The Sun.
London, England, 1824-11-13 00:00:00

MESSRS. MAR.SiI AND SON.

In addition to the establishment in Berners.
street, under the firm of Messrs. Marsh, Stracey, Fauntleroy,
and Graham, Mr. Marsh some years ago, entered upon a specu-
lation with his son, Mr. Arthur Cuthbert Marsh, as Nary
Agents in Scotland-yard. In consequence of the recent failure
of the banking-house in Berners-street, the creditors of the Navy
Agency establishment have become much alarmed for the
safety of their funds vested in that concern, and at the invita-
tion of Mr. Seymour, Mr. A. C. Marsh's solicitor, and who,
up to the failure of the banking-house, acted likewise as'solicitor
for that firm, between thirty and forty of them met on Thurs-
day at one o'clock, at the British Coffee-house, in C.,ockspur-
street, for the purpose of examining into the state of affairs of
the Navy Agency
.establishment. On the motion of Mr. Sey-
mour, Str Benjamin Hallowell was called to the Chair.

Mr, SE YMOU II said, that he held in his hand a ease. which
had been submitted to the opinion of Counsel, but prerTus to
reading which, he would briefly state the nature of the circurn.
stances, which was, that the account standing at the banking.
house in Berners-street, in the name of Mr. A. C. Marsh, was
considerably overdrawn, and if for this overdrawing Mr. A. C.
Marsh was liable, there could be no doubt that he was insolvent.
It was the Interest of every one of the creditors of the Navy
Agents to avoid this, and consequently, if any such claim was
made by the assignees of the Bank in Berners-street, it was
for them to resist it as far as in them lay. Having stated thus
much of the outline of the business, he would now proceed to
read the case which he held in his hand. During its perusal,
Mr. Seymour stated, for the information of the company, that
the arguments in the case were founded on facts, admitting as
well by the Burners-street assignees as the creditors of the Navy
Agents, and in reality those assignees had been as anxious as
themselves to obtain the opinion of Counsel on the point that
they might know how to proceed. He mentioned tins to show
that the opinion of Counsel had not been taken on an ex-parte
statement.

The case then stated, that in May, 1817, a partnership was
formed for a term of 21 years between Mr. William Marsh
the flatter, and Mr. Arthur Cuthbert Marsh the son, as navy
agents. The articles of partnership were dated May 20, 1817;
hut it was therein agreed that the son should not he considered
as a partner till the sum of 44,0001. 3 per cents. were invested
by him ; this sum had never been so investet4 and he had from
that time to the present continued to act in the office on a salary
of 8001. per annum, without having any share whatever of the
profits occruing. Previous to this contract of partnership, Mr.
W. Marsh had been carrying on the same business since the
year 1816, and before his son's at all appearing in the concern,
had overdrawn his account in Berners-street to the amount of
3,0001. At Berners-street it was perfectly understood that Mr.
A. C. Marsh had no share in the profits, .although the account
of the Navy Agency-house, at the Banking-house, was kept
open in his name; but this was on a clear understanding that he
was not to be in any way personally liable ; this understanding
was first by parole, subsequently by letter. It was therefore
presumed that all the partners of Berners-street would testify
that they did not consider the son as personally responsible,
however they might argue relative to the application of the
assets of Messrs. Marsh and Son : but in reply to any such
argument, Mr. A. C. Marsh contended, that the Assignees
of that bankruptcy could only look to the surplus assets of
that house, after the other creditors had been satisfied. The
letter that announced that Mr. A. C. Marsh was not in part.
nership in the managing-office, was written by the elder Mr.
Marsh to his brother partners in Berners.street, after a dan.
gerous illness. As the case siood at present, it appeared that
there was a sum of 73,6051. due to the Berners-street house,
from the the house in Scotland.yard, on the account en.
titled the account of Mr. Arthur Cuthbert Marsh, for which
indeed the former house held several valuable securities, but
which, comparatively, would go but a small way towards
liquidating that account. The surplus assets were calcu.
laced to amount to 30,0001., and this was the only sum that
could be pledged. for the original assets must not be otherwise
reduced ; but if the assignees had really a right to claim on the
whole assets, there would be no doubt that the Scotland-yard
house would be ruined. To ascertain this point, an applica-
tion had been made not only to the assignees, but likewise to
Mr. Fauntleroy—to Mr. Fauntleroy, because, at the tune of
the application, that gentleman had not been included in the
commission of einnkruptcy. The letter that had been address-
ed to those persons by Mr. A. C. Marsh, stated that the over.
drawn account was solely his father's, and that he, in fuct,
was merely acting as clerk. On this letter Mr. Fauntleroy in.
dorsed a memorandum, timing, that lie would not consent to
any proceeding against the house of Marsh and Son, except by
joining with them in appointing a receiver and manager. Mr.
A. C. Marsh then contended that the house in Berners.street
had no personal remedy for the cash due to them, and no claim
on the property till the other creditors were paid.
This case, Mr. Seymour stated, had been submitted to Mr.
Bell, and with permission, he would read tit Counsel's an.
swer to the case. It was as follows :

" Mr. A. C. Marsh is liable at law to all the debts of the
partnership in the Navy Agency business, and if he and the
assignees cannot agree in the mode of getting in anti applying
the effects of that co-partnership, a Court of Equity will ap.
point a receiver to get in the same, and would apply them in
payment of the joint creditors.
" I have often read wiih astonishment the cases at law where
one partner has been allowed to recover in his own moue, be-
cause his other partner was what is called a nominal partner
E bothk 1°
only, and think, if ever they came to be examined by a mind
like
ijord
tat't Ls,walwtoaknd .)equity,nowsthettrhieoyus consequences of such
decisions,!edged as law.
11 But however a Court of Law
mayadielalinwetivthr bouecahekenaosews:
that will not prevent Mr. A. C. Marsh's right to have a re.
ufeaorti°panrttn)femrshoripe
ceiver appointed. Indeed, it seems more necessary that Equity
should interfere for the protection of Mr. A.C. Marsh, if such
is the law.
66 Whether the banking-hous can claim to share the joint
partnership creditor, but only on the
effects as a creditor ogflittltilefeacipntaoarn(tleveurwsch:it:pi,aupilis)oinaiedqthe
mere
respon.
DAdiuilfli:ilfrutysiestandYetlia‘Cfrtoittilliwontr' of Mr. W. 11 rsh, as is asserted in the
letters, lam of opinion the banking- use has no claim on the
" JOHN BELL.
Mr. SEYMOUR congratulated the Meeting on the opinion of
"IlatnrLacintneiCeolirtnue'ts!ionttn.Bl,Blosr.Calt.Vl.ll3, 11411284 h.."
Mr. Bell, which was decidedly in their favour, though still it
could not be denied that many difficulties presented themselves
in the MC. It was certain that Mr. A. C. Marsh was not per.
sonally liable, hut the house in Berners-street had all along
looked to the assets, which assets had been deposited wirh them
for security ; this was an untoward circumstance, and it was
likewise a thing that would tell against them, the cheques of the
navy agents on the house in Berners-street being always sign-
ed by Mr. A. C. Marsh, or by Mr. Stevens, his clerk, expres-
sing that he signed for Mr. A. C. Marsh, though the real cause
of this was to distinguish the account of the Navy Agency
establishment from Mr. W. Marsh's private account. The
assignees bad had the candour to state, that since Mr. Bell's
answer they had resorted to several other opinions, and the
majority of those opinions they had found to be discouraging;
ttlimiearteettlyl frtticgthlt4,
was not vented in them
otuhgathttihtee
rweisspho
nosfibitlbiteyassignets was to be al.
to decide whether it was fit them to resign all claims to any
but the surplus assets; this decision rested with the creditors
of the Berners-street house, and he certainly had some hopes
that they might yield the point, though, doubtless, they had
no inclination to put it desperately to a venture. At all events,
as it was quite clear that the assignees Could not take the assets
of the Scotland-yard house into theirpossession, and pay A. B.
or C., he trusted at least that they would consent to the appoint-
ment of a receiver and manager, to keep possession till a was
decided what the claims of the Berners-street house were. If
Mr, A. C. Marsh had wished to have saved himself trouble, no.
thing would have been so easy for him as to have got a corn.
mission out against himself, and so have ended the matter ; but
his real desire was to do justice to all the creditors, and it
was for this purpose that he opposed the including the claims
of the Berners-street house in the division of the original
assets,
A CREDITOR asked, if the opinion of the partners relative
to the liability of Mr. A. C. Marsh had been given subsequent-
ly to the securities and other pledges being left at the Berners.
street Bank ?

Mr. moun in answer, stated, that this acknowledgment
had been made subsequent to every thing. For his own part,
he could not see any ohiection to the appointment of a receiver;
for even if a Court of law were to decide the great question
against them, they would only be driven back to the point from
winch they started, and would have the satisfaction of knowing

Pfttcr, StrrNprxcr.

that the funds had,been preserved whole, without any expellee
being attached to such preservation. •
On a question front another Creditor, Mr. SEYMOUR ob-
served that at all events' nothing could be done with the CreZi.
tors. ttic other house for some time, as the nextineeting of the
Commissioners was not to take place till the 16th of December.
and it was not likely that there would be any locating prior to
that, as there would be no new facts to put the creditors in
possession of.

An Arron.zrsr, who stated that he attended on the part of
Mr. COmmiisioner hfiddletoh, asked where the funds had heen
remaining► up to the present tune?
Mr. SEYMOUR replied, that of COUrSO they had rested in the
hands of Mr. A. C. Marsh.
A CREDITOR observed, that it Was n very difficult question
to understand how, if two persons curry on business together,
and borrow a sum of 70,0001., that they were not mutually liable
for the debt.

Mr. SEYMOUR observed, that the whole case abounded with
intricacies, but that in answer to the particular objection that
had been started by the last speaker, he would refer him to N r,
Bell's opinion. The most feasible plan, as it appeared to him,
would be a letter oflicense. Mr. Seymour then, after inquir.
ing if there were any further questions, that he could answer.
proposed Mr. A. C. Marsh's, and his own retiring, in order
that any dismission that might be started might be carried on
the snore
These gentlemen accordingly withdrew, after Mr. Seymour
had submitted the following paper to the attention of the Meet.
ing, as a statement of the affairs in Scotland.yard.
An Account of Debts and Credits of Wm. Marsh and Sons. '
Total amount of debts, as extracted irons thu
Ledgers
Mr. Pettit's claim

1:28,708 3 0
410 12 t;

29,188 18 2
34,024, U 4