sec. 5 of the 19 and 20 Vic. c. 97, a co-debtor who has paid the whole debt recovered under a judgment against himself and his co-debtors, has a right to an assignment of such judgment. In an action by such co-debtor against the judgment creditor for refusing to make such assignment, -a plea that the plaintiff was taken in execution on the judgment and paid the debt, and the judgment was satisfied is a bad plea (Batchellar v. Lawrence,9 Week. Rep., 373). COPYHOLDS.-Severance of demesne lands from manor-Act of owner in fee of manor-Act of person having limited interest - Extinguishment of right to re-grant-Destruction of demiseable quality -Tenancy from year to year-Terancy at will-Mortgagee.-The right of a reversioner or remainderman to regrant copyhold lands according to the custom of the manor, is not extinguished by the severance of the demesne lands from the manor by the lord farmer, or other person who has a limited interest in the same, but on the determination of such interest the right to regrant is again vested in the lord. The letting of such lands by the lord farmer from year to year will create a severance so far as his interest is concerned, and will destroy his right afterwards to grant the same by copy of court roll, according to the custom of the manor. If at the time of such lettings by the lord farmer the legal estate is not in him but in his mortgagee, the tenancies are as against the mortgagee mere tenancies at will, and do not work a severance so as to deprive him of the right of regranting the same subsequently, according to the custom of the manor (In re The London and South-Western Exeter Extension Act, 1856; exparte Lord Henley, 9 Week. Rep.,350).

DAMAGES, MEASURE OF.-Loss of Profits.-The damages recoverable for a breach of contract are such as may fairly and reasonably be considered as arising naturally, i.e., according to the usual course of things, from the breach of the contract itself, or such as may be reasonably supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it. Where goods were delivered to a railway company to be carried by them for the plaintiff to a station on their line, and in consequence of undue delay they were not delivered for some weeks after the time they ought to have been; and thereupon, the plaintiff, who had ordered the goods for the purpose of making them up into caps, brought his action to recover damages for the loss sustained by reason of his not being able to sell the goods, as the season was passed, and also for the loss of profits which he might otherwise have made by such sale. Held (following the case of Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. R., 341) that the measure of damages could not be estimated by the amount of profits which the plaintiff might have realised if the goods had been delivered in proper time, but only according to the actual value of the goods at such time of delivery (Wilson v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co., 3 Law Tim. Rep., 859).

EXAMINATION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.

(EASTER TERM, 1861.)

COMMON LAW.

I-What authority does an agent require to execute a deed for his principal, so as to bind the principal ?

ANS.-In general an agent who is to execute a deed must be appointed by deed for that purpose. In some instances, however, a general agent has been presumed to have such authority (See Roscoe's Evid., 9th ed., p. 120; Com. L. Princ. 44, 45, where the effect of a subsequent acknowledgment by the principal is stated). II. - A factor in this country buys for a merchant abroad. Can the factor be sued in this country? On what principle do the Courts proceed?

ANS.-It is impossible to answer this question without some explanatory observations. It may be observed that if a party choose to give credit to irresponsible persons (such as merchants residing abroad) acting by their agent, and it be manifestly intended that the agent's credit shall not be pledged, in such a case the agent will not be responsible, while, on the other hand, it is clear that, if the agent contract for an irresponsible employer, a strong presumption will arise that he meant to pledge his own credit, and that the party dealing with him meant to accept it. But the question is always, first, did the agent enter into the contract in his own name, so that he might have been treated as the contracting party; secondly, if he did, and if the principal was disclosed, was the credit given to the principal or the agent? For there is no general rule that an agent or factor, entering into a contract for a foreign principal, is personally liable on that contract (Green v. Kopke, 2 Jur., N. S., 1049; 3 L. C. 49-239-240; Com. L. Princ. 50).

III. What written instruments now require an attesting witness to make them valid?

ANS. The instruments to the validity of which attestation is requisite are either such as the parties themselves, or those under whom they claim or act, have stipulated shall require attesting witnesses, or such as require attestation by statutory provision. Of the former, the most usual are appointments executed under powers contained in and reserved by some other instrument. The other class of instruments requiring attestation are (inter alia) the follow

ing:-Wills and Codicils, (1 Vic. c. 26, s. 9); Warrants of Attorneys in personal actions, and Cognovits (1 and 2 Vic., c. 110, s. 9); Conveyances under Mortmain Act (9 Geo. II., c 36, 2 L. C. 286289); Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes under £5, but exceeding 40s. (17 Geo. III., c. 30, s. 1, Com. L. Princ. 88-115). IV. If your client has an unstamped written agreement, and it is doubtful if it requires a stamp, and it has to be used as evidence at a trial at Nisi Prius, what advice would you give your client as to stamping it, and what is the latest time it could be stamped?

ANS. The client should be advised not to incur the expense of stamping the document under these circumstances, because, if the Judge at the trial should rule that it required stamping, it will be receivable in evidence upon payment of the proper stamp duty, with the penalty, and an additional penalty of £1. (C. L. P. Act, 1854, ss. 28-29; Roscoe's Evid., 187, 9th ed.).

V. Can partners sue each other at law, and for what claims?

ANS.-One partner cannot sue his co-partner for his share of the profits, so long as the partnership is undissolved and accounts unsettled; yet, if a final account, as consequent on a winding-up of the partnership, be stated, and one partner admits that there is a balance due to him, he may be sued for the same. A transaction between partners may, by agreement, or a separate security, be so separated from the partnership affairs, though arising out of them, as to form the subject of an action by one against the other, as involving no general account. If there be a covenant by deed, or a special undertaking not by deed for the performance of the duty neglected, an action may be brought upon such covenant or undertaking. An action may be maintained by a partner for cash which he advanced to his co-partner before the partnership and in order to its formation, or which he has paid since its dissolution to a stranger who had not due notice of that event, and to whom, therefore, his late partner was able to render him liable, though he had no interest in the dealing by which such liability accrued to him. So, also, a partner may recover for work done for the firm before he became a member. And a partner may maintain an action on the note or acceptance of his companion though for value received on the partnership account (Smith's Mercantile Law, 6th ed., p. 34; Roscoe's Evid., 9th ed., p. 396; Com. L. Princ. 26; Carr v. Smith, 5 Q. B. 128).

VI. If a landlord take a bond or bill of exchange as security for rent, can the landlord afterwards distrain for rent?

ANS.-The landlord may still distrain unless he has obtained judgment on the bill of exchange or bond, as the acceptance of a security is no extinguishment of the claim (Selw. N. P., tit. "Distress ;"Bac. Ab. tit. "Distress").

VII. What are the necessary facts to be sworn to in the affidavit filed with a bill of sale, pursuant to the 17 and 18 Vic., c. 36, sec. 1?

ANS.-By 17 and 18 Vic., c. 36, s. 1, an affidavit, filed with a bill of sale, should state the time of such bill of sale being made or given, and a description of the residence and occupation of the person making or giving the same, or, in case the same shall be made or given by any person under or in execution of any process, then a description of the residence and occupation of the person against whom such process shall have issued, and of every attesting witness to such bill of sale (See 3 L. C. 45-87-257; F. Bk. 204).

VIII. What are the requisites of an undertaking to pay the debt of another?

ANS.-An undertaking to pay the debt of another person, usually termed a guarantee, must contain a promise to answer for the payment of some debt, in case of the failure of such other person, who is himself, in the first instance, liable to such payment. By 29 Car. 2, c. 3, s. 4, no action is to be brought to charge the defendant upon any such a promise, unless the agreement, or some memorandum or note thereof, be in writing, signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorised. Formerly it was held that the consideration must have appeared on the document, but now by the 3rd sec. of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856, the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 97, the consideration need not appear in writing (see 3 L. C. 88, 90; Com. Law Princ. 149-156).

IX.—If a witness subpoenaed to attend assizes is arrested on

civil process on his way to the assizes, what course should
he pursue to be relieved?

ANS. As such a witness is privileged from arrest, he should apply for relief to the Judge at Nisi Prius, or a Judge at Chambers, or the Court out of which the process issues, or the Court in which the cause is (Arch. C. L. Prac., 9th ed., p. 721; Com. L. Prac. 86). X.-After what lapse of time does a deed or will prove itself?

ANS.-Deeds executed thirty years before being offered in evidence, if coming out of the proper custody and otherwise regular, prove themselves; that is, they do not require any proof of their execution.

The same rule applies to a will, the thirty years being computed from the date of the will and not from the death of the testator. (Ayck. Ch. P., 6th ed., p. 142; Roscoe's Evid., 5th ed., p. 98; Doe v. Volley, 8 B. & Cr. 22).

XI.-A promissory note is payable to a husband and wife, and the husband dies before it is paid, leaving the wife living-who is the party to sue on it?

ANS.-All such legal choses in action as accrue to the wife after marriage, and in respect of which she is the meritorious cause, may be sued for by the husband, either in the joint names of himself and his wife, or in his own name only (Walford's Actions, 948). If, however, the husband should not have received the money in his lifetime, or should not have obtained judgment for it in his own name, his wife will, on his decease, be entitled by survivorship to the chose in action still remaining unreduced into possession, and bills and notes form no exception to this rule. The widow may therefore sue on the note (Will. Per. Prop., 4th ed., p. 313; Gaters v. Moseley, 6 M. & W. 425; 2 Walf. Actions, 1022).

XII. When two or more persons are joined as plaintiffs in an action, and one of them only has a right to recover, state what course may now be adopted in respect of judgment and costs.

ANS. By 23 & 24 Vic. c. 126, s. 19, the joinder of too many plaintiffs is not to be fatal, and judgment may be given in favour of such one or more of the plaintiffs as shall be adjudged by the Court to be entitled to recover; but the defendant, though unsuccessful, will be entitled to his costs occasioned by such joinder, unless otherwise ordered by the Court or a Judge (2 L. C., N. S., 181).

XIII. If too many plaintiffs are joined in an action, can

the defendant have the benefit of a set-off against all, or
against any, and which of them separately?

ANS.-By 23 & 24 Vic. c. 126, s. 20, upon the trial of a cause wherein too many plaintiffs are joined, a defendant, who has therein pleaded a set-off, may obtain the benefit of his set-off by proving either that all the parties named as plaintiffs are indebted to him, notwithstanding that one or more of such plaintiffs was or were improperly joined, or on proving that the plaintiff or plaintiffs who establish their right to maintain the cause is or are indebted to him. (2 L. C., N. S., 182).

XIV. If a plaintiff in an action in a Superior Court for an alleged wrong recover less than £5 can he, indepen