AN APPEAL DISMISSED.

Hokitika Guardian, 10 May 1923, Page 4

AN APPEAL DISMISSED.

RELATIONSHIP OF COMPANIES. .WELLINGTON, May 8. The appeal of IV. Bolus and Co., Lul., and Alfred Hartley against Inglis Brothels and Co., Ltd., respondents, was dismissed yesterday by the Court of Appeal. “The question for consideration,” said the Chief Justice in a judgment in which Mr Justice Ilerdman, Mr Justice Salmond. and Mr Justice Reed concurred, ‘‘is what was the relationship between the appellants company, now in course of liquidation, and the defendant company? Was the plaintiff company what is termed a'London buying agent and as such was it alone liable lor the price of goods received by the company to he forwarded to the defendant company? If this was the relationship then the. company has a right fo sue for the bill accepted and for the sum of £705, part of that bill. If. on the other hand, the appellant company was not responsible for even | net alone responsible for the goods i delivered, and if the respondent com- | paiiv was liable for the payment of J these goods, then the appellants canj not .succeed. Til my opinion the roj lationsliip between the manufacturer I (the Sopwith. Aviation and Engineering Company, Ltd.) is determined by the agreement made between this company and the respondent c.mpanv.” After making further reference to the case. Ifis Honour concluded by stating:—" • . the appellant company, nm having paid the manufacturer for the goods, on behalf of the defendant company, cannot recover the sum of £705 claimed in the action. Tt | is true the appellant company's duty i was to collect the goods, to pay within seven days the manufacturer, to ship the goods, insuring them. etc. Tint the app, Unlit company did not fnllil its engagement, and how it can lie said they can sue for money not paid I am at a less to conceive. The appeal should, in my opinion, be dismissed with costs j on the highest scale.” The appellants wore represented at | the hearing by Mr A. Gray K.C.. and I Mr H. F. vim Hanst. Mr Af. Myers, j K.C.. with Mr H. F. O'Leary, appeared for the respondents.

Leave was given to take the case to the Hr ivy Council.