Robson v Turnbull
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1858 |
| Date | 01 January 1858 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 175 E.R. 766
QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
[365] Durham Summer Assizes, 1858, coram Martin, B robson v turnbull. (Amendment by adding a count for work and labour allowed at the trial without terms, and the defendant allowed to plead payment of money into Court upon it The doctrine of Colhn v Wright, 27 L. J., Q. B 215 (as to implied authority of agent to pledge credit (not to be extended, and any question upon it, being one of difficulty, fit to be tried in a Superior Court) This was an action brought by this plaintiff, a surgeon, to recover the amount of his bill, 191. 15s. Qd from the defendant, who is an engineer and manager of a branch line of the North-Eastern Railway Company, formerly known as the Durham and Sunderland Railway, on an alleged warranty by the latter that the company would pay the plaintiff for his services in attending a servant of the company who was injured by an accident The declaration stated " that the defendant, by warranting and representing to the plaintiff that he was authorized by the North-Eastern Railway Company to employ the plaintiff to attend upon and supply medicines to Charles Cowell, in the way of the plaintiff's profession of a surgeon and apothecary, for and in relation to the cure of a certain injury which the said Chailes Cowell had received whilst engaged in the service of the said company, for reward to be paid by the said company to the plaintiff in that behalf, ordered the plaintiff to attend upon and supply medicines to the said Charles Cowell, in the way of the plaintiff's said profession, for and in relation to the said cure, as though the plaintiff had been, and was employed, by the said company ; yet the defendant was not then or at any other time authorized by the said company to employ the plaintiff as aforesaid , and the plaintiff relying upon the said warranty and representation of the defendant, and believing that he was authorized by the said company as aforesaid to attend upon and supply medicines to the said Charles Cowell in the way of his the plaintiff's said profession of a surgeon and apothecary, for and in relation to such cure as aforesaid under the said supposed employment, gave credit to the said company for his charges for such attendance and medicine, and afterwards sued the said company [366] and failed in his action by reason of the defendant having no such authority ; and the plaintiff by means of the premises, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Savage v Canning
...Pleas. Coram MONAHAN, C.J.; O'HAGAN, J.; and MORRIS, J. SAVAGE and CANNING Kirkman v. Jervis 7 Dowl. 678. Robson v. TurnbullENR 1 F. & F. 365. Harris v. MontgomeryUNK 20 L. J. C. P. 221. Hurcum v. SterikerENR 10 M.& W. 553. Cannan v. Reynolds 5 E. & W. 553. Cutter v. Powell 2 Smith, L. C. 1......