Cornish v Abington
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 April 1859 |
| Date | 29 April 1859 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 956
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 28 L. J. Ex. 262; 7 W. R. 504. Applied, Thomas v. Brown, 1876, 1 Q. B. D. 722. Referred to, Sarat Chunder Dey v. Gopal Chunder Laha, 1892, L R. 19 Ind. Ap. 217; Henderson v. Williams, [1895] 1 Q. B. 533.
CORNISH v abington. April 29, 1859 -If any person, by actual expressions or by a course of conduct, so conducts himself that another may reasonably infer the existence of an agreement or h'cence, and acts upon such inference, whether the former intends that he should do so or not, the party using that language, or who has so conducted himself, cannot afterwards gainsay the reasonable inference to be drawn from his words or conduct.-G, the foreman of the plaintiff, a lithographic printer, employed by him to get orders for printing, being desirous of publishing certain maps and other works for himself, agreed with the defendant, a publisher, to supply maps, &c , to him to be sold on commission. He then entered an order as from the defendant in the plaintiff's order book. Maps and other goods were supplied to the defendant from the plaintiff's premises, some of them accompanied by deliveiy notes requesting the defendant to receive the goods from the plaintiff. Receipts to the same effect were signed by the defendant. The plaintiff' made out an account amounting to 1081., charging the defendant, and handed it to G , who shewed it to the defendant The defendant accepted bills for a part of the amount of this account and gave the balance in cash to G., who handed the cash and bills to the plaintiff Other goods being supplied, the plaintiff sent the invoice of them to the defendant charging him with the price. The defendant applied to G. for an explanation, and, on being told by G. that it was a mistake, took no steps to inform the plaintiff. The jury found that the defendant did not authorize G. to use his name in ordering the good*; but that from the manner in which the defendant had acted the plaintiff believed that he was selling the goods to the defendant Held, that the defendant was liable to the plaintiff for the price of the goods. [S. C. 28 L. J. Ex. 262; 7 W. R. 504. Applied, Thomas v. Brown, 1876, 1 Q. B. D. 722. Referred to, Sarat Chunder Dey v. Gopal Chitnder Laha, 1892, L R. 19 Ind. Ap. 217; Henderson v. Wdliams, [1895] 1 Q. B. 533.] Debt for goods sold and delivered, work done and materials provided, and on accounts stated. Pleas (inter alia). Never indebted and payment. Whereupon issues were joined. At the trial, before Martin, B., at the sittings in London after last Michaelmas Term, it appeared that in 1856 the plaintiff, a lithographic printer, took into his employment one Gover to superintend the printing and take orders for printing, at a salary of 35s. a week. The defendant was a [550] publisher. Ihe plaintiff stated 4 H & N 55L CORNISH V. ABINGTON 957 that the first order on the defendant's account came fromGover. In September, 1857, the plaintiff made out an account against the defendant, charging him with 1081 for printing maps, and gave it to Gover, who handed the account to the defendant. Gover brought the plaintiff two bills, one for 301. and the other for 401., and the balance in cash. The bills when produced appeared to be drawn by the plaintiff and accepted by the defendant: they were duly paid at maturity. Afterwards some more printing was done by the plaintiff, who also supplied the paper. Some of the goods were accompanied by delivery notes, as follows:- "Mr. Abington. " Please to receive 50 ' Coloured Panoramic View,' 300 ' Panoramic View.'-From " william cornish." Corresponding receipts were signed by the defendant. In other instances the delivery notes were from Gover. The plaintiff said that he did not supply the goods on the credit of Gover. Gover left the plaintiff's service in March 1858. About two months afterwards the plaintiff called on the defendant to ask him when it would be convenient to settle his paper account. The defendant said he knew nothing about it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson and Another v Castellain and Others
... ... Sears, 6 Ad. & E. 469, 2 N. & P. 488, G-regg v. Wells, 10 Ad. & E. 90, 2 P. & D. 29, Freeman v. Cooke, 1 Exch. 654, and Cornish v. Alring-^llS^-ton, 4 Hurlst. & N. 549, from controverting the lien (a) The points marked for argument on the part of Thompson & Co. were as ... ...
-
Abbott et al. v. Canada, (2001) 203 F.T.R. 191 (TD)
...(Alta. C.A.), affd. [1921] 1 W.W.R. 655 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 63, footnotes 21, 22]. Cornish v. Abbington (1859), 4 H. & N. 549; 157 E.R. 956, refd to. [para. Greenwood v. Martins Bank, [1933] A.C. 51 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 69, footnote 23]. Queen Victoria and Niagara Falls Park Co......
-
Smith v Hayes
...Smelting Company L. R. 1 Ch. Ap. 66. Dann v. Spurrier 7 Ves. 230. Williams v. The Earl of Jersey 1 Cr. & Phil. 91. Cornish v. AbingdonENR 4 H. & N. 549, 555. Haines v. TaylorENR 2 Phil. 209. Bickett v. Morris L. R. 1 Sc. Ap. 47, 57. Hanies v. TaylorENR 2 Phil. 209. Jackson v. Cator 5 Ves. 6......
-
Connock's (SA) Motor Co Ltd v Sentraal Westelike Ko-operatiewe Maatskappy Bpk
...from the rule itself as B adumbrated in the various leading English cases, e.g. Freeman v Cooke, supra at p. 656; Cornish v Abington, (1859) 157 E.R. 956 at p. 959; Carr v London & North Western Railway Co., (1875) L.R. 10 C.P. 307 at p. 317; Sidney Bolsom Investment Trust Ltd v E. Karinos ......