May v Hodges

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 02 June 1843
• Date: 02 June 1843
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queen's Bench.

MAY

and

HODGES.

Thompson v. Kelly 3 Leg. Rep. 110.

Fletcher v. CrosbieENR 9 M. & W. 252.

Crispigney v. WittenoomENR 4 t. R. 793.

Mason v. Armitage 13 Ves. 36.

Ex parte CaruthersENR 9 East, 44.

Rex v. smithENR 4 T. R. 419.

Davidson v. BowenUNK 6 Jur. 538.

Fletcher v. CrosbieENR 9 M. & W. 252.

584 CASES AT LAW. T. T. 1843. Queen'sBench. Jan. 20. April 21. June 2. MAY v. HODGES.* DEBT in the debet and detinet.-The declaration stated, that Sir Stephen May complained of Thomas Hodges, one of the public Officers of certain persons united in co-partnership, for the purpose of carrying on the trade and business of Bankers in Ireland, according to the statutable enactments in that case provided, under the style and firm of the AgriÂÂcultural and Commercial Bank of Ireland, and in that behalf duly nomiÂÂnated and appointed as such public Officer as aforesaid, being in the custody, &c.: and concluded in the usual form. To this declaration the defendant assigned several causes of special demurrer, of which it is necessary to state but one, being the only cause on which the Court exÂÂpressed any opinion, and that was to this effect;--that it did not appear by the declaration, that the society or co-partnership carried on, or was then carrying on the trade and business of Bankers in Ireland ;-and that it only alleged that the said society was formed for the purpose of carryÂÂing on the trade and business of Bankers in Ireland ; and it was not alleged, that they ever acted as such, or ever carried on, or were then carrying on said trade or business, in this country. Sir Coleman M. O'Loghlen, with whom was Mr. Macdonagh, Q. C., in support of the demurrer. It should appear on the face of the declaration, that the co-partnership is one that can be sued by public Officer, Thompson v. Kelly (a); in that case the declaration stated that "John Thomson, one of the public Officers " of the society or co-partnership, called the Belfast. Banking Company, "who sues on behalf of the said Society, according to the statute in such " case made and provided-a debtor, &c.," there the Court held the declaraÂÂtion bad, because it did not appear the Company called the Belfast Banking Company, was such a society as could be sued by public Officer. In England, a declaration described the plaintiff as "one of the present public " Officers of certain persons united in co-partnership for the purpose of " carrying on the trade and business of banking in England according to the " statute ;" this was held bad on special demurrrr, for not stating that the co-partnership was carrying on the trade and business of bankers, or had carried on such trade, Fletcher v. Crosbie (b). The English Act regulating the manner in which these co-partnerships (a) 3 Leg. Rep. I tO. (b) 9 M. & W. 20. • Corant Burton, J., and Crampton, J. CASES AT LAW. 585 are to sue and be sued, is the 7 G. 4, c. 46, s. 49.; in Ireland the corÂÂresponding Irish Act is 6 G. 4, c. 42, s. 10. The Irish statute is entitled an Act for the better regulation of co-partnerships, of certain Bankers in Ireland...