292/1 Supra, pp. 196, 197.  See also Lecture VII.

292/2 Byles, J., in Shadwell v.  Shadwell, 30 L. J. C.P. 145, 149.

292/3 Shadwell v.  Shadwell, ubi supra; Burr v.  Wilcox, 13 Allen, 269, 272, 273.

292/4 Thomas v.  Thomas, 2 Q.B.851.

293/1 Price v.  Jenkins, 5 Ch.  D. 619.  Cf.  Grabbe v.  Moxey, 1 W. R. 226; Thomas v.  Thomas, 2 Q.B.851; Monahan, Method of Law, 141 et seq.

294/1 Ellis v.  Clark, 110 Mass. 389.

294/2 Fitch v.  Snedaker, 38 N. Y. 248, criticising Williaws v.  Carwardine, 4 Barn. & Ad. 621, where, however, it does not appear that the plaintiff did not know of the offer of a reward, but merely that the jury found that she was in fact actuated by other motives, a finding wholly beside the mark.

296/1 Y.B. 29 Ed. III. 25, 26.

296/2 19 R. II., Fitzh.  Abr.  Dett, pl. 166.

296/3 Hunt v.  Bate, Dyer, 272, A.D. 1568.

297/1 See Barker v.  Halifax, Cro.  Eliz. 741; S.C. 3 Dyer, 272 a, n. 32.

297/2 Sidenham v.  Worlington, 2 Leonard, 224; Bosden v.  Thinne, Yelv. 40; Lampleigh v.  Brathwait, Hobart, 105; Langdell, Cas. on Contr. (2d ed.), ch. 2, Section 11, Summary, Sections 90 et seq.  See above, Lecture VII. p. 286.

297/3 Pollock, Contr. (lst ed.), p. 6.

298/1 Canham v.  Barry, 15 C.B. 597, 619; Jones v.  How, 9 C.B. 1, 9; Com.  Dig.  Condition, D. 2; I Roll.  Abr. 420 (D), pl. 1; Y.B. 22 Ed. IV. 26, pl. 6.

301/1 Gee v.  Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway Co., 6 H. & N. 211, 218, Bramwell, B. Cf.  Hydraulic Engineering Co. v.  McHaffie, 4 Q.B.D. 670, 674, 676.

301/2 British Columbia Saw-Mill Co. v.  Nettleship, L.R. 3 C.P. 499, 509, Willes, J.; Horne v.  Midland Railway Co., L.R. 7 C.P. 583, 591; S.C., L.R. 8 C.P. 131.

302/1 British Columbia Saw-Mill Co. v.  Nettleship, L.R. 3 C.P. 499, 509.

304/1 Cheale v.  Kenward, 3 DeG. & J. 27.

304/2 Langdell, Contr., Sections 89, 28.

305/1 Langdell, Contr., Section 57.

305/2 Ibid., Sections 14, 15.

306/1 But see Langdell, Contr., Sections 14, 15.

309/1 Raffles v.  Wichelhaus, 2 H. & C. 906.  Cf.  Kyle v.  Kavanagh, 103 Mass. 356, 357.

309/2 Cf.  Cocker v.  Crompton, 1 B. & C. 489.

310/1 Smith v.  Hughes, L.R. 6 Q.B.597.

310/2 See Gardner v.  Lane, 12 Allen, 39; S.C. 9 Allen, 492, 98 Mass. 517.

311/1 Goddard v.  Monitor Ins.  Co., 108 Mass. 56.

313/1 See Cundy v.  Lindsay, 3 App.  Cas. 459, 469.  Cf.  Reg. v.  Middleton, L.R. 2 C.C. 38, 55 et seq., 62 et seq.; Reg. v.  Davies, Dearsly, C.C. 640; Rex v.  Mucklow, 1 Moody, O.C. 160; Reg. v.  Jacobs, 12 Cox, 151.

313/2 “Praesentia corporis tollit errorem nominis.”  Cf.  Byles, J., in Way v.  Hearne, 32 L. J. N.S.C.P. 34, 40.  But cf. the conflicting opinions in Reg. v.  Middleton, L.R. 2 C.C. 38, 45, 57.  It would seem that a proper name or other identification of an object or person as specific may have the same effect as an actual identification by the senses, because it refers to such an identification, although in a less direct way.