Hardman and Others v Booth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 January 1863 |
| Date | 12 January 1863 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 158 E.R. 1107
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C. 32 L. J. Ex. 105; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 81; 11 W. R 239; 7 L. T. 638. Followed, Hollins v. Fowler, 1875, L. R. 7 H. L. 757; Cundy v. Lindasy, 1878, 3 A C 467 Referred to Cole v. North Western Bank, 1875, L. R 10 C. P. 373, Arnold v Cheque Bank, 1876, 1 C. P. D. 585.
harbman and otetkrs v. booth. Jan. 12, 1863.-The plaintiff, a manufacturer, called at the place of business of "Gandell & Co." for orders for goods At that time the firm consisted of Thomas Gandell only, and the business was managed by Edward Gandell, a clerk. On inquiring for Messrs Gandell, the plaintiff was directed to a counting-house where he saw Edward Gandell, who led the plaintiff to believe that he was one of the firm of Gandell & Co , and under that belief, at the request of Edward Gandell, the plaintiff sent goods to the place of business of Gandell & Co., and invoiced them to "Edward Gandell & Co." Edward 1108 H A RDM AN V. BOOTH 1 H. & C. 804. Gandell, who, unknown to the plaintiff, carried on business with one Todd, pledged the goods with the defendant for advances bona fide made to Gandell & Todd, and the defendant afterwards sold the goods under a power of sale Held, that there was no contract of sale, inasmuch as the plaintift" believed that he was contracting with Gandell & Co., and not with Edward Gandell personally, and Gandell & Co. never authorized Edward Gandell to contract for them, consequently no property passed, and the defendant was liable in trover for the amount realized by the sale. [S C. 32 L. J. Ex. 105; 9 Jur. (N. S ) 81 ; 11 W. R 239; 7 L. T. 638. Followed, HolUns v. Fowler, 1875, L. R. 7 H. L. 757 ; Cundy v. Lwihay, 1878, 3 A C 467 Referred to, Cole v. Notth We&in Bank, 1875, L. R 10 C. P. 373, Ainold v C'%we Bank, 1876, 1 C. P. D. 585.] Trover for twenty-two pieces of serge and eighty-two pieces of woollen linings of the plaintiffs. Pleas. First: Not guilty. Second: that the goods are not the plaintiffs' Issues thereon. At the trial, before Martin, B, at the London Sittings after last Trinity Term, the following facts appeared :-The plaintiffs were worsted manufacturers at Rowton-atall, near Manchester, and they employed Messrs Hughes and Keighley as then London agents. In May, 1862, one of the plaintiffs being in London, and having heard of a firm of Gandell & Co., in Joiners' Hall Buildings, Upper Thames Stieet, called, with Keighley, at those premises and inquired for Messrs. Gandell...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company
...Bank of Africa LtdELR [1987] QB 599. Hadley v BaxendaleENRENR (1854) 9 Exch 341; 156 ER 145. Hardman v BoothENRENR (1863) 1 H & C 803; 158 ER 1107. Helbert Wagg & Co Ltd, ReELR [1956] Ch 323. Hillesden Securities Ltd v Ryjack LtdWLR [1983] 1 WLR 959. Hiort v London and North Western Railway......
-
Delaney v Wallis & Son
...P. 192. Lee v. BayesENR 18 C. B. 599. Fowler v. Hollins, ELR L. R. 7 Q. B. 616. Greenway v. FisherENR 1 C. & P. 190. Hardman v. BoothENR 1 H. & C. 803. Fairlie v. FentonELR L. R. 5 Exch. 169. Baring v. CorrieENR 2 B. & Ald. 137. Pott v. TurnerENR 6 Bing. 706. Lindsay v. CundyELR 1 Q. B. Div......
-
Ingram v Little
...line case decided on its own particular facts and is in no wise decisive of the case before us. 68 The case of Hardman v. Booth 1 Hurlstone & Coltman 803 was decided the other way. There the plaintiffs, going to the place of business of Gandell & Co. which consisted only of Thomas Gandell, ......
-
Osborne v. Pavlick, [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. C99
...error as truth. And see also Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th ed., Vol. 31 at 639-40; Hardman v. Booth (1863), 1 H. & C. 803, 158 E.R. 1107; and Howse v. Quinnel Motors Ltd. (1949), [1952] 2 D.L.R. 425 (B.C.C.A.). I do not consider that cases such as Sorensen v. Kaye Holdings Ltd. ,......
-
Mistake
...The same result may occur where one party falsely purports to act as an agent for a third party. See Hardman v Booth (1863), 1 H & C 803, 158 ER 1107; for discussion of which, see MacMillan, Mistakes , above note 15 at 224–29. See also Lake v Simmons , [1927] AC 487 (HL); Cuff-Waldron v Hea......