Kymer and Others v Suwercropp
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1807 |
| Date | 01 January 1807 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 894
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS.
Sunsequent proceedings, post, p. 180c. Explained, Armstrong v. Stokes, 1872, L. R. 7 Q. B. 598.
Same day. kymer and others v. suweecropp. (If goods are bought by a broker, the principal is liable to the vendor, if called upon when payment becomes due ; although he has previously paid the price of the goods to the broker -Secus, if the clay of payment is allowed to pass by, without any demand being made upon the principal Although goods are stopped in tranntu, the vendor, after the credit has expired, may recover for them, under a count for goods bargained and sold, if he was ready to deliver them on the price being paid ) [Subsequent proceedings, post, p. 180c. Explained, Armstrong v. Stokes, 1872, L R. 7 Q. B 598.] Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered, and for goods bargained and sold.- Plea, the general issue On the 10th, 17th, and 24th days of June last, and on the 1st day of July, the plaintiffs sold hy public auction to Messrs. Kenyon and Co coffees to the value of about £1100. By the conditions of sale, the goods were to be paid for on delivery, and were to be weighed and taken away within one month from the day of sale. These coffees were bought by Kenyon and Co. as brokers for the defendant ; which was rot known to the [110] plaintiffs till the 8th of July, on which clay Kenyon and Co. * Vide Haille v Smith, 1 B and P 564 , Walley v. Montgomery, 3 East, 585 ; Coxe v Harden. 4 East, 211 , Salomons v Ni\sen,2T R 674; Newborn v Thontton, 6 East, 17; Ltclbarrow v Masott. 2 R T. 63 ; I H BL 357; 2 H Bl 211 , 5 T R. 367 ; 6 East, 20, n , S. C. 1 CAME. 111. KYMER V. SUWERCROPP 895 became insolvent. A great part of the coffee had previously come to the defendant's hands, the warrants for the deliveiy of it from the West India Docks having been given, him by Kenvon and Co., who had received them from the pLuritifts. Far so much he paid Kenyon and Co. by accepting a bill, dated 15th of June, drawn by them upon him, foe £751, at one month alter date, whuh was satisfied when it became due. The residue of the coftec was stopped by the plaintiffs in transit u. However, at the expiration of one month from the different sales respectively (called the days of prompt), they .sent a clerk to demand payment of the defendant. The clerk on one of these occasions offered, on being paid, to give him the remaining warrants, although he had them...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott against Irving
...in a month. Mitchell had no authority to receive part payment, nor any payment before the expiration of the month. Kymer v. Suwercrop (1 Campb. 109), shews that a vendee, by paying his own broker before the appointed day of settlement, does not discharge himself from the demand of the vendo......
-
Stevenson v Campbell
...in this country in coming upon the dealer abroad for payment of the price, on the bankruptcy of the agent. 1 Bell, I, 492: Kyrner (1 Campbell, 109); Paterson v. GandasequiENR (15 East, 62); Addison v. GandasequiENR (4 Taunton, 574); Campbell v. Shearer, May 16, 1883 (ante, XI. 600); Young v......
-
Addison v Gandassequi
...Nelson, cited by Lord Ellenborough C. J. in Paterson v. Gandassequi, 15 East, 65, Waring v. Favene, 1 Campb. 85, and Rymer v. Suwercrapp, 1 Campb. 109. The principal could only be discharged by payment, and that payment must be to the vendor, if he is known ; if unknown, the vendee must pay......
-
Davison v Donaldson
...v. Stokes 26 L. T. Rep. N. S. 872 L. Rep. 7 Q. B. 598 Smethurst v. MitchellENRUNK 1 E. & E. 623 28 L. J. 241, Q. B. Kymer v. SuwercroppENR 1 Camp. 109 Co-owners — Agency — Partnership MARITIME LAW CASES. 601 Q.B. DIV.] DAVISON v. DONALDSON. [CT. OF APP. COURT OF APPEAL. SITTINGS AT LINCOLN'......