BAYLEY J. It has been decided by many cases, that in sales of land by auction the auctioneer is agent for both the vendor and vendee, and that such auctions are within the statute of frauds. Walker v. Constable (a), Emmerson v. Heelis (b), White v. Proctor (c), Kemèys v. Proctor. (d) Now, the language of the seventeenth section of the statute of frauds, relating to sales of goods, is in substance the same as that of the fourth section, relating to sales of land. The only difference being, that the latter speaks of an agreement, the former of a bargain. The word bargain means the terms upon. which parties contract, and it appears by Saunderson v. Jackson (e) that in order to satisfy the statute the signature must either be to some written document, containing in itself the terms of the bargain, or connected with some other document which does. Then comes Hinde v. Whitehouse, in which Lord Ellenborough, after time taken for consideration, delivered it as his opinion, that an auctioneer had not satisfied the requisitions of the statute by signing the name of the purchaser to the catalogue, that not being connected with, or refer ring to, the conditions of sale. In the present case nothing was said at the time when the engine was put up, as to the terms upon which the sale was to proceed. The very mischief contemplated by the statute might occur in such a case as this. There is abundant room for fraud and perjury, respecting the conditions of sale. Inasmuch, therefore, as there was not any memorandum of the terms of the bargain, signed by the parties, I think that the case is within the 29 Car. 2. c. 3. s. 17., and that a nonsuit must be entered. 1824. KENWORTHY against SCHOFIELD. HOLROYD 1824. KENWORTHY against SCHOFIELD. HOLROYD J. Upon the trial of this case two objections were made. First, that the defendant's name was not put down by the auctioneer. I thought there was 1 that, and still co no weight in that, and still continue of the same opinion. (a) The other objection was reserved, and upon the authority of Hinde y. Whitehouse, I both think that auctions of goods are within the statute of frauds, and that there has not been a signature to a memorandum of the bargain sufficient to satisfy the seventeenth section of that act. It appears to me that you cannot call that a memorandum of a bargain which does not contain the terms of it. The argument for the plaintiff Tis, that the conditions being in the room were virtually attached to the catalogue. But I think that as they were not actually attached or clearly referred to, they formed no part of the thing signed. In the case put of a separation of the conditions from the catalogue, during the progress of the sale, I should say that the signatures to the latter, made after the separation, were unavailing. It occurred to me at first, that this might be likened to the case of a will, consisting of several detached sheets, when a signature of the last, the whole being on the table at the time, would be considered a signing of the whole; but there the sheet signed is a part of the whole. Here the catalogue was altogether independent of the conditions. I agree, therefore, that this rule for a nonsuit must be made absolute." liuABATEMENT. ni ghin ACTION ON THE CASE. See PLEADING, 43. PRACTICE, 17. 1. VASE. ACTION ON THE an Where a lease of premises des A feet within the boundary of her adjoining premises. For a long stance ofHeld, that the circum- stance of plaintiff's house not being words. Per Holroyd J. Hard-dows were to be considered as an- ing v. Wilson, T. 4 G. 4. Page 96 2. In case for obstructing the plain- tiff's ancient windows, it appeared that the plaintiff and defendant cient windows, and that plaintiff Cover Cry was entitled to re- Cross v. Lewis, E. 5 G.4. had premises adjoining each other; 3. It is a good defence to an action the plaintiff's house was about four VOL. II. for a malicious arrest, that the de- 3 Q 950 ACTION ON THE CASE. fendant when he caused the plaintiff to be arrested, acted bona fide 3upon the opinion of a legal adviser spf competent skill and ability, and believed that he had a good an cause of, action against the plaintiff. But where it appeared that I the party was influenced by an indirect motive in making the arrest, it was held to be properly left to o the jury to consider whether he acted bona fide upon the opinion of his legal adviser, believing that bhe had a good cause of action. 28 Ravenga v. Mackintosh, E. 5 G.4. 1 Page 693 4. By the general turnpike act, the trustees of roads are authorized to divert, shorten, alter, or improve / the course or path of any of the roads under their management ; -and divert, shorten, vary, alter, w and, improve the course, or path of arany roads through or over any commons or waste grounds, or uncultivated lands, without making I satisfaction for the same; and 1 through or over any private lands tendering or making satisfaction to the owners thereof and persons in1terested therein, for the damage asustained thereby : Held, that B under this clause the trustees are authorized to lower hills and raise hollows: Held, secondly, that the trustees are not liable to an action for a consequential injury resulting from an act which they are authorized to do. Boulton v. Crotother, E. 5. G.4.. 703 5. Declaration stated that plaintiff was possessed of a close of land with trees growing thereon, to which rooks had been used to resort and settle, and build nests and rear their young in the trees, by reason whereof plaintiff had been used to kill and take the rooks and the young thereof, and great profit gand advantages had accrued to him, yet that defendant wrongbafioting | ADMINISTRATOR. Y fully and maliciously intending to injure the plaintiff, and alarm and. drive away the rooks, and to cause them to forsake the trees of the plaintiff, wrongfully and injuriously caused guns loaded with gunpowder to be discharged near the plam4 tiff's close, and thereby disturbed and drove away the rooks, whereby the plaintiff was prevented from killing the rooks and taking the young thereof. Plea, not guilty: Held, on motion in arrest of judgment, that this action was not maintainable, inasmuch as rooks were a species of birds feræ naturæ, destructive in their habits, not known as an article of food, or alleged so to be, and not protected by any act of parliament, and the plaintiff could not therefore have any property in them, or shew any right to have them resort to his trees. Hannam v. Mockett, E. 5 G.4. 1627071A Page 934 ADMINISTRATOR. CHUTE OF THEMIA A., by means of a misrepresentation, received of B. and several other persons, his tenants, various sums of money, to which he was not entitled. B. applied to him to have the money which he had so paid, returned, saying that he and the other tenants had been induced to pay more than was due. A. replied, that if there was any misi take it should be rectified. Held, that this obviated the statute of limitations as to payments made by the other r tenants, as well as by B. Plaintiff, an administratrix, after the death of the intestate, made one such wrongful payment as before mentioned, out of the assets: Held, that she might recover it in her representative character. Clark, Administratrix, W 149 ADMI of ADMIRALTY COURT. bas frels bas, The Court of Admiralty have, in a cause of possession, jurisdiction to take a vessel from a a mere w Wrong doer, and -niely sit hopura ad gadw tombust and to deliver it to the right-vities: The initial of the Christian ful owner and, therefore, where Joname is not sufficient. Check v. Lit appeared upon a rule nisi for a prohibition to restrain the admi-Jefferies, T4 4.6 VITE Page 1 2. It was agreed between the grantor Olof an annuity and the grantee that the latter should advance a specific sum of money upon annuity, to yield to the grantee 7 per cent. per annum,) secured upon landed tenant for life, and that for seestates, of which the grantor was during the sum advanced, certain policies of assurance already effected on his life, should be assignored to the grantee. The annual premiums of these policies were considerably less than those which would have been payable if new policies had been effected. The amount of the annual sums payable was fixed at a sum composed bof 7 per cent. upon the principal elsum advanced, and the amount of اوا ralty court from proceeding in a cause of possession, that the proctor for the defendants had merely asserted them to be owners generally, and the other party had put in an allegation, by which it appeared that he was the registered owner, and that the vessel had wrongfully come into the possesbionico sion of the defendants, and the latter had not pleaded any title, the Court discharged the rule for a prohibition. In the Matter of Blanshard and Others, T. 4G. 4. Mavool v mram Page 244 *80 961 ADVOWSON. 10 3 See SIMONY. HOTAXTZIVIVⱭA AFFIDAVIT TO HOLD TO Man9295 BAILJ 2 the annual premiums payable on vol.the policies to be assigned; and in the deed of grant this was stated to be the annuity granted. The policies were assigned by a sepagerate deed, a and there was a stipu9dation in it that they should be re 1910 vor box & lg bavio See PRACTICE, 13. embe en text 2.10.19 jouw ad diuw of Venom iu of mid AGREEMENT...firs See ASSUMPSIT, 5. PARTNERSHIP, 2. Das on Joit guique bombJSI JĮ beopo need bed alasuot to sti -91.b. .95 ALIEN. 90m 184 Children born in the United States t of America since the recognition of their independence, of parents born there before that time, and Continuing to reside there afterWards, are aliens, and cannot inherit lands in this country.Doe d. Thomas and Frances Mary, his Wife, 2009 1970991 gun sila Jail ANCIENT LIGHTSKA See ACTION ON THE CASE, 2 ♪ -IMⱭIA de Top 5 G. 4, .T assigned to the grantor whenever he redeemed the annuity. In the -memorial, the principal sum advanced was stated to be the conEsideration paid, and the annuity to be the annual payment reserved by the deed, but the assignment of the policies was not mentioned: Held that it was not necessary to bmention the latter deed in the memorial; and that the principal sum advanced was properly stated to be Dthe consideration paid for the anJnuity Morris & Jones, T. 4 0.4. of bow1958 bad egetnovho 1232 3. In the memorial of an annuity, 3Q 2 enrolled |