William Henry Neale v Sir T. Turton and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 May 1827 |
| Date | 15 May 1827 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 725
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 12 Moore, 365; 5 L. J. C.P. (O. S.) 133. Referred to, Boyce v. Edbrooke, [1903] 1 Ch. 842; Ellis v. Kerr, [1910] 1 Ch. 537.
4B1NG.H9. NEALE t . TURTON 725 [149] willeam henry neale v. sir T. turton and others. May 15, 1827. [S. C. 12 Moore, 365; 5 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 133. Referred to, Boyce v. Edbrooke, [1903] 1 Ch. 842; Ellis v. Ken; [1910] 1 Ch. 537.] The Plaintiff, a holder of shares iu a washing company, drew bills ou the directors of the company for goods furnished by him and his brother. The bills were accepted " lor the directors " by the secretary of the company, who had authority to accept bills drawn by the Plaintiff's brother:-Held, that the Plaintiff could not recover on these bills against the company. In this action the Plaintiff sought to recover 2301. 3s. of the Defendants, the amount of two bills of exchange. At the trial before Park J., Middlesex sittings after Hilary term, it appeared that the Plaintiff had supplied the London Patent Steam Washing Company with hay, straw, and corn for their horses, that the two bills iu question were drawn by the Plaintiff on " The Directors of the London Patent Steam Washing Company ;" and accepted for the directors of that company by their secretary. The bills were as follow: " Three months after date pay to me or my order the sum of 1151. for value received. William Henry Neale. Accepted, payable at the bank of England per proprietors of the London Steam Washing Company, Isaac Buxton." It iurther appeared that the secretary's authority was to accept bills drawn by Edward Neale to the extent of 2301. 3s. and that the Plaintiff was a holder of twenty shares iu the company. Two objections were raised to the Plaintiff's recovering: first, that the secretary had no authority to accept the bills drawn by the Plaintiff; and, secondly, that the Plaintiff was a. partner iu the concern, and, therefore, could not sue the Defendants his co-partners. A verdict was found for the Plaintiff, subject to a rule for setting it aside, and entering a nonsuit. A rule nisi to that effect was accordingly granted upon the objections urged at the trial. Caster v. Dnry (18 Ves. 157), [150] and Holmes v. Higgins (I 13. & C. 74), were cited to shew that the Plaintiff being a member of the company could not sue the directors, and it was also urged, that the directors were but the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cotham School v Bristol City Council
...are a number of authorities which bear upon it, and in my judgment they embody a procedural rule. Authorities 23 In Neale v Turton (1827) 4 Bing 149, one member of a partnership drew a bill of exchange on that partnership (including himself), which was accepted. He subsequently sought to su......
-
Catherine Armstrong v Catherine Armstrong
...and beneficiary, should be joined as a party to litigation once only, and on a single side of the record. Thus, in Neale v Turton (1827) 4 Bing 149, where one member of a partnership drew a bill of exchange on that partnership (including himself), which was accepted, and then sought to sue ......
-
Allnutt v Wilding
...v Howle and Talke Colliery Co LtdELR [1937] Ch 67 Joscelyne v NissenELRUNK [1970] 2 QB 86; [1970] 1 All ER 1213 Neale v TurtonENRENR (1827) 4 Bing 149; 130 ER 725 Phillips, Re, Public Trustee v Meyer [1931] WN 271 Whiteside v WhitesideELRUNK [1950] Ch 65; [1949] 2 All ER 913 Alex Hall Taylo......
-
Peter Malcolm Jones v David Charles Longley and Others
...more than one capacity, such as trustee and beneficiary, should be joined as a party to litigation once only, and on a single side: see Neale v Turton (1827) 4 Bing 149; Hardie & Lane Ltd v Chiltern [1928] 1 KB 663; Re Phillips [1931] WN 271. But that rule tells us nothing about the constru......