The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-02 00:00:00

when received, to sir. Dunder4
day. He preserved the ()Hain
Greek merchant

chases were made, an invoice was for
two or three days. He tool

and transmitted it to the principal.
pursued with respect to the package note. _
witted, at the suggestion of his lordship, that the us
of business had been followed as respected the thri
of goods purchased from the plaintiffs by :Mr. Do .croale
and that the invoices and shipping notes had reached the do.
fendant through the agency of Mr. Dundei dale and Mr,
Newmarsh.

.ee parcels

Proof of application to the defendant for payment of the
goods furnished by the plaintiffs was then given, and of a re-
fusal to pay, on the ground that the defendant was ignorant
of Nlr.Dunderdale, and had never had transactions with him.
This terminated the case for the plaintiffs.
Mr. CaEsswELL, who, with Mr. WATSON, appeared for
the defence, then put it to his Lordship whether there was
any case for the jury ? _

The learned JIIDGE thought that the case for the jury was
whether the defendant had purchased the goods in question
through Mr. Dunderdale, as his agent. If so, there would
be a claim against the defendant, subject to the point whe-
ther there had been a settlement on his part with the agent.
Mr. CRERSWELL submitted that Mr. Dunderdale, accord-
ing to his own evidence, had received no authority from the
defendant to purchase for him on credit, and that Mr. D.
could only pledge his principal to the extent of his instruc-
tions; and again, that the two bills drawn on the defendant
by Mr. D. covered all the purchases made by the agent for
the defendant, up to the date of the last order, the Ist of
October.

Mr. ALLXANDEIL replied that the evidence showed that
there had been no instructions either to purchase one way or
the other, and to rebut the assertion that all the transactions
were for cash payments, referred to a letter of Mr. New-
marsh to Mr. Dunderdale, dated the 10th of October, in
which the writer stated that the defendant was annoyed and
vexed at Mr. Dunderdale having drawn on him at 21 days
sight, and not at three months. No conditions had been
imposed, whether as to purchasing on credit or for cash, and
Mr. Dunderdale seemed therefore to have had a discretional
power. _ _

As some difference of opinion with respect to the precise
character of the broker's evidence on this point existed
amongst the opposing counsel, Mr. Dunderdale was recalled,
and stated that he had received from Mr. Negroponte no in-
structions as to what he should purchase on credit or for
cash. The three orders in September and October were the
first he had received from the defendant. He (witness)
made all his purchases in the Manchester market for cash.
He drew the money from his bankers, and paid in to them
the bills drawn on his principals.
His LORDSHIP still thought that there was a question for
the jury, whether or not Dunderdale had acted for the de-
fendant, and had authority to act in the mode he did.
It was then agreed that Mr. Cresswell should have liberty
to move for a nonsuit, on the two points previously raised
by him.

Mr. CRESSWELL proceeded to address the jury. He said
that most unquestionably this case involved one of the most
important questions to merchantile men that could be de-
cided ; for as all the jury knew by experience, that a vast
proportion of the enormous business transacted in Manches•
ter and this town was conducted by—agents, it must be ex-
tremely important to know to what extent a principal could
be made liable by the contract of an agent, 'although he might
have settled his account with that agent, thinking he was
dealing with him alone. Anybody was liable to be brought
to bankruptcy, by finding that his agent, with whom he had
been dealing as principal, had never paid the persons fi em
whom he had obtained the goods. The action was under
these circumstances :—Messrs. Munn, who had for eleven
years past dealt with Mr. Dunderdale, knowing him to be
an agent—knowing that his business was excluAvely an
agency business—that he never bought in order to sell again
as a matter of profit—knowing that he merely purchased to
execute orders which others had given to him—they went on
thus for eleven years, receiving their payments from him on
such terms, at such periods, and in such a manlier as suited
their mutual convenience. The plaintiffs knew that there
were principals, for some of them they had seen ; bat they
never thought of communicating with them, for the purpose
of ascertaining whether they were men of straw or men of
wealth. They trusted to the agent, and now, when 00. n...
untoward event had brought that gentleman into the Gazette,
they sought to charge on the principal in London the 1 rice
of those goods for which be had previously paid to the agent.
The plaintiffs contracted with Dunderdale, although i.e was
actually an agent, as a principal. They made their eit ction
of hiiu ; they looked to him as their principal ; and they had
no right afterwards to sue the other party. They could not
look to both, if they knew at the time that there were two
parties ; and by debiting Mr. Dunderdale. who was prestnt
at Manchester, they made their selection ban-cell the agent

and the principal, and could not, when the
the principal. Mr. Cresswell went throng!

case, in order to show that Mr. Duude

the defendant as a principal, and for c
close of his address he put in the two
fendant by Mr. Dunderdale, in orcler

said, by a large sum, the whole a
to Nlr.Duuderdate, up to the d

•
Ist of October.
Mr. ALEXANDER then rep
One of the jurymen wished
Will 010111 1

ceiving the orders, the defendant had

about the np.de of payment

The w•ituess had I

and the learned Jullie remarked that the ju

- „
on the supposition that nothing had been sa.

sel uu neither side had put the question.
Ills LORDSHIP then proceeded to sum up. Ile said that
this was a case in which legal questions very import-int to the
mercantile world were involved. Those wiestions were al-
most entirely questions of law ; hut it would be necessary for

the law on

him to state to the jury what he considered to La.
the subject ; and he should state it in such a way that it
might be brought into review in any court to which the par-
ties thought fit to have recourse. This was a case in which
the plaintiffs sought to get payment for goods which had un-
questionably been furnished by them to the defendant.
There was not the slightest impropriety in the plaintiff's' try-
ing to get payment from the defendant, if the law would allow
them. On the other hand, if the defendant made out to the
satisfaction of the jury that he had in fact paid the full
amount to the party employed by him, neither was there the
smallest imputation on him for resisting the further payment.
There was no dishonesty on either side. The loss had arisen
through the bankruptcy of Mr. Dunderdale, and the question
was, on what party would the loss be cast by the law. This
was a case in which the plaintiffs sought to recover payment
from a person to whom they had not, in fact, delivered any
goods at all. They had delivered them to Mr. Dunderdale.
The question was whether, under these circumstances, the
plaintiffs had a right, Dunderdale becoming insolvent, to
apply for payment to the defendant. He would state what
he considered to be the law on this subject—what he con-
ceived to have been decided to be the law, although this
had been called in question by the learned counsel
for the defence. He concurred with Mr. Cresswell
in thinking that the question was one involved in very con-
siderable difficulty, and that a reference to different cases
gave rise to great difficulty and embarrassment. He would,
however, state what he looked upon to be the law—namely,
that where an agent purchased goods, the party selling
knowing that he was dealing with a man who was a mere
agent, if that agent did not disclose the name of his princi-
pal, that notwithstanding the seller might have made the in-
voices out in the name of the agent, and debited him, it was
at his option afterwards to say, " I have now discovered the
principal, and will charge him." He repea,ed that his was
a view of the law which might give rise to considerable diffi-
culty ; but he should act as though it had been assumed to
be the law, although doubts had been raised upon it. Of
course, to make the principal liable, the agent must h e
acted in the mode which the principal authorised, either
directly or by implication. He did not think, if this should
turn out to be the law, that it was very unreasonable. When
a person purchased goods avowedly as an agent, and they
were delivered to him as an agent, the invoice was of neces-
sity made out to him ; for the seller knew of no other party
to make it out to. This was, in fact, hardly giving credit to
him ; for the agent was the agent for receiving the goods
and invoice. We should say that if an agent dealt with
a party on the footing of an agent, and without Ails-
closing his principal, the seller, although he might have
made out the invoice to the agent, was notwithstanding
at liberty when he found out the principal, to resort to him.
This, he should say, was the general state of the law ; but
that might obviously give rise to the grossest injustice. Sup-
pose an agent in a course of dealing for a number of years,
and the principal paid from time to time the amount of the
goods purchased for him, what was to be the period at which
the seller was to be precluded from resorting to the princi-
pal? He thought that that period ought to be satisfactorily
defined. If the principal, in the ordinary course of dealing,
paid his agents for the goods purchased for him by the
agent, as an agent, and before receiving any notice from the
seller of the goods that they remained unpaid for, then he
thought that the principal was discharged, otherwise the
grossest injustice might be exercised ; for a man might go
on payingregularly year by year, and at some distant period
might have a claim set up against biol. " Oh," the seeing
party might say, " we chose to lie by, and never to apply to
the agent for the money due, and " now we come to you for
hundreds and thousands of pounds, involving you in ruin
The principles which should guide the jury in coming to their
verdict were, first, whether Mr. Dunderdale acted as agent
for the defendant, and within the scope of his authority, in
making purchases for Messrs. Munn, on the terms in which
he in fact purchased. If they were of opinion that Mr.
Dunderdale was not an agent, but purchased from the plain-
tiffs on his own account, and sold to the defendant, there
would bean end to the claim. But supposing they were of
opinion that Mr. Dunderdale was acting as the agent of the
defendant, and within the scope of his authority, then arose
the next question, had the defendant, before the receipt of
any notice from the plaintiffs, paid his agent Mr. Dunderdale
the amount of the two bills, in the ordinary course of their
dealings together If he had, then he (tee learned Judge)
thought that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. His
Lordship then went through the evidence, commenting alma
it as he proceeded.
The Jury, after a consultation of two or
returned a verdict for the defendant.
This case occupied the court for six hoe
POSSESSION OF A DEED.—IIOINON

three oc inWes

In this action the plaintiffs, ~tiy,b,
Astiey, cotton-waste dealers, of Stocl
to recover from the defendant a &v.'.
to Astley, which had been lodged in t
Bank of Manchester, and traoeferre
defendant, Mr. Charles John Medlar
lance of upwards of £l6OO, due to hi
deed was said by Mr. Astlev to have
bank, through his partner, Mr. Sale.
the bank, for the purpose only of sat'
ment was borne out by Sale hiinseli
for the defence, that the deed had bi
perial Bank as collateral security for curia
to the partnership of Sale and Astley, and t
they had the power of tran,ferring it. The Jury found far
thete plaintiff,
delivering
ui) damagesofthf
selteltled,sainbjv.e'chtict°hbcaesreehilliselrosh drdtoiis
p u
.
,
0i7.1
certify.—The court rose shortly after six o'clock.

eii with

out it was contended,
-rd with the
lai-
--es made

therefore

THE LETTER CARRIERS.—The statement of Joseph H 01..,
presentis district zes a si
is too large for;
appeared in thee
that,t)e
h
him, appears not to be correct. His duties were not more
IS°TwaaRY '
DA RD (whose
f e
Tuesday,) sd atityh
heavy than those of the other letter carriers ; and the man.
who succeeded Holloway, m the same district, has duly per-7
formed the same duties in five hours each dap—viz., morkgiug
delivery, 2i hours; n'Oen risitroorrl li balm.; ntweinglrirew
Itve4v. 1 hour.

thrown