The National Register.
London, England, 1819-04-19 00:00:00

TILE NATIONAL ItEGISTInt

LA!(' INTELLIGENCE.

GUILDHALL, ERIDAT. Avert. 16.
Before Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT, and Sp.ciat Juries.
ei.oxAst v. ABBOTT.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of 200/. which
the declaration stated to be money had and received for the use of
4he plaintiff by the defendant, and also for money advanced by the
*Miff to the defendant. The defendant pleaded the general
lone to all the counts in the declaration, and also a set off.
Mr. Scarlett stated the case for the plaintiff. Messrs. Bloxam
and Hollingsworth were the assignees of two persons named Fort-
dtinier, who was the inventor and patentee of a machine now much
in use among paper manufacturers. These machines he had been
in the habit of lending out to persons engaged in that trade, at
different prices, according to their intriiisic value. It was perhaps
requisite to state that the present defendant had been appointed
one of the assignees to the estate of the Messrs. Foudri-
nier at the time when they were made bankrupts; but that he
had been removed from that situation by an order of the Lord
Chancellor, issued on the petition of certain creditors, who stated.
that as the death of the other assignees, who were appointed at the
same time with Mr. Abbott, had left him sole assignee, and as he
has intimately connected with the Messrs. Foudnnier, and was
even engaged in certain commercial speculations along with them,
he was not a fit person to have the disposal of the funds of the
estate. In consequence of his being removed, a circumstance, of
the necessity and propriety of which the defendant had himself
concurred, fresh assigned were appointed. and those assignees
were the present plaintiffs, Messrs. Bloxam and Hollingsworth.
Messrs. Crompton, respectable paper manufacturers, near Bolton,
in Lancashire. had hired one of the machines to which lie had
before alluded, and had agreed to pay istol. a year for it. They
had usually paid this sum to Mr. Abbott 6 but in 1817 they had
paid it to MC'STS. Bloxam and Hollingsworth, as assignees to the
estate. During the last year a Frenchtnan. of the name of Didot,
had sent a note round to all tire paper manufacturers charging
them not to pay Messrs. Foudrinier for the use of the machines
which those individuals had fabricated: the money was due to
him as the inventor of them ; and he intended to appeal to the
English Courts of Law to set aside the patent which the Foudri-
niers had obtained. Shortly after the .Messrs. Crompton had re-
ceived this note, one of them came to town, and consulted with
Mr. Abbott regarding the attention which ought to be paid to it.
Mr. Abbott told him that Didot was a foolish fellow, and that he
had better pay over the money to those who were commissioned to
receive it. In consequence he paid this 2001. to Mr. Abbott
himself for the benefit of the estate. When the assignees die-
covered this circumstance, they applied to Mr. Abbott for payment
of the sum. lie, however. refused to make it, and stated that he
wasentitled to a commission on the sums which he had received for
the estate of the bankrupts. and that he should retain the 200/. till
his Claims were satisfied. Mr. Scarlett hoped that the verdict of
the Jury would *hew the defendant tire futility of such a defence.
The learned gentleman then proceeded to call witnesses to
establish the right of property to these machines to have been ori-
ginally in the Messrs. Foudrinier, and to be now in the assignee.
He was also proceeding to *how that the money in question had
been paid to Mr. Abbott by Messrs. Crompton, when Mr. Gurney
interrupted him, and stated that his learned friend might se, e
himself the trouble of entering further into the evidence, as there
was a legal objection which would prevent his client from reco-
vering, even if he made good his case. Mr. Abbott, against
whom the action had been brought, ought to have been made a
party to it, it it was intended to maintain it satisfactorily, he
being a partner with Messrs. Bloxam and Hollingsworth.
Seine CUWICP;UtiOII then took place between the counsel and
attomies of the two contending parties; after which it was agreed
that a verdict, subject, however, to a reference, should be entered
for the plaintiff fur the whole damages laid in the declaration-
This was accordingly done.
THORNTON AND CO. T. HILICRS.

This was an action brought by the teipestable house of Thorn-
ton and Cu. merchants in the City of I.ondon, to recover 6301. the
amount of lissa sustained by the refusal of the defendant to de-
liver a large quantity of the best Russia tallow, Ve hick Mr.
Thornton had purchases!. The tallow arrived from St. Peters-
burg, in a vessel named the Koval Oak, and ll:liters sold it to
Thornton upon certain terms. The maiket at the time was ris-
ing. and Ililbers, conceiving that Mr. Thornton took more time
to inspect the tallow than Its might to allow, declared the sale
null and void. Nlr. Thornton had stated some dissatisfaction
with evils:et to the quality of the article, and Ililbers, ia the
main time sold the tallow to a Mr. Hawes.
By this breach of contract the plaintiff sustained a loss of f 321.
being obliged to purchase when the price of tallow was bigi,cr
than the price agreed upon. The principal points were, whether
sullicient time had been allowed the plaintiff to pay the money
for the tallow, and whether the defendant, according to the cus-
tom of merchants, was at liberty to declare the contract void after
the objection on the past of Mr. Thornton to the quality. It was
proved by a respectable broker that two things were usual, nei-
ther of which hail been done for the accommodation of Thornton.
As soon as a ship arrives, it is customary to give notice to the
purchaser of goods, in order that he may examine the same.
This was not done. Secondly, if the broker tinds the quality
does not answer the contract, the usual course is not to rescind
the contract, but to refer the question to another person by whose
decision the parties are governed. It was contended on the rut
, of the defendant, that uoniteessary delay ensued, during