marriage brocage bond, and showing the illegal 
 nature of the consideration on the face of the bill, 
 it would be demurrable. 
 
 On the other hand, if a bill were filed to obtain 
 equitable relief by setting aside an instrument in 
 itself illegal, the bill must state that the illegality 
 does not appear on the face of the deed itself, 
 but by evidence dehors the deed ; for, if the ille- 
 gality appears on the face of the deed itself, 
 no remedy upon it could be obtained at law, and 
 the intervention of equity is needless. This kind 
 of case is properly a case of demurrer to the 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 The practical instances that I have selected out 
 of an almost infinite variety, will be sufficient to 
 explain and support the rule before stated,— that 
 any matter apparent on the bill itself, showing that 
 the plaintiff has no title, in the sense of no estate ; 
 or no title to sue, in the sense of no equity ; or no 
 title to sue the particular defendant ; or generally, 
 that for any reason of law or fact, he has no loa^ 
 standi in equity, will be ground for a demurrer to 
 the whole bill. 
 
OF DEMURRERS, ETC. 45 
 
 It must also be observed, before parting with ge- 
 neral demurrers to the equity, that a demurrer may 
 go to destroy the very root of the equity, so that it 
 is not possible for the plaintiflF to amend his equity, 
 (as where the bill rests on an agreement impos- 
 sible to be performed ;) or it may go only to the 
 form in which the plaintiff has alleged his equity, 
 as in the case where he has omitted some link in 
 his chain of title. In the first case, a demurrer is 
 useful, because, if allowed, it puts an end at once 
 and wholly to the suit. In the other case, there is 
 but little substantial use in demurring ; because the 
 court will always give leave to the plaintiff to 
 amend his bill, so as to allege his equity suffi- 
 ciently. And it may be added, as amatter of the 
 unwritten law of the court, that at this day the 
 courts are averse to the defence by demurrer, and 
 are astute to overrule demurrers. 
 
 It will be collected, also, from the foregoing 
 observations, that in most cases a demurrer is only 
 a dilatory, and that (except in the cases where it 
 goes to the whole foundation of the equity and 
 terminates the cause), nothing is in general ob- 
 tained by its use beyond the infliction of costs 
 upon the plaintiff. 
 
 As a pure dilatory it is sometimes resorted to, 
 where account and payment of vast sums of money 
 are required against the defendant, as in suits by 
 contractors against railway companies. But against 
 that use of a demurrer the young pleader should be 
 
46 OP THE DEFENCE TO SUITS, 
 
 guarded, as rather an abuse than a legitimate use 
 of the pleadings of the court. 
 
 A demurrer is also sometimes useful in a case of 
 considerable doubt and magnitude, for the purpose 
 of obtaining, at moderate expense, that extent of 
 preliminary argument and decision, which shows 
 the nature and strength of the plaintiff's case. 
 
 Of Demurrers for want of Parties. 
 
 A bill may also be demurrable for want of 
 parties ; that is, on the ground that on the face of 
 the bill itself it appears that persons, or classes, 
 who are necessary parties, are not made parties. 
 
 The principle on which a demurrer of this kind 
 is disposed of is the dame as that affecting a general 
 demurrer for want of equity ; viz., that if the cause 
 were being heard on the bill, assuming all its 
 allegations to be proved, the court would have 
 to determine that it could not make a decree; 
 not on the ground of want of equity, or for 
 any other defect of substance apparent, but be- 
 cause all the persons interested in determining 
 what decree should be made, are not before the 
 court. The principle on which the Court of 
 Chancery hears and determines a cause being, 
 that it must have the whole subject-matter of liti- 
 gation, and all who are interested in its complete 
 determination before it; otherwise the court will 
 not make a decree. 
 
 A demurrer for want of parties must, like a 
 
OF DEMURRERS, ETC. 47 
 
 general demurrer, be confined to the suggestion of 
 defects apparent on the bill itself; but it must also 
 suggest who are the necessary parties. It need 
 not always name the specific persons requisite, as 
 to do that would, in fact, be, in most cases, beyond 
 the power of a defendant. But it must point out 
 what class or description of persons ought to be 
 parties. Thus, for instance, if a bill were filed by 
 the- next of kin of a testator against his personal 
 representatives and residuary legatees, claiming 
 under an alleged intestacy ; and if it appeared on 
 the bill itself that some of the next of kin were 
 dead, and there was no personal representative of 
 the deceased next of kin made a party, the bill 
 would be demurrable, unless it appeared on the 
 face of the bill that the plaintiffs were suing on 
 behalf of themselves and all others the next of kin ; 
 — a mode of suing termed suing by " representa- 
 tion," which will be hereafter discussed. The de- 
 murrer would not, as observed, be required to 
 point out the necessary persons nominatim ; but 
 would' suggest that the personal representatives of 
 the deceased next of kin ought to be parties. So, if 
 a plaintiff filed his bill for carrying the trusts of a 
 will into execution, alleging himself to be a cestui 
 que trust, and alleging that there were other 
 cestuis que trust, having an interest different from 
 his ; and not making them parties ; or not making 
 all the trustees parties ; the bill would be demur- 
 rable; and the demurrer would submit, that the 
 
48 OF THE DEFENCE TO SUITS. 
 
 other cestuis que trust, or the other trustees, should 
 be made parties. 
 
 To determine when a demurrer will lie for want 
 of parties, involves the learning of who are the 
 proper parties to suits of all kinds; and it will 
 be convenient, in this place, to consider the prin- 
 ciples on which questions of parties are to be 
 determined (a). 
 
 It has been observed that, generally, the prin- 
 ciple on which the Court of Chancery exercises its 
 jurisdiction is, that it will not make a decree unless 
 it can dispose of the whole matter before it, and 
 bind the rights of all persons interested in the 
 subject-matter of the suit. From this principle 
 (subject to the exceptions to its application founded 
 on convenience) flow the rules as to parties ; and 
 it will be convenient, in discussing the doctrine of 
 parties, to do so with reference to the different 
 classes of suits of the most usual and frequent 
 occurrence. And first, of suits of the kind gene- 
 rally designated as administration suits. 
 
 Under this head are included suits by creditors, 
 for the administration of the estates of deceased 
 persons, seeking payment of the debts of the de- 
 ceased ; and suits either by the personal represen- 
 tatives, or by the persons beneficially interested in 
 
 (a) In a work of this limited extent, it is impossible to discuss 
 more than principles. To enter into all the special applications 
 and exceptions that are to be met with in practice, would require 
 two or three thick volumes ; and, after all, the authorities them- 
 selves must be consulted in every special case. 
 
OF DEMURRERS, ETC. 49 
 
 the estates of deceased persons, for their adminis- 
 tration, seeking the due administration by pay- 
 ment of debts, and subject thereto, the division of 
 the estate among the parties beneficially entitled, 
 according to their several rights. 
 
 Suits against trustees, either of wills or of deeds, 
 for an account of their trusteeship, and for the ad- 
 ministration or execution of the trusts under the 
 direction of the court, are also in the nature of 
 administration suits. 
 
 A peculiar feature of this whole class of suits 
 is, that they almost always involve the taking 
 of accounts, before any questions of law arising 
 in them can be finally determined ; and the first, or 
 as it is sometimes called, the preliminary decree, 
 is merely for accounts and inquiries, leaving the 
 determination of the material -legal questions to be 
 disposed of at what is termed the hearing "on 
 further consideration ;" that is, the hearing of the 
 cause after the court is informed by means of the 
 accounts and inquiries, what are the precise funds 
 to be disposed of; what has been done with funds 
 that have existed, but no longer exist; and who 
 are the persons claiming to be recipients of the 
 different portions of the estate. 
 
 The safest general rule for arriving at the conclu- 
 sion who are necessary parties to a suit, is to con- 
 sider what is the decree that is asked ; and generally, 
 every person who would be affected by, that is, be 
 acted upon by, or have to act under that decree, has 
 
 Q 
 
50 OP THE DEFENCE TO SUITS. 
 
 a rigbt to be a party, that he may be present at 
 the making of the decree so affecting him. 
 
 By way of iUustrating and proving this propo- 
 sition, I will shortly analyze a few decided cases. 
 
 A person who has not otherwise accepted a trust 
 than by executing a deed appointing him a new 
 trustee, but has never acted, is not a necessary 
 party to a suit against trustees for a breach of 
 trust. ( Wilkinson v. Parry, 4 Russ. 274.) The 
 reason is, that he is not interested in the decree. 
 If he has only been appointed a trustee, no estate 
 is vested in him ; therefore there is nothing for him 
 to do under the decree or in aid of it; and if he 
 has not acted, he has not completely accepted the 
 trusts, and therefore is not liable ; so that no decree 
 could be made tigainst him. 
 
 The heir of a mortgagee, to whom the legal 
 estate in the mortgaged premises has descended, 
 is a necessary party to a bill of foreclosure, filed 
 by the executors of the mor^agee, {Scott r. Ni- 
 eholl, 3 Russ. 4?6,) because the legal estate being in 
 the heir, the mortgagor has a right to have him 
 before the court to reconvey, if the mortgagor 
 should redeem. 
 
 But a second mortgagee may sustain a bill of 
 foreclosure against the mortgagor and the svhse- 
 quent mortgagees, without making the first mort- 
 gagee a party, {Richards v. Cooper, 5 Beav. 304,) 
 because the decree would be only to bar the title 
 of tile mortgagor and of the puisne mortgagees. 
 
OF DEMURRERS, ETC. 51 
 
 that is, of the owners of the equity of redemption, 
 and would not touch the legal title* of the first 
 mortgagee. 
 
 I. In suits by creditors, seeking the administra- 
 tion of personal estate only, the necessary parties 
 are the creditors, as plaintiflFs ; and as defendants, 
 the personal representatives of the deceased. No 
 other persons are necessary parties, for this reason ; 
 that until the creditors are satisfied, no persons 
 claiming as volunteers (that is, legatees, or next 
 of kin), have any interest ; for as the decree in a 
 creditor's suit merely deals with the estate so far 
 as is necessary to provide for the claims of cre- 
 ditors, leaving the residue, after satisfying creditors, 
 in the hands of the legal owners, no persons but 
 the representatives of the deceased, who are such 
 legal owners of the estate, have any interest in the 
 decree. But if the bill seeks administration of real 
 estate, the cestuis que trust of the real estate are 
 necessary parties, (unless the case falls within the 
 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 42, rule 9,) for the decree 
 integrally affects their estate. 
 
 I have stated that the necessary parj;ies, as 
 plaintiffs, are the creditors; but here the rule of 
 convenience modifies the strict rule of pleading, 
 and interposes this exception, that one creditor 
 may represent the others, and sue on behalf of 
 himself and all other creditors, who shall come in 
 and take part in the costs of the suit; and the 
 decree, although made at the suit of one creditor, 
 d2 
 
52 OF THE DEFENCE TO SUITS. 
 
 is, in efFect, a judgment for the benefit of all who 
 come in and prove their debts under it. 
 
 II. In a suit for the administration of a deceased 
 person's estate, whether by the beneficiaries against 
 the representatives of the deceased ; or by the re- 
 presentatives, making the beneficiaries defendants ; 
 the necessary parties in general are the represen- 
 tatives, and either all the persons beneficially in- 
 terested in the administration of the estate; or 
 some of every class beneficially interested, except 
 mere pecuniary legatees, who are in general suflS- 
 ciently represented by the personal representatives 
 of the deceased. 
 
 Thus, if a suit were instituted for the administra- 
 tion of an estate under a will giving legacies, and 
 then certain bequests on trust ; say to A. for life, 
 with" remainder to A.'s children ; with vested re- 
 mainders over ; and then containing a gift of the 
 residue ; the tenant for life, and both classes of 
 tenants in remainder of the bequests on trust, and 
 all the residuary legatees, would be necessary 
 parties ; personally, or by representation ; because 
 all of those persons may be affected by the nature 
 and form of the decree. So, if a bill were filed for 
 the administration of an estate under a will con- 
 taining a residuary clause, but not clearly disposing 
 of some portions of property, so as to raise a ques- 
 tion whether those portions fell into the residue or 
 passed as by intestacy ; then the next of kin would 
 be necessary parties. But, if a bill were simply by 
 
OF DEMURRERS, ETC. 63 
 
 residuary legatees, under a will of personalty only, 
 giving mere pecuniary legacies, and a clear re- 
 siduary bequest, then only the residuary legatees 
 and the personal representatives would be neces- 
 sary parties ; because the personal representatives 
 would represent legatees and creditors, and the next 
 of kin would be wholly uninterested in the decree. 
 
 In fact, as already observed, to ascertain who 
 are necessary parties to an administration suit, it 
 must always be considered who is affected by the 
 decree to be made ; or, in other words, who has an 
 interest in a particular form of decree ; bearing in 
 mind, that the personal rej>resentatives represent 
 creditors and mere pecuniary legatees, because 
 they represent the fund, and are bound to defend 
 it for creditors and legatees. 
 
 This principle is again illustrated by the practice 
 as to a suit by a mere pecuniary or specific legatee, 
 as distinguished from one by a residuary legatee. 
 
 A pecuniary legatee may file a bill for his own 
 legacy against the personal representative alone, 
 without making the residuary legatees or any other 
 pecuniary legatees parties ; for this reason ; the 
 decree would be only for payment of the legacy ; 
 and, as the residuary legatees are only entitled after 
 payment of the legatees, it would not touch their 
 interests ; and the other pecuniary legatees are not 
 necessary parties in person, because the personal 
 representative represents them. But a bill by a 
 residuary legatee, for his share, must make the 
 
64 OF THE DEFENCE TO SUiTS. 
 
 other residuary legatees parties, because the decree 
 .disposes of or affects the residue, in which they 
 have all an interest. 
 
 It must be observed, however, that in some 
 cases, although all the persons interested may, at 
 some stage of the suit, be requisite parties present, 
 they need not all be made parties in the first 
 instance to the bill. (15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s.42.) 
 It is sufficient in the cases provided for by the act, 
 to make some persons parties on the record, by 
 way of representation of the others ; and the others 
 will appear, if required, on taking the accounts in 
 chambers; or the court may direct them to be 
 made parties. There must, however, always be 
 on the record in such suits, some party beneficially 
 interested, in respect of each class of beneficial 
 interests to be affected by the decree. 
 
 III. In suits letmeen partnersXmdxiding therein 
 suits between the members of companies,) the ge- 
 neral rule is the same as in other cases, that all the 
 persons interested in the decree, and therefore, in 
 general, all the members of the partnership, are 
 necessary parties. 
 
 Thus, if a bill is filed by one of four .partners, 
 for a dissolution and account, or for an account 
 after dissolution, all the other partners must be 
 defendants. So, to a suit for obtaining relief against 
 the assets of a deceased partner, the surviving 
 partners must be parties; because, although an 
 ultimate decree for payment is not sought against 
 
OF DEMURRERS, ETC. 55 
 
 them, they are interested under the decree for an 
 account, inasmuch as they are interested in taking 
 the account of the joint debt. 
 
 So, in strictness, if a bill is filed by one or more 
 members of a joint stock company, inoorp&rated 
 or not incorporated ; every member of the company 
 is a requisite party, either as plaintiff or defend- 
 ant ; and if the bill seeks a general account, the 
 rule must be strictly complied with. But if the 
 bill does not seek a general account, or such 
 species of relief as makes it necessary to exa- 
 mine into the particular acts and liabilities of 
 each shareholder, then by reason of the impossi- 
 bility of a suit comprising perhaps one or more 
 hundreds of persons, being ever conducted to a 
 conclusion, an exceptional rule has arisen, by 
 which some are permitted to sue as representing 
 the rest. Therefore, if a member of a joint stock 
 company complains of an act of the directors, 
 which act (if the plaintiflp is right) all tlie other 
 shareholders are equally interested insetting aside; 
 one shareholder may file against the directors, a bill 
 on behalf of himself and all other the shareholders, 
 except the defendants. This is technically called 
 making parties by representation, and the prac- 
 tice rather recognizes than abrogates the general 
 rule. 
 
 There is considerable difficulty sometimes in 
 determining when shareholders in a company must 
 be made parties by representation, and when they 
 
■56 OF THE DEFENCE TO SUITS. 
 
 must all actually be on the record. The principle 
 is, however, this ; that if the nature of the decree 
 sought is such, that the court cannot make it 
 without ascertaining the separate rights and liabili- 
 ties of each shareholder, then they must be all per- 
 sonally parties. 
 
 Of this nature is a suit for a dissolution and 
 general account ; because the court cannot make 
 and carry out a decree for a dissolution and 
 general account, without inquiring into the acts, 
 rights, and liabilities of every shareholder respec- 
 tively. 
 
 But if the decree asked is one requiring the 
 determination of a right common to a class or to 
 classes of shareholders, then that class or those 
 classes may be made parties by representation. 
 Therefore, if a bill were filed for the purpose of 
 recovering from directors certain payments made 
 by particular shareholders, or by a class of share- 
 holders, the sh'areholders claiming such payment 
 might appear by representation ; because the ac- 
 count then is not of all the transactions of each share- 
 holder, but of specific sums to be paid in specific 
 amounts or proportions. On the same ground it 
 is, that a bill may be sustained by one share- 
 holder on behalf of himself and others, against 
 trustees or directors of a company, alleging an 
 illegal act by those parties, affecting the share- 
 holders represented, in the same manner as they 
 affect the actual party to the record. But still 
 
OF DEMURRERS, ETC. 67 
 
 in suits so constituted, the general rule must 
 be observed, that all parties interested must be 
 actually parties, or represented. ' «.. 
 
 Therefore a bill against directors, by a share- 
 holder, stating himself to sue on behalf of all other 
 shareholders, except a class, would be demurrable, 
 if the excepted class were not on the record as 
 defendants. 
 
 I have been hithertrf speaking of plaintiffs 
 by representation ; whether parties may be made 
 defendants by representation, is a somewhat 
 doubted question. That is, for instance, whether 
 a bill could be sustained by a shareholder on be- 
 half of himself and all others, except the defend- 
 ants, against A. B. and C. D., directors, as de- 
 fendants, on behalf of themselves and the other 
 directors. I am not aware of the point having been 
 precisely determined, though there are dicta to the 
 effect that a bill might be so framed. Such a bill 
 would however be at present, rather experimental. 
 
 The principle of representation as to parties ap- 
 plies much more extensively than merely to suits 
 between the members of gigantic partnerships. 
 
 It applies generally to cases where there is one 
 common interest vested in a class too numerous to 
 allow of the members of it being practically brought 
 individually before the court. Thus holders of 
 pews, having a common interest as such, against 
 the trustees of a church, may sue by some of them 
 on behalf of themselves and all the others. 
 d5 
 
68 OE THE DEFENCE TO SUITS. 
 
 On the same principle, in an administration suit, 
 if the object is not to distribute a residue, but to 
 determine a question arising between next of kin 
 as a class, and the residuary legatee, some of the 
 next of kin only are sufficient parties. And it is 
 every day's practice, when it appears on the hearing 
 of a cause, that a class not before the court may 
 have an interest, to let the cause stand over for 
 some of that class to appear, and to make a decree 
 on the appearance of some of them as represent- 
 ing the class. 
 
 IV. To suits for specific performance, generally 
 it is said, that only the parties to the contract are 
 the proper parties ; but it would be perhaps more 
 correct to say, that the parties entitled to the benefit 
 of the contract are the only necessary parties. For 
 it seems clear, that if A. contracts with B. to sell 
 him something, and then A. parts with his interest, 
 legal and equitable, wholly to C, C. would be the 
 person to file a bill for specific performance, dnd 
 not A. Or, if A., instead of selling his interest 
 wholly, parts with a portion of it to C, retaining 
 himself some interest, A., C. and B. would be 
 necessary parties. Thus, in a very recent case, 
 where A. had contracted with B. to purchase B.'s 
 patent, and it appeared that A. had sold the benefit 
 of his contract to C, an objection that C. was not 
 a party was allowed. {Farebrother v. Arkell, V. C. 
 Wood, 16th March, 1857.) 
 
 But it is apprehended that it would be different 
 
OF DEMURRERS, ETC. 69 
 
 where the defendant has parted with his interest ; 
 and that there the plaintiff might sue him, or his 
 assignee, or both jointly ; and this on a principle of 
 law ; viz., that though a party may part with his 
 interest, he cannot get rid of his liability. There- 
 fore, though a plaintiff may not be the party to 
 sue when he has no interest, because he has no 
 title left, a defendant cannot, by parting with his 
 interest, refuse either to perform his contract, or to 
 procure it to be performed. 
 
 It seems, however, that in practice, when a 
 defendant has assigned his interest, both he and 
 his assignee should be parties ; and there appears 
 good reason for this, at least when the defendant 
 is the vendor ; for if the assignor has really no 
 interest left in him, it is difficult to see how a de- 
 cree against him that he should convey, could be 
 enforced (a). 
 
 V. Suits between Mortgagors and Mortgagees. 
 
 These are of three kinds : — 
 
 1. Foreclosure suits; when a mortgagee, not 
 being paid, seeks to foreclose ; that is, to obtain a 
 decree, that, in default of payment, the estate shall 
 be declared absolutely his. 
 
 (a) The authorities on parties to a specific perrormance suit, 
 where there has been assignment of the interest of either party, 
 are in rather a confused state, and present some fine and not very 
 intelligible distinctions. The statements made in the text, must 
 be understood to be only of the general rule. (See Calvert on 
 Parties, for the authorities). 
 
60 OF THE DEFENCE TO SUITS, 
 
 2. Redemption suits, in which the mortgagor 
 seeks to redeem his estate, on paying what shall 
 be found due on an account taken by the court, of 
 principal and interest. 
 
 3. Suits for ascertaining the priorities of se- 
 veral mortgagees, or other incumbrances, on one 
 estate. These last are in the nature of foreclosure 
 suits, being suits for the sale of the mortgaged 
 estate, and payment out of the proceeds, of the 
 debts, interest and costs of the several mortgagees, 
 in the order of their priorities. 
 
 To the first class, the necessary parties are, the 
 mortgagee or his assignee ; and the mortgagor or 
 his assignee. No other persons are, in general, 
 necessary parties. Of course, by the assignees of 
 the mortgagor or mortgagee, are also meant their 
 respective representatives, if they are dead ; that 
 is, their heirs or devisees and personal repre- 
 sentatives. 
 
 In this, as in other suits, who are the necessary 
 parties is best ascertained by seeing what is the 
 nature of the decree. A foreclosure decree directs 
 an account of what is due, and that if the mort- 
 gagor (or, if he is dead, his executors) do not pay 
 the principal, interest and costs, within a given 
 time, to the mortgagee (or his personal representa- 
 tives- if he is dead), the mortgagor (or his real 
 representatives), shall stand foreclosed, and the 
 estate be absolutely the estate of the mortgagee, 
 or his real representatives. The personal repre- 
 
61 
 
 sentatives of both mortgagor and mortgagee are 
 necessary parties, because the one has to pay and 
 the other to receive the money, and both are in- 
 terested in taking the account; and the heirs or 
 devisees of both parties are also necessary parties ; 
 the heir or devisee of the mortgagee, for the reason 
 stated ante, (p. 50,) in Scott v. Nicholl; and the 
 heir or devisee of the mortgagor is a necessary 
 party, as he has an interest in resisting, and a right 
 to redeem if he chooses. 
 
 The decree in a redemption suit is also for an 
 account, and that on payment of the mortgage debt, 
 interest and costs by the mortgagor (or by his 
 personal representatives if he is dead), the mort- 
 gagee or his heirs shall reconvey to the mortgagor 
 or his real representatives. The necessary parties, 
 therefore, are here, also, the mortgagor, or, if he is 
 dead, both his real and personal representatives ; 
 and the mortgagee, or, if he is dead, his real and 
 personal representatives. The personal representa- 
 tives of both parties, for the same reason as in a 
 foreclosure suit, because they are both interested 
 in taking the account ; the real representatives of 
 the mortgagee, because they are the parties to 
 make a reconveyance under the direction of the 
 court ; and the real representatives of the mort- 
 gagor, because they are interested in having their 
 estate cleared, and having a proper reconveyance. 
 
 Whatever may be the complication of interests, 
 a consideration of who will be the actors and pa- 
 
62 OF THE DEFENCE TO SUITS. 
 
 tients under the decree, will point out who are the 
 necessary parties. Of course this rule assumes that 
 the pleader is acquainted with the nature and form 
 of thedecree proper for each kind of suit; and, in 
 truth, no one can become a correct pleader, unless 
 he has mastered that knowledge, since upon it 
 depends what is proper to be prayed by a bill, and 
 who are to be the parties to it (a). 
 
 Suits for ascertaining priorities, are suits insti- 
 tuted by some incumbrancers against an incum- 
 bered estate; that is, against the owner of the 
 ultimate equity of redemption, if he be living; or 
 against his real and personal representatives, if he 
 is dead, by one or more incumbrancers seeking to 
 have the estate sold, and to be paid out of it; 
 and to have for that purpose the priority of the 
 plaintiff declared, as against all or some of the other 
 incumbrancers. It follows, that to such a suit, 
 every person in whom is vested any incumbrance or 
 charge on the estate is in general a necessary party. 
 For instance, suppose A. mortgages real estate to 
 B., and then to C, and then to D. ; and has given 
 judgments to E., F. and G. Disputes may exist 
 between these several incumbrancers, as to their 
 priorities, arising out of questions of notice, or 
 
 (o) It will be understood, also, that only general rules are 
 here enunciated ; most of those general rules are subject to excep- 
 tions, or apparent exceptions; but cases of exception will be 
 better understood and dealt with, if the broad rule or principle is 
 well fixed in the mind. 
 
OF DEMVRBERS, ETC. 63 
 
 legal incompleteness of any charge, or the like. 
 They must, therefore, on that ground, all be parties 
 to the suit, as well as the ultimate owner, who takes 
 subject to all their incumbrances. Moreover, they 
 are all necessary parties, because every puisne 
 incumbrancer has a right to redeem all prior in- 
 cumbrancers ; that is, by paying them off, to stand 
 in their place : and for that purpose every incum- 
 brancer, down to the last, is a necessary party. 
 
 VI. In suits against trustees, seeking to ilhake 
 them liable for any breach of trust, all the trustees, 
 or, if any of them are dead, the personal repre- 
 sentatives of the deceased trustees must be parties ; 
 because all are interested in a decree which would 
 be against all. 
 
 What has been stated on the subject of parties, 
 is sufGcient to show, and to elucidate by examples, 
 the principles on which it is to be in general deter- 
 mined, who are proper parties to suits. It would 
 be impossible, in a work of this nature and extent, 
 to go into the minute distinctions which exist in 
 regard to certain special cases ; and for informa- 
 tion of that kind, works treating exclusively on 
 parties, and the numerous authorities, must be 
 consulted (a). 
 
 (o) See Calvert on Parties; Mr. J. Smith's elaborate and 
 valuable note in his edition of Lord Redesdale's Treatise of 
 Pleading ; and the not less valuable notes in Wbitworth's Equity- 
 Precedents. 
 
( 64 ) 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 OF FLEAS. 
 
 A BILL may, under certain circumstances, be 
 met by a plea. The learning of pleas is of the 
 most difficult, and the most useless, in the art of 
 pleading; as there are now very few cases in- 
 deed, in which a plea is more useful than an 
 answer. 
 
 The general inutility of pleas will be seen by 
 considering their object and principle, and by re- 
 ferring to the equivalents substituted in modern 
 practice for them. 
 
 The principle of a plea is, that it reduces the 
 cause or some part of it, to a single point, and 
 thence creates a bar to the suit or to the part of it 
 to which the plea applies. (See Lord Redesdale, 
 pp. 219 and 295.) 
 
 Now, looking at the statistics of suits, it will be 
 found that it does not happen once in a twelvemonth 
 that a bill is filed, not being demurrable, to which 
 the defence .can be reduced to a single point. Fur- 
 ther, the object of that form of pleading (which took 
 
OF PLEAS. 65 
 
 its rise at a period when bills in Chancery were of 
 formidable length, and putting in answers entailed 
 heavy expense, and going into evidence was a work 
 of years J, was to save the parties the expense of an 
 examination at large. But at this day, the rea- 
 sons for using pleas have almost ceased to have 
 any application, by reason of the shortness of 
 bills, the practice of only interrogating to material 
 facts, and the expedition with which evidence is 
 gone into. Further, the modern practice of trying 
 the questions which might be raised by a plea, upon 
 the answer itself, by pleading the matter in bar upon 
 the answer, and submitting to the court whether 
 any other answer can be called for, has substituted 
 an equivalent for nearly all the virtue resident in 
 a plea. Lastly, the extreme difficulty of framing a 
 plea, so that it shall be suflBcient in point of form, 
 has rendered pleas so unmanageable and so un- 
 popular, that they are shunned by common con- 
 sent. I shall therefore pass very cursorily over 
 the subject of pleas, as a species of learning, which 
 the student may well defer till a much later period 
 of his professional life (a). 
 
 (a) I trust I shall not be understood as meaning to speak 
 flippantly of any branch of reverend learning. But it cannot be 
 too much impressed on students and young pleaders, that the 
 temper of the times, — and, It may be added respectfully, the 
 judicial temper of the courts, — are in favour of getting as speedily 
 as possible at the substance of a case, and dealing with it on its 
 merits. So that forms of pleading, such as pleas and demurrers, 
 which have a tendency to shut out from sight the mfrita ; and if 
 they do not succeed in doing so, are mere dilatories ; are not 
 
66 OF PLEAS. 
 
 A plea is, in effect, a short answer, averring some 
 fact, or instrument, or statute, which meets and 
 destroys the whole substance of the plaintiff's 
 equity. 
 
 As, for instance, that the plaintiff's claim, how- 
 ever meritorious in itself, is barred by the Statute 
 of Limitations ; or that by a deed or other instru- 
 ment, such as a release, or by a settled account, 
 the plaintiff has himself put an end to his claim. 
 
 A plea must distinctly aver the matter that is to 
 displace the equity of the plaintiff, and also nega- 
 tive any matter alleged by the bill, which would 
 be an answer to the bar set up by the plea. And 
 in drawing a plea, some of its difficulty will be 
 removed, by bearing in mind the principle on 
 which it is heard and determined, which is this, — 
 that the plea is taken to be true, and that so taking 
 it, the court must find in it a complete answer to 
 the claim of the plaintiff. So that if there is any 
 matter alleged by or fairly to be inferred from the 
 bill, which would rebut the effect of the statute or 
 fact or instrument pleaded, and such matter is not 
 denied by the plea, it will be bad. 
 
 viewed with favour ; and are not often practically useful. Neither 
 can it be too much impressed on the public, that the result of this 
 temper of the courts, acting honestly in aid of the acts of the 
 Legislature for reforming the procedure of the Court of Chancery, 
 in a great measure by discountenancing pure technicality in 
 pleadings, has rendered that court as expeditious and (consider- 
 ing the magnitude and extent of the questions usually dealt with 
 in Chancefy causes) as cheap a tribunal, as it was formerly 
 dilatory and expensive. 
 
OF PLEAS. 67 
 
 For instance, suppose the Statute of Limitations 
 to be the ground of plea against a claim for an 
 equitable debt; the plea must aver that the debt 
 was contracted more tlian six years before the in- 
 stitution of the suit. But if the bill alleged, or it 
 could be fairly inferred from its allegations, that the 
 defendant had recognized the debt, he must go on 
 io aver that he had never recognized it. So, if a 
 plea to a bill for specific 'performance of an agree- 
 ment respecting land, not in writing, were the 
 Statute of Frauds ; and if from the bill it could be 
 inferred that there had been part performance, the 
 plea must not merely plead the statute, and aver 
 that the agreement was not in writing, but must 
 deny that the contract had been in any manner 
 part performed. For if it had been part performed, 
 the statute would not be a bar. 
 
 It has been observed that a plea must bring the 
 suit to one point, or, in other words, it must tender 
 only one substantial issue. But it may, and often 
 must, allege several /acfs in support of that issue. 
 For instance, a plea of a settled account, and also 
 of the Statute of Limitations, would be a bad plea, 
 as being what is called a double plea. But a plea 
 of the Statute of Limitations, or of a settled ac- 
 count, may, as we have seen, be supported by the 
 averment of several facts; viz., all those facts 
 which are necessary to show that the statute or the 
 account is a bar. 
 
 So, if the defence to a bill by an incumbrancer 
 
68 OF PLEAS. 
 
 on an estate were, that the defendant was a pur- 
 chaser without notice ; the plea must aver title in 
 the defendant's vendor, and a conveyance to him 
 the defendant, and payment of the consideration; 
 and it must deny notice of the plaintiff's claim at 
 the time of the payment of the purchase-money, 
 and of the conveyance. 
 
 I have stated that not merely matter specifically 
 alleged by the bill, but matter which can be fairly 
 inferred from it, being an answer to the bar set up 
 by the plea, must be negatived. 
 
 For, on a plea, everything will be taken most 
 strongly against the plea ; and, therefore, as ob- 
 served by Lord Redesdale (p. 298), averments are 
 necessary to exclude intendments, which would 
 otherwise be made against the pleader. 
 
 Also, all those facts which are necessary ingre- 
 dients in rendering the particular matter pleaded a 
 bar, must be averred. For if the plea does not 
 aver them, it sets up a bar not shown to be com- 
 plete. 
 
 For the form of a very elaborate and difficult 
 plea, one of the few pleas in the history of pleading 
 that have escaped being overruled, see the Ap- 
 pendix. 
 
( 69 ) 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 OF ANSWERS. 
 
 The most usual course of defence to a bill is by 
 answer. An answer may be either voluntary or 
 compulsory. It is voluntary, if no interrogatories 
 beingfiled by the plaintiff, the defendant nevertheless 
 is advised to put in a counter-statement to the bill. 
 It is compulsory, if interrogatories are filed by the 
 plaintiff. As all the rules of pleading which apply 
 to a voluntary answer, apply also to a compulsory 
 answer ; and as the latter is in addition regulated 
 also by some special rules, it will be suflScient to 
 discuss the rules of pleading affecting a compulsory 
 answer. 
 
 The function of an answer is twofold; to give 
 discovery by specific answers to all the questions 
 put by the interrogatories filed in aid of the bill ; 
 and to aver all such original matter as the defend- 
 ant may have to put forward for making a case, 
 which, if true, destroys the equity of the plaintiff's 
 case, even though all or some of the plaintiff's 
 allegations may be true. 
 
70 OP ANSWERS. 
 
 The principal technical requisite of an answer 
 is what is termed sufficiency ; by which is meant, 
 that it must distinctly answer every interrogatory. 
 It may admit or deny, or it may ignore the facts 
 alleged and interrogated to; or it may state a 
 different state of facts (provided they are relevant 
 to the interrogatory), wholly or partially destroying 
 or qualifying the allegations of the bill ; and sub- 
 ject to that statement of facts, the answer may 
 admit, deny or ignore the matters inquired after ; 
 but in one or other of these forms it must meet the 
 interroga'tories. 
 
 By way of example : suppose a bill to allege 
 that "the plaintiff deposited 100/. in the hands of 
 B., as his agent, for the purpose of purchasing' 
 therewith a cargo of silk." The interrogatory 
 would be "whether the plaintiff did not deposit 
 lOOZ., or some other and what sum with B., and 
 whether or not as his agent, or in any other and 
 what character ; and whether or not for the pur- 
 pose of purchasing a cargo of silk, or for some 
 other and what purpose." 
 
 Now, an answer to that interrogatory would be 
 sufficient if it admitted the whole facts as allfeged*; 
 or if it denied the whole of them ; or if it averred 
 that the defendant was wholly ignorant respecting 
 every one of them ; of course in each case repeating 
 or traversing the very words of the interrogatory. 
 So it would be sufficient if it admitted that the 
 plaintiff did place in B.'s hands 100/. for the 
 
OF ANSWERS. 71 
 
 purpose of purchasing a cargo of silk, and then 
 went on tO' aver circumstances negativing agency, 
 and concluded by saying that, "save as aforesaid," 
 the defendant denied the placing in the hands of 
 B. the sum of lOOZ., or any other sum as Ms agent; 
 or, save as aforesaid, otherwise for the purpose of 
 purchasing a cargo of silk, or for any other pur- 
 pose. 
 
 So, referring to the most common subject of 
 insufficiency in answers, viz., the answfer to the 
 charge of possessing books and papers. The in- 
 terrogatory usually is of this kind, "whether the 
 defendant has not in his possession divers or some 
 and what deeds or a deed, maps or a map, letters 
 or a letter, &c., going through a variety of other 
 documents, or other documents or a document." 
 Now, suppose the defendant has deeds and a letter; 
 but no maps ; a sufficient answer would be, " I have 
 in my possession the deeds and the letter referred 
 to in the schedule ; and, save as aforesaid, I deny 
 that I have in my possession any deeds or a deed, 
 maps or a map (and so on, traversing every word 
 used in the interrogatory), or any documents or 
 document." But if the answer were " I have the 
 deeds and the letter referred to in the schedule, 
 but, save as aforesaid, I deny that I have any 
 maps, &c., omitting the general word documents, 
 the answer would be insufficient ; because to say 
 that, save in so far as you have deeds, you have 
 not maps, is not an answer whether you have or 
 
72 OF ANSWKES. 
 
 have not maps ; for the word deeds does not ne- 
 cessarily cover or include maps. But a map is a 
 document ; and, therefore, if you say. you have no 
 documents except deeds, you do say that you have 
 no maps. 
 
 These examples will sufficiently make clear, I 
 apprehend, what is meant by a sufficient answer. 
 
 When a bill mixes up, as it often does, in one 
 paragraph, matter which the defendant can par- 
 tially admit and partially deny, or admit or deny 
 with qualifications, it is very difficult to answer the 
 interrogatory specifically; and then the method 
 of answering above referred to, by first stating 
 the defendant's own account of the transaction, 
 and, subject thereto, admitting or denying the 
 whole allegation, is convenient and usually adopted; 
 but it requires care, because, as I have observed, 
 if the matter stated as an original allegation of the 
 answer, does not cover or include the matter in- 
 quired after, the traverse of the interrogatory, 
 "save as aforesaid," is not an answer. 
 
 The penalty for insufficiency in an answer is, 
 that the plaintiff may except to it; that is, submit 
 to the court that the questions are not answered ; 
 and if the plaintiff's suggestion is adopted by the 
 court, the defendant then has to pay the costs he 
 has occasioned by the contest, and to put in a 
 further and better answer. 
 
 It must be observed, however, that although the 
 
OF ANSWERS. 73 
 
 rules as to the suflSciency of an answer are exactly 
 the same as they were before the 15 & 16 Vict, 
 c. 86, the temper of the judges in dealing with 
 them is very diflFerent; and the effect of certain 
 powers given by that statute renders excepting to 
 answers in most cases useless; consequently counsel 
 of experience never except to answers upon 
 merely technical insufficiency, and only do so in 
 very exceptional cases of substantial insufficiency. 
 Before the statute referred to, a defendant could 
 not be examined orally at all, nor, before the 
 cause was at issue, even upon interrogatories ; nor 
 could any production of papers be obtained from 
 him except upon the admissions in his answers. 
 But the statute has made these two important 
 alterations in practice : I. That a plaintiff may now 
 either cross-examine the defendant on his answer, 
 treating- it as an affidavit, or may examine him in 
 chief. And it is obvious that a defendant, inclined 
 to fence with the truth, can be much more readily 
 compelled hyoral examination to state the truth, than 
 he can upon written interrogatories, the answers 
 to which, after he has settled them at leisure, are 
 ultimately framed with all the skill of experienced 
 and astute counsel. When, therefore, a defendant 
 evades a question of substance, it is in general 
 more advantageous, more expeditious, and less 
 costly to the suitor to examine the defendant orally, 
 than to ex<:ept to his answer and obtain a further 
 answer. 
 
74 OF ANSWERS. 
 
 With regard to exceptions on merely technical 
 insufficiency, when the defendant has substantially 
 answered, it is suflScient to say that the judges 
 view them with great distaste and displeasiure, as 
 an abuse of the pleadings of the court, and that 
 counsel of experience never take them. 
 
 II. The statute of the Queen referred to (3. 18) 
 gives power to the plaintiff at any time to call 
 upon the defendant to produce the papers and 
 documents in his possession, and he is then obliged 
 to produce them, accompanied by an aflSdavit that 
 he has no others. The aflSdavit is a common 
 form, which has received the sanction of the judges, 
 and is of so stringent a character, that it is hardly 
 possible without perjury for a defendant to avoid 
 producing under it all the documents he has. 
 
 These two provisions of the statute, and the 
 practice of the judges and of counsel founded upon 
 them, have almost wholly abolished one of the 
 most fertile sources of delay and expense in a 
 Chancery suit. 
 
 There is one class of cases, however, in which 
 exceptions to an answer for insuflSciency are pro- 
 per ; that is, when a defendant refuses to answer a 
 specific question, on the ground that he is not 
 bound to answer it ; in other words, when in effect 
 he demurs to the question. Suppose, for instance, 
 a bill filed by one of three cestuis que trust against 
 the trustee of a fund originally in his hands as a 
 general fund, for an account of his dealings with 
 
OP ANSWERS. 75 
 
 the whole fund ; and suppose part of his defence 
 to be, that he had power to sever the fund, and 
 has severed it into three distinct portions, and 
 has set apart and appropriated the plaintiff's 
 one-third as a marked fund. He will then aver 
 these facts in his answer; and answering as to 
 the plaintiff's one-third, submit that he is not 
 bound to answer any interrogatories respecting 
 his dealings with the other two-thirds. In such 
 a case it might be that upon the bill and answer 
 a question would arise, whether the trustee had 
 power to sever the general fund; and if he had 
 power, whether he had so severed the fund, as to 
 be justified in refusing to answer as to the whole ; 
 questions on which the plaintiff would have a right 
 to take the opinion of the court. And then, pro- 
 ceeding by way of exception to the answer would be 
 not onlyjustifiable but useful; because the exception 
 would be on matter of substance, and on matter 
 on which the defendant, if examined orally, would 
 equally demur to the question; so that in any view, 
 it must at last be decided by the Judge, whether 
 the defendant is bound to answer or not. 
 
 When an answer denies or ignores any matter 
 inquired after, it must be as to the defendant's 
 knowledge, information or belief. For a man may 
 believe a statement, though he neither knows nor 
 has been informed that it is true; and he may have 
 been informed that it is true, and not believe it. 
 Therefore, it will not do in an answer for a de- 
 e2 
 
76 OF ANSWERS. 
 
 fendant to say simply, " I cannot set forth," for tliat 
 may mean "1 will not set forth;" but he must say 
 " I deny (or I cannot set forth), as to my know- 
 ledge, information or belief." 
 
 A defendant is only bound to answer as to ques- 
 tions of fact ; questions, being in eflPect questions 
 oilaw, he may. pass over; but it is more usual, 
 in drawing an answer, to submit them to the 
 court. 
 
 For instance, if a bill alleged that A. did certain 
 acts, and thereby became a constructive trustee; 
 the answer would admit the acts, and submit to 
 the judgment of the court, whether the defendant 
 became thereby a constructive trustee. 
 
 An objection for want of parties may be taken 
 by answer as well as by demurrer; and whether 
 the objection appears on the face of the bill, or 
 upon the matter averred by the answer, it is always 
 prudent and proper to take the objection by the 
 answer; for this reason, that if the court, at the 
 hearing of the cause, sustains the objection, the 
 plaintiff, on obtaining leave to amend his bill, 
 will have to pay to the defendant or defendants 
 the costs of the day. But if the objection for 
 want of parties is taken for the first time at the 
 hearing, then, because the plaintiff has not been 
 apprised that at the hearing of the cause, the bill 
 would be so objected to, the court usually orders the 
 cause to stand over, with liberty to the plaintiff 
 to amend, without any costs on either side. 
 
OF ANSWERS. IT 
 
 An answer may be read as evidence by the plain- 
 tiff, for himself, against the answering defendant, 
 but cannot be read by a defendant as evidence for 
 himself, except upon the question of costs. On 
 that question he may read his answer as if it were 
 the deposition of a witness. But a defendant may 
 file an aflSdavit echoing his answer, totidem verbis, 
 and that affidavit is evidence {a) for all the parties 
 to the suit. 
 
 The rule stated in p. 15, in reference to a bill, 
 applies equally to answers. 
 
 A defendant cannot go into evidence, that is, can- 
 not call witnesses, to prove any substantive issue 
 that he has not raised by his answer ; for instance, if 
 his defence by answer, to bill filed against him as 
 trustee, was, that he had never acted, and was not 
 trustee, he could not go into evidence to prove 
 that he had acted in and completely performed the 
 trust. 
 
 Hence arises the necessity frequently of using 
 on behalf of a defendant the second function 
 of an answer, viz., that of averring new matter not 
 
 (o) It seems a strange omission in the 15 & 16 Vict c. 86, not 
 to have provided for this. The only result of the distinction 
 between an answer and an affidavit echoing it, is increase of 
 expense; for, of course, what the defendant will swear to on one 
 piece of paper or parchment, he will swear to on another ; and 
 in practice, a defendant always does file an exact copy of his 
 answer as an affidavit, so that counsel's brief has the same matter 
 twice over, once in a form in which he may read it as evidence, 
 and a second time in a form in which he may not 
 
78 OF ANS-WERS. 
 
 averred in the bill, destructive of, or qualifying the 
 equity claimed by the plaintiff. 
 
 For instance, suppose a bill by a principal 
 against his agent, alleging agency transactions, 
 and praying an account and payment; and sup- 
 pose the real defence to be a settled account. If the 
 defendant answered merely admitting the agency 
 and agency transactions^ he could not resist at 
 the hearing a decree for an account, because, not 
 having pleaded the settled account, he could not 
 produce it as evidence, nor go into any evidence 
 to prove it The ansvrer should, therefore, in such 
 a case, aver that there v?as a settled account, and 
 then it might be proved. 
 
 Numberless other instances occur in practice, 
 in which it is- material for the interests of a de- 
 fendant, by his answer, to set up original matter 
 by way of defence j and for this reason, it is not 
 of course that an infant should either not answer, 
 or put in a mere formal answer, stating his infancy, 
 and submitting his right to the court. An infant 
 may sometimes materially assist his interest by 
 putting in an answer suggesting original matter. 
 The general rule being, however, understood, only 
 knowledge of the law and experience can point 
 out to the pleader when it is, and when it is not, 
 useful or necessary to aver original matter in the 
 answer. 
 
 An answer is a full defence as to both law and 
 fact; therefore, every objection which may be 
 
OF ANSWERS. 79 
 
 taken by demurrer, or by plea, may also be taken 
 by way of answer. Thus, an answer may answer 
 as to the facts, and conclude by submitting that, 
 on the face of the bill, there is no equity, or by 
 averring some specific fact or instrument, or sta- 
 tute (as in a plea) which it submits is destructive of 
 the equity, irrespectively of the facts alleged by 
 the bill. 
 
 It is usual, when an objection of this sort is 
 taken by answer, to crave that the defendant may 
 have the sq.me benefit as if he had demurred or 
 pleaded. But what is the advantage or precise 
 effect of that form of answering, I am unable to 
 collect from the books. In practice, a defendant 
 taking by answer an olyection which be might 
 have taken by demurrer or plea, go fa,r from having 
 the same benefit as if he had demurred ox pleaded, 
 frequently loses the costs of the suit (to which be 
 might otherwise have been entitled), because he 
 has put the plaintiff to go into evidence, and hear 
 the cause fully, when he might have cut it short by 
 demnriring c>r pleading. 
 
 Therefore, such a double or triple mo(^e of de- 
 fence is advisable only in those cases in which the 
 question, whether the bill is demurrable or open 
 to a plea is a doubtful one, and when the defend- 
 ant is advised that his substantial or better defence 
 is on the merits. It need hardly be observed, that 
 the majority of Chancery suits falls within this 
 category. 
 
80 OF ANSWERS. 
 
 Persons sui juris answer in their own names. 
 A married woman, answering in respect of an in- 
 terest vested in her husband in her right, answers 
 jointly with him, and it is in effect the answer of 
 her husband. But if she answers in respect of 
 her separate estate, or if for any reason she answers 
 separately, she answers in her own name. 
 
 An infant answers by his guardian ; and a lu- 
 natic, so found by inquisition, by his committee. 
 But a person not found lunatic by inquisition, but 
 being in fact imbecile or of unsound mind, an- 
 swers by his guardian ad litem appointed by the 
 court. 
 
 A defendant, though he has some interest in the 
 matter of the suit, may have so little, or what he 
 has may be so valueless, as not to make it advisable 
 for him to incur any risk of costs in -respect of it. 
 In that case he may meet the bill by an answer 
 and disclaimer ; that is, an answer as to part, and 
 a disclaimer as to part ; or by a disclaimer as to 
 the whole. The substance of a disclaimer is, that 
 the defendant has not, and had not at the insti- 
 tution of the suit, any claim ; or if he had, that he 
 did, before the institution of the suit, or the very 
 moment he was informed of it, offer to disclaim 
 and release his interest. A disclaimer is, in form, 
 an answer, and is settled and signed by counsel. 
 
 A supplemental answer is, where a defendant 
 finds out that, in his original answer, he has, by 
 mistake or forgetfubess of the real facts, mis-stated 
 
OF ANS,WEES. 81 
 
 some fact; and then, under very special circum- 
 stances, he is permitted to file a supplemental 
 answer to correct the mistake. But permission 
 to file a supplemental answer, in any degree con- 
 tradicting, the original answer, is obtained with 
 great difficulty, particularly if the effect of the 
 supplemental answer is to benefit, the defendant. 
 See Fulton v. Gilmor% (1 Phil. 522) ; Frankland 
 V. Overend (9 Sim. 365). 
 
 E 5 
 
( 82 ) 
 
 CHAPTER VI, 
 
 OF AMENDED BILLS. 
 
 A BILL very frequently requires amendment, either 
 by reason of matters averred by the answer, or by 
 reason of further information obtained by the plain- 
 tiff, irrespective of the answer. For instance, if a 
 bill made a case of agency transactions, praying 
 an account and payment, and the defendant an- 
 swered, setting up a settled account, the bill might 
 require amendment to allege, that though it was 
 true that there had been a settled account, it had 
 been subsequently ascertained by the plaintiff, that 
 the accounts rendered by the agent had been 
 falsified ; or that the settled account was otherwise 
 fraudulently obtained; or that it had been sub- 
 sequently agreed between the parties that the 
 settled account should not be binding on either 
 party. So, if a bill made a case of threatened and 
 intended waste, and the plaintiff afterwards dis- 
 covered that there had been actual waste, he would 
 require to amend his bill, and strengthen his case 
 
OF AMENDED BI|iLS. 83 
 
 by alleging the actual as well as the threatened 
 waste. 
 
 Before the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, no fact could be 
 introduced by way of amendment, unless it existed 
 at the time when the bill was filed. Matter occur- 
 ring subsequently to the filing of the bill was 
 matter for a supplemental hill. But now, facts 
 occurring after as well as before <,he filing a bill, 
 may be the subject of amendment. Therefore, if 
 at the time when the bill was filed, the plaintiff 
 had so far parted with his interest to others that 
 they were necessary parties to the suit, and after- 
 wards he obtains a reconveyance from those parties, 
 he may introduce that fact and strike out the de- 
 fendants from the record by amendment, provided 
 the suit is otherwise in such a state as to allow of 
 an amendment of the bill. A suit is in such a state 
 till replication has been filed; that is, till the 
 plaintiff has put on the file of the court a docu- 
 ment by which he formally denies the truth of 
 the defendant's answer, and puts him tp go into 
 evidence to prove big ease. After replication, a 
 bill can only be amended by special leave, whjqh 
 is npt readily granted. 
 
 A bill may be amended, either by adding to or 
 altering the substantial matter alleged ; or by 
 adding parties as defendants or as plaintiffs ; or 
 by striking out parties in either of those characters. 
 But in amending, by altering the state of partieSf 
 sufficieAt matter must be stated in the body of the 
 
84 OP AMENDED BILLS. 
 
 bill to show how the alteration is requisite. Thus, 
 if the amendment became necessary because a 
 defendant had become bankrupt, the amended bill 
 would allege the bankruptcy and the appointment 
 of the assignees, and that the defendant's interest 
 was vested in them, and they were necessary 
 parties. 
 
 Amendments of a bill may either require, or not 
 require, a reprint and refihng of the bill. If no 
 single amendment exceeds two folios of ninety 
 words each in length, the bill need not be re- 
 printed ; secus, if any one amendment does exceed 
 two folios. It becomes, therefore, sometunes, with 
 considerable amendments, a matter of importance, 
 as a question of expense, to see that the pre- 
 scribed length is not exceeded; and it is the 
 practice, if the nature of the case will admit it, to 
 split up any considerable amendment into separate 
 sentences of less than two folios each, and disperse 
 them over the bill. 
 
 All the rules of pleading stated, as to the proper 
 framing of allegations of title or fact in an original 
 bill, apply equally to amendments, or to an amended 
 bill ; and, if the plaintiff desires an answer to the 
 amendments, fresh interrogatories must be pre- 
 pared and filed. 
 
 It has been stated, that amendments may consist 
 in adding to or varying the case made by the bill ; 
 but this must be understood to be suh modo. The 
 variation, whether it be in extension of the case or 
 
OF AMENDED BILLS. 85 
 
 strictly in variation of it, must be consistent with 
 the substance of the case originally made. The 
 amendments must not make a totally new and 
 distinct case. See Thomson v. Judge (2 Drew. 
 414). 
 
( 86 ) 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 OF EEVIVOR AND SUPPLEMENT, AND OF SUPPLE- 
 MENTAL BILLS. 
 
 If any party to a suit dies, his real or personal 
 representatives, or both, (according to the na- 
 ture of his interest,) must be made parties in his 
 place. 
 
 So, if a feme sole marries, her husband must be 
 made a party, if her interest vests in him alone ; 
 or her trustees, if by a marriage settlement her 
 whole interest vests in them. 
 
 If a party becomes bankrupt or insolvent, he 
 ceases to have any interest; and his assignees 
 must be made parties in his place. 
 
 Or, if by act inter partes, the interest of any 
 party is transmitted vehoUy or pai-tially to other 
 persons, his assignees, either alone, or with him, 
 must be made parties. 
 
 So, if while a suit is in progress, an interest 
 accrues to any one de novo, as in the case of the 
 birth of one of a class in whom, as a class, an 
 
OF EEVIVOK AND SUPPLEMENT, ETC. 87 
 
 interest is vested, such person, so acquiring a 
 right, must be made a party. 
 
 All these changes in the constitution of a suit, as 
 to parties, produce either what is technically called 
 abatement, or simple defectiveness. The diflference 
 between ahatement and simple defectiveness was 
 never very clear; it is now unimportant, by the 
 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86. 
 
 The 52nd section of the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, 
 enacts that, " upon any suit in the said court be- 
 coming abated by death, marriage or otherwise, or 
 defective by reason of some change or transmis- 
 sion of interest or liability, it shall not be necessary 
 to exhibit any bill of revivor or supplemental bill 
 in order to obtain the usual order to revive such 
 suit, or the usual or necessary decree or order to 
 carry on the proceedings; but an order to the 
 effect of the usual order to revive or of the usual 
 supplemental decree may be obtained as of course 
 upon an allegation of the abatement of such suit, 
 or of the same having become defective, and of 
 the change or transmission of interest or liability ; 
 and an order so obtained, when served upon the 
 party or parties who, according to the present 
 practice of the said court, would be defendant or 
 defendants to the bill of revivor or supplemental 
 bin, shall from the time of such service be binding 
 on such party or parties in the same manner in 
 every respect as if such order had been regularly 
 
88 OF RETIVOE AND SUPPLEMENT, ETC. 
 
 obtained according to the existing practice of the 
 said court ; and such party or parties shall thence- 
 forth become a party or parties to the suit, and 
 shall be bound to enter an appearance thereto in 
 the office of the clerks of records and writs, within 
 such time and in like manner as if he or they had 
 been duly served with process to appear to a bill 
 of revivor or supplemental bill filed against him ; 
 provided that it shall be open to the party or 
 parties so served, within such time after service as 
 shall be in that behalf prescribed by any general 
 order of the Lord Chancellor, to apply to the court 
 by motion or petition to discharge such order on 
 any ground which would have been open to him 
 on a bill of revivor or supplemental bill, stating the 
 previous proceedings in the suit and the alleged 
 change or transmission of interest or liability, and 
 praying the usual relief consequent thereon : Pro- 
 vided also, that if any party so served shall be 
 under any disability other than coverture, such 
 order shall be of no force or efiFect as against such 
 party until a guardian or guardians ad litem shall 
 have been duly appointed for such party, and such 
 time shall have elapsed thereafter as shall be pre- 
 scribed by any general order of the Lord Chan- 
 cellor in that behalf." 
 
 And the 53rd section enacts, that " it shall not 
 be necessary to exhibit any supplemental bill in 
 the said court for the purpose only of stating or 
 
OF EEVIVOR AND SUPPLEMENT, ETC. 89 
 
 putting in issue facts or circumstances which may 
 have occurred after the institution of any suit; but 
 such facts or circumstances may be introduced by 
 way of amendment into the original bill of com- 
 plaint in the suit if the cause is otherwise in such a 
 state as to allow of an amendment being made in 
 the bill, and if not, the plaintiff shall be at liberty 
 to state such facts or circumstances on the record, 
 in such manner and subject to such rules and regu- 
 lations with respect to the proof thereof, and the 
 affording the defendant leave and opportunity of 
 answering and meeting the same, as shall in that 
 behalf be prescribed by any general order of the 
 Lord Chancellor." 
 
 These sections render bills of simple revivor 
 wholly unnecessary; and bills of supplement ne- 
 cessary only in a few cases. 
 
 A supplemental bill, as its very name indicates, 
 is a bill bringing forward some matter supplemental 
 and ancillary to the original suit. It follows, that 
 a supplemental suit cannot be heard before the 
 original suit, though it may after it. Usually it is 
 heard and disposed of with the original suit. And 
 if the supplemental suit has been instituted so late 
 in the progress of the original suit, that it is not 
 ripe for hearing at the time when the original suit 
 has reached that state, the court will, in general, 
 defer the hearing of the original suit till the supple- 
 mental suit is ready for hearing, that they may 
 
90 OF EEVIVOR AND SUPPLEMENT, ETC. 
 
 both come oa together. If the supplemental matter 
 is such as of itself to require postponement of the 
 hearing of the original suit, it is not proper to make 
 it the matter of a supplemental bill. Thus in a 
 very recent case, Lord v. Colvm (V. C. Kinders- 
 ley, not yet reported), where the original suit 
 being ready for hearing, a supplemental bill was 
 filed, alleging that fresh evidence could be pro- 
 cured, going to the very substance of the original 
 suit, and praying that the original suit might not 
 be heard till that evidence was procured ; the court 
 allowed a demurrer to the supplemental bill : first, 
 on the ground that it could not hear the supple- 
 mental suit before the original suit; and, secondly, 
 on the ground, that if it were to hear the two suits 
 together, the prayer of the supplemental suit was 
 for an impossible decree, viz., a decree, that the 
 court should not hear a suit, which it must hear to 
 pronounce the decree asked. In such a case, I 
 apprehend the course is, to apply, by motion, in 
 the original suit, to stay the hearing of it, for the 
 production of further evidence. 
 
 For bringing forward either new facts or new 
 parties, a supplemental bill is still necessary, after 
 a decree has been pronounced in the original suit ; 
 as it has been decided, that the 53rd section of the 
 act does not apply to that case. 
 
 It is also necessary before decree (if the suit has 
 reached that state in which amendment is not 
 
OP EEVIVOK AND SUPPLEMENT, ETC. 91 
 
 allowed) for bringing new parties before the court. 
 If only new facts, between the same parties, are to 
 be brought forward before decree, the 53 rd section 
 applies, and no bill of any kind is requisite ; but 
 only a suggestion on the record, pursuant to the 
 52nd and 53rd sections of the act. See Commerell 
 V. f?"a?^(2 Drew. 194). 
 
( 92 ) 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS. 
 
 Having now disposed of the different "kinds of 
 bills, and of the pleadings used by way of defence 
 to bills, I proceed to point out the rules applicable 
 to those intermediate proceedings in a suit, occur- 
 ing between the filing of the bill and the hearing 
 of the cause, and to certain proceedings antecedent 
 or subsequent to the hearing, in which the services 
 of the pleader may be called in aid. 
 
 It is frequently necessary in suits to make what 
 are termed interlocutory applications, that is, ap- 
 plications for some intermediate relief or assist- 
 ance, pending the ultimate hearing or the ultimate 
 disposal of the cause. 
 
 Of this class are applications for injunctions and 
 receivers; for payment of money into court; for 
 production of documents admitted by the answers ; 
 and -for various other orders, giving intermediate 
 relief. 
 
 In some cases, the interlocutory relief is in 
 effect the whole relief wanted ; and when that is 
 
OF INTEELOCUTORY APPLICATIONS. 93 
 
 granted or refused, the suit is usually settled by 
 the submission of the defeated party. Of this 
 class are most kinds of injunctions; such as in- 
 junctions to stay waste, infringement of copyright, 
 of patents, of trade marks, and to stay nuisance. 
 Suits instituted for these purposes usually terminate 
 by arrangement, on the granting or withholding the 
 injunction. 
 
 Some interlocutory applications are made by 
 petition, and some by motion, and there is no very 
 definite principle by which to determine in any 
 new case when the proceeding should be by 
 petition, and when by motion. The only approxi- 
 mation to a rule is, I apprehend, this : that a 
 motion is proper where the issue tendered is sim- 
 ple, though it may involve a great mass of evi- 
 dence ; and a petition is the proper course when 
 several distinct issues are tendered, though each 
 may require very little evidence to support it. 
 The court, in the latter class of cases, requires to 
 have the allegations of the parties on record, and 
 in the former class it does not. By way of illus- 
 tration : an application to stay waste, or any act 
 in the nature of waste, tenders the single issue, 
 " waste or no waste ?" though the facts may 
 be numerous and the evidence required volumi- 
 nous. 
 
 An application, for payment of money out of 
 court, usually tenders many issues; such as the 
 pedigree of the petitioner, and of other claimants ; 
 
94 OF INTEKLOCUTORY APPLJCATIONS. 
 
 the devolution of the fund, &e., and for such an 
 application a petition is the proper course. 
 
 However, practice has settled what shall be the 
 course in so many cases, that difficulty seldom 
 arises. 
 
 All applications for injunctions are made on mo- 
 tion ; so are applications for receivers, for staying 
 proceedings, for dismissing bills for want of prose- 
 cution, for production of documents admitted by the 
 answer, for payment into court of trust money 
 admitted, by the answer to be in the defendant's 
 hands, and for a ne exeat regno. 
 
 Apphcations for payment of money out of court, 
 for stop orders on funds in court, for taxation of 
 solicitors' bills of costs, for inquiries as to compro- 
 mises, or for obtaining the sanction of the court 
 to compromises or arrangements, and many others, 
 are always made on petition. On this head I must 
 refer to the books of practice, as the question is 
 one properly of practice, and not of pleading. 
 
 Motions are made without any form of pleading, 
 except a notice of motion, which is seldom, though 
 it is sometimes, settled by counsel. The only point 
 to be observed in reference to a notice of motion is, 
 that it must state on whose behalf, and against whom 
 it is intended to be made, and must state accurately 
 the particular relief intended to be asked (see 
 the form in the Appendix); and also, if it is what 
 is termed short notice of motion, that is, for making 
 a motion with less than two clear days| notice 
 
OP INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS. 95 
 
 the notice of motion should express on the face of 
 it that it is by leave of the court, given on such a 
 day, to move on such a day, otherwise the motion 
 will be refused with costs for irregularity, irre- 
 spective of the merits, into which the court will 
 refuse to enter. 
 
 It will be useful, also, to bear in mind, with 
 respect to the substance of motions, that they are 
 of two classes, motions ex parte, or without notice 
 to the respondent, and motions on notice. If a 
 motion for an injunction (the most frequent in 
 practice) or indeed any motion made on affidavits, 
 is made ex parte, the patty moving must, in 
 the affidavits supporting his bill, inform the court 
 of every fact material to the decision of the ques- 
 tion whether the order shall go or not. If he 
 withholds any such fact, whether wilfully or inad- 
 vertently, the court will, on application by the 
 respondent, discharge the order with costs for 
 irregularity, irrespective of the merits. 
 
 Hence, ex parte motions for injunctions are only 
 advisable in cases of imminent danger, such as 
 pulling down a building, the sailing of a ship, an 
 impending sale, or the like, when the mischief 
 might be done before the motion could be heard, 
 if notice were given. 
 
 Petitions are a species of pleading, and are often 
 settled by counsel. The rules of legal composition 
 pointed out (Chap, II.), in reference to bills, apply 
 very nearly to petitions. A petition, if in a suit. 
 
96 OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS. 
 
 is entitled in the suit; it is addressed to the Lord 
 Chancellor, and headed the petition of A. B., &c., 
 one of the defendants (or plaintiffs, as the case 
 may be). It states succinctly the facts, and the 
 substance, if possible, of the documents on which 
 the prayer is founded; occasionally, documents 
 must be set out; but the general rule is only to 
 set out the material parts. If instruments are 
 set out at unnecessary length, the court will not 
 allow the costs occasioned by so much as is unne- 
 cessary. 
 
 The prayer of a petition is like the prayer of a 
 bill; it prays specifically the relief desired, or 
 such other relief as the court may think just and 
 fit ; and the same rules apply to a petition (I am 
 speaking of opposed petitions) as to a bill, in, re- 
 spect of the necessity that the prayer should be 
 substantially in conformity with the case made, 
 and in respect of the necessity of alleging what 
 the petitioner intends to prove. For, if a petition 
 alleges one matter, and proves and seeks to found 
 relief on a totally distinct matter, the court would 
 sustain an objection to such proof being received, 
 and would grant no relief upon the petition. (See 
 forms of Petitions in the Appendix.) 
 
( 97 ) 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 OP THE PROCEEDIWGS ON GOING INTO EVIDENCE. 
 
 It has been stated, that the parties to a suit can 
 only go into evidence in support of matter put in 
 issue by their pleadings, and that rule must always 
 be borne in mind both in advising on evidence, in 
 settling afiSdavits, and in examining witnesses. 
 
 The course of taking evidence in a Chancery 
 suit, at this day, is as follows : — 
 
 When replication has been filed, whereby the 
 cause is put at issue, each party may either file 
 affidavits, or examine witnesses orally, or may 
 take both courses. (General Order of January 13, 
 1855.) 
 
 Also the plaintiff may, if he thinks fit, cross- 
 examine the defendants on their answers ; but he 
 thereby makes the answers affidavits, and read- 
 able as such by the defendants ; and he also 
 thereby entitles the defendants to be re-examined 
 after the cross-examination. If the plaintiff thinks 
 fit, he may examine the defendants in chief orally ; 
 but then he makes them his own (the plaintiff's) 
 
 p 
 
98 PROCEEDINGS ON GOING INTO EVIDENCE. 
 
 witnesses, and entitles them to be cross-examined. 
 The defendants have the same right of examining 
 orally the plaintiff. 
 
 Either party may cross-examine orally any wit- 
 ness who has made an aflSdavit for the other party. 
 The oral examination of the witnesses does not 
 take place in open court at the hearing of the 
 cause, (unless at the hearing of the cause the court 
 desires to have witnesses examined,) but before 
 the hearing of the cause, in the presence of one of 
 the public examiners of the court, or of a special 
 examiner, who, by his appointment as such, is in- 
 vested with the same powers as the public examiner. 
 
 The examination is conducted in the same 
 manner as at Nisi Prius. The counsel calling a 
 witness examines him in chief; then the counsel 
 on the other side cross-examines him ; and then the 
 counsel calling him, re-examines. If the examina- 
 tion is the cross-examination of an affidavit witness, 
 the affidavit is treated as the examination in chief; 
 then the counsel cross-examining begins, and the 
 counsel on the other side re-examines. 
 
 In strictness, the rules of evidence applicable at 
 Nisi Prius, are equally applicable in the Chancery 
 examiner's office ; but, from the nature of Chancery 
 suits, and the quality of the witnesses in such suits, 
 the rules of evidence are not in practice pressed so 
 strongly in Chancery as at common law. In par- 
 ticular, what are termed leading questions, are not 
 objected to with the same degree of stringency. 
 
PROCEEDINGS ON GOING INTO EVIDENCE. 99 
 
 Still, it must not be forgotten, thalt as to what is 
 and what is not admissible evidence, the rules are 
 the same as at law. 
 
 The exdSainer has no power to decide whether 
 a question is material or relevant; and if counsel 
 desire to object to the materiality or relevancy of 
 an examination, they must take the objection, and 
 the examiner will notice on the face of the depo- 
 sitions the question and the objection to it ; and 
 then, when the cause comes on to be argued on 
 the depositions, it is open to counsel to take the 
 opinion of the court on the question of mate- 
 riality or relevancy. But the examiner has the 
 power to decide when evidence is in its character 
 admissible or not, on grounds other than those of 
 materiahty or relevancy. 
 
 The duty of settling affidavits is often cast upon 
 counsel, and therefore a few observations on the 
 rules to be followed in settling affidavits will not 
 be useless to the student, particularly as the affi- 
 davits originally penned by the parties are, in 
 general, full of both useless and improper matter. 
 
 Evidence by affidavit is, in strictness, governed 
 by the same rules as oral evidence ; but in practice 
 a much greater laxity prevails. The less, however, 
 affidavits are inconsistent with the rules of evidence, 
 the more useful they are. 
 
 I. All irrelevant matter, that is, matter not 
 strictly supporting the issue or issues tendered, 
 should be struck out. 
 
 f2 
 
100 PROCEEDINGS ON GOING INTO EVIDENCE. 
 
 II. The statements made, ought to be either 
 from the defendant's own knowledge, or from 
 belief founded on information ; and he must show 
 distinctly what facts are within his ow« knowledge ; 
 what facts he derives from information ; and what, 
 if he is only informed, are his sources of informa- 
 tion. (8th & 9th General Orders of 13th January, 
 1855.) 
 
 III. Affidavits in reply to aflBdavits, made on 
 the otiier side, should be confined to facts nega- 
 tiving the facts alleged by the aflSdavit replied to ; 
 mere denials, not alleging any facts negativing the 
 opponent's evidence, should, in general, be struck 
 out as useless. 
 
 IV. In general, allegations on affidavits, merely 
 tending to vilify the opponent or his witnesses, 
 (unless they go actually the length of discrediting 
 the witnesses according .to the rules of law,) should 
 be ruthlessly struck out. The court never pays 
 the slightest attention to them, unless, indeed, to 
 imbibe a prejudice (if Judges are capable of pre- 
 judice), against the case supported by such 
 evidence. 
 
( 101 ) 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 OF APPEALS. 
 
 Generally, any decree, or order, made by the 
 Master of the Rolls, or any one of the Vice-Chan- 
 cellors, may be appealed from, either to the Court 
 of Appeal, or to the House of Lords, as the case 
 may be. 
 
 If a decree or a decretal order has not been 
 enrolled, the appeal lies to the Court of Appeal, 
 and is heard by the Lords Justices ; if the decree 
 has been enrolled, it is the decree of the Lord 
 Chancellor, and then the appeal is direct to the 
 House of Lords. 
 
 An appeal from a decree or decretal order, 
 does not state the merits of the case. It states, 
 that by a decree {referring to the decree complained 
 of] it was decreed or ordered, [here the decree is set 
 out,'} that the petitioner feels himself aggrieved by 
 the decree ; or [if he objects only to a part] by so 
 much of it as he desires to vary, [referring to that 
 part,] and the prayer is, that the court will be 
 pleased to reverse or vary the decree [or so much 
 of it as he complains of]. 
 
102 OF APPEALS. 
 
 A petition of appeal must contain at the foot 
 of the draft a statement signed by two counsel, 
 that they conceive it to be a proper case to be 
 heard. 
 
 Appeals from orders made on motions, are not 
 made on any pleadings, except a notice of motion. 
 And an appeal from a decree made on a " motion 
 for a decree," is by motion, and not by petition of 
 appeal. 
 
 An appeal from an order made on a petition, is 
 by petition of appeal, and the petition is framed in 
 the same manner as a petition of appeal from a 
 decree. 
 
( 103 ) 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 A PEW general obtervations on the practice in 
 conducting cases in court will not be useless to 
 students, who are on the eve of commencing 
 practice. 
 
 The conduct of the case, be it a cause or an 
 interlocutory application, is absolutely vested in 
 the leading counsel. He has a right to dictate not 
 only the course of proceeding, but the line of argu- 
 ment to be adopted; and cases have occurred in 
 which the court has refused to hear junior counsel, 
 adopting a line of argument greatly at variance 
 with that of the leading counsel. 
 
 In conducting a cause at the hearing, the prac- 
 tice is thus : the leading counsel for the plaintiff 
 opens his case ; in doing so, he reads as much or 
 as little of the evidence as he thinks fit, and argues 
 the points. The duty of the plaintiflF's junior 
 counsel is to commence by reading the evidence; 
 that is, the defendant's answer, or so much of it 
 as contains admissions important for the plaihtifTs 
 case, and the depositions of the plaintiff's wit- 
 nesses in extenso, if the whole is material; or 
 
104 CONCLUSION. 
 
 shortly, if their substances can be stated shortly ; 
 and evidence so read shortly should be " put in," 
 as it is technically termed, to be entered as read ; 
 and then the registrar takes a note of such evidence 
 as being read. In reading evidence, the practice 
 is to read it without comment. 
 
 The defendant's junior counsel then reads the 
 cross-examination, if any, and the plaintifiTs junior 
 counsel then reads the re-examination, ' if anyl 
 When all the evidence intended to be read is thus 
 read, the plaintiiTs junior counsel may argue the 
 points, so far as he deems it prudent. To take new 
 points not taken by the leading counsel, or to cite 
 cases not cited by him, without previously consult- 
 ing with him upon them, is a course full of danger, 
 and one which experienced juniors rarely, I might 
 almost say never, adopt. 
 
 When the plaintiff's counsel have concluded, 
 the defendant's leading counsel opens his case in 
 the same manner as the plaintiff's leading counsel ; 
 and when he has concluded, his junior reads the 
 defendant's evidence in chief; then the plaintiff's 
 junior reads the cross-examination; then the de- 
 fendant's junior reads the re-examination, and con- 
 cludes by arguing. The duties of the junior 
 counsel here terminate on both sides, unless the 
 absence of the plaintiff's leading counsel casts on 
 his junior the duty of replying. 
 
 On the argument of a demurrer the defendant 
 begins, and the bill, if not long, is always read in 
 
CONCLUSION. 105 
 
 extenso; usually, the defendant's leading counsel 
 reads it, and then argues ; if he does not read the 
 bill, his junior will, when it comes to his turn, and 
 he then argues. The plaintiff's counsel then argue» 
 and the defendant's leading counsel replies. 
 
 The same order of proceeding is pursued in 
 arguing a plea. 
 
 On a motion, the leading counsel for the motion 
 begins, and he usuajly reads all the material parts 
 of the affidavits. It is the duty of the junior, in 
 following him, to read such portions of the evi- 
 dence (previously arranged to be rehed on), as the 
 leading counsel has not read, and then to argue, 
 if any ground of argument remains open. A si- 
 milar course is followed by the respondent's coun- 
 sel ; and the leading counsel for the moving party 
 (or, in his absence, his junior) replies. 
 
 .It is a rule that, in general, no authorities are to 
 be cited a.nd argued upon, in reply, which were not 
 used in the opening or defence. If, however, 
 circumstances render it necessary to refer to and 
 argue upon new cases, the defendant's or re- 
 spondent's leading counsel is entitled to be heard 
 on the new authorities, but not on any other part 
 of the case. 
 
 On appeals from a decree, the appellant begins, 
 
 if the appeal is from only part of the decree; 
 
 but if it is from the whole decree, then the plaintiff 
 
 begins, as it is in effect then not strictly an appeal^ 
 
 f5 
 
106 CONCLUSION. 
 
 but a re-hearing. In either case, the junior coun- 
 sel's course of proceeding is the same as on the 
 original hearing. 
 
 On appeal motiam, the appellant always begins, 
 whether the appeal motion is to reverse the whole 
 or only to vary in part the order pronounced by 
 the court below ; and the motion is conducted in 
 the same manner as an original motion. 
 
 Causes and petitions are always put down in a 
 list, " in the paper," as it is technically termed, 
 and are called on in their order. Motions are 
 heard (except in the Appeal Court, where they 
 are put in the paper) according to seniority, on 
 certain fixed days; and the rule is, that each 
 Queen's counsel, according to his seniority, moves 
 two opposed motions successively, and as many 
 unopposed as he likes. When the motions in 
 which Queen's counsel are retained are concluded, 
 the Judge passes to the outer bar and calls on 
 counsel according to their seniority to move. But 
 on the last motion day of every term, the outer 
 bar have the privilege of precedence over the inner 
 bar, to move any unopposed motions. If the mo- 
 tions that junior counsel holds are opposed, he 
 must on that day, as well as any other, wait his 
 turn. 
 
 If in the course of a cause an objection of law 
 is taken, as, for instance, that there are not proper 
 parties, or, if an objection is taken to evidence as 
 inadmissible, the court will hear the objection 
 
CONCLUSION. _ 107 
 
 argued by both counsel on each side, the leading 
 counsel taking the objection, replying. But if the 
 point is a small one, it is not usual for junior coun- 
 sel to argue. 
 
 Certain days are set apart for hearing what are 
 termed adjourned summonses. An adjourned sum- 
 mons is a matter which has been heard before the 
 chief clerk, and is by him at his own desire, or at 
 the instance of eitl^r of the parties, referred to the 
 Judge for his opinion, before the chief clerk has 
 made any certificate ; or a matter which has been 
 heard by the chief clerk, and on which he has 
 made his certificate, and such certificate is appealed 
 from by either party to the Judge. 
 
 When the summons is adjourned into open 
 court, if the chief clerk has not made any certi- 
 ficate, then the party begins who was entitled to 
 begin before the chief clerk ; because it is in effect 
 not an appeal, but a rehearing in the nature of an 
 original hearing before the Judge. If the ad- 
 journed summons is upon an appeal from the chief 
 clerk's certificate, the appellant begins. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 No. ] . — JBill by one of the Shareholders in a JBanh- 
 ing Company incorporated hy Charter, on behalf 
 of himself and all other the Shareholders, except 
 the Chairman; against the Chairman and the 
 Manager, to set aside a Deed made by the 
 Directors in favour of the Manager. 
 
 In Chancery. 
 
 Lord Chancellor. 
 Vice-Chancellor 
 
 Between A. B. (on behalf ofl 
 himself and all other the / 
 Shareholders in the > Plaintiff, 
 
 Bank, except the De- 1 
 
 fendant C. D.) j 
 
 and 
 C. D. and E. F Defendants. 
 
 Bill of Complaint. 
 
 To the Right Honourable Robert Monsey, 
 Baron Ckanworth, of Cranworth, in the 
 County of Norfolk, Lord High Chancellor of 
 Great Britain. 
 
 Humbly complaining, sheweth unto your Lordship A. 
 B., of (profession), the above-named Plaintiff, on 
 
 behalf of himself and all other the shareholders in 
 the (title of bank), except the above-named de- 
 fendant C. D., as follows : 
 
 1. The bank was duly established and incor- 
 
 porated on the thirty-first day of May, one thousand 
 eight hundred and fifty- , under and by virtue of a 
 certain royal charter or certain letters patent, duly made 
 
lid 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 and granted by her present majesty Queen Victoria, on 
 the thirty-first day of May, one thousand eight hundred 
 and fifty-six, whereby her said majesty did, for her- 
 self, her heirs and successors, give, grant and ordain, 
 that F. and certain other persons therein named, and 
 all the parties to the indenture hereinafter mentioned, 
 being shareholders as in the said charter mentioned, 
 and all such other persons and bodies politic and cor- 
 porate, as from time to time thereafter might become 
 shareholders in the banking business of the said com- 
 pany, so as in the said charter mentioned agreed to be 
 formed, and should hold shares therein of not less 
 than one hundred pounds each, their executors, admi- 
 nistrators, successors and assigns respectively, should be 
 one body politic, in name and in deed, by the name of the 
 bank : And under a certain indenture of settle- 
 ment, bearing date the thirteenth day of March, one 
 thousand eight hundred and fifty- , recited in the said 
 charter or letters patent, and made between the several 
 persons whose names and seals are thereto subscribed 
 and affixed (except G., therein described, and C. D., one 
 of the above-named defendants, therein described), of 
 the first part, the said G. of the second part, and the 
 said C. D. of the third part, to which charter or letters 
 patent and indenture of settlement, or to authenticated 
 copies thereof, the plaintiff craves leave to refer, when 
 the same shall be produced : The shareholders in the 
 said bank are very nunierous, that is to say, exceeding 
 three hundred in number. 
 
 2. The said bank commenced carrying on the busi- 
 ness of bankers, under the said charter and indenture 
 of settlement, on and from the sixteenth day of June, 
 one thousand eight hundred and fifty- , and has ever 
 since carried on such business at their then banking- 
 house, at , in the county of Middlesex : The said 
 defendant C. D. was among the directors appointed as 
 tlie first directors of the said bank, by the said deed 
 of settlement and charter : The said C. D. now is and 
 has for some time since been the governor of the said 
 bank. 
 
 3. The plaintiff is an original shareholder in the said 
 bank, in respect of five shares, and has thereon 
 
APPENDIX. Ill 
 
 duly paid fifty pounds per share, pursuant to the pro- 
 visions of the said deed of settlement and charter, 
 and to the provisions of the act of the seventh and 
 eighth years of the Queen, in the said charter referred 
 to, and has, by such payment or otherwise, complied 
 with the terms of the said charter and deed of settle- 
 ment and act of parliament, and is now lawfully entitled 
 as a shareholder to five shares in the said bank. 
 
 4. Before the complete establisiiment of the said 
 bank, that is to say, in the month of February, one 
 thousand eight hundred and fifty- , negotiations 
 took place between the then provisional directors of 
 the said then intended bank and the said defendant 
 E. F. with respect to appointing the said E. F. the 
 manager of the said intended bank, and terms were 
 proposed to the said E. F. by the said provisional 
 directors, which were and are referred to in a letter 
 written and sent by the said E. F. to the said provi- 
 sional directors on the eleventh day of February, one 
 thousand eight hundred and fifty- , which letter 
 was in the words and figures following, viz. : [set out the 
 letter.^ 
 
 5. The said letter was treated by the directors of the 
 said bank after the establishment thereof as the basis 
 of an agreement with the said E. F. without consulting 
 the shareholders thereupon, and a draft of a deed for 
 carrying into effect the terms of the proposed agreement 
 was prepared on or about the twentieth of October, 
 one thousand eight hundred and fifty- , by X. then 
 the solicitor of the said bank, and was by him sent to 
 Messieurs Z. the solicitors of the said E. F., and such 
 draft was returned to the said X. by the said Messieurs 
 Z. with additions and alterations on or about the 
 twenty-eighth of January, one thousand eight hundred 
 and fifty- . The said draft so altered was in the 
 words and figures following, viz. : [here set out the 
 draft.-] 
 
 6. Before the month of May, one thousand eight 
 hundred and fifty- , two engrossments were made 
 from the said draft as altered by Messieurs Z. as here- 
 inbefore set forth. One of the said engrossments was 
 retained by the said E. F. or his solicitor, and the other 
 
112 APPENDIX. 
 
 by the said X. as the solicitor of the said bank ; but 
 no steps were immediately taken for having such en- 
 grossed deeds executed, the said X., as solicitor, acting 
 on behalf of the said bank, conceiving that it was a 
 matter which was not pressing, and neither the said 
 E. F. or his solicitors making any application in respect 
 thereof to the said X. 
 
 7. A meeting iof the board of directors of the said 
 bank was appointed for the fifth of May, one thousand 
 eight hundred and fifty- , and some time before 
 that day the said X., having considered the said en- 
 grossed deed carefully, and entertaining doubts whether 
 the same was in all particulars consistent with the terms 
 of the said charter and deed of settlement and lawful, 
 determined on attending therewith at the board of 
 directors which was appointed to meet on the fifth day 
 of May, for the purpose of stating his doubts as to the 
 propriety of the said deed to the board of directors, and 
 taking their opinion upon the necessity of having the 
 consent of the shareholders or of a general meeting. 
 On the morning of the said fifth day of May, the said 
 E. F. sent to the said X. for the said engrossed deed 
 to be brought before the board of directors on that 
 day for execution, and the said X. replied, or sent a 
 message to the effect, that he would attend with it 
 himself, in order to consult the directors thereon. At 
 the time when the said board of directors met, on the 
 said fifth of May, one thousand eight hundred and 
 fifty- , the said X. attended at the said bank with 
 the said engrossment, and he waited a considerable time 
 without being sent for, and then left the said bank, 
 stating to the secretary or to one of the clerks of the 
 said bank that as the said deed was not to be executed 
 that day, the matter was not pressing, and that he 
 would take another opportunity to consult the directors 
 upon the said deed. The saidX. then left the engross- 
 ment of the said deed in the office of the said bank 
 with one of the clerks thereof. 
 
 8. On the sixth of May, one thousand eight hundred 
 and fifty- , a general meeting of shareholders of 
 the said bank was held, and matters arising out of that 
 meeting occupied the attention of the said X., as soli- 
 
APPENDIX. 113 
 
 citor of the said bank, so as to interfere with his taking. 
 And he did not in fact take, for some time, any steps 
 with reference to bringing the said deed for consi- 
 deration before the directors. He was not applied to 
 so to do either by the said E. F., or his solicitors, 
 before the third day of June, one thousand eight 
 hundred and fifty- , when he received from the 
 said E. F.'s said solicitors a letter of that date, in the 
 words and figures following, that is to say : 
 
 9. Towards the end of June, one thousand eight 
 hundred and fifty- , the said X. applied to the said 
 E. F. several times, both by verbal messages and by 
 letters, to send him the said engrossment of the said 
 deed so left as aforesaid at the office of the said hank, 
 on the fifth of May, one thousand eight hundred and 
 fifty- , in order that he the said X. might see the 
 said £. F.'s solicitors upon it. The said E. F. at 
 first pretended that he had not the engrossment, and 
 made or caused to be made divers excuses to the said 
 X. for not sending to him the said engrossment ; and 
 ultimately, on the first of July, one thousand eight 
 hundred and fifty- , in answer to a note from the 
 said X. of that date, the said E. F. sent a verbal mes- 
 sage to the said X., to the effect that he, the said E. F. 
 " declined to give up his agreement : that he did not 
 " choose to give it up." 
 
 10. Up to the said first day of July, one thousand 
 eight hundred and fifty- , the plaintiff had no 
 knowledge or information whatever of or relating to 
 the matters or things hereinbefore set forth in respect 
 of the said agreement, or pretended agreement, of the 
 fifteenth February, one thousand eight hundred andfifty- 
 
 , with the said E. F. or the said engrossed deed, ex- 
 cept that he knew that the said E. F. was in fact acting 
 as manager of the said bank, but under what, if any, 
 agreement, the said plaintiff did not know at all up to 
 the said first of July, one thousand eight hundred and 
 fifty- : And up to the said first day of July, one ■ 
 
 thousand eight hundred and fifty- , the said X., 
 
 the solicitor of the said bank, was acting as such 
 solicitor of and on behalf of the said bank, under the 
 impression and belief that the said engrossed deed wa? 
 
1 14 APPENDIX. 
 
 not executed, and he had received no information from 
 the said E. F., or from any other person, to lead him 
 to believe or suppose that the said deed vras executed. 
 
 11. The plaintiff has, since the first of July, one 
 thousand eight hundred and fifty- discovered, as 
 the fact is, that on the fifth day of May, one thousand 
 eight hundred and fifty- , the said defendant C. D. 
 affixed, or caused to be affixed, the common seal of the 
 bank to the said engrossed deed so left as aforesaid by 
 the said X. at the office of the said bank, and the said 
 C. D. also affixed his signature to the said deed. 
 
 13. The common seal of the bank ought not to have 
 been affixed to the said deed, even if the deed is as in 
 itself a proper and lawful deed, except by a court of 
 directors, or a committee of the directors, duly appointed 
 under the said deed of settlement, or one director, to- 
 gether with the general manager specially authorized in 
 that capacity by the court pursuant to the 108th section 
 of the said deed of settlement, to which the plaintiff 
 craves leave to refer. 
 
 13. The common seal so affixed as aforesaid to the 
 said deed was not affixed by the court of directors, 
 nor by a committee of directors duly appointed, nor by 
 any director specially authorized in that capacity by 
 the court pursuant to the said deed of settlement, nor 
 in any manner pursuant to the said deed of settlement 
 and charter, and was affixed in manner and under the 
 circumstances following; (that is to say,)— After the 
 board of directors, which met on the fifth day of May, 
 one thousand eight hundred and fifty- , as afore- 
 said, had concluded their business and broken up, and 
 after all or most of the directors attending the said 
 board had left the bank, the said C. D. went down 
 with the said E. F. to his private room in the said 
 bank, and there and then the said engrossed deed was 
 produced by the said E. F., and the said C. D., or the 
 said E. F., by his direction, affixed the common seal 
 of the said bank to the said deed, and the said C. D. 
 signed the same, and the same was then left in the pos- 
 session of the said E. F. 
 
 14. The said transaction of so affixing the common 
 seal of the said bank to the said deed was contrived and 
 
APPENDIX. 115 
 
 pre-arranged by and between the said C. D. and E. F., 
 for the purpose of fraudulently executing the said deed 
 without the assent of the shareholders, and without 
 consulting the other directors of the bank ; and the 
 said pretended execution of the said deed was and is a 
 fraud upon the shareholders of the said bank, and as 
 evidence thereof the plaintiff charges, that no resolu- 
 tion for executing the said deed appears on the minute 
 book of any of the meetings of the directors of the said 
 bank, and no resolution was, in fact, ever passed, and 
 the said ertgrossed deed was never shown or mentioned 
 by the said C. D., or by the said E. F., or either of 
 them, to any of the directors, nor to any other share- 
 holders, and that neither the said deed nor the inten- 
 tion to execute the same was ever brought forward or 
 considered at any board of directors. 
 
 15. The plaintiff charges in particular, that at the 
 said board of directors, df the fifth day of May, one 
 thousand eight hundred and fifty- , the said deed 
 and the intended execution thereof were not brought 
 to the notice of the board by the said C. D. and E. F., 
 or either of them, although they well knew, as the fact 
 is, that they intended to affix the common seal thereto 
 after the board meeting had broken up ; and the plain- 
 tiff further charges, that the said E. F. never informed 
 his solicitors of the fact of the common seal having 
 been affixed to the said deed until the first of July, one 
 thousand eight hundred and fifty- , or thereabouts ; 
 and that the said C. D. hath never informed the said 
 X., the solicitor of the said bank, of the said pretended 
 execution of the said deed, nor was the said fact com- 
 municated by the said C. D., as chairman, nor by the 
 said E. F., or either of them, to the proprietors assem- 
 bled in general meeting on the seventh May, one 
 thousand eight hundred and fifty- , or to any of 
 them. 
 
 16. The plaintiff charges and insists, that, under the 
 circumstances hereinbefore stated, the pretended execu- 
 tion of the said deed, in manner aforesaid, by affixing 
 thereto the common seal of the said bank, in manner 
 aforesaid, was a fraudulent execution of the said deed, 
 and is voidable in equity ; and that the said deed ought 
 
116 APPENDIX. 
 
 to be declared fraudulent and void, and ought to be 
 ordered to be delivered up to be cancelled by this ho- 
 nourable court : nevertheless, the illegality of the exe- 
 cution of the said deed does not appear upon the face 
 thereof, but only by reference to extrinsic evidence ; 
 (that is to say,) the evidence of the facts hereinbefore 
 stated : The defendants sometimes admit that the execu- 
 tion of the said deed was illegal, for they admit that the 
 common seal of the said bank was, on the fifth day of 
 May, one thousand eight hundred and fifty- , 
 
 affixed to the said engrossed deed, by the said C. D., 
 without any authority from the court of directors 
 or any other authority under the said deed of settle- 
 ment and charter; but then the said defendants pre- 
 tend that the said deed was not a deed which would by 
 law be required to be under seal, and that the same 
 would be good as an agreement if in writing and signed 
 by the parties to be charged therewith ; and they pre- 
 tend that the said deed was well executed as an agree- 
 ment in writing, to be so signed by force of the signature 
 of the said C. D., appended or signed thereto : But 
 the plaintiff charges and insists, that the said deed or 
 instrument was not lawfully executed within the 109th 
 section of the said deed of settlement, or otherwise, 
 within the deed of settlement at all, for that the said 
 deed was not so signed as it ought to have been pur- 
 suant to the said 109th section, by the authority of a 
 court of directors, nor by a committee, nor by any one 
 director duly authorized by a court of directors, hut 
 was signed by the said C. D. in manner and under the 
 circumstances aforesaid, without any authority from 
 any court of directors, and, in fact, without any autho- 
 rity at all. 
 
 17. But then the said defendants pretend, that it is 
 immaterial that the said deed is informally executed, 
 for they pretend that the said contract, or pretended 
 contract, of the fifteenth of February, one thousand 
 eight hundred and fifty- , and the said intended deed 
 founded thereon, are in themselves a good and lawful 
 contract and a good and lawful deed, and that the 
 directors of the said bank had and have authority to 
 enter into and make such a deed, and to bind the share- 
 
APPENDIX. 117 
 
 holders thereby ; and that the irregularity of the execu- 
 tion of the said deed can be cured by obtaining the 
 common seal to be affixed thereto pursuant to the 
 terms of the said deed of settlement ; but the plainiifT 
 charges the contrary of such pretences to be true, and 
 that the said C. D. threatens and intends, at the next 
 board meeting of directors, to obtain the authority of 
 such board for affixing regularly, and so to affix the 
 common seal to the said engrossed deed, or to some 
 other deed, on the same terms as the said deed ; and 
 the plaintiff charges and insists, that the said engrossed 
 deed, and the agreement or pretended agreement of 
 the fifteenth February, one thousand eight hundred 
 and fifty- , on which it is founded, are in their terms 
 respectively inconsistent with and not authorized by 
 the said deed of settlement and charter : In particular, 
 the plaintiff insists that the directors of the said bank 
 had no authority under the said deed of settlement to 
 bind the shareholders to the agreement contained in 
 the said deed for payment to the said E. F., in the 
 event of the said bank discontinuing business within 
 seven years, the sum of pounds a year, 
 
 for three years,»after it shall have so discontinued 
 business ; and the plaintiff insists that, having regard 
 to the said deed of settlement, and the terms of the 
 said intended agreement with the said E. F., the 
 directors of the said bank have not any authority, 
 either in board assembled or otherwise, without the 
 assent of all the shareholders, or, at any rate, without 
 the authority of a general meeting, to execute or cause 
 to be executed, by affixing the common seal of the 
 said bank or otherwise, the said deed, or any deed 
 made pursuant to the terms of the said letter of the 
 fifteenth February, one thousand eight hundred and 
 fifty- , and according to the terms contained in the 
 said engrossment hereinbefore referred to, and no 
 assent of the shareholders, nor of any general meet- 
 ing of shareholders, has ever been given to the said 
 pretended agreement of the fifteenth of February, one 
 thousand eight hundred and fifty- , or to the said en- 
 grossed deed, and the agreement thereby conterriplated. 
 18. The defendant C. D. therefore ought to be re- 
 
118 APPENDIX. 
 
 Strained by the order and injunction of this honourable 
 court, from aflSxing or procuring to be affixed to the 
 said deed, or to any deed prepared in the same terms, 
 the common seal of the said bank, or from otherwise 
 executing or attempting to execute, or procuring to 
 be executed, by any other director or directors, the 
 said deed, or any other deed in the same terms : And 
 the defendant C. D. ought also to be restrained by 
 the order and injunction of this honourable court, 
 from paying or causing to be paid, or concurring in 
 paying to the said E. F., and the said E. F. ought to 
 be restrained, in like manner, from receiving any sums 
 or sum of money whatever, under the said deed so 
 improperly executed as aforesaid : And the said E. F. 
 ought also to be restrained from selling, charging, in- 
 cumbering, or otherwise dealing with the said deed, or 
 the benefits thereby purporting to be reserved to him : 
 The said E. F. ought to bring the said deed into court, 
 and deposit the same with the registrar thereof, or such 
 officer of the court as the court shall appoint for that 
 purpose, but he refuses so to do. 
 
 19. The defendants have in- their possession, cus- 
 tody or power, or in the possession, Custody or power 
 of their solicitors or agents, divers deeds, books, ac- 
 counts, vouchers, letters, receipts, papers, documents 
 and writings, relating to the matters aforesaid, and 
 which would show the truth thereof if produced. 
 
 Prayer. 
 
 The plaintiff prays as follows : — 
 
 1. That it may be declared by the decree of this 
 
 honourable court, that the said deed herein- 
 before mentioned, to which the common seal 
 of the bank has been affixed as afore- 
 
 said, is fraudulent and void as against the 
 plaintiff and the other shareholders in the 
 said bank, and that the same may be ordered 
 to be delivered up by the said E. F., to be 
 cancelled, as this honourable court shall 
 direct. 
 
 2. That the said defendant C. D. may be re- 
 
 strained, by the order and injunction of this 
 
APPENDIX. 119 
 
 honourable court, from affixing or procuring 
 to be affixed to the said deed, or to any other 
 deed, prepared in the same or in similar 
 terms, the common seal of the said bank, 
 and from signing or otherwise executing the 
 said deed, or any other such deed as afore- 
 said, or authorizing the same to be executed. 
 
 3. That the said C. D. may be in like manner 
 
 restrained from paying or authorizing to be 
 paid to the said E. F., and that the said 
 E. F. may be restrained from receiving any 
 sums or sunp of money under or in pur- 
 suance of the said deed so improperly ex- 
 ecuted as aforesaidt and that the said E. F. 
 may be restrained from selling, charging or 
 otherwise dealing with the said deed, or the 
 benefits reserved or purporting to be reserved 
 to him thereby. 
 
 4. That the said E. F. may be ordered to deposit 
 
 the said deed in the hands of the registrar of 
 this court, or of such other officer of this 
 court as the court shall appoint. 
 
 5. That the defendants may be ordered to pay the 
 
 costs of this suit. 
 
 6. That the plaintiff may have such further or 
 
 other relief as the nature of the case may 
 require. 
 
 [Signature of counsel.^ 
 
 Names of Defendants. 
 
 The defendants to this bill of complaint are : — 
 C. D. and E. F. 
 
 Note. — This bill is filed by Messieurs X. & Co., 
 of number , Street, , in the county of 
 
 Middlesex, solicitors for the above-named plaintiff. 
 
120 APPENDIX. 
 
 No, 2. — Bill for Specific Performance of an 
 Agreement for the Purchase of a Share in a 
 Patent, and for terminating litigation on certain 
 specified terms. 
 
 In Chancery. 
 
 Lord Chancellor, 
 Vice-Chancellor 
 
 Between A. B Plaintiff, 
 
 and 
 C, D. and E. F Defendants. 
 
 Bill of Complaint, 
 
 To the Right Honourable Robert Monsey, 
 Baron Cranworth, of Cranworth, in the 
 County of Norfolk, Lord High Chancellor of 
 Great Britain. 
 
 Humbly complaining, sheweth unto his Lordship A.B. 
 of , pianoforte manufacturer, the above-named 
 
 plaintiff as follows : 
 
 1. On the twenty-eighth day of April, one thousand 
 eight hundred and fifty-five, her present majesty by 
 her letters patent of that date, under the great seal of 
 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (re- 
 citing as therein is recited), duly gave and granted for 
 herself, her heirs and successors to the above-named 
 plaintiff, his executors, administrators and assigns, her 
 special license, full power and sole privilege and autho- 
 rity that the said plaintiflF, A. B., his executors, adminis- 
 trators and assigns, or such others as he the said plaintiff, 
 his executors, administrators or assigns should at any 
 time agree with and no others, fi-om time to time and at 
 all times should and lawfully might during the term of 
 fourteen years from the date of the said letters patent 
 make, use, exercise and vend within the United King- 
 dom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Channel Islands 
 
APPENDIX. 121 
 
 and the Isle of Man, his invention of " Improvements 
 in the construction of pianofortes for making them 
 more portable." 
 
 Z, The plaintiff, in compliance with a condition in 
 the said letters patent contained, duly filed in the great 
 seal patent office of the United Kingdom of Great 
 Britain and Ireland on the seventeenth day of October, 
 one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five, a specifica- 
 tion or instrument in writing under his hand and seal, 
 accompanied by certain drawings or plans therein re- 
 ferred to, whereby he particularly described the nature 
 of his said invention, ^nd in what manner the same 
 was to be performed, and did by filing such specifica- 
 tion and drawings in manner aforesaid duly comply 
 with the condition or conditions in the said letters 
 patent in that behalf contairied, and the said letters 
 patent are now good, valid and effectual letters patent 
 in the law, and the plaintiff hath a good and unen- 
 cumbered title thereto. The plaintiff craves leave to 
 refer to the said specification and drawings, or to an 
 office copy thereof, when the same shall be produced. 
 
 3. For some time anterior to the twenty-ninth day . 
 of February, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-six, 
 disputes were pending between the plaintiff and the 
 defendant C. D. relating to the right of the said 
 plaintiff to the said letters patent, the said defendant 
 wrongfully claiming some title therein, and pending 
 those disputes the defendant C. D. employed tlie 
 defendant E, F. to manufacture pianos, and the de- 
 fendant E. F. did manufacture pianos made according 
 to the said invention, in consequence whereof the 
 plaintiff, on the twenty-ninth day of February, one 
 thousand eight hundred and fifty-six, commenced an 
 action in her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench 
 against the said E. F., and declared therein venue 
 Middlesex for damages suffered by the plaintiff by 
 the said defendant E. F. having so manufactured 
 pianos according to the said invention, and such action 
 of A. B. V. E. F. is still pending, though the plaintiff 
 has not taken any step whatever therein since the date 
 of a certain agreement hereinafter referred to, made 
 on the eighth of November, one thousand eight hun- 
 
 O 
 
122 APPENDIX. 
 
 dred and fifty-six, between thejibiritifFand the defend- 
 ant C. D., save by the delivery of a replication under the 
 circumstances hereinafter mentioned. The defendant 
 E. F. pleiadSd to the said kctidti merely " N6t Guilty," 
 on which plek the validity of the said patent could not 
 have been tried, but Only the fact of infringement. 
 
 4. On the fifth day of April, one thousand eight 
 hundred and fifty-six, the defendant E. "F. filed his bill 
 of complaint in this hondur^ble court against the plain- 
 tiff, alleging as therein is set forth, and prhying that the 
 plaintiff A. B. might be restrained by the 'injunction of 
 this honourable court frdm {jrocfeeding further in the 
 said action of A.'B. v. E. iF., a'nd froin commencing 
 any other action against the said defendant E. F., by 
 reason or in respect of the said defendant having 
 manufactured pianos according to the principle 6f the 
 said patent invention. The plaintiff craves leave to 
 refer to a printed copy of the said bill when the same 
 shall be produced. 
 
 5. The plaintiff, on the eighth day of April, one 
 thousand eight hundred and fifty-six, filed in this 
 honoui-able court 'a gehSrIal' demurrer 'for want df equity 
 and for want of parties to the said bill of the said E. F., 
 and the said demurrer coming on to be argued on the 
 seventeenth day of April, one thousatid eight hundred 
 and fifty-six, before his Honor the Vice-Cliancellor 
 Sir , his Honor did on the same 
 day allow the said demurrer, with liberty to the plain- 
 tiff in the said suit E. F. to amend his said bill, but 
 the said E. F. ne*er has amended the said bill. 
 
 6. On the third day of June, one thousand eight 
 hundred and fifty-six, the defendant CD. filed his 
 bill of complaint in this honourable court against 
 the plaintiff and against the said E. F., allegihg as 
 therein is alleged, and praying amohg other tliitigs 
 that the plaintiff herein A. B. niight be declared a 
 trustee of the Said patent for' C. D., the plaintiff 
 therein, and that he (the said A. B.) might be ordered 
 to assign over the same and the full benefit theredf 
 to the plaintiff in the said suit C. D., and that the de- 
 fetidant therein A. B. might be restrained by the in- 
 junction' of this hotiourable court frotn, assigning the 
 
APPENDIX. 123 
 
 said patent to any person or persons other than the 
 plaintiff therein, and from granting any licence or 
 licences in respect of such patent, except under the 
 authority or with the consent of the plaintiff therein, 
 and that the said A. B., his servants, agents and work- 
 men, might be restrained by the order and injunction of 
 this honourable court from making or permitting to be 
 made, except under such authority or with such con- 
 sent, pianos according to the said patent invention, or 
 in any manner merely colourably differing therefronii, 
 and from selling, disposing of or parting with or per- 
 mitting .the sale, disposition and parting with any 
 pianos made according to the said invention, or merely 
 colourably differing therefrom, and that the said A. B. 
 might in like manner be restrained from proceeding 
 further in the said action (meaning thereby the action 
 hereinbefore referred to of A. B. v. E. F. and herein- 
 after called the first action) against the said E. F., and 
 from commencing or prosecuting any other action for 
 the infringement of the said patent or otherwise relating 
 thereto, except by the authority or direction of the 
 plaintiff C. D. 
 
 7. The plaintiff A. B. duly appeared to and answered 
 the said bill, and on the twenty-ninth day of July, one 
 thousand eight hundred and fifty-six the defendant 
 C. D., by his counsel, moved before his Honor the 
 said Vice-Chancellor Sir , upon the 
 bill and answer, and divers afHdavits filed in the said 
 suit for an injunction against the plaintiff A. B. pur- 
 suant to the terms of the prayer of the aforesaid bill, 
 and upon hearing counsel for all parties on the said 
 motion his Honor the said Vice-Chancellor was pleased 
 to order, on the said twenty-ninth day of July, one thou- 
 sand eight hundred and fifty-six, that the said motion 
 should stand over until after the trial of the said first 
 action then pending of A. B. v. E. F., and gave liberty 
 to the said defendant C. D. to de&nd the said action in 
 the name of the said E. F. 
 
 8. The said action has been, since the said order 
 of the said Vice-Chancellor, nominally defended by 
 the said E. F., but in reality by the said C. D., the 
 said £. F. being only nominal defendant therein, 
 
 g2 
 
124 APPENDIX. 
 
 but being in reality the servant of the said C. D., 
 put forward by him to defend the said actions for 
 the benefit of the said C. D. : The said C. D. has, 
 from the commencement of the said actions, furnished 
 and paid all the expenses thereof, and the said E. F. 
 has only n)oved and taken steps therein as and when 
 directed by the said C. D. ; the said actions are in fact 
 wholly under the direction and for the benefit of the 
 tiaid C. D. 
 
 9. Previously to the institution of the said suit of 
 C. D. V. A. B., and some time in the latter part of the 
 year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five or 
 beginning of one thousand eight hundred and fifty-six, 
 the defendant C. D., then residing at in , 
 
 and there carrying on trade as a pianoforte and music 
 dealer, commenced certain law proceedings in , in 
 
 the course of which he obtained an interdict or attach- 
 ment against the two sons of the plaintiff A. B. (who 
 were then residing at ), in respect of certain 
 
 pianos, to wit, eight pianos, made according to the said 
 invention by the said plaintiff in this country, and 
 being his property, and by him consigned to his said 
 son John, in aforesaid, for sale, by virtue of which 
 
 interdict or attachment the said son of the said plaintiff 
 was and is still prevented from selling the said eight 
 pianos, as he ought to do, for the benefit of the said 
 plairititf : The said defendant C. D. also, some time in 
 the said year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-six, 
 instituted certain other proceedings in aforesaid, 
 
 against the plaintiff, in respect of the manufacture of 
 pianos generally, made according to the said invention : 
 And such proceedings as aforesaid in are still 
 
 subsisting and on foot. 
 
 ] 0. Shortly after the hearing of the said motion for 
 an injunction in the said suit of " C. D. v. A. B.," and 
 the order made thereon as aforesaid, the plaintiff and 
 the said defendant C. D., for the purpose of putting 
 an end to their differences, entered into an agreement 
 in writing, dated the eighth November, one thousand 
 eight hundred and fifty-six, which was and is in the 
 words and figures following: — " Minutes of agreement 
 " between A. B. and C. D.~The patent obtained by 
 
APPENDIX. 125 
 
 " me A. B., for making portable pianofortes, shall be 
 " for the mutual interest of A. B. and C. D., with the 
 " conditions that no grant of sale or licence of the 
 " above patent shall be given without the consent of 
 " both parties named above. The conditions are as 
 " follows : — C. D. agrees to pay to A. B. the sum of 
 " £100, part of expenses incurred in taking out the 
 " said patent. C. D. also agrees to rase all law pro- 
 " ceedings in England and X, up to this date, each 
 
 " party to pay their own expenses, the eight piano- 
 
 " fortes in litigation in shall be delivered by C. D. 
 
 " to A. B., or his representatives """"a- Each party shall 
 " incur mutually the expense of taking out the fullest 
 " privilege of the above patent, and also agree to de- 
 " fend their mutual interest in the said patent." The 
 said agreement, so far as above set forth, was written 
 on three sjdes of a sheet of note paper, and was signed 
 by the plaintiff and the said defendant C. D. on the 
 said eighth day of November, one thousand eight hun- 
 dred and fifty-six, and the signatures were witnessed 
 by and , who were present during the dis- 
 cussion which led to the said agreement, and also during 
 the actual writing of the same, and were in fact mutual 
 friends of the said C. D. and A. B. 
 
 1 ] . Within a very short time, that is to say, an hour, 
 or thereabouts, after the signing of the said writing here- 
 inbefore set out by the said plaintiff and the said C. D., 
 certain additions to or explanations thereof (the matter 
 of which had been discussed between the said plaintiff 
 
 and the said C. D. in the presence of the said 
 
 and , when they discussed the terms of the afore- 
 said writing, and which additions or explanations had 
 been intended by them to form part of the said agree- 
 ment, but had been forgotten by them to be written 
 down) were committed to writing by the plaintiff, as 
 an addition to ori^xplanation of the previously written 
 agreement on his part, on a detached half sheet of note 
 
 paper, and were by him delivered to the said , to 
 
 shew to the said defendant C. D., for the purpose 
 of the said C. D. agreeing thereto, and which the 
 said C. D. accordingly did, in the presence of the said 
 . The said additions or alterations so written on 
 
126 APPENDIX. 
 
 the said detached sheet of paper were as follows : — 
 ^ " Against C. D. and his two sons John & W, H. M." 
 
 X " It is further agreed, that all claims between the 
 " said Thos. M., Js. M., John & W. H. M.,are settled up 
 " to this date, ^ A, and instructions from Thos. M. to 
 " carry ont the giving up immediately of the 8 piano- 
 " fortes be sent out by the next mail." 
 
 12. The marks of reference X o and x a^ marked 
 against the said three passages on the said sheet of 
 paper, were intended by both the said plaintiiF and the 
 said defendant C. D. to connect the said passages with 
 tlve corresponding marks of reference ^ ° and A, con- 
 tained in the written agreement of the eighth No- 
 vember, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-six, 
 signed as aforesaid, and the said three additional pas- 
 sages in writing were intended by them to form part 
 of, and it was verbally agreed by the said plaintiff, when 
 he sent the said additions to the said C. D., and by 
 
 the said C. D., in the presence of the said and 
 
 , that the said three passages should be and form 
 part of the said agreement in writing aforesaid, signed 
 on the eighth of November as aforesaid. Wherefore 
 and in fact the said plaintiff and the defendant C. D., 
 on the eighth of November, one thousand eight hun- 
 dred and fifty-six, entered into an agreement in writing, 
 contained in the two sheets or pieces of pstper herein- 
 before referred to, to which the plaintiff craves leave 
 to refer, when the same shall be produced. 
 
 IS, The solicitors of the said piaintifT and of the 
 said C. D. proceeded shortly after the date of the said 
 a;gr.eeme»t to take steps for carrying the same into 
 effect, by the preparation of the requisite deeds for 
 that purpose, and Mr. X., the solicitor of the said 
 defendant C. D., in the early part of the month of De- 
 cember, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-six, sent 
 to the solicitor of the plaintiff two drafts, one being a 
 dr^ft assignment of the said letters patent, and the 
 other -A draft deed of arrangement between the said 
 plaintiff and the defendant C. D. 
 
 14. The plaintiff's solicitors on his behalf objected 
 to the terms of the said draft deeds on several grounds, 
 in particular as to the draft assigmnent, because the 
 
APPENDIX. 127 
 
 same proposed to assign tjie said letters, patent to a 
 trustee, which the plaintiff was adyised vyould he incon- 
 venient, and t^ecause the powers and duties proposed 
 to bp given to and imposed on such trustee were in- 
 adequate for the purposes intended by the said agree- 
 ment, and as to the draft deed of arrangement, because 
 the same unnecessarily, and as the plaintiff was advised 
 improperly, recited at great Ij^ngth the disputes and pro- 
 ceedii gs between the p^rtiqs, thereto, and tended to 
 cast doubts on the title to the said letters, patent. The 
 plaintiff's solicitors accordingly returned the said 
 drafts to the said Mr. X. with alterations, and thereupon 
 much correspoqdence and negociation, took place be- 
 tween the solicitors of the said plaintiff ai)d> defend- 
 ant C. D. respectively, in the course of which the 
 plaintiff, by his solicitors, made numerous concessions, 
 but no satisfactory arrangei;nent as to the terms of the 
 deeds necessary for carrying intp effect the said agree- 
 ment vtas come to before the .beginning of the month 
 of June, one thousand eight hundj;ed and fifty-seven. 
 Throughout the said correspondence and negociations 
 tbjB said plaintiff has always, insisted upon the said 
 agreemei^t being performed ^d carried into effect, and 
 has always, been ready and desirous to carry (he same 
 into effect. 
 
 15. On the fourth day of June, one tjhousand eight 
 hundred and fifty-seven, the said Mr. }^., the solicitor 
 of the defendant C. D., also acting as the attorney of 
 the defend^t E. F. (but in fapt under i;he direction 
 of the defendant C. D.), in the said first acijion of A. B. 
 V. E. F. applied to a Judge of t^he po^irt of Queen's 
 Bench for leav^ to amend ^is pleivdings in the said 
 action, and obtained such leave and accordiiigly has 
 amended his pleadings so as to raise, and has thereby ' 
 raised in the said action, the question of the validity of 
 the said letters patent. 
 
 16. On the sixth day o( June, one thousand eight 
 hundred and fifty-seven, the said Mr. X., acting as 
 aforesaid as attorney for the def^pdant in the said 
 action of A. B. v. E. F-, but under a,nd hy the instruc- 
 tions of th,e defendant C. D., gave to the plaintifTs soli- 
 citors nominally, on behalf of the said defendant E. F., 
 
128 APPENDIX. 
 
 a notice, requiring the plaintiff to proceed to trial in the 
 said first action. Whereupon the plaintifTs solicitors 
 wrote and sent to the said Mr. X. a letter, dated the 
 seventeenth of June, one thousand eight hundred and 
 fifty-seven, which was and is in the words and figures 
 following, that is to say, — " Dear Sir — A. B. ». C. D. 
 " — The step which you have taken in the common 
 " law action is, as you must be fully aware, contrary to 
 " the agreement, and Mr. A. B. has been advised to 
 " stop the prosecution of such step by an application 
 " to the court, based on the agreement; Mr. A. B. 
 " has, however, been unwilling to adopt this course, 
 " and has instructed us to inform you that he will con- 
 " sent, for the sake of peace and settling the matter, 
 " to assign the patent to a trustee, as proposed by you, 
 " and to adopt your form of deed. The deed of ar- 
 " rangement, however, requires alteration, and to fur- 
 " ther pave the way to an amicable settlement, we have 
 " drawn out a deed of arrangement which we propose, 
 " merely remarking that Mr. A. B.'s giving way in 
 " some respects as to the form and as to the costs of 
 " the abandoned motion, is not because he feels that 
 " he has insisted on more than he is entitled to, but 
 " because he wishes to settle the matter amicably. 
 " The draft assignment, therefore, requires the name of 
 " the trustee to be inserted, and we shall be glad to hear 
 " whom you propose." And the said letter was duly 
 received by the said Mr. X. The said letter was written 
 and sent, and the offer therein made with a view to 
 avoid litigation, and to put an end to the differences 
 between the plaintiff and the defendant C. D., as to 
 the proper method of carrying into effect the said 
 agreement of the eighth of November, one thousand 
 eight hundred and fifty-six. In reply to the aforesaid 
 letter, the said Mr. X. wrote and sent to the plaintiff's 
 solicitors a letter, dated the eighteenth June, one thou- 
 sand eight hundred and fifty-seven, which was and is 
 in the words and figures following, that is to say, — 
 " Dear Sirs, I have to acknowledge the receipt of your 
 " letter to me of yesterday's date, accompanied by a 
 " draft deed of arrangement and draft power of at- 
 " torney, and proposing a settlement on the basis of 
 
APPENDIX. 129 
 
 " the deeds I bad prepared and submitted to you in 
 " November last, but which your client then refused. 
 " I have seen Mr. C. D. and informed him of the con- 
 " tents of your letter, and his reply is that it is now too 
 " late ; that your client has throughout the negociation 
 " for an agreement shewn such a want of good faith and 
 " so much.insincerity in the matter, that he Mr. C. D. 
 " cannot entertain fresh proposals for a settlement. 
 " I therefore return you the drafts. The action at law 
 " your client commenced against Mr. E. F. must pro- 
 " ceed, and pursuant to the notice I have given you, 
 " I require the action to be tried at the approaching 
 " London sittings." {Then followed other correspond- 
 ence.) 
 
 17. The.said letter was in fact written by the said 
 Mr. X., by the direction of the said defendant C. D. 
 as well as of the defendant E. F., and the said defendant 
 C. D. hath, by the said letter of his solicitor of the 
 eighteenth June, one thousand eight hundred and fifty- 
 seven, and by the said notice given by the said Mr. X. 
 to proceed to trial in the said action of A. B. v. E. F., 
 and hath in fact refused and still refuses or neglects to 
 perform the said agreement of the eighth November, 
 one thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven, whereas 
 the plaintiff hath always been and is now ready and 
 willing and hereby offers duly to perform the same. 
 
 18. The said Mr. X., in giving notice as aforesaid 
 to the plaintiff to proceed with the said action, was 
 acting on behalf of and instructed by the said defend- 
 ant C. D. as well as the said E. F.; the defence to the 
 said action has been in fact, since the order of his Honor 
 the Vice-Chancellor Sir , made in 
 the said suit of C. D. b. A. B., of the twenty-ninth July, 
 one thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven, conducted 
 by the said defendant C. D. in the name of the said 
 E. F., and is substantially the defence of the said de- 
 fendant C. D., and the said E. F. acts therein wholly 
 under the direction of and lends his name to the said 
 C. D. The plaintiff has always been and is now willing 
 to put an end to the said actions, paying his own costs, 
 and the said defendant C. D. paying the costs of the 
 defendant E. F., pursuant to the terras of the agree- 
 
 G 5 
 
130 APPENDIX. 
 
 ment of 'the eighth November, one thousand eight hun- 
 dred and fifty-six. 
 
 1 9. The said E. F. has some interest or some con- 
 tract with <he said C. D. for an interest in the alleged 
 Claim of the said C. -D. to the said letters (patent, and is 
 thereby interested in assisting the said C. D. in defeat- 
 ing the iagreement of the eighth day of November, one 
 thousand eight hundred and fifty-six, by continuing 
 the said first action -of A. B. v. E, F. The said E. F, 
 was aware of the said agreement having been entered 
 into at the time when the said Mr. X. gave the notice 
 to 'proceed to trial hereinbefore mentioned, and wrote 
 and sent the said letter, of the eighteenth June, one 
 thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven, and knew what 
 were the terms of the said agreement, and .he fraudu- 
 lently and. wilfully colluded with the said C. D. in 
 giving the aforesaid notice 'to proceed in the said action 
 of A. B. V. E. F., and in making the requisition con- 
 tained in the said letter of the said Mr. X. of the 
 eighteenth June, one thousand eight hundred and 'fifty- 
 seven, to proceed therein, for the purpose of forcing 
 the plaintifT'to proceed in the said action, contrary to 
 the terms of the said agreement of the eighth Novem- 
 ber, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-six, and well 
 knowing that it was part of the said agreement that 
 the said action should be stopped and put an end to. 
 
 20. The said action of A. B. v. E. F. is comprised 
 in the said agreement, and it is contrary to equity and 
 good conscience, under the' circumstances hereinbefore 
 set forth, that the same should be proceeded with, and 
 the said action ought to be stayed, and the said de- 
 fendant C. D. ought to be restrained by the order and 
 ii^unction of this honourable court from permitting the 
 said 'E. F. to take, or aiding, assisting or abetting him 
 in taking any 'Steps in the said action, with the view 
 or with the effect of forcing the same on to trial, and 
 the said E. F. ought to be personally restrained,' 
 in 'like manner, from taking any sudi steps there- 
 in-collusively with the said C. D. or otherwise. The 
 said E. F. is not, according to the practice ofthe Court 
 of 'Queen's Bendh, and 'the acts of parliament regu- 
 lating the same, entitled to sign judgment,'pursuant 
 
APPENDIX. 131 
 
 to the said notice of the sixth June, one thousand 
 eight hundred and fifty-seven, bv\t pursuant to the said 
 pr^ctipe and act of pai^li^tnent, the said E. F. can enter 
 a suggestion on the record, and sign judgment in the 
 said action, leaving the said plaintiQ* to his remedy, by 
 moving to set the said judgment aside, whereby addi- 
 tional (expense, contrary, as the plaintiff insists, to the 
 intent of the said agreement pf the eighth of Novem- 
 ber, one thousand eigl\t hundired and fifty-six, will be 
 incurred. 
 
 21. Th^ defendants l)aye now, or lately ha^ in their 
 possession, custody or ppwer, or in that of their soli- 
 citors or agents, divers deeds, books, accounts, letters, 
 memorandums, documents, papers apd writings, or 
 copies thereof, or extracts therefrom, shewing the truth 
 of the matters herein or relating thereto, which they 
 ought to produce. 
 Prayer. 
 
 The plaintiff prays as follows : — 
 
 1. That the defendant C. D. may be decreed spe- 
 
 cifically to perform the said agreement herein- 
 before set forth of the eighth November, one 
 thousand eight hundred and fifty-six, and to 
 pay to the plaintiff the sum of one hundred 
 pounds therein agreed to be paid to him, and 
 to execute all necessary deeds for carrying 
 the said agreement into effect, the plaintiff 
 hereby offering to perform the said agree- 
 ment on his part, and for that purpose to 
 execute and do all such deeds, matters and 
 things as this honourable court shall direct. 
 
 2. That the defendant C. D. may be restrained by 
 
 the order and injunction of this honourable 
 court from permitting the said E. F. to take, 
 or from aiding, assisting or abetting the said 
 defendant E. F. in taking any step or steps 
 whatever in the said action of " A. B. v. 
 E. F.," or in requiring the plaintiff to take 
 any steps in the said action, and that the 
 said defendant E. F. may be jp lijte manner 
 ):estrained by the ofder and injunction of this 
 honourably cour^ from tal^iflg any step pr stpps 
 
132 APPENDIX. 
 
 whatever in the sai3 action, either collusively 
 and by arrangement With the said C. D. or 
 otherwise, and from requiring the said plaintiff 
 to take any step in the said action. 
 
 3. That the said defendants may be ordered to pay 
 
 the costs of this suit. 
 
 4. That all such accounts (if any) as may be 
 
 necessary may be taken, and all such inquiries 
 and directions (if any) as may be necessary 
 may be made and given. 
 •5. That the plaintiff may have such further or 
 other relief in the matter as the nature of 
 the case may require. 
 Names of Defendants — 
 The defendants to this bill of complaint are : — 
 C. D. and E. F. 
 
 [^Signature of Counsel.^ 
 NbTE. — This bill is filed by Messieurs , of 
 
 , in the county of Middlesex, plaintiff's 
 solicitors. 
 
 No. 3. — Bill for Specific Performance of an Agree- 
 ment for Purchase of a Patent, and for working 
 it on mutual Terms, 
 
 In Chancery. 
 Lord Chancellor, 
 
 Vice-Chancellor . 
 
 Between A, B Plaintiff, 
 
 and 
 CD , Defendant. 
 
 Bill of Complaint, 
 
 To the Right Honourable Robert Monsey, Baron 
 
 Cranworth, of Cranworth, in the County of 
 
 Norfolk, Lord High Chancellor of Great 
 
 Britain, 
 
 Humbly complaining, sheweth unto his Lordship A. B. 
 
 of , esquire, the above-named plaintiff, as follows : 
 
 1. In or about the month of January, one thousand 
 
APPENDIX. 133 
 
 eight hundred and fifty-five, the above-named de- 
 fendant applied to the plaintiff and requested him to 
 supply the capital necessary for obtaining and working 
 a patent (which had been previously applied for by the 
 defendant), for an improved method of purifying oils 
 lately invented by the said defendant, and also to 
 become the purchaser of such patent vrhen obtained, 
 and to join the defendant in working the same, upon 
 the terms and subject to the provisions hereinafter men- 
 tioned (that is to say) : 
 
 2. The defendant caused to be prepared and drawn 
 up in the handwriting of his son (except as to the last 
 paragraph relating to a previous agreement with Mr. 
 F. which was added by the plaintiff) a memorandum of 
 agreement in the words and figures following (that is to 
 say) : 
 
 " Memorandum of agreement made this 22nd 
 "day of February, a.d. 1855, between C. D. 
 " of engineer, of the one part, ^nd ^,4^jof 
 
 " in e's(|\jire, of tbefltfcet pal*.'!^WlfeeWas""' 
 
 " C. D. having discovered improvements in the 
 " purifying of whale, seal and other oils by dis- 
 " tillation, and being desirous of carrying out 
 " these several inventions or improvements, Mr. 
 " C. D. therefore agrees, if the said A. B., esquire, 
 "will engage to pay the entire expense of a patent 
 " for England and the Colonies applied for by the ' 
 " said C. D., he will on the obtaining of such 
 " patent assign the same to the said A. B., his 
 " executors, administrators and assigns, on the 
 "receipt of the sum of 100/. cash, and further 
 " that the said A. B., his executors, administrators 
 " and assigns, shall pay or cause to be paid to the 
 " said C. D. four pounds sterling weekly and 
 " every week during the erection of proper 
 " machinery for the same, and the said A. B., his 
 " executors, administrators and assigns, doth en- 
 " gage to allow buildings, machinery or apparatus 
 " sufficient for the due carrying out of the said 
 " patent, so that the said C. D. shall not receive 
 " damage or loss for the want of such apparatus 
 " as shall be necessary for the effectual working 
 
134 APPENDIX. 
 
 " the same ; and also the said A. B.i liis executors, 
 " administrators and assigns, should they think fit 
 " or proper to grant licences to others to manu- 
 " facture the same, which may deprive the said 
 " C. D. of any benefits secured to him by this 
 '' agreement, then in that case the said C. D. shall 
 ''receive a bonus of 10 per ceijt. on the value 
 " realized by the granting of such licences, and the 
 '! 33)4 C. D., from experience in working the said 
 " invention, believes it to be detrimental to health 
 " if) some degree, doth require that the said A. B. 
 " hjs exegutors, administrators and assigns, shall 
 " make some provision for the family of the said 
 " C. D., dpth require that his life be insured in 
 >f some responsible ofljce for the sum of 2501. at 
 " the expense of the aforesaid A. B., his executors, 
 " administrators and assigns, and the annual pre- 
 *f tnium of the same tg be paid by the said A. B., 
 " his executors, administrators and assigns, for the 
 " whole of the term of the patent, as agreed upon 
 " by these presents, the policy of whjch to be the 
 " property of the said C, D. for his use and benefit, 
 "and in case of sickness the benefits hereinbefore 
 " stated in this agreement to continue to the said 
 " C. p., and for the above consideration the said 
 " C. 'D. doth agree to use the best of his skill as 
 " an engineer in designing, constructing and erect- 
 '' ing tite necessary machinery and apparatus for 
 " the purposes required therein, as also devote his 
 " best enej'gy to the superintending and effectually 
 " working itbe same, and the said C. D. undertakes 
 " to instruct some intelligent person appointed by 
 " ,the sai4 A.-B., his heirs and assigns, in the whole 
 " art and mystery of the same, as also any further 
 " improvements he may practically discover in the 
 *■' further progress of the operation, so that the said 
 " A. B., his executors, administrators or assigns, 
 " shall n,ot receive loss or damage in case of illness 
 " or accident to the said C. D. And the said 
 " A. B., his executors, administrators and assigns, 
 " doth bind themselves to provide the raw or crude 
 " oils iq quantities necessary for such purification, 
 
APPENDIX. 135 
 
 " and it is also agreed that the said A. B., his 
 " executors, administrators and assigns, shall pay 
 " or cause to be paid to the said C. D. the sum of 
 *' three pounds sterling per tun for every tun so 
 " purified by the said C. D. or under his superin- 
 " tendence. And when the quantity of manu- 
 " factured oil shall exceed two tuns per week the 
 " .payment of four pounds per week shall cease, and 
 " the said A. B. agrees to hold the said C. D. 
 '' harmless I'rom any jciai.m of Mr. F. under his 
 " agreement." 
 
 3. 'l"he said memorattdum of agreement, or a copy 
 thereaf, was duly signed by the piaintifT, and a copy 
 thereof was also duly signed by the defendant, on the 
 twenty-second day of February, one thousand eight 
 hundred and firty-five. 
 
 4. By letters patent dated the twenty-second day of 
 January, one thousand eight hundred and fiftyrfiye, 
 reciting (amongst other things) that the defendant was 
 the first and true inventor of an improved method of 
 purifying whale, seal and other oils, her majesty granted 
 to the said defendant, his executors, administrators and 
 assigns, the sole licence and privilege to make, use, 
 exercise and vend his said inveation within the United 
 Kingdom, the Channel 1 inlands and tibe Isle of Man, for 
 the term of fourteen years from the date of such letters 
 patent, subject to a proviso for making void the said 
 letters patent if the defendant should not particularly 
 describe and ascertain the nature of the said invention, 
 and in what manner the same was to be performed, by 
 an instrument in writing under his hand and seal, and 
 cause the same to be filed in the Great Seal Patent 
 Office within six calendar months after the .date of such 
 letters patent (and which instrument or specification 
 was duly filed accordingly on the twenty-first day of 
 July, one thousand eight hundred and fifty -five): and 
 subject also to a condition for the payment of certain 
 stamp duties before the expiration of three years and 
 seven years respectively irom the date of the said 
 letters patent, 
 
 5. The plaintiff paid and defrayed ithe entire .expense 
 of obtaining the said letters patent and of filing the 
 
136 APPENDIX. 
 
 specification of the said invention, and all other the 
 expenses of or incidental to the said letters patent : and 
 the plaintiff also duly paid to the defendant, shortly 
 after the granting of such letters patent, the sum of one 
 hundred pounds in the said memorandum of agreement 
 mentioned to be the purchase-money of the said letters 
 patent. 
 
 6. At the time of signing the said memorandum of 
 agreement, the plaintiff and defendant contemplated 
 and intended carrying on, upon the terms mentioned in 
 the said agreement, the business of purifying whale and 
 seal oils by the process described in the specification of 
 the said patent, and the plaintiff appropriated certain 
 premises belonging to him at Stockivell, in the county 
 of Surrey, for the purposes of such patent business. 
 
 7. After the said letters patent were granted, the 
 plaintiff at the request of the defendant caused a silver 
 still to be constructed, which was completed in or about 
 the month of May, one thousand eight hundred and 
 fifty-five, and since that period considerable quantities 
 of oil (but not amounting to two tuns per week) have 
 been distilled by the said patent process, and the 
 plaintiff has also by the advice of the defendant pur- 
 chased other plant for the purpose of the said patent 
 process, which plant, as well as the silver still, was 
 constructed from drawings made by the defendant and 
 under his personal superintendence, at an expense in 
 the whole of three hundred and fifty pounds or there- 
 abouts. 
 
 8. The defendant has also since the date of the said 
 memorandum of agreement and up to the present time 
 duly and regularly received the sum of four pounds 
 per week thereby provided to be paid to him until the 
 machinery for working the said patent should be finally 
 completed, so that the amount of oil manufactured 
 should exceed two tuns per week. 
 
 9. The plaintiff has also, according to the terms of 
 the said memorandum of agreement, effected an assur- 
 ance on the life of the defendant, in the sum of two 
 hundred and fifty pounds, in the Sovereign Life Assur- 
 ance Office, by a policy taken in the name of the 
 defendant, and bearing date the seventeenth day of 
 
APPENDIX. 137 
 
 May, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five, and 
 has made all the payments necessary for keeping on 
 foot the said policy up to the present time, and the 
 plaintiff has in all other respects duly performed his 
 part of the said agreement up to the present time. 
 
 10. No licence has been hitherto granted by the 
 plaintiff for the working of the said invention. 
 
 11. No assignment of the said letters patent was 
 ever required from the defendant until the month of 
 February last, when the plaintiff requested him to 
 
 , execute such assignment according to the terms of the 
 said memorandum of agreement; but the defendant 
 was very reluctant, and neglected or delayed so to do. 
 And the plaintiff, after considerable negotiation, and on 
 the fifteenth day of March, one thousand eight hun- 
 dred and fifty-six, sent to Messieurs X. and Y., the 
 solicitors of the defendant, a draft of an assignment of 
 the said letters patent prepared in the most simple 
 form, accompanied by a letter of that date, stating in 
 effect that the same was so sent to them, the solicitors 
 of the defendant, to give them the opportunity, on be- 
 half of the defendant, of suggesting any alterations 
 therein or modification thereof that might be desired 
 by them ; to which communication the said solicitors 
 of the defendant replied by a letter, dated the seven- 
 teenth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and 
 fifty-six (referring to and accompanied by a letter of 
 the same date from the defendant to the same effect), 
 whereby they refused on the part of the defendant to 
 execute such assignment, and stated that it was un- 
 necessary for the plaintiff's solicitor to tender an 
 engrossment of the draft for execution by the de- 
 fendant. 
 
 12. The plaintiff has laid out large sums of money 
 in or about the obtaining of the said letters patent, and 
 in making certain experiments before signing the said 
 memorandum of agreement, and in providing the said 
 plant aiid apparatus for working the said invention, and 
 the plaintiff has made the first trial of the said invention 
 or patent process at his own risk entirely : and by having 
 succeeded at his own risk and at his own expense in 
 the profitable working thereof, has rendered the said 
 
138 APPENDIX. 
 
 patent of great value. Apd the defendant thereby and 
 otherwise, under the said memorandum of agreement, 
 has acquired and had secured to hini great benefits at 
 the hands of the piajntifT, and under the circumstances 
 aforesaid it is altogether inequitable on the part of 
 the defendant to refuse to assign such letters patent to 
 the plaintiff, and that he ought to b^ compelled so to do. 
 
 13. The plant, and apparatus purchased by the plain- 
 tiff as aforei^aid was especially made and adapted for the 
 said patent process, and would be useless as the same 
 now stands for any other purpose, and is in fact of little 
 value comparatively, except for the purposes of the 
 said invention. 
 
 14. The defendant is a working mechanic, and his 
 means are very limited, and he would have been 
 entirely unable, without the pecuniary assistance of the 
 plaintiff as aforesaid, to have defrayed the expense of 
 obtaining the said letters patent and making the neces- 
 sary experiments, and providing the machinery neces- 
 sary for the practical trial and working of the said 
 invention. 
 
 15. The plaintiff charges that the purchase-money 
 of the said letters patent was paid immediately after 
 the execution of the said memorandum of agreement, 
 and was so paid as a distinct and separate sum, and that 
 such purchase was a distinct term of the said agree- 
 ment, and was a transaction altogether by itself apart 
 and separate from the other terms of the said agree- 
 ment relating to the carrying on the said patent business 
 by the plaintiff in conjunction with the defendant. 
 
 16. The defendant ought to be restrained by the 
 order and injunction of this honourable court from in 
 any manner assigning, incumbering or otherwise deal- 
 ing with the said letters patent. 
 
 Prayer. 
 The plaintiff prays as follows — 
 
 1. That the defendant may be decreed to assign 
 the said letters patent to the plaintiff accord- 
 ing to the terms of the said memorandum of 
 agreement of the twenty-second day of Febru- 
 
APPENDIX. 139 
 
 ary, one thousand eight hundred and fifty- 
 five. 
 , That, if necessary, the said agreement raay be 
 decreed to be specifically performed according 
 to the true intent and meaning thereof, the 
 plaintiff being ready and willing to perform 
 his part of the said agreement, so far as the 
 same remains to be performed. And hereby 
 undertaking for himself, his executors, ad- 
 ministrators and assigns, to provide buildings, , 
 machinery and apparatus .sufficient for the 
 due carrying out of the said patent, and the 
 profitable working of the said invention ; and 
 also duping the residue of the said term of 
 fourteen years for which the said letters 
 patent are granted as aforesaid, or during 
 such part thereof as he or they shall continue 
 to carry on the working of the said patent, to 
 permit the defendant, so long as he shall be 
 ready and willing so to do,^ to superintend the 
 working of' the said patent process, and to 
 make good to him the sum of three pounds 
 per tun for every tun of oil to be purified by 
 said patent process under his superintendence. 
 And further undertaking as aforesaid that 
 whenever the oil to be so purified under the 
 superintendence of the defendant shall not 
 exceed the amount of two tuns per week, or 
 whenever the defendant shall be bona fide in- 
 capacitated by illness from attending to the 
 said business, to make good to the defendant 
 the weekly sum of four pounds mentioned in 
 the said memorandum of agreement, and 
 according to the terms and stipulations 
 thereof. 
 
 That in the meantime the defendant may he 
 restrained by the order and injunction of this 
 honourable court from assigning, incumbering 
 or otherwise dealing with the said letters 
 patent. 
 
 That the plaintiff may have such further or 
 
140 APPENDIX. 
 
 Other relief as the nature of the case may re- 
 quire. 
 Name of Defendant. 
 The defendant to the bill of complaint is 
 CD. 
 
 [Counsel's s'lgnature^l 
 
 Note. — This bill is filed by Messieurs H. and T., 
 of in the county of Middlesex, solicitors 
 
 for the plaintiff. 
 
 No. A.-^Head of a Bill hy a Judgment Creditor 
 for a Lien on the Debtor's Real Estate, and 
 claiming Priority over a Purchaser, alleging 
 himself to be without Notice. 
 
 In Chancery. 
 
 Lord Chancellor, 
 
 Vice-Chancellor . 
 
 Between A Plaintiff, 
 
 and 
 B.,C.,D., E.,F.andG. Defendants. 
 
 Bill of Complaint. 
 
 To the Right Honourable Robert Monsey, 
 
 Baron Cranworth, of Cranworth, in the 
 
 County of Norfolk, Lord High Chancellor of 
 
 Great Britain. 
 
 Humbly complaining, sheweth unto his Lordship A., 
 
 of , the above-named plaintiff, as follows : 
 
 1. States that in October, one thousand eight hun- 
 dred and fifty-three, A. lent £600 to X. and took his 
 bill for it, and that it was agreed X. was also to give a 
 judgment. 
 
 2. The advance of the £600 by A. to X., on the fifth 
 day of October, one thousand eight hundred and fifcy- 
 three, and a judge's order of that date {the order is 
 set out). 
 
APPENDIX. 141 
 
 3. The acceptance by X. of a bill of exchange. 
 
 4. That judgment was duly signed on the sixth of 
 October, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-three. 
 
 5. Renewal of the bill of exchange. 
 
 6. Second renewal of the bill. 
 
 7. Third renewal, and dishonour of the bill. 
 
 8. A statement of the discount, from which it was 
 apparent that the interest was far exceeding ^5 per 
 cent. 
 
 9. On the twenty-fifth day of September, one thou- 
 sand eight hundred and fifty-five, plaintiff caused a 
 memorial of the said judgment, so entered up against 
 X., to be duly registered in the- office of the registry 
 for deeds and incumbrances in and for the county of 
 Middlesex. 
 
 10. Bankruptcy of X. in November, one thousand 
 eight hundred and fifty-five, and that B. was the offi- 
 cial assignee, and C. and D. the creditors' assignees. 
 
 11. That the debt remained due and owing. 
 
 12. A charge that at the time of the judgment being 
 signed, X. was or had since become seised of real 
 estate and possessed of leasehold estate, and that such 
 real and leasehold estate were bound by the judgment 
 and ought to be sold under the authority of the court. 
 
 13. Charges that X. has certain real estate charged 
 in favour of E., and that E. claimed his mortgage debt, 
 but refused to disclose its date. 
 
 14. That plaintiff is entitled to redeem E. 
 
 15. A similar charge as to a mortgage vested in F. 
 
 16. That F. had notice of plaintiff's charge, and that 
 plaintiff's charge is entitled to priority. 
 
 17. That G. (the principal defendant) alleges that 
 he had lately purchased a leasehold house of X., and 
 charging that G. took an assignment of it on the twenty- 
 second September, one thousand eight hundred and 
 fifty-five, and charges that the defendant G.'s purchase 
 is subject to the plaintiff's judgment. 
 
 18. Charges that (J. alleges that he had no notice 
 of the judgment at the time of his purchase ; that he 
 alleges that he contracted for and paid in promissory 
 notes for his purchase, on or before the eighteenth 
 August, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five. 
 
142 APPENDIX. 
 
 19. Charges that the promissory notes are still un- 
 paid, or that if paid, they were paid after G. had notice 
 of the judgment. 
 
 20. Charges actual notice to G, by the clerk of 
 plaintiflF's solicitor, on the eighteenth September, one 
 thousand eight hdndred and fifty-five. 
 
 21. A general charge of notice at the time of the 
 alleged purchase. 
 
 22. That the assignment to G. was not executed till 
 long after September, and that G.'s solicitor, both at 
 the time of the purchase and of the execution of the 
 deed, knew of plaitrtifF's judgment. 
 
 23. That G. did not register his assignment till the 
 twentieth November, one thousand eight hundred and 
 fifty-five. 
 
 24. That a receiver ought to be appointed. 
 
 25. Charge of title deeds in the possession of de- 
 fendant, and that they ought to be deposited. 
 
 26. General charge of papers and documents. 
 
 Prayer. 
 The plaintiff prays as follows : — 
 
 1. That it may be declared that the plaintiff is 
 entitled to a lien, in the nature of an equitable 
 mortgage, upon all the freehold and leasehold 
 estates of or to which the said X. was seised, 
 possessed or entitled, at or subsequent to the 
 time of entering up the said judgment against 
 him at the suit of the plaintiff, subject as to 
 the. said hereditaments at to the said 
 
 mortgage of the said defendant E., but in 
 priority to the charge of the said F. in the 
 said leasehold premises comprised in his se- 
 curity, and notwithstanding the alleged as- 
 signment to the said defendant G. of the said 
 leasehold premises, situate or that if it 
 
 shall appear to this honourable court that the 
 plaintiff is not entitled to such priority over 
 the said defendants, or either of them, then 
 that the plaintiff may be declared entitled to 
 such lien or equitable mortgage as aforesaid, 
 subject to the Charges of such of the said 
 
APPENDIX. 143 
 
 defendants as shall appear entitled to priority 
 to the plaintiff's said judgment, and that the 
 platntijf may be declared entitled to redeem 
 such of the prior charges, if any, in the usual 
 manner, the plaintiff hereby offering to redeem 
 the same. 
 Z. That an account may be taken of what is due 
 to the plaintiff for principal and interest on 
 his said debt, secured by the said jud^ent, 
 and that such of the said defendants as may 
 not be entitled to a priority over the plaintiff 
 may be decreed to pay what shall be found 
 due to the plaintiff upon Tiis said judgment 
 debt, 'by a short day to be fixed by the court 
 for that purpose ; and that in default of such 
 payment the several premises, subject to the 
 plaintiff's said charge, may be sold, and the 
 sale monies thereof applied in payment of 
 what shall be found due to the plaintiff on the 
 said judgment debt. 
 
 3. That the priorities of the various incumbrances 
 
 on the real and leasehold estates of the said 
 bankrupt, and the rights and interests of all 
 parties therein, may be ascertained and de- 
 clared by this honourable court. 
 
 4. That some proper person may be appointed to 
 
 be receiver of the rents and profits of the 
 real and leasehold estate of the said bank- 
 rupt, with the usual directions. 
 
 5. That for the purposes aforesaid, all proper 
 
 directions may be given, inquiries made and 
 accounts taken, and that the plaintiff may 
 have such further and other relief as the 
 nature of the case may require. 
 
144 APPENDIX. 
 
 No. 5. — Demurrer for want of Equity and for 
 want of Parties. 
 
 In Chancery. 
 
 Between A. B Plaintiff, 
 
 and 
 CD., E.F., G.H. and I.K., Defendants. 
 
 The demurrer of C. D., one of the above-named 
 defendants, to the amended bill of complaint 
 of the above-named plaintiff. 
 
 This defendant, by protestation, not acknowledging 
 or confessing all or any of the matters and things in 
 the said plaintiff's amended bill contained to be true, in 
 such manner and form as the same are therein set forth, 
 doth demur thereto, and for cause of demurrer saith, 
 that the said bill doth not contain sufficient matter of 
 equity whereupon this honourable court can ground 
 any decree in favour of the said plaintiff, or give the 
 said plaintiff any relief against this defendant. x\nd 
 for further cause of demurrer this defendant saith, that 
 it appears by the said bill that X., in the said bill 
 named, ought to have been made a party to the said 
 bill; but the plaintiff hath not made the said X. party 
 thereto. Wherefore, and for many other reasons and 
 defects in the said amended bill, the defendant doth 
 demur to the said amended bill, and prays the judg- 
 ment of this honourable court whether he shall be 
 compelled to make any answer thereto, and humbly 
 prays to be hence dismissed with his reasonable costs 
 and charges in this behalf most wrongfully sustained. 
 
APPENDIX. 146 
 
 No. Q.— Demurrer for want of Equity ; of the 
 Statute of Frauds ; and for want of Parties. 
 
 In Chancery. 
 
 Between A. B Plaintiff, 
 
 and 
 CD Defendant. 
 
 The demurrer of, &c. 
 
 This defendant, by protestation, &c., doth demur 
 thereto, and for cause of demurrer showeth, that the ' 
 said bill doth not contain any matter of equity whereon 
 this court can ground any decree or give th^ plaintiff 
 any relief against this defendant ; and for further cause 
 of demurrer this defendant showeth, that it appears by 
 the said bill that neither the promise or contract which 
 is alleged by the said bill, and of which the plaintiff by 
 the said bill seeks to have the benefit, nor any memo- 
 randum or note thereof, was ever reduced into writing 
 or signed by this defendant, or any person lawfully 
 authorized thereunto, within the meaningof the Statute 
 of Frauds ; and for further cause of demurrer this 
 defendant showeth, that it appears by the said bill that 
 it is necessary that the will of the plaintiff's late wife 
 M. N., in the said bill named, should be represented 
 in this suit, but no legal personal representative of the 
 said M. N. is named a party thereto ; wherefore, and 
 for divers other imperfections and good causes of de- 
 murrer appearing in the said bill, this defendant doth 
 demur thereto, and prays, &c. (a). 
 
 '_a) Barkworth v. Young, 4 Drew. 1. 
 
146 APPENDIX. 
 
 No. l.—Plea to a Bill by a Residuary Legatee 
 against an alleged Debtor to the Estate for an 
 Account, alleging, as ground of Equity, that 
 Executors had refused to call the Debtor to an 
 account ; that he was the Solicitor of the Exe- 
 cutors ; but not expressly charging collusion. 
 
 In Chancery. 
 
 Between A. B Plaintiff, 
 
 and 
 CD Defendant. 
 
 The plea of C. D., the defendant, to the bill of 
 complaint of A. B., complainant. 
 
 The defendant, by protestation, not acknowledging 
 or confessing the matters and things in and by the said 
 bill set forth and alleged to be true in such manner 
 and form as the same are thereby and therein set forth, 
 doth plead in bar to the said bill, and for plea saith, 
 he denies it to be true that the defendants (the execu- 
 tors), or any of them, have or has refused to call this 
 defendant to all proper and necessary accounts in re- 
 spect of the matters, as to which accounts are sought 
 for by the said bill. And this defendant saith, that in 
 answer to a letter dated the written by , the 
 solicitor of the plaintiff, and by the direction of the 
 plaintiff to the said (the executors), which was to the 
 effect following, (that is to say,) [sets out the letter'], 
 Messrs. , the solicitors of the said (the executors), 
 and by their direction, on the wrote and sent a 
 letter of that date to the said , as such solicitor of 
 
 the plaintiff as aforesaid, which was to the effect fol- 
 lowing, (that is to say,) [sets out the letter']. And this 
 defendant avers, that such last-mentioned letter was 
 sent to and received by the said plaintiff's solicitor 
 before the copy of the said bill was served on this de- 
 fendant, or, as he believes, upon the said (the execu- 
 tors), or any or either of them, or any or either of the 
 other defendants to the said bill, and before notice of 
 
APPENDIX. 147 
 
 the filing of the said bill was given to this defendant, 
 or, as he believes, to any or either of the other de- 
 fendants to the said bill. And this defendant avers, 
 that no answer to the said last-mentioned letter has 
 been sent by the plaintiff or the said (his solicitor), or 
 any other person on behalf of the plaintiff to this de- 
 fendant, or to his firm of , or to the defendants 
 (the executors), or to any or either of them, or to any 
 person on their behalf. And this defendant avers, that 
 the said (the executors) have not, nor have or has any 
 or either of them neglected to call this defendant to all 
 proper and necessary accounts in respect of the matters 
 as to which accounts are sought for by the said bill. 
 And this defendant avers, that there is not, and never 
 has been, any collusion between this defendant and the 
 said (the executors), or any or either of them, and that 
 no statement or representation was ever made, or ad- 
 vice given to or withheld from the said (the executors), 
 or any or either of them, by this defendant, and that 
 no fact or circumstance was ever concealed by this 
 defendant from the said (the executors), or any or 
 either of them, whereby, or by means, or in conse- 
 quence whereof they, or any, or either of them have, or 
 has been, or are or is hindered, prevented or dissuaded 
 from calling this defendant to all proper and necessary 
 account in respect of the matters as to which accounts 
 are sought by the said bill. All which matters and 
 things this defendant doth aver to be true, and is ready 
 to prove as this lionourable court shall award ; and he 
 doth plead the same in bar to the whole of the said 
 bill, and doth humbly demand the judgment of this 
 honourable court, whether this defendant ought to be 
 compelled to make any answer to the said bill, and 
 prays to be dismissed in respect thereof, with his costs 
 and charges in this behalf sustained (a). 
 
 (a) This was fhe plea in Saunders v. Druce (3 Drew. 140). 
 The plea there was accompanied by an answer as to certain alle- 
 gations of fact not touching the account against the defendant, 
 who pleaded. The plea was allowed. On appeal it was ordered 
 by consent that the defendant should answer ; no opinion being 
 given as to the validity of the plea.— 26 Law Times, 304. 
 
 h2 
 
148 APPENDIX. 
 
 No. 8.— Answer (to the Bill, p. 132). 
 In Chancery. 
 
 Between A. B Plaintiff, 
 
 and 
 CD Defendant. 
 
 The answer of C. D., the above-named defendant, 
 to the bill of complaint of the above-named 
 plaintiff. 
 
 In answer to the said bill, I, C. D., say as follows : — 
 
 1. I did not, in or about the month of .January, one 
 thousand eight hundred and fifty-five, or at any other 
 time, apply to the plaintiff or request him to supply 
 the capital necessary for obtaining and working the 
 patent, in the plaintiff's bill mentioned or referred to. 
 I did not also, &c. [/iere follow similar denials of the 
 allegation of applications, ^c, by the defendant to the 
 plaintiff, and a statement of the defendant's version of the 
 transaction. 
 
 2. After the said letters patent were obtained the 
 said plaintiff had an agreement prepared by X. and sent 
 the same to me, but I did not approve the same, and 
 the plaintiff then requested me to draw up an agree- 
 ment, and I did then cause to be prepared and drawn 
 up in the handwriting of my son a memorandum of 
 agreement, and except as in the said bill mentioned 
 such memorandum of agreement as in the said bill 
 stated was in fact made between the plaintiff and me, 
 as in the said bill mentioned ; and the same was 
 executed in duplicate by us respectively on the twenty- 
 second of February, one thousand eight hundred and 
 fifty-five, and the same was of such date and to such 
 purport or effect as in the said bill mentioned. How- 
 ever, I crave leave to refer to the said memorandum, 
 when produced, for my greater certainty therein. 
 
 3. It is the fact that her majesty did by letters patent, 
 &c. [here follows an admission of the allegation of the 
 hill in the terms of the biir\. 
 
 4. \A similar admission as to payment of the expenses ; 
 and then as to the payment of the purchase-money, the 
 
APPENDIX. 149 
 
 follomng qualified admissiori]. The plaintiff did not 
 duly pay me shortly after the granting of the said letters 
 patent the said sum of one hundred pounds ; the 
 plaintiff has paid me pounds, part of the said one 
 
 hundred pounds, not at once, but in small sums, and the 
 last payment of pounds was not made to me till 
 
 June, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five [then 
 
 follows a statement of how the balance mas dealt with, 
 making a case of nonpayment of it to the defendant^ ; 
 and save and subject as aforesaid, I deny it to be true 
 that the plaintiff did duly pay to me. shortly after the 
 granting of such letters patent or at any time the sum of 
 one hundred pounds, but he did pay me pounds 
 
 thereof, in the manner and at the times hereinbefore 
 mentioned. 
 
 5. \_An admission in the terms of the hill, and then 
 follows the defendant^ version of transactions tending to 
 
 shorn that the plaintiff did not supply him with proper 
 premises or materials within the meaning of the agreement"} . 
 
 6, 7, 8, and 9. [Common admissions or qualified ad- 
 misstons'\. 
 
 10. The plaintiff did in the month of February, one 
 thousand eight hundred and fifty-six, request me to 
 execute an assignment of the said letters patent, and it 
 is the fact that no assignment of the said letters patent 
 vras ever requested from me before the said month of 
 February, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-six ; I 
 did not when so requested neglect to execute any 
 assignment of such letters patent, but I refused to 
 execute such assignment, and the circumstances under 
 which I so refused were as follows : [then follows a state- 
 ment of the plaintiff having enteredinto a contract for sale 
 of the letters patent and the benefit of the agreement, and 
 of an assignment being tendered to the defendant and of 
 his refusal to execute it in the form in which it mas 
 tendered, and then follows this passage']. " I say it was 
 " under those circumstances that I refused through my 
 " solicitor to execute the assignment required of me, 
 " and I submit and insist that I was not and am not 
 " bound to do so, for the following among other 
 " reasons : — 1. That the said A. B. has not since the 
 " date of the said agreement of the 22nd February, 
 
150 APPENDIX. 
 
 " 1 855, performed his part of the said agreement, that 
 " is to say, he has not allowed me buildings, machinery 
 *' and apparatus sufficient for the due carrying out the 
 '* said patent pursuant to the terms of the said agree- 
 " ment, whereby 1 have received damage and loss for 
 " the want of such apparatus as would be necessary for 
 " the effectual working of the same. 2. That the 
 " plaintiff is not entitled under the terms of the said 
 " agreement to effect any sale of the said letters patent, 
 " but only to grant licences for working the same, and 
 " that by entering, as he has entered, into a contract 
 " for the sale thereof without my consent he has put an 
 '' end to the said agreement, wherefore I submit and 
 " insist the plaintiff is not entitled to specific perform- 
 " ance of the said agreement or any part thereof, but 
 " the same is at an end and invalid. 3. That if the 
 " said plaintiff is entitled to sell the said letters patent 
 " and memorandum without my consent, and if the said 
 '' agreement is valid and subsisting, then, upon the true 
 " construction thereof, I am entitled to receive ^10 per 
 " cent, upon the value realised by any such sale." 
 11. {Partial admission and partial denials^- 
 ] 2. [The same']. 
 
 13. The purchase-money of the said letters patent 
 was not paid immediately after the execution of the 
 said memorandum of agreement. The same was not 
 paid as a distinct and separate sum, but in small sums, 
 as I have already stated, and that only to the extent of 
 . I submit and insist that the purchase of the 
 said letters patent was not a distinct term of the said 
 agreement in the said bill mentioned, and was not a 
 transaction altogether by itself apart and separate from 
 the other terms of the said agreement in the said bill 
 mentioned ; on the contrary, I submit and insist that on 
 the true construction of the said agreement the purchase 
 of the said letters patent was and is only a part of the 
 whole agreement, and that all the terms of the said 
 agreement were dependent on each other, and I submit 
 that the said agreement is not now valid and binding 
 against me, but has been put an end to by the plaintiff 
 by reason of his not having duly performed the terms 
 thereof, and by reason of the several acts of the plain- 
 
APPENDIX. 151 
 
 tiff hereinbefore set forth, in respect to the said con- 
 tract for sale entered into by him and otherwise. 
 
 (Signature of counsel.) 
 
 No. 9. — A Petition by Tenant for Life of a Fund, 
 and Trustees appointed by her, to obtain Payment 
 out of Court to the Trustees, the Fund having 
 been paid in by the then sole Trustee, before the 
 appointment of the Petitioner. 
 
 In Chancery. 
 Vice-Chancellor 
 
 In the matter of the trusts of the settlement of 
 P. W. as to the one fourth share settled on 
 E. A. W., 
 
 and 
 
 In the matter of an Act of the 10 & 11 Vict. 
 c. 96, intituled " An Act for better securing 
 " Trust Funds, and for the Relief of Trus- 
 " tees." 
 
 To the Right Honourable the Lord High Chancellor 
 of Great Britain, 
 
 The humble petition of W. S. of , gentleman, 
 
 and the Rev. W. R., of , clerk, and the 
 
 above-named E. A. W., 
 
 Showeth as follows : 
 
 1, By an indenture bearing date, &c. [here the settle- 
 ment under which E. A. W. claims is set out partially, 
 particularly a power to her to appoint any other Jit and 
 proper person to be a trustee jointly with T. P. W. (the 
 former trustee') ; and a poruer to appoint new trustees on 
 the death or desiring to retire, or refusing or declining 
 to act, or becoming incapable of acting, of any trustee"]. 
 
 2. [States the regular payment to the tenant for life 
 of interest until the payment of the fund into court ; that 
 T. P. W. had varied the investments witliout consent ; 
 that some of the securities on which he had invested were 
 of insufficient value'\. 
 
152 APPENDIX. 
 
 3. [States wish of petitioner, E. A. W. to appoint a 
 trustee to act jointly with T. P. W., and that T. W. W. 
 declined to act jointly with any other trustee ; but mas 
 wilUng to retire, and have new trustees appointed]. 
 
 4. [Repeated applications to T. P. W. to call in the 
 fund, in order that E. A. W, might appoint new trustees 
 and have the fund transferred to them]. 
 
 5. [Appointment by E. A. W. of W. S. to he a trustee 
 jointly with T. fV. fV., and correspondence apprising 
 
 T. P. W. thereof]. 
 
 6. [States that T. P. W. had, without any further 
 communication paid the fund into court under the pro- 
 visions of the Trustee Act]. 
 
 7. [Refers to affidavit of T. P. W. filed on paying in, 
 to show what his then knowledge of the case was"]. 
 
 8. [Correspondence between T. P. W, and petitioner' s 
 soliator]. 
 
 9. [States appointment of W. R. to he a trustee"]. 
 
 10. [States how the fund is invested]. 
 
 11. [The place where the petition may he served]. 
 
 Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your Lord- 
 ship that the said sum of Three pounds per 
 cent. Consolidated Bank Annuities may he 
 transferred to the petitioners, W. S. and W. 
 R., to hold upon the trusts declared in and by 
 the said indenture of the day of 18 of 
 and concerning the said one fourth share of 
 the said trust premises, thereby settled in 
 favour of your petitioner E. A. W., her issue 
 and appointees, or upon such of the same 
 trusts as are now subsisting and capable of 
 taking eifect, and that the costs of and 
 incident to this petition, and the order to be 
 made hereon, may be paid by the said T. P. 
 W., or that your Lordship will be pleased to 
 make such further or other order in the pre- 
 mises as to your Lordship shall seem fit. 
 And your petitioners will ever pray. 
 [PetUions need not, like bills, be signed by counsel.'] 
 
APPENDIX. 153 
 
 No. 10 — Petition in an Administration Suitagainst 
 the Estate of an Intestate, in which the Plain- 
 tiff was entitled as his Widow, and the Defend- 
 ant as his only Child; {the Widow having a Life 
 Estate in a Fund, determined, in another suit to 
 be part of the Intestate's Estate ;) for winding it 
 up ; Paying the Debts ; Paying to the Widow a 
 certain portion by arrangement, so as to have the 
 Estate cleared of her Life Estate; and for paying 
 the residue to the Defendant. 
 
 In Chancery. 
 
 Vice-Chancellor 
 
 Between A. B Plaintiff, 
 
 and 
 CD Defendant. 
 
 To the Right Honourable the Lord High Chancellor 
 of Great Britain. 
 
 The humble petition of the above-named plaintiff 
 Showeth, 
 
 1. That by a decree made by his Honor the Vice- 
 Chancellor in this cause, on the day of 
 
 18 upon motion for a decree, it was ordered [set out the 
 material part, particularly that showing a direction for 
 an inqiSry rvhether any proceedings should he taken to 
 establish the right of A. B. as administrator of her father 
 to a certain fund'\. 
 
 2. That in pursuance of the directions given by the 
 said decree, the Chief Clerk of his Honor Vice-Chan- 
 cellor made his certificate, dated the day of 
 
 18 and approved by the said Vice-Chancellor , 
 
 on the day of 18 whereby [set out the 
 
 material part, particularly that giving directions for in- 
 stituting a suit'\. 
 
 3. That in pursuance of the said certificate the peti- 
 tioner, the plaintiff, filed her bill of complaint in this 
 honourable court against [names of defendants'], for 
 establishing [the claim']. 
 
 4. That by a decree made on the day of 
 
154 APPENDIX. 
 
 18 by his Honor the in the said suit of [the 
 
 suit directed to he instituted], it was declared [set out the 
 parts declaring the right to be established, and how the 
 fund mas to be disposed of]. 
 
 5. That in pursuance of the said decree, made in 
 the said suit of the said sums of pounds 
 and pounds [state how they mere disposed of, pur- 
 suant to the decree]. 
 
 6. That it has been arranged and agreed between 
 the petitioner and the said defendant C. D. that [slate 
 the arrangement for purchasing a life annuity for plain- 
 tiff' out of the fund, to as to clear the fund and divide the 
 residue at once], 
 
 7. That the sum necessary to purchase the said 
 life annuity is pounds. 
 
 8. That the costs of the said (the defendants 
 in the suit directed to be instituted), have not yet been 
 taxed ; but it has been arranged between the petitioner 
 and the said defendant that [state the arrangement as to 
 costs] and that this cause is set down to be heard on fur- 
 ther consideration before the Vice-Chancellor ( ). 
 
 Your petitioner therefore humbly prays, that your 
 Lordship will be pleased to order that the 
 petition may be set down to be heard, and to 
 come on with this cause for further con- 
 sideration, and that the Accountant-preneral 
 of this honourable court may be directed to 
 sell the two sums of pounds and 
 
 pounds Reduced Annuities, making together 
 the sum of pounds Reduced Annuities, 
 
 now standing in his name in trust in this 
 cause, " The account of &c.," and also to 
 sell the said pounds Bank Three per 
 
 cent. Annuities, also standing in his name to 
 the same account. 
 
 And also that the said Accountant-General may 
 be directed, out of the proceeds of the said 
 sales, to pay to the several creditors of 
 the said intestate, the amounts in and by the 
 certificate of the day of 18 (the 
 
 Chief Clerk's certificate) certified to be due 
 
APPENDIX. 155 
 
 to them respectively, together with subse- 
 quent interest thereon to the day of the date 
 of the order to be hereupon made, the total 
 amounts of such subsequent interest to be 
 verified by affidavit ; also to pay thereout to 
 the said defendant C. D. the said sum of 
 pounds, the amount found by the said cer- 
 tificate to be due to her, and also to pay to 
 the Receiver-General of Inland Revenue the 
 duty payable on the share of your petitioner 
 of the said testator's estate, and also to pay to 
 the solicitors of the said defendant the sum of 
 pounds, to be taken by her in full satisfac- 
 tion, as well of her costs in the said suitof 
 [the suit directed to be instituted^, as of her 
 costs in this suit and of this application, and 
 also thereout to pay to the said plaintiff the 
 sum of pounds, [the amount of the 
 
 purchase of the annuity and her distributive 
 share,^ and that the said Accountant-General 
 may be directed to pay the residue of such 
 proceeds to the defendant, or that your Lord- 
 ship will make such further or other order in 
 the premises as your Lordship shall think fit. 
 
 And your petitioner will ever pray, &c. 
 
 No. 11. — Notice of Motion to pay Money into 
 
 Court. 
 In Chancery. 
 
 Between A. B . Plaintiff, 
 
 and 
 
 C. D. and M. D. his > n^fi.„^,r,f, 
 m-r V IV I Uelendants. 
 Wife, X. and Y.. . ^ 
 
 Take notice, that this honourable court will be 
 
 moved by Mr. before his Honor Vice-Chancellor 
 
 on the day of instant, or so soon after 
 
 as counsel can be heard, on behalf of the above-named 
 
156 APPENDIX. 
 
 plaintiff*, that the above-named defendant C. D. may be 
 ordered, on or before the day of instant, to pay 
 into the nanne and with the power of the Accountant- 
 Generai of this honourable court, in trust in this cause, 
 the sum of £ admitted by the answer of the said 
 
 defendant C. D., filed in this cause on the day of 
 
 last, to have been received by him (or to be in his 
 hands), as in the said answer is mentioned. And that 
 the same, vfhen so paid in, may be from time to time 
 invested in the purchase of £S per cent. Annuities, in 
 trust in this cause. Dated this day of one 
 
 thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven. 
 
 Yours 
 
 (^Plaintiff's solicitor). 
 To J. W. solicitor for 
 the defendant C. D. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 ABATEMENT. See Revivor. 
 ACCOUNT, what to be alleged in bill for, 16. 
 ADMINISTRATION SUITS, 48, 49. 
 AFFIDAVIT. See Answer. 
 rules as to framing, 99, 100. 
 
 AMENDED BILLS, 
 object of, 82. 
 
 when bill may be amended, 83. 
 how bill may be amended, 83. 
 when reprint of bill required, 84; 
 rules of pleading as to amended bills, 84. 
 amendment must not totally alter nature Of bill, 84. 
 
 ANSWER, 
 
 voluntary or compulsory, 69. 
 
 function of answer, 69. 
 
 as to sufficiency, 70. 
 
 examples, 70, 71. 
 
 as to exceptions, 72. 
 
 modern practice as to excepting, 73. 
 
 as to discovery of books and papers, 74. 
 
 when exceptions useful, 74. 
 
 how interrogatories must be answered, 75. 
 
 as to answering questions of law, 76. 
 
 what objections may be taken by answer, 76. 
 
 when evidence, 77, 79. 
 
 may be converted into affidavit, 77. 
 
 allegations in, must support evidence, 77. 
 
 as to alleging new and substantive matters in, 78. 
 
 how objection in the nature of demurrer or plea taken 
 
 in, 79. 
 effect of, 79. 
 
 how persons mi juris answer, 80. 
 how persons not sui juris answer, 80. 
 
158 INDEX. 
 
 APPEAL, 
 
 what may be appealed, 101. 
 to what court, 101. 
 form of, 101. 
 on motion, 102. 
 on petition, 102. 
 
 ATTORNEY-GENERAL, suit by, i 
 
 AVERMENT. See Plea. 
 
 B. 
 BILLS, 
 
 usual mode of commencing suit, 5. 
 
 into what classes divided, d. 
 
 to whom addressed, 6. 
 
 what must be contained in, 6. 
 
 what must be its allegations, 6. 
 
 allegations in bill for specific performance, 6. 
 
 general principle of drawing, 12. 
 
 how injury must be stated, 13. 
 
 allegation in, as to books and papers, 14. 
 
 divided into paragraphs, 14. 
 
 contains no interrogatories, 19. 
 
 C. 
 CLAIM, 
 
 suit may be commenced by, 5. 
 
 proceeding by, 25. 
 
 common, 25. 
 
 special, 25. 
 
 defects of claims, 26. 
 
 CONDUCT OF CAUSE, observations on, 103, et seq. 
 CONTRACT, when demurrer to bill for enforcing, 38. 
 COPYRIGHT, 
 
 bill to restrain infringement, 1 3. 
 See Demurrer, 40. 
 
 CORPORATIONS, how they sue, 4. 
 
 CREDITOR SUITS, 48. 
 
 CROWN, sues by Attorney-General, 3. 
 
 D. 
 DEMURRERS, 
 
 what a demurrer is, 33. 
 general demurrer, 33. 
 partial, 33. 
 
INDEX. 159 
 
 DEMVnKERS— continued. 
 form of, 33. 
 
 what a general demurrer admits, 33. 
 principle on which demurrer heard, 34. 
 form of demurrer, 34. 
 speaking demurrer, 34. 
 grounds of demurrer, 35. 
 where no title in plaintiff, 35. 
 demurrer to the jurisdiction, 35. 
 
 where bill exposes defendant to penalties or forfeiture, 36. 
 to bill for account, when lies and when not, 36. 
 because no equity against particular defendant, 36. 
 to bill against foreign administrator, 37. 
 to bill for specific performance, 37. 
 to bill proceeding on act of parliament, 39. 
 because some link in chain of title omitted, 39. 
 in cases of patent and copyright, 40. 
 for multifariousness, 40, 41 . 
 general rule as to multifariousness, 42. 
 for misjoinder, 42. 
 on a statute, 43. 
 on grounds of public policy, 43. 
 summary of doctrine as to demurrer, 44. 
 when bill may be amended and when not, 45. 
 uses of demurrer, 45. 
 for want of parties, 46. 
 principle of, 46. 
 what it must state, 46. 
 ^nd see Parties. 
 
 DISCLAIMER, 
 
 what, 80. 
 
 when to be used, 80. 
 
 DISCOVERY. See Answer. 
 bill for, 5. 
 
 DOCUMENTS, mode of obtaining discovery of, 14. 
 
 E. 
 
 EQUITABLE RIGHT, distinguished from equitable estate, 12. 
 EVIDENCE, 
 
 must be confined to matters put in issue, 97. 
 
 course of taking, 97. 
 
 plaintiff may cross-examine on answers, 97. 
 or may examine defendants in chief, 97. 
 
 defendants may examine plaintiff, 98. 
 
 either party may cross-examine affidavit witnesses, 98. 
 
 examination before examiner, 98. 
 
 conducted as at Nisi Prius, 98. 
 
160 INDEX. 
 
 EVIDENCE— conWtitterf. 
 
 rules of evidence at law applicable in Chancery, 98, 
 powers of examiner, 99. 
 
 EXAMINER, powers of, 99. 
 
 EXECUTORS, allegation in biU against, 23. 
 
 F. 
 
 FORECLOSURE. Jee Parties. 
 
 FOREIGNER, when may and when may not sue and be 
 sued, 2. 
 
 FORFEITURE. See Demdrrer, 36. 
 
 FRAUD, 
 
 allegations of, in bill, 22. 
 
 effect of allegations of, not proved, 22. 
 
 G. 
 
 GENERAL RELIEF, effect of prayer for, 18. 
 
 I. 
 
 INFANT, sues by his next friend, 3. 
 And see Special Case, 31. 
 
 INFORMATION, 
 
 suit by crown does not differ from bill, 3, 4. 
 relator, function of, 3. 
 
 INJURY, how to be stated, 13. 
 
 INTERROGATORIES, 
 use of, 19. 
 
 filed separate from bill, 19. 
 heading of, 20. 
 
 must be founded on allegations, 20. 
 mode of drawing, 21. 
 
 J. 
 JURISDICTION. See Demurrer, 35. 
 
 LUNATIC, sues by his committee, 3. 
 And see Special Case, 31. 
 
INDEX. 161 
 
 M. 
 
 MARRIED WOMAN, sues by her next friend, 3. 
 And see Special Case, 31. 
 
 MISJOINDER, as to, 42. 
 
 MOTIONS, what and when used, 93. 
 notice of, 94. 
 ex parte, 95. 
 on notice, 95. 
 appeal on, 102. 
 
 MULTIFARIOUSNESS, what, 40, 41. 
 general rule as to, 42. 
 
 N. 
 NEXT FRIEND. See Married Women and Infant, 
 
 P. 
 
 PARTIES, 
 
 generally all persons interested should be parties, 4S. 
 
 of parties to creditor suits, 48, 51. 
 
 of parties to administration suits, 48, 49, 52. 
 
 general rule for ascertaining, 49. 
 
 cases illustrating general rule, 50. 
 
 one creditor may sue on behalf of others, 51. 
 
 examples, 52, S3. 
 
 exceptions as to parties by' 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86 . . 54, 
 
 parties to partnership suits, 54. 
 
 general rule as to partnership suits, 55. 
 
 as to companies, 55. 
 
 exceptions, 55. 
 
 by representation, 55, et seq. 
 
 as to defendants by representation, o7. 
 
 extent of rule as to representation, 57. 
 
 to suits for specific performance, 58. 
 
 to mortgage suits, 59. 
 
 to suits for ascertaining priorities, 62. 
 
 to suits against trustees, 63. 
 
 PARTNERS. See Parties. 
 
 PATENT, bill to restrain infringement, 13. 
 See Demurrer, 39. 
 
 PENALTY. See Demurrer, 36. 
 
 PETITIONS, what and when used, 93. 
 how framed, 95. 
 
162 INDEX. 
 
 PETITIONS— confinued. 
 how headed, 96. 
 how documents stated in, 96. 
 
 PLAINTIFF, what he must show to sustain bill, 7. 
 
 PLEA, 
 
 principle of, 64. 
 
 observations on, 65. 
 
 what a plea is, 66. 
 
 what must be averred, 66. 
 
 must not be double, 67. 
 
 what allegations in bill must be met by averment, 66, 68. 
 
 PRAYER. See Bill and Petition. 
 function of, 17- 
 
 must consist with allegations, 17. 
 reason of the rule, 18. 
 for general relief, eflfect of, 18. 
 how framed, 19. 
 
 PROCESS, serving of, out of the jurisdiction, 2. 
 
 PROOF, 
 
 what may be proved, 15. 
 
 must be founded on allegations in bill, 15, 16. 
 
 PUBLIC POLICY, bill against, demurrable, 43. 
 
 PURCHASER, how he must allege title, 8. 
 
 R. 
 
 REDEMPTION. See Parties. 
 REPRESENTATION, parties by, 55, et seg, 
 REVIVOR, 
 
 when requisite, 86. 
 
 effect on, of 15 & 16 Vict c. 86.. 87. 
 
 S. 
 SPECIAL CASE, 
 form of, 29. 
 order on what, 30. 
 not for relief, 30, 
 
 but only for declaration of rights, 30. 
 how entitled, 30. 
 lunatics, how described, 31. 
 infants, how, 31. 
 married women, how, 31. 
 who bound by its statements, 31. 
 when cause must be set down to bind parties, 31. 
 when statements must be verified, 32. 
 appeal from, 32. 
 costs on, 32. 
 
INDEX. < 163 
 
 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 5'ee Parties. 
 
 STATUTE, may be grounds of demurrer as well as of plea, 43. 
 
 SUFFICIENCY. See Answer. 
 
 SUI JURIS, persons sui juris sue in their own names, 2. 
 See Answer, SO. 
 
 SUIT, 
 
 what subject of, 1. 
 
 must be equitable right, 1. 
 
 and equitable injury, 1. 
 
 distinction between equitable and legal injury, 1, n. 
 
 SUMMONS, 
 
 proceeding by, 26. 
 
 no pleadings in, 27. 
 
 when to be adopted and when not, 27. 
 
 suit may be commenced by, 5. 
 
 SUMMONS ADJOURNED, how conducted, 107. 
 
 SUPPLEMENTAL, 
 bill, what, 89. 
 
 when requisite, 90. 
 
 TENANT IN REMAINDER, how he must allege title, 8. 
 TITLE, 
 
 how plaintifiT must show, 7, 8. 
 
 general rule as to stating, 9, 10. 
 
 form of pleading, 10. 
 
 TITLE TO RELIEF, 
 
 how it must be shown, II, 12. 
 And see Demurrer, 35. 
 
 TRUSTEES, allegations in bUl against, 23. 
 See Parties. 
 
 V. 
 
 VENDOR, how he must allege title, 7. 
 
 W. 
 WASTE, bill to restrain, 13. 
 WILFUL DEFAULT, 
 
 allegation of, in bill, 23. 
 
 omission of in bill against trustees, 23. 
 
 no decree for on summons, 28. 
 
FUINTED BT C. HOWORTH ABD SC 
 EELL YAKD, TEMFI^E BAR. 
 
CATALOGUE 
 
 OP 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 MESSRS. BIJTTERWORTH, 
 
 LAW BOOKSELLERS AND PUBLISHERS 
 
 TO THE QUEEN'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY, 
 
 AND TO 
 
 H. R. H. THE PRINCE OF WALES. 
 
 "Xow for the Zamt of England (^iflahalt tpealc my opinion of them leithout 
 "partiality either to my profession or country)^ for the matter cmd nature of 
 ** them, I hold them wise, just and moderate laws : they give to God, they give to 
 " Ccesar, they give to the subject what appertaineih. It is true they are as mixt 
 " as our language, com/pounded of British, Saxon, Danish, Nortnan customs, 
 " And surely as our language is thereby so much the richer, so our laws are HhC' 
 " wise by that mixture the more complete."— Loud Bacoh. 
 
 LONDON: 
 7, FLEET STREET, E. C. 
 
 1868. 
 
INDEX TO CATALOGUE. 3 
 
 rage 
 
 Page 
 
 Page 
 
 Evidence, 
 
 Lord Mayor's Court 
 
 
 Railways. 
 
 County Court. Savis 12 
 
 Brandon 
 
 43 
 
 ShelCord 43 
 
 Law of. Powell ... 25 
 
 Lunacy. 
 
 
 CompenjaSon. 
 
 Wills. Wigram ... 34 
 
 Phillips 
 
 34 
 
 Ingram 29 
 
 Circumstantial. 
 Wms_ 28 
 
 Magisterial Law. 
 
 
 Eeal Property. 
 
 Examinations. 
 
 Eenham's (Prelimi- 
 nary) Guide ... 6 
 
 Oke 
 
 ^orm8\ Oke 
 Maritime Warfare. 
 Deane 
 
 TTnmol 
 
 28 
 29 
 
 39 
 
 Tudor 14 
 
 Chart. Feame ... 40 
 Registration, 
 
 Hallilay's Keporter 32 
 
 Warren 39 
 
 Mosely's (Interme- 
 diate and Final) 
 
 jiamej ... ... oo 
 
 Masters and Servants. 
 
 Religious, 
 
 Guide 9 
 
 Davis 
 
 10 
 
 Confessiom. Badeley 41 
 
 Fences. 
 
 Masters and Workmen. 
 
 Doctrine. 
 
 Hunt S 
 
 Lovesy 
 
 28 
 
 Burder v. Heath . 40 
 
 Fisheries. 
 
 Oke 30 
 
 Forms, 
 
 Merchant Shipping. 
 
 O'Dowd ... 
 Militia Laws. 
 
 .26 
 
 Discipline. 
 
 Long 0. Cape Town 41 
 Supremacy of Crown 40 
 Ritual. 
 
 Convegancing. 
 Crabb 17 
 
 Dwyer 
 Mines and Minerals. 
 
 . 40 
 
 Bayford 41 
 
 Hamel 40 
 
 Rouse 6 
 
 Bainbridge 
 
 . 35 
 
 Magisterial. Oke... 29 
 
 Mortgages. 
 
 
 Roman Law. 
 
 Pleading. 
 
 Fisher 
 
 . 19 
 
 Cutler 37 
 
 Chltty 16 
 
 Rouse 
 
 . 21 
 
 Tomkins 31 
 
 Greening 38 
 
 Probate. Cliadwick 18 
 
 Pamphlets. 
 
 41 
 
 Sewers. 
 
 Game Laws. 
 
 Parliamentary. 
 
 
 Woolrych 23 
 
 Oke 30 
 
 May 
 
 . 20 
 
 Sheriff. 
 
 Highways. 
 
 Glen 33 
 
 Warren 
 
 Partnership. 
 
 Dixon 
 
 . 39 
 9 
 
 Sewell 40 
 
 Sheriff's Court. 
 
 Hindu Law. 
 
 Tudor's Pothier .. 
 
 39 
 
 Davis 12 
 
 Cutler sr 
 
 Patents. 
 
 
 Specific Performance. 
 
 House of Lords, 
 
 Norman 
 
 39 
 
 Fry 34 
 
 BeporU. Clark ... 42 
 Practice. May ... 20 
 
 Petty Sessions. 
 
 Oke 
 
 28 
 
 Stock Exchange. 
 
 Keyser 36 
 
 Succession Duty. 
 
 International Law. 
 
 Deane 39 
 
 Pleading, 
 
 Common Law. 
 
 
 Hamel 36 
 
 Ctaitty ..; 
 
 16 
 
 Shelford 24 
 
 Phniimore 38 
 
 Greening 
 
 38 
 
 Suit in Equily. 
 
 Hunter 19 
 
 Jamaica Eiot. 
 
 Williams 
 
 31 
 
 Williams 41 
 
 Joint Stock Companies. 
 Shelford 43 
 
 Equity. Drewiy .. 
 
 Lewis 
 
 Poor Law, 
 
 31 
 8 
 
 Summary Convictions. 
 Oke 28 
 
 Accounts. Pulling 36 
 
 Order: Glen 
 
 33 
 
 ToUs. 
 
 Jnrispmdence. 
 
 Precedents, 
 
 
 Gunning 38 
 
 Law Magazine ... 44 
 
 Conveyancing. 
 
 17 
 21 
 
 Treaties. 
 
 Justice of Peace. 
 
 Oke 28 
 
 Lands CTaoses Acts. 
 
 Ingram 29 
 
 Shelford 43 
 
 Crabb 
 
 Rouse 
 
 Hertslet 39 
 
 Pleading. 
 Chitty, jun. 
 Priority. 
 
 Fisher 
 
 16 
 19 
 
 Trusts, Charitable. 
 Tudor 26 
 
 Turnpike Laws. 
 
 Law Magazine ... 44 
 
 Private Bills. 
 
 
 Oke 30 
 
 Law Studies. 
 
 May 
 
 20 
 
 Wills. 
 
 Smith 22 
 
 Prize Law. 
 
 
 Crabb 17 
 
 Leading Cases, 
 
 Lushington 
 
 26 
 
 Tudor 14 
 
 RealProperty. Tudor 14 
 
 Probate, 
 
 
 Wigram 34 
 
 Leases. 
 
 Practice. Coote .. 
 
 4 
 
 Winding-up. 
 
 Shelford 43 || 
 
 Crabb 1? 
 
 Pormi. Chadwick 
 
 18 
 
 Rouse 21 
 
 Legacy Duties. 
 
 Shelford 24 
 
 IhMei. Shelford .. 
 Bieporti. 
 
 24 
 
 Window Lights. 
 
 SwabeySe Tristram « 
 
 Latham 17 
 
COOTE'S & TRISTRAM'S PROBATE PRACTICE.— 5th Edit. 
 
 THE PRACTICE of the COURT of PROBATE in 
 
 Common Form Business. By Henry Charles Coote, F.S.A., 
 Proctor in Doctors' Commons, &c., &c. Also a Treatise on the 
 Practice of the Court in Contentious Business, by Thomas H. 
 Tristram, D.CL,, Advocate in Doctors* Commons, and of the Inner 
 Temple. Fifth Edition, with great Additions, and including all the 
 Statutes, Rules, Orders, &c,, to the present tinie; together with a 
 Collection of Original Forms and Bills of Costs. 8vo. 24s, cloth. 
 
 "A fifth edition in so shoit a time is a from this book than from any other 
 
 success that few law books can boast, which was published for their guidance, 
 
 and it is well deserved. Mr. Copte as a It has become an acknowledE^efl neces- 
 
 proctor possesses that intimate acquaint- sity in the library of every practitioner, ' 
 
 ance with the minutiae of practice which Since the publication of the last edition :^^ 
 
 experience only can supply, and Dr. new rules have, been promulgated fbi V^l 
 
 Tristram's education as an advocate the Court of Probate, other regulations .j't 
 
 enables him to treat of the jurisdiction have been made by acts of parliament 
 
 of the Probate Court, the law which it and an order in couucil, and the practice 
 
 administers, and the principles esta- of the Court has in some respects been 
 
 blished fQr the administration of that. altered and settled. These changes 
 
 law, with a mastery of his subject that have been attended to. A more useful 
 
 has made this production of the united book than this we do not know, and we 
 
 labours of two such competent men the need not say more than that in this 
 
 accepted text book of the Probate Court. edition the authors have done all in 
 
 Having noticed its successive editions their power to increase its utility and 
 
 as they appeared, it remains only to say secure its completeness." — Law Maga- 
 
 tha^ it brings down the statutes and zine and Review, 
 
 cases to the present time." — Lam Times " "We must not omit to . praise the 
 
 on the 5th Edition. complete character of the Appendix, 
 
 "The profession will be glad towel- which, occupying more than half the 
 
 come the publication of this most valu- whole work, presents us with the sta- 
 
 able work. When the monopoly which tutes, the orders in council, rules and 
 
 the proctors and advocates enjoyed in fees, tables of costs and forms, and 
 
 Doctors Commons was abolished, and . leaves nothing to be desired by the 
 
 the practice in probates and letters of proctor or solicitor either in the routine 
 
 administration was thrown open to the of common form or in the stages of 
 
 general profession, the uninitiated de- suits." — Law Journal on the 5th Edition. 
 rived greater benefit and instruction 
 
 COOTE'S ADMIRAIiTY PRACTICE.— Second Edition. 
 
 The PRACTICE of the HIGH COURT of ADMI- 
 RALTY of ENGLAND: also the Practice of the Judicial Committee 
 of Her Majesty's Most Hon. Privy Council in Admiralty Appeals, 
 with Forms and Bills of Costs, By Henry Charles Coote, F.S.A,, 
 one of the Examiners of the High Court of Admiralty, Author of 
 •'The Practice of the Court of Probate," &c. Second Edition, 
 almost entirely re-written. 8vo. 16s. cloth. 
 
 , " The book before us is a second and .greater /acilities for reference. The first 
 
 enUrged edition of a work on the Prac- part of the book is a treatise on the 
 
 tice of the Admiralty Court written by practice of the court, which appears to us 
 
 Uie author some ten years ago. It is ■ to be very carefully done, and to go 
 
 however a great improvPinRDt on its pre- thoroughly into the subject. The second 
 
 dec'essor, being much fuller and more part is a similar treatise ou the practice 
 
 ^ystemiltically arranged, and^ontaiuiog of the Judicial Committee of the Privy 
 
MESSRS. BUTTERWORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.C. 5 
 
 Coote's Admiralty Practice— con «n«ed. 
 
 Council Id Admiralty matters written on 
 the same system as the former part. Tlie 
 appendix contains a large number uf 
 common forms and precedents of plead- 
 ings used in the Court of Admiralty, 
 togetlier with bills of costs. Altogether 
 
 Mr. Coote has done his worlt very care- 
 fully and completely, and we think liis 
 labours will be duly appreciated by 
 Admiralty practitiuners." — Solicitors^ 
 Journai, 
 
 HUNT ON BOUNDARIES AND FENCES. 
 
 THE LAW RELATING TO BOUNDARIES AND 
 FENCES. By Arthur Joseph Hunt, of the Inner Temple, Esq., 
 Barrister at Law. Post 8vo. ' 9s. cloth. 
 
 " Among other matters discussed are 
 the rights of property on the sea shore ; 
 navigable and private rivers ; the duties 
 of mine owners with legaid to bound- 
 aries ; the rights and liabilities of 
 landlords and tenants as to fences, 
 hedges and ditches, and the liability to 
 make and repair the same ; the duty to 
 fence land adjoining roads; the law re- 
 lating to trees and hedges on the bound- 
 aries of property, &c. The second chap- 
 ter of Mr. Hunt's work, which relates 
 to fences generally, is especially worthy 
 of perusal, as cases are repeatedly aris- 
 ing between adjoining proprietors. Too 
 much praise cannot be given to the 
 modesty of an author, who, following 
 the example of early text writera, con- 
 structs his work on the so called utter- 
 ances of the judges, and does not, like 
 some writers, place too much reliance 
 upon his own tp«e dixit. With these 
 remarks we take leave of Mr. Hunt's 
 book, recommending it as a work con- 
 taining a great deal of information in a 
 small compass, and one on which no 
 small amount of time, labour and re- 
 search must necessarily have been be- 
 stowed." — Law Times. 
 " Mr. Hunt has done good service by 
 
 collecting and arranging, in a clear and 
 convenient manner, a large amount of 
 information which lies scattered through 
 the old text books, the reports and the 
 statutes, and to which there has hitherto 
 been no clue. Mr. Hunt appears to 
 have ransacked the American as well as 
 the English treatises and reports : but 
 his work is not a mere compilation : he 
 has investigated for himself and stated 
 the results concisely and clearly," — 
 Jurist. 
 
 "The law of boundaries and fences, 
 is, in the work before us, treated with 
 great ability, and as the language is 
 clear, and. as far as may be, free from 
 technicalities, it will be found useful 
 beyond the limits of the legal pro- 
 fession." — A thencBum. 
 
 " This is a very useful work as a 
 common place book on the subject of 
 wliich it treats." — Law Magazine. 
 
 " This is a concise and well- written 
 book on a small but not unimportant 
 subject, and displays considerable care 
 both in arrangement and detail. It will 
 be seen that the author very carefully 
 and completely dissects his subject, and 
 then very succinctly treats of the parts." 
 ^SGlicitori* Journal, 
 
 STEPHEN'S COMMENTARIES.— Sixth Edition. 
 
 MR. SERJEANT STEPHEN'S NEW COMMEN- 
 TARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND, partly founded on 
 Blackstone. The Sixth Edition, prepared for the press hy James 
 Stephen, LL.D., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, late 
 Recorder of Poole, and formerly Professor of English Law at 
 King's College, London, 4 vols. 8vo. 4L 4s. cloth. 
 
6 
 
 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 ROUSE'S COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT MANUAI..— 
 Third Edition. 
 
 The COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT MANUAL; 
 
 enlarged, and treating the subject in the Legal, Practical and Mathe- 
 matical Points of View; giving numerous Forms, Rules, Tables and 
 Instructions for Calculating the Values of the Lord's Rights; Sugges- 
 tions to Lords' Stewards, and Copyholders, protective of their several 
 Interests, and to Valuers in performance of their Duties; and inclu- 
 ding the Act of 1858, and Proceedings in Enfranchisement under it. 
 By RoLLA Rouse, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law. 
 Third Edition, much enlarged. 12mo. 10s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 " This new edition follows the plan of 
 its piedecessoT, adopting a fivefold divi- 
 sion: — I. The Law. 2. The Practice, 
 with Practical Suggestions to Lords, 
 Stewards and Copyholders. 3. The Ma- 
 thematical consideration of the Subject 
 in all its Details, with Rules, Tables and 
 Examples. 4. Forms, 5. The Statutes, 
 with Notes. Of these, we can only re- 
 peat what we have said before, that they 
 exhaust the subject ; they give to the 
 practitioner all the materials required by 
 him to conduct the enfranchisement of 
 a copyhold, whether voluntary or com- 
 pulsory."— iflw; Times, 
 
 " When we consider what favor Mr. 
 Rouse's Practical Man and Practical 
 Conveyancer have found with th@ pro- 
 
 fession, we feel sure the legal world will 
 greet with pleasure a new and improved 
 edition of his copyhold manual. The 
 third edition of that work is before us. 
 It is a work of great practical value, 
 suitable to lawyers and laymen. We 
 can fteely and heartily recommend this 
 volume to the practitioner, the steward 
 and the copyholder." — Law Magazine. 
 
 " Now,however, that copyhold tenures 
 are being frequently converted into-flree- 
 holds, Mr. Rouse's treatise will doubtless 
 be productive of very extensive benefit ; 
 for it seems to us to have been very care- 
 fully prepared, exceedingly well com- 
 posed and written, and to indicate much 
 experience in copyhold law on the part 
 of the author," — Solicitors* Journal, 
 
 BENHAM'S STUDENT'S EXAMINATION GUIDE. 
 
 The STUDENT'S GUIDE to the PRELIMINARY 
 EXAMINATION for ATTORNEYS and SOLICITORS, and the 
 Oxford and Cambridge Local Examinations and the College of Pre- 
 ceptors, to which are added numerous Suggestions and Examination 
 Questions selected from those asked at the Law Institution. By 
 James Erle Benham, of King's College, London. 12mo. Ss. cloth. 
 
 " The book is artistically arranged. It 
 wiU become a useful guide and instructor, 
 uot only to Law Students, but to every 
 Student who is preparing for a preliminiiry 
 examination."— £,aBr Journal, 
 
 " Mr. Benham has produced a very 
 useful mauual for the aid of intending 
 candidates at the solicitors* preliminary 
 examiuatioDS, and the Oxford and Cam- 
 bridge local examinations. He gives 
 many supgestions on all the subjects 
 of examination aud full information 
 thereon." — Law Examination Reporter. 
 
 " The book is written in a clear and 
 agreeable style, and, in spite of a fev 
 blemishes, will no doubt he found useful 
 by the class of readers for whom it is 
 
 intended."— Xa»i Magagine and Reviev. 
 
 " This book is intended for the use of 
 those who are about to undergo the pre- 
 liminary examinations for attorneys and 
 solicitors and for the Oxford and Cam- 
 bridge local examinations. The student 
 may learn from Mr. Uenham what he has 
 to do and tlie way to do it. We have no 
 doubt that • Benham*3 Student's Exami- 
 nation Guide' will be Jargely patronifed 
 in this examining age."— Standard. 
 
 "The author of this treatise has 
 ■written the present most serviceable 
 work, by aid of which the examinations 
 should be passed without difficulty "— 
 Sunday Times, 
 
MESSRS, BUTTERWOKTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.C. 7 
 
 Benhaxa's Student's Hxaminatlon Guide— continued. 
 
 "A useful little treatise by Mr. James 
 Erie BeDhuin, intended to supply to 
 Students, ahout to encounter the exami- 
 natiou which precedes entering into 
 articles of clerkship, the necessary infor- 
 mation as to subjects of Study/* — Star, 
 
 ^'He has succeedfd in producing a 
 book which will doubtless prove useful 
 to those Students who desire to prepare 
 
 themselves for examination without the 
 assistance of a tutor." —Irith Lata Times. 
 " It is certainly a useful guide to that 
 curious oUa podrida expected from the 
 candidate. It may be well to have a 
 systematized mode of " cr<i|n," suggested 
 in a distinct and accurate manner,"— 
 London Reviezo, 
 
 LUSH'S COMMON IiAW PRACTICE. By DIXON. 
 Third Edition. 
 
 LUSH'S PRACTICE of the SUPERIOR COURTS of 
 COMMON LAW at WESTMINSTER, in Actions and Proceedings 
 over which they have a common Jurisdiction : with Introductory 
 Treatises respecting Parties to Actions; Attornies and Town Agents, 
 their QuaUfications, Rights, Duties, Privileges and Disabilities; the 
 Mode of Suing, whether in Person or by Attorney, in Form^ Pauperis, 
 &c. &c. &c.; and an Appendix, containing the authorised Tables of 
 Costs and Fees, Forms of Proceedings and Writs of Execution, 
 Third Edition. By Joseph Dixon, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister- 
 at-Law. 2 vols. 8vo. 46s. cloth. 
 " Lush's Practice is what Tidd's Prac- 
 tice was in oar da^s of clerkship, and what 
 Archbold's Practice was in our early pro- 
 fessional days — the practicein general ase, 
 and the received aothnrity on the subject. 
 It was written by Mr. Lash when he was 
 only ajunior rising into fortune and fame. 
 His practical knowledge, his clearness and 
 industry, were even tnen acknowledged, 
 and his name secured for his work an im- 
 mediate popnlarity which experience has 
 - confirmed and extended. But the book was 
 in its turn productive of considerable ad- 
 vantage to the author; it largely increased 
 the Dumber of his clients. When new edi- 
 tions were called for, Mr. Lush was too oc- 
 cupied with briefs to find time for the prepa- 
 ration of books ; and hence the association 
 of his name with that of Mr. Dixon as 
 editor, and by whom the new edition has 
 been produced. Mr. Dison reminds us. that 
 twency-five years have passed siuce Mr. 
 Lush made his appearance as an author, 
 and vast indeed have been the changes the 
 law has since witnessed . So numerous are 
 they, that the editor has found it the most 
 convenient course to ignore, as it were, the 
 second edition, to take the text of the ori- 
 ginal work as itcame fresh from Mr.Lush's 
 pen, and to mould that to the present prac- 
 tice. Heis thus enabled to assure the reader 
 that for eveiT alteration in, or addition to, 
 the text, he alone is responsible. Ilie index 
 is verycopions and.confplete. UnderMr. 
 Dixon's care, ^Lusn's Practice will not 
 merely maintain, it wijl largely extend, its 
 
 reputation."— Laai Times. 
 
 This is an excellent edition of an ex- 
 cellent work. We think that Mr. Dixon 
 has been wise in basing his work on the 
 original edition of the Practice, and not 
 upon the second edition published in the 
 year 1866. As Mr. Lush's heavy profes- 
 sional engagements made.it impossible for 
 
 him to remodel his book himself, the best 
 course was, that it should he re-edited 
 at first liand, and not indirectly. Lite- 
 rary patchwork is always objectionable. 
 To edit an anthor is a task requiring 
 ^eat skill.; bat to edit an author's Editor 
 IS still more difficult. We coneratulate 
 Mr. Dixon on the judgment he nas dis- 
 played in selecting the former alterna- 
 tive. He has effected a most successful 
 * restoration.' As far as the great changes 
 in the law pel-mit, he has re-produced the 
 original work. He has adopted Mr.Lush's 
 arrangement, and only made those alter- 
 ations and additions wnich recent legisla- 
 ture has rendered indispensable. The 
 whole work .which contains altogether 1,183 
 pages, concludes with a copious index en- 
 tirely re-written and very considerably 
 enlarged. Altogether, both in what he 
 has omitted and what he has added, Mr. 
 Dixon has been guided by sound discre- 
 tion. We trust that the great and con- 
 scientious labours he has undergone will 
 be rewarded. He has striven to make 
 his work * thorough,* and because he has 
 done so, we take pleasure in heartily re- 
 commending it to every member of both 
 branches of the profession." — Solicitors'' 
 Journal. 
 
 " The profession cannot but welcome 
 with the greatest cordiality end pleasure 
 a third edition of their old and much 
 valued friend * Lush's Practice of the 
 Superior Courts of Law.* Mr. Dixon, in 
 preparing this edition, has gone back to 
 the original work of Mr. .Futtice Lush, 
 and, ns far as the legislative changes and 
 decisions of the last twenty-five years 
 would allow, reprodaced it. This adds 
 greatly to the value of this edition, and 
 at the same tim^ siieaks volumes for 
 "Mr, Dixon's conscientious labour,"— Laa; 
 Journal. 
 
8 
 
 liAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 IfEWIS ON EQUITY DRAFTING. 
 
 PRINCIPLES of EQUITY DRAFTING, with an 
 
 APPENDIX of FORMS, By Hubert Lewi8, B.A,, of the Middle 
 
 Temple, Barrister-at-Law, Author of "Principles of Cohveyaudng 
 
 explained and Illustrated." Post 8vo. ]2«, cloth. 
 
 '* Practically the rules thftt apply to the Courts vill be a mau of uncertainty,— 
 drafting andreadinK of bills will apply to with it every iiractitioner must learn the 
 tbe comiHraition of the County Court docn- artof equity drafting, and he will find no 
 ment that will be substituted for the bill. i*-**"" ♦«-«».«- *ka« iw» Ta«>!a "_r.««) 
 Mr. Lewis's work is therefore likely to 
 have a much wider circle of readers thnn 
 he could have anticipated when he com- 
 
 menced it, for almost every page will be 
 applicable to County Court Practice, 
 should the bill, in any shape or under any 
 title be retained in the newiurisdicdon,— 
 without it we fear that equity in the County 
 
 better teacher than Mr. Lewis."'— H^ 
 Timen. 
 
 " We have little doubt that this work 
 will soon gain a very favourable place in 
 the estimation of the Profession, It is 
 written in a clear and attractive style, and 
 is plainly the resnlt of much thouRfatfal 
 ana conscientious labour."— Xnv Siaga- 
 zine and JRevieio. 
 
 IiElVIS'S INTRODUCTION TO CONVEYANCING. 
 
 PRINCIPLES of CONVEYANCING EXPLAINED and 
 
 ILLUSTRATED by CONCISE PRECEDENTS. With an Appendix 
 on the Effect of the Transfer of Land Act in Modifying and Shortening 
 Conveyances. By Hubert Lewis, B. A., late Scholar of Emman. Coll. 
 Cambridge, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 18a. cloth. 
 
 " The preface arrested onr attention, 
 and the examination we have made of 
 the whole treatise has given us (what 
 may be called a new BensaUoo) pleasure 
 in the perusal of a work on Conveyancing. 
 We have, indeed, read it with pleasure 
 and profit, and we may say at once that 
 Mr. Lewis is entitled to the credit of 
 having produced a very usefal, and, at 
 the same time, original work. This will 
 appear from a mere outline of his plan, 
 which is very ably worked out. The 
 mauuer in which his dissertations elu- 
 cidate his subject is clear and prac- 
 tical, and his expositions, with the 
 help of his precedents, have the best of 
 all qualities in such a treatise, being 
 eminently judicious and substantial. 
 Mr. Lewis's work is concnved in the 
 right spirit. Although a learned and 
 goodly volume, it may yet, with perfect 
 propriety^ be called a 'handy book.* It 
 is besides a courageous attempt at legal 
 improvement; and it is, perhaps, by works 
 of such a character that law reform may 
 be best accomplished."— Xonr Magajins 
 and Reviesi. 
 
 " It is clear that do labour has been 
 spared to achieve its object; every page 
 contains ample evidence of thoroughness 
 and cousrienttousiiess in the execution 
 of the task undertaken. By the dili- 
 gent and f^instakuig student who has 
 duly mastered the law of property, this 
 
 work will undoubtedly be hailed as a 
 very comprehensive exponent of the 
 Principles of Conveyancing,"— J>gti/in'a», 
 or Articled Cleri/ Magatine. 
 
 " The perusal of the work has given 
 us much pleasure. It shows a tliorough 
 knowledge of the various subjects treated 
 of, and is clearly and intelligibly written. 
 Students will now not only be able to 
 become proficient draftsmen, but, by care- 
 fully studying Mr. Lewis's dissertations, 
 may obtain an insight into the hitherto 
 neglected f'rinciples of Conveyancing." 
 —Legal Examiner. 
 
 " On the whole, we consider that the 
 work is deserving of high praise, both 
 for design and execution. It is wholly 
 free from the vice of bookmaking, and 
 indicates couaiderable reflection and 
 learning. Mr. Lewis has at all events 
 succeeded in producing a work to meet 
 an acknowledged want, and we have no 
 doubt he will find many grateful readers 
 amongst more advanced, not less than 
 among younger students." — Solicitor/ 
 Journal and Reporter, 
 
 ** Mr. Lewis has contributed a valuable 
 aid to the law student. He has condensed 
 the Practice of Conveyancing into a shape 
 that will facilitate its retention on the 
 memory, and his Precedents are usefully 
 arranged as a series of progressive lessons, 
 which may be either used as illustrations 
 or exercises.^*— Lmv Timet, 
 
MESSRS. BUTTER WORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.G. 9 
 
 MOSEIiVS HANDY BOOK FOR ARTICLED CIiERKS, 
 
 A PRACTICAL HANDY BOOK of ELEMENTARY 
 
 LAW designed for the use of ARTICLED CLERKS, with a course 
 
 of Study, and Hints on Reading for the Intermediate and Final 
 
 Examinations. By M. S. Mosely, Solicitor, Clifford*s Inn Prizeman, 
 
 M.T. 1867. 12mo. 7s. cloth. 
 
 To some extent his plan is oew, and the 
 noveltsr copsists Id this, that he sketches 
 out a coi#se of work and study for each 
 year's pupilage. This plan is no doubt 
 the one Mr. Mosely sketched out for him- 
 self when a clerk, and followed up with 
 so much success. To those who really 
 will work from the commencemeDt of 
 their pupilage and carry on their labours 
 steadily and syscematically tothe end it 
 will be useful."— i^aw £,xamination Re- 
 porter, ^ 
 
 '* This useful little book is intended for 
 the use of articled clerks during the period 
 of their articles. The style of this hook is- 
 peculiar: it is an exaggeration of the style 
 adopted by Mr. Hayiies in his admirable 
 * Outlines of Eouity,' The author seems 
 to think the adoption of such a s^Ie the 
 only way to make the study of the law 
 popular, and we are not prepared to say 
 he is wrong." — Zmw Magazine and Reviea, 
 
 "Many a student has found on being 
 turned loose in the chambers or ofBce of 
 his master that his first few weeks or 
 months are almost thrown away for want 
 of preparation. H e knows nothing of law : 
 everything around him is strange, and 
 until he has acquired a little acquaintance 
 with legal rudiments, the practice by 
 which he is surrounded, instead of in- 
 structing him, simply conveys nc|| idea 
 whatever to his mind. Mr. Moselyl little 
 book might be placed with advantage in 
 the hands of students about to enter a soli- 
 citor's office. It will tell them many 
 things, simple ennngh, no doubt, but still 
 things of which In most cases they will be 
 ignorant, and for want of knowing which 
 they might otherwise lose much time ; 
 and will afford them useful directions 
 as to a course of reading.*'— So/wiior** 
 Journal, 
 
 " Mr. Mosely has not quite followed iu 
 the track of those who have preceded him. 
 
 DIXON'S IiAW OF PARTNERSHIP. 
 
 A TREATISE on the LAW OF PARTNERSHIP. By 
 Joseph Dixon, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister at Law, Editor of 
 " Lush's Common Law Practice." 1 vol. 8vo. 22s. cloth. 
 
 " Mr. Dixon's manual on the law of 
 partnership will be an acceptable addition 
 to the shelves of our law libraries, whilst 
 from its portable size it will be equally 
 useful as a companion in Court. He has 
 evidently bestowed apoo this book the 
 same conscieations labour and painstaking 
 industry for which we had to compliment 
 him some months since wheu reviewing 
 his edition of * Lush's Practice of the Su- 
 perior Courts of Law,' and, as a result, he. 
 Las produced a clearly written and well- 
 arranged manual upon one of the roost im-' 
 portant branches of our mercantile law." 
 Itazo Journal. 
 
 " Mr. Dixon has done his work well. 
 The book is carefully and usefully pre- 
 pared."— &/i«Vor/' Journal, 
 
 " Mr. Dixon enters into all the condi- 
 tioos of partnerships at common law. and 
 defines the rights of partners among them- 
 selves ; the rights of the partnership 
 against third persons ; the rights of third 
 persons against the partnership ; and the 
 rights and liabilities of individuals, not 
 actnally partners, but liable to be treated 
 by third persons as partners."— 2V»w*. 
 
 " Weheartily recommend to practitioners 
 and students Mr. Dixon's treatise as (he 
 best exposition of the law we have read, 
 for the arrangement is not only artistic, 
 bat conciseness has been studied withont 
 sacrifice of clearness. He sets, forth the 
 principles upon which the law is based as 
 
 well as the cases by which its application 
 is shown. Hence it is something more 
 than a digest, which too many law books 
 are not : it is really an essay."— iaaj Times. 
 " The appearance of this volume at the 
 
 S resent time is very opportune. Mr. Dixon 
 as done wisely in limiting his work to 
 private partnerships. The law of public 
 companies is now a distinct matter, and 
 each sobject has attained a magnitude 
 which renders its separate treatment de- 
 sirable. The law of partnerships at com- 
 mon law, as it is established by the latest 
 decisions, will be found concisely stated in 
 these pages. The matter is well arranged 
 and the work is carefully executed."— 
 At/ienaum, 
 
 ** It is with considerable gratification 
 that we find the subject treated oy a writer 
 of Mr, Dixon's reputation for learning, ac- 
 curacy and painstaking. Mr. Lindley's 
 view of the subject is that of a philoso- 
 phical lawyer. Mr. Dixon's is purely and 
 exclusively practical from beginning to 
 end. We imagine that very few questions 
 are likely to come before the practitioner 
 which Mr. Dixon's book will not be found 
 to solve, Having already passed our opi- 
 nion on the way in which the work is car- 
 ried out, we l^ave only to add, that the 
 value of the book is very materially in- 
 .creasedby an excellent marginal summary 
 and a TeiT copious index."— Lata 'Mag a- 
 tine and Kevieto. 
 
10 
 
 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 GRANT'S TaAW OF BANKING.— Second Bdition by Fisber. 
 
 GRANT'S LAW of BANKERS and BANKING and 
 BANKS of ISSUE, Limited and Chartered, and Winding-up; 
 Directors, Managers and Officers ; and the Law as to Cheques, Circular 
 Notes or Letters of Credit, Bank Notes, Exchequer Bills, Coupons, 
 Deposits, &c. (Appendix contains the Bank Notes Issue Bill, and 
 Reasons for Bill, and Official Bank Returns), Second Editiou. By 
 R. A. FisHER, Esq., of 4he Middle Temple, Barrister at Law, 8vo. 
 2U. cloth. 
 
 "The present editor has very miich 
 increased the value of the original vork, 
 a work -vrbose sterling merits had already 
 raised it to the xivik of a standard text- 
 book." — Law Magazine. 
 
 *' No man in.the profession was more 
 competenttotreatthe subject of Banking 
 than Mr. Grant. This volume appears 
 opportunely. To all engaged in the liti- 
 gations, as well as to all legal advisers of 
 bankers, Mr. Grant's work will be an 
 invaluable assistant. It is a clear and 
 careful treatise on a subject not already 
 exhausted, and it must become the text- 
 book upon it."— !&flwy Timea. 
 
 "A Second Edition of Mr. Grant's 
 well-known treatise on this branch of 
 
 the law has been called for and very ably 
 supplied by Mr. Fisher."— iow Timetf 
 Second Notice. 
 
 "The learning and industry which 
 were so conspicuous In Mr. Grant's 
 former work are eq^ually apparent in this. 
 The book supplies a real want, which 
 has long been felt both by the profession 
 and by the public at large."— Jurist. 
 
 " We commend this work to our 
 readers. This treatise is at once prac- 
 tical and intelligible, and is of use alike 
 to the unprofessional as well as the pro- 
 fessional reader. No bank, whether a 
 private concern or a join^stock com- 
 pany, should be without it." — Money 
 Market Bvew, 
 
 DAVIS'S IJV'W OF MASTER AND SERVANT. 
 
 THE MASTER AND SERVANT ACT, 1867: with 
 an Introduction, Notes and Forms, Tables of Offences, and an Index. 
 By James Edward Davis, Esq., Barrister at Law, Stipendiary 
 Magistrate for Stoke-upon-Trent, 12nio. Qs. cloth. 
 
 ' We are glad to see that the question 
 has been treated so ably and cai^fally as 
 ic is in the present volume. Mr. Davis 
 was one of the commissioners whose re- 
 commeudatioas led to the passiog of the act 
 of last session, so that he is well fitted to 
 point out the scope and general inteDtions 
 of the statute, while his experience as sti- 
 pendiary magistrate of Stoke-upon-Trent 
 render his suggestions as to the practice 
 and procedare to be employed in working 
 out its provisions peculiarly valuable." — 
 Solicitors'' Journal. 
 
 ** The task that Mr. Davis undertook in 
 editing this new Master and Servant Act 
 has been well pefformed, and indeed in a 
 manner that probably no one, who did not 
 enjoy the esceptioual advantages for the 
 purpose that Mr. Davis does, could have 
 executed .so satisfactorily." — JmA Lam 
 Times. 
 
 "With such a manual before them as 
 that of Mr. Davis, magistrates and practi- 
 tioners will have Utile difficulty in fully 
 comprehending the law and knowing how 
 to apply it. We therefore recommend this 
 edition to them."— 6r/oucMr«r JoumaL 
 
 " The edition of the act which Mr. Davis, 
 the stipendiary magistrate at Stoke-upon- 
 Trent, has just published, will prove of 
 
 great use as a clue to this legislative labv- 
 rinth. Jn this little work so much of the 
 statutes referred to as is required to make 
 the new law intelligible is quoted at full 
 length ; and Mr. Davis has also added 
 sundry tables of matters and things within 
 • thejurisdiction of justices under the Master 
 and Servant Act which remedy as far as 
 possible the omissions of the measure it- 
 self."— 5o«ttrrfoff Reviem. 
 
 " This will be found a useful little 'work 
 for all who have occasion to inquire into 
 master and servant laws as affected by the 
 statute of last session. This book is calcu- 
 lated to be especially serviceable to magis- 
 trates and justices of the peace, and they 
 undoubtedly will find it very useful. It is 
 written by one of themselves and is there- 
 fore likely to be particularly adapted to 
 their wants." — Law Journal, 
 
 '* He has been enabled to present in this 
 volume a lucid interpretation of the recent 
 act \ an interpretation, the necessity for 
 which will be appreciated from the fact 
 that the act of 1867 has been based on a 
 number of statutestowhichit refers merely 
 in a schedule. This book summarizes the 
 state of the law before the passing of the 
 act and points out the changes which have 
 been effected thereby. "~0£fer&er. 
 
MESSRS, BUTTER WORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.G. 11 
 DAVIS'S COUNTY COURTS ACT, 1867. 
 
 -THE COUNTY COURTS ACT. 1867; and the Pro- 
 visions of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1 854, relating to Dis- 
 covery, Attachment of Debts and Equitable Defences applied by 
 Order in Council to the County Courts. Edited, with Notes and 
 Introduction and a Chapter on Costs, together with all the New 
 County Court Rules, by James Edward Davis, Esq., Barrister at Law, 
 Royal 12mo. 12s. cloth. 
 
 " This volume contains a preface, an Id- is admirably priated and there is a good 
 
 Croductorychaptertthe act itself, anootated; index to the whole volume."— XaBfJouma/^ 
 
 a chapter on costs, the order in counciliall " Mr. Davis' useful Manual of County 
 
 the new rulesi forms and orders, &c.» and Courts Fiactice is well known to the pro- 
 
 a full'index. The principal feature which fession. The present is of the nature of a 
 
 attracted our attention is the chapter on supplement to that work, bein^ designed 
 
 costs, oo other treatise on the act which to show what changes have been introduced 
 
 has yet appeared haviug dealt with this im- into the jurisdiction and practice of the 
 
 portant sut^ect specifically- It would be County Courts by the act of last session, 
 
 unfair to extract, even in an abridged form, the order in council of November last, 
 
 this valuable addition to the law literature and the rules founded thereon. The no£es 
 
 of the County Courts, and we would recom- are most carefully prepared, and cannot 
 
 mend onr readers to obtain Mr. Davis's fail to be of great use to the multitude of 
 
 volume, even though they already possess persons who from day to day are obliged 
 
 any of the treatises published on the new to consult the act ; they are clear and 
 
 act, ThewholeworkisdoueinMr. Davis'^ concise, and are printed in such a type as ' 
 
 usually thorough and efficient manner, and not to waste space."— Solicitors* Journal, 
 
 the book is got up in Messrs. Bntierworths' '* It is almost imiiossible within the 
 
 best style." — JLaa Tim-'s. narrow limits of a review to do justice to 
 
 *' Mr. Davis hats good title to come before this admirable work. Mr. Davis is known 
 
 the public with a book on the new County to the profession as a singularly learned. 
 
 Courts Act, inasmuch as he has already oc- able and clear writer ; and although the 
 
 cupied the ground by his Manual on the present volume makes no claim to the same 
 
 Practice and Evidence and odter Proceed- literary rank as the well-known County 
 
 ings in the County Courts, and might feel Courts Manual, It will certainly add to 
 
 himself called upon to complete his former the author's reputation. The Act of 1867 
 
 treatise by adding what was rendered neces- ^ has been the parent of several works ; but,, 
 
 saryby thechaiigesof the law ; ashejustly in our judgment, the one of Mr. iJavis, 
 
 says, the best way to acquire a thorough for general purposes, certainly bears the 
 
 knowledgeandcomprehensionof the juris- palm. We agree with Mr. Davis that a 
 
 diction and practice of the Connty Courts thorough knowledge of the jurisdiction of 
 
 is, to treat tne new law as supplemental to the County Courts is * absolutely essential 
 
 the former law. We may add, that this for all lawyers;' and to all lawyers we . 
 
 treatise is arranged verv clearly, and the heartily commend this last work of an 
 
 practitioner can m a moment find the infor- able and erudite writer.*'— Xaa Magatint 
 
 mation which he may require. The book and Review, 
 
 *»* This ediiion may be used eitfter as an Appendix to the Third Edition of Da/ci^s 
 Practice and Evidenee in the Coimty Courts, or as an iTidepend&nt Work. 
 
 DAVIS'S COUNTY COURTS EQUITABLE JURISDICTION. 
 
 THE ACT to CONFER on the COUNTY COURTS 
 a LIMITED JURISDICTION in EQUITY, 28 & 29 Vict: cap, 99, 
 with the New Rules, and the Forms and Costa of Proceedings; also 
 Introductory Chapters, copious Notes and a full Index. By James 
 Edward Davis, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law. 
 Royal 12mo, 5s. cloth. 
 
12 
 
 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 DAVIS'S COUNTY COURTS PRACTICE AND EVIDBNCB* — 
 Third Edition. 
 
 A MANUAL of the PRACTICE and EVIDENCE in 
 ACTIONS and other PROCEEDINGS in the COUNTY COURTS, 
 including the PRACTICE IN BANKRUPTCY, with an Appendix 
 of Statutes and Rules. By James Edward Davis, of the Middle 
 Temple, Esq., Barrister at Law. Third Edition, considerably enlarged. 
 One thick volume. Royal 12mo. 285. cloth. 
 
 *** 7%is is the only Work on the Cotmiy Cou/rts which gi^es Forms of Plaints and treats 
 fully of the Lorn and Evidence in Actions and oth^ Proceedings in Giese Courts, 
 
 '^Mr.Davis succeeded in easily establish- 
 ing his work as tAe Practice of the County 
 Courts, »Dd iu maintaioing the position he 
 had won. All who have used it speak 
 well of it. They say they can readily find 
 what they want, and, better still, it con- 
 tains tlie InFormation they want, which 
 cannot be said of all books of practice, 
 whose t-rror it often is, that the writers 
 assume too much knowledge on the part 
 uf their readers, apd omit instructions in 
 common things. This has been Mr. Davis's 
 design in his Practice of the County Courts^ ^ 
 and three editions prove with what success 
 he has accomplished that design. There 
 is another feature of this work. Besides 
 the practice, it contains a complete trea- 
 tise on evidence in the County Courts, 
 after the manner of Selwyn's Nisi Frius. 
 Each of the subjects of litigation ordina- 
 rily brought before the courts is sepa- 
 rately treated, and the law minutely 
 stated, with the evidence required to sus- 
 tain or to defend the action. Thus, all 
 that can be wanted in couit is contained 
 unde- one cover, greatly to tlie saving of 
 time^^nd temper in laborious search. 
 
 It is undoubtedly the best book on 
 the Practice of the County Courts, and 
 the appearance of a third edition proves 
 thatsuchisthe opinion of theProfession." 
 r-Law Times. 
 
 " Tills is the third edition of a text- 
 
 book which is well known in both branches 
 of the Legal Profession. From a small 
 beginning it has gradually grown into a 
 bulky volume of 889 V^g^s, and now con- 
 tains an iuexhaustive exposidou of the 
 Law and Practice relating to the County 
 Courts. The second part of this manual 
 contains a \'aluable digest of the Law of 
 Evidence, as applicable to the Procedure 
 of the Couuty Courts. In this particular 
 it certainly excels all the other text-books 
 on the subject. The importance of this 
 psrt of the work cannot be too highly 
 estimated. The chapters on the County 
 Court Practice in Bankruptcy display the 
 usual care and ability of the autlior, and 
 give a completeness to a work which has 
 hitherto been deservedly popular in the 
 Profession." — Law Magazine. 
 
 ** This is a greatly enlarged edition of 
 Davis's County Court Practice, a work 
 well enough known to need no Intro* 
 ducLion to the legal public, or at any rate 
 to that portion thereof which is concerned 
 with proceedings in tlie County Courts. 
 I'he edition before us follows in its main 
 features the second edition of the book, 
 but it is to that second edition as the full. 
 blown rose to the bud, not merely in 
 quantity but in quality. We can safely 
 and heartily recommend the book for the 
 perusal of all intending practitioners in 
 any County Coart."~SoiicitorM' Journai, 
 
MESSRS. BUTTERWORTH» 7, FLEET STREET, E.C. 13 
 
 BARRV'S PRACTICE OF CONVEYANCING. 
 
 A TREATISE on the PRACTICE of CONVEY- 
 ANCING. By W. Whittaker Barry, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn. Bar- 
 rister-at-Law, late holder of the Studentship of the Inns of Courts 
 and Author of " The Statutory J urisdiction of the Court of Chancery." 
 8vo. 18s. cloth. 
 
 Contents. 
 Chap. I. Abstracts of Title.— Chap. 2. Agreements.— Chap. 3. Particulars and 
 Conditions of Sale.— Chap. 4. Copyholda.— Chap. 5. Covenants.— Chap. 6» 
 Creditors' Deeds and Arrangements — Chap. 7. Preparation of Deeds.— Chap, 8. 
 On Evidence. — Chap. 9. Leases. — Chap. 10, Mortgages.— Chap. 11. Partner- 
 ship Deeds and Arrangemeots.- Chap. 12, Sales and Purchases— Chap. 13. 
 Settlements.— Chap. 14. Wills.- Chap. 15. The Land Registry Act, 25 & 26 
 Vict. c. 53.— Chap. 16. The Act for obtaining a Declaration of Title, 25 & 26 
 Vict. c. 67. — Index. * 
 
 "This treatise supplies a want which 
 has long been felt. There has been no 
 treatise ou the practice of conveyancing 
 issued for a long time past that is ade- 
 quate for Uie preseut requirements. Mr. 
 Barry's work is essentially what it pro- 
 fesses to be, a treatise on the practice of 
 conveyancings in which Che theoretical 
 roles of reat property law are referred to 
 ooly for the purpose of elucidating the 
 practice. I'he opening chapter on ab- 
 stiacts is a very good one, aud goes at 
 once in mediag res, discussiog the very 
 centre of practical didiculiies, the pre- 
 paration of abstracts. The solicitor will 
 find in this chapter a very excellent col- 
 lection of useful suggestions. The chap- 
 ter oo particulars and conditions of sale 
 is wiitteo in Mr. Barry's happiest tone. 
 His observations on copyholds are very 
 
 judicious and useful. The chapter ou 
 leases abounds witli excellent suggestious, 
 which are the more valuable as good pre- 
 cedents for leases are as rare as good 
 precedents for agreements. After treat- 
 ing of partnership deeds and arrange- 
 nientSf and sales and purchases, Mr. 
 Barry gives an excellent chapter on 
 
 settlements. Mr. Barry appears Co have 
 
 a very accurate insight into the practice 
 
 in every departmeut of our real property 
 
 system. Although we cuniioC boast, tike 
 
 Duval, of having ever read abstracts of 
 
 title with pleasure, we have certainly 
 
 read Mr. Bdrry's chapter on abstracts, and 
 
 numerous other parts of his work, with 
 
 very considerable SdtisfacUon, on account 
 
 of the learning, great familiarity with 
 
 practice, and power of exposition of its 
 
 author. The treatise, although capable 
 f compression, is the production of a 
 
 person of great merit and still greater 
 promise." — Solicitors^ Journal, 
 
 "The author of this valuable treatise 
 on conveyancing has most wisely devoted 
 a considerable part of his work to the 
 practical illustratioo of the working of 
 the recent Statutes ou Registration of 
 Title, and for this as well ab for other 
 reasotis we feel bound to strongly recom- 
 mend it Co the practitioner as well as the 
 student. The author has proved himself 
 to be a master of the subject, for he not 
 only givrs a most valuable supply of prac- 
 tical sugsestionSj but criticises them with 
 much ability, and we have no doubt that 
 his criticism will meet with general ap- 
 proval."— ^jaeo Magazine. 
 
 " Readers who recal the instruction 
 they gathered from tijis treatise when 
 published week by week in the pages of 
 the ' Law Times' will be pleased to leara 
 that it has been re-produced in a hand- 
 some volume, which will be a welcome 
 addition to the law library. It will be 
 remembered that the papers so contri- 
 buted by Mr. Barry were remarkable for 
 the precision with which the law was 
 stated, A work, the substance of which 
 is so well kuowD to our readers, needs 
 no recommendation from us, for its 
 merits aie patent to all, from personal 
 acquaintance with them. The informa- 
 tion that the treatise so much admired 
 may now be had in the more convenient 
 form of a book will suffice of itself to 
 secure a large and eager demand for it.** 
 ~~-IjaTff Times. 
 
 "The work is clearly and agreeably 
 written, and ably eluridates the subject 
 in h&nd.'*— Justice of the Peaee, 
 ** We must content ourselves with the 
 
14 . 
 
 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 Barry's Practice of Conveyancing— con^inuAf. 
 
 stateuiput that the present is a work of 
 very great ability. There is no modern 
 work wliich deals with precisely the 
 same subject, and we have no doubt 
 whatever that this will prove a book of 
 very great value both to the practitioner 
 aud to the student at law." — Athenaum* 
 " The reader will not be in doubt in 
 Mr. Barry's work. He has giveu the 
 student an introduction to the practice 
 of conveyancing, such as Mr. Joshua 
 
 Williams has written with reference to 
 the principles of the law of real property. 
 Of course he travels iu great part over 
 the same giound as the more elaborate 
 treatises on the law of vendors and pur- 
 chasers, and we think he discriminates 
 between leading cases and the -reflne- 
 ments upon them very hapuily. His 
 book is nbt a mere book of reference, but 
 can be read pioiitably as a treatise."— 
 Spectator, 
 
 TUDOR'S I.EADING CASBS ON REAIi PROPERTY. 
 Second Edition. 
 
 A SELECTION of LEADING CASES on the LAW 
 relating to REAL PROPERTY, CONVEVANCING, and the 
 CONSTRUCTION of WILLS and DEEDS; with Notes. By 
 Owen Davies Tudor, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law, 
 Author of "Leading Cases in Equity." Second Edition. One thick 
 vol., royal 8vo., 42s. cloth. 
 
 " Iu this new edition, Mr. Tudor has 
 carefully revised his notes in accordance 
 with subsequent decisions that have modi- 
 fied or extended the law as previously 
 expounded. This aud the other volumes 
 of Mr. Tudor are almost a law library iu 
 themselves, and we are satisfied that the 
 student would Jearn more law from the 
 careful reading of them, than he would 
 acquire from double the time giveu to 
 the elaborate treatises which learned pro- 
 fessors recommend the student to peruse, 
 with entire forgetfulness that time and 
 brains are limited, and that to do what 
 they advise would be the work of a life." 
 —Laa Timet, 
 
 ** This well'known work needs no re- 
 commendation. Justice, however, to Mr, 
 Tudor ri-quires us to say that familiarity 
 with iis paops from its first appearance 
 have convinced us of its value, not only 
 as a repertory of cases, but a judicious 
 summary of the law on the sub}ects it 
 trpHts of. So far as we can see, the 
 author has brought down the cHses to the 
 latest period, and altogether there have 
 been added about 17O pdges of notes in 
 the pieseiit edition. As a guide to the 
 present law Xhe book will now be of 
 great value to the lawyer, and it will be 
 especially useful to him when away from 
 a.l.irge library." — Jurist. 
 
 ** The Second Edition is now before us, 
 and we are able to say that the same ex- 
 tensive knowledgeand the same laborious 
 industry as have been exhibited by Mr. 
 Tudor on former occasions characterize 
 this later production of his legal author- 
 ship : and it is enough at this mnment to 
 reiterate an opinion that Mr. Tudor has 
 well maintained the hieh legal reputation 
 which his stHndard works have achieved 
 in all countiies where the Englisli lan- 
 guage is spoken, and tlie decisions of our 
 Courts are quoted," — Law Magazine and 
 Review, 
 
 . *' The work before us comprises a digest 
 of decisiuus which, if not exhaustive of 
 alt tlie principles of our real property 
 code, will at leost be found to leave no- 
 thing untouched or unelaborated under 
 the numerous legal doctrines to which 
 the cases severally Hlate. To Mi.Tudor*s 
 treatment of all these subjects, so com- 
 plicated aud so varied, we accord our 
 entire commendation. Tliere are no urols- 
 sions of any important cases relative to 
 the various branches of the law comprised 
 in the work, nor are there any omissions 
 or defects in his statement of tht? law 
 itself applicable to the cases discussed by 
 him. We cordially recommend the work. 
 to the practitioner and student, alike,. 
 but especially to the former." — Solicitors* 
 Journal and Reporter. 
 
MESSRS. BUTTERWORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E. C. 15 
 
 GOIiDSMITH'S EQUITY.— Fifth Edition. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE and PRACTICE of EQUITY: or, 
 a Concise Outline of Proceedings in the High Court of Chancery. 
 Designed principally for the Use of Students, By George Gold- 
 smith, Esq., M.A., 6arrister-at-Law. Fifth Edition, including all 
 the alterations nnade in pursuance of the late Acts, and the Orders 
 thereon to the present time. Post Svo. I6s. cloth. 
 
 " This book has been writteo expressly 
 for the use of students. For the ordiuary 
 pass examiaatlon candidates for the bar 
 have usually been examined by the reader 
 OD eciuityupoD Smith's * lUaoual of Equity 
 Jurisprudence.* and the ' Elementary Viev 
 of the Proceedings in a Suit in liQuity' by 
 Mr, Hunter. Both are useful text books ; 
 the one containing a compendioos statement 
 of principles and the other a general ouClioe 
 of practice. The excellences of each ap- 
 pear to be successfully combined in Mr. 
 Goldsmith's treatise. Though professedly 
 an elementary work, its merits ere greater 
 than its pretensions. Professing to accom- 
 plish a limited task, that task has been well 
 done. We cordially recommend Mr. Gold- 
 smith's treatise to those for whom it was 
 designen." — Laa Magazine and Review. 
 
 " A volume designed for the law student. 
 Bat when we say this, we do not mean that 
 it is fitted for law students only ; we purpose 
 only thus to distinguish it from a * Pmc- 
 tice.' Every lawyer knows that he ne^ds 
 for reading a very_ different sort of book 
 from that required in practice. But it does 
 not follow that the farmer class of books 
 should be thrown aside the moment the 
 student becomes a lawyer. In the first 
 place, it is not probable that, during his 
 studentship, he will have mastered the en- 
 tire science of law, or even learned all its 
 principles : and he should never cease to 
 read treatises until he has acctuired them. 
 £veu if his industry and capacity have been 
 
 so great as to enable him to master so much, 
 he will find frequent need to refresh his 
 memory. His law will soon grow rusty if 
 he does not sometimes rub it up by refer- 
 ence to the books that teach it systemati- 
 cally. Hence such a volume as Mr. Gold- 
 smith has published is a perennial, and 
 while addressed principally to the student, . 
 it may be profitably read by the practi- 
 tioner. Five editions attest the approval 
 of those who have experienced the benefit 
 of its instructious. It has grown in bulk 
 with each successive appearance, as Mr. 
 Goldsmith discovered wnat were ti^e wants 
 of his readers; and a continued succession 
 of new topics has heen added. It is now 
 an extremely comprehensive sketch of the 
 history, jurisdiction and practice of our 
 Courts of tqui ty— a suuimary of what could 
 he obtained only by hard reading of H eeve 
 and Spence and Ayckbourn and Drewry. 
 It commences with an historical outline ; 
 then it states the principles of equity juris- 
 prudence ; then it shows their application 
 to the various subject-matters that fall 
 within its jurisdictions; and, finally, it pre- 
 sents a cleur and ver^ instructive sketch of 
 the procedure by which those Jurisdictions 
 are enforced.'* — Law Times. 
 
 " Itcontainsagreat deal of miscellaneous 
 information, and if a student were confined 
 to the selection of one book on equity, both 
 for its doctrine and practice, he cuuld hardly 
 do better than choose the one before us." — 
 Solicitors^ Journal, 
 
 KERR'S ACTION AT IiAW.— Third Edition. 
 
 An AUCTION at LAW: being an outline of the JURIS- 
 DICTION of the SUPERIOR COURTS of COMMON LAW. 
 with an Elementary View of the Proceedings in Actions therein. By 
 Robert Malcolm Kerr, LL.D., Barrister at Law ; now Judge of the 
 Sheriff's Court of the City of London, The Third Edition. 12mo. 
 13s. cloth. 
 
 "There is considerable merit id both 
 works (John William smith's and Malcolm 
 Kerr's): but the second (Kerr by^Kassett 
 Smith) has rather the advantage, in being 
 more recent, and published since the Com- 
 mon Law Procedare Act, 1860. ^—Jurist. 
 
 '* Mr. Kerr's book is more full and de- 
 tailed than that of Mr. John William Smith, 
 and is therefore better adapted for those 
 who desire to obtain not merely a general 
 notion but also a practical acquaintance 
 with Common Law Procedure."— Soii* 
 citoT^ Journal. 
 
 " This is just the book to put into a Stu- 
 dent's hand when he enters the legal pro- 
 fession. We have had occasi'oo more than 
 once to recommend it to thp notice of our 
 junior brethren."— I*XK/ew». , ,. 
 
 "Mr. bassett SmiiE has proved himself 
 very competent for the office. As a third 
 edition the volume needs no description 
 and permits no criticism. Enongh to say 
 that its present apjiearance will amply sm- 
 tain the reputation it had already ac- 
 quired/' — Law Times. 
 
16 
 
 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 TROVTER'S CHURCH BUIIiDING LAVTS. 
 
 THE LAW of the BUILDING of CHURCHES, 
 PARSONAGES, and SCHOOLS, and of the Division of Parishes 
 and Places. By Charles Fkancis Trower, M.A., of the Inner 
 Temple, Esq., Barrister at Law, late Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, 
 and late Secretary of Presentations to Lord Chancellor Westbury, 
 Post 8vo. 8s. cloth. 
 
 " A good book on this'subject is calcu- 
 lated to i)e of considerable service both to 
 lawyers, clerics and laymen ; and on the 
 whole, after taking a survey of the work 
 before us, we may pronounce it a. useful 
 work. It contains a great mass of infor- 
 mation of essential import to those who 
 as parishioners. leRal advisers or clergy- 
 men are concernea with glebes, endow- 
 ments, district chapelries, parishes, eccle- 
 siastical commissions and such like matters, 
 about which the public and notably the 
 clerical public seem to know but little, but 
 which it is needless to say are matters of 
 much importance."— iSo/icir or j' Joumai. 
 
 "The questions discussed make the work 
 a most valuable legal guide to the clergy. 
 Mr. Trower proposes by this volume to 
 assist the clergy and the lawyers in their 
 dealing with these subjects. His book is 
 just the one we could wish every clergy- 
 man to possess, for if it was in ttie hands 
 of our readers they would be saved the 
 trouble of asking us very many questions." 
 — Clerical Journal. 
 
 " Mr. Trower brings his professional re- 
 search to the rescue. In a well arranged 
 volume this gentleman points oat concisely 
 
 and intelligibly liow the difficulties which 
 usually beset parties in such matters may 
 be avoided."— Oj/orrf Uhiveriity Herald. 
 
 " The learned author of this lucid vo- 
 lume has done his best to summarise the 
 several Acts of Parliament that bear upon 
 Ecclesiastical Structures and to explain 
 their meaning. On all the inpics germane 
 to its title this volume will be found a 
 handy-book of ecclesiastical law. and 
 should on that account be made widely 
 known among the clergy, llie production 
 is worthy of its author, and will we hope 
 shortly eiitablish itself in the ^ood esteem 
 of the clerical and general public."— C^wci 
 Mail. 
 
 *' Mr. Trower aims very successfully at 
 giving a complete account of the present 
 state of the law, and rendering it as nearly 
 as possible iutellieible, and we hope that 
 it may prove useful .to all church building 
 clergy and laity. It is a compact and 
 handy treatise, very clearly written, well 
 arranged, easy of reference, and besides a 
 pood table of contents it has an elaborate 
 index. It is a book we are glad to have 
 and to recouxmeai.'*—l4iterarjf Churehman, 
 
 CHXTTY^ Jun., PRECEDENTS IN PLEADING,— 3rd Edition. 
 
 CHITTY, JuN.. PRECEDENTS in PLEADING; with 
 copious Notes on Practice, Pleading and Evidence, by the late 
 Joseph Chitty, Jun., Esq, Third Edition. By the late Tompson 
 Chitty, Esq , and by LeofricTemple, R, G. WiLUAMs,and Charles 
 Jeffert, Esqrs., Barristers at Law. Complete in one vol. royal 8vo. 
 cloth. (Part II. may be had separately, cloth, to complete sets.) 
 
 "To enter into detailed criticism and ance will not be found by reference to these 
 
 pages, which serve yet another useful pur- 
 pose, by helping the lawyer to pick holes 
 iQ his adversary's pleadings, as well as 
 properly to frame his own. TJJor is the 
 volume useful iu the superior courts only: 
 practitioners in the county courts will find 
 It a valuable ndviser in the preparation of 
 pleadings, such as they are,"— £arj Times, 
 ** The value of this practical work. has 
 greatly increased in the practical hands 
 of the editors. It is framed solely with 
 the view of being a safe and ready guide 
 for the practitioner in the art of pleading. 
 The notes are concise and suggestive, and 
 almost every precedent is accompanied by 
 a list of the cases supporting it. The pre- 
 cedents themselves give abundant proof of 
 the learning and care that have been de- 
 vOied to them. We hope that the remain- 
 der will soon he published. When it is 
 nnisbed the work will, without doubt, be 
 the best and most complete work on plead- 
 ing in our libraries."— iaai Magazine, 
 
 praise of this standard work would be 
 quite out of place. In the present instance 
 tne matter hasfallen intocitmprtent hands, 
 who have spared no pains. This valuable 
 and useful work is brought done to the 
 present time, altered in accordance with 
 the cases and statutes now in force. Great 
 care has been expended by the competent 
 editors, and its usefulness, as heretofore, 
 will be found not to be confined to the 
 chambers of the special pleader, but to be 
 of a more extended character. To those 
 who knew the work of old no recommenda- 
 tion is wanted, to those younger members 
 of the profession who have not that privi. 
 lege we would suggest that they should 
 at once make its acquaintance," — Lau 
 Journal. 
 " A book almost ast well known to the 
 
 fTofession as * Tidd* was has been repub- 
 ished,we might almost say rewritten, and 
 adapted to tne requirements of modern 
 pleading. Few there are for whom assist- 
 
MESSRS. BUTTERWORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E. C. 17 
 
 CHRISTIXS'S CRABB'S CONVEYANCING.— Fifth Edition, 
 by Shelford. 
 
 €RABB'S COMPLETE SERIES of PRECEDENTS 
 in CONVEYANCING and of COMMON and COMMERCIAL 
 FORMS in Alphabetical Order, adapted to the Present State of the 
 Law and the Practice of Conveyancing; \7ith copious Prefaces, Obser- 
 vations and Noted on the several Deeds. By J. T. Christie, Esq.; 
 Barrister-at-Law. The Fifth Edition, with numerous Corrections and 
 Additions, by Leonard Shelford, Esq., of the Middle Temple, 
 Barrister-at-Law. Two vols, royal 8vo, 3/. cloth. 
 
 ** In cnrefalness we have in bim a. second 
 Crabb, in eraditioo Crabb's supeiior ; and 
 the re&alt is a work of which the orieioal 
 author would have been proud, cou]4 it 
 have appeared under his own auspices. It 
 is not a book to be quoted, nor indeed 
 could its merits be exhibited by quotation. 
 It is essentially a book of practice, which 
 can only be described in rude outline and 
 dismissed with applause* and arecommend- 
 ation of it to the notice of those for whose 
 service it has been so laboriously com- 
 piled."— Xaze Times, 
 
 " Mr. tihelford has proved himself in 
 this task to be not unworthy of his former 
 reputation. To those familiar with his 
 other works it will be a sufficient recom- 
 mendation of this work that Mr. Sihelfnrd's 
 name appears on the .title-page^ if there 
 be any who are not well acquainted with 
 them, we venture to recommend to such 
 the work before us. as the most generally 
 useful and convenient collection of prece- 
 dents in conveyancing, and of commercial 
 forms for ordinair use, which are to be 
 had in the Knglish laiiena.ee."— -Solicitors* 
 Journal and Reporter. , , . 
 
 " Those who have been in the habit of 
 using Crabb's work will allow that, his 
 • Prefaces* contain practical observations 
 of considerable utibty to the professional 
 man. The flow of time carrying with it 
 many changes , and some reforms in the law 
 relative to conveyancing, have imposed 
 the obligation upon Mr. Shelford of care- 
 fully revising all, and in many instances 
 has rendered it expedient for him to re-write 
 no* a small portion of some of these Pre* 
 faces. Mr. Shelford has also had to exer- 
 
 cise» and we doubt not with correct judg- 
 ment has exercised, his discretion as to 
 where he should reject Forms which he 
 deemed it advisable to omit, and where he 
 should revise them or introduce new ones, 
 to meet the modern exigencies and charac- 
 teristics of conveyancing. To this im- 
 portant part of his duty— the remodelling 
 and perfecting of the Forms — even with 
 the examination which we have already 
 been able to afford this work, we are able 
 to affirm, that the learned editor has been 
 eminently successful and effected valuable 
 improvements.'*— Xa&r Magazine and Re- 
 view. 
 
 " It possesses one distinctive feature in 
 devoting more attention than usual in such 
 works to forms of a commercial nature. 
 We are satisfied from an examination of 
 the present with the immediately preced- 
 ing edition that Mr. Shelford has very con- 
 siderably improved the character of the 
 work, both in the prefaces and in the forms. 
 The two volumes contain several hundred 
 
 fiages of additional matter* and both the 
 atest cases and decisions appear to be 
 noticed in the prefaces. Indeed it is evi- 
 dent that Mr. Shelford has modernized the 
 whole work, and thus given it an additional 
 value. On the whole the two volumes of 
 Crabb's Precedents, as edited by Mr. 
 Leonard Shelford, will be found extremely 
 useful in a solicitor's office, presenting a 
 lai%e amount of real property, learning, 
 with very numerous precedents: indeed we 
 know of no book so justly entitled to the 
 appellation of * handy' as the fifth edition of 
 Mr. Crabb's Precedents,'*— Xazf Chronicle, 
 
 I.ATHAM ON THE ImAW OF WINDOIV LIGHTS. 
 
 A TREATISE on the LAW of WINDOW LIGHTS. 
 
 By Francis Law Latham, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister at 
 Law. Post 8vo. 10s. cloth. 
 
 " This is not merely a valuable additioo 
 to the law library of the practitioner, it 
 is a book that every law student will read 
 with profit. It exhausts the subject of 
 which it treats.*' — Laa Times. 
 
 " His arrangement is logical and he 
 discusses fully each point of his subject. 
 
 Tlie work in our opinion is both per- 
 spicuous^ and able, and we cannot but 
 compliment the author on it," — Laa 
 Journal* 
 
 " A treatise on this subject was wanted, 
 and Mr. Latham has succeeded in meeting 
 that want." — Athenaum. 
 
18 
 
 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 BRO^VNING'S DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAIi PRACTICB. 
 
 THE PRACTICE and PROCEDURE of the COURT 
 for DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSKS, including the 
 Acts, Rules, Orders, Copious Notes of Cases and Forms of Practical 
 Proceedings, with Tables of Costs. By W, Ernst Browning, Esq., 
 of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-law. Post 8vo. 8$. cloth. 
 
 Mr. Browoing^s little volume will duubc- 
 Ie59 become i/ie_ practice of the Divorce 
 Court." — Latp Timet. 
 
 " The tioie has come for a matrimonial 
 Chitty's Archbold. Whether Mr. Browning 
 has taken the great guide to practice in 
 the common law courts for his model, or 
 not. we cannot say ; but, if he is an imitator, 
 he has copied with success. Clearness of 
 arrangement and statement, and brevitT, 
 are the most apparent merits of his book. 
 It is therefore easy to consult and bears 
 throughout a thoroughly practical air. If 
 the future editions are edited with the same 
 care and ability that have been bestowed 
 upon this, it will probably take its place 
 as the Practice of the iJivorce Court."— 
 Jurist. 
 
 '* Mr. Browning confines himself almost 
 wholly to the practice and procedure, al- 
 though bis book contains a good deal of 
 information on the iaw of divorce. He 
 appears to have diligently collated the re- 
 ported cases, which he states with precision 
 and clearness. This Utile work is therefore 
 calculated to be useful to those who prac- 
 tise before Sir C. Cresswell. The appendix 
 of forms will be particularly serviceable to 
 the inexperienced; and, since we hav« 
 
 alluded to the appendix, ve oaght not to 
 omit noticing the ^ ery useful precedents of 
 bills of costs which it coutaius. These alone 
 are sufficient to obtain a good circulation 
 for this manual." — iSoUcitoTs' Journal. 
 
 " A work of very considerable merit and 
 great practical utility, and we have in this 
 work what die lawyer and the practitioner 
 require. We have the principles of law 
 clearly and perspicuously enunciated and 
 most copiously verified. The various sub- 
 jects are methodically distributed, and the 
 style is polished and agreeable. All the 
 forms now iu use, and taxed bills of cosis, 
 are also appended to the work. After care- 
 ful study of this work, we unhesitatingly 
 recommend it as well to the student as to 
 the legal practitioner." — Lato Magazine 
 and Reviea, 
 
 " The author has set to work to supply a 
 want in a proper spirit—and tells us simply 
 what the practice of the court now is, with- 
 out inquiring whatitshonld be. The forma 
 in the >tppeudix, we are assured, have been 
 used in practice. J'he arrangement is good, 
 and the whole work haa an unpretending 
 business-like air about it which will re- 
 commend it to the profession."— ^^A«nau»t, 
 
 CHAD^VICK'S PROBATE COURT MANUAIi. 
 
 EXAMPLES of ADMINISTRATION BONDS for the 
 COURT of PROBATE ; exhibiting the principle of various Grants 
 of Administration, and the correct mode of preparing the Bonds in 
 respect thereof; also Directions for preparing the Oaths; arranged 
 for practical utility. With Extracts from Statutes ; also various Forms 
 of Affirmation prescribed by Acts of Parliament, and a Supplemental 
 Notice, bringing the Work down to 1865. By Samuel Chadwick, 
 of Her Majesty's Court of Probate. Royal Svo. 12s, cloth. 
 
 " We undertake to say that the possession 
 of this volume by practitioners will prevent 
 many a hit-ch and awkward delay, provok- 
 ing to the lawyer himself and dimcult to 
 be satisfactorily explained to the clients." 
 —rLaW'Magasine and Review, 
 
 " The work is principally designed to 
 save the profession the necessity oiobtaiu- 
 ing at the registries information as to the 
 preparing or filling up of bunds, and to pre- 
 vent grants of administration and adminis- 
 tration with the will annexed being delayed 
 
 on account of t!he defective filling up of 
 such instruments."— &/tci/orf* Journal. 
 
 ,"Mr. Chadwick'svolumewill beaneces- 
 sary part of the law library of the practi- 
 tioner, for he has collected precedents that 
 are in constantrequirement. This is purely 
 a book of practice, but therefore the more 
 valuable.. It tells the reader what to do, 
 and that is the information most required 
 after a lawyer begins to practise.'-— Xato 
 Timer. 
 
MESSRS. BUTTER WORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.C. 19 
 
 FISHER'S GENERAL I.AW OP KEORTGAGE.-Second Edit. 
 
 The LAW OF MORTGAGE, and other Securitiei 
 upon Property. By Wi;,liam Richard Fisher, of Lincoln's Inn, 
 Esq., Barrister at Law, Two vols. Royal 8vo. 55s, cloth. 
 
 HUNTER'S SUIT IN EQUITY.— Fourth Edition. 
 
 AN ELEMENTARY VIEW of the PROCEEDINGS 
 IN A SUIT IN EQUITY. With an Appendix of Forms. By 
 Sylvester J. Hunter, B.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barristei: at Law. 
 Fourth Edition, by G. W. Lawrange, M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, 
 Barrister at Law. Post 8vo. 10s, cloth. 
 
 ** Jt is now ten ye^rs since Mr. 
 Huntfr's modest aod uDpreteuding 
 volume 6rst saw the light, aud few we 
 imaglae have been ilie students of equity 
 practice during those years who have not 
 bpen indebted to its pages for their first 
 initiatioQ into the mysteries of the Court 
 of Chancery. Within the compass of 
 three hundred pages the reader (as far as 
 is possible witliout the result of practical 
 experieuce) may obtain au accurate idea 
 of the various incidental proceedings 
 leading up to aud following tlie decree, 
 while the several stages of the suit are 
 all carefully illustrated by forms referred 
 to in the text and collected together iu 
 au appendix at the end of the volume. 
 We will only add that we are glad to 
 find this little work is in -such good 
 hands, and while it continues to receive 
 from time to time Mr. La trance's careful 
 revision, we venture to predict for it a 
 long-lived success and many future 
 editions.'' — Law Journal. 
 
 " An outline, after this fashion, of a 
 suit in equity is contained ia Mr. 
 Hunter's little volume, and that it lias 
 been found to perform its promise is 
 proved by. its arrival at a fourth edition, 
 Mr, Lawrence has added a chapter on 
 the equitable jurisdiction of the county 
 courts." — LaTO Time*, 
 
 ^' Tills booir has now maintained for so 
 long a time the position of a standfird 
 nianual for the use of law students that 
 there is little for us to say respecting its 
 general scope. The work is intended for 
 beginners, and the design is excelleniiy 
 carried out. Everytliiug is there which 
 ought to be placed before the learner, 
 aud yet the boqk is not encumbered ^rith 
 references and details which would serve 
 merely to embarrass him; the arrange- 
 ment is also very clear. Since the issi^e 
 of the first edition in 1858, two successive 
 editions besides the present have been 
 prepared by Mr. Lawrance, the present 
 editor, a suflicipnt guarantee that the 
 book has answered the purpose for which 
 it was intended,'*— ;<^{>/i£iV0»' JournaL 
 
 " A fourth editipn attests the con- 
 fidence of xViLe, Profession, especially the 
 junior )>ranch of it. In Mr. Hunter's Suit 
 in Equity. As a rule a work to pass into 
 further editions must have real merit, 
 lliis merit Mr. Hauter's work contains. 
 The style in which it is written is singu>^ 
 larly clear and attractive for a book of 
 practice, which is no doubt the cause of 
 its acquiring and retaining the pre-emlT 
 nenee it possesses amongst boplfs of its 
 class." — La^ Examination Reporter, 
 
20 
 
 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 SIR T. X5. MAV'S FARZiIAMENTARY PRACTICE.— 6th Edit. 
 
 A PRACTICAL TREATISE on the LAW, PRIVI- 
 LEGES, PROCEEDINGS and USAGE of PARLIAMENT. By 
 Sir Thomas Erskine Mat, K.C.B., of the Middle Temple, Bar- 
 rister at Law, Clerk Assistant of the House of Commons. Sixth 
 Edition, Revised and Enlarged. One very thick vol, Svo. 35^. 
 cloth. 
 
 Contents: — Book I. Constitution, Powers and Privileges of ParliameDt. — Book II. 
 Practice and Proceediugs in Parliament. — Book III. The Manuer of passing 
 Private Bills, with the Standing Orders in both Houses, and the most receat Pre- 
 cedents. 
 
 " We hail with satisfaction a new edi- 
 tion of this admirahle work. The poli- 
 tician, the lawyer, the parliamentary 
 agent and the educated gentleman, will 
 find here a teacher, a guide, a digest of 
 practice and a pleasing companion. To 
 legal readers the first portion of this work 
 is of the most value. "We may advert to 
 the great care with which the author has 
 noted up and incorporated in this new 
 edition all the changes and events of im- 
 portance since the publication of the fifth 
 edition. Prom unAiagmentary excerpts 
 it is plain that the author has taken pains 
 to add all novel matter bearing on the 
 subject-matter, and to maintain for the 
 work that character for accuracy and 
 completeness which it has already ac- 
 quired." — Law Jowmal. 
 
 " Six editions in. twenty-four years 
 attest the estimation in which this great 
 work is held by the members of succes- 
 sive parliaments, by the promoters of pri- 
 vate bills and by constitutional lawyers. 
 It is an exhaustive treatise on that most 
 lawless of all law, the law of parliament. 
 Since the publication of the last edition 
 considerable changes have been made in 
 
 the Standing Orders of both Houses, and 
 these have been embodied in the present 
 edition. Wemaypointtothe words sixth 
 edition upon the title-page as the best 
 possible testimony to its practical value 
 for all who are in any way concerned in 
 the law and practice t»f parliament." — 
 Law Times. 
 
 " Perhaps no work has acMeved a 
 greater reputation among lawyers than 
 May's ' Parliamentary Practice.' Since 
 the first publication in 1844, a succession 
 of editions have been called for, and now, 
 after an interval of four years since the 
 issue of the fifth, a sixth edition has been 
 found necessary. The work is too well 
 known to need the repetition of any de- 
 scription of its scope, and we will there- 
 fore merely add, that it is extremely 
 useful to the parliamentary lawyer — in 
 fact the only work in which he can obtain 
 every information on matters of practice 
 — and is moreover a work from which the 
 lay reader may learn very much as to 
 the history and constitution of English 
 parliamentary government,"— jSo/ietfor*' 
 Joitmdl. 
 
MESSRS. BUTTERWORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.G. 21 
 
 ROUSE'S PRACTICAL CONVEYANCER. 
 Third Edition* 
 
 The PRACTICAL CONVEYANCER, giving, in a mode 
 combining facility of reference with general utility, upwards of Four 
 Hundred Precedents of Conveyances, Mortgages and Leases, Settle- 
 ments, and Miscellaneous Forms, with (not in previous Editions) the 
 Law and numerous Outline Forms and Clauses of Wills and Abstracts 
 of Statutes affecting Real Property, Conveyancing Memoranda, &c. 
 By RoLLA Rouse, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law, 
 Author of " The Practical Man," &c* Third Edition, greatly enlarged. 
 Two vols. 8vo. 30s. cloth. 
 
 " The best test of the value of a book 
 written professedly for practical men is 
 the practical one of the number of edi- 
 tions through which it passes. The fact 
 that this weU-knowii work has now reached 
 its third shows that it is considered by 
 those for whose convenience it was written 
 to fulfill its purpose well."— Xooi Magazine, 
 
 ** This is the third edition in ten years, 
 a proof that practitioners have nsed and 
 approved the precedents collected by Mr. 
 Kouse. In this edition, which is greatly 
 enlarged, he has for the first time intro* 
 duced Precedents of Wills, extending to 
 uo. less than ll6 pages. We can, accord 
 onmingled praise to the conveyancing me- 
 moranda snowing the practical effect of 
 the various statutory provisions in the 
 different parts of a deed. If the two^pre- 
 ceding editions have been so well received, 
 the welcome given to this one by the, pro- 
 fession will be heartier still." — Law Times. 
 
 " So far as a careful pernsal of Mr. 
 llouse's book enables us to judge of its 
 merits, we think that as a collection of 
 precedents of general utility in cases of 
 common occurrence it will be found satis- 
 factorily to stand the application of the test. 
 The draftsman will find in the Practi- 
 cal Conveyancer precedents appropriate to 
 all instruments of commou occurrence, and 
 the collection appears tu be especially well 
 supplied with those which relate to copy- 
 hom estates. In order to avoid useless 
 repetition and also to make the precedents 
 as simple as possible, Mr. Rouse has 
 sketched out a number of outline drafts so 
 as to present to th"? reader a sort of bird_ s- 
 , eye view of each instrument and show him 
 its form at a glance. Each paragraph in 
 these outline forms refers, by distingmsh- 
 jng letfers and numbers, to the clauses lu 
 full required to be inserted in the respec- 
 
 tive parts of the instrument, and which are 
 given in a subsequent part of the work» 
 and thus every precedent in outline is 
 made of itself an index to the clauses which 
 are necessary to complete the draft. In 
 order still further to simplify the arrange- 
 ment of the work, the author has adopted 
 a plan (vhich seems to us fully to answer 
 its purpose) of giving the variations which 
 may occur io any instrument according to 
 the natural order of its different parts."— 
 Lata JoumaU 
 
 *' That the work has found favor is 
 proved by the fact of our now having to 
 review a third edition. This method of 
 skeleton precedents appears to us to be at- 
 tended with important advaniages.. Space 
 is of ccurse saved^ but besides this there 
 is the still more important consideration 
 that the draftsman is materially assisted 
 to a bird's-eye view of his draft. Every- 
 one who has done much conveyancing 
 work knows how thoroughly importaot, 
 nav, how essential to success, is the for- 
 mation of a clear idea of the scope and 
 framework of the instrument to be pro- 
 duced. To clerks and other young hands a 
 course of convey anciog under Mr. Rouse's 
 auspices is, we think, calculated to prove 
 veiT instructive. To the solicitor, espe- 
 cially the country practitioner, who has 
 often to set his clerks to work upon drafts 
 of no particular difficulty to the experi- 
 enced practitibner, but upon which they 
 the said clerks are not to oe quite trusted 
 alone, we think to such gentlemen Mr. 
 Rouse's collection of Precedents is calcu- 
 lated to prove extremely serviceable. We 
 repeat, in conclusion, that solicitors, espe- 
 cially those practising in the country, 
 will find this a useful vioT)t.'*— Solicitors' 
 JoumaU 
 
22 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 BRANDON'S IiAW OF FOREIGN ATTACHMENT. 
 
 A TREATISE upon the CUSTOMARY LAW of 
 FOREIGN ATTACHMENT, and the PRACTICE of the 
 MAYOR'S COURT of the CITY OF LONDON thereto. With 
 Forms of Procedure. By Woodthorpe Brandon, Esq., of the 
 Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 8vo, 14s. cloth. 
 
 MOSEIiEY ON CONTRABAND OF AVAR. 
 
 WHAT IS CONTRABAND OF WAR AND WHAT 
 
 IS NOT. A Treatise comprising all the American and English 
 Authorities on the Subject. By Joseph Moseley, Esq., B.C.L., 
 Barrister at Law. Post 8ro. 5s. cloth. 
 
 " Thi'smBDualwillbefoaad tobeofcon- contains a sood table tof contents, ^lllbe 
 
 siderable practical value, inasmuch as it found to possess practical merit, aod seldom 
 
 seems to oe sufficiently exhaustive of the toaecessitateareferencetothemoreleamed 
 
 brsn^cifthemflritimepubHclaw of which atithbrities."— ijais Af^cazine and lUvitto, 
 it'ireat». We think this manaolk which 
 
 SMITH'S BAR EDUCATION. 
 
 A HISTORY of EDUCATION for the ENGLISH 
 BAR, with SUGGESTIONS as to SUBJECTS and METHODS 
 of STUDY. By Philip Anstie Smith, Esq., M.A., LL.B., Bar- 
 rister at Law. 8vo., 9s. cloth. 
 
 "This work is one of great interest in from the pea of a thoughtful man," — Ioitb 
 the present day. It evidently emanates Magazine. 
 
 DAVIS'S CRIMINAL IJVW CONSOLIDATION ACTS. 
 
 THE CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACTS, 
 
 1861 ; with an Introduction and practical Notes, illustrated by a 
 copious reiference to Cases decided by the Court of Criminal Appeal. 
 Together with alphabetical Tables of Ofifences, as well those punish- 
 able upon Sumttiary Conviction as upon Indictment, and including the 
 Offences underthe New Bankruptcy Act, so arranged as to present at 
 one view the particular Offence, the Old or New Statute upon which 
 it is founded, and the Limits of Punishment; and a full Index. By 
 James Edward Davis, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 10s. clotli. 
 
MESSRS. BUTTERWORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E,C. 23 
 
 VaVTEUi'S IiAW OF INI>AND CARRIERS.— Second Edition. 
 THE LAW OF INLAND CARRIERS, especially as 
 regulated by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854. By Edmund 
 Powell, Esq., of Lincoln College, Oxon, M.A., and of the Western 
 Circuit, Barrister at Law. Author of " Principles and Practice of the 
 Law of Evidence." Second Edition, almost re-written. 8vo, 14s. cloth. 
 
 ** The treatise before as states the law of riers." — Law Timei, 
 
 «hioh it treats ably abd clearly, and con. "Thesabjectof this treatise is not indeed 
 
 tains & good index. — Solicitorr Journal. a larze one, but it has been got up by Mr, 
 
 " Mt. Powell's writing is singnlarly pie- Powell with considerable care, and contains 
 
 ciseandt:ondensed,withoutbeingataUary, ample notice of the most recent cases and 
 
 as those who have tead his admirable Book authorities."— Jun'j'. 
 
 df Evidence will attest. It will be ^een, **The two chapters on the Railway atod 
 
 frofii oar outline of the contents, how ex- Canal Traffic Act, 1856, are quite new, and 
 
 Maustively the subject has been treated, and the tecent cases under the provisions of 
 
 that it is entitled to be that which it aspires that statute are analyzed in lucid lan- 
 
 to become, the text book on the law of Car- gaage.*'— iiazp Magasine, 
 
 ViTOOIiRYCH ON SEVTERS.— Third Edition. 
 A TREATISE on the LAW OF SEWERS, including 
 the Drainage Acts. By Humphry W. Woolrych, Seqeant at Law, 
 Third Edition, with considerable Additions and Alterations. 8vo. 12s. 
 cloth. 
 
 " Two editions of it haw been speedily been added to the literature of Ihe profes- 
 
 exhausted, and a third called for. The aioo. It is a work of no slight labour to 
 
 author is an accepted authority on all sub- digest and arrange this mass of legislation 
 
 jects of tlJs class."— l<iw limes. —this task, however, .Mr. Serjeant Wool- 
 
 " This is a third and greatly enlarged fych has undert^en, 6nd an dxammktioli 
 
 edition of a book which has already ob- of his book will, we think, convince the 
 
 tained an established reputation as the most most exacting that he has fully succeeded, 
 
 complete discussion of the subject adapted N o one should attempt to meddle wuh the 
 
 to modem times. Since the treatise of Mr. Xaw of Sewers without its help."— &<i- 
 
 Serjeant Callis in the early part of the 17th citors' Journal. 
 century, no work filling the same place has 
 
 SMITH'S PRACTICE OF CONVEYANCING. 
 
 An ELEMENTARY VIEW of the PRACTICE of CON- 
 VEYANCING in SOLICITORS' OFFICES, with an Outline of the 
 Proceedings under the Ti-ansfer of Land and Declaration of Title Acts, 
 1862, for the use of Articled Clerks. By Edmund Smith, BiA.ilate of 
 Pembroke Coll, Cambridge, Attorney and Solicitor. Post 8vo. 6». cloth. 
 
 "This little work irill be found very '*lf^< .'^"^^e^V- M^'t ^f^'m''^l.?^ 
 
 useful to beginners in Conveyancing. The wills, is very simple and intelligible, while 
 
 writer has the moral courage to commence at the same time it is so accurate and com- 
 
 at Se very beginning, and to avoid a plete that even old praqtitioners may read 
 
 parade of learning whicll would be entirely " with advantage. It is on the whole a 
 
 iseless to articledclerks in their noviciate. high y creditaWeperfprmance fora country 
 
 Tie account given by him of the proceed- !xi\latoi."-SoltMor,'JoaniaUndReporler. 
 ings in solicitors* offices, in purchases. 
 
24 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 PETEKSDORFF'S ABRIDGMENT OF THE COMKION IiAW. 
 New Edition. 
 
 Now complete in 6 vols. Royal 8vo. 7^7«. cloth. 
 A CONCISE PRACTICAL ABRIDGMENT of the 
 COMMON AND STATUTE LAW, as at present administered in 
 the Common Law, Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Courts, excluding 
 all that is obsolete, overruled or superseded : comprising a Series of 
 Condensed Treatises on the different Branches of the Law, with 
 detailed Directions, Forms and Precedents; an Alphabetical Dic- 
 tionary of Technical Law Terms and Maxims, and a Collection of 
 ' Words that have received a Special Judicial Construction ; the whole 
 illustrated by References to the principal Cases in Equity, and in the 
 Scotch, American and Irish Reports, and the most eminent text 
 writers. By Chahles Petersdoeff, Seijeant-at-Law, assisted by 
 Charles W, Wood, Esq., and Walker Marshall, Esq., Barristers- 
 at-Law. 
 
 " Mr. Serjeant PetersdorflF liaa brought work at some leugth on the completion of 
 
 to a close his labours upon this great and the first volume. Now that the sixtli has 
 
 useful wolk. It is a complete dictionary been published, we have nothing to add 
 
 of the law as it exists at the present day, except that the execution seems to be in. 
 
 and is also an index to every law library. the best style of this laborious Jurist and 
 
 "We noticed the plan and object of thia professional writer," — Timet^ 
 
 SHELFORD'S SUCCESSION DUTIES.— Second Edition. 
 
 THE LAW relating to the PROBATE, LEGACY and 
 SUCCESSION DUTIES in ENGLAND, IRELAND and SCOT- 
 LAND, including all the Statutes and the Decisions on those Sub- 
 jects : with Forms and Official Regulations, ^y Leonard Skelford, 
 Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law. The Second Edition, 
 with many Alterations and Additions. 12mo. 16s. cloth. 
 
 ^* The treatise before us, one of the most • been already tested by most of them." — 
 useful and popular of bis productions. Law Times. 
 
 being now toe text book on the subject, '* Mr. hhelford's book appears to ns to 
 
 nothing remains but to make known its ap- be the best and mostcomplete work on this 
 pearance to our readers, its merits have extremely intricate subject." — Laa Maga- 
 zine, 
 
MESSRS. BUTTERWORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.C. 25 
 
 POWXIiIi ON EVID£NCE.-Third Edition by Cutler and 
 Griffin. 
 
 THE PRINCIPLES and PRACTICE of the LAW of 
 EVIDENCE. By Edmund Powell, M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Third 
 Edition, by John Cutler, B.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at Law, 
 Professor of English Law and Jurisprudence, and Professor of Indian 
 Jurispi'udence at King's College, London, and Edmund Fuller 
 Griffin, B. A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. I2mo. 155. cloth. 
 
 " This is a good edition of a very useful 
 work. The book itself we have always 
 considered as welladapted for the student 
 and convenient for the practitioner. It 
 explains principles clearly and illustrates 
 them without overloading them bv the 
 cases quoted. The work is more pra^ical 
 in its object than that of Mr. Best* and 
 treats the subject in a more succinct 
 manner than Mr. Pitt Taylor. There 
 could be no better introduction to the 
 study of the law of evidence than Mr. 
 Powell's book, whilst it is perfectly suit- 
 able for ordinary reference ; and the care 
 that has been bestowed on it by the pre- 
 sent editors willj we think, considerably 
 enhance its value," — Law MagaziTie and 
 Seview. 
 
 " This is anew edition of a work which. 
 we fancy has scarcely been as well known 
 as it deserves. It has not, of course, the 
 pretensions to completeness of Mi. Pitt 
 Taylor's book, nor, possibly, has it so 
 much merit, as an original and scientific 
 treatise as Mr. Best's. At the same time, 
 it is probably more useful than either 
 for ready reference in court on ordinary 
 points. For this purpose Mr. Best's 
 book is of little practical utility, while 
 the two large volumes of Mr. Taylor's 
 work are so cumbrous that probably few 
 practitioners would be likely to take 
 them out of their chambers. The pre- 
 sent volume is of a handy size, is mode- 
 rately cheap, and its contents are re- 
 markably well arranged, so that any- 
 thing it contains can very rapidly he 
 found. The numher of cases to which 
 it refers is considerable, and the effect of 
 the decision seems accurately and con- 
 cisely given. We think this will be 
 enough to mak? the work useful to 
 practitioners on circuit, at quarter ses- 
 sions, and especially in county courts, 
 where access to a library is not usually 
 to be had, and it is inconvenient or im- 
 possible to take many or large books. 
 To students and young barristers, also, 
 the book will be uselul, not only for 
 reading at home, as more practical than 
 Best and less detailed than Taylor, but 
 
 also to take with them into court.^' — 
 Solicitors^ Journal. 
 
 " The treatise before us has with great 
 care and skill incorporated the principles 
 of evidence observed in equity, and also 
 the salient rules adopted in the Anglo- 
 Indian courts. But while we think that 
 the sphere of this treatise must be con- 
 fined to the education of students, we 
 have no hesitation in asserting that 
 within that sphere the book is a great 
 success, and we cordially recommend 
 the volume to students both for the 
 English bar and for the Indian bar.- Its 
 simplicity and perspicuity render it also 
 a valuable aid to members of the Indian 
 civil service." — Law Jowmal, 
 
 " We have very great pleasure in 
 .noticing this edition of a work with 
 which we have long been familiar. It 
 was certainly a good idea to make the 
 hook useful to the equity practitioner. 
 It was a still better idea to adapt the 
 Anglo-Indian rules of evidence, which 
 must assist materially those who are 
 studying in England for the Indian bar, 
 or preparing for the Indian civil service, 
 Mr. Cutler, being Professor of Indian 
 Jurisprudence at King's College, has 
 executed this latter branch of the work 
 with the ability which was to be ex- 
 pected from'him, and we can heartily 
 recommend this excellent edition of Mr. 
 Powell's book as likely to prove of very 
 wide utility." — Lmo Times., 
 
 '■ We are glad to see a new edition of 
 Mr. Powell's work on the law of evi- 
 dence. The present edition is ably 
 edited by Mr. Cutler and Mr. Griffin, 
 who have, in addition to the previous 
 text, added the principles and practice 
 of the law of evidence adopted by the 
 Court of Chancery and other important 
 matter, and brought down the law to the 
 present time. The book will be found 
 a most useful addition to the lawyers' 
 library; and to those practising or about 
 to practice in the county courts it is 
 almost a necessity," — Lata Examination 
 Reporter. 
 
 »*• A2thouah in this work the mott important decisions only are quoted, and as a rule Jmt 
 oneluthority is gwm /or each proposition, yet there are upwards of 400 ca^es cited 
 therein which do not appear in the table of cases prefixed to the latest edttvm, of 
 ** Taylor on Evidence." 
 
26 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 TUDOR'S CHARITABLE TRUSTS.— Second Edition. 
 
 THE LAW of CHARITABLE TRUSTS; with the 
 
 Statutes, including those of 1862, the Orders, Regulations and Instruc- 
 tions issued pursuant thereto, and a Selection of Schemes, with Notes. 
 By Owen Davies Tudor, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at- 
 Law, Author of * Leading Cases in Equity.* Second Edition, contain- 
 ing all the recent Statutes and Decisions, Post 8to. 18s. cloth. 
 
 " Mr. Xador in the preseat edition of bin second edition has collected the cases de- 
 work has struck oat beyond his original cided since the issue of the first, and their 
 intention, and has made it a complete com- number is snrprisinK — upwards of one thou- 
 pendium of the law of charities. In carry- sand. Mr. Tndor has made his work com- 
 ing out this intention his object appears to pletebycbe introduction of several schemes 
 have been to produce a practical and con- for the settlement of chariti^, so that it is 
 ciae summary of this branch of the la-vf. in all respects the text-book for the lawyer 
 N o living writer is more capable than Mr. as well as a hand-book for reference by 
 Tudor of producing such a work : his Lead- trustees and others engaged in the manage- 
 in^ Cases in Equity, and also on the Law ment of charities."— Xazo Timet. 
 of^Real Property, have deservedly earned " The account of the Law of Mortmain 
 for him the highest reputation as a learned, and the statutes respecting charitable be- 
 carefu.1 and judicious text-writer. The quests in their bearing on the different 
 main feature of the work is the manner in reli^ous orders is full and definite, and the 
 which Mr. Tudor has dealt with all the duties of trustees are explained in a clear 
 recent statates relating to this subject; and straightforward way. Altogether this 
 we have only to add that the index is very work must be exceedingly useful, not to 
 carefully compiled."— Solicitors' Journal. say indispensable, to all persons who are 
 
 " Mr. Tndor's excellent little book on connected with charitable trusts, whether 
 
 Charitable Trusts. It is indeed no longer as founders, managers or trustees.*' — Eng- 
 
 a little book hut a bulky one of some 650 fish CUnrchman. 
 
 pages. Mr, Tudorboweveris a singularly "To this second edition large additions 
 
 painstaking author; his books, as the pro- are made, and it is now a complete com- 
 
 riession well knows, are models of industry pendium ofthe Law of Charities."— C/«rica/ 
 
 and care, and hence their popularity. This Journal. 
 
 O'DOWD'S MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT. 
 
 THE MERCHANT SHIPPING AMENDMENT 
 ACT, 1862; with an Introductory Analysis; an Appendix con- 
 taining the Statute and incorporated Provisions of antecedent Acts ; 
 a Digest of Cases of Salvage and Collision, with reference to the 
 newly-extended Jurisdiction ; Practical Forms and a copious Index. 
 By Jambs O'Dowd, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, 
 and Assistant Solicitor for the Merchant Shipping Departmen.t of Her 
 Majesty's Customs. 12mo. 7s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 IiUSHINGTON'S NAVAI. PRIZE IiAW. 
 
 A MANUAL of NAVAL PRIZE LAW. By Godpkey 
 LusHiNGTON, of the Inner Temple^ Esq., Barrister at Law. Royal 
 Svo. lOs. 6d. cloth. 
 
MESSRS. BUTTERWORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.C. 27 
 
 SCRIVEN ON COPYHOIiDS.-Fiftli Edition by Stalman. 
 
 A TREATISE ON COPYHOLD, CUSTOMARY 
 
 FREEHOLD, and ANCIENT DEMESNE TENURE, with the 
 Jurisdiction of Courts Baron and Courts Leet. By John ScriVen, 
 Seijeant at Law. The Fifth Edition, containing references to Cases 
 and Acts of Parliament lo the present time. By Henry Stalman, 
 Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Abridged in 1 vol. royal 
 Svo. 305. cloth. 
 
 "No lawyer can see or bear the -^ord 
 * copyhold* without associatiog with it the 
 DEune of Scrivea, whose book has been 
 always esteemed not merely the best but 
 the only one of any worth. Uctil a com- 
 mutation of the tenure for a fixed rent- 
 charge, after the manner of a tithe com- 
 mutation, is compelled by the legislature* 
 this treatise will lose none of its usefulness 
 to the solicitors in the country."— iaaj 
 Times. ■ 
 
 " It would be wholly snperfluons to offer 
 one word of comment on the general body 
 of the work, ticriven on Copyholds has 
 
 for exactly half a centnry been not only 
 a standard work but one of uuimpe^chable 
 authority, and in its pagis the, present 
 generation has learned all that is known 
 of copyhold and customary tenures. All 
 that is necessary to say is, that in the pre- 
 sent edition of Scriven on Copyholds 
 Mr. Stalman has omitted what was use- 
 less to retain, and inserted what it was 
 necessary to add. l>ntil copyholds have 
 disappeared utterly, it is at least certain 
 that Scriven on Copyholds by Stalman 
 will hold undisputed sway in the profes* 
 sion.** — Iioa Journal, 
 
 INGRAM ON COMPENSATION FOR LANDS; &C. 
 
 COMPENSATION TO LAND AND HOUSE 
 
 OWNERS : being a Treatise on the Law of the Compensation for In-, 
 terests in Lands, &c. payable by Railway and other PuWic Companies;, 
 with an Appendix of Forms and Statutes. By Thomas Dunbak 
 Ingram, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister at Law. Post Svo. ] Os. cloth. 
 
 '* Whether for companies taking land or 
 holding it, Mr. Ingram's volume will be a 
 welcome guide. With this in his hand the 
 legal adviser of a company* or of an owner 
 and occupier whose property is taken, and 
 who demands compensation for it, cannot 
 fail to perform his duty rightly."— Xa» 
 
 " We can safely recommend this small 
 Tolnme of Mr. Ingram's as a safe reliable 
 mentor on every subject connected with 
 railway compensation."— W«i»i oft/ie World, 
 
 *' It is lucid, painstaking, and complete, 
 and will be fonnd a work of great practical 
 valtie."— Morning Advertiser. 
 
 "The result is before us in a condensed 
 andnerspicuous form, and Mr. Ingram, in 
 proaacing this very useful l>ook at this 
 
 particular time, lias performed a service 
 which will, we doubt not, be appreciated' 
 alike by the public and the legal pro- 
 fession. ''—5/awrfflrrf. 
 
 " The task which Mr. Ingram has had to 
 perform must have involved the expendi- 
 ture of much time, labour and research. 
 He has brought to it the requisite ability, 
 ta knowledge «f his subject, and copious 
 command of materials, and the result is a 
 work of genuine utility to the public and 
 to the legal itrofesaionj" S/uj^ittg mid 
 Mercantile Gazette. 
 
 "His explanations are clear and accurate,, 
 and he constantly endeavours not only to 
 state the effect of the law whichhe is 
 eonnclating, but also 4o show the principle 
 upon which it rests."— ^^Anwcam. 
 
28 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 OKE'S MAGISTERIAL SYNOPSIS.— lOth Edition. 
 
 The MAGISTERIAL SYNOPSIS: a Practical Guide 
 for Magistrates, their Clerks, Attornies, and Constables, Summary 
 Convictions and Indictable Offences, with their Penalties, Punish- 
 ments, Procedure, &c. ; being Alphabetically and Tabularly arranged. 
 By Geokge C. Oke, Chief Clerk to the Lord Mayor of London. 
 Tenth Edition. 1 very thick vol. 8vo. 
 
 LOVESY'S I.A'W OF MASTERS AND VTORKMEN. 
 
 {Dedicaiedt bypertjiissumt to Lord St. Zeontzrds.) 
 
 The LAW of ARBITRATION between MASTERS and 
 WORKMEN, as founded upon the Councils of Conciliation Act of 
 1867 (30 &3I Vict. c. 105), the Master and Workmen Act (5 Geo. 
 4, c. 96), and other Acts, with an Introduction and Notes. By 
 C. W. LovESY, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law, 
 12mo. 4.S. cloth. 
 
 '* Where the adoption of this act is con- little book will be found extremely useful." 
 
 templated a better handbook could not be '—Solicitors' Journal. 
 
 provided for the guidance of masters and " I think yon have bestowed much at- 
 
 men than this edition of the acit which has tention upon the later statute and added 
 
 been carefully and intelligently noted 'by some useful notes." — Lord St. Leonards, 
 
 Mr. Lovesy. as being printed in a conve- *' The notes which he has introduced 
 
 nient form for use and nrovided with an will considerably facilitate the attain- 
 
 excellent index," — Laa> Times. ment of his object. The book is not ex- 
 
 " The professed object of the author has clusively addressed to the legal world, 
 
 been to _give the substance of the two all those who come within the compre- 
 
 statutes m a popular form, and in that hensive term^ of employers and employed 
 
 endeavour he seems to have succeeded."— may refer to it with advantage, and we 
 
 Law Journal. sincerely trust that the publication of this 
 
 .'*. We think the duty has been well per- useful work wi'l be the means of decreasing 
 
 formed by Mr. Lovesy; he hasgiveu us a some of the existing difficulties/'— Jtufice 
 
 clear and concise statement of the effect of of the Peace, 
 the five statutes aforesaid, and we think his 
 
 WILLS ON EVIDENCIS.-Foiirtli Edition. 
 
 AN ESSAY on the PRINCIPLES of CIRCUMSTAN- 
 TIAL EVIDENCE. Illustrated by numerous Cases. By the late 
 William Wills^ Esq. Fourth Edition. Edited by his Son, Alfred 
 Wills, Esq., Barrister at Law. 8vo. lOs. cloth. 
 
MESSRS. BUTTERWORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.G. 29 
 
 OKE'S HAGISTERIAIi FORMUI>I ST.— Fourth Edition. 
 
 The MAGISTERIAL FORMULIST: being a complete " 
 collection of Forms and Precedents for practical use in all Cases out 
 of Quarter Sessions, and in Parochial Matters, by Magistrates, their 
 Clerks, Attornies and Constables, By George C. Oke, Chief Clerk 
 to the Lord Mayor of London, Author of "The Magisterial Synopsis." 
 Fourth Edition. 8vo. 38s. cloth. 
 
 *^« This New Edition is hrought down to the <!lose of the last Session of Parliament^ 
 1867, w much enlarged and improved^ and contains the Forms under the New 
 Master and Servant Act, 1867, and the Magisterial Legislation of the last six years^ 
 
 "What Chitty's *Archbold' is to the 
 common law practitioner, what DanieU's 
 'Practice' was to Chancery men, what 
 Davidson's ' Precedents ' are to convey- 
 ancers, such are Mr. Oke's works to 
 those engaged in magisterial duties. 
 Can we use higher praise ? If we could 
 we would, because a really genuine book 
 of practice is beyond all price. * » » 
 This, the third edition, is destined, we 
 doubt not, to be swallowed up with the 
 samti avidity as is usual with this author's 
 publications." — Leno Magazine, 
 
 *' The publication of a new edition of 
 this most useful collection of forms has 
 been urgently called for. Mr. Oke's 
 works aie so well known to all who are 
 ■concerned In the administration of ma- 
 .gisterial law, that we need sa^o more 
 than that the present edition seems to 
 have been prepared with his usual care. 
 On a reference to a very full index at 
 theend of the book^we have been unable 
 to detect the omission of any subject in 
 the place where it might be expected to 
 be found, and such forms as the author 
 has had to draw, and not merely to tran- 
 scribe, appear well executed."— fito/iatory 
 JouT^nal. 
 
 " Mr. Oke has had many predecessors 
 in his office of Chief Clerk to the Lord 
 Mayor of London of skill, learning and 
 reputation, but it would be impossible 
 to name any one of such officers who 
 has rendered such signal services to the 
 administration of the law by the justices 
 as the author of the book before us. It 
 is indeed difficult to offer any remarks of 
 moment upon a work which has gone 
 through three editions, and has been 
 acknowledged as complete by ftll who 
 has had occasion to use it. But time 
 
 alone, and the mass of new legislation 
 which it has brought with it, have made 
 the revision of the hook necessary. The 
 Important changes and extensions of the 
 law administered by the magistrates since 
 the session of 1861 have justified and 
 demanded a new edition, and in that new 
 edition we believe will be found the same 
 qualities of accuracy and completeness 
 which distinguished its three prede- 
 cessors. No clerk to justices, and no 
 justice who is anxious to discharge his 
 onerous functions successfully, should 
 be without the * Magisterial Formulist ' 
 and thp 'Magisterial Synopsis;' and it 
 need scarcely be added that those mem- 
 bers of the profession who are brought 
 in contact with business in petty sessions 
 will derive great assistance from them." 
 — Law Journal. 
 
 " This work is too well known to need 
 eulogy; it is in universal use in magis- 
 trates' courts. It has been out of print 
 for some time, and a new edition was 
 urgently required. We believe that 
 Mr. Oke purposely delayed it that it 
 might be made contemporaneous, or 
 nearly so, with the * Synopsis.* The 
 contents are brought down to the end of 
 last year, and consequently it includes 
 all the forms required by the new sta- 
 tutes and decisions of the six years that 
 have elapsed since the publication of 
 the third edition. They have been ar- 
 ranged under divers new titles, and espe- 
 cially the modes of describing indictable 
 offences have been much enlarged. It 
 is a book that has been known so long 
 and so extensively, that no further 
 description of it is needed now."— Z«w 
 2^mes. 
 
30 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 OKE'S TURNPIKE IJ^VTS.— Second Edition. 
 
 The LAWS of TURNPIKE ROADS : comprising the 
 whole of the General Acts ; the Acts as to the Union of Trusts, for 
 facilitating Arrangements with their Creditors; the interference of 
 Railways and other Public Works with Roads; their Non-repair, and 
 enforcing Contributions from Parishes, (including also the Acts as to 
 South Wales Turnpike Roads,) &c. &c. ; practically arranged, with 
 Cases, Notes, Forms, &c, &c. By George C. Oke, Author of 
 "The Magisterial Synopsis" and "The Magisterial Formulist," &c. 
 Second Edition. I2mo., ^Ss. cloth. 
 
 '" Tn the * Synopsis* Mr. Oke is unique ; indnstrions research and paiostakiDg cor- 
 the plan was perfectly original, and he has • rection which distinguished the 'byuop- 
 
 Do competitor. lu the Turopike Law he sis."*— Xaw Times. 
 
 is himself a competitor with others, who ** All Mr. Oke's works are well done, and 
 
 had previously pos^essioii of the field. his * Turnpike Laws * is an admirable speci- 
 
 I4evertheles5, so well has he executed his meu of the class of books required for the 
 
 design that_ his volume has fairly taken ^idance of magistrates ana legal practi- 
 
 Erecedence in the esteem of the profession, tioners in country districts."~^^ii»ci(OT'«' 
 
 ecause he has written it with the same Journal. 
 
 OKE'S GAME AND FISHERY I.AMrS.-Secoiid Edition. 
 
 A HANDY BOOK of the GAME and FISHERY 
 LAWS ; containing the whole Law as to Game, Licences and Certi- 
 ficates, Poaching Prevention, Trespass, Rabbits, Deer, Dogs, Birds 
 and Poisoned Grain throughout the United Kingdom, and Private and 
 Salmon Fisheries in England, Systematically arranged, with the Acts, 
 Decisions, Notes, Forms, Suggestions, &c. &c. By George C. 0kg, 
 Author of ** The Magisterial Si^nopsis" &c. &c. Second Edition. 
 12 mo. 105. 6a!. cloth. 
 
 •»• This Edition includes Chapters on the Scotch and Irish Game Laws, 
 Property in Game, Suggestions for Amendment of the Laws, the 
 Poaching Prevention Act, 1862, the Poisoned Grain Prohibition 
 Act, 1863, &c. &c. 
 
 "The work is carefully composed, and Game Laws, Mr. Oke's digest and inter- 
 contains a full iBAex.**—SoItcitors' Journal, pretation of the various statutes will prove 
 
 " Care and industry are all that can be of great assistance."— 5ram/onf Mercury. 
 
 shown in such productions, and these qua- Mr. Oke makes the laws easily com- 
 
 lities are generally shown in the present prehended in all their bearings, so that the 
 
 works. Mr. Oke's book takes a somewhat person requiring information will find it at 
 
 larger range than Mr, Patersoo'a, as it em- once, and that in a condensed form. * * 
 
 braces the late statute relating to the Sal- It U a w-rk that every sportsman would 
 
 mou Fisheries."— ^fA»i£uin. find useful, now that the season is hefure 
 
 ' The plan of Mr. ( )ke's Handy Book is him and he is anxious to know how the law 
 
 a very plain and useful one. • • It will stauds under the recent acts of parlia- 
 
 he a most acceptable addition to the conn- meiit." — BelVs Nme Messenger, 
 
 try gentleman's library, and presents a most " w e recommend justices, landlords, and 
 
 intelligible guide to the existing English others whom it behoves to be well ac- 
 
 -la^rs on game and fish, brought down to quainted with the t^ame Laws, to supply 
 
 the present time." — The Field* tnemseKes with a ropy of this work ; thty 
 
 Tosportsmen.aswell as to those mat^is- will find every requisite information in a 
 
 trates and i>rofessional gentlemen who are small space and in an intelligible form."— 
 
 concerned in the adminisiratioa of the Can^ndge Chronicle. 
 
MESSRS. BUTTER WORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E,C. 31 
 TOMKINS' INSTITUTES OF ROMAN I.AW. 
 
 THE INSTITUTES of ROMAN LAW. Part I., con- 
 taining the Sources of the Roman Law and its External History till 
 the Decline of the Eastern' and Western Empires. By Frederick 
 ToMKiNs, M.A., D.C.L,, Barrister at Law, of Lincoln's Inu. Part I., 
 royal 8vo. 12s. cloth. (To be completed in Three Parts.) 
 
 " This work promises to be an important good promise for the fntnre. We know of 
 
 and valuable contribntion to the Study of no other book io which anything like the 
 
 the Roman Law."— Z.aiir Magasine^ same amount of intormation can be ac- 
 
 " This work is pronouuced by its author quired with the same ease. We shall look 
 
 to be strictly elementairy. But in regard with great interest for the publication of 
 
 to the labour bestowed, the research exer- the remainder of this treatise. If the 
 
 cised. and the materials brought together, second part is as well executed as the first, 
 
 it seems to deserve a more ambitious title and bears a due proportion to it, we think 
 
 than that of an elementary treatise. The the work bids fair to become the standard 
 
 chapter on Legal Instruction, detailing the text-book for English students."— •So/ict- 
 
 systems of legal education pursued m the tors* Journal. 
 
 varions epochs of Rome, reflects great " Of all the works on the Roman T^w 
 
 credit on the author, and. so far as we we believe this will be the hest suited to 
 
 know, is purely original, in the sense that law students. Mr. 'I'omkins gives us 
 
 no preceding EuKlish writer has collated simple English history of Boman Law, 
 
 the matter therein contained." — Laio arranged most lucidly with marginal notes 
 
 Journal, and printed in a form calculated for easy 
 
 ** Dr. Tomkins has chosen his subject reading and retention in the memory. We 
 
 wisely in at least one respect, there can be welcome the book of Mr. 'i'omkiDs. It is 
 
 no doubt that a good introductory treatise calculated to promote the study of Roman 
 
 OQ the Komao Law is sorely needed at Law, and both at the univei^sities and in 
 
 present. The present part is only an in- the Inns of Conrt it is a work which may 
 
 stalment. But the present part is unques- safely and beneficially be employed as a 
 
 tionably both valuable in itself and of text-book."— Law Timea, 
 
 DREWRV'S EQUITY PLEADER. 
 
 A CONCISE TREATISE on the Principles of EQUITY 
 PLEADING, with Precedents. By C Stewart Drewry, Esq., of 
 the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law. 12mo., Qs. boards, 
 
 ' Contents :— What Persons are entitled to sue in Equity, and in nvhat manner to sue. 
 — uf the Ixodes of instituting a Suit in l- quity .— Of the Defence of Suits.— Of Pleas. 
 —Of Answers.- Of Amended Bills.— Of Kevivur and Supplemental Bills.— Of Inter- 
 locutory Applications —Of the Proceedings on going into Evideuce.—Of Appeals. 
 — CoDclusioo.- Appendix of PreceOents. 
 *' Mr. Drewry will be remembered by he describes the principles and genertd 
 miioy as the author of the very poimlar rules of kquity Pleading. It will be found 
 and excellent treatise on the Practice in ofgreatutility. asintroductorytothemore 
 Kqoity. He has now contributed to the e]aDoratetreatises,ortorefre5hthe memory 
 library of the lawyer another work of after the study of the larger books."— Xniv 
 eaual value, written foryonnger members Times, 
 of the profession and for studeuts, in which 
 
 — ♦— 
 
 IVILIiIAMS ON PIiEADING AND PRACTICE. 
 
 An INTRODUCTION to the PRINCIPLES and 
 PRACTICE of PLEADING in the SUPERIOR COURTS of 
 LAW, embracing an outline of the whole Proceeding* in an Action 
 at Law, on Motion, and at Judges' Chambers; together with the Rules 
 of Pleading and Practice, and Forms of all the principal Proceedings. 
 By Watkin Williams, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister at Law. 
 8vo. 12«. cloth. 
 
 Mr. Williams has undertaken a work re- the book has features of pecaliar value, 
 Quiring great care in its treatment ; but we it is at the same time scientific and prac- 
 have no hesitation in saying that be has tical, and throughout the work there is a 
 brought to bear on his ta-^k powers of ar- judicious union of general principles with 
 rangement and clearness of expression of a wractical treatment of the snbiect, lUns- 
 no ordinary character, and has produced trated b^ forms and examples of the main 
 a work creditable to himself and useful to proceedings."— Jan/*, 
 the Profession. For the Student especially 
 
32 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 ImAW examination reporter. 
 THE LAW EXAMINATION REPORTER, edited by 
 Richard Hallilat, Esq., containing all the Questions and Answers 
 at the Examinations of Law Students at the Incorporated Law 
 Society. Published in numbers at 6^., by post 7d.f every Term on 
 the Morning of the Second Day after the Examination* 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 14^0, I. HiL. Tehh, 1866.— Notice to Readers; How to Study; The Examiners; 
 Examination Questions and Answers. 
 
 No. II. East. Term, 1866. — Notice to Readers ; What to Study for Pass or Honours ; 
 The Examiners; Examination Questions and Answers. 
 
 No. III. Thin. Term, 1866. — My iirst Criminal Client; Important Bills in Parlia- 
 ment; The Examiners ; Examination Questions and Answers. 
 
 No. IV. Mich. Term, 1866. — On Memory, its Abuse and Aids ; Result of the past, 
 intermediate and final Examinations ; The Examiners ; Examination Questions 
 and Answers. 
 
 No. V. HXL. Term, 1867.— Sketches at a Police Court; Reviews of New Books; 
 Ohseivations on, the Michaelmas Term's Questions; The Examiners; Exami- 
 nation Questions and Answers, &c. 
 
 No. VI. East. Term, 1867. — Notice to Readers; The Preliminary Examinations 
 and the Judges' Dispensations; Observations on the Hilary Term's Equity 
 Questions; Correspondence; The Examiners; Examination Questions and 
 Answers, && 
 
 No. VII. Thin. Term, 1867.— Notice to Readers ; The Rejected and the Reason ; 
 Examination and Legal News ; The Examiners ; Intermediate Examination 
 Questions : Final Examination Questions and Answers.. 
 
 No, Vill. Mich. Term, 1867.— New Statutes; Result of Past Examinations; New 
 Prizes; Law Societies ; Reviews of Books; The Examiners ; The Intermediate 
 Questions ; All the Michaelmas Terms Examination Questions and Answers. 
 
 No. IX. HiL. Term, 1 868.— Proposed Amalgamation of the Bar and the Attornies; 
 New Statutes and Rules ; Reviews of New Books ; Moot Points ; Inter- 
 mediate Examination Questions ; The Examiners ; All the Hilary fiufl 
 Questions and Answers. 
 
 No. X. East. Term, 1868. — Hints to Young Attornies; Reviews of Books; Inter- 
 mediate Examination Questions ; All the Easter Term's Pinal Questions and 
 Answers. 
 
 No. XI. Trih. Term, 1868.— What to do after Passing; Answers to Moot Points; 
 Reviews; Intermediate Questions and Answers; TrinityTerm'sEinal Questions 
 and Answers. 
 
 PARKINSON'S COMMON IiAW CHAMBER PRACTICE. 
 
 A HANDY BOOK for the COMMON LAW JUDGES' 
 
 CHAMBERS. By Geo. H. Parkinson, Chamber Clerk to the 
 Hon. Mr. Justice Byles. 12mo. 75. cloth. 
 
 "FoTthistaskMT.ParkiusonisemineDtly than Mr. Parkinson. whosegreat experience 
 
 qualified."— JiBTiVr. ,, , , , , as well as intelligence have long plac«d 
 
 '* ic is extremely well calculated for the him in the position of an authority on sill 
 
 purpose for which it is inteuded. Snamch matters appertaining to this peculiar but 
 
 work is now done io Commoa Law Cham- very extensive branch of Common Xaw 
 
 bers by junior clerks that such a little Practice,''— £«3; Times^ 
 
 treatise is much wanted. Mr. Parkinson " There is much that would prove very 
 
 has performed his task skilfully and with useful to the practitioner in Mr. Parkinson's 
 
 c»n."~^licitora' Journal. compilation, and whichr so far as we are 
 
 " The practice in Chambers has become aware, is not to be found in any other book 
 
 sufficiently important to call for a treatise collected with equal conciseness."— Znts 
 
 devoted to it, nor could a more competent Magaxine and JReviesit 
 man for the task have presented himself 
 
•MESSRS. BUTTERWORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.G. 33 
 
 GLSN'S IiAAV OF HIGHVTAVS.— Second Edition. 
 THE LAW of HIGHWAYS: comprising the Highway 
 Acts 1835, 1862 and 1864: the South Wales Highway Act: the 
 Statutes and Decisions of the Courts on the subject of Highways, 
 Bridges, Ferries, &c., including the Duties of Highway Boards, Sur- 
 veyors of Highways, the Law of Highways in Local Board of Health 
 Districts; Highways affected by Railways, and Locomotives on High- 
 ways. With an Appendix of Statutes in force relating to Highways. 
 By W. Cunningham Glen, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Second Edition. 
 Post 8vo. 20s. cloth. 
 
 rions writer, and this new edition of his 
 new work on highway law will convince 
 those who refer to it that he has neglected 
 no topic likely to be useful to those whose 
 duties require them to have a knowledge 
 of this particular branch of the law. This' 
 work aspires abovt- others which profess 
 merely to be annotated reprints of acts of 
 parliament. It will he found to cootaiu 
 much ioformatioD which might be looked 
 for elsewhere in vain. The general law 
 npon the siibgect is set forth with a care 
 and lucidity deserving of great praise, and 
 a good iudex facilitates reference, and ren- 
 ders this work the most complete on this 
 important subject which has yec been pub- 
 lished.*'— Jz«/it« of the Peace. 
 
 "Mr. Glen may well say that an entire 
 revision of the first edition was necessitated 
 by the recent statutes, and his second edi- 
 tion is a bulky volume of 800 pages. His 
 work may be read with satisfaction by the 
 general student as well as referred to with 
 confidence by the practitioner. We need 
 say nothing further of this second edition 
 than that we think it likely to maintain 
 fully [he reputation obtained by its pre- 
 decessor. It has the advantages, by no 
 means unworthy nf consideration, of being 
 well printed and well indexed, as well as 
 well arranged, and a copious index of sta- 
 tutes renders it a perfect compendium of 
 the anthorities bearing in any way on the 
 law of hiffhways."— iSi/iciVor*' Journal on 
 the Second Edition, 
 
 "Those who have need of information 
 on the Law as it is, could not resort to a 
 more trustworthy adviser than this Work 
 of Mr. Glen. It is conveniently arranged 
 and capitally, because copiously. indexed." 
 — Law Times, 
 
 " Mr. <^len undertook a Work that was 
 really required not only by the profession 
 bat by a large class of persons interested 
 in the Law of Highways, and Mr. (lien's 
 official position has no doubt qualified him 
 peculiarly to discharge such a task with 
 efficiency. Mr. Gten has succeeded in 
 what he here proposes, and his Treatise 
 will be indispensable to all practitioners 
 interested in the Law of Highways "— &- 
 licitort' Joumai. 
 
 " Altogether we may confidently venture 
 to confirm the statement in the preface, thit 
 it may oow fairly claim to be recognized 
 as a standard authority on the law of high- 
 ways by those who are engaged officially 
 or otherwise in the administration of that 
 branch of the law. It is so, as we ^om per- 
 sonal knowledge can affirm, and, we may 
 add, that it is received by them as a trnst- 
 worthy fi:uide in the discharge of their 
 onerous duties.*' — Lam Times ion 2nd Edit, "i 
 
 "The present edition of Mr. Glen's work 
 contairs a ^reat deal of valuable matter 
 which is entirely new. Vo those interested 
 in the law of highways this manoal as it 
 now appears will be found a safe ami efficient 
 guide. — i^tp Magazine (on 2nd Editioii), 
 
 " Mr. Glen has an established reputation 
 in the legal profession as a careful andlabo- 
 
 GIiEN'S POOR IiAW BOARD ORDERS.— Fifth Edition. 
 
 The General CONSOLIDATED and other ORDERS 
 of the POOR LAW COMMISSIONERS and of the POOR LAW 
 BOARD, together with the General Orders relating to Poor Law of 
 Accounts, the Statutes relating to the Audit of Accounts, Appeals and 
 the Payment of Debts, with Explanatory Notes elucidating the Orders, 
 Tables of Statutes, Cases and Index. By W. Cunningham Glen, 
 Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law, and of the Poor Law 
 Board. Fifth Edition. 12mo. 125. cloth. 
 
34 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 WIGRAM ON VrziiLS.— Fourth Edition. 
 
 An EXAMINATION of the RULES of LAW respecting 
 the Admission of EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE in Aid of the INTER- 
 PRETATION of WILLS. By the Right Hon, Sir James Wigram, 
 Knt. The Fourth Edition prepared for the press, with the sanction 
 of the learned Author, by W. Knox Wigram, M.A,, of Lincoln's 
 Inn, Esq., Barrister at Law. 8vo. I Is, cloth. 
 
 '* In the celebrated treatise of Sir James aueatly give additiooal support, and in 
 
 Wigram, the rules of law are stated, dis- some instances an extension to the original 
 
 ^Bsed and explained In a manner which text."— Xac Chronicle. 
 has excited the admiration of every judge " Understood as general guides, the 
 
 who has had to consult it."— Lorrf Kings- propositions established by Sir James 
 
 rf^aw, in a Privy Council Judgment, Julff Wigram's book are of the highest valne^ 
 
 8M, 1858. But whatever view may be entertained, 
 
 ' There can be no doubt that the notes the book is one .which will always be 
 
 of Mr. Knox Winam have enhanced the highly prized, and is now presented in 
 
 value of the work, as affording a ready a very satisfactory shape, thanks to the 
 
 reference to recent cases on the subjects industry and intelligence displayed in the 
 
 embraced ox arising out of Sir James notes by the present editor," — Solicitori' 
 
 >Vigram's propositions, and which fre- Journal and Reporter, 
 
 FRY'S SPECIFIC PERFORnjANCE OF CONTRACTS. 
 
 A TREATISE on the SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE 
 
 of CONTRACTS, including those of Public Companies. By Edward 
 
 Fry, B.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister at Law. 8vo, 16s. cloth. 
 
 " Mr. Fry's work presents in a reason- of the law, but of those varying circum- 
 
 able compass a large quantity of modem stances in human society to whi^ the law 
 
 learning on the subject of contracts, with has to be applied."— i^^cfa^or. 
 
 referencetothecommonremedybyspecific "Mr. Fry's elaborate essay appears to 
 
 performance, and will thus be acceptable to exhaust the subject, on which he has cited 
 
 the profession generally."— iaw Chronicle, and brought to bear, with great diligence- 
 
 . * There is a closeness and clearness in some 1.500 cases, which include those of 
 
 Its style, and a latent fulness in the exuo- the latest reports."— i^a; Magazine and 
 
 sitiout which not only ax gue a knowledge Review, 
 
 PHILLIPS'S LAW OF LUNACY. 
 
 THE LAW CONCERNING LUNATICS, IDIOTS, 
 
 and PERSONS of UNSOUND MIND. By Charles P. Phillips, 
 M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister at Law, and Secretary to the 
 Commissioners of Lunacy, Post 8vo., IBs, cloth. 
 
 "Mr. Phillips has, in his very com- present law, as well as the practice, 
 pleLe, elaborate and useful volume, pre> relating to lunacy," — Zaa Magazine and 
 seated us witli au excellent view of the Review, 
 
MESSRS. BUTTER WORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E. C. 35 
 
 BAINBRIDGE ON MINES.-Third Edition. 
 
 A TREATISE on the LAW of MINES and MINERALS. 
 By William Bainbridgr, Esq., F.G.S., of the Iimer Temple, 
 Barrister at Law. Third Edition, carefully revised,, and much 
 enlarged by additional matter relating to Rights of Way and Water 
 and other Mining Easements, the Construction of Leases, Cost Book 
 and General Partnerships, Injuries from Undermining and Inunda- 
 tions, Barriers and Working out of Bounds and Disputes with Workr 
 men. With an Appendix of Forms and Customs, and a Glossary of 
 English Mining Terms. 8vo. 30s. cloth. 
 
 '* After an interral of eleven years we and the additions and corrections madejn 
 have to welcome a new edition of Mr. ' the volume before us furnish ample evi- 
 
 BainbridKe's work on Mines and Minerals. dence of the fact. It may be also stated 
 
 It would De entirely superfluous to attempt that this book, being priced at 30*., has the 
 
 a general review of a work which has for exceptional character of being a cheap law 
 
 50 long a period occupied the position of publication." — Lata Journal. 
 
 the standard work on this important sub- " Mr. Bainbridge was. we believe, the 
 
 ject. Those only who. by the nature of first to collect and publish, in a separate 
 
 their practice, have learned to lean upou treatise, the Law of Mines and Minerals. 
 
 Mr. Bainbridge as on a solid staff, can and the work was so well done that his 
 
 appreciate the deepresearch.theadmirable volume at once took its place in the law 
 
 method, and the graceful style of this library as the text book on the subject to 
 
 model treatise. Therefore we are merely which it was devoted. This work must 
 
 reduced to the enquiry, whether the law be already familiar to all readers whose 
 
 has, by force of statutes and of judicial practice brings them in any manner in 
 
 decisions, undergone such development, connection with mines or mining, and they 
 
 modification or change since the year 1856 well know its value. We can only say of 
 
 as to justify a new edition ? That question this new edition that it is in all respects 
 
 may be readily answered in the affirmative ; worthy of its predeeessors."~Xaw Times, 
 
 Grant's Law of Corporations in General. Boyal 8vo. 
 26». boards. A PRACTICAL TREATISE on the LAW of 
 CORPORATIONS in GENERAL, as well Aggregate as Sole; 
 including Municipal Corporations, Railway, Banking, Canal and 
 other Joint-Stock and Trading Bodies, Dean and Chapters, Uni- 
 versitiea. Colleges, Schools, Hospitals, with quasi Corporations 
 aggregate, as Guardians of the Poor, Churchwardens, Church- 
 wardens and Overseers, &c., and also Corporations sole, as Bishops, 
 Deans, Canons, Archdeacons, Parsons, &c. By James Grant, 
 Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law. 
 
36 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 Gray's Treatise on the law of Costs in Actions and 
 
 other PROCEEDINGS in the Courts of Common Law at West- 
 minster. By John Gray, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister at 
 
 Law. 8vo. 21s. cloth. 
 
 *«• Xhis Work embraces the whole modern T.av and Practice of Costs, iDcladiDg the 
 important provisions of the Common Law Procedure Act and. Rules, 1B52, ana the 
 recent Statutes affecting the Jurisdiction of the County Courts. 
 
 The South Australian System of Conveyancing by Regis- 
 tration of TITLE ; with Instructions for the Guidance of Parlies 
 Dealing, illustrated by Copies of the Books and Forms in use in 
 the Land Titles Office. By Robert R. Torbens. To which is added 
 the South Australian Real Property Act, as Amended in the Sessions 
 of 1858. With a copious Index. By Henry Gawler, Esq, Bar- 
 rister, Solicitor to the Land Titles Commissioners. 8vo. 4s, half 
 cloth. 
 
 Fulling's Practical Compendium of the Law and Usage 
 
 of MERCANTILE ACCOUNTS; describing the various Rules of- 
 Law affecting them, the ordinary Mode in which they are entered 
 in Account Books, and the various Forms of Proceeding, and Rules 
 of Pleading, and Evidence for their Investigation, at Common- Law, 
 in Equity, Bankruptcy and Insolvency, or by Arbitration. With a 
 SUPPLEMENT, containing the Law of Joint Stock Companies' 
 Accounts, under the Winding-up Acts of 1848 and 1849. By 
 Alexander Pullinq, Esq. of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law, 
 12mo. 9s. boards. 
 
 Coote's Practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts, with Forms 
 
 and Tables of Costs. By Henry Charles Coote, Proctor in Doctors' 
 Commons, &c. One thick Vol. 8vo. 28s. boards. 
 
 Hamel's International Law.— International Law in con- 
 nexion with Municipal Statutes relating to the Commerce, Rights and 
 Liabilities of the Subjects of Neutral States pending Foreign War ; 
 considered with reference to the Case of the " Alexandra," seized 
 under the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act. By Felix 
 Haegrave Hamel, of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law. Post Svo. 
 3s. sewed. 
 
 Oke's New Criminal Acts, 1861, with the Offences, 
 
 Punishments and Procedure: whether Punishable Summarily or on 
 Indictment; Alphabetically and Tabularly arranged. By George C. 
 Ore, Author of the " Magisterial Synopsis." Svo. 6s. cloth. 
 
 Keyser on the Law relating to Transactions on the 
 STOCK EXCHANGE. By Henry Keyseb, Esq., of the Middle 
 Temple, Barrister at Law. 12mo. 8s. cloth. 
 
MESSRS. BUTTERWORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.C. 37 
 
 Cutler's Legal Systems— English, Roman, Hindu and 
 MAHOMMEDAN. On the STUDY of the ENGLISH, ROMAN, 
 HINDU and MAHOMMEDAN LEGAL SYSTEMS, with especial 
 regard to their salient points of Agreement and Difference : heing a 
 Lecture delivered at King's College, London. By John Cutler, B.A., 
 of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister at Law, Professor of English Law and Juris- 
 prudence, and Professor of Indian Jurisprudence, at King's College, 
 London. 8vo. Is. sewed. 
 
 Civil Service of India— 8vo. Is. sewed. On Reporting 
 
 CASES for their Periodical Examinations by Selected Candidates for 
 the Civil Service of India. Being a Lecture delivered on Wednesday, 
 June 12, 1867, at King's College, London. By John Cutler, B.A., 
 of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister at Law, Professor of English Law and 
 Jurisprudence, and Professor of Indian Jurisprudence at King's Col- 
 lege, London. 
 
 Blayney's Practical Treatise on Life Assurance. Second 
 
 Edition. By Frederic Blayney, Esq. 12mo. 7s. boards. 
 
 The Laws of Barbados. (By Authority.) Royal 8vo. 
 21s. cloth. 
 
 Pearce's Guide to the Bar and Inns of Court.— A Guide 
 
 to the Inns of Court and Chancery ; with Notices of their Ancient 
 Discipline, Rules, Orders and Customs, Readings, Moots, Masques, 
 Revels and Entertainments, including an account of the Eminent Men 
 of the Honorable Societies of Lincoln's Inn, the Inner Temple, the 
 Middle Temple and Gray's Inn, &c. : together with the Regulations 
 of the Four Inns of Court as to the Admission of Students, Keeping 
 Terms, Lectures, Examination, Call to the Bar, &c. &c. &c. By 
 Robert R. Pearce, Esq., of Gray's Inn, Barrister at Law. 8vo. 
 8j. cloth. 
 
 Baker's Practical Compendium of the Recent Statutes, 
 CASES, and DECISIONS aflFecting the OFFICE of CORONER, 
 with Precedents of Inquisitions, and Practical Forms. By William 
 Baker, Esq., one of the Coroners for Middlesex. 12mo. 7s. cloth, 
 
38 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 Hamel's Laws of the Customs, consolidated by direction 
 
 of the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury (16 & 17 
 Vict. caps. 106 & 107); with a Commentary containing Practical 
 Forms, Notes of Decisions in Leading Customs Cases, Appendix of 
 Acts; also a Supplement for 1854, containing a Commentary on the 
 three Acts (17 & 18 Vict. caps. 28, 29 and 122), and a Summary 
 of the existing Duties and a copious Index. By Felix John HAtiEt, 
 Esq., Solicitor for her Majesty's Customs. 1 vol. royal 8vo. 16s. cloth. 
 
 Greening's Forms of Declarations, Pleadings and other 
 
 PROCEEDINGS in the Superior Courts of Common Law, with the 
 Common Law Procedure Act, and other Statutes; Tahle of Officers' 
 Fees ; and the New Rules of Practice and Pleading, with Notes. By 
 Henry Greening, Esq., Special Pleader. Second Edition. 12mo. 
 108. 6d. hoards, 
 
 Brandt's Treatise on the law, Practice and Procedure 
 of DIVORCE and MATRIMONIAL CAUSES under the Act 20 & 
 21 Vict. c. 85 ; containing the Act, also the Rules, Orders, and Forms 
 issued thereunder ; together with Precedents. By William Brandt, 
 of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law. 12mo. 7s. 6d. boards. 
 
 Browne's Practical Treatise on Actions at Law, em- 
 bracing the subjects of Notice of Action; Limitation of Actions; 
 necessary Parties to and proper Forms of Actions, the Consequence 
 of Mistake therein ; and the Law of Costs with reference to Da- 
 mages. By Rowland Jay Browne, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, Special 
 Pleader, 8vo. 1 6s. boards. 
 
 Guiming's Practical Treatise on the Law of Tolls; and 
 
 therein of Tolls Thorough and Traverse ; Fair and Market Tolls ; 
 Canal, Ferry, Port and Harbour Tolls ; Turnpike Tolls ; Rateability 
 of Tolls; Exemption from Tolls; Remedies and Evidence in Actions 
 for Tolls. By Frederick Gunning, Eaq., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister 
 at Law. 8vo. 9s. hoards, 
 
 Quain and Holroyd's New System of Common Law Pro- 
 CEDURE according to the COMMON LAW PROCEDURE ACT, 
 1852. By J. R. Quain, of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law, 
 and H. Holroyd, of the Middle Temple, Special Pleader. 12mo. 
 7s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 Phillimore's Commentaries on International Law. By 
 
 The Right Hon, Sir Robert Phillimore, Kut., now Judge of the 
 
 High Court of Admiralty of England. 4 vols. 8vo. 5i. cloth. 
 
 . Extract frmn PampMet on "ATnericaa ffeutraUty,'* by George Beuis ^Stmton), — 
 *' Sir Robert PhlUimore, the present Queen's Advocate, and author of the most 
 comprehensive and systematic * Commentaries on International Law ' that England 
 has produced." 
 
 •»• Vol. 2, price 22s., Vol. 3, price 32»,, Vol. 4, price 30s., may he 
 had separately to complete sets. 
 
MESSRS. BUTTERWORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.C. 39 
 
 Deane's Law of Blockade, as contained in the Judgments 
 
 of Dr. Liishington and the Cases on Blockade decided during 1854. 
 By J. P. Deane, D.C.L., Advocate in Doctors' Commons. 8vo. 
 10s. cloth. 
 
 Pothier's Treatise on the Contract of Partnership. 
 
 Translated from the French, with Notes, by O. D, Tudok, Esq., Bar- 
 rister at Law. Svo. 5s. cloth. 
 
 Hertslet's Complete Collection of the Treaties and Con- 
 ventions, and Reciprocal Regulations, at present subsisting between 
 Great Britain and Foreign Powers, and of the Laws, Decrees, and 
 Orders in Council concerning the same, so far as they relate to Com- 
 merce and Navigation, Slave Tipde, Post Office Communications, Copy- 
 right, &c., and to the Privileges and Interests of the Subjects of the 
 High Contracting Parties; compiled from Authentic Documents. By 
 Lewis Hertslet, Esq., Librarian and Keeper of the Papers, Foreign 
 Office. Vols. 1 to 11, Svo. 12/. 15s. boards. 
 
 Norman's Treatise on the Law and Practice relating to 
 LETTERS- PATENT for INVENTIONS. By John Paxtom 
 Norman, M.A., of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law. Post Svo. 
 7s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 Francillon's Law Lectures. Second Series. Lectures, 
 ELEMENTARY and FAMILIAR, on ENGLISH LAW. By 
 James Francillon, Esq., County Court Judge. First and Second 
 Series. 8vo., 8s. each, cloth. 
 
 Warren's Manual of the Parliamentary Election Law of 
 
 the UNITED KINGDOM, with reference to the Conduct of Elec- 
 tions, and the Registration Court; with a copious Index, and all the 
 Statutes and Decisions down to 1857. By Samuel Warren, D.C.L., 
 Q.C. One thick volume, royal 12mo. 25s. cloth. 
 
 Warren's Manual of the Law and Practice of Election 
 
 COMMITTEES, being the concluding portion of a " Manual of 
 Parliflmenlart/ Election Law." By Samuel Warren, D.C.L., Q.C. 
 Royal 12mo. 15s. cloth. 
 
 Lewis's Election Manual for England and Wales : 
 
 being a Plain and Practical Key to the existing Laws affecting 
 Returning Officers, Electors, Candidates and Election Agents, with 
 the Text of the Principal Statutes, including the Corrupt Practices 
 Acts; with Forms, Explanatory Notes and Precedents. By Charles 
 Edward Lewis, Solicitor. Third Edition. 12mo. 5s. boards. 
 
 The Law Student's Guide ; containing an Historical Trea- 
 tise on each of the Inns of Court, with their Rules and Customs 
 respecting Admission, Keeping Terms, Call to the Bar, Chambers, 
 &c., Remarks on the Jurisdiction of the Benchers, Observations on 
 the Study of the Law, and other useful Information. By P. B. Leigh, 
 Esq., of Gray's Inn, Barrister at Law. 12mo. 6s. boards. 
 
40 LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 A Treatise on the Law of Sheriff, with Practical Forms 
 
 and Precedents. By Richard Clarke Seweli., Esq., D.C.L., Bar- 
 rister at Law, Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. 8vo. il. Is. 
 
 Dwyer's Militia Laws and Regulations. A Compendium 
 
 of the PRINCIPAL LAWS and REGULATIONS relating to the 
 MILITIA of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND. By Edward 
 DwYER, B.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister at Law. 12mo. 5s. 6d. 
 
 Drainage of Land: How to procure Outfalls hy New 
 
 Drains, or the Improvement of Existing Drains, in the Lands of an 
 Adjoining Owner, under the Powers contained in Part III', of the Act 
 24 & 25 Vict., cap. 133, 1861 ; with Explanations of the Provisions, 
 and Suggestions for the Guidance of Landowners, Occupiers, Land 
 Agents and Surveyors. By J. Wm. Wilson, Solicitor. 
 
 Sharkey's Hand-Book of the Practice of Election Com- 
 mittees ; with an Appendix of Forms and Precedents. By P. Bur- 
 RowES Sharket, Solicitor and Parliamentary Agent. Second Edition. 
 12mo. lOs. 6d. cloth. 
 
 Feame's Chart, Historical and Legigraphical, of Landed 
 
 Property in England, from the time of the Saxons to the present ^ra, 
 displaying at one view the. Tenures, Modes of Descent and Power of 
 Alienation of Lands in England at all times during that period. On a 
 sheet, colored, 6s. ; on a roller, Ss. 
 
 Burder v. Heath. Judgment delivered on November 2, 
 
 1861, by the Right Honorable Stephen Lushington,D.C.L., Dean of 
 the Arches. £oUo, U. sewed. 
 
 The Law relating to Bitualism in the United Church of 
 
 England and Ireland. By F. H. Hamel, Esq., Barrister at Law. 
 I2mo. Is, sewed. 
 
 Archdeacon Hale's Enquiry into the Legal History of 
 
 the Supremacy of the Crown in Matters of Religion ; with especial 
 reference to the Church in the Colonies. With an Appendix. By 
 W. H. Hale, M.A., Archdeacon of London. Royal 8vo. 4s. cloth. 
 
 Archdeacon Hale's Essay on the Union between Church 
 
 and STATE, and the Establishment by Law of the Protestant Re- 
 formed Religion in England, Ireland and Scotland. By W. H. Hale, 
 M.A., Archdeacon of London. Read at the Visitation of the Clergy,^ 
 May 14, 1868. Svo. Is. sewed. 
 
 . Judgment of the Bight Hon. Sir Bobert J. Phillimore, 
 
 Official Principal of the Court of Arches, with Cases of Martin v. 
 Mackonochie and Flamank v. Simpson. Edited by Walter G. F. 
 Phillimore, B.A., of the Middle Temple, dsc. Second Edition, 
 Royal Svo. 2s. 6d. sewed. 
 
MESSRS. BUTTER WORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E.C. 41 
 
 The Jnd^ent of the Bight. Hon. Dr. Lnshington, D.C.L., 
 
 &c. &c., delivered in the Consistory Court of the Bishop of London, in 
 the cases of Westerton against Liddell (clerk) and Home and others, 
 and Beale against Liddell (clerk) and Parke and Evans, on Decemher 
 5th, 1855. Edited by A. F. BAyFORD, D.C.L. Royal 8to., 2s. Sd.seviei. 
 
 The Judgment of the Dean of the Arches, also the Judg- 
 ment of the PRIVY COUNCIL, in Liddell (clerk) and Home and 
 others against Westerton, and Liddell (clerk) and Park and Evans 
 against Beal. Edited by A. F. Bayford, LL.D. : and with an elaborate 
 analytical Index to the whole of the Judgments in these Cases. Royal 
 Svo., Ss. 6d. sevred. 
 
 The Case of Long v. Bishop of Cape Town, embracing the 
 
 opinions of the Judges of Colonial Court hitherto unpublished, together 
 with the decision of the Privy Council, and Preliminary Observations 
 by the Editor. Royal 8vo., 6». sewed. 
 
 A General Catalogue of all Iffodem Law Works now on 
 
 Sale by Messrs. Butterworth, with a Chronological List of all the 
 Reports from the earliest Period to the present Time, and an Index of 
 Subjects for convenience of reference : intended as a Guide to Pur- 
 chasers. Svo. Is. sewed. {Gratis to Purchasers.) 
 
 HaiD ^ampfjletB. 
 
 Observations on the County Courts and Local Municipal 
 
 Courts, as Courts for the Recovery of Small Debts. By Woodthorpe 
 Brandon, Esq., Barrister at Law. 8vo., 6d. sewed. 
 
 Jamaica Eiot,— The Case of George William Gordon; 
 
 with Preliminary Observations on the Jamaica Riot of Oct. 11, 1865, 
 and a Preface. By B. T. M^illiams, Esq., M. A., Barrister at Law. 
 Svo. 2s. sewed. 
 
 The Privilege of Religious Confession in English Courts 
 
 of Law, considered in a Lfetter to a Friend. By Edward Badelet, 
 Esq., M.A., Barrister at Law. Svo. 2s. 
 
 Our Judicial System. A Speech in the House of Com- 
 mons, February 22nd, 1867. By Sir Koundell Palmer, Q.C., M.P. 
 8vo., Is. sewed. 
 
 On the Necessity for Additional Common Law Judges. 
 
 A Paper read before the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, 
 October, 1866. By J. Anderson Rose. 8vo., Is. sewed. 
 
 More Judges : Are they wanted ? By T. W. Wheeler, B. A., 
 
 Barrister at Law. 8vo., Is. sewed. 
 
 A Plan for the Formal Amendment of the Law of Eng- 
 land. By Thomas Erskine Holland, M.A., Barrister at Law. 8vo., 
 Is. sewed. 
 
 A Digest of the Law : How attainable ? By R. Malcolm 
 
 Kerr, LL.D., Advocate and Barrister at Law. 8vo., Is. sewed. 
 
42 MESSRS. BUTTERWORTH, 7, FLEET STREET, E. C. 
 CIiARK'S HOUSE OF IiORDS REPORTS. 
 
 The HOUSE of LORDS CASES on Appeals, Writs of 
 Error and Claims of Peerage. By Charles Clare, Esq., of the 
 Middle Temple, Barrister at Law, Reporter by appointment to the 
 House of Lords, 
 
 Complete in Eleven Vols., and containing all the Cases decided from 
 184.7 to 1866. 
 
 — ♦ — 
 
 CLARK'S DIGESTED INDEX to aU the HOUSE OF I.ORDS 
 
 REPORTS ft-om 1814 to the Present Time. 
 
 (To be completed in Two Farts.) Part I. Price 12s. sewed. 
 
 SWABEY AND TRISTRAM'S PROBATE AND DIVORCE 
 REPORTS. 
 
 REPORTS of CASES decided in the COURT of PRO- 
 BATE and in the COURT for DIVORCE and MATRIMONIAL 
 CAUSES. By Dr. Swabey, D.C.L., Advocate, and Barrister at Law 
 of Gray's Inn, and Dr. Tristram, D.C.t., Advocate in Doctors' 
 Commons, and of the Inner Temple. Vols. I., 1 1, and III., and Vol. 
 IV. Part I., containing all the Cases at present decided, from 1858 
 to the present time. Price Tl. lis. 6d. sewed. 
 
 DR. ROBINSON'S NEViT ADMIRAIiTV REPORTS. 
 
 REPORTS of CASES in the COURT of ADMIRALTY, 
 
 commencing with the Judgments of the Right Honourable Stephen 
 LushingtQn, D.C.L. By William Robinson, D.C.L. Advocate. 
 
 Three Vols, containing Cases decided from 1833 to 1850. 4(. Is. 6d. 
 sewed. 
 
 SWABEY'S ADMIRAI.TY REPORTS. 
 
 REPORTS of CASES in the COURT of ADMIRALTY, 
 from 1855 to 1859. By M. C. Merttins Swabeu, D.C.L., of 
 Doctors' Commons, and of Gray's Inn, Barrister at Law. Complete 
 in 1 Vol. containing 3 Parts. Price 34s. sewed. 
 
 VERNON IiUSHINGTON'S ADMIRALTY REPORTS. 
 
 REPORTS of CASES in the COURT of ADMIRALTY, 
 and on APPEAL to the PRIVY COUNCIL. By Vernon Lush- 
 INGTON, Esq., Barrister at Law. Complete in 1 volume, containing 
 cases from 1859 to 1863. Price 21. 10s. sewed. 
 
 BROVTNING and LUSHINGTON'S ADMIRALTY REPORTS. 
 
 REPORTS of CASES in the COURT of ADMIRALTY 
 and on APPEAL to the PRIVY COUNCIL, 1863—1865. By 
 Ernst Browning and Vernon Lushington, Esqrs., of the Inner 
 Temple, Barristers at Law. Complete in 1 vol. 40s. Sewed, 
 
PREPARING FOR PUBIi I CATION. 
 
 Stephen's Questions for Law Students on the sixth Edition of 
 
 Mi. SeijeaDt Stephen's New Connnentaries on the Laws of England. In 1 vol. 8vo. 
 
 Brandon^s Notes of Practice in the Mayor's Court of the 
 
 City of London. Second Edition. In 8vo. 
 
 An Improved System of Solicitors' Bookkeeping. Being the 
 
 Substance of a Series of Articles contributed to the Law Journal, with great Addi- 
 tions and numerous additional Examples. By William Coombs, Solicitors' 
 Accountant. In 8vo. '* 
 
 The Commentaries of Gains on the Eoman Law, with an 
 
 English Translation and Annotations. By Fredsrick Tomkins, Esq., M.A., 
 D.C.L., and William George Lemon, Esq., LL.B., Banisters at Law, of 
 Lincoln's Inn. In 8vo. 
 
 The Institutes of Roman Law. Part II. By Frederick 
 ToMKiNs, Esq., M.A.t D.C.L., Barrister at Law, of Lincoln's Inn. To be com- 
 plete in 3 parts, royal 8vo. 
 
 A Digested Index to all the Reports in the House of Lords, 
 
 from the commencement of the Series by Dow in 1814 to the present time, intended 
 as a Supplementary Volume to Clark's House of Lord's Cases, By Charles 
 Clare, Esq., Barrister at Law. Fart II. completing the Index and the Series. 
 
 A Collection of Mortgage Precedents and^ Decrees ; intended 
 
 as a Companion Work to the General Law of Mortgage. By W, R. Fisheb, Esq., 
 of Lincoln's Inn^ Barrister at Law. In 1 vol. Royal 8vo. 
 
 Shelford's Law of Joint Stock Companies.— Second Edition. 
 
 By Datid PiTCAiBN, of Lincoln's Inn, and F. L. Latham^ of the Inner Temple, 
 Esqrs., Barristers at Law. In 12mo. 
 
 Shelford's Law of Railways.— Fourth Edition, containing the 
 whole of the Consolidation and other General Acts for I^egulating Railways in 
 England, Scotland and Ireland to thti present time, and including the Companies 
 Act, 1S62; Lord Campbell's Act; the Law of Rating Railways to Local Taxes, 
 with Notes of decided Cases on their Construction and Forms, &c,; the whole 
 brought down to the latest period by W. Cvmnihgham Glen and C. W. Lotest, 
 Esquires, of the Middle Temple, Barristers at Law. In 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 
 
 Swabey and Tristram's Probate and Divorce Reports.— 
 
 Vol. IV. Part II. (Completing the Series.) 
 
 Law Magazine and Review for August.- No. so, United New 
 
 Series. 
 
 Hallilay's Law Examination Reporter.— No. 12, for Michaelmas 
 
 Term, 1868. 
 
THE LAW MAGAZINE £STi LAW REVIEW. 
 
 (NEW SERIES.) 
 
 Published Quarterly in February, Mat, August & November, at 5s. 
 
 The two Quabtebly Organs of the Legal Public, and of those concerned in the 
 administration and enactment of the Laws of the United Kingdom, have, since 
 May, 1856, with great advantage, been amalgamated under one management — that 
 of the Editor of the Law Magazine. From that time to the present, it has been 
 the endeavour of the publishers to redeem the pledge then given, that this periodical 
 should be rendered worthy of the support of the practising lawyer— whether barrister 
 or solicitor — of the jurist, the legislator, and the magistrate. 
 
 Ifo, 49, of the United New Series, pubtished in Mat, contains : — 
 
 1, Our Judicial System ; its principal Defects, and Suggestions for its Amendment. 
 — 2. Antient Parliamentary Elections. — 3. The Americans and their Prisons. — 
 4. IndianLaw.— 5. The Inns of Court.— 6., The Libel Bill, 1868.— 7. The Law- 
 relating to Charitable Gifts.— 8. The Patent Law.— 9. The Married Women's 
 Property Bill. — 10. On Naturalization and Expatriation; or on Change of 
 Natlonadity. — Events of the Quarter. Reviews, &c. 
 
 *** An Annual Subscription of 20s. if paid in advance to the Publishers, 
 Messrs. BuiTERvfotiTB, 7, Fleet Street, London, E.G., will ensure the 
 IjAV Magazine and Law Review being sent postage free to any part 
 of the Kingdom for the period of one year, or it may be ordered of amy 
 Bookseller. 
 
 Communications for the Editor may be addressed to the care cf the Publishers, 
 to whom also Adverifisements intended for insertion should be sent. 
 
 Imprinted at London, 
 
 nvmber Seuen in Flete strete within Temple barre, 
 
 whylom the signe of the Hande and starre, 
 
 and the Hovse where lined Richard Tottel, 
 
 yvintet tc Sipecial patents of tl^e boices of tge Common laioe 
 
 in the seueral reigns of 
 
 Kng Edwi VI. and of the gvenes Marye and Eligabeth. 
 
 f 
 
E. J. MARSHJiLL 
 

 "'? ^^^^'tVHP 
 
 f 
 
 '" 
 
 * 
 r 
 
 h 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 CONCISE TREATISE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 EQXI^Y PLEADIISG: 
 
 
 
 WITH '■ ' ' 
 
 
 
 PRECEDENT^. 
 
 
 
 BY 
 
 C. STEWART DREWHY, ESQ., 
 
 or THE INSEH TEMPLE, liABIHSTER-iT-I.llW. 
 
 
 
 LONDON: 
 BUTTERWORTHS", 7, FLEET STREET, 
 
 Unfa WuHll^cra to tijt ©ufrn'u moat nctUtiit ilHajcsts. 
 1858. 
 
 
 ,*.,