Hall v. Leigh and Al
| Citation | 12 U.S. 50,3 L.Ed. 484,8 Cranch 50 |
| Parties | HALL v. LEIGH AND AL |
| Decision Date | 12 February 1814 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
THIS case is so fully stated in the opinion of the Court that
it is deemed unnecessary to add more than that HARFER and PINKEY, for the Plaintiff in error, did not argue the case as there was no appearance for the Defendants in error, but simply stated that they contended that the separate instructions of each owner severed the joint interest, and cited 1, Esp. 117, and Watson on Partnership, 233, 234 Feb. 18th.
This cause comes here on a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States, for the district of Maryland.
This action was brought by the Plaintiff, who was also Plaintiff below, to recover the proceeds of one hundred bags of cotton which had been shipped to the Defendants, and by them sold on commission.
At the trial it appeared that the Plaintiff, together with William Potts and Co. in 1807, made a joint shipment of two hundred bales of cotton to the address of the Defendants, who resided at Liverpool, to make sale thereof for their joint benefit. This cotton belongen one half to the Plaintiff, and the other half to Wm. Potts and Co. The shipment was accompanied by two letters to the Defendants, the one written by the Plaintiff bearing date 14th February, 1807, in which after advising them of the shipment, he adds, 'Mr. Potts has written you on the subject of his interest in this adventure, for myself I have to request that you will after covering me in cost and charges, make such disposition of my one half the shipment as your own judgment may think best for my interest.'
The other letter was written by William Potts and Co. and is dated 5th February, 1807, in which they also advised the Defendants of the shipment which they say is 'for account of Mr. Hall and ourselves each one half,' and after directing what is to be done, with their moiety, they observe that 'under present circumstances, Mr. Hall 'will decline drawing on his proportion, as he wishes you to avoid selling at the present prices as long as possible—we refer you to him for more particular directions.'
In another letter of the 13th April, 1807, the Plaintiff directed the Defendants that, after effecting sales of his half of the cotton, on the terms of his first letter, 'they should pass the nett proceeds of his proportion to the credit of Messrs. W. Potts & Co. and furnish him with sales and account current...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abel v. Brayton Flying Service
...Contracts, §§ 192, 277; 12 Am.Jur., Contracts, § 269; 17 C.J.S. Contracts §§ 352(b), 355 (b). 8 See also Hall v. Leigh, 8 Cranch 50, 12 U.S. 50, 3 L.Ed. 484; Shipman v. Straitsville Cent. Mining Co., 158 U.S. 356, 360, 15 S.Ct. 886, 39 L.Ed. 1015; 37 Tex.Jur., Parties, §§ 22, 24; 67 C.J.S. ......
- Fishing Fleet, Inc. v. Trident Ins. Co., Ltd., 77-1524
-
Pitts v. Crane
...we are in accord with the principle set forth above, it does not apply to the facts in the case at bar. The action in the case of Hall v. Leigh, supra, was brought recover the proceeds of 100 bags of cotton, shipped to the defendants to be sold by them. The plaintiff and another made a join......
-
Levin v. Goodman
...not properly be considered a joint sale. Shipman v. Straitsville Mining Co., 158 U.S. 356, 360, 15 S.Ct. 886, 39 L.Ed. 1015; Hall v. Leigh, 8 Cranch, 50, 3 L.Ed. 484; Manistee Nav. Co. v. Salt & Lumber Co., 174 Mich. 140 N.W. 565. The fact that the sale of the business was dependent upon th......