Grace Humble against Hunter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 May 1848 |
| Date | 29 May 1848 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 116 E.R. 885
QUEENS BENCH
S. C. 17 L. J. Q. B. 350; 12 Jur. 1021; Considered, Schmalz v. Avery, 1851, 20 L. J. Q. B. 231. Referred to, British Waggon Company v. Lea, 1880, 5 Q. B. D. 152. Distinguished, Killick v. Price, 1896, 12 T. L. R. 364. Referred to, Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers v. Tolhurst, [1902] 2 K. B. 669; [1903] A. C. 414.
[310] G-RACE humble against hunter. Monday, May 29th, 1848. In asaumpsit on a charter-party executed, not by plaintiff, but by a third person who, in the contract, described himself as " owner," of the ship. Held, that evidence was not admissible to shew that such person contracted merely as the plaintiff's agent. [S. C. 17 L. J. Q. B. 350 ; 12 Jur. 1021; Considered, ti&malz v. Awry, 1851, 20 L. J. Q. B. 231. .Referred to, British Waggon Company \. Lea, 1880, 5 Q. B. D. 152. Distinguished, Kiltick v. Price, 1896, 12 T, L. R. 264. Referred to, Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers v. Tolhurst, [1902] 2K. B. 669 ; [1903J A. C. 414.] Assumpsit, on a charter-party, for freight, demurrage, &c. The declaration stated the instrument as " a certain charter-party of affreightment then made between the plaintiff, then and still being the owner of the good ship or vessel called 'Ann,'" and the defendant. Pleas: 11011 assumpsit; and others which it is unnecessary to state. On the trial, before VVightman J., at the Durham Summer Assizes, 1847, the charber-party was put in, signed, not by the plaintiff, but by her son : and the words of agreement were: "It is" "mutually agreed between C. J. Humble, Esq." (the son), "owner of the good ship or vessel called the 'Ann,'" "and Jameson Hunter," the defendant. Humble the sou was called as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff, to prove that she was the real owner of the vessel, and that he had signed the charter-party as her agent, and not as principal. This line of examination was objected to on the ground that a person who has signed a contract expressly as principal cannot be admitted to prove, in contradiction to the written instrument, that he was merely an agent. The evidence was received, and a verdict found for the plaintiff. Watson, in Michaelmas term, 1847, moved for a new trial on account of the reception of this evidence, and on other grounds. The Court granted a rule nisi, on this point only. [311] In last Eastar vacation (a), and on this day, Knowles and F. Robinson shewed cause, " It is the constant course to shew by parol evidence, whether a contracting party is agent or principal;" per Park J. in Wilson v. Hart (7 Taunt. 295, 304). There the bought note named Reed as the purchaser, but it was held allowable to prove that the defendant was so in reality. A party meaning to act as ageut may bind himself iu such form that he cannot be treated otherwise than as principal; Appldon v. Binks (5 East, 148), where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chris O'kane (for and on Behalf of Himself, Syndicate 2020 and all Other and Another v Jonathan Jones (for and on Behalf of Himself, Syndicate 329 and all Other Lloyd's Underwriters Subscribing to Policy No. Aa111350t) and Others
...127 In my judgment, both limbs of Jones' argument fail. Taking the second first, this is not one of those rare cases, exemplified by Humble v Hunter (1848) 12 QB 310, where the description of the party identified in the contract excludes the doctrine of undisclosed principal, whether or not......
- Eusof Ali and Another v Nyonya Lee Gaik Hooi
-
Siu Yin Kwan and Another v Eastern Insurance Company Ltd (The Barquentine Osprey)
... ... dependants obtaining statutory compensation and common law damages against employers - Employers wound up before payment made - Employers' rights ... Formby ( 1910 ) 102 L.T. 116 , C.A ... Humble v. Hunter ( 1848 ) 12 Q.B. 310 ... King, decd., In re [ 1963 ] ... ...
- Florence White and Others v Marics & Company Ltd and F P Fernandes