Smith v Leveaux
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 November 1863 |
| Date | 09 November 1863 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 46 E.R. 274
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 1 H. & M. 123; 33 L. J. Ch. 167 9 L. T. 313; 3 N. R. 18; 9 Jur. (N. S.), 1140; 12 W. R. 31. See Moxon v. Bright, 1869, L. R. 4 Ch. 294.
Reports of CASES HEARD and DETERMINED by the LORD CHANCELLOR and the COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY. 1864-65. By J. P. DE GEX, H. CADMAN JONES, and R. HORTON SMITH, Esqrs., Barristers - at - Law. 1866. Vol. II. [1] smith v. leveaux. Before the Lords Justices. Nov. 9, 1863. [S. C. 1 H. & M. 123; 33 L. J. Ch. 167; 9 L. T. 313 ; 3 N. R. 18 ; 9 Jur, (N. S.), 1140; 12 W. R. 31. See Moxm v. Bright, 1869, L. R. 4 Ch. 294.] A trading firm agreed to give to an agent a commission on orders obtained by himself, and a commission at a different rate on orders not obtained by him, bufc given by persons first introduced by him. Held, that the fact that the agent must in general be ignorant of the latter class of orders did not entitle him to file a bill against his principals for an account of what was due to him for commission, but that his remedy was at law. This was an appeal by the Defendants from a decree of Vice-Chancellor Wood, directing an account. The Defendants, who carried on business as wine merchants in co-partnership, entered into an arrangement with the Plaintiff, that he should travel over a considerable district in England, to solicit orders for Hungarian wines and spirits on the terms that he was to receive a commission upon all orders obtained by him, or through his connection, and executed by the Defendants, for wines and spirits. No formal agreement was ever drawn up, but the terms on which the Plaintiff for some time continued to act as traveller to the Defendants were contained in a [2] letter addressed to the Plaintiff by a member of the Defendants' firm, dated the 23d of July 1860, which was in part as follows :- " As regards the commission, I am most anxious that it should be as remunerative as possible, consistently with the successful working out of the business. To keep at our present prices in brandy, port, sherry, &o., I find it will not suit to allow a higher commission than the following, and particularly as I have had to give up a highly profitable portion of our business, so that I might have time to travel exclusively in the Hungarian wine trade. On all business done by yourself, either in London or your district, seven and a half per cent, where our full prices and shipping arrangements are adhered to, and, of course, only on good debts, and an allowance of three and a half per cent, on all orders received from your friends first introduced, by you; so long as you continue to exert yourself in the working out of the business, and. are engaged in the selling of our Hungarian wines and spirits, but of course we could not bind ourselves in perpetuity to such an allowance, as you might cease to represent these interests, and then, of course, the allowance would cease at the same time. Such a contingency I hope, however, is not likely to occur." The Plaintiff replied, accepting these terms. A few weeks afterwards, an agreement was come to, modifying these terms. The precise extent of the modification was in dispute, but, according to the statements of the bill, it did not alter the main JDEO.J.4B.3. SMITH V. LEVEAUX 275 features of the agreement, that the Plaintiff should receive a commission at seven and a half per cent, on orders obtained by himself, and at three and a half per cent, on orders not obtained by himself, but coming from persons originally introduced by him. [3] In September 1861 the Plaintiff ceased to travel for the Defendants, and in January 1862 filed his bill for an account and payment of what was due to him from the Defendants in respect of his commission. The Vice-Chancellor Sir William Page Wood held, that the case did not fall within the general rule, that an agent cannot maintain a suit against his principal for an account, inasmuch as here the Defendants had agreed to pay the Plaintiff three and a half per cent, on orders not coming through the Plaintiff, but coming from persons originally introduced by him, of which orders he would in general not know anything. On thia ground, His Honour considered the bill sustainable, and made a decree for an account (1 Hem. & Mill. 123). The Defendants, who had by their answer alleged that the bill ought not to have been filed, and that the Plaintiff's remedy was at law, appealed from this decree. Mr. Willeock and Mr. Roxburgh, in support of the decree. The Defendants took upon themselves the duty of keeping accounts ; and this created a confidential relation, which gives the Plaintiff a title to relief in equity. The amount of the Plaintiff's remuneration depends upon accounts of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards-Wood v Baldwin
...was no motive for this suit but to delay payment of a just demand. They cited Phillips v. Phillips (9 Hare, 471) and Smith v. Leveaux (1 Hem. & M. 123, reversed on appeal; 2 De G. J. & F. 1). the vice-chancellor [Sir John Stuart]. The injunction asked for must be granted. This is not a case......