« AnteriorContinuar »
The record of the case No. 28 in Easter Term contains Sale of some details which render it more intelligible,and throwf-^erto some light upon the customs of the time. Waste was merohants. alleged against tenant for life, in lands, houses, woods, and gardens, and in particular in digging and selling clay, pulling down and selling a mill (value twenty pounds), felling and selling 300 oaks (each of the value of 3s. 4id.), twenty ash-trees, thirty pear-trees, and forty apple-trees, and rooting up and selling thirty willows. Issue having been joined as to the facts alleged with regard to the rest, the defendant pleaded as follows with regard to the oaks. He said that the plaintiff had, before the lease, sold to divers merchants " certa millia "de grosso bosco quod vocatur Talwode," and had requested him to allow the wood to be felled (prostemi) and delivered to the merchants after the lease; and he produced the plaintiff's deed covenanting that he might safely do this without impeachment of waste. He also said that he had not cut any other trees in the wood except ten oaks for the repair of the buildings (domorum) of the Castle of Eynesford, which castle was included in the lease. The plaintiff, however, alleged that the defendant had cut down and sold 300 oaks in addition to the wood mentioned in the deed and in addition to the ten oaks, and issue was joined thereupon.
It might be supposed from the wording of one of Oak us«il the reports that four thousand oaks had been felled,M fi'elbut it is clear from the record that the thousands, whether four or any other number, were thousands of pieces or measures of cleft fire-wood and not of trees. Though the juxta-position of the words "grosso bosco "1 and Talwode suggests the idea of large timber-trees, it seems hardly open to doubt but that the "Talwode" here mentioned is the Talwood mentioned in various
1 As to the meaning of this term, or rather of the French equiralent for it, see 2 Inst. 64^-643.
later Statutes,1 which was clearly some kind of fuel. We thus learn from the facts admitted on both sides that oak-trees at some stage of their growth were not thought too valuable to be used for burning. It also appears that the dealers bought the wood while still growing. It is not clear how the bargain was effected, nor how the number of pieces could be sold before they had been cut and measured. Some custom possibly regulated the transaction, a definite number of trees being estimated to yield a definite number of pieces or measures, or the purchaser having power to fell until the amount was made up.
Employment of capital.
Money entrusted to traders for the profit of the persons from whom they received it
Here and there among- the Year-Books, or the records of the cases which they contain, there are seen glimpses of commercial transactions, and, to use a modern expression, of the way in which capital was employed. In the record 2 of an action of Account (Kirkeby v. Chymbeham) which may be that reported as No. 22 in Easter Term, the plaintiff, who was a widow, alleged that she had entrusted to the defendant two several sums of 20 marks each. She said that he had received both these sums "ad mercandizandum, et commodum "ipsius Elizabethae (the plaintiff) inde faciendum." She produced two deeds to prove that the defendant had received the two sums respectively. With regard to one a defeasance was pleaded, but with regard to the other there was no dispute, and the defendant was ready to account.
It is not at all unusual to find similar statements in actions of Account, and (again to use a modern phrase) the investment of money in this manner seems to have been very common. Much as society has changed since the reign of Edward III. there is never
theless a strong resemblance to be traced between the mediaeval mode of giving money to an individual "ad "mercandizandum" in the hope of obtaining some "commodum " or profit, and the present mode of taking shares in a Joint Stock Company. Under the old system the liability was limited and could not possibly extend beyond the amount originally risked. In this respect our forefathers enjoyed all the advantages of the "Companies Acts, 1862, &c." They were familiar with the Court of Common Pleas, whither they came as plaintiffs in Account when their ventures had not succeeded according to their expectations, just as their descendants are familiar with the Chancery Division where Petitions are made for the winding up of Companies. If possible, it might be useful to collect statisties which might show the relative advantages of the old methods and the new.
I have once more the pleasure of expressing my best thanks to the Benchers of the Honourable Societies of the Inner Temple and Lincoln's Inn for the loan of their most valuable MSS. of Year-Books.
L. Owen Pike.
TABLE OF CASES IN THE PRESENT VOLUME.1
Abel v. Murymouthe ...... 156
Athol, the Countess of, v. Helios .... 190
Bassyngbourne v. Scales - - - - - 36
Bornake and wife v. the Abbot of Tupholmo - . 42
Beyville" Audele and another .... 272
Braynford v. the Countess of Kent .... 136
Bushmead, the Prior of, v. Flann .... 288
Chanceux v. the Abbess of Barking - - - - 316
Coventry and Lichfield, the Bishop of (Plaintiff in Error),
v. the Sheriff of Middlesex ..... 292
Drayton v. Hole well - - - - . - 110
Dyen and another v. Bousser and another - - - 76
Fitz-Payn and wife v. Lorty - - - - - 24
Fourneux v. the Prior of Blythe - - . - 88
Fraunceys and wife v. Talcarnaccos .... 132
Fraunkeleyn v. Sydenham and wife .... 332
Godalming, the Vicar of, v. Asse .... 206
Grammary v. Wentworth - 334
Halton v. Inkepenue ...... 142
Haunsarde v. Benet ...... 282
Horsham v. Chevereston and another - - - 100
Hotot u.'Gros --. .... 66
Hungerford v. Glasiere - 276
Kent, the Countess of, v. the Abbot of Ramsey - - 126
King, the, v. Kelshulle - - - - - 12
King, the, v. the Prior of Royston - - - -70
1 This table includes only cases in which the name of one party at least is given in the report, or in which the names of the parties have
been ustCiTtaiDul from the record,
and not those in which all the parties are represented merely by letters in the reports. A full index of all persons and places mentioned in the volume is printed at p. 369.
King, the, v. the Bishop of Bath and Wells - - - 122
King, the, v. the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield - 138
King, the, v. the Bishop of Chester .... 174
King, the, v. the Prior of Cambridge and another - - 174
King, tho, t;. the Abbot of Creake .... 308 King, the, v. the Abbot of Colchester - - 314 (note 1) King, the, v. the Master of the Hospital of St. GiloB
Kirkeby v. Chymbeham - - - - 64
Kryel v. Sauvage - - - - - - 74
Lancaster, the Earl of, v. [Unnamed] ... 234 London, the Prior of St. Bartholomew, Smithfield, and
others, v. Pernill ...... 318
Luterel v. the Master of St. Mark's Hospital (Bristol) - 208
Melcroft v. [ Unnamed] ..... 224
Norwich, the Prior of the Holy Trinity of, v. Coupere - 86
Pekesdene v. Pernill - ..... 318
Pridiaux v. Rous or Savage ..... 120
Qoantoxhead ti. Meryet and others - - - - 48
Quyntyn v. Walocote and wife .... 182
St. John of Jerusalem, the Prior of, v. [ Unnamed] - - 168
Savage v. [Unnamed] 226 Scardeburgh v. Botevileyn and wife and another - 322, 324 Scardeburgh v. Botevileyn and wife - - 324, 326
Stodham v. Vaghan and wife .... 329
Tavistock, the Abbot of, v. [Unnamed] ... 102
Thisteldene v. Thisteldene ..... 114
Thorpe v. Leukenore and wife - - - - 80
Totenhale v. Wiriot - - - - - - 164
TJvedale v. TJvedale and others .... 150
VVaghan v. Banastre and others - - - 94
Whytislegh v. Stockere and others .... 254
Wyne v. Cardoun ...... 234
[ Unnamed] v. the Prior of Little Malvoru - - - 72
„ v. Ward - - - - - - 62