Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Holliday, Wise and Co. v. Francis Parkman Wright, 1880

[sale of goods]

Holliday, Wise and Co. v. Francis Parkman Wright

United States Consular Court, Shanghai
Denny, 14 October 1880
Source: The North China Herald, 21 October 1880

 

IN THE U.S. COURT FOR THE CONSULAR DISTRICT OF SHANGHAI.

Shanghai, 14th October.

Before O. N. DENNY, Esq., Consul-General, Acting Judicially.

HOLLIDAY, WISE & CO. v. FRANCIS PARKMAN KNIGHT.

   This was a suit to recover the sum of Tls. 1,781.21, with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum, the value of sixteen bales of heavy shirtings consigned to Knight and Co,., at Newchwang, in March, 1879.

   Mr. WAINEWRIGHT appeared for the defendant.

   The petition of the plaintiffs was as follows:-

  1. - That the plaintiffs are British subjects and that the said Joseph Fairbridge Holliday is the only partner in the above-named firm residing at Shanghai, and is fully and duly empowered to sue on behalf of all the members of the said firm.
  2. - That the defendant is a citizen of the United States of America and is resident at Shanghai aforesaid.
  3. - During the year 1879 and up to the month of September in that year the defendant was carrying on business at Newchwang in the Empire of China in partnership with one James Julius Frederick Bandinel, a British subject, as merchants and commission agents under the style or firm name of Knight and Company.
  4. - In the said month of September, 1879, the said firm of Knight and Company ceased to exist, and a new firm styled Knight, Bandinel and company commenced to do business at Newchwang aforesaid.
  5. - On the 10th day of August, 1880, the said James Julius Frederick Bandinel was adjudicated a bankrupt in Her Britannic Majesty's Supreme Court for China and Japan at Shanghai.
  6. - During the said year 1879, the business of the firm of Knight and Company and Knight, Bandinel and company was conducted by the said James Julius Frederick Bandinel at Newchwang aforesaid, and the defendant was residing at Shanghai aforesaid, and was in communication with the said James Julius Frederick Bandinel.
  7. -0 On or about the 13th March, 1879, the plaintiffs wrote a letter to the said  firm of Knight and Company containing amongst other things the words and figures following, that is to say:-

Shanghai, 13th March, 1879.

Per bearer we are sending you 16 B. heavy shirtings say F.F. in a diamond 2361/2400 and also two sample pieces of white shirtings, full particulars of both of which, together with bill of lading, please find enclosed.

  1.  - On or about the 19th April, 18709, the plaintiff received a letter containing amongst other things the words and figures, that is to say:-

Per s.s. Dragon.

Newchwang, 31st March, 1879.

Messrs. HOLLIDAY, WISE & Co., Shanghai.

   Dear Sir, - Since having this pleasure on the 7th inst., we have received your valued favours of the 13th and 19th same; contents of which have our attention, and we are obliged for your consignment per Wenchow of FF in a diamond 16 bales heavy shirtings.

   Your sample pieces of white shirtings have been shewn to our dealers and by early opportunity we shall report on the same.

   Remittances we will shortly make you by cheque against drafts going down by bearer to the bank.

   Piece good rates have suffered from the anxiety of sellers to meet the drafts against their cargo, but we believe rates will improve after the first lot of steamers depart.  We enclose sales memo.

We remain, &c., KNIGHT & Co.

  1. - On or about the 28th April, 1879, the plaintiffs wrote a letter to the said firm of Knight and Company containing amongst other things the words and figures following, that is to say:-

[Not transcribed]

   Mr. WAINEWRIGHT said that his client virtually confessed judgment for the claim preferred against him and it was for the Court to decide on the points of interest and costs.  He would observe, however, that the plaintiffs asked for interest at the rate of ten per cent and he thought that eight per cent was the usual rate of interest in Shanghai.

   His HONOUR said that if judgment were confessed, it would be necessary for the Court to grant the plaintiffs' petition in this respect unless the point were gone into.

   Mr. WAINEWRIGHT said that would not be worth while.

   His HONOUR said that judgment then would be delivered as prayed for with costs.

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School