« PreviousContinue »
Defence, that the capsules used were made in Germany, the bottles covered with them in Scotland, and sent through England for exportation only. Hed, that the sending the bottles into England was an infringement. There is no distinction between an active and a passive use. Injunction granted. The mere use of the capsules was the very benefit intended to be derived, which continued while they remained on the bottles. Since 21 & 22 Vict. c. 27, the court can direct an account and award damages in the same suit. — Betts v. Neilson, Law Rep. 3 Ch. 429.
2. The plaintiff being possessed of a patent, granted to the defendants the exclusive license to work it in a certain district by an indenture, in which the latter covenanted to pay certain royalties, and to give every information, the better to enable the plaintiff to support the letters-patent; and the plaintiff covenanted for quiet enjoyment of the patent by the defendants; and that, in case any person should work the patented processes, the plaintiff would, at his own costs, commence and carry on all such actions, &c., as should be necessary to put a stop to such working of said processes; and that, in case the plaintiff should fail or neglect so to do, the defendants should not be liable " thenceforth" to pay the said royalties, “after the time of such person commencing to work the said processes," until the plaintiff had, by law or otherwise, put a stop to such working. But the defendants were to keep an account of all royalties, that they might be paid to the plaintiff, on the enforcement of the patent right against the person infringing the same. Held, that the payment of royalties was not to be suspended, under the above condition, until the plaintiff had notice of an infringement, and until he had been allowed a reasonable time to institute proceedings to restrain the same. - Henderson v. Mostyn Copper Co., Law Rep. 3 C. P. 202. See MASTER AND SERVANT, 1; TRIAL BY JURY.
PLEDGE. — See FACTOR.
POWER. £5,000 were appointed on certain trusts subject to a power of appointment to the amount of £1,000. The fund, instead of £5,000, only amounted to £2,000. Held, that the appointee of the £1,000, and the per “ons entitled to the residue of the fund, must abate proportionately. — Miller v. Huddlestone, Law Rep. 6 Eq. 65.
PRACTICE. See AWARD.
PRESCRIPTION. - See Trust, 2.
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. Wool brokers gave a bought note for wool “ bought of Messrs. R. & Co.," and a sold note for the same, “ sold to our principals.” It did not appear that the purchasers knew of this variance; but a usage in the Liverpool trade was proved, that, when a broker is employed to buy wool, he may either contract in the name of his principal, or, without informing the latter, may make himself also personally liable for the price. Held, that the usage was reasonable, and the brokers justified in giving the above sold note. — Cropper v. Cook, Law Rep. 3 C. P. 194.
a servant of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's servant coming again shortly after midnight, found two steers killed, and was refused leave to take away the remaining cattle unless he signed a receipt for the whole, which he declined to do. Later the plaintiff removed them, but by the delay missed a market. Held (per BRAMWELL and CHANNELL, BB.; Martin, B., dissentiente), that the defendants' liability as carriers had ceased when the damage occurred. — Shepherd v. Bristol & Exeter Railway Co., Law Rep. 3 Exch. 189.
See ATTACHMENT; COMPANY, 2–4; NEGLIGENCE, 2; RENT CHARGE; ULTRA VIRES.
RECONVEYANCE. See MORTGAGE, 2.
RESIDUE. SEE WILL, 8.
RENT CHARGE. Land having been conveyed to the company in consideration of a rent charge, with a power to distrain on the land for arrears, the owner of the rent charge was allowed to distrain, although a receiver of the profits of the company had been appointed in a suit by the owner of a like rent charge, on behalf of himself and other such, who might choose to come in. — Eyton v. Drubigh, Ruthin & Corwen R. Co., L Rep. 6 Eq. 14.
RES ADJUDICATA. See COLLISION.
1. T. & Co. ordered whiskey of M. & Co., who knew the purpose for which the same was wanted, for barter on the African coast. The spirits were to match one sample in price, flavor, and strength, and another in color. They were colored with logwood, which, though not shown to be injurious to health, produced alarming physical effects, and made the natives think it poisoned. By 19 & 20 Vict. c. 60, § 5, where goods are sold for a specified purpose, the seller warrants that they are fit for that purpose. On an issue, whether the whiskey was colored with an “innocent” material, the judge in Scotland refused an instruction, that T. & Co. must prove that the logwood was injurious to the health of the consumer before they could recover; and there was a verdict for them, Held, that the refusal was right, and that M. & Co. were liable in damages. McFarlane v. Taylor, Law Rep. 1 H. L. Sc. 245.
2. P. bona fide ordered and paid for goods of the W. I. Company, which loaded the same on a railway to his address, and sent him the invoices, after the presenting of a petition, but before the winding-up order. Held, that the disposition of the property was complete before said order, and the goods were ordered on this ground, as of course, under Companies Act, 1862, § 153, to be delivered to P. – In re Wiltshire Iron Co., Ex parte Pearson, Law Rep. 3 Ch. 443.
See DAMAGES; STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU.