Case ID: yeates_2/html/0185-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "But by the court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Francis Pavret, Alian Gabriel Pele and Julian Francis Pele, surviving partners of Pierre Pavret against Elliston Perot and John Perot.
    Agent or factor cannot charge commission on the payment of his own debt to his principal : aliter where it is remitted in bills of exchange.
    The only question in this case was, whether the defendants were entitled to commissions on the sums to he recovered. The plaintiffs had a commendatory partnership, and carried on trade at Port au Prince, the two Peles being the ostensible and active partners. On the death of Pierre Pavret, the court of the Senechaussey of Port au Prince, on the 20th October 1794, decreed, that Francis Pavret was entitled to collect the debts of the late company. The defendants were agents of the firm, and transacted their business here. They readily settled their account, and agreed to pay interest thereon : but they wished that a judgment should pass for their security, and agreed to an amicable action for that purpose. The defendant, after having charged the usual commission for transacting the concerns of the com. pany, now insisted, that the custom of merchants warranted the charge of commissions on the payment of the balance, and examined two witnesses for that purpose.
    Mr. Du Ponceau, pro quer.
    
    Mr. Rawle, pro def.
    
   But by the court.

If such is the usage it cannot be supported under the present circumstances. There may be some reason for such a charge by a factor, where he remits his balance in bills of exchange.. There he experiences both trouble and risque on negotiating the bills. But suppose a balance settled by an account current and a bill of exchange drawn for the amount, would not the factor deem himself bound to pay it without deduetion ? So where the principal himself receives his money from the factor at his place of abode, would it not be unreasóneble in the latter to charge a commission, on the payment of his own proper debt ?

Verdict pro quer. for 4249 dollars and 3 cents, and 6 cents costs.