Page images
PDF
EPUB

1816.

AREOUIN

and Another

V.

TRITTON

and Others.

DALLAS, Justice.-I am of opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover. I rely upon Olive v. Smith, 5 Taunton 56. It has been holden that mutual credit in this act of Parliament is a term more extensive than mutual debts. It has been applied to cases where parties have been trusting each other at the time of the bankruptcy, and has never been narrowed to pecuniary demands which were liquidated at the time. The defendants, therefore, have a right to retain this money against the dishonoured bills.

The plaintiffs were nonsuited.

Lens and Copley, serjeants, and Reader, for the plaintiffs.

Shepherd, S. G. and Campbell, for the defendants.

The case of Olive v. Smith determined this: that where a person, entrusted with value, trusts his creditor with that which may become productive of value, the first becoming bankrupt, the second may retain his debt out of the proceeds of the thing entrusted to him, and only pay the balance.

The statute of 5 Geo. II. c. 30. s. 28. relates not only to mutual debts, but to mutual

credits; and the term, of itself extensive, has been enlarged by a most liberal construction, not only in courts of law but in courts of equity. It has been extended, indeed, by the authority of the Lord Chancellor sitting in bankruptcy, to cases where an action would not lie at common law, and where the Court of Chancery would not, upon a bill, decree an account. Ex parte Deeze,

[blocks in formation]

1816.

An insurance broker is not entitled, upon the ground of any usage of

trade, to a commission of 12 per cent. on the balances

over to the underwriters who employ

him. Such allowance, how. ever general it

has been, is a

gratuity merely, and not a demand of

but upon the

LEVI and Others, Executors of Angelo Levi,
v. BARNES.

THIS was an

HIS was an action brought for the balance of an account claimed to be due to the estate of the deceased. Money had been paid into Court, of the deceased. and the sum sought to be recovered was 541. Angelo Levi, the testator, had been an underwriter, which he pays and the defendant was employed as his broker. The main question in the case was, whether a broker was entitled to an allowance of 12 per cent. on settling an account with the underwriter, over and above his customary commission of 5 per cent. The plaintiffs contended, that this charge of 12 right. Nor can per cent. was a mere gratuity, and no legal right. it be claimed, The defendant claimed to deduct it, 1st, upon the usage of trade; 2d, upon an implied contract in express or im- the particular case, to be inferred from the habit of plied, between the parties. dealing between the parties. On the part of the They plaintiffs several witnesses were called. stated, that the 12 per cent. claimed was considered as a gratuity merely; that the allowance to the broker was formerly 10 per cent., and, within late years, had been augmented to 12. That it was allowed as an inducement to the broker to bring the underwriter good risks. That it was never paid in cases of bankruptcy. That it was sometimes, but not invariably, allowed in case of the death of the underwriter. That, where there was a difference between the broker and the underwri

footing of contract, either

1816.

LEVI

2.

BARNES.

ter, no allowance whatever was made. An underwriter, in great business, stated that he received 22,000l. on policies in one year without making and Others any allowance to the broker beyond his commisThe commission of 5 per cent. was due upon the gross premiums, and for whatever money the broker advanced for stamps, &c. on the policies which he procured, he was entitled to charge 5 per cent, additional.

sion.

On the part of the defendant several brokers were likewise called. One broker stated, that he had settled 200 policies, and had the commission of 12 per cent. always allowed. He stated the allowance (with the above mentioned excepted cases) to be universal; and that, without such compensation, no broker could carry on his business. There was likewise evidence that in accounts between Levi and Barnes in the lifetime of the former, the 12 per cent. had been invariably claimed and allowed.

Shepherd, S. G. for the defendant contended, 1st, That this is a usage of trade incorporated in the contract, and the demand is reasonable. The broker becomes responsible to the underwriter for the premium, and he is liable to an action for it, whether he receives it or not from the assured. The per centage claimed is not on the gross business done, but upon the clear profits received by the underwriter. The broker gets nothing unless he hand over a balance to the underwriter; the trouble, therefore, is certain; the compensation contingent. 2d, From the course and habit of

1816.

LEVI and Others

v.

BARNES.

dealing between the parties a contract may be inferred.

Lens, serjeant, contrà.-This commission has never been demanded as a legal obligation but always as a gratuity. Though Levi and Barnes settled accounts on this footing, it does not appear that the money was paid on any other consideration than as a gratuity. It has sometimes been paid; sometimes refused; and there is no evidence of its having been paid, when litigated. It is too variable to be called a usage, and there is no ground to infer a contract.

DALLAS, J.-I think there is no evidence of an usage of trade. The essence of usage is uniformity; but, in the present case, different allowances have been made at different times, and the demand is subject to exceptions arising out of circumstances. Now, if it were due of right, such circumstances would not prevail to exclude it. If it were demanded upon the usage of trade, surely an allowance of this magnitude, when refused by an underwriter, would have been compelled in a court of justice. But there is no case in which, when refused, it has been enforced as other rights are. I shall leave the evidence to the jury; but it appears to me that there is nothing amounting to legal usage on the subject. It comes to no more than a gratuity given by the underwriter as an inducement to the broker to bring good policies to him. With respect to the second question it is for the jury to say, whatever might be the nature of the claim, whether there was an implied contract

« PreviousContinue »