Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Evans and Co. v. Rosenzweig and Co., 1894


Evans and Co. v. Rosenzweig and Co.

Austro-Hungarian Consular Court, Shanghai
12 November 1894
Source: North China Herald, 16 November, 1894

Shanghai, 12th November.
Before Consul-General Von Haas, Acting Judicially, and Messrs. Fischer and H. Kober, Assessors.
  In this case the plaintiffs, Messrs. Evans & Co., of Shanghai, alleged that by an agreement in writing made with the defendants, Messrs. Rosenzweig & Co., also of Shanghai, on the 4th of November, 1892, it was agreed that in consideration of the plaintiffs meeting bills drawn on them through the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation for goods ordered by the defendants and delivered to them, the defendants should pay the plaintiffs the amount of the bills on due date, together with 6 per cent interest charged by the Bank, and 2 ½ per cent commission. It was further alleged that the defendants had refused to pay Tls. 2,434.82, the amount of bills met and paid by the plaintiffs, and that the defendants had obtained possession and had dealt with the goods ordered by them and against which the bills were drawn. The plaintiffs now sought to recover the sum of 2,434.82, with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date the bills became payable.
  The defendants' case was that the plaintiffs agreed to act as agents in London for them, but neglected to obtain and forward goods and merchandise ordered, whereby the defendants had suffered loss to the amount of Tls. 5,526.18, which they set up as a counter-claim.
[Not transcribed.]
.  .  .   and the Court rose until Saturday.

Source: North China Herald, 23 November, 1894

.  .  .  
Mr. Wilkinson, on behalf of the plaintiffs, asked the Court to give his clients judgment for the amount which Rosenzweig & Co., admitted, and to rule that the latter's counter-claim was not a defence, but a separate suit which ought to be filed in the British Court here or in England.
  Mr. Platt, in reply, submitted that the counter-claim arose out of the same cause of action as the plaintiffs' claim. An agreement was made in which Evans & Co., agreed to act as Rosenzweig's commission agents, but they had neglected to carry out their orders, whereby Rosenzweig & Co. had suffered considerable loss. Evans & Co. accepted the orders, but they never executed them, or gave notice they could not. He asked the court to say that Evans & Co. could not have judgment as Rosezweig & Co. had a claim for even a larger amount.
  The Court reserved judgment.

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