Pearse v Green
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 December 1819 |
| Date | 17 December 1819 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 37 E.R. 327
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Springett v. Dashwood, 1860, 2 Giff. 526; Blogy v. Johnson, 1867, L. R. 2 Ch. 229; Turner v. Burkinshaw, 1867, L. R. Ch 491. Distinguished, Rishton v. Grissell 1870, L. R. 10 Eq. 393. Followed, Harsant v. Blaine, 1887, 56 L. J. Q. B. 511.
pearse v. green. Rolls. Dec. 1G, 17, 1819. [See Springett v. Dashwood, I860, 2 Giff. 52G ; Bloyij v. Johnson, 1807, L. It. 2 Oh. 229 ; Turner v. Burkinshaw, 1807, L. R. 2 Oh. 491. Distinguished, Rishton v. Grissell, 1870, L. K. 10 Eq. 393. Followed, Harsant v. Elaine, 1887, 50 L. ,T. Q. B. 511.] Owners of a privateer acting for themselves and the crew, in the sale of the prizes, having neglected to render accounts, and delayed the distribution of the proceeds, charged with interest on the balances, and costs. The first duty of an agent, receiver, trustee, or executor, is to be constantly ready with his accounts, and neglect in this, is a ground for charging him with interest. William Green, Samuel Kelly, and Samuel Dunsterville, were the owners of a privateer, called the Snap-Dragon, which proceeded on a cruize in the month of June 1807. Articles of agreement, dated 26th June 1807, were drawn up, between the owners, and the officers and sailors who formed the crew. By these articles, the owners were to receive three-fourths, and the officers and sailors the other fourth, ot the nett proceeds of all the prizes to be taken, in different specified shares, the payment of which was to take place within three months after the settlement of all the prizes. Kelly and Dunsterville (wlio resided at Plymouth) were to be the managers and agents of the vessel and her prizes, and for the appraisement, sale, and disposal of them; they were to receive a commission for their agency, and none of the crew were to interfere with them in the management of the prizes. The cruise lasted from June 1807, till November, in the same year, during which period several prizes were [136] taken, the proceeds of which were received by Green, under a power of attorney from Kelly and Dunsterville. The bill was filed in. December 1812. by Pearse, and three others of the seamen, on behalf of themselves and all other the unsatisfied officers and crew, against William Green, and John Green his partner, and Kelly and Dunsterville, for an account and distribution of the prize-money, according to the articles. The defendants admitted, that they had rendered no account to the plaintiffs, Green assigning as an excuse, that Kelly and Dunstervilleluid only recently furnished him with the accounts: and the latter stating, that the original articles of agreement, and the proceeds of the sales were detained by Green. By the decree, dated 20th November 1815, the bill was dismissed as against John Green, and the accounts were ordered to bo taken. The Master, in his report, dated 10th February 1819, ascertained the sums received by Green, with which ho charged the defendants, and stated the shares duo to each of the seamen. After the decree, and before the report, William Green became bankrupt, and John Green was appointed his assignee, who was by a supplemental bill again made a defendant. The cause now coming on upon further directions, it was urged that the defendants should be charged with interest on the balances in their hands. Mr. Wetherall and Mr. Itoupell for the plaintiffs, argued in support of the claim of interest, that the defendants, as agents who had improperly retained in their hands the money of the plaintiffs, were, according to the usual course of the Court, liable to the payment of interest, and they produced a copy of the decree made on further [137] directions in Goad v. BLcwitl (reported in its former stages in 13 Ves. 397 ; Coop. 197 ; and 19 Yes. ."i3(' ), a case very similiar In the. present, where the late Master of the Holls, charged the defendants, the yhip-ownera, with interest and costs. Mr. Agar and Mr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Khaw Cheng Bok and Others v Khaw Cheng Poon and Others
- Dalam Harta Pusaka Mendiang Tan Hock Low
-
Abdullah Al-Dowaisan and Another v Imad Abdul Al-Salam & 3 Ors
...altogether. 129 In his oral closing, Mr Singla reminded me of the old case of Pearse v Green (1819) 1 Jacob & Walker 136 (also reported at 37 ER 327) where Sir Thomas Plumer MR held that it is the first duty of an accounting party to be constantly ready with his accounts. I accept the claim......
-
Foo Jee Seng v Foo Jhee Tuang
...SASR 305 (refd) Ng Eng Ghee v Mamata Kapildev Dave [2009] 3 SLR (R) 109; [2009] 3 SLR 109 (folld) Pearse v Green (1819) 1 Jac & W 135; 37 ER 327 (folld) Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Noyes (1925) 25 SR (NSW) 226 (refd) Pitt v Holt [2012] Ch 132 (distd) Price, Re (1977) 5 ETR 194 (refd) Rawling......
-
Agency
...takings and expenditure but also must be prepared on demand to produce such accounts to the members: Pearse v. Green (1819) 1 Jac. W. 135; 37 E.R. 327; Harsant v. Blaine, Macdonald & Co. (1887) 56 L.J.Q.B. 511; 3 T.L.R. 689. When an agent fails to account or pay over sums received from or o......
-
Equity and Trusts
...such as stockbrokers or realtors, and 25 (1861) 30 Beav 136, 54 ER 840 [cited to ER]. 26 Ibid at 842 . 27 (1819) 1 J & W 135 at 140, 37 ER 327. See also Sandford v Porter (1889), 16 OAR 565 (CA). 28 Fales v Canada Permanent Trust Co , [1977] 2 SCR 302, 70 DLR (3d) 257. THE LAW OF PROPERTY 7......