BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Watt v. Benson & Co [1867] ScotLR 5_118_1 (13 December 1867) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1867/05SLR0118_1.html Cite as: [1867] ScotLR 5_118_1, [1867] SLR 5_118_1 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 118↓
Circumstances in which held that a party who employed merchants in London to buy and sell railway stock for him, was liable under his employment to relieve the sellars of a balance of loss on the transactions.
This was an advocation from the Sheriff-court of Lanarkshire. The facts are these:—In February 1866 Watt, the defender and advocator, employed the respondents, who are merchants in London, to buy and sell on speculation certain American railway stocks, which they accordingly did, and on which transactions, extending from 12th to 27th February 1866 inclusive, there arose a loss or difference against the advocator of £516,17s. 6d.
Page: 119↓
sterling, including a sum of £31, 5s. sterling, charged as commission. The respondents (pursuers) brought an action to recover. The Sheriff-Substitute ( Bell) and the Sheriff ( Alison) both held that the defender was liable.
The defender advocated.
Scott and Brand for him argued—(1) That the pursuers held themselves out as stockbrokers in the transactions which took place between them and the defender and the actual brokers in these transactions; but that, as they were in point of fact not brokers, and had delegated the making of the purchases and sales to others who were brokers, but whom the defender did not employ, they were not entitled to recover in respect of the said alleged losses. (2) That the defender instructed the pursuers to buy on the 27th February double the quantity of shares of each stock required for the engagement to deliver on that day, and 200 more; and that if the pursuer had obeyed these instructions, he would have had a profit upon the new shares equal to or greater than the loss upon the others, and that as the sum sued for is the loss arising from the pursuers' failure to fulfil the whole order, they are not entitled to recover. (3) That the defender was not liable for losses on transactions between the stockbrokers and the pursuers, but with which the defender personally had no concern, seeing that he did not employ the stockbrokers nor was any party to transactions between the pursuers and them. (4) That, not being brokers, the pursuers were not entitled to charge commission on the said transactions.—( Cope v. Rowlands, 2 M. & W., p. 149. Keyser, Law of the Stock Exchange, p. 267; 6 Anne, cap. 16.)
Watson and Trayner, for the respondents, were not called upon.
The Court adhered to the judgments of the Sheriff and Sheriff-substitute, and found the pursuers entitled to expenses both in this and in the inferior court.
Solicitors: Agent for Advocator— John Walls, S.S.C.
Agents for Respondents— Neilson & Cowan, W.S.
