Cope v Rowlands
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 707
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 2 Gale, 231; 6 L. J. Ex. 63. Followed, Fergusson v. Norman, 1838, 5 Bing. N. C. 85; 6 Scott, 809; 1 Arn. 421; Melliss v. Shirley Local Board, 1885, 16 Q. B. D. 452; Bateman v. Ball, 1887, 56 L. J. Q. B. 292. Referred to, Victorian Daylesford Syndicate v. Dott, [1905] 2 Ch. 630. Discussed, Whiteman v. Sadler, [1910] A. C. 525.
cope v. rowlands. Exch. of Pleas. 1836. - A broker 'cannot maintain an action for work and labour, and commission for buying and selling stock, &c., unless duly licensed by the mayor and aldermen of the city of London, pursuant to 6 Anne, c. 16 [S. C. 2 Gale, 231 ; 6 L. J. Ex. 63. Followed, Fergussan v. Norman, 1838, 5 Bing. N. C. 85; 6 Heott, 809 ; I ami. 4L 1 ; Mellixs v. Shirley Local Board, 1885, 16 Q. B. D. 452 ; Ealerrum v. Ball, 1887, 56 L. J. Q. B. 292. Referred to, Fidorian Dayhsfml Syndicate, \. Dott, [1905J 2 Ch. 630. Discussed, irfiileman v. Sadler, [1910] A. G. 525.] Assumpsit for work and labour, care, diligence, and attendance as the agent of the defendant, and on his retainer, and for certain commission and reward then due and of right payable from the defendant to the plaintiff, with counts for money paid, and oil an account stated, arid for interest. Pleas- first, non-assumpsit ; secondly, a set-off; thirdly, to the first count, that the work, labour, care, diligence, and attendance in that count mentioned, and therein alleged to have been done, performed, and be-[150]-stowed by the plaintiff as the agent of the defendant, were and are work and labour, care, diligence, and attendance done, performed, and bestowed by the plaintiff within the city of London as a broker, to wit, as a stock-broker, in and about the purchasing and selling for and on account of the defendant, and bargaining for and on account of the defendant, for and in respect of divers interests and shares in divers public stocks and securities, and divers public bonds and other public securities, and that the commission in the said fti-st count mentioned was and is commission claimed by the plaintiff for and in respect of such work, labour, care, diligence, and attendance as aforesaid so done and performed by him the plaintiff as a stock-liroker. And the defendant says, that the plaintiff was not at the time or times, or any of them, of doing, performing, and bestowing the work, labour, care, diligence, and attendance, or any of them, or any part thereof, a broker duly licensed, authorized, or empowered to act or practise as a broker in the premises or any of them within the said city of London. Verification. Replication, to the second plea, nil debet, and to the last plea, de injuria. At the trial before Parke, B., at the London Sittings after last Trinity Term, it beitig proved that the plaintiff was not a sworn broker in the city of London, the jury, under the direction of the learned Judge, found a verdict for the plaintiff on the first and second issues, and for the defendant on the third ; and they assessed the damages on the first count at 241. 2s. 6d., and on the other counts at 951 On a former day in this term, Bompas, Serjt., obtained a rule to enter up judgment for the plaintiff on the third issue, non obstante veroclicto, on the ground that the plea was bad in law. Platt and Petersdorff now shewed cause. The ques-[151] tion is, whether the third plea was a good answer to the action as to the first count of the declaration ; and it is submitted that it clearly is. By the 6 Anne, c. 16, s. 4, it is enacted, " That all brokers who shall act as brokers within the city of London and liberties thereof shall, from time to time, be admitted so to do by the Court of Mayor and Aldermen of the said city for the time being, under such restrictions and limitations for their honest and good behaviour as that Court shall think fit and reasonable ; and shall, (a) The defendants afterwards pleaded non-assumpsit ; that the money was paid upon the terms mentioned in the declaration, and that the plaintiff' accepted back the 6501. in full satisfaction. The action was compromised, and no search was made for the roll in Wheatly v. Lmv, which from the contemporaneous report in Palmer, 281, (Loe's case), would rather appear to be correctly reported upon this point ; and see 2 Lord Raym. 9^0; Awm., 1 Ventris, 45. 708 COPE I'. ROWLANDS 2 M. & W. 152. upon such their admission, pay to the Chamberlain of the said city for the time being, lor the uses hereinafter mentioned, the sum of 40s., and shall also yearly pay to the 3;aid uses the sum of 40s. upon the 29th day of .September in every year." It then provides that all such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jose's Ltd v Esso Standard Oil SA Ltd
...and Ms. C.J. Bridges for the appellant; R.J. Ellis, Q.C. and J.C.B. Chapman for the respondent. Cases cited: (1) Cope v. RowlandsENR(1836), 2 M. & W. 149; 150 E.R. 707; 6 L.J. Ex. 63, distinguished. (2) Jackson, Stansfield & Sons v. Butterworth, [1948] 2 All E.R. 558; (1948), 64 T.L.R. 481,......
- ABDA Airfreight Sdn Bhd v Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia Bhd
- Arab-Malaysian Finance Bhd; Lori (M) Bhd (Interim Receiver)
- Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd v Hotel Rasa Sayang Sdn. Bhd. and Another
-
Illegality
...of the traditional approach to agreements entered into in non-compliance with the Lord’s Day Act , 206 which 201 Ibid . 202 (1836), 2 M & W 149, 150 ER 707 (Ex). 203 Ibid at 710 (ER). 204 See, for example, Brown v Moore (1902), 32 SCR 93; Advance Rumely Thresher Co v Yorga , [1926] SCR 397;......
-
REFORMING ILLEGALITY IN PRIVATE LAW
...of England and Wales, The Illegality Defence in Tort (Consultation Paper No 160, 2001) at para 4.47. 164 See, eg, Cope v Rowlands(1836) 150 ER 707, Re Mahmoud v Ispahani[1921] 2 KB 716, and the dicta of Kerr LJ in Phoenix General Insurance Co of Greece SA v Halvanon Insurance Co Ltd[1988] Q......
-
Securities and Financial Services Regulation
...Cap 116, 1985 Rev Ed. 15 Hughes v Asset Managers plc [1995] 3 All ER 669; [1994] EWCA Civ 14. Compare older cases like Cope v Rowlands (1836) 2 M&W 149; (1836) 150 ER 707, which the court in Tan Chor Thing v Tokyo Investment Pte Ltd [1991] 1 SLR(R) 321 referred to. 16 [1976] 2 MLJ 253. Simi......