Stead, Daker, Jackson, Wainwright, and Sowden v Salt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 May 1825 |
| Date | 13 May 1825 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 452
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 10 Moore, 389; 3 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 175.
stead, dakeh, jackson, wain wright, and sowden v. salt. May 13, 1825. [S. C. 10 Moore, 389; 3 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 175.] One of several partners cannot bind the others by a submission to arbitration, even of matters arising out of the business of the firm. The five Plaintiffs declared against the Defendant for work, labour, and materials, and on the common money counts. The general issue was pleaded; and at the trial before Bayley J., York Lent assizes 1825, the Defendant put in an award upon the matter touching which the action had been brought. The articles of agreement, however, which contained the submission, were signed in the first instance only by the Defendant Salt, and the Plaintiffs Stead, Daker, and Jackson. The time limited in them having expired without any thing being done, they were signed a second time with altered dates by Stead, who added the words, " for ourselves and partners, William Wainwright, Isaac Sowden." It appearing that the Plaintiffs were not general partners, but partners only in the dealings to which the award referred, the learned judge thought the instrument of submission insufficient; and a verdict was taken for the Plaintiff, subject to an application to this Court to set it aside and enter a nonsuit, on the ground of the defect in the submission. [102] Pell Serjt, obtained a rule nisi to this effect, on the ground that there was no difference between the incidents of a general partnership and a partnership in a particular transaction;-that a payment to one of several partners would operate aa a discharge of a debt due to the whole firm ;--that a release of such a debt, executed by one of several partners, would be valid against the others; as also a release of an action;-that an admission by one of several partners would be equally binding on the others;-that each partner had authority to act for the firm in all matters relating to the business carried on by them;-and that although an authority could not be implied to one of them to bind the others by a submission to arbitration on matters foreign to such business, (Sandeland v. Marsh) (2 B. & A, 673), yet a submission to arbitration on matters arising out of it, seemed to be as much within the scope of the 3BINQ. 103. THOMAS V.JACKSON 453 partnership authority, and as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodsden against Harridge
...one partner has no implied authority to bind his co-partner to a. submission to arbitration respecting the matters of the partnership. 3 Bing. 101, Stead v. Salt. 10 Moore, 309, S. C. 1 Cr. M. & R. 681, Adams v. Bankart. 5 Tyrw. 425, S. G.] K. B. xiv.-22 674 HODSDEN V. HABRIDGE 2 WMS. SAUND......
-
Doe dem. Stansbury against Arkwright
...(2 Mod. 228), the submission appears to have been by arbitration bond, and therefore the partner could not be bound. In Stead v. Salt (3 Bing. 101), the parties were not partners generally, but only in the dealings to which the award related: the matter was twice referred : in the first ins......
-
An Arbitration Between James Donovan and Rev. Joseph Burke
...366. (5) 3 B. & C. 144. (6) 2 Chitty Rep. 432. (7) 2 B. & C. 345. (8) 8 Rep. 81 b. (9) 11 M. & W. 110. (10) 6 Bing. (N. C.) 158. (11) 3 Bing. 101. (1) 49 L. J., Q. B. (2) 14 Ch. D. 200. (1) 14 Ves. 400. (1) 8 Rep. 81 b. (2) 17 Ves. 232. (3) 3 Macq. 808. (1) 14 Ch. D. 200. (2) 49 L. J., Q. B......
-
Agency and Liability
...Holt NP 141, 71 ER 193. 16 Brettel v Williams [1843–60] All ER Rep 702. 17 Niemann v Niemann (1890) LR 43 Ch D 198. 18 Stead v Salt (1825) 3 Bing 101, 130 ER 452. 19 Hambridge v De la Crouee (1846) 3 CB 742, 136 ER 297. 20 Re Briggs & Co [1906] 2 KB 209. 21 R (on the application of De Silva......
-
Table of Cases
...1 QB 133, 58 JP 196, 63 LJQB 293, CA 45 Southern v Borax Consolidated Ltd [1940] 4 All ER 412, (1940) 23 TC 597, KBD 198 Stead v Salt (1825) 3 Bing 101, 3 LJOSCP 175, 130 ER 452, Ct of CP 84 Steiglitz v Egginton (1815) Holt NP 141, 71 ER 193, [1814–23] All ER Rep 455, Ct of CP 56, 84 Stekel......