Claim by a the necessary plans and sections, which were duly deposited with surveyor for remuneration. Statement of defence. the bill. 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. 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. Claim by outgoing tenant for farm. Tenant. And see Landlord and Tenant. Claim by outgoing Tenant against the incoming Tenant for 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, against 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 done, materials, seeds, manures, crops, tillages, and other things incoming provided and moneys expended by the plaintiff in cultivating tenant 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 12s. 3d. Statement of Defence. for value 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 Defence of £99 13s. 3d in respect of the matters above mentioned, to claim by but the plaintiff refused to accept the same. outgoing against incoming tenant. Payment 6. The balance of the plaintiff's claim, amounting to £25 198., is, as appears by his particulars delivered herein, claimed by him in respect of certain ploughing alleged to have been done by the plaintiff upon the said farm and premises. The said ploughing is not specified in the said agreement above mentioned as one of the matters in respect of which payment or compensation is to be made by the landlord or coming-in tenant to the plaintiff. The defendant never requested the plaintiff to do the said ploughing, nor agreed to pay or compensate him for so doing. On the contrary, the said ploughing was already done when the defendant first went over the said farm, and the defendant took the said farm from the said landlord as it then was, subject only to the payments provided by the above-mentioned agreement. 7. The said ploughing, if done at all, was done in an improper and unhusbandlike manner, without first cleaning the ground, and was of no use or benefit to the defendant. 8. The defendant brings into Court the sum of £99 138. 3d., into Court. and says that it is sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's claim in this action. Reply. Reply. 1. The plaintiff joins issue with the defendant upon his defence, except so far as it admits the plaintiff's claim. 2. By the custom of the country the plaintiff, as outgoing tenant, was entitled to be paid by the landlord the value of the ploughing and tillages relinquished and given up by the plaintiff on his leaving the farm. The defendant, after having taken the said farm, agreed with the plaintiff (with the consent of the landlord) to pay the plaintiff in respect of all such matters as the plaintiff, as outgoing tenant, was entitled to be paid for by the landlord. The defendant and the plaintiff accordingly appointed their respective valuers to ascertain the value thereof. They did ascertain the value of the said ploughings and tillages at the sum of £25 198., which is the value thereof, and afterwards the defendant repudiated his said agreement and refused to pay the said sum. 3. When the defendant entered upon the said farm he took Action by possession of the said ploughings, tillages, &c., for his own outgoing against profit, and thereupon became liable to the plaintiff for the value incoming thereof, both by the custom of the country in that behalf and tenant. Reply. otherwise. Rejoinder and Demurrer. 1. The defendant joins issue upon the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the reply. 2. And the defendant demurs to the 3rd paragraph of the Demurrer. reply, and says that the same is bad in law on the ground that the alleged custom, if any, is unreasonable and bad in law, and that the said paragraph shows no facts which in law constitute any such liability as therein alleged, and on other grounds sufficient in law to sustain this demurrer. Tender (a). Statement of Defence (Claim not given). 1. The defendant denies the allegation in the 4th paragraph Form of of the statement of claim, that he ever refused to pay the said pleading sum of £150 to the plaintiff. tender. Tender only a defence there is no prior breach of contract. (a) It is a good defence to an action that the defendant before breach tendered the amount of the debt due, and that he has ever since been ready and willing to pay the same. This plea is only applicable where where the party pleading has been guilty of no breach of his contract. (Hume v. Peploe, 8 East, 168, 170.) Therefore where a debt is payable on a day certain, as on an acceptance, a plea of tender post diem is generally inapplicable. (Poole v. Tanbridge, 2 M. & W. 223.) The averment that the defendant has been "always ready and willing," is a material averment, and therefore the defence will be defeated by showing a demand and refusal prior or subsequent to the tender. (Bennett v. Parker, I. R. 2 C. L. 89, Ex.) The defence of tender operates as an admission of the special contract stated in the statement of claim to which it is pleaded (Cox v. Brain, 3 Taunt. 95); and thus on an action of guarantee it supersedes the necessity of proving the guarantee to be in writing. (Middleton v. Brewer, Peake, 15.) Coming to the essentials of a valid tender, it may be made to the creditor or one generally authorised by him to receive money on his behalf, and it may be made either by the debtor or his agent. Tender of a part of one entire debt is inoperative (Dixon v. Clarke, 5 C. B. 365); and the debtor cannot apply a set-off in reduction of the amount due, so as to make a tender of the balance good. (Searle To what extent it is an admis sion. To and by whom it should be made. Form of pleading tender. 2. The defendant says that he always was and still is ready and willing to pay the said sum to the plaintiff, and before the commencement of this action he duly tendered the same to the plaintiff in discharge of the said debt, but the plaintiff refused to accept it. Claim for trespass and injury to a horse. When a tender of a larger sum is bad. In what kind of money it must be made. Money must generally be produced, and no condition imposed. Quære, Is debtor entitled to a receipt? Trespass de Bonis asportatis (a). Action of Trespass for Trespass and Injury to a Horse. 1. The plaintiff is a farmer residing at, in the county of H., and the defendant is a licensed victualler carrying on business at the same place. v. Sadgrove, 5 E. & B. 639; L. J. 25 Q. B. 15.) If the objection appears on the record, the defence will be bad on demurrer; if it does not so appear, the plaintiff must reply that the sum tendered was part of a larger amount due which formed one entire cause of action. (Hesketh v. Fawcett, 11 M. & W. 356.) A tender of more than the sum due, requiring change, is bad (Betterbee v. Davis, 3 Camp. 70); but a tender of too much without requiring change is good. (Read v. Goldring, 2 M. & S. 86.) As to the kind of money in which a legal tender can be made- (1) for amounts over £5 the 3 & 4 Wm. 4 c. 98, s. 6. provides that Bank of England notes shall be a good tender. (2) Gold coins issued from the mint a good tender for any amount. (3). Silver coins for any sum not exceeding 40s. (4). Copper coins for any sum not exceeding 18. A county bank note should not be tendered; but if it is tendered and the party objects, not to the kind of payment offered, but refuses to take it on some other ground, the tender may be good, for a party must rely on the objection he states, and will be taken to have waived any other objection. (Polglass v. Oliver, 2 C. & J. 15; Lockyer v. Jones, Peake, 239.) The actual production of the money due is necessary, unless the creditor dispenses with the production of it at the time, or does something equivalent to a dispensation (Thomas v. Evans, 10 East, 101); and the tender must be unconditional. An offer of payment clogged with a condition that it should be accepted as the balance due, does not amount to a legal tender. (Evans v. Judkins, 4 Camp. 156; Hough v. May, 4 Ad. & E.954.) A tender of the full amount demanded, accompanied with a protest, is good (Scott v. Uxbridge & Rickmansworth Rail. Co., L. R. 1 C. P. 596); but not so if the tender cannot be accepted without supplying an admission that no more is due (Bowen v. Owen, 11 Q. B. 130); so where a tender is accompanied with a demand of a receipt in full of all demands. (Ryder v. Townsend, 7 D. & Ry. 119.) There is no little discussion in a number of old cases as to whether a debtor when paying his debt can demand a receipt at all; but by the 33 & 34 Vict. c. 99, s. 123, the payee of money is liable to a penalty, if in any case where a receipt would be liable to duty he refuses to give a stamped receipt; and therefore, where the debt is £2 or over, the practical effect is that the debtor may claim a receipt. (a) This action lies for an actual taking or for a direct injury to chattels, In order to maintain the action the act of the defendant need not be |