Brettel and Others v Williams, Aykroyd, & Price
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 December 1849 |
| Date | 04 December 1849 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 154 E.R. 1363
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 19 L J Ex 121 Referred to, In re West of England Bank, Ex parte Booker, 1880, 14 Ch D 321, Small v Smith, 1884, 10 A C 137
[623] brettel and others v willums, aykroyd, & prick Dec 4, 1849 - The defendants, who weie in partneiship a- uulway contractois, under the name of W, A, & Co, contracted with a Railway Company to clo certain works TJ & R made a sub contract with the defendants to do part of the work, and for that purpose lequnmg coals to make bricks, A, without the knowledge or assent of his copartners, signed, in the name of the firm, and delivered to the plaintiffs, a guarantie, not addressed to any pet son, for payment of coals to be supplied to U & R The plaintiffs having pointed out the omission, a clerk of W , A , & Co by the duection of A , wrote to the plaintiffs, stating that the guarautie was intended for them The clerk, also, without the knowledge of the other partners, wrote to the plaintiffs certain letters, amounting to evidence of an account stated in respect of the amount due on the guarantie -Held, first, that the guarantie and subsequent lettei constituted a sufficient notice in writing within the Statute of Frauds -Secondly, that the guarantie did not bind the firm, theie being no evidence that it was necessaiy foi canying into etiect the partnership contract, 01 that the other pattnets had adopted it-Thudly, that, as the farm was not bound by the guatantie, the letters of the clerk lespectmg it were not evidence of an account stated as against the othei partner [K C 19 L J Ex 121 Referred to, In ic H'e^t oj England Bank, E.i paite Boolei, 1880, H Ch D 321 , tiwall v Smith, 1884, 10 A C 1,37 ] Assumpsit on a guaiantie for the payment to the plamtifts of the price of coals to be supplied by them to a firm named Unit & Roberts Theie was also a count foi money due on an account stated The defendant Aykroyd suffered judgment by default The defendants Williams and Price, except as to a small sum \\ hich they paid into court on the last count, pleaded that they did not piomise, and other pleas not mateiial At the trial, befoie Platt, B , at the Worcestet Spring Assizes, 1849, the following facts appeared - The defendants, who were in paitnership as railway contractois, under the name of Williams, Aykroyd, & Co , had contracted with a Railway Company to do ceitain works Unit & Roberts had made a sub-conttact with them to do part of the works, and required coals to make bricks for that purpose As they were not able to procure coals from, the plaintiffs on their own credit, Aykioyd signed the following guarantie in the name of the firm - 1364 BRETTEL V. WILLIAMS 4 EX. 6M "Campden, August 1C, 1847 "Gentlemen,-The bearers, Messrs Unit & Roberts, have a large contract from us for brrekmakirig, and will require a large quantity of coals We have no doubt of then stability, and will consider ourselves bound to see their coal brlh paid. We aie, gentlemen, yours respectfully, " williams, aykroyd, fe Co " [624] This document not being addressed to any one, the plaintiffs, on its being presented to them by Unit & Roberts, wrote to Williams, Aykroyd, & Co, pointing oub the omissron, and requesting that it might be stated that the guaiantie was meant for them On the 25th of August one Hamlet, the clerk of the firm, by the direction of Aykroyd wrote to the plaintiffs as follows - "The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Governor and Company of The Bank of Scotland and Henry Butcher & Company and Others
...Duncan v Lowndes and Bateman (1813) 3 Camp 478, Sandilands v Marsh (1819) 2 B & Ald 673, Hasleham v Young (1844) 5 QB 833 and Brettel v Williams (1849) 4 Ex 623. 17 Thus in Duncan v Lowndes, a case involving Liverpool merchants, Lord Ellenborough CJ said that: "It is not incidental to the g......
-
Table of Cases
...ER 923, Assizes 81 Bourne, Re; Bourne v Bourne [1906] 2 Ch 427, 75 LJ Ch 779, 54 WR 559, CA 149 Brettel v Williams, Ackroyd & Price (1849) 4 Exch 623, 154 ER 1363, [1843–60] All ER Rep 702 84 Briggs & Co, Re, ex parte Wright [1906] 2 KB 209, 75 LJKB 591, 50 Sol Jo 514, KBD 84 Briggs v Oates......
-
Case Note
...Hsi-Wei Marc v Orix Capital Ltd [2010] 3 SLR 1189 at [45]. 49 (1893) 14 LR (NSW) Eq 241 at 249 (NSWSC, Full Ct). 50 Brettel v Williams (1849) 4 Ex 623; 154 ER 1363 (Exch). This case involved a firm‘s guarantee of another firm‘s obligation. 51 Brettel v Williams (1849) 4 Ex 623 at 630. 52 Un......