Important Judgment.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 7886, 31 July 1905, Page 2

Important Judgment.

AIFECTING SOLICITORS AND COMPANIES. . Mr T. Hutchison,', S.M., 'delivered judgment in c^t c J m T"' 8 in ih « 'Wiroi use of OoyeH „nd Quilliam v. Hie Collier and Colonial .Piano (United, i~o,, Ltd., n claim for £2!) 8s Id ln>mg balance of professional charges cessi'rv 0 I 0'". ' T?' r,urm 'nK the n* legal w ll)r k to roister the thnTo,? 5 ' l f " Cts a K TOL ' d "Pon In ,i? engaged were n s follows : (1). That the plaintiffs bed received instructions from the agent for "two piano firms yi/„, T h e Collier JMano Co, and the Coloniul Piano Co., to do the necessary legal work to amalgamate the two firms owl register tnein as a united company. (2) The the work was done and charges' were reasonable. «i). Th*t a bill was rendered for £43 8s Id and'that the„ )un ager of title company paid £2O on account, but without any resolution as to payment l )y the .directors of the company. (4). That when the managing director, Mr Henry Collier first learnt of'the bill afild the part'payment he 1 immediately interviewed the plaintiffs antf requested them to s«td in a fresh 'bill .to the promoters of the company,, and not to the present company as ,tho promoters were liable and would settle t|n> hill, but the plaintiffs declined to do this, and stated that they could not release t.he present company from liability (",) The defendants then refused to' pay holding that the promoters were liable and Hot the company, and the present proceedings were, instituted Mr W. J'Mtzfy.rbflnt, who atpplwlrekl for the defertlnnt company, quoted a number of English au'lwritte in support of his arg W m»t ofltio nonliability of (he Company, and con}ih|ut eontraets entered into by an agent of a proposed company bi>tore, the company came «:i|to existence could not l*e enforced against the company after its registration, nor could such contract bte legally ratified by a payment on account nftpr the incorporation of thV? company. Wrighit, for the piaintilffs, argued That cases quoted for the defence were distinguishable fn this particular case and submitted that the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment on n quantum meruit for work and In hour done, which the defendants had had th|e benefit of. His Worship, in an exhaustive judgi meat, discussed the law very Sully and upheld tCie argument* of' counsel for the the authorities quoted by ami, holding that th P agent for the promoters, who instructed the plaintiffs, was 'the responsible person, feivo judgment for ,tiw defendant company,