United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

This was a question of fact depending on the import of voluminous written evidence. The appellants, Walter Learmonth and Company, brought an action against the late Alexander Livingstone, Esq. of Parkhall, (who was now represented by his son, the respondent,) concluding for payment of upwards of £12,000, being a debt due to them by the company of Learmonth and Sons, of which company they alleged that Alexander Scott Learmonth and Company formed a constituent part, and that Alexander Livingstone had been a partner of that latter company. In defence, Mr. Livingstone admitted that he was a partner of Alexander Scott Learmonth and Company, but denied that it formed a part of that of Learmonth and Company, or that he was a partner of the latter firm, and therefore contended that he could not be liable for its debts. The Lord Ordinary, on advising the evidence, assoilzied Mr. Livingstone; and Learmonth and Company having reclaimed, the Court remitted to Mr. Galloway, accountant, to examine into the facts, and report. He reported, “That there is complete evidence of the concern of Alexander Scott Learmonth and Company being separate and distinct from Learmonth and Sons; that the accounts of profit and loss have been erroneously kept by Learmonth and Sons, but that the transactions of the one company can be separated

Page: 482↓