182/3 4 Co. Rep. 83 b; Cro. Eliz. 815.
183/1 Keilway, 160, pl. 2.
183/2 Y.B. 19 Hen. VI. 49, ad fin. Cf. Mulgrave v. Ogden, Cro.
Eliz. 219; S.C., Owen, 141, 1 Leon. 224; with Isaack v. Clark, 2 Bulstr. 306, at p. 312, c.o.ke, J.
183/3 See Lecture VII.
184/1 Paston, J., in Y.B. 19 Hen. VI. 49. See, also, Rogers v.
Head, Cro. Jac. 262; Rich v. Kneeland, Cro. Jac. 330, which will be mentioned again. An innkeeper must be a common innkeeper, Y.B.
11 Hen. IV. 45. See further, 3 Bl. Comm. 165, where "the transition from status to contract" will be found to have taken place.
184/2 F. N. B. 94 D; infra, p. 203.
184/3 Y.B. 7 Hen. IV. 14; 12 Ed. IV. 13, pl. 9, 10; Dyer, 22 b.
184/4 The process may be traced by reading, in the following order, Y.B. 2 Hen. VII. 11; Keilway, 77 b, ad fin. (21 Hen.
VII.); ib. 160, pl. 2 (2 Hen. VIII.); Drake v. Royman, Savile, 133, 134 (36 Eliz.); Mosley v. Fosset, Moore, 543 (40 Eliz.); 1 Roll. Abr. 4, F, pl. 5; Rich v. Kneeland, Cro. Jac. 330 (11 Jac.
I.).
185/1 Cro. Jac. 262 (8 Jac. I.). Compare Maynard"s argument in Williams v. Hide, Palmer, 548; Symons v. Darknoll, ib. 523, and other cases below; 1 Roll. Abr. 4, F, pl. 3. Mosley v, Fosset, Moore, 543 (40 Eliz.); an obscurely reported case, seems to have been a.s.sumpsit against an agistor, for a horse stolen while in his charge, and a.s.serts obiter that "without such special a.s.sumpsit the action does not lie." This must have reference to the form of the action, as the judges who decided Southcote"s Case took part in the decision. See, further, Evans v. Yeoman, Clayton, 33.
186/1 See Symons v. Darknoll, and the second count in Morse v.
Slue infra. (The latter case shows the averment of negligence to have been mere form.) Cf. I Salk. 18, top.
187/1 Supra, p. 179.
187/2 Boson v. Sandford, Shower, 101; Coggs v. Bernard, infra.
187/3 Symons v. Darknoll, infra.
188/1 Reg. Brev. 92b, 95a, 98a, 100b, 104a; cf. Y.B. 19 Ed. II.
624; 30 Ed. III. 25, 26; 2 Hen. IV. 18, pl. 6; 22 Hen. VI. 21, pl. 38; 32 & 33 Ed. I., Int., x.x.xiii.; Brunner, Schwurgerichte, 177; id. Franzosische, Inhaberpapier, 9, n. 1.
188/2 12 Co. Rep. 64.
188/3 See, besides the following cases, the declaration in Chamberlain v. Cooke, 2 Ventris, 75 (1 W. & M.), and note especially the variations of statement in Morse v. Slue, set forth below, in the text.
189/1 Hobart, 17; Cro. Jac. 330. See also George v. Wiburn, 1 Roll. Abr. 6, pl. 4 (A.D. 1638).
190/1 The use which has been made of this case in later times shows the extreme difficulty in distinguishing between principles of substantive law and rules relating only to procedure, in the older books.
190/2 Y.B. 22 Hen. VI. 21, pl. 38; supra, p. 188, n. 1.
191/1 Palmer, 523.
191/2 Palmer, 548.
191/3 Aleyn, 93.
191/4 1 Sid. 36.
192/1 1 Sid. 244. Cf. Dalston v. Janson, 1 Ld. Raym. 58.
192/2 2 Keb. 866; 3 id. 72, 112, 135; 2 Lev. 69; I Vent. 190, 238; 1 Mod. 85; Sir T. Raym. 220.
193/1 2 Keb. 866. See 3 Keb. 74; 1 Mod. 85; Sir T. Raym. 220.
193/2 2 Keb. 72.
193/3 Y.B. 33 Hen. VI. 1; supra, p. 177.
193/4 3 Keble, 73. This is the main point mentioned by Sir T.
Raymond and Levinz.
193/5 Cf. 1 Mod. 85.
194/1 1 Ventris, 238, citing Southcote"s Case in the margin. Cf.
3 Keble, 135.
194/2 Aleyn, 93; supra, p. 191.
194/3 See also 1 Hale, P.C. 512, 513.
195/1 King v. Viscount Hertford, 2 Shower, 172, pl. 164; cf.
Woodlife"s Case, supra.
195/2 Boson v. Sandford, 1 Shower, 101 (2 W. & M.). See above, pp. 183,185; below, p. 197. Modern ill.u.s.trations of the doctrine will be found in Fleming v. Manchester, Sheffield, & Lincolnshire Railway Co., 4 Q.B.D. 81, and cases cited. In Boorman v. Brown, 3 Q.B.511, 526, the reader the primitive a.s.sumpsit, which was the inducement to a declaration in tort, interpreted as meaning contract in the modern sense. It will be seen directly that Lord Holt took a different view. Note the mode of dealing with the Marshal"s case, 33 Hen; VI. 1, in Aleyn, 27.
196/1 See Lovett v. Hobbs, 2 Shower, 127 (32 Car. II.); Chamberlain v. Cooke, 2 Ventris, 75 (1 W. & M.); Boson v.
Sandford, 1 Shower, 101, citing Southcote"s Case (2 W. & M.); Upshare v. Aidee, 1 Comyns, 25 (8 W. III.); Middleton v. Fowler, I Salk. 288 (10 W. III.).
196/2 12 Mod. 472.
196/3 2 Ld. Raym. 909.
197/1 Powtuary v. Walton, 1 Roll. Abr. 10, pl. 5 (39 Eliz.). Cf.
Keilway, 160.
197/2 2 Ld. Raym. 919. See Lecture VII. How little Lord Holt meant to adopt the modern view, that delivery, being a detriment to the owner, was a consideration, may be further seen by examining the cases put and agreed to by him from the Year Books.
199/1 2 Kent, 598; 1 C.P. D. 429.
199/2 Palmer, 523. See too Keilway, 77 b, and 160, pl. 2, where the encroachment of case on detinue, and the corresponding confusion in principle, may be pretty clearly seen taking place.
But see p. 175, supra.
200/1 2 Kent, 597; Forward v. _Pittard, 1 T. R. 27.
200/2 Cf. Y.B. 7 Hen. IV. 14; 2 Hen. VII. 11; Keilway, 77 b, 160, pl. 2, and other cases already cited.