He might and ought to have gone further; he might and ought to have pledged his own belief that his partners were likewise ignorant. But the case likewise stated, that two of the partners were there, besides the partner examined; their examination, therefore, should have been taken. In a case where the partners were at a distance, and ignorant of the transaction, their examination might be dispensed with. It might not be necessary that all should be examined; but those who are examined, should negative, to their belief, which is as far as they can go, the knowledge of their co-partners. A verdict was entered for the defendants on the four last counts, and for the plaintiff on the two first.
In Lowden v. Hierons, p. 647. a new trial was granted upon the appli cation of the defendant.
Hurd v. Brydges, 654; this case was not moved.
ABANDONMENT,
See INSURANCE, 2, 4, 11, 15.
1. In an action on the case for falsely representing the character of another, by reason of which false representation he obtained credit of the plaintiff; it is neces- sary to prove against the defend- ant both fraud and falsehood, viz. that the representation which he made was false, and that the de- fendant knew it to be false at the time he made it. Falsehood with- out fraud is not sufficient. Ash- lin v. White. Page 387 2. A messenger under a commission of bankrupt sues the assignees for his costs and expences, and obtains a judgment against them. One of the assignees pays the debt and costs under the judgment. He has a right to an action of contri- bution against his co-assignee, and VOL. I.
ASSUMPSIT,
See STATUTE OF FRAUDS, 1.
1. A. contracts to sell to B. 50 tons of hemp, to be shipped from Cron- stadt or St. Petersburgh; the ship's name to be declared as soon as known, and to arrive before the 31st of December. On the 5th September, A. gives notice to B., that the hemp was shipped on board the Lively; on the 20th he sends a second notice, that if the quantity did not come by the Lively, he would make it up from the cargo of another vessel. On the 29th, A. gives a third notice, that 20 tons would come by the Lively, and the rest by another ship. B. accepts the 20 tons, but refuses to receive any more. Held, that B. was bound to receive the remainder of the hemp, unless he could shew that he had sustained some special damage by A.'s non- performance of the precise terms of the contract. Thornton v. Simpson. Page 164
2. In an action by the steward of a manor, for a particular rate of fees claimed to be due to him from a te- nant on his admission to six seve- ral copyhold estates, if he fail to establish a custom for his charges he may, notwithstanding, resort to a quantum meruit. Held, after- ward, by the court, that where a person is admitted to several dis- tinct copyhold tenements, the steward of the manor is not enti- tted, without proving a custom, to full fees on each admission, sepa- rately; but he may stand on his quantum meruit. Everett v. Glyn.
3. Where the broker makes a mis-
take in the contract, describing, in the bought and sold notes, goods to be sold by A., B., and C., which he believed to be the real name of the firm which em- ployed him; which firm, in fact, from a recent alteration that the broker was not privy to, consisted of A., D., and E. only. Held, that the purchaser of the goods was not at liberty to avoid the contract on this account, after hav- ing treated the contract as subsist- ing, upon a subsequent communi- cation from the plaintiffs, unless he could shew that he had been prejudiced, or had lost the benefit of a set-off. Mitchell v. Lapage. Page 253
4. Where work is done upon a special contract and for esti- mated prices, and there is a devia- tion from the original plan, by the consent of the parties, the estimate is not excluded, but is to be the rule of payment, as far as the spe- cial contract can be traced; and for any excess beyond it, the party is entitled to his quantum
Where work is done under a special contract, the plaintiff is not precluded from recovering under the counts for work and labour generally; unless there be some- thing in the terms of the special agreement which, either by stipu- lation or necessary intendment, prevent him. Robson v. Godfrey.
5. An action for money had and re- ceived will not lie to recover back a sum paid upon trust, for a spe- cific purpose, unless it be shewn that the trust is closed, and that a balance remains in the hands of the trustee. Case v. Roberts.
6. An auctioneer is not liable to pay interest upon a deposit kept in his
See BROKER, 3. TRUSTEE, 1. 1. If the petitioning creditor be privy and assenting to the execution of a deed by traders, by which they make an assignment of all their property, though such assignment be fraudulent, and an act of bank- ruptcy, upon which other credi- tors, not privy and assenting, may sue out a commission, he is estop- ped; and having assented to the deed, though he did not execute it, he cannot set it up as an act of bankruptcy. Burrough v. Gooch. Page 13
2. An uncertificated bankrupt may sue as a trustee for his assignees; and the defendant cannot object to the action unless they interpose. If a broker deliver a bought and sold note which materially differ, there is no valid contract. ming v. Roebuck.
3. A trader directs his servant, that if any one should come whilst he was at dinner, or engaged in business, she should deny him. Held, that such instructions did not amount to a direction for a general denial; and, therefore, al- though a creditor called and was denied, it was no act of bank- 159 ruptcy. Shew v. Thomson. 4. A trader having business both in England and Spain, has a right to go to the latter country to look after his concerns; and though his creditors are thereby delayed, it is no act of bankruptcy. But if he likewise goes abroad from the fear of arrest, though it concur with the justifiable motive, that of look- ing after his foreign business, it is an act of bankruptcy. Warner v. Barber. 5. A. before his bankruptcy discounts certain bills of exchange with B. and C., his bankers. They gave
« PreviousContinue » |