ISBN: 9781130065916

RareBooksClub. Paperback. New. This item is printed on demand. Paperback. 110 pages. Dimensions: 9.7in. x 7.4in. x 0.2in.This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Pur… Plus…

RareBooksClub. Paperback. New. This item is printed on demand. Paperback. 110 pages. Dimensions: 9.7in. x 7.4in. x 0.2in.This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1847 Excerpt: . . . S. C. 1 Salk. 13. . (q) Wollaston v. HakcwHl, 3 Scott, N. R. 593. See Barrett v. Roiph, 14 M. and W. 348 Oxley v. James, 13 M. and W. 209. (r) Penley v. Watts, 7 M. and W. 601; Walker v. Hatton, 10 M. and W. 249; after which cases it seems that Neale v. Wyllie, 3 B. and C. 533, cannot be supported. See also Duffield v. Scott, 3 T. R. 374; Jones v. Williams, 7 M. and W. 493; Blyth v. Smith, 6 Scott, N. R. 360. () See Goodall v. Lowndes, 6 Q. B. 464 (1) Downman v. Jones, (in error, ) 14 L. J. , N. S. , Q. B. , 226, reversing the judgment in S. C, 4 Q. B. 235 (a). Chamberlain v. Hammond, Law. Times, vol. vii. p. 226; Harper v. Williams, 4 Q. B. 219; post, s. 184. i Eng. Com. Law Reps. 10. iId. 45. Reprinted at 2. 50 per vol. Smith, (w) that the holder of this note had not a separate right of action against B. the party signing, but that the firm were liable; and Parke, B. , observed-- This is prima facie a promise by one partner for himself and the other three partners, and it amounts to one promise of the four persons constituting the firm, and if B. had authority the firm is bound. (a1) I really must say that I think Hall v. Smith cannot be supported. The partner in making the promise is only an agent for the firm. Then does it bind him personally, or does it bind the firm No doubt the instrument was intended to bind the firm, and as he had authority as a partner to do it, it had that efiect. (y) 182 a. The real question, then, in all these cases is with rjQ whom was the contract made; and in answering this question, L i the jury will have to consider whether the party, through whose instrumentality the contract is alleged to have been made, had in fact authority to make it. Thus assumpsit for work and labour, in writing. . . This item ships from La Vergne,TN., RareBooksClub<