Willis Faber & Company Ltd v Joyce
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 April 1911 |
| Date | 07 April 1911 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
King's Bench Division
Scrutton, J.
Willis, Faber, and Co. Limited v. Joyce
Scarf v. JardineELR 47 L. T. Rep. 258 7 App. Cas. 345
Drew v. NunnELR 40 L. T. Rep. 671 4 Q. B. Div. 561
Trueman v. Loder 11 A. & E.
Russo-Chinese Bank v. Li Yau Sam 101 L. T. Rep. 689 (1910) A. C. 74
Baines v. EwingENR 14 L. T. Rep. 733 L. Rep. 1 Ex. 320
Hambro v. BurnandELR 90 L. T. Rep. 803 (1904) 2 K. B. 10
Marine insurance Underwriting Principal and agent
Scarf v. Jardine (47 L. T. Rep. 258; (1882) 7 App. Cas. 345), Drew v. Nunn (40 L. T. Rep. 671; (1879) 4 Q. B. Div. 561), Trueman v. Loder (11 A. & E. 589 (1840)) followed.
MARITIME LAW CASES. 601 K.B. DIV.] WILLIS, FABER, AND CO. LIMITED V. JOYCE. [K.B. DIV. Friday, April 7, 1911 (Before Scrutton, J.). Willis, Faber, and Co. Limited v. Joyce. (a) Marine insurance-Underwriting-Principal and agent-No notice of determination of agent's authority-Ettoppel. An underwriter employed an agent to underwrite for him by a written authority which expired on the 31st Dec. 1909. Prior to this date the underwriter had paid many losses on polices effected through the agent, but neither at the end of 1909 nor at any time had he ever given any notice to those with whom he had done such underwriting business that the agent's authority to act for him had been determined, nor had he given any notice of the fact at Lloyd's. In an action by the plaintiff in respect of certain policies ostensibly underwritten by the under-writer, who was defendant, through the agent after the 31st Dec. 1909: Held, that the defendant was estopped from denying the agent's authority to act on his behalf, as he had given no notice of the determination of the authority. Scarf v. Jardine (47 L. T. Rep. 258; (1882) 7 App. Cas. 345), Draw v. N??n (40 L. T. Rep. 671; (1879) 4 Q. B. Div. 561), Trueman v. Loder (11 A. & E. 589 (1840) followed. COMMERCIAL Court. Action tried by Scrutton, J. sitting without a jury. The plaintiffs claimed to recover certain louse due on policies of marine insurance which they alleged were underwritten by the defendant The defendant by hit defence pleaded that the policies were underwritten by one Angora without his authority. The facts and arguments are sufficiently stated in the judgment Bailhache, K.C. and F. D. MacKinnon for the plaintiffs. Atkin, K.C. and McCardie for the defendant Scrutton, J.-In this case Messrs. Willis, Faber, and Co. sue Mr. John Joyce for certain losses due on insurance policies. The defendant, while not admitting that there were claims on the policies, took what is really a preliminary point, that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shell Company (W.I) Ltd v Caribbean Cement Company Ltd
...had paid for them. 44 In law notice must be given to a third party in order to terminate apparent or ostensible authority - Willis Faber and Company v Joyce 27 TLR 388. Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Edition Volume 1 paragraph 201. 45 The defendant had done nothing to terminate Wayne Jackso......
-
AMB Generali Holding AG v SEB Trygg LIV Holding AB
...Ltd[1980] 2 SCR 2. Sardinia Sulcis, TheUNK [1991] 1 Ll Rep 201. Scarf v JardineELR(1882) LR 7 App Cas 345.Willis Faber & Co Ltd v Joyce(1911) 104 LT 576.Yonge v ToynbeeELR[1910] 1 KB 215. Arbitration — Nullity — Universal succession — Authority — Ratification — Misnomer — Solicitors — Warra......
-
AMB Generall Holding AG v Manches and Others
... ... ostensible authority to act and that the successor in title to the company had ratified the proceedings. LORD JUSTICE BUXTON said that ... ...