Holroyd v Griffiths
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 January 1856 |
| Date | 17 January 1856 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 61 E.R. 966
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Lien.
[428] holroyd v. griffiths. Jan. 16, 17, 1856, ' Lien, A., being interested in a moiety of a cargo, and having entered into a contract with B. to let him have half his share, wrote to G. and D., the consignees, informing them and authorizing them to sell the cargo and carry the proceeds to their separate accounts. The consignees acted upon this, and made advances to B., and B. also charged his interest in favor of E. It had been agreed between A. and B. that they should pay for the cargo by two bills, each to be paid by one of them. B. did not pay his bill; it did not appear whether A. had paid it or not. Held, that A. had no lien on the proceeds of B.'s share, either as against him, as against C. and D., or against E. Messrs. Dickens and Holroyd, some time in 1840, entered into contracts in India for the purchase of certain boxes of indigo for a sum between 60,000 and 61,000. Part was paid by bills, which were duly honored, and upon which nothing turned ; 100,000 rupees remained to be paid by Holroyd. Holroyd made a sub-agreement as to his moiety with Mr. Thomas, and it was agreed between them that the lOOjOOO rupees should be paid by them jointly; and; to carry this into effect, Thomas drew upon Holroyd, and Holroyd accepted, two bills for 50,000 rupees each, of which one was to be paid by Holroyd and one by Thomas. The indigo was consigned to Griffiths & Co. in London for sale, accompanied by a letter from Dickens and Holroyd, directing them to sell the indigo on their, joint account. To this letter was added a postscript by Holroyd, informing Griffiths & Co. that he had given over half his ventur'e to Thomas, and directing them to carry to their respective accounts the profits of account sales accordingly. This letter was dated the 16th March 1840. Griffiths & Co. sold the indigo by the end of 1841, and carried the net proceeds, after deducting their charges, &c., as directed, half to Holroyd's separate account and half to Thomas's separate account. Subsequently Holroyd wrote to countermand his postscript, but not before Griffiths & Go., treating the half carried to Thomas's separate account, had entered into transactions with him and made him advances on the faith of its being his property; [429] and Thomas, acting on the same assumption, had made an equitable assignment of so much of it as remained due to him from Griffiths & Co. to Briggs & Co., other Defendants.- Holroyd duly paid his bill for 50,000 rupees; Thomas never paid his. The bill was filed by Holroyd against Griffiths & Co., Thomas, and Briggs & Co., and proceeded on the allegation that Holroyd had paid Thomas's bill for 50,000 rupees; and it prayed a declaration that he had a lien 3 DEEWRt, 430. HOLROYD V: GRIFFIfHS 967 for it on the proceeds of Thomas's share in the hands of Griffiths & Co., for the purpose of making good to the Plaintiff, and indemnifying him against all sums, losses, &c., incurred and to be incurred by him in respect of the bill for 50,000 rupees ; and that an account might be taken of such losses, and that the amount might be raised and paid out of the proceeds remaining in the hands of Griffiths & Co. The evidence shewed that Thomas's bill had never been presented to Holroyd, and that he had never paid any part of it, except thus far-that the agents of the vendors, long after the bill became due, informing him that it was'not paid and that they must make Thomas pay, and, being in want of money, he gave them a bill for 20,000 rupees. Whether he had ever paid that bill or any part of it did not appear, nor did it appear whether it was given specifically in part payment of the 50,000 rupees bill or as a distinct accommodation transaction. The remaining material facts are noticed in the judgment. Mr. Swanston and Mr. G. L. Russell, for the Plaintiff, argued that the transaction between Holroyd and Thomas was a partnership transaction, that Griffiths had due notice of that fact by the letter, and that, notwithstanding the postscript, they could not repudiate that notice ; that, therefore, they held the proceeds subject to a partnership [430] lien, and had no right to deal with it as Thomas's separate property. Mr. Baily, for Griffiths & Co. Firstly, there is no evidence that the Plaintiff has paid anything. There is no statement in the bill that the bill for 20,000 rupees was given, and it is only On the re-examination of the Plaintiff that it appears ; but there is no proof whatever that it was paid. In fact it is clear it was not paid. It got into the Union Bank on...
To continue reading
Request your trial