BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Walter Learmonth and Company - Cople - Pemberton v. John Livingstone and his Factor loco Tutoris - Bel - M'Neill [1823] UKHL 1_Shaw_481 (2 July 1823) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1823/1_Shaw_481.html Cite as: [1823] UKHL 1_Shaw_481 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 481↓
(1823) 1 Shaw 481
CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, ON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND.
2 d DIVISION.
No. 65.
Subject_Partnership. —
Circumstances under which it was held, (affirming the judgment of the Court of Session,) That there was no evidence of the respondent being a partner of a company indebted to the appellants.
This was a question of fact depending on the import of voluminous written evidence. The appellants, Walter Learmonth and Company, brought an action against the late Alexander Livingstone, Esq. of Parkhall, (who was now represented by his son, the respondent,) concluding for payment of upwards of £12,000, being a debt due to them by the company of Learmonth and Sons, of which company they alleged that Alexander Scott Learmonth and Company formed a constituent part, and that Alexander Livingstone had been a partner of that latter company. In defence, Mr. Livingstone admitted that he was a partner of Alexander Scott Learmonth and Company, but denied that it formed a part of that of Learmonth and Company, or that he was a partner of the latter firm, and therefore contended that he could not be liable for its debts. The Lord Ordinary, on advising the evidence, assoilzied Mr. Livingstone; and Learmonth and Company having reclaimed, the Court remitted to Mr. Galloway, accountant, to examine into the facts, and report. He reported, “That there is complete evidence of the concern of Alexander Scott Learmonth and Company being separate and distinct from Learmonth and Sons; that the accounts of profit and loss have been erroneously kept by Learmonth and Sons, but that the transactions of the one company can be separated
Page: 482↓
Solicitors: Gattie, Hadden, and Gattie,— J. Richardson,—Solicitors.
( Ap. Ca. No. 21.)
_________________ Footnote _________________
* Not reported.
