Mertens v Haigh
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 November 1860 |
| Date | 03 November 1860 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 70 E.R. 616
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See S. C. 1 J & H. 231; 3 De G. J. & S 528; 46 E. R. 741 (with note).
Practice. Production of Documents. Commercial Books. Fraudulent Alterations. Laches. Form of Order for Inspection.
[735] mertens v. haigh. March 27, 28, 1860. [See S. C. 1 J. & H. 231; 3 De G. J. & S. 528; 46 E. E. 741 (with note).] Practice. Production of Documents. Commercial Books. Fraudulent Alterations. Laches. Form of Order for Inspection. It is a matter of course to allow a Defendant's books in use for daily business to be produced at the place where the trade is carried on, instead of being deposited at the Eecord and Writ Clerks' Office; this indulgence may be refused where there is ground for a suspicion that the books will be tampered with ; but the fact of alterations alleged to be fraudulent having been made : Held, not to be a sufficient ground for such refusal where the alterations were discovered by the Plaintiff a year and a half before any attempt to have the books removed from the Defendant's custody. Form of special order for production of books at the place of business. This was a bill filed by Mertens, an American merchant, against Messrs. Haigh & Co., a Liverpool firm, for an account of transactions in cotton, in which Haigh & Co. had acted as the brokers of the Plaintiff. It appeared that the orders for effecting the purchases in which the Plaintiff was interested were given to Haigh & Co. by a Mr. Bell, who had also other current transactions with Haigh & Co., with which Mertens had no concern. The Defendants claimed to set against the proceeds of sales effected in the Mertens and Bell transactions a number of charges for commission, which Bell claimed to be entitled to against Mertens, and which he had set over to Haigh & Co. in or towards liquidation [736] of the balance which he owed to the firm; and one point in dispute was, how far the Defendants were entitled to treat Bell as the principal, or apparent principal, in certain of the transactions which Mertens claimed to have been entered into on his account? There was also a case against the Defendants of having improperly pledged cotton purchased on the Plaintiffs account, in breach of an injunction obtained by the Plaintiff. The bill was originally a simple bill for account, and under this an order was made in March 1858 for production and inspection of the Defendants' books at their solicitor's office in Liverpool. In November 1858 a further order for production and inspection in the same way was made, with reference to additional documents disclosed by the Defendants. A third order was made in December 1858 for production and deposit of documents at the Kecord and Writ Clerks' Office. After a motion for injunction against dealing with the Plaintiff's goods, and proceedings for breaches of the injunction, the Plaintiff amended his bill, and on the llth of July 1859 obtained an order in the common form for an affidavit as to documents relevant to the amended bill, and for production and deposit at the Eecord and Writ Clerks' Office, and an affidavit was accordingly made. On August 16th, 1859, the Defendants, in order to enable them to prepare JOHNS. 737. MERTENS V. HAIQH 617 their answer to the amended bill, obtained an order extending the time for production until after answer. The answer was put in on February 17th, 1860, and the replies to some of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bonnardet v Taylor
...of the accounts. If the books were in Greek or Hebrew an expert must be allowed, and the principle is the same: Mertens v. Haigh (Johns. 735). Mr. James, Q.C., and Mr. Little, for the Defendants. [385] An agent, within the General Order, is the town agent of the solicitor only; Summerfield ......
-
Mertens v Haigh
...English Reports Citation: 46 E.R. 741 BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES. Mertens and Haigh S. C. Johns. 735; 8 L. T. 561; 2 N. R. 254; 11 W. R. 792. See Kearsley v. Philips, 1882, 10 Q. B. D. 37. [628] mertens v. haigh. Before the Lords Justices. June 3, 1863. [S. C. Johns. 735; 8 L. T. 561 ; 2 N. ......
-
Little v Kirkwood
...C. Court. LITTLE and KIRKWOOD. Little v. M'Cormick I. R. 3 Eq. 271. Grane v. Cooper 4 M. & C. 263. Mertens v. HaighENR Johns. 735. Hooper v. GummENR 2 J. & H. 602. Practice — Production of documents —— Place of production. Via. II.] EQUITY BERIEB. 325 LITTLE v. KIRKWOOD. Practice-Production......