Bull and Another v Clarke
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 January 1864 |
| Date | 30 January 1864 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 143 E.R. 1020
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
bull and another v. clarke. Jan. 30th, 1864. Upon a motion for an inspection of the plaintiffs' books, which the defendant alleged to be necessary for the purpose of establishing a set-oft' in respect of commission which he claimed on sales effected by the plaintiffs through his introduction,-The court granted the rule, although the plaintiffs swore that there was no agreement to allow the defendant any commission : but held that the plaintiff's were entitled to seal up all those parts of the books which they pledged their oath that the defendant had no interest in. This wa^ an action for goods sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded a set-off iti respect of; commission upon sales of wines and spirits to persons introduced to the plaintiffs by him, pursuant to an alleged agreement. The defendant, in order to enable him to make out his claim for commission, obtained an order "to inspect and take extracts from the plaintiffs' ledgers." He accordingly attended at the counting-house of the plaintiffs on the 19th of December lost, and, a ledger being produced, he went through a great portion of the index, and selectee] therefrom the names of a, number of persons, and claimed to inspect the accounts of such persons, some of which he was allowed to inspect, it [852] being admitted that those customers bad been introduced by him, but others of which accounts the plaintiffs refused to allow him to inspect, alleging that some of them had been wholly contracted prior to 1853 (at which time the alleged agreement to allow the defendant commission was first entered into), that others of them had partly been contracted prior to 1853 and partly since, and that the defendant had not introduced the customers ; and, as to the remainder, that, although contracted subsequently to 1853, the defendant had not introduced the customers, and therefore was not entitled to inspect tjhose accounts at all. : On the i4th of December, a summons) was taken out, calling upon the plaintiffs to shew cause; why the defendant should not have a further and better inspection of their ledgers, pursuant to the former order. On this summons coming on fora hearing, the learned judge referred the matter to the court. T. Salter, on a former day, accordingly obtained a rule nisi for a better inspection. C. B. N. 8.) 853. BULL V. CLARKE 1021 In the affidavit produced in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cuffe v Wilson
...Bench. CUFFE and WILSON. Price v. HarrisonENR 8 C. B., N. S., 617. Bull v. ClarkENR 15 C. B., N. S. 851. Shadwell v. Shadwell 28 Law J., N. S., C. P. 275. iv Appendix. A. T. 1866. Queen's Bench CUFFE v. WILSON.* Jan. 20. Inspection of Tars was a motion for liberty to inspect and take a copy......