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/ssactsengr0069 and id is 1 raw text is: GRANT V. FLETCHER
[436] GRANT AND OTHERS against FLETCHER AND ANOTHER. Saturday, April
15th, 1826. Where a broker, having made a contract, entered it in his book, but
did not sign it, and afterwards signed and delivered bought and sold notes to the
contracting parties materially differing from each other: Held, that there was no
valid contract in writing to bind the parties.
[S. C. 8 D. & R. 59. Referred to, Henderson v. Barnewall, 1827, 1 Y. & J. 395.]
Assumpsit for not accepting 400 bags of Egyptian cotton pursuant to contract.
Plea, general issue. At the trial before Hullock Baron, at the last Spring Assizes for
the county of Lancaster, the following appeared to be the facts of the case. The
plaintiffs having received advices, that 600 bags of cotton were shipped for them at
Alexandria by the ship Robert, of which one Wake was master, directed their
broker, Withington, to sell 400 bags at 173d. per lb. Withington accordingly entered
into a verbal contract with the defendants, and made the following entry of it in his
memorandum book: Sold Peter Fletcher and Son 400 Egyptians, to arrive per
'Robert,' Wake, at 17id. per lb. And he delivered to the defendants the following
note of the contract : ' Robert,' Wake, 400 bags of Egyptian cotton at 171d., shipped
on the 22d of February for Win. Grant and Brothers.- Henry Withington. Oil the
same day he delivered to the plaintiffs the following note : 400 certain to Messrs.
Fletcher and Son at 17 d., ten days and three months from the delivery, you allowing me
my commission.-H. W. It was objected, that as the notes delivered to the contracting
parties were different, neither was bound, and Cumming v. Roebuck (Holt's N. P. C. 172),
was cited. The learned Judge was of opinion, that there was no valid contract binding
both parties, and the plaintiff was nonsuited.
(437] Cross Serjt. moved for a new trial. It may be conceded, that where a broker
delivers to the contracting parties two instruments, each of which contains a distinct
contract, neither party is bound. But here, neither of the notes delivered to the
parties contained a complete contract. That delivered to the defendants did not
import a contract of sale, nor were the names of the buyers mentioned. That delivered
to the plaintiffs did not mention the commodity sold. The contract of sale was verbal,
and the question is, whether there was any note in writing of that contract. Now,
the entry by the broker in the memorandum book, together with the note delivered
to the defendant, did constitute a complete contract. For they contained the names
of the buyers and of the sellers, the description of the commodity sold, and the price
and that being so, there was a note in writing of the contract.
Abbott C.J. The broker is the agent of both parties, and, as such, may bind them
by signing the same contract on behalf of buyer and seller. But if he does not sign
the same contract for both parties, neither will be bound. It has been decided accord-
ingly, that where the broker delivers a different note of the contract to each of the
contracting parties, there is no valid contract. The entry in the broker's book is,
properly speaking, the original, and ought to be signed by him. The bought and sold
notes delivered to the parties ought to be copies of it. A valid contract may probably
be made by perfect notes signed by the broker, and delivered to the parties, although
the book be not signed : but if the notes are imperfect, as in the present case, an
unsigned entry in the book will not supply the defect. It [438] is the duty of brokers
to make the contract so as to be binding on both parties. They are employed to
prepare contracts on which great sums of money depend, and I must say, that in many
cases which have come before me they appear to conduct their business in a very
slovenly, negligent manner.
Rule refused.
DOE, ON THE DEMISE- OF JOHN BIRTWHISTLE, against VARDILL. Friday, May 5th,
1826. A child born in Scotland, of unmarried parents, domiciled in that country,
and who afterwards intermarry there, is not by such marriage rendered capable
of inheriting lands in England.
,[S. C. 4 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 193 ; and in H. L., 1830, 6 Bli. N. S. 479; 1835, 2 Cl. &
F. 571; 9 Bli. N. S. 32 ; 1840, 7 Cl. & F. 895; West, 500; 1 Scott, N. R. 828;
6 Bing. N. C. 385 ; 4 Jur. 1076. Discussed, In re Wright's Trust, 1855, 2 K. & J.
607 ; In re Don's .Estate, 1857, 4 Drew, 198; Fenton v. Livingstone, 1859, 3 Macq.
5B. & C. 436.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0069&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)