HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0157 and id is 1 raw text is: the intention of the parties that the guarantee should continue to be binding appear
by express stipulation, an obviously just and proper provision, or unless it appear by
necessary implication from the nature of the firm or otherwise. This last provision
means no more than that in such a case as Metcalf v. Bruin (12 East, 400 ; 2 Campb.
422) the law shall be the same as it was before: if the intention of the parties
necessarily appears as it did in Metcalf v. Bruin, that intention shall guide.
Then comes tie question can we say here that, by necessary implication from the
nature of the firm or [521] otherwise, the intention of the parties appears that this
guarantee was to continue notwithstanding a change in the firm 7 I think it does not.
So long as the parties were only liable to be altered by death there would be no change
in the firm; but if they took in new partners there would. Now at the time this
guarantee was given there was nothing to distinguish the shipbuilding firm from any
other. The original film remained, and all its partners could take in fresh ones. If
the parties to a guarantee given to a firm mean that it is to continue in force though
there be a change of partners, it is very easy to express that. But there is nothing
of the sort here. It appears that some years afterwards the defendant wrote a letter
shewing that he was under the impression that the guarantee continued, but we cannot
alter the construction of a written instrument on that account. We must construe it,
and see from its terms what was the intention of the parties; and I see nothing to
shew that here was to be a continuing guarantee notwithstanding a change of the
firm. Therefore, although it is a hard case on the plaintiff, our judgment must be
for the defendant.
Shee J. concurring.
Judgment for the defendant.
[522] IN RE WINDSOR. Thursday, April 27th, 1865.-Extradition Act, 6 & 7 Vict.
c. 76. United States of America. Local Legislation. Forgery.-1. The Extradi-
tion Act between this country and the United States of America, 6 & 7 Vict. c. 76,
following the language of a treaty between them, enacts that all persons charged
with the crime of murder, or assault with intent to commit murder, or
with the crime of piracy, or arson, or robbery, or forgery, or the utterance of
forged paper, may be delivered up to justice: Held, that this must be under-
stood to mean such acts as amount to any of those offences according to the law
of England and the general law of the United States, and does not comprise
offences which are only such by the local legislation of some particular state of
the American Union.-2. A. B. was paying teller of a bank at New York, and
as such was accountable for the cash at the bank. He kept the usual paying
teller's book called the proof book, and proved his cash by it every day. From
this book the general bookkeeper took his figures to shew the condition of the
bank on the general ledger from day to day. The book in question was one of
the books of account of the bank, and the property of the bank. In it he entered
by the paying teller from the receiving teller's books, or from the lists of deposits,
the money received each day, and also the amounts paid out by the paying teller,
or amounts for which the bank was responsible each day. Tile proof hook also
contained a statement of the assets of the bank in coin and cash, so that the proof
books should each shew each day the exact amount of money in the bank. A. B.
falsely and with intent to defraud entered a certain sum in this book as assets of
the bank: Held that this was not a forgery by the law of England or the general
law of the United States, and therefore that he could not be given up under The
Extradition Act, 6 & 7 Viet. c. 76.
[S.C. 10 Cox, C. C. 118; 34 L. J. M. C. 163; 12L. T. 307; 11 Jur. N. S. 807;
13 W. R. 655.]
Habeas corpus to the governor of Whitecross Street Prison, to bring up the body
of Charles Windsor. The return shewed that he had been originally arrested under
a capias, and was detained under a warrant issued by one of the magistrates of Bow
Street, within the Metropolitan district, on a claim for his extradition, made by the
Government of the United States of America, under stat. 6 & 7 Viet. c. 76, for giving
effect to a treaty between Her Majesty and the United States of America for the
1288
IN HE WINDSOR
6 B. & 84. 521.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0157&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)