網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

Statement of Defence and Counter-claim. 1. Except as hereinafter appears the defendant denies all the Defence to

an action remaining allegations in the said statement of claim.

by a stock2. On or about the 29th day of February, 1876, the defen- broker dant instructed the plaintiff to sell the said stock, and to close “ differthe account as soon as the dividend upon the said stock had ences.” been declared.

3. The market price of the stock immediately after the said dividend had been declared was £131 38. 4d., and the plaintiff might then have sold the same at that price, and had he done so, the loss upon the transaction would have amounted to £47 10s.

4. The defendant before action paid to the plaintiff the sum of £20 on account of the said transaction, and has paid into Court the sum of £27 10s., being the balance of the said sum of £47 108.

By way of set-off and counter-claim the defendant

5. Repeats the allegations contained in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the statement of defence, and says that

6. The plaintiff, contrary to the instructions and against the will of the defendant, did not sell the said stock immediately after the dividend thereon had been declared, and did not sell the same 'until the 12th of December, 1876, when the same had fallen to £119 38. 4d., whereby a loss amounting to £161 188. 10d. has been sustained by the plaintiff.

The defendant claims :

Reply.

Reply. 1. The plaintiff joins issue upon the statement of defence.

2. The plaintiff accepts the sum of £27 108. paid by the defendant into Court in satisfaction of that part of the claim of the plaintiff in respect of which it is paid in, but the plaintiff seeks to recover the balance due to him as set forth in the statement of claim.

3. In reply to the defendant's counter-claim, the plaintiff denies that the defendant instructed him to sell the said stock immediately after the dividend thereon had been declared, or at any time previously to the 12th December, 1876.

Q

Rejoinder. The defendant joins issue on the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the plaintiff's reply.

Stoppage in Transitu (a).

Claim
against
carriers
for not
stopping
in transitu.

Action against a Railway Company for failing to stop in

Transitu when so ordered by Owner. 1. The plaintiff is a merchant carrying on business under the style of E. and W. P. at the Works, Lane, London.

2. On the 27th October, 1875, the plaintiff delivered to the defendants, and the defendants received from the plaintiff as the vendor, certain goods, namely 50 casks of composition pipe, as carriers thereof for reward to them in that behalf, consigned by the plaintiff to Messrs. H. W. and Company, of — Street, Birmingham, the purchasers and consignees of the said goods.

3. The plaintiff subsequently and before any of the goods had been delivered to Messrs. H. W. & Co. pursuant to the said consignment, and before they had claimed delivery of the same from the defendants, discovered that the said Messrs. H. W. & Co. were in insolvent circumstances, and thereupon on the 22nd November, 1875, none of the goods having been then paid for, he, as unpaid vendor, gave notice to the defendants not to deliver any part of the goods to Messrs. H. W. & Co., but to hold them to

Stoppage (a) Stoppage in transitu is the term applied to a right of an unpaid in transitu, vendor to resume the possession, with which he has parted, of goods what it is. sold upon credit before they come into the possession of the vendee,

who has become bankrupt, insolvent, or embarrassed in circumstances. (Dixon v. Yates, 5 B. & Ad. 315; Bird v. Brown, 4 Ex. 786.) “ The term 'insolvent' when it relates to the right of stoppage in transitu

means a general inability to satisfy obligations evidenced by stopping Where the payment. In such a case the vendor is allowed to countermand delivery right is

before or at the place of destination, and to resume the possession of Jost.

the goods. but it is not an unlimited right, for the vendor cannot exercise it if he has parted with the documents sufficient to transfer the property, and the vendee upon the strength of them has sold the goods to a bonâ fide purchaser without notice."—Houston's Stoppage in Transitu, p. 1.

the plaintiff's order, and before any of them were delivered to Claim Messrs. H. W. & Co., the plaintiff required the defendants to re- against

carriers deliver the same to him.

for not 4. The defendants refused and neglected to do so, and con- stopping, trary to and after they had received the plaintiff's notice and

in transitu. order, they on the 17th December, 1875, delivered them to Messrs. H. W. & Co., who had not then paid the plaintiff for any part thereof.

5. Shortly after the said Messrs. H. W. & Co. had got possession of the goods they closed their house of business at Birmingham and absconded, and the plaintiff does not know where they are now to be found.

6. The plaintiff has never been paid for any part of the said goods, and by reason of the defendants' default in wrongfully delivering them to Messrs. H. W. & Co., as aforesaid, he has wholly lost the said goods, and the price and value thereof, namely £120.

The plaintiff claims £120.

Surveyor.

Remuneration of a Surveyor and Engineer for Services rendered

in connection with a projected Railway. 1. The plaintiff was in the year 1872 and still is a civil Claim by a engineer carrying on business at and the defendant is the surveyor

for remu. chairman of the Rail. Co., and a director of other railway neration. companies in the north eastern district.

2. The plaintiff in the autumn of 1872 was instructed by the defendant to prepare plans and sections for the purpose of depositing a bill in the then next session of parliament for authorising the construction of a new line of railway in North C., between E. and B., of 11} miles in length. This line was intended to be in connection with the N. E. railway system, and was intended to be a rival line to the C. E. M. railway, then also being surveyed prior to an application for a bill in parliament.

3. The plaintiff in pursuance of such instructions, in November and December, 1872, surveyed the said line and prepared

Claim by a the necessary plans and sections, which were duly deposited with surveyor the bill. for remuneration. 4. The plaintiff subsequently, at the defendant's request, was

engaged in carrying the bill through Parliament as engineer of the scheme, including the opposition to the rival scheme of the C. E. M. railway, until ultimately in the month of July, 1873, the defendant abandoned the further prosecution of the scheme.

5. The ordinary scale of remuneration for engineers for the above services is £100 per mile ; and £1150 is now due and owing to the plaintiff in respect of the same.

The plaintiff claims £1150.

Statement of defence.

Statement of Defence. 1. The defendant does not admit that he said or did anything which can amount to such instructions as are stated in the 2nd paragraph of the claim, but says that anything he said or did with reference to any of the matters or things mentioned in that paragraph, was said and done by him as director for and on behalf of the W. and M. Union Railway, as the plaintiff then well knew, and not otherwise, nor in his own interest or on his behalf in any way whatsoever.

2. The defendant denies each and every the allegations contained in the 3rd and 5th paragraphs of the statement of claim.

Tenant.

And see Landlord and Tenant.

Claim by outgoing against incoming tenant for fixtures, &c., left

Claim by outgoing Tenant against the incoming Tenant for

Fixtures, &c., left on the Farm by the Plaintiff at the

Request of the Defendant 1. The plaintiff and the defendant were respectively the outgoing and incoming tenants on the F. farm premises situate in the parishes of E. and H., in the county of W.

2. The plaintiff, on or about the 25th day of March, 1877,

on the

farm.

relinquished and gave up for and to the defendant, at his re- Claim by quest, certain fixtures and other effects, and the benefit of work outgoing

against done, materials, seeds, manures, crops, tillages, and other things incoming provided and moneys expended by the plaintiff in cultivating tenant

for value and improving the lands on the aforesaid farm, and the sum of of fixtures, £125 12s. 3d. became due and payable from the defendant to &c. the plaintiff in respect thereof. Particulars of the plaintiff's claim have been delivered to the defendant.

3. The said sum of £125 12s. 3d. is still due and unpaid from the defendant to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff claims £125 128. 3d.

Statement of Defence. 1. The defendant does not admit the allegations in the 2nd Defence. and 3rd paragraphs of the statement of claim, except in so far as is hereinafter mentioned.

2. The defendant agreed with the landlord of the said farm to take the said farm and premises subject to the payments to the plaintiff as outgoing tenant mentioned in a certain agreement in writing under which the plaintiff held the said farm as to be allowed and paid by the said landlord or the coming-in tenant by way of compensation or payment in respect of certain matters specified in the said agreement, the amount of which payments was to be ascertained by arbitration if necessary.

3. The defendant afterwards expressly agreed with the plaintiff to take certain further effects and matters in or upon the said farm and premises at a valuation.

4. The amount of the payments to be made in respect of all the matters specified in the agreement mentioned in the 2nd paragraph was ascertained by arbitrators named by the plaintiff and defendant respectively, which arbitrators also valued the further effects and matters which the plaintiff had expressly agreed to take as in the 3rd paragraph mentioned. The total amount of the said payments so ascertained by them to be due in respect of the matters in paragraphs 2 and 3 above mentioned was £99 13s. 3d.

5. The defendant has always been ready and willing, and Tender. still is, and has offered to pay to the plaintiff the said sum

« 上一頁繼續 »