John Collen, against Mary Wright, Robert John Wright and Adam Taylor the Younger, Executrix and Executors of Robert Wright
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 120 E.R. 241
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 27 L. J. Q. B. 215; 4 Jur. N. S. 357; 6 W. R. 123. Limited, Robson v. Turnbull, 1858, 1 F. & F. 369. See, Pow v. Davis, 1861, 1 B. & S. 220. Applied, Hughes v. Graeme, 1864, 33 L. J. Q. B. 338. Explained, Henderson v. Squire, 1868, L. R. 4 Q. B. 174. Applied, Spedding, v. Nevell, 1869, L. R. 4 C. P. 223; Cherry v. Colonial Bank of Australasia, 1869, L. R. 3 P. C. 32; Richardson v. Williamson, 1871, L. R. 6 Q. B. 279. Referred to Mountstephen v. Lakeman, 1871-74, L. R. 7 Q. B. 201; L. R. 7 H. L. 17; Beattie v. Ebury, 1872-74, L. R. 7 Ch. 778; L. R. 7 H. L. 102. Distinguished, Weeks v. Propert, 1873, L. R. 8 C. P. 437. Explained, Dickson v. Reuter's Telegraph Company, 1877, 2 C. P. D. 68; 3 C. P. D. 5. Considered, Chapleo v. Brunswick Building Society, 1881, 6 Q. BD. 706. Applied, In re National coffee Palace Company, 1883, 24 Ch. D. 371. Applied, Firbank v. Humphreys, 1866, 18 Q. B. D. 59; Hammond v. Bussey, 1887, 20 Q. B. D. 90. Referred to, In re Britannia Fire Association [1891] 1 Ch. 211; Gaskell v. Gosling [1896] 1 Q. B. 685; [1897] A. C. 575. Distinguished, Dunn v. Macdonald [1897] 1 Q. B. 401, 555. Followed, Halbot v. Lens, [1901] 1 Ch. 344. Explained, Oliver v. Bank of England, [1901] 1 Ch. 652; [1902] 1 Ch. 610; [1903] A. C. 114. Referred to, Sheffield Corporation v. Barcley, [1903] 1 K. B. 18; [1905] A. C. 404. Distinguished, Salvesen v. Rederi Aktiebolaget Nord-Stijernan, [1905] A. C. 302. Referred to, Bank of England v. Cutler, [1907] 1 K. B. 904; [1908] 2 K. B. 208. Followed, Yonge v. Toynbee, [1910] 1 K. B. 215.
[647] gases argued and determined in michaelmas vacation XXL victoria. The Court of Queen's Bench did not sit in bane in this Vacation. in the exchequer chamber. john collen, against mary wright, robert john wright and adam taylor the younger, Executrix and Executors of Robert Wright. 1857. Defendant's testator, W., professing to act as agent for G., made an agreement with the plaintiff for the lease of a farm belonging to G., and signed it " W., agent to G., lessor." He had not, in fact, authority from G. - Held, on appeal, in affirmance of the judgment of the Queen's Bench, by the Court of Exchequer Chamber (Cockburn C.J. dissentiente), that there was a contract on the part of W. that he had authority, on which his representatives were liable. - Plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance against G. Plaintiff gave notice, on hearing that G. denied the authority of W., to W. that plaintiff would proceed with the suit at W.'s risk, unless W. gave him notice not to proceed ; and, in the event of hia bill being dismissed on account of absence of authority, would hold W. liable. W. answered by denying all liability, but without retracting his assertion that he had authority. The bill was dismissed on the ground of W.'s want of authority. - Held by the Exchequer Chamber (in affirmance of the decision of the Queen's Bench) that the testator was liable for the costs of the suit, they being, under the circumstances, a natural and direct consequence of the contract that there was authority. [S. C. 27 L. J. Q. B. 215 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 357; 6 W. R. 123. Limited, Eobson v, Turnbull, 1858, 1 F. & F. 369. See, Paw v. Davis, 1861, 1 B. & S. 220. Applied, Hughes v. Graeme, 1864, 33 L. J. Q. B. 338. Explained, Henderson v. Squire, 1868, L. R. 4 Q. B. 174. Applied, Spedding v. Nevell, 1869, L. R. 4 C. P. 223; Cherry v. Colonial Bank of Australasia, 1869, L. R. 3 P. C. 32; Richardson v. Williamson, 1871, L. R. 6 Q. B. 279. Referred to, Mountstephen v. Lakeman, 1871-74, L. R. 7 Q. B. 201 ; L. R. 7 H. L. 17 ; Beatlie v. Ebury, 1872-74, L. R. 7 Ch. 778 ; L. R, 7 H. L. 102. Distinguished, Weeks v. Propert, 1873, L. R. 8 C. P, 437. Explained, Dickson v. Renter's Telegraph Company, 1877, 2 C. P. D. 68 ; 3 C. P. D. 5. Considered, Chapleo v. Brunswick Building Society, 1881, 6 Q. B. D. 706. Applied, In re National Coffee Palace Company, 1883, 24 Ch. D. 371. Applied, Firbank v. Humphreys, 1866, 18 Q. R D. 59; Hammond v. Bussey, 1887, 20 Q. B. D. 90. Referred to, In re Britannia Fire Association, [1891] 1 Ch. 211 ; Gaskellv. Gosling, [1896] 1 Q. B. 685; [1897] A. C. 575. Distinguished, Dunn v. Macdonald, [1897] 1 Q. B. 401, 555. Followed, Halbot v. Lens, [1901] 1 Ch. 344. Explained, Oliver v. Bank of England, [1901] 1 Ch. 652; [1902] 1 Ch. 610; [1903] A. C. 114. Referred to, Sheffield Corporation v. Barclay, [1903] 1 K. B. 18; [1905] A. C. 404. Distinguished, Snkesen v. Rederi AMebolaget Nord-Stjeman, [1905] A. C. 302. Referred to, Bank 242 COLLBN V. WRIGHT EL. ft BL. 648. of England v. Cutler, [1907] 1 K. B. 904; [1908] 2 K. B. 208. Followed, Yonge v. Toynbee, [1910] 1 K. B. 215.] Appeal from the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench on a case stated without pleadings. The [648] case will be found stated in full in the report below; Collen v. Wright(a)1. In substance, it stated that the testator Wright was land agent for a gentleman named Gardner, and, as such, made an agreement with the plaintiff for the lease to him for 12^ years of a farm of Gardner's. A formal agreement bet ween landlord and lessee was drawn up and signed by the testator in the following form : "Robert Wright, agent to William Dunn Gardner Esquire, lessor." It was also signed by plaintiff. The plaintiff entered on the farm on the strength of this agreement. Mr, Gardner refused to execute any such lease, alleging, accurately as it proved, that he had conferred on the testator no authority to agree for a lease for so long a term. The plaintiff bad commenced a suit in Chancery against Gardner for a specific performance. On discovering the ground of defence, his solicitors sent to Wright a formal notice that, unless they received from Wright notice to the contrary, the plaintiff would proceed with the suit at Wright's expence; and, in the event of his bill being dismissed on the ground of the absence of authority, would commence an action to recover the costs and other damages by reason of Wright's want of authority. Wright's solicitor sent an answer, dated llth April 1855, denying Wright's liability to any action, but not containing any admission that Wright had not bad full authority. The suit was proceeded with, and the bill dismissed with costs, on the ground that Wright had no authority from Gardner to sign the agreement. The case in the Queen's Bench was stated after Wright's death, and submitted two questions to the Court: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to maintain an action against the defendants, as executrix [649] and executors of the said Robert Wright, to recover damages; 2. Whether, if so, the whole of the damages sustained by the plaintiff, including his costs of the said suit in Chancery can be recovered ; or, if some of such damages and costs only can be recovered, which of them, and to what extent, without regard, however, to the exact amount. The case contained provisions for a judgment, subject to an arbitration to ascertain the amount of damages according to the principles laid down by the Court. The Court of Queen's Bench ordered that judgment should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial