Spread the love
CITATION(1895) 1 CH. 236 (CA)


A notable legal case, Rhodes v. Moules (1895) 1 Ch. 236 (CA), centers on difficult questions of partnership responsibility, the range of a solicitor’s jurisdiction, agency, and identifying the beneficiary in a legal transaction. The lawsuit revolves around the actions of Mr. Rew, a solicitor who fraudulently misappropriated 280 De Beers shares while working with Messrs. Hughes and Masterman. The main issues in this case are whether Mr. Rew should be held accountable for his acts and whether he had the right to do so given that they were necessary for the firm’s operations.


In this instance, a City of London lawyer named Mr. Rew engaged in a fraudulent plan in collaboration with Messrs. Hughes and Masterman. In August 1891, Mr. Rew received 280 De Beers shares from the plaintiff, Mr. Rhodes. These shares were fraudulently taken by Mr. Rew.

Mr. Rhodes had used the firm’s services in past transactions, such as loans and securities trades, as a client before this occurrence.

Mr. Rew convinced Mr. Rhodes to leave the De Beers shares with him by claiming that the lenders wanted extra security for a mortgage beyond the freehold and that he would make arrangements to have them held as collateral security for the loan.


  1. Determining whether the partnership firm should be held responsible for Mr. Rew’s fraudulent acts on behalf of one of its partners.
  2. Examining whether Mr. Rew’s activities fell within the typical purview of a solicitor’s power, particularly with regard to using securities as collateral during loan talks, is known as the solicitor’s authority scope.
  3. Agency and Assumed Authority: Determining whether Mr. Rew had the apparent or assumed authority to carry out the transaction for the firm, and if Mr. Rhodes, the plaintiff, had a reasonable belief that Mr. Rew was acting on the firm’s behalf.


  • Mr. Rew was their partner, and the shares were transferred in conjunction with a mortgage transaction, which was part of the firm’s business, so Mr. Rhodes contended that the firm (Messrs. Hughes and Masterman) should be held accountable for the loss of the De Beers shares.
  • Based on the firm’s prior interactions with Mr. Rew, their participation in comparable transactions, and their prior receipt of such securities, Mr. Rhodes argued that he was justified in believing that the transaction with Mr. Rew was carried out on behalf of the firm.


  • The defendants argued that Mr. Rew’s activities went beyond what was permitted of him as a partner in the firm and a solicitor. They claimed that because they were not aware of Mr. Rew’s improper acts, the company should not be held accountable for the diverted shares.
  • The defendants asserted that Mr. Rew’s acts were outside the scope of a solicitor’s routine practice and that the company should not be held accountable by citing the precedent-setting case of Cleather v. Twisden (1884).


According to the court, which was presided over by Lord Herschell L.C., Mr. Rhodes was right to believe that the transaction with Mr. Rew was made on behalf of the company based on their previous interactions and representations that Mr. Rew had made. Mr. Rhodes’ testimony was not inconsistent, according to the court.

The De Beers shares were not simply seized for safekeeping but were intended to be used as collateral security, a lawful component of the firm’s business when negotiating loans, according to the court, which contrasted the current case from Cleather v. Twisden.

By arguing that the shares were held for the defendants Moules (other clients of the firm), the court determined that the firm could not escape culpability. There was no verification of Mr. Rew’s authority from the Moules, and the court did not find any evidence that he had actually acquired the shares on their behalf.

In conclusion, the court reversed the verdict in favor of the plaintiff against the other defendants and dismissed the appeal against the Moules with costs.


The court’s ruling in Rhodes v. Moules highlights the value of clear authority and openness in business dealings between partnerships. The firm was held accountable by the court for Mr. Rew’s acts because Mr. Rhodes had a reasonable belief that the transaction was made on its behalf and in connection with its operations. By emphasizing the fact that the De Beers shares were meant to be used as collateral rather than solely for safekeeping, the case set itself apart from Cleather v. Twisden. The court decided that the Moules were not accountable, though, because there was no proof of Mr. Rew’s authorization. In situations like these, this case establishes a precedent for partnership liability.



This Case summary is written by Pulugam Devaki, Intern at Legal Vidhiya for the month of October. 


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *