Concessit  solvere  in  Mayor's  Court,  as  broad  as  assumpsit.  Rugg-n.  Weir,  cxi.
471;  16  C.  B.N.  S.  471.
Loss  of  holder  by  reason  of  non-delivery  of  other  sets  of  bills  of  exchange  by
endorser  not  immediate,  not  a  cause  of  action.  Pinard  v.  Klockman,  cxiii.  388 ;
3  B.  &  S.  388.
No  recovery  can  be  had  against  employer  for  mistake  of  architect  in  quantity
of  materials  required.     Scrivener  v.  Pask,  cxiv.  785  ;  18  C.  B.  N.  S.  785.
II.  Consideration.
Suffering  defendant  to  retain  bills  belonging  to  plaintiff  is  sufficient  considera-
tion for  a  promise  to  apply  the  proceeds  in  a  certain  way,  if  discounted.  Hart
v.  Miles,  xciii.  371 ;  4  C.  B.  N.  S.  371.
Compromise  of  a  claim  bona  fide  made  is  a  good  consideration  though  before
suit  and  though  it  might  have  been  successfully  resisted.  Cook  v.  Wright,  ci.
559  ;  1  B.  &  S.  559.
Ill,  Goods  sold  and  delivered.
Against  member  of  club  which  controlled  its  own  funds  and  authorized  secre-
tary to  buy  without  supplying  the  money.  Cockerell  v.  Aucompte,  Ixxxix.  440  ;
2  C.  B.  N.  S.  440.
Husband  liable  for  necessaries  when  he  has  driven  wife  from  home  by  cruelty,
though  she  have  an  allowance  found  by  jury  to  be  insufficient.  Baker  v.  Samp-
son, cviii.  383 ;  14  C.  B.  N.  S.  383.
One  holding  himself  out  as  partner  liable  for  goods  sold  to  firm.  Martyn  v.
Gray,  cviii.  824  ;  14  C.  B.  N.  8.  824.
Will  not  lie  for  necessaries  furnished  to  wife,  when  husband  has  forbidden  the
purchase  of  them,  and  told  her  to  apply  to  him,  even  though  that  fact  is  unknown
to  the  tradesman.    Jolly  v.  Rees,  rax.  628  ;  15  C.  B.  N.  S.  628.
