Paterson and Another against Gandasequi
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 1812 |
| Date | 31 January 1812 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 768
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Referred to, Thomson v. Davenport, 1829, 9 B. & C. 86. Adopted, Smyth v. Anderson, 1849, 7 C. B. 34. Not applied, Pennell v. Alexander, 1854, 3 El. & B. 304. Referred to, Calder v. Dobell, 1871, L. R. 6 C. P. 494; Elbinger Actien Gesellschaft v. Claye, 1873, L. R. 8 Q. B. 313. Adopted, Curtis v. Williamson, 1874, L. R. 10 Q. b. 59.
patirson and another against gandasequi. Friday, Jan. 31st, 1812. If the seller of goods, knowing at the time that the buyer, though dealing with him in his own name, is in truth the agent of another, elect to give the credit to such agent, he cannot afterwards recover the value against the known principal: but if the principal be not known at the time of the purchase made by the agent, it seems that when discovered, the principal or the agent may be sued, at the election of the seller; unless where, by the usage of trade, the credit is under-. stood to be confined to the agent so dealing; as particularly in the case of principals residing abroad. [Referred to, Thomson v. Davenport, 1829, 9 B. & C. 86. Adopted, Smyth v. Anderson, 1849, 7 C. B. 34. Not applied, Pennett v. Alexander, 1854, 3 El. & B. 304. Eeferred to, Colder v. Dobett, 1871, L. E. 6 C. P. 494; Elbinger Actien Gesellschafl v. Claye, 1873, L. E. 8 Q. B. 313. Adopted, Curtis v. Williamsm, 1874, L. E. 10 Q. B. 59.] This was an action for goods sold, and upon the common money counts. At the trial before Lord Ellenborough, C.J. at the London sittings after last Trinity term, the following facts appeared. The defendant was a Spanish merchant, and a director of the Philippine Trading Company at Madrid, with which he was engaged in adventures to a large amount. In January 1810, being then in London, he-employed Messrs. Larrazabal and Co. of London, merchants, to purchase for him various assortments of goods for the foreign market, for which they were to charge a commission of 2 per cent. Larrazabal and Co. accordingly applied to the plaintiffs, requesting them to send to their counting-house an assortment of silk hose with their terms and prices. Paterson, Jun. waited on them at the time and place appointed, with the patterns, terms, and prices; at which time the defendant was [63] present at the counting-house, and the samples were handed over to him. He inspected them, and selected such articles as he required; and the terms and prices were also shewn to him and left there. On the 6th of January the plaintiffs received from Larrazabal and Co. an order in writing for 574 dozen of silk hose, to be ready in town on or before the 20th of February next, the payment as agreed upon: (Signed) Larrazabal, Menoyo, and Trotiaga : and shortly after another order for 150 dozen more, with the like signature. Both these orders were given by Larrazabal and Co. for the use of and in execution of the orders received by them from the defendant. The goods were sold by the plaintiffs on the credit of Larrazabal and Co., the invoices were made out in their names and sent to them, and Larrazabal debited...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of Ecclesall Bierlow
...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. 549. 11AD.&I.M9. THE QUEEN V. ECCLESALL BIERLOW 545 ill, and resides in Dodwo......
-
Bulsing Ltd v Joon Seng & Company
...one hand to (Garrett v Handley 4 B & Cr 664; Bateman v Phillips 15 East 272) and charge with liability on the other (Paterson v Gandasequi 15 East 62), the unnamed principals: and this, whether the agreement be or be not required to be in writing by the Statute of Frauds: and this evidence ......
-
Trueman and against Others against Loder
...& 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; White v. Proctor, 4 Taunt. 209; Seton v. Slade, 7 Ves. 265. lHB.ftB.B98. TRUEMA......
-
Mortimer v McCallan
...of the broker 1 The; general rule with respect to the responsibility of principal and agent is laid down in PuleTmn v. Gatidasequi (15 East, 62),-that if the seller, knowing that the buyer, though dealing in his own name, is in truth the agent of another, elect to give credit to Sueh agent,......