Beckham v Knight and Drake
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 January 1838 |
| Date | 24 January 1838 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 132 E.R. 781
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 5 Scott, 619; 7 L. J. C. P. 93; in Exchequer Chamber, 1 Man. & G. 738. Overruled Beckham v. Drake, 1841-43, 9 Mee. & W. 95; 11 Me. & W. 315.
[243] beckham v. knight and drake. Jan. 24, 1838. [S. C. 5 Scott, 619; 7 L. J. C. P. 93: in Exchequer Chamber, 1 Man. & G. 738. Overruled, Beckham v. Drake, 1841-43, 9 Mee. & W. 95; 11 Mee. & W. 315.] K. and S. having entered into a written engagement to employ Plaintiff in their trade for seven years, Held that Plaintiff could not sue D., a dormant partner with K. and S., but no party to the agreement. The declaration stated, that before and at the time of making the memorandum of agreement hereinafter mentioned, the Plaintiff was in the service and employ of the Defendants as their foreman, carrying on their trade and business of type founders, stereotype founders, and letter-press printers, which the Defendants then used, exercised, and carried on, but without any permanent engagement; that he and the Defendants were desirous of continuing their connection together for a certain period 782 BECKHAM V. KNIGHT 4 BING. (N. C.) 244. or term, to wit, the term or period of seven years from the 23d of October 1834; and thereupon, on, &c., by a certain memorandum of agreement then made and entered into between William Moxey Knight and William Walker Drake, the Defendants, of the one part, and Daniel Beckham the Plaintiff, of the other part, and bearing date a certain day and year therein mentioned, to wit, on, &c., the Plaintiff for the considerations thereinafter mentioned, did agree to and with the Defendants and the survivor of them, that he would well and faithfully serve the Defendants and the survivor of them, for and during the term of seven years, to commence and be computed from the day of the date of the said memorandum of agreement, as their foreman, in the management and carrying on their trade, and would not during the said term of seven years be engaged or concerned in the same or any other trade or business, either on his own account or on account of or for.the benefit of any other person whatsoever, other than the Defendants and the survivor of them, without the consent of the Defendants, or one of them, in writing, first had and obtained for [244] that purpose; that the Defendants thereby, for the consideration aforesaid, by the said memorandum of agreement for themselves and the survivor of them, agreed to and with the Plaintiff, that they or the survivor of them would employ the Plaintiff as their foreman in the carrying on, managing, and conducting the said trade during the said term of seven years, if the Defendants, or either of them should so long live, and the Plaintiff should well and faithfully observe and keep the covenants or agreements thereinbefore on his part contained; and that the Defendants or the survivor of them would pay to the Plaintiff wages after the rate of 31. 3s. of lawful money weekly. And it was by the said memorandum of agreement further mutually agreed and declared by and between the parties thereto, that in case either of the parties should not well and truly observe, perform, and keep the agreements therein on their respective parts contained, then the party so failing or making default, should pay to the other of them the sum of 5001. by way, or in the nature of specific damages. After the usual allegation of mutual promises, and an averment that the Plaintiff entered into the service and continued in it till July 1836, the breach assigned was, that the Defendants not regarding the said memorandum of agreement, nor the said promise, did not, nor would employ the Plaintiff, or suffer, or permit him to remain in the service as their foreman in carrying on, managing, and conducting their said trade during the residue of the said term of seven years, or any part of such residue, but wholly refused so to do; and on the 31st of July 1836, wrongfully and unjustly, and without any reasonable or sufficient cause, and without the license and consent, and against the will of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Beckham v Knight and Drake
-
Cabell v Vaughan
...in writing not under seal, with the known and apparent partners. 9 M. & W. 79, Beckham v. Drake, overruling Beckham v. Knight, 4 Bing. N. C. 243. 5 Scott, 619.] (g) See also 2 N. R. 454, Max v. Roberts, S. P.; but that judgment was reversed in K. B. on other grounds. 12 East, 89. And in K. ......
-
Daniel Beckham, - Plaintiff in Error; William Walker Drake and John Surgey, - Defendants in Error
...The demurrer was argued in Hilary Term, 1838, and judgment given for the defendant, and that judgment was afterwards affirmed. (See 4 Bing. N. C. 243 ; 1 Scott N. R, 675 ; and 1 Man. and Gr. 738 in Error. But see 9 Mee. and W. 79, where the decision of the Court of Common Pleas is controver......