Hawken v Bourne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 June 1841 |
| Date | 17 June 1841 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 1223
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 10 L. J. Ex. 361. See 6 M. & W. 461; 7 M. & W. 595; 151 E. R. 905 (with note).
[703] vacation sittings after. trinity Tuinc. hawken . bourne. Exch. of Pleas. June 17, 1841.-A joint-stock company was formed to work a mine, in which the defendant became a shareholder, and took part in its proceedings. The prospectus issued on the formation of the company stated, that all supplies for the mine were to be purchased at cash prices, aiid no debt was to be incurred ; and the scrip certificates also bore an indorsement to the same effect. The plaintiff' supplied goods for the necessary working of the mine, on the order of a resident agent appointed by the directors to manage the mine, which was the customary course in such concerns :-Held, that the defendant was liable to the plaintiff for the price of such goods, notwithstanding the statements in the prospectus and certificate, unless it were shewn that the agent had in fact no authority from the defendant, and that the plaintiff' had notice thereof. [S. C. 10 L. J. Ex. 361. See 6 M. & W. 461 : 7 M. & W. 595; 151 E. E. 905 (with note).] Debt for work and labour and materials, for the carriage and conveyance of goods, for goods sold and delivered, and on an account stated. Plea, nunquam indebitatus. At the trial before Maule, J., at the Summer Assizes for Cornwall, 1840, it appeared that the action was brought against the defendant as a shareholder in the Trewolvas Mine, in the parish of St. Columb Major, Cornwall, for goods supplied by the plaintiff lor the necessary working of the mine, on the order1 of the purser or agent of the directors, which was shewn to be the customary course in such concerns. It was proved that the defendant had become a shareholder at the time of the establishment of the concern, in 1836, that he had paid several sums of money towards the working of the mine, that he had been in Cornwall during the period of its working, and that he had attended a, meeting of shareholders in Liverpool, and had taken part in the removal and appointment of directors. For the defendant, the prospectus issued on the formation of the company was put in, which stated, that all supplies for the mine were to be purchased at cash prices, and no debt was to be incurred. The scrip certificates issued to the shareholders also bore an indorsement to the same effect. There was no evidence that the plaintiff had any knowledge of the defendant's being a shareholder. The learned Judge, in summing up, told the jury that he thought that, the mine being worked with [704] the knowledge and for the benefit of the defendant, he was liable on contracts entered into for articles ordered in the Usual way of conducting such concerns on behalf of the owners, unless the party ordering them was in fact not authorized by the defendant, and the plaintiff had notice of that fact. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 37. In the following Michaelmas Term, Crowder obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection : against which Cockbuni and Butt shewed cause at the sittings after Hilary Term, (Feb. 11 and 13). This case is substantially the same as that of Tretlwenv. bourne (6 M. & W. 461), except that here the evidence was somewhat stronger to shew the defendant's interference in the undertaking. It will be said, however...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re The Norwich Yarn Company ex parte Bignold
...Hare, 218); Dickinson v. Falpy (10 B. & C. 128); Tredwen v. Bourne (6 M. & W. 461); Hawtayne v. Bourne (7 M. & W. 595); Hawken v. Bourne (8 M. & W. 703); Rkketts v. Bennett (4 C. B. 686); Bramah v. Roberts (3 Bing. N. C. 963); Green-òwoofs case (3 De G. M. & Gor. 459); Gillan v. Mor-\l4&\-r......
-
The Joint Stock Companies Winding-Up Act, 1848; and of The Joint Stock Companies Winding-Up Amendment Act, 1849; and The German Mining Company The Case of Samuel Ball, William Haigh, Francis Ramsbotham, William Rothert, William Wood-Roffe, and Emily Duncan Harvey. Exparte William Chippendale, Charles Chippendale, and Thomas Hughes. Before the Lords Justices
...by the agent in order to pay the arrears of the wages due to the labourers in the mine; but in another of those cases, Hawken v. Bourne (8 M. & W. 703), it was held that a shareholder was liable for goods supplied for the necessary working of the mine on the order of the resident agent. Wha......
-
Ricketts and Another v Bennett and Field
...v. Yalpy (10 B. & C. 128, 5 M. & E. 126), Tredwen v. Bourne (6 M. & W. 461), Hawtayne v. Bourne (7 M. & W. 595), Hawken v. Bourne (8 M. & W. 703), Orawshay v. Maule (1 Swanst. 495), Exparte Bonbonus (8 Ves. 540), and Taylor v. Fisher (2 Hare, 228). Butt, Kinglake, Serjt., and Merivale, shew......
-
Forbes and Others v Marshall
...themselves respecting their liability is wholly inoperative as against third parties, unless they are aware of it Hawken v. Boinne (8 M & W. 703). It will be argued, however, that this being a joint-stock company, the liability of its members depends on the language of the deed of settlemen......