Powell and Others against Divett and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 January 1812 |
| Date | 25 January 1812 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 755
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
See Davidson v. Cooper, 1843, 13 M. & W. 343. Referred to, Sievewright v. Archibald, 1851, 17 Q. B. 113. Adopted, White v. Benekendorff, 1873, 20 L. T. 477. Referred to, Pattinson v. Luckley, 1875, L. R. 10 Ex. 334.
[29] powell and others against divett and others. Saturday, Jan. 25th, 1812. A material alteration in a sale-note by the broker, after, the bargain made, at the instance of the seller, without the consent of the purchaser, annuls the instrument, so as to preclude the seller from recovering upon the contract evidenced by the instrument so altered by him. [See Davidson v. Cooper, 1843, 13 M. & W. 343. Referred to, Sievewright v. Archibald, 1851, 17 Q. B. 113. Adopted, White v. BeneJcendor/, 1873, 29 L. T. 477. Referred to, Pattinson. y. Luckley, 1875, L. R. 10 Ex. 334.] - - In assumpsit for the non-performance of a special agreement for the purchase of wool, which was tried before Lord Ellenborough, C.J. in London, it appeared in evidence, that on the 6th of March 1810, one Marsh, the plaintiffs' broker, sold to the defendants a parcel of wool, and delivered to the parties the usual bought and sold-notes; and afterwards entered it in his books, but such entry was not signed. The note delivered to the plaintiffs by the broker was originally in this form, addressed to Messrs. Powell and Co. "Sold for your account to Messrs. Divett and Co., the following parcels of Spanish wool, (a few bags more or less,) of each mark, viz. (specifying them and the rates of price) customary tear and allowance. To be paid for by acceptances at two, four, six, and eight months." And there was a counter bought-note delivered to the defendants. On the same day, after the notes had been respectively delivered, one of the plaintiffs, the vendors, brought their note back, and represented to Marsh that it was necessary to have a clause inserted in the note, that the damaged wool should be taken at a valuation; that Mazaredo, of whom the wool was originally purchased, had so told him. Whereupon the broker, though remonstrating against it, inserted in the plaintiffs' note a memorandum to this effect: " Such part as may be damaged to be taken at such allowance as shall be settled by two experienced brokers." No such alteration was made by the broker in the defendants' note, nor were they in-[30]-formed of the alteration until a considerable time afterwards, when...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Same v Bateman
...to bills and notes, but to all written instruments constituting the evidence of contracts. 4 T. R. 320, Master v. Miller. 2 H. Bl. 140. 15 East, 29, Powell v. Divett. 11 M. & W. 778, Davidson v. Cooper, affirmed in Cam. Scacc. July, 1844. But with respect to policies of insurance, though th......
-
Smith v Fox
...original instrument as disabling the Plaintiff from recovering upon the contract, which, perhaps, he might have done (Powell v. Devett, 15 East, 29; Master v. Miller, 4 T. B. 320), the discovery would, on the ordinary rule of the Court, have been given. If, instead of pleading the general i......
-
Davidson, Public Officer, Company v Cooper and Brassington
...Exchequer Chamber, and the judgment was affirmed (2 H. Bl. 140). The case of Master v. Miller was followed by that of Powell v. Divett (15 East, 29), which was an action on a bought and sold note, and it was there held that a material alteration in a sale note, made by the broker, after the......
-
Sievewright against Archibald
...by Lord Kenyon in Bucker v. Cammeyer (1 Esp, N. P. C. 106) : one note only was offered in evidence by the plaintiffs in Powell v. Divett (15 East, 29); and no objection was made on that account: one note alone waa held by Lord Denman sufficient in Hawes v. Forster (1 M. & Rob, 368): one not......