(3) See note (1), p. c.

Gouldsborough's Reports.

Gow's Nisi Prius Cases.
Gundry MSS. (4)

(4) These MSS. were purchased of Nathaniel Gundry, Esq., the only son of Mr. Justice Gundry, by whom the notes were taken; and will be found in Lincoln's Inn

Library.

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS.

Perry and Davison's Reports.

Phillips' Reports.

Phillimore's Ecclesiastical Reports.

Phillipps on Evidence.

Plowden's Commentaries.

Pollexfen's Reports.

{Postlethwayt's Universal Dictionary of Trade and Com

Precedents in Chancery.

Price's Reports in the Court of Exchequer.
Peere Williams's Reports.

Queen's Bench Reports.

Rolle's Abridgments.

Rastall's Entries.

Lord Raymond's Reports.

Sir Thomas Raymond's Reports.

Sir E. Coke's Reports.

Reports in Chancery.

Richardson's Practice, Common Pleas.

Reports time of Hardwicke, C. J. B. R.

Reports time of Holt, C. J. B. R.

Robinson's Admiralty Reports.

Rolle's Abridgment.

Rolle's Reports.

Rose's Cases in Bankruptcy.

Runnington's Ejectment.
Russell's Reports.

Russell and Mylne's Reports.

Ryan and Moody's Nisi Prius Reports.

Salkeld's Reports.

Saunders's Reports.

Sayer's Reports.

Schoale and Lefroy's Reports.

Scott's Reports, C. P.

Scott's New Reports.

Session Cases.

Shepherd's Touchstone.

Shower's Reports.

Shower's Parliamentary Cases.

Siderfin's Reports.

Simons's Reports.

Simons and Stuart's Reports.

Skinner's Reports.

Smale's Reports.

Smale and Giffard's Reports.

Starkie's Nisi Prius Cases.

Strange's Reports.

Style's Reports.

Sugden's Law of Vendors and Purchasers (10th edit.)

Swanston's Reports.

Taunton's Reports.

Younge and Collyer's Reports in Exchequer.

[Younge's and Collyer's New Cases in Chancery,

V. C. Knight Bruce.

Younge's and Jervis's Reports.

ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.

Page 70, note (u).] Add Haigh v. The Guardians of the North Brierly Union, 28 L. J., Q. B. 62.

Page 71, note (y).] See also the judgment of Campbell, C. J., in The Prince of Wales Insurance Co. v. Harding, 27 L. J., Q. B. 297, in which the above decisions are adhered to, notwithstanding the observations of Lord Wensleydale in Ernest v. Nicholls, 6 House of Lords' Cases, 401.

Page 174, Tender.]
Page 197, Auction.]

Page 157, Statute of Limitations.] A petition to the Court of Bankruptcy, signed by
the bankrupt, is not such an acknowledgment of a debt con-
tained in the schedule to such petition as will take the case out
of the statute; Everett v. Robertson, 28 L. J., Q. B. 23.
By 16 & 17 Vict. c. 102, no tender of payment in money in any
gold, &c. defaced shall be a legal tender.
Where the owner of a mare sent her to the defendant with in-
structions to sell by auction without reserve, and the plaintiff
was the highest bona fide bidder, but the mare was knocked
down to the owner, who made a higher bid; it was held, that
the plaintiff could not maintain an action against the defend-
ant, on the ground that he was his agent, and was bound to
complete the contract on his behalf, Warlow v. Harrison, 28
L. J., Q. B. 18.

Page 204, note (z).] See also Simmons v. Heseltine, 28 L. J., C. P. 129.
Page 233, note (m).] Add Van Castell v. Barker, 2 Exch. R. 691.

ib. note (o).] See Harris v. Rickett, 4 H. & N. 1.
Page 261, note (d).] Add Hormsby v. Miller, 28 L. J., Q. B. 99.
Page 299, note (n).] Add Parker v. Ince, 4 H. & N. 53.

ib. note (u).] Add White v. Corbett, 7 Week. Rep. 363.

ib.

Page 300, note (v).] Warburg v. Tucker is also reported, 28 L. J., Q. B. 56. note (x).] Boyd v. Robins (Ex. Ch.) is reported, 28 L. J., Q. B. 73. Page 313, note (p).] Add Lee v. Bullen, 8 E. & B. 392.

Page 320, note (b).] Add Bellhouse v. Mellor, 4 H. & N. 116.

ib. note (f).] See also Jones v. Simpson, 3 H. & N. 836.

Page 323, note (c).] Tabor v. Edwards also reported in 4 C. B., N. S. 1.

Page 361, note (t).] Add Penrose v. Martyn, 28 L. J., Q. B. 28.

Page 378, note (t).] But see Holmes v. Kidd (Ex. Ch.), 28 L. J., Exch. 112.
Page 405, note (c).] Paul v. Joel, affirmed in error, 28 L. J., Exch. 143.
Page 441, Carriers.] A common carrier is only bound to carry within a reasonable

VOL. I.

time under ordinary circumstances. Therefore, where there had been a heavy fall of snow upon a railway, which occasioned the delay complained of, the defendants were held not bound to have used extraordinary efforts or to incur extra expense in order to overcome the obstacle to the traffic, Briddon v. The Great Northern Railway Co., 28 L. J., Exch. 51; but he is bound to carry with reasonable expedition, per Byles, in Blakemore v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co., 1 F. & F. 76.

h