Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

An Important Case.

o (Per Press Association.) Wellington, May 12. The case of Trengrouse and Co. v. Official Assignee in Steed's estate, an appeal from the decision of Judge Dennison, was argued in the Court of Appeal this afternoon. The Central Dairy Company, carrying on business near Christchurch, appointed one Steeds their agent to sell their butter in London, the arrangement being that the Company should draw on him at 30 days' sight up to 9d a pound against the shipments. Steeds was to receive a commission of 5 per cent on the proceeds for hia services. Steeds, finding himself unable to dispose of certain shipments in time to enable himself to take up the drafts, made arrangements with Trengrouse and Co. that they should take up tne drafts and take over and dispose of the shipments, they to receive 3 per cent out of the 5 per cent payable to him. Certain shipments dealt with by Trengrouse and Co. in this way realised less than the amount of the drafts against them taken up by Trengrouse and Co. Before the deficiency was made good by the Dairy Company, Steeds became bankrupt. Trengrouse and Co. gave the Dairy Company notice that they claimed payment of the deficiency to themselves direct. Ultimately the amount was by arrangement paid by the Dairy Company to the Official Assignee as stakeholder, he to hold the same for Trengrouse and Co. in the event of their establishing their claim. This action was then commenced to determine their right. Judge Denniston held that Trengrouse and Co. could not recover on the ground that there was no privity between them, and the Dairy Company and Trengrouse and Co are now appealing for their decision. Argument had not concluded when the Court rose.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/FS18960513.2.11

Bibliographic details

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 264, 13 May 1896, Page 2

Word Count
295

An Important Case. Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 264, 13 May 1896, Page 2

An Important Case. Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 264, 13 May 1896, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert