Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

timber to

The record of the case No. 28 in Easter Term contains Sale of some details which render it more intelligible, and throw growing some light upon the customs of the time. Waste was merchants. 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 38. 4d.), 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 (prosterni) 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.

as fuel.

It might be supposed from the wording of one of Oak used the reports that four thousand oaks had been felled, but 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

As to the meaning of this term, or rather of the French equivalent for it, see 2 Inst. 642-643.

Employment of capital.

1

later Statutes, 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.

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 Elizabethæ (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.

Money en- It is not at all unusual to find similar statements trusted to traders for in actions of Account, and (again to use a modern the profit phrase) the investment of money in this manner seems sons from to have been very common. Much as society has whom they changed since the reign of Edward III. there is never

of the per

received it.

134 & 35 H. 8. c. 3; 7 Ed. 6. c. 7; and 43 Eliz. c. 14.

2 Placita de Banco, Easter, 14 Ed. 3. Ro. 61.

theless a strong resemblance to be traced between the mediæval 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 statistics 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.
January 11th, 1888.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

316

292

110

76

24

88

132

332

206

334

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Chanceux v. the Abbess of Barking

Coventry and Lichfield, the Bishop of (Plaintiff in Error),

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

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.

Page

Kryel v. Sauvage

King, the, v. the Bishop of Bath and Wells

King, the, v. the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield
King, the, v. the Bishop of Chester -

King, the, v. the Prior of Cambridge and another
King, the, v. the Abbot of Creake

King, the, v. the Abbot of Colchester

King, the, v. the Master of the Hospital of St. Giles (Norwich)

Kirkeby v. Chymbeham

Lancaster, the Earl of, v. [Unnamed]

[ocr errors]

122

[ocr errors]

138

[ocr errors]

174

174

• 308

[ocr errors]

314 (note 1)

334

64

74

[ocr errors][merged small]

London, the Prior of St. Bartholomew, Smithfield, and others, v. Pernill

318

Luterel v. the Master of St. Mark's Hospital (Bristol)
Melcroft v. [Unnamed]

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Norwich, the Prior of the Holy Trinity of, v. Coupere
Pekesdene v. Pernill

Pridiaux v. Rous or Savage

Quantoxhead v. Meryet and others

Quyntyn v. Walecote and wife

St. John of Jerusalem, the Prior of, v. [Unnamed]
Savage v. [Unnamed] -

Scardeburgh v. Botevileyn and wife and another
Scardeburgh v. Botevileyn and wife

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
« AnteriorContinuar »