Heap and Others v Dobson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 1863 |
| Date | 06 November 1863 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 143 E.R. 864
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
[460] heap and others r. dobhon. Nov. fith, 186:i. A.", B., and C; agreed that each should furnish 30001. worth of goods, to be shipped on a joint; ad venture, the profits to be divide1! according to the amount of their several shipments :-Held, that this did not constitute a partnership between the three, so as to make B. and C. responsible for goods bought by A. to furnish his quota of the cargo. This was an action for goods sold and delivered. Plea, never indebted. The cause was tried before Erie, 0. J"., at the sittings in London after last Trinity Tarm. The facts which appeared in evidence were as follows : -Pearson, of Hull, was the owner of a vessel called the " Petershoff," with which he, Dobson, and one C. had had profit and loss transactions. Pearson representing to them that he had a cargo of cotton, turpenline, and other goods on the southern coast of the United States, it was by an Agreement dated the 29th of May, !Nfi2, arranged that the "PetershofF" (which was chartered to Dobson) should go out for the purpose of bringing them home on- joint account of the threa, and that goods to the amount of ,'JOOOl, should be shipped by efech of the three for an outward cargo, and sold on joint account, the profit of each ion the outward cargo to be according to the value of the goods shipped byi each. Accordingly, Dobson, who was a wine and spirit merchant, put on board wihes and spirits to an amount exceeding 30001., C. also shipped 30001. worth of other goods, and Pearson shipped, amongst other things, goods to the amount of 13771. 5s., which he had obtained on credit from the plaintiffs. Pearson having (a) See Hancock v. Austen, 14 C. B. (N. S.) 634. 18 C. B. (N. S.)46L HEAP V. DOBSON 865 become bankrupt, the plaintiffs discovered that the goods were shipped as a joint adventure, and accordingly sued Dobson for the price. Pearson, who was called as a witness, swore that he had no authority to pledge the credit of his co-adventurers, otherwise than as might be implied from the agreement. On the part of the plaintiffs, it was insisted that [461] this was a joint-adventure, and constituted a joint liability in the three as partners. His Lordship, however, was of opinion that the purchase of the goods was the separate adventure of each, and that the circumstance of their having a joint interest in the result of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial