Puller and Others, Assignees, Company of Forbes and Gregory, Bankrupts, v Roe and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 December 1820 |
| Date | 06 December 1820 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 149
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Monday, Dec. 6th. At Guildhall. puller and others, assignees, &c. of forbes and gregory, bankrupts, v. roe and others (A. B C. and D are in partnership together, and C and D also trade on their separate account The partnership of A. & Co. becomes indebted to C and D and to satisfy such debt they indorse a note given to them. In an action by C. and D. as indorsees of that note, the debtor may set-off any demand he has against A. & Co ) Assumpsit on a promissory note for 9800, dated March 8, 1793, payable to Charles Caldwell, Esq. and Company, or order, and by them indorsed to the bankrupts under the firm of " Messrs B Burton, Forbes, and Gregory." The defendants pleaded the general issue, and gave notice of set-off. Bartholomew Burton, and the bankrupt Forbes, carried on the business of (a)1 Vide Cro. Eliz. 787 , Cro. Jac 422 , Lut. 1296 , Latch. 218 (6) Vtde Taileton and Otheis v M'Gawley, post, 270, Cro. Jac 567, Roll Rep 162 , S. C. 1 Roll Abridg. 107, 108 , 1 Bac. Abr 53. In Tayloi v Nert, 1 Esp. 386, where a person engaged by the manager of a theatre as a public singer had been beaten, and thereby prevented from performing, Eyre C J held, that the manager could not maintain an action for the remote injury which he sustained in consequence. (a)2 Vide Bull. Ni. Pn. 96. 150 PULLER V. ROE peake 281. general merchants in London, from the year 1762 to 1769, and on the 31st of January, 1769, the bankrupt Gregory was admitted a partner in the house. Burton died on the 27th of April, 1770, but the business was still earned on under the old firm of " Burton, Forbes, and Gregory." On the 21st of May, 1774, Forbes and Gregory became partners with Charles Caldwell and Thomas Smith, in a banking-house at Liverpool, under the [261] firm of Charles Caldwell & Co and that partnership continued to the time of their respective bankruptcies, which happened in the month of March, 1793, viz. that of Forbes and Gregory on the 16th, and that of Caldwell & Co. on the 18th of that month. The two houses of Forbes and Gregory and Caldwell & Co. were distinct and separate houses Caldwell and Smith having no concern in the business carried on by Forbes and Gregory in London, though the Litter were partners in, and equally concerned with Caldwell and Smith in the banking business carried on at Liverpool, under the firm of ''...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas Lilburn v John Kenny
...R. 621, 622. George v. ClagettENRENRENR 7 T. R. 359; S. C. 2 Esp. 557. See, also, Rabone v. Williams, 7 T. R. 360, note. Puller v. RoeENR 1 Peake, 260. Stracey v. DecyENRENR 2 Esp. 469, note; S. C.7 T. R. 361, note. Carr v. HinchcliffENR 4 B. & C. 547; S. C. 7 Dowl. & R. 42. Robinson v. Ral......