THE

REVISED REPORTS.

677

-·7-04

THE

REVISED REPORTS

BEING

A REPUBLICATION OF SUCH CASES

IN THE

ENGLISH COURTS OF COMMON LAW AND EQUITY,

FROM THE YEAR 1785,

AS ARE STILL OF PRACTICAL UTILITY.

EDITED BY

SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK, BART., D.C.L., LL.D.,

LATE CORPUS PROFESSOR OF JURISPRUDENCE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,
OF LINCOLN'S INN.

ASSISTED BY

10. A. SAUNDERS, J. G. PEASE AND ARTHUR B. CANE,

VAN; 3 HARE; 3 QUEEN'S BENCH;

DAVISON &
MERIVALE; 6 MANNING & GRANGER; 7 SCOTT, N. R.

LONDON:

SWEET AND MAXWELL, LIMITED, 3, CHANCERY LANE.

BOSTON:

LITTLE, BROWN & CO.

1904.

BRADBURY, AGNEW, & CO. LD., PRINTERS

LONDON AND TONBRIDGE.

NEW YORK

LAW INSTITUT

PREFACE TO VOLUME LXIV.

As lately as sixty years ago the total want of co-operation between the authorized reporters in the different courts was capable of leading to strange omissions. At the end of Marquis of Hertford v. Lord Lowther, at p. 27 of this volume, is a note that the decision of the Master of the Rolls was affirmed by the Lord Chancellor: but no report of the hearing on appeal has been found. It is possible that Lord Lyndhurst's judgment added nothing material to Lord Langdale's. At this day reporters feel bound to enable the profession to form their own opinion in such matters.

Hinves v. Hinves, p. 446, is the subject of a profitable remark in Mr. Vaughan Hawkins's preface, which we may now almost call classical, to his treatise on the Construction of Wills: "The rule in Howe v. Lord Dartmouth is, as explained by Sir J. Wigram in Hinves v. Hinves, only a rule applied in the absence of intention, i.e. a rule of administration; had it been a rule of construction, the extremely slight indications which have been held to exclude its operation would scarcely be compatible with its existence as a rule."

Reg. v. Bamber, p. 494, decides that prescriptive liability to repair a highway does not extend to the case of the road and the subjacent soil being swept away by the sea.

Clayton v. Corby, p. 527, is a rather interesting case on the limits within which a profit à prendre can be claimed. The defendant sought to justify taking out of the plaintiff's land as much clay as he wanted for his adjoining brick-kiln. This was held to be bad as amounting to a claim of right to dig the plaintiff, so to speak, out of his freehold: for no limit appeared