Large v Pitt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 227
LINCOLN'S INN
Gloucester Summer Assiz 1797, coiam Lord Kenyon large v pitt (Where A. and B. are in possession of lands under C , B cannot prescribe for a right of way over the land of A ) To an action of trespass for breaking and entering plaintiff s close, the defendant pleaded a prescriptive right of way as appurtenant to a close held by him as tenant to Lord Elliot The plaintiff also held the locus in quo under Lord Elliot, and it appeared that, for (a) It is to be observed, that there arises from the relative situation of the parties an implied authority for one partner to bind the firm in all cases of simple contract, such as the drawing, indorsing and accepting bdls of exchange Hamson v Jackson, 1 T. R. 210; Thomson v. Frere, 10 E 418 ; 13 E. 175, Pinkney v Hall, and Mason v Rumsey, 1 Camp 384 But if notice be given by a firm that they will not be bound by the individual act of one of their members, Lord Gal way v. Mathew, 10 E 264 ; Rooth v. Quin, 1 Price, 193 ; or if the party with whom the contract was made knew at the time that the one partner was acting without authority, Sheriff v. Wells, IE R. 48 , Hope v (Just, ibid 52 , or had reason to suspect that he was acting without authority, Lotd Galway v. Mathew, 10 E , the presumption arising from the relative situation of the parties is sufficiently rebutted, and the firm will not be liable. Neither can one partner bind his copartners by deed , Harrison v. Jackson, 1 T. R. 207, Thomson v. Frere, 10 E 418, nor by a guarantee for the debt of a third person ; Duncan v. Lowndet,, 3 Camp. 478 And where A. and B agreed to take a farm, and pay C. (the former occupier) for certain articles by bills at three months, and C. afterwards, without the knowledge or consent of A , took from B bills for the amount, payable at six and twelve months, accepted by himself in his own name and m that of A., it was holden, that as C knew the terms of the original agreement, and with that information took bills not drawn according to those terms, he took them at his own peril, and as the act of B was never recognised by A , the latter could not be sued on the bills Greensdale v Dower and Colman, 1 B and C. 635 One joint tenant may distrain alone, averring for himself, and making cognizance as bailiff of the others Leigh v Shephetd, 2 B and B 465, Fallen v. Palmer, 5 Mod. 72. So may he appoint a bailiff to distrain for rent due to himself and co-tenants jointly...
To continue reading
Request your trial