Ontario Reports Volume 25 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1912 edition. Excerpt: ...18 Q.B.D. 54; Oliver v. Bank of England, 1901 1 Ch. 652, 1902 1 Ch. 610; Starkey v. Bank of England, 1903 A.C. 114. And it makes no difference that the claim is made bond fide, and there is no fraud. But this is not the case where there is no misrepresentation of fact: Jones v. Hope (1880), 3 Times L.R. 247n (C.A.) Here Byers told the plaintifi's agent that he did not know that he had any power to give him a contract----the vendor's agent was not in fact misled, but took the document with Byers 's signature for what it was worth. The case relied upon by the plaintiff's counsel is distinguishable----Polhill v. Walter (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 114. There the defendant, who had formerly been in partnership with H., had an ofiice which H. also still continued to occupy in part. A bank clerk called with a draft on H.; H. was out of town, and the defendant asked for a few days' delay. This was refused; and one A. (one of the payees) assured the defendant that it was all correct--the defendant acted upon the assurance and accepted per proc. of H.--the payees indorsed it over to the plaintiff. H. refused to pay; the plaintiff sued him, and was nonsuited; whereupon he sued the defendant. The jury negatived fraud, and Lord Tenterden dismissed the action. On appeal, it was held that the indorsement per proc. was a representation to all who should thereafter be the holders of the bill that the defendant had the authority to accept for H., and judgment was entered for the plaintiff. There the plaintiff was misled; in the present case she was not. The action will be dismissed as against Byers. Had his conduct been throughout as impeccable as in the signing of the document, etc., he should have his costs; but it...