The Common Law - LightNovelsOnl.com
You're reading novel online at LightNovelsOnl.com. Please use the follow button to get notifications about your favorite novels and its latest chapters so you can come back anytime and won't miss anything.
285/2 Bro. Acc. sur le Case, pl. 5; S.C., Y.B. 27 Hen. VIII. 24, 25, pl. 3; Sidenham v. Worlington, 2 Leon. 224, A.D. 1585.
285/3 Y.B. 21 Hen. VII. 30, pl. 5; ib. 41, pl. 66.
285/4 Y.B. 3 Hen. VI. 36, pl. 33.
286/1 Sharington v. Strotton, Plowden, 298 (Mich. 7 & 8 Eliz.); ib. 309, note on "the civil law."
286/2 Hunt v. Bate, 3 Dyer, 272 a (10 Eliz., A.D. 1568).
286/3 See Lecture VIII. Mr. Langdell, Contracts, Sections 92, 94, suggests the ingenious explanation for this doctrine, that it was then held that no promise could be implied in fact from the request. There may be evidence which I do not know, but the case cited (Bosden v. Thinne, Yelv. 40) for this statement was not decided until A.D. 1603, while the implication of Hunt v. Bate, supra, which was the authority followed by the cases to be explained, is all the other way.
286/4 Sidenham v. Worlington, 2 Leon. 224, A.D. 1585.
287/1 Read v. Baxter, 3 Dyer, 272 b, n. (26 & 27 Eliz.). Cf.
Richards and Bartlet's Case, 1 Leon. 19 (26 Eliz.).
287/2 Bro. Acc. sur le Case, pl. 5; S.C., Y.B. 27 Hen. VIII. 24, 25, pl. 3; 3 Dyer, 272, n.
287/3 Marsh v. Rainsford, 3 Dyer, 272 b, n.; S.C., 2 Leon. 111, and Cro. Eliz. 59, sub. nom. Marsh v. Kavenford.
287/4 Smith and Smith's Case, 3 Leon. 88, A.D. 1583; Riches and Briggs, Yelv. 4, A.D. 1601; Pickas v. Guile, Yelv. 128, A.D.
1608.
288/1 Supra, p. 195. Lord c.o.ke's caution not to rely on the abridgments is very necessary to the proper study of the history of consideration. The abridgments apply the doctrine to cases which make no mention of it, and which were decided before it was ever heard of.
290/1 Y.B. 46 Ed. III. 19, pl. 19; 19 Hen. VI. 49, pl. 5; Keilway, 160, pl. 2; Powtuary v. Walton, 1 Roll. Abr. 10, pl. 5; Coggs v. Bernaard, 2 Ld. Raym. 909.
290/2 Riches and Briggs, Yelv. 4, A.D. 1601; Pickas v. Guile, Yelv. 128.
291/1 Bainbridge v. Firmstone, 8 Ad. & El. 743, A.D. 1838.
291/2 Wilkinson v. Oliveira, 1 Bing. N. C. 490, A.D. 1835; Haigh v. Brooks, 10 Ad. & El. 309; lb. 323; Hart v. Miles, 4 C.B. N.S.
371, A.D. 1858.
291/3 Wheatley v. Low, Cro. Jac. 668, A.D. 1623. Cf. Byne and Playne's Case, 1 Leon. 220, 221 (32 & 33 Eliz.).
291/4 Wilkinson v. Oliveira, 1 Bing. N. C. 490; Haigh v. Brooks, 10 Ad. & El. 309; Hart v. Miles, 4 C.B. N.S. 371; 6 Am. Law Rev.
47, Oct. 1871.
292/1 Supra, pp. 196, 197. See also Lecture VII.
292/2 Byles, J., in Shadwell v. Shadwell, 30 L. J. C.P. 145, 149.
292/3 Shadwell v. Shadwell, ubi supra; Burr v. Wilc.o.x, 13 Allen, 269, 272, 273.
292/4 Thomas v. Thomas, 2 Q.B.851.
293/1 Price v. Jenkins, 5 Ch. D. 619. Cf. Grabbe v. Moxey, 1 W.
R. 226; Thomas v. Thomas, 2 Q.B.851; Monahan, Method of Law, 141 et seq.
294/1 Ellis v. Clark, 110 Ma.s.s. 389.
294/2 Fitch v. Snedaker, 38 N. Y. 248, criticising Williaws v.
Carwardine, 4 Barn. & Ad. 621, where, however, it does not appear that the plaintiff did not know of the offer of a reward, but merely that the jury found that she was in fact actuated by other motives, a finding wholly beside the mark.
296/1 Y.B. 29 Ed. III. 25, 26.
296/2 19 R. II., Fitzh. Abr. Dett, pl. 166.
296/3 Hunt v. Bate, Dyer, 272, A.D. 1568.
297/1 See Barker v. Halifax, Cro. Eliz. 741; S.C. 3 Dyer, 272 a, n. 32.
297/2 Sidenham v. Worlington, 2 Leonard, 224; Bosden v. Thinne, Yelv. 40; Lampleigh v. Brathwait, Hobart, 105; Langdell, Cas. on Contr. (2d ed.), ch. 2, Section 11, Summary, Sections 90 et seq.
See above, Lecture VII. p. 286.
297/3 Pollock, Contr. (lst ed.), p. 6.
298/1 Canham v. Barry, 15 C.B. 597, 619; Jones v. How, 9 C.B. 1, 9; Com. Dig. Condition, D. 2; I Roll. Abr. 420 (D), pl. 1; Y.B.
22 Ed. IV. 26, pl. 6.
301/1 Gee v. Lancas.h.i.+re & Yorks.h.i.+re Railway Co., 6 H. & N. 211, 218, Bramwell, B. Cf. Hydraulic Engineering Co. v. McHaffie, 4 Q.B.D. 670, 674, 676.
301/2 British Columbia Saw-Mill Co. v. Nettles.h.i.+p, L.R. 3 C.P.
499, 509, Willes, J.; Horne v. Midland Railway Co., L.R. 7 C.P.
583, 591; S.C., L.R. 8 C.P. 131.
302/1 British Columbia Saw-Mill Co. v. Nettles.h.i.+p, L.R. 3 C.P.
499, 509.
304/1 Cheale v. Kenward, 3 DeG. & J. 27.
304/2 Langdell, Contr., Sections 89, 28.
305/1 Langdell, Contr., Section 57.
305/2 Ibid., Sections 14, 15.
306/1 But see Langdell, Contr., Sections 14, 15.
309/1 Raffles v. Wichelhaus, 2 H. & C. 906. Cf. Kyle v. Kavanagh, 103 Ma.s.s. 356, 357.
309/2 Cf. c.o.c.ker v. Crompton, 1 B. & C. 489.
310/1 Smith v. Hughes, L.R. 6 Q.B.597.
310/2 See Gardner v. Lane, 12 Allen, 39; S.C. 9 Allen, 492, 98 Ma.s.s. 517.
