Court Of King's Bench, Gu...
The Times, 1824-07-29T00:00:00

'tllis was an action brought by the plaintifftgainst the defendant, who was the holder of certain Spanish Bonds, for the recovery of the difference of the average price between the Ist and the 15th of last Alay, in consequence of his not fulfilling his alleged agreement to transfer fifty of the said bonds, which would have.by the variation of price-in the intermediate-time, made a profit of 250 guineas for the plaintift, the price being 31 per cent. on the 1st of Alay, and 35i per ceuL on the 15th. There being only one w.itness in attendance, and he only capable of proving the average price, thxe other vwitnesses for the plaintiff were called upon their subpcena, iand a nonsuit was entered. ASSIGNEES OF SAXBY V. SAUNDERS. This was an action brought by the assignees of AMr. Saxby, a bankrupt, and late a hop-merchant in the Borough, to recover the amount of a quantity of hops which he had purchlased, after he be- came a prisoner in the KingI's Bench Prison, but which the defen. dants refused to deliver, in default of payment on the regular day, when, according to the custom of the market,the money should have been paid by Mr. Saxby. They afterwards re-sold the hops in the market, anti refused to give them up on the requisition of the as_ signees. The commission of bankrupt issued against Saxby, and deposi- tions taken thereon, were put in and read in evidence in the cause as well as accounts of all hops Purchased, sold and re-sold by and for.the bankrupt in the year 1823, among whicl those specified in the present action were set tbrth, witl memorandums of atl the par- ticulars connected with their disposal, as proved under the commis- sion, and the demand made bv the assignees of the hops from the warehousemen last Mrlarch, offering to pay the wa-ehouse charges. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended that the parties had a clear right to sell when Saxby failed in the performance of his con- tract, and that the assignees had no clairm in lawr upon the defendant. The LonD CHIEtF JUSTICE said, that there appeared no dispute qpon any point of fact, and therefore nd real question for a jury. AWhe whole matter must, therefore, he said, be resolved into a special case as matter of law. The Counsel agreed to make a case, which was to be reserved for legal decision, after liearing two or three witnesses merely for the sake of putting the subject into the formal train for being duly sub- mitted to the Court. The only question of fact for the jury was, whether the defendants had, by a notice which they had served uDon the plaintiff, rescinded she contract, bv declaring their ir,ten'tio'n of selling unless the money was paid on the stipulated day, they at the same time conitinuing to communicate with Air. Saxby respecting the s3ale of portiODs of these hops, as his property. The J1ury found a verdict for the plaintiff subieet to the question of law, and certified that the sale was not rescinded by the notice served upon the defendants. There vere several other actions of a similar nature between the samre assignees and other parties, all of which were made to depend upon the decision of the first. The question of law seemed to rcsolve itselfinto this-whether Saxby could revoke a general authority to sell which he ha4 given to his factors or warehoutsemexi, who had nade advances upon the proceeds and on the security of the goods cor,signed to them for sale,without, at the time of the revocation, re- irnbursing them for their ebtand incidental exr,enses; and it was contended tbat if Saxby could not himself revoke the authority he had previously given under such circumstances, his assignees after he became a bankrupt had no such power. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDIIALL, JULY 28. LECX V. PHILLIPS.