Dickinson against Valpy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 1829 |
| Date | 25 November 1829 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 399
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 5 Man. & Ry. 126; Ll. & W. 6; 8 L. J. K. B. O. S. 51. Followed, Garland v. Jacomb, 1873, L. R. 8 Ex. 219. Dictum applied, Farquharson v. King, [1902] A. C. 341.
dickinson against valpy. Wednesday, November 25th, 1829. In an action on a bill of exchange, purporting to be drawn and accepted by a mining company, wherein the plaintiff, an indorsee for value, sought to charge the defendant as a member of that colmpany, it was proved that the bill had been drawn and accepted by order of the directors of the company. It was proved further, that the company had entered into a contract for the purchase of mines, taken a counting-house in London, engaged clerks, and also an agent to reside in the country, and had worked some of the mines; that the defendant having applied to the secretary of the company for shares, some were appropriated to him; that he paid an instalment of 151. per share; that he attended at the counting-house of the company, and there signed some deed, and afterwards attended a general meeting of the shareholders: Held, that assuming this to be sufficient evidence of the defendant's being a partner in the company, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove that the directors of that company had authority to bind the other members, by drawing and accepting bills of exchange; and that the plaintiff not having produced the deed of co-partnership, nor given any evidence to shew that it was necessary, for the purpose of carrying on the business of that mining company, or usual for other mining companies to draw or accept bills of exchange, there was no evidence to go to the jury of such an authority to draw or accept any bills, and still less to draw or accept bills in this form, which in effect were promissory notes. Semble, also, that there was not sufficient evidence to shew that the defendant had ever become a complete partner in the company, or that he had held himself out to the world as such partner. [S. C. 5 Man. & Ey. 126 ; LI. & W. 6; 8 L. J. K. B. O. S. 51. Followed, Garland v. Jacomb, 1873, L. E. 8 Ex. 219. Dictum applied, Farguharson v. King, [1902] A. C. 341.] This was an action by the plaintiff as indorsee of the following instrument:- 300 Os. Od. " Eedruth, March 30th, 1826. " Two months after date, pay to the order of Mr. Thomas Teague, three hundred pounds, value received as advised. "For the cornwall and devonshire mining company, " EOWLAND WlLKS. " To the Cornwall and Devonshire Mining Company, Lombard-Street, London." The first four counts of the declaration described the instrument as a bill of exchange, charging the defend-[129]-ant as drawer and acceptor; and the fifth described it as a promissory note. Plea, general issue. At the trial before Burrough J., at the Summer Assizes for the county of Somerset, 1827, the following appeared to be the facts of the case. The bill was indorsed for value by one Teague to the plaintiff; and having been dishonoured when due, the plaintiff now claimed to recover the amount from the defendant as a member of the Cornwall and Devonshire Mining (a) Parke J. having been counsel in the cause gave no opinion. 400 DICKINSON V. VALPY 10B.&C.130. Company. In order to shew that he was a partner in that company, the plaintiff proved that in the early part of the year 1825 certain persons associated themselves together for the forming of a company, for the purpose of working mines in Devonshire and Cornwall. On the 7th of April in that year a meeting of those persons was held, at which resolutions were passed that there should be a company formed, with a capital of one million, in shares of 501. each ; that mines in Cornwall should be purchased, and that there should be directors, a treasurer, a secretary, and other officers, and bankers to the company. These resolutions were advertised in the newspapers. A counting-house was taken in London for transacting the business of the company, clerks were engaged, a contract was entered into for the purchase of mines in Cornwall, an agent was employed to reside there, and some of the mines were actually worked. The defendant, on the 6th day of April, applied to the secretary of the company for thirty shares, and ten were appropriated to him. Upon these shares, he paid to the bankers of the company an instalment of 51. per share, and received in return certain printed receipts, called scrip receipts. He afterwards took these scrip receipts to the counting-house, where there was a meeting of the directors, and paid a [130] second instalment of 101. per share, and signed a deed. In July 1826 he attended a general meeting of the shareholders. The defendant offered evidence of what he said at that meeting, to shew that he went to it for the purpose of declining any interest in the company, and not for the purpose of taking any part in the direction of its affairs. The learned Judge rejected this evidence.1 The defendant then tendered evidence to shew that the original projectors of the company had, by false representations, induced him and other persons to become members of it. The learned Judge was of opinion that fraud in the concoction of the concern, though practised on the defendant, was no answer to this action by a mere stranger, and refused to receive the evidence. It appeared further that the bill was drawn and accepted in London, though dated at Redrutb, in pursuance of a resolution of the directors, which was entered in the book of the company, and in discharge of a claim by Teague on the company for an advance made by him, and was afterwards allowed in account to Wilks the drawer. It was objected, first, that there was no evidence to shew that the defendant ever actually became a partner in interest, or held himself out to the world as a partner. The learned Judge was of opinion that there was sufficient proof to make the defendant liable as a partner. Secondly, assuming that the defendant was proved to be a partner, there was no proof that the directors had authority to bind the shareholders by drawing or accepting bills. The learned Judge reserved the latter point, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff for the amount of the bill...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re The Norwich Yarn Company ex parte Bignold
...Beav. 426) ; Ex parte Bonbonus (8 Ves. 540); Smdilands v. Marsh (2 B. & Aid. 673); Fisher v. Tayler (2 Hare, 218); Dickinson v. Falpy (10 B. & C. 128); Tredwen v. Bourne (6 M. & W. 461); Hawtayne v. Bourne (7 M. & W. 595); Hawken v. Bourne (8 M. & W. 703); Rkketts v. Bennett (4 C. B. 686); ......
-
Wilkes v Hopkins, Nichols, and Francis Bishop
...cannot bind the others, without express authority, by the acceptance or [740] indorsement of bills: Dickson v. J^alpy (5 Mann. & E. 126, 10 B. & C. 128); Bramah v. Roberts (3 New Cases, 963, 5 Scott, 172); Tred-win v. Bourne (6 M. & W. 461); Hawtayne v. Bourne (7 M. & W. 595). The authority......
-
The Joint Stock Companies Winding-Up Act, 1848; and of The Joint Stock Companies Winding-Up Amendment Act, 1849; and The German Mining Company The Case of Samuel Ball, William Haigh, Francis Ramsbotham, William Rothert, William Wood-Roffe, and Emily Duncan Harvey. Exparte William Chippendale, Charles Chippendale, and Thomas Hughes. Before the Lords Justices
...make them liable to repay what was so borrowed. In Eicketts v, Bennett (4 C. B. 686), [29] Wilde, C. J., referring to Dickenson v. Valpy (10 B. & C. 128), says that the result of that authority is, that in a partnership for working mines, 4DEO.M. &0.30. EX PAETE CHIPPENDALE, RE GERMAN MININ......
-
Khan v Miah
...Co Ltd v IR CommrsTAX(1919) 12 TC 92. Cannop Coal Co Ltd v IR CommrsTAX(1919) 12 TC 31. Dickinson v ValpyENR(1829) 10 B & C 128; 109 ER 399. IR Commrs v WilliamsonTAX(1928) 14 TC Kirk and Randall Ltd v Dunn (HMIT)TAX(1924) 8 TC 663. Popat v ShonchhatraWLR[1997] 1 WLR 1367. Partnership Actua......