Hardman and Others v Booth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Exchequer |
| Judgment Date | 12 January 1863 |
| Date | 12 January 1863 |
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...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free 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......
-
Ingram v Little
...T.L.R. 417, H.L. applied. Phillips v. Brooks Ltd. [1919] 2 K.B. 243; 35 T.L.R. 470 distinguished. Hardman v. Booth (1863) 1 H.L.C. 803; 158 E.R. 1107 and Cundy v. Lindsay (1878) 3 A.C. 459, H.L. Per Devlin L.J. There was nothing to rebut the ordinary presumption that the first plaintiff was......
-
Lake v Simmons
... ... 218; Cundy v. Lindsay F4 ; Cole v. North Western Bank F5 ; Kingsford v. Merry F6 ; Hardman v. Booth F7 ; Phillips v. Huth F8 ; Cahn and Mayer v. Pockett's Bristol Channel Steam Packet Co ... , is a jeweller at Exeter who became insured in 1922 by a Lloyd's policy underwritten, among others, by the respondent, to cover risks up to a total of 16,000 l. for twelve months. The property so ... ...
-
Lake v Simmons
... ... to her qua customer, but as a mere agent or messenger for the purpose of showing them to others who might possibly become customers. That, however, is an unsubstantial distinction. His Lordship ... to includes a mistake as to the identity of the person obtaining the possession, as in Hardman v. Booth F9 and Cundy v. Lindsay. F10 Here she represented that she was Mr. Van der Borgh's ... ...
-
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......