Duncan v Lowndes and Bateman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 1813 |
| Date | 20 December 1813 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1452
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Considered and applied, Brettel v. Williams, 1849, 4 Ex 623.
[478] Monday, Dec. 20, 1813. duncan v lowndes and bateman. (In an action on a guarantee for the debt of a third person, signed by one of two partners in the partnership firm, it is necessary to give some evidence beyond the relationship of partners subsisting between them, that the one who signed had authority to bind the other by the guarantee But for this purpose it would be sufficient to prove a parol acknowledgment from the other partner subse quently to the giving of the guarantee ; or to shew a previous course of dealing, in which similar guarantees had been given in the partnership firm, with the privity of both partners.) [Considered and applied, Brettel v. Williams, 1849, 4 Ex 623.J This was an action on a guarantee alleged to have been given by the defendants for the due payment of a bill of exchange to the plaintiff for 670, 15s. accepted by Dickinson and Co , for the price of goods which the plaintiff had sold them. It appeared that the two defendants carried on business together as merchants at Liverpool, and that this guarantee was signed by Lowndes in the partnership firm, Garrow, A. G., for the defendants, insisted, that the plaintiff was bound to give some direct evidence that Bateson had authorised Lowndes to enter into this undertaking. Scarlett, contra, contended, that this was to be inferred from the relation subsisting between them. Lord Ellenborough.-As it is not usual for merchants, in the common course of business, to give collateral engagements of this sort, I think you must prove that Lowndes had authority from Bateson to sign the partnership firm to the guarantee in question. It is not incidental to the general power of a partner to bind his copartners by such an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Governor and Company of The Bank of Scotland and Henry Butcher & Company and Others
...that a partner, at least in a professional partnership, does not have implied or ostensible authority to give a guarantee: Duncan v Lowndes and Bateman (1813) 3 Camp 478, Sandilands v Marsh (1819) 2 B & Ald 673, Hasleham v Young (1844) 5 QB 833 and Brettel v Williams (1849) 4 Ex 623. 17 Thu......
- Plantation Holdings (FZ) LLC v Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC
-
Rodick v Gandell
...the act of his partner, unless it were shewn that Westmacott had special authority to bind him as to this transaction; Duncan v. Lowndes (3 Camp. 478); for that a partner was not liable for a guarantee given by his co-partner, in the name of the firm, in a matter not in the ordinary course ......
-
Pinkett v Wright
...(1 Mer. 572); Ex parte Masterman (2 Mont. & Ayr. 209); Chitty on Contracts, p. 249-259; Fox v. Clifton (6 ,Bing. 776); Duncan v. Lowndes (3 Campb. 478); In re Caldecott (2 M. D. & De G. 368). the vice-chancellor [Sir James Wigram]. The parties in this cause claim to be entitled under specif......