Hasleham against Samuel Young and William Samuel Young
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 April 1844 |
| Date | 15 April 1844 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 114 E.R. 1463
IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. D. & M. 700; 13 L. J. Q. B. 205; 8 Jur. 338. Considered and applied, Brettel v. Williams, 1849, 19 L. J. Ex. 124.
[833] hasleham against samuel young and william samuel young. Monday, April 15th, 1844. Y. and S. were attorneys in partnership. S. gave an undertaking that, in consideration of the plaintiff in au action giving the defendant in that action his discharge from custody, " we hereby agree " to pay such plaintiff the debt and costs on a day named. S. signed this, "Y. and S., defendant's attorneys," but afterwards struck out the words " defendant's attorneys." It was not proved that the defendant had employed the firm, but only that S. had been employed by him to wind up bis affairs; nor was any evidence given of recognition or knowledge by Y., or of authority from him to S., by previous practice or otherwise, to give such a guarantee. Held, that Y, was not liable on the guarantee. [S. C. D. & M. 700; 13 L. J. Q. B. 205; 8 Jur. 338. Considered and applied, Brettel v. Williams, 1849, 19 L. J. Ex. 124.] Aasumpsit. The first count stated that, before and at the time of making the promise after mentioned, W. F. Dick was lawfully in custody under a ca. sa. sued out of the Exchequer by plaintiff against Dick; and thereupon afterwards, to wit, &c., in consideration that plaintiff, at the request of defendants, would give Dick his discharge from the said custody, defendants, by a certain memorandum in writing, then agreed to pay plaintiff, or his attorney G. W., on^&e., 991. 11s., with interest, &c.: averment that plaintiff, confiding, &c., did then give his discharge from custody to Dick, who was then consequently discharged, &o.; of all which defendants had notice : that the time for paying was elapsed: and that no portion was paid by Dick or any [834] other person. Breach : nonpayment of principal or interest by defendants. Second count, on an account stated. Plea, non assumpsit. Issue thereon, On the trial, before Lord Denman C.J. at the London sittings after Easter term, 1843, the plaintiff produced a written guarantee, signed "Young and Son," and corresponding with the description of the promise in the first count of the deolara- 1464 LE VEUX V. BERKELEY 5 Q. B. 835. tion (a). The two defendants were father and son, attorneys, in partnership. The signature was in the son's writing. The signature was originally " Young...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Governor and Company of The Bank of Scotland and Henry Butcher & Company and Others
...or ostensible authority to give a guarantee: Duncan v Lowndes and Bateman (1813) 3 Camp 478, Sandilands v Marsh (1819) 2 B & Ald 673, Hasleham v Young (1844) 5 QB 833 and Brettel v Williams (1849) 4 Ex 623. 17 Thus in Duncan v Lowndes, a case involving Liverpool merchants, Lord Ellenborough......
- Madam Packiam Ramalingam v Badan Peguam Malaysia
-
Silver (Geoffrey) & Drake v Baines
... ... on behalf of GEOFFREY SILVER & Drake against Thomas Anthony Baines to issue a writ of ... ...
-
Ledchumiah A/L Ramamoorthypoh Ling Property (Ns) Sdn. Bhd. v Ledchumiah A/L Ramamoorthypoh Ling Property (Ns) Sdn. Bhd., 01-10-2010
...Bank v. Tucker [1867] 17 LT 13) provided the partner was acting within his authority when he gave that undertaking 10 (Hasleham v. Young [1844] 5 QB 833). There was nothing the affidavit to show that the undertaking was mistakenly given. No solicitor from the law firm of Messrs Srine & Co d......