Hart, Esq. v Henry Alexander, Esq
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Court | Exchequer (Scotland) |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 848
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. M. & H. 63; 6 L. J. Ex. 129; at Nisi Prius, 7 C. & P. 746. Referred to, Maxted v. Paine, 1871, L. R. 6 Ex. 157; Rouse v. Bradford Banking Company, [1894] 2 Ch. 54.
hart,| esq. v. henry alexander, Esq. Exeh. of Pleas. 1837.-H., an officer, sqrving in the King's forces in India, in 1815, deposited money with A., B., C|, & D., bankers, in Calcutta, trading under the firm of A. & Co. In 1818, A. cijrne to England, having executed a deed whereby he was to cease to be a partner in the firm in 1822, and E. was to be admitted a partner in his room. Ill 1822, A. accordingly retired from, and E. came into the partnership, and the dissolution was announced in the ColciMa Gazelle. It appeared to be the practice 2M. 4W.486. HART V. ALEXANDER 849 of the firm to give notice of changes of partnership to their customers by circular letters : there was, however, no proof that any letter reached H. announcing A/s retirement. In 1822, A. became a candidate for a seat in the direction of the East India Company, and repeatedly published an address to the proprietors of East India Stock in several newspapers, stating that his connexion with mercantile concerns in India had ceased. Two of these newspapers were taken in at the reading-room of a town where H., who had returned to England, was then resident. The accounts current of A. & Co., were transmitted yearly to H. from 1817 to 1832, and the rates of interest allowed on them varied several times after the year 1822. In 1831, H. executed a power of attorney to the then members of the firm of A. & Co., to collect the effects of a testator in India. In 1832, A. &Co. failed. In 1833, H. executed another power of attorney to C. (who also had then retired from the firm) to prove debts against the estate of the bankrupts, naming them, and describing them as carrying on business under the firm of A. & Co.), and to receive dividends :-Held, that these facts constituted sufficient evidence to go to the jury to shew that H. knew that A. had retired from the firm, and E. had come in in his place; and that he had agreed to discharge A. from liability, and take the new firm as his debtors. [H. C.' M. & H. 63 ; 6 L. J. Ex. 129 : at Nisi Prius, 7 C. & P. 746. Referred to, Maxted v. Paine, 1871, L. R, 6 Ex. 157; Rouse v. Bradford Banking Company, [1894] 2 Ch. 54.] Assumpsit for money lent, money had and received, interest, and on an account stated. The defendant pleaded, first, the general issue ; secondly, the Statute of Limita-[485J-tions; arid several other special pleas, of which the sixth only need be stated, which was aa follows:-That the defendant heretofore, to wit, prior to the month of May, 1822, carried on business as a partner in a certain copartnership, under the firm and style of Alexander & Co., and that the debt in the declaration mentioned was due and owing from the said firm of Alexander & Co. to the plaintiff. That heretofore, to wit, on the 1st May, 1822, the defendant retired from the said copartnership, and one Nathaniel Alexander then became a partner in the said firm, and the said business was continued to be carried on under the firm and style aforesaid, whereof the plaintiff then had notice ; and thereupon afterwards, in consideration that the said Nathaniel Alexander would, with the assent and knowledge of the plaintiff, when he should become partner as aforesaid, as a member of the said firm, become liable to and responsible for the said debt so due and owing as aforesaid to the plaintiff, the plaintiff agreed with the said firm, and with the defendant, to discharge, and did discharge, the defendant from all liability in respect thereof: that the said Nathaniel Alexander did become as aforesaid liable to and responsible for the said debt so due and owing as aforesaid, whereby the defendant became and was discharged as aforesaid. To this plea the plaintiff replied, that he did not agree with the said firm and the defendant to discharge, nor did he discharge the defendant from all liability in respect of the said debt or any part thereof, in manner and form &c.; on which issue was joined. At the trial before Lord Abinger, C. B., at the Middlesex Sittings after Hilary Term, it appeared that the action was brought to recover from the defendant the sum of 18,150L, being the value in English money of 148,771 sicca rupees, with interest thereon from the 30th April, 1832, at 5 per cent., alleged to be due to the plain-[486]-tiff from the defendant, as one of the partners in the firm of Alexander & Co., bankers at Calcutta, under the following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tito v Waddell (No. 2); Tito v Attorney General; Ocean Island (No. 2)
...19 Ves. 429. Halsall v. Brizell [1957] Ch. 169; [1957] 2 W.L.R. 123; [1957] 1 All E.R. 371. Hart v. Alexander (1837) 7 C. & P. 746; 2 M. & W. 484. Hart v. Hart (1881) 18 Ch.D. 670. Hasham v. Zenab [1960] A.C. 316; [1960] 2 W.L.R. 374, P.C. Hepenstall v. Wicklow County Council [1921] 2 I.R. ......
-
Ford against Beech
...has dealt with a new firm, have frequently been recognized : as in [864] Thompson v. Percival (5 B. & Ad. 925), and Hart v. Alexander (2 M. & W. 484), which were cited as authority by Wigram V.C. in Benson v. Hadfield (4 Hare, 32, 37). [Parke B. Those are cases in which a new party is adopt......
-
Oakford v European and American Steam Shipping Company
...release an ordinary surety, will release the retired partner: -Evans v. l)mmmomd (4 Esp. 89), Hart v. Alexander (7 Car. & P. 746; S. C. 2 M. & W. 484), OaMey v. Pasheller (4 Cl. & F. 207 ; 10 Bligh, 548). That the company in this case had notice of the retirement before the agreement by whi......
-
Cochrane v Green
...here of any communication between Smith and the plaintiff.] It is submitted that that does sufficiently appear. Hint v. AlrjMiulm', '2 M. & W. 484, is precisely in point. There, the plaintiff, an officer serving in the King's force in India, in 1815 deposited money with A., B., C., and 0., ......