The confignor has a better fecurity for configning his goods to joint factors, which fecurity ought not to be leffened or impaired. without the most clear intention of the confignor. Per Wilmot, C. J. Godfrey v. Saunders, 3 Wilf. 94. 13 Vin. 7. (E. 2) Liable to answer Damages, in what Cafes in Ante, (B). I. A general. Factor or broker acting for their principals, were never held to be liable in their own capacities. Per Talbot, Lord C. J. Johnfen v. Ogilby, 3 P. W ́ms. 279. 2. A commiffion del credere is an abfolute engagement to the principal from the broker, and makes him liable in the first inftance, fo that he is liable at all events, though the principal may refort against the underwriter as a collateral fecurity. Grove v. Dubois, 1 Term Rep. B. R. 112. 3. A broker when he bought goods for his principal, agreed for one half per cent. to indemnify him from any lofs on the refale; it was holden in B. R. that this undertaking was difcharged when the principal had a fair opportunity of felling at an advantage, but neglected it, though he was afterwards obliged to fell at a lofs. Curry v. Edenfon, 3 Term Rep. B. R. 524. 4. Such an agreement if reduced into writing need not be ftamped, because it is a contract relating to the fale of goods. Ibid. 13Vin. 7. (F) Factor liable to answer Damages in what Cases. Not obferving Orders, or without Orders, I. IF a merchant abroad interested in goods and the freight of a cargo, mortgage them to his correfpondent in England for payment of money at a certain day, and by letters inclofing the bills of lading, direct him to infure, the latter having accepted the bills of lading, will be liable to an action for not infuring, notwithstanding that the mortgage was become abfolute before the order was received; for it is one entire tranfaction, which he cannot accept in part, and reject as to the reft. Smith v. Lafcelles, 2 Term Rep. B. R. 187. 2. If a merchant in England has been used to procure insurances for his correfpondent abroad in the usual course of trade, the lat ter has a right to expect compliance with an order for insurance from the former, though he has no effects in his correfpondent's hands, unless fome previous notice be given to the contrary. Ib. 3. When a merchant abroad has effects in the hands of his correfpondent here, he has a right to expect that he will obey an order to infure, because he is entitled to call his money out of the other's hands when and in what manner he pleases. Per Buller, J. Ib. 4. When 4. When a merchant accepts an order for insurance, and limits the broker to too fmall a premium, fo that no insurance can be procured, he is liable to make good the lofs to his correfpondent. Wallace v. Tellfair, per Buller, J. Ib. 188. n. a. 5. But if a merchant refiding in London, who has received an order from his correfpondent, does what is ufual to get the infurance effected, he is not bound to do more. Smith&al' v. Cologan & al. Ib. 6. The rule of equity is, that if an order is fent by a principal to a factor to make an infurance, and he charges his principal as if it was made, if he never has made it, he is to be confidered as the infurer himself. But if fuch factor employs an agent, that equity will not extend over that agent. Per Lord Hardwicke, C. Tickel v. Short, -2 Vef. 239. See Bankrupts, Mafter and Servant, Mafter of a Ship, Merchant, and other proper titles. Faculties. See Commendam-Pluralities. [D] Faits, or Deeds. [B] (D. 2) What shall be faid to be, or shall amount to 13 Vin. 15. a Deed. PLAINTIFF declared, that defendant per quoddam fcriptum suum factum apud, c. conceffit to the plaintiff an annuity. Upon oyer the instrument was fet out in hac verba, and concluded with, "In witness whereof I have hereunto fet my hand and feal." On demurrer, there was judgment by default, for want of joinder; but on error in B. R. held, that the word fcriptum alone will not make it a deed, and there is nothing else to imply it. Moore v. Jones, Str. 814. See first point in Rigden v. Vallier, stated in Suppl. tit. Jointenants, (L), post. 13 Vin. 16. (E) What Things are neceffary to make a Deed See Harg. notes 2, 3. 13 Vin. 19. indented. Co. Litt. 143. b. and Butl. notes 1, 2, 3. (H) Sealing. INDENTURA facta inter leffor and leffee, held to import fealing by both, in an action of covenant by the executor of the leffee against the affignee, for rent. Atkinson v. Coatworth, B. R. Str. 12. 13Vin. 25. (N) At what Time the Delivery shall be good. Second Delivery. 13 Vin. 46. HUSBAND and wife demifed houses, to which the wife was entitled in fee in reverfion, for 99 years, by way of mortgage. The wife, after the husband's death, having accounted with the mortgagee for intereft, and furrendered to him the poffeffion in writing of part of the mortgaged premises, and directed the tenant to attorn, the court of B. R. held, that, although the deed was originally void, these acts were equivalent to a re-delivery of it, and confirmed the mortgage. Goodright v. Strapham, Cowp. 201. Pafs by the Deed, what Things. (Suppl. Sec.) ONE, by deed, in confideration of love, &c. and for fettling one undivided moiety of the manors, &c. thereinafter mentioned, grants the one undivided moieties of all, &c. (particularly defcribing them,) together with all other his lands, tenements, and hereditaments in the kingdom of Ireland; to hold the said undivided moieties, together with all other his eftate in the kingdom of Ireland, to the uses thereinafter declared; and then declares the uses of the undivided moieties only. Held, 1ft, that the grantor did not intend to pass any other lands than the undivided moieties. 2dly, Suppofing the fweeping claufe did extend to any other lands, yet, no ufe having been declared of them, they defcended to the heir at law. Moore v. Magrath, Corp. 9. TH (Z) Cuftody; who shall have the Deeds. HE purchaser of a small part of an estate took a covenant from the vendor to produce the title deeds, when neceffary. Afterwards the vendee took a mortgage of the other part, by which means the deeds came into his poffeffion, and he then affigned the mortgage to a third perfon, without mentioning the deeds in the affigument. Held, that the affignee could not maintain trover for the deeds. Yea v. Field, 2 Term Rep. B. R. 708. (B. a) Kept private by, or in Cuftody of the Maker. 13Vin. 50. THE court of Chancery would not confider a voluntary deed, without a power of revocation, which was duly executed by the party, but informal in feveral parts of it, and was afterwards kept by him uncancelled, as fet afide by a subsequent will. Boughton v. Boughton, 1 Atk. 625. (D. a) Who may take or be bound by it. take or be bound by it. One not Vin-55. figning it. Executed a bill of fale for himfelf and his partner, in the pre A. fence and by the authority of the latter. There was but one fel to the deed; and it did not appear that he had put the feal twice upon the wax. This was held in B. R. to be a good exe-. cution of the deed, as to both partners: Baile v. Dunfierville and another, 4 Term Rep. B. R. 313. (E. a. 2) Deeds. Void or voidable, or not. by whom, and when. And 13 Vin. 59. B. in 1751 conveyed lands in fee to W. C. by way of mortgage. W. C. died leaving 7. C. an infant, his fon and heir at law, and his widow C. C. and the faid J. C. his executors and residuary legatees. J. B. (the mortgagor) afterwards borrowed of D. and E. the leffors of the plaintiff, a fum of money to pay off W. C.'s mortgage debt, and for other purposes; and, by indentures of leafe and release, dated in 1761, the latter between the faid J. C. (then an infant between 16 and 17,) and E. C. of the first part, the faid J. B. of the second part, and D. and E. the leffors of the plaintiff of the third part, 3. C. and E. C. in confideration of their mortgage money, granted and releafed the premises to D. and E. and their heirs. 7. B. who had continued in poffeffion after the mortgage in 1751, had, in 1756, demifed the premises for a term of years by way of mortgage to T. T. who, in 1762, affigned the term to H. P. the defendant; prior to which time, however, notice, was given him of the mortgage of 1751, and the affignment of it. 7. C. afterwards, being ftill an infant, made an entry to avoid his leafe and release. The question was, Had D. and E. the leffors of the plaintiff, a right to recover? Lord Mansfield, in delivering delivering the opinion of the court of K. B. divided the cafe into two queftions, ift, Whether the conveyance bound the infant? 2dly, If not, whether H. P. the fecond mortgagee, could take advantage of it. As to the first, his Lordfhip mentioned it to be a rule, that if an infant voluntarily does a right act, which he is compellable to do, it fhall bind him; and that acts which do not affect an infant in point of intereft, but are only the execution of an authority intrufted to him, are binding. These rules he applied to the cafe before him; and then delivered the unanimous opinion of the court, that the conveyance bound the infant. But fuppofing the conveyance not binding, the fecond queftion, he faid, depended on two points: 1ft, Whether it was void, or voidable only; 2d, If voidable only, whether the infant, by his entry, had abfolutely avoided it. On the first point, the opinion of the court was, that it was at mot only voidable; and fecondly, they held, that the infant himfelf could not defeat it during his minority; because he ought not to be bound till he attained his full age, when he might elect to confirm his deed; much lefs could the defendant, a mere stranger, elect for him. And judgment pro quer. Zouch v. Parfons, 3 Burr. 1794. 1 Black. 575. S. C. See Harg. notes, 3. Co. Litt. 51. b. & 5. Ib. 171. b. 2. A. M. and her two fifters were, under their father's will, feifed of a confiderable eftate; and poffeffed of a confiderable leafehold eftate, as joint-tenants. Previous to the marriage of A. M. with 7. H. the, being then an infant, by articles dated the 28th October 1761, and made between her of the first part, 7. H. of the fecond part, and trustees of the third part, it was covenanted and agreed that the leafehold eftates fhould be affigned to 7. H. for his own benefit; and that the freehold eftates fhould be fettled on him for life; and then on her for her life; remainder to their first and other fons fucceffively in tail male; remainder to their daughters, as tenants in common in tail; remainder to 7. H. in fee. And he covenanted to pay 100l. to the trustees upon truft, to pay A. H. if the furvived him, the intereft of it for her life, and after her decease to divide it among the children. Afterwards A. M. died under age. The queftion was, Whether thefe articles were in equity a feverance of the joint tenancy? Lord Chancellor Bathurst, when he made his decree, obferved, that the first point attempted to be eftablished by the counfel was, that had A. M. been of full age when the entered into the articles, they would have amounted to a feverance; but that no determination to that effect had ever been made that the co-joint tenants were not, in this case, to be confidered as volunteers, as they claimed by title paramount; and that their situation approached nearer to that of iffue in tail, who claimed per formam doni, than to that of an heir at law, who claims only under his ancestor: that the utmoft which the infant could do would be an avoidable act; and that, of course, it would be in the difcretion of the court either to give or refufe |