CLAIM FOR DEBT FAILS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19807, 30 November 1927, Page 13

CLAIM FOR DEBT FAILS.

TRANSACTIONS IN AMERICA. ACTION BY OIL COMPANY. JUDGE UPHOLDS DEFENCE. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] HAMILTON. Tuesday. An unusual action in which the law of two nations was concerned was concluded before Mr. Justice Herdman in the Hamilton Supreme Court to-day. The Standard Oil Company, a company incorporated in California, United States of America, sought to recover from Morton Dugdale Walmsley, drainage contractor, Orini, the sum of £376 18s with interest, for goods sold and delivered between November, 1918, and February, 1919, at San Francisco. The statement of claim set out that Edward Antron and Walmsley were m partnership in California under the name of the Suisun Dredge Company and carried on drainage operations and that the plaintiff company supplied the Suisun Company with poods to the value of th« amount claimed. It was further stated that Antron paid the plaintiff in January, 1921, the sum of 250 dollars in part payment of the account. Tho defence was a denial of liability, defendant contending that there was a dissolution of partnership between him and Antron in February, 1919. It was contended that Antron's payment of part of the account in 1921 did not bind Walmsley, who pleaded the Statute of Limitations botti on legal and moral grounds. , Case for the Company.

Mr. D. Seymour, who appeared for the plaintiff company, jaid that evidence in the case bad been taken on commission in America and Antron had stated that a partnership had been executed between him and Walmsley in 1912 in San Fran- i cisco and that no certificate of dissolution of partnership had been filed. The payment of 250 dollars had also been admitted by Antron. Mr. N. Johnson, for defendant, explained the circumstances of the partnership. He said Antron found the money and Walmsley was the working manager engaged on a salary and the idea was that when Walmsley's share of the profits of the dredging operations had accumulated sufficiently Walmsley would acquire a half share in the business. Walmsley was not aware, until recently, that he had signed the deed of partnership. In February, 1919, the Suisun Company, whose operations had not been successful, ceased to exist and a new company, excluding Walmsley, was formed and took over the Suisun Company plant and liabilities. Walmsley was employed by the new company as its manager but had no financial interest in the business. Walmsley, continued Mr. Johnson, wa3 ignorant of the Standard Oil Company's claim until 1925, when he learned that the plaintiff company was seeking to enforca a judgment against him. Walmsley, who was a New Zealander, left America in November, 1921. and except for a two months' visit to America in 1924 he had since been employed in New Zealand. F.arliar Judgment Upset. During the 1924 visit he called on the Standard Oil Company on other business but no reference was then made to the claim now before the Court. The judgment was upset owing to Walmsley being able to show that he had not received notice of the proceedings and a fresh claim was brought. Walmsley agreed that the plaintiff company was entitled to benefit by the operation of the British Statute of Limitations which fixed the period at six years, whereas under California!) law the "period was four years. Defendant claimed that as (he dissolution of partnership took place in February, 1919, he wa? no longer bound by the payment on account made by Antron and that the claim was therefore barred. Evidence was given in support of counsel's statement by Walmsley, who said that he had never been called upon to meet any of the liabilities of th® Suisun Company, except the amount tr> dispute. After hearing legal argument. His Honor decided that the Suisun Dredge Companv dissolved partnership in February, 1919, and that the payment on ao count by Antron in 1921 did not. in any way bind Walmsley, whose defence was therefore entitled to succeed. The plaintiff company was non-suited with costs payable to defendant, witnesses' expenses and disbursements.