Jadgment Against Defendants for £36,436 and Costs: C..P.
Rakusen and His Father No'
Partners but Associated in Business Deal: Ratification of Contract In HM. Supreme Court, on Thursday, Judge Grain delivered judgment regarding the claim made by E. D. Sassoon & Ca. against S, Rakusen Sons (China) Ca. for a large sum of money said to be due on 1a contract for the shipment of eggs from China. Mr. 8, Young and Mr. J. E. Badeley represented the plaintiffs and Mr. K. E, Newman /appeared for the defendants.
The Judge said:
This is an action brought by, Sassoon & Ca., the plaintiffs, against S. Rekusen & Sons (China) Ca., the defendants, for a sum of, /£30,435.14.4 due upon a contract made between the two parties on January 17, 1922. The contract was that 8. Rakusen & Sons were to ship a consignment of eggs from Shanghai to London, and Sassoon Ca. to" advance money to Rakusen & Sons at Shanghai, to be repaid out of the sale price of the eggs in London and to receive 'a further sum of £1500 as commission on the transaction, In pursuance of the contract, Sassoon Ca, did advance the' money to 8. Rakusen & Sons (China) Ca. in Shanghai, Sassoon & Ca, guaranteeing the Chartered Bank, and the Chartered Bank advanced Tls. 336,887.85 to S. Rakusen Sons (China) Ca., who were represented by C. P. Rakusen and who admits he is the owner of this business and trades under the name of S, Rakusen & Sons (Chins) Ca.
C. P, Rakusen, under the name of this firm, ships eggs to London and they are in due course sold, but sold at a loss; hence this action, the amount now due being made up of the money advanced and remaining unpaid, and the £1,500 commission. The defendants admit that the money was advanced to them, but state that it was not advanced on any contract between them and the plaintiffs, that they had no knowledge of any contract, that if there was any contract with the plaintiffs it was between them and Samuel Rakusen, and futher say that Samuel Rakusen did not represent and had no authority to represent 8. Rakusen & Sons (China) Ca., Shanghai,' and in the course of the evidence in this action deny that he was a partner in the firm.
The defendants also admit that the eggs were shipped to London by them, but not in pursuance of] the contract. The plaintiffs, in their reply to the statement of defence, state that, if Samu: l Rakusen did not represent and had no authority to represent the defendants, he purported to make th: contract on behalf of the defendant! firm and the defendants ratified the contract, and, in the alternative, that Samuel Rakusen was held out by the defendants as a member of the firm and that they are estopped from denying it, The Partnership Question A number of cases have been quoted to me under Section 14 and Section 86 of the Partnership Act! of 1890. Namely, under Section 14, "anyone who represents himself knowingly suffers himself to be represented as a partner is liable, ete." and Section 36:—"A person desiing with a firm after change in its constitution is entitled to treat fall apparent members of the old firm as still being members unless notice is given." Much argument ensued on these sections and cases, on them. All the casss quoted to me were cases making the erring partner liable and not the firm, and family were not bad people, but. they were "beggars by force."
The Registrar said that he was quite satisfied there had been trouble. The best way to deal with it was not to impose a fine but to bind over the defendant in his own recognizances in $50 in keep the peace for one year—"and the defendant had better keep away from Ar, Jacobs."
Defendant's brother then came Morward and commenced a voluble ing") protest because Mr. Solomon had referred to the family as "loafers. He indignantly assorted that he was) not a loafer.
The Magistrate—As for as this Court is concerned, there is no.reflexion on you, case was quoted to' mo in which the present set of circumstances mode the firm liable.
In order to bring the arguments within the Partnership Act as regards this ease, it is necessary to Prove that the parties in question were partners, or had been partners, The' question as to whether individuals are in partnership is a question of fact, but rules for guidance as to the ascertainment of those facts aid the evidence necessary have become dearly established. There are eertsin rules laid down in Section 2 of the Partnership Act for determining whether partnership exists and there are many cases giving examples of what is suff. cient to establish the fact. Moreover, persons may be partners for one transaction and not for another.
Tam of opinion that in this case there is not sufficient evidence before me to enable me to deal with this case as if Samuel Rakusen and Rakusen and S, Rakusen Sons' (China) Ca, formed one partnership in fact and law. There was no doubt a loose and vague form of partnership, that is, some times they acted" together and sometimes separately, and each—that is, Samvel Rakusen and Rakusen and the firm in China—made use of each other when it served their purpose, but that, would not be sufficient to support decision in this case that they were in fact and in law partners for the purpose of the contract in question,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.