Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  















Company - From: 1800 To: 1849

This page lists 35 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Forster v Hale (1800) 5 Ves Jr 308
1800


Land, Company
An oral partnership agreement can be valid and if the partnership assets include land, then the land is held on a constructive trust for the partnership.
1 Citers


 
Eagleton v The East India Company [1802] EngR 96; (1802) 3 Bos & Pul 55; (1802) 127 ER 32
10 Feb 1802


Company
The sales of the E. I, Company being subject to a reguIation that any buyer not making good the remainder of his purcbase money on or before tbe day limiited for such payment should forfeit the deposit, "and should be rendered incapable of buying again at any future sale until he shall have given satisfaction to the Court of Directors;" Held that the term satisfaction must be held to mean pecuniary compensation for the non-performance of his agreement to pay on the appoinited day, and that a buyer having made default on that day, but afterwards within a further time given to him by the E. I. Company paid the remainder of the purchase-money with interest, might maintain an action against the E. I. Company for refusing to permit him to become a bidder at their sales, such sales being by 9 & 10 W. 3, c, 44, s. 69, declared to be public and open sales. - Quaere, Whether since the passing of 18 Geo. 4, c. 26, which regulates the deposits, forfeitures, and capacities of bidders at the tea sales of the E. 1. Company, the E. 1. Company can make or enforce any other regulations affecting those sales than such as the act of Parrliament has enacted
[ Commonlii ]
 
Ex parte Bennett 10 Ves 381
1805


Company
(Year?) The rule against self-dealing applies even if the fiduciary duty acts in the purchase only as an agent for others.
1 Citers


 
Rex v Dodd [1808] EngR 224; (1808) 9 East 516; (1808) 103 ER 670
30 May 1808
KBD
Lord Ellenborough LCJ
Company
Lord Ellenborough discussed the first attempts to set up companies with limited liability.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Drew v Drew [1813] EngR 532; (1813) 2 Ves & Bea 159; (1813) 35 ER 279
30 Jul 1813


Company
Negative Plea of no partnership. Not necessary to answer to Circumstances, ending to the Point, upon which the defendant relics, and tenders an Issue by his Plea. Averment to Belief as to the transactions of others sufficient,
[ Commonlii ]
 
Bedford v Deakin And Two Others [1816] EngR 14; (1816-1819) 2 Stark 178; (1816) 171 ER 612 (B)
1816


Company, Insolvency
The plaintiff holding a bill of exchange as a security from three partners, after the dissolution of the copartnership, and after the bankruptcy of one of them, takes the notes of one of them as a collateral security, without the knowledge of the other partners and retains, the original security in his hands. This does not discharge the other partners.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Devaynes v Noble; Baring v Noble, Clayton's Case [1816] 1 Mer 572; [1814-23] All ER Rep 1; [1816] 35 ER 781
1816
CA
Grant MR
Banking, Company, Insolvency
A partner in a banking firm died. The surviving partners continued to trade without making any changes. They later fell into bankruptcy. Creditors of the bank at the date of the death still traded with the bank with varying changes in their banking accounts. Held: The fact that they continued to trade with the continuing partners did not discharge the estate of the deceased partner. Grant MR said: "I apprehend by the general mercantile law, a partnership contract is several as well as joint. That may probably be the reason why courts of equity have considered joint contracts of this sort, that is joint in form, as standing on a different footing from others."
1 Citers

[ Worldii ]
 
Gillespie, Executor of Crawford v Hamilton [1818] EngR 558; (1818) 3 Madd 251; (1818) 56 ER 501
24 Jun 1818


Company
A partnership for a term of years is dissolvecl by the death of a partner before the term has expired.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Pettyt v Janeson (1819) 6 Madd 146
1819

Sir John Leach, Vice-Chancellor
Company

1 Citers


 
Clark And Others v Glennie And Another [1820] EngR 23; (1820) 3 Stark 10; (1820) 171 ER 750 (A)
1820


Company

[ Commonlii ]
 
Garrett and Bodenham, Surviving Partners of Phillips, v Handley [1825] EngR 99; (1825) 4 B & C 664; (1825) 107 ER 1208
1825


Company
An action may be maintained by the several partners of a firm, upon a guaranty given to one of them, if there be evidence that it was given for the benefit of all.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Milford, Milford The Younger v Milford, Paternoster, and Others, and Paternoster v Milford etc [1825] EngR 400; (1825) M'Cle & Yo 149; (1825) 148 ER 362 (B)
7 Feb 1825


Company

[ Commonlii ]
 
Maddeford v Austwick [1826] 1 Sim 92
1826


Company
When co-partners are negotiating between each other in relation to partnership assets, each partner must put the others in possession of all material facts with reference to the partnership assets, and not to conceal what he alone knows.
1 Citers


 
Nerot v Burnand [1827] EngR 889; (1827) 4 Russ 247; (1827) 38 ER 798
22 Dec 1827


Company

[ Commonlii ]
 
Jones And Others, Assignees Of Luke Sykes And Thomas Bury v John Yates And John Young [1829] EngR 499; (1829) 9 B & C 532; (1829) 109 ER 198
1 Jun 1829


Company, Torts - Other
A B and C carried on trade in partnership, and A was also in partnership with D. A being indebted to the firm of A B and C before the dissolution of that partnership, unknown to D indorsed a bill and paid over money (belonging to A and D) in discharge of the private debt due from A to A B and C, and immediately afterwards indorsed the same bill to a creditor of the firm of A B and C. The partnership between A B and C having been dissolved : Held, that A and D could not maintain trover against B and C for the bill, nor assumpsit for the money paid by A out of the funds of A and D to A B and C in discharge of his private debt that their assignees could not maintain such actions.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Fawcett v Whitehouse; 21-Dec-1829 - (1829) 1 Russ & M 132; [1829] EngR 859; (1829) 1 Russ & My 132; (1829) 39 ER 51
 
Thompson v Williamson [1831] EngR 283; (1831) 7 Bligh NS PC 432; (1831) 5 ER 833
1831
PC

Scotland, Company
In the absence of an express partnership agreement, there is no presumption that partners will share profits equally.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Baring v Noble [1831] EngR 491; (1831) 2 Russ & My 495; (1831) 39 ER 482
9 Mar 1831


Company
The creditor of a partnership, in which one of the partners dies, and the surviving partners afterwards become bankrupt, has a right to resort to the assets of the deceased partner for payment, without regard to the state of the account as between such deceased partner and the surviving partners.
1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
Small And Others v Attwood And Others [1832] EngR 776; (1831-1832) You 407; (1832) 159 ER 1051
1 Nov 1832


Company, Litigation Practice
Where a contract is entered into for the purchase of an estate by certain persons in their own names, but in fact on their own account, and also as agents for other parties, a bill to rescind the contract may be filed in the names of the agents and the other parties. Where the partners in a Company or partnership are numerous, a bill may be filed by some of the partners on behalf of themselves and the other partners to rescind the contract. In a case where it is manifest, from the circumstances, and the evidence, that it is for the benefit of all the partners that the contract should be rescinded. A contract for the sale of iron mines was rescinded on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentations of the value of the estate, and of the prices of ironstone and other materials, and of the quantities of materials required for the manufacture of iron, notwithstanding possession had been taken, the mines worked, and other acts of ownership had been exercised, and notwithstanding some acts in confirmation of the contract.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Keppell v Bailey [1834] EWHC Ch J77; (1834) 2 My & K 517; [1834] 39 ER 1042; [1834] EngR 193; (1834) Coop T Br 298; (1834) 47 ER 106; [1834] EngR 448; (1834) 39 ER 1042
29 Jan 1834
ChD
Lord Brougham LC
Contract, Company
The court was asked whether the owner of land can burthen it in the hands of future owners by the creation of novel rights. Held: Lord Brougham said: "It must not be supposed that incidents of a novel kind can be devised and attached to property at the fancy and caprice of any owner. It is clearly inconvenient both to the science of the law and the public weal that such a latitude should be given. There can be no harm in allowing the fullest latitude to men in binding themselves . . to answer in damages for breach of their obligations . . but great detriment would arise and much confusion of rights if parties were allowed to invent new modes of holding and enjoying real property."
As to the subject of covenants, he said: 'The covenant (that is, such as will run with the land) must be of such a nature as 'to inhere in the land,' to use the language of some cases; or 'it must concern the demised premises, and the mode of occupying them,' as it is laid down in others: 'it must be quodammodo annexed and appurtenant to them,' as one authority has it; or, as another says, 'it must both concern the thing demised, and tend to support it, and support the reversioner's estate.' Now, the privilege or right in question does not inhere in the land, does not concern the premises conveyed or the mode of occupying them: it is not appurtenant to them. A covenant, therefore, that such a right should be enjoyed, would not run with the land. Upon the same principle, it appears to us that such a right, unconnected with the enjoyment or occupation of the land, cannot be annexed as an incident to it: nor can a way appendant to a house or land be granted away, or made in gross; for, no one can have such a way but he who has the land to which it is appendant: Bro. Abr. Graunt, pl. 130 (citing, M. 5 H. 7, fo. 7, pl. 15). If a way be granted in gross, it is personal only, and cannot be assigned. So, common in gross sans nombre may he granted, but cannot be granted over: per Treby, C. J., in Weekly v. Wildman, 1 Lord Raym. 407. It is not in the power of a vendor to create any rights not connected with the use or enjoyment of the land, and annex them to it: nor can the owner of land render it subject to a new species of burthen, so as to bind it in the hands of an assignee."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Commonlii ] - [ Commonlii ]
 
Baboo Benee Suhaee and Baboo Madho Suhaee, Children Of Mussummaut Seetul Bahoo, By Their Guardian, Ramchurn Lal v Baboo Hurkishen Doss [1834] EngR 519; (1834) 2 Knapp 255; (1834) 12 ER 477; [1834] UKPC 6
8 Feb 1834
PC
Sir Lancelot Shadwell VC
Company
(Bengal) The Court of Sudder Dewaany Adawlut of Bengal ought not to affirm a decree of a Provincial Court in a case respecting a balance of partnership accounts without examining the original acccunt books of the firm, if they are tendered in evidence before it, although they were not produced before the Provincial Court.
(Bengal) The Court of Sudder Dewaany Adawlut of Bengal ought not to affirm a decree of a Provincial Court in a case respecting a balance of partnership accounts without examining the original acccunt books of the firm, if they are tendered in evidence before it, although they were not produced before the Provincial Court.
[ Commonlii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Farrer v Beswick 1836 Meeson and Welsby's Reports 682
1836

Baron Parke
Company, Torts - Other
Baron Parke said: "I have always understood, until the doubt was raised in Barton v. Williams, that one joint-tenant or tenant in common of a chattel could not be guilty of a conversion by a sale of that chattel, unless it were sold in such a manner as to deprive his partner of his interest in it. A sale in market overt would have that effect."
1 Citers


 
William Evans, John Evans, And Thomas Finnemore Evans, On The Part Of Themselves, And All Other Members Or Partners Of The French Brandy Distillery Company, Except The Defendants, Plaintiffs; And Henry Stokes, Richard Cuerton The Elder, John Gore, [1836] EngR 351; (1836) 1 Keen 24; (1836) 48 ER 215
27 Jan 1836


Company

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Hutchinson v Gillespie and Others; PC 16-Feb-1838 - [1838] UKPC 10

 
 Attwood v Small and Others; HL 1-Mar-1838 - [1838] UKHL J14; 7 ER 684; [1838] UKHL J60
 
Clarissa Murray, Widow Of James Murray, v John Walter, Thomas Massa Alsager, And John Joseph Lawson [1839] EngR 983; (1839) Cr & Ph 114; (1839) 41 ER 433
7 Aug 1839


Company

[ Commonlii ]
 
Seddon v Connell [1840] EngR 678; (1840) 10 Sim 58; (1840) 59 ER 534
10 Jun 1840


Company, Torts - Other
A. filed a bill against the public officer of a joint stock bank, alledging that he had been induced to purchase 500 shares in the bank by fraudulent representations made by the directors, in their reports, as to the prosperous state of the company’s affairs, and praying for a declaration to that effect and that the purchase might be declared void, as between him and the company, and that the latter might repay him his purchase-money. Held, that as the litigation was between one member of the partnership as such, and the other members as such, the public officer was improperly made a party to it as representing the company ; and a demurrer by him was allowed.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Willett v Blanford (1842) 1 Hare 253; 66 ER 1027
1842

Wigram VC
Company
A partner continuing after a dissolution was liable to account as a fiduciary to the outgoing partner in respect of his unauthorised use for his own benefit of the assets of the partnership. The quantum of the entitlement of the Outgoing Partner in respect of the profits made by the Continuing Partner must be determined by reference to what is right and equitable between the parties in all the circumstances and in particular the extent that the profits are attributable to use of the outgoing partner's share of the partnership assets. It is notoriously difficult to attribute a proportion of the profits of a continuing partnership to the use of the outgoing partner's share of the partnership assets.
1 Citers



 
 Foss v Harbottle; 25-Mar-1843 - [1843] 67 ER 189; [1843] EngR 478; (1843) 2 Hare 461
 
Ward v The Society Of Attornies [1844] EngR 816; (1844) 1 Coll 370; (1844) 63 ER 459
26 Jul 1844


Legal Professions, Company, Litigation Practice
On a motion made on behalf of the minority for an injunction to restrain the majority of the members of a corporation from surrendering their charter, with a view to obtain a new charter for an object different from that for which the original charter was granted, the Court granted the injunction until the hearing.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Dale v Hamilton (1846) 5 Hare 369
1846


Company, Land
An oral partnership agreement mat be valid despite the partnership owning land.
1 Citers


 
Walstab v Spottiswoode [1846] EngR 805; (1846) 15 M & W 501; (1846) 153 ER 947
12 Jun 1846


Company

[ Commonlii ]
 
The Queen v The Londonderry And Coleraine Railway Company [1849] EngR 89; (1849) 13 QB 998; (1849) 116 ER 1544
1849


Company
Under the Companies' Clauses Act, 8 and 9 Vict. c. 16, s. 22, a call of money on shares is made, in point of time, when the resolution to call is passed, not when notice of the call is given to the shareholder. Therefore, by sect. 16, a shareholder cannot legally transfer his share after the passing of such resolution, without paying the call, though he has executed a deed of transfer before notice of the call was served upon him.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Vallee And Others v Dumergue; Cex 6-Jul-1849 - [1849] EngR 834; (1849) 4 Exch 290; (1849) 154 ER 1221
 
In The Matter Of The Liverpool And Manchester Saw Mills And Timber Joint Stock Company And In The Matter Of The Joint Stock Companies Winding-Up Act, 1848 Holt's Case [1849] EngR 904 (A); (1849) 3 De G & Sm 99
4 Aug 1849


Company

[ Commonlii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.