178/3 Y.B. 10 Hen.  VII. 25, 26, pl. 3.

178/4 Cf.  L. Baiw., XV. 5; Y.B. 33 Hen.  VI. 1, pl. 3.

178/5 Y.B. 6 Hen.  VII. 12, pl. 9; Bro.  Detinue, pl. 37; 10 Hen.  VI. 21, pl. 69.

178/6 Y.B. 3 Hen.  VII. 4, pl. 16.  Cf. 10 Hen.  VI. 21, pl. 69.

178/7 Y.B. 11 Hen.  IV. 23, 24; 6 Hen.  VII. 12, pl. 9.

178/8 Cro.  Eliz. 815; 4 Co.  Rep. 83 b; Co.  Lit. 89; 2 BI.  Comm. 452.

180/1 Savile, 133, 134.  Cf.  Bro.  Accion sur le Case, pl. 103; Dyer, 161 a, b.

180/2 Nugent v.  Smith, 1 C.P.  D. 19, Brett, J., at p. 28.

180/3 Nugent v.  Smith, 1 C.P.  D. 423, Cockburn, C. J., at p. 428.

181/1 Moore, 462; Owen, 57.

181/2 Dial. 2, ch. 38, A.D. 1530.

182/1 Keilway, 160, pl. 2 (2 Hen.  VIII.); cf. ib. 77b (21 Hen.  VII.).

182/2 Y.B. 33 Hen.  VI. 1, pl. 3.

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, Coke, 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 assumpsit against an agistor, for a horse stolen while in his charge, and asserts obiter that “without such special assumpsit 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., xxxiii.; Brunner, Schwurgerichte, 177; id.  Franzosische, Inhaberpapier, 9, n. 1.