Mary Ann Harman against Edward Davey Johnson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 April 1853 |
| Date | 29 April 1853 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 118 E.R. 691
COURTS OF QUEEN'S BENCH, AND THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 3 Car. & K. 272; 22 L. J. Q. B. 297; 17 Jur. 1096; 1 W. R. 326. Distinguished, St. Aubyn v. Smart, 1868, L. R. 3 Ch. 649. Discussed, Dundonald v. Masterman, 1869, L. R. 7 Eq. 515; Plumer v. Gregory, 1874, L. R. 18 Eq. 629. Considered, Cleather v. Twisden, 1884, 28 Ch. D. 340.
[61] mary ann harman against edward davey johnson. Friday, April 29th, 1853. The receipt of money by one of a firm of attorneys from a client, professedly on behalf of the firm, for the general purpose of investing it, as soon as he can meet with a good security, is not an act within the scope of the ordinary business of an attorney, so as, without further proof of authority from his partners, to render them liable to account for the money so deposited ; such a transaction being part of the business of a scrivener, and attorneys, as such, not necessarily being scriveners. But, if money be so deposited with one partner for the purpose of its being invested on a particular security, the other partners are liable to account for it, such a transaction coming within the ordinary business of an attorney. [S. C. 3 Car. & K. 272 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 297 ; 17 Jur. 1096 ; 1 W. R. 326. Distinguished, St. Aulyn v. Smart, 1868, L. R. 3 Ch. 649. Discussed, Dundonakl v. Master-man, 1869, L. R. 7 Eq. 515 ; Plumer v. Gregory, 1874, L. R. 18 Eq. 629. Considered, Ckather v. Twisden, 1884, 28 Ch. D. 340.] The first count of the declaration stated that defendant, on &c., by his promissory note now overdue, promised to pay to plaintiff 16701., and interest, at 5 per cent, per annum, two years after date ; but did not pay the same. The second count stated that "plaintiff retained and employed defendant, and his partner William Henry Smith, then carrying on their business of attorneys and (a) See Fisher v. Bridges, post, p. 128, note (a). 692 HARM AN V. JOHNSON 2 EL. & Bt. M solicitors in copartnership, to invest certain money on mortgage in a proper manner ; and they accepted such retainer and employment, and accordingly took that money from the plaintiff to invest a mortgage in a proper manner; but, though a reasonable time for so investing it had elapsed before this suit, it has never been invested: whereby the plaintiff has lost the whole of it." There were also counts for money lent, money received, and on an account stated. Pleas: 1. To the Tat count: That defendant did not make the said note, &c. Issue thereon. 2. To the 2d count: "That the plaintiff did not retain or employ the defendant and the said W. H. Smith, nor did the defendant and the said W. H. Smith accept such retainer or employment, in manner" &c. Issue thereon. [62] 3. To the 2d count: " That the defendant and the said W. H...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schoultz v Voorsitter, Personeel-Advieskomitee van die Munisipale Raad van George, en 'n Ander
...in die rede geval en homself gerekuseer. Mnr Heunis gee ook geen indikasie wat hierdie "verskil" was waarna Du Preez en Gericke c verwys het (bl 61). Mnr Van Rensburg, die waarnemende voorsitter nadat mnr Gericke horn onttrek het, se niks nie (bl 80-81). In sy repli-serende verklaring erken......
-
Le Roux v Minister van Bantoe-Administrasie en - Ontwikkeling
...T.S. 241, veral op bl. 254; Solomon v Du Preez, 1920 CPD 401; (b) die persoon wat skade outoriseer. Sien Isaacman v Miller, 1922 T.P.D. 56 op bl. 61. Sien ook Voet 9.2.12 en 14 (Gane se vertaling, band 2, bl. 565 en 568) en Voet H 47.10.3 (Gane se vertaling, band 7, bl. 210). Die appellant ......
-
Mkwanazi v Van der Merwe and Another
...was en een van die partye het alreeds sy betoog gelewer. Daarna doen sy opponent aansoek om bykomende getuienis te lei. MILLIN, R., het op bl. 61-62 die volgende aangaande dié aansoek te 'Therefore, as the evidence stands I must hold that there is no evidence on which any judgment can be gi......
-
Phame (Pty) Ltd v Paizes
...band I (1955 ed.), para. 59 IV, bl. 214 en para. 146 IV, bl. 524 oor die klassieke Romeinse reg; Kaser, band II, para. 202 VII, C bl. 61 en para. 273 III, bl. 318; Van Oven, Leerboek van Romeinsche Privaatrecht, 2de uitg., bl. 322, 359; Windscheid, Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 8ste uitg., ......