trix for deceased was carrying on the business of a potato salesman at By adthe Great Northern Railway Potato Market, and he had taken ministraa season ticket from the defendants entitling him to travel as a negligence passenger on their line between the above mentioned stations. causing death of 4. On the 20th March, 1874, between four and five o'clock the intesin the afternoon, the deceased was received by the defendants tate. at their said station at K. C. as a passenger, to be safely and securely carried by them from thence to F., in a train that was shortly expected to start. 5. While lawfully waiting on the platform intended for passengers who wished to travel by that train, a certain barrow or trolly, loaded with newspapers, was, by the negligence of the defendants, violently pushed against him. He was knocked down and seriously injured in the head and leg, and otherwise. 6. In consequence of these injuries he was entirely unable to attend to his business from that day to the day of his death ; he incurred great expense in providing other persons to manage his business; he lost a large portion of the profits that he would otherwise have made; and the goodwill of his business, owing to his having been unable to attend to it, was rendered much less valuable. He also incurred large expenses in obtaining the necessary medical attendance and nursing and otherwise during his illness, and at the time of his death his personal estate and effects were much diminished in value by reason of the circumstances aforesaid. The plaintiff claims, as such administratrix as aforesaid, £1000 damages for injury to the personal estate and effects of the said R. T. L. Action by Banker for Balance of Overdrawn Account against a surviving Partner and the Executor of a deceased Partner. executor tor. 1. The defendant T. H. and W. H., deceased, formerly Against carried on business in co-partnership as builders, at M., in the for debt of county of W., under the style of " T. & W. H." The defendant the testaT. H., and the said W. H. had a banking account with the A. Branch of the L-shire Banking Company, of which bank the plaintiff is one of the registered public officers, and brings this action in that character. 2. The said W. H. died on or about the 31st of January, Against executor for debt of the testator. Defence. 1875, having previously duly made his will, dated the 9th of July, 1863, whereby he appointed the defendant, W. H. A., and J. H. executors thereof. 3. The said will was duly proved by the said defendant, W. H. A., alone, and he is the sole acting executor of the said W. H. 4. At the time of the death of the said W. H., the balance due to the said banking company from the said firm of "T. & W. H." on the aforesaid banking account amounted to the sum of £371 2s. The said last mentioned sum has since been reduced by sundry payments on account thereof, made by or on behalf of the defendants, or one of them; and on the 15th of March, 1876, the amount remaining due on the said account was the sum of £216 17s. 6d. 5. The said sum of £216 17s. 6d., together with interest thereon from the said 16th of March, 1876, remains due to the said banking company from the defendant W. H. A., as such executor as aforesaid, and from the said defendant T. H., jointly and severally. The plaintiff claims payment of the said sum of £216 17s. 6d., together with interest thereon from the 16th of March, 1876. Statement of Defence of W. H. A., the Executor of the deceased. 1. The defendant W. H. A. says that the banking account mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 4 was a joint banking account only of the firm of T. & W. H., and not a joint and several banking account. 2. As to paragraph 4 of the plaintiff's claim, the said defendant denies that the balance in the said paragraph mentioned, or any part thereof, was due to the said banking company from the said firm of T. & W. H. as alleged; and further denies that any of the said alleged balance remains now due as alleged. 3. And to the said 4th paragraph the said defendant further says, that after the death of the said W. H. the defendant T. H. paid out of the assets of the said firm, and out of moneys received by him in respect thereof and other executor wise, to the said banking company, large sums of money in Against respect of the said banking account, and thereby satisfied the plaintiff's claim in respect of the alleged balance of £371 28., by payment thereof. 4. The said defendant denies the 5th paragraph of the statement of claim. for debt of the testa tor. Plene adminis travit. 5. The said defendant has fully administered all the personal Defence of estate and effects which were of the said W. H., deceased, and which have ever come to the hands of the said defendant as executor as aforesaid to be administered; and the said defendant had not at the commencement of this suit, nor has he since had, nor has he any personal estate or effects of the said W. H., deceased, in his hands as such executor as aforesaid, to be administered. 6. The said defendant, as such executor as aforesaid, is solely interested in the separate estate of the said W. H., deceased; and debts due to the late firm have, to a large amount, since the decease of the said W. H. been paid to the defendant T. H., in whose hands and under whose control was and is property to a large amount belonging to the late firm; and the said T. H., as such surviving partner, is solely liable for the debts and liabilities incurred and owing by the said firm, and there were and are sufficient funds of the partnership property in the hands of the said T. H. to satisfy the plaintiff's claim, and such funds should, in any event, be first exhausted before recourse be had to the said defendant as such executor as aforesaid. 7. Before and at the time of the death of the said W. H., certain deeds and other securities belonging to the separate estate of the said W. H. and to the estate of his wife, had been and were deposited with the said banking company by way of security for any balance that might be owing to the plaintiff on the banking account of the said firm of T. & W. H.; and after the death of the said W. H. the said banking company delivered up the said deeds and securities to his said wife, and to this defendant, as executor of the said W. H., and agreed to take the security of the surviving partner, the said T. H., in discharge of any balance that might be due on the said banking account, and discharged this defendant as such executor from all liability in respect of the balance alleged to be due on the aforesaid banking account, and agreed to look to the said T. H. and to Against executor for debt of the testa tor. Against adminis trator for detinue the partnership property in the hands of the said T. H., as above mentioned, in respect thereof; and this defendant, relying on the premises, and with the knowledge and consent of the said banking company, proceeded completely to administer the estate and effects of the said W. H. Reply. The plaintiff joins issue upon the defendants' statement of defence, save in so far as it contains admissions of the matters alleged in the statement of claim. Executrices of Dentist to recover charges for teeth, &c.-For Precedent of this claim, see p. 435. Action against Administrator for Detinue of Goods by Deceased. 1. The plaintiff is a gentleman, now residing at, in the county of 2. The defendant is the administrator of the estate and and money effects of one Mary S., deceased. lent. 3. From or about 1871 until her death, hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff occupied partially furnished apartments in the house of the said Mary S., deceased. The plaintiff was possessed of divers articles of household furniture, and of certain pictures, wine, books, papers, memoranda, banker's pass book, and other documents and writings, the whole of which were in the house of the said Mary S., deceased. The plaintiff cannot at present state the particulars of such property, the whole of it being, as hereinafter mentioned, in the possession of the defendant, and the plaintiff possessing no list thereof, and not being able to give an accurate list from memory. 4. In the month of November, 1877, the said Mary S. died, and letters of administration of her estate were subsequently duly granted to the defendant. 5. The plaintiff shortly afterwards applied to the defendant as administrator as aforesaid, and required and demanded of him that he should give up and return to the plaintiff the property in paragraph 3 hereof mentioned. 6. The defendant, however, refused to return, and has not returned, the said property, or any part thereof, to the plaintiff, and he wrongfully kept and detained, and still wrongfully keeps Against and detains, the same from the plaintiff. administrator for 7. The plaintiff during the lifetime of the said Mary S. detinue advanced and lent money to her. Such advances (particulars and money of which have been delivered to the defendant) amounted in the whole to the sum of £50. 8. The said sum of £50 has not been repaid. The plaintiff claims: (1.) A return of the personal property hereinbefore mentioned, or £1000 its value, and £ its detention. damages for (2.) Also an injunction to restrain the defendant, as admi- Executor Claiming under Lord Campbell's Act for Injuries Causing the Death of his Testator.-For precedent of this claim, see under head Negligence, post, pp. 482-3. lent. Exoneration. See Release-Rescission. False Imprisonment (a). Action for giving the Plaintiff into Custody on a False Charge of Felony. 1. The plaintiff is a journeyman painter. The defendant is a builder, having his building yard, and carrying on business !(a) A total restraint of the liberty of the person for however short a time even by forcibly detaining the party in the streets against his will," will amount in law to an imprisonment (Bird v. Jones, 7 Q. B. 742, 752); and if such imprisonment is unjustifiable it will amount to a false imprisonment and be actionable. An arrest or imprisonment, however, is not confined to a corporal seizure. "If a person send for a constable and give another in charge for felony, and the constable tell the party charged that he must go with him, on which the other, in order to prevent the necessity of actual force being used, expresses his readiness to go, and does actually go, this is an imprisonment." (Per Abbott, C. J., in False im prisonment on a charge of felony. What constitutes a false imprisonment. |