Walsh against Whitcomb
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 456
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings after Term, at Westminster. walsh aga^nst whitcomb (Where a power of attorney is given as part of a security, it is not revocable.) This was an action of assunipsit for work and labour, goods sold and delivered, with the common counts Plea of non assumpsit. 2 ESP. 566. OWEN V. GOOCH 457 The action was brought to recover a mm of money for work done by the plaintiff, who was d tailoi The defence was, that Walsh the plaintiff, in the month of October 1794, having become Insolvent, had executed a power of attorney to one Barker, together with a general assignment by deed, authorising him to receive the several debts due to him for the benefit of his creditors, and to give proper receipts and discharges for the same : and that he had also given Barker a power to appoint a substitute or other person to act in his room for the same purposes In October 1795, Barker, in pursuance of the power of substitution so given, executed an authority to one Charles Hindley Hmdley applied to the defendant Whitcomb for the debt due to Walsh , he paid it and took his receipt [566] Some time after, Whitcomb was again applied to for payment of the same demand, by another person claiming under a powei of attorney from Walsh the plaintiff. The defendant Whitcomb produced the receipt he had received from Hindley, which the person who applied refused to allow , and the present action was brought For the plaintiff it was contended, that a power of attorney is, from its nature, revocable, and that the execution...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bailey v Angove's Pty Ltd
...but gives rise to a claim for damages. Powers of attorney were said by Lord Kenyon to be "revocable from their nature": Walsh v Whitcomb (1797) 2 Esp 565, 566. In Story's Law of Agency, 2nd ed (1864), p 598, at para 463, the rule was said to be "so plain a doctrine of common sense and commo......
-
Bailey v Collett
...3 Dru. & W. 82). Where a person gives a power of attorney or an authority for valuable consideration, it is irrevocable; Walsh v. Whttamb (2 Esp. 565); Smart v. Sandars (5 Com. B. Eep. 895); Vance v. Vance, (1 Beav. 605); Spooner v. Xandilands (1 Y. & C. (C. C.) 390); and if acted on after ......
-
Re Fisher
...Dru. & W. 82). Where a person gives a power of attorney or an authority for valuable consideration, it is irrevocable ; Walsh. v. Whitcomb (2 Esp. 565) ; Smart V. &whirs (5 Com. B. Rep. 895) ; Vance v. Vance (1 Beay. 605); Spooner v. Sandilands (1 Y. & C. (C. C.) 390); and if acted on after......
-
Yifung Developments Ltd v Liu Chi Keung Ricky And Others
...granted remained valid. As the PoAs were security for money, and stated to be irrevocable, they were not revocable: Walsh v Whitcomb (1797) 2 Esp 565. 70. YDL produced 2 legal opinions containing inconsistent statements. Harneys’ 1st opinion dated 12 June 2015 stated that only the Receivers......