Ducarrey v Gill
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 1830 |
| Date | 22 January 1830 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 1220
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
S C with annotations, 4 C & P 121.
Guildhall, Jan. 22, 1830. ducarrey v. gill (An agent for an association who draws bills in his own name for the purposes of the company, does not bind the partners as drawers, though authorised to draw bills.) [S C with annotations, 4 C & P 121.] Assumpsit by the plaintiff as indorsee of three bills of exchange for 390 each against the defendant as drawer The declaration stated in the usual form that the defendant drew the bills, and there were the usual money counts. The bills were all in the following form : Coquimbo, Feb 17, 1826 Exchange for 390, 13s. 4d. sterbng at 47d , exchange: at sixty days' sight of this oue first bill of exchange (second and third of the same tenor and date not paid), pty unto Jean Lerois or order, three hundred and ninety pounds sterling, for value received, and place the same, with or without further advice, to the accounts of the trustees of the Chilian and Peruvian Mining Association. thos. bagnold. To Messrs. Spooner Attwood and Co joseph andrews. Bankers, London. These bills were countersigned by the secretary of the Association. [451} The defendant was one of the directors and shareholders of the Chilian and Pferuvia* Hitting Association Bagnold and Andrews were the agents of the association, and managed the mines and general concerns in South America They acted utder a power oi attorney given by the three trustees only, who were also directors of; the association, empowering them, amongst other things, to draw bills and borrow money for them and the other directors The defendant was no party to this power (a) See 4 Madd. 64, n as to the eases-m which compound interest ts allowable : and Dawes v. Pinner, 2 Camp. 486, n. , Moore v. Vouyhton, 1 Stark. 487. Bl&M. 42. TAYLOR V. TEUEMAN 1221 oi attorney ^ and it appeared to have been given by the trustees as such under the sanction of a meeting of directors, at which three only were present, there being a general resolution oi the directors that no act should be binding on the rest unless four directors were present. It was shewn however that the agents were recognised, and sent out under written instructions for their conduct, by a full meeting of directors Tine bills were drawn at Coquimbo to raise money for the necessary purposes of the association, and discounted there by Jean Lerois the payee, with the plaintiff's money, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ricketts and Another v Bennett and Field
...usage of similar establishments, or by the express assent of the party sought to be charged. Observing on this case, and Ducarry v. Gill (M. & M. 450, 4 C. & P. 121), Mr. Collyer says (1st edit. 664, 2nd edit. 791): "In the case of an ordinary trading partnership, the law implies that one p......
-
Bult and Others against Robert Morrell, James Morrell, Henry Morrell, John Rainsford, James Parker, and Richard Parker
...Ca. 968; where Emly v. Lye, 15 East, 7; Denton v. Rodie, 3 Camp. 493; South Carolina Sank v. Case, 8 B. & C. 427; and Duearrey v. Gill, M. & M. 450, are cited. 12AD.&E.7B2. CULVERSON V. MELTON 999 if relied upon, was a fact on which the opinion of the jury should have been taken. Bramah v. ......
-
Bramah and Another v Roberts and Others
...firm; it was held, that the firm were not jointly liable on the bills. The Carolina Bank v. Case (6 B. & C. 427), and Ducarry v. Gill (3 M. & M. 450), recognise the same principle. And the verdict is consistent with the evidence; for there is nothing to shew that the Defendants, Fosters, Ly......