Cannan and Others, Assignees of Medley and Adam, Bankrupts, against Reynolds and Service
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 June 1855 |
| Date | 12 June 1855 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 493
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 26 L. J. Q. B. 62; 1 Jur. N. S. 873. Discussed, The Freedom, 1871, L. R. 3 Ad. & E. 498.
[301] cannan and others, Assignees of Medley and Adam, Bankrupts, against reynolds and service. Tuesday, June 12bb, 1855. Plaintiffs having delivered a declaration against A. and B., and another against A. and C., with particulars of demand iu each, A. and B. Buffered judgment by default on 16th January, and 494 CANNAN V. REYNOLDS B EL. & BL. 303. paid the amount claimed in the particulars in that action. Afterwards A. and C. pleaded to the action. Plaintiffs, in the latter part of April, discovered that by mistake they had included in the particulars delivered to A. and C. items which ought to have been in the particulars delivered to A. and B. On affidavit of these facts, and that A. and B. were aware of the mistake, and allowed judgment to go by default on purpose, the Court (Lord Campbell C.J., Coleridge and Crompton Js.), in Trinity Term, made absolute a rule to set aside the judgment signed against A. and B., and amend the particulars of demand, on plaintiffs paying all costs and refunding the money received. Erie J. doubting as to the jurisdiction to make such a rule. [S. C. 26 L. J. Q. B. 62; 1 Jur. N. S. 873. Discussed, The Freedom, 1871, L. K. 3 Ad. & E. 498.] Willes, in this term, obtained a rule calling on the defendants to shew cause why the judgment signed in this action should not be set aside, and the plaintiff be at liberty to amend his particulars of demand, and proceed in the action. From the affidavits on both sides, it appeared that the defendant Reynolds, up to 1st May 1853, was in partnership with a person of the name of Farnell, and, after that date, with the other defendant Service : and the bankrupts had extensive dealings with both firms of Reynolds & Farnell and Reynolds & Service. The assignees issued a writ against the defendants, who appeared; and plaintiffs delivered a declaration with particulars of demand, dated 2d December 1854, claiming, as a balance due on the account between the defendants and the bankrupts, 1661. 12s. 4d. They also issued a writ against Reynolds and Farnell, who appeared ; and the plaintiffs delivered to them a declaration with particulars of demand claiming 2611. Os. 2(1. as the balance of account between those defendants and the bankrupts. The sums claimed, in each case, were the balances appearing in the bankrupt's books against the respective firms. [3023 The defendants in Gannan v. Reynolds & Service did not plead ; and judgment was signed against them for want of a plea on 16th January 1855, for the 1661. 12a. 4d. ; which amount with costs was paid by them to the plaintiffs. In the other action of Gannan v. Reynolds & Farnell the defendants paid into Court, on 18th January 1855, 1341. The plaintiff's solicitor caused the bankrupt's books to be examined for the purpose of ascertaining what replication should be pleaded in this action ; when it was discovered that, by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Panin International Credit (S) Pte Ltd v Ngan Ching Wen
...907 (“Mercurine”) at [35], [72], [76] and [99]; MacQuarie Bank Ltd v Beaconsfield and Others [1992] 2 VR 461 at 466; Cannan v Reynolds 119 ER 493 at [305] – [306]). The underlying reason for Panin’s application to set aside the Judgment appeared to be to allow Panin to obtain a judgment tha......
-
Meng Leong Development Pte Ltd v Jip Hong Trading Co Pte Ltd
...the time for appealing has expired, and before or after execution. The authorities cited, namely, Cannan v Reynolds (1855) 5 E & B 301; 119 ER 493; S Kaprow & Co Ltd v MacLelland & Co Ltd [1948] 1 KB 618 and Re Collie (1878) 8 Ch D 807 are instances where judgment was obtained or action was......
-
Wagstaff v Anderson
...and is one for which his principals are liable: Ewbank v. Nutting, 7 C. B. 797; Wilson v. Millar, 2 Stark. 1; Mitcheson v. Oliver, 5 E. & B. 301; Shipton V. Thornton, 9 A. & E. 314. The damages must be the value of the goods sold with interest: British Columbia, &c., Company v. Nettleship, ......
-
Edwards v. Ferris, 2001 ABQB 1125
...to. [para. 30]. Trudel v. Seguin et al. (1998), 82 O.T.C. 270 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 32]. Cannan v. Reynolds (1855), 26 L.J.Q.B. 62; 119 E.R. 493, refd to. [para. Kaprow (S.) and Co. v. MacLelland and Co., [1948] 1 All E.R. 264 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35]. Royal Bank of Canada v. Loga......