Powles, one of the Public Officers of the Liverpool Banking Company, v Page
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 May 1846 |
| Date | 22 May 1846 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 136 E.R. 7
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 15 L. J. C. P. 217.
[16] powles, one of the Public Officers of the Liverpool Banking Company, v. page. May 22, 1846. [S. C. 15 L. J. 0. P. 217.] A., B., C., and D., who carried on business under the firm of G., P., & Co., in 1840 opened an account with a banking company established under the 7 G-. 4, c. 46, 1 .& 2 Viet. c. 96, and 5 & 6 Viet. c. 85. In 1842 A. retired from the firm, but this fact was not advertised in the London Gazette, nor was any alteration made in the pass-book:-Held, that the mere fact of D., one of the firm of G-., P., & Co., being also a director of the banking company (but having as such no share in the management of or interference in the banking accounts), did not amount to notice,- actual or constructive,-to the bank, of the dissolution, so as to discharge A. in respect of a debt subsequently accruing, a banking company so established, differing in this respect from an ordinary trading partnership. Assumpsit, to recover the sum of 24001. Is. 4d., with interest from the 7th of November, 1843, being the balance of a banking account. The declaration contained counts for work, and labour, and commission, and the usual money counts. The defendant pleaded-first, non assumpsit; secondly, payment; thirdly, that the defendant was sued as one of a co-partnership, trading under the name of Grantham, Page & Co., consisting of the defendant, John Grantham, John Philips Mather, and William Dixon, and that the said copartnership had a set-off against the banking company; fourthly, that the defendant retired from the said co-partnership, which was thenceforth carried on under the firm of John Grantham & Co., and that there was an agreement between all the members of the firm of Grantham, Page & Co. and the banking company, that the banking company should accept the firm of John Grantham & Co. as their debtors for the sum due from Grantham, Page & Co., and exonerate and discharge the defendant from all liability for such sum, and that such agreement was performed; fifthly, as to 31771. 6s. 4d., accord and satisfaction, by the delivery of two bills of exchange, amounting to that sum. The replication joined issue on the first plea, traversed [17] the second and third pleas, and the agreement and performance of it mentioned in the fourth plea, and the agreement to accept, and the receipt of, the bills mentioned in the last plea. Issue on the traverses. The particulars of demand comprised all the items on the debit side of the account of Grantham, Page, & Co., from the opening to the closing of their account with the bank. The cause came on to be tried before Tindal, C. J., at the sittings for London after Hilary term, 1844, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon the following case :- The plaintiff is one of the public officers of the Liverpool Banking Company, carrying on business at Liverpool under the 7 G. 4, c. 46, and, in that capacity, sues the defendant for the balance of a banking account, alleged to be due to the bank from the defendant and his late partners, who traded in Liverpool under ihe firm of Grantham, Page, & Co. The partnership was created by parol, and for no definite period : and it is alleged by the defendant to have been dissolved, as to him, on the 6th of January, 1842, as after mentioned. The firm consisted of four persons, viz. the defendant, John Grantham, John Philips Mather, and William Dixon, and carried on the business of iron-boat builders, in Liverpool. John Grantham was the party who usually transacted business with evidence under the general issue. The cases of Mitten v. Hawery, Latch, 13, and Knapp v. Salsbury, 2 Campb. 500, and Com. Dig. Pleader (3 M. 31), were cited. And see Gibbon v. Pepper, 2 Salk. 637, 1 Lord Eaym. 38, 4 Mod. 404; Smith v. Dobscm, 3 M. & G. 59, 62, n.; Webb v. Page, 6 M. & G. 196; Norton v. Schqfield, 9 M. & W. 665. 8 POWLES V. PAGE 3C. E.18. the bank. When the account of Grantham, Page, & Co. was opened, it was understood that Grantham alone was to draw the cheques; the defendant on several occasions being present when Grantham drew cheques in the name of the firm, and occasionally accompanying him to the bank. The defendant, who was a skilful artisan-but could neither read nor write-had the principal management of the works. The account of Grantham, Page, & Co. was opened on the 4th of February, 1840. On the 2nd of July, 1842, a separate account was opened in another [18] pass-book between the bank and firm of John Grantham & Co., which consisted of all the members of the firm of Grantham, Page, & Co., with the exception of the defendant Page. The firm of John Grantham & Co. failed in July, 1843, at which period they owed the bank the sum of 30001., which was independent of the amount of the two bills of exchange accepted by John Grantham & Co. on account of the balance due from Grantham, Page, & Co., as hereinafter stated. There was also a firm of Page (the defendant) & Grantham (which was dissolved in June, 1842, a notice of the dissolution of which appeared in the Gazette on the 5th of July, 1842), and another firm of Mather, Dixon, and Grantham, who carried on business in Liverpool as iron-founders and steam-engine makers, and, after June, 1842, as boiler-makers, having succeeded to the business of Page & Grantham, after the dissolution of that firm: but they had no account with the bank. The Grantham appearing as a member of those firms, was the same Grantham who was a member of the firms of Grantham, Page, & Co., and John Grantham & Co. On the 31st of December, 1841, the balance due to the bank from the firm of Grantham, Page, & Co. was 13341. 5s. Id.; and between the 6th of January and the 15th of April, 1842, there had been payments into the bank to the amount of 17001.; but sums to an equal or larger amount had been from time to time drawn out: and the bank, during the same period, continued paying the acceptances of Grantham, Page, & Co. which had been given and dated prior to the 6th of January, 1842; and all the bills so paid were entered in the pass-book of Grantham, Page, & Co. No proof was given that Grantham, on paying the last-mentioned sums so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Superwood Holdings Plc v Sun Alliance & London Insurance Plc
...CO LTD 1915 AC 705 GOWER PRINCIPLES OF MODERN COMPANY LAW 5ED 194 SCHOLZ COMMENTARY ON THE GMBH LAW 7ED POWLES V PAGE 1846 3 CB 15, 136 ER 7 CAREWS ESTATE ACT (NO 2), IN RE 1862 31 BEAV 39, 54 ER 1054 TAYLOR V SMITH 1991 1 IR 142 USSHER COMPANY LAW IN IRELAND (1986) 38 BANCO AMBROSIANO V ......
-
Abdul Ghani El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings Ltd Factorum NV
...Section 35.) English law has never taken the view that the knowledge of a director ipso facto imputed to the company: Powles v. Page (1846) 3 C.B. 16; Re Carew's Estate Act (1862) 31 Beav. 39. Unlike the German Geschftsfhrer, an English director may as an individual have no powers whatever.......
-
Re The Norwich Yarn Company
...Simons, 123), Thompson v. Speirs (13 Simons, 469), He Hennessy (2 Dru. & War. 555), Ex parte Waithman (4 Dea. & C. 412), Powles v. Page (3 C. B. 16). The following authorities were also referred to : 1 & 2 Viet. c. 96, Parker v. Marchant (1 Phillips, 356). As to the settled account being fi......
-
Ex parte John Brown. Cuthbert Smith Fenwick, a Bankrupt
...body of shareholders may be different persons from those who were so at the time when the cause of action accrued : Powles v. Page (3 C. B. 16), Steward v. Dunn (12 M. & W. 655). Now; though it is quite true that accord-[595]-ing to these cases and others a joint stock banking company is no......