Bellairs and Another v Ebsworth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 July 1811 |
| Date | 24 July 1811 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1303
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Considered and apphed, London Assurance Corporatron v. Bold, 1844, 6 Q B. 514; Mills v Alderbury Union, 1849. 3 Ex. 590 Considered, Montefiore v. Llayd, 1863, 15 C. b. (N. S.) 203. Distinguished, Leathley v. Spyer, 1870, L R 5 C P. 595.
[53] Wednesday, July 24, 1811. bellairs and another v. ebsworth. (If A. become bound to B under condition that C shall truly account to B. for all sums of money received by C for B.'s use, and C afterwards, with B.'s knowledge, takes D. as his partner, the guarantee does not extend to sums of money received by C for B 's use, after the formation of the partnership ) [Considered and applied, London Assurance Corporation v. Bold, 1844, 6 Q B. 514 ; Mitts v Alderbury Union, L849, 3 Ex.590 Considered, Monlefiore v. Llayd, 1863, 15 C. B. (N. S.) 203. Distinguished, Leathley v. Spyer, 1870, L R 5 C P. 595.J This was an action of debt on bond dated 7th August 1806, executed by the defendant, one Philip Nott, and one John Nott, by which they bound themselves jointly and. severally in the penal sum of 1500 under the following condition . " Wkereas the above bounden Philip Nott hath for some time past acted as the agent for the said A and J. Bellairs, in the receiving of various large sums of money far them, and the said Philip Nott will continue to receive money dtid other thmgh on their accouut. And whereas the better to secure the said A. and J. Bellairs the payment of all such sum and sums of money which at any time hereafter shall be in the hands of the said Philip Nott belonging to the said A. and J. Bellairs, the said Philip Nott hath proposed and agreed to execute this present bond of indemnity, arid hath prevailed on the 8aid John Nott and John Ebsworth to become surety for and to join with him the said Philip Nott in the execution hereof, and to guarantee the said A. and J. Bellairs and the survivor of them against any loss they may happen to sustain on account of their confidence in the said Philip Nott touching the matters aforesaid. Now the condition of the above written obligation is such, that if the a,bove bounden Philip Nott. his heirs, executors, and administrators, do and shall from, time to [54] time, and at all times, as often as he or they shall be therennto required fey the said A. and J. Bellairs, or the survivor of them, make, draw out, and detvei umto them, or the survivor of them, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lord Arlington v Merricke
...D. as his partner; the guarantee does not extend to sums of money received by C. for B.'s use, after the formation of the partnership. 3 Camp. 53, Heliosis v. Ebsworth. See further, 2 B. & A. 39, Bodenham v. Purchas. In that case a bond was given to secure a banking account to several partn......
-
Grahame v Grahame
...Petty v. CookeELR L. R. 6 Q. B. 790. Swire v. RedmanELR 1 Q. B. D. 541. Mills v. Alderbury GuardiansENR 3 Ex. 590. Bellairs v. EbsworthENR 3 Camp. 53. Polak v. EverettELR 1 Q. B. D. 669. Dowden v. LevisUNK 14 L. R. Ir. 313. Holme v. BrunskillELR 3 Q. B. D. 495. Cross v. SpriggENR 2 Mac. & G......
-
The Corporation of the London Assurance of Houses and Goods from fire against Bold
...was made; the bond was actually made with reference to the partnership agency : so that the criterion applied in Bellairs v. Ebsworth (3 Campb. 53), is in favour of the present plaintiffs. A declaration averring that A. promised is supported by proof of a joint promise by A. and B. If, here......
-
The Bank of British North America, - Appellant; Angelique Cuvillier and Others, - Respondents
...the Appellant cannot maintain this action upon the deed of guarantee, as it was not a continuing guarantee. Bellairs v. Ebsworth (3 Camp. 53), Sh-i/rreff v. Wilks (1 East. 48), Dry v. Davy (10 Ad. and Ell. 30), Nicholson v. Paget (] Cro. and M. 48), Melville v. Hayden (3 B. and Aid. 593), X......