Tuesday 13 June 1826
Morning Herald (London)
VICE- CHANCELLOR’S COURT—MONDAY. BOLLAND V. MARSH.
This was a bill filed by the assignees of Marsh, Stracey, and Fauntleroy, late bankers, in Berners-street, against the defendant, son of the senior partner, and member of the firm of Marsh and Son, navy-agents, for a decree to enforce the payment of a sum of 73,500L. advanced to the navy house, by the bankers.
It appeared that Mr. Wm. Marsh was a navy agent, either on his own account, or in conjunction with a Mr. Creed, until 1817, when he admitted his son Mr. Arthur Cuthbert Marsh, the defendant, to a share in the business, under the firm of Marsh and Son; and a deed of partnership was executed between them by which the son was to be entitled to draw at the rate of 800L. per annum, until a sum of 44,000/. accumulated from the profits.
An account was then opened with the banking-house, in Berners-street, in the name of Arthur Cuthbert Marsh, to avoid the confusion of names, as Mr. W. Marsh had a private account there also; and drafts were signed and payments made with the banking-house on the signature of the son, all being, however, for account of the navy agency house.
At the commencement of the partnership, the nary house was indebted to the bankers 3,000/. but soon after that the amount accumulated, until it reached, in 1820, the large sum now at issue.
On the 8th of December, 1820, Mr. Marsh being dangerously ill, wrote the following letter to his partners, Messrs. Stracey and Fauntleroy:—
My dear friends—Although it has always been clearly understood between us, that the drafts drawn by my son, Arthur, for the account standing in your books in the name of Arthur Cuthbert Creed, are wholly on my account and responsibility, he not being a partner with me as to profit or loss, yet I deem it necessary to repeat the same now to you. WM. MARSH.
Why this letter was written, or what precise object Mr. Marsh had in view in writing it, did not appear; but it was now brought forward as the answer of the defendant to the bill, who contended, that his father wrote it for the purpose of clearing him of any liability for the advances made by the banking-house, solely on his, the father’s credit.
The whole case rested on this letter, and Mr. HEALD, Mr. PEPYS and Mr. MONTAGU who appeared for the plaintiffs, undertook to show that it could not be construed into a release of liability which the defendant incurred as a partner of the house of Marsh and Son to all its debts and engagements.
They argued that a prima facie case was made out against him, which he could not withstand, that all the money was advanced on the drafts by him, signed, and was applied with his knowledge, and in fact by him, to the business of the navy agency-house which he conducted; that he was to derive advantage from the profitable employment of those advances in common with his father, and that the father could have no power to exclude the claims of creditors to so large an amount as the bank’s were on the navy-house, however desirous he might be for the advantage of his son.
Mr.HART, for the defendant, contended, that the bankers all along knew that the defendant was a man of straw, and merely employed as the clerk of the father at a salary of 800/. a-year—that the letter was written by the father, by way of confirming the claim of the banking-house on his private estate, which was a better security than a claim in common with other creditors on the navy-house.
The true state of its case was, the bank lent the elder Marsh a sum of money which he lent to the navy-house.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR — If the money was applied to the business of Marsh and Son, the manner in which it was applied was immaterial.
Mr. HART—There is nothing in the books to constitute evidence of its being a joint debt.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—The question is whether the allegation in the letter, that the son was not a partner as profit and loss, be true, and if it were not, what would the consequence be? Could the acquiescence of the other partners of the banking-house in their own wrong, defeat the claim of the creditors on the navy-house, to which the money was advanced?
Mr. HART.—The banking-house only looked to the elder Marsh and his private estates, which they knew, in 1820, was much better security than the agency-house.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR.—The plaintiffs have gone on the general law, and you have set up a special contract. I am disposed to grant an issue. The representation in your letter is not correct. The defendant was a patner at the time, and had a material interest in every farthing of the profits. I cannot suppose so respectable a man as Mr. Marsh wilfully misrepresented the fact to his partners, but there is no doubt that he misrepresented the law. I must grant an inquiry to ascertain whether, at the writing of the letter, the son was, or was not a partner. The mere effect of the letter, as the bankers read it, was that the son was a nominal partner; but am I now to hold them bound by their acquiescence to a thing misrepresented to them in point of law?
Mr. HEALD said he had no objection to go to a Court of Law. The question ought to be tied there, and the sole reason for bringing it into Equity, was that the father was a partner in both houses. All he wished was that the King’s Bench would be appointed to hear the issue.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR.—I am of opinion the case can be equally tried in the Common Pleas. I always propose to send issues from this Court to the Common Pleas, because the King’s Bench is so overloaded, it cannot get through its business with ordinary diligence. Issue ordered.
———————————————————————-
Wednesday 2 August 1826
Limerick Chronicle
Deaths.
At Jamaica, on the 7th ult. John Milbourne Marsh Esq. eldest son of John Marsh Esq., late Chairman of the Victualling Board
——————————————————————————
Friday 13 October 1826
Glasgow Herald
Died, at Spring Garden Estate, near Port Antonio, Jamaica, Bruce, the faithful and attached domestic of the late John M.Marsh Esq., formerly deputy postmaster general of this island, and whose death we announced in the Royal Gazette on the 24th ult. This worthy black had largely partaken of his unfortunate master’s bounty while basking in the sunshine of prosperity; but, unlike the generality of mankind, as Mr.Marsh’s misfortunes thickened upon him, poor Bruce’s attachment became more firmly fixed,and he insisted upon being permitted to share, and alleviate as much as he could, the distresses of his master. He was confined to he bed during his master’s illness, and when he was informed of his master’s death, he shortly, but simply and emphatically replied, “then Bruce may die too,” and in three days afterwards he was laid in the grave, near a master he had so affectionately served. – Kingston Royal Gazetter, July 15.