DAIRY SUPPLIERS

Evening Post, Volume XCIII, Issue 136, 8 June 1917, Page 2

DAIRY SUPPLIERS

RELATIONS WITH A COMPANY

. Judgment was delivered by the Court of Appeal this morning in the case of Harry Edward Good, of Wanganui, grazier, v. Win.. James Robertson Bruce; of Waliganuij famiei\ The appellant was represented by Sir Fraiicis Bell, E.C., Mr. 0. P. Skerrett, K.C., aiid Mr. C. H; Izard, and the respondent by Mr. C. B. Morison, K.C., and Mr. F B. Brown.

In the Supreme Court, Bruce, on behaif of himself and all others having the same interest, claimed an account of the proceeds of certain butter and cheese of which Good was alleged to have taken possession and'to have sold. Plaintiff alleged that he and other dairy farmers delivered to the Wahganiii Cooperative Dairy Company ; Ltd:; the cream produced* by their herds upon, terms that the company should, as their agent and on their behalf, manufacture such cream into butter and cheese, and consign 1 it to England for sale. Certain deductions .were to be made to covet" niiniufac'turing and selling expanses, arid the company was to account to eaxili of the . suppliers for the /proceeds of the cream; sold by him. Plaintiff alleged that defendant, under colour of a del benture granted by the oompaniy .to the Uhioli " Bank oi Australia,; 'and subsequently assigned to * defendant, wrongfully took possession Of and sold certain butter held by the coriipany, aiid had refused to account to the suppliers for tile prdceeds of such sales. y The defence put forward by Good was that the suppliers sold their cream to'the company', and that the butter .was the property of the company, that possession thereof was lawfully taken by. him, aiid the butter lawfully sold under the powers given by the debenture. His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards gave judgment for plaintiffj and this decision was appealed against^ . ' ■ ■.. •

The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stoiit) and Mr. Justice Cooper held that the relationship of the suppliers and the company was that of principal and agent,' and that therefore the appeal should be dismissed. ... .

Miv Justice . Denniston and Mr.\ Justice Chapman considered that the relationship was that of seller and, buyer, and that Bruce and the other suppliers were not entitled to claim an account.

The Appeal Court. being equally divided, the judgment of tne Supreme Goiirt was affirmed, but without allowing costs. Sir Francis Bell asked for and; was granted provisional leave to. appeal to the Privy Council.