Isaac Robinson, surviving Administrator of the Estate of George Robinson, deceased, - Appellant; Daniel Alexander, on behalf of himself and other the Creditors of the said Intestate, George Robinson, - Respondent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 5 E.R. 973
COURT OF CHANCERY.
Mews' Dig. ix. 47; xiii. 47. S.C. 2 C1. & F. 717. Commented on in Knox v. Gye, 1872, L. R. 5 H. L. 666; and see Friend v. Young, [1897] 2 Ch. 421, 427; and Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856, s. 9, which abolished exception in Statute of Limitations in favour of merchants' accounts.
[352] ENGLAND. COURT OF CHANCERY. isaac kobinson, surviving Administrator of the Estate of george robinson, deceased,-Appellant; daniel alexander, on behalf of himself and other the Creditors of the said Intestate, george robinson,-Respondent [1834]. [Mews' Dig. ix. 47 ; xiii. 47. S.C. 2 Cl. & F. 717. Commented on in Knox v. Gye, 1872, L. R. 5 H. L. 666; and see Friend v. Young, [1897] 2 Ch. 421, 427; and Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856, s. 9, which abolished exception in Statute of Limitations in favour of merchants' accounts.] A., in 1799, purchased shares in a ship, of G. R., who, having also shares in the same ship, was intrusted by A. and the other part owners with the whole management of the ship, and to keep the accounts relating to it from the time of the purchase until the ship was sold by G. R., with the consent of all the owners, in 1805. Upon the occasion of the sale, G. R. stated and settled accounts with W., one of the part owners, and paid him the balance due upon the earnings of the ship and the proceeds of the sale. In 1824 G. R. died. Upon a bill filed by A. in March, 1826, for an account against the executors of G. R., it appeared by a ledger (found in a room wholly disused by G. R.) containing the accounts of the ship, that the credit and debit account between him and A. was not carried beyond 1805. On the debit side there were two items, one in 1811, and another in 1812. It appeared in evidence that A. left England in 1820, and some time after his departure his brother-in-law (a witness for A.) called several times upon G. R. with messages from A., and on those occasions asked him to come to a settlement with A. respecting the ship: that G. R. evaded the subject, but never stated that he was not indebted to A. Under these circumstances an account was decreed against the executors of A., and that decree affirmed on appeal. [353] This was an app'eal against a decree for an account, pronounced by his Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England on a bill filed by the Respondent. The bill, which was filed in the month of March, 1826, stated that the Respondent, in the month of October, 1799, purchased of the intestate, George Robinson, six sixteen parts or shares of a ship called The Volunteer, for the sum of £1687 10s.; and in the month of November, 1799, the Respondent purchased of the intestate other two sixteenths, or one eighth part or share of and in the same ship, for the sum of £562 10s. : that the Respondent paid to the intestate the full amount of the purchase money for these shares; and bills of sale were duly executed to the Respondent, and all the regulations of the Ship Registry Acts complied with, so that the Respondent was fully and legally invested with the ownership of these eight sixteenth shares in the ship 973 VIII BLIGH N. S. ROBINSON V. ALEXANDER [1834] Volunteer: that George Robinson, the intestate, carried on business in Tower Street, in the city of London, as an insurance broker, at the time of the Respondent's purchase; and he (George Robinson), having also certain shares in the same ship, was entrusted by the Respondent and the other part owners with the whole management of the ship and the accounts relating thereto; and he undertook and agreed to act, and, in fact, did continue to act as managing owner of the ship, and kept all the accounts relating to the ship from the time when he and the Respondent so became joint owners up to the time when both he and the Respondent sold their shares in that ship: that during the period of such their [354] joint ownership, the ship made considerable earnings, and the intestate, George Robinson, received all the proceeds of those earnings, which amounted altogether to a large sum of money, but he never accounted to the Respondent for his share of the earnings : that in the month of January, 1805, the intestate, George Robinson, with the consent of the Respondent and the other part owners, sold the ship for a large sum of money, and received on account of the Respondent, his (the Respondent's) share of the money produced by that sale, but died before he had accounted'with the Respondent for the money received by him in respect of the sale and earnings of the ship : that on the occasion of the sale in 1805, the intestate stated and settled the accounts between himself and Mr. Wheeler, who was owner of one sixteenth share in the same ship during the period that the Respondent was owner of the eight sixteenth shares. On this settlement of accounts between Mr. Wheeler and the intestate, it appeared that there was due from the intestate to Mr. Wheeler, in respect of the earnings of the ship and proceeds of the sale, the sum of £141 17s. 4d. on account of Mr. Wheeler's one sixteenth share, and that balance was accordingly paid over by the intestate to Mr. Wheeler: that the Respondent was not informed of the fact of this settlement of accounts between the intestate and Mr. Wheeler : that from the time of the sale of the ship up to the time of the intestate's death, the Respondent frequently applied to him for an account of the earnings of the ship and the proceeds of the sale, but could never obtain it, although it was repeatedly promised by the intestate, even up to the time of his death: that in November, [355] 1824, the intestate, George Robinson, died; and in December, 1824, letters of administration of the estate and effects of the intestate were granted by the Prerogative Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury to his brothers the Appellant Isaac Robinson, and John Robinson, since deceased, who possessed themselves of the personal estate and effects of the intestate to,a large amount, and to an amount more than sufficient to pay his just debts, including what was due to the Respondent in respect of the matters aforesaid. The bill prayed, "'that an account might be taken by and under the direction " of the Court of what was due to the Respondent in respect of the matters aforesaid, " and that the Respondent might be paid what should be found due on settling that " account; and that, in case the Appellant and the said John Robinson should not " admit assets of the intestate, George Robinson, sufficient to pay his debts, including " what should be found due to the Respondent in respect of the matteis aforesaid, " then that the usual accounts might be taken of the personal estate and effects of " the intestate, George Robinson, received by the Appellant and the said John Robin-" son respectively, or either of them, or by their or either of their order, or for their " or either of their use, and of the application thereof, and that the same might be " applied in a due course of administration." The Appellants, by their answer, stated, that among the papers which came into the possession of the Appellant and John Robinson, upon the death of the intestate, were two letters, bearing date respectively the 10th day of June, 1799, and [356] the 27th day of August in the same year, and written by the Respondent to the intestate, which contained some general proposals on the part of the Respondent to become concerned with the intestate in some engagement or speculation relating to shipping; and amongst other accounts contained in one of the books of account of the intestate (Ledger A.), was an account headed " Dr., Daniel Alexander, " Lawrence Pountney Lane, Contra Or.; " and by the said books of account it appeared that the Respondent and the intestate were respectively interested in the ship Volunteer from some time about the month of September, 1799, to some time about the month of October, 1804, and that the Respondent held eight sixteenth shares in the ship, and that the intestate held four sixteenth shares in and was the 974 ROBINSON V. ALEXANDER [1834] VIH BLIGH N. S. managing owner of the ship. By the same books it also appeared that the ship made certain freight, and that the same was received by the intestate, and that the intestate paid the outfit and expenses of the ship, and also the cost of certain investments or adventures in goods shipped on board her for or on account of the owners, and that upon two occasions, namely, after the ship's first and second voyages respectively, dividends were made and credited by the intestate to the owners of the ship in respect of her supposed or computed earnings : that in the account in Ledger A., so headed as aforesaid, which appeared to be a general account between the Respondent and the intestate, the sum of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Webber v Tivill
...in the House of Lords that the exception applies to accounts in which there has been no item on either side for more than six years. 8 Bligh, N. S. 352, 315, Robinson v. Alexander, overruling .Sarier v. Barber, 18 Ves. 286. - Money advanced to a customer by a banker is a loan, and constitut......
-
Forbes v Skelton
...v. SkmMing (6 T. R. 189), Webber v. Tivill (2 Saund. 121, 127, note), Ormston v. Hamilton (8 Bro. P. C. 440), Robinson v. Alexander (8 Bligh, N, S. 352). If, however, it is necessary, in order to exclude some accounts from the operation of the statute, that the last item should be within si......
-
Adams v Barry
...place, submitted that the Plaintiff was barred by the Statute of Limitations ; Ault v. Goodrich (4 Euss. 430), Alexander v. Robinson (8 Bligh (N. S.), 352 ; 3 Cl. & Fin. 717), Barber v. Barber (18 Ves. .286); secondly, they observed that, although the bill contained charges as to the 740 AD......
-
Tatam v Williams
...much shaken by the observations of Lord Brougham in moving the judgment of the House of Lords in the case of Robinson v. Alexander (8 Bligh (N. S.), 352 ; 2 01. & Fin. 717). For, notwithstanding Lord Cottenham's remark in Mirehouse v. Scaife (2 Myl. & Cr. 704), to the effect that the judgme......