Cases from the Old English Law Reports. ance of the contract. We can, however, picture simple-minded Whitacre producing, with a smile of satisfaction at the thought of his large profit, two grains of rye corn from the remote corners of his wallet. We can see the wallet gradually swelling on each successive Monday, till at last it is displaced by a sack. We conjecture that it was about the time when he required assistance to de liver his weekly instalment that the defend ant committed that breach of the agreement which led Thornborow to bring his action. To the declaration the defendant de murred, and the dissention was argued before Holt, C. J. It was then contended that con tract was void on the ground of impossi bility, which was divided into three classes: legis, rci, and facti. In the course of the ar gument the case was instanced of a relief payable by law to a landlord, immediately on the death of the tenant, yet if the relief be a rose or a bushel of roses, and the pay ment fell due in the winter time, the landlord might not distrain till the summer; for the "Law takes notice that roses cannot be kept, but otherwise of wheat, etc., which may." A difference is also asserted in a covenant to hand over in as good a' con dition as at the beginning of the lease between a wood and a house, where they have suffered from a violent gale. Holt, C. J., however, intimated in the course of the argument, that "where a man will, for a valuable consideration, undertake to do an impossible thing, though it cannot be performed, yet he shall answer damages." He also appeared prepared to hold that in the present case the performance was only impossible with respect to the defendant's ability, which was not such an impossibility as to void the contract. Moreover, he con sidered that the words, " quolibct alio die Lunae" were to be considered as meaning
every other Monday, which would materially reduce the impossibility. During the argument the case of James v. Morgan, 1663, was referred to, of which the following is the complete report1: "Assumpsit to pay for a horse a barley corn a nail, doubling it every nail; and avers that there were thirty-two nails in the shoes of the horse, which being doubled every nail, came to five hundred quarters of barley; and as non assumpsit pleaded, the cause being tried before Hyde at Hereford, he directed the jury to give the value of the horse in dam ages, by eight pounds, and so they did; and 'twas afterwards moved in arrest of judg ment for a small fault in the declaration which was over-ruled, and judgment given for the plaintiff." From which, incidentally, we gather either that the method of shoeing horses has altered, or that the horse in ques tion had some peculiarity of formation in his hoof which necessitated an extra' nail in each shoe above the number now commonly used. After a vain attempt to distinguish this case, the defendant's counsel appears to have lost heart, for he, perceiving the opinion of the court to be against his client, offered the plaintiff his half-crown and his cost, which was accepted of, and so no judgment was given in the case. Thornborow, like many others, was before his day. As a speculator in wheat at the present time, he would probably have amassed a huge fortune. Think of it! The world's crop of rye for a five pound note. What a magnificent corner it would have been. Lord Raymond states that thirty in stalments would have amounted to one hun dred and twenty-five quarters, and the full fifty-two to 524,288,000 quarters. The sceptical may check his figures. 11 Lev. 11 1.
