Magee v Atkinson and Townley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 830
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. M. & H. 115; 6 L. J. Ex. 115. Referred to, Johnstone v. Usborne, 1840, 11 Ad. & E. 557; 3 P. & D. 236; Higgins v. Senior, 1841, 8 M. & W. 845; Holding v. Elliott, 1860, 5 H. & N. 122.
magee v. atkinson AND town ley. Exch. of Pleas. 1837.-A., a broker employed by B. to sell certain railway shares, agreed with C., D.'s broker, to sell him fifty shares, of which A. afterwards informed his clerk at his office, who made an entry in the book as of a sale from A. to C.; and a contract note, to the same effect, was sent to C. A. subsequently saw the entry in the book, and altered it by writing the name of B. as seller, and directed another note to be sent to C., with the name of B. as seller. A fresh note was accordingly sent the same evening or the next morning, but C. received them both together the next morning. C. did not return the first note, nor did A. request to have it returned. In an action brought by D. against A. for breach of the agreement, in not completing the sale, the learned Judge who tried the cause left it to the jury to ,say whether the second note was a correction of a mistake in the first, and told the jury that if the defendant entered into a written contract in his own mime, he could not afterwards set up that he was acting as broker merely ; and that, although known to be a broker, if he signed the contract in his own name, he was liable :-Held, that this was no misdirection. Held, also, that evidence that it was the custom in Liverpool to send in broker's notes without disclosing the principal's name, was properly rejected. [S. C. M. & H. 115; 6 L. J. Ex. 115. Referred to, Johnsiwie v. Usbonie, 1840, 11 Ad. & E. 557 ; 3 P. & D. 236 Rigging v. Senior, 1841, 8 M. & W. 845; Holding v. Elliott, 1860, 5 H. & N. 122.] Assumpsit to recover damages for the breach of an agreement to deliver fifty Great Wesfern .Railway Shares. The defendants traversed the promise and consideration. [441] At the trial before Patteson, J., at the last Liverpool Assizes, it appeared in evidence that the defandants were share-brokers in Liverpool; that in the month of December last, Scholes, the plaintiff's broker, met the defendant Townley, and agreed with him for the purchase of the shares in question. The defendant Townley had himself received orders from a Mr. Jacob to sell the shares for him. After the bargain with Scholei, Townley went to his office and communicated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of Ecclesall Bierlow
...v. Hanford, 10 B. & C. 729; Meres 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. 54......
-
Spartali and Others v Benecke and Others
...or by implication, the terms of a written instrument;" for which he cites Adams v. Wardley (1 M. & W. 374) and Magee v. Atkinson (2 M. & W. 440.] Those cases are not at variance with this argument. The contract here is ambiguous and incomplete on the face of it. (c) Vide post, 227, n. ioC.E......
-
Bulsing Ltd v Joon Seng & Company
...[1950] AC 441 (refd) Higgins v Senior 8M & W 834; 151 ER 1278 (refd) Jones v Littledale 6Ad & E 486; 112 ER 186 (refd) Magee v Atkinson 2M & W 440; 150 ER 830 (refd) Public Works Commissioner v Hills [1906] AC 368 (folld) Thompson (WL) Ltd v Robinson (Gunmakers) Ltd [1955] Ch 177 (refd) Vic......
-
Trueman and against Others against Loder
...B. & Ad. 521 ; Champion v. Plummer, 1 N. R. 252 ; Hawes v. Forster, 1 Moo. & E. 368 ; Thornton v. Mtux, Moo. & M. 43; Magee v. Atkinson, 2 M. & W. 440; Jones v. Litiledale, 6 A. & E. 486; Paterson v. Gandasequi, 15 East, 62; Campbell v. Hodgson Grow, 74 ; Mason v. Rumaey, 1 Campb. 385; Whit......