Stephens, Clerk, against Badcock

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of the King's Bench
Judgment Date01 Jan 1832

English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 133


Stephens, Clerk, against Badcock

S. C. 1 L. J. K. B. 75. Distinguished, Collins v. Brook, 1860, 5 H. & N. 707. Mildred v. Maspons, 1883, 8 App. Cas. 886.

stephens, Clerk, against badcock. Tuesday, January 31st, 1832. J., an attorney, who was accustomed to receive certain dues for the plaintiff, his client, went from home, leaving B., his clerk, at the office. B., in the absence of his master, received money on account of the above dues for the client (which he was authorized to do), and gave a receipt signed "B., for Mr. J." J. was in bad circumstances when he left home, and he never returned, but it did not appear that his intention so to act was known at the time of the payment to B. B. afterwards refused to pay the money over to the client, and on assumpsit brought against him for money had and received, it was held, that the action did not lie; for that the defendant received the money as the agent of his master, and was accountable to him for it, the master on the other hand being answerable to the client for the sum received by his clerk; and there was no privity of contract between the present plaintiff and defendant. [S. C. 1 L. J. K. B. 75. Distinguished, Collins v. Brook, 1860, 5 H. & N. 707. Mildred v. Maspons, 1883, 8 App. Cas. 886.] Assumpsit for money had and received, &c. Plea, the general issue. At the trial before Taunton J., at the Cornwall Lent Assizes 1831, the following facts appeared. The plaintiff was rector of Ludgvan near Penzanee; the defendant had been clerk to Mr. Samuel John, an attorney, whom the plaintiff had for several years employed to receive his rents and tithes. On the 10th of August 1829, John, being in embarrassed circumstances, left his home; he had not returned, and [355] a commission of bankrupt had issued against him, when this action was brought. After his departure, and before the cause of it was known in his office^ Reynolds, his principal clerk, who had occasionally received payments for him in his absence, went to attend Bodmin Assizes, leaving the defendant behind. At the assizes, at some time from (6) 1 M. & M. 538. And see 1 Sid. 31. 134 STEPHENS .V. BADCOCK 3B.&AD.S5K the 18th to the 20th of August, Reynolds first heard that John was not likely to return. In Reynolds's absence one of the plaintiff's parishioners called at the office to pay 91. Os. 2d., on account of a composition for tithes. The defendant said that Mr. John was absent, but he would receive the money (which he was, in fact, authorized by Reynolds to do); it was paid to him, and he gave a stamped receipt for the sum, as follows:-"Received 20th August 1829 of Mr. H. T., 91. Os. 2d., for half a year's composition for tithes due to Rev. J. S. at Lady-Day last past, for Mr. S. John, John Badcoek." On Reynolds's return the defendant accounted to him for other sums received during his absence, but said nothing of this : nor did Reynolds know of this payment tillthe end of the year. Reynolds stated, that at the time of these transactions, John was indebted to the plaintiff on the balance of account between them. It did not appear that the defendant had any claim upon John. The defendant having refused to pay the plaintiff the 91., (which be had not paid over to John or his estate,) this action was brought to recover it. Two objections in point of law were taken at the trial: first, that, as the defendant acted only as clerk to John in receiving the sum in question, the action should have been brought against his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Makepeace v Rogers
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 25 Marzo 1865
    ...v. Banner (4 Madd. 413); Kennington v. Hmighton (2 Y. & C. C. C. 620); Loci-wood v. Ably (14 Sim. 437); [652] Stephens v. Badcock (3 B. & Ad. 354); Henderson v. Easan (17 Q. B. 701); Gorely v. Garely (1 H. & N. 144); Howe v. Contencin (1 Bro. C. C. 27); Pearse v. Green (1 J. &am......
  • Robbins against Fennell, Child and Kelly
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the Queen's Bench
    • 27 Noviembre 1847 that circumstance, agrees with Moody v. Spencer (2 D. & R. 6), and differs from Cobb v. Becke (6 Q. B. 930). Stephens v. Badcock (3 B. & Ad. 354), which may also be cited, is inapplicable : that was merely the case of a clerk who received for his master, and was therefore held no......
  • Harriot Davies against George Croft Vernon and Luke Minshall
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the Queen's Bench
    • 6 Julio 1844
    ...On this part of the case Owen v. Knight, 4 New Ca. 54, and Philips v. Robinson, 4 Bing. 106, were cited in support of the rule. (6)" 3 B. & Ad. 354. See Bamfard v. Shuttkivorth, 11 A. & E. 926. (c) -2 Mod. 242. Lane v. Cotton, 12 Mod. 472, 488, was also cited for the defendants......
  • Lewis v Campbell
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Common Pleas
    • 21 Noviembre 1849
    ...under the circumstances, the order given by Lewis to Duke never having in fact produced money : and he referred to Stephens v. Badeock (3 B. & Ad. 354), Spencer v. Parry (3 Ad. & E. 331, 4 N. & M. 770), and Lubbock v. Tribe (3 M. & W. 607). Talfourd, Serjt., and Montague Smi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT