Jones against Littledale and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 April 1837 |
| Date | 19 April 1837 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 186
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 1 N. & P. 677; 6 L. J. K. B. 169. Referred to, Johnston v. Usborne, 1840, 11 Ad. & E. 557. Followed, Higgens v. Senior, 1841, 8 Mee. & W. 845. Commented on Holding v. Elliott, 1860, 5 H. & N. 122. Principle applied, Fleet v. Murton, 1871, L. R. 7 Q. B. 131.
jones against littledale and others. Wednesday, April 19th, 1837. L. and Co., brokers at Liverpool, sold hemp by auction at their rooms, and gave an invoice, describing the goods as " bought of L. and Co.," and received part of the price, but failed to deliver the goods. An action being brought against them by the purchaser for the non-delivery, and for money had and received, Held, that L. and Co. had made themselves responsible as sellers, by the invoice; and could not defend themselves by evidence tending to shew that they sold as agents, and had intimated that fact before and at the time of the sale, and that, the principals being indebted to L. and Co., the invoice had been made out in their names, according to a custom of brokers in Liverpool, to secure the passing of the purchase-money through their hands. [S. C. 1 N. & P. 677 ; 6 L. J. K. B. 169. Referred to, Johnston v. Usborne, 1840, 11 Ad. & E. 557. Followed, Higgens v. Senior, 1841, 8 Mee. & W. 845. Commented on, Holding v. Elliott, 1860, 5 H. & N. 122. Principle applied, Fleet v. Murton, 1871, L. R. 7 Q. B. 131.] Assumpsit for not delivering a quantity of hemp, alleged to have been bought by the plaintiff of the defendants at the price of 1551. 14s. lid. There was also a count for money had and received, and on an account stated. The defendants pleaded to the first count, and all but 521. in the second count, non assumps-[487]-erunt; and as to that 521. a tender. The particulars of demand claimed 1551. 14s. lid. On the trial before Patteson J. at the last Liverpool Assizes, it appeared that the plaintiff had (in 1836), bought, by auction, at the rooms of the defendants, who were brokers at Liverpool, the hemp in question, to be paid for at certain times then agreed on : that the defendants afterwards sent an invoice of the goods, headed,- " Jones, Bought of J. and H. Littledale, Sixty-four bales of hemp. Payment fourteen days and six months. Received on account 1001. October 31. Settled November 26. (Signed by defendants' clerk.) 6 AD. &B.488. JONES V. LITTLEDALE 187 That the plaintiff, on the 31st of October, paid the defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Pernas Trading Sdn Bhd v Persatuan Peladang Bakti Melaka
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of Ecclesall Bierlow
...v. Ansett, 3 Wils. 275; Adams v. WordUy, 1 M. & W. 374, S. C. Tyrwh. & Gr. 620; Maget v. Atkinson, 2 M. & W. 440; Jones v. Littledale, 6 A. & E. 486; Paterson v. Gandasequi, 15 East, 62 ; 2 Phill. Ev. 767, &c. (8bh ed.). See Johnston v. Usborne, ante, p. 549. 11AD.&I.M9. THE QUEEN V. ECCLES......
-
Von Ziegler and Another v Superior Furniture Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd
...present inquiry. The relevant leading English cases are, firstly, Higgins v Senior, E (1841) 151 E.R. 1278, and Jones v Littledale, (1837) 112 E.R. 186, in both of which parol evidence that although the party had subscribed to a written contract as a principal, he was released from liabilit......
-
Von Ziegler and Another v Superior Furniture Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd
...present inquiry. The relevant leading English cases are, firstly, Higgins v Senior, E (1841) 151 E.R. 1278, and Jones v Littledale, (1837) 112 E.R. 186, in both of which parol evidence that although the party had subscribed to a written contract as a principal, he was released from liabilit......