HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0305 and id is 1 raw text is: TREDWEN V. BOURNE
would be bad, if the promise were laid as resulting from the simple relation of land-
lord and tenant; but it is submitted that it is not so stated. It may be that the
consideration for the promise is ambiguously stated, and might be insufficient upon
special demurrer. There is nothing here to shew that the defendant did not enter
into a written agreement, to the effect of the promise set forth in the declaration.
[Parke, B. If there had been any special agreement to that effect, it ought to have
been stated.]
Montagu Smith, contrk, was not called upon.
LORD ABINGER, C. B. If the plaintiff originally became tenant to the defendant,
without any agreement as to the eviction, the law would not afterwards impose such
a liability on the defendant as is here stated. No such liability arose from the simple
relation of landlord and tenant, and that, we think, is the relation on which the
(461] plaintiff has declared. The promise is laid more largely than the law will
imply from such a relation. In Brown v. Crump (1 Marsh. 567), a declaration, that
in consideration that the defendant had become tenant to the plaintiff of a farm, he
undertook to make a certain quantity of fallow, and to spend £'60 worth of manure
every year thereon, and to keep the buildings in repair, was held bad on general
demurrer, those obligations not arising out of the bare relation of landlord and tenant.
The declaration is therefore bad, and there must be
Judgment for the defendant.
TREDWEN v. BOURNE. Exch. of Pleas. 1840.-Where a mining company was
formed, the capital to be £30,000, in 3000 shares of £10 each; and 2000 shares
only were actually subscribed for, of which the defendant took 100 :-Held that
letters subsequently written by the defendant to the directors, requiring them
to call a meeting for the purpose of changing a director, were evidence to go
to the jury to shew that he authorized the directors to proceed in the manage-
ment of the concern with the smaller amount of capital, so as to render him liable
for the price of articles supplied for the use of the mines, on the order of the
directors. -The members of a mining company have authority by law (in the
absence of any proof of a more limited authority), to bind each other by dealings
on credit, for the purpose of working the mines, if that appear to be necessary or
usual in the management of mines.
[S C. 9 L. J. Ex. 290; 4 Jur. 747. See Hawtayne v. Bourne, 7 M. & W. 595;
Hawkiix v. Bourne, 8 M. & W. 703.1
Debt for goods sold, and on an account stated. Plea, nunquam indebitatus. At
the trial before Rolfe, B., at the last assizes for Cornwall, it appeared that the action
was brought against the defendant as a shareholder in the Trewalfas Tin and Copper
Mining Company, to recover the price of coals, timber, candles, &c., furnished in
1838 and 1839 to the Trewalfas Mine, in Cornwall, belonging to the company. It
appeared, from the evidence of the clerk of the company, that it was formed in the
year 1837, the prospectus stating that the capital was to be £30,000, in 3000 shares
of 10 each. The defendant, who resided at Liverpool, took 100 shares : in all 2000
only were disposed of. There were directors, a secretary 1462] and other officers, and
an office in London at which the business of the company was transacted. The mines
belonging to the Company were worked, and mineral raised and sold, but no profits
were made by the concern. The goods in question were supplied on the order of the
directors, and were necessary for the ordinary use of the mine. There was no evi-
dence that the defendant had ever been at the mine, or had attended any meetings
of the company ; but two letters signed by him and several other shareholders, of
the dates of November, 1837, and February, 1838, being requisitions to the directors
for a meeting to remove one of their body, were put in. It was objected for the
defendant, that there was no evidence to charge him in this action; that there was
nothing to shew that the directors, who actually made the contract with the plaintiff,
had any authority, express or implied, from the defendant to do so. The learned
Judge thought there was evidence to go to the jury, and left the case to them with
the direction, that if they were satisfied the defendant was a shareholder, and knew
of the concern being carried on by the directors, and the parties in their employ, in
the manner it was, he was liable in this action. The jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff, damages 1821. 4s., leave being reserved to the defendant to move to enter a
6 M. &: W. 461.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0305&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)