v. Craven, 8 M. & W. 584 482 243 336 709 9; 39 L. T. 721 v. Ford, L. R. 3 Ex. 63; 37 L. J. Ex. 60; 17 L. T. 605; ie w. v. Fuller, 3 Q. B. 68; 3 G. & D. 570 v. Furness Rail. Co., L. R. 9 Eq. 28 v. General Iron Screw Collier Co., 47 L. J. Q. B. 239 244 v. Glossop, 20 Q. B. D. 354; 57 L. J. Q. B. 161; 58 L. T. 707 WILSON v. HART, L. R. 1 Ch. 463; 35 L. J. Ch. 569; 12 Jur. N. S. 460... 47 v. Hatton, 2 Ex. D. 336; 46 L. J. Ex. 489; 36 L. T. 473; 25 W. R. 537 v. Hodson, L. R. 7 Ex. 84; 41 L. J. Ex. 49; 20 W. R. 438 v. Lloyd, L. R. 16 Eq. 60; 42 L. J. Ch. 559; 28 L. T. 331; 21 W. 730 531 709 83 240 90 535 WILSON v. MERRY, L. R. 1 Sc. & D. App. 326; 19 L. T. 30 v. Northampton, &c., Rail. Co., L. R. 9 Ch. 279; 43 L. J. Ch. v. Ray, 10 A. & E. 32; 2 P. & D. 253 v. Smyth, 1 B. & Ad. 801 v. Strugnell, 7 Q. B. D. 548; 50 L. J. M. C. 145; 45 L. T. 218; v. Tucker, 3 Stark. 154; D. & R. N. P. C. 30 v. Tumman, 6 M. & G. 236; 6 Scott N. R. 894; 12 L. J. C. P. 307 (1854), 14 C. B. 616; 2 C. L. R. 818; 23 L. J. C. P. 137 v. Zulueta, 14 Q. B. 405; 19 L. J. Q. B. 49; 14 Jur. 366 163, 272 Wiltshire v. Sims, 1 Camp. 258; 10 R. R. 673 263 Iron Co. v. Great Western Rail. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 101, 776; 40 Windsor, &c. Rail. Co. v. Reg, 11 App. Cas. 607; 55 L. J. P. C. 41; 55 L. WINN v. BULL, 7 Ch. D. 29; 47 L. J. Ch. 139; 26 W. R. 230 11 528 Winter v. Trimmer, 1 W. Bl. 395 719 Wintle v. Crowther, 1 C. & J. 316 281, 284 Wise v. Charlton, 4 A. & E. 786; 6 N. & M. 364; 2 H. & W. 49 v. Great Western Rail. Co., 25 L. J. Ex. 258; 1 H. & N. 63 v. Metcalfe, 10 B. & C. 299; 5 M. & R. 235 158 431 346 v. Summers, 2 Camp. 631; 12 R. R. 764 Wolseley v. Cox, 2 Q. B. 321; 11 L. J. Q. B. 9; 6 Jur. 599 Wolmershausen v. Gullick, [1893] 2 Ch. 514; 62 L. J. Ch. 773; 68 L. T. 753; 3 R. 610 Wolverhampton Banking Co., Ex parte, Campbell, In re, 14 Q. B. D. 32; 33 W. R. 642; 1 M. B. R. 261 Wolveridge v. Steward, 1 C. & M. 645; 3 M. & Scott, 561 86, 90, 561 123 v. Dunn, L. R. 2 Q. B. 73; 36 L. J. Q. B. 27; 15 L. T. 411 WOOD v. LEADBITTER, 13 M. & W. 838; 14 L. J. Ex. 161 v. Priestner, L. R. 2 Exch. 282; 36 L. J. Ex. 127 v. Wood (1889), 14 P. D. 157 Woodbridge v. Spooner, 3 B. & Al. 233; 1 Chit. 661. Woodcock v. Gibson, 4 B. & C. 462 Woodgate v. Potts, 2 C. & K. 457 225 416, 445 81 231 421 273 317 480 190 Woodger v. G. W. R. Co., L. R. 2. C. P. 318; 36 L. J. C. P. 177; 15 L. Woodland v. Fear, 7 E. & B. 519; 3 Jur. N. S. 587; 26 L. J. Q. B. 202 Woodward v. L. & N. W. R. Co., 3 Ex. D. 121; 47 L. J. Ex. 263; 38 L. Woolfe v. Horne, 2 Q. B. D. 355; 46 L. J. Q. B. 534; 36 L. T. 705 v. Jennings, 5 B. & C. 165; 7 D. & R. 824; 2 C. &. P. 144. Wootton v. Steffenoni, 12 M. & W. 129; 13 L. J. Ex. 72 Worsley v. Wignall, L. R. 1 P. & M. 648; 28 L. J. Mat. 43; 20 L. T. 546 251 36, 547, 621 v. Wood, 6 T. R. 710; 2 H. Bl. 574; 3 R. R. 323 Worthington v. Grimsditch, 7 Q. B. 749; 15 L. J. Q. B. 52; 10 Jur. 26...695, 696 v. Warrington, 5 C. B. 635; 17 L. J. C. P. 117 Wreck Recovery Co., In re, 15 Ch. D. 353; 43 L. T. 190; 29 W. R. 266 v. Horton, 12 App. Cas. 371; 56 L. J. Ch. 873; 56 L. T. 782; 36 W. R. 17; 52 J. P. 179 593 v. Laing, 3 B. & C. 165; 4 D. & R. 783' 639 v. Leonard, 11 C. B. N. S. 258; 30 L. J. C. P. 365; 8 Jur. N. S. 235 v. Mid. R. Co., L. R. 8 Ex. 137; 42 L. J. Ex. 89; 29 L. T. 436 446 v. Newton, Cr. M. & R. 124; 1 Gale, 67; 5 Tyr. 736. v. New Zealand Co., 4 Ex. D. 165; 40 L. T. 413 v. Reed, 3 T. R. 554; Eq. Cas. Ab. 319 WRIGHT v. STAVERT, 29 L. J. Q. B. 161; 2 E. & E. 721; 8 W. R. 413. 337 Wulff v. Jay, L. R. 7 Q. B. 756; 41 L. J. Q. B. 322; 27 L. T. 118; 20 76 608 672 164 494 697 v. Met. B. of Works, 11 C. B. N. S. 744; 31 L. J. C. P. 217 298 Wylson v. Dunn, 34 Ch. D. 569; 56 L. J. Ch. 855; 56 L. T. 192; 35 W. R. 405; 51 J. P. 452. Wynn v. Shropshire Union R. Co., 5 Ex. 420 490 261 409, 411, 421, 428 Y. YARBOROUGH v. The Bank of England, 16 East, 6; 14 R. R. 272 AGE 298 YARMOUTH v. FRANCE, 19 Q. B. D. 647 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 7 ; 36 W. R. 281 523 Yates v. Aston, 4 Q. B. 182; 3 G. & D. 351 v. Boen, 2 Str. 1104 v. Eastwood, 6 Exch. 805; 20 L. J. Ex. 303 v. Freckleton, 2 Doug. 625 v. Hoppe, 9 C. B. 541; 14 Jur. 372; 19 L. J. C. P. 180 v. Pim, 1 Holt, N. P. C. 95; 6 Taunt. 446; 16 R. R. 653 Yea v. Fouraker, 2 Burr. 1099 541 170 89 629 70 134 690 Yeo v. Dawe, 53 L. T. 125; 33 W. R. 739. 158 York, &c. R. Co. v. Crisp, 23 L. J. C. P. 125; 14 C. B. 527 429 Yorkshire Banking Co. v. Beatson, 5 C. P. D. 109 281 Young, Ex parte, 17 Ch. D. 668; 50 L. J. Ch. 824; 45 L. T. 90 483 v. Austen, L. R. 4 C. P. 553; 38 L. J. C. P. 233; 21 L. T. 327; 135 v. Grote, 4 Bing. 253; 12 Moore, 484 YOUNG v. LEAMINGTON, 8 App. Cas. 517; 57 L. J. Q. B. 292; 49 L. T. 1; 31 W. R. 925 At p. 222, as a second paragraph to note (x), add, "The discretion under s. 39 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, to remove restraint will not be exercised to raise money for payment of debts arising from the extravagance of the married woman or her husband, or from loans by a professional moneylender: Pollard's Settlement, In re, [1896] 1 Ch. 901." 66 At p. 368, as note to condition of s. 14, subs. 1, of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, add, Evidence of what took place prior to the making of a contract is admissible to raise the implication of this condition: Gillespie v. Cheney, [1896] 2 Q. B. 59;" and as note to proviso of the same sub-section, add, "A contract for the sale of coals under a particular description known in the coal trade is not within this proviso. Ib." At p. 539, and at p. 674, for "The Limitation Act, 1633,” read, “The Limitation Act, 1623." At p. 596, to note (l), add, "[1896] A. C. 166." At p. 718, add to note (o), " In Willson v. Love, 65 L. J. Ch. 474, C. A., it was held that where a contract contains a condition for payment of a sum of money to secure the performance of several stipulations of varying degrees of importance, such sum is primâ facie a penalty, and not liquidated damages." terms. THE term Obligation is used by the Roman jurists, and by Definition of Pothier in the preliminary article to his treatise on Obligations, as denoting, in its proper and confined sense, every legal tie which imposes the necessity of doing or abstaining from doing any act; and as distinguished from imperfect obligations, such as charity and gratitude, which impose a general duty, but do not confer any particular right; as well as from natural obligations, which, although they have a definite object, and are binding in conscience, cannot be enforced by legal remedy. English lawyers, however, generally use the word obligation in a more strict and technical sense, namely, as importing only one particular species of Contracts, that is, Bonds (a); and they adopt the term "Contract" when they wish to convey the more extensive idea of the responsibility which results from the voluntary engagement of one individual to another, as distinguished from that class of liabilities which (a) Co. Litt. 172 a. See Bro. Abr., EL Abr., and Bac. Abr., tit. Obliga C.C. tion. In Com. Dig., Bonds are treated B CH. I. s. 1. kinds of Different kinds of contracts. originate in torts, or wrongs unconnected with agreement. In the language of our law, therefore, the general term Contract comprises every description of agreement, obligation, or legal tie, whereby one party binds himself, or becomes bound, expressly or impliedly, to another, to pay a sum of money, or to do or omit to do any particular act: whereas the term Covenant is properly applied, to denote a contract under seal; and the term Agreement is rarely used, except to denote a contract not under seal (b); whilst the term Promise is used to signify any mere parol engagement by one person with another, where there is no consideration for the promise, nor any corresponding duty on the part of him to whom it is made. It is not, however, very material to consider the particular meaning which is generally attached to these various terms. The essential distinctions between the different kinds of contracts constitute a much more important subject of inquiry. These distinctions are clearly ascertained; and as they assign to each class of contracts attributes and consequences of the most marked character -they demand our notice before we discuss in detail the subjectmatter of this work. Contracts, then, or obligations ex contractu, are of three descriptions, and they may be classed, with reference to their respective orders or degrees of superiority, as follow:-1. Contracts of Record; 2. Specialties; 3. Simple Contracts. Contracts of record. SECT. 2.-Contracts of Record. 1st. Contracts or obligations of record consist of judgments, and recognizances (c); and these are of superior force, because they have been promulgated by, or are founded upon, the authority and have received the sanction of, a Court of Record (e). Their existence is in general triable only by an inspection of the record itself (f); no consideration is necessary to render |