Latch against Wedlake and Lewis Thomas
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 678
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
[959] latch against wedlake and lewis thomas. 1840. In assumpsit on a contract for the delivery of coals from a colliery, it appeared that the agreement (for supplying such coals, and for the demise of a coal wharf) purported to be made between plaintiff and the partners in the colliery, three in number, and was executed by plaintiff and two of the partners. Held that, admitting such contract to be one by which partners might bind an absent co-partner or themselves, yet the Judge, on trial, ought not to decide, as matter of law, that the contract signed by two bound them, but should desire the jury to say whether it was intended to do so or not, if there are circumstances from which an intention can be inferred that no party should be bound unless all the partners signed. As, the nature and (e) 4 B. & C. 896, note (a). See Rex v. The Justices of Staffordshire, 6 A. & E. 84, 101. (d) See as to quashing returns on motion, Begina v. St. Saviour's Southwark, 1 A. & E. 925, 936; Begina v. The Governors of St. Andrew and St. George, 10 A. & E. 736. 11 AD. &B, MO. LA.TCH V. WEDLAKE 679 terms of the agreement; the distance of time at which it waa to come into operation ; the declarations and conduct of the parties respecting it; and the manner in which previous contracts between them, of the same kind, had been executed. [S. C. 3 P. & D. 499; 9 L. J. Q. B. 201.] AjBumpgit. The declaration stated that defendants and one Rosser Thomas were jointly possessed of the Carn Gethin Collieries, and were partners in working the same and disposing of the coal; and thereupon it was agreed between plaintiff and defendants that defendants and Roaser Thomas should sell and deliver coals to plaintiff (setting out a contract for sale and delivery of coala according to the agreement after stated): promise to perform: breach, non-delivery. Pleas. 1. Non assumpsit: 3. Denying the agreement in matter and form, &c. Issues thereon. There were other pleaa which it is unnecessary to notice. On the trial, before Gurney B., at the Monmouthshire Spring Assizes, 1838, it appeared that, on October 3d, 1835, the defendants and Rosser Thomas being then partners in tha Carn Gethin Collieries, the following agreement was signed by the plaintiff and defendants. "Memorandum. That, on the 3d day of October in the year 1835, it was agreed between Rasaer Thomas, Thomas Wedlake, and Lewis Thomas, of the one part, and Joseph Latch of the other part: the said R. Thomas, T. Wedlake, and L. Thomas, for themselves, their executors, administrators, and assigns, agree with the said J. Latch, his executors and administrators, to sell and deliver to him in tram waggons, to be found and provided for that purpose, and kept, maintained, and repaired, by the said R. Thomas, T. Wedlake, and L. [960] Thomas," " at or upon...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Fitzgerald v McCowan
...514. (3) 21 Ch. D. 9. (1) 2 K. & J. 174; 8 D. M. & G. 101. (1) 2 K. & J. 174; 8 D. M. & G. 101. (1) 2 K. & J. 174; 8 D. M. & G. 101. (2) 11 A. & E. 959. (1) 2 K. & J. 174; 8 D. M. & G. (1) 2 K. & J. 174; 8 D. M. & G. 101. (1) 2 K. & J. 174; 8 D. M. & G. 101. (1) 2 K. & J. 174; 8 D. M. & G. ......
-
Evans v Bremridge
...nor Nicholson v. Mevill (4 A. & E. 675), is adverse to this proposition. They also referred to Be Semple (3 Jo. & Lat. 488); Latch v. Wedlake (11 A. & E. 959. 108] [THE lord justice tubner referred to Dering v. Lord Winchelsea (2 Cox, l r. Eolt was not called on to reply. the lord justi......