Fletcher, Public Officer, v Crosbie, Barlow, and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 November 1841 |
| Date | 26 November 1841 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 107
EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.
S. C. 1 Dowl. (N. S.) 149; 11 L. J. Ex. 16.
fletcher, Public Officer, v. crosbie, barlow, and others. Exch. of Pleas. Nov. 26, 1841,-A declaration described the plaintiff as "one of the present public officers of certain persons united in co-partnership for the purpose of carrying on the trade and business of banking in England, according to the stat. 7 Geo. 4, c. 46 ":-Held bad on special demurrer, for not stating that the co-partnership was carrying on the trade and business of bankers, or had carried on such trade. [S. C. 1 Dowl. (N. S.) 149; 11 L. J. Ex. 16.] Assumpsit for money lent, money paid, interest, work and labour, and on an account stated. The declaration commenced as follows :-"John Fletcher, the plaintiff in this suit, one of the present public officers of certain persons united in co-partnership, for the purpose of carrying on the trade and business of bankers in England, according to the statute made and passed in the 7th year of the reign of his late Majesty King George the 4th, entitled ' An Act for the better regulating Co-partnerships of certain Bankers in England,' &c., which said Johu Fletcher had been duly nominated and appointed, and now is one of the public officers of the said co-partnership, according to the form and effect of the said act of Parliament, complains," &c. Special demurrer, assigning for causes, that it nowhere appears by the declaration, that the said co-partnership [253] ever in fact carried on business under the provisions of the said act, or that the said supposed debt accrued from the defendant Barlow to the said co-partnership whilst carrying on business under the provisions of the said act, or that the said defendant was indebted to the said co-partnership, as a co-partnership carrying on business under the provisions of the said act, at the time of the commencement of the said suit. Joinder in demurrer. Tomlinson, in support of the demurrer. As the right of action arises under a statute, 9 Geo. 4, c. 46, and did not exist at common law, the plaintiff is bound to bring himself within the provisions of the statute. The statute confines the right to sue to parties to a co-partnership which has actually carried on business, and as it dees not appear that the parties here ever carried on business as bankers, the plaintiff has not brought himself within it. The 9th section of the 7 Geo. 4, c....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ray against Hirst
...carried into execution without such authority : here the averment may be construed as applying to the purposes only. Fletcher v. Crosbie (9 M. & W. 252), shews the insufficiency of the present allegation. It is not a matter of course that a railway should require the authority of Parliament......
-
Fletcher, Public Officer, Company v Crosbie, Gilham, Cooper, Ralph, and Forty-six Others
...NORTHERN AND WESTERN CIRCUITS. Fletcher, Public Officer &c. and Crosbie, Gilham, Cooper, Ralph, and Forty-six Others Prior proceedings, 9 M. & W. 252. April 2 and 3, 1842. fletcher, public officer, &c. v. crosbie, gilham, cooper, ralph, and forty-six others (On the trial of a cause it is in......
-
May v Hodges
...Bench. MAY and HODGES. Thompson v. Kelly 3 Leg. Rep. 110. Fletcher v. CrosbieENR 9 M. & W. 252. Crispigney v. WittenoomENR 4 t. R. 793. Mason v. Armitage 13 Ves. 36. Ex parte CaruthersENR 9 East, 44. Rex v. smithENR 4 T. R. 419. Davidson v. BowenUNK 6 Jur. 538. Fletcher v. CrosbieENR 9 M. &......
-
Murray v Coymn
...Bench MURRAY and COYMN. Thomson v. Birnie 2 Ir. Law. Rep. 234. M'Dowell v. DoyleIR 7 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 598. Fletcher v. CrosbieENR 9 M. & W. 252. Phelps v. Walker Cr. & D., Not. Cas., 141. Stephenson v QuinIR 7 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 314. Keily v. Whittaker 1 Ir. Law Rep. 28. Keily v. Whittaker ......