William Dawes, Assignee of Dingley Askam, Sheriff of the County of Huntingdon, against William Papworth, Esq
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 April 1743 |
| Date | 27 April 1743 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 125 E.R. 1239
Common Pleas Division
these notes had been actually negotiated, it might have been otherwise, because then it must have been considered as if the money bad been received ; besides innocent persons might be prejudiced ; but that is not the present case. The other objection was that a factor by virtue of a general authority cannot sell on credit ; if he do, it is at his own risk, and the owner is not obliged to accept the vendee as his debtor; and that it does not in the present case appear that he had any special authority. And for this purpose several passages were cited out of the civil law books of the nature of a factor. To this I shall give two (407] answers ; 1st, that the nature of dealing is now quite altered, of which Courts of Law must take notice ; far constant and daily experience shews that factors do sell upon credit without such a special authority. If it were otherwise, it would he the greatest prejudice to trade, as it would be likewise if this notion should prevail that the owner must suffer by the factor's becoming bankrupt ; and we ought always as much as we can and as far as is consistent with the rules of law to do every thing to promote the trade and commerce of the nation. Another answer likewise may be given, that a man may in many cases either consider another as a wrong-doer or as a receiver of money for his use as he thinks best and most for his advantage; and therefore if the nature of a factor were as is alleged, yet even in that case the owner may come either against the vendee or the factor at his election ; and the plaintiffs by this action have chosen to confirm the sale. And therefore as we think that there is nothing in these objections, upon the reason of the thing, the general rule which bas always prevailed in parallel cases, and these two cases in point, we are clearly of opinion for the plaintiffs as to the two first sums : and as to the last we think that it is still much stronger for them ; for as the bounty-money does not belong to the plaintiffs or become due to them by virtue of any contract made by the_ factor, but as it is given by several Acts of Parliament to the importer (a) whoever received this certainly received it for the use of the plaintiffs, who were the owners and importers of the goods. We are therefore of opinion that the judgment ought to be for the plaintiffs for 3271. 10s., and ordered the verdict and judgment to be mitered up according to the rule for that sum "(b). [408] WILLIAM DAWES, Assignee of Dingley Askam, Sheriff of the County of Huntingdon, against WILLIAM PAPWORTH, ESQ. E. 16 G. 2. Wednesday, April...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Everard v.Paterson
...1484). So, in debt on a hail-bond, it need not be averred that it was assigned according to the form of the statute. Dawes v. Patworth (Willes, 408), And though, in an Anonymous case (Salk. 519, pl. 17), it was once said, that in pleading a will of land, it was necessary to show that it was......
-
Richard Watters v The Heir and Terretenants of George Lidwill
...Ibid, 313. Barry v. Hoare 4 Ir. Law Rep. 103. Creagh v. Fulton 5 Ir. Law Rep. 322. Lewis v. Parkes 3 M. W. 133. Dawes v. PapworthENR Willes, 408. Malcolmson v. Gregory Batty, 561. Mahon v. Joyce Glasc. 268. Bruce v. Cooke 1 H. & Br. 310. Mahon v. Davoren 2 Hud. & Br. 523. Warrens v. O'Shee ......
-
Lewis v Parkes
...submitted, that, if so taken, the allegation is insufficient. Humirey, contra. The declaration is good. The case of Dawf.s v. Papwortfi (Willes, 408) is a decision expressly in point, though it may be admitted that the 1088 RATHBONE T. FOWLER 3 M. & W. 136. objection to the declaration must......
-
Craven v Sanderson and Others
...and upon that denial the plaintiff takes issue. Matter of law may be put in issue, if complicated with matter of fact; Daives v. Papwmth (Willes, 408). If the traverse had been immaterial, the plaintiff might have pleaded over to the inducement; Reg. Gen. Hil. 4 W. 4, General Rules and Regu......