Ricketts and Another v Bennett and Field
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 June 1847 |
| Date | 10 June 1847 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 136 E.R. 678
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 17 L. J. C. P. 17; 11 Jur. 1062. See Yorkshire Railway Wagon Company v. Maclure, 1881-82, 19 Ch. D. 488; 21 Ch. D. 309.
[686] ElCKETTS AND ANOTHER V. BENNETT AND FlELD. June 10, 1847. [S. C. 17 L. J. C. P. 17; 11 Jur. 1062. See Yorkshire Railway Wagon Company v. Maclure, 1881-82, 19 Ch. D. 488; 21 Ch. D. 309.] One of several co-adventurers in a mine, has not, as such, any authority to pledge the credit of the general body, for money borrowed for the purposes of the concern. And the fact of his having the general management of the mine makes no difference, in the absence of circumstances from which an implied authority for that purpose, can be inferred. Assumpsit, for money lent, money paid, work and labour, commission, interest, and money due upon an account stated. Plea, non assumpsit. The cause was tried before Platt, B., at the last summer assizes for Cornwall. The facts were as follows :-The plaintiffs were bankers at Penzance. The defendants were two of the co-adventurers in a mine called the Wheal Providence. The mine, which, it appeared, was carried on upon the cost-book principle, was divided into one hundred and twenty-eight shares of about 151. each. Ninety-nine of these shares were possessed by one Alexander Robinson, and his son, F. T, Robinson. The defendant Bennett held four shares, and Field five and a half; both of them having become interested in the concern about June, 1844. Alexander Robinson, who acted as manager of the mine, opened an account with the plaintiffs in September, 1844, in the names of "The Wheal Providence Adventurers;" the first item in which account was a sum of 2801., borrowed from the plaintiffs for the purpose of paying a debt due from F. T. Robinson to the Helston bank. Alexander Robinson continued to borrow money from the plaintiffs upon the ore-notes of the mine, paying interest for a short time at 41. per cent., and afterwards at 51. per cent., until December, 1845, when the account closed with a balance due to the bank of 36681., to recover which this action was brought. The money, except in a few instances, was drawn for by cheques, signed "For the Wheal Providence Adventurers, Alexander Robinson." The rest were signed by F. T. Robinson, who was purser of the mine. [687] Alexander Robinson, who was called as a witness for the plaintiffs, admitted that he had no express authority to borrow money on account of the mine, and that the defendants had no notice that he had done so : but he stated that nearly all the money he obtained, was expended by him for the purposes of the concern. He further stated that both the defendants from time to time attended at the mine; and that the pass-book was kept at the counting-house; but that he could not say that either of the defendants had ever seen it. Within a fortnight after the account with the plaintiff was first opened, Alexander Robinson obtained an advance of money from the plaintiffs, for the express purpose of making a dividend. The defendants received this, and subsequently two other dividends, at the banking-house of Messrs. G-lynn & Co., in London, having no knowledge that the money had been borrowed for the purpose. The first intimation they had of the fact, was the demand made upon them for the balance of the account, in December, 1845; when they at once repudiated it. No evidence was offered on the part of the defendants: but it was insisted that the mere relation of co-adventurer in a mine, did not give authority to the manager to pledge the credit of the whole body, for money borrowed. The learned judge told the jury, that, generally speaking, one partner in a mining concern has no authority to bind his co-adventurers for money borrowed; but that such an authority may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances : and he left it to them to say, whether, upon the facts proved, they could infer that Robinson, the manager, had borrowed the money in question, with the assent of the defendants. 4C.B.688. BICKETTS V. BENNETT 679 The jury having returned a verdict for the defendants, [688] Crowder, in Michaelmas term last, obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, on the grounds of misdirection and that the verdict was against evidence. He referred to Dickinson v. Yalpy (10 B. & C. 128, 5 M. & E. 126), Tredwen v. Bourne (6 M. & W. 461), Hawtayne v. Bourne (7 M. & W. 595), Hawken v. Bourne (8 M. & W. 703), Orawshay v. Maule (1 Swanst. 495), Exparte Bonbonus (8 Ves. 540), and Taylor v. Fisher (2 Hare, 228). Butt, Kinglake, Serjt., and Merivale, shewed case. The case was properly submitted to the jury, and the evidence fully warranted the verdict. The principal upon which the mine in question was worked, viz. the cost-book principle, which precludes one co-adventurer from pledging the credit of the rest, is so well established, and has been found to be so conducive to the interests as well of the public as of the adventurers themselves, that the legislature has thought fit to except mines so worked, from the operation of the very wholesome provisions contained in the 7 & 8 Viet, c. 110(), for the registration, incorporation, and regulation of joint-stock companies. In order to sustain the objection to the direction of the learned judge, the plaintiffs must contend that a mining association stands upon the same footing as an ordinary trading partnership. The distinction, however, between the two is well recognised in equity as well as at law. In an ordinary partnership, the selection of an associate, rests with the parties themselves. In the case of a mine, it is otherwise : any one of the adventurers may part with his interest to whom-[689]-soever he pleases, by a mere entry of the substituted name in the cost-book. In Collyer on Partnership (1st edit. 658, 2nd edit. 785), it is said : "Material distinctions exist between mining and other partnerships, both as regards the power of each adventurer to assign his share, and also the effect of the bankruptcy or death of any adventurer. The first of these distinctions is referred to by Lord Eldon, in Jefferys v. Smith" (1 Jac. & Walk. 301); " but both of them are expressly mentioned by Sir John Leach, in the late case of Feredayy. Wight/wick"(c). In that the Vice-Chancellor says:-"Mining concerns are, to some purposes, trading concerns, but they are not so as to all: they are not so in this particular,--namely, that they are not, as an ordinary partnership trade, subject to dissolution on the death or bankruptcy of any of the partners, and the shares are transferable without the consent of the other partners. In these particular instances, they have not all the incidents of a trading concern ; in other respects, it has been repeatedly held that they have." In Dickinson v. Valf y, it was distinctly held that the directors of a mining association cannot bind the members by accepting a bill of exchange, unless they are authorised so to do by the deed or instrument of co-partnership, by the necessity of such a power to the carrying on of the business, by the usage of similar establishments, or by the express assent of the party sought to be charged. Observing on this case, and Ducarry v. Gill (M. & M. 450, 4 C. & P. 121), Mr. Collyer says (1st edit. 664, 2nd edit. 791): "In the case of an ordinary trading partnership, the law implies that one partner has authority to bind another by drawing and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- IS David; SPH De Silva
-
Ng Swee Hong v Singmarine Shipyard Pte Ltd
... ... English authorities including Fry v Moore (1889) 23 QBD 395 and Field v Bennett (1886) 56 LJQB 89. Counsel submitted that, as the appellant ... ...
-
Re The Norwich Yarn Company ex parte Bignold
...B. & C. 128); Tredwen v. Bourne (6 M. & W. 461); Hawtayne v. Bourne (7 M. & W. 595); Hawken v. Bourne (8 M. & W. 703); Rkketts v. Bennett (4 C. B. 686); Bramah v. Roberts (3 Bing. N. C. 963); Green-òwoofs case (3 De G. M. & Gor. 459); Gillan v. Mor-\l4&\-rison (1 De G. & Sm. 421); In re Wor......
-
The Joint Stock Companies Winding-Up Act, 1848; and of The Joint Stock Companies Winding-Up Amendment Act, 1849; and The German Mining Company The Case of Samuel Ball, William Haigh, Francis Ramsbotham, William Rothert, William Wood-Roffe, and Emily Duncan Harvey. Exparte William Chippendale, Charles Chippendale, and Thomas Hughes. Before the Lords Justices
...borrow money beyond the amount of the capital of the concern, and make them liable to repay what was so borrowed. In Eicketts v, Bennett (4 C. B. 686), [29] Wilde, C. J., referring to Dickenson v. Valpy (10 B. & C. 128), says that the result of that authority is, that in a partnership for w......